vvEPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Solid Waste and Emergency
Response
(5305W)
EPA530-D-99-001A
August 1999
www.epa.gov/osw
Screening Level
Ecological Risk
Assessment Protocol for
Hazardous Waste
Combustion
Volume One
Peer Review Draft
Printed on paper that contains at least 20 percent postconsumer fiber
-------
-------
EPA530-D-99-001A
August 1999
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment
Protocol for Hazardous Waste Combustion
Facilities
Volume One
U.S. EPA, OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
-------
-------
DISCLAIMER
This document provides guidance to U.S. EPA Regions and States on how best to implement RCRA and
U.S. EPA's regulations to facilitate permitting decisions for hazardous waste combustion facilities. It also
provides guidance to the public and to the regulated community on how U.S. EPA intends to exercise its
discretion in implementing its regulations. The document does not substitute for U.S. EPA's regulations,
nor is it a regulation itself. Thus, it cannot impose legally-binding requirements on U.S. EPA, States, or
the regulated community. It may not apply to a particular situation based upon the circumstances. U.S.
EPA may change this guidance in the future, as appropriate.
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Jeff Yurk (U.S. EPA Region 6), the primary author/editor of this document, would like to acknowledge that
the development of this document could not have been accomplished without the support, input, and work
of a multitude of U.S. EPA and support contractor personnel. The foundation for the combustion-related
guidance and methodologies outlined in this document were first developed by the Office of Research and
Development (ORD) and the Office of Solid Waste (OSW) in previous versions of combustion risk
assessment guidance. The State of North Carolinas' combustion risk assessment methodology was also
evaluated in preparation of this document. The foundation for the ecological risk-related procedures and
methodologies outlined in this document were based on previous guidance developed by the Office of
Research and Development (ORD) and EPA's Superfund program. This version of the protocol was
originally initiated in response to the desire of the Region 6 Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division to
implement an up-to-date and technically sound hazardous waste combustion permitting program. The
decision to incorporate guidance on a full range of national combustion risk assessment issues into the
document was encouraged and supported by the Director of the Office of Solid Waste.
The development of this document was significantly enhanced by a number of capable organizations and
personnel within U.S. EPA. Karen Pollard, Stephen Kroner and David Cozzie of the Economic Methods
and Risk Analysis Division in conjunction with Rosemary Workman of the Permits and State Programs
Division, Fred Chanania of the Hazardous Waste Minimization and Management Division, and Karen
Kraus of the Office of General Council provided overall policy, technical and legal comment on this
document. Anne Sergeant, Randy Bruins, David Reisman, Glenn Rice, Eletha Brady Roberts and
Matthew Lorber of the National Center for Environmental Assessment (NCEA), Office of Research and
Development, John Nichols of the National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory, Vince
Nabholtz of the Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances, and Dorothy Canter, Science
Advisor to the Assistant Administrator for the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, provided
key input on breaking scientific developments in the areas of ecological risk assessment, mercury
speciation, the dioxin reassessment, endocrine disrupters, toxicity factors, sulfur and brominated dioxin
analogs, as well as technical comment on the overall methodologies presented in the document.
Contributions by Larry Johnson of the National Exposure Research Laboratory of ORD and Jeff Ryan and
Paul Lemieux of the National Risk Management Research Laboratory of ORD were significant in
providing methodologies for conducting TO analysis and defining appropriate detection limits to be used in
the risk assessment. Donna Schwede of the National Exposure Research Laboratory of ORD and Jawad
Touma of the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards provided technical review comments to
strengthen the air modeling section of the document. Review and comment on the soil and water fate and
transport models was provided by Robert Ambrose of EPA's Environmental Research Laboratory in
Athens, GA.
All U.S. EPA Regional Offices contributed valuable comments which have significantly improved the
usability of this document. In particular, staff from Region 4 aided in making sure guidance for conducting
trial burns was consistent with this document, and staff from Region 8 provided significant input on the
overall approach. The authors would be remiss if they did not acknowledge significant contributions from
the Texas Natural Resource and Conservation Commission through both comments and discussions of real-
world applications of risk assessment methodologies. Additionally, useful comments were received from
the State of Utah. The Region 6 Superfund Division is to be commended for its valuable review of the
-------
early document. Region 6 apologizes and bears full responsibility for any mistakes made in the
incorporation of comments and input from all reviewers into the document.
Finally, this work could not have been completed without the tireless efforts of support contractor
personnel. Tetra Tech EM Inc. (Tetra Tech), performed the bulk of the background research. The Air
Group, under subcontract to Tetra Tech, helped develop the chapter on air dispersion modeling. Also,
PGM, under subcontract to Tetra Tech, helped validate fate and transport models utilized in the document
as well as provide recommendations on the overall quality assurance/quality control of the document. The
work of these contractors was performed under the technical direction of staff from the Region 6 Center for
Combustion Science and Engineering, as well as key Agency project and contracting officers.
Region 6 looks forward to the insight and input yet to be provided by the public and other interested parties
during the full external peer review of the document.
in
-------
REVIEWERS
Preliminary drafts of this ecological risk assessment document, as well as its companion human health risk
assessment document, have received extensive internal Agency and State review. The following is a list of
reviewers who have commented on these documents prior to their release as a peer review draft.
Environmental Protection Agency Reviewers:
Office of Solid Waste
David Cozzie
Virginia Colten-Bradley
Becky Daiss
Steve Kroner
Dave Layland
Alec McBride
Karen Pollard
Rosemary Workman
Val De LaFuente
Bill Schoenborn
Fred Chanania
Economics, Methods, and Risk Analysis Division
Economics, Methods, and Risk Analysis Division
Economics, Methods, and Risk Analysis Division
Economics, Methods, and Risk Analysis Division
Economics, Methods, and Risk Analysis Division
Economics, Methods, and Risk Analysis Division
Economics, Methods, and Risk Analysis Division
Permits and State Programs Division
Permits and State Programs Division
Municipal and Industrial Solid Waste Division
Hazardous Waste Minimization and Management Division
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Dorothy Canter Office of the Assistant Administrator
Office of Research & Development
Eletha Brady-Roberts
Randy Bruins
David Reisman
Glenn Rice
Sue Schock
Jeff Swartout
David Cleverly
Jim Cogliano
Matthew Lorber
Anne Sergeant
Judy Strickland
Robert Ambrose
Larry Johnson
Donna Schwede
Paul Lemieux
Jeffrey Ryan
John Nichols
National Center for Environmental Assessment/Cincinnati
National Center for Environmental Assessment/Cincinnati
National Center for Environmental Assessment/Cincinnati
National Center for Environmental Assessment/Cincinnati
National Center for Environmental Assessment/Cincinnati
National Center for Environmental Assessment/Cincinnati
National Center for Environmental Assessment/DC
National Center for Environmental Assessment/ DC
National Center for Environmental Assessments/DC
National Center for Environmental Assessment/ DC
National Center for Environmental Assessments/RTP
National Exposure Research Laboratory
National Exposure Research Laboratory
National Exposure Research Laboratory
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
National Health and Environmental Effects Research
Laboratory/RTP
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Joe Touma Air Quality Monitoring Group
IV
-------
Environmental Protection Agency Reviewers (cont):
Office of Pollution, Prevention and Toxics
Vince Nabholtz Risk Assessment Division
Office of General Council
Karen Kraus
Region 1
Jui-Yu Hsieh
Region 2
John Brogard
Region 3
Gary Gross
Region 4
Beth Antley
Rick Gillam
Region 5
Mario Mangino
Gary Victorine
Region 6
Ghassan Khoury
Jon Rauscher
Susan Roddy
JeffYurk
Region 7
John Smith
Region 8
Carl Daly
Tala Henry
Region 9
Mary Blevins
Stacy Braye
Patrick Wilson
Solid Waste and Emergency Response Law Office
Office of Ecosystem Protection Division
Division of Environmental Planning and Protection
Waste and Chemicals Management Division
Waste Management Division
Waste Management Division
Waste, Pesticide and Toxic Division
Waste, Pesticide and Toxic Division
Superfund Group
Superfund Group
Superfund Group
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division
Air, RCRA and Toxics Division
Hazardous Waste Program
Hazardous Waste Program
Waste Management Division
Waste Management Division
Waste Management Division
-------
Region 10
Marcia Bailey Office of Environmental Assessment
Roseanne Lorenzana Office of Environmental Assessment
Catherine Massimino Office of Waste and Chemicals
State Reviewers
Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission
Larry Champagne Toxicology and Risk Assessment Section
Lucy Frasier Toxicology and Risk Assessment Section
Loren Lund Toxicology and Risk Assessment Section
Arkansas Department of Pollution Control and Ecology
Tammi Hynum Hazardous Waste Division
Phillip Murphy Hazardous waste Division
Colorado Department of Health
Joe Schieffelin Hazardous Materials and Waste Management Division
R. David Waltz Hazardous Materials and Waste Management Division
Utah Department of Environmental Quality
Christopher Bittner Division of Solid and Hazardous Waste
Alabama Department of Environmental Management
Nathan Hartman Air Division
Brian Hughes Division of Epidemiology
John Rogers Air Division
VI
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Contents August 1999
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter Page
1 INTRODUCTION 1-1
1.1 OBJECTIVE AND PURPOSE 1-7
1.2 RELATED TRIAL BURN ISSUES 1-12
1.3 REFERENCE DOCUMENTS 1-13
2 FACILITY CHARACTERIZATION 2-1
2.1 COMPILING BASIC FACILITY DATA 2-1
2.2 IDENTIFYING EMISSION SOURCES 2-2
2.2.1 Estimating Stack Emission Rates for Existing
Facilities 2-3
2.2.1.1 Estimates from Trial Burns 2-4
2.2.1.2 Normal Operation Emission
Rate Data 2-6
2.2.1.3 Estimates of the Total Organic Emission (TOE) Rate 2-8
2.2.2 Estimating Stack Emission Rates for Facilities with
Multiple Stacks 2-12
2.2.3 Estimating Stack Emission Rates for Facilities Not
Yet Operational 2-13
2.2.4 Estimating Stack Emission Rates for Facilities
Previously Operated 2-13
2.2.5 Emission from Process Upsets 2-14
2.2.6 RCRA Fugitive Emissions 2-16
2.2.6.1 Quantitative Estimation of RCRA Fugitive Emissions from Process
Upsets 2-17
2.2.6.2 Fugitive Emissions from Combustion Unit Leaks 2-27
2.2.7 RCRA Fugitive Ash Emissions 2-28
2.2.7.1 Quantitative Estimation of RCRA Fugitive Ash
Emissions 2-28
2.2.8 Cement Kiln Dust (CKD) Fugitive Emissions 2-29
2.2.8.1 Composition and Characteristics of CKD 2-30
2.2.8.2 Estimation of CKD Fugitive Emissions 2-31
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering vii
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Contents
August 1999
Chapter
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Page
2.3
IDENTIFYING COMPOUNDS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN 2-32
2.3.1 Polychlorinated Dibenzo(p)dioxins and
Dibenzofurans 2-38
2.3.1.1 Toxicity Equivalency Factors for PCDDs and PCDFs 2-40
2.3.1.2 Exposure Assessment for Community Measurement
Receptors 2-43
2.3.1.3 Exposure Assessment for Class-specific Guild Measurement
Receptors 2-45
2.3.1.4 Bioaccumulation Equivalency Factors 2-46
2.3.1.5 Flourine, Bromine, and Sulfur PCDD/PCDF Analogs 2-48
2.3.2 Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons 2-49
2.3.2.1 Exposure Assessment for PAHs 2-50
2.3.3 Polychlorinated Biphenyls 2-50
2.3.3.1 Exposure Assessment for PCBs 2-52
2.3.4 Nitroaromatics 2-54
2.3.5 Phthalates 2-55
2.3.6 Hexachlorobenzene and Pentachlorophenol 2-56
2.3.7 Metals 2-57
2.3.7.1 Chromium 2-58
2.3.7.2 Mercury 2-59
2.3.8 Particulate Matter 2-67
2.3.9 Hydrogen Chloride/Chlorine Gas 2-68
2.3.10 Endocrine Disrupters 2-68
2.3.11 Radionuclides 2-69
2.4 ESTIMATING COPC CONCENTRATIONS FOR NON-DETECTS 2-71
2.4.1 Definitions of Commonly Reported Detection Limits 2-71
2.4.2 Use in the Risk Assessment of Data Reported as
Non-Detect 2-74
2.4.3 Statistical Distribution Techniques 2-76
2.4.4 U.S. EPA OSW Recommendations on Quantifying
Non-Detects 2-76
2.4.5 Estimated Maximum Possible Concentration (EMPC) 2-77
U.S. EPA Region 6
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering
U.S. EPA
Office of Solid Waste
Vlll
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Contents August 1999
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Chapter Page
2.5 CONCENTRATIONS DETECTED IN BLANKS 2-78
3 AIR DISPERSION AND DEPOSITION MODELING 3-1
3.1 DEVELOPMENT OF AIR MODELS 3-3
3.1.1 History of Risk Assessment Air Dispersion Models 3-3
3.1.2 Preprocessing Programs 3-5
3.1.3 Expert Interface (Exlnter Version 1.0) 3-6
3.2 SITE-SPECIFIC INFORMATION REQUIRED TO SUPPORT AIR
MODELING 3-7
3.2.1 Surrounding Terrain Information 3-8
3.2.2 Surrounding Land Use Information 3-9
3.2.2.1 Land Use for Dispersion Coefficients 3-9
3.2.2.2 Land Use for Surface Roughness Height (Length) 3-11
3.2.3 Information on Facility Building Characteristics 3-12
3.3 USE OF UNIT EMISSION RATE 3-15
3.4 PARTITIONING OF EMISSIONS 3-15
3.4.1 Vapor Phase Modeling 3-16
3.4.2 Particle Phase Modeling (Mass Weighting) 3-16
3.4.3 Particle-Bound Modeling (Surface Area Weighting) 3-21
3.5 METEOROLOGICAL DATA 3-22
3.5.1 Surface Data 3-25
3.5.
3.5.
3.5.
3.5.
3.5.
3.5.
3.5.
. 1 Wind Speed and Wind Direction 3-27
.2 Dry Bulb Temperature 3-27
.3 Opaque Cloud Cover 3-28
.4 Cloud Ceiling Height 3-28
.5 Surface Pressure 3-29
.6 Precipitation Amount and Type 3-29
.7 Solar Radiation (Future Use for Dry Vapor Deposition) 3-29
3.5.2 Upper Air Data 3-30
3.6 METEOROLOGICAL PREPROCESSORS AND INTERFACE
PROGRAMS 3-30
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering ix
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Contents
August 1999
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Chapter Page
3.6.1 PCRAMMET 3-30
3.6.
3.6.
3.6.
3.6.
3.6.
3.6.
3.6.
3.6.
. 1 Monin-Obukhov Length 3-32
.2 Anemometer Height 3-32
.3 Surface Roughness Height at Measurement Site 3-33
.4 Surface Roughness Height at Application Site 3-33
.5 Noon-Time Albedo 3-33
.6 Bowen Ratio 3-36
.7 Anthropogenic Heat Flux 3-36
.8 Fraction of Net Radiation Absorbed at the Ground 3-36
3.6.2
MPRM 3-40
3.7 ISCST3 MODEL INPUT FILES 3-40
3.7.1 COntrol Pathway 3-42
3.7.2 SOurce Pathway 3-46
3.7.2.1 Source Location 3-47
3.7.2.2 Source Parameters 3-48
3.7.2.3 Building Parameters 3-48
3.7.2.4 Particle Size Distribution 3-49
3.7.2.5 Particle Density 3-50
3.7.2.6 Scavenging Coefficients 3-50
3.7.3 REceptor Pathway 3-52
3.7.4 MEteorological Pathway 3-54
3.7.5 Terrain Grid (TG) Pathway 3-55
3.7.6 OUtput Pathway 3-56
3.8 ISCST3 MODEL EXECUTION 3-57
3.9 USE OF MODELED OUTPUT 3-58
3.9.1 Unit Rate Output vs. COPC-Specific Output 3-58
3.9.1.1 Determination of the COPC-Specific Emission Rate (0 .... 3-60
3.9.1.2 Converting Unit Output to COPC-Specific Output 3-60
3.9.2 Output from the ISCST3 Model 3-61
U.S. EPA Region 6
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering
U.S. EPA
Office of Solid Waste
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Contents August 1999
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Chapter Page
3.9.3 Use of Model Output in Estimating Media Equations 3-62
3.9.3.1 Vapor Phase COPCs 3-62
3.9.3.2 Particle Phase COPCs 3-63
3.9.3.3 Particle-Bound COPCs 3-63
3.10 MODELING OF FUGITIVE EMISSIONS 3-63
3.11 ESTIMATION OF COPC CONCENTRATIONS IN MEDIA 3-68
3.11.1 Calculation of COPC Concentrations in Soil 3-69
3.11.1.1 Calculating Highest Average COPC Concentration in Soil ... 3-71
3.11.1.2 Calculating the COPC Soil Loss Constant (ks) 3-71
3.11.1.3 Deposition Term (Ds) 3-79
3.11.1.4 Site-Specific Parameters for Calculating Soil Concentration . . 3-80
3.11.2 Calculation of COPC Concentrations in Surface Water and Sediment.... 3-83
3.11.2.1 Total COPC Loading to a Water Body (LT) 3-85
3.11.2.2 Total Water Body COPC Concentration (Cwtot) 3-93
3.11.2.3 Total COPC Concentration in Water Column (Cwctot) 3-104
3.11.3 Calculation of COPC Concentrations in Plants 3-107
3.11.3.1 Plant Concentration Due to Direct Deposition (Pd) 3-109
3.11.3.2 Plant Concentration Due to Air-to-Plant Transfer (Pv) 3-110
3.11.3.3 Plant Concentration Due to Root Uptake (Pr) 3-110
3.12 REPLACING DEFAULT PARAMETER VALUES 3-111
4 PROBLEM FORMULATION 4-1
4.1 EXPOSURE SETTING CHARACTERIZATION 4-1
4.1.1 Selection of Habitats 4-2
4.1.1.1 Selection of Exposure Scenario Locations Within
Terrestrial Habitats 4-4
4.1.1.2 Selection of Exposure Scenario Locations Within
Aquatic Habitats 4-7
4.1.1.3 Special Ecological Areas 4-9
4.1.2 Identification of Ecological Receptors 4-10
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering xi
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Contents August 1999
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Chapter Page
4.2 FOOD WEB DEVELOPMENT 4-11
4.2.1 Grouping Receptors into Feeding Guilds and
Communities 4-12
4.2.2 Organizing Food Web Structure by Trophic Level 4-12
4.2.3 Defining Dietary Relationships between Guilds and
Communities 4-13
4.2.4 Example Habitat-Specific Food Webs 4-14
4.3 SELECTING ASSESSMENT ENDPOINTS 4-22
4.4 SELECTING MEASUREMENT ENDPOINTS 4-27
4.4.1 Procedures for Identifying Measurement Endpoint
Receptors 4-28
4.4.2 Measurement Receptors for Guilds 4-28
4.4.3 Measurement Receptors for Example Food Webs 4-29
5 ANALYSIS 5-1
5.1 EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT 5-1
5.2 ASSESSING EXPOSURE TO COMMUNITY MEASUREMENT
RECEPTORS 5-2
5.3 ASSESSING EXPOSURE TO CLASS-SPECIFIC GUILD MEASUREMENT
RECEPTORS 5-3
5.3.1 Ingestion Rates for Measurement Receptors 5-5
5.3.2 COPC Concentrations in Food Items of Measurement
Receptors 5-11
5.3.2.1 COPC Concentrations in Invertebrates, Phytoplankton, and Rooted
Aquatic Plants 5-11
5.3.2.2 COPC Concentrations in Terrestrial Plants 5-13
5.3.2.3 COPC Concentrations in Fish 5-14
5.3.2.4 COPC Concentrations in Mammals, Birds, Amphibians, and
Reptiles 5-19
5.4 ASSESSMENT OF TOXICITY 5-24
5.4.1 General Guidance on Selection of Toxicity Reference
Values 5-25
5.4.1.1 Evaluation of Toxicity Test Data 5-26
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering xii
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Contents August 1999
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Chapter Page
5.4.1.2 Best Professional Judgement for Evaluating Toxicity
Values 5-27
5.4.1.3 Uncertainly Factors for Extrapolation from Toxicity Test
Values 5-29
6 RISK CHARACTERIZATION 6-1
6.1 RISK ESTIMATION 6-1
6.2 RISK DESCRIPTION 6-3
6.2.1 Magnitude and Nature of Ecological Risk 6-3
6.2.1.1 Target Levels 6-4
6.2.2 Fate and Exposure Assumptions 6-5
6.3 UNCERTAINTY AND LIMITATIONS OF THE RISK ASSESSMENT
PROCESS 6-6
6.3.1 Types of Uncertainty 6-7
6.3.1.1 Variable Uncertainty 6-7
6.3.1.2 Model Uncertainty 6-8
6.3.1.3 Decision-rule Uncertainty 6-9
6.3.2 Description of Qualitative Uncertainty 6-9
6.3.3 Description of Quantitative Uncertainty 6-10
6.3.4 Risk Assessment Uncertainty Discussion 6-11
6.3.5 Limitations and Uncertainties Specific to a Screening
Level Ecological Risk Assessment 6-13
6.3.5.1 Limitations Typical of a
Screening Level Ecological
Risk Assessment 6-13
6.3.5.2 Uncertainties Typical of a
Screening Level Ecological
Risk Assessment 6-14
REFERENCES R-l
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering xiii
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Contents August 1999
APPENDICES
Appendix
A CHEMICAL SPECIFIC DATA
B ESTIMATING MEDIA CONCENTRATION EQUATIONS AND VARIABLE VALUES
C MEDIA-TO-RECEPTOR BIOCONCENTRATION FACTORS (BCFs)
D BIOCONCENTRATION FACTORS (BCFs) FOR WILDLIFE MEASUREMENT
RECEPTORS
E TOXICITY REFERENCE VALUES
F EQUATIONS FOR COMPUTING COPC CONCENTRATIONS AND COPC DOSE
INGESTED TERMS
G STATE NATURAL HERITAGE PROGRAMS
H TOXICOLOGICAL PROFILES
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering xiv
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Contents August 1999
FIGURES
Figure Page
1-1 SCREENING LEVEL ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT PROCESS 1-10
2-1 EXAMPLE FACILITY PLOT MAP 2-22
2-2 EXAMPLE EMISSIONS INVENTORY 2-23
2-3 COPC IDENTIFICATION 2-35
2-4 PHASE ALLOCATION AND SPECIATION OF MERCURY IN THE AIR 2-62
3-1 SOURCES OF METEOROLOGICAL DATA 3-24
3-2 EXAMPLE INPUT FILE FOR 'PARTICLE PHASE' 3-44
3-3 EXAMPLE PLOT FILE 3-65
3-4 COPC CONCENTRATION IN SOIL 3-70
3-5 COPC LOADING TO THE WATER BODY 3-84
3-6 COPC CONCENTRATION IN PLANTS 3-108
4-1 EXAMPLE FOREST FOOD WEB 4-15
4-2 EXAMPLE TALLGRASS PRAIRIE FOOD WEB 4-16
4-3 EXAMPLE SHORTGRASS PRAIRIE FOOD WEB 4-17
4-4 EXAMPLE SHRUB/SCRUB FOOD WEB 4-18
4-5 EXAMPLE FRESHWATER FOOD WEB 4-19
4-6 EXAMPLE BRACKISH/INTERMEDIATE MARSH FOOD WEB 4-20
4-7 EXAMPLE SALT MARSH FOOD WEB 4-21
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering xv
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Contents August 1999
TABLES
Table Page
2-1 EXAMPLE CALCULATION OF TOTAL FUGITIVE EMISSION RATES FOR EQUIPMENT
IN WASTE FEED STORAGE AREA 2-18
2-2 EXAMPLE CALCULATION OF SPECIATED FUGITIVE EMISSION RATES FOR
EQUIPMENT IN WASTE FEED STORAGE AREAS 2-20
2-3 POLYCHLORINATED DIBENZO(P)DIOXIN AND DIBENZOFURAN CONGENER
TOXICITY EQUIVALENCY FACTORS (TEFs) FOR FISH, MAMMALS, AND BIRDS . 2-42
2-4 PCDD AND PCDF BIOACCUMULATION EQUIVALENCY FACTORS (BEFs) 2-48
2-5 POLYCHLORINATED BIPHENYL CONGENER TOXICITY EQUIVALENCY FACTORS
(TEFs) FOR FISH, MAMMALS, AND BIRDS 2-53
3-1 GENERALIZED PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION, AND PROPORTION OF AVAILABLE
SURFACE AREA, TO BE USED AS A DEFAULT IN DEPOSITION MODELING IF
SITE-SPECIFIC DATA ARE UNAVAILABLE 3-19
3-2 ALBEDO OF NATURAL GROUND COVERS FOR LAND USE TYPES
AND SEASONS 3-35
3-3 DAYTIME BOWEN RATION BY LAND USE, SEASON, AND PRECIPITATION
CONDITIONS 3-37
3-4 ANTHROPOGENIC HEAT FLUX AND NET RADIATION FOR SEVERAL
URBAN AREAS 3-39
3-5 AIR PARAMETERS FROM ISCST3 MODELED OUTPUT 3-59
4-1 ASSESSMENT ENDPOINTS FOR GUILDS AND COMMUNITIES IN EXAMPLE
FOOD WEBS 4-24
5-1 INGESTION RATES FOR EXAMPLE MEASUREMENT RECEPTORS 5-7
5-2 FOOD CHAIN MULTIPLIERS 5-17
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering xvi
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Contents
August 1999
LIST OF ACRONYMS
Mg/L
Mg/s
|im
|im/s
|im2
°C
op
°K
ADOM
AET
APCS
atm-m3/mol-K
ATSDR
AWFCO
AWQC
BAF
BaP
BCF
BD
BEF
BEHP
BIF
BPIP
BS
BSAF
BTAG
BW
CARB
CAS
CERM
CKD
COMPDEP
COMPLEX I
COPC
CPF
CRQL
CWA
Microgram
Micrograms per kilogram
Micrograms per liter
Micrograms per second
Micrometer
Micrometers per second
Square micrometers
Degrees Celsius
Degrees Fahrenheit
Degrees Kelvin
Acid Deposition and Oxidant Model
Apparent effects threshold
Air pollution control system
Atmosphere-cubic meters per mole-degrees Kelvin
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
Automatic waste feed cutoff
Ambient water quality criteria
Bioaccumulation factor
Benzo(a)pyrene
Bioconcentration factor
Soil bulk density
Bioaccumulation equivalency factor
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Boiler and industrial furnace
Building profile input program
Benthic solids
Sediment bioaccumulation factor
Biological Technical Assistance Group
Body weight
California Air Resources Board
Chemical Abstracts Service
Conceptual ecological risk model
Cement kiln dust
COMPLEX terrain model with DEPosition
COMPLEX terrain model, Version 1
Compound of potential concern
Cumulative probability density function
Contract required quantitation limit
Clean Water Act
U.S. EPA Region 6
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering
U.S. EPA
Office of Solid Waste
xvii
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Contents
August 1999
DEHP
DEM
DNOP
DOE
DQL
ORE
EDQL
EEL
EPA
EPC
EQL
EQP
ERA
ERL
ERT
ESP
ESI
ESQ
FCM
FWS
LIST OF ACRONYMS (Continued)
Diethylhexylphthalate (same as Bis(2-ethylhexl)phthalate)
Digital Elevation Model
Di(n)octylphthalate
U.S. Department of Energy
Data quality level
Destruction and removal efficiency
Ecological data quality levels
Estimated exposure level
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Exposure point concentration
Estimated quantitation limit
Equilibrium partitioning
Ecological risk assessment
Effects range low
Environmental Research and Technology
Electrostatic precipitator
Ecological screening index
Ecological screening quotient
Food chain multiplier
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
g/s
g/cm3
g/m3
GAQM
GC
GEP
HBC
HgCl2
HQ
HSDB
Grams per second
Grams per cubic centimeter
Grams per cubic meter
Guideline on Air Quality Models
Gas chromatography
Good engineering practice
Hexachlorobenzene
Mercuric chloride
Hazard quotient
Hazardous substances data base
IDL
IBM
IRIS
ISCST3
ISCSTDFT
kg
kg/L
Instrument detection limit
Indirect exposure model
Integrated risk information system
Industrial source complex short-term model
Industrial Source Complex Short Term Draft
Kilogram
Kilograms per liter
U.S. EPA Region 6
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering
U.S. EPA
Office of Solid Waste
xviii
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Contents
August 1999
L
LC50
LCD
LD50
LEL
LFI
LOAEL
LOD
LOEL
LIST OF ACRONYMS (Continued)
Liter
Lethal concentration to 50 percent of the test population
Local Climatological Data Annual Summary with Comparative Data
Lethal dose to 50 percent of the test population
Lowest effect level
Log fill-in
Lowest observed adverse effect level
Level of detection
Lowest observed effect level
m
m/s
mg
mg/kg
mg/kg/day
mg/L
mg/m3
MACT
MDL
MLE
MPRM
MPTER
MPTER-DS
NC DEHNR
NCDC
NCEA
NEL
NFI
NOAA
NOAEL
NOEC
NOEL
NRC
NTIS
NWS
Meter
Meters per second
Milligram
Milligrams per kilogram
Milligrams per kilogram per day
Milligrams per liter
Milligrams per cubic meter
Maximum achievable control technology
Method detection limit
Maximum likelihood estimation
Meterological Processor for Regulatory Models
Air quality model for multiple point source gaussian dispersion algorithm with
terrain adjustments
Air quality model for multiple point source gaussian dispersion algorithm with
terrain adjustments including deposition and sedimentation
North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
National Climatic Data Center
National Center for Environmental Assessment
No effect level
Normal fill-in
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
No observed adverse effect level
No observed effect concentration
No observed effect level
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
National technical information service
National weather service
OAQPS
OAQPS TTN
OC
OCDD
ORD
ORNL
OSW
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Office of Air Quality and Planning Standards and Technology Transfer
Network
Organic carbon
Octachlorodibenzodioxin
Office of Research and Development
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
Office of Solid Waste
U.S. EPA Region 6
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering
U.S. EPA
Office of Solid Waste
xix
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Contents
August 1999
OV
PAH
PCB
PCDD
PCDF
PCRAMMET
PDF
PIC
PM
PM10
POHC
PQL
PRC
PU
LIST OF ACRONYMS (Continued)
Deposition output values
Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon
Polychlorinated biphenyl
Polychlorinated dibenzo(p)dioxin
Polychlorinated dibenzofuran
Personal computer version of the meterological preprocessor for the old RAM
program
Probability density function
Product of incomplete combustion
Particulate matter
Particulate matter less than 10 micrometers in diameter
Principal organic hazardous constituent
Practical quantitation limit
PRC Environmental Management, Inc.
Polyurethane
QA/QC
QAPjP
QSAR
RCRA
REACH
RME
RTDM
RTDMDEP
RTECS
SAMSON
SCRAM BBS
SFB
SMDP
SO
SQL
SVOC
TAL
TCDD
TDA
TEF
TG
TIC
TL
TOC
TRY
TSS
Quality assurance/Quality control
Quality assurance project plan
Quantitative structure activity relationship
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
Reasonable maximum exposure
Rough terrain diffusion model
Rough terrain diffusion model deposition
Registry of Toxic Effects of Chemical Substances
Solar and Meterological Surface Observational Network
Support Center for Regulatory Air Models Bulletin Board System
San Francisco Bay
Scientific management decision point
Source
Sample quantitation limit
Semivolatile organic compound
Target analyte list
Tetrachlorodibenzo(p)dioxin
Toluene diisocyanate
Toxicity equivalent factor
Terrain grid
Tentatively identified compound
Trophic level
Total organic carbon
Toxicity reference value
Total suspended solids
U.S. EPA Region 6
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering
U.S. EPA
Office of Solid Waste
xx
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Contents August 1999
LIST OF ACRONYMS (Continued)
UF Uncertainty factor
UFI Uniform fill-in
USGS U.S. Geological Survey
USLE Universal soil loss equation
UTM Universal transverse mercator
VOC Volatile organic compound
watts/m2 Watts per square meter
WRPLOT Wind Rose PLOTing program
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering xxi
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Contents
August 1999
LIST OF VARIABLES
Pa
A
P»
e
a
A
b
BAFt
BCFa/s
BCF,
BCFPi_H
BCF,
BCFPi_OM
BCFS/BS_C
BCFS/BS_H
BCFW_C
BCFW_HM
BCFm
BCFr
BD
BMFn
BS
BSAF
Bv
BW
C
CAl
Cc
CF
CF02
*-^gen
CH
G
Dimensionless viscous sublayer thickness (unitless)
Viscosity of air (g/cm-s)
Viscosity of water corresponding to water temperature (g/cm-s)
Air density (g/cm3 or g/m3)
Bed sediment density (kg/L)
Density of water corresponding to water temperature (g/cm3)
Temperature correction factor (unitless)
Bed sediment porosity (unitless)
Soil volumetric water content (mL/cm3 soil)
Empirical intercept coefficient (unitless)
Surface area of affected area (m2)
Empirical slope coefficient (unitless)
Bioaccumulation factor reported on a lipid-normalized basis using the freely
dissolved concentration of a chemical in the water (L/kg)
Aquatic-sediment bioconcentration factor (unitless)
Bioconcentration factor reported on a lipid-normalized basis using the freely
dissolved concentration of a chemical in the water (L/kg)
Bioconcentration factor for plant-to-herbivore for /'th plant food item (unitless)
Soil-to-soil invertebrate bioconcentration factor (unitless)
Bioconcentration factor for plant-to-omnivore for /th plant food item (unitless)
Bioconcentration factor for soil- or bed sediment-to-carnivore (unitless)
Bioconcentration factor for soil-to-plant or bed sediment-to-plant (unitless)
Bioconcentration factor for water-to-carnivore (L/kg)
Bioconcentration factor for water-to-herbivore (L/kg)
Bioconcentration factor for water-to-invertebrate (L/kg)
Plant-soil biotransfer factor (unitless)
Soil bulk density (g soil/cm3 soil)
Biomagnification factor for nth trophic level
Benthic solids concentration (kg/L or g/cm3)
Sediment bioaccumulation factor (unitless)
Air-to-plant biotransfer factor (|ig COPC/g DW plant)/((ig COPC/g air)
Body weight (kg)
USLE cover management factor (unitless)
COPC concentration in /'th animal food item (mg/kg)
COPC concentration in carnivore (mg/kg)
Drag coefficient (unitless)
Dissolved phase water concentration (mg/L)
COPC concentration in fish (mg/kg)
Correction factor for conversion to 4.5 percent O2 (unitless)
Generic chemical concentration (mg/kg or mg/L)
COPC concentration in herbivore (mg/kg)
Stack concentration of/th identified COPC (carbon basis) (mg/m3)
U.S. EPA Region 6
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering
U.S. EPA
Office of Solid Waste
xxii
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Contents
August 1999
Q
Q
^PREY
c
sed
^-s/sed
C-TOC
C
TP
Cyp
Cyv
Cywv
A
D2
DDTEQ
DD,
Ds"n
Dyd
Dydp
Dytwp
Dywp
Dywv
Dywwv
Ev
ER
LIST OF VARIABLES (Continued)
COPC concentration in rth plant or animal food item (mg COPC/kg)
COPC concentration in soil or benthic invertebrate (mg/kg)
COPC concentration in soil or sediment interstitial water (mg/L)
COPC concentration in media (mg COPC/kg [soil, sediment] or mg COPC/L
[water])
COPC concentration in omnivore (mg/kg)
COPC concentration in /th plant food item (mg/kg)
Concentration in prey
COPC concentration in bed sediment (g COPC/cm3 sediment or mg COPC/kg
sediment)
COPC concentration in soil or bed sediment (mg/kg)
Stack concentration of TOC, including speciated and unspeciated compounds
(mg/m3)
COPC concentration in terrestrial plants (mg COPC/kg WW)
Total COPC concentration in water column (mg/L)
Total water body COPC concentration (including water column and bed
sediment) (g/m3 or mg/L)
Unitized yearly air concentration from particle phase (//g-s/g-m3)
Unitized yearly air concentration from vapor phase (^g s/g m3)
Unitized yearly watershed air concentration from vapor phase (|lg-s/g-m3)
Lower bound of a particle size density for a particular filter cut size
Upper bound of a particle size density for a particular filter cut size
Diffusivity of COPC in air (cm2/s)
Depth of upper benthic sediment layer (m)
Daily dose of 2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQ (^g/kg BW/d)
Daily dose of rth congener (jWg/kg BW/d)
Mean particle size density for a particular filter cut size
Deposition term (mg/kg-yr)
Diffusivity of COPC in water (cm2/s)
Depth of water column (m)
Unitzed yearly dry deposition rate of COPC (g/m2-yr)
Unitized yearly dry deposition from particle phase (s/m2-yr)
Unitized yearly watershed total deposition (wet and dry) from particle phase
(s/m2-yr)
Unitized yearly wet deposition from particle phase (s/m2-yr)
Unitized yearly wet deposition from vapor phase (s/m2-yr)
Unitized yearly watershed wet deposition from vapor phase (s/m2-yr)
Total water body depth (m)
Average annual evapotranspiration (cm/yr)
Soil enrichment ratio (unitless)
U.S. EPA Region 6
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering
U.S. EPA
Office of Solid Waste
xxiii
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Contents
August 1999
FAJ
FCM
FCMTLn
FCM,
TLn-Ai
FCMTL3
Jwc
F
oe
Fw
H
•"MEDIUM
I
IR
k
K
KG
KL
Kdbs
Kdl}
Kds
Kdsw
Kocj
kp
ks
kse
ksg
ksl
ksr
ksv
kv
Kv
L
LIST OF VARIABLES (Continued)
Fraction of diet consiting of rth animal food item (unitless)
Fraction of total water body COPC concentration in benthic sediment (unitless)
Trophic level-specific food-chain multiplier (unitless)
Food chain multiplier for nth trophic level
Food chain multiplier for trophic level of rth animal food item (unitless)
Food chain multiplier for trophic level 3 (unitless)
Fraction of total water body COPC concentration in the water column (unitless)
Fraction of COPC air concentration in vapor phase (unitless)
Fraction of organic carbon (unitless)
Fraction of diet consisting of rth plant food item (unitless)
Fraction of COPC wet deposition that adheres to plant surfaces (unitless)
Henry's law constant (atm-m3/mol)
Ingestion rate of soil, surface water, or sediment
Average annual irrigation (cm/yr)
Ingestion rate (kg/day)
von Karman's constant (unitless)
USLE erodibility factor (ton/acre)
Benthic burial rate (yr :)
Gas phase transfer coefficient (m/yr)
Liquid phase transfer coefficient (m/yr)
Bed sediment/sediment pore water partition coefficient (L/kg or cmVg)
Partition coefficient for COPC i associated with sorbing material j (unitless)
Soil-water partition coefficient (cmVg or mg/L)
Suspended sediments/surface water partition coefficient (L/kg)
Organic carbon partition coefficient (mg/L)
Sorbing material-independent organic carbon partition coefficient for COPC j
Octanol-water partition coefficient (unitless)
Plant surface loss coefficient (yr :)
COPC soil loss constant due to all processes (yr :)
COPC loss constant due to soil erosion (yr :)
COPC loss constant due to biotic and abiotic degradation (yr :)
COPC loss constant due to leaching (yr :)
COPC loss constant due to runoff (yr :)
COPC loss constant due to volatilization (yr :)
Water column volatilization rate constant (yr :)
Overall transfer rate coefficient (m/yr)
Overall total water body COPC dissipation rate constant (unitless)
Monin-Obukhov Length (m)
U.S. EPA Region 6
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering
U.S. EPA
Office of Solid Waste
xxiv
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Contents _ August 1999
LIST OF VARIABLES (Continued)
LDEP = Total (wet and dry) particle phase and wet vapor phase direct deposition load to
water body (g/yr)
Ldif = Dry vapor phase diffusion load to water body (g/yr)
LE = Soil erosion load (g/yr)
LR = Runoff load from pervious surfaces (g/yr)
Lm = Runoff load from impervious surfaces (g/yr)
LT = Total COPC load to water body (g/yr)
LS = USLE length-slope factor (unitless)
MW = Molecular weight of COPC (g/mol)
= Organic carbon content of sorbing material / (unitless)
OV = Deposition output values
P = Average annual precipitation (cm/yr)
PAi = Proportion of /th animal food item in diet that is contaminated (unitless)
Pd = COPC concentration in plant due to to direct deposition (mg/kg WW)
PF = USLE supporting practice factor (unitless)
PPi = Proportion of /th plant food item in diet that is contaminated (unitless)
Pr = COPC concentration in plant due to root uptake (mg/kg WW)
PS/BS = Proportion of soil or bed sediment in diet that is contaminated (unitless)
Pv = COPC concentration in plant due to air-to-plant transfer (mg/kg WW)
Pw = Proportion of water in diet that is contaminated (unitless)
Q = COPC emission rate (g/s)
Qi = Emission rate of COPC (i) (g/s)
Qi(adj) = Adjusted emission rate of COPC (i) (g/s)
Qf = Anthropogenic heat flux (W/m2)
Q* = Net radiation absorbed (W/m2)
r = Interception fraction-the fraction of material in rain intercepted by vegetation
and initially retained (unitless)
R = Universal gas constant (atm-m3/mol-K)
RO = Average annual runoff (cm/yr)
RF = USLE rainfall (or erosivity) factor (yr :)
Sc = Average soil concentration over exposure duration (mg/kg)
ScTc = Soil concentration at time Tc (mg/kg)
SD = Sediment delivery ratio (unitless)
SGC = COPC stack gas concentration as measured in the trial burn (|ig/dscm)
SGF = Stack gas flow rate at 7 percent O2 (dscm/s)
Ta = Ambient air temperature (K) = 298. 1 K
Tp = Length of plant exposure to deposition per harvest of the edible portion of the rth
plant group (yr)
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering xxv
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Contents August 1999
LIST OF VARIABLES (Continued)
tD = Total time period over which deposition occurs (time period of combustion) (yr)
Tm = Melting point temperature (K)
TSS = Total suspended solids concentration (mg/L)
Tw = Water body temperature (K)
M = Current velocity (m/s)
V = Volume
Vdv = Dry deposition velocity (cm/s)
Vfx = Average volumetric flow rate through water body (m3/yr)
VGag = Empirical correction factor for aboveground produce (unitless)
VP = Vapor pressure (atm)
W = Average annual wind velocity (m/s)
WAj = Area of impervious watershed receiving COPC deposition (m2)
WAL = Area of watershed receiving COPC deposition (m2)
WAW = Water body surface area (m2)
Xe = Unit soil loss (kg/m2"yr)
Yp = Standing crop biomass (productivity) (kg/m2 DW)
Zs = Soil mixing zone depth (cm)
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering xxvi
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Contents August 1999
CONVERSIONS
0.001 = Units conversion factor (g/mg)
106 = Units conversion factor (|ig/g)
907.18 = Units conversion factor (kg/ton)
3.1536x107 = Conversion constant (s/year)
4,047 = Units conversion factor (m2/acre)
100 = Units conversion factor (m2-mg/cm2-kg)
10"6 = Units conversion factor (g/|ig)
0.12 = Dry weight to wet weight (plants) conversion factor (unitless)
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering xxvii
-------
-------
Chapter 1
Introduction
Related Trial Burn I
4 Reference!
Overview of the
Relationship to U.S. EPA HHRAP
Definitions
Risk assessment is a science used to evaluate the potential hazards to the environment that are attributable
to emissions from hazardous waste combustion units. There is general guidance available regarding the
general ecological risk assessment process including problem formulation, analysis, and risk
characterization (U.S. EPA 1997c; 1998d). This document expands on that general guidance with respect
to the ecological screening level procedures and provides a prescriptive tool to support permitting of
hazardous waste burning combustion facilities under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA). It is not intended to be used to perform screening or baseline ecological risk assessments (ERA)
in other areas of the RCRA program, such as corrective action.
The following definitions were adopted from Superfund: Process for Designing and Conducting
Ecological Risk Assessments. Interim Final (U.S. EPA 1997c) and Guidelines For Ecological Risk
Assessment (U.S. EPA 1998d), and identify key terms used throughout this guidance. Some of the terms
are annotated with additional information to clarify the definition and explain its use in this protocol.
Area Use Factor: A ratio of an organism's home range, breeding range, or feeding and foraging range to
the area of contamination of the assessment area.
Assessment Endpoint: An explicit expression of the environmental value that is to be protected; it
includes both an ecological entity and specific attributes of that entity. The assessment endpoint in this
protocol is used to link the risk assessment to management concerns and ultimately development of a
protective RCRA operating permit. One or more assessment endpoints may be selected for performing a
risk assessment.
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering 1-1
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 1: Introduction August 1999
Bioaccumulation: The net accumulation of a substance by an organism as a result of uptake directly from
all environmental sources, including food. Bioaccumulation occurs through all exposure routes.
Bioaccumulation Factor (BAF). BAF represents the ratio of the concentration of a chemical to its
concentration in a medium. The factor must be measured at steady-state when the rate of uptake is
balanced by the rate of excretion. In this protocol a bioaccumulation factor (BAF) is estimated by
multiplying a bioconcentration factor (BCF) by a food chain multiplier (FCM) derived based on the trophic
level of the prey ingested by a measurement receptor.
Bioconcentration: A process by which there is a net accumulation of a chemical directly from an exposure
medium into an organism.
Bioconcentration Factor (BCF). BCF represents the ratio of the concentration of a chemical in an
aquatic organism to the concentration of the chemical in surface water, sediment, or soil. The factor must
be measured at steady-state when the rate of uptake is balanced by the rate of excretion. BCFs are used in
this protocol to estimate the body burden of a COPC in producers, primary consumers, and fish consumed
by mid- or upper-trophic level measurement receptors.
Biomagnification: The process by which the concentration of some chemicals increase with increasing
trophic level; that is, the concentration in a predator exceeds the concentration in its prey. In this protocol,
a ratio of FCM's are used to account for biomagnification.
Biotransfer Factor: COPC accumulation factor between a food item and its consumer. In this protocol
biotransfer factors are used to evaluate transport of contaminants in plants to mammals and birds.
Depuration: The loss of a compound from an ecological receptor as a result of any active or passive
process.
Direct Uptake: Direct uptake is a term applied to producers, primary consumers, and detritivores. Direct
uptake includes all exposure routes for aquatic receptors, benthic receptors, soil invertebrates, and
terrestrial plants. Direct uptake is used in this manner because it is difficult, given feeding and habitat
niches of these receptors and limited availability of empirical information, to discern the relative importance
of exposure through ingestion, respiration, dermal uptake, or root uptake. In addition, toxicity tests (used
as the basis of risk assessment toxicity reference values) on these receptors (except some aquatic fauna)
usually do not make a distinction between exposure routes or tend to overemphasize or isolate a particular
route.
Ecological Effects Assessment: A portion of the analysis phase of the risk assessment that evaluates the
ability of a stressor to cause adverse effects under a particular set of circumstances. Toxicity reference
values identified in ecological effects assessment are used in risk characterization.
Ecological Risk Assessment: The process that evaluates the likelihood that adverse ecological effects may
occur or are occurring as a result of exposure to one or more stressors.
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering 1-2
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 1: Introduction August 1999
Ecological Screening Quotient (ESQ): A quotient used to assess risk during the risk assessment in which
protective assumptions are used. Generally, the numerator is the reasonable worst-case COPC
concentration at the point of exposure, and the denominator is the no-adverse-effects-based toxicity
reference value.
Environmental Attribute: Characteristic of a food web functional group (e.g., herbivorous mammal) that
is relevant to the ecosystem. Examples of environmental attributes include seed dispersal, decompositon,
pollination, and food source.
Exposure Assessment: A portion of the analysis phase of ERA that evaluates the interaction of the
stressor with one or more ecological components. Exposure can be expressed as co-occurrence or contact,
depending on the stressor and ecological component involved. Information from the exposure assessment is
used in risk characterization.
Exposure Pathway: A pathway by which a compound travels from a combustion facility to an ecological
receptor. A complete exposure pathway occurs when a chemical enters or makes contact with an
ecological receptor through one or more exposure routes.
Exposure Route: A point of contact or entry of a chemical from the environment into an organism. The
exposure routes for terrestrial wildlife are ingestion, dermal absorption, and inhalation. The exposure
routes for aquatic fauna are ingestion, dermal absorption, and respiration. The exposure routes for
terrestrial plants are root absorption or foliar uptake. Exposure routes for aquatic plants are direct contact
with water and sediments.
Food Chain: The transfer of food energy from the source in plants through a series of organisms with
repeated eating and being eaten (Odum 1971).
Food Web: The interlocking patterns of food chains (Odum 1971).
Food-Chain Multiplier (FCM): The FCM is used to account for dietary uptake of a compound by an
ecological receptor. It may be used to estimate a BAF from a BCF in the absence of reliable BAF data.
The FCM values in Table 5-1 have been adopted from Water Quality Guidance for the Great Lakes
System (U.S. EPA 1995J).
Guild: A group of species occupying a particular trophic level and exploiting a common resource base in a
similar fashion (Root 1967).
Habitat: The physical environment in which a species is distributed. Habitat location depends on several
factors, such as chemical conditions, physical conditions, vegetation, species eating strategy, and species
nesting strategy. By analogy, the habitat is an organism's "address."
Measure of Effect: A measurable ecological characteristic that is related to the valued characteristic
chosen as the assessment endpoint. It is the measure used to evaluate the response of the assessment
endpoint when exposed to a chemical (U.S. EPA 1998d). This protocol proposes, for each class/guild,
representative receptors (measurement receptors) for characterizing risk from exposure to compounds
emitted from a combustion facility.
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering 1-3
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 1: Introduction August 1999
Measure of Effect: A measurable ecological characteristic that is related to the valued characteristic
chosen as the assessment endpoint.
Measure of Exposure: A measurable stressor characteristic that is used to help quantify exposure.
Measurement Receptor: A species, population, community, or assemblage of communities (such as
"aquatic life") used to characterize ecological risk to an assessment endpoint.
Problem Formulation: A systematic planning step that identifies the focus and scope of the risk
assessment. Problem formulation includes ecosystem characterization, pathway analysis, assessment
endpoint development, and measurement endpoint identification. Problem formulation results in the
development of a problem statement that is addressed in the analysis step.
Scientific and Management Decision Point: A point during the risk assessment at which the risk assessor
and risk manager discuss results. The risk manager determines whether the information is sufficient to
arrive at a decision regarding the significance of the results and whether additional information is needed
before proceeding forward in the risk assessment.
Special Ecological Area: Habitats and areas for which protection and special consideration has been
conferred legislatively (federal or state), such as critical habitat for federally or state-designated endangered
or threatened species. In characterizing media concentrations of COPCs, special emphasis is placed on
estimating concentrations and, therefore, exposure potential, in sensitive areas.
Stressor: Any physical, chemical, or biological entity that can induce an adverse response.
Trophic Level: One of the successive levels of nourishment in a food web or food chain. Plant producers
constitute the first (lowest) trophic level, and dominant carnivores constitute the last (highest) trophic level.
Uncertainty Factor: Quantitative values used to adjust toxicity values from laboratory toxicity tests to
toxicity values representative of chronic no-observed-adverse-effect-levels (NOAELs). In this guidance,
uncertainty factors (UF) are used to extrapolate from acute and subchronic test duration to chronic
duration, and to extrapolate from point estimated (e.g., LD50) and lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level
(LOAEL) endpoints to an NOAEL endpoint.
Uptake: Acquisition by an ecological receptor of a compound from the environment as a result of any
active or passive process.
This Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol (SLERAP) has been developed as national
guidance to consolidate information presented in other risk assessment guidance and methodology
documents previously prepared by U.S. EPA and state environmental agencies. In addition, this guidance
also addresses issues that have been identified while conducting risk assessments for existing hazardous
waste combustion units. The overall purpose of this document is to explain how ecological risk
assessments should be performed at hazardous waste combustion facilities. This document is intended as
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering 1-4
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 1: Introduction August 1999
(1) guidance for personnel conducting risk assessments, and (2) an information resource for permit writers,
risk managers, and community relations personnel.
The RCRA "omnibus" authority of §3005(c)(3) of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. §6925(c)(3) and 40 CFR
§270.32(b)(2) gives the Agency both the authority and the responsibility to establish risk-based
permit conditions on a case-by-case basis as necessary to protect human health and the
environment. These risk-based site-specific permit conditions are in addition to the national
technical standards required in the hazardous waste incinerator and boiler/industrial furnace
regulations of 1981 and 1991, respectively. Often, the determination of whether or not a permit is
sufficiently protective can be based on its conformance to the technical standards specified in the
regulations. Since the time that the regulations for hazardous waste incinerators and boilers/industrial
furnaces were issued, however, additional information became available which suggested that technical
standards may not fully address potentially significant risks. For example, many studies (including the
Draft Health Reassessment of Dioxin-Like Compounds, Mercury Study Report to Congress, Risk
Assessment Support to the Development of Technical Standards for Emissions from Combustion Units
Burning Hazardous Wastes: Background Information Document, and the Waste Technologies Industries
(WTI) Risk Assessment} indicate that there can be significant risks from indirect exposure pathways (e.g.,
pathways other than direct inhalation). The food chain pathway appears to be particularly important for
bioaccumulative pollutants which may be emitted from hazardous waste combustion units. In many cases,
risks from indirect exposure may constitute the majority of the risk from a hazardous waste combustor.
This key portion of the risk from hazardous waste combustor emissions was not directly taken into account
when the hazardous waste combustion standards were developed. In addition, uncertainty remained
regarding the types and quantities of non-dioxin products of incomplete combustion emitted from
combustion units and the risks posed by these compounds.
As a result, until such time that the technical standards could be upgraded to more completely
address potential risk from hazardous waste combustion, U.S. EPA recommended, pursuant to
the "omnibus" authority, that site-specific risk assessments be performed for all combustion
facilities as a part of the RCRA permitting process. Performance of a site-specific risk assessment can
provide the information necessary to determine what, if any, additional permit conditions are necessary for
each situation to ensure that operation of the combustion unit is protective of human health and the
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering 1-5
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 1: Introduction August 1999
environment. Under 40 C.F.R. §270.10(k), U.S. EPA may require a permit applicant to submit additional
information (e.g., a site-specific risk assessment) that the Agency needs to establish permit conditions under
the omnibus authority. In certain cases, the Agency may also seek additional testing or data under the
authority of RCRA §3013 (where the presence or release of a hazardous waste "may present a substantial
hazard to human health or the environment") and may issue an order requiring the facility to conduct
monitoring, testing, analysis, and reporting. Any decision to add permit conditions based on a site-specific
risk assessment under this authority must be justified in the administrative record for each facility, and the
implementing agency should explain the basis for the conditions.
U.S. EPA promulgation of the Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) standards for
hazardous waste incinerators, cement kilns and light-weight aggregate kilns effectively upgraded the
existing national technical standards for these combustion units. U.S. EPA intends to similarly upgrade the
technical standards for other types of hazardous waste combustors in a later rulemaking. Since the MACT
standards are more protective than the original standards for incinerators, cement kilns and light-weight
aggregate kilns, U.S. EPA revised its earlier recommendation regarding site-specific risk assessments. As
discussed in the preamble to the final MACT rule, U.S. EPA recommended that the permitting authority
determine if a site-specific risk assessment is needed in addition to the MACT standards in order to meet
the RCRA statutory obligation of protection of human health and the environment. For hazardous waste
combustors not subject to the Phase I MACT standards, U.S. EPA continues to recommend that site-
specific risk assessments be conducted as part of the RCRA permitting process. If the permitting authority
determines a risk assessment is warranted, it should be conducted as part of the RCRA permitting process.
The permitting agency should consider several factors in its evaluation of the need to perform a risk
assessment (human health and ecological). These factors include:
• whether any proposed or final regulatory standards exist that U.S. EPA has shown to be
protective for site-specific receptors
• whether the facility is exceeding any final technical standards
• the current level of hazardous constituents being emitted by a facility, particularly in
comparison to proposed or final technical standards, and to levels at other facilities where
risks have been estimated
• the scope of waste minimization efforts and the status of implementation of a facility waste
minimization plan
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering 1-6
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 1: Introduction August 1999
• particular site-specific considerations related to the exposure setting (such as physical,
land use, presence of threatened or endangered species and special subpopulation
characteristics) and the impact on potential risks
• the presence of significant ecological considerations (e.g., high background levels of a
particular contaminant, proximity to a particular sensitive ecosystem)
• the presence of nearby off-site sources of pollutants
• the presence of other on-site sources of pollutants
• the hazardous constituents most likely to be found and those most likely to pose significant
risk
• the identity, quantity, and toxicity of possible non-dioxin PICs
• the volume and types of wastes being burned
• the level of public interest and community involvement attributable to the facility
This list is by no means exhaustive, but is meant only to suggest significant factors that have thus far been
identified. Others may be equally or more important.
The companion document of the SLERAP is the Human Health Risk Assessment Protocol (HHRAP) (U.S.
EPA 1998c). U.S. EPA OSW has prepared these guidance documents as a resource to be used by
authorized agencies developing risk assessment reports to support permitting decisions for facilities with
hazardous waste combustion units.
1.1 OBJECTIVE AND PURPOSE
This protocol is a multipathway screening tool based on reasonable, protective assumptions about the
potential for ecological receptors to be exposed to, and to be adversely affected by, compounds of potential
concern (COPC) emitted from hazardous waste combustion facilities. The U.S. EPA OSW risk assessment
process is a prescriptive analysis intended to be performed expeditiously using (1) measurement receptors
representing food web-specific class/guilds and communities, and (2) readily available exposure and
ecological effects information. To avoid the time-intensive and resource-consuming process of collecting
site-specific information on numerous constituents, this guidance provides a process to obtain and evaluate
various types of technical information that will enable a risk assessor to perform a risk assessment
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering 1-7
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 1: Introduction August 1999
relatively quickly. Additionally this guidance provides: (1) example food webs; (2) example measurement
receptor natural history information; (3) fate and transport data, bioconcentration factors, and toxicity
reference values for 38 COPCs. In lieu of this information, a facility may substitute site-specific
information where appropriate and approved by the applicable permitting authority.
U.S. EPA OSW's objective is to present a user-friendly set of procedures for performing risk assessments,
including (1) a complete explanation of the basis of those procedures, and (2) a comprehensive source of
data needed to complete those procedures. The first volume of this document provides the explanation
(Chapters 1 through 6); and the second and third volumes (Appendices A-H) provides the data sources.
Appendix A presents compound-specific information necessary to complete the risk assessment. Appendix
B presents equations for calculating media concentrations. Appendices C and D provide chemical and
media-specific bioconcentration factors (BCFs). Appendix E provides toxicity reference values (TRVs) for
38 compounds of potential concern (COPCs) and several possible measurement receptors. Appendix F
presents equations for calculating risk. Appendix G provides contact information for obtaining site-specific
species information, and Appendix H provides toxicological profiles for 38 COPCs. Figure 1-1
summarizes the steps needed to complete a screening level ecological risk assessment.
Implementation of this guidance will demonstrate that developing defensible estimates of compound
emission rates is one of the most important elements of the risk assessment. As described in Chapter 2,
traditional trial burns conducted to measure destruction and removal efficiency (DRE) do not sufficiently
characterize organic products of incomplete combustion (PIC) and metal emissions for use in performing
risk assessments. In some instances, a facility or regulatory agency may want to perform a pretrial burn
risk assessment, following the procedures outlined in this document, to ensure that sample collection times
during the trial burn or risk burn are sufficient to collect the sample volumes needed to meet the detection
limits required for the risk assessment. The decision to perform such an assessment should consider
regulatory permitting schedules and other site-specific factors.
U.S. EPA OSW anticipates that ecological risk assessments will be completed for new and existing
facilities as part of the permit application process. The SLERAP recommends a process for evaluating
reasonable—not theoretical worst-case maximum—potential risks to receptors posed by emissions from
RCRA regulated units. The use of existing and site-specific information early in, and throughout, the risk
assessment process is encouraged; protective assumptions should be made only when needed to ensure that
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering 1-8
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 1: Introduction August 1999
emissions from combustion units do not pose unacceptable risks. More protective assumptions may be
incorporated to make the process fit a classical "screening level" approach that is more protective and may
be easier to complete.
Regardless of whether theoretical worst case or more reasonable protective assumptions are used in
completing the risk assessment process, every risk assessment is limited by the quantity and quality of:
• site-specific environmental data
• emission rate information
• other assumptions made during the risk estimation process (for example, fate and transport
variables, exposure assumptions, and receptor characteristics)
These limitations and uncertainties are described throughout this document and the appendixes, and are
summarized in Chapter 6.
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering 1-9
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 1: Introduction
August 1999
FIGURE 1-1
SCREEN ING-LEVEL ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT PROCESS
U.S. EPA Region 6
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering
U.S. EPA
Office of Solid Waste
1-10
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 1: Introduction August 1999
Potentially, unacceptable risks or other significant issues identified by collecting preliminary site
information and completing risk assessment calculations can be addressed by the permitting process or
during an iteration of the risk assessment. After the initial ecological risk assessment has been completed,
it may be used by risk managers and permit writers in several ways:
• If the initial risk assessment indicates that estimated ecological risks are below regulatory
levels of concern, risk managers and permit writers will likely proceed through the
permitting process without adding any risk-based unit operating conditions to the permit.
• If the initial ecological risk assessment indicates potentially unacceptable risks, additional
site-specific information demonstrated to be more representative of the exposure setting
may be collected and additional iterations of risk assessment calculations can then be
performed.
• If the initial risk assessment or subsequent iterations indicate potentially unacceptable
risks, risk managers and permit writers may use the results of the risk assessment to revise
tentative permit conditions (for example, waste feed limitations, process operating
conditions, and expanded environmental monitoring). To determine if the subject
hazardous waste combustion unit can be operated in a manner that is protective of the
environment, an additional iteration of the risk assessment should be completed using the
revised tentative operating conditions. If the revised conditions still indicate unacceptable
risks, this process can be continued in an iterative fashion until acceptable levels are
reached. In some situations, it may be possible to select target risk levels and
back-calculate the risk assessment to determine the appropriate emission and waste feed
rate levels. In any case, the acceptable waste feed rate and other appropriate conditions
can then be incorporated as additional permit conditions.
• If the initial ecological risk assessment, or subsequent iterations, indicate potentially
unacceptable risks, risk managers and permit writers may also choose to deny the permit.
This process is also outlined in Figure 1-1. As stated earlier, in some instances, a facility or regulatory
agency may want to perform a pretrial burn risk assessment—following the procedures outlined in this
document—to ensure that sample collection times during the trial burn or risk burn are sufficient to collect
the sample volumes necessary to meet the appropriate detection limits for the risk assessment. This is
expected to reduce the need for additional trial burn tests or iterations of the risk assessment due to
problems caused when detection limits are not low enough to estimate risk with certainty sufficient for
regulatory decision making.
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering 1-11
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 1: Introduction August 1999
1.2 RELATED TRIAL BURN ISSUES
In the course of developing this guidance and completing risk assessments across the country, U.S. EPA
OSW has learned that developing defensible estimates of compound of potential concern (COPC) emission
rates is one of the most important parts of the risk assessment process. As described in Chapter 2,
traditional trial burns conducted to measure destruction and removal efficiency (DRE) do not sufficiently
characterize organic products of incomplete combustion (PIC) and metal emissions for use in performing
risk assessments.
U.S. EPA OSW considers the trial burn and risk assessment planning and implementation processes as
interdependent aspects of the hazardous waste combustion unit permitting process. In addition, U.S. EPA
OSW advocates that facility planning, regulatory agency review, and completion of tasks needed for both
processes be conducted simultaneously to eliminate redundancy or the need to repeat activities. U.S. EPA
OSW expects that the following guidance documents will typically be used as the main sources of
information for developing and conducting appropriate trial burns:
U.S. EPA. 1989f Handbook: Guidance on Setting Permit Conditions and Reporting
Trial Burn Results. Volume II of the Hazardous Waste Incineration Guidance Series.
Office of Research and Development (ORD). EPA/625/6-89/019. January.
U.S. EPA. 1989g. Handbook: Hazardous Waste Incineration Measurement Guidance
Manual. Volume III of the Hazardous Waste Incineration Guidance Series. Office of
Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER). EPA/625/6-89/021. June.
U. S. EPA. 1992e. Technical Implementation Document for EPA 's Boiler and Industrial
Furnace Regulations. OSWER. EPA-530-R-92-011. March.
U.S. EPA. 1994n. Draft Revision of Guidance on Trial Burns. Attachment B, Draft
Exposure Assessment Guidance for Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
Hazardous Waste Combustion Facilities. OSWER. April 15.
U.S. EPA. 1998b. Guidance on Collection of Emissions Data to Support Site-Specific
Risk Assessments at Hazardous Waste Combustion Facilities. Prepared by EPA Region
4 and the Office of Solid Waste.
Generic Trial Burn Plan and QAPPs developed by EPA regional offices or states.
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering 1-12
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 1: Introduction August 1999
1.3 REFERENCE DOCUMENTS
This section describes, in chronological order, the primary guidance documents used to prepare this
guidance. Some of the guidance documents received a thorough review from EPA's Science Advisory
Board, which mostly supported the work. Additional references used to prepare this guidance are listed in
the References chapter of this document. These documents have been developed over a period of several
years; in most cases, revisions to the original guidance documents address only the specific issues being
revised rather than representing a complete revision of the original document. The following discussion
lists and briefly describes each document. Overall, each of the guidance documents reflects a continual
enhancing of the methodology.
This ecological assessment portion of this protocol is based on protecting the functions of ecological
receptors in ecosystems and protecting special ecological areas around a hazardous waste combustion
facility. It is generally consistent with current U.S. EPA guidance, including the Risk Assessment Forum's
Guidelines for Ecological Risk Assessment (U.S. EPA 1998d), as well as the interim final Ecological Risk
Assessment Guidance for Superfund (U.S. EPA 1997c) The most current methodology for assessing fate
and transport of COPC's frequently referenced in this guidance is the U.S. EPA document, Methodology
for Assessing Health Risks Associated with Multiple Exposure Pathways to Combustor Emissions (In
Press).
The following document was the first U.S. EPA NCEA guidance document for conducting risk assessments
at combustion units:
• U.S. EPA. 1990a. Interim Final Methodology for Assessing Health Risks Associated
with Indirect Exposure to Combustor Emissions. Environmental Criteria and Assessment
Office. ORD. EPA-600-90-003. January.
This document outlined and explained a set of general procedures recommended in this guidance for
determining media concentrations utilized in ecological risk assessments. This document was subsequently
revised by the following:
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering 1-13
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 1: Introduction August 1999
• U.S. EPA. 1993h. Review Draft Addendum to the Methodology for Assessing Health
Risks Associated with Indirect Exposure to Combustor Emissions. Office of Health and
Environmental Assessment. ORD. EPA-600-AP-93-003. November 10.
U.S. EPA (1993h) outlined recommended revisions to previous U.S. EPA guidance (1990a), which have
been used by the risk assessment community since the release of the document; however, these
recommended revisions were never formally incorporated into the original document.
Finally, U.S. EPA Region 5 contracted for development of a Screening Ecological Risk Assessment of
Waste Technologies Industries (WTI) Hazardous Waste Incinerator, in Liverpool, Ohio (U.S. EPA
19951). This document was extensively peer reviewed and represents the most current application of
ecological risk assessment guidance at a combustion facility. The WTI screening ecological risk
assessment was reviewed and considered throughout the development of the approach presented in this
guidance document.
U.S. EPA. 1998d. Proposed Guidance for Ecological Risk Assessment. Risk Assessment Forum,
Washington, D.C. EPA/630/R-95/002B. August.
U.S. EPA. 1997c. Ecological Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund: Process for Designing and
Conducting Ecological Risk Assessments. Interim Final. Environmental Response Team, Office
of Emergency and Remedial Response, Edison, New Jersey. June 5.
Root, R.B. 1967. "The Niche Exploitation Pattern of the Blue-Gray Gnatcatcher." Ecological
Monographs. Volume 37, Pages 317-350.
Odum, E.P. 1971. Fundamentals of Ecology. Third Edition. W.B. Saunders Company, Philadelphia.
574 pp.
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering 1-14
-------
Chapter 2
Facility Characterization
What's Covered in Chapter 2:
4 Compiling Basic Facility'
4 Identifying Emission,
4 Estimating Emission;RateJ'jif
4 Identifying Compounds bf Pbtfential Cdncerh (COPCs)"
4 Estimating COPC Concentrations for Non-Detects
4 Evaluating Contamination In Blanks
This chapter provides guidance on characterizing the nature and magnitude of emissions released from
facility sources. The characterization includes (1) compiling basic facility information, (2) identifying
emission sources, (3) estimating emission rates, (4) identifying COPCs, (5) estimating COPC
concentrations for non-detects, and (6) evaluating contamination in blanks.
2.1
COMPILING BASIC FACILITY INFORMATION
Basic facility information should be considered in conducting the risk evaluation, and provided to enable
reviewers to establish a contextual sense of the facility regarding how it relates to other facilities and other
hazardous waste combustion units. At a minimum, the basic facility information listed in the highlighted
box at the end of this and other sections should be considered in the risk evaluation. The following sections
and chapters describe the collection of this information in more detail; however, users may want to consult
these discussions so that all site-specific information needed to complete the risk assessment can be
collected simultaneously, when appropriate, for up front consideration. The risk assessor is also referred to
Briefing the BTAG: Initial Description of Setting, History, and Ecology of a Site (U.S. EPA 1992a) (see
web site www.epa.gov/superfund/program/risk/tooleco.htm) for more guidance on compiling basic facility
information.
U.S. EPA Region 6
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering
U.S. EPA
Office of Solid Waste
2-1
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 2: Facility Characterization August 1999
RECOMMENDED INFORMATION FOR RISK ASSESSMENT REPORT
• Principal business and primary production processes
• Normal and maximum production rates
• Types of waste storage and treatment facilities
• Type and quantity of wastes stored and treated
• Process flow diagrams showing both mass and energy inputs and outputs
• Type of air pollution control system (APCS) associated with each unit
2.2 IDENTIFYING EMISSION SOURCES
Combustion of a hazardous waste generally results in combustion by-products being emitted from a stack.
In addition to emissions from the combustion stack, additional types of emissions of concern that may be
associated with the combustion of hazardous waste include (1) process upsets, (2) general RCRA fugitive
emissions, (3) cement kiln dust (CKD) fugitive emissions, and (4) accidental releases. Each of these
emission source types are defined below with regards to the context and scope of this guidance.
Stack Emissions - Release of compounds or pollutants from a hazardous waste combustion unit
into the ambient air while the unit is operated as intended by the facility and in compliance with a
permit and/or regulation (for interim status).
Process Upset Emissions - Release of compounds or pollutants from a hazardous waste
combustion unit into the ambient air while the unit is not being operated as intended, or during
periods of startup or shutdown. Upset emissions usually result from an upset in the hazardous
waste combustion process and are often known as process upset emissions. Upset emissions are
generally expected to be greater than stack emissions because the process upset results in
incomplete destruction of the wastes or other physical or chemical conditions within the
combustion system that promote the formation and/or release of hazardous compounds from
combustion stacks. Upset emissions usually occur during events and times when the hazardous
waste combustion unit is not operating within the limits specified in a permit or regulation.
RCRA Fugitive Emissions - Release of compounds or pollutants into the ambient air from RCRA
regulated sources other than hazardous waste combustion stacks. RCRA fugitive emissions are
typically associated with the release of compounds or pollutants from leaks in the combustion
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering 2-2
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 2: Facility Characterization August 1999
chamber (e.g., "puffs"); tanks, valves, flanges, and other material handling equipment used in the
storage and handling of RCRA hazardous wastes; residues from the combustion process such as
ash or quench water; and other RCRA treatment, storage, or disposal units (e.g., landfills).
CKD Fugitive Emissions - Release of compounds or pollutants into the ambient air caused by the
handling, storage, and disposal of cement kiln dust.
Accidental Release - Accidental release is defined in Section 112(r) of the Clean Air Act as an
unanticipated emission of a regulated substance or other extremely hazardous substance into the
ambient air from a stationary source. Accidental releases are typically associated with non-routine
emissions from RCRA facilities; such as the failure of tanks or other material storage and handling
equipment, or transportation accidents.
Consistent with previous U.S. EPA guidance (U.S. EPA 1994d), U.S. EPA OSW recommends that, with
the exception of accidental releases, all of these emission source types be addressed in the risk assessment,
as applicable. Accidental releases are not considered within the scope of this guidance, and should be
evaluated as recommended in Section 112(r) of the CAA and current U.S. EPA guidance (U.S. EPA
1996k) or the RMP Offsite Consequence Analysis Guidance, dated May 24, 1996. A decision to consider
accidental releases in risk assessments for hazardous waste combustion facilities should be made on a site
specific basis by the relevant permitting authority.
The following subsections contain guidance for estimating emissions for the source types specified for
inclusion in the risk assessment. Guidance on air dispersion modeling of stack and fugitive emissions is
presented in Chapter 3.
2.2.1 Estimating Stack Emission Rates for Existing Facilities
Stack emission rates (in grams per second) need to be determined for every compound of potential concern
(COPC) identified using the procedures outlined in Section 2.3. U.S. EPA OSW expects that emission
rates used to complete the risk assessment will be (1) long-term average emission rates adjusted for upsets,
or (2) reasonable maximum emission rates measured during trial burn conditions in order to assure that risk
assessments are conservative. Maximum emission rates measured during trial burn conditions (see
Section 2.2.1.1) represent reasonable maximum emission rates. These emission rates can be controlled by
hourly rolling average permit limits traditionally found in combustion unit operating permits, and are more
conservative than emission estimates that are based on long-term average emission rates. Long-term
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering 2-3
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 2: Facility Characterization August 1999
average emission rates (see Section 2.2.1.2) are based on tests of the combustion unit burning worst-case
wastes at operating conditions that are representative of normal operating conditions over a long-term
period. If long-term average emission rate estimates are used in the risk assessment, the final permit will
likely specify limitations in addition to any hourly rolling average limit typically used to regulate hazardous
waste combustion facilities.
A permitting agency's decision to allow a facility to use emission rate data developed from either normal or
maximum operating conditions will be made on a case-by-case basis. Some facilities may be required to
use emission rate data developed from maximum operating conditions because the variability in waste feed
and operating conditions is too great to make permit decisions based on emission data collected during
normal operating conditions, or because the emissions from combustion of the waste feed material are
anticipated to be highly toxic and only a conservative risk assessment can adequately ensure protection.
2.2.1.1 Estimates from Trial Burns
For existing facilities (such as those built and operational), emission rate information will generally be
determined by direct stack measurements during pretrial burn or trial burn tests, because trial burn tests are
generally part of the permitting process to burn hazardous wastes. This policy is consistent with U.S. EPA
1998 Guidance on Collection of Emissions Data to Support Site-Specific Risk Assessments at Hazardous
Waste Combustion Facilities, prepared by U.S. EPA Region 4 and OSW (U.S. EPA 1998b). For new
facilities (see Section 2.2.3), estimated emission rates used to complete pretrial burn risk assessments
should be compared to the emission rates estimated from actual trial burns completed after the new facility
receives a permit and is constructed. Trial burn tests are designed to produce emission rates higher than
those anticipated under normal operating conditions. U.S. EPA OSW recommends that sampling be
conducted, in accordance with U.S. EPA guidance on conducting trial burns, by using compound-specific
stack sampling, analytical, and quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) protocols and procedures
approved by the permitting authority. An alternative to a trial burn test is the submittal of data "in lieu of
a trial burn. U.S. EPA OSW will consider this type of data for on-site units on a case-by-case basis. U.S.
EPA OSW expects that this data to be based on recent stack test measurements from a similar type of
combustion unit with similar waste feed, capacity, operating conditions, and air pollution control systems
(APCSs) to ensure comparable emission rates and destruction and removal efficiencies (DREs).
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering 2-4
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 2: Facility Characterization August 1999
U.S. EPA OSW expects that using data from a trial burn as a basis for estimating COPC emission rates
will tend to overestimate risk. COPC emission rates measured during trial burns are expected to be greater
than emission rates during normal unit operations, because a facility "challenges" its combustion unit
during a trial burn to develop a wide range of conditions for automatic waste feed cutoff (AWFCO)
systems. Trial burn tests are usually conducted under two conditions: (1) a high-temperature test, in which
the emission rate of metals is maximized, and (2) a low-temperature test, in which the ability of the
combustion unit to destroy principal organic hazardous constituents (POHCs) in the waste feed is
challenged. The lessor of the 95th percentile of the mean or maximum stack gas concentration from the
three trial burn runs should be used to develop the emission rate estimate used in the risk assessment.
High POHC feed rates and extreme operating conditions tested during the low-temperature trial burn test
are usually expected to result in greater product of incomplete combustion (PIC) emission rates. However,
this is not true in all cases. For example, the formation of PCDDs and PCDFs does not necessarily depend
on "POHC incinerability" low temperature conditions. Polychlorinated dibenzo(p)dioxins (PCDDs) and
polychlorinated dibenzofurans (PCDFs) can be formed as a result of (1) catalytic formation in the
low-temperature regions of the combustion unit or APCS during the low temperature test, or (2) catalytic
formation that is dependent on high APCS temperatures typically experienced during the high temperature
test.
Because the amount of testing required to develop estimates of COPC emission rates is so extensive and
time consuming, U.S. EPA OSW places the responsibility for selecting the test conditions first on the
facility and then on the permit writer. If a facility desires to receive a permit with no limits other than those
traditionally based on hourly rolling average data gathered during a trial burn, then risk testing should be
conducted during trial burn or "worst case" conditions. Whether the permit writer requires testing to be
conducted at low, high, or both temperature conditions is a decision that must be made by the permit writer
based on the characteristics of the facility and policy set forth by the senior management of the appropriate
regulatory agency.
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering 2-5
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 2: Facility Characterization August 1999
RECOMMENDED INFORMATION FOR RISK ASSESSMENT REPORT
All (current and historical) stack sampling information regarding rates of emissions from the
combustion unit during normal or trial burn conditions
Description of the waste feed streams burned during the stack sampling, including chemical
composition and physical properties, which demonstrate that the waste feeds are representative
of worst case site-specific "real" wastes
* * * NOTICE * * *
Although U.S. EPA OSW will not require a risk assessment for every possible metal
or PIC from a combustion unit, this does not imply that U.S. EPA OSW will allow
only targeted sampling for COPCs during trial burn tests. Based on regional
permitting experience and discussions with regional analytical laboratories, U.S. EPA
OSW maintains that complete target analyte list analyses conducted when using U.S.
EPA standard sampling methods (e.g., 0010 or 0030), do not subject facilities to
significant additional costs or burdens during the trial burn process. Facilities
conducting stack emission sampling should strive to collect as much information as
possible which characterizes the stack gases generated from the combustion of
hazardous waste. Therefore, every trial burn or "risk burn" should include, at a
minimum, the following tests: Method 0010, Method 0030 or 0031 (as appropriate),
total organic compounds (using the Guidance for Total Organics, including Method
0040), Method 23A, and the multiple metals train. Other test methods may be
approved by the permitting authority for use in the trial burn to address detection limit
or other site-specific issues.
2.2.1.2 Normal Operation Emission Rate Data
Facilities with limited waste feed characteristics and operational variability may be allowed to conduct risk
testing at normal operational conditions (U.S. EPA 1994c). The collection of COPC data during normal
operating conditions is referred to as a "risk burn" throughout the remainder of this guidance. It is
important to note, however, that a risk burn does not replace a traditional trial burn conducted to measure
DRE. Instead, U.S. EPA OSW considers a risk burn as an additional operating condition of the trial burn
during which data is collected for the purpose of completing a risk assessment.
Because operational data collected during the risk burn would not normally be extrapolated to hourly
rolling average AWFCO limits specified in an operating permit; the regulatory agency permit writer should
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering 2-6
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 2: Facility Characterization August 1999
craft the permit with conditions designed to ensure that the facility does not operate at conditions in
"excess" of the normal conditions over the long-term operation of the facility (for example, waste feed rate
or stack gas flowrate). These additional permit limits are anticipated to take the form of quarterly or
annual mass feed limitations on the waste feed, quarterly or annual average temperatures or stack gas flow
rates, and other appropriate limitations.
It may also be necessary for the permit to contain appropriate reporting requirements to ensure that the
regulatory agency can verify that the facility does not normally operate at conditions in excess of those
tested during the risk burn. Monthly, quarterly, or annual reports which document long-term operations
will likely be required of the facility. If a facility violates a long-term permit condition, the permit writer
may also include language that requires the facility to cease waste burning immediately until a new test,
risk assessment, and/or revised permit are completed. More detailed guidance on the development of
permit limits can be found in U.S. EPA Region 6's Hazardous Waste Combustion Permitting Manual,
which can be obtained from the U.S. EPA Region 6 web page (www.epa.gov/region06/).
One of the most important criteria which should be evaluated when considering the collection of data
during a risk burn rather than a trial burn is the ability of the facility to document that the test is conducted
with "worst case" waste. Worst case waste should be the waste feed material or combination of materials
that are most likely to result in significant emissions of COPCs. The potential for both PIC and metal
emissions should be considered in the selection of the worst case waste. For example, if a facility burns
two types of waste—one waste with a high chlorine content and a significant concentration of aromatic
organic compounds and a second with a low chlorine content and a significant concentration of
alkanes—the former waste should be considered to be the "worst case" for PIC formation and should be
used during the risk burn. A similar evaluation should be considered when selecting the worst case waste
for metal emissions.
If a facility chooses to develop—and the appropriate regulatory agency allows the use of—emission rate
estimates from a risk burn rather than a trial burn, the data set for each COPC should be the 95th
percentile of the mean COPC emission rate over all the acceptable test runs or the maximum COPC
emission rate value from all acceptable test runs, whichever value is lower. U.S. EPA OSW does not
believe that it is reasonable to perform a risk assessment with the 95th percentile of the mean emission rate
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering 2-7
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 2: Facility Characterization August 1999
if the maximum rate is less than this value. U.S. EPA OSW also recommends that, where possible, the
COPC emission rate value from the trial burn test and the risk burn test be compared in the risk assessment
report along with a comparison of the operational conditions at these two test conditions. For example, if
the POHC used for the DRE test in the trial burn is a semivolatile organic compound (SVOC), the facility
should analyze for all SVOCs (Method 0010) during the trial burn, and compare these values to those
reported for the risk burn. The difference between the emission rates from the trial burn and risk burn
should be evaluated in the uncertainty section of the risk assessment.
RECOMMENDED INFORMATION FOR RISK ASSESSMENT REPORT
Sampling and analytical data for trial burn and risk burn (if the risk assessment is completed
by using risk burn data) operating conditions
Description of the operating conditions, under which each set of emission rate data being used
was developed
Complete evaluation of the differences between trial burn and risk burn operating conditions,
with an explanation of the expected resultant risk differences
2.2.1.3 Estimates of the Total Organic Emission (TOE) Rate
Organic compounds that cannot be identified by laboratory analysis will not be treated as COPC's in the
risk calculations. However, these compounds still may contribute significantly to the overall risk, and
therefore, should be considered in the risk assessment (DeCicco 1995; U.S. EPA 1994d). U.S. EPA
developed the total organic emissions (TOE) test to account for unidentified organic compounds because
existing methods, such as total hydrocarbon analyzers, do not fully determine the total mass of organics
present in stack gas emissions (Johnson 1996). U.S. EPA OSW anticipates that trial and risk burns will
include sampling for TOE in order to provide permitting authorities with the information needed to address
concerns about the unknown fraction organic emissions. The TOE can be used in conjunction with the
identified organic compounds to calculate a TOE factor which can then be used to facilitate a evaluation of
potential risks from the unidentified fraction of organic compounds in the stack gas.
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering 2-8
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 2: Facility Characterization August 1999
The TOE test is the subject of other guidance; see the Guidance for Total Organics (U.S. EPA 1996b).
Use of the TOE data is dependent on a good understanding of the test method and how the data is reported.
The TOE method defines total organics as the sum of three fractions:
Fraction 1: Total Volatile Organic Compounds (TOVOc) (referred to as Field GC Component
in the TO Guidance) - TOVOC is defined as the fraction of organic compounds having a boiling
point less than 100°C. This VOC fraction is collected using U.S. EPA Method 0040. U.S. EPA
Method 0040 allows for quantification of the total mass of organic compounds with boiling points
less than 100°C, determined by summing the gas chromatograph/flame ionization detector results
as described in the TO Guidance.
Fraction 2: Total Chromatographical Semivolatiles (TOSVOc) (referred to as Total
Chromatographical Organics Component in the TO Guidance) - TOSVOC is defined as the
fraction of organic compounds having boiling points between 100°C and 300 °C. This VOC
fraction is collected using modified U.S. EPA Method 0010 procedures as defined by U.S. EPA
(1996b). The total mass of organic compounds with boiling points 100°C to 300°C is determined
by summing the total gas chromatorgraph/flame ionization detector results as described in the TO
Guidance.
Fraction 3: Total Gravimetric Compounds (TOGRAV) (referred to as Gravametric component
in the TO Guidance) - TOGRAV is defined as the fraction of organic compounds having boiling
points greater than 300 °C. This fraction includes two types of compounds: (1) Identified SVOCs
collected using U.S. EPA Method 0010 having boiling points greater than 300°C and (2)
unidentified nonvolatile organics having boiling points greater than 300°C. This fraction is
determined by using modified U.S. EPA Method 0010 procedures defined by U.S. EPA (1996b),
which quantifies the mass, above this fractions boiling point, by measuring the total mass by
evaporation and gravimetry (weighing) for nonvolatile total organics.
It should be noted that the TO total (TOTOTAL) is the sum of the sums of each fraction. The sum of the TO
fractions are described as follows:
TOTOTAL ~ TOvoc + TOsvoc + TOGRAv Equation 2-1
where
TOTOTAL = stack concentration of TO, including identified and unidentified
compounds (mg/m3)
TOVOC = stack concentration of volatile TO, including identified and
unidentified compounds (mg/m3)
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering 2-9
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 2: Facility Characterization August 1999
TOSVOC = stack concentration of SVOC TO, including identified and
unidentified compounds (mg/m3)
TOORAV = stack concentration of GRAY TO, including identified and
unidentified compounds (mg/m3)
The TOE data is used in conjunction with the identified data to compute a TOE factor. TOE factors have
been computed which range from 2 to 40. The TOE factor is defined by this guidance as the ratio of the
TOTOTAL mass to the mass of identified organic compounds and calculated by the following equation:
TO
JU TOTAL
TOE
Equation 2-2
where
FTOE = TOE factor (unitless)
TOTOTAL = total organic emission (mg/m3)
Cj = stack concentration of the rth identified COPC (mg/m3)
One of the most critical components of the TOE factor is the identification of the organic compounds in the
denominator of Equation 2-2. Although the permitting authority may not require a facility to analyze the
organic compounds with all possible analytical methods, facilities should consider the effects that gaps in
compound specific identification may have on the computation of the TOE factor. For example, hazardous
waste burning cement kilns have expressed concern about the amount of light hydrocarbons that may be
evolved from the raw materials processed in the cement kilns because these light hydrocarbons have not
typically been identified in trial burns. If such concerns are significant, permitting authorities and facilities
may choose to use additional test methods in the trial burn in order to speciate the maximum number of
organic compounds.
U.S. EPA OSW also recommends that permitting authorities include tentatively identified compounds
(TICs) in the denominator when computing the TOE factor to ensure that appropriate credit is given to
defensible efforts at identifying the maximum number of organic compounds. Finally, U.S. EPA OSW
recommends that non-detect compounds of potential concern be treated consistently between the risk
assessment and TOE evaluation. That is, if a non-detected constituent is deleted as a compound of
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering 2-10
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 2: Facility Characterization August 1999
potential concern (See Section 2.3), then it would not be included in the identified fraction of the TOE
equation. Compounds of potential concern identified as per Section 2.3, but not detected, should be
included in the TOE factor equation at the reliable detection limit (non-isotope dilution methods) or the
estimated detection limit (isotope dilution methods).
The results of the gravimetric fraction should also be carefully evaluated when using the TOE factor. Both
regulated industry and U.S. EPA scientists have expressed some concern that the gravimetric fraction of
TOE test may contain materials that are not organic. U.S. EPA Office of Research and Development
National Risk Management Research Laboratory (NRMRL) recently completed a study conducted to
identify products of incomplete combustion (U.S. EPA 1997a). U.S. EPA NRMRL suggested in the study
report that the gravimetric fraction of the TOE test may consist of organic and/or inorganic mass not
directly attributable to organic incinerator emissions. U.S. EPA NRMRL theorized that these artifacts
could consist of inorganic salts, super-fine particulate, or fractured XAD-2 resin. U.S. EPA NRMRL also
concluded in this study report that the vast majority of the non-target semivolatile organic compounds
detected, but not fully identified, were alkanes with more than 10 carbon atoms, esters of high molecular
weight carboxylic acids, and phthlates. Most problems associated with accurately determining the
gravimetric fraction attributable to incinerator emissions can be minimized; see the U.S. EPA 1998
Guidance on Collection of Emissions Data to Support Site-Specific Risk Assessments at Hazardous
Waste Combustion Facilities (U.S. EPA 1998b) for minimizing sample errors.
The TOE factor is used in the uncertainty section of the risk assessment report to evaluate the risks from
the unknown fraction of organics. Permitting authorities can evaluate the TOE factor and assess to what
extent actual risks may be greater than estimated risks. For example, if the risk from the known portion of
the emissions show that risks may be borderline and/or the TOE method shows that the unknowns are a
significant portion of the emission profile, the permitting authority may decide to do any or all of the
following:
1. Describe in a narrative form what is known of the unknown portion of the emissions.
2. Attribute a risk to the unknown portion of the emissions. An example was presented as a
preferred option in U.S. EPA (1994d) which assumed that the unknown compounds are
similar in toxicity and chemical properties to the known compounds taken as a whole. The
referenced equation is as follows:
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering 2-11
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 2: Facility Characterization August 1999
TO
TOTAL
Equation 2-2A
where
Qiadj = adjusted emission rate of compound/' (g/s)
Qi = emission rate of compound/ (g/s)
TOTOTAL = total organic emission (mg/m3)
Cj = stack concentration of the rth identified COPC (mg/m3)
3. Require additional testing to identify a greater fraction of the organic compounds.
4. Specify permit conditions that further control total organic emissions or that further
control the risks associated with known emissions.
Permitting authorities may use variations of the TOE factor to address site-specific concerns. For example,
some permitting authorities may compute three separate TOE factors based on the apportioning provided
by the TOE test (i.e., TOmc, TOsmc, and TOGRAv). The unknowns associated with each separate fraction
of unidentified organic compounds can then be evaluated separately.
2.2.2 Estimating Emission Rates for Facilities with Multiple Stacks
Emissions from all combustion units burning hazardous waste at a facility, not just the unit currently
undergoing the permitting process, should be considered in the risk assessment. As discussed further in
Chapter 3, air dispersion modeling for each combustion unit (source) should be conducted separate from
the other combustion units, to allow evaluation of risk on a stack or source-specific basis. A case example
is where a chemical manufacturing facility may operate both an on-site incinerator and several hazardous
waste burning boilers. Whether it is the incinerator or the boilers undergoing the permitting process, the
risk assessment should consider the emissions from all the combustion units in the estimate of facility risk.
In addition to RCRA combustion units, emissions from other RCRA treatment, storage, or disposal units
(e.g., open burning/open detonation and thermal desorption) may also be included in the risk evaluation in
some cases.
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering 2-12
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 2: Facility Characterization August 1999
2.2.3 Estimating Stack Emission Rates for Facilities Not Yet Operational
New hazardous waste combustion facilities should submit a Part B permit application, go through an
extensive permitting process, and, if successful, receive a final permit to commencement of operation. The
permitting process requires submittal of sufficiently detailed information for the regulatory authorities to
evaluate compliance with existing regulations, guidance, and protectiveness. Stack (source) locations and
dimensions, design flow and emission rate estimates, waste feed characteristics, surrounding building
dimension data, facility plot plans, and terrain data should be reviewed and used in a pre-operation risk
assessment. This will assist in decision-making and designing permit requirements.
The design emission rates, waste feed characteristics, and other design data should be reviewed along with
supplementing documentation to assure they are representative, accurate, and comprehensive. Good
engineering practice dictates a check of, and comparison with, data from similar existing units. Stack test
reports for facilities of similar technology, design, operation, capacity, auxiliary fuels, waste feed types,
and APCSs should be used to estimate COPC emission rates for new facilities that have not been
constructed.
If the preferred option of using surrogate data from similar facilities is not available, some state
environmental agencies enforce emission rate limits based on state laws. Since these limits cannot be
exceeded, they can be used to develop emission rate estimates for the risk assessment. The facility will
demonstrate that its emissions are less than the those considered in the permit and risk assessment during
the trial or risk burn.
Other data which may cause problems when performing risk assessments for new facilities is particle size
distribution. A default particle size distribution is presented in Chapter 3 for use if particle size distribution
data from a similar type of facility are not available.
2.2.4 Estimating Stack Emission Rates for Facilities Previously Operated
Emissions from the historical operation of combustion units burning hazardous waste at a facility, not just
the unit currently undergoing the permitting process, may also be considered in the risk assessment on a
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering 2-13
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 2: Facility Characterization August 1999
case-by-case basis as determined by the permitting authority. Such a case may be when the emissions from
historical operation of a source or sources may have already resulted in potential risk concerns at or
surrounding the facility. Emissions from historical operations could be taken into consideration by
modeling as a separate source or, if applicable, in the fate and transport equations by adding the previous
years of operation to the anticipated time period of combustion for a new or existing operating source. In
addition to RCRA combustion units, historical emissions from other RCRA treatment, storage, or disposal
units (e.g., open burning/open detonation and thermal desorption) at the facility under evaluation may also
be included in the risk assessment in some cases.
RECOMMENDED INFORMATION FOR RISK ASSESSMENT REPORT
All stack test reports for combustion units used to develop emission rate estimates
If using surrogate data for a new facility, descriptions of how the combustion data used
represent similar technology, design, operation, capacity, auxiliary fuels, waste feed types, and
APCSs
Demonstration that the data used to develop the emission rate estimates were collected by
using appropriate U.S. EPA sampling and analysis procedures
The range of data obtained, and values used, in completing the risk assessment
* * * NOTICE * * *
Facilities may use estimated emission rate data from other combustion units only to
determine whether the construction of anew combustion unit should be completed. After
a combustion unit has been constructed, U.S. EPA OSW will require an additional risk
assessment using emission rates collected during actual trial burn conditions.
2.2.5 Emissions From Process Upsets
Uncombusted hazardous waste can be emitted through the stack as a result of various process upsets, such
as start-ups, shutdowns, and malfunctions of the combustion unit or APCS. Emissions can also be caused
by operating upsets in other areas of the facility (e.g., an upset in a reactor which vents gases to a boiler
burning hazardous waste could trigger a process upset in the boiler, resulting in increased emissions). U.S.
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering 2-14
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 2: Facility Characterization August 1999
EPA (1994d) indicates that upsets are not generally expected to significantly increase stack emissions over
the lifetime of the facility.
Process upsets occur when the hazardous waste combustion unit is not being operated as intended, or
during periods of startup or shutdown. Upset emissions are generally expected to be greater than stack
emissions (over short periods of time) because the process upset results in incomplete destruction of the
wastes or other physical or chemical conditions within the combustion system that promote the formation
and/or release of hazardous compounds from combustion stacks. Upset emissions usually occur during
events and times when the hazardous waste combustion unit is not operating within the limits specified in a
permit or regulation.
To account for the increased emissions associated with process upsets, the stack emission rate estimated
from trial burn data (upset factor is not applied to non-PIC emission rate estimates where the total mass of
a constituent in the waste feed is assumed to be emitted) is multiplied by an upset factor. When available,
facilities should use site specific emissions or process data to estimate the upset factor. The following
types of data may be considered and evaluated to derive the upset factor:
• Data for continuous emissions monitoring systems that measure stack carbon monoxide,
oxygen, total hydrocarbon (if required), or opacity (if appropriate)
• Data on combustion chamber, APCS, or stack gas temperature
• Frequency and causes of automatic waste feed cutoffs (AWFCO)
• Ratio of AWFCO frequency and duration to operating time
• APCS operating variables, such as baghouse pressure drop, liquid scrubber flow rate, or
electrostatic precipitator voltage
• Stack test collected while the combustion unit was operated under upset conditions
This information may be analyzed with the objective of estimating the magnitude of the increase in
emissions and the percentage of time on an annual basis that the unit operates at upset conditions.
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering 2-15
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 2: Facility Characterization August 1999
When site specific data are not available or are inappropriate for deriving an upset factor, consistent with
previous guidance (U.S. EPA 1993h), U.S. EPA OSW recommends that upset emissions be estimated by
using a procedure based on work by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) (1990).
Estimating Emissions from Process Upsets: To represent stack emission rates during process
upsets, multiply the emission rate developed from the trial burn data by 2.8 for organics and
1.45 for metals. These factors are derived by assuming that emissions during process upsets are
10 times greater than emissions measured during the trial burn. Since the unit does not operate
under upset conditions continually, the factor must be adjusted to account for only the period of
time, on an annual basis, that the units operates under upset conditions. For organic compounds,
the facility is assumed to operate as measured during the trial burn 80 percent of the year and
operate under upset conditions 20 percent of the year [(0.80)(1)+(0.20)(10)=2.8]. For metals, the
combustion unit is assumed to operate as measured during the trial burn 95 percent of the year and
operate under upset conditions the remaining 5 percent of the year [(0.95)(1)+(0.05)(10)=1.45].
Catastrophic process upsets brought about by complete failure of combustion and air pollution control
systems resulting from non-routine events such as explosions, fires, and power failures are considered
accidental releases and are not addressed by this guidance.
RECOMMENDED INFORMATION FOR RISK ASSESSMENT REPORT
• Historical operating data demonstrating the frequency and duration of process upsets
• A discussion on the potential cause of the process upsets
• Estimates of upset magnitude or emissions
• Calculations which describe the derivation of the upset factor.
2.2.6 RCRA Fugitive Emissions
RCRA fugitive emission sources that should be evaluated in the risk assessment include waste storage
tanks; process equipment ancillary to the combustion unit; and the handling and disposal of combustion
system residues such as ash. Fugitive emissions from other RCRA treatment, storage, or disposal units
(e.g., landfills) may also require evaluation in some cases.
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering 2-16
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 2: Facility Characterization August 1999
This section contains guidance for quantitatively estimating fugitive emissions on the basis of procedures
outlined by other U.S. EPA guidance. Guidance regarding air dispersion modeling of fugitive emissions is
presented in Chapter 3.
2.2.6.1 Quantitative Estimation of RCRA Fugitive Emissions from Process Equipment
Quantitative estimation of RCRA fugitive emissions includes (1) identifying equipment to be evaluated as
fugitive emission source(s), (2) grouping equipment, as appropriate, into a combined source, and
(3) estimating compound specific emission rates for each source. Figure 2-1 is an example of a facility plot
plan that includes one RCRA combustion unit (CU-1), two hazardous waste feed storage tanks (WST-1
and WST-2), and ancillary equipment identified in a RCRA Part B permit application for a hypothetical
example facility. This figure, as well as Tables 2-1 and 2-2, have been provided as an example to facilitate
understanding of each of the steps presented for estimating fugitive emissions.
Step 1: Identifying Fugitive Emission Sources - Generally, RCRA fugitive emission sources to be
evaluated in the risk assessment should include waste storage tanks and process equipment that
comes in contact with a RCRA hazardous waste such as equipment specified in Title 40, Code of
Federal Regulations (40 CFR) Part 265, Subpart BB. Equipment covered under Subpart BB
includes the following:
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering 2-17
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 2: Facility Characterization
August 1999
TABLE 2-1
EXAMPLE CALCULATION
TOTAL FUGITIVE EMISSION RATES
FOR EQUIPMENT IN WASTE FEED STORAGE AREA
1
Fugitive
Emission
Source
Waste
Feed
Storage
Area
2
Waste
Stream
Process
A
Wastes
Process
B
Wastes
3
Type of Waste
Stream In
Service
Light Liquid
Light Liquid
Light Liquid
Light Liquid
Light Liquid
Heavy Liquid
Heavy Liquid
Heavy Liquid
Heavy Liquid
Heavy Liquid
4
Equipment
Type
Pumps
Valves
Connectors
Tank WST-1
Tank WST-2
Pumps
Valves
Connector
Tank WST-1
Tank WST-2
5
Number of
Each
Equipment
Type Per Waste
Stream
3
70
30
1
1
2
75
50
1
1
6
Equipment Emission
Factors
(kg/hr)
0.01990
0.00403
0.00183
~
~
0.00862
0.00023
0.00183
~
~
(g/sec)
0.00553
0.00112
0.00051
~
~
0.00239
0.00112
0.00051
~
~
7
Total VOC
Weight
Fraction
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
8
Operational
Time Period of
Equipment
(days)
180
180
180
180
180
180
180
180
0
0
9
Total VOC
Emissions Rate by
Equipment (g/sec)
0.01493
0.07056
0.01377
0.02
0.03
0.00287
0.0504
0.0153
0
0
10
Total Fugitive
Emission
Rate (g/sec)
0.14926
0.06857
U.S. EPA Region 6
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering
U.S. EPA
Office of Solid Waste
2-18
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 2: Facility Characterization
August 1999
Notes:
Column 1 Equipment in the Waste Feed Storage Area was identified and grouped as a combined RCRA fugitive emission source with an area extent
defined by UTM coordinates (NAD83).
Column 2 The waste streams serviced by equipment in the Waste Feed Storage Area can be determined through review of the facility's RCRA Part B
Permit Application, Air Emission Standards.
Column 3 The type of waste stream in service, defined as light or heavy for determination of equipment specific emission factors, can be determined
from review of waste stream vapor pressure.
Column 4 Similar types of equipment can be grouped according to the most applicable equipment specific emission factor and type of waste stream
service (light or heavy) provided in U.S. EPA (1995f).
Column 5 The number of equipment per type at the source was multiplied by the equipment specific emission factor (Column 6) to obtain equipment
specific emission rate for that respective type of equipment (Column 7).
Column 6 Emission factors specific to each type of equipment can be obtained from U.S. EPA (1995f), with the exception of storage tanks.
Column 7 Weight fraction of total volatile organic compounds was obtained from dividing the concentration of VOCs (mg/L) by the density of the
waste stream (mg/L).
Column 8 Assumed the equipment is operational for 180 days a year.
Column 9 Equipment specific fugitive emission rates were determined by multiplying Columns 5, 6, and 7. Emission rates for tanks were obtained from
Title V air permit application. In the absence of such data, emission rates for tanks can be calculated using U.S. EPA's TANKS Program or
by following the procedures outlined in U.S. EPA (1995a).
Column 10 The total fugitive emission rate for each waste stream is determined by summing emission rates for all the equipment. Table 2-2 presents
calculations for estimating speciated fugitive emissions.
U.S. EPA Region 6
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering
U.S. EPA
Office of Solid Waste
2-19
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 2: Facility Characterization
August 1999
TABLE 2-2
EXAMPLE CALCULATION
SPECIATED FUGITIVE EMISSIONS
FOR EQUIPMENT IN WASTE FEED STORAGE AREA
1
Fugitive
Emission
Source
Waste Feed
Storage Area
2
Waste Stream
Process A Wastes
Process B Wastes
3
Waste Stream
Composition
Acetaldehyde
Acetonitrile
2-Nitropropane
Nitromethane
Acetaldehyde
Acetonitrile
Methanol
Propionitrile
4
Weight Fraction
ofEachVOCIn
Waste Stream
(%)
0.20
0.25
0.25
0.20
0.20
0.10
0.20
0.05
5
Total
Fugitive
Emission
Rate (g/sec)
0.14926
0.06857
6
Speciated
Fugitive
Emissions
(g/sec)
0.0030
0.0037
0.0037
0.0030
0.0137
0.0069
0.0137
0.0034
Notes:
Column 1 Equipment in the Waste Feed Storage Area was identified and grouped as a combined
RCPxA fugitive emission source with an aerial extent defined by UTM coordinates
(NAD83).
Column 2 The waste streams serviced by equipment in the Waste Feed Storage Area can be
determined through review of the facility's RCPxA Part B Permit Application, Air
Emission Standards.
Column 3 The waste stream composition can be determined from analytical data
Column 4 Weight fraction of compounds in the waste stream can be determined from analytical
data or review of the facility's Title V Air Permit Application, Emissions Inventory
Questionnaire (EIQ) for Air Pollutants (see example in Figure 2-2).
Column 5 The total fugitive emission rate for each waste stream was obtained from Column 10,
Table 2-1.
Column 6 Speciated fugitive emissions were obtained by multiplying Column 4 and 5.
U.S. EPA Region 6
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering
U.S. EPA
Office of Solid Waste
2-20
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 2: Facility Characterization August 1999
• Pumps
• Valves
• Connectors (flanges, unions, tees, etc.)
• Compressors
• Pressure-relief devices
• Open-ended lines
• Product accumulator vessels
• Sampling connecting systems
• Closed vent systems
• Agitators
Each fugitive emission source should be identified on a facility plot map with a descriptor and the location
denoted with Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) coordinates (specify if North American Datum [NAD]
of27orNAD83).
Step 2: Grouping Equipment Into a Combined Source - To significantly reduce the effort required to
complete air dispersion modeling and subsequent risk assessment, equipment in close proximity
may be grouped and evaluated as a single combined source with the speciated emission rates for
each piece of equipment summed. The area extent of the grouped or combined source, as defined
by UTM coordinates (specify if NAD27 or NAD83), should be clearly denoted on a facility plot
map. The area extent of the combined source should be defined by the actual locations of the
equipment being grouped, without exaggeration to cover areas without fugitive sources.
Consideration should also be made for how fugitive emission sources are to be defined when
conducting the air dispersion modeling (see Chapter 3).
As shown in Figure 2-1, equipment in two areas at the hypothetical facility have been grouped into
combined sources; these consist of the Waste Feed Storage Area and the RCRA Combustion Unit Area.
Step 3: Estimating Fugitive Emissions from Tanks - Fugitive emission rates for waste storage tanks can
be obtained from the facility's emission inventory or Title V air permit application prepared in
compliance with Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (see example provided as Figure 2-2). If the
facility does not have such information available, fugitive emissions from storage tanks can be
calculated using U.S. EPA's TANKS Program or by following the procedures outlined in U.S.
EPA guidance document (1995a), "Compilation of Air Pollution Emission Factors,
January 1995. "
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering 2-21
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 2: Facility Characterization
August 1999
FIGURE 2-1
EXAMPLE FACILITY PLOT MAP
FACILITY BOUNDARY
\
\ •
\l
0
3617500
3617400
3617300
WASTEFEED
i STORAGEAREA
~i
Bupric
wsr-i
wsr-2
r
3617200
COMBUSTION UNIT AREA
CU-1
AREA EXTENT OF
WASTEFEED STORAGE
LL X=585873 7=3617184
LR X=585896 7=3617184
UR X=585896 7=3617208
UL X=585873 7=3617208
AREA EXTENT OF
COMBUSTION UNIT AREA
LL X=585952 7=3617114
LR X=58S962 7=3617114
UR X=S8S962 7=3617124
UL X=585952 7=3617124
3617100
3617000
3616900
3616800
NOTE: UTM COORDINATE GRID
IS 100METERNAD83
SCALEBfFEET
U.S. EPA Region 6
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering
U.S. EPA
Office of Solid Waste
2-22
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 2: Facility Characterization
August 1999
FIGURE 2-2
EXAMPLE EMISSIONS INVENTORY
Department of Environmental Qfialtiy
Air Qfiality Division
P.O. Box 82135
Baton Rouge, LA 70884-2135
(504)765-0219
LOUISIANA
SINGLEPOINTSOURCE/AREA SOURCE
Emission Inventory Questionnaire (EIQJ
for Air Pollutants
LADEQ
Company Name
Hypothetical Chemical Company
Plant location and name (if any)
Eaton Rouge, LA Plant
February 1996
Source ID Number
WST-1
Descriptive name of the equipment served by this stack or vent
Waste Feed Tank
Locationof stack or vent (see instructions on how to determine
location of area sources)
Horizontal Coordinate 589100 m E
UTMzone no. 15 Vertical coordinate 3616200 mN
STACK mdDlSCHARGE
PHYSICAL
CHARACTERISTICS
Change f] yes ft/no
Height of stack
above grade [ft]
Diameter or stack
discharge area
0.167ft
Stack gas exit
temperature ("F)
125
Stack gas flow at process
conditions, not at standard (cfm)
2A27
Stack gas exit velocity
1&22
For tanks. Kst volume
Date of construction
Fuel
Type, of fuel used and heat input (see instructions)
Type of Fuel
Heat input (MMBtu/hr)
Operating
Characteristics
Percent of annual throughout of
pollutants through this emission point
Normal operating time
of this point
Dee-Feb
25
Mar-May
25
Jun-Aug
25
Sep-Nov
25
hrs/ days/ weeks/
day week year
24.00 7 52.0
Normal
operating rate
100%
Air Pollutant Specific Information
PoUutant
Control
equipment
code
Control
equipment
efficiency
Emission Rate
Average
Maximum
(Ibsfar)
Annual
(tons/yr)
estimation
method.
Add,
change,
delete
code
Concentration in gases
exiting at stack
2-Nitropropane
Acetalddtyde
Acetaiiitrite
Methanol
Non-Toxic Voc
000
0.0000
0.0023
0.0041
0.0023
0.0023
0.0062
03463
125.00
21.1266
4.502
195.3347
0.01
0.081
0.01
0.01
0.028
3
3
3
3
3
N/A ppmbyvol
N/A ppmbyvol
N/A ppmbyvol
N/A ppmbyvol
N/A ppmbyvol
U.S. EPA Region 6
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering
U.S. EPA
Office of Solid Waste
2-23
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 2: Facility Characterization August 1999
The information required for estimating fugitive emission rates from storage tanks includes, but is
not limited to, the following:
• Dimensions of the tanks
Shell height and diameter
• Characteristics of the tank roof
Color and shade
Condition (e.g., poor, good)
Type (e.g., cone, dome)
Height
Radius or slope
Fixed or floating
• Characteristics of the shell
Color and shade
Condition (e.g., poor, good)
Heated
• Settings on breathe vents
Vacuum setting
Pressure setting
• Characteristics of the stored liquids
Maximum and annual average liquid height
Working volume
Turnovers per year
Net throughput
Average annual temperature
Vapor pressures of speciated constituents (at annual average temperature)
Step 4: Estimating Fugitive Emissions from Process Equipment - Based on guidelines provided in U.S.
EPA (1995f), "Protocol for Equipment Leak Emission Estimates, EPA-453/R-93-017, " fugitive
emissions for each equipment listed under 40 CFR Part 265, Subpart BB can be estimated by the
following four approaches, in order of increasing refinement and data requirements:
• Average Emission Factor Approach (AEFA)
• Screening Ranges Approach (SRA)
U.S. EPA Correlation Approach (EPACA)
• Unit-Specific Correlation Approach (USCA)
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering 2-24
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 2: Facility Characterization August 1999
These four approaches can be used at any facility to estimate fugitive emission rates of volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) from equipment. Except for the AEFA method, all of the approaches require screening
data collected by using a portable monitoring device (PMD). Because data on fugitive emissions at a
facility is generally limited, the AEFA method will apply in most cases, and therefore, has been selected for
use in the example demonstrated in Figure 2-1, and Tables 2-1 and 2-2. However, U.S. EPA OSW
recommends that facilities use more refined approaches such as SRA, EPACA, or USCA, if sufficient data
is available. U.S. EPA (1995f) provides a detailed discussion on these three approaches.
An Example Calculation Using the AEFA Method
Information for estimating fugitive emission rates using the AEFA method is as follows:
• Type of waste stream associated with each equipment type (Columns 2 and 3, Table 2-1)
light liquids are those in which the sum of the concentration of individual
constituents with a vapor pressure over 0.3 kilopascals (kPa) at 20°C is greater
than or equal to 20 weight percent
heavy liquids are all others liquids not meeting the definition of light liquids as
specified above
• Number of each equipment type associated with each waste stream (Columns 4 and 5,
Table 2-1)
• Total VOC weight fraction of each waste stream (Column 7, Table 2-1)
• Weight fraction of each VOC in each waste stream (Columns 3 and 4, Table 2-2)
• Operational time period of equipment (Column 8, Table 2-1)
When this approach is used, equipment can be grouped by waste streams of similar characteristics and
VOC composition (Columns 1 and 2, Table 2-1). However, the AEFA approach does not account for
different site-specific conditions such as temperature, vapor pressure, or screening values, among process
units within a source category. Site-specific factors can significantly influence fugitive emission rates of
leaks from equipment.
The average emission factors for synthetic organic chemicals manufacturing industry process units,
refineries, and natural gas plants are presented in U.S. EPA (1995f) (Column 6, Table 2-1). The following
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering 2-25
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 2: Facility Characterization
August 1999
table is an excerpt from this guidance document. These emission factors are most valid for estimating rates
of emissions from a grouping of equipment over a long time period.
SOCMI AVERAGE EMISSION FACTORS
Equipment type
Valves
Pump seals
Compressor seals
Pressure relief valves
Connectors
Open-ended lines
Sampling connectors
Service
Gas
Light liquid
Heavy liquid
Light liquid
Heavy liquid
Gas
Gas
All
All
All
Emission factor
(kg/hr/source)
0.00597
0.00403
0.00023
0.0199
0.00862
0.228
0.104
0.00183
0.0017
0.0150
Source: U.S. EPA (1993e)
The total VOC emissions rate for a specified equipment type can be calculated by multiplying the
equipment emission factor by the total VOC weight fraction and the number of each equipment type per
waste stream (Column 9, Table 2-1 = Column 6 x Column 7 x Column 5).
The total VOC emission rates for each equipment type are summed to generate the total fugitive emission
rate for the waste stream by (Column 10, Table 2-1). Speciated fugitive emissions can then be calculated
by multiplying the weight fraction of each VOC in the waste stream and the total fugitive emission rate for
the waste stream (Column 6, Table 2-2 = Column 4 x Column 5). This speciated emission rate is the
emission rate used in the risk assessment.
U.S. EPA Region 6
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering
U.S. EPA
Office of Solid Waste
2-26
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 2: Facility Characterization August 1999
RECOMMENDED INFORMATION FOR RISK ASSESSMENT REPORT
• Summary of the step-by-step process conducted to evaluate fugitive emissions
• Facility plot map clearly identifying each fugitive emission source with a descriptor and the
location denoted with UTM coordinates (specify if NAD27 or NAD83).
• Speciated emission rate estimates for each waste stream serviced by each source, with
supporting documentation
• Applicable discussion of monitoring and control measures used to mitigate fugitive emissions
2.2.6.2 Fugitive Emissions from Combustion Unit Leaks
Fugitive emissions that result from the construction, design, or operation of a combustion unit burning
hazardous waste should be evaluated, as appropriate. Examples of fugitive emissions from combustion
unit leaks include the following:
• Combustion units that operate under negative pressure may experience temporary positive
pressures ("puffing") that cause fugitive emissions. This condition can occur when a slug
of high BTU waste is combusted, causing a rapid expansion in the volume of combustion
gases that exceeds the volume of the combustion chamber.
• Fugitive emissions resulting from the day-to-day operation of the combustion unit and
APCS. These emissions will typically include (1) leaks that occur due to a positive
pressure in the APCS, and (2) routine maintenance activities such as replacement of
baghouse collection bags.
Currently, U.S. EPA OSW does not offer any specific quantitative guidance on how to estimate fugitive
emissions from hazardous waste combustion units. However, risks associated with emissions from
hazardous waste combustion unit leaks can be addressed in the uncertainty section of the risk assessment if
no site specific quantitative methods are available. Specifically, the permitting authority can review facility
specific data to determine whether or not the design addresses equipment leaks and whether the operational
data indicates that equipment leaks may be a problem.
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering 2-27
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 2: Facility Characterization August 1999
RECOMMENDED INFORMATION FOR RISK ASSESSMENT REPORT
• Process design information and drawings (if necessary)
• Past operating data indicating the frequency, duration, and magnitude of combustion unit leaks
• Information regarding the probable cause of combustion unit leaks
• Summary of procedures in place to monitor or minimize fugitive emissions resulting from
combustion unit leaks
2.2.7 RCRA Fugitive Ash Emissions
The combustion of hazardous waste materials may result in the production of flyash. Fugitive particle
emissions may result from the subsequent collection, handling, and disposal of the flyash. Typically,
fugitive emissions of flyash, collected from an air pollution control device (APCD) will occur during
transfer into covered trucks or other conveyance mechanisms prior to disposal. Emissions generated during
the loading process can be controlled by APCDs or other types equipment, however, a fraction of the flyash
may still escape into the atmosphere as fugitive emissions.
2.2.7.1 Quantitative Estimation of RCRA Fugitive Ash Emissions
Steps for the quantitative estimation of RCRA fugitive ash emissions include (1) determining an empirical
emission factor, (2) estimating the flyash generation rate, and (3) accounting for air pollution control
equipment, if applicable. As demonstrated in the example calculation below, the fugitive ash emission rate
can then be estimated by multiplying the empirical emission factor by the flyash generation rate and the
control deficiency of the air pollution control equipment, if applicable.
Step 1: Determining an Empirical Emission Factor - Particle emissions associated with flyash loading
and unloading can be estimated using an empirical emission factor of 1.07 Ib per ton flyash. This
factor is based on a field testing program conducted at a coal fired power plant equipped with an
electrostatic precipitator (ESP) (Muleski and Pendleton 1986). Because the combustion of coal
and hazardous wastes are similar activities, flyash generated from similar control devices is
expected to behave similarly under the same conditions, with respect to fugitive emissions. In
general, particle behavior is dependent more on the physical form of the flyash than on the feed (or
waste) stream being combusted. The emission factor determined during the empirical study
(0.107 Ib per ton flyash) can be adjusted by a factor (e.g., 10) to account for the fact that the flyash
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering 2-28
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 2: Facility Characterization August 1999
from the combustion of coal (as in the study) was wetted. Flyash from the hazardous waste
combustion facility may not be wetted depending on the facility.
Step 2: Estimating the Flyash Generation Rate - The flyash generation rate from the APCD can be
obtained from the Part B Permit Application and the total ash content of the "generic" waste
streams created from the waste profile. Both values should be approximately the same. Since a
major portion of ash fed to the combustor is converted to bottom ash, it is likely that this value is a
conservatively high estimate of the actual flyash generation rate.
Step 3: Accounting for Air Pollution Control Equipment - If an APCD is used for controlling emissions
during flyash handling operations, an efficiency factor (e.g., 99.5 percent) can be applied to the
emission rate. An efficiency factor of 99.5 percent is based on U.S. EPA (1995a) for typical
collection efficiencies of particulate matter control devices, for the particle sizes in the range of 2.5
to 10 um.
Example Calculation
The fugitive ash emission rate is calculated by multiplying the empirical emission factor (Step 1) times the
estimated flyash generation rate (Step 2) [(1.07 Ib per ton) * (5,000 tons per year) = 5,350 Ibs per year].
Accounting for the air pollution control equipment, the product of Steps 1 and 2 is multiplied times one
minus the fabric filter efficiency (Step 3) to obtain the final RCRA fugitive ash emission rate for use in the
risk assessment [(5,350 Ibs per year) * (1 - 0.995) = 26.75 Ibs per year].
2.2.8 Cement Kiln Dust (CKD) Fugitive Emissions
CKD is the particulate matter (PM) that is removed from combustion gas leaving a cement kiln. This PM
is typically collected by an APCS—such as a cyclone, baghouse, ESP—or a combination of APCSs.
Many facilities recycle a part of the CKD back into the kiln. Current and applicable guidance on
evaluating CKD includes (1) the Technical Background Document for the Report to Congress (U.S. EPA
1993g), and (2) the more recent regulatory determination of CKD (60 FR 7366, February 7, 1995).
Most CKD constituents (for example, metals) are not volatile but could be released to air through fugitive
dust emissions as a volatile or semivolatile organic that can be released in gaseous form and present in
relatively low concentrations, if at all (U.S. EPA 1993a). Dust particles may be suspended in the air by
either wind erosion or mechanical disturbances. The extent to which dust is blown into the air by wind
erosion depends on several site-specific characteristics, including (1) the texture (particle size distribution)
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering 2-29
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 2: Facility Characterization August 1999
and moisture content of the CKD on the surface of piles, (2) nonerodible elements, such as clumps of grass
or stones on the pile, (3) a surface crust, and (4) wind speeds. Mechanical disturbances that can suspend
CKD constituents in the air include (1) vehicular traffic on and around CKD piles, (2) CKD dumping and
loading operations, and (3) transportation of CKD around a plant site in uncovered trucks. Cement plants
may use various control measures to limit the release of CKD to the air. For example, CKD may be
pelletized in a pug mill, compacted, wetted, and covered to make the material less susceptible to wind
erosion.
To keep the dust down, many facilities add water to CKD, before disposal, to agglomerate individual
particles. In addition, as CKD sits in a pile exposed to the elements, occasional wetting by rainfall may
form a thin surface crust in inactive areas of the pile. This acts to mitigate air entrainment of particles.
However, based on field observations by U.S. EPA (1993g), neither surface wetting nor natural surface
crusting eliminates the potential for CKD to be blown into the air. Wetting the dust before disposal
provides incomplete and temporary control, because (1) infrequent application of water, and (2) the dust
ultimately dries and returns to a fine particulate that is available for suspension and transport. Similarly, a
surface crust may develop, but (1) the crust breaks when vehicles or people move on the pile, and (2) fresh
dust is regularly added to the pile, providing a continual, exposed reservoir of fine particles. It should be
noted that a crust does not always form for a variety of reasons such as weather and chemistry of the CKD.
CKD constituents that are released to the air are transported and dispersed by the winds, and are ultimately
deposited onto land or water, either by settling in a dry form or by being entrained in precipitation.
2.2.8.1 Composition and Characteristics of CKD
U.S. EPA (1993g) highlighted the limited amount of available information regarding the variation in
chemical constituents of CKD generated by facilities burning hazardous waste as fuel and by facilities
burning only fossil or nonhazardous waste fuels. There may also be differences in composition between the
"as-generated" CKD that is recycled back into the system and the "as-managed" CKD that is disposed on
or offsite.
Transport in air is of concern for CKD, because the dust is a fine PM that is readily suspendable,
transportable, and respirable in air. In general, particles that are < 100 micrometers may be suspended in
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering 2-30
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 2: Facility Characterization August 1999
the wind and transported. Within this range, particles that are <30 micrometers can be transported for
considerable distances downwind. Virtually all of the dust generated at the 15 facilities evaluated by U.S.
EPA (1993g) in the Cement Kiln Dust Report to Congress may be suspended and transported in the wind
(that is, the vast majority of particles are < 100 micrometers), and over two-thirds of all CKD particles
generated may be transported over long distances. Additionally, a significant percentage of the total dust
generated (from 22 to 95 percent, depending on kiln type) comprises particles that are < 10 micrometers.
RECOMMENDED INFORMATION FOR RISK ASSESSMENT REPORT
Physical data, including particle size distribution and density
Chemical data, including organic and inorganic analytical tests similar to those used for
sampling combustion gases
Plant net CKD generation rate (how much CKD per year that is available for disposal)
Ambient air monitoring data
CKD management, transportation, storage, and disposal methods
Containment procedures, including fugitive dust prevention measures and the area of exposed
CKD
Meteorological data, including wind speed and precipitation
2.2.8.2 Estimation of CKD Fugitive Emissions
In general, this guidance does not address CKD risks in a quantitative fashion. However, risk assessments
conducted for cement manufacturing facilities should, at a minimum, evaluate the fugitive emissions due to
CKD on a qualitative basis. Readers are referred to the Technical Background Document for the Report
to Congress (U.S. EPA 1993g), for methods to estimate the magnitude of fugitive emissions from the
handling, storage, and disposal of CKD. In addition, an analysis of a specific facility's compliance with
other environmental statutes and regulations may be an appropriate method to qualitatively evaluate risks
associated the handling, storage, and disposal of CKD.
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering 2-31
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 2: Facility Characterization August 1999
2.3 IDENTIFYING COMPOUNDS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN
Compounds of potential concern (COPCs) are those compounds evaluated throughout the risk assessment.
The purposes of identifying COPCs are to focus the risk assessment on those compounds that are likely to
pose the most risk to ecological receptors exposed to hazardous waste combustion emissions. The COPC
identification process is conservative by design to avoid not including compounds that might pose an
ecological risk.
There is no one definition of a COPC, because a compound that is a COPC at one hazardous waste
combustion unit may not be a COPC at another combustion unit. COPCs in the emissions from hazardous
waste combustion units vary widely, depending on (1) the type of combustion unit, (2) the type of
hazardous waste feed being burned, and (3) the type of APCS used. Also considered as COPCs are
products of incomplete combustion (PICs); which are any organic compounds emitted from a stack, such as
(1) compounds initially present in the hazardous waste feed stream and not completely destroyed in the
combustion process, and (2) compounds that are formed during the combustion process. Because PICs
may be formed by trace toxic organic compounds in the waste feed stream, these compounds should be
evaluated as PIC precursors, in addition to those compounds that constitute most of the hazardous waste
feed.
PICs should not be confused with principal organic hazardous constituents (POHC), which are compounds
in the waste feed stream used to measure DRE of the combustion unit during a trial burn test. Unburned
POHCs and partially destroyed or reacted POHCs are PICs, but PICs are not necessarily related to
POHCs.
Table A-l (Appendix A) presents a comprehensive list of compounds typically identified (1) in hazardous
waste, and (2) in hazardous waste combustion stack gas emissions. For each compound, Table A-l
identifies the Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS) number and also indicates whether a compound has been
identified as a potential COPC by (1) U.S. EPA and state risk assessment reference documents,
(2) emission test results that have identified the compound in the emissions from hazardous waste
combustion facilities, or (3) other literature that suggests that the compound may be significant from a risk
perspecitve. Table A-l has been provided in this guidance in order to help risk assessors ensure that the
trial burn considers the full range of compounds potentially emitted from a combustion unit and the
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering 2-32
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 2: Facility Characterization August 1999
appropriate analytical method. Once the trial burn stack tests are completed, the COPC selection process
is initiated based on the universe of stack test data, not Table A-l. The purpose of a risk assessment is not
to arbitrarily evaluate every potential compound listed in Table A-l.
Based on U.S. EPA OSW review, COPCs previously identified in ecological isk assessments at combustion
facilities are as follows:
• Polychlorinated dibenzo(p)dioxins (PCDD) and polychlorinated dibenzofurans (PCDF)
• Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH)
• Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB)
• Pesticides
• Nitroaromatics
• Phthalates
• Other organics
• Metals
This list was compiled based on professional experience and is not meant to be either limiting or inclusive.
The list enabled U.S. EPA OSW to focus on (1) developing receptor-specific and compound-specific
biocentration factors as provided in Appendicies C and D, (2) developing compound- and receptor-specific
TR Vs as provided in Appendix E, and (3) developing receptor exposure parameters and exposure equations
discussed in Chapter 5 and provided in Appendix F. These focused compound-specific parameters and
information are included to facilitate the performance of ecological risk assessments, and are not meant to
be either limiting or inclusive for hazardous waste combustion facilities. Experience has shown that
developing compound-specific and receptor-specific parameters for risk assessments can be one of the most
labor- and time-intensive parts of completing the risk assessment, and U.S. EPA OSW intends that the
information included in the Appendicies of this guidance facilitates the risk process.
COPCs are identified from the trial burn data based on their potential to pose an increased risk. This
identification process should focus on compounds that (1) are likely to be emitted, based on the potential
presence of the compound or its precursors in the waste feed, (2) are potentially toxic to ecological
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering 2-33
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 2: Facility Characterization August 1999
receptors, and/or (3) have a definite propensity for bioconcentrating in ecological receptors and
bioaccumulating in food chains. Appendix E presents toxicity reference values of specific compounds to
specific receptors. The toxicity information provided in this guidance is for informational purposes to help
permitting authorities explain the basis for identifying compounds as COPCs and facilitate completing the
risk assessment. Since toxicity information may change as additional research is conducted, permitting
authorities should review the most current available information before completing a risk assessment to
ensure that the toxicity data used in the risk assessment is based upon the most current Agency consensus.
As illustrated in Figure 2-3, the following steps should be used to identify the COPCs that will be evaluated
for each facility (U.S. EPA 1993h; 1994d).
Step 1: Evaluate analytical data from the stack tests performed during the trial burn and compounds
associated with fugitive emissions (see Section 2.2.5). Prepare a list which includes all the
compounds specified in the analytical methods performed in the trial burn, and fugitive emission
evaluation. Describe whether the compound was detected or not detected.
A detection in any one of the sample components (e.g., front half rinse, XAD resin, condensate, Tenax
tube) in any run constitutes a detection for that specific compound. Evaluation of blank contamination
results, included in the quality assurance (QA) data section of the trial burn report, should be considered
when determining the non-detect status of the compounds (see Section 2.5).
Step 2: Evaluate the type of hazardous waste burned in the combustion unit—including all wastes that the
unit will be permitted to burn—to determine whether any of the non-detect compounds should be
retained for evaluation as COPCs because they are potentially present in the waste.
For example, if a facility is permitted to burn explosives which characteristically include nitroaromatic
compounds, yet the stack test showed non-detect status for all nitroaromatic compounds, nitroaromatic
compounds should still be evaluated in the risk assessment. This evaluation should also consider other
materials fed to the combustion unit (e.g., raw materials or coal in a cement kiln). Regardless of the type of
hazardous waste being burned in the combustion unit, every risk assessment should include PCDD/PCDFs
and PAHs (the rationale for including these compounds is discussed in greater detail in Sections 2.3.1 and
2.3.2).
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering 2-34
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 2: Facility Characterization
August 1999
COPC IDENTIFICATION
Analysis at trial bum that considers the
Ml range of compounds potentially emitted
Prepare COPC list that includes all
compounds specified in the analytical
methods performed during trial bum, and
identified in the fugitive emissions evaluation
Evaluate 30 largest TICs to
determine if they have toxicities
similar to any detected compounds
DetermineiCuFCaeKciionslaius
including consideration of blank
contamination
Non-Detected
Compounds
Is the non-detect
compound present
in the waste being
burned?
Does the non-detect
compound
bioaccumulate or
bioconcentrate?
Does the non-detect
compound have a
high potential
to be emitted
as a PIC?
Is the non-detect
compound a concern
due to site specific
factors, and is it
possibly emitted?
Detected
Compounds
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Is toxicological data
available for COPC or
appropriate surrogate
compound?
No
Retain as COPC; evaluate
qualitatively in the risk
assessment
Yes
quantitatively in the risk
assessment
No
Delete from
the COPC list
U.S. EPA Region 6
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering
U.S. EPA
Office of Solid Waste
2-35
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 2: Facility Characterization August 1999
Step 3: Include as COPCs those compounds that are non-detect, but have a high potential to be emitted as
PICs.
Although some compounds (nitroaromatics, pthalates, hexachlorobenzene, and petachlorphenol) have
traditionally been automatically identified as PICs in previous U.S. EPA guidance, inclusion of these
compounds should be based on consideration of potential to be emitted and waste feed composition
(e.g., nitrogenated wastes, plastics, or highly chlorinated organic waste streams) (see Sections 2.3.4
through 2.3.6).
Step 4: Include as COPCs those compounds that are non-detect, but have a tendancy to bioaccumulate or
bioconcentrate. This includes organic chemicals with log Kow values equal to or greater than 4.0
(Connolly and Pederson 1987), and inorganic compounds with a whole-body BCF equal to or
greater than 100.
U.S. EPA OSW understands that this step would not retain some nondetected compounds (such as VOCs
with log Kow values less than 4.0) for further evaluation in the risk assessment and appears to provide the
opportunity for detection limits for these compounds to be increased intentionally by the facility to escape
the risk assessment process. However, U.S. EPA OSW anticipates that stack test data used in conducting
the risk assessment will also be subject to evaluation in the human health risk assessment process, which
would subsequently determine increased risk due to nondetected compounds with high detection limits.
Therefore, the lowest achievable detection limits possible with standard U.S. EPA methods for all
compounds are recommended, ensuring that the risk assessment process will result in the risk manager
obtaining the information necessary to conclude that the facility has not potentially overlooked a serious
risk.
Step 5: Evaluate the 30 largest tentatively identified compound (TIC) peaks obtained during gas
chromatography (GC) analysis, to determine whether any of the TICs have toxicities similar to the
detected compounds. If they do, consider surrogate toxicity data, as recommended for detected
COPCs without toxicity information.
Step 6: Evaluate any compound that may be of concern due to other site-specific factors (e.g., community
and regulatory concern, high background concentrations). Include as COPCs those compounds
that (1) are a concern due to site-specific factors, and (2) may be emitted by the combustion unit.
If the compound in question does not have a reasonable potential of being present in the stack emissions,
the risk assessment report should justify this assertion. This information will provide the risk manager with
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering 2-36
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 2: Facility Characterization August 1999
the information necessary to evaluate potential for risk. By following Steps 1 through 6, the risk assessor
will be able to identify COPCs from the typically exhaustive list of compounds tested in during the trial
burn. To complete Step 4, log Kow and BCF values for compounds typically identified in risk assessments
as COPCs and listed at the beginning of this section are located in Appendicies A and C, respectively.
The following subsections also focus on compounds that can drive risk assessments as indicated by past
experience. These compounds include polychlorinated dibenzo(p)dioxins and dibenzofurans, polynuclear
aromatic hydrocarbons, polychlorinated biphenyls, nitroaromatics, phthalates, hexachlorobenzene and
pentachlorophenol, and metals. Volatile organic compounds are also discussed. Specific issues that affect
the COPC identification process and evaluation of these compounds in the risk assessment are discussed.
Because U.S. EPA's boiler and industrial furnace (BIF) regulations also regulate emission rates of PM and
hydrochloric acid and chlorine gas, the risks associated with these compounds are also discussed. There is
also a discussion of the emerging issues surrounding the class of compounds called "endocrine disrupters."
U.S. EPA OSW recognizes that, for many compounds, only limited information is available regarding
potential effects. In addition, for some compounds for which effects have been identified, the relationship
between dose and response may be poorly understood. U.S. EPA OSW advocates that the risk assessment
use the sum of the available toxicological information and evaluate the uncertainty associated with these
issues. As stated previously, toxicity benchmarks and information may change as additional research is
conducted, permitting authorities should consult with the most current information before completing a risk
assessment. Toxicity profiles for many of the compounds typically evaluated in ecological risk assessments
are presented in Appendix H. U.S. EPA OSW prepared these profiles to promote consistency in risk
assessments and to assist the uncertainty analysis.
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering 2-37
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 2: Facility Characterization August 1999
RECOMMENDED INFORMATION FOR RISK ASSESSMENT REPORT
• Complete evaluation of hazardous wastes to be burned in the combustion unit
• Complete evaluation of any raw materials or primary fuels burned in the combustion unit
• Waste analysis procedures used to monitor the composition of hazardous waste feed streams
• Analytical data and calculations used to complete the COPC identification process
2.3.1 Poly chlorinated Dibenzo(p)dioxins and Dibenzofurans
Based on their combustion properties and toxicity, U.S. EPA OSW recommends that PCDDs and PCDFs
should be included in every risk assessment. The general combustion properties and guidance for
addressing toxicity of PCDDs and PCDFs are discussed in the following paragraphs and subsections,
respectively.
One mode in which PCDDs and PCDFs form in dry APCSs is fly ash catalyzed reactions between halogens
and undestroyed organic material from the furnace. PCDDs and PCDFs were first discovered as thermal
decomposition products of polychlorinated compounds, including (1) the herbicide 2,4,5-T,
(2) hexachlorophene, (3) PCBs, (4) pentachlorophenol, and (5) intermediate chemicals used to manufacture
these compounds. In recent years, as chemical analytical methods have become more sensitive, additional
sources of PCDDs and PCDFs have been identified, including (1) effluent from paper mills that use
chlorine bleaches, and (2) combustion sources, including forest fires, municipal waste and medical
incinerators, and hazardous waste combustion units. Duarte-Davidson et al. (1997) noted that the
combustion of chlorine-containing materials in municipal solid waste is responsible for about two-thirds of
the total annual emissions of newly formed TCDDs and TCDFs in the United Kingdom. In the United
States, U.S. EPA (1998a) estimated that emissions of dioxin TEQs from municipal solid waste incinerators
accounted for 37 percent of all emissions of dioxins into the environment in 1995.
PCDDs and PCDFs are formed at these combustion sources from the reaction of chlorine-containing
chemicals and organic matter. Predicting the production of PCDDs and PCDFs in a specific situation is
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering 2-38
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 2: Facility Characterization August 1999
difficult, because dechlorination, which produces PAHs from PCDDs and PCDFs, occurs under similar
conditions. Recent studies (Addink et al. 1996; Environment Canada 1987; Froese and Hutzinger 1996a,
1996b; Gullett et al.1994; Kilgroe et al. 1991; Luijk et al. 1994; Robert 1994) have explored some of these
complexities, including (1) the formation of PCDDs and PCDFs from simple organics (such as ethane) and
complex organics (such as dibenzofuran), and (2) the catalysis of these organic compound reactions by
various common metals, such as copper. Wikstrom et al. (1996) found that the form of chlorine—whether
organic, as with chlorinated solvents, or inorganic, as with bleach and salts—has little effect on the
quantity of PCDDs and PCDFs formed. However, their study found that the total concentration of chlorine
is important. In particular, if the waste being burned exceeds 1 percent chlorine, the PCDD and PCDF
formation rate increases significantly. The formation rate of PCDDs and PCDFs may also depend on the
physical characteristics of the waste feed stream. Solid waste streams or high-ash-content liquid waste feed
streams may increase particulate levels in the combustion system between the combustion unit and the
APCS. The increased particulate levels provide additional surfaces for catalysis reactions to occur.
A review of currently available dioxin data for combustion units reveals that total PCDD/PCDF emission
rates vary by more than 28-fold between different facilities, even though they use similar combustion units
and APCSs (U.S. EPA 1996h). Site-specific emission data are needed to enable completion of a more
refined risk assessment at each combustion unit.
In evaluating fate-and-transport pathways, it is important to consider the chemical and physical properties
of dioxins. In soil, sediment, and the water column, PCDDs and PCDFs are primarily associated with
particulate and organic matter because of their high lipophilicity and low water solubility of the PCDDs
and PCDFs. Evaluation of ambient air monitoring studies, in which researchers evaluated the partitioning
of dioxin-like compounds between the vapor and particle phases, suggests that the higher chlorinated
congeners (the hexa through hepta congeners) were principally sorbed to airborne particulates, whereas the
tetra and penta congeners were significantly, if not predominantly, partitioned to the vapor phase (U.S.
EPA 1994e). This finding is consistent with vapor/particle partitioning as theoretically modeled in
Bidleman (1988). Dioxin-like compounds exhibit little potential for significant leaching or volatilization
after they have been sorbed to particulate matter (U.S. EPA 1994e).
The guidance in Chapter 5 for modeling exposure to a COPC also applies generally to exposure assessment
for PCDDs and PCDFs. However, procedures specific for these compounds should be followed because
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering 2-39
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 2: Facility Characterization August 1999
congener-specific toxicity and bioaccumulation information is limited. As discussed below, exposure of
receptors to PCDDs and PCDFs should be assessed using 2,3,7,8-TCDD toxicity equivalency factors
(TEF) and 2,3,7,8-TCDD bioaccumulation equivalency factors (BEF) to convert the exposure media
concentration of individual congeners to a 2,3,7,8-TCDD Toxicity Equivalent (TEQ).
U.S. EPA OSW is also aware of growing concern regarding the risks resulting from (1) fluorine- and
bromine-substituted dioxins and furans, and (2) sulfur analogs of PCDDs and PCDFs. U.S. EPA guidance
on considering these compounds as potential COPCs is discussed in Section 2.3.1.5.
2.3.1.1 Toxicity Equivalency Factors for PCDDs and PCDFs
There are 210 individual compounds or "congeners" of PCDDs and PCDFs. Evidence indicates that low
levels of PCDD and PCDF congeners adversely affect ecological receptors, especially the
2,3,7,8-substituted congeners (U.S. EPA 1993p; Hodson et al. 1992; Walker and Peterson 1992). The
17 congeners containing chlorine substituents in at least the 2-, 3-, 7-, and 8-ring positions have been found
to display dioxin-like toxicity (U.S. EPA 1993g; 1994h). Therefore, U.S. EPA OSW and other U.S. EPA
guidance (1998; 1993h) recommend that all risk assessments include all PCDDs and PCDFs with chlorine
molecules substituted in the 2,3,7, and 8 positions. In Appendix A, the 17 PCDD and PCDF congeners
that should be evaluated in every risk assessment for potential risk are listed. Any other PCDD and PCDF
congener identified as a COPC should be treated as an uncertainty (see Chapter 6).
As noted above, the toxicity of PCDDs and PCDFs is related to their structure and chlorine substitution
pattern. The 17 listed congeners are known to share a common mechanism of toxicity involving binding to
the Ah-receptor. Planar PCDDs and PCDFs are characteristic for high Ah-receptor affinity. Toxicity is
also related to the chlorine substitution pattern, especially for chlorine atoms in the 2,3,7,8-positions. By
extension, it is assumed that an additivity model may be used to characterize the toxicity of mixtures of
these PCDDs and PCDFs. While these congeners share a similar toxicity mechanism, available
information indicates that the toxicity of these PCDDs and PCDFs is congener-specific, resulting in a wide
range of toxicities (U.S. EPA 1993p, World Health Organization [WHO] 1997). This has resulted in the
development of TEFs for these 17 congeners to convert the exposure media concentration of individual
congeners to a 2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQ; which are widely used to assess the risk of dioxin and dioxin-like
compounds (U.S. EPA 1993p; WHO 1997).
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering 2-40
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 2: Facility Characterization August 1999
The procedure used to assess risk on the basis of the relative toxicity of 2,3,7,8-TCDD, which is assumed
the most toxic dioxin (U.S. EPA 1994f), assigns a TEF value to each congener relative to its toxicity in
relation to 2,3,7,8-TCDD. For example, 2,3,7,8-TCDD has a TEF of 1.0, and the other PCDDs and
PCDFs have TEF values between 0.0 and 1.0. To estimate the exposure media concentration, U.S. EPA
OSW recommends that a risk assessment for PCDDs and PCDFs be completed using the
congener-specific emission rates from the stack and fate and transport properties in the media concentration
equations (see Chapter 3 and Appendix B) and food web equations (see Chapter 5 and Appendix F). For
quantifying risk, the exposure media (e.g., may be sediment for evaluating risk to sediment community
measurement receptors, or it may be the dose of one or more prey species for evaluating risk to
class-specific guild measurement receptors) concentrations of the individual congeners should be converted
to a 2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQ by multiplying by the congener-specific TEFs corresponding to the respective
measurement receptor being evaluated. Use of the TEFs allows for the combined risk resulting from
exposure to a mixture of the 17 dioxin-like congeners to be computed assuming that the risks are additive.
WHO (1997) recently convened a conference to discuss the derivation of TEFs for humans and wildlife.
WHO (1997) discussed the compilation and review of relevant scientific information on the PCDD and
PCDF toxicity to wildlife, and utilized this information to assist in identifying TEFs. The following table
(see Table 2-3) lists congener-specific TEFs reported for fish, mammals, and birds (WHO 1997). U.S.
EPA OSW believes that these conference proceedings reflect the best available information for screening
the ecological risk of PCDDs and PCDFs. However, it should be noted that TEFs based on long term
in-vivo studies should be used when available.
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering 2-41
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 2: Facility Characterization
August 1999
TABLE 2-3
POLYCHLORINATED DIBENZO-P-DIOXIN AND POLYCHLORINATED DIBENZOFURAN CONGENER
TOXICITY EQUIVALENCY FACTORS (TEFs) FOR FISH, MAMMALS, AND BIRDS
Congener
2,3,7,8-TCDD
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD
OCDD
2,3,7,8-TCDF
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF
2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF
2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF
1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF
OCDF
Fish TEF
1.0
1.0
0.5
0.01
0.01
0.001
Not available
0.05
0.05
0.5
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.01
0.01
0.0001
Receptor
Mammal TEF
1.0
1.0
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.01
0.0001
0.1
0.05
0.5
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.01
0.01
0.0001
Bird TEF
1.0
1.0
0.05
0.01
0.1
<0.001a
Not available
1.0
0.1
1.0
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.01
0.01
0.0001
Notes:
For exposure assessment, a value of 0.001, which estimates upper range of true value, should be used.
Toxicity Equivalency Factors for Fish
WHO (1997) reported the review of three scientific studies on the relative overt toxicity of PCDDs and
PCDFs to fish from which TEFs could be determined. These included evaluation of rainbow trout sac fry
mortality after egg injection (Walker and Peterson 1991; Zabel et al. 1995) and evaluation of rainbow trout
sac fry mortality following waterborne exposure (Bol et al. 1989). WHO (1997) concluded that TEFs
from the egg injection studies were more appropriate than the waterborne exposure study. WHO (1997)
U.S. EPA Region 6
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering
U.S. EPA
Office of Solid Waste
2-42
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 2: Facility Characterization August 1999
also noted that since these TEFs were determined from the toxicity of each congener in relation to
concentration in eggs, site-specific differences in exposure and bioavailability, and species-specific
differences in toxicokinetic factors (deposition and metabolism) are accomodated. TEFs for PCDD and
PCDF congeners in fish are presented in Table 2-3.
Toxicity Equivalency Factors for Mammals
Current TEFs for mammals (for evaluating human health risk to PCDDs and PCDFs) are largely based on
studies in rodents. To supplement existing rodent-based TEFs, WHO (1997) discussed a mink
reproductive study (Tillitt et al. 1996) and a study which analyzed available data from mink reproductive
toxicity tests (Leonard et al. 1994). WHO (1997) reported that the relative potencies of PCDD and PCDF
congeners toward mink reproductive toxicity were similar to the rodent models. WHO (1997) also
discussed recent information on in vivo tumor promotion and in vivo ethoxyresorufm-o-deethylase (EROD)
induction potency. However, specific studies reporting this information were not cited. Based on their
review, WHO (1997) reported updated TEFs for mammals, including new values for 1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD,
OCDD, and OCDF. TEFs for PCDD and PCDF congeners in mammals are presented in Table 2-3.
Toxicity Equivalency Factors for Birds
The experimental design of studies on the overt toxicity of PCDDs and PCDFs to birds precluded
determination of the relative potency of these congeners. Other types of studies evaluated included embryo
mortality following egg injection, in vivo biochemical effects following egg injection, biochemical effects in
in vitro systems (Kennedy et al. 1996), and quantitative-structure activity relationship (QSAR) studies
(Tysklind et al. 1995). The reviewed information indicated no significant differences between the TEF
ranges for EROD induction and embryo mortality. Based on these results, WHO (1997) reported TEFs
determined from EROD induction and QSAR studies. TEFs for PCDD and PCDF congeners in birds are
presented in Table 2-3.
2.3.1.2 Exposure Assessment for Community Measurement Receptors
To evaluate exposure of water, sediment, and soil communities to PCDDs and PCDFs, congener-specific
concentrations in the respective media to which the community is exposed should be converted to a
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering 2-43
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 2: Facility Characterization August 1999
2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQ; which allows for direct comparison to 2,3,7,8-TCDD toxicity benchmarks. A
media-secific 2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQ is calculated and used in the exposure assessment because limited
congener-specific toxicity information is available for community receptors (WHO 1997). The
congener-specific concentrations in the media to which the community being evaluated is exposed, should
be calculated consistent with the guidance presented in Chapters 4 and 5, and Appendix F, for assessing
exposure of community measurement receptors to other COPCs. The concentration of each PCDD and
PCDF congener in the media of exposure should then be multiplied by the congener-specific TEF for fish
(see Table 2-3), and summed, to obtain the 2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQ (see Equation 2-3).
TEQ = £(CM • TEF) Equation 2-3
where
TEQ = 2,3,7,8-TCDD toxicity equivalence concentration (jWg/1 [water] or
[soil or sediment])
CMi = Concentration of rth congener in abiotic media (Aig/L [water] or
[soil or sediment])
TEFj = Toxicity equivalency factor (fish) for rth congener (unitless)
U.S. EPA OSW assumes that TEFs for fish accurately reflect the relative toxicity of PCDD and PCDF
congeners to community receptors. This assumption is based on the requirement for congener-specific
TEFs for this analysis, as an alternative to the overly conservative assumption that all congener
concentrations in the media be evaluated directly as 2,3,7,8-TCDD. Evaluation of all congeners directly as
2,3,7,8-TCDD is assumed overly conservative based on the limited evidence of the Ah receptor or
TCDD-like toxicity in invertebrates, and that invertebrates appear to be less sensitive to the toxic effects of
dioxin-like compounds (WHO 1997). For the same reasons, TEF values specific to invertebrate have not
been developed; requiring use of the surrogate TEF values for fish. The reported findings in WHO (1997)
support the use of TEFs, in combination with chemical residue data, for the calculation of TEQ
concentrations in various media, including animal tissues, soil, sediment, and water. However, in relation
to the use of TEFs for abiotic media, it should be noted that the biological meaning of these values is
obscure due to the fact that the assumed biological or toxicological effect is influenced by many
physico-chemical factors before uptake occurs (WHO 1997). Nevertheless, TEF values can be used as
relative measurements of concentrations within media.
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering 2-44
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 2: Facility Characterization August 1999
Use of the TEFs allows for the combined risk resulting from exposure to a mixture of the 17 dioxin-like
congeners to be computed assuming that the risks are additive. As discussed in Chapters 5 and 6, risk to
the water, sediment, or soil community being evaluated is then subsequently estimated by comparing the
media-specific 2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQ to the corresponding media-specific toxicity benchmark for
2,3,7,8-TCDD.
2.3.1.3 Exposure Assessment for Class-Specific Guild Measurement Receptors
To evaluate the exposure of class-specific guilds to PCDDs and PCDFs, congener-specific daily doses of
all food items (i.e., media, plants, and animals) ingested by a measurement receptor should be converted to
a 2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQ daily dose (DDTE<^); which allows for direct comparison to 2,3,7,8-TCDD toxicity
benchmarks. The congener-specific daily doses of food items ingested by a measurement receptor should
be calculated consistent with the guidance presented in Chapters 4 and 5, and Appendix F, for assessing
exposure of class-specific guild measurement receptors to other COPCs. This includes the use of
congener-specific media concentrations, congener-specific bioconcentration factors (BCF), and
congener-specific food chain multipliers (FCM). The daily dose of each PCDD and PCDF congener
ingested by a measurement receptor should then be multiplied by the congener-specific TEFs (see
Table 2-3) that correspond to the respective measurement receptor, and summed, to obtain the DDTEQ. Use
of the TEFs allows for the combined risk resulting from exposure to a mixture of the 17 dioxin-like
congeners to be computed assuming that the risks are additive. Following the general guidance provided in
Chapters 5 and 6, risk to the class-specific guild being evaluated is then subsequently estimated by
comparing the dose ingested term (represented by DDTEQ) of the measurement receptor to the receptor
specific toxicity benchmark for 2,3,7,8-TCDD.
The DDTEQ for each measurement receptor should be determined as indicated in the following equation:
DDTEQ = , DD, ' TEF(MeaSurementReceptor) Equation 2-4
where
DDTEQ = Daily dose of 2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQ 0/g/kg BW/d)
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering 2-45
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 2: Facility Characterization _ August 1999
= Daily dose of rth congener (jWg/kg BW/d)
TEF = Toxicity equivalency factor (specific to measurement receptor) (unitless)
As noted above, the congener-specific daily doses ingested by the measurement receptor should be
determined following guidance in Chapter 5 and using equations in Appendix F. These equations include
the use of congener-specific BCF and FCM values. As discussed in Section 23.1 A, the limited availability
of congener-specific BCFs requires that media to receptor BCF values for 2,3,7,8-TCDD be utilized in
conjunction with congener-specific BEF values to obtain estimated congener-specific BCF values. The
estimation of congener-specific BCFs and their resulting numeric values are further discussed in
Appendicies C and D. Calculation of a congener-specific daily dose also requires the use of
congener-specific FCMs. Guidance on the appropriate use ofFCMs in modeling exposure and
congener-specific values are provided in Chapter 5 and Appendix A-2, respectively.
2.3.1.4 Bioaccumulation Equivalency Factors
As discussed in Section 2.3.1.3, modeling the exposure of PCDD and PCDF congeners through the food
web requires the quantification of bioaccumulation potential. However, similar to the limited availability of
congener-specific toxicity information, measured bioaccumulation data specific to each congener is also
limited. Therefore, for use with TEFs in the development of wildlife water quality criteria for the Great
Lakes, U.S. EPA (1995J) developed bioaccumulation equivalency factors (BEFs) as a measure of a
congeners bioaccumulation potential relative to 2,3,7,8-TCDD. As indicated in Equation 2-5, BEFs are
estimated as a ratio between each PCDD and PCDF congener-specific BASFto that of 2,3,7,8-TCDD
(Lodge et al. 1994; U.S. EPA 1995J).
BSAFt
BEF' = TT7T7 Equation 2-5
' TCDD
where
= Bioaccumulation equivalency factor for rth congener (unitless)
BSAFj = Biota-sediment accumulation factor for rth congener (unitless)
BSAFTCDD = Biota-sediment accumulation factor for 2,3,7,8-TCDD
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering 2-46
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 2: Facility Characterization August 1999
BEF values reported by U.S. EPA (1995k) for the 17 PCDD and PCDF congeners are provided in
Table 2-4. Although developed based on concentration data of PCDDs and PCDFs in sediment and
surface water for application ofTEFs in fish, U.S. EPA OSW assumes that these BEFs are applicable to
other pathways and receptors. The estimation of PCDD and PCDF congener-specific BCF values using
BEFs is indicated in Equation 2-5. Further discussion and resulting numeric values for congener-specific
BCFs are provided in Appendicies C and D.
BCFt = BCFTCDD • BEFt Equation 2-6
where
BCFt = Media-to-animal or media-to-plant bioconcentration factor for rth
congener (L/kg [water], unitless [soil and sediment])
BCFTCDD = Media-to-receptor BCF for 2,3,7,8-TCDD (L/kg [aquatic receptor],
unitless [soil and sediment receptor])
= Bioaccumulation equivalency factor for rth congener (unitless)
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering 2-47
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 2: Facility Characterization
August 1999
TABLE 2-4
PCDD AND PCDF BIO AC CUMULATION EQUIVALENCY FACTORS (BEFs)
PCDD Congener
2,3,7,8-TCDD
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD
OCDD
Bioaccumulation
Equivalency Factor
(unitless)
1.0
0.92
0.31
0.12
0.14
0.051
0.012
PCDF Congener
2,3,7,8-TCDF
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF
2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF
2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF
1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF
OCDF
Bioaccumulation
Equivalency Factor
(unitless)
0.80
0.22
1.6
0.076
0.19
0.67
0.63
0.011
0.39
0.016
Source:
U.S. EPA 1995k
2.3.1.5 Fluorine, Bromine, and Sulfur PCDD/PCDF Analogs
U.S. EPA (U.S. EPA 19961; 1996m) is currently evaluating the potential for the formation of (1) fluorine-
and bromine-substituted dioxins and furans, and (2) sulfur analogs of PCDDs and PCDFs. Available
information indicates that fluorinated dioxins and furans are not likely to be formed as PICs; however, the
presence of free fluorine in the combustion gases may increase the formation of chlorinated dioxins
(U.S. EPA 19961). U.S. EPA OSW is not aware of any studies conducted to evaluate this relationship.
Available information indicates the potential for the formation of brominated or chlorobrominated dioxins
(U.S. EPA 1996d).
Although chlorinated dibenzothiophenes (the sulfur analogs of dibenzofurans) have been reported to form,
no information is available to indicate the formation of chlorinated dioxin thioethers (the sulfur analogs of
dibenzofp]dioxins) (U.S. EPA 19961). This may be because the carbon-oxygen bond is stronger than the
carbon-sulfur bond, and the compound furan (which is part of the dibenzofuran structure) is more stable
than thiophene (which is part of the dibenzothiophene structure) (U.S. EPA 1996n). Another possible
U.S. EPA Region 6
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering
U.S. EPA
Office of Solid Waste
2-48
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 2: Facility Characterization August 1999
reason that chlorinated dioxin thioethers have not been observed is the potential instability of these
compounds, which contain two carbon-sulfur bonds in the central ring of the structure (U.S. EPA 19961).
The likelihood of the formation or associated toxicity of these compounds is not currently well understood.
Therefore, a quantitative toxicity assessment of fluorine, bromine, and sulfur analogs is not required for
inclusion in the risk assessment report. Instead, the uncertainty section of the risk assessment report should
discuss the potential for the formation of these analogs. It should be noted that there is currently no U.S.
EPA approved method for the sampling or analysis of these dioxin analogs. The use of the method for total
organics (see Section 2.2.1.3) is currently recommended to account for the potential presence of these
compounds.
TEF values for brominated dioxins or furans have not been developed (U.S. EPA 1994e; WHO 1997).
However, the toxicity of bromo- and chlorobromo-substituted dioxin analogs is comparable to that of
chlorinated dioxins in short-term toxicity assays (U.S. EPA 1996m).
RECOMMENDED INFORMATION FOR RISK ASSESSMENT REPORT
• Description of any combustion unit-specific operating conditions that may contribute to the
formation of dioxins
• Any facility specific sampling information regarding PCDD and PCDF concentrations in air,
soil, sediment, water, or biota
• Information regarding the concentration of sulfur, fluorine, and bromine in the combustion
unit feed materials
2.3.2 Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons
Based on their combustion properties and toxicity, U.S. EPA OSW recommends that PAHs be included in
every risk assessment. The following are commonly detected PAHs: benzo(a)pyrene (BaP);
benzo(a)anthracene; benzo(b)fluoranthene; benzo(k)fluoranthene; chrysene; dibenz(a,h)anthracene; and
indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene. The general combustion properties and guidance for addressing toxicity of PAHs
are discussed in the following paragraph and subsection, respectively.
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering 2-49
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 2: Facility Characterization August 1999
PAHs are readily formed in combustion units by either (1) dechlorination of other PAHs present in the
waste feed or emissions stream (such as dioxins), or (2) the reaction of simple aromatic compounds
(benzene or toluene) present in the waste feed or emissions stream. PAHs are well-known as the principal
organic components of emissions from all combustion sources, including coal fires (soot), wood fires,
tobacco smoke ("tar"), diesel exhaust, and refuse burning (Sandmeyer 1981). They are generally the only
chemicals of concern in particulate matter (Manahan 1991), although the presence of metals and other
inorganics in the waste feed can add other contaminants of concern. Therefore, based on the toxicity and
combustion chemistry of PAHs, the absence of these compounds from stack emissions should always be
confirmed via stack gas testing.
2.3.2.1 Exposure Assessment for PAHs
U.S EPA OSW recommends that individual PAH compounds be modeled from the emission source to
media (i.e., soil, surface water, soil) and plants, using compound-specific emission rates and fate and
transport properties, as required in the media concentration equations (see Chapter 3 and Appendix B).
Evaluation of exposure of community and class-specific guild measurement receptors to individual PAHs,
should be conducted consistent with guidance provided in Chapters 4 and 5, and utilizing equations in
Appendix F.
2.3.3 Polychlorinated Biphenyls
The use and distribution of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) were severely restricted in the United States
in the late 1970s—with additional bans and restrictions taking effect over the next decade (ATSDR 1995d).
PCBs were produced commercially by the reaction of the aromatic hydrocarbon biphenyl with chlorine gas
in the presence of a suitable catalyst, generally ferric chloride or another Lewis acid (ATSDR 1995d). The
degree of chlorination was controlled by manipulation of the reaction conditions, including temperature,
pressure, and the ratio of the reactants (Erickson 1992; Grayson 1985).
The most commercially useful property of PCBs is that they are chemically stable in relatively adverse
conditions, such as a temperature of several hundred degrees in an oxygen-containing atmosphere; the
more chlorinated congeners are more resistant to reaction. Therefore, destruction of PCBs by combustion
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering 2-50
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 2: Facility Characterization August 1999
generally requires conditions of high temperatures (at least 1,200 °C) and an extended contact time (more
than 2 seconds) in that temperature with adequate oxygen (Erickson 1992).
Limited data and studies, including laboratory and field, show that PCBs may be formed from the
combustion of hazardous waste. Stack tests performed in U.S. EPA Region 10 on a boiler and an
incinerator burning waste with 0.07 and 1.4 percent chlorine, respectively, confirmed the presence of PCBs
in the stack gases (Kalama Chemical, Inc. 1996; Idaho National Engineering Laboratory 1997). The
concentration of detected coplanar PCBs (see definition in Section 2.3.3.1) found in the boiler stack gas
was 0.55 ng/dscm @ 7% O2 at low temperature conditions (1,357° F) and 1.12 ng/dscm @ 7% O2 at high
temperature conditions (1,908° F). The concentration of total PCBs detected in the incinerator stack gas
was 211 ng/dscm @ 7% O2 at low temperature conditions (1,750 °F) and 205 ng/dscm @ 7% O2 at high
temperature conditions (2,075 ° F). PCBs with more than four chlorines comprised 51 percent of the total
PCBs in the low temperature test and 59 percent of the total PCBs in the high temperature test.
Other laboratory studies suggest the possible formation of PCBs as PICs from the combustion of
hazardous waste with a high chlorine content. Bergman et al. (1984) heated samples of two chlorinated
paraffins (CP) in conditions similar to incinerator conditions. A CP containing 70 percent chlorine did
produce PCB (up to 0.3 percent of the amount of CP), as well as chlorinated benzenes (up to 0.5 percent),
chlorinated toluenes (up to 0.6 percent), and chlorinated naphthalenes (up to 0.2 percent). Similar
treatment of a CP containing 59 percent chlorine produced only chlorinated benzenes (up to 0.1 percent of
the amount of CP, based on a detection limit of 0.0005 percent for each individual compound) and almost
all of those (about 90 percent) were monochlorobenzene (Bergman et al. 1984). This study indicates that
the combustion of highly chlorinated (60 percent or greater chlorine) wastes can produce PCBs.
PCBs should automatically be included as COPCs for combustion units that burn PCB-contaminated
wastes or waste oils, highly variable waste streams such as municipal and commercial wastes for which
PCB contamination is reasonable, and highly chlorinated waste streams.
Due to the toxicity and uncertainties associated with combustion chemistries the permitting authority may
choose to confirm that the absence of these compounds from stack emissions via stack gas testing for units
burning hazardous wastes.
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering 2-51
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 2: Facility Characterization August 1999
2.3.3.1 Exposure Assessment for PCBs
Previous U.S. EPA combustion risk assessment guidance (1994b; 1994d; 1994c; 19941) has recommended
that all PCB congeners (209 different chemicals) be treated in a risk assessment as a mixture having a
single toxicity. This recommendation was based on the U.S. EPA drinking water criteria for PCBs (U.S.
EPA 1988).
However, since the compilation of U.S. EPA (1988), additional research on PCBs has been reported. The
most important result of this research is the demonstration that some of the moderately chlorinated PCB
congeners can have dioxin-like effects (U.S. EPA 1992f; U.S. EPA 1994i; ATSDR 1995d; WHO 1997).
WHO (1997) recently convened a conference to discuss the derivation ofTEFs for humans and wildlife.
Conference participants discussed the compilation and review of relevant scientific information on the PCB
toxicity to wildlife, and utilized this information to assist in identifying TEFs for congeners that can have
dioxin-like effects. U.S. EPA OSW believes that these conference proceedings reflect the best available
information for screening the ecological risk of PCBs. The following table (see Table 2-5) lists PCB TEFs
reported for fish, mammals, and birds (WHO 1997).
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering 2-52
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 2: Facility Characterization
August 1999
TABLE 2-5
PCB CONGENER TOXICITY EQUIVALENCY FACTORS (TEFs) FOR FISH, MAMMALS, AND BIRDS
PCB Congener
3,4,4',5-TCB
3,3',4,4'-TCB
3,3',4,4',5-PeCB
3,3',4,4',5,5'-HxCB
2,3,3',4,4-PeCB
2,3,4,4',5-PeCB
2,3',4,4',5-PeCB
2',3,4,4',5-PeCB
2,3,3',4,4',5-HxCB
2,3,3',4,4',5-HxCB
2,3',4,4',5,5'-HxCB
2,3,3',4,4',5,5'-HpCB
2,2',3,3',4,4',5'-HpCB
2,2',3,4,4',5,5'-HpCB
Receptor
Fish TEF
0.0005
0.0001
0.005
0.00005
<0.000005
<0.000005
<0.000005
<0.000005
<0.000005
<0.000005
0.000005
<0.000005
Not Available
Not Available
Mammals TEF
0.0001
0.0001
0.1
0.01
0.0001
0.0005
0.0001
0.0001
0.0005
0.0005
0.00001
0.0001
Not Available
Not Available
Birds TEF
0.1
0.05
0.1
0.001
0.0001
0.0001
0.00001
0.00001
0.0001
0.0001
0.00001
0.00001
Not Available
Not Available
Source: WHO (1997)
The listed congeners have four or more chlorine atoms with few substitutions in the ortho positions
(positions designated 2, 2', 6, or 6). They are sometimes referred to as coplanar PCBs, because the rings
can rotate into the same plane if not blocked from rotation by ortho-substituted chlorine atoms. In this
configuration, the shape of the PCB molecule is very similar to that of a PCDF molecule. Studies have
shown that these dioxin-like congeners can then react with the aryl hydrocarbon receptor; this same
reaction is believed to initiate the adverse effects of PCDDs and PCDFs. Additional congeners are
suspected of producing similar reactions, but there is not yet enough data to derive TEF values for them.
U.S. EPA Region 6
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering
U.S. EPA
Office of Solid Waste
2-53
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 2: Facility Characterization August 1999
High resolution gas chromatograph test methods (e.g., draft Method 1668), available at most commercial
laboratories with dioxin/ftiran analytical capabilities, should be used to identify the specific concentration
of individual coplanar PCBs in stack gas. U.S. EPA OSW recommends that permitting authorities
estimate risks to community and class-specific guild measurement receptors from coplanar PCBs by
computing a TEQ for PCBs, and then comparing to the appropriate toxicity benchmark for 2,3,7,8-TCDD.
The specific guidance, provided in Sections 2.3.1.2 and 2.3.1.2 for evaluating exposure to PCDDs and
PCDFs, should be followed in evaluating exposure to dioxin-like PCBs. However, TEF values listed in
Table 2-5 should be utilized in the TEQ calculations. Also, since congener-specific fate and transport and
bioaccumulation data are not available for each of the PCBs listed in Table 2-5, U.S. EPA OSW
recommends that the fate and transport properties for Aroclor 1254 be used in the modeling. This
approach is reasonable because approximately 77 percent of Aroclor 1254 is composed of PCB congeners
with more than 4 chlorines (Hutzinger et al. 1974).
In addition to the coplanar (dioxin-like) PCB congeners, the remaining PCBs should also be evaluated in
the risk assessment consistent with the guidance provided in Chapters 4 and 5. When evaluating PCB
mixtures containing isomers with more than 4 chlorines in quantities greater than 0.5 percent of the total
PCBs, U.S. EPA OSW recommends that the fate and transport properties for Aroclor 1254 be used in the
modeling. As discussed above for evaluating coplanar PCBs, this approach is reasonable because
approximately 77 percent of Aroclor 1254 is composed of PCB congeners with more than 4 chlorines
(Hutzinger et al. 1974). When assessing risks from PCB mixtures which contain less than 0.5 percent of
PCB congeners with more than 4 chlorines, U.S. EPA OSW recommends that the fate and transport
properties of Aroclor 1016 be used in the modeling. This approach is reasonable because approximately
99 percent of Aroclor 1016 is comprised of PCB congeners with 4 or less chlorines (Hutzinger et al. 1974).
2.3.4 Nitroaromatics
Careful consideration should be made before the automatic inclusion of nitroaromatic organic compounds,
including 1,3-dinitrobenzene; 2,4-dinitrotoluene; 2,6-dinitrotoluene; nitrobenzene; and
pentachloronitrobenzene, in risk assessments for combustion units. These compounds or close relatives
(such as toluenediamine [TDA] and toluene diisocyanate [TDI]—derivatives of dinitrotoluene) are typically
associated with explosives and other highly nitrogenated hazardous wastes. Dinitrotoluene is used to make
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering 2-54
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 2: Facility Characterization August 1999
two products: trinitrotoluene and TDA. TDA is, in turn, used to make TDI, which readily reacts with
water and is, therefore, very unstable at ambient conditions; TDI is typically reacted with a polyol to form
polyurethane (PU) plastics.
Combustion properties of these nitroaromatic compounds indicate that they will not be formed as PICs if
they are not present in the waste feed stream, mainly because of the thermodynamic and chemical difficulty
of adding a nitro group to an aromatic. The process requires that (1) nitronium ions be generated, and
(2) an aromatic ring be reacted with the nitronium ion, resulting in the attachment of the nitronium ion to
the ring. This reaction process is not likely to occur in a hazardous waste combustion unit because (1) the
reaction is typically carried out by using a "nitrating acid" solution consisting of three parts concentrated
nitric acid to one part sulfuric acid, and (2) nitronium ions are not usually formed in a combustion unit
environment (if they are, a further thermodynamically favorable reaction will occur, thereby eliminating the
nitronium ion) (Hoggett et al. 1971; Schofield 1980; March 1985).
Nitroaromatics should be included as COPCs if the hazardous waste feed streams include nitroaromatic
compounds or close relatives (TDA and TDI). Also, combustion of feed streams containing unusually high
amounts of fuel-bound nitrogen (greater than 5 percent) may lead to increased levels of nitrogenated PICs
(U.S. EPA 1994c). Examples of waste feeds identified include heavy distillation fractions and bottoms
streams from the production of coal tars and petroleum distillation. Combustion conditions most likely to
result in nitrogenated PICs are associated with premature quenching of the primary flame—resulting from
low temperature or excess air in the primary combustion chamber of the unit (U.S. EPA 1994c). Sampling
for hydrogen cyanide is also recommended (U.S. EPA 1994c).
2.3.5 Phthalates
Careful consideration should be made before the automatic inclusion of phthalates, including
bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (BEHP) and di(n)octyl phthalate (DNOP), in risk assessments for combustion
units. Among all phthalate plasticizers, BEHP—also referred to as di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate or dioctyl
phthalate)—is produced in the largest volume; it is used in the manufacturing of polyvinyl chloride, which
is the most widely produced plastic. DNOP is a plasticizer that is produced in large volumes and is used in
the manufacture of plastics and rubber materials. Because plastics have become so widely used in society,
phthalate plasticizers such as BEHP and DNOP have become widely distributed in food, water, and the
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering 2-55
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 2: Facility Characterization August 1999
atmosphere (Howard 1990). Phthalate plasticizers are commonly found in the environment and are
practically impossible to avoid, especially at the trace concentrations that modern analyses can detect.
Phthalates are synthesized by reacting alcohol with phthalic anhydride in the presence of an acidic catalyst
in a nonaqueous solvent (ATSDR 1993; ATSDR 1995b). Phthalates and their predecessors are readily
combusted compounds, as indicated by their flash points of 150 to 225 °C (NIOSH 1994). There is no
apparent mechanism for phthalate PICs to be formed by the combustion of other chemical compounds.
Therefore, phthalates are very unlikely to be emissions from a combustion unit, although some degradation
products, such as PAHs, are likely to be emitted when phthalates are included in the waste feed. However,
facilities that burn plastics or materials with phthalate plasticizers should carefully consider the potential
for phthalate plasticizers to exist in the stack gas emissions due to incomplete combustion.
The evaluation of phthalate plasticizers in risk assessments should not be automatically discounted due to
the toxicity and biaccumulative potential of these compounds. Moreover, the uncertainties associated with
combustion chemistry suggest that the absence of these compounds from stack emissions should always be
confirmed via stack gas testing rather than process knowledge or waste feed characterization data. U.S.
EPA OSW recommends that careful consideration should be given to including phthalates as COPCs based
on the information presented above.
2.3.6 Hexachlorobenzene and Pentachlorophenol
Careful consideration should be made before the automatic inclusion of hexachlorobenzene and
pentachlorophenol in risk assessments for combustion units. Hexachlorobenzene and pentachlorophenol,
like all chlorinated aromatics, are synthesized by the reaction of elemental chlorine with the parent aromatic
(Deichmann and Keplinger 1981; Grayson 1985). The addition of the first chlorine atom to the benzene or
phenol molecule is rapid, but further chlorination becomes progressively more difficult, requiring ferric
chloride or another Lewis acid catalyst to complete the reaction (March 1985); therefore, these chlorinated
compounds are difficult to make under controlled conditions. Hexachlorobenzene, but not
pentachlorophenol, has been reported in emissions from the combustion of municipal solid waste and from
other processes (such as the chlorination of wood pulp) that also produce PCDDs and PCDFs (ATSDR
1994a; ATSDR 1994b). Hexachlorobenzene is an impurity in pentachlorophenol while pentachlorophenol
is formed from hexachlorobenzene in some factories (ATSDR 1994a; ATSDR 1994b). The combustion
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering 2-56
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 2: Facility Characterization August 1999
properties of these chlorinated compounds indicate that they are not likely to be formed as PICs if they are
not present in the waste feed stream.
Hexachlorobenzene and pentachlorophenol should be included as COPCs for units that burn waste feeds
containing hexachlorobenzene and pentachlorophenol, wood preservatives, pesticides, and highly variable
waste streams such as municipal solid waste. However, precluding these compounds from analytical
testing during the trial burn based on process knowledge and waste feed characterization is not
recommended. Because PCDDs and PCDFs can be formed from fly ash-catalyzed reactions between
halogens and undestroyed organic material from the furnace, U.S. EPA guidance (U.S. EPA 1993h; 1994d)
has recommended that potential precursor compounds be included in the risk assessment and trial burn (see
Section 2.3). These precursor compounds may include chlorinated phenols (such as pentachlorophenol)
and chlorinated aromatics (such as hexachlorobenzene). Furthermore, the toxicity and uncertainties
associated with combustion chemistry suggest that the absence of these compounds from stack emissions
should always be confirmed via stack gas testing. U.S. EPA OSW recommends that careful consideration
should be given to including hexachlorobenzene and pentachlorophenol as COPCs based on the
information presented above.
2.3.7 Metals
U.S. EPA OSW recommends that the following inorganic substances be considered for evaluation in the
risk assessment: aluminum, antimony, arsenic, barium, beryllium, cadmium, hexavalent chromium, copper,
lead, mercury (elemental and divalent), nickel, selenium, silver, thallium, and zinc. All of these substances,
except aluminum, copper, nickel, selenium, and zinc, are regulated by 40 CFR Part 266, Subpart H (the
BIF regulations). In the case of metals not regulated by the BIF regulations, U.S. EPA has recommended
that these metals be evaluated, to determine whether additional terms and conditions should be incorporated
into the permit, by using U.S. EPA's omnibus authority provided under 40 CFR Part 270.32(b)(2) (U.S.
EPA 1992c). Facilities may also apply the BIF regulation Tier I assumptions, that assume all metals in the
waste feed pass through the combustion unit and APCS and are passed through to the emission stream
(U.S. EPA 1992e).
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering 2-57
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 2: Facility Characterization August 1999
It should be noted, that the presence of metals in the combustion unit's feed stream is not required for
inclusion in the risk assessment. Although metals cannot be formed as PICs, U.S. EPA OSW is aware of
combustion units with metal emissions resulting from waste feed leaching of stainless steel feed piping.
RECOMMENDED INFORMATION FOR RISK ASSESSMENT REPORT
Waste feed, raw material, and secondary fuel stream analytical data
Metal emission rate sampling data or assumptions based on waste feed data
Explanations for excluding specific metals from evaluation in the risk assessment
The following subsections provide additional information regarding U.S. EPA-recommended procedures for
evaluating metals—chromium, mercury, and nickel—that may be specifically altered during the
combustion process or require specific considerations in the risk assessment.
2.3.7.1 Chromium
The oxidation state of chromium is a crucial issue in evaluating the toxicity of this metal and the risks
associated with exposure. Hexavalent chromium (Cr+6) is the most toxic valence state of chromium.
Trivalent chromium (Cr+3), a commonly found less oxidized and toxic form of chromium, is more
commonly found in the environment. U.S. EPA (1990c; 1990d) has indicated that chromium emitted from
a combustion unit is not likely to be in the hexavalent form; however, there is not sufficient evidence to
reliably estimate the partitioning of chromium emissions into these two valence states. Also,
media-specific chromium speciation information is often difficult to obtain within the scope of a screening
risk assessment. However, U.S. EPA OSW recognizes that chromium may exist partially or in some cases
entirely as trivalent chromium in various media. Therefore, unless site-sampling or process-specific
information is provided to support a less conservative approach, the worst-case assumption—that
100 percent of the facility chromium emissions are in the hexavalent form—should be used as the initial
assumption that all exposure is to hexavalent chromium.
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering 2-58
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 2: Facility Characterization August 1999
The assumption that receptors are exposed to hexavalent chromium should be maintained in the absence of
site specific data. However, permitting authorities may prepare supplemental calculations (that is, in
addition to the site-specific data described above) considering chromium speciation at the points of
potential exposure.
2.3.7.2 Mercury
Consistent with previous U.S. EPA combustion risk assessment guidance (U.S. EPA 1993h, 1994d, 1994c,
19941), U.S. EPA OSW recommends that mercury be evaluated as COPCs in the risk assessment. Air
emissions of mercury contribute to local, regional, and global deposition. The U.S. Congress explicitly
found this to be the case and required U.S. EPA to prioritize maximum achievable control technology
(MACT) controls for mercury (U.S. Congress 1989).
Anthropogenic mercury releases are thought to be dominated on the national scale by industrial processes
and combustion sources that release mercury into the atmosphere (U.S. EPA 1997b). Stack emissions
containing mercury include both vapor and particulate forms. Vapor mercury emissions are thought to
include both elemental (Hg°) and oxidized (e.g., Hg+2) chemical species, while particulate mercury
emissions are thought to be composed primarily of oxidized compounds due to the relatively high vapor
pressure of elemental mercury (U.S. EPA 1997b). While coal combustion is responsible for more than
half of all emissions of mercury in the U.S. anthropogenic sources, the fraction of coal combustion
emissions in oxidized form is thought to be less that from waste incineration and combustion (U.S. EPA
1997b).
The analytical methods for mercury speciation of exit vapors and emission plumes are being refined, and
there is still controversy in this field. Chemical reactions occurring in the emission plume are also possible.
The speciation of mercury emissions is thought to depend on the fuel used, flue gas cleaning, and operating
temperatures. The exit stream is thought to range from almost all divalent mercury to nearly all elemental
mercury; with true speciation of mercury emissions from the various source types still uncertain and
thought to vary, not only among source types, but also for individual plants as feed stock and operating
conditions change (U.S. EPA 1997b). Most of the total mercury emitted at the stack outlet is found in the
vapor phase; although exit streams containing soot or particulate can bind up some fraction of the mercury
(U.S. EPA 1997b). Total mercury exiting the stack is assumed to consist of elemental and divalent species,
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering 2-59
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 2: Facility Characterization August 1999
with no emissions of methylmercury assumed. The divalent fraction is split between vapor and
particle-bound phases (Lindqvist et al. 1991). Much of the divalent mercury is thought to be mercuric
chloride (HgCl2) (U.S. EPA 1997b); this is particularly the case for the combustion of wastes containing
chlorine.
It should be noted that data on mercury speciation in emissions exiting the stack is very limited, as well as,
the behavior of mercury emissions close to the point of release has not been extensively studied. This
results in a significant degree of uncertainty implicit in modeling of mercury emissions. Additional
examples of uncertainties include the precision of measurement techniques, estimates of pollution control
efficiency, limited data specific to source class and activity level. Discussions of uncertainty and sensitivity
analyses of several of the assumptions used in the modeling of mercury emissions are presented in the
Mercury Study Report to Congress (U.S. EPA 1997b).
Phase Allocation and Speciation of Mercury Exiting the Stack
As discussed above, stack emissions are thought to include both vapor and particle-bound forms; and
speciated as both divalent and elemental mercury. Based on review of mercury emissions data presented
for combustion sources in U.S. EPA (1997b) and published literature (Peterson et al. 1995), estimates for
the percentage of vapor and particle-bound mercury emissions range widely from 20 to 80 percent.
Therefore, at this time U.S. EPA OSW recommends a conservative approach that assumes phase allocation
of mercury emissions from hazardous waste combustion of 80 percent of the total mercury in the vapor
phase and 20 percent of total mercury in the particle-bound phase. This allocation is:
• Consistent with mercury emissions speciation data for hazardous waste combustion
sources reported in literature (Peterson et al. 1995); and
• Believed to be reasonably conservative, since it results in the highest percentage of total
mercury being deposited in proximity to the source, and therefore, indicative of the
maximum exposure.
As indicated in the global cycle mass percentages in Figure 2-4, mercury exits the stack in both the
elemental and divalent vapor forms. Based on U.S. EPA (1997b), a vast majority of mercury exiting the
stack does not readily deposit and is transported outside of the U.S. or vertically diffused to the free
atmosphere to become part of the global cycle (see Figure 2-4). The divalent form emitted, either in the
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering 2-60
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 2: Facility Characterization August 1999
vapor phase or particle-bound, are thought to be subject to much faster atmospheric removal than elemental
mercury (Lindberg et al. 1992; Peterson et al. 1995; and Shannon and Voldner 1994). In addition, vapor
phase divalent mercury is thought to be more rapidly and effectively removed by both dry and wet
deposition than particle-bound divalent mercury, as a result of the reactivity and water solubility of vapor
divalent mercury (Lindberg et al. 1992; Peterson et al. 1995; and Shannon and Voldner 1994).
Vapor Phase Mercury
As illustrated in Figure 2-4, of the 80 percent total mercury in the vapor phase, 20 percent of the total
mercury is in the elemental vapor form and 60 percent of the total mercury is in the divalent vapor form
(Peterson et al. 1995). A vast majority (assumed to be 99 percent) of the 20 percent vapor phase elemental
mercury does not readily deposit and is transported outside of the U.S. or is vertically diffused to the free
atmosphere to become part of the global cycle (U.S. EPA 1997b). Only a small fraction (assumed to be
one percent) of vapor-phase elemental mercury either is adsorbed to particulates in the air and is deposited
or converted to the divalent form to be deposited (assumed to be deposited as elemental mercury, see
Figure 2-4). Of the 60 percent vapor phase divalent mercury, about 68 percent is deposited and about
32 percent is transported outside of the U.S. or is vertically diffused to the free atmosphere to become part
of the global cycle (U.S. EPA 1997b).
Particle-bound Mercury
Of the 20 percent of the total mercury that is particle-bound, 99 percent (assumed to be 100 percent in
Figure 2-4) is in the divalent form. U.S. EPA (1997b) indicates that only 36 percent of the particle-bound
divalent mercury is deposited, and the rest is either transported outside of the U.S. or is vertically diffused
to the free atmosphere to become part of the global cycle.
Deposition and Modeling of Mercury
Consistent with U.S. EPA (1997b) and as shown in Figure 2-4, it is assumed that deposition to the various
environmental media is entirely divalent mercury in either the vapor or particle-bound form. Without
consideration of the global cycle, mercury speciations will result in 80 percent of the total mercury emitted
being deposited as divalent mercury and the remaining 20 percent being deposited as elemental mercury.
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering 2-61
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 2: Facility Characterization
August 1999
FIGURE 2-4
PHASE ALLOCATION AND SPECIATION
OF MERCURY IN AIR
Total Mercury Emissions
Existing Stack Into Air
[10.0 gj
• 80% Vapor Phase (or 0.8)
• 20% Particle Bound Phase
Fv (Total Mercury) = 0.8
LEGEND
Hg° -Elemental Mercury
Hg*+ - Divalent Mercury
[ ] - Example Mass Allocation
Without Consideration of Global Cycle
• 80% of Total Mercury Emitted
is Deposited as Hg+ [(6g + 2g)/10gJ
• 20% of Total Mercury Emitted
is Deposited as Hi [2g / lOgJ
Calculated^
*) = [6g / (6g +2g)] = ft 75
^) = [2g/2g] = 1.0
[0.020g]
> 1% Depositedas HgVapor
[1.980g]
> 99% Enters Global Cycle as Hg Vapor
[4.080g]
68% Deposited as Hg+ Vapor
[1.920g]
> 32% Enters Global Cycle as Hg
[0.720g]
> B6% Deposited as Hg^+Parttculate
[1.280g]
> 64% Enters Global Cycle as Hg+ Particulate
With Consideration of Global Cycle
• 48% of Total Mercury Emitted
is Deposited as H^ [(4. 08g + 0. 72g) /IQgJ
• 0.2% of Total Mercury Emitted
is Deposited as Hg [0. 02g / IQgJ
Calculate
) = [4.08g/(4.08g + 0.72g)] = 0.85
[0. 02g / (0. 02g + Og)J = 1.0
Compound Specific Emission Rate O
•Actual Q (Hg*) = 48% * Q (Total Mercury)
•Actual Q (Hg) = 0.2% * Q (Total Mercury
U.S. EPA Region 6
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering
U.S. EPA
Office of Solid Waste
2-62
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 2: Facility Characterization August 1999
U.S. EPA OSW recommends utilizing the percentages provided in U.S. EPA (1997b) to account for the
global cycle, the percentage of total mercury deposited is reduced to a total of 48.2 percent (40.8 percent as
divalent vapor, 7.2 percent as divalent particle-bound, and 0.2 percent as elemental vapor). As discussed in
Appendix A-2, these speciation splits result in fraction in vapor phase (Fv) values of 0.85 (40.8/48.2) for
divalent mercury, and 1.0 (0.2/0.2) for elemental mercury. Also, to account for the remaining 51.8 percent of
the total mercury mass that is not deposited, the deposition and media concentration equations (presented in
Appendix B), multiply the compound-specific emission rate (0 for elemental mercury by a default value of
0.002; and divalent mercury by a default value of 0.48.
Consistent with U.S. EPA (1997b) and as shown in Figure 2-4, it is assumed that deposition to the various
environmental media is entirely divalent mercury in either the vapor or particle-bound form. Deposited
divalent mercury is also considered as a source of methyl mercury, which is assumed as a media-specific
percentage of the total mercury deposited.
Also, only a small fraction (assumed to be one percent) of elemental mercury is in the vapor phase and is
assumed to be deposited in its original form. Therefore, any resulting exposure to elemental mercury is
considered to be much less significant, and will not be considered in the pathways of the ecological risk
assessment.
Appendix A-2 provides the parameter values specific to the various forms of mercury, and Appendix B
provides media concentration equations for modeling mercury through the exposure pathways assuming
steady-state conditions.
Methylation of Mercury
The net mercury methylation rate (the net result of methylation and demethylation) for most soils appears to
be quite low; with much of the measured methyl mercury in soils potentially resulting from wet deposition
(U.S. EPA 1997b). Consistent with U.S. EPA (1997b), a fraction of the divalent mercury that is deposited is
assumed to speciate to organic mercury (methyl mercury) in soil. In soil, 98 percent of total mercury is
assumed to be divalent mercury and the remaining mass as methyl mercury (U.S. EPA 1997b). A significant
and important exception to mercury methylation rate being low in soils appears to be wetland soils. Wetlands
appear to convert a small but significant fraction of the deposited mercury into methyl mercury; which can be
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering 2-63
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 2: Facility Characterization August 1999
exported to nearby water bodies and potentially bioaccumulated in the aquatic food chain (U.S. EPA 1997b).
Therefore, the assumed percentage of methyl mercury in wetland soils may be higher than the 2 percent
assumed for non-wetland soils, and may closer approximate the 15 percent assumed for sediments.
Both watershed erosion and direct atmospheric deposition can be important sources of mercury to a water
body (U.S. EPA 1997b). There appears to be a great deal of variability in the processing of mercury among
water bodies. This variability is primarily a result of the characteristically wide range of chemical and
physical properties of water bodies that influence the levels of methylated mercury. Some of the mercury
entering the water body is methylated predominately through biotic processes (U.S. EPA 1997b). In the
absence of modeling site-specific water body properties and biotic conditions, consistent with U.S. EPA
(1997b), U.S. EPA OSW recommends 85 percent of total mercury in surface water is assumed to be divalent
mercury and the remaining mass as methyl mercury.
For most environmental systems, the literature suggests that various physical and chemical conditions may
influence the methylation of mercury. Consideration of these conditions, and the magnitude of their potential
impact, may be required in some cases to assess the potential for over or under predicting mercury
methylation in media and subsequent biotransfer up the food chain. Due to the extreme variance between
environmental systems modeled, and at times disagreement, identified in literature reviewed regarding the
quantitative influence of specific conditions on methylation, U.S. EPA OSW recommends that extensive
research of literature, specific to the conditions prevalent at the site, be conducted before application and
deviation from the conservative assumptions recommended above. The following table summarizes the
qualitative effect some of the physical and chemical conditions, as reported in literature, may have on
methylating:
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering 2-64
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 2: Facility Characterization
August 1999
Physical or Chemical Condition
Low dissolved oxygen
Decreased pH
Decreased pH
Increased dissolved organic carbon
(DOC)
Increased dissolved organic carbon
(DOC)
Increased salinity
Increased nutrient concentrations
Increased selenium concentrations
Increased temperature
Increased sulfate concentrations
Increased sulfide concentrations
Qualitative Influence on
Methylation
Enhanced methylation
Enhanced methylation in water column
Decreased methylation in sediment
Enhanced methylation in sediment
Decreased methylation in water
column
Decreased methylation
Enhanced methylation
Decreased methylation
Enhanced methylation
Enhanced methylation
Enhanced methylation
Referenced Literature
Rudd et al. 1983; Parks et al. 1989
Xun 1987; Gilmour and Henry 1991;
Miskimmin et al. 1992
Ramlal et al. 1985; Steffan et al. 1988
Chois and Bartha 1994
Miskimmin et al. 1992
Blum and Bartha 1980
Wright and Hamilton 1982;
Jackson 1986; Regnell 1994;
Beckvaretal. 1996
Beckvaretal. 1996
Wright and Hamilton 1982; Parks et
al. 1989
Gilmour and Henry 1991; Gilmour et
al. 1992
Beckvaretal. 1996
To account for methylation of mercury in the media and its subsequent biotransfer assuming steady-state
conditions, the deposition and media concentration equations (presented in Appendix B) have been modified
specifically for modeling methyl mercury. Appendix A-2 provides the parameter values specific for
methylmercury, and additional discussion and reference on their origin.
As noted above, methylation can be highly variable between environmental systems. This results in a
significant degree of uncertainty implicit in modeling of mercury methylation. To expand on the qualitative
information presented in the above table, and better understand conditions that may influence mercury
methylation specific to a site, U.S. EPA OSW recommends review of information on this subject presented
in the Mercury Study Report to Congress (U.S. EPA 1997b).
U.S. EPA Region 6
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering
U.S. EPA
Office of Solid Waste
2-65
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 2: Facility Characterization August 1999
Exposure Assessment for Mercury
For assessing exposure of community and class-specific guild measurement receptors to mercury, guidance
provided in Chapters 4 and 5 should generally be followed. However, special consideration is required in
evaluating the various forms of mercury modeled to the point of exposure.
To evaluate exposure of water, sediment, and soil communities to mercury, species-specific concentrations of
divalent mercury and methyl mercury, in the respective media to which the community is exposed, should be
directly compared to toxicity benchmarks specific to those compounds. The species-specific media
concentrations should be calculated using equations and guidance presented in Chapter 3 and Appendix B.
Media-specific toxicity benchmarks for divalent and methyl mercury are provided in Appendix E.
To evaluate the exposure of class-specific guilds to mercury, the media-specific concentrations of both
divalent and methyl mercury should be modeled as independent COPCs through the food web, assuming no
methylation of divalent mercury to the methyl mercury form within organisms. Therefore, the daily doses of
all food items (i.e., media, plants, and animals) ingested by a measurement receptor should be considered for
both divalent and methyl mercury, and compared to the respective toxicity benchmarks that are representative
of the measurement receptor (see Appendix E). The daily doses of food items ingested by a measurement
receptor should be calculated consistent with the guidance presented in Chapters 4 and 5, and Appendix F,
for assessing exposure of class-specific guild measurement receptors to other COPCs. This includes the use
of species-specific media concentrations, and methyl mercury bioconcentration factors (BCF) and food chain
multipliers (FCM).
Conclusion
In the event risks associated with mercury exceed target levels based on modeling with equations and initial
conservative assumptions presented in this guidance, the permitting authority may approve use of more
complex models that utilize more extensive site-specific data to predict transformation of chemical forms and
biotransfer of mercury for evaluation at points of potential exposure. For example, the draft version of the
ISCST3 dry gas algorithm for estimating dry gas deposition may be utilized. This draft model can be found
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering 2-66
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 2: Facility Characterization August 1999
on the SCRAM bulletin (see Chapter 3); and specific default parameter values for mercury are presented in
U.S. EPA (1997b). While this guidance does not address what models should be used or how data to support
such models should be collected, the decision to use site-specific mercury models in a risk assessment is not
precluded just because it is different; nor does this guidance automatically approve the use of such models. A
permitting authority that chooses to use complex mercury models should carefully identify and evaluate their
associated limitations, and clearly document these limitations in the uncertainty section of the risk assessment
report.
U.S. EPA OSW encourages all facilities to implement a combination of waste minimization and control
technology options to reduce mercury emission rates on an ongoing basis. Realistic expectations for mercury
emission reduction efforts may be established by considering various technology-based mercury emission
limits that apply to waste combustors (for example, standards for European combustors, the proposed
MACT standards for hazardous waste combustors, or the MACT standards for municipal waste
combustors). U.S. EPA OSW acknowledges that site-specific risk assessments as currently conducted may
not identify the entire potential risk from mercury emissions. Mercury that does not deposit locally will
ultimately enter the global mercury cycle for potential deposition elsewhere.
2.3.8 Particulate Matter
PM is all condensed material suspended in air that has a mean aerodynamic diameter of 10 micrometers or
less (PM10). PM can be classified as aerosols, dusts, fogs, fumes, mists, smogs, or smokes, depending on its
physical state and origin. Anecdotal evidence suggests that uncontrolled particulate emissions from coal-
burning industries has adversely affected local populations of wildlife (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service [U.S.
FWS] 1980). For wildlife, PM can adsorb to external surfaces or membranes, for example causing corneal
damage. Wildlife exposure can also occur through ingested of contaminated food, water, and hair (through
grooming) (U.S. FWS 1980). However, PM dose-response information to evaluate risk of particulate matter
to ecological receptors is limited. For this reason, U.S. EPA OSW does not recommend that PM be
evaluated as a separate COPC in a risk assessment. However, PM is useful as an indicator parameter for
other contaminants because it can be measured in real time and is sensitive to changes in combustion
conditions.
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering 2-67
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 2: Facility Characterization August 1999
2.3.9 Hydrogen Chloride/Chlorine Gas
Hydrogen chloride (which becomes hydrochloric acid when dissolved in water) and chlorine are two of the
major products of the chemical industry, with uses too numerous to list. When chlorine gas dissolves in
water (whether during drinking water treatment or when someone inhales chlorine), it hydrolyzes to form
equal amounts of hydrochloric acid and hypochlorous acid.
Hydrogen chloride, as all other strong acids and bases, is an irritant on contact; adverse effects are seen only
in the upper respiratory tract (including the nose, mouth, and throat). High concentrations can become
corrosive and destroy tissues, producing chemical burns. Unless it is highly concentrated, ingested
hydrochloric acid has only minimal adverse effects.
Because of the high concentrations of these compounds needed to produce observable effects, they are not
expected to pose an ecological risk. Therefore, U.S. EPA OSW does not recommend that hydrogen chloride
and chlorine gas be included as separate COPCs in the risk assessment.
2.3.10 Endocrine Disruptors
Endocrine disrupters are chemical compounds that interfere with the endocrine system's normal function and
homeostasis in cells, tissues, and organisms. It has been hypothesized by U.S. EPA OSW that endocrine
disrupters adversely affect the reproductive system by interfering with production, release, transport, receptor
binding action, or elimination of natural blood-borne hormones and ligands.
Several studies have been conducted and serve as the basis for further experimentation to determine whether
the hypothesis is correct. These studies include (1) wildlife reproduction (feminization of birds, alligators,
and certain terrestrial mammals), (2) wildlife population ecology (population decline), (3) human
reproductive physiology (decreased sperm count in males in industrialized nations), (4) molecular biology
(data on receptor-mediated mode of action), and (5) endocrinology (increased understanding of mechanisms
of hormone regulation and impacts of perturbations).
Some have attempted to classify chemical compounds as endocrine disrupters; however, several problems
have been encountered. Only limited empirical data are available to support the designation of specific
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering 2-68
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 2: Facility Characterization August 1999
chemicals as endocrine disrupters, and some of the data are conflicting. An absence of a clear structure-
activity relationship is evident among the diverse groups of chemicals considered as endocrine disrupters.
There is a lack of unifying dose-response relationship among the diverse group of chemicals. Also, multiple
modes of action for chemicals are currently considered as endocrine disrupters.
Because the information currently available on endocrine disrupters is inconsistent and limited, U.S. EPA has
not yet developed a methodology for quantitative assessments of risk resulting from potential endocrine
disrupters (U.S. EPA 1996d). Currently, no quantitative U.S. EPA methods exist to specifically address the
effects of endocrine disrupters in a risk assessment. Because the methods for addressing endocrine disrupters
are developing at a rapid pace, permits writers and risk assessors should contact the Economics, Methods and
Risk Analysis Division (EMRAD) of the Office of Solid Waste for the latest policy on how to deal with
endocrine disrupters in site specific risk assessments. Additional information can also be obtained from
review of available publications (e.g., EPA Special Report on Endocrine Disruption) at the web site
"www.epa.gov/ORDAVebPubs/endocrine/".
2.3.11 Radionuclides
Radionuclides exist in (1) naturally occurring radioactive materials such as coal and other rocks, as
(2) radioactive by-products of industrial processes. This risk assessment guidance does not consider the
naturally occurring radioactive materials such as uranium and thorium (and their decay elements) based on
U.S. EPA doctrine and technical limitations for measuring such low levels. However, radioactive wastes and
materials, as defined by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and the U.S. Department of Energy
(DOE), are subject to evaluation through interagency agreements on this subject. The U.S. NRC considers
"radioactive waste" as waste that is, or contains, by-product material, source material, or special nuclear
material (as defined in 10 CFR Part 20.1003). The U.S. NRC considers "mixed waste" as waste that is
radioactive waste and hazardous waste defined by U.S. EPA. Radioactive and mixed waste must be handled
in accordance with all relevant regulations, including U.S. EPA and U.S. NRC (10 CFR Part 20.2007)
regulations. In particular, U.S. NRC licensees must comply with 10 CFR Part 20.2004—"Treatment or
Disposal by Incineration"—and applicable U.S. EPA regulations.
U.S. EPA OSW recommends that the combustion of mixed waste and radioactive material should be
evaluated in the risk assessment. Direct radiation (e.g., radiation from sealed sources such as instruments
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering 2-69
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 2: Facility Characterization August 1999
that are not released to the environment) does not need to be evaluated in the risk assessment. Risk from both
radiological and non-radiological contaminants should be presented along side each other in a risk summary
table. Results should include a discussion of additivity and the uncertainties of additivity when combining
risks from radiological and non-radiological contaminants. A radionuclide should be included as a COPC if
it is in the combustion unit's waste feed.
U.S. EPA OSW recommends using the ISCST3 air dispersion model, utilizing the exponential decay option
to calculate air concentrations and ground deposition rates. Intake should then be calculated with
appropriate exposure scenario equations and parameters. ISCST3 is a good choice for facilities with
multiple sources, complex terrain, building downwash and wet/dry deposition requirements.
A special consideration in integrating radioactive materials into risk calculations is related to decay and
ingrowth of radionuclides, especially the few decay processes that involve a change of state. Decay should
always be considered, both over the air transport time and the surface exposure duration. Ingrowth may be
important, and special care must be taken in the use of radionuclide slope factors that include contributions
from daughters ('+D" slope factors). Ingrowth involving change of physical states is another situation that
will require special handling in the fate and transport modeling. For instance, solid radium-226 decays to
gaseous radon-222, which then decays through solid polonium-218 to further decay elements.
Equations for fate and transport of radionuclides in soil and water should be consistent with those presented
for non-radionuclides factoring in decay (and ingrowth if applicable). Food chain biotransfer parameters
necessary to determine food concentrations are available in the Handbook of Parameter Values for the
Prediction of Radionuclide Transfer in Temperate Environments; IAEA Technical Report Series No. 364
(International Atomic Energy 1994).
Because the information currently available on ecological fate and effects for radionuclides is very limited,
U.S. EPA OSW has not yet developed a methodology for quantitative assessments of ecological risk resulting
from exposure. Ecological screening levels currently being used in some regions include 1 rad/day for
aquatic receptors, based on population effects, (National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements
1991), and 0.1 rad/day for terrestrial receptors (with the exception of pine trees and mammalian embryos)
(International Atomic Energy Agency 1992). Additional references on evaluating ecological exposures to
radiation include Barnthouse (1995) and Blaylock et al. (1993).
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering 2-70
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 2: Facility Characterization August 1999
USER NOTE
Prescriptive methodology for calculating risk from combustion facilities burning
mixed waste is beyond the scope of the current document. The above information is
provided to outline the methodology recommended by U.S. EPA OSW.
2.4 ESTIMATES OF COPC CONCENTRATIONS FOR NON-DETECTS
The lowest level of an analyte that can be detected using an analytical method is generally termed the
"detection limit." One particularly difficult issue is the treatment of data in the risk assessment that are
reported as below the "detection limit." The following subsections (1) define commonly reported "detection
limits," (2) describe use in the risk assessment of data reported as non-detect, (3) describe statistical
distribution techniques applied to address this issue, (4) summarize U.S. EPA OSW recommendations
regarding quantification of non-detect issues in preparation of a risk assessment, and (5) clarify data flagged
as estimated maximum possible concentration (EMPC) in the risk assessment.
2.4.1 Definitions of Commonly Reported Detection Limits
U.S. EPA's commonly-used definition for the detection limit for non-isotope dilution methods has been the
method detection limit (MDL), as promulgated in 40 CFR Part 136, Appendix B (U.S. EPA 1995i). A level
above the MDL is the level at which reliable quantitative measurements can be made; generically termed the
"quantitation limit" or "quantitation level." In practice, numerous terms have been created to describe
detection and quantitation levels. The significance and applicability of the more widely reported of these
detection and quantitation levels by analytical laboratories are summarized below. These levels—listed
generally from the lowest limit to the highest limit—include the following:
• Instrument Detection Limit (IDL) is the smallest signal above background that an instrument
can reliably detect, but not quantify. Also, commonly described as a function of the
signal-to-noise (S/N) ratio.
• Method Detection Limit (MDL) is the minimum concentration of a substance that can be
measured (via non-isotope dilution methods) and reported with 99 percent confidence that the
analyte concentration is greater than zero, and is determined from analysis of a sample in a
specific matrix type containing the analyte. The MDL is considered the lowest level at
which a compound can be reliably detected. The MDL is based on statistical analyses of
laboratory data. In practice, the MDLs are determined on analytical reagents (e.g., water)
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering 2-71
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 2: Facility Characterization _ August 1999
and not on the matrix of concern. MDLs for a given method, are laboratory and compound
specific.
To determine the MDL as specified in 40 CFR Part 136, Appendix A, for example,
at least seven replicate samples with a concentration of the compound of interest
near the estimated MDL are analyzed. The standard deviation among these analyses
is calculated and multiplied by 3. 14. The result of the calculation becomes the
MDL. The factor of 3 . 14 is based on a t-test with six degrees of freedom and
provides a 99 percent confidence that the analyte can be detected at this
concentration (U.S. EPA 1995i).
It should be noted that 40 CFR Part 136 is specific to the Clean Water Act, and
therefore, it identifies the use of water as the matrix for the MDL determination. The
MDL was promulgated in 1984, and is incorporated in more than 130 U.S. EPA
analytical methods for the determination of several hundred analytes.
• Reliable Detection Level (RDL) is a detection level recommended by the National
Environmental Research Laboratory in Cincinnati. It is defined as 2.623 times the MDL
(U.S. EPA 1995i). The RDL is a total of 8 standard deviations above the MDL
developmental test data (3.14 times 2.623).
• Estimated Detection Limit (EDL) is a quantitation level defined in SW-846 that has been
applied to isotope dilution test methods (e.g., SW-846 Method 8290). A variation of the
SW-846 defined EDL is also commonly reported by commercial laboratories, however, with
the addition of a multiplication factor that generally elevates the EDL value by 3.5 to 5 times
that of the SW-846 definition. Commercial laboratories sometimes report EDLs for
non-isotope dilution methods such as SW-846 Method 8270, even though an EDL is not
defined by the method.
As defined in SW-846: The EDL is defined in SW-846 (presented in various methods,
e.g., Method 8280A) as the estimate made by the laboratory of the concentration of a given
analyte required to produce a signal with a peak height of at least 2.5 times the background
signal level. The estimate is specific to a particular analysis of the sample and will be
affected by sample size, dilution, etc. The presented equation defining EDL is as follows:
- H + H • D
f
IS
s~f is
Equation 2-7
where
EDL = Estimated detection limit (ng/L)
2.5 = Peak height multiplier (unitless)
Qis = Nanograms of the appropriate internal standard added to
the sample prior to extraction (ng)
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering 2-72
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 2: Facility Characterization
August 1999
Hn'andffn2
His' and His2
D
V
RF
The peak heights of the noise for both of the quantitation
ions of the isomer of interest
The peak heights of both the quantitation ions of the
appropriate internal standards
Dilution factor - the total volume of the sample aliquot in
clean solvent divided by the volume of the sample aliquot
that was diluted (unitless)
Volume of sample extracted (L)
Calculated relative response factor from calibration
verification (unitless)
Common commercial laboratory practice: The EDL, generally reported by commercial
laboratories, is defined as the detection limit reported for a target analyte that is not detected
or presents an analyte response that is less than 2.5 times the background level. The area of
the compound is evaluated against the noise level measured in a region of the chromatogram
clear of genuine GC signals times an empirically derived factor. This empirical factor
approximates the area to height ratio for a GC signal. This factor is variable between
laboratories and analyses performed, and commonly ranges from 3.5 to 5. The equation is
as follows:
2.5-QQ-(F-H)-D
W-A-RRF
Equation^
where
EDL
2.5
Qp
F
H
D
W
RRF
Estimated detection limit
Minimum response required for a GC signal
The amount of internal standard added to the sample before
extraction
An empirical factor that approximates the area to height
ratio for a GC signal
The height of the noise
Dilution factor
The sample weight or volume
The mean analyte relative response factor from the initial
calibration
• Practical Quantitation Limit (PQL) is a quantitation level that is defined in 50 FR 46908 and
52 FR 25699 as the lowest level that can be reliably achieved with specified limits of
precision and accuracy during routine laboratory operating conditions (U.S. EPA 1992g;
1995i). The PQL is constructed by multiplying the MDL, as derived above, by a factor
(subjective and variable between laboratories and analyses performed) usually in the range
of 5 to 10. However, PQLs with multipliers as high as 50 have been reported
(U.S. EPA 19951).
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering 2-73
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 2: Facility Characterization August 1999
The PQL has been criticized because of the ambiguous nature of the multiplier and
because the resulting levels have been perceived as too high for regulatory
compliance purposes (U.S. EPA 1995i).
• Target Detection Limit (TDL) is a quantitation level constructed similar to the PQL.
• Reporting Limit (RL) is a quantitiation level constructed similar to the PQL.
• Estimated Quantitation Limit (EQL) is a quantitiation level constructed similar to the PQL.
• Sample Quantitation Limit (SQL) is a quantitation level that is sample-specific and highly
matrix-dependent because it accounts for sample volume or weight, aliquot size, moisture
content, and dilution. SQLs for the same compound generally vary between samples as
moisture content, analyte concentration, and concentrations of interfering compounds vary.
The SQL is generally 5 to 10 times the MDL, however, it is often reported at much higher
levels due to matrix interferences.
• Contract Required Quantitation Limit (CRQL)/Contract Required Detection Limit (CRDL)
is a quantitation pre-set by contract, which may incorporate U.S. EPA (1986b) SW-846
methods, Office of Water methods, or other methods deemed necessary to meet study
objectives. These limits are typically administrative limits and may actually be one or two
orders of magnitude above the MDL.
2.4.2 Use In the Risk Assessment of Data Reported As Non-Detect
In collecting data for use in risk assessments or in setting regulatory compliance levels, the permitting
authority is often faced with data quality objectives that require analyses near or below analytical detection or
quantitation levels. In such situations, permittees often argue that the detection levels should be set with a
large factor of certainty in order to be confident that measurements are reliable. Environmental groups
frequently argue that a level of zero or a level at which a single researcher can demonstrate that the
compound can be detected should be used as the set level. Because measurements made below analytical
detection and quantitation levels are associated with increased measurement uncertainty, an understanding of
these levels is important to the comprehension of the impact they may have when they are applied.
As a result of the quantitative differences between the various types of detection levels, "non-detected"
compounds pose two questions: (1) Is the compound really present?, and (2) If so, at what concentration?
The first question is generally hard to answer, and is dependent mainly on the analytical resources available.
For the second question, the answer is "somewhere between true zero and the quantitation level applied." For
samples obtained during the trial burn that report compounds at below the detection limit, earlier U.S. EPA
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering 2-74
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 2: Facility Characterization August 1999
(1994i) guidance has recommended that emission rates for non-detects be developed using one-half of the
"detection limit" and applied in conducting the risk assessment. However, which detection limit should be
used has not been explicitly defined or presented in quantitative terms.
To increase consistency and reproducibility in dealing with non-detects, U.S. EPA OSW recommends
application of the MDL-derived RDL to quantify non-detects for COPCs analyzed with non-isotope dilution
methods, and application of the method-defined EDL to quantify non-detects for COPCs analyzed with
isotope dilution methods. Procedures for these applications are as follows:
Non-isotope Dilution Methods: Non-detects for COPCs analyzed with non-isotope dilution
methods should be quantified for use in the risk assessment using an MDL-derived RDL.
Commonly used non-isotope dilution methods include SW-846 Method 8260 (volatiles), SW-846
Method 8270 (semivolatiles),
1. Require the laboratory to report the actual MDL for every non-detect compound analyzed, in
addition to the commonly used reporting limit, such as an EDL, EQL, or PQL. The MDL
should be derived in a manner consistent with 40 CFR Part 136 Appendix B. This would
also apply for analysis of each individual component of multiple component samples (e.g.,
front half rinse, XAD resin, condensate, Tenax tube).
Note: Laboratories typically produce MDLs specific to each non-isotope dilution method
performed by the laboratory on an annual basis.
2. Calculate an MDL-derived RDL for each COPC non-detect for quantitative application in
the risk assessment. This would be obtained by multiplying the MDL, as reported by the
laboratory, times 2.623 (interim factor) (U.S. EPA 1995i).
3. Adjust the RDL, as appropriate, to account for sample-specific volumetric treatments (e.g.,
splits and dilutions) that differ from those utilized in the Part 136 MDL determinations.
Isotope Dilution Methods (SW-846 Methods 8290,1624, 1625; and CARB 429, etc.): Non-detects
for COPCs analyzed with isotope dilution methods should be quantified for use in the risk
assessment using the EDL as defined by the analytical method without the use of empirical factors or
other mathematical manipulations specific to the laboratory (e.g., EDL as defined in SW-846).
Commonly used isotope dilution methods include SW-846 Methods 8290, 1624, and 1625.
It should be noted that the MDL definition used in 40 CFR Part 136 (see Section 2.4.1) addresses errors of
the first type, false negatives. The 99 percent confidence limit stating that the MDL has only a 1 percent
chance the detects will be misidentified as negative, when the compound of concern was present. Errors of
the second type, false positives are not addressed. By not addressing false positives, or errors of the second
type, the statistically defined default value become 50 percent. In other words, where 40 CFR did not
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering 2-75
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 2: Facility Characterization August 1999
address false positives, the system required that 50 percent of the detects at the MDL would be false
positives. This is a very conservative approach, and biased toward not missing any compounds of potential
concern that may be present. The use of the MDL-derived RDL, and to a lesser extent the EDL, somewhat
indirectly addresses the false positive issue. As described in defining the RDL (see Section 2.4.1), by the
time the standard deviation has been multiplied by 8, the possibility of false positives is usually less than
1 percent.
2.4.3 Statistical Distribution Techniques
Many statistical distribution techniques are available for calculating a range of standard deviations to
quantify non-detect concentrations of COPCs. These include random replacement scenarios, such as: (1) the
uniform fill-in (UFI) method, in which each LOD value is replaced with a randomly generated data point by
using a uniform distribution; (2) the log fill-in LFI method which is the same as UFI, except for using a
logarithmic distribution; (3) the normal fill-in (NFI) method which is the same as UFI, except for using a
log-normal distribution; and (4) the maximum likelihood estimation (MLE) techniques (Cohen and Ryan
1989; Rao et al. 1991). If determined to be applicable by the permitting authority, a Monte Carlo simulation
may also be used to determine a "statistical" value for each non-detect concentration.
2.4.4 U.S. EPA OSW-Recommendations on Quantifying Non-Detects
Use of non-detects in risk assessments is dependent on the analytical method used to produce the data. In
most cases, U.S. EPA will estimate emission rates for undetected COPCs (see Section 2.3) by assuming that
COPCs are present at a concentration equivalent to the MDL-derived RDL for non-isotope dilution methods,
or the method-defined EDL for isotope dilution methods. U.S. EPA OSW believes that these methods are
reasonable and conservative, and that they represent a scientifically sound approach that allows maximum
protection of the environment while recognizing the uncertainty associated with analytical measurements at
very low concentrations in a real world sample matrix. It is also recognized that there are subjective
components and limitations to each of the non-detect methodologies presented in this and previous guidance,
including the recommended methods.
Some state permitting authorities have expressed the desire to obtain and use non-routine data
(e.g., uncensored data) of defensible quality in the risk assessment as a way to deal with non-detect issues.
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering 2-76
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 2: Facility Characterization August 1999
While this guidance does not address what forms or how such data may be used, the decision to use
non-routine data in a risk assessment is not precluded just because it is different; nor does this guidance
automatically approve the use of non-routine data. A permitting authority that chooses to use non-routine
data should carefully identify and evaluate the limitations associated with non-routine data and clearly
document this discussion in the uncertainty section of the risk assessment report.
For collection of data to be used in a risk assessment, U.S. EPA OSW recommends comprehensive sampling
using typical sampling and analytical methods for VOCs, SVOCs, metals, PCDDs, PCDFs, total organics,
and other appropriate constituents as necessary based on the type of waste that will be burned by the unit. A
pretrial burn risk assessment can help to ensure that the desired quantitation limit (and, therefore, DREs and
COPC stack gas emission rates) will be achieved during the trial burn test.
2.4.5 Estimated Maximum Possible Concentration (EMPC)
The EMPC, as defined in SW-846 Methods 8280A and 8290, is in most cases only used with the isotope
dilution methods as stated. An EMPC is calculated for dioxin isomers that are characterized by a response
with a signal to noise ratio of at least 2.5 for both the quantitation ions, and meet all the relevant
identification criteria specified in the method, except the ion abundance ratio. Ion abundance ratios are
affected by co-eluting interferences that contribute to the quantitative ion signals. As a result, one or both of
the quantitative ions signals may possess positive biases.
An EMPC is a worst case estimate of the concentration. An EMPC is not a detection limit and should not be
treated as a detection limit in the risk assessment. U.S. EPA OSW recommends that EMPC values be used
as detections without any further manipulation (e.g., dividing by 2). However, because EMPCs are worst
case estimates of stack gas concentrations, permitting authorities and facilities should consider techniques to
minimize EMPCs when reporting trial and risk burn results, especially when the EMPC values result in risk
estimates above regulatory levels of concern. Some techniques that may be applied to minimize EMPCs
include performing additional cleanup procedures (as defined by the analytical method) on the sample or
archived extract, and/or reanalyzing the sample under different chromatographic conditions.
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering 2-77
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 2: Facility Characterization August 1999
RECOMMENDED INFORMATION FOR RISK ASSESSMENT REPORT
• Actual MDLs for all non-detect results
• Description of the method applied to quantify the concentration of non-detects
2.5 CONCENTRATIONS DETECTED IN BLANKS
Blank samples are intended to provide a measure of any contamination that may have been introduced into a
sample either in the field while the samples were being collected, in transport to the laboratory, or in the
laboratory during sample preparation or analysis. Blank samples are analyzed in the same manner as the site
samples from the trail burn. In order to prevent the inclusion of non-site related compounds in the risk
assessment, the concentrations of compounds detected in blanks should be compared to concentrations
detected in site samples collected during the trial burn. Four types of blanks are defined in the Risk
Assessment Guidance for Superfund (U.S. EPA 1989e): trip blanks, field blanks, laboratory calibration
blanks, and laboratory reagent of method blanks. Detailed definitions of each are provided below.
Trip Blank - A trip blank is used to indicate potential contamination due to migration of volatile
organic compounds from the air on the site or in sample shipping containers, through the septum or
around the lid of sampling vials, and into the sample. The blank accompanies the empty sample
bottles to the field as well as with the site samples returning to the laboratory for analysis. The blank
sample is not opened until it is analyzed in the lab with the site samples, thus making the laboratory
"blind" to the identity of the blanks.
Field Blank - A field blank is used to determine if field sampling or cleaning procedures
(e.g., insufficient cleaning of sample equipment) result in cross-contamination of site samples. Like
the trip blank, the field blank is transported to the field with empty sample bottles and is analyzed in
the laboratory along with the site samples. Unlike the trip blank, however, the field blank sample is
opened in the field and recovered in the same manner as the collected samples. As with trip blanks,
the field blanks' containers and labels should be the same as for site samples and blind to the
laboratory.
Instrument Blank - An instrument blank is distilled, deionized water injected directly into an
instrument without having been treated with reagents appropriate to the analytical method used to
analyze actual site samples. This type of blank is used to indicate contamination in the instrument
itself.
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering 2-78
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 2: Facility Characterization August 1999
Laboratory Reagent of Method Blank - A laboratory reagent of method blank results from the
treatment of distilled, deionized water with all of the reagents and manipulations (e.g., degestions or
extractions) to which site samples will be subjected. Positive results in the reagent blank may
indicate either contamination of the chemical reagents or the glassware and implements used to store
or prepare the sample and resulting solutions. Although a laboratory following good laboratory
practices will have its analytical processed under control, in some instances method blank
contaminants cannot be entirely eliminated.
Water Used for Blanks - For all the blanks described above, results are reliable only if the water
comprising the blank was clean. For example, if the laboratory water comprising the trip blank was
contaminated with VOCs prior to being taken to the field, then the source of VOC contamination in
the trip blank cannot be isolated.
Blank data should be compared with the results with which the blanks are associated. However, if the
association between blanks and data can not be made, blank data should be compared to the results from the
entire sample data set.
U.S. EPA (1989e) makes a division in comparison between blanks containing common laboratory
contaminants and blanks containing contaminants not commonly used in laboratories. Compounds
considered to be common laboratory contaminants are acetone, 2-butanone (methyl ethyl ketone), methylene
chloride, toluene, and the phthalate esters. If compounds considered to be common laboratory contaminants
are detected in the blanks, then sample results are not considered to be detected unless the concentrations in
the sample are equal to or exceed ten times the maximum amount detected in the applicable blanks. If the
concentration of a common laboratory contaminant in a sample is less than ten times the blank concentration,
then the compound is treated as a non-detect in that particular sample.
In some limited cases, it may be appropriate to consider blanks which contain compounds that are not
considered by U.S. EPA to be common laboratory contaminants as identified above. In these limited cases,
sample results are not considered to be detected unless the concentrations in the sample exceed five times the
maximum amount detected in the applicable blanks. If the concentration in a sample is less than five times
the blank concentration, then the compound is treated as a non-detect in that particular sample.
Permitting authorities should carefully consider the evaluation of blank data in the overall context of the risk
assessment and permitting process. U.S. EPA OSW expects that issues related to non-laboratory
contaminant blanks to be minimal because data collection and analysis efforts in support of trial and risk
burns are expected to be of high quality in strict conformance to QA/QC plans and SOPs. The trial and risk
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering 2-79
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 2: Facility Characterization August 1999
burn data should be carefully evaluated to ensure that the level of contamination present in the blanks does
not compromise the integrity of the data for purposes of risk assessment, or result in retesting in order to
properly address data quality issues.
When considering blank contamination in the COPC selection process, permitting authorities should ensure
that:
(1) The facility or data gatherer has made every reasonable attempt to ensure good data quality
and has rigorously implemented the QA/QC Plan and good industry sampling and testing
practices.
(2) Trial and risk burn data has not been submitted to the permitting authority as "blank
corrected." Rather, the permitting authority has the full opportunity to review the data
absent additional manipulation by the data gatherer.
(3) The effect of the blank correction on the overall risk estimates, if such an effect is
considered, is clearly described in the uncertainty section of the risk assessment report.
(4) The risk assessment reports emissions rates both as measured, and as blank corrected, in
situations where there is a significant difference between the two values.
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering 2-80
-------
Chapter 3
Air Dispersion and Deposition Modeling
What's Covered in Chapter 3:
4 U.S. EPA-Recommended Air Dispersion and Deposition Model
4 Air Model Developinent ';.":'<\;,.y. •,'•• v:-:-.^, „>-•:• ?'...:.•';. .-•-•. C'-::/%-v,-.; ./:• •.;:- •: •
4 Site-Specific
4 Use of Unit Emission Rate*
Partitioning of Emissions^-f.
K^ -•':•
Meteorological Data '^ "•
' :'::'''-;-'-S{:T&l$i^$$^$M'^£?;^V
ISCST3 Model Execution
Use of Modeled Output
Modeling Fugitive Emissions
Estimating Media Concentrations
Combustion of materials produces residual amounts of pollution that may be released to the environment.
Estimation of potential ecological risks associated with these releases requires knowledge of atmospheric
pollutant concentrations and annual deposition rates in the areas around the combustion facility at
habitat-specific scenario locations. Air concentrations and deposition rates are usually estimated by using
air dispersion models. Air dispersion models are mathematical constructs that approximate the physical
processes occurring in the atmosphere that directly influence the dispersion of gaseous and particulate
emissions from the stack of a combustion unit. These mathematical constructs are coded into computer
programs to facilitate the computational process.
This chapter provides guidance on the development and use of the standard U.S. EPA air dispersion model
that U.S. EPA expects to be used in most situations—the Industrial Source Complex Short-Term
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering 3-1
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 3: Air Dispersion and Deposition Modeling August 1999
Model (ISCST3). ISCST3 requires the use of the following information for input into the model, and
consideration of output file development:
Site-specific characteristics required for air modeling (Section 3.2)
Surrounding terrain (Section 3.2.1)
Surrounding land use (Section 3.2.2)
Facility building characteristics (Section 3.2.3)
Unit emission rate (Section 3.3)
• Partitioning of emissions (Section 3.4)
Meteorological data (Section 3.5)
Source Characteristics (Section 3.7)
ISCST3 also requires the use of several preprocessing computer programs that prepare and organize data
for use in the model. Section 3.6 describes these programs. Section 3.7 describes the structure and format
of the input files. Section 3.8 describes limitations to be considered in executing ISCST3. Section 3.9
describes use of the air modeling output in the risk assessment computations. Section 3.10 discusses air
modeling of fugitive emissions. Section 3.11 describes how to estimate the media concentrations of COPCs
in media.
If applicable, readers are encouraged to consult the air dispersion modeling chapter (Chapter 3) of the U.S.
EPA OSW guidance document Human Health Risk Assessment Protocol (HHRAP) (U.S. EPA 1998c)
before beginning the air modeling process to ensure the consideration of specific issues related to human
health risk assessment. Additionally, the Guideline on Air Quality Models (GAQM) (U.S. EPA 1996c) is
a primary reference for all US EPA and state agencies on the use of air models for regulatory purposes.
The GAQM is incorporated in 40 CFR Part 51 as Appendix W. The Office of Air Quality Planning and
Support (OAQPS) provides the GAQM and extensive information on air dispersion models, meteorological
data, data preprocessors, user's guides, and model applicability on the Support Center for Regulatory Air
Models (SCRAM) web site at address "http://www.epa.gov/scram001/index.htm". General questions
regarding air modeling or information on the web site should be addressed to
"atkinson.dennis@epamail.epa.gov". Specific questions on the use of this guidance should be addressed to
the appropriate permitting authority.
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering 3-2
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 3: Air Dispersion and Deposition Modeling August 1999
3.1 DEVELOPMENT OF AIR MODELS
This section (1) briefly describes the history of air model development, (2) introduces some data
preprocessing programs developed to aid in preparing air model input files (these preprocessing programs
are described in more detail in Sections 3.2.4 and 3.6, and (3) introduces Exlnter Version 1.0, a
preprocessor to ISCST3.
3.1.1 History of Risk Assessment Air Dispersion Models
Before 1990, several air dispersion models were used by U.S. EPA and the regulated community. These
models were inadequate for use in risk assessments because they considered only concentration, and not the
deposition of contaminants to land. The original U.S. EPA guidance (1990a) on completing risk
assessments identified two models that were explicitly formulated to account for the effects of deposition.
• COMPLEX terrain model, version 1 (COMPLEX I), from which a new model—
COMPLEX terrain model with DEPosition (COMPDEP)—resulted
• Rough Terrain Diffusion Model (RTDM), from which a new
model—RTDMDEP—resulted
COMPDEP was updated to include building wake effects from a version of the ISCST model in use at the
time. Subsequent U.S. EPA guidance (1993h; 1994b) recommended the use of COMPDEP for air
deposition modeling. U.S. EPA (1993h) specified COMPDEP Version 93252, and U.S. EPA (1994b)
specified COMPDEP Version 93340. When these recommendations were made, a combined
ISC-COMPDEP model (a merger of the ISCST2 and COMPLEX I model) was still under development.
The merged model became known as ISCSTDFT. U.S. EPA guidance (19941) recommended the use of the
ISCSTDFT model. After reviews and adjustments, this model was released as ISCST3. The ISCST3
model contains algorithms for dispersion in simple, intermediate, and complex terrain; dry deposition; wet
deposition; and plume depletion.
The use of the COMPDEP, RTDMDEP, and ISCST models is described in more detail in the following
user's manuals; however, all models except the current version of ISCST3 are obsolete:
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering 3-3
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 3: Air Dispersion and Deposition Modeling August 1999
• Environmental Research and Technology (ERT). 1987. User's Guide to the Rough
Terrain Diffusion Model Revision 3.20. ERT Document P-D535-585. Concord,
Massachusetts.
• Turner, D.B. 1986. Fortran Computer Code/User's Guide for COMPLEX I Version
86064: An Air Quality Dispersion Model in Section 4. Additional Models for
Regulatory Use. Source File 31 Contained in UNAMAP (Version 6). National Technical
Information Service (NTIS) PB86-222361/AS.
• U.S. EPA. 1979. Industrial Source Complex Dispersion Model User's Guide, Volume I.
Prepared by the H.E. Cramer Company. Salt Lake City, Utah. Prepared for the Office of
Air Quality Planning and Standards. Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. EPA
450/4-79/030. NTIS PB80-133044.
• U.S. EPA. 1980b. User's Guide for MPTER: A Multiple Point Gaussian Dispersion
Algorithm with Optional Terrain Adjustment. Environmental Sciences Research
Laboratory. Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. EPA 600/8-80/016. NTIS
PB80-197361.
U. S. EPA. 1982a. MPTER-DS: The MPTER Model Including Deposition and
Sedimentation. Prepared by the Atmospheric Turbulence and Diffusion Laboratory.
National Oceanic and AtmosphericAdministration (NOAA). Oak Ridge, Tennessee.
Prepared for the Environmental Sciences Research Laboratory. Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina. EPA 600/8-82/024. NTIS PB83-114207.
• U.S. EPA. 1987b. On-Site Meteorological Program Guidance for Regulatory Modeling
Applications. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina.
• U.S. EPA. 1995c. User's Guide for the Industrial Source Complex (ISC3) Dispersion
Models, Volumes I and II. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. Emissions,
Monitoring, and Analysis Division. Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.
EPA 454/B-95/003a. September.
Users of this document are advised that a draft version of ISCST3 that includes algorithms for estimating
the dry gas deposition (currently referred to as the "Draft Dry Gas Deposition Model: GDISCDFT,
Version 96248") is available on the SCRAM web site. Use of this version to support site specific air
modeling applications is not required, because many of the parameters needed to execute the model are not
available in guidance or the technical literature. Therefore, until the draft version is reviewed and
approved, and the data is provided by U.S. EPA or in the technical literature, U.S. EPA OSW recommends
that the current version of ISCST3, in conjunction with the procedure presented in this guidance
(Appendix B) for estimating dry gas deposition using deposition velocity and gas concentration, should be
used for risk assessments.
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering 3-4
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 3: Air Dispersion and Deposition Modeling August 1999
3.1.2 Preprocessing Programs
ISCST3 requires the use of additional computer programs, referred to as "preprocessing" programs. These
programs manipulate available information regarding surrounding buildings and meteorological data into a
format that can be used by ISCST3. Currently, these programs include the following:
• PCRAMMET (Personal Computer Version of the Meteorological Preprocessor for the old
RAM program) prepares meteorological data for use in ISCST3. The program organizes
data—such as precipitation, wind speed, and wind direction—into rows and columns of
information that are read by ISCST3. The PCRAMMET User's Guide contains detailed
information for preparing the required meteorological input file for the ISCST3 model
(U.S. EPA 1995b).
• Building Profile Input Program (BPIP) calculates the maximum crosswind widths of
buildings, which ISCST3 then uses to estimate the effects on air dispersion. This effect on
dispersion by surrounding buildings is typically known as building downwash or wake
effects. The BPIP User's Guide contains detailed information for preparing the required
building dimensions (length, height, and width) and locations for the ISCST3 model (U.S.
EPA 1995d).
Meteorological Processor for Regulatory Models (MPRM) prepares meteorological data
for use in the ISCST3 by using on-site meteorological data rather than data from
government sources (National Weather Service [NWS] or the Solar And Meteorological
Surface Observational Network [SAMSON]). MPRM merges on-site measurements of
precipitation, wind speed, and wind direction with off-site data from government sources
into rows and columns of information that are read by ISCST3. The MPRM User's Guide
contains information for preparing the required meteorological input file for the ISCST3
model (U.S. EPA 1996e).
Most air dispersion modeling performed to support risk assessments will use PCRAMMET and BPIP.
MPRM will generally not be used unless on-site meteorological information is available. However, only
MPRM is currently scheduled to be updated to include the meteorological parameters (solar radiation and
leaf area index) required to execute the dry deposition of vapor algorithms included in the new version of
ISCST3. The draft version of MPRM is available for review and comment on the SCRAM web site as
GDMPRDFT (dated 96248).
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering 3-5
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 3: Air Dispersion and Deposition Modeling August 1999
3.1.3 Expert Interface (Exlnter Version 1.0)
Exlnter is an expert interface system enhanced by U.S. EPA Region 6 for the ISCST3 model. By
enhancing Exlnter, the goal of U.S. EPA Region 6 was to support the in-house performance of air
dispersion modeling by regional U.S. EPA and state agency personnel at hazardous waste combustion units
necessary to support risk assessments conducted at these facilities. Exlnter enables the user to build input
files and run ISCST3 and its preprocessor programs in a Windows-based environment. Specific
procedures for developing input files are stored in an available knowledge database. The underlying
premise of the Exlnter system is that the knowledge of an "expert" modeler is available to "nonexpert"
modeling personnel at all times. However, some air modeling experience is required to use Exlnter and its
components as recommended in this guidance. The Exlnter program has been written in Microsoft Visual
C++ in a Microsoft Windows environment.
Exlnter allows for a generic source category that comprises point, area, and volume sources. For each
source type, the program queries the relevant variables for the user. In addition to asking about the inputs
regarding the source types, Exlnter also asks about control options, receptors, meteorology, and output
formats. Exlnter then creates an input file, as required by the ISCST3 dispersion model. Exlnter also
allows the user to run the ISCST3 model and browse the results file.
Version 1.0 of Exlnter provides for input parameters to model dry gas deposition included in a draft
version of ISCST3. However, the data required for dry gas deposition requires a literature search and prior
regulatory approval. The procedure presented in this guidance (Appendix B) for estimating dry gas
deposition using deposition velocity and gas concentration is appropriate without prior approval. More
detailed information on how to use Exlnter can be found in the following:
U.S. EPA. 1996L User's Guide for Exlnter 1.0. Draft Version. U.S. EPA Region 6
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division. Center for Combustion Science and
Engineering. Dallas, Texas. EPA/R6-096-0004. October.
Exlnter is available on the SCRAM web site at "http://www.epa.gov/scram001/index.htm" under the
Modeling Support section "Topics for Review". Six self-extracting compressed files contain all
components for installation and use. The user's guide is accessed interactively using the help command.
Individual user's guides to ISCST3, BPIP, PCRAMMET, and MPRM also provide good references for
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering 3-6
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 3: Air Dispersion and Deposition Modeling August 1999
using Exlnter components. Exlnter requires a minimum of 15 megabytes of free hard disk space, Windows
3.1, 8 megabytes of system memory, and a 486 processor.
3.2 SITE-SPECIFIC INFORMATION REQUIRED TO SUPPORT AIR MODELING
Site-specific information for the facility and surrounding area required to support air dispersion modeling
includes (1) the elevation of the surrounding land surface or terrain, (2) surrounding land uses, and
(3) characteristics of on-site buildings that may affect the dispersion of COPCs into the surrounding
environment.
Often, site-specific information required to support air dispersion modeling can be obtained from review of
available maps and other graphical data on the area surrounding the facility. The first step in the air
modeling process is a review of available maps and other graphical data on the surrounding area. U.S.
Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute topographic maps (1:24,000) extending to 10 kilometers from the
facility, and USGS 1:250,000 maps extending out to 50 kilometers, should be obtained to identify site
location, nearby terrain features, waterbodies and watersheds, ecosystems, special ecological habitats, and
land use. Aerial photographs are frequently available for supplemental depiction of the area. An accurate
facility plot plan—showing buildings, stacks, property and fence lines—is also needed. Facility
information including stack and fugitive source locations, building corners, plant property, and fence lines
should be provided in Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) grid coordinates in meters east and north in
both USGS reference systems.
Most USGS paper 7.5-minute topographic maps are published in the North American Datum system
established in 1927 (NAD 27). However, most digital elevation data (e.g., USGS Digital Elevation
Mapping) is in the 1983 revised system (NAD 83). Special consideration should be given not to mix
source data obtained from USGS maps based on NAD 27 with digital terrain elevation data based on
NAD 83. Emission source information should be obtained in the original units from the facility data, and
converted to metric units for air modeling, if necessary. Digital terrain data can be acquired from USGS or
another documented source.
The specific information that must be collected is described in the following subsections. Entry of this
information into the ISCST3 input files is described in Section 3.7.
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering 3-7
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 3: Air Dispersion and Deposition Modeling August 1999
RECOMMENDED INFORMATION FOR RISK ASSESSMENT REPORT
• All site-specific maps, photographs, or figures used in developing the air modeling approach
• Mapped identification of facility information including stack and fugitive source locations,
locations of facility buildings surrounding the emission sources, and property boundaries of the
facility
3.2.1 Surrounding Terrain Information
Terrain is important to air modeling because air concentrations and deposition rates are greatly influenced
by the height of the plume above local ground level. Terrain is characterized by elevation relative to stack
height. For air modeling purposes, terrain is referred to as "complex" if the elevation of the surrounding
land within the assessment area—typically defined as anywhere within 50 kilometers from the stack—is
above the top of the stack evaluated in the air modeling analysis. Terrain at or below stack top is referred
to as "simple." ISCST3 implements U.S. EPA guidance on the proper application of air modeling methods
in all terrain if the modeler includes terrain elevation for each receptor grid node and specifies the
appropriate control parameters in the input file.
Even small terrain features may have a large impact on the air dispersion and deposition modeling results
and, ultimately, on the risk estimates. U.S. EPA OSW recommends that most air modeling include terrain
elevations for every receptor grid node. Some exceptions may be those sites characterized by very flat
terrain where the permitting authority has sufficient experience to comfortably defer the use of terrain data
because its historical effect on air modeling results has been shown to be minimal.
In addition to maps which are used to orient and facilitate air modeling decisions, the digital terrain data
used to extract receptor grid node elevations should be provided in electronic form. One method of
obtaining receptor grid node elevations is using digital terrain data available from the USGS on the Internet
at web site "http://www.usgs.gov". An acceptable degree of accuracy is provided by the USGS "One
Degree" (e.g., 90 meter data) data available as "DEM 250" 1:250,000 scale for the entire United States
free of charge. USGS 30-meter data is available for a fee. Either 90-meter or 30-meter data is sufficient
for most risk assessments which utilize 100 meter or greater grid spacing. Digital terrain data may also be
purchased from a variety of commercial vendors which may require vendor-provided programs to extract
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering 3-8
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 3: Air Dispersion and Deposition Modeling August 1999
the data. The elevations may also be extracted manually at each receptor grid node from USGS
topographic maps.
RECOMMENDED INFORMATION FOR RISK ASSESSMENT REPORT
• Description of the terrain data used for air dispersion modeling
• Summary of any assumptions made regarding terrain data
Description of the source of any terrain data used, including any procedures used to manipulate
terrain data for use in air dispersion modeling
3.2.2 Surrounding Land Use Information
Land use information in the risk assessment is used for purposes of air dispersion modeling and the
identification or selection of exposure scenario locations (see Chapter 4) in the risk assessment. Land use
analysis for purposes of selecting exposure scenario locations usually occurs out to a radius of 50
kilometers from the centroid of the stacks to ensure identification of all receptors that may be impacted.
However, in most cases, air modeling performed out to a radius of 10 kilometers allows adequate
characterization for the evaluation of exposure scenario locations. If a facility with multiple stacks or
emission sources is being evaluated, the radius should be extended from the centroid of a polygon drawn
from the various stack coordinates.
Land use information is also important to air dispersion modeling, but at a radius closer (3 kilometers) to
the emission source(s). Certain land uses, as defined by air modeling guidance, effect the selection of air
dispersion modeling variables. These variables are known as dispersion coefficients and surface roughness.
USGS 7.5-minute topographic maps, aerial photographs, or visual surveys of the area typically are used to
define the air dispersion modeling land uses (www.usgs.gov).
3.2.2.1 Land Use for Dispersion Coefficients
The Auer method specified in the Guideline on Air Quality Models (40 CFR Part 51, Appendix W) is used
to define land use for purposes of specifying the appropriate dispersion coefficients built into ISCST3.
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering 3-9
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 3: Air Dispersion and Deposition Modeling
August 1999
Land use categories of "rural" or "urban" are taken from the methods of Auer (Auer 1978). Areas
typically defined as rural include residences with grass lawns and trees, large estates, metropolitan parks
and golf courses, agricultural areas, undeveloped land, and water surfaces. Auer typically defines an area
as "urban" if it has less than 35 percent vegetation coverage or the area falls into one of the following use
types:
Urban Land Use
Type
11
12
Cl
R2
R3
Use and Structures
Heavy industrial
Light/moderate industrial
Commercial
Dense single/multi-family
Multi-family, two-story
Vegetation
Less than 5 percent
Less than 5 percent
Less than 1 5 percent
Less than 30 percent
Less than 35 percent
In general, the Auer method is described as follows:
Step 1 Draw a radius of 3 kilometers from the center of the stack(s) on the site map.
Step 2 Inspect the maps, and define in broad terms whether the area within the radius is rural or
urban, according to Auer's definition.
Step 3 Classify smaller areas within the radius as either rural or urban, based on Auer's
definition. (It may be prudent to overlay a grid [for example, 100 by 100 meters] and
identify each square as primarily rural or urban)
Step 4 Count the total of rural squares; if more than 50 percent of the total squares are rural, the
area is rural; otherwise, the area is urban.
Alternatively, digital land use databases may be used in a computer-aided drafting system to perform this
analysis.
U.S. EPA Region 6
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering
U.S. EPA
Office of Solid Waste
3-10
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 3: Air Dispersion and Deposition Modeling
August 1999
RECOMMENDED INFORMATION FOR RISK ASSESSMENT REPORT
Description of the methods used to determine land use surrounding the facility
Copies of any maps, photographs, or figures used to determine land use
Description of the source of any computer-based maps used to determine land use
3.2.2.2 Land Use for Surface Roughness Height (Length)
Surface roughness height—also referred to as (aerodynamic) surface roughness length—is the height above
the ground at which the wind speed goes to zero. Surface roughness affects the height above local ground
level that a particle moves from the ambient air flow above the ground (for example in the plume) into a
"captured" deposition region near the ground. That is, ISCST3 causes particles to be "thrown" to the
ground at some point above the actual land surface, based on surface roughness height. Surface roughness
height is defined by individual elements on the landscape, such as trees and buildings.
U.S. EPA (1995b) recommended that land use within 5 kilometers of the stack be used to define the
average surface roughness height. For consistency with the method for determining land use for dispersion
coefficients (Section 3.2.2.1), the land use within 3 kilometers generally is acceptable for determination of
surface roughness. Surface roughness height values for various land use types are as follows:
Surface Roughness Heights for Land Use Types and Seasons (meters)
Land Use Type
Water surface
Deciduous forest
Coniferous forest
Swamp
Cultivated land
Grassland
Urban
Desert shrubland
Spring
0.0001
1.00
1.30
0.20
0.03
0.05
1.00
0.30
Summer
0.0001
1.30
1.30
0.20
0.20
0.10
1.00
0.30
Autumn
0.0001
0.80
1.30
0.20
0.05
0.01
1.00
0.30
Winter
0.0001
0.50
1.30
0.05
0.01
0.001
1.00
0.15
Source: Sheih, Wesley, and Hicks (1979)
U.S. EPA Region 6
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering
U.S. EPA
Office of Solid Waste
3-11
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 3: Air Dispersion and Deposition Modeling August 1999
If a significant number of buildings are located in the area, higher surface roughness heights (such as those
for trees) may be appropriate (U.S. EPA 1995b). A specific methodology for determining average surface
roughness height has not been proposed in prior guidance documents. For facilities using National
Weather Service surface meteorological data, the surface roughness height for the measurement site may be
set to 0.10 meters (grassland, summer) without prior approval. If a different value is proposed for the
measurement site, the value should be determined applying the following procedure to land use at the
measurement site. For the application site, the following method should be used to determine surface
roughness height:
Step 1 Draw a radius of 3 kilometers from the center of the stack(s) on the site map.
Step 2 Inspect the maps, and use professional judgment to classify the areas within the radius
according to the PCRAMMET categories (for example water, grassland, cultivated land,
and forest); a site visit may be necessary to verify some classifications.
Step 3 Calculate the wind rose directions from the 5 years of meteorological data to be used for
the study (see Section 3.4.1.1); a wind rose can be prepared and plotted by using the U.S.
EPA WRPLOT program from the U.S. EPA's Support Center for Regulatory Air Models
bulletin board system (SCRAM BBS).
Step 4 Divide the circular area into 16 sectors of 22.5 degrees, corresponding to the wind rose
directions (for example, north, north-northeast, northeast, and east-northeast) to be used
for the study.
Step 5 Identify a representative surface roughness height for each sector, based on an
area-weighted average of the land use within the sector, by using the land use categories
identified above.
Step 6 Calculate the site surface roughness height by computing an average surface roughness
height weighted with the frequency of wind direction occurrence for each sector.
Alternative methods of determining surface roughness height may be proposed for agency approval prior to
use in an air modeling analysis.
3.2.3 Information on Facility Building Characteristics
Building wake effects have a significant impact on the concentration and deposition of COPCs near the
stack. Building wake effects are flow lines that cause plumes to be forced down to the ground much sooner
than they would if the building was not there. Therefore, the ISCST3 model contains algorithms for
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering 3-12
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 3: Air Dispersion and Deposition Modeling August 1999
evaluating this phenomenon, which is also referred to as "building downwash." The downwash analysis
should consider all nearby structures with heights at least 40 percent of the height of the shortest stack to
be modeled. The 40 percent value is based on Good Engineering Practice (GEP) stack height of 2.5 times
the height of nearby structures or buildings (stack height divided by 2.5 is equal to 0.40 multiplied by the
stack height [40 CFR Part 51 Appendix W]). Building dimensions and locations are used with stack
heights and locations in BPIP to identify the potential for building downwash. BPIP and the BPIP user's
guide can be downloaded from the SCRAM web site and should be referred to when addressing specific
questions. The BPIP output file is in a format that can be copied and pasted into the source (SO) pathway
of the ISCST3 input file. The following procedure should be used to identify buildings for input to BPIP:
Step 1 Lay out facility plot plan, with buildings and stack locations clearly identified (building
heights must be identified for each building); for buildings with more than one height or
roof line, identify each height (BPIP refers to each height as a tier).
Step 2 Identify the buildings required to be included in the BPIP analysis by comparing building
heights to stack heights. The building height test requires that only buildings at least 40
percent of the height of a potentially affected stack be included in the BPIP input file. For
example, if a combustion unit stack is 50 feet high, only buildings at least 20 feet (0.40
multiplied by 50 feet) tall will affect air flow at stack top. Any buildings shorter than 20
feet should not be included in the BPIP analysis. The building height test is performed for
each stack and each building.
Step 3 Use the building distance test to check each building required to be included in BPIP from
the building height test. For the building distance test, only buildings "nearby" the stack
will affect air flow at stack top. "Nearby" is defined as "five times the lesser of building
height or crosswind width" (U.S. EPA 1995d). A simplified distance test may be used by
considering only the building height rather than the crosswind width. While some
buildings with more height than width will be included unnecessarily using this
simplification, BPIP will identify correctly only the building dimensions required for
ISCST3.
As an example, if a plot plan identifies a 25-foot tall building that is 115 feet from the
50-foot tall combustion unit stack center to the closest building corner. The building
distance test, for this building only, is five times the building height, or 125 feet (five
multiplied by the building height, 25 feet). This building would be included in the BPIP
analysis, because it passes the building height test and building distance test.
Step 4 Repeat steps 2 and 3 for each building and each stack, identifying all buildings to be
included in the BPIP. If the number of buildings exceeds the BPIP limit of eight buildings,
consider combining buildings, modifying BPIP code for more buildings, or using third-
party commercial software which implements BPIP. If two buildings are closer than the
height of the taller building, the two buildings may be combined. For example, two
buildings are 40 feet apart at their closest points. One building is 25 feet high, and the
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering 3-13
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 3: Air Dispersion and Deposition Modeling August 1999
other building is 50 feet high. The buildings could be combined into one building for input
to BPIP. For input to BPIP, the corners of the combined building are the outer corners of
the two buildings. For unusually shaped buildings with more than the eight corners
allowed by BPIP, approximate the building by using the eight corners that best represent
the extreme corners of the building. The BPIP User's Guide contains additional
description and illustrations on combining buildings, and BPIP model limitations (U.S.
EPA 1995d).
Step 5 Mark off the facility plot plan with UTM grid lines. Extract the UTM coordinates of each
building corner and each stack center to be included in BPIP input file. Although BPIP
allows the use of "plant coordinates," U.S. EPA OSW requires that all inputs to the air
modeling be prepared using UTM coordinates (meters) for consistency. UTM coordinates
are rectilinear, oriented to true north, and in metric units required for ISCST3 modeling.
Almost all air modeling will require the use of USGS topographic data (digital and maps)
for receptor elevations, terrain grid files, location of plant property, and identification of
surrounding site features. Therefore, using an absolute coordinate system will enable the
modeler to check inputs at each step of the analysis. Also, the meteorological data are
oriented to true north. Significant errors will result from ISCST3 if incorrect stack or
building locations are used, plant north is incorrectly rotated to true north, or incorrect
base elevations are used. With computer run times of multiple years of meteorological
data requiring many hours (up to 40 hours for one deposition run with depletion),
verification of locations at each step of preparing model inputs will prevent the need to
remodel.
Several precautions and guidelines should be observed in preparing input files for BPIP:
• Before BPIP is run, the correct locations should be graphically confirmed. One method is
to plot the buildings and stack locations by using a graphics program. Several commercial
programs incorporating BPIP provide graphic displays of BPIP inputs.
• U.S. EPA OSW recommends, in addition to using UTM coordinates for stack locations
and building corners, using meters as the units for height.
Carefully include the stack base elevation and building base elevations by using the BPIP
User's Guide instructions.
• Note that the BPIP User's Guide (revised February 8, 1995) has an error on page 3-5,
Table 3-1, under the "TIER(ij)" description, which incorrectly identifies tier height as
base elevation.
• BPIP mixes the use of "real" and "integer" values in the input file. To prevent possible
errors in the input file, note that integers are used where a count is requested (for example,
the number of buildings, number of tiers, number of corners, or number of stacks).
• The stack identifications (up to eight characters) in BPIP must be identical to those used in
the ISCST3 input file, or ISCST3 will report errors.
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering 3-14
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 3: Air Dispersion and Deposition Modeling August 1999
For most sites, BPIP executes in less than 1 minute. The array of 36 building heights and 36 building
widths (one for each of 36 10-degree direction sectors) are input into the ISCST3 input file by cutting and
pasting from the BPIP output file. The five blank spaces preceding "SO" in the BPIP output file must be
deleted so that the "SO" begins in the first column of the ISCST3 input file.
One use of BPIP is to design stack heights for new facilities or determine stack height increases required to
avoid the building influence on air flow, which may cause high concentrations and deposition near the
facility. The output for BPIP provides the GEP heights for stacks. Significant decreases in concentrations
and deposition rates will begin at stack heights at least 1.2 times the building height, and further decreases
occur at 1.5 times building height, with continual decreases of up to 2.5 times building height (GEP stack
height) where the building no longer influences stack gas.
3.3 USE OF UNIT EMISSION RATE
The ISCST3 model is usually run with a unit emission rate of 1.0 g/s in order to preclude having to run the
model for each specific COPC. The unitized concentration and deposition output from ISCST3, using a
unit emission rate, are adjusted to the COPC-specific air concentrations and deposition rates in the
estimating media concentration equations (see Section 3-11) by using COPC-specific emission rates
obtained during the trial burn (see Chapter 2). Concentration and deposition are directly proportional to a
unit emission rate used in the ISCST3 modeling.
For facilities with multiple stacks or emission sources, each source must be modeled separately. The key to
not allowing more than one stack in a single run is the inability to estimate stack-specific risks, which limits
the ability of a permitting agency to evaluate which stack is responsible for the resulting risks. Such
ambiguity would make it impossible for the agency to specify protective, combustion unit-specific permit
limits. If a facility has two or more stacks with identical characteristics (emissions, stack parameters, and
nearby locations), agency approval may be requested to represent the stacks with a single set of model runs.
3.4 PARTITIONING OF EMISSIONS
COPC emissions to the environment occur in either vapor or particle phase. In general, most metals and
organic COPCs with very low volatility (refer to fraction of COPC in vapor phase [Fv] less than 0.05, as
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering 3-15
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 3: Air Dispersion and Deposition Modeling August 1999
presented in Appendix A-2) are assumed to occur only in the particle phase. Organic COPCs occur as
either only vapor phase (refer to Fv of 1.0, as presented in Appendix A-2) or with a portion of the vapor
condensed onto the surface of particulates (e.g., particle-bound). COPCs released only as particulates are
modeled with different mass fractions allocated to each particle size than the mass fractions for the organics
released in both the vapor and particle-bound phases. Due to the limitations of the ISCST3 model,
estimates of vapor phase COPCs, particle phase COPCs, and particle-bound COPCs cannot be provided in
a single pass (run) of the model. Multiple runs are required. An example of this requirement is the risk
assessment for the WTI incinerator located in East Liverpool, Ohio. The study used three runs; a vapor
phase run for organic COPCs, a particle run with mass weighting of the particle phase metals and organic
COPCs with very low volatility, and a particle run with surface area weighting of the particle-bound
organic COPCs .
3.4.1 Vapor Phase Modeling
ISCST3 output for vapor phase air modeling runs are vapor phase ambient air concentration and wet vapor
deposition at receptor grid nodes based on the unit emission rate. Vapor phase runs do not require a
particle size distribution in the ISCST3 input file. One vapor phase run is required for each receptor grid
that is modeled (see Section 3.7).
3.4.2 Particle Phase Modeling (Mass Weighting)
ISCST3 uses algorithms to compute the rate at which dry and wet removal processes deposit
particulate-phase COPCs emitted from a combustion unit stack to the Earth's surface. Particle size is the
main determinant of the fate of particles in air flow, whether dry or wet. The key to dry particle deposition
rate is the terminal, or falling, velocity of a particle. Particle terminal velocity is calculated mainly from
the particle size and particle density. Large particles fall more rapidly than small particles and are
deposited closer to the stack. Small particles have low terminal velocities, with very small particles
remaining suspended in the air flow. Wet particle deposition also depends on particle size as larger
particles are more easily removed, or scavenged, by falling liquid (rain) or frozen (snow or sleet)
precipitation. An ISCST3 modeling analysis of particle phase emissions for deposition rate requires an
initial estimate of the particle size distribution, distinguished on the basis of particle diameter.
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering 3-16
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 3: Air Dispersion and Deposition Modeling August 1999
The diameters of small particulates contained in stack emissions are usually measured in micrometers. The
distribution of particulate by particle diameter will differ from one combustion process to another, and is
greatly dependent on (1) the type of furnace, (2) the design of the combustion chamber, (3) the composition
of the feed fuel, (4) the particulate removal efficiency, (5) the design of the APCS, (6) the amount of air, in
excess of stoichiometric amounts, that is used to sustain combustion, and (7) the temperature of
combustion. However, based on these variables, the particle size distribution cannot be calculated, but
only directly measured or inferred from prior data. Unfortunately, few studies have been performed to
directly measure particle size distributions from a variety of stationary combustion sources (U.S. EPA
1986a).
U.S. EPA OSW recommends that existing facilities perform stack tests to identify particle size distribution.
These data should represent actual operating conditions for the combustion unit and air pollution control
device (APCD) that remove particulate from the stack gas. A table of particle size distribution data should
be prepared using stack test data in the format in Table 3-1.
U.S. EPA OSW expects that stack test data will be different from the values presented in Table 3-1
because of the use of particle "cut size" for the different cascade impactor filters (or Coulter counter-based
distributions) used during actual stack sampling. The test method will drive the range of particle sizes that
are presented in the results of the stack test. However, because ISCST3 requires mean particle diameter
for each particle size distribution, and the stack test data identifies only the mass ("weight") of particles in
a range bounded by two specific diameters, stack test data must be converted into a mean particle diameter
which approximates the diameter of all the particles within a defined range. Consistent with U.S. EPA
1993h, the mean particle diameter is calculated by using the following equation:
Dmean = [0.25 • (Dl +D?D2 +D^ +JD23)f33 Equation 3-1
where
Dmean = Mean particle diameter for the particle size category
D, = Lower bound cut of the particle size category (//in)
D2 = Upper bound cut of the particle size category (fj,m)
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering 3-17
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 3: Air Dispersion and Deposition Modeling August 1999
For example, the mean particle diameter of 5.5 /^m in Table 3-1 is calculated from a lower bound cut size
(assuming a cascade impactor is used to collect the sample) of 5.0 jwm to an upper bound cut size of
6.15 //in. In this example, the mean particle diameter is calculated as:
Dmean = [°-25 (5-°3 + (5.0)2(6.15) + (5.0)(6.15)2 + 6.153)]0'33 = 5.5
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering 3-18
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 3: Air Dispersion and Deposition Modeling
August 1999
TABLE 3-1
GENERALIZED PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION, AND PROPORTION OF
AVAILABLE SURFACE AREA, TO BE USED AS A DEFAULT IN DEPOSITION MODELING
IF SITE-SPECIFIC DATA ARE UNAVAILABLE
1
Mean Particle
Diameter a
(//m)
>15.0
12.5
8.1
5.5
3.6
2.0
1.1
0.7
<0.7
2
Particle
Radius
(Mm)
7.50
6.25
4.05
2.75
1.80
1.00
0.55
0.40
0.40
3
Surface
Area/
Volume
Cum1)
0.400
0.480
0.741
1.091
1.667
3.000
5.455
7.500
7.500
4
Fraction of
Total
Massb
0.128
0.105
0.104
0.073
0.103
0.105
0.082
0.076
0.224
5
Proportion
Available
Surface
Area
0.0512
0.0504
0.0771
0.0796
0.1717
0.3150
0.4473
0.5700
1.6800
6
Fraction
of Total
Surface
Area
0.0149
0.0146
0.0224
0.0231
0.0499
0.0915
0.1290
0.1656
0.4880
Notes:
a Geometric mean diameter in a distribution from U.S. EPA (1980a), as presented in U.S. EPA (1993h)
b The terms mass and weight are used interchangeably when using stack test data
U.S. EPA Region 6
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering
U.S. EPA
Office of Solid Waste
3-19
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 3: Air Dispersion and Deposition Modeling August 1999
From Table 3-1, the mean particle diameter is 5.5 /^m. The mass of participate from the 5.0 fj,m stack test
data is then assigned to the 5.5 jwm mean particle diameter for the purpose of computing the "fraction of
total mass."
Typically, eight to ten mean particle diameters are available from stack test results. As determined from a
sensitivity analysis conducted by The Air Group-Dallas under contract to U.S. EPA Region 6
(www.epa.gov/region06), a minimum of three particle size categories (> 10 microns, 2-10 microns, and < 2
microns) detected during stack testing are generally the most sensitive to air modeling with ISCST-3 (U.S.
EPA 1997). For facilities with stack test results which indicate mass amounts lower than the detectable
limit (or the filter weight is less after sampling than before), a single mean particle size diameter of 1.0
microns should be used to represent all mass (e.g., particle diameter of 1.0 microns or a particle mass
fraction of 1.0) in the particle and particle-bound model runs. Because rudimentary methods for stack
testing may not detect the very small size or amounts of COPCs in the particle phase, the use of a 1.0
micron particle size will allow these small particles to be included properly as particles in the risk
assessment exposure pathways while dispersing and depositing in the air model similar in behavior to a
vapor.
After calculating the mean particle diameter (Column 1), the fraction of total mass (Column 4) per mean
particle size diameter must be computed from the stack test results. For each mean particle diameter, the
stack test data provides an associated mass of particulate. The fraction of total mass for each mean
particle diameter is calculated by dividing the associated mass of particulate for that diameter by the total
mass of particulate in the sample. In many cases, the fractions of total mass will not sum to 1.0 due to
rounding errors. In these instances, U.S. EPA OSW advocates that the remaining mass fraction be added
into the largest mean particle diameter mass fraction to force the total mass to 1.0.
Direct measurements of particle-size distributions at a proposed new facility may be unavailable, so it will
be necessary to provide assumed particle distributions for use in ISCST3. In such instances, a
representative distribution may be used. The unit on which the representative distribution is based should
be as similar as practicable to the proposed unit. For example, the default distribution provided in
Table 3-1 is not appropriate for a hazardous waste burning boiler with no APCD or a wet scrubber,
because it is based on data from different type of unit. However, the generalized particle size (diameter)
distribution in Table 3-1 may be used as a default for some combustion facilities equipped with either ESPs
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering 3-20
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 3: Air Dispersion and Deposition Modeling August 1999
or fabric filters, because the distribution is relatively typical of particle size arrays that have been measured
at the outlet to advanced equipment designs (Buonicore and Davis 1992; U.S. EPA 1986a; U.S. EPA
1987a).
After developing the particulate size distribution based on mass, this distribution is used in ISCST3 to
apportion the mass of particle phase COPCs (metals and organics with Fv values less than 0.05) based on
particle size. Column 4 of Table 3-1 (as developed from actual stack test data) is used in the ISCST3 input
file to perform a particulate run with the particle phase COPCs apportioned based on mass weighting.
3.4.3 Particle-Bound Modeling (Surface Area Weighting)
A surface area weighting, instead of mass weighting, of the particles is used in separate particle runs of
ISCST3. Surface area weighting approximates the situation where a semivolatile organic contaminant that
has been volatilized in the high temperature environment of a combustion system and then condensed to the
surface of particles entrained in the combustion gas after it cools in the stack. Thus, the apportionment of
emissions by particle diameter becomes a function of the surface area of the particle that is available for
chemical adsorption (U.S. EPA 1993h).
The first step in apportioning COPC emissions by surface area is to calculate the proportion of available
surface area of the particles. If particle density is held constant (such as 1 g/m3), the proportion of
available surface area of aerodynamic spherical particles is the ratio of surface area (S) to volume (V), as
follows:
Assume aerodynamic spherical particles.
Specific surface area of a spherical particle with a radius, r—S = 4 nr2
Volume of a spherical particle with a radius, r—V = 4/3 Ttr3
Ratio of S to V—S/V = 4 nr2/ (4/3 nr3) = 3/r
The following uses the particle size distribution in Table 3-1 as an example of apportioning the emission
rate of the particle-bound portion of the COPC based on surface area. This procedure can be followed for
apportioning actual emissions to the actual particle size distribution measured at the stack. In Table 3-1, a
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering 3-21
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 3: Air Dispersion and Deposition Modeling August 1999
spherical particle having a diameter of 15 /^m (Column 1) has a radius of 7.5 /^m (Column 2). The
proportion of available surface area (assuming particle density is constant) is 0.400 (S/V = 3/7.5), which is
the value in Column 3. Column 4 shows that particles with a mean diameter of 15 //in, constitute
12.8 percent of the total mass. Multiplication of Column 3 by Column 4 yields a value in Column 5 of
0.0512. This value is an approximation of the relative proportion of total surface area, based on the
percent of particles that are 15 jwm in diameter. The sum of Column 5 yields the total surface area of all
particles in the particle size distribution. In this example, the sum is 3.4423. Column 6 is the fraction of
total surface area represented by the specific particle diameter in the distribution, and is calculated by
dividing the relative proportion of surface area (Column 5) for a specific diameter by the total relative
proportion of surface area (3.4423 square micrometers Lwm2]). In the example of the 15 //m-diameter
particle, the fraction of total surface area available for adsorption is 0.0149 (0.0512/3.4423). This
procedure is then repeated for all particle sizes in the array.
After developing the particulate size distribution based on surface area, this distribution is used in ISCST3
to apportion mass of particle-bound COPCs (most organics) based on particle size. Column 6 of Table 3-1
(as developed from actual stack test data) is used in the ISCST3 input file to perform a particulate run for
the particle-bound COPCs apportioned based on surface area weighting.
RECOMMENDED INFORMATION FOR RISK ASSESSMENT REPORT
Copies of all stack test data used to determine particle size distribution
Copies of all calculations made to determine particle size distribution, fraction of total mass, and
fraction of total surface area
3.5 METEOROLOGICAL DATA
To model air concentration and deposition, the ISCST3 model requires a variety of meteorological
information:
1. Air concentration
a. Hourly values
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering 3-22
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 3: Air Dispersion and Deposition Modeling August 1999
(1) Wind direction (degrees from true north)
(2) Wind speed (m/s)
(3) Dry bulb (ambient air) temperature (K)
(4) Opaque cloud cover (tenths)
(5) Cloud ceiling height (m)
b. Daily values
(1) Morning mixing height (m)
(2) Afternoon mixing height (m)
2. Deposition
a. Dry particle deposition—hourly values for surface pressure (millibars)
b. Wet particle deposition—hourly values
(1) Precipitation amount (inches)
(2) Precipitation type (liquid or frozen)
c. Dry vapor deposition (when available)—hourly values for solar radiation
(watts/m2)
As shown in Figure 3-1, these data are available from several different sources. For most air modeling,
five years of data from a representative National Weather Service station is recommended. However, in
some instances where the closest NWS data is clearly not representative of site specific meteorlogical
conditions, and there is insufficient time to collect 5 years of onsite data, 1 year of onsite meteorological
data (consistent with GAQM) may be used to complete the risk assessment. The permitting authority
should approve the representative meteorological data prior to performing air modeling.
The following subsections describe how to select the surface and upper air data that will be used in
conjunction with the ISCST3 model. Section 3.7 describes the computer programs used to process the
meteorological data for input to the ISCST3 model.
RECOMMENDED INFORMATION FOR RISK ASSESSMENT REPORT
• Identification of all sources of meteorological data
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering 3-23
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 3: Air Dispersion and Deposition Modeling August 1999
FIGURE 3-1
SOURCES OF METEOROLOGICAL DATA
/
JF
' |M'i
y
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering 3-24
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 3: Air Dispersion and Deposition Modeling August 1999
3.5.1 Surface Data
Surface data can be obtained from SAMSON in CD-ROM format. SAMSON data are available for 239
airports across the U.S. for the period of 1961 through 1990. The National Climate Data Center (NCDC)
recently released the update to SAMSON through 1995 surface data. However, since the upper air (mixing
height) data available from the U.S. EPA SCRAM web site has not been updated to cover this recent data
period, it is acceptable to select the representative 5 years of meteorological data from the period up
through 1990. SAMSON data contain all of the required input parameters for concentration,
dry and wet particle deposition, and wet vapor deposition. SAMSON also includes the total solar radiation
data required for dry vapor deposition, which may be added to ISCST3 in the future. Alternatively, some
meteorological files necessary for running ISCST3 are also available on the SCRAM BBS for NWS
stations located throughout the country (SCRAM BBS is part of the Office of Air Quality and Planning
and Standards Technology Transfer Network [OAQPS TTN]). The meteorological data, preprocessors,
and user's guides are also located on the SCRAM web site at "http://www.epa.gov/scram001/index.htm".
However, these files do not contain surface pressure, types of precipitation (present weather), or
precipitation amount. Although the ISCST3 model is not very sensitive to surface pressure variations, and
a default value may be used, precipitation types and amounts are necessary for air modeling wet deposition.
Precipitation data are available from the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC), and are processed by
PCRAMMET to supplement the SCRAM BBS surface data. NCDC also has surface data in CD-144
format, which contains all of the surface data, including precipitation.
The SAMSON CD-ROM for the eastern, central, or western (Volumes I, II, and III) United States may be
purchased from NCDC in Asheville, North Carolina.
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering 3-25
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 3: Air Dispersion and Deposition Modeling
August 1999
National Climatic Data Center
Federal Building
37 Battery Park Avenue
Asheville, NC 28801-2733
Customer Service: (704) 271-4871
File type:
Hourly precipitation amounts
Hourly surface observations with precipitation type
Hourly surface observations with precipitation type
Twice daily mixing heights from nearest station
File name:
NCDC TC-3240
NCDC TD-3280
NCDC SAMSON CD-ROM (Vol. I, H, and/or HI)
NCDC TD-9689
(also available on SCRAM web site for 1984 through 1991)
PCRAMMET and MPRM are the U.S. EPA meteorological preprocessor programs for preparing the
surface and upper air data into a meteorlogical file of hourly parameters for input into the ISCST3 model.
Most air modeling analyses will use PCRAMMET to process the National Weather Service data.
However, both preprocessors require the modeler to replace any missing data. Before running
PCRAMMET or MPRM, the air modeler must fill in missing data to complete 1 full year of values. A
procedure recommended by U.S. EPA for filling missing surface and mixing height data is documented on
the SCRAM BBS under the meteorological data section. If long periods of data are missing, and these data
are not addressed by the U.S. EPA procedures on the SCRAM BBS, then a method must be developed for
filling in missing data. One option is to fill the time periods with "surrogate place holder" data in the
correct format with correct sequential times to complete preparation of the meteorological file. Place
holder data are typically considered the last valid hourly data of record. Then, when ISCST3 is running,
the MSGPRO keyword in the COntrol pathway can be used to specify that data are missing. Note that the
DEFAULT keyword must not be used with MSGPRO. Since the missing data keyword is not approved
generally for regulatory air modeling, the appropriate agency must provide approval prior to use. All
processing of meteorological data should be completely documented to include sources of data, decision
criteria for selection, consideration for precipitation amounts, preprocessor options selected, and filled
missing data.
The most recently available 5 years of complete meteorological data contained on SAMSON, or more
recent sources, should be used for the air modeling. It is desirable, but not mandatory, that the 5 years are
U.S. EPA Region 6
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering
U.S. EPA
Office of Solid Waste
3-26
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 3: Air Dispersion and Deposition Modeling August 1999
consecutive. The use of less than five years of meteorological data should be approved by appropriate
authorities. The following subsections describe important characteristics of the surface data.
RECOMMENDED INFORMATION FOR RISK ASSESSMENT REPORT
• Electronic copy of the ISCST3 input code used to enter meteorological information
• Description of the selection criteria and process used to identify representative years used for
meteorological data
• Identification of the 5 years of meteorological selected
• Summary of the procedures used to compensate for any missing data
3.5.1.1 Wind Speed and Wind Direction
Wind speed and direction are two of the most critical parameters in ISCST3. The wind direction promotes
higher concentration and deposition if it persists from one direction for long periods during a year. A
predominantly south wind, such as on the Gulf Coast, will contribute to high concentrations and
depositions north of the facility. Wind speed is inversely proportional to concentration in the ISCST3
algorithms. The higher the wind speed, the lower will be the concentration. If wind speed doubles, the
concentration and deposition will be reduced by one-half. ISCST3 needs wind speed and wind direction at
the stack top. Most air modeling is performed using government sources of surface data. Wind data are
typically measured at 10 meters height at NWS stations. However, since some stations have wind speed
recorded at a different height, the anemometer height must always be verified so that the correct value can
be input into the PCRAMMET meteorological data preprocessing program. ISCST3 assumes that wind
direction at stack height is the same as measured at the NWS station height. ISCST3 uses a wind speed
profile to calculate wind speed at stack top. This calculation exponentially increases the measured wind
speed from the measured height to a calculated wind speed at stack height (U.S. EPA 1995d).
3.5.1.2 Dry Bulb Temperature
Dry bulb temperature, or ambient air temperature, is the same temperature reported on the television and
radio stations across the country each day. It is measured at 2 meters above ground level. Air temperature
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering 3-27
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 3: Air Dispersion and Deposition Modeling August 1999
is used in ISCST3 in the buoyant plume rise equations developed by Briggs (U.S. EPA 1995c). The model
results are not very sensitive to air temperature, except at extremes. However, buoyant plume rise is very
sensitive to the stack gas temperature. Buoyant plume rise is mainly a result of the difference between
stack gas temperature and ambient air temperature. Conceptually, it is similar to a hot air balloon. The
higher the stack gas temperature, the higher will be the plume rise. High plume heights result in low
concentrations and depositions as the COPCs travel further and are diluted in a larger volume of ambient
air before reaching the surface. The temperature is measured in K, so a stack gas temperature of 450°F is
equal to 505 K. Ambient temperature of 90°F is equal to 305 K, and 32°F is 273 K. A large variation in
ambient temperature will affect buoyant plume rise, but not as much as variations in stack gas temperature.
3.5.1.3 Opaque Cloud Cover
PCRAMMET uses opaque cloud cover to calculate the stability of the atmosphere. Stability determines
the dispersion, or dilution, rate of the COPCs. Rapid dilution occurs in unstable air because of surface
heating that overturns the air. With clear skies during the day, the sun heats the Earth's surface, thereby
causing unstable air and dilution of the stack gas emission stream. Stable air results in very little mixing,
or dilution, of the emitted COPCs. A cool surface occurs at night because of radiative loss of heat on clear
nights. With a cloud cover, surface heating during the day and heat loss at night are reduced, resulting in
moderate mixing rates, or neutral stability. Opaque cloud cover is a measure of the transparency of the
clouds. For example, a completely overcast sky with 10/10ths cloud cover may have only I/10th opaque
cloud cover if the clouds are high, translucent clouds that do not prevent sunlight from reaching the Earth's
surface. The opaque cloud cover is observed at NWS stations each hour.
3.5.1.4 Cloud Ceiling Height
Cloud height is required in PCRAMMET to calculate stability. Specifically, the height of the cloud cover
affects the heat balance at the Earth's surface. Cloud ceiling height is measured or observed at all NWS
stations provided on the SAMSON CD-Roms and the U.S. EPA SCRAM web site.
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering 3-28
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 3: Air Dispersion and Deposition Modeling August 1999
3.5.1.5 Surface Pressure
Surface pressure is required by ISCST3 for calculating dry particle deposition. However, ISCST3 is not
very sensitive to surface pressure. SAMSON and NCDC CD-144 data include surface pressure. SCRAM
BBS surface data do not include surface pressure. U.S. EPA believes that, if SCRAM BBS surface data
are used, a default value of 1,000 millibars can be assumed, with little impact on modeled results.
3.5.1.6 Precipitation Amount and Type
The importance of precipitation to ISCST3 results was discussed in the selection of the meteorological data
period (see Section 3.5.1). Precipitation is measured at 3 feet (1 meter) above ground level. Precipitation
amount and type are required to be processed by PCRAMMET or MPRM into the ISCST3 meteorological
file to calculate wet deposition of vapor and particles. The amount of precipitation, or precipitation rate,
will directly influence the amount of wet deposition at a specific location. Particles and vapor are both
captured by falling precipitation, known as precipitation scavenging. Scavenging coefficients are required
as inputs to ISCST3 for vapors with a rate specified for liquid and frozen precipitation. The precipitation
type in a weather report in SAMSON or CD-144 data file will identify to ISCST3 which event is occurring
for appropriate use of the scavenging coefficients entered (see Section 3.7.2.6). SCRAM BBS surface data
do not include precipitation data. Supplemental precipitation files from NCDC may be read into
PCRAMMET for integration into the ISCST3 meteorological file.
3.5.1.7 Solar Radiation (Future Use for Dry Vapor Deposition)
The current version of ISCST3 does not use solar radiation. Several U.S. EPA models, including the Acid
Deposition and Oxidant Model (ADOM), incorporate algorithms for dry vapor deposition. At such time as
U.S. EPA approves the draft version of ISCST3 which includes dry gas deposition, the hourly total solar
radiation will be required. Solar radiation affects the respiratory activity of leaf surfaces, which affects the
rate of vapor deposition. With a leaf area index identified in the ISCST3 input file in the future, the model
will be able to calculate dry vapor deposition.
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering 3-29
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 3: Air Dispersion and Deposition Modeling August 1999
3.5.2 Upper Air Data
Upper air data, also referred to as mixing height data, are required to run the ISCST3 model. ISCST3
requires estimates of morning and afternoon (twice daily) mixing heights. PCRAMMET and MPRM use
these estimates to calculate an hourly mixing height by using interpolation methods (U.S. EPA 1996e).
The mixing height files are typically available for the years 1984 through 1991 on the U.S. EPA SCRAM
web site. U.S. EPA OSW recommends that only years with complete mixing height data be used as input
for air modeling. In some instances, data may need to be obtained from more than one station to complete
five years of data. The selection of representative data should be discussed with appropriate authorities
prior to performing air modeling.
Mixing height data for years prior to 1983, in addition to current mixing height data, may be purchased
from NCDC as described in Section 3.5.1. The years selected for upper air data must match the years
selected for surface data. If matching years of mixing height data are not available from a single upper air
station, another upper air station should be used for completing the five years.
3.6 METEOROLOGICAL PREPROCESSORS AND INTERFACE PROGRAMS
After the appropriate surface and upper air data is selected following the procedures outlined in
Section 3.5, additional data manipulation is necessary before the data is used with the ISCST3 model. The
following subsections describe the meteorological preprocessors and interface programs used for these
manipulation tasks. To eliminate any need to repeat air modeling activities, U.S. EPA OSW recommends
that the selection of representative mixing height and surface data be approved by the appropriate
regulatory agency before preprocessing or air modeling is conducted. Permitting authority approval also is
recommended in the selection of site-specific parameter values required as input to the meteorological data
preprocessors.
3.6.1 PCRAMMET
U.S. EPA OSW recommends preparing a meteorological file for ISCST3 that can be used to calculate any
concentration or deposition. By preparing a file that PCRAMMET terms a "WET DEPOSITION" file, all
required parameters will be available to ISCST3 for any subsequent concentration or deposition modeling.
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering 3-30
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 3: Air Dispersion and Deposition Modeling August 1999
For example, if only the concentration option is selected in ISCST3 for a specific run, ISCST3 will ignore
the precipitation values in the meteorological file. For subsequent air deposition modeling, ISCST3 will
access the precipitation data from the same preprocessed meteorological file.
PCRAMMET may use SAMSON, SCRAM web site, and NCDC CD-144 surface data files. U.S. EPA
OSW recommends using the SAMSON option in PCRAMMET to process the SAMSON surface data and
U.S. EPA SCRAM web site mixing height data. The PCRAMMET User's Guide in the table "Wet
Deposition, SAMSON Data" (U.S. EPA 1995b) identifies the PCRAMMET input requirements for
creating an ASCII meteorological file for running ISCST3 to calculate air concentration, and wet and dry
deposition. The meteorological file created for ISCST3 will contain all of the parameters needed for air
modeling of concentration and deposition.
PCRAMMET requires the following input parameters representative of the measurement site:
• Monin-Obukhov length
• Anemometer height
• Surface roughness height (at measurement site)
• Surface roughness height (at application site)
• Noon-time albedo
• Bowen ratio
• Anthropogenic heat flux
• Fraction of net radiation absorbed at surface
The PCRAMMET User's Guide contains detailed information for preparing the required meteorological
input file for the ISCST3 model (U.S. EPA 1995b). The parameters listed are briefly described in the
following subsections. These data are not included in the surface or mixing height data files obtained from
the U.S. EPA or NCDC. Representative values specific to the site to be modeled should be carefully
selected using the tables in the PCRAMMET User's Guide or reference literature. The selected values
should be approved prior to processing the meteorological data.
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering 3-31
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 3: Air Dispersion and Deposition Modeling
August 1999
3.6.1.1 Monin-Obukhov Length
The Monin-Obukhov length (L) is a measure of atmospheric stability. It is negative during the day, when
surface heating causes unstable air. It is positive at night, when the surface is cooled with a stable
atmosphere. In urban areas during stable conditions, the estimated value of L may not adequately reflect
the less stable atmosphere associated with the mechanical mixing generated by buildings or structures.
However, PCRAMMET requires an input for minimum urban Monin-Obukhov length, even if the area to
be analyzed by ISCST3 is rural. A nonzero value for L must be entered to prevent PCRAMMET from
generating an error message. A value of 2.0 meter for L should be used when the land use surrounding the
site is rural (see Section 3.2.2.1). For urban areas, Hanna and Chang (1991) suggest that a minimum value
of L be set for stable hours to simulate building-induced instability. The following are general examples of
L values for various land use classifications:
Land Use Classification
Agricultural (open)
Residential
Compact residential/industrial
Commercial (19 to 40-story buildings)
Commercial (>40-story buildings)
Minimum L
1 meters
25 meters
50 meters
100 meters
150 meters
PCRAMMET will use the minimum L value for calculating urban stability parameters. These urban
values will be ignored by ISCST3 during the air modeling analyses for rural sites.
3.6.1.2 Anemometer Height
The height of the wind speed measurements is required by ISCST3 to calculate wind speed at stack top.
The wind sensor (anemometer) height is identified in the station history section of the Local Climatological
Data Summary available from NCDC for every National Weather Service station. Since 1980, most
National Weather Service stations measure wind speed at the height of 10 meters. However, some stations
operate at other heights or have valid representative data during years of operation at more than one height.
The modeler must verify the correct measurement height for each year of data prior to processing with
U.S. EPA Region 6
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering
U.S. EPA
Office of Solid Waste
3-32
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 3: Air Dispersion and Deposition Modeling August 1999
PCRAMMET and running the ISCST3 model. ISCST3 modeled results are very sensitive to small
variations in wind speed.
3.6.1.3 Surface Roughness Height at Measurement Site
Surface roughness height is a measure of the height of obstacles to wind flow. It is important in ISCST3
because it determines how close a particle must be above the ground before it is "captured" for deposition
on the ground. Dramatic differences in ISCST3 calculations may result from slight variations in surface
roughness. For surface meteorological data from a National Weather Station, a value of 0.10 meters for
the "measurement site" typically may be used without prior approval. Surface roughness is proportional,
but not equal, to the physical height of the obstacles. The table in Section 3.2.2.2 lists the roughness
heights that can be used as input values. These values are based on the general land use in the vicinity of
the measurement site. These values should be considered in discussions with the appropriate agency
modeler prior to air modeling.
3.6.1.4 Surface Roughness Height at Application Site
Determination of surface roughness height is also required at the facility (application site) for performing
PCRAMMET processing to prepare an ISCST3 meteorological file. ISCST3 model results are very
sensitive to the value used in PCRAMMET for this parameter. The table in Section 3.2.2.2 is applicable to
the application site. A site-specific computation of a single surface roughness value representative of the
site is required using the method described in Section 3.2.2.2. The computed value of surface roughness
height for the application site, along with maps or photographs illustrating land use, must be approved by
the appropriate agency prior to use.
3.6.1.5 Noon-Time Albedo
"Noon-time albedo" is the fraction of the incoming solar radiation that is reflected from the ground when
the sun is directly overhead. Albedo is used in calculating the hourly net heat balance at the surface for
calculating hourly values of Monin-Obukhov length. PCRAMMET automatically adjusts for the variation
in albedo with solar elevation angle. Experience suggests that ISCST3 modeling results are not sensitive to
the value selected for this parameter. Typical albedo values are presented in Table 3-2. As shown in Table
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering 3-33
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 3: Air Dispersion and Deposition Modeling August 1999
3-2, albedo values vary from 0.10 to 0.20 on water surfaces from summer to winter. The most variability
is for cultivated farmland, which varies from 0.14 during spring when land is tilled to expose dark earth, to
0.60 in winter when areas are snow-covered.
Based on the information in Table 3-2, albedos are estimated to vary in rural areas from 0.14 to 0.20 for
cultivated land, and from 0.18 to 0.20 for grassland. For urban areas, the variation without snow is from
0.14 to 0.18. For practical purposes, the selection of a single value for noon-time albedo to process a
complete year of meteorological data is desirable. For example, the single value of 0.18 may be
appropriate to process all meteorological data for an urban site. For rural sites, a single albedo value of
0.18 representative of grassland and cultivated land may be appropriate for areas without significant snow
cover during winter months. For desert shrubland, a single value of 0.28 may be appropriate. A single
value of 0.12 could be representative of forested areas. The permitting authority should review proposed
values used in the processing of the meteorological data.
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering 3-34
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 3: Air Dispersion and Deposition Modeling
August 1999
TABLE 3-2
ALBEDO OF NATURAL GROUND COVERS FOR LAND USE TYPES AND SEASONS
Land Use Type
Water surface
Deciduous forest
Coniferous forest
Swamp
Cultivated land
Grassland
Urban
Desert shrubland
Season"
Spring
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.14
0.18
0.14
0.30
Summer
0.10
0.12
0.12
0.14
0.20
0.18
0.16
0.28
Autumn
0.14
0.12
0.12
0.16
0.18
0.20
0.18
0.28
Winter
0.20
0.50
0.35
0.30
0.60
0.60
0.35
0.45
Notes:
Source—Iqbal (1983)
a The various seasons are defined by Iqbal (1983) as follows:
Spring: Periods when vegetation is emerging or partially green; this is a transitional situation that applies
for 1 to 2 months after the last killing frost in spring.
Summer: Periods when vegetation is lush and healthy; this is typical of mid-summer, but also of other
seasons in which frost is less common.
Autumn: Periods when freezing conditions are common, deciduous trees are leafless, crops are not yet
planted or are already harvested (bare soil exposed), grass surfaces are brown, and no snow is
present.
Winter: Periods when surfaces are covered by snow and temperatures are below freezing. Winter albedo
depends on whether a snow cover is present continuously, intermittently, or seldom. Albedo
ranges from about 0.30 for bare snow cover to about 0.65 for continuous cover.
U.S. EPA Region 6
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering
U.S. EPA
Office of Solid Waste
3-35
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 3: Air Dispersion and Deposition Modeling August 1999
3.6.1.6 Bowen Ratio
The Bowen ratio is a measure of the amount of moisture at the surface. The presence of moisture affects
the heat balance resulting from evaporative cooling, which, in turn, affects the hourly Monin-Obukhov
length calculated by PCRAMMET. Surface moisture is highly variable. Daytime Bowen ratios are
presented in Table 3-3.
Bowen ratio values vary throughout the country. For example, in urban areas where annual rainfall is less
than 20 inches, a single Bowen ratio value of 4.0 may be representative. For rural areas, a Bowen ratio
value of 2.0 may be appropriate for grassland and cultivated land. For areas where annual rainfall is
greater than 20 inches, U.S. EPA OSW recommends a single Bowen ratio value of 2.0 for urban areas;
and 0.7 for rural forests, grasslands, and cultivated lands. The applicable permiting authority should
review proposed values used in the processing of the meteorological data.
3.6.1.7 Anthropogenic Heat Flux
Anthropogenic heat is the surface heating caused by human activity, including automobiles and heating
systems. It is used to calculate hourly L values (Monin-Obukhov lengths). Table 3-4 presents
anthropogenic heat flux (Qj) values that have been calculated for several urban areas around the world. In
rural areas, U.S. EPA OSW recommends that a value of 0.0 Watts/m2 be used for the Qf. A value of 20.0
Watts/m2 is appropriate for large urban areas based on the annual value from Table 3-4 for Los Angeles.
3.6.1.8 Fraction of Net Radiation Absorbed at the Ground
Also used for calculating hourly values of Monin-Obukhov length, fraction of net radiation absorbed at the
ground is the last component of radiative heat balance. Based on the net radiation (Q*) values presented in
Table 3-4, and recommendations presented in the PCRAMMET User's Manual based on Oke (1982),
U.S. EPA OSW recommends values of 0.15 for rural areas and 0.27 for urban areas (U.S. EPA 1995b).
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering 3-36
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 3: Air Dispersion and Deposition Modeling
August 1999
TABLE 3-3
DAYTIME BOWEN RATIOS BY LAND USE, SEASON,
AND PRECIPITATION CONDITIONS
Land Use
Season"
Spring
Summer
Autumn
Winter
Dry Conditions
Water (fresh and salt)
Deciduous forest
Coniferous forest
Swamp
Cultivated land
Grassland
Urban
Desert shrubland
0.1
1.5
1.5
0.2
1.0
1.0
2.0
5.0
0.1
0.6
0.6
0.2
1.5
2.0
4.0
6.0
0.1
2.0
1.5
0.2
2.0
2.0
4.0
10.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
Average Conditions
Water (fresh and salt)
Deciduous forest
Coniferous forest
Swamp
Cultivated land
Grassland
Urban
Desert shrubland
0.1
0.7
0.7
0.1
0.3
0.4
1.0
3.0
0.1
0.3
0.3
0.1
0.5
0.8
2.0
4.0
0.1
1.0
0.8
0.1
0.7
1.0
2.0
6.0
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
6.0
U.S. EPA Region 6
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering
U.S. EPA
Office of Solid Waste
3-37
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 3: Air Dispersion and Deposition Modeling
August 1999
TABLE 3-3
DAYTIME BOWEN RATIO BY LAND USE, SEASON,
AND PRECIPITATION CONDITIONS
(Continued)
Land Use
Season"
Spring
Summer
Autumn
Winter
Wet Conditions
Water (fresh and salt)
Deciduous forest
Coniferous forest
Swamp
Cultivated land
Grassland
Urban
Desert shrubland
0.1
0.3
0.3
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.5
1.0
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.3
0.4
1.0
5.0
0.1
0.4
0.3
0.1
0.4
0.5
1.0
2.0
0.3
0.5
0.3
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
2.0
Note:
Source—Paine (1987)
a The various seasons are defined by Iqbal (1983) as follows:
Spring: Periods when vegetation is emerging or partially green; this is a transitional situation
that applies for 1 to 2 months after the last killing frost in spring.
Summer: Periods when vegetation is lush and healthy; this is typical of mid-summer, but also of
other seasons in which frost is less common.
Autumn: Periods when freezing conditions are common, deciduous trees are leafless, crops are
not yet planted or are already harvested (bare soil exposed), grass surfaces are brown,
and no snow is present
Winter: Periods when surfaces are covered by snow and temperatures are below freezing.
U.S. EPA Region 6
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering
U.S. EPA
Office of Solid Waste
3-38
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 3: Air Dispersion and Deposition Modeling
August 1999
TABLE 3-4
ANTHROPOGENIC HEAT FLUX (Qf) AND NET RADIATION
FOR SEVERAL URBAN AREAS
Urban Area
(Latitude)
Manhattan
(40 "North)
Montreal
(45 "North)
Budapest
(47° North)
Sheffield
(53 "North)
West Berlin
(52 "North)
Vancouver
(49 "North)
Hong Kong
(22 "North)
Singapore
(1° North)
Los Angeles
(34 "North)
Fairbanks
(64 "North)
Population
(Millions)
1.7
1.1
1.3
0.5
2.3
0.6
3.9
2.1
7.0
0.03
Population
Density
(Persons/km2)
28,810
14,102
11,500
10,420
9,830
5,360
3,730
3,700
2,000
810
Per Capita
Energy Use
(MJ x 103/year)
128
221
118
58
67
112
34
25
331
740
(^(Watts/m2)
(Season)
117 (Annual)
40 (Summer)
198 (Winter)
99 (Annual)
57 (Summer)
153 (Winter)
43 (Annual)
32 (Summer)
51 (Winter)
19 (Annual)
21 (Annual)
19 (Annual)
15 (Summer)
23 (Winter)
4 (Annual)
3 (Annual)
21 (Annual)
19 (Annual)
Q-
(Watts/m2)
93 (Annual)
52 (Annual)
92 (Summer)
13 (Winter)
46 (Annual)
100 (Summer)
-8 (Winter)
56 (Annual)
57 (Annual)
57 (Annual)
107 (Summer)
6 (Winter)
110 (Annual)
110 (Annual)
108 (Annual)
18 (Annual)
Note:
Source—Oke (1978)
U.S. EPA Region 6
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering
U.S. EPA
Office of Solid Waste
3-39
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 3: Air Dispersion and Deposition Modeling August 1999
3.6.2 MPRM
For on-site data, a new version of MPRM is used to mesh on-site data with NWS data in the preparation of
the meteorological input file. MPRM performs the same meteorological file preparation as PCRAMMET,
except the source of the surface data in MPRM consists of on-site measurements (U.S. EPA 1996e).
MPRM includes extensive QA/QC for values that are out of range. MPRM also checks for missing data
and summarizes values that require editing to fill missing data. After a complete surface file passes the
quality checks, it is processed with NCDC mixing height data. NCDC data are purchased to correspond to
the collection period of the on-site surface data. Mixing height data available on SCRAM's web site ends
in 1991. A delay of about 3 months can occur for obtaining mixing height data from NCDC to process
with recent on-site surface data.
Inputs to MPRM for preparing an ISCST3 meteorological file for concentration and deposition are the
same as for PCRAMMET. Section 3.6.1 provides methods for determining values for these parameters.
Draft versions of ISCST3 and MPRM are available for review which implement dry vapor deposition.
These versions are GDISCDFT (dated 96248) and GDMPRDFT (dated 96248), respectively. They may
be found on the U.S. EPA SCRAM web site under "Topics for Review". These draft models are not the
current regulatory versions and should not be used without approval from the appropriate permitting
authority.
3.7 ISCST3 MODEL INPUT FILES
A thorough instruction of how to prepare the input files for ISCST3 is presented in the ISC3 User's Guide,
Volume I (U.S. EPA 1995c), which is available for downloading from the SCRAM BBS. The example
ISCST3 input file is provided in Figure 3-2 from the air dispersion modeling chapter (Chapter 3) of the
U.S. EPA HHRAP (U.S. EPA 1998). This example illustrates a single year run (1984), for particle phase
COPC emissions from a single stack, to compute acute (1-hour average) and chronic (annual average) and
provide single year results in one hour and annual average plot files for post-processing. For ecological
risk assessments, only the annual average air parameters are required, not the 1-hour values. However, by
modeling both the 1-hour and annual averages in a single set of runs, the ISCST3 air dispersion model will
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering 3-40
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 3: Air Dispersion and Deposition Modeling August 1999
provide the necessary air parameters for use in both the human health and ecological risk assessments. The
specification of a terrain grid file in the TG pathway is optional. Each air modeling analysis has unique
issues and concerns that should be addressed in the risk assessment report. U.S. EPA OSW recommends
that the air modeling methodology be consistent in data collection, model set-up, and model output. This
consistency will assist both the modeler and U.S. EPA in communicating and interpreting model results.
The risk assessment report should document each section of the ISCST3 input file to identify consistent
methods.
Three sets of ISCST3 runs are required for each COPC emission source. As discussed in Section 3.4,
separate ISCST3 runs are required to model vapor phase COPCs, particle phase COPCs, and
particle-bound phase COPCs for each source (stack or fugitive) of COPCs. The ISCST3 "Control
Secondary Keywords" used for these three runs are:
Vapor Phase: CONG WDEP
Particle Phase: CONG DDEP WDEP DEPOS
Particle-Bound Phase: CONG DDEP WDEP DEPOS
For ISCST3 modeling to provide air parameters for ecological risk assessments, only the total deposition
(DEPOS) of the particle and particle-bound phases are required. The control secondary keywords for
concentration in the air (CONC) and the components of deposition to the ground, dry deposition (DDEP)
and wet deposition (WDEP), are not required to be output separately by ISCST3. However, by specifying
these control secondary keywords as illustrated, the ISCST3 model will compute the needed air parameters
for both human health and ecological risk assessments. ISCST3 requires site-specific inputs for source
parameters, receptor locations, meteorological data, and terrain features. The model is prepared for
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering 3-41
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 3: Air Dispersion and Deposition Modeling
August 1999
execution by creating an input file. The input file is structured in five (or six if a terrain grid file is used)
sections, or pathways, designated by two-letter abbreviations:
ISCST3 INPUT FILE SECTIONS
Section
Control
Source
Receptor
Meteorology
Terrain Grid (Optional)
Output
Abbreviation
CO
so
RE
ME
TG
OU
The following subsections describe how to specify the parameters for each pathway in the ISCST3 input
file.
RECOMMENDED INFORMATION FOR RISK ASSESSMENT REPORT
• Electronic and hard copies of ISCST3 input file for all air modeling runs
3.7.1 COntrol Pathway
Model options (MODELOPT) are specified in the COntrol pathway to direct ISCST3 in the types of
computations to perform. U.S. EPA OSW recommends that air modeling specify the DFAULT parameter
to use the following regulatory default options:
• Use stack-tip downwash (except for Schulman-Scire downwash).
• Use buoyancy-induced dispersion (except for Schulman-Scire downwash).
• Do not use final plume rise (except for building downwash).
• Use the calms processing routines.
U.S. EPA Region 6
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering
U.S. EPA
Office of Solid Waste
3-42
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 3: Air Dispersion and Deposition Modeling August 1999
Use upper-bound concentration estimates for sources influenced by building downwash
from super-squat buildings.
• Use default wind speed profile exponents.
• Use default vertical potential temperature gradients.
The CONG parameter specifies calculation of air concentrations for vapor and particles. The DDEP and
WDEP parameters specify dry and wet deposition. The DEPOS specifies computation of total (wet and dry)
deposition flux. Since ISCST3 currently does not include an algorithm for the dry deposition of vapor
phase COPCs, only wet deposition is specified for vapor phase runs. Note that dry deposition of vapor
phase is addressed in the pathway equations during the risk assessment using the concentration of the vapor
phase and a deposition velocity. DRYDPLT and WETDPLT are used for plume depletion resulting from dry
and wet removal. U.S. EPA OSW recommends the following command lines for each of the three runs
(these are for rural areas; substitute URBAN for urban areas):
Vapor: CO MODELOPT DFAULT CONG WDEP WETDPLT RURAL
Particle Phase: CO MODELOPT DFAULT CONG DDEP WDEP DEPOS DRYDPLT WETDPLT
RURAL
Particle-Bound: CO MODELOPT DFAULT CONG DDEP WDEP DEPOS DRYDPLT WETDPLT
RURAL
Note that only the total deposition (DEPOS) air parameter values are required for the ecological risk assessment
pathways. The modeler may elect not to include CONC, DDEP and WDEP as separate output components
from ISCST3 if the air modeling results will not be used for a human health risk assessment. However, the
control secondary keywords must always be specified for plume depletion through the dry deposition
(DRYDPLT) and wet deposition (WETDPLT) processes.
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering 3-43
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 3: Air Dispersion and Deposition Modeling August 1999
FIGURE 3-2
EXAMPLE INPUT FILE FOR "PARTICLE PHASE"
CO STARTING
CO TITLEONE Example input file, particle phase run
CO TITLETWO 1984 met data, Baton Rouge Surface, Boothville Upper Air
CO MODELOPT DFAULT CONG DDEP WDEP DEPOS DRYDPLT WETDPLT RURAL
CO AVERTIME 1 ANNUAL
CO POLLUTID UNITY
CO TERRHGTS ELEV
CO RUNORNOT RUN
CO SAVEFILE 84SAVE1 5 84SAVE2
** Restart incomplete runs with INITFILE, changing '**' to 'CO'
** INITFILE 84SAVE1
CO FINISHED
SO STARTING
SO LOCATION STACK1 POINT 637524. 567789. 347.
SO SRCPARAM STACK1 1.0 23.0 447.0 14.7 1.9
SO
so
so
so
so
so
so
so
so
so
so
so
so
so
so
so
so
BUILDHGT
BUILDHGT
BUILDHGT
BUILDHGT
BUILDHGT
BUILDWID
BUILDWID
BUILDWID
BUILDWID
BUILDWID
PARTDIAM
MASSFRAX
PARTDENS
PARTSLIQ
PARTS ICE
SRCGROUP
FINISHED
STACK1
STACK1
STACK1
STACK1
STACK1
STACK1
STACK1
STACK1
STACK1
STACK1
STACK1
STACK1
STACK1
STACK1
STACK1
ALL
18.29
18.29
18.29
18.29
18.29
14 . 02
12 . 10
14 . 02
15 . 51
16 . 53
0 .35
0 .22
1 . 0
7E-5
2E-5
18 .
18 .
18 .
18 .
18 .
15 .
14 .
12 .
14 .
15 .
0 . 70
0 . 08
1 . 0
5E-5
2E-5
29 18 .
29 18 .
29 18 .
29 18 .
29 18 .
51 16 .
02 15 .
10 14 .
02 12 .
51 14 .
1 . 10
0 . 08
1 . 0
6E-5
2E-5
.29 18.29 18
.29 18.29 18
.29 18.29 18
.29 18.29 18
.29 18 .29
.53 17.05 17
.51 16.53 17
.02 15.51 16
.10 14.02 15
.02 12.10
2.00 3.60 5
0.11 0.10 0
1.0 1.0 1
1 .3E-4 2 . 6E
4E-5 9E
.29
.29
.29
.29
. 05
. 05
. 53
. 51
. 50
. 07
. 0
-4
-5
18 .29
18 .29
18 .29
18 .29
16 . 53
17 . 05
17 . 05
16 . 53
8 . 10
0 . 10
1 . 0
3 . 9E-4
1 .3E-4
18.29 18
18.29 18
18.29 18
18.29 18
15 .51 14
16 .53 15
17 .05 16
17 .05 17
12 . 5 15.0
0.11 0 . 13
1.0 1.0
5 .2E-4 6
1 . 7E-4 2
.29
.29
.29
.29
. 03
. 51
. 53
. 05
.7E-4 6
.2E-4 2
. 7E-4
.2E-4
RE STARTING
RE ELEVUNIT METERS
RE DISCCART 630000. 565000. 352.
RE DISCCART 630500. 565000. 365.
RE DISCCART 631000. 565000. 402.
(ARRAY OF DISCRETE RECEPTORS)
RE DISCCART 635000. 570000. 387.
RE FINISHED
ME STARTING
ME INPUTFIL 84BTR.WET
ME ANEMHGHT 10.0
ME SURFDATA 13970 1984 BATON_ROUGE
ME UAIRDATA 12884 1984 BOOTHVILLE
ME FINISHED
TG STARTING
TG INPUTFIL TERRAIN.TER
TG LOCATION 0.0 0.0
TG ELEVUNIT METERS
TG FINISHED
OU STARTING
OU RECTABLE ALLAVE FIRST
OU PLOTFILE 1 ALL FIRST BTR841.PLT
OU PLOTFILE ANNUAL ALL BTR84A.PLT
OU FINISHED
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering 3-44
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 3: Air Dispersion and Deposition Modeling August 1999
For each of the three runs for each emission source, 5 years of off-site (e.g., National Weather Service
from SAMSON) meteorological data are completed. For sites with meteorological data collected on-site,
the appropriate permitting authority should be notified for the data period required for a risk assessment.
The averaging times (AVERTIME) should be specified as 'ANNUAL' to compute long-term (annual
average) ecological risk. Optionally, the ' 1' may be specified for convenience in modeling for the
maximum 1-hour averages used in computing acute human health risks. Each phase run may be repeated
five times (one for each year, or a total of 15 ISCST3 runs) to complete a set of 15 runs for the full five
years of meteorological data.
Alternatively, the modeler may combine the 5 years of meteorological data into a single meteorological data
file and complete only 3 runs for each emission source (one run for each phase). Section 3.5.1.1 of the
ISC3 User's Guide (U.S. EPA 1995c), includes a complete discussion of combining multiple years of
meteorological data into a single file prior to running ISCST3. The modeler should select the 'ANNUAL'
averaging time for all risk assessment runs, regardless of the number of years in the meteorological data
file. The incorrect selection of 'PERIOD' will not compute the correct deposition rates required by the risk
assessment equations (refer to Section 3.2.3 of the ISC3 User Guide, Volume I). No additional ISCST3
model execution time is required to obtain 1-year or 5-year air modeling values.
In addition, ISCST3 allows the specification of COPC half-life and decay coefficients. Unless approved by
the permitting authority with documentation of COPC-specific data, these keywords should not be used
when conducting air modeling to support risk assessments. The TERRHGTS keyword with the ELEV
parameter typically should be used to model terrain elevations at receptor grid nodes. The FLAGPOLE
keyword specifies receptor grid nodes above local ground level and is not typically used for most air
modeling to perform impacts at ground level.
U.S. EPA OSW also recommends that SAVEFIL be used to restart ISCST3 in the event of a computer or
power failure during long runs. SAVEFIL is best used by specifying two save files, each with a different
name. The save interval should be no longer than 5 days for large runs. If two save files are used, and a
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering 3-45
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 3: Air Dispersion and Deposition Modeling August 1999
failure occurs during writing to the savefile, no more than 10 days will be lost. The INITFILE command
should be used to restart the runs after the failure, as shown in the following example:
CO SAVEFILE SAVE1 5 SAVE2
** INITFILE SAVE1
ISCST3 will save the results alternately to SAVE1 and SAVE2 every 5 days. If the run fails after
successfully writing to SAVE1, the ISCST3 run can be restarted by replacing the two asterisks (*) in the
INITFILE line with CO and running ISCST3 again. The run will begin after the last day in SAVE1. The
modeler should change the names of the save files (e.g., SAVES and SAVE4) in the 'CO SAVEFILE'
command line prior to restarting ISCST3 to avoid overwriting the SAVE1 and SAVE2 files containing
valid data from the interrupted run. Note that the MULTYEAR keyword is not used for computing
long-term averages and should not be specified.
The following is an example of the COntrol pathway computer code for a single-year ISCST3 particle run:
CO STARTING
CO TITLEONE Example input file, particle pahse run, 1 year
CO TITLETWO 1984 met data, Baton Rouge Surface, Boothville Upper Air
CO MODELOPT DFAULT CONG DDEP WDEP DEPOS DRYDPLT WETDPLT RURAL
CO AVERTIME 1 ANNUAL
CO POLLUTID UNITY
CO TERRHGTS ELEV
CO RUNORRUN RUN
CO SAVEFILE 84SAVE1 5 84SAVE2
** Restart incomplete runs with INITFILE, changing '**' to 'CO'
** INITFILE SAVE1
CO FINISHED
Additional runs for the other 4 years are set up with the same COntrol pathway, except for the title
description and SAVEFILE filenames.
3.7.2 SOurce Pathway
As discussed in Section 3.3, ISCST3 normally uses a unit emission rate of 1.0 g/s. Additional source
characteristics required by the model (typically obtained from the Part B permit application and trial burn
report) include the following:
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering 3-46
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 3: Air Dispersion and Deposition Modeling August 1999
• Source type (point source for stack emissions; area or volume for fugitive emissions)
• Source location (UTM coordinates, m)
• Source base elevation
• Emission rate (1.0 g/s)
• Stack height (m)
• Stack gas temperature (K)
• Stack gas exit velocity (m/s)
• Stack inside diameter (m)
• Building heights and widths (m)
• Particle size distribution (percent)
• Particle density (g/cm3)
• Particle and gas scavenging coefficients (unitless)
RECOMMENDED INFORMATION FOR RISK ASSESSMENT REPORT
• Input values with supporting documentation for each parameter identified in Section 3.7.2
3.7.2.1 Source Location
The location keyword of the SOurce pathway (SO LOCATION) identifies source type, location, and base
elevation. The source type for any stack is referred to as a point source in ISCST3. Fugitive source
emissions are discussed in section 3.10. The source location must be entered into ISCST3. Locations
should be entered in UTM coordinates. The easterly coordinate is entered to the nearest meter; for
example, 637524 meters UTM-E (no commas are used). The northerly coordinate is entered to the nearest
meter; for example, a northerly coordinate of 4,567,789 meters UTM-N is entered as 4567789. The base
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering 3-47
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 3: Air Dispersion and Deposition Modeling August 1999
elevation of each stack must be entered in meters. Base elevation may be obtained from a USGS
topographic map, facility plot plans or USGS digital data base.
An example input for the location keyword on the SOurce pathway includes source type, location, and base
elevation in the following format:
SO LOCATION STACK1 POINT 637524. 4567789. 347.
3.7.2.2 Source Parameters
The source parameters keyword of the SOurce pathway (SO SRCPARAM) identifies the emission rate,
stack height, stack temperature, stack velocity, and stack diameter. The unit emission rate is entered as
1.0 g/s. Stack height is the height above plant base elevation on the SO LOCATION keyword. Stack
exit temperature is the most critical stack parameter for influencing concentration and deposition. High
stack temperatures result in high buoyant plume rise, which, in turn, lowers concentration and deposition
rates. Stack temperatures should be based on stack sampling tests for existing stacks. For new or
undefined stacks, manufacturer's data for similar equipment should be used. Stack exit velocity should be
calculated from actual stack gas flow rates and stack diameter. Actual stack gas flow rates should be
determined for existing stacks during stack sampling. Representative values for new or undefined sources
should be obtained from manufacturer's data on similar equipment. Stack diameter is the inside diameter
of the stack at exit.
Following is an example of the source parameter input in the SOurce pathway for emission rate (grams per
second), stack height (meters), stack temperature (K), stack velocity (meters per second), and stack
diameter (meters):
SO SRCPARAM STACK1 1.0 23.0 447.0 14.7 1.9
3.7.2.3 Building Parameters
The building height and width keywords of the SOurce pathway (SO BUILDHGT; SO BUILDWID)
identify the building dimensions that most influence the air flow for each of the 36 10-degree directions
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering 3-48
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 3: Air Dispersion and Deposition Modeling August 1999
surrounding a stack. The dimensions are calculated by using the U.S. EPA program BPIP, as described in
Section 3.2.4.
The BPIP output file is input as follows:
SO BUILDHGT STACK1 18.29 18.29 18.29 18.29 18.29 18.29 18.29 18.29
SO BUILDHGT STACK1 18.29 18.29 18.29 18.29 18.29 18.29 18.29 18.29
SO BUILDHGT STACK1 18.29 18.29 18.29 18.29 18.29 18.29 18.29 18.29
SO BUILDHGT STACK1 18.29 18.29 18.29 18.29 18.29 18.29 18.29 18.29
SO BUILDHGT STACK1 18.29 18.29 18.29 18.29
SO BUILDWID STACK1 14.02 15.51 16.53 17.05 17.05 16.53 15.51 14.03
SO BUILDWID STACK1 12.10 14.02 15.51 16.53 17.05 17.05 16.53 15.51
SO BUILDWID STACK1 14.02 12.10 14.02 15.51 16.53 17.05 17.05 16.53
SO BUILDWID STACK1 15.51 14.02 12.10 14.02 15.51 16.53 17.05 17.05
SO BUILDWID STACK1 16.53 15.51 14.02 12.10
3.7.2.4 Particle Size Distribution
ISCST3 requires particle size distribution for determining deposition velocities. U.S. EPA OSW
recommends site-specific stack test data for existing sources. New or undefined sources may use the
particle size distribution presented in Table 3-1.
The following example is the ISCST3 input for particle phase run. From Table 3-1, the distribution for
9 mean diameter sizes includes the data required for the keywords of the SOurce pathway
(SO PARTDIAM; SO MASSFRAX). The PARTDIAM is taken from Column 1 (Mean Particle Diameter).
The MASSFRAX is taken from Column 4 (Fraction of Total Mass).
SO PARTDIAM STACK1 0.35 0.70 1.10 2.00 3.60 5.50 8.10 12.5 15.0
SO MASSFRAX STACK1 0.22 0.08 0.08 0.11 0.10 0.07 0.10 0.11 0.13
The example for the ISCST3 input for the particle-bound run is described below. From Table 3-1, the
PARTDIAM is the same. The MASSFRAX is taken from Column 6 (Fraction of Total Surface Area).
SO PARTDIAM STACK1 0.35 0.70 1.10 2.00 3.60 5.50 8.10 12.5 15.0
SO MASSFRAX STACK1 0.49 0.17 0.13 0.09 0.05 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.02
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering 3-49
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 3: Air Dispersion and Deposition Modeling August 1999
3.7.2.5 Particle Density
Particle density is also required for modeling the air concentration and deposition rates of particles.
Site-specific measured data on particle density should be determined for all existing sources when possible.
For new or undefined sources requiring air modeling, a default value for particle density of 1.0 g/cm3 may
be used. Particles from combustion sources, however, may have densities that are less than 1.0 g/cm3
(U.S. EPA 1994a), which would reduce the modeled deposition flux.
Following is an example of the particle density input in the SOurce pathway (SO PARTDENS) for the
9 mean particle size diameters of the previous example:
SO PARTDENS STACK1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
3.7.2.6 Scavenging Coefficients
Wet deposition flux is calculated within ISCST3 by multiplying a scavenging ratio by the vertically
integrated concentration. The scavenging ratio is the product of a scavenging coefficient and a
precipitation rate. Studies have shown that best fit values for the scavenging coefficients vary with particle
size. For vapors, wet scavenging depends on the properties of the COPCs involved. However, not enough
data are now available to adequately develop COPC-specific scavenging coefficients. Therefore, vapors
are assumed to be scavenged at the rate of the smallest particles with behavior in the atmosphere that is
assumed to be influenced more by the molecular processes that affect vapors than by the physical processes
that may dominate the behavior of larger particles (U.S. EPA 1995c).
To use the wet deposition option in ISCST3, users must input scavenging coefficients for each particle size
and a file that has hourly precipitation data. For wet deposition of vapors, a scavenging coefficient for a
0.1-jwm particle may be input to simulate wet scavenging of very small (molecular) particles. Alternatively,
site-specific measured washout data or a calculation based on Henry's Law constant may be approved by
the appropriate permitting authority prior to analysis. Wet deposition results only during precipitation.
Scavenging coefficients should be determined for each particle size from the best fit curve based on the
work of Jindal and Heinhold (1991) presented in the ISC3 User's Guide (U.S. EPA 1995c). The curves are
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering 3-50
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 3: Air Dispersion and Deposition Modeling
August 1999
limited to a maximum particle size of 10-ywm, so all scavenging coefficients for particle sizes greater than
or equal to 10-jwm are assumed to be equal. This assumption follows research on wet scavenging of
particles (Jindal and Heinhold 1991).
The ISCST3 model input also differentiates between frozen and liquid scavenging coefficients. As a
conservative estimate, the frozen scavenging coefficients are assumed to be equal to the liquid scavenging
coefficients (PEI and Cramer 1986). If desired, the user may input separate scavenging coefficients for
frozen precipitation. Research on sulfate and nitrate data has shown that frozen precipitation scavenging
coefficients are about one-third of the values of liquid precipitation (Scire, Strimaitis, and Yamartino 1990;
Witby 1978).
Following is an example of the particle liquid (rain) and frozen (sleet or snow) scavenging coefficients
input in the SOurce pathway for 9 mean particle size diameters assuming particles are scavenged by frozen
precipitation at 1/3 the rate of liquid precipitation:
SO PARTSLIQ STACK1 7E-5 5E-5 6E-5 1.3E-4 2.6E-4 3.9E-4 5.2E-4 6.7E-4 6.7E-4
SO PARTSICE STACK1 2E-5 2E-5 2E-5 4E-5 9E-5 1.3E-4 1.7E-4 2.2E-4 2.2E-4
The complete SOurce pathway for the example particle phase input file is as follows:
SO
so
so
so
so
so
so
so
so
so
so
so
so
so
so
so
so
so
so
STARTING
LOCATION
SRCPARAM
BUILDHGT
BUILDHGT
BUILDHGT
BUILDHGT
BUILDHGT
BUILDWID
BUILDWID
BUILDWID
BUILDWID
BUILDWID
PARTDIAM
MASSFRAX
PARTDENS
PARTSLIQ
PARTSICE
SRCGROUP
STACK1
STACK1
STACK1
STACK1
STACK1
STACK1
STACK1
STACK1
STACK1
STACK1
STACK1
STACK1
STACK1
STACK1
STACK1
STACK1
STACK1
ALL
POINT 637524
1.0 23.0 447
18.29 18.29
18.29 18.29
18.29 18.29
18.29 18.29
18.29 18.29
14.02 15.51
12.10 14.02
14.02 12.10
15.51 14.02
16.53 15.51
0.35 0.70 1.
0.22 0.08 0.
1.0 1.0 1.
7E-5 5E-5 6E
2E-5 2E-5 2E
. 4567789
.0
18.
18.
18.
18.
18.
16.
15.
14.
12.
14.
10
08
0
-5
-5
14
.29
.29
.29
.29
.29
.53
.51
.02
.10
.02
2.
0.
1.
1 .
.7
18
18
18
18
18
17
16
15
14
12
00
11
0
3E-
4E-
1
3
0
1
4
5
. 347
.9
29
29
29
29
29
05
53
51
02
10
.60
.10
.0
2.
18
18
18
18
17
17
16
15
5
0
1
6E
9E
29 18.29 18.29 18.29
29 18.29 18.29 18.29
29 18.29 18.29 18.29
29 18.29 18.29 18.29
05 16.53 15.51 14.03
05 17.05 16.53 15.51
53 17.05 17.05 16.53
51 16.53 17.05 17.05
50 8.10 12.5 15.0
07 0.10 0.11 0.13
0 1.0 1.0 1.0
•4 3.9E-4 5.2E-4 6.7E-4 6.7E-4
•5 1.3E-4 1.7E-4 2.2E-4 2.2E-4
SO FINISHED
U.S. EPA Region 6
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering
U.S. EPA
Office of Solid Waste
3-51
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 3: Air Dispersion and Deposition Modeling August 1999
When modeling air vapors using ISCST3, the following is an example of the SOurce pathway input for wet
vapor scavenging coefficients that replaces the PARTDIAM, MASSFRAX, PARTDENS, PARTSLIQ and
PARTSICE lines in the above example:
SO GAS-SCAV STACK1 LIQ 1.7E-4
SO GAS-SCAV STACK1 ICE 0.6E-4
3.7.3 REceptor Pathway
The REceptor pathway identifies sets or arrays of receptor grid nodes identified by UTM coordinates for
which ISCST3 generates estimates of air parameters including air concentration, dry and wet deposition,
and total deposition. Previous U.S. EPA guidance (U.S. EPA 1994a) recommended using a polar receptor
grid to identify maximum values, because polar grids provide coverage over large areas with a reduced
number of receptor grid nodes, thereby reducing computer run times. However, U.S. EPA Region 6
experience indicates that, although the use of polar grids may reduce computer run times, air modelers
typically choose a different option, because the benefit of reduced run time is offset by difficulties in
identifying polar grid locations in absolute UTM coordinates for (1) extracting terrain values from digital
terrain files, and (2) selecting receptor grid node locations for evaluation of ecosystems and special
ecological habitats (see Chapter 4).
Receptor grid node arrays may be generated by using ISCST3 grid generation. However, assigning terrain
elevations for each receptor grid node in an array associated with the generated grid can result in errors.
One method of obtaining a Cartesian grid with terrain elevations is to open the USGS DEM file in a
graphics program (e.g., SURFER®). Selection of the grid option samples the DEM file, at the
user-specified spacing, over a range of east (x) and north (y) values. The specified x and y locations
extract terrain elevation (z) from the DEM file at the desired receptor grid node for air modeling with the
appropriate terrain elevations at each receptor grid node. These x, y, and z values are saved as a text file
with one receptor grid node per line. A text editor is used to prefix each line with "RE DISCCART" to
specify a discrete receptor grid node in ISCST3 format. Commercial receptor grid generators are also
available. One commercial program (Lakes Environmental Software) generates the recommended receptor
grid node array and extracts terrain elevations from the USGS DEM downloaded files, or any terrain file in
x-y-z format.
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering 3-52
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 3: Air Dispersion and Deposition Modeling August 1999
The following is an example of the REceptor pathway for discrete receptor grid nodes at 500-meter spacing
and including terrain elevations (in meters):
RE STARTING
RE ELEVUNIT METERS
RE DISCCART 630000. 565000. 352.
RE DISCCART 630500. 565000. 365.
RE DISCCART 631000. 565000. 402.
1
RE DISCCART 635000. 570000. 387.
RE FINISHED
U.S. EPA OSW recommends that air modeling for each risk assessment include, at a minimum, an array of
receptor grid nodes covering the area within 10 kilometers of the facility with the origin at the centroid of a
polygon formed by the locations of the stack emission sources. This receptor grid node array should
consist of a Cartesian grid with grid nodes spaced 100 meters apart extending from the centroid of the
emission sources out to 3 kilometers from the centroid. For the distances from 3 kilometers out to
10 kilometers, the receptor grid node spacing can be increased to 500 meters. The single grid node array
contains both grid node spacings. This same receptor grid node array is included in the REceptor pathway
for all ISCST3 runs for all years of meteorological data and for all emission sources.
Terrain elevations should be specified for all receptor grid nodes. Several methods are available for
assigning terrain elevations to grid nodes using digital terrain data. The 1:250,000 scale DEM digital data
are available for download at the USGS Internet site:
Worldwide Web: http://edcwww.cr.usgs.gov/pub/data/dem/250
FTP (two options): ftp://edcwww.cr.usgs.gov/pub/data/dem/250
ftp ://edcftp .cr .usgs .gov/pub/data/dem/25 0
This data has horizontal spacing between digital terrain values of approximately 90 meters which provides
sufficient accuracy for air modeling.
In addition to the receptor grid node array evaluated for each facility out to 10 kilometers, other grid node
arrays may be considered for evaluation of water bodies and their watersheds, ecosystems and special
ecological habitats located beyond 10 kilometers. Grid node spacing of 500 meters between nodes is
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering 3-53
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 3: Air Dispersion and Deposition Modeling August 1999
recommended for grid node arrays positioned at distances greater than 10 kilometers from the emission
source. An equally spaced grid node array facilitates subsequent computation of area averages for
deposition rates.
RECOMMENDED INFORMATION FOR RISK ASSESSMENT REPORT
Summary of all information regarding the coordinates and placement of the receptor grid node
array used in air modeling
Copies of any maps, figures, or aerial photographs used to develop the receptor grid node array
Map presenting UTM locations of receptor grid nodes, along with other facility information.
3.7.4 MEteorological Pathway
The file containing meteorological data is specified in the MEteorological pathway. PCRAMMET creates
individual files for each of 5 years, as ASCII files, to be read into ISCST3 for computing hourly
concentrations and deposition rates. The modeler may specify a single year of meteorological data in each
ISCST3 run, or combine the total period of meteorological data into a single meteorological file for
processing by ISCST3 in a single 5-year run. When combining meteorological files, the modeler is
cautioned to consider the following:
• Preprocess each year separately using PCRAMMET or MPRM into an ASCII format
• Combine the years into a single file (using a text editor or DOS COPY command)
• The first line (header) of the combined file is read by ISCST3 for comparison to the
Surface and Upper Air Station ID numbers specified in the input file ME pathway
The header for subsequent years is read by ISCST3 only if not deleted in the combined
file. If subsequent year headers are included in the combined file, ISCST3 will compare
the station IDs to the input file station ID. For air modeling analysis which use
meteorological data from more than one surface station or upper air station (e.g., the upper
air station is moved after the third year of the period and assigned a new station ID by the
National Weather Service), the modeler should delete the headers for subsequent years in
the combined file.
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering 3-54
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 3: Air Dispersion and Deposition Modeling August 1999
For sites where the anemometer height is changed during the 5 year period (e.g., for the
period 1984-1988, the anemometer was relocated from 20 feet to 10 meters on December
15, 1985), the modeler should run each year separately to specify the correct anemometer
height in the ISCST3 input file ME pathway which corresponds to the correct height for
that year of meteorological data.
Details of specifying the meteorological data file are in the ISC3 User's Guide (Section 3.5.1.1). Each year
within the file must be complete with a full year of data (365 days, or 366 days for leap years). The
anemometer height must be verified for the surface station from Local Climate Data Summary records, or
other sources, such as the state climatologist office. U.S. EPA OSW recommends that the anemometer
height ANEMHGHT for the wind speed measurements at the surface station be correctly identified before air
modeling.
The following is an example input section for the MEteorological pathway, using the 1984 Baton Rouge
file, with an anemometer height of 10 meters and station identification numbers:
ME STARTING
ME INPUTFIL 84BR.WET
ME ANEMHGHT 10.0
ME SURFDATA 13970 1984 BATON_ROUGE
ME UAIRDATA 12884 1984 BOOTHVILLE
ME FINISHED
3.7.5 Terrain Grid (TG) Pathway
The computation of dry plume depletion is sensitive to terrain elevation. In the absence of a terrain grid
file, ISCST3 automatically assumes that the terrain slope between the stack base and the receptor grid node
elevation is linear. In concept, this assumption may underestimate plume deposition. However, based on
experience, the magnitude of the differences in computed concentrations and deposition rates is nominal.
Since the inclusion of a terrain grid file in the TG pathway significantly increases model execution time,
U.S. EPA OSW recommends that a terrain grid file is not necessary for all sites. If a terrain grid file is
desired for a specific site based on highly variable terrain over short distances, the format of the TG file is
described in the ISC3 User's Guide.
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering 3-55
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 3: Air Dispersion and Deposition Modeling August 1999
The location keyword of the TG pathway (TG LOCATION) identifies the x and y values to be added to the
source and receptor grid to align with the terrain file coordinates. If the source and receptor grid nodes are
in relative units such that the source is at location 0,0, the location keywords in the TG pathway would be
the UTM coordinates of the source. U.S. EPA OSW requires that all emission sources and receptor grid
nodes be specified in UTM coordinates (NAD27 or NAD83 format), and that the TG file, if used, be in
UTM coordinates. Therefore, the location of the origin of the TG file relative to the source location will be
0,0. Also, U.S. EPA OSW recommends that the terrain elevations in the TG file be presented in meters.
Following is an example of the TG pathway:
TG STARTING
TG INPUTFIL TERRAIN.TER
TG LOCATION 0.0 0.0
TG ELEVUNIT METERS
TG FINISHED
3.7.6 OUtput Pathway
ISCST3 provides numerous output file options in addition to the results in the output summary file
specified in receptor tables (RECTABLE). The plot file is most useful for facilitating post-processing of
the air parameter values in the model output. The plot file lists the x and y coordinates and the
concentration or deposition rate values for each averaging period in a format that can be easily pulled into a
post-processing program (or spreadsheet). Note that the ISCST3 generated 'plot' file is not the same
format as the ISCST3 generated 'post' file. U.S. EPA OSW recommends using the plot file, not the post
file.
Following is an example OUtput file specification for single-year run of 1-hour and annual average plot
files:
OU STARTING
OU RECTABLE ALLAVE FIRST
OU PLOTFILE 1 ALL FIRST BTR841.PLT
OU PLOTFILE ANNUAL ALL BTR84A.PLT
OU FINISHED
For ecological risk assessments, the 1-hour average plot file is not needed. If the modeler has directed in
the ISCST3 control pathway for 1-hour averages to be computed for use in a human health acute risk
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering 3-56
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 3: Air Dispersion and Deposition Modeling August 1999
assessment, then the 1-hour average plot file also should be specified (U.S. EPA 1998). The second line in
the example directs ISCST3 to create a table of values for each receptor grid node for all averaging periods
in the model run (annual and optionally 1-hour). The third line directs ISCST3 to create a separate plot file
of the 1-hour average results, if desired by the modeler. The fourth line directs ISCST3 to create another
separate plot file of the annual average results for all sources in the run for each receptor grid node.
3.8 ISCST3 MODEL EXECUTION
Model execution time should be considered for each analysis. A complete air modeling run—including air
concentration, wet and dry deposition, and plume depletion—may require 10 times the run time for the
same source and receptor grid nodes for air concentration only. Even if only the total deposition is
specified, ISCST3 must compute air concentration and the dry and wet deposition components in order to
compute the total deposition air parameter values required for the ecological risk assessment. For example,
an ISCST3 particle run of one source with 800 receptor grid nodes, on 1 year of meteorological data, with
the options for air concentration, wet and dry deposition, and plume depletion required about 40 hours on a
personal computer with a 486 processor running at 66 megahertz (486/66). The same run can be
completed in about 10 hours on a 586/120 personal computer. Five years of meteorological data and an
additional 1,600 receptor grid nodes result in total run times of 120 hours for 1 year, and 600 hours for a
5-year analysis on a 486/66 personal computer. Run time on a 586/120 personal computer is estimated at
about 150 hours. A significant loss of modeling effort and analysis time can be prevented by verifying
input parameters and conducting test runs prior to executing the ISCST3 runs.
Long run times result mainly from two algorithms—plume depletion and terrain grid file. ISCST3 run
times are increased as much as tenfold for runs applying plume depletion. U.S. EPA OSW believes that
constituent mass must be conserved between suspended concentration and deposition rate by allowing for
depletion of deposited mass from the plume concentration in ISCST3. The overestimate of plume
concentration, and the subsequent overestimate of deposition, which results when plume depletion is not
allowed, is too conservative. However, the nominal benefits of including a terrain grid file do not justify
the added run times. Therefore, plume depletion should always be included, but terrain grid files are not
recommended.
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering 3-57
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 3: Air Dispersion and Deposition Modeling August 1999
3.9 USE OF MODELED OUTPUT
The ISCST3 modeled output (air concentrations and deposition rates) are provided on a unit emission rate
(1.0 g/s) basis from the combustion unit or emission source, and are not COPC-specific. The estimating
media equations presented in Section 3.11 and Appendix B require the model output (air parameters, see
Table 3-5) directly without converting the unit based output to COPC-specific output. However, there may
be some instances where the risk assessor will need to convert modeled output to COPC-specific output for
the risk assessment. For example, the risk assessor may want to compare modeled COPC concentrations in
ambient media to concentrations actually measured in the field.
3.9.1 Unit Rate Output vs. COPC-Specific Output
The relationship between the unit emission rate and the unit air parameter values (air concentrations and
deposition rates) is linear. Similarly, the relationship between the COPC-specific emission rate (0 and the
COPC-specific air parameter values (air concentrations and deposition rates) would also be linear if the
COPC-specific emission rate was used in the air model. Section 3.3 discussed the use of the unit emission
rate and advanced the theory that a unit emission rate should be used instead of the COPC-specific
emission rate in order to preclude having to run the ISCST3 model separately for each individual COPC.
The use of a unit emission rate in the air modeling is advocated because a common ratio relationship can be
developed between the unit emission rate and the COPC-specific emission rate based on the fact that in the
air model, both individual relationships are linear. This ratio relationship can be expressed by the
following equation:
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering 3-58
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 3: Air Dispersion and Deposition Modeling
August 1999
TABLE 3-5
AIR PARAMETERS FROM ISCST3 MODELED OUTPUT
Air
Parameter
Cyv
Cyp
Dywv
Dydp
Dywp
Cywv
Dywwv
Dytwp
Description
Unitized yearly average air concentration from vapor
phase
Unitized yearly average air concentration from particle
phase
Unitized yearly average wet deposition from vapor
phase
Unitized yearly average dry deposition from particle
phase
Unitized yearly average wet deposition from particle
phase
Unitized yearly (water body or watershed) average air
concentration from vapor phase
Unitized yearly (water body or watershed) average
wet deposition from vapor phase
Unitized yearly (water body or watershed) average
total (wet and dry) deposition from particle phase
Units
Aig-s/g-m3
Aig-s/g-m3
s/m2-yr
s/m2-yr
s/m2-yr
Aig-s/g-m3
s/m2-yr
s/m2-yr
COPC-Specific Air Concentration Modeled Output Air Concentration
COPC-Specific Emission Rate Unit Emission Rate
Equation 3-2
Use of this equation requires that three of the variables be known. The modeled output air concentration
(or deposition rate) is provided by the air model, the unit emission is 1.0 g/s, and the COPC-specific
emission rate; which is obtained directly from stack or source test data.
U.S. EPA Region 6
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering
U.S. EPA
Office of Solid Waste
3-59
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 3: Air Dispersion and Deposition Modeling August 1999
3.9.1.1 Determination of the COPC-Specific Emission Rate (0
The COPC-specific emission rate can usually be determined with information obtained directly from the
trial burn report. The COPC-specific emission rate from the stack is a function of the stack gas flow rate
and the stack gas concentration of each COPC; which can be calculated from the following equation:
SGC•CFO2
Q = SGF- Equation 3-4
IxlO6
where
Q = COPC-specific emission rate (g/s)
SGF = Stack gas flow rate at dry standard conditions (dscm/s)
SGC = COPC stack gas concentration at 7 percent O2 as measured in the trial burn
((ig/dscm)
CFO2 = Correction factor for conversion to actual stack gas concentration O2 (unitless)
1 x 106 = Unit conversion factor ((ig/g)
Guidance for determining COPC-specific emission rates for fugitive emission sources can be found in
Chapter 2. Also, it is sometimes necessary to derive the COPC-specific emission rate from surrogate data,
such as for a new facility that has not yet been constructed and trial burned (see Chapter 2).
3.9.1.2 Converting Unit Output to COPC-Specific Output
Once the three of the four variables in Equation 3-1 are known, the COPC-specific air concentrations and
deposition rates can be obtained directly by multiplication, as follows:
COPC-Specific Modeled Output Air Concentration-COPC-Specific Emission Rate
Air Concentration Unit Emission Rate Equation 3-3
For example, if COPC A is emitted at a rate of 0.25 g/s, and the ISCST3 modeled concentration at a
specific receptor grid node is 0.2 Aig/m3 per the 1.0 g/s unit emission rate, the concentration of COPC A at
that receptor grid node is 0.05 jWg/m3 (0.25 multiplied by 0.2). Deposition is calculated similarly,
proportional to the emission rate of each COPC. Readers are reminded once again that this process of
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering 3-60
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 3: Air Dispersion and Deposition Modeling August 1999
converting modeled unitized output into COPC-specific output is taken directly into account in the
estimating media concentration equations in Section 3.11 and Appendix B.
3.9.2 Output from the ISCST3 Model
The ISCST3 output is structured and the risk assessor must understand how to read the output in order to
ensure accurate use of modeled output in the risk assessment. The output from each ISCST3 model run is
written to two separate file formats. The 'output file' is specified by name at run time in the execution
command. Typical command line nomenclature is:
ISCST3 inputfile.INP outputfile.OUT
where
ISCST3: specifies execution of the ISCST3 model
inputf ile . INP: is the input file name selected by the modeler
output file. OUT: is the output file name selected by the modeler, typically the same as the
input file name
For example, the following ISCST3 input line would run the input file (PART84.INP) created by the
modeler for particulate emissions using 1984 meteorological data. The output file (PART84.OUT) from
the run will automatically be written by ISCST3 during model execution.
ISCST3 PART84.INP PART84.0UT
The output 'plot file' is specified by the modeler in the ISCST3 input file OUtput pathway and created by
ISCST3 during the run (see Section 3.7.6). Figure 3-3 is an example of the first few lines in the particle
phase plot file with single-year annual average concentration, total deposition, dry deposition and wet
deposition values for each receptor grid node. The total deposition is the sum of the dry and wet
components of deposition. The single-year values at each receptor grid node being evaluated must be
averaged to a 5-year value. The 5-year averaged values at the receptor grid nodes selected for evaluation in
the risk assessment (see Section 3.9.3), are used in the estimating media concentration equations. This file
is usually imported into a post-processing program (or spreadsheet) before entry into the risk assessment
computations.
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering 3-61
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 3: Air Dispersion and Deposition Modeling August 1999
Similar plot files are produced for the particle-bound and vapor phase runs. The output for the vapor
phase runs will be average concentration and wet deposition. The output for the particle and particle-
bound phase runs will be average concentration, dry deposition, wet deposition and total deposition. Again,
the 1-year values at each receptor grid node must be averaged to a 5-year value at each node unless a single
five-year ISCST3 run using a combined meteorological file is used. If the 5-year combined file is used, the
results from the ISCST3 plot file may be used directly in the risk assessment without averaging over the
five years.
All values are defined as used in the estimating media concentration equations (see Section 3.11).
3.9.3 Use of Model Output in Estimating Media Equations
Section 3.4 discussed how consideration of partitioning of the COPCs effects the development of ISCST3
modeling runs. The selection of which air modeled air parameter values (air concentrations and deposition
rates) to use in the estimating media concentration equations is based on this same partitioning theory.
3.9.3.1 Vapor Phase COPCs
ISCST3 output generated from vapor phase air modeling runs are vapor phase air concentrations (unitized
Cyv and unitized Cywv) and wet vapor depositions (unitized Dywv and unitized Dywwv) for organic
COPCs at receptor grid nodes based on the unit emission rate. These values are used in the estimating
media concentration equations for all COPC organics except the polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
dibenzo(a,h)anthracene and indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene, which have vapor phase fractions, Fv, less than
five percent. The air concentration (unitized Cyv) and wet vapor deposition (unitized Dywv) from the vapor
phase run is also used in the estimating media concentration equations for mercury. Values for these
COPCs are selected from the vapor phase run because the mass of the COPC emitted by the combustion
unit is assumed to have either all or a portion of its mass in the vapor phase (see Appendix A-2).
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering 3-62
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 3: Air Dispersion and Deposition Modeling August 1999
3.9.3.2 Particle Phase COPCs
ISCST3 output generated from particle phase air modeling runs are air concentration (unitized Cyp), dry
deposition (unitized Dydp), wet deposition (unitized Dywp), and combined deposition (unitized Dytwp) for
inorganics and relatively non-volatile organic COPCs at receptor grid nodes based on the unit emission
rate. These values are used in the estimating media concentration equations for all COPC inorganics
(except mercury, see Chapter 2 and Appendix A-2) and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons with fraction of
vapor phase, Fv , less than 0.05 (e.g., dibenzo(a,h)anthracene and indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene). Values for
inorganic and relatively non-volative COPCs are selected from the particle phase run because the mass of
the COPC emitted by the combustion unit is assumed to have all of its mass in the particulate phase (see
Appendix A-2), apportioned across the particle size distribution based on mass weighting.
3.9.3.3 Particle-Bound COPCs
ISCST3 output generated from particle-bound air modeling runs are air concentration (unitized Cyp), dry
deposition (unitized Dydp), wet deposition (unitized Dywp), and combined deposition (unitized Dytwp) for
organic COPCs and mercury (see Chapter 2 and Appendix A-2) at receptor grid nodes based on the unit
emission rate. These values are used in the estimating media concentration equations for all COPC
organics and mercury to account for a portion of the vapor condensed onto the surface of particulates.
Values for these COPCs are selected from the particle-bound run because the mass of the COPC emitted
by the combustion unit is assumed to have a portion of its mass condensed on particulates (see
Appendix A-2), apportioned across the particle size distribution based on surface area weighting.
3.10 MODELING OF FUGITIVE EMISSIONS
Fugitive source emissions, as defined in Chapter 2, should be modeled using the procedures presented
throughout this chapter for stack source emissions. However, the fugitive emissions should be represented
in the ISCST3 input file SOurce pathway as either "area" or "volume" source types. Fugitive emissions of
volatile organics are modeled only in the vapor phase. Fugitive emissions of ash are modeled only in the
particle and particle-bound phases, not vapor phase.
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering 3-63
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 3: Air Dispersion and Deposition Modeling August 1999
As discussed in Chapter 2, fugitive emissions of volatile organic vapors are associated with combustion
units that include storage vessels, pipes, valves, seals and flanges. The horizontal area of the fugitive
source (which can be obtained from the facility plot plan) is entered into the ISCST3 input file following
the instructions presented in the ISC3 User's Guide, Volume I (U.S. EPA 1995c). The height of the
fugitive source is defined as the top of the vertical extent of the equipment. If the vertical extent of the
fugitive source is not known, a default height of ground level (release height of zero) may be input,
providing a conservative estimate of potential impacts. The ISCST3 model run time is faster for volume
source types than for area source types, and should be considered for most applications. The methods in
the ISCST3 User's Guide should be followed in defining the input parameters to represent the fugitive
source.
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering 3-64
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 3: Air Dispersion and Deposition Modeling
December 1998
*ISCST3 (96113) : Ex;
*MODELING OPTIONS USI
* CONG DEPOS DDEP
* PLOT FILE 01
* FOR A TOTAL
* FORMAT : ( 6 ( :
* X Y
ID
*
691600
691700
691800
691900
692000
692100
692200
692300
692400
692500
692600
691600
691700
. 00000
.00000
.00000
.00000
.00000
.00000
.00000
.00000
.00000
.00000
.00000
.00000
.00000
3342050
3342050
3342050
3342050
3342050
3342050
3342050
3342050
3342050
3342050
3342050
3342150
3342150
FIGU
EXAMPLE
ample Particle Phase Run, Single Year :
3D:
WDEP RURAL ELEV DFAULT
T ANNUAL VALUES FOR SOURCE GROUP: ALL
OF 21 RECEPTORS.
LX, F13 . 5) , IX, F8 .2, 2X,A6 . 2X.A8 . 2X. 18 . 2X
AVERAGE CONG
. 00000
.00000
.00000
.00000
.00000
.00000
.00000
.00000
.00000
.00000
.00000
.00000
.00000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.29900
.30203
.25174
.13256
.00322
.00000
.00319
.13768
.23546
.25673
.24706
.37348
.37166
TOTAL DEPO
0
0
0
0
0
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.28658
.35416
.42461
.50524
.61790
.32022
.32218
.39938
.33855
.27475
.22195
.40644
.51388
DR^
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
RE 3-3
PLOT FE
L990
AS)
f DEPO
.20024
.23884
.25976
.23852
.05850
.00000
.06577
.21734
.20975
.17903
.14812
.25958
.31119
LE
WET DEPO
0 .
0.
0.
0.
0.
6 .
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
. 08634
.11532
.16485
.26672
.55940
.32022
.25641
.18204
.12880
.09572
.07384
.14685
.20269
ZELEV
4 .
5.
5.
5.
5.
6 .
6 .
6 .
6 .
6 .
6 .
5.
5.
. 00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
AVE
ANNUAL
ANNUAL
ANNUAL
ANNUAL
ANNUAL
ANNUAL
ANNUAL
ANNUAL
ANNUAL
ANNUAL
ANNUAL
ANNUAL
ANNUAL
DRYDPL WETDPL
GRP NUM HRS NET
ALL
ALL
ALL
ALL
ALL
ALL
ALL
ALL
ALL
ALL
ALL
ALL
ALL
8760
8760
8760
8760
8760
8760
8760
8760
8760
8760
8760
8760
8760
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
U.S. EPA Region 6
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering
U.S. EPA
Office of Solid Waste
3-65
-------
Protocol for Screening Level Human Health Risk Assessment
Chapter 3: Air Dispersion and Deposition Modeling
February 28,1997
691800
691900
692000
692100
692200
692300
692400
692500
. 00000
. 00000
. 00000
. 00000
. 00000
. 00000
. 00000
. 00000
3342150
3342150
3342150
3342150
3342150
3342150
3342150
3342150
. 00000
. 00000
. 00000
. 00000
. 00000
. 00000
. 00000
. 00000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.34332
.22930
. 03473
. 00098
. 02605
. 17300
.24520
.25561
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
. 68794
. 98039
. 90823
. 62882
.48160
.49313
.29443
.23482
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.39582
. 54883
.37421
. 15736
. 15582
.22998
. 19715
. 16744
0 .
0 .
0 .
0 .
0 .
0 .
0 .
0 .
.29212
.43156
. 53402
.47146
.32578
.26315
. 09729
. 06738
5 .
5 .
6 .
6 .
7 .
7 .
7 .
7 .
. 00
. 00
. 00
. 00
. 00
. 00
. 00
. 00
ANNUAL
ANNUAL
ANNUAL
ANNUAL
ANNUAL
ANNUAL
ANNUAL
ANNUAL
ALL
ALL
ALL
ALL
ALL
ALL
ALL
ALL
8760
8760
8760
8760
8760
8760
8760
8760
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
U.S. EPA Region 6
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering
U.S. EPA
Office of Solid Waste
3-66
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 3: Air Dispersion and Deposition Modeling
August 1999
The following example is for organic fugitive emissions modeled as a volume source type. For a facility
which may have two stack emission sources (Bl, B2) and two fugitive emission sources (areas Fl, F2);
a total of four runs for each year (or 5-year combined file) of meteorological data is required. One run is
required for each of the two stacks as point sources. One run is required for each of the two fugitive areas
as volume sources (Note: modeler may alternatively model as an area source). Since the emissions are
fugitive volatile organics, only the vapor phase is modeled. The vertical extent of the pipes, valves, tanks
and flanges associated with each fugitive emission area is 15 feet (about 5 meters) above plant elevation.
To define the sources for input to ISCST3, the release height is specified as 2.5 meters (1A of vertical extent
of fugitive emissions). The initial vertical dimension is specified as 1.16 meters (vertical extent of 5 meters
divided by 4.3 as described in the ISC3 User's Guide).
Plot Plan
B2
A
F2
B1
A
F1
ISC3 Volume
F1A
F1B
F1C
F1D
The initial horizontal dimension is the side length of the square fugitive area (footprint) divided by 4.3. If
fugitive area F2 has a measured side of 30 meters, the initial horizontal dimension is 6.98 (30 meters
divided by 4.3). For fugitive area Fl, the area on the plot plan must be subdivided (ISC3 Volume) to
create square areas for input to ISCST3. The four areas depicted represent subdivision into square areas.
The resulting four square areas are input into a single ISCST3 run for Fugitive source Fl as four separate
volume sources (F1A, FIB, F1C, FID). The initial horizontal dimension for each volume source is the
side of the square divided by 4.3. It is very important to allocate proportionately the unit emission rate
(1.0 gram per second) among the subdivided areas. For example, if the areas of the subdivided squares in
the ISC3 Volume figure results in F1A equal to FIB each with l/8th the total area, the proportion of the
unit emissions allocated to each of these volume sources is 0.125 grams per second. The remaining two
areas are each 3/8ths of the total area of fugitive Fl, so that 0.375 grams per second is specified for the
emission rate from each source. The total emissions for the four volume sources sum to the unit emission
rate for the Fl fugitive source (0.125 + 0.125 + 0.375 + 0.375 = 1.0 g/s). By specifying all sources to be
included in the model results from ISCST3 (SO SRCGROUP ALL), the ISCST3 model will appropriately
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering 3-67
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 3: Air Dispersion and Deposition Modeling August 1999
combine all four volume source subdivisions of fugitive source Fl into combined impact results for fugitive
source F1. The resulting air parameter values in the plot files may be used directly in the risk assessment
equations, the same as if a stack emission were modeled as a single point source. The initial vertical
dimension is defined the same as F2, using the vertical extent of 5 meters divided by 4.3 and a release
height of 2.5 meters (1A vertical extent). For volume sources, the location is specified by the x and y
coordinates of the center of each square area.
The COntrol parameters should follow the recommendations for setting up a vapor phase computation.
CO CONG WDEP
Fugitive emissions of ash particles are from the storage piles associated with combustion units. The
horizontal area of the storage pile is entered into the ISCST3 input file following the ISCST3 User's Guide,
Volume I (U.S. EPA 1995c). The height of emissions is input as the top of the pile. If the vertical extent is
not known, the height may be input as ground level (or zero height). Fugitive ash will typically be modeled
as area source type. However, volume source type may be considered by the appropriate regulatory agency
prior to air modeling. The methods in the ISCST3 User's Guide should be followed in defining the input
parameters to represent the ash release as an area source.
The COntrol parameters should follow the recommendations for setting up a particulate phase
computation.
CO CONG DDEP WDEP DEPOS
The emissions characterization and source type must be documented.
3.11 ESTIMATION OF COPC CONCENTRATIONS IN MEDIA
As discussed in Section 3.9 (see also Table 3-5), the ISCST3 modeled output of unitized air parameters
(air concentrations and deposition rates) are provided on a unit emission (1.0 g/s) basis from the
combustion unit, and are not COPC-specific. The estimating media concentration equations, presented in
this section, accept these unitized output values directly to calculate COPC-specific media concentrations
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering 3-68
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 3: Air Dispersion and Deposition Modeling August 1999
for use in characterizing ecological risk. Selection of the appropriate ISCST3 modeled output for use in
the equations is discussed in Section 3.9.
This section presents the estimating media concentration equations used for calculating, from the
appropriate ISCST3 unitized model output and COPC-specific emission rates, COPC-specific media
concentrations in soil, surface water, and sediment. Determining COPC media concentrations is relevant to
estimating risks to potentially impacted ecosystems through exposure of ecological receptors to COPCs in
air (plant only), soil, surface water, and sediment. This section also includes equations for calculating
COPC-specific concentrations in terrestrial plants resulting from foliar and root uptake.
Section 3.11.1 describes the equations for calculating COPC-specific concentration in soils. Section 3.11.2
describes the equations for calculating COPC-specific concentrations in surface water and sediment.
Section 3.11.3 describes the equations for calculating COPC-specific plant concentrations from foliar and
root uptake. In addition, Appendix B also provides in more detail the media concentration equations and
default input variables recommended by U.S. EPA OSW.
3.11.1 CALCULATION OF COPC CONCENTRATIONS IN SOIL
As depicted in Figure 3-4, COPC concentrations in soil are calculated by summing the particle and vapor
phase deposition of COPCs to the soil. Wet and dry deposition of particles and vapors are considered, with
dry deposition of vapors calculated from the vapor air concentration and the dry deposition velocity. Soil
concentrations may require many years to reach steady state. As a result, the equations used to calculate
the soil concentration over the period of deposition were derived by integrating the instantaneous soil
concentration equation over the period of deposition. U.S. EPA OSW recommends that the highest 1-year
annual average COPC concentration in soil be used as the soil concentration for estimating ecological risk,
which would typically occur at the end of the time period of combustion (see Section 3.11.1).
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering 3-69
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 3: Air Dispersion and Deposition Modeling
August 1999
Degradation
(Biotic + Abiotic)
and Volatilization
Figure 3-4 - COPC Concentration in Soil
Following deposition, the calculation of soil concentration also considers losses of COPCs by several
mechanisms, including leaching, erosion, runoff, degradation (biotic and abiotic), and volatilization. All of
these loss mechanisms may lower the soil concentration if included in the soil concentration calculation (see
Section 3.11.1.2). Soil conditions—such as pH, structure, organic matter content, and moisture
content—can also affect the distribution and mobility of COPCs in soil. Loss of COPCs from the soil is
modeled using a combination of default and site-specific values to account for the physical and chemical
characteristics of the soil.
COPCs may also be physically incorporated into the upper layers of soil through tilling. The concentration
in the top 20 centimeters of soil should be computed for estimating a COPC concentration in soils that are
U.S. EPA Region 6
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering
U.S. EPA
Office of Solid Waste
3-70
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 3: Air Dispersion and Deposition Modeling August 1999
physically disturbed or tilled. The COPC concentration in the top 1 centimeter of soil should be computed
for estimating a COPC concentration in soils that are not tilled (see Section 3.11.1.4).
3.11.1.1 Calculating Highest Annual Average COPC Concentration in Soil
U.S. EPA OSW recommends the following equation for calculating the highest average annual COPC soil
concentration.
Recommended Equations for Calculating:
Highest Annual Average COPC Concentration in Soil (Cs)
Ds-[l-exp(-ks-tD-)]
; Equation 3-7
ks
where
Cs = COPC concentration in soil (mg COPC/kg soil)
Ds = Deposition term (mg/kg-yr)
ks = COPC soil loss constant due to all processes (yr :)
tD = Total time period over which deposition occurs (time period of combustion) (yr)
This equation calculates the highest annual average soil concentration, which is typically expected to occur
at the end of the time period of deposition (U.S. EPA 19941; 1998c). Derivation of the equation is
presented in U.S. EPA (1998c). Appendix B, Table B-l-1 also describes the equation, definitions of its
terms, and default values for the variables.
3.11.1.2 Calculating the COPC Soil Loss Constant (ks)
COPCs may be lost from the soil by several processes that may or may not occur simultaneously. In
Equation 3-8, the soil loss constant, ks, expresses the rate at which a COPC is lost from soil (U.S.
EPA 1993h; 1998c). The constant ks is determined by using the soil's physical, chemical, and biological
characteristics to consider the losses resulting from:
(1) biotic and abiotic degradation,
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering 3-71
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 3: Air Dispersion and Deposition Modeling August 1999
(2) erosion,
(3) surface runoff,
(4) leaching, and
(5) volatilization.
Consistent with earlier U.S. EPA guidance (U.S. EPA 1993h; 19941; 1998c), U.S. EPA OSW recommends
using Equation 3-8 to compute the soil loss constant.
Recommended Equation for Calculating:
COPC Soil Loss Constant (ks)
ks = ksg + kse + ksr + ksl + ksv Equation 3-8
where
ks = COPC soil loss constant due to all processes (yr"1)
ksg = COPC loss constant due to degradation (yr"1)
kse = COPC loss constant due to erosion (yr"1)
ksr = COPC loss constant due to runoff (yr"1)
ksl = COPC loss constant due to leaching (yr"1)
ksv = COPC loss constant due to volatilization (yr"1)
The use of Equation 3-8 assumes that COPC loss can be defined by using first-order reaction kinetics.
First-order reaction rates depend on the concentration of one reactant (Bohn, McNeal, and O'Connor
1985). The loss of a COPC by a first-order process depends only on the concentration of the COPC in the
soil, and a constant fraction of the COPC is removed from the soil over time. Those processes that
apparently exhibit first-order reaction kinetics without implying a mechanistic dependence on a first-order
loss rate are termed "apparent first-order" loss rates (Sparks 1989). The assumption that COPC loss
follows first-order reaction kinetics may be an oversimplification because—at various concentrations or
under various environmental conditions—the loss rates from soil systems will resemble different kinetic
expressions. However, at low concentrations, a first-order loss constant may be adequate to describe the
loss of the COPC from soil (U.S. EPA 1990a).
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering 3-72
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 3: Air Dispersion and Deposition Modeling August 1999
COPC loss in soil can also follow zero or second-order reaction kinetics. Zero-order reaction kinetics are
independent of reactant concentrations (Bonn, McNeal, and O'Connor 1985). Zero-order loss rates
describe processes in which the reactants are present at very high concentrations. Under zero-order
kinetics, a constant amount of a COPC is lost from the soil over time, independent of its concentration.
Processes that follow second-order reaction kinetics depend on the concentrations of two reactants or the
concentration of one reactant squared (Bohn, McNeal, and O'Connor 1985). The loss constant of a COPC
following a second-order process can be contingent on its own concentration, or on both its concentration
and the concentration of another reactant, such as an enzyme or catalyst.
Because COPC loss from soil depends on many complex factors, it may be difficult to model the overall
rate of loss. In addition, because the physical phenomena that cause COPC loss can occur simultaneously,
the use of Equation 3-8 may also overestimate loss rates for each process (Valentine 1986). When
possible, the common occurrence of all loss processes should be taken into account.
The following subsections discuss issues associated with the calculation of the ksl, kse, ksr, ksg, and ksv
variables. Appendix B, Tables B-l-2 through B-l-6 present the equations for computing the overall and
individual soil loss constant, except for loss due to degradation, which is discussed below.
COPC Loss Constant Due to Biotic and Abiotic Degradation (ksg)
Soil losses resulting from biotic and abiotic degradation (ksg) are determined empirically from field studies
and should be addressed in the literature (U.S. EPA 1990a). Lyman et al. (1982) states that degradation
rates can be assumed to follow first order kinetics in a homogenous media. Therefore, the half-life of a
compound can be related to the degradation rate constant. Ideally, ksg is the sum of all biotic and abiotic
rate constants in the soil media. Therefore, if the half-life of a compound (for all of the mechanisms of
transformation) is known, the degradation rate can be calculated. However, literature sources do not
provide sufficient data for all such mechanisms, especially for soil. Therefore, Appendix A-2 presents U.S.
EPA OSW recommended values for this COPC specific variable.
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering 3-73
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 3: Air Dispersion and Deposition Modeling August 1999
Recommended Values for:
COPC Loss Constant Due to Biotic and Abiotic Degradation (ksg)
See Appendix A-2
The rate of biological degradation in soils depends on the concentration and activity of the microbial
populations in the soil, the soil conditions, and the COPC concentration (Jury and Valentine 1986).
First-order loss rates often fail to account for the high variability of these variables in a single soil system.
However, the use of simple rate expressions may be appropriate at low chemical concentrations (e.g.,
nanogram per kilogram soil) at which a first-order dependence on chemical concentration may be
reasonable. The rate of biological degradation is COPC-specific, depending on the complexity of the
COPC and the usefulness of the COPC to the microorganisms. Some substrates, rather than being used by
the organisms as a nutrient or energy source, are simply degraded with other similar COPCs, which can be
further utilized. Environmental and COPC-specific factors that may limit the biodegradation of COPCs in
the soil environment (Valentine and Schnoor 1986) include:
(1) availability of the COPC,
(2) nutrient limitations,
(3) toxicity of the COPC, and
(4) inactivation or nonexistence of enzymes capable of degrading the COPC.
Chemical degradation of organic compounds can be a significant mechanism for removal of COPCs in soil
(U.S. EPA 1990a). Hydrolysis and oxidation-reduction reactions are the primary chemical transformation
processes occurring in the upper layers of soils (Valentine 1986). General rate expressions describing the
transformation of some COPCs by all non-biological processes are available, and these expressions are
helpful when division into component reactions is not possible.
Hydrolysis in aqueous systems is characterized by three processes: acid-catalyzed, base-catalyzed, and
neutral reactions. The overall rate of hydrolysis is the sum of the first-order rates of these processes
(Valentine 1986). In soil systems, sorption of the COPC can increase, decrease, or not affect the rate of
hydrolysis, as numerous studies cited in Valentine (1986) have shown. The total rate of hydrolysis in soil
can be predicted by adding the rates in the soil and water phases, which are assumed to be first-order
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering 3-74
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 3: Air Dispersion and Deposition Modeling August 1999
reactions at a fixed pH (Valentine 1986). Methods for estimating these hydrolysis constants are described
byLymanetal. (1982).
Organic and inorganic compounds also undergo oxidation-reduction (redox) reactions in the soil (Valentine
1986). Organic redox reactions involve the exchange of oxygen and hydrogen atoms by the reacting
molecules. Inorganic redox reactions may involve the exchange of atoms or electrons by the reactants. In
soil systems where the identities of oxidant and reductant species are not specified, a first-order rate
constant can be obtained for describing loss by redox reactions (Valentine 1986). Redox reactions
involving metals may promote losses from surface soils by making metals more mobile (e.g., leaching to
subsurface soils).
COPC Loss Constant Due to Soil Erosion (kse)
U.S. EPA (1993h) recommended the use of Equation 3-8A to calculate the constant for soil loss resulting
from erosion (kse).
0.1 • X -SD -ER Kd -BD
where:
kse = COPC soil loss constant due to soil erosion
0.1 = Units conversion factor (1,000 g-kg/10,000 cm2-m2)
Xe = Unit soil loss (kg/m2-yr)
SD = Sediment delivery ratio (unitless)
ER = Soil enrichment ratio (unitless)
Kds = Soil-water partition coefficient (mL/g)
BD = Soil bulk density (g/cm3 soil)
Zs = Soil mixing zone depth (cm)
6SW = Soil volumetric water content (mL/cm3 soil)
Unit soil loss (Xe) is calculated by using the Universal Soil Loss Equation (USLE), as described in
Section 3.11.2. Variables associated with Equation 3-8A are further discussed in Appendix B,
Table B-1-3.
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering 3-75
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 3: Air Dispersion and Deposition Modeling August 1999
U.S. EPA guidance (1994b and 19941) have stated that all kse values are equal to zero. U.S. EPA (19941)
stated that kse is equal to zero because of contaminated soil eroding onto and off of the site.
Consistent with earlier U.S. EPA guidance (1994b and 19941) and U.S. EPA (1998c), U.S. EPA OSW
recommends that the constant for the loss of soil resulting from erosion (kse) should be set equal to zero.
Recommended Value for:
COPC Loss Constant Due to Erosion (kse)
0
For additional information on addressing kse, U.S. EPA OSW recommends consulting the methodologies
described in U.S. EPA document, Methodology for Assessing Health Risks Associated with Multiple
Exposure Pathways to Combustor Emissions (U.S. EPA In Press). The use of kse values is also further
described in Appendix B, Table B-l-3.
COPC Loss Constant Due to Runoff (ksr)
Consistent with earlier U.S. EPA guidance (1993h; 19941) and U.S. EPA (1998c), U.S. EPA OSW
recommends that Equation 3-8B be used to calculate the constant for the loss of soil resulting from surface
runoff (far). The use of this equation is further described in Appendix B, Table B-l-4.
Recommended Equation for Calculating:
COPC Loss Constant Due to Runoff (ksr)
i
l+(Kd-BD/B
sw s s sw
where
ksr = COPC loss constant due to runoff (yr :)
RO = Average annual surface runoff from pervious areas (cm/yr)
9SW = Soil volumetric water content (mL/cm3 soil)
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering 3-76
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 3: Air Dispersion and Deposition Modeling August 1999
Zs = Soil mixing zone depth (cm)
Kds = Soil-water partition coefficient (mL/g)
BD = Soil bulk density (g/cm3 soil)
COPC Loss Constant Due to Leaching (ksl)
Consistent with earlier U.S. EPA guidance (1993h and 19941) and U.S. EPA (1998c), U.S. EPA OSW
recommends that Equation 3-8C be used to calculate the COPC loss constant due to leaching (ksl). The
use of this equation is further described in Appendix B, Table B-l-5.
Recommended Equation for Calculating:
COPC Loss Constant Due to Leaching (ksl)
P+ I-RO-E
ksl -
where
ksl = COPC loss constant due to leaching (yr :)
P = Average annual precipitation (cm/yr)
/ = Average annual irrigation (cm/yr)
RO = Average annual surface runoff from pervious areas (cm/yr)
Ev = Average annual evapotranspiration (cm/yr)
9SV = Soil volumetric water content (mL/cm3 soil)
Zs = Soil mixing zone depth (cm)
Kds = Soil-water partition coefficient (mL/g)
BD = Soil bulk density (g/cm3 soil)
Appendix B, Table B-l-5 further describes the variables associated with Equation 3-8C. The average
annual volume of water (P +1 - RO - Ev) available to generate leachate is the mass balance of all water
inputs and outputs from the area under consideration.
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering 3-77
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 3: Air Dispersion and Deposition Modeling
August 1999
COPC Loss Constant Due to Volatilization (ksv)
Semi-volatile and volatile COPCs emitted in high concentrations may become adsorbed to soil particles and
exhibit volatilization losses from soil. The loss of a COPC from the soil by volatilization depends on the
rate of movement of the COPC to the soil surface, the chemical vapor concentration at the soil surface, and
the rate at which vapor is carried away by the atmosphere (Jury 1986).
Consistent with U.S. EPA (In Press), U.S. EPA OSW recommends that Equation 3-8D be used to
calculate the constant for the loss of soil resulting from volatilization (ksv). The soil loss constant due to
volatilization (ksv) is based on gas equilibrium coefficients and gas phase mass transfer. The first order
decay constant, ksv, is obtained by adapting the Hwang and Falco equation for soil vapor phase diffusion
(Hwang and Falco 1986). The use of this equation is further described in Appendix B, Table B-l-6.
Recommended Equation for Calculating:
COPC Loss Constant Due to Volatilization (ksv)
ksv =
3.1536 x W7-H
D
Z • Kd • R • T • BD I I Z
s s a I \ s
- 0
Equation 3-8D
where
ksv
3.1536 x 107
H
Kds
R
Ta
BD
Dn
COPC loss constant due to volatization (yr :
Units conversion factor (s/yr)
Henry's Law constant (atm-m3/mol)
Soil mixing zone depth (cm)
Soil-water partition coefficient (mL/g)
Universal gas constant (atm-m3/mol-K)
Ambient air temperature (K) = 298.1 K
Soil bulk density (g/cm3 soil)
Diffusivity of COPC in air (cm2/s)
Soil volumetric water content (mL/cm3 soil)
Solids particle density (g/cm3)
Appendix B, Table B-l-5 further describes the variables associated with Equation 3-8C. In cases where
high concentrations of volatile organic compounds are expected to be present in the soil, U.S. EPA OSW
U.S. EPA Region 6
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering
U.S. EPA
Office of Solid Waste
3-78
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 3: Air Dispersion and Deposition Modeling
August 1999
recommends consulting the methodologies described in U.S. EPA document, Methodology for Assessing
Health Risks Associated with Multiple Exposure Pathways to Combustor Emissions (U.S. EPA In Press).
The use of ksv values is also further described in Appendix B, Table B-l-6.
3.11.1.3
Deposition Term (Ds)
U.S. EPA OSW recommends that Equation 3-9 be used to calculate the deposition term (Ds). This
equation is further described in Appendix B, Table B-l-1. The use of Equation 3-11 to calculate the
deposition term is consistent with earlier U.S. EPA guidance (19941) and U.S. EPA (1998c), which both
incorporate a deposition term (Ds) into Equation 3-7 for the calculation of the COPC concentration in soil
(Cs) (see also Section 3.11.1.1).
Recommended Equation for Calculating:
Deposition Term (Ds)
Ds =
100 -Q
Zs-BD
• [F/0.31536 • Vdv • Cyv + Dywv) + (Dywp + Dydp) • (1 - Fv)] Equation 3-9
where
Ds
100
Q
zs
BD
Fv
0.31536
Vdv
Cyv
Dywv
Dydp
Dywp
Deposition term (mg COPC/kg soil-yr)
Units conversion factor (m2-mg/cm2-kg)
COPC-specific emission rate (g/s)
Soil mixing zone depth (cm)
Soil bulk density (g/cm3 soil)
Fraction of COPC air concentration in vapor phase (unitless)
Units conversion factor (m-g-s/cm-jWg-yr)
Dry deposition velocity (cm/s)
Unitized yearly average air concentration from vapor phase (//g-s/g-m3)
Unitized yearly average wet deposition from vapor phase (s/m2 year)
Unitized yearly average dry deposition from particle phase (s/m2 year)
Unitized yearly average wet deposition from particle phase (s/m year)
Section 3.9 further describes the ISCST3 unitized air parameters (Cyv, Dywv, Dydp, and Dywp) obtained
as output from the air dispersion modeling. Appendix B describes the determination of other variables
U.S. EPA Region 6
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering
U.S. EPA
Office of Solid Waste
3-79
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 3: Air Dispersion and Deposition Modeling August 1999
associated with Equation 3-9. The proper use of this equation is also further described in Appendix B,
Table B-l-1.
3.11.1.4 Site-Specific Parameters for Calculating Soil Concentration
As discussed in the previous sections, calculating the COPC concentration in soil (Cs) requires some
site-specific parameter values, which must be calculated or derived from available literature or site-specific
data. These site-specific parameters include the following:
• Soil mixing zone depth (Zs)
Soil bulk density (BD)
Available water (P + I - RO - Ev)
• Soil volumetric water content (6>sw)
Determination of values for these parameters is further described in the following subsections, and in
Appendix B.
Soil Mixing Zone Depth (Zs)
When exposures to COPCs in soils are modeled, the depth of contamination is important in calculating the
appropriate soil concentration. Due to leaching and physical disturbance (e.g., tilling) COPCs may migrate
deeper in the soil in for some areas. Therefore, the value for the depth of soil contamination, or soil mixing
zone depth (ZJ, used in modeling ecological risk should be considered specific to tilled (e.g., large plowed
field) or unfilled soil areas.
In general, previous U.S. EPA combustion risk assessment guidance (1990a) has estimated that if the area
under consideration is tilled or mechanically disturbed, the soil mixing zone depth is about 10 to
20 centimeters depending on local conditions and the equipment used. If soil is not moved, COPCs are
assumed to be retained in the shallower, upper soil layer. In this case, earlier U.S. EPA guidances (U.S.
EPA 1990a; U.S. EPA 1993h) have typically recommended a value of 1 centimeter.
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering 3-80
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 3: Air Dispersion and Deposition Modeling August 1999
Consistent with earlier U.S. EPA guidance (1990a) and U.S. EPA (1998c), U.S. EPA OSW recommends
the following values for the soil mixing zone depth (ZJ.
Recommended Values for:
Soil Mixing Zone Depth (Zs)
1 cm - untilled
20 cm - tilled
Soil Bulk Density (BD)
BD is the ratio of the mass of soil to its total volume. This variable is affected by the soil structure, type,
and moisture content (Hillel 1980). Consistent with U.S. EPA (1990a; 1994b) and information presented
in Hoffman and Baes (1979), U.S. EPA OSW recommends the following value for the soil dry bulk density
(BD).
Recommended Value for:
Soil Dry Bulk Density (BD)
1.50 g/cm3 soil
For determination of actual field values specific to a specified location at a site, U.S. EPA (19941)
recommended that wet soil bulk density be determined by weighing a thin-walled, tube soil sample (e.g., a
Shelby tube) of known volume and subtracting the tube weight (ASTM Method D2937). Moisture content
can then be calculated (ASTM Method 2216) to convert wet soil bulk density to dry soil bulk density.
Available Water (P + I-RO- Ev)
The average annual volume of water available (P +1 - RO - Ev) for generating leachate is the mass balance
of all water inputs and outputs from the area under consideration. A wide range of values for these
variables may apply in the various U.S. EPA regions.
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering 3-81
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 3: Air Dispersion and Deposition Modeling August 1999
The average annual precipitation (/*), irrigation (7), runoff (RO), and evapotranspiration (Ev) rates and
other climatological data may be obtained from either data recorded on site or from the Station Climatic
Summary for a nearby airport.
Meteorological parameters—such as the evapotranspiration rate and the runoff rate—may also be found in
resources such as Geraghty, Miller, van der Leeden, and Troise (1973). Surface runoff may also be
estimated by using the curve number equation developed by the U.S. Soil Conservation Service (U.S. EPA
1990a). U.S. EPA (1985b) cites isopleths of mean annual cropland runoff corresponding to various curve
numbers developed by Stewart, Woolhiser, Wischmeier, Caro, and Frere (1975). Curve numbers are
assigned to an area on the basis of soil type, land use or cover, and the hydrologic condition of the soil
(U.S. EPA 1990a).
Using these different references may introduce uncertainties and limitations. For example, Geraghty, van
der Leeden, and Troise (1973) present isopleths for annual surface water contributions that include
interflow and ground water recharge; these values should be adjusted downward to reflect surface runoff
only. U.S. EPA (1994b) recommends that these values be reduced by 50 percent.
Soil Volumetric Water Content (0m)
The soil volumetric water content 0SW depends on the available water and the soil structure. A wide range
of values for these variables may apply in the various U.S. EPA regions. Consistent with earlier guidance
documents (U.S. EPA 1994b), U.S. EPA OSW recommends the following value for 6SW.
Recommended Value for:
Soil Volumetric Water Content (0m)
0.2 ml/cm3 soil
Additional information on soil water content is presented in Appendix B, specific to the equations in which
it is used.
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering 3-82
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 3: Air Dispersion and Deposition Modeling August 1999
3.11.2 CALCULATION OF COPC CONCENTRATIONS IN SURFACE WATER AND
SEDIMENTS
COPC concentrations in surface water and sediments are calculated for all water bodies selected for
evaluation in the risk assessment. Mechanisms considered for determination of COPC loading of the water
column are:
(1) Direct deposition,
(2) Runoff from impervious surfaces within the watershed,
(3) Runoff from pervious surfaces within the watershed,
(4) Soil erosion over the total watershed,
(5) Direct diffusion of vapor phase COPCs into the surface water, and
(6) Internal transformation of compounds chemically or biologically.
Other potential mechanisms may require consideration on a case-by-case basis (e.g., tidal influences),
however, contributions from other potential mechanisms are assumed to be negligible in comparison with
those being evaluated.
The USLE and a sediment delivery ratio are used to estimate the rate of soil erosion from the watershed.
To evaluate the COPC loading to a water body from its associated watershed, the COPC concentration in
watershed soils should be calculated. As described in Section 3.11.1, the equation for COPC concentration
in soil includes a loss term that considers the loss of contaminants from the soil after deposition. These loss
mechanisms may all lower the soil concentration associated with a specific deposition rate.
Surface water concentration algorithms include a sediment mass balance, in which the amount of sediment
assumed to be buried and lost from the water body is equal to the difference between the amount of soil
introduced to the water body by erosion and the amount of suspended solids lost in downstream flow. As a
result, the assumptions are made that sediments do not accumulate in the water body over time, and an
equilibrium is maintained between the surficial layer of sediments and the water column. The total water
column COPC concentration is the sum of the COPC concentration dissolved in water and the COPC
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering 3-83
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 3: Air Dispersion and Deposition Modeling
August 1999
concentration associated with suspended solids. Partitioning between water and sediment varies with the
COPC. The total concentration of each COPC is partitioned between the sediment and the water column.
Rmoffto
Soil Elation
(Sediments) tetide
Deposition
VUatiiztion
Direct 1
Deposition 1
Rnofffrani 1
Impervious 1
Surfaces 1
Runoff
Pervii
Surfa
~^^"
from 1
>us 1
ces 1
Soil
Bofiion
fepor
Tiavfer
n» •
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 3: Air Dispersion and Deposition Modeling August 1999
3.11.2.1 Total COPC Loading to a Water Body (LT)
Consistent with earlier U.S. EPA guidance (19941) and U.S. EPA (1998c), U.S. EPA OSW recommends
the use of Equation 3-10 to calculate the total COPC load to a water body (LT). This equation is also
further described in Appendix B, Table B-2-1.
Recommended Equation for Calculating:
Total COPC Load to the Water Body (LT)
LT = LDEp + Ld^ + Lm + LR + LE + Lj Equation 3-10
where
LT = Total COPC load to the water body (including deposition, runoff, and
erosion) (g/yr)
LDEP = Total (wet and dry) particle phase and wet vapor phase COPC direct
deposition load to water body (g/yr)
Ldif = Vapor phase COPC diffusion (dry deposition) load to water body (g/yr)
Lm = Runoff load from impervious surfaces (g/yr)
LR = Runoff load from pervious surfaces (g/yr)
LE = Soil erosion load (g/yr)
Lj = Internal transfer (g/yr)
Due to the limited data and uncertainty associated with the chemical or biological internal transfer, Lh of
compounds into daughter products, U.S. EPA OSW recommends a default value for this variable of zero.
However, if a permitting authority determines that site-specific conditions indicate calculation of internal
transfer should be considered, U.S. EPA OSW recommends following the methodologies described in U.S.
EPA NCEA document, Methodology for Assessing Health Risks Associated with Multiple Exposure
Pathways to Combustor Emissions (U.S EPA In Press). Calculation of each of the remaining variables
(LDEP, Ldif, Lm, LR, and LE) is discussed in the following subsections.
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering 3-85
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 3: Air Dispersion and Deposition Modeling August 1999
Total (Wet and Dry) Particle Phase and Wet Vapor Phase Contaminant Direct Deposition Load to
Water Body (LDEP)
Consistent with U.S. EPA (19941) and U.S. EPA (1998c), U.S. EPA OSW recommends Equation 3-11 to
calculate the load to the water body from the direct deposition of wet and dry particles and wet vapors onto
the surface of the water body (LDEP). The equation is also further described in Appendix B, Table B-2-2.
Recommended Equation for Calculating:
Total Particle Phase and Wet Vapor Phase Direct Deposition Load to Water Body (LDEP)
LDEP = Q'\-FV' Dywwv + (1 - FV ) • Dytwp }-Aw Equation 3-11
where
LDEP = Total (wet and dry) particle phase and wet vapor phase COPC direct
deposition load to water body (g/yr)
Q = COPC emission rate (g/s)
Fv = Fraction of COPC air concentration in vapor phase (unitless)
Dywwv = Unitized yearly (water body and watershed) average wet deposition from
vapor phase (s/m2-yr)
Dytwp = Unitized yearly (water body and watershed) average total (wet and dry)
deposition from vapor phase (s/m2-yr)
Aw = Water body surface area (m2)
Section 3.9 describes the unitized air parameters, Dywwv and Dywwv, obtained as output from the ISCST3
air dispersion modeling. The determination of water body surface area, Aw, is described in Chapter 4.
Appendix A-2 describes determination of the compound-specific parameter, Fv.
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering 3-8'
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 3: Air Dispersion and Deposition Modeling August 1999
Diffusion Load to Water Body (Laf)
Consistent with earlier U.S. EPA guidance (19941) and U.S. EPA (1998c), U.S. EPA OSW recommends
using Equation 3-12 to calculate the dry vapor phase COPC diffusion load to the water body (Ldif). The
equation is described in detail in Appendix B, Table B-2-3.
Recommended Equation for Calculating:
Vapor Phase COPC Diffusion (Dry Deposition) Load to Water Body (LDif)
dlf
H Equation 3-12
where
Ldif = Vapor phase COPC diffusion (dry deposition) load to water body (g/yr)
Kv = Overall COPC transfer rate coefficient (m/yr)
<2 = COPC emission rate (g/s)
Fv = Fraction of COPC air concentration in vapor phase (unitless)
Cywv = Unitized yearly (water body and watershed) average air concentration
from vapor phase (yWg-s/g-m3)
Aw = Water body surface area (m2)
10~6 = Units conversion factor (g/jWg)
H = Henry's Law constant (atm-mVmol)
R = Universal gas constant (atm-m3/mol-K)
Twk = Water body temperature (K)
The overall COPC transfer rate coefficient (Kv) is calculated by using the equation in Appendix B,
Table B-2-13. Consistent with previous U.S. EPA guidance (19941; 1993h) and U.S. EPA (1998c), U.S.
EPA OSW recommends a water body temperature (Twk) of 298 K (or 25 °C). Section 3.9 describes the
determination of the modeled air parameter, Cywv. The determination of water body surface area, Aw, is
described in Chapter 4. Appendix A-2 describes determination of compound-specific parameters, Fv and
H.
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering 3-87
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 3: Air Dispersion and Deposition Modeling August 1999
Runoff Load from Impervious Surfaces (Lm)
In some watershed soils, a fraction of the wet and dry deposition in the watershed will be to impervious
surfaces. Dry deposition may accumulate and be washed off during rain events. Consistent with U.S. EPA
(19941) and U.S. EPA (1998c), U.S. EPA OSW recommends the use of Equation 3-13 to calculate
impervious runoff load to a water body (Z,^). The equation is also presented in Appendix B, Table B-2-4.
Recommended Equation for Calculating:
Runoff Load from Impervious Surfaces (Lm)
Lm = Q ' [ Fv ' Dywwv + (1.0 - Fv ) • Dytwp ] • A} Equation 3-13
where
Lm = Runoff load from impervious surfaces (g/yr)
Q = COPC emission rate (g/s)
Fv = Fraction of COPC air concentration in vapor phase (unitless)
Dywwv = Unitized yearly (water body and watershed) average wet deposition from
vapor phase (s/m2-yr)
Dytwp = Unitized yearly (water body and watershed) average total (wet and dry)
deposition from vapor phase (s/m2-yr)
Aj = Impervious watershed area receiving COPC deposition (m2)
Impervious watershed area receiving COPC deposition (A}) is the portion of the total effective watershed
area that is impervious to rainfall (i.e., roofs, driveways, streets, and parking lots) and drains to the water
body.
Runoff Load from Pervious Surfaces (LR)
Consistent with U.S. EPA (19941) and U.S. EPA (1998c), U.S. EPA OSW recommends the use of
Equation 3-14 to calculate the runoff dissolved COPC load to the water body from pervious soil surfaces in
the watershed (LR). The equation is also presented in Appendix B, Table B-2-5.
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering 3-8
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 3: Air Dispersion and Deposition Modeling August 1999
Recommended Equation for Calculating:
Runoff Load from Pervious Surfaces (LR)
LR = RO • (AL - Af) • Q ' 0'01 Equation 3-14
sw
where
LR = Runoff load from pervious surfaces (g/yr)
RO = Average annual surface runoff from pervious areas (cm/yr)
AL = Total watershed area receiving COPC deposition (m2)
Aj = Impervious watershed area receiving COPC deposition (m2)
Cs = COPC concentration in soil (in watershed soils) (mg COPC/kg soil)
BD = Soil bulk density (g soil/cm3 soil)
Osw = Soil volumetric water content (mL water/cm3 soil)
Kds = Soil-water partition coefficient (cm3 water/g soil)
0.01 = Units conversion factor (kg-cm2/mg-m2)
Appendix B describes the determination of site-specific parameters, RO, AL, Ah BD, and 0SW. The
calculation of the COPC concentration in soil (Cs) is discussed in Section 3.11.1 and Appendix B. Soil
bulk density (BD) and soil water content (Osw) are described in Section 3.11.1.4.
Soil Erosion Load (LE)
Consistent with U.S. EPA (19941) and U.S. EPA (1998c), U.S. EPA OSW recommends the use of
Equation 3-15 to calculate soil erosion load (LE). The equation is also presented in Appendix B,
Table B-2-6.
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering 3-89
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 3: Air Dispersion and Deposition Modeling August 1999
Recommended Equation for Calculating:
Soil Erosion Load (LE)
Cs • Kd • BD
LE = Xe • (AL - A,) -SD-ER- * • 0.001 Equation 3-15
'
"sw ~s
where
LE = Soil erosion load (g/yr)
Xe = Unit soil loss (kg/m2-yr)
AL = Total watershed area (evaluated) receiving COPC deposition (m2)
Aj = Impervious watershed area receiving COPC deposition (m2)
SD = Sediment delivery ratio (watershed) (unitless)
ER = Soil enrichment ratio (unitless)
Cs = COPC concentration in soil (in watershed soils) (mg COPC/kg soil)
BD = Soil bulk density (g soil/cm3 soil)
Osw = Soil volumetric water content (mL water/cm3 soil)
Kds = Soil-water partition coefficient (mL water/g soil)
0.001 = Units conversion factor (k-cm2/mg-m2)
Unit soil loss (Xe) and watershed sediment delivery ratio (SD) are calculated as described in the following
subsections and in Appendix B. COPC concentration in soil (Cs) is described in Section 3.11.1 and
Appendix B, Table B-l-1. Soil bulk density (BD) and soil water content (6^) are described in
Section 3.11.1.4.
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering 3-90
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 3: Air Dispersion and Deposition Modeling August 1999
Universal Soil Loss Equation - USLE
U.S. EPA OSW recommends that the universal soil loss equation (USLE), Equation 3-16, be used to
calculate the unit soil loss (XJ specific to each watershed. This equation is further described in
Appendix B, Table B-2-7. Appendix B also describes determination of the site- and watershed-specific
values for each of the variables associated with Equation 3-16. The use of Equation 3-16 is consistent with
U.S. EPA (1994b; 19941) and U.S. EPA (1998c).
Recommended Equation for Calculating:
Unit Soil Loss (Xe)
Equation3-16
where
Xe = Unit soil loss (kg/m2-yr)
RF = USLE rainfall (or erosivity) factor (yr :)
K = USLE credibility factor (ton/acre)
LS = USLE length-slope factor (unitless)
C = USLE cover management factor (unitless)
PF = USLE supporting practice factor (unitless)
907.18 = Units conversion factor (kg/ton)
4047 = Units conversion factor (m2/acre)
The USLE RF variable, which represents the influence of precipitation on erosion, is derived from data on
the frequency and intensity of storms. This value is typically derived on a storm-by-storm basis, but
average annual values have been compiled (U.S. Department of Agriculture 1982). Information on
determining site-specific values for variables used in calculating^ is provided in U.S. Department of
Agriculture (U.S. Department of Agriculture 1997) and U.S. EPA guidance (U.S. EPA 1985b).
Refer to Appendix B, Table B-2-7 for additional discussion of the USLE.
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering 3-91
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 3: Air Dispersion and Deposition Modeling August 1999
Sediment Delivery Ratio (SD)
U.S. EPA OSW recommends the use of Equation 3-17 to calculate sediment delivery ratio (SD). The use
of this equation is further described in Appendix B, Table B-2-8.
Recommended Equation for Calculating:
Sediment Delivery Ratio (SD)
SD = a • (AL yb Equation 3-17
where
SD = Sediment delivery ratio (watershed) (unitless)
a = Empirical intercept coefficient (unitless)
b = Empirical slope coefficient (unitless)
AL = Total watershed area (evaluated) receiving COPC deposition (m2)
The sediment delivery ratio (SD) for a large land area, a watershed or part of a watershed, can be
calculated, on the basis of the area of the watershed, by using an approach proposed by Vanoni (1975).
Accordingly, U.S. EPA (1993h) recommended the use of Equation 3-17 to calculate the sediment delivery
ratio.
According to Vanoni (1975), sediment delivery ratios vary approximately with the -0.125 power of the
drainage area. Therefore, the empirical slope coefficient is assumed to be equal to 0.125. An inspection of
the data presented by Vanoni (1975) indicates that the empirical intercept coefficient varies with the size of
the watershed, as illustrated in Appendix B, Table B-2-8.
AL is the total watershed surface area affected by deposition that drains to the body of water. A watershed
includes all of the land area that contributes water to a water body. In assigning values to the watershed
surface area affected by deposition, consideration should be given to (1) the distance from the stack, (2) the
location of the area affected by deposition fallout with respect to the water body, and (3) in the absence of
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering 3-92
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 3: Air Dispersion and Deposition Modeling August 1999
any deposition considerations, watershed hydrology. Total sediment in a water body may have originated
from watershed soils that are (or have the potential to be) both affected and unaffected by deposition of
combustion emissions. If a combustor is depositing principally on a land area that feeds a tributary of a
larger river system, consideration must be given to an "effective" area. An effective drainage area will
almost always be less than the watershed.
3.11.2.2 Total Water Body COPC Concentration (Cwtot)
U.S. EPA OSW recommends the use of Equation 3-18 to calculate total water body COPC concentration
(Cwtot). The total water body concentration includes both the water column and the bed sediment. The
equation is also presented in Appendix B, Table B-2-9.
Recommended Equation for Calculating:
Total Water Body COPC Concentration (Cwtot)
-- Equa"on 3'1
where
Cwtot = Total water body COPC concentration (including water column and bed
sediment) (g COPC/m3 water body)
LT = Total COPC load to the water body (including deposition, runoff, and
erosion) (g/yr)
Vfx = Average volumetric flow rate through water body (m3/yr)
fwc = Fraction of total water body COPC concentration in the water column
(unitless)
kwt = Overall total water body COPC dissipation rate constant (yr :)
Aw = Water body surface area (m2)
dwc = Depth of water column (m)
dbs = Depth of upper benthic sediment layer (m)
The total COPC load to the water body (LT)—including deposition, runoff, and erosion—is described in
Section 3.11.2.1 and Appendix B, Table B-2-1. The depth of the upper benthic layer (dbs), which
represents the portion of the bed that is in equilibrium with the water column, cannot be precisely specified;
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering 3-93
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 3: Air Dispersion and Deposition Modeling _ August 1999
however, U.S. EPA (1993h) recommended values ranging from 0.01 to 0.05. Consistent with U.S. EPA
(19941; 1998c), U.S. EPA OSW recommends a default value of 0.03, which represents the midpoint of the
specified range. Issues related to the remaining parameters are summarized in the following subsections.
Fraction of Total Water Body COPC Concentration in the Water Column (fwc) and Benthic Sediment
Consistent with U.S. EPA (1998c), U.S. EPA OSW recommends using Equation 3-19 to calculate fraction
of total water body COPC concentration in the water column (fwc), and Equation 3-20 to calculate fraction
of total water body contaminant concentration in benthic sediment (fbs). The equations are also presented i
Appendix B, Table B-2-10.
in
Recommended Equation for Calculating:
Fraction of Total Water Body COPC Concentration in
the Water Column (fwc) and Benthic Sediment (fbs)
(l+Kdsw-TSS-lxW-6)-dwc/dz
Jwc ~ Equation 3-19
(1 +Kdsw-TSS-1* 1(T6) • djdz + (Qbs+Kdbs-BS) • djdz
fbs ~ 1 fwc Equation 3-20
where
fwc = Fraction of total water body COPC concentration in the water column
(unitless)
fbs = Fraction of total water body COPC concentration in benthic sediment
(unitless)
Kdsw = Suspended sediments/surface water partition coefficient (L water/kg
suspended sediment)
TSS = Total suspended solids concentration (mg/L)
1 x 10"6 = Units conversion factor (kg/mg)
dz = Total water body depth (m)
9bs = Bed sediment porosity (Lwater/Lsediment)
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering 3-94
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 3: Air Dispersion and Deposition Modeling August 1999
Kdbs = Bed sediment/sediment pore water partition coefficient (L water/kg bottom
sediment)
BS = Benthic solids concentration (g/cm3 [equivalent to kg/L])
dwc = Depth of water column (m)
dbs = Depth of upper benthic sediment layer (m)
U.S. EPA (1993h) and NC DEHNR (1997) recommended the use of Equations 3-19 and 3-20 to calculate
the fraction of total water body concentration occurring in the water column (fwc) and the bed sediments
(fbs). The partition coefficient Kdsw describes the partitioning of a contaminant between sorbing material,
such as soil, surface water, suspended solids, and bed sediments (see Appendix A-2). NC DEHNR (1997)
also recommended adding the depth of the water column to the depth of the upper benthic layer (dwc + dbs)
to calculate the total water body depth (dz).
NC DEHNR (1997) recommended a default total suspended solids (TSS) concentration of 10 mg/L, which
was adapted from U.S. EPA (1993h). However, due to variability in water body specific values for this
variable, U.S. EPA OSW recommends the use of water body-specific measured revalues representative
of long-term average annual values for the water body of concern. Average annual values for TSS are
generally expected to be in the range of 2 to 300 mg/L; with additional information on anticipated TSS
values available in the U.S. EPA NCEA document, Methodology for Assessing Health Risks Associated
with Multiple Exposure Pathways to Combustor Emissions (U.S. EPA In Press).
If measured data is not available, or of unacceptable quality, a calculated TSS value can be obtained for
non-flowing water bodies using Equation 3-21.
_ Xe • (AL-A^ • SD • 1x103
TSS = Equation 3-21
VfS Dss • Aw
where
TSS = Total suspended solids concentration (mg/L)
Xe = Unit soil loss (kg/m2-yr)
AL = Total watershed area (evaluated) receiving COPC deposition (m2)
Aj = Impervious watershed area receiving COPC deposition (m2)
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering 3-95
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 3: Air Dispersion and Deposition Modeling August 1999
SD = Sediment delivery ratio (watershed) (unitless)
Vfx = Average volumetric flow rate through water body (value should be 0 for
quiescent lakes or ponds) (mVyr)
Dss = Suspended solids deposition rate (a default value of 1,825 for quiescent
lakes or ponds) (m/yr)
Aw = Water body surface area (m2)
The default value of 1,825 m/yr provided for Dss is characteristic of Stake's settling velocity for an
intermediate (fine to medium) silt.
Also, to evaluate the appropriateness of watershed-specific values (specific for non-flowing water bodies)
used in calculating the unit soil loss (Xe), as described in Section 3.11.2.1 and Appendix B, the water-body
specific measured TSS value should be compared to the calculated TSS value obtained using Equation 3-21.
If the measured and calculated revalues differ significantly, parameter values used in calculating Xe
should be re-evaluated. This re-evaluation of TSS ar\dXe should also be conducted if the calculated TSS
value is outside of the normal range expected for average annual measured values, as discussed above.
Bed sediment porosity (0fa) can be calculated from the benthic solids concentration by using the following
equation (U.S. EPA 1993h):
h --
Ps
where
9bs = Bed sediment porosity (Lwater/Lsediment)
ps = Bed sediment density (kg/L)
BS = Benthic solids concentration (kg/L)
U.S. EPA OSW recommends the following default value for bed sediment porosity (Obs), which was
adapted from U.S. EPA (1993h) and U.S. EPA (1998c):
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering 3-96
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 3: Air Dispersion and Deposition Modeling August 1999
Recommended Value for:
Bed Sediment Porosity (0bs)
"bs ~ 0.6 Lwater/Lsedlment
(assumingps= 2.65 kg/L [bed sediment density] and BS= 1 kg/L [benthic solids concentration])
Values for the benthic solids concentration (BS) and depth of upper benthic sediment layer (dbs) range from
0.5 to 1.5 kg/L and 0.01 to 0.05 meters, respectively. However, consistent with earlier U.S. EPA guidance
(1993h; 19941) and U.S. EPA (1998c), 1 kg/L is a reasonable default for most applications of the benthic
solids concentration (BS), and 0.03 meter is the default depth of the upper benthic layer (dbs). The default
depth of 0.03 meters is based on the midpoint of the range presented above. The use of this equation is
further described in Appendix B, Table B-2-10.
Overall Total Water Body COPC Dissipation Rate Constant (kwt)
Consistent with U.S. EPA (19941) and U.S. EPA (1998c), U.S. EPA OSW recommends the use of
Equation 3-22 to calculate the overall dissipation rate of COPCs in surface water, resulting from
volatilization and benthic burial. The equation is also presented in Appendix B, Table B-2-11.
Recommended Equation for Calculating:
Overall Total Water Body COPC Dissipation Rate Constant (kwt)
kwt = f™ • kv + fbs • kb Equation 3-22
where
kwt = Overall total water body dissipation rate constant (yr :)
fwc = Fraction of total water body COPC concentration in the water column
(unitless)
kv = Water column volatilization rate constant (yr :)
fbs = Fraction of total water body COPC concentration in benthic sediment
(unitless)
kb = Benthic burial rate constant (yr :)
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering 3-97
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 3: Air Dispersion and Deposition Modeling August 1999
The variables/^, and^ are discussed in the previous section, Equations 3-19 and 3-20, and calculated by
using the equations presented in Appendix B, Table B-2-10.
Water Column Volatilization Rate Constant (kv)
Consistent with U.S. EPA (19941) and U.S. EPA (1998c), U.S. EPA OSW recommends using
Equation 3-23 to calculate water column volatilization rate constant. The equation is also presented in
Appendix B, Table B-2-12.
Recommended Equation for Calculating:
Water Column Volatilization Rate Constant (kv)
,
K ~
dz-(\+Kdsw-
Equation 3-23
4
where
kv = Water column volatilization rate constant (yr :)
Kv = Overall COPC transfer rate coefficient (m/yr)
dz = Total water body depth (m)
Kdsw = Suspended sediments/surface water partition coefficient (L water/kg
suspended sediments)
TSS = Total suspended solids concentration (mg/L)
1 x 10~6 = Units conversion factor (kg/mg)
Total water body depth (dz), suspended sediment and surface water partition coefficient (Kdsw), and total
suspended solids concentration (TSS), are previously described in this section. Kdsw is discussed in
Appendix A-2. The overall transfer rate coefficient (Kv) is described in the following subsection.
Overall COPC Transfer Rate Coefficient (Kv)
Volatile organic chemicals can move between the water column and the overlying air. The overall transfer
rate Kv, or conductivity, is determined by a two-layer resistance model that assumes that two "stagnant
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering 3-98
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 3: Air Dispersion and Deposition Modeling
August 1999
films" are bounded on either side by well-mixed compartments. Concentration differences serve as the
driving force for the water layer diffusion. Pressure differences drive the diffusion for the air layer. From
balance considerations, the same mass must pass through both films; the two resistances thereby combine
in series, so that the conductivity is the reciprocal of the total resistance.
Consistent with U.S. EPA (1993h) and U.S. EPA (1998c), U.S. EPA OSW recommends the use of
Equation 3-24 to calculate the overall transfer rate coefficient (Kv). The equation is also presented in
Appendix B, Table B-2-13.
Recommended Equation for Calculating:
Overall COPC Transfer Rate Coefficient (Kv)
H
7?
R
T -
Equation 3-24
where
Kv
KL
KG
H
R
Twk
6
Overall COPC transfer rate coefficient (m/yr)
Liquid phase transfer coefficient (m/yr)
Gas phase transfer coefficient (m/yr)
Henry's Law constant (atm-m3/mol)
Universal gas constant (atm-m3/mol-K)
Water body temperature (K)
Temperature correction factor (unitless)
The value of the conductivity Kv depends on the intensity of turbulence in the water body and the overlying
atmosphere. As Henry's Law constant increases, the conductivity tends to be increasingly
influenced by the intensity of turbulence in water. Conversely, as Henry's Law constant decreases, the
value of the conductivity tends to be increasingly influenced by the intensity of atmospheric turbulence.
The liquid and gas phase transfer coefficients, KL and KG, respectively, vary with the type of water body.
The liquid phase transfer coefficient (KL) is calculated by using Equations 3-25 and 3-26. The gas phase
transfer coefficient (KG) is calculated by using Equations 3-27 and 3-28.
U.S. EPA Region 6
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering
U.S. EPA
Office of Solid Waste
3-99
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 3: Air Dispersion and Deposition Modeling
August 1999
Henry's Law constants generally increase with increasing vapor pressure of a COPC and generally
decrease with increasing solubility of a COPC. Henry's Law constants are compound-specific and are
presented in Appendix A-2. The universal ideal gas constant, R, is 8.205 x 10~5 atm-m3/mol-K, at 20°C.
The temperature correction factor (6), which is equal to 1.026, is used to adjust for the actual water
temperature. Volatilization is assumed to occur much less readily in lakes and reservoirs than in moving
water bodies.
Liquid Phase Transfer Coefficient (KL)
Consistent with U.S. EPA (1998c), U.S. EPA OSW recommends using Equations 3-25 and 3-26 to
calculate liquid phase transfer coefficient. (KL). The use of these equations is further described in
Appendix B, Table B-2-14.
Recommended Equation for Calculating:
Liquid Phase Transfer Coefficient (KL)
For flowing streams or rivers:
KT =
\
(1 x io-4).£> -u
3.1536xl07
Equation 3-25
For quiescent lakes or ponds:
KL = (C°d5 • W)
3-1536xl°7
Equation 3-26
where
KL
Dw
u
1 x
dz
Cd
W
10"
Liquid phase transfer coefficient (m/yr)
Diffusivity of COPC in water (cm2/s)
Current velocity (m/s)
Units conversion factor (m2/cm2)
Total water body depth (m)
Drag coefficient (unitless)
Average annual wind speed (m/s)
U.S. EPA Region 6
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering
U.S. EPA
Office of Solid Waste
3-100
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 3: Air Dispersion and Deposition Modeling August 1999
pa = Density of air (g/cm3)
pw = Density of water (g/cm3)
k = von Karman's constant (unitless)
2.z = Dimensionless viscous sublayer thickness (unitless)
/uw = Viscosity of water corresponding to water temperature (g/cm-s)
3.1536x107 = Units conversion factor (s/yr)
For a flowing stream or river, the transfer coefficients are controlled by flow-induced turbulence. For these
systems, the liquid phase transfer coefficient is calculated by using Equation 3-25, which is the O'Connor
and Dobbins (1958) formula, as presented in U.S. EPA (1993h).
For a stagnant system (quiescent lake or pond), the transfer coefficient is controlled by wind-induced
turbulence. For quiescent lakes or ponds, the liquid phase transfer coefficient can be calculated by using
Equation 3-26 (O'Connor 1983; U.S. EPA 1993h).
The total water body depth (dz) for liquid phase transfer coefficients is discussed previously in this section.
Consistent with U.S. EPA (19941) and U.S. EPA (1998c), U.S. EPA OSW recommends the use of the
following default values. These values are further described in Appendix A-2:
(1) a diffusivity of chemical in water ranging (Dw) from 1.0xl05to8.5xlO~2 Cm2/s5
(2) a dimensionless viscous sublayer thickness (1,) of 4,
(3) a von Karman's constant (k) of 0.4,
(4) a drag coefficient (Q) of 0.0011 which was adapted from U.S. EPA (1993h),
(5) a density of air (pa) of 0.0012 g/cm3 at standard conditions (temperature = 20°C or 293 K,
pressure = 1 atm or 760 millimeters of mercury) (Weast 1986),
(6) a density of water (pw) of 1 g/cm3 (Weast 1986),
(7) a viscosity of water (//„,) of a 0.0169 g/cm-s corresponding to water temperature
(Weast 1986).
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering 3-101
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 3: Air Dispersion and Deposition Modeling
August 1999
Gas Phase Transfer Coefficient (KG)
U.S. EPA OSW recommends using Equations 3-27 and 3-28 to calculate gas phase transfer coefficient
(Ka). The equation is also discussed in Appendix B, Table B-2-15.
Recommended Equation for Calculating:
Gas Phase Transfer Coefficient (KG)
For flowing streams or rivers:
KG = 36500 m/yr
Equation 3-27
For quiescent lakes or ponds:
KG =
Equation 3-28
where
KG
Cd
W
k
pa
Da
3.1536 x 107
Gas phase transfer coefficient (m/yr)
Drag coefficient (unitless)
Average annual wind speed (m/s)
von Karman's constant (unitless)
Dimensionless viscous sublayer thickness (unitless)
Viscosity of air corresponding to air temperature (g/cm-s)
Density of air corresponding to water temperature (g/cm3)
Diffusivity of COPC in air (cm2/s)
Units conversion factor (s/yr)
U.S. EPA (1993h) indicated that the rate of transfer of a COPC from the gas phase for a flowing stream or
river is assumed to be constant, in accordance with O'Connor and Dobbins (1958) (Equation 3-27).
For a stagnant system (quiescent lake or pond), the transfer coefficients are controlled by wind-induced
turbulence. For quiescent lakes or ponds, U.S. EPA OSW recommends that the gas phase transfer
coefficient be computed by using the equation presented in O'Connor (1983) (Equation 3-28).
U.S. EPA Region 6
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering
U.S. EPA
Office of Solid Waste
3-102
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 3: Air Dispersion and Deposition Modeling
August 1999
Consistent with U.S. EPA (19941) and U.S. EPA (1998c), U.S. EPA OSW recommends 1.81 x 10'4 g/cm-s
for the viscosity of air corresponding to air temperature.
Benthic Burial Rate Constant (kb)
U.S. EPA OSW recommends using Equation 3-29 to calculate benthic burial rate (kb). The equation is also
discussed in Appendix B, Table B-2-16.
Recommended Equation for Calculating:
Benthic Burial Rate Constant (kb)
If
Kb
' Xe • AL • SD • 1 x 103 - Vfx • TSS
Aw • TSS
\ w
(WO . 1 y 1 A -6 1
-ZOO 1 A L\J T-, ,. « ~r.
1 Fnintmn ^ 'Q
BS'dhs }
where
SD
Vfx
TSS
Aw
BS
dbs
1 x 1(T6
IxlO3
Benthic burial rate constant (yr :)
Unit soil loss (kg/m2-yr)
Total watershed area (evaluated) receiving deposition (m2)
Sediment delivery ratio (watershed) (unitless)
Average volumetric flow rate through water body (mVyr)
Total suspended solids concentration (mg/L)
Water body surface area (m2)
Benthic solids concentration (g/cm3)
Depth of upper benthic sediment layer (m)
= Units conversion factor (kg/mg)
Units conversion factor (g/kg)
The benthic burial rate constant (kb), which is calculated in Equation 3-29, can also be expressed in terms
of the rate of burial (Wb):
Wb=kb- dbs
Equation 3-30
U.S. EPA Region 6
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering
U.S. EPA
Office of Solid Waste
3-103
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 3: Air Dispersion and Deposition Modeling August 1999
where
Wb = Rate of burial (m/yr)
kb = Benthic burial rate constant (yr :)
dbs = Depth of upper benthic sediment layer (m)
According to U.S. EPA (19941) and U.S. EPA (1998c), COPC loss from the water column resulting from
burial in benthic sediment can be calculated by using Equation 3-29. These guidance documents also
recommend a benthic solids concentration (BS) value ranging from 0.5 to 1.5 kg/L, which was adapted
from U.S. EPA (1993h). U.S. EPA OSW recommends the following default value for benthic solids
concentration (BS).
Recommended Default Value for:
Benthic Solids Concentration (BS)
1.0 kg/L
The calculated value for kb should range from 0 to 1.0; with low kb values expected for water bodies
characteristic of no or limited sedimentation (rivers and fast flowing streams), and kb values closer to 1.0
expected for water bodies characteristic of higher sedimentation (lakes). This range of values is based on
the relation between the benthic burial rate and rate of burial expressed in Equation 3-30; with the depth of
upper benthic sediment layer held constant. For kb values calculated as a negative (water bodies with high
average annual volumetric flow rates in comparison to watershed area evaluated), a kb value of 0 should be
assigned for use in calculating the total water body COPC concentration (Cwtot) in Equation 3-18. If the
calculated kb value exceeds 1.0, re-evaluation of the parameter values used in calculating^ should be
conducted.
3.11.2.3 Total COPC Concentration in Water Column (Cwctot)
U.S. EPA OSW recommends using Equation 3-31 to calculate total COPC concentration in water column
(Cwctot)- The equation is also discussed in Appendix B, Table B-2-17.
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering 3-104
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 3: Air Dispersion and Deposition Modeling August 1999
Recommended Equation for Calculating:
Total COPC Concentration in Water Column (Cwctot)
_ , r wc bs
wctot - Jwc ' *-wtot' —-, Equation 3-31
where
Cwctot = Total COPC concentration in water column (mg COPC/L water column)
fwc = Fraction of total water body COPC concentration in the water column
(unitless)
Cwtot = Total water body COPC concentration, including water column and bed
sediment (mg COPC/L water body)
dwc = Depth of water column (m)
dbs = Depth of upper benthic sediment layer (m)
The use of Equation 3-3 1 to calculate total COPC concentration in water column is consistent with U.S.
EPA (19941; 1998c).
Total water body COPC concentration — including water column and bed sediment (Cwtot) and fraction of
total water body COPC concentration in the water column (fwc) — should be calculated by using
Equation 3-18 and Equation 3-19, respectively. Depth of upper benthic sediment layer (dbs) is discussed
previously.
Dissolved Phase Water Concentration
U.S. EPA OSW recommends the use of Equation 3-32 to calculate the concentration of COPC dissolved in
the water column (Cdw). The equation is discussed in detail in Appendix B, Table B-2-18.
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering 3-105
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 3: Air Dispersion and Deposition Modeling August 1999
Recommended Equation for Calculating
Dissolved Phase Water Concentration
C
WCtOt
1 + Kd • TSS • 1 x 1(T6
Equation 3-32
4
where
Cdw = Dissolved phase water concentration (mg COPC/L water)
Cwctot = Total COPC concentration in water column (mg COPC/L water column)
Kdsw = Suspended sediments/surface water partition coefficient (L water/kg
suspended sediment)
TSS = Total suspended solids concentration (mg/L)
1 x 10~6 = Units conversion factor (kg/mg)
The use of Equation 3-32 to calculate the concentration of COPC dissolved in the water column is
consistent with U.S. EPA (19941; 1998c).
The total COPC concentration in water column (Cwctot) is calculated by using the Equation 3-31 (see also
Appendix B, Table B-2-17). The surface water partition coefficient (Kdsw) and total suspended solids
concentration (TSS) are discussed previously.
COPC Concentration in Bed Sediment (Csed)
U.S. EPA OSW recommends the use of Equation 3-33 to calculate COPC concentration in bed sediment
(Csed). The equation is also presented in Appendix B, Table B-2-19.
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering 3-106
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 3: Air Dispersion and Deposition Modeling August 1999
Recommended Equation for Calculating:
COPC Concentration in Bed Sediment (Csed)
r r bs we bs
~ Jbs' Lwtot' n , VJ _ D0 ' -, Equation 3-33
where
Csed = COPC concentration in bed sediment (mg COPC/kg sediment)
fbs = Fraction of total water body COPC concentration in benthic sediment
(unitless)
Cwtot = Total water body COPC concentration, including water column and bed
sediment (mg COPC/L water body)
Kdbs = Bed sediment/sediment pore water partition coefficient (L COPC/kg water
body)
Obs = Bed sediment porosity (Lpore water/Lsediment)
BS = Benthic solids concentration (g/cm3)
dwc = Depth of water column (m)
dbs = Depth of upper benthic sediment layer (m)
The use of Equation 3-33 to calculate the COPC concentration in bed sediment is consistent with U.S. EPA
(19941; 1998c).
The total water body COPC concentration—including water column and bed sediment (Cwtot) and the
fraction of total water body COPC concentration that occurs in the benthic sediment (fbs)—is calculated by
using Equations 3-18 and 3-20, respectively. The bed sediment and sediment pore water partition
coefficient (Kdbs) is discussed in Appendix A-2. Bed sediment porosity (dbs), benthic solids concentration
(BS), depth of water column (dwc), and depth of upper benthic layer (dbs) are discussed previously.
3.11.3 CALCULATION OF COPC CONCENTRATIONS IN PLANTS
The concentration of COPCs in plants is assumed to occur by three possible mechanisms:
• Direct deposition of particles—wet and dry deposition of particle phase COPCs
onto the exposed plant surfaces.
• Vapor transfer—uptake of vapor phase COPCs by plants through their foliage.
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering 3-107
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 3: Air Dispersion and Deposition Modeling
August 1999
• Root uptake—root uptake of COPCs available from the soil and their transfer to
the aboveground portions of the plant.
Deposition
of Particles
Vapor
Transfer
COPC Concentatlon In Plants
Figure 3-6 COPC Concentration in Plants
Root Uptake
from Soil
The total COPC concentration in terrestrial plants, CTP is calculated as a sum of contamination occurring
through all three of these mechanisms.
U.S. EPA Region 6
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering
U.S. EPA
Office of Solid Waste
3-108
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 3: Air Dispersion and Deposition Modeling August 1999
3.11.3.1 Calculating Plant Concentration Due to Direct Deposition (Pd)
Consitent with previous U.S. EPA guidance (19941) and U.S. EPA (1998c), U.S. EPA OSW recommends
the use of Equation 3-34 to calculate COPC concentration in plants due to direct deposition. The use of
this equation is further described in Appendix B, Table B-3-1.
Recommended Equation for Calculating:
Plant Concentration Due to Direct Deposition (Pd)
Equation 3-34
Yp-kp
where
Pd = Plant concentration due to direct (wet and dry) deposition (mg COPC/kg
WW)
1,000 = Units conversion factor (mg/g)
Q = COPC emission rate (g/s)
Fv = Fraction of COPC air concentration in vapor phase (unitless)
Dydp = Unitized yearly average dry deposition from particle phase (s/m2-yr)
Fw = Fraction of COPC wet deposition that adheres to plant surfaces (unitless)
Dywp = Unitized yearly wet deposition from particle phase (s/m2-yr)
Rp = Interception fraction of the edible portion of plant (unitless)
kp = Plant surface loss coefficient (yr :)
Tp = Length of plant exposure to deposition per harvest of the edible portion of
the /th plant group (yr)
012 = Dry weight to wet weight conversion factor (unitless)
Yp = Yield or standing crop biomass of the edible portion of the plant
(productivity) (kg DW/m2)
Section 3.9 describes the use of the unitized air parameters, Dydp and Dywp, obtained as output from the
air dispersion modeling. Appendix A-3 describes determination of Fv. Appendix B describes
determination of Fw, Rp, kp, Tp, and Yp. The dry weight to wet weight conversion factor of 0.12 is based
on the average rounded value from the range of 80 to 95 percent water content in herbaceous plants and
nonwoody plant parts (Taiz at al. 1991).
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering 3-109
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 3: Air Dispersion and Deposition Modeling August 1999
3.11.3.2 Calculating Plant Concentration Due to Air-to-Plant Transfer (Pv)
Consistent with U.S. EPA (1998c), U.S. EPA OSW recommends the use of Equation 3-35 to calculate the
plant concentration due to air-to-plant transfer (Pv). The use of this equation is further described in
Appendix B, Table B-3-2.
Recommended Equation for Calculating:
Plant Concentration Due to Air-to-Plant Transfer (Pv)
r> /-> T- A 11 Cyv • Bv
Pv = Q • Fv- 0.12 • -^ Equation 3-35
Pa
where
Pv = Plant concentration due to air-to-plant transfer (mg COPC/kg WW)
Q = COPC emission rate (g/s)
Fv = Fraction of COPC air concentration in vapor phase (unitless)
Cyv = Unitized yearly average air concentration from vapor phase ((ig-s/g-m3)
Bv = Air-to-plant biotransfer factor ([mg COPC/g DW plant]/[mg COPC/g
air]) (unitless)
012 = Dry weight to wet weight conversion factor (unitless)
pa = Density of air (g/m3)
Section 3.9 describes the use of the unitized air parameter, Cyv. Appendix A-3 describes determination of
the COPC-specific parameters, Fv and Bv. The dry weight to wet weight conversion factor of 0.12 is
based on the average rounded value from the range of 80 to 95 percent water content in herbaceous plants
and nonwoody plant parts (Taiz at al. 1991). Appendix B further describes use of Equation 3-35,
including determination of Fw and pa.
3.11.3.3 Calculating Plant Concentration Due to Root Uptake (Pr)
Consistent with previous U.S. EPA guidance (1994g; 19941; 1995h) and U.S. EPA (1998c), U.S. EPA
OSW recommends the use of Equation 3-36 to calculate the plant concentration due to root uptake (Pr).
The use of this equation is further described in Appendix B, Table B-3-3.
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering 3-110
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 3: Air Dispersion and Deposition Modeling August 1999
Recommended Equation for Calculating:
Plant Concentration Due to Root Uptake (Pr)
Pr = Cs • BCFr • 0.12 Equation 3-36
where
Pr = Plant concentration due to root uptake (mg COPC/kg WW)
BCFr = Plant-soil biotransfer factor (unitless)
Cs = COPC concentration in soil (mg COPC/kg soil)
012 = Dry weight to wet weight conversion factor (unitless)
Equation 3-36 is based on the soil-to-aboveground plant transfer approach developed by Travis and Arms
(1988). The dry weight to wet weight conversion factor of 0.12 is based on the average rounded value
from the range of 80 to 95 percent water content in herbaceous plants and nonwoody plant parts (Taiz at
al. 1991). Appendix A-3 describes determination of the COPC-specific parameter BCFr. Section 3.11.1
and Appendix B describe calculation of Cs.
3.12 REPLACING DEFAULT PARAMETER VALUES
As discussed in Chapter 1, default parameter values are provided in this guidance for numerous inputs to
the fate and transport modeling. After completing a risk assessment based on the default parameter values
recommended in this guidance, risk assessors may choose to investigate replacing default parameter values
with measured or published values if a more representative estimate of site-specific risk can be obtained.
Use of parameter values other than those specified in this guidance should always be clearly described in
the risk assessment report and work plan, and approved by the permitting authority. U.S. EPA OSW
recommends that requests to change default parameter values include the following information, as
appropriate:
1. An explanation of why the use of a measured or published value other than the default
value is warranted (e.g., the default parameter value is based on data or studies at sites in
the northwestern U.S., but the facility is located in the southeast);
2. The supporting technical basis of the replacement parameter value, including readable
copies (printed in English) of any relevant technical literature or studies;
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering 3-111
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 3: Air Dispersion and Deposition Modeling August 1999
3. The basis of the default parameter value, as understood by the requestor, including
readable copies (printed in English) of the referenced literature or studies (if available);
4. A comparison of the weight-of-evidence between the competing studies (e.g., the proposed
replacement parameter value is based on a study that is more representative of site
conditions, a specific exposure setting being evaluated, or a more scientifically valid study
than the default parameter value, the proposed replacement parameter is based on the
analysis of 15 samples as opposed to 5 for the default parameter value, or the site-specific
study used more stringent quality control/quality assurance procedures than the study upon
which the default parameter value is based);
5. A description of other risk assessments or projects where the proposed replacement
parameter value has been used, and how such risk assessments or projects are similar to
the risk assessment in consideration.
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering 3-112
-------
Chapter 4
Problem Formulation
What's Covered in
Exposure S,^t|figggi^||e^^li||5i;
Food Weli^iSel&lii^^S^^f :S1
Food _ ..,.,...,.,.
•/' :y.^^~*rr~$--£'i ^''"t^^''-'.^ '- •'*'?•'' •"'-7,«.-'•-
. •'. •'\^'>y\I:/'>.?^'S'.-r<;'S"-,-•>,;> r'^v'v "^-"^V"-'?/.-'-\-.'.-:x Vi'',;i
Selecting Assessrnent Endpdiilts '•'"':"'' • ••'.' • '''"' '•"'"' "
Identifying Measures of Effect
Problem formulation establishes the exposure setting used as the basis for exposure analysis and risk
characterization. Problem formulation includes (1) characterization of the exposure setting for
identification of potentially exposed habitats in the assessment area (Section 4.1); (2) development of food
webs representative of the habitats to be evaluated (Section 4.2); (3) selection of assessment endpoints
relevant to food web structure and function (Section 4.3); and (4) identification of measurement receptors
(Section 4.4).
4.1
EXPOSURE SETTING CHARACTERIZATION
Exposure setting characterization is important in the identification of habitats consisting of ecological
receptors in the assessment area that may be impacted as a result of exposure to compounds emitted from a
facility. Ecological receptors within a potentially impacted habitat can be evaluated through consideration
of the combination of exposure pathways to which ecological receptors representing a habitat-specific food
web may be exposed to a compound. The habitats identified to be evaluated are selected based on existing
habitats surrounding the facility (see Section 4.1.1); and also support which habitat-specific food webs are
evaluated in risk characterization. Consideration of ecological receptors representative of the habitats also
provides the basis for selecting measurement receptors, as well as, it supports demonstration of the
presence or absence of federal and state species of special interest (see Section 4.1.1.3).
U.S. EPA Region 6
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering
U.S. EPA
Office of Solid Waste
4-1
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 4: Problem Formulation August 1999
Exposure setting characterization is generally focused geographically to the assessment area that is defined
as the area surrounding the facility that is impacted from facility emissions as predicted by ISCST3 air
dispersion modeling; with additional consideration typically extending by a 50-km radius, taken from the
centroid of a polygon (also used as the origin of ISCST3 receptor grid node array, see Chapter 3) identified
by the UTM coordinates of the facility's emission sources. A 50-km radius is generally the recognized
limit of the ISCST3 air dispersion model and its predecessors (U.S. EPA 1990a; 1995c). Resources for
characterizing the exposure setting should focus on the areas impacted from emissions as predicted by air
dispersion modeling. As discussed in Section 4.1.1, habitats (potentially including water bodies and their
associated watersheds)—both within and outside the facility property boundary—should be considered for
evaluation.
The following subsections provide information on selection of habitats, and identification of ecological
receptors representative of those habitats, to be considered for evaluation in the risk assessment.
4.1.1 Selection of Habitats
Habitats to be considered in the risk assessment are selected by identifying similar habitats surrounding the
facility that are potentially impacted by facility emissions, and when overlayed with the air dispersion
modeling results, define which habitat-specific food webs should be evaluated in the risk assessment.
Habitats can be defined based on their biotic and abiotic characteristics, and are generally divided into two
major groups (i.e., terrestrial and aquatic) that can be classified as follows:
Terrestrial
Forest
Shortgrass praire
Tallgrass praire
Agricultural/Cropland
Scrub/Shrub
Desert
Aquatic
Freshwater
Brackish/Intermediate
Marine
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering 4-2
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 4: Problem Formulation August 1999
Habitat types can typically be identified by reviewing hard copy and/or electronic versions of land use land
classification (LULC) maps, topographic maps, and aerial photographs. Sources and general information
associated with each of these data types or maps are presented below. Also, as noted in Chapter 3, the
UTM coordinate system format (NAD27 or NAD83) for all mapping information should be verified to
ensure consistency and prevent erroneous georeferencing of locations and areas.
Land Use Land Cover (LULC) Maps - LULC maps can be downloaded directly from the USGS
web site (http://mapping.usgs.gov./index.html), at a scale of 1:250,000 in a file type GIRAS
format. LULC maps can also be downloaded from the EPA web site (ftp://ftp.epa.gov/pub), at a
scale of 1:250,000, in an Arc/Info export format. These maps provide detailed habitat information
based upon the classification system and definitions of Level II Land Use and Land Cover
information. Exact boundaries of polygon land use area coverages, in areas being considered for
evaluation, should be verified using available topographic maps and aerial photographic coverages.
Topographic Maps - Topographic maps are readily available in both hard copy and electronic
format directly from USGS or numerous other vendors. These maps are commonly at a scale of
1:24,000, and in a file type of TIFF format with TIFF World File included for georeferencing.
Aerial Photographs - Hard copy aerial photographs can be purchased directly form USGS in a
variety of scales and coverages. Electronic format aerial photographs of Digital Ortho Quarter
Quads (DOQQs) can also be purchased directly form USGS, or from an increasing number of
commercial sources. Properly georeferenced DOQQs covering a 3-km or more radius of the
assessment area, overlays of the LULC map coverage, and the ISCST3 modeled receptor grid node
array provide an excellent reference for identifying land use areas and justifying selection of
exposure locations.
While these data types or maps do not represent the universe of information available on habitats or land
use, they are readily available from a number of governmental sources (typically accessible via the
Internet), usually can be obtained free or for a low cost, and, when used together, provide sufficient
information to reliably identify and define boundaries of habitats to be considered for evaluation in risk
characterization. However, while the use of these or other data can be very accurate, verifying identified
habitats by conducting a site visit is recommended. Also, these data sources may be dated, and may not
reflect current habitat boundaries or land use (i.e., expanded cropland or urban developments, new lakes).
Additional information useful for habitat identification can be obtained from discussions with
representatives of private and government organizations which routinely collect and evaluate ecosystem or
habitat information including the following: (1) Soil Conservation Service, (2) U.S. Fish and Wildlife
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering 4-3
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 4: Problem Formulation August 1999
Service (FWS), (3) U.S Department of Agriculture, (4) state natural resource, wildlife, and park agencies,
and (5) local government agencies.
U.S. EPA OSW recommends that habitats identified during exposure setting characterization and selected
for evaluation in the risk assessment be clearly mapped and include the following supporting information:
• Facility boundaries
• Facility emission source location(s)
• Habitat types and boundaries
• Water bodies and their asssociated watersheds
• Special ecological areas (see Section 4.1.1.2)
A facility location map, including land-use and land cover data, which allows for identification of habitats
to support selection of habitat-specific food webs to be evaluated in the risk assessment. The map should
also note the UTM coordinate system format (NAD27 or NAD83) for all information presented to ensure
consistency and prevent erroneous georeferencing of locations and areas; including accurate identification
of exposure scenario locations and water bodies within the habitat to be evaluated, as discussed in the
following subsections.
4.1.1.1 Selection of Exposure Scenario Locations Within Terrestrial Habitats
Exposure scenario locations to be evaluated within the terrestrial habitats identified during the exposure
setting characterization, are selected at specific receptor grid nodes based on evaluation of the magnitude of
air parameter values estimated by ISCST3 (see Chapter 3). U.S. EPA OSW would like to note that the
methodology and resulting selection of receptor grid nodes as exposure scenario locations is one of the most
critical parts of the risk assessment process, ensuring standardization across all facilities evaluated and
reproducibility of results. The estimates of risk can vary significantly in direct response to the receptor grid
nodes that are selected as exposure scenario locations because the grid node-specific ISCST3 modeled air
parameter values are used as inputs into the media equations.
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering 4-4
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 4: Problem Formulation August 1999
U.S. EPA OSW recommends that, at a minimum, the procedures described below be used in the selection
of receptor grid nodes as exposure scenario locations; and that the selected exposure scenario locations
correspond to actual ISCST3 modeled receptor grid node locations defined by UTM coordinates. In
addition to consistency and reproducibility, these procedures ensure that the exposure scenario location(s)
selected for evaluation over a specified habitat do not overlook the most highly impacted locations.
Exposure scenario locations, at actual receptor grid nodes, should be selected as follows:
Step 1: Define Terrestrial Habitats To Be Evaluated - All habitats, identified during exposure
setting characterization for evaluation in the risk assessment, should be defined and habitat
boundaries mapped in a format (NAD 27 or NAD 83 UTM) consistent with that used to define
locations of facility emission sources and modeld ISCST3 receptor grid nodes.
Step 2: Identify Receptor Grid Node(s) Within Each Habitat To Be Evaluated - For each
habitat to be evaluated, identify the receptor grid nodes within that area or on the boundary of that
area (defined in Step 1) that represent the locations of highest yearly average concentration for
each ISCST3 modeled air parameter (i.e., air concentration, dry deposition, wet deposition) for
each phase (i.e., vapor, particle, particle-bound). This determination should be performed for each
emission source (i.e., stacks, fugitives) and all emissions sources at the facility combined. This
results in the selection of one or more receptor grid nodes as exposure scenario locations, within a
defined habitat area to be evaluated, and that meet one or more of the following criteria:
• Highest modeled unitized vapor phase air concentration
• Highest modeled unitized vapor phase wet deposition rate
• Highest modeled unitized particle phase air concentration
• Highest modeled unitized particle phase wet deposition rate
• Highest modeled unitized particle phase dry deposition rate
• Highest modeled unitized particle-bound phase air concentration
• Highest modeled unitized particle-bound phase wet deposition rate
• Highest modeled unitized particle-bound phase dry deposition rate
Only ISCST3 modeled air parameters corresponding to a single receptor grid node should be used per
exposure scenario location as inputs into the media equations, without averaging or statistical
manipulation. However, based generally on the number and location of facility emission sources, multiple
exposure scenario locations may be selected to represent the highest potential impact area for a specific
habitat being evaluated.
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering 4-5
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 4: Problem Formulation August 1999
Modeling of the above air parameter criteria for habitats at actual sites being evaluated in U.S. EPA
Region 6, using actual modeled air parameters, indicates that only 1 to 3 receptor nodes are typically
selected per habitat. This is because, in most cases, the location of some of the highest air concentration
and deposition rate, within a habitat for several of the modeled air parameters, occurs at the same receptor
grid node. The number of receptor grid nodes with maximum air parameters depends on many factors,
including number of and distance between emissions sources, habitat size and shape, distance and direction
from facility, topographic features, and meteorological patterns. It should also be noted, that while these
criteria minimize overlooking maximum risk within a habitat, they do not preclude the risk assessor from
selecting additional exposure scenario locations within that same habitat based on site-specific risk
considerations.
Also, a water body and associated watershed in close proximity to the exposure scenario location being
evaluated should be identified to represent a drinking water source for applicable receptors (see
Appendix F). Although the locations and type of sources (i.e., free water, consumption of water as part of
food items) of water ingested by an animal through diet are expected to vary depending on the receptor and
availability, COPC intake by the receptor through ingestion of water can be estimated by assuming only
water intake from a defined water body for which a COPC concentration can be calculated. Therefore, a
representative water body should be defined and evaluated following the guidance provided in
Section 4.1.1.2, and a COPC concentration in the water column, Cwctot, calculated as described in Chapter 3
and Appendix B.
If a definable water body is not located within or in close proximity to the terrestrial habitat being
evaluated, receptor drinking water intake terms in the exposure equations presented in Appendix F should
be adjusted accordingly (i.e., ingestion of drinking water set equal to zero). However, for sites where the
permitting authority or risk manager identifies that receptor exposure through ingestion of drinking water
may be significant, an available option is to assume that a small water body exists at the same receptor grid
node as the exposure scenario location being evaluated. If multiple exposure scenario locations within the
habitat are being evaluated, a single assumed water body can be located at the closest receptor grid node
located equal distance from each of the exposure scenario locations being evaluated, and utilized as a
drinking water source for evaluation of each exposure scenario location within the habitat. Since the
assumed water body represents a pool or other drinking source too small for identification on an aerial
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering 4-6
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 4: Problem Formulation August 1999
photograph or map, it can be assumed to have a unit volume (i.e., surface area of 1 meter square, water
column depth of 1 meter). The assumed water body should not have flow or an associated watershed.
4.1.1.2 Selection of Habitat Exposure Scenrario Locations Within Aquatic Habitats
Exposure scenario locations to be evaluated within the aquatic habitats identified during the exposure
setting characterization may first require differentiating water bodies from land areas within aquatic
habitiats not typically covered by water (e.g., flood plains or wetland areas transitioning to terrestrial and
upland habitats). Exposure scenario locations within land areas of aquatic habitats not characteristic of a
standing water body are selected following the same steps as for terrestrial habitats (see Section 4.1.1.1).
However, exposure scenario locations for defined water bodies within aquatic habitats should be selected
following the guidance provided in this section. The associated watershed contributing COPC loading to
the water body being evaluated should also be defined.
U.S. EPA OSW recommends that, at a minimum, the following procedures be used in the selection of
exposure scenario locations within defined water body areas of aquatic habitats as follows:
Step 1: Define Aquatic Habitats To Be Evaluated - All habitats, identified during exposure
setting characterization for evaluation in the risk assessment, should be defined and habitat
boundaries mapped in a format (NAD 27 or NAD 83 UTM) consistent with that used to define
locations of facility emission sources and modeled ISCST3 receptor grid nodes. Water body
boundaries should reflect annual average shoreline elevations. The area extent of watersheds
associated with water bodies to be evaluated should also be defined.
Step 2: Identify Receptor Grid Node(s) Within Each Habitat To Be Evaluated - For each water
body and associated watershed to be evaluated, the receptor grid nodes within that area and on the
boundary of that area (defined in Step 1) should be considered. For water bodies, the risk assessor
can select the receptor grid node that represent the locations of highest yearly average
concentration for each ISCST3 modeled air parameter (i.e., air concentration, dry deposition, wet
deposition) for each phase (i.e., vapor, particle, particle-bound), or average the air parameter
values for all receptor grid nodes within the area of the water body. This determination should be
performed for each emission source (i.e., stacks, fugitives), and all emissions sources at the facility
combined. For watersheds, the modeled air parameter values should be averaged for all receptor
grid nodes within the area extent or effective area of the watershed (excluding the area of the water
body).
For evaluating the COPC loading to the water body from its associated watershed, the area extent of the
watershed should be defined and the ISCST3 modeled air parameter values at each receptor grid node
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering 4-7
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 4: Problem Formulation August 1999
within the watershed area (excluding the water body) averaged. These averaged air parameter values are
then used in the estimating media equations presented in Chapter 3 and Appendix B for calculating the
COPC loading to the water body.
For water bodies identified as potentially impacted from emission sources and selected for evaluation, the
area extent of the associated watershed that contributes water to the water body should also be identified
and defined by UTM coordinates. The area extent of a watershed is generally defined by topographic highs
that result in downslope drainage into the water body. The watershed can be important to determining the
overall water body COPC loading, because pervious and impervious areas of the watershed, as well as the
soil concentration of COPCs resulting from emissions from facility sources, are also used in the media
concentration equations to calculate the water body COPC concentrations resulting from watershed runoff
(see Chapter 3 and Appendix B). The total watershed area that contributes water to the water body can be
very extensive relative to the area that is impacted from facility emissions. Therefore, it is important that
the area extent of all watersheds to be evaluated should be approved by the permitting authority, to ensure
that the watershed and its contribution to the water body is defined appropriately in consideration of the
aquatic habitat being evaluated and subsequent estimated risk.
For example, if facility emissions impact principally a land area that feeds a specific tributary that drains to
a large swamp system and immediately upstream of the ISCST3 receptor grid nodes identified as exposure
scenario locations for the aquatic habitat defined by the swamp, the risk assessor should consider
evaluating an "effective" watershed area rather than the entire watershed area of the large swamp system.
For such a large swamp system, the watershed area can be on the order of thousands of square kilometers
and can include numerous tributaries draining into the swamp at points that would have no net impact on
the water body COPC concentration at the exposure point(s) of interest.
Similar to large watersheds, water bodies may also be extensive in size relative to the area that is impacted
from facility emissions and exposure point(s) of interest. In such cases, the risk assessor should consider
defining and evaluating an "effective" area of the water body that focuses the assessment specific to areas
potentially impacted and of most concern when considering potential for exposure. Therefore, as with
watersheds, it is important that the area extent of all water bodies to be evaluated should be approved by
the permitting authority, to ensure that potential impacts and exposure are appropriately considered.
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering 4-8
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 4: Problem Formulation August 1999
The recommended ISCST3 modeled receptor grid node array extends out about 10 km from facility
emission sources (see Chapter 3). To address evaluation of habitat areas, water bodies, or watersheds
located beyond the coverage provided by the recommended receptor grid node array (greater than 10 km
from the facility), the ISCST3 modeling can be conducted with an additional receptor grid node array
specified to provide coverage of the area of concern, or the steps above can be executed using the closest
receptor grid nodes from the recommended array. However, using the closest receptor grid nodes from the
recommended receptor grid node array will in most cases provide a conservative estimate of risk since the
magnitude of air parameter values at these receptor grid nodes would most likely be higher than at receptor
grid nodes located further from the facility sources and actually within the area of concern.
RECOMMENDED INFORMATION FOR RISK ASSESSMENT
Identification and/or mapping of habitats, water bodies, and associated watersheds potentially
impacted by facility emissions of COPCs, including surface area of the water body and area
extent of the contributing watershed defined by UTM coordinates
Rational for selection or exclusion from evaluation, habitats within the assessment area
Description of rational and assumptions made to limit the watershed area to an "effective" area
Copies of all maps, photographs, or figures used to define characteristics of habitats, water
bodies, and watersheds
4.1.1.3 Special Ecological Areas
A special ecological area is a habitat that could require protection or special consideration on a site-specific
basis because (1) unique and/or rare ecological receptors and natural resources are present, or
(2) legislatively-conferred protection (e.g., a national monument) has been established. All potentially
exposed special ecological areas in the assessment area should be identified for consideration. The
following are examples of special ecological habitats (U.S. EPA 1997c):
Marine Sanctuaries
National river reaches
Spawning areas critical for maintenance offish/shellfish species
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering 4-9
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 4: Problem Formulation August 1999
Terrestrial areas utilized for breeding by large or dense aggregations of animals
Migratory pathways and feeding areas critical for maintenance of anadromous fish species
National Preserves
Federal lands designated for protection of natural ecosystems
National or State Wildlife Refuges
Critical areas identified under the Clean Lakes Program
Habitats known to be used by Federal or State designated or proposed endangered or
threatened species
Areas identified under the Coastal Zone Management Act
Sensitive areas identified under the National Estuary Program or Near Coastal Waters
Program
Designated Federal Wilderness Areas
State lands designated for wildlife or game management
Federal- or State-designated Scenic or Wild Rivers, or Natural Areas
Wetlands
RECOMMENDED INFORMATION FOR RISK ASSESSMENT
Identification and mapping of habitats in the assessment area, information on which the
identification is based, and information on any special ecological areas. Maps, photographs, or
additional sources used to determine habitats and define boundaries should be referenced. Maps
and figures should also note the UTM coordinate system format (NAD27 or NAD83) for all
information presented to ensure consistency and prevent erroneous georeferencing of locations
and areas.
4.1.2 Identification of Ecological Receptors
Identification of ecological receptors during exposure setting characterization is used to define food webs
specific to potentially impacted habitats to be evaluated in the risk assessment. Ecological receptors for
each habitat potentially impacted should be identified to ensure (1) plant and animal communities
representative of the habitat are represented by the habitat-specific food web, and (2) potentially complete
exposure pathways are identified. Examples of sources and general information available for identification
of site-specific ecological receptors are presented below:
Government Organizations - U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (National Wetland Inventory Maps -
http://nwi.fws.gov) and State Natural Heritage Programs (see Appendix H) provide maps or lists
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering 4-10
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 4: Problem Formulation August 1999
of species based on geographic location, and are very helpful in identifying threatened or
endangered species or areas of special concern.
General Literature (field guides) - Examples of information describing the flora and fauna of
North America and useful in the development of habitat-specific food webs (see Section 4.2)
include the following: Wharton 1982; Craig et al. 1987; Baker et al. 1991; Carr 1994; Ehrlich et
al. 1988; National Geographic Society (1987, 1992); Whitaker 1995; Burt and Grossenheider
1980; Behler 1995; Smith and Brodie 1982; Tyning 1990; and Farrand Jr. 1989.
Private or Local Organizations - Additional private or professional organizations that are
examples of sources of information include: National Audubon Society, National Geographic
Society, Local Wildlife Clubs, State and National Parks Systems, and Universities.
Ecological receptor identification should include species both known and expected to be present in a
specific habitat being evaluated, and include resident and migratory populations. Identification of flora
should be based on major taxonomic groups represented in the assessment area. Natural history
information may also be useful during food web development in assigning individual receptors to specific
habitats and guilds based on feeding behavior (as discussed in Section 4.2.).
4.2 FOOD WEB DEVELOPMENT
Information obtained during exposure setting characterization should be used to develop one or more
habitat-specific food web(s) that represent communities and guilds of receptors potentially exposed to
emissions from facility sources. Food webs are interlocking patterns of food chains, which are the straight-
line transfer of energy from a food source (e.g., plants) to a series of organisms feeding on the source or on
other organisms feeding on the food source (Odum 1971). While energy and, therefore, transfer of a
compound in a food chain, is not always linear, it is assumed in this guidance that energy and, thus,
compounds, are always transferred to a higher trophic level. The importance of a food chain as an
exposure pathway primarily depends on receptor dietary habits, the receptors in the food chain, and other
factors including bioavailability and depuration of the compound evaluated.
Habitat-specific food webs are developed for use in the risk assessment to:
Define direct and indirect exposure pathways
Formulate assessment endpoints
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering 4-11
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 4: Problem Formulation August 1999
Develop mathematical relationships between guilds
Perform quantitative exposure analysis for ecological receptors
Food webs can be developed using the "community approach" (Cohen 1978), which includes
(1) identification of potential receptors in a given habitat (see Section 4.1.2) for grouping into feeding
guilds by class and communities (see Section 4.2.1), (2) organizing food web structure by trophic level
(e.g., primary producer, secondary consumer; see Section 4.2.2), and (3) defining dietary relationships
between guilds and communities (see Section 4.2.3). The result is a complete food web for a defined
habitat, which should be developed for each habitat in the assessment area to be evaluated in risk
characterization. An example of food web development is presented in Section 4.2.4.
4.2.1 Grouping Receptors into Feeding Guilds and Communities
The first step in developing a habitat-specific food web is to identify, based on the dietary habits and
feeding strategies of receptors compiled in Section 4.1.2, the major feeding guilds for birds, mammals,
reptiles, amphibians, and fish. A guild is a group of species that occupies a particular trophic level and
shares similar feeding strategies. Invertebrates and plants are not assigned to guilds, rather these receptors
are grouped into their respective community by the environmental media they inhabit. The distinction for
grouping upper-trophic-level receptors into class-specific guilds, and invertebrates and plants into
communities, is made because the risk to these groups is characterized differently (see Chapter 5).
Once the major feeding guilds are identified (e.g., herbivore, omnivore, carnivore, insectivore), receptors
should be grouped by class (e.g., mammals, birds, amphibians and reptiles, and fish). As noted,
invertebrates and plants are grouped into their respective community by the media they inhabit (i.e, soil
invertebrates, terrestrial vegetation, sediment fauna, water column invertebrates, phytoplankton, and rooted
aquatic vegetation).
4.2.2 Organizing Food Web Structure By Trophic Level
The structure of a food web should be organized by trophic level. A trophic level is one of the successive
levels of nourishment in a food web or food chain. The first trophic level (TL1) contains the primary
producers or the green plants. Members of this trophic level produce their own food from nutrients,
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering 4-12
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 4: Problem Formulation August 1999
sunlight, carbon dioxide, and water. These primary producers are also the source of food for members of
the second trophic level (TL2). The second trophic level is often refered to as the primary consumers and is
composed of animals that eat plants (herbivores) and animals that subsist on detritus (decaying organic
matter) found in sediment and soil (detritivores). The third trophic level (TL3), contains both omnivores
and carnivores. Omnivores are animals that eat both plant and animal matter, while carnivores eat
primarily animal matter. The fourth trophic level (TL4), contains only carnivores and is sometimes refered
to as the dominant carnivores. TL4 contains animals at the top of the food chain (e.g., raptorial birds).
Some species can occupy more than one trophic level at a time depending on life stage. For this reason,
professional judgement should be used to categorize receptors without making the food web unduly
complex.
4.2.3 Defining Dietary Relationships Between Guilds and Communities
After species have been grouped into the appropriate guilds and communities, and organized by trophic
level, dietary relationships between guilds and communities should be defined. Guilds and communities
should be linked together based on dietary relationships by evaluating the dietary composition of the
receptors for each guild and community. Although most organisms have a complex diet, it should be
assumed that the majority of their diet is composed of a limited number of prey items and, therefore, a
limited number of feeding guild interactions occur. Therefore, U.S. EPA OSW recommends that generally
only those interactions that contribute more than five percent of the total diet should be considered for
development of a food web. This recommendation of five percent of the total diet as a general cutoff is
based on the assumption that the food web can be simplified without underestimating exposure.
RECOMMENDED INFORMATION FOR RISK ASSESSMENT
Habitat-specific food web(s) that include identification of (1) media (e.g., soil, sediment, water),
(2) trophic levels that include at a minimium producers (TL 1), primary consumers (TL 2),
secondary consumers (TL 3), and carnivores (TL 4), (3) guilds divided into classes (e.g.,
herbivorous mammals, omnivorous birds) and communities, and (4) major dietary interactions.
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering 4-13
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 4: Problem Formulation August 1999
4.2.4 Example Habitat-Specific Food Webs
To better illustrate food web development as discussed in the previous sections (see Sections 4.2.1 through
4.2.3), seven habitat-specific example food webs are presented as Figures 4-1 through 4-7. The habitats
represented include:
Forest
Tallgrass prairie
Shortgrass prairie
Shrub/Scrub
Freshwater/Wetland
Salt marsh
• Brackish/Intermediate marsh
The terrestrial and aquatic example food webs are based on information describing the flora and fauna of
North America (U.S. FWS 1979; Wharton 1982; Craig et al. 1987; Baker et al. 1991). Supplemental
information was collected from field guides and U.S. EPA's Wildlife Exposure Factors Handbook (Carr
1994; Ehrlich et al. 1988; National Geographic Society 1987; U.S. EPA 1993o; Whitaker 1995; Burt and
Grossenheider 1980; Behler 1995; Smith and Brodie 1982; Tyning 1990; National Geographic Society
1992;FarrandJr. 1989).
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering 4-14
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 4: Problem Formulation
August 1999
Carnivorous Mammals
Long-tailed weasel, Coyote,
Red fox, Gray fox, Marten, Fisher
Carnivorous Birds
Red-tailed hawk,
Great horned owl, Coopers hawk,
Barn owl
Carnivorous Reptiles
Eastern yellowbellied race; Eastern
coral snake, Texas rat snake,
Western diamondback rattlesnake
Omnivorous Mammals
Short-tailed shrew, Opossum,
Southeastern shrew, Vagrant shrew,
Pacific shrew, Ornate shrew, Dwarf
shrew, Smoky shrew
NOTE: PATHWAYS NOT REPRESENTED
MATHEMATICALLY IN EQUATIONS
RECEPTORS LISTED IN ITALICS
ARE MEASUREMENT RECEPTORS
Omnivorous Amphibians /
Reptiles
Ornate box turtle; Marbled salamander, Slendei
glass lizard, Rough earth snake, Hunters
spadefbot toad
Omnivorous Birds
American Robin, Carolina wren,
Red cockaded woodpecker,
Yellow warbler
Invertebrates
Nematods, Arachnids,
Gastropods,
Oligochaetes, Arthropods
Herbivorous Birds
Mourning dove,
Chipping sparrow
Terrestrial Plants
Loblolly pine, Dwarf palmetto,
Southern bayberry, Yellowstar
thistle, Bluegrama, Forbes
Soil
Nutrients, Detritus
Herbivorous Mammals
Deer mouse, Pika, Eastern
cottontail, Townsend's chipmunk
Gray squirrel, Red squirrel,
Woodland vole, Porcupine, Elk
FIGURE 4-1
EXAMPLE
FOREST FOOD WEB
U.S. EPA Region 6
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering
U.S. EPA
Office of Solid Waste
4-15
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 4: Problem Formulation
August 1999
Carnivorous Mammals
Long-tailed weasel, Swift fox,
Coyote, Badger, Spotted skunk
Carnivorous Birds
American kestrel, Golden eagle,
Coopers hawk, Prairie hawk,
Ferruginous hawk, Swainsons hawk
Carnivorous Reptiles
Eastern yellowbelly racer, Great plains
ratsnake, Bullsnake,
Western diamondback rattlesnake
Omnivorous Mammals
Least shrew, Pygmy shrew,
Townsend's mole, Eastern mole,
Idaho ground squirrel
NOTE: PATHWAYS NOT REPRESENTED
MATHEMATICALLY IN EQUATIONS
RECEPTORS LISTED IN ITALICS
ARE MEASUREMENT RECEPTORS
Omnivorous Amphibians /
Reptiles
Ornate box turtle, Texas toad, Eastern hognose
snake, Plains blind snake, Texas spotted
whiptail, Short-lined skink, Six-lined racerunne
Omnivorous Birds
Western meadowlark, Scissor-tailed
flycatcher, Sandhill crane, Dickcissel
Greater prairie chicken
Herbivorous Birds
Mooring dove
Chipping sparrow,
Canada, goose
Invertebrates
Nematodes, Gastropods,
Oligochaetes, Arthropods
Terrestrial Plants
Big bluestem, Switchgrass, Little
bluestem, Johnson grass, Indian
Soil
Nutrients, Detritus
Herbivorous Mammals
Deer Mouse, Eastern cottontail,
White-tailed jackrabbitt, Plains
harvest mouse, Black-tailed
woodchuck, Plains pocket mouse
Meadow vole, Gopher
FIGURE 4-2
EXAMPLE
TALLGRASS PRAIRIE FOOD WEB
U.S. EPA Region 6
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering
U.S. EPA
Office of Solid Waste
4-16
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 4: Problem Formulation
August 1999
Carnivorous Mammals
Swift Fa* Coyote, Red fox,
Badger, Spotted skunk, Bobcat
Carnivorous Birds
American kestrel, Burrowing owl,
White-tailed hawk, Coopers hawk,
Ferruginous hawk, Swainsons hawk
Carnivorous Reptiles
Eastern yellowbelly racei; Great plains
ratsnake, Bullsnake,
Western diamondback rattlesnake
Omnivorous
Least shrew, Pygmy shrew,
Townsend's mole, Eastern mole,
Thirteen-lined ground squirrel,
Hispid pocket mouse, Striped skunl:
Omnivorous Amphibians /
Reptiles
Ornate box turtle, Texas toad, Eastern hognoae
snake, Plains blind snake, Texas spotted
whiptail, Short-lined skink, Six-lined racerunnet
Omnivorous Birds
Northern bobwhite, Lesser prairie chicken,
Lesser golden plover, Mountain plover,
American pipit
Invertebrates
Arachnids, Gastropods,
Oligochaetes, Arthropod
Herbivorous Birds
Mourning Dove, Canada
goose, Chipping Sparrow
Terrestrial Plants
Blue grama,Hairy grama, Broom
weed, Purple three-awn, Mesquite,
Side-oats grama, Yucca, Buffalo
grass, Alkali sacaton, Little bluesteir
Soil
Nutrients, Detritus
Herbivorous Mammals
Deer mouse, Eastern Cottontail,
White-tailed jackrabbitt, Black-
tailed woodchuck, Black-tailed
prairie dog, Plains harvest
mouse, Meadow vole
NOTE: PATHWAYS NOT REPRESENTED
MATHEMATICALLY IN EQUATIONS
RECEPTORS LISTED IN ITALICS
ARE MEASUREMENT RECEPTORS
FIGURE 4-3
EXAMPLE
SHORTGRASS PRAIRIE FOOD WEB
U.S. EPA Region 6
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering
U.S. EPA
Office of Solid Waste
4-17
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 4: Problem Formulation
August 1999
H
O >
M W
E- J
ffi J
OH W
o >
NOTE:
V
Carnivorous Mammals
Long-tailed weasel, Coyote, Red fox
Gray fox, Badger, Spotted skunk
Carnivorous Birds
American kestrel, Burrowing owl,
Rough-legged hawk, Mississippi
kite, Black shouldered kite,
Crested caracara
Carnivorous Reptiles
Eastern yellowbelly racer, Great plains
ratsnake,Texas rat snake, Bullsnake,
Western diamondback rattlesnake
Omnivorous Mammals
White-footed mouse, Opossum,
Southeastern shrew, Merriam's
shrew, Arizona shrew, Desert shrew
Eastern chipmunk, Least chipmunk
Omnivorous Amphibians /
Reptiles
Ornate box turtle, Texas toad, Texas spotted
whiptail, Eastern hognose snake, Short-lined
skink, Six-lined racerunner, Eastern green toad
Omnivorous Birds
Northern bobwhite,
Horned lark, American pipit
Dickcissel
Invertebrates
Arachnids, Gastropods,
Oligochaetes, Arthropods
Nematodes
Herbivorous Birds
Mourning Dove,
Canada goose
Terrestrial Plants
Cotton, Soy bean, Corn,
Sunflower, Thistle, Forbes
Sugarcane
Soil
Nutrients, Detritus
Herbivorous Mammals
Deer mouse, Pygmy rabbit,
Brush rabbit, Eastern cottontail,
Nuttall's cottontail, Desert
cottontail
PATHWAYS NOT REPRESENTED
MATHEMATICALLY IN EQUATIONS
RECEPTORS LISTED IN ITALICS
ARE MEASUREMENT RECEPTORS
FIGURE 4-4
EXAMPLE
SHRUB/SCRUB FOOD WEB
U.S. EPA Region 6
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering
U.S. EPA
Office of Solid Waste
4-18
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 4: Problem Formulation
August 1999
Carnivorous Mammals
Mink, River otter, Jaguar,
Mountain lion, Bobcat
NOTE:
Carnivorous Birds
American kestrel, Northern
harrier, Short-eared owl,
Merlin
Carnivorous
Shore Birds
Spotted sandpiper, Great blue
heron, Belted kingfisher,
Black rail, Greater yellowlegs
Carnivorous Reptiles
American alligator, Alligator
snapping turtle, Spiny softshell
turtle, Speckled king snake,
Cotton mouth
Carnivorous Fish
Largemouth bass, Spotted gar,
Alligator gar, Grass pickerel,
Chain pickerel
Omnivorous
Amphibians / Reptiles
Green frog, Small-mouthed
salamander, Painted turtle,
Three-toed amphiuma, Lesser siren
Omnivorous Fish
Carp, Channel catfish,
Blue catfish,
Black bullhead
Omnivorous Mammals
Least shrew, Masked shrew,
Southeastern shrew, Duskey
shrew, Ornate shrew
Omnivorous Birds
Mallard, Marsh wren,
Red-winged blackbird, Swamp
sparrow, Northern shoveler,
Herbivorous / Planktivorous
Fish
Carp, Golden shiner, Threadfin
shad, Mosquito fish, Sailfin
Invertebrates
Herbivorous Birds
Canvasback,
Canada Goose, Northern pintail
Herbivorous Mammals
Muskrat, Marsh rabbit, Swamp
rabbit, Fox squirrel
Invertebrates
Aquatic Vegetation
Vascular plants, Maidencane, Saltmeadow
cordgrass, Bull tongue, Alligator weed, Sedges
Phytoplankton
Algae
Water and Sediment
Nutrients, Detritus
PATHWAYS NOT REPRESENTED
MATHEMATICALLY IN EQUATIONS
RECEPTORS LISTED IN ITALICS
ARE MEASUREMENT RECEPTORS
FIGURE 4-5
EXAMPLE
FRESHWATER FOOD WEB
U.S. EPA Region 6
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering
U.S. EPA
Office of Solid Waste
4-19
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 4: Problem Formulation
August 1999
Carnivorous Mammals
Mink, River otter,
Jaguar, Bobcat
Carnivorous Birds
American kestrel, Northern
Harrier, Short-eared owl,
Merlin, Osprey, White-tailed
hawk
Carnivorous
Shore Birds
Spotted sandpiper,
Belted kingfisher, Great blue
heron, Greater yellowlegs,
Dunlin
Omnivorous
Amphibians / Reptiles
Green frog, Dwarf salamander, Green
tree frog, Southern leopard frog,
Snapping turtle, Diamondback terrapin
Omnivorous Mammals
Marsh rice rat, Masked shrew,
Broad-footed mole, Star-nosed
mole. Cotton mouse. Raccoon
Omnivorous Birds
Mallard, Marsh wren, Red-winged
blackbird, Swamp sparrow,
Northern shoveler, Herring gull
Herbivorous Mammals
Muskrat, Marsh rabbit, Swamp
rabbit, Fox squirrel, Beaver
Herbivorous Birds
Canvasback, Northern pintail,
Canada goose, Fulvous
whistling Duck
Carnivorous Reptiles
American alligator, Gulf
salt marsh snake, Diamondback
water snake, Cottonmouth
Carnivorous Fish
Bull shark, Stingray,
Atlantic stingray, Spotted gar,
Alligator gar, American eel
Aquatic Vegetation
(Vascular plants), Wiregrass, Three cornered
grass, Saltmarsh bulrush, Saltmeadow cordgrass
Saltgrass, Blackrush
NOTE:
PATHWAYS NOT REPRESENTED
MATHEMATICALLY IN EQUATIONS
RECEPTORS LISTED IN ITALICS
ARE MEASUREMENT RECEPTORS
Water
Invertebrates
Arthropods,
Gastropods,
Decapods
AA >
-'^
/ 1
Vv
--
Omnivorous Fish
Carp, Channel catfish,
Blue catfish,
Black bullhead
A A A AA
/ / /
' / /
Herbivorous / Planktivorous
Fish
Carp, Gulf killifish, Golden shiner,
Threadfin shad, Mosquito fish, Sailfin
molly, Red shiner
A A
AA A A AAA
Water and Sediment
Nutrients, Detritus
FIGURE 4-6
EXAMPLE
BRACKISH / INTERMEDIATE
MARSH FOOD WEB
U.S. EPA Region 6
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering
U.S. EPA
Office of Solid Waste
4-20
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 4: Problem Formulation
August 1999
o >
c^ w
E- J
Carnivorous Mammals
Red fox, Sea otter
z
Carnivorous Birds
Northern Harrier, Merlin,
Osprey, White-tailed hawk
Carnivorous
Shore Birds
Spotted sandpiper,
Black rail, Great blue
heron
Carnivorous Reptiles
American alligator, Gulf
salt marsh snake, Diamondback
water snake, Mobile cooler
Carnivorous Fish
Bull shark, Fine toothed shark,
Spotted eagle ray, Spotted
moray eel, redfish
A A A. A
Omnivorous Fish
Sea catfish, Gafftopsail
catfish, Feather blenny,
Atlantic midshipman,
Gulftoadfish
Omnivorous Birds
Marsh wren, Short-billed
dowitcher, Least sandpiper
Roseate spoonbill
Omnivorous Mammals
Marsh rice rat, Cotton
mouse. Wild boar
Herbivorous / Planktivorous
Fish
Gulf pipefish, Sharptail goby
Clown goby, Gulf killifish, Carp
Invertebrates
Herbivorous Mammals
Salt-marsh harvest mouse,
Marsh rabbit, Swamp rabbit
Invertebrates
Herbivorous Birds
Canvasback,
Great blue heron, Dunlin
Aquatic Vegetation
Vascular plants), Smooth cordgrass, Wiregrass,
Saltmeadow cordgrass, Saltgrass, Blackrush
Phytoplankton
Water and Sediment
Nutrients, Detritus
NOTE:
PATHWAYS NOT REPRESENTED
MATHEMATICALLY IN EQUATIONS
RECEPTORS LISTED IN ITALICS
ARE MEASUREMENT RECEPTORS
FIGURE 4-7
EXAMPLE
SALT MARSH FOOD WEB
U.S. EPA Region 6
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering
U.S. EPA
Office of Solid Waste
4-21
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 4: Problem Formulation August 1999
4.3 SELECTING ASSESSMENT ENDPOINTS
An assessment endpoint is an expression of an ecological attribute that is to be protected (U.S. EPA
1997c). A critical ecological attribute of a guild or community is a characteristic that is relevant to
ecosystem (food web) structure and function. Protection of the critical ecological attributes of each guild
and community is assummed to also ensure the protectiveness of habitat-specific food web structure and
function. Therefore, assessment endpoints should be identified specific to each class-specific guild and
community within each trophic level of the habitat-specific food web.
Examples of assessment endpoints for guilds include:
• Seed disperser
• Major food source for predator
• Decomposer/detritivore
• Pollinator
• Regulate populations of prey (e.g., forage fish, small rodents)
Examples of assessment endpoints for communities include:
• Diversity or species richness
• Community composition
• Productivity
• Major food source for consumer
• Habitat for wildlife
Descriptions of ecological attributes to be protected (i.e., assessment endpoints) associated with several
guilds and communities in a terrestrial ecosystem are provided as examples below.
• Herbaceous plant abundance, habitat, and productivity are attributes to be preserved in a
terrestrial ecosystem. As food, herbaceous plants provide an important pathway for
energy and nutrient transfer from soil to herbivorous (e.g., rabbit) and omnivorous
(e.g., mouse) receptors. Herbaceous plants also provide critically important habitat for
small animals.
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering 4-22
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 4: Problem Formulation August 1999
• Woody plant habitat and productivity are critical attributes to be protected. As food,
woody plants provide an important pathway for energy and nutrient transfer from soil to
herbivorous and omnivorous vertebrates (e.g., white-tailed deer, yellow-bellied sapsucker).
Woody plants also provide critically important habitat for terrestrial wildlife.
• Herbivore productivity is an attribute to be protected in the terrestrial ecosystem because
herbivores incorporate energy and nutrients from plants and transfer it to higher trophic
levels, such as first- and second-order carnivores (e.g., snakes and owls, respectively).
Herbivores also are integral to the success of terrestrial plants, through such attributes as
seed dispersal.
• Omnivore productivity is an attribute to be protected in the terrestrial ecosystem because
omnivores incorporate energy and nutrients from lower trophic levels and transfer it to
higher levels, such as first- and second-order carnivores.
• First-order carnivore productivity is an attribute to be protected in the terrestrial ecosystem
because these carnivores provide food to other carnivores (both first- and second-order),
omnivores, scavengers, and microbial decomposers. They also affect the abundance,
reproduction, and recruitment of lower trophic level receptors, such as vertebrate
herbivores and omnivores, through predation.
• Second-order carnivore productivity is an attribute to be protected in the terrestrial
ecosystem because carnivores affect the abundance, reproduction, and recruitment of
species in lower trophic levels in the food web.
• Soil invertebrate productivity and function as a decomposer are attributes to be preserved
in a terrestrial ecosystem, because they provide a mechanism for the physical breakdown
of detritus for microbial decomposition, which is a vital function. Soil invertebrates also
function as a major food source for omnivorous birds.
Selection of assessment endpoints represents a scientific and management decision point. Since risk
characterization, and subsequently final risk management decisions, are dependent on the selection of
assessment endpoints, they should be developed with input from risk managers and other stakeholders.
Table 4-1 lists the assessment endpoints for guilds and communities in the three aquatic and four terrestrial
example habitat-specific food webs.
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering 4-23
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 4: Problem Formulation
August 1999
TABLE 4-1
ASSESSMENT ENDPOINTS FOR GUILDS AND COMMUNITES IN EXAMPLE FOOD WEBS
Representative Receptors
Example Critical Ecological Attributes
Aquatic Receptors
Aquatic Plants
Water Invertebrates
Herbivorous /
Planktivorous Fish
Omnivorous Fish
Carnivorous Fish
Phytoplankton, Vascular plants
Crustaceans, Rotifers, Amphipods
Carp, Gulf killifish, Threadfin shad, Molly, Golden Shiner,
Goby, Mosquito Fish, Red Shiner
Carp, Channel catfish, Gafftopsail fish, Atlantic midshipman,
Feather blenny, Gulf toad fish, Bluecat, Bullhead
Largemouth bass, Spotted gar, Bull shark, Redfish, Grass
pickerel, Alligator gar, Chain pickerel, American eel, Atlantic
stingray, Spotted moray eel, Fine toothed shark
Primary producers convert light energy into biomass, and are the first link in
aquatic food chains supporting higher trophic level aquatic consumers and
wildlife. Rooted vegetation also provides habitat and bottom stability.
Aquatic invertebrates are an important food source for many higher trophic
level consumers. Zooplankton regulate phytoplankton populations, and are a
critical link in energy transfer to higher trophic levels in aquatic ecosystems.
Herbivorous/Planktivorous Fish are an important prey species for higher
trophic level predators in the aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems, and provide a
critical link for energy transfer from primary producers to higher trophic level
consumers. They generally comprise the majority of tissue biomass in
aquatic ecosystems, and provide an important role to the ecosystem through
regulating algae and plankton biomass.
Omnivorous fish are an important prey item for higher trophic level
predators. Through predation, they may also regulate population levels in
lower trophic level fish and invertebrates.
Carnivorous fish provide an important function for the aquatic environment
by regulating lower trophic populations through predation. They are also an
important prey item for many top level mammal and bird carnivores.
Sediment Receptors
Sediment Invertebrates
Oligochaetes, Pelecypods, Amphipods, Decapods, Polychaetes,
Gastropods
Sediment invertebrates are an important food source for many higher trophic
level predators. They also provide an important role as
decomposers/detritivores in nutrient cycling.
Soil Receptors
Terrestrial Plants
Vascular plants, Grasses, Forbs, Lichens
Primary producers provide a critical food source and are the first link in the
terrestrial food chain for higher trophic level consumers, hi addition,
vegetation provides critical habitat for wildlife.
U.S. EPA Region 6
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering
U.S. EPA
Office of Solid Waste
4-24
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 4: Problem Formulation
August 1999
TABLE 4-1 (Continued)
ASSESSMENT ENDPOINTS FOR GUILDS AND COMMUNITES IN EXAMPLE FOOD WEBS
Representative Receptors
Soil Invertebrates
Nematodes, Gastropods, Oligochaetes, Arthropods
Example Critical Ecological Attributes
Soil invertebrates provide an important food source for many higher trophic
level species. As decomposers/detritivores they play a critical role in nutrient
cycling. They also aid in soil aeration and infiltration by increasing macro,
and micro porosity.
Upper Trophic Level Avian and Mammalian Wildlife
Herbivorous Mammals
Herbivorous Birds
Omnivorous Mammals
Omnivorous Birds
Omnivorous
Amphibians and
Reptiles
Deer mouse, Nutria, Eastern cottontail, Prairie vole, Fox
squirrel, Grey squirrel, Swamp rabbit, Eastern wood rat,
White-tailed deer, Fulvous harvest mouse, Black-tailed
jackrabbit, Hispid cotton rat, Hispid pocket mouse, Black-
tailed prairie dog,
Mourning dove, Canada goose, Chipping sparrow, Northern
pintail
Least shrew, Raccoon, Muskrat, Marsh rice rat, Wild boar,
Cotton mouse, Eastern spotted skunk, Coyote, Nine-banded
armadillo, Virginia opossum, Elliot's short-tailed shrew,
Striped skunk, Golden mouse, Seminole bat.
American robin, Northern bobwhite, Marsh wren, Carolina
wren, Swamp sparrow, Yellow warbler, Lesser prairie chicken,
Roadrunner, Mallard, Least sandpiper, Red cockaded wood
pecker, Roseate spoonbill, Greater prairie chicken, Scissor-
tailed flycatcher, Sandhill crane, Dickcissel, Canada goose,
Red-winged blackbird, Hooded merganser, Northern shovler.
Ornate box turtle, Green frog, Texas toad, Eastern hognose
snake, Plains blind snake, Small-mouthed salamander,
Diamondback terrapin, Short-lined skink, Six-lined racerunner,
Eastern green toad, Marbled salamander, Slender glass lizard,
Herbivorous mammals are an important prey item for many higher trophic
level predators. They provide an important link for energy transfer between
primary producers and higher trophic level consumers. In addition, these
organisms generally comprise the majority of the terrestrial tissue biomass,
and are important in seed dispersal and pollination for many plant species.
Herbivorous birds are an important prey item for many higher trophic level
predators. They are important in seed dispersal for many plants in both
terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. Aquatic herbivorous birds may also play
an important role in egg dispersion for fish and invertebrate species.
Omnivorous mammals are an important prey item for higher trophic level
predators, and influence lower trophic level populations through predation.
They play an important role in seed dispersal for many types of terrestrial
vegetation and aquatic plants.
Omnivorous birds are an important prey item for higher trophic level
predators. They play an important role in seed dispersal and pollination for
many types of terrestrial vegetation and aquatic plants. In addition, aquatic
species provide egg dispersal for some fish and invertebrate species.
Omnivorous amphibians and reptiles provide an important food source for
predators. They also provide seed dispersal for many plants and regulate
lower trophic level populations through predation.
U.S. EPA Region 6
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering
U.S. EPA
Office of Solid Waste
4-25
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 4: Problem Formulation
August 1999
TABLE 4-1 (Continued)
ASSESSMENT ENDPOINTS FOR GUILDS AND COMMUNITES IN EXAMPLE FOOD WEBS
Representative Receptors
Example Critical Ecological Attributes
Carnivorous Mammals
Grey fox, Swift fox, River otter, Bobcat, Mountain lion, Long-
tailed weasel, American badger, Red fox, American mink, Red
wolf
Carnivorous mammals provide an important functional role to the
environment by regulating lower trophic level prey populations.
Carnivorous Birds
Red-tailed hawk, American kestrel, Marsh hawk, Great-horned
owl, Barn owl, Burrowing owl, White-tailed hawk, Ferruginous
hawk , Swansons hawk, Golden eagle, Mississippi kite, Prairie
hawk, Merlin
Carnivorous Birds provide an important functional role to the environment by
regulating lower trophic level prey populations.
Carnivorous Shore
Birds
Great blue heron, Belted kingfisher, Spotted sandpiper, Black
rail, Greater yellowlegs, Dunlin,
Carnivorous Shore Birds provide an important functional role to the
environment by regulating lower trophic level prey populations, and
influencing species composition in terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. They
also provide egg dispersal for some fish and aquatic invertebrates.
Carnivorous Reptiles
Eastern yellowbelly racer, Eastern coral snake, Texas rat snake,
Western Diamondback rattlesnake, American alligator,
Bullsnake, Alligator snapping turtle, Cotton mouth, Speckled
king snake, Spiny softshell turtle, Gulf salt marsh snake,
Carnivorous Reptiles provide an important functional role to the environment
by regulating lower trophic level prey and are an important prey item for
other upper trophic level predators.
U.S. EPA Region 6
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering
U.S. EPA
Office of Solid Waste
4-26
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 4: Problem Formulation August 1999
4.4 IDENTIFYING MEASUREMENT RECEPTORS TO EVALUATE MEASURES OF
EFFECT
Measures of effect are measures used to evaluate "the response of the assessment endpoint when exposed to
a stressor (formerly measurement endpoints)" (U.S. EPA 1997c). Measures of exposure are measures of
how exposure may be occurring, including how a stressor may co-occur with the assessment endpoint
(U.S. EPA 1997c). Measures of effect, in conjunction with measures of exposure, are used to make
inferences about potential changes in the assessment endpoint (U.S. EPA 1997c).
Measures of effect are selected as: (1) toxicity values developed and/or adopted by federal or state
agencies (e.g., ambient water quality criteria [AWQC], NOAA effects range low [ERL] values) for
protection of media-specific communities, or (2) receptor-specific chronic
no-observed-adverse-effects-levels (NOAELs) or their equivalent for ecologically relevant endoints (see
Chapter 5) for this screening assessment. Measures of exposure are selected as the COPC concentrations
in media or dose (e.g., ingestion of contaminated media and/or tissue) to which exposure occurs, and
determined as discussed in Chapter 5.
The evaluation of the measure of effect to the assessment endpoint (see Chapters 5 and 6) requires
identification of a measurement receptor representive of the assessment endpoint. The measurement
receptor is selected based on consideration of factors such as (1) ecological relevance, (2) exposure
potential, (3) sensitivity, (4) social or economic importance, and (5) availability of natural history
information.
A measurement receptor, specific to each guild, may be selected as a species, population, community, or
assemblage of communities. For communities (i.e., soil, surface water, sediment), the community or
assemblage of communities is selected as the measurement receptor, and no specific species is selected.
For guilds, individual species are selected as measurement receptors. Sections 4.4.1 and 4.4.2 discuss
measurement receptors for communities and for mammals and birds, respectively. Section 4.4.3 discusses
selection of measurement receptors for the example food webs (see Section 4.2).
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering 4-27
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 4: Problem Formulation August 1999
4.4.1 Measurement Receptors for Communities
For communities (i.e., soil, surface water, sediment), the community or assemblage of communities are
selected as the measurement receptors, and no specific species are selected. Therefore, it is inferred that
critical ecological attributes of these communities are not adversely affected if a COPC concentration in
that respective media does not exceed the toxicity benchmark specific for that community (see Section 5.1).
Representative measurement receptors for soil, surface water, sediment communities include:
• Soil—Soil invertebrate community and terrestrial plant community
• Surface Water—Phytoplankton community, water invertebrate community
• Sediment—Benthic invertebrate community
4.4.2 Measurement Receptor for Guilds
A measurement receptor should be selected for each class-specific guild to model (1) COPC dose ingested,
and (2) whole body COPC concentration in prey eaten by predators. The selected measurement receptor
should be representative of other species in the guild, with respect to the guild's feeding niche in the
ecosystem. The risk assessment should demonstrate that using the measurement receptor ensures that risk
to other species in the guild is not underestimated. The following factors should be evaluated to identify a
measurement receptor:
• Ecological Relevance - Highly relevant receptors provide an important functional or
structural aspect in the ecosystem. Attributes of highly relevant receptors typically fall
under the categories of food, habitat, production, seed dispersal, pollination, and
decomposition. Critical attributes include those that affect or determine the function or
survival of a population. For example, a sustainable population of forage fish might be
critical to the sustainability of a population of carnivorous game fish.
• Exposure Potential - Receptors with high exposure potentials are those that, due to their
metabolism, feeding habits, location, or reproductive strategy, tend to have higher
potentials for exposure than other receptors. For example, the metabolic rates of small
receptors are generally higher than those for large animals. This results in a higher
ingestion per body weight (i.e., increased exposure potential).
Sensitivity - Highly susceptible receptors include those with low tolerances to a COPC as
well as receptors with enhanced COPC susceptibility due to other concomitant stressors
that may not be related to a COPC, such as reduced habitat availability. For example,
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering 4-28
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 4: Problem Formulation August 1999
raptorial birds are highly sensitive to the effects of chlorinated pesticides that
bioaccumulate through the food chain.
• Social or Economic Importance - An assessment endpoint may also be based on socially
or economically important receptors. These types of receptors include species valued for
economic importance such as crayfish and game fish. For these receptors, critical
attributes include those that affect survival, production, and fecundity characteristics. For
example, swamp crayfish are highly sensitive to some heavy metals through adverse
effects to behavioral characteristics.
• Availability of Natural History Information - Natural history information is essential to
quantitaviliy evalate risk to measurement receptors. If this information such as body
weight, food, water, soil, and sediment ingestion rates is unavailable for the desired
measurement receptor, a surrogate species should be selected. Uncertainty associated with
using a surrogate species should be discussed.
It should be noted that more than one measurement receptor can be selected per assessment endpoint.
Also, although each of these factors should be evaluated when selecting the measurement receptor, at least
one of the measurement receptors selected to represent a class-specific guild should have the highest
exposure potential (i.e., ingestion rate on a body weight basis). This ensures that risk to other species in
the guild is not underestimated.
U.S. EPA's Wildlife Exposure Factors Handbook (U.S. EPA 1993o) is an example of an excellent source
of dietary and other natural history information. However, it is recommended that receptor information
obtained from it or any source be verified and documented during measurement receptor identification.
4.4.3 Measurement Receptors for Example Food Webs
Consistent with the discussions presented in Section 4.4, measurement receptors were selected for the
example food webs presented in Section 4.2. Receptor information documented in Wildlife Exposure
Factors Handbook (U.S. EPA 1993o) and available literature was evaluated to determine suitable
measurement receptors for each class-specific guild represented in the example food webs.
Ecological relevance, exposure potential, sensitivity, social or economic importance and availability of
natural history information (see Section 4.4.3) were evaluated to identify measurement receptors for the
example food webs. It should be noted that since these measurement receptors have been provided as
examples to facilitate understanding of the previously described selection process, not every assessment
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering 4-29
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 4: Problem Formulation August 1999
endpoint has been represented (e.g., TL3 omnivorous fish, TL3 omnivorous amphibians and reptiles, and
TL4 carnivorous fish) as may be expected for a complete ecological risk assessment at a site. Discussions
on each of the example measurement receptors follow.
American Kestrel
The American kestrel (Falco sparverius), or sparrow hawk, was selected as the measurement receptor for
the carnivorous bird guild in the example shortgrass prairie, tallgrass prairie, shrub/scrub, freshwater
wetland, and brackish/intermediate marsh food webs based on the following information:
• The kestrel is important in regulating small mammal populations through predation.
Predators of the kestrel include larger raptors such as red-tailed hawks, golden eagles, and
great horned owls.
• The kestrel's prey include a variety of invertebrates such as worms, spiders, scorpions,
beetles, and other large insects, as well as an assortment of small to medium-sized birds
and mammals. Winter home ranges vary from a few hectares to hundreds of hectares,
depending on the amount of available prey in the area.
• The availability of natural history information (e.g., home range, ingestion rates, body
weights) also support selection as a measurement receptor.
American Robin
The American robin (Turdus migratorius) was selected as the measurement receptor for the omnivorous
bird guild in the example forest food web based on the following information:
• The robin serves an important function in seed dispersion for many fruit species, making it
a valuable component of the ecosystem.
• Habitats include forests, wetlands, swamps, and habitat edge where forested areas are
broken with agricultural and range land. The robin forages on snails and other soil
invertebrates, seeds, and fruit.
• The availability of natural history information (e.g., home range, ingestion rates, body
weights) also support selection as a measurement receptor.
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering 4-30
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 4: Problem Formulation August 1999
Canvasback
The Canvasback (Aythya valisineria) was selected as the measurement receptor for the herbivorous bird
guild in all three example aquatic food webs based on the following information:
• The Canvasback provides a valuable functional role to aquatic habitats by dispersing seeds
for aquatic vegetation.
• The Canvasback is the largest member of the Pochards (bay ducks) and is common
throughout North America. They breed from Alaska to Nebraska, and in intermountain
marshes of Washington, Oregon, and northern California. Their diet consists of aquatic
vegetation, and small invertebrates, which they obtain by digging in sediments. Although
the canvasback consumes aquatic invertebrates during certain times of the year, in winter
when they are present along coastal regions, a large portion of their diet is aquatic
vegetation and was therefore selected to represent the herbivorous bird guild.
• Since natural history information on the canvasback was scarce, the Lesser Scaup (Aythya
affinis), for which natural history information is readily available, was selected as a
surrogate receptor.
Deer Mouse
The deer mouse (Peromyscus maniculatus) was selected as the measurement receptor for the herbivorous
mammal guild in the example forest, shortgrass prairie, tallgrass prairie, shrub/scrub food webs based on
the following information:
• The deer mouse is preyed upon by owls, snakes, and small carnivorous mammals, making
it a very important prey item. This animal also plays an important ecological role in seed
and fruit dispersion for many types of vegetation. In addition, their burrowing activities
influence soil composition and aeration.
• The deer mouse is almost strictly nocturnal and feeds chiefly on seeds, fruits, bark, roots,
and herbage. Due to its burrowing and dietary habits, there is a high potential for direct
and indirect exposure. The home range for a deer mouse is rarely over 100 meters, and it
spends most of its day in an underground burrow.
• The availability of natural history information (e.g., home range, ingestion rates, body
weights) also support selection as a measurement receptor.
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering 4-31
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 4: Problem Formulation August 1999
Least Shrew
The least shrew (Cryptotis parva) was selected as the measurement receptor for the omnivorous mammal
guild in the example tallgrass prairie, shortgrass prairie, and freshwater wetland food webs based on the
following information:
• Because of the shrews abundance and high population density, they make up a large
portion of the diet of owls, hawks, and snakes.
• Shrews feed on snails, insects, sow bugs, and other small invertebrates. The home range
size is on average 0.39 hectares. Their diet of invertebrates and their burrowing behavior
result in a high potential of direct and indirect exposure to contaminants.
• The availability of natural history information (e.g., home range, ingestion rates, body
weights) also support selection as a measurement receptor.
Long-tailed Weasel
The long-tailed weasel (Mistily Renatd) was selected as the measurement receptor for the carnivorous
mammal guild in the example forest, tallgrass prairie and shrub/scrub food webs based on the following
information:
• The long-tailed weasel is important in regulating small mammal populations through
predation. Predators of the weasel include cats, foxes, snakes, and large raptors such as
hawks and owls.
• Habitats are varied and include forested, brushy, open areas including farm lands
preferably near water, where they prey on rabbits, chipmunks, shrews, mice, rats and
birds.
• The availability of natural history information (e.g., home range, ingestion rates, body
weights) also support selection as a measurement receptor.
Mallard Duck
The mallard duck (Anas platyrhynchos} was chosen as the measurement receptor for the omnivorous bird
guild for the freshwater wetland and brackish/intermediate marsh food webs based on the following
information:
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering 4-32
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 4: Problem Formulation August 1999
• The mallard serves as a valuable component in aquatic food webs providing dispersion of
seeds for aquatic vegetation, and due to their role in the nutrient cycle of wetlands. In
addition, the mallard is a major prey item for carnivorous mammals, birds, and snakes.
• The mallard is present in a diverse amount of aquatic habitats throughout the United
States. Although their diet is considered omnivorous, 90 percent of their diet may be plant
material at some times of the year. Mallards are surface feeders that will often filter
through soft mud and sediment searching for food items.
• The mallard is very important game species, representing approximately one-third of all
waterfowl harvested.
• The availability of natural history information (e.g., home range, ingestion rates, body
weights) also support selection as a measurement receptor.
Marsh Rice Rat
The marsh rice rat (Oryzomys palustris) was selected as the measurement receptor for the omnivorous
mammal guild in the example brackish/intermediate and salt marsh food web based on the following
information:
• The marsh rice rat inhabits marsh and wetland areas where it feeds on crabs, insects,
fruits, snails, and aquatic plants. The rice rat plays an important role in seed dispersal and
is a major food item for many predators including raptors, cats, weasels and snakes.
• The marsh rice rat has a high potential for exposure due to their aquatic diet and direct
contact with media.
• The availability of natural history information (e.g., home range, ingestion rates, body
weights) also support selection as a measurement receptor.
Marsh Wren
The marsh wren (Cistothorus palustris) was selected as the measurement receptor for the omnivorous bird
guild in the example salt marsh food web based on the following information:
• The marsh wren consumes large numbers of aquatic insects thus regulating their
populations, which make it a valuable component of the ecosystem. Main predators are
snakes and turtles which prey heavily upon the eggs.
• The marsh wren is common throughout the United States, inhabiting freshwater, brackish,
and saltwater marshes. Its diet consists mainly of aquatic invertebrates, although snails
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering 4-33
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 4: Problem Formulation August 1999
and spiders may be taken. In addition, its diet of aquatic invertebrates makes it susceptible
to accumulation and toxicity of bioaccumulative chemicals
• The availability of natural history information (e.g., home range, ingestion rates, body
weights) also support selection as a measurement receptor.
Mink
The mink (Mustela vison) was selected as the measurement receptor for the carnivorous mammal guild in
the example brackish/intermediate marsh and freshwater food webs based on the following information:
• As a high trophic level predator, the mink provides an important component to the
ecosystem by influencing the population dynamics of their prey. Their main predators
include fox, bobcats, and great-horned owls.
• The mink is one of the most abundant carnivorous mammals in North America, inhabiting
rivers, creeks, lakes, and marshes. They are distributed throughout North America, except
in extreme north Canada, Mexico, and areas of the southwestern United States. Mink are
predominantly nocturnal hunters, although they are sometimes active during the day. They
are opportunistic feeders and will consume whatever prey is most abundant including:
small mammals, fish, birds, reptiles, amphibians, crustaceans, and insects.
• They have been shown to be sensitive to PCBs and similar chemicals, and have a high
potential for exposure due to their aquatic diet and direct contact with the media.
• The availability of natural history information (e.g., home range, ingestion rates, body
weights) also support selection as a measurement receptor.
Mourning Dove
The Mourning Dove (Zenaida macroura) was selected as the measurement receptor for the herbivorous
bird guild in all four example terrestrial food webs based on the following information:
• The dove plays an important functional role in seed dispersion for many grasses and
forbs. Doves provide an important prey item for many higher trophic level omnivores and
carnivores. Predators of the mourning dove include falcons, hawks, fox, and snakes.
• The mourning dove inhabits open woodlands, forests, prairies, and croplands. It feeds
mostly on seeds, which comprise 99 percent of its diet. It may ingest insignificant amounts
of animal matter and green forage incidently.
• Mourning doves have a high potential for exposure through ingestion of inorganic
contaminants.
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering 4-34
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 4: Problem Formulation August 1999
Mourning doves are an important game species, contributing significantly as a food and
economic resource.
The availability of natural history information (e.g., home range, ingestion rates, body
weights) also support selection as a measurement receptor.
Muskrat
The muskrat (Ondrata zibethicus) was selected as the measurement receptor for the herbivorous mammal
guild in the example freshwater wetland and brackish/intermediate marsh food webs based on the following
information:
• The muskrat is important to the overall structure of the aquatic ecosystem by regulating
aquatic vegetation diversity and biomass, resulting in stream bank stability and increased
habitat diversity for aquatic organisms including fish. It was also chosen as the
measurement receptor based on its value to the ecosystem including its large population
densities and importance as a prey species (e.g., prey for hawks, mink, otters, owls, red
fox, snapping turtles, alligators, and water snakes).
• The muskrat spends a large part of its time in the water, and is common in fresh, brackish,
and saltwater habitats. It has relatively high food and water ingestion rates, and a diet that
consists mainly of aquatic vegetation, clams, crayfish, frogs, and small fish.
• Due to the large numbers, the muskrat plays an important economic role in the fur
industry, and as a food item for some cultures.
• The availability of natural history information (e.g., home range, ingestion rates, body
weights) also support selection as a measurement receptor.
Northern Bobwhite
The northern bobwhite (Colinus virginianus) was selected as the measurement receptor for the omnivorous
bird guild in the example shortgrass prairie and shrub/scrub food webs based on the following information:
• The bobwhite plays an important role in seed dispersion for many plant species, and is an
important prey item for snakes, and other small mammals. If habitat conditions permit,
their numbers will increase rapidly, providing an additional food source for many
predators. They also are valuable in controlling insect populations during certain times of
the year.
• The bobwhite's diet consists mainly of seeds and invertebrates, although in the winter
green vegetation can dominate its diet. During breeding season, the bobwhite's home
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering 4-35
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 4: Problem Formulation August 1999
range may encompasses several hectares, including areas for foraging, cover, and a nest
site. In non-breeding season, the bobwhite's home range can be as large as 16 hectares. It
has a high potential for exposure through ingestion and dermal contact with soil during
dust bathing.
• The availability of natural history information (e.g., home range, ingestion rates, body
weights) also support selection as a measurement receptor.
Northern Harrier
The Northern harrier (Circus cyaneus), also called the Marsh hawk was selected as the measurement
receptor for carnivorous bird guild in the example salt marsh food web based on the following information:
• The marsh hawk plays an important role in the ecosystem in regulating small mammal
populations through predation.
• The marsh hawks diet consists of small mammals, birds, and occasionally snakes, frogs,
and insects. Their habitat preferences include wetlands or marshes.
• In addition, the marsh hawk has demonstrated sensitivity to pesticides, which
bioaccumulate through food chains.
• The availability of natural history information (e.g., home range, ingestion rates, body
weights) also support selection as a measurement receptor.
Red Fox
The red fox (Vulpes vulpes) was selected as the measurement receptor for the carnivorous mammal guild in
the example salt marsh food web based on the following information:
• Red fox have a high potential for exposure due to bioaccumulation though the food chain,
and are a valuable component to ecosystem structure by regulating the abundance,
reproduction, distribution, and recruitment of lower trophic level prey.
• Although omnivorous in dietary habits, the majority of the diet consists of cottontail
rabbits, voles, mice, birds, and other small mammals. This animal was chosen because of
its status as a top carnivore and its widespread distribution in the United States, inhabiting
chaparral, wooded and brushy areas, coastal areas and rim rock country.
• The availability of natural history information (e.g., home range, ingestion rates, body
weights) also support selection as a measurement receptor.
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering 4-36
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 4: Problem Formulation August 1999
Red-tailed Hawk
The red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis) was selected as the measurement receptor in the carnivorous bird
guild in the example forest food web based on the following information:
• The red-tailed hawks position as a high trophic level predator makes them a valuable
component of terrestrial food webs through their regulation of populations of lower trophic
level prey species.
• The red-tailed hawk is widely distributed in the United States among a diverse number of
habitat types ranging from woodlands to pastures. Its diet includes small mammals (such
as mice, shrews, voles, rabbits, and squirrels), birds, lizards, snakes, and large insects. It
is an opportunistic feeder, preying on whatever species is most abundant. Red-tailed
hawks are territorial throughout the year, and have home ranges that can be over 1,500
hectares.
• Red-tailed hawks have shown sensitivity to many chemicals which disrupt reproduction
or egg development.
• The availability of natural history information (e.g., home range, ingestion rates, body
weights) also support selection as a measurement receptor.
Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse
The salt marsh harvest mouse (Reithrodontomys raviventris) was selected as the measurement receptor for
the herbivorous mammal guild in the example salt marsh food web based on the following information:
• The salt marsh harvest mouse plays an important functional role in aquatic habitats
through seed dispersal for aquatic vegetation.
• Predators include owls, snakes, and many mammals including weasels, fox, and cats.
• The availability of natural history information (e.g., home range, ingestion rates, body
weights) also support selection as a measurement receptor.
Short-tailed Shrew
The short-tailed shrew (Blarina brevicaudd) was selected as the measurement receptor for the omnivorous
mammal guild in the example forest food web based on the following information:
• The short-tailed shrews value as a prey species for many high level predators is very
important to the health of an ecosystem. They also play an important role in soil recycling
and aeration, through tunnel excavation.
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering 4-37
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 4: Problem Formulation August 1999
• The short-tailed shrew is one of the most common mammals in the United States. It is a
small insectivorous mammal that represents secondary consumers (insectivores) present in
terrestrial ecosystems. Their diet of invertebrates such as earthworms and their burrowing
behavior result in a high potential of direct and indirect exposure to contaminants It has a
very high metabolism rate which requires almost constant feeding. The most common
habitats are wooded and wet areas in the drier parts of the range.
• The availability of natural history information (e.g., home range, ingestion rates, body
weights) also support selection as a measurement receptor.
Spotted Sandpiper
The spotted sandpiper (Actitis macularid) was selected as the measurement receptor for the carnivorous
shore bird guild in the example freshwater wetland, brackish/intermediate, and salt marsh food webs based
on the following information:
• The spotted sandpiper inhabits a wide variety of habits usually associated with water or
marsh.
• Spotted sandpipers have a high potential for exposure through ingestion of aquatic insects,
worms, fish , crustaceans, mollusks, and carrion.
• The availability of natural history information (e.g., home range, ingestion rates, body
weights) also support selection as a measurement receptor.
Swift Fox
The Swift Fox (Vulpes velox) was selected as the measurement receptor for the carnivorous mammal guild
in the example shortgrass prairie food web based on the following information:
• The swift fox fills an important functional role by regulating the population dynamics of
many prey species.
• The swift fox is mainly nocturnal and its diet consists of small mammals, insects, birds,
lizards, and amphibians. It spends most of its days in a den, emerging at night to hunt.
Their home range extends several kilometers.
• The availability of natural history information (e.g., home range, ingestion rates, body
weights) also support selection as a measurement receptor.
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering 4-38
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 4: Problem Formulation August 1999
Western Meadow Lark
The western meadow lark (Sturnella neglecta) was selected as the measurement receptor for the
omnivorous bird guild in the example tallgrass prairie food web based on the following information:
• The western meadow lark serves an important function in seed dispersion for many forb
and grass species, making it a valuable component of the ecosystem.
• Habitats include grassland, savanna, pasture, and cultivated fields. The western meadow
lark forages on spiders, sowbugs, snails, and grass and forb seeds.
• The availability of natural history information (e.g., home range, ingestion rates, body
weights) also support selection as a measurement receptor.
White-footed Mouse
The white-footed mouse (Peromyscus polionotus) was selected as the measurement receptor for the
omnivorous mammal guild in the example shrub/scrub food web based on the following information:
• The white-footed mouse plays an important role in seed dispersal and provide an important
food source for raptors, snakes and other mammals including cats, weasels and fox.
• The white-footed mouse feeds on nuts, seeds, fruits, beetles, caterpillars, and other insects.
Due to its burrowing and dietary habits, there is a high potential for direct and indirect
exposure.
• The availability of natural history information (e.g., home range, ingestion rates, body
weights) also support selection as a measurement receptor.
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering 4-39
-------
-------
Chapter 5
What's Covered in
4 Exposure Assessmetf!
4 Toxicity Assessment
The analysis phase of a risk assessment consists of assessing (1) exposure of a measurement receptor to a
compound of potential concern (COPC), and (2) toxicity of a COPC to a measurement receptor. The
exposure assessment (Section 5.1), and the toxicity assessment (Section 5.4) are used to characterize
ecological risk, as discussed in Chapter 6.
5.1 EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT
Exposure is the contact (e.g., ingestion) of a receptor with a COPC. Exposure of ecological receptors to
COPCs emitted from facility sources are evaluated through consideration of exposure pathways. All
exposure pathways that are potentially complete should be evaluated. The existence of a potentially
complete exposure pathway indicates the potential for a receptor to contact a COPC; it does not require
that a receptor be adversely affected. Exposure pathways considered in this guidance include all direct
uptake pathways of a COPC from media (e.g., soil, sediment, and surface water) for lower trophic level
receptors evaluated at the community level, and ingestion of a COPC contaminated organism (plant or
animal food item) or media for higher trophic level receptors evaluated as class-specific guilds. It should
be noted that exposure pathways currently not addressed in this guidance due to the limitation of data
include (1) inhalation and dermal exposure pathways for upper trophic level organisms, (2) ingestion via
grooming and preening, and (3) foliar uptake of dissolved COPCs by aquatic plants.
Exposure assessment consists of quantifying exposure of a measurement receptor to a COPC. As
previously noted (see Chapter 4), exposure to community and class-specific guild measurement receptors is
assessed using different approaches. This is because the available toxicity reference values (TRVs) used in
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering 5-1
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 5: Analysis August 1999
risk characterization (see Chapter 6) for lower trophic level communities are media specific; whereas TRVs
for upper trophic level class-specific guilds are provided in terms of dose ingested.
For community measurement receptors (e.g., water, sediment, and soil communities), the exposure
assessment consists of determining the COPC concentration in the media that the particular community
inhabits. For example, the COPC concentration in soil is determined during the exposure assessment for
comparison to the NOAEL for terrestrial plants and soil invertebrates during risk characterization. For
class-specific guild measurement receptors, exposure is assessed by quantifying the daily dose ingested of
contaminated media and/or organism (expressed as the mass of COPC ingested per kilogram body weight
per day). The following sections provide guidance on assessing exposure to community and class-specific
guild measurement receptors.
5.2 Assessing Exposure to Community Measurement Receptors
Since exposure to communities is assumed to be primarily through contact with COPCs within the media
they inhabit, the assessment of exposure for community measurement receptors is simply the determination
of the COPC concentration in the media that they inhabit. Exposure for water, sediment, and soil
community measurement receptors should be determined as follows:
Water Community - Exposure to the water community as a measurement receptor (e.g., water
invertebrates or phytoplankton in the freshwater/wetland food web) is assessed by determining the
COPC dissolved water concentration (Cdw) (see Chapter 3 and Appendix B) at the specific
location being evaluated (see Chapter 4).
Sediment Community - Exposure to the sediment community as a measurement receptor
(e.g., sediment invertebrates in the brackish/intermediate food web) is assessed by determining the
COPC concentration in bed sediment (Csed) (see Chapter 3 and Appendix B) at the specific
location being evaluated (see Chapter 4).
Soil Community - Exposure to the soil community as a measurement receptor (e.g., soil
invertebrates or terrestrial plants in the forest food web) is assessed by determining the COPC
concentration in soil (Cs) (see Chapter 3 and Appendix B) at the specific location being evaluated
(see Chapter 4).
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering 5-2
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 5: Analysis August 1999
5.3 Assessing Exposure to Class-Specific Guild Measurement Receptors
Exposure to measurement receptors of class-specific guilds is assessed by quantifying the daily dose
ingested of contaminated food items (i.e., plant and animal), and media. COPC daily dose ingested
(expressed as the mass of COPC ingested per kilogram body weight per day) depends on the COPC
concentration in plant and animal food items and media, the measurement receptor's trophic level
(i.e., consumer), the trophic level of animal food items (i.e., prey), and the measurement receptor's
ingestion rate of each food item and media. The complexity of the daily dose equation will depend on
(1) the number of food items in a measurement receptor's diet, (2) the trophic level of each food item and of
the measurement receptor. The daily dose of COPC ingested by a measurement receptor, considering all
food items and media ingested, can be calculated from the following generic equation:
DD = £ IRF • C, • Pt • F,. + £ IRM • CM • PM Equation5-l
where
DD = Daily dose of COPC ingested (mg COPC/kg BW-day)
IRP = Measurement receptor plant or animal food item ingestion rate (kg/kg
BW-day)
Cj = COPC concentration in rth plant or animal food item (mg COPC/kg)
Pi = Proportion of/th food item that is contaminated (unitless)
Fj = Fraction of diet consisting of plant or animal food item /' (unitless)
IRM = Measurement receptor media ingestion rate (kg/kg BW-day [soil or bed
sediment] or L/kg BW-day [water])
CM = COPC concentration in media (mg/kg [soil or bed sediment] or mg/L
[water])
PM = Proportion of ingested media that is contaminated (unitless)
Sections 5.3.1 through 5.3.2 (also see Appendix F) provide guidance for determining values for the above
parameters; including (1) the determination of measurement receptor food item and media ingestion rates,
and (2) the calculation of COPC concentrations in plant and animal food items. The use of BCFs and
FCMs in calculating COPC concentrations in plant and animal food items is also discussed in the following
sections. The daily dose should be computed using COPC media (i.e., soil, sediment, surface water, air)
concentrations, at the location within the habitat supporting the food web being evaluated (see Chapter 4),
for determination of (1) the COPC concentration in the plant or animal food item ingested, and (2) the
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering 5-3
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 5: Analysis August 1999
COPC concentration in the media ingested. Guidance on the calculation of COPC concentrations in media
being ingested is provided in Chapter 3 and Appendix B.
The daily dose of COPC ingested by a measurement receptor should be determined by summing the
contributions from each contaminated plant, animal, and media food item. Equation 5-1 and consumer
specific equations in Appendix F, are derived to account for 100 percent of the measurement receptor's diet
(total daily mass of food items ingested) which can potentially be contaminated. However, if a food item or
media at an actual site location is not contaminated (i.e., the COPC concentration in the media or resulting
food item is zero), then the daily mass of that food item or media ingested does not contribute to the daily
dose of COPC ingested. Also, Equation 5-1 does not directly include a term for home range, as defined
spatially. However, the term accounting for the proportion of plant or animal food item that is
contaminated, Ph numerically accounts for the fraction of a respective food item that may potentially be
obtained from outside the geographical limits of the impacted habitat (i.e., outside the area of
contamination) being evaluated.
For measurement receptors ingesting more than one plant or animal food item, U.S. EPA OSW
recommends that exposure be separately quantified assuming that the measurement receptor ingests both
"equal" and "exclusive" diets. Not only does this constitute the most complete evaluation of exposure
potential for a measurement receptor; if warranted, it also identifies which pathways are driving risk
specific to a COPC and measurement receptor, and allows risk management efforts to be prioritized.
Guidance for calculating DD assuming "equal diet" and "exclusive diet" is provided below.
Equal Diet - To evaluate exposure to a measurement receptor based on an equal diet, the daily
dose of COPC ingested is calculated assuming that the fraction of daily diet consumed by the
measurement receptor is equal among food item groups. This is computed by setting the value for
fraction of diet consisting of plant and/or animal food items, Fh equal to 1.0 divided by the total
number of plant and animal food item groups ingested. Therefore, Ft values within a specific DD
equation would be the same numerically.
Exclusive Diet - To evaluate exposure to a measurement receptor based on exclusive diets, the
daily dose of COPC ingested is calculated assuming that the fraction of daily diet consumed by the
measurement receptor is exclusively (100 percent) one food item group. This is computed by
setting the value for Ft equal to 1.0 for each food item group at a time, while the Ft values for the
remaining food item groups are set equal to zero. The food item designated as exclusive is
alternated to each respective food item represented in the DD equation to obtain a numeric range of
exposure values based on exclusive diets. If the daily diet of a food item (i.e., prey) of a
measurement receptor (i.e., consumer) also consists of more than one plant or animal food item,
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering 5-4
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 5: Analysis August 1999
then an equal diet should be assumed for the food item being consumed while evaluating exposure
to the measurement receptor.
In addition to quantifying exposure based on equal and exclusive diets for measurement receptors, U.S.
EPA OSW recommends that the following assumptions be applied in a screening level risk assessment.
The COPC concentrations estimated to be in food items and media ingested are
bioavailabile.
• Only contributions of COPCs from the sources (e.g., combustion stacks, fugitives)
included in the risk assessment are considered in estimating COPC concentrations in food
items and media.
• The measurement receptor's most sensitive life stage is present in the assessment area
being evaluated in the risk assessment.
The body weights and food ingestion rates for measurement receptors are conservative.
Each individual species in a community or class-specific guild is equally exposed.
The proportion of ingested food items and ingested media that is contaminated is assumed
to be 100 percent (i.e., Pt is asigned a value of 1.0); which assumes that a measurement
receptor feeds only in the assessment area.
Although conservative in nature, U.S. EPA OSW recommends use of these assumptions considering that
the results of a screening level risk assessment are intended to support development of permits and focus
risk management efforts. Site-specific exposure characterization that my warrant deviation from these
screening level assumptions should be reviewed and approved by the appropriate permitting authority
following recommendations provided in Section 3.12.
5.3.1 Ingestion Rates for Measurement Receptors
As indicated in Equation 5-1 above, species specific ingestion rates of food items and media, on a body
weight basis, are required for calculating the daily dose of COPC ingested for each measurement receptor.
As specified for use in the equations presented in Appendix F, it is important to ensure that food
(i.e., plants and animals) and water ingestion rates are on a wet weight basis, and ingestion rates for soil
and sediment are on a dry weight basis (see Appendix F). Table 5-1 provides values for ingestion rates for
measurement receptors identified in the example food webs presented in Chapter 4. These values are
primarily obtained from the allometric equations presented in the Wildlife Exposure Factors Handbook
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering 5-5
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 5: Analysis August 1999
(U.S. EPA 1993o). Soil ingestion rates were calculated using the percent soil in estimated diets of wildlife
as described in Beyer et al. (1994).
Species specific ingestion rates including food and water have been measured for few wildlife species.
Therefore, allometric equations presented in the Wildlife Exposure Factors Handbook were used to
calculate species specific food and media ingestion rates. Allometry is defined as the study of the
relationship between the growth and size of one body part to the growth and size of the whole organism,
including ingestion rates, and can be used to estimate species specific values for ingestion (U.S. EPA
1993o). Allometric equations should only be used for those taxonomic groups used to develop the
allometric relationship. For example, equations developed for carnivorous mammals should not be used to
calculate food ingestion rates for herbivorous mammals. For a detailed discussion on the development and
limitations of the allometric equations used to obtain ingestion rate values presented in Table 5-1, see U.S.
EPA (1993o) and Nagy (1987).
The use of individual species body weights may result in some uncertainty, since individual species usually
exhibit values somewhat different from those predicted by allometric modeling derived using multiple
species. However, this uncertainty is expected to be minimal since measurement receptors were selected to
maximize exposure for each class-specific guild, as discussed in Section 4.4.2.
If species specific values are not available in U.S. EPA (1993o), or can not be represented by the allometric
equations presented, other sources to evaluate include:
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) publications (e.g., U.S. FWS 1979)
• State wildlife resource management agencies
• Published scientific literature
• Publications by wildlife conservation organizations (such as The National Audubon
Society)
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering 5-6
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 5: Analysis
August 1999
TABLE 5-1
INGESTION RATES FOR EXAMPLE MEASUREMENT RECEPTORS
Measurement
Receptor
American Kestrel
American Robin
Canvas Back
Deer Mouse
Least Shrew
Long Tailed Weasel
Mallard Duck
Marsh Rice Rat
Marsh Wren
Mink
Example
Food Weba
SG, TG, SS,
FW,BR
F
FW, BR,
SW
TG, F, SG,
SS
SG, FW,
TG
TG ,F, SS
BR,FW
BR, SW
SW
FW,BR
Body
Weight (kg)
l.OOE-01
8.00E-02
7.70E-01 b
1.48E-02
4.00E-03
8.50E-02
1.04E+00
3.00E-02
l.OOE-02
9.74E-01
Reference
U.S. EPA 1993o
U.S. EPA 1993o
U.S. EPA 1993o
U.S. EPA 1993o
National
Audubon Society
1995
National
Audubon Society
1995
U.S. EPA 1993o
National
Audubon Society
1995
U.S. EPA 1993o
U.S. EPA 1993o
Food IR e
(kgWW/
kg BW-day)
4.02E-01 f
4.44E-01 f
1.99E-01 f
5.99E-01 s
6.20E-01 h
3.33E-01 '
1.79E-01 f
4.40E-01 g
9.26E-01 f
2.16E-011
Reference
U.S. EPA 1993o;
Nagy 1987
U.S. EPA 1993o;
Nagy 1987
U.S. EPA 1993o;
Nagy 1987
U.S. EPA 1993o;
Nagy 1987
U.S. EPA 1993o
U.S. EPA 1993o;
Nagy 1987
U.S. EPA 1993o;
Nagy 1987
U.S. EPA 1993o;
Nagy 1987
U.S. EPA 1993o;
Nagy 1987
U.S. EPA 1993o;
Nagy 1987
Water IR
(L /kg BW-
day)
1.25E-01k
1.37E-01k
6.43E-02 k
1.51E-011
1.72E-011
1.27E-011
5.82E-02 k
1.41E-011
2.75E-01 k
9.93E-02 '
Reference
U.S. EPA 1993o
U.S. EPA 1993o
U.S. EPA 1993o
U.S. EPA 1993o
U.S. EPA 1993o
U.S. EPA 1993o
U.S. EPA 1993o
U.S. EPA 1993o
U.S. EPA 1993o
U.S. EPA 1993o
Soil/Sed IR m
(kgDW/
kg BW-day)
1.39E-0311
1.43E-020
1.82E-03P
1.44E-031
1.36E-020
2.98E-03 r
3.18E-03
2.33E-03 s
1.96E-020
1.93E-031
Reference
Pascoeetal. 1996
Beyer et al. 1994
Beyer et al. 1994
Beyer et al. 1994
Beyer et al. 1994
Beyer et al. 1994
Beyer et al. 1994
Beyer et al. 1994
Beyer et al. 1994
Beyer et al. 1994
U.S. EPA Region 6
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering
U.S. EPA
Office of Solid Waste
5-7
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 5: Analysis
August 1999
TABLE 5-1
INGESTION RATES FOR EXAMPLE MEASUREMENT RECEPTORS
Measurement
Receptor
Mourning Dove
Muskrat
Northern Bobwhite
Northern Harrier
Red Fox
Red-tailed Hawk
Salt-marsh Harvest
Mouse
Short-tailed Shrew
Spotted Sandpiper
Swift Fox
Western Meadow
Lark
Example
Food Weba
F, SS, TG,
SG
BR,FW
SG, SS
SW
SW
F
SW
F
SW, BR,
FW
SG
TG
Body
Weight (kg)
1.50E-01 c
1.09E+00
1.50E-01
9.60E-01
3.94E+00
9.60E-01 d
9.10E-03
1.50E-02
4.00E-02
1.40E+00
9.00E-02
Reference
U.S. EPA 1993o
U.S. EPA 1993o
U.S. EPA 1993o
U.S. EPA 1993o
U.S. EPA 1993o
U.S. EPA 1993o
U.S. EPA 1993o
U.S. EPA 1993o
U.S. EPA 1993o
U.S. EPA 1993o
U.S. EPA 1993o
Food IR e
(kgWW/
kg BW-day)
3.49E-01 f
2.67E-01 '
3.49E-01 f
1.85E-01 f
1.68E-011
1.85E-01 f
7.41E-01 s
6.20E-01 h
5.69E-01 f
1.93E-011
4.21E-01 f
Reference
U.S. EPA 1993o;
Nagy 1987
U.S. EPA 1993o;
Nagy 1987
U.S. EPA 1993o;
Nagy 1987
U.S. EPA 1993o;
Nagy 1987
U.S. EPA 1993o;
Nagy 1987
U.S. EPA 1993o;
Nagy 1987
U.S. EPA 1993o;
Nagy 1987
U.S. EPA 1993o
U.S. EPA 1993o;
Nagy 1987
U.S. EPA 1993o;
Nagy 1987
U.S. EPA 1993o;
Nagy 1987
Water IR
(L /kg BW-
day)
1.09E-01k
9.82E-02 '
1.09E-01k
5.99E-02 k
8.63E-02 '
5.99E-02 k
1.58E-011
1.51E-011
1.74E-01k
9.34E-02 '
1.31E-01k
Reference
U.S. EPA 1993o
U.S. EPA 1993o
U.S. EPA 1993o
U.S. EPA 1993o
U.S. EPA 1993o
U.S. EPA 1993o
U.S. EPA 1993o
U.S. EPA 1993o
U.S. EPA 1993o
U.S. EPA 1993o
U.S. EPA 1993o
Soil/Sed IR m
(kgDW/
kg BW-day)
7.01E-03 °
6.41E-04
1.20E-02'
9.95E-03 n
1.51E-03
9.95E-03 n
1.78E-031
1.36E-020
4.15E-02"
1.73E-031
1.39E-020
Reference
Beyer et al. 1994
Beyer et al. 1994
Beyer et al. 1994
Beyer et al. 1994
Beyer et al. 1994
Beyer et al. 1994
Beyer et al. 1994
Beyer et al. 1994
Beyer et al. 1994
Beyer et al. 1994
Beyer et al. 1994
U.S. EPA Region 6
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering
U.S. EPA
Office of Solid Waste
5-8
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 5: Analysis
August 1999
TABLE 5-1
INGESTION RATES FOR EXAMPLE MEASUREMENT RECEPTORS
Measurement
Receptor
White-footed Mouse
Example
Food Weba
SS
Body
Weight (kg)
l.OOE-02
Reference
U.S. EPA 1993o
Food IR e
(kgWW/
kg BW-day)
6.14E-018
Reference
U.S. EPA 1993o;
Nagy 1987
Water IR
(L /kg BW-
day)
1.52E-011
Reference
U.S. EPA 1993o
Soil/Sed IR m
(kgDW/
kg BW-day)
2.70E-03
Reference
Beyer et al. 1994
Notes: IR- Ingestion Rate; WW- Wet weight; DW-Dry Weight; BW- Body Weight; kg - kilogram; L - Liter
a = Food Webs: BR - Brackish/Intermediate Marsh; F - Forest; FW - Freshwater/Wetland; SG - Shortgrass Prairie; SS - Shrub/Scrub;
SW - Saltwater Marsh; TG - Tallgrass Prairie.
b = The body weight reported for the mallard is used as a surrogate value for the canvas back.
c = The body weight reported for the northern bobwhite is used as a surrogate value for the morning dove.
d = The body weight reported for the red-tailed hawk is used as a surrogate value for the northern harrier.
e = Food ingestion rate (IR) values are reported in Table 5-1 as kg WW/kg BW-day. To convert IR from a dry weight (as calculated using allometric
equations) to a wet weight basis, the following general equation is used:
IR kg WW/kg BW-day = (IR kg DW/BW-day)/(l - % moisture/100)
Ingestion rate values provided in Table 5-1 are calculated based on assumed percent moisture content of food items of measurement receptors
specified. For herbivores, the moisture content of ingested plant matter is assumed to be 88.0 percent (Taiz et al. 1991). For carnivores, the
moisture content of ingested animal matter is assumed to be 68.0 percent (Sample et al. 1997). For omnivores, an equal fraction of plant and
animal matter is assumed ingested with an overall average moisture content of 78.0 percent [(88.0 + 68.0)/2].
f = Food ingestion rates generated using the following allometric equation for all birds: IR (g/day) = 0.648 Wt °651 (g).
g = Food ingestion rates generated using the following allometric equation for rodents: IR (g/day) = 0.621 Wt °564 (g).
h = Allometric equations reported in U.S. EPA (1993o) do not represent intake rates for shrews; therefore, measured field values from the referenced
sources are presented.
i = Food ingestion rates generated using the following allometric equation for all mammals: IR (g/day) = 0.235 Wt °822 (g).
= Food ingestion rates generated using the following allometric equation for herbivores: IR (g/day) = 0.577 Wt °727 (g).
= Water ingestion rates generated using the following allometric equation for all birds: IR (L/day) = 0.059 Wt ° 67° (kg).
= Water ingestion rates generated using the following allometric equation for all mammals: IR (L/day) = 0.099 Wt ° 90° (kg).
= Soil and sediment ingestion rates calculated based on percent soil in diet as reported in Beyer et al. 1994.
= Percent soil in diet reported for the bald eagle is used as a surrogate value for the american kestrel, northern harrier, and red-tailed hawk.
= Percent soil in diet is assumed as 10.0 percent of diet based on range presented in Beyer et al. 1994.
J
k
1
m
n
o
U.S. EPA Region 6
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering
U.S. EPA
Office of Solid Waste
5-9
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 5: Analysis August 1999
p = Percent soil in diet reported for the mallard is used as a surrogate value for the canvas back.
q = Percent soil in diet reported for the white-footed mouse is used as a surrogate value for the deer mouse and salt-marsh harvest mouse.
r = Percent soil in diet reported for the red fox is used as a surrogate value for the long-tailed weasel, mink, and swift fox.
s = Percent soil in diet is assumed as 2.0 percent of diet based on range presented for herbivores.
t = Percent soil in diet reported for the wild turkey is used as a surrogate value for the northern bobwhite.
u = Percent soil in diet reported for the western sandpiper is used as a surrogate value for the spotted sandpiper.
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering 5-10
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 5: Analysis August 1999
5.3.2 COPC Concentrations in Food Items of Measurement Receptors
Determination of COPC concentrations in food items is required for calculating the daily dose of COPC
ingested for each class-specific guild measurement receptor being evaluated. Since the risk assessment
considers potential future exposure that may occur as a result of facility emissions over time, these
concentrations are generally expected to be estimated mathmatically. The following subsections provide
guidance for estimating COPC concentrations in the following groups of food items:
• Invertebrates, phytoplankton, and rooted aquatic plants;
• Terrestrial plants;
• Fish; and
• Mammals, birds, reptiles, and amphibians.
5.3.2.1 COPC Concentration in Invertebrates, Phytoplankton, and Rooted Aquatic Plants
COPC concentrations in invertebrate, phytoplankton, and rooted aquatic plants can be calculated by
rearranging the mathmatical expression for a bioconcentration factor (BCF). Equation 5-2 is the
mathmatical definition of a BCF, which is the ratio, at steady-state, of the concentration of a compound in a
food item to its concentration in a media. Equation 5-3 is the same equation expressed in terms of a COPC
concentration in a food item.
Cl
BCF = Equation 5-2
Ci - CM • BCF Equation 5-3
where
BCF = Bioconcentration factor (unitless [soil, sediment], or L/kg [water])
Ct = COPC concentration in /th plant or animal food item (mg COPC/kg)
CM = COPC concentration in media (mg/kg [soil, sediment], or mg/L [water])
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering 5-11
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 5: Analysis August 1999
Equation 5-3 estimates a COPC concentration in an invertebrate, phytoplankton, and rooted aquatic plant
to evaluate dose ingested to the measurement receptor. Calculation of COPC concentrations in media is
further discussed in Chapter 3 and Appendix B. Media-to-receptor BCFs are receptor- and media-specific,
and values along with supporting discussion are provided in Appendix C. Appendix F provides specific
equations and supporting discussion for calculating COPC concentrations in plant and animal food items.
Equilibrium Partitioning (EqP) Approach
When adequate site-specific characterization data is available, specifically organic carbon fraction data for
soil and sediment, the permitting authority may elect in some cases to allow the calculation of COPC
concentrations in soil invertebrate (Cornell and Markwell 1990) or sediment invertebrate (U.S. EPA
1993q) using the equilibrium partitioning (EqP) approach. However, the EqP approach is not prefered
over use of measured BCF values multiplied by the COPC concentration in the media (i.e., sediment or
soil), following the approach previously discussed.
The EqP approach utilizes the correlation of the concentrations of nonionic organic compounds in sediment,
on an organic carbon basis, to their concentrations in the interstitial water, to determine the observed
biological effects on sediment invertebrate (U.S. EPA 1993q). The EqP approach is only applicable for
(1) hydrophobic nonionic organic compounds, (2) soil- and sediment-invertebrates, and (3) COPCs with
empirical water bioconcentration factors (U.S. EPA 1993q). Also, the EqP approach assumes that the
partitioning of the compound in sediment organic carbon and interstitial water are in equilibrium, and the
sediment—interstitial water equilibrium system provides the same exposure as a water-only exposure (U.S.
EPA 1993q).
To calculate the COPC concentration in an invertebrate using the EqP approach, the soil or sediment
interstitial water concentration should be multiplied by the BCF determined from a water exposure for a
benthic invertebrate:
Cj = CIW • BCFm Equation 5-4
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering 5-12
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 5: Analysis August 1999
where
Cj = COPC concentration in soil or benthic invertebrate (mg/kg)
CIW = COPC concentration in soil or sediment interstitial water (mg/L)
BCFm = Bioconcentration factor for water-to-invertebrate (L/kg)
Equation 5-5 is used to calculate the COPC concentration in soil or sediment interstitial water for this
approach:
c
Ciw = ~ — Equation 5-5
Joe ' Ko
oc
where
CIW = COPC concentration in soil or sediment interstitial water (mg/L)
CM = COPC concentration in media (mg/kg [soil, sediment])
foc = Fraction of organic carbon in soil or sediment (unitless)
Koc = Organic carbon partitioning coefficient (L/kg)
5.3.2.2 COPC Concentration in Terrestrial Plants
The COPC concentration in terrestrial plants (CTP) is calculated by summing the plant concentration due to
direct deposition (Pd), air-to-plant transfer (Pv), and root uptake (Pr). Equation 5-6 should be used to
compute a COPC concentration in terrestrial plants:
CTP = Pd + Pv + Pr Equation 5-6
where
CTP = COPC concentration in terrestrial plants (mg COPC/kg WW)
Pd = COPC concentration in plant due to to direct deposition (mg/kg WW)
Pv = COPC concentration in plant due to air-to-plant transfer (mg/kg WW)
Pr = COPC concentration in plant due to root uptake (mg/kg WW)
Calculation of Pd, Pv, and Pr is presented in Chapter 3 and Appendix B. Calculation of CTP is further
discussed in Appendix F.
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering 5-13
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 5: Analysis August 1999
5.3.2.3 COPC Concentration in Fish
The COPC concentration in fish is calculated by multiplying a COPC-specific BCF and trophic
level-specific FCM by the dissolved water concentration, as follows:
CF = BCF • FCM • Cdw Equation 5-7
where
CF = COPC concentration in fish (mg/kg)
BCF = Bioconcentration factor for water-to-fish (L/kg)
FCM = Food-chain multiplier (unitless)
Cdw = Dissolved phase water concentration (mg/L)
The COPC concentration in fish is calculated using dissolved phase water concentrations, since
bioconcentration, or estimated bioaccumulation, values are typically derived from studies based on
dissolved phase water concentrations. The FCM used to calculate a COPC concentration in fish should be
appropriate for the trophic level of the fish ingested by a measurement receptor. Development of FCM
values is discussed in the following subsection, and actual recommended values are provided in Table 5-2.
The dissolved phase water concentration is calculated as discussed in Chapter 3 and Appendix B. Values
for bioconcentration factors for water-to-fish, and discussion on their determination, can be found in
Appendix C. Calculation of CF is further discussed in Appendix F.
Food-Chain Multipliers
FCMs presented in Table 5-2 were adopted directly from U.S. EPA (1995k), which determined them for
Kow values ranging from 3.5 through 9.0 using the Gobas (1993) model. U.S. EPA determined FCMs to
develop water criteria protective to wildlife of the Great Lakes (U.S. EPA 1995J). As presented in
Equation 5-8, U.S. EPA (1995k) calculated trophic level specific FCMs (see Table 5-2) utilizing BAF
values obtained from the Gobas (1993) model and compound specific Km values.
BAFi
FCM = Equation 5-8
K
ow
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering 5-14
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 5: Analysis August 1999
where
FCM = Food-chain multiplier (unitless)
BAFj = Bioaccumulation factor reported on a lipid-normalized basis using the
freely dissolved concentration of a chemical in the water (L/kg)
Kow = Octanol-water partition coefficient (L/kg)
BAF values predicted using the Gobas (1993) model were based on chemical concentrations in both the
water column and surface sediment. Bioaccumulation values for fish were determined from the rate of
chemical uptake, the rate of chemical depuration (including excretion), metabolism, and dilution due to
growth. As reported in U.S.. EPA (1995k), data on physicochemical parameters and species
characteristics reported by Oliver and Niimi (1988), Flint (1986), and Gobas (1993) were used.
For each Kow value, the Gobas (1993) model reported correlating BAFt values specific to each organism in
the food web. U.S. EPA (1995k) determined trophic level-specific FCMs by calculating the geometric
mean of the FCM for each organism in each respective trophic level. The FCMs were developed assuming
no metabolism of a compound. Thus, for compounds where metabolism may occur (i.e., some PAHs), the
COPC concentration in fish ingested by a measurement receptor may be overestimated. This information
should be noted as an uncertainty in risk characterization. It should also be noted that the FCM values
presented in Table 5-2 were developed using Kow values reported in U.S. EPA (1995k); which may differ
from Kow values specified in Appendix A-2 of this guidance.
Using the U.S. EPA (1995k) assumption that a compound's log Kow value approximates its BCFh
Equation 5-8 for determining FCM values can also be expressed as follows:
BAFi
FCM = Equation 5-9
BCFl
where
FCM = Food-chain multiplier (unitless)
BAF! = Bioaccumulation factor reported on a lipid-normalized basis using the
freely dissolved concentration of a chemical in the water (L/kg)
BCFl = Bioconcentration factor reported on a lipid-normalized basis using the
freely dissolved concentration of a chemical in the water (L/kg)
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering 5-15
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 5: Analysis August 1999
Equation 5-9 can also be written to demonstrate the relation of a BCF multiplied by a FCMto estimate a
BAF, as shown in the following equation:
BAF = BCF • FCM Equation 5-10
where
BAF = Bioaccumulation factor (L/kg)
BCF = Bioconcentration factor (L/kg)
FCM = Trophic level-specific food-chain multiplier (unitless)
FCMs are specified for use in this guidance to model a COPC concentration in fish, and also mammalian
and bird food items, that are ingested by a measurement receptor. The BCF-FCM approach accounts for
the uptake or bioaccumulation of COPCs into organisms, typically represented in equations as a BAF (U.S.
EPA 1995J). The availability of data allows the BCF-FCM approach to be more consistently applied
across class-specific guilds within food webs being evaluated.
U.S. EPA OSW recognizes the limitations and uncertainties of applying FCMs derived from aquatic food
web data to terrestrial receptors, as well as all top level consumers, whether their food is chiefly aquatic or
not. However, the BCF-FCM approach is recommended in this guidance because (1) evaluation of multiple
food chain exposure pathways is typically required to estimate risk to multiple mammalian and avian guilds
in several food webs, (2) screening level risk assessment results are intended to support develoment of
permits and focus risk management efforts, rather than as a final point of departure for further evaluation,
and (3) U.S. EPA OSW is aware of no other applicable multipathway approaches for consistently and
reproducibly estimating COPC concentrations in prey ingested by upper-trophic-level ecological receptors,
considering current data limitations. Therefore, U.S. EPA OSW believes the BCF-FCM approach is the
best available quantitative method for estimating COPC concentrations in upper trophic level food items
ingested by measurement receptors, considering data availabilty and the objectives inherent to a screening
level risk assessment.
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering 5-16
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 5: Analysis
August 1999
TABLE 5-2
FOOD-CHAIN MULTIPLIERS
Log Kow
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.6
3.7
3.8
3.9
4.0
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
4.6
4.7
4.8
4.9
5.0
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.5
5.6
Trophic Level of Consumer
2
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
3
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.2
1.2
1.3
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.8
2.0
2.2
2.5
2.8
3.2
3.6
4.2
4.8
5.5
6.3
7.1
4
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
12
1.2
1.3
1.5
1.6
1.9
2.2
2.6
3.2
3.9
4.7
5.8
7.1
8.6
U.S. EPA Region 6
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering
U.S. EPA
Office of Solid Waste
5-17
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 5: Analysis
August 1999
TABLE 5-2
FOOD-CHAIN MULTIPLIERS
Log Kow
5.1
5.8
5.9
6.0
6.1
6.2
6.3
6.4
6.5
6.6
6.7
6.8
6.9
7.0
7.1
7.2
7.3
7.4
7.5
7.6
7.7
7.8
7.9
8.0
8.1
8.2
8.3
8.4
8.5
8.6
Trophic Level of Consumer
2
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
3
8.0
8.8
9.7
11
11
12
13
13
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
13
13
13
12
11
10
9.2
8.2
7.3
6.4
5.5
4.7
3.9
3.3
4
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
23
25
26
26
27
27
26
25
24
23
21
19
17
14
12
9.8
7.8
6.0
4.5
3.3
2.4
1.7
1.1
U.S. EPA Region 6
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering
U.S. EPA
Office of Solid Waste
5-18
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 5: Analysis
August 1999
TABLE 5-2
FOOD-CHAIN MULTIPLIERS
Log Kow
8.7
8.8
8.9
9.0
Trophic Level of Consumer
2
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
3
2.7
2.2
1.8
1.5
4
0.78
0.52
0.35
0.23
Source: U.S. EPA. 1995k. "Great Lakes Water Quality Initiative Technical Support Document for the Procedure to
Determine Bioaccumulation factors." EPA-820-B-95-005. Office of Water. Washington, D.C. March.
5.3.2.4 COPC Concentration in Mammals, Birds, Amphibians, and Reptiles
The COPC concentration in mammals and birds, as food items ingested by measurement receptors, are
estimated using equations specific to each guild (i.e., herbivores, omnivores, and carnivores), and based on
the plant and animal food items, and media ingested. Similar to calculating the COPC concentration in
fish, a BCF-FCM approach is used to account for bioaccumulation. However, the contribution of COPC
concentrations from each food item ingested must be accounted for directly for wildlife, whereas, the
derivation of BCF-FCM values already accounts for the COPC contributions from all pathways for fish.
Also for wildlife, a ratio of FCMs is applied to each animal food item ingested to account for the increase
in COPC concentration occurring between the trophic level of the prey item (TLn) and the trophic level of
the omnivore (TL3) or carnivore (TL4).
General equations for estimating COPC concentrations of food items in each guild, including use of a FCM
ratio to estimate biomagnification, are described in the following subsections using mammals and birds as
examples. Specific equations and discussion of associated parameters are provided in Appendix F. It
should be noted that due to limited availabilty of biotransfer and toxicity data for reptiles and amphibians,
the equations in the following subsections and in Appendix F have not been specifically described for use to
model exposure to these receptors. However, if site-specific conditions and data warrant evaluation of
reptiles and amphibians, the permitting authority may elect to utilize the same generic equations presented.
U.S. EPA Region 6
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering
U.S. EPA
Office of Solid Waste
5-19
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 5: Analysis August 1999
Herbivorous Mammals and Birds
As indicated in Equation 5-11, the COPC concentration in herbivorous mammals and birds is calculated by
summing the contribution due to ingestion of contaminated plant food items and media. The general
equation for computing COPC concentration in herbivores is as follows:
C • RCF • P • F } + ( C • RCF
^-Pi "^ Pi-H * Pi L Pi ' ' ^s/sed S/BS-H
Equation 5-11
+ ( Cwctot • BCFW_H -Pw)
where
CH = COPC concentration in herbivore (mg/kg)
CPi = COPC concentration in /th plant food item (mg/kg)
BCFPi_H = Bioconcentration factor for plant-to-herbivore for /'th plant food
item (unitless)
PPi = Proportion of /th plant food item in diet that is contaminated
(unitless)
FPi = Fraction of diet consisting of /'th plant food item (unitless)
Cs/sed = COPC concentration in soil or bed sediment (mg/kg)
BCFS/BS_H = Bioconcentration factor for soil-to-plant or bed sediment-to-plant
(unitless)
PS/BS = Proportion of soil or bed sediment in diet that is contaminated
(unitless)
Cwctot = Total COPC concentration in water column (mg/L)
BCFW_HM = Bioconcentration factor for water-to-herbivore (L/kg)
Pw = Proportion of water in diet that is contaminated (unitless)
Media-to-herbivore BCF values are COPC and receptor-specific and provided in Appendix C. As
discussed in Appendix D, plant-to-herbivore BCF values are receptor-specific and determined from
biotransfer factors. Calculation of COPC concentrations in plant food items and media is further discussed
in previous sections of Chapter 5, and in Chapter 3 and Appendix B. The variables representing the diet
fraction and proportion of diet contaminated are discussed in Section 5.3 and Appendix F. Appendix F
also provides specific equations and supporting discussion for calculating the COPC concentration in
herbivores.
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering 5-20
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 5: Analysis
August 1999
Omnivorous Mammals and Birds
As indicated in Equation 5-12, the COPC concentration in omnivorous mammals and birds is calculated by
summing the contribution due to ingestion of contaminated animal and plant food items, and media.
However, unlike herbivores which are TL2 consumers, omnivores are TL3 consumers of animal food
items and a ratio of FCMs is applied to each animal food item ingested to account for the increase in COPC
concentration occurring between the trophic level of the prey item (TLn) and the trophic level of the
omnivore (TL3). In general, the COPC concentration in omnivores depends on the COPC concentration in
each food item ingested, and the trophic level of each food item, as follows:
C
OM
FCM
• PAl • FAI)
TLn-A,
, • BCFpi_OM • Pp, • Fpi)
Equation 5-12
where
COM = COPC concentration in omnivore (mg/kg)
CAi = COPC concentration in /'th animal food item (mg/kg)
FCMTL3 = Food chain multiplier for trophic level 3 (unitless)
FCMTLn_Ai = Food chain multiplier for trophic level of /'th animal food item
(unitless)
PAi = Proportion of /th animal food item in diet that is contaminated
(unitless)
FAi = Fraction of diet consiting of /'th animal food item (unitless)
BCFPi_OM = Bioconcentration factor for plant-to-omnivore for /'th plant food
item (unitless)
CPi = COPC concentration in /'th plant food item (mg/kg)
PPi = Proportion of /th plant food item that is contaminated (unitless)
= Fraction of diet consiting of /'th plant food item (unitless)
= COPC concentration in soil or bed sediment (mg/kg)
= Bioconcentration factor for soil- or bed sediment-to-omnivore
(unitless)
= Proportion of soil or bed sediment in diet that is contaminated
(mg/kg)
Cwctot = Total COPC concentration in water column (mg/L)
BCFW_OM = Bioconcentration factor for water-to-omnivore (L/kg)
Pw = Proportion of water in diet that is contaminated (unitless)
Media-to-omnivore BCF values are COPC and receptor-specific and provided in Appendix C. The use of
an FCM ratio to estimate biomagnification between trophic levels is discussed in a following subsection.
F
;ed
'77
'rS/BS-OM
P
S/BS
U.S. EPA Region 6
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering
U.S. EPA
Office of Solid Waste
5-21
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 5: Analysis
August 1999
Calculation of COPC concentrations in animal food items is further discussed in previous sections of
Chapter 5. Calculation of COPC concentrations in plant food items and media is further discussed in
previous sections of Chapter 5, and in Chapter 3 and Appendix B. The variables representing the diet
fraction and proportion of diet contaminated are discussed in Section 5.3 and Appendix F. Appendix F
also provides specific equations and supporting discussion for calculating the COPC concentration in
omnivores.
Carnivorous Mammals and Birds
As indicated in Equation 5-13, the COPC concentration in carnivorous mammals and birds is calculated by
summing the contribution due to ingestion of contaminated animal and media food items. In general, the
equation for computing a COPC concentration for carnivorous food items is similar to the corresponding
equation for omnivores; only without the component accounting for ingestion of plant food items.
Similarly, a ratio of FCMs is applied to each animal food item ingested to account for the increase in
COPC concentration occurring between the trophic level of the prey item (TLn) and the trophic level of the
carnivore (TL4). The COPC concentration in carnivores depends on the COPC concentration in media, in
each animal food item ingested, their respective trophic level, as follows:
_
CC =
CA,
FCM
TL4
PAi ' FA,
TLn-A,
C
' ^s/sed ' tf^-^S/BS-C ' "s/BS /
BCFur_^ • Pur )
W_C w
Equation 5-13
where
Cc = COPC concentration in carnivore (mg/kg)
CAi = COPC concentration in /'th animal food item (mg/kg)
FCMTL3 = Food chain multiplier for trophic level 4 (unitless)
FCMTLn_Ai = Food chain multiplier for trophic level of /'th animal food item
(unitless)
PAi = Proportion of /th animal food item in diet that is contaminated
(unitless)
FAi = Fraction of diet consisting of /'th animal food item (unitless)
Cs/sed = COPC concentration in soil or bed sediment (mg/kg)
BCFS/BS_C = Bioconcentration factor for soil- or bed sediment-to-carnivore
(unitless)
U.S. EPA Region 6
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering
U.S. EPA
Office of Solid Waste
5-22
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 5: Analysis August 1999
PS/BS = Proportion of soil or bed sediment in diet that is contaminated
(mg/kg)
Cwctot = Total COPC concentration in water column (mg/L)
BCFW_C = Bioconcentration factor for water-to-carnivore (L/kg)
Pw = Proportion of water in diet that is contaminated (unitless)
Media-to-carnivore BCF values are COPC and receptor-specific and provided in Appendix C. The use of
an FCM ratio to estimate biomagnification between trophic levels is discussed in the following subsection.
Calculation of COPC concentrations in animal food items is further discussed in previous sections of
Chapter 5. Calculation of COPC concentrations in plant food items and media is further discussed in
previous sections of Chapter 5, and in Chapter 3 and Appendix B. The variables representing the diet
fraction and proportion of diet contaminated are discussed in Section 5.3 and Appendix F. Appendix F
also provides specific equations and supporting discussion for calculating the COPC concentration in
carnivores.
Use of Food Chain Multiplier Ratio to Estimate Biomagnification
Biomagnification involves the transfer of a chemical in food through successive trophic levels (Hamelink et
al. 1971). Chemicals with greatest potential to biomagnify are highly lipophillic, have low water
solubilities, and are resistant to being metabolized (Metcalf et al. 1975). To account for COPC
biomagnification in the food chain, U.S. EPA OSW recommends the use of FCM ratios as derived by U.S.
EPA (1995k).
FCM ratios are used to estimate the increase in a COPC concentration resulting from the ingestion of TL2
prey (i.e., animal food item) by a TL3 measurement receptor (i.e., omnivore or carnivore), and the ingestion
of TL2 and TL3 prey by a TL4 measurement receptor. Biomagnification, expressed as a biomagnification
factor (BMP), equals the quotient of the FCM of the measurement receptor divided by the FCM of the prey.
It is important to note that the basic difference between the FCM and BMF is that the FCMs relate back to
trophic level one, whereas BMFs always relate back to the preceding trophic level (U.S. EPA 1995k). This
relation is entirely compatible, but confusion can result if the terms specific to trophic level are not used
consistently and clearly (U.S. EPA 1995k). As presented in U.S. EPA (1995k), the following relation of
FCM to BMF can be expressed as follows:
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering 5-23
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 5: Analysis August 1999
BMFTL2 = FCMTL2 Equation 5-14
BMFTL3 = FCMTL3IFCMTL2 Equation 5-14A
where
BMFn = Biomagnification factor for nth trophic level
FCMTLn = Food chain multiplier for nth trophic level
5.4 ASSESSMENT OF TOXICITY
Toxicity of a COPC is assessed by identifying toxicity reference values (TRVs) specific to a COPC and the
measurement receptor being evaluated. As discussed in Chapter 6, TRVs are subsequently set as the
denominator for computing COPC ecological screening quotients (ESQs) during risk characterization. The
available TRVs used in risk characterization for lower trophic level communities are media specific;
whereas TRVs for upper trophic level class-specific guilds are provided in terms of dose ingested. TRVs for
community and class-specific guild measurement receptors are further described below:
Community (lower trophic level) TRVs are media specific and used to screen ecological
effects to receptors inhabiting soil, surface water, and sediment. Community TRVs are
expressed on a concentration basis, such as milligrams of COPC per kilogram of soil, and
generally either:
(1) a COPC media concentration that, based on its intended use by a regulatory
agency, confers a high degree or protection to receptor populations or communities
inhabiting the media (these include regulatory values such as federal ambient
water quality criteria, state no-effect-level sediment quality guidelines, and
sediment screening effect concenentrations), or
(2) a laboratory-derived toxicity value representing a COPC media concentration that
causes, over a chronic exposure duration, no adverse effects to a representative
ecological receptor (e.g., no-observed-effect-concentration).
• Class-specific guild (upper trophic level) TRVs are used to screen ecological effects to
wildlife, and expressed as a COPC daily dose ingested that causes, over a chronic
exposure duration, no observed adverse effects to a measurement receptor. Class-specific
guild TRVs are expressed in units of mass (e.g., milligrams or micrograms) of COPC per
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering 5-24
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 5: Analysis August 1999
kilogram body weight (wet weight) per day.
Guidance for selection of TRVs for community and class-specific guild measurement receptors is provided
in the following sections. TRVs specific to example measurement receptors presented in the food webs in
Chapter 4 are available in Appendix E.
5.4.1 General Guidance on Selection of Toxicity Reference Values
Compound specific TRVs should be identified for each measurement receptor evaluated to characterize risk
to a community or class-specific guild. U.S. EPA OSW recommends evaluation of the following sources
of toxicity values, listed in order of general preference, in determining TRVs for use in a screening level risk
assessment:
Toxicity values developed and/or adopted by federal and/or state regulatory agencies;
generally provided in the form of standards, criteria, guidance, or benchmarks. Toxicity
values developed and/or adopted by federal or state regulatory agencies are generally media
specific, and reported only for surface water and sediment. Examples include state or federal
ambient water quality criteria (AWQC), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA) effects range-low (ERL) values for sediment (Long et al. 1995), and State of Florida
sediment quality guidelines (MacDonald 1993).
Toxicity values published in scientific literature. Appropriate values should be derived from a
laboratory study which characterizes adverse effects on ecologically-relevant endpoints
(e.g., growth, reproduction, mortality). As discussed in Section 5.4.1.3, toxicity values obtained
from scientific literature may also require application of an uncertainty factor (UF) to account for
extrapolation uncertainty.
Toxicity values calculated for sediment using equilibrium partitioning (EqP) approach. The
EqP approach is further described in Section 5.3.2.1. Calculating sediment toxicity values using
the EqP approach requires determination of (1) an organic carbon content of the sediments, and
(2) a corresponding surface water toxicity value.
Toxicity values from surrogate compounds. Surrogate compounds are selected through
evaluation of parameters such as chemical structure and toxicity mechanisms of action. For
example, low molecular weight (i.e. those have two or less rings) polyaromatic hydrocarbons
(PAH's) could be grouped together and evaluated using the toxicity data from a PAH congener
belonging to this group.
The evaluation of toxicity values published in scientific literature should consider (1) ecological relevance
of the study, (2) exposure duration (e.g., chronic, acute), and (3) study endpoints (e.g., NOAEL, LOAEL).
The identification of literature toxicity values used to derive TRVs should focus on toxicological data
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering 5-25
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 5: Analysis August 1999
characterizing adverse effects on ecologically relevant endpoints, such as growth, seed germination,
reproduction, and survival. Study endpoints specified for reported toxicity values generally include the
following:
Soil, surface water, and sediment measurement receptors
No-observed-effect-level (NOEL) or no-observed-effect-concentration (NOEC)
Lowest-observed-effect-level (LOEL) or lowest-observed-effect-concentration
(LOEC)
Median lethal concentration to 50 percent of the test population (LC50) or median
effective concentration for 50 percent of the test population (EC50)
Wildlife measurement receptors
No-observed-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL)
Lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level (LOAEL)
Median lethal dose to 50 percent of the test population (LD50)
Evaluation of toxicity test data is further discussed in Section 5.4.1.1.
When multiple studies are assessed equally under the criteria above, professional judgement can be applied
to determine the most appropriate study and corresponding toxicity value to be selected as the TRV(see
Section 5.4.1.2). As discussed in Section 5.4.1.3, toxicity values obtained from scientific literature may
also require application of an UF to account for extrapolation uncertainty (due to differences in test
endpoint and exposure duration) when considering use of the test value as a TR Vm a screening level risk
assessment.
5.4.1.1 Evaluation of Toxicity Test Data
A TRV should represent a COPC concentration or dose that causes no observed adverse effects to an
ecologically relevant endpoint of a receptor exposed for a chronic (long-term) duration. As noted above,
evaluation of test data from ecologically relevant studies should be further assessed based on exposure
duration and study endpoint.
The following hierarchy, in terms of decreasing preference, should be followed to assess exposure duration
and study endpoint:
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering 5-26
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 5: Analysis August 1999
1. Chronic NOAEL
2. Subchronic NOAEL
3. Chronic LOAEL
4. Subchronic LOAEL
5. Acute median lethality point estimate
6. Single dose toxicity value
The following guidelines should be used to generally determine exposure duration:
• For fish, mammals, and birds:
A chronic test lasts for more than 90 days
A subchronic test lasts from 14 to 90 days
An acute test lasts less than 14 days
• For other receptors:
A chronic test lasts for 7 or more days
A subchronic test lasts from 3 to 6 days
An acute test lasts less than 3 days
The logic followed to identify the a toxicity value should be fully documented. Sources of toxicity values
include electronic databases, reference compendia, and technical literature. Toxicity values identified from
secondary sources should be verified, wherever possible, by reviewing the original study. If an original
study is unavailable, or multiple studies of similar quality are available, best professional judgment should
be used to determine an appropriate toxicity value.
5.4.1.2 Best Professional Judgement for Evaluating Toxicity Values
If more than one toxicity study meets a set of qualifying criteria applicable for study endpoint and exposure
duration, best professional judgement should be used to identify the most appropriate study and
corresponding toxicity value for TRV selection. The most appropriate study is the one with the least
uncertainty about the accuracy of the value of endpoint (i.e., NOAEL) that, ultimately, provides the
greatest degree of protectiveness to the applicable measurement receptor. The most appropriate study
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering 5-27
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 5: Analysis August 1999
should be identified by reviewing the experimental design of each study. Discussed below are important
aspects of experimental design that should be evaluated.
• Number of treatments, spread between treatments, and number of replicates per
treatment. The number of treatments and the spread between exposure concentrations (or
dose groups) will affect the accuracy of the test endpoint (such as the NOAEL). That is,
the smaller the spread between the NOAEL and LOAEL, the less the uncertainty is about
the true concentration or dose at which there is no adverse effect. The statistical power of
a toxicity test (or any test for that matter) is dependent, in large part, on the number of
replicates (or number of animals per dose). That is, the ability of a test to detect statistical
differences (test sensitivity) increases as the number of replicates increase.
Exposure route. The exposure route of the test should coincide with the applicable
exposure route or pathway under consideration in the risk assessment. For example, the
screening level risk assessment may evaluate the risk of contaminated soils to terrestrial
plants due to exposure to bulk soil. Therefore, a terrestrial plant toxicity study that
evaluated the effects of soil solutions on a plant species may be a less appropriate than a
study based on effects of bulk soil.
• Exposure during sensitive life stage. Ideally, all toxicity studies would evaluate the
effects of a toxicant on the most sensitive life stage, such as neonatal zooplankton and first
instar larvae. Therefore, the exposure duration should be receptor- and toxicant-specific.
• Nominal or measured test concentrations. Measured test concentrations more accurately
estimate the true concentration of a toxicant presented to a receptor. Nominal, or
unmeasured, test concentrations do not account for potential losses of the toxicant (such as
toxicant adsorbed to particulate material) or for inaccuracies in preparing test solutions.
In addition, samples for measuring test concentrations should be collected from the
exposure chamber, not the delivery system.
• Use, type, and performance of controls. A positive control (no toxicant) should be used
in each toxicity study. The only difference between a positive control and a treatment is
the absence of the toxicant from the control. Performance in a positive control should meet
pre-existing performance criteria (such as acceptable survival). Treatment performance
should be statistically compared to (or inferred from in some circumstances) to control
performance to identify statistical endpoints (such as the NOAEL and LOAEL). In some
situations, a negative control (toxicant with known toxicity, also called a performance
control) may be appropriate. If a negative control is used, its results should be compared
to standards to determine if test receptor sensitivity was acceptable.
• Method used to determine endpoint (i.e., NOAEL). Ideally, an acceptable number of
replicates should be used so a test has statistical power. An appropriate statistical test
should be performed to identify the NOAEL. In some cases, the NOAEL may have to be
inferred because of insufficient number of replicates. While the latter is not unscientific,
the former method provides a measure that the conclusion might be false. For example, if
test results are statistically analyzed at a probability level of 95 percent, there is a 5
percent chance that the results of the statistical analysis are false.
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering 5-28
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 5: Analysis August 1999
5.4.1.3 Uncertainty Factors for Extrapolation From Toxicity Test Values to TRVs
Incomplete knowledge of the actual toxicity of a chemical leads to the use of UFs to reduce the likelihood
that risk estimates do not underestimate risk. Historically, UFs have been used for various extrapolations,
and their applications reflect policy to provide conservative estimates of risk (Chapman et al. 1998). As
discussed below, UFs are used in the risk assessment to reduce the probability of underestimating
ecological risk from exposures to combustor emissions. This is performed by multiplying a toxicity value
by a UF to produce a TRVreflecting an NOAEL for a chronic exposure duration.
UFs should be used to convert a toxicity value to a chronic NOAEL-based TRV. In most cases, the UFs
discussed below should be applicable to available toxicity values. In some cases, however, irregular
toxicity data (such as, a subchronic LC50) may be the only available information. In these cases, the
toxicity data should be thoroughly reviewed and professional judgment should be used to identify
appropriate UFs that are consistent with those listed below. Special attention should be taken with toxicity
values from single oral dose, intraperitoneal, and subchronic lethality tests.
Specifically, UFs should be used to account for extrapolation uncertainty due to differences in test endpoint
and exposure duration:
• Test endpoint uncertainty—extrapolation from a non-NOAEL endpoint (e.g., LOAEL,
LD50) to an NOAEL endpoint
Duration uncertainty—extrapolation from a single dose, acute, or subchronic duration to a
chronic duration
Except as noted above for irregular toxicity data, the following UFs (Calabrese and Baldwin 1993) should
be used to convert a toxicity test endpoint to a TRVequivalent to a chronic NOAEL:
• A chronic LOAEL (or LOEL or LOEC) should be multiplied by a UF of 0.1 to convert it
to a chronic NOAEL
A subchronic NOAEL should be multiplied by a UF of 0.1 to convert it to a chronic
NOAEL.
• An acute lethal value (such as an LC50 or LD50) should be multipled by an UF of 0.01 to
convert it to a chronic NOAEL.
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering 5-29
-------
-------
Chapter 6
Risk Characterisation
•'• '!vy?
What's Covered in
4- Risk Estimation
4- Risk Description ,;''''.v!^^^^ti«;'^^?^C,¥^^4^r^••'^.:'^:
4- Uncertainty and Limitations of the Screening Level Risk Assessment
Risk characterization includes risk estimation and risk description (U.S. EPA 1992b). Risk estimation is
an integration of the exposure assessment (see Section 5.1) and the toxicity assessment (see Section 5.4) to
determine the potential risk to a community or guild from exposure to a COPC. Risk estimation is
quantified using the quotient method to calculate an ecological screening quotient (ESQ) (Suter 1993).
Risk description describes the magnitude and nature of potential risk for each community and guild, based
on the quantitative results of the risk estimation and calculated ESQ values. Risk description also discusses
the significance of the default assumptions used to assess exposure, because they affect the magnitude and
certainty of the calculated ESQ value. The resultant risk characterization should consider any major
uncertainties and limitations associated with results generated in performing the screening level risk
assessment.
Section 6.1 discusses using the quotient method and calculation of ESQs to estimate potential ecological
risk. Section 6.2 discusses various aspects of the risk description. Section 6.3 discusses consideration of
uncertainties and limitations.
6.1 RISK ESTIMATION
To estimate potential ecological risk, an ESQ should be calculated specific to each measurement receptor,
COPC, and exposure scenario location evaluated in the risk assessment. Also, dietary-variable ESQs
should be computed for class-specific guild measurement receptors based on "equal diet" dose and
"exclusive diet" dose, as discussed in Section 5.3. As expressed in Equation 6-1, an ESQ is the quotient of
the COPC estimated exposure level (EEL) divided by the COPC and measurement receptor specific
toxicity reference value (TRV), as follows:
U.S. EPA Region 6 U. S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering 6-1
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 6: Risk Characterization August 1999
ESQ = -^r. Equation 6-1
where
ESQ = Ecological screening quotient (unitless)
EEL = COPC estimated exposure level (mass COPC/mass media [communities]
or mass daily dose COPC ingested/mass body weight-day [class-specific
guilds])
TRV = COPC toxicity reference value (mass COPC/mass media [communities]
or mass daily dose COPC ingested/mass body weight-day [class-specific
guilds])
Care should be made to ensure that the units for the EEL value and the TRV are consistent, including
correct use of corresponding wet and dry weights. TRVs specific to organic and inorganic compounds are
typically expressed in units of (ig/kg and mg/kg, respectively. General guidance for determining TRVs is
provided in Chapter 5. Also, Appendix E provides compound specific TRVs for the example measurement
receptors identified in the food webs in Chapter 4.
ESQs for community measurement receptors are calculated using EELs specific to the COPC concentration
in the corresponding media. A COPC specific ESQ should be calculated for each community measurement
receptor at each location evaluated, as appropriate for the food web being analyzed in the risk assessment.
For calculating ESQs for class-specific guild measurement receptors, the EEL is the daily dose of COPC
ingested. A COPC specific ESQ should also be calculated for each class-specific guild measurement
receptor at each location evaluated, as appropriate for the food web being analyzed in the risk assessment.
For class-specific guild measurement receptors, ESQs should be calculated specific to equal and exclusive
diets (see Chapter 5).
To evaluate potential risk resulting from exposure of a measurement receptor to multiple COPCs at a
specific location, each of the COPC-specific ESQ values should be summed to determine a total ESQ.
ESQReceptorTotal = ^ ESQcOPC Specific Equation 6-2
U.S. EPA Region 6 U. S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering 6-2
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 6: Risk Characterization August 1999
where
ESQReceptor Totai = Total ecological screening quotient for receptor (unitless)
ESQCOpC specific = COPC specific ecological screening quotient (unitless)
As for COPC-specific ESQs, total ESQs for class-specific guild measurement receptors should be
calculated specific to equal and exclusive diets (see Chapter 5).
6.2 RISK DESCRIPTION
Risk description considers the magnitude and nature of potential risk for community and class-specific
guild measurement receptors evaluated, and provides information for the risk manager and permitting
authority to evaluate the significance of an ESQ value. Also, Section 6.2.2 recognizes some of the default
exposure assumptions that may affect the magnitude of an ESQ value.
6.2.1 Magnitude and Nature of Ecological Risk
The magnitude and nature of potential risk should be further considered for each measurement receptor
with a COPC-specific ESQ value equal to or above risk target levels specified by the appropriate
permitting authority. Interaction between the risk assessor and the risk manager and permitting authority
has been noted throughout the process (See Figure 1 for Scientific Management Decision Points). At the
risk characterization phase of the risk assessment, most of the interaction between the risk assessor and the
risk manager and permitting authority is through description of the certainty of the resulting risk estimates.
Consistent with the NCP and current U.S. EPA guidance (1998c), the risk manager and permitting
authority with input from the risk assessor should also consider the need to collect additional information to
refine risk estimates and/or implement permit requirements (i.e., operating conditions, use of APCDs, waste
feed conditions, or environmental monitoring) at combustion facilities where an ESQ exceeds risk target
levels for ecological communities or guilds that may reasonably be expected to be exposed.
The magnitude and nature of potential risk should also be further considered for each measurement receptor
with a total ESQ value greater than or equal to the target risk levels. While the total ESQ provides the risk
manager and permitting authority with useful information regarding potential risk resulting from exposure
of a measurement receptor to multiple COPCs at a specific location, potential limitations and uncertainties
U.S. EPA Region 6 U. S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering 6-3
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 6: Risk Characterization August 1999
associated with the calculation of the total ESQ should be considered before its use. Specifically, the
resulting total ESQ is determined by summing COPC-specific ESQs that will usually be calculated utilizing
TRVs (see Chapter 5) based on different effects (e.g. growth, reproduction), toxicity endpoints
(e.g., NOAEL, LOAEL) and/or exposure durations (e.g., chronic, acute). In considering usability of total
ESQs, U.S. EPA OSW recommends that the risk manager and permitting authority focus on the highest
contributing COPCs, or classes of COPCs which can appropriately be added across effects, toxicity
endpoints and exposure durations, in further evaluating potential risks due to exposure to multiple COPCs.
Broad assessment endpoints rather than toxicologically-specific endpoints are recommended for performing
a screening level ecological risk assessment (see Chapter 5). Therefore, the potential risk to each
community and guild evaluated in the risk assessment should be described. Specifically, potential adverse
effects should be described for each community and guild with a COPC-specific or total ESQ value equal
to or above risk target levels. This should be performed for each selected food web and receptor location
evaluated, and specific to equal and exclusive diets for applicable class-specific guilds. The description
should characterize potential risk to the selected assessment endpoints, based on the measures of effect and
measurement receptors. U.S. EPA OSW recommends that the risk description specific to a measurement
receptor include, at a minimum, the contributing COPCs, emission sources, exposure pathways, and
significant uncertainties.
6.2.1.1 Target Levels
Target levels are risk management based and set by the regulatory authority. Target values are not a
discrete indicator of observed adverse effect. If a calculated risk falls within target values, a regulatory
authority may, without further investigation, conclude that a proposed action does not present an
unacceptable risk. A calculated risk that exceeds these targets, however, would not, in and of itself,
indicate that the proposed action is not safe or that it presents an unacceptable risk. Rather, a risk
calculation that exceeds a target value triggers further careful consideration of the underlying scientific
basis for the calculation.
U.S. EPA Region 6 U. S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering 6-4
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 6: Risk Characterization August 1999
6.2.2 Fate and Exposure Assumptions
As noted throughout this guidance, the screening level ecological risk assessment is based on numerous
conservative assumptions affecting the potential for a receptor to be exposed to a compound emitted from a
facility and the numeric magnitude of the resulting estimated risk. These fate and exposure assumptions
are required as a result of current data gaps and uncertainties associated with available scientific
information and data required for risk evaluation. However, U.S. EPA OSW recommends that as
information is available to address data gaps and reduce uncertainties specific to ecological risks identified
at a facility by the screening level risk assessment, it should be provided to the permitting authority for
approval to be incorporated into evaluation of risk. Some of the fate and exposure assumptions utilized in
this guidance to conduct a screening level risk assessment are listed below:
• The estimated COPC concentration in soil and sediment is 100 percent bioavailable. This
includes a COPC that is weakly or strongly adsorbed to particles and a COPC that is
dissolved in interstitial water.
• The estimated dissolved COPC concentration in the water column is 100 percent
bioavailable. For ingestion of water by wildlife, this includes a COPC that is freely
dissolved as an ion or compound, and a COPC that may be adsorbed to another matrix,
such as dissolved organic carbon.
• The total COPC mass estimated to be ingested by a measurement receptor is taken up
across the gut and reaches the site of toxic action. This includes COPC concentrations in
food items and abiotic media. This assumes that no fraction of the COPC mass is
metabolized or otherwise depurated by an ecological receptor, and that there is no
competition for available sites where the toxic action occurs.
• The chemical species present is the most toxic form, and is the form represented by the
TRY.
• Community measurement receptors inhabiting an abiotic medium take up 100 percent of
the COPC concentration to which they are exposed. All COPC mass taken up by a plant
or animal food item of a measurement receptor is assimilated into edible biomass.
• An ecological receptor is continuously exposed during its entire life, including critical life
stage(s).
• A measurement receptor's home range is 100 percent within the assessment area being
evaluated in the risk assessment.
• A measurement receptor's food is 100 percent contaminated.
U.S. EPA Region 6 U. S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering 6-5
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 6: Risk Characterization August 1999
The relevance of fate and exposure assumptions specific to COPCs at a site, and their numerical bias to
resulting ESQ values should be considered before application of results. Also, to facilitate the qualitative
assessment of toxicokinetic and toxicodynamic factors (e.g., bioavailability, metabolism), toxicological
profiles of numerous compounds often considered in combustion risk assessments (see Section 2.3) are
included in Appendix H. U.S. EPA OSW prepared these profiles because it believes that these compounds
(1) will be the principal compounds of ecological concern at combustion facilities, and (2) to promote
consistency in presenting and evaluating relevant COPC-specific toxicity information.
6.3 UNCERTAINTY AND LIMITATIONS OF THE RISK ASSESSMENT PROCESS
This section describes how to interpret uncertainties associated with the risk assessment. The discussion of
uncertainties in this section and in Section 6.3.1 was adopted from the U.S. EPA 1996 Risk Assessment
Support to the Development of Technical Standards for Emissions from Combustion Units Burning
Hazardous Waste (EPA Contract Number 68-W3-0028), dated February 20, 1996.
Uncertainty can be introduced into a risk assessment at every step of the process outlined in this document.
Uncertainty occurs, because risk assessment is a complex process, requiring the integration of the
following:
• Release of pollutants into the environment
• Fate and transport of pollutants, in a variety of different and variable environments, by
processes that are often poorly understood or too complex to quantify accurately
• Potential for adverse effects in receptors, as extrapolated from studies of differing species
• Probability of adverse effects in functionality of food web that is made up of species that
are highly variable
Uncertainty is inherent in the process even if the most accurate data with the most sophisticated models are
used. The methodology outlined in this document relies on a combination of point values—some
conservative and some typical—yielding a point estimate of exposure and risk that falls at an unknown
percentile of the full distributions of exposure and risk. For this reason, the degree of conservatism in risk
estimates cannot be known; instead, it is known that the values combine many conservative factors and are
likely to overstate actual risk (Hattis and Burmaster 1994). Therefore, a formal uncertainty analysis is
U.S. EPA Region 6 U. S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering 6-6
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 6: Risk Characterization August 1999
required to determine the degree of conservatism. This section discusses the types of uncertainty and the
areas in which uncertainty can be introduced into an assessment. In addition, this section discusses
methods for qualitatively and quantitatively addressing uncertainty in risk assessments.
It should also be noted, variability is often used interchangeably with the term "uncertainty," but this is not
strictly correct. Variability may be tied to variations in physical and biological processes, and cannot be
reduced with additional research or information, although it may be known with greater certainty (for
example, the weight distribution of a species may be known and represented by the mean weight and its
standard deviation). "Uncertainty" is a description of the imperfect knowledge of the true value of a
particular variable or its real variability in an individual or a group. In general, uncertainty is reducible by
additional information-gathering or analysis activities (that is, better data or better models), whereas real
variability will not change (although it may be more accurately known) as a result of better or more
extensive measurements (Hattis and Burmaster 1994).
6.3.1 Types of Uncertainty
Finkel (1990) classified all uncertainty into four types: (1) variable uncertainty, (2) model uncertainty,
(3) decision-rule uncertainty, and (4) variability. Variable uncertainty and model uncertainty are generally
recognized by risk assessors as major sources of uncertainty; decision rule is of greatest concern to the risk
manager.
6.3.1.1 Variable Uncertainty
Variable uncertainty occurs when variables appearing in equations cannot be measured precisely or
accurately, because of either (1) equipment limitations, or (2) spatial or temporal variances between the
quantities being measured. Random, or sample, errors are common sources of variable uncertainty that are
especially critical for small sample sizes. It is more difficult to recognize nonrandom, or systematic, errors
that result from the basis for sampling, experimental design, or choice of assumptions. As stated in Section
6.3, true variability is something we can not do much about (except to know that it exists).
U.S. EPA Region 6 U. S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering 6-7
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 6: Risk Characterization August 1999
6.3.1.2 Model Uncertainty
Model uncertainty is associated with all models used in all phases of a risk assessment. For example, the
use of a single species to represent several will introduce uncertainty into the risk assessment because of the
considerable amount of interspecies variability in sensitivity to a COPC. Computer models are
simplifications of reality, requiring exclusion of some variables that influence predictions but cannot be
included in models because of (1) increased complexity, or (2) a lack of data for these variables. The risk
assessor needs to consider the importance, in consultation with the modeler, of excluded variables on a
case-by-case basis. In addition, a model which was developed to use "average" conditions as its inputs,
could result in a large amount of uncertainty when "specific" conditions are used. Finally, choosing the
correct model form is often difficult, because conflicting theories appear to explain a phenomenon equally
well.
The models specified for use in this document were selected on the basis of scientific policy. Therefore, the
air dispersion and deposition model (ISCST3) and the indirect exposure models (IBM) were selected,
because they provide the information needed to conduct indirect assessments and are considered by U.S.
EPA to be state-of-the-science models. This choice of models could also be considered under decision rule
uncertainty. ISCST3—the air dispersion model recommended for use—has not been widely applied in its
present form. Few data are available on atmospheric deposition rates for chemicals other than criteria
pollutants, thereby making it difficult to (1) select input variables related to deposition, and (2) validate
modeled deposition rates. Because dry deposition of vapor phase materials is evaluated external to the air
dispersion model, the plume is not depleted and, as a result, mass balance is not maintained. The effect of
this would be to overestimate deposition, but the magnitude of the overestimation is unknown. Mass
balance is maintained for other forms of deposition (such as wet deposition and particle phase dry
deposition). Long-range transport of pollutants into and out of the areas considered was not modeled,
resulting in an underestimation of risk attributable to each facility.
In addition to air dispersion modeling, the use of other fate and transport models recommended by this
guidance can also result in some uncertainty. For example, the models which estimate COPC
concentrations in waterbodies may be particularly conservative for waterbodies located in estuarine
environments with tidal influence. Because tidal influence is not considered in the models presented in
Chapter 3, the resultant dilution of COPC concentrations in water and sediments likely caused by tidal
U.S. EPA Region 6 U. S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering 6-8
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 6: Risk Characterization August 1999
influence will not be considered in the risk assessment. Thus, the risk assessment results will likely be
more conservative for tidally influenced waterbodies than for those waterbodies that are not tidally
influenced. Permitting decisions based on risk estimates for estuarine environments should consider this
uncertainty. The delineation of this uncertainty may be one area that could be addressed in a more refined
site-specific risk assessment, if warranted.
6.3.1.3 Decision-rule Uncertainty
Decision-rule uncertainty is probably of greatest concern to risk managers. This type of uncertainty arises,
for example, out of the need to balance different social concerns when determining an acceptable level of
risk. The uncertainty associated with risk analysis influences many policy and risk management decisions.
Possibly the most important aspect for the risk estimates is the selection of constituents to be included in
the analysis. Constituents identified by this guidance will include compounds that have the potential to
pose the greatest risk to ecological receptors through exposure. For example, many PICs are highly
lipophilic and tend to bioaccumulate, thereby presenting a potentially high risk to upper trophic level
receptors through the consumption of contaminated food items.
6.3.2 Description of Qualitative Uncertainty
Often, sources of uncertainty in a risk assessment can be determined but cannot be quantified. For
example, this can occur when a factor is known or expected to be variable, but no data are available
(e.g., presence of COPCs without toxicity data). In this case, default data may be available that can be
useful in estimating a possible range of values. Uncertainty also often arises out of a complete lack of data.
A process may be so poorly understood that the uncertainty cannot be quantified with any confidence. In
addition, some sources of uncertainty (such as uncertainty in theories used to deduce models) are inherent
qualifications reflecting subjective modes of confidence rather than probabilistic arguments. When
uncertainty can be presented only qualitatively, the possible direction and orders of magnitude of the
potential error should be considered.
U.S. EPA Region 6 U. S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering 6-9
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 6: Risk Characterization August 1999
6.3.3 Description of Quantitative Uncertainty
Knowledge of experimental or measurement errors can also be used to introduce a degree of quantitative
information into a qualitative presentation of uncertainty. For example, standard laboratory procedures or
field sampling methods may have a known error level that can be used to quantify uncertainty. In many
cases, uncertainty associated with particular variable values or estimated risks can be expressed
quantitatively and further evaluated with variations of sensitivity analyses. Finkel (1990) identified a
six-step process for producing a quantitative uncertainty estimate:
Define the measure of risk (i.e., assessment endpoint). More than one measure of risk may
result from a particular risk assessment: however, the uncertainty should be quantified or
reached individually.
Specify "risk equations" that present mathematical relationships that express the risk
measure in terms of its components. This step is used to identify the important variables in
the risk estimation process.
Generate an uncertainty distribution for each variable or equation component. These
uncertainty distributions may be generated by using analogy, statistical inference
techniques, expert opinion, or a combination of these.
Combine the individual distributions into a composite uncertainty distribution.
Recalibrate the uncertainty distributions. Inferential analysis could be used to "tighten" or
"broaden" particular distributions to account for dependencies among the variables and to
truncate the distributions to exclude extreme values.
Summarize the output clearly, highlighting the important risk management implications.
Address specific critical factors.
Implication of supporting a point estimate produced without considering
uncertainty
Balance of the costs of under- or over-estimating risks
Unresolved scientific controversies, and their implications for research
When a detailed quantitative treatment of uncertainty is required, statistical methods are employed. Two
approaches to a statistical treatment of uncertainty with regard to variable values are described here and
were used in this analysis where appropriate. The first is to use an appropriate statistic to express all
variables for which uncertainty is a major concern. For example, if a value used is from a sample (such as
U.S. EPA Region 6 U. S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering 6-10
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 6: Risk Characterization August 1999
yearly emissions from a stack), the mean and standard deviation should both be presented. If the sample
size is very small, it may be appropriate to (1) give the range of sample values and use a midpoint as a best
estimate in the model, or (2) use the smallest and largest measured value to obtain two estimates that bound
the expected true value. Selection of the appropriate statistic depends on the amount of data available and
the degree of detail required. Uncertainties can be propagated by using analytical or numerical methods.
A second approach is to use the probability distributions of major variables to propagate variable value
uncertainties through the equations used in a risk analysis. A probability distribution of expected values is
then developed for each variable value. These probability distributions are typically expressed as either
probability density functions (PDF) or cumulative probability density functions (CPF). The PDF presents
the relative probability for discrete variable values, whereas the CPF presents the cumulative probability
that a value is less than or equal to a specific value.
A composite uncertainty distribution is created by combining the individual distributions with the equations
used to calculate the probability of particular adverse effects and points. Numerical or statistical methods
are often used. In Monte Carlo simulations, for example, a computer program is used to repeatedly solve
the model equations, under different selections of variable values, to calculate a distribution of exposure (or
risk) values. Each time the equations are calculated, values are randomly sampled from the specified
distributions for each variable. The end result is a distribution of exposure (or risk). These can again be
expressed as PDFs or, more appropriately, as CPFs. The distribution enables the risk assessor to choose
the value corresponding to the appropriate percentile in the overall distribution. For example, the risk
assessor can select an exposure level or risk level that corresponds to the 95th percentile of the overall risk
distribution rather than a point estimate of risk that is based on the 95th percentile values for each variable.
6.3.4 Risk Assessment Uncertainty Discussion
The science of risk assessment is evolving; where the science base is incomplete and uncertainties exist,
science policy assumptions must me made. It is important for risk assessments of facilities that burn
hazardous waste to fully explain the areas of uncertainty in the assessments and to identify the key
assumptions used in conducting the assessments. Toward that end, a table should be added to the end of
each section (e.g., stack emissions, air modeling, exposure assessment, risk characterization) which lists the
U.S. EPA Region 6 U. S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering 6-11
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 6: Risk Characterization August 1999
key assumptions in that section, the rationale for those assumptions, their effect on estimates of risk
(overestimation, underestimation, neutral), and the magnitude of the effect (high, medium, low). For
example, it could explain that using a particular input variable, such as exit gas temperature, will under- or
overestimate long-term emissions, and the resulting risks, by a factor of x. These tables can be used to
evaluate the extent to which protective assumptions were used in the risk assessments. They can also help
determine the nature of the uncertainty analysis to be performed. The assumptions listed in the risk
characterization section, which synthesizes the data outputs from the exposure and toxicity analyses,
should be the most significant assumptions from each of the previous sections.
Within this guidance, identification of uncertainties and limitations are also included with the discussion of
specific technical issues (e.g., TOE, estimates of emission rates, COPC selection process, quantification of
non-detects) as they are presented in their respective sections. Limitations associated with parameter
values and inputs to equations are presented in the Appendices.
As an example discussion, the following summarizes some of the uncertainty involved in the air dispersion
modeling component of the risk assessment process.
Although dispersion modeling is a valuable tool for estimating concentration and deposition impacts, it has
many limitations. The accuracy of the models is limited by (1) the ability of the model algorithms to depict
atmospheric transport and dispersion of contaminants, and (2) the accuracy and validity of the input data.
For example, most refined models require input of representative meteorological data from a single
measuring station. In reality, a release will encounter highly variable meteorological conditions that are
constantly changing as it moves downwind. U.S. EPA's Guideline on Air Quality Models—Revised (Title
51 CFR Appendix W) describes two types of model uncertainty. Inherent uncertainty involves deviations
in concentrations that occur even if all of the model input is accurate. Reducible uncertainty is associated
with the model and the uncertain input values that will affect the results. Although it is important to
accurately represent actual conditions by selecting the right model, and using accurate and representative
input data, all model results are subject to uncertainty. Nevertheless, models are generally considered
reasonably reliable in estimating the magnitude of highest concentrations resulting from a release, although
they may not necessarily be time-and space-specific (Title 51 CFR Appendix W). When applied properly,
air dispersion models are typically accurate to ± 10 to 40 percent and can be used to yield a "best estimate"
of air concentrations (Title 51 CFR Appendix W).
U.S. EPA Region 6 U. S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering 6-12
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 6: Risk Characterization August 1999
Uncertainties specific to other technical components (e.g., TOE, quantification of non-detects) of the risk
assessment process are further described in their respective chapters or sections of this guidance.
6.3.5 Limitations and Uncertainties Specific to a Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment
As a screening-level tool, the screening level ecological risk assessment has several inherent limitations.
Some of these limitations are discussed in Section 6.3.5.1. After computing the ESQs and analyzing the
risk assessment results, the risk assessor should evaluate the uncertainty associated with the screening level
risk assessment. Section 6.3.5.2 provides a list of uncertainties that U.S. EPA OSW recommends should
typically be evaluated, at least qualitatively, in a screening level risk assessment.
6.3.5.1 Limitations Typical of a Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment
The approach used to select the measurement receptors is based, in part, on the premise that if key
components of the ecosystem are protected, protection will be conferred to populations and, by extension,
communities and the ecosystem. Although this approach is reasonable given the nature of the analysis and
the availability of the data, protection of measurement receptors may not always adequately protect all
ecologically significant assessment endpoints. Similarly, the selection process for ecological receptors
relies on a modified trophic element approach. As a result, representative species may not be the most
sensitive to particular compounds, but may have been chosen as a function of their ecological significance
and the availability of natural history information.
COPCs were selected to provide a conservative representation of those compounds in hazardous waste
combustion stack and fugitive emissions that have the highest potential to result in adverse ecological
effects. Due to a lack of data on adverse ecological effects associated with combustion emissions through
all exposure pathways, this list may not be all inclusive.
The toxicity of compounds varies with the measurement receptors and with the availability and form of a
given compound. If a compound is more bioavailable to an organism for absorption or uptake (such as
through increased solubility in the surface soil, surface water, or sediment), then the toxic potential of the
compound increases. Availability and chemical form are affected by factors such as pH, temperature,
alkalinity, seasonal variation, microbial activity, organic carbon content, and complexation with other
U.S. EPA Region 6 U. S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering 6-13
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 6: Risk Characterization August 1999
compounds. In the risk assessment, bioavailability of COPCs is assumed to be similar to that observed in
the toxicity studies reported in the literature. Thus, toxicity may be over- or underestimated, depending in
part on the extent to which site-specific compound bioavailability differs from those in studies reported in
the literature.
Attempts to quantify and correct for uncertainty resulting from the use of surrogate species is common, but
controversial. Calabrese and Baldwin (1993) discuss the use of uncertainty factors to adjust for
extrapolations among taxa, between laboratory and field responses, and between acute and chronic
responses. These multipliers are expected to adjust for differences in responses among taxa resulting from
differences in physiology and metabolism. When extrapolating from laboratory to field settings, important
considerations are differences in physical environment, organism behavior, and interactions with other
ecological components. Extrapolation between responses will be necessary in some cases, particularly
when data on relevant endpoints are not available (most commonly when extrapolating from a LOAEL to a
NOAEL). The net effect of uncertainty factors on the accuracy of the risk assessment depends on the
accuracy of the assumptions that underlie the factors themselves.
6.3.5.2 Uncertainties Typical of a Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment
A screening level risk assessment is typically performed using at least some default parameter values in
place of site-specific measured data (see Sections 3.12 and 6.2.2), and incorporating assumptions (see
Section 6.2) as a result of data gaps. The absence of site-specific information and the need to use these
assumptions may result in uncertainty associated with the calculation of ESQs. An understanding of the
uncertainties associated with the ESQs is necessary for understanding the significance of the ESQs. After
identifying the major uncertainties associated with the risk assessment results, their significance should be
evaluated with respect to the computed ESQs. Uncertainties that generally should be evaluated in a
screening level ecological risk assessment for a combustion facility are listed below:
• Changes in future COPC emissions compared with modeled emission rates used in the risk
assessment.
Quantification of emissions and evaluation of non-detects used in the risk assessment.
The site-specific representativeness of food web(s) used in the risk assessment.
U.S. EPA Region 6 U. S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering 6-14
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 6: Risk Characterization August 1999
• The exposure potential of the measurement receptors.
• The representativeness of equal and exclusive diet assumptions for measurement receptors.
• The effect of COPC physicochemical properties on estimates of fate and bioavailability.
• The effect of site-specific environmental conditions affecting the fate, transport, and
bioavailability of the COPCs.
The assumption that once exposed, a measurement receptor does not metabolize or
eliminate a COPC.
• The potential risk to measurement receptors of COPCs with no TRVs.
U.S. EPA Region 6 U. S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering 6-15
-------
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
References August 1999
Addink, R., Mischa Antonioli, Kees Olie, and Harrie A. J. Covers. 1996. "Reactions of Dibenzofuran and
1,2,3,4,7,8-Hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin on Municipal Waste Incinerator Fly Ash."
Environmental Science and Technology. Volume 30. Pages 833-836. March.
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). 1989. "lexicological Profile for 2,4-
Dinitrotoluene and 2,6-Dinitrotoluene." December.
American Chemical Society. 1980. "Guidelines for Data Acquisition and Data Quality Evaluation in
Environmental Chemistry." Analytical Chemistry. Volume 52. Number 14. Pages 2242-2249.
December.
ATSDR. 1993. "lexicological Profile for Di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate." TP-92/05. April.
ATSDR. 1994a. "Toxicological Profile for Hexachlorobutadiene." U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services. Prepared by Life Systems, Inc. Public Health Service. Atlanta, Georgia.
ATSDR. 1994b. "Toxicological Profile for Pentachlorophenol (Update)." TP 93/13. May.
ATSDR. 1994c. "Toxicological Profile for Hexachlorobenzene (Update)." Draft. August.
ATSDR. 1995a. "Toxicological Profile for 1,3-Dinitrobenzene and 1,3,5-Trinitrobenzene." June.
ATSDR. 1995b. "Toxicological Profile for Diethyl Phthalate." June.
ATSDR. 1995c. "Toxicological Profile for Dinitrophenols." August.
ATSDR. 1995d. "Toxicological Profile for Polychlorinated Biphenyls (Update)." Draft. August.
Auer. 1978. "Correlation of Land Use and Cover with Meteorological Anomalies." Journal of Applied
Meteorology. Volume 17. Page 636. May.
Baes, C.F., R.D. Sharp, A.L. Sjoreen, and R.W. Shor. 1984. "Review and Analysis of Parameters and
Assessing Transport of Environmentally Released Radionuclides through Agriculture." Oak Ridge
National Laboratory. Oak Ridge, Tennessee.
Barnthouse, Lawrence W. 1995. "Effects of Ionizing Radiation on Terrestrial Plants and Animals: A
Workshop Report." Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Oak Ridge, Tennessee. ORNL/TM-1311.
24 pages.
Beard, Rodney R., and Joseph T. Noe. 1981. "Aromatic Nitro and Amino Compounds". In George D.
Clayton and Florence E. Clayton, Editors. Patty's Industrial Hygiene and Toxicology. Third
Revised Edition. Volume 2A. New York. John Wiley & Sons.
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering R-l
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
References August 1999
Beckvar, N., J. Field, S. Salazar; et al. 1996. Contaminants in Aquatic Habitats at Hazardous Waste
Sites: Mercury. NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS ORCA 100. Seattle: Hazardous Materials
Response and Assessment Division, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 74 pages.
Bergmann, Ake, Anders Hagman, Sven Jacobsson, Bo Jansson, and Maria Ahlman. 1984. "Thermal
Degradation of Polychlorinated Alkanes". Chemosphere. Volume 13. Pages 237 to 250.
Beyer, W.N., E.E. Connor, and S. Gerould. 1994. "Estimates of Soil Ingestion by Wildlife." Journal of
Wildlife Management. Volume 58. Pages 375-382.
Bidleman, T.F. 1988. "Atmospheric Processes." Environmental Science and Technology. Volume 22.
Pages 361-367.
Blaylock, E.G., M.L. Frank, and B.R. Shor. 1993. "Methodology for Estimating Dose Rates to
Freshwater Biota Exposed to Radionuclides in the Environment." Oak Ridge National Laboratory.
Oak Ridge, Tennessee. ES/ER/TM-78.
Blum, J.D. and R. Bartha. 1980. "Effects of Salinity on Methylation of Mercury." Bulletin of
Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. Volume 25. Pages 404-408.
Bohn H., B.L. McNeal, and G.A. O'Connor. 1985. Soil Chemistry. John Wiley and Sons, Inc.
New York. Second Edition.
Bol, J., M. van den Berg, and W. Seinen. 1989. "Interactive Effects of PCDDs, PCDFs, and PCBs as
Assessed by the E.L.S. Bioassay." Chemosphere. Volume 19. Pages 899-906.
Brisbin, I.L., Jr. 1972. "Seasonal Variations in the Live Weights and Major Body Components of
Captive Box Turtles." Herpetologica. Volume 28. Pages 70-75.
Brown, W.S., and W.S. Parker. 1984. "Growth, Reproduction, and Demography of the Racer, Coluber
constrictor mormon, in Northern Utah." In: Seigel, R.A., and others, eds. Vertebrate Ecology
and Systematics. Museum of Natural History. The University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS.
Buonicore, A.J., and W.T. Davis (Editors). 1992. Air Pollution Engineering Manual. Air and Waste
Management Association. Van Nostrand Reinhold. New York, New York.
Calabrese, E.J., and L.A. Baldwin. 1993. Performing Ecological Risk Assessments. Lewis Publishers.
Chelsea, Michigan. 215 Pages.
California Air Resources Board. 1990. "Health Risk Assessment Guidelines for Nonhazardous Waste
Incinerators." Prepared by the Stationary Source Division of the Air Resources Board and the
California Department of Health Services.
Carr, A. 1994. Handbook of Turtles, The Turtles of the United States, Canada and Baja, California.
Comstock Publishing Associates, Ithica, New York.
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering R-2
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
References August 1999
Chapman, P.M., A. Fairbrother, and D. Brown. 1998. "A Critical Evaluation of Safety (Uncertainty)
Factors for Ecological Risk Assessment." Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry. Volume 17.
Pages 99-108.
Chois, S.-C. and R. Bartha. 1994. "Environmental Factors Affecting Mercury Methylation in Estuarine
Sediments." Bulletin oj'Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. Volume 53. Pages
805-812.
Clement Associates. 1985. Chemical, Physical, and Biological Properties of Compounds Present at
Hazardous Waste Sites. Washington, B.C. Final report to the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Vols. 1 and 2.
Clench, M.H. and R.C. Leberman. 1978. "Weights of 151 Species of Pennsylvania Birds Analyzed by
Month, Age, and Sex." Bull. Carnegie Mus. Nat. His.
Cohen, M.A., and P.B. Ryan. 1989. "Observations Less than the Analytical Limit of Detection: A New
Approach." Journal of Air Pollution Control Association (JAPCA) Note-Book. Vol. 39, No. 3.
Pages 328-329. March.
Congdon, J.D., J.L. Green, and J.W. Gibbons. 1986. "Biomass of Freshwater Turtles: A Geographic
Comparison." Am. Midi. Nat. Volume 115. Pages 165-173.
Cornell, D.W., and R.D. Markwell. 1990. "Bioaccumulation in the Soil to Earthworm System."
Chemosphere. Volume 20. Pages 91-100.
Connolly, J.O., and C.J. Pedersen. 1987. "A Thermodynamic-Based Evaluation of Organic Chemical
Accumulation in Aquatic Organisms. Environmental Science and Technology. Volume 22.
Pages 99-103.
Craighead, J.J. and F.C. Craighead. 1956. "Hawks, Owls, and Wildlife." Harrisburg, PA: The
Stackpole Co. And Washington, B.C. Wildlife Manage. Inst.
Cronin, K.L., and E.L. Bradley. 1988. "The Relationship Between Food Intake, Body Fat and
Reproductive Inhibition in Prairie Deer Mice (Peromyscus maniculatus bairdii)." Comp. Biochem.
Physiol. Volume 189. Pages 669-673.
Davis, W.B., and D.J. Schmidly. 1994. "Mammals of Texas." Texas Parks and Wildlife. Nongame and
Urban Program. Austin, Texas..
DeCicco, S. 1995. Incineration Basics Course Manual. Bellevue, Washington.
Deichmann, William B., and M. L. Keplinger. 1981. "Phenols and Phenolic Compounds." In George D.
Clayton and Florence E. Clayton, Editors. Patty's Industrial Hygiene and Toxicology. Third
Revised Edition. Volume 2A. New York. John Wiley & Sons.
Duarte-Davidson, R., A. Stewart, R. E. Alcock, I. T. Cousins, and K. C. Jones. 1997. "Exploring the
Balance between Sources, Deposition, and the Environmental Burdens of PCDD/Fs in the U. K.
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering R-3
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
References August 1999
Terrestrial Environment: An Aid To Identifying Uncertainties and Research Needs".
Environmental Science and Technology. Volume 31. Pages 1 through 11. January.
Ehrlich, P.R., D.S. Dobkin, and D. Wheye. 1988. Birder's Handbook, A Field Guide to the Natural
History of North American Birds. Simon and Schuster, Inc., New York, NY.
Eisler, R. 1987. "Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon Hazards to Fish, Wildlife, and Invertebrates:
A Synoptic Review." U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report 85(1.11).
Environment Canada. 1987. "National Incinerator Testing and Evaluation Program: Mass Burn
Technology". Industrial Programs Branch. Ontario, Canada. December.
Environmental Research and Technology (ERT). 1987. "User's Guide to the Rough Terrain Diffusion
Model Revision 3.20." Concord, Massachusetts. Emergency Team Response (ERT) Document
P-D535-585.
Erickson, Mitchell D. 1992. Analytical Chemistry of PCBs. Boca Raton, Florida. Lewis Publishers.
Ernst, C.H. 1972. "Temperature-activity Relationship in the Painted Turtle, Chrysemys pieta" Copeia.
Pages 217-222.
Finkel, A.M. 1990. Confronting Uncertainty in Risk Management. A Guide for Decision-Makers.
Center for Risk Management Resources for the Future. January.
Fitch, H.S. 1982. "Resources of a Snake Community in Prairie Woodland Habitat of Northeastern
Kansas." In: Scott, N.J., ed. Herpetological Commuities. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Wildlife Research Report 13. Pages 83-98.
Flint, R.W. 1986. "Hypothesized Carbon Flow Through the Deep Water Lake Onterio Food Web."
Journal of Great Lakes Research. Volume 12. Pages 344-354.
Fordham, R.A. 1971. "Field Populations of Deer Mice with Supplemental Food." Ecology. Volume 52.
Pages 138-146.
Freeman, H.M. 1988. Incinerating Hazardous Wastes. Technomic Publishing Company, Inc. Lancaster,
Pennsylvania.
Freeman, H.M. 1989. Standard Handbook of Hazardous Waste Treatment and Disposal. McGraw-Hill
Book Company. New York, New York.
Froese, Kenneth L., and Otto Hutzinger. 1996a. "Polychlorinated Benzene, Phenol, Dibenzo-p-dioxin, and
Dibenzofuran in Heterogeneous Combustion Reactions of Acetylene." Environmental Science and
Technology. Volume 30. Pages 998-1008. March.
Froese, Kenneth L., and Otto Hutzinger. 1996b. "Polychlorinated Benzene and Polychlorinated Phenol in
Heterogeneous Combustion Reactions of Ethylene and Ethane." Environmental Science and
Technology. Volume 30. Pages 1009-1013. March.
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering R-4
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
References August 1999
Geraghty, J.J., D.W. Miller, F. Van Der Leeden, and F.L. Troise. 1973. Water Atlas of the United
States. Water Information Center, Inc. NY.
Gilmour, C.C. and E.A. Henry. 1991. "Mercury Methylation in Aquatic Systems Affected by Acid
Deposition." Environmental Pollut 71: 131-169.
Gilmour, C.C., E.A. "Henry and R. Mitchell. 1992. Sulfate Stimulation of Mercury Methylation in
Freshwater Sediments." Environ Sci Technical 26: 2281-2287.
Gobas, F.A.P.C. 1993. "A Model for Predicting the Bioaccumulation of Hydrophobic Organic Chemicals
in Aquatic Food-Webs: Application to Lake Ontario." Ecological Modeling. Volume 69.
Pages 1-17.
Gobas, F.A.P.C., E.J. McNeil, L. Lovett-Doust, and G.D. Hoffner. 1991. "Bioaccumulation of
Chlorinated Aromatic Hydrocarbons in Aquatic Macrophytes." Environmental Science and
Technology. Volume 25. Pages 924-929.
Grayson, Martin, Executive Editor. 1985. Kirk-Othmer Concise Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology.
New York. John Wiley & Sons.
Guildrey, J.E. 1957. "Individual and Geographic Variation in Blarina brevicauda from Pennsylvania."
Ann. Carnegie Mus. Nat. His.
Gullet, B.K., P.M. Lemieux, and J.E. Dunn. 1994. "Role of Combustion and Sorbent Parameters in
Prevention of Polychlorinated Dibenzodioxin (PCDD) and Polychlorinated Dibenzofuran (PCDF)
During Waste Combustion." Environmental Science and Technology. 28(1).
Hamelink, J.L., R.C. Waybrant, and R.C. Ball. 1971. "A Proposal: Exchange Equilibria Control the
Degree Chlorinated Hydrocarbons are Biologically Magnified in Lentic Environments.
Transactions of the American Fisheries Society. Volume 100. Pages 207-214.
Hanna, S.R., and J.C. Chang. 1991. Modification of the Hybrid Plume Dispersion Model (HPDM) for
Urban Conditions and Its Evaluation Using the Indianapolis Data Set. Volume I. User's Guide
for HPDM-Urban. Sigma Research Corporation. Concord, Massachusetts.
Hartman, F.A. 1961. "Locomotor Mechanisms in Birds." Washington, D.C., Smithsonian, Misc. Coll.
143.
Hattis, D.B., and D.E. Burmaster. 1994. "Assessment of Variability and Uncertainty Distributions for
Practical Risk Analyses." Risk Analysis. 14(5):713-730.
Hazelton, P.K., R.J. Robel, and A.D. Dayton. 1984. "Preferences and Influences of Paired Food Items
on Energy Intake of American Robins (Turdus migratorius) and Gray Catbirds (Dumetella
carolinensis)." J. Wildl. Manage. Volume 48. Pages 198-202.
Hillel, D. 1980. Fundamentals of Soil Physics. Academic Press, Inc. New York, New York.
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering R-5
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
References August 1999
Hodson, P.V., M. McWhirter, K. Ralph, B. Gray, d. Thiverge, J.H. Carey, G. Van Der Kraak, D. M.
Whittle, and M. Levesque. 1992. "Effects of Bleached Kraft Mill Effluent on Fish in the St.
Maurice Paver, Quebec." Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry. Volume 11. Pages 1635-
1651.
Hoffman, P.O. and C.F. Baes. 1979. "A Statistical Analysis of Selected Parameters for Predicting Food
Chain Transport and Internal Dose of Radionuclides." ORNL/NUREG/TM-882.
Hoggett, J.G., R.B. Moodie, S.B. Preston, and K. Schofield. 1971. Nitration and Aromatic Reactivity.
London. Cambridge University Press.
Howard, P.H. 1990. Handbook of Environmental Fate and Exposure Data For Organic Chemicals.
Lewis Publishers. Chelsea, Michigan. Volume 1. Pages 279-285.
Hudson, R. 1997. Personal communication between J. Yurk, EPA Region 6, and Mr. R. Hudson,
Herpatology Curator, Fort Worth Zoo. Fort Worth, Texas. March 1.
Hull, R.N., and G.W. Suter II. 1994. "Toxicological Benchmarks for Screening Contaminants of
Potential Concern for Effects on Sediment-Associated Biota: 1994 Revision." Environmental
Restoration Division. Oak Ridge National Laboratory Environmental Restoration Program.
ES/ER/TM-95/R1. 30 Pages.
Hutzinger, O., S. Safe, and V. Zitko. 1974. The Chemistry ofPCB 's. CRC Press, Inc. Boca Raton,
Florida.
Hwang S. T. and Falco, J. W. 1986. "Estimation of multimedia exposures related to hazardous waste
facilities", In: Pollutants in a Multimedia Environment. Yoram Cohen, Ed. Plenum Publishing
Corp. New York.
Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory. 1997. Idaho National Engineering and
Environmental Laboratory Waste Experimental Reduction Facility (WERF) Incinerator Trial
Burn, May and July 1997, Volume 1. U.S. Department of Energy. INEEL/EXT-97-01180.
October.
International Atomic Energy Agency. 1992. Effects of Ionizing Radiation on Plants and Animals at
Levels Implied by Current Radiation Protection Standards. Technical Reports Series No. 332.
Iqbal, M. 1983. An Introduction to Solar Radiation. Academic Press. New York, New York.
Jaagumagi and others. 1995. "Ontario's Approach to Sediment Assessment and Remediation." Ontario
Ministry of the Environment and Energy.
Jackson, T. A. 1986. "Methyl Mercury Levels in a Polluted Prairie River-lake System: Seasonal and
Site-specific Variations, and the Dominant Influence of Trophic Conditions." Can J Fish Aquat
Sc/43: 1873-1887.
Jarman, W.M., S.A. Burns, R.R. Chang, R.D. Stephens, R.J. Norstrom, M. Simon, and J. Linthicum.
1993. "Determination of PCDDs, PCDFs, and PCBs in California Peregrine Falcons (Falco
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering R-6
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
References August 1999
peregrinus) and their eggs." Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry. Volume 12.
Pages 105-114.
Jindal, M., and D. Heinhold. 1991. "Development of Particulate Scavenging Coefficients to Model Wet
Deposition from Industrial Combustion Sources. Paper 91-59.7." Proceedings of the 1991
Annual Meeting and Exhibition of the Air and Waste Management Association. Vancouver,
British Columbia. June 16-21.
Johnson, L. D. 1996. "Determination of Total Organic Emissions from Hazardous Waste Combustors."
Anal. Chem. 68: 156-161.
Jorgensen, S.E., S.N. Nielsen, and L.A. Jorgensen. 1991. Handbook of Ecological Parameters and
Ecotoxicology. Elsevier. New York.
Junge, C.E. 1977. Fate of Pollutants in the Air and Water Environments. John Wiley and Sons. New
York. Parti. Pages 7-26.
Jury, W.A., and R.L. Valentine. 1986. "Transport Mechanisms and Loss Pathways for Chemicals in
Soil." Vadose Zone Modeling of Organic Pollutants. S.C. Hern and S.M. Melancorn, Editors.
Lewis Publishers, Inc. Chelsea, Michigan.
Kale, H.W. II. 1965. "Ecology and Bioenergetics of the Long-billed Marsh Wren Telmatoidytes palustris
griseus (Brewster) in Georgia Salt Marshes." Publ. Nuttall Ornith. Club No. 5.
Kalama Chemical, Inc. 1996. Report: Analysis of Stack Gas Samples for Poly chlorinated
Biphenyls - Kalama Chemical Trial Burn Pretest Program - Boiler U-3. Internal Technology
Corporation, Knoxville, Tennessee. Prepared for Catherine Massimino, U.S. EPA Region 10.
Karickhoff, S.W., D.S. Brown, and T.A. Scott. 1979. "Sorption of Hydrophobic Pollutants on Natural
Sediments." Water Research 13:241-248.
Kennedy, S.W., A. Lorenzen, and R.J. Norstrom. 1996. "Chicken Embryo Hepatcyte Bioassay for
Measuring Cytochrome P4501A-based 2,3,7,8-Tetrachloro-p-dioxin Equivalent Concentrations in
Environmental Samples." Environmental Science and Technology. Volume 30. Pages 706-715.
Kilgroe, J.D, W.S. Lanier, and T.R. van Alten. 1991. "Montgomery County South Incinerator Test
Project: Formation, Emission, and Control of Organic Pollutants." Municipal Waste Combustion
Conference Papers and Abstracts. Second Annual Specialty Conference. Air and Waste
Management Association. Tampa, Florida. April.
Kiviat, E. 1980. "A Hudson River Tide-marsh Snapping Turtle Population." In: Trans. Northeast, Fish
and Wildl. Conf. April 27-30. Ellenville, NY. Pages 158-168.
Kohler, Joseph, and Rudolf Meyer. 1993. Explosives. Fourth Revised and Extended Edition. Weinheim,
Germany. VCH Verlagsgesellschaft.
Krebs, C.J. 1978. Ecology: The Experimental Analysis of Distribution and Abundance. Second Edition.
Harper & Row, Inc., New York, NY. 678 Pages.
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering R-7
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
References August 1999
Lauhachinda, V. 1978. "Life History of the River Otter in Alabama with Emphasis on Food Habits."
(Ph.D. dissertation), Auburn, AL, University of Alabama.
Leonards, P.E.G., B. Van Hattum, W.P. Cofmo, and U.A.Th. Brinkman. 1994. "Occurrence of Non-
ortho-, Mono-ortho-, amd Di-ortho-substituted PCB Congeners in Different Organs and Tissues of
Polecats (Mustelaputorius L.) from the Netherlands." Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry.
Volume 13. Pages 129 through 142.
Lindberg, S.E., T.P. Meyers, G.E. Taylor, R.R. Turner, and W.H. Schroeder. 1992.
"Atmosphere-Surface Exchange of Mercury to a Forest: Results of Modelling and Gradient
Approaches." J. ofGeophy. Res. 97(d2):2519-2528.
Lindqvist, O., K. Johansson, M. Aastrup, A. Andersson, L. Bringmark, G. Hovsenius, L. Hakanson,
A. Iverfeldt, M. Meili, and B. Timm. 1991. "Mercury in the Swedish Environment - Recent
Research on Causes, Consequences and Corrective Methods." Water, Air and Poll. 55:(all
chapters).
Lodge, K., P.M. Cook, D.R. Marklund, SW. Kohlbry, J. Libal, C. Harper, B.C. Butterworth, and A.G.
Kizlauskas. 1994. "Accumulation of Polychlorinated Dibenzo-p-dioxins (PCDDs) and
Dibenzofurans (PCDFs) in Sediments and Fishes of Lake Ontario."
Long, E.R., and L.G. Morgan. 1991. The Potential for Biological Effects of Sediment-Sorb ed
Contaminants Tested in the National Status and Trends Program. Technical Memorandum
National Ocean Service (NOS) OMA 52. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
Rockville, Maryland. August.
Long, E.R., and others. 1995. "Incidence of Adverse Biological Effects Within Ranges of Chemical
Concentrations in Marine and Estuarine Sediments." Environmental Management. Volume 19,
Pages 81-97.
Long, E.R., L.J. Field, and D.D. MacDonald. 1998. "Predicting Toxicity in Marine Sediments with
Numerical Sediment Quality Guidelines." Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry. Volume 17.
Pages 714-727.
Luijk, R., D.M. Akkerman, P. Slot, K. Olie, and F. Kapteijn. 1994. "Mechanism of Formation of
Polychlorinated Dibenzo-p-dioxins and Dibenzofurans in the Catalyzed Combustion of Carbon."
Environmental Science and Technology. 28:312-321.
Lyman, W.J., W.F. Reehl, and D.H. Rosenblatt. 1982. Handbook of Chemical Property Estimation
Methods. McGraw-Hill Book Company. New York, New York.
Lyman, W.J., W.F. Reehl, and D.H. Rosenblatt. 1990. Handbook of Chemical Property Estimation
Methods. American Chemical Society. Washington, D.C.
Mackay, D.J. 1982. "Correlation of Bioconcentration Factors." Environmental Science and Technology.
Volume 16. Pages 274-278.
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering R-8
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
References August 1999
Manahan, Stanley E. 1991. Environmental Chemistry. Fifth Edition. Chelsea, Michigan. Lewis
Publishers.
March,!. 1985. Advanced Organic Chemistry. Reactions, Mechanisms, and Structure. John Wiley &
Sons. Third Edition. New York.
Maxson, S.J. and L.W. Oring. 1980. "Breeding Season Time and Energy Budgets of the Polyandrous
Spotted Sandpiper." Behavior. Volume 74. Pages 200-263.
Metcalf, R.L., J.R. Sanborn, P.Y. Yu, and D. Nye. 1975. "Laboratory Model Ecosystem Studies of the
Degradation and Fate of Radiolabeled Tri-, Tetra-, and Pentachlorobiphenyl Compared to DDE."
Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. Volume 3. Pages 151-165.
Mirarchi, R.E. and T.S. Baskett. 1994. "Mourning Dove". The Birds of North America. Number 117.
Miskimmin, B.M., J.W.M. Rudd and C.A. Kelly. 1992. "Influence of Dissolved Organic Carbon, Ph, and
Microbial Respiration Rates on Mercury Methylation and Demethylation in Lake Water." Can J
Fish Aquat Sci 49: 17-22.
Morrison, P.R., M. Pierce, and F.A. Ryser. 1957. "Food Consumption and Body Weight in the Masked
and Short-tailed Shrews (genus Blarina) in Kansas, Iowa, and Missouri." Ann. Carnegie Mus.
Volume 51. Pages 157-180.
Nagy, Kenneth A. 1987. "Field Metabolic Rate and Food Requirement Scaling in Mammals and Birds."
Ecological Monographs. Volume 57, Number 2. Pages 111-128.
National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements. 1991. Effects of Ionizing Radiation on
Aquatic Organisms. NCRP Report No. 109.
National Geographic Society. 1987. Field Guide to the Birds of North America. Second Edition.
National Geographic Society, Washington, D.C.
National Audubon Society. 1995. Field Guide to North American Mammals. Published by Alfred A.
Knopf, Inc. Distributed by Random House, Inc., New York. ISBN 0-394-50762-2. August.
Nelson, A.L. and A.C. Martin. 1953. "Gamebird Weights." J. Wildl. Manage. Volume 17. Pages
36-42.
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. 1993. "Technical Guidance for Screening
Contaminated Sediments." Divisions of Fish and Wildlife, and Marine Resources. November 22.
North Carolina Department of Health, Environment, and Natural Resources (NC DEHNR). 1996. "Draft
North Carolina Protocol for Performing Indirect Exposure Risk Assessments for Hazardous Waste
Combustion Units." August.
NC DEHNR. 1997. "North Carolina Protocol for Performing Indirect Exposure Risk Assessments for
Hazardous Waste Combustion Units." January.
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering R-9
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
References August 1999
National Institution of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). 1994. "Product Guide to Chemical
Hazards." U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Cincinnati, Ohio.
Nowak, R.M., and J.L. Paradise. 1983. Walker's Mammals of the World. Fourth Edition. John's
Hopkins University Press. Baltimore, MD. 1362pp.
Oak Ridge National Laboratory. 1996. "Screening Benchmarks for Ecological Risk Assessments Version
1.5" (database). Environmental Sciences and Health Research Division. Prepared for U.S.
Department of Energy.
O'Connor, D.J. 1983. "Wing Effects on Gas-Liquid Transfer Coefficients." Journal of Environmental
Engineering. 109(9):731-752.
O'Connor, D.J. and W.E. Dobbins. 1958. "Mechanism of Reaeration in Natural Streams." ASCE
Transactions. Pages 641-684. Paper 2934.
Odum, E.P. 1971. Fundamentals of Ecology. Third Edition. W.B. Saunders Company. Philadelphia,
Perm. 574 pp.
Oke, T.R. 1978. Boundary Layer Climates. John Wiley and Sons. New York, New York.
Oke, T.R. 1982. "The Energetic Basis of the Urban Heat Island." Quarterly Journal of the Royal
Meteorological Society. 108:1-24.
Oliver, E.G., A.J. Niimi. 1988. "Trophodynamic Analysis of Polychlorinated Biphenyl Congeners and
Other Chlorinated Hydrocarbons in the Lake Ontario Ecosystem." Environ. Sci. Technol.
22:388-397.
Opresko, D.M., B.E. Sample, and G.W. Suter II. 1995. Toxicological Benchmarks for Wildlife: 1995
Revision. Environmental Restoration Division. ORNL Environmental Restoration Program.
ES/ER/TM-86/R2.
Paine, R.J. 1987. User's Guide to the CTDM Meteorological Preprocessor (METPRO) Program.
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.
Parks, J.W., A. Lutz, J.A. Sutton and B.F., Townsend. 1989. "Water Column Methylmercury in the
Wabigoon/english River-lake System: Factors Controlling Concentrations, Speciation, and Net
Production." Can JFish Aquat Sci 46: 2181 -2202.
Pascoe, G.A. and others. 1996. "Food Chain Analysis of Exposures and Risks to Wildlife at a Metals-
Contaminated Wetland." Archives of EnvironmentalContamination and Toxicology. Volume 30.
Pages 306-318.
Paterson, S., D. Mackay, D. Tarn, and W.T. Shiu. 1990. "Uptake of Organic Chemicals by Plants: A
Review of Processes, Correlations, and Models. Chemosphere. Volume 21. Pages 297-331.
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering R-10
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
References August 1999
PEI Associates, Inc., and H.E. Cramer Company, Inc. 1986. " Air Quality Modeling Analysis of
Municipal Waste Combustors." Prepared for U.S. EPA, Monitoring and Data Analysis Division.
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.
Pearson, O.P. 1947. "The Rate of Metabolism of Some Small Mammals." Ecology. Volume 29.
Pages 127-145.
Persaud and others. 1993. "Guidelines for Protection and Management of Aquatic Sediment Quality in
Ontario". Ontario Ministry of the Environment. Queen's Printer for Ontario. March.
Petersen, G., A. Iverfeldt, and J. Munthe. 1995. "Atmospheric Mercury Species Over Central and
Northern Europe. Model Calculations and Comparison with Observations from the Nordic Air and
Precipitation Network for 1987 and 1988." Atmospheric Environment. 29:47-68.
PRC Environmental Management, Inc. (PRC). 1995. "Region 5 Ecological Data Quality Levels (EDQL),
Final Technical Approach for Developing EDQLs for RCRA Appendix IX Constituents and Other
Significant Contaminants of Ecological Concern." Prepared for U.S. EPA Office of RCRA.
Chicago, Illinois. May.
PRC. 1996. "Toxicity Reference Values for Mammals and Birds for Naval Facilities in San Francisco
Bay." Prepared for Engineering Field Activity West, Department of the Navy, San Bruno,
California.
Ramlal, P.S., J.W.M. Rudd, A. Furutari, et al. 1985. "The Effect of Ph on Methyl Mercury Production
and Decomposition in Lake Sediments." Can J Fish Aquat Sci 42: 685-692.
Rao, S.T., J-Y. Ku, and K.S. Rao. 1991. "Analysis of Toxic Air Contaminant Data Containing
Concentrations Below the Limit of Detection." Journal of Air Waste Management Association.
Vol.41. No. 4. Pages 442-448. April.
Regnell, O. 1994. "The Effect of Ph and Dissolved Oxygen Levels on Methylation and Partitioning of
Mercury in Freshwater Model Systems." Environ Pollut 84: 7-13.
Reeves, H.M. and R.M. Williams. 1956. "Reproduction, Size, and Mortality in Rocky Mountain
Muskrat." J. Mammal. Volume 37. Pages 494-500.
Research Triangle Institute (RTI). 1996. Risk Assessment Support to the Development of Technical
Standards for Emissions from Combustion Units Burning Hazardous Wastes: Background
Information Document. Final Report. EPA Contract Number 68-W3-0028. February 20.
Robert, S. 1994. "Dioxin Formation and Control in Cement Kilns." Presented at the U.S. EPA/American
Society of Mechanical Engineers Seminar on Products of Incomplete Combustion (PIC) Formation
and Control. Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. March.
Root, R.B. 1967. "The Niche Exploitation Pattern of the Blue-Gray Gnatcatcher." Ecological
Monographs. Volume 37, Pages 317-350.
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering R-l 1
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
References August 1999
Ross, L.G. 1930. "A Comparative Study of Daily Water-intake Among Certain Taxonomic and
Geographic Groups within the Genus Peromyscus." Biol. Bull. Volume 59. Pages 326-338.
Rudd, J.W., M.A. Turner, A. Furutani, et al. 1983. "The English—Wabigoon River system; LA.
synthesis of recent research with a view towards mercury amelioration." Can JFish Aquat
Sci40: 2206-2217.
Sample, B.E., M.S. Aplin, R.A. Efroymson, G.W. Suter II and C.J.E. Welsh. 1997. "Methods and Tools
for Estimation of the Exposure of Terrestrial Wildlife to Contaminants." Prepared for U.S.
Department of Energy. Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Oak Ridge, Tennessee.
ORNL/TM-13391. October.
Sandmeyer, E. E. 1981. "Aromatic Hydrocarbons". In George D. Clayton and Florence E. Clayton,
Editors. Patty's Industrial Hygiene and Toxicology. Third Revised Edition. Volume 2B. New
York. John Wiley & Sons.
Schofield, K. 1980. Aromatic Nitration. London. Cambridge University Press.
Scire, J.S., D.G. Strimaitis, and R.J. Yamartino. 1990. Model Formulation And User's Guide For The
CALPUFF Dispersion Model. Sigma Research Corporation. Concord, Massachusetts.
Shannon, J.D., and E.G. Voldner. 1994. "Modeling Atmospheric Concentrations and Deposition of
Mercury to the Great Lakes." Presented at the DOE/FDA/EPA Workshop on Methylmercury and
Human Health. Bethesda, MD. March 22-23.
Shea, D. 1988. "Developing National Sediment Quality Criteria." Environmental Science and
Technology. Volume 22. Pages 1256-1261.
Sheih, C.M., M.L. Wesley, and B.B. Hicks. 1979. "Estimated Dry Deposition Velocities of Sulfur Over
the Eastern U.S. and Surrounding Regions." Atmospheric Environment 13:361-368.
Sorensen, M.T. 1996. "Annotated Reference Compilation, 1995 Update: Conducting Ecological Risk
Assessments at Hazardous Waste Sites." Human and Ecological Risk Assessment. Volume 2.
Pages 608-626.
Sparks, D.L. 1989. Kinetics of Soil Chemical Processes. Academic Press, Inc. San Diego, California.
Steenhof, K. 1983. "Prey Weights for Computing Percent Biomass in Raptor Diets." Raptor Res.
Volume 17. Pages 15-27.
Steffan, R.J., F.T. Korthals and M.R. Winfrey. 1988. "Effects of Acidification on Mercury Methylation,
Demethylation, and Volatilization in Sediments from an Acid-susceptible Lake." Appl Environ
microbial 54: 2003-2009.
Stewart, B.A, D.A. Woolhiser, W.H. Wischmeier, J.H. Caro, and M.H. Frere. 1975. Control of Water
Pollution from Croplands. Volume I. EPA/600/2-75/026a.
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering R-12
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
References August 1999
Suedel, B.C., J.A. Boraczek, R.K. Peddicord, P.A. Clifford, and T.M. Dillon. 1994. "Trophic Transfer
and Biomagnification Potential of Contaminants in Aquatic Ecosystems." Reviews of
Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. Volume 136. Pages 21-89.
Suter, G.W. II. 1993. Ecological Risk Assessment. Lewis Publishers. Chelsea, Michigan. 538 Pages.
Suter, G.W. II, and J. Mabrey. 1994. "Toxicological Benchmarks for Screening of Potential
Contaminants of Concern for Effects of Aquatic Biota on Oak Ridge Reservation: 1994
Revision." Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Oak Ridge, Tennessee. ES/ER/TM-86/R2.
Svihla, A. and R.D. Svihla. 1931. "The Louisiana Muskrat." J. Mammal. Volume 12. Pages 12-28.
Taiz, L., and E. Geiger. 1991. Plant Physiology. Benjamin/Cammius Publishing Co. Redwood City,
California. 559 pp.
Terres, J.K. 1980. The Audubon society Encyclopedia of North American Birds. Alfred A. Knopf, Inc.
New York, NY. 1109pp.
Tillitt, D.E., R.W. Gale, J.C. Meadows, J.L. Zajicek, P.H. Peterman, S.N. Heaton, P.O. Jones, S.J.
Bursian, T.J. Kubiak, J.P. Giesey, and R.L. Aulerich. 1996. "Dietary Exposure of Mink to Carp
from Saginaw Bay. 3. Characterization of Exposure to Planar Halogenated Hydrocarbons,
Dioxin Equivalents, and Biomagnification." Environmental Science & Technology. Volume 30.
Pages 283 through 291.
Travis, C.C., and A.D. Arms. 1988. "Bioconcentration of Organics in Beef, Milk, and Vegetation."
Environmental Science and Technology. 22:271-274.
Turner, D.B. 1986. FORTRAN Computer Code/User's Guide for COMPLEXI Version 86064: An Air
Quality Dispersion Model in Section 4. Additional Models for Regulatory Use. Source File 31
Contained in UNAMAP (Version 6). NTIS PB86-222361/AS.
Tysklind, M., D. Tillitt, L. Eriksson, and C. Rappe. 1995. "Toxic Equivalency Factors for Tetra Through
Octa Chlorinated Dibenzofurans om PLHC-1 Fish Hepatoma Cell Line." Abstract. Society of
Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, Second World Congress. Vancouver, British
Columbia, Canada. November.
U.S. Congress. 1989. "Clean Air Act Amendments of 1989." Senate Report No. 228. 101st Congress.
First Session. Pages 153-154. December 20.
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1982. Average Annual Values for the Rainfall Factor, R. Soil
Conservation Service Technical Guide, Section I-C-2. Columbia, Missouri. July.
USDA. 1997. Predicting Soil Erosion by Water: A Guide to Conservation Planning With the Revised
Universal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE). Agricultural Research Service, Agriculture Handbook
Number 703. January.
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering R-l 3
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
References August 1999
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1979. Industrial Source Complex Dispersion Model
User's Guide, Volume I. Prepared for the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards.
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. EPA 450/4-79/030. NTIS PB80-133044.
U.S. EPA. 1980a. Environmental Assessment of a Waste-to-Energy Process. Braintree Municipal
Incinerator. Office of Research and Development (ORD). Washington, D.C. EPA 600/7-80/149.
U.S. EPA. 1980b. User's Guide for Multiple Point Source Model with Terrain (MPTER): A Multiple
Point Gaussian Dispersion Algorithm with Optional Terrain Adjustment. Environmental
Sciences Research Laboratory (ESRL). Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. EPA 600/8-
80/016. NTISPB80-197361.
U.S. EPA. 1982. MPTER-DS: The MPTER Model Including Deposition and Sedimentation. Prepared
by the Atmospheric Turbulence and Diffusion Laboratory. National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration. Oak Ridge, Tennessee. Prepared for the ESRL. Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina. EPA 600/8-82/024. NTIS PB83-114207.
U.S. EPA. 1985b. Water Quality Assessment: A Screening Procedure for Toxic and Conventional
Pollutants in Surface and Ground Water—Part I (Revised). ORD. Athens, Georgia.
EPA/600/6-85/002a.
U.S. EPA. 1986a. "Air Quality Modeling Analysis of Municipal Waste Combustors." Prepared by PEI
Associates. Cincinnati, Ohio.
U.S. EPA. 1986b. Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste—Physical/Chemical Methods. SW-846,
Third Edition and Update I (July 1992), Update II (September 1994), and Update IIB
(January 1995).
U.S. EPA. 1987a. "Air Dispersion Modeling of a Municipal Waste Combustor in Rutland, Vermont."
Prepared by PEI Associates. Cincinnati, Ohio.
U.S. EPA. 1987b. On-Site Meteorological Program Guidance for Regulatory Modeling Applications.
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.
U.S. EPA. 1988. Drinking Water Criteria Document for Poly chlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs).
PB89-199256. April.
U.S. EPA. 1989a. Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities: Background
Information for Proposed Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Air Emission
Standards. EPA-450/3-89-023.
U.S. EPA. 1989b. Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities: Fugitive Paniculate
Matter Air Emissions Guidance Document. EPA-450/3-89-019.
U.S. EPA. 1989c. Interim Procedures for Estimating Risks Associated with Exposures to Mixtures of
Chlorinated Dibenzo-p-dioxins (CDD) and Dibenzofurans.
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering R-14
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
References August 1999
U.S. EPA. 1989d. Interim Procedures for Estimating Risks Associated with Exposures to Mixtures of
Chlorinated Dibenzo-p-dioxins and Dibenzo-p-furans (CADS and CDS) and 1989 update.
EPA/625/3-89/016.
U.S. EPA. 1989e. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund: Volume I. Human Health Evaluation
Manual (Part A). OERR. Washington, D.C. OERR 9200 6-303-894.
U.S. EPA. 1989f. Handbook: Guidance on Setting Permit Conditions and Reporting Trial Burn
Results. Volume II of the Hazardous Waste Incineration Guidance Series. ORD.
EPA/625/6-89/019. January.
U.S. EPA. 1989g. Handbook: Hazardous Waste Incineration Measurement Guidance Manual. Volume
III of the Hazardous Waste Incineration Guidance Series. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response (OSWER). EPA/625/6-89/021. June.
U.S. EPA. 1990a. Interim Final Methodology for Assessing Health Risks Associated with Indirect
Exposure to Combustor Emissions. Environmental Criteria and Assessment Office. ORD.
EPA-600-90-003. January.
U.S. EPA. 1990c. Operations and Research at the U.S. EPA Incineration Research Facility. Annual
Report for FY 89. Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory. ORD. Cincinnati, Ohio.
EPA/600/9-90/012.
U.S. EPA. 1990d. "Standards for Owners and Operators of Hazardous Waste Incinerators and Burning
of Hazardous Wastes in Boilers and Industrial Furnaces." Federal Register. 55:17862-17921.
U.S. EPA. 1990e. User's Manual for the PM-10 Open Fugitive Dust Source Computer Model Package.
EPA-450/3-90-010.
U.S. EPA. 1991. "Assessment and Control of Bioconcentratable Contaminants in Surface Waters."
Draft. Office of Water. Washington, D.C. March.
U.S. EPA. 1992a. Briefing the STAG Initial Description of Setting, History, and Ecology of a Site.
ECO Update. Publication 9345.0-051. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Office of
Emergency and Remedial Response. August.
U.S. EPA. 1992b. Framework for Ecological Risk Assessment. Risk Assessment Forum. Washington,
D.C. EPA/63O/R-92/001. February.
U.S. EPA. 1992c. "Implementation of Boiler and Industrial Furnace Regulations, New Toxicological
Data." Memorandum from Shiva Garg, OSWER. February 11.
U.S. EPA. 1992d. "National Study of Chemical Residues in Fish." Office of Science and Technology.
September.
U. S. EPA. 1992e. Technical Implementation Document for EPA 's Boiler and Industrial Furnace
Regulations. OSWER. EPA-530-R-92-011. March.
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering R-l 5
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
References August 1999
U.S. EPA. 1992f. Health Reassessment of Dioxin-Like Compounds, Chapters 1 to 8. Workshop Review
Draft. OHEA. Washington, D.C. EPA/600/AP-92/00la through 00Ih. August.
U.S. EPA. 1992g. Guidance for Data Useability in Risk Assessment (Part A): Final. NTIS
PB92-963356/XAB. Office of Emergency and Remedial Response. U.S. EPA. Washington, D.C.
April.
U.S. EPA. 1993a. Development and Testing of Dry Deposition Algorithms. Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards. Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. EPA 4504/R-92/017.
U.S. EPA. 1993b. Guidance for Assessing Chemical Contaminant Data for Use in Fish Advisories:
Volume 1, Fish Sampling and Analysis.
U.S. EPA. 1993c. Guidelines for Deriving Site-Specific Sediment Quality for the Protection ofBenthic
Organisms. Office of Science and Technology. Washington, D.C. EPA-822-R-93-017.
September.
U.S. EPA. 1993d. "Office of Water Policy and Technical Guidance on Interpretation and Implementation
of Aquatic Life Metals Criteria." Memorandum from M. Prothro, Director of Office of Water, to
Water Management Division Directors and Environmental Services Directors, Regions I through
X. October 1.
U.S. EPA. 1993e. Protocol for Equipment Leak Emission Estimates. EPA-453/R-93/026.
U.S. EPA. 1993f Report to Congress on Cement Kiln Dust. OSWER. EPA/530-R-94-001. December.
U.S. EPA. 1993g. Report to Congress on Cement Kiln Dust. Executive Summary. OSWER. EPA/530-
S-94-001. December.
U.S. EPA. 1993h. Methodology for Assessing Health Risks Associated with Indirect Exposure to
Combustor Emissions: Addendum. Exposure Assessment Group. Office of Health and
Environmental Assessment. Washington, D.C. EPA/600/AP-93/003. November 10.
U.S. EPA. 1993L Sediment Quality Criteria for the Protection of Benthic Organisms: Acenaphthene.
Office of Science and Technology. Washington, D.C. EPA-822-R-93-013. September.
U.S. EPA. 1993J. Sediment Quality Criteria for the Protection of Benthic Organisms: Dieldrin. Office
of Science and Technology. Washington, D.C. EPA-822-R-93-015. September.
U.S. EPA. 1993k. Sediment Quality Criteria for the Protection of Benthic Organisms: Endrin. Office
of Science and Technology. Washington, D.C. EPA-822-R-93-016. September.
U.S. EPA. 19931. Sediment Quality Criteria for the Protection of Benthic Organisms: Fluoranthene.
Office of Science and Technology. Washington, D.C. EPA-822-R-93-012. September.
U.S. EPA. 1993m. Sediment Quality Criteria for the Protection of Benthic Organisms: Phenanthrene.
Office of Science and Technology. Washington, D.C. EPA-822-R-93-014. September.
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering R-16
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
References August 1999
U.S. EPA. 1993q. Technical Basis for Deriving Sediment Quality Criteria for Nonionic Organic
Contaminants for the Protection ofBenthic Organisms by Using Equilibrium Partitioning.
Office of Water. Washington, D.C. EPA-822-R-93-011. September.
U.S. EPA. 1993n. Water Quality Guidance for the Great Lakes System.
U.S. EPA. 1993o. Wildlife Exposure Factors Handbook: Volume I of II. Office of Research and
Development. Washington, D.C. EPA/600/R-93/187a. December.
U.S. EPA. 1993p. Interim Report on Data and Methods for Assessment of 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-
p-dioxin Risks to Aquatic Life and Associated Wildlife. Office of Research and Development.
Washington, D.C. EPA/600/R-93/055. March.
U.S. EPA. 1994a. Air/SuperfiindNational Technical Guidance Study Series. Volume V—Procedures
For Air Dispersion Modeling At Superfund Sites. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards.
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. February.
U.S. EPA. 1994b. Draft Guidance for Performing Screening Level Risk Analyses at Combustion
Facilities Burning Hazardous Wastes. Attachment C, Draft Exposure Assessment Guidance for
RCRA Hazardous Waste Combustion Facilities. April 15.
U.S. EPA. 1994c. Draft Guidance on Trial Burns. Attachment B, Draft Exposure Assessment Guidance
for RCRA Hazardous Waste Combustion Facilities. May 2.
U.S. EPA. 1994d. Draft Revision, Implementation Guidance for Conducting Indirect Exposure Analysis
at RCRA Combustion Units. Attachment, Draft Exposure Assessment Guidance for RCRA
Hazardous Waste Combustion Facilities. April 22.
U.S. EPA. 1994e. Estimating Exposure to Dioxin-Like Compounds, Volume I: Executive Summary.
Review Draft. ORD. Washington, D.C. EPA/600/6-88/005Ca. June.
U.S. EPA. 1994f Estimating Exposure to Dioxin-Like Compounds. Volume II: Properties, Sources,
Occurrence, and Background Exposures, Review Draft. ORD. Washington, D.C. EPA/600/6-
88/005Cb. June.
U.S. EPA. 1994g. Estimating Exposure to Dioxin-Like Compounds. Volume III: Site-Specific
Assessment Procedures, Review Draft. ORD. Washington, D.C. EPA/600/6-88/005Cc. June.
U.S. EPA. 1994h. Great Lakes Water Quality Initiative Technical Support Document for the Procedure
to Determine Bioaccumulation Factors. EPA-822-R-94-002. Offices of Water and Science and
Technology, Washington, D.C. July.
U.S. EPA. 1994L Health Assessment Documentfor 2,3,7,8-TCDD and Related Compounds. Volume
III. Review Draft. ORD. Washington, D.C. EPA/600/BP-92/001c.
U.S. EPA. 1994J. Mercury Study Report to Congress, Volume III: An Assessment of Exposure from
Anthropogenic Mercury Emissions in the United States. Draft. Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards and ORD. EPA/600/P-94/002A. December 13.
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering R-17
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
References August 1999
U.S. EPA. 1994k. Quality Criteria for Water 1993. Office of Science and Technology. Washington,
D.C. EPA/-822/D93/001.
U.S. EPA. 19941. Revised Draft Guidance for Performing Screening Level Risk Analyses at Combustion
Facilities Burning Hazardous Wastes: Attachment C, Draft Exposure Assessment Guidance for
RCRA Hazardous Waste Combustion Facilities. Office of Emergency and Remedial Response.
Office of Solid Waste. December 14.
U.S. EPA. 1994m. "Table 1, Chemicals Recommended for Identification," and "Table 2, Chemicals for
Potential Identification." Attachment A, Draft Exposure Assessment Guidance for RCRA
Hazardous Waste Combustion Facilities. April 15.
U.S. EPA. 1994n. Draft Technical Background Document for Soil Screening Guidance.
EPA/540/R-94/106. OSWER. Washington, D.C. December.
U.S. EPA. 1995a. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors: Volume I, Stationary Point and Area
Sources. Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. 5th Edition. AP-42. January.
U.S. EPA. 1995b. PCRAMMET User's Guide. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards.
Emissions, Monitoring, and Analysis Division. Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. October.
U.S. EPA. 1995c. User's Guide for the Industrial Source Complex Dispersion Models, Volumes I and
II. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. Emissions, Monitoring, and Analysis Division.
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. EPA-454/B-95-003a. September.
U.S. EPA. 1995d. User's Guide to the Building Profile Input Program. EPA-454/R-93-038. Office of
Air Quality Planning and Standards, Technical Support Division. Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina. February.
U.S. EPA. 1995e. Waste Technologies Industries Screening Ecological Risk Assessment. Volume 6.
EPA/905/D-95/002F. EPA Region 5, Chicago, Illinois.
U.S. EPA. 1995f Protocol for Equipment Leak Emission Estimates. EPA/453/R-95-017.
U.S. EPA. 1995g. Water Quality Guidance for the Great Lakes System: Supplementary Information
Document (SID). EPA-820-B-95-001. Office of Water, Washington, D.C. March.
U.S. EPA. 1995h. Review Draft Development of Human Health-Based and Ecologically-Based Exit
Criteria for the Hazardous Waste Identification Project. Volumes I and II. Office of Solid
Waste. March 3.
U.S. EPA. 1995L Development of Compliance Levels from Analytical Detection and Quantitation
Levels. U.S. EPA, Washington, DC. NTIS PB95-216321.
U.S. EPA. 1995J. Great Lakes Water Quality Initiative Technical Support Document for Wildlife
Criteria. EPA-820-B-95-009. Office of Water, Washington, D.C. March.
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering R-l 8
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
References August 1999
U.S. EPA. 1995k. Great Lakes Water Quality Initiative Technical Support Document for the Procedure
to Determine Bioaccumulation Factors. EPA-820-B-95-005. Office of Water, Washington, B.C.
March.
U.S. EPA. 19951. "Waste Technologies Industries Screening Ecological Risk Assessment (SERA):
Evaluation of Potential Risk from Exposure to Routine Operating Emissions." Volume VI. U.S.
EPA Region 5. Chicago, Illinois.
U.S. EPA. 1996a. "Ecotox Thresholds." ECO Update. Volume 3. Number 2. Office of Solid Waste
and Emergency Response. Washington, B.C. EPA 540/F-95/038. January.
U.S. EPA. 1996b. "Guidance for Total Organics." EPA/600/R-96/036. NTIS PB97-118533.
November.
U.S. EPA. 1996c. "Guideline on Air Quality Models." Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations Part 51,
Appendix W. September.
U.S. EPA. 1996d. "Memorandum Regarding Johnston Atoll Chemical Agent Bisposal System (JACABS)
Risk Assessment Issues." From Borothy Canter to Patrick Wilson. July 24.
U.S. EPA. 1996e. Meteorological Processor For Regulatory Models User's Guide. EPA-454/B-96-002.
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Emissions Monitoring and Analysis Bivision.
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. August.
U.S. EPA. 1996g. "Report on the U.S. EPA Technical Workshop on WTI Incinerator Risk Assessment
Issues." U.S. EPA Office of Research and Bevelopment Risk Assessment Forum. Washington,
B.C. EPA/63O/R-96/001. May
U.S. EPA. 1996h. "Response to Comments Regarding the Screening Level Risk Assessment for the Brake
Chemical Company Superfund Site Incinerator."
U.S. EPA. 1996L User's Guide for Exlnter 1.0. Draft Version. U.S. EPA Region 6 Multimedia
Planning and Permitting Bivision. Center for Combustion Science and Engineering. Ballas,
Texas. EPA/R6-096-0004. October.
U.S. EPA. 1996J. PCBs: Cancer Dose-Response Assessment and Application to Environmental
Mixtures. National Center for Environmental Assessment, Office of Research and Bevelopment.
EPA/600/P-96/001F. September.
U.S. EPA. 1996k. "Accidental Release Prevention Requirements: Risk Management Programs Under
Clean Air Act Section 112(r)(7)." Federal Register. 61FR31667. Volume 61. Number 120.
June 20.
U.S. EPA. 19961. "Formation of Bioxin-Like PICs Buring Incineration of Hazardous Wastes."
Memorandum to the Record. Borothy Canter. June 21.
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering R-l 9
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
References August 1999
U.S. EPA. 1996m. "Internal Memorandum Regarding JACADS Risk-Related Issues." From Timothy
Fields, Jr., Deputy Assistant Administrator, OSWER. To Julie Anderson, Director, Waste
Management Division. October 2.
U.S. EPA. 1996n. Review and Comments of EPA 's Peer Review Panel on the Risk Assessment in
Support of a Proposed Rule for Technical Standards for Emissions from Combustion Units
Burning Hazardous Wastes.
U.S. EPA. 1997a. "Development of a Hazardous Waste Incinerator Target Analyte List of Products of
Incomplete Combustion, Draft Final Report". National Risk Management Research Laboratory,
Air Pollution Prevention and Control Division, U.S. EPA. Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina. July 25.
U.S. EPA. 1997b. Mercury Study Report to Congress, Volumes I through VIII. Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards and ORD. EPA/452/R-97-001. December.
U.S. EPA. 1997c. Ecological Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund: Process for Designing and
Conducting Ecological Risk Assessments. Interim Final. Environmental Response Team. Edison,
New Jersey. June 5.
U.S. EPA. 1997d. Model Parameter Sensitivity Analysis. Prepared by The Air Group - Dallas for U.S.
EPA Region 6 Center for Combustion Science and Engineering.
U.S. EPA. 1998a. The Inventory of Sources of Dioxin in the United States. External Review Draft.
Office of Research and Development, National Center for Environmental Assessment, U.S. EPA.
EPA/600/P-98/002As. April.
U.S. EPA. 1998b. Guidance on Collection of Emissions Data to Support Site-Specific Risk Assessments
at Hazardous Waste Combustion Facilities. Internal Review Draft. Prepared by EPA Region 4
and the Office of Solid Waste.
U.S. EPA. 1998c. Human Health Risk Assessment Protocol for Hazardous Waste Combustion
Facilitites. External Peer Review Draft. U.S. EPA Region 6 and U.S. EPA OSW. Volumes 1-3.
EPA530-D-98-001A. July.
U.S. EPA. 1998d. Guidelines for Ecological Risk Assessment. Office of Research and Development.
Washington, D.C. EPA/630/R-95/002Fa. Federal Register 63FR26846. Volume 63. May 14.
U.S. EPA. In Press. Methodology for Assessing Health Risks Associated with Multiple Exposure
Pathways to Combustor Emissions. Environmental Criteria and Assessment Office. ORD.
Cincinnati, Ohio.
U.S. EPA. omnibus; 40 CFR Part 270.32(b)(2).
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) . 1979. "An Ecological Characterization Study of the Chenier Plain
Coastal Ecosystem of Louisiana and Texas." FWS/OBS-78/9. National Coastal Ecosystem
Team, Office of Biological Services. U.S. Department of the Interior, Slidell, Louisiana.
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering R-20
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
References August 1999
U.S. FWS (1980). "Evaluating Soil Contamination." Biological Report 90(2). July.
Valentine, R.L. 1986. "Nonbiological Transformation." Vadose Zone Modeling of Organic Pollutants.
S.C. Hern and S.M. Melacon, Editors. Lewis Publishers, Inc. Chelsea, Michigan.
Valentine, R.L., and J. Schnoor. 1986. "Biotransformation." Vadose Zone Modeling of Organic
Pollutants. S.C. Hern and S.M. Melancon, Editors. Lewis Publishers, Inc. Chelsea, Michigan.
van den Berg, M.M.H.E., W.L.M. Thomas, and N.M. van Straalen. 1998. "The Food Web Approach in
Ecotoxicological Risk Assessment." Human and Ecological Risk Assessment. Volume 4.
Pages 49-5 5.
Vanoni, V.A. 1975. Sediment Engineering. American Society of Civil Engineers. New York, NY.
Pages 460-463.
Walker, M.K., and R.E. Peterson. 1992. "Potencies of Polychlorinated Dibenzo-p-dioxin, Dibenzofuran,
and Biphenyl Congeners, Relative to 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin, for Producing Early
Life Stage Mortality in Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss).'" Aquatic Toxicology. Volume
21. Pages 219-238.
Washington Administrative Code. 1991. "Sediment Management Standards." 173-204. Department of
Ecology.
Washington State Department of Ecology. 1994. "Creation of Freshwater Sediment Quality Database and
Preliminary Analysis of Freshwater Apparent Effects Thresholds." June.
Weast, R.C. 1986. Handbook oj'Chemistry and Physics. 66nd Edition. Cleveland, Ohio. CRC Press.
Wikstrom, Evalena, G. Lofvenius, C. Rappe, and S. Marklund. 1996. "Influence of Level and Form of
Chlorine on the Formation of Chlorinated Dioxins, Dibenzofurans, and Benzenes during
Combustion of an Artificial Fuel in a Laboratory Reactor." Environmental Science and
Technology. Volume 30. Pages 1637-1644. May.
Will, M.E., and G.W. Suter II. 1995a. "Toxicological Benchmarks for Potential Contaminants of
Concern for Effects on Soil and Litter Invertebrates and Heterotrophic Processes."
ES/ER/TM/126/R1. Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Oak Ridge, Tennessee.
Will, M.E., and G.W. Suter II. 1995b. "Toxicological Benchmarks for Screening Potential Contaminants
of Concern for Effects on Terrestrial Plants: 1995 Revision." ES/ER/TM-85/R2. Oak Ridge
National Laboratory. Oak Ridge, Tennessee.
Witby, K.T. 1978. "The Physical Characteristics of Sulfur Aerosols." Atmospheric Environment.
12:135-159.
World Health Organization (WHO). 1997. Meeting on the Derivation of Toxic Equivalency Factors
(TEFs) for PCBs, PCDDs, PCDFs, and Other Dioxin-like Compounds for Humans and Wildlife.
Institute of Environmental Medicine, Karolinska Institute. Stockholm, Sweden. June 15-18. Draft
Report, July 30, 1997 Version.
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering R-21
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
References August 1999
Wright, D.R. and R.D. Hamilton. 1982. "Release of Methyl Mercury from Sediments: Effects of Mercury
Concentration, Low Temperature, and Nutrient Addition." Can JFish Aquat Sci 39: 1459-1466.
Xun, L., E. R. Campbell and J.W.M. Rudd. 1987. "Measurements of Specific Rates of Net Methyl
Mercury Production in the Water Column and Surface Sediments of Acidified and Circumeneutral
Lakes." Can J Fish Aquat Sci 44: 750-757.
Zabel, E.W., P.M. Cook, and R.E. Peterson. 1995. "Toxic Equivalency Factors of Polychlorinated
Dibenzo-p-dioxin, Dibenzofuran, and Biphenyl Congeners Based on Early Life Stage Mortality in
Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss}.'" Aquatic Toxicology. Volume 31. Pages 315-328. As
cited in WHO 1997.
Zeiner, B.C., W.F. Laudenslayer, K.E. Mayer, and M. White. 1990. California's Wildlife. Volume 2.
Birds. Department of Fish and Game. California.
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering R-22
-------
United States Solid Waste and EPA530-D-99-001B
Environmental Protection Emergency Response August 1999
Agency (5305W) www.epa.gov/osw
v>EPA Screening Level Ecological
Risk Assessment Protocol
for Hazardous Waste
Combustion
Volume Two
Appendix A
Peer Review Draft
Printed on paper that contains at least 20 percent postconsumer fiber
-------
-------
APPENDIX A
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC DATA
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
August 1999
A-l CHEMICALS FOR CONSIDERATION AS COMPOUNDS OF
POTENTIAL CONCERN
A-2 COMPOUND SPECIFIC PARAMETER VALUES
-------
-------
APPENDIX A-l
INFORMATION ON COMPOUNDS OF POTENTIAL INTEREST
-------
-------
TABLE A-1
INFORMATION ON COMPOUNDS OF POTENTIAL INTEREST
(Page 1 of 30)
CAS Number
50-00-0
50-06-6
50-07-7
50-18-0
50-29-3
50-32-8
50-55-5
51-28-5
51-43-4
51-52-5
51-79-6
52-85-7
53-70-3
53-96-3
54-11-5
55-18-5
55-38-9
55-63-0
55-91-4
56-04-2
Compound Name
Formaldehyde (methylene oxide)
Phenobarbital
Mitomycin
Cyclophosphamide
4,4'-DDT
Benzo(a)pyrene
Reserpine
2,4-Dinitrophenol
Epinephrine
Propylthiouracil
Ethyl carbamate (urethane)
Famphur
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
2-Acetylaminofluorene
Nicotine
Nitrosodiethylamine
Fenthion
Nitroglycerine
Diisopropylfluorophosphate (DFP)
Methylthiouracil
o x
sl
.3 §
"8 &K
•£ < K?
a«t
.§ N 0
IIs
gg
o o
K009, K010, K038, K040, K156, K157
F032, F034, F037, F038, K001, K022, K035, K141,
K142, K144, K145, K147, K148
K001
F032, F034, K022, K141, K142, K144, K145, K147,
K148
Chemical-Specific Data
Available
X
X
X
X
X
PICs Recommended by
U.S. EPA (1994a) for Risk
Assessments
U.S. EPA Compounds
Identified in Combustion
Unit Emissions (1993)
X
X
U.S. EPA Recommended
and Potential PICs
(1994b)
X
X
X
X
X
PICs in Stack Emissions
Actually Detected
X
Note: See Table A-1 References and Discussion (Appendix A-1) for explanation of the information presented.
A-1-1
-------
TABLE A-1
INFORMATION ON COMPOUNDS OF POTENTIAL INTEREST
(Page 2 of 30)
CAS Number
56-23-5
56-38-2
56-49-5
56-53-1
56-55-3
56-57-5
56-72-4
57-12-5
57-14-7
57-24-9
57-41-0
57-57-8
57-74-9
57-97-6
58-89-9
58-89-9
58-90-2
59-50-7
59-89-2
60-09-3
60-11-7
Compound Name
Carbon tetrachloride
Parathion
3-Methylcholanthrene
Diethylstilbestrol
Benzo(a)anthracene
Nitroquinoline- 1-oxide
Coumaphos
Cyanide
1,1-Dimethyl hydrazine
Strychnine
5,5-Diphenylhydantoin
beta-Propiolactone
Chlordane
7, 12-Dimethylbenz(a)anthracene
gamma-BHC (Lindane)
Lindane (all isomers)
2,3,4,6-Tetrachlorophenol
4-Chloro-3-methylphenol (p-chloro-m-cresol)
N-Nitrosomorpholine
Aminoazobenzene
Dimethyl aminoazobenzene
o x
sl
.3 §
"8 &K
•s < t*
a«t
.§ N 0
IIs
gg
o o
F001, F024, F025, K016, K019, K020, K021, K073,
K116, K150, K151, K157
F032, F034, K001, K022, K035, K141, K142, K143,
K144, K145, K147, K148
K107, K108, K109, K110
K097
F020, F023, F027, F028, K001
F004, K001
Chemical-Specific Data
Available
X
X
X
X
X
X
PICs Recommended by
U.S. EPA (1994a) for Risk
Assessments
U.S. EPA Compounds
Identified in Combustion
Unit Emissions (1993)
X
X
U.S. EPA Recommended
and Potential PICs
(1994b)
X
X
X
X
X
X
PICs in Stack Emissions
Actually Detected
X
X
Note: See Table A-1 References and Discussion (Appendix A-1) for explanation of the information presented.
A-1-2
-------
TABLE A-1
INFORMATION ON COMPOUNDS OF POTENTIAL INTEREST
(Page 3 of 30)
CAS Number
60-34-4
60-35-5
60-51-5
60-57-1
61-82-5
62-38-4
62-44-2
62-50-0
62-53-3
62-55-5
62-56-6
62-73-7
62-74-8
62-75-9
63-25-2
64-17-5
64-18-6
64-64-7
64-67-5
65-85-0
66-27-3
66-75-1
Compound Name
Methyl hydrazine
Acetamide
Dimethoate
Dieldrin
Amitrole
Phenylmercury acetate
Phenacetin
Ethyl methanesulfonate
Aniline
Thioacetamide
Thiourea
Dichlorovos
Fluoroacetic acid, sodium salt
N-Nitrosodimethylamine
Carbaryl
Ethanol
Formic acid (methanoic acid)
Di-n-propylnitrosamine
Diethyl sulfate
Benzoic acid
Methyl methanesulfonate
Uracil mustard
o x
sl
.3 §
"8 SB
•£ < K?
a«t
% n o
IIs
§g
o o
K083, K103, K104, K112, K113
K156
K009, K010
Chemical-Specific Data
Available
X
X
X
X
X
X
PICs Recommended by
U.S. EPA (1994a) for Risk
Assessments
U.S. EPA Compounds
Identified in Combustion
Unit Emissions (1993)
U.S. EPA Recommended
and Potential PICs
(1994b)
X
X
X
X
PICs in Stack Emissions
Actually Detected
X
Note: See Table A-1 References and Discussion (Appendix A-1) for explanation of the information presented.
A-1-3
-------
TABLE A-1
INFORMATION ON COMPOUNDS OF POTENTIAL INTEREST
(Page 4 of 30)
CAS Number
67-56-1
67-64-1
67-66-3
67-72-1
68-12-2
70-25-7
70-30-4
71-43-2
71-55-6
72-20-8
72-33-3
72-43-5
72-54-8
72-55-9
72-57-1
74-83-9
74-87-3
74-88-4
74-90-8
Compound Name
Methanol
Acetone
Chloroform (trichloromethane)
Hexachloroethane (perchloroethane)
Dimethyl formamide
N-Methyl-N'-nitro-N-nitrosoguanidine (MNNG)
Hexachlorophene
Benzene
Methyl chloroform (1,1,1-trichloroethane)
Endrin
Mestranol
Methoxychlor
4,4'-DDD
DDE
Trypan blue
Bromomethane (methylbromide)
Chloromethane (methyl chloride)
Methyl iodide (lodomethane)
Hydrogen cyanide
o x
sl
.3 §
"8 &K
•s < t*
a«t
.§ N 0
IIs
gg
o o
F024, F025, K009, K010, K019, K020, K021, K029,
K073, K116, K149, K150, K151, K158
F024, F025, K016, K030, K073
F005, F024, F025, F037, F038, K085, K104, K105,
K141, K142, K143, K144, K145, K147, K151, K159
F001, F002, F024, F025, K019, K020, K028, K029,
K096
K131, K132
F024, F025, K009, K010, K149, K150, K157
K011, K013
Chemical-Specific Data
Available
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
PICs Recommended by
U.S. EPA (1994a) for Risk
Assessments
U.S. EPA Compounds
Identified in Combustion
Unit Emissions (1993)
X
X
X
X
X
X
U.S. EPA Recommended
and Potential PICs
(1994b)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
PICs in Stack Emissions
Actually Detected
X
X
X
X
X
X
Note: See Table A-1 References and Discussion (Appendix A-1) for explanation of the information presented.
A-1-4
-------
TABLE A-1
INFORMATION ON COMPOUNDS OF POTENTIAL INTEREST
(Page 5 of 30)
CAS Number
74-93-1
74-95-3
74-97-5
75-00-3
75-01-4
75-05-8
75-07-0
75-09-2
75-15-0
75-21-8
75-25-2
75-27-4
75-29-6
75-34-3
75-35-4
75-36-5
75-44-5
75-45-6
75-55-8
75-56-9
75-60-5
Compound Name
Thiomethanol
Methylene bromide
Bromochloromethane
Chloroethane
Vinyl chloride
Acetonitrile
Acetaldehyde
Methylene chloride
Carbon disulfide
Ethylene oxide
Bromoform
Bromodichloromethane
2-Chloropropane
1 , 1-Dichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethene
Acetyl chloride
Phosgene (hydrogen phosphide)
Chlorodifluoromethane
1,2-Propylenimine (2-methyl aziridine)
Propylene oxide
Cacodylic acid
o x
sl
.3 §
"8 SB
•£ < K?
a«t
.§ N 0
IIs
gg
o u
F024, F025, K019, K020, K028, K029
K011, K013, K014
F001, F002, F024, F025, K009, K010, K156, K157,
K158
F005
F024, F025
F024, F025, K019, K020, K029
K116
Chemical-Specific Data
Available
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
PICs Recommended by
U.S. EPA (1994a) for Risk
Assessments
U.S. EPA Compounds
Identified in Combustion
Unit Emissions (1993)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
U.S. EPA Recommended
and Potential PICs
(1994b)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
PICs in Stack Emissions
Actually Detected
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Note: See Table A-1 References and Discussion (Appendix A-1) for explanation of the information presented.
A-1-5
-------
TABLE A-1
INFORMATION ON COMPOUNDS OF POTENTIAL INTEREST
(Page 6 of 30)
CAS Number
75-69-4
75-70-7
75-71-8
75-86-5
75-87-6
76-01-7
76-13-1
76-44-8
77-47-4
77-78-1
78-00-2
78-32-0
78-34-2
78-59-1
78-83-1
78-87-5
78-93-3
78-97-7
79-00-5
79-01-6
79-06-1
Compound Name
Trichlorofluoromethane (Freon 11)
Trichloromethanethiol
Dichlorodifluoromethane
2-Methylactonitrile
Chloral
Pentachloroethane
1 , 1 ,2-Trichloro- 1 ,2,2-trifluoroethane(Freon 1 13)
Heptachlor
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Dimethyl sulfate
Tetraethyl lead
Tri-p-tolyl phosphate
Dioxathion
Isophorone
Isobutyl alcohol
1 ,2-Dichloropropane
2-Butanone (methyl ethyl ketone)
2-Hydroxypropionitrile
1 , 1 ,2-Trichloroethane
Trichloroethene
Acrylamide
o x
sl
.3 §
"8 &K
•s < t*
a«t
% n o
IIs
§g
o o
F001, F002
F024, F025
F001, F002
K097
F024, F025, K032, K033, K034
K131
F005
F005
F002, F024, F025, K019, K020, K095, K096
F001, F002, F024, F025, K018, K019, K020
K014
Chemical-Specific Data
Available
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
PICs Recommended by
U.S. EPA (1994a) for Risk
Assessments
U.S. EPA Compounds
Identified in Combustion
Unit Emissions (1993)
X
X
X
U.S. EPA Recommended
and Potential PICs
(1994b)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
PICs in Stack Emissions
Actually Detected
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Note: See Table A-1 References and Discussion (Appendix A-1) for explanation of the information presented.
A-1-6
-------
TABLE A-1
INFORMATION ON COMPOUNDS OF POTENTIAL INTEREST
(Page 7 of 30)
CAS Number
79-10-7
79-11-8
79-19-6
79-20-9
79-22-1
79-34-5
79-44-7
79-46-9
80-62-6
81-07-2
81-81-2
82-68-8
83-32-9
84-66-2
84-74-2
85-01-8
85-44-9
85-68-7
86-30-6
86-50-0
86-73-7
Compound Name
Acrylic acid
Chloroacetic acid
Thiosemicarbazide
Methyl acetate
Methyl chlorocarbonate
1 , 1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
Dimethyl carbamoyl chloride
2-Nitropropane
Methyl methacrylate
Saccharin
Warfarin
Pentachloronitrobenzene (PCNB)
Acenaphthene
Diethyl phthalate
Dibutyl phthalate
Phenanthrene
Phthalic anhydride (1,2-benzenedicarboxylic
anhydride)
Butylbenzyl phthalate
N-Nitrosodiphenylamine
Azinphos-methyl
Fluorene
o x
sl
.3 §
"8 SB
•£ < K?
a«t
% n o
IIs
§g
o o
F024, F025, K019, K020, K030, K073, K095, K150
F005
K022
K022
K023, K024, K093, K094
K022
Chemical-Specific Data
Available
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
PICs Recommended by
U.S. EPA (1994a) for Risk
Assessments
U.S. EPA Compounds
Identified in Combustion
Unit Emissions (1993)
X
X
X
X
U.S. EPA Recommended
and Potential PICs
(1994b)
X
X
X
X
X
X
PICs in Stack Emissions
Actually Detected
X
X
X
Note: See Table A-1 References and Discussion (Appendix A-1) for explanation of the information presented.
A-1-7
-------
TABLE A-1
INFORMATION ON COMPOUNDS OF POTENTIAL INTEREST
(Page 8 of 30)
CAS Number
86-88-4
87-65-0
87-68-3
87-86-5
88-06-2
88-74-4
88-75-5
88-85-7
90-04-0
90-13-1
91-20-3
91-22-5
91-57-6
91-58-7
91-59-8
91-80-5
91-94-1
92-52-4
92-67-1
92-87-5
92-93-3
Compound Name
alpha-Naphthylthiourea
2,6-Dichlorophenol
Hexachlorobutadiene (perchlorobutadiene)
Pentachlorophenol
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
o-Nitroaniline (2-nitroaniline)
2-Nitrophenol
Dinoseb
o-Anisidine
1-CWoronaphthalene
Naphthalene
Quinoline
2-Methylnaphthalene
2-Chloronaphthalene
2-Naphthylamine (beta-naphthylamine)
Methapyrilene
3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine
Biphenyl
4-Aminobiphenyl
Benzidine
4-Nitrobiphenyl
o x
sl
.3 §
"8 &K
•s < t*
a«t
% n o
IIs
§g
o o
K043
F024, F025, K016, K018, K030
F021, F027, F028, F032, K001
F020, F023, F027, F028, K001, K043, K099, K105
F024, F025, F034, K001, K022, K035, K060, K087,
K145
Chemical-Specific Data
Available
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
PICs Recommended by
U.S. EPA (1994a) for Risk
Assessments
U.S. EPA Compounds
Identified in Combustion
Unit Emissions (1993)
X
X
X
X
X
U.S. EPA Recommended
and Potential PICs
(1994b)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
PICs in Stack Emissions
Actually Detected
X
X
X
X
X
Note: See Table A-1 References and Discussion (Appendix A-1) for explanation of the information presented.
A-1-8
-------
TABLE A-1
INFORMATION ON COMPOUNDS OF POTENTIAL INTEREST
(Page 9 of 30)
CAS Number
93-72-1
94-58-6
94-59-7
94-75-7
95-06-7
95-47-6
95-48-7
95-50-1
95-53-4
95-57-8
95-79-4
95-80-7
95-83-0
95-94-3
95-95-4
96-09-3
96-12-8
96-18-4
96-23-1
96-45-7
97-63-2
98-01-1
Compound Name
Silvex
Dihydrosaffrole
Safrole (5-(2-Propenyl)- 1 ,3-benzodioxole)
2,4-D
Sulfallate
o-Xylene (dimethyl benzene)
o-Cresol
1 ,2-Dichlorobenzene
o-Toluidine
2-Chlorophenol
5-Chloro-2-methylaniline
2,4-Toluene diamine
4-Chloro- 1 ,2-phenylenediamine
1 ,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene
2,4,5-Trichlorophenol
Styrene oxide
1 ,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane
1 ,2,3-Trichloropropane
1 ,3-DicWoro-2-propanol
Ethylene thiourea
Ethyl methacrylate
Furfural
o x
sl
.3 §
"8 &K
•s < t*
a«t
% n o
IIs
§g
o o
F027
F004
F002, F024, F025, K042, K085, K105
K112, K113, K114
K001
K112, K113, K114, K115, K027
K085, K149, K150, K151
F020, F023, F027, F028, K001
K123, K124, K125, K126
Chemical-Specific Data
Available
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
PICs Recommended by
U.S. EPA (1994a) for Risk
Assessments
U.S. EPA Compounds
Identified in Combustion
Unit Emissions (1993)
X
X
X
X
X
U.S. EPA Recommended
and Potential PICs
(1994b)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
PICs in Stack Emissions
Actually Detected
X
X
X
X
Note: See Table A-1 References and Discussion (Appendix A-1) for explanation of the information presented.
A-1-9
-------
TABLE A-1
INFORMATION ON COMPOUNDS OF POTENTIAL INTEREST
(Page 10 of 30)
CAS Number
98-07-7
98-82-8
98-83-9
98-86-2
98-87-3
98-95-3
99-09-2
99-35-4
99-55-8
99-59-2
99-65-0
100-01-6
100-02-7
100-25-4
100-41-4
100-42-5
100-44-7
100-51-6
100-52-7
100-75-4
101-05-3
101-14-4
Compound Name
Benzotrichloride
Cumene
Methyl styrene (mixed isomers)
Acetophenone
Benzal chloride
Nitrobenzene
3-Nitroaniline
1,3,5-Trinitrobenzene
5-Nitro-o-toluidine
5-Nitro-o-anisidine
1 ,3-Dinitrobenzene
4-Nitroaniline (p-nitroaniline)
4-Nitrophenol (p-nitrophenol)
1 ,4-Dinitrobenzene (p-dinitrobenzene)
Ethylbenzene
Styrene
Benzyl chloride
Benzyl alcohol
Benzaldehyde
N-Nitrosopiperidine
Anilazine
4,4'-Methylenebis (2-chloroaniline)
o x
sl
.3 §
"8 &K
•s < t*
a«t
% n o
IIs
§g
o o
K015, K149
F004, K083, K103, K104
K025
K015, K085, K149
Chemical-Specific Data
Available
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
PICs Recommended by
U.S. EPA (1994a) for Risk
Assessments
U.S. EPA Compounds
Identified in Combustion
Unit Emissions (1993)
X
X
X
X
X
U.S. EPA Recommended
and Potential PICs
(1994b)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
PICs in Stack Emissions
Actually Detected
X
X
X
X
Note: See Table A-1 References and Discussion (Appendix A-1) for explanation of the information presented.
A-1-10
-------
TABLE A-1
INFORMATION ON COMPOUNDS OF POTENTIAL INTEREST
(Page 11 of 30)
CAS Number
101-27-9
101-55-3
101-61-1
101-68-8
101-79-9
101-80-4
102-82-9
103-33-3
103-85-5
105-60-2
105-67-9
106-42-3
106-44-5
106-46-7
106-47-8
106-49-0
106-50-3
106-51-4
106-88-7
106-89-8
106-93-4
106-99-0
Compound Name
Barban
4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether
4,4'-Methylenebis (N,N-dimethylaniline)
Methylene diphenyl diisocyanate (MDI)
4,4-Methylenedianiline
4,4'-Oxydianiline
Tributylamine
Azobenzene
Phenylthiourea
Caprolactam
2,4-Dimethylphenol
p-Xylene (dimethyl benzene)
p-Cresol (4-methyl phenol)
1 ,4-Dichlorobenzene
p-Chloroaniline
p-Toluidine
p-Phenylenediamine
Quinone
1 ,2-Epoxybutane
Epichlorohydrin (l-chloro-2,3 epoxypropane)
Ethylene dibromide
1,3-Butadiene
o x
sl
.3 §
"8 &K
•s < t*
a«t
% n o
IIs
§g
o o
K001
F004
F024, F025, K085, K105, K149, K150
K112, K113, K114
K017
K117, K118, K136
Chemical-Specific Data
Available
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
PICs Recommended by
U.S. EPA (1994a) for Risk
Assessments
U.S. EPA Compounds
Identified in Combustion
Unit Emissions (1993)
X
X
X
X
U.S. EPA Recommended
and Potential PICs
(1994b)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
PICs in Stack Emissions
Actually Detected
X
X
X
Note: See Table A-1 References and Discussion (Appendix A-1) for explanation of the information presented.
A-1-11
-------
TABLE A-1
INFORMATION ON COMPOUNDS OF POTENTIAL INTEREST
(Page 12 of 30)
CAS Number
107-02-8
107-05-1
107-06-2
107-07-3
107-10-8
107-12-0
107-13-1
107-18-6
107-19-7
107-20-0
107-21-1
107-30-2
107-49-3
107-98-2
108-05-4
108-10-1
108-18-9
108-31-6
108-38-3
108-39-4
108-46-3
Compound Name
Acrolein
Allyl chloride
1,2-Dichloroethane (ethylene dichloride)
2-Chloroethanol
n-Propylamine
Propionitrile
Acrylonitrile
Allyl alcohol
Propargyl alcohol
Chloroacetaldehyde
Ethylene glycol (1,2-ethanediol)
Chloromethyl methyl ether
Tetraethyl pyrophosphate
Propylene glycol monomethyl ether
Vinyl acetate
Methyl isobutyl ketone
Diisopropylamine
Maleic anhydride
m-Xylene (dimethyl benzene)
m-Cresol
Resorcinol
o x
sl
.3 §
"8 SB
•£ < K?
a«t
3 N o
IIs
gg
o o
F024, F025
F024, F025, K018, K019, K020, K029, K030, K096
K011, K013
K010
K023, K093
F004
Chemical-Specific Data
Available
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
PICs Recommended by
U.S. EPA (1994a) for Risk
Assessments
U.S. EPA Compounds
Identified in Combustion
Unit Emissions (1993)
X
X
X
U.S. EPA Recommended
and Potential PICs
(1994b)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
PICs in Stack Emissions
Actually Detected
X
X
X
Note: See Table A-1 References and Discussion (Appendix A-1) for explanation of the information presented.
A-1-12
-------
TABLE A-1
INFORMATION ON COMPOUNDS OF POTENTIAL INTEREST
(Page 13 of 30)
CAS Number
108-60-1
108-67-8
108-87-2
108-88-3
108-90-7
108-95-2
108-98-5
109-06-8
109-77-3
109-88-4
109-89-7
109-99-9
110-54-3
110-75-8
110-80-5
110-86-1
111-15-9
111-42-2
111-44-4
111-54-6
111-76-2
111-91-1
Compound Name
bis (2-Chloroisopropyl)ether
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene
Methylcyclohexane
Toluene
Chlorobenzene
Phenol
Thiophenol (benzenethiol)
2-Picoline
Malononitrile
2-Methoxyethanol
Diethylamine
Tetrahydrofuran
n-Hexane
2-Chloroethylvinyl ether
Ethylene glycol monoethyl ether
Pyridine
Ethylene glycol monoethyl ether acetate
Diethanolamine
bis(2-chloroethyl)ether
Ethylene(bis)dithiocarbamic acid
Ethylene glycol monobutyl ether
bis(2-chloroethoxy)methane
o x
sl
.3 §
"8 &K
•£ < K?
a«t
.§ N 0
IIs
gg
o u
F005, F024, F025, K015, K036, K037, K149, K151
F002, F024, F025, K015, K105, K149
K001, K022, K087
K026
F005
F005, K026, K157
K017
Chemical-Specific Data
Available
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
PICs Recommended by
U.S. EPA (1994a) for Risk
Assessments
U.S. EPA Compounds
Identified in Combustion
Unit Emissions (1993)
X
X
X
X
X
U.S. EPA Recommended
and Potential PICs
(1994b)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
PICs in Stack Emissions
Actually Detected
X
X
X
X
X
Note: See Table A-1 References and Discussion (Appendix A-1) for explanation of the information presented.
A-1-13
-------
TABLE A-1
INFORMATION ON COMPOUNDS OF POTENTIAL INTEREST
(Page 14 of 30)
CAS Number
114-26-1
115-02-6
115-29-7
115-90-2
116-06-3
117-79-3
117-80-6
117-81-7
117-84-0
118-74-1
118-96-7
119-90-4
119-93-7
120-12-7
120-58-1
120-62-7
120-71-8
120-80-9
120-82-1
120-83-2
121-14-2
Compound Name
Propoxur (Bayton)
Azaserine
Endosulfan
Fensulfothion
Aldicarb
2-Aminoanthraquinone
Dichlone
bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Di-n-octylphthalate
Hexachlorobenzene (perchlorobenzene)
2,4,6-Trinitrotoluene
3,3'-Dimethoxybenzidine
3,3'-Dimethylbenzidine
Anthracene
Isosafrole
Piperonyl sulfoxide
p-Cresidine
Catechol
1 ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
2,4-Dichlorophenol
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
o x
sl
.3 §
"8 &K
•s < t*
a«t
% n o
IIs
§g
o o
F024, F025, K016, K018, K030, K042, K085, K149,
K150, K151
K022
F024, F025, K085, K150
K043, K099
K025, Kill
Chemical-Specific Data
Available
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
PICs Recommended by
U.S. EPA (1994a) for Risk
Assessments
U.S. EPA Compounds
Identified in Combustion
Unit Emissions (1993)
X
X
X
X
X
U.S. EPA Recommended
and Potential PICs
(1994b)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
PICs in Stack Emissions
Actually Detected
X
X
X
Note: See Table A-1 References and Discussion (Appendix A-1) for explanation of the information presented.
A-1-14
-------
TABLE A-1
INFORMATION ON COMPOUNDS OF POTENTIAL INTEREST
(Page 15 of 30)
CAS Number
121-44-8
121-69-7
121-75-5
122-09-8
122-39-4
122-66-7
123-31-9
123-33-1
123-38-6
123-63-7
123-91-1
124-48-1
126-68-1
126-72-7
126-75-0
126-98-7
126-99-8
127-18-4
129-00-0
130-15-4
131-11-3
Compound Name
Triethylamine
N,N-Diethyl aniline
Malathion
a,a-Dimethylphenethylamine
Diphenylamine
1 ,2-Diphenylhydrazine
Hydroquinone
Maleic hydrazide
Propionaldehyde
Paraldehyde
Dioxane (1,4-dioxane)
Chlorodibromomethane
0,0,0-Triethyl phosphorothioate
tris(2,3-dibromopropyl) phosphate
Demeton-S
Methacrylonitrile
Chloroprene
Tetrachloroethene (Perchloroethylene)
Pyrene
1 ,4-Naphthoquinone
Dimethyl Phthalate
o x
sl
.3 §
"8 &K
•£ < t*
a«t
% n o
IIs
§g
o o
K156, K157
K083, K104
K009, K010, K026
F001, F002, F024, F025, K016, K019, K020, K073,
K116, K150, K151
K022
K024
Chemical-Specific Data
Available
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
PICs Recommended by
U.S. EPA (1994a) for Risk
Assessments
U.S. EPA Compounds
Identified in Combustion
Unit Emissions (1993)
X
X
X
X
U.S. EPA Recommended
and Potential PICs
(1994b)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
PICs in Stack Emissions
Actually Detected
X
X
X
Note: See Table A-1 References and Discussion (Appendix A-1) for explanation of the information presented.
A-1-15
-------
TABLE A-1
INFORMATION ON COMPOUNDS OF POTENTIAL INTEREST
(Page 16 of 30)
CAS Number
131-89-5
131-89-5
132-32-1
132-64-9
133-06-2
133-90-4
134-32-7
137-17-7
137-26-8
140-57-8
140-88-5
141-66-2
143-33-9
143-50-0
145-73-3
148-82-3
151-50-8
151-56-4
152-16-9
156-60-5
156-62-7
189-55-9
Compound Name
2-Cyclohexyl-4,6-dinitro-phenol
2-Cycloyhexyl-4,6-dinitrophenol
3-Amino-9-ethylcarbazole
Dibenzofuran
Captan
Chloramben
1-Naphthylamine (alpha-naphthylamine)
2,4,5-Trimethylaniline
Thiram
Aramite
Ethyl acrylate
Dicrotophos
Sodium cyanide
Kepone
Endothall
Melphalan
Potassium cyanide
Ethylene imine (Aziridine)
Octamethyl pyrophosphoramide
(trans) 1 ,2-dichloroethene
Calcium cyanamide
Dibenzo(a,i)pyrene
o x
sl
.3 §
"8 &K
•s < t*
a«t
% n o
IIs
§g
o o
F007, F008, F009, F010, F011
F007, F008, F009, F010, F011
F024, F025
Chemical-Specific Data
Available
X
X
X
PICs Recommended by
U.S. EPA (1994a) for Risk
Assessments
U.S. EPA Compounds
Identified in Combustion
Unit Emissions (1993)
X
X
U.S. EPA Recommended
and Potential PICs
(1994b)
X
X
X
PICs in Stack Emissions
Actually Detected
Note: See Table A-1 References and Discussion (Appendix A-1) for explanation of the information presented.
A-1-16
-------
TABLE A-1
INFORMATION ON COMPOUNDS OF POTENTIAL INTEREST
(Page 17 of 30)
CAS Number
191-24-2
192-65-4
192-97-2
193-39-5
205-82-3
205-99-2
206-44-0
207-08-9
208-96-8
218-01-9
224-42-0
225-51-4
297-97-2
297-97-2
298-00-0
298-02-2
298-03-3
298-04-4
299-84-3
300-76-5
Compound Name
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Dibenzo(a,e)pyrene
Benzo(e)pyrene
Indeno(l ,2,3-cd)pyrene
BenzoQfluoranthene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene (3,4-Benzofluoranthene)
Fluoranthene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Acenaphthalene
Chrysene
Dibenz(a,j)acridine
Benz[c]acridine
O,O-Diethyl O-pyrazinyl phosphorothioate
Thionazine
Methyl parathion
Phorate
Demeton-O
Disulfoton
Ronnel
Naled
o x
sl
.3 §
"8 &K
•s < t*
a«t
.§ N 0
IIs
gg
o o
K022
K022
F032, F034, K001, K022, K035, K141, K142, K147,
K148
K022
K001, K022, K035, K141, K142, K143, K144, K147,
K148
K001, K022, K035
F034, K022, K141, K142, K143, K144, K147, K148
K001, K022, K035
F037, F038, K001, K022, K035
K038, K040
Chemical-Specific Data
Available
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
PICs Recommended by
U.S. EPA (1994a) for Risk
Assessments
U.S. EPA Compounds
Identified in Combustion
Unit Emissions (1993)
X
X
X
X
X
X
U.S. EPA Recommended
and Potential PICs
(1994b)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
PICs in Stack Emissions
Actually Detected
X
Note: See Table A-1 References and Discussion (Appendix A-1) for explanation of the information presented.
A-1-17
-------
TABLE A-1
INFORMATION ON COMPOUNDS OF POTENTIAL INTEREST
(Page 18 of 30)
CAS Number
302-01-2
302-17-0
303-34-1
305-03-3
309-00-2
311-45-5
315-18-4
319-84-6
319-85-7
319-86-8
321-60-8
334-88-3
353-50-4
357-57-3
367-12-4
460-00-4
460-19-5
463-58-1
465-73-6
470-90-6
479-45-8
492-80-8
Compound Name
Hydrazine
Chloral hydrate
Lasiocarpine
Chlorambucil
Aldrin
Diethyl-p-nitrophenyl phosphate
Mexacarbate
alpha-Hexachlorocyclohexane (alpha-BHC)
beta-Hexachlorocyclohexane (beta-BHC)
delta-BHC
2-Fluorobiphenyl
Diazomethane
Carbon oxyfluoride
Brucine
2-Fluorophenol
4-Bromofluorobenzene
Cyanogen (oxalonitrile)
Carbonyl sulfide
Isodrin
Chlorfenvinphos
Tetryl
Auramine
o x
sl
.3 §
"8 SB
•£ < K?
a«t
3 N o
IIs
gg
o o
F024
Chemical-Specific Data
Available
X
X
X
X
PICs Recommended by
U.S. EPA (1994a) for Risk
Assessments
U.S. EPA Compounds
Identified in Combustion
Unit Emissions (1993)
U.S. EPA Recommended
and Potential PICs
(1994b)
X
X
X
PICs in Stack Emissions
Actually Detected
Note: See Table A-1 References and Discussion (Appendix A-1) for explanation of the information presented.
A-1-18
-------
TABLE A-1
INFORMATION ON COMPOUNDS OF POTENTIAL INTEREST
(Page 19 of 30)
CAS Number
494-03-1
504-24-5
505-60-2
506-61-6
506-64-9
506-68-3
506-77-4
510-15-6
512-56-1
528-29-0
532-27-4
534-52-1
540-36-3
540-73-8
540-84-1
541-53-7
541-73-1
542-62-1
542-75-6
542-76-7
542-88-1
Compound Name
Chlornaphazin
4-Aminopyridine
Mustard gas
Potassium silver cyanide
Silver cyanide
Cyanogen bromide (bromocyanide)
Cyanogen chloride
Chlorobenzilate
Trimethyl phosphate
1 ,2-Dinitrobenzene (o-Dinitrobenzene)
2-Chloroacetophenone
4,6-Dinitro-o-cresol
1 ,4-Difluorobenzene
1 ,2-Dimethylhydrazine
2,2,4-Trimethylpentane
Dithiobiuret
1 ,3-Dichlorobenzene
Barium cyanide
1 ,3-Dichloropropene
3-Chloropropionitrile
bis(Chloromethyl)ether
o x
sl
.3 §
"8 SB
•£ < K?
a«t
.§ N 0
IIs
gg
o u
F006, F007, F008, F009, F010, F011, F012, F019,
K007, K088
F006, F012, F019, K007, K088
F004
F024, F025, K085, K105
K017
Chemical-Specific Data
Available
X
X
X
X
X
X
PICs Recommended by
U.S. EPA (1994a) for Risk
Assessments
U.S. EPA Compounds
Identified in Combustion
Unit Emissions (1993)
X
U.S. EPA Recommended
and Potential PICs
(1994b)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
PICs in Stack Emissions
Actually Detected
X
Note: See Table A-1 References and Discussion (Appendix A-1) for explanation of the information presented.
A-1-19
-------
TABLE A-1
INFORMATION ON COMPOUNDS OF POTENTIAL INTEREST
(Page 20 of 30)
CAS Number
544-92-3
557-19-7
557-21-1
563-12-2
563-68-8
584-84-9
590-60-2
591-08-2
591-78-6
592-01-8
593-60-2
598-31-2
602-87-9
606-20-2
608-93-5
615-53-2
621-64-7
623-40-5
624-83-9
628-86-4
630-10-4
630-20-6
Compound Name
Copper cyanide
Nickel cyanide
Zinc cyanide
Ethion
Thallium(I)acetate
2,4-Toluene diisocyanate
Bromoethene
l-Acetyl-2-thiourea
2-Hexanone (butyl methyl ketone)
Calcium cyanide
Vinyl bromide
Bromoacetone
5-Nitroacenaphthene
2,6-Dinitrotoluene
Pentachlorobenzene
N-Nitroso-N-methylurethane
N-Nitroso-di-n-propylamine
Toluene-2,6-diamine
Methyl isocyanate
Mercury fulminate
Selenourea
1,1, 1 ,2-Tetrachloroethane
o x
sl
.3 §
"8 SB
•£ < K?
a«t
.§ N 0
IIs
§g
o u
K027
F024, F025, K085, K149, K150, K151
F024, F025, K019, K020, K030, K095
Chemical-Specific Data
Available
X
X
X
X
X
PICs Recommended by
U.S. EPA (1994a) for Risk
Assessments
U.S. EPA Compounds
Identified in Combustion
Unit Emissions (1993)
X
X
U.S. EPA Recommended
and Potential PICs
(1994b)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
PICs in Stack Emissions
Actually Detected
X
Note: See Table A-1 References and Discussion (Appendix A-1) for explanation of the information presented.
A-1-20
-------
TABLE A-1
INFORMATION ON COMPOUNDS OF POTENTIAL INTEREST
(Page 21 of 30)
CAS Number
636-21-5
640-19-7
680-31-9
684-93-5
692-42-2
696-28-6
732-11-6
755-04-5
757-58-4
759-73-9
764-41-0
765-34-4
786-19-6
822-06-0
924-16-3
930-55-2
959-98-8
961-11-5
1024-57-3
1031-07-8
1116-54-7
1120-71-4
Compound Name
o-Toluidine hydrochloride
Fluoroacetamide
Hexamethylphosphoramide
N-Nitroso-N-methylurea
Diethylarsine
Dichlorophenylarsine
Phosmet
Titanium tetrachloride
Hexaethyl tetraphosphate
N-Nitroso-N-ethylurea
1 ,4-Dichloro-2-butene
Glycidylaldehyde
Carbophenothion
Hexamethylene- 1 ,5-diisocyanate
N-Nitroso-di-n-Buetylamine
N-Nitrosopyrrolidine
Endosulfan I
Tetrachlorvinphos
HeptacWor epoxide
Endosulfan sulfate
N-Nitrosodiethanolamine
1,3-Propane sultone
o x
sl
.3 §
"8 &K
•s < t*
a«t
% n o
IIs
§g
o o
Chemical-Specific Data
Available
X
X
X
PICs Recommended by
U.S. EPA (1994a) for Risk
Assessments
U.S. EPA Compounds
Identified in Combustion
Unit Emissions (1993)
U.S. EPA Recommended
and Potential PICs
(1994b)
X
X
X
X
X
PICs in Stack Emissions
Actually Detected
Note: See Table A-1 References and Discussion (Appendix A-1) for explanation of the information presented.
A-1-21
-------
TABLE A-1
INFORMATION ON COMPOUNDS OF POTENTIAL INTEREST
(Page 22 of 30)
CAS Number
1303-28-2
1314-32-5
1314-62-1
1319-77-3
1327-53-3
1330-20-7
1332-21-4
1335-32-6
1336-36-3
1338-23-4
1464-53-5
1563-66-2
1582-09-8
1615-80-1
1634-04-4
1718-51-0
1746-01-6
1836-75-5
1888-71-7
2037-26-5
2104-64-5
Compound Name
Arsenic pentoxide
Thallic oxide
Vanadium pentoxide
Cresols/cresylic acid (isomers and mixtures)
Arsenic trioxide
Xylene (total)
Asbestos
Lead subacetate
Polychlorinated biphenyls (209 congeners)
2-Butanone peroxide
1,2,3,4-Diepoxybutane
Carbofuran
Trifluralin
N,N'-Diethylhydrazine
Methyl tert butyl ether
Terphenyl-dl4
2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo(p)dioxin(TCDD)
Nitrofen
Hexachloropropene
Toluene-d8
EPN
o x
sl
.3 §
"8 &K
•s < t*
a«t
.§ N 0
IIs
gg
o u
F004
K156, K158
F020, F022, F023, F026, F027, F028, F032
Chemical-Specific Data
Available
X
X
X
PICs Recommended by
U.S. EPA (1994a) for Risk
Assessments
U.S. EPA Compounds
Identified in Combustion
Unit Emissions (1993)
X
X
X
U.S. EPA Recommended
and Potential PICs
(1994b)
X
X
X
PICs in Stack Emissions
Actually Detected
X
X
X
Note: See Table A-1 References and Discussion (Appendix A-1) for explanation of the information presented.
A-1-22
-------
TABLE A-1
INFORMATION ON COMPOUNDS OF POTENTIAL INTEREST
(Page 23 of 30)
CAS Number
2303-16-4
2310-17-0
2385-85-5
2425-06-1
2763-96-4
2921-88-5
3114-55-4
3288-58-2
3689-24-5
4170-30-3
4549-40-0
5131-60-2
5344-82-1
6533-73-9
6923-22-4
6959-48-4
7005-72-3
7421-93-4
7439-92-1
7439-96-5
7439-97-6
Compound Name
Diallate (cis or trans)
Phosalone
Mirex
Captafol
5-(Aminomethyl)-3-isoxazolol
Chlorpyrifos
Chlorobenzene-d5
O,O-Diethyl S-methyl dithiophosphate
Tetraethyl dithiopyrophosphate
Crotonaldehyde (Propylene aldehyde)
N-Nitrosomethylvinylamine
4-Chloro- 1 ,3-phenylenediamine
l-(o-Chlorophenyl)thiourea
Thallium(I)carbonate
Monocrotophos
3-(Chloromethyl)pyridine hydrochloride
4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether
Endrin aldehyde
Lead
Manganese
Mercury
o x
sl
.3 §
"8 &K
•s < t*
a«t
.§ N 0
IIs
gg
o u
F020, F023, F027, F028
F035, F037, F038, K002, K003, K005, K046, K048,
K049, K051, K052, K061, K062, K064, K069, K086,
K100
K071, K106
Chemical-Specific Data
Available
X
X
X
X
PICs Recommended by
U.S. EPA (1994a) for Risk
Assessments
U.S. EPA Compounds
Identified in Combustion
Unit Emissions (1993)
X
X
X
U.S. EPA Recommended
and Potential PICs
(1994b)
X
X
X
PICs in Stack Emissions
Actually Detected
X
X
X
Note: See Table A-1 References and Discussion (Appendix A-1) for explanation of the information presented.
A-1-23
-------
TABLE A-1
INFORMATION ON COMPOUNDS OF POTENTIAL INTEREST
(Page 24 of 30)
CAS Number
7440-02-0
7440-22-4
7440-28-0
7440-36-0
7440-38-2
7440-39-3
7440-41-7
7440-43-9
7440-47-3
7440-48-4
7440-50-8
7440-62-2
7440-66-6
7446-18-6
7487-94-7
7488-56-4
7647-01-0
7664-38-2
7664-39-3
7664-41-7
7700-17-6
Compound Name
Nickel
Silver
Thallium
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium (total)
Cobalt
Copper
Vanadium
Zinc
Thallium(I)sulfate
Mercuric chloride
Selenium sulfide
Hydrogen Chloride (hydrochloric acid)
Phosphoric acid
Hydrogen fluoride
Ammonia
Crotoxyphos
o x
sl
.3 §
"8 SB
•£ < K?
a«t
3 N o
IIs
gg
o o
F006
K021, K161
F032, F034, F035, K031, K060, K084, K101, K102,
K161
F006, K061, K064, K069, K100
F032, F034, F035, F037, F038, K090
Chemical-Specific Data
Available
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
PICs Recommended by
U.S. EPA (1994a) for Risk
Assessments
U.S. EPA Compounds
Identified in Combustion
Unit Emissions (1993)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
U.S. EPA Recommended
and Potential PICs
(1994b)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
PICs in Stack Emissions
Actually Detected
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Note: See Table A-1 References and Discussion (Appendix A-1) for explanation of the information presented.
A-1-24
-------
TABLE A-1
INFORMATION ON COMPOUNDS OF POTENTIAL INTEREST
(Page 25 of 30)
CAS Number
7723-14-0
7778-39-4
7782-41-4
7782-49-2
7782-50-5
7783-00-8
7783-06-4
7786-34-7
7791-12-0
7803-51-2
7803-55-6
8001-35-2
8065-48-3
10102-43-9
10102-44-0
10102-45-1
10595-95-6
11096-82-5
11097-69-1
11104-28-2
11141-16-5
12039-52-0
Compound Name
Phosphorus
Arsenic acid
Fluorine
Selenium
Chlorine
Selenium dioxide
Hydrogen sulfide
Mevinphos
Thallium(I)chloride
Phosphine
Ammonium vanadate
Toxaphene (chlorinated camphene)
Demeton
Nitric oxide
Nitrogen dioxide
Thallium® nitrate
N-Nitrosomethylethylamine
Arochlor-1260
Arochlor-1254
Arochlor-1221
Arochlor-1232
Thallium® selenite
o x
sl
.3 §
"8 SB
•£ < K?
a«t
.§ N 0
IIs
gg
o u
K041, K098
Chemical-Specific Data
Available
X
X
X
PICs Recommended by
U.S. EPA (1994a) for Risk
Assessments
U.S. EPA Compounds
Identified in Combustion
Unit Emissions (1993)
X
U.S. EPA Recommended
and Potential PICs
(1994b)
X
PICs in Stack Emissions
Actually Detected
X
Note: See Table A-1 References and Discussion (Appendix A-1) for explanation of the information presented.
A-1-25
-------
TABLE A-1
INFORMATION ON COMPOUNDS OF POTENTIAL INTEREST
(Page 26 of 30)
CAS Number
12672-29-6
12674-11-2
13071-79-9
13171-21-6
13463-39-3
13765-19-0
16752-77-5
18540-29-9
18883-66-4
19408-74-3
20816-12-0
20830-81-3
20859-73-8
21609-90-5
22967-92-6
23950-58-5
25013-15-4
25265-76-3
25376-45-8
26471-62-5
33213-65-9
Compound Name
Arochlor-1248
Arochlor-1016
Terbufos
Phosphamidon
Nickel carbonyl
Calcium eliminate
Methomyl
Chromium (hexavalent)
Streptozotocin
l,2,3,7,8,9-Hexachlorodibenzo(p)dioxin
Osmium tetroxide
Daunomycin
Aluminum phosphide
Leptophos
Methyl mercury
Pronamide
Methyl styrene
Phenylenediamine
Toluenediamine
Toluene diisocyanate
Endosulfan II
o x
sl
.3 §
"8 SB
•£ < K?
a«t
% n o
IIs
§g
o o
F006, F019, K002, K003, K004, K005, K006, K007,
K008, K048, K049, K050, K051, K061, K062, K069,
K086, K100
F021, F022, F026, F027, F028, F032
K083, K103, K104
Chemical-Specific Data
Available
X
X
X
X
X
PICs Recommended by
U.S. EPA (1994a) for Risk
Assessments
U.S. EPA Compounds
Identified in Combustion
Unit Emissions (1993)
X
X
X
U.S. EPA Recommended
and Potential PICs
(1994b)
X
X
X
PICs in Stack Emissions
Actually Detected
X
Note: See Table A-1 References and Discussion (Appendix A-1) for explanation of the information presented.
A-1-26
-------
TABLE A-1
INFORMATION ON COMPOUNDS OF POTENTIAL INTEREST
(Page 27 of 30)
CAS Number
33245-39-5
35822-46-9
39196-18-4
39227-28-6
39300-45-3
40321-76-4
53469-21-9
53494-70-5
55673-89-7
57117-41-6
57117-44-9
57653-85-7
60851-34-5
67562-39-4
70648-26-9
72918-21-9
109719-77-9
125322-32-9
-
-
-
-
Compound Name
Fluchloralin
l,2,3,4,6,7,8-Heptachlorodibenzo(p)dioxin
Thiofanox
l,2,3,4,7,8-Hexachlorodibenzo(p)dioxin
Dinocap
l,2,3,7,8-Pentachlorodibenzo(p)dioxin
Arochlor-1242
Endrin ketone
1,2,3,4,7,8,9-Heptachlorodibenzofuran
2,3,4,7,8-Pentachlorodibenzofuran
1,2,3,6,7,8-Hexachlorodibenzofuran
l,2,3,6,7,8,-Hexachlorodibenzo(p)dioxin
2,3,4,6,7,8-Hexachlorodibenzofuran
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HeptacWorodibenzofuran
1,2,3,4,7,8-Hexaclilorodibenzofuran
1,2,3, 7,8, 9-Hexachlorodibenzofuran
1,2,3,7,8-Pentaclilorodibenzofuran
2,3,7,8-TetracWorodibenzofuran
Beryllium compounds
Cadmium compounds
Chlorocyclopentadiene
N-CWorodiisopropyl amine
o x
sl
.3 §
"8 &K
•£ < K?
a«t
% n o
IIs
§g
o o
F032
F021, F022, F026, F027, F028, F032
F020, F021, F022, F023, F026, F027, F028, F032
F032
F020, F021, F022, F023, F026, F027, F028, F032
F021, F022, F026, F027, F028, F032
F021, F022, F026, F027, F028, F032
F021, F022, F026, F027, F028, F032
F032
F021, F022, F026, F027, F028, F032
F021, F022, F026, F027, F028, F032
F020, F021, F022, F023, F026, F027, F028, F032
F020, F022, F023, F026, F027, F028, F032
Chemical-Specific Data
Available
PICs Recommended by
U.S. EPA (1994a) for Risk
Assessments
U.S. EPA Compounds
Identified in Combustion
Unit Emissions (1993)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
U.S. EPA Recommended
and Potential PICs
(1994b)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
PICs in Stack Emissions
Actually Detected
X
X
X
X
Note: See Table A-1 References and Discussion (Appendix A-1) for explanation of the information presented.
A-1-27
-------
TABLE A-1
INFORMATION ON COMPOUNDS OF POTENTIAL INTEREST
(Page 28 of 30)
CAS Number
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
Compound Name
N-Chloroisopropyl amine
Chromium compounds
Creosote
Cyanide compounds
O-Decyl hydroxylamine
Dibenzo(a,e)fluoranthene
Dibenzo(a,h)fluoranthene
Dibutylchloramine
3,3-Dichloroisopropyl ether
Dichloropentadiene
Dimethylnitrosamine
Lead compounds
Nicotine salts
2-Nitrodiphenylamine
Octachlorodibenzo(p)dioxin
OctachlorodibenzofUran
Phthalic acid esters
Saccharin salts
Sodium O-ethylmethylphosphonate
Diisopropylamine
Strychnine salts
Thioamine
o x
sl
.3 §
"8 SB
•£ < K?
a«t
% n o
IIs
§g
o o
K001, K035
F006, F007, F008, F009, F010, F011, F012, F019,
K007, K060, K088
K022
K022
Chemical-Specific Data
Available
PICs Recommended by
U.S. EPA (1994a) for Risk
Assessments
U.S. EPA Compounds
Identified in Combustion
Unit Emissions (1993)
X
X
X
X
U.S. EPA Recommended
and Potential PICs
(1994b)
X
X
X
X
X
X
PICs in Stack Emissions
Actually Detected
Note: See Table A-1 References and Discussion (Appendix A-1) for explanation of the information presented.
A-1-28
-------
TABLE A-1
INFORMATION ON COMPOUNDS OF POTENTIAL INTEREST
(Page 29 of 30)
CAS Number
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
Compound Name
O-decyl-hydroxylamine
Acenaphthene-d 1 0
Antimony compounds
Arsenic compounds (inorganic, including arsine)
2-Chloro- 1 ,3-butadiene
Chrysene-dl2
Cobalt compounds
Coke oven emissions
Dibenz(a)anthracene
1 ,4-Dichlorobenzene-d4
Dichloroethylene
Dichloropropane
Dichloropropanols
Dichloropropene
Manganese compounds
Mercury compounds
Naphthalene-d8
Nickel compounds
Nitrobenzene-d5
Perylene-dl2
Phenanthrene-dlO
o x
sl
.3 §
"8 &K
•s < t*
a«t
.§ N 0
IIs
gg
o u
F024, F025
K001, K035
K073
F024, F025
K017
F024, F025
Chemical-Specific Data
Available
PICs Recommended by
U.S. EPA (1994a) for Risk
Assessments
U.S. EPA Compounds
Identified in Combustion
Unit Emissions (1993)
U.S. EPA Recommended
and Potential PICs
(1994b)
PICs in Stack Emissions
Actually Detected
Note: See Table A-1 References and Discussion (Appendix A-1) for explanation of the information presented.
A-1-29
-------
TABLE A-1
INFORMATION ON COMPOUNDS OF POTENTIAL INTEREST
(Page 30 of 30)
CAS Number
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
Compound Name
Phenol-d6
Phenolic compounds
Phosphorodithioic and phosphorothioic acid
esters
2,3,7,8-substitutedPolychlorinated
dibenzo(p)dioxin congeners (2,3,7,8-PCDDs)
2,3,7,8-substituted Polychlorinated dibenzofuran
congeners (2,3,7,8-PCDFs)
Selenium compounds
Tetrachlorobenzene
2,4,6-Tribromophenol
Tricliloropropane
o x
sl
.3 §
"8 &K
•s < t*
a«t
.§ N 0
IIs
gg
o o
K060
K036, K037, K038, K039, K040
F024, F025
K017
Chemical-Specific Data
Available
PICs Recommended by
U.S. EPA (1994a) for Risk
Assessments
U.S. EPA Compounds
Identified in Combustion
Unit Emissions (1993)
U.S. EPA Recommended
and Potential PICs
(1994b)
PICs in Stack Emissions
Actually Detected
Note: See Table A-1 References and Discussion (Appendix A-1) for explanation of the information presented.
A-1-30
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Appendix A-l August 1999
APPENDIX A-l
COMPOUNDS OF POTENTIAL INTEREST
REFERENCES AND DISCUSSION
This discussion lists reference documents for each of the columns in Table Al-1 and briefly describes the
quality of data associated with these references. This information is only presented for informational
purposes to assist in planning data collection.
Al.l COLUMN 1: CHEMICAL ABSTRACTS SERVICE (CAS) NUMBER
The CAS number is a unique number assigned to each compound in the table. Compounds are listed by
CAS number, in ascending order, to prevent problems with alphabetization procedures or differences in
common nomenclature.
A1.2 COLUMN 2: COMPOUND NAME
The most common compound name is listed. Where appropriate, common synonyms are also listed to
aid the user in identifying particular compounds.
A1.3 COLUMN 3: COMPOUNDS LISTED IN 40 CFR PART 261 APPENDIX VII OR VIII
Appendix VII of Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations (40 CFR) Part 261 identifies compounds for
which specific hazardous wastes, from specific and nonspecific sources, are listed (U.S. EPA 1995).
Appendix VIII of 40 CFR Part 261 identifies acute hazardous wastes and toxic hazardous wastes
associated with commercial chemical products, manufacturing chemical intermediates, and
off-specification commercial chemical products (U.S. EPA 1995). This column lists hazardous waste
codes for the associated compounds. This list is provided for reference purposes only, because it is
commonly cited by other U.S. EPA combustion risk assessment documents as an original source of the
product of incomplete combustion (PIC) lists. An explanation of the reasons for including a COPC on
this list is beyond the scope of this guidance.
A1.4 COLUMN 4: CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC DATA AVAILABLE
This column lists those compounds for which the following are available (as presented in Appendix A-2):
(1) chemical-specific physical and chemical information, and (2) chemical-specific fate-and-transport
information.
A1.5 COLUMN 5: PICS RECOMMENDED BY U.S. EPA (1994a) FOR SCREENING LEVEL
RISK ASSESSMENTS
Compounds in this column marked with an "X" in the appropriate cells identified by U.S. EPA (1994a)
as PICs to be included in screening level risk assessments. U.S. EPA (1994a) does not describe the basis
or references for the inclusion of these PICs in screening level risk assessments. More information
regarding some of these compounds is presented in Chapter 2.
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering A-1 -31
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Appendix A-l August 1999
A1.6 COLUMN 6: PICS IDENTIFIED IN COMBUSTION UNIT EMISSIONS (U.S. EPA 1993)
Compounds in this column marked with an "X" in the appropriate cells are identified in U.S. EPA (1993)
as PICs. The source documents for these tables cited by U.S. EPA (1993) are described in the following
subsections. These references have been cited by this and other U.S. EPA reference documents as
"sources" of information regarding PIC emissions from hazardous waste combustion units. This
document—U.S. EPA (1993)—has, in turn, been cited by later guidance documents as a "source" of
information regarding PIC emissions from hazardous waste combustion units. However, as is indicated
by the listing of the references from Dempsey and Oppelt (1993) (which is a summary of existing
information), many of the reference documents appear to simply cite additional "sources" of information.
The original research and sampling data regarding PIC emissions have not yet been identified but, based
on a preliminary review of the information below, the sources of the "original" information cited by all of
the most common reference documents may be limited and may have been published over 15 years ago.
Al.6.1 Demsey and Oppelt (1993)
The sections of Demsey and Oppelt (1993) regarding PICs from hazardous waste combustion facilities
("Combustion Byproduct Emissions" and "Table XVII: Organics that Could Potentially be Emitted from
Devices Burning Hazardous Waste") cite the following references:
• U.S. EPA (1989b) does not include a list of PICs from combustion sources. U.S. EPA
(1989b) discussed ways of ensuring that PIC emissions do not pose an unacceptable risk
to human health and the environment. Stack gas carbon monoxide (CO) concentration is
a good indicator of combustion efficiency; therefore, controlling CO is a prudent and
reasonable approach to minimizing the potential risk from PICs. The destruction and
removal efficiency (DRE) standard of 40 CFR Part 264.242(a) limits stack emissions of
principal organic hazardous constituents (POHC) to 0.01 percent (or 0.0001 percent for
dioxin-containing waste) of the quantity of POHC in the waste. This standard, however,
does not impose a limit on PICs. Therefore, a limit of 100 parts per million by volume
(ppmv) (Tier I) was imposed, below which PIC emissions do not pose unacceptable risks
to human health. The proposed rule allows a waiver to the 100-ppmv CO limit, by
(1) restricting total hydrocarbon (THC) emissions to 20 ppmv (Tier II), or (2) showing
that THC emissions do not pose an unacceptable risk by using prescribed risk assessment
procedures.
The above limitations were also provided in the Federal Register, dated January 23, 1981
(U.S. EPA 1981) and April 27, 1990 (U.S. EPA 1990b)
• U.S. EPA (1981) does not contain any information regarding PICs not contained in U.S.
EPA (1989b). There is no discussion of "risk" in this document. Although the notice
deals with permitting standards, there is no risk-based approach, and it appears to be an
entirely technical discussion. Specifically, it deals with updated material for specific
parts of 40 CFR.
40 CFR Part 122 (Incinerator Facility Permits)
40 CFR Part 264 (General Standards for Hazardous Waste Incineration)
40 CFR Part 265 (Interim Status Standards for Hazardous Waste
Incineration)
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering A-1-32
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Appendix A-l August 1999
Standards are technology-based, not risk-based.
• U.S. EPA (1990a) describes amendments to the hazardous waste incinerator regulations
for the following purpose:
Improve control of toxic metal emissions, HC1 emissions, and residual organic
emissions; amend the definitions of incinerators and industrial furnaces; propose
definitions for plasma arc incinerators and infrared incinerators; propose to
regulate carbon regeneration units as thermal treatment devices; and make a
number of minor revisions to permitting procedures.
U.S. EPA (1990a) also states the following:
The database on PIC emissions is limited therefore, the risk assessments may
under-estimate risk. The assessments consider only the organic compounds that
have been actually identified and quantified. Zero to 60 percent of total
unburned hydrocarbon emissions have been chemically identified at any
particular facility. Thus, the bulk of the hydrocarbon emissions have not been
considered in those risk assessments. Although many of the unidentified,
unqualified organic compounds may be non-toxic, some fraction of the organic
emissions is undoubtedly toxic. . . .data on typical PIC emissions from
hazardous waste combustion sources were compiled and assessed in recent EPA
studies. These studies identified 37 individual compounds in the stack gas of the
eight full-scale hazardous waste incinerators tested, out of which 17 were volatile
compounds and 20 semivolatile compounds. Eight volatile compounds
(benzene, toluene, chloroform, trichloroethylene, carbon tetrachloride,
tetrachloroethylene, chlorobenzene, and methylene chloride), and one
semivolatile compound (naphthalene) were identified most frequently in more
than 50 percent of the tests. Some of these compounds are carcinogenic.
The sources for these statements appear to be Wallace and others (1986) and Trenholm
and Lee (1986).
Trenolm and Lee (1986), prepared by Andrew R. Trenholm of Midwest Research
Institute and C.C. Lee at the U.S. EPA Hazardous Waste Engineering Research
Laboratory, discussed that emissions from incinerators are only characterized for
constituents listed in Appendix VIII. However, constituents not listed in Appendix VIII
are also emitted from the stacks.
Data was obtained from HWERL-sponsored tests at eight hazardous waste incinerators,
nine boilers that co-fired hazardous wastes, and five mineral processing kilns that fired
hazardous wastes as fuel. In addition, SVOC emissions data for two municipal solid
waste incinerators and seven coal-fired power plants were also reviewed. The common
PICs are presented in the following table:
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering A-1-3 3
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Appendix A-l
August 1999
Volatile PICs Most Frequently Present in Stack Gases
VOCs
Benzene
Toluene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chloroform
Methylene Chloride
Trichloroethylene
Tetrachloroethylene
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
Chlorobenzene
SVOCs
Naphthalene
Phenol
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Diethylphthalate
Butylbenzylphthalate
Dibutylphathlate
Tests were conducted for three incinerator runs to search for constituents not listed in
Appendix VIII. These constituents include:
Non-Appendix VIII Constituents Present in Highest Concentrations in Stack Gases
Acetone
Ethylbenzene
Acetophenone
Benz aldehyde
Benzenedicarboxaldehyde
Benzoic acid
Chlorocyclohexanol
Cyclohexane
Cyclohexanol
Cyclohexene
Dioctyl adipate
Ethenyl ethylbenzene
Ethylbenzaldehyde
Ethylbenzoic acid
Ethylphenol
Ethylphenyl-ethanone
Ethynylbenzene
Phenylacetylene
1,1 '-(1 ,4-phenylene)bisethanone
Phenylpropenol
Propenyhnethylbenzene
Tetramethyloxirane
Trimethylhexane
Emission rates of compounds not in the waste feed were also provided.
• U.S. EPA (1985) does not include a list of PICs from combustion sources. U.S. EPA
(1985) discussed views and reviews by the Environmental Effects, Transport, and Fate
Committee of the Science Advisory Board of issues related to the environmental impacts
of the incineration of liquid hazardous wastes at sea and on land. Several issues were
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering A-1-34
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Appendix A-l August 1999
addressed, including issues concerning the combustion and incineration of hazardous
waste. Major findings of the committee were as follows:
Fugitive emissions and spills may release as much or more material to the
environment than the direct emissions from waste incineration processes.
Numerous PICs are formed during combustion processes. However, only a
fraction of them are identified or detected. It is possible that the aggregate of all
compound emissions that are not categorized as other POHCs or PICs can be
more toxic and pose greater risks than those listed. Although 99.99 percent DRE
has been claimed, if the unburned or undetected hydrocarbon output is included,
the DRE may actually be less than 99.99 percent. Therefore, the concept of
destruction efficiency used by EPA was found to be incomplete and not useful
for subsequent exposure assessments. All emissions and effluents must be
identified and quantified, including their physical form and characteristics.
Local site-specific conditions must be used in characterizing exposure to
receptors from waste incinerator emissions.
The evaluation of exposure durations and concentrations should be based on a
detailed assessment of transport processes and the habits of the exposed
organisms. The role of food chains needs particular attention.
At a minimum, the toxicities of representative emissions and effluents from
incinerators should be tested on sensitive life stages of representative aquatic and
terrestrial vertebrates, invertebrates, and plants of ecological importance.
• U.S. EPA (1990b) does not include a list of PICs from combustion sources. It was
prepared by the PIC subcommittee of the Science Advisory Board to review the OSW
proposal to control emissions of PICs from hazardous waste incinerators by instituting
process controls that are based on CO and THC emission concentrations. U.S. EPA risk
assessments indicate that emissions of PICs at currently measured levels are not likely to
produce unacceptable risks. However, because the current DRE standard applies only to
designated POHCs, 99.99 percent DRE does not preclude the possibility that emission of
PICs could present significant risk. The following summarizes the major findings of the
subcommittee review.
The concept of using CO and THC as guidance for incinerator operational
control is reasonable.
At low CO levels, CO correlates well with THC; therefore, limiting CO in order
to ensure high combustion efficiency and low THC levels is reasonable. At high
CO concentrations, CO and THC do not correlate well; therefore, relying solely
on the controlling of CO may not provide a reasonable control for THC.
Continuous emissions monitoring of THC is preferred. Quantification of PICs
alone is not practical with the sampling techniques that are available, primarily
because PICs are normally emitted in the range of parts per billion (ppb) to parts
per trillion (ppt).
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering A-1-3 5
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Appendix A-l August 1999
A 100-ppmv limit for CO is reasonable. However, supporting documentation
does not demonstrate that a CO concentration of 100 ppmv is better than 50
ppmv or 150 ppmv.
Continuous emissions monitoring of THC with a cold system appears to be
practical for routine operations. However, a hot transfer line produces better
analysis of THC concentrations and detection of a larger fraction of the THCs
emitted.
The database characterizing PICs in emissions would not allow a correlation to
be established with CO or THC levels for various combustion devices and
conditions. Limited data introduces large uncertainties into U.S. EPA's risk
assessment. Therefore, U.S. EPA's site-specific risk assessment process is
limited in its usefulness in establishing acceptable THC levels. However, the
risk assessment procedures are risk-based.
• U.S. EPA (1987) is a report prepared by Andrew R. Trenholm, Acurex Corporation,
California, and staff members from the U.S. EPA Hazardous Waste Engineering
Research Laboratory in Cincinnati, Ohio. The paper discussed the lack of information
on total emissions from combustion of hazardous wastes, particularly under conditions of
less than optimal performance. The focus issue was whether additional constituents that
are listed in Appendix VIII or not listed in Appendix VIII which were not identified in
early tests might be emitted from hazardous waste combustion units. To address this
issue and related issues, U.S. EPA initiated this project to qualitatively and quantitatively
study the characteristics of all possible effluents, under steady-state and transient
conditions. The following summarizes the major findings:
THC emissions detected as specific compounds ranged from 50 to 67 percent for
five runs and were 91 percent for one run. The fraction of THC not detected is
most likely explained by uncertainty in the measurements or other analytical
problems.
Methane accounted for the largest fraction of THC.
Oxygenated aliphatic compounds made up the largest class of compounds among
the SVOCs, both in total mass and number of compounds.
Transient upsets did not cause significant increases in the concentration of
SVOCs or most VOCs. Three VOCs that were increased were methane,
methylene chloride, and benzene.
Particulate and HC1 emissions did not change between the steady-state and
transient test runs.
• Duval and Rubey (1976) was prepared by D.S. Duval and W.A. Rubey of the University
of Dayton Research Institute, Ohio. The objective of the study was to provide data from
which requirements can be assigned for the thermal disposal of kepone. This report was
primarily concerned with the high-temperature destruction of kepone, with DDT and
Mirex used as comparative Analog. Laboratory tests were conducted to establish
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering A-l-36
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Appendix A-l August 1999
destruction temperature characteristics of the vaporized pesticides at preselected
residence times. The following summarizes the major findings.
Kepone was essentially destroyed at a 1-second residence time and a temperature
range of 500°C to 700°C, depending on the pesticide.
Major decomposition products detected were hexachlorocyclopentadiene and
hexachlorobenzene for both kepone and Mirex. These products were formed in
different thermal regions.
The study demonstrated that the chemical nature of the effluent products depends
on the temperature and residence time that the basic molecule experiences.
• Duval and Rubey (1977) discusses the experimental destruction temperature and
residence time relationships for various PCB compounds and mixtures of PCBs. The
document states that "upon thermal stressing in air, PCBs decomposes to
low-molecular-weight products." However, the document does not identify any of these
low-molecular-weight products. In fact, the document states directly that the products
were not identified in the study. It further recommends that additional research be
conducted on the "degradation products and effluents."
• Bellinger, Torres, Rubey, Hall, and Graham (1984) was prepared by Barry Bellinger and
others of the University of Bayton, Ohio. This paper presented the gas-phase thermal
stability method under controlled laboratory conditions to rank the incinerability of
compounds. The objective of this study was to determine the gas-phase thermal
decomposition properties of 20 hazardous organic compounds.
The compounds were selected on the basis of (1) frequency of occurrence in hazardous
waste samples, (2) apparent prevalence in stack effluents, and (3) representativeness of
the spectrum of hazardous waste organic waste materials. The following summarizes the
major findings.
Gas-phase thermal stability method is a more effective means of ranking the
incinerability of hazardous compounds in a waste.
Numerous PICs were formed during the thermal decomposition of most of the
compounds tested. However, PICs were not identified.
Bestruction efficiency of 99.99 percent is achieved at 2 seconds mean residence
time in flowing air at 600°C to 950 °C.
No single physical or chemical property describes the ranking scheme for
incinerability.
• Bellinger, Hall, Graham, Mazer, Rubey, and Malanchuk (1986) was prepared by Barry
Bellinger, B. Bouglas, L. Hall, John L. Graham, Sueann L. Mazer, and Wayne A. Rubey
of the University of Bayton Research Institute, Bayton, Ohio, and Myron Malanchuk of
U.S. EPA, Cincinnati, Ohio. The paper discussed the development of an incineration
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering A-l-37
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Appendix A-l August 1999
model based on laboratory studies conducted by using the nonflame mode of hazardous
waste thermal decomposition. The results of these studies were compared to the
flame-mode studies and field tests to evaluate the incineration model proposed. The
model was based on the premise that incinerators do not operate continuously at
optimum conditions. As a result, 1 percent or more of the feed and its flame treatment
products must undergo further decomposition in the nonflame region to meet the DRE
criterion of greater than 99.99 percent.
In the past, several methods were used to rank the incinerability of compounds.
Nonflame studies, however, indicated that tests on compounds conducted at low oxygen
concentrations provided a better correlation with field tests to determine the relative
incinerability of compounds. Four experimental studies were conducted to develop and
expand the database on POHCs and PICs.
Studies were conducted on individual compounds to evaluate degradation compounds
and PICs from the original parent compound. The thermal degradation of
2,3',4,4',5-PCB was studied under four reaction atmospheres (at varying levels of
oxygen) at a constant gas phase residence time of 2.0 seconds. Tests were conducted at
temperatures ranging from 500°C to 1,000°C. Tests indicated that the yield of
combustion products decreased with increased oxygen levels. Numerous major
degradation products were identified from the thermal degradation of 2,3',4,4',5-PCB,
including:
Penta-, tetra-, and trichlorodibenzofurans
Tetra- and trichlorobiphenyls
Tri- and dichlorobenzene
Tetra- and trichloronaphthalene
Tri- and dichlorochlorophenylethlyene
Tetrachlorobiphenylenes
C9H8OC1
C10H3C13
Thermal decomposition of chloroform was studied. Numerous decomposition products
were identified, including:
CC14
C2H4C12
C2HC13
C2HC15
C2C12
C2C14
C3C14
C4C16
Thermal decomposition of poly chlorinated phenols was studied in nitrogen (N2) and
oxygen atmospheres because of the potential formation of poly chlorinated
dibenzodioxins. Pentachlorophenol (PCP) thermal decomposition was studied.
Numerous decomposition products of PCP were identified in N2 and/or air atmospheres,
including:
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering A-1-3 8
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Appendix A-l August 1999
Dichlorobutadiyne (in N2)
Tetrachloroethylene (in air)
Tetrachloropropyne (in air)
Trichlorofuran (in air)
Tetrachlorofuran (in air)
Trichlorobenzene (in N2 and air)
Tetrachlorobenzene (in N2 and air)
Pentachlorobenzene (in N2 and air)
Hexachlorobenzene (in N2)
Octachlorostyrene (in N2)
Hexachlorodihydronaphthalene (in N2 and air)
The paper concluded that PICs in the air atmosphere may have formed directly from the
parent material, whereas, in the nitrogen atmosphere, the principal PICs may have
evolved from the thermal decomposition of other PICs.
• Kramlich, Seeker, and Heap (1984) does not include a list of PICs from combustion
sources. It was prepared by J.C. Kramlich, W.R. Seeker, and M.P. Heap of Energy and
Environmental Research Corporation, California; and C.C. Lee of the Industrial Waste
Combustion Group, U.S. EPA. This paper presented a research program to study the
flame-mode incineration of hazardous waste liquids in laboratory scale reactors. The
objective of this study was to supply the flame-mode data that will be used in evaluating
the applicability of various approaches to ranking the ease of incinerability.
Five compounds were tested—chloroform, 1,1-dichloroethane, benzene, acrylonitrile, and
chlorobenzene—because (1) their range of incinerabilities is broad, and (2) they are
representative of liquid hazardous wastes. The following summarizes the findings.
The flame section of the incinerator destroys greater than 99.995 percent of the
wastes.
The post-flame region destroys the remainder of the wastes.
The destruction efficiency is reduced because of flame-related failures.
Incinerability ranking depends on actual failure condition.
No incinerability ranking system completely predicts the destruction efficiency
of the compounds tested for all failure conditions.
• Trenholm and Hathaway (1984) was prepared by Andrew Trenholm and Roger
Hathaway of Midwest Research Institute (MRI) in Missouri, and Don Oberacker, U.S.
EPA, Cincinnati, Ohio. PICs were defined as any Appendix VIII hazardous organic
constituent detected in the stack gas but not present in the waste feed at a concentration
of 100 micrograms per gram or higher. Benzene and chloroform were the most
commonly found PICs. PIC emissions were comparable to POHC emissions in
concentration and total mass output. This document discussed PIC formation
mechanisms and criteria for PIC formations.
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering A-1-3 9
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Appendix A-l August 1999
MRI conducted a series of tests at eight operating hazardous waste incineration facilities
and analyzed the collected samples for PICs. These tests were conducted as part of the
technical support of U.S. EPA's preparation of a regulatory impact analysis for
hazardous waste incinerators. Each incinerator had a liquid injection burner, and some
facilities also included a rotary kiln or hearth. Three incinerators had no air pollution
control devices. The remaining five had wet scrubbers for HC1 control, and four of these
had other particulate control devices. Twenty-nine compounds were classified as PICs
from the eight incinerator tests and are presented in Table Al .6-1. In general, PIC
concentrations were slightly higher than POHC concentrations, although this ratio varied
from site to site. PIC output rate very rarely exceeded 0.01 percent of the POHC input
rate. The document stated that the measurement of Appendix VIII compounds at low
concentrations in the waste feed, auxiliary fuel, and inflow streams to control systems is
often necessary to explain the presence of PICs.
• Olexsey, Huffman, and Evans (1985) was prepared by Robert A. Olexsey and others of
the U.S. EPA Hazardous Waste Engineering Research Laboratory in Cincinnati, Ohio.
This document discussed PIC generation mechanisms and criteria for PIC formations.
The paper provided data on emissions of PICs during full-scale tests conducted on
incinerators and boilers burning hazardous waste (Trenholm and others 1984; Castaldini
and others 1984). The documents referenced by this paper summarized a series of
full-scale tests conducted on seven incinerators and five boilers conducted by U.S. EPA
to support its regulatory development for incinerators and boilers. Commonly found
PICs identified in these tests are presented in Tables Al.6-2 and Al.6-3.
• For incinerators, ratios of PIC emissions to POHC input ranged from 0.00007 to
0.0028 percent; and ratios of PIC emissions to POHC emissions ranged from 0.01 to
3.89. For boilers, ratios of PIC emissions to POHC input ranged from 0.0032 to
0.3987 percent, and ratios of PIC emissions to POHC emissions ranged from 5.44 to
22.5. These data indicated that PIC emissions were higher for boilers than for
incinerators; that is, PIC emissions were reduced with increased POHC DRE which is
higher for incinerators. The document proposed seven methods to control PICs and
recommended further research on PIC generation mechanisms and control technologies.
• Trenholm, Kapella, and Hinshaw (1992) was prepared by Andrew R. Trenholm and
David W. Kapella of MRI in North Carolina and Gary D. Hinshaw of MRI in Missouri.
The paper discusses the following issues regarding emissions from incinerators that burn
hazardous waste: (1) emissions of specific constituents presented in Appendix VIII,
(2) emissions of specific compounds or types of compounds, and (3) data on the size and
molecular weight of compounds emitted. The following were among the major issues
discussed.
PICs were studied through U.S. EPA-sponsored tests at eight incinerators, nine
industrial boilers, and five mineral processing kilns. The study was limited to
compounds presented in Appendix VIII. In all, 52 organic compounds
(32 VOCs and 20 SVOCs) were identified. The VOC concentrations were
significantly higher than the SVOC concentrations. PICs listed in this paper
included benzene, toluene, carbon tetrachloride, trichloromethane,
dichloromethane, trichloroethene, tetrachloroethene, 1,1,1-trichloroethane,
cholorobenzene, naphthalene, and phenol.
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering A-1-40
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Appendix A-l
August 1999
TABLE Al.6-1
PICS IDENTIFIED BY TRENHOLM AND HATHAWAY (1984)
PICs Found In Stack Effluents
PIC
Benzene
Chloroform
Bromodichloromethane
Dibromochloromethane
Naphthalene
Bromoform
Chlorobenzene
Tetrachloroethylene
1,1,1 ,-Trichloroethane
Toluene
o-Nitrophenol
Methylene chloride
Phenol
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
Carbon disulfide
o-Chlorophenol
2,4-Dimethylphenol
Methylene bromide
Bromochloromethane
Trichlorobenzene
Hexachlorobenzene
Diethyl phthalate
Pentachlorophenol
Dichlorobenzene
Chloromethane
Methyl ethyl ketone
Bromomethane
Pyrene
Fluoranthene
Number of Facilities
6
5
4
4
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Low Concentration (ng/L)
12
1
3
1
5
0.2
1
0.1
0.1
2
2
2
4
110
32
22
21
18
14
7
7
7
6
4
3
3
1
1
1
High Concentration (ng/L)
670
1,330
32
12
100
24
10
2.5
1.5
75
50
27
22
110
32
22
21
18
14
7
7
7
6
4
3
3
1
1
1
Notes:
ng/L
PIC
Nanograms per liter
Product of incomplete combustion
U.S. EPA Region 6
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering
U.S. EPA
Office of Solid Waste
A-l-41
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Appendix A-l
August 1999
TABLE Al.6-2
VOLATILE PICS MOST FREQUENTLY IDENTIFIED IN BOILER EMISSIONS
(OLEXSY, HUFFMAN, AND EVANS 1985)
PIC
Chloroform
Tetrachloroethylene
Chloromethane
Methylene chloride
Benzene
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
1 ,2-Dichloroethane
Number of Facilities
5
5
4
4
3
3
3
Low Concentration
(ng/L)
4.2
0.3
4.6
83
9.4
5.9
1.3
High Concentration
(ng/L)
1,900
760
410
2,000
270
270
1,200
Notes:
ng/L =
Nanograms per liter
U.S. EPA Region 6
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering
U.S. EPA
Office of Solid Waste
A-1-42
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Appendix A-l
August 1999
TABLE Al.6-3
VOLATILE PICS MOST FREQUENTLY IDENTIFIED IN INCINERATOR EMISSIONS
(OLEXSY, HUFFMAN, AND EVANS 1985)
PIC
Benzene
Chloroform
Tetrachloroethylene
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
Toluene
Methylene chloride
Number of Facilities
6
5
3
3
2
2
Low Concentration
(ng/L)
12
1
0.1
0.1
2
2
High Concentration
(ng/L)
670
1,330
2.5
1.5
75
27
Notes:
ng/L = Nanograms per liter
PIC = Product of incomplete combustion
U.S. EPA Region 6
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering
U.S. EPA
Office of Solid Waste
A-l-43
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Appendix A-l August 1999
From the U.S. EPA-sponsored tests, (1) volatile compounds listed in Appendix
VIII identified were only a fraction—sometimes about one-half—of the total
organic compounds identified, and (2) semivolatile compounds not listed in
Appendix VIII identified were three to 30 times the quantity of organic
compounds listed in Appendix VIII. Table A 1.6-4 lists the compounds
identified by the U.S. EPA-sponsored tests.
A study of hazardous waste incinerator stack effluent was conducted to
characterize the types of compounds emitted. Twenty-nine compounds were
identified at a concentration range of 0.1 to 980 nanograms per liter. Methane,
chloromethane, and chloroform accounted for more than one-half of the total
mass of VOCs detected. Other than methane, oxygenated aliphatic hydrocarbons
formed the highest fraction of the total emissions.
Based on the incinerator stack effluent study, it was found that as combustion
conditions deteriorate, increases in mass emissions are first noted with VOCs.
Emissions of these compounds, most notably Cl to C3 compounds, increase
proportionately more than larger compounds. For larger compounds, available
data indicate that emission increases are more likely to be aromatic compounds.
Al.6.3 CARB(1990b)
CAPvB prepared "Technical Support Document of Proposed Dioxins Control Measures for Medical
Waste Incinerators" to meet the requirements of California Health and Safety Code Section 39666 that a
needs report be prepared for proposed rules. The report presents a proposed airborne toxic control
measure for dioxin emissions from medical waste-burning facilities. The report concentrates on dioxin,
furan, and cadmium emissions, although other pollutants detected during the tests are listed. Table
Al.6-5 lists these pollutants.
Al.6.4 CARB(1991)
CARB prepared "Air Pollution Control at Resource Recovery Facilities 1991 Update" to update
information presented in its 1984 report, entitled "Air Pollution Control at Resource Recovery Facilities."
Specifically, the document updates available guidelines concerning incinerator technology, emissions
control technology, and emission limits for municipal waste, hospital waste, biomass, tire, manure,
landfill and digester gas, and sewer sludge incinerators. The document states that its guidelines
represent levels that have been achieved by existing facilities.
In addition, the document summarizes the ultimate analysis of waste types undergoing treatment in the
facilities described above. An appendix summarizes stack gas analysis data for numerous operating
facilities. Pollutants identified in the analyses are summarized in Table A 1.6-6.
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering A-1-44
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Appendix A-l
August 1999
TABLE Al.6-4
MOST FREQUENTLY IDENTIFIED PICS
(TRENHOLM, KAPELLA, AND HINSHAW 1992)
Appendix VIII
Volatile Organic
Compounds
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
Benzene
Carbon tetrachloride
Chlorobenzene
Chloroform
Methylene chloride
Tetrachloroethylene
Toluene
Trichloroethylene
Appendix VIII
Semivolatile Organic
Compounds
Compounds Not Listed
in Appendix VIII
Bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate
Butylbenzylphthalate
Dibutylphtahlate
Diethylphthalate
Naphthalene
Phenol
1,1 '-(1,4-Phenylene)bisethanone
Acetone
Acetophenone
Benzaldehyde
Benzenedicarboxaldehyde
Benzoic acid
Cyclohexanol
Chlorocyclohexanol
Cyclohexane
Ethylbenzene
Ethylbenzoic acid
Ethylphenol
Ethylphenyl-ethanone
Ethynylbenzene
Phenylpropenol
Propenylmethylbenzene
Tetramethyloxirane
Trimethylhexane
U.S. EPA Region 6
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering
U.S. EPA
Office of Solid Waste
A-l-45
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Appendix A-l
August 1999
TABLE Al.6-5
COPCS IDENTIFIED BY CARB (1990b)
COPC
Ammonia
Arsenic
Benzene
Bromodichloromethane
Cadmium
Carbon dioxide
Carbon monoxide
Carbon tetrachloride
Chlorobenzenes
Chlorodibromomethane
Chloroform
Chlorophenols
Chromium, hexavalent
Chromium, total
Copper
Cumene
Notes:
1 ,2-Dibromoethane
Dichloroethane
Dichloromethane
1 ,2-Dichloropropane
Ethylbenzene
Freon
Hydrocarbon, total
Hydrogen chloride
Hydrogen fluoride
Iron
Lead
Manganese
Mercury
Mesitylene
Methyl isobutyl ketone
Napthalene
Nickel
Nitrogen oxides
PM
PAHs
Sulfur dioxide
Tetrachloroethene
Tetratrichloromethylene
Toluene
Tribromomethane
Trichlorethane
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
Trichloroethylene
Trichlorotrifluroethane
Vinyl chloride
Xylenes
Zinc
PAH = Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons
PM = Particulate matter
U.S. EPA Region 6
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering
U.S. EPA
Office of Solid Waste
A-1-46
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Appendix A-l
August 1999
TABLE Al.6-6
STACK GAS ANALYSIS DATA
(CARB 1991)
(Page 1 of 2)
Pollutant
Nitrogen oxides
Sulfur oxides
Particulate matter
Carbon monoxide
Total hydrocarbons
Hydrogen chloride
Hydrogen fluoride
Amonnia
Carbon dioxide
Oxygen
Arsenic
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium (total)
Chromium (hexavalent)
Copper
Mercury
Iron
Manganese
Nickel
Lead
Zinc
Polyaromatic
hydrocarbons b
Poly chlorinated
biphenyls b
CPb
CBb
Benzene
Poly chlorinated
dibenzo(p) dioxins b
Polychlorinated
dibenzofurans b
2,3,7,8-Tetrachloro
dibenzo(p)dioxin
equivalents b
Incinerator Type a
Municipal
Waste
(5)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
NA
•
•
•
•
•
•
ND
•
•
NA
NA
•
•
NA
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Hospital
Waste
(7)
•
•
•
•
•
•
NA
NA
•
•
•
NA
•
•
•
NA
•
NA
NA
•
•
NA
NA
ND
NA
NA
•
•
•
•
Biomass
(4)
•
ND
•
•
•
NA
NA
•
•
•
•
NA
•
•
NA
NA
NA
•
•
•
•
NA
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Manure
(1)
•
•
•
•
•
NA
NA
NA
•
•
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Tire
(1)
•
•
•
•
•
•
NA
•
•
•
•
•
ND
•
•
NA
ND
NA
NA
ND
ND
NA
•
•
•
•
NA
•
•
•
Landfill Gas
(20)
•
•
•
•
•
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
•
• b
• b
•
NA
•
•
NA
NA
•
•
•
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Sewage
Sludge and
Digester Gas
(5)
•
•
•
•
•
NA
NA
NA
•
•
•
•
•
•
NA
NA
•
NA
NA
•
•
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
•
U.S. EPA Region 6
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering
U.S. EPA
Office of Solid Waste
A-1-47
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Appendix A-l August 1999
TABLE Al.6-6
STACK GAS ANALYSIS DATA
(CARB 1991)
(Page 2 of 2)
Notes:
• = Detected in at least one emission test
ND = Not detected in any emission test
NA = No analysis
a Number in parentheses indicates the number of facilities for which data were tabulated.
b Isomers and/or homologues that were not detected were added to total values at one-half the detection limit;
pollutant may not have actually been detected.
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering A-l-48
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Appendix A-l August 1999
Al.6.5 U.S. EPA (1988)
This document, referenced by some documents as a 1989 document, was prepared in 1988.
U.S. EPA prepared "Hospital Waste Combustion Study: Data Gathering Phase" to assemble available
information on hospital waste combustion so that U.S. EPA can evaluate whether airborne pollutant
emissions from hospital waste combustion should be regulated. While preparing this document, U.S.
EPA reviewed the pertinent literature to determine which studies would be helpful in completing the
database on toxic emissions from medical waste incinerators. The report clearly addresses only those
pollutants for which emissions data were found. The data reviewed were mostly for larger, controlled air
incinerators; and the more commonly used retort incinerators were not evaluated.
The study identified several categories of pollutants that were measured in stack gases; these are
discussed in the following paragraphs.
Where evaluated, acid gases were detected in stack gases. For example, HC1 was detected in 24 of 28
tests; HC1 concentration not recorded in the remaining four tests.
Particulate matter (PM) was detected in all stack tests for 30 facilities at concentrations ranging from
0.001 grains per dry standard cubic foot (gr/dscf), at a facility with PM add-on control devices, to
0.22 gr/dscf at facilities without such control devices.
Trace metals were detected in stack tests for three medical waste incineration facilities. Metals detected
include arsenic, cadmium, chromium, iron, manganese, nickel, and lead. The document also states that
fine-particle enrichment processes could lead to emissions of molybdenum, tin, selenium, vanadium, and
zinc. However, test results for these trace metals are not presented.
With respect to organic emissions, dioxins and furans were detected in emissions from three facilities,
both with and without pollution control devices. Other organic emissions detected in stack tests cited in
this report include CO, THC, trichlorotrifluoroethane, tetrachloromethane, tetrachloroethene, and
trichloroethylene.
In a stack testing conducted on three Canadian biomedical waste incinerators, PCBs and PAHs were
either not detected (one facility) or not analyzed (two facilities).
Al.6.6 CARB(1996)
In May 1996, CARB prepared "Proposed Amendments to the Emission Inventory Criteria and Guidelines
Report Published in Accordance with the Air Toxics 'Hot Spots' Information and Assessment Act of
1987." The purpose of the report is to present the basis of CARB's recommended amendments to the Air
Toxics Hot Spots Program. The report states that California Health and Safety Code (HSC) 44321
requires CARB to compile the list of toxic substances that must be monitored from "designated reference
lists of substances." Therefore, the document is not a primary source of toxics emission information.
The primary sources of information are mandated by California HSC 44321, as follows:
• California HSC 44321(a): National Toxicology Program, International Agency for
Research on Cancer
• California HSC 44321(b): Governor's List of Carcinogens and Reproductive Toxicants
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering A-l-49
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Appendix A-l August 1999
• California HSC44321(c): CARB
• California HSC 44321(d): Hazard Evaluation System and Information Service
• California HSC 44321(e): U.S. EPA
• California HSC 4432 l(f): California HSC
The lists of toxic substances presented in the document are not restricted to incinerator facilities, but
apply to any facility discharging airborne pollutants to the atmosphere. The document also removes
numerous substances, primarily medicinal compounds, from lists of toxic chemicals that must always be
evaluated, and places them on lists of toxic compounds that require evaluation only if a facility
manufactures that substance.
A1.7 COLUMN 7: U.S. EPA-RECOMMENDED AND POTENTIAL PICS (1994a; 1994b)
Compounds marked with an "X" in the appropriate cells are identified in U.S. EPA (1994a and 1994b).
Based on information presented in U.S. EPA (1994b), these tables were developed from available U.S.
EPA data and from lists of toxic compounds from various U.S. EPA programs. Because the source lists
were not developed as lists of toxic PICs, U.S. EPA deleted compounds that were not appropriate (U.S.
EPA 1994b). U.S. EPA acknowledged the importance of using focused studies to develop a PIC list that
is (1) appropriately protective of the environment, and (2) not excessively burdensome on the regulated
community. Nevertheless, Tables 1 and 2 in U.S. EPA (1994b) were compiled as draft lists for use
during the interim period. Tables in U.S. EPA (1994b) were to be revised as additional PIC data were
collected. U.S. EPA Permits and State Program Division is currently updating these tables; however, a
target completion date is not available. Tables 1 and 2 are based on the following (U.S. EPA 1994b):
• Hazardous waste constituent list in 40 CFR Part 261, Appendix VIII
• hazardous air pollutants (HAP) list
• Office of Research and Development list of organic compounds found in combustion
devices developed for U.S. EPA (1993)
The following compounds were deleted from this list:
• Pesticide compounds not likely to be a PIC
• Federal Drug Administration-regulated drugs
• Carcinogenic sugar substitutes
• Compounds without chemical-specific listings (for example, "coal tar")
• Compounds without U.S. EPA-established sampling and analysis methods
• Metallic compounds (because of difficulty in analyzing the specific compounds; metals
are still included in elemental totals)
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering A-l-50
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Appendix A-l August 1999
• Compounds with low octanol-water partition coefficients and no inhalation toxicity data
• Compounds with low toxicity values
• Naturally-occurring plant toxins
Specific compounds were retained on Tables 1 and 2 on the following basis:
• Pesticides with a molecular structure simple enough to be of concern as a PIC
• Compounds with very high octanol-water partition coefficients
A1.8 COLUMN 8: PICS ACTUALLY DETECTED IN STACK EMISSIONS
Compounds marked by an "X" in the appropriate cells are PICs that have actually been detected in stack
emissions. U.S. EPA compiled this list by evaluating the studies highlighted in Section A1.6.
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering A-1 -51
-------
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Appendix A-l August 1999
California Air Resources Board (CARB). 1990a. "Health Risk Assessment Guidelines for
Nonhazardous Waste Incinerators." Prepared by the Stationary Source Division of the CARB
and the California Department of Health Services.
CARB. 1990b. "Technical Support Document of Proposed Dioxins Control Measures for Medical
Waste Incinerators." May 25.
CARB. 1991. "Air Pollution Control at Resource Recovery Facilities. Update."
CARB. 1996. "Proposed Amendments to the Emission Inventory Criteria and Guidelines Report
Published in Accordance with the Air Toxics 'Hot Spots' Information and Assessment Act of
1987." May.
Castaldini, C., and others. 1984. "Engineering Assessment Report—Hazardous Waste Cofiring in
Industrial Boilers." Report to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency under Contract No.
68-02-3188. June.
Dellinger, B., D.L. Hall, J.L. Graham, S.L. Mazer, W.A. Rubey, and M. Malanchuk. 1986. PIC
Formation Under Pyrolytic and Starved Air Conditions.. Prepared for the U.S. EPA Industrial
Environmental Research Laboratory. Prepared by the University of Dayton Research Institute.
EPA/600/2-86/006. NTIS PB-86-145422. January.
Dellinger, B., J.L. Torres, W.A. Rubey, D.L. Hall, and J.L. Graham. 1984. Determination of the
Thermal Decomposition Properties of 20 Selected Hazardous Organic Compounds. Prepared for
the U.S. EPA Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory. Prepared by the University of
Dayton Research Institute. EPA-600/2-84-138. NTIS PB-84-232487. August.
Demsey, C.R., and E.T. Oppelt. 1993. "Incineration of Hazardous Waste: A Critical Review Update."
Air and Waste. 43:25-73.
Duval, D.S., and W.A. Rubey. 1976. Laboratory Evaluation of High-Temperature Destruction of
Kepone and Related Pesticides. EPA-600/2-76-299. NTIS PB-264892/1. December.
Duval, D.S., and W.A. Rubey. 1977. Laboratory Evaluation of High-Temperature Destruction of
Poly'chlorinated Biphenyls and Related Compounds. EPA-600/2-77-228. NTIS PB-279139/0.
December.
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering A-1-5 3
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Appendix A-l August 1999
Kramlich, J.C., W.R. Seeker, and M.P. Heap. 1984. "Laboratory-Scale Flame Mode Study of
Hazardous Waste Incineration." Proceedings of the Ninth Annual Research Symposium on
Incineration and Treatment of Hazardous Waste. Fort Mitchell, Kentucky. May 2 through 4,
1983. EPA-600/9-84/015. NTIS PB-84-234525. Pages 79-94. July.
Olexsey, R.A., G.L. Huffman, and G.M. Evans. 1985. "Emission and Control of By-Products from
Hazardous Waste Combustion Processes." Proceedings of the llth Annual Research Symposium
on Incineration and Treatment of Hazardous Waste. Cincinnati, Ohio. April 29 to May 1,
1985. EPA-600/9-85/028. NTIS PB-86-199403. Pages 8-15. September.
Trenholm, A., and R. Hathaway. 1984. "Products of Incomplete Combustion from Hazardous Waste
Incinerators." Proceedings of the 10th Annual Research Symposium on Incineration and
Treatment of Hazardous Waste. Fort Mitchell, Kentucky. April 3-5. EPA-600/9-84/022. NTIS
PB-85-116291. Pages 84-95. September.
Trenholm, Andrew R., David W. Kapella, and Gary D. Hinshaw. 1992. "Organic Products of
Incomplete Combustion from Hazardous Waste Combustion." Proceedings of the Air and
Waste Management Association 85th Annual Meeting and Exhibition. Kansas City, Missouri.
June 21-26.
Trenholm, A., and C.C. Lee. 1986. "Analysis of PIC and Total Mass Emissions from an Incinerator."
Proceedings of the Twelfth Annual Research Symposium on Land Disposal, Remedial Action,
Incineration, and Treatment of Hazardous Waste. Cincinnati, Ohio. April 21 to 23, 1986.
EPA/60-9-86/022. Pages 376-381. August.
Trenholm, A., and others. 1984. "Performance Evaluation of Full-Scale Hazardous Waste Incinerators."
Report to U.S. EPA under Contract No. 68-02-3177.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1981. "Incinerator Standards for Owners and Operators
of Hazardous Waste Management Facilities; Interim Final Rule and Proposed Rule." Federal
Register. 46(15):7666-7690. January 23.
U.S. EPA. 1985. Report on the Incineration of Liquid Hazardous Wastes. Science Advisory Board.
Environmental Effects, Transport, and Fate Committee. April.
U.S. EPA. 1987. Total Mass Emissions from a Hazardous Waste Incinerator. Final Report. Midwest
Research Institute. EPA-600/S2-87/064. NTIS PB-87-228508/AS. June 12.
U.S. EPA. 1988. "Hospital Waste Combustion Study: Data Gathering Phase." Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards. Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. EPA-450/3-88-008.
December.
U.S. EPA. 1989. Guidance of PIC Controls for Hazardous Waste Incinerators. Volume V of the
Hazardous Waste Incineration Guidance Series. EPA/530-SW-90-040. April 3.
U.S. EPA. 1990a. "Standards for Owners and Operators of Hazardous Waste Incinerators and Burning
of Hazardous Wastes in Boilers and Industrial Furnaces; Proposed Rule, Supplemental Proposed
Rule, Technical Corrections, and Request for Comments." Federal Register.
55(82):17862-17921. April 27.
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering A-1-54
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Appendix A-l August 1999
U.S. EPA. 1990b. Report of the Products of Incomplete Combustion Subcommittee of the Science
Advisory Board; Review of OSWProposed Controls for Hazardous Waste Incineration Products
of Incomplete Combustion. EPA-SAB EC-90-004. October 24.
U.S. EPA. 1993. Review Draft Addendum to the Methodology for Assessing Health Risks Associated
with Indirect Exposure to Combustor Emissions. OHEA. ORD. EPA-600-AP-93-003.
November 10.
U.S. EPA. 1994a. Revised Draft Guidance for Performing Screening Level Risk Analyses at
Combustion Facilities Burning Hazardous Wastes: Attachment C, Draft Exposure Assessment
Guidance for RCRA Hazardous Waste Combustion Facilities. Office of Emergency and
Remedial Response (OERR). OSW. December 14.
U.S. EPA. 1994b. "Table 1—Chemicals Recommended for Identification and Table 2—Chemicals for
Potential Identification." Draft Exposure Assessment Guidance for Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act Hazardous Waste Combustion Facilities: Attachment. April 15.
U.S. EPA. 1995. "Basis for Listing Hazardous Waste.: Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 261,
Appendices VII and VIII.
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering A-1-5 5
-------
-------
APPENDIX A-2
COMPOUND SPECIFIC PARAMETER VALUES
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
August 1999
-------
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Appendix A-2 August 1999
APPENDIX A-2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
LIST OF VARIABLES AND COMPOUND-SPECIFIC PARAMETERS A-2-ii
A2.1 GUIDANCE DOCUMENTS AS PRIMARY REFERENCE SOURCES A-2-1
A2.2 GENERAL ANALYSIS AND METHODOLOGY A-2-2
A2.3 PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL PROPERTIES A-2-3
A2.3.1 Molecular Weight (MW) A-2-3
A2.3.2 Melting Point Temperature (Tm) A-2-4
A2.3.3 Vapor Pressure (Vp) and Aqueous Solubility (S) A-2-4
A2.3.4 Henry's Law Constant (H) A-2-6
A2.3.5 Diffusivity of COPCs in Air (Da) and Water (Dw) A-2-7
A2.3.6 Octanol-Water Partitioning Coefficient (Km) A-2-8
A2.3.7 Organic Carbon Partition Coefficient (Koc) A-2-10
A2.3.7.1 Ionizing Organic Compounds A-2-10
A2.3.7.2 Nonionizing Organic Compounds A-2-10
A2.3.8 Partitioning Coefficients for Soil-Water (KdJ, Suspended Sediment-Surface
Water (Kdsv), and Bottom Sediment-Sediment Pore Water (Kdbs) A-2-12
A2.3.9 COPC Soil Loss Constant Due to Biotic and Abiotic Degradation A-2-14
A2.3.10 Fraction of COPC Air Concentration in the Vapor Phase (Fv) A-2-15
REFERENCES A-2-17
TABLES OF COMPOUND-SPECIFIC PARAMETER VALUES A-2-25
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering A-2-i
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Appendix A-2 August 1999
APPENDIX A-2
LIST OF VARIABLES AND COMPOUND-SPECIFIC PARAMETERS
pair = Density of air (g/cm3)
Pforage = Density of forage (g/cm3)
Babeef = Biotransfer factor in beef
(mg COPC/kg FW tissue)/(mg COPC/day) OR (day/kg FW tissue)
Bachicken = Biotransfer factor in chicken
(mg COPC/kg FW tissue)/(mg COPC/day) OR (day/kg FW tissue)
Baegg = Biotransfer factor in eggs
(mg COPC/kg FW tissue)/(mg COPC/day) OR (day/kg FW tissue)
Bamiik = Biotransfer factor in milk
(mg COPC/kg FW tissue)/(mg COPC/day) OR (day/kg FW tissue)
Bapork = Biotransfer factor in pork
(mg COPC/kg FW tissue)/(mg COPC/day) OR (day/kg FW tissue)
BAFfish = Bioaccumulation factor in fish
(mg COPC/kg FW tissue)/(mg COPC/L total water column)
OR (L water/kg FW tissue)
BCFfish = Bioconcentration factor in fish (L/kg FW OR unitless)
Brag = Plant-soil bioconcentration factor in aboveground produce
(Mg COPC/g DW plant)/(Mg COPC/g DW soil)—unitless
Bt'fomge/siiage = Plant-soil bioconcentration factor in forage and silage
(Mg COPC/g DW plant)/(Mg COPC/g DW soil)—unitless
Brgrain = Plant-soil bioconcentration factor in grain
(Mg COPC/g DW grain)/(Mg COPC/g DW soil)—unitless
Brrootveg = Plant-soil bioconcentration factor for belowground produce
(Mg COPC/g DW plant)/(Mg COPC/g DW soil)—unitless
BSAF-flsh = Biota-sediment accumulation factor in fish
(mg COPC/kg lipid tissue)/(mg COPC/kg sediment)—unitless
Bvol = Volumetric air-to-leaf biotransfer factor in leaf
(Mg COPC/L FW plant)/(Mg COPC/L air)—unitless
Bvag = COPC air-to-plant biotransfer factor for aboveground produce
(Mg COPC/g DW plant)/(Mg COPC/g air)—unitless
BVfomge/siiage = Air-to-plant biotransfer factor in forage and silage
(Mg COPC/g DW plant)/(Mg COPC/g air)—unitless
c = Junge constant = 1.7 x 10~04 (atm-cm)
Da = Diffusivity of COPC in air (cm /s)
Dw = Diffusivity of COPC in water (cm /s)
fOCtbs = Fraction of organic carbon in bottom sediment (unitless)
fOC:S = Fraction of organic carbon in soil (unitless)
fOCtSW = Fraction of organic carbon in suspended sediment (unitless)
fwater = Fraction of COPC in water (unitless)
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering A-2-ii
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Appendix A-2
August 1999
Fw
H
Inhalation
CSF
Inhalation
URF
Kd
ksg
MW
PL
P°s
Oral CSF
R
RCF
RfC
RfD
Rp
S
ASf
ST
Fraction of COPC air concentration in vapor phase (unitless)
Fraction of wet deposition that adheres to plant surfaces (unitless)
Henry's law constant
Inhalation cancer slope factor (mg/kg-day)"1
Inhalation unit risk factor ((jg/m3)"
Soil-water partition coefficient (mL water/g soil OR cm3 water/g soil)
Suspended sediment-surface water partition coefficient
(L water/kg suspended sediment OR cm3 water/g suspended sediment)
Bed sediment-sediment pore water partition coefficient
(L water/kg bottom sediment OR cm3 water/g bottom sediment)
Octanol/water partitioning coefficient
(mg COPC/L octanol)/(mg COPC/L octanol)—unitless
Soil organic carbon-water partition coefficient (mL water/g soil)
COPC soil loss constant due to biotic and abiotic degradation (yr"1)
Molecular weight of COPC (g/mole)
Liquidphase vapor pressure of COPC (atm)
Solid-phase vapor pressure of COPC (atm)
Oral cancer slope factor (mg/kg-day)";
Universal gas constant (atm-m3/mol-K)
Root concentration factor
(Hg COPC/g DW plant)/((ig COPC/mL soil water)
Reference concentration (mg/m3)
Reference dose (mg/kg/day)
Interception factor of edible portion of plant (unitless)
Solubility of COPC in water (mg COPC/L water)
Entropy effusion [ASf/R = 6.79 (unitless)]
Whitby's average surface area of particulates (aerosols)
= 3.5 x 10~06 cm2/cm3 air for background plus local sources
= 1.1 x 10~05 cm2/cm3 air for urban sources
tin
TEF
Vp
Half-time of COPC in soil (days)
Ambient air temperature (K)
Melting point temperature (K)
Toxicity equivalency factor (unitless)
Vapor pressure of COPC (atm)
U.S. EPA Region 6
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering
U.S. EPA
Office of Solid Waste
A-2-iii
-------
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Appendix A-2 August 1999
APPENDIX A-2
The following sections provide the methodology and rationale followed for the selection or development
of compound-specific parameter values recommended by U.S. EPA OSW. Compound-specific values
are provided for (1) physical and chemical properties, (2) fate-and-transport parameters, and (3) health
benchmarks. A summary table of all compound-specific parameter values is provided at the end of this
appendix, followed by individual parameter-value tables for each compound. The individual
parameter-value tables cite sources for each parameter value.
A2.1 PRIMARY GUIDANCE DOCUMENTS
Throughout Appendix A-2, the following guidance documents are referenced as the primary sources for
the development and comparision of compound-specific parameter values, and used to the fullest extent
possible to provide consistency. Therefore, in this appendix, the term primary guidance documents
refers to the following documents:
• U.S. EPA. 1994f Revised Draft Guidance for Performing Screening Level Risk
Analyses at Combustion Facilities Burning Hazardous Wastes: Attachment C,
Draft Exposure Assessment Guidance for RCRA Hazardous Waste Combustion
Facilities. Office of Emergency and Remedial Response (OERR). Office of
Solid Waste. December 14.
• U.S. EPA. 1995b. Review Draft Development of Human Health Based and Ecologically
Based Exit Criteria for the Hazardous Waste Identification Project. Volumes I
and II. Office of Solid Waste. March 3.
• North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
(NC DEHNR). 1997. North Carolina Protocol for Performing Indirect
Exposure Risk Assessments for Hazardous Waste Combustion Units. January.
To ensure consistency, sources referenced in the primary guidance documents were also evaluated.
Information for certain compounds like PCDDs, PCDFs, and mercury were obtained from the following
documents:
• U.S. EPA. 1994a. Estimating Exposure to Dioxin-Like Compounds. External Review
Draft Report. Volumes I-III. Office of Research and Development. Washington, DC.
EPA/600/6-88/005Ca,b,c.
• U.S. EPA. 1997g. Mercury Study Report to Congress. Volume III: Fate and Transport
of Mercury in the Environment. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards and Office
of Research and Development. EPA-452/R-97-005. December.
U.S. EPA (1994a) provides various parameter values for (but are not limited to) PCDDs, PCDFs, and
PCBs. U.S. EPA (1997g) provides various parameter values for mercuric compounds including
elemental mercury, mercuric chloride, and methyl mercury.
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering A-2-1
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Appendix A-2 August 1999
A2.2 GENERAL ANALYSIS AND METHODOLOGY
This section describes the general analysis and methodology followed for the development of
compound-specific parameter values presented. Compound-specific parameter values in the primary
guidance documents and other sources generally were evaluated as follows:
1. Compound-specific values for each parameter were compared among the primary
guidance documents and the following observations were noted:
a. Parameter values provided in U.S. EPA (1994f) are limited to 24 compounds.
For these compounds, sources were referenced specifically to each parameter, in
addition to the methodology used to obtain the respective values.
b. U.S. EPA (1995b) provides various parameter values for a comprehensive list of
compounds. The methodology used for determining values was covered in
detail. However, parameter values for each compound were not referenced to a
specific source. Although a comprehensive list of sources was provided, it is
difficult to determine which parameter value for a compound was obtained from
which source.
c. NC DEHNR (1997) provides various parameter values for a comprehensive list
of compounds, including congeners of poly chlorinated dibenzo(p)dioxins
(PCDDs) and poly chlorinated dibenzofurans (PCDFs). However, the sections
citing the methodology and sources of values in the NC DEHNR (1997) were
reproduced directly from U.S. EPA (1994f). Therefore, in NC DEHNR (1997),
the compound-specific parameter values that were provided did not correlate
with the sections citing the methodology and sources of values. In addition, only
a partial list of sources was provided for the values. Therefore, it was not
possible to determine the actual source of values with certainty.
2. Sources of values referenced in the primary guidance documents were further researched
and evaluated. Observations affecting usability are included in parameter-specific
discussions for each compound, as appropriate.
3. Values provided in the primary guidance documents were used only when the sources
and applicability of such values could be verified. Additional sources of parameter
values were evaluated, used, and referenced when technically justified.
4. Recommended parameter values obtained using correlations or equations were calculated
using the recommended values for these variables provided in this SLERAP.
In general, for the selection of parameter values, the following three steps were followed:
1. Whenever measured parameter values were available in published literature studies, they
were preferred for use over other types of data. When multiple measured values were
available, the geometric mean of the parameter values is recommended for use.
2. In the absence of measured values in published literature that could not be directly
evaluated, parameter values compiled or adopted for use by the primary guidance
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering A-2-2
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Appendix A-2 August 1999
documents, U.S. EPA (1994a), and U.S. EPA (1997g) are recommended.
3. If unable to obtain acceptable values from published literature or the primary guidance
documents, parameter values were estimated or calculated using correlation equations
based on sound scientific judgment.
The following sections, A2.3 through A2.5, provide compound-specific parameter values, which are
categorized and discussed as follows: (1) organic compounds, including poly chlorinated biphenyls
(PCB), and excluding methyl mercury, PCDDs and PCDFs, (2) PCDDs and PCDFs, (3) all metals except
mercury, and (4) the mercuric compounds—mercury (elemental; metal), mercuric chloride (divalent
inorganic mercury), and methyl mercury (organic mercury).
For each of the parameters, the sources of values referenced in this SLERAP are followed by a discussion
and justification of their selection. There is also a brief discussion of the methodology followed by each
of the primary guidance documents. This provides a complete evaluation and comparison of the
compound-specific parameter values provided in the primary guidance documents that are currently used
to conduct risk assessments.
A2.3 PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL PROPERTIES
A2.3.1 Molecular Weight (MW)
Molecular weight (MW) of a compound is defined as the sum of atomic weights of all atoms in the
compound's molecule.
Organics and Metals For most organics (except PCDDs and PCDFs) and metals, this SLERAP provides
MW values that were obtained from the following:
Budavari, S., M.J. O'Neil, A. Smith, and P.E. Heckelman. 1989. The Merck Index: An
Encyclopedia of Chemicals, Drugs, and Biologicals. llth Edition. Merck and
Company, Inc. Rahway, New Jersey.
MW values not provided in Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989) were obtained from the
following document:
• Montgomery, J.H., and L.M. Welkom. 1991. Groundwater Chemicals Desk Reference.
Lewis Publishers. Chelsea, Michigan.
Because Budavari, O'neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989) provides MW values for most of the compounds
evaluated, it was used as the primary source to ensure consistency. MW values are based on the
compound's formula; and, the values in Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989) are the same as
the values cited in several literature sources. MW values for most of the compounds in the primary
guidance documents were also obtained from Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989).
PCDDs and PCDFs MW values for PCDDs and PCDFs were obtained from U.S. EPA (1994a).
Mercuric Compounds MW values for mercury and mercuric chloride were obtained from Budavari and
others (1989). MW value for methyl mercury was obtained from U.S. EPA (1997g).
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering A-2-3
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Appendix A-2 August 1999
A2.3.2 Melting Point Temperature (Tm)
Melting point temperature (Tm) is the temperature of the compound (in degree Kelvin [K]) at which the
solid state of the compound undergoes a phase change to a liquid phase. At ambient temperatures and at
an atmpospheric pressure of 1 atmosphere, compounds are either in a solid or liquid state. The
compound liquid or solid state is provided in the summary tables of compound-specific parameter values.
Organics and Metals For most organics (except PCDDs and PCDFs) and metals, this SLERAP provides
values for Tm that were obtained from Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989). Tm values not
provided in Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989) were obtained from Montgomery and
Welkolm (1991).
Because Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989) provides Tm values for most of the compounds
evaluated, it was used as the primary source to ensure consistency. Tm values in Budavari, O'Neil,
Smith, and Heckelman (1989) were generally within 2 to 3 degrees of the values provided in literature
sources reviewed. Tm values for most compounds in the primary guidance documents were also obtained
from Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989).
PCDDs and PCDFs Tm values for PCDDs and PCDFs were obtained from U.S. EPA (1994a).
U.S. EPA (1994a) provides Tm values for PCDDs and PCDFs, that were obtained from various literature
sources.
A2.3.3 Vapor Pressure (Vp) and Aqueous Solubility (S)
The vapor pressure (Vp) of a substance is defined as the pressure in atmospheres exerted by the vapor
(gas) of a compound when it is under equilibrium conditions. It provides a semi-quantitative rate at
which it will volatilize from soil and/or water. The aqueous solubility (S) of a compound is defined as
the saturated concentration of the compound in water (mg COPC/L water) at a given temperature and
pressure, usually at soil/water temperatures and atmospheric pressure (Montgomery and Welkom 1991).
Organics For most organics (except PCDDs and PCDFs), values for Vp and S were obtained from the
following:
• U.S. EPA 1994c. Draft Report Chemical Properties for Soil Screening Levels. Prepared
for the Office of Emergency and Remedial Response. Washington, DC. July 26.
U.S. EPA (1994c) provides measured, calculated, and estimated values for Vp and S that were obtained
from various literature sources. Vp values in U.S. EPA (1994c) were generally either measured (at 20°C
to 25 °C) or calculated values obtained from various literature sources. U.S. EPA (1994c), however,
provides values for Vp corrected to 25 C. U.S. EPA (1995b) states that, because the distribution of many
of the parameters is skewed, the geometric mean or the median values were preferable to the arithmetic
mean values. Therefore, when available geometric mean values were preferred over the arithmetic mean
values. The geometric mean of the temperature corrected Vp values, determined from measured and
calculated values, is recommended for use in this SLERAP.
In U.S. EPA (1994c), lvalues were either measured (at 20 C to 30 C) or calculated values obtained from
various literature sources. The geometric mean S value, calculated from measured and calculated values,
is recommended for use in this SLERAP. Although lvalues were measured at temperatures ranging
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering A-2-4
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Appendix A-2 August 1999
from 20°C to 30°C, U.S. EPA (1994c) states that lvalues were not corrected to 25°C, because the
variability in solubilities measured at 20°C to 25 °C was within the overall range of measured values.
U.S. EPA (1994c) is the preferred source, because (1) sources and the conditions at which each value was
obtained are provided, and (2) values were provided to 2 significant figures. Also, U.S. EPA (1994c)
provides multiple Vp and S values for each compound from several different literature sources; providing
a recent, more comprehensive compilation of reported literature values. Vp and S values from U.S. EPA
(1994c) were generally consistent with those provided in U.S. EPA (1994f), U.S. EPA (1995b), and NC
DEHNR(1997).
When Vp and lvalues were not available in U.S. EPA (1994c), they were obtained from one of three
sources, in the following order of preference:
1. U.S. EPA(1994f)
2. U.S. EPA (1995b); values from which were obtained from one of three sources:
a. Mackay, D., W.Y. Shiu, and K.C. Ma. 1992. Illustrated Handbook of
Physical-Chemical Properties and Environmental fate for Organic Chemicals.
Volume I-Monoaromatic Hydrocarbons, Chlorobenzenes, andPCBs.
Volume II-Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons, Poly chlorinated Dioxins and
Dibenzofurans. Volume III - Volatile Organic Chemicals. Lewis Publishers.
Boca Raton, Florida.
b. Howard, P.H. 1989-1993. Handbook of Environmental Fate and Exposure
Data For Organic Chemicals. Volumes I: Large Production and Priority
Pollutants (1989). Volume II: Solvents (1990). Volume III: Pesticides (1991).
Volume IV: Solvents2 (1993). Lewis Publishers. Chelsea, Michigan.
c. Other referenced literature sources, when values were not available in Mackay,
Shiu, and Ma (1992) or Howard (1989-1993).
3. U.S. EPA. 1994b. Superfund Chemical Data Matrix (SCDM). Office of Emergency
and Remedial Response. Washington, DC. June.
Vp and S values in U.S. EPA (1994f) were geometric mean values obtained from various literature
sources. References specific to sources of values for each compound were provided in U.S. EPA (1994f)
and were, therefore, preferred over U.S. EPA (1995b) values.
Most Vp and lvalues in U.S. EPA (1995b) were obtained from Mackay, Shiu, and Ma (1992) or Howard
(1989-1993). Mackay, Shiu, and Ma (1992) and Howard (1989-1993) obtain the "best" values after
evaluation of various literature sources.
Vp values in U.S. EPA (1994b) were obtained from various literature sources, lvalues in U.S. EPA
(1994b) were the geometric mean of values obtained from various literature sources.
PCDDs andPCDFs Vp and lvalues for PCDDs and PCDFs were obtained from U.S. EPA (1994a). Vp
and S values were either (1) measured, or (2) estimated by using the homologue (compound class with
the same amount of chlorination) average method.
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering A-2-5
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Appendix A-2 August 1999
NOTE: The phase—solid or liquid—of Vp values for all organics, including PCDDs and
PCDFs, was indicated. This is based on whether the compound is in the solid or
liquid phase at ambient soil temperatures.
Metals As cited in the primary guidance documents and in the literature, metals—except mercury—are
considered (1) nonvolatile at ambient temperatures, and (2) insoluble in water, except as certain weak
acids. Therefore, Vp and S values were not available for all metals (except mercury) in any of the
literature sources reviewed.
Mercuric Compounds Mercury is a relatively volatile compound. Vp and S values for elemental
mercury were obtained from Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989); and are comparable to the
values in the primary guidance documents. Vp and S values for mercuric chloride were obtained from
U.S. EPA (1997g) and Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989), respectively. Vp and lvalues
for methyl mercury were not found in the literature.
A2.3.4 Henry's Law Constant (H)
Henry's Law constant (H) is also referred to as the air-water partition coefficient, and is defined as the
ratio of the partial pressure of a compound in air to the concentation of the compound in water at a given
temperature under equilibrium conditions. Henry's Law constant values generally can be (1) calculated
from the theoretical equation defining the constant, (2) measured, or (3) estimated from the compound
structure. Experimental and estimated H values from literature reports, however, are (1) very
temperature-dependent and difficult to measure, (2) generally obtained from various literature sources
that use different experimental and estimation methods, and (3) available for only a limited number of
compounds.
Organics For organics (excluding PCDDs and PCDFs), //values were calculated from the following
theoretical equation (Lyman, Reehl, and Rosenblast 1982) for consistency, using recommended MW, S,
and Vp values provided in this SLERAP:
„ _ Vp • MW
H Equation A2-1
H = Henry's Law constant (atm-m3/mole)
Vp = Vapor pressure of COPC (atm)
S = Solubility of COPC in water (mg COPC/L water)
The primary guidance documents also used theoretical Equation A-3-1 to calculate //values.
PCDDs and PCDFs //values for PCDDs and PCDFs are calculated values obtained from U.S. EPA
(1994a).
Metals For all metals (except mercury), H is zero, because Vp—because of the nonvolatile nature of the
metals—and S are assumed to be zero.
Mercuric Compounds H values for elemental mercury, mercuric chloride, and methyl mercury were
obtained from U.S. EPA (1997g).
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering A-2-6
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Appendix A-2 _ August 1999
A2.3.5 Diffusivity of COPCs in Air (Da) and Water (Dw)
Diffusivity or diffusion coefficients in air (Z)a) and water (Z)w) are used to calculate the liquid or gas phase
transfer of a COPC into a waterbody.
Or ganics For organics (except PCDDs and PCDFs), diffusivity values were obtained directly from the
CHEMDAT8 model chemical properties database (Worksheet DATATWO.WK1):
• U.S. EPA. 1994d. CHEM8— Compound Properties Estimation and Data. Version 1.00.
CHEMDAT8 Air Emissions Program. Prepared for Chemicals and Petroleum Branch,
OAQPS. Research Triangle Park. North Carolina. November 18.
The U.S. EPA (1994d) database uses empirical correlations with compound density and molecular weight
to calculate diffusivity values. For compounds not in the U.S. EPA (1994d) database, diffusivity values
were obtained by using the WATERS model correlation equations for air and water diffusivities:
U.S. EPA. 1995d. WATERS- -Air Emissions Models Wastewater Treatment.
Version 4.0. OAQPS. Research Triangle Park. North Carolina. May 1.
U.S. EPA(1995d) database values were predicted by using chemical-structural relationships. Diffusivity
values for all compounds in the U.S. EPA (1994d) and (1995d) databases were either predicted or
estimated. The primary guidance documents also recommended U.S. EPA (1994d) and (1995d) database
model values. More recent documents, including the following, also recommended these values:
• U.S. EPA. 1996. Soil Screening Guidance: Technical Background Document and
User 's Guide. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. Washington, DC.
EPA/540/R-95/128. May.
For diffusivity values that were not available in these databases, Dw and Da values were calculated using
the following equations cited and recommended for use in U.S. EPA (1997g):
n 1-9
'' " (MW)m Equation A2-2a
w'' = (MW)2K Equation A2-2b
U.S. EPA (1995b) recommended the use of standard default diffusivity values. U.S. EPA (1995b) stated
that the diffusivity parameters vary slightly, and default values appear to be within the range of typical
values. Values for diffusivity in air range from about 0.01 to 0.1 square centimeters per second (cm2/s);
therefore, U.S. EPA (1995b) recommended a default value of 0.08 cm2/s. Values for diffusivity in water
range from 1 x 10"06 to 1 x 10"05 cm2/s; therefore, U.S. EPA (1995b) recommended a default value of
8 x 10"06 cm2/s. Diffusivity values calculated using Equations A-2-2a and A-2-2b were within the range
specified by U.S. EPA (1995b), and therefore, were adopted for use in this SLERAP.
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering A-2-7
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Appendix A-2 _ August 1999
PCDDs and PCD Fs Diffusivity values in air and water for (1) 2,3,7,8-TCDD were obtained from
U.S. EPA (1994e), and (2) 2,3,7,8-TCDF were obtained from U.S. EPA (1995d). For all other congeners
of PCDDs and PCDFs, (1) a default Dw value of 8 x 10~06 cm2/s was used, and (2) Da values were
calculated using the following equation recommended by U.S. EPA (1994a):
Equation A2-2c
D MW
y x
where
D = Diffusivities in air of compounds x and y (cm2/s)
= Molecular weights of compounds x and y (g/mol)
Da values for PCDD congeners were calculated by using the Da value and AdWfor 2,3,7,8-TCDD. Da
values for PCDF congeners were calculated using the Da value and AdWfor 2,3,7,8-TCDF. This
approach is consistent with the methodology specified in U.S. EPA (1994a).
Metals and Mercuric compounds For metals (except chromium and mercury), diffusivity values were
not available in the literature. Diffusivity values for chromium and mercury were obtained from the U.S.
EPA (1994d) database. Diffusivity values for mercuric chloride and methyl mercury were calculated
using Equations A-2-2a and A-2-2b.
A2.3.6 Octanol/Water Partitioning Coefficient (Kow)
The «-octanol/water partitioning coefficient (K0J is defined as the ratio of the solute concentration in the
water-saturated «-octanol phase to the solute concentration in the «-octanol-saturated water phase
(Montgomery and Welkom 1991).
Or sanies For organics (except PCDDs and PCDFs), Kov values were obtained from U.S. EPA (1994c).
U.S. EPA (1994c) provides measured, calculated, and estimated Kow values obtained from various
literature sources. The geometric mean Kov value, calculated from all measured and calculated values for
each compound, is recommended in this SLERAP.
Kow values that were not available in U.S. EPA (1994c) were obtained from one of three sources, in the
following order of preference:
1. U.S. EPA (1994f)
2. Karickhoff, S.W. and J.M. Long. 1995. "Internal Report on Summary of Measured,
Calculated, and Recommended Log Kow Values." Environmental Research Laboratory.
Athens. April 10.
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering A-2-8
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Appendix A-2 August 1999
3. U.S. EPA (1995b), values from which were obtained from one of three sources:
a. Mackay, D., W.Y. Shiu, and K.C. Ma. 1992. Illustrated Handbook of
Physical-Chemical Properties and Environmental Fate for Organic Chemicals.
Volume I-Monoaromatic Hydrocarbons, Chlorobenzenes, andPCBs.
Volume II - Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons, Poly chlorinated Dioxins and
Dibenzofurans. Volume III - Volatile Organic Chemicals. Lewis Publishers.
Boca Raton, Florida.
b. Howard, P.H. 1989-1993. Handbook of Environmental Fate and Exposure
Data For Organic Chemicals. Volumes I: Large Production and Priority
Pollutants (1989). Volume II: Solvents (1990). Volume III: Pesticides (1991).
Volume IV: Solvents2 (1993). Lewis Publishers. Chelsea, Michigan.
c. Other literature sources, when values were not available in Mackay, Shiu, and
Ma (1992) and Howard (1989-1993).
U.S. EPA (1994c) is the preferred source of values because (1) sources were provided, (2) several
literature values were provided, some of which are also cited by the primary guidance documents and
Karickhoff and Long (1995), and (3) the values were provided to 2 significant figures.
U.S. EPA (1994f) is the second-choice source of Kow values recommended; and provides geometric mean
values obtained from various literature sources. Karickhoff and Long (1995) recommended arithmetic
mean values obtained from various literature sources and was, therefore, preferred as the third-choice
source of Km, values when values were not available from the first two sources.
ow
In order to reference specific sources ofKm values for each compound, values from U.S. EPA (1995b)
and NC DEHNR (1997) were used only when values were not available in the literature sources
reviewed.
PCDDs andPCDFs Kow values for the PCDDs and PCDFs were obtained from either U.S. EPA (1994a)
or U.S. EPA (1992d). U.S. EPA (1994a) and U.S. EPA (1992d) provide Kow values for PCDDs and
PCDFs that were either measured values obtained from the literature or calculated by averaging the
literature values within the homologue group. According to U.S. EPA (1994a), Km values for
hexachlorodibenzofurans were not available in the literature. Therefore, as recommended in U.S. EPA
(1994a), due to lack of data, homologue group average values for hexachlorodibenzodioxins were applied
to hexachlorodibenzofurans.
Metals No Km values were available for metals, either in the literature or in the primary guidance
documents. Km values for the metals were assumed to be zero, because the affinity of the metals to the
octanol is almost zero.
Mercuric compounds No Kow values were available in the literature for mercury and methyl mercury.
For mercuric chloride, the Km value was obtained from U.S. EPA (1997g).
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering A-2-9
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Appendix A-2 August 1999
A2.3.7 Soil Organic Carbon-Water Partition Coefficient (Koc)
The soil organic carbon-water partition coefficient (K01) or the organic carbon normalized soil sorption
coefficient is defined as the ratio of adsorbed compound per unit weight of organic carbon to the aqueous
solute concentration (Montgomery and Welkom 1991).
Organics Because of the soil mechanisms that are inherently involved, Koc values for the ionizing
organics and nonionizing organics are discussed separately.
A2.3.7.1 Ionizing Organic Compounds
Ionizing organic compounds include amines, carboxylic acids, and phenols. These compounds contain
the functional groups that ionize under specific pH conditions, and include the following:
• Organic acids (2,4,6-trichlorophenol; pentachlorophenol; 2,3,4,5-tetrachlorophenol;
2,3,4,6-tetrachlorophenol; 2,4,5-trichlorophenol; 2,4-dichlorophenol; 2-chlorophenol;
phenol; 2,4-dimethylphenol; 2-methylphenol; 2,4-dinitrophenol; and benzoic acid)
• Organic bases—n-nitroso-di-n-propylamine; n-nitrosodiphenylamine, and
4-chloroaniline)
Koc values for ionizing organic compounds were obtained from U.S. EPA (1994c). U.S. EPA (1994c)
provides Koc values for the ionizing organic compounds that have been estimated on the basis of the
degree of ionization and the relative proportions of neutral and ionized species. The primary guidance
documents cite one value for the ionizing organics, independent of the pH. The primary guidance
documents calculate Koc values for the ionizing organics by using correlation equations containing Km
that are applicable to nonionizing organics. However, Koc values for ionizing compounds can vary vastly,
depending on the pH conditions in the environment. Therefore, for the aforementioned ionizing organic
compounds, this SLERAP prefers and provides estimated Koc values that are based on pH.
Koc values were estimated on the basis of the assumption that the sorption of ionizing organic compounds
is similar to hydrophobic organic sorption, because the soil organic carbon is the dominant sorbent.
According to U.S. EPA (1994c), for low pH conditions, these estimated values may overpredict sorption
coefficients, because they ignore sorption to components other than organic carbon.
A2.3.7.2 Nonionizing Organic Compounds
Nonionizing organic compounds are all other organic compounds not listed earlier as ionizing. They
include volatile organics, chlorinated pesticides, polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), and
phthalates. This SLERAP uses geometric mean of measured Koc values provided in the following
document:
• U.S. EPA. 1996b. Soil Screening Guidance: Technical Background Document and
User's Guide. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. Washington, DC.
EPA/540/R-95/128. May.
U.S. EPA (1996b) calculated the geometric mean value from various measured values. For compounds
for which Koc values are not provided by U.S. EPA (1996b), Koc values were calculated using Km
correlation equations provided in the same document.
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering A-2-10
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Appendix A-2 August 1999
NC DEHNR (1997) and U.S. EPA (1994f) use the following correlation equation to calculate Koc from
Kow for all organics:
log Koc = 0.88 (log KJ +0.114 (r2 = 0.96) Equation A-2-3
• Research Triangle Institute (RTI). 1992. Preliminary Soil Action Level for Superfund
Sites, Draft Interim Report. Prepared for U.S. EPA Hazardous Site Control Division,
Remedial Operations Guidance Branch. Arlington, Virginia. December.
However, according to U.S. EPA (1994c), the correlation between Koc and Kow can be improved
considerably by performing separate linear regressions on two chemical groups. U.S. EPA (1994c)
derives the following correlation equations from measured Koc values cited in U.S. EPA (1994c) and
U.S. EPA (1996b):
For phthalates andPAHs
log Koc = 0.97 (log KJ - 0.094 (r2 = 0.99) Equation A-2-4
For all organics except phthalates, PAHs, PCDDs, andPCDFs
log Koc = 0.78 (log KJ +0.151 (r2 = 0.98) Equation A-2-5
Because of the improved regressions (r2), U.S. EPA (1994c) recommended that correlation
Equations A-2-4 and A-2-5 be used instead of correlation Equation A-2-3. U.S. EPA (1995b) also
recommended that correlation Equations A-2-4 and A-2-5 be used.
Although U.S. EPA (1995b) recommended the use of correlation Equations A-2-4 and A-2-5, the
following correlation equation was used by that document to calculate Koc values for all organics except
PCDDs and PCDFs:
log Koc = 0.983 (log KJ + 0.0002 Equation A-2-6
DiToro, D.M., C.S. Zarba, D.J. Hansen, W.J. Berry, RC. Swartz, C.E. Cowan, S.P.
Pavlou, H.E. Allen, N.A. Thomas, and P.R. Paquin. 1991. "Technical Basis for
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering A-2-11
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Appendix A-2 August 1999
Establishing Sediment Quality Criteria for Nonionic Compounds Using Equilibrium
Partitioning." Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry. 10:1541-1583
For the purposes of this SLERAP, values obtained by using correlation Equations A-2-3 through A-2-6,
were compared. In general, more of the Koc values obtained by using correlation Equations A-2-4 and
A-2-5 were within the range of measured values in the literature than those obtained by using correlation
Equations A-2-3 and A-2-6. Therefore, when measured Koc values were not available, values were
estimated, for all nonionizing organic compounds except PCDDs and PCDFs, by using the appropriate
correlation Equation A-2-4 or A-2-5.
PCDDs and PCDFs For PCDDs and PCDFs, the following correlation equation (Karickhoff, Brown,
and Scott 1979) was used to calculate Koc values, as cited by U.S. EPA (1994a).
log Koc = log Kow - 0.21 (n = 10, r2 = 1.0) Equation A-2-7
Karickhoff, S.W., D.S. Brown, and T.A. Scott. 1979. "Sorption of Hydrophobic
Pollutants on Natural Sediments." Water Resources. 13:241-248.
Metals For metals, no Koc values were found in the literature. Koc values for metals were not provided in
the primary guidance documents, because of the stated assumption that organic carbon in soils does not
play a major role in partitioning in soil and sediments. For metals, soil/sediment-water partitioning
coefficients (Kd) were obtained directly from experimental measurements (see Kd discussion).
Note: For compounds in which a Kow correlation equation was used to calculate a Koc
value, Km values recommended for each compound in this SLERAP were used.
A2.3.8 Partitioning Coefficients for Soil-Water (Kds), Suspended Sediment-Surface Water
(Kdm), and Bottom Sediment-Sediment Pore Water (KdJ
Partition coefficients (Kd) describe the partitioning of a compound between sorbing material, such as
soil, soil pore-water, surface water, suspended solids, and bed sediments. For organic compounds, Kd
has been estimated to be a function of the organic-carbon partition coefficient and the fraction of organic
carbon in the partitioning media. For metals, Kd is assumed to be independent of the organic carbon in
the partitioning media and, therefore, partitioning is similar in all sorbing media.
The soil-water partition coefficient (Kds) describes the partitioning of a compound between soil
pore-water and soil particles, and strongly influences the release and movement of a compound into the
subsurface soils and underlying aquifer. The suspended sediment-surface water partition coefficient
(Kdsw) coefficient describes the partitioning of a compound between surface water and suspended solids
or sediments. The bed sediment-sediment pore-water partition coefficient (Kdbs) coefficient describes the
partitioning of a compound between the bed sediments and bed sediment pore-water.
Organics For organics (including PCDDs and PCDFs), soil organic carbon is assumed to be the
dominant sorbing component in soils and sediments. Therefore, Kd values were calculated using the
following fraction organic carbon (foc) correlation equations:
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering A-2-12
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Appendix A-2 August 1999
Kds - foc^s • Koc Equation A-2-8a
Kd™ = foe,™ ' KOC Equation A-2-8b
Kdbs = foc,bs ' KOC Equation A-2-8c
• U.S. EPA. 1993d. Review Draft Addendum to the Methodology for Assessing Health
Risks Associated with Indirect Exposure to Combustor Emissions. Office of Health and
Environmental Assessment. Office of Research and Development.
EPA-600-AP-93-003. November 10.
U.S. EPA (1993d), from literature searches, states that^c could range as follows:
• 0.002 to 0.024 in soils—for which a mid-range value offocs= 0.01 generally can be used.
• 0.05 to 0.1 in suspended sediments—for which a mid-range value offOCiSW = 0.075
generally can be used.
• 0.03 to 0.05 in bottom sediments—for which a mid-range value offochs= 0.04 generally
can be used.
Consistent with the primary guidance documents, this SLERAP uses mid-range foc values recommended
by U.S. EPA (1993d). Kd values were calculated using Koc values recommended for each compound in
this SLERAP.
Metals For metals (except mercury), Kd is governed by factors other than organic carbon, such as pH,
redox, iron content, cation exchange capacity, and ion-chemistry. Therefore, Kd values for metals cannot
be calculated using the same correlation equations specified for organic compounds. Instead, Kd values
for the metals must be obtained directly from literature sources. Kd values for all metals, except lead,
were obtained from U.S. EPA (1996b). U.S. EPA (1996b) provides values for Kdthat are based on pH,
and are estimated by using the MINTEQ2 model, which is a geochemical speciation model. The
MINTEQ2 model analyses were conducted under a variety of geochemical conditions and metal
concentrations. The MINTEQ2 pH-dependent Kd values were estimated by holding constant the iron
oxide at a medium value and the/^ at 0.002. For arsenic, hexavalent chromium, selenium, and thallium,
empirical pH-dependent Kd values were used.
U.S. EPA (1995b) also recommended Kd values estimated using the MINTEQ2 model. U.S. EPA
(1994f) and NC DEHNR (1997) provided Kd values obtained from several literature sources, depending
on the compound; however, the Kd values are identical in all of the primary guidance documents.
The MINTEQ2 model values in U.S. EPA (1996b) were comparable to the values in the primary
guidance documents. In addition, because organic carbon does not play a major role in partitioning for
the metals, U.S. EPA (1994f) assumed that the partitioning is the same, regardless of the soil, suspended
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering A-2-13
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Appendix A-2 August 1999
sediment, or bottom sediment phase. Therefore, in this SLERAP, values for partitioning coefficients Kds,
Kdsw, and Kdbs for the metals are assumed to be the same.
Kd value for lead was obtained from the following:
Baes, C.F., R.D. Sharp, A.L. Sjoreen, and R.W. Shor. 1984. "Review and Analysis of
Parameters and Assessing Transport of Environmentally Released Radionuclides
Through Agriculture." Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee.
Mercuric Compounds Kdy Kdsv, and Kdbs values for mercury, mercuric chloride, and methyl mercury
were obtained from U.S. EPA (1996b). Kd values for mercuric chloride and methyl mercury were
obtained from U.S. EPA (1997g).
A2.3.9 Soil Loss Constant Due to Degradation (ksg)
Soil loss constant due to degradation (ksg) reflects loss of a compound from the soil by processes other
than leaching. Degradation rates in the soil media include biotic and abiotic mechanisms of
transformation. Abiotic degradation includes photolysis, hydrolysis, and redox reactions. Hydrolysis
and redox reactions can be significant abiotic mechanisms in soil (U.S. EPA 1990).
The following document states that degradation rates can be assumed to follow first order kinetics in a
homogenous media:
Lyman , W.J., W.F. Reehl, and D.H. Rosenblatt. 1982. Handbook of Chemical
Property Estimation Methods: Environmental Behavior of Organic Compounds.
McGraw-Hill Book Company. New York, New York.
Therefore, the half-life ft,/.} of compounds can be related to the degradation rate constant (ksg) as follows:
, 0.693
ksS = —— Equation A-2-9
Ideally, ksg is the sum of all biotic and abiotic rate constants in the soil. Therefore, if the tVi for all of the
mechanisms of transformation are known, the degradation rate can be calculated using Equation A-2-9.
However, literature sources generally do not provide sufficient data for all such mechanisms, especially
for soil.
Or sanies For organics (except PCDDs and PCDFs), ksg values were calculated using half-life soil
values obtained from the following document:
Howard, P.H., Boethling, R.S., Jarvis, W.F., Meylan, W.M., and Michalenko, E.M.
1991. Handbook of 'Environmental Degradation Rates. Lewis Publishers. Chelsea,
Michigan.
Half-life values provided in Howard, Boethling, Jarvis, Meylan, and Michalenko (1991) indicate the
disappearance of a substance in ground water or soil; with the principal degradation mechanisms being
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering A-2-14
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Appendix A-2 August 1999
biodegradation and hydrolysis. Values reported were highly variable because of the different methods
used for measurements, in addition to the various controlling factors that could affect them. Therefore,
Howard, Boethling, Jarvis, Meylan, and Michalenko (1991) provided a range of half-life values found in
the literature, usually for the fastest reaction mechanism,. Ksg values recommended in this SLERAP
were calculated with the high-end half-life values.
U.S. EPA (1994b) also cited values obtained from Howard, Boethling, Jarvis, Meylan, and Michalenko
(1991). NC DEHNR (1997) cited values that are comparable to ksg values calculated by using half-life
values obtained from Howard, Boethling, Jarvis, Meylan, and Michalenko (1991).
PCDDs and PCDFs For PCDDs and PCDFs, ksg values were calculated from half-life values in soil
obtained from Mackay, Shiu, and Ma (1992). For 2,3,7,8-TCDD, ksg value was obtained from
U.S. EPA (1994a); which discussed experimental studies that were conducted on PCDDs and PCDFs
degradation mechanisms. U.S. EPA (1994a) summarized the degradation of PCDDs and PCDDs as
follows:
• A few experimental studies have shown possible biological degradation of TCDDs.
However, the studies conclude that microbial action is very slow for PCDDs under
optimum conditions, with the degradation rates probably higher with decreasing
chlorination. PCDFs were found to be extremely stable to biological degradation.
• Abiotic degradation, such as photolysis, appears to be the most significant natural
degradation mechanism for PCDDs and PCDFs. Experimental studies have shown that
PCDDs and PCDFs undergo photolysis in the presence of a suitable hydrogen donor. No
information was available to show that other abiotic degradation mechanisms, such as
oxidation and hydrolysis, are important under environmentally relevant conditions.
Metals For the metals, NC DEHNR (1997) cites ksg values of zero. Literature states that the metals are
transformed, but not degraded, by such mechanisms; therefore, ksg values are not applicable to metals.
Mercuric Compounds For mercury, mercuric chloride, and methylmercury, U.S. EPA (1997g)
recommended ksg values of zero.
A2.3.10 Fraction of Pollutant Air Concentration in the Vapor Phase (Fv)
Organics For organics, the fraction of pollutant air concentration in the vapor phase (Fv) was calculated
using the following equation:
c ST
Fv = I - — Equation A-2-10
p L + c ST
• Junge, C. E. 1977. Fate of Pollutants in the Air and Water Environments, Part I; Suffet,
I. H., Ed.; Wiley; New York. Pages 7-26.
If the compound is a liquid at ambient temperatures (that is, when p L is known), Equation A-2-10
calculates Fv using the vapor pressure value recommended for that compound in this SLERAP. If the
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering A-2-15
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Appendix A-2 August 1999
compound is a solid at ambient temperatures (that is, when p °s is known), the following equation
(Bidleman 1988) was used to calculate p °L fmmp°s, for use in Equation A-2-10:
p° A Sf (T - T)
In ( ) = —^ _2L^ Equation A-2-11
P°s R T
where
c = Junge constant = 1.7 x 10~04 (atm-cm)
p L = Liquid phase vapor pressure of compound (arm)
p s = Solid phase vapor pressure of compound (atm)
R = Universal ideal gas constant (atm-m3/mole"K)
ASf = Entropy effusion [ASf/R = 6.79 (unitless)]
ST = Whitby's average surface area of particulates (aerosols)
Ta = Ambient air temperature (K)—assumed to be 25 C or 298 K
This equation was adopted from:
• Bidleman, T.F. 1988. "Atmospheric Processes." Environmental Science and
Technology. Volume 22. Number 4. Pages 361-367.
According to Bidleman (1988), Equation A-2-10 assumes that the Junge constant (c) is constant for all
compounds. However, c can depend on (1) the compound (sorbate) molecular weight, (2) the surface
concentration for monolayer coverage, and (3) the difference between the heat of desorption from the
particle surface and the heat of vaporization of the liquid-phase sorbate.
The primary guidance documents used Equations A-2-10 and A-2-11 to compute Fv. However, it is not
clear what values ofS, T, and Vp values were used to calculate values for Fv. For example, U.S. EPA
(1994f) calculated Fv values at (T) of 11 C. Because of inconsistencies in the values in the primary
guidance documents, Fv values in the primary guidance documents were not recommended for use in this
SLERAP. Fv values were calculated using the recommended values of Vp and Tm provided in this
SLERAP for each compound.
Metals Consistent with U.S. EPA (1994f), all metals (except mercury) are assumed to be present in the
particulate phase and not in the vapor phase (Vp = 0), and assigned Fv values of zero.
Mercuric Compounds Mercury and mercuric chloride are relatively volatile and exist in the vapor phase
(U.S. EPA 1997g). Therefore, the Fv value recommended in this SLERAP for mercury was calculated
using Equations A-2-10 and A-2-11.
Based on discussions on mercury presented in Chapter 2 of this SLERAP, Fv values of 1.0 for mercury
(same as calculated using Equations A-2-10 and A-2-11), and 0.85 for mercuric chloride were estimated.
Consistent with information provided in U.S. EPA (1997g), methyl mercury is assumed not to exist in
the air phase and, therefore, assigned an Fv of zero.
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering A-2-16
-------
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). 1987. Draft Toxicological Profile for
Di(2-ethylhexyl) Phthatlate. Oak Ridge National Laboratory. December.
Bacci E., D. Calamari, C. Gaggi, and M. Vighi. 1990. "Bioconcentration of Organic Chemical Vapors
in Plant Leaves: Experimental Measurements and Correlation." Environmental Science and
Technology. Volume 24. Number 6. Pages 885-889.
Bacci E., M. Cerejeira, C. Gaggi, G. Chemello, D. Calamari, and M. Vighi. 1992. "Chlorinated
Dioxins: Volatilization from Soils and Bioconcentration in Plant Leaves." Bulletin of
Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. Volume 48. Pages 401-408.
Baes, C.F. 1982. "Prediction of Radionuclide Kd values from Soil-Plant Concentration Ratios."
Tran. American Nuclear Society. 41:53-54.
Baes, C.F., R.D. Sharp, A.L. Sjoreen, and R.W. Shor. 1984. "Review and Analysis of Parameters and
Assessing Transport of Environmentally Released Radionuclides through Agriculture."
Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Oak Ridge, Tennessee.
Banerjee, S., P.H. Howard, and S.S. Lande. 1990. "General Structure Vapor Pressure Relationships for
Organics." Chemosphere. 21(10-11). Pages 1173-1180.
Belcher, G.D., and C.C. Travis. 1989. "Modeling Support for the RURA and Municipal Waste
Combustion Projects: Final Report on Sensitivity and Uncertainty Analysis for the Terrestrial
Food Chain Model." Interagency Agreement No. 1824-A020-A1. Office of Risk Analysis,
Health and Safety Research Division. Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Oak Ridge, Tennessee.
October.
Bidleman, T.F. 1984. "Estimation of Vapor Pressures for Nonpolar Organic Compounds by Capillary
Gas Chromatography. Analytical Chemistry. Volume 56. Pages 2490-2496.
Bidleman, T.F. 1988. "Atmospheric Processes." Environmental Science and Technology. Volume 22.
Number 4. Pages 361-367.
Billington, J.W., G. Huang, F. Szeto, W.Y. Shiu, and D. Mackay. 1988. "Preparation of Aqueous
Solutions of Sparingly Soluble Organic Substances: I. Single Component Systems."
Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry. Volume 7. Pages 117-124.
Briggs, G.G., R.H. Bromilow, and A.A. Evans. 1982. "Relationships Between Lipophilicity and Root
Uptake and Translocation of Nonionized Chemicals by Barley." Pesticide Science. Volume 13.
Pages 495-504.
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering A-2-17
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Appendix A-2 August 1999
Bruggeman, W.A., J. Van Der Steen, and O. Hutzinger. 1982. "Reversed-Phase Thin-Layer
Chromatography of Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons and Chlorinated Biphenyls.
Relationship with Hydrophobicity as Measured by Aqueous Solubility and Octanol-Water
Partition Coefficient." Journal of Chromatography. Volume 238. Pages 335-346.
Budavari, S., M.J. O'Neil, A. Smith, and P.E. Heckelman. 1989. The Merck Index: An Encyclopedia of
Chemicals, Drugs, and Biologicals. llth Edition. Merck and Company, Inc. Rahway,
New Jersey.
California Environmental Protection Agency (CEPA). 1993. "Parameter Values and Ranges for
CALTOX." Draft. Office of Scientific Affairs. California Department of Toxic Substances
Control. Sacramento, CA. July.
Chamberlain, A.C. 1970. "Interception and Retention of Radioactive Aerosols by Vegetation."
Atmospheric Environment. Pergamon Press. Great Britain. Volume 4. Pages 57-78.
Di Toro, D.M. 1985. "A Particle Interaction Model of Reversible Organic Chemical Sorption."
Chemosphere. 14(10): 1503-153 8.
DiToro, D.M., C.S. Zarba, D.J. Hansen, W.J. Berry, RC. Swartz, C.E. Cowan, S.P. Pavlou, H.E. Allen,
N.A. Thomas, and P.R. Paquin. 1991. "Technical Basis for Establishing Sediment Quality
Criteria for Nonionic Compounds Using Equilibrium Partitioning." Environmental Toxicology
and Chemistry. 10:1541-1583.
Eadie, B.J., N.R. Morehead, and P.P. Landrum. 1990. "Three-Phase Partitioning of Hydrophobic
Organic Compounds in Great Lakes Waters." Chemosphere. Volume 20. Pages 161-178.
Ellegehausen, H., J.A. Guth, and H.O. Esser. 1980. "Factors Determining the Bioaccumulation
Potential of Pesticides in the Individual Compartments of Aquatic Food Chains." Ecotoxicology
and Environmental Safety. 4:134.
Gobas, F.A.P.C. 1993. "A Model for predicting the bioaccumulation of hydrophobic organic chemicals
in aquatic food-webs: application to Lake Ontario." Ecological Modelling. 69:1-17.
Hansch, C., and A. Leo. 1985. Medchem Project. Pomona College. Clairemont, California. Issue
No. 26.
Haque, R., and D. Schmedding. 1975. "A Method of Measuring the Water Solubility of Hydrophobic
Chemicals: Solubility of Five Polychlorinated Biphenyls." Bulletin of Environmental
Contamination and Toxicology. Volume 14. Pages 13-18.
Hinckley, D.A., T.F. Bidleman, and W.T. Foreman. 1990. "Determination of Vapor Pressures for
Nonpolar and Semipolar Organic Compounds from Gas Chromatographic Retention Data."
Journal of Chemical Engineering Data. Volume 35. Pages 232-237.
Hoffman, P.O., K.M. Thiessen, M.L. Frank, and E.G. Blaylock. 1992. "Quantification of the
Interception and Initial Retention of Radioactive Contaminants Deposited on Pasture Grass by
Simulated Rain." Atmospheric Environment. 26A(18):3313-3321.
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering A-2-18
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Appendix A-2 August 1999
Howard, P.H. 1989-1993. Handbook of Environmental Fate and Exposure Data For Organic
Chemicals. Volume I: Large Production and Priority Pollutants (1989). Volume II: Solvents
(1990). Volume III: Pesticides (1991). Volume IV: Solvents2 (1993). Lewis Publishers.
Chelsea, Michigan.
Howard, P.H., R.S. Boethling, W.F. Jarvis, W.M. Meylan, and E.M. Michalenko, 1991. Handbook of
Environmental Degradation Rates. Lewis Publishers. Chelsea, Michigan.
Junge, C. E. 1977. Fate of Pollutants in the Air and Water Environments, Part I. Suffet, I. H.,
Ed. Wiley. New York. Pages 7-26.
Karickhoff, S.W., D.S. Brown, and T.A. Scott. 1979. "Sorption of Hydrophobic Pollutants on Natural
Sediments." Water Resources. 13:241-248.
Karickhoff, S.W., and J.M. Long. 1995. " Internal Report on Summary of Measured, Calculated, and
Recommended Log Kow Values." Environmental Research Laboratory. Athens, Georgia.
April 10.
Landrum, P.P., S.R. Nihart, B.J. Eadie, and W.S. Gardner. 1984. "Re verse-Phase Separation Method
for Determining Pollutant Binding to Aldrich Humic Acid and Dissolved Organic Carbon of
Natural Waters." Environmental Science and Technology. 18(3): 187-192.
Lorber, M. 1995. "Development of an Air-to-plant Vapor Phase Transfer for Dioxins and Furans.
Presented at the 15th International Symposium on Chlorinated Dioxins and Related
Compounds". August 21-25, 1995 in Edmonton, Canada. Abstract in Organohalogen
Compounds. 24:179-186.
Lucius, J.E., R.O. Olhoeft, P.L. Hill, and S.K. Duke. 1992. Properties and Hazards of 108 Selected
Substances - 1992 Edition. U.S. Department of the Interior Geological Survey. U.S. Geological
Survey Open-File Report 92-527. September.
Lyman, W.J., W.F. Reehl, and D.H. Rosenblatt. 1982. Handbook of Chemical Property Estimation
Methods: Environmental Behavior of Organic Compounds. McGraw-Hill Book Company.
New York, New York.
Ma, K.C., W.Y. Shiu, and D. Mackay. 1990. A Critically Reviewed Compilation of Physical and
Chemical and Persistence Data for 110 Selected EMPPL Substances. Prepared for the Ontario
Ministry of Environment. Water Resources Branch. Toronto, Ontario.
Mabey, W.R., J.H. Smith, R.T. Podoll, H.L. Johnson, H.L. Mill, T.W. Chiou, J. Gate, I.
Waight-Partridge, H. Jaber, and D. Vanderberg. 1982. Aquatic Fate Process Data for Organic
Priority Pollutants. U.S. EPA Report Number 440/4-81-014. December.
McCarthy, J.F., and B.D. Jimenez. 1985. "Interactions Between Fob/cyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons and
Dissolved Humic Material: Binding and Dissociation." Environmental Science and Technology.
19(11): 1072-1076.
Mackay, D., and S. Paterson. 1991. "Evaluating the Multimedia Fate of Organic Chemicals: A Level
III Fugacity Model." Environmental Science and Technology. Volume 25(3). Pages 427-436.
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering A-2-19
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Appendix A-2 August 1999
Mackay, D., and W.Y. Shiu. 1975. "The Aqueous Solubility and Air-Water Exchange Characteristics of
Hydrocarbons under Environmental Conditions." In Chemistry and Physics of Aqueous Gas
Solutions. Electrochem. Soc., Inc. Princeton, New Jersey.
Mackay, D. W.Y. Shiu, and K.C. Ma. 1992. Illustrated Handbook of Physical-Chemical Properties and
Environmental Fate for Organic Chemicals. Volume I—Monoaromatic Hydrocarbons,
Chlorobenzenes, and PCBs. Volume II—Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons, Poly chlorinated
Dioxins, andDibenzofurans. Volume III—Volatile Organic Chemicals. Lewis Publishers.
Chelsea, Michigan.
McLachlan, M.S., H. Thoma, M. Reissinger, and O. Hutzinger. 1990. "PCDD/F in an Agricultural
Food Chain. Part I: PCDD/F Mass Balance of a Lactating Cow." Chemosphere. Volume 20
(Numbers 7-9). Pages 1013-1020.
Macrady, J.K., and S.P. Maggard. 1993. "Uptake and Photodegradation of
2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin Sorbed to Grass Foliage." Environmental Science and
Technology. 27:343-350.
Mallon, B.J., and F.I. Harrison. 1984. "Octanol-Water Partitioning Coefficient of Benzo(a)pyrene:
Measurement, Calculation, and Environmental Implications." Bulletin of Environmental
Contamination and Toxicology. New York. Pages 316-323.
Miller, M.M., S.P. Wasik, G.L. Huang, W.Y. Shiu, and D. Mackay. 1985. "Relationships Between
Octanol-Water Partition Coefficient and Aqueous Solubility." Environmental Science and
Technology. 19(6):522-529.
Mills, W.B., J.D. Dean, D.B. Porcella, S.A. Gherini, RJ.M. Hudson, W.E. Frick, G.L. Rupp, and G.L.
Bowie. 1982. Water Quality Assessment: A Screening Procedure for Toxic and Conventional
Pollutants. Parti. EPA 600/6-82-004a.
Montgomery, J.H., and L.M. Welkom. 1991. Groundwater Chemicals Desk Reference. Lewis
Publishers. Chelsea, Michigan.
Murray, J.M., R.F. Pottie, and C. Pupp. 1974. "The Vapor Pressures and Enthalpies of Sublimation of
Five Poly cyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons." Can.J.Chem. 52:557-563.
Moses, A.J. 1978. The Practicing Scientist's Handbook. A Guide for Physical and Terrestrial
Scientists and Engineers. Van Nostrand Reinhold Company. New York, NY.
North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources (NC DEHNR). 1997. North
Carolina Protocol for Performing Indirect Exposure Risk Assessments for Hazardous Waste
Combustion Units. January.
Ogata, M., K. Fujisawa, Y. Ogino, and E. Mano. 1984. "Partition Coefficients as a Measure of
Bioconcentration Potential of Crude Oil Compounds in Fish and Shellfish." Bulletin of
Environmental Contaminant Toxicology. Volume 33. Page 561.
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering A-2-20
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Appendix A-2 August 1999
Pennington, J.A.T. 1994. Food Value of Portions Commonly Used. Sixteenth Edition. J.B. Lippincott
Company, Philadelphia.
Research Triangle Institute (RTI). 1992. Preliminary Soil Action Level for Superfund Sites, Draft
Interim Report. Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Hazardous Site
Control Division, Remedial Operations Guidance Branch. Arlington, Virginia. EPA Contract
No. 68-W1-0021. Work Assignment No. B-03. Work Assignment Manager, Loren Henning.
December.
RTI. 1994. "Draft Report—Chemical Properties for Soil Screening Levels." North Carolina. July 26.
Smith, J.H., W.R. Mabey, N. Bahonos, B.R Holt, S.S. Lee, T.W. Chou, D.C. Venberger, and T. Mill.
1978. Environmental Pathways of Selected Chemicals in Fresh Water Systems: Part II,
Laboratory Studies. Interagency Energy-Environment Research Program Report. Environmental
Research Laboratory. Office of Research and Development. U.S. EPA. Athens, Georgia.
EPA-600/7-78-074. Page 304.
Stephenson, R.M., and S. Malanowski. 1987. Handbook of the Thermodynamics of Organic
Compounds. Elsevier Publishing Company, Inc. New York.
Stephan, C.E., and others. 1993. "Derivation of Proposed Human Health and Wildlife Bioaccumulation
Factors for the Great Lakes Initiative." Office of Research and Development, U.S.
Environmental Research Laboratory. PB93-154672. Springfield, Virginia.
Stephens, R.D., M. Petreas, and G.H. Hayward. 1995. "Biotransfer and Bioaccumulation of Dioxins and
Furans from Soil: Chickens as a Model for Foraging Animals." The Science of the Total
Environment. 175:253-273. July 20.
Thomann, R.V. 1989. "Bioaccumulation Model of Organic Chemical Distribution in Aquatic Food
Chains." Environmental Science and Technology. 23(6):699-707.
Thomann, R.V., J.P. Connolly, and T.F. Parkerton. 1992. "An Equilibrium Model of Organic Chemical
Accumulation in Aquatic Food Webs with Sediment Interaction." Environmental Toxicology
and Chemistry. 11:615 -629.
Thompson, S.E., C.A. Burton, D.J. Quinn, and Y.C. Ng. 1972. "Concentration Factors of Chemical
Elements in Edible Aquatic Organisms." Lawrence Radiation Laboratory. Livermore, CA.
UCRL-50564, Revision 1. (Reference cited in updated version of Chapman, W.H., H.L. Fisher,
and M.W. Pratt. 1968).
Travis, C.C. and A.D. Arms. 1988. "Bioconcentration of Organics in Beef, Milk, and Vegetation."
Environmental Science and Technology. 22:271 -274.
U.S. EPA. 1978. Environmental Pathways of Selected Chemicals in Freshwater Systems: Part II.
Laboratory Studies. Interagency Energy-Environment Research and Development Program
Report. Environmental Research Laboratory. Athens, GA. EPA 600/7-78-074. May.
U.S. EPA. 1986. Superfund Public Health Evaluation Manual. Office of Emergency and Remedial
Response (OERR). Washington, D.C. October.
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering A-2-21
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Appendix A-2 August 1999
U.S. EPA. 1990. Interim Final Methodology for Assessing Health Risks Associated with Indirect
Exposure to Combustor Emissions. EPA/600/6-90/003. January.
U.S. EPA. 1992a. Handbook of Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Ground Water
Monitoring Constituents: Chemical and Physical Properties. EPA/530-R-92/022. Office of
Solid Waste. Washington, D.C.
U.S. EPA. 1992b. Technical Support Document for the Land Application of Sewage Sludge. Volumes I
and II. EPA 822/R-93-001a. Office of Water. Washington, D.C.
U.S. EPA. 1992c. Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory Treatability DataBase. Version 5.0.
U.S. EPA. 1992d. Estimating Exposure to Dioxin-Like Compounds. Draft Report. Office of Research
and Development. Washington, D.C. EPA/600/6-88/005B. August.
U.S. EPA. 1993a. Assessment Tools for the Evaluation of Risk.
U.S. EPA. 1993b. Derivation of Proposed Human Health and Wildlife Bioaccumulation Factors for the
Great Lakes Initiative. Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Research
Laboratory. Duluth, Minnesota. March.
U.S. EPA. 1993c. "Proposed Water Quality Guidance for the Great Lakes System." Federal Register.
58:20802. April 16.
U.S. EPA. 1993d. Review Draft Addendum to the Methodology for Assessing Health Risks Associated
with Indirect Exposure to Combustor Emissions. Office of Health and Environmental
Assessment. Office of Research and Development. EPA-600-AP-93-003. November 10.
U.S. EPA. 1994a. Estimating Exposure to Dioxin-Like Compounds. Draft Report. Office of Research
and Development. Washington, D.C. EPA/600/6-88/005Ca,b,c. June.
U.S. EPA. 1994b. Superfund Chemical Data Matrix. OERR. Washington, D.C. June.
U.S. EPA 1994c. Draft Report-Chemical Properties for Soil Screening Levels. Prepared for the OERR.
Washington, DC. July 26.
U.S. EPA. 1994d. CHEMS-Compound Properties Estimation and Data. Version 1.00. CHEMDAT8
Air Emissions Program. Prepared for Chemicals and Petroleum Branch, OAQPS. Research
Triangle Park. North Carolina. November 18.
U.S. EPA. 1994e. Integrated Risk Information System. December.
U.S. EPA. 1994f Revised Draft Guidance for Performing Screening Level Risk Analyses at Combustion
Facilities Burning Hazardous Wastes: Attachment C, Draft Exposure Assessment Guidance for
RCRA Hazardous Waste Combustion Facilities. OERR. Office of Solid Waste. December 14.
U.S. EPA. 1994h. Methods for Derivation of Inhalation Reference Concentrations and Application of
Inhalation Dosimetry. ORD. EPA/600/8-90/066F.
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering A-2-22
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Appendix A-2 August 1999
U.S. EPA. 1995a. Memorandum regarding Further Studies for Modeling the Indirect Exposure Impacts
from Combustor Emissions. From Mathew Lorber, Exposure Assessment Group, and Glenn
Rice, Indirect Exposure Team, Environmental Criteria and Assessment Office. Washington,
D.C. January 20.
U.S. EPA. 1995b. Review Draft Development of Human Health-Based and Ecologically-Based Exit
Criteria for the Hazardous Waste Identification Project. Volumes I and II. Office of Solid
Waste. March 3.
U.S. EPA. 1995c. "Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables." Fiscal Year-1995 Annual. Office of
Solid Waste and Emergency Response. Washington, D.C. EPA/540/R-95/036. May.
U.S. EPA. 1995d. WATERS-Air Emissions Models Wastewater Treatment. Version 4.0. OAQPS.
Research Triangle Park. North Carolina. May 1.
U.S. EPA. 1995e. Water Quality Guidance for the Great Lakes System. Supplementary Information
Document. Office of Water. EPA-820-B-95-001. March.
U.S. EPA. 1995f Great Lakes Water Quality Initiative. Technical Support Document for the
Procedure to Determine Bioaccumulation Factors. Office of Water. EPA-820-B-95-005.
March.
U.S. EPA. 1996a. Mercury Study Report to Congress. Volume III: An Assessment of Exposure from
Anthropogenic Mercury Emissions in the United States. SAB Review Draft. Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards and Office of Research and Development. EPA-452/R-96-001c.
April.
U.S. EPA. 1996b. Soil Screening Guidance: Technical Background Document and User's Guide.
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. Washington, D.C. EPA/540/R-95/128. May.
U.S. EPA. 1996c. "Region 9 Preliminary Remediation Goals." Region 9. August.
U.S. EPA. 1997a. "Risk-Based Concentrations." Region 3. June
U.S. EPA. 1997b. Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS). June - December.
U.S. EPA. 1997c. "Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables (HEAST). Fiscal Year 1997 Update".
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. EPA-540-R-97-036. PB97-921199. July.
U.S. EPA. 1997d. " Risk Assessment Issue Papers for: Derivation of a Provisional Chronic and
Subchronic RfC for Chloromethane (CASRN 74-87-3)." Superfund Technical Support Center.
National Center for Environmental Assessement. December.
U.S. EPA. 1997e. "Risk Assessment Issue Papers for: Carcinogenicity Information for
Tetrachloroethylene (CASRN 127-18-4)." Superfund Technical Support Center. National
Center for Environmental Assessement. December.
U.S. EPA. 1997f "Risk Assessment Issue Papers for: Derivation of a Provisional Subchronic Inhalation
RfC for Benzene (CASRN 71-43-2)." Superfund Technical Support Center. National Center for
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering A-2-23
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Appendix A-2 August 1999
Environmental Assessement. December.
U.S. EPA. 1997g. Mercury Study Report to Congress. Volume III: Fate and Transport of Mercury in
the Environment. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards and Office of Research and
Development. EPA-452/R-97-005. December.
U.S. EPA. 1997h. Exposure Factors Handbook. "Food Ingestion Factors". Volume II.
EPA/600/P-95/002Fb. August.
U.S. EPA. 1998. Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol for Hazardous Waste
Combustion Facilities. Draft Interim Final. April.
Veith, G.D., K.J. Macek, S.R. Petrocelli, and J. Caroll. 1980. "An Evaluation of Using Partition
Coefficients and Water Solubility to Estimate Bioconcentration Factors for Organic Chemicals in
Fish." Journal of Fish. Res. Board Can. Prepublication Copy.
Verschueren, K. 1983. Handbook oj'EnvironmentalData on Organic Chemicals. Second Edition.
Van Nostrand Reinhold Company. New York.
Weast, R.C. 1981. Handbook of Chemistry and Physics. 62nd Edition. Cleveland, Ohio. CRC Press.
Welsch-Pausch, K.M. McLachlan, and G. Umlauf. 1995. "Determination of the Principal Pathways of
Polychlorinated Dibenzo-p-dioxins and Dibenzofurans to Lolium Multiflorum (Welsh Ray
Grass)". Environmental Science and Technology. 29: 1090-1098.
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering A-2-24
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Appendix A-2
August 1999
Table
A-2-1
A-2-2
A-2-3
A-2-4
A-2-5
A-2-6
A-2-7
A-2-8
A-2-8a
A-2-9
A-2-10
A-2-11
A-2-12
A-2-13
A-2-14
A-2-15
A-2-16
A-2-17
A-2-18
A-2-19
A-2-20
ATTACHMENT
TABLES OF COMPOUND-SPECIFIC PARAMETER VALUES
(Page 1 of 10)
CAS NUMBER 83-32-9: ACENAPHTHENE
Page
A-2-35
CAS NUMBER 75-07-0:
CAS NUMBER 67-64-1:
CAS NUMBER 75-05-8:
CAS NUMBER 98-86-2:
ACETALDEHYDE A-2-36
ACETONE A-2-37
ACETONITRILE A-2-38
ACETOPHENONE A-2-39
CAS NUMBER 107-02-8: ACROLEIN A-2-40
CAS NUMBER 107-13-1: ACRYLONITRILE A-2-41
CAS NUMBER 309-00-2: ALDRIN A-2-42
CAS NUMBER 7429-90-5: ALUMINUM A-2-43
CAS NUMBER 62-53-3:
ANILINE A-2-44
CAS NUMBER 120-12-7: ANTHRACENE A-2-45
CAS NUMBER 7440-36-0: ANTIMONY A-2-46
CAS NUMBER 12674-11-2: AROCLOR 1016 A-2-47
CAS NUMBER 11097-69-1: AROCLOR 1254 A-2-48
CAS NUMBER 7440-38-2: ARSENIC A-2-49
CAS NUMBER 1912-24-9: ATRAZINE A-2-50
CAS NUMBER 7440-36-3: BARIUM A-2-51
CAS NUMBER 100-52-7: BENZALDEHYDE A-2-52
CAS NUMBER 71-43-2:
BENZENE A-2-53
CAS NUMBER 56-55-3: BENZO(A)ANTHRACENE A-2-54
CAS NUMBER 50-32-8: BENZO(A)PYRENE A-2-55
U.S. EPA Region 6
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering
U.S. EPA
Office of Solid Waste
A-2-25
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Appendix A-2
August 1999
ATTACHMENT
TABLES OF COMPOUND-SPECIFIC PARAMETER VALUES
(Page 2 of 10)
CAS NUMBER 205-99-2: BENZO(B)FLUORANTHENE A-2-56
CAS NUMBER 207-08-9: BENZO(K)FLUORANTHENE A-2-57
CAS NUMBER 65-85-0: BENZOIC ACID A-2-58
CAS NUMBER 100-47-0: BENZONITRILE A-2-60
CAS NUMBER 100-51-6: BENZYL ALCOHOL A-2-61
CAS NUMBER 100-44-7: BENZYL CHLORIDE A-2-62
CAS NUMBER 7440-41-7: BERYLLIUM A-2-63
A-2-21
A-2-22
A-2-23
A-2-24
A-2-25
A-2-26
A-2-27
A-2-28
A-2-29
A-2-30
A-2-31
A-2-32
A-2-33
A-2-34
A-2-35
A-2-36
A-2-37
A-2-38
A-2-39
A-2-40
A-2-41
CAS NUMBER 319-84-6:
CAS NUMBER 319-85-7:
CAS NUMBER 111-44-4:
CAS NUMBER 75-27-4:
BHC, ALPHA- A-2-64
BHC,BETA- A-2-65
BIS(2-CHLORETHYL)ETHER A-2-66
BROMODICHLOROMETHANE A-2-67
CAS NUMBER 75-25-2: BROMOFORM (TRIBROMOMETHANE) . A-2-68
CAS NUMBER 101-55-3: BROMOPHENYL-PHENYLETHER, 4- ... A-2-69
CAS NUMBER 85-68-7: BUTYLBENZYLPHTHALATE A-2-70
CAS NUMBER 7440-43-9: CADMIUM A-2-71
CAS NUMBER 75-15-0:
CAS NUMBER 56-23-5:
CAS NUMBER 57-74-9:
CARBON DISULFIDE A-2-72
CARBON TETRACHLORIDE A-2-73
CHLORDANE A-2-74
CAS NUMBER 7782-50-5: CHLORINE A-2-75
CAS NUMBER 59-50-7: CHLORO-3-METHYLPHENOL, 4- A-2-76
CAS NUMBER 106-47-8: CHLOROANILINE, p- A-2-77
U.S. EPA Region 6
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering
U.S. EPA
Office of Solid Waste
A-2-26
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Appendix A-2
August 1999
ATTACHMENT
TABLES OF COMPOUND-SPECIFIC PARAMETER VALUES
(Page 3 of 10)
CAS NUMBER 108-90-7: CHLOROBENZENE
A-2-42
A-2-43
A-2-44
A-2-45
A-2-46
A-2-47
A-2-48
A-2-49
A-2-50
A-2-51
A-2-52
A-2-53
A-2-54
A-2-54a
A-2-55
A-2-56
A-2-57
A-2-58
A-2-59
A-2-60
A-2-61
A-2-78
CAS NUMBER 510-15-6: CHLOROBENZILATE A-2-79
CAS NUMBER 75-45-6:
CAS NUMBER 75-00-3:
CHLORODIFLUOROMETHANE A-2-80
CHLOROETHANE A-2-81
CAS NUMBER 67-66-3: CHLOROFORM
(TRICHLOROMETHANE) A-2-82
CAS NUMBER 39638-32-9: CHLOROISOPROPYL ETHER, BIS-1,2- . . A-2-83
CAS NUMBER 91-58-7: CHLORONAPHTHALENE, 2- A-2-84
CAS NUMBER 95-57-8: CHLOROPHENOL, 2- A-2-85
CAS NUMBER 7005-72-3: CHLOROPHENYL-PHENYLETHER, 3- .. A-2-87
CAS NUMBER 2921-88-2: CHLOROPYRIFOS A-2-88
CAS NUMBER 7440-47-3: CHROMIUM A-2-89
CAS NUMBER 18540-29-9: CHROMIUM, HEXAVALENT A-2-90
CAS NUMBER 218-01-9: CHRYSENE A-2-91
CAS NUMBER 7440-50-8: COPPER A-2-92
CAS NUMBER 108-39-4:
CAS NUMBER 95-48-7:
CAS NUMBER 106-44-5:
CAS NUMBER 98-82-8:
CAS NUMBER 57-12-5:
CAS NUMBER 72-54-8:
CAS NUMBER 72-55-9:
CRESOL,m- A-2-93
CRESOL, o- A-2-94
CRESOL, p- A-2-95
CUMENE (ISOPROPYLBENZENE) A-2-96
CYANIDE A-2-97
ODD, 4,4'- A-2-98
DDE, 4,4'- A-2-99
U.S. EPA Region 6
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering
U.S. EPA
Office of Solid Waste
A-2-27
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Appendix A-2
August 1999
ATTACHMENT
TABLES OF COMPOUND-SPECIFIC PARAMETER VALUES
(Page 4 of 10)
CAS NUMBER 50-29-3: DDT, 4,4'- A-2-100
CAS NUMBER 84-74-2: DI-N-BUTYL PHTHALATE A-2-101
A-2-62
A-2-63
A-2-64
A-2-65
A-2-66
A-2-67
A-2-68
A-2-69
A-2-70
A-2-71
A-2-72
A-2-73
A-2-74
A-2-75
A-2-76
A-2-77
A-2-78
A-2-79
A-2-80
A-2-81
A-2-82
CAS NUMBER 117-84-0:
CAS NUMBER 333-41-5:
CAS NUMBER 53-70-3:
CAS NUMBER 96-12-8:
CAS NUMBER 124-48-1:
CAS NUMBER 95-50-1:
CAS NUMBER 541-73-1:
CAS NUMBER 106-46-7:
CAS NUMBER 91-94-1:
CAS NUMBER 75-71-8:
CAS NUMBER 75-34-3:
CAS NUMBER 107-06-2:
CAS NUMBER 75-35-4:
CAS NUMBER 156-59-2:
CAS NUMBER 156-60-5:
CAS NUMBER 120-83-2:
CAS NUMBER 78-87-5:
CAS NUMBER 542-75-6:
CAS NUMBER 62-73-7:
DI(N-OCTYL) PHTHALATE A-2-102
DIAZINON A-2-103
DIBENZO(A,H)ANTHRACENE A-2-104
DIBROMO-3-CHLOROPROPANE 1,2- .. A-2-105
DIBROMOCHLOROMETHANE A-2-106
DICHLOROBENZENE, 1,2- A-2-107
DICHLOROBENZENE, 1,3- A-2-108
DICHLOROBENZENE, 1,4- A-2-109
DICHLOROBENZIDINE, 3,3'- A-2-110
DICHLORODIFLUOROMETHANE A-2-111
DICHLOROETHANE, 1,1- A-2-112
DICHLOROETHANE, 1,2- (ETHYLENE
DICHLORIDE) A-2-113
DICHLOROETHYLENE, 1,1- A-2-114
DICHLOROETHYLENE, CIS-1,2- A-2-115
DICHLOROETHYLENE, 1,2(TRANS)- .. A-2-116
DICHLOROPHENOL, 2,4- A-2-117
DICHLOROPROPANE, 1,2- A-2-119
DICHLOROPROPENE, 1,3(CIS)- A-2-120
DICHLORVOS A-2-121
U.S. EPA Region 6
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering
U.S. EPA
Office of Solid Waste
A-2-28
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Appendix A-2
August 1999
ATTACHMENT
TABLES OF COMPOUND-SPECIFIC PARAMETER VALUES
(Page 5 of 10)
CAS NUMBER 60-57-1: DIELDRIN
A-2-83
A-2-84
A-2-85
A-2-86
A-2-87
A-2-88
A-2-89
A-2-90
A-2-91
A-2-92
A-2-93
A-2-94
A-2-95
A-2-96
A-2-97
A-2-98
A-2-99
A-2-100
A-2-101
A-2-102
A-2-103
A-2-122
CAS NUMBER 84-66-2:
DIETHYL PHTHALATE A-2-123
CAS NUMBER 131-11-3: DIMETHYL PHTHALATE A-2-124
CAS NUMBER 105-67-9:
CAS NUMBER 119-90-4:
CAS NUMBER 99-65-0:
CAS NUMBER 51-28-5:
CAS NUMBER 121-14-2:
CAS NUMBER 606-20-2:
CAS NUMBER 123-91-1:
CAS NUMBER 122-66-7:
CAS NUMBER 298-04-4:
CAS NUMBER 115-29-7:
CAS NUMBER 72-20-8:
CAS NUMBER 106-89-8:
CAS NUMBER 97-68-2:
CAS NUMBER 62-50-0:
CAS NUMBER 100-41-4:
CAS NUMBER 106-93-4:
CAS NUMBER 75-21-8:
DIMETHYLPHENOL, 2,4- A-2-125
DIMETHYOXYBENZIDINE, 3,3' A-2-127
DINITROBENZENE, 1,3- A-2-128
DINITROPHENOL, 2,4- A-2-129
DINITROTOLUENE, 2,4- A-2-131
DINITROTOLUENE, 2,6- A-2-132
DIOXANE, 1,4- A-2-133
DIPHENYLHYDRAZINE, 1,2- A-2-134
DISULFOTON A-2-135
ENDOSULFANI A-2-136
ENDRIN A-2-137
EPICHLOROHYDRIN (1-CHLORO-
2,3-EPOXYPROPANE) A-2-138
ETHYL METHACRYLATE A-2-139
ETHYL METHANESULFONATE A-2-140
ETHYLBENZENE A-2-141
ETHYLENE DIBROMIDE A-2-142
ETHYLENE OXIDE A-2-143
CAS NUMBER 117-81-7: ETHYLHEXYL PHTHALATE, BIS-2- ... A-2-144
U.S. EPA Region 6
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering
U.S. EPA
Office of Solid Waste
A-2-29
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Appendix A-2
August 1999
ATTACHMENT
TABLES OF COMPOUND-SPECIFIC PARAMETER VALUES
(Page 6 of 10)
CAS NUMBER 206-44-0: FLUORANTHENE A-2-145
A-2-104
A-2-105
A-2-106
A-2-107
A-2-112
A-2-113
A-2-114
A-2-115
A-2-116
A-2-117
A-2-118
A-2-119
A-2-120
A-2-121
A-2-122
A-2-123
A-2-124
CAS NUMBER 86-73-7:
CAS NUMBER 50-00-0:
CAS NUMBER 64-18-6:
FLUORENE A-2-146
FORMALDEHYDE A-2-147
FORMIC ACID A-2-148
A-2-108 CAS NUMBER 35822-46-9: HEPTACDD, 1,2,3,4,6,7,8- A-2-149
A-2-109 CAS NUMBER 67562-39-4: HEPTACDF, 1,2,3,4,6,7,8- A-2-150
A-2-110 CAS NUMBER 55673-89-7: HEPTACDF, 1,2,3,4,7,8,9- A-2-151
A-2-111 CAS NUMBER 76-44-8: HEPTACHLOR A-2-152
CAS NUMBER 1024-57-3: HEPTACHLOR EPOXIDE A-2-153
CAS NUMBER 39227-28-6:
CAS NUMBER 57653-85-7:
CAS NUMBER 19408-74-3:
CAS NUMBER 70648-26-9:
CAS NUMBER 57117-44-9:
CAS NUMBER 72918-21-9:
CAS NUMBER 60851-34-5:
CAS NUMBER 87-68-3:
CAS NUMBER 118-74-1:
CAS NUMBER 77-47-4:
CAS NUMBER 67-72-1:
CAS NUMBER 70-30-4:
HEXACDD, 1,2,3,4,7,8- A-2-154
HEXACDD, 1,2,3,6,7,8- A-2-155
HEXACDD, 1,2,3,7,8,9- A-2-156
HEXACDF, 1,2,3,4,7,8- A-2-157
HEXACDF, 1,2,3,6,7,8- A-2-158
HEXACDF, 1,2,3,7,8,9- A-2-159
HEXACDF, 2,3,4,6,7,8- A-2-160
HEXACHLORO-1,3-BUTADIENE
(PERCHLOROBUTADIENE) A-2-161
HEXACHLOROBENZENE A-2-162
HEXACHLOROCYCLOPENTADIENE .. A-2-163
HEXACHLOROETHANE
(PERCHLOROETHANE) A-2-164
HEXACHLOROPHENE A-2-165
U.S. EPA Region 6
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering
U.S. EPA
Office of Solid Waste
A-2-30
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Appendix A-2
August 1999
ATTACHMENT
TABLES OF COMPOUND-SPECIFIC PARAMETER VALUES
(Page 7 of 10)
A-2-125
A-2-126
A-2-127
A-2-128
A-2-129
A-2-130
A-2-131
A-2-132
A-2-133
A-2-134
A-2-135
A-2-136
A-2-137
A-2-138
A-2-139
A-2-140
A-2-141
A-2-142
A-2-143
A-2-144
CAS NUMBER 7647-01-0: HYDROGEN CHLORIDE A-2-166
CAS NUMBER 193-39-5: INDENO(1,2,3-CD)PYRENE A-2-167
CAS NUMBER 78-59-1: ISOPHORONE A-2-168
CAS NUMBER 7439-92-1: LEAD A-2-169
CAS NUMBER 121-75-5: MALATHIONE A-2-170
CAS NUMBER 7487-94-7: MERCURIC CHLORIDE A-2-171
CAS NUMBER 7439-97-6: MERCURY A-2-172
CAS NUMBER 126-98-7: METHACRYLONITRILE A-2-173
CAS NUMBER 67-56-1:
CAS NUMBER 72-43-5:
CAS NUMBER 79-20-9:
CAS NUMBER 74-83-9:
CAS NUMBER 74-87-3:
CAS NUMBER 78-93-3:
CAS NUMBER 108-10-1:
METHANOL A-2-174
METHOXYCHLOR A-2-175
METHYL ACETATE A-2-176
METHYL BROMIDE
(BROMOMETHANE) A-2-177
METHYL CHLORIDE
(CHLOROMETHANE) A-2-178
METHYL ETHYL KETONE
(2-BUTANONE) A-2-179
METHYL ISOBUTYL KETONE A-2-180
CAS NUMBER 22967-92-6: METHYL MERCURY A-2-181
CAS NUMBER 298-00-0: METHYL PARATHION A-2-182
CAS NUMBER 74-95-3:
CAS NUMBER 75-09-2:
CAS NUMBER 91-20-3:
METHYLENE BROMIDE A-2-183
METHYLENE CHLORIDE A-2-184
NAPHTHALENE A-2-185
U.S. EPA Region 6
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering
U.S. EPA
Office of Solid Waste
A-2-31
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Appendix A-2
August 1999
ATTACHMENT
TABLES OF COMPOUND-SPECIFIC PARAMETER VALUES
(Page 8 of 10)
CAS NUMBER 7440-02-0: NICKEL
A-2-145
A-2-146
A-2-147
A-2-148
A-2-149
A-2-150
A-2-151
A-2-152
A-2-153
A-2-154
A-2-155
A-2-156
A-2-157
A-2-158
A-2-159
A-2-160
A-2-161
A-2-162
A-2-163
A-2-164
A-2-186
CAS NUMBER 88-74-4:
CAS NUMBER 99-09-2:
CAS NUMBER 100-01-6:
CAS NUMBER 98-95-3:
CAS NUMBER 88-75-5:
CAS NUMBER 100-02-7:
CAS NUMBER 924-16-3:
CAS NUMBER 86-30-6:
CAS NUMBER 621-64-7:
CAS NUMBER 3268-87-9:
CAS NUMBER 39001-02-0:
CAS NUMBER 40321-76-4:
CAS NUMBER 57117-41-6:
CAS NUMBER 57117-31-4:
CAS NUMBER 608-93-5:
CAS NUMBER 82-68-8:
CAS NUMBER 87-86-5:
CAS NUMBER 85-01-8:
NITROANILINE, 2- A-2-187
NITROANILINE, 3- A-2-188
NITROANILINE, 4- A-2-189
NITROBENZENE A-2-190
NITROPHENOL, 2- A-2-191
NITROPHENOL, 4- A-2-192
NITROSO-DI-N-BUTYLAMINE, N- A-2-193
NITROSODIPHENYLAMINE, N- A-2-194
NITROSODIPROPYLAMINE, N A-2-195
OCTACDD, 1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9- A-2-196
OCTACDF, 1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9- A-2-197
PENTACDD, 1,2,3,7,8- A-2-198
PENTACDF, 1,2,3,7,8- A-2-199
PENTACDF, 2,3,4,7,8- A-2-200
PENTACHLOROBENZENE A-2-201
PENTACHLORONITROBENZENE
(PCNB) A-2-202
PENTACHLOROPHENOL A-2-203
PHENANTHRENE A-2-205
CAS NUMBER 108-95-2: PHENOL A-2-206
U.S. EPA Region 6
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering
U.S. EPA
Office of Solid Waste
A-2-32
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Appendix A-2
August 1999
ATTACHMENT
TABLES OF COMPOUND-SPECIFIC PARAMETER VALUES
(Page 9 of 10)
CAS NUMBER 298-02-2: PHORATE
A-2-165
A-2-166
A-2-167
A-2-168
A-2-169
A-2-170
A-2-171
A-2-172
A-2-173
A-2-174
A-2-175
A-2-176
A-2-177
A-2-178
A-2-179
A-2-180
A-2-181
A-2-182
A-2-183
A-2-184
A-2-208
CAS NUMBER 85-44-9: PHTHALIC ANHYDRIDE (1,2-BENZENE
DICARBOXYLIC ANHYDRIDE) A-2-209
CAS NUMBER 23950-58-5: PRONAMIDE A-2-210
CAS NUMBER 129-00-0: PYRENE A-2-211
CAS NUMBER 110-86-1: PYRIDINE A-2-212
CAS NUMBER 299-84-3: RONNEL A-2-213
CAS NUMBER 94-59-1:
SAFROLE A-2-214
CAS NUMBER 7782-49-2: SELENIUM A-2-215
CAS NUMBER 7440-22-4: SILVER A-2-216
CAS NUMBER 57-24-9:
STRYCHNINE A-2-217
CAS NUMBER 100-42-5: STYRENE A-2-218
CAS NUMBER 1746-01-6: TETRACDD, 2,3,7,8- A-2-219
CAS NUMBER 51207-31-9: TETRACDF, 2,3,7,8- A-2-220
CAS NUMBER 95-94-3: TETRACHLOROBENZENE, 1,2,4,5- A-2-221
CAS NUMBER 630-20-6: TETRACHLOROETHANE, 1,1,1,2- A-2-222
CAS NUMBER 79-34-5: TETRACHLOROETHANE, 1,1,2,2- A-2-223
CAS NUMBER 127-18-4:
CAS NUMBER 58-90-2:
CAS NUMBER 109-99-9:
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE
(PERCHLOROETHYLENE) A-2-224
TETRACHLOROPHENOL, 2,3,4,6- A-2-225
TETRAHYDROFURAN A-2-227
CAS NUMBER 7440-28-0: THALLIUM (L) A-2-228
U.S. EPA Region 6
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering
U.S. EPA
Office of Solid Waste
A-2-33
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Appendix A-2
August 1999
ATTACHMENT
TABLES OF COMPOUND-SPECIFIC PARAMETER VALUES
(Page 10 of 10)
CAS NUMBER 108-88-3: TOLUENE
A-2-185
A-2-229
A-2-186 CAS NUMBER 95-53-4:
A-2-187 CAS NUMBER 87-61-6:
A-2-188 CAS NUMBER 120-82-1:
A-2-189 CAS NUMBER 71-55-6:
A-2-190 CAS NUMBER 79-00-5:
A-2-191 CAS NUMBER 79-01-6:
A-2-192 CAS NUMBER 75-69-4:
A-2-193 CAS NUMBER 95-95-4:
A-2-194 CAS NUMBER 88-06-2:
A-2-195 CAS NUMBER 96-18-4:
A-2-196 CAS NUMBER 108-67-8:
A-2-197 CAS NUMBER 99-35-4:
A-2-198 CAS NUMBER 118-96-7:
A-2-199 CAS NUMBER 108-05-4:
A-2-200 CAS NUMBER 75-01-4:
A-2-201 CAS NUMBER 108-38-3:
A-2-202 CAS NUMBER 95-47-6:
A-2-203 CAS NUMBER 106-42-3:
A-2-204 CAS NUMBER 7440-66-6:
TOLUIDINE, o- A-2-230
TRICHLOROBENZENE, 1,2,3- A-2-231
TRICHLOROBENZENE, 1,2,4- A-2-232
TRICHLOROETHANE, 1,1,1- A-2-233
TRICHLOROETHANE, 1,1,2- A-2-234
TRICHLOROETHYLENE A-2-235
TRICHLOROFLUOROMETHANE
(FREON11) A-2-236
TRICHLOROPHENOL, 2,4,5- A-2-237
TRICHLOROPHENOL, 2,4,6- A-2-238
TRICHLOROPROPANE, 1,2,3- A-2-240
TRIMETHYLBENZENE, 1,3,5- A-2-241
TRINITROBENZENE, 1,3,5(8YM)- A-2-242
TRINITROTOLUENE, 2,4,6- A-2-243
VINYL ACETATE A-2-244
VINYL CHLORIDE A-2-245
XYLENE,m- A-2-246
XYLENE, o- A-2-247
XYLENE, p- A-2-248
ZINC A-2-249
U.S. EPA Region 6
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering
U.S. EPA
Office of Solid Waste
A-2-34
-------
TABLE A-2-1
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC INPUTS FOR ACENAPHTHENE (83-32-9)
(Page 1 of 1)
Parameter
Reference and Explanation
Value
Chemical/Physical Properties
MW(g/mo\e)
rm(K)
Vp (atm)
S (mg/L)
H (atm-m3/mol)
Da (cm2/s)
A, (cm2/s)
Kow (unitless)
Koc (mL/g)
Kds (cm3/g)
Kd^ (L/Kg)
rrffo (cm3/g)
ksg (year)"1
Fv (unitless)
Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c).
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c).
H value was calculated by using the theoretical equation from Lyman, Reehl,
and Rosenblatt (1982), which defines the constant. Recommended value was
calculated by using the MW, S, and Vp values that are provided in this table.
Da value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
A, value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c).
Geometric mean of measured values obtained from U.S. EPA (1996b).
Kd, value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is
cited in U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.01 in
soil. Measured organic carbon in soil, specific to site conditions, should be
used to calculate Kd,, because the value varies, depending on the fraction of
organic carbon in soil. Kds value calculated using Koc value provided in this
table.
Kd^, value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is
cited in U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.075 in
suspended sediment. Measured organic carbon in suspended sediment,
specific to site conditions, should be used to calculate Kd^,, because the value
varies, depending on the fraction of organic carbon in suspended sediment.
Kdm value was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
Kdb, value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is
cited in U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.04 in
bottom sediment. Measured organic carbon in bottom sediment, specific to
site conditions, should be used to calculate Kdbs, because the value varies,
depending on the fraction of organic carbon in bottom sediment. Kdbs value
was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
Ksg value was calculated by using the chemical half-life in soil, as cited in
Howard, Boethling, Jarvis, Meylan, and Michalenko (1991).
Fv value was calculated by using equations cited in Junge (1 977) and
Bidleman (1988). Recommended value ofFv was calculated by using Tm and
Vp values that are provided in this table. Vp value for this compound was
converted to a liquid-phase value before being used in the calculations.
154.21
368.1
4.93E-06at25°C(solid)
4.13E+00
1.84E-04
4.21E-02
7.19E-06
9.22E+03
4.90E+03
4.90E+01
3.67E+02
1.96E+02
2.48E+00
1.00
Note:
NA = Not applicable
ND = No data available
All parameters are defined in LIST OF VARIABLES on page A-2-ii.
A-2-35
-------
TABLE A-2-2
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC INPUTS FOR ACETALDEHYDE (75-07-0)
(Page 1 of 1)
Parameter
Reference and Explanation
Value
Chemical/Physical Properties
Mff(g/mole)
rm(K)
Vp (atm)
S (mg/L)
H (atm-m3/mol)
Da (cm2/s)
A, (cm2/s)
Km (unitless)
Koc (mL/g)
Kds (cm3/g)
&/„ (L/Kg)
r^(cm3/g)
ksg (year)'1
Fv (unitless)
Montgomery and Welkom (1991)
Montgomery and Welkom (1991)
--
--
-
Da value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
Dw value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
Recommended Km value cited in Karickhoff and Long (1995).
Koc value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Km for phthalates
and PAHs, / all nonionizing organics except phthalates, PAHs, dioxins, and furans,
cited in U.S. EPA (1994c). Koc value was calculated by using the recommended Km
value that is provided in this table.
Kd, value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.01 in soil. Measured
organic carbon in soil, specific to site conditions, should be used to calculate Kds,
because the value varies, depending on the fraction of organic carbon in soil.
Recommended Kds value was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in
this table.
Kd^, value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.075 in suspended
sediment. Measured organic carbon in suspended sediment, specific to site
conditions, should be used to calculate Kd^, because the value varies, depending on
the fraction of organic carbon in suspended sediment. Recommended Kd^, value
was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
Kdbs value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.04 in bottom
sediment. Measured organic carbon in bottom sediment, specific to site conditions,
should be used to calculate Kdts, because the value varies, depending on the fraction
of organic carbon in bottom sediment. Recommended Kdts value was calculated by
using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
Ksg value was assumed to be 0 due to a lack of data.
Fv value was assumed to be 1.0 due to a lack of data.
44.05
149.6
ND
ND
ND
2.72E-01
1.33E-05
6.02E-01
9.53E-01
9.53E-03
7.15E-02
3.81E-02
0
1.0
Note:
NA = Not applicable
ND = No data available
All parameters are defined in LIST OF VARIABLES on page A-2-ii.
A-2-36
-------
TABLE A-2-3
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC INPUTS FOR ACETONE (67-64-1)
(Page 1 of 1)
Parameter
Reference and Explanation
Value
Chemical/Physical Properties
Mff(g/mole)
rm(K)
Vp (atm)
S (mg/L)
H (atm-m3/mol)
Z)a(cm2/s)
A, (cm2/s)
Kow (unitless)
Koc (mL/g)
Kd. (cm3/g)
^ (L/Kg)
fog (year)'1
Fv (unitless)
Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c).
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c).
H value was calculated by using the theoretical equation from Lyman, Reehl, and
Rosenblatt (1982), which defines the constant. Recommended value was calculated
by using the MW, S, and Vp values that are provided in this table.
Da value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
A, value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
Geometric mean value cited in Karickoff and Long (1995).
Koc value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Km for phthalates
and PAHs, / all nonionizing organics except phthalates, PAHs, dioxins, and furans,
cited in U.S. EPA (1994c). Koc value was calculated by using the recommended Km
value that is provided in this table.
Kds value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.01 in soil.
Measured organic carbon in soil, specific to site conditions, should be used to
calculate Kds, because the value varies, depending on the fraction of organic carbon
in soil. Recommended Kds value was calculated by using the Koc value that is
provided in this table.
Kdm value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.075 in suspended
sediment. Measured organic carbon in suspended sediment, specific to site
conditions, should be used to calculate Kd^,, because the value varies, depending on
the fraction of organic carbon in suspended sediment. Recommended Kdm value
was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
Ksg value was calculated by using the chemical half-life in soil, as cited in Howard,
Boethling, Jarvis, Meylan, and Michalenko (1991)
Fv value was calculated by using the equation cited in Junge (1977).
Recommended value of Fv was calculated by using the Vp value that is provided in
the table.
58.08
179.1
2.99E-01
at 25°C (liquid)
6.04E+05
2.88E-05
1.87E-01
1.15E-05
6.00E-01
9.51E-01
9.51E-03
7.13E-02
3.61E+01
1.00
Note:
NA = Not applicable
ND = No data available
All parameters are defined in LIST OF VARIABLES on page A-2-ii.
A-2-37
-------
TABLE A-2-4
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC INPUTS FOR ACETONITRILE (75-05-8)
(Page 1 of 1)
Parameter
Reference and Explanation
Value
Chemical/Physical Properties
MW(g/mo\e)
rm(K)
Vp (atm)
S (mg/L)
H (atm-m'/mol)
Da (cm2/s)
A, (cm2/s)
Km (unitless)
Km (mL/g)
Kds (cm3/g)
Kd^ (L/Kg)
fesg (year)"1
Fv (unitless)
Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
Howard (1989-1993)
Howard (1989-1993)
H value was calculated by using the theoretical equation from Lyman, Reehl, and
Rosenblatt (1982), which defines the constant. Recommended value was calculated
by using the MW, S, and Vp values that are provided in this table.
Da value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
Dw value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
log Km value cited in Karickhoff and Long (1995).
Koc value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Km for phthalates
and PAHs, / all nonionizing organics except phthalates, PAHs, dioxins, and furans,
cited in U.S. EPA (1994c). Koc value was calculated by using the recommended Km
value that is provided in this table.
Kd, value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.01 in soil. Measured
organic carbon in soil, specific to site conditions, should be used to calculate Kds,
because the value varies, depending on the fraction of organic carbon in soil.
Recommended Kds value was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in
this table.
Kd^, value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.075 in suspended
sediment. Measured organic carbon in suspended sediment, specific to site
conditions, should be used to calculate Kd^,, because the value varies, depending on
the fraction of organic carbon in suspended sediment. Recommended Kd^, value
was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
Ksg value was calculated by using the chemical half-life in soil, as cited in Howard,
Boethling, Jarvis, Meylan, and Michalenko (1991).
Fv value was calculated by using equations cited in Junge (1977) and Bidleman
(1988). Recommended value ofFv was calculated by using Tm and Vp values that
are provided in this table. Vp value for this compound was converted to a
liquid-phase value before being used in the calculations.
41.05
318.1
1.20E-01 at 25°C (solid)
7.50E+04
6.57E-05
3.14E-01
1.40E-05
4.57E-01
7.69E-01
7.69E-03
5.76E-02
9.03E+00
1.00
Note:
NA = Not applicable
ND = No data available
All parameters are defined in LIST OF VARIABLES on page A-2-ii.
A-2-38
-------
TABLE A-2-5
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC INPUTS FOR ACETOPHENONE (98-86-2)
(Page 1 of 1)
Parameter
Reference and Explanation
Value
Chemical/Physical Properties
MW(g/mo\e)
r»(K)
Fp(atm)
S(mg/L)
H (atm-mVmol)
Da (cm2/s)
Dv (cm2/s)
Km (unitless)
Kx (mL/g)
JM,(cm3/g)
^CCL/Kg)
ksg (year)'1
Fv (unitless)
Budavari, O'Neill, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
Budavari, O'Neill, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
Vp value cited in U.S. EPA (1995b).
S value cited in U.S. EPA (1995b).
H value was calculated by using the theoretical equation from Lyman, Reehl, and
Rosenblatt (1982), which defines the constant. Recommended value was calculated
by using the MW, S, and Vp values that are provided in this table.
Da value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
Dv value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
Arithmetic mean value cited in Karickhoff and Long (1995).
Koc value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Km for all
nonionizing organics except phthalates, PAHs, dioxins, and furans as cited in
U.S. EPA (1994c). Koc value was calculated by using the recommended Km value
that is provided in this table.
Kds value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed fraction organic carbon of 0.01 in soil. Measured
organic carbon in soil, specific to site conditions, should be used to calculate Kds,
because the value varies, depending on the fraction of organic carbon in soil.
Recommended Kds value was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in
this table.
Kd^ value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.075 in suspended
sediment. Measured organic carbon in suspended sediment, specific to site
conditions, should be used to calculate Kd^, because the value varies, depending on
the fraction of organic carbon in suspended sediment. Recommended Kd^ value
was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
Ksg value was assumed to be 0 due to a lack of data.
Fv value was calculated by using equations cited in Junge (1977) and Bidleman
(1988). Recommended value of Fv was calculated by using Tm and Vp values that
are provided in this table. Vp value for this compound was converted to a
liquid-phase value before being used in the calculations.
120.50
293.6
5.20E-04
at25°C
(solid)
6.10E+03
1.03E-05
6.00E-02
8.73E-06
4.37E+01
2.69E+01
2.69E-01
2.02E+00
0.0
1.0
Note:
NA= Not applicable
ND= No data available
All parameters are defined in LIST OF VARIABLES on page A-2-ii.
A-2-39
-------
TABLE A-2-6
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC INPUTS FOR ACROLEIN (107-02-8)
(Page 1 of 1)
Parameter
Reference and Explanation
Value
Chemical/Physical Properties
Mff(g/mole)
rm(K)
Vp (atm)
S (mg/L)
H (atm-m'/mol)
Da (cm2/s)
A, (cm2/s)
Km (unitless)
Koc (mL/g)
Kds (cm3/g)
&/„ (L/Kg)
fesg (year)"1
Fv (unitless)
Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
Vp value cited in U.S. EPA (1995b).
S value cited in U.S. EPA (1995b).
H value was calculated by using the theoretical equation from Lyman, Reehl, and
Rosenblatt (1982), which defines the constant. Recommended value was calculated
by using the MW, S, and Vp values that are provided in this table.
Da value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
Dw value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
Arithmetic mean value cited in Karickhoff and Long (1995).
Koc value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Km for all
nonionizing organics except phthalates, PAHs, dioxins, and furans, cited in
U.S. EPA (1994c). Koc value was calculated by using the recommended Km value
that is provided in this table.
Kd, value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.01 in soil. Measured
organic carbon in soil, specific to site conditions, should be used to calculate Kds,
because the value varies, depending on the fraction of organic carbon in soil.
Recommended Kds value was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in
this table.
Kd^, value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.075 in suspended
sediment. Measured organic carbon in suspended sediment, specific to site
conditions, should be used to calculate Kd^, because the value varies, depending on
the fraction of organic carbon in suspended sediment. Recommended Kd^, value
was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
ksg value was calculated by using the chemical half-life in soil, as cited in Howard,
Boethling, Jarvis, Meylan, and Michalenko (1991).
Fv value was calculated by using the equation cited in Junge (1977). Recommended
value ofFv was calculated by using the Vp value that is provided in this table.
56.06
185.1
3.50E-01
at 25°C
(liquid)
2.10E+05
9.34E-05
1.92E-01
1.22E-05
9.80E-01
1.39E+00
1.39E-02
1.05E-01
9.03E+00
1.0
Note:
NA= Not applicable
ND= No data available
All parameters are defined in LIST OF VARIABLES on page A-2-ii.
A-2-40
-------
TABLE A-2-7
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC INPUTS FOR ACRYLONITRILE (107-13-1)
(Page 1 of 1)
Parameter
Reference and Explanation
Value
Chemical/Physical Properties
Mff(g/mole)
rm(K)
Vp (atm)
S (mg/L)
H (atm-mVmol)
Z)a(cm2/s)
A, (cm2/s)
Kow (unitless)
Koc (mL/g)
Kd. (cm3/g)
^ (L/Kg)
fog (year)'1
Fv (unitless)
Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
Vp value cited in U.S. EPA (1995b).
S value cited in U.S. EPA (1995b).
H value was calculated by using the theoretical equation from Lyman, Reehl, and
Rosenblatt (1982), which defines the constant. Recommended value was calculated
by using the MW, S, and Vp values that are provided in this table.
Da value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
A, value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
Arithmetic mean value cited in Karickhoff and Long (1995).
Koc value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Km for all
nonionizing organics except phthalates, PAHs, dioxins, and furans, cited in
U.S. EPA (1994c). Koc value was calculated by using the recommended Km value
that is provided in this table.
Kds value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.01 in soil. Measured
organic carbon in soil, specific to site conditions, should be used to calculate Kd,,
because the value varies, depending on the fraction of organic carbon in soil.
Recommended Kds value was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in
this table.
Kdm value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.075 in suspended
sediment. Measured organic carbon in suspended sediment, specific to site
conditions, should be used to calculate Kd^,, because the value varies, depending on
the fraction of organic carbon in suspended sediment. Recommended Kdm value
was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
ksg value was calculated by using the chemical half-life in soil, as cited in Howard,
Boethling, Jarvis, Meylan, and Michalenko (1991).
Fv value was calculated by using the equation cited in Junge (1977). Recommended
value of Fv was calculated by using the Vp value that is provided in this table.
53.06
189.6
1.40E-01 at 25°C (liquid)
7.50E+04
9.90E-05
2.11E-01
1.23E-05
1.78E+00
2.22E+00
2.22E-02
1.66E-01
1.10E+01
1.0
Note:
NA= Not applicable
ND= No data available
All parameters are defined in LIST OF VARIABLES on page A-2-ii.
A-2-41
-------
TABLE A-2-8
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC INPUTS FOR ALDRIN (309-00-2)
(Page 1 of 1)
Parameter
Reference and Explanation
Value
Chemical/Physical Properties
Mff(g/mole)
r»(K)
Fp(atm)
S(mg/L)
H (atm-mVmol)
Da(cm2/s)
Dw (cm2/s)
Km (unitless)
Koc (mL/g)
JM,(cm3/g)
^CCL/Kg)
Sfa(cm3/g)
ksg (year)'1
Fv (unitless)
Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c)
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c)
H value was calculated by using the theoretical equation from Lyman, Reehl, and
Rosenblatt (1982), which defines the constant. Recommended value was calculated by
using the MW, S, and Vp values that are provided in this table.
Da value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
Dw value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994f).
Geometric mean of measured values obtained from U.S. EPA (1996b).
Kds value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Km that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.01 in soil. Measured
organic carbon in soil, specific to site conditions, should be used to calculate Kds,
because the value varies, depending on the fraction of organic carbon in soil.
Recommended Kds value was calculated by using the Km value that is provided in this
table.
Kd^ value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Km that is cited in U.S.
EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.075 in suspended sediment.
Measured organic carbon in suspended sediment, specific to site conditions, should be
used to calculate Kd^, because the value varies, depending on the fraction of organic
carbon in suspended sediment. Recommended Kd^ value was calculated by using the
Koc value that is provided in this table.
Kdbs value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in U.S.
EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.04 in bottom sediment.
Measured organic carbon in bottom sediment, specific to site conditions, should be used
to calculate Kdbs, because the value varies, depending on the fraction of organic carbon
in bottom sediment. Recommended Kdbs value was calculated by using the Koc value
that is provided in this table.
Ksg value was calculated by using the chemical half-life in soil, as cited in Howard,
Boethling, Jarvis, Meylan, and Michalenko (1991).
Fv value was calculated by using equations cited in Junge (1977) and Bidleman (1988).
Recommended value of Fv was calculated by using Tm and Vp values that are provided
in this table. Vp value for this compound was converted to a liquid-phase value before
being used in the calculations.
364.93
377.1
2.20E-08 at 25°C (solid)
7.84E-02
1.02E-04
1.43E-02
4.40E-06
1.51E+06
4.87E+04
4.87E+02
3.65E+03
1.95E+03
4.28E-01
0.9955
Note:
NA = Not applicable
ND = No data available
All parameters are defined in LIST OF VARIABLES on page A-2-ii.
A-2-42
-------
TABLE A-2-8a
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC INPUTS FOR ALUMINUM (7429-90-5)
(Page 1 of 1)
Parameter
Reference and Explanation
Value
Chemical/Physical Properties
Mff(g/mole)
r»(K)
Fp(atm)
S(mg/L)
H (atm-mVmol)
Da (cm2/s)
Dn (cm2/s)
Km (unitless)
Koc (mL/g)
Kds (cmVg)
Kd^ (L/Kg)
Sfa(cm3/g)
fag (year)'1
Fv (unitless)
Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
All metals, except mercury, are assumed to be nonvolatile at ambient temperatures.
All metals, except mercury, are assumed to be insoluble in water.
H value is assumed to be zero, because the S and Vp values are zero for all metals except
mercury.
Da value was calculated using the equation cited in (U.S. EPA 1996a).
Dw value was calculated using the equation cited in (U.S. EPA 1996a).
--
--
--
--
--
--
Because they are nonvolatile (except mercury), metals are assumed to be 100 percent in
particulate phase and zero percent in the vapor phase, as cited in U.S. EPA (1994f).
26.98
933
0.0
NA
0.0
2.11E-01
2.44E-05
NA
NA
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.0
Note:
NA = Not applicable
ND = No data available
All parameters are defined in LIST OF VARIABLES on page A-2-ii.
A-2-43
-------
TABLE A-2-9
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC INPUTS FOR ANILINE (62-53-3)
(Page 1 of 1)
Parameter
Reference and Explanation
Value
Chemical/Physical Properties
MW(g/mo\e)
r»(K)
Vp (atm)
S(mg/L)
H (atm-mVmol)
Da (cm2/s)
Dv (cm2/s)
Km (unitless)
Kx (mL/g)
^(cmVg)
Kd^ (L/Kg)
fog (year)"1
Fv (unitless)
Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
Vp value cited in U.S. EPA (1995b).
S value cited in U.S. EPA (1995b).
H value was calculated by using the theoretical equation from Lyman, Reehl, and
Rosenblatt (1982), which defines the constant. Recommended value was calculated
by using the MW, S and Vp values that are provided in this table.
Da value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
Dv value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
Arithmetic mean value cited in Karickhoff and Long (1995).
Koc value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Km for all
nonionizing organics except phthalates, PAHs, dioxins, and furans as cited in
U.S. EPA (1994c). Koc value was calculated by using the recommended Km value
that is provided in this table.
Kds value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.01 in soil. Measured
organic carbon in soil, specific to site conditions, should be used to calculate Kd,,
because the value varies, depending on the fraction of organic carbon in soil.
Recommended Kds value was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in
this table.
Kd^ value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.075 in suspended
sediment. Measured organic carbon in suspended sediment, specific to site
conditions, should be used to calculate Kd^, because the value varies, depending on
the fraction of organic carbon in suspended sediment. Recommended Kd^ value
was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
NCDEHNR(1997)
Fv value was calculated by using the equation cited in Junge (1977). Recommended
value of Fv was calculated by using the Vp value that is provided in this table.
93.12
266.8
8.80E-04
at25°C
(liquid)
3.60E+04
2.28E-06
8.56E-01
1.01E-05
9.55E+00
8.23E+00
8.23E-02
6.17E-01
3.20E+01
1.0
Note:
NA = Not applicable
ND = No data available
All parameters are defined in LIST OF VARIABLES on page A-2-ii.
A-2-44
-------
TABLE A-2-10
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC INPUTS FOR ANTHRACENE (120-12-7)
(Page 1 of 1)
Parameter
Reference and Explanation
Value
Chemical/Physical Properties
Mff(g/mole)
rm(K)
Vp (atm)
S (mg/L)
H (atm-m3/mol)
Da (cm2/s)
A, (cm2/s)
Km (unitless)
Koc (mL/g)
Kds (cm3/g)
Kd^ (L/Kg)
rrffo (cm3/g)
ksg (year)"1
Fv (unitless)
Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c)
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c)
H value was calculated by using the theoretical equation from Lyman, Reehl, and
Rosenblatt (1982), which defines the constant. Recommended value was calculated
by using the MW, S, and Vp values that are provided in this table.
Da value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
Dw value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c)
Geometric mean of measured values obtained from U.S. EPA (1996b).
Kd, value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.01 in soil. Measured
organic carbon in soil, specific to site conditions, should be used to calculate Kds,
because the value varies, depending on the fraction of organic carbon in soil.
Recommended Kds value was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in
this table.
Kd^, value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.075 in suspended
sediment. Measured organic carbon in suspended sediment, specific to site
conditions, should be used to calculate Kd^,, because the value varies, depending on
the fraction of organic carbon in suspended sediment. Recommended Kd^, value
was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
Kdb, value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.04 in bottom
sediment. Measured organic carbon in bottom sediment, specific to site conditions,
should be used to calculate Kdbs, because the value varies, depending on the fraction
of organic carbon in bottom sediment. Recommended Kdts value was calculated by
using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
ksg value was calculated by using the chemical half-life in soil, as cited in Howard,
Boethling, Jarvis, Meylan, and Michalenko (1991).
Fv value was calculated by using equations cited in Junge (1977) and Bidleman
(1988). Recommended value of Fv was calculated by using Tm and Vp values that
are provided in this table. Vp value for this compound was converted to a
liquid-phase value before being used in the calculations.
178.22
491.1
3.35E-08
at 25°C
(solid)
5.37E-02
1.11E-04
3.24E-02
7.74E-06
2.95E+04
2.35E+04
2.35E+02
1.76E+03
9.40E+02
5.50E-01
1.0
Note:
NA= Not applicable
ND= No data available
All parameters are defined in LIST OF VARIABLES on page A-2-ii.
A-2-45
-------
TABLE A-2-11
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC INPUTS FOR ANTIMONY (7440-36-0)
(Page 1 of 1)
Parameter
Reference and Explanation
Value
Chemical/Physical Properties
Mff(g/mole)
rm(°K)
Fp(atm)
S(mg/L)
H (atm-mVmol)
Da(cm2/s)
Dw (cm2/s)
Km (unitless)
Koc (mL/g)
Kds(mLlg)
Kdn (L/Kg)
Kdbs(mL/g)
ksg (year)'1
Fv (unitless)
Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
All metals, except mercury, are assumed to be nonvolatile at ambient
temperatures.
All metals, except mercury, are assumed to be insoluble in water.
H value is assumed to be zero, because the Vp and S values are zero for all
metals, except mercury.
Da value was calculated using the equation cited in U.S. EPA (1996a).
Dw value was calculated using the equation cited in U.S. EPA (1 996a).
--
--
Kds value was obtained from U.S. EPA (1996b), which provides pH-based
values that were estimated by using the MTNTEQ2 geochemical speciation
model.
Kd^ value is assumed to be same as the Kds value, because organic carbon
does not play a major role in sorption for the metals, as cited in
U.S. EPA(1994f).
Kdbs value is assumed to be same as the Kds value, because organic carbon
does not play a major role in sorption for the metals, as cited in
U.S. EPA(1994f).
--
Because they are nonvolatile, metals are assumed to be 100 percent in
particulate phase and zero percent in the vapor phase, as cited in
U.S. EPA(1994f).
121.75
903.1
0.0
NA
0.0
7.73E-02
8.96E-06
NA
NA
45atpH=6.8
45atpH=6.8
45atpH=6.8
ND
0.0
Note:
NA = Not applicable
ND = No data available
All parameters are defined in LIST OF VARIABLES on page A-2-ii.
A-2-46
-------
TABLE A-2-12
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC INPUTS FOR AROCLOR 1016 (12674-11-2)
(Page 1 of 1)
Parameter
Reference and Explanation
Value
Chemical/Physical Properties
Mff(g/mole)
r»(K)
Fp(atm)
S(mg/L)
H (atm-mVmol)
Da (cm2/s)
Dn (cm2/s)
^T^, (unitless)
Koc (mL/g)
JM,(cm3/g)
^^ (L/Kg)
&4(cm3/g)
fag (year)'1
Fv (unitless)
Montgomery and Welkom (1991)
--
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c).
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c).
H value was calculated by using the theoretical equation from Lyman, Reehl, and
Rosenblatt (1982), which defines the constant. Recommended value was calculated
by using the MW, S, and Vp values that are provided in this table.
Da value was calculated using the equation cited in U.S. EPA (1996a).
Dw value was calculated using the equation cited in U.S. EPA (1996a).
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c).
Koc value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Km for phthalates
and PAHs, / all nonionizing organics except phthalates, PAHs, dioxins, and furans,
cited in U.S. EPA (1994c). Koc value was calculated by using the recommended Km
value that is provided in this table.
Kds value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.01 in soil. Measured
organic carbon in soil, specific to site conditions, should be used to calculate Kds,
because the value varies, depending on the fraction of organic carbon in soil.
Recommended Kds value was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in
this table.
Kd^ value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.075 in suspended
sediment. Measured organic carbon in suspended sediment, specific to site
conditions, should be used to calculate Kd^, because the value varies, depending on
the fraction of organic carbon in suspended sediment. Recommended Kd^ value
was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
Kdbs value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.04 in bottom
sediment. Measured organic carbon in bottom sediment, specific to site conditions,
should be used to calculate Kdbs, because the value varies, depending on the fraction
of organic carbon in bottom sediment. Recommended Kdbs value was calculated by
using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
Mackay, Shiu, and Ma (1992).
Fv value was calculated by using equations cited in Junge (1977) and Bidleman
(1988). Recommended value of Fv was calculated by using Tm and Vp values that
are provided in this table.
257.9
ND
9.37E-07
at 25°C (liquid)
5.71E-01
4.23E-04
4.69E-02
5.43E-06
2.53E+05
2.32E+04
2.32E+02
1.74E+03
9.29E+02
5.06E+00
0.999
Note:
NA = Not applicable
ND = No data available
All parameters are defined in LIST OF VARIABLES on page A-2-ii.
A-2-47
-------
TABLE A-2-13
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC INPUTS FOR AROCLOR 1254 (11097-69-1)
(Page 1 of 1)
Parameter
Reference and Explanation
Value
Chemical/Physical Properties
Mff(g/mole)
r»(K)
Fp(atm)
S(mg/L)
H (atm-mVmol)
Da(cm2/s)
Dw (cm2/s)
Km (unitless)
Koc (mL/g)
JM,(cm3/g)
Kd^ (L/Kg)
&4(cm3/g)
ksg (year)'1
Fv (unitless)
Montgomery and Welkom (1991)
Montgomery and Welkom (1991)
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c).
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c).
H value was calculated by using the theoretical equation from Lyman, Reehl, and
Rosenblatt (1982), which defines the constant. Recommended value was calculated
by using the MW, S, and Vp values that are provided in this table.
Da value was calculated using the equation cited in U.S. EPA (1996a).
Dw value was calculated using the equation cited in U.S. EPA (1996a).
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c).
Koc value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Km for phthalates
and PAHs, / all nonionizing organics except phthalates, PAHs, dioxins, and furans,
cited in U.S. EPA (1994c). Koc value was calculated by using the recommended Km
value that is provided in this table.
Kds value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.01 in soil. Measured
organic carbon in soil, specific to site conditions, should be used to calculate Kds,
because the value varies, depending on the fraction of organic carbon in soil.
Recommended Kds value was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in
this table.
Kd^ value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.075 in suspended
sediment. Measured organic carbon in suspended sediment, specific to site
conditions, should be used to calculate Kd^, because the value varies, depending on
the fraction of organic carbon in suspended sediment. Recommended Kd^ value
was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
Kdbs value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.04 in bottom
sediment. Measured organic carbon in bottom sediment, specific to site conditions,
should be used to calculate Kdbs, because the value varies, depending on the fraction
of organic carbon in bottom sediment. Recommended Kdbs value was calculated by
using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
Mackay, Shiu, and Ma (1992).
Fv value was calculated by using the equation cited in Junge (1977). Recommended
value of Fv was calculated by using the Vp value that is provided in the table.
327.0
283.1
1.16E-07 at 25°C (liquid)
5.15E-02
7.37E-04
4.00E-02
4.64E-06
1.61E+06
9.83E+04
9.83E+04
7.37E+03
3.93E+03
5.06E+00
0.993
Note:
NA = Not applicable
ND = No data available
All parameters are defined in LIST OF VARIABLES on page A-2-ii.
A-2-48
-------
TABLE A-2-14
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC INPUTS FOR ARSENIC (7440-38-2)
(Page 1 of 1)
Parameter
Reference and Explanation
Value
Chemical/Physical Properties
MW(g/mo\e)
rm(°K)
Fp(atm)
S(mg/L)
H (atm-mVmol)
Da(cm2/s)
Dw (cm2/s)
Km (unitless)
Koc (mL/g)
Kds(mL/g)
Kd^ (L/Kg)
Kdbs(mL/g)
ksg (year)"1
Fv (unitless)
Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
All metals, except mercury, are assumed to be nonvolatile at ambient
temperatures.
All metals, except mercury, are assumed to be insoluble in water.
H value is assumed to be zero, because the Vp and S values are zero for all
metals, except mercury.
Da value was calculated using the equation cited in U.S. EPA (1996a).
Dw value was calculated using the equation cited in U.S. EPA (1 996a).
--
--
Kds value was obtained from U.S. EPA (1996b), which provides pH-based
values that were estimated by using the MTNTEQ2 geochemical speciation
model.
Kd^ value is assumed to be same as the Kds value, because organic carbon
does not play a major role in sorption for the metals, as cited in
U.S. EPA(1994f).
Kdbs value is assumed to be same as the Kds value, because organic carbon
does not play a major role in sorption for the metals, as cited in
U.S. EPA(1994f).
--
Because they are nonvolatile, metals are assumed to be 100 percent in
particulate phase and zero percent in the vapor phase, as cited in
U.S. EPA(1994f).
74.92
1,091 at36atm
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.07E-01
1.24E-05
NA
NA
25atpH=4.9;
29atpH=6.8;
31atpH=8.0
25atpH=4.9;
29atpH=6.8;
31atpH=8.0
25atpH=4.9;
29atpH=6.8;
31atpH=8.0
ND
0.0
Note:
NA = Not applicable
ND = No data available
All parameters are defined in LIST OF VARIABLES on page A-2-ii.
A-2-49
-------
TABLE A-2-15
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC INPUTS FOR ATRAZINE (1912-24-9)
(Page 1 of 1)
Parameter
Reference and Explanation
Value
Chemical/Physical Properties
Mff(g/mole)
r»(K)
Fp(atm)
S(mg/L)
H (atm-mVmol)
Da(cm2/s)
Dw (cm2/s)
Km (unitless)
Koc (mL/g)
JM,(cm3/g)
Kd^ (L/Kg)
&4(cm3/g)
ksg (year)'1
Fv (unitless)
Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
Vp value cited in Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
S value cited in Howard and others 1989 - 1993
H value was calculated by using the theoretical equation from Lyman, Reehl, and
Rosenblatt (1982), which defines the constant. Recommended value was calculated
by using the MW, S, and Vp values that are provided in this table.
Da value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
Dw value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
log Km value cited in Karickhoff and Long (1995).
Koc value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Km for phthalates
and PAHs, / all nonionizing organics except phthalates, PAHs, dioxins, and furans,
cited in U.S. EPA (1994c). Koc value was calculated by using the recommended Km
value that is provided in this table.
Kds value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.01 in soil. Measured
organic carbon in soil, specific to site conditions, should be used to calculate Kds,
because the value varies, depending on the fraction of organic carbon in soil.
Recommended Kds value was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in
this table.
Kd^ value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.075 in suspended
sediment. Measured organic carbon in suspended sediment, specific to site
conditions, should be used to calculate Kd^, because the value varies, depending on
the fraction of organic carbon in suspended sediment. Recommended Kd^ value
was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
Kdbs value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.04 in bottom
sediment. Measured organic carbon in bottom sediment, specific to site conditions,
should be used to calculate Kdbs, because the value varies, depending on the fraction
of organic carbon in bottom sediment. Recommended Kdbs value was calculated by
using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
Ksg value was calculated by using the chemical half-life in soil, as cited in Howard
(1989-1993).
Fv value was calculated by using equations cited in Junge (1977) and Bidleman
(1988). Recommended value of Fv was calculated by using Tm and Vp values that
are provided in this table. Vp value for this compound was converted to a
liquid-phase value before being used in the calculations.
215.68
444.1
3.66xlO-10at25°C(solid)
3.00E+01
2.63E-09
2.80E-02
6.03E-06
4.07E+02
1.54E+02
1.54E+00
1.15E+01
6.15E+00
1.04E+01
0.945
Note:
NA = Not applicable
ND = No data available
All parameters are defined in LIST OF VARIABLES on page A-2-ii.
A-2-50
-------
TABLE A-2-16
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC INPUTS FOR BARIUM (7440-39-3)
(Page 1 of 1)
Parameter
Reference and Explanation
Value
Chemical/Physical Properties
Mff(g/mole)
r»(K)
Fp(atm)
S(mg/L)
H (atm-mVmol)
Da(cm2/s)
Dw (cm2/s)
Km (unitless)
Koc (mL/g)
Kds(mLlg)
Kdn (L/Kg)
£4(mL/g)
fog (year)"1
Fv (unitless)
Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
All metals, except mercury, are assumed to be nonvolatile at ambient
temperatures.
All metals, except mercury, are assumed to be insoluble in water.
H value is assumed to be zero, because the Vp and S values are zero for all
metals, except mercury.
Da value was calculated using the equation cited in U.S. EPA (1996a).
Dw value was calculated using the equation cited in U.S. EPA (1 996a).
--
--
Kds value was obtained from U.S. EPA (1996b), which provides pH-based
values that were estimated by using the MTNTEQ2 geochemical speciation
model.
Kd^ value is assumed to be same as the Kds value, because organic carbon does
not play a major role in sorption for the metals, as cited in U.S. EPA (1994f).
Kdbs value is assumed to be same as the Kds value, because organic carbon does
not play a major role in sorption for the metals, as cited in U.S. EPA (1994f).
--
Because they are nonvolatile, metals are assumed to be 100 percent in
particulate phase and zero percent in the vapor phase, as cited in
U.S. EPA(1994f).
137.33
983
0.0
0.0
0.0
7.14E-02
8.26E-06
NA
NA
llatpH=4.9;
41atpH=6.8;
52atpH=8.0
llatpH=4.9;
41atpH=6.8;
52atpH=8.0
llatpH=4.9;
41atpH=6.8;
52atpH=8.0
ND
0.0
Note:
NA = Not applicable
ND = No data available
All parameters are defined in LIST OF VARIABLES on page A-2-ii.
A-2-51
-------
TABLE A-2-17
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC INPUTS FOR BENZALDEHYDE (100-52-7)
(Page 1 of 1)
Parameter
Reference and Explanation
Value
Chemical/Physical Properties
Mff(g/mole)
r»(K)
Fp(atm)
S(mg/L)
H (atm-mVmol)
Da(cm2/s)
Dw (cm2/s)
Km (unitless)
Koc (mL/g)
JM,(cm3/g)
T^(L/Kg)
rrffa(cm3/g)
ksg (year)"1
Fv (unitless)
Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
Vp value cited in NC DEHNR (1997).
S value cited in NC DEHNR (1997).
H value was calculated by using the theoretical equation from Lyman, Reehl, and
Rosenblatt (1982), which defines the constant. Recommended value was calculated
by using the MW, S, and Vp values that are provided in this table.
Da value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
Dw value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
Km value cited in NC DEHNR (1997).
Koc value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Km for phthalates
and PAHs, / all nonionizing organics except phthalates, PAHs, dioxins, and furans,
cited in U.S. EPA (1994c). Koc value was calculated by using the recommended Km
value that is provided in this table.
Kds value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.01 in soil. Measured
organic carbon in soil, specific to site conditions, should be used to calculate Kds,
because the value varies, depending on the fraction of organic carbon in soil. Kds
value was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
Kd^ value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.075 in suspended
sediment. Measured organic carbon in suspended sediment, specific to site
conditions, should be used to calculate Kd^, because the value varies, depending on
the fraction of organic carbon in suspended sediment. Recommended Kd^ value
was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
Kdbs value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.04 in bottom
sediment. Measured organic carbon in bottom sediment, specific to site conditions,
should be used to calculate Kdbs, because the value varies, depending on the fraction
of organic carbon in bottom sediment. Recommended Kdbs value was calculated by
using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
Ksg value assumed to be 0 due to a lack of data.
Fv value was calculated by using equations cited in Junge (1977) and Bidleman
(1988). Recommended value of Fv was calculated by using Tm and Vp values that
are provided in this table. Vp value for this compound was converted to a liquid
phase value before being used in the calculations.
106.12
329.6
1.30E-03 at 25°C (solid)
3.30E+03
4.18E-05
7.07E-02
9.48E-06
3.00E+01
2.01E+01
2.01E-01
1.51E+00
8.04E-01
0.0
1.00
Note:
NA = Not applicable
ND = No data available
All parameters are defined in LIST OF VARIABLES on page A-2-ii.
A-2-52
-------
TABLE A-2-18
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC INPUTS FOR BENZENE (71-43-2)
(Page 1 of 1)
Parameter
Reference and Explanation
Value
Chemical/Physical Properties
Mff(g/mole)
r»(K)
Fp(atm)
S(mg/L)
H (atm-mVmol)
Da(cm2/s)
Dw (cm2/s)
Km (unitless)
Koc (mL/g)
^(cmVg)
Kd^ (L/Kg)
Sfa(cm3/g)
fesg (year)'1
Fv (unitless)
Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c).
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c).
H value was calculated by using the theoretical equation from Lyman, Reehl, and
Rosenblatt (1982), which defines the constant. Recommended value was calculated
by using the MW, S, and Vp values that are provided in this table.
Da value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
Dw value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c).
Geometric mean of measured values was obtained from U.S. EPA (1996b).
Kds value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed fraction organic carbon of 0.01 in soil. Measured
organic carbon in soil, specific to site conditions, should be used to calculate Kds,
because the value varies, depending on the fraction of organic carbon in soil.
Recommended Kds value was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in
this table.
Kd^ value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.075 in suspended
sediment. Measured organic carbon in suspended sediment, specific to site
conditions, should be used to calculate Kd^, because the value varies, depending on
the fraction of organic carbon in suspended sediment. Recommended Kd^ value
was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
Kdbs value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon of 0.04 in bottom sediment.
Measured organic carbon in bottom sediment, specific to site conditions, should be
used to calculate Kdbs, because the value varies depending on the fraction of organic
fraction in bottom sediment. Recommended Kdbs value was calculated by using the
Koc value that is provided in this table.
Ksg value was calculated by using the chemical half-life in soil, as cited in Mackay,
Shiu, and Ma (1992).
Fv value was calculated by using the equation cited in Junge (1977). Recommended
value of Fv was calculated by using the Vp value that is provided in this table.
78.11
278.6
1.25E-01
at25°C
(liquid)
1.78E+03
5.49E-03
1.17E-01
1.02E-05
137
6.20E+01
6.20E-01
4.65E+00
2.48E+00
3.89E+00
1.0
Note:
NA = Not applicable
ND = No data available
All parameters are defined in LIST OF VARIABLES on page A-2-ii.
A-2-53
-------
TABLE A-2-19
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC INPUTS FOR BENZO(A)ANTHRACENE (56-55-3)
(Page 1 of 1)
Parameter
Reference and Explanation
Value
Chemical/Physical Properties
Mff(g/mole)
r»(K)
Fp(atm)
S(mg/L)
// (atm-mVmol)
Da(cm2/s)
Dw (cm2/s)
A^ (unitless)
Koc (mL/g)
*M,(mL/g)
^4, (L/Kg)
£4(mL/g)
fesg (year)'1
Fv (unitless)
Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c).
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c).
H value was calculated by using the theoretical equation from Lyman, Reehl, and
Rosenblatt (1982), which defines the constant. Recommended value was calculated
by using theMW, S and Vp values that are provided in this table.
Da value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database, U.S. EPA (1994d).
Dw value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database, U.S. EPA (1994d).
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c).
Geometric mean of measured values was obtained from U.S. EPA (1996b).
Kds value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed fraction organic carbon of 0.01 in soil. Measured
organic carbon in soil, specific to site conditions, should be used to calculate Kds,
because the value varies, depending on the fraction of organic carbon in soil.
Recommended Kds value was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in
this table.
Kd^ value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.075 in suspended
sediment. Measured organic carbon in suspended sediment, specific to site
conditions, should be used to calculate Kd^, because the value varies, depending on
the fraction of organic carbon in suspended sediment. Recommended Kd^ value
was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
Kdbs value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.04 in bottom
sediment. Measured organic carbon in bottom sediment, specific to site conditions,
should be used to calculate Kdbs, because the value varies, depending on the fraction
of organic carbon in bottom sediment. Recommended Kdbs value was calculated by
using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
Ksg value was calculated by using the chemical half-life in soil, as cited in Howard,
Boethling, Jarvis, Meylan, and Michalenko (1991).
Fv value was calculated by using equations cited in Junge (1977) and Bidleman
(1988). Recommended value of Fv was calculated by using S, Tm, and Vp values
that are provided in this table. Vp value for this compound was converted to a
liquid-phase value before being used in the calculations.
228.28
433
2.03E-10
at25°C
(solid)
1.28E-02
3.62E-06
2.47E-02
6.21E-06
4.77E+05
2.60E+05
2.60E+03
1.95E+04
1.04E+04
3.72E-01
8.81E-01
Note:
NA = Not applicable
ND = No data available
All parameters are defined in LIST OF VARIABLES on page A-2-ii.
A-2-54
-------
TABLE A-2-20
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC INPUTS FOR BENZO(A)PYRENE (50-32-8)
(Page 1 of 1)
Parameter
Reference and Explanation
Value
Chemical/Physical Properties
MW(g/mo\e)
r»(K)
Fp(atm)
S(mg/L)
H (atm-mVmol)
Da (cm2/s)
Dv (cm2/s)
Km (unitless)
Koc (mL/g)
Kds (mL/g)
^CCL/Kg)
rrffa(mL/g)
fog (year)"1
.Fv (unitless)
Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c)
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c)
H value was calculated by using the theoretical equation from Lyman, Reehl, and
Rosenblatt (1982), which defines the constant. Recommended value was calculated
by using the MW, S and Vp values that are provided in this table.
Da value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database in U.S. EPA (1994d).
Dv value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database in U.S. EPA (1994d).
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c).
Geometric mean of measured values was obtained from U.S. EPA (1996b).
Kds value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed fraction organic carbon of 0.01 in soil. Measured
organic carbon in soil, specific to site conditions, should be used to calculate Kds,
because the value varies, depending on the fraction of organic carbon in soil.
Recommended Kds value was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in
this table.
Kd^ value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.075 in suspended
sediment. Measured organic carbon in suspended sediment, specific to site
conditions, should be used to calculate Kd^, because the value varies, depending on
the fraction of organic carbon in suspended sediment. Recommended Kd^ value
was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
Kdbs value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.04 in bottom
sediment. Measured organic carbon in bottom sediment, specific to site conditions,
should be used to calculate Kdbs, because the value varies, depending on the fraction
of organic carbon in bottom sediment. Recommended Kdbs value was calculated by
using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
Ksg value was calculated by using the chemical half-life in soil, as cited in Howard,
Boethling, Jarvis, Meylan, and Michalenko (1991)
Fv value was calculated by using equations cited in Junge (1977) and Bidleman
(1988). Recommended value of Fv was calculated by using S, Tm, and Vp values
that are provided in this table. Vp value for this compound was converted to a
liquid-phase value before being used in the calculations.
252.3
452
6.43E-12
at 25°C
(solid)
1.94E-03
8.36E-07
2.18E-02
5.85E-06
1.35E+06
9.69E+05
9.69E+03
7.27E+04
3.87E+04
4.77E-01
2.65E-01
Note:
NA = Not applicable
ND = No data available
All parameters are defined in LIST OF VARIABLES on page A-2-ii.
A-2-55
-------
TABLE A-2-21
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC INPUTS FOR BENZO(B)FLUORANTHENE (205-99-2)
(Page 1 of 1)
Parameter
Reference and Explanation
Value
Chemical/Physical Properties
Mff(g/mole)
r»(K)
Fp(atm)
S(mg/L)
// (atm-mVmol)
Da(cm2/s)
Dw (cm2/s)
A^ (unitless)
Koc (mL/g)
&/, (mL/g)
T^(L/Kg)
Kdbs(mL/g)
ksg (year)"1
Fv (unitless)
Montgomery and Welkom (1991)
Montgomery and Welkom (1991)
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c)
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c)
H value was calculated by using the theoretical equation from Lyman, Reehl, and
Rosenblatt (1982), which defines the constant. Recommended value was calculated
by using theMW, S and Vp values that are provided in this table.
Da value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database U.S. EPA (1994d).
Dw value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database U.S. EPA (1994d).
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c).
Koc value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Km for phthalates
and PAHs, cited in U.S. EPA (1994c). Koc value was calculated by using the
recommended Km value that is provided in this table.
Kds value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed fraction organic carbon of 0.01 in soil. Measured
organic carbon in soil, specific to site conditions, should be used to calculate Kds,
because the value varies, depending on the fraction of organic carbon in soil.
Recommended Kds value was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in
this table.
Kd^ value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.075 in suspended
sediment. Measured organic carbon in suspended sediment, specific to site
conditions, should be used to calculate Kd^, because the value varies, depending on
the fraction of organic carbon in suspended sediment. Recommended Kd^ value
was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
Kdbs value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.04 in bottom
sediment. Measured organic carbon in bottom sediment, specific to site conditions,
should be used to calculate Kdbs, because the value varies, depending on the fraction
of organic carbon in bottom sediment. Recommended Kdbs value was calculated by
using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
ksg value was calculated by using the chemical half-life in soil, as cited in Howard,
Boethling, Jarvis, Meylan, and Michalenko (1991).
Fv value was calculated by using equations cited in Junge (1977) and Bidleman
(1988). Recommended value of Fv was calculated by using S, Tm, and Vp values
that are provided in this table. Vp value for this compound was converted to a
liquid-phase value before being used in the calculations.
252.32
441
1.06E-10
at25°C
(solid)
4.33E-03
6.18E-06
2.28E-02
5.49E-06
1.59E+06
8.36E+05
8.36E+03
6.27E+04
3.34E+04
4.15E-01
0.822
Note:
NA= Not applicable
ND= No data available
All parameters are defined in LIST OF VARIABLES on page A-2-ii.
A-2-56
-------
TABLE A-2-22
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC INPUTS FOR BENZO(K)FLUORANTHENE (207-08-9)
(Page 1 of 1)
Parameter
Reference and Explanation
Value
Chemical/Physical Properties
Mff(g/mole)
r»(K)
Fp(atm)
S(mg/L)
// (atm-mVmol)
Da(cm2/s)
Dw (cm2/s)
A^ (unitless)
Koc (mL/g)
&/, (mL/g)
T^(L/Kg)
Kdbs(mL/g)
ksg (year)"1
Fv (unitless)
Montgomery and Welkom (1991)
Montgomery and Welkom (1991)
U.S. EPA(1994b)
U.S. EPA(1994b)
H value was calculated by using the theoretical equation from Lyman, Reehl, and
Rosenblatt (1982), which defines the constant. Recommended value was calculated
by using theMW, S and Vp values that are provided in this table.
Da value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database U.S. EPA (1994d).
Dw value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database U.S. EPA (1994d).
Arithmetic mean value cited in Karickhoff and Long (1995)
Koc value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Km for phthalates
and PAHs, cited in U.S. EPA (1994c). Koc value was calculated by using the
recommended Km value that is provided in this table.
Kds value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed fraction organic carbon of 0.01 in soil. Measured
organic carbon in soil, specific to site conditions, should be used to calculate Kds,
because the value varies, depending on the fraction of organic carbon in soil.
Recommended Kds value was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in
this table.
Kd^ value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.075 in suspended
sediment. Measured organic carbon in suspended sediment, specific to site
conditions, should be used to calculate Kd^, because the value varies, depending on
the fraction of organic carbon in suspended sediment. Recommended Kd^ value
was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
Kdbs value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.04 in bottom
sediment. Measured organic carbon in bottom sediment, specific to site conditions,
should be used to calculate Kdbs, because the value varies, depending on the fraction
of organic carbon in bottom sediment. Recommended Kdbs value was calculated by
using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
Ksg value was calculated by using the chemical half-life in soil, as cited in Lyman,
Reehl, and Rosenblatt (1991).
Fv value was calculated by using equations cited in Junge (1977) and Bidleman
(1988). Recommended value of Fv was calculated by using S, Tm, and Vp values
that are provided in this table. Vp value for this compound was converted to a
liquid-phase value before being used in the calculations.
252.32
490
1.32E-12
at25°C
(solid)
8.0E-04
4.15E-07
2.28E-02
5.49E-06
1.56E+06
8.32E+05
8.32E+03
6.24E+04
3.33E+04
1.18E-01
0.149
Note:
NA = Not applicable
ND = No data available
All parameters are defined in LIST OF VARIABLES on page A-2-ii.
A-2-57
-------
TABLE A-2-23
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC INPUTS FOR BENZOIC ACID (65-85-0)
(Page 1 of 2)
Parameter
Reference and Explanation
Value
Chemical/Physical Properties
MW(g/mo\e)
r»(K)
Fp(atm)
S(mg/L)
H (atm-mVmol)
Da (cm2/s)
Dv (cm2/s)
Km (unitless)
Koc (mL/g)
Kds (cmVg)
T^(L/Kg)
Sfa(cm3/g)
Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c)
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c).
H value was calculated by using the theoretical equation from Lyman, Reehl, and
Rosenblatt (1982), which defines the constant. Recommended value was calculated
by using the MW, S, and Vp values that are provided in this table.
Da value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
Dv value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c).
For all ionizing organics, Koc values were estimated on the basis of pH. Estimated
values were obtained from U.S. EPA (1994c).
Kds value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.01 in soil. Measured
organic carbon in soil, specific to site conditions, should be used to calculate Kds,
because the value varies, depending on the fraction of organic carbon in soil.
Recommended Kds value was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in
this table.
Kd^ value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.075 in suspended
sediment. Measured organic carbon in suspended sediment, specific to site
conditions, should be used to calculate Kd^, because the value varies, depending on
the fraction of organic carbon in suspended sediment. Recommended Kd^ value
was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
Kdbs value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.04 in bottom
sediment. Measured organic carbon in bottom sediment, specific to site conditions,
should be used to calculate Kdbs, because the value varies, depending on the fraction
of organic carbon in bottom sediment. Recommended Kdbs value was calculated by
using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
122.12
395.5
8.57E-06
at 25°C
(solid)
3.13E+03
3.34E-07
5.36E-02
8.80E-06
7.60E+01
pH
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Koc
31.98
31.80
30.13
19.81
4.81
0.99
0.55
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
5.50E-03
4.13E-02
2.20E-02
A-2-58
-------
TABLE A-2-23
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC INPUTS FOR BENZOIC ACID (65-85-0)
(Page 2 of 2)
Parameter
ksg (year)'1
Fv (unitless)
Reference and Explanation
Ksg value was calculated by using the chemical half-life in soil, as cited Howard
(1989-1993).
Fv value was calculated by using equations cited in Junge (1977) and Bidleman
(1988). Recommended value ofFv was calculated by using Tm and Vp values that
are provided in this table. Vp value for this compound was converted to a
liquid-phase value before being used in the calculations.
Value
1.26E+02
1.00
Note:
NA = Not applicable
ND = No data available
All parameters are defined in LIST OF VARIABLES on page A-2-ii.
A-2-59
-------
TABLE A-2-24
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC INPUTS FOR BENZONITRILE (100-47-0)
(Page 1 of 1)
Parameter
Reference and Explanation
Value
Chemical/Physical Properties
Mff(g/mole)
r»(K)
Fp(atm)
S(mg/L)
H (atm-mVmol)
Da (cm2/s)
Dw (cm2/s)
^T^, (unitless)
Koc (mL/g)
&/, (cmVg)
^CCL/Kg)
rrffa(cm3/g)
fog (year)"1
Fv (unitless)
Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckehnan (1989)
--
--
--
Da value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
Dn value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
Arithmetic mean value cited in Karickhoff and Long (1995).
Koc value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Km for
phthalates and PAHs, / all nonionizing organics except phthalates, PAHs,
dioxins, and furans, cited in U.S. EPA (1994c). Koc value was calculated by
using the recommended Km value that is provided in this table.
Kds value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited
in U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.01 in soil.
Measured organic carbon in soil, specific to site conditions, should be used to
calculate Kds, because the value varies, depending on the fraction of organic
carbon in soil. Recommended Kds value was calculated by using the Koc value
that is provided in this table.
Kd^ value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited
in U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.075 in
suspended sediment. Measured organic carbon in suspended sediment, specific
to site conditions, should be used to calculate Kdm, because the value varies,
depending on the fraction of organic carbon in suspended sediment.
Recommended Kd^ value was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided
in this table.
Kdbs value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited
in U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.04 in bottom
sediment. Measured organic carbon in bottom sediment, specific to site
conditions, should be used to calculate Kdbs, because the value varies, depending
on the fraction of organic carbon in bottom sediment. Recommended Kdbs value
was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
Ksg value was assumed to be 0 due to a lack of data.
Fv value was assumed to be 1.0 due to a lack of data.
103.12
285.85
ND
ND
ND
7.45E-02
9.43E-06
3.63E+01
2.33E+01
2.33E-01
1.75E+00
9.33E-01
0.0
1.0
Note:
NA = Not applicable
ND = No data available
All parameters are defined in LIST OF VARIABLES on page A-2-ii.
A-2-60
-------
TABLE A-2-25
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC INPUTS FOR BENZYL ALCOHOL (100-51-6)
(Page 1 of 1)
Parameter
Reference and Explanation
Value
Chemical/Physical Properties
Mff(g/mole)
r»(K)
Fp(atm)
S(mg/L)
H (atm-mVmol)
Da(cm2/s)
Dw (cm2/s)
Km (unitless)
Koc (mL/g)
Kds (cmVg)
T^(L/Kg)
Kdbs(cm3/g)
ksg (year)"1
Fv (unitless)
Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckehnan (1989)
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c).
S value cited in U.S. EPA (1992a).
H value was calculated by using the theoretical equation from Lyman, Reehl, and
Rosenblatt (1982), which defines the constant. Recommended value was calculated
by using the MW, S, and Vp values that are provided in this table.
Da value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
Dw value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
Km value cited in U.S. EPA (1995b).
Koc value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Km for phthalates
and PAHs, / all nonionizing organics except phthalates, PAHs, dioxins, and furans,
cited in U.S. EPA (1994c). Koc value was calculated by using the recommended Km
value that is provided in this table.
Kds value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.01 in soil. Measured
organic carbon in soil, specific to site conditions, should be used to calculate Kds,
because the value varies, depending on the fraction of organic carbon in soil. Kds
value was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
Kd^ value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.075 in suspended
sediment. Measured organic carbon in suspended sediment, specific to site
conditions, should be used to calculate Kd^, because the value varies, depending on
the fraction of organic carbon in suspended sediment. Recommended Kd^ value
was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
Kdbs value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.04 in bottom
sediment. Measured organic carbon in bottom sediment, specific to site conditions,
should be used to calculate Kdbs, because the value varies, depending on the fraction
of organic carbon in bottom sediment. Recommended Kdbs value was calculated by
using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
Ksg value was calculated by using the chemical half-life in soil, as cited in Howard
(1989-1993).
Fv value was calculated by using equations cited in Junge (1977) and Bidleman
(1988). Recommended value of Fv was calculated by using Tm and Vp values that
are provided in this table. Vp value for this compound was converted to a
liquid-phase value before being used in the calculations.
108.13
288.29
1.40E-04 at 25°C (solid)
4.00E+04
3.78E-07
6.89E-02
9.38E-06
1.26E+01
1.02E+01
1.02E-01
7.66E-01
4.09E-01
0.0
1.00
Note:
NA = Not applicable
ND = No data available
All parameters are defined in LIST OF VARIABLES on page A-2-ii.
A-2-61
-------
TABLE A-2-26
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC INPUTS FOR BENZYL CHLORIDE (100-44-7)
(Page 1 of 1)
Parameter
Reference and Explanation
Value
Chemical/Physical Properties
Mff(g/mole)
r»(K)
Fp(atm)
S(mg/L)
// (atm-mVmol)
Da(cm2/s)
Dw (cm2/s)
A^ (unitless)
Koc (mL/g)
&/, (cmVg)
T^(L/Kg)
rrffa(cm3/g)
fog (year)"1
Fv (unitless)
Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
Vp value cited in U.S. EPA (1995b).
S value cited in U.S. EPA (1995b).
H value was calculated by using the theoretical equation from Lyman, Reehl, and
Rosenblatt (1982), which defines the constant. Recommended value was calculated
by using the MW, S, and Vp values that are provided in this table.
Da value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
Dw value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
Arithmetic mean value cited in Karickhoff and Long (1995).
Koc value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Km for all
nonionizing organics except phthalates, PAHs, dioxins, and furans, cited in
U.S. EPA (1994c). Koc value was calculated by using the recommended Km value
that is provided in this table.
Kds value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.01 in soil. Measured
organic carbon in soil, specific to site conditions, should be used to calculate Kds,
because the value varies, depending on the fraction of organic carbon in soil.
Recommended Kds value was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in
this table.
Kd^ value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.075 in suspended
sediment. Measured organic carbon in suspended sediment, specific to site
conditions, should be used to calculate Kd^, because the value varies, depending on
the fraction of organic carbon in suspended sediment. Recommended Kd^ value
was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
Kdbs value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.04 in bottom
sediment. Measured organic carbon in bottom sediment, specific to site conditions,
should be used to calculate Kdbs, because the value varies, depending on the fraction
of organic carbon in bottom sediment. Recommended Kdbs value was calculated by
using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
ksg value was calculated by using the chemical half-life in soil, as cited in Howard,
Boethling, Jarvis, Meylan, and Michalenko (1991).
Fv value was calculated by using the equation cited in Junge (1977). Recommended
value of Fv was calculated by using the Vp value that is provided in this table.
126.58
225.1
1.60E-03
at25°C
(liquid)
4.90E+02
4.13E-04
5.43E-02
8.80E-06
2.00E+02
8.83E+01
8.83E-01
6.62E+00
3.53E+00
2.09E+01
1.0
Note:
NA = Not applicable
ND = No data available
All parameters are defined in LIST OF VARIABLES on page A-2-ii.
A-2-62
-------
TABLE A-2-27
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC INPUTS FOR BERYLLIUM (7440-41-7)
(Page 1 of 1)
Parameter
Reference and Explanation
Value
Chemical/Physical Properties
Mff(g/mole)
rm(°K)
Fp(atm)
S(mg/L)
H (atm-mVmol)
Da(cm2/s)
Dw (cm2/s)
Km (unitless)
Koc (mL/g)
Kds(mLlg)
Kdn (L/Kg)
£4(mL/g)
fog (year)"1
Fv (unitless)
Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
All metals, except mercury, are assumed to be nonvolatile at ambient
temperatures.
All metals, except mercury, are assumed to be insoluble in water.
H value is assumed to be zero, because the Vp and S values are zero for all
metals, except mercury.
Da value was calculated using the equation cited in U.S. EPA (1996a).
Dw value was calculated using the equation cited in U.S. EPA (1 996a).
--
--
Kds value was obtained from U.S. EPA (1996b), which provides pH-based
values that were estimated by using the MTNTEQ2 geochemical speciation
model.
Kd^ value is assumed to be same as the Kds value, because organic carbon does
not play a major role in sorption for the metals, as cited in U.S. EPA (1994f).
Kdbs value is assumed to be same as the Kds value, because organic carbon does
not play a major role in sorption for the metals, as cited in U.S. EPA (1994f).
--
Because they are nonvolatile, metals are assumed to be 100 percent in
particulate phase and zero percent in the vapor phase, as cited in
U.S. EPA(1994f).
9.01
1,560
0.0
0.0
0.0
4.39E-01
5.08E-05
NA
NA
23atpH=4.9;
790atpH=6.8;
1.0E+05atpH=8
23atpH=4.9;
790atpH=6.8;
1.0E+05atpH=8
23atpH=4.9;
790atpH=6.8;
1.0E+05atpH=8
.0
.0
.0
ND
0.0
Note:
NA = Not applicable
ND = No data available
All parameters are defined in LIST OF VARIABLES on page A-2-ii.
A-2-63
-------
TABLE A-2-28
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC INPUTS FOR ALPHA-BHC (319-84-6)
(Page 1 of 1)
Parameter
Reference and Explanation
Value
Chemical/Physical Properties
Mff(g/mole)
r»(K)
Fp(atm)
S(mg/L)
H (atm-mVmol)
Da(cm2/s)
Dw (cm2/s)
Km (unitless)
Koc (mL/g)
^(cmVg)
Kd^ (L/Kg)
Sfa(cm3/g)
fesg (year)'1
Fv (unitless)
Montgomery and Welkom (1991)
Montgomery and Welkom (1991)
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c).
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c).
H value was calculated by using the theoretical equation from Lyman, Reehl, and
Rosenblatt (1982), which defines the constant. Recommended value was calculated
by using the MW, S, and Vp values that are provided in this table.
Da value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
Dw value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994g).
Geometric mean of measured values obtained from U.S. EPA (1996b).
Kds value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.01 in soil. Measured
organic carbon in soil, specific to site conditions, should be used to calculate Kds,
because the value varies, depending on the fraction of organic carbon in soil.
Recommended Kds value was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in
this table.
Kd^ value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.075 in suspended
sediment. Measured organic carbon in suspended sediment, specific to site
conditions, should be used to calculate Kd^, because the value varies, depending on
the fraction of organic carbon in suspended sediment. Recommended Kd^ value
was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
Kdbs value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.04 in bottom
sediment. Measured organic carbon in bottom sediment, specific to site conditions,
should be used to calculate Kdbs, because the value varies, depending on the fraction
of organic carbon in bottom sediment. Recommended Kdbs value was calculated by
using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
Ksg value was calculated by using the chemical half-life in soil, as cited in Howard,
Boethling, Jarvis, Meylan, and Michalenko (1991).
Fv value was calculated by using equations cited in Junge (1977) and Bidleman
(1988). Recommended value of Fv was calculated by using Tm and Vp values that
are provided in this table. Vp value for this compound was converted to a liquid
phase value before being used in the calculations.
290.0
432.2
5.61E-08
at25°C
(solid)
2.40E+00
6.78E-06
0.0191
5.04E-06
6.30E+03
1.76E+03
1.76E+01
1.32E+02
7.05E+01
1.87E+00
1.000
Note:
NA = Not applicable
ND = No data available
All parameters are defined in LIST OF VARIABLES on page A-2-ii.
A-2-64
-------
TABLE A-2-29
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC INPUTS FOR BETA-BHC (319-85-7)
(Page 1 of 1)
Parameter
Reference and Explanation
Value
Chemical/Physical Properties
Mff(g/mole)
r»(K)
Fp(atm)
S(mg/L)
// (atm-mVmol)
Da(cm2/s)
Dw (cm2/s)
A^ (unitless)
Koc (mL/g)
^(cmVg)
^4, (L/Kg)
Sfa(cm3/g)
fesg (year)'1
Fv (unitless)
Montgomery and Welkom (1991)
Montgomery and Welkom (1991)
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c).
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c).
H value was calculated by using the theoretical equation from Lyman, Reehl, and
Rosenblatt (1982), which defines the constant. Recommended value was calculated
by using the MW, S, and Vp values that are provided in this table.
Da value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
Dw value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
Geometric mean value cited in Karickoff and Long (1995).
Geometric mean of measured values obtained from U.S. EPA (1996b).
Kds value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.01 in soil. Measured
organic carbon in soil, specific to site conditions, should be used to calculate Kds,
because the value varies, depending on the fraction of organic carbon in soil.
Recommended Kds value was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in
this table.
Kd^ value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.075 in suspended
sediment. Measured organic carbon in suspended sediment, specific to site
conditions, should be used to calculate Kd^, because the value varies, depending on
the fraction of organic carbon in suspended sediment. Recommended Kd^ value
was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
Kdbs value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.04 in bottom
sediment. Measured organic carbon in bottom sediment, specific to site conditions,
should be used to calculate Kdbs, because the value varies, depending on the fraction
of organic carbon in bottom sediment. Recommended Kdbs value was calculated by
using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
Ksg value was calculated by using the chemical half-life in soil, as cited in Howard,
Boethling, Jarvis, Meylan, and Michalenko (1991).
Fv value was calculated by using equations cited in Junge (1977) and Bidleman
(1988). Recommended value of Fv was calculated by using Tm and Vp values that
are provided in this table. Vp value for this compound was converted to a liquid
phase value before being used in the calculations.
290.83
582.1
6.45E-10
at25°C
(solid)
5.42E-01
3.46E-07
1.9E-02
5.40E-06
6.81E+03
2.14E+03
2.14E+01
1.60E+02
8.56E+01
2.04E+00
0.999
Note:
NA = Not applicable
ND = No data available
All parameters are defined in LIST OF VARIABLES on page A-2-ii.
A-2-65
-------
TABLE A-2-30
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC INPUTS FOR BIS(2-CHLORETHYL)ETHER (111-44-4)
(Page 1 of 1)
Parameter
Reference and Explanation
Value
Chemical/Physical Properties
Mff(g/mole)
r»(K)
Fp(atm)
S(mg/L)
H (atm-mVmol)
Da(cm2/s)
Dw (cm2/s)
Km (unitless)
Koc (mL/g)
^(cmVg)
Kd^ (L/Kg)
Sfa(cm3/g)
ksg (year)'1
Fv (unitless)
Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c)
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c)
H value was calculated by using the theoretical equation from Lyman, Reehl, and
Rosenblatt (1982), which defines the constant. Recommended value was calculated
by using the MW, S, and Vp values that are provided in this table.
Da value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
Dw value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c)
Geometric mean of measured values obtained from U.S. EPA (1996b).
Kds value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.01 in soil. Measured
organic carbon in soil, specific to site conditions, should be used to calculate Kds,
because the value varies, depending on the fraction of organic carbon in soil. Kds
value was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
Kd^ value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.075 in suspended
sediment. Measured organic carbon in suspended sediment, specific to site
conditions, should be used to calculate Kd^, because the value varies, depending on
the fraction of organic carbon in suspended sediment. Recommended Kd^ value
was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
Kdbs value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.04 in bottom
sediment. Measured organic carbon in bottom sediment, specific to site conditions,
should be used to calculate Kdbs, because the value varies, depending on the fraction
of organic carbon in bottom sediment. Recommended Kdbs value was calculated by
using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
ksg value was calculated by using the chemical half-life in soil, as cited in Howard,
Boethling, Jarvis, Meylan, and Michalenko (1991).
Fv value was calculated by using the equation cited in Junge (1977). Recommended
value of Fv was calculated by using the Vp value that is provided in this table.
143.02
223.1
1.76E-03 at 25°C (liquid)
1.18E+04
2.13E-05
4.40E-02
8.70E-06
2.00E+01
7.60E+01
7.60E-01
5.70E+00
3.04E+00
1.41E+00
1.0
Note:
NA= Not applicable
ND= No data available
All parameters are defined in LIST OF VARIABLES on page A-2-ii.
A-2-66
-------
TABLE A-2-31
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC INPUTS FOR BROMODICHLOROMETHANE (75-27-4)
(Page 1 of 1)
Parameter
Reference and Explanation
Value
Chemical/Physical Properties
MW(g/mo\e)
r»(K)
Fp(atm)
S(mg/L)
H (atm-mVmol)
Da (cm2/s)
Dv (cm2/s)
Km (unitless)
Kx (mL/g)
JM,(cm3/g)
Kdm (L/Kg)
SUcmVg)
ksg (year)'1
Fv (unitless)
Montgomery and Welkom (1991)
Montgomery and Welkom (1991)
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c).
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c).
H value was calculated by using the theoretical equation from Lyman, Reehl, and
Rosenblatt (1982), which defines the constant. Recommended value was calculated
by using the MW, S, and Vp values that are provided in this table.
Da value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
Dv value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c).
Koc value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Km for all
nonionizing organics except phthalates, PAHs, dioxins, and furans as cited in
U.S. EPA (1994c). Koc value was calculated by using the recommended Km value
that is provided in this table.
Kds value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed fraction organic carbon of 0.01 in soil. Measured
organic carbon in soil, specific to site conditions, should be used to calculate Kds,
because the value varies, depending on the fraction of organic carbon in soil.
Recommended Kds value was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in
this table.
Kd^ value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.075 in suspended
sediment. Measured organic carbon in suspended sediment, specific to site
conditions, should be used to calculate Kd^, because the value varies, depending on
the fraction of organic carbon in suspended sediment. Recommended Kd^ value
was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
Kdbs value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon of 0.04 in bottom sediment.
Measured organic carbon in bottom sediment, specific to site conditions, should be
used to calculate Kdbs, because the value varies depending on the fraction of organic
fraction in bottom sediment. Recommended Kdbs value was calculated by using the
Koc value that is provided in this table.
Ksg value was assumed to be 0 due to a lack of data.
Fv value was calculated by using the equation cited in Junge (1977). Recommended
value of Fv was calculated by using the Vp value that is provided in this table.
163.83
218.1
7.68E-02
at 25°C
(liquid)
3.97E+03
3.17E-03
2.98E-02
1.06E-05
1.06E+02
5.38E+01
5.38E-01
4.03E+00
2.15E+00
0.0
1.0
Note:
NA = Not applicable
ND = No data available
All parameters are defined in LIST OF VARIABLES on page A-2-ii.
A-2-67
-------
TABLE A-2-32
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC INPUTS FOR BROMOFORM (75-25-2)
(Page 1 of 1)
Parameter
Reference and Explanation
Value
Chemical/Physical Properties
MW(g/mo\e)
r»(K)
Fp(atm)
S(mg/L)
H (atm-mVmol)
Da (cm2/s)
Dv (cm2/s)
.RT^ (unitless)
Kx (mL/g)
&/, (cmVg)
T^(L/Kg)
rrffa(cm3/g)
fog (year)"1
.Fv (unitless)
Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c).
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c).
H value was calculated by using the theoretical equation from Lyman, Reehl, and
Rosenblatt (1982), which defines the constant. Recommended value was calculated
by using the MW, S, and Vp values that are provided in this table.
Da value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
Dv value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c).
Geometric mean of measured values obtained from U.S. EPA (1996b).
Kds value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed fraction organic carbon of 0.01 in soil. Measured
organic carbon in soil, specific to site conditions, should be used to calculate Kds,
because the value varies, depending on the fraction of organic carbon in soil.
Recommended Kds value was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in
this table.
Kd^ value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.075 in suspended
sediment. Measured organic carbon in suspended sediment, specific to site
conditions, should be used to calculate Kd^, because the value varies, depending on
the fraction of organic carbon in suspended sediment. Recommended Kd^ value
was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
Kdbs value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon of 0.04 in bottom sediment.
Measured organic carbon in bottom sediment, specific to site conditions, should be
used to calculate Kdbs, because the value varies depending on the fraction of organic
fraction in bottom sediment. Recommended Kdbs value was calculated by using the
Koc value that is provided in this table.
Ksg value was calculated by using the chemical half-life in soil, as cited in Howard,
Boethling, Jarvis, Meylan, and Michalenko (1991).
Fv value was calculated by using the equation cited in Junge (1977). Recommended
value of Fv was calculated by using the Vp value that is provided in this table.
252.77
280.6
7.82E-03
at 25°C
(liquid)
3.21E+03
6.16E-04
1.41E-02
1.03E-05
2.24E+02
1.26E+02
1.26E+00
9.45E+00
5.04E+00
1.41E+00
1.0
Note:
NA = Not applicable
ND = No data available
All parameters are defined in LIST OF VARIABLES on page A-2-ii.
A-2-68
-------
TABLE A-2-33
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC INPUTS FOR 4-BROMOPHENYL-PHENYLETHER (101-55-3)
(Page 1 of 1)
Parameter
Reference and Explanation
Value
Chemical/Physical Properties
Mff(g/mole)
rm(K)
Vp (atm)
S (mg/L)
H (atm-mVmol)
Da (cm2/s)
A, (cm2/s)
Kow (unitless)
Koc (mL/g)
Kd. (cm3/g)
^ (L/Kg)
r^(cm3/g)
ksg (year)'1
.Fv (unitless)
Montgomery and Welkom (1991)
Montgomery and Welkom (1991)
Vp value cited in Montgomery and Welkom (1991).
--
--
Da value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
A, value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
Arithmetic mean value cited in Karickhoff and Long (1995).
Koc value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Km for
phthalates and PAHs, / all nonionizing organics except phthalates, PAHs,
dioxins, and furans, cited in U.S. EPA (1994c). Koc value was calculated by
using the recommended Km value that is provided in this table.
Kds value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited
in U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.01 in soil.
Measured organic carbon in soil, specific to site conditions, should be used to
calculate Kds, because the value varies, depending on the fraction of organic
carbon in soil. Recommended Kds value was calculated by using the Koc value
that is provided in this table.
Kdm value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited
in U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.075 in
suspended sediment. Measured organic carbon in suspended sediment, specific
to site conditions, should be used to calculate Kd^,, because the value varies,
depending on the fraction of organic carbon in suspended sediment.
Recommended Kd^, value was calculated by using the Koe value that is provided
in this table.
Kdts value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited
in U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.04 in bottom
sediment. Measured organic carbon in bottom sediment, specific to site
conditions, should be used to calculate Kdbs, because the value varies, depending
on the fraction of organic carbon in bottom sediment. Recommended Kdts value
was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
Ksg value wasassumed to be 0 due to a lack of data.
Fv value was calculated by using equations cited in Junge (1977) and Bidleman
(1988). Recommended value of Fv was calculated by using Tm and Vp values
that are provided in this table. Vp value for this compound was converted to a
liquid-phase value before being used in the calculations.
249.2
291.8
1.97E-06
at 25°C (liquid)
ND
ND
1.98E-02
6.83E-06
1.10E+05
1.21E+04
1.21E+02
9.09E+02
4.85E+02
0.0
1.00
Note:
NA = Not applicable
ND = No data available
All parameters are defined in LIST OF VARIABLES on page A-2-ii.
A-2-69
-------
TABLE A-2-34
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC INPUTS FOR BUTYLBENZYLPHTHALATE (85-68-7)
(Page 1 of 1)
Parameter
Reference and Explanation
Value
Chemical/Physical Properties
MW(g/mo\e)
r»(K)
Fp(atm)
S(mg/L)
H (atm-mVmol)
Da (cm2/s)
Dv (cm2/s)
Km (unitless)
Koc (mL/g)
Kds (cmVg)
^CCL/Kg)
rrffa(cm3/g)
fog (year)"1
.Fv (unitless)
Howard (1989-1993)
Howard (1989-1993)
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c).
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c).
H value was calculated by using the theoretical equation from Lyman, Reehl,
and Rosenblatt (1982), which defines the constant. Recommended value was
calculated by using the MW, S, and Vp values that are provided in this table.
Da value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
Dv value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c).
Geometric mean of measured values obtained from U.S. EPA (1996b).
Kds value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited
in U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed fraction organic carbon of 0.01 in soil.
Measured organic carbon in soil, specific to site conditions, should be used to
calculate Kds, because the value varies, depending on the fraction of organic
carbon in soil. Recommended Kds value was calculated by using the Koc value
that is provided in this table.
Kd^ value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited
in U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.075 in
suspended sediment. Measured organic carbon in suspended sediment, specific
to site conditions, should be used to calculate Kd^, because the value varies,
depending on the fraction of organic carbon in suspended sediment.
Recommended Kd^ value was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided
in this table.
Kdbs value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited
in U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon of 0.04 in bottom sediment.
Measured organic carbon in bottom sediment, specific to site conditions, should
be used to calculate Kdbs, because the value varies depending on the fraction of
organic fraction in bottom sediment. Recommended Kdbs value was calculated
by using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
Ksg value was calculated by using the chemical half-life in soil, as cited in
Howard, Boethling, Jarvis, Meylan, and Michalenko (1991).
Fv value was calculated by using the equation cited in Junge (1977).
Recommended value of Fv was calculated by using the Vp value that is
provided in this table.
312.39
238.0
1.58E-08
at 25°C
(liquid)
2.58E+00
1.91E-06
1.65E-02
5.17E-06
2.59E+04
1.37E+04
1.37E+02
1.03E+03
5.50E+02
3.61E+01
9.64E-01
Note:
NA = Not applicable
ND = No data available
All parameters are defined in LIST OF VARIABLES on page A-2-ii.
A-2-70
-------
TABLE A-2-35
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC INPUTS FOR CADMIUM (7440-43-9)
(Page 1 of 1)
Parameter
Reference and Explanation
Value
Chemical/Physical Properties
MW(g/mo\e)
Tm (°K)
Vp (atm)
S (mg/L)
H (atm-mVmol)
Da (cm2/s)
A, (cm2/s)
Km (unitless)
Km (mL/g)
Kds (mL/g)
Kd^ (L/Kg)
Kdbs (mL/g)
ksg (year)'1
.Fv (unitless)
Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
All metals, except mercury, are assumed to be nonvolatile at ambient
temperatures.
All metals, except mercury, are assumed to be insoluble in water.
H value is assumed to be zero, because the Vp and S values are zero for all
metals, except mercury.
Da value was calculated using the equation cited in U.S. EPA (1996a).
Dw value was calculated using the equation cited in U.S. EPA (1996a).
-
--
Kds value was obtained from U.S. EPA (1996b), which provides pH-based
values that were estimated by using the MINTEQ2 geochemical speciation
model.
Kdn, value is assumed to be same as the Kds value, because organic carbon does
not play a major role in sorption for the metals, as cited in U.S. EPA (1 994f).
Kdbs value is assumed to be same as the Kds value, because organic carbon does
not play a major role in sorption for the metals, as cited in U.S. EPA (1 994f).
-
Because they are nonvolatile, metals are assumed to be 100 percent in
particulate phase and zero percent in the vapor phase, as cited in
U.S. EPA(1994f).
112.41
594.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
8.16E-02
9.45E-06
NA
NA
15atpH=4.9;
75atpH=6.8;
4.3E+03 at
pH=8.0
15atpH=4.9;
75atpH=6.8;
4.3E+03 at
pH=8.0
15atpH=4.9;
75atpH=6.8;
4.3E+03 at
pH=8.0
ND
0.0
Note:
NA = Not applicable
ND = No data available
All parameters are defined in LIST OF VARIABLES on page A-2-ii.
A-2-71
-------
TABLE A-2-36
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC INPUTS FOR CARBON DISULFIDE (75-15-0)
(Page 1 of 1)
Parameter
Reference and Explanation
Value
Chemical/Physical Properties
MW(g/mo\e)
r»(K)
Fp(atm)
S(mg/L)
H (atm-mVmol)
Da (cm2/s)
Dv (cm2/s)
Km (unitless)
Kx (mL/g)
JM,(cm3/g)
Kdn (L/Kg)
SUcmVg)
fag (year)'1
.Fv (unitless)
Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c).
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c).
H value was calculated by using the theoretical equation from Lyman, Reehl, and
Rosenblatt (1982), which defines the constant. Recommended value was calculated
by using the MW, S, and Vp values that are provided in this table.
Da value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
Dv value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c).
Koc value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Km for all
nonionizing organics except phthalates, PAHs, dioxins, and furans as cited in
U.S. EPA (1994c). Koc value was calculated by using the recommended Km value
that is provided in this table.
Kds value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed fraction organic carbon of 0.01 in soil. Measured
organic carbon in soil, specific to site conditions, should be used to calculate Kds,
because the value varies, depending on the fraction of organic carbon in soil.
Recommended Kds value was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in
this table.
Kd^ value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.075 in suspended
sediment. Measured organic carbon in suspended sediment, specific to site
conditions, should be used to calculate Kd^, because the value varies, depending on
the fraction of organic carbon in suspended sediment. Recommended Kd^ value
was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
Kdbs value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon of 0.04 in bottom sediment.
Measured organic carbon in bottom sediment, specific to site conditions, should be
used to calculate Kdbs, because the value varies depending on the fraction of organic
fraction in bottom sediment. Recommended Kdbs value was calculated by using the
Koc value that is provided in this table.
Ksg value was assumed to be 0 due to a lack of data.
Fv value was calculated by using the equation cited in Junge (1977). Recommended
value of Fv was calculated by using the Vp value that is provided in this table.
76.14
161.5
4.47E-01
at 25°C
(liquid)
2.67E+03
1.27E-02
1.04E-01
1.29E-05
l.OOE+02
5.14E+01
5.14E-01
3.86E+00
2.06E+00
0.0
1.0
Note:
NA = Not applicable
ND = No data available
All parameters are defined in LIST OF VARIABLES on page A-2-ii.
A-2-72
-------
TABLE A-2-37
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC INPUTS FOR CARBON TETRACHLORIDE (56-23-5)
(Page 1 of 1)
Parameter
Reference and Explanation
Value
Chemical/Physical Properties
Mff(g/mole)
r»(K)
Fp(atm)
S(mg/L)
H (atm-mVmol)
Da (cm2/s)
Dv (cm2/s)
Km (unitless)
Koc (mL/g)
&/, (cmVg)
Kd^ (L/Kg)
&4(cm3/g)
fag (year)"1
Fv (unitless)
Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c).
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c).
H value was calculated by using the theoretical equation from Lyman, Reehl, and
Rosenblatt (1982), which defines the constant. Recommended value was calculated
by using tbeMW, S, and Vp values that are provided in this table.
Da value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
!)„ value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c).
Geometric mean of measured values was obtained from U.S. EPA (1996b).
Kds value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.01 in soil. Measured
organic carbon in soil, specific to site conditions, should be used to calculate Kds,
because the value varies, depending on the fraction of organic carbon in soil.
Recommended Kds value was calculated by using the Kx value that is provided in
this table.
Kd^ value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.075 in suspended
sediment. Measured organic carbon in suspended sediment, specific to site
conditions, should be used to calculate Kd^, because the value varies, depending on
the fraction of organic carbon in suspended sediment. Recommended Kd^ value
was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
Kdb, value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.04 in bottom
sediment. Measured organic carbon in bottom sediment, specific to site conditions,
should be used to calculate Kdts, because the value varies depending on the fraction
of organic carbon in bottom sediment. Recommended Kdbs value was calculated by
using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
Ksg value was calculated by using the chemical half-life in soil, as cited in Howard,
Boethling, Jarvis, Meylan, and Michalenko (1991).
Fv value was calculated by using the equation cited in Junge (1977). Recommended
value of Fv was calculated by using the Vp value that is provided in this table.
153.84
250.1
1.48E-01
at 25°C
(liquid)
7.92E+02
2.87E-02
3.56E-02
9.77E-06
5.21E+02
1.52E+02
1.52E+00
1.14E+01
6.08E+00
7.03E-01
1.0
Note:
NA = Not applicable
ND = No data available
All parameters are defined in LIST OF VARIABLES on page A-2-ii.
A-2-73
-------
TABLE A-2-38
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC INPUTS FOR CHLORDANE (57-74-9)
(Page 1 of 1)
Parameter
Reference and Explanation
Value
Chemical/Physical Properties
MW(g/mo\e)
r»(K)
Fp(atm)
S(mg/L)
H (atm-mVmol)
Da (cm2/s)
Dv (cm2/s)
Km (unitless)
Kx (mL/g)
Kd. (cm3/g)
T^(L/Kg)
^fa(cm3/g)
ksg (year)"1
Fv (unitless)
Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c).
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c).
H value was calculated by using the theoretical equation from Lyman, Reehl, and
Rosenblatt (1982), which defines the constant. Recommended value was calculated
by using the MW, S, and Vp values that are provided in this table.
Da value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
Dv value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c).
Geometric mean of measured values was obtained from U.S. EPA (1996b).
Kds value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.01 in soil. Measured
organic carbon in soil, specific to site conditions, should be used to calculate Kds,
because the value varies, depending on the fraction of organic carbon in soil.
Recommended Kds value was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in
this table.
Kd^ value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.075 in suspended
sediment. Measured organic carbon in suspended sediment, specific to site
conditions, should be used to calculate Kd^, because the value varies, depending on
the fraction of organic carbon in suspended sediment. Recommended Kd^ value
was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
Kdbs value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.04 in bottom
sediment. Measured organic carbon in bottom sediment, specific to site conditions,
should be used to calculate Kdbs, because the value varies depending on the fraction
of organic carbon in bottom sediment. Recommended Kdbs value was calculated by
using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
Ksg value was calculated by using the chemical half-life in soil, as cited in Howard,
Boethling, Jarvis, Meylan, and Michalenko (1991).
Fv value was calculated by using equations cited in Junge (1977) and Bidleman
(1988). Recommended value of Fv was calculated by using S, Tm, and Vp values
that are provided in this table. Vp value for this compound was converted to a
liquid-phase value before being used in the calculations.
409.80
381.1
3.55E-08
at 25°C
(solid)
5.51E-01
2.64E-05
1.18E-02
4.37E-06
8.66E+05
5.13E+04
5.13E+02
3.85E+03
2.05E+03
1.83E-01
0.997
Note:
NA = Not applicable
ND = No data available
All parameters are defined in LIST OF VARIABLES on page A-2-ii.
A-2-74
-------
TABLE A-2-39
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC INPUTS FOR CHLORINE (7782-50-5)
(Page 1 of 1)
Parameter
Reference and Explanation
Value
Chemical/Physical Properties
MW(g/mo\e)
rm(°K)
Fp(atm)
S(mg/L)
H (atm-mVmol)
Da(cm2/s)
Dw (cm2/s)
Km (unitless)
Koc (mL/g)
Kds(mL/g)
T^(L/Kg)
Kdbs(mL/g)
ksg (year)"1
Fv (unitless)
Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
Because they are nonvolatile, metals are assumed to be 100 percent in
particulate phase and zero percent in the vapor phase, as cited in
U.S. EPA(1994f).
71.90
172.1
ND
ND
ND
1.10E-01
1.27E-05
NA
NA
ND
ND
ND
ND
1.0
Note:
NA = Not applicable
ND = No data available
All parameters are defined in LIST OF VARIABLES on page A-2-ii.
A-2-75
-------
TABLE A-2-40
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC INPUTS FOR 4-CHLORO-3-METHYLPHENOL (59-50-7)
(Page 1 of 1)
Parameter
Reference and Explanation
Value
Chemical/Physical Properties
Mff(g/mole)
rm(K)
Vp (atm)
S(mg/L)
H (atm-m'/mol)
Da (cm2/s)
A, (cm2/s)
Kow (unitless)
Koc (mL/g)
&/, (cm3/g)
Kd^ (L/Kg)
&/,,, (cm3/g)
ksg (year)"1
Fv (unitless)
Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
U.S. EPA(1994b)
U.S.EPA(1992a)
H value was calculated by using the theoretical equation from Lyman, Reehl,
and Rosenblatt (1982), which defines the constant. Recommended value was
calculated by using the MW, S, and Vp values that are provided in this table.
Da value was calculated using the equation cited in U.S. EPA (1996a).
Dw value was calculated using the equation cited in U.S. EPA (1996a).
Arithmetic mean value cited in Karickhoff and Long (1995).
Koc value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Km for
phthalates and PAHs, all nonionizing organics except phthalates, PAHs,
dioxins, and furans, cited in U.S. EPA (1994c). Koc value was calculated by
using the recommended Km value that is provided in this table.
Kds value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited
in U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.01 in soil.
Measured organic carbon in soil, specific to site conditions, should be used to
calculate Kd,, because the value varies, depending on the fraction of organic
carbon in soil. Recommended Kds value was calculated by using the Koc value
that is provided in this table.
Kd^, value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koe that is cited
in U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.075 in
suspended sediment. Measured organic carbon in suspended sediment, specific
to site conditions, should be used to calculate Kd^,, because the value varies,
depending on the fraction of organic carbon in suspended sediment.
Recommended Kdm value was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided
in this table.
Kdb, value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited
in U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.04 in bottom
sediment. Measured organic carbon in bottom sediment, specific to site
conditions, should be used to calculate Kdbs, because the value varies, depending
on the fraction of organic carbon in bottom sediment. Recommended Kdb, value
was calculated by using the Kac value that is provided in this table.
Ksg value was calculated by using the chemical half-life in soil, as cited in
Lucius (1992).
Fv value was calculated by using the equation cited in Junge (1977).
Recommended value of Fv was calculated by using the Vp value that is provided
in this table.
142.58
328.6
1.08E-05
3.85E+03
4.00E-07
6.96E-02
8.06E-06
1.26E+03
3.71E+02
3.71E+00
2.78E+01
1.48E+01
1.10E+01
0.9999
Note:
NA = Not applicable
ND = No data available
All parameters are defined in LIST OF VARIABLES on page A-2-ii.
A-2-76
-------
TABLE A-2-41
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC INPUTS FOR P-CHLOROANILINE (106-47-8)
(Page 1 of 1)
Parameter
Reference and Explanation
Value
Chemical/Physical Properties
Mff(g/mole)
rm(K)
Vp (atm)
S (mg/L)
H (atm-m3/mol)
Da (cm2/s)
A, (cm2/s)
Km (unitless)
Koc (mL/g)
Kd. (cm3/g)
£*„ (L/Kg)
rrffo (cm3/g)
ksg (year)"1
Fv (unitless)
Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c).
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c).
H value was calculated by using the theoretical equation from Lyman, Reehl, and
Rosenblatt (1982), which defines the constant. Recommended value was calculated
by using the MW, S, and Vp values that are provided in this table.
Da value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
Dw value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c).
For all ionizing organics, Koc values were estimated on the basis of pH. Estimated
values were obtained from U.S. EPA (1994c).
Kds value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.01 in soil. Measured
organic carbon in soil, specific to site conditions, should be used to calculate Kds,
because the value varies, depending on the fraction of organic carbon in soil.
Recommended Kds value was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in
this table.
Kdm value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.075 in suspended
sediment. Measured organic carbon in suspended sediment, specific to site
conditions, should be used to calculate Kd^, because the value varies, depending on
the fraction of organic carbon in suspended sediment. Recommended Kd^ value
was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
Kdbs value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.04 in bottom
sediment. Measured organic carbon in bottom sediment, specific to site conditions,
should be used to calculate Kdts, because the value varies, depending on the fraction
of organic carbon in bottom sediment. Recommended Kdbs value was calculated by
using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
Ksg value was assumed to be 0 due a a lack of data.
Fv value was calculated by using equations cited in Junge (1 977) and Bidleman
(1988). Recommended value of Fv was calculated by using Tm and Vp values that
are provided in this table. Vp value for this compound was converted to a liquid
phase value before being used in the calculations.
127.57
345.6
3.09E-05
at 25°C
(solid)
3.36E+03
1.17E-06
4.80E-02
1.02E-05
7.40E+01
Koc is 41 for pH range of 4.9
to 8
4.06E-01
3.05E+00
1.63E+00
0.0
1.0
Note:
NA= Not applicable
ND= No data available
All parameters are defined in LIST OF VARIABLES on page A-2-ii.
A-2-77
-------
TABLE A-2-42
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC INPUTS FOR CHLOROBENZENE (108-90-7)
(Page 1 of 1)
Parameter
Reference and Explanation
Value
Chemical/Physical Properties
Mff(g/mole)
rm(K)
Vp (atm)
S (mg/L)
H (atm-m3/mol)
Da (cm2/s)
A, (cm2/s)
Km (unitless)
Koc (mL/g)
Kds (cm3/g)
&C (L/Kg)
rrffo (cm3/g)
ksg (year)"1
Fv (unitless)
Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c).
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c).
H value was calculated by using the theoretical equation from Lyman, Reehl, and
Rosenblatt (1982), which defines the constant. Recommended value was calculated
by using the MW, S, and Vp values that are provided in this table.
Da value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
Dw value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c)
Geometric mean of measured values obtained from U.S. EPA (1996b).
Kd, value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.01 in soil. Measured
organic carbon in soil, specific to site conditions, should be used to calculate Kds,
because the value varies, depending on the fraction of organic carbon in soil.
Recommended Kds value was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in
this table.
Kd^, value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.075 in suspended
sediment. Measured organic carbon in suspended sediment, specific to site
conditions, should be used to calculate Kd^,, because the value varies, depending on
the fraction of organic carbon in suspended sediment. Recommended Kd^, value
was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
Kdbs value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.04 in bottom
sediment. Measured organic carbon in bottom sediment, specific to site conditions,
should be used to calculate Kdbs, because the value varies, depending on the fraction
of organic carbon in bottom sediment. Recommended Kdts value was calculated by
using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
ksg value was calculated by using the chemical half-life in soil, as cited in Howard,
Boethling, Jarvis, Meylan, and Michalenko (1991).
Fv value was calculated by using the equation cited in Junge (1977). Recommended
value of Fv was calculated by using the Vp value that is provided in this table.
112.56
228.1
1.59E-02
at 25°C
(liquid)
4.09E+02
4.38E-03
6.35E-02
9.49E-06
6.16E+02
2.24E+02
2.24E+00
1.68E+01
8.96E+00
1.69E+00
1.0
Note:
NA= Not applicable
ND= No data available
All parameters are defined in LIST OF VARIABLES on page A-2-ii.
A-2-78
-------
TABLE A-2-43
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC INPUTS FOR CHLOROBENZILATE (510-15-6)
(Page 1 of 1)
Parameter
Reference and Explanation
Value
Chemical/Physical Properties
Mff(g/mole)
rm(K)
Vp (atm)
S (mg/L)
H (atm-m3/mol)
Z)a(cm2/s)
A, (cm2/s)
Km (unitless)
Koc (mL/g)
&/, (cm3/g)
Kd^ (L/Kg)
^(cm3/g)
fog (year)'1
Fv (unitless)
Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
Howard (1989-1993)
Howard (1989-1993)
Howard (1989-1993)
H value was calculated by using the theoretical equation from Lyman, Reehl, and
Rosenblatt (1982), which defines the constant. Recommended value was calculated
by using the MW, S, and Vp values that are provided in this table.
Da value was obtained from WATERS model database (U.S. EPA 1995d).
A, value was obtained from WATERS model database (U.S. EPA 1995d).
Arithmetic mean value cited in Karickhoff and Long (1995).
Koc value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Km for all
nonionizing organics except phthalates, PAHs, dioxins, and furans, cited in
U.S. EPA (1994c). Koc value was calculated by using the recommended Km value
that is provided in this table.
Kds value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.01 in soil. Measured
organic carbon in soil, specific to site conditions, should be used to calculate Kd,,
because the value varies, depending on the fraction of organic carbon in soil.
Recommended Kds value was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in
this table.
Kd^, value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.075 in suspended
sediment. Measured organic carbon in suspended sediment, specific to site
conditions, should be used to calculate Kd^, because the value varies, depending on
the fraction of organic carbon in suspended sediment. Recommended Kdm value
was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
Kdbs value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.04 in bottom
sediment. Measured organic carbon in bottom sediment, specific to site conditions,
should be used to calculate Kdbs, because the value varies, depending on the fraction
of organic carbon in bottom sediment. Recommended Kdbs value was calculated by
using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
Ksg value was calculated by using the chemical half-life in soil, as cited in Howard,
Boethling, Jarvis, Meylan, and Michalenko (1991).
Fv value was calculated by using equations cited in Junge (1977) and Bidleman
(1988). Recommended value of Fv was calculated by using Tm and Vp values that
are provided in this table. Vp value for this compound was converted to a
liquid-phase value before being used in the calculations.
325.20
309.0
2.90E-09at25°C(solid)
1.30E+01
7.24E-08
1.65E-02
4.72E-06
2.40E+04
3.69E+03
3.69E+01
2.77E+02
1.48E+02
7.23E+00
8.62E-01
Note:
NA = Not applicable
ND = No data available
All parameters are defined in LIST OF VARIABLES on page A-2-ii.
A-2-79
-------
TABLE A-2-44
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC INPUTS FOR CHLORODIFLUOROMETHANE (75-45-6)
(Page 1 of 1)
Parameter
Reference and Explanation
Value
Chemical/Physical Properties
Mff(g/mole)
r»(K)
Fp(atm)
S(mg/L)
H (atm-mVmol)
Da (cm2/s)
Dn (cm2/s)
^T^, (unitless)
Koc (mL/g)
&/, (cmVg)
T^(L/Kg)
rrffa(cm3/g)
fag (year)'1
Fv (unitless)
Howard 1989-1993
Howard 1989-1993
Vp value cited in Howard 1989-1993.
Howard 1989-1993
H value was calculated by using the theoretical equation from Lyman, Reehl, and
Rosenblatt (1982), which defines the constant. Recommended value was calculated by
using the MW, S, and Vp values that are provided in this table.
Da value was calculated using the equation cited in U.S. EPA (1996a).
Dw value was calculated using the equation cited in U.S. EPA (1996a).
Calculated using the log Km value cited in Howard 1989-1993.
Koc value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Km for phthalates and
PAHs, / all nonionizing organics except phthalates, PAHs, dioxins, and furans, cited in
U.S. EPA (1994c). Koc value was calculated by using the recommended Km value that is
provided in this table.
Kds value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.01 in soil. Measured
organic carbon in soil, specific to site conditions, should be used to calculate Kds,
because the value varies, depending on the fraction of organic carbon in soil.
Recommended Kds value was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in this
table.
Kd^ value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in U.S.
EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.075 in suspended sediment.
Measured organic carbon in suspended sediment, specific to site conditions, should be
used to calculate Kd^, because the value varies, depending on the fraction of organic
carbon in suspended sediment. Recommended Kd^ value was calculated by using the
Koc value that is provided in this table.
Kdbs value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in U.S.
EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.04 in bottom sediment.
Measured organic carbon in bottom sediment, specific to site conditions, should be used
to calculate Kdbs, because the value varies, depending on the fraction of organic carbon
in bottom sediment. Recommended Kdbs value was calculated by using the Koc value
that is provided in this table.
Ksg value was calculated by using the chemical half-life in soil, as cited in Howard,
Boethling, Jarvis, Meylan, and Michalenko (1991) OR Howard (1989-1993) OR
Mackay, Shiu, and Ma (1992).
Fv value was calculated by using the equation cited in Junge (1977). Recommended
value of Fv was calculated by using the Vp value that is provided in the table.
86.47
126.6
5.63
at 25°C (liquid)
2.90E+03
1.68E-01
9.72E-02
1.13E-05
1.20E+01
9.83E+00
9.83E-02
7.38E-01
3.93E-01
0.0
1.00
Note:
NA = Not applicable
ND = No data available
All parameters are defined in LIST OF VARIABLES on page A-2-ii.
A-2-8
-------
TABLE A-2-45
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC INPUTS FOR CHLOROETHANE (75-00-3)
(Page 1 of 1)
Parameter
Reference and Explanation
Value
Chemical/Physical Properties
Mff(g/mole)
r»(K)
Fp(atm)
S(mg/L)
H (atm-mVmol)
Da(cm2/s)
Dw (cm2/s)
Km (unitless)
Koc (mL/g)
Kds (cmVg)
T^(L/Kg)
Kdbs(cm3/g)
ksg (year)"1
Fv (unitless)
Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
Vp value cited in Lucius et al. (1992).
S value cited in U.S. EPA (1994a)
H value was calculated by using the theoretical equation from Lyman, Reehl, and
Rosenblatt (1982), which defines the constant. Recommended value was calculated
by using the MW, S, and Vp values that are provided in this table.
Da value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
Dw value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
Km value calculated from log Km value cited in U.S. EPA (1995a).
Koc value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Km for phthalates
and PAHs, / all nonionizing organics except phthalates, PAHs, dioxins, and furans,
cited in U.S. EPA (1994c). Koc value was calculated by using the recommended Km
value that is provided in this table.
Kds value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.01 in soil. Measured
organic carbon in soil, specific to site conditions, should be used to calculate Kds,
because the value varies, depending on the fraction of organic carbon in soil. Kds
value was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
Kd^ value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.075 in suspended
sediment. Measured organic carbon in suspended sediment, specific to site
conditions, should be used to calculate Kd^, because the value varies, depending on
the fraction of organic carbon in suspended sediment. Recommended Kd^ value
was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
Kdbs value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.04 in bottom
sediment. Measured organic carbon in bottom sediment, specific to site conditions,
should be used to calculate Kdbs, because the value varies, depending on the fraction
of organic carbon in bottom sediment. Recommended Kdbs value was calculated by
using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
Ksg value was calculated by using the chemical half-life in soil, as cited in Howard,
Boethling, Jarvis, Meylan, and Michalenko (1991).
Fv value was calculated by using equations cited in Junge (1977) and Bidleman
(1988). Recommended value of Fv was calculated by using Tm and Vp values that
are provided in this table. Vp value for this compound was converted to a
liquid-phase value before being used in the calculations.
64.52
441.8
159. 88 at 25°C (solid)
5.74E+03
1.80
1.27E-01
1.53E-06
1.26E+03
3.71E+02
3.71E+00
2.78E+01
1.48E+01
6.72E+02
1.00
Note:
NA = Not applicable
ND = No data available
All parameters are defined in LIST OF VARIABLES on page A-2-ii.
A-2-81
-------
TABLE A-2-46
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC INPUTS FOR CHLOROFORM (67-66-3)
(Page 1 of 1)
Parameter
Reference and Explanation
Value
Chemical/Physical Properties
MW(g/mo\e)
r»(K)
Fp(atm)
S(mg/L)
H (atm-mVmol)
Da (cm2/s)
Dv (cm2/s)
.RT^ (unitless)
Kx (mL/g)
&/, (cmVg)
T^(L/Kg)
rrffa(cm3/g)
fog (year)"1
Fv (unitless)
Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c).
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c).
H value was calculated by using the theoretical equation from Lyman, Reehl, and
Rosenblatt (1982), which defines the constant. Recommended value was calculated
by using the MW, S, and Vp values that are provided in this table.
Da value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
Dv value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c).
Geometric mean of measured values was obtained from U.S. EPA (1996b).
Kds value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed fraction organic carbon of 0.01 in soil. Measured
organic carbon in soil, specific to site conditions, should be used to calculate Kds,
because the value varies, depending on the fraction of organic carbon in soil.
Recommended Kds value was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in
this table.
Kd^ value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.075 in suspended
sediment. Measured organic carbon in suspended sediment, specific to site
conditions, should be used to calculate Kd^, because the value varies, depending on
the fraction of organic carbon in suspended sediment. Recommended Kd^ value
was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
Kdbs value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon of 0.04 in bottom sediment.
Measured organic carbon in bottom sediment, specific to site conditions, should be
used to calculate Kdbs, because the value varies depending on the fraction of organic
fraction in bottom sediment. Recommended Kdbs value was calculated by using the
Koc value that is provided in this table.
Ksg value was calculated by using the chemical half-life in soil, as cited in Howard,
Boethling, Jarvis, Meylan, and Michalenko (1991).
Fv value was calculated by using the equation cited in Junge (1977). Recommended
value of Fv was calculated by using the Vp value that is provided in this table.
119.39
209.6
2.69E-01
at 25°C
(liquid)
7.96E+03
4.03E-03
5.17E-02
1.09E-05
8.90E+01
5.30E+01
5.30E-01
3.98E+00
2.12E+00
1.41E+00
1.0
Note:
NA = Not applicable
ND = No data available
All parameters are defined in LIST OF VARIABLES on page A-2-ii.
A-2-82
-------
TABLE A-2-47
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC INPUTS FOR (BIS)-1,2-CHLOROISOPROPYLETHER (39638-32-9)
(Page 1 of 1)
Parameter
Reference and Explanation
Value
Chemical/Physical Properties
Mff(g/mole)
rm(K)
Vp (atm)
S (mg/L)
H (atm-mVmol)
Z)a(cm2/s)
A, (cm2/s)
Km (unitless)
Koc (mL/g)
Kds (cm3/g)
Kdn (L/Kg)
&/,,, (cm3/g)
ksg (year)"1
Fv (unitless)
Montgomery and Welkom (1991)
Montgomery and Welkom (1991)
Montgomery and Welkom (1991)
Montgomery and Welkom (1991)
H value was calculated by using the theoretical equation from Lyman, Reehl, and
Rosenblatt (1982), which defines the constant. Recommended value was calculated
by using the MW, S, and Vp values that are provided in this table.
Da value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
A, value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
Km value cited in Howard (1989 - 1993).
Koc value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Km for phthalates
and PAHs, / all nonionizing organics except phthalates, PAHs, dioxins, and furans,
cited in U.S. EPA (1994c). Koc value was calculated by using the recommended Km
value that is provided in this table.
Kds value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.01 in soil. Measured
organic carbon in soil, specific to site conditions, should be used to calculate Kd,,
because the value varies, depending on the fraction of organic carbon in soil. Kds
value was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
Kdm value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.075 in suspended
sediment. Measured organic carbon in suspended sediment, specific to site
conditions, should be used to calculate Kd^,, because the value varies, depending on
the fraction of organic carbon in suspended sediment. Recommended Kd^ value
was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
Kdbs value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.04 in bottom
sediment. Measured organic carbon in bottom sediment, specific to site conditions,
should be used to calculate Kdts, because the value varies, depending on the fraction
of organic carbon in bottom sediment. Recommended Kdb, value was calculated by
using the Kac value that is provided in this table.
Ksg value was calculated by using the chemical half-life in soil, as cited in Mackay,
Shiu, and Ma (1992).
Fv value was calculated by using equations cited in Junge (1977) and Bidleman
(1988). Recommended value of Fv was calculated by using Tm and Vp values that
are provided in this table. Vp value for this compound was converted to a liquid
phase value before being used in the calculations.
171.07
369.9
7.00E-03 at 25°C (solid)
1.70E+03
7.04E-04
3.61E-02
7.38E-06
3.80E+02
1.46E+02
1.46E+00
1.09E+01
5.82E+00
1.41E+00
1.00
Note:
NA = Not applicable
ND = No data available
All parameters are defined in LIST OF VARIABLES on page A-2-ii.
A-2-83
-------
TABLE A-2-48
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC INPUTS FOR 2-CHLORONAPHTHALENE (91-58-7)
(Page 1 of 1)
Parameter
Reference and Explanation
Value
Chemical/Physical Properties
MW(g/mo\e)
r»(K)
Fp(atm)
S(mg/L)
H (atm-mVmol)
Da (cm2/s)
Dv (cm2/s)
Km (unitless)
Kx (mL/g)
JM,(cm3/g)
Kdm (L/Kg)
&4(cm3/g)
fag (year)'1
Fv (unitless)
Budavari, O'Neill, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
Budavari, O'Neill, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
Vp value cited in U.S. EPA (1995b).
S value cited in U.S. EPA (1995b).
H value was calculated by using the theoretical equation from Lyman, Reehl, and
Rosenblatt (1982), which defines the constant. Recommended value was calculated
by using the MW, S, and Vp values that are provided in this table.
Da value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
Dv value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
Montgomery and Welkom (1991)
Koc value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Km for phthalates
and PAHs as cited in U.S. EPA (1994c). Koc value was calculated by using the
recommended Km value that is provided in this table.
Kds value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed fraction organic carbon of 0.01 in soil. Measured
organic carbon in soil, specific to site conditions, should be used to calculate Kds,
because the value varies, depending on the fraction of organic carbon in soil. Kds
value was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
Kd^ value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.075 in suspended
sediment. Measured organic carbon in suspended sediment, specific to site
conditions, should be used to calculate Kd^, because the value varies, depending on
the fraction of organic carbon in suspended sediment. Recommended Kd^ value
was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
Kdbs value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon of 0.04 in bottom sediment.
Measured organic carbon in bottom sediment, specific to site conditions, should be
used to calculate Kdbs, because the value varies depending on the fraction of organic
fraction in bottom sediment. Recommended Kdbs value was calculated by using the
Koc value that is provided in this table.
Ksg value was assumed to be 0 due to a lack of data.
Fv value was calculated by using equations cited in Junge (1977) and Bidleman
(1988). Recommended value of Fv was calculated by using S, Tm, and Vp values
that are provided in this table. Vp value for this compound was converted to a liquid
phase value before being used in the calculations.
162.61
332.6
1.05E-05
at 25°C
(solid)
1.20E+01
1.43E-04
3.64E-02
8.24E-06
1.17E+04
7.14E+03
7.14E+01
5.36E+02
2.86E+02
0.0
1.0
Note:
NA = Not applicable
ND = No data available
All parameters are defined in LIST OF VARIABLES on page A-2-ii.
A-2-84
-------
TABLE A-2-49
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC INPUTS FOR 2-CHLOROPHENOL (95-57-8)
(Page 1 of 2)
Parameter
Reference and Explanation
Value
Chemical/Physical Properties
MW(g/mo\e)
r»(K)
Fp(atm)
S(mg/L)
H (atm-mVmol)
Da (cm2/s)
Dv (cm2/s)
.RT^ (unitless)
^ (mL/g)
Kds (cmVg)
Montgomery and Welkom (1991)
Montgomery and Welkom (1991)
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c).
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c).
H value was calculated by using the theoretical equation from Lyman, Reehl, and
Rosenblatt (1982), which defines the constant. Recommended value was calculated
by using the MW, S, and Vp values that are provided in this table.
Da value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
Dv value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c).
For all ionizing organics, Koc values were estimated on the basis of pH. Estimated
values were obtained from U.S. EPA (1994c).
Kds value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed fraction organic carbon of 0.01 in soil. Measured
organic carbon in soil, specific to site conditions, should be used to calculate Kds,
because the value varies, depending on the fraction of organic carbon in soil.
Recommended Kds value was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in
this table for a pH of 7.0.
128.56
282.1
2.77E-03
at 25°C
(liquid)
2.15E+04
1.66E-05
5.01E-02
9.46E-06
1.45E+02
pH
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Koc
398.0
398.0
398.0
398.0
397.9
396.9
387.3
311.8
108.7
19.43
7.39
6.14
6.01
6.00
3.87E+00
A-2-85
-------
TABLE A-2-49
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC INPUTS FOR 2-CHLOROPHENOL (95-57-8)
(Page 2 of 2)
Parameter
Reference and Explanation
Value
Chemical/Physical Properties (Continued)
T^(L/Kg)
Kdbs(cm3/g)
ksg (year)"1
Fv (unitless)
Kd^ value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.075 in suspended
sediment. Measured organic carbon in suspended sediment, specific to site
conditions, should be used to calculate Kd^, because the value varies, depending on
the fraction of organic carbon in suspended sediment. Recommended Kd^ value
was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in this table for a pH of 7.0.
Kdbs value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon of 0.04 in bottom sediment.
Measured organic carbon in bottom sediment, specific to site conditions, should be
used to calculate Kdbs, because the value varies depending on the fraction of organic
fraction in bottom sediment. Recommended Kdbs value was calculated by using the
Koc value that is provided in this table for a pH of 7.0.
Ksg value was assumed to be 0 due to a lack of data.
Fv value was calculated by using the equation cited in Junge (1977). Recommended
value of Fv was calculated by using the Vp value that is provided in this table.
2.90E+01
1.55E+01
0.0
1.0
Note:
NA= Not applicable
ND= No data available
All parameters are defined in LIST OF VARIABLES on page A-2-ii.
A-2-86
-------
TABLE A-2-50
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC INPUTS FOR 4-CHLOROPHENYL-PHENYLETHER (7005-72-3)
(Page 1 of 1)
Parameter
Reference and Explanation
Value
Chemical/Physical Properties
Mff(g/mole)
rm(K)
Vp (atm)
S (mg/L)
H (atm-mVmol)
Z)a(cm2/s)
A, (cm2/s)
Km (unitless)
Kac (mL/g)
Kd. (cm3/g)
^ (L/Kg)
^(cm3/g)
fog (year)'1
Fv (unitless)
Montgomery and Welkom (1991)
Montgomery and Welkom (1991)
Vp value cited in Montgomery and Welkom (1991).
S value cited in Montgomery and Welkom (1991).
H value was calculated by using the theoretical equation from Lyman, Reehl,
and Rosenblatt (1982), which defines the constant. Recommended value was
calculated by using the MW, S, and Vp values that are provided in this table.
Da value was calculated using the equation cited in U.S. EPA (1996a).
Dv value was calculated using the equation cited in U.S. EPA (1996a).
Arithmetic mean value cited in Karickhoff and Long (1995).
Koe value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Km for
phthalates and PAHs, / all nonionizing organics except phthalates, PAHs,
dioxins, and furans, cited in U.S. EPA (1994c). Koc value was calculated by
using the recommended Km value that is provided in this table.
Kds value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited
in U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.01 in soil.
Measured organic carbon in soil, specific to site conditions, should be used to
calculate Kds, because the value varies, depending on the fraction of organic
carbon in soil. Recommended Kds value was calculated by using the Koc value
that is provided in this table.
{{(!„ value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited
in U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.075 in
suspended sediment. Measured organic carbon in suspended sediment, specific
to site conditions, should be used to calculate Kd^,, because the value varies,
depending on the fraction of organic carbon in suspended sediment.
Recommended Kd^, value was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided
in this table.
Kdts value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited
in U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.04 in bottom
sediment. Measured organic carbon in bottom sediment, specific to site
conditions, should be used to calculate Kdbs, because the value varies, depending
on the fraction of organic carbon in bottom sediment. Recommended Kdts value
was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
Ksg value was assumed to be zero due to a lack of data.
Fv value was calculated by using the equation cited in Junge (1977).
Recommended value of Fv was calculated by using the Vp value that is provided
in the table.
204.66
265.1
3.55E-06at25°C(liquid)
3.30E+00
2.20E-04
3.82E-02
4.42E-06
5.85E+04
7.40E+03
7.40E+01
5.55E+02
2.96E+02
0.0
1.00
Note:
NA = Not applicable
ND = No data available
All parameters are defined in LIST OF VARIABLES on page A-2-ii.
A-2-87
-------
TABLE A-2-51
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC INPUTS FOR CHLOROPYRIFOS (2921-88-2)
(Page 1 of 1)
Parameter
Reference and Explanation
Value
Chemical/Physical Properties
Mff(g/mole)
rm(K)
Vp (atm)
S (mg/L)
H (atm-m3/mol)
Z)a(cm2/s)
A, (cm2/s)
Km (unitless)
Koc (mL/g)
Kds (cm3/g)
Kd^ (L/Kg)
^(cm3/g)
fog (year)'1
Fv (unitless)
Montgomery and Welkom (1991)
Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
Vp value cited in Howard (1989-1993).
S value cited in Howard (1989-1993).
H value was calculated by using the theoretical equation from Lyman, Reehl, and
Rosenblatt (1982), which defines the constant. Recommended value was calculated
by using the MW, S, and Vp values that are provided in this table.
Da value was calculated using the equation cited in U.S. EPA (1996a).
Dv value was calculated using the equation cited in U.S. EPA (1996a).
Recommended Km value cited in Karickhoff and Long (1995).
Koc value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Km for phthalates
and PAHs, / all nonionizing organics except phthalates, PAHs, dioxins, and furans,
cited in U.S. EPA (1994c). Koc value was calculated by using the recommended Km
value that is provided in this table.
Kds value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.01 in soil. Measured
organic carbon in soil, specific to site conditions, should be used to calculate Kd,,
because the value varies, depending on the fraction of organic carbon in soil.
Recommended Kds value was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in
this table.
Kd^, value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.075 in suspended
sediment. Measured organic carbon in suspended sediment, specific to site
conditions, should be used to calculate Kd^, because the value varies, depending on
the fraction of organic carbon in suspended sediment. Recommended Kdm value
was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
Kdbs value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.04 in bottom
sediment. Measured organic carbon in bottom sediment, specific to site conditions,
should be used to calculate Kdbs, because the value varies, depending on the fraction
of organic carbon in bottom sediment. Recommended Kdbs value was calculated by
using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
Ksg value was assumed to 0 due to a lack of data.
Fv value was calculated by using equations cited in Junge (1 977) and Bidleman
(1988). Recommended value of Fv was calculated by using Tm and Vp values that
are provided in this table. Vp value for this compound was converted to a liquid
phase value before being used in the calculations.
350.59
314.6
1.32E-03 at 25°C (solid)
5.00E+00
9.26E-02
3.82E-02
4.42E-06
1.82E+05
1.79E+04
1.79E+02
1.35E+03
7.18E+02
0.0
1.00
Note:
NA = Not applicable
ND = No data available
All parameters are defined in LIST OF VARIABLES on page A-2-ii.
A-2-8
-------
TABLE A-2-52
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC INPUTS FOR CHROMIUM (7440-47-3)
(Page 1 of 1)
Parameter
Reference and Explanation
Value
Chemical/Physical Properties
Mff(g/mole)
rm(°K)
Vp (atm)
S (mg/L)
H (atm-m3/mol)
Z)a(cm2/s)
A, (cm2/s)
Kow (unitless)
Koc (mL/g)
Kd, (mL/g)
Kd^ (L/Kg)
Kdbs (mL/g)
ksg (year)'1
Fv (unitless)
Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
All metals, except mercury, are assumed to be nonvolatile at ambient
temperatures.
All metals, except mercury, are assumed to be insoluble in water.
H value is assumed to be zero, because the Vp and S values are zero for all
metals, except mercury.
Da value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database in U.S. EPA (1994f).
Devalue was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database in U.S. EPA (1994f).
--
--
Kds value was obtained from U.S. EPA (1996b), which provides pH-based
values that were estimated by using the MINTEQ2 geochemical speciation
model.
Kd^, value is assumed to be same as the Kds value, because organic carbon does
not play a major role in sorption for the metals, as cited in U.S. EPA (1 994f).
Kdbs value is assumed to be same as the Kds value, because organic carbon does
not play a major role in sorption for the metals, as cited in U.S. EPA (1 994f).
-
Because they are nonvolatile, metals are assumed to be 100 percent in
particulate phase and zero percent in the vapor phase, as cited in
U.S. EPA(1994f).
52
2,173.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.01E-01
4.63E-05
NA
NA
1.2E+03atpH=4.9;
1.8E+06atpH=6.8;
4.3E+06atpH=8.0
1.2E+03atpH=4.9;
1.8E+06atpH=6.8;
4.3E+06atpH=8.0
1.2E+03atpH=4.9;
1.8E+06atpH=6.8;
4.3E+06atpH=8.0
ND
0.0
Note:
NA = Not applicable
ND = No data available
All parameters are defined in LIST OF VARIABLES on page A-2-ii.
A-2-89
-------
TABLE A-2-53
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC INPUTS FOR HEXAVALENT CHROMIUM (18540-29-9)
(Page 1 of 1)
Parameter
Reference and Explanation
Value
Chemical/Physical Properties
Mff(g/mole)
rm(°K)
Vp (atm)
S (mg/L)
H (atm-m3/mol)
Z)a(cm2/s)
A, (cm2/s)
Kow (unitless)
Koc (mL/g)
Kd, (mL/g)
Kd^ (L/Kg)
Kdbs (mL/g)
ksg (year)'1
Fv (unitless)
Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
All metals, except mercury, are assumed to be nonvolatile at ambient
temperatures.
All metals, except mercury, are assumed to be insoluble in water.
H value is assumed to be zero, because the Vp and S values are zero for all
metals, except mercury.
Da value was calculated using the equation cited in U.S. EPA (1996a).
D,, value was calculated using the equation cited in U.S. EPA (1996a).
--
--
Kds value was obtained from U.S. EPA (1996b), which provides pH-based
values that were estimated by using the MINTEQ2 geochemical speciation
model.
Kd^, value is assumed to be same as the Kds value, because organic carbon does
not play a major role in sorption for the metals, as cited in U.S. EPA (1 994f).
Kdbs value is assumed to be same as the Kds value, because organic carbon does
not play a major role in sorption for the metals, as cited in U.S. EPA (1 994f).
-
Because they are nonvolatile, metals are assumed to be 100 percent in
particulate phase and zero percent in the vapor phase, as cited in
U.S. EPA(1994f).
52
2,173.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.36E-01
1.58E-05
NA
NA
31atpH=4.9;
19atpH=6.8;
14 at pH=8.0
31 atpH=4.9;
19atpH=6.8;
14 at pH=8.0
31 atpH=4.9;
19atpH=6.8;
14 at pH=8.0
ND
0.0
Note:
NA = Not applicable
ND = No data available
All parameters are defined in LIST OF VARIABLES on page A-2-ii.
A-2-90
-------
TABLE A-2-54
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC INPUTS FOR CHRYSENE (218-01-9)
(Page 1 of 1)
Parameter
Reference and Explanation
Value
Chemical/Physical Properties
Mff(g/mole)
rm(K)
Vp (atm)
S (mg/L)
H (atm-mVmol)
Z)a(cm2/s)
A, (cm2/s)
Km (unitless)
Koc (mL/g)
Kd, (mL/g)
Kd^ (L/Kg)
r^(mL/g)
fog (year)'1
Fv (unitless)
Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c).
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c).
H value was calculated by using the theoretical equation from Lyman, Reehl, and
Rosenblatt (1982), which defines the constant. Recommended value was calculated
by using the MW, S and Vp values that are provided in this table.
Da value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database U.S. EPA (1994d).
A, value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database U.S. EPA (1994d).
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c).
Koc value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Km for phthalates
and PAHs, cited in U.S. EPA (1994c). Koc value was calculated by using the
recommended Km value that is provided in this table.
Kds value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed fraction organic carbon of 0.01 in soil. Measured
organic carbon in soil, specific to site conditions, should be used to calculate Kds,
because the value varies, depending on the fraction of organic carbon in soil. Kd,
value was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
Kd^, value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.075 in suspended
sediment. Measured organic carbon in suspended sediment, specific to site
conditions, should be used to calculate Kdm, because the value varies, depending on
the fraction of organic carbon in suspended sediment. Recommended Kdm value
was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
Kdbs value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.04 in bottom
sediment. Measured organic carbon in bottom sediment, specific to site conditions,
should be used to calculate Kdbs, because the value varies, depending on the fraction
of organic carbon in bottom sediment. Recommended Kdts value was calculated by
using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
Ksg value was calculated by using the chemical half-life in soil, as cited in Howard,
Boethling, Jarvis, Meylan, and Michalenko (1991).
Fv value was calculated by using equations cited in Junge (1 977) and Bidleman
(1988). Recommended value of Fv was calculated by using S, !„ and Vp values
that are provided in this table. Vp value for this compound was converted to a
liquid-phase value before being used in the calculations.
228.28
527.1
1.03E-11 at 25°C (solid)
1.94E-03
1.21E-06
2.48E-02
6.21E-06
5.48E+05
2.97E+05
2.97E+03
2.23E+04
1.19E+04
2.53E-01
0.761
Note:
NA = Not applicable
ND = No data available
All parameters are defined in LIST OF VARIABLES on page A-2-ii.
A-2-91
-------
TABLE A-2-54a
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC INPUTS FOR COPPER (7440-50-8)
(Page 1 of 1)
Parameter
Reference and Explanation
Value
Chemical/Physical Properties
MW(g/mo\e)
rm(K)
Vp (atm)
S (mg/L)
H (atm-mVmol)
Z)a(cm2/s)
A, (cm2/s)
Km (unitless)
Kx (mL/g)
Kds (cmVg)
Kd^ (L/Kg)
Kdbs(cm3/g)
ksg (year)"1
Fv (unitless)
Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
All metals, except mercury, are assumed to be nonvolatile at ambient temperatures.
All metals, except mercury, are assumed to be insoluble in water.
H value is assumed to be zero, because the S and Vp values are zero for all metals,
except mercury.
Da value was calculated using the equation cited in U.S. EPA (1996a).
Dv value was calculated using the equation cited in U.S. EPA (1996a).
-
-
Kds value was obtained from U.S. EPA (1996b), which provides pH-based values
estimated using the MTNTEQ2 geochemical speciation model.
Kd^ value is assumed to be the same as the Kds value, because organic carbon does
not play a major role in sorption for metals, as cited in U.S. EPA (1994f).
Kdbs value is assumed to be the same as the Kds value, because organic carbon does
not play a major role in sorption for metals, as cited in U.S. EPA (1994f).
--
Because metals are nonvolatile (except mercury), they are assumed to be
100 percent in the particulate phase and zero percent in the vapor phase, as cited in
U.S. EPA(1994f).
63.55
1356.15
0.0
NA
0.0
1.19E-01
1.38E-05
NA
NA
40atpH=4.9
10000 at pH=6.8
28,500 at pH=8.0
40atpH=4.9
10000 at pH=6.8
28,500 at pH=8.0
40atpH=4.9
10000atpH=6.8
28,500 at pH=8.0
NO
0.0
Note:
NA= Not applicable
ND= No data available
All parameters are defined in LIST OF VARIABLES on page A-2-ii.
A-2-92
-------
TABLE A-2-55
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC INPUTS FOR M-CRESOL (108-39-4)
(Page 1 of 1)
Parameter
Reference and Explanation
Value
Chemical/Physical Properties
MW(g/mo\e)
rm(K)
Vp (atm)
S (mg/L)
H (atm-m3/mol)
Z)a(cm2/s)
A, (cm2/s)
Km (unitless)
Kac (mL/g)
Kd. (cm3/g)
Kd^ (L/Kg)
^(cm3/g)
fog (year)'1
Fv (unitless)
Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
Vp value cited in U.S. EPA (1995b).
S value cited in U.S. EPA (1995b).
H value was calculated by using the theoretical equation from Lyman, Reehl, and
Rosenblatt (1982), which defines the constant. Recommended value was calculated
by using the MW, S, and Vp values that are provided in this table.
Da value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
A, value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
Kow value cited in U.S. EPA (1995b)
Koc value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Km for all
nonionizing organics except phthalates, PAHs, dioxins, and furans, cited in
U.S. EPA (1994c). Koc value was calculated by using the recommended Km value
that is provided in this table.
Kds value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.01 in soil. Measured
organic carbon in soil, specific to site conditions, should be used to calculate Kd,,
because the value varies, depending on the fraction of organic carbon in soil.
Recommended Kd, value was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in
this table.
Kd^, value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.075 in suspended
sediment. Measured organic carbon in suspended sediment, specific to site
conditions, should be used to calculate Kd^,, because the value varies, depending on
the fraction of organic carbon in suspended sediment. Recommended Kdm value
was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
Kdb, value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.04 in bottom
sediment. Measured organic carbon in bottom sediment, specific to site conditions,
should be used to calculate Kdb,, because the value varies, depending on the fraction
of organic carbon in bottom sediment. Recommended Kdbs value was calculated by
using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
ksg value was calculated by using the chemical half-life in soil, as cited in Howard,
Boethling, Jarvis, Meylan, and Michalenko (1991).
Fv value was calculated by using the equation cited in Junge (1977). Recommended
value of Fv was calculated by using the Vp value that is provided in this table.
108.13
284.1
1.90E-04
at 25°C
(liquid)
2.30E+04
8.93E-07
6.93E-02
9.30E-06
9.10E+01
4.78E+01
4.78E-01
3.58E+00
1.91E+00
8.72E+00
1.0
Note:
NA= Not applicable
ND= No data available
All parameters are defined in LIST OF VARIABLES on page A-2-ii.
A-2-93
-------
TABLE A-2-56
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC INPUTS FOR O-CRESOL (95-48-7)
(Page 1 of 1)
Parameter
Reference and Explanation
Value
Chemical/Physical Properties
MW(g/mo\e)
r»(K)
Vp (atm)
S(mg/L)
H (atm-mVmol)
Da (cm2/s)
Dv (cm2/s)
Km (unitless)
Kx (mL/g)
JM,(cm3/g)
Kdn (L/Kg)
SUcmVg)
fag (year)'1
Fv (unitless)
Budavari, O'Neill, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
Budavari, O'Neill, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c).
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c).
H value was calculated by using the theoretical equation from Lyman, Reehl, and
Rosenblatt (1982), which defines the constant. Recommended value was calculated
by using the MW, S, and Vp values that are provided in this table.
Da value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
Dv value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c).
Koc value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Km for all
nonionizing organics except phthalates, PAHs, dioxins, and furans as cited in
U.S. EPA (1994c). Koc value was calculated by using the recommended Km value
that is provided in this table.
Kds value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed fraction organic carbon of 0.01 in soil. Measured
organic carbon in soil, specific to site conditions, should be used to calculate Kds,
because the value varies, depending on the fraction of organic carbon in soil.
Recommended Kds value was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in
this table.
Kd^ value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.075 in suspended
sediment. Measured organic carbon in suspended sediment, specific to site
conditions, should be used to calculate Kd^, because the value varies, depending on
the fraction of organic carbon in suspended sediment. Recommended Kd^ value
was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
Kdbs value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon of 0.04 in bottom sediment.
Measured organic carbon in bottom sediment, specific to site conditions, should be
used to calculate Kdbs, because the value varies depending on the fraction of organic
fraction in bottom sediment. Recommended Kdbs value was calculated by using the
Koc value that is provided in this table.
ksg value was calculated by using the chemical half-life in soil, as cited in Howard,
Boethling, Jarvis, Meylan, and Michalenko (1991).
Fv value was calculated by using equations cited in Junge (1977) and Bidleman
(1988). Recommended value ofFv was calculated by using S, Tm, and Vp values
that are provided in this table. Vp value for this compound was converted to a
liquid-phase value before being used in the calculations.
108.13
303.1
4.16E-04
at 25°C
(solid)
2.77E+04
1.62E-06
6.88E-02
9.41E-06
1.05E+02
5.34E+01
5.34E-01
4.0E+00
2.14E+00
3.61E+01
1.0
Note:
NA= Not applicable
ND= No data available
All parameters are defined in LIST OF VARIABLES on page A-2-ii.
A-2-94
-------
TABLE A-2-57
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC INPUTS FOR P-CRESOL (106-44-5)
(Page 1 of 1)
Parameter
Reference and Explanation
Value
Chemical/Physical Properties
Mff(g/mole)
rm(K)
Vp (atm)
S (mg/L)
H (atm-m3/mol)
Da (cm2/s)
A, (cm2/s)
Km (unitless)
Koc (mL/g)
Kd. (cm3/g)
^ (L/Kg)
M,, (cm3/g)
ksg (year)"1
Fv (unitless)
Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
Vp value cited in U.S. EPA (1995b).
S value cited in U.S. EPA (1995b).
H value was calculated by using the theoretical equation from Lyman, Reehl, and
Rosenblatt (1982), which defines the constant. Recommended value was calculated
by using the MW, S, and Vp values that are provided in this table.
Da value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
Dw value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
Km value cited in U.S. EPA (1995b).
Koc value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Km for all
nonionizing organics except phthalates, PAHs, dioxins, and furans, cited in
U.S. EPA (1994c). Koc value was calculated by using the recommended Km value
that is provided in this table.
Kds value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.01 in soil. Measured
organic carbon in soil, specific to site conditions, should be used to calculate Kds,
because the value varies, depending on the fraction of organic carbon in soil.
Recommended Kds value was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in
this table.
Kdm value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.075 in suspended
sediment. Measured organic carbon in suspended sediment, specific to site
conditions, should be used to calculate Kd^, because the value varies, depending on
the fraction of organic carbon in suspended sediment. Recommended Kd^ value
was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
Kdbs value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.04 in bottom
sediment. Measured organic carbon in bottom sediment, specific to site conditions,
should be used to calculate Kdts, because the value varies, depending on the fraction
of organic carbon in bottom sediment. Recommended Kdbs value was calculated by
using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
ksg value was calculated by using the chemical half-life in soil, as cited in Howard,
Boethling, Jarvis, Meylan, and Michalenko (1991).
Fv value was calculated by using equations cited in Junge (1977) and Bidleman
(1988). Recommended value of Fv was calculated by using Tm and Vp values that
are provided in this table. Vp value for this compound was converted to a liquid
phase value before being used in the calculations.
108.13
308.6
1.70E-04
at 25°C
(solid)
2.30E+04
7.99E-07
6.93E-02
9.30E-06
8.70E+01
4.61E+01
4.61E-01
3.46E+00
1.84E+00
3.79E+02
1.0
Note:
NA = Not applicable
ND = No data available
All parameters are defined in LIST OF VARIABLES on page A-2-ii.
A-2-95
-------
TABLE A-2-58
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC INPUTS FOR CUMENE (ISOPROPYLBENZENE) (98-82-8)
(Page 1 of 1)
Parameter
Reference and Explanation
Value
Chemical/Physical Properties
Mff(g/mole)
rm(K)
Vp (atm)
S (mg/L)
H (atm-m3/mol)
Da (cm2/s)
A, (cm2/s)
Km (unitless)
Koc (mL/g)
Kds (cm3/g)
Kd^ (L/Kg)
Kdbs (cm3/g)
fag (year)"1
Fv (unitless)
Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
U.S. EPA(1995b)
Vp value cited in U.S. EPA (1995b).
S value cited in U.S. EPA (1995b).
H value was calculated by using the theoretical equation from Lyman, Reehl,
and Rosenblatt (1982), which defines the constant. Recommended value was
calculated by using the MW, S, and Vp values that are provided in this table.
Da value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
A, value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
Km value cited in U.S. EPA (1995b)
Koc value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Km for
phthalates and PAHs, / all nonionizing organics except phthalates, PAHs,
dioxins, and furans, cited in U.S. EPA (1994c). Koe value was calculated by
using the recommended Km value that is provided in this table.
Kd, value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koe that is cited
in U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.01 in soil.
Measured organic carbon in soil, specific to site conditions, should be used to
calculate Kd,, because the value varies, depending on the fraction of organic
carbon in soil. Recommended Kds value was calculated by using the Koc value
that is provided in this table.
Kd^, value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited
in U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.075 in
suspended sediment. Measured organic carbon in suspended sediment, specific
to site conditions, should be used to calculate Kd^, because the value varies,
depending on the fraction of organic carbon in suspended sediment.
Recommended Kdm value was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided
in this table.
Kdbs value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koe that is cited
in U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.04 in bottom
sediment. Measured organic carbon in bottom sediment, specific to site
conditions, should be used to calculate Kdbs, because the value varies, depending
on the fraction of organic carbon in bottom sediment. Recommended Kdbs value
was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
Ksg value was calculated by using the chemical half-life in soil, as cited in
Howard, Boethling, Jarvis, Meylan, and Michalenko (1991).
Fv value was calculated by using the equation cited in Junge (1977).
Recommended value of Fv was calculated by using the Vp value that is provided
in the table.
120.19
177
6.00E-03
at 25°C (liquid)
5.60E+01
1.29E-02
6.50E-02
7.83E-06
4.10E+03
9.31E+02
9.31E+00
6.98E+01
3.72E+01
3.16E+01
1.00
Note:
NA = Not applicable
ND = No data available
All parameters are defined in LIST OF VARIABLES on page A-2-ii.
A-2-96
-------
TABLE A-2-59
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC INPUTS FOR CYANIDE (57-12-5)
(Page 1 of 1)
Parameter
Reference and Explanation
Value
Chemical/Physical Properties
Mff(g/mole)
rm(K)
Vp (atm)
S (mg/L)
H (atm-mVmol)
Da (cm2/s)
A, (cm2/s)
Km (unitless)
Koc (mL/g)
Kds (cm3/g)
£*„ (L/Kg)
rrffo (cm3/g)
ksg (year)"1
Fv (unitless)
U.S.EPA(1992a)
--
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c).
--
--
Da value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d)
Dw value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d)
--
--
--
--
--
Ksg value was assumed to be zero due to a lack of data.
Fv value was assumed to be 1.0 due to a lack of data.
26.017
ND
1.82E-02 at 25°C (solid)
ND
ND
5.48E-01
2.10E-05
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.0
1.0
Note:
NA = Not applicable
ND = No data available
All parameters are defined in LIST OF VARIABLES on page A-2-ii.
A-2-97
-------
TABLE A-2-60
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC INPUTS FOR 4,4'-DDD (72-54-8)
(Page 1 of 1)
Parameter
Reference and Explanation
Value
Chemical/Physical Properties
Mff(g/mole)
rm(K)
Vp (atm)
S (mg/L)
H (atm-m3/mol)
Da (cm2/s)
A, (cm2/s)
Km (unitless)
Koc (mL/g)
Kds (cm3/g)
Kd^ (L/Kg)
rrffo (cm3/g)
ksg (year)"1
Fv (unitless)
Montgomery and Welkom (1991)
Montgomery and Welkom (1991)
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c).
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c).
H value was calculated by using the theoretical equation from Lyman, Reehl, and
Rosenblatt (1982), which defines the constant. Recommended value was calculated
by using the MW, S, and Vp values that are provided in this table.
Da value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
Dw value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c).
Geometric mean of measured values obtained from U.S. EPA (1996b).
Kd, value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.01 in soil. Measured
organic carbon in soil, specific to site conditions, should be used to calculate Kds,
because the value varies, depending on the fraction of organic carbon in soil.
Recommended Kds value was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in
this table.
Kd^, value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.075 in suspended
sediment. Measured organic carbon in suspended sediment, specific to site
conditions, should be used to calculate Kd^,, because the value varies, depending on
the fraction of organic carbon in suspended sediment. Recommended Kd^, value
was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
Kdb, value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.04 in bottom
sediment. Measured organic carbon in bottom sediment, specific to site conditions,
should be used to calculate Kdbs, because the value varies, depending on the fraction
of organic carbon in bottom sediment. Recommended Kdts value was calculated by
using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
Ksg value was calculated by using the chemical half-life in soil, as cited in Howard,
Boethling, Jarvis, Meylan, and Michalenko (1991).
Fv value was calculated by using equations cited in Junge (1977) and Bidleman
(1988). Recommended value of Fv was calculated by using Tm and Vp values that
are provided in this table. Vp value for this compound was converted to a
liquid-phase value before being used in the calculations.
320.05
380.1
1.14E-09
at 25°C
(solid)
7.33E-02
4.98E-06
1.69E-02
4.76E-06
1.32E+06
4.58E+04
4.58E+02
3.44E+03
1.83E+03
4.34E-02
0.925
Note:
NA = Not applicable
ND = No data available
All parameters are defined in LIST OF VARIABLES on page A-2-ii.
A-2-98
-------
TABLE A-2-61
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC INPUTS FOR 4,4'-DDE (72-55-9)
(Page 1 of 1)
Parameter
Reference and Explanation
Value
Chemical/Physical Properties
Mff(g/mole)
rm(K)
Vp (atm)
S (mg/L)
H (atm-m3/mol)
Da (cm2/s)
A, (cm2/s)
Km (unitless)
Koc (mL/g)
Kds (cm3/g)
&C (L/Kg)
rrffo (cm3/g)
ksg (year)"1
Fv (unitless)
Montgomery and Welkom (1991)
Montgomery and Welkom (1991)
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c).
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c).
H value was calculated by using the theoretical equation from Lyman, Reehl, and
Rosenblatt (1982), which defines the constant. Recommended value was calculated
by using the MW, S, and Vp values that are provided in this table.
Da value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
Dw value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c).
Geometric mean of measured values obtained from U.S. EPA (1996b).
Kd, value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.01 in soil. Measured
organic carbon in soil, specific to site conditions, should be used to calculate Kds,
because the value varies, depending on the fraction of organic carbon in soil.
Recommended Kds value was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in
this table.
Kd^, value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.075 in suspended
sediment. Measured organic carbon in suspended sediment, specific to site
conditions, should be used to calculate Kd^,, because the value varies, depending on
the fraction of organic carbon in suspended sediment. Recommended Kd^, value
was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
Kdbs value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.04 in bottom
sediment. Measured organic carbon in bottom sediment, specific to site conditions,
should be used to calculate Kdbs, because the value varies, depending on the fraction
of organic carbon in bottom sediment. Recommended Kdts value was calculated by
using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
Ksg value was calculated by using the chemical half-life in soil, as cited in Howard,
Boethling, Jarvis, Meylan, and Michalenko (1991).
Fv value was calculated by using equations cited in Junge (1977) and Bidleman
(1988). Recommended value of Fv was calculated by using Tm and Vp values that
are provided in this table. Vp value for this compound was converted to a
liquid-phase value before being used in the calculations.
319.03
361.1
7.45E-09
at 25°C
(solid)
1.92E-02
1.24E-04
1.70E-02
4.78E-06
1.80E+06
8.64E+04
8.64E+02
6.48E+03
3.46E+03
4.34E-02
0.981
Note:
NA = Not applicable
ND = No data available
All parameters are defined in LIST OF VARIABLES on page A-2-ii.
A-2-99
-------
TABLE A-2-62
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC INPUTS FOR 4,4'-DDT (50-29-3)
(Page 1 of 1)
Parameter
Reference and Explanation
Value
Chemical/Physical Properties
Mff(g/mole)
rm(K)
Vp (atm)
S (mg/L)
H (atm-m3/mol)
Da (cm2/s)
A, (cm2/s)
Km (unitless)
Koc (mL/g)
Kds (cm3/g)
&C (L/Kg)
rrffo (cm3/g)
ksg (year)"1
Fv (unitless)
Montgomery and Welkom (1991)
Montgomery and Welkom (1991)
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c).
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c).
H value was calculated by using the theoretical equation from Lyman, Reehl, and
Rosenblatt (1982), which defines the constant. Recommended value was calculated
by using the MW, S, and Vp values that are provided in this table.
Da value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
Dw value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c).
Geometric mean of measured values obtained from U.S. EPA (1996b).
Kd, value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.01 in soil. Measured
organic carbon in soil, specific to site conditions, should be used to calculate Kds,
because the value varies, depending on the fraction of organic carbon in soil.
Recommended Kds value was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in
this table.
Kd^, value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.075 in suspended
sediment. Measured organic carbon in suspended sediment, specific to site
conditions, should be used to calculate Kd^,, because the value varies, depending on
the fraction of organic carbon in suspended sediment. Recommended Kd^, value
was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
Kdbs value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.04 in bottom
sediment. Measured organic carbon in bottom sediment, specific to site conditions,
should be used to calculate Kdbs, because the value varies, depending on the fraction
of organic carbon in bottom sediment. Recommended Kdts value was calculated by
using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
Ksg value was calculated by using the chemical half-life in soil, as cited in Howard,
Boethling, Jarvis, Meylan, and Michalenko (1991).
Fv value was calculated by using equations cited in Junge (1977) and Bidleman
(1988). Recommended value of Fv was calculated by using Tm and Vp values that
are provided in this table. Vp value for this compound was converted to a
liquid-phase value before being used in the calculations.
354.49
381.1
5.17E-10
at 25°C
(solid)
3.41E-03
5.37E-05
1.48E-02
4.48E-06
1.17E+06
6.78E+05
6.78E+03
5.08E+04
2.71E+04
4.34E-02
0.852
Note:
NA = Not applicable
ND = No data available
All parameters are defined in LIST OF VARIABLES on page A-2-ii.
A-2-100
-------
TABLE A-2-63
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC INPUTS FOR DI-N-BUTYL PHTHALATE (84-74-2)
(Page 1 of 1)
Parameter
Reference and Explanation
Value
Chemical/Physical Properties
A/ff(g/mole)
r»(K)
Fp(atm)
S(mg/L)
// (atm-mVmol)
Da(cm2/s)
Dw (cm2/s)
A^ (unitless)
Koc (mL/g)
JM,(cm3/g)
^^ (L/Kg)
SUcmVg)
fag (year)'1
Fv (unitless)
Budavari, O'Neill, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
Montgomery and Welkom (1991)
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c).
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c).
H value was calculated by using the theoretical equation from Lyman, Reehl, and
Rosenblatt (1982), which defines the constant. Recommended value was calculated
by using the MW, S, and Vp values that are provided in this table.
Da value was obtained from WATERS model database (U.S. EPA 1995d).
Dw value was obtained from WATERS model database (U.S. EPA 1995d).
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c).
Geometric mean of measured values obtained from U.S. EPA (1996b).
Kds value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed fraction organic carbon of 0.01 in soil. Measured
organic carbon in soil, specific to site conditions, should be used to calculate Kds,
because the value varies, depending on the fraction of organic carbon in soil.
Recommended Kds value was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in
this table.
Kd^ value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.075 in suspended
sediment. Measured organic carbon in suspended sediment, specific to site
conditions, should be used to calculate Kd^, because the value varies, depending on
the fraction of organic carbon in suspended sediment. Recommended Kd^ value
was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
Kdbs value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon of 0.04 in bottom sediment.
Measured organic carbon in bottom sediment, specific to site conditions, should be
used to calculate Kdbs, because the value varies depending on the fraction of organic
fraction in bottom sediment. Recommended Kdbs value was calculated by using the
Koc value that is provided in this table.
Ksg value was calculated by using the chemical half-life in soil, as cited in Howard,
Boethling, Jarvis, Meylan, and Michalenko (1991).
Fv value was calculated by using the equation cited in Junge (1977). Recommended
value of Fv was calculated by using the Vp value that is provided in this table.
278.34
238.1
5.55E-08
at25°C
(liquid)
1.08E+01
1.43E-06
4.38E-02
7.86E-06
5.25E+04
1.57E+03
1.57E+01
1.18E+02
6.27E+01
1.11E+01
0.989
Note:
NA = Not applicable
ND = No data available
All parameters are defined in LIST OF VARIABLES on page A-2-ii.
A-2-101
-------
TABLE A-2-64
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC INPUTS FOR DI-N-OCTYLPHTHALATE (117-84-0)
(Page 1 of 1)
Parameter
Reference and Explanation
Value
Chemical/Physical Properties
Mff(g/mole)
rm(K)
Vp (atm)
S (mg/L)
H (atm-m3/mol)
Da (cm2/s)
A, (cm2/s)
Kow (unitless)
Koc (mL/g)
Kd. (cm3/g)
£*„ (L/Kg)
rrffo (cm3/g)
ksg (year)"1
Fv (unitless)
Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c).
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c).
H value was calculated by using the theoretical equation from Lyman, Reehl, and
Rosenblatt (1982), which defines the constant. Recommended value was calculated
by using the MW, S, and Vp values that are provided in this table.
Da value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
Dw value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c).
Koc value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Km for phthalates
and PAHs, / all nonionizing organics except phthalates, PAHs, dioxins, and furans,
cited in U.S. EPA (1994c). Koc value was calculated by using the recommended Km
value that is provided in this table.
Kds value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.01 in soil. Measured
organic carbon in soil, specific to site conditions, should be used to calculate Kds,
because the value varies, depending on the fraction of organic carbon in soil.
Recommended Kds value was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in
this table.
Kdm value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.075 in suspended
sediment. Measured organic carbon in suspended sediment, specific to site
conditions, should be used to calculate Kd^, because the value varies, depending on
the fraction of organic carbon in suspended sediment. Recommended Kd^ value
was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
Kdbs value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.04 in bottom
sediment. Measured organic carbon in bottom sediment, specific to site conditions,
should be used to calculate Kdts, because the value varies, depending on the fraction
of organic carbon in bottom sediment. Recommended Kdbs value was calculated by
using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
Ksg value was calculated by using the chemical half-life in soil, as cited in Howard,
Boethling, Jarvis, Meylan, and Michalenko (1991)
Fv value was calculated by using the equation cited in Junge (1977). Recommended
value ofFv was calculated by using the Vp value that is provided in this table.
390.56
248.1
5.88E-09
at 25°C (liquid)
3.00E+00
7.65E-07
1.32E-02
4.20E-06
2.14E+09
9.03E+08
9.03E+06
6.78E+07
3.61E+07
9.03E+00
0.9081
Note:
NA = Not applicable
ND = No data available
All parameters are defined in LIST OF VARIABLES on page A-2-ii.
A-2-102
-------
TABLE A-2-65
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC INPUTS FOR DIAZINON (333-41-5)
(Page 1 of 1)
Parameter
Reference and Explanation
Value
Chemical/Physical Properties
Mff(g/mole)
r»(K)
Fp(atm)
S(mg/L)
H (atm-mVmol)
Da(cm2/s)
Dw (cm2/s)
Km (unitless)
Koc (mL/g)
^(cmVg)
Kd^ (L/Kg)
Kdbs(cm3/g)
ksg (year)"1
Fv (unitless)
Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
Howard (1989-1993)
Vp value cited in Howard (1989-1993).
S value cited in Howard (1989-1993).
H value was calculated by using the theoretical equation from Lyman, Reehl,
and Rosenblatt (1982), which defines the constant. Recommended value was
calculated by using the MW, S, and Vp values that are provided in this table.
Da value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
Dw value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
Arithmetic mean value cited in Karickhoff and Long (1995).
Koc value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Km for
phthalates and PAHs, / all nonionizing organics except phthalates, PAHs,
dioxins, and furans, cited in U.S. EPA (1994c). Koc value was calculated by
using the recommended Km value that is provided in this table.
Kds value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited
in U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.01 in soil.
Measured organic carbon in soil, specific to site conditions, should be used to
calculate Kds, because the value varies, depending on the fraction of organic
carbon in soil. Recommended Kds value was calculated by using the Koc value
that is provided in this table.
Kd^ value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited
in U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.075 in
suspended sediment. Measured organic carbon in suspended sediment, specific
to site conditions, should be used to calculate Kd^, because the value varies,
depending on the fraction of organic carbon in suspended sediment.
Recommended Kd^ value was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided
in this table.
Kdbs value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited
in U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.04 in bottom
sediment. Measured organic carbon in bottom sediment, specific to site
conditions, should be used to calculate Kdbs, because the value varies, depending
on the fraction of organic carbon in bottom sediment. Recommended Kdbs value
was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
-
Fv value was calculated by using equations cited in Junge (1977) and Bidleman
(1988). Recommended value of Fv was calculated by using Tm and Vp values
that are provided in this table. Vp value for this compound was converted to a
liquid phase value before being used in the calculations.
304.36
393.1
1.11E-07
at 25°C (solid)
6.88E+01
4.89E-07
1.71E-02
5.24E-06
6.46E+03
1.33E+03
1.33E+01
9.96E+01
5.31E+01
ND
0.999
Note:
NA = Not applicable
ND = No data available
All parameters are defined in LIST OF VARIABLES on page A-2-ii.
A-2-103
-------
TABLE A-2-66
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC INPUTS FOR DIBENZ(A,H)ANTHRACENE (53-70-3)
(Page 1 of 1)
Parameter
Reference and Explanation
Value
Chemical/Physical Properties
Mff(g/mole)
r»(K)
Fp(atm)
S(mg/L)
// (atm-mVmol)
Da(cm2/s)
Dw (cm2/s)
A^ (unitless)
Koc (mL/g)
*M,(mL/g)
^4, (L/Kg)
£4(mL/g)
fesg (year)'1
Fv (unitless)
Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c).
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c).
H value was calculated by using the theoretical equation from Lyman, Reehl, and
Rosenblatt (1982), which defines the constant. Recommended value was calculated
by using the MW, S and Vp values that are provided in this table.
Da value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database, U.S. EPA (1994d).
Dw value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database, U.S. EPA (1994d).
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c).
Geometric mean of measured values was obtained from U.S. EPA (1996b).
Kds value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed fraction organic carbon of 0.01 in soil. Measured
organic carbon in soil, specific to site conditions, should be used to calculate Kds,
because the value varies, depending on the fraction of organic carbon in soil.
Recommended Kds value was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in
this table.
Kd^ value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.075 in suspended
sediment. Measured organic carbon in suspended sediment, specific to site
conditions, should be used to calculate Kd^, because the value varies, depending on
the fraction of organic carbon in suspended sediment. Recommended Kd^ value
was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
Kdbs value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.04 in bottom
sediment. Measured organic carbon in bottom sediment, specific to site conditions,
should be used to calculate Kdbs, because the value varies, depending on the fraction
of organic carbon in bottom sediment. Recommended Kdbs value was calculated by
using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
Ksg value was calculated by using the chemical half-life in soil, as cited in Howard,
Boethling, Jarvis, Meylan, and Michalenko (1991).
Fv value was calculated by using equations cited in Junge (1977) and Bidleman
(1988). Recommended value of Fv was calculated by using S, Tm, and Vp values
that are provided in this table. Vp value for this compound was converted to a liquid
phase value before being used in the calculations.
278.33
539.1
2.70E-14
at25°C
(solid)
6.70E-04
1.12E-08
1.80E-02
6.01E-06
3.53E+06
1.79E+06
1.79E+04
1.34E+05
7.16E+04
2.69E-01
0.011
Note:
NA = Not applicable
ND = No data available
All parameters are defined in LIST OF VARIABLES on page A-2-ii.
A-2-104
-------
TABLE A-2-67
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC INPUTS FOR l,2-DIBROMO-3-CHLOROPROPANE (96-12-8)
(Page 1 of 1)
Parameter
Reference and Explanation
Value
Chemical/Physical Properties
MW(g/mo\e)
r»(K)
Fp(atm)
S(mg/L)
H (atm-mVmol)
Da (cm2/s)
Dv (cm2/s)
Km (unitless)
Kx (mL/g)
JM,(cm3/g)
Kdn (L/Kg)
SUcmVg)
fag (year)'1
.Fv (unitless)
Budavari, O'Neill, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
Montgomery and Welkom (1991)
Vp value cited in U.S. EPA (1995b).
S value cited in U.S. EPA (1995b).
H value was calculated by using the theoretical equation from Lyman, Reehl, and
Rosenblatt (1982), which defines the constant. Recommended value was calculated
by using the MW, S, and Vp values that are provided in this table.
Da value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
Dv value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
Arithmetic mean value cited in Karickhoff and Long (1995).
Koc value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Km for all
nonionizing organics except phthalates, PAHs, dioxins, and furans as cited in
U.S. EPA (1994c). Koc value was calculated by using the recommended Kow value
that is provided in this table.
Kds value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed fraction organic carbon of 0.01 in soil. Measured
organic carbon in soil, specific to site conditions, should be used to calculate Kds,
because the value varies, depending on the fraction of organic carbon in soil.
Recommended Kds value was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in
this table.
Kd^ value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.075 in suspended
sediment. Measured organic carbon in suspended sediment, specific to site
conditions, should be used to calculate Kd^, because the value varies, depending on
the fraction of organic carbon in suspended sediment. Recommended Kd^ value
was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
Kdbs value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon of 0.04 in bottom sediment.
Measured organic carbon in bottom sediment, specific to site conditions, should be
used to calculate Kdbs, because the value varies depending on the fraction of organic
fraction in bottom sediment. Recommended Kdbs value was calculated by using the
Koc value that is provided in this table.
ksg value was calculated by using the chemical half-life in soil, as cited in Howard,
Boethling, Jarvis, Meylan, and Michalenko (1991).
Fv value was calculated by using the equation cited in Junge (1977). Recommended
value of Fv was calculated by using the Vp value that is provided in this table.
236.36
279.2
l.OE-03
at 25°C
(liquid)
1.20E+03
1.97E-04
1.79E-02
8.79E-06
2.19E+02
9.47E+01
9.47E-01
7.10E+00
3.79E+00
1.41E+00
1.0
Note:
NA= Not applicable
ND= No data available
All parameters are defined in LIST OF VARIABLES on page A-2-ii.
A-2-105
-------
TABLE A-2-68
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC INPUTS FOR DIBROMOCHLOROMETHANE (124-48-1)
(Page 1 of 1)
Parameter
Reference and Explanation
Value
Chemical/Physical Properties
Mff(g/mole)
rm(K)
Vp (atm)
S (mg/L)
H (atm-m3/mol)
Z)a(cm2/s)
A, (cm2/s)
Km (unitless)
Kac (mL/g)
Kd. (cm3/g)
Kd^ (L/Kg)
^(cm3/g)
fog (year)'1
Fv (unitless)
Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
Vp value cited in Montgomery and Weldom (1991).
S value cited in U.S. EPA (1995b).
H value was calculated by using the theoretical equation from Lyman, Reehl, and
Rosenblatt (1982), which defines the constant. Recommended value was calculated
by using the MW, S, and Vp values that are provided in this table.
Da value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
A, value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994g).
Koc value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Km for phthalates
and PAHs, / all nonionizing organics except phthalates, PAHs, dioxins, and furans,
cited in U.S. EPA (1994c). Koc value was calculated by using the recommended Km
value that is provided in this table.
Kds value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.01 in soil. Measured
organic carbon in soil, specific to site conditions, should be used to calculate Kd,,
because the value varies, depending on the fraction of organic carbon in soil.
Recommended Kds value was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in
this table.
Kd^, value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.075 in suspended
sediment. Measured organic carbon in suspended sediment, specific to site
conditions, should be used to calculate Kd^,, because the value varies, depending on
the fraction of organic carbon in suspended sediment. Recommended Kdm value
was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
Kdts value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.04 in bottom
sediment. Measured organic carbon in bottom sediment, specific to site conditions,
should be used to calculate Kdbs, because the value varies, depending on the fraction
of organic carbon in bottom sediment. Recommended Kdbs value was calculated by
using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
Ksg value was calculated by using the chemical half-life in soil, as cited in Howard,
Boethling, Jarvis, Meylan, and Michalenko (1991).
Fv value was calculated by using the equation cited in Junge (1977). Recommended
value of Fv was calculated by using the Vp value that is provided in this table.
208.3
252.1
2.00E-02
at 25°C (liquid)
3.44E+03
1.21E-03
1.96E-02
1.05E-05
1.50E+02
7.05E+01
7.05E-01
5.29E+00
2.82E+00
1.41E+00
1.00
Note:
NA = Not applicable
ND = No data available
All parameters are defined in LIST OF VARIABLES on page A-2-ii.
A-2-106
-------
TABLE A-2-69
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC INPUTS FOR 1,2-DICHLOROBENZENE (95-50-1)
(Page 1 of 1)
Parameter
Reference and Explanation
Value
Chemical/Physical Properties
MW(g/mo\e)
r»(K)
Fp(atm)
S(mg/L)
H (atm-mVmol)
Da (cm2/s)
Dv (cm2/s)
Km (unitless)
Kx (mL/g)
Kds (cmVg)
T^(L/Kg)
rrffa(cm3/g)
fog (year)"1
.Fv (unitless)
Budavari, O'Neill, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
Budavari, O'Neill, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c).
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c).
H value was calculated by using the theoretical equation from Lyman, Reehl, and
Rosenblatt (1982), which defines the constant. Recommended value was calculated
by using the MW, S, and Vp values that are provided in this table.
Da value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
Dv value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c).
Geometric mean of measured values obtained from U.S. EPA (1996b).
Kds value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed fraction organic carbon of 0.01 in soil. Measured
organic carbon in soil, specific to site conditions, should be used to calculate Kds,
because the value varies, depending on the fraction of organic carbon in soil.
Recommended Kds value was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in
this table.
Kd^ value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.075 in suspended
sediment. Measured organic carbon in suspended sediment, specific to site
conditions, should be used to calculate Kd^, because the value varies, depending on
the fraction of organic carbon in suspended sediment. Recommended Kd^ value
was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
Kdbs value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon of 0.04 in bottom sediment.
Measured organic carbon in bottom sediment, specific to site conditions, should be
used to calculate Kdbs, because the value varies depending on the fraction of organic
fraction in bottom sediment. Recommended Kdbs value was calculated by using the
Koc value that is provided in this table.
ksg value was calculated by using the chemical half-life in soil, as cited in Howard,
Boethling, Jarvis, Meylan, and Michalenko (1991) and Mackay and others (1992).
Fv value was calculated by using the equation cited in Junge (1977). Recommended
value of Fv was calculated by using the Vp value that is provided in this table.
147.01
256.1
1.79E-03
at 25°C
(liquid)
1.25E+02
2.11E-03
4.11E-02
8.93E-06
2.79E+03
3.79E+02
3.79E+00
2.84E+01
1.52E+01
1.41E+00
1.0
Note:
NA= Not applicable
ND= No data available
All parameters are defined in LIST OF VARIABLES on page A-2-ii
A-2-107
-------
TABLE A-2-70
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC INPUTS FOR 1,3-DICHLOROBENZENE (541-73-1)
(Page 1 of 1)
Parameter
Reference and Explanation
Value
Chemical/Physical Properties
Mff(g/mole)
rm(K)
Vp (atm)
S (mg/L)
H (atm-m3/mol)
Da (cm2/s)
A, (cm2/s)
Km (unitless)
Koc (mL/g)
Kds (cm3/g)
Kd^ (L/Kg)
rrffo (cm3/g)
ksg (year)"1
Fv (unitless)
Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
Vp value cited in Howard (1989-1993).
S value cited in Howard (1989-1993).
H value was calculated by using the theoretical equation from Lyman, Reehl,
and Rosenblatt (1982), which defines the constant. Recommended value was
calculated by using the MW, S, and Vp values that are provided in this table.
Da value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
A, value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
Arithmetic mean value cited in Karickhoff and Long (1995).
Koc value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Km for
phthalates and PAHs, / all nonionizing organics except phthalates, PAHs,
dioxins, and furans, cited in U.S. EPA (1994c). Koe value was calculated by
using the recommended Km value that is provided in this table.
Kd, value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koe that is cited
in U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.01 in soil.
Measured organic carbon in soil, specific to site conditions, should be used to
calculate Kd,, because the value varies, depending on the fraction of organic
carbon in soil. Recommended Kds value was calculated by using the Koc value
that is provided in this table.
Kd^, value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited
in U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.075 in
suspended sediment. Measured organic carbon in suspended sediment, specific
to site conditions, should be used to calculate Kd^, because the value varies,
depending on the fraction of organic carbon in suspended sediment.
Recommended Kdm value was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided
in this table.
Kdbs value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koe that is cited
in U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.04 in bottom
sediment. Measured organic carbon in bottom sediment, specific to site
conditions, should be used to calculate Kdbs, because the value varies, depending
on the fraction of organic carbon in bottom sediment. Recommended Kdbs value
was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
Ksg value was calculated by using the chemical half-life in soil, as cited in
Howard (1989-1993).
Fv value was calculated by using equations cited in Junge (1977) and Bidleman
(1988). Recommended value of Fv was calculated by using Tm and Vp values
that are provided in this table. Vp value for this compound was converted to a
liquid-phase value before being used in the calculations.
147.01
297.86
3.03E-03
at 25°C
(solid)
6.88E+01
1.11E+02
4.14E-02
8.85E-06
3.39E+03
8.03E+02
8.03E+00
6.02E+01
3.21E+01
1.41E+00
1.00
Note:
NA = Not applicable
ND = No data available
All parameters are defined in LIST OF VARIABLES on page A-2-ii.
A-2-108
-------
TABLE A-2-71
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC INPUTS FOR 1,4-DICHLOROBENZENE (106-46-7)
(Page 1 of 1)
Parameter
Reference and Explanation
Value
Chemical/Physical Properties
MW(g/mo\e)
rm(K)
Vp (atm)
S (mg/L)
H (atm-mVmol)
Z)a(cm2/s)
A, (cm2/s)
Km (unitless)
Kac (mL/g)
Kd. (cm3/g)
^ (L/Kg)
Kdbs (cm3/g)
ksg (year)'1
Fv (unitless)
Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c).
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c).
H value was calculated by using the theoretical equation from Lyman, Reehl, and
Rosenblatt (1982), which defines the constant. Recommended value was calculated
by using the MW, S, and Vp values that are provided in this table.
Da value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
A, value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c)
Geometric mean of measured values obtained from U.S. EPA (1996b).
Kds value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.01 in soil. Measured
organic carbon in soil, specific to site conditions, should be used to calculate Kd,,
because the value varies, depending on the fraction of organic carbon in soil.
Recommended Kds value was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in
this table.
Kdm value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.075 in suspended
sediment. Measured organic carbon in suspended sediment, specific to site
conditions, should be used to calculate Kd^,, because the value varies, depending on
the fraction of organic carbon in suspended sediment. Recommended Kdm value
was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
Kdb, value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.04 in bottom
sediment. Measured organic carbon in bottom sediment, specific to site conditions,
should be used to calculate Kdts, because the value varies, depending on the fraction
of organic carbon in bottom sediment. Recommended Kdbs value was calculated by
using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
ksg value was calculated by using the chemical half-life in soil, as cited in Howard,
Boethling, Jarvis, Meylan, and Michalenko (1991) and Mackay, Shiu, and Ma
(1992).
Fv value was calculated by using equations cited in Junge (1977) and Bidleman
(1988). Recommended value of Fv was calculated by using Tm and Vp values that
are provided in this table. Vp value for this compound was converted to a liquid
phase value before being used in the calculations.
147.01
326.6
1.39E-03
at 25°C
(solid)
7.30E+01
2.80E-03
4.14E-02
8.85E-06
2.58E+03
6.16E+02
6.16E+00
4.62E+01
2.46E+01
1.41E+00
1.0
Note:
NA = Not applicable
ND = No data available
All parameters are defined in LIST OF VARIABLES on page A-2-ii.
A-2-109
-------
TABLE A-2-72
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC INPUTS FOR 3,3'-DICHLOROBENZIDINE (91-94-1)
(Page 1 of 1)
Parameter
Reference and Explanation
Value
Chemical/Physical Properties
MW(g/mo\e)
r»(K)
Vp (atm)
S (mg/L)
H (atm-mVmol)
Da (cm2/s)
Dv (cm2/s)
Km (unitless)
Kx (mL/g)
JM,(cm3/g)
^^ (L/Kg)
SUcmVg)
fag (year)'1
.Fv (unitless)
Budavari, O'Neill, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
Budavari, O'Neill, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c).
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c).
H value was calculated by using the theoretical equation from Lyman, Reehl, and
Rosenblatt (1982), which defines the constant. Recommended value was calculated
by using the MW, S, and Vp values that are provided in this table.
Da value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
Dv value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c).
Koc value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Km for all
nonionizing organics except phthalates, PAHs, dioxins, and furans as cited in
U.S. EPA (1994c). Koc value was calculated by using the recommended Km value
that is provided in this table.
Kds value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed fraction organic carbon of 0.01 in soil. Measured
organic carbon in soil, specific to site conditions, should be used to calculate Kds,
because the value varies, depending on the fraction of organic carbon in soil.
Recommended Kds value was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in
this table.
Kd^ value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.075 in suspended
sediment. Measured organic carbon in suspended sediment, specific to site
conditions, should be used to calculate Kd^, because the value varies, depending on
the fraction of organic carbon in suspended sediment. Recommended Kd^ value
was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
Kdbs value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon of 0.04 in bottom sediment.
Measured organic carbon in bottom sediment, specific to site conditions, should be
used to calculate Kdbs, because the value varies depending on the fraction of organic
fraction in bottom sediment. Recommended Kdbs value was calculated by using the
Koc value that is provided in this table.
Ksg value was calculated by using the chemical half-life in soil, as cited in Howard,
Boethling, Jarvis, Meylan, and Michalenko (1991).
Fv value was calculated by using equations cited in Junge (1977) and Bidleman
(1988). Recommended value of Fv was calculated by using S, Tm, and Vp values
that are provided in this table. Vp value for this compound was converted to a
liquid-phase value before being used in the calculations.
253.13
405.1
2.89E-10
at 25°C
(solid)
3.52E+00
2.08E-08
2.28E-02
5.48E-06
3.76E+03
8.70E+02
8.70E+00
6.52E+01
3.48E+01
1.41E+00
0.847
Note:
NA = Not applicable
ND = No data available
All parameters are defined in LIST OF VARIABLES on page A-2-ii.
A-2-110
-------
TABLE A-2-73
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC INPUTS FOR DICHLORODIFLUOROMETHANE (75-71-8)
(Page 1 of 1)
Parameter
Reference and Explanation
Value
Chemical/Physical Properties
MW(g/mo\e)
r»(K)
Fp(atm)
S(mg/L)
H (atm-mVmol)
Da (cm2/s)
Dv (cm2/s)
Km (unitless)
Kx (mL/g)
JM,(cm3/g)
Kdn (L/Kg)
SUcmVg)
fag (year)'1
.Fv (unitless)
Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
Vp value cited in U.S. EPA (1995b).
S value cited in U.S. EPA (1995b).
H value was calculated by using the theoretical equation from Lyman, Reehl, and
Rosenblatt (1982), which defines the constant. Recommended value was calculated
by using the MW, S, and Vp values that are provided in this table.
Da value was calculated using the equation cited in U.S. EPA (1996a).
Dw value was calculated using the equation cited in U.S. EPA (1996a).
Arithmetic mean value cited in Karickhoff and Long (1995).
Koc value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Km for all
nonionizing organics except phthalates, PAHs, dioxins, and furans as cited in
U.S. EPA (1994c). Koc value was calculated by using the recommended Km value
that is provided in this table.
Kds value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed fraction organic carbon of 0.01 in soil. Measured
organic carbon in soil, specific to site conditions, should be used to calculate Kds,
because the value varies, depending on the fraction of organic carbon in soil.
Recommended Kds value was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in
this table.
Kd^ value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.075 in suspended
sediment. Measured organic carbon in suspended sediment, specific to site
conditions, should be used to calculate Kd^, because the value varies, depending on
the fraction of organic carbon in suspended sediment. Recommended Kd^ value
was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
Kdbs value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon of 0.04 in bottom sediment.
Measured organic carbon in bottom sediment, specific to site conditions, should be
used to calculate Kdbs, because the value varies depending on the fraction of organic
fraction in bottom sediment. Recommended Kdbs value was calculated by using the
Koc value that is provided in this table.
Ksg value was calculated by using the chemical half-life in soil, as cited in Howard,
Boethling, Jarvis, Meylan, and Michalenko (1991).
Fv value was calculated by using the equation cited in Junge (1977). Recommended
value of Fv was calculated by using the Vp value that is provided in this table.
120.92
115.1
6.40E+00
at 25°C
(liquid)
3.0E+02
2.58E+00
7.77E-02
9.00E-06
1.44E+02
6.85E+0
6.85E-01
5.14E+00
2.74E+00
1.41E+00
1.0
Note:
NA = Not applicable
ND = No data available
All parameters are defined in LIST OF VARIABLES on page A-2-ii.
A-2-111
-------
TABLE A-2-74
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC INPUTS FOR 1,1-DICHLOROETHANE (75-34-3)
(Page 1 of 1)
Parameter
Reference and Explanation
Value
Chemical/Physical Properties
MW(g/mo\e)
r»(K)
Fp(atm)
S(mg/L)
H (atm-mVmol)
Da (cm2/s)
Dv (cm2/s)
Km (unitless)
Kx (mL/g)
Kds (cmVg)
T^(L/Kg)
rrffa(cm3/g)
fog (year)"1
.Fv (unitless)
Budavari, O'Neill, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
Budavari, O'Neill, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c).
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c).
H value was calculated by using the theoretical equation from Lyman, Reehl, and
Rosenblatt (1982), which defines the constant. Recommended value was calculated
by using the MW, S, and Vp values that are provided in this table.
Da value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
Dv value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c).
Geometric mean of measured values obtained from U.S. EPA (1996b).
Kds value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed fraction organic carbon of 0.01 in soil. Measured
organic carbon in soil, specific to site conditions, should be used to calculate Kds,
because the value varies, depending on the fraction of organic carbon in soil.
Recommended Kds value was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in
this table.
Kd^ value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.075 in suspended
sediment. Measured organic carbon in suspended sediment, specific to site
conditions, should be used to calculate Kd^, because the value varies, depending on
the fraction of organic carbon in suspended sediment. Recommended Kd^ value
was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
Kdbs value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon of 0.04 in bottom sediment.
Measured organic carbon in bottom sediment, specific to site conditions, should be
used to calculate Kdbs, because the value varies depending on the fraction of organic
fraction in bottom sediment. Recommended Kdbs value was calculated by using the
Koc value that is provided in this table.
Ksg value was calculated by using the chemical half-life in soil, as cited in Howard,
Boethling, Jarvis, Meylan, and Michalenko (1991).
Fv value was calculated by using the equation cited in Junge (1977). Recommended
value of Fv was calculated by using the Vp value that is provided in this table.
98.97
175.1
3.0E-01
at 25°C
(liquid)
5.16E+03
5.75E-03
7.42E-02
1.05E-05
6.20E+01
5.30E+01
5.30E-01
3.98E+00
2.12E+00
1.643
1.0
Note:
NA = Not applicable
ND = No data available
All parameters are defined in LIST OF VARIABLES on page A-2-ii.
A-2-112
-------
TABLE A-2-75
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC INPUTS FOR 1,2-DICHLOROETHANE (107-06-2)
(Page 1 of 1)
Parameter
Reference and Explanation
Value
Chemical/Physical Properties
Mff(g/mole)
rm(K)
Vp (atm)
S (mg/L)
H (atm-m3/mol)
Da (cm2/s)
A, (cm2/s)
Kow (unitless)
Koc (mL/g)
Kds (cm3/g)
Kd^ (L/Kg)
M,, (cm3/g)
ksg (year)"1
Fv (unitless)
Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c).
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c).
H value was calculated by using the theoretical equation from Lyman, Reehl, and
Rosenblatt (1982), which defines the constant. Recommended value was calculated
by using the MW, S, and Vp values that are provided in this table.
Da value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
Dw value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c).
Geometric mean of measured values obtained from U.S. EPA (1996b).
Kd, value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.01 in soil. Measured
organic carbon in soil, specific to site conditions, should be used to calculate Kds,
because the value varies, depending on the fraction of organic carbon in soil.
Recommended Kds value was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in
this table.
Kd^, value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.075 in suspended
sediment. Measured organic carbon in suspended sediment, specific to site
conditions, should be used to calculate Kd^,, because the value varies, depending on
the fraction of organic carbon in suspended sediment. Recommended Kd^, value
was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
Kdb, value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.04 in bottom
sediment. Measured organic carbon in bottom sediment, specific to site conditions,
should be used to calculate Kdbs, because the value varies, depending on the fraction
of organic carbon in bottom sediment. Recommended Kdts value was calculated by
using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
ksg value was calculated by using the chemical half-life in soil, as cited in Howard,
Boethling, Jarvis, Meylan, and Michalenko (1991).
Fv value was calculated by using the equation cited in Junge (1977). Recommended
value of Fv was calculated by using the Vp value that is provided in this table.
98.96
233.1
1.07E-01
at 25°C (liquid)
8.31E+03
1.27E-03
7.19E-02
1.10E-05
2.90E+01
1.96E+01
1.96E-01
1.47E+00
7.83E-01
1.41E+00
1.0
Note:
NA= Not applicable
ND= No data available
All parameters are defined in LIST OF VARIABLES on page A-2-ii.
A-2-113
-------
TABLE A-2-76
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC INPUTS FOR 1,1-DICHLOROETHYLENE (75-35-4)
(Page 1 of 1)
Parameter
Reference and Explanation
Value
Chemical/Physical Properties
MW(g/mo\e)
r»(K)
Fp(atm)
S(mg/L)
H (atm-mVmol)
Da (cm2/s)
Dv (cm2/s)
Km (unitless)
Kx (mL/g)
Kds (cmVg)
T^(L/Kg)
rrffa(cm3/g)
fog (year)"1
.Fv (unitless)
Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c).
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c).
H value was calculated by using the theoretical equation from Lyman, Reehl, and
Rosenblatt (1982), which defines the constant. Recommended value was calculated
by using the MW, S, and Vp values that are provided in this table.
Da value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
Dv value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c).
Geometric mean of measured values obtained from U.S. EPA (1996b).
Kds value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed fraction organic carbon of 0.01 in soil. Measured
organic carbon in soil, specific to site conditions, should be used to calculate Kds,
because the value varies, depending on the fraction of organic carbon in soil.
Recommended Kds value was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in
this table.
Kd^ value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.075 in suspended
sediment. Measured organic carbon in suspended sediment, specific to site
conditions, should be used to calculate Kd^, because the value varies, depending on
the fraction of organic carbon in suspended sediment. Recommended Kd^ value
was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
Kdbs value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon of 0.04 in bottom sediment.
Measured organic carbon in bottom sediment, specific to site conditions, should be
used to calculate Kdbs, because the value varies depending on the fraction of organic
fraction in bottom sediment. Recommended Kdbs value was calculated by using the
Koc value that is provided in this table.
Ksg value was calculated by using the chemical half-life in soil, as cited in Howard,
Boethling, Jarvis, Meylan, and Michalenko (1991).
Fv value was calculated by using the equation cited in Junge (1977). Recommended
value of Fv was calculated by using the Vp value that is provided in this table.
96.95
150.6
7.88E-01
at 25°C
(liquid)
3.0E+03
2.55E-02
7.53E-02
1.09E-05
1.32E+02
6.50E+01
6.50E-01
4.88E+00
2.60E+00
1.41E+00
1.0
Note:
NA = Not applicable
ND = No data available
All parameters are defined in LIST OF VARIABLES on page A-2-ii.
A-2-114
-------
TABLE A-2-77
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC INPUTS FOR (CIS)-1,2-DICHLOROETHYLENE (156-59-2)
(Page 1 of 1)
Parameter
Reference and Explanation
Value
Chemical/Physical Properties
Mff(g/mole)
rm(K)
Vp (atm)
S (mg/L)
H (atm-m3/mol)
Da (cm2/s)
A, (cm2/s)
Kow (unitless)
Koc (mL/g)
Kd. (cm3/g)
&/„ (L/Kg)
rrffo (cm3/g)
ksg (year)"1
Fv (unitless)
Howard (1989-1993)
Howard (1989-1993)
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c).
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c).
H value was calculated by using the theoretical equation from Lyman, Reehl,
and Rosenblatt (1982), which defines the constant. Recommended value was
calculated by using the MW, S, and Vp values that are provided in this table.
Da value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
A, value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c).
Koc value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Km for
phthalates and PAHs, / all nonionizing organics except phthalates, PAHs,
dioxins, and furans, cited in U.S. EPA (1994c). Koe value was calculated by
using the recommended Km value that is provided in this table.
Kds value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited
in U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.01 in soil.
Measured organic carbon in soil, specific to site conditions, should be used to
calculate Kd,, because the value varies, depending on the fraction of organic
carbon in soil. Recommended Kds value was calculated by using the Koc value
that is provided in this table.
Kd^, value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited
in U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.075 in
suspended sediment. Measured organic carbon in suspended sediment, specific
to site conditions, should be used to calculate Kd^,, because the value varies,
depending on the fraction of organic carbon in suspended sediment.
Recommended Kdm value was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided
in this table.
Kdbs value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koe that is cited
in U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.04 in bottom
sediment. Measured organic carbon in bottom sediment, specific to site
conditions, should be used to calculate Kdts, because the value varies, depending
on the fraction of organic carbon in bottom sediment. Recommended Kdts value
was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
Ksg value was calculated by using the chemical half-life in soil, as cited in
Mackay, Shiu, and Ma (1992).
Fv value was calculated by using the equation cited in Junge (1977).
Recommended value ofFv was calculated by using the Vp value that is provided
in the table.
96.94
192.6
2.30E-01
at 25°C (liquid)
4.94E+03
4.51E-03
7.36E-02
1.13E-05
9.60E+01
4.98E+01
4.98E-01
3.73+00
1.99E+00
1.41E+00
1.00
Note:
NA = Not applicable
ND = No data available
All parameters are defined in LIST OF VARIABLES on page A-2-ii.
A-2-115
-------
TABLE A-2-78
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC INPUTS FOR (TRANS)-1,2-DICHLOROETHYLENE (156-60-5)
(Page 1 of 1)
Parameter
Reference and Explanation
Value
Chemical/Physical Properties
Mff(g/mole)
rm(K)
Vp (atm)
S (mg/L)
H (atm-m3/mol)
Da (cm2/s)
A, (cm2/s)
Km (unitless)
Koc (mL/g)
Kds (cm3/g)
Kd^ (L/Kg)
rrffo (cm3/g)
ksg (year)"1
Fv (unitless)
Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c)
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c)
H value was calculated by using the theoretical equation from Lyman, Reehl, and
Rosenblatt (1982), which defines the constant. Recommended value was calculated
by using the MW, S, and Vp values that are provided in this table.
Da value was obtained from WATERS model database (U.S. EPA 1995d).
Dw value was obtained from WATERS model database (U.S. EPA 1995d).
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c)
Geometric mean of measured values obtained from U.S. EPA (1996b).
Kd, value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.01 in soil. Measured
organic carbon in soil, specific to site conditions, should be used to calculate Kds,
because the value varies, depending on the fraction of organic carbon in soil.
Recommended Kds value was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in
this table.
Kd^, value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.075 in suspended
sediment. Measured organic carbon in suspended sediment, specific to site
conditions, should be used to calculate Kd^,, because the value varies, depending on
the fraction of organic carbon in suspended sediment. Recommended Kd^, value
was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
Kdb, value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.04 in bottom
sediment. Measured organic carbon in bottom sediment, specific to site conditions,
should be used to calculate Kdbs, because the value varies, depending on the fraction
of organic carbon in bottom sediment. Recommended Kdts value was calculated by
using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
ksg value was calculated by using the chemical half-life in soil, as cited in Howard,
Boethling, Jarvis, Meylan, and Michalenko (1991).
Fv value was calculated by using the equation cited in Junge (1977). Recommended
value of Fv was calculated by using the Vp value that is provided in this table.
96.95
223.7
4.63E-01
at 25°C
(liquid)
6.03E+03
7.44E-03
8.16E-02
9.75E-06
9.60E+01
3.80E+01
3.80E-01
2.85E+00
1.52E+00
1.41E+00
1.0
Note:
NA= Not applicable
ND= No data available
All parameters are defined in LIST OF VARIABLES on page A-2-ii.
A-2-116
-------
TABLE A-2-79
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC INPUTS FOR 2,4-DICHLOROPHENOL (120-83-2)
(Page 1 of 2)
Parameter
Reference and Explanation
Value
Chemical/Physical Properties
Mff(g/mole)
r»(K)
Fp(atm)
S(mg/L)
// (atm-mVmol)
Da(cm2/s)
Dw (cm2/s)
Km (unitless)
Koc (mL/g)
JM,(cm3/g)
Kd^ (L/Kg)
Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c)
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c)
H value was calculated by using the theoretical equation from Lyman, Reehl, and
Rosenblatt (1982), which defines the constant. Recommended value was calculated
by using the MW, S, and Vp values that are provided in this table.
Da value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
Dw value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c)
For all ionizing organics, Koc values were estimated on the basis of pH. Estimated
values were obtained from U.S. EPA (1994c).
Kds value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.01 in soil. Measured
organic carbon in soil, specific to site conditions, should be used to calculate Kds,
because the value varies, depending on the fraction of organic carbon in soil.
Recommended Kds value was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in
this table.
Kd^ value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.075 in suspended
sediment. Measured organic carbon in suspended sediment, specific to site
conditions, should be used to calculate Kd^, because the value varies, depending on
the fraction of organic carbon in suspended sediment. Recommended Kd^ value
was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
163.01
318.1
7.21E-06
at25°C
(solid)
4.93E+03
2.38E-07
2.69E-02
7.79E-06
1.09E+03
pH
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Koc
159.0
159.0
159.0
159.0
158.8
156.8
139.6
67.31
12.75
3.50
2.51
2.41
2.40
2.40
1.40E+00
1.05E+01
A-2-117
-------
TABLE A-2-79
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC INPUTS FOR 2,4-DICHLOROPHENOL (120-83-2)
(Page 2 of 2)
Parameter
Reference and Explanation
Value
Chemical/Physical Properties (Continued)
£4(cm3/g)
ksg (year)'1
Fv (unitless)
Kdbs value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.04 in bottom
sediment. Measured organic carbon in bottom sediment, specific to site conditions,
should be used to calculate Kdbs, because the value varies, depending on the fraction
of organic carbon in bottom sediment. Recommended Kdbs value was calculated by
using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
ksg value was calculated by using the chemical half-life in soil, as cited in Howard,
Boethling, Jarvis, Meylan, and Michalenko (1991).
Fv value was calculated by using equations cited in Junge (1977) and Bidleman
(1988). Recommended value ofFv was calculated by using Tm and Vp values that
are provided in this table. Vp value for this compound was converted to a
liquid-phase value before being used in the calculations.
5.58E+00
3.61E+00
1.0
Note:
NA= Not applicable
ND= No data available
All parameters are defined in LIST OF VARIABLES on page A-2-ii.
A-2-118
-------
TABLE A-2-80
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC INPUTS FOR 1,2-DICHLOROPROPANE (78-87-5)
(Page 1 of 1)
Parameter
Reference and Explanation
Value
Chemical/Physical Properties
Mff(g/mole)
r»(K)
Fp(atm)
S(mg/L)
H (atm-mVmol)
Da(cm2/s)
Dw (cm2/s)
Km (unitless)
Koc (mL/g)
^(cmVg)
Kd^ (L/Kg)
Sfa(cm3/g)
fesg (year)'1
Fv (unitless)
Budavari, O'Neill, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
Montgomery and Welkom (1991)
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c).
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c).
H value was calculated by using the theoretical equation from Lyman, Reehl, and
Rosenblatt (1982), which defines the constant. Recommended value was calculated
by using the MW, S, and Vp values that are provided in this table.
Da value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
Dw value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c).
Geometric mean of measured values obtained from U.S. EPA (1996b).
Kds value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed fraction organic carbon of 0.01 in soil. Measured
organic carbon in soil, specific to site conditions, should be used to calculate Kds,
because the value varies, depending on the fraction of organic carbon in soil.
Recommended Kds value was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in
this table.
Kd^ value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.075 in suspended
sediment. Measured organic carbon in suspended sediment, specific to site
conditions, should be used to calculate Kd^, because the value varies, depending on
the fraction of organic carbon in suspended sediment. Recommended Kd^ value
was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
Kdbs value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon of 0.04 in bottom sediment.
Measured organic carbon in bottom sediment, specific to site conditions, should be
used to calculate Kdbs, because the value varies depending on the fraction of organic
fraction in bottom sediment. Recommended Kdbs value was calculated by using the
Koc value that is provided in this table.
Ksg value was calculated by using the chemical half-life in soil, as cited in Howard,
Boethling, Jarvis, Meylan, and Michalenko (1991).
Fv value was calculated by using the equation cited in Junge (1977). Recommended
value of Fv was calculated by using the Vp value that is provided in this table.
112.99
172.7
6.66E-02
at25°C
(liquid)
2.68E+03
2.81E-03
6.21E-02
9.71E-06
1.78E+02
4.70E+01
4.70E-01
3.53E+00
1.88E+00
1.96E-01
1.0
Note:
NA = Not applicable
ND = No data available
All parameters are defined in LIST OF VARIABLES on page A-2-ii.
A-2-119
-------
TABLE A-2-81
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC INPUTS FOR (CIS)-1,3-DICHLOROPROPENE (542-75-6)
(Page 1 of 1)
Parameter
Reference and Explanation
Value
Chemical/Physical Properties
Mff(g/mole)
r»(K)
Fp(atm)
S(mg/L)
H (atm-mVmol)
Da(cm2/s)
Dw (cm2/s)
Km (unitless)
Koc (mL/g)
^(cmVg)
Kd^ (L/Kg)
Sfa(cm3/g)
fesg (year)'1
Fv (unitless)
Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
Montgomery and Welkom (1991)
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c).
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c).
H value was calculated by using the theoretical equation from Lyman, Reehl, and
Rosenblatt (1982), which defines the constant. Recommended value was calculated
by using the MW, S, and Vp values that are provided in this table.
Da value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
Dw value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c)
Geometric mean of measured values obtained from U.S. EPA (1996b).
Kds value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.01 in soil. Measured
organic carbon in soil, specific to site conditions, should be used to calculate Kds,
because the value varies, depending on the fraction of organic carbon in soil.
Recommended Kds value was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in
this table.
Kd^ value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.075 in suspended
sediment. Measured organic carbon in suspended sediment, specific to site
conditions, should be used to calculate Kd^, because the value varies, depending on
the fraction of organic carbon in suspended sediment. Recommended Kd^ value
was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
Kdbs value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.04 in bottom
sediment. Measured organic carbon in bottom sediment, specific to site conditions,
should be used to calculate Kdbs, because the value varies, depending on the fraction
of organic carbon in bottom sediment. Recommended Kdbs value was calculated by
using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
Ksg value was calculated by using the chemical half-life in soil, as cited in Howard,
Boethling, Jarvis, Meylan, and Michalenko (1991).
Fv value was calculated by using the equation cited in Junge (1977). Recommended
value of Fv was calculated by using the Vp value that is provided in this table.
110.98
189.1
4.11E-02
at25°C
(liquid)
1.55E+03
2.94E-03
6.26E-02
l.OOE-05
5.60E+01
2.70E+01
2.70E-01
2.03E+00
1.08E+00
2.24E+01
1.0
Note:
NA = Not applicable
ND = No data available
All parameters are defined in LIST OF VARIABLES on page A-2-ii.
A-2-120
-------
TABLE A-2-82
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC INPUTS FOR DICHLORVOS (62-73-7)
(Page 1 of 1)
Parameter
Reference and Explanation
Value
Chemical/Physical Properties
Mff(g/mole)
r»(K)
Fp(atm)
S(mg/L)
H (atm-mVmol)
Da (cm2/s)
Dn (cm2/s)
Km (unitless)
Koc (mL/g)
Kds (cmVg)
T^(L/Kg)
rrffa(cm3/g)
fog (year)"1
Fv (unitless)
Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
--
Vp value cited in Howard (1989-1993).
5 value cited in Howard (1989-1993).
H value was calculated by using the theoretical equation from Lyman, Reehl, and
Rosenblatt (1982), which defines the constant. Recommended value was calculated
by using the MW, S, and Vp values that are provided in this table.
Da value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
!)„ value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
Recommended Km value cited in Karickhoff and Long (1995).
Koc value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Km for phthalates
and PAHs, / all nonionizing organics except phthalates, PAHs, dioxins, and furans,
cited in U.S. EPA (1994c). Koc value was calculated by using the recommended Km
value that is provided in this table.
Kds value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.01 in soil. Measured
organic carbon in soil, specific to site conditions, should be used to calculate Kds,
because the value varies, depending on the fraction of organic carbon in soil.
Recommended Kds value was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in
this table.
Kd^ value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.075 in suspended
sediment. Measured organic carbon in suspended sediment, specific to site
conditions, should be used to calculate Kd^, because the value varies, depending on
the fraction of organic carbon in suspended sediment. Recommended Kd^ value
was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
Kdbs value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.04 in bottom
sediment. Measured organic carbon in bottom sediment, specific to site conditions,
should be used to calculate Kdbs, because the value varies, depending on the fraction
of organic carbon in bottom sediment. Recommended Kdbs value was calculated by
using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
Ksg value was calculated by using the chemical half-life in soil, as cited in Howard
(1989-1993).
Fv value was calculated by using the equation cited in Junge (1977). Recommended
value of Fv was calculated by using the Vp value that is provided in the table.
220.98
NA
6.93E-05
at 25°C (liquid)
1.6E+04
9.57E-07
2.32E-02
7.33E-06
2.69E+01
1.85E+01
1.85E-01
1.38E+00
7.38E-01
1.49E+01
1.00
Note:
NA = Not applicable
ND = No data available
All parameters are defined in LIST OF VARIABLES on page A-2-ii.
A-2-121
-------
TABLE A-2-83
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC INPUTS FOR DIELDRIN (60-57-1)
(Page 1 of 1)
Parameter
Reference and Explanation
Value
Chemical/Physical Properties
Mff(g/mole)
r»(K)
Fp(atm)
S(mg/L)
H (atm-mVmol)
Da(cm2/s)
Dw (cm2/s)
Km (unitless)
Koc (mL/g)
^(cmVg)
Kd^ (L/Kg)
Sfa(cm3/g)
fesg (year)'1
Fv (unitless)
Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c)
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c)
H value was calculated by using the theoretical equation from Lyman, Reehl, and
Rosenblatt (1982), which defines the constant. Recommended value was calculated
by using the MW, S, and Vp values that are provided in this table.
Da value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d)
Dw value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d)
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c)
Geometric mean of measured values obtained from U.S. EPA (1996b).
Kds value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.01 in soil. Measured
organic carbon in soil, specific to site conditions, should be used to calculate Kds,
because the value varies, depending on the fraction of organic carbon in soil.
Recommended Kds value was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in
this table.
Kd^ value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.075 in suspended
sediment. Measured organic carbon in suspended sediment, specific to site
conditions, should be used to calculate Kd^, because the value varies, depending on
the fraction of organic carbon in suspended sediment. Recommended Kd^ value
was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
Kdbs value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.04 in bottom
sediment. Measured organic carbon in bottom sediment, specific to site conditions,
should be used to calculate Kdbs, because the value varies, depending on the fraction
of organic carbon in bottom sediment. Recommended Kdbs value was calculated by
using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
Ksg value was calculated by using the chemical half-life in soil, as cited in Howard,
Boethling, Jarvis, Meylan, and Michalenko (1991)
Fv value was calculated by using equations cited in Junge (1977) and Bidleman
(1988). Recommended value of Fv was calculated by using Tm and Vp values that
are provided in this table. Vp value for this compound was converted to a
liquid-phase value before being used in the calculations.
380.93
449.1
1.31E-09
at25°C
(solid)
1.87E-01
2.66E-06
1.36E-02
4.29E-06
1.86E+05
2.55E+04
2.55E+02
1.91E+03
1.02E+03
2.34E+00
0.9860
Note:
NA = Not applicable
ND = No data available
All parameters are defined in LIST OF VARIABLES on page A-2-ii.
A-2-122
-------
TABLE A-2-84
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC INPUTS FOR DIETHYL PHTHALATE (84-66-2)
(Page 1 of 1)
Parameter
Reference and Explanation
Value
Chemical/Physical Properties
A/ff(g/mole)
r»(K)
Fp(atm)
S(mg/L)
H (atm-mVmol)
Da(cm2/s)
Dw (cm2/s)
Km (unitless)
Koc (mL/g)
JM,(cm3/g)
Kd^ (L/Kg)
SUcmVg)
fag (year)'1
Fv (unitless)
Montgomery and Welkom (1991)
Montgomery and Welkom (1991)
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c).
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c).
H value was calculated by using the theoretical equation from Lyman, Reehl, and
Rosenblatt (1982), which defines the constant. Recommended value was calculated
by using the MW, S, and Vp values that are provided in this table.
Da value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
Dw value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c).
Geometric mean of measured values obtained from U.S. EPA (1996b).
Kds value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Km that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed fraction organic carbon of 0.01 in soil. Measured
organic carbon in soil, specific to site conditions, should be used to calculate Kds,
because the value varies, depending on the fraction of organic carbon in soil.
Recommended Kds value was calculated by using the K^ value that is provided in
this table.
Kd^ value was calculated by using the correlation equation with K^. that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.075 in suspended
sediment. Measured organic carbon in suspended sediment, specific to site
conditions, should be used to calculate Kd^, because the value varies, depending on
the fraction of organic carbon in suspended sediment. Recommended Kd^ value
was calculated by using the K^. value that is provided in this table.
Kdbs value was calculated by using the correlation equation with K^. that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon of 0.04 in bottom sediment.
Measured organic carbon in bottom sediment, specific to site conditions, should be
used to calculate Kdbs, because the value varies depending on the fraction of organic
fraction in bottom sediment. Recommended Kdbs value was calculated by using the
Koc value that is provided in this table.
Ksg value was calculated by using the chemical half-life in soil, as cited in Howard,
Boethling, Jarvis, Meylan, and Michalenko (1991).
Fv value was calculated by using the equation cited in Junge (1977). Recommended
value of Fv was calculated by using the Vp value that is provided in this table.
222.24
232.6
2.17E-06
at25°C
(liquid)
8.80E+02
5.48E-07
2.56E-02
6.35E-06
2.73E+04
8.20E+01
8.20E-01
6.15E+00
3.28E+00
4.52E+00
1.0
Note:
NA = Not applicable
ND = No data available
All parameters are defined in LIST OF VARIABLES on page A-2-ii.
A-2-123
-------
TABLE A-2-85
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC INPUTS FOR DIMETHYL PHTHALATE (131-11-3)
(Page 1 of 1)
Parameter
Reference and Explanation
Value
Chemical/Physical Properties
Mff(g/mole)
rm(K)
Vp (atm)
S (mg/L)
H (atm-m3/mol)
Da (cm2/s)
A, (cm2/s)
Km (unitless)
Koc (mL/g)
Kd. (cm3/g)
Kd^ (L/Kg)
Kdbs (cm3/g)
fag (year)"1
Fv (unitless)
Montgomery and Welkom (1991)
Montgomery and Welkom (1991)
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c).
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c).
H value was calculated by using the theoretical equation from Lyman, Reehl,
and Rosenblatt (1982), which defines the constant. Recommended value was
calculated by using the MW, S, and Vp values that are provided in this table.
Da value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
A, value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c).
Koc value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Km for
phthalates and PAHs, / all nonionizing organics except phthalates, PAHs,
dioxins, and furans, cited in U.S. EPA (1994c). Koe value was calculated by
using the recommended Km value that is provided in this table.
Kds value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited
in U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.01 in soil.
Measured organic carbon in soil, specific to site conditions, should be used to
calculate Kd,, because the value varies, depending on the fraction of organic
carbon in soil. Recommended Kds value was calculated by using the Koc value
that is provided in this table.
Kd^, value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited
in U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.075 in
suspended sediment. Measured organic carbon in suspended sediment, specific
to site conditions, should be used to calculate Kd^,, because the value varies,
depending on the fraction of organic carbon in suspended sediment.
Recommended Kdm value was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided
in this table.
Kdbs value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koe that is cited
in U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.04 in bottom
sediment. Measured organic carbon in bottom sediment, specific to site
conditions, should be used to calculate Kdts, because the value varies, depending
on the fraction of organic carbon in bottom sediment. Recommended Kdts value
was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
Ksg value was calculated by using the chemical half-life in soil, as cited in
Howard, Boethling, Jarvis, Meylan, and Michalenko (1991).
Fv value was calculated by using the equation cited in Junge (1977).
Recommended value of Fv was calculated by using the Vp value that is provided
in the table.
194.19
273.1
2.17E-06
at 25°C (liquid)
4.19E+03
1.01E-07
2.96E-02
7.13E-06
4.30E+01
3.09E+01
3.09E-01
2.00E+01
1.06E+01
3.61E+01
1.00
Note:
NA = Not applicable
ND = No data available
All parameters are defined in LIST OF VARIABLES on page A-2-ii.
A-2-124
-------
TABLE A-2-86
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC INPUTS FOR 2,4-DIMETHYLPHENOL (105-67-9)
(Page 1 of 2)
Parameter
Reference and Explanation
Value
Chemical/Physical Properties
Mff(g/mole)
rm(K)
Vp (atm)
S (mg/L)
H (atm-m3/mol)
Da (cm2/s)
A, (cm2/s)
Kow (unitless)
Koc (mL/g)
Kds (cm'/g)
^CCL/Kg)
Moses (1978)
Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
Vp value cited in U.S. EPA (1992a).
S value cited in U.S. EPA (1992a).
H value was calculated by using the theoretical equation from Lyman, Reehl, and
Rosenblatt (1982), which defines the constant. Recommended value was calculated
by using the MW, S, and Vp values that are provided in this table.
Da value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
Dw value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
Recommended Km value cited in Karickhoff and Long (1995).
For all ionizing organics, Koc values were estimated on the basis of pH. Estimated
values were obtained from U.S. EPA (1994c).
Kds value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.01 in soil. Measured
organic carbon in soil, specific to site conditions, should be used to calculate Kds,
because the value varies, depending on the fraction of organic carbon in soil.
Recommended Kds value was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in
this table.
Kd^ value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.075 in suspended
sediment. Measured organic carbon in suspended sediment, specific to site
conditions, should be used to calculate Kd^, because the value varies, depending on
the fraction of organic carbon in suspended sediment. Recommended Kd^ value
was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
122.17
300.1
1.66E-04
at 25°C
(solid)
6.25E+03
3.24E-06
5.84E-02
8.69E-06
2.29E+02
pH
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14 1.91
Koc
126.0
126.0
126.0
126.0
126.0
125.99
125.9
125.02
116.87
71.06
15.77
3.43
2.05
1.26E+00
9.44E+00
A-2-125
-------
TABLE A-2-86
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC INPUTS FOR 2,4-DIMETHYLPHENOL (105-67-9)
(Page 2 of 2)
Parameter
Reference and Explanation
Value
Chemical/Physical Properties (Continued)
Sfa(cm3/g)
ksg (year)'1
Fv (unitless)
Kdbs value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.04 in bottom
sediment. Measured organic carbon in bottom sediment, specific to site conditions,
should be used to calculate Kdbs, because the value varies, depending on the fraction
of organic carbon in bottom sediment. Recommended Kdbs value was calculated by
using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
Ksg value was calculated by using the chemical half-life in soil, as cited in Howard,
Boethling, Jarvis, Meylan, and Michalenko (1991).
Fv value was calculated by using equations cited in Junge (1977) and Bidleman
(1988). Recommended value ofFv was calculated by using Tm and Vp values that
are provided in this table. Vp value for this compound was converted to a liquid
phase value before being used in the calculations.
5.04E+00
3.61E+01
1.0
Note:
NA = Not applicable
ND = No data available
All parameters are defined in LIST OF VARIABLES on page A-2-ii.
A-2-126
-------
TABLE A-2-87
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC INPUTS FOR 3,3'-DIMETHYOXYBENZIDINE (119-90-4)
(Page 1 of 1)
Parameter
Reference and Explanation
Value
Chemical/Physical Properties
Mff(g/mole)
rm(K)
Vp (atm)
S (mg/L)
H (atm-m3/mol)
Da (cm2/s)
A, (cm2/s)
Km (unitless)
Koc (mL/g)
Kd. (cm3/g)
^ (L/Kg)
M,, (cm3/g)
ksg (year)"1
Fv (unitless)
Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
Vp value cited in U.S. EPA (1995b).
S value cited in U.S. EPA (1995b).
H value was calculated by using the theoretical equation from Lyman, Reehl, and
Rosenblatt (1982), which defines the constant. Recommended value was calculated
by using the MW, S, and Vp values that are provided in this table.
Da value was obtained from WATERS model database (U.S. EPA 1995d).
Dw value was obtained from WATERS model database (U.S. EPA 1995d).
Arithmetic mean value cited in Karickhoff and Long (1995).
Koc value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Km for all
nonionizing organics except phthalates, PAHs, dioxins, and furans, cited in
U.S. EPA (1994c). Koc value was calculated by using the recommended Km value
that is provided in this table.
Kds value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.01 in soil. Measured
organic carbon in soil, specific to site conditions, should be used to calculate Kds,
because the value varies, depending on the fraction of organic carbon in soil.
Recommended Kds value was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in
this table.
Kdm value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.075 in suspended
sediment. Measured organic carbon in suspended sediment, specific to site
conditions, should be used to calculate Kd^, because the value varies, depending on
the fraction of organic carbon in suspended sediment. Recommended Kd^ value
was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
Kdbs value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.04 in bottom
sediment. Measured organic carbon in bottom sediment, specific to site conditions,
should be used to calculate Kdts, because the value varies, depending on the fraction
of organic carbon in bottom sediment. Recommended Kdbs value was calculated by
using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
ksg value was calculated by using the chemical half-life in soil, as cited in Howard,
Boethling, Jarvis, Meylan, and Michalenko (1991).
Fv value was calculated by using equations cited in Junge (1977) and Bidleman
(1988). Recommended value of Fv was calculated by using Tm and Vp values that
are provided in this table. Vp value for this compound was converted to a
liquid-phase value before being used in the calculations.
244.28
410.1
3.30E-10
at 25°C
(solid)
2.40E+02
3.36E-10
2.38E-02
5.60E-06
6.46E+01
3.65E+01
3.65E-01
2.74E+00
1.46E+00
1.41E+00
0.877
Note:
NA= Not applicable
ND= No data available
All parameters are defined in LIST OF VARIABLES on page A-2-ii.
A-2-127
-------
TABLE A-2-88
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC INPUTS FOR 1,3-DINITROBENZENE (99-65-0)
(Page 1 of 1)
Parameter
Reference and Explanation
Value
Chemical/Physical Properties
Mff(g/mole)
r»(K)
Fp(atm)
S(mg/L)
H (atm-mVmol)
Da(cm2/s)
Dw (cm2/s)
Km (unitless)
Koc (mL/g)
Kds (mL/g)
T^(L/Kg)
Kdbs(mL/g)
ksg (year)"1
Fv (unitless)
Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (19941).
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (19941).
H value was calculated by using the theoretical equation from Lyman, Reehl, and
Rosenblatt (1982), which defines the constant. Recommended value was calculated
by using theMW, S and Vp values that are provided in this table.
Da value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database, U.S. EPA (1994d).
Dw value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database, U.S. EPA (1994d).
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (19941).
Koc value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Km for all
nonionizing organics except phthalates, PAHs, dioxins, and furans, as cited in U.S.
EPA (1994c). Koc value was calculated by using the recommended Km value that is
provided in this table.
Kds value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed fraction organic carbon of 0.01 in soil. Measured
organic carbon in soil, specific to site conditions, should be used to calculate Kds,
because the value varies, depending on the fraction of organic carbon in soil.
Recommended Kds value was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in
this table.
Kd^ value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.075 in suspended
sediment. Measured organic carbon in suspended sediment, specific to site
conditions, should be used to calculate Kd^, because the value varies, depending on
the fraction of organic carbon in suspended sediment. Recommended Kd^ value
was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
Kdbs value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.04 in bottom
sediment. Measured organic carbon in bottom sediment, specific to site conditions,
should be used to calculate Kdbs, because the value varies, depending on the fraction
of organic carbon in bottom sediment. Recommended Kdbs value was calculated by
using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
ksg value was calculated by using the chemical half-life in soil, as cited in Howard,
Boethling, Jarvis, Meylan, and Michalenko (1991).
Fv value was calculated by using equations cited in Junge (1977) and Bidleman
(1988). Recommended value of Fv was calculated by using S, Tm, and Vp values
that are provided in this table. Vp value for this compound was converted to a
liquid-phase value before being used in the calculations.
168.11
363
4.0E-07
at25°C
(solid)
5.4E+02
1.25E-07
3.18E-02
9.15E-06
3.10E+01
2.06E+01
2.06E-01
1.55E+00
8.25E-01
1.41E+00
1.0
Note:
NA= Not applicable
ND= No data available
All parameters are defined in LIST OF VARIABLES on page A-2-ii.
A-2-128
-------
TABLE A-2-89
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC INPUTS FOR 2,4-DINITROPHENOL (51-28-5)
(Page 1 of 1)
Parameter
Reference and Explanation
Value
Chemical/Physical Properties
Mff(g/mole)
rm(K)
Fp(atm)
S(mg/L)
// (atm-mVmol)
Da(cm2/s)
Dw (cm2/s)
^ (unitless)
£„ (mL/g)
^(cmVg)
&C(L/Kg)
&4(cm3/g)
Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c).
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c).
H value was calculated by using the theoretical equation from Lyman, Reehl, and
Rosenblatt (1982), which defines the constant. Recommended value was calculated
by using the MW, S, and Vp values that are provided in this table.
Da value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
Dw value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c).
For all ionizing organics, Koc values were estimated on the basis of pH. Estimated
values were obtained from U.S. EPA (1994c).
Kds value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.01 in soil. Measured
organic carbon in soil, specific to site conditions, should be used to calculate Kds,
because the value varies, depending on the fraction of organic carbon in soil. Kds
value calculated using the Koc value that is provided in this table for a pH of 7.0.
Kd^ value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.075 in suspended
sediment. Measured organic carbon in suspended sediment, specific to site
conditions, should be used to calculate Kd^, because the value varies, depending on
the fraction of organic carbon in suspended sediment. Recommended Kd^ value
was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in this table for a pH of 7.0.
Kdbs value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.04 in bottom
sediment. Measured organic carbon in bottom sediment, specific to site conditions,
should be used to calculate Kdbs, because the value varies depending on the fraction
of organic carbon in bottom sediment. Recommended Kdbs value was calculated by
using the Koc value that is provided in this table for a pH of 7.0.
184.11
385.1
1.52E-07 at 25°C (solid)
5.8E+03
4.82E-09
2.73E-02
9.06E-06
3.30E+01
pH
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
l.OE-04
(atpH7.0)
7.5E-04
(atpH7.0)
4.0E-04
(atpH7.0)
K
0.80
0.79
0.72
0.38
0.08
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
A-2-129
-------
TABLE A-2-89
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC INPUTS FOR 2,4-DINITROPHENOL (51-28-5)
(Page 2 of 1)
Parameter
ksg (year)'1
Fv (unitless)
Reference and Explanation
Ksg value was calculated by using the chemical half-life in soil, as cited in Howard,
Boethling, Jarvis, Meylan, and Michalenko (1991).
Fv value was calculated by using equations cited in Junge (1977) and Bidleman
(1988). Recommended value ofFv was calculated by using S, Tm, and Vp values
that are provided in this table. Vp value for this compound was converted to a
liquid-phase value before being used in the calculations.
Value
9.62E-01
0.999
Note:
NA = Not applicable
ND = No data available
All parameters are defined in LIST OF VARIABLES on page A-2-ii.
A-2-130
-------
TABLE A-2-90
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC INPUTS FOR 2,4-DINITROTOLUENE (121-14-2)
(Page 1 of 1)
Parameter
Reference and Explanation
Value
Chemical/Physical Properties
MW(g/mo\e)
r»(K)
Fp(atm)
S(mg/L)
H (atm-mVmol)
Da (cm2/s)
Dv (cm2/s)
Km (unitless)
Koc (mL/g)
Kds(mL/g)
Kd^ (L/Kg)
Kdbs(mUg)
ksg (year)'1
Fv (unitless)
Howard (1989-1993)
Howard (1989-1993)
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c).
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c).
H value was calculated by using the theoretical equation from Lyman, Reehl, and
Rosenblatt (1982), which defines the constant. Recommended value was calculated
by using tbeMW, S and Vp values that are provided in this table.
Da value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database U.S. EPA (1994d).
!)„ value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database U.S. EPA (1994d).
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c).
Koc value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Km for all
nonionizing organics except phthalates, PAHs, dioxins, and furans, as cited in U.S.
EPA (1994c). Koc value was calculated by using the recommended Km value that is
provided in this table.
Kds value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed fraction organic carbon of 0.01 in soil. Measured
organic carbon in soil, specific to site conditions, should be used to calculate Kds,
because the value varies, depending on the fraction of organic carbon in soil.
Recommended Kds value was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in
this table.
Kd^ value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.075 in suspended
sediment. Measured organic carbon in suspended sediment, specific to site
conditions, should be used to calculate Kd^, because the value varies, depending on
the fraction of organic carbon in suspended sediment. Recommended Kd^ value
was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
Kdbs value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.04 in bottom
sediment. Measured organic carbon in bottom sediment, specific to site conditions,
should be used to calculate Kdbs, because the value varies, depending on the fraction
of organic carbon in bottom sediment. Recommended Kdbs value was calculated by
using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
ksg value was calculated by using the chemical half-life in soil, as cited in Howard,
Boethling, Jarvis, Meylan, and Michalenko (1991).
Fv value was calculated by using equations cited in Junge (1977) and Bidleman
(1988). Recommended value of Fv was calculated by using S, Tm, and Vp values
that are provided in this table. Vp value for this compound was converted to a
liquid-phase value before being used in the calculations.
182.14
344
2.29E-07
at 25°C
(solid)
2.85E+02
1.46E-07
3.09E-02
7.86E-06
9.90E+01
5.10E+01
5.10E-01
3.83E+00
2.04E+00
1.41E+00
0.999
Note:
NA= Not applicable
ND= No data available
All parameters are defined in LIST OF VARIABLES on page A-2-ii.
A-2-131
-------
TABLE A-2-91
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC INPUTS FOR 2,6-DINITROTOLUENE (606-20-2)
(Page 1 of 1)
Parameter
Reference and Explanation
Value
Chemical/Physical Properties
Mff(g/mole)
r»(K)
Fp(atm)
S(mg/L)
// (atm-mVmol)
Da(cm2/s)
Dw (cm2/s)
A^ (unitless)
Koc (mL/g)
&/, (mL/g)
T^(L/Kg)
Kdbs(mL/g)
ksg (year)"1
Fv (unitless)
Howard (1989-1993)
Howard (1989-1993)
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c)
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c)
H value was calculated by using the theoretical equation from Lyman, Reehl, and
Rosenblatt (1982), which defines the constant. Recommended value was calculated
by using theMW, S and Vp values that are provided in this table.
Da value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database U.S. EPA (1994d).
Dw value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database U.S. EPA (1994d).
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c).
Koc value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Km for all
nonionizing organics except phthalates, PAHs, dioxins, and furans, as cited in
U.S. EPA (1994c). Koc value was calculated by using the recommended Km value
that is provided in this table.
Kds value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.01 in soil. Measured
organic carbon in soil, specific to site conditions, should be used to calculate Kds,
because the value varies, depending on the fraction of organic carbon in soil.
Recommended Kds value was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in
this table.
Kd^ value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.075 in suspended
sediment. Measured organic carbon in suspended sediment, specific to site
conditions, should be used to calculate Kd^, because the value varies, depending on
the fraction of organic carbon in suspended sediment. Recommended Kd^ value
was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
Kdbs value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.04 in bottom
sediment. Measured organic carbon in bottom sediment, specific to site conditions,
should be used to calculate Kdbs, because the value varies, depending on the fraction
of organic carbon in bottom sediment. Recommended Kdbs value was calculated by
using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
Ksg value was calculated by using the chemical half-life in soil, as cited in Howard,
Boethling, Jarvis, Meylan, and Michalenko (1991).
Fv value was calculated by using equations cited in Junge (1977) and Bidleman
(1988). Recommended value of Fv was calculated by using S, Tm, and Vp values
that are provided in this table. Vp value for this compound was converted to a
liquid-phase value before being used in the calculations.
182.15
339
7.47E-07
at25°C
(solid)
1.05E+03
1.30E-07
3.11E-02
7.76E-06
7.70E+01
4.19E+01
4.19E-01
3.14E+00
1.68E+00
1.41E+00
1.0
Note:
NA = Not applicable
ND = No data available
All parameters are defined in LIST OF VARIABLES on page A-2-ii.
A-2-132
-------
TABLE A-2-92
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC INPUTS FOR 1,4-DIOXANE (123-91-1)
(Page 1 of 1)
Parameter
Reference and Explanation
Value
Chemical/Physical Properties
Mff(g/mole)
r»(K)
Fp(atm)
S(mg/L)
// (atm-mVmol)
Da(cm2/s)
Dw (cm2/s)
A^ (unitless)
Koc (mL/g)
&/, (cmVg)
T^(L/Kg)
Kdbs(cm3/g)
ksg (year)"1
Fv (unitless)
Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
Vp value cited in U.S. EPA (1995b)
S value cited in U.S. EPA (1995b)
H value was calculated by using the theoretical equation from Lyman, Reehl, and
Rosenblatt (1982), which defines the constant. Recommended value was calculated
by using the MW, S, and Vp values that are provided in this table.
Da value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
Dw value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
Km value cited in U.S. EPA (1995b)
Koc value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Km for all
nonionizing organics except phthalates, PAHs, dioxins, and furans, cited in
U.S. EPA (1994c). Koc value was calculated by using the recommended Km value
that is provided in this table.
Kds value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.01 in soil. Measured
organic carbon in soil, specific to site conditions, should be used to calculate Kds,
because the value varies, depending on the fraction of organic carbon in soil.
Recommended Kds value was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in
this table.
Kd^ value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.075 in suspended
sediment. Measured organic carbon in suspended sediment, specific to site
conditions, should be used to calculate Kd^, because the value varies, depending on
the fraction of organic carbon in suspended sediment. Recommended Kd^ value
was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
Kdbs value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.04 in bottom
sediment. Measured organic carbon in bottom sediment, specific to site conditions,
should be used to calculate Kdbs, because the value varies, depending on the fraction
of organic carbon in bottom sediment. Recommended Kdbs value was calculated by
using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
ksg value was calculated by using the chemical half-life in soil, as cited in Howard,
Boethling, Jarvis, Meylan, and Michalenko (1991).
Fv value was calculated by using the equation cited in Junge (1977). Recommended
value of Fv was calculated by using the Vp value that is provided in this table.
88.10
284.9
5.00E-02
at25°C
(liquid)
9.00E+05
4.89E-06
9.20E-02
1.05E-05
5.40E-01
8.76E-01
8.76E-03
6.57E-02
3.50E-02
1.41E+00
1.0
Note:
NA= Not applicable
ND= No data available
All parameters are defined in LIST OF VARIABLES on page A-2-ii.
A-2-133
-------
TABLE A-2-93
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC INPUTS FOR 1,2-DIPHENYLHYDRAZINE (122-66-7)
(Page 1 of 1)
Parameter
Reference and Explanation
Value
Chemical/Physical Properties
Mff(g/mole)
r»(K)
Fp(atm)
S(mg/L)
H (atm-mVmol)
Da(cm2/s)
Dw (cm2/s)
Km (unitless)
Koc (mL/g)
Kds (cmVg)
T^(L/Kg)
Kdbs(cm3/g)
ksg (year)"1
Fv (unitless)
Montgomery and Welkom (1991)
Montgomery and Welkom (1991)
Vp value cited in U.S. EPA (1995b)
S value cited in U.S. EPA (1995b)
H value was calculated by using the theoretical equation from Lyman, Reehl, and
Rosenblatt (1982), which defines the constant. Recommended value was calculated
by using the MW, S, and Vp values that are provided in this table.
Da value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
Dw value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
Montgomery and Welkom (1991)
Koc value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Km for all
nonionizing organics except phthalates, PAHs, dioxins, and furans, cited in
U.S. EPA (1994c). Koc value was calculated by using the recommended Km value
that is provided in this table.
Kds value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.01 in soil. Measured
organic carbon in soil, specific to site conditions, should be used to calculate Kds,
because the value varies, depending on the fraction of organic carbon in soil.
Recommended Kds value was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in
this table.
Kd^ value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.075 in suspended
sediment. Measured organic carbon in suspended sediment, specific to site
conditions, should be used to calculate Kd^, because the value varies, depending on
the fraction of organic carbon in suspended sediment. Recommended Kd^ value
was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
Kdbs value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.04 in bottom
sediment. Measured organic carbon in bottom sediment, specific to site conditions,
should be used to calculate Kdbs, because the value varies, depending on the fraction
of organic carbon in bottom sediment. Recommended Kdbs value was calculated by
using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
ksg value was calculated by using the chemical half-life in soil, as cited in Howard,
Boethling, Jarvis, Meylan, and Michalenko (1991).
Fv value was calculated by using equations cited in Junge (1977) and Bidleman
(1988). Recommended value of Fv was calculated by using Tm and Vp values that
are provided in this table. Vp value for this compound was converted to a
liquid-phase value before being used in the calculations.
184.24
401.1
4.74E-08
at25°C
(solid)
6.80E+01
1.28E-07
2.95E-02
7.24E-06
8.71E+02
2.78E+02
2.78E+00
2.09E+01
1.11E+01
1.41E+00
0.999
Note:
NA= Not applicable
ND= No data available
All parameters are defined in LIST OF VARIABLES on page A-2-ii.
A-2-134
-------
TABLE A-2-94
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC INPUTS FOR DISULFOTON (298-04-4)
(Page 1 of 1)
Parameter
Reference and Explanation
Value
Chemical/Physical Properties
Mff(g/mole)
r»(K)
Fp(atm)
S(mg/L)
// (atm-mVmol)
Da(cm2/s)
Dw (cm2/s)
A^ (unitless)
Koc (mL/g)
&/, (cmVg)
T^(L/Kg)
Kdbs(cm3/g)
ksg (year)"1
Fv (unitless)
Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
Tm value cited in U.S. EPA (1995b).
Vp value cited in U.S. EPA (1995b).
S value cited in U.S. EPA (1995b).
H value was calculated by using the theoretical equation from Lyman, Reehl, and
Rosenblatt (1982), which defines the constant. Recommended value was calculated
by using the MW, S, and Vp values that are provided in this table.
Da value was calculated using the equation cited in U.S. EPA (1996a).
Dw value was calculated using the equation cited in U.S. EPA (1996a).
Recommended Km value cited in Karickhoff and Long (1995).
Koc value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Km for phthalates
and PAHs, / all nonionizing organics except phthalates, PAHs, dioxins, and furans,
cited in U.S. EPA (1994c). Koc value was calculated by using the recommended Km
value that is provided in this table.
Kds value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.01 in soil. Measured
organic carbon in soil, specific to site conditions, should be used to calculate Kds,
because the value varies, depending on the fraction of organic carbon in soil.
Recommended Kds value was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in
this table.
Kd^ value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction oF 0.075 in suspended
sediment. Measured organic carbon in suspended sediment, specific to site
conditions, should be used to calculate Kd^, because the value varies, depending on
the fraction of organic carbon in suspended sediment. Recommended Kd^ value
was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
Kdbs value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.04 in bottom
sediment. Measured organic carbon in bottom sediment, specific to site conditions,
should be used to calculate Kdbs, because the value varies, depending on the fraction
of organic carbon in bottom sediment. Recommended Kdbs value was calculated by
using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
Ksg value was calculated by using the chemical half-life in soil, as cited in Howard,
Boethling, Jarvis, Meylan, and Michalenko (1991).
Fv value was calculated by using equations cited in Junge (1977) and Bidleman
(1988). Recommended value of Fv was calculated by using Tm and Vp values that
are provided in this table. Vp value for this compound was converted to a liquid
phase value before being used in the calculations.
274.38
248
3.7E-07
at25°C
(liquid)
1.6E+01
4.12E-06
4.50E-02
5.21E-06
9.55E+03
1.80E+03
1.80E+01
1.35E+02
7.20E+01
1.20E+01
0.998
Note:
NA = Not applicable
ND = No data available
All parameters are defined in LIST OF VARIABLES on page A-2-ii.
A-2-135
-------
TABLE A-2-95
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC INPUTS FOR ENDOSULFAN I (115-29-7)
(Page 1 of 1)
Parameter
Reference and Explanation
Value
Chemical/Physical Properties
Mff(g/mole)
r»(K)
Fp(atm)
S(mg/L)
H (atm-mVmol)
Da(cm2/s)
Dw (cm2/s)
Km (unitless)
Koc (mL/g)
^(cmVg)
Kd^ (L/Kg)
Sfa(cm3/g)
fesg (year)'1
Fv (unitless)
Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckehnan (1989)
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c)
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c)
H value was calculated by using the theoretical equation from Lyman, Reehl, and
Rosenblatt (1982), which defines the constant. Recommended value was calculated
by using the MW, S, and Vp values that are provided in this table.
Da value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
Dw value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c).
Geometric mean of measured values obtained from U.S. EPA (1996b).
Kds value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.01 in soil. Measured
organic carbon in soil, specific to site conditions, should be used to calculate Kds,
because the value varies, depending on the fraction of organic carbon in soil.
Recommended Kds value was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in
this table.
Kd^ value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.075 in suspended
sediment. Measured organic carbon in suspended sediment, specific to site
conditions, should be used to calculate Kd^, because the value varies, depending on
the fraction of organic carbon in suspended sediment. Recommended Kd^ value
was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
Kdbs value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.04 in bottom
sediment. Measured organic carbon in bottom sediment, specific to site conditions,
should be used to calculate Kdbs, because the value varies, depending on the fraction
of organic carbon in bottom sediment. Recommended Kdbs value was calculated by
using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
Ksg value was calculated by using the chemical half-life in soil, as cited in Howard,
Boethling, Jarvis, Meylan, and Michalenko (1991).
Fv value was calculated by using equations cited in Junge (1977) and Bidleman
(1988). Recommended value of Fv was calculated by using Tm and Vp values that
are provided in this table. Vp value for this compound was converted to a liquid
phase value before being used in the calculations.
406.95
343.1
1.31E-08
at25°C
(solid)
2.31E-01
2.31E-05
9.59E-03
5.76E-06
3.02E+03
2.04E+03
2.04E+01
1.53E+02
8.16E+01
2.78E+01
0.9839
Note:
NA = Not applicable
ND = No data available
All parameters are defined in LIST OF VARIABLES on page A-2-ii.
A-2-136
-------
TABLE A-2-96
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC INPUTS FOR ENDRIN (72-20-8)
(Page 1 of 1)
Parameter
Reference and Explanation
Value
Chemical/Physical Properties
Mff(g/mole)
r»(K)
Fp(atm)
S(mg/L)
// (atm-mVmol)
Da(cm2/s)
Dw (cm2/s)
A^ (unitless)
Koc (mL/g)
^(cmVg)
^4, (L/Kg)
Sfa(cm3/g)
fesg (year)'1
Fv (unitless)
Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
U.S.EPA(1992a)
Vp value cited in U.S. EPA (1992a)
S value cited in U.S. EPA (1992a)
H value was calculated by using the theoretical equation from Lyman, Reehl, and
Rosenblatt (1982), which defines the constant. Recommended value was calculated
by using the MW, S, and Vp values that are provided in this table.
Da value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d)
Dw value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d)
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c).
Geometric mean of measured values obtained from U.S. EPA (1996b).
Kds value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.01 in soil. Measured
organic carbon in soil, specific to site conditions, should be used to calculate Kds,
because the value varies, depending on the fraction of organic carbon in soil.
Recommended Kds value was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in
this table.
Kd^ value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.075 in suspended
sediment. Measured organic carbon in suspended sediment, specific to site
conditions, should be used to calculate Kd^, because the value varies, depending on
the fraction of organic carbon in suspended sediment. Recommended Kd^ value
was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
Kdbs value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.04 in bottom
sediment. Measured organic carbon in bottom sediment, specific to site conditions,
should be used to calculate Kdbs, because the value varies, depending on the fraction
of organic carbon in bottom sediment. Recommended Kdbs value was calculated by
using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
Ksg value was calculated by using the chemical half-life in soil, as cited in Howard,
Boethling, Jarvis, Meylan, and Michalenko (1991)
--
380.93
473.1
7.68E-10
at25°C
(solid)
2.46E-01
1.19E-06
1.07E-02
5.76E-06
7.79E+04
1.08E+04
1.08E+02
8.11E+02
4.32E+02
3.61E+04
ND
Note:
NA = Not applicable
ND = No data available
All parameters are defined in LIST OF VARIABLES on page A-2-ii.
A-2-137
-------
TABLE A-2-97
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC INPUTS FOR EPICHLOROHYDRIN (106-89-8)
(Page 1 of 1)
Parameter
Reference and Explanation
Value
Chemical/Physical Properties
MW(g/mo\e)
r»(K)
Fp(atm)
S(mg/L)
H (atm-mVmol)
Da (cm2/s)
Dv (cm2/s)
Km (unitless)
Koc (mL/g)
^(cm3/g)
Kdm (L/Kg)
Sfa(cm3/g)
fesg (year)'1
.Fv (unitless)
Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
Vp value cited in U.S. EPA (1995b).
S value cited in U.S. EPA (1995b).
H value was calculated by using the theoretical equation from Lyman, Reehl, and
Rosenblatt (1982), which defines the constant. Recommended value was calculated
by using the MW, S, and Vp values that are provided in this table.
Da value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
Dv value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
Arithmetic mean value cited in Karickhoff and Long (1995).
Koc value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Km for all
nonionizing organics except phthalates, PAHs, dioxins, and furans, cited in U.S. EPA
(1994c). Koc value was calculated by using the recommended Km value that is
provided in this table.
Kds value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.01 in soil. Measured
organic carbon in soil, specific to site conditions, should be used to calculate Kds,
because the value varies, depending on the fraction of organic carbon in soil.
Recommended Kds value was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in
this table.
Kd^ value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.075 in suspended
sediment. Measured organic carbon in suspended sediment, specific to site
conditions, should be used to calculate Kd^, because the value varies, depending on
the fraction of organic carbon in suspended sediment. Recommended Kd^ value
was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
Kdbs value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.04 in bottom
sediment. Measured organic carbon in bottom sediment, specific to site conditions,
should be used to calculate Kdbs, because the value varies, depending on the fraction
of organic carbon in bottom sediment. Recommended Kdbs value was calculated by
using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
ksg value was calculated by using the chemical half-life in soil, as cited in Howard,
Boethling, Jarvis, Meylan, and Michalenko (1991).
Fv value was calculated by using the equation cited in Junge (1977). Recommended
value of Fv was calculated by using the Vp value that is provided in this table.
92.53
247.5
2.20E-02
at 25°C
(liquid)
6.60E+04
3.08E-05
8.13E-02
1.10E-05
1.78E+00
2.22E+00
2.22E-02
1.66E-01
8.88E-02
9.03E+00
1.0
Note:
NA= Not applicable
ND= No data available
All parameters are defined in LIST OF VARIABLES on page A-2-ii.
A-2-138
-------
TABLE A-2-98
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC INPUTS FOR ETHYL METHACRYLATE (97-63-2)
(Page 1 of 1)
Parameter
Reference and Explanation
Value
Chemical/Physical Properties
MW(g/mo\e)
r»(K)
Fp(atm)
S(mg/L)
H (atm-mVmol)
Da (cm2/s)
Dv (cm2/s)
Km (unitless)
Kx (mL/g)
JM,(cm3/g)
Kdn (L/Kg)
SUcmVg)
fag (year)'1
Fv (unitless)
MW value cited in U.S. EPA (1995b)
--
Vp value cited in U.S. EPA (1995b).
S value cited in U.S. EPA (1995b).
H value was calculated by using the theoretical equation from Lyman, Reehl, and
Rosenblatt (1982), which defines the constant. Recommended value was calculated
by using the MW, S, and Vp values that are provided in this table.
Da value was calculated using the equation cited in U.S. EPA (1996a).
Dw value was calculated using the equation cited in U.S. EPA (1996a).
Arithmetic mean value cited in Karickhoff and Long (1995).
Koc value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Km for all
nonionizing organics except phthalates, PAHs, dioxins, and furans as cited in
U.S. EPA (1994c). Koc value was calculated by using the recommended Km value
that is provided in this table.
Kds value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed fraction organic carbon of 0.01 in soil. Measured
organic carbon in soil, specific to site conditions, should be used to calculate Kds,
because the value varies, depending on the fraction of organic carbon in soil.
Recommended Kds value was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in
this table.
Kd^ value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.075 in suspended
sediment. Measured organic carbon in suspended sediment, specific to site
conditions, should be used to calculate Kd^, because the value varies, depending on
the fraction of organic carbon in suspended sediment. Recommended Kd^ value
was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
Kdbs value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon of 0.04 in bottom sediment.
Measured organic carbon in bottom sediment, specific to site conditions, should be
used to calculate Kdbs, because the value varies depending on the fraction of organic
fraction in bottom sediment. Recommended Kdbs value was calculated by using the
Koc value that is provided in this table.
Ksg value was assumed to be 0 due to a lack of data.
Fv value cited in NC DEHNR (1997).
114.14
NA
2.30E-02
at 25°C
1.90E+04
1.38E-04
8.07E-02
9.35E-06
3.89E+01
2.46E+01
2.46E-01
1.85E+00
9.80E-01
0.0
1.0
Note:
NA= Not applicable
ND= No data available
All parameters are defined in LIST OF VARIABLES on page A-2-ii.
A-2-139
-------
TABLE A-2-99
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC INPUTS FOR ETHYL METHANESULFONATE (62-50-0)
(Page 1 of 1)
Parameter
Reference and Explanation
Value
Chemical/Physical Properties
MW(g/mo\e)
r»(K)
Fp(atm)
S(mg/L)
H (atm-mVmol)
Da(cm2/s)
Dw (cm2/s)
Km (unitless)
Koc (mL/g)
Kd. (cm3/g)
Kd^ (L/Kg)
r^(cm3/g)
fog (year)'1
Fv (unitless)
Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
Vp value cited in U.S. EPA (1995b).
S value cited in U.S. EPA (1995b).
H value was calculated by using the theoretical equation from Lyman, Reehl, and
Rosenblatt (1982), which defines the constant. Recommended value was calculated
by using the MW, S, and Vp values that are provided in this table.
Da value was calculated using the equation cited in U.S. EPA (1996a).
Devalue was calculated using the equation cited in U.S. EPA (1996a).
Arithmetic mean value cited in Karickhoff and Long (1995).
Koc value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Km for all
nonionizing organics except phthalates, PAHs, dioxins, and furans as cited in
U.S. EPA (1994c). Koc value was calculated by using the recommended Km value
that is provided in this table.
Kds value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.01 in soil. Measured
organic carbon in soil, specific to site conditions, should be used to calculate Kd,,
because the value varies, depending on the fraction of organic carbon in soil.
Recommended Kds value was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in
this table for a pH of 7.0.
Kd^ value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.075 in suspended
sediment. Measured organic carbon in suspended sediment, specific to site
conditions, should be used to calculate Kd^, because the value varies, depending on
the fraction of organic carbon in suspended sediment. Recommended Kd^ value
was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
Kdbs value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon of 0.04 in bottom sediment.
Measured organic carbon in bottom sediment, specific to site conditions, should be
used to calculate Kdb,, because the value varies depending on the fraction of organic
carbon in bottom sediment. Recommended Kdts value was calculated by using the
Koc value that is provided in this table.
Ksg value was calculated by using the chemical half-life in soil, as cited in Howard,
Boethling, Jarvis, Meylan, and Michalenko (1991).
Fv value was calculated by using equations cited in Junge (1977) and Bidleman
(1988). Recommended value of Fv was calculated by using S, Tm, and Vp values
that are provided in this table. Vp value for this compound was converted to a
liquid-phase value before being used in the calculations.
124.15
373.0
3.50E-04at25°C(solid)
4.90E+05
8.87E-08
7.63E-02
8.84E-06
1.12E+00
1.55E+00
1.55E-02
1.16E-01
6.19E-02
7.88E+01
1.0
Note:
NA = Not applicable
ND = No data available
All parameters are defined in LIST OF VARIABLES on page A-2-ii.
A-2-140
-------
TABLE A-2-100
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC INPUTS FOR ETHYLBENZENE (100-41-4)
(Page 1 of 1)
Parameter
Reference and Explanation
Value
Chemical/Physical Properties
Mff(g/mole)
rm(K)
Vp (atm)
S (mg/L)
H (atm-m3/mol)
Da (cm2/s)
A, (cm2/s)
Kow (unitless)
Koc (mL/g)
Kds (cm3/g)
Kd^ (L/Kg)
M,, (cm3/g)
ksg (year)"1
Fv (unitless)
Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c).
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c).
H value was calculated by using the theoretical equation from Lyman, Reehl, and
Rosenblatt (1982), which defines the constant. Recommended value was calculated
by using the MW, S, and Vp values that are provided in this table.
Da value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
Dw value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c).
Geometric mean of measured values obtained from U.S. EPA (1996b).
Kd, value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.01 in soil. Measured
organic carbon in soil, specific to site conditions, should be used to calculate Kds,
because the value varies, depending on the fraction of organic carbon in soil.
Recommended Kds value was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in
this table.
Kd^, value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.075 in suspended
sediment. Measured organic carbon in suspended sediment, specific to site
conditions, should be used to calculate Kd^,, because the value varies, depending on
the fraction of organic carbon in suspended sediment. Recommended Kd^, value
was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
Kdb, value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.04 in bottom
sediment. Measured organic carbon in bottom sediment, specific to site conditions,
should be used to calculate Kdbs, because the value varies, depending on the fraction
of organic carbon in bottom sediment. Recommended Kdts value was calculated by
using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
ksg value was calculated by using the chemical half-life in soil, as cited in Howard,
Boethling, Jarvis, Meylan, and Michalenko (1991) and Mackay, Shiu, and Ma
(1992).
Fv value was calculated by using the equation cited in Junge (1977). Recommended
value of Fv was calculated by using the Vp value that is provided in this table.
106.16
178.1
1.26E-02
at 25°C (liquid)
1.73E+02
7.73E-03
7.65E-02
8.49E-06
1.33E+03
2.04E+02
2.04E+00
1.53E+01
8.16E+00
2.53E+01
1.0
Note:
NA= Not applicable
ND= No data available
All parameters are defined in LIST OF VARIABLES on page A-2-ii.
A-2-141
-------
TABLE A-2-101
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC INPUTS FOR ETHYLENE DIBROMIDE (106-93-4)
(Page 1 of 1)
Parameter
Reference and Explanation
Value
Chemical/Physical Properties
MW(g/mo\e)
rm(K)
Vp (atm)
S (mg/L)
H (atm-m3/mol)
Z)a(cm2/s)
A, (cm2/s)
Km (unitless)
Kac (mL/g)
Kd. (cm3/g)
Kd^ (L/Kg)
^(cm3/g)
ksg (year)'1
.Fv (unitless)
Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
Vp value cited in U.S. EPA (1995b).
S value cited in U.S. EPA (1995b).
H value was calculated by using the theoretical equation from Lyman, Reehl, and
Rosenblatt (1982), which defines the constant. Recommended value was calculated
by using the MW, S, and Vp values that are provided in this table.
Da value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
A, value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
Arithmetic mean value cited in Karickhoff and Long (1995).
Koc value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Km for all
nonionizing organics except phthalates, PAHs, dioxins, and furans, cited in
U.S. EPA (1994c). Koc value was calculated by using the recommended Km value
that is provided in this table.
Kds value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.01 in soil. Measured
organic carbon in soil, specific to site conditions, should be used to calculate Kd,,
because the value varies, depending on the fraction of organic carbon in soil.
Recommended Kds value was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in
this table.
Kd^, value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.075 in suspended
sediment. Measured organic carbon in suspended sediment, specific to site
conditions, should be used to calculate Kd^,, because the value varies, depending on
the fraction of organic carbon in suspended sediment. Recommended Kdm value
was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
Kdb, value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.04 in bottom
sediment. Measured organic carbon in bottom sediment, specific to site conditions,
should be used to calculate Kdb,, because the value varies, depending on the fraction
of organic carbon in bottom sediment. Recommended Kdbs value was calculated by
using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
ksg value was calculated by using the chemical half-life in soil, as cited in Howard,
Boethling, Jarvis, Meylan, and Michalenko (1991).
Fv value was calculated by using the equation cited in Junge (1977). Recommended
value of Fv was calculated by using the Vp value that is provided in this table.
187.88
282.1
l.OOE-02
at 25°C
(liquid)
4.20E+03
4.47E-04
2.17E-02
1.19E-05
5.62E+01
3.28E+01
3.28E-01
2.46E+00
1.31E+00
1.41E+00
1.0
Note:
NA= Not applicable
ND= No data available
All parameters are defined in LIST OF VARIABLES on page A-2-ii.
A-2-142
-------
TABLE A-2-102
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC INPUTS FOR ETHYLENE OXIDE (75-21-8)
(Page 1 of 1)
Parameter
Reference and Explanation
Value
Chemical/Physical Properties
MW(g/mo\e)
r»(K)
Fp(atm)
S(mg/L)
H (atm-mVmol)
Da (cm2/s)
Dv (cm2/s)
Km (unitless)
Kx (mL/g)
&/, (cmVg)
^CCL/Kg)
rrffa(cm3/g)
fog (year)"1
Fv (unitless)
Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
Verschueren(1983)
S value cited in NC DEHNR (1996).
H value was calculated by using the theoretical equation from Lyman, Reehl, and
Rosenblatt (1982), which defines the constant. Recommended value was calculated
by using the MW, S, and Vp values that are provided in this table.
Da value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
Dv value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
Howard (1989-1993)
Koc value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Km for all
nonionizing organics except phthalates, PAHs, dioxins, and furans as cited in
U.S. EPA (1994c). Koc value was calculated by using the recommended Km value
that is provided in this table.
Kds value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed fraction organic carbon of 0.01 in soil. Measured
organic carbon in soil, specific to site conditions, should be used to calculate Kds,
because the value varies, depending on the fraction of organic carbon in soil.
Recommended Kds value was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in
this table.
Kd^ value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Kx that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.075 in suspended
sediment. Measured organic carbon in suspended sediment, specific to site
conditions, should be used to calculate Kd^, because the value varies, depending on
the fraction of organic carbon in suspended sediment. Recommended Kd^ value
was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
Kdbs value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon of 0.04 in bottom sediment.
Measured organic carbon in bottom sediment, specific to site conditions, should be
used to calculate Kdbs, because the value varies depending on the fraction of organic
fraction in bottom sediment. Recommended Kdbs value was calculated by using the
Koc value that is provided in this table.
Ksg value was calculated by using the chemical half-life in soil, as cited in Howard,
Boethling, Jarvis, Meylan, and Michalenko (1991).
Fv value was calculated by using the equation cited in Junge (1977). Recommended
value of Fv was calculated by using the Vp value that is provided in this table.
44.05
162.1
1.44E+00 at 25 °C (liquid)
3.80E+05
1.67E-04
2.71E-01
1.44E-05
5.01E-01
8.26E-01
8.26E-03
6.19E-02
3.30E-02
2.13E+01
1.0
Note:
NA = Not applicable
ND = No data available
All parameters are defined in LIST OF VARIABLES on page A-2-ii.
A-2-143
-------
TABLE A-2-103
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC INPUTS FOR BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL)PHTHALATE (117-81-7)
(Page 1 of 1)
Parameter
Reference and Explanation
Value
Chemical/Physical Properties
Mff(g/mole)
rm(K)
Vp (atm)
S (mg/L)
H (atm-m3/mol)
Da (cm2/s)
A, (cm2/s)
Kow (unitless)
Koc (mL/g)
Kds (cm3/g)
Kd^ (L/Kg)
M,, (cm3/g)
ksg (year)"1
Fv (unitless)
Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
Vp value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c).
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c).
H value was calculated by using the theoretical equation from Lyman, Reehl, and
Rosenblatt (1982), which defines the constant. Recommended value was calculated
by using the MW, S, and Vp values that are provided in this table.
Da value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
Dw value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c).
Geometric mean of measured values obtained from U.S. EPA (1994c).
Kd, value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.01 in soil. Measured
organic carbon in soil, specific to site conditions, should be used to calculate Kds,
because the value varies, depending on the fraction of organic carbon in soil.
Recommended Kds value was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in
this table.
Kd^, value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.075 in suspended
sediment. Measured organic carbon in suspended sediment, specific to site
conditions, should be used to calculate Kd^,, because the value varies, depending on
the fraction of organic carbon in suspended sediment. Recommended Kd^, value
was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
Kdb, value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.04 in bottom
sediment. Measured organic carbon in bottom sediment, specific to site conditions,
should be used to calculate Kdbs, because the value varies, depending on the fraction
of organic carbon in bottom sediment. Recommended Kdts value was calculated by
using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
Ksg value was calculated by using the chemical half-life in soil, as cited in Howard,
Boethling, Jarvis, Meylan, and Michalenko (1991).
Fv value was calculated by using the equation cited in Junge (1977). Recommended
value of Fv was calculated by using the Vp value that is provided in this table.
390.54
218.1
8.49E-09
at 25°C (liquid)
3.96E-01
8.37E-06
1.32E-02
4.22E-06
1.60E+05
1.11E+05
1.11E+03
8.33E+03
4.44E+03
1.10E+01
0.9350
Note:
NA = Not applicable
ND = No data available
All parameters are defined in LIST OF VARIABLES on page A-2-ii.
A-2-144
-------
TABLE A-2-104
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC INPUTS FOR FLUORANTHENE (206-44-0)
(Page 1 of 1)
Parameter
Reference and Explanation
Value
Chemical/Physical Properties
Mff(g/mole)
r»(K)
Fp(atm)
S(mg/L)
H (atm-mVmol)
Da(cm2/s)
Dw (cm2/s)
Km (unitless)
Koc (mL/g)
^(cmVg)
Kd^ (L/Kg)
Sfa(cm3/g)
fesg (year)'1
Fv (unitless)
Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c).
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c).
H value was calculated by using the theoretical equation from Lyman, Reehl, and
Rosenblatt (1982), which defines the constant. Recommended value was calculated
by using the MW, S, and Vp values that are provided in this table.
Da value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
Dw value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c)
Geometric mean of measured values obtained from U.S. EPA (1996b).
Kds value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.01 in soil. Measured
organic carbon in soil, specific to site conditions, should be used to calculate Kds,
because the value varies, depending on the fraction of organic carbon in soil.
Recommended Kds value was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in
this table.
Kd^ value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.075 in suspended
sediment. Measured organic carbon in suspended sediment, specific to site
conditions, should be used to calculate Kd^, because the value varies, depending on
the fraction of organic carbon in suspended sediment. Recommended Kd^ value
was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
Kdbs value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.04 in bottom
sediment. Measured organic carbon in bottom sediment, specific to site conditions,
should be used to calculate Kdbs, because the value varies, depending on the fraction
of organic carbon in bottom sediment. Recommended Kdbs value was calculated by
using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
ksg value was calculated by using the chemical half-life in soil, as cited in Mackay,
Shiu, and Ma (1992).
Fv value was calculated by using equations cited in Junge (1977) and Bidleman
(1988). Recommended value of Fv was calculated by using Tm and Vp values that
are provided in this table. Vp value for this compound was converted to a
liquid-phase value before being used in the calculations.
202.26
383.1
1.07E-08
at25°C
(solid)
2.32E-01
9.33E-06
2.75E-02
7.18E-06
1.21E+05
4.91E+04
4.91E+02
3.68E+03
1.96E+03
5.75E-01
0.992
Note:
NA= Not applicable
ND= No data available
All parameters are defined in LIST OF VARIABLES on page A-2-ii.
A-2-145
-------
TABLE A-2-105
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC INPUTS FOR FLUORENE (86-73-7)
(Page 1 of 1)
Parameter
Reference and Explanation
Value
Chemical/Physical Properties
Mff(g/mole)
r»(K)
Fp(atm)
S(mg/L)
H (atm-mVmol)
Da(cm2/s)
Dw (cm2/s)
Km (unitless)
Koc (mL/g)
^(cmVg)
Kd^ (L/Kg)
Sfa(cm3/g)
fesg (year)'1
Fv (unitless)
Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c)
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c)
H value was calculated by using the theoretical equation from Lyman, Reehl, and
Rosenblatt (1982), which defines the constant. Recommended value was calculated
by using the MW, S, and Vp values that are provided in this table.
Da value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d)
Dw value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d)
Km value cited in U.S. EPA (1995b)
Geometric mean of measured values obtained from U.S. EPA (1996b).
Kds value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.01 in soil. Measured
organic carbon in soil, specific to site conditions, should be used to calculate Kds,
because the value varies, depending on the fraction of organic carbon in soil.
Recommended Kds value was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in
this table.
Kd^ value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction oF 0.075 in suspended
sediment. Measured organic carbon in suspended sediment, specific to site
conditions, should be used to calculate Kd^, because the value varies, depending on
the fraction of organic carbon in suspended sediment. Recommended Kd^ value
was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
Kdbs value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.04 in bottom
sediment. Measured organic carbon in bottom sediment, specific to site conditions,
should be used to calculate Kdbs, because the value varies, depending on the fraction
of organic carbon in bottom sediment. Recommended Kdbs value was calculated by
using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
Ksg value was calculated by using the chemical half-life in soil, as cited in Howard,
Boethling, Jarvis, Meylan, and Michalenko (1991).
Fv value was calculated by using equations cited in Junge (1977) and Bidleman
(1988). Recommended value of Fv was calculated by using Tm and Vp values that
are provided in this table. Vp value for this compound was converted to a liquid
phase value before being used in the calculations.
166.22
389.1
8.17E-07
at25°C
(solid)
1.86E+00
7.30E-05
3.63E-02
7.88E-06
1.47E+04
7.71E+03
7.71E+01
5.78E+02
3.08E+02
4.22E+00
0.9999
Note:
NA = Not applicable
ND = No data available
All parameters are defined in LIST OF VARIABLES on page A-2-ii.
A-2-146
-------
TABLE A-2-106
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC INPUTS FOR FORMALDEHYDE (50-00-0)
(Page 1 of 1)
Parameter
Reference and Explanation
Value
Chemical/Physical Properties
MW(g/mo\e)
r»(K)
Fp(atm)
S(mg/L)
H (atm-mVmol)
Da (cm2/s)
Dv (cm2/s)
Km (unitless)
Koc (mL/g)
^(cm3/g)
Kdm (L/Kg)
Sfa(cm3/g)
ksg (year)'1
Fv (unitless)
Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
Vp value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c)
S value cited in U.S. EPA (1995b)
H value was calculated by using the theoretical equation from Lyman, Reehl, and
Rosenblatt (1982), which defines the constant. Recommended value was calculated
by using the MW, S, and Vp values that are provided in this table.
Da value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d)
Dv value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d)
Km value cited in U.S. EPA (1995b)
Koc value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Km for phthalates
and PAHs, / all nonionizing organics except phthalates, PAHs, dioxins, and furans,
cited in U.S. EPA (1994c). Koc value was calculated by using the recommended Km
value that is provided in this table.
Kds value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.01 in soil. Measured
organic carbon in soil, specific to site conditions, should be used to calculate Kds,
because the value varies, depending on the fraction of organic carbon in soil.
Recommended Kds value was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in
this table.
Kd^ value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.075 in suspended
sediment. Measured organic carbon in suspended sediment, specific to site
conditions, should be used to calculate Kd^, because the value varies, depending on
the fraction of organic carbon in suspended sediment. Recommended Kd^ value
was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
Kdbs value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.04 in bottom
sediment. Measured organic carbon in bottom sediment, specific to site conditions,
should be used to calculate Kdbs, because the value varies, depending on the fraction
of organic carbon in bottom sediment. Recommended Kdbs value was calculated by
using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
Ksg value was calculated by using the chemical half-life in soil, as cited in Howard,
Boethling, Jarvis, Meylan, and Michalenko (1991)
Fv value was calculated by using equations cited in Junge (1977) and Bidleman
(1988). Recommended value of Fv was calculated by using Tm and Vp values that
are provided in this table. Vp value for this compound was converted to a
liquid-phase value before being used in the calculations.
30.03
365.1
5.10E+00
at 25°C
(solid)
5.50E+05
2.78E-04
5.00E-01
1.74E-05
2.20E+00
2.62E+00
2.62E-02
1.96E-01
1.05E-01
3.61E+01
1.00
Note:
NA = Not applicable
ND = No data available
All parameters are defined in LIST OF VARIABLES on page A-2-ii.
A-2-147
-------
TABLE A-2-107
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC INPUTS FOR FORMIC ACID (64-18-6)
(Page 1 of 1)
Parameter
Reference and Explanation
Value
Chemical/Physical Properties
Mff(g/mole)
r»(K)
Fp(atm)
S(mg/L)
H (atm-mVmol)
Da (cm2/s)
Dn (cm2/s)
Km (unitless)
Koc (mL/g)
^(cmVg)
Kd^ (L/Kg)
Kdbs(cm3/g)
ksg (year)"1
Fv (unitless)
U.S. EPA(1995b)
U.S. EPA(1995b)
Vp value cited in U.S. EPA (1995b)
S value cited in U.S. EPA (1995b)
H value was calculated by using the theoretical equation from Lyman, Reehl,
and Rosenblatt (1982), which defines the constant. Recommended value was
calculated by using the MW, S, and Vp values that are provided in this table.
Da value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
!)„ value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
Km value cited in U.S. EPA (1995b)
Koc value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Km for
phthalates and PAHs, / all nonionizing organics except phthalates, PAHs,
dioxins, and furans, cited in U.S. EPA (1994c). Koc value was calculated by
using the recommended Km value that is provided in this table.
Kds value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited
in U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.01 in soil.
Measured organic carbon in soil, specific to site conditions, should be used to
calculate Kds, because the value varies, depending on the fraction of organic
carbon in soil. Recommended Kds value was calculated by using the Koc value
that is provided in this table.
Kd^ value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited
in U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.075 in
suspended sediment. Measured organic carbon in suspended sediment, specific
to site conditions, should be used to calculate Kd^, because the value varies,
depending on the fraction of organic carbon in suspended sediment.
Recommended Kd^ value was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided
in this table.
Kdbs value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited
in U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.04 in bottom
sediment. Measured organic carbon in bottom sediment, specific to site
conditions, should be used to calculate Kdbs, because the value varies, depending
on the fraction of organic carbon in bottom sediment. Recommended Kdbs value
was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
Ksg value was calculated by using the chemical half-life in soil, as cited in
Howard, Boethling, Jarvis, Meylan, and Michalenko (1991).
Fv value was calculated by using the equation cited in Junge (1977).
Recommended value of Fv was calculated by using the Vp value that is provided
in the table.
46.03
282.0
5.40E-02
at 25°C (liquid)
l.OOE+06
2.49E-06
2.22E-01
1.71E-05
2.90E-01
5.39E-01
5.39E-03
4.04E-02
2.16E-02
3.61E+01
1.00
Note:
NA = Not applicable
ND = No data available
All parameters are defined in LIST OF VARIABLES on page A-2-ii.
A-2-148
-------
TABLE A-2-108
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC INPUTS FOR
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HEPTACHLORODIBENZO(P)DIOXIN (35822-46-9)
(Page 1 of 1)
Parameter
Reference and Explanation
Value
Chemical/Physical Properties
Mff(g/mole)
r»(K)
Fp(atm)
S(mg/L)
H (atm-mVmol)
Da (cm2/s)
Dn (cm2/s)
Km (unitless)
Koc (mL/g)
^(cmVg)
Kd^ (L/Kg)
Sfa(cm3/g)
fesg (year)'1
Fv (unitless)
U.S. EPA(1994a)
U.S. EPA(1994a)
U.S. EPA(1994a)
U.S. EPA(1994a)
U.S. EPA(1994a)
Da value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
Dw value was calculated using the equation cited in U.S. EPA (1996a).
U.S. EPA(1992d)
Koc value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Km for dioxins
and furans that is cited in U.S. EPA (1994a) and U.S. EPA (1994c).
Recommended value was calculated by using the recommended Km value that is
provided in this table.
Kds value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited
in U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.01 in soil.
Measured organic carbon in soil, specific to site conditions, should be used to
calculate Kds, because the value varies, depending on the fraction of organic
carbon in soil. Recommended Kds value was calculated by using the Koc value
that is provided in this table.
Kd^ value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited
in U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.075 in
suspended sediment. Measured organic carbon in suspended sediment, specific
to site conditions, should be used to calculate Kd^, because the value varies,
depending on the fraction of organic carbon in suspended sediment.
Recommended Kd^ value was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided
in this table.
Kdbs value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited
in U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.04 in bottom
sediment. Measured organic carbon in bottom sediment, specific to site
conditions, should be used to calculate Kdbs, because the value varies depending
on the fraction of organic carbon in bottom sediment. Recommended Kdbs value
was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
ksg value was calculated by using the chemical half-life in soil, as cited in
Mackay, Shiu, and Ma (1992).
Fv value was calculated by using equations cited in Junge (1977) and Bidleman
(1988). Recommended value of Fv was calculated by using Tm and Vp values
that are provided in this table. Vp value for this compound was converted to a
liquid-phase value before being used in the calculations.
425.31
537.1
4.22E-14 at 25°C (solid)
2.40E-06
7.50E-06
1.11E-02
3.89E-06
1.58E+08
9.77E+07
9.77E+05
7.33E+06
3.91E+06
1.09E-01
1.62E-02
Note:
NA = Not Applicable
ND = No Data Available
All parameters are defined in LIST OF VARIABLES on page A-2-ii.
A-2-149
-------
TABLE A-2-109
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC INPUTS FOR
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HEPTACHLORODIBENZO(P)FURAN (67562-39-4)
(Page 1 of 1)
Parameter
Reference and Explanation
Value
Chemical/Physical Properties
MW(g/mo\e)
r»(K)
Fp(atm)
S(mg/L)
H (atm-mVmol)
Da(cm2/s)
Dw (cm2/s)
Km (unitless)
Koc (mL/g)
Kds (cmVg)
^CCL/Kg)
rrffa(cm3/g)
fog (year)"1
Fv (unitless)
U.S. EPA(1994a)
U.S. EPA(1994a)
U.S. EPA(1994a)
U.S. EPA(1994a)
U.S. EPA(1994a)
Da value was calculated by using Equation A-3-2. Recommended value was
calculated by using the MW and Da values that are provided in the tables in
Appendix A-2 for 2,3,7,8-TCDF.
Dw value was calculated using the equation cited in U.S. EPA (1996a).
U.S. EPA(1992d)
Koc value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Km for dioxins
and furans that is cited in U.S. EPA (1994a) and U.S. EPA (1994c).
Recommended value was calculated by using the recommended Km value that is
provided in this table.
Kds value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited
in U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.01 in soil.
Measured organic carbon in soil, specific to site conditions, should be used to
calculate Kds, because the value varies, depending on the fraction of organic
carbon in soil. Recommended Kds value was calculated by using the Koc value
that is provided in this table.
Kd^ value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited
in U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.075 in
suspended sediment. Measured organic carbon in suspended sediment, specific
to site conditions, should be used to calculate Kdm, because the value varies,
depending on the fraction of organic carbon in suspended sediment.
Recommended Kd^ value was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided
in this table.
Kdbs value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited
in U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.04 in bottom
sediment. Measured organic carbon in bottom sediment, specific to site
conditions, should be used to calculate Kdbs, because the value varies depending
on the fraction of organic carbon in bottom sediment. Recommended Kdbs value
was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
ksg value was calculated by using the chemical half-life in soil, as cited in
Mackay, Shiu, and Ma (1992).
Fv value was calculated by using equations cited in Junge (1977) and Bidleman
(1988). Recommended value of Fv was calculated by using Tm and Vp values
that are provided in this table. Vp value for this compound was converted to a
liquid phase value before being used in the calculations.
409.31
509.1
1.75E-13at25°C(solid)
1.35E-06
5.30E-05
1.55E-02
3.99E-06
8.32E+07
5.13E+07
5.13E+05
3.85E+06
2.05E+06
3.57E-01
3.47E-02
Note:
NA = Not Applicable
ND = No Data Available
All parameters are defined in LIST OF VARIABLES on page A-2-ii.
A-2-150
-------
TABLE A-2-110
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC INPUTS FOR
1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HEPTACHLORODIBENZO(P)FURAN (55673-89-7)
(Page 1 of 1)
Parameter
Reference and Explanation
Value
Chemical/Physical Properties
A/ff(g/mole)
r»(K)
Fp(atm)
S(mg/L)
H (atm-mVmol)
Da (cm2/s)
Dn (cm2/s)
Km (unitless)
Koc (mL/g)
^(cmVg)
Kd^ (L/Kg)
Sfa(cm3/g)
fesg (year)'1
Fv (unitless)
U.S. EPA(1994a)
U.S. EPA(1994a)
U.S. EPA(1994a)
Homologue group average value obtained from U.S. EPA (1994a).
U.S. EPA(1994a)
Da value was calculated by using Equation A-3-2. Recommended value was
calculated by using the MW and Da values that are provided in the tables in
Appendix A-2 for 2,3,7,8-TCDF.
Dw value was calculated using the equation cited in U.S. EPA (1996a).
Homologue group average value obtained from U.S. EPA (1992d).
Koc value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Km for dioxins
and furans that is cited in U.S. EPA (1994a) and U.S. EPA (1994c).
Recommended value was calculated by using the recommended Km value that is
provided in this table.
Kds value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited
in U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.01 in soil.
Measured organic carbon in soil, specific to site conditions, should be used to
calculate Kds, because the value varies, depending on the fraction of organic
carbon in soil. Recommended Kds value was calculated by using the Koc value
that is provided in this table.
Kd^ value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited
in U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.075 in
suspended sediment. Measured organic carbon in suspended sediment, specific
to site conditions, should be used to calculate Kd^, because the value varies,
depending on the fraction of organic carbon in suspended sediment.
Recommended Kd^ value was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided
in this table.
Kdbs value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited
in U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.04 in bottom
sediment. Measured organic carbon in bottom sediment, specific to site
conditions, should be used to calculate Kdbs, because the value varies depending
on the fraction of organic carbon in bottom sediment. Recommended Kdbs value
was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
ksg value was calculated using the chemical half-life in soil, as cited in Mackay,
Shiu, and Ma (1992).
Fv value was calculated by using equations cited in Junge (1977) and Bidleman
(1988). Recommended value of Fv was calculated by using Tm and Vp values
that are provided in this table. Vp value for this compound was converted to a
liquid phase value before being used in the calculations.
409.31
494.1
1.41E-13 at 25°C (solid)
1.40E-06
5.30E-05
1.55E-02
3.99E-06
8.32E+07
5.13E+07
5.13E+05
3.85E+06
2.05E+06
3.57E-01
2.01E-02
Note:
NA = Not Applicable
ND = No Data Available
All parameters are defined in LIST OF VARIABLES on page A-2-ii.
A-2-151
-------
TABLE A-2-111
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC INPUTS FOR HEPTACHLOR (76-44-8)
(Page 1 of 1)
Parameter
Reference and Explanation
Value
Chemical/Physical Properties
MW(g/mo\e)
r»(K)
Fp(atm)
S(mg/L)
H (atm-mVmol)
Da (cm2/s)
Dv (cm2/s)
.RT^ (unitless)
Kx (mL/g)
&/, (cmVg)
T^(L/Kg)
Kdbs(cm3/g)
ksg (year)"1
Fv (unitless)
Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c).
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c).
H value was calculated by using the theoretical equation from Lyman, Reehl, and
Rosenblatt (1982), which defines the constant. Recommended value was calculated
by using the MW, S, and Vp values that are provided in this table.
Da value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
Dv value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c).
Geometric mean of measured values obtained from U.S. EPA (1996b).
Kds value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed fraction organic carbon of 0.01 in soil. Measured
organic carbon in soil, specific to site conditions, should be used to calculate Kds,
because the value varies, depending on the fraction of organic carbon in soil. Kds
value was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
Kd^ value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.075 in suspended
sediment. Measured organic carbon in suspended sediment, specific to site
conditions, should be used to calculate Kd^, because the value varies, depending on
the fraction of organic carbon in suspended sediment. Recommended Kd^ value
was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
Kdbs value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon of 0.04 in bottom sediment.
Measured organic carbon in bottom sediment, specific to site conditions, should be
used to calculate Kdbs, because the value varies depending on the fraction of organic
fraction in bottom sediment. Recommended Kdbs value was calculated by using the
Koc value that is provided in this table.
Ksg value was calculated by using the chemical half-life in soil, as cited in Howard
(1989-1993).
Fv value was calculated by using equations cited in Junge (1977) and Bidleman
(1988). Recommended value of Fv was calculated by using S, Tm, and Vp values that
are provided in this table. Vp value for this compound was converted to a
liquid-phase value before being used in the calculations.
373.35
368.1
4.29E-07 at 25°C (solid)
2.73E+01
5.87E-06
1.12E-02
5.69E-06
1.04E+05
9.53E+03
9.53E+01
7.15E+02
3.81E+02
1.41E+00
1.0
Note:
NA = Not applicable
ND = No data available
All parameters are defined in LIST OF VARIABLES on page A-2-ii.
A-2-152
-------
TABLE A-2-112
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC INPUTS FOR HEPTACHLOR EPOXIDE (1024-57-3)
(Page 1 of 1)
Parameter
Reference and Explanation
Value
Chemical/Physical Properties
Mff(g/mole)
rm(K)
Vp (atm)
S (mg/L)
H (atm-m3/mol)
Da (cm2/s)
A, (cm2/s)
Km (unitless)
Koc (mL/g)
Kd. (cm3/g)
£*„ (L/Kg)
Kdbs (cm3/g)
fag (year)"1
Fv (unitless)
Montgomery and Welkom (1991)
Montgomery and Welkom (1991)
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c)
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c)
H value was calculated by using the theoretical equation from Lyman, Reehl, and
Rosenblatt (1982), which defines the constant. Recommended value was calculated
by using the MW, S, and Vp values that are provided in this table.
Da value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
Dw value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c).
Koc value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Km for phthalates
and PAHs, / all nonionizing organics except phthalates, PAHs, dioxins, and furans,
cited in U.S. EPA (1994c). Koc value was calculated by using the recommended Km
value that is provided in this table.
Kds value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.01 in soil. Measured
organic carbon in soil, specific to site conditions, should be used to calculate Kds,
because the value varies, depending on the fraction of organic carbon in soil.
Recommended Kds value was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in
this table.
Kdm value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.075 in suspended
sediment. Measured organic carbon in suspended sediment, specific to site
conditions, should be used to calculate Kd^, because the value varies, depending on
the fraction of organic carbon in suspended sediment. Recommended Kd^ value
was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
Kdbs value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.04 in bottom
sediment. Measured organic carbon in bottom sediment, specific to site conditions,
should be used to calculate Kdts, because the value varies, depending on the fraction
of organic carbon in bottom sediment. Recommended Kdbs value was calculated by
using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
Ksg value was calculated by using the chemical half-life in soil, as cited in Howard,
Boethling, Jarvis, Meylan, and Michalenko (1991).
Fv value was calculated by using equations cited in Junge (1977) and Bidleman
(1988). Recommended value of Fv was calculated by using Tm and Vp values that
are provided in this table. Vp value for this compound was converted to a liquid
phase value before being used in the calculations.
389.32
430.1
5.71E-09
at 25°C
(solid)
2.68E-01
8.29E-06
1.32E-02
4.23E-06
5.62E+04
7.18E+03
7.18E+01
5.38E+02
2.87E+02
4.58E-01
0.9948
Note:
NA = Not applicable
ND = No data available
All parameters are defined in LIST OF VARIABLES on page A-2-ii.
A-2-153
-------
TABLE A-2-113
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC INPUTS FOR
1,2,3,4,7,8-HEXACHLORODIBENZO(P)DIOXIN (39227-28-6)
(Page 1 of 1)
Parameter
Reference and Explanation
Value
Chemical/Physical Properties
MW(g/mo\e)
r»(K)
Fp(atm)
S(mg/L)
H (atm-mVmol)
Da (cm2/s)
Dv (cm2/s)
Km (unitless)
Koc (mL/g)
Kds (cmVg)
T^(L/Kg)
rrffa(cm3/g)
fog (year)"1
Fv (unitless)
U.S. EPA(1994a)
U.S. EPA(1994a)
U.S. EPA(1994a)
U.S. EPA(1994a)
U.S. EPA(1994a)
Da value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
Dw value was calculated using the equation cited in U.S. EPA (1996a).
U.S. EPA(1992d)
Koc value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Km for dioxins
and furans that is cited in U.S. EPA (1994a; 1994c). Recommended value was
calculated by using the recommended Km value that is provided in this table.
Kds value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited
in U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.01 in soil.
Measured organic carbon in soil, specific to site conditions, should be used to
calculate Kds, because the value varies, depending on the fraction of organic
carbon in soil. Recommended Kds value was calculated by using the Koc value
that is provided in this table.
Kd^ value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited
in U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.075 in
suspended sediment. Measured organic carbon in suspended sediment, specific
to site conditions, should be used to calculate Kd^, because the value varies,
depending on the fraction of organic carbon in suspended sediment.
Recommended Kd^ value was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided
in this table.
Kdbs value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited
in U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.04 in bottom
sediment. Measured organic carbon in bottom sediment, specific to site
conditions, should be used to calculate Kdbs, because the value varies depending
on the fraction of organic carbon in bottom sediment. Recommended Kdbs value
was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
ksg value was calculated by using the chemical half-life in soil, as cited in
Mackay, Shiu, and Ma (1992).
Fv value was calculated by using equations cited in Junge (1977) and Bidleman
(1988). Recommended value of Fv was calculated by using Tm and Vp values
that are provided in this table. Vp value for this compound was converted to a
liquid phase value before being used in the calculations.
390.87
546.1
1.33E-13
at 25°C
(solid)
4.40E-06
1.20E-05
1.15E-02
4.12E-06
6.17E+07
3.80E+07
3.80E+05
2.85E+06
1.52E+06
1.09E-01
5.96E-02
Note:
NA = Not Applicable
ND = No Data Available
All parameters are defined in LIST OF VARIABLES on page A-2-ii.
A-2-154
-------
TABLE A-2-114
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC INPUTS FOR
1,2,3,6,7,8-HEXACHLORODIBENZO(P)DIOXIN (57653-85-7)
(Page 1 of 1)
Parameter
Reference and Explanation
Value
Chemical/Physical Properties
MW(g/mo\e)
r»(K)
Fp(atm)
S(mg/L)
H (atm-mVmol)
Da(cm2/s)
Dw (cm2/s)
Km (unitless)
Koc (mL/g)
Kds (cmVg)
^CCL/Kg)
rrffa(cm3/g)
fog (year)"1
Fv (unitless)
U.S. EPA(1994a)
U.S. EPA(1994a)
U.S. EPA(1994a)
Homologue group average value obtained from U.S. EPA (1994a).
U.S. EPA(1994a)
Da value was calculated by using Equation A-3-2. Recommended value was
calculated by using the MW and Da values that are provided in the tables in
Appendix A-2 for 2,3,7,8-TCDD.
Dw value was calculated using the equation cited in U.S. EPA (1996a).
Homologue group average value obtained from U.S. EPA (1992d).
Koc value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Km for dioxins
and furans that is cited in U.S. EPA (1994a) and U.S. EPA (1994c).
Recommended value was calculated by using the recommended Km value that is
provided in this table.
Kds value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited
in U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.01 in soil.
Measured organic carbon in soil, specific to site conditions, should be used to
calculate Kds, because the value varies, depending on the fraction of organic
carbon in soil. Recommended Kds value was calculated by using the Koc value
that is provided in this table.
Kd^ value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited
in U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.075 in
suspended sediment. Measured organic carbon in suspended sediment, specific
to site conditions, should be used to calculate Kdm, because the value varies,
depending on the fraction of organic carbon in suspended sediment.
Recommended Kd^ value was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided
in this table.
Kdbs value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited
in U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.04 in bottom
sediment. Measured organic carbon in bottom sediment, specific to site
conditions, should be used to calculate Kdbs, because the value varies depending
on the fraction of organic carbon in bottom sediment. Recommended Kdbs value
was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
ksg value assumed to be the same as the ksg value calculated for 1,2,3,4,7,8-
HexaCDD. ksg value was calculated by using the chemical half-life in soil, as
cited in Mackay, Shiu, and Ma (1992).
Fv value was calculated by using equations cited in Junge (1977) and Bidleman
(1988). Recommended value of Fv was calculated by using Tm and Vp values
that are provided in this table. Vp value for this compound was converted to a
liquid phase value before being used in the calculations.
390.87
558.1
4.74E-14 at 25°C (solid)
4.40E-06
1.20E-05
1.15E-02
4.12E-06
1.78E+07
1.10E+07
1.10E+05
8.22E+05
4.39E+05
1.09E-01
2.89E-02
Note:
NA = Not Applicable
ND = No Data Available
All parameters are defined in LIST OF VARIABLES on page A-2-ii.
A-2-155
-------
TABLE A-2-115
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC INPUTS FOR
1,2,3,7,8,9-HEXACHLORODIBENZO(P)DIOXIN (19408-74-3)
(Page 1 of 1)
Parameter
MW(g/mo\e)
r»(K)
Fp(atm)
S(mg/L)
H (atm-mVmol)
Da(cm2/s)
Dw (cm2/s)
Km (unitless)
Koc (mL/g)
Kds (cmVg)
T^(L/Kg)
&4(cm3/g)
fag (year)"1
.Fv (unitless)
Reference and Explanation
Chemical/Physical Properties
U.S. EPA(1994a)
U.S. EPA(1994a)
U.S. EPA(1994a)
Homologue group average value obtained from U.S. EPA (1994a).
U.S.EPA(1994a)
Da value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
Dw value was calculated using the equation cited in U.S. EPA (1996a).
Homologue group average value obtained from U.S. EPA (1994a).
Koc value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Km for dioxins
and furans that is cited in U.S. EPA (1994a; 1994c). Recommended value was
calculated by using the recommended Km value that is provided in this table.
Kds value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited
in U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.01 in soil.
Measured organic carbon in soil, specific to site conditions, should be used to
calculate Kds, because the value varies, depending on the fraction of organic
carbon in soil. Recommended Kds value was calculated by using the Koc value
that is provided in this table.
Kdm value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited
in U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.075 in
suspended sediment. Measured organic carbon in suspended sediment, specific
to site conditions, should be used to calculate Kd^, because the value varies,
depending on the fraction of organic carbon in suspended sediment.
Recommended Kd^ value was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided
in this table.
Kdbs value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited
in U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.04 in bottom
sediment. Measured organic carbon in bottom sediment, specific to site
conditions, should be used to calculate Kdbs, because the value varies depending
on the fraction of organic carbon in bottom sediment. Recommended Kdbs value
was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
ksg value was assumed to be the same as the ksg value for 1, 2,3,4 ,7,8-HexaCDD.
ksg value was calculated by using the chemical half-life in soil, as cited in
Mackay, Shiu, and Ma (1992).
Fv value was calculated by using equations cited in Junge (1977) and Bidleman
(1988). Recommended value of Fv was calculated by using Tm and Vp values
that are provided in this table. Vp value for this compound was converted to a
liquid phase value before being used in the calculations.
Value
390.87
516.1
6.45E-14 at 25°C (solid)
4.40E-06
1.20E-05
1.15E-02
4.12E-06
1.78E+07
1.10E+07
1.10E+05
8.22E+05
4.39E+05
1.09E-01
1.53E-02
Note:
NA = Not Applicable
ND = No Data Available
All parameters are defined in LIST OF VARIABLES on page A-2-ii.
A-2-156
-------
TABLE A-2-116
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC INPUTS FOR
1,2,3,4,7,8-HEXACHLORODIBENZO(P)FURAN (70648-26-9)
(Page 1 of 1)
Parameter
Reference and Explanation
Value
Chemical/Physical Properties
MW(g/mo\e)
r»(K)
Fp(atm)
S(mg/L)
H (atm-mVmol)
Da(cm2/s)
Dw (cm2/s)
Km (unitless)
Koc (mL/g)
Kds (cmVg)
^CCL/Kg)
Kdbs(cm3/g)
ksg (year)"1
Fv (unitless)
U.S. EPA(1994a)
U.S. EPA(1994a)
U.S. EPA(1994a)
U.S. EPA(1994a)
U.S. EPA(1994a)
Da value was calculated by using Equation A-3-2. Recommended value was
calculated by using the MW and Da values that are provided in the tables in
Appendix A-2 for 2,3,7,8-TCDF.
Dw value was calculated using the equation cited in U.S. EPA (1996a).
Homologue group average value obtained from U.S. EPA (1992d)
Koc value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Km for dioxins
and furans that is cited in U.S. EPA (1994a) and U.S. EPA (1994c).
Recommended value was calculated by using the recommended Km value that is
provided in this table.
Kds value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited
in U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.01 in soil.
Measured organic carbon in soil, specific to site conditions, should be used to
calculate Kds, because the value varies, depending on the fraction of organic
carbon in soil. Recommended Kds value was calculated by using the Koc value
that is provided in this table.
Kd^ value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited
in U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.075 in
suspended sediment. Measured organic carbon in suspended sediment, specific
to site conditions, should be used to calculate Kdm, because the value varies,
depending on the fraction of organic carbon in suspended sediment.
Recommended Kd^ value was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided
in this table.
Kdbs value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited
in U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.04 in bottom
sediment. Measured organic carbon in bottom sediment, specific to site
conditions, should be used to calculate Kdbs, because the value varies depending
on the fraction of organic carbon in bottom sediment. Recommended Kdbs value
was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
Ksg value was assumed to be 0 due to a lack of data.
Fv value was calculated by using equations cited in Junge (1977) and Bidleman
(1988). Recommended value of Fv was calculated by using Tm and Vp values
that are provided in this table. Vp value for this compound was converted to a
liquid phase value before being used in the calculations.
374.87
498.6
3.16E-13at25°C(solid)
8.25E-06
1.40E-05
1.62E-02
4.23E-06
1.78E+07
1.10E+07
1.10E+05
8.22E+05
4.39E+05
0.0
4.86E-02
Note:
NA = Not Applicable
ND = No Data Available
All parameters are defined in LIST OF VARIABLES on page A-2-ii.
A-2-157
-------
TABLE A-2-117
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC INPUTS FOR
1,2,3,6,7,8-HEXACHLORODIBENZO(P)FURAN (57117-44-9)
(Page 1 of 1)
Parameter
Reference and Explanation
Value
Chemical/Physical Properties
MW(g/mo\e)
r»(K)
Fp(atm)
S(mg/L)
H (atm-mVmol)
Da(cm2/s)
Dw (cm2/s)
Km (unitless)
Koc (mL/g)
Kds (cmVg)
^CCL/Kg)
rrffa(cm3/g)
fog (year)"1
Fv (unitless)
U.S. EPA(1994a)
U.S. EPA(1994a)
U.S. EPA(1994a)
U.S. EPA(1994a)
U.S. EPA(1994a)
Da value was calculated by using Equation A-3-2. Recommended value was
calculated by using the MW and Da values that are provided in the tables in
Appendix A-2 for 2,3,7,8-TCDF.
Dw value was calculated using the equation cited in U.S. EPA (1996a).
Homologue groupaverage value obtained from U.S. EPA (1992d)
Koc value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Km for dioxins
and furans that is cited in U.S. EPA (1994a) and U.S. EPA (1994c).
Recommended value was calculated by using the recommended Km value that is
provided in this table.
Kds value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited
in U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.01 in soil.
Measured organic carbon in soil, specific to site conditions, should be used to
calculate Kds, because the value varies, depending on the fraction of organic
carbon in soil. Recommended Kds value was calculated by using the Koc value
that is provided in this table.
Kd^ value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited
in U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.075 in
suspended sediment. Measured organic carbon in suspended sediment, specific
to site conditions, should be used to calculate Kdm, because the value varies,
depending on the fraction of organic carbon in suspended sediment.
Recommended Kd^ value was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided
in this table.
Kdbs value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited
in U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.04 in bottom
sediment. Measured organic carbon in bottom sediment, specific to site
conditions, should be used to calculate Kdbs, because the value varies depending
on the fraction of organic carbon in bottom sediment. Recommended Kdbs value
was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
Ksg value was assumed to be 0 due to a lack of data.
Fv value was calculated by using equations cited in Junge (1977) and Bidleman
(1988). Recommended value of Fv was calculated by using Tm and Vp values
that are provided in this table. Vp value for this compound was converted to a
liquid phase value before being used in the calculations.
374.87
505.1
2.89E-13at25°C(solid)
1.77E-05
6.10E-06
1.62E-02
4.23E-06
1.78E+07
1.10E+07
1.10E+05
8.22E+05
4.39E+05
0.0
5.15E-02
Note:
NA = Not Applicable
ND = No Data Available
All parameters are defined in LIST OF VARIABLES on page A-2-ii.
A-2-158
-------
TABLE A-2-118
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC INPUTS FOR
1,2,3,7,8,9-HEXACHLORODIBENZO(P)FURAN (72918-21-9)
(Page 1 of 1)
Parameter
Reference and Explanation
Value
Chemical/Physical Properties
A/ff(g/mole)
r»(K)
Fp(atm)
S(mg/L)
H (atm-mVmol)
Da(cm2/s)
Dw (cm2/s)
Km (unitless)
Koc (mL/g)
Kds (cmVg)
^CCL/Kg)
Sfa(cm3/g)
ksg (year)'1
Fv (unitless)
U.S. EPA(1994a)
U.S. EPA(1994a)
U.S. EPA(1994a)
Homologue group average value obtained from U.S. EPA (1994a).
U.S. EPA(1994a)
Da value was calculated by using Equation A-3-2. Recommended value was
calculated by using the MW and Da values that are provided in the tables in
Appendix A-2 for 2,3,7,8-TCDF.
Dw value was calculated using the equation cited in U.S. EPA (1996a).
Homologue group average value obtained from U.S. EPA (1992d).
Koc value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Km for dioxins
and furans that is cited in U.S. EPA (1994a) and U.S. EPA (1994c).
Recommended value was calculated by using the recommended Km value that is
provided in this table.
Kds value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited
in U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.01 in soil.
Measured organic carbon in soil, specific to site conditions, should be used to
calculate Kds, because the value varies, depending on the fraction of organic
carbon in soil. Recommended Kds value was calculated by using the Koc value
that is provided in this table.
Kd^ value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited
in U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.075 in
suspended sediment. Measured organic carbon in suspended sediment, specific
to site conditions, should be used to calculate Kd^, because the value varies,
depending on the fraction of organic carbon in suspended sediment.
Recommended Kd^ value was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided
in this table.
Kdbs value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited
in U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.04 in bottom
sediment. Measured organic carbon in bottom sediment, specific to site
conditions, should be used to calculate Kdbs, because the value varies depending
on the fraction of organic carbon in bottom sediment. Recommended Kdbs value
was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
Ksg value was assumed to be 0 due to a lack of data.
Fv value was calculated by using equations cited in Junge (1977) and Bidleman
(1988). Recommended value of Fv was calculated by using Tm and Vp values
that are provided in this table. Vp value for this compound was converted to a
liquid phase value before being used in the calculations.
374.87
519.1
2.37E-13
at25°C
(solid)
1.30E-05
l.OOE-05
1.62E-02
4.23E-06
1.78E+07
1.10E+07
1.10E+05
8.22E+05
4.39E+05
0.0
0.5759
Note:
NA = Not Applicable
ND = No Data Available
All parameters are defined in LIST OF VARIABLES on page A-2-ii.
A-2-159
-------
TABLE A-2-119
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC INPUTS FOR
2,3,4,6,7,8-HEXACHLORODIBENZO(P)FURAN (60851-34-5)
(Page 1 of 1)
Parameter
Reference and Explanation
Value
Chemical/Physical Properties
MW(g/mo\e)
r»(K)
Fp(atm)
S(mg/L)
H (atm-mVmol)
Da (cm2/s)
Dv (cm2/s)
Km (unitless)
Kx (mL/g)
JM,(cm3/g)
Kdm (L/Kg)
Kdbs(cm3/g)
ksg (year)"1
Fv (unitless)
U.S. EPA(1994a)
U.S. EPA(1994a)
U.S. EPA(1994a)
Homologue group average value obtained from U.S. EPA (1994a).
U.S. EPA(1994a)
Da value was calculated by using Equation A-3-2. Recommended value was
calculated by using the MW and Da values that are provided in the tables in
Appendix A-2 for 2,3,7,8-TCDF.
Dw value was calculated using the equation cited in U.S. EPA (1996a).
Homologue group average value obtained from U.S. EPA (1992d).
Koc value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Km for dioxins
and furans that is cited in U.S. EPA (1994a) and U.S. EPA (1994c).
Recommended value was calculated by using the recommended Km value that is
provided in this table.
Kds value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited
in U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.01 in soil.
Measured organic carbon in soil, specific to site conditions, should be used to
calculate Kds, because the value varies, depending on the fraction of organic
carbon in soil. Recommended Kds value was calculated by using the Koc value
that is provided in this table.
Kd^ value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited
in U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.075 in
suspended sediment. Measured organic carbon in suspended sediment, specific
to site conditions, should be used to calculate Kd^, because the value varies,
depending on the fraction of organic carbon in suspended sediment.
Recommended Kd^, value was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided
in this table.
Kdbs value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited
in U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.04 in bottom
sediment. Measured organic carbon in bottom sediment, specific to site
conditions, should be used to calculate Kdbs, because the value varies depending
on the fraction of organic carbon in bottom sediment. Recommended Kdbs value
was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
Ksg value was assumed to be 0 due to a lack of data.
Fv value was calculated by using equations cited in Junge (1977) and Bidleman
(1988). Recommended value of Fv was calculated by using Tm and Vp values
that are provided in this table. Vp value for this compound was converted to a
liquid phase value before being used in the calculations.
374.87
512.1
2.63E-13
at 25°C
(solid)
1.30E-05
l.OOE-05
1.62E-02
4.23E-06
1.78E+07
1.10E+07
1.10E+05
8.22E+05
4.39E+05
0.0
5.47E-02
Note:
NA = Not Applicable
ND = No Data Available
All parameters are defined in LIST OF VARIABLES on page A-2-ii.
A-2-160
-------
TABLE A-2-120
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC INPUTS FOR HEXACHLORO-1,3-BUTADIENE
(PERCHLOROBUTADIENE) (87-68-3)
(Page 1 of 1)
Parameter
Reference and Explanation
Value
Chemical/Physical Properties
MW(g/mo\e)
r»(K)
Fp(atm)
S(mg/L)
H (atm-mVmol)
Da (cm2/s)
Dv (cm2/s)
Km (unitless)
Kx (mL/g)
JM,(cm3/g)
Kdm (L/Kg)
&4(cm3/g)
fag (year)'1
Fv (unitless)
Montgomery and Welkom (1991)
Montgomery and Welkom (1991)
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c).
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c).
H value was calculated by using the theoretical equation from Lyman, Reehl, and
Rosenblatt (1982), which defines the constant. Recommended value was calculated
by using the MW, S, and Vp values that are provided in this table.
Da value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
Dv value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c).
Koc value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Km for all
nonionizing organics except phthalates, PAHs, dioxins, and furans as cited in
U.S. EPA (1994c). Koc value was calculated by using the recommended Km value
that is provided in this table.
Kds value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed fraction organic carbon of 0.01 in soil. Measured
organic carbon in soil, specific to site conditions, should be used to calculate Kds,
because the value varies, depending on the fraction of organic carbon in soil.
Recommended Kds value was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in
this table.
Kd^ value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.075 in suspended
sediment. Measured organic carbon in suspended sediment, specific to site
conditions, should be used to calculate Kd^, because the value varies, depending on
the fraction of organic carbon in suspended sediment. Recommended Kd^ value
was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
Kdbs value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon of 0.04 in bottom sediment.
Measured organic carbon in bottom sediment, specific to site conditions, should be
used to calculate Kdbs, because the value varies depending on the fraction of organic
fraction in bottom sediment. Recommended Kdbs value was calculated by using the
Koc value that is provided in this table.
Ksg value was calculated by using the chemical half-life in soil, as cited in Howard,
Boethling, Jarvis, Meylan, and Michalenko (1991).
Fv value was calculated by using the equation cited in Junge (1977). Recommended
value of Fv was calculated by using the Vp value that is provided in this table.
260.76
252.1
2.33E-04
at 25°C
(liquid)
2.54E+00
2.39E-02
1.73E-02
7.33E-06
5.38E+04
6.94E+03
6.94E+01
5.20E+02
2.77E+02
1.41E+00
1.0
Note:
NA = Not applicable
ND = No data available
All parameters are defined in LIST OF VARIABLES on page A-2-ii.
A-2-161
-------
TABLE A-2-121
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC INPUTS FOR HEXACHLOROBENZENE (118-74-1)
(Page 1 of 1)
Parameter
Reference and Explanation
Value
Chemical/Physical Properties
MW(g/mo\e)
rm(K)
Vp (atm)
S (mg/L)
H (atm-mVmol)
Z)a(cm2/s)
A, (cm2/s)
Km (unitless)
Kac (mL/g)
Kd, (mL/g)
^ (L/Kg)
&k(mL/g)
fog (year)'1
Fv (unitless)
Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, andHeckelman (1989)
Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, andHeckelman (1989)
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c)
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c)
H value was calculated by using the theoretical equation from Lyman, Reehl, and
Rosenblatt (1982), which defines the constant. Recommended value was calculated
by using the MW, S and Vp values that are provided in this table.
Da value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database U.S. EPA (1994d).
A, value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database U.S. EPA (1994d).
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c).
Geometric mean of measured values obtained from U.S. EPA (1996b).
Kds value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed fraction organic carbon of 0.01 in soil. Measured
organic carbon in soil, specific to site conditions, should be used to calculate Kd,,
because the value varies, depending on the fraction of organic carbon in soil.
Recommended Kds value was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in
this table.
Kdm value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.075 in suspended
sediment. Measured organic carbon in suspended sediment, specific to site
conditions, should be used to calculate Kd^,, because the value varies, depending on
the fraction of organic carbon in suspended sediment. Recommended Kdm value
was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
Kdts value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.04 in bottom
sediment. Measured organic carbon in bottom sediment, specific to site conditions,
should be used to calculate Kdts, because the value varies, depending on the fraction
of organic carbon in bottom sediment. Recommended Kdb, value was calculated by
using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
ksg value was calculated by using the chemical half-life in soil, as cited in Howard,
Boethling, Jarvis, Meylan, and Michalenko (1991).
Fv value was calculated by using equations cited in Junge (1977) and Bidleman
(1988). Recommended value of Fv was calculated by using S, Tm, and Vp values
that are provided in this table. Vp value for this compound was converted to a
liquid-phase value before being used in the calculations.
284.8
504.1
1.62E-08
at 25°C
(solid)
8.62E-03
5.35E-04
1.41E-02
7.84E-06
3.18E+05
8.00E+04
8.00E+02
6.00E+03
3.20E+03
1.21E-01
1.0
Note:
NA= Not applicable
ND= No data available
All parameters are defined in LIST OF VARIABLES on page A-2-ii.
A-2-162
-------
TABLE A-2-122
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC INPUTS FOR HEXACHLOROCYCLOPENTADIENE (77-47-4)
(Page 1 of 1)
Parameter
Reference and Explanation
Value
Chemical/Physical Properties
Mff(g/mole)
rm(K)
Vp (atm)
S (mg/L)
H (atm-m3/mol)
Da (cm2/s)
A, (cm2/s)
Km (unitless)
Koc (mL/g)
Kd. (cm3/g)
£*„ (L/Kg)
rrffo (cm3/g)
ksg (year)"1
Fv (unitless)
Montgomery and Welkom (1991)
Montgomery and Welkom (1991)
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c).
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c).
H value was calculated by using the theoretical equation from Lyman, Reehl, and
Rosenblatt (1982), which defines the constant. Recommended value was calculated
by using the MW, S, and Vp values that are provided in this table.
Da value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
Dw value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c).
Koc value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Km for all
nonionizing organics except phthalates, PAHs, dioxins, and furans as cited in
U.S. EPA (1994c). Koc value was calculated by using the recommended Km value
that is provided in this table.
Kds value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed fraction organic carbon of 0.01 in soil. Measured
organic carbon in soil, specific to site conditions, should be used to calculate Kds,
because the value varies, depending on the fraction of organic carbon in soil.
Recommended Kds value was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in
this table.
Kdm value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.075 in suspended
sediment. Measured organic carbon in suspended sediment, specific to site
conditions, should be used to calculate Kd^, because the value varies, depending on
the fraction of organic carbon in suspended sediment. Recommended Kd^ value
was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
Kdbs value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon of 0.04 in bottom sediment.
Measured organic carbon in bottom sediment, specific to site conditions, should be
used to calculate Kdbs, because the value varies depending on the fraction of organic
fraction in bottom sediment. Recommended Kdbs value was calculated by using the
Koc value that is provided in this table.
Ksg value was calculated by using the chemical half-life in soil, as cited in Howard,
Boethling, Jarvis, Meylan, and Michalenko (1991).
Fv value was calculated by using the equation cited in Junge (1977). Recommended
value of Fv was calculated by using the Vp value that is provided in this table.
272.77
264.1
9.63E-05
at 25°C
(liquid)
1.53E+00
1.72E-02
1.61E-02
7.21E-06
8.07E+04
9.51E+03
9.51E+01
7.13E+2
3.80E+02
9.03E+00
1.0
Note:
NA = Not applicable
ND = No data available
All parameters are defined in LIST OF VARIABLES on page A-2-ii.
A-2-163
-------
TABLE A-2-123
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC INPUTS FOR HEXACHLOROETHANE (67-72-1)
(Page 1 of 1)
Parameter
Reference and Explanation
Value
Chemical/Physical Properties
Mff(g/mole)
rm(K)
Vp (atm)
S (mg/L)
H (atm-m3/mol)
Da (cm2/s)
A, (cm2/s)
Km (unitless)
Koc (mL/g)
Kd. (cm3/g)
£*„ (L/Kg)
rrffo (cm3/g)
fag (year)"1
Fv (unitless)
Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, Heckelman (1989)
Montgomery and Welkom (1991)
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c).
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c).
H value was calculated by using the theoretical equation from Lyman, Reehl, and
Rosenblatt (1982), which defines the constant. Recommended value was calculated
by using the MW, S, and Vp values that are provided in this table.
Da value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
Dw value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c).
Koc value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Km for all
nonionizing organics except phthalates, PAHs, dioxins, and furans as cited in
U.S. EPA (1994c). Koc value was calculated by using the recommended Km value
that is provided in this table.
Kds value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed fraction organic carbon of 0.01 in soil. Measured
organic carbon in soil, specific to site conditions, should be used to calculate Kds,
because the value varies, depending on the fraction of organic carbon in soil.
Recommended Kds value was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in
this table.
Kdm value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.075 in suspended
sediment. Measured organic carbon in suspended sediment, specific to site
conditions, should be used to calculate Kd^, because the value varies, depending on
the fraction of organic carbon in suspended sediment. Recommended Kd^ value
was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
Kdbs value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon of 0.04 in bottom sediment.
Measured organic carbon in bottom sediment, specific to site conditions, should be
used to calculate Kdbs, because the value varies depending on the fraction of organic
fraction in bottom sediment. Recommended Kdbs value was calculated by using the
Koc value that is provided in this table.
Ksg value was calculated by using the chemical half-life in soil, as cited in Howard,
Boethling, Jarvis, Meylan, and Michalenko (1991).
Fv value was calculated by using equations cited in Junge (1 977) and Bidleman
(1988). Recommended value of Fv was calculated by using S, Tm, and Vp values
that are provided in this table. Vp value for this compound was converted to a
liquid-phase value before being used in the calculations.
236.74
459.7
6.21E-04
at 25°C
(solid)
4.08E+01
3.60E-03
1.77E-02
8.88E-06
9.66E+03
1.82E+03
1.82E+01
1.36E+01
7.27E+01
1.41E+00
1.0
Note:
NA = Not applicable
ND = No data available
All parameters are defined in LIST OF VARIABLES on page A-2-ii.
A-2-164
-------
TABLE A-2-124
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC INPUTS FOR HEXACHLOROPHENE (70-30-4)
(Page 1 of 1)
Parameter
Reference and Explanation
Value
Chemical/Physical Properties
Mff(g/mole)
rm(K)
Vp (atm)
S (mg/L)
H (atm-m3/mol)
Da (cm2/s)
A, (cm2/s)
Km (unitless)
Koc (mL/g)
Kd. (cm3/g)
£*„ (L/Kg)
rrffo (cm3/g)
ksg (year)"1
Fv (unitless)
Budavari, O'Neil, Smith and Heckleman (1989)
Budavari, O'Neil, Smith and Heckleman (1989)
Vp value cited in U.S. EPA (1995b).
S value cited in U.S. EPA (1995b).
H value was calculated by using the theoretical equation from Lyman, Reehl, and
Rosenblatt (1982), which defines the constant. Recommended value was calculated
by using the MW, S, and Vp values that are provided in this table.
Da value was calculated using the equation cited in U.S. EPA (1996a).
Dw value was calculated using the equation cited in U.S. EPA (1996a).
Arithmetic mean value cited in Karickhoff and Long (1995).
Koc value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Km for all
nonionizing organics except phthalates, PAHs, dioxins, and furans as cited in
U.S. EPA (1994c). Koc value was calculated by using the recommended Km value
that is provided in this table.
Kds value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed fraction organic carbon of 0.01 in soil. Measured
organic carbon in soil, specific to site conditions, should be used to calculate Kds,
because the value varies, depending on the fraction of organic carbon in soil.
Recommended Kds value was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in
this table.
Kdm value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.075 in suspended
sediment. Measured organic carbon in suspended sediment, specific to site
conditions, should be used to calculate Kd^, because the value varies, depending on
the fraction of organic carbon in suspended sediment. Recommended Kd^ value
was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
Kdbs value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon of 0.04 in bottom sediment.
Measured organic carbon in bottom sediment, specific to site conditions, should be
used to calculate Kdbs, because the value varies depending on the fraction of organic
fraction in bottom sediment. Recommended Kdbs value was calculated by using the
Koc value that is provided in this table.
Ksg value was calculated by using the chemical half-life in soil, as cited in Howard,
Boethling, Jarvis, Meylan, and Michalenko (1991).
Fv value was calculated by using equations cited in Junge (1977) and Bidleman
(1988). Recommended value of Fv was calculated by using S, Tm, and Vp values
that are provided in this table. Vp value for this compound was converted to a
liquid-phase value before being used in the calculations.
406.92
437.1
3.60E-15
at 25°C
(solid)
3.0E-03
4.88E-10
3.46E-02
4.01E-06
3.47E+07
1.08E+06
1.08E+04
8.08E+04
4.31E+04
7.71E-01
1.4E-04
Note:
NA = Not applicable
ND = No data available
All parameters are defined in LIST OF VARIABLES on page A-2-ii.
A-2-165
-------
TABLE A-2-125
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC INPUTS FOR HYDROGEN CHLORIDE (7647-01-0)
(Page 1 of 1)
Parameter
Reference and Explanation
Value
Chemical/Physical Properties
Mff(g/mole)
rm(°K)
Vp (atm)
S (mg/L)
H (atm-m3/mol)
Z)a(cm2/s)
A, (cm2/s)
Kow (unitless)
Koc (mL/g)
Kd, (mL/g)
Kd^ (L/Kg)
Kdbs(mL/g)
ksg (year)'1
Fv (unitless)
Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
U.S. EPA(1994b)
--
--
Da value was calculated using the equation cited in U.S. EPA (1996a).
D,, value was calculated using the equation cited in U.S. EPA (1996a).
--
--
--
--
--
--
Fv value was calculated by using the equation cited in Junge (1977).
Recommended value of Fv was calculated by using the Vp value that is
provided in this table.
36.47
158.9
4.6E+01
(liquid)
ND
ND
1.73E-01
2.00E-05
NA
NA
ND
ND
ND
ND
1.0
Note:
NA = Not applicable
ND = No data available
All parameters are defined in LIST OF VARIABLES on page A-2-ii.
A-2-166
-------
TABLE A-2-126
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC INPUTS FOR INDENO(1,2,3-CD)PYRENE (193-39-5)
(Page 1 of 1)
Parameter
Reference and Explanation
Value
Chemical/Physical Properties
Mff(g/mole)
rm(K)
Vp (atm)
S (mg/L)
H (atm-m3/mol)
Da (cm2/s)
A, (cm2/s)
Km (unitless)
Koc (mL/g)
Kds (mL/g)
&/„ (L/Kg)
^^(mL/g)
ksg (year)'1
Fv (unitless)
Montgomery and Welkom (1991)
Montgomery and Welkom (1991)
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c)
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c)
H value was calculated by using the theoretical equation from Lyman, Reehl, and
Rosenblatt (1982), which defines the constant. Recommended value was calculated
by using the MW, S and Vp values that are provided in this table.
Da value was obtained from WATERS model database U.S. EPA (1995d)
Dw value was obtained from WATERS model database U.S. EPA (1995d)
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c)
Koc value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Km for phthalates
and PAHs, cited in U.S. EPA (1994c). Koc value was calculated by using the
recommended Km value that is provided in this table.
Kd, value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed fraction organic carbon of 0.01 in soil. Measured
organic carbon in soil, specific to site conditions, should be used to calculate Kd,,
because the value varies, depending on the fraction of organic carbon in soil.
Recommended Kds value was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in
this table.
Kd^, value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.075 in suspended
sediment. Measured organic carbon in suspended sediment, specific to site
conditions, should be used to calculate Kd^, because the value varies, depending on
the fraction of organic carbon in suspended sediment. Recommended Kdm value
was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
Kdbs value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.04 in bottom
sediment. Measured organic carbon in bottom sediment, specific to site conditions,
should be used to calculate Kdbs, because the value varies, depending on the fraction
of organic carbon in bottom sediment. Recommended Kdts value was calculated by
using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
ksg value was calculated by using the chemical half-life in soil, as cited in Howard,
Boethling, Jarvis, Meylan, and Michalenko (1991).
Fv value was calculated by using equations cited in Junge (1 977) and Bidleman
(1988). Recommended value of Fv was calculated by using S, Tm, and Vp values
that are provided in this table. Vp value for this compound was converted to a
liquid-phase value before being used in the calculations.
276.34
435
1.88E-13
at 25°C
(solid)
1.07E-02
4.86E-09
1.90E-02
5.66E-06
8.22E+06
4.11E+06
4.11E+04
3.08E+05
1.64E+05
3.47E-01
0.007
Note:
NA= Not applicable
ND= No data available
All parameters are defined in LIST OF VARIABLES on page A-2-ii.
A-2-167
-------
TABLE A-2-127
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC INPUTS FOR ISOPHORONE (78-59-1)
(Page 1 of 1)
Parameter
Reference and Explanation
Value
Chemical/Physical Properties
Mff(g/mole)
rm(K)
Vp (atm)
S (mg/L)
H (atm-m3/mol)
Da (cm2/s)
A, (cm2/s)
Kow (unitless)
Koc (mL/g)
Kd. (cm3/g)
£*„ (L/Kg)
M,, (cm3/g)
ksg (year)"1
Fv (unitless)
Montgomery and Welkom (1991)
Montgomery and Welkom (1991)
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c)
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c).
H value was calculated by using the theoretical equation from Lyman, Reehl, and
Rosenblatt (1982), which defines the constant. Recommended value was calculated
by using the MW, S, and Vp values that are provided in this table.
Da value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
Dw value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c).
Koc value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Km for phthalates
and PAHs, / all nonionizing organics except phthalates, PAHs, dioxins, and furans,
cited in U.S. EPA (1994c). Koc value was calculated by using the recommended Km
value that is provided in this table.
Kds value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.01 in soil. Measured
organic carbon in soil, specific to site conditions, should be used to calculate Kds,
because the value varies, depending on the fraction of organic carbon in soil.
Recommended Kds value was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in
this table.
Kdm value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.075 in suspended
sediment. Measured organic carbon in suspended sediment, specific to site
conditions, should be used to calculate Kd^, because the value varies, depending on
the fraction of organic carbon in suspended sediment. Recommended Kd^ value
was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
Kdbs value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.04 in bottom
sediment. Measured organic carbon in bottom sediment, specific to site conditions,
should be used to calculate Kdts, because the value varies, depending on the fraction
of organic carbon in bottom sediment. Recommended Kdbs value was calculated by
using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
Ksg value was calculated by using the chemical half-life in soil, as cited in Howard,
Boethling, Jarvis, Meylan, and Michalenko (1991).
Fv value was calculated by using the equation cited in Junge (1977). Recommended
value ofFv was calculated by using the Vp value that is provided in the table.
138.21
265.1
5.38E-04
at 25°C (liquid)
1.20E+04
6.20E-06
5.22E-02
7.50E-06
5.00E+01
2.99E+01
2.99E-01
2.25E+00
1.20E+00
9.03E+00
1.0
Note:
NA = Not applicable
ND = No data available
All parameters are defined in LIST OF VARIABLES on page A-2-ii.
A-2-168
-------
TABLE A-2-128
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC INPUTS FOR LEAD (7439-92-1)
(Page 1 of 1)
Parameter
Reference and Explanation
Value
Chemical/Physical Properties
Mff(g/mole)
rm(°K)
Vp (atm)
S (mg/L)
H (atm-m3/mol)
Z)a(cm2/s)
A, (cm2/s)
Kow (unitless)
Koc (mL/g)
Kd, (mL/g)
Kdn (L/Kg)
Kdbs(mL/g)
ksg (year)'1
Fv (unitless)
Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
All metals, except mercury, are assumed to be nonvolatile at ambient
temperatures.
All metals, except mercury, are assumed to be insoluble in water.
H value is assumed to be zero, because the Vp and S values are zero for all
metals, except mercury.
Da value was calculated using the equation cited in U.S. EPA (1996a).
D,, value was calculated using the equation cited in U.S. EPA (1996a).
--
--
Kds value was obtained from Baes, Sharp, Sjoreen, and Shor (1984), which
states that several factors, such as experimental methods and soil type, could
influence partitioning or Kd, values. Baes, Sharp, Sjoreen, and Shor (1984)
compares values between various literature sources and provide this value,
which is based on its best judgment.
Kdm value is assumed to be same as the Kds value, because organic carbon does
not play a major role in sorption for the metals, as cited in U.S. EPA (1 994f).
Kdbs value is assumed to be same as the Kds value, because organic carbon does
not play a major role in sorption for the metals, as cited in U.S. EPA (1 994f).
--
Because they are nonvolatile, metals are assumed to be 100 percent in
particulate phase and zero percent in the vapor phase, as cited in
U.S. EPA(1994f).
207.2
600.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
5.43E-02
6.28E-06
NA
NA
9.00E+02
9.00E+02
9.00E+02
ND
0.0
Note:
NA = Not applicable
ND = No data available
All parameters are defined in LIST OF VARIABLES on page A-2-ii.
A-2-169
-------
TABLE A-2-129
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC INPUTS FOR MALATHIONE (121-75-5)
(Page 1 of 1)
Parameter
Reference and Explanation
Value
Chemical/Physical Properties
Mff(g/mole)
rm(K)
Vp (atm)
S (mg/L)
H (atm-m3/mol)
Da (cm2/s)
A, (cm2/s)
Km (unitless)
Koc (mL/g)
Kd. (cm3/g)
£*„ (L/Kg)
M,, (cm3/g)
ksg (year)"1
Fv (unitless)
Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
Montgomery and Welkom (1991)
Vp value cited in Howard (1989-1993).
S value cited in Howard (1989-1993).
H value was calculated by using the theoretical equation from Lyman, Reehl, and
Rosenblatt (1982), which defines the constant. Recommended value was calculated
by using the MW, S, and Vp values that are provided in this table.
Da value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
Dw value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
Recommended Km value cited in Karickhoff and Long (1995).
Koc value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Km for phthalates
and PAHs, / all nonionizing organics except phthalates, PAHs, dioxins, and furans,
cited in U.S. EPA (1994c). Koc value was calculated by using the recommended Km
value that is provided in this table.
Kds value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.01 in soil. Measured
organic carbon in soil, specific to site conditions, should be used to calculate Kds,
because the value varies, depending on the fraction of organic carbon in soil.
Recommended Kds value was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in
this table.
Kdm value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.075 in suspended
sediment. Measured organic carbon in suspended sediment, specific to site
conditions, should be used to calculate Kd^, because the value varies, depending on
the fraction of organic carbon in suspended sediment. Recommended Kd^ value
was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
Kdbs value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.04 in bottom
sediment. Measured organic carbon in bottom sediment, specific to site conditions,
should be used to calculate Kdts, because the value varies, depending on the fraction
of organic carbon in bottom sediment. Recommended Kdbs value was calculated by
using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
Ksg value was calculated by using the chemical half-life in soil, as cited in Howard,
Boethling, Jarvis, Meylan, and Michalenko (1991).
Fv value was calculated by using the equation cited in Junge (1977). Recommended
value ofFv was calculated by using the Vp value that is provided in the table.
330.36
276
1.04E-08
at 25°C
(liquid)
1.43E+02
2.40E-08
1.47E-02
5.29E-06
2.29E+02
9.81E+01
9.81E-01
7.36E+00
3.92E+00
3.61E+01
0.946
Note:
NA = Not applicable
ND = No data available
All parameters are defined in LIST OF VARIABLES on page A-2-ii.
A-2-170
-------
TABLE A-2-130
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC INPUTS FOR MERCURIC CHLORIDE (7487-94-7)
(Page 1 of 1)
Parameter
Reference and Explanation
Value
Chemical/Physical Properties
MW(g/mo\e)
^CK)
Vp (atm)
S (mg/L)
H (atm-m3/mol)
Z)a(cm2/s)
A, (cm2/s)
Kow (unitless)
Koc (mL/g)
Kd, (mL/g)
Kdn (L/Kg)
J&UmL/g)
fog (year)'1
Fv (unitless)
Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
U.S. EPA(1996a)
Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
U.S. EPA(1997g)
Da value was calculated using the equation cited in U.S. EPA (1997g).
D,, value was calculated using the equation cited in U.S. EPA (1996a).
U.S. EPA(1996a)
--
U.S. EPA(1997g)
U.S. EPA(1997g)
U.S. EPA(1997g)
U.S. EPA(1996a)
Estimated based on discussions concerning divalent mercury provided in
U.S. EPA(1996a).
271.52
550.1
1.20E-04
6.90E+04
7.1E-10
4.53E-02
5.25E-06
6.10E-01
NA
5.80E+04
l.OOE+05
5.00E+04
0.0
0.85
Note:
NA = Not Applicable
ND = No data available
All parameters are defined in LIST OF VARIABLES on page A-2-ii.
A-2-171
-------
TABLE A-2-131
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC INPUTS FOR MERCURY (7439-97-6)
(Page 1 of 1)
Parameter
Reference and Explanation
Value
Chemical/Physical Properties
Mff(g/mole)
rm(°K)
Vp (atm)
S (mg/L)
H (atm-m3/mol)
Z)a(cm2/s)
A, (cm2/s)
Km (unitless)
Kac (mL/g)
Kd, (mL/g)
Kd^ (L/Kg)
Kdbs(mL/g)
ksg (yr)-1
Fv (unitless)
Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
U.S. EPA(1997g)
Da value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database in U.S. EPA (1994d).
CHEMDAT8 uses correlations with density and molecular weight to calculate
Da values. A density value of 13.546 g/cc for mercury was used.
Dw value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database in U.S. EPA (1994d).
CHEMDAT8 uses correlations with density and molecular weight to calculate
D,, values. A density value of 13.546 g/cc for mercury was used.
--
-
U.S.EPA(1997g)
U.S.EPA(1997g)
U.S.EPA(1997g)
U.S. EPA(1996a)
Fv value was calculated by using the equation cited in Junge (1977).
Recommended value of Fv was calculated by using the Vp value that is
provided in this table.
200.59
234.23
2.63E-06
at 25°C
5.62E-02
7.1E-03
1.09E-02
3.01E-05
NA
NA
l.OOE+03
l.OOE+03
3.00E+03
0.0
1.0
Note:
NA = Not available
ND = No data available
All parameters are defined in LIST OF VARIABLES on page A-2-ii.
A-2-172
-------
TABLE A-2-132
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC INPUTS FOR METHACRYLONITRILE (126-98-7)
(Page 1 of 1)
Parameter
Reference and Explanation
Value
Chemical/Physical Properties
Mff(g/mole)
rm(K)
Vp (atm)
S (mg/L)
H (atm-m3/mol)
Da (cm2/s)
A, (cm2/s)
Km (unitless)
Koc (mL/g)
Kd. (cm3/g)
£*„ (L/Kg)
rrffo (cm3/g)
ksg (year)"1
Fv (unitless)
Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
Vp value cited in U.S. EPA (1995b)
S value cited in U.S. EPA (1995b)
H value was calculated by using the theoretical equation from Lyman, Reehl, and
Rosenblatt (1982), which defines the constant. Recommended value was calculated
by using the MW, S, and Vp values that are provided in this table.
Da value was calculated using the equation cited in U.S. EPA (1996a).
Dw value was calculated using the equation cited in U.S. EPA (1996a).
Arithmetic mean value cited in Karickhoff and Long (1995)
Koc value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Km for all
nonionizing organics except phthalates, PAHs, dioxins, and furans, cited in
U.S. EPA (1994c). Koc value was calculated by using the recommended Km value
that is provided in this table.
Kds value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.01 in soil. Measured
organic carbon in soil, specific to site conditions, should be used to calculate Kds,
because the value varies, depending on the fraction of organic carbon in soil.
Recommended Kds value was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in
this table.
Kdm value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.075 in suspended
sediment. Measured organic carbon in suspended sediment, specific to site
conditions, should be used to calculate Kd^, because the value varies, depending on
the fraction of organic carbon in suspended sediment. Recommended Kd^ value
was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
Kdbs value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.04 in bottom
sediment. Measured organic carbon in bottom sediment, specific to site conditions,
should be used to calculate Kdts, because the value varies, depending on the fraction
of organic carbon in bottom sediment. Recommended Kdbs value was calculated by
using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
Ksg value was assumed to be zero due to a lack of data.
Fv value was calculated by using the equation cited in Junge (1977). Recommended
value ofFv was calculated by using the Vp value that is provided in this table.
67.09
237.3
8.90E-02
at 25°C
(liquid)
2.50E+04
2.39E-04
1.15E-01
1.33E-05
3.47E+00
3.74E+00
3.74E-02
2.80E-01
1.49E-01
0.0
1.0
Note:
NA= Not applicable
ND= No data available
All parameters are defined in LIST OF VARIABLES on page A-2-ii.
A-2-173
-------
TABLE A-2-133
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC INPUTS FOR METHANOL (67-56-1)
(Page 1 of 1)
Parameter
Reference and Explanation
Value
Chemical/Physical Properties
Mff(g/mole)
rm(K)
Vp (atm)
S (mg/L)
H (atm-m3/mol)
Da (cm2/s)
A, (cm2/s)
Kow (unitless)
Koc (mL/g)
Kd. (cm3/g)
^ (L/Kg)
rrffo (cm3/g)
ksg (year)"1
Fv (unitless)
Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
Vp value cited in Montgomery and Welkom (1991)
S value cited in U.S. EPA (1995b)
H value was calculated by using the theoretical equation from Lyman, Reehl, and
Rosenblatt (1982), which defines the constant. Recommended value was calculated
by using the MW, S, and Vp values that are provided in this table.
Da value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d)
Dw value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
Arithmetic mean value cited in Karickhoff and Long (1995)
Koc value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Km for phthalates
and PAHs, all nonionizing organics except phthalates, PAHs, dioxins, and furans,
cited in U.S. EPA (1994c). Koc value was calculated by using the recommended Km
value that is provided in this table.
Kds value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.01 in soil. Measured
organic carbon in soil, specific to site conditions, should be used to calculate Kds,
because the value varies, depending on the fraction of organic carbon in soil.
Recommended Kds value was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in
this table.
Kdm value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.075 in suspended
sediment. Measured organic carbon in suspended sediment, specific to site
conditions, should be used to calculate Kd^, because the value varies, depending on
the fraction of organic carbon in suspended sediment. Recommended Kd^ value
was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
Kdbs value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.04 in bottom
sediment. Measured organic carbon in bottom sediment, specific to site conditions,
should be used to calculate Kdts, because the value varies, depending on the fraction
of organic carbon in bottom sediment. Recommended Kdbs value was calculated by
using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
Ksg value was calculated by using the chemical half-life in soil, as cited in Howard,
Boethling, Jarvis, Meylan, and Michalenko (1991).
Fv value was calculated by using equations cited in Junge (1977) and Bidleman
(1988). Recommended value of Fv was calculated by using Tm and Vp values that
are provided in this table. Vp value for this compound was converted to a
liquid-phase value before being used in the calculations.
32.04
175.3
1.30E-01
at 25°C (liquid)
2.90E+04
1.44E-04
4.58E-01
1.64E-05
1.95E-01
3.96E-01
3.96E-03
2.97E-02
1.58E-02
3.61E+01
1.00
Note:
NA = Not applicable
ND = No data available
All parameters are defined in LIST OF VARIABLES on page A-2-ii.
A-2-174
-------
TABLE A-2-134
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC INPUTS FOR METHOXYCHLOR (72-43-5)
(Page 1 of 1)
Parameter
Reference and Explanation
Value
Chemical/Physical Properties
Mff(g/mole)
rm(K)
Vp (atm)
S (mg/L)
H (atm-m3/mol)
Da (cm2/s)
A, (cm2/s)
Km (unitless)
Koc (mL/g)
Kds (cm3/g)
&C (L/Kg)
r^(cm3/g)
ksg (year)'1
Fv (unitless)
Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c).
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c).
H value was calculated by using the theoretical equation from Lyman, Reehl, and
Rosenblatt (1982), which defines the constant. Recommended value was calculated
by using the MW, S, and Vp values that are provided in this table.
Da value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
Dw value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c).
Geometric mean of measured values obtained from U.S. EPA (1996b).
Kd, value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed fraction organic carbon of 0.01 in soil. Measured
organic carbon in soil, specific to site conditions, should be used to calculate Kds,
because the value varies, depending on the fraction of organic carbon in soil.
Recommended Kds value was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in
this table.
Kd^, value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.075 in suspended
sediment. Measured organic carbon in suspended sediment, specific to site
conditions, should be used to calculate Kd^,, because the value varies, depending on
the fraction of organic carbon in suspended sediment. Recommended Kdm value
was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
Kdbs value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon of 0.04 in bottom sediment.
Measured organic carbon in bottom sediment, specific to site conditions, should be
used to calculate Kdbs, because the value varies depending on the fraction of organic
fraction in bottom sediment. Recommended Kdbs value was calculated by using the
Koc value that is provided in this table.
Ksg value was calculated by using the chemical half-life in soil, as cited in Howard,
Boethling, Jarvis, Meylan, and Michalenko (1991).
Fv value was calculated by using equations cited in Junge (1977) and Bidleman
(1988). Recommended value of Fv was calculated by using S, Tm, and Vp values
that are provided in this table. Vp value for this compound was converted to a
liquid-phase value before being used in the calculations.
345.65
351.1
1.62E-09
at 25°C
(solid)
8.84E-02
6.33E-06
1.30E-02
5.59E-06
3.36E+04
8.00E+04
8.00E+02
6.00E+03
3.20E+03
6.93E-01
0.901
Note:
NA = Not applicable
ND = No data available
All parameters are defined in LIST OF VARIABLES on page A-2-ii.
A-2-175
-------
TABLE A-2-135
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC INPUTS FOR METHYL ACETATE (79-20-9)
(Page 1 of 1)
Parameter
Reference and Explanation
Value
Chemical/Physical Properties
Mff(g/mole)
rm(K)
Vp (atm)
S (mg/L)
H (atm-m3/mol)
Da (cm2/s)
A, (cm2/s)
Km (unitless)
Koc (mL/g)
Kd. (cm3/g)
^ (L/Kg)
Kdbs (cm3/g)
fag (year)"1
Fv (unitless)
Montgomery and Welkom (1991)
Montgomery and Welkom (1991)
Vp value cited in Howard (1989-1993).
S value cited in Howard (1989-1993).
H value was calculated by using the theoretical equation from Lyman, Reehl, and
Rosenblatt (1982), which defines the constant. Recommended value was calculated
by using the MW, S, and Vp values that are provided in this table.
Da value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
Dw value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
Recommended Km value cited in Karickhoff and Long (1995).
Koc value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Km for phthalates
and PAHs, / all nonionizing organics except phthalates, PAHs, dioxins, and furans,
cited in U.S. EPA (1994c). Koc value was calculated by using the recommended Km
value that is provided in this table.
Kds value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.01 in soil. Measured
organic carbon in soil, specific to site conditions, should be used to calculate Kds,
because the value varies, depending on the fraction of organic carbon in soil.
Recommended Kds value was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in
this table.
Kdm value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.075 in suspended
sediment. Measured organic carbon in suspended sediment, specific to site
conditions, should be used to calculate Kd^, because the value varies, depending on
the fraction of organic carbon in suspended sediment. Recommended Kd^ value
was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
Kdbs value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.04 in bottom
sediment. Measured organic carbon in bottom sediment, specific to site conditions,
should be used to calculate Kdts, because the value varies, depending on the fraction
of organic carbon in bottom sediment. Recommended Kdts value was calculated by
using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
Ksg value assumed to be 0 due to a lack of data.
Fv value was calculated by using the equation cited in Junge (1977). Recommended
value of Fv was calculated by using the Vp value that is provided in the table.
74.08
175.1
2.84E-01
at 25°C
(liquid)
2.44E+05
8.64E-05
1.23E-01
1.10E-05
2.90E+00
3.25E+00
3.25E-02
2.44E-01
1.30E-01
0.0
1.00
Note:
NA = Not applicable
ND = No data available
All parameters are defined in LIST OF VARIABLES on page A-2-ii.
A-2-176
-------
TABLE A-2-136
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC INPUTS FOR METHYL BROMIDE (74-83-9)
(Page 1 of 1)
Parameter
Reference and Explanation
Value
Chemical/Physical Properties
Mff(g/mole)
rm(K)
Vp (atm)
S (mg/L)
H (atm-m3/mol)
Da (cm2/s)
A, (cm2/s)
Km (unitless)
Koc (mL/g)
Kds (cm3/g)
Kd^ (L/Kg)
Kdbs (cm3/g)
fag (year)"1
Fv (unitless)
Budavari, O'Neil, Smith and Heckelman (1989)
Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c).
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c).
H value was calculated by using the theoretical equation from Lyman, Reehl, and
Rosenblatt (1982), which defines the constant. Recommended value was calculated
by using the MW, S, and Vp values that are provided in this table.
Da value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
Dw value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c).
Geometric mean of measured values obtained from U.S. EPA (1996b).
Kd, value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed fraction organic carbon of 0.01 in soil. Measured
organic carbon in soil, specific to site conditions, should be used to calculate Kds,
because the value varies, depending on the fraction of organic carbon in soil.
Recommended Kds value was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in
this table.
Kd^, value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.075 in suspended
sediment. Measured organic carbon in suspended sediment, specific to site
conditions, should be used to calculate Kd^,, because the value varies, depending on
the fraction of organic carbon in suspended sediment. Recommended Kd^, value
was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
Kdb, value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon of 0.04 in bottom sediment.
Measured organic carbon in bottom sediment, specific to site conditions, should be
used to calculate Kdbs, because the value varies depending on the fraction of organic
fraction in bottom sediment. Recommended Kdbs value was calculated by using the
Koc value that is provided in this table.
Ksg value was calculated by using the chemical half-life in soil, as cited in Howard,
Boethling, Jarvis, Meylan, and Michalenko (1991).
Fv value was calculated by using the equation cited in Junge (1977). Recommended
value of Fv was calculated by using the Vp value that is provided in this table.
94.95
179.44
2.16E+00
at 25°C
(liquid)
1.45E+04
1.41E-02
7.28E-02
1.21E-05
1.30E+01
9.00E+00
9.00E-02
6.75E-01
3.60E-01
9.03E+00
1.0
Note
NA = Not applicable
ND = No data available
All parameters are defined in LIST OF VARIABLES on page A-2-ii.
A-2-177
-------
TABLE A-2-137
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC INPUTS FOR METHYL CHLORIDE (74-87-3)
(Page 1 of 1)
Parameter
Reference and Explanation
Value
Chemical/Physical Properties
Mff(g/mole)
rm(K)
Vp (atm)
S (mg/L)
H (atm-m3/mol)
Da (cm2/s)
A, (cm2/s)
Km (unitless)
Koc (mL/g)
Kds (cm3/g)
&C (L/Kg)
Kdbs (cm3/g)
fag (year)"1
Fv (unitless)
Budavari, O'Neill, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
Budavari, O'Neill, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c).
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c).
H value was calculated by using the theoretical equation from Lyman, Reehl, and
Rosenblatt (1982), which defines the constant. Recommended value was calculated
by using the MW, S, and Vp values that are provided in this table.
Da value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
Dw value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c).
Geometric mean of measured values obtained from U.S. EPA (1996b).
Kd, value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed fraction organic carbon of 0.01 in soil. Measured
organic carbon in soil, specific to site conditions, should be used to calculate Kds,
because the value varies, depending on the fraction of organic carbon in soil.
Recommended Kds value was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in
this table.
Kd^, value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.075 in suspended
sediment. Measured organic carbon in suspended sediment, specific to site
conditions, should be used to calculate Kd^,, because the value varies, depending on
the fraction of organic carbon in suspended sediment. Recommended Kd^, value
was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
Kdbs value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon of 0.04 in bottom sediment.
Measured organic carbon in bottom sediment, specific to site conditions, should be
used to calculate Kdbs, because the value varies depending on the fraction of organic
fraction in bottom sediment. Recommended Kdbs value was calculated by using the
Koc value that is provided in this table.
Ksg value was calculated by using the chemical half-life in soil, as cited in Howard,
Boehling, Jarvis, Meylan, and Michalenko (1991).
Fv value was calculated by using the equation cited in Junge (1977). Recommended
value of Fv was calculated by using the Vp value that is provided in this table.
50.49
176.1
5.68E+00
at 25°C
(liquid)
6.34E+03
4.52E-02
2.13E-01
1.39E-05
8.00E+00
6.00E+00
6.00E-02
4.50E-01
2.40E-01
9.03E+00
1.0
Note:
NA = Not applicable
ND = No data available
All parameters are defined in LIST OF VARIABLES on page A-2-ii.
A-2-178
-------
TABLE A-2-138
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC INPUTS FOR METHYL ETHYL KETONE (78-93-3)
(Page 1 of 1)
Parameter
Reference and Explanation
Value
Chemical/Physical Properties
MW(g/mo\e)
rm(K)
Vp (atm)
S (mg/L)
H (atm-m3/mol)
Da (cm2/s)
A, (cm2/s)
Km (unitless)
Km (mL/g)
Kd. (cm3/g)
Kd^ (L/Kg)
^(cm3/g)
ksg (year)'1
.Fv (unitless)
Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
Vp value cited in U.S. EPA (1995b).
S value cited in U.S. EPA (1995b).
H value was calculated by using the theoretical equation from Lyman, Reehl, and
Rosenblatt (1982), which defines the constant. Recommended value was calculated
by using the MW, S, and Vp values that are provided in this table.
Da value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
Dw value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
Arithmetic mean value cited in Karickhoff and Long (1995).
Koc value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Km for all
nonionizing organics except phthalates, PAHs, dioxins, and furans as cited in
U.S. EPA (1994c). Koc value was calculated by using the recommended Km value
that is provided in this table.
Kds value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed fraction organic carbon of 0.01 in soil. Measured
organic carbon in soil, specific to site conditions, should be used to calculate Kd,,
because the value varies, depending on the fraction of organic carbon in soil. Kd,
value was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
Kd^, value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.075 in suspended
sediment. Measured organic carbon in suspended sediment, specific to site
conditions, should be used to calculate Kd^, because the value varies, depending on
the fraction of organic carbon in suspended sediment. Recommended Kdm value
was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
Kdb, value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon of 0.04 in bottom sediment.
Measured organic carbon in bottom sediment, specific to site conditions, should be
used to calculate Kdbs, because the value varies depending on the fraction of organic
fraction in bottom sediment. Recommended Kdb, value was calculated by using the
Koc value that is provided in this table.
Ksg value was calculated by using the chemical half-life in soil, as cited in Howard,
Boethling, Jarvis, Meylan, and Michalenko (1991).
Fv value was calculated by using the equation cited in Junge (1977). Recommended
value of Fv was calculated by using the Vp value that is provided in this table.
72.10
187.1
1.20E-01 at 25°C (liquid)
2.40E+05
3.61E-05
1.35E-01
1.03E-05
1.91E+00
2.34E+00
2.34E-02
1.76E-01
9.36E-02
3.61E+01
1.0
Note:
NA = Not applicable
ND = No data available
All parameters are defined in LIST OF VARIABLES on page A-2-ii.
A-2-179
-------
TABLE A-2-139
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC INPUTS FOR METHYL ISOBUTYL KETONE (108-10-1)
(Page 1 of 1)
Parameter
Reference and Explanation
Value
Chemical/Physical Properties
Mff(g/mole)
rm(K)
Vp (atm)
S (mg/L)
H (atm-m3/mol)
Da (cm2/s)
A, (cm2/s)
Km (unitless)
Koc (mL/g)
Kd. (cm3/g)
^ (L/Kg)
Kdbs (cm3/g)
fag (year)"1
Fv (unitless)
Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
Vp value cited in U.S. EPA (1995b).
S value cited in U.S. EPA (1995b).
H value was calculated by using the theoretical equation from Lyman, Reehl, and
Rosenblatt (1982), which defines the constant. Recommended value was calculated
by using the MW, S, and Vp values that are provided in this table.
Da value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
Dw value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
Arithmetic mean value cited in Karickhoff and Long (1995).
Koc value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Km for all
nonionizing organics except phthalates, PAHs, dioxins, and furans, cited in
U.S. EPA (1994c). Koc value was calculated by using the recommended Km value
that is provided in this table.
Kds value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.01 in soil. Measured
organic carbon in soil, specific to site conditions, should be used to calculate Kds,
because the value varies, depending on the fraction of organic carbon in soil.
Recommended Kds value was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in
this table.
Kdm value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.075 in suspended
sediment. Measured organic carbon in suspended sediment, specific to site
conditions, should be used to calculate Kd^, because the value varies, depending on
the fraction of organic carbon in suspended sediment. Recommended Kd^ value
was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
Kdbs value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.04 in bottom
sediment. Measured organic carbon in bottom sediment, specific to site conditions,
should be used to calculate Kdts, because the value varies, depending on the fraction
of organic carbon in bottom sediment. Recommended Kdbs value was calculated by
using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
ksg value was calculated by using the chemical half-life in soil, as cited in Howard,
Boethling, Jarvis, Meylan, and Michalenko (1991).
Fv value was calculated by using the equation cited in Junge (1977). Recommended
value ofFv was calculated by using the Vp value that is provided in this table.
100.16
188.4
2.50E-02
at 25°C
(liquid)
2.00E+04
1.25E-04
8.59E-02
8.36E-06
1.55E+01
1.20E+01
1.20E-01
9.00E-01
4.80E-01
3.61E+01
1.0
Note:
NA= Not applicable
ND= No data available
All parameters are defined in LIST OF VARIABLES on page A-2-ii.
A-2-180
-------
TABLE A-2-140
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC INPUTS FOR METHYL MERCURY (22967-92-6)
(Page 1 of 1)
Parameter
Reference and Explanation
Value
Chemical/Physical Properties
MW(g/mo\e)
Tm (°K)
Vp (atm)
S (mg/L)
H (atm-m3/mol)
Z)a(cm2/s)
A, (cm2/s)
Kow (unitless)
Koc (mL/g)
Kd, (mL/g)
Kd^ (L/Kg)
Kdbs(mL/g)
ksg (year)'1
Fv (unitless)
U.S. EPA(1997g)
--
--
--
U.S. EPA(1997g)
Da value was calculated using the equation cited in U.S. EPA (1997g).
Dv value was calculated using the equation cited in U.S. EPA (1996a).
--
--
U.S. EPA(1997g)
U.S. EPA(1997g)
U.S. EPA(1997g)
U.S. EPA(1996a)
Based on discussions provided in U.S. EPA (1996a), methyl mercury does not
exist in the air/vapor phase.
216.0
ND
ND
ND
4.7E-07
5.28E-02
6.11E-06
ND
ND
7.00E+03
l.OOE+05
3.00E+03
0.0
0.0
Note:
NA = Not Applicable
ND = No data available
All parameters are defined in LIST OF VARIABLES on page A-2-ii.
A-2-181
-------
TABLE A-2-141
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC INPUTS FOR METHYL PARATHION (298-00-0)
(Page 1 of 1)
Parameter
Reference and Explanation
Value
Chemical/Physical Properties
Mff(g/mole)
rm(K)
Vp (atm)
S (mg/L)
H (atm-m3/mol)
Da (cm2/s)
A, (cm2/s)
Km (unitless)
Koc (mL/g)
Kd. (cm3/g)
£*„ (L/Kg)
Kdbs (cm3/g)
fag (year)"1
Fv (unitless)
Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
Vp value cited in U.S. EPA (1992a).
S value cited in U.S. EPA (1992a).
H value was calculated by using the theoretical equation from Lyman, Reehl, and
Rosenblatt (1982), which defines the constant. Recommended value was calculated
by using the MW, S, and Vp values that are provided in this table.
Da value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
Dw value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
Km value cited in U.S. EPA (1995b).
Koc value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Km for phthalates
and PAHs, / all nonionizing organics except phthalates, PAHs, dioxins, and furans,
cited in U.S. EPA (1994c). Koc value was calculated by using the recommended Km
value that is provided in this table.
Kds value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.01 in soil. Measured
organic carbon in soil, specific to site conditions, should be used to calculate Kds,
because the value varies, depending on the fraction of organic carbon in soil.
Recommended Kds value was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in
this table.
Kdm value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.075 in suspended
sediment. Measured organic carbon in suspended sediment, specific to site
conditions, should be used to calculate Kd^,, because the value varies, depending on
the fraction of organic carbon in suspended sediment. Recommended Kd^ value
was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
Kdb, value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.04 in bottom
sediment. Measured organic carbon in bottom sediment, specific to site conditions,
should be used to calculate Kdts, because the value varies, depending on the fraction
of organic carbon in bottom sediment. Recommended Kdbs value was calculated by
using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
Ksg value was calculated by using the chemical half-life in soil, as cited in Howard,
Boethling, Jarvis, Meylan, and Michalenko (1991).
Fv value was calculated by using equations cited in Junge (1977) and Bidleman
(1988). Recommended value of Fv was calculated by using Tm and Vp values that
are provided in this table. Vp value for this compound was converted to a
liquid-phase value before being used in the calculations.
263.23
310.1
1.30E-08
at 25°C
(solid)
5.00E+01
6.84E-08
1.87E-02
6.43E-06
7.20E+02
2.40E+02
2.40E+00
1.80E+01
9.59E+00
7.03E-01
0.966
Note:
NA = Not applicable
ND = No data available
All parameters are defined in LIST OF VARIABLES on page A-2-ii.
A-2-182
-------
TABLE A-2-142
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC INPUTS FOR METHYLENE BROMIDE (74-95-3)
(Page 1 of 1)
Parameter
Reference and Explanation
Value
Chemical/Physical Properties
Mff(g/mole)
rm(K)
Vp (atm)
S (mg/L)
H (atm-m3/mol)
Da (cm2/s)
A, (cm2/s)
Km (unitless)
Koc (mL/g)
Kd. (cm3/g)
£*„ (L/Kg)
Kdbs (cm3/g)
fag (year)"1
Fv (unitless)
Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
Vp value cited in U.S. EPA (1995b).
S value cited in U.S. EPA (1995b).
H value was calculated by using the theoretical equation from Lyman, Reehl, and
Rosenblatt (1982), which defines the constant. Recommended value was calculated
by using the MW, S, and Vp values that are provided in this table.
Da value was calculated using the equation cited in U.S. EPA (1996a).
Dw value was calculated using the equation cited in U.S. EPA (1996a).
Arithmetic mean value cited in Karickhoff and Long (1995).
Koc value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Km for all
nonionizing organics except phthalates, PAHs, dioxins, and furans as cited in
U.S. EPA (1994c). Koc value was calculated by using the recommended Km value
that is provided in this table.
Kds value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed fraction organic carbon of 0.01 in soil. Measured
organic carbon in soil, specific to site conditions, should be used to calculate Kds,
because the value varies, depending on the fraction of organic carbon in soil.
Recommended Kds value was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in
this table.
Kdm value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.075 in suspended
sediment. Measured organic carbon in suspended sediment, specific to site
conditions, should be used to calculate Kd^,, because the value varies, depending on
the fraction of organic carbon in suspended sediment. Recommended Kd^ value
was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
Kdb, value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon of 0.04 in bottom sediment.
Measured organic carbon in bottom sediment, specific to site conditions, should be
used to calculate Kdbs, because the value varies depending on the fraction of organic
fraction in bottom sediment. Recommended Kdb, value was calculated by using the
Koc value that is provided in this table.
Ksg value was calculated by using the chemical half-life in soil, as cited in Howard,
Boethling, Jarvis, Meylan, and Michalenko (1991).
Fv value was calculated by using the equation cited in Junge (1977). Recommended
value of Fv was calculated by using the Vp value that is provided in this table.
173.86
220.4
2.20E+00
at 25°C
(liquid)
1.45E+04
2.64E-02
6.10E-02
7.06E-06
4.17E+01
2.60E+01
2.60E-01
1.95E+00
1.04E+00
9.03E+00
1.0
Note:
NA = Not applicable
ND = No data available
All parameters are defined in LIST OF VARIABLES on page A-2-ii.
A-2-183
-------
TABLE A-2-143
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC INPUTS FOR METHYLENE CHLORIDE (75-09-2)
(Page 1 of 1)
Parameter
Reference and Explanation
Value
Chemical/Physical Properties
MW(g/mo\e)
r»(K)
Fp(atm)
S(mg/L)
H (atm-mVmol)
Da (cm2/s)
Dv (cm2/s)
Km (unitless)
Kx (mL/g)
Kds (cmVg)
T^(L/Kg)
rrffa(cm3/g)
fog (year)"1
Fv (unitless)
Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c).
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c).
H value was calculated by using the theoretical equation from Lyman, Reehl, and
Rosenblatt (1982), which defines the constant. Recommended value was calculated
by using the MW, S, and Vp values that are provided in this table.
Da value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database U.S. EPA (1994d).
Dv value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database U.S. EPA (1994d).
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c).
Geometric mean of measured values obtained from U.S. EPA (1996b).
Kds value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed fraction organic carbon of 0.01 in soil. Measured
organic carbon in soil, specific to site conditions, should be used to calculate Kds,
because the value varies, depending on the fraction of organic carbon in soil.
Recommended Kds value was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in
this table.
Kd^ value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.075 in suspended
sediment. Measured organic carbon in suspended sediment, specific to site
conditions, should be used to calculate Kd^, because the value varies, depending on
the fraction of organic carbon in suspended sediment. Recommended Kd^ value
was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
Kdbs value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon of 0.04 in bottom sediment.
Measured organic carbon in bottom sediment, specific to site conditions, should be
used to calculate Kdbs, because the value varies depending on the fraction of organic
fraction in bottom sediment. Recommended Kdbs value was calculated by using the
Koc value that is provided in this table.
Ksg value was calculated by using the chemical half-life in soil, as cited in Howard,
Boethling, Jarvis, Meylan, and Michalenko (1991).
Fv value was calculated by using the equation cited in Junge (1977). Recommended
value of Fv was calculated by using the Vp value that is provided in this table.
84.94
178.1
4.87E-01
at 25°C
(liquid)
1.74E+04
2.38E-03
8.69E-02
1.25E-05
1.80E+01
l.OOE+01
l.OOE-01
7.50E-01
4.00E-01
9.03E+00
1.0
Note:
NA = Not applicable
ND = No data available
All parameters are defined in LIST OF VARIABLES on page A-2-ii.
A-2-184
-------
TABLE A-2-144
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC INPUTS FOR NAPHTHALENE (91-20-3)
(Page 1 of 1)
Parameter
Reference and Explanation
Value
Chemical/Physical Properties
MW(g/mo\e)
r»(K)
Fp(atm)
S(mg/L)
H (atm-mVmol)
Da (cm2/s)
Dv (cm2/s)
.RT^ (unitless)
Kx (mL/g)
&/, (cmVg)
T^(L/Kg)
rrffa(cm3/g)
fog (year)"1
Fv (unitless)
Budavari, O'Neill, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
Budavari, O'Neill, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c).
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c).
H value was calculated by using the theoretical equation from Lyman, Reehl, and
Rosenblatt (1982), which defines the constant. Recommended value was calculated
by using the MW, S, and Vp values that are provided in this table.
Da value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d)
Dv value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d)
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c).
Geometric mean of measured values obtained from U.S. EPA (1996b).
Kds value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed fraction organic carbon of 0.01 in soil. Measured
organic carbon in soil, specific to site conditions, should be used to calculate Kds,
because the value varies, depending on the fraction of organic carbon in soil.
Recommended Kds value was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in
this table.
Kd^ value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.075 in suspended
sediment. Measured organic carbon in suspended sediment, specific to site
conditions, should be used to calculate Kd^, because the value varies, depending on
the fraction of organic carbon in suspended sediment. Recommended Kd^ value
was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
Kdbs value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon of 0.04 in bottom sediment.
Measured organic carbon in bottom sediment, specific to site conditions, should be
used to calculate Kdbs, because the value varies depending on the fraction of organic
fraction in bottom sediment. Recommended Kdbs value was calculated by using the
Koc value that is provided in this table.
Ksg value was calculated by using the chemical half-life in soil, as cited in Howard,
Boethling, Jarvis, Meylan, and Michalenko (1991).
Fv value was calculated by using equations cited in Junge (1977) and Bidleman
(1988). Recommended value of Fv was calculated by using S, Tm, and Vp values
that are provided in this table. Vp value for this compound was converted to a
liquid-phase value before being used in the calculations.
128.16
353.3
1.17E-04
at 25°C
(solid)
3.11E+01
4.82E-04
5.26E-02
8.92E-06
2.36E+03
1.19E+03
1.19E+01
8.93E+01
4.76E+01
5.27E+00
1.0
Note:
NA = Not applicable
ND = No data available
All parameters are defined in LIST OF VARIABLES on page A-2-ii.
A-2-185
-------
TABLE A-2-145
NICKEL (7440-02-0)
(Page 1 of 1)
Parameter
Reference and Explanation
Value
Chemical/Physical Properties
MW(g/mo\e)
Tn (°K)
Vp (atm)
S (mg/L)
H (atm-m3/mol)
Da (cm2/s)
A, (cm2/s)
Kow (unitless)
Koc (mL/g)
Kds (mL/g)
^ (L/Kg)
Kdbs(mL/g)
ksg (year)"1
Fv (unitless)
Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
All metals, except mercury, are assumed to be nonvolatile at ambient
temperatures.
All metals, except mercury, are assumed to be insoluble in water.
H value is assumed to be zero, because the Vp and S values are zero for all
metals, except mercury.
Da value was calculated using the equation cited in U.S. EPA (1996a).
Dw value was calculated using the equation cited in U.S. EPA (1996a).
--
--
Kd, value was obtained from U.S. EPA (1996b), which provides pH-based
values that were estimated by using the MDSTTEQ2 geochemical speciation
model.
Kdm value is assumed to be same as the Kds value, because organic carbon does
not play a major role in sorption for the metals, as cited in U.S. EPA (1 994f).
Kdts value is assumed to be same as the Kds value, because organic carbon does
not play a major role in sorption for the metals, as cited in U.S. EPA (1 994f).
--
Because they are nonvolatile, metals are assumed to be 100 percent in
particulate phase and zero percent in the vapor phase, as cited in
U.S. EPA(1994f).
58.69
1,828
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.26E-01
1.46E-05
NA
NA
16atpH=4.9;
65atpH=6.8;
1,900 at pH=8.0;
16atpH=4.9;
65atpH=6.8;
1,900 at pH=8.0;
16atpH=4.9;
65atpH=6.8;
1,900 at pH=8.0;
ND
0.0
Note:
NA = Not applicable
ND = No data available
All parameters are defined in LIST OF VARIABLES on page A-2-ii.
A-2-186
-------
TABLE A-2-146
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC INPUTS FOR 2-NITROANILINE (88-74-4)
(Page 1 of 1)
Parameter
Reference and Explanation
Value
Chemical/Physical Properties
Mff(g/mole)
rm(K)
Vp (atm)
S (mg/L)
H (atm-m3/mol)
Da (cm2/s)
A, (cm2/s)
Km (unitless)
Koc (mL/g)
Kd. (cm3/g)
&/„ (L/Kg)
rrffo (cm3/g)
ksg (year)"1
Fv (unitless)
Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
Vp value cited in Montgomery and Welcom (1991).
S value cited in Montgomery and Welcom (1991).
H value was calculated by using the theoretical equation from Lyman, Reehl,
and Rosenblatt (1982), which defines the constant. Recommended value was
calculated by using the MW, S, and Vp values that are provided in this table.
Da value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
A, value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
Arithmetic mean value cited in Karickhoff and Long (1995).
Koc value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Km for
phthalates and PAHs, / all nonionizing organics except phthalates, PAHs,
dioxins, and furans, cited in U.S. EPA (1994c). Koe value was calculated by
using the recommended Km value that is provided in this table.
Kds value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited
in U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.01 in soil.
Measured organic carbon in soil, specific to site conditions, should be used to
calculate Kd,, because the value varies, depending on the fraction of organic
carbon in soil. Recommended Kds value was calculated by using the Koc value
that is provided in this table.
Kd^, value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited
in U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.075 in
suspended sediment. Measured organic carbon in suspended sediment, specific
to site conditions, should be used to calculate Kd^,, because the value varies,
depending on the fraction of organic carbon in suspended sediment.
Recommended Kdm value was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided
in this table.
Kdbs value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koe that is cited
in U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.04 in bottom
sediment. Measured organic carbon in bottom sediment, specific to site
conditions, should be used to calculate Kdts, because the value varies, depending
on the fraction of organic carbon in bottom sediment. Recommended Kdts value
was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
Ksg value wasassumed to be 0 due to a lack of data.
Fv value was calculated by using equations cited in Junge (1 977) and Bidleman
(1988). Recommended value of Fv was calculated by using Tm and Vp values
that are provided in this table. Vp value for this compound was converted to a
liquid-phase value before being used in the calculations.
138.12
342.1
1.07E-05
at 25°C
(solid)
1.26E+03
1.17E-06
4.29E-02
9.81E-06
7.08E+01
3.93E+01
3.93E-01
2.95E+00
1.57E+00
0.0
1.00
Note:
NA = Not applicable
ND = No data available
All parameters are defined in LIST OF VARIABLES on page A-2-ii.
A-2-187
-------
TABLE A-2-147
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC INPUTS FOR 3-NITROANILINE (99-09-2)
(Page 1 of 1)
Parameter
Reference and Explanation
Value
Chemical/Physical Properties
Mff(g/mole)
rm(K)
Vp (atm)
S (mg/L)
H (atm-m3/mol)
Z)a(cm2/s)
A, (cm2/s)
Kow (unitless)
Koc (mL/g)
^(cmVg)
Kdm (L/Kg)
Sfa(cm3/g)
fesg (year)'1
Fv (unitless)
Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
--
S value cited in Montgomery and Welcom (1991)
H value was calculated by using the theoretical equation from Lyman, Reehl,
and Rosenblatt (1982), which defines the constant.
Da value was calculated using the equation cited in U.S. EPA (1996a).
Dw value was calculated using the equation cited in U.S. EPA (1 996a).
Arithmetic mean value cited in Karickhoff and Long (1995).
Koc value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Km for
phthalates and PAHs, / all nonionizing organics except phthalates, PAHs,
dioxins, and furans, cited in U.S. EPA (1994c). Koc value was calculated by
using the recommended Km value that is provided in this table.
Kds value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited
in U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.01 in soil.
Measured organic carbon in soil, specific to site conditions, should be used to
calculate Kds, because the value varies, depending on the fraction of organic
carbon in soil. Recommended Kds value was calculated by using the Koc value
that is provided in this table.
Kd^ value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited
in U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.075 in
suspended sediment. Measured organic carbon in suspended sediment, specific
to site conditions, should be used to calculate Kd^, because the value varies,
depending on the fraction of organic carbon in suspended sediment.
Recommended Kd^ value was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided
in this table.
Kdbs value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited
in U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.04 in bottom
sediment. Measured organic carbon in bottom sediment, specific to site
conditions, should be used to calculate Kdbs, because the value varies, depending
on the fraction of organic carbon in bottom sediment. Recommended Kdbs value
was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
Ksg value was assumed to be 0 due to a lack of data.
Fv value was assumed to be 1.0 due to a lack of data.
138.12
387.1
1.07E-05
at 25°C
(solid)
8.90E+02
1.65E-06
7.11E-02
8.23E-06
2.34E+01
1.66E+01
1.66E-01
1.24E+00
6.62E-01
0.0
1.0
Note:
NA = Not applicable
ND = No data available
All parameters are defined in LIST OF VARIABLES on page A-2-ii.
A-2-188
-------
TABLE A-2-148
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC INPUTS FOR 4-NITROANILINE (100-01-6)
(Page 1 of 1)
Parameter
Reference and Explanation
Value
Chemical/Physical Properties
Mff(g/mole)
rm(K)
Vp (atm)
S (mg/L)
H (atm-mVmol)
Da (cm2/s)
A, (cm2/s)
Kow (unitless)
Koc (mL/g)
Kd. (cm3/g)
Kdn (L/Kg)
&/,,, (cm3/g)
ksg (year)"1
Fv (unitless)
Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
--
S value cited in Montgomery and Welcom (1991)
H value was calculated by using the theoretical equation from Lyman, Reehl,
and Rosenblatt (1982), which defines the constant.
Da value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
A, value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
Arithmetic mean value cited in Karickhoff and Long (1995).
Koc value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Km for
phthalates and PAHs, / all nonionizing organics except phthalates, PAHs,
dioxins, and furans, cited in U.S. EPA (1994c). Koc value was calculated by
using the recommended Kow value that is provided in this table.
Kds value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited
in U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.01 in soil.
Measured organic carbon in soil, specific to site conditions, should be used to
calculate Kd,, because the value varies, depending on the fraction of organic
carbon in soil. Recommended Kds value was calculated by using the Koc value
that is provided in this table.
Kd„ value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited
in U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.075 in
suspended sediment. Measured organic carbon in suspended sediment, specific
to site conditions, should be used to calculate Kd^, because the value varies,
depending on the fraction of organic carbon in suspended sediment.
Recommended Kdm value was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided
in this table.
Kdbs value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited
in U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.04 in bottom
sediment. Measured organic carbon in bottom sediment, specific to site
conditions, should be used to calculate Kdbs, because the value varies, depending
on the fraction of organic carbon in bottom sediment. Recommended Kdts value
was calculated by using the Koe value that is provided in this table.
Ksg value was assumed to be 0 due to a lack of data.
Fv value was assumed to be 1.0 due to a lack of data.
138.12
419.10
ND
1.07E-05
1.65E-06
4.31E-02
9.75E-06
2.46E+01
1.72E+01
1.72E-01
1.29E+00
6.89E-01
0.0
1.0
Note:
NA = Not applicable
ND = No data available
All parameters are defined in LIST OF VARIABLES on page A-2-ii.
A-2-189
-------
TABLE A-2-149
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC INPUTS FOR NITROBENZENE (98-95-3)
(Page 1 of 1)
Parameter
Reference and Explanation
Value
Chemical/Physical Properties
Mff(g/mole)
rm(K)
Vp (atm)
S (mg/L)
H (atm-m3/mol)
Da (cm2/s)
A, (cm2/s)
Km (unitless)
Koc (mL/g)
Kds (mL/g)
&C (L/Kg)
rrffo (mL/g)
fag (year)"1
Fv (unitless)
Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c)
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c)
H value was calculated by using the theoretical equation from Lyman, Reehl, and
Rosenblatt (1982), which defines the constant. Recommended value was calculated
by using the MW, S and Vp values that are provided in this table.
Da value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database, U.S. EPA (1994d).
Dw value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database, U.S. EPA (1994d).
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c).
Geometric mean of measured values obtained from U.S. EPA (1996b).
Kd, value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed fraction organic carbon of 0.01 in soil. Measured
organic carbon in soil, specific to site conditions, should be used to calculate Kds,
because the value varies, depending on the fraction of organic carbon in soil.
Recommended Kds value was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in
this table.
Kd^, value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.075 in suspended
sediment. Measured organic carbon in suspended sediment, specific to site
conditions, should be used to calculate Kdm, because the value varies, depending on
the fraction of organic carbon in suspended sediment. Recommended Kd^, value
was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
Kdbs value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.04 in bottom
sediment. Measured organic carbon in bottom sediment, specific to site conditions,
should be used to calculate Kdbs, because the value varies, depending on the fraction
of organic carbon in bottom sediment. Recommended Kdts value was calculated by
using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
ksg value was calculated by using the chemical half-life in soil, as cited in Howard,
Boethling, Jarvis, Meylan, and Michalenko (1991).
Fv value was calculated by using the equation cited in Junge (1977). Recommended
value of Fv was calculated by using the liquid-phase Vp value that is provided in
this table.
123.11
279.1
3.21E-04
at 25°C
(liquid)
1.92E+03
2.06E-05
5.43E-02
9.43E-06
6.80E+01
1.19E+02
1.19E+00
8.93E+00
4.76E+004
1.28E+00
1.0
Note:
NA= Not applicable
ND= No data available
All parameters are defined in LIST OF VARIABLES on page A-2-ii.
A-2-190
-------
TABLE A-2-150
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC INPUTS FOR 2-NITROPHENOL (88-75-5)
(Page 1 of 1)
Parameter
Reference and Explanation
Value
Chemical/Physical Properties
Mff(g/mole)
rm(K)
Vp (atm)
S (mg/L)
H (atm-mVmol)
Z)a(cm2/s)
A, (cm2/s)
Km (unitless)
Kac (mL/g)
Kds (cm3/g)
Kd^ (L/Kg)
^(cm3/g)
fog (year)'1
Fv (unitless)
Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
Vp value cited in Howard (1989-1993).
S value cited in Howard (1989-1993).
H value was calculated by using the theoretical equation from Lyman, Reehl,
and Rosenblatt (1982), which defines the constant. Recommended value was
calculated by using the MW, S, and Vp values that are provided in this table.
Da value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
A, value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
Arithmetic mean value cited in Karickhoff and Long (1995).
Koe value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Km for
phthalates and PAHs, / all nonionizing organics except phthalates, PAHs,
dioxins, and furans, cited in U.S. EPA (1994c). Koc value was calculated by
using the recommended Km value that is provided in this table.
Kds value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koe that is cited
in U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.01 in soil.
Measured organic carbon in soil, specific to site conditions, should be used to
calculate Kds, because the value varies, depending on the fraction of organic
carbon in soil. Recommended Kds value was calculated by using the Koc value
that is provided in this table.
Kd^, value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited
in U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.075 in
suspended sediment. Measured organic carbon in suspended sediment, specific
to site conditions, should be used to calculate Kd^, because the value varies,
depending on the fraction of organic carbon in suspended sediment.
Recommended Kd^, value was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided
in this table.
Kdbs value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited
in U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.04 in bottom
sediment. Measured organic carbon in bottom sediment, specific to site
conditions, should be used to calculate Kdbs, because the value varies, depending
on the fraction of organic carbon in bottom sediment. Recommended Kdbs value
was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
Ksg value was calculated by using the chemical half-life in soil, as cited in
Howard, Boethling, Jarvis, Meylan, and Michalenko (1991).
Fv value was calculated by using equations cited in Junge (1977) and Bidleman
(1988). Recommended value of Fv was calculated by using Tm and Vp values
that are provided in this table. Vp value for this compound was converted to a
liquid-phase value before being used in the calculations.
139.11
317.1
2.63E-04
at 25°C (solid)
2.50E+03
1.46E-05
4.44E-02
9.19E-06
6.17E+01
3.53E+01
3.53E-01
2.65E+00
1.41E+00
9.03E+00
1.00
Note:
NA = Not applicable
ND = No data available
All parameters are defined in LIST OF VARIABLES on page A-2-ii.
A-2-191
-------
TABLE A-2-151
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC INPUTS FOR 4-NITROPHENOL (100-02-7)
(Page 1 of 1)
Parameter
Reference and Explanation
Value
Chemical/Physical Properties
Mff(g/mole)
rm(K)
Vp (atm)
S (mg/L)
H (atm-m3/mol)
Da (cm2/s)
A, (cm2/s)
Kow (unitless)
Koc (mL/g)
Kd. (cm3/g)
Kd^ (L/Kg)
rrffo (cm3/g)
ksg (year)"1
Fv (unitless)
Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
Vp value cited in Howard (1989-1993).
S value cited in Howard (1989-1993).
H value was calculated by using the theoretical equation from Lyman, Reehl,
and Rosenblatt (1982), which defines the constant. Recommended value was
calculated by using the MW, S, and Vp values that are provided in this table.
Da value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
A, value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
Arithmetic mean value cited in Karickhoff and Long (1995).
Koc value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Km for
phthalates and PAHs, / all nonionizing organics except phthalates, PAHs,
dioxins, and furans, cited in U.S. EPA (1994c). Koe value was calculated by
using the recommended Km value that is provided in this table.
Kds value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited
in U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.01 in soil.
Measured organic carbon in soil, specific to site conditions, should be used to
calculate Kd,, because the value varies, depending on the fraction of organic
carbon in soil. Recommended Kds value was calculated by using the Koc value
that is provided in this table.
Kd^, value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited
in U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.075 in
suspended sediment. Measured organic carbon in suspended sediment, specific
to site conditions, should be used to calculate Kd^,, because the value varies,
depending on the fraction of organic carbon in suspended sediment.
Recommended Kdm value was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided
in this table.
Kdbs value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koe that is cited
in U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.04 in bottom
sediment. Measured organic carbon in bottom sediment, specific to site
conditions, should be used to calculate Kdts, because the value varies, depending
on the fraction of organic carbon in bottom sediment. Recommended Kdts value
was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
Ksg value was calculated by using the chemical half-life in soil, as cited in
Howard, Boethling, Jarvis, Meylan, and Michalenko (1991).
Fv value was calculated by using equations cited in Junge (1977) and Bidleman
(1988). Recommended value of Fv was calculated by using Tm and Vp values
that are provided in this table. Vp value for this compound was converted to a
liquid-phase value before being used in the calculations.
139.11
386.1
1.32E-06
at 25°C (solid)
2.50E+04
7.32E-09
4.30E-02
9.61E-06
8.13E+01
4.37E+01
4.37E-01
3.28E+00
1.75E+00
2.09E+02
1.00
Note:
NA = Not applicable
ND = No data available
All parameters are defined in LIST OF VARIABLES on page A-2-ii.
A-2-192
-------
TABLE A-2-152
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC INPUTS FOR N-NITROSO-DI-N-BUTYLAMINE (924-16-3)
(Page 1 of 1)
Parameter
Reference and Explanation
Value
Chemical/Physical Properties
Mff(g/mole)
rm(K)
Vp (atm)
S (mg/L)
H (atm-m3/mol)
Da (cm2/s)
A, (cm2/s)
Kow (unitless)
Koc (mL/g)
Kd. (cm3/g)
^ (L/Kg)
rrffo (cm3/g)
ksg (year)"1
Fv (unitless)
MW value cited in U.S. EPA (1995b)
--
Vp value cited in U.S. EPA (1995b)
S value cited in U.S. EPA (1995b)
H value was calculated by using the theoretical equation from Lyman, Reehl, and
Rosenblatt (1982), which defines the constant. Recommended value was calculated
by using the MW, S, and Vp values that are provided in this table.
Da value was calculated using the equation cited in U.S. EPA (1996a).
Dw value was calculated using the equation cited in U.S. EPA (1996a).
Arithmetic mean value cited in Karickhoff and Long (1995)
Koc value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Km for all
nonionizing organics except phthalates, PAHs, dioxins, and furans, cited in
U.S. EPA (1994c). Koc value was calculated by using the recommended Km value
that is provided in this table.
Kds value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.01 in soil. Measured
organic carbon in soil, specific to site conditions, should be used to calculate Kds,
because the value varies, depending on the fraction of organic carbon in soil.
Recommended Kds value was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in
this table.
Kdm value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.075 in suspended
sediment. Measured organic carbon in suspended sediment, specific to site
conditions, should be used to calculate Kd^, because the value varies, depending on
the fraction of organic carbon in suspended sediment. Recommended Kd^ value
was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
Kdbs value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.04 in bottom
sediment. Measured organic carbon in bottom sediment, specific to site conditions,
should be used to calculate Kdts, because the value varies, depending on the fraction
of organic carbon in bottom sediment. Recommended Kdbs value was calculated by
using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
Ksg value was calculated by using the chemical half-life in soil, as cited in Howard,
Boethling, Jarvis, Meylan, and Michalenko (1991).
Fv value cited in NC DEHNR (1997).
158.20
NA
3.80E-04
at 25°C
1.10E+03
5.47E-05
6.50E-02
7.52E-06
2.57E+02
1.07E+02
1.07E+00
8.05E+00
4.29E+00
7.44E+00
1.0
Note:
NA = Not applicable
ND = No data available
All parameters are defined in LIST OF VARIABLES on page A-2-ii.
A-2-193
-------
TABLE A-2-153
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC INPUTS FOR 7V-NITROSODIPHENYLAMINE (86-30-6)
(Page 1 of 1)
Parameter
Reference and Explanation
Value
Chemical/Physical Properties
Mff(g/mole)
r»(K)
Fp(atm)
S(mg/L)
H (atm-mVmol)
Da(cm2/s)
Dw (cm2/s)
Km (unitless)
Koc (mL/g)
^(cm3/g)
Kd^ (L/Kg)
Sfa(cm3/g)
fesg (year)'1
Fv (unitless)
Montgomery and Welkom (1991)
Montgomery and Welkom (1991)
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c)
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c)
H value was calculated by using the theoretical equation from Lyman, Reehl, and
Rosenblatt (1982), which defines the constant. Recommended value was calculated
by using the MW, S, and Vp values that are provided in this table.
Da value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
Dw value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c).
Estimated value was obtained from U.S. EPA (1994c).
Kds value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.01 in soil. Measured
organic carbon in soil, specific to site conditions, should be used to calculate Kds,
because the value varies, depending on the fraction of organic carbon in soil.
Recommended Kds value was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in
this table.
Kd^ value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.075 in suspended
sediment. Measured organic carbon in suspended sediment, specific to site
conditions, should be used to calculate Kd^, because the value varies, depending on
the fraction of organic carbon in suspended sediment. Recommended Kd^ value
was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
Kdbs value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.04 in bottom
sediment. Measured organic carbon in bottom sediment, specific to site conditions,
should be used to calculate Kdbs, because the value varies, depending on the fraction
of organic carbon in bottom sediment. Recommended Kdbs value was calculated by
using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
Ksg value was calculated by using the chemical half-life in soil, as cited in Howard,
Boethling, Jarvis, Meylan, and Michalenko (1991).
Fv value was calculated by using equations cited in Junge (1977) and Bidleman
(1988). Recommended value of Fv was calculated by using Tm and Vp values that
are provided in this table. Vp value for this compound was converted to a
liquid-phase value before being used in the calculations.
198.23
339.6
1.32E-04
at25°C
(solid)
3.74E+01
6.99E-04
3.12E-02
6.35E-06
1.06E+03
3.27E+02, for pH range of 4.9
to 8.0
3.27E+00
2.45E+01
1.31E+01
7.44E+00
1.0
Note:
NA = Not applicable
ND = No data available
All parameters are defined in LIST OF VARIABLES on page A-2-ii.
A-2-194
-------
TABLE A-2-154
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC INPUTS FOR 7V-NITROSODIPROPYLAMINE (621-64-7)
(Page 1 of 1)
Parameter
Reference and Explanation
Value
Chemical/Physical Properties
Mff(g/mole)
r»(K)
Fp(atm)
S(mg/L)
H (atm-mVmol)
Da(cm2/s)
Dw (cm2/s)
Km (unitless)
Koc (mL/g)
Kds (cmVg)
T^(L/Kg)
Kdbs(cm3/g)
ksg (year)"1
Fv (unitless)
Montgomery and Welkom (1991)
--
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c).
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c).
H value was calculated by using the theoretical equation from Lyman, Reehl, and
Rosenblatt (1982), which defines the constant. Recommended value was calculated
by using the MW, S, and Vp values that are provided in this table.
Da value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
Dw value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
Km value cited in U.S. EPA (1995b).
Koc value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Km for phthalates
and PAHs, / all nonionizing organics except phthalates, PAHs, dioxins, and furans,
cited in U.S. EPA (1994c). Koc value was calculated by using the recommended Km
value that is provided in this table.
Kds value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.01 in soil. Measured
organic carbon in soil, specific to site conditions, should be used to calculate Kds,
because the value varies, depending on the fraction of organic carbon in soil.
Recommended Kds value was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in
this table.
Kd^ value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.075 in suspended
sediment. Measured organic carbon in suspended sediment, specific to site
conditions, should be used to calculate Kd^, because the value varies, depending on
the fraction of organic carbon in suspended sediment. Recommended Kd^ value
was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
Kdbs value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.04 in bottom
sediment. Measured organic carbon in bottom sediment, specific to site conditions,
should be used to calculate Kdbs, because the value varies, depending on the fraction
of organic carbon in bottom sediment. Recommended Kdbs value was calculated by
using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
Ksg value was calculated by using the chemical half-life in soil, as cited in Howard,
Boethling, Jarvis, Meylan, and Michalenko (1991)
Fv value was calculated by using the equation cited in Junge (1977). Recommended
value of Fv was calculated by using the Vp value that is provided in the table.
130.19
ND
4.63E-03
at25°C
(liquid)
1.46E+04
4.13E-05
5.67E-02
7.75E-06
2.40E+01
1.70E+01
1.70E-01
1.28E+00
6.80E-01
1.41E+00
1.00
Note:
NA = Not applicable
ND = No data available
All parameters are defined in LIST OF VARIABLES on page A-2-ii.
A-2-195
-------
TABLE A-2-155
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC INPUTS FOR
1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9-OCTACHLORODIBENZO(P)DIOXIN (3268-87-9)
(Page 1 of 1)
Parameter
Reference and Explanation
Value
Chemical/Physical Properties
MW(g/mo\e)
r»(K)
Fp(atm)
S(mg/L)
H (atm-mVmol)
Da (cm2/s)
Dv (cm2/s)
Km (unitless)
Koc (mL/g)
Kds (cmVg)
T^(L/Kg)
Kdbs(cm3/g)
ksg (year)"1
Fv (unitless)
U.S. EPA(1994a)
U.S. EPA(1994a)
U.S. EPA(1994a)
U.S. EPA(1994a)
U.S. EPA(1994a)
Da value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
Dw value was calculated using the equation cited in U.S. EPA (1996a).
U.S. EPA(1994a)
Koc value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Km for dioxins
and furans that is cited in U.S. EPA (1994a; 1994c). Recommended value was
calculated by using the recommended Km value that is provided in this table.
Kds value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited
in U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.01 in soil.
Measured organic carbon in soil, specific to site conditions, should be used to
calculate Kds, because the value varies, depending on the fraction of organic
carbon in soil. Recommended Kds value was calculated by using the Koc value
that is provided in this table.
Kd^ value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited
in U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.075 in
suspended sediment. Measured organic carbon in suspended sediment, specific
to site conditions, should be used to calculate Kd^, because the value varies,
depending on the fraction of organic carbon in suspended sediment.
Recommended Kd^ value was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided
in this table.
Kdbs value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited
in U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.04 in bottom
sediment. Measured organic carbon in bottom sediment, specific to site
conditions, should be used to calculate Kdbs, because the value varies depending
on the fraction of organic carbon in bottom sediment. Recommended Kdbs value
was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
ksg value was calculated by using the chemical half-life in soil, as cited in
Mackay, Shiu, and Ma (1992).
Fv value was calculated by using equations cited in Junge (1977) and Bidleman
(1988). Recommended value of Fv was calculated by using Tm and Vp values
that are provided in this table. Vp value for this compound was converted to a
liquid-phase value before being used in the calculations.
460.76
598.1
1.09E-15
at 25°C
(solid)
7.40E-08
7.00E-09
1.06E-02
3.69E-07
3.89E+07
2.40E+07
2.40E+05
1.80E+06
9.60E+05
1.09E-01
0.0017
Note:
NA = Not Applicable
ND = No Data Available
All parameters are defined in LIST OF VARIABLES on page A-2-ii.
A-2-196
-------
TABLE A-2-156
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC INPUTS FOR
1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9-OCTACHLORODIBENZO(P)FURAN (39001-02-0)
(Page 1 of 1)
Parameter
Reference and Explanation
Value
Chemical/Physical Properties
MW(g/mo\e)
r»(K)
Fp(atm)
S(mg/L)
H (atm-mVmol)
Da (cm2/s)
Dv (cm2/s)
Km (unitless)
Koc (mL/g)
^(cmVg)
Kd^ (L/Kg)
Kdbs(cm3/g)
ksg (year)'1
Fv (unitless)
U.S. EPA(1994a)
U.S. EPA(1994a)
U.S. EPA(1994a)
U.S. EPA(1994a)
U.S.EPA(1994a)
Da value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
Dw value was calculated using the equation cited in U.S. EPA (1996a).
U.S. EPA(1994a)
Koc value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Km for dioxins
and furans that is cited in U.S. EPA (1994a) and U.S. EPA (1994c).
Recommended value was calculated by using the recommended Km value that is
provided in this table.
Kds value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited
in U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.01 in soil.
Measured organic carbon in soil, specific to site conditions, should be used to
calculate Kds, because the value varies, depending on the fraction of organic
carbon in soil. Recommended Kds value was calculated by using the Koc value
that is provided in this table.
Kd^ value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited
in U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.075 in
suspended sediment. Measured organic carbon in suspended sediment, specific
to site conditions, should be used to calculate Kd^, because the value varies,
depending on the fraction of organic carbon in suspended sediment.
Recommended Kd^ value was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided
in this table.
Kdbs value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited
in U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.04 in bottom
sediment. Measured organic carbon in bottom sediment, specific to site
conditions, should be used to calculate Kdbs, because the value varies depending
on the fraction of organic carbon in bottom sediment. Recommended Kdbs value
was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
ksg value was calculated by using the chemical half-life in soil, as cited in
Mackay, Shiu, and Ma (1992).
Fv value was calculated by using equations cited in Junge (1977) and Bidleman
(1988). Recommended value of Fv was calculated by using Tm and Vp values
that are provided in this table. Vp value for this compound was converted to a
liquid phase value before being used in the calculations.
444.76
531.1
4.93E-15
at 25°C
(solid)
1.20E-06
1.90E-06
1.48E-02
3.78E-06
6.03E+08
3.72E+08
3.72E+06
2.79E+07
1.49E+07
1.10E-01
1.67E-03
Note:
NA = Not Applicable
ND = No Data Available
All parameters are defined in LIST OF VARIABLES on page A-2-ii.
A-2-197
-------
TABLE A-2-157
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC INPUTS FOR
1,2,3,7,8-PENTACHLORODIBENZO(P)DIOXIN (40321-76-4)
(Page 1 of 1)
Parameter
Reference and Explanation
Value
Chemical/Physical Properties
MW(g/mo\e)
r»(K)
Fp(atm)
S(mg/L)
H (atm-mVmol)
Da (cm2/s)
Dv (cm2/s)
Km (unitless)
Koc (mL/g)
^(cmVg)
Kd^ (L/Kg)
Kdbs(cm3/g)
ksg (year)'1
Fv (unitless)
U.S. EPA(1994a)
U.S. EPA(1994a)
U.S. EPA(1994a)
Homologue group average value obtained from U.S. EPA (1994a).
U.S. EPA(1994a)
Da value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
Dw value was calculated using the equation cited in U.S. EPA (1996a).
U.S. EPA(1992d)
Koc value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Km for dioxins
and furans that is cited in U.S. EPA (1994a) and U.S. EPA (1994c).
Recommended value was calculated by using the recommended Km value that is
provided in this table.
Kds value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited
in U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.01 in soil.
Measured organic carbon in soil, specific to site conditions, should be used to
calculate Kds, because the value varies, depending on the fraction of organic
carbon in soil. Recommended Kds value was calculated by using the Koc value
that is provided in this table.
Kd^ value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited
in U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.075 in
suspended sediment. Measured organic carbon in suspended sediment, specific
to site conditions, should be used to calculate Kd^, because the value varies,
depending on the fraction of organic carbon in suspended sediment.
Recommended Kd^ value was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided
in this table.
Kdbs value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited
in U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.04 in bottom
sediment. Measured organic carbon in bottom sediment, specific to site
conditions, should be used to calculate Kdbs, because the value varies depending
on the fraction of organic carbon in bottom sediment. Recommended Kdbs value
was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
Ksg value was assumed to be 0 due to a lack of data.
Fv value was calculated by using equations cited in Junge (1977) and Bidleman
(1988). Recommended value of Fv was calculated by using Tm and Vp values
that are provided in this table. Vp value for this compound was converted to a
liquid-phase value before being used in the calculations.
356.42
513.1
1.25E-12
at 25°C
(solid)
1.20E-04
2.60E-06
1.21E-02
4.38E-06
4.37E+06
2.69E+06
2.69E+04
2.02E+05
1.08E+05
0.0
2.19E-01
Note:
NA = Not Applicable
ND = No Data Available
All parameters are defined in LIST OF VARIABLES on page A-2-ii.
A-2-198
-------
TABLE A-2-158
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC INPUTS FOR
1,2,3,7,8-PENTACHLORODIBENZO(P)FURAN (57117-41-6)
(Page 1 of 1)
Parameter
Reference and Explanation
Value
Chemical/Physical Properties
MW(g/mo\e)
r»(K)
Fp(atm)
S(mg/L)
H (atm-mVmol)
Da (cm2/s)
Dv (cm2/s)
Km (unitless)
Kx (mL/g)
JM,(cm3/g)
Kdm (L/Kg)
Kdbs(cm3/g)
ksg (year)"1
Fv (unitless)
U.S. EPA(1994a)
U.S. EPA(1994a)
U.S. EPA(1994a)
Homologue group average value obtained from U.S. EPA (1994a).
U.S. EPA(1994a)
Da value was calculated by using Equation A-3-2. Recommended value was
calculated by using the MW and Da values that are provided in the tables in
Appendix A-2 for 2,3,7,8-TCDF.
Dw value was calculated using the equation cited in U.S. EPA (1996a).
U.S. EPA(1992d)
Koc value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Km for dioxins
and furans that is cited in U.S. EPA (1994a) and U.S. EPA (1994c).
Recommended value was calculated by using the recommended Km value that is
provided in this table.
Kds value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited
in U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.01 in soil.
Measured organic carbon in soil, specific to site conditions, should be used to
calculate Kds, because the value varies, depending on the fraction of organic
carbon in soil. Recommended Kds value was calculated by using the Koc value
that is provided in this table.
Kd^ value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited
in U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.075 in
suspended sediment. Measured organic carbon in suspended sediment, specific
to site conditions, should be used to calculate Kd^, because the value varies,
depending on the fraction of organic carbon in suspended sediment.
Recommended Kd^, value was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided
in this table.
Kdbs value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited
in U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.04 in bottom
sediment. Measured organic carbon in bottom sediment, specific to site
conditions, should be used to calculate Kdbs, because the value varies depending
on the fraction of organic carbon in bottom sediment. Recommended Kdbs value
was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
ksg value assumed to be the same as the ksg value calculated for 2,3,4,7,8-
PentaCDF. ksg value was calculated by using the chemical half- life in soil, as
cited in Mackay, Shiu, and Ma (1992).
Fv value was calculated by using equations cited in Junge (1977) and Bidleman
(1988). Recommended value of Fv was calculated by using Tm and Vp values
that are provided in this table. Vp value for this compound was converted to a
liquid phase value before being used in the calculations.
340.42
498.1
3.58E-12
at 25°C
(solid)
2.40E-04
6.20E-06
1.70E-02
4.51E-06
6.17E+06
3.80E+06
3.80E+04
2.85E+05
1.52E+05
3.57E-01
3.64E-01
Note:
NA = Not Applicable
ND = No Data Available
All parameters are defined in LIST OF VARIABLES on page A-2-ii.
A-2-199
-------
TABLE A-2-159
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC INPUTS FOR
2,3,4,7,8-PENTACHLORODIBENZO(P)FURAN (57117-31-4)
(Page 1 of 1)
Parameter
Reference and Explanation
Value
Chemical/Physical Properties
A/ff(g/mole)
r»(K)
Fp(atm)
S(mg/L)
H (atm-mVmol)
Da(cm2/s)
Dw (cm2/s)
Km (unitless)
Koc (mL/g)
Kds (cmVg)
^CCL/Kg)
Sfa(cm3/g)
ksg (year)'1
Fv (unitless)
U.S. EPA(1994a)
U.S. EPA(1994a)
U.S. EPA(1994a)
U.S. EPA(1994a)
U.S. EPA(1994a)
Da value was calculated by using Equation A-3-2. Recommended value was
calculated by using the MW and Da values that are provided in the tables in
Appendix A-2 for 2,3,7,8-TCDF.
Dw value was calculated using the equation cited in U.S. EPA (1996a).
U.S. EPA(1992d)
Koc value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Km for dioxins
and furans that is cited in U.S. EPA (1994a) and U.S. EPA (1994c).
Recommended value was calculated by using the recommended Km value that is
provided in this table.
Kds value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited
in U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.01 in soil.
Measured organic carbon in soil, specific to site conditions, should be used to
calculate Kds, because the value varies, depending on the fraction of organic
carbon in soil. Recommended Kds value was calculated by using the Koc value
that is provided in this table.
Kd^ value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited
in U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.075 in
suspended sediment. Measured organic carbon in suspended sediment, specific
to site conditions, should be used to calculate Kdm, because the value varies,
depending on the fraction of organic carbon in suspended sediment.
Recommended Kd^ value was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided
in this table.
Kdbs value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited
in U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.04 in bottom
sediment. Measured organic carbon in bottom sediment, specific to site
conditions, should be used to calculate Kdbs, because the value varies depending
on the fraction of organic carbon in bottom sediment. Recommended Kdbs value
was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
ksg value was calculated by using the chemical half-life in soil, as cited in
Mackay, Shiu, and Ma (1992).
Fv value was calculated by using equations cited in Junge (1977) and Bidleman
(1988). Recommended value of Fv was calculated by using Tm and Vp values
that are provided in this table. Vp value for this compound was converted to a
liquid phase value before being used in the calculations.
340.42
469.1
4.33E-12
at25°C
(solid)
2.36E-04
6.20E-06
1.70E-02
4.51E-06
8.32E+06
5.13E+06
5.13E+04
3.85E+05
2.05E+05
3.57E-01
2.63E-01
Note:
NA = Not Applicable
ND = No Data Available
All parameters are defined in LIST OF VARIABLES on page A-2-ii.
A-2-200
-------
TABLE A-2-160
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC INPUTS FOR PENTACHLOROBENZENE (608-93-5)
(Page 1 of 1)
Parameter
Reference and Explanation
Value
Chemical/Physical Properties
Mff(g/mole)
r»(K)
Fp(atm)
S(mg/L)
H (atm-mVmol)
Da(cm2/s)
Dw (cm2/s)
Km (unitless)
Koc (mL/g)
^(cmVg)
Kd^ (L/Kg)
Sfa(cm3/g)
fesg (year)'1
Fv (unitless)
Montgomery and Welkom (1991)
Montgomery and Welkom (1991)
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (19941)
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (19941)
H value was calculated by using the theoretical equation from Lyman, Reehl, and
Rosenblatt (1982), which defines the constant. Recommended value was calculated
by using the MW, S, and Vp values that are provided in this table.
Da value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
Dw value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c)
Geometric mean of measured values obtained from U.S. EPA (1996b).
Kds value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.01 in soil. Measured
organic carbon in soil, specific to site conditions, should be used to calculate Kds,
because the value varies, depending on the fraction of organic carbon in soil.
Recommended Kds value was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in
this table.
Kd^ value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.075 in suspended
sediment. Measured organic carbon in suspended sediment, specific to site
conditions, should be used to calculate Kd^, because the value varies, depending on
the fraction of organic carbon in suspended sediment. Recommended Kd^ value
was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
Kdbs value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.04 in bottom
sediment. Measured organic carbon in bottom sediment, specific to site conditions,
should be used to calculate Kdbs, because the value varies, depending on the fraction
of organic carbon in bottom sediment. Recommended Kdbs value was calculated by
using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
Ksg value was calculated by using the chemical half-life in soil, as cited in Howard,
Boethling, Jarvis, Meylan, and Michalenko (1991).
Fv value was calculated by using equations cited in Junge (1977) and Bidleman
(1988). Recommended value of Fv was calculated by using Tm and Vp values that
are provided in this table. Vp value for this compound was converted to a
liquid-phase value before being used in the calculations.
250.34
358.1
3.10E-06
at25°C
(solid)
3.20E-02
2.43E-02
1.86E-02
7.34E-06
1.22E+05
3.21E+04
3.21E+02
2.41E+03
1.29E+03
7.33E-01
1.0
Note:
NA = Not applicable
ND = No data available
All parameters are defined in LIST OF VARIABLES on page A-2-ii.
A-2-201
-------
TABLE A-2-161
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC INPUTS FOR PENTACHLORONITROBENZENE (82-68-8)
(Page 1 of 1)
Parameter
Reference and Explanation
Value
Chemical/Physical Properties
Mff(g/mole)
r»(K)
Fp(atm)
S(mg/L)
// (atm-mVmol)
Da(cm2/s)
Dw (cm2/s)
^ (unitless)
Koc (mL/g)
&/, (mL/g)
T^(L/Kg)
Kdbs(mL/g)
ksg (year)"1
Fv (unitless)
Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (19941). U.S. EPA (1994c) cites value
from Howard (1989-1993)
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (19941); U.S. EPA (1994c) cites value
from Howard, Boethling, Jarvis, Meylan, and Michalenko (1991).
H value was calculated by using the theoretical equation from Lyman, Reehl, and
Rosenblatt, (1982), which defines the constant. Recommended value was
calculated by using the MW, S and Vp values that are provided in this table.
Da value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database, U.S. EPA (1994d).
Dw value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database, U.S. EPA (1994d).
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (19941).
Koc value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Km for all
nonionizing organics except phthalates, PAHs, dioxins, and furans, as cited in
U.S. EPA (1994c). Koc value was calculated by using the recommended Km value
that is provided in this table.
Kds value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed fraction organic carbon of 0.01 in soil. Measured
organic carbon in soil, specific to site conditions, should be used to calculate Kds,
because the value varies, depending on the fraction of organic carbon in soil.
Recommended Kds value was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in
this table.
Kd^ value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.075 in suspended
sediment. Measured organic carbon in suspended sediment, specific to site
conditions, should be used to calculate Kd^, because the value varies, depending on
the fraction of organic carbon in suspended sediment. Recommended Kd^ value
was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
Kdbs value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.04 in bottom
sediment. Measured organic carbon in bottom sediment, specific to site conditions,
should be used to calculate Kdbs, because the value varies, depending on the fraction
of organic carbon in bottom sediment. Recommended Kdbs value was calculated by
using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
Ksg value was calculated by using the chemical half-life in soil, as cited in Howard,
Boethling, Jarvis, Meylan, and Michalenko (1991).
Fv value was calculated by using equations cited in Junge (1977) and Bidleman
(1988). Recommended value of Fv was calculated by using S, Tm, and Vp values
that are provided in this table. Vp value for this compound was converted to a
liquid-phase value before being used in the calculations.
295.36
417.1
3.1E-06
at25°C
(solid)
3.20E-02
2.86E-02
1.87E-02
5.0E-06
4.37E+04
5.89E+03
5.89E+01
4.42E+02
2.36E+02
3.62E-01
1.0
Note:
NA = Not applicable
ND = No data available
All parameters are defined in LIST OF VARIABLES on page A-2-ii.
A-2-202
-------
TABLE A-2-162
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC INPUTS FOR PENTACHLOROPHENOL (87-86-5)
(Page 1 of 2)
Parameter
Reference and Explanation
Value
Chemical/Physical Properties
MW(g/mo\e)
r»(K)
Fp(atm)
S(mg/L)
H (atm-mVmol)
Da (cm2/s)
Dv (cm2/s)
Km (unitless)
Koc (mL/g)
Kds (mL/g)
Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c)
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c)
H value was calculated by using the theoretical equation from Lyman, Reehl, and
Rosenblatt (1982), which defines the constant. Recommended value was calculated
by using tbeMW, S and Vp values that are provided in this table.
Da value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database, U.S. EPA (1994d).
!)„ value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database, U.S. EPA (1994d).
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c).
For all ionizing organics, Koc values were estimated on the basis of pH. Estimated
values were obtained from U.S. EPA (1994c).
Kds value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed fraction organic carbon of 0.01 in soil. Measured
organic carbon in soil, specific to site conditions, should be used to calculate Kds,
because the value varies, depending on the fraction of organic carbon in soil.
Recommended Kds value was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in
this table.
266.35
463
7.11E-07
at 25°C
(solid)
1.34E+01
1.41E-05
1.56E-02
8.01E-06
1.20E+05
pH
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
pH
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
19,949
19,918
19,604
16,942
7,333
1,417
504.9
408.7
399.1
398.1
398.0
398.0
398.0
398.0
19&
199.2
196.0
169.4
73.33
14.17
5.05
4.09
3.99
3.98
3.98
3.98
3.98
3.98
A-2-203
-------
TABLE A-2-162
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC INPUTS FOR PENTACHLOROPHENOL (87-86-5)
(Page 2 of 2)
Parameter
Reference and Explanation
Value
Chemical/Physical Properties (Continued)
^CCL/Kg)
Kdbs(mL/g)
ksg (year)'1
Fv (unitless)
Kd^ value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.075 in suspended
sediment. Measured organic carbon in suspended sediment, specific to site
conditions, should be used to calculate Kd^, because the value varies, depending on
the fraction of organic carbon in suspended sediment. Recommended Kd^ value
was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
Kdbs value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.04 in bottom
sediment. Measured organic carbon in bottom sediment, specific to site conditions,
should be used to calculate Kdbs, because the value varies, depending on the fraction
of organic carbon in bottom sediment. Recommended Kdbs value was calculated by
using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
Ksg value was calculated by using the chemical half-life in soil, as cited in Howard,
Boethling, Jarvis, Meylan, and Michalenko (1991).
Fv value was calculated by using equations cited in Junge (1977) and Bidleman
(1988). Recommended value ofFv was calculated by using S, Tm, and Vp values
that are provided in this table. Vp value for this compound was converted to a
liquid-phase value before being used in the calculations.
pH
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
pH
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
KOC
1,496
1,494
1,470
1,271
550.0
106.2
37.87
30.66
29.93
29.86
29.85
29.85
29.85
29.85
Koc
798.0
796.7
784.1
677.7
293.3
56.67
20.20
16.35
15.96
15.92
15.92
15.92
15.92
15.92
1.42E+00
1.0
Note:
NA = Not applicable
ND = No data available
All parameters are defined in of LIST OF VARIABLES on page A-2-ii.
A-2-204
-------
TABLE A-2-163
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC INPUTS FOR PHENANTHRENE (85-01-8)
(Page 1 of 1)
Parameter
Reference and Explanation
Value
Chemical/Physical Properties
Mff(g/mole)
r»(K)
Fp(atm)
S(mg/L)
H (atm-mVmol)
Da(cm2/s)
Dw (cm2/s)
Km (unitless)
Koc (mL/g)
^(cm3/g)
Kd^ (L/Kg)
Sfa(cm3/g)
fesg (year)'1
Fv (unitless)
Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
Montgomery and Welkom (1991)
Geometric mean value calculated from values cited in Montgomery and
Welkom (1991).
S value cited in Lucius et al. (1992).
H value was calculated by using the theoretical equation from Lyman, Reehl,
and Rosenblatt (1982), which defines the constant. Recommended value was
calculated by using the MW, S, and Vp values that are provided in this table.
Da value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
Dw value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
Arithmetic mean value cited in Karickhoff and Long (1995).
Koc value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Km for
phthalates and PAHs, / all nonionizing organics except phthalates, PAHs,
dioxins, and furans, cited in U.S. EPA (1994c). Koc value was calculated by
using the recommended Km value that is provided in this table.
Kds value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited
in U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.01 in soil.
Measured organic carbon in soil, specific to site conditions, should be used to
calculate Kds, because the value varies, depending on the fraction of organic
carbon in soil. Recommended Kds value was calculated by using the Koc value
that is provided in this table.
Kd^ value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited
in U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.075 in
suspended sediment. Measured organic carbon in suspended sediment, specific
to site conditions, should be used to calculate Kd^, because the value varies,
depending on the fraction of organic carbon in suspended sediment.
Recommended Kd^ value was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided
in this table.
Kdbs value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited
in U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.04 in bottom
sediment. Measured organic carbon in bottom sediment, specific to site
conditions, should be used to calculate Kdbs, because the value varies, depending
on the fraction of organic carbon in bottom sediment. Recommended Kdbs value
was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
Ksg value was calculated by using the chemical half-life in soil, as cited in
Howard, Boethling, Jarvis, Meylan, and Michalenko (1991).
Fv value was calculated by using equations cited in Junge (1977) and Bidleman
(1988). Recommended value of Fv was calculated by using Tm and Vp values
that are provided in this table. Vp value for this compound was converted to a
liquid phase value before being used in the calculations.
178.22
371.1
1.35E-03
at25°C
(solid)
1.28E+00
1.88E-01
3.33E-02
7.47E-06
3.55E+04
2.09E+04
2.09E+02
1.57E+03
8.35E+02
1.26E+00
1.00
Note:
NA = Not applicable
ND = No data available
All parameters are defined in LIST OF VARIABLES on page A-2-ii.
A-2-205
-------
TABLE A-2-164
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC INPUTS FOR PHENOL (108-95-2)
(Page 1 of 2)
Parameter
Reference and Explanation
Value
Chemical/Physical Properties
Mff(g/mole)
r»(K)
Fp(atm)
S(mg/L)
H (atm-mVmol)
Da(cm2/s)
Dw (cm2/s)
Km (unitless)
Koc (mL/g)
JM,(cm3/g)
Kd^ (L/Kg)
&4(cm3/g)
fog (year)"1
Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c).
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c).
H value was calculated by using the theoretical equation from Lyman, Reehl, and
Rosenblatt (1982), which defines the constant. Recommended value was calculated
by using the MW, S, and Vp values that are provided in this table.
Da value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
Dw value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c)
For all ionizing organics, Koc values were estimated on the basis of pH. Estimated
values were obtained from U.S. EPA (1994c).
Kds value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.01 in soil. Measured
organic carbon in soil, specific to site conditions, should be used to calculate Kds,
because the value varies, depending on the fraction of organic carbon in soil. Kds
value was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
Kd^ value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.075 in suspended
sediment. Measured organic carbon in suspended sediment, specific to site
conditions, should be used to calculate Kd^, because the value varies, depending on
the fraction of organic carbon in suspended sediment. Recommended Kd^ value
was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
Kdbs value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.04 in bottom
sediment. Measured organic carbon in bottom sediment, specific to site conditions,
should be used to calculate Kdbs, because the value varies, depending on the fraction
of organic carbon in bottom sediment. Recommended Kdbs value was calculated by
using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
ksg value was calculated by using the chemical half-life in soil, as cited in Howard,
Boethling, Jarvis, Meylan, and Michalenko (1991).
94.11
314.0
5.74E-04at25°C(solid)
9.08E+04
5.95E-07
8.27E-02
1.03E-05
3.00E+01
pH
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Koc
22.0
22.0
22.0
22.0
22.0
22.0
22.0
21.8
20.0
11.2
2.27
0.51
0.32
0.30
2.20E-01
1.65E+00
8.79E-01
2.53E+01
A-2-206
-------
TABLE A-2-164
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC INPUTS FOR PHENOL (108-95-2)
(Page 2 of 2)
Parameter
Fv (unitless)
Reference and Explanation
Fv value was calculated by using equations cited in Junge (1977) and Bidleman
(1988). Recommended value ofFv was calculated by using Tm and Vp values that
are provided in this table. Vp value for this compound was converted to a
liquid-phase value before being used in the calculations.
Value
1.0
Note:
NA= Not applicable
ND= No data available
All parameters are defined in LIST OF VARIABLES on page A-2-ii.
A-2-207
-------
TABLE A-2-165
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC INPUTS FOR PHORATE (298-02-2)
(Page 1 of 1)
Parameter
Reference and Explanation
Value
Chemical/Physical Properties
Mff(g/mole)
r»(K)
Fp(atm)
S(mg/L)
H (atm-mVmol)
Da(cm2/s)
Dw (cm2/s)
Km (unitless)
Koc (mL/g)
Kds (cmVg)
T^(L/Kg)
Kdbs(cm3/g)
ksg (year)"1
Fv (unitless)
Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
--
Vp value cited in Montgomery and Welkom (1991).
S value cited in U.S. EPA (1995b).
H value was calculated by using the theoretical equation from Lyman, Reehl, and
Rosenblatt (1982), which defines the constant. Recommended value was calculated
by using the MW, S, and Vp values that are provided in this table.
Da value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
Dw value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
Arithmetic mean value cited in Karickhoff and Long (1995).
Koc value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Km for phthalates
and PAHs, / all nonionizing organics except phthalates, PAHs, dioxins, and furans,
cited in U.S. EPA (1994c). Koc value was calculated by using the recommended Km
value that is provided in this table.
Kds value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.01 in soil. Measured
organic carbon in soil, specific to site conditions, should be used to calculate Kds,
because the value varies, depending on the fraction of organic carbon in soil.
Recommended Kds value was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in
this table.
Kd^ value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.075 in suspended
sediment. Measured organic carbon in suspended sediment, specific to site
conditions, should be used to calculate Kd^, because the value varies, depending on
the fraction of organic carbon in suspended sediment. Recommended Kd^ value
was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
Kdbs value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.04 in bottom
sediment. Measured organic carbon in bottom sediment, specific to site conditions,
should be used to calculate Kdbs, because the value varies, depending on the fraction
of organic carbon in bottom sediment. Recommended Kdbs value was calculated by
using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
Ksg value was assumed to be zero due to a lack of data.
Fv value was calculated by using the equation cited in Junge (1977). Recommended
value of Fv was calculated by using the Vp value that is provided in the table.
260.4
ND
1.70E-06
at25°C
(liquid)
3.80E+01
1.16E-05
2.05E-02
5.88E-06
6.46E+03
1.33E+03
1.33E+01
9.96E+01
5.31E+01
0.0
1.00
Note:
NA = Not applicable
ND = No data available
All parameters are defined in LIST OF VARIABLES on page A-2-ii.
A-2-208
-------
TABLE A-2-166
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC INPUTS FOR PHTHALIC ANHYDRIDE (85-44-9)
(Page 1 of 1)
Parameter
Reference and Explanation
Value
Chemical/Physical Properties
MW(g/mo\e)
r»(K)
Fp(atm)
S(mg/L)
H (atm-mVmol)
Da (cm2/s)
Dv (cm2/s)
Km (unitless)
Kx (mL/g)
JM,(cm3/g)
Kdn (L/Kg)
SUcmVg)
fag (year)'1
.Fv (unitless)
Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
Howard (1989-1993)
Howard (1989-1993)
H value was calculated by using the theoretical equation from Lyman, Reehl, and
Rosenblatt (1982), which defines the constant. Recommended value was calculated
by using the MW, S, and Vp values that are provided in this table.
Da value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
Dv value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
NCDEHNR(1997)
Koc value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Km for all
nonionizing organics except phthalates, PAHs, dioxins, and furans as cited in
U.S. EPA (1994c). Koc value was calculated by using the recommended Km value
that is provided in this table.
Kds value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed fraction organic carbon of 0.01 in soil. Measured
organic carbon in soil, specific to site conditions, should be used to calculate Kds,
because the value varies, depending on the fraction of organic carbon in soil.
Recommended Kds value was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in
this table.
Kd^ value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.075 in suspended
sediment. Measured organic carbon in suspended sediment, specific to site
conditions, should be used to calculate Kd^, because the value varies, depending on
the fraction of organic carbon in suspended sediment. Recommended Kd^ value
was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
Kdbs value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon of 0.04 in bottom sediment.
Measured organic carbon in bottom sediment, specific to site conditions, should be
used to calculate Kdbs, because the value varies depending on the fraction of organic
fraction in bottom sediment. Recommended Kdbs value was calculated by using the
Koc value that is provided in this table.
Ksg value was calculated by using the chemical half-life in soil, as cited in Howard,
Boethling, Jarvis, Meylan, and Michalenko (1991).
Fv value was calculated by using equations cited in Junge (1977) and Bidleman
(1988). Recommended value of Fv was calculated by using S, Tm, and Vp values
that are provided in this table. Vp value for this compound was converted to a
liquid-phase value before being used in the calculations.
148.11
403.9
2.63E-07
at 25°C
(solid)
6.20E+03
6.28E-09
4.04E-02
8.97E-06
2.5E-01
2.10E-01
2.10E-03
1.57E-02
8.40E-03
1.35E+04
1.0
Note:
NA = Not applicable
ND = No data available
All parameters are defined in LIST OF VARIABLES on page A-2-ii.
A-2-209
-------
TABLE A-2-167
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC INPUTS FOR PRONAMIDE (23950-58-5)
(Page 1 of 1)
Parameter
Reference and Explanation
Value
Chemical/Physical Properties
Mff(g/mole)
rm(K)
Vp (atm)
S (mg/L)
H (atm-m3/mol)
Da (cm2/s)
A, (cm2/s)
Km (unitless)
Koc (mL/g)
Kd. (cm3/g)
£*„ (L/Kg)
&/,,, (cm3/g)
ksg (year)"1
Fv (unitless)
Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
Vp value cited in U.S. EPA (1995b)
S value cited in U.S. EPA (1995b)
H value was calculated by using the theoretical equation from Lyman, Reehl, and
Rosenblatt (1982), which defines the constant. Recommended value was calculated
by using the MW, S, and Vp values that are provided in this table.
Da value was calculated using the equation cited in U.S. EPA (1996a).
Du value was calculated using the equation cited in U.S. EPA (1996a).
Arithmetic mean value cited in Karickhoff and Long (1995)
Koc value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Km for all
nonionizing organics except phthalates, PAHs, dioxins, and furans, cited in
U.S. EPA (1994c). Koc value was calculated by using the recommended Km value
that is provided in this table.
Kds value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.01 in soil. Measured
organic carbon in soil, specific to site conditions, should be used to calculate Kds,
because the value varies, depending on the fraction of organic carbon in soil.
Recommended Kd, value was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in
this table.
Kdm value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.075 in suspended
sediment. Measured organic carbon in suspended sediment, specific to site
conditions, should be used to calculate Kd^,, because the value varies, depending on
the fraction of organic carbon in suspended sediment. Recommended Kdm value
was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
Kdbs value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.04 in bottom
sediment. Measured organic carbon in bottom sediment, specific to site conditions,
should be used to calculate Kdts, because the value varies, depending on the fraction
of organic carbon in bottom sediment. Recommended Kdb, value was calculated by
using the Kac value that is provided in this table.
Ksg value was assumed to be 0 due to a lack of data.
Fv value was calculated by using equations cited in Junge (1 977) and Bidleman
(1988). Recommended value of Fv was calculated by using Tm and Vp values that
are provided in this table. Vp value for this compound was converted to a
liquid-phase value before being used in the calculations.
256.13
428.1
5.30E-07
at 25°C
(solid)
1.50E+01
9.05E-06
4.71E-02
5.45E-06
3.24E+03
7.74E+02
7.74E+00
5.81E+01
3.10E+01
0.0
1.0
Note:
NA = Not applicable
ND = No data available
All parameters are defined in LIST OF VARIABLES on page A-2-ii.
A-2-210
-------
TABLE A-2-168
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC INPUTS FOR PYRENE (129-00-0)
(Page 1 of 1)
Parameter
Reference and Explanation
Value
Chemical/Physical Properties
Mff(g/mole)
r»(K)
Fp(atm)
S(mg/L)
H (atm-mVmol)
Da(cm2/s)
Dw (cm2/s)
Km (unitless)
Koc (mL/g)
^(cmVg)
Kd^ (L/Kg)
Sfa(cm3/g)
fesg (year)'1
Fv (unitless)
Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
Montgomery and Welkom (1991)
Vp value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c).
S value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c).
H value was calculated by using the theoretical equation from Lyman, Reehl, and
Rosenblatt (1982), which defines the constant. Recommended value was calculated
by using the MW, S, and Vp values that are provided in this table.
Da value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
Dw value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c).
Geometric mean of measured values obtained from U.S. EPA (1996b).
Kds value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.01 in soil. Measured
organic carbon in soil, specific to site conditions, should be used to calculate Kds,
because the value varies, depending on the fraction of organic carbon in soil.
Recommended Kds value was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in
this table.
Kd^ value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.075 in suspended
sediment. Measured organic carbon in suspended sediment, specific to site
conditions, should be used to calculate Kd^, because the value varies, depending on
the fraction of organic carbon in suspended sediment. Recommended Kd^ value
was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
Kdbs value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.04 in bottom
sediment. Measured organic carbon in bottom sediment, specific to site conditions,
should be used to calculate Kdbs, because the value varies, depending on the fraction
of organic carbon in bottom sediment. Recommended Kdbs value was calculated by
using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
Ksg value was calculated by using the chemical half-life in soil, as cited in Mackay,
Shiu, and Ma (1992)
Fv value was calculated by using equations cited in Junge (1977) and Bidleman
(1988). Recommended value of Fv was calculated by using Tm and Vp values that
are provided in this table. Vp value for this compound was converted to a liquid
phase value before being used in the calculations.
202.24
429.1
5.59E-09
at25°C
(solid)
1.37E-01
8.25E-06
2.72E-02
7.14E-06
l.OOE+05
6.80E+04
6.80E+02
5.10E+03
2.72E+03
1.33E-01
0.9946
Note:
NA = Not applicable
ND = No data available
All parameters are defined in LIST OF VARIABLES on page A-2-ii.
A-2-211
-------
TABLE A-2-169
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC INPUTS FOR PYRIDINE (110-86-1)
(Page 1 of 1)
Parameter
Reference and Explanation
Value
Chemical/Physical Properties
Mff(g/mole)
r»(K)
Fp(atm)
S(mg/L)
// (atm-mVmol)
Da(cm2/s)
Dw (cm2/s)
A^ (unitless)
Koc (mL/g)
&/, (cmVg)
T^(L/Kg)
Kdbs(cm3/g)
ksg (year)"1
Fv (unitless)
Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
Vp value cited in U.S. EPA (1995b)
S value cited in U.S. EPA (1995b)
H value was calculated by using the theoretical equation from Lyman, Reehl, and
Rosenblatt (1982), which defines the constant. Recommended value was calculated
by using the MW, S, and Vp values that are provided in this table.
Da value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
Dw value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
Arithmetic mean value cited in Karickhoff and Long (1995)
Koc value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Km for all
nonionizing organics except phthalates, PAHs, dioxins, and furans, cited in
U.S. EPA (1994c). Koc value was calculated by using the recommended Km value
that is provided in this table.
Kds value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.01 in soil. Measured
organic carbon in soil, specific to site conditions, should be used to calculate Kds,
because the value varies, depending on the fraction of organic carbon in soil.
Recommended Kds value was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in
this table.
Kd^ value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.075 in suspended
sediment. Measured organic carbon in suspended sediment, specific to site
conditions, should be used to calculate Kd^, because the value varies, depending on
the fraction of organic carbon in suspended sediment. Recommended Kd^ value
was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
Kdbs value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.04 in bottom
sediment. Measured organic carbon in bottom sediment, specific to site conditions,
should be used to calculate Kdbs, because the value varies, depending on the fraction
of organic carbon in bottom sediment. Recommended Kdbs value was calculated by
using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
ksg value was calculated by using the chemical half-life in soil, as cited in Howard,
Boethling, Jarvis, Meylan, and Michalenko (1991).
Fv value was calculated by using the equation cited in Junge (1977). Recommended
value of Fv was calculated by using the Vp value that is provided in this table.
79.10
231.5
2.60E-02
at25°C
(liquid)
3.00E+02
6.86E-03
1.10E-01
1.08E-05
4.68E+00
4.72E+00
4.72E-02
3.54E-01
1.89E-01
3.61E+01
1.0
Note:
NA= Not applicable
ND= No data available
All parameters are defined in LIST OF VARIABLES on page A-2-ii.
A-2-212
-------
TABLE A-2-170
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC INPUTS FOR RONNEL (299-84-3)
(Page 1 of 1)
Parameter
Reference and Explanation
Value
Chemical/Physical Properties
Mff(g/mole)
r»(K)
Fp(atm)
S(mg/L)
H (atm-mVmol)
Da (cm2/s)
Dw (cm2/s)
Km (unitless)
Koc (mL/g)
Kds (cmVg)
^CCL/Kg)
rrffa(cm3/g)
fog (year)"1
Fv (unitless)
Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
Montgomery and Welkom (1991)
--
--
--
Da value was calculated using the equation cited in U.S. EPA (1996a).
Dw value was calculated using the equation cited in U.S. EPA (1996a).
Recommended Km value cited in Karickhoff and Long (1995).
Koc value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Km for phthalates
and PAHs, / all nonionizing organics except phthalates, PAHs, dioxins, and furans,
cited in U.S. EPA (1994c). Koc value was calculated by using the recommended Km
value that is provided in this table.
Kds value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.01 in soil. Measured
organic carbon in soil, specific to site conditions, should be used to calculate Kds,
because the value varies, depending on the fraction of organic carbon in soil.
Recommended Kds value was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in
this table.
Kd^ value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.075 in suspended
sediment. Measured organic carbon in suspended sediment, specific to site
conditions, should be used to calculate Kd^, because the value varies, depending on
the fraction of organic carbon in suspended sediment. Recommended Kd^ value
was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
Kdbs value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.04 in bottom
sediment. Measured organic carbon in bottom sediment, specific to site conditions,
should be used to calculate Kdbs, because the value varies, depending on the fraction
of organic carbon in bottom sediment. Recommended Kdbs value was calculated by
using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
Ksg value was assumed to be 0 due to a lack of data.
Fv value was assumed to be 1.0 due to a lack of data.
321.57
314.1
ND
ND
ND
4.05E-02
4.69E-06
1.17E+05
1.28E+04
1.28E+02
9.56E+02
5.10E+02
0.0
1.0
Note:
NA = Not applicable
ND = No data available
All parameters are defined in LIST OF VARIABLES on page A-2-ii.
A-2-213
-------
TABLE A-2-171
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC INPUTS FOR SAFROLE (94-59-7)
(Page 1 of 1)
Parameter
Reference and Explanation
Value
Chemical/Physical Properties
MW(g/mo\e)
r»(K)
Fp(atm)
S(mg/L)
H (atm-mVmol)
Da (cm2/s)
Dv (cm2/s)
.RT^ (unitless)
Kx (mL/g)
JM,(cm3/g)
^^ (L/Kg)
Trffa (cmVg)
fag (year)'1
Fv (unitless)
Budavari, O'Neill, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
Budavari, O'Neill, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
Vp value cited in U.S. EPA (1995b).
S value cited in U.S. EPA (1995b).
H value was calculated by using the theoretical equation from Lyman, Reehl, and
Rosenblatt (1982), which defines the constant. Recommended value was calculated
by using the MW, S, and Vp values that are provided in this table.
Da value was obtained from WATERS model database (U.S. EPA 1995d).
Dv value was obtained from WATERS model database (U.S. EPA 1995d).
Arithmetic mean value cited in Karickhoff and Long (1995).
Koc value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Km for all
nonionizing organics except phthalates, PAHs, dioxins, and furans as cited in
U.S. EPA (1994c). Koc value was calculated by using the recommended Km value
that is provided in this table.
Kds value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed fraction organic carbon of 0.01 in soil. Measured
organic carbon in soil, specific to site conditions, should be used to calculate Kds,
because the value varies, depending on the fraction of organic carbon in soil.
Recommended Kds value was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in
this table.
Kd^ value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.075 in suspended
sediment. Measured organic carbon in suspended sediment, specific to site
conditions, should be used to calculate Kd^, because the value varies, depending on
the fraction of organic carbon in suspended sediment. Recommended Kd^ value
was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
Kdbs value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon of 0.04 in bottom sediment.
Measured organic carbon in bottom sediment, specific to site conditions, should be
used to calculate Kdbs, because the value varies depending on the fraction of organic
fraction in bottom sediment. Recommended Kdbs value was calculated by using the
Koc value that is provided in this table.
ksg value was calculated by using the chemical half-life in soil, as cited in Howard,
Boethling, Jarvis, Meylan, and Michalenko (1991).
Fv value was calculated by using the equation cited in Junge (1977). Recommended
value of Fv was calculated by using the Vp value that is provided in this table.
162.18
284.1
1.10E-04
at 25°C
(liquid)
1.50E+03
1.19E-05
4.06E-02
7.16E-06
4.57E+02
1.68E+02
1.68E+00
1.26E+01
6.73E+00
9.03E+00
1.0
Note:
NA= Not applicable
ND= No data available
All parameters are defined in LIST OF VARIABLES on page A-2-ii.
A-2-214
-------
TABLE A-2-172
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC INPUTS FOR SELENIUM (7782-49-2)
(Page 1 of 1)
Parameter
Reference and Explanation
Value
Chemical/Physical Properties
Mff(g/mole)
rm(°K)
Vp (atm)
S (mg/L)
H (atm-m3/mol)
Da (cm2/s)
A, (cm2/s)
Km (unitless)
Km (mL/g)
Kds (mL/g)
^ (L/Kg)
Kdbs(mL/g)
ksg (year)"1
Fv (unitless)
Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
All metals, except mercury, are assumed to be nonvolatile at ambient
temperatures.
All metals, except mercury, are assumed to be insoluble in water.
H value is assumed to be zero, because the Vp and S values are zero for all
metals, except mercury.
Da value was calculated using the equation cited in U.S. EPA (1996a).
Devalue was calculated using the equation cited in U.S. EPA (1996a).
--
Kd, value was obtained from U.S. EPA (1996b), which provides pH-based
values that were estimated by using the MDSTTEQ2 geochemical speciation
model.
Kdm value is assumed to be same as the Kds value, because organic carbon does
not play a major role in sorption for the metals, as cited in U.S. EPA (1 994f).
Kdbs value is assumed to be same as the Kds value, because organic carbon does
not play a major role in sorption for the metals, as cited in U.S. EPA (1 994f).
--
Because they are nonvolatile, metals are assumed to be 100 percent in
particulate phase and zero percent in the vapor phase, as cited in
U.S. EPA(1994f).
78.96
490.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.03E-01
1.20E-05
NA
NA
18atpH=4.9;
5.0atpH=6.8;
2.2 at pH=8.0
18atpH=4.9;
5.0atpH=6.8;
2.2 at pH=8.0
18atpH=4.9;
5.0atpH=6.8;
2.2 at pH=8.0
ND
0.0
Note:
NA = Not applicable
ND = No data available
All parameters are defined in LIST OF VARIABLES on page A-2-ii.
A-2-215
-------
TABLE A-2-173
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC INPUTS FOR SILVER (7440-22-4)
(Page 1 of 1)
Parameter
Reference and Explanation
Value
Chemical/Physical Properties
Mff(g/mole)
rm(°K)
Vp (atm)
S (mg/L)
H (atm-m3/mol)
Da (cm2/s)
A, (cm2/s)
Km (unitless)
Km (mL/g)
Kds (mL/g)
^ (L/Kg)
Kdbs(mL/g)
ksg (year)"1
Fv (unitless)
Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
All metals, except mercury, are assumed to be nonvolatile at ambient
temperatures.
All metals, except mercury, are assumed to be insoluble in water.
H value is assumed to be zero, because the Vp and S values are zero for all
metals, except mercury.
Da value was calculated using the equation cited in U.S. EPA (1996a).
Devalue was calculated using the equation cited in U.S. EPA (1996a).
--
--
Kd, value was obtained from U.S. EPA (1996b), which provides pH-based
values that were estimated by using the MDSTTEQ2 geochemical speciation
model.
Kdm value is assumed to be same as the Kds value, because organic carbon does
not play a major role in sorption for the metals, as cited in U.S. EPA (1 994f).
Kdbs value is assumed to be same as the Kds value, because organic carbon does
not play a major role in sorption for the metals, as cited in U.S. EPA (1 994f).
--
Because they are nonvolatile, metals are assumed to be 100 percent in
particulate phase and zero percent in the vapor phase, as cited in
U.S. EPA(1994f).
107.87
1,233.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
8.38E-02
9.71E-06
NA
NA
0.1 atpH=4.9;
8.3atpH=6.8;
110atpH=8.0
0.1 atpH=4.9;
8.3atpH=6.8;
110atpH=8.0
0.1 atpH=4.9;
8.3atpH=6.8;
110atpH=8.0
ND
0.0
Note:
NA = Not applicable
ND = No data available
All parameters are defined in LIST OF VARIABLES on page A-2-ii.
A-2-216
-------
TABLE A-2-174
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC INPUTS FOR STRYCHNINE (57-24-9)
(Page 1 of 1)
Parameter
Reference and Explanation
Value
Chemical/Physical Properties
Mff(g/mole)
rm(K)
Vp (atm)
S (mg/L)
H (atm-m3/mol)
Da (cm2/s)
A, (cm2/s)
Km (unitless)
Koc (mL/g)
Kd. (cm3/g)
£*„ (L/Kg)
M,, (cm3/g)
ksg (year)"1
Fv (unitless)
Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
Vp value cited in U.S. EPA (1995b).
Montgomery and Welkom (1991)
H value was calculated by using the theoretical equation from Lyman, Reehl, and
Rosenblatt (1982), which defines the constant. Recommended value was calculated
by using the MW, S, and Vp values that are provided in this table.
Da value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
Dw value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
Arithmetic mean value cited in Karickhoff and Long (1995).
Koc value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Km for all
nonionizing organics except phthalates, PAHs, dioxins, and furans as cited in
U.S. EPA (1994c). Koc value was calculated by using the recommended Km value
that is provided in this table.
Kds value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.01 in soil. Measured
organic carbon in soil, specific to site conditions, should be used to calculate Kds,
because the value varies, depending on the fraction of organic carbon in soil.
Recommended Kds value was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in
this table.
Kdm value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.075 in suspended
sediment. Measured organic carbon in suspended sediment, specific to site
conditions, should be used to calculate Kd^, because the value varies, depending on
the fraction of organic carbon in suspended sediment. Recommended Kd^ value
was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
Kdbs value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.04 in bottom
sediment. Measured organic carbon in bottom sediment, specific to site conditions,
should be used to calculate Kdts, because the value varies depending on the fraction
of organic carbon in bottom sediment. Recommended Kdbs value was calculated by
using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
Ksg value was calculated by using the chemical half-life in soil, as cited in Howard,
Boethling, Jarvis, Meylan, and Michalenko (1991)
Fv value was calculated by using equations cited in Junge (1 977) and Bidleman
(1988). Recommended value of Fv was calculated by using S, Tm, and Vp values
that are provided in this table. Vp value for this compound was converted to a
liquid-phase value before being used in the calculations.
334.40
541.1
2.20E-13
at 25°C
(solid)
1.50E+02
4.90E-13
1.38E-02
5.58E-06
8.51E+01
4.53E+01
4.53E-01
3.40E+00
1.81E+00
9.03E+00
0.086
Note:
NA = Note applicable
ND = No data available
All parameters are defined in LIST OF VARIABLES on page A-2-ii.
A-2-217
-------
TABLE A-2-175
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC INPUTS FOR STYRENE (100-42-5)
(Page 1 of 1)
Parameter
Reference and Explanation
Value
Chemical/Physical Properties
Mff(g/mole)
rm(K)
Vp (atm)
S (mg/L)
H (atm-m3/mol)
Da (cm2/s)
A, (cm2/s)
Km (unitless)
Koc (mL/g)
Kds (cm3/g)
Kd^ (L/Kg)
rrffo (cm3/g)
ksg (year)"1
Fv (unitless)
Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c).
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c).
H value was calculated by using the theoretical equation from Lyman, Reehl, and
Rosenblatt (1982), which defines the constant. Recommended value was calculated
by using the MW, S, and Vp values that are provided in this table.
Da value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
Dw value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c).
Geometric mean of measured values obtained from U.S. EPA (1996b).
Kd, value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.01 in soil. Measured
organic carbon in soil, specific to site conditions, should be used to calculate Kds,
because the value varies, depending on the fraction of organic carbon in soil.
Recommended Kds value was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in
this table.
Kd^, value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.075 in suspended
sediment. Measured organic carbon in suspended sediment, specific to site
conditions, should be used to calculate Kd^,, because the value varies, depending on
the fraction of organic carbon in suspended sediment. Recommended Kd^, value
was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
Kdb, value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.04 in bottom
sediment. Measured organic carbon in bottom sediment, specific to site conditions,
should be used to calculate Kdbs, because the value varies, depending on the fraction
of organic carbon in bottom sediment. Recommended Kdts value was calculated by
using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
ksg value was calculated by using the chemical half-life in soil, as cited in Howard,
Boethling, Jarvis, Meylan, and Michalenko (1991).
Fv value was calculated by using the equation cited in Junge (1977). Recommended
value of Fv was calculated by using the Vp value that is provided in this table.
104.14
242.5
8.21E-03
at 25°C
(liquid)
2.57E+02
3.33E-03
7.73E-02
8.77E-06
8.49E+02
9.12E+02
9.12E+00
6.84E+01
3.65E+01
9.03E+00
1.0
Note:
NA = Not applicable
ND = No data available
All parameters are defined in LIST OF VARIABLES on page A-2-ii.
A-2-218
-------
TABLE A-2-176
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC INPUTS FOR 2,3,7,8-TETRACHLORODIBENZO(P)DIOXIN (1746-01-6)
(Page 1 of 1)
Parameter
Reference and Explanation
Value
Chemical/Physical Properties
Mff(g/mole)
rm(K)
Vp (atm)
S (mg/L)
H (atm-m3/mol)
Z)a(cm2/s)
A, (cm2/s)
Kow (unitless)
Koc (mL/g)
Kds (mL/g)
Kd^ (L/Kg)
r^(mL/g)
fog (year)'1
Fv (unitless)
U.S. EPA(1994a)
U.S. EPA(1994a)
U.S. EPA(1994a)
U.S. EPA(1994a)
U.S. EPA(1994a)
Da value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
A, value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
U.S. EPA(1994a)
Koc value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Km for dioxins
and furans that is cited in U.S. EPA (1994a; 1994b). Recommended value was
calculated by using the recommended Km value that is provided in this table.
Kds value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited
in U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.01 in soil.
Measured organic carbon in soil, specific to site conditions, should be used to
calculate Kds, because the value varies, depending on the fraction of organic
carbon in soil. Recommended Kd, value was calculated by using the Koc value
that is provided in this table.
Kd^, value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited
in U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.075 in
suspended sediment. Measured organic carbon in suspended sediment, specific
to site conditions, should be used to calculate Kd^,, because the value varies,
depending on the fraction of organic carbon in suspended sediment.
Recommended Kd^, value was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided
in this table.
Kdts value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited
in U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.04 in bottom
sediment. Measured organic carbon in bottom sediment, specific to site
conditions, should be used to calculate Kdbs, because the value varies, depending
on the fraction of organic carbon in bottom sediment. Recommended Kdbs value
was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
ksg value was calculated by using the chemical half-life in soil, as cited in
Mackay, Shiu, and Ma (1992).
Fv value was calculated by using equations cited in Junge (1977) and Bidleman
(1988). Recommended value ofFv was calculated by using S, Tm, and Vp values
that are provided in this table. Vp value for this compound was converted to a
liquid phase value before being used in the calculations.
321.98
578.1
9.74E-13
at 25°C
(solid)
1.93E-05
1.60E-05
1.27E-02
6.81E-06
4.37E+06
2.69E+06
2.69E+04
2.02E+05
1.08E+05
4.29E-01
0.4901
Note:
NA = Not Applicable
ND = No Data Available
All parameters are defined in LIST OF VARIABLES on page A-2-ii.
A-2-219
-------
TABLE A-2-177
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC INPUTS FOR
2,3,7,8-TETRACHLORODIBENZO(P)FURAN (51207-31-9)
(Page 1 of 1)
Parameter
Reference and Explanation
Value
Chemical/Physical Properties
MW(g/mo\e)
rm(K)
Vp (atm)
S (mg/L)
H (atm-m3/mol)
Da (cm2/s)
A, (cm2/s)
Kow (unitless)
Koc (mL/g)
Atf, (cm3/g)
^ (L/Kg)
&/,,, (cm3/g)
ksg (year)"1
Fv (unitless)
U.S. EPA(1994a)
U.S. EPA(1994a)
U.S. EPA(1994a)
U.S. EPA(1994a)
U.S. EPA(1994a).
Da value was obtained from WATERS model database (U.S. EPA 1995d).
Dw value was calculated using the equation cited in U.S. EPA (1996a).
U.S. EPA(1992d)
Koc value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Km for dioxins
and furans that is cited in U.S. EPA (1994a; 1994c). Recommended value was
calculated by using the recommended Km value that is provided in this table.
Kds value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited
in U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.01 in soil.
Measured organic carbon in soil, specific to site conditions, should be used to
calculate Kd,, because the value varies, depending on the fraction of organic
carbon in soil. Recommended Kds value was calculated by using the Koc value
that is provided in this table.
Kd„ value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited
in U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.075 in
suspended sediment. Measured organic carbon in suspended sediment, specific
to site conditions, should be used to calculate Kd^,, because the value varies,
depending on the fraction of organic carbon in suspended sediment.
Recommended Kdm value was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided
in this table.
Kdb, value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited
in U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.04 in bottom
sediment. Measured organic carbon in bottom sediment, specific to site
conditions, should be used to calculate Kdbs, because the value varies depending
on the fraction of organic carbon in bottom sediment. Recommended Kdts value
was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
ksg value was calculated by using the chemical half-life in soil, as cited in
Mackay, Shiu, and Ma (1992).
Fv value was calculated by using equations cited in Junge (1977) and Bidleman
(1988). Recommended value of Fv was calculated by using Tm and Vp values
that are provided in this table. Vp value for this compound was converted to a
liquid phase value before being used in the calculations.
305.98
500.1
1.17E-11
at 25°C
(solid)
4.19E-04
8.60E-06
1.79E-02
4.85E-06
3.39E+06
2.09E+06
2.09E+04
1.57E+05
8.36E+04
3.57E-01
0.6634
Note:
NA = Not Applicable
ND = No Data Available
All parameters are defined in LIST OF VARIABLES on page A-2-ii.
A-2-220
-------
TABLE A-2-178
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC INPUTS FOR 1,2,4,5-TETRACHLOROBENZENE (95-94-3)
(Page 1 of 1)
Parameter
Reference and Explanation
Value
Chemical/Physical Properties
MW(g/mo\e)
r»(K)
Fp(atm)
S(mg/L)
H (atm-mVmol)
Da (cm2/s)
Dv (cm2/s)
Km (unitless)
Kx (mL/g)
JM,(cm3/g)
Kdn (L/Kg)
SUcmVg)
fag (year)'1
.Fv (unitless)
Montgomery and Welkom (1991)
Montgomery and Welkom (1991)
Vp value cited in U.S. EPA (1995b).
S value cited in U.S. EPA (1995b).
H value was calculated by using the theoretical equation from Lyman, Reehl, and
Rosenblatt (1982), which defines the constant. Recommended value was calculated
by using the MW, S, and Vp values that are provided in this table.
Da value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
Dv value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
Arithmetic mean value cited in Karickhoff and Long (1995).
Koc value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Km for all
nonionizing organics except phthalates, PAHs, dioxins, and furans as cited in
U.S. EPA (1994c). Koc value was calculated by using the recommended Km value
that is provided in this table.
Kds value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed fraction organic carbon of 0.01 in soil. Measured
organic carbon in soil, specific to site conditions, should be used to calculate Kds,
because the value varies, depending on the fraction of organic carbon in soil.
Recommended Kds value was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in
this table.
Kd^ value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.075 in suspended
sediment. Measured organic carbon in suspended sediment, specific to site
conditions, should be used to calculate Kd^, because the value varies, depending on
the fraction of organic carbon in suspended sediment. Recommended Kd^ value
was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
Kdbs value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon of 0.04 in bottom sediment.
Measured organic carbon in bottom sediment, specific to site conditions, should be
used to calculate Kdbs, because the value varies depending on the fraction of organic
fraction in bottom sediment. Recommended Kdbs value was calculated by using the
Koc value that is provided in this table.
ksg value was calculated by using the chemical half-life in soil, as cited in Howard,
Boethling, Jarvis, Meylan, and Michalenko (1991).
Fv value was calculated by using equations cited in Junge (1977) and Bidleman
(1988). Recommended value of Fv was calculated by using S, Tm, and Vp values
that are provided in this table. Vp value for this compound was converted to a
liquid-phase value before being used in the calculations.
215.89
411.1
7.1E-06
at 25°C
(solid)
1.30E+00
1.18E-03
2.11E-02
8.75E-06
4.36E+04
5.89E+03
5.89E+01
4.42E+02
2.36E+02
1.41E+00
1.0
Note:
NA= Not applicable
ND= No data available
All parameters are defined in LIST OF VARIABLES on page A-2-ii.
A-2-221
-------
TABLE A-2-179
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC INPUTS FOR 1,1,1,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE (630-20-6)
(Page 1 of 1)
Parameter
Reference and Explanation
Value
Chemical/Physical Properties
Mff(g/mole)
rm(K)
Vp (atm)
S (mg/L)
H (atm-m3/mol)
Da (cm2/s)
A, (cm2/s)
Km (unitless)
Koc (mL/g)
Kd. (cm3/g)
£*„ (L/Kg)
M,, (cm3/g)
ksg (year)"1
Fv (unitless)
Montgomery and Welkom (1991)
Montgomery and Welkom (1991)
Vp value cited in U.S. EPA (1995b)
S value cited in U.S. EPA (1995b)
H value was calculated by using the theoretical equation from Lyman, Reehl, and
Rosenblatt (1982), which defines the constant. Recommended value was calculated
by using the MW, S, and Vp values that are provided in this table.
Da value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
Dw value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
Arithmetic mean value cited in Karickhoff and Long (1995)
Koc value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Km for all
nonionizing organics except phthalates, PAHs, dioxins, and furans, cited in
U.S. EPA (1994c). Koc value was calculated by using the recommended Km value
that is provided in this table.
Kds value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.01 in soil. Measured
organic carbon in soil, specific to site conditions, should be used to calculate Kds,
because the value varies, depending on the fraction of organic carbon in soil.
Recommended Kds value was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in
this table.
Kdm value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.075 in suspended
sediment. Measured organic carbon in suspended sediment, specific to site
conditions, should be used to calculate Kd^,, because the value varies, depending on
the fraction of organic carbon in suspended sediment. Recommended Kd^ value
was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
Kdb, value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.04 in bottom
sediment. Measured organic carbon in bottom sediment, specific to site conditions,
should be used to calculate Kdts, because the value varies, depending on the fraction
of organic carbon in bottom sediment. Recommended Kdbs value was calculated by
using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
Ksg value was calculated by using the chemical half-life in soil, as cited in Howard,
Boethling, Jarvis, Meylan, and Michalenko (1991).
Fv value was calculated by using the equation cited in Junge (1977). Recommended
value of Fv was calculated by using the Vp value that is provided in this table.
167.85
230.1
1.60E-02
at 25°C
(liquid)
1.10E+03
2.44E-03
3.15E-02
9.30E-06
4.27E+02
1.59E+02
1.59E+00
1.20E+01
6.37E+00
5.75E+00
1.0
Note:
NA = Not applicable
ND = No data available
All parameters are defined in LIST OF VARIABLES on page A-2-ii.
A-2-222
-------
TABLE A-2-180
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC INPUTS FOR 1,1,2,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE (79-34-5)
(Page 1 of 1)
Parameter
Reference and Explanation
Value
Chemical/Physical Properties
MW(g/mo\e)
r»(K)
Fp(atm)
S(mg/L)
H (atm-mVmol)
Da (cm2/s)
Dv (cm2/s)
Km (unitless)
Kx (mL/g)
Kds (cmVg)
T^(L/Kg)
rrffa(cm3/g)
fog (year)"1
.Fv (unitless)
Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c).
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c).
H value was calculated by using the theoretical equation from Lyman, Reehl, and
Rosenblatt (1982), which defines the constant. Recommended value was calculated
by using the MW, S, and Vp values that are provided in this table.
Da value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
Dv value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c).
Geometric mean of measured values obtained from U.S. EPA (1996b).
Kds value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed fraction organic carbon of 0.01 in soil. Measured
organic carbon in soil, specific to site conditions, should be used to calculate Kds,
because the value varies, depending on the fraction of organic carbon in soil.
Recommended Kds value was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in
this table.
Kd^ value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.075 in suspended
sediment. Measured organic carbon in suspended sediment, specific to site
conditions, should be used to calculate Kd^, because the value varies, depending on
the fraction of organic carbon in suspended sediment. Recommended Kd^ value
was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
Kdbs value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon of 0.04 in bottom sediment.
Measured organic carbon in bottom sediment, specific to site conditions, should be
used to calculate Kdbs, because the value varies depending on the fraction of organic
fraction in bottom sediment. Recommended Kdbs value was calculated by using the
Koc value that is provided in this table.
Ksg value was calculated by using the chemical half-life in soil, as cited in Howard,
Boethling, Jarvis, Meylan, and Michalenko (1991).
Fv value was calculated by using the equation cited in Junge (1977). Recommended
value of Fv was calculated by using the Vp value that is provided in this table.
167.86
229.1
6.80E-03
at 25°C
(liquid)
3.07E+03
3.72E-04
3.16E-02
9.26E-06
4.40E+04
7.90E+01
7.90E-01
5.93E+00
3.16E+00
5.75E+00
1.0
Note:
NA = Not applicable
ND = No data available
All parameters are defined in LIST OF VARIABLES on page A-2-ii.
A-2-223
-------
TABLE A-2-181
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC INPUTS FOR TETRACHLOROETHYLENE (127-18-4)
(Page 1 of 1)
Parameter
Reference and Explanation
Value
Chemical/Physical Properties
Mff(g/mole)
rm(K)
Vp (atm)
S (mg/L)
H (atm-m3/mol)
Da (cm2/s)
A, (cm2/s)
Km (unitless)
Koc (mL/g)
Kds (cm3/g)
Kd^ (L/Kg)
rrffo (cm3/g)
ksg (year)"1
Fv (unitless)
Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c)
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c)
H value was calculated by using the theoretical equation from Lyman, Reehl, and
Rosenblatt (1982), which defines the constant. Recommended value was calculated
by using the MW, S, and Vp values that are provided in this table.
Da value was obtained from WATERS model database (U.S. EPA 1995d).
Dw value was obtained from WATERS model database (U.S. EPA 1995d).
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c)
Geometric mean of measured values obtained from U.S. EPA (1996b).
Kd, value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.01 in soil. Measured
organic carbon in soil, specific to site conditions, should be used to calculate Kds,
because the value varies, depending on the fraction of organic carbon in soil.
Recommended Kds value was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in
this table.
Kd^, value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.075 in suspended
sediment. Measured organic carbon in suspended sediment, specific to site
conditions, should be used to calculate Kd^,, because the value varies, depending on
the fraction of organic carbon in suspended sediment. Recommended Kd^, value
was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
Kdb, value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.04 in bottom
sediment. Measured organic carbon in bottom sediment, specific to site conditions,
should be used to calculate Kdbs, because the value varies, depending on the fraction
of organic carbon in bottom sediment. Recommended Kdts value was calculated by
using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
ksg value was calculated by using the chemical half-life in soil, as cited in Howard,
Boethling, Jarvis, Meylan, and Michalenko (1991).
Fv value was calculated by using the equation cited in Junge (1977). Recommended
value of Fv was calculated by using the Vp value that is provided in this table.
165.85
251.1
2.42E-02
at 25°C
(liquid)
2.32E+02
1.73E-02
7.20E-02
8.20E-06
3.51E+02
2.65E+02
2.65E+00
1.99E+01
1.06E+01
7.03E-01
1.0
Note:
NA= Not applicable
ND= No data available
All parameters are defined in LIST OF VARIABLES on page A-2-ii.
A-2-224
-------
TABLE A-2-182
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC INPUTS FOR 2,3,4,6-TETRACHLOROPHENOL (58-90-2)
(Page 1 of 2)
Parameter
Reference and Explanation
Value
Chemical/Physical Properties
Mff(g/mole)
r»(K)
Fp(atm)
S(mg/L)
H (atm-mVmol)
Da(cm2/s)
Dw (cm2/s)
Km (unitless)
Koc (mL/g)
JM,(cm3/g)
T^(L/Kg)
Kdbs(cm3/g)
ksg (year)"1
U.S. EPA(1995b)
U.S. EPA(1995b)
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c).
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c).
H value was calculated by using the theoretical equation from, Lyman, Reehl, and
Rosenblatt (1982), which defines the constant. Recommended value was calculated
by using the MW, S, and Vp values that are provided in this table.
Da value was obtained from WATERS model database (U.S. EPA 1995d).
Dw value was obtained from WATERS model database (U.S. EPA 1995d).
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c).
For all ionizing organics, Koc values were estimated on the basis of pH. Estimated
values were obtained from U.S. EPA (1994c).
Kds value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed fraction organic carbon of 0.01 in soil. Measured
organic carbon in soil, specific to site conditions, should be used to calculate Kds,
because the value varies, depending on the fraction of organic carbon in soil.
Recommended Kds value was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in
this table for a pH of 7.0.
Kd^ value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.075 in suspended
sediment. Measured organic carbon in suspended sediment, specific to site
conditions, should be used to calculate Kd^, because the value varies, depending on
the fraction of organic carbon in suspended sediment. Recommended Kd^ value
was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in this table for a pH of 7.0.
Kdbs value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon of 0.04 in bottom sediment.
Measured organic carbon in bottom sediment, specific to site conditions, should be
used to calculate Kdbs, because the value varies depending on the fraction of organic
fraction in bottom sediment. Recommended Kdbs value was calculated by using the
Koc value that is provided in this table for a pH of 7.0.
Ksg value was calculated by using the chemical half-life in soil, as cited in Howard,
Boethling, Jarvis, Meylan, and Michalenko (1991).
231.89
343.0
6.60E-06at25°C(solid)
l.OOE+02
1.53E-05
2.55E-02
5.78E-06
2.0E+04
pH
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Koc
6,190
6,188
6,166
5,956
4,456
1,323
249.2
115.3
101.6
100.2
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
2.49
18.69
9.97
1.41
A-2-225
-------
TABLE A-2-182
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC INPUTS FOR 2,3,4,6-TETRACHLOROPHENOL (58-90-2)
(Page 2 of 2)
Parameter
Fv (unitless)
Reference and Explanation
Fv value was calculated by using equations cited in Junge (1977) and Bidleman
(1988). Recommended value ofFv was calculated by using S, Tm, and Vp values
that are provided in this table. Vp value for this compound was converted to a
liquid-phase value before being used in the calculations.
Value
1.0
Note:
NA = Not applicable
ND = No data available
All parameters are defined in LIST OF VARIABLES on page A-2-ii.
A-2-226
-------
TABLE A-2-183
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC INPUTS FOR TETRAHYDROFURAN (109-99-9)
(Page 1 of 1)
Parameter
Reference and Explanation
Value
Chemical/Physical Properties
Mff(g/mole)
r»(K)
Fp(atm)
S(mg/L)
H (atm-mVmol)
Da(cm2/s)
Dw (cm2/s)
Km (unitless)
Koc (mL/g)
^(cm3/g)
Kd^ (L/Kg)
Sfa(cm3/g)
fesg (year)'1
Fv (unitless)
Montgomery and Welkom (1991)
Montgomery and Welkom (1991)
Vp value cited in Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckleman (1989).
S value cited in U.S. EPA (1994b).
H value was calculated by using the theoretical equation from Lyman, Reehl, and
Rosenblatt (1982), which defines the constant. Recommended value was calculated
by using the MW, S, and Vp values that are provided in this table.
Da value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
Dw value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
Value cited in Karickoff and Long (1995).
Koc value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Km for phthalates
and PAHs, / all nonionizing organics except phthalates, PAHs, dioxins, and furans,
cited in U.S. EPA (1994c). Koc value was calculated by using the recommended Km
value that is provided in this table.
Kds value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.01 in soil. Measured
organic carbon in soil, specific to site conditions, should be used to calculate Kds,
because the value varies, depending on the fraction of organic carbon in soil.
Recommended Kds value was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in
this table.
Kd^ value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.075 in suspended
sediment. Measured organic carbon in suspended sediment, specific to site
conditions, should be used to calculate Kd^, because the value varies, depending on
the fraction of organic carbon in suspended sediment. Recommended Kd^ value
was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
Kdbs value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.04 in bottom
sediment. Measured organic carbon in bottom sediment, specific to site conditions,
should be used to calculate Kdbs, because the value varies, depending on the fraction
of organic carbon in bottom sediment. Recommended Kdbs value was calculated by
using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
ksg value was calculated by using the chemical half-life in soil, as cited in Howard
(1989-1993).
Fv value was calculated by using the equation cited in Junge (1977). Recommended
value of Fv was calculated by using the Vp value that is provided in the table.
72.1
164.6
2.14E-01
at25°C
(liquid)
l.OOE+06
1.54E-05
1.31E-01
1.07E-05
2.80E+00
3.16E+00
3.16E-02
2.37E-01
1.26E-01
4.43E+01
1.00
Note:
NA = Not applicable
ND = No data available
All parameters are defined in LIST OF VARIABLES on page A-2-ii.
A-2-227
-------
TABLE A-2-184
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC INPUTS FOR THALLIUM (7440-28-0)
(Page 1 of 1)
Parameter
Reference and Explanation
Value
Chemical/Physical Properties
Mff(g/mole)
rm(°K)
Fp(atm)
S(mg/L)
H (atm-mVmol)
Da(cm2/s)
Dw (cm2/s)
Km (unitless)
Koc (mL/g)
Kds(mLlg)
Kdn (L/Kg)
£4(mL/g)
ksg (year)"1
Fv (unitless)
Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
All metals, except mercury, are assumed to be nonvolatile at ambient
temperatures.
All metals, except mercury, are assumed to be insoluble in water.
H value is assumed to be zero, because the Vp and S values are zero for all
metals, except mercury.
Da value was calculated using the equation cited in U.S. EPA (1996a).
Dw value was calculated using the equation cited in U.S. EPA (1996a).
--
--
Kds value was obtained from U.S. EPA (1996b), which provides pH-based
values that were estimated by using the MTNTEQ2 geochemical speciation
model.
Kd^ value is assumed to be same as the Kds value, because organic carbon does
not play a major role in sorption for the metals, as cited in U.S. EPA (1994f).
Kdbs value is assumed to be same as the Kds value, because organic carbon does
not play a major role in sorption for the metals, as cited in U.S. EPA (1994f).
--
Because they are nonvolatile, metals are assumed to be 100 percent in
particulate phase and zero percent in the vapor phase, as cited in
U.S. EPA(1994f).
204.38
576.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
5.48E-02
6.34E-06
NA
NA
44atpH=4.9;
71atpH=6.8;
96atpH=8.0
44atpH=4.9;
71atpH=6.8;
96atpH=8.0
44atpH=4.9;
71atpH=6.8;
96atpH=8.0
ND
0.0
Note:
NA = Not applicable
ND = No data available
All parameters are defined in LIST OF VARIABLES on page A-2-ii.
A-2-228
-------
TABLE A-2-185
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC INPUTS FOR TOLUENE (108-88-3)
(Page 1 of 1)
Parameter
Reference and Explanation
Value
Chemical/Physical Properties
Mff(g/mole)
r»(K)
Fp(atm)
S(mg/L)
H (atm-mVmol)
Da(cm2/s)
Dw (cm2/s)
Km (unitless)
Koc (mL/g)
^(cmVg)
Kd^ (L/Kg)
Sfa(cm3/g)
fesg (year)'1
Fv (unitless)
Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c)
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c)
H value was calculated by using the theoretical equation from Lyman, Reehl, and
Rosenblatt (1982), which defines the constant. Recommended value was calculated
by using the MW, S, and Vp values that are provided in this table.
Da value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
Dw value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c)
Geometric mean of measured values obtained from U.S. EPA (1996b).
Kds value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.01 in soil. Measured
organic carbon in soil, specific to site conditions, should be used to calculate Kds,
because the value varies, depending on the fraction of organic carbon in soil.
Recommended Kds value was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in
this table.
Kd^ value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.075 in suspended
sediment. Measured organic carbon in suspended sediment, specific to site
conditions, should be used to calculate Kd^, because the value varies, depending on
the fraction of organic carbon in suspended sediment. Recommended Kd^ value
was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
Kdbs value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.04 in bottom
sediment. Measured organic carbon in bottom sediment, specific to site conditions,
should be used to calculate Kdbs, because the value varies, depending on the fraction
of organic carbon in bottom sediment. Recommended Kdbs value was calculated by
using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
ksg value was calculated by using the chemical half-life in soil, as cited in Howard,
Boethling, Jarvis, Meylan, and Michalenko (1991) and Mackay, Shiu, and Ma
(1992).
Fv value was calculated by using the equation cited in Junge (1977). Recommended
value of Fv was calculated by using the Vp value that is provided in this table.
92.13
178.1
3.71E-02
at25°C
(liquid)
5.58E+02
6.13E-03
9.72E-02
9.23E-06
4.65E+02
1.40E+02
1.40E+00
1.05E+01
5.60E+00
1.15E+01
1.0
Note:
NA= Not applicable
ND= No data available
All parameters are defined in LIST OF VARIABLES on page A-2-ii.
A-2-229
-------
TABLE A-2-186
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC INPUTS FOR O-TOLUIDINE (95-53-4)
(Page 1 of 1)
Parameter
Reference and Explanation
Value
Chemical/Physical Properties
MW(g/mo\e)
r»(K)
Vp (atm)
S(mg/L)
H (atm-mVmol)
Da (cm2/s)
Dv (cm2/s)
Km (unitless)
Kx (mL/g)
JM,(cm3/g)
Kdm (L/Kg)
SUcmVg)
ksg (year)'1
Fv (unitless)
Budavari, O'Neill, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
Montgomery and Welkom (1991)
Vp value cited in U.S. EPA (1995b).
S value cited in U.S. EPA (1995b).
H value was calculated by using the theoretical equation from Lyman, Reehl, and
Rosenblatt (1982), which defines the constant. Recommended value was calculated
by using the MW, S, and Vp values that are provided in this table.
Da value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
Dv value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
Arithmetic mean value cited in Karickhoff and Long (1995).
Koc value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Km for all
nonionizing organics except phthalates, PAHs, dioxins, and furans as cited in
U.S. EPA (1994c). Koc value was calculated by using the recommended Km value
that is provided in this table.
Kds value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed fraction organic carbon of 0.01 in soil. Measured
organic carbon in soil, specific to site conditions, should be used to calculate Kds,
because the value varies, depending on the fraction of organic carbon in soil.
Recommended Kds value was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in
this table.
Kd^ value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.075 in suspended
sediment. Measured organic carbon in suspended sediment, specific to site
conditions, should be used to calculate Kd^, because the value varies, depending on
the fraction of organic carbon in suspended sediment. Recommended Kd^ value
was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
Kdbs value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon of 0.04 in bottom sediment.
Measured organic carbon in bottom sediment, specific to site conditions, should be
used to calculate Kdbs, because the value varies depending on the fraction of organic
fraction in bottom sediment. Recommended Kdbs value was calculated by using the
Koc value that is provided in this table.
ksg value was calculated by using the chemical half-life in soil, as cited in Howard,
Boethling, Jarvis, Meylan, and Michalenko (1991).
Fv value was calculated by using the equation cited in Junge (1977). Recommended
value ofFv was calculated by using the Vp value that is provided in this table.
107.15
258.4
3.94E-04
at 25°C
(liquid)
1.74E+04
2.43E-06
7.14E-02
9.12E-06
2.19E+01
1.57E+01
1.57E-01
1.18E+00
6.28E-01
3.61E+01
1.0
Note:
NA= Not applicable
ND= No data available
All parameters are defined in LIST OF VARIABLES on page A-2-ii.
A-2-230
-------
TABLE A-2-187
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC INPUTS FOR 1,2,3-TRICHLOROBENZENE (87-61-6)
(Page 1 of 1)
Parameter
Reference and Explanation
Value
Chemical/Physical Properties
Mff(g/mole)
rm(K)
Vp (atm)
S (mg/L)
H (atm-m3/mol)
Z)a(cm2/s)
A, (cm2/s)
Kow (unitless)
Koc (mL/g)
Kds (cm3/g)
^ (L/Kg)
r^(cm3/g)
fog (year)'1
Fv (unitless)
Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
Geometric mean value calculated from values cited in Mackay, Shiu, and Ma
(1991).
Geometric mean value calculated from values cited in Mackay, Shiu, and Ma
(1991).
H value was calculated by using the theoretical equation from Lyman, Reehl,
and Rosenblatt (1982), which defines the constant. Recommended value was
calculated by using the MW, S, and Vp values that are provided in this table.
Da value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
A, value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
Arithmetic mean value cited in Karickhoff and Long (1995).
Koc value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Km for
phthalates and PAHs, / all nonionizing organics except phthalates, PAHs,
dioxins, and furans, cited in U.S. EPA (1994c). Koc value was calculated by
using the recommended Km value that is provided in this table.
Kds value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited
in U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.01 in soil.
Measured organic carbon in soil, specific to site conditions, should be used to
calculate Kds, because the value varies, depending on the fraction of organic
carbon in soil. Recommended Kd, value was calculated by using the Koc value
that is provided in this table.
Kdm value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited
in U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.075 in
suspended sediment. Measured organic carbon in suspended sediment, specific
to site conditions, should be used to calculate Kd^,, because the value varies,
depending on the fraction of organic carbon in suspended sediment.
Recommended Kd^, value was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided
in this table.
Kdts value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited
in U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.04 in bottom
sediment. Measured organic carbon in bottom sediment, specific to site
conditions, should be used to calculate Kdbs, because the value varies, depending
on the fraction of organic carbon in bottom sediment. Recommended Kdbs value
was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
Ksg value was calculated by using the chemical half-life in soil, as cited in
Mackay, Shiu, and Ma (1992).
Fv value was calculated by using equations cited in Junge (1977) and Bidleman
(1988). Recommended value of Fv was calculated by using Tm and Vp values
that are provided in this table. Vp value for this compound was converted to a
liquid-phase value before being used in the calculations.
181.46
325.7
3.20E-04
at 25°C (solid)
2.05E+01
2.84E-03
3.02E-02
8.15E-06
1.11E+04
2.02E+03
2.02E+01
1.52E+02
8.10E+01
1.41E+00
1.00
Note:
NA = Not applicable
ND = No data available
All parameters are defined in LIST OF VARIABLES on page A-2-ii.
A-2-231
-------
TABLE A-2-188
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC INPUTS FOR 1,2,4-TRICHLOROBENZENE (120-82-1)
(Page 1 of 1)
Parameter
Reference and Explanation
Value
Chemical/Physical Properties
Mff(g/mole)
rm(K)
Vp (atm)
S (mg/L)
H (atm-m3/mol)
Da (cm2/s)
A, (cm2/s)
Km (unitless)
Koc (mL/g)
Kds (cm3/g)
Kd^ (L/Kg)
rrffo (cm3/g)
ksg (year)"1
Fv (unitless)
Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c)
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c)
H value was calculated by using the theoretical equation from Lyman, Reehl, and
Rosenblatt (1982), which defines the constant. Recommended value was calculated
by using the MW, S, and Vp values that are provided in this table.
Da value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
Dw value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c)
Geometric mean of measured values obtained from U.S. EPA (1996b).
Kd, value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.01 in soil. Measured
organic carbon in soil, specific to site conditions, should be used to calculate Kds,
because the value varies, depending on the fraction of organic carbon in soil.
Recommended Kds value was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in
this table.
Kd^, value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.075 in suspended
sediment. Measured organic carbon in suspended sediment, specific to site
conditions, should be used to calculate Kd^,, because the value varies, depending on
the fraction of organic carbon in suspended sediment. Recommended Kd^, value
was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
Kdb, value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.04 in bottom
sediment. Measured organic carbon in bottom sediment, specific to site conditions,
should be used to calculate Kdbs, because the value varies, depending on the fraction
of organic carbon in bottom sediment. Recommended Kdts value was calculated by
using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
ksg value was calculated by using the chemical half-life in soil, as cited in Howard,
Boethling, Jarvis, Meylan, and Michalenko (1991) and Mackay, Shiu, and Ma
(1992).
Fv value was calculated by using the equation cited in Junge (1977). Recommended
value of Fv was calculated by using the Vp value that is provided in this table.
181.46
290.1
4.42E-04
at 25°C
(liquid)
3.07E+01
2.61E-03
3.00E-02
8.23E-06
9.73E+03
1.66E+03
1.66E+01
1.24E+02
6.64E+01
1.41E+00
1.0
Note:
NA= Not applicable
ND= No data available
All parameters are defined in LIST OF VARIABLES on page A-2-ii.
A-2-232
-------
TABLE A-2-189
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC INPUTS FOR 1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE (71-55-6)
(Page 1 of 1)
Parameter
Reference and Explanation
Value
Chemical/Physical Properties
Mff(g/mole)
r»(K)
Fp(atm)
S(mg/L)
H (atm-mVmol)
Da (cm2/s)
Dn (cm2/s)
Km (unitless)
Koc (mL/g)
Kds (cmVg)
T^(L/Kg)
rrffa(cm3/g)
fog (year)"1
Fv (unitless)
Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckehnan (1989)
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c)
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c)
H value was calculated by using the theoretical equation from Lyman, Reehl,
and Rosenblatt (1982), which defines the constant. Recommended value was
calculated by using the MW, S, and Vp values that are provided in this table.
Da value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
!)„ value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c)
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1996b)
Kds value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited
in U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.01 in soil.
Measured organic carbon in soil, specific to site conditions, should be used to
calculate Kds, because the value varies, depending on the fraction of organic
carbon in soil. Recommended Kds value was calculated by using the Koc value
that is provided in this table.
Kd^ value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited
in U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.075 in
suspended sediment. Measured organic carbon in suspended sediment, specific
to site conditions, should be used to calculate Kd^, because the value varies,
depending on the fraction of organic carbon in suspended sediment.
Recommended Kd^ value was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided
in this table.
Kdbs value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited
in U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.04 in bottom
sediment. Measured organic carbon in bottom sediment, specific to site
conditions, should be used to calculate Kdbs, because the value varies, depending
on the fraction of organic carbon in bottom sediment. Recommended Kdbs value
was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
Ksg value was calculated by using the chemical half-life in soil, as cited in
Howard, Boethling, Jarvis, Meylan, and Michalenko (1991).
Fv value was calculated by using the equation cited in Junge (1977).
Recommended value of Fv was calculated by using the Vp value that is provided
in the table.
133.42
242.7
1.63E-01
at 25°C (liquid)
1.17E+03
1.86E-02
4.66E-02
9.56E-06
2.64E+02
1.35E+05
1.35E+03
1.01E+04
5.40E+03
9.26E-01
1.00
Note:
NA = Not applicable
ND = No data available
All parameters are defined in LIST OF VARIABLES on page A-2-ii.
A-2-233
-------
TABLE A-2-190
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC INPUTS FOR 1,1,2-TRICHLOROETHANE (79-00-5)
(Page 1 of 1)
Parameter
Reference and Explanation
Value
Chemical/Physical Properties
MW(g/mo\e)
r»(K)
Fp(atm)
S(mg/L)
H (atm-mVmol)
Da (cm2/s)
Dv (cm2/s)
Km (unitless)
Kx (mL/g)
Kds (cmVg)
T^(L/Kg)
rrffa(cm3/g)
fog (year)"1
.Fv (unitless)
Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c).
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c).
H value was calculated by using the theoretical equation from Lyman, Reehl, and
Rosenblatt (1982), which defines the constant. Recommended value was calculated
by using the MW, S, and Vp values that are provided in this table.
Da value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
Dv value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c).
Geometric mean of measured values obtained from U.S. EPA (1996b).
Kds value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed fraction organic carbon of 0.01 in soil. Measured
organic carbon in soil, specific to site conditions, should be used to calculate Kds,
because the value varies, depending on the fraction of organic carbon in soil.
Recommended Kds value was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in
this table.
Kd^ value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.075 in suspended
sediment. Measured organic carbon in suspended sediment, specific to site
conditions, should be used to calculate Kd^, because the value varies, depending on
the fraction of organic carbon in suspended sediment. Recommended Kd^ value
was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
Kdbs value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon of 0.04 in bottom sediment.
Measured organic carbon in bottom sediment, specific to site conditions, should be
used to calculate Kdbs, because the value varies depending on the fraction of organic
fraction in bottom sediment. Recommended Kdbs value was calculated by using the
Koc value that is provided in this table.
Ksg value was calculated by using the chemical half-life in soil, as cited in Howard,
Boethling, Jarvis, Meylan, and Michalenko (1991).
Fv value was calculated by using the equation cited in Junge (1977). Recommended
value of Fv was calculated by using the Vp value that is provided in this table.
133.42
238.1
3.31E-02
at 25°C
(liquid)
4.40E+03
l.OOE-03
4.51E-02
l.OE-05
1.25E+02
7.50E+01
7.50E-01
5.63E+00
3.00E+00
6.93E-01
1.0
Note:
NA = Not applicable
ND = No data available
All parameters are defined in LIST OF VARIABLES on page A-2-ii.
A-2-234
-------
TABLE A-2-191
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC INPUTS FOR TRICHLOROETHYLENE (79-01-6)
(Page 1 of 1)
Parameter
Reference and Explanation
Value
Chemical/Physical Properties
MW(g/mo\e)
r»(K)
Fp(atm)
S(mg/L)
H (atm-mVmol)
Da (cm2/s)
Dv (cm2/s)
.RT^ (unitless)
Kx (mL/g)
JM,(cm3/g)
^^ (L/Kg)
SUcmVg)
fag (year)'1
.Fv (unitless)
Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c).
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c).
H value was calculated by using the theoretical equation from Lyman, Reehl, and
Rosenblatt (1982), which defines the constant. Recommended value was calculated
by using the MW, S, and Vp values that are provided in this table.
Da value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
Dv value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c).
Koc value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Km for all
nonionizing organics except phthalates, PAHs, dioxins, and furans as cited in
U.S. EPA (1994c). Koc value was calculated by using the recommended Km value
that is provided in this table.
Kds value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed fraction organic carbon of 0.01 in soil. Measured
organic carbon in soil, specific to site conditions, should be used to calculate Kds,
because the value varies, depending on the fraction of organic carbon in soil.
Recommended Kds value was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in
this table.
Kd^ value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.075 in suspended
sediment. Measured organic carbon in suspended sediment, specific to site
conditions, should be used to calculate Kd^, because the value varies, depending on
the fraction of organic carbon in suspended sediment. Recommended Kd^ value
was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
Kdbs value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon of 0.04 in bottom sediment.
Measured organic carbon in bottom sediment, specific to site conditions, should be
used to calculate Kdbs, because the value varies depending on the fraction of organic
fraction in bottom sediment. Recommended Kdbs value was calculated by using the
Koc value that is provided in this table.
Ksg value was calculated by using the chemical half-life in soil, as cited in Howard,
Boethling, Jarvis, Meylan, and Michalenko (1991).
Fv value was calculated by using the equation cited in Junge (1977). Recommended
value of Fv was calculated by using the Vp value that is provided in this table.
131.40
188.3
9.48E-02
at 25°C
(liquid)
1.18E+03
1.06E-02
4.65E-02
9.94E-06
2.71E+02
9.40E+01
9.40E-01
7.05E+00
3.76E+00
0.703
1.0
Note:
NA = Not applicable
ND = No data available
All parameters are defined in LIST OF VARIABLES on page A-2-ii.
A-2-235
-------
TABLE A-2-192
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC INPUTS FOR TRICHLOROFLUOROMETHANE (75-69-4)
(Page 1 of 1)
Parameter
Reference and Explanation
Value
Chemical/Physical Properties
MW(g/mo\e)
r»(K)
Fp(atm)
S (mg/L)
H (atm-mVmol)
Da (cm2/s)
Dv (cm2/s)
.RT^ (unitless)
^ (mL/g)
JM,(cm3/g)
Kd^ (L/Kg)
SUcmVg)
fag (year)'1
Fv (unitless)
Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
Vp value cited in U.S. EPA (1995b).
S value cited in U.S. EPA (1995b).
H value was calculated by using the theoretical equation from Lyman, Reehl, and
Rosenblatt (1982), which defines the constant. Recommended value was calculated
by using the MW, S, and Vp values that are provided in this table.
Da value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
Dv value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
Km value cited in U.S. EPA (1995b).
Koc value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Km for all
nonionizing organics except phthalates, PAHs, dioxins, and furans as cited in
U.S. EPA (1994c). Koc value was calculated by using the recommended Km value
that is provided in this table.
Kds value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed fraction organic carbon of 0.01 in soil. Measured
organic carbon in soil, specific to site conditions, should be used to calculate Kds,
because the value varies, depending on the fraction of organic carbon in soil.
Recommended Kds value was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in
this table.
Kd^ value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.075 in suspended
sediment. Measured organic carbon in suspended sediment, specific to site
conditions, should be used to calculate Kd^, because the value varies, depending on
the fraction of organic carbon in suspended sediment. Recommended Kd^ value
was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
Kdbs value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon of 0.04 in bottom sediment.
Measured organic carbon in bottom sediment, specific to site conditions, should be
used to calculate Kdbs, because the value varies depending on the fraction of organic
fraction in bottom sediment. Recommended Kdbs value was calculated by using the
Koc value that is provided in this table.
Ksg value was calculated by using the chemical half-life in soil, as cited in Howard,
Boethling, Jarvis, Meylan, and Michalenko (1991).
Fv value was calculated by using the equation cited in Junge (1977). Recommended
value of Fv was calculated by using the Vp value that is provided in this table.
137.38
162.1
1.10E+00
at 25°C
(liquid)
1.10E+03
1.37E-01
4.27E-02
l.OE-05
3.40E+02
1.34E+02
1.34E+00
l.OOE+01
5.34E+00
7.03E-01
1.0
Note:
NA = Not applicable
ND = No data available
All parameters are defined in LIST OF VARIABLES on page A-2-ii.
A-2-236
-------
TABLE A-2-193
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC INPUTS FOR 2,4,5-TRICHLOROPHENOL (95-95-4)
(Page 1 of 1)
Parameter
Reference and Explanation
Value
Chemical/Physical Properties
MW(g/mo\e)
r»(K)
Fp(atm)
S(mg/L)
H (atm-mVmol)
Da (cm2/s)
Dv (cm2/s)
.RT^ (unitless)
Kx (mL/g)
JM,(cm3/g)
^^ (L/Kg)
&4(cm3/g)
fog (year)"1
.Fv (unitless)
Budavari, O'Neill, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
Budavari, O'Neill, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c).
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c).
H value was calculated by using the theoretical equation from Lyman, Reehl, and
Rosenblatt (1982), which defines the constant. Recommended value was calculated
by using the MW, S, and Vp values that are provided in this table.
Da value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
Dv value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c).
For all ionizing organics, Koc values were estimated on the basis of pH. Estimated
values were obtained from U.S. EPA (1994c).
Kds value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed fraction organic carbon of 0.01 in soil. Measured
organic carbon in soil, specific to site conditions, should be used to calculate Kds,
because the value varies, depending on the fraction of organic carbon in soil. Kds
value calculated using the Koc value that is provided in this table for a pH of 7.0.
Kd^ value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.075 in suspended
sediment. Measured organic carbon in suspended sediment, specific to site
conditions, should be used to calculate Kd^, because the value varies, depending on
the fraction of organic carbon in suspended sediment. Recommended Kd^ value
was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in this table for a pH of 7.0.
Kdbs value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon of 0.04 in bottom sediment.
Measured organic carbon in bottom sediment, specific to site conditions, should be
used to calculate Kdbs, because the value varies depending on the fraction of organic
fraction in bottom sediment. Kdbs value calculated using the Koc value that is
provided in this table for a pH of 7.0.
ksg value was calculated by using the chemical half-life in soil, as cited in Howard,
Boethling, Jarvis, Meylan, and Michalenko (1991).
Fv value was calculated by using equations cited in Junge (1977) and Bidleman
(1988). Recommended value of Fv was calculated by using S, Tm, and Vp values
that are provided in this table. Vp value for this compound was converted to a
liquid-phase value before being used in the calculations.
197.46
340.1
2.15E-05at25°C(solid)
7.53E+02
5.64E-06
2.91E-02
7.03E-06
7.41E+03
pH
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Koc
2,380
2,380
2,380
2,377
2,353
2,139
1,127
223.7
56.14
37.94
1.13E+01
8.45E+01
4.51E+01
0.367
1.0
Note:
NA= Not applicable
ND= No data available
All parameters are defined in LIST OF VARIABLES on page A-2-ii.
A-2-237
-------
TABLE A-2-194
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC INPUTS FOR 2,4,6-TRICHLOROPHENOL (88-06-2)
(Page 1 of 2)
Parameter
Reference and Explanation
Value
Chemical/Physical Properties
MW(g/mo\e)
r»(K)
Fp(atm)
S(mg/L)
H (atm-mVmol)
Da (cm2/s)
Dv (cm2/s)
.RT^ (unitless)
^ (mL/g)
JM,(cm3/g)
T^(L/Kg)
rrffa(cm3/g)
fog (year)"1
Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c).
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c).
H value was calculated by using the theoretical equation from Lyman, Reehl, and
Rosenblatt (1982), which defines the constant. Recommended value was calculated
by using the MW, S, and Vp values that are provided in this table.
Da value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
Dv value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c).
For all ionizing organics, Koc values were estimated on the basis of pH. Estimated
values were obtained from U.S. EPA (1994c).
Kds value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed fraction organic carbon of 0.01 in soil. Measured
organic carbon in soil, specific to site conditions, should be used to calculate Kds,
because the value varies, depending on the fraction of organic carbon in soil. Kds
value calculated using the Koc value that is provided in this table for a pH of 7.0.
Kd^ value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.075 in suspended
sediment. Measured organic carbon in suspended sediment, specific to site
conditions, should be used to calculate Kd^, because the value varies, depending on
the fraction of organic carbon in suspended sediment. Recommended Kd^ value
was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in this table for a pH of 7.0.
Kdbs value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon of 0.04 in bottom sediment.
Measured organic carbon in bottom sediment, specific to site conditions, should be
used to calculate Kdbs, because the value varies depending on the fraction of organic
fraction in bottom sediment. Recommended Kdbs value was calculated by using the
Koc value that is provided in this table for a pH of 7.0.
Ksg value was calculated by using the chemical half-life in soil, as cited in Howard,
Boethling, Jarvis, Meylan, and Michalenko (1991).
197.46
342.1
1.55E-05
at 25°C
(solid)
7.53E+02
4.06E-06
2.62E-02
8.08E-06
5.15E+03
pH
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Koc
1,070
1,070
1,069
1,063
1,006
670.8
226.2
120.4
108.4
107.1
2.26E+00
1.70E+01
9.05E+00
3.61E+00
A-2-238
-------
TABLE A-2-194
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC INPUTS FOR 2,4,6-TRICHLOROPHENOL (88-06-2)
(Page 2 of 2)
Parameter
Fv (unitless)
Reference and Explanation
Fv value was calculated by using equations cited in Junge (1977) and Bidleman
(1988). Recommended value of Fv was calculated by using S, Tm, and Vp values
that are provided in this table. Vp value for this compound was converted to a
liquid-phase value before being used in the calculations.
Value
1.0
Note:
NA = Not applicable
ND = No data available
All parameters are defined in LIST OF VARIABLES on page A-2-ii.
A-2-239
-------
TABLE A-2-195
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC INPUTS FOR 1,2,3-TRICHLOROPROPANE (96-18-4)
(Page 1 of 1)
Parameter
Reference and Explanation
Value
Chemical/Physical Properties
MW(g/mo\e)
r»(K)
Fp(atm)
S(mg/L)
H (atm-mVmol)
Da (cm2/s)
Dv (cm2/s)
Km (unitless)
Kx (mL/g)
JM,(cm3/g)
Kdn (L/Kg)
SUcmVg)
fag (year)'1
.Fv (unitless)
Montgomery and Welkom (1991)
Montgomery and Welkom (1991)
Vp value cited in U.S. EPA (1995b).
S value cited in U.S. EPA (1995b).
H value was calculated by using the theoretical equation from Lyman, Reehl, and
Rosenblatt (1982), which defines the constant. Recommended value was calculated
by using the MW, S, and Vp values that are provided in this table.
Da value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
Dv value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
Arithmetic mean value cited in Karickhoff and Long (1995).
Koc value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Km for all
nonionizing organics except phthalates, PAHs, dioxins, and furans as cited in
U.S. EPA (1994c). Koc value was calculated by using the recommended Km value
that is provided in this table.
Kds value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed fraction organic carbon of 0.01 in soil. Measured
organic carbon in soil, specific to site conditions, should be used to calculate Kds,
because the value varies, depending on the fraction of organic carbon in soil.
Recommended Kds value was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in
this table.
Kd^ value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.075 in suspended
sediment. Measured organic carbon in suspended sediment, specific to site
conditions, should be used to calculate Kd^, because the value varies, depending on
the fraction of organic carbon in suspended sediment. Recommended Kd^ value
was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
Kdbs value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon of 0.04 in bottom sediment.
Measured organic carbon in bottom sediment, specific to site conditions, should be
used to calculate Kdbs, because the value varies depending on the fraction of organic
fraction in bottom sediment. Recommended Kdbs value was calculated by using the
Koc value that is provided in this table.
ksg value was calculated by using the chemical half-life in soil, as cited in Howard,
Boethling, Jarvis, Meylan, and Michalenko (1991).
Fv value was calculated by using the equation cited in Junge (1977). Recommended
value of Fv was calculated by using the Vp value that is provided in this table.
147.43
258.4
4.90E-03
at 25°C
(liquid)
1.90E+03
3.80E-04
3.99E-02
9.24E-06
1.78E+02
8.05E+01
8.10E-01
6.04E+00
3.22E+00
7.03E-01
1.0
Note:
NA= Not applicable
ND= No data available
All parameters are defined in LIST OF VARIABLES on page A-2-ii.
A-2-240
-------
TABLE A-2-196
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC INPUTS FOR 1,3,5-TRIMETHYLBENZENE (108-67-8)
(Page 1 of 1)
Parameter
Reference and Explanation
Value
Chemical/Physical Properties
Mff(g/mole)
rm(K)
Vp (atm)
S (mg/L)
H (atm-m3/mol)
Da (cm2/s)
A, (cm2/s)
Km (unitless)
Koc (mL/g)
Kd. (cm3/g)
£*„ (L/Kg)
rrffo (cm3/g)
ksg (year)"1
Fv (unitless)
Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
Montgomery and Welkom (1991)
Vp value cited in U.S. EPA (1992a).
S value cited in U.S. EPA (1992a).
H value was calculated by using the theoretical equation from Lyman, Reehl, and
Rosenblatt (1982), which defines the constant. Recommended value was calculated
by using the MW, S, and Vp values that are provided in this table.
Da value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
Dw value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
Km value cited in Howard (1989-1993).
Koc value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Km for phthalates
and PAHs, / all nonionizing organics except phthalates, PAHs, dioxins, and furans,
cited in U.S. EPA (1994c). Koc value was calculated by using the recommended Km
value that is provided in this table.
Kds value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.01 in soil. Measured
organic carbon in soil, specific to site conditions, should be used to calculate Kds,
because the value varies, depending on the fraction of organic carbon in soil.
Recommended Kds value was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in
this table.
Kdm value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.075 in suspended
sediment. Measured organic carbon in suspended sediment, specific to site
conditions, should be used to calculate Kd^, because the value varies, depending on
the fraction of organic carbon in suspended sediment. Recommended Kd^ value
was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
Kdbs value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.04 in bottom
sediment. Measured organic carbon in bottom sediment, specific to site conditions,
should be used to calculate Kdts, because the value varies, depending on the fraction
of organic carbon in bottom sediment. Recommended Kdts value was calculated by
using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
Ksg value was calculated by using the chemical half-life in soil, as cited in Mackay,
Shiu, and Ma (1992).
Fv value was calculated by using the equation cited in Junge (1977). Recommended
value ofFv was calculated by using the Vp value that is provided in the table.
120.19
287.9
1.30E-03
at 25°C
(liquid)
2.00E+01
7.81E-03
6.48E-02
7.86E-06
2.63E+03
1.67E+03
1.67E+01
1.25E+02
6.69E+01
3.16E+01
1.00
Note:
NA = Not applicable
ND = No data available
All parameters are defined in LIST OF VARIABLES on page A-2-ii.
A-2-241
-------
TABLE A-2-197
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC INPUTS FOR 1,3,5-TRINITROBENZENE (99-35-4)
(Page 1 of 1)
Parameter
Reference and Explanation
Value
Chemical/Physical Properties
MW(g/mo\e)
r»(K)
Fp(atm)
S(mg/L)
H (atm-mVmol)
Da (cm2/s)
Dv (cm2/s)
.RT^ (unitless)
Kx (mL/g)
JM,(cm3/g)
^^ (L/Kg)
SUcmVg)
fag (year)'1
.Fv (unitless)
Budavari, O'Neill, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
Budavari, O'Neill, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
Vp value cited in U.S. EPA (1995b).
S value cited in U.S. EPA (1995b).
H value was calculated by using the theoretical equation from Lyman, Reehl, and
Rosenblatt (1982), which defines the constant. Recommended value was calculated
by using the MW, S, and Vp values that are provided in this table.
Da value was obtained from WATERS model database (U.S. EPA 1995d).
Dv value was obtained from WATERS model database (U.S. EPA 1995d).
Arithmetic mean value cited in Karickhoff and Long (1995).
Koc value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Km for all
nonionizing organics except phthalates, PAHs, dioxins, and furans as cited in
U.S. EPA (1994c). Koc value was calculated by using the recommended Km value
that is provided in this table.
Kds value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed fraction organic carbon of 0.01 in soil. Measured
organic carbon in soil, specific to site conditions, should be used to calculate Kds,
because the value varies, depending on the fraction of organic carbon in soil.
Recommended Kds value was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in
this table.
Kd^ value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.075 in suspended
sediment. Measured organic carbon in suspended sediment, specific to site
conditions, should be used to calculate Kd^, because the value varies, depending on
the fraction of organic carbon in suspended sediment. Recommended Kd^ value
was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
Kdbs value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon of 0.04 in bottom sediment.
Measured organic carbon in bottom sediment, specific to site conditions, should be
used to calculate Kdbs, because the value varies depending on the fraction of organic
fraction in bottom sediment. Recommended Kdbs value was calculated by using the
Koc value that is provided in this table.
Ksg value was assumed to be 0 due to a lack of data.
Fv value was calculated by using equations cited in Junge (1977) and Bidleman
(1988). Recommended value of Fv was calculated by using S, Tm, and Vp values
that are provided in this table. Vp value for this compound was converted to a
liquid-phase value before being used in the calculations.
213.11
395.6
1.30E-07
at 25°C
(solid)
3.20E+02
8.66E-08
2.84E-02
6.08E-06
1.51E+01
1.18E+01
1.18E-01
8.84E-01
4.72E-01
0.0
1.0
Note:
NA= Not applicable
ND= No data available
All parameters are defined in LIST OF VARIABLES on page A-2-ii.
A-2-242
-------
TABLE A-2-198
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC INPUTS FOR 2,4,6 -TRINITROTOLUENE (118-96-7)
(Page 1 of 1)
Parameter
Reference and Explanation
Value
Chemical/Physical Properties
Mff(g/mole)
rm(K)
Vp (atm)
S (mg/L)
H (atm-m3/mol)
Da (cm2/s)
A, (cm2/s)
Km (unitless)
Koc (mL/g)
Kd. (cm3/g)
^ (L/Kg)
Kdbs (cm3/g)
fag (year)"1
Fv (unitless)
Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
Montgomery and Welkom (1991)
Value cited in U.S. EPA (1994b).
Value cited in U.S. EPA (1994b).
H value was calculated by using the theoretical equation from Lyman, Reehl, and
Rosenblatt (1982), which defines the constant. Recommended value was calculated
by using the MW, S, and Vp values that are provided in this table.
Da value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
Dw value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
Recommended Km value cited in Karickhoff and Long (1995).
Koc value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Km for phthalates
and PAHs, / all nonionizing organics except phthalates, PAHs, dioxins, and furans,
cited in U.S. EPA (1994c). Koc value was calculated by using the recommended Km
value that is provided in this table.
Kds value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.01 in soil. Measured
organic carbon in soil, specific to site conditions, should be used to calculate Kds,
because the value varies, depending on the fraction of organic carbon in soil.
Recommended Kds value was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in
this table.
Kdm value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.075 in suspended
sediment. Measured organic carbon in suspended sediment, specific to site
conditions, should be used to calculate Kd^, because the value varies, depending on
the fraction of organic carbon in suspended sediment. Recommended Kd^ value
was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
Kdbs value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.04 in bottom
sediment. Measured organic carbon in bottom sediment, specific to site conditions,
should be used to calculate Kdts, because the value varies, depending on the fraction
of organic carbon in bottom sediment. Recommended Kdts value was calculated by
using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
Ksg value was calculated by using the chemical half-life in soil, as cited in Howard,
Boethling, Jarvis, Meylan, and Michalenko (1991)
Fv value was assumed to be 1.0 due to a lack of data.
227.13
353.2
2.63E-07
1.30E+02
4.59E-07
2.62E-02
5.85E-06
3.98E+01
2.51E+01
2.51E-01
1.88E+00
l.OOE+00
1.41E+00
0.9980
Note:
NA = Not applicable
ND = No data available
All parameters are defined in LIST OF VARIABLES on page A-2-ii.
A-2-243
-------
TABLE A-2-199
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC INPUTS FOR VINYL ACETATE (108-05-4)
(Page 1 of 1)
Parameter
Reference and Explanation
Value
Chemical/Physical Properties
Mff(g/mole)
rm(K)
Vp (atm)
S (mg/L)
H (atm-m3/mol)
Da (cm2/s)
A, (cm2/s)
Km (unitless)
Koc (mL/g)
Kd. (cm3/g)
£*„ (L/Kg)
Kdbs (cm3/g)
fag (year)"1
Fv (unitless)
Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c).
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c).
H value was calculated by using the theoretical equation from Lyman, Reehl, and
Rosenblatt (1982), which defines the constant. Recommended value was calculated
by using the MW, S, and Vp values that are provided in this table.
Da value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
Dw value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c).
Koc value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Km for all
nonionizing organics except phthalates, PAHs, dioxins, and furans, cited in
U.S. EPA (1994c). Koc value was calculated by using the recommended Km value
that is provided in this table.
Kds value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.01 in soil. Measured
organic carbon in soil, specific to site conditions, should be used to calculate Kds,
because the value varies, depending on the fraction of organic carbon in soil.
Recommended Kds value was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in
this table.
Kdm value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.075 in suspended
sediment. Measured organic carbon in suspended sediment, specific to site
conditions, should be used to calculate Kd^, because the value varies, depending on
the fraction of organic carbon in suspended sediment. Recommended Kd^ value
was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
Kdbs value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.04 in bottom
sediment. Measured organic carbon in bottom sediment, specific to site conditions,
should be used to calculate Kdts, because the value varies, depending on the fraction
of organic carbon in bottom sediment. Recommended Kdbs value was calculated by
using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
Ksg value was assumed to be 0 due to a lack of data.
Fv value was calculated by using the equation cited in Junge (1977). Recommended
value of Fv was calculated by using the Vp value that is provided in this table.
86.09
180.1
1.43E-01
at 25°C
(liquid)
2.24E+04
5.50E-04
9.94E-02
l.OOE-05
5.00E+00
4.97E+00
4.97E-02
3.73E-01
1.99E-01
0.0
1.0
Note:
NA= Not applicable
ND= No data available
All parameters are defined in LIST OF VARIABLES on page A-2-ii.
A-2-244
-------
TABLE A-2-200
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC INPUTS FOR VINYL CHLORIDE (75-01-4)
(Page 1 of 1)
Parameter
Reference and Explanation
Value
Chemical/Physical Properties
MW(g/mo\e)
r»(K)
Fp(atm)
S(mg/L)
H (atm-mVmol)
Da (cm2/s)
Dv (cm2/s)
Km (unitless)
Kx (mL/g)
^(cmVg)
Kdm (L/Kg)
Sfa(cm3/g)
ksg (year)'1
Fv (unitless)
Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c).
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c).
H value was calculated by using the theoretical equation from Lyman, Reehl, and
Rosenblatt (1982), which defines the constant. Recommended value was calculated
by using the MW, S, and Vp values that are provided in this table.
Da value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
Dv value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
Geometric mean value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c).
Koc value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Km for all
nonionizing organics except phthalates, PAHs, dioxins, and furans as cited in
U.S. EPA (1994c). Koc value was calculated by using the recommended Km value
that is provided in this table.
Kds value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed fraction organic carbon of 0.01 in soil. Measured
organic carbon in soil, specific to site conditions, should be used to calculate Kds,
because the value varies, depending on the fraction of organic carbon in soil.
Recommended Kds value was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in
this table.
Kd^ value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.075 in suspended
sediment. Measured organic carbon in suspended sediment, specific to site
conditions, should be used to calculate Kd^, because the value varies, depending on
the fraction of organic carbon in suspended sediment. Recommended Kd^ value
was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
Kdbs value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon of 0.04 in bottom sediment.
Measured organic carbon in bottom sediment, specific to site conditions, should be
used to calculate Kdbs, because the value varies depending on the fraction of organic
fraction in bottom sediment. Recommended Kdbs value was calculated by using the
Koc value that is provided in this table.
Ksg value was calculated by using the chemical half-life in soil, as cited in Howard,
Boethling, Jarvis, Meylan, and Michalenko (1991).
Fv value was calculated by using the equation cited in Junge (1977). Recommended
value of Fv was calculated by using the Vp value that is provided in this table.
62.50
119.3
3.68E+00
at 25°C
(liquid)
7.30E+02
3.15E-01
1.58E-01
1.19E-05
1.40E+01
1.11E+01
1.11E-01
8.32E-01
4.44E-01
1.41E+00
1.0
Note:
NA = Not applicable
ND = No data available
All parameters are defined in LIST OF VARIABLES on page A-2-ii.
A-2-245
-------
TABLE A-2-201
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC INPUTS FORM-XYLENE (108-38-3)
(Page 1 of 1)
Parameter
Reference and Explanation
Value
Chemical/Physical Properties
Mff(g/mole)
rm(K)
Vp (atm)
S (mg/L)
H (atm-m3/mol)
Da (cm2/s)
A, (cm2/s)
Km (unitless)
Koc (mL/g)
&/, (cm3/g)
Kd^ (L/Kg)
rrffo (cm3/g)
ksg (year)"1
Fv (unitless)
Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
Montgomery and Welkom (1991)
Vp value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c).
S value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c).
H value was calculated by using the theoretical equation from Lyman, Reehl, and
Rosenblatt (1982), which defines the constant. Recommended value was calculated
by using the MW, S, and Vp values that are provided in this table.
Da value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
Dw value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
Recommended Km value cited in Karickhoff and Long (1995).
Geometric mean of measured values obtained from U.S. EPA (1996b).
Kd, value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.01 in soil. Measured
organic carbon in soil, specific to site conditions, should be used to calculate Kds,
because the value varies, depending on the fraction of organic carbon in soil.
Recommended Kds value was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in
this table.
Kd^, value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.075 in suspended
sediment. Measured organic carbon in suspended sediment, specific to site
conditions, should be used to calculate Kd^,, because the value varies, depending on
the fraction of organic carbon in suspended sediment. Recommended Kd^, value
was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
Kdb, value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.04 in bottom
sediment. Measured organic carbon in bottom sediment, specific to site conditions,
should be used to calculate Kdbs, because the value varies, depending on the fraction
of organic carbon in bottom sediment. Recommended Kdts value was calculated by
using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
Ksg value was calculated by using the chemical half-life in soil, as cited in Howard,
Boethling, Jarvis, Meylan, and Michalenko (1991).
Fv value was calculated by using the equation cited in Junge (1977). Recommended
value of Fv was calculated by using the Vp value that is provided in the table.
106.16
225.7
1.06E-02
at 25°C
(liquid)
1.86E+02
6.05E-03
7.69E-02
8.49E-06
1.59E+03
1.96E+02
1.96E+00
1.47E+01
7.84E+00
9.03E+00
1.000
Note:
NA = Not applicable
ND = No data available
All parameters are defined in LIST OF VARIABLES on page A-2-ii.
A-2-246
-------
TABLE A-2-202
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC INPUTS FOR O-XYLENE (95-47-6)
(Page 1 of 1)
Parameter
Reference and Explanation
Value
Chemical/Physical Properties
Mff(g/mole)
rm(K)
Vp (atm)
S (mg/L)
H (atm-m3/mol)
Da (cm2/s)
A, (cm2/s)
Km (unitless)
Koc (mL/g)
Kds (cm3/g)
&C (L/Kg)
rrffo (cm3/g)
ksg (year)"1
Fv (unitless)
Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
Montgomery and Welkom (1991)
Vp value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c).
S value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c).
H value was calculated by using the theoretical equation from Lyman, Reehl, and
Rosenblatt (1982), which defines the constant. Recommended value was calculated
by using the MW, S, and Vp values that are provided in this table.
Da value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
Dw value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
Recommended Km value cited in Karickhoff and Long (1995).
Geometric mean of measured values obtained from U.S. EPA (1996b).
Kd, value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.01 in soil. Measured
organic carbon in soil, specific to site conditions, should be used to calculate Kds,
because the value varies, depending on the fraction of organic carbon in soil.
Recommended Kds value was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in
this table.
Kd^, value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.075 in suspended
sediment. Measured organic carbon in suspended sediment, specific to site
conditions, should be used to calculate Kd^,, because the value varies, depending on
the fraction of organic carbon in suspended sediment. Recommended Kd^, value
was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
Kdbs value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.04 in bottom
sediment. Measured organic carbon in bottom sediment, specific to site conditions,
should be used to calculate Kdbs, because the value varies, depending on the fraction
of organic carbon in bottom sediment. Recommended Kdts value was calculated by
using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
Ksg value was calculated by using the chemical half-life in soil, as cited in Howard,
Boethling, Jarvis, Meylan, and Michalenko (1991).
Fv value was calculated by using the equation cited in Junge (1977). Recommended
value of Fv was calculated by using the Vp value that is provided in the table.
106.16
248.1
1.06E-02
at 25°C
(liquid)
1.86E+02
6.05E-03
7.69E-02
8.44E-06
1.35E+03
2.41E+02
2.41E+00
1.81E+01
9.64E+00
9.03E+00
1.000
Note:
NA = Not applicable
ND = No data available
All parameters are defined in LIST OF VARIABLES on page A-2-ii.
A-2-247
-------
TABLE A-2-203
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC INPUTS FORP-XYLENE (106-42-3)
(Page 1 of 1)
Parameter
Reference and Explanation
Value
Chemical/Physical Properties
Mff(g/mole)
rm(K)
Vp (atm)
S (mg/L)
H (atm-m3/mol)
Da (cm2/s)
A, (cm2/s)
Km (unitless)
Koc (mL/g)
Kds (cm3/g)
Kd^ (L/Kg)
rrffo (cm3/g)
ksg (year)"1
Fv (unitless)
Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
Montgomery and Welkom (1991)
Vp value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c).
S value cited in U.S. EPA (1994c).
H value was calculated by using the theoretical equation from Lyman, Reehl, and
Rosenblatt (1982), which defines the constant. Recommended value was calculated
by using the MW, S, and Vp values that are provided in this table.
Da value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
Dw value was obtained from CHEMDAT8 database (U.S. EPA 1994d).
Recommended Km value cited in Karickhoff and Long (1995).
Geometric mean of measured values obtained from U.S. EPA (1996b).
Kd, value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.01 in soil. Measured
organic carbon in soil, specific to site conditions, should be used to calculate Kds,
because the value varies, depending on the fraction of organic carbon in soil.
Recommended Kds value was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in
this table.
Kd^, value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.075 in suspended
sediment. Measured organic carbon in suspended sediment, specific to site
conditions, should be used to calculate Kd^,, because the value varies, depending on
the fraction of organic carbon in suspended sediment. Recommended Kd^, value
was calculated by using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
Kdb, value was calculated by using the correlation equation with Koc that is cited in
U.S. EPA (1993d) for an assumed organic carbon fraction of 0.04 in bottom
sediment. Measured organic carbon in bottom sediment, specific to site conditions,
should be used to calculate Kdbs, because the value varies, depending on the fraction
of organic carbon in bottom sediment. Recommended Kdts value was calculated by
using the Koc value that is provided in this table.
Ksg value was calculated by using the chemical half-life in soil, as cited in Howard,
Boethling, Jarvis, Meylan, and Michalenko (1991).
Fv value was calculated by using equations cited in Junge (1977) and Bidleman
(1988). Recommended value of Fv was calculated by using Tm and Vp values that
are provided in this table.
106.16
286.1
1.06E-02
at 25°C
(liquid)
1.86E+02
6.05E-03
7.61E+02
8.50E-06
1.48E+03
3.11E+02
3.11E+00
2.33E+01
1.24E+01
9.03E+00
1.00
Note:
NA = Not applicable
ND = No data available
All parameters are defined in LIST OF VARIABLES on page A-2-ii.
A-2-248
-------
TABLE A-2-204
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC INPUTS FOR ZINC (7440-66-6)
(Page 1 of 1)
Parameter
Reference and Explanation
Value
Chemical/Physical Properties
MW(g/mo\e)
rm(°K)
Fp(atm)
S(mg/L)
H (atm-mVmol)
Da(cm2/s)
Dw (cm2/s)
Km (unitless)
Koc (mL/g)
Kds(mL/g)
^CCL/Kg)
Kdbs(mL/g)
ksg (year)'1
Fv (unitless)
Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
All metals, except mercury, are assumed to be nonvolatile at ambient
temperatures.
All metals, except mercury, are assumed to be insoluble in water.
OR Budavari, O'Neil, Smith, and Heckelman (1989)
H value is assumed to be zero, because the Vp and S values are zero for all
metals, except mercury.
Da value was calculated using the equation cited in U.S. EPA (1996a).
Devalue was calculated using the equation cited in U.S. EPA (1996a).
--
--
Kds value was obtained from U.S. EPA (1996b), which provides pH-based
values that were estimated by using the MTNTEQ2 geochemical speciation
model.
Kd^ value is assumed to be same as the Kds value, because organic carbon does
not play a major role in sorption for the metals, as cited in U.S. EPA (1994f).
Kdbs value is assumed to be same as the Kds value, because organic carbon does
not play a major role in sorption for the metals, as cited in U.S. EPA (1994f).
-
Because they are nonvolatile, metals are assumed to be 100 percent in
particulate phase and zero percent in the vapor phase, as cited in
U.S. EPA(1994f).
65.38
692.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.17E-01
1.36E-05
NA
NA
6.2E+01atpH=6.8
6.2E+01atpH=6.8
6.2E+01atpH=6.8
ND
0.0
Note:
NA = Not applicable;
ND = No data available
All parameters are defined in LIST OF VARIABLES on page A-2-ii.
A-2-249
-------
-------
United States Solid Waste and EPA530-D-99-001C
Environmental Protection Emergency Response August 1999
Agency (5305W) www.epa.gov/osw
v>EPA Screening Level Ecological
Risk Assessment Protocol
for Hazardous Waste
Combustion
Volume Three
Appendices B to H
Peer Review Draft
Printed on paper that contains at least 20 percent postconsumer fiber
-------
-------
APPENDIX B
ESTIMATING MEDIA CONCENTRATION EQUATIONS AND VARIABLE VALUES
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
August 1999
-------
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Appendix B: Estimating Media Concentration Equations
August 1999
APPENDIX B
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE
SOIL INGESTION EQUATIONS
B-l-1 SOIL CONCENTRATION DUE TO DEPOSITION
B-l-2 COPC SOIL LOSS CONSTANT DUE TO ALL PROCESSES
B-l-3 COPC LOSS CONSTANT DUE TO SOIL EROSION
B-l-4 COPC LOSS CONSTANT DUE TO RUNOFF
B-l-5 COPC LOSS CONSTANT DUE TO LEACHING
B-l-6 COPC LOSS CONSTANT DUE TO VOLATILIZATION
PAGE
. . B-l
. B-10
. B-14
. B-20
. B-25
. B-31
SURFACE WATER AND SEDIMENT EQUATIONS
B-2-1 TOTAL COPC LOAD TO WATER BODY
B-2-2 DEPOSITION TO WATER BODY
B-2-3 DIFFUSION LOAD TO WATER BODY
B-2-4 IMPERVIOUS RUNOFF LOAD TO WATER BODY
B-2-5 PERVIOUS RUNOFF LOAD TO WATER BODY
B-2-6 EROSION LOAD TO WATER BODY
B-2-7 UNIVERSAL SOIL LOSS EQUATION (USLE)
B-2-8 SEDIMENT DELIVERY RATIO
B-2-9 TOTAL WATER BODY CONCENTRATION
B-2-10 FRACTION IN WATER COLUMN AND BENTHIC SEDIMENT
B-2-11 OVERALL TOTAL WATER BODY DISSIPATION RATE CONSTANT
B-2-12 WATER COLUMN VOLATILIZATION LOSS RATE CONSTANT . . .
B-2-13 OVERALL COPC TRANSFER RATE COEFFICIENT
B-37
B-41
B-44
B-48
B-51
B-56
B-62
B-67
B-71
B-75
B-80
B-82
B-86
U.S. EPA Region 6
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering
U.S. EPA
Office of Solid Waste
B-i
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Appendix B: Estimating Media Concentration Equations August 1999
APPENDIX B
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE PAGE
B-2-14 LIQUID-PHASE TRANSFER COEFFICIENT B-90
B-2-15 GAS-PHASE TRANSFER COEFFICIENT B-95
B-2-16 BENTHIC BURIAL RATE CONSTANT B-99
B-2-17 TOTAL WATER COLUMN CONCENTRATION B-104
B-2-18 DISSOLVED PHASE WATER CONCENTRATION B-108
B-2-19 COPC CONCENTRATION IN BED SEDIMENT B-lll
TERRESTRIAL PLANT EQUATIONS
B-3-1 PLANT CONCENTRATION DUE TO DIRECT DEPOSITION B-115
B-3-2 PLANT CONCENTRATION DUE TO AIR-TO-PLANT TRANSFER B-125
B-3-3 PLANT CONCENTRATION DUE TO ROOT UPTAKE B-130
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering B-ii
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Appendix B: Estimating Media Concentration Equations August 1999
APPENDIX B
LIST OF VARIABLES AND PARAMETERS
y = Empirical constant (unitless)
Az = Dimensionless viscous sublayer thickness (unitless)
jua = Viscosity of air (g/cm-s)
/uw = Viscosity of water corresponding to water temperature (g/cm-s)
pa = Density of air (g/cm3 or g/m3)
pw = Density of water corresponding to water temperature (g/cm3)
6 = Temperature correction factor (unitless)
6bs = Bed sediment porosity (L volume/L sediment)—unitless
Osw = Soil volumetric water content (mL water/cm3 soil)
a = Empirical intercept coefficient (unitless)
A = Surface area of contaminated area (m2)
Aj = Impervious watershed area receiving COPC deposition (m2)
AL = Total watershed area receiving COPC deposition (m2)
Aw = Water body surface area (m2)
b = Empirical slope coefficient (unitless)
BD = Soil bulk density (g soil/cm3 soil)
BCFr = Plant-soil biotransfer factor (mg COPC/kg DW plant)/(mg COPC/kg
soil)—unitless
BS = Benthic solids concentration (g sediment/cm3 sediment)
Bs = Soil bioavailability factor (unitless)
Bv = Air-to-plant biotransfer factor (mg COPC/kg DW plant)/(mg COPC/kg
air)—unitless
c = Junge constant = 1.7xlO~4 (atm-cm)
C = USLE cover management factor (unitless)
Cd = Drag coefficient (unitless)
Cdw = Dissolved phase water concentration (mg COPC/L water)
Chp = Unitized hourly air concentration from vapor phase ((ig-s/g-m3)
Chv = Unitized hourly air concentration from particle phase ((ig-s/g-m3)
Cs = COPC concentration in soil (mg COPC/kg soil)
Csed = COPC concentration in bed sediment (mg COPC/kg sediment)
Cwctot = Total COPC concentration in water column (mg COPC/L water column)
Cwtot = Total water body COPC concentration including water column and bed sediment
(g COPC/m3 water body) or (mg/L)
Cyp = Unitized yearly average air concentration from particle phase ((ig-s/g-m3)
Cyv = Unitized yearly average air concentration from vapor phase ((ig-s/g-m3)
Cywv = Unitized yearly average air concentration from vapor phase (over water body or
watershed) ((ig-s/g-m3)
Da = Diffusivity of COPC in air (cm2/s)
dbs = Depth of upper benthic sediment layer (m)
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering B-iii
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Appendix B: Estimating Media Concentration Equations August 1999
Ds = Deposition term (mg COPC/kg soil-yr)
dwc = Depth of water column (m)
Dw = Diffusivity of COPC in water (cm2/s)
Dydp = Unitized yearly average dry deposition from particle phase (s/m2-yr)
Dytwp = Unitized yearly average total (wet and dry) deposition from particle phase (over
water body or watershed) (s/m2-yr)
Dywp = Unitized yearly average wet deposition from particle phase (s/m2-yr)
Dywv = Unitized yearly average wet deposition from vapor phase (s/m2-yr)
Dywwv = Unitized yearly average wet deposition from vapor phase (over water body or
watershed) (s/m2-yr)
dz = Total water body depth (m)
ER = Soil enrichment ratio (unitless)
Ev = Average annual evapotranspiration (cm/yr)
fbs = Fraction of total water body COPC concentration in benthic sediment (unitless)
Fd = Fraction of diet that is soil (unitless)
Fw = Fraction of COPC wet deposition that adheres to plant surfaces (unitless)
fwc = Fraction of total water body COPC concentration in the water column (unitless)
Fv = Fraction of COPC air concentration in vapor phase (unitless)
H = Henry's Law constant (atm-m3/mol)
/ = Average annual irrigation (cm/yr)
k = Von Karman's constant (unitless)
K = USLE credibility factor (ton/acre)
kb = Benthic burial rate constant (yr :)
Kdbs = Bed sediment/sediment pore water partition coefficient
(cm3 water/g bottom sediment or L water/kg bottom sediment)
Kds = Soil-water partition coefficient (cm3 water/g soil)
Kdsw = Suspended sediment-surface water partition coefficient
(L water/kg suspended sediment)
KG = Gas phase transfer coefficient (m/yr)
KL = Liquid phase transfer coefficient (m/yr)
Koc = Soil organic carbon-water partition coefficient (mL water/g soil)
Kow = Octanol-water partition coefficient
(mg COPC/L octanol)/(mg COPC/L octanol)—unitless
kp = Plant surface loss coefficient (yr :)
ks = COPC soil loss constant due to all processes (yr :)
kse = COPC loss constant due to soil erosion (yr :)
ksg = COPC loss constant due to biotic and abiotic degradation (yr :)
ksl = COPC loss constant due to leaching (yr :)
ksr = COPC loss constant due to surface runoff (yr :)
ksv = COPC loss constant due to volatilization (yr :)
kv = Water column volatilization rate constant (yr :)
Kv = Overall COPC transfer rate coefficient (m/yr)
kwt = Overall total water body dissipation rate constant (yr :)
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering B-iv
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Appendix B: Estimating Media Concentration Equations August 1999
LDEP = Total (wet and dry) particle phase and wet vapor phase COPC direct deposition
load to water body (g/yr)
LDif = Vapor phase COPC diffusion (dry deposition) load to water body (g/yr)
LE = Soil erosion load (g/yr)
LR = Runoff load from pervious surfaces (g/yr)
Lm = Runoff load from impervious surfaces (g/yr)
LT = Total COPC load to the water body (including deposition, runoff, and erosion)
(g/yr)
LS = USLE length-slope factor (unitless)
OCsed = Fraction of organic carbon in bottom sediment (unitless)
p°L = Liquid phase vapor pressure of chemical (atm)
p°s = Solid phase vapor pressure of chemical (atm)
P = Average annual precipitation (cm/yr)
PF = USLE supporting practice factor (unitless)
Pd = Plant concentration due to direct deposition (mg COPC/kg DW)
Pr = Plant concentration due to root uptake (mg COPC/kg DW)
Pv = Plant concentration due to air-to-plant transfer (|ig COPC/g DW plant tissue or
mg COPC/kg DW plant tissue)
Q = COPC-specific emission rate (g/s)
r = Interception fraction—the fraction of material in rain intercepted by vegetation
and initially retained (unitless)
R = Universal gas constant (atm-m3/mol-K)
RO = Average annual surface runoff from pervious areas (cm/yr)
RF = USLE rainfall (or erosivity) factor (yr :)
Rp = Interception fraction of the edible portion of plant (unitless)
SD = Sediment delivery ratio (unitless)
ASf = Entropy of fusion \ASf/R = 6.79 (unitless)]
SF = Slope factor (mg/kg-day)"1
ST = Whitby's average surface area of particulates (aerosols)
= 3.5* 10~6 cm2/cm3 air for background plus local sources
= 1.1 x 10~5 cm2/cm3 air for urban sources
Ta = Ambient air temperature (K)
Tj = Time period at the beginning of combustion (yr)
T2 = Length of exposure duration (yr)
tD = Time period over which deposition occurs (or time period of combustion) (yr)
Tm = Melting point of chemical (K)
Tp = Length of plant exposure to deposition per harvest of edible portion of plant (yr)
TSS = Total suspended solids concentration (mg/L)
Twk = Water body temperature (K)
t1/2 = Half-time of COPC (days)
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering B-v
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Appendix B: Estimating Media Concentration Equations August 1999
M = Current velocity (m/s)
Vdv = Dry deposition velocity (cm/s)
Vfx = Average volumetric flow rate through water body (mVyr)
W = Average annual wind speed (m/s)
Xe = Unit soil loss (kg/m2-yr)
Yh = Dry harvest yield = 1.22x 1011 kg DW, calculated from the 1993 U.S. average
wet weight Yh of 1.35x 1011 kg (USDA 1994b) and a conversion factor of 0.9
(Fries 1994)
Yhj = Harvest yield of rth crop (kg DW)
Yp = Yield or standing crop biomass of the edible portion of the plant (productivity) (kg
DW/m2)
Zs = Soil mixing zone depth (cm)
0.01 = Units conversion factor (kg cm2/mg-m2)
10"6 = Units conversion factor (g/(ig)
10"6 = Units conversion factor (kg/mg)
0.31536 = Units conversion factor (m-g-s/cm-(ig-yr)
365 = Units conversion factor (days/yr)
907.18 = Units conversion factor (kg/ton)
0.1 = Units conversion factor (g-kg/cm2-m2)
0.001 = Units conversion factor (kg-cm2/mg-m2)
100 = Units conversion factor (mg-cm2/kg-cm2)
1000 = Units conversion factor (mg/g)
4047 = Units conversion factor (m2/acre)
1 x 103 = Units conversion factor (g/kg)
3.1536><107 = Units conversion factor (s/yr)
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering B-vi
-------
TABLE B-l-1
SOIL CONCENTRATION DUE TO DEPOSITION
(SOIL EQUATIONS)
(Page 1 of 9)
Description
The equation in this table is used to calculate the highest annual average COPC concentration in soil resulting from wet and dry deposition of particles and vapors to soil. COPCs are assumed
to be incorporated only to a finite depth (the soil mixing depth, Z,).
The highest annual average COPC concentration in soil is assumed to occur at the end of the time period of combustion. The following uncertainty is associated with this variable:
(1) The time period for deposition of COPCs resulting from hazardous waste combustion is assumed to be a conservative, long-term value.
(2) Deposition to hard surfaces may result in dust residues that have negligible dilution (as a result of potential mixing with in-situ materials), in comparison to that of other residues. This
B-l
-------
TABLE B-l-1
SOIL CONCENTRATION DUE TO DEPOSITION
(SOIL EQUATIONS)
(Page 2 of 9)
Equation
Highest Annual Average Soil Concentration
Ds
tD)]
ks
where:
10°
Z-BD
• [F (0.31536 • Vdv • Cyv + Dywv) + (Dydp + Dywp) • (1 - F )]
V
For mercury modeling:
Ds
100 • (0 480,, , ,, ,
^TotaiMercury
'Mercury
Z, • BD
y .^ (Q.31536 • Vdv • Cyv + Dywv) + (Dydp+Dywp) • (1 - F )]
+ +
In calculating Cs for mercury comounds, Ds(Mercury) is calculated as shown above using the total mercury emission rate (Q) measured at the stack and Fv for mercuric chloride (Fv = 0.85). As
presented below, the calculated Ds(Mercury) value is apportioned into the divalent mercury (Hg2+) and methyl mercury (MHg) forms based on a 98% Hg2+ and 2% MHg speciation split in dry
land soils, and a 85% Hg2+ and 15% MHg speciation split in wetland soils (see Chapter 2).
For Calculating Cs in Dry Land Soils
Ds (Hg2+) = 0.98 Ds(Mercury)
Ds (MHg) = 0.02 Ds(Mercury)
Ds (Hg°) = 0.0
For Calculating Cs in Wetland Soils
Ds (Hg2+) = 0.85 Ds(Mercury)
Ds (MHg) = 0.15 Ds(Mercury)
Ds (Hg°) = 0.0
Calculate Cs for divalent and methyl mercury using the corresponding (1) fate and transport parameters for mercuric chloride (divalent mercury) and methyl mercury (provided in Appendix
A-2), and (2) Ds (Hg2+) and Ds (MHg) as calculated above. After calculating species specific Cs values, divalent and methyl mercury should continue to be modeled throughout Appendix B
equations as individual COPCs.
Variable
Description
Units
Value
Cs
COPC concentration in soil
mg COPC/kg soil
B-2
-------
TABLE B-l-1
SOIL CONCENTRATION DUE TO DEPOSITION
(SOIL EQUATIONS)
(Page 3 of 9)
Variable
Ds
tD
ks
100
Description
Deposition term
Time period over which deposition
occurs (time period of combustion)
COPC soil loss constant due to all
processes
Units conversion factor
Units
mg COPC/kg
soil/yr
yr
yr1
m2-mg/cm2-kg
Value
Varies (calculated - Table B-l-1)
Consistent with U.S. EPA (1994a; 1998), U.S. EPA OSW recommends incorporating the use of a deposition term into
the Cs equation.
Uncertainties associated with this variable include the following:
( 1 ) Five of the variables in the equation for Ds (Q, Cyv, Dywv, Dywp and Dydp) are COPC- and site-specific
measured or modeled variables. The direction and magnitude of any uncertainties should not be generalized.
Uncertainties associated with these variables will probably be different at each facility.
(2) Based on the narrow recommended ranges, uncertainties associated with Vdv, Fv, andBD are expected to be
small.
(3) Values for Zs vary by about one order of magnitude. Uncertainty is greatly reduced if it is known whether soils
are tilled or untilled.
100
U.S. EPA (1990a) specified that this period of time can be represented by 30, 60 , or 100 years. U.S. EPA OSW
recommends that facilities use the conservative value of 100 years unless site-specific information is available
indicating that this assumption is unreasonable.
Varies (calculated - Table B-l-2)
This variable is COPC- and site-specific, and is calculated by using the equation in Table B-l-2. Soil loss constant is
the sum of all COPC removal processes.
Uncertainties associated with this variable are discussed in Table B-l-2.
liSisSOT^
B-3
-------
TABLE B-l-1
SOIL CONCENTRATION DUE TO DEPOSITION
(SOIL EQUATIONS)
(Page 4 of 9)
Variable
Description
Units
Value
O
COPC-specific emission rate
Varies (site-specific)
This variable is COPC- and site-specific (see Chapters 2 and 3). Uncertainties associated with this variable are site-
specific.
Soil mixing zone depth
cm
lor 20
Z, should be computed for two depth intervals. U.S. EPA OSW recommends the following values for this variable:
Soil
Untilled
Tilled
Depth (cm)
1
20
The following uncertainty is associated with this variable:
(1) For soluble COPCs, leaching might lead to movement to below soil depths and justify a greater mixing depth.
This uncertainty may overestimate Cs.
(2) Deposition to hard surfaces may result in dust residues that have negligible dilution, in comparison to that of
other residues. This uncertainty may underestimate Cs.
BD
Soil bulk density
g/cm3
1.5
This variable is affected by the soil structure, such as looseness or compaction of the soil, depending on the water and
clay content of the soil (Hillel 1980), as summarized in U.S. EPA (1990a). A proposed range of 0.83 to 1.84 was
originally cited in Hoffman and Baes (1979). U.S. EPA (1994c) recommends a default BD value of 1.5 g/cm3, based on
a mean value for loam soil that was obtained from Carsel, Parrish, Jones, Hansen, and Lamb (1988). The value of 1.5
g/cm3 also represents the midpoint of the "relatively narrowrange" for BD of 1.2 to 1.7 g/cm3 (U.S. EPA 1993a).
The following uncertainty is associated with this variable:
(1) The recommended range ofBD values may not accurately represent site-specific soil conditions.
B-4
-------
TABLE B-l-1
SOIL CONCENTRATION DUE TO DEPOSITION
(SOIL EQUATIONS)
(Page 5 of 9)
Variable
Fv
0.31536
Vdv
Description
Fraction of COPC air concentration
in vapor phase
Units conversion factor
Dry deposition velocity
Units
unitless
m-g-s/cm-ug-yr
cm/s
Value
0 to 1 (see Appendix A-2)
This variable is COPC-specific and should be determined from the COPC tables in Appendix A-2. Values are also
presented in U.S. EPA (1993), RTI (1992), and NC DEHNR (1997) based on the work of Bidleman (1988), as cited in
U.S. EPA(1994c).
The following uncertainty is associated with this variable:
( 1 ) It is based on the assumption of a default ST value for background plus local sources, rather than an ST value for
urban sources. If a specific site is located in an urban area, the use of the latter ST value may be more appropriate.
Specifically, the ST value for urban sources is about one order of magnitude greater than that for background plus
local sources, and it would result in a lower calculated Fv value; however, the Fv value is likely to be only a few
percent lower.
(2) According to Bidleman (1988), the equation used to calculate Fv assumes that the variable c (Junge constant) is
constant for all chemicals. However, the value of c depends on the chemical (sorbate) molecular weight, the
surface concentration for monolayer coverage, and the difference between the heat of desorption from
the particle surface and the heat of vaporization of the liquid-phase sorbate. To the extent that site- or
COPC-specific conditions may cause the value of c to vary, uncertainty is introduced if a constant value
of c is used to calculate Fv.
3
U.S. EPA (1 994c) recommended the use of 3 cm/s for the dry deposition velocity, based on median dry deposition
velocity for HNO3 from an unspecified U.S. EPA database of dry deposition velocities for HNO3, ozone, and SO2.
HNO3 was considered the most similar to the COPCs recommended for consideration. The value should be applicable
to any organic COPC with a low Henry's Law Constant.
The following uncertainty is associated with this variable:
(1) HNO3 may not adequately represent specific COPCs with high Henry's Law Constant values. Therefore, the use
of a single value may under- or overestimate estimated soil concentration.
B-5
-------
TABLE B-l-1
SOIL CONCENTRATION DUE TO DEPOSITION
(SOIL EQUATIONS)
(Page 6 of 9)
Variable
Cyv
Dywv
Dydp
Dywp
Description
Unitized yearly average air
concentration from vapor phase
Unitized yearly average wet
deposition from vapor phase
Unitized yearly average dry
deposition from particle phase
Unitized yearly average wet
deposition from particle phase
Units
Hg-s/g-m3
s/m2-yr
s/m2-yr
s/m2-yr
Value
Varies (modeled)
This variable is COPC- and site-specific, and is determined by air dispersion modeling (see Chapter 3). Uncertainties
associated with this variable are site-specific.
Varies (modeled)
This variable is COPC- and site-specific, and is determined by air dispersion modeling (see Chapter 3). Uncertainties
associated with this variable are site-specific.
Varies (modeled)
This variable is COPC- and site-specific, and is determined by air dispersion modeling (see Chapter 3). Uncertainties
associated with this variable are site-specific.
Varies (modeled)
This variable is COPC- and site-specific, and is determined by air dispersion modeling (see Chapter 3). Uncertainties
associated with this variable are site-specific.
B-6
-------
TABLE B-l-1
SOIL CONCENTRATION DUE TO DEPOSITION
(SOIL EQUATIONS)
(Page 7 of 9)
REFERENCES AND DISCUSSION
Bidleman, T.F. 1988. "Atmospheric Processes." Environmental Science and Technology. Volume 22. Number 4. Pages 361-367.
This reference is for the statement that the equation used to calculate the fraction of air concentration in vapor phase (Fv) assumes that the variable c (the Junge constant) is constant for all
chemicals. However, this document notes that the value of c depends on the chemical (sorbate) molecular weight, the surface concentration for monolayer coverage, and the difference
between the heat of desorption from the particle surface and the heat of vaporization of the liquid-phase sorbate. The following equation, presented in this document, is cited by U.S. EPA
(1994c) andNC DEHNR (1997) for calculating the variable Fv:
c • ST
F = 1 T
L+c- ST
where:
Fv = Fraction of chemical air concentration in vapor phase (unitless)
c = Junge constant =1.7 E-04 (atm-cm)
ST = Whitby's average surface area of particulates = 3.5 E-06 cm2/cm3 air (corresponds to background plus local sources)
P°L = Liquid-phase vapor pressure of chemical (ami) (see Appendix A-2)
If the chemical is a solid at ambient temperatures, the solid-phase vapor pressure is converted to a liquid-phase vapor pressure as follows:
In
P°s R
where:
P °s = Solid-phase vapor pressure of chemical (atm) (see Appendix A-2)
AS,
— - = Entropy of fusion over the universal gas constant = 6.79 (unitless)
R
Tm = Melting point of chemical (K) (see Appendix C)
Ta = Ambient air temperature = 298 K (25 °C)
B-7
-------
TABLE B-l-1
SOIL CONCENTRATION DUE TO DEPOSITION
(SOIL EQUATIONS)
(Page 8 of 9)
Carsel, R.F., R.S. Parrish, R.L. Jones, J.L. Hansen, and R.L. Lamb. 1988. "Characterizing the Uncertainty of Pesticide Leaching in Agricultural Soils." Journal of Contaminant Hydrology. Vol. 2.
Pages 11-24.
This reference is cited by U.S. EPA (1994b) as the source for a mean soil bulk density value of 1.5 g/cm3 for loam soil.
Hillel, D. 1980. Fundamentals of'SoilPhysics. Academic Press, Inc. New York.
This document is cited by U.S. EPA (1990a) for the statement that dry soil bulk density, BD, is affected by the soil structure, such as looseness or compaction of the soil, depending on the
water and clay content of the soil.
Hoffman, F.O., andC.F. Baes, 1979. A Statistical Analysis of Selected Parameters for Predicting Food Chain Transport and Internal Dose ofRadionuclides. ORNL/NOREG/TM-882.
This document presents a soil bulk density range, BD, of 0.83 to 1.84.
NC DEHNR. 1997. NC DEHNR Protocol for Performing Indirect Exposure Risk Assessments for Hazardous Waste Combustion Units. January.
This is one of the source documents for for the equation in Table B-l-1. This document also recommends the use of (1) a deposition term, Ds, and (2) COPC-specific Fv (fraction of COPC air
concentration in vapor phase) values.
Research Triangle Institute (RTI). 1992. Preliminary Soil Action Level for Superfund Sites. Draft Interim Report. Prepared for U.S. EPA Hazardous Site Control Division, Remedial Operations
Guidance Branch. Arlington, Virginia. EPA Contract 68-W1-0021. Work Assignment No. B-03, Work Assignment Manager LorenHenning. December.
This document is a reference source for COPC-specific Fv (fraction of COPC air concentration in vapor phase) values.
U.S. EPA. 1990a. Interim Final Methodology for Assessing Health Risks Associated with Indirect Exposure to Combustor Emissions. Environmental Criteria and Assessment Office. Office of
Research and Development. EPA 600-90-003. January.
This document is a reference source for the equation in Table B-l-1, and it recommends that (1) the time period over which deposition occurs (time period for combustion ), tD, be
represented by periods of 30, 60, and 100 years, and (2) undocumented values for soil mixing zone depth, Z,, for tilled and untilled soil.
U.S. EPA. 1993. Addendum to the Methodology for Assessing Health Risks Associated with Indirect Exposure to Combustor Emissions. Working Group Recommendations. Office of Solid
Waste. Office of Research and Development. Washington, D.C. September 24.
This document is a reference for the equation in Table B-l-1. It recommends using a deposition term, Ds, and COPC-specific Fv values (fraction of COPC air concentration in vapor phase) in
the Cs equation.
U.S. EPA 1994a. Revised Draft Guidance for Performing Screening Level Risk Analyses at Combustion Facilities Burning Hazardous Wastes. AttachmentC, Draft Exposure Assessment Guidance
for RCRA Hazardous Waste Combustion Facilities. Office of Emergency and Remedial Response. Office of Solid Waste. April 15.
-------
TABLE B-l-1
SOIL CONCENTRATION DUE TO DEPOSITION
(SOIL EQUATIONS)
(Page 9 of 9)
This document is a reference for the equation in Table B-l-1; it recommends that the following be used in the Cs equation: (1) a deposition term, Ds, and (2) a default soil dry bulk density
value of 1.5 g/cm3, based on a mean value for loam soil from Carsel, Parrish, Jones, Hansen, and Lamb (1988).
U.S. EPA. 1994b. Estimating Exposure to Dioxin-Like Compounds. Volume III: Site-Specific Assessment Procedures. ReviewDraft. Office of Research and Development. Washington, D.C.
June. EPA/600/6-88/005Cc.
U.S. EPA. \994c.Draft Guidance for Performing Screening Level Risk Analyses at Combustion Facilities Burning Hazardous Wastes. Office of Emergency and Remedial Response. Office of
Solid Waste. December 14.
The value for dry deposition velocity is based on median dry deposition velocity for HNO3 from a U.S. EPA database of dry deposition velocities for HNO3 ozone, and SO2. HNO3 was
considered the most similar to the constituents covered and the value should be applicable to any organic compound having a low Henry's Law Constant. The reference document for this
recommendation was not cited. This document recommends the following:
• Fv values (fraction of COPC air concentration in vapor phase) that range from 0.27 to 1 for organic COPCs
• Vdv value (dry deposition velocity) of 3 cm/s (however, no reference is provided for this recommendation)
• Default soil dry bulk density value of 1.5 g/cm3, based on a mean for loam soil from Carsel, Parrish, Jones, Hansen, and Lamb (1988)
• Vdv value of 3 cm/s, based on median dry deposition velocity for HNO3 from an unspecified U.S. EPA database of dry deposition velocities for HNO3, ozone, and SO2. HNO3 was
considered the most similar to the COPCs recommended for consideration.
U.S. EPA. 1998. "Human Health Risk Assessment Protocol for Hazardous Waste Combustion Facilities." External Peer Review Draft. U.S. EPA Region 6 and U.S. EPA OSW. Volumes 1-3.
EPA530-D-98-001A. July.
B-9
-------
TABLE B-l-2
COPC SOIL LOSS CONSTANT DUE TO ALL PROCESSES
(SOIL EQUATIONS)
(Page 1 of 4)
Description
This equation calculates the soil loss constant (ks), which accounts for the loss of COPCs from soil by several mechanisms.
Uncertainties associated with this equation include the following:
(1) COPC-specific values for ksg are empirically determined from field studies. No information is available regarding the application of these values to the site-specific conditions associated
with affected facilities.
Equation
ks = ksg + kse + ksr + ksl + ksv
Variable
Description
Units
Value
ks
COPC soil loss constant due to all
processes
ksg
COPC loss constant due to biotic
and abiotic degradation
yr1
Varies (see Appendix A-2)
This variable is COPC-specific and should be determined from the COPC tables in Appendix A-2. "Degradation rate" values are
also presented in NC DEHNR (1997). However, no reference or source is provided for the values. U.S. EPA (1994aand 1994b)
state that ksg values are COPC-specific; however, all ksg values are presented as zero (U.S. EPA 1994a) or as "NA" (U.S. EPA
1994b). The basis of these assumptions is not addressed.
The following uncertainty is associated with this variable:
(1) COPC-specific values for ksg are empirically determined from field studies. No information is available regarding the
application of these values to the site-specific conditions associated with affected facilities.
B-10
-------
TABLE B-l-2
COPC SOIL LOSS CONSTANT DUE TO ALL PROCESSES
(SOIL EQUATIONS)
(Page 2 of 4)
Variable
Description
Units
Value
kse
COPC loss constant due to soil
0
This variable is COPC- and site-specific, and is further discussed in Table B-l-3. Consistent with U.S. EPA (1994a; 1994b; 1998)
and NC DEHNR (1997), U.S. EPA OSW recommends that the default value assumed forkse is zero because of contaminated soil
eroding onto the site and away from the site.
Uncertainties associated with this variable include the following:
(1) The source of the equation in Table B-l-3 has not been identified.
(2) Deposition to hard surfaces may result in dust residues that have negligible dilution (as a result of potential mixing
with in-situ materials), in comparison to that of other residues. This uncertainty may underestimate kse.
ksr COPC loss constant due to surface
runoff
yr-
Varies (calculated - Table B-l-4)
This variable is COPC- and site-specific, and is calculated by using the equation in Table B-l-4. No reference document is cited
for this equation. The use of this equation is consistent with U.S. EPA (1994b; 1998) andNC DEHNR (1997). U.S. EPA (1994a)
states that all ksr values are zero but does not explain the basis of this assumption.
Uncertainties associated with this variable include the following:
(1) The source of the equation in Table B-l-4 has not been identified.
(2) Deposition to hard surfaces may result in dust residues that have negligible dilution (as a result of potential mixing
with in-situ materials), in comparison to that of other residues. This uncertainty may underestimate ksr.
ksl
COPC loss constant due to leaching
yr-
Varies (calculated - Table B-l-5)
This variable is COPC- and site-specific, and is calculated by using the equation in Table B-l-5. No reference document is cited
for this equation. The use of this equation is consistent with U.S. EPA (1993; 1994b; 1998), andNC DEHNR (1997). U.S. EPA
(1994a) states that all ksl values are zero but does not explain the basis of this assumption.
Uncertainties associated with this variable include the following:
(1) The source of the equation in Table B-l-5 has not been identified.
(2) Deposition to hard surfaces may result in dust residues that have negligible dilution (as a result of potential mixing
with in-situ materials), in comparison to that of other residues. This uncertainty may underestimate ksl.
B-ll
-------
TABLE B-l-2
COPC SOIL LOSS CONSTANT DUE TO ALL PROCESSES
(SOIL EQUATIONS)
(Page 3 of 4)
Variable
ksv
Description
COPC loss constant due to
volatilization
Units
yr1
Value
Varies (calculated - Table B-l-6)
This variable is COPC- and site-specific, and is calculated using the equation in Table B-l-6.
Uncertainties associated with this variable include the following:
(1) Deposition to hard surfaces may result in dust residues that have negligible dilution, (as a result of potential mixing with in-
situ materials), in comparison to that of other residues. This uncertainty may underestimate ksv.
B-12
-------
TABLE B-l-2
COPC SOIL LOSS CONSTANT DUE TO ALL PROCESSES
(SOIL EQUATIONS)
(Page 4 of 4)
REFERENCES AND DISCUSSION
NC DEHNR. 1997. NC DEHNR Protocol for Performing Indirect Exposure Risk Assessments for Hazardous Waste Combustion Units. January.
This document is one of the reference documents for the equations in Tables B-l-4, B-l-5, and B-l-6. No source for these equations has been identified. This document is also cited as
(1) the source for a range of COPC-specific degradation rates (ksg), and (2) one of the sources that recommend using the assumption that the loss resulting from erosion (kse) is zero because
of contaminated soil eroding onto the site and away from the site.
U.S. EPA. 1993. Review Draft Addendum to the Methodology for Assessing Health Risks Associated -with Indirect Exposure to Combustor Emissions. Office of Health and Environmental
Assessment. Office of Research and Development. EPA-600-AP-93-003. November 10.
This document is one of the reference documents for the equations in Tables B-l-4 and B-l-5.
U.S. EPA. 1994a. Draft Guidance for Performing Screening Level Risk Analyses at Combustion Facilities Burning Hazardous Wastes. Attachment C, Draft Exposure Assessment Guidance for
RCRA Hazardous Waste Combustion Facilities. April 15.
This document is cited as a source for the assumptions regarding losses resulting from erosion (kse), surface runoff (ksr), degradation (ksg), and leaching (ksl), and volatilization (ksv).
U.S. EPA. 1994b. Revised Draft Guidance for Performing Screening Level Risk Analyses at Combustion Facilities Burning Hazardous Wastes. AttachmentC, Draft Exposure Assessment
Guidance for RCRA Hazardous Waste Combustion Facilities. Office of Emergency and Remedial Response. Office of Solid Waste. December 14.
This document is one of the reference documents for the equations in Tables B-l-4 and B-l-5. This document is also cited as one of the sources that recommend using the assumption that the
loss resulting from erosion (kse) is zero and the loss resulting from degradation (ksg) is "NA" or zero for all compounds.
U.S. EPA. 1998. "Human Health Risk Assessment Protocol for Hazardous Waste Combustion Facilities." External Peer Review Draft. U.S. EPA Region 6 and U.S. EPA OSW. Volumes 1-3.
EPA530-D-98-001A. July.
B-13
-------
TABLE B-l-3
COPC LOSS CONSTANT DUE TO SOIL EROSION
(SOIL EQUATIONS)
(Page 1 of 6)
Description
This equation calculates the constant for COPC loss resulting from erosion of soil. Consistent with U.S. EPA (1994), U.S. EPA (1994b), NC DEHNR (1997), and U.S. EPA (1998), U.S. EPA
OSW recommends that the default value assumed for kse is zero because of contaminated soil eroding onto the site and away from the site. In site-specific cases where the permitting authority
considers it appropriate to calculate a kse, the following equation presented in this table should be considered along with associated uncertainties. Additional discussion on the determination of
kse can be obtained from review of the methodologies described in U. S. EPA NCEA document, Methodology for Assessing Health Risks Associated with Multiple Exposure Pathways to
Combustor Emissions (In Press).
Uncertainties associated with this equation include:
(1) For soluble COPCs, leaching might lead to movement below 1 cm in soils and justify a greater mixing depth. This uncertainty may overestimate kse.
(2) Deposition to hard surfaces may result in dust residues that have negligible dilution (as a result of potential mixing with in-situ materials) in comparison to that of other residues. This
uncertainty may underestimate kse.
Equation
O.l-X -SD-ER
kse =
BD-Z
Variable
kse
0.1
Description
COPC loss constant due to soil
erosion
Units conversion factor
Units
yr1
g-kg/cm2-
m2
Value
0
Consistent with U.S. EPA (1994), U.S. EPA (1994b), U.S. EPA (1998), andNC DEHNR (1997), U.S. EPA OSW
recommends that the default value assumed for kse is zero because of contaminated soil eroding onto the site and away from
the site.
8^'yf®":K":lXfelXfe
QJsW:fe4;:;t®;;i»
Sfi'SfeBS'fil^^
B-14
-------
TABLE B-l-3
COPC LOSS CONSTANT DUE TO SOIL EROSION
(SOIL EQUATIONS)
(Page 2 of 6)
Variable
Description
Units
Value
Unit soil loss
Varies (calculated - Table B-2-7)
This variable is site-specific and is calculated by using the equation in Table B-2-7.
The following uncertainty is associated with this variable:
(1) All of the equation variables are site-specific. Use of default values rather than site-specific values for any or all of
these variables will result in unit soil loss (Xe) estimates that are under- or overestimated to some degree. Based on
default values, Xe estimates can vary over a range of less than two orders of magnitude.
SD
Sediment delivery ratio
unitless
Varies (calculated - Table B-2-8)
This value is site-specific and is calculated by using the equation in Table B-2-8.
Uncertainties associated with this variable include the following:
(1) The recommended default values for the empirical intercept coefficient, a, are average values that are based on studies
of sediment yields from various watersheds. Therefore, those default values may not accurately represent site-specific
watershed conditions. As a result, use of these default values may under- or overestimate SD.
(2) The recommended default value for the empirical slope coefficient, b, is based on a review of sediment yields from
various watersheds. This single default value may not accurately represent site-specific watershed conditions. As a
result, use of this default value may under- or overestimate SD.
ER
Soil enrichment ratio
unitless
Inorganics: 1
Organics: 3
COPC enrichment occurs because (1) lighter soil particles erode more than heavier soil particles, and (2) concentration of
organic COPCs—which is a function of organic carbon content of sorbing media—is expected to be higher in eroded material
than in in-situ soil (U.S. EPA 1993). In the absence of site-specific data, U.S. EPA OSW recommends a default value of 3 for
organic COPCs and 1 for inorganic COPCs. This is consistent with other U.S. EPA guidance (1993), which recommends a
range of 1 to 5 and a value of 3 as a "reasonable first estimate." This range has been used for organic matter, phosphorus, and
other soil-bound COPCs (U.S. EPA 1993); however, no sources or references were provided for this range. ER is generally
higher in sandy soils than in silty or loamy soils (U.S. EPA 1993).
The following uncertainty is associated with this variable:
(1) The default ER value may not accurately reflect site-specific conditions; therefore, kse may be over- or underestimated
to an unknown extent.
B-15
-------
TABLE B-l-3
COPC LOSS CONSTANT DUE TO SOIL EROSION
(SOIL EQUATIONS)
(Page 3 of 6)
Variable
Description
Units
Value
BD
Soil bulk density
g/cm3
1.5
This variable is affected by the soil structure, such as looseness or compaction of the soil, depending on the water and clay
content of the soil (Hillel 1980), as summarized in U.S. EPA (1990). A range of 0.83 to 1.84 was originally cited in Hoffman
and Baes( 1979). U.S. EPA (1994) recommends a default BD value of 1.5 g/cm3, based on a mean value for loam soil that
was taken from Carsel, Parrish, Jones, Hansen, and Lamb (1988). The value of 1.5 g/cm3 also represents the midpoint of the
"relatively narrow range" for BD of 1.2 to 1.7 g/cm3 (U.S. EPA 1993).
The following uncertainty is associated with this variable:
(1) The recommended range of soil dry bulk density values may not accurately represent site-specific soil conditions.
Soil mixing zone depth
cm
lor 20
U.S. EPA OSW recommends the following values for this variable:
Soil
Untilled
Tilled
Depth (cm)
1
20
The following uncertainty is associated with this variable:
(1) For soluble COPCs, leaching might lead to movement to below 1 cm in soils and justify a greater mixing depth.
This uncertainty may overestimate kse.
(2) Deposition to hard surfaces may result in dust residues that have negligible dilution (as a result of potential mixing
with in-situ materials), in comparison to that of other residues. This uncertainty may underestimate kse.
Soil-water partition coefficient
cnr/
Varies (see Appendix A-2)
This variable is COPC-specific and should be determined from the COPC tables in Appendix A-2.
The following uncertainty is associated with this variable:
(1) Uncertainties associated with this parameter will be limited if Kd, values are determined as described in Appendix A-
2.
B-16
-------
TABLE B-l-3
COPC LOSS CONSTANT DUE TO SOIL EROSION
(SOIL EQUATIONS)
(Page 4 of 6)
Variable
Description
Units
Value
Soil volumetric water content
mL/cm3
0.2
This variable depends on the available water and on soil structure. &„ can be estimated as the midpoint between a soil's
field capacity and wilting point, if a representative watershed soil can be identified. However, U.S. EPA OSW recommends
the use of 0.2 mL/cm3 as a default value. This value is the midpoint of the range 0.1 (very sandy soils) to 0.3 (heavy
loam/clay soils) recommended by U.S. EPA (1993) (no source or reference is provided for this range) and is consistent with
U.S. EPA (1994).
The following uncertainty is associated with this variable:
(1) The default &„ values may not accurately reflect site-specific or local conditions; therefore, kse may be under- or
overestimated to a small extent, based on the limited range of values.
B-17
-------
TABLE B-l-3
COPC LOSS CONSTANT DUE TO SOIL EROSION
(SOIL EQUATIONS)
(Page 5 of 6)
REFERENCES AND DISCUSSION
Carsel, R.F., R.S. Parish, R.L. Jones, J.L. Hansen, and R.L. Lamb. 1988. "Characterizing the Uncertainty of Pesticide Leaching in Agricultural Soils." Journal of Contaminant Hydrology. Vol.
2. Pages 11-24.
This document is cited by U.S. EPA (1994) as the source for a mean soil bulk density, BD, value of 1.5 g/cm3 for loam soil.
Hillel, D. 1980. Fundamentals of Soil Physics. Academic Press, Inc. New York.
This document is cited by U.S. EPA (1990) for the statement that dry soil bulk density, BD, is affected by the soil structure, such as looseness or compaction of the soil, depending on the
water and clay content of the soil.
Hoffman, P.O., andC.F. Baes. 1979. A Statistical Analysis of Selected Parameters for Predicting Food Chain Transport and Internal Dose ofRadionuclides. ORNL/NUREG/TM-882.
This document presents a soil bulk density, BD, range of 0.83 to 1.84.
NC DEHNR. 1997. Draft NC DEHNR Protocol for Performing Indirect Exposure Risk Assessments for Hazardous Waste Combustion Units. January.
U. S. EPA. 1990. Interim Final Methodology for Assessing Health Risks Associated with Indirect Exposure to Combustor Emissions. Environmental Criteria and Assessment Office. Office of
Research and Development. EPA 600-90-003. January.
This document presents a range of values for soil mixing zone depth, Z,, for tilled and untilled soil. The basis or source of these values is not identified.
U.S. EPA. 1993. Addendum to the Methodology for Assessing Health Risks Associated with Indirect Exposure to Combustor Emissions. External Review Draft. Office of Research and
Development. Washington, D.C. November 1993.
This document is the source of a range of COPC enrichment ratio, ER, values. The recommended range, 1 to 5, has been used for organic matter, phosphorous, and other soil-bound
COPCs. This document recommends a value of 3 as a "reasonable first estimate," and states that COPC enrichment occurs because lighter soil particles erode more than heavier soil
particles. Lighter soil particles have higher ratios of surface area to volume and are higher in organic matter content. Therefore, concentration of organic COPCs, which is a function of
the organic carbon content of sorbing media, is expected to be higher in eroded material than in in-situ soil.
This document is also a source of the following:
• A "relatively narrow range" for soil dry bulk density, BD, of 1.2 to 1.7 g/cm3
• COPC-specific (inorganic COPCs only) Kds values used to develop a proposed range (2 to 280,000 mL/g) of Kds values
• A range of soil volumetric water content (#„) values of 0.1 mL/cm3 (very sandy soils) to 0.3 mL/cm3 (heavy loam/clay soils) (however, no source or reference is provided for this
range)
B-18
-------
TABLE B-l-3
COPC LOSS CONSTANT DUE TO SOIL EROSION
(SOIL EQUATIONS)
(Page 6 of 6)
U.S. EPA. 1994. Draft Guidance for Performing Screening Level Risk Analyses at Combustion Facilities Burning Hazardous Wastes. Attachment C, Draft Exposure Assessment Guidance for
RCRA Hazardous Waste Combustion Facilities. April 15.
U.S. EPA. 1994a. Estimating Exposure to Dioxin-Like Compounds. Volume III: Site-specific Assessment Procedures. External Review Draft. Office of Research and Development.
Washington, D.C. EPA/600/6-88/005Cc. June.
This document is the source of values for soil mixing zone depth, Z,, for tilled and untilled soil, as cited in U.S. EPA (1993).
U.S. EPA. 1994b. Revised Draft Guidance for Performing Screening Level Risk Analyses at Combustion Facilities Burning Hazardous Wastes. Attachment C, Draft Exposure Assessment
Guidance for RCRA Hazardous Waste Combustion Facilities. Office of Emergency and Remedial Response. Office of Solid Waste. December 14.
This document recommends (1) a default soil bulk density value of 1.5 g soil/cm3 soil, based on a mean value for loam soil that is taken from Carsel, Parrish, Jones, Hansen, and Lamb
(1988), and (2) a default soil volumetric water content, $„, value of 0.2 mL water/cm3 soil, based on U.S. EPA (1993).
U.S. EPA. 1998. "Human Health Risk Assessment Protocol for Hazardous Waste Combustion Facilitites." External Peer Review Draft. U.S. EPA Region 6 and U.S. EPA OSW. Volumes 1-3.
EPA530-D-98-001A. July.
B-19
-------
TABLE B-l-4
COPC LOSS CONSTANT DUE TO RUNOFF
(SOIL EQUATIONS)
(Page 1 of 5)
Description
This equation calculates the constant for COPC loss resulting from runoff of soil. Uncertainties associated with this equation include the following:
(1) For soluble COPCs, leaching might lead to movement to below 1 cm in soils and resulting in a greater mixing depth. This uncertainty may overestimate ksr.
(2) Deposition to hard surfaces may result in dust residues that have negligible dilution, in comparison to that of other residues. This uncertainty may underestimate ksr.
Equation
ksr =
RO
Variable
Description
Units
Value
ksr
COPC loss constant due to surface
runoff
RO
Average annual surface runoff
cm/yr
Varies (site-specific)
This variable is site-specific. According to U.S. EPA (1993; 1994b) and NC DEHNR (1997), average annual surface runoff
can be estimated by using the Water Atlas of the United States (Geraghty, Miller, Van der Leeden, and Troise 1973).
According to NC DEHNR, (1997), estimates can also be made by using more detailed, site-specific procedures for estimating
the amount of surface runoff, such as those based on the U.S. Soil Conservation Service curve number equation (CNE). U.S.
EPA (1985) is cited as an example of such a procedure.
The following uncertainty is associated with this variable:
(1) To the extent that site-specific or local average annual surface runoff information is not available, default or estimated
values may not accurately represent site-specific or local conditions. As a result, ksl may be under- or overestimated to
an unknown degree.
B-20
-------
TABLE B-l-4
COPC LOSS CONSTANT DUE TO RUNOFF
(SOIL EQUATIONS)
(Page 2 of 5)
Variable
Description
Units
Value
Soil volumetric water content
mL/cm3
0.2
This variable depends on the available water and on soil structure; if a representative watershed soil can be identified, #„ can
be estimated as the midpoint between a soil's field capacity and wilting point. However, U.S. EPA OSW recommends the use
of 0.2 mL/cm3 as a default value. This value is the midpoint of the range 0.1 (very sandy soils) to 0.3 (heavy loam/clay soils),
which is recommended by U.S. EPA (1993) (no source or reference is provided for this range) and is consistent with U.S.
EPA(1994b).
The following uncertainty is associated with this variable:
(1) The default
-------
TABLE B-l-4
COPC LOSS CONSTANT DUE TO RUNOFF
(SOIL EQUATIONS)
(Page 3 of 5)
Variable
Description
Units
Value
BD
Soil bulk density
g/cm3
1.5
This variable is affected by the soil structure, such as looseness or compaction of the soil, depending on the water and clay
content of the soil (Hillel 1980), as summarized by U.S. EPA 1990. A range of 0.83 to 1.84 was originally cited in Hoffman
and Baes (1979). U.S. EPA (1994) recommended a default soil bulk density value of 1.5 g/cm3, based on a mean value for
loam soil that is taken from Carsel, Parrish, Jones, Hansen, and Lamb (1988). The value of 1.5 g/cm3 also represents the
midpoint of the "relatively narrow range" for BD of 1.2 to 1.7 g/cm3 (U.S. EPA 1993).
The following uncertainty is associated with this variable:
(1) The recommended range of soil dry bulk density values may not accurately represent site-specific soil conditions.
B-22
-------
TABLE B-l-4
COPC LOSS CONSTANT DUE TO RUNOFF
(SOIL EQUATIONS)
(Page 4 of 5)
REFERENCES AND DISCUSSION
Carsel, R.F., R.S. Parrish, R.L. Jones, J.L. Hansen, and R.L. Lamb. 1988. "Characterizing the Uncertainty of Pesticide Leaching in Agricultural Soils." Journal of Contaminant Hydrology. Vol.
2. Pages 11-24.
This document is cited by U.S. EPA (1994) as the source of a mean soil bulk density, BD, value of 1.5 g/cm3 for loam soil.
Geraghty, J.J., D.W. Miller, F. Van der Leeden, and F.L. Troise. 1973. Water Atlas of the United States. Water Information Center, Port Washington, New York.
This document is cited by U.S. EPA (1993), U.S. EPA (1994c), and NC DEHNR (1997) as a reference to calculate average annual runoff, R. This reference provides maps with isolines of
annual average surface water runoff, which is defined as all flow contributions to surface water bodies, including direct runoff, shallow interflow, and ground water recharge. Because these
values are total contributions, and not only surface runoff, U.S. EPA (1994c) recommends that they be reduced by 50 percent to estimate surface runoff.
Hillel, D. 1980. Fundamentals of Soil Physics. Academic Press, Inc. New York.
This document is cited by U.S. EPA (1990) for the statement that dry soil bulk density, BD, is affected by the soil structure, such as looseness or compaction of the soil, depending on the
water and clay content of the soil.
Hoffman, F.O., and C.F. Baes. 1979. A Statistical Analysis of Selected Parameters for Predicting Food Chain Transport and Internal Dose ofRadionuclides. ORNL/NUREG/TM-882.
This document presents a soil bulk density, BD, range of 0.83 to 1.84.
NC DEHNR. 1997. NC DEHNR Protocol for Performing Indirect Exposure Risk Assessments for Hazardous Waste Combustion Units. January.
This document is one of the source documents that cites the use of the equation in Table B-l-4; however, this document is not the original source of this equation (this source is unknown).
This document also recommends the following:
• Estimation of annual current runoff, RO (cm/yr), by using the Water Atlas of the United States (Geraghty, Miller, Van der Leeden, and Troise 1973) or site-specific procedures,
such as using the U.S. Soil Conservation Service curve number equation (CNE) (U.S. EPA [1985]) is cited as an example of the use of the CNE
• Default value of 0.2 mL/cm3 for soil volumetric water content ($„ )
• Range (2 to 280,000 mL/g) ofKds values for inorganic COPCs (the original source of the values is not identified)
U.S. EPA. 1985. Water Quality Assessment: A Screening Procedure for Toxic and Conventional Pollutants in Surface and Ground Water—Parti (Revised. 1985). Environmental Research
Laboratory. Athens, Georgia. EPA/600/6-85/002a. September.
This document is cited by NC DEHNR (1997) as an example of the use of the U.S. Soil Conservation Service CNE to estimate site-specific surface runoff.
U.S. EPA. 1990. Interim Final Methodology for Assessing Health Risks Assocated-with Indirect Exposure to Combustor Emissions. Environmental Criteria and Assessment Office. Office of
Research and Development. EPA 600-90-003. January.
B-23
-------
TABLE B-l-4
COPC LOSS CONSTANT DUE TO RUNOFF
(SOIL EQUATIONS)
(Page 5 of 5)
This document presents the statement that dry soil bulk density, BD, is affected by the soil structure, such as looseness or compaction of the soil, depending on the water and clay content of
the soil.
U.S. EPA. 1993. Addendum to the Methodology for Assessing Health Risks Associated-with Indirect Exposure to Combustor Emissions. External Review Draft. Office of Research and
Development. Washington, D.C. November.
This document recommends the following:
• A "relatively narrow range" for soil dry bulk density, BD, of 1.2 to 1.7 g./cm3
• A range of soil volumetric water content, $„, values of 0.1 (very sandy soils) to 0.3 (heavy loam/clay soils) (the original source of, or reference for, these values is not identified)
• A range (2 to 280,000 mL/g) of Kds values for inorganic COPCs
• Use of the Water Atlas of the United States (Geraghty, Miller, Van der Leeden, and Troise 1973) to calculate average annual runoff
U. S. EPA. 1994a. Estimating Exposure to Dioxin-Like Compounds. Volume III: Site-specific Assessment Procedures. External Review Draft. Office of Research and Development.
Washington, D.C. EPA/600/6-88/005Cc. June.
This document presents a range of values for soil mixing zone depth, Zs, for tilled and untilled soil as cited in U.S. EPA (1993).
U. S. EPA. 1994b. Revised Draft Guidance for Performing Screening Level Risk Analyses at Combustion Facilities Burning Hazardous Wastes. Attachment C, Draft Exposure Assessment
Guidance for RCRA Hazardous Waste Combustion Facilities. Offices of Emergency and Remedial Response. Office of Solid Waste. December 14.
This document recommends the following:
• Estimation of average annual runoff, RO, by using the Water Atlas of the United States (Geraghty, Miller, Van der Leeden, and Troise 1973)
• Default soil dry bulk density, BD, value of 1.5 g/cm3, based on the mean for loam soil that is taken from Carsel, Parrish, Jones, Hansen, and Lamb (1988)
• Default soil volumetric water content, $„, value of 0.2 mL/cm3, based on U.S. EPA (1993)
B-24
-------
TABLE B-l-5
COPC LOSS CONSTANT DUE TO LEACHING
(SOIL EQUATIONS)
(Pagel of 6)
Description
This equation calculates the constant for COPC loss resulting from leaching of soil. Uncertainties associated with this equation include the following:
(1) For soluble COPCs, leaching might lead to movement to below 1 or 20 cm in soils; resulting in a greater mixing depth. This uncertainty may overestimate ksl.
(2) Deposition to hard surfaces may result in dust residues that have negligible dilution (as a result of potential mixing with in-situ materials), in comparison to that of other residues. This
uncertainty may underestimate ksl.
(3) The original source of this equation has not been identified. U.S. EPA (1993) presents the equation as shown here. U.S. EPA (1994) andNC DEHNR (1997) replaced the numerator as
shown with "
-------
TABLE B-l-5
COPC LOSS CONSTANT DUE TO LEACHING
(SOIL EQUATIONS)
(Page 2 of 6)
Variable
Description
Units
Value
Average annual irrigation
cm/yr
0 to 100 (site-specific)
This variable is site-specific. This range is based on information, presented in U.S. EPA (1990), representing data for 69
selected cities (Baes, Sharp, Sjoreen, and Shor 1984). The 69 selected cities are not identified; however, they appear to be
located throughout the continental United States.
The following uncertainty is associated with this variable:
(1) To the extent that site-specific or local average annual irrigation information is not available, default values (generally
based on the closest comparable location) may not accurately reflect site-specific conditions. As a result, ksl may be
under- or overestimated to an unknown degree.
RO
Average annual surface runoff
cm/yr
Varies (site-specific)
This variable is site-specific. According to U.S. EPA (1993; 1994) and NC DEHNR (1997), average annual surface runoff
can be estimated by using the Water Atlas of the United States (Geraghty, Miller, Van der Leeden, and Troise 1973). Also
according to NC DEHNR (1997), this estimate can also be made by using more detailed, site-specific procedures, such as
those based on the U.S. Soil Conservation Service CNE. U.S. EPA (1985) is cited as an example of such a procedure.
The following uncertainty is associated with this variable:
(1) To the extent that site-specific or local average annual surface runoff information is not available, default or estimated
values may not accurately represent site-specific or local conditions. As a result, ksl may be under- or overestimated
to an unknown degree.
Average annual evapotranspiration
cm/yr
35 to 100 (site-specific)
This variable is site-specific. This range is based on information, presented in U. S. EPA (1990), representing data from
69 selected cities. The 69 selected cities are not identified; however, they appear to be located throughout the continental
United States.
The following uncertainty is associated with this variable:
(1) To the extent that site-specific or local average annual evapotranspiration information is not available, default values
may not accurately reflect site-specific conditions. As a result, ksl may be under- or overestimated to an unknown
degree.
B-26
-------
TABLE B-l-5
COPC LOSS CONSTANT DUE TO LEACHING
(SOIL EQUATIONS)
(Page 3 of 6)
Variable
Description
Units
Value
Soil volumetric water content
mL/cm3
0.2
This variable depends on the available water and on soil structure. 6SW can be estimated as the midpoint between a soil's
field capacity and wilting point, if a representative watershed soil can be identified. However, U.S. EPA OSW
recommends the use of 0.2 mL/cm3 as a default value. This value is the midpoint of the range of 0.1 (very sandy soils) to
0.3 (heavy loam/clay soils) recommended by U.S. EPA (1993) (no source or reference is provided for this range) and is
consistent with U.S. EPA (1994).
The following uncertainty is associated with this variable:
(1) The default 6SW values may not accurately reflect site-specific or local conditions; therefore, ksl may be under- or
overestimated to a small extent, based on the limited range of values.
Soil mixing zone depth
lor 20
U.S. EPA OSW recommends the following values for this variable:
Soil
Unfilled
Tilled
Depth (cm)
1
20
Uncertainties associated with this variable include the following:
(1) For soluble COPCs, leaching might lead to movement to below 1 or 20 cm in soils; resulting in a greater mixing
depth. This uncertainty may overestimate ksl.
(2) Deposition to hard surfaces may result in dust residues that have negligible dilution, in comparison to that of other
residues. This uncertainty may underestimate ksl.
B-27
-------
TABLE B-l-5
COPC LOSS CONSTANT DUE TO LEACHING
(SOIL EQUATIONS)
(Page 4 of 6)
Variable
Description
Units
Value
BD
Soil bulk density
g/cm3
1.5
This variable is affected by the soil structure, such as looseness or compaction of the soil, depending on the water and clay
content of the soil (Hillel 1980), as summarized in U.S. EPA (1990). A range of 0.83 to 1.84 was originally cited in
Hoffman and Baes (1979). U.S. EPA (1994) recommended a default soil bulk density value of 1.5 g/cm3, based on a
mean value for loam soil from Carsel, Parrish, Jones, Hansen, and Lamb (1988). The value of 1.5 g/cm3 also represents
the midpoint of the "relatively narrow range" for BD of 1.2 to 1.7 g/cm3 (U.S. EPA 1993).
The following uncertainties is associated with this variable:
(1) The recommended range of soil dry bulk density values may not accurately represent site-specific soil conditions.
Kd,
Soil-water partition coefficient
cmVg
Varies (see Appendix A-2)
This variable is COPC-specific and should be determined from the COPC tables in Appendix A-2.
The following uncertainty is associated with this variable:
(1) Uncertainties associated with this parameter will be limited if Kds values are calculated as described in Appendix A-
2.
B-28
-------
TABLE B-l-5
COPC LOSS CONSTANT DUE TO LEACHING
(SOIL EQUATIONS)
(Page 5 of 6)
REFERENCES AND DISCUSSION
Baes, C.F., R.D. Sharp, A.L. Sjoreen and R.W. Shor. 1984. "A Review and Analysis of Parameters for Assessing Transport of Environmentally Released Radionuclides through
Agriculture." Prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract No. DEAC05-840R21400.
For the continental United States, as cited in U.S. EPA (1990), this document is the source of a series of maps showing: (1) average annual precipitation (P); (2) average annual
irrigation (7); and (3) average annual evapotranspiration isolines.
Carsel, R.F., R.S. Parrish, R.L. Jones, J.L. Hansen, and R.L. Lamb. 1988. "Characterizing the Uncertainty of Pesticide Leaching in Agricultural Soils." Journal of Contaminant
Hydrology. Vol. 2. Pages 11-24.
This document is cited by U.S. EPA (1994b) as the source for a mean soil bulk density value of 1.5 g/cm3 for loam soil.
Geraghty, J.J., D.W. Miller, F. Van der Leeden, and F.L. Troise. 1973. Water Atlas of the United States. Water Information Center, Port Washington, New York.
This document is cited by U.S. EPA (1993), U.S. EPA (1994), and NC DEHNR (1997) as a reference for calculating average annual runoff, RO. This document provides maps with
isolines of annual average surface runoff, which is defined as all flow contributions to surface water bodies, including direct runoff, shallow interflow, and ground water recharge.
Because these volumes are total contributions—and not only surface runoff—U.S. EPA (1994) notes that they need to be reduced by 50 percent to estimate average annual surface runoff.
This document presents a soil bulk density, BD, range of 0.83 to 1.84. U.S. EPA has not completed its review of this document.
Hillel, D. 1980. Fundamentals of Soil Physics. Academic Press, Inc. New York, New York.
This document is cited by U.S. EPA (1990) for the statement that dry soil bulk density, BD, is affected by the soil structure, such as looseness or compaction of the soil, depending on
the water and clay content of the soil.
Hoffman, P.O., and C.F. Baes. 1979. A Statistical Analysis of Selected Parameters for Predicting Food Chain Transport and Internal Dose of Radionuclides. ORNL/NUREG/TM-882.
This document presents a soil bulk density, BD, range of 0.83 to 1.84.
NC DEHNR. 1997. NC DEHNR Protocol for Performing Indirect Exposure Risk Assessments for Hazardous Waste Combustion Units. January.
This document is one of the source documents that cites the use of the equation in Table B-l-5; however, the document is not the original source of this equation. This document also
recommends the following:
• Estimation of average annual surface runoff, RO (cm/yr), by using the Water Atlas of the United States (Geraghty, Miller, Van der Leeden, and Troise 1973) or site-specific
procedures, such as using the U.S. Soil Conservation Service CNE; U.S. EPA 1985 is cited as an example of the use of the CNE.
B-29
-------
TABLE B-l-5
COPC LOSS CONSTANT DUE TO LEACHING
(SOIL EQUATIONS)
(Page 6 of 6)
• A default value of 0.2 mL/cm3 for soil volumetric water content, 0SW.
• A range (2 to 280,000 mL/g) of Kds values for inorganic COPCs; the original source of these values is not identified.
U.S. Bureau of the Census. 1987. Statistical Abstract of the United States: 1987. 107th edition. Washington, D.C.
This document is a source of average annual precipitation (P) information for 69 selected cites, as cited in U.S. EPA (1990); these 69 cities are not identified.
U.S. EPA. 1985. Water Quality Assessment: A Screening Procedure for Toxic and Conventional Pollutants in Surface and Groundwater. Part I (Revised 1985). Environmental Research
Laboratory. Athens, Georgia. EPA/600/6-85/002a. September.
This document is cited by NC DEHNR (1997) as an example of the use of the U.S. Soil Conservation Service CNE to estimate site-specific average annual surface runoff.
U.S. EPA. 1990. Interim Final Methodology for Assessing Health Risks Associated with Indirect Exposure to Combustor Emissions. Environmental Criteria and Assessment Office. Office
of Research and Development. EPA 600-90-003. January.
This document presents ranges of (1) average annual precipitation, (2) average annual irrigation, and (3) average annual evapotranspiration. This document identifies Baes, Sharp,
Sjoreen, and Shor (1984) and U.S. Bureau of the Census (1987) as the original sources of this information.
U.S. EPA. 1993. Addendum to the Methodology for Assessing Health Risks Associated with Indirect Exposure to Combustor Emissions. External Review Draft. Office of Research and
Development. Washington, D.C. November.
This document is one of the reference sources for the equation in Table B-l-5; this document also recommends the following:
• A range of soil volumetric water content, &„, values of 0.1 (very sandy soils) to 0.3 (heavy loam/clay soils); the original source or reference for these values is not identified.
• A range (2 to 280,000 mL/g) of Kds values for inorganic COPCs
• A "relatively narrow range" for soil dry bulk density, BD, of 1.2 to 1.7 g/cm3
This document is one of the reference source documents for equation in Table B-l-5. The original source of this equation is not identified.
U.S. EPA. 1994. Review Draft Guidance for Performing Screening Level Risk Analyses at Combustion Facilities Burning Hazardous Wastes. Attachment C, Draft Exposure Assessment
Guidance for RCRA Hazardous Waste Combustion Facilities. Office of Emergency and Remedial Response. Office of Solid Waste. December 14.
This document recommends (1) a default soil volumetric water content, $„, value of 0.2 mL/cm3, based on U.S. EPA (1993), and (2) a default soil bulk density, BD, value of 1.5 g/cm3,
based on a mean value for loam soil from Carsel, Parrish, Jones, Hansen, and Lamb (1988).
B-30
-------
TABLE B-l-6
COPC LOSS CONSTANT DUE TO VOLATILIZATION
(SOIL EQUATIONS)
(Page 1 of 6)
Description
This equation calculates the COPC loss constant from soil due to volatilization, and was obtained from Methodology for Assessing Health Risks Associated with Multiple Exposure Pathways to
Combustor Emissions (U.S. EPA In Press). The soil loss constant due to volatilization (ksv) is based on gas equilibrium coefficients and gas phase mass transfer. The first order decay constant,
ksv, is obtained by adapting the Hwang and Falco equation for soil vapor phase diffusion (Hwang and Falco 1986).
Uncertainties associated with this equation include the following:
(1) For soluble COPCs, leaching might lead to movement to below 1 centimeter in untilled soils, resulting in a greater mixing depth. This uncertainty may overestimate ksv.
(2) Deposition to hard surfaces may result in dust residues that have negligible dilution (as a result of potential mixing with in situ materials) in comparison to that of other residues. This
uncertainty may underestimate ksv.
ksv =
3.1536 x \tf-H
Z -Kd -R-T -BD
s s a
Equation
D,
1 -
- 0
Variable
Definition
Units
Value
ksv
COPC loss constant due to
volatilization
yr'
3.1536x 107
Units conversion factor
s/yr
H
Henry's Law constant
atm-mVmol
Varies (see Appendix A-2)
This variable is COPC-specific and should be determined from the COPC tables in Appendix A-2.
The following uncertainty is associated with this variable:
(1) Values for this variable, estimated by using the parameters and algorithms in Appendix A-2, may under- or
overestimate the actual COPC-specific values. As a result, ksv may be under- or overestimated.
B-31
-------
TABLE B-l-6
COPC LOSS CONSTANT DUE TO VOLATILIZATION
(SOIL EQUATIONS)
(Page 2 of 6)
Variable
Definition
Units
Value
Soil mixing zone depth
cm
lor 20
U.S. EPA OSW recommends the following values for this variable:
Soil
Untilled
Tilled
Depth (cm)
1
20
The following uncertainty is associated with this variable:
(1) For soluble COPCs, leaching might lead to movement to below 1 or 20 cm in soils and justify a greater
mixing depth. This uncertainty may overestimate ksv.
(2) Deposition to hard surfaces may result in dust residues that have negligible dilution, in comparison to that
of other residues. This uncertainty may underestimate ksv.
Soil-water partition coefficient
cur/
Varies (see Appendix A-2)
This variable is COPC-specific and should be determined from the COPC tables in Appendix A-2.
The following uncertainty is associated with this variable:
(1) Uncertainties associated with this parameter will be limited if Kds values are calculated as described in
Appendix A-2.
R
Universal gas constant
atm-m3/mol-K
8.205 x 105
There are no uncertainties associated with this parameter.
Ambient air temperature
K
298
This variable is site-specific. U.S. EPA (1990) recommended an ambient air temperature of 298 K.
The following uncertainty is associated with this variable:
(1) To the extent that site-specific or local values for the variable are not available, default values may not
accurately represent site-specific conditions. The uncertainty associated with the selection of a single
value from within the temperature range at a single location is expected to be more significant than the
uncertainty associated with choosing a single ambient temperature to represent all localities.
B-32
-------
TABLE B-l-6
COPC LOSS CONSTANT DUE TO VOLATILIZATION
(SOIL EQUATIONS)
(Page 3 of 6)
Variable
Definition
Units
Value
BD
Soil bulk density
g/cm3
1.5
This variable is affected by the soil structure, such as looseness or compaction of the soil, depending on the
water and clay content of the soil (Hillel 1980; Miller and Gardiner 1998), as summarized in U.S. EPA (1990).
A range of 0.83 to 1.84 was originally cited in Hoffman and Baes (1979). U.S. EPA (1994) recommended a
default soil bulk density value of 1.5 g/cm3, based on a mean value for loam soil from Carsel, Parrish, Jones,
Hansen, and Lamb (1988). The value of 1.5 g/cm3 also represents the midpoint of the "relatively narrow
range" for BD of 1.2 to 1.7 g/cm3 (U.S. EPA 1993).
The following uncertainty is associated with this variable:
(1) The recommended range of soil bulk density values may not accurately represent site-specific soil
conditions.
Solids particle density
g/cm3
2.7
U.S. EPA OSW recommends the use of this value, based on Blake and Hartage (1996) and Hillel (1980).
The solids particle density will vary with location and soil type.
Da
Diffusivity of COPC in air
cm2/s
Varies (see Appendix A-2)
This value is COPC-specific and should be determined from the COPC tables presented in Appendix A-2.
The following uncertainty is associated with this variable:
(1) The default Da values may not accurately represent the behavior of COPCs under site-specific
conditions. However, the degree of uncertainty is expected to be minimal.
B-33
-------
TABLE B-l-6
COPC LOSS CONSTANT DUE TO VOLATILIZATION
(SOIL EQUATIONS)
(Page 4 of 6)
Variable
Definition
Units
Value
Soil volumetric water content
mL/cm3
0.2
This variable depends on the available water and on soil structure. &„ can be estimated as the midpoint
between a soil's field capacity and wilting point, if a representative watershed soil can be identified.
However, U.S. EPA OSW recommends the use of 0.2 mL/cm3 as a default value. This value is the midpoint
of the range of 0.1 (very sandy soils) to 0.3 (heavy loam/clay soils) recommended by U.S. EPA (1993) (no
source or reference is provided for this range) and is consistent with U.S. EPA (1994).
The following uncertainty is associated with this variable:
(1) The default &„ values may not accurately reflect site-specific or local conditions; therefore, ksl may be
under- or overestimated to a small extent, based on the limited range of values.
B-34
-------
TABLE B-l-6
COPC LOSS CONSTANT DUE TO VOLATILIZATION
(SOIL EQUATIONS)
(Page 5 of 6)
REFERENCES AND DISCUSSION
Blake, G.R. andK.H. Hartge. 1996. Particle Density. Methods of Soil Analysis, Part 1: Physical and Mineralogical Methods. Second Edition. ArnoldKlute, Ed. American Society of Agronomy,
Inc. Madison, WL, p. 381.
Carsel, R.F., R.S, Parrish, R.L. Jones, J.L. Hansen, and R.L. Lamb. 1988. "Characterizing the Uncertainty of Pesticide Leaching in Agricultural Soils." Journal of Contaminant Hydrology. Vol. 2.
Pages 11-24.
This document is cited by U.S. EPA (1994) as the source of a mean soil bulk density value,!?!), of 1.5 g/cm3 for loam soil.
Hillel, D. 1980. Fundamentals of'SoilPhysics. Academic Press, Inc. New, New York.
Hoffman, F.O., andC.F. Baes. 1979. A Statistical Analysis of Selected Parameters for Predicting Food Chain Transport and Internal Dose ofRadionuclides. ORNL/NUREG/TM-882.
This document presents a soil bulk density, BD, range of 0.83 to 1.84.
Hwang S. T. andFalco, J. W. 1986. "Estimation of multimedia exposures related to hazardous waste facilities", In: Pollutants in a Multimedia Environment. Yoram Cohen, Ed. Plenum
Publishing Corp. New York.
Miller, R.W. and D.T.Gardiner. 1998. In: Soils in Our Environment. J.U. Miller, Ed. Prentice Hall. Upper Saddle River, NJ. pp. 80-123.
NC DEHNR. 1997. NC DEHNR Protocol for Performing Indirect Exposure Risk Assessments for Hazardous Waste Combustion Units. January.
This document is one of the source documents that cites the use of the equation in Table B-l-6; however, the original source of this equation is not identified. This document also
recommends the following:
• A range of COPC-specific Henry's Law Constant (atm-m3/mol) values
• A range (2 to 280,000 mL/g) ofKds values for inorganic COPCs; however, the sources of these values are not identified.
• A range (9.2 E-06 to 2.8 E-01 cm2/sec) of values for diffusivity of COPCs in air; however, the sources of these values are not identified.
U. S. EPA. 1990. Interim Final Methodology for Assessing Health Risks Associated with Indirect Exposure to Combustor Emissions. Environmental Criteria and Assessment Office. Office of
Research and Development. EPA 600-90-003. January.
This document recommends the following:
• A default ambient air temperature of 298 K
B-35
-------
TABLE B-l-6
COPC LOSS CONSTANT DUE TO VOLATILIZATION
(SOIL EQUATIONS)
(Page 6 of 6)
• An average annual wind speed of 3.9 m/s; however, no source or reference for this value is identified.
U.S. EPA. 1993. Addendum to the Methodology for Assessing Health Risks Associated with Indirect Exposure to Combustor Emissions. External Review Draft. Office of Research and
Development. Washington, D.C. November.
This document is one of the reference source documents for the equation in Table B-l-6; however, the original reference for this equation is not identified.
This document also presents the following:
• COPC-specific Kds values that were used to establish a range (2 to 280,000 mL/g) ofKds values for inorganic COPCs
• a "relatively narrow range" for soil dry bulk density, BD, of 1.2 to 1.7 g/cm3
U.S. EPA. 1994. Revised Draft Guidance for Performing Screening Level Risk Analyses at Combustion Facilities Burning Hazardous Waste. Attachment C, Draft Exposure Assessment
Guidance for RCRA Hazardous Waste Combustion Facilities. Office of Emergency and Remedial Response. Office of Solid Waste. December 14.
This document recommends a default soil density, BD, value of 1.5 g/cm3, based on a mean value for loam soil that is taken from Carsel, Parrish, Jones, Hansen, and Lamb (1988).
U.S. EPA. 1994b. Draft Guidance for Performing Screening Level Risk Analyses at Combustion Facilities Burning Hazardous Wastes. Attachment C, Draft Exposure Assessment Guidance for
RCRA Hazardous Waste Combustion Facilities. April 15.
U.S. EPA. 1998. "Human Health Risk Assessment Protocol for Hazardous Waste Combustion Facilities." External Peer Review Draft. U.S. EPA Region 6 and U.S. EPA OSW. Volumes 1-3.
EPA530-D-98-001A. July.
U.S. EPA. hi Press. "Methodology for Assessing Health Risks Associated with Multiple Exposure Pathways to Combustor Emissions." Internal Review Draft. Environmental Criteria and
Assessment Office. ORD. Cincinnati, Ohio.
B-36
-------
TABLE B-2-1
TOTAL COPC LOAD TO WATER BODY
(SURFACE WATER AND SEDIMENT EQUATIONS)
(Page 1 of 4)
Description
This equation calculates the total average water body load from wet and dry vapor and particle deposition, runoff, and erosion loads.
The limitations and uncertainties incorporated by using this equation include the following:
(1) The greatest uncertainties are associated with the site-specific variables in Tables B-2-2, B-2-3, B-2-4, B-2-5, and B-2-6 (used to estimate values for the variables in the below equation for
LT). These variables include Q, Dywwv, Dytwp, Aw, Cywv, Aj, AL, Cs, andXe. Values for many of these variables are estimated through the use of mathematical models and the
uncertainties associated with values for these variables may be significant in some cases.
(2) Uncertainties associated with the remaining variables in Tables B-2-2, B-2-3, B-2-4, B-2-5, and B-2-6 are expected to be less significant, primarily because of the narrow ranges of
probable values for these variables or because values for these variables (such as Kds) were estimated by using well-established estimation methods.
Equation
Variable
Description
Units
Value
Total COPC load to the water
body
g/yr
Total (wet and dry) particle phase
and wet vapor phase direct
deposition load to water body
g/yr
Varies (calculated - Table B-2-2)
This variable is COPC- and site-specific, and is calculated by using the equation in Table B-2-2.
Uncertainties associated with this variable include the following:
(1) Most of the uncertainties associated with the variables in Table B-2-2, specifically those associated with Q,
Dywwv, Dytwp, andAw, are site-specific and may be significant in some cases.
B-37
-------
TABLE B-2-1
TOTAL COPC LOAD TO WATER BODY
(SURFACE WATER AND SEDIMENT EQUATIONS)
(Page 2 of 4)
Variable
-D'J
LSI
LR
Description
Vapor phase COPC diffusion (dry
deposition) load to water body
Runoff load from impervious
surfaces
Runoff load from pervious
surfaces
Units
g/yr
g/yr
g/yr
Value
Varies (calculated - Table B-2-3)
This variable is calculated by using the equation in Table B-2-3.
Uncertainties associated with this variable include the following:
(1) Most of the uncertainties associated with the variables in the equation in Table B-2-3, specifically those associated with
Q, Cywv, andAw, are site-specific and may be significant in some cases.
Varies (calculated - Table B-2-4)
This variable is calculated by using the equation in Table B-2-4.
Uncertainties associated with this variable include the following:
(1) Most of the uncertainties associated with the variables in this equation, specifically those associated with Q,
Dywwv, Dytwp, andAj, are site-specific.
Varies (calculated - Table B-2-5)
This variable is calculated by using the equation in Table B-2-5.
Uncertainties associated with this variable include the following:
(1) Most of the uncertainties associated with the variables in the equation in Table B-2-5, specifically those for AL, A,, and
Cs, are site-specific and may be significant in some cases.
(2) Uncertainties associated with the remaining variable in the equation in Table B-2-5 are not expected to be significant,
primarily because of the narrow ranges of probable values for these variables or the use of well-established
estimation procedures (Kds).
B-38
-------
TABLE B-2-1
TOTAL COPC LOAD TO WATER BODY
(SURFACE WATER AND SEDIMENT EQUATIONS)
(Page 3 of 4)
Variable
LE
Description
Soil erosion load
Units
g/yr
Value
Varies (calculated - Table B-2-6)
This variable is calculated by using the equation in Table B-2-6.
Uncertainties associated with this variable include the following:
(1) Most of the uncertainties associated with the variables in the equation in Table B-2-6, specifically those for Xe, AL, Aj,
and Cs, are site-specific and may be significant in some cases.
(2) Uncertainties associated with the remaining variables in the equation in Table B-2-6 are not expected to be significant,
primarily because of the narrow range of probable values for these variables or the use of well-established
estimation procedures (Kds).
B-39
-------
TABLE B-2-1
TOTAL COPC LOAD TO WATER BODY
(SURFACE WATER AND SEDIMENT EQUATIONS)
(Page 4 of 4)
REFERENCES AND DISCUSSION
Bidleman, T.F. 1988. "Atmospheric Processes." Environmental Science and Technology. Volume 22. Number 4. Pages 361-367.
For discussion, see References and Discussion in Table B-l-1.
B-40
-------
TABLE B-2-2
DEPOSITION TO WATER BODY
(SURFACE WATER AND SEDIMENT EQUATIONS)
(Page 1 of 3)
Description
This equation calculates the average load to the water body from direct deposition of wet and dry particles and wet vapors onto the surface of the water body.
Uncertainties associated with this equation include the following:
(1) Most of the uncertainties associated with the variables in this equation, specifically those associated with Q, Dywwv, Dytwp , andAw.
(2) It is calculated on the basis of the assumption of a default ST value for background plus local sources, rather than an ST value for urban sources. If a specific site is located in an urban area,
the use of the latter ST value may be more appropriate. Specifically, the ST value for urban sources is about one order of magnitude greater than that for background plus local sources and
would result in a lower calculated Fv value; however, the Fv value is likely to be only a few percent lower.
LDEP = Q * \-FV *
Equation
(1 -
Dytwp] • Aw
For mercury modeling:
F
Dywwv
- F
Dytwp]
In calculating LDEP for mercury comounds, LDEP(Mercury) is calculated as shown above using the total mercury emission rate (Q) measured at the stack and Fv for mercuric chloride (Fv = 0.85).
As presented below, the calculated LDEP(Mercury) value is apportioned into the divalent mercury (Hg2+) and methyl mercury (MHg) forms based on a 85% Hg2+ and 15% MHg speciation split
in the water body (see Chapter 2).
•^D£p(Hg2+) = 0.85 LDEP Mercury
Ljj^MHg) = 0.15 LDEP Mercury
After calculating species specific LDEP values, divalent and methyl mercury should continue to be modeled throughout Appendix B equations as individual COPCs.
Variable
Description
Units
Value
Total (wet and dry) particle-phase
and wet vapor phase direct
deposition load to water body
;/yr
B-41
-------
TABLE B-2-2
DEPOSITION TO WATER BODY
(SURFACE WATER AND SEDIMENT EQUATIONS)
(Page 2 of 3)
Variable
Description
Units
Value
Q
COPC-specific emission rate
Varies (site-specific)
This variable is COPC- and site-specific (see Chapters 2 and 3). Uncertainties associated with this variable are
site-specific.
Fraction of COPC air concentration
in vapor phase
unitless
0 to 1 (see Appendix A-2)
This variable is COPC-specific and should be determined from the COPC tables in Appendix A-2.
Uncertainties associated with this variable include the following:
(1) It is based on the assumption of a default ST value for background plus local sources, rather than an ST value
for urban sources. If a specific site is located in an urban area, the use of the latter ST value may be more
appropriate. Specifically, the ST value for urban sources is about one order of magnitude greater than that
for background plus local sources and would result in a lower calculated Fv value; however, the Fv value is
likely to be only a few percent lower.
(2) According to Bidleman (1988), the equation used to calculate Fv assumes that the variable c (Junge constant)
is constant for all chemicals; however, the value of c depends on the chemical (sorbate) molecular weight, the
surface concentration for monolayer coverage, and the difference between the heat of desorption from the
particle surface and the heat of vaporization of the liquid-phase sorbate. To the extent that site- or COPC-
specific conditions may cause the value of c to vary, uncertainty is introduced if a constant value of c is used
to calculate Fv.
Dywwv Unitized yearly average wet
deposition from vapor phase (over
water body)
s/m2-yr
Varies (modeled)
This variable is COPC- and site-specific, and is determined by air dispersion modeling (see Chapter 3).
Uncertainties associated with this variable are site-specific.
Dytwp Unitized yearly average total (wet
and dry) deposition from particle
phase (over water body)
s/m2-yr
Varies (modeled)
This variable is COPC- and site-specific, and is determined by air dispersion modeling (see Chapter 3).
Uncertainties associated with this variable are site-specific.
Water body surface area
Varies (modeled)
This variable is COPC- and site-specific (see Chapter 4). Uncertainties associated with this variable are
site-specific.
B-42
-------
TABLE B-2-2
DEPOSITION TO WATER BODY
(SURFACE WATER AND SEDIMENT EQUATIONS)
(Page 3 of 3)
REFERENCES AND DISCUSSION
Bidleman, T.F. 1988. "Atmospheric Processes." Environmental Science and Technology. Volume 22. Number 4. Pages 361-367.
Junge, C.E. 1977. Fate of Pollutants in Air and Water Environments, Part I. Suffet, I.H., Ed. Wiley. New York. Pages 7-26.
NC DEHNR. 1997. NC DEHNR Protocol for Performing Indirect Exposure Risk Assessments for Hazardous Waste Combustion Units. January.
This document is a reference source for the equation in B-2-2. This document also recommends by using the equations in Bidleman (1988) to calculate Fv values for all organics other than
dioxins (PCDD/PCDFs). However, the document does not present a recommendation for dioxins. Finally, this document states that metals are generally entirely in the particulate phase
(Fv= 0) except for mercury, which is assumed to be entirely in the vapor phase. The document does not state whether Fv for mercury should be calculated by using the equations in
Bidleman (1988).
U.S. EPA. 1994. Revised Draft Guidance for Performing Screening Level Risk Analyses at Combustion Facilities Burning Hazardous Wastes. Attachment C, Draft Exposure Assessment
Guidance for RCRA Hazardous Waste Combustion Facilities. Office of Emergency and Remedial Response. Office of Solid Waste. December 14.
This document is a reference source for the equation in Table B-2-2. This document also presents values for organic COPCs that range from 0.27 to 1. Fv values for organics other than
PCDD/PCDFs are calculated by using the equations presented in Bidleman (1988). The Fv value for PCDD/PCDFs is assumed to be 0.27, based on U.S. EPA (no date). Finally, this
document presents Fv values for inorganic COPCs equal to 0, based on the assumption that these COPCs are nonvolatile and assumed to be 100 percent in the particulate phase and
0 percent in the vapor phase.
B-43
-------
TABLE B-2-3
DIFFUSION LOAD TO WATER BODY
(SURFACE WATER AND SEDIMENT EQUATIONS)
(Page 1 of 4)
Description
This equation calculates the load to the water body due to dry vapor diffusion. Uncertainties associated with this equation include the following:
(1) Most of the uncertainties associated with the variables in this equation, specifically those associated with Kv, Q, Cyv, andAw, are site-specific.
(2) This equation assumes a default ST value for background plus local sources, rather than an ST value for urban sources. If a specific site is located in an urban area, the use of the latter ST
value may be more appropriate. Specifically, the ST value for urban sources is about one order of magnitude greater than that for background plus local sources and would result in a lower
calculated Fv value; however, the Fv value is likely to be only a few percent lower.
Equation
v • Q • Fv • Cywv • Aw • 1.0x10"
H
For mercury modeling:
Aw • 1.0 xlO"06
LD'fMef = —^ ~
rcury
In calculating LDif for mercury comounds, LDiJ(Mercury) is calculated as shown above using the total mercury emission rate (Q) measured at the stack and Fv for mercuric chloride (Fv = 0.85).
As presented below, the calculated LDiJ(Mercury) value is apportioned into the divalent mercury (Hg2+) and methyl mercury (MHg) forms based on a 85% Hg2+ and 15% MHg speciation split in
the water body (see Chapter 2).
LB,/Hg2+) = 0.857^ Mercury
Lfl/MHg) = Q.\5LDifMercury
After calculating species specific LDif values, divalent and methyl mercury should continue to be modeled throughout Appendix B equations as individual COPCs.
B-44
-------
TABLE B-2-3
DIFFUSION LOAD TO WATER BODY
(SURFACE WATER AND SEDIMENT EQUATIONS)
(Page 2 of 4)
Variable
-D'J
Kv
Q
Fv
Cywv
Description
Dry vapor phase diffusion load to
water body
Overall transfer rate coefficient
COPC-specific emission rate
Fraction of COPC air
concentration in vapor phase
Unitized yearly average air
concentration from vapor phase
(over water body)
Units
g/yr
m/yr
g/s
unitless
ug-s/g-m3
Value
Varies (calculated - Table 2-13)
This variable is COPC- and site-specific, and is calculated by using the equation in Table B-2-13.
Varies (site-specific)
This variable is COPC- and site-specific (see Chapters 2 and 3). Uncertainties associated with this variable are site-
-specific.
0 to 1 (see Appendix A-2)
This variable is COPC-specific and should be determined from the COPC tables in Appendix A-2.
Uncertainties associated with this variable include the following:
( 1 ) This equation assumes a default ST value for background plus local sources, rather than an ST value for urban
sources. If a specific site is located in an urban area, the use of the latter ST value may be more appropriate.
Specifically, the ST value for urban sources is about one order of magnitude greater than that for background plus
local sources and would result in a lower calculated Fv value; however, the Fv value is likely to be only a few percent
lower.
(2) According to Bidleman (1988), the equation used to calculate Fv assumes that the variable c is
constant for all chemicals; however, the value of c depends on the chemical (sorbate) molecular weight, the surface
concentration for monolayer coverage, and the difference between the heat of desorption from the particle surface
and the heat of vaporization of the liquid-phase sorbate. To the extent that site- or COPC-specific conditions may
cause the value ofc to vary, uncertainty is introduced if a constant value of c issued to calculate Fr
Varies (modeled)
This variable is COPC- and site-specific, and is determined for each water body by air dispersion modeling (see Chapter
3). Uncertainties associated with this variable are site-specific.
B-45
-------
TABLE B-2-3
DIFFUSION LOAD TO WATER BODY
(SURFACE WATER AND SEDIMENT EQUATIONS)
(Page 3 of 4)
Variable
Description
Units
Value
Water body surface area
nr
Varies (site-specific)
This variable is site-specific (see Chapter 4).
Uncertainties associated with this variable are site-specific. However, it is expected that the uncertainty associated with
this variable will be limited, because maps, aerial photographs, and other resources from which water body surface areas
can be measured, are readily available.
H
Henry's Law constant
atm-m3/mol
Varies (see Appendix A-2)
This variable is COPC-specific, and should be determined from the COPC tables in Appendix A-2.
The following uncertainty is associated with this variable:
(1) Values for this variable, estimated by using the parameters and algorithms in Appendix A-2, may under- or
overestimate the actual COPC-specific values. As a result, LDif may be under- or overestimated to a limited
degree.
R
Universal gas constant
atm-m3/mol-K
8.205 x 105
Water body temperature
K
298
This variable is site-specific. U.S. EPA OSW recommends the use of this default value in the absence of site-specific
information, consistent with U.S. EPA (1993 and 1994).
The following uncertainty is associated with this variable:
(1) To the extent that the default water body temperature value does not accurately represent site-specific or local
conditions, L^jwill be under- or overestimated.
B-46
-------
TABLE B-2-3
DIFFUSION LOAD TO WATER BODY
(SURFACE WATER AND SEDIMENT EQUATIONS)
(Page 4 of 4)
REFERENCES AND DISCUSSION
Bidleman, T.F. 1988. "Atmospheric Processes." Environmental Science and Technology. Volume 22. Number 4. Pages 361-367.
NC DEHNR. 1997. NC DEHNR Protocol for Performing Indirect Exposure Risk Assessments for Hazardous Waste Combustion Units. January.
This document is a reference source for the equation in Table B-2-3. This document also recommends using the equations in Bidleman (1988) to calculate Fv values for all organics other
than dioxins (PCDD/PCDFs).
U.S. EPA. 1993. Addendum to Methodology for Assessing Health Risks Associated with Indirect Exposure to Combustor Emissions. External Review Draft. Office of Solid Waste and Office
Research and Development. Washington, D.C. November 10.
This document recommends a range (10°C to 30°C 283 K to 303 K) for water body temperature, Twt. No source was identified for this range.
U.S. EPA 1994. Revised Draft Guidance for Performing Screening Level Risk Analyses at Combustion Facilities Burning Hazardous Wastes. Attachment C, Draft Exposure Assessment
Guidance for RCRA Hazardous Waste Combustion Facilities. Office of Emergency and Remedial Response. Office of Solid Waste. December 14.
This document is cited as the reference source for Twt water body temperature (298 K); however, no references or sources are identified for this value. This document is a reference source
for the equation in Table B-2-2.
B-47
-------
TABLE B-2-4
IMPERVIOUS RUNOFF LOAD TO WATER BODY
(SURFACE WATER AND SEDIMENT EQUATIONS)
(Page 1 of 3)
Description
This equation calculates the average runoff load to the water body from impervious surfaces in the watershed from which runoff is conveyed directly to the water body.
Uncertainties associated with this equation include the following:
(1) Most of the uncertainties associated with the variables in this equation, specifically those associated with Q, Dywwv, Dytwp, andAj, are site-specific.
(2) The equation assumes a default ST value for background plus local sources, rather than an ST value for urban sources. If a specific site is located in an urban area, the use of
the latter ST value may be more appropriate. Specifically, the ST value for urban sources is about one order of magnitude greater than that for background plus local sources and would
result in a lower calculated Fv value; however, the Fv value is likely to be only a few percent lower.
Equation
LRI = Q • [Fv • Dywwv + (1 - Fv) • Dytwp} • A1
For mercury modeling:
L = 0.48grofa • [ Fv • Dywwv + (1.0 - Fv ) • Dytwp 1 • A1
Mercury / |_ Hg2 + HgZ + J
In calculating Lmp for mercury comounds, Lm(Mercury) is calculated as shown above using the total mercury emission rate ( Q) measured at the stack and Fv for mercuric chloride (Fv = 0.85).
As presented below, the calculated Lm(Mercury) value is apportioned into the divalent mercury (Hg 2+) and methyl mercury (MHg) forms based on a 85% Hg2+ and 15% MHg speciation split in
the water body (see Chapter 2).
Lj«(Hg2+) = 0. 85 Lm Mercury
= 0. 15 Lm Mercury
After calculating species specific Lm values, divalent and methyl mercury should continue to be modeled throughout Appendix B equations as individual COPCs.
B-48
-------
TABLE B-2-4
IMPERVIOUS RUNOFF LOAD TO WATER BODY
(SURFACE WATER AND SEDIMENT EQUATIONS)
(Page 2 of 3)
Variable
'-'SI
O
Dywwv
Dytwp
A,
Description
Runoff load from impervious
COPC-specific emission rate
Fraction of COPC air
concentration in vapor phase
Unitized yearly average wet
deposition from vapor phase
(over watershed)
Unitized yearly average total (wet
and dry) deposition from particle
phase (over watershed)
Impervious watershed area
receiving COPC deposition
Units
g/yr
g/s
unitless
s/m2-yr
s/m2-yr
m2
Value
?A^v)$S?!W?!8$£!*^^
•*fS«;..M-si¥*B5S^
Varies (site-specific)
This variable is COPC- and site-specific, and is determined by air dispersion modeling (see Chapters 2 and 3). Uncertainties
associated with this variable are site-specific.
0 to 1 (see Appendix A-2)
This variable is COPC-specific and should be determined from the COPC tables in Appendix A-2.
Uncertainties associated with this variable include the following:
( 1 ) The equation assumes a default ST value for background plus local sources, rather than an ST value for urban sources. If a
specific site is located in an urban area, the use of the latter ST value may be more appropriate. Specifically, the ST value
for urban sources is about one order of magnitude greater than that for background plus local sources and would result in a
lower calculated Fv value; however, the Fv value is likely to be only a few percent lower.
(2) According to Bidleman (1988), the equation used to calculate Fv assumes that the variable c is constant for all chemicals;
however, the value of c depends on the chemical (sorbate) molecular weight, the surface concentration for monolayer
coverage, and the difference between the heat of desorption from the particle surface and the heat of vaporization of the
liquid-phase sorbate. To the extent that site- or COPC-specific conditions may cause the value of c to vary, uncertainty is
introduced if a constant value of c is used to calculate Fv.
Varies (modeled)
This variable is COPC- and site-specific, and is determined by air dispersion modeling (see Chapter 3). Uncertainties associated
with this variable are site-specific.
Varies (modeled)
This variable is COPC- and site-specific, and is determined by air dispersion modeling (see Chapter 3). Uncertainties associated
with this variable are site-specific.
Varies (site-specific)
This variable is COPC- and site-specific. Uncertainties associated with this variable are site-specific.
B-49
-------
TABLE B-2-4
IMPERVIOUS RUNOFF LOAD TO WATER BODY
(SURFACE WATER AND SEDIMENT EQUATIONS)
(Page 3 of 3)
REFERENCES AND DISCUSSION
Bidleman, T.F. 1988. "Atmospheric Processes." Environmental Science and Technology. Volume22. Number4. Pages 361-367.
NC DEHNR. 1997. NC DEHNR Protocol for Performing Indirect Exposure Risk Assessments for Hazardous Waste Combustion Units. January.
This document is a reference source for the equation in Table B-2-4. This document also recommends using the equations in Bidleman (1988) to calculate Fv values for all organics other
than dioxins (PCDD/PCDFs). However, the document does not present a recommendation for dioxins. Finally, this document states that metals are generally entirely in the particulate phase
(Fv= 0) except for mercury, which is assumed to be entirely in the vapor phase. The document does not state whether Fv for mercury should be calculated by using the equations in Bidleman
(1988).
U.S. EPA. 1994. Revised Draft Guidance for Performing Screening Level Risk Analyses at Combustion Facilities Burning Hazardous Wastes. AttachmentC, Draft Exposure Assessment
Guidance for RCRA Hazardous Waste Combustion Facilities. Office of Emergency and Remedial Response. Office of Solid Waste. December 14.
This document is a reference source for the equation in Table B-2-4.
B-50
-------
TABLE B-2-5
PERVIOUS RUNOFF LOAD TO WATER BODY
(SURFACE WATER AND SEDIMENT EQUATIONS)
(Page 1 of 5)
Description
This equation calculates the average runoff load to the water body from pervious soil surfaces in the watershed.
Uncertainties associated with this equation include the following:
(1) To the extent that site-specific or local average annual surface runoff information is not available, default or estimated values may not accurately represent site-specific or local
conditions. As a result, LR may be under- or overestimated to an unknown degree.
(2) The recommended range of soil bulk density values may not accurately represent site-specific soil conditions; specifically, this range may under- or overestimate site-specific soil
conditions to an unknown degree.
(3) The default #„ values may not accurately reflect site-specific or local conditions; therefore, LR may be under- or overestimated to a small extent, based on the limited range of values.
(4) Various uncertainties are associated with Csr, see the equation in Table B-l-1.
Equation
LK = RO • (A, - A,} • Cs ' BD • 0.01
V ' 0 + Kd • BD
sw
For mercury modeling:
For mercury modeling, LR (Mtial) values are calculated for divalent mercury (Hg2+) and methyl mercury (MHg) using their respective Cs stndKd, values; then as indicated below, these values are
apportioned based on a 85% Hg2+ and 15% MHg speciation split in the water body (see Chapter 2).
Lp = Lp • 0.85
K 7 + K 7 +
Kg HS (Initial)
LK = LK + (LK • 0.15)
KMHg KMHg (Initial) KHgl + (InitiaI}
After calculating species specific LR values, divalent and methyl mercury should continue to be modeled throughout Appendix B equations as individual COPCs.
B-51
-------
TABLE B-2-5
PERVIOUS RUNOFF LOAD TO WATER BODY
(SURFACE WATER AND SEDIMENT EQUATIONS)
(Page 2 of 5)
Variable
LR
RO
AL
A,
Cs
Description
Runoff load from pervious surfaces
Average annual surface runoff
Total watershed area receiving
COPC deposition
Impervious watershed area
receiving COPC deposition
COPC concentration in soil
Units
g/yr
cm/yr
m2
m2
mg/kg
Value
Varies (site-specific)
This variable is site-specific. According to U.S. EPA (1993), U.S. EPA (1994), and NC DEHNR (1997), average
annual surface runoff can be estimated by using the Water Atlas of the United States (Geraghty, Miller, Van der
Leeden, and Troise 1973). According to NC DEHNR, (1997), more detailed, site-specific procedures for estimating
the amount of surface runoff, such as those based on the U.S. Soil Conservation Service CNE may also be used.
U.S. EPA (1985) is cited as an example of such a procedure.
The following uncertainty is associated with this variable:
( 1 ) To the extent that site-specific or local average annual surface runoff information is not available, default or
estimated values may not accurately represent site-specific or local conditions. As a result, KR may be under-
or overestimated to an unknown degree.
Varies (site-specific)
This variable is site-specific (see Chapter 4). Uncertainties associated with this variable are site-specific.
Varies (site-specific)
This variable is site-specific (see Chapter 4). Uncertainties associated with this variable are site-specific.
Varies (calculated - Table B-l-1)
This value is COPC-and site-specific and should be calculated using the equation in Table B-l-1 . For calculation of
Cs in watersheds, the maximum or average of air parameter values at receptor grid nodes located within the
watershed may be used (see Chapter 4). Uncertainties associated with this variable are site- specific.
B-52
-------
TABLE B-2-5
PERVIOUS RUNOFF LOAD TO WATER BODY
(SURFACE WATER AND SEDIMENT EQUATIONS)
(Page 3 of 5)
Variable
Description
Units
Value
BD
Soil bulk density
g/cm3
1.5
This variable is affected by the soil structure, such as looseness or compaction of the soil, depending on the water
and clay content of the soil (Hillel 1980), as summarized in U.S. EPA (1990). A range of 0.83 to 1.84 was
originally cited in Hoffman and Baes (1979). U.S. EPA (1994) recommended a default soil bulk density value of
1.5 g/cm3, based on a mean value for loam soil from Carsel, Parrish, Jones, Hansen, and Lamb (1988). The value
of 1.5 g/cm3 also represents the midpoint of the "relatively narrow range" for BD of 1.2 to 1.7 g/cm3.
The following uncertainty is associated with this variable:
(1) The recommended range of soil dry bulk density values may not accurately represent site-specific soil
conditions.
Soil volumetric water content
mL/cm3
0.2
This variable depends on the available water and on soil structure. 6SW can be estimated as the midpoint between a
soil's field capacity and wilting point, if a representative watershed soil can be identified. However, U.S. EPA OSW
recommends the use of 0.2 mL/cm3 as a default value. This value is the midpoint of the range 0.1 (very sandy soils)
to 0.3 (heavy loam/clay soils) recommended by U.S. EPA (1993) (no source or reference is provided for this range)
and is consistent with U.S. EPA (1994).
The following uncertainty is associated with this variable:
(1) The default &„ values may not accurately reflect site-specific or local conditions; therefore, LR may be under-
or overestimated to a small extent, based on the limited range of values.
Kd.
Soil-water partition coefficient
cm3/g
Varies (see Appendix A-2)
This variable is COPC-specific and should be determined from the COPC tables in Appendix A-2.
The following uncertainty is associated with this variable:
(1) Uncertainties associated with this parameter will be limited if Kds values are calculated as described in
Appendix A-2.
0.01
Units conversion factor
kg-cm2/mg-m2
B-53
-------
TABLE B-2-5
PERVIOUS RUNOFF LOAD TO WATER BODY
(SURFACE WATER AND SEDIMENT EQUATIONS)
(Page 4 of 5)
REFERENCES AND DISCUSSION
Carsel, R.F., R.S. Parrish, R.L. Jones, J.L. Hansen, and R.L. Lamb. 1988. "Characterizing the Uncertainty of Pesticide Leaching in Agricultural Soils." Journal of Contaminant Hydrology.
Volume 2: pages 11-24.
Geraghty, J.J., D.W Miller, F. Van der Leeden, and F.L. Troise. 1973. Water Atlas of the United States. Water Information Center. Port Washington, New York.
This document is cited by U.S. EPA (1993), U.S. EPA (1994), andNC DEHNR (1997) as a reference for calculating average annual runoff,,RO. Specifically, this reference provides maps
with isolines of annual average surface water runoff, which is defined as all flow contributions to surface water bodies, including direct runoff, shallow interflow, and ground water recharge.
Because these volumes are total contributions and not only surface runoff, U.S. EPA (1994) notes that they need to be reduced to estimate surface runoff. U.S. EPA (1994) recommends a
reduction of 50 percent.
Hillel, D. 1980. Fundamentals of'SoilPhysics. Academic Pres, Inc. New York.
This document is cited by U.S. EPA (1990) for the statement that dry soil bulk density, BD, is affected by soil structure, such as looseness or compaction of the soil, depending on the water
and clay content of the soil.
Hoffman, F.O., andC.F. Baes. 1979. A Statistical Analysis of'Selected Parameters for Predicting Food Chain Transport and Internal Dose ofRadionuclides. ORNL/NUREG/TM-882.
This document presents a soil bulk density, BD, range of 0.83 to 1.84 g/cm3.
NC DEHNR. 1997. NC DEHNR Protocol for Performing Indirect Exposure Assessments for Hazardous Waste Combustion Units. January.
This document is one of the source documented that cites the use of the equation in Table B-2-5. However, the document is not the original source of this equation. This document also
recommends the following:
• Estimation of average annual runoff, RO (cm/yr), by using the Water Atlas of the United States (Geraghty, Miller, Van der Leeden, and Troise 1973) or site-specific procedures,
such as the U.S. Soil Conservation Service CNE; U.S. EPA (1985) is cited as an example of the use of the CNE
• A default value of 0.2 cnrVcm3 for soil volumetric content (&„)
U.S. EPA. 1985. Water Quality Assessment: A Screening Procedures for Toxic and Conventional Pollutants in Surface and Ground Water -Parti (Revised - 1985) . Environmental Research
Laboratory. Athens, Georgia. EPA/600/6-85/002a. September.
B-54
-------
TABLE B-2-5
PERVIOUS RUNOFF LOAD TO WATER BODY
(SURFACE WATER AND SEDIMENT EQUATIONS)
(Page 5 of 5)
U.S. EPA. \99Q.Interim Final Methodology for Assessing Health Risks Associated with Indirect Exposure to Combustor Emissions. Environmental Criteria and Assessment Office. Office of
Research and Development. EPA 600-90-003. January.
This document cites Hillel (1980) for the statement that only soil bulk density, BD, is affected by the soil structure, such as loosened or compaction of the soil, depending on the water and
clay content of the soil.
U.S. EPA. 1993. Addendum: Methodology for Assessing Health Risks Associated with Indirect Exposure to Combustor Emissions. Working Group Recommendations. Office of Solid Waste and
Office of Research and Development. Washington, D.C. September 24.
This document is a source of COPC-specific (inorganics only) Kds values used to develop a range (2 to 280,000 mL/g) o£Kds values. This document also recommends a range of soil
volumetric water content (&„) of 0.1 cnrVcm3 (very sandy soils) to 0.3 cmVcm3 (heavy loam/clay soils); however, no source or reference is provided for this range.
U.S. EPA. 1994. Revised Draft Guidance of Performing Screening Level Risk Analyses at Combustion Facilities Burning Hazardous Wastes. Attachment C, Draft Exposure Assessment Guidance
for RCRA Hazardous Waste Combustion Facilities. Office of Emergency and Remedial Response. Office of Solid Waste. December 14.
This document recommends (1) a default soil bulk density value of 1.5 g/cm3, based on a mean value for loam soil from Carsel, Parrish, Jones, Hansen, and Lamb (1988), and (2) a default soil
volumetric water content,
-------
TABLE B-2-6
EROSION LOAD TO WATER BODY
(SURFACE WATER AND SEDIMENT EQUATIONS)
(Page 1 of 6)
Description
This equation calculates the load to the water body from soil erosion.
Uncertainties associated with this equation include the following:
(1) Most of the uncertainties associated with the variables, specifically those for Xe, AL, A,, and Cs, are site-specific.
(2) Uncertainties associated with the remaining variables are not expected to be significant, primarily because of the narrow ranges of probable values for these variables or the use of
well-established estimation procedures (Kds).
Equation
Cs • Kd • BD
LF = X • (A, - A,) • SD • ER • • 0.001
Qsw+Kds-BD
For mercury modeling:
For mercury modeling, LE (Initial) values are calculated for divalent mercury (Hg2+) and methyl mercury (MHg) using their respective Cs and Kds values; then as indicated below, these values are
apportioned based on a 85% Hg2+ and 15% MHg speciation split in the water body (see Chapter 2).
L = L • 0.85
Hg2* Hg2* (Initial)
LF = LF + (LF • 0.15)
^MHg ^MHg (Initial) Hg2* (Initial)
After calculating species specific LE values, divalent and methyl mercury should continue to be modeled throughout Appendix B equations as individual COPCs.
B-56
-------
TABLE B-2-6
EROSION LOAD TO WATER BODY
(SURFACE WATER AND SEDIMENT EQUATIONS)
(Page 2 of 6)
Variable
Description
Units
Value
Soil erosion load
g/yr
Unit soil loss
kg/m2-yr
Varies (calculated - Table B-2-7)
This variable is site-specific, and is calculated by using the equation in Table B-2-7.
The following uncertainty is associated with this variable:
(1) All of the equation variables (see Table B-2-7) are site-specific. Use of default values rather than site-specific
values, for any or all or these variables, will result in estimates of unit soil loss, Xe, that are under- or
overestimated to some degree. The range of X, calculated on the basis of default values spans slightly more
than one order of magnitude (0.6 to 36.3 kg/m2-yr).
AL Total watershed area receiving
COPC deposition
m
Varies (site-specific)
This variable is site-specific (see Chapter 4). Uncertainties associated with this variable are site-specific.
A, Impervious watershed area
receiving COPC deposition
m
Varies (site-specific)
This variable is site-specific (see Chapter 4). Uncertainties associated with this variable are site-specific.
SD
Sediment delivery ratio
unitless
Varies (calculated - Table B-2-8)
This value is site-specific and is calculated by using the equation in Table B-2-8.
The following uncertainty is associated with this variable:
(1) The recommended default values for the variables a and b (empirical intercept coefficient and empirical slope
coefficient, respectively) are average values, based on a review of sediment yields from various watersheds.
These default values may not accurately represent site-specific watershed conditions and, therefore, may
contribute to the under- or over estimation of Lv.
B-57
-------
TABLE B-2-6
EROSION LOAD TO WATER BODY
(SURFACE WATER AND SEDIMENT EQUATIONS)
(Page 3 of 6)
Variable
Description
Units
Value
ER
Soil enrichment ratio
unitless
Ito3
Inorganic COPCs: 1
Organic COPCs: 3
COPC enrichment occurs because lighter soil particles erode more than heavier soil particles and concentrations
of organic COPCs which is a function of organic carbon content of sorbing media, are expected to be higher in
eroded material than in-situ soil (U.S. EPA 1993). In the absence of site-specific data, U.S. EPA OSW recommends
a default value of 3 for organic COPCs and 1 for inorganic COPCs. This is consistent with other U.S. EPA
guidance (1993), which recommends a range of 1 to 5 and a value of 3 as a "reasonable first estimate". This
range has been used for organic matter, phosphorus, and other soil-bound COPCs (U.S. EPA 1993); however,
no sources or references were provided for this range. ER is generally higher in sandy soils than in silty or
loamy soils (U.S. EPA 1993).
The following uncertainty is associated with this variable:
(1) The default ER value may not accurately reflect site-specific conditions; therefore, LE may be over- or
underestimated to an unknown, but relatively small, extent.
Cs
COPC concentration in soil
mg/kg
Varies (calculated - Table B-l-1)
This value is COPC-and site-specific and should be calculated using the equation in Table B-l-1. For calculation of
Cs in watersheds, the maximum or average of air parameter values at receptor grid nodes located within the
watershed may be used (see Chapter 4). Uncertainties associated with this variable are site-specific.
Kd.
Soil-water partition coefficient
cmVg
Varies (see Appendix A-2)
This variable is COPC-specific and should be determined from the COPC tables in Appendix A-2.
The following uncertainty is associated with this variable:
(1) Uncertainties associated with this parameter will be limited if Kds values are calculated as described in
Appendix A-2.
B-58
-------
TABLE B-2-6
EROSION LOAD TO WATER BODY
(SURFACE WATER AND SEDIMENT EQUATIONS)
(Page 4 of 6)
Variable
Description
Units
Value
BD
Soil bulk density
g/cm3
1.5
This variable is affected by the soil structure, such as looseness or compaction of the soil, depending on the water
and clay content of the soil (Hillel 1980), as summarized in U.S. EPA (1990). A range of 0.83 to 1.84 was originally
cited in Hoffman and Baes (1979). U.S. EPA (1994a) recommended a default soil bulk density value of 1.5 g/cm3,
based on a mean value for loam soil from Carsel, Parrish, Jones, Hansen, and Lamb (1988). The value of 1.5 g/cm3
also represents the midpoint of the "relatively narrow range" for BD of 1.2 to 1.7 g/cm3.
The following uncertainty is associated with this variable:
(1) The recommended range of soil dry bulk density values may not accurately represent site-specific soil
conditions.
Soil volumetric water content
mL/cm3
0.2
This variable depends on the available water and on soil structure. #„ can be estimated as the midpoint between a
soil's field capacity and wilting point, if a representative watershed soil can be identified. However, U.S. EPA OSW
recommends the use of 0.2 cm3 as a default value. This value is the midpoint of the range of 0.1 (very sandy soils),
to 0.3 (heavy loam/clay soils), recommended by U.S. EPA (1993) (no source or reference is provided for this range)
and is consistent with U.S. EPA (1994).
The following uncertainty is associated with this variable:
(1) The default &„ values may not accurately reflect site-specific or local conditions; therefore, LE may be
under- or overestimated to a small extent, based on the limited range of values.
0.001
Units conversion factor
;/mg
B-59
-------
TABLE B-2-6
EROSION LOAD TO WATER BODY
(SURFACE WATER AND SEDIMENT EQUATIONS)
(Page 5 of 6)
REFERENCES AND DISCUSSION
Carsel, R.F., R.S. Parrish, R.L. Jones, J.L. Hansen, and R.L. Lamb. 1988. "Characterizing the Uncertainty of Pesticide Leaching in Agricultural Soils." Journal of Contaminant Hydrology.
Volume 2. Pages 11-24.
This document is the source for a mean soil bulk density of 1.5 cm3 for loam soil.
Hillel, D. 1980. Fundamentals of Soil Physics. Academic Press, Inc. New York.
This document is cited by U.S. EPA (1990) for the statement that dry soil bulk density, BD, is affected by the soil structure, such as looseness or compaction of the soil, depending on the
water and clay content of the soil.
Hoffman, P.O., andC.F. Baes. 1979. A Statistical Analysis of'Selected Parameters for Predicting Food Chain Transport and Internal Dose ofRadionuclides. ORNL/NUREG/TM-882.
This document presents a soil bulk density, BD, range of 0.83 to 1.84 g/cm3.
NC DEHNR. 1997. NC DEHNR Protocol for Performing Indirect Exposure Risk Assessments for Hazardous Waste Combustion Units. January.
This document is cited as one of the sources for the range ofBD andKds values, and the default value for the volumetric soil water content.
U.S. EPA. 1990. Interim Final Methodology for Assessing Health Risks Associated with Indirect Exposure to Combustor Emissions. Environmental Criteria and Assessment Office. Office of
Research and Development. EPA 600-90-003. January.
This document cites Hillel (1980) for the statement that dry soil bulk density, BD, is affected by the soil structure, such as looseness or compaction of the soil, depending on the water and
clay content of the soil.
U.S. EPA. 1993. Addendum to the Methodology for Assessing Health Risks Associated with Indirect Exposure to Combustor Emissions. External Review Draft. Office of Research and
Development. Washington, D.C. November 1993.
This document is the source of the recommended range of COPC enrichment ratio, ER, values. This range, 1 to 5, has been used for organic matter, phosphorous, and other soil-based
COPCs. This document recommends a value of 3 as a "reasonable first estimate," and states that COPC enrichment occurs because lighter soil particles erode more than heavier soil
particles. Lighter soil particles have higher surface-area-to-volume ratios and are higher in organic matter content. Therefore, concentrations of organic COPCs, which are a function of the
organic carbon content of sorbing media, are expected to be higher in eroded material than in in-situ soil.
This document is also the source of the following:
• COPC-specific (inorganics only) Kds values used to develop a proposed range (0 to 280,000 mL/g) of Kds values
B-60
-------
TABLE B-2-6
EROSION LOAD TO WATER BODY
(SURFACE WATER AND SEDIMENT EQUATIONS)
(Page 6 of 6)
• A range of soil volumetric water content (
-------
TABLE B-2-7
UNIVERSAL SOIL LOSS EQUATION (USLE)
(SOIL EQUATIONS)
(Page 1 of 5)
Description
This equation calculates the soil loss rate from the watershed by using the Universal Soil Loss Equation (USLE); the result is used in the soil erosion load equation in Table B-2-6. Estimates of
unit soil loss, Xe, should be determined specific to each watershed evaluated. Information on determining site- and watershed-specific values for variables used in calculating X, is provided in
U.S. Department of Agriculture (U.S. Department of Agriculture 1997) and U.S. EPA guidance (U.S. EPA 1985). Uncertainties associated with this equation include the following:
(1) All of the equation variables are site-specific. Use of site-specific values will result in estimates of unit soil loss, Xe, that are under- or overestimated to some unknown degree.
Equation
X = RF • K • LS • C • PF
907.18
4047
Variable
Description
Units
Value
Unit soil loss
kg/m2-yr
RF
USLE rainfall (or erosivity) factor
yr1
50 to 300 (site-specific)
This value is site-specific and is derived on a storm-by-storm basis. As cited in U.S. EPA (1993b), average annual
values have been compiled regionally by Wischmeier and Smith (1978). The recommended range reflects these
compiled values.
The following uncertainty is associated with this variable:
(1) The range of average annual rainfall factors (50 to 300) from Wischmeier and Smith (1978) may not accurately
reflect site-specific conditions. Therefore, unit soil loss, Xe, may be under- or overestimated.
B-62
-------
TABLE B-2-7
UNIVERSAL SOIL LOSS EQUATION (USLE)
(SOIL EQUATIONS)
(Page 2 of 5)
Variable
K
LS
Description
USLE erodibility factor
USLE length-slope factor
Units
ton/acre
unitless
Value
Varies
This value is site-specific. U.S. EPA OSW recommends the use of current guidance (U.S. Department of Agriculture
1997; U.S. EPA 1985) in determining watershed-specific values for this variable based on site-specific information. A
default value of 0.36, as cited in U.S. EPA (1994), was based on a soil organic matter content of 1 percent (Droppo,
Strenge, Buck, Hoopes, Brockhaus, Walter, and Whelan 1989), and chosen to be representative of a whole watershed.
The following uncertainty is associated with this variable:
(1) The determination and use of site-specific values for the USLE soil erodibility factor, K, may not accurately
represent site-specific conditions. Therefore, use of this value may cause unit soil loss, X,, to be under- or
overestimated.
Varies
This value is site-specific. U.S. EPA OSW recommends the use of current guidance (U.S. Department of Agriculture
1997; U.S. EPA 1985) in determining watershed-specific values for this variable based on site-specific information. A
value of 1.5, as cited in U.S. EPA (1994), reflects a variety of possible distance and slope conditions (U.S. EPA 1988),
and was chosen to be representative of a whole watershed.
The following uncertainty is associated with this variable:
( 1 ) The determination and use of site-specific values for the USLE length-slope factor, LS, may not accurately
represent site-specific conditions. Therefore, use of this value may cause unit soil loss, Xe, to be under- or
overestimated.
B-63
-------
TABLE B-2-7
UNIVERSAL SOIL LOSS EQUATION (USLE)
(SOIL EQUATIONS)
(Page 3 of 5)
Variable
C
PF
907.18
4047
Description
USLE cover management factor
USLE supporting practice factor
Conversion factor
Conversion factor
Units
unitless
unitless
kg/ton
m2/acre
Value
Varies
This value is site-specific. U.S. EPA OSW recommends the use of current guidance (U.S. Department of Agriculture
1997; U.S. EPA 1985) in determining watershed-specific values for this variable based on site-specific information. The
range of values up to 0.1 reflect dense vegetative cover, such as pasture grass; values from 0.1 to 0.7 reflect agricultural
row crops; and a value of 1.0 reflects bare soil (U.S. EPA 1993b). U.S. EPA (1993a) recommended a value of 0.1 for
both grass and agricultural crops. This range of values was also cited in NC DEHNR (1997). However, U.S. EPA (1994)
and NC DEHNR (1997) both recommend a default value of 0 . 1 to be representative of a whole watershed.
The following uncertainty is associated with this variable:
(1) The determination and use of site-specific values for USLE cover management factor, C, may not accurately
represent site-specific conditions. Therefore, use of default value for C may result in the under- or overestimation
of unit soil loss, X,.
Varies
This value is site-specific. U.S. EPA OSW recommends the use of current guidance (U.S. Department of Agriculture
1997; U.S. EPA 1985) in determining watershed-specific values for this variable based on site-specific information. A
default value of 1.0, which conservatively represents the absence of any erosion or runoff control measures, was cited in
U.S. EPA (1993a; 1994) and NC DEHNR (1997).
The following uncertainty is associated with this variable:
( 1 ) The determination and use of site-specific values for the USLE supporting practice factor, PF, may not accurately
represent site-specific conditions. Therefore, resulting in the under- or overestimation of unit soil loss, X,.
• •>?-$')W-r-y-r-/-r-iW-r-y-r-/-r^
^^••^^\^^\^^\^^\^^\^^\^^\^^\^^\^^^
i^W^i^^^^WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWH
B-64
-------
TABLE B-2-7
UNIVERSAL SOIL LOSS EQUATION (USLE)
(SOIL EQUATIONS)
(Page 4 of 5)
REFERENCES AND DISCUSSION
Droppo, J.G. Jr., D.L. Strenge, J.W. Buck, B.L. Hoopes, R.D. Brockhaus, M.B. Walter, and G. Whelan. 1989. Multimedia Environmental Pollutant Assessment System (MEPAS) Application
Guidance: Volume 2-Guidelines for Evaluating MEPAS Input Parameters. Pacific Northwest Laboratory. Richland, Washington. December.
This document is cited by U.S. EPA 1994 andNC DEHNR 1997 as the reference source for the default USLE erodibility factor value of 0.36, based on a soil organic matter content of
1 percent.
NC DEHNR. 1997. NC DEHNR Protocol for Performing Indirect Exposure Risk Assessments for Hazardous Waste Combustion Units. January.
This document recommends the following:
• A USLE erodibility factor, K, value of 0.36 ton/acre
• A USLE length-slope factor, LS, value of 1.5 (unitless)
• A range of USLE cover management factor, C, values of 0.1 to 1; it also recommends a default value of 0.1 to be representative of a whole watershed, not just an agricultural field.
• A USLE supporting practice factor, P, value of 1
U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1997. Predicting Soil Erosion by Water: A Guide to Conservation Planning With the Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE). Agricultural Research
Service, Agriculture Handbook Number 703. January.
U.S. EPA. 1985. Water Quality Assessment: A Screening Procedure for Toxic and Conventional Pollutants in Surface and Ground Water—Part I (Revised). ORD. Athens, Georgia.
EPA/600/6-85/002a.
U.S. EPA. 1988. Superfund Exposure Assessment Manual. Office of Solid Waste. Washington, D.C. April.
This document is cited by U. S. EPA 1994 and NC DEHNR 1997 as the reference source for the USLE length-slope factor value of 1.5. This value reflects a variety of possible distance and
slope conditions and was chosen to be representative of a whole watershed, not just an agricultural field.
U.S. EPA. 1993a. Addendum: Methodology for Assessing Health Risks Associated with Indirect Exposure to Combustor Emissions. Working Group Recommendations. Office of Solid Waste
and Office of Research and Development. Washington, D.C. September 24.
This document cites Wischmeier and Smith (1978) as the source of average annual USLE rainfall factors, RF, and states that annual values range from less than 50 for the arid western
United States to greater than 300 for the southeast.
This document also recommends the following:
• A USLE cover management factor, C, of 0.1 for both grass and agricultural crops
• A USLE supporting practice factor, P, of 1, based on the assumed absence of any erosion or runoff control measures
B-65
-------
TABLE B-2-7
UNIVERSAL SOIL LOSS EQUATION (USLE)
(SOIL EQUATIONS)
(Page 5 of 5)
U.S. EPA. 1993b. Review Draft Addendum to the Methodology for Assessing Health Risks Associated with Indirect Exposure to Combustion Emissions. Office of Health and Environmental
Assessment. Office of Research and Development. EPA-600-AP-93-003. November 10.
This document discusses the USLE cover management factor. This factor, C, primarily reflects how erosion is influenced by vegetative cover and cropping practices, such as planting
across slope rather than up and down slope. This document discusses a range of C values for 0.1 to 1; values greater than 0.1 but less than 0.2 are appropriate for agricultural row crops,
and a value of 1 is appropriate for sites mostly devoid of vegetation.
U.S. EPA. 1994. Guidance for Performing Screening Level Risk Analyses at Combustion Facilities Burning Hazardous Wastes. Office of Emergency and Remedial Response. Office of Solid
Waste. December 14.
This document recommends the following:
• A USLE erodibility factor, K, value of 0.36 ton/acre
• A USLE length-slope factor, LS, value of 1.5 (unitless)
• A range of USLE cover management factor, C, values of 0.1 to 1; it recommends a default value of 0.1 to be representative of a whole watershed, not just an agricultural field.
• A USLE supporting practice factor, P, value of 1
Wischmeire, W.H., andD.D. Smith. 1978. Predicting Rainfall Erosion Losses—A Guide to Conservation Planning. Agricultural Handbook No. 537. U.S. Department of Agriculture
Washington, D.C.
This document is cited by U.S. EPA (1993) as the source of average annual USLE rainfall factors, RF, compiled regionally. According to U.S. EPA (1993), annual values range from less
than 50 for the arid western United States to greater than 300 for the southeast.
B-66
-------
TABLE B-2-8
SEDIMENT DELIVERY RATIO
(SURFACE WATER AND SEDIMENT EQUATIONS)
(Page 1 of 4)
Description
This equation calculates the sediment delivery ratio for the watershed. The result is used in the soil erosion load equation.
Uncertainties associated with this equation include the following:
(1) The recommended default empirical intercept coefficient, a, values are average values based on various studies of sediment yields from various watersheds. Therefore, these default
values may not accurately represent site-specific watershed conditions. As a result, use of these default values may under- or overestimate the watershed sediment delivery ratio, SD.
(2) The recommended default empirical slope coefficient, b, value is based on a review of sediment yields from various watersheds. This single default value may not accurately represent
site-specific watershed conditions. As a result, use of this default value may under- or overestimate the watershed sediment delivery ratio, SD.
Equation
SD = a • (ALYb
Variable | Description | Units | Value
SD
Watershed sediment delivery ratio
unitless
B-67
-------
TABLE B-2-8
SEDIMENT DELIVERY RATIO
(SURFACE WATER AND SEDIMENT EQUATIONS)
(Page 2 of 4)
Variable
a
AL
Description
Empirical intercept coefficient
Watershed area receiving COPC
deposition
Units
unitless
m2
Value
0.6 to 2.1 (depends on watershed area)
This variable is site-specific and is determined on the basis of the watershed area (Vanoni 1975), as cited in U.S. EPA
(1993):
Watershed "a" Coefficient
Area (sq. miles) (unitless)
<0.1 2.1
>0.1butlbut<10 1.4
>10but<100 1.2
>100 0.6
Note: 1 sq. mile = 2.59 x 106 m2
The use of these values is consistent with U.S. EPA (1994a and 1994b) andNC DEHNR (1997).
The following uncertainty is associated with this variable:
(1) The recommended default empirical intercept coefficient, a, values are average values based on various studies of
sediment yields from various watersheds. Therefore, these default values may not accurately represent site-specific
watershed conditions. As a result, use of these default values may under- or overestimate the watershed sediment
delivery ratio, SD.
Varies (site-specific)
This variable is site-specific (see Chapter 4). Uncertainties associated with this variable are site-specific.
B-68
-------
TABLE B-2-8
SEDIMENT DELIVERY RATIO
(SURFACE WATER AND SEDIMENT EQUATIONS)
(Page 3 of 4)
Variable
Description
Units
Value
Empirical slope coefficient
unitless
0.125
As cited in U.S. EPA (1993), this variable is an empirical constant based on the research of Vanoni (1975), which concludes
that sediment delivery ratios vary approximately with the -(1/8) power of the drainage area. The use of this value is
consistent with U.S. EPA (1994a and 1994b) andNC DEHNR (1997). U.S. EPA has not completed its review of Vanoni
(1975).
The following uncertainty is associated with this variable:
(1) The recommended default empirical slope coefficient, b, value is based on a review of sediment yields from various
watersheds. This single default value may not accurately represent site-specific watershed conditions. As a result, use
of this default value may under- or overestimate the watershed sediment delivery ratio, SD.
B-69
-------
TABLE B-2-8
SEDIMENT DELIVERY RATIO
(SURFACE WATER AND SEDIMENT EQUATIONS)
(Page 4 of 4)
REFERENCES AND DISCUSSION
NC DEHNR. 1997. NC DEHNR Protocol for Performing Indirect Exposure Risk Assessments for Hazardous Waste Combustion Units. January.
This document is cited as one of the reference source documents for the empirical intercept coefficient, a, and empirical slope coefficient, b, values. This document cites U.S. EPA (1993) as
the source of its information.
U.S. EPA. 1993. Addendum to the Methodology for Assessing Health Risks Associated with Indirect Exposure to Combustor Emissions. External Review Draft. Office of Research and
Development. Washington, D.C. November.
This document is cited as one of the reference source documents for the empirical intercept coefficient, a, and empirical slope coefficient, b, values. This document cites Vanoni (1975) as its
source of information.
U.S. EPA. 1994a. Draft Guidance for Performing Screening Level Risk Analyses at Combustor Facilities Burning Hazardous Wastes. Attachment C, Draft Exposure Assessment Guidance for
RCRA Hazardous Waste Combustion Facilities. April 15.
This document is cited as one of the reference source documents for the empirical intercept coefficient, a, and empirical slope coefficient, b, values. This document does not identify Vanoni
(1975) as the source of its information.
U.S. EPA. 1994b. Revised Draft Guidance for Performing Screening Level Risk Analyses at Combustion Facilities Burning Hazardous Wastes. Attachment C, Draft Exposure Assessment
Guidance for RCRA Hazardous Waste Combustion Facilities. Office of Emergency and Remedial Response. Office of Solid Waste. December 14.
This document is cited as one of the reference source documents for the empirical intercept coefficient, a, and the empirical slope coefficient, b, values. This document cites U.S. EPA (1993)
as the source of its information.
Vanoni, V.A. 1975. Sedimentation Engineering. American Society of Civil Engineers. New York, New York. Pages 460-463.
This document is cited by U.S. EPA (1993) as the source of the equation in Table B-2-8 and the empirical intercept coefficient, a, and empirical slope coefficient, b, values. Based on various
studies of sediment yields from watersheds, this document concludes that the sediment delivery ratios vary approximately with the -(1/8) power of the drainage ratio.
B-70
-------
TABLE B-2-9
TOTAL WATER BODY CONCENTRATION
(SURFACE WATER AND SEDIMENT EQUATIONS)
(Page 1 of 4)
Description
This equation calculates the total water body concentration; including the water column and the bed sediment.
Uncertainties associated with this equation include the following:
(1) The default variable values recommended for use in the equation in Table B-2-9 may not accurately represent site-specific water body conditions. The degree of uncertainty associated
with the variables Vfv Aw, dvc, and dbs is expected to be limited either because the probable ranges for these variables are narrow or information allowing accurate estimates is generally
available.
(2) Uncertainty associated withfwc is largely the result of uncertainty associated with default organic carbon (OC) content values and may be significant in specific instances. Uncertainties
associated with the total core load into water body (L^) and overall total water body core dissipation rate constant (&„,) may also be significant in some instances because of the summation
of many variable-specific uncertainties.
Equation
Vfx'fwc + kwt • Aw • (dwc + dbs)
For mercury modeling:
Total water body concentration is calculated for divalent mercury (Hg2+) and methyl mercury (MHg) using their respective LT values,/,,,, values, and knt values.
Variable
Description
Units
Value
Total water body COPC
concentration (including water
column and bed sediment)
g/m3
(equivalent
to mg/L)
Total COPC load to the water body
(including deposition, runoff, and
erosion)
g/yr
Varies (calculated - Table B-2-1)
This variable is COPC- and site-specific, and is calculated by using the equation in Table B-2-1.
Uncertainties associated with LDEP, LDif Lm, LR, and LE, as presented in Table B-2-1, are also associated with LT.
B-71
-------
TABLE B-2-9
TOTAL WATER BODY CONCENTRATION
(SURFACE WATER AND SEDIMENT EQUATIONS)
(Page 2 of 4)
Variable
Description
Units
Value
Average volumetric flow rate
through water body
mVyr
Varies (site-specific)
This variable is site-specific and should be an annual average.
The following uncertainty is associated with this variable:
(1) Use of default average volumetric flow rate (Vfx) information may not accurately represent site-specific conditions,
especially for those water bodies for which flow rate information is not readily available. Therefore, use of default Vfx
values may contribute to the under- or overestimation of total water body COPC concentration, Cntot
Fraction of total water body COPC
concentration that occurs in the
water column
unitless
0 to 1 (calculated - Table B-2-10)
This variable is COPC- and site-specific, and is calculated by using the equation in Table B-2-10.
The following uncertainty is associated with this variable:
(1) The default values for the variables in the equation in Table B-2-10 may not accurately represent site- and water body
- specific conditions. However, the range of several variables—including dbff CBS, and 6b— is relatively narrow.
Other variables, such as dwc and dz, can be reasonably estimated on the basis of generally available information.
The largest degree of uncertainty may be introduced by the default medium-specific organic carbon (OC)
content values. Because OC content values may vary widely in different locations in the same medium, by
using default values may result in insignificant uncertainty in specific cases.
Overall total water body COPC
dissipation rate constant
Varies (calculated - Table B-2-11)
This variable is COPC- and site-specific, and is calculated by using the equation in Table B-2-11.
The following uncertainty is associated with this variable:
(1) All of the variables in the equation in Table B-2-11 are site-specific; therefore, the use of default values for any or all
of these variables will contribute to the under- or overestimation of Cwto, The degree of uncertainty associated with
the variable k6 is expected to be under one order of magnitude and is associated largely with the estimation of the unit
soil loss, Xe, values for the variables/,,,, kv, and^ are dependent on medium-specific estimates of OC content.
Because OC content can vary widely for different locations in the same medium, uncertainty associated with these
three may be significant in specific instances.
B-72
-------
TABLE B-2-9
TOTAL WATER BODY CONCENTRATION
(SURFACE WATER AND SEDIMENT EQUATIONS)
(Page 3 of 4)
Variable
Description
Units
Value
Water body surface area
m
(average
value for the
entire year)
Varies (site-specific)
This variable is site-specific (see Chapter 4). The value selected is assumed to represent an average value for the entire year.
Uncertainties associated with this variable are site-specific and expected to be limited, because maps, aerial photographs,
and other resources from which water body surface areas can be measured, are readily available.
Depth of water column
m
(average
value for the
entire year)
Varies (site-specific)
This variable is site-specific and should be an average annual value.
The following uncertainty is associated with this variable:
(1) Use of default depth of water column, dwc, values may not accurately reflect site-specific conditions, especially for
those water bodies for which depth of water column information is unavailable or outdated. Therefore, use of default
dwc values may contribute to the under-or overestimation of total water body COPC concentration, Cwtof
dts Depth of upper benthic sediment
layer
0.03
This variable is site-specific. The value selected is assumed to represent an average value for the entire year. U.S. EPA
OSW recommends a default upper benthic sediment depth of 0.03 meter, which is consistent with U.S. EPA (1994) and NC
DEHNR (1997) guidance. This range was cited by U.S. EPA (1993); however, no reference was cited for this range.
The following uncertainty is associated with this variable:
(1) Use of default depth of upper benthic layer, dbs, values may not accurately represent site-specific water body
conditions. However, based on the narrow recommended range, any uncertainty introduced is expected to be limited.
B-73
-------
TABLE B-2-9
TOTAL WATER BODY CONCENTRATION
(SURFACE WATER AND SEDIMENT EQUATIONS)
(Page 4 of 4)
REFERENCES AND DISCUSSION
NC DEHNR. 1997. NC DEHNR Protocol for Performing Indirect Exposure Risk Assessments for Hazardous Waste Combustion Units. January.
This document is also cited as one of the reference source documents for the default depth of upper benthic layer value. The default value is the midpoint of an acceptable range. This
document cites U.S. EPA (1993) as its source of information for the range of values for the depth of the upper benthic layer.
U.S. EPA. 1993. Addendum: Methodology for Assessing Health Risks Associated with Indirect Exposure to Combustor Emissions. Working Group Recommendations. Office of Solid Waste and
Office of Research and Development. Washington, B.C. September 24.
This document is cited by NC DEHNR (1997) and U.S. EPA (1994) as the source of the range and default value for the depth of the upper benthic layer (dbs).
U.S. EPA. 1994. Draft Guidance for Performing Screening Level Risk Analyses at Combustor Facilities Burning Hazardous Wastes. Attachment C, Draft Exposure Assessment Guidance for
RCRA Hazardous Waste Combustion Facilities. April 15.
This document is cited as one of the reference source documents for the default depth of the upper benthic layer value. The default value is the midpoint of an acceptable range. This
document cites U.S. EPA (1993) as its source of information for the range of values for the depth of the upper benthic layer.
B-74
-------
TABLE B-2-10
FRACTION IN WATER COLUMN AND BENTHIC SEDIMENT
(SURFACE WATER AND SEDIMENT EQUATIONS)
(Page 1 of 5)
Description
This equation calculates the fraction of total water body concentration occurring in the water column and the bed sediments.
Uncertainties associated with this equation include the following:
(1) The default variable values may not accurately represent site-specific water body conditions. However, the range of several variables —including dbs, BS, and 6b— is relatively narrow.
Other variables, such as dwc anddz, can be reasonably estimated on the basis of generally available information. The largest degree of uncertainty may be introduced by the default
medium-specific OC content values. OC content values can vary widely for different locations in the same medium. Therefore, the use of default values may introduce
significant uncertainty in some cases.
f
J we
Equations
(1 + Kd • TSS • 10"6) • d Id
v SW ' WC Z
+ Kdsw • TSS • IxKT6) • dwc/dz + (Qbs + Kdbs • BS) • djdz
fbs =
For mercury modeling:
The fraction in water column (fnc) is calculated for divalent mercury (Hg2+) and methyl mercury (MHg) using their respective Kd^, values and Kdbs values.
The fraction in benthic sediment (fbs) is calculated for divalent mercury (Hg2+) and methyl mercury (MHg) using their respective fwc values.
Variable
Description
Units
Value
Fraction of total water body COPC
concentration in the water column
unitless
/*,
Fraction of total water body COPC
concentration in the benthic
sediment
unitless
B-75
-------
TABLE B-2-10
FRACTION IN WATER COLUMN AND BENTHIC SEDIMENT
(SURFACE WATER AND SEDIMENT EQUATIONS)
(Page 2 of 5)
Variable
Description
Units
Value
Suspended sediments/surface water
partition coefficient
Varies (see Appendix A-2)
This variable is COPC-specific and should be determined from the COPC tables in Appendix A-2.
The following uncertainty is associated with this variable:
(1) The Kd^ values in Appendix A-2 are based on default OC contents for surface water and soil. Kd^ values based on
default values may not accurately reflect site- and water body-specific conditions and may under- or overestimate
actual Kd^ values. Uncertainty associated with this variable will be reduced if site-specific and medium-specific OC
estimates are used to calculate Kd^.
TSS Total suspended solids
concentration
mg/L
2 to 300
This variable is site-specific. U.S. EPA OSW recommends the use of site- and waterbody specific measured values,
representative of long-term average annual values for the water body of concern (see Chapter 3). A value of 10 mg/L was
cited by NC DEHNR (1997), U.S. EPA (1993a), and U.S. EPA (1993b) in the absense of site-specific measured data.
The following uncertainty is associated with this variable:
Limitation on measured data used for determining a water body specific total suspended solids ( TSS) value may not
accurately reflect site- and water body-specific conditions long term. Therefore, the TSS value may contribute to the
under-or overestimation offwc.
10-"
Units conversion factor
kg/mg
Depth of water column
m
Varies (site-specific)
This variable is site-specific and should be an average annual value.
The following uncertainty is associated with this variable:
(1) Use of default depth of water column, dwc, values may not accurately reflect site-specific conditions, especially for
those water bodies for which depth of water column information is unavailable or outdated. Therefore, use of default
dwc values may contribute to the under- or overestimation of total water body COPC concentration, Cwtof
B-76
-------
TABLE B-2-10
FRACTION IN WATER COLUMN AND BENTHIC SEDIMENT
(SURFACE WATER AND SEDIMENT EQUATIONS)
(Page 3 of 5)
Variable
Description
Units
Value
dts Depth of upper benthic sediment
layer
0.03
This variable is site-specific. U.S. EPA OSW recommends a default upper benthic sediment depth of 0.03 meter, which is
consistent with U.S. EPA (1994) andNC DEHNR (1997) guidance. This range was cited by U.S. EPA (1993b); however,
no reference was cited for this range.
The following uncertainty is associated with this variable:
(1) Use of default depth of upper benthic layer, dbs, values may not accurately represent site-specific water body
conditions. However, any uncertainly introduced is expected to be limited on the basis of the narrow recommended
d,
Total water body depth
m
Varies (calculated)
This variable is site-specific. U.S. EPA OSW recommends that the following equation be used to calculate total water
body depth, consistent with NC DEHNR (1997):
The following uncertainty is associated with this variable:
( 1 ) Calculation of this variable combines the concentrations associated with the two variables ( dwc and dbs) being
summed. Because most of the total water body depth (rfz) is made up of the depth of the water column (dwc\ and the
uncertainties associated with dwc are not expected to be significant, the total uncertainties associated with this
variable, dz, are also not expected to be significant.
BS
Benthic solids concentration
g/cm3
(equivalent to
kg/L)
1.0
This variable is site-specific. U.S. EPA OSW recommends a default value of 1.0, consistent with U.S. EPA (1993a), which
states that this value should be reasonable for most applications. The recommended default value is also consistent with
other U.S. EPA (1993b and 1994) andNC DEHNR (1997) guidance.
The following uncertainty is associated with this variable:
(1) The recommended default value may not accurately represent site- and water body-specific conditions. Therefore,
the variable fwc may be under- or overestimated; the assumption that the under- or overestimation will be limited is
based on the narrow recommended range.
B-77
-------
TABLE B-2-10
FRACTION IN WATER COLUMN AND BENTHIC SEDIMENT
(SURFACE WATER AND SEDIMENT EQUATIONS)
(Page 4 of 5)
Variable
Description
Units
Value
Bed sediment porosity
0.6
This variable is site-specific. U.S. EPA OSW recommends a default bed sediment porosity of 0.6 (by using a BS value of
1 g/cm3 and a solid density (pj value of 2.65 kg/L, calculated by using the following equation (U.S. EPA 1993a):
6bs = 1 -BS/ps
This is consistent with other U.S. EPA (1993b and 1994) guidance.
The following uncertainty is associated with this variable:
(1) Calculation of this variable combines the uncertainties associated with the two variables (BS and ps) used in the
calculation. To the extent that the recommended default values of BS and p^ do not accurately represent site- and
water body-specific conditions, Bbs will be under- or overestimated.
Kdb. Bed sediment/sediment pore water
partition coefficient
L/kg
Varies (see Appendix A-2)
This variable is COPC-specific, and should be determined from the COPC tables in Appendix A-2.
The following uncertainty is associated with this variable:
(1) The Kdbs values in Appendix A-2 are based on default OC contents for sediment and soil. Kdbs values based on
default OC values may not accurately represent site- and water body-specific conditions and may under- or
overestimate actual Kdbs values. Uncertainty associated with this variable will be reduced if site- and water
body-specific OC estimates are used to calculate Kdbs.
B-78
-------
TABLE B-2-10
FRACTION IN WATER COLUMN AND BENTHIC SEDIMENT
(SURFACE WATER AND SEDIMENT EQUATIONS)
(Page 5 of 5)
REFERENCES AND DISCUSSION
NC DEHNR. 1997. NC DEHNR Protocol for Performing Indirect Exposure Risk Assessments for Hazardous Waste Combustion Units. January.
This document is cited as one of the sources of the range of Kds values and assumed OC values of 0.075 and 0.04 for surface water and sediment, respectively. This document is also cited as
one of the sources of TSS. This document cites U.S. EPA (1993b) as its source of information. This document is also cited as the source of the equation for calculating total water body
depth. No source of this equation was identified. This document is also cited as one of the reference source documents for the default value for bed sediment porosity. This document cites
U.S. EPA (1993b) as its source of information. This document is also cited as one of the reference source documents for the default value for depth of the upper benthic layer. The default
value is the midpoint of an acceptable range. This document cites U.S. EPA (1993b) as its source of information for the range of values for the depth of the upper benthic layer. This
document is also cited as one of the reference source documents for the default bed sediment concentration.
U.S. EPA. 1993a. Addendum to the Methodology for Assessing Health Risks Associated-with Indirect Exposure to Combustor Emissions. External Review Draft. Office of Research and
Development. Washington, D.C. November 1993.
This document is cited as one of the sources of the range of Kds values and assumed OC values of 0.075 and 0.04 for surface water and sediment, respectively. The generic equation for
calculating partition coefficients (soil, surface water, and bed sediments) is as follows: Kdtj = Koc * OCf Koc is a chemical-specific value; however, OC is medium-specific. The range
of Kds values was based on an assumed OC value of 0.01 for soil. Kd^ andKdbs values were estimated by multiplying the Kds values by 7.5 and 4, because the OC values for surface water
and sediment are 7.5 and 4 times greater than the OC value for soil. This document also presents the equation for calculating bed sediment porosity ( 6b^)', no source of this equation was
identified. This document was also cited as the source for the range of the benthic solids concentration (BS); no original source of this range was identified. Finally, this document
recommends that, in the absence of site-specific information, a TSS value of 1 to 10 be specified for parks and lakes, and a TSS value of 10 to 20 be specified in streams and rivers.
U.S. EPA. 1993b. Addendum: Methodology for Assessing Health Risks Associated with Indirect Exposure to Combustor Emissions. Working Group Recommendations. Office of Solid Waste and
Office of Research and Development. Washington, D.C. September 24.
This document is cited by NC DEHNR (1997) as the source of the TTS value. This document is also cited by NC DEHNR (1997) and U.S. EPA (1994) as the source of the default bed
sediment porosity value and the equation used to calculate the variable, the default bed sediment concentration value, and the range for the depth of the upper benthic layer values.
U.S. EPA. 1994. Draft Guidance for Performing Screening Level Risk Analyses at Combustor Facilities Burning Hazardous Wastes. Attachment C, Draft Exposure Assessment Guidance for
RCRA Hazardous Waste Combustion Facilities. April 15.
This document is cited as one of the reference source documents for the default value for bed sediment porosity. This document cites U.S. EPA (1993b) as its source of information. This
document is also cited as one of the reference source documents for the default value for depth of the upper benthic layer. The default value is the midpoint of an acceptable range. This
document cites U.S. EPA (1993b) as its source of information for the range of values for the depth of the upper benthic layer. This document is also cited as one of the reference source
documents for the default benthic solids concentration.
B-79
-------
TABLE B-2-11
OVERALL TOTAL WATER BODY DISSIPATION RATE CONSTANT
(SURFACE WATER AND SEDIMENT EQUATIONS)
(Page 1 of 2)
Description
This equation calculates the overall dissipation rate of COPCs in surface water, resulting from volatilization and benthic burial.
Uncertainties associated with this equation include the following:
(1) All of the variables in the equation in Table B-2-11 are site-specific. Therefore, the use of default values for any or all of these variables will contribute to the under- or overestimation
ofkwt. The degree of uncertainty associated with the variable kb is expected to be one order of magnitude at most and is associated with the estimation of the unit soil loss, Xe. Values
for the variables/,,,,, kv, and^ are dependent on medium-specific estimates of medium-specific OC content. Because OC content can vary widely for different locations in the same
medium, uncertainty associated with these three variables may be significant in specific instances.
Equation
bs
Variable
Description
Units
Value
Overall total water body dissipation
rate constant
Fraction of total water body COPC
concentration in the water column
unitless
Varies (calculated - Table B-2-10)
This variable is COPC- and site-specific, and is calculated by using the equation in Table B-2-10. Uncertainties
associated with this variable include the following:
(1) The default variable values recommended for use in the equation in Table B-2-10 may not accurately represent
site-specific water body conditions. However, the range of several variables—including dbs, BS, and
-------
TABLE B-2-11
OVERALL TOTAL WATER BODY DISSIPATION RATE CONSTANT
(SURFACE WATER AND SEDIMENT EQUATIONS)
(Page 2 of 2)
Variable
kv
ft*
kb
Description
Water column volatilization rate
constant
Fraction of total water body COPC
concentration in the benthic
sediment
Benthic burial rate constant
Units
yr1
unitless
yr1
Value
Varies (calculated - Table B-2-13)
This variable is COPC- and site-specific, and is calculated by using the equation in Table B-2-13. Uncertainties
associated with this variable include the following:
(1) All of the variables in Table B-2-13 are site-specific. Therefore, the use of default values for any or all of these
variables could contribute to the under- or overestimation of kv.
(2) The degree of uncertainty associated with the variables dz and TSS is expected to be minimal either because
information necessary to estimate these variables is generally available or because the range of probable values is
narrow.
(3) Values for the variable kv andKd^ are dependent on medium-specific estimates of OC content. Because OC
content can vary widely for different locations in the same medium, uncertainty associated with these two
variables may be significant in specific instances.
Varies (calculated - Table B-2-10)
This variable is COPC- and site-specific, and is calculated by using the equation in Table B-2-10.
Uncertainties associated with this variable include the following:
(1) The default variable values recommended for use in the equation in Table B-2-10 may not accurately represent
site-specific water body conditions. However, the range of several variables— including dbs, BS, and
-------
TABLE B-2-12
WATER COLUMN VOLATILIZATION LOSS RATE CONSTANT
(SURFACE WATER AND SEDIMENT EQUATIONS)
(Page 1 of 4)
Description
This equation calculates the water column of COPCs loss resulting from volatilization. Uncertainties associated with this equation include the following:
(1) All of the variables in Table B-2-12 are site-specific. Therefore, the use of default values for any or all of these variables will contribute to the under- or over estimation of kv. The
degree of uncertainty associated with the variables dnc, dbs, dz, and TSS are expected to be minimal either because information necessary to estimate these variables is generally available
or because the range of probable values is narrow. Values for the variables Kv andKd^ are dependent on medium-specific estimates of OC content. Because OC content can vary widely
for different locations in the same medium, uncertainty associated with these two variables may be significant in specific instances.
k.. =
Equation
K
d • (1 + Kd • TSS • 10~b)
For mercury modeling:
The water column volatilization loss rate constant is calculated for divalent mercury (Hg 2+) and methyl mercury (MHg) using their respective fate and transport parameters.
Variable
kv
Description
Water column volatilization rate
constant
Units
yr1
Value
^s~^~^~^~^~^^^^
B-82
-------
TABLE B-2-12
WATER COLUMN VOLATILIZATION LOSS RATE CONSTANT
(SURFACE WATER AND SEDIMENT EQUATIONS)
(Page 2 of 4)
Variable
Description
Units
Value
Overall COPC transfer rate
coefficient
m/yr
Varies (calculated - Table B-2-13)
This variable is COPC- and site-specific, and is calculated by using the equation in Table B-2-13.
Uncertainties associated with this variable include the following:
(1) All of the variables in Table B-2-13—except,/?, the universal gas constant, which is well-established—are site-specific.
Therefore, the use of default values, for any or all these variables, could contribute to the under- or overestimation of
Kv.
(2) The degree of uncertainty associated with the variables H and Twk is expected to be minimal; values for H are
well-established, and average water body temperature, Tnh will likely vary less than 10 percent of the default value.
(3) The uncertainty associated with the variables KL andKG is attributable largely to medium-specific estimates of OC
content. Because OC content values can vary widely for different locations in the same medium, the use of default
values may generate significant uncertainty in specific instances. Finally, the origin of the recommended 6 value is
unknown; therefore, the degree of associated uncertainty is also unknown.
Depth of water column
Varies (site-specific)
This variable is site-specific and should be an average annual value.
The following uncertainty is associated with this variable:
(1) Use of default values for depth of water column, dwc, may not accurately reflect site-specific conditions, especially for
those water bodies for which depth of water column information is unavailable or outdated. Therefore, use of default
dwc values may contribute to the under- or overestimation of total water body COPC concentration, Cwtaf However, the
degree of under- or overestimation is not expected to be significant.
dts Depth of upper benthic sediment
layer
0.03
This variable is site-specific. U.S. EPA OSW recommends a default upper-benthic sediment depth of 0.03 meter, which is
based on the center of this range cited by U.S. EPA (1993b). This is consistent with U.S. EPA (1994) and NC DEHNR
(1997).
The following uncertainty is associated with this variable:
(1) Use of default values for depth of upper benthic layer, dbs, may not accurately represent site-specific water body
conditions. However, any uncertainty introduced is expected to be limited, based on the narrow recommended range.
B-83
-------
TABLE B-2-12
WATER COLUMN VOLATILIZATION LOSS RATE CONSTANT
(SURFACE WATER AND SEDIMENT EQUATIONS)
(Page 3 of 4)
Variable
Description
Units
Value
d,
Total water body depth
m
Varies (calculated)
This variable is site-specific. U.S. EPA OSW recommends that the following equation be used to calculate total water body
depth, consistent with NC DEHNR (1997):
dz = dwc + dbs
The following uncertainty is associated with this variable:
(1) Calculation of this variable combines the concentrations associated with the two variables (dwc and dbi) being summed.
Because most of the total water body depth (dz) is made up of the depth of the water column (dnc\ and the uncertainties
associated with dwc are not expected to be significant, the total uncertainties associated with this variable, dz, are also
not expected to be significant.
Suspended sediments/surface water
partition coefficient
Varies (see Appendix A-2)
This variable is COPC-specific and should be determined from the COPC tables in Appendix A-3.
The following uncertainty is associated with this variable:
(1) The values contained in Appendix A-2 for Kd^ are calculated on the basis of default OC contents for surface water and
soil. Kd^ values based on default values may not accurately reflect site-and water body-specific conditions and may
under- or overestimate actual Kd^ values. Uncertainty associated with this variable will be reduced if site-specific and
medium-specific OC estimates are used to calculate Kd^.
TSS Total suspended solids
concentration
mg/L
2 to 300
This variable is site-specific. U.S. EPA OSW recommends the use of site- and waterbody specific measured values,
representative of long-term average annual values for the water body of concern (see Chapter 3). A value of 10 mg/L was
cited by NC DEHNR (1997), U.S. EPA (1993a), and U.S. EPA (1993b) in the absense of site-specific measured data.
The following uncertainty is associated with this variable:
Limitation on measured data used for determining a water body specific total suspended solids ( TSS) value may not
accurately reflect site- and water body-specific conditions long term. Therefore, the TSS value may contribute to the
under-or overestimation of fnc.
10-6
Units conversion factor
kg/mg
B-84
-------
TABLE B-2-12
WATER COLUMN VOLATILIZATION LOSS RATE CONSTANT
(SURFACE WATER AND SEDIMENT EQUATIONS)
(Page 4 of 4)
REFERENCES AND DISCUSSION
NC DEHNR. 1997. NC DEHNR Protocol for Performing Indirect Exposure Risk Assessments for Hazardous Waste Combustion Units. January.
This document is cited as the source of the equation for calculating total water body depth. No source of this equation was identified. This document is also cited as one of the sources of
the range of Kds values and an assumed OC value of 0.075 for surface water. This document is also cited as one of the sources ofTSS. This document cites U.S. EPA (1993b) as its source
of information.
U.S. EPA. 1993a. Addendum to the Methodology for Assessing Health Risks Associated with Indirect Exposure to Combustor Emissions. External Review Draft. Office of Research and
Development. Washington, D.C. November 1993.
This document is cited as one of the sources of the range of Kds values and assumed OC content value of 0.075 for surface water. The generic equation for calculating partition coefficients
(soil, surface water, and bed sediments) is as follows: Kdi} = Koc] OCf Koc is a chemical-specific value; however, OC is medium-specific. The range of Kds values was based on an
assumed OC value of 0.01 for soil. This document is one of the sources cited that assumes an OC value of 0.075 for surface water. Therefore, the Kd^ value was estimated by multiplying
the Kds values by 7.5, because the OC value for surface water is 7.5 times greater than the OC value for soil.
U.S. EPA. 1993b. Addendum: Methodology for Assessing Health Risks Associated with Indirect Exposure to Combustor Emissions. Working Group Recommendations. Office of Solid Waste
and Office of Research and Development. Washington, D.C. September 24.
This document is cited by U.S. EPA (1994) andNC DEHNR (1997) as the source of the range and default value for the depth of the upper benthic layer (dbs). This document is also cited by
NC DEHNR (1997) as the source of the TSS value.
U.S. EPA. 1994. Draft Guidance for Performing Screening Level Risk Analysis at Combustion Facility Burning Hazardous Wastes. AttachmentC, Draft Exposure Assessment Guidance for
RCRA Hazardous Waste Combustion Facility. April 15.
This document is cited as one of the reference source documents for the default value of the depth of the upper benthic layer. The default value is the midpoint of an acceptable range. This
document cites U.S. EPA (1993b) as its source of information.
B-85
-------
TABLE B-2-13
OVERALL COPC TRANSFER RATE COEFFICIENT
(SURFACE WATER AND SEDIMENT EQUATIONS)
Page (1 of 4)
Description
This equation calculates the overall transfer rate of contaminants from the liquid and gas phases in surface water.
Uncertainties associated with this equation include the following:
(1) All of the variables in Table B-2-13—except,/?, the universal gas constant, which is well-established—are site-specific. Therefore, the use of any or all of these variables will contribute to
the under- or overestimation of Kv. The degree of uncertainty associated with the variables H and Tvk is expected to be minimal; values for H are well-established, and average water
body temperature will likely vary less than 10 percent of the default value. The uncertainty associated with the variables Kv andKa is attributable largely to medium-specific estimates of
OC content. Because OC content values can vary widely for different locations in the same medium, the use of default values may generate significant uncertainty in specific instances.
Equation
K =
-1
- 293)
For mercury modeling:
The overall COPC transfer rate coefficient is calculated for divalent mercury (Hg2+) and methyl mercury (MHg) using their respective fate and transport parameters.
Variable
Description
Units
Value
K,.
Overall COPC transfer rate
coefficient
m/yr
B-86
-------
TABLE B-2-13
OVERALL COPC TRANSFER RATE COEFFICIENT
(SURFACE WATER AND SEDIMENT EQUATIONS)
Page (2 of 4)
Variable
Description
Units
Value
Liquid-phase transfer coefficient
m/yr
Varies (calculated - Table B-2-14)
This variable is COPC- and site-specific, and is calculated by using the equation in Table B-2-14.
Uncertainties associated with this variable include the following:
All of the variables in Table B-2-14 are site-specific. Therefore, the use of default values rather than site-specific
values, for any or all of these variables, will contribute to the under- or overestimation of Kv. The degree of
uncertainty associated with these variables is as follows:
(1) Minimal or insignificant uncertainty is assumed to be associated with six variables —Dw, u, dy pa pw, and
juw—either because of narrow recommended ranges for these variables or because information to estimate
variable values is generally available.
(2) No original sources were identified for the equations used to derive recommended values or specific
recommended values for variables Cd, k, and A2. Therefore, the degree and direction of any uncertainties
associated with these variables are unknown.
(3) Uncertainties associated with the variable W are site-specific.
Gas-phase transfer coefficient
m/yr
Varies (calculated - Table B-2-15)
This variable is COPC- and site-specific, and is calculated by using the equation in Table B-2-15.
Uncertainties associated with this variable include the following:
All of the variables in Table B-2-15, with the exception ofk, are site-specific. Therefore, the use of default values
rather than site-specific values, for any or all of these variables, will contribute to the under- or overestimation of
KG. The degree of uncertainty associated with each of these variables is as follows:
(1) Minimal or insignificant uncertainty is assumed to be associated with the variables Da //a, and pa, because
these variables have been extensively studied, and equation procedures are well-established.
(2) No original sources were identified for equations used to derive recommended values or specific
recommended values for variables C$ k, and dz. Therefore, the degree and direction of any uncertainties are
unknown.
(3) Uncertainties associated with the variable W are site-specific and cannot be readily estimated.
B-87
-------
TABLE B-2-13
OVERALL COPC TRANSFER RATE COEFFICIENT
(SURFACE WATER AND SEDIMENT EQUATIONS)
Page (3 of 4)
Variable
H
R
Twk
e
Description
Henry's Law constant
Universal gas constant
Water body temperature
Temperature correction factor
Units
atm-mVmol
atm-m3/mol-K
K
unitless
Value
Varies (see Appendix A-2)
This variable is COPC-specific and should be determined from the COPC tables in Appendix A-2.
The following uncertainty is associated with this variable:
( 1 ) Values for this variable, estimated by using the parameters and algorithms in Appendix A-2, may under- or
overestimate the actual COPC-specific values. As a result, Kv may be under- or overestimated to a limited
degree.
8.205 x la5
There are no uncertainties associated with this parameter.
298
This variable is site-specific. U.S. EPA OSW recommends the use of this default value when site-specific
information is not available; this is consistent with U.S. EPA (1993a; 1993b; and 1994).
The following uncertainty is associated with this variable:
( 1 ) To the extent that the default Water body temperature value does not accurately represent site- and water
body-specific conditions, Kv, will be under- or overestimated to a limited degree.
1.026
This variable is site-specific. U.S. EPA OSW recommends the use of this default value when site-specific
information is not available; this is consistent with U.S. EPA (1993a; 1993b; and 1994).
The following uncertainty is associated with this variable:
(1) The purpose and sources of this variable and the recommended value are unknown.
B-8
-------
TABLE B-2-13
OVERALL COPC TRANSFER RATE COEFFICIENT
(SURFACE WATER AND SEDIMENT EQUATIONS)
Page (4 of 4)
REFERENCES AND DISCUSSION
U.S. EPA. 1993a. Addendum: Methodology for Assessing Health Risks Associated with Indirect Exposure to Combustor Emissions. Working Group Recommendations. Office of Solid Waste
and Office of Research and Development. Washington, D.C. September 24.
This document is the reference source for the equation in Table B-2-12, including the use of the temperature correction fraction (6).
This document is also cited by U.S. EPA (1994) as the source of the Twk value of 298 K (298 K = 25°C) and the default 6 value of 1.026.
U.S. EPA. 1993b Addendum to Methodology for Assessing Health Risks Associated with Indirect Exposure to Combustor Emissions. External Review Draft. Office of Solid Waste and Office
Research and Development. Washington, D.C. November 10.
This document recommends the revalue of298K(298K = 25 °C) and the value 6 of 1.026. No source was identified for these values.
U.S. EPA 1994. Revised Draft Guidance for Performing Screening Level Risk Analyses at Combustion Facilities Burning Hazardous Wastes. Attachment C, Draft Exposure Assessment
Guidance for RCRA Hazardous Waste Combustion Facilities. Office of Emergency and Remedial Response. Office of Solid Waste. December 14.
This document is cited as the reference source for water body temperature (Twk) and temperature correction factor ( 0). This document apparently cites U.S. EPA (1993a) as its source of
information.
B-89
-------
TABLE B-2-14
LIQUID-PHASE TRANSFER COEFFICIENT
(SURFACE WATER AND SEDIMENT EQUATIONS)
(Page 1 of 5)
Description
This equation calculates the rate of contaminant transfer from the liquid phase for a flowing or quiescent system.
Uncertainties associated with this equation include the following:
(1) Minimal or insignificant uncertainly is assumed to be associated with the following six variables: Dw, dz, pa pw, and /^,.
(2) No original sources were identified for equations used to derive recommended values or specific recommended values for the following three variables: Cj, k, and dz. Therefore, the
degree and duration of any uncertainties associated with these variables is unknown.
(3) Uncertainties associated with the variable W are site-specific.
Equation
For flowing streams or rivers
1(T4
d
3.1536 x 107
For quiescent lakes or ponds
KL = (C/5 • W) • I—I -I- 1 • | w \ • 3.1536 x 107
For mercury modeling:
The liquid phase transfer coefficient is calculated for divalent mercury (Hg2+) and methyl mercury (MHg) using their respective fate and transport parameters.
B-90
-------
TABLE B-2-14
LIQUID-PHASE TRANSFER COEFFICIENT
(SURFACE WATER AND SEDIMENT EQUATIONS)
(Page 2 of 5)
Variable
KL
A,
u
Description
Liquid-phase transfer
coefficient
Diffusivity of COPC in water
Current velocity
Units
m/yr
cm2/s
m/s
Value
f=w*?Si|S?§l, StS%S^^ *|S? *|S?8?|S? '%S%Si^^ *|S?8
wste;*g'*» s^v.s?&'.-SiJt&^ ssf Sffftssf5 5?®*?®*^ s?tsi
X^.V->svV>'v.i.yv 1//1'-,' '' •.••f>-''$-i'f .'*:•}:'•'*<'.. :A'-J«>'V''(.'-C^'','.<< >>-Y ".£>•'••<• >>-Y ".£>•'••<• >>-Y ".£>•'••<• >>-Y ".£>•'••<• <>-Y'O^>''.<' > 'O^>''.<' > 'O^-'..' <>-Y'O^>''.<' > 'O^>''.<' ^-Y'O^'-.-' ^Y'O^"'..' <>-Y'O^>''.<' ^-Y'O^'-.-' ^-Y'O^'-.-' ^-Y'O^'-.-' ^Y'O^"'..' <>-Y'O^>''.<' > 'O^>''.<' >>!''
.#»•-,? '-x .?*;.>•;,» •'••"v;iVJ> ' ,>'{•'''.••'' ',>*',';>••':'/ c''!>\-' :''l'''ji' ;:'' "'-v-v'-. •'.'', -'.'Hw^i , "&.•;. !;-?»-iti ,:&.-;. : ;-i*»; ^ ,:&.-;. :;-i*»if , "&.•;. ••;•&•*< "&.•;. ••;•&•*< "&.•;. !;-?»-iti , "&.•;. ••;•&•*< "&.•;. !;-?»-iti ,:&.-;. :;-i*»if ,:&.-;. :;-i*»if ,:&.-;. :;-i*»if ,:&.-;. :;-i*»if ,:&.-;. :;-i*»if ,:&.-;. :;-i*»if ,:&.-;. :;-i*»if , "&.•;. ••;•&•*< "£/.•;.••;•&•*£•?;
4iiSJ&,f8*;?;s ifiV<**;f*a:;i'?^Kil':&:'t<:'->'s;:$-
-------
TABLE B-2-14
LIQUID-PHASE TRANSFER COEFFICIENT
(SURFACE WATER AND SEDIMENT EQUATIONS)
(Page 3 of 5)
Variable
dz
3.1536 x 107
cd
w
Description
Total water body depth
Units conversion constant
Drag coefficient
Average annual wind speed
Units
m
s/yr
unitless
m/s
Value
Varies (calculated)
This variable is site-specific. U.S. EPA OSW recommends that this value be calculated by using the following equation,
consistent with U.S. EPA (1994):
dz = dwc + dbs
No reference was cited for this recommendation.
The following uncertainty is associated with this variable:
( 1 ) Calculation of this variable combines the concentrations associated with the two variables ( dwc and dbs) being
summed. Because most of the total water body depth (dz) is made up of the depth of the water column (dwc), and
the uncertainties associated with dwc are not expected to be significant, the total uncertainties associated with this
variable, dz, are also not expected to be significant.
Sv®®®®®®^
'<\-'-' •'.•-''^:'f V'>? IV;-* ;:> !'.-••'.,*•;:> *-.•'•'.*• :;> !',•'•'.,*•;:> IV'.; :;> !',-••'.,*•;:> IV'.; :;> !',-••'.,*•;:> IV'.; :;> !',-••'.,*•;:> *-••'•'.*• :;> !',-••'.,*•;:> *-••'•'.*• :;> !',-••'.,*•;:> *-••'•'.*• :;> !',•'•'.,*•;:> *-••'•'.*• :;> !',-••'.,*•;:> *-••'•'.*• :;> !',-••'.,*•;:> *-••'•'.*• :;> !',-••'.,*•;:> !V'.; :;> IV'J;:' !V'.; :;> IV'J;:' !V'.; :;> !',•"'..*•;:' IV'.; :;> IV'J;:' !V'.; :;> IV'J;:' !V'.; :;> IV'J;:' *-••'•'.*• :;> IV'J;:' !V'.; :;> IV'J;:' !V'.; :;> IV'J;:' !V'.; :;> IV'J;:' !V'.; :;> IV'J;:' !V'.; :;> I'..',;
0.0011
This variable is site-specific. U.S. EPA OSW recommends a default value of 0.001 1, consistent with U.S. EPA (1993a;
1993b; 1 994) and NCDEHNR (1997).
The following uncertainty is associated with this variable:
(1) The original source of this variable value is unknown. Therefore, any uncertainties associated with its use are also
unknown.
3.9
Consistent with U.S. EPA (1990), U.S. EPA OSW recommends a default value of 3.9 m/s. See Chapter 3 for guidance
regarding the references and methods used to determine site-specific values for air dispersion modeling.
B-92
-------
TABLE B-2-14
LIQUID-PHASE TRANSFER COEFFICIENT
(SURFACE WATER AND SEDIMENT EQUATIONS)
(Page 4 of 5)
Variable
Description
Units
Value
Pa
Density of air corresponding to
water temperature
;/cm
0.0012
U.S. EPA OSW recommends this default value when site-specific information is not available, consistent with U.S. EPA
(1994), both of which cite Weast (1979) as the source of this value. This value applies at standard conditions (298 K and
1 atm). There is no significant uncertainty associated with this variable.
Density of water corresponding
to water temperature
g/cm3
1
U.S. EPA OSW recommends this default value, consistent with U.S. EPA (1994), both of which cite Weast (1979) as the
source of this value. This value applies at standard conditions (298 K and 1 atm). There is no significant uncertainty
associated with this variable.
von Karman's constant
unitless
0.4
This value is a constant. U.S. EPA OSW recommends the use of this value, consistent with U.S. EPA (1994).
The following uncertainty is associated with this variable:
(1) The original source of this variable value is unknown. Therefore, any uncertainties associated with its use are also
unknown.
Dimensionless viscous sublayer
thickness
unitless
This value is site-specific. U.S. EPA OSW recommends the use of this default value when site-specific information is not
available; consistent with U.S. EPA (1994).
Viscosity of water
corresponding to water
temperature
g/cm-s
0.0169
U.S. EPA OSW recommends this default value, consistent with U.S. EPA (1994), which both cite Weast (1979) as the
source of this value. This value applies at standard conditions (298 K and 1 atm). There is no significant uncertainty
associated with this variable.
B-93
-------
TABLE B-2-14
LIQUID-PHASE TRANSFER COEFFICIENT
(SURFACE WATER AND SEDIMENT EQUATIONS)
(Page 5 of 5)
REFERENCES AND DISCUSSION
NC DEHNR. 1997. NC DEHNR Protocol for Performing Indirect Exposure Risk Assessments for Hazardous Waste Combustion Units. January.
This document is cited as one of the sources of the range ofD,, values and assumed Cd, pa pn, k, X,, and^w values of 0.0011, 1.2 x 10"3, 1, 0.4, 4, and 1.69 x 10"2, respectively. This
document cites (1) Weast (1979) as its source of information regarding pa, pw, and //w; and (2) U. S. EPA (1993a) as its source of information regarding Cd k, and dz.
U. S. EPA. 1993a. Addendum: Methodology for Assessing Health Risks Associated -with Indirect Exposure to Combustor Emissions. Working Group Recommendations. Office of Solid Waste
and Office of Research and Development. Washington, D.C. September 24.
This document is cited by U.S. EPA (1994) and NC DEHNR (1997) as the source of the recommended drag coefficient (Cd) value of 0.0011 and the recommended von Karman's constant
(k) value of 0.4. The original sources of variable values are not identified.
U.S. EPA. 1993b. Addendum to Methodology for Assessing Health Risks Associated with Indirect Exposure to Combustor Emissions. External Review Draft. Office of Solid Waste and Office
of Research and Development. Washington, D.C. November 10.
This document recommends a value of 0.0011 for the drag coefficient (Cd) variable or a value of 0.4 for von Karman's constant (k). No sources are cited for these values.
U.S. EPA. 1994. Revised Draft Guidance for Performing Screening Level Risk Analyses at Combustion Facilities Burning Hazardous Wastes. Attachment C, Draft Exposure Assessment
Guidance for RCRA Hazardous Waste Combustion Facilities. Office of Emergency and Remedial Response. Office of Solid Waste. December 14.
This document is cited as one of the sources of the range ofD,, values and assumed Cd, pa />„, k, lz, and^u,, values of 0.0011, 1.2 x 10"3, 1, 0.4, 4, and 1.69 x 10"2, respectively. This
document cites (1) Weast (1979) as its source of information regarding pa, pw, and //w; and (2) U. S. EPA (1993a) as its source of information regarding Cd k, and dz.
Weast, R. C. 1979. CRC Handbook of 'Chemistry and Physics. 60th ed. CRC Press, Inc. Cleveland, Ohio.
This document is cited as the source of pa, pw, and/4, variables of 1.2 xlO"3, 1, and 1.69 x 10"2, respectively.
B-94
-------
TABLE B-2-15
GAS-PHASE TRANSFER COEFFICIENT
(SURFACE WATER AND SEDIMENT EQUATIONS)
(Page 1 of 4)
Description
This equation calculates the rate of contaminant transfer from the gas phase for a flowing or quiescent system. Uncertainties associated with this equation include the following:
(1) Minimal or insignificant uncertainty is assumed to be associated with the variables Da, /j,a, and pa.
(2) No original sources were identified for equations used to derive recommended values or specific recommended values for variables Cd, k, and Az. Therefore, the degree and direction of
any uncertainties associated with these variables are unknown.
(3) Uncertainties associated with the remaining variables are site-specific.
Equation
Flowing streams or rivers
KG = 36,500 mlyr
Quiescent lakes or ponds
0.5
,0.33
-0.67
3.1536 x
For mercury modeling:
The gas phase transfer coefficient is calculated for divalent mercury (Hg2+) and methyl mercury (MHg) using their respective fate and transport parameters.
Variable
KG
Description
Gas-phase transfer coefficient
Units
m/yr
Value
B-95
-------
TABLE B-2-15
GAS-PHASE TRANSFER COEFFICIENT
(SURFACE WATER AND SEDIMENT EQUATIONS)
(Page 2 of 4)
Variable
Description
Units
Value
Drag coefficient
unitless
0.0011
This variable is site-specific. U.S. EPA OSW recommends the use of this default value when site-specific information is
not available, consistent with U.S. EPA (1993a; 1993b; 1994) and NC DEHNR (1997).
The following uncertainty is associated with this variable:
(1) The original source of this variable is unknown.
W
Average annual wind speed
m/s
3.9
Consistent with U.S. EPA (1990), U.S. EPA OSW recommends a default value of 3.9 m/s. See Chapter 3 for guidance
regarding the references and methods used to determine a site-specific value that isconsistent with air dispersion modeling.
The following uncertainty is associated with this variable:
To the extent that site-specific or local values for this variable are not available, default values may not accurately
represent site-specific conditions. The uncertainty associated with the selection of a single value from within the
range of windspeeds at a single location may be more significant than the uncertainty associated with choosing a
single windspeed to represent all locations.
von Karman's constant
unitless
0.4
This value is a constant. U.S. EPA OSW recommends the use of this value, consistent with U.S. EPA (1994).
The following uncertainty is associated with this variable:
(1) The original source of this variable is unknown.
Dimensionless viscous sublayer
thickness
unitless
This value is site-specific. U.S. EPA OSW recommends the use of this default value when site-specific information is not
available, consistent with U.S. EPA (1994).
The following uncertainty is associated with this variable:
(1) The original source of this variable is unknown.
B-96
-------
TABLE B-2-15
GAS-PHASE TRANSFER COEFFICIENT
(SURFACE WATER AND SEDIMENT EQUATIONS)
(Page 3 of 4)
Variable
Description
Units
Value
Viscosity of air
;/cm-s
i.si x ia4
U.S. EPA OSW recommends the use of this value, based on Weast (1980). This is consistent withNC DEHNR (1997).
This value applies at standard conditions (20 °C or 298 K and 1 ami, or 760 mm Hg).
The following uncertainty is associated with this variable:
(1) The viscosity of air may vary with temperature.
Density of air
g/cm3
0.0012
U.S. EPA OSW recommends the use of this value, based on Weast (1980); this is consistent withNC DEHNR (1997). This
value applies at standard conditions (20 °C or 298 K and 1 ami, or 760 mm Hg).
The following uncertainty is associated with this variable:
(1) The density of air will vary with temperature.
Diffusivity of COPC in air
cm2/s
Varies (see Appendix A-2)
This variable is COPC-specific and should be determined from the COPC physical and chemical parameter tables in
Appendix A-2.
The following uncertainty is associated with this variable:
(1) The recommended Da values may not accurately represent the behavior of COPCs under water body-specific
conditions. However, the degree of uncertainty is expected to be minimal.
3.1536xl07
Units conversion factor
s/yr
B-97
-------
TABLE B-2-15
GAS-PHASE TRANSFER COEFFICIENT
(SURFACE WATER AND SEDIMENT EQUATIONS)
(Page 4 of 4)
REFERENCES AND DISCUSSION
NC DEHNR. 1997. NC DEHNR Protocol for Performing Indirect Exposure Risk Assessments for Hazardous Waste Combustion Units. January.
This document is cited as one of the sources of the variables pa k, Az, and/4 values of 1.2 x 10"3, 0.4, 4, and 1.81 E-04, respectively. This document cites (1) Weast (1979) as its source of
information for pa and/^, and (2) U.S. EPA (1993a) as its source of information for k and Az.
U.S. EPA. 1993a. Addendum: Methodology for Assessing Health Risks Associated with Indirect Exposure to Combustion Emissions. Working Group Recommendations. Office of Solid Waste,
and Office of Research and Development. Washington, B.C. September 24.
This document is cited by U.S. EPA (1994) and NC DEHNR (1997) as the source of (1) the recommended drag coefficient (Cd) value of 0.0011, (2) the recommended von Karman's constant
(k) value of 0.4, and (3) the recommended dimensionless viscous sublayer thickness (Az) value of 4. The original sources of these variable values are not identified.
U.S. EPA. 1993b. Addendum to Methodology for Assessing Health Risks Associated with Indirect Exposure to Combustor Emissions. External Review Draft. Office of Solid Waste, and Office
of Research and Development. Washington, D.C. November 10.
This document recommends (1) a value of 0.0011 for the drag coefficient (C^) variable, (2) a value of 0.4 for von Karman's constant (K), and (3) a value of 4 for the dimensionless viscous
sublayer thickness (Az) variable. The original sources of the variable values are not identified.
U.S. EPA. 1994. Revised Draft Guidance for Performing Screening Level Risk Analyses at Combustion Facilities Burning Hazardous Wastes. Attachment C, Draft Exposure Assessment
Guidance for RCRA Hazardous Waste Combustion Facilities. Office of Emergency and Remedial Response. Office of Solid Waste. December 14.
This document is cited as one of the sources of the variables pa k, A2, and//a values of 1.2 x 10"3, 0.4, 4, and 1.81 E-04, respectively. This document cites (1) Weast (1979) as its source of
information for pa and,ua, and (2) U.S. EPA (1993a) as its source of information forfeand/Zz.
Weast,R.C. 1979. CRC Handbook of'Chemistry and Physics. 60th ed. CRC Pres, Inc. Cleveland, Ohio. This document is cited as the source ofpa pw, and /^variables of 1.2 x 10"3, 1, and 1.69 x
10"2, respectively.
B-98
-------
TABLE B-2-16
BENTHIC BURIAL RATE CONSTANT
(SURFACE WATER AND SEDIMENT EQUATIONS)
(Page 1 of 5)
Description
This equation calculates the constant for water column loss constant due to burial in benthic sediment.
Uncertainties associated with this equation include the following:
(1) All of the variables in Table B-2-16 are site-specific. Therefore, the use of default values rather than site-specific values, for any or all of these variables, will contribute to the under- or
overestimation of Kb. The degree of uncertainty associated with each of these variables is as follows: (a) Xe—about one order of magnitude at the most, (b) BS, dbi, Vfa TSS, and
Aw— limited because of the narrow recommended ranges for these variables or because resources to estimate variable values are generally available, (c) AL and SD—very site-specific,
degree of uncertainty unknown.
Based on the possible ranges for the input variables to this equation, values of kb can range over about one order of magnitude.
Equation
X • A, • SD • 103 - Vf • TSS
Aw • TSS
TSS • 10~6
BS • d
bs
Variable
Description
Units
Value
Benthic burial rate constant
Unit soil loss
kg/m2-yr
Varies (calculated - Table B-2-7)
This variable is site-specific and is calculated by using the equation in Table B-2-7.
The following uncertainty is associated with this variable:
(1) All of the variables in the equation used to calculate unit soil loss, Xe, are site-specific. Use of default values rather
than site-specific values, for any or all of the equation variables, will result in estimates of Xe that under- or
overestimate the actual value. The degree or magnitude of any under- or overestimation is expected to be about one
order of magnitude or less.
B-99
-------
TABLE B-2-16
BENTHIC BURIAL RATE CONSTANT
(SURFACE WATER AND SEDIMENT EQUATIONS)
(Page 2 of 5)
Variable
Description
Units
Value
AL Total watershed area receiving
deposition
m
Varies (site-specific)
This variable is site-specific (see Chapter 4). Uncertainties associated with this variable are site-specific.
SD
Sediment delivery ratio
unitless
Varies (calculated - Table B-2-8)
This variable is site-specific and is calculated by using the equation in Table B-2-8.
Uncertainties associated with this variable include the following:
(1) The default values for empirical intercept coefficient, a, recommended for use in the equation in Table B-2-8, are
average values based on various studies of sediment yields from various watersheds. Therefore, these default values
may not accurately represent site-specific watershed conditions. As a result, use of these default values may
contribute to under- or overestimation of the benthic burial rate constant, kb.
(2) The default value for empirical slope coefficient, b, recommended for use in in the equation in Table B-2-8 is based
on a review of sediment yields from various watersheds. This single default value may not accurately represent
site-specific water shed conditions. As a result, use of this default value may contribute to under-or overestimation
103
Units conversion factor
g/kg
Average volumetric flow rate
through water body
mVyr
Varies (site-specific)
This variable is site-specific and should be an annual average value.
The following uncertainty is associated with this variable:
(1) Use of default average volumetric flow rate, Vf., values may not accurately represent site-specific water body
conditions. Therefore, the use of such default values may contribute to the under- or overestimation of kb. However,
it is expected that the uncertainty associated with this variable will be limited, because resources such as maps, aerial
photographs, and gauging station measurements—from which average volumetric flow rate through water body, Vf,,
can be estimated—are generally available.
B-100
-------
TABLE B-2-16
BENTHIC BURIAL RATE CONSTANT
(SURFACE WATER AND SEDIMENT EQUATIONS)
(Page 3 of 5)
Variable
Description
Units
Value
TSS
Total suspended solids
concentration
mg/L
2 to 300
This variable is site-specific. U.S. EPA OSW recommends the use of site- and waterbody specific measured values,
representative of long-term average annual values for the water body of concern (see Chapter 3). A value of 10 mg/L was
cited by NC DEHNR (1997), U.S. EPA (1993a), and U.S. EPA (1993b) in the absense of site-specific measured data.
The following uncertainty is associated with this variable:
Limitation on measured data used for determining a water body specific total suspended solids ( TSS) value may not
accurately reflect site- and water body-specific conditions long term. Therefore, the TSS value may contribute to the
under-or overestimation offwc.
Water body surface area
m
(average for
the entire
year)
Varies (site-specific)
This variable is site-specific (see Chapter 4), and should be an average annual value. The units of this variable are
presented as they are because the value selected is assumed to represent an average value for the entire year. Uncertainties
associated with this variable are site-specific, and expected to be limited, because maps, aerial photographs —and other
resources from which water body surface area, Aw, can be measured—are readily available.
1
Units conversion factor
kg/mg
BS
Benthic solids concentration
g/cm3
(equivalent
to kg/L)
1.0
This variable is site-specific. U.S. EPA OSW recommends a default value of 1.0, consistent with U.S. EPA (1993b),
which states that this value should be reasonable for most applications. The recommended default value is also consistent
with other U.S. EPA (1993a; 1993b; 1994) guidance.
The following uncertainty is associated with this variable:
(1) The recommended default benthic solids concentration, BS, value may not accurately represent site-specific water
body conditions. Therefore, use of this default value may contribute to the under- or overestimation of kb.
B-101
-------
TABLE B-2-16
BENTHIC BURIAL RATE CONSTANT
(SURFACE WATER AND SEDIMENT EQUATIONS)
(Page 4 of 5)
Variable
Description
Units
Value
Depth of upper benthic sediment
layer
m
0.03
This variable is site-specific. U.S. EPA OSW recommends a default upper-benthic sediment depth of 0.03 meter, which is
based on the center of this range cited by U.S. EPA (1993a; 1993b). This range is consistent with U.S. EPA (1994).
The following uncertainty is associated with this variable:
(1) The recommended default value for depth of upper benthic layer, dbs, may not accurately represent site-specific
water body conditions. Therefore, use of this default value may contribute to the under- or overestimation of kb.
However, the degree of uncertainty associated with this variable is expected to be limited because of the narrow
recommended range.
B-102
-------
TABLE B-2-16
BENTHIC BURIAL RATE CONSTANT
(SURFACE WATER AND SEDIMENT EQUATIONS)
(Page 5 of 5)
REFERENCES AND DISCUSSION
NC DEHNR 1997. NC DEHNR Protocol for Performing Indirect Exposure Risk Assessments for Hazardous Waste Combustion Units. January.
This document is cited as one of the sources of the range of all recommended specific BS and dbs values, and the recommended TSS value. This document cites U.S. EPA (1993a) as its
source.
U.S. EPA. 1993a. Addendum: Methodology for Assessing Health Risks Associated with Indirect Exposure to Combustor Emissions. Working Group Recommendations. Office of Solid Waste,
and Office of Research and Development. Washington, D.C. September 24.
This document is cited by U.S. EPA (1994) andNC DEHNR (1997) as the source of (1) theTSS value, (2) the range and recommended BS value, and (3) the range and recommended depth
of upper benthic layer (dbs) value.
U.S. EPA 1993b. Addendum to the Methodology for Assessing Health Risks Associated with Indirect Exposure to Combustor Emissions. External Review Draft. Office of Research and
Development. Washington, D.C. November.
This document states that the upper benthic sediment depth, dbs, representing the portion of the bed in equilibrium with the water column, cannot be precisely specified. However, the
document states that values from 0.01 to 0.05 meter would be appropriate. This document also recommends a TSS value of 10 mg/L and a specific benthic solids concentration (BS) value.
U.S. EPA 1994. Draft Guidance for Performing Screening Level Risk Analyses at Combustor Facilities Burning Hazardous Waste. Attachment C, Draft Exposure Assessment Guidance for
RCRA Hazardous Waste Combustion Facilities. April 15.
This document is cited as one of the reference sources for the dbs value. The recommended value is the midpoint of an acceptable range. This document is also cited as one of the reference
source documents for the default BS value. This document cites U.S. EPA (1993a) as its source.
B-103
-------
TABLE B-2-17
TOTAL WATER COLUMN CONCENTRATION
(SURFACE WATER AND SEDIMENT EQUATIONS)
(Page 1 of 4)
Description
This equation calculates the total water column concentration of COPCs; this includes both dissolved COPCS and COPCs sorbed to suspended solids.
Uncertainties associated with this equation include the following:
(1) All of the variables in Table B-2-17 are COPC- and site-specific. Therefore, the use of default values rather than site-specific values, for any or all of these variables, will contribute to
the under- or overestimation of Cwctaf
The degree of uncertainty associated with the variables dm and dbs is expected to be minimal either because information for estimating a variable (rfw) is generally available or because the
probable range for a variable (dbs) is narrow. The uncertainty associated with the variables/,,, and CMot is associated with estimates of OC content. Because OC content values can vary
widely for different locations in the same medium, the uncertainty associated with using default OC values may be significant in specific cases.
Equation
C = f • c • ——
wctot J we wtot
dwc
For mercury modeling:
Total water column concentration is calculated for divalent mercury (Hg2+) and methyl mercury (MHg) using their respective Cwtot values andfwc values.
Variable
Description
Units
Value
Total COPC concentration in
water column
mg/L
B-104
-------
TABLE B-2-17
TOTAL WATER COLUMN CONCENTRATION
(SURFACE WATER AND SEDIMENT EQUATIONS)
(Page 2 of 4)
Variable
Description
Units
Value
fm Fraction of total water body COPC
concentration in the water column
unitless
0 to 1 (calculated - Table B-2-10)
This variable is COPC- and site-specific, and is calculated by using the equation in Table B-2-10.
The following uncertainty is associated with this variable:
(1) The default variable values recommended for use in Table B-2-10 may not accurately represent site-specific water
body conditions. However, the ranges of several variables—including dts, and 6ts- is relatively narrow; therefore,
the uncertainty is expected to be relatively small. Other variables, such as dwc and dz, can be reasonably estimated on
the basis of generally available information. The largest degree of uncertainty may be introduced by the default
medium specific OC content values. OC content values are often not readily available and can vary widely for
different locations in the same medium. Therefore, default values may not adequately represent site-specific
conditions.
CWM Total water body COPC
concentration, including water
column and bed sediment
mg/L
Varies (calculated - Table B-2-9)
This variable is COPC- and site-specific, and is calculated by using the equation in Table B-2-9.
The following uncertainty is associated with this variable:
(1) The default variable values recommended for use in the equation in Table B-2-9 may not accurately represent site-
-specific water body conditions. The degree of uncertainty associated with variables Vfx, An, dm, and dbs is expected
to be limited either because the probable ranges for variables are narrow or information allowing accurate estimates
is generally available. Uncertainty associated with/,,, is largely the result of water body associated with default OC
content values, and may be significant in specific instances. Uncertainties associated with the total COPC load into
water body (LT) and overall total water body COPC dissipation rate constant (&„,) may also be significant in some
instances because of the summation of many variable-specific uncertainties.
B-105
-------
TABLE B-2-17
TOTAL WATER COLUMN CONCENTRATION
(SURFACE WATER AND SEDIMENT EQUATIONS)
(Page 3 of 4)
Variable
Description
Units
Value
Depth of water column
Varies (site-specific)
This variable is site-specific, and should be an average annual value.
The following uncertainty is associated with this variable:
(1) Use of default values for depth of water column, dwc, may not accurately reflect site-specific water body conditions.
Therefore, use of default values may contribute to the under- or overestimation of Cmtot. However, the degree of
uncertainty associated with this variable is expected to be limited, because information regarding this variable is
generally available.
dbs Depth of upper benthic sediment
layer
m
0.03
This variable is site-specific. U.S. EPA OSW recommends a default upper-benthic sediment depth of 0.03 meter, which
is based on the center of this range cited by U.S. EPA (1993a; 1993b) This range is consistent with U.S. EPA (1994).
The following uncertainty is associated with this variable:
(1) The recommended default value for depth of upper benthic layer, dbs, may not accurately represent site-specific water
body conditions. Therefore, use of this default value may contribute to the under- or overestimation of Cmtot.
However, the degree of uncertainty associated with this variable is expected to be limited because of the narrow
recommended range.
B-106
-------
TABLE B-2-17
TOTAL WATER COLUMN CONCENTRATION
(SURFACE WATER AND SEDIMENT EQUATIONS)
(Page 4 of 4)
REFERENCES AND DISCUSSION
NC DEHNR. 1997. NC DEHNR Protocol for Performing Indirect Exposure Risk Assessments for Hazardous Waste Combustion Units. January.
This document is cited as one of the sources of the range of dbs values. This document cites U.S. EPA (1993a) as its source.
U. S. EPA. 1993a. Addendum: Methodology for Assessing Health Risks Associated with Indirect Exposure to Combustor Emissions. Working Group Recommendations. Office of Solid Waste
and Office of Research and Development. Washington, D.C. September 24.
This document is cited by U.S. EPA (1994) and NC DEHNR (1997) as one of the sources of the ranges of dts values. No original source of this range was identified.
U.S. EPA. 1993b. Addendum to the Methodology for Assessing Health Risks Associated with Indirect Exposure to Combustor Emissions. External Review Draft. Office of Research and
Development. Washington, D.C. November.
This document states that the upper benthic sediment depth, dbs, representing the portion of the bed in equilibrium with the water column, cannot be precisely specified. However, the
document states that values from 0.01 to 0.05 meter would be appropriate.
U.S. EPA. 1994. Draft Guidance for Performing Screening Level Risk Analyses at Combustor Facilities Burning Hazardous Waste. Attachment C, Draft Exposure Assessment Guidance for
RCRA Hazardous Waste Combustion Facility. April 15.
This document is cited as one of the reference sources for the default value for depth of upper benthic layer (dbs). The recommended value is the midpoint of an acceptable range. This
document cites U.S. EPA (1993a) as the source of its information. The degree of uncertainty associated with the variables dwc and dbs is expected to be minimal either because information
for estimating these variables is generally available (dwc) or the probable range for a variable (dbs) is narrow. Uncertainty associated with the variables/,,, and Cwtot is largely associated
with the use of default OC content values. Because OC content is known to vary widely in different locations in the same medium, use of default medium-specific values can result in
significant uncertainty in some instances.
B-107
-------
TABLE B-2-18
DISSOLVED PHASE WATER CONCENTRATION
(SURFACE WATER AND SEDIMENT EQUATIONS)
(Page 1 of 3)
Description
This equation calculates the concentration of contaminant dissolved in the water column.
Uncertainties associated with this equation include the following:
(1) The variables in Table B-2-18 are site-specific. Therefore, the use of default values rather than site-specific values, for any or all of these variables, will contribute to the under- or
overestimation of C^,. The uncertainty associated with the variables CwCTOT andKd^ is associated with estimates of OC content. Because OC content values can vary widely for different
locations in the same medium, using default OC values may result in significant uncertainty in specific cases.
Equation
c
1 + Kdsw • TSS • 10~6
For mercury modeling:
Dissolved phase water concentration is calculated for divalent mercury (Hg2+) and methyl mercury (MHg) using their respective Cwctot values and Kd^, values.
Variable
Description
Units
Value
Dissolved phase water
concentration
mg/L
io-6
Units conversion factor
kg/mg
B-108
-------
TABLE B-2-18
DISSOLVED PHASE WATER CONCENTRATION
(SURFACE WATER AND SEDIMENT EQUATIONS)
(Page 2 of 3)
Variable
Description
Units
Value
Total COPC concentration in
water column
mg/L
Varies (calculated - Table B-2-17)
This variable is COPC- and site-specific, and is calculated by using the equation in Table B-2-17.
The following uncertainty is associated with this variable:
(1) All of the variables in Table B-2-17 are COPC- and site-specific. Therefore, the use of default values rather than site-
specific values, for any or all of these variables, will contribute to the under- or overestimation of Cwctaf
The degree of uncertainty associated with the variables dwc and dbs is expected to be minimal either because information
for estimating a variable (dwc) is generally available or because the probable range for a variable (dbs) is narrow. The
uncertainty associated with the variables fwc and Cwto, is associated with estimates of OC content. Because OC content
values can vary widely for different locations in the same medium, using default OC values may result in significant
uncertainty in specific cases.
Suspended sediments/surface
water partition coefficient
Varies (see Appendix A-2)
This variable is COPC-specific and should be determined from the COPC tables in Appendix A-2.
The following uncertainty is associated with this variable:
(1) Values contained in Appendix A-2 for Kdm are based on default OC content values for surface water and soil. Because
OC content can vary widely for different locations in the same medium, the uncertainty associated with estimated Kd^
values based on default OC content values may be significant in specific cases.
TSS Total suspended solids
concentration
mg/L
2 to 300
This variable is site-specific. U.S. EPA OSW recommends the use of site- and waterbody specific measured values,
representative of long-term average annual values for the water body of concern (see Chapter 5). A value of 10 mg/L was cited
by NC DEHNR (1997), U.S. EPA (1993a), and U.S. EPA (1993b) in the absense of site-specific measured data.
The following uncertainty is associated with this variable:
Limitation on measured data used for determining a water body specific total suspended solids ( TSS) value may not
accurately reflect site- and water body-specific conditions long term. Therefore, the TSS value may contribute to the
under-or overestimation offwc.
B-109
-------
TABLE B-2-18
DISSOLVED PHASE WATER CONCENTRATION
(SURFACE WATER AND SEDIMENT EQUATIONS)
(Page 3 of 3)
REFERENCES AND DISCUSSION
NC DEHNR 1997. NC DEHNR Protocol for Performing Indirect Exposure Risk Assessments for Hazardous Waste Combustion Units. January.
This document is cited as one of the sources for Kds values and a default TSS value of 10. This document cites (1) U.S. EPA (1993a; 1993b) as its sources of information regarding TSS, and
(2) RTI (1992) as its source regarding Kds.
U.S. EPA. 1993a. Addendum to the Methodology for Assessing Health Risks Associated-with Indirect Exposure to Combustor Emissions. Working Group Recommendations. Office of Solid
Waste and Office of Research and Development. Washington, B.C. September 24.
This document is cited by U.S. EPA (1994) and NC DEHNR (1997) as one of the sources of the range ofKds value and the assumed OC value of 0.075 for surface water. The generic
equation for calculating partition coefficients (soil, surface water, and bed sediments) is as follows: Kdtj = Kocj * OC,, Koc is a chemical-specific value; however, OC is medium-specific.
The range of Kds values was based on an assumed OC value of 0.01 for soil. Therefore, the Kd^ values were estimated by multiplying the Kds values by 7.5, because the OC value for
surface water is 7.5 times greater than the OC value for soil. This document is also cited by U.S. EPA (1994) andNC DEHNR (1997) as the source of the recommended TSS value.
U.S. EPA. 1993b. Addendum: Methodology for Assessing Health Risks Associated with Indirect Exposure to Combustor Emissions. External Review Draft. Office of Research and
Development. November.
This document is cited by U.S. EPA (1994) and NC DEHNR (1997) as one of the sources of the range ofKds value and the assumed OC value of 0.075 for surface water. The generic
equation for calculating partition coefficients is as follows: Kdi} = Koc] * OC,, Koc is a chemical-specific value; however, OC is medium-specific. The range of Kds values was based on an
assumed OC value of 0.01 for soil. Therefore, the^"^ values were estimated by multiplying the Kds values by 7.5, because the OC value for surface water is 7.5 times greater than the OC
value for soil. This document is also cited by U.S. EPA (1994) and NC DEHNR (1997) as the source of the recommended TSS value.
U.S. EPA. 1994. Draft Guidance for Performing Screening Level Risk Analyses at Combustion Facilities Burning Hazardous Waste. Attachment C, Draft Exposure Assessment Guidance for
RCRA Hazardous Waste Combustion Facilities. April 15.
This document is cited as one of the sources of the range of Kds values, citing RTI (1992) as its source of information.
B-110
-------
TABLE B-2-19
COPC CONCENTRATION IN BED SEDIMENT
(SURFACE WATER AND SEDIMENT EQUATIONS)
(Page 1 of 4)
Description
This equation calculates the COPC concentration in bed sediments.
Uncertainties associated with this equation include the following:
(1) The default variable values recommended for use in the equation in Table B-2-19 may not accurately represent site-specific water body conditions. The degree of uncertainty associated
with variables 0bs, BS, dvc, and dbs is expected to be limited either because the probable ranges for these variables are narrow or because information allowing reasonable estimates is
generally available.
(2) Uncertainties associated with variables fbs, Cwtat and Kdbs are largely associated with the use of default OC content values in their calculation. The uncertainty may be significant in
specific instances, because OC content is known to vary widely in different locations in the same medium.
C = f • C
sed Jbs wtot
Equation
Kd,
bs
d
hs
For mercury modeling':
COPC concentration in bed sediment is calculated for divalent mercury (Hg2+) and methyl mercury (MHg) using their respective Cutot values;/^ values; and Kdbs values.
Variable
Description
Units
Value
COPC concentration in bed
sediment
mg/kg
Fraction of total water body
COPC concentration in benthic
sediment
unitless
Varies (calculated - Table B-2-10)
This variable is COPC- and site-specific, and is calculated by using the equation in Table B-2-10.
The following uncertainty is associated with this variable:
(1) The default values for the variables in Table B-2-10 may not accurately represent site- and water body-specific
conditions. However, the range of several variables—including dbs,BS, and 6b— is relatively narrow. Other variables,
such as dwc and dz, can be reasonably estimated on the basis of generally available information. The largest degree of
uncertainty may be introduced by the default medium-specific OC content values. Because OC content values may
vary widely in different locations in the same medium, by using default values may result in significant uncertainty
in specific cases.
B-lll
-------
TABLE B-2-19
COPC CONCENTRATION IN BED SEDIMENT
(SURFACE WATER AND SEDIMENT EQUATIONS)
(Page 2 of 4)
Variable
Description
Units
Value
Total water body COPC
concentration, including water
column and bed sediment
mg/L
Varies (calculated - Table B-2-9)
This variable is COPC- and site-specific, and is calculated by using the equation in Table B-2-9.
The following uncertainty is associated with this variable:
(1) The default variable values recommended for use in the equation in Table B-2-9 may not accurately represent site-
-specific water body conditions. The degree of uncertainty associated with variables Vfa Aw, duc, and dbs is expected
to be limited either because the probable ranges for these variables are narrow or information allowing reasonable
estimates is generally available.
(2) Uncertainty associated with/,,,, is largely the result of uncertainty associated with default OC content values and may
be significant in specific instances. Uncertainties associated with the variable LT and knt may also be significant
because of the summation of many variable-specific uncertainties.
Kdb. Bed sediment/sediment pore
water partition coefficient
L/kg
Varies (see Appendix A-2)
This variable is COPC-specific, and should be determined from the COPC tables in Appendix A-2.
The following uncertainty is associated with this variable:
(1) The default range (8 to 2,100,000 L/kg) o£Kdbs values are based on default OC content values for sediment and soil.
Because medium-specific OC content may vary widely at different locations in the same medium, the uncertainty
associated with Kdbs values calculated by using default OC content values may be significant in specific instances.
Bed sediment porosity
te/-^se
0.4 to 0.8
Default: 0.6
This variable is site-specific. U.S. EPAOSW recommends a default bed sediment porosity of 0.6 (by using a BS value of
1 g/cm3 and a solids density [ps] value of 2.65 kg/L), calculated by using the following equation (U.S. EPA 1993a):
6bs = 1 -BS /ps
This is consistent with other U.S. EPA (1993b and 1994) guidance.
The following uncertainty is associated with this variable:
(1) To the extent that the recommended default values of BS and ps do not accurately represent site- and water
body-specific conditions, 0bs will be under- or overestimated to some degree. However, the degree of uncertainty is
expected to be minimal, based on the narrow range of recommended values.
B-112
-------
TABLE B-2-19
COPC CONCENTRATION IN BED SEDIMENT
(SURFACE WATER AND SEDIMENT EQUATIONS)
(Page 3 of 4)
Variable
Description
Units
Value
BS
Benthic solids concentration
g/cm3
0.5 to 1.5
Default: 1.0
This variable is site-specific. U.S. EPA OSW recommends a default value of 1.0, consistent with U.S. EPA (1993a), which
states that this value should be reasonable for most applications. No reference is cited for this recommendation. This is
also consistent with other U.S. EPA (1993b and 1994) guidance.
The following uncertainty is associated with this variable:
(1) The recommended default value for BS may not accurately represent site- and water body-specific conditions.
Therefore, the variable Csed may be under- or overestimated to a limited degree, as indicated by the narrow range of
recommended values.
Depth of water column
m
Varies (site-specific)
This variable is site-specific.
The following uncertainty is associated with this variable:
(1) Use of default dwc values may not accurately reflect site-specific conditions. Therefore, use of these default values
may contribute to the under- or overestimation of the variable Csed. However, the degree of uncertainty is expected to
be minimal, because resources allowing reasonable water body-specific estimates of dwc are generally available.
dts Depth of upper benthic sediment
layer
0.03
This variable is site-specific. U.S. EPA recommends a default upper-benthic sediment depth of 0.03 meter, which is based
on the center of this range cited by U.S. EPA (1993b). This is consistent with U.S. EPA (1994) and NC DEHNR (1997).
The following uncertainty is associated with this variable:
(1) Use of default dbs values may not accurately reflect site-specific conditions. Therefore, use of these values may
contribute to the under- or overestimation of the variable Csed. However, the degree of uncertainty is expected to be
small, based on the narrow recommended range of default values.
B-113
-------
TABLE B-2-19
COPC CONCENTRATION IN BED SEDIMENT
(SURFACE WATER AND SEDIMENT EQUATIONS)
(Page 4 of 4)
REFERENCES AND DISCUSSION
NC DEHNR. 1997. NC DEHNR Protocol for Performing Indirect Exposure Risk Assessments for Hazardous Waste Combustion Units. January.
This document is cited as one of the reference source documents for the default value for bed sediment porosity ( 0bs). This document cites U.S. EPA (1993a; 1993b) as its source of
information. This document is also cited as one of the reference source documents for the default value for depth of the upper benthic layer. The default value is the midpoint of an
acceptable range. This document cites U.S. EPA (1993a; 1993b) as its source of information for the range of values for the depth of the upper benthic layer. This document is also cited as
one of the reference source documents for the default benthic solids concentration (BS).
U.S. EPA. 1993a. Addendum to the Methodology for Assessing Health Risks Associated with Indirect Exposure to Combustor Emissions. External Review Draft. Office of Research and
Development. Washington, D.C. November 1993.
This document is cited by U.S. EPA (1994) and NC DEHNR (1997) as one of the sources of the range o£Kds values and an assumed OC value of 0.04 for sediment. The generic equation for
calculating partition coefficients (soil, surface water, and bed sediments) is as follows: Kdi} = Koc * OCf Koc is a chemical-specific value; however, OC is medium-specific. The range of
Kds values was based on an assumed OC value of 0.01 for soil. Therefore, the Kdbs value was estimated by multiplying the Kds values by 4, because the OC value for sediment is four times
greater than the OC value for soil. This document is also cited as the source of the equation for calculating bed sediment porosity ( 0bs). No source of this equation was identified. This
document was also cited as the source for the range of the benthic solids concentration (BS). No source of this range was identified.
U.S. EPA. 1993b. Addendum: Methodology for Assessing Health Risks Associated with Indirect Exposure to Combustor Emissions. Working Group Recommendations. Office of Solid Waste
and Office of Research and Development. Washington, D.C. September 24.
This document is cited by NC DEHNR (1997) and U.S. EPA (1994) as the source of the default bed sediment porosity value (0bs), the default benthic solids concentration value (BS), and the
range for depth of upper benthic layer (dbs) values.
U.S. EPA. 1994. Draft Guidance for Performing Screening Level Risk Analyses at Combustor Facilities Burning Hazardous Wastes. Attachment C, Draft Exposure Assessment Guidance for
RCRA Hazardous Waste Combustion Facilities. April 15.
This document is cited as one of the sources of the range of Kds values and an assumed OC value of 0.04 for sediment. This document cites RTI (1992) as its source of information
regarding Kds values. This document is cited as one of the reference source documents for the default value for bed sediment porosity ( 0bs). This document cites U.S. EPA (1993a; 1993b)
as its source. This document is also cited as one of the reference source documents for the default value for depth of upper benthic layer (dbs). The default value is the midpoint of an
acceptable range. This document cites U.S. EPA (1993a; 1993b) as its source of information for the range of values for the depth of the upper benthic layer. This document is also cited as
one of the reference source documents for the default benthic solids concentration (BS).
B-114
-------
TABLE B-3-1
PLANT CONCENTRATION DUE TO DIRECT DEPOSITION
(TERRESTRIAL PLANT EQUATIONS)
(Page 1 of 10)
Description
This equation calculates the COPC concentration in plants, resulting from wet and dry deposition of particle phase COPCs onto the exposed plant surface.
The limitations and uncertainty associated with calculating this value include the following:
(1) Uncertainties associated with the variables Q, Dydp, and Dywp are site-specific.
(2) The calculation of kp values does not consider chemical degradation processes. Inclusion of chemical degradation process would decrease the amountof time that a compound remains
on plant surfaces (half-time) and thereby increase kp values. Pd decreases with increased kp values. Reduction of half-time from the assumed 14 days to 2.8 days, for example, would
decrease Pd about 5-fold.
(3) The calculation of other parameter values (for example, Fw and Rp) is based directly or indirectly on studies of specific types of vegetation (primarily grasses and forbes). To the
extent that the calculated parameter values do not accurately represent all site-specific forage species, uncertainty is introduced.
(4) The uncertainties associated with the variables Fv, Tp, and Yp are not expected to be significant.
Pd =
Equation
1000 • Q •(! -Fv) • [Dydp + (Fw • Dywp)] • Rp • [1.0-exp(-£p • Tp)} • 0.12
Yp • kp
For mercury modeling:
1000 • (0.48grofa/ ) .(l-F ) • [Dydp + (Fw • Dywp)] • Rp • [1.0-exp(-*p • Tp)] • 0.12
ivi eruury T7- 7
7/? • kp
In calculating Prf for mercury comounds, Pd(Mercury) is calculated as shown above using the total mercury emission rate (Q) measured at the stack and Fv for mercuric chloride (Fv = 0.85).
As presented below, the calculated Pd(Mercury) value is apportioned into the divalent mercury (Hg2+) and methyl mercury (MHg) forms based on a 78% Hg2+ and 22% MHg speciation split in
plants (see Chapter 2).
Pd (Hg2+) = 0.78 Pd (Mercury)
Pd (MHg) = 0.22 Pd(Mercury)
After calculating species specific Pd values, divalent and methyl mercury should continue to be modeled throughout Appendix B equations as individual COPCs.
B-115
-------
TABLE B-3-1
PLANT CONCENTRATION DUE TO DIRECT DEPOSITION
(TERRESTRIAL PLANT EQUATIONS)
(Page 2 of 10)
Variable
Pd
1000
Q
Fv
Dydp
Description
Plant concentration due to direct
deposition
Units conversion factor
COPC-specific emission rate
Fraction of COPC air concentration
in vapor phase
Unitized yearly average dry
deposition from particle phase
Units
mg/kg WW
mg/g
g/s
unitless
s/m2-yr
Value
^/^•^'iC^V'^'V^'v^^vx :V':-'f1;::-v*y.1>:;'?'!> ,# V$f<-XU^$f<-XU^>£f<-^
;;V-v-^-^^>'^VV,.-.OMV!''; :J; ^;&KS$r
-------
TABLE B-3-1
PLANT CONCENTRATION DUE TO DIRECT DEPOSITION
(TERRESTRIAL PLANT EQUATIONS)
(Page 3 of 10)
Variable
Description
Units
Value
Rp
Interception fraction of the edible
portion of plant
unitless
0.5
U.S. EPA OSW recommends the use of tbeRp value of 0.5 , which is consistent with the value used by U.S. EPA
(1994b; 1995) in development of values for the fraction of deposition that adheres to plant surfaces, Fv>, for forage.
As summarized in Baes, Sharp, Sjoreen, and Shor (1984), experimental studies of pasture grasses identified a
correlation between initial Rp values and productivity (standing crop biomass [Yp]) (Chamberlain 1970):
Rp = l-e'7'1
where:
Rp = Interception fraction of edible portion of plant (unitless)
y = Empirical constant; Chamberlain (1970) presents a range of 2.3 to 3.3; Baes, Sharp, Sjoreen, and
Shor (1984) uses the midpoint, 2.88, for pasture grasses.
Yp = Yield or standing crop biomass (productivity) (kg DW/m2)
Baes, Sharp, Sjoreen, and Shor (1984) proposed using the same empirical relationship developed by Chamberlain
(1970) for other vegetation classes. Class-specific estimates of the empirical constant, y, were developed by forcing
an exponential regression equation through several points, including average and theoretical maximum estimates of
Rp and Yp (Baes, Sharp, Sjoreen, and Shor 1984).
Uncertainties associated with this variable include the following:
(1) The empirical relationship developed by Chamberlain (1970) on the basis of a study of pasture grass may not
accurately represent all forage varieties of plants.
(2) The empirical constants developed by Baes, Sharp, Sjoreen, and Shor (1984) for use in the empirical
relationship developed by Chamberlain (1970) may not accurately represent site-specific mixes of plants.
B-117
-------
TABLE B-3-1
PLANT CONCENTRATION DUE TO DIRECT DEPOSITION
(TERRESTRIAL PLANT EQUATIONS)
(Page 4 of 10)
Variable
Fw
Dywp
Description
Fraction of COPC wet deposition
that adheres to plant surfaces
Unitized yearly average wet
deposition from particle phase
Units
unitless
s/m2-yr
Value
Anions: 0.20
Cations and most Organics: 0.6
Consistent with U.S. EPA (194b; 1995) in evaluating aboveground forage, U.S. EPA OSW recommends using the
value of 0.2 for anions and 0.6 for cations and most organics. These values are the best available information, based
on a review of the current scientific literature, with the following exception: U.S. EPA OSW recommends using an
Fw value of 0.2 for the three organic COPC that ionize to anionic forms. These include (1) 4-chloroaniline, (2) n-
nitrosodiphenylamine, and (3) n-nitrosodi-n-proplyamine (see Appendix A-2).
The values estimated by U.S. EPA (1994b; 1995) are based on information presented in Hoffman, Thiessen, Frank,
and Blaylock (1992), which presented values for a parameter (r) termed the "interception fraction." These values
were based on a study in which soluble radionuclides and insoluble particles labeled with radionuclides were
deposited onto pasture grass (specifically a combination of fescues, clover, and old field vegitation) via simulated
rain. The parameter (r) is defined as "the fraction of material in rain intercepted by vegetation and initially retained"
or, essentially, the product of Rp andFw, as defined for use in this guidance:
r = Rp • Fw
The r values developed by Hoffman, Thiessen, Frank, and Blaylock (1992) were divided by anRp value of 0.5 for
forage (U.S. EPA 1994b). TheFw values developed by U.S. EPA (1994b) are 0.2 for anions and 0.6 for cations and
insoluble particles. U.S. EPA (1994b; 1995) recommended using the Fw value calculated by using the r value for
insoluble particles to represent organic compounds; however, no rationale for this recommendation is provided.
Uncertainties associated with this variable include the following:
( 1 ) Values of r developed experimentally for pasture grass (specifically a combination of fescues, clover, and old
field vegitation) may not accurately represent all forage varieties specificto a site.
(2) Values of r assumed for most organic compounds, based on the behavior of insoluble poly stryene
microspheres tagged with radionuclides, may not accurately represent the behavior of organic compounds
under site- specific conditions.
Varies (modeled)
This variable is COPC- and site-specific, and is determined by air dispersion modeling (see Chapter 3).
Uncertainties associated with this variable are site-specific.
B-118
-------
TABLE B-3-1
PLANT CONCENTRATION DUE TO DIRECT DEPOSITION
(TERRESTRIAL PLANT EQUATIONS)
(Page 5 of 10)
Variable
Description
Units
Value
kp
Plant surface loss coefficient
yr1
18
U.S. EPA OSW recommends the kp value of 18 recommended by U.S. EPA (1993; 1994b). Thekp value selected is
the midpoint of a possible range of values. U.S. EPA (1990) identified several processes—including wind removal,
water removal, and growth dilution—that reduce the amount of contaminant that has been deposited on a plant
surface. The term kp is a measure of the amount of contaminant lost to these physical processes over time. U.S.
EPA (1990) cited Miller and Hoffman (1983) for the following equation used to estimate kp.
where:
kp = (ln2/f;/2) • 365 days/yr
t1/2 = half-time (days)
Miller and Hoffman (1983) report half-time values ranging from 2.8 to 34 days for a variety of contaminants on
herbaceous vegetation. These half-time values result in kp values of 7.44 to 90.36 yr1. U.S. EPA (1993; 1994b)
recommend a kp value of 18, based on a generic 14-day half-time, corresponding to physical processes only. The
14-day half-time is approximately the midpoint of the range (2.8 to 34 days) estimated by Miller and Hoffman
(1983).
Uncertainties associated with this variable include the following:
(1) Calculation of kp does not consider chemical degradation processes. The addition of chemical degradation
processes would decrease half-times and thereby increase kp values; plant concentration decreases as kp
increases. Therefore, use ofakp value that does not consider chemical degradation processes is conservative.
(2) The half-time values reported by Miller and Hoffman (1983) may not accurately represent the behavior of all
COPCs on plants.
(3) Based on this range (7.44 to 90.36), plant concentrations could range from about 1.8 times higher to about 5
times lower than the plant concentrations, based on a kp value of 18.
B-119
-------
TABLE B-3-1
PLANT CONCENTRATION DUE TO DIRECT DEPOSITION
(TERRESTRIAL PLANT EQUATIONS)
(Page 6 of 10)
Variable
Description
Units
Value
Length of plant exposure to
deposition per harvest of edible
portion of plant
yr
0.12
This variable is site-specific. U.S. EPA OSW recommends the use of these default values in the absence of
site-specific information. U.S. EPA (1990), U.S. EPA (1994b), andNC DEHNR (1997) recommended treating 7> as
a constant, based on the average periods between successive hay harvests and successive grazing.
For forage, the average of the average period between successive hay harvests (60 days) and the average period
between successive grazing (30 days) is used (that is, 45 days). Tp is calculated as follows:
Tp = (60 days + 30 days)/ 2 - 365 days/yr = 0.12 yr
These average periods are from Belcher and Travis (1989), and are used when calculating the COPC concentration
in cattle forage.
The following uncertainty is associated with this variable:
(1) Beyond the time frame of about 3 months for harvest cycles, if the kp value remains unchanged at 18, higher
Tp values will have little effect on predicted COPC concentrations in plants.
0.12 Dry weight to wet weight
conversion factor
unitless
0.12
U.S. EPA OSW recommends using the value of 0.12. This default value is based on the average rounded value from
the range of 80 to 95 percent water content in herbaceous plants and nonwoody plant parts (Taizatal. 1991).
The following uncertainty is associated with this variable:
(1) The plant species considered in determining the default value may be different from plant varieties actually
present at a site.
B-120
-------
TABLE B-3-1
PLANT CONCENTRATION DUE TO DIRECT DEPOSITION
(TERRESTRIAL PLANT EQUATIONS)
(Page 7 of 10)
Variable
Description
Units
Value
Yield or standing crop biomass of
the edible portion of the plant
(productivity)
kg DW/m2
0.24
U.S. EPA OSW recommends using the Yp value of 0.24. This default value is consistent with values presented in
U.S. EPA (1994b) for forage (weighted average of pasture grass and hay Yp values determined in considering
ingestion by an herbivorous mammal [cattle]), and with the resulting Rp value (see Table B-3-1) as determined by
correlation with productivity (standing crop biomass [ Yp]) (Chamberlain 1970). Based on a review of the currently
available literature, this value appears to be based on the most complete and thorough information.
The following uncertainty is associated with this variable:
(1) The plant species considered in determining the default value for forage may be different from plant varieties
actually present at a site. This may under- or overestimate Yp.
B-121
-------
TABLE B-3-1
PLANT CONCENTRATION DUE TO DIRECT DEPOSITION
(TERRESTRIAL PLANT EQUATIONS)
(Page 8 of 10)
REFERENCES AND DISCUSSION
Baes, C.F., R.D. Sharp, A.L. Sjoreen, and R.W. Shor. \984.Review and Analysis of Parameters and Assessing Transport of Environmentally Released Radionuclides through Agriculture.
ORNL-5786. Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Oak Ridge, Tennessee. September.
This document proposed using the same empirical relationship developed by Chamberlain (1970) for other vegetation classes. Class-specific estimates of the empirical constant, j, were
developed by forcing an exponential regression equation through several points, including average and theoretical maximum estimates of Rp and Yp.
Belcher, G.D., and C.C. Travis. 1989. "Modeling Support for the RURA and Municipal Waste Combustion Projects: Final Report on Sensitivity and Uncertainty Analysis for the Terrestrial Food
Chain Model." Interagency Agreement No. 1824-A020-A1, Office of Risk Analysis, Health and Safety Research Division, Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Oak Ridge, Tennessee.
October.
This document recommends Tp values based on the average period between successive hay harvests and successive grazing.
Bidleman, T.F. 1988. "Atmospheric Processes." Environmental Science and Technology. Volume 22. Pages 361-367. November 4.
This document is cited by U.S. EPA (1994a) and NC DEHNR (1997) as the source of the equations for calculating Fv.
Chamberlain, A.C. 1970. "Interception and Retention of Radioactive Aerosols by Vegetation." Atmospheric Environment. 4:57to78.
Experimental studies of pasture grasses identified a correlation between initial Rp values and productivity (standing crop biomass [Yp]):
Rp = i-e-r*rf
y = Empirical constant; range provided as 2.3 to 3.3
Yp = Standing crop biomass (productivity) (kg DW/m2)
Hoffman, F.O., K.M. Thiessen, M.L. Frank, and E.G. Blaylock. 1992. "Quantification of the Interception and Initial Retention of Radioactive Contaminants Deposited on Pasture Grass by
Simulated Rain." Atmospheric Environment. Vol. 26A. 18:3313 to 3321.
This document developed values for a parameter (r) that it termed "interception fraction," based on a study in which soluble gamma-emitting radionuclides and insoluble particles tagged
with gamma-emitting radionuclides were deposited onto pasture grass (specifically, a combination of fescues, clover, and old field vegetation, including fescue) via simulated rain. The
parameter, r, is defined as "the fraction of material in rain intercepted by vegetation and initially retained" or, essentially, the product of Rp andFw, as defined by this guidance:
r = Rp • Fw
Experimental r values obtained include the following:
• A range of 0.006 to 0.3 for anions (based on the soluble radionuclide iodide-131 [131I]); when calculating Rp values for anions, U.S. EPA (1994a) used the highest geometric mean r
value (0.08) observed in the study.
B-122
-------
TABLE B-3-1
PLANT CONCENTRATION DUE TO DIRECT DEPOSITION
(TERRESTRIAL PLANT EQUATIONS)
(Page 9 of 10)
• A range of 0.1 to 0.6 for cations (based on the soluble radionuclide beryllium-7 [7Be]; when calculating Rp values for cations, U.S. EPA (1994a) used the highest geometric meanr
value (0.28) observed in the study.
• A geometric range of values from 0.30 to 0.37 for insoluble polystyrene microspheres (IPM) ranging in diameter from 3 to 25 micrometers, labeled with cerium-141 [ 141Ce], [95N]b,
and strontium-85 85Sr; when calculating Rp values for organics (other than three organics that ionize to anionic forms: 4-chloroaniline; n-nitrosodiphenylamine; and n-nitrosodi-n-
propylamine, —see Appendix A-2), U.S. EPA (1994a) used the geometric meanr value for IPM with a diameter of 3 micrometers. However, no rationale for this selection was
provided.
The authors concluded that, for the soluble 131I anion, interception fraction r is an inverse function of rain amount, whereas for the soluble cation 7Be and the IPMs, r depends more on
biomass than on amount of rainfall. The authors also concluded that (1) the anionic 131I is essentially removed with the water after the vegetation surface has become saturated, and (2) the
cationic 7Be and the IPMs are adsorbed to, or settle out on, the plant surface. This discrepancy between the behavior of the anionic and cationic species is consistent with a negative charge
on the plant surface.
Miller, C.W. and F.O. Hoffman. 1983. "An Examination of the Environmental Half-Time for Radionuclides Deposited on Vegetation." Health Physics. 45 (3): 731 to 744.
This document is the source of the equation used to calculate kp:
kp = (In II t1/2) • 365 days/year
t1/2 = half-time (days)
The study reports half-time values ranging from 2.8 to 34 days for a variety of contaminants on herbaceous vegetation. These half-time values result in calculate kp values from 7.44 to
9036 yf1.
NC DEHNR. 1997. NC DEHNR Protocol for Performing Indirect Exposure Risk Assessments for Hazardous Waste Combustion Units. January.
Shor, R.W., C.F. Baes, andR.D. Sharp. 1982. Agricultural Production in the United States by County: A Compilation of Information from the 1974 Census of Agriculture for Use in Terrestrial
Food-Chain Transport and Assessment Models. Oak Ridge National Laboratory Publication. ORNL-5786.
This document is the source of the equation used to calculate Yp, as cited by U.S. EPA (1994b). Baes, Sharp, Sjoreen, and Shor (1984) also presents and discusses this equation.
Taiz, L., andE. Geiger. 1991. Plant Physiology. Benjamin/Cammius Publishing Co. Redwood City, California. 559pp.
U.S. EPA. 1990. Interim Final Methodology for Assessing Health Risks Associated with Indirect Exposure to Combustor Emissions. Environmental Criteria and Assessment Office. Office of
Research and Development. EPA 600/6-90/003. January.
This is one of the source documents for the equation, and also states that the best estimate of Yp (yield or standing crop biomass) is productivity, as defined under Shor, Baes, and Sharp
(1982).
U.S. EPA. 1993. Review Draft Addendum to the Methodology for Assessing Health Risks Associated -with Indirect Exposure to Combustor Emissions. Office of Health and Environmental
Assessment. Office of Research and Development. EPA/600/AP-93/003. November.
B-123
-------
TABLE B-3-1
PLANT CONCENTRATION DUE TO DIRECT DEPOSITION
(TERRESTRIAL PLANT EQUATIONS)
(Page 10 of 10)
U.S. EPA. 1994a. Estimating Exposure to Dioxin-Like Compounds. Volume III: Site-Specific Assessment Procedures. Review Draft. Office of Research and Development. Washington, D.C.
EPA/600/6-88/005Cc. June.
U.S. EPA. 1994b. Revised Draft Guidance for Performing Screening Level Risk Analyses at Combustion Facilities Burning Hazardous Wastes. Attachment C, Draft Exposure Assessment
Guidance for RCRA Hazardous Waste Combustion Facilities. Office of Emergency and Remedial Response. Office of Solid Waste. December 14.
U.S. EPA. 1995. Review Draft Development of Human Health-Based and Ecologically-Based Exit Criteria for the Hazardous Waste Identification Project. Volumes I and II. Office of Solid
Waste. March 3.
B-124
-------
TABLE B-3-2
PLANT CONCENTRATION DUE TO AIR-TO-PLANT TRANSFER
(TERRESTRIAL PLANT EQUATIONS)
(Page 1 of 5)
Description
This equation calculates the COPC concentration in plants, resulting from uptake of vapor phase COPCs by plants through their foliage.
The limitations and uncertainty associated with calculating this value include the following:
(1) The algorithm used to calculate values for the variable Fv assumes a default value for the parameter ST (Whitby's average surface area of particulates [aerosols]) of background plus local
sources, rather than an ST value for urban sources. If a specific site is located in an urban area, the use of the latter ST value may be more appropriate. The ST value for urban sources is
about one order of magnitude greater than that for background plus local sources and would result in a lower Fv value; however, the Fv value is likely to be only a few percent lower.
As highlighted by uncertainties described above, Pv is most significantly affected by the value calculated for Bv.
Equation
Pv = O • F • 0.12
Cyv • Bv
For mercury modeling
0.12
CVV • BVr
In calculating Pv for mercury comounds,
Pv(Mercury) is calculated as shown above using the
total mercury emission rate (Q) measured at the stack and Fv for mercuric chloride (Fv = 0.85). As presented below, the calculated Pv(Mercury) value is apportioned into the divalent mercury
(Hg2+) and methyl mercury (MHg) forms based on a 78% Hg2+ and 22% MHg speciation split in plants (see Chapter 2).
Pv (Hg2+) =
Pv (MHg) =
0.78 Pv(Mercury)
0.22 Pv(Mercury)
After calculating species specific Pv values, divalent and methyl mercury should continue to be modeled throughout Appendix B equations as individual COPCs.
Variable
Description
Units
Value
Pv
Plant concentration due to air-to-
plant transfer
mg/kgWW
(equivalent to
Mg/g)
B-125
-------
TABLE B-3-2
PLANT CONCENTRATION DUE TO AIR-TO-PLANT TRANSFER
(TERRESTRIAL PLANT EQUATIONS)
(Page 2 of 5)
Variable
Description
Units
Value
O
COPC-specific emission rate
g/s
Varies (site-specific)
This variable is COPC- and site-specific (see Chapters 2 and 3). Uncertainties associated with this variable are
site-specific.
Fv Fraction of COPC air concentration
in vapor phase
unitless
0 to 1 (see Appendix A-2)
This variable is COPC-specific and should be determined from the COPC tables in Appendix A-2.
Uncertainties associated with this variable include the following:
(1) Calculation is based on an assumption of a default ST value for background plus local sources, rather than an ST
value for urban sources. If a specific site is located in an
urban area, the use of the latter ST value may be more appropriate. Specifically, the
ST value for urban sources is about one order of magnitude greater than that for background plus local sources
and would result in a lower calculated Fv value; however, the Fv value is likely to be only a few percent lower.
(2) According to Bidleman (1988), the equation used to calculate Fv assumes that the variable c is constant for all
chemicals; however, the value of c depends on the chemical (sorbate) molecular weight, the surface
concentration for monolayer coverage, and the difference between the heat of desorption from the particle
surface and the heat of vaporization of the liquid-phase sorbate. To the extent that site- or COPC-specific
conditions may cause the value of c to vary, uncertainty is introduced if a constant value of c is used to calculate
F,,.
Cyv Unitized yearly air concentration
from vapor phase
Hg-s/g-m3
Varies (modeled)
This variable is COPC- and site-specific, and is determined by air dispersion modeling (see Chapter 3).
Uncertainties associated with this variable are site-specific.
Bv
Air-to-plant biotransfer factor
unitless
(Mg/g plant tissue
DW) / (Mg/g air)
Varies (see Appendix C)
This variable is COPC-specific and should be determined from the tables in Appendix C.
Uncertainties associated with this variable include the following:
(1) The studies that formed the basis of the algorithm used to estimate Bv values were conducted on azalea leaves
and grasses, and may not accurately represent Bv for all forage species of plants.
B-126
-------
TABLE B-3-2
PLANT CONCENTRATION DUE TO AIR-TO-PLANT TRANSFER
(TERRESTRIAL PLANT EQUATIONS)
(Page 3 of 5)
Variable
Description
Units
Value
0.12 Dry weight to wet weight
conversion factor
unitless
0.12
U.S. EPA OSW recommends using the value of 0.12. This default value is based on the average rounded value from
the range of 80 to 95 percent water content in herbaceous plants and nonwoody plant parts (Taiz et al. 1991).
The following uncertainty is associated with this variable:
(1) The plant species considered in determining the default value may be different from plant varieties actually
present at a site.
Pa
Density of air
g/m3
0.0012
U.S. EPA OSW recommends the use of this value based on Weast (1980). This reference indicates that air density
varies with temperature.
U.S. EPA (1990) recommended this same value but states that it was based on a temperature of 25°C; no reference
was provided. U.S. EPA (1994b) and NC DEHNR (1997) recommend this same value but state that it was calculated
at standard conditions of 20°C and 1 atm. Both documents cite Weast (1981).
There is no significant uncertainty associated with this variable.
B-127
-------
TABLE B-3-2
PLANT CONCENTRATION DUE TO AIR-TO-PLANT TRANSFER
(TERRESTRIAL PLANT EQUATIONS)
(Page 4 of 5)
REFERENCES AND DISCUSSION
Bacci E., D. Calamari, C. Gaggi, and M. Vighi. 1990. "Bioconcentration of Organic Chemical Vapors in Plant Leaves: Experimental Measurements and Correlation." Environmental
Science and Technology. Volume 24. Number 6. Pages 885-889.
This is the source of the equation to adjust Bvoh based on volume/volume basis, to Bv on a mass/mass basis—see Bacci, Cerejeira, Gaggi, Chemello, Calamari, and Vighi (1992) below.
Bacci E., M. Cerejeira, C. Gaggi, G. Chemello, D. Calamari, and M. Vighi. 1992. "Chlorinated Dioxins: Volatilization from Soils and Bioconcentration in Plant Leaves." Bulletin of
Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. Volume 48. Pages 401-408.
This is the source of the algorithm based on a study of 14 organic compounds, including 1,2,3,4-TCDD, used to calculate the air-to-plant biotransfer factor (Bv)'.
log Bvol = 1.065 log Km - log (-^-) - 1.654
R'Ta
where:
Bvoi = Volumetric air-to-plant bio transfer factor ([ug/L wet leaf]/[ug/L air])
Km = Octanol-water partition coefficient (dimensionless)
H = Henry's Law Constant (atm-m3/mol)
R = Ideal gas constant, 8.2 x 10"5 atm-m3/mol-deg K
Ta = Ambient air temperature, 298.1 K (25 °C)
This volumetric transfer factor can be transformed to a mass-based transfer factor by using the following equation (Bacci, Calamari, Gaggi, and Vighi 1990):
Bv = Pa ' BV°I
v Jwe* >"forage
where:
Bv = mass-based air-to-plant biotransfer factor ([ Mg/g DW plant]/[//g/g air])
Bvol = volumetric air-to-plant biotransfer factor ([ /j.g/L wet leaf]/[/^g/L air])
pa = density of air, 1.19 g/L (Weast 1986)
P/orage = density of forage, 770 g/L (McCrady and Maggard, 1993)
fwc = fraction of forage that is water, 0.85 (McCrady and Maggard, 1993)
Bidleman, T.F. 1988. "Atmospheric Processes." Environmental Science and Technology. Volume 22. Number 4. Pages 361-367.
B-128
-------
TABLE B-3-2
PLANT CONCENTRATION DUE TO AIR-TO-PLANT TRANSFER
(TERRESTRIAL PLANT EQUATIONS)
(Page 5 of 5)
This is the reference for the statement that the equation used to calculate the fraction of air concentration in vapor phase (Fv) assumes that the variable c (the Junge constant) is constant for
all chemicals; however, this reference notes that the value ofc depends on the chemical (sorbate) molecular weight, the surface concentration for monolayer coverage, and the difference
between the heat of desorption from the particle surface and the heat of vaporization of the liquid-phase sorbate.
This document is also cited by U.S. EPA (1994b) and NC DEHNR (1997) for calculating the variable Fr
NC DEHNR. 1997. NC DEHNR Protocol for Performing Indirect Exposure Risk Assessments for Hazardous Waste Combustion Units. January.
Taiz, L., andE. Geiger. 1991. Plant Physiology. Benjamin/Cammius Publishing Co. Redwood City, California. 559pp.
U.S. EPA. 1990. Interim Final Methodology for Assessing Health Risks Associated with Indirect Exposure to Combustor Emissions. Environmental Criteria and Assessment Office. Office
of Research and Development. EPA-600-90-003. January.
This document is a source of air density values.
U.S. EPA. 1993. Review Draft Addendum to the Methodology for Assessing Health Risks Associated with Indirect Exposure to Combustor Emissions. Office of Health and Environmental
Assessment. Office of Research and Development. EPA-600-AP-93-003. November 10.
Based on attempts to model background concentrations of dioxin-like compounds in beef on the basis of known air concentrations, this document recommends reducing, by a factor of 10,
Bv values calculated by using the Bacci, Cerejeira, Gaggi, Chemello, Calamari, and Vighi (1992) algorithm The use of this factor "made predictions [of beef concentrations] come in
line with observations."
U.S. EPA. 1994a. Estimating Exposure to Dioxin-Like Compounds. Volume II: Properties, Sources, Occurrence, and Background Exposures. Review Draft. Office of Research and
Development. Washington, DC. EPA/600/6-88/005Cb. June.
U.S. EPA. 1994b. Revised Draft Guidance for Performing Screening Level Risk Analyses at Combustion Facilities Burning Hazardous Wastes. Attachment C, Draft Exposure Assessment
Guidance for RCRA Hazardous Waste Combustion Facilities. Office of Emergency and Remedial Response. Office of Solid Waste. December 14.
This is one of the source documents for Equation B-2-8. This document also presents a range (0.27 to 1) of Fv values for organic COPCs, based on the work of Bidleman (1988); Fv for all
inorganics is set equal to zero.
Weast,R.C. 1981. Handbook of'Chemistry and Physics. 62ndEdition. Cleveland, Ohio. CRC Press.
This document is a reference for air density values.
Weast, R.C. 1986. Handbook of 'Chemistry and Physics. 66th Edition. Cleveland, Ohio. CRC Press.
This document is a reference for air density values, and is an update of Weast (1981).
Wipf, H.K., E. Homberger, N. Neuner, U.B. Ranalder, W. Vetter, and J.P. Vuilleumier. 1982. "TCDD Levels in Soil and Plant Samples from the Seveso Area." In: ChlorinatedDioxins and
Related Compounds: Impact on the Environment. Eds. Hutzinger, O. and others. Pergamon, NY.
B-129
-------
TABLE B-3-3
PLANT CONCENTRATION DUE TO ROOT UPTAKE
(TERRESTRIAL PLANT EQUATIONS)
(Page 1 of 3)
Description
This equation calculates the COPC concentration in plants, resulting from direct uptake of COPCs from soil through plant roots.
The limitations and uncertainty associated with calculating this value include the following:
(1) The availability of site-specific information, such as meteorological data, may affect the accuracy of Cs estimates.
(2) Estimated COPC-specific soil-to-plant bioconcentration factors (BCFr) may not reflect site-specific conditions.
Equation
Pr = Cs • BCF^ • 0.12
For mercury modeling:
0.12
Cs
(MHg)
Plant concentration due to root uptake is calculated using the respective Cs andBCFr values for divalent mercury (Hg2+) and methyl mercury (MHg).
Variable
Description
Units
Value
Pr
Plant concentration due to root
uptake
mg/kg WW
Cs
COPC concentration in soil
mg/kg
Varies (calculated - Table B-l-1)
This value is COPC-and site-specific and should be calculated using the equation in Table B-l-1. Uncertainties
associated with this variable are site-specific.
B-130
-------
TABLE B-3-3
PLANT CONCENTRATION DUE TO ROOT UPTAKE
(TERRESTRIAL PLANT EQUATIONS)
(Page 2 of 3)
Variable
Description
Units
Value
0.12 Dry weight to wet weight
conversion factor
unitless
0.12
U.S. EPA OSW recommends using the value of 0.12. This default value is based on the average rounded value
from the range of 80 to 95 percent water content in herbaceous plants and nonwoody plant parts (Taiz et al. 1991).
The following uncertainty is associated with this variable:
(1) The plant species considered in determining the default value may be different from plant varieties actually
present at a site.
BCFr
Plant-soil biotransfer factor
unitless
[(mg/kg plant
DW)/(mg/
kg soil)]
Varies (see Appendix C)
This variable is COPC-specific. Discussion of this variable and COPC-specific values are presented in
Appendix C.
Uncertainties associated with this variable include the following:
(1) Estimates ofBCFr for some inorganic COPCs, based on plant uptake response slope factors, may be more
accurate than those based on BCF values from Baes, Sharp, Sjoreen, and Shor (1984).
(2) U.S. EPA OSW recommends that uptake of organic COPCs from soil and transport of the COPCs to the
aboveground portions of the plant be calculated on the basis of a regression equation developed in a study of
the uptake of 29 organic compounds. This regression equation, developed by Travis and Arms (1988), may
not accurately represent the behavior of all organic COPCs under site-specific conditions.
B-131
-------
TABLE B-3-3
PLANT CONCENTRATION DUE TO ROOT UPTAKE
(TERRESTRIAL PLANT EQUATIONS)
(Page 3 of 3)
REFERENCES AND DISCUSSION
Baes, C.F., R.D. Sharp, A.L. Sjoreen, and R.W. Shor. \984.Review and Analysis of Parameters and Assessing Transport of Environmentally Released Radionuclides through Agriculture.
ORNL-5786. Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Oak Ridge, Tennessee. September.
Taiz, L., andE. Geiger. 1991. Plant Physiology. Benjamin/Cammius Publishing Co. Redwood City, California. 559pp.
Travis, C.C. andA.D. Arms. 1988. "Bioconcentration of Organics in Beef, Milk, and Vegetation." Environmental Science and Technology . 22:271 to 274.
Based on paired soil and plant concentration data for 29 organic compounds, this document developed a regression equation relating soil-to-plant BCF to Kow,
\ogBCFr = 1.588 - 0.578
U.S. EPA. 1995. Review Draft Development of Human Health-Based and Ecologically-Based Exit Criteria for the Hazardous Waste Identification Project . Volumes I and II. Office of Solid
Waste. March 3.
This document recommended using the BCFs, Bv andBr, from Baes, Sharp, Sjoreen, and Shor (1984), for calculating the uptake of inorganics into vegetative growth (stems and leaves) and
nonvegetative growth (fruits, seeds, and tubers), respectively.
Although most BCFs used in this document come from Baes, Sharp, Sjoreen, and Shor (1984), values for some inorganics were apparently obtained from plant uptake response slope factors.
These uptake response slope factors were calculated from field data, such as metal methodologies, and references used to calculate the uptake response slope factors are not clearly
identified.
B-132
-------
APPENDIX C
MEDIA-TO-RECEPTOR BIOCONCENTRATION FACTORS (BCFs)
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
August 1999
-------
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Appendix C: Media-To-Receptor BCF Values August 1999
APPENDIX C
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
C-1.0 GENERAL GUIDANCE C-l
C-l.l SOIL-TO-SOIL INVERTEBRATE BIOCONCENTRATION FACTORS C-2
C-1.2 SOIL-TO-PLANT AND SEDIMENT-TO-PLANT BIOCONCENTRATION
FACTORS C-2
C-l.3 WATER-TO-AQUATIC INVERTEBRATE BIOCONCENTRATION FACTORS C-3
C-l.4. WATER-TO-ALGAE BIOCONCENTRATION FACTORS C-4
C-l.5 WATER-TO-FISH BIOCONCENTRATION FACTORS C-4
C-l.6 SEDIMENT-TO-BENTHIC INVERTEBRATE BIOCONCENTRATION FACTORS C-5
C-1.7 AIR-TO-PLANT BIOTRANSFER FACTORS C-5
REFERENCES: APPENDIX C TEXT C-9
TABLES OF MEDIA-TO-RECEPTOR BCF VALUES C-13
REFERENCES: MEDIA-TO-RECEPTOR BCF VALUES C-99
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering C-i
-------
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Appendix C: Media-To-Receptor BCF Values August 1999
APPENDIX C
MEDIA-TO-RECEPTOR BCFs
Appendix C provides recommended guidance for determining values for media-to-receptor bioconcentration
factors (BCFs) based on values reported in the scientific literature, or estimated using physical and
chemical properties of the compound. Guidance on use of BCF values in the screening level ecological risk
assessment is provided in Chapter 5.
Section C-1.0 provides the general guidance recommended to select or estimate BCF values.
Sections C-l.l through C-1.7 further discuss determination of BCFs for specific media and receptors.
References cited in Sections C-l.l through C-1.7 are located following Section C-1.7.
For the compounds commonly identified in risk assessments for combustion facilities (identified in Chapter
2), BCF values have been determined following the guidance in Sections C-l.l through C-1.7. BCF values
for these limited number of compounds are included in this appendix in Tables C-l through C-7 to
facilitate the completion of screening ecological risk assessments. However, it is expected that additional
compounds may require evaluation on a site specific basis, and in such cases, BCF values for these
additional compounds could be determined following the same guidance (Sections C-l.l through C-1.7)
used in determination of the BCF values reported in this appendix. For reproducibility and to facilitate
comparison of new data and values as they become available, all data reviewed in the selection of the BCF
values provided at the end of this appendix are also included in Tables C-l through C-7. References cited
in Tables C-l through C-7 (Media-to-Receptor BCF Values) are located following Table C-7.
For additional discussion on some of the references and equations cited in Sections C-l.l through C-1.7,
the reader is recommended to review the Human Health Risk Assessment Protocol (HHRAP) (U.S. EPA
1998) (see Appendix A-3), and the source documents cited in the reference section of this appendix.
C-1.0 GENERAL GUIDANCE
This section summarizes the recommended general guidance for determining compound-specific BCF
values (media-to-receptors) provided in Tables C-l through C-7. As a preference, BCF values were
selected from empirical field and/or laboratory data generated from reviewed studies that are published in
the scientific literature. Information used from these studies included calculated BCF values, as well as,
collocated media and organism concentration data from which BCF values could be calculated. If two or
more BCF values, or two or more sets of collocated data, were available in the published scientific
literature, the geometric mean of the values was used.
Field-derived BCF values were considered more indicative of the level of bioconcentration occurring in the
natural environment than laboratory-derived values. Therefore, when available and appropriate,
field-derived BCF values were given priority over laboratory-derived values. In some cases, confidence in
the methods used to determine or report field-derived BCF values was less than for the laboratory-derived
values. In those cases, the laboratory-derived values were used for the recommended BCF values.
When neither field or laboratory data were available for a specific compound, data from a potential
surrogate compound were evaluated. The appropriateness of the surrogate was determined by comparing
the structures of the two compounds. Where an appropriate surrogate was not identified, a regression
equation based on the compound's log Kow value was used to calculate the recommended BCF value.
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering C-l
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Appendix C: Media-To-Receptor BCF Values August 1999
With the exception of the air-to-plant biotransfer factors (Bv), recommended BCF values provided in the
tables at the end of this appendix are based on wet tissue weight and dry media weight (except for water).
As necessary, reported values were converted to these units using the referenced tissue or media wet weight
percentages. The conversion factors, equations, and references for these conversions are discussed in
Sections C-l.l through C-1.7 where appropriate, and are presented at the end of each table (Tables C-l
through C-7).
C-l.l SOIL-TO-SOIL INVERTEBRATE BIOCONCENTRATION FACTORS
Soil-to-soil invertebrate BCF values (see Table C-l) were developed mainly from data for earthworms.
Measured experimental results were primarily in the form of ratios of compound concentrations in a
earthworm and the compound concentrations in the soil in which the earthworm was exposed. As
necessary, values were converted to wet tissue and dry media weight assuming a moisture content (by
mass) of 83.3 percent for earthworms and 20 percent for soil (Pietz et al. 1984).
Organics For organic compounds with no field or laboratory data available, recommended BCF values
were estimated using the following regression equation:
log BCF = 0.819 logKov - 1.146 Equation C-l-1
• Southworth, G.R., J.J. Beauchamp, and P.K. Schmieder. 1978. "Bioaccumulation
Potential of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons in Daphnia Pulex. " Water Research.
Volume 12. Pages 973-977.
Inorganics For inorganic compounds with no field or laboratory data available, the recommended BCF
value is equal to the arithmetic average of the available BCF values for other inorganics as specified in
Table C-l.
C-1.2 SOIL-TO-PLANT AND SEDIMENT-TO-PLANT BIOCONCENTRATION FACTORS
Soil-to-plant BCF values (see Table C-2) account for plant uptake of compounds from soil. Data for a
variety of plants and food crops were used to determine recommended BCF values.
Organics For all organics (including PCDDs and PCDFs) with no available field or laboratory data, the
following regression equation was used to calculate recommended values:
log BCF = 1.588- 0.578 log Kow Equation C-l-2
• Travis, C.C. and A.D. Arms. 1988. "Bioconcentration of Organics in Beef, Milk, and
Vegetation." Environmental Science and Technology. 22:271-274.
Inorganics For most metals, BCF values were based on empirical data reported in the following:
Baes, C.F., R.D. Sharp, A.L. Sjoreen, and R.W. Shor. 1984. "Review and Analysis of
Parameters and Assessing Transport of Environmentally Released Radionuclides Through
Agriculture." Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee.
The scientific literature also was searched to identify studies. Although U.S. EPA (1995a) provides values
for certain metals calculated on the basis of plant uptake response slope factors, it is unclear how the BCF
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering C-2
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Appendix C: Media-To-Receptor BCF Values August 1999
values were calculated or which sources or references were used. Therefore, values reported in
U.S. EPA (1995a) were not used.
C-1.3 WATER-TO-AQUATIC INVERTEBRATE BIOCONCENTRATION FACTORS
Experimental data for crustaceans, aquatic insects, bivalves, and other aquatic invertebrates were used to
determine recommended BCF values for water-to-aquatic invertebrate (see Table C-3). Both marine and
freshwater exposures were reviewed. As necessary, available results were converted to wet tissue weight
assuming that invertebrate moisture content (by mass) is 83.3 percent (Pietz et al. 1984).
Organics Reported field values for organic compounds were assumed to be total compound concentrations
in water and, therefore, were converted to dissolved compound concentrations in water using the following
equation from U.S. EPA (1995b):
BCF (dissolved) = (BCF (total) / ffd) - 1 Equation C-1 -3
where
BCF (dissolved) = BCF based on dissolved concentration of compound in
water
BCF (total) = BCF based on the field derived data for total
concentration of compound in water
ffd = Fraction of compound that is freely dissolved in the water
and,
ffd = l/[l + ((DOCxKow)/10) + (POCxKow)]
DOC = Dissolved organic carbon, kilograms of organic carbon/
liter of water (2.0 x lO'06 Kg/L)
Km = Octanol-water partition coefficient of the compound, as
reported in U.S. EPA (1994a)
POC = Particulate organic carbon, kilograms of organic carbon /
liter of water (7.5 x lO'09 Kg/L)
Laboratory data were assumed to be based on dissolved compound concentrations.
For organic compounds with no field or laboratory data available, BCF values were determined from
surrogate compounds or calculated using the following regression equation:
log BCF = 0.819 x log Kow - 1.146 Equation C-l-4
• Southworth, G.R., J.J. Beauchamp, and P.K. Schmieder. 1978. "Bioaccumulation
Potential of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons in Daphnia Pulex. " Water Research.
Volume 12. Pages 973-977.
Inorganics For inorganic compounds with no field or laboratory data available, the recommended BCF
values were estimated as the arithmetic average of the available BCF values for other inorganics, as
specified in Table C-3.
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering C-3
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Appendix C: Media-To-Receptor BCF Values August 1999
C-1.4 WATER-TO-ALGAE BIOCONCENTRATION FACTORS
Experimental data for both marine and freshwater algal species were reviewed. As necessary, available
results were converted to wet tissue weight assuming that algae moisture content (by mass) is 65.7 percent
(Isensee et al. 1973).
Organics For organic compounds with no field or laboratory data available, BCF values were calculated
using the following regression equation:
log BCF = 0.819 x log Kow - 1.146 Equation C-l-5
• Southworth, G.R., J.J. Beauchamp, and P.K. Schmieder. 1978. "Bioaccumulation
Potential of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons in Daphnia Pulex. " Water Research.
Volume 12. Pages 973-977.
Inorganics For inorganics, available field or laboratory data were evaluated for each compound.
C-1.5 WATER-TO-FISH BIOCONCENTRATION FACTORS
Experimental data for a variety of marine and freshwater fish were used to determine recommended BCF
values (see Table C-5). As necessary, values were converted to wet tissue weight assuming that fish
moisture content (by mass) is 80.0 percent (Holcomb et al. 1976).
For both organic and inorganic compounds, reported field values were considered bioaccumulation factors
(BAFs) based on contributions of compounds from food sources as well as media. Therefore, field values
were converted to BCFs based on the trophic level of the test organism using the following equation:
BCF = (BAFTLn I FCMTLn) - 1 Equation C-1 -6
where
BAFTLn = The reported field bioaccumulation factor for the trophic level "n"
of the study species.
FCMTLn = The food chain multiplier for the trophic level "n" of the study
species.
Organics Reported field values for organic compounds were assumed to be total compound concentrations
in water and, therefore, were converted to dissolved compound concentrations in water using the following
equation from U.S. EPA (1995b):
BAF (dissolved) = (BAF (total) / ffd) - 1 Equation C-1 -7
where
BAF (dissolved) = BAF based on dissolved concentration of compound in
water
BAF (total) = BAF based on the field derived data for total
concentration of compound in water
ffd = Fraction of compound that is freely dissolved in the water
and,
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering C-4
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Appendix C: Media-To-Receptor BCF Values August 1999
ffd = l/[l + ((DOCxKow)/10) + (POCxKow)]
DOC = Dissolved organic carbon, Kg of organic carbon / L of
water (2.0 x lO'06 Kg/L)
Kow = Octanol-water partition coefficient of the compound, as
reported in U.S. EPA (1994a)
POC = Participate organic carbon, Kg of organic carbon / L of
water (7.5 x lO'09 Kg/L)
Laboratory data were assumed to be based on dissolved compound concentrations.
For organics for which no field or laboratory data were available, the following regression equation was
used to calculate the recommended BCF values:
log BCF= 0.91 x log Kow -1.975 x log (6.8E-07 x Kow + 1.0) - 0.786 Equation C-l-8
• Bintein, S., J. Devillers, and W. Karcher. 1993. "Nonlinear Dependence of Fish
Bioconcentrations on n-Octanol/Water Partition Coefficients." SAR and QSAR in
Environmental Research. Vol.1. Pages 29-39.
Inorganics For inorganic compounds with no available field or laboratory data, the recommended BCF
values were estimated as the arithmetic average of the available BCF values reported for other inorganics.
C-1.6 SEDIMENT-TO-BENTHIC INVERTEBRATE BIOCONCENTRATION FACTORS
Experimental data for a variety of benthic infauna, worms, insects, and other invertebrates were used to
determine the recommended BCF values for sediment-to-benthic invertebrate (see Table C-6). As
necessary, values were converted to wet tissue weight assuming that benthic invertebrate moisture content
(by mass) is 83.3 percent (Pietz et al. 1984).
Organics For organic compound (including PCDDs and PCDFs) with no available field or laboratory
data, the recommended BCF values were determined using the following regression equation:
log BCF = 0.819 x log Kow - 1.146 Equation C-l-9
• Southworth, G.R., J.J. Beauchamp, and P.K. Schmieder. 1978. "Bioaccumulation
Potential of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons in Daphnia Pulex. " Water Research.
Volume 12. Pages 973-977.
Inorganics For inorganic compound with no available field or laboratory data, the recommended BCF
values were estimated as the arithmetic average of the available BCF values for other inorganics.
C-1.7 AIR-TO-PLANT BIOCONCENTRATION FACTORS
The air-to-plant bioconcentration (Bv) factor (see Table C-7) is defined as the ratio of compound
concentrations in exposed aboveground plant parts to the compound concentration in air. Bv values in
Table C-7 are reported on dry-weight basis since the plant concentration equations (see Chapter 3) already
include a dry-weight to wet-weight conversion factor.
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering C-5
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Appendix C: Media-To-Receptor BCF Values August 1999
Organics For organics (excluding PCDDs and PCDFs), the air-to-plant bioconcentration factor was
calculated using regression equations derived for azalea leaves in the following documents:
Bacci E., D. Calamari, C. Gaggi, and M. Vighi. 1990. "Bioconcentration of Organic
Chemical Vapors in Plant Leaves: Experimental Measurements and Correlation."
Environmental Science and Technology. Volume 24. Number 6. Pages 885-889.
Bacci E., M. Cerejeira, C. Gaggi, G. Chemello, D. Calamari, and M. Vighi. 1992.
"Chlorinated Dioxins: Volatilization from Soils and Bioconcentration in Plant Leaves."
Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. Volume 48. Pages 401-408.
Bacci et al. (1992) developed a regression equation using empirical data collected for the uptake of
1,2,3,4-TCDD in azalea leaves and data obtained from Bacci et al. (1990). The bioconcentration factor
obtained was included in a series of 14 different organic compounds to develop a correlation equation with
Kow and H (defined below). Bacci et al. (1992) derived the following equations:
log Bm} = 1.065 log Kow - log (—) - 1.654 (r = 0.957) Equation C-l-10
RT
Equation C-l-11
v Jyiater) ^for
age
where
Bvol = Volumetric air-to-plant biotransfer factor (fresh-weight basis)
Bv = Air-to-plant biotransfer factor (dry-weight basis)
pmr = 1.19g/L(Weast 1986)
pforage = 770 g/L (Macrady and Maggard 1993)
footer = 0.85 (fraction of forage that is water—Macrady and Maggard
[1993])
H = Henry's Law constant (atm-m3/mole)
R = Universal gas constant (atm-m3/mole °K)
T = Temperature (25°C, 298°K)
Equations C-l-10 and C-l-11 are used to calculate Bv values (see Table C-7) using the recommended
values offf and Kow provided in Appendix A at a temperature (7) of 25 °C or 298.1 K. The following
uncertainty should be noted with use of Bv values calculated using these equations:
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering C-6
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Appendix C: Media-To-Receptor BCF Values August 1999
• For organics (except PCDDs and PCDFs), U.S. EPA (1993) recommended that Bv values
be reduced by a factor of 10 before use. This was based on the work conducted by U.S.
EPA (1993) for U.S. EPA (1994b) as an interim correction factor. Welsch-Pausch,
McLachlan, and Umlauf (1995) conducted experiments to determine concentrations of
PCDDs and PCDFs in air and resulting biotransfer to welsh ray grass. This was
documented in the following:
Welsch-Pausch, K.M. McLachlan, and G. Umlauf. 1995. "Determination of the
Principal Pathways of Polychlorinated Dibenzo-p-dioxins and Dibenzofurans to
Lolium Multiflorum (Welsh Ray Grass)". Environmental Science and
Technology. 29: 1090-1098.
A follow-up study based on Welsch-Pausch, McLachlan, and Umlauf (1995) experiments
was conducted by Lorber (1995) (see discussion below for PCDDs and PCDFs). In a
following publication, Lorber (1997) concluded that the Bacci factor reduced by a factor
of 100 was close in line with observations made by him through various studies, including
the Welsch-Pausch, McLachlan, and Umlauf (1995) experiments. Therefore, this
guidance recommends that Bv values be calculated using the Bacci, Cerejeira, Gaggi,
Chemello, Calamari, and Vighi (1992) correlation equations and then reduced by a factor
of 100 for all organics, excluding PCDDs and PCDFs.
PCDDs and PCDFs For PCDDs and PCDFs, Bv values, on a dry weight basis, were obtained from the
following:
• Lorber, M., and P. Pinsky. 1999. "An Evaluation of Three Empirical Air-to-Leaf Models
for Polychlorinated Dibenzo-p-Dioxins and Dibenzofurans." National Center for
Environmental Assessment (NCEA). U. S. EPA, 401 M St. SW, Washington, DC.
Accepted for Publication in Chemosphere.
U.S. EPA (1993) stated that, for dioxin-like compounds, the use of the Bacci, Cerejeira, Gaggi, Chemello,
Calamari, and Vighi (1992) equations may overpredict Bv values by a factor of 40. This was because the
Bacci, Calamari, Gaggi, and Vighi (1990) and Bacci, Cerejeira, Gaggi, Chemello, Calamari, and Vighi
(1992) experiments did not take photodegradation effects into account. Therefore, Bv values calculated
using Equations C-10 and C-l 1 were recommended to be reduced by a factor of 40 for dioxin-like
compounds.
However, according to Lorber (1995), the Bacci algorithm divided by 40 may not be appropriate because
(1) the physical and chemical properties of dioxin congeners are generally outside the range of the 14
organic compounds used by Bacci, Calamari, Gaggi, and Vighi (1990), and (2) the factor of 40 derived
from one experiment on 2,3,7,8-TCDD may not apply to all dioxin congeners.
Welsch-Pausch, McLachlan, and Umlauf (1995) conducted experiments to obtain data on uptake of
PCDDs and PCDFs from air to Lolium Multiflorum (Welsh Ray grass). The data includes grass
concentrations and air concentrations for dioxin-congener groups, but not the invidual congeners. Lorber
(1995) used data from Welsch-Pausch, McLachlan, and Umlauf (1995) to develop an air-to-leaf transfer
factor for each dioxin-congener group. Bv values developed by Lorber (1995) were about an order of
magnitude less than values that would have been calculated using the Bacci, Calamari, Gaggi, and Vighi
(1990; 1992) correlation equations. Lorber (1995) speculated that this difference could be attributed to
several factors including experimental design, climate, and lipid content of plant species used.
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering C-7
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Appendix C: Media-To-Receptor BCF Values August 1999
Lorber (1999) conducted an evaluation of three empirical air-to-leaf models for estimating grass
concentraions of PCDDs and PCDFs from air concentrations of these compounds described and tested
against field data. Bv values recommended for PCDDs and PCDFs in this guidance were obtained from the
experimentally derived values of Lorber (1999).
Metals For metals, no literature sources were available for Bv values. U.S. EPA (1995a) quoted from the
following document, that metals were assumed not to experience air to leaf transfer:
Belcher, G.D., and C.C. Travis. 1989. "Modeling Support for the RURA and Municipal
Waste Combustion Projects: Final Report on Sensitivity and Uncertainty Analysis for the
Terrestrial Food Chain Model." Interagency Agreement No. 1824-A020-A1. Office of
Risk Analysis, Health and Safety Research Division. Oak Ridge National Laboratory.
Oak Ridge, Tennessee. October.
Consistent with the above references, Bv values for metals (excluding elemental mercury) were assumed to
be zero (see Table C-7).
Mercuric Compounds Mercury emissions are assumed to consist of both the elemental and divalent
forms. However, only small amounts of elemental mercury is assumed to be deposited (see Chapter 2).
Elemental mercury either dissipates into the global cycle or is converted to the divalent form. Methyl
mercury is assumed not to exist in the stack emissions or in the air phase. Consistent with various
discussions in Chapter 2 concerning mercury, (1) elemental mercury reaching or depositing onto the plant
surfaces is negligible, and (2) biotransfer of methyl mercury from air is zero. This is based on assumptions
made regarding speciation and fate and transport of mercury from stack emissions. Therefore, the Bv value
for (1) elemental mercury was assumed to be zero, and (2) methyl mercury was assumed not to be
applicable. Bv values for mercuric chloride (dry weight basis) were obtained from U.S. EPA (1997).
It should be noted that uptake of mercury from air into the aboveground plant tissue is primarily in the
divalent form. A part of the divalent form of mercury is assumed to be converted to the methyl mercury
form once in the plant tissue.
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering C-8
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Appendix C: Media-To-Receptor BCF Values August 1999
Bacci E., D. Calamari, C. Gaggi, and M. Vighi. 1990. "Bioconcentration of Organic Chemical Vapors
in Plant Leaves: Experimental Measurements and Correlation." Environmental Science and
Technology. Volume 24. Number 6. Pages 885-889.
Bacci E., M. Cerejeira, C. Gaggi, G. Chemello, D. Calamari, and M. Vighi. 1992. "Chlorinated Dioxins:
Volatilization from Soils and Bioconcentration in Plant Leaves." Bulletin of Environmental
Contamination and Toxicology. Volume 48. Pages 401-408.
Baes, C.F., R.D. Sharp, A.L. Sjoreen, and R.W. Shor. 1984. "Review and Analysis of Parameters and
Assessing Transport of Environmentally Released Radionuclides through Agriculture." Oak Ridge
National Laboratory. Oak Ridge, Tennessee.
Belcher, G.D., and C.C. Travis. 1989. "Modeling Support for the RURA and Municipal Waste
Combustion Projects: Final Report on Sensitivity and Uncertainty Analysis for the Terrestrial
Food Chain Model." Interagency Agreement No. 1824-A020-A1. Office of Risk Analysis, Health
and Safety Research Division. Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Oak Ridge, Tennessee. October.
Bintein, S., J. Devillers, and W. Karcher. 1993. "Nonlinear Dependence of Fish Bioconcentrations on n-
Octanol/Water Partition Coefficients." SAR and QSAR in Environmental Research. Vol. 1.
Pages 29-39.
Holcombe, G.W., D.A. Benoit, E.N. Leonard, and J.M. McKim. 1976. "Long-term Effects of Lead
Exposure on Three Generations of Brook Trout (Salveniusfontinalis).'" Journal, Fisheries
Research Board of Canada. Volume 33. Pages 1731-1741.
Isensee, A.R., P.C. Kearney, E.A. Woolson, G.E. Jones, and V.P. Williams. 1973. "Distribution of
Alkyl Arsenicals in Model Ecosystems." Environmental Science and Technology. Volume 7,
Number 9. Pages 841-845.
Lorber, M. 1995. "Development of an Air-to-plant Vapor Phase Transfer for Dioxins and Furans.
Presented at the 15th International Symposium on Chlorinated Dioxins and Related Compounds".
August 21-25, 1995 in Edmonton, Canada. Abstract in Organohalogen Compounds.
24:179-186.
Lorber, M., and P. Pinsky. 1999. "An Evaluation of Three Empirical Air-to-Leaf Models for
Poly chlorinated Dibenzo-p-Dioxins and Dibenzofurans." National Center for Environmental
Assessment (NCEA). U. S. EPA, 401 M St. SW, Washington, DC. Accepted for Publication in
Chemosphere.
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering C-9
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Appendix C: Media-To-Receptor BCF Values August 1999
McCrady, J.K., S.P. Maggard. 1993. "Uptake and Photodegradation of
2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin Sorbed to Grass Foliage." Environmental Science and
Technology. 27:343-350.
Pietz, R.I., J.R. Peterson, J.E. Prater, and D.R. Zenz. 1984. "Metal Concentrations in Earthworms From
Sewage Sludge-Amended Soils at a Strip Mine Reclamation Site." J. Environmental Qual.
Vol. 13, No. 4. Pp 651-654.
Southworth, G.R., J.J. Beauchamp, and P.K. Schmieder. 1978. "Bioaccumulation Potential of Polycyclic
Aromatic Hydrocarbons in Daphnia Pulex. " Water Research. Volume 12. Pages 973-977.
Travis, C.C., and A.D. Arms. 1988. "Bioconcentration of Organics in Beef, Milk, and Vegetation."
Environmental Science and Technology. 22:271-274.
U.S. EPA. 1993. Review Draft Addendum to the Methodology for Assessing Health Risks Associated
with Indirect Exposure to Combustor Emissions. Office of Health and Environmental
Assessment. Office of Research and Development. EPA-600-AP-93-003. November 10.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 1994a. Draft Report Chemical Properties for Soil
Screening Levels. Prepared for the Office of Emergency and Remedial Response. Washington,
D.C. July 26.
U.S. EPA. 1994b. Estimating Exposure to Dioxin-Like Compounds. Draft Report. Office of Research
and Development. Washington, D.C. EPA/600/6-88/005Ca,b,c. June.
U. S. EPA. 1995a. Review Draft Development of Human Health-Based and Ecologically-Based Exit
Criteria for the Hazardous Waste Identification Project. Volumes I and II. Office of Solid
Waste. March 3.
U.S. EPA. 1995b. Great Lakes Water Quality Initiative Technical Support Document for the Procedure
to Determine Bioaccumulation Factors. EPA-820-B-95-005. Office of Water, Washington, D.C.
March.
U.S. EPA. 1997. Mercury Study Report to Congress, Volumes I through VIII. Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards and ORD. EPA/452/R-97-001. December.
U.S. EPA. 1998. Human Health Risk Assessment Protocol for Hazardous Waste Combustion Facilitites.
External Peer Review Draft. U.S. EPA Region 6 and U.S. EPA OSW. Volumes 1-3.
EPA530-D-98-001A. July.
Veith, G.D., K.J. Macek, S.R. Petrocelli, and J. Carroll. 1980. "An Evaluation of Using Partition
Coefficients and Water Solubility to Estimate Bioconcentration Factors for Organic Chemicals in
Fish." Pages 116-129. In J. G. Eaton, P. R. Parrish, and A. C. Hendricks (eds.), Aquatic
Toxicology. ASTM STP 707. American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia.
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering C-10
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Appendix C: Media-To-Receptor BCF Values August 1999
Welsch-Pausch, K.M. McLachlan, and G. Umlauf. 1995. "Determination of the Principal Pathways of
Polychlorinated Dibenzo-p-dioxins and Dibenzofurans to Lolium Multiflorum (Welsh Ray Grass)".
Environmental Science and Technology. 29: 1090-1098.
Weast, R.C. 1986. Handbook oj'Chemistry and Physics. 66th Edition. Cleveland, Ohio. CRC Press.
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering C-l 1
-------
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Appendix C: Media-To-Receptor BCF Values August 1999
MEDIA-TO-RECEPTOR BCF VALUES
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
August 1999
C-l SOIL-TO-SOIL INVERTEBRATE BIOCONCENTRATION FACTORS C-15
C-2 SOIL-TO-PLANT AND SEDIMENT-TO- PLANT BIOCONCENTRATION
FACTORS C-29
C-3 WATER-TO-AQUATIC INVERTEBRATE BIOCONCENTRATION FACTORS ... C-36
C-4 WATER-TO-ALGAE BIOCONCENTRATION FACTORS C-54
C-5 WATER-TO-FISH BIOCONCENTRATION FACTORS C-66
C-6 SEDIMENT-TO-BENTHIC INVERTEBRATE BIOCONCENTRATION
FACTORS C-85
C-7 AIR-TO-PLANT BIOTRANSFER FACTORS C-96
REFERENCES C-99
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering C-l3
-------
-------
TABLE C-l
SOIL-TO-SOIL INVERTEBRATE BIOCONCENTRATION FACTORS
(mg COPC/kg wet tissue) / (mg COPC/kg dry soil)
(Page 1 of 14)
ISReported Values"
References
Experimental Parameters
Species
Dioxins and Furans
Compound:
2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
Recommended BCF Value: 1.59
The BCF was calculated using the geometric mean of 5 laboratory values for 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) as follows:
14.5
Martinucci, Crespi, Omodeo, Osella, and Traldi
(1983)
20-day exposure
Not specified
9.41
0.68
0.64
0.17
Reinecke and Nash (1984)
20-day exposure
Allolobaphora caliginosa
Lumbricus rubellus
Compound: 1,2,3,7,8-pentachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
Recommended Value: 1.46
The BCF was calculated using the TCDD BCF and a bioaccumulation equivalency factor (BEF) (U.S. EPA 1995b) as follows: BCF =1.59 x 0.92 =1.46
Compound: 1,2,3,4,7,8-hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
Recommended Value: 0.49
The BCF was calculated using the TCDD BCF and a bioaccumulation equivalency factor (BEF) (U.S. EPA 1995b) as follows: BCF =1.59 x 0.31 =0.49
Compound: 1,2,3,6,7,8-hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
Recommended Value: 0.19
The BCF was calculated using the TCDD BCF and a bioaccumulation equivalency factor (BEF) (U.S. EPA 1995b) as follows: BCF =1.59 x 0.12 = 0.19
Compound: 1,2,3,7,8,9-hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
Recommended Value: 0.22
The BCF was calculated using the TCDD BCF and a bioaccumulation equivalency factor (BEF) (U.S. EPA 1995b) as follows: BCF =1.59 x 0.14 = 0.22
Compound: 1,2,3,4,6,7,8,-heptachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
Recommended Value: 0.081
The BCF was calculated using the TCDD BCF and a bioaccumulation equivalency factor (BEF) (U.S. EPA 1995b) as follows: BCF =1.59 x 0.051 = 0.081
Compound: Octachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
Recommended Value: 0.019
The BCF was calculated using the TCDD BCF and a bioaccumulation equivalency factor (BEF) (U.S. EPA 1995b) as follows: BCF =1.59 x 0.012 = 0.019
Compound:
2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzofuran
Recommended BCF Value: 1.27
The BCF was calculated using the TCDD BCF and a bioaccumulation equivalency factor (BEF) (U.S. EPA 1995b) as follows: BCF =1.59 x 0.80 =1.27
Compound:
1,2,3,7,8-pentachlorodibenzofuran
Recommended BCF Value: 0.32
C-15
-------
TABLE C-l
SOIL-TO-SOIL INVERTEBRATE BIOCONCENTRATION FACTORS
(mg COPC/kg wet tissue) / (mg COPC/kg dry soil)
(Page 2 of 14)
16Reported Values3
The BCF was calculated using
References
the TCDD BCF and a bioaccumulation
equivalency
Experimental Parameters Species
factor (BEF)
Compound: 2,3,4,7,8-pentachlorodibenzofuran
The BCF was calculated using
Compound: 1,2,3,4,7,8-
The BCF was calculated using
Compound: 1,2,3,6,7,8-
The BCF was calculated using
Compound: 2,3,4,6,7,8-
The BCF was calculated using
Compound: 1,2,3,7,8,9-
The BCF was calculated using
Compound: 1,2,3,4,6,7,
The BCF was calculated using
Compound: 1,2,3,4,7,8,
The BCF was calculated using
the TCDD BCF and a bioaccumulation
hexachlorodibenzofuran
the TCDD BCF and a bioaccumulation
hexachlorodibenzofuran
the TCDD BCF and a bioaccumulation
hexachlorodibenzofuran
the TCDD BCF and a bioaccumulation
hexachlorodibenzofuran
the TCDD BCF and a bioaccumulation
8-heptachlorodibenzofuran
the TCDD BCF and a bioaccumulation
9-heptachlorodibenzofuran
the TCDD BCF and a bioaccumulation
equivalency
equivalency
equivalency
equivalency
equivalency
equivalency
equivalency
factor (BEF)
factor (BEF)
factor (BEF)
factor (BEF)
factor (BEF)
factor (BEF)
factor (BEF)
Compound: Octochlorodibenzofuran
The BCF was calculated using
the TCDD BCF and a bioaccumulation
equivalency
factor (BEF)
(U.S. EPA 1995b) as follows: BCF =1.59 x 0.22 = 0.32
Recommended BCF Value: 2.54
(U.S. EPA 1995b) as follows: BCF =1.59 x 1.6 =2.54
Recommended BCF Value: 0. 121
(U.S. EPA 1995b) as follows: BCF =1.59 x 0.076 = 0.121
Recommended BCF Value: 0.30
(U.S. EPA 1995b) as follows: BCF =1.59 x 0.19 = 0.30
Recommended BCF Value: 1 .07
(U.S. EPA 1995b) as follows: BCF =1.59 x 0.67 =1.07
Recommended BCF Value: 1 .00
(U.S. EPA 1995b) as follows: BCF =1.59 x 0.63 = 1.00
Recommended BCF Value: 0.017
(U.S. EPA 1995b) as follows: BCF =1.59 x 0.011 =0.017
Recommended BCF Value: 0.62
(U.S. EPA 1995b) as follows: BCF =1.59 x 0.39 = 0.62
Recommended BCF Value: 0.025
(U.S. EPA 1995b) as follows: BCF =1.59 x 0.016 = 0.025
Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs)
Compound: Benzo(a)pyrene
Recommended BCF Value: 0.07
The BCF was calculated using the geometric mean of 6 laboratory values for benzo(a)pyrene. The values reported in Rhett, Simmers, and Lee (1988) were converted to earthworm wet weight
over soil dry weight using a conversion factor of 5.99".
C-16
-------
TABLE C-l
SOIL-TO-SOIL INVERTEBRATE BIOCONCENTRATION FACTORS
(mg COPC/kg wet tissue) / (mg COPC/kg dry soil)
(Page 3 of 14)
17Reported Values3
0.12 0.14
0.05 0.04
0.06 0.06
References
Rhett, Simmers, and Lee (1988)
Experimental Parameters
28-day exposure
Species
Eisenia foetida
Compoound: Benzo(a)anthracene Recommended BCF Value: 0.03
The BCF was calculated using the geometric mean of 15 values for benzo(a)anthracene. The values reported in Marquenie, Simmers, and Kay (1987) were converted to wet weight over dry
weight using a conversion factor of 5.99 a .
0.07 0.02
0.08 0.02
0.05 0.07
0.07 0.003
0.07 0.05
0.02 0.01
0.01 0.01
0.09
Marquenie, Simmers, and Kay (1987)
32-day exposure
Eisenia foetida
Compound: Benzo(b)fluoranthene Recommended BCF Value: 0.07
The BCF was calculated using the geometric mean of 6 laboratory values for benzo(b)fluoranthene. The values reported in Rhett, Simmers, and Lee (1988) were converted to wet weight over
dry weight using a conversion factor of 5.99 a.
0.11 0.16
0.06 0.04
0.06 0.05
Rhett, Simmers, and Lee (1988)
28-day exposure
Eisenia foetida
Compound: Benzo(k)fluoranthene Recommended BCF Value: 0.08
The BCF was calculated using the geometric mean of 15 laboratory values for benzo(k)fluoranthene. The values reported in Marquenie, Simmers, and Kay (1987) were converted to wet
weight over dry weight using a conversion factor of 5.99".
0.13 0.15
0.12 0.11
0.07 0.24
0.12 0.02
0.10 0.03
0.07 0.03
0.06 0.04
Marquenie, Simmers, and Kay (1987)
32-day exposure
Eisenia foetida
C-17
-------
TABLE C-l
SOIL-TO-SOIL INVERTEBRATE BIOCONCENTRATION FACTORS
(mg COPC/kg wet tissue) / (mg COPC/kg dry soil)
(Page 4 of 14)
ISReported Values3
References
Experimental Parameters
Species
Compound: Chrysene Recommended BCF Value: 0.04
The BCF was calculated using the geometric mean of 15 laboratory values for chrysene. The values reported in Marquenie, Simmers, and Kay (1987) were converted to wet weight over dry
weight using a conversion factor of 5.99 a.
0.06 0.03
0.09 0.04
0.09 0.07
0.14 0.007
0.14 0.02
0.04 0.02
0.03 0.01
0.10
Marquenie, Simmers, and Kay (1987)
32-day exposure
Eisenia foetida
Compound: Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene Recommended BCF Value: 0.07
The BCF was calculated using the geometric mean of 15 laboratory values for Dibenz(a,h)anthrcene. The values reported in Marquenie, Simmers, and Kay (1987) were converted to wet weight
over dry weight using a conversion factor of 5.99 a.
0.18 0.13
0.10 0.06
0.06 0.07
0.04 0.10
0.12 0.05
0.07 0.04
0.04 0.05
0.05
Marquenie, Simmers, and Kay (1987)
32-day exposure
Eisenia foetida
Compound: Indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene Recommended BCF Value: 0.08
The BCF was calculated using the geometric mean of 6 laboratory values for indeno(l ,2,3-cd)pyrene. The values reported in Rhett, Simmers, and Lee (1988) were converted to wet weight over
dry weight using a conversion factor of 5.99a.
0.07 0.13
0.08 0.09
0.06 0.05
Rhett, Simmers, and Lee (1988)
28-day exposure
Eisenia foetida
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs)
Compound: Aroclor 1016 Recommended BCF Value: 1.13
C-18
-------
TABLE C-l
SOIL-TO-SOIL INVERTEBRATE BIOCONCENTRATION FACTORS
(mg COPC/kg wet tissue) / (mg COPC/kg dry soil)
(Page 5 of 14)
19Reported Values3
References
Experimental Parameters
Species
The BCF was calculated using the geometric mean of 7 laboratory values for a mixture of PCB congeners. The values reported in Rhett, Simmers, and Lee (1988) and Kreis, Edwards, Cuendet,
and Tarradellas ( 1 987) were converted to wet weight over dry weight using a conversion factor of 5 . 99 a.
1.43 0.81
0.75 1.07
1.17
1.92
1.16
Rhett, Simmers, and Lee (1988)
Kreis, Edwards, Cuendet, and Tarradellas (1987)
28-day exposure
Chronic exposure
Eisenia foetida
Nicodrilus sp.
Compound: Aroclor 1254 Recommended BCF Value: 1.13
The BCF was calculated using the geometric mean of 7 laboratory values for a mixture of PCB congeners. The values reported in Rhett, Simmers, and Lee (1988) and Kreis, Edwards, Cuendet,
and Tarradellas ( 1 987) were converted to wet weight over dry weight using a conversion factor of 5 . 99 a.
1.43 0.81
0.75 1.07
1.17
1.92
1.16
Rhett, Simmers, and Lee (1988)
Kreis, Edwards, Cuendet, and Tarradellas (1987)
28-day exposure
Chronic exposure
Eisenia foetida
Nicodrilus sp.
C-19
-------
TABLE C-l
SOIL-TO-SOIL INVERTEBRATE BIOCONCENTRATION FACTORS
(mg COPC/kg wet tissue) / (mg COPC/kg dry soil)
(Page 6 of 14)
20Reported Values3
References
Experimental Parameters
Species
Nitroaromatics
Compound: 1,3-Dinitrobenzene Recommended BCF Value: 1.19
No empirical data were available for 1,3-dinitrobenzene or for a structurally-similar surrogate compound. The BCF was calculated using the following regression equation:
log BCF = 0.819 x log K^, - 1.146 (Southworth, Beauchamp, and Schmieder 1978), where log K^ = 1.491 (U.S. EPA 1994b).
Compound: 2,4-Dinitrotoluene Recommended BCF Value: 3.08
No empirical data were available for 2,4-dinitrotoluene or for a structurally-similar surrogate compound. The BCF was calculated using the following regression equation:
log BCF = 0.819 x log K^, - 1.146 (Southworth, Beauchamp, and Schmieder 1978), where log K^ = 1.996 (U.S. EPA 1994b).
Compound: 2,6-Dinitrotoluene Recommended BCF Value: 2.50
No empirical data were available for 2,6-dinitrotoluene or for a structurally-similar surrogate compound. The BCF was calculated using the following regression equation:
log BCF = 0.819 x log K^, - 1.146 (Southworth, Beauchamp, and Schmieder 1978), where log K^ = 1.886 (U.S. EPA 1994b).
Compound: Nitrobenzene Recommended BCF Value: 2.26
No empirical data were available for nitrobenzene or for a structurally-similar surrogate compound. The BCF was calculated using the following regression equation:
log BCF = 0.819 x log K^, - 1.146 (Southworth, Beauchamp, and Schmieder 1978), where log K^ = 1.833 (U.S. EPA 1994b).
Compound: Pentachloronitrobenzene Recommended BCF Value: 451
No empirical data were available for pentachloronitrobenzene or for a structurally-similar surrogate compound. The BCF was calculated using the following regression equation:
log BCF = 0.819 x log K^, - 1.146 (Southworth, Beauchamp, and Schmieder 1978), where log K^ = 4.640 (U.S. EPA 1994b).
Phthalate Esters
Compound: Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate Recommended BCF Value: 1,309
No empirical data were available for bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate or for a structurally-similar surrogate compound. The BCF was calculated using the following regression equation:
log BCF = 0.819 x log K^, - 1.146 (Southworth, Beauchamp, and Schmieder 1978), where log K^ = 5.205 (U.S. EPA 1994b).
Compound: Di(n)octyl phthalate Recommended BCF Value: 3,128,023
No empirical data were available for di(n)octyl phthalate or for a structurally-similar surrogate compound. The BCF was calculated using the following regression equation:
log BCF = 0.819 x log K^, - 1.146 (Southworth, Beauchamp, and Schmieder 1978), where log K^ = 9.330 (U.S. EPA 1994b).
C-20
-------
TABLE C-l
SOIL-TO-SOIL INVERTEBRATE BIOCONCENTRATION FACTORS
(mg COPC/kg wet tissue) / (mg COPC/kg dry soil)
(Page 7 of 14)
21Reported Values3
References
Experimental Parameters
Species
Volatile Organic Compounds
Compound: Acetone Recommended BCF Value: 0.05
No empirical data were available for acetone or fora structurally-similar surrogate compound.The BCF was calculated using the following regression equation: log BCF = 0.819 xlog Kow-
1.146 (Southworth, Beauchamp, and Schmieder (1978), where log K^ = -0.222 (Karickoff and Long 1995).
Compound: Acrylonitrile Recommended BCF Value: 0.11
No empirical data were available for acrylonitrile or for a structurally-similar surrogate compound. The BCF was calculated using the following regression equation:
log BCF = 0.819 x log K^, - 1.146 (Southworth, Beauchamp, and Schmieder 1978), where log K^ = 0.250 (Karickoff and Long 1995).
Compound: Chloroform Recommended BCF Value: 2.82
No empirical data were available for chloroform or for a structurally-similar surrogate compound. The BCF was calculated using the following regression equation:
log BCF = 0.819 x log K^, - 1.146 (Southworth, Beauchamp, and Schmieder 1978), where log K^ = 1.949 (U.S. EPA 1994b).
Compound: Crotonaldehyde Recommended BCF Value: 0.20
No empirical data were available for crotonaldehyde or for a structurally-similar surrogate compound. The BCF was calculated using the following regression equation:
log BCF = 0.819 x log K^, - 1.146 (Southworth, Beauchamp, and Schmieder 1978), where log K^ = 0.55 (Based on equations developed by Hansch and Leo 1979, calculated in NRC (1981)).
Compound: 1,4-Dioxane Recommended BCF Value: 0.04
No empirical data were available for 1,4-dioxane or for a structurally-similar surrogate compound. The BCF was calculated using the following regression equation:
log BCF = 0.819 x log K^, - 1.146 (Southworth, Beauchamp, and Schmieder 1978), where log K^ = -0.268 (U.S. EPA 1995a).
Compound: Formaldehyde Recommended BCF Value: 0.14
No empirical data were available for formaldehyde or for a structurally-similar surrogate compound. The BCF was calculated using the following regression equation: log BCF = 0.819 x log
Kow - 1.146 (Southworth, Beauchamp, and Schmieder 1978), where log K^ = 0.342 (U.S. EPA 1995a).
Compound: Vinyl chloride Recommended BCF Value: 0.62
No empirical data were available for vinyl chloride or for a structurally-similar surrogate compound. The BCF was calculated using the following regression equation: log BCF = 0.819 x log
Kow - 1.146 (Southworth, Beauchamp, and Schmieder 1978), where log K^ = 1.146 (U.S. EPA 1994b).
C-21
-------
TABLE C-l
SOIL-TO-SOIL INVERTEBRATE BIOCONCENTRATION FACTORS
(mg COPC/kg wet tissue) / (mg COPC/kg dry soil)
(Page 8 of 14)
22Reported Values3
References
Experimental Parameters
Species
Other Chlorinated Organics
Compound: Carbon Tetrachloride Recommended BCF Value: 12.0
No empirical data were available for carbon tetrachloride or for a structurally-similar surrogate compound. The BCF was calculated using the following regression equation:
log BCF = 0.819 x log K^, - 1.146 (Southworth, Beauchamp, and Schmieder 1978), where log K^ = 2.717 (U.S. EPA 1994b).
Compound: Hexachlorobenzene Recommended BCF Value: 2,296
No empirical data were available for hexachlorobenzene or for a structurally-similar surrogate compound. The BCF was calculated using the following regression equation:
log BCF = 0.819 x log K^, - 1.146 (Southworth, Beauchamp, and Schmieder 1978), where log K^ = 5.503 (U.S. EPA 1994b).
Compound: Hexachlorobutadiene Recommended BCF Value: 535
No empirical data were available for hexachlorobutadiene or for a structurally-similar surrogate compound. The BCF was calculated using the following regression equation:
log BCF = 0.819 x log K^, - 1.146 (Southworth, Beauchamp, and Schmieder 1978) where log K^ = 4.731 (U.S. EPA 1994b).
Compound: Hexachlorocyclopentadiene Recommended BCF Value: 745
No empirical data were available for hexachlorocyclopentadiene or for a structurally-similar surrogate compound. The BCF was calculated using the following regression equation:
log BCF = 0.819 x log K^, - 1.146 (Southworth, Beauchamp, and Schmieder (1978), where log K^ = 4.907 (U.S. EPA 1994b).
Compound: Pentachlorobenzene Recommended BCF Value: 1,050
No empirical data were available for pentachlorobenzene or for a structurally-similar surrogate compound. The BCF was calculated using the following regression equation:
log BCF = 0.819 x log K^, - 1.146 (Southworth, Beauchamp, and Schmieder (1978), where log K^ = 5.088 (U.S. EPA 1994b).
Compound: Pentachlorophenol Recommended BCF Value: 1,034
No empirical data were available for pentachlorophenol or for a structurally-similar surrogate compound. The BCF was calculated using the following regression equation:
log BCF = 0.819 x log K^, - 1.146 (Southworth, Beauchamp, and Schmieder (1978), where log K^ = 5.080 (U.S. EPA 1994b).
Pesticides
Compound: 4,4'-DDE Recommended BCF Value: 1.26
Empirical data for 4,4'-DDE were not available. The BCF was calculated using the geometric mean of 13 laboratory values for 4,4'-DDT. The first six values reported in Gish (1970), Davis
(1971), and Beyer and Gish (1980) were converted to wet weight over dry weight using a conversion factor of 5.99a
0.08 0.39
0.29 0.41
Davis (1971)
Chronic exposure
Lumbricus terrestris
C-22
-------
TABLE C-l
SOIL-TO-SOIL INVERTEBRATE BIOCONCENTRATION FACTORS
(mg COPC/kg wet tissue) / (mg COPC/kg dry soil)
(Page 9 of 14)
23Reported Values3
0.83
0.85 1.20
2.40 4.60
2.50 1.60
10.00
14.46
References
Beyer and Gish (1980)
Wheatley and Hardman (1968)
Yadav, Mittad, Agarwal, and Pillai (1981)
Experimental Parameters
Chronic exposure
Chronic exposure
Chronic exposure
Species
Aporrectodea trapezoides
Aparrectodea turgida
Allolobophora chlorotica
Lumbricus terrestris
Not specified
Pheretima posthuma
Compound: Heptachlor Recommended BCF Value: 1 .40
Empirical data for heptachlor were not available. The BCF was calculated using 1 laboratory value for heptachlor epoxide. The value reported in Beyer and Gish (1980) was converted to wet
weight over dry weight using a conversion factor of 5.99a.
1.40
Beyer and Gish (1980)
Chronic exposure
Aporrectodea trapezoides
Aparrectodea turgida
Allolobophora chlorotica
Lumbricus terrestris
Compound: Hexachlorophene Recommended BCF Value: 106,970
No empirical data were available for hexachlorophene or for a structurally-similar surrogate compound. The BCF was calculated using the following regression equation:
log BCF = 0.819 x log K^, - 1.146 (Southworth, Beauchamp, and Schmieder (1978), where log K^ = 7.540 (Karickoff and Long 1995).
Inorganics
Compound: Aluminum Recommended BCF Value: 0.22
Empirical data for aluminum were not available. The recommended BCF is the arithmetic mean of the recommended values for those inorganics with empirical data available (arsenic,
cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, inorganic mercury, nickel, and zinc).
Compound: Antimony Recommended BCF Value: 0.22
Empirical data for antimony were not available. The recommended BCF is the arithmetic mean of the recommended values for those inorganics with empirical data available (arsenic,
cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, inorganic mercury, nickel, and zinc).
Compound: Arsenic Recommended BCF Value: 0.11
C-23
-------
TABLE C-l
SOIL-TO-SOIL INVERTEBRATE BIOCONCENTRATION FACTORS
(mg COPC/kg wet tissue) / (mg COPC/kg dry soil)
(Page 10 of 14)
24Reported Values3
References
Experimental Parameters
Species
The BCF was calculated using the geometric mean of 5 laboratory values for arsenic as listed below. The values reported in Rhett, Simmers, and Lee (1988) were converted to wet weight over
dry weight using a conversion factor of 5.99 a.
0.14 0.10
0.10 0.17
0.06
Rhett, Simmers, and Lee (1988)
28-day exposure
Eisenia foetida
Compound: Barium Recommended BCF Value: 0.22
Empirical data for barium were not available. The recommended BCF is the arithmetic mean of the recommended values for those inorganics with empirical data available (arsenic, cadmium,
chromium, copper, lead, inorganic mercury, nickel, and zinc).
Compound: Beryllium Recommended BCF Value: 0.22
Empirical data for beryllium were not available. The recommended BCF is the arithmetic mean of the recommended values for those inorganics with empirical data available (arsenic,
cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, inorganic mercury, nickel, and zinc).
Compound: Cadmium Recommended BCF Value: 0.96
The BCF was calculated using the geometric mean of 22 laboratory values for cadmium. The values reported in Rhett, Simmers, and Lee (1988) and Simmers, Rhett, and Lee (1983) were
converted to wet weight over dry weight using a conversion factor of 5.99a.
0.33 0.72
0.25 0.19
3.17 0.55
0.70 0.35
0.13 0.50
0.29 8.77
1.25 7.86
0.17 6.67
0.11 3.95
8.01 1.50
4.39 2.10
Rhett, Simmers, and Lee (1988)
Simmers, Rhett, and Lee (1983)
28-day exposure
Chronic exposure
Eisenia foetida
Allolobophora longa
A. caliginosa
A. rosea
A. chlorotica
Lumbricus terrestris
A. lumbricus
Octolasium sp.
Compound: Chromium (total) Recommended BCF Value: 0.01
The BCF was calculated using the geometric mean of 3 laboratory values for chromium. The values reported in Rhett, Simmers, and Lee (1988) were converted to wet weight over dry weight
using a conversion factor of 5.99a.
C-24
-------
TABLE C-l
SOIL-TO-SOIL INVERTEBRATE BIOCONCENTRATION FACTORS
(mg COPC/kg wet tissue) / (mg COPC/kg dry soil)
(Page 11 of 14)
25Reported Values3
0.004
0.004
0.05
References
Rhett, Simmers, and Lee (1988)
Experimental Parameters
28-day exposure
Species
Eisenia foetida
Compound: Copper Recommended BCF Value: 0.04
The BCF was calculated using the geometric mean of 9 laboratory values for copper. The values reported in Rhett, Simmers, and Lee (1988) were converted to wet weight over dry weight
using a conversion factor of 5.99a.
0.02 0.03
0.01 0.03
0.20 0.03
0.04 0.04
0.24
Rhett, Simmers, and Lee (1988)
Ma (1987)
28-day exposure
Chronic exposure
Eisenia foetida
Lumbricus rubellus
C-25
-------
TABLE C-l
SOIL-TO-SOIL INVERTEBRATE BIOCONCENTRATION FACTORS
(mg COPC/kg wet tissue) / (mg COPC/kg dry soil)
(Page 12 of 14)
26Reported Values3
References
Experimental Parameters
Species
Compound: Cyanide (total) Recommended BCF Value: 1.12
Empirical data for cyanide were not available. The recommended BCF is the arithmetic mean of the recommended values for those inorganics with empirical data available (arsenic, cadmium,
chromium, copper, lead, inorganic mercury, methyl mercury, nickel, and zinc).
Compound: Lead Recommended BCF Value: 0.03
The BCF was calculated using the geometric mean of 6 laboratory values for lead. The values reported in Rhett, Simmers, and Lee (1988), Ma (1987), and Van Hook (1974) were converted to
wet weight over dry weight using a conversion factor of 5.99a
0.02
0.006
0.07
0.19
0.12
0.03
Rhett, Simmers, and Lee (1988)
Ma (1987)
Ma (1982)
Van Hook (1974)
28-day exposure
Chronic exposure
Chronic exposure
Eisenia foetida
Not specified
Not specified
Alabophera sp.
Lumbricus sp.
Octolasium sp.
Compound: Mercuric chloride Recommended BCF Value: 0.04
The BCF was calculated using the geometric mean of 5 laboratory values for mercuric chloride. The values reported in Rhett, Simmers, and Lee (1988) were converted to wet weight over dry
weight using a conversion factor of 5.99a.
0.04 0.04
0.06 0.04
0.02
Rhett, Simmers, and Lee (1988)
28-day exposure; tissue concentrations of <0.05 were
reported for the first three ratios, however, a
concentration of 0.05 was used in order to calculate a
conservative BCF value.
Eisenia foetida
Compound: Methyl mercury Recommended BCF Value: 8.50
The BCF was calculated using the geometric mean of 3 laboratory values as presented below. The values reported in Beyer, Cromartie, and Moment (1985) were earthworm wet weight over
soil wet weight with 60 percent soil moisture. The soil weight was converted to dry weight to result in the values presented below:
8.25
8.31
8.95
Beyer, Cromartie, and Moment (1985)
6 to 12-week exposure
Eisenia foetida
C-26
-------
TABLE C-l
SOIL-TO-SOIL INVERTEBRATE BIOCONCENTRATION FACTORS
(mg COPC/kg wet tissue) / (mg COPC/kg dry soil)
(Page 13 of 14)
27Reported Values3 References Experimenta
Compound: Nickel
1 Parameters Species
Recommended BCF Value:
0.02
The BCF was calculated using the geometric mean of 3 laboratory values for nickel. The values reported in Rhett, Simmers, and Lee (1988) were converted to wet weight over dry weight using
a conversion factor of 5.99a.
0.03 Rhett, Simmers, and Lee 1988 28-day exposure
0.01
0.04
Compound: Selenium
Eisenia foetida
Recommended BCF Value:
0.22
Empirical data for selenium were not available. The recommended BCF is the arithmetic mean of the recommended values for those inorganics with empirical data available (arsenic,
cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, inorganic mercury, nickel, and zinc).
Compound: Silver
Recommended BCF Value:
0.22
Empirical data for silver were not available. The recommended BCF is the arithmetic mean of the recommended values for those inorganics with empirical data available (arsenic, cadmium,
chromium, copper, lead, inorganic mercury, nickel, and zinc).
Compound: Thallium
Recommended BCF Value:
0.22
Empirical data for thallium were not available. The recommended BCF is the arithmetic mean of the recommended values for those inorganics with empirical data available (arsenic, cadmium,
chromium, copper, lead, inorganic mercury, nickel, and zinc).
C-27
-------
TABLE C-l
SOIL-TO-SOIL INVERTEBRATE BIOCONCENTRATION FACTORS
(mg COPC/kg wet tissue) / (mg COPC/kg dry soil)
(Page 14 of 14)
28Reported Values3
References
Experimental Parameters
Species
Compound: Zinc Recommended BCF Value:
0.56
TheBCF was calculated using the geometric mean of 5 laboratory values for zinc. The values reported in Rhett, Simmers, and Lee (1988), Ma (1987), and Van Hook (1974) were converted to
wet weight over dry weight using a conversion factor of 5.99 a.
0.11
0.06
0.58
10.79
1.28
Rhett, Simmers, and Lee (1988)
Ma (1987)
Van Hook (1974)
28-day exposure
Chronic exposure
Chronic exposure
Eisenia foetida
Not specified
Alabophera sp.
Lumbricus sp.
Octolasium sp.
Notes:
(a) The reported values are presented as the amount of COPC in invertebrate tissue divided by the amount of COPC in the soil. If the values reported in the studies were
presented as dry tissue weight over dry soil weight, they were converted to wet weight over dry weight by dividing the concentration in dry earthworm tissue weight by 5.99.
This conversion factor assumes an earthworm's total weight is 83.3 percent moisture (Pietz et al. 1984).
The conversion factor was calculated as follows:
Conversion factor=
1.0 gram (g) earthworm total -weight
1.0 g earthworm total weight - 0.833 g earthworm wet weight
C-28
-------
TABLE C-2
SOIL-TO-PLANT AND SEDIMENT-TO- PLANT BIOCONCENTRATION FACTORS
(mg COPC/kg dry tissue) / (mg COPC/kg dry soil or sediment)
(Page 1 of 7)
Reported Values
References
Experimental Parameters
Species
Dioxins and Furans
Compound: 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (2,3,7,8-TCDD) Recommended BCF Value: 0.0056
The BCF for these constituents were calculated using the following regression equation: log BCF = 1.588 - 0.578 x log Kow (Travis and Arms 1988), where log Kow = 6.64 (U.S. EPA
1994a).
Compound: 1,2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD) Recommended BCF Value: 0.0052
The BCF was calculated using the TCDD BCF and a bioaccumulation equivalency factor (BEF) (U.S. EPA 1995b) as follows: BCF = 0.0056 x 0.92 =0.0052
Compound: 1,2,3,4,7,8-Hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD) Recommended BCF Value: 0.0017
The BCF was calculated using the TCDD BCF and a bioaccumulation equivalency factor (BEF) (U.S. EPA 1995b) as follows: BCF = 0.0056 xO.31 = 0.0017
Compound: 1,2,3,6,7,8-Hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD) Recommended BCF Value: 0.00067
The BCF was calculated using the TCDD BCF and a bioaccumulation equivalency factor (BEF) (U.S. EPA 1995b) as follows: BCF = 0.0056 xO. 12 = 0.00067
Compound: 1,2,3,7,8,9-Hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD) Recommended BCF Value: 0.00078
The BCF was calculated using the TCDD BCF and a bioaccumulation equivalency factor (BEF) (U.S. EPA 1995b) as follows: BCF = 0.0056 x 0.14 = 0.00078
Compound: 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-Heptachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD) Recommended BCF Value: 0.00029
The BCF was calculated using the TCDD BCF and a bioaccumulation equivalency factor (BEF) (U.S. EPA 1995b) as follows: BCF = 0.0056 xO.051 = 0.00029
Compound: Octachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (OCDD) Recommended BCF Value: 0.000067
The BCF was calculated using the TCDD BCF and a bioaccumulation equivalency factor (BEF) (U.S. EPA 1995b) as follows: BCF = 0.0056 x 0.012 = 0.000067
Compound: 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-furan (2,3,7,8-TCDF) Recommended BCF Value: 0.0045
The BCF was calculated using the TCDD BCF and a bioaccumulation equivalency factor (BEF) (U.S. EPA 1995b) as follows: BCF = 0.0056 xO.80 = 0.0045
Compound: 1,2,3,7,8-Pentachlorodibenzo-p-furan (1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF) Recommended BCF Value: 0.0011
The BCF was calculated using the TCDD BCF and a bioaccumulation equivalency factor (BEF) (U.S. EPA 1995b) as follows: BCF = 0.0056 xO.22 = 0.0011
Compound: 2,3,4,7,8-Pentachlorodibenzo-p-furan (2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF) Recommended BCF Value: 0.0090
The BCF was calculated using the TCDD BCF and a bioaccumulation equivalency factor (BEF) (U.S. EPA 1995b) as follows: BCF = 0.0056 xl .6 = 0.0090
C-29
-------
TABLE C-2
SOIL-TO-PLANT AND SEDIMENT-TO- PLANT BIOCONCENTRATION FACTORS
(mg COPC/kg dry tissue) / (mg COPC/kg dry soil or sediment)
(Page 2 of 7)
Reported Values References Experimental Parameters Species
Compound: 1,2,3,4,7,8-Hexachlorodibenzo-p-furan (1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF) Recommended BCF Value: 0.00043
The BCF was calculated using the TCDD BCF and a bioaccumulation equivalency factor (BEF) (U.S. EPA 1995b) as follows: BCF = 0.0056 x 0.076 = 0.00043
Compound: 1,2,3,6,7,8-Hexachlorodibenzo-p-furan (1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF) Recommended BCF Value: 0.0011
The BCF was calculated using the TCDD BCF and a bioaccumulation equivalency factor (BEF) (U.S. EPA 1995b) as follows: BCF = 0.0056 xO.19 = 0.0011
Compound: 2,3,4,6,7,8-Hexachlorodibenzo-p-furan (2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF) Recommended BCF Value: 0.0038
The BCF was calculated using the TCDD BCF and a bioaccumulation equivalency factor (BEF) (U.S. EPA 1995b) as follows: BCF = 0.0056 xO.67 = 0.0038
Compound: 1,2,3,7,8,9-Hexachlorodibenzo-p-furan (1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF) Recommended BCF Value: 0.0035
The BCF was calculated using the TCDD BCF and a bioaccumulation equivalency factor (BEF) (U.S. EPA 1995b) as follows: BCF = 0.0056 xO.63 = 0.0035
Compound: 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-Heptachlorodibenzo-p-furan (1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF) Recommended BCF Value: 0.000062
The BCF was calculated using the TCDD BCF and a bioaccumulation equivalency factor (BEF) (U.S. EPA 1995b) as follows: BCF =0.0056 xO.Ol 1 = 0.00062
Compound: 1,2,3,4,7,8,9-Heptachlorodibenzo-p-furan (1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF) Recommended BCF Value: 0.0022
The BCF was calculated using the TCDD BCF and a bioaccumulation equivalency factor (BEF) (U.S. EPA 1995b) as follows: BCF = 0.0056 xO.39 = 0.0022
Compound: Octachlorodibenzo-p-furan (OCDF) Recommended BCF Value: 0.000090
The BCF was calculated using the TCDD BCF and a bioaccumulation equivalency factor (BEF) (U.S. EPA 1995b) as follows: BCF = 0.0056 xO.016 = 0.000090
Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAH)
Compound: Benzo(a)pyrene Recommended BCF Value: 0.0
The BCF was calculated using the following regression equation: log BCF = 1.588 - 0.578 x log Kow (Travis and Arms 1988), where log Kow = 6.129 (U.S. EPA 1994b).
Compound: Benzo(a)anthracene Recommended BCF Value: 0.0202
The BCF was calculated using the following regression equation: log BCF = 1.588 - 0.578 x log Kow (Travis and Arms 1988), where log Kow = 5.679 (U.S. EPA 1994b).
Compound Benzo(b)fluoranthene Recommended BCF Value: 0.0101
The BCF was calculated using the following regression equation: log BCF = 1.588 - 0.578 x log Kow (Travis and Arms 1988), where log Kow = 6.202 (U.S. EPA 1994b).
Compound: Benzo(k)fluoranthene Recommended BCF Value: 0.0101
C-30
-------
TABLE C-2
SOIL-TO-PLANT AND SEDIMENT-TO- PLANT BIOCONCENTRATION FACTORS
(mg COPC/kg dry tissue) / (mg COPC/kg dry soil or sediment)
(Page 3 of 7)
Reported Values
References
Experimental Parameters
Species
The BCF was calculated using the following regression equation: log BCF = 1.588 - 0.578 x log Kow (Travis and Arms 1988), where log Kow = 6.2 (Karickhoff and Long 1995).
Compound: Chrysene Recommended BCF Value: 0.0187
The BCF was calculated using the following regression equation: log BCF = 1.588 - 0.578 x log Kow (Travis and Arms 1988), where log Kow = 5.739 (U.S. EPA 1994b).
Compound: Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene Recommended BCF Value: 0.0064
The BCF was calculated using the following regression equation: log BCF = 1.588 - 0.578 x log Kow (Travis and Arms 1988), where log Kow = 6.547 (U.S. EPA 1994b).
Compound: Indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene Recommended BCF Value: 0.0039
The BCF was calculated using the following regression equation: log BCF = 1.588 - 0.578 x log Kow (Travis and Arms 1988), where log Kow = 6.915 (U.S. EPA 1994b).
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs)
Compound: Aroclor 1016 Recommended BCF Value: 0.01
The BCF was calculated using the following regression equation: log BCF = 1.588 - 0.578 x log Kow (Travis and Arms 1988); using the log Kow for Aroclor 1254, where log Kow= 6.207
(U.S. EPA 1994b).
Compound: Aroclor 1254 Recommended BCF Value: 0.01
The BCF was calculated using the following regression equation: log BCF = 1.588 - 0.578 x log Kow (Travis and Arms 1988); using the log Kow for Aroclor 1254, where log Kow= 6.207
(U.S. EPA 1994b).
Nitroaromatics
Compound: 1,3-Dinitrobenzene Recommended BCF Value: 5.32
The BCF was calculated using the following regression equation: log BCF = 1.588 - 0.578 x log Kow (Travis and Arms 1988), where log Kow = 1.491 (U.S. EPA 1994b).
Compound: 2,4-Dinitrotoluene Recommended BCF Value: 2.72
The BCF was calculated using the following regression equation: log BCF = 1.588 - 0.578 x log Kow (Travis and Arms 1988), where log Kow =1.996 (U.S. EPA 1994b).
Compound 2,6-Dinitrotoluene Recommended BCF Value: 3.15
The BCF was calculated using the following regression equation: log BCF = 1.588 - 0.578 x log Kow (Travis and Arms 1988), where log Kow = 1.886 (U.S. EPA 1994b).
Compound: Nitrobenzene Recommended BCF Value: 3.38
C-31
-------
TABLE C-2
SOIL-TO-PLANT AND SEDIMENT-TO- PLANT BIOCONCENTRATION FACTORS
(mg COPC/kg dry tissue) / (mg COPC/kg dry soil or sediment)
(Page 4 of 7)
Reported Values References Experimental Parameters Species
The BCF was calculated using the following regression equation: log BCF = 1.588 - 0.578 x log Kow (Travis and Arms 1988), where log Kow = 1.833 (U.S. EPA 1994b).
Compound: Pentachloronitrobenzene Recommended BCF Value: 0.08
The BCF was calculated using the following regression equation: log BCF = 1.588 - 0.578 x log Kow (Travis and Arms 1988), where log Kow = 4.640 (U.S. EPA 1994b).
Phthalate Esters
Compound: Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate Recommended BCF Value: 0.038
The BCF was calculated using the following regression equation: log BCF = 1.588 - 0.578 x log Kow (Travis and Arms 1988), where log Kow = 5.205 (U.S. EPA 1994b).
Compound: Di(n)octyl phthalate Recommended BCF Value: 0.000157
The BCF was calculated using the following regression equation: log BCF = 1.588 - 0.578 x log Kow (Travis and Arms 1988), where log Kow = 9.33 (U.S. EPA 1994b).
Volatile organic compounds
Compound: Acetone Recommended BCF Value: 52
The BCF was calculated using the following regression equation: log BCF = 1.588 - 0.578 x log Kow (Travis and Arms 1988), where log Kow = -0.222 (U.S. EPA 1994c).
Compound: Acrylonitrile Recommended BCF Value: 27.77
The BCF was calculated using the following regression equation: log BCF = 1.588 - 0.578 x log Kow (Travis and Arms 1988), where log Kow = 0.250 (Karickhoff and Long 1995).
Compound: Chloroform Recommended BCF Value: 2.9
The BCF was calculated using the following regression equation: log BCF = 1.588 - 0.578 x log Kow (Travis and Arms 1988), where log Kow = 1.949 (U.S. EPA 1994b).
Compound: Crotonaldehyde Recommended BCF Value: 18.63
The BCF was calculated using the following regression equation: log BCF = 1.588 - 0.578 x log Kow (Travis and Arms 1988), where log Kow = 0.55 (Hansch and Leo 1979).
Compound: 1,4-Dioxane Recommended BCF Value: 55.32
The BCF was calculated using the following regression equation: log BCF = 1.588 - 0.578 x log Kow (Travis and Arms 1988), where log Kow = -0.268 (U.S. EPA 1995c).
Compound: Formaldehyde Recommended BCF Value: 24.57
The BCF was calculated using the following regression equation: log BCF = 1.588 - 0.578 x log Kow (Travis and Arms 1988), where log Kow = 0.342 (U.S. EPA (1995c).
Compound: Vinyl chloride Recommended BCF Value: 8.43
C-32
-------
TABLE C-2
SOIL-TO-PLANT AND SEDIMENT-TO- PLANT BIOCONCENTRATION FACTORS
(mg COPC/kg dry tissue) / (mg COPC/kg dry soil or sediment)
(Page 5 of 7)
Reported Values
References
Experimental Parameters
Species
The BCF was calculated using the following regression equation: log BCF = 1.588 - 0.578 x log Kow (Travis and Arms 1988). where log Kow =1.146 (U.S. EPA 1994b).
Other Chlorinated Organics
Compound: Carbon tetrachloride Recommended BCF Value: 1.04
The BCF was calculated using the following regression equation: log BCF = 1.588 - 0.578 x log Kow (Travis and Arms 1988), where log Kow = 2.717 (U.S. EPA 1994b).
Compound: Hexachlorobenzene Recommended BCF Value: 0.0255
The BCF was calculated using the following regression equation: log BCF = 1.588 - 0.578 x log Kow (Travis and Arms 1988), where log Kow = 5.503 (U.S. EPA 1994b).
Compound: Hexachlorobutadiene Recommended BCF Value: 0.0714
The BCF was calculated using the following regression equation: log BCF = 1.588 - 0.578 x log Kow (Travis and Arms 1988), where log Kow = 4.731 (U.S. EPA 1994b).
Compound: Hexachlorocyclopentadiene Recommended BCF Value: 0.0565
The BCF was calculated using the following regression equation: log BCF = 1.588 - 0.578 x log Kow (Travis and Arms 1988), where log Kow = 4.907 (U.S. EPA 1994b).
Compound: Pentachlorobenzene Recommended BCF Value: 0.044
The BCF was calculated using the following regression equation: log BCF = 1.588 - 0.578 x log Kow (Travis and Arms 1988), where log Kow = 5.088 (U.S. EPA 1994b).
Compound: Pentachlorophenol Recommended BCF Value: 0.0449
The BCF was calculated using the following regression equation: log BCF = 1.588 - 0.578 x log Kow (Travis and Arms 1988), where log Kow = 5.08 (U.S. EPA 1994b).
Pesticides
Compound: 4,4-DDE Recommended BCF Value: 0.00937
The BCF for these constituents were calculated using the following regression equation: log BCF = 1.588 - 0.578 x log Kow (Travis and Arms 1988)., where log Kow = 6.256 (U.S. EPA
1994b).
Compound: Heptachlor Recommended BCF Value: 0.0489
The BCF for these constituents were calculated using the following regression equation: log BCF = 1.588 - 0.578 x log Kow (Travis and Arms 1988)., where log Kow = 5.015 (U.S. EPA
1994b).
Compound: Hexachlorophene Recommended BCF Value: 0.0017
C-33
-------
TABLE C-2
SOIL-TO-PLANT AND SEDIMENT-TO- PLANT BIOCONCENTRATION FACTORS
(mg COPC/kg dry tissue) / (mg COPC/kg dry soil or sediment)
(Page 6 of 7)
Reported Values References
Experimental Parameters Species
The BCF for these constituents were calculated using the following regression equation: log BCF = 1.588 - 0.578 x log Kow (Travis and Arms 1988)., where log Kow = 7.54 (Karickhoff and
Long 1995).
Inorganics
Compound: Aluminum
Recommended BCF Value: 0.004
The BCF for this constituent was based on empirical data reported in Baes, Sharp, Sjoreen and Shor (1984). Experimental parameters were not reported.
Compound: Antimony
Recommended BCF Value: 0.2
The BCF for this constituent was based on empirical data reported in Baes, Sharp, Sjoreen and Shor (1984). Experimental parameters were not reported.
Compound: Arsenic
Recommended BCF Value: 0.036
The BCF for this constituent was based on empirical data reported in U.S. EPA (1992c). Experimental parameters were not reported.
Compound Barium
Recommended BCF Value: 0.15
The BCF for this constituent was based on empirical data reported in Baes, Sharp, Sjoreen and Shor (1984). Experimental parameters were not reported.
Compound: Beryllium
Recommended BCF Value: 0.01
The BCF for this constituent was based on empirical data reported in Baes, Sharp, Sjoreen and Shor (1984). Experimental parameters were not reported.
Compound: Cadmium
Recommended BCF Value: 0.364
The BCF for this constituent was based on empirical data reported in U.S. EPA (1992c). Experimental parameters were not reported.
Compound: Chromium (total)
Recommended BCF Value: 0.0075
The BCF for this constituent was based on empirical data reported in Baes, Sharp, Sjoreen and Shor (1984). Experimental parameters were not reported.
Compound: Copper
Recommended BCF Value: 0.4
The BCF for this constituent was based on empirical data reported in Baes, Sharp, Sjoreen and Shor (1984). Experimental parameters were not reported.
Compound: Cyanide (total)
Recommended BCF Value: No data
No empirical or Kow data were available for this constituent.
Compound: Lead
Recommended BCF Value: 0.045
C-34
-------
TABLE C-2
SOIL-TO-PLANT AND SEDIMENT-TO- PLANT BIOCONCENTRATION FACTORS
(mg COPC/kg dry tissue) / (mg COPC/kg dry soil or sediment)
(Page 7 of 7)
Reported Values
References
The BCF for this constituent was based on empirical data reported in Baes, Sharp, Sjoreen
Compound: Mercuric chloride
The BCF was calculated using the geometric mean of 3 values for mercuric chloride (HgC
0.022
0.032
0.075
Compound: Methyl mercury
Cappon(1981)
Experimental Parameters
Species
and Shor (1984). Experimental parameters were not reported.
2).
The values were derived from studies during
one growing season using 20 food crop
vegetables.
Recommended BCF Value: 0.0375
Not specified.
Recommended BCF Value: 0.137
The BCF was calculated using the geometric mean of 3 values for methyl mercury.
0.062
0.149
0.277
Compound: Nickel
Cappon(1981)
The values were derived from studies during
one growing season using 20 food crop
vegetables.
Not specified.
Recommended BCF Value: 0.032
The BCF for this constituent was based on empirical data reported in U.S. EPA (1992c). Experimental parameters were not reported.
Compound: Selenium
Recommended BCF Value: 0.016
The BCF for this constituent was based on empirical data reported in U.S. EPA (1992c). Experimental parameters were not reported.
Compound: Silver
The BCF for this constituent was based on empirical data reported in Baes, Sharp, Sjoreen
Compound: Thallium
The BCF for this constituent was based on empirical data reported in Baes, Sharp, Sjoreen
Compound: Zinc
Recommended BCF Value: 0.4
and Shor (1984). Experimental parameters were not reported.
Recommended BCF Value: 0.004
and Shor (1984). Experimental parameters were not reported.
Recommended BCF Value: 0.0000000000012
The BCF for this constituent was based on empirical data reported in U.S. EPA (1992c). Experimental parameters were not reported.
C-35
-------
TABLE C-3
WATER-TO-AQUATIC INVERTEBRATE BIOCONCENTRATION FACTORS
(mg COPC / kg wet tissue) / (mg dissolved COPC / L water)
(Page 1 of 18)
Reported Values" Reference Experimental Parameters Species
Dioxins and Furans
Compound: 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo(p)dioxin (2,3,7,8-TCDD) Recommended BCF Value: 1,560
The BCF value was calculated using the geometric mean of 2 values from data reported for 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo(p)dioxin (2,3,7,8-TCDD).
1,762
1,381
Yockim, Isensee, and Jones (1978)
32-day exposure duration
Daphnid; Heliosoma sp.
Compound: l,2,3,7,8-Pentachlorodibenzo(p)dioxin(l,2,3,7,8-PeCDD) Recommended BCF Value: 1,435
The BCF was calculated using the TCDD BCF and a bioaccumulation equivalency factor (BEF) (U.S. EPA 1995b) as follows: BCF =1,560 x 0.92 =1,435
Compound: l,2,3,4,7,8-Hexachlorodibenzo(p)dioxin(l,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD) Recommended BCF Value: 483.6
The BCF was calculated using the TCDD BCF and a bioaccumulation equivalency factor (BEF) (U.S. EPA 1995b) as follows: BCF =1,560 x 0.31 =483.6
Compound: l,2,3,6,7,8-Hexachlorodibenzo(p)dioxin(l,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD) Recommended BCF Value: 187.2
The BCF was calculated using the TCDD BCF and a bioaccumulation equivalency factor (BEF) (U.S. EPA 1995b) as follows: BCF =1,560 x 0.12 =187.2
Compound: l,2,3,7,8,9-Hexachlorodibenzo(p)dioxin(l,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD) Recommended BCF Value: 218.4
The BCF was calculated using the TCDD BCF and a bioaccumulation equivalency factor (BEF) (U.S. EPA 1995b) as follows: BCF =1,560 x 0.14 = 218.4
Compound: l,2,3,4,6,7,8-Heptachlorodibenzo(p)dioxin (1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD) Recommended BCF Value: 79.6
The BCF was calculated using the TCDD BCF and a bioaccumulation equivalency factor (BEF) (U.S. EPA 1995b) as follows: BCF =1,560 x 0.051 = 79.6
Compound: Octachlorodibenzo(p)dioxin(OCDD) Recommended BCF Value: 18.7
The BCF was calculated using the TCDD BCF and a bioaccumulation equivalency factor (BEF) (U.S. EPA 1995b) as follows: BCF =1,560 x 0.012 = 18.7
Compound: 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzofuran (2,3,7,8-TCDF) Recommended BCF Value: 1248
The BCF was calculated using the TCDD BCF and a bioaccumulation equivalency factor (BEF) (U.S. EPA 1995b) as follows: BCF =1,560 x 0.80 = 124
Compound: l,2,3,7,8-Pentachlorodibenzofuran(l,2,3,7,8-PeCDF) Recommended BCF Value: 343.2
The BCF was calculated using the TCDD BCF and a bioaccumulation equivalency factor (BEF) (U.S. EPA 1995b) as follows: BCF =1,560 x 0.22 = 343.2
Compound: 2,3,4,7,8-Pentachlorodibenzofuran (2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF) Recommended BCF Value: 2,496
C-36
-------
TABLE C-3
WATER-TO-AQUATIC INVERTEBRATE BIOCONCENTRATION FACTORS
(mg COPC / kg wet tissue) / (mg dissolved COPC / L water)
(Page 2 of 18)
Reported Values"
Reference
Experimental Parameters
Species
The BCF was calculated using the TCDD BCF and a bioaccumulation equivalency factor (BEF) (U.S. EPA 1995b) as follows: BCF =1,560 x 1.6 = 2,496
Compound:
l,2,3,4,7,8-Hexachlorodibenzofuran(l,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF)
Recommended BCF Value: 118.6
The BCF was calculated using the TCDD BCF and a bioaccumulation equivalency factor (BEF) (U.S. EPA 1995b) as follows: BCF =1,560 x 0.076 = 118.6
Compound:
l,2,3,6,7,8-Hexachlorodibenzofuran(l,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF)
Recommended BCF Value: 296,4
The BCF was calculated using the TCDD BCF and a bioaccumulation equivalency factor (BEF) (U.S. EPA 1995b) as follows: BCF =1,560 x 0.19 = 296.4
Compound:
2,3,4,6,7,8-Hexachlorodibenzofuran(2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF)
Recommended BCF Value: 1,045
The BCF was calculated using the TCDD BCF and a bioaccumulation equivalency factor (BEF) (U.S. EPA 1995b) as follows: BCF =1,560 x 0.67 = 1,045
Compound:
l,2,3,7,8,9-Hexachlorodibenzofuran(l,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF)
Recommended BCF Value: 982.8
The BCF was calculated using the TCDD BCF and a bioaccumulation equivalency factor (BEF) (U.S. EPA 1995b) as follows: BCF =1,560 x 0.63 = 982.8
Compound:
l,2,3,4,6,7,8-Heptachlorodibenzofuran(l,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF)
Recommended BCF Value: 17.2
The BCF was calculated using the TCDD BCF and a bioaccumulation equivalency factor (BEF) (U.S. EPA 1995b) as follows: BCF =1,560 x 0.011 = 17.2
Compound:
l,2,3,4,7,8,9-Heptachlorodibenzofuran(l,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF)
Recommended BCF Value: 608.4
The BCF was calculated using the TCDD BCF and a bioaccumulation equivalency factor (BEF) (U.S. EPA 1995b) as follows: BCF =1,560 x 0.39 = 608.4
Compound:
Octachlorodibenzofuran (OCDF)
Recommended BCF Value: 25.0
The BCF was calculated using the TCDD BCF and a bioaccumulation equivalency factor (BEF) (U.S. EPA 1995b) as follows: BCF =1,560 x 0.016 = 25.0
Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs)
Compound:
Benzo(a)pyrene
Recommended BCF Value: 4,697
The BCF value was calculated using the geometric mean of 6 laboratory values as follows:
55,000
12,761
Eadie, Landrum, and Faust (1982)
Newsted and Giesy (1987)
Reported as the mean of the measured PAH concentrations in
the test species and the sediment
24-hour exposure duration
Pontoporcia hoyi
Daphnia magna
C-37
-------
TABLE C-3
WATER-TO-AQUATIC INVERTEBRATE BIOCONCENTRATION FACTORS
(mg COPC / kg wet tissue) / (mg dissolved COPC / L water)
(Page 3 of 18)
Reported Values"
861
3,000
2,745
2,158
Reference
Roesijadi, Anderson, and Blaylock
(1978)
Lee, Gardner, Anderson, Blaytock,
and Barwell-Clarke (1978)
Leversee, Landrum, Giesy, and
Fannin(1983)
Experimental Parameters
7-day exposure duration
8-day exposure duration. The reported value was calculated
by dividing the wet tissue concentration by the medium
concentration [(|ig/g)/(|ig/L)] conversion factor of 1 x 103 was
applied to the value.
6-hour exposure duration; 0.2 ppm concentrated humic acid
added to test medium
Species
Macoma inquinata
Crassostrea virginica
Daphnia magna
Compound: Benzo(a)anthracene Recommended BCF Value: 12,299
The BCF value was calculated using the geometric mean of 3 laboratory values as follows:
18,000
10,225
10,109
Lee, Gardner, Anderson, Blaytock,
and Barwell-Clarke (1978)
Newsted and Giesy (1987)
Southworth, Beauchamp, and
Schmieder(1978)
8-day exposure duration; The reported value was calculated
by dividing the wet tissue concentration by the medium
concentration [(|ig/g)/(|ig/L)] conversion factor of 1 x 103 was
applied to the value.
24-hour exposure duration
24-hour exposure duration
Crassostrea virginica
Daphnia magna
Daphnia pulex
Compound: Benzo(b)fluoranthene Recommended BCF Value: 4,697
Laboratory data were not available for this constituent. The BCF for benzo(a)pyrene was used as a surrogate.
Compound: Benzo(k)fluoranthene Recommended BCF Value: 13,225
The BCF value was based on one laboratory value as follows:
13,225
Newsted and Giesy (1987)
24-hour exposure duration
Daphnia magna
Compound: Chrysene Recommended BCF Value: 980
The BCF value was calculated using the geometric mean of 7 laboratory values as follows:
5,500
Eastmond, Booth, and Lee (1984)
Not reported
Daphnia magna
C-38
-------
TABLE C-3
WATER-TO-AQUATIC INVERTEBRATE BIOCONCENTRATION FACTORS
(mg COPC / kg wet tissue) / (mg dissolved COPC / L water)
(Page 4 of 18)
Reported Values"
248 199
1,809 418
6,088
694
Reference
Millea, Corliss, Farragut, and
Thompson (1982)
Newsted and Giesy (1987)
Roesijadi, Anderson, and Blaylock
(1978)
Experimental Parameters
28-day exposure duration; reported values were based on
accumulation in the cephalothorax and abdomen at exposures
of 1 or 5 |ig/L in a cloed seawater system.
24-hour exposure duration
7-day exposure duration
Species
Penaeus duorarum
Daphnia magna
Macoma inquinata
Compound: Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene Recommended BCF Value: 710
The BCF value was calculated using the geometric mean of 2 laboratory values as follows:
652
773
Leversee, Landrum, Giesy, and
Fannin(1983)
6-hour exposure duration
Daphnia magna
Compound: mdeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene Recommended BCF Value: 4,697
Laboratory data were not available for this constituent. The BCF for benzo(a)pyrene was used as a surrogate.
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs)
Compound: Aroclor 1016 Recommended BCF Value: 13,000
The BCF value for Aroclor 1016 was calulated using one laboratory value as follows:
13,000
Parrish et al. (1974) as cited in EPA
(1980b)
84 day exposure
Edible portion
Crassostrea virginica
Compound: Aroclor 1254 Recommended BCF Value: 5,538
The BCF value for Aroclor 1254 was calulated using the geometric mean 13 laboratory values as follows:
41,857
6,900
5,679
Rice and White (1987)
Field study
Sphaerium striatum
C-39
-------
TABLE C-3
WATER-TO-AQUATIC INVERTEBRATE BIOCONCENTRATION FACTORS
(mg COPC / kg wet tissue) / (mg dissolved COPC / L water)
(Page 5 of 18)
Reported Values"
750 740
3,800 1,500
6,200 3,500
2,600 2,700
120,000
340,000 in lipid
5 1,000 dry tissue
>27,000
740
1,500
750
373
140
8,100
236
Reference
Mayer, Mehrle, and Sanders (1977)
Veith, Kuehl, Puglisi, Glass, and
Eaton (177)
Scura and Theilacker (1977)
Nimmo et al. (1977) as cited in EPA
(1980b)
Mayer et al. (1977) as cited in EPA
(1980b)
Mayer et al. (1977) as cited in EPA
(1980b)
Mayer et al. (1977) as cited in EPA
(1980b)
Mayer et al. (1977) as cited in EPA
(1980b)
Duke et al. (1970) as cited in EPA
(1980b)
Duke et al. (1970) as cited in EPA
(1980b)
Courtney and Langston (1978) as
cited in EPA (1980b)
Experimental Parameters
4 to 21 -day exposure
Field samples
45 days exposure
Field data
Whole body
21 days exposure
7 days exposre
21 days exposure
5 days exposure
2 day exposure
2 days exposure
5 days exposure
Species
Orconectes nais; Daphnia magna;
Gammarus pseudolimnaeus;
Palaemontes kadiakensis; Corydalus
cornutus; Culex tarsalis; Chaoborus
punctipennis
Zooplankton
Brachionus plicatilis
Invertebrates
Pteronarcys dorsata
Corydalus cornutus
Orconectes nais
Nereis diversicolor
Penaeus duorarum
Crassostrea virginica
Arenicola marina
Nitroaromatics
Compound: 1,3-Dinitrobenzene Recommended BCF Value: 13
C-40
-------
TABLE C-3
WATER-TO-AQUATIC INVERTEBRATE BIOCONCENTRATION FACTORS
(mg COPC / kg wet tissue) / (mg dissolved COPC / L water)
(Page 6 of 18)
Reported Values"
Reference
Experimental Parameters
Species
Laboratory data were not available for this constituent. BCF for 2,4-dinitrotoluene was used as a surrogate.
Compound:
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
Recommended BCF Value: 13
The recommended BCF value is based on one study as follows:
13
Liu, Bailey, and Pearson (1983)
4-day exposure duration
Daphnia magna
Compound:
2,6-Dinitrotoluene
Recommended BCF Value: 13
Laboratory data were not available for this constituent. BCF for 2,4-dinitrotoluene was used as a surrogate.
Compound:
Nitrobenzene
Recommended BCF Value: 13
Laboratory data were not available for this constituent. BCF for 2,4-dinitrotoluene was used as a surrogate.
Compound:
Pentachloronitrobenzene
Recommended BCF Value: 13
Laboratory data were not available for this constituent. BCF for 2,4-dinitrotoluene was used as a surrogate.
Phthalate Esters
Compound:
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Recommended BCF Value: 318
The BCF value was calculated using the geometric mean of 12 laboratory values as follows:
2,497
Brown and Thompson (1982)
14 to 28-day exposure duration
Mytilus edulis
257
48
2237
Perez, Davey, Lackie, Morrison,
Murphy, Soper, and Winslow (1983)
Sanders, Mayer, and Walsh (1973)
30-day exposure duration
14-day exposure duration; The reported value was calculated
by dividing the wet tissue concentration by the medium
concentration [(|ig/g)/(|ig/L)], and a conversion factor of 1 x
103 was applied to the value. The reported value was also
converted from dry weight to wet weight using a conversion
factor of 5.99a
Pitar morrhauna
Gammarus pseudolimnacus
1,214
2,271
17,473
24,456
Sodergren(1982)
27-day exposure duration
Chironomus sp.; Sialis sp.; Phanorbis
corneus', Gammarus pulex
C-41
-------
TABLE C-3
WATER-TO-AQUATIC INVERTEBRATE BIOCONCENTRATION FACTORS
(mg COPC / kg wet tissue) / (mg dissolved COPC / L water)
(Page 7 of 18)
Reported Values"
11 10
7 17
Reference
Wofford, Wilsey, Neff, Giam, and
Neff(1981)
Experimental Parameters
24-hour exposure duration
Compound: Di(n)octyl phahalate
The BCF value was calculated using the geometric mean of 2 laboratory values
13,600
2,600
Sanborn, Metcalf, Yu, and Lu (1975)
as follows:
Not reported
Species
Crassostrea virginica, Penaeus aztecus
Recommended BCF Value: 5,946
Physia sp.; Daphnia sp.
Volatile Organic Compounds
Compound: Acetone
Recommended BCF Value: 0.05
Laboratory data were not available for this constituent. The BCF was calculated using the following regression equation: log BCF = 0.819 x log Kow - 1.146 (Southworth, Beauchamp,
and Schmieder 1978), where log Kow = -0.222 (Karickoff and Long 1995).
Compound: Acrylonitrile
Recommended BCF Value: 0.11
Laboratory data were not available for this constituent. The BCF was calculated using the following regression equation: log BCF = 0.819 x log Kow - 1.146 (Southworth, Beauchamp, and
Schmieder 1978), where Log Kow = 0.250 (Karickoff and Long 1995).
Compound: Chloroform
Recommended BCF Value: 2.82
Laboratory data were not available for this constituent. The BCF was calculated using the following regression equation: log BCF = 0.819 xlog Kow- 1.146 (Southworth, Beauchamp, and
Schmieder 1978), where log Kow = 1.949 (U.S. EPA 1994b).
Compound: Crotonaldehyde
Laboratory data were not available for this constituent. The BCF was calculated using the following regression equation: log BCF = 0.819 x log
and Schmieder 1978) where, log Kow = 0.55 (Based on equation developed by Hansch and Leo (1979), as calculated inNRC (1981)).
Compound: 1 ,4-Dioxane
Recommended BCF Value: 0.20
Kow- 1.146 (Southworth, Beauchamp,
Recommended BCF Value: 0.043
Laboratory data were not available for this constituent. The BCF was calculated using the following regression equation: log BCF = 0.819 xlog Kow- 1.146 (Southworth, Beauchamp, and
Schmieder 1978) where, log Kow = -0.268 (U.S. EPA 1995a).
Compound: Formaldehyde
Recommended BCF Value: 0.14
Laboratory data were not available for this constituent. The BCF was calculated using the following regression equation: log BCF = 0.819 xlog Kow- 1.146 (Southworth, Beauchamp,
and Schmieder 1978) where, log Kow = 0.342 (U.S. EPA 1995a).
C-42
-------
TABLE C-3
WATER-TO-AQUATIC INVERTEBRATE BIOCONCENTRATION FACTORS
(mg COPC / kg wet tissue) / (mg dissolved COPC / L water)
(Page 8 of 18)
Reported Values"
Reference
Experimental Parameters
Species
Compound: Vinyl chloride
Recommended BCF Value: 0.62
Laboratory data were not available for this constituent.The BCF was calculated using the following regression equation: log BCF = 0.819 x log Kow - 1.146 (Southworth, Beauchamp,
and Schmieder 1978) where, log Kow =1.146 (U.S. EPA 1994b).
Other Chlorinated Organics
Compound: Carbon tetrachloride
Recommended BCF Value: 12
Laboratory data were not available for this constituent. The BCF was calculated using the following regression equation: log BCF = 0.819 x log Kow- 1.146 (Southworth, Beauchamp,
and Schmieder 1978) where,
log Kow = 2.717 (U.S. EPA 1994b).
Compound: Hexachlorobenzene
Recommended BCF Value: 2,595
The BCF value was calculated using the geometric mean of 16 laboratory values as follows:
215,331
8,051
11,064
Baturo and Lagadic (1996)
48 to 120-hour exposure duration
Lymnaea palustris
1,360
1,510
1,630
770
940
1,030
Isensee, Holden, Woolson, and Jones
(1976)
31-day exposure duration
Heliosoma sp.; Daphnia magna
287
1,247
Metcalf, Kapoor, Lu, Schuth, and
Sherman (1973)
1 to 33-day exposure duration
Daphnia magna; Physa sp.
17,140
21,820
5,000
Nebeker, Griffis, Wise, Hopkins, and
Barbitta(1989)
28-day exposure duration
Oligochaete
24,000
Oliver (1987)
79-day exposure duration
Oligochaete
5.5
Schauerte, Lay, Klein, and Korte
(1982)
4 to 6-week exposure duration
Dytiscus marginalis
Compound: Hexachlorobutadiene
Recommended BCF Value: 10.5
The BCF value was based on four laboratory values from one study as follows:
C-43
-------
TABLE C-3
WATER-TO-AQUATIC INVERTEBRATE BIOCONCENTRATION FACTORS
(mg COPC / kg wet tissue) / (mg dissolved COPC / L water)
(Page 9 of 18)
Reported Values"
6.27
45.4
11.1
3.86
Reference
Laseter, Bartell, Laska, Holmquist,
Condie, Brown, and Evans (1976)
Experimental Parameters
10-day exposure duration
Species
Procambarus clarki
Compound: Hexachlorocyclopentadiene Recommended BCF Value: 1,232
The BCF value was calculated using the geometric mean of 2 laboratory values as follows:
929
1,634
Lu, Metcalf, Hirwe, and Williams
(1975)
Not reported
Physa sp.
Culex sp.
Compound: Pentachlorobenzene Recommended BCF Value: 2,595
Laboratory data were not available for this constituent. The BCF for hexachlorobenzene was used as a surrogate.
Compound: Pentachlorophenol Recommended BCF Value: 52
The BCF value was calculated using the geometric mean of 13 laboratory values as follows:
145
342
165
81
461
80 61
121 85
42 0.26
72 1.7
Makela and Oikari (1990)
Lu and Metcalf (1975)
Makela, Petanen, Kukkonen, and
Oikari (1991)
Makela and Oikari (1995)
Schimmel, Patrick, and Faas (1978)
1-day exposure duration
1-day exposure duration
Multiple exposure durations
2 to 36-week exposure duration
28-day exposure duration
Anodonta anatina
Daphnia magna
Anodonta anatina
Anodonta anatina, Pseudanodonta
complanta
Crassostrea virginica, Penaeus aztecus',
Palaemonetes pugio
Pesticides
Compound: 4,4 -DDE Recommended BCF Value: 11,930
The recommended BCF value was calculated using the geometric mean of 14 field values(b) (Reich, Perkins, and Cutter 1986).
C-44
-------
TABLE C-3
WATER-TO-AQUATIC INVERTEBRATE BIOCONCENTRATION FACTORS
(mg COPC / kg wet tissue) / (mg dissolved COPC / L water)
(Page 10 of 18)
Reported Values"
19,400 4,421
207,070 8,782
67,641 2,374
5,099 2,197
8,344 46,953
15,369 35,373
4,983 3,972
36,342
39,390
28,600 1310
63,500 51,600
36,400
19,528
5,024
19,529
Reference
Reich, Perkins, and Cutter (1986)
Metcalf, Sanborn, Lu, and Nye
(1975)
Hamelink, Waybrant, and Yant
(1977)
Metcalf, Sangha, and Kapoor (1971)
Metcalf, Kapoor, Lu, Schuth, and
Sherman (1973)
Experimental Parameters
Field samples.
33-day exposure duration
Not reported
3 3 -day exposure duration; The value reported in Hamelink
and Waybrant (1976) was converted to wet weight over dry
weight using a conversion factor was 5.99a.
33-day exposure duration
Species
Tubificidae; Chironomidae; Corixidae
Physa sp.; Culexpipiens
quinquefasciatus
Zooplankton
Physa sp.; Culexpipiens
quinquefasciatus
Physa sp.
Compound: Heptachlor Recommended BCF Value: 3,807
The BCF value was calculated using the geometric mean of 4 laboratory values as follows:
37,153
31,403
300
600
Lu, Metcalf, Plummer, and Mandel
(1975)
Schimmel, Patrick, and Forester
(1976)
Not reported
96 hour exposure duration
Physa sp.
Culex sp.
Penaeus duorarum
Compound: Hexachloropehene Recommended BCF Value: 970
The BCF value was based on one study as follows:
970
Sanborn (1974)
Not reported
Physa sp.
Inorganics
Compound: Aluminum Recommended BCF Value: 4,066
C-45
-------
TABLE C-3
WATER-TO-AQUATIC INVERTEBRATE BIOCONCENTRATION FACTORS
(mg COPC / kg wet tissue) / (mg dissolved COPC / L water)
(Page 11 of 18)
Reported Values"
Reference
Experimental Parameters
Species
Laboratory data were not available for this constituent. The recommended BCF is the arithmetic mean of the recommended values for 14 inorganics with laboratory data available
(antimony, arsenic, barium, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, mercury, nickel, selenium, silver, thallium, and zinc).
Compound: Antimony Recommended BCF Value: 7
The BCF value was calculated using the geometric means of 2 laboratory values as follows:
10
Thompson, Burton, Quinn, and Ng
(1972)
Not reported
Freshwater and marine invertebrates
Compound: Arsenic Recommended BCF Value: 73
The BCF value was calculated using the geometric mean of 5 laboratory values as follows:
33 50
45 219
131
Spehar, Fiandt, Anderson, and DeFoe
(1980)
21 to 28-day exposure duration
Pteronarcys dorsata, Daphnia magna
Compound: Barium Recommended BCF Value: 200
The BCF was based on one study as follows:
200
Thompson, Burton, Quinn and Ng
(1972)
Not reported
Freshwater invertebrate
Compound: Beryllium Recommended BCF Value: 45
The BCF value was calculated using the geometric mean of 2 laboratory values as follows:
10
200
Thompson, Burton, Quinn and Ng
(1972)
Not reported
Freshwater invertebrate
Compound: Cadmium Recommended BCF Value: 3,461
The BCF value was calculated using the geometric mean of 8 field values as follows:
238 549
894 3,577
11,383 15,936
9,897 27,427
Saiki, Castleberry, May, Martin, and
Bullard(1995)
Field samples.
Chironomidea; Ephermeroptera
C-46
-------
TABLE C-3
WATER-TO-AQUATIC INVERTEBRATE BIOCONCENTRATION FACTORS
(mg COPC / kg wet tissue) / (mg dissolved COPC / L water)
(Page 12 of 18)
Reported Values"
1,490
2,460
720
165
1,359 137
2,939 217
615 1,850
573 1,530
1,082 781
775 553
1,840
3,770
1,752
1.86
6.88
7.18
660
3400
48 33
57 34
55 23
1,023 17.7
1,477 17.5
2,412 30
3,406 28.7
37.2
Reference
Eisler, Zaroogian, and Hennekey
(1972)
George and Coombs (1977)
Giesy, Kanio, Boling, Knight,
Mashburn, and Clarkin (1977)
Gillespie, Reisine, and Massaro
(1977)
Graney, Cherry, and Cairns (1983)
Jennings and Rainbow (1979)
Klockner(1979)
Nimmo, Lightner, and Banner (1977)
Pesch and Stewart (1980)
Experimental Parameters
3-week exposure duration
28-day exposure duration
52-week exposure duration; the reported value was calculated
by dividing the dry tissue concentration by the medium
concentration [(|ig/g)/(|ig/L)] conversion factor of 1 x 103 was
applied to the value. A conversion factor or 5.99(a) was used
to convert dry weight to wet weight.
8-day exposure duration; the reported value was calculated by
dividing the dry tissue concentration by the medium
concentration [(ppm)/(ppb)] and a conversion factor of 1 x
103 was applied to the value.
28-day exposure duration
40-day exposure duration; the reported value was calculated
by dividing the dry tissue concentration by the medium
concentration [(mg/g)/(ppm)] conversion factor of 1 x 103 was
applied to the value. A conversion factor or 5.99(a) was used
to convert dry weight to wet weight.
64-day exposure duration
28 to 30-day exposure duration
42-day exposure duration; the values reported in Pesch and
Stewart (1980) were converted to wet weight using a
conversion factor of 5.99(a).
Species
Crassostrea virginica, Aquipecten
irradians', Homarus americanus
Mytilus edulis
Ceratopogonidae; Chironomidae;
Beetle; Anisotptera; Zygoptera;
Ephemeroptera
Orconectes propinquos propinquos
Corbicula fluminea
Carcinus maenas
Ophryothochadiadema sp.
Penaeus duorarum
Argopecten irradians', Palaemonetes
pugio
C-47
-------
TABLE C-3
WATER-TO-AQUATIC INVERTEBRATE BIOCONCENTRATION FACTORS
(mg COPC / kg wet tissue) / (mg dissolved COPC / L water)
(Page 13 of 18)
Reported Values"
57 301
341 167
160
3,500
123 89
93 67
48 115
2,150
13,600
Reference
Phillips (1976)
Pringle, Hissong, Katz, and Mulawka
(1968)
Sundelin(1983)
Theede, Scholz, and Fischer (1979)
Zaroogian and Cheer (1976)
Experimental Parameters
35-day exposure duration; the reported value was calculated
by dividing the wet tissue concentration by the medium
concentration [(|ig/g)/(|ig/L)] conversion factor of 1 x 103 was
applied to the value.
70-day exposure duration
66-week exposure duration
7 and 10-day exposure duration; the reported value was
calculated by dividing the dry tissue concentration by the
medium concentration [(|ig/g)/(|ig/L)] conversion factor of 1
x 103 was applied to the value. A conversion factor or 5.99a
was used to convert dry weight to wet weight.
40-week exposure
Species
Mytilus edulis
Mya arenaria
Pontoporeia affinis
Laomedea loveni
Crassostrea virginica
Compound: Chromium (total) Recommended BCF Value: 3,000
The BCF value was based on 1 field value as follows:
3,000
1,900
2,000
Namminga and Wilhm (1977)
NAS (1974)
Thompson, Burton, Quinn, and Ng
(1972)
Field samples.
Not reported
Not reported
Chironomidae
Zooplankton
Freshwater invertebrates
Compound: Copper Recommended BCF Value: 3,718
The BCF value was calculated using the geometric mean of 9 field values as follows:
546
2,896 3,066
5,111 4,940
11,130 4,174
8,347 2,862
Namminga and Wilhm (1977)
Saiki, Castleberry, May, Martin, and
Bullard(1995)
Field samples.
Field samples.
Chironomidae
Chironomidae', Ephemeroptera
C-48
-------
TABLE C-3
WATER-TO-AQUATIC INVERTEBRATE BIOCONCENTRATION FACTORS
(mg COPC / kg wet tissue) / (mg dissolved COPC / L water)
(Page 14 of 18)
Reported Values"
373
17,720
22,571
54 53
87 48
70 57
35 44
800
104
2,792
37 40
43 42
2,462
35 185.5
69 26.5
5,160 11,800
6,800 19,000
11,560 27,800
12,540 22,500
160
Reference
Eisler(1977)
Graney, Cherry, and Cairns (1983)
Jones, Jones and Radlett (1976)
Majori and Petronio (1973)
McLusky and Phillips (1975)
Nehring(1976)
Pesch and Morgan (1978)
Phillips (1976)
Shuster and Pringle (1968)
Pringle, Hissong, Katz, and Mulawka
(1968)
Experimental Parameters
14-day exposure duration
28-day exposure duration
25-day exposure duration
8-day exposure duration
21 -day exposure duration
14-day exposure duration; the value reported was converted
to wet weight using a conversion factor of 5.99(a).
28-day exposure duration
35-day exposure duration; the reported value was calculated
by dividing the wet tissue concentration by the medium
concentration [(jig/g)/(|ig/L)], a conversion factor of 1 x 103
was applied to the value.
35, 70, 105, and 140-day exposure duration
70-day exposure duration
Species
Mya arenara
Corbicula fluminea
Nereis diversicolor
Mytilus galloprovincialis
Phylloduce maculata
Pteronarcys californica
Nereis arenaceodentata
Mytilus edulis
Crassostrea virginica
Mya arenaria
Compound: Cyanide (total) Recommended BCF Value: 4,066
Laboratory data were not available for this constituent. The recommended BCF is the arithmetic mean of the recommended values for 14 inorganics with laboratory data available
(antimony, arsenic, barium, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, mercury, nickel, selenium, silver, thallium, and zinc).
Compound: Lead Recommended BCF Value: 5,059
The BCF value was calculated using the geometric mean of 6 field values as follows:
C-49
-------
TABLE C-3
WATER-TO-AQUATIC INVERTEBRATE BIOCONCENTRATION FACTORS
(mg COPC / kg wet tissue) / (mg dissolved COPC / L water)
(Page 15 of 18)
Reported Values"
8,076 7,237
3,636 3,575
5,671 3,890
2500
357
111 50
63 71
63
1520 502.5
765 555
578
1,097
Reference
Nehring, Nisson, and Minasian
(1979)
Borgmann, Kramar, and Loveridge
(1978)
Eisler(1977)
Nehring (1976)
Phillips (1976)
Zaroogian, Morrison, Heltshe (1979)
Experimental Parameters
Field samples.
120-day exposure duration
14-day exposure duration
14-day exposure duration; the reported value was converted
from dry weight to wet weight using a conversion factor of
5.99(a).
35-day exposure duration; the reported value was calculated
by dividing the wet tissue concentration by the medium
concentration [(jig/g)/(|ig/L)], and an unit conversion factor
of 1 x 103 was applied to the value.
20-day exposure duration; The reported value was calculated
by dividing the dry tissue concentration by the medium
concentration [(jig/g)/(|ig/kg)], and an unit conversion factor
of 1 x 103 was applied to the value. A conversion factor or
5.99
-------
TABLE C-3
WATER-TO-AQUATIC INVERTEBRATE BIOCONCENTRATION FACTORS
(mg COPC / kg wet tissue) / (mg dissolved COPC / L water)
(Page 16 of 18)
Reported Values"
Reference
Experimental Parameters
Species
Compound: Methyl mercury Recommended BCF Value: 55,000
The BCF value was based on 1 laboratory value as follows:
55,000
Kopfter(1974)
74-day exposure duration; The reported value was calculated
by dividing the dry tissue concentration by the medium
concentration [(ppm)/(ppb)] and a conversion factor of 1 x
103 was applied to the value.
Crassostrea virginica
Compound: Nickel Recommended BCF Value: 28
The BCF value was calculated using the geometric mean of 4 laboratory values as follows:
100
250
2
12
Thompson, Burton, Quinn, and Ng
(1972)
Watras, MacFarlane, and Morel
(1985)
Not reported
Reported values adopted from a high and low range.
Freshwater and marine invertebrates
Daphnia magna
Compound: Selenium Recommended BCF Value: 1,262
The BCF value was calculated using the geometric mean of 5 laboratory values as follows:
229,000
90
930
167
1,000
Besser, Canfield, and LaPoint (1993)
Hermanutz, Allen, Roush, and Hedtke
(1992)
Thompson, Burton, Quinn, and Ng
(1972)
96-hour exposure duration
365-day exposure duration
Not reported
Daphnia magna
Lepomis macrochirus
Freshwater and marine invertebrates
Compound: Silver Recommended BCF Value: 298
The BCF value was calculated using the geometric mean of 12 laboratory values as follows:
1,391 5,100
2,203 1,056
6,500 1,435
Calabrese, Machines, Nelson, Greig,
and Yevich( 1984)
540 to 630 day exposure duration; he reported value was
calculated by dividing the wet tissue concentration by the
medium concentration [(mg/kg)/(|ig/L)], and an unit
conversion factor of
1 x 103 was applied to the value.
Mytilus edulis
C-51
-------
TABLE C-3
WATER-TO-AQUATIC INVERTEBRATE BIOCONCENTRATION FACTORS
(mg COPC / kg wet tissue) / (mg dissolved COPC / L water)
(Page 17 of 18)
Reported Values"
1,711
30 13
22 12
18
Reference
Metayer, Amiard-Triquet and Baud
(1990)
Nehring(1976)
Experimental Parameters
14-day exposure duration
14-day exposure duration; the reported value in Nehring
(1976) was converted from dry weight to wet weight using a
conversion factor of 5.99(a).
Species
Crassostrea gigas
Pteronarcys californica
Compound: Thallium Recommended BCF Value: 15,000
The BCF value was calculated using the geometric mean of 2 laboratory values as follows:
15,000
15,000
Thompson, Burton, Quinn, and Ng
(1972)
Not reported
Freshwater and marine invertebrates
Compound: Zinc Recommended BCF Value: 4,578
The BCF value was calculated using the geometric mean of 9 field values as follows:
30,036
2,613 4,718
2,199 6,625
1,282 3,876
3,210 10,274
50
3,000
143
358
511
631
499 95
326 53
159 25
92 15
43 7
Namminga and Wilhm (1977)
Saiki, Castleberry, May, Martin, and
Bullard(1995)
Deutch, Borg, Kloster, Meyer, and
Moller(1980)
Eisler(1977)
Graney, Cherry, and Cairns (1983)
Nehring(1976)
Field samples.
Field samples; the reported value was converted from dry
weight to wet weight using a conversion factor of 5.99(a).
9-day exposure duration
14-day exposure duration
28-day exposure duration
14-day exposure duration; the reported value was converted
from dry weight to wet weight using a conversion factor of
5.99(a).
Chironomidae sp.
Chironomidae sp.; Ephemeroptera sp.
Marine invertebrates
Mya arenaria
Corbicula fluminea
Ephemerella grandis', Pteronarcys
californica
C-52
-------
TABLE C-3
WATER-TO-AQUATIC INVERTEBRATE BIOCONCENTRATION FACTORS
(mg COPC / kg wet tissue) / (mg dissolved COPC / L water)
(Page 18 of 18)
Reported Values"
519 2,615
315 184
85
Reference
Phillips (1976)
Pringle, Hissong, Katz, and Mulawka
(1968)
Experimental Parameters
35-day exposure duration
50-day exposure duration
Species
Mytilus edulis
Mya arenaria
Notes:
(a)
The reported values are presented as the amount of COPC in invertebrate tissue divided by the amount of COPC in the water. If the values reported in the studies were
presented as dry tissue weight over amount of COPC in water, they were converted to wet weight by dividing the concentration in dry invertebrate tissue weight by 5.99. This
conversion factor assumes an invertebrate's total weight is 83.3 percent moisture, which is based on the moisture content of the earthworm (Pietz et al. 1984).
The conversion factor was calculated as follows:
Conversion factor=•
1.0 gram (g) invertebrate total weight
1.0 gram (g) invertebrate total weight - 0.833 g invertebrate wet weight
(b)
Reported field values for organic COPCs are assumed to be total COPC concentration in water and, therefore, were converted to dissolved COPC concentration in water using
the following equation from U.S.EPA (1995b):
BCF (dissolved) = (BCF (total) / ffd) - 1
where: BCF (dissolved) = BCF based on dissolved concentration of COPC in water
BCF (total) = BCF based on the field derived data for total concentration of COPC in water
ffd = Fraction of COPC that is freely dissolved in the water
where: ffd = 1 / [1 + ((DOC x Kow) / 10) + (POC x Kow)]
DOC = Dissolved organic carbon, kilograms of organic carbon / liter of water (2.0 x 10"06 Kg/L)
Kow= Octanol-water partition coefficient of the COPC, as reported in U.S. EPA (1994b)
POC = Particulate organic carbon, kilograms of organic carbon / liter of water (7.5 x 10"09 Kg/L)
C-53
-------
TABLE C-4
WATER-TO-ALGAE BIOCONCENTRATION FACTORS
(mg COPC / kg wet tissue) / (mg dissolved COPC / L water)
(Page 1 of 12)
Reported Values3
Reference
Experimental Parameters
Species
Dioxins and Furans
Compound:
2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo(p)dioxin (2,3,7,8-TCDD)
Recommended BCF value: 3,302
The recommended BCF value was calculated using the geometric mean of 3 laboratory values as follows:
4,000
9,000
Yockim, Isensee, and Jones (1978)
Values adopted from a high to low range; reported values were
for 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo(p)dioxin (2,3,7,8-TCDD).
Leona minor
1,000
Yockim, Isensee, and Jones (1978)
32-day exposure duration; reported values were for 2,3,7,8-
TCDD.
Oedogonium cardiacum
Compound:
l,2,3,7,8-Pentachlorodibenzo(p)dioxin(l,2,3,7,8-PeCDD)
Recommended BCF value: 3,038
The BCF was calculated using the TCDD BCF and a bioaccumulation equivalency factor (BEF) (U.S. EPA 1995b) as follows: BCF = 3,302 x 0.92 = 3,038
Compound:
l,2,3,4,7,8-Hexachlorodibenzo(p)dioxin(l,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD)
Recommended BCF value: 1,024
The BCF was calculated using the TCDD BCF and a bioaccumulation equivalency factor (BEF) (U.S. EPA 1995b) as follows: BCF = 3,302 xO.31 = 1,024
Compound:
l,2,3,6,7,8-Hexachlorodibenzo(p)dioxin(l,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD)
Recommended BCF value: 396.2
The BCF was calculated using the TCDD BCF and a bioaccumulation equivalency factor (BEF) (U.S. EPA 1995b) as follows: BCF = 3,302 xO. 12 = 396.2
Compound:
l,2,3,7,8,9-Hexachlorodibenzo(p)dioxin(l,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD)
Recommended BCF value: 462.3
The BCF was calculated using the TCDD BCF and a bioaccumulation equivalency factor (BEF) (U.S. EPA 1995b) as follows: BCF = 3,302 xO. 14 = 462.3
Compound:
l,2,3,4,6,7,8-Heptachlorodibenzo(p)dioxin(l,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD)
Recommended BCF value: 168.4
The BCF was calculated using the TCDD BCF and a bioaccumulation equivalency factor (BEF) (U.S. EPA 1995b) as follows: BCF = 3,302 xO.051 = 168.4
Compound:
Octachlorodibenzo(p)dioxin (OCDD)
Recommended BCF value: 39.6
The BCF was calculated using the TCDD BCF and a bioaccumulation equivalency factor (BEF) (U.S. EPA 1995b) as follows: BCF = 3,302 xO.012 = 39.6
Compound:
2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzofuran(2,3,7,8-TCDF)
Recommended BCF value: 2,642
The BCF was calculated using the TCDD BCF and a bioaccumulation equivalency factor (BEF) (U.S. EPA 1995b) as follows: BCF = 3,302 xO.80 = 2,642
Compound:
1,2,3,7,8-Pentachlorodibenzofuran 1 ,(2,3,7,8-PeCDF)
Recommended BCF value: 726.4
The BCF was calculated using the TCDD BCF and a bioaccumulation equivalency factor (BEF) (U.S. EPA 1995b) as follows: BCF = 3,302 xO.22 =726.4
C-54
-------
TABLE C-4
WATER-TO-ALGAE BIOCONCENTRATION FACTORS
(mg COPC / kg wet tissue) / (mg dissolved COPC / L water)
(Page 2 of 12)
Reported Values"
Reference
Experimental Parameters
Species
Compound: 2,3,4,7,8-Pentachlorodibenzofuran(2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF) Recommended BCF value: 5,283
The BCF was calculated using the TCDD BCF and a bioaccumulation equivalency factor (BEF) (U.S. EPA 1995b) as follows: BCF = 3,302 xl .6 = 5,283
Compound: l,2,3,4,7,8-Hexachlorodibenzofuran(l,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF) Recommended BCF value: 251.0
The BCF was calculated using the TCDD BCF and a bioaccumulation equivalency factor (BEF) (U.S. EPA 1995b) as follows: BCF = 3,302 x 0.076 = 251.0
Compound: l,2,3,6,7,8-Hexachlorodibenzofuran(l,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF) Recommended BCF value: 627.4
The BCF was calculated using the TCDD BCF and a bioaccumulation equivalency factor (BEF) (U.S. EPA 1995b) as follows: BCF = 3,302 xO. 19 = 627.4
Compound: 2,3,4,6,7,8-Hexachlorodibenzofuran(2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF) Recommended BCF value: 2,212
The BCF was calculated using the TCDD BCF and a bioaccumulation equivalency factor (BEF) (U.S. EPA 1995b) as follows: BCF = 3,302 xO.67 = 2,212
Compound: l,2,3,7,8,9-Hexachlorodibenzofuran(l,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF) Recommended BCF value: 2,080
The BCF was calculated using the TCDD BCF and a bioaccumulation equivalency factor (BEF) (U.S. EPA 1995b) as follows: BCF = 3,302 x 0.63 = 2,080
Compound: l,2,3,4,6,7,8-Heptachlorodibenzofuran(l,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF) Recommended BCF value: 36.3
The BCF was calculated using the TCDD BCF and a bioaccumulation equivalency factor (BEF) (U.S. EPA 1995b) as follows: BCF = 3,302 xO.Ol 1 = 36.3
Compound: l,2,3,4,7,8,9-Heptachlorodibenzofuran(l,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF) Recommended BCF value: 1,288
The BCF was calculated using the TCDD BCF and a bioaccumulation equivalency factor (BEF) (U.S. EPA 1995b) as follows: BCF = 3,302 xO.39 = 1,288
Compound: Octachlorodibenzofuran (OCDF) Recommended BCF value: 52.8
The BCF was calculated using the TCDD BCF and a bioaccumulation equivalency factor (BEF) (U.S. EPA 1995b) as follows: BCF = 3,302 x 0.016 = 52.8
Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs)
Compound: Benzo(a)pyrene Recommended BCF value: 5,258
The recommended BCF value was based on a single measured value for benzo(a)pyrene. This value was also used as a surrogate for all high molecular weight PAHs for which
laboratory data were not available.
5,258
Lu, Metcalf, Plummer, and Mandel (1977) 3-day exposure duration
Oedogonium cardiacum
Compound: Benzo(a)anthracene Recommended BCF value: 5,258
C-55
-------
TABLE C-4
WATER-TO-ALGAE BIOCONCENTRATION FACTORS
(mg COPC / kg wet tissue) / (mg dissolved COPC / L water)
(Page 3 of 12)
Reported Values"
Reference
Experimental Parameters
Species
Laboratory data were not available for this compound. The BCF for benzo(a)pyrene was used as a surrogate.
Compound:
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Recommended BCF value: 5,258
Laboratory data were not available for this compound. The BCF for benzo(a)pyrene was used as a surrogate.
Compound:
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Recommended BCF value: 5,258
Laboratory data were not available for this compound. The BCF for benzo(a)pyrene was used as a surrogate.
Compound:
Chrysene
Recommended BCF value: 5,258
Laboratory data were not available for this compound. The BCF for benzo(a)pyrene was used as a surrogate.
Compound:
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
Recommended BCF value: 5,258
Laboratory data were not available for this compound. The BCF for benzo(a)pyrene was used as a surrogate.
Compound: Indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene
Recommended BCF value: 5,258
Laboratory data were not available for this compound. The BCF for benzo(a)pyrene was used as a surrogate.
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs)
Compound: Aroclor 1016
Recommended BCF value: 476,829
The reported value was calculated by dividing the wet tissue concentration by the medium concentration (ppm/pptr). A conversion factor of 1 x 106 was applied to the value. The BCF
value is based on Aroclor 1254 since there was no available data for total PCB.
476,829
Scura and Theilacker (1977)
45-day exposure to Aroclor 1254
Dunaliella sp.
Compound: Aroclor 1254
Recommended BCF value: 476,829
The reported value was calculated by dividing the wet tissue concentration by the medium concentration (ppm/pptr). A conversion factor of 1 x 106 was applied to the value. The BCF
value is based on Aroclor 1254 since there was no available data for total PCB.
476,829
Scura and Theilacker (1977)
45-day exposure to Aroclor 1254
Dunaliella sp.
C-56
-------
TABLE C-4
WATER-TO-ALGAE BIOCONCENTRATION FACTORS
(mg COPC / kg wet tissue) / (mg dissolved COPC / L water)
(Page 4 of 12)
Reported Values"
Reference
Experimental Parameters
Species
Nitroaromatics
Compound:
1,3-Dinitrobenzene
Recommended BCF value: 2,507
Laboratory data were not available for this compound. The BCF for 2,4-dinitrotoluene was used as a surrogate.
Compound:
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
Recommended BCF value: 2,507
The recommended BCF value was based on one study as follows:
2,507
Liu, Bailey, and Pearson (1983)
4-day exposure duration
Selanastrum capricornatum
Compound:
2,6-Dinitrobenzene
Recommended BCF value: 2,507
Laboratory data were not available for this compound. The BCF for 2,4-dinitrotoluene was used as a surrogate.
Compound:
Nitrobenzene
Recommended BCF value: 24
The recommended BCF value was based on one study as follows:
24
Geyer, Viswanathan, Freitag, and Korte
(1981)
1-day exposure duration
Chlorella fusca
Compound:
Pentachloronitrobenzene
Recommended BCF value: 4,740
The recommended BCF value calculated using the geometric mean of 4 laboratory values as follows:
3,100
Geyer, Viswanathan, Freitag, and Korte
(1981)
1-day exposure duration
Chlorella fusca
4,795
7,534
Korte, Freitag, Geyer, Klein, Kraus, and
Lahaniatis(1978)
1-day exposure duration; The values reported in Korte, Freitag,
Geyer, Klein, Kraus, and Lahaniatis (1978) were converted to wet
weight using a conversion factor of 2.92 a.
Chlorella fusca
4,508
Wang, Harada, Watanabe, Koshikawa, and
Geyer (1996)
Not reported
Chlorella fusca
Phthalate Esters
Compound:
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Recommended BCF value: 9,931
C-57
-------
TABLE C-4
WATER-TO-ALGAE BIOCONCENTRATION FACTORS
(mg COPC / kg wet tissue) / (mg dissolved COPC / L water)
(Page 5 of 12)
Reported Values"
Reference
Experimental Parameters
Species
The recommended BCF value was calculated using the geometric mean of 2 laboratory values as follows:
5,400
Geyer, Viswanathan, Freitag, and Korte
(1981)
1-day exposure duration
Chlorella fusca
18,263
Sodergren(1982)
27-day exposure duration
Chara chara
Compound:
Di(n)octyl phthalate
Recommended BCF value: 28,500
The recommended BCF value was based on one study as follows:
28,500
Sanborn, Metcalf, Yu, and Lu (1975)
33-day exposure duration
Oedogonium cardiacum
Volatile Organic Compounds
Compound:
Acetone
Recommended BCF value: 0.05
Laboratory data were not available for this compound. The BCF was calculated using the following regression equation:
log BCF = 0.819 x log K^ - 1.146 (Southworth, Beauchamp, and Schmieder 1978), where log K^ = -0.222 (Karickoff and Long 1995)
Compound:
Acrylonitrile
Recommended BCF value: 0.11
Laboratory data are not available for this compound. The BCF was calculated using the following regression equation:
log BCF = 0.819 x log Kow - 1.146 (Southworth, Beauchamp, and Schmieder 1978), where log Kow = 0.250 (Karickoff and Long 1995)
Compound:
Chloroform
Recommended BCF value: 2.82
Laboratory data for this compound were not available. The BCF was calculated using the following regression equation:
log BCF = 0.819 x log K^ - 1.146 (Southworth, Beauchamp, and Schmieder 1978), where log Kow = 1.949 (U.S. EPA 1994b)
Compound:
Crotonaldehyde
Recommended BCF value: 0.20
Laboratory data for this compound were not available. The BCF was calculated using the following regression equation:
log BCF = 0.819 xlog Kow- 1.146 (Southworth, Beauchamp, and Schmieder 1978), where log Kow = 0.55 (based on equation developed by Hansch and Leo 1979, calculated inNRC
(1981))
Compound:
1,4-Dioxane
Recommended BCF value: 0.04
Laboratory data for this compound were not available. The BCF was calculated using the following regression equation:
log BCF = 0.819 x log K^, - 1.146 (Southworth, Beauchamp, and Schmieder 1978), where log Kow = -0.268 (U.S. EPA 1995a)
Compound:
Formaldehyde
Recommended BCF value: 0.14
C-58
-------
TABLE C-4
WATER-TO-ALGAE BIOCONCENTRATION FACTORS
(mg COPC / kg wet tissue) / (mg dissolved COPC / L water)
(Page 6 of 12)
Reported Values"
Reference
Experimental Parameters
Species
Laboratory data for this compound were not available. The BCF was calculated using the following regression equation:
log BCF = 0.819 x log K^, - 1.146 (Southworth, Beauchamp, and Schmieder 1978), where log Kow = 0.342 (U.S. EPA 1995a)
Compound: Vinyl chloride Recommended BCF value:
0.62
Laboratory data for this compound were not available. The BCF was calculated using the following regression equation:
log BCF = 0.819 x log K^ - 1.146 (Southworth, Beauchamp, and Schmieder 1978), where log Kow =1.146 (U.S. EPA 1994b)
Other Chlorinated Organics
Compound: Carbon tetrachloride Recommended BCF value:
300
The recommended BCF value was based on laboratory data as follows:
300
Geyer, Politzki and Freitag (1984)
1-day exposure duration
Chlorella fusca
Compound: Hexachlorobenzene Recommended BCF value:
11,134
The recommended BCF value was calculated using the geometric mean of 4 laboratory values as follows:
24,800
610
41,096
24,717
Geyer, Politzki, and Freitag (1984)
Isensee, Holden, Woolson and Jones (1976)
Korte, Freitag, Geyer, Klein, Kraus, and
Lahaniatis(1978)
Wang, Harada, Watanabe, Koshikawa, and
Geyer (1996)
1-day exposure duration
31 -day exposure duration
1-day exposure duration; the values reported in Korte, Freitag,
Geyer, Klein, Kraus, and Lahaniatis (1978) were converted to wet
weight using an unit conversion factor of 2.92 a .
Not reported
Chlorella fusca
Oedogonium cardiacum
Chlorella fusca
Chlorella fusca
Compound: Hexachlorobutadiene Recommended BCF value:
160
The recommended BCF value calculated using the geometric mean of 2 laboratory values as follows:
160
160
Laseter, Bartell, Laska, Holmquist, Condie,
Brown, and Evans (1976)
U.S. EPA (1976)
7-day exposure duration
Not reported
Oedogonium cardiacum
Algae
Compound: Hexachlorocyclopentadiene Recommended BCF value:
610
C-59
-------
TABLE C-4
WATER-TO-ALGAE BIOCONCENTRATION FACTORS
(mg COPC / kg wet tissue) / (mg dissolved COPC / L water)
(Page 7 of 12)
Reported Values"
Reference
Experimental Parameters
Species
The recommended BCF value was calculated using the geometric mean of 2 laboratory values as follows:
1,090
341
Geyer, Viswanathan, Freitag, and Korte
(1981)
Lu, Metcalf, Hirwe, and Williams (1975)
Not reported
Not reported
Chlorella fusca
Oedogonium cardiacum
Compound: Pentachlorobenzene Recommended BCF value: 4,000
The recommended BCF value was based on one study as follows:
4,000
Geyer, Politzki, and Freitag (1984)
1-day exposure duration
Chlorella fusca
Compound: Pentachlorophenol Recommended BCF value: 1,711
The recommended BCF value calculated using the geometric mean of 4 laboratory values as follows:
1,250
2,055
2,534
1,781
1,266
Geyer, Viswanathan, Freitag, and Korte
(1981)
Korte, Freitag, Geyer, Klein, Kraus, and
Lahaniatis(1978)
Wang, Harada, Watanabe, Koshikawa, and
Geyer (1996)
1-day exposure duration
1-day exposure duration; the values reported in Korte, Freitag,
Geyer, Klein, Kraus, and Lahaniatis (1978) were converted to wet
weight using an unit conversion factor of 2.92 a.
Not reported
Chlorella fusca
Chlorella fusca
Chlorella fusca
Pesticides
Compound: 4,4 -DDE Recommended BCF value: 11,251
The recommended BCF value was based on one study as follows:
11,251
Metcalf, Sanborn, Lu, and Nye (1 975)
33-day exposure duration
Oedogonium cardiacum
Compound: Heptachlor Recommended BCF value: 21,000
The recommended BCF value was based on one study as follows:
21,000
U.S. EPA (1979)
Not reported
Algae
C-60
-------
TABLE C-4
WATER-TO-ALGAE BIOCONCENTRATION FACTORS
(mg COPC / kg wet tissue) / (mg dissolved COPC / L water)
(Page 8 of 12)
Reported Values"
Reference
Experimental Parameters
Species
Compound:
Hexachlorophene
Recommended BCF value: 1,500
The recommended BCF value was based on one study as follows:
1,500
Sanborn(1974)
Not reported
Algae
Inorganics
Compound:
Aluminum
Recommended BCF value: 833
The recommended BCF value was based on one study as follows:
600
Thompson, Burton, Quinn, and Ng (1972)
Not reported
Algae (marine plants)
Compound:
Antimony
Recommended BCF value: 1,475
The recommended value was calculated using the geometric mean of 2 laboratory values as follows:
1,500
1,450
Thompson, Burton, Quinn, andNg (1972)
Not reported
Not reported
Compound:
Arsenic
Recommended BCF value: 293
The recommended value was calculated using the geometric mean of 3 laboratory values as follows:
Anderson et al. (1979)
42-day exposure duration
Lemna minor
3,000
1,670
Thompson, Burton, Quinn, and Ng 1972
Not reported
Not reported
Compound:
Barium
Recommended BCF value: 260
The recommended BCF value was based on one study as follows:
260
Schroeder(1970)
Not reported
Brown algae
Compound:
Beryllium
Recommended BCF value: 141
The recommended value was calculated using the geometric mean of 2 laboratory values as follows:
20
1,000
Thompson, Burton, Quinn, andNg (1972)
Not reported
Not reported
C-61
-------
TABLE C-4
WATER-TO-ALGAE BIOCONCENTRATION FACTORS
(mg COPC / kg wet tissue) / (mg dissolved COPC / L water)
(Page 9 of 12)
Reported Values"
Reference
Experimental Parameters
Species
Compound: Cadmium Recommended BCF value: 782
The recommended BCF value was calculated using the geometric mean of 6 laboratory values as follows:
300
1,000
370
1,000
2,065
1,000
Fisher, Bohe, and Teyessie (1984)
Hutchinson and Czyrska (1972)
Thompson, Burton, Quinn, andNg (1972)
Not reported
21 -day exposure duration; The values reported in Hutchinson and
Czyrska (1972) were converted to wet weight using a conversion
factor of 2. 92 ".
Not reported
Thalassiosira pseudonana
Dunaliella tertiolecta
Emiliania huxleyi
Oscillatoria woronichinii
Lemna valdiviana
Not reported
Compound: Chromium (total) Recommended BCF value: 4,406
The recommended BCF value was calculated using the geometric mean of 8 laboratory values as follows:
343
1,600
26,316
8,485
29,000
5,000
4,000
2,000
Jouany, Vasseur, and Ferard (1982)
NAS (1974)
Patrick, Bott, and Larson (1975)
Thompson, Burton, Quinn, andNg (1972)
28-day exposure duration; the values reported in Jouany, Vasseur,
and Ferard (1982) were converted to wet weight using an unit
conversion factor of 2.92 a.
Not reported
4 experiments consisting of 1 -month exposure durations
Not reported
Chlorella vulgaris
Benthic algae
Mixed algae
Not reported
Compound: Copper Recommended BCF value: 541
The recommended BCF value was calculated using the geometric mean of 5 laboratory values as follows:
17
827
1,644
Bastien and Cote (1989)
Stokes, Hutchinson, and Krauter (1973)
50-day exposure duration
2-day exposure duration
Scenedesmus quadricauda
Scenedesmus sp.
C-62
-------
TABLE C-4
WATER-TO-ALGAE BIOCONCENTRATION FACTORS
(mg COPC / kg wet tissue) / (mg dissolved COPC / L water)
(Page 10 of 12)
Reported Values"
2,000
1,000
Reference
Thompson, Burton, Quinn, andNg (1972)
Experimental Parameters
Not reported
Species
Freshwater and marine plants
Compound: Cyanide (total) Recommended BCF value: 22
The recommended BCF value was based on one study as follows:
22
Low and Lee (1981)
72 -hour exposure duration
Eichhornia crassipes
Compound: Lead Recommended BCF value: 1,706
The recommended BCF value was calculated using the geometric mean of 3 laboratory values as follows:
100
5,000
9,931
Thompson, Burton, Quinn, andNg (1972)
Vighi(1981)
Not reported
28-day exposure duration; the values reported in Vighi (1981)
were converted to wet weight using an unit conversion factor of
2.92a
Not reported
Selenastrum capricornutum
Compound: Mercury chloride Recommended BCF value: 24,762
The recommended BCF value was based on one study as follows:
24,762
Watras and Bloom (1992)
Field samples
Phytoplankton
Compound: Methyl mercury Recommended BCF value: 80,000
The recommended BCF value was based on one study as follows:
80,000
Watras and Bloom (1992)
Field samples
Phytoplankton
Compound: Nickel Recommended BCF value: 61
The recommended BCF value was calculated using the geometric mean of 4 laboratory values as follows:
32
34
50
250
Hutchinson and Stokes (1975)
Thompson, Burton, Quinn, andNg (1972)
6-day exposure duration
Not reported
Scenedesmus sp.
Not reported
C-63
-------
TABLE C-4
WATER-TO-ALGAE BIOCONCENTRATION FACTORS
(mg COPC / kg wet tissue) / (mg dissolved COPC / L water)
(Page 11 of 12)
Reported Values"
Reference
Experimental Parameters
Species
Compound: Selenium Recommended BCF value: 1,845
The recommended BCF value was calculated using the geometric mean of 3 laboratory values as follows:
15,700
400
1,000
Besser, Canfield, and LaPoint (1993)
Dobbs, Cherry, and Cairns (1996)
Thompson, Burton, Quinn, andNg (1972)
24-hour exposure duration
25-day exposure duration
Not reported
Chlamydomonas reinhardtii
Chlorella vulgaris
Not reported
Compound: Silver Recommended BCF value: 10,696
The recommended BCF value was calculated using the geometric mean of 5 laboratory values as follows:
34,000
13,000
24,000
66,000
200
Fisher, Bohe, and Teyssie (1984)
Thompson, Burton, Quinn, andNg (1972)
Not reported
Not reported
Thalassiosira pseudonana
Dunaliella tertiolecta
Emiliania huxleyi
Oscillatoria woronichinii
Not reported
Compound: Thallium Recommended BCF value: 15,000
The recommendedBCF was based on one study as follows:
15,000
Thompson, Burton, Quinn, and Ng (1972)
Not reported
Not reported
Compound: Zinc RecommendedBCF value: 2,175
The recommended BCF value was calculated using the geometric mean of 17 laboratory values as follows:
285
4,395
4,680
70
600
1,200
1,400
170,000
Andryushhenko and Polikarpou (1973)
Baudin(1974)
Deutch, Borg, Kloster, Meyer, and Moller
(1980)
5-day exposure duration
34-day exposure duration
9-day exposure duration
Ulva rigida
Cladophoea
Codium fragile
Enteromorpha sp.
Ulva lactuca
Fucus serratus
Marine plankton
C-64
-------
TABLE C-4
WATER-TO-ALGAE BIOCONCENTRATION FACTORS
(mg COPC / kg wet tissue) / (mg dissolved COPC / L water)
(Page 12 of 12)
Reported Values"
12,000
10,000
4,600
5,200
524
1,015
255
20,000
1,000
Reference
Fisher, Bohe, and Teyssie (1984)
Munda(1979)
U.S. EPA(1987a)
Thompson, Burton, Quinn, andNg (1972)
Experimental Parameters
Not reported
12-day exposure; The values reported in Munda (1979) were
converted to wet weight using a conversion factor of 2.92 a.
6-day exposure duration
Not reported
Species
Thalassiosira pseudonana
Dunaliella tertiolecta
Emiliania huxleyi
Oscillatoria woronichinii
Enteromorpha prolifera
Fucus vivsoides
Ulva lactuca
Not reported
Notes:
(a)
The reported values are presented as the amount of COPC in algae divided by the amount of COPC in water. If the values reported in the studies were presented as dry tissue weight over
the amount of COPC in water, they were converted to wet weight over dry weight by dividing the concentration in dry algae tissue weight by 2.92. This conversion factor assumes an
algae total weight is 65.7 percent moisture (Isensee, Kearney, Woolson, Jones and Williams 1973). The conversion factor was calculated as follows:
Conversion factor=
1.0 g algae total weight
1.0 g algae total weight - 0.675 g algae wet weight
C-65
-------
TABLE C-5
WATER-TO-FISH BIOCONCENTRATION FACTORS
(mg COPC / kg wet tissue) / (mg dissolved COPC / L water)
(Page 1 of 19)
Reported Values
Reference
Experimental Parameters
Species
Dioxins and Furans
Compound:
2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorinated dibenzo(p)dioxin (2,3,7,8-TCDD)
Recommended BCF value: 4,235
The recommended value was calculated using the geometric mean of 12 laboratory values for several PCDD compounds as follows:
5,800
Adams, DeGraeve, Sabourin, Cooney, and
Mosher(1986)
28-day exposure duration, 20-day elimination;
reported data were for 2,3,7,8-
tetrachlorodibenzo(p)dioxin (2,3,7,8-TCDD)
Pimephales promelas
9,270
Branson, Takahashi, Parker, and Blau (1985)
6-hour exposure duration, 139-day depuration
Oncorhynchus mykiss
39,000
Mehrle, Buckler, Little, Smith, Petty, Peterman,
Stalling, DeGraeve, Coyle, and Adams (1988)
28-day exposure duration
Oncorhynchus mykiss
810
2,840
513
5,834
Muir, Marshall, and Webster (1985)
4 to 5-day exposure duration, 24 to 28-day
depuration; values are based on a high to low range
of reported values.
Oncorhynchus mykiss
Pimephales promelas
2,769
2,269
Yockim, Isensee, and Jones (1978)
15-day exposure duration
Gambusia affinis
Ictalurus sp.
5,000
9,300
7,900
U.S. EPA (1985)
Not reported
Pimephales promelas
Compound:
l,2,3,7,8-Pentachlorodibenzo(p)dioxin(l,2,3,7,8-PeCDD)
Recommended BCF value: 3,896
The BCF was calculated using the TCDD BCF and a bioaccumulation equivalency factor (BEF) (U.S. EPA 1995b) as follows: BCF =4,235 x 0.92 =3,896
Compound:
l,2,3,4,7,8-Hexachlorodibenzo(p)dioxin(l,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD)
Recommended BCF value: 1,313
The BCF was calculated using the TCDD BCF and a bioaccumulation equivalency factor (BEF) (U.S. EPA 1995b) as follows: BCF =4,235 x 0.31 =1313
Compound:
l,2,3,6,7,8-Hexachlorodibenzo(p)dioxin(l,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD)
Recommended BCF value: 508.2
The BCF was calculated using the TCDD BCF and a bioaccumulation equivalency factor (BEF) (U.S. EPA 1995b) as follows: BCF =4,235 x 0.12 =508.2
C-66
-------
TABLE C-5
WATER-TO-FISH BIOCONCENTRATION FACTORS
(mg COPC / kg wet tissue) / (mg dissolved COPC / L water)
(Page 2 of 19)
Reported Values Reference Experimental Parameters Species
Compound: l,2,3,7,8,9-Hexachlorodibenzo(p)dioxin(l,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD) RecommendedBCF value: 592.9
The BCF was calculated using the TCDD BCF and a bioaccumulation equivalency factor (BEF) (U.S. EPA 1995b) as follows: BCF =4,235 x 0.14 =592.9
Compound: l,2,3,4,6,7,8-Heptachlorodibenzo(p)dioxin (1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD) Recommended BCF value: 215.9
The BCF was calculated using the TCDD BCF and a bioaccumulation equivalency factor (BEF) (U.S. EPA 1995b) as follows: BCF =4,235 x 0.051 =215.9
Compound: Octachlorodibenzo(p)dioxin (OCDD) Recommended BCF value: 50.8
The BCF was calculated using the TCDD BCF and a bioaccumulation equivalency factor (BEF) (U.S. EPA 1995b) as follows: BCF =4,235 x 0.012 =50.8
Compound: 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorinated dibenzofuran (2,3,7,8-TCDF)Compound: Recommended BCF value: 3,388
The BCF was calculated using the TCDD BCF and a bioaccumulation equivalency factor (BEF) (U.S. EPA 1995b) as follows: BCF =4,235 x 0.80 =3,388
Compound: l,2,3,7,8-Pentachlorodibenzo(p)furan (1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF) Recommended BCF value: 931.7
The BCF was calculated using the TCDD BCF and a bioaccumulation equivalency factor (BEF) (U.S. EPA 1995b) as follows: BCF =4,235 x 0.22 =931.7
Compound: 2,3,4,7,8-Pentachlorodibenzo(p)furan (2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF) Recommended BCF value: 6,776
The BCF was calculated using the TCDD BCF and a bioaccumulation equivalency factor (BEF) (U.S. EPA 1995b) as follows: BCF =4,235 xl .6 =6,776
Compound: l,2,3,4,7,8-Hexachlorodibenzo(p)furan (1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF) Recommended BCF value: 3,21.9
The BCF was calculated using the TCDD BCF and a bioaccumulation equivalency factor (BEF) (U.S. EPA 1995b) as follows: BCF =4,235 x 0.076 =3,21.9
Compound: l,2,3,6,7,8-Hexachlorodibenzo(p)furan (1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF) Recommended BCF value: 804.7
The BCF was calculated using the TCDD BCF and a bioaccumulation equivalency factor (BEF) (U.S. EPA 1995b) as follows: BCF =4,235 x 0.19 =804.7
Compound: 2,3,4,6,7,8-Hexachlorodibenzo(p)furan (2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF) Recommended BCF value: 2,837
The BCF was calculated using the TCDD BCF and a bioaccumulation equivalency factor (BEF) (U.S. EPA 1995b) as follows: BCF =4,235 x 0.67 = 2,837
Compound: l,2,3,7,8,9-Hexachlorodibenzo(p)furan (1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF) Recommended BCF value: 2,668
The BCF was calculated using the TCDD BCF and a bioaccumulation equivalency factor (BEF) (U.S. EPA 1995b) as follows: BCF =4,235 x 0.63 =2,668
C-67
-------
TABLE C-5
WATER-TO-FISH BIOCONCENTRATION FACTORS
(mg COPC / kg wet tissue) / (mg dissolved COPC / L water)
(Page 3 of 19)
Reported Values
Reference
Experimental Parameters
Species
Compound: l,2,3,4,6,7,8,4Ieptachlorodibenzo(p)furan(l,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF) RecommendedBCF value: 46.6
The BCF was calculated using the TCDD BCF and a bioaccumulation equivalency factor (BEF) (U.S. EPA 1995b) as follows: BCF =4,235 x 0.011 =46.6
Compound: l,2,3,4,7,8,9-Heptachlorodibenzo(p)furan (1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF) Recommended BCF value: 1,651
The BCF was calculated using the TCDD BCF and a bioaccumulation equivalency factor (BEF) (U.S. EPA 1995b) as follows: BCF =4,235 x 0.39 =1,651
Compound: Octachlorodibenzo(p)furan (OCDF) Recommended BCF value: 67.8
The BCF was calculated using the TCDD BCF and a bioaccumulation equivalency factor (BEF) (U.S. EPA 1995b) as follows: BCF =4,235 x 0.016 =67.8
Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs)
Compound: Benzo(a)pyrene Recommended BCF value: 500
The recommended value is that presented in Stephan (1993), which was the geometric mean of 16 laboratory values. This BCF for benzo(a)pyrene is also recommended for high molecular
weight PAH for which empirical data are not available.
500
Stephan (1993)
Not reported
Not reported
Compound: Benzo(a)anthracene Recommended BCF value: 500
Empirical data were not available for this compound. The BCF for benzo(a)pyrene was used as a surrogate.
Compound: Benzo(b)fluoranthene Recommended BCF value: 500
Empirical data were not available for this compound. The BCF for benzo(a)pyrene was used as a surrogate.
Compound: Benzo(k)fluoranthene Recommended BCF value: 500
Empirical data were not available for this compound. The BCF for benzo(a)pyrene was used as a surrogate.
Compound: Chrysene Recommended BCF value: 500
Empirical data were not available for this compound. The BCF for benzo(a)pyrene was used as a surrogate.
Compound: Dibenz(a,h)anthracene Recommended BCF value: 500
Empirical data were not available for this compound. The BCF for benzo(a)pyrene was used as a surrogate.
-------
TABLE C-5
WATER-TO-FISH BIOCONCENTRATION FACTORS
(mg COPC / kg wet tissue) / (mg dissolved COPC / L water)
(Page 4 of 19)
Reported Values
Reference
Experimental Parameters
Species
Compound: Indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene Recommended BCF value: 500
Empirical data were not available for this compound. The BCF for benzo(a)pyrene was used as a surrogate.
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs)
Compound: Aroclor 1016 Recommended BCF value: 22,649
The recommended BCF value was calculated using the geometric mean of 4 field values as followsb> Ci d:
25,000
43,000
14,400
17,000
Hansen et al. (1975) as cited in U.S. EPA
(1980b)
Hansen et al. (1975) as cited in U.S. EPA
(1980b)
Hansen et al. (1975) as cited in U.S. EPA
(1980b)
Hansen et al. (1974) as cited in U.S. EPA
(1980b)
28 days exposure
1 . 1 percent lipid
Adult
28 days exposure
Whole body
Juvenile
28 days exposure
Whole body
Fry
21 to 28 days exposure
Whole body
Cyprinodon variegatus
Cyprinodon variegatus
Cyprinodon variegatus
Lagodon rhomboides
Compound: Aroclor 1254 Recommended BCF value: 230,394
The recommended BCF value was calculated using the geometric mean of 7 field values as follows*1 c> d:
238,000 females
235,000 males
35,481
354,813
281,838
46,000
Nebeker, Puglisi, and DeFoe (1974)
Rice and White (1987)
Bills and Marking (1987)
Fish exposed for eight months. Residues measured in
males and females.
Field study
30-day exposure duration
Whole body
Pimephales promeles
Pimephales promeles
Oncorhynchus mykiss
C-69
-------
TABLE C-5
WATER-TO-FISH BIOCONCENTRATION FACTORS
(mg COPC / kg wet tissue) / (mg dissolved COPC / L water)
(Page 5 of 19)
Reported Values
13,000,000 in lipid
1,030,000 dry tissue
370,000
1,200,000
47,000
42,000
37,000
30,000
>670,00
>133,000
38,000
61,200
Reference
Scura and Theilacker (1977)
Veithetal. (1977)
Mauck et al. (1978) as cited in U.S. EPA
(1980b)
Snarski and Puglisi (1976) as cited in U.S. EPA
(1980b)
Hansen et al. (1971) as cited in EPA (1980b)
Hansen et al. (1973) as cited in EPA (1980b)
Duke et al. (1970) and Nimmo et al. (1977) as
cited in EPA (1980b)
Nimmo et al. (1977) as cited in EPA (1980b)
Halter (1974) as cited in EPA (1980b)
Mayer et al. (1977) as cited in EPA (1980b)
Experimental Parameters
45 days exposure
Field samples
118 days exposure
Whole body
500 days exposure
Body lipid 2.9 percent
Whole body
28 days exposure
1 . 1 percent lipid
Whole body
28 days exposure
3.6 percent lipid
Whole body
Field data
Whole body
Field data
24 days exposure
77 days exposure
Whole body
Species
Engraulis mordex
Sculpins (bottom fish)
Pelagic fish
Salvellnus fontinalis
Salvellnus fontinalis
Leiostomus xanthurus
Cyprinodon variegatus
Cynoscion nebulosus
Fishes
Salmo gairdneri
Ictalurus punctatus
Nitroaromatics
Compound: 1,3-Dinitrobenzene Recommended BCF value: 74
The BCF for 1,3 -dinitrobenzene was based on one laboratory value as follows:
74
Deener, Sinnige, Seinen, and Hemens (1987)
3 -day exposure duration
Poecilia reticulata
Compound: 2,4-Dinitrotoluene Recommended BCF value: 21.04
C-70
-------
TABLE C-5
WATER-TO-FISH BIOCONCENTRATION FACTORS
(mg COPC / kg wet tissue) / (mg dissolved COPC / L water)
(Page 6 of 19)
Reported Values
Reference
Experimental Parameters
Species
Empirical data for this compound were not available. The BCF for nitrobenzene was used as a surrogate.
Compound: 2,6-Dinitrotoluene Recommended BCF value: 21.04
Empirical data for this compound were not available. The BCF for nitrobenzene used as a surrogate.
Compound: Nitrobenzene Recommended BCF value: 21.04
The recommended BCF value was calculated using the geometric mean of 2 laboratory values as follows:
29.5
15
Deneer, Sinnige, Seinen, and Hermens (1987)
Veith, DeFoe, and Bergstedt (1979)
3 -day exposure duration
28-day exposure duration
Poecilia reticulata
Pimephales promelas
Compound: Pentachloronitrobenzene Recommended BCF value: 214
The recommended BCF value was calculated using the geometric mean of 7 laboratory values as follows:
238
250
320
380
114
147
169
Kanazawa(1981)
Korte, Freitag, Geyer, Klein, Kraus, and
Lahaniatis(1978)
Niimi, Lee, and Kissoon (1989)
Continuous flow test
24-hr exposure duration
20, 28, and 36-day exposure duration
Pseudorasbora parva
Leucisens idus melanotus
Oncorhynchus mykiss
Phthalate Esters
Compound: Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate Recommended BCF value: 70
The recommended BCF value was calculated using the geometric mean of 14 laboratory values as follows:
91
569
155
42
Mayer (1976)
Mehrle and Mayer (1976)
56-day exposure duration; based on a high to low
range of reported values.
36 to 56-day exposure
Pimephales promelas
Pimephales promelas
Oncorhynchus mykiss
C-71
-------
TABLE C-5
WATER-TO-FISH BIOCONCENTRATION FACTORS
(mg COPC / kg wet tissue) / (mg dissolved COPC / L water)
(Page 7 of 19)
Reported Values
178
10,563
306
51.5
8.9
1.6
4
851
10.7
13.5
Reference
Sodergren(1982)
Tarr, Barron, and Hayton (1990)
U.S. EPA(1992a)
Veith, DeFoe, and Bergstedt (1979)
Wofford, Wilsey, Neff, Giam, and Neff (1981)
Experimental Parameters
27-day exposure duration
Not reported
Not reported
Not reported
24-hour exposure duration
Species
Phoxinus phoxinus
Lampetra planeri
Pungitis pungitis
Salmo gairdneri
Fish
Pimephales promelas
Cypinodon variegatus
Compound: Di(n)octyl phthalate Recommended BCF value: 9,400
The recommended BCF value was based on data from one study as follows:
9,400
Sanborn, Metcalf, Yu, and Lu (1975)
Not reported
Gambusia affinis
Volatile Organic Compounds
Compound: Acetone Recommended BCF value: 0.10
Empirical data were not available for this compound. The BCF was calculated using the following regression equation:
log BCF = 0.91 x log Kow - 1.975 x log(6.8E-07 x Kow + 1.0) - 0.786 (Bintein et al. 1993), where log Kow = -0.222 (Karickoff and Long 1995)
Compound: Acrylonitrile Recommended BCF value: 48
The recommended BCF value was based on data from one study as follows:
48
Barrows, Petrocelli, Macek, and Carroll (1978)
28-day exposure duration
Lepomis macrochirus
Compound: Chloroform Recommended BCF value: 3.59
The recommended BCF value was calculated using the geometric mean of 3 laboratory values follows:
5.6
3.44
2.4
Anderson and Lusty (1980)
24-hr exposure, 24-hr depuration
Oncorhynchus mykiss
Leponis macrochinus
Micropterus salmoides
C-72
-------
TABLE C-5
WATER-TO-FISH BIOCONCENTRATION FACTORS
(mg COPC / kg wet tissue) / (mg dissolved COPC / L water)
(Page 8 of 19)
Reported Values
Reference
Experimental Parameters
Species
Compound:
Crotonaldehyde
Recommended BCF value: 0.52
Empirical data were not available for this compound. The BCF was calculated using the following regression equation:
log BCF = 0.91 x log Kow - 1.975 x log(6.8E-07 x Kow + 1.0) - 0.786 (Bintein et al. 1993), where log Kow = 0.55 (based on equation in Hansch and Leo 1979, as calculated inNRC (1981)).
Compound:
Formaldehyde
Recommended BCF value: 0.34
Empirical data were not available for this compound. The BCF was calculated using the following regression equation:
log BCF = 0.91 x log Kow - 1.975 x log(6.8E-07 x Kow + 1.0) - 0.786 (Bintein et al. 1993), where log Kow = 0.342 (U.S. EPA 1995a)
Compound:
Vinyl chloride
Recommended BCF value: 1.81
Empirical data were not available for this compound. The BCF was calculated using the following regression equation:
log BCF = 0.91 x log Kow - 1.975 x log(6.8E-07 x Kow + 1.0) - 0.786 (Bintein et al. 1993), where log Kow =1.146 (U.S. EPA 1994b)
Other Chlorinated Organics
Compound:
Carbon tetrachloride
Recommended BCF value: 30
The recommended BCF value was based on 1 laboratory values as follows:
30
Barrows, Petrocelli, Macek, and Carroll (1978)
28-day exposure duration
Lepomis macrochirus
Compound:
Hexachlorobenzene
Recommended BCF value: 253
The recommended BCF value on 1 field value as followsbi
253
Oliver and Niimi (1988)
Field samples.
Freshwater fish
22,000
Carlson and Kosian (1987)
32-day exposure duration
Pimephales promelas
1,260
2,040
6,160
15,850
Isensee, Holden, Woolson, and Jones (1976)
31-day exposure duration
Gambusia affinis
Ictalurus punctatus
290,000
Koneman and van Leeuwen (1980)
Not reported
Poecilia reticulata
400
420
Korte, Freitag, Geyer, Klein, Kraus, and
Lahaniatis(1978)
1-day exposure duration
Zeucisens idus melanotus
C-73
-------
TABLE C-5
WATER-TO-FISH BIOCONCENTRATION FACTORS
(mg COPC / kg wet tissue) / (mg dissolved COPC / L water)
(Page 9 of 19)
Reported Values
32,000
39,000
5,200
6,970
93
287
12,240 12,600
15,250 13,330
21,140
253,333
27,000
18,500
7,800
8,690
253
Reference
Kosian, Lemke, Studders, and Veith (1981)
Lores, Patrick, and Summers (1993)
Metcalf, Kapoor, Lu, Schuth, and Sherman
(1973)
Nebeker, Griffis, Wise, Hopkins, and Barbittas
(1989)
Oliver and Niimi (1983)
Schrap and Opperhuizen (1990)
Veith, DeFoe, and Bergstedt (1979)
U.S. EPA (1987)
U.S. EPA(1980h)
Oliver and Niimi (1988)
Experimental Parameters
28-day exposure duration
30-day exposure duration; based on a high to low
range of reported values.
3 to 32-day exposure duration
28-day exposure duration
1 19-day exposure duration
Not reported
32-day exposure duration
Not reported
Not reported
Field samples.
Species
Pimephales promelas
Cyprinodon variegatus
Gambusia affinis
Pimephales promelas
Oncorhynchus mykiss
Poecilia reticulata
Pimephales promelas
Oncorhynchus mykiss
Pimephales promelas
Freshwater fish
Compound: Hexachlorobutadiene Recommended BCF value: 783
The recommended BCF value was calculated using the geometric mean of 3 laboratory values as follows:
920
1,200
435
Leeuwangh, Bult, and Schneiders (1975)
Laska, Bartell, Laseter (1976)
49-day exposure duration; 15-day depuration. The
values reported in Leeuwangh, Bult, and Schneiders
(1975) were converted to wet weight using an unit
conversion factor of 5.0 a.
Not reported
Carassius auratus
Gambusia affinis
Compound: Hexachlorocyclopentadiene Recommended BCF value: 165
The recommended BCF value was calculated using the geometric mean of 6 laboratory values as follows:
C-74
-------
TABLE C-5
WATER-TO-FISH BIOCONCENTRATION FACTORS
(mg COPC / kg wet tissue) / (mg dissolved COPC / L water)
(Page 10 of 19)
Reported Values
1,230
448
100
1,148
11
29
Reference
Freitag, Geyer, Kraus, Viswanathan, Kotzias,
Attar, Klein, and Korte (1982)
Lu and Metcalf( 1975)
Podowski and Khan (1984)
Spehar, Veith, DeFoe, and Bergstedt (1979)
Veith, DeFoe, and Bergstedt (1979)
Experimental Parameters
3-day exposure duration
Not reported. The values reported in Lu and Metcalf
(1975) were converted to wet weight using an unit
conversion factor of 5.0 a
16-day exposure duration
30-day exposure duration
32-day exposure duration
Species
Leuciscus idus
Gambusia affinis
Carassius auratus
Pimephales promelas
Pimephales promelas
Compound: Pentachlorobenzene Recommended BCF value: 12,690
The recommended BCF value was calculated using the geometric mean of 12 laboratory values as follows:
5,100
7,100
7,300
26,000
8,400
28,183
260,000
17,000
6,600
23,000
4,700
3,400
Banerjee, Suggatt, and O'Grady (1984)
Bruggeman, Oppenhuizen, Wijbenga, and
Hutzinger(1984)
Carlson and Kosian (1987)
Ikemoto, Motoba, Suzuki, Uchida (1992)
Konemann and van Leeuwen (1980)
Opperhuizen, Velde, Gobas, Liem, and Steen
(1985)
Qiao and Farrell (1996)
Schrap and Opperhuizen (1990)
Van Hoogen and Opperhuizen (1988)
Veith, Macek, Petrocelli, and Carroll (1980)
2-day exposure duration
Not reported
31 -day exposure duration
24-hour exposure duration
Not reported
Multiple exposure durations
10-day exposure duration
Not reported
5 -day exposure duration; 21 -day depuration
28-day exposure duration
Lepomis macrochirus
Oncorynchus mykiss
Poecilia reticulata
Poecilia reticulata
Pimephales promelas
Oryzias latipes
Poecilia reticulata
Poecilia reticulata
Oncorhynchus mykiss
Poecilia reticulata
Poecilia reticulata
Lepomis macrochirus
C-75
-------
TABLE C-5
WATER-TO-FISH BIOCONCENTRATION FACTORS
(mg COPC / kg wet tissue) / (mg dissolved COPC / L water)
(Page 11 of 19)
Reported Values
Reference
Experimental Parameters
Species
Compound: Pentachlorophenol Recommended BCF value: 109
The recommended BCF value was calculated using the geometric mean of 20 laboratory values as follows:
128
776
189.5
2
131
350
16
48
5
27
30
38
216
1,066
434
426
281
52.3
607
770
Garten and Trabalka (1983)
Gates and Tjeerdema (1993)
Kobayashi and Kishino (1980)
Korte, Freitag, Geyer, Klein, Karus, and
Lahaniatis(1978)
Parrish, Dyar, Enos, and Wilson (1978)
Schimmel, Patrick, and Faas (1978)
Smith, Bharath, Mallard, Orr, McCarty, and
Ozburn(1990)
Spehar , Nelson, Swanson, and Renoos (1985)
Stehly and Hayton (1990)
Veith, DeFoe, and Bergstedt (1979)
Not reported
1-day exposure duration
1-hour exposure duration
1-day exposure duration
28 to 151-day exposure duration
28-day exposure duration
28-day exposure; 14-day depuration
32-day exposure duration
96-hour exposure
32-day exposure
Fish
Morons saxatilis
Carassius auratus
Zeucisens idus melanotus
Cyprinodon variegatus
Funidulus similis
Mugil cephalus
Jordanella floridae
Pimephales promelas
Carassius auratus
Pimephales promelas
Pesticides
Compound: 4,4-DDE Recommended BCF value: 25,512
C-76
-------
TABLE C-5
WATER-TO-FISH BIOCONCENTRATION FACTORS
(mg COPC / kg wet tissue) / (mg dissolved COPC / L water)
(Page 12 of 19)
Reported Values
Reference
Experimental Parameters
Species
The recommended BCF value was calculated using the geometric mean of 1 1 laboratory values as follows:
12,037
51,285
27,542
5,010
110,000
106,000
181,000
27,358
217
27,358
81,000
51,000
Metcalf, Sanborn, Lu, and Nye (1975)
Garten and Trabalka (1983)
Hamelink and Waybrant (1976)
Metcalf, Sangha, and Kapoor (1971)
Metcalf, Kapoor, Lu, Schuth, and Sherman
(1973)
Oliver and Niimi (1985)
Veith, DeFoe, and Bergstedt (1979)
Not reported
Freshwater
Not reported
33-day exposure duration
3 to 33-day exposure duration
96-day exposure duration
32-day exposure duration
Fish
Fish
Lepomis macrochirus
Oncorhynchus mykiss
Gambusia affinis
Gambusia affinis
Oncorhynchus mykiss
Pimephales promelas
Compound: Heptachlor Recommended BCF value: 5,522
The recommended BCF value was calculated using the geometric mean of 7 laboratory values as follows:
3,700
2,400
4,600
3,600
10,000
11,200
9,500
Goodman, Hansen, Couch, and Forester (1978)
Schimmel, Patrick, and Forester (1976)
U.S. EPA(1980a)
Veith, DeFoe, and Bergstedt (1979)
28-day exposure duration
96-hour exposure duration
Not reported
32-day exposure duration
Cyprinodon variegatus
Leiostomus xanthurus
Fish
Pimephales promelas
Compound: Hexachlorophene Recommended BCF value: 278
The recommended BCF value was based on data from one study as follows:
278
Sanborn (1974)
Not reported
Oncorhychus mykiss
C-77
-------
TABLE C-5
WATER-TO-FISH BIOCONCENTRATION FACTORS
(mg COPC / kg wet tissue) / (mg dissolved COPC / L water)
(Page 13 of 19)
Reported Values
Reference
Experimental Parameters
Species
Inorganics
Compound: Aluminum Recommended BCF value: 2.70
The recommended BCF value was calculated using the geometric mean of 7 laboratory values as follows:
0.05
1.25
0.05
0.35
36
123
215
Cleveland, Little, Hamilton, Buckler, and Hunn
(1986)
Cleveland, Buckler, and Brumbaugh (1991)
37-day exposure duration
56-day exposure duration; 28-day depuration
Salvelinus fontinalis
Salvelinus fontinalis
Compound: Antimony Recommended BCF value: 40
The recommended BCF value was based on one study as follows:
40
Thompson, Burton, Quinn, andNg (1972)
Not reported
Fish
Compound: Arsenic Recommended BCF value: 114
The recommended BCF value was calculated using the geometric mean of 3 laboratory values as follows:
333
100
44
Thompson, Burton, Quinn, andNg (1972)
U.S.EPA(1992b)
Not reported
Not reported
Fish
Fish
Compound: Barium Recommended BCF value: 633
Empirical data for this compound were not available. The recommended BCF is the arithmetic mean of the recommended values for 14 inorganics with empirical data available (aluminum,
antimony, arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, mercury, nickel, selenium, silver, thallium, and zinc).
Compound: Beryllium Recommended BCF value: 62
The recommended BCF value was calculated using the geometric mean of 4 laboratory values as follows:
C-78
-------
TABLE C-5
WATER-TO-FISH BIOCONCENTRATION FACTORS
(mg COPC / kg wet tissue) / (mg dissolved COPC / L water)
(Page 14 of 19)
Reported Values
200
200
19
19
Reference
Thompson, Burton, Quinn, andNg (1972)
U.S.EPA(1992b)
U.S. EPA (1978)
Experimental Parameters
Not reported
Not reported
28-day exposure duration
Species
Fish
Fish
Fish
Compound: Cadmium Recommended BCF value: 907
The recommended BCF value was calculated using the geometric mean of 4 field values.
558
1,295
729
1,286
716
480
161
51
33
8
3,333
4.4
3,000
200
Saiki, Castleberry, May, Martin, and Ballard
(1995)
Benoit, Leonard, Christensen, and Fiandt (1976)
Eisler, Zaroogian, and Hennekey (1972)
Harrison and Klaverkamp (1989)
Kumada, Kimura, and Yokote (1980)
Kumada, Kimura, Yokote, and Matida (1973)
Spehar(1976)
Thompson, Burton, Quinn and Ng (1972)
Field samples. The field values reported in Saiki,
Castleberry, May, Martin, and Ballard (1995) were
converted to wet weight using a conversion factor of
5.0a. The field values are also based on mean values
calculated for each of the 4 fish species.
38-week exposure duration; based on mean values
calculated from various tissue concentrations in the
kidney, liver, spleen, gonad, gills, and muscle/red
blood cells. A unit conversion of 1,000 was applied
to the value.
3-week exposure duration
72-day exposure duration, 25 and 63-day depuration
1 0 week exposure duration
280-day exposure; values are based on a high to low
range of values. The values reported in Kumada,
Kimura, Yokote, and Matida (1973) were converted
to wet weight using a conversion factor of 5.0a.
30-day exposure duration
Not reported
Catostomus occidentalis
Gasterosteus aculeatus
Ptychocheilus grandis
Oncorhynchus tshawytasch
Salvelinus fontanilis
Fundulus heteroclitus
Oncorhynchus mykiss
Coregonus clupeatormis
Oncorhynchus mykiss
Oncorhynchus mykiss
Jordanella floridae
Fish
C-79
-------
TABLE C-5
WATER-TO-FISH BIOCONCENTRATION FACTORS
(mg COPC / kg wet tissue) / (mg dissolved COPC / L water)
(Page 15 of 19)
Reported Values
4,100
Reference
Williams and Giesy (1979)
Experimental Parameters
56-day exposure duration
Species
Fish
Compound: Chromium (total) Recommended BCF value: 19
The recommended BCF value was calculated using the geometric mean of 4 laboratory values as follows:
1.27
1.34
200
400
Fromm and Stokes (1962)
Thompson, Burton, Quinn, andNg (1972)
30-day exposure duration; values are based on a high
to low range of reported values.
Not reported
Oncorhynchus mykiss
Fish
Compound: Copper Recommended BCF value: 710
The recommended BCF value was calculated using the geometric mean of 4 field values as follows:
761
697
1,236
387
50
500
667
36
Saiki, Castleberry, May, Martin, and Ballard
(1995)
Thompson, Burton, Quinn, andNg (1972)
U.S. EPA(1992b)
Field samples
Not reported
Not reported
Catostomus occidentalis
Gasterosteus aculeatus
Ptychocheilus grandis
Oncorhynchus tshawytasch
Fish
Fish
-------
TABLE C-5
WATER-TO-FISH BIOCONCENTRATION FACTORS
(mg COPC / kg wet tissue) / (mg dissolved COPC / L water)
(Page 16 of 19)
Reported Values
Reference
Experimental Parameters
Species
Compound: Cyanide (total) Recommended BCF value: 633
Empirical data for this compound were not available. The recommended BCF is the arithmetic mean of the recommended values for 14 inorganics with empirical data available (aluminum,
antimony, arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, mercury, nickel, selenium, silver, thallium, and zinc).
Compound: Lead Recommended BCF value: 0.09
The recommended BCF value based on one field value:
0.09
0.15
0.17
300
100
Atchinson, Murphy, Bishop, Mclntosh, and
Mayes(1977)
Holcombe, Benoit, Leonard, and McKim (1976)
Thompson, Burton, Quinn, andNg (1972)
Field samples. The values reported in Atchinson,
Murphy, Bishop, Mclntosh, and Mayes (1977) were
converted to wet weight using a conversion factor of
5.0a
266-day exposure duration. The values reported in
Holcombe, Benoit, Leonard, and McKim (1976) were
converted to wet weight using a conversion factor of
5.0a. Mean values were calculated based on tissue
concentrations in the red blood cells, kidney, and
muscle.
Not reported
Lepomis macrochiras
Salvelinus fontanilis
Fish
Compound: Mercuric chloride Recommended BCF value: 3,530
The recommended BCF value was calculated using the geometric mean of 3 laboratory values as follows:
1,800
4,380
5,580
Boudou and Ribeyre (1984)
Snarski and Olson (1982)
60-day exposure duration
287-day exposure duration; values are based on a
high to low range of reported values.
Oncorhynchus mykiss
Pimephales promelas
Compound: Methyl mercury Recommended BCF value: 11,168
The recommended BCF value was calculated using the geometric mean of 3 laboratory values as follows:
11,000
Boudou and Ribeyre (1 984)
60-day exposure duration
Oncorhynchus mykiss
C-81
-------
TABLE C-5
WATER-TO-FISH BIOCONCENTRATION FACTORS
(mg COPC / kg wet tissue) / (mg dissolved COPC / L water)
(Page 17 of 19)
Reported Values
10,800
11,724
Reference
McKim, Olson, Holcome, and Hunt (1976)
Experimental Parameters
756-day exposure duration
Species
Salvelinus fontinalis
Compound: Nickel Recommended BCF value: 78
The recommended BCF value was calculated using the geometric mean of 3 laboratory values as follows:
100
100
47
Thompson, Burton, Quinn, andNg (1972)
U.S.EPA(1992b)
Not reported
Not reported
Fish
Fish
Compound: Selenium Recommended BCF value: 129
The recommended BCF value was calculated using the geometric mean of 12 laboratory values as follows:
18
4,900
5
7
154
711
3
240
285
465
4,000
167
Adams (1976)
Besser, Canfield, and LaPoint (1993)
Cleveland , Little, Buckler, and Wiedmeyer
(1993)
Dobbs, Cherry, and Cairns (1996)
Hodson, Spry, and Blunt (1980)
Lemly(1982)
Thompson, Burton, Quinn, andNg (1972)
96-day exposure duration
30-day exposure duration
60-day exposure duration; values are based on a high
to low range of reported values.
25-day exposure duration
351 -day exposure duration; values represent a high to
low range of reported values based on BCFs for
peritoneal fat and the liver.
120-day exposure duration
Not reported
Fish
Lepomis reinhardtii
Lepomis macrochirus
Pimephales promelas
Oncorhynchus mykiss
Micropterus salmoides
Lepomis macrochirus
Fish
Compound: Silver Recommended BCF value: 87.71
The recommended BCF value was calculated using the geometric mean of 2 laboratory values as follows:
3,330
Thompson, Burton, Quinn, andNg (1972)
Not reported
Fish
C-82
-------
TABLE C-5
WATER-TO-FISH BIOCONCENTRATION FACTORS
(mg COPC / kg wet tissue) / (mg dissolved COPC / L water)
(Page 18 of 19)
Reported Values
Reference
Experimental Parameters
Species
Compound: Thallium Recommended BCF value: 10,000
The recommended BCF value was calculated using the geometric mean of 2 laboratory values as follows:
10,000
10,000
Thompson, Burton, Quinn, andNg (1972)
Not reported
Fish
Compound: Zinc Recommended BCF value: 2,059
The recommended BCF value was calculated using the geometric mean of 4 field values as follows:
2,299
2,265
4,290
804
50
130
130
200
373
8,853
1,000
2,000
2,000
47
Saiki, Castleberry, May, Martin, and Ballard
(1995)
Deutch, Borg, Kloster, Meyer, and Moller
(1980)
Pentreath(1973)
Thompson, Burton, Quinn and Ng (1972)
U.S. EPA(1992b)
Field samples.
9-day exposure duration
180-day exposure duration; values are based on a
high to low range of reported values
Not reported
Not reported
Catostomus occidentalis
Gasteroteus aculeatus
Ptychocheilus grandis
Oncorhynchus tshawytasch
Spinachia vulgaris
Gasterosteus acul.
Pungitius pungitius
Cottus scorpius
Pleuronectes platessa
Fish
Fish
Notes:
(a) The reported values are presented as the amount of COPC in fish tissue divided by the amount of COPC in water. If the values reported in the studies were presented as dry tissue weight,
they were converted to wet weight by dividing the concentration in dry fish tissue weight by 5.0. This conversion factor assumes a fish's total weight is 80.0 percent moisture (Holcomb,
Benoit, Leonard, and McKim 1976).
C-83
-------
TABLE C-5
WATER-TO-FISH BIOCONCENTRATION FACTORS
(mg COPC / kg wet tissue) / (mg dissolved COPC / L water)
(Page 19 of 19)
The conversion factor was calculated as follows:
n . f . 1.0 g fish total weight
Conversion jactor= ^^ —
1.0 g fish total weight - 0.80 g fish wet weight
(b) The equation used to convert the total organic COPC concentrations in field samples to dissolved COPC concentrations is from U.S. EPA (1995a) as follows:
BAF (dissolved) = (BAF (total) lffd)-\
where: BAF (dissolved) = BAF based on dissolved concentration of COPC in water
BAF (total) = BAF based on the field derived data for total concentration of COPC in water
ffd = Fraction of COPC that is freely dissolved in the water
where: jfe = 1 / [1 + ((DOC x Km) 110) + (POC x Km)]
DOC = Dissolved organic carbon, Kg of organic carbon / L of water (2.0 x 10"06 kg/L)
Km = Octanol-water partition coefficient of the COPC, as reported in U.S. EPA (1994b)
POC = Particulate organic carbon, Kg of organic carbon / L of water (7.5 x 10"09 Kg/L)
(c) The reported field BAFs were converted to BCFs as follows:
BCF=(BAFTLJFCMTLn)-\
where: BAFTLn = The reported field bioaccumulation factor for the trophic level "n" of the study species.
FCMTLn = The food chain multiplier for the trophic level "n" of the study species.
(d) PCB values were converted to dissolved COPC BCFs based on the Km for Aroclor 1254.
(e) The geometric mean of the converted field derived BCFs was compared to the geometric mean of the laboratory derived BCFs. The higher of the two values was selected as the COPC
BCF.
C-84
-------
TABLE C-6
SEDIMENT-TO-BENTHIC INVERTEBRATE BIOCONCENTRATION FACTORS
(mg COPC / kg wet tissue) / (mg COPC / kg dry sediment)
(Page 1 of 11)
Reported Values"
Reference
Experimental Parameters
Species
Dioxins and Furans
Compound:
2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin(2,3,7,8-TCDD)
Recommended BCF value: 19,596
Empirical data for this compound were not available. The BCF was calculated using the following regression equation:
log BCF = 0.819 x log K^, - 1.146 (Southworth, Beauchamp, and Schmieder 1978), where log K^ = 6.64 (U.S. EPA 1994a)
Compound:
l,2,3,7,8-Pentachlorodibenzo(p)dioxin(l,2,3,7,8-PeCDD)
Recommended BCF value: 18,023
The BCF was calculated using the TCDD BCF and a congener-speccific bioaccumulation equivalency factor (BEF) (U.S. EPA 1995b) as follows: BCF =19,596 x 0.92 =3,896
Compound:
l,2,3,4,7,8-Hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin(l,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD)
Recommended BCF value: 6,075
The BCF was calculated using the TCDD BCF and a congener-specific BEF (U.S. EPA 1995b) as follows: BCF =19,596 x 0.31 =1313
Compound:
l,2,3,6,7,8-Hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin(l,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD)
Recommended BCF value: 2,351
The BCF was calculated using the TCDD BCF and a congener-specific BEF (U.S. EPA 1995b) as follows: BCF =19,596 x 0.12 =2,351
Compound:
l,2,3,7,8,9-Hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin(l,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD)
Recommended BCF value: 2,743
The BCF was calculated using the TCDD BCF and a congener-specific BEF (U.S. EPA 1995b) as follows: BCF =19,596 x 0.14 =2,743
Compound:
l,2,3,4,6,7,8-Heptachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin(l,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD)
Recommended BCF value: 99.4
The BCF was calculated using the TCDD BCF and a congener-specific BEF (U.S. EPA 1995b) as follows: BCF =19,596 x 0.051 =99.4
Compound:
Octachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (OCDD)
Recommended BCF value: 23.5
The BCF was calculated using the TCDD BCF and a congener-specific BEF (U.S. EPA 1995b) as follows: BCF =19,596 x 0.012 =23.5
Compound:
2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzofuran(2,3,7,8-TCDF)
Recommended BCF value: 2,642
The BCF was calculated using the TCDD BCF and a congener-specific BEF (U.S. EPA 1995b) as follows: BCF = 3,302 xO.80 = 2,642
Compound:
l,2,3,7,8-Pentachlorodibenzo-p-furan(l,2,3,7,8-PeCDF)
Recommended BCF value: 4,311
The BCF was calculated using the TCDD BCF and a congener-specific BEF (U.S. EPA 1995b) as follows: BCF =19,596 x 0.22 =4,311
Compound:
2,3,4,7,8-Pentachlorodibenzo-p-furan(2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF)
Recommended BCF value: 31,354
The BCF was calculated using the TCDD BCF and a congener-specific BEF (U.S. EPA 1995b) as follows: BCF =19,596 x 1.6 =31,354
C-85
-------
TABLE C-6
SEDIMENT-TO-BENTHIC INVERTEBRATE BIOCONCENTRATION FACTORS
(mg COPC / kg wet tissue) / (mg COPC / kg dry sediment)
(Page 2 of 11)
Reported Values"
Reference
Experimental Parameters
Compound: l52,3,4,7,8-Hexachlorodibenzo-D-furand.2.3.4.7.8-HxCDF1
Species
Recommended BCF value: 1,489
The BCF was calculated using the TCDD BCF and a congener-specific BEF (U.S. EPA 1995b) as follows: BCF =19,596 x 0.076 =1,489
Compound: l,2,3,6,7,8-Hexachlorodibenzo-B-furand.2.3.6.7.8-HxCDF1
Recommended BCF value: 3,723
The BCF was calculated using the TCDD BCF and a congener-specific BEF (U.S. EPA 1995b) as follows: BCF =19,596 x 0.19 =3,723
Compound: 2,3,4,6,7,8-Hexachlorodibenzo-B-furan('2.3.4.6.7.8-HxCDF')
Recommended BCF value: 13,129
The BCF was calculated using the TCDD BCF and a congener-specific BEF (U.S. EPA 1995b) as follows: BCF =19,596 x 0.67 = 13,129
Compound: l,2,3,7,8,9-Hexachlorodibenzo-B-furand.2.3.7.8.9-HxCDF1
Recommended BCF value: 12,345
The BCF was calculated using the TCDD BCF and a congener-specific BEF (U.S. EPA 1995b) as follows: BCF =19,596 x 0.63 =12,345
Compound: 1,2,3,4,6,7,8,-HeDtachlorodibenzo-D-furan d.2.3.4.6.7.8-HBCDFl
Recommended BCF value: 215.6
The BCF was calculated using the TCDD BCF and a congener-specific BEF (U.S. EPA 1995b) as follows: BCF =19,596 x 0.01 1 =215.6
Compound: 1,2,3,4,7,8,9-Heptachlorodibenzo-o-furan d.23A7A9-FroCDFN>
Recommended BCF value: 7,642
The BCF was calculated using the TCDD BCF and a congener-specific (U.S. EPA 1995b) as follows: BCF =19,596 x 0.39 =7,642
Compound: Octachlorodibenzo-p-furan (OCDF)
Recommended BCF value: 313.5
The BCF was calculated using the TCDD BCF and a congener-specific BEF (U.S. EPA 1995b) as follows: BCF =19,596 x 0.016 =313.5
Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs)
Compound: Benzo(a)pyrene
Recommended BCF value: 1 . 59
The recommended BCF value was calculated using the geometric mean of 8 values as follows:
5.2
2.8
0.4
0.65
7.4
Augenfeld, Anderson, Riley, and Thomas (1982)
Driscoll and McElroy (1996)
60-day exposure duration
6 to 12-day exposure duration
Macoma inquinata
Abarenicola pacifica
Nereis diversicolor
Scolecolipides virdis
Leitoscoloplos fragilis
C-86
-------
TABLE C-6
SEDIMENT-TO-BENTHIC INVERTEBRATE BIOCONCENTRATION FACTORS
(mg COPC / kg wet tissue) / (mg COPC / kg dry sediment)
(Page 3 of 11)
Reported Values"
2.3
6.9
0.09
Reference Experiment!
Landrum, Eadie, and Faust (1991) Mixture of PAH at four
Roesijadi, Anderson, and Blaylock (1978) 7-day exposure duration
Compound: Benzo(a)anthracene
il Parameters Species
concentrations Diporeia sp.
Macoma inquinata
Recommended BCF value: 1 .45
Empirical data for this compound were not available. Therefore, the BCF for benzo(a)pyrene was used as a surrogate.
Compound: Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Recommended BCF value: 1.61
Empirical data for this compound were not available. Therefore, the BCF for benzo(a)pyrene was used as a surrogate.
Compound: Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Recommended BCF value: 1.61
Empirical data for this compound were not available. Therefore, the BCF for benzo(a)pyrene was used as a surrogate.
Compound: Chrysene
Recommended BCF value: 1.38
BCF value was calculated using the geometric mean of 3 values as follows:
0.04
11.6
5.64
Roesijadi, Anderson, and Blaylock (1978) 7-day exposure duration
Augenfeld, Anderson, Riley, and Thomas (1982) 60-day exposure duratio
Compound: Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
Macoma inquinata
n Macoma inquinata
Abarenicola pacifica
Recommended BCF value: 1.61
Empirical data for this compound were not available. Therefore, the BCF for benzo(a)pyrene was used as a surrogate.
Compound: Indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene
Recommended BCF value: 1.61
Empirical data for this compound were not available. Therefore, the BCF for benzo(a)pyrene was used as a surrogate.
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs)
Compound: Aroclor 1016
Recommended BCF value: 0.53
The recommended BCF value was calculated using the geometric mean of 2 empirical values as follows:
C-87
-------
TABLE C-6
SEDIMENT-TO-BENTHIC INVERTEBRATE BIOCONCENTRATION FACTORS
(mg COPC / kg wet tissue) / (mg COPC / kg dry sediment)
(Page 4 of 11)
Reported Values"
0.2
1.4
Compound: Aroclor 1254
Reference
Wood, O'Keefe, and Bush (1997)
Experimental Parameters
12-day exposure duration; 1-day depuration
Species
Chironomus tentans
Recommended BCF value: 0.53
The recommended BCF value was calculated using the geometric mean of 2 empirical values as follows:
0.2
1.4
Wood, O'Keefe, and Bush (1997)
12-day exposure duration; 1-day depuration
Chironomus tentans
Nitroaromatics
Compound: 1,3-Dinitrobenzene
Recommended BCF value: 1.19
Empirical data for this compound were not available. The BCF was calculated using the following regression equation:
log BCF = 0.819 x log K^ - 1.146 (Southworth, Beauchamp, and Schmieder 1978), where log K^ = 1.491 (U.S. EPA 1994b)
Compound: 2,4-Dinitrotoluene
Recommended BCF value: 58
The recommended BCF value was based on 1 study as follows:
58
Liu, Bailey, and Pearson (1983)
4-day exposure duration
Compound: 2,6-Dinitrotoluene
Lumbriculus variegatus
Recommended BCF value: 2.50
Empirical data for this compound were not available. The BCF was calculated using the following regression equation:
log BCF = 0.819 x log Kow - 1.146 (Southworth, Beauchamp, and Schmieder 1978), where log Kow = 1.886 (U.S. EPA 1994b)
Compound: Nitrobenzene
Recommended BCF value: 2.27
Empirical data were not available for this compound. The BCF was calculated using the following regression equation:
log BCF = 0.819 x log Kow - 1.146 (Southworth, Beauchamp, and Schmieder 1978), where log Kow = 1.833 (U.S. EPA 1994b)
Compound: Pentachloronitrobenzene
Recommended BCF value: 451
Empirical data for this compound were not available. The BCF was calculated using the following regression equation:
log BCF = 0.819 x log Kow - 1.146 (Southworth, Beauchamp, and Schmieder 1978), where log Kow = 4.640 (U.S. EPA 1994b)
Phthalate Esters
Compound: Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Recommended BCF value: 1,309
C-:
-------
TABLE C-6
SEDIMENT-TO-BENTHIC INVERTEBRATE BIOCONCENTRATION FACTORS
(mg COPC / kg wet tissue) / (mg COPC / kg dry sediment)
(Page 5 of 11)
Reported Values"
Reference
Experimental Parameters
Species
Empirical data for this compound were not available. The BCF was calculated using the following regression equation:
log BCF = 0.819 x log K^, - 1.146 (Southworth, Beauchamp, and Schmieder 1978), where log Kow = 5.205 (U.S. EPA 1994b)
Compound:
Di(n)octyl phthalate
Recommended BCF value: 3,128,023
Empirical data for this compound were not available. The BCF was calculated using the following regression equation:
log BCF = 0.819 x log K^, - 1.146 (Southworth, Beauchamp, and Schmieder 1978), where log K^ = 9.330 (U.S. EPA 1994b)
Volatile Organic Compounds
Compound:
Acetone
Recommended BCF value: 0.05
Empirical data for this compound were not available. The BCF was calculated using the following regression equation:
log BCF = 0.819 x log K^, - 1.146 (Southworth, Beauchamp, and Schmieder 1978), where log K^ = -0.222 (Karickoff and Long 1995)
Compound:
Acrylonitrile
Recommended BCF value: 0.11
Empirical data for this compound were not available. The BCF was calculated using the following regression equation:
log BCF = 0.819 x log K^, - 1.146 (Southworth, Beauchamp, and Schmieder 1978), where log Kow = 0.250 (Karickoff and Long 1995)
Compound:
Chloroform
Recommended BCF value: 2.82
Empirical data for this compound were not available. The BCF was calculated using the following regression equation:
log BCF = 0.819 x log K^, - 1.146 (Southworth, Beauchamp, and Schmieder 1978), where log K^ = 1.949 (U.S. EPA 1994b)
Compound:
Crotonaldehyde
Recommended BCF value: 0.20
Empirical data for this compound were not available. The BCF was calculated using the following regression equation:
log BCF = 0.819 xlog Kow- 1.146 (Southworth, Beauchamp, and Schmieder 1978), where log Kow= 0.55 (based on equations developed by Hansch and Leo 1979, as calculated in NRC 1981)
Compound:
1,4-Dioxane
Recommended BCF value: 0.04
Empirical data for this compound were not available. The BCF was calculated using the following regression equation:
log BCF = 0.819 x log K^, - 1.146 (Southworth, Beauchamp, and Schmieder 1978), where log K^ = -0.268 (U.S. EPA 1995a)
Compound:
Formaldehyde
Recommended BCF value: 0.14
Empirical data for this compound were not available.The BCF was calculated using the following regression equation:
log BCF = 0.819 x log K^, - 1.146 (Southworth, Beauchamp, and Schmieder 1978), where log Kow = 0.342 (U.S. EPA 1995a)
Compound:
Vinyl chloride
Recommended BCF value: 0.62
C-89
-------
TABLE C-6
SEDIMENT-TO-BENTHIC INVERTEBRATE BIOCONCENTRATION FACTORS
(mg COPC / kg wet tissue) / (mg COPC / kg dry sediment)
(Page 6 of 11)
Reported Values"
Reference
Experimental Parameters
Species
Empirical data for this compound were not available. The BCF was calculated using the following regression equation:
log BCF = 0.819 x log K^, - 1.146 (Southworth, Beauchamp, and Schmieder 1978), where log K^ = 1.146 (U.S. EPA 1994b)
Other Chlorinated Organics
Compound: Carbon tetrachloride
Recommended BCF value: 12
Empirical data for this compound were not available. The BCF was calculated using the following regression equation:
log BCF = 0.819 x log K^, - 1.146 (Southworth, Beauchamp, and Schmieder 1978), where log Kow = 2.717 (U.S. EPA 1994b)
Compound: Hexachlorobenzene
Recommended BCF value: 2,296
Empirical data for this compound were not available. The BCF was calculated using the following regression equation:
log BCF = 0.819 x log K^, - 1.146 (Southworth, Beauchamp, and Schmieder 1978), where log Kow = 5.503 (U.S. EPA 1994b)
Compound: Hexachlorobutadiene
Recommended BCF value: 0.44
The recommended BCF value was based on empirical data from one study as follows:
0.44
Oliver (1987)
79-day exposure duration; The values reported in
Oliver (1987) were converted to wet weight over
dry weight using a conversion factor of 5.99a.
Compound: Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Oligochaetes
Recommended BCF value: 746
Empirical data for this compound were not available. The BCF was calculated using the following regression equation:
log BCF = 0.819 x log K^, - 1.146 (Southworth, Beauchamp, and Schmieder 1978), where log K^ = 4.907 (U.S. EPA 1994b)
Compound: Pentachlorobenzene
Recommended BCF value: 0.32
The recommended BCF value is based on 1 study as follows:
0.32
Oliver (1987)
79-day exposure duration; The values reported in
Oliver (1987) were converted to wet weight over
dry weight using a conversion factor of 5.99a.
Compound: Pentachlorophenol
Oligochaetes
Recommended BCF value: 1 ,034
Empirical data for this compound were not available. The BCF was calculated using the following regression equation:
log BCF = 0.819 x log K^, - 1.146 (Southworth, Beauchamp, and Schmieder 1978), where log Kow = 5.080 (U.S. EPA 1994b)
C-90
-------
TABLE C-6
SEDIMENT-TO-BENTHIC INVERTEBRATE BIOCONCENTRATION FACTORS
(mg COPC / kg wet tissue) / (mg COPC / kg dry sediment)
(Page 7 of 11)
Reported Values"
Reference
Experimental Parameters
Species
Pesticides
Compound: 4,4 -DDE
Recommended BCF value:
0.95
The recommended BCF value was calculated using the geometric mean of 13 values as follows:
2.9 9.6
1.3 2.1
0.4 24.6
0.2 1.8
2.2 0.1
0.1 0.07
1.2
Reich, Perkins,
Compound: Heptachlor
and Cutter (1986)
Field samples
Tubificidae
Chironomidae
Croixidae
Recommended BCF value:
1.67
Empirical data for heptachlor were not available. The BCF was calculated from 1 field-derived value for heptachlor epoxide as follows:
10.0
Beyer and Gish
Compound: Hexachlorophene
(1980)
Field samples; The value reported in Beyer and
Gish (1980) was converted to wet weight over
dry weight using a conversion factor of 5.99a.
Aporrectodea trapezoides
Aparrectodea turgida
Allolobophora chlorotica
Lumbricus terrestris
Recommended BCF value:
106,970
Empirical data for this compound were not available. The BCF was calculated using the following regression equation:
log BCF = 0.819 x log K^, - 1.146 (Southworth, Beauchamp, and Schmieder 1978), where log K^ = 7.540 (Karickoff and Long 1995)
Inorganics
Compound: Aluminum
Empirical data for this compound were not available.
chromium, copper, lead, inorganic mercury, and zinc)
Compound: Antimony
Empirical data for this compound were not available.
chromium, copper, lead, inorganic mercury, and zinc)
Recommended BCF value:
0.90
The recommended BCF value is the arithmetic average of 6 recommended values for those metals with empirical data (cadmium,
Recommended BCF value:
The recommended BCF value is the arithmetic average of 6 recommended values for those metals with empirical data
0.90
(cadmium,
C-91
-------
TABLE C-6
SEDIMENT-TO-BENTHIC INVERTEBRATE BIOCONCENTRATION FACTORS
(mg COPC / kg wet tissue) / (mg COPC / kg dry sediment)
(Page 8 of 11)
Reported Values"
Reference
Experimental Parameters
Species
Compound:
Arsenic
Recommended BCF value: 0.90
Empirical data for this compound were not available. The recommended BCF value is the arithmetic average of 6 recommended values for those metals with empirical data (cadmium,
chromium, copper, lead, inorganic mercury, and zinc).
Compound:
Barium
Recommended BCF value: 0.90
Empirical data for this compound were not available. The recommended BCF value is the arithmetic average of 6 recommended values for those metals with empirical data (cadmium,
chromium, copper, lead, inorganic mercury, and zinc).
Compound:
Beryllium
Recommended BCF value: 0.90
Empirical data for this compound were not available. The recommended BCF value is the arithmetic average of 6 recommended values for those metals with empirical data (cadmium,
chromium, copper, lead, inorganic mercury, and zinc).
Compound:
Cadmium
Recommended BCF value: 3.4
The recommended BCF value was calculated using the geometric mean of 8 field-derived values as follows:
3.33 7.68
1.79 7.15
1.67 2.34
2.27 6.29
Saiki, Castleberry, May, Martin, and Bullard
(1995)
Field samples; The values reported in Saiki,
Castleberry, May, Martin, and Bullard (1995)
were converted to wet weight over dry weight
using a conversion factor of 5.99a.
Chironomidae
Epheroptera
Compound:
Chromium (total)
Recommended BCF value: 0.39
The recommended BCF value was based on 1 field-derived value as follows:
0.39
Namminga and Wilhm (1977)
Field samples
Chironomidae
0.03
0.001
0.07
0.003
Capuzzo and Sasner (1977)
168-day exposure duration; The reported value
was calculated by dividing the tissue
concentration by the media concentration
[(|ig/g)/(mg/g)] and a conversion factor of 1x10"
3 was applied to the value. A conversion factor
of 5.99a was applied to convert dry tissue
weight to wet weight.
Mya arenaria
Compound:
Copper
Recommended BCF value: 0.30
C-92
-------
TABLE C-6
SEDIMENT-TO-BENTHIC INVERTEBRATE BIOCONCENTRATION FACTORS
(mg COPC / kg wet tissue) / (mg COPC / kg dry sediment)
(Page 9 of 11)
Reported Values"
Reference
Experimental Parameters
Species
The recommended BCF value was calculated using the geometric mean of 9 field values as follows:
0.11
0.22
0.13
0.32
Jones, Jones, and Radlett (1976)
25-day exposure duration; The values reported
in Jones, Jones, and Radlett (1976) were
converted to wet weight over dry weight using a
conversion factor of 5.99a
Nereis diveriscolor
1.1
Namminga and Wilhm (1977)
Field samples
Chironomidae
0.29
0.36
0.16
0.73
0.31
0.36
0.06
0.25
Saiki, Castleberry, May, Martin and Bullard
(1995)
Field samples; The values reported in Saiki,
Castleberry, May, Martin and Bullard (1995)
were converted to wet weight over dry weight
using a conversion factor of 5.99a.
Chironomidae
Ephemeroptera
Compound:
Cyanide (total)
Recommended BCF value: 0.90
Empirical data were not available for this compound. The recommended BCF value is the arithmetic average of 6 recommended values for those metals with empirical data (cadmium,
chromium, copper, lead, inorganic mercury, and zinc).
Compound:
Lead
Recommended BCF value: 0.63
The recommended BCF value was based on 1 study follows:
0.4
1.0
Harrahy and Clements (1997)
14-day exposure duration
Chironomus tentans
Compound:
Mercuric chloride
Recommended BCF value: 0.068
The recommended BCF value was based on 6 field values as follows:
0.08
Saouter, Hare, Campbell, Boudou, and Ribeyre
(1993)
9-day exposure duration
Hexagenia rigida
0.16
0.08
0.04
0.04
0.08
0.06
Hildebrand, Strand, and Huckabee (1980)
Field samples
Hydropsychidae, Corydalus, Decapoda, Aterix,
Psephenidae, and unspecified other benthic
invertebrates
Compound:
Methyl mercury
Recommended BCF value: 0.48
The recommended BCF value was based on 6 field values as follows:
C-93
-------
TABLE C-6
SEDIMENT-TO-BENTHIC INVERTEBRATE BIOCONCENTRATION FACTORS
(mg COPC / kg wet tissue) / (mg COPC / kg dry sediment)
(Page 10 of 11)
Reported Values"
Reference
Experimental Parameters
Species
4.0
Saouter, Hare, Campbell, Boudou, and Ribeyre
(1993)
9-day exposure duration
Hexagenia rigida
1.45
0.50
0.26
0.41
0.37
0.44
Hildebrand, Strand, and Huckabee (1980)
Field samples
Hydropsychidae, Corydalus, Decapoda, Aterix,
Psephenidae, and unspecified other benthic
invertebrates
Compound:
Nickel
Recommended BCF value: 0.90
Empirical data for this compound were not available. The recommended BCF value is the arithmetic average of 6 recommended values for those metals with empirical data (cadmium,
chromium, copper, lead, inorganic mercury, and zinc).
Compound:
Selenium
Recommended BCF value: 0.90
Empirical data for this compound were not available. The recommended BCF value is the arithmetic average of 6 recommended values for those metals with empirical data (cadmium,
chromium, copper, lead, inorganic mercury, and zinc).
Compound:
Silver
Recommended BCF value: 0.90
Empirical data for this compound were not available. The recommended BCF value is the arithmetic average of 6 recommended values for those metals with empirical data (cadmium,
chromium, copper, lead, inorganic mercury, and zinc).
Compound:
Thallium
Recommended BCF value: 0.90
Empirical data for this compound were not available. The recommended BCF value is the arithmetic average of 6 recommended values for those metals with empirical data (cadmium,
chromium, copper, lead, inorganic mercury, and zinc).
Compound:
Zinc
Recommended BCF value: 0.57
The recommended BCF value was calculated using the geometric mean of 8 field values as follows:
3.6
Namminga and Wilhm (1977)
Not reported
Chironomidae
0.46
0.38
0.13
0.79
0.83
1.16
0.39
1.57
Saiki, Castleberry, May, Martin, and Bullard
(1995)
Field samples; the values reported in Saiki,
Castleberry, May, Martin and Bullard (1995)
were converted to wet weight over dry weight
using an unit conversion factor of 5.99a.
Chironomidae
Ephemeroptera
C-94
-------
TABLE C-6
SEDIMENT-TO-BENTHIC INVERTEBRATE BIOCONCENTRATION FACTORS
(mg COPC / kg wet tissue) / (mg COPC / kg dry sediment)
(Page 11 of 11)
Notes:
(a) The reported values are presented as the amount of compound in invertebrate tissue divided by the amount of compound in the sediment. If the values reported in the
studies were presented as dry tissue weight over dry sediment weight, they were converted to wet weight over dry weight by dividing the concentration in dry invertebrate
tissue weight by 5.99. This conversion factor assumes an earthworm's total weight is 83.3 percent moisture (Pietz et al. 1984).
The conversion factor was calculated as follows:
n . f . 1.0 g invertebrate total weight
Conversion jactor=
1.0 g invertebrate total 'weight - 0.833 g invertebrate wet weight
C-95
-------
TABLE C-7
AIR-TO-PLANT BIOTRANSFER FACTORS
(jig COPC / g dry plant) / (jig COPC / g air)
(Page 1 of 3)
Compound
Bv Value3
Compound
Bv Value
Dioxins and furans
2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin(2,3,7,8-TCDD)
1,2,3 J,8-Pentachlorodibenzo(p)dioxin(l,2,3,7,8-PeCDD)
l,2,3,4,7,8-Hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin(l,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD)
l,2,3,6,7,84Iexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin(l,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD)
l,2,3,7,8,9-Hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin(l,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD)
l,2,3,4,6,7,8-Heptachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin(l,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD)
Octachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (OCDD)
2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzofuran(2,3,7,8-TCDF)
Octachlorodibenzo-p-furan (OCDF)
6.55E+04
2.39E+05
5.20E+05
5.20E+05
5.20E+05
9.10E+05
2.36E+06
4.57E+04
2.28E+06
l,2,3,7,8-Pentachlorodibenzo-p-furan(l,2,3,7,8-PeCDF)
2,3,4,7,8-Pentachlorodibenzo-p-furan(2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF)
l,2,3,4,7,84Iexachlorodibenzo-p-furan(l,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF)
l,2,3,6,7,84Iexachlorodibenzo-p-furan(l,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF)
2,3,4,6,7,8-Hexachlorodibenzo-p-furan(2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF)
l,2,3,7,8,9-Hexachlorodibenzo-p-furan(l,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF)
1 ,2,3,4,6,7,8,-Heptachlorodibenzo-p-furan ( 1 ,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF)
l,2,3,4,7,8,9-Heptachlorodibenzo-p-furan(l,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF)
9.75E+04
9.75E+04
1.62E+05
1.62E+05
1.62E+05
1.62E+05
8.30E+05
8.30E+05
Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs)
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
2.25E+05
1.72E+04
3.65E+04
5.40E+05
Chrysene
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
Ideno( 1 ,2,3-cd)pyrene
5.97E+04
4.68E+07
2.67E+08
Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)
Aroclor 1016
7.52E+01
Aroclor 1254
3.09E+02
Nitroaromatics
1 ,3-Dinitrobenzene
2,4-Dintrotoluene
1.74E+01
5.10E+01
Nitrobenzene
Pentachloronitrobenzene
2.43E-01
1.71E-01
C-96
-------
TABLE C-7
AIR-TO-PLANT BIOTRANSFER FACTORS
(jig COPC / g dry plant) / (jig COPC / g air)
(Page 2 of 3)
Compound
2,6-Dinitrotoluene
Bv Value3
4.41E+01
Compound
Bv Value
Phthalate esters
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
2.33E+03
Di(n)octyl phthalate
6.30E+08
Volatile organic compounds
Acetone
Acrylonitrile
Chloroform
Crotonaldehyde
1.13E-03
1.04E-03
1.65E-03
Not Available
1 ,4-Dioxane
Formaledehyde
Vinyl chloride
5.93E-03
4.65E-04
2.95E-06
Other chlorinated organics
Carbon Tetrachloride
Hexachlorbenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Pentachlorobenzene
1.52E-03
7.57E+01
2.55E-01
5.47E-01
6.04E-01
Pentachlorphenol
4,4-DDE
Heptachlor
Hexachlorophene
1.02E+03
2.08E+03
2.09E+03
1.23E+10
Inorganics
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
0
0
0
0
0
Lead
Mercuric chloride
Methyl mercury
Nickel
Selenium
0
1.80E+03
Not Applicable
0
0
C-97
-------
TABLE C-7
AIR-TO-PLANT BIOTRANSFER FACTORS
(jig COPC / g dry plant) / (jig COPC / g air)
(Page 3 of 3)
Compound
Cadmium
Chromium (hexavalent)
Copper
Cyanide (total)
Bv Value3
0
0
0
0
Compound
Silver
Thallium
Zinc
Bv Value
0
0
0
Notes:
(a) The reported values were obtained from the references cited in Section C-1.7, and are consistent with the values provided in U.S. EPA (1998). Values for dioxin and
furan congeners were obtained from the following:
Lorber, M, and P. Pinsky. 1999. "An Evaluation of Three Empirical Air-to-Leaf Models for Polychlorinated Dibenzo-p-Dioxins and Dibenzofurans."
National Center for Environmental Assessment (NCEA). U. S. EPA, 401 M St. SW, Washington, DC. Accepted for Publication in Chemosphere.
C-98
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Appendix C: Media-To-Receptor BCF Values August 1999
Adams, W.C. 1976. The Toxicity and Residue Dynamics of Selenium in Fish and Aquatic Invertebrates.
Ph.D. Thesis. Michigan State University. East Lansing, Michigan.
Adams, W.J., G.M. DeGraeve, T.D. Sabourin, J.D. Cooney, and G.M. Mosher. 1986. "Toxicity and
Bioconcentration of 2,3,7,8-TCDD to Fathead Minnows (Pimephales promelas)." Chemosphere.
Volume 15, Numbers 9-12. Pages 1503-1511.
Anderson, A.C., et al. 1979. "Fate of the Herbicide MSMA in Microcosms." In D.D. Hemphill (ed.).
Trace Substances in Environmental Health XIII. University of Missouri, Columbia.
Anderson, D.R., and E.B. Lusty. 1980. "Acute Toxicity and Bioaccumulation of Chloroform to Four
Species of Freshwater Fish: Salmo gairdneri, Rainbow Trout; Lepomis macrochirus, Bluegill;
Micropterus salmoides, Largemouth Bass; Ictalurus punctatus, Channel Catfish." Prepared for
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG/CR-0893, Prepared by Pacific Northwest
Laboratory, PNL-3046.
Andryushchenko, V.V., and G.G. Polikarpov. 1973. "An Experimental Study of Uptake of Zn65 and DDT
by Ulva rigid from Seawater Polluted with Both Agents." Hydrobiological Journal. Volume 4.
Pages 41-46.
Atchison, G.J., B.R. Murphy, W.E. Bishop, A.W. Mclntosh, and R.A. Mayes. 1977. "Trace metal
contamination of bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus) from two Indiana lakes." Transactions,
American Fisheries Society. Volume 106, Number 6. Pages 637-640.
Augenfeld, J.M., J.W. Anderson, R.G. Riley, and B.L. Thomas. 1982. "The Fate of Polyaromatic
Hydrocarbons in an Intertidal Sediment Exposure System: Bioavailability to Macoma inquinata
(Mollusca: Pelecypoda) and Abarenicolapacifica (Annelida: Polychaeta)." Marine
Environmental Research. Volume 7. Pages 31-50.
Baes, C.F., III, R.D. Sharp, A.L. Sjoreen, and R.W. Shor. 1984. "A Review and Analysis of Parameters
for Assessing Transport of Environmentally Released Radionuclides Through Agriculture."
Oakridge National Laboratory, ORNL-5786. Tennessee.
Banerjee, S., R.H. Suggatt, and D.P. O'Grady. 1984. "A Simple Method for Determining
Bioconcentration Parameters of Hydrophobic Compounds." Environmental Science and
Technology. Volume 18. Pages 78-81.
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering C-99
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Appendix C: Media-To-Receptor BCF Values August 1999
Barrows, M.E., S.R. Petrocelli, K.J. Macek, and J. Carroll. 1978. "Bioconcentration and Elimination of
Selected Water Pollutants by Bluegill Sunfish." Preprints of Papers Presented at the 176th
National Meeting, American Chemical Society, Miami Beach, Florida, September 10-15, 1978
Volume 18, Number 2. Pages 345-346.
Bastien, C., and R. Cote. 1989. "Temporal Variations of the Ultrastructure in Scendesmus quadricauda
Exposed to Copper in a Long Term Experiment." Int. Rev. ges. Hydrobiol Volume 74, Number 2.
Pages 207-219.
Baturo, W., and L. Lagadic. 1996. "Benzo[a]pyrene Hydroxylase and Glutathione S-Transferase
Activities as Biomarkers in Lymnaea palustris Mollusca, Gastropoda) Exposed to Atrazine and
Hexachlorobenzene in Freshwater Mesocosms." Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry.
Volume 15, Number 5. Pages 771-781.
Baudin, J. P. 1974. "Premieres Donnees sur 1'Etude Experimentale du Cycle du Zinc dans 1'Etang de
1'Olivier." JieMillieu. Volume 24. Series B. Page 59.
Benoit, D.A., E.N. Leonard, G.M. Christensen, and J.T. Fiandt. 1976. "Toxic Effects of Cadmium on
Three Generations of Brook Trout (Salvelinus fontinalis)." Transactions, American Fisheries
Society. Volume 105, Number 2. Pages 550-358.
Besser, J.M., T.J. Canfield, and T.W. LaPoint. 1993. "Bioaccumulation of Organic and Inorganic
Selenium in a Laboratory Food Chain." Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry. Volume 12.
Pages 57-72.
Beyer, W.N. and C.D. Gish. 1980. "Persistence in Earthworms and Potential Hazards to Birds of Soil
Applied l,l'-(4,4-Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT), Dieldrin, and Heptachlor". J. Appl.
Ecol. 17:295-307. In Beyer 1990.
Beyer, W.N., E. Cromartie, and G.B. Moment. 1985. "Accumulation of Methylmercury in the
Earthworm, Eiseniafoetida, and its Effect on Regeneration." Bulletin of Environmental
Contamination and Toxicology. Volume 35. Pages 157-162.
Bills, T.D., and L.L. Marking. 1977. "Effects of Residues of the Polychlorinated Biphenyl Aroclor 1254
on the Sensitivity of Rainbow Trout to Selected Environmental Contaminants." The Progressive
Fish-Culturist. Volume 39. Page 150.
Borgmann, U., O. Kramar, and C. Loveridge. 1978. "Rates of Mortality, Growth, and Biomass
Production of Eymnnaea palustris During Chronic Exposure to Lead." Journal of Fisheries
Resources Board of Canada. Volume 35. Pages 1109-1115.
Boudou, A., and F. Ribeyre. 1984. "Influence of Exposure Length on the Direct Bioaccumulation of Two
Mercury Compounds by Salmo gairdneri (Fry) and the Relationship Between Organism Weight
and Mercury Concentrations." Water Research. Volume 18, Number 1. Pages 81-86.
Branson, D.R., I.T. Takahashi, W. M. Parker, and G.E. Blau. 1985. "Bioconcentration Kinetics of
2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin in Rainbow Trout." Environmental Toxicology and
Chemistry. Volume 4. Pages 779-788.
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering C-100
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Appendix C: Media-To-Receptor BCF Values August 1999
Brown, D., and R.S. Thompson. 1982. "Phthalates and the Aquatic Environment: Part II. The
Bioconcentration and Depuration of Di-2-ethylhexyl Phthalate (DEHP) and Di-isodecyl Phthalate
(DIDP) in Mussels (Mytilus edulis)." Chemosphere. Volume 11, Number 4. Pages 427-435.
Bruggeman, W.A., A. Oppenhuizen, A. Wijbenga, and O. Hutzinger. 1984. "Bioaccumulation of Super-
Lipophilic Chemicals in Fish." Toxicological and Environmental Chemistry. Volume 7.
Pages 173-189.
Calabrese, A., J.R. Maclnnes, D.A. Nelson, R.A. Greig, and P.P. Yevich. 1984. "Effects of Long-Term
Exposure to Silver and Copper on Growth, Bioaccumulation and Histopathology in the Blue
Mussel Mytilus edulis" Marine Environmental Research. Volume 11. Pages 253-274.
Cappon, C.J. 1981. "Mercury and Selenium Content and Chemical Form in Vegetable Crops Grown in
Sludge-Amended Soil." Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. Volume 10.
Pages 673-689.
Capuzzo, J.M., and J.J. Sasner. 1977. "The Effect of Chromium on Filtration Rates and Metabolic
Activity of Mytilus edulis L. and Mya arenaria L." In F.J. Vernberg, A. Calabrese, P.P.
Thurberg, and W.B. Vernberg (eds). Physiological Responses of Marine Biota to Pollutants.
Academic Press. New York, New York.
Carlson, A.R., and P.A. Kosian. 1987. "Toxicity of Chlorinated Benzenes to Fathead Minnows
(Pimephales promelas)." Archives, Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. Volume 16.
Pages 129-135.
Cleveland, L., D.R. Buckler, and W.G. Brumbaugh. 1991. "Residue Dynamics and Effects of Aluminum
on Growth and Mortality in Brook Trout." Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry. Volume
10. Pages 243-248.
Cleveland, L., E.E. Little, D.R. Buckler, and R.H. Wiedmeyer. 1993. "Toxicity and Bioaccumulation of
Waterborne and Dietary Selenium in Juvenile Bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus)." Aquatic
Toxicology. Volume 27. Pages 265-280.
Cleveland, L., E.E. Little, S.J. Hamilton, D.R. Buckler, and J.B. Hunn. 1986. "Interactive Toxicity of
Aluminum and Acidity to Early Life Stages of Brook Trout." Transactions, American Fisheries
Society. Volume 115. Pages 610-620.
Courtney, W.A. and W.J. Langston. 1978. "Uptake of Polychlorinated Biphenyl (Aroclor 1254) from
Sediment and from Seawater in Two Intertidal Polychaetes." Environ. Pollut. Volume 15,
Number 3 03.
Davis, B.N.K. 1971. "Laboratory Studies on the Uptake of Dieldrin and DDT by Earthworms." Soil
Biol. Biochem. 3:221-233. In Beyer 1990.
De Kock, A.C., and D. A. Lord. 1988. "Kinetics of the Uptake and Elimination of Polychlorinated
Biphenyls by an Estuarine Fish Species (Rhabdosargus holubi) After Aqueous Exposure."
Chemosphere. Volume 17, Number 12. Pages 2381-2390.
Deneer, J.W., T.L. Sinnige, W. Seinen, and J.L.M. Hermens. 1987. "Quantitative Structure-Activity
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering C-101
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Appendix C: Media-To-Receptor BCF Values August 1999
Relationships for the Toxicity and Bioconcentration Factor of Nitrobenzene Derivatives towards
the Guppy (Poecilia reticulata). Aquatic Toxicology. Volume 10. Pages 115-129.
Deutch, B., B. Borg, L. Kloster, H. Meyer, and M. M. Moller. 1980. "The Accumulation of 65Zn by
Various Marine Organisms." Ophelia (Suppl). Volume 1, Pages 235-240.
Dobbs, M.G., D.S. Cherry, and J. Cairns, Jr. 1996. "Toxicity and Bioaccumulation of Selenium to a
Three-Trophic Level Food Chain." Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry. Volume 15,
Number 3. Pages 340-347.
Driscoll, A.K., and A.E. McElroy. 1996. "Bioaccumulation and Metabolism of Benzo(a)Pyrene in Three
Species of Polychaete Worms." Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry. Volume 15, Number
8. Pages 1401-1410.
Duke, T.W., et al. (1970). "A Polychlorinated Biphenyl (Aroclor 1254) in the Water, Sediment and Biota
of Escambia Bay, Florida." Bull. Environmental Contam. Toxicol. Volume 5, Number 171.
Eadie, B.J., P.P. Landrum, and W. Faust. 1982. "Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons in Sediment, Pore
Water, and the Amphipod Pontoporeia hoyi from Lake Michigan." Chemosphere. Volume 11,
Number 9. Pages 847-858.
Eastmond, D.A., G.M. Booth, M.L. Lee. 1984. "Toxicity, Accumulation, and Elimination of Polycyclic
Aromatic Sulfur Heterocycles in Daphnia magna." Archives, Environmental Contamination and
Toxicology. Volume 13. Pages 105-111.
Eisler, R. 1977. "Toxicity Evaluation of a Complex Metal Mixture to the Softshell ClamMya arenaria. "
Marine Biology. Volume 43. Pages 265-276.
Eisler, R., G.E. Zaroogian, and R.J. Hennekey. 1972. "Cadmium Uptake by Marine Organisms." Journal
of Fisheries Research Board of Canada. Volume 29. Pages 1367-1369.
Fisher, N.S., M. Bohe, and J.L. Teyssie. 1984. "Accumulation and Toxicity of Cd, Zn, Ag, and Hg in
Four Marine Phytoplankters." Marine Ecology - Progress Series. Volume 18. Pages 210-213.
Freitag, D., H. Geyer, A. Kraus, R. Viswanathan, D. Kotzias, A. Attar, W. Klein, and F. Korte. 1982.
"Ecotoxicological Profile Analysis. VII. Screening Chemicals for Their Environmental Behavior
by Comparative Evaluation." Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety. Volume 6. Pages 60-81.
Fromm, P.O., and R.M. Stokes. 1962. "Assimilation and Metabolism of Chromium by Trout." Journal
of Water Pollution Control Federation. Volume 34. Pages 1151-1155.
Garten, C.T., Jr., and J.R. Trabalka. 1983. "Evaluation of Models for Predicting Terrestrial Food Chain
Behavior of Xenobiotics." Environmental Science and Technology. Volume 17, Number 10.
Pages 590-595.
Gates, V.L., and R.S. Tjeerdema. 1993. "Disposition and Biotransformation of Pentachlorophenol in the
Striped Bass (Morone saxatilis)" Pesticide Biochemistry and Physiology. Volume 46.
Pages 161-170.
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering C-102
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Appendix C: Media-To-Receptor BCF Values August 1999
George, S.G., and T.L. Coombs. 1977. "The Effects of Chelating Agents on the Uptake and
Accumulation of Cadmium byMytilus edulis.'" Marine Biology. Volume 39. Pages 261-268.
Geyer, H., G. Politzki, and D. Freitag. 1984. "Prediction of Ecotoxicological Behaviour of Chemicals:
Relationship Between «-Octanol/Water Partition Coefficient and Bioaccumulation of Organic
Chemicals by Alga Chlorella.'" Chemosphere. Volume 13, Number 2, Pages 269-284.
Geyer, H., R. Viswanathan, D. Freitag, and F. Korte. 1981. "Relationship Between Water Solubility of
Organic Chemicals and Their Bioaccumulation by the Alga Chlorella.'" Chemosphere.
Volume 10, Number 11/12. Pages 1307-1313.
Giesy, J.P., Jr., H.J. Kanio, J.W. Boling, R.L. Knight, S. Mashburn, and S. Clarkin. 1977. "Effects of
Naturaly Occurring Aquatic Organic Fractions on Cadmium Toxicity to Simocephalus serrulatus
(Daphnidae) and Gambusia affinis (Poecilidae)." Water Research. Volume 11.
Pages 1013-1020.
Gilek, M., M. Bjork, D. Broman, N. Kautsky, and C. Naf 1996. "Enhanced Accumulation of PCB
Congeners by Baltic Sea Blue Mussels, Mytilus edulis, with Increased Algae Enrichment."
Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry. Volume 15, Number 9. Pages 1597-1605.
Gillespie, R., T. Reisine, and E.J. Massaro. 1977. "Cadmium Uptake by the Crayfish, Orconectes
propinquus." Environmental Research. Volume 13. Pages 364-368.
Gish, C.D. 1970. "Organochlorine Insecticide Residues in Soils and Soil Invertebrates from Agricultural
Lands." Pestic. Monit. J. 3:241-252.
Goodman, L.R., D.J. Hansen, J.A. Couch, and J. Forester. 1978. "Effects of Heptachlor and Toxaphene
on Laboratory-Reared Embryos and Fry of the Sheepshead Minnow." In W.A. Rogers, R.
Dimmick, and R. Summerfelt (eds.) Proceedings, 30th Annual Conference Southeast Association
of Game Fish Commissions. October 24-27, 1976. Jackson, Mississippi.
Graney, R.L., Jr.,D.S. Cherry, and J. Cairns, Jr. 1983. "Heavy Metal Indicator Potential of the Asiatic
Clam (Corbicula flumined) in Artificial Stream Systems." Hydrobiologia. Volume 102.
Pages 81-8 8.
Halter, M.T. 1974. "The Acute Toxicity Polychlorinated Biphenyl, Aroclor 1254, to the Early like Stages
of Coho Salmon and Steelhead Trout." PCB Newsletter. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
National Water Quality Laboratory. Duluth, Minnesota. August 5.
Hamelink, J.L., and R.C. Waybrant. 1976. "DDE and Lindane in a Large-Scale Model Lentic
Ecosystem." Transactions, American Fisheries Society. Volume 105. Pages 124-134.
Hamelink, J.L., and R.C. Waybrant. 1977. "DDE and Lindane in a Large-Scale Model Lentic
Ecosystem." Transactions of the American Fisheries Society. Volume 105. Pages 124-134.
Hansch, C. and A. Leo. 1979. "The Fragment Method of Calculating Partition Coefficients." Chapter 4.
In Substituent Constants for Correlation Analysis in Chemistry and Biology. Wiley-Interscience.
New York. As cited in NRC (1981).
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering C-103
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Appendix C: Media-To-Receptor BCF Values August 1999
Hansen, D.J., et al. 1971. "Chronic Toxicity, uptake and Retention of Aroclor 1254 in Two Estuarine
Fishes." Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 6: 113.
Hansen, D.J., et al. 1973. "Aroclor 1254 in Eggs of Sheepshead Minnows: Effect on Fertilization
Success and Survival of Embryos and Fry." Proceedings 27th Annual Conference South East
Game Fish Comm. Page 420.
Hansen, D.J., et al. 1974. "Aroclor 1016: Toxicity to and Uptake by Estuarine Animals." Environ. Res.
1: 363.
Hansen, D.J., et al. 1975. "Effects of Aroclor 1016 on Embryos, Fry, Juveniles, and Adults of
Sheepshead Minnows (Cyprinodon variegatus).'" Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 104: 584.
Harrahy, E., and W. Clements. 1997. "Toxicity and Bioaccumulation of a Mixture of Heavy Metals in
Chironomus tentans (Diptera: Chironomidae) in Synthetic Sediment." Environmental Toxicology
and Chemistry. Volume 16, Number 2. Pages 317-327.
Harrison, S.E., and J.F. Klaverkamp. 1989. "Uptake, Elimination and Tissue Distribution of Dietary and
Aqueous Cadmium by Rainbow Trout (Salmo gairdneri Richardson) and Lake Whitefish
(Coregonus clupeaformis Mitchill)." Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry. Volume 8.
Pages 87-97.
Hermanutz, R.O., K.N. Allen, T.H. Roush, and S.F. Hedtke. 1992. "Effects of Elevated Selenium
Concentrations on Bluegills (Lepomis macrochirus) in Outdoor Experimental Streams."
Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry. Volume 11. Pages 217-224.
Hildebrand, S.G., R.H. Strand, and J.W. Huckabee. 1980. "Mercury Accumulation in Fish and
Invertebrates of the North Fork Holston River, Virginia and Tennessee." Journal of
Environmental Quality. Volume 9, Number 3. Pages 393-400.
Hodson, P.V., D.J. Spry, and B.R. Blunt. 1980. "Effects on Rainbow Trout (Salmo gairdneri) of a
Chronic Exposure to Waterborne Selenium." Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic
Sciences. Volume 37. Pages 233-240.
Holcombe, G.W., D.A. Benoit, E.N. Leonard, and J.M. McKim. 1976. "Long-term Effects of Lead
Exposure on Three Generations of Brook Trout (Salvenius fontinalis)." Journal of Fisheries
Research Board of Canada. Volume 33. Pages 1731-1741.
Howard, P. H. 1989-1993. Handbook of Environmental Fate and Exposure Data for Organic
Chemicals. Volume I: Large Production and Priority Pollutants (1989). Volume II: Solvents
(1990). Volume II: Pesticides (1991). Volume IV: Solvents (1993). Lewis Publishers. Chelsea,
Michigan.
Hutchinson, T.C., and H. Czyrska. 1972. "Cadmium and Zinc Toxicity and Synergism to Floating
Aquatic Plants." In Water Pollution Research in Canada. 7th Canadian Symposium Water
Pollution Research. Institute of Environmental Sciences.
Hutchinson, T.C., and P.M. Stokes. 1975. "Heavy Metal Toxicity and Algal Bioassays." In Water
Quality Parameters, ASTM STP 573, American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia.
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering C-104
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Appendix C: Media-To-Receptor BCF Values August 1999
Ikemoto, Y., K. Motoba, T. Suzuki, and M. Uchida. 1992. "Quantitative Structure-Activity Relationships
of Nonspecific and Specific Toxicants in Several Organism Species." Environmental Toxicology
and Chemistry. Volume 11. Pages 931-939.
Isensee, A.R., E.R. Holden, E.A. Woolson, and G.E. Jones. 1976. "Soil Persistence and Aquatic
Bioaccumulation Potential of Hexachlorobenzene (HCB). Journal of Agriculture and Food
Chemistry. Volume 24, Number 6. Pages 1210-1214.
Isensee, A.R., P.C. Kearney, E.A. Woolson, G.E. Jones, and V.P. Williams. 1973. "Distribution of Alkyl
Arsenicals in Model Ecosystems." Environmental Science and Technology. Volume 7, Number
9. Pages 841-845.
Jennings, J.R., and P.S. Rainbow. 1979. "Studies on the Uptake of Cadmium by the Crab Carcinus
maenus in the Laboratory. I. Accumulation from Seawater and a Food Source." Marine Biology.
Volume 50. Pages 131-139.
Jones, L.H., N.V. Jones, and A.J. Radlett. 1976. "Some Effects of Salinity on the Toxicity of Copper to
the Polychaete Nereis diversicolor'." Estuarine Coastal Marine Science. Volume 4.
Pages 107-111.
Jouany, J.M., P. Vasseur, and J.F. Ferard. 1982. "Ecotoxicite Directe et Integree du Chrome Hexavalent
sur Deux Niveaux Trophiques Associes: Chlorella vulgaris et Daphnia magna" Environmental
Pollution. Volume 27A. Pages 207-221.
Kanazawa, J. 1981. "Measurement of the Bioconcentration Factors of Pesticides by Freshwater Fish and
Their Correlation with Physicochemical Properties or Acute Toxicities." Pesticide Science.
Volume 12. Pages 417-424.
Karickhoff, S. W., and J. M. Long. 1995. "Internal Report on Summary of Measured, Calculated, and
Recommend Log Kow Values." Environmental Research Laboratory. Athens, GA. April 10.
Karickhoff, S.W., D.S. Brown, and T.A. Scott. 1979. "Sorption of Hydrophobic Pollutants on Natural
Sediments." Water Research. Volume 13. Pages 241-248.
Klockner, K. 1979. "Uptake and Accumulation of Cadmium by Ophryotrocha diadema (Polychaeta)."
Marine Ecology-Progress Series. Volume 1. Pages 71 to 76.
Kobayashi, K., and T. Kishino. 1980. "Effect of pH on the Toxicity and Accumulation of
Pentachlorophenol in Goldfish." Bulletin, Japanese Society of Scientific Fisheries. Volume 46,
Number 2. Pages 167-170.
Konemann, H., and K. van Leeuwen. 1980. "Toxicokinetics in Fish: Accumulation and Elimination of Six
Chlorobenzenes by Guppies." Chemosphere. Volume 9, Number 1. Pages 3-19.
Kopfter, F.C. 1974. "The Accumulation of Organic and Inorganic Mercury Compounds by the Eastern
Oyster (Crassostrea virginica)." Bulletin, Environmental Contamination and Toxicology.
Volume 11. Page 275.
Korte, F., D. Freitag, H. Geyer, W. Klein, A.G. Kraus, and E. Lahaniatis. 1978. "Ecotoxicologic Profile
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering C-105
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Appendix C: Media-To-Receptor BCF Values August 1999
Analysis: A Concept for Establishing Ecotoxicologic Priority Lists for Chemicals."
Chemosphere. Volume 7, Number 1. Pages 79-102.
Kosian, P., A. Lemke, K. Studders, and G. Veith. 1981. "The Precision of the ASTM Bioconcentration
Test." U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA 600/3-81-022. Environmental Research
Laboratory-Duluth, Center for Lake Superior Environmental Studies, University of Wisconsin-
Superior, Superior, Wisconsin. February.
Kreis, B., P. Edwards, G. Cuendet, and J. Tarradellas. 1987. "The Dynamics of PCBs Between
Earthworm Populations and Agricultural Soils." Pedobiologia. 30:379-388. In Beyer 1990.
Kucklick, J.R., H.R. Harvey, P.H. Ostrom, N.E. Ostrom, and J.E. Baker. 1996. "Organochlorine
Dynamics in the Pelagic Food Web of Lake Baikal." Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry.
Volume 15, Number 8. Pages 1388-1400.
Kumada, H., S. Kimura, and M. Yokote. 1980. "Accumulation and Biological Effects of Cadmium in
Rainbow Trout." Bulletin, Japanese Society of Scientific Fisheries. Volume 46, Number 1.
Pages 97-103.
Kumada, H., S. Kimura, M. Yokote, and Y. Matida. 1973. "Acute and Chronic Toxicity, Uptake and
Retention of Cadmium in Freshwater Organisms." Bulletin, Freshwater Fisheries Research
Laboratory (Toyoko). Volume 22, Number 2. Pages 57-165.
Landrum, P.P., B.J. Eadie, and W.R. Faust. 1991. "Toxicokinetics and Toxicity of a Mixture of
Sediment-Associated Poly cyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons to the Amphipod Diporeia sp."
Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry. Volume 10. Pages 35-46.
Laska, A.L., C.K. Bartell, J.L. Laseter. 1976. "Distribution of Hexachlorobenzene
and Hexachlorobutadiene in Water, Soil, and Selected Aquatic Organisms Along the Lower
Mississippi River, Louisiana. Bulletin of Environmental Contamination. Volume 15, Number 5.
Pages 535-542.
Laseter, J.L., C.K. Bartell, A.L. Laska, D.G. Holmquist, D.B. Condie, J.W. Brown, and R.L. Evans.
1976. "An Ecological Study of Hexachlorobutadiene (HCBD)." U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, EPA 560/6-76-010. Washington, DC.
Lee, R.F., W.S. Gardner, J.W. Anderson, J.W. Blaytock, and J. Barwell-Clarke. 1978. "Fate of
Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons in Controlled Ecosystem Enclosure." Environmental Science
and Technology. Volume 12, Number 7. Pages 832-838.
Leeuwangh, P., H. Bult, and L. Schneiders. 1975. "Toxicity of Hexachlorobutadiene in Aquatic
Organisms." Pages 167-176. In: Sublethal Effects of Toxic Chemicals on Aquatic Animals.
Proceedings, Swedish-Netherlands Symposium, September 2-5. Elsevier Scientific. New York,
New York.
Lemly, A.D. 1982. "Response of Juvenile Centrarchids to Sublethal Concentrations of Waterborne
Selenium. I. Uptake, Tissue Distribution, and Retention." Aquatic Toxicology. Volume 2.
Pages 235-252.
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering C-106
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Appendix C: Media-To-Receptor BCF Values August 1999
Leversee, G.J., P.P. Landrum, J.P. Giesy, and T. Fannin. 1983. "Humic Acids Reduce Bioaccumulation
of Some Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons." Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic
Science. Volume 40 (Supplement 2). Pages 63-69.
Liu, D.H.W., H.C. Bailey, and J.G. Pearson. 1983. "Toxicity of a Complex Munitions Wastewater to
Aquatic Organisms." Pages 135-150. In W.E. Bishop, R. D. Cardwell, and B.B. Heidolph (eds),
Aquatic Toxicology and Hazard Assessment: Sixth Symposium, ASTM STP 802, American
Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia.
Lorber, M., and P. Pinsky. 1999. "An Evaluation of Three Empirical Air-to-Leaf Models for
Polychlorinated Dibenzo-p-Dioxins and Dibenzofurans." National Center for Environmental
Assessment (NCEA). U. S. EPA, 401 M St. SW, Washington, DC. Accepted for Publication in
Chemosphere.
Lores, E.M., J.M. Patrick, and J.K. Summers. 1993. "Humic Acid Effects on Uptake of
Hexachlorobenzene and Hexachlorobiphenyl by Sheepshead Minnows in Static Sediment/Water
Systems." Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry. Volume 12. Pages 541-550.
Lu, P.Y. and R.L. Metcalf 1975. "Environmental Fate and Biodegradability of Benzene Derivatives as
Studied in a Model Aquatic Ecosystem." Environmental Health Perspectives. Volume 10. Pages
269-284.
Lu, P.Y., R.L. Metcalf, A.S. Hirwe, and J.W. Williams. 1975. "Evaluation of Environmental Distribution
and Fate of Hexachlorocyclopentadiene, Chlorodane, Heptachlor, Heptachlor Epoxide in a
Laboratory Model Ecosystem." Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry. Volume 23,
NumberS. Pages 967-973.
Lu, P.Y., R.L. Metcalf, N. Plummer, and D. Mandel. 1977. "The Environmental Fate of 3 Carcinogens:
Benzo(a)pyrene, Benzidine, and Vinyl Chloride Evaluated in Laboratory Model Ecosystems."
Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. Volume 6. Pages 129-142.
Ma, W. 1982. "The Influence of Soil Properties and Worm-Related Factors on the Concentration of
Heavy Metals in Earthworms." Pedobiologia. Volume 24. Pages 109-119.
Ma, W.C. 1987. "Heavy Metal Accumulation in the Mole, Talpa europea, and Earthworms as an
Indicator of Bioavailability in Terrestrial Environments." Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol.
39:933-938. As cited in Beyer (1990).
Mackay, D. W.Y. Shiu, and K.C. Ma. 1992. Illustrated Handbook of Physical-Chemical Properties and
Environmental Fate for Organic Chemicals. Volume I—Monoaromatic Hydrocarbons,
Chlorobenzenes, and PCBs. Volume II—Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons, Polychlorinated
Dioxins, and Dibenzofurans. Volume III—Volatile Organic Chemicals. Lewis Publishers.
Chelsea, Michigan.
Makela, T.P., T. Petanen, J. Kukkonen, and A.O.J. Oikari. 1991. "Accumulation and Depuration of
Chlorinated Phenolics in the Freshwater Mussel (Anodonta anatina).'" Ecotoxicology and
Environmental Safety. Vol 22. Pages 153-163.
Makela, T.P., and A.O.J. Oikari. 1990. "Uptake and Body Distribution of Chlorinated Phenolics in the
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering C-107
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Appendix C: Media-To-Receptor BCF Values August 1999
Freshwater Mussel, Anodonta anatina L." Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety. Volume 20.
Pages 354-362.
Makela, T.P., and A.O.J. Oikari. 1995. "Pentachlorophenol Accumulation in the Freshwater Mussels
Anodonta anatina and Pseudanodonta complanata, and some Physiological Consequences of
Laboratory Maintenance." Chemosphere. Volume 31, Number 7. Pages 3651-3662.
Majori, L., and F. Petronio. 1973. "Marine Pollution by Metals and Their Accumulation by Biological
Indicators (Accumulation Factor)." Rev. Intern. Oceanogr. Med. Volume 31-32. Pages 55-90.
Marquerie, J.M., J.W. Simmers, and S.H. Kay. 1987. "Preliminary Assessment of Bioaccumulation of
Metals and Organic Contaminants at the Times Beach Confined Disposal Site, Buffalo, N.Y."
Miscellaneous Paper EL-87-6. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Waterways Experiment Station,
Vicksburg, Miss. 67 pp. In Beyer 1990.
Martinucci, G.B., P. Crespi, P. Omodeo, G. Osella, and G. Traldi. 1983. "Earthworms and TCDD
(2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin) in Sevesco." Pp 275-283. In Satchell 1983 . As cited in
Beyer (1990).
Mauck, W.L., et al. 1978. "Effects of the Polychlorinated Biphenyl Aroclor 1254 on Growth, Survival,
and Bone Development in Brook Trout (Salvelinus fontinalis}." Journal of Fisheries Research
Board of Canada. Volume 35. Page 1084.
Mayer, F.L., Jr. 1976. "Residue Dynamics of Di-2-ethylhexyl Phthalate in Fathead Minnows
(Pimephales promelas}." Journal of Fisheries Research Board of Canada. Volume 33. Pages
2610-2613.
Mayer, F.L, Jr., P.M. Mehrle, and H.O. Sanders. 1977. "Residue Dynamics and Biological Effects of
Polychlorinated Biphenyls in Aquatic Organisms." Archives, Environmental Contamination and
Toxicology. Volume 5. Pages 501-511.
McKim, J.M., G.F. Olson, G.W. Holcombe, and E.P. Hunt. 1976. "Long-term Effects of Methylmercuric
Chloride on Three Generations of Brook Trout (Salvelinus fontinalis): Toxicity, Accumulation,
Distribution, and Elimination." Journal of Fisheries Research Board of Canada. Volume 33.
Pages 2726-2739.
McLusky, D.S., and C.N.K. Phillips. 1975. "Some Effects of Copper on the Polychaete Phyllodoce
maculata" Estuarine and Coastal Marine Science. Volume 3. Pages 103-108.
Mehrle, P. M., D. R. Buckler, E.E. Little, L.M. Smith, J.D. Petty, P.H. Peterman, D.L. Stalling, G.M.
DeGraeve, J.T. Coyle, and W.J. Adams. 1988. "Toxicity and Bioconcentrations of 2,3,7,8-
Tetrachlorodibenzodioxin and 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzofuran in Rainbow Trout."
Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry. Volume 7. Pages 47-62.
Mehrle, P.M., and F.L. Mayer. 1976. "Di-2-Ethylhexyl Phthalate: Residue Dynamics and Biological
Effects in Rainbow Trout and Fathead Minnows." Trace Substances in Environmental Health-X,
Proceedings, University of Missouri's 10th Annual Conference on Trace Substances in
Environmental Health, June 8-10, 1976. University of Missouri Press, Columbia.
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering C-108
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Appendix C: Media-To-Receptor BCF Values August 1999
Metayer, C., C. Amiard-Triquet, and J.P. Baud. 1990. "Variations Inter-Specificques de la
Bioaccumulation et de la Toxicite de L'Argent A L'Egard de Trois Mollusques Bivalves Marins."
Water Research. Vol 24, Number 8. Pages 995-1001.
Metcalf, R.L., I.P. Kapoor, P.U. Lu, C.K. Schuth, and P. Sherman. 1973. "Model Ecosystem Studies of
the Environmental Fate of Six Organochlorine Pesticides." Environmental Health Perspectives.
Volume 4. Pages 35-44.
Metcalf, R.L., J.R. Sanborn, P.-Y. Lu, and D. Nye. 1975. "Laboratory Model Ecosystem Studies of the
Degradation and fate of Radio-labeled Tri-, Tetra-, and Pentachlorobiphenyl Compared with
DDE." Archives, Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. Volume 3, Number 2.
Pages 151-165.
Metcalf, R.L., G.K. Sangha, and I.P. Kapoor. 1971. "Model Ecosystem for the Evaluation of Pesticide
Biodegradability and Ecological Magnification." Environmental Science and Technology.
Volume 5, Number 8. Pages 709-713.
Muir, D.C.G., W.K. Marshall, and G.R.B. Webster. 1985. "Bioconcentration of PCDDs by Fish: Effects
of Molecular Structure and Water Chemistry." Chemosphere. Volume 14. Pages 829-833.
Munda, I.M. 1979. "Temperature Dependence of Zinc Uptake in Fucus virsoides (Don.) J. Ag. and
Enteromorphaprolifera (O.F. Mull.) J. Ag. from the Adriatic Sea." Botanica Marina.
Volume 22. Pages 149-152.
Namminga, H., and J. Wilhm. 1977. "Heavy Metals in Water, Sediments, and Chironomids." Journal of
Water Pollution Control Federation. Volume 49, Number 7. Pages 1725-1731.
National Academy of Sciences. (NAS). 1974. Chromium. Pages 86-89. U.S. Government Printing
Office. Washington, D.C.
National Research Council (NRC). 1979. Polychlorinated Biphenyls. National Academy of Sciences.
Washington, D.C.
National Research Council (NRC). 1981. Formaldehyde an Other Aldehydes. National Academy Press.
Washington, D.C.
Nebeker, A.V., F.A. Puglisi, and D.L. DeFoe. 1974. "Effect of Polychlorinated Biphenyl Compounds on
Survival and Reproduction of the Fathead Minnow and Flagfish." Transactions, American
Fisheries Society. Volume 103. Pages 562-568.
Nebeker, A.V., W.L. Griffis, C.M. Wise, E. Hopkins, and J.A. Barbitta. 1989. "Survival, Reproduction,
and Bioconcentration in Invertebrates and Fish Exposed to Hexachlorobenzene." Environmental
Toxicology and Chemistry. Volume 8, Number 601-611.
Nehring, R.B. 1976. "Aquatic Insects as Biological Monitors of Heavy Metal Pollution." Bulletin,
Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. Volume 15, Number 2. Pages 147-154.
Nehring, R.B., R. Nisson, and G. Minasian. 1979. "Reliability of Aquatic Insects Versus Water Samples
as Measures of Aquatic Lead Pollution." Bulletin, Environmental Contamination and
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering C-109
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Appendix C: Media-To-Receptor BCF Values August 1999
Toxicology. Volume 22, Number !/2. Pages 103-108.
Newsted, J.L., and J.P. Giesy. 1987. "Predictive Models for Photoinduced Acute Toxicity of Polycyclic
Aromatic Hydrocarbons to Daphnia magna, Strauss (Cladocera, Crustacea)." Environmental
Toxicology and Chemistry. Volume 6. Pages 445-461.
Niimi, A.J., H.B. Lee, and G.P. Kissoon. 1989. "Octanol/Water Partition Coefficients and
Bioconcentration Factors of Chloronitrobenzenes in Rainbow Trout (Salmo gairdneri) "
Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry. Volume 8. Pages 817-823.
Nimmo, D.R., et al. 1975. "Toxicity of Aroclor 1254 and its Physiological Activity in Several Estuarine
Organisms." Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. Volume 3. Page 22.
Nimmo, D.W.R., D.V. Lightner and L.H. Banner. 1977. "Effects of Cadmium on the Shrimps, Penaeus
duorarum, Palaemonetes pugio, andPalaemonetes vulgaris" Pages 131-183. In F.J. Vernberg,
A. Calabrese, P.P. Thurberg, and W.B. Vernberg (eds). Physiological Responses of Marine Biota
to Pollutants. Academic Press, Inc. New York, New York.
Oliver, E.G. 1987. "Biouptake of Chlorinated Hydrocarbons from Laboratory-Spiked and Field
Sediments by Oligochaete Worms." Environmental Science and Technology. Volume 21. Pages
785-790.
Oliver, E.G., and A.J. Niimi. 1983. "Bioconcentration of Chlorobenzenes from Water by Rainbow Trout:
Correlations with Partition Coefficients and Environmental Residues." Environmental Science
and Technology. Volume 17. Pages 287-291.
Oliver, E.G., and A.J. Niimi. 1985. "Bioconcentration Factors of Some Halogenated Organics for
Rainbow Trout: Limitations on Their Use for Prediction of Environmental Residues."
Environmental Science and Technology. Volume 19. Pages 842-849.
Oliver, E.G., and A.J. Niimi. 1988. "Trophodynamic Analysis of Polychlorinated Biphenyl Congeners
and Other Chlorinated Hydrocarbons in the Lake Ontario Ecosystem." Environmental Science
and Technology. Volume 22. Pages 388-397.
Opperhuizen, A., E.W.v.d. Velde, F.A.P.C. Gobas, D.A.K. Liem, and J.M.D.v.d. Steen. 1995.
"Relationship Between Bioconcentration in Fish and Steric Factors of Hydrophobic Chemicals."
Chemosphere. Volume 14. Pages 1871-1896.
Parrish, P.R., et al. 1974. "Effects of Polychlorinated Biphenyl, Aroclor 1016, on Estuarine Animals."
Association South East Biol. Bull. Volume 21. Page 74.
Parrish, P.R., E.E. Dyar, J.M. Enos, and W.G. Wilson. 1978. "Chronic Toxicity of Chlordane,
Trifluralin, and Pentachlorophenol to Sheepshead Minnows (Cyprinodon variegatus}" U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, EPA 600/3-78-010. Gulf Breeze, Florida. January.
Patrick, R., T. Bott, and R. Larsen. 1975. "The Role of Trace Elements in Management of Nuisance
Growths." U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA 660/2-75-008. Corvallis, Oregon.
Pentreath, J.R. 1973. "The Accumulation and Retention of 65Zn and 54Mn by the Plaice, Pleuronectes
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering C-l 10
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Appendix C: Media-To-Receptor BCF Values August 1999
platessa'L. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology. Vol 12. Pages 1-18. As
cited in U.S. EPA (1980g).
Perez, K.T., E.W. Davey, N.F. Lackie, G.E. Morrison, P.O. Murphy, A.E. Soper, and D.L. Winslow.
1983. "Environmental Assessment of a Phthalate Ester, Di(2-Ethylhexyl) Phthalate (DEHP),
Derived from a Marine Microcosm." Pages 180-191. In: Bishop W.E., R. D. Cardwell and B. B.
Heidolph (Eds.) Aquatic Toxicology and Hazard Assessment: Sixth Symposium. ASTM STP 802.
American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia.
Pesch, C.E., and D. Morgan. 1978. "Influence of Sediment in Copper Toxicity Tests with Polychaete
Neanthes arenaceodentata " Water Research. Volume 12. Pages 747-751.
Pesch, G.G., and N.E. Stewart. 1980. "Cadmium Toxicity to Three Species of Estuarine Invertebrates."
Marine Environmental Research. Volume 3. Pages 145-156.
Phillips, D.J.H. 1976. "The Common Mussel Mytilus edulis as an Indicator of Pollution by Zinc,
Cadmium, Lead, and Copper. I. Effects of Environmental Variables on Uptake of Metals."
Marine Biology. Volume 38. Pages 59-69.
Pietz, R.I., J.R. Peterson, J.E. Prater, and D.R. Zenz. 1984. "Metal Concentrations in Earthworms From
Sewage Sludge-Amended Soils at a Strip Mine Reclamation Site." J. Environmental Qual. Vol.
13, No. 4. Pp 651-654.
Podowski, A.A., and M.A.Q. Khan. 1984. "Fate of Hexachlorocyclopentadiene in Water and Goldfish."
Archives, Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. Volume 13. Pages 471-481.
Pringle, B.H., D.E. Hissong, E.L. Katz, and S.T. Mulawka. 1968. "Trace Metal Accumulation by
Estuarine Mollusks." Journal of Sanitary Engineers Division. Volume 94. Pages 455-475.
Qiao, P., and A. P. Farrell. 1996. "Uptake of Hydrophobic Xenobiotics by Fish in Water Laden with
Sediments from the Fraser River." Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry. Volume 15,
Number 9. Pages 1555-1563.
Reich, A.R., J.L. Peerkins, and G. Cutter. 1986. "DDT Contamination of a North Alabama Aquatic
Ecosystem." Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry. Volume 5. Pages 725-736.
Rice, C.P., and D.S. White. 1987. "PCB Availability Assessment of River Dredging Using Caged Clams
and Fish." Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry. Volume 6. Pages 259-274.
Reinecke, A.J., and G. Nash. 1984. "Toxicity of 2, 3, 7, 8-TCDD and Short Term Bioaccumulation by
Earthworms (Oligochaeta)" Soil Biol. Biochem. 1: 39-44. In Beyer 1990.
Rhett, R.G., J.W. Simmers, and C.R. Lee. 1988. "Eisenia Foetida Used as a Biomonitoring Tool to
Predict the Potential Bioaccumulation of Contaminants from Contaminated Dredged Material." in
Edwards andNeuhauser 1988.
Roesijadi, G., J.W. Anderson, and J.W. Blaylock. 1978. "Uptake of Hydrocarbons from Marine
Sediments Contaminated with Prudhoe Bay Crude Oil: Influence of Feeding Type of Test Species
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering C-l 11
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Appendix C: Media-To-Receptor BCF Values August 1999
and Availability of Poly cyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons." Journal of Fisheries Research Board of
Canada. Volume 35. Pages 608-614.
Saiki, M.K., D.T. Castleberry, T.W. May, B.A. Martin, and F.N. Bullard. 1995. "Copper, Cadmium,
and Zinc Concentrations in Aquatic Food Chains from the Upper Sacramento River (California)
and Selected Tributaries." Archives in Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. Volume
29. pages 484-491.
Sanborn, J.R. 1974. "The Fate of Select Pesticides in the Aquatic Environment." U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, EPA-660/3 -74-025. Corvallis, Oregon.
Sanborn, J.R. , R.L. Metcalf, C.C. Yu, and P.Y. Lu. 1975. "Plasticizers in the Environment: The Fate of
Di-7V-Octyl Phthalate (OOP) in Two Model Ecosystems and Uptake and Metabolism of OOP by
Aquatic Organisms." Archives, Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. Volume 3,
Number 2. Pages 244-255.
Sanders, H.O., F.L. Mayer, Jr., and D.F. Walsh. 1973. "Toxicity Residue Dynamics, and Reproductive
Effects of Phthalate Esters in Aquatic Invertebrates." Environmental Research. Volume 6,
Number 1. Pages 84-90.
Saouter, E., L. Hare, P.G.C. Campbell, A. Boudou, and F. Ribeyre. 1993. "Mercury Accumulation in the
Burrowing Mayfly, Hexagenia rigida (Ephemeroptera) Exposed to CH3HgCL or HgCL2 in Water
and Sediment." Water Research. Volume 27, Number 6. Pages 1041-1048.
Schauerte, W., J.P. Lay, W. Klein, and F. Korte. 1982. "Long-Term Fate of Organochlorine Xenobiotics
in Aquatic Ecosystems." Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety. Volume 6. Pages 560-569.
Schimmel, S.C., J.M. Patrick, Jr. and J. Forester. 1976. "Heptachlor: Toxicity to and Uptake by Several
Estuarine Organisms." Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health. Volume 1. Pages 955-
965.
Schimmel, S.C., J.M. Patrick, Jr., and L.F. Faas. 1978. "Effects of Sodium Pentachlorophenate on
Several Estuarine Animals: Toxicity Uptake and Depuration." Pages 147-155. In K.R. Rao. (Ed).
Penachlorophenol: Chemistry, Pharmacology, and Environmental Toxicology. Plenum Press.
New York, New York.
Schrap, S.M., and A. Opperhuizen. 1990. "Relationship Between Bioavailability and Hydrophobicity:
Reduction of the Uptake of Organic Chemicals by Fish Due to the Sorption of Particles."
Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry. Volume 9. Pages 715-724.
Schroeder, H.A. 1970. "Barium Air Quality Monograph." American Petroleum Institute, Air Quality
Monograph Number 70-12.
Scura, E.D. and G.H. Theilacker. 1977. "Transfer of the Chlorinated Hydrocarbon PCB in a Laboratory
Marine Food Chain." Marine Biology. Volume 40. Pages 317-325.
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering C-l 12
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Appendix C: Media-To-Receptor BCF Values August 1999
Shuster, C.N., Jr., and B.H. Pringle. 1968. "Effects of Trace Metals on Estuarine Mollusks."
Proceedings, First Mid-Atlantic Industrial Waste Conference, November 13-15, 1967.
Pages 285-304.
Simmers, J.W., R.G. Rhett, and C.R. Lee. 1983. Application of a Terrestrial Animal Bioassay for
Determining Toxic Metal Uptake from Dredged Materila. International Congress Heavy Metals on
the Environment, Heidelberg. 1284 pp. In Rhett 1988. Cited in Edwards and Neuhauser 1988.
Snarski, V.M., and G. F. Olson. 1982. "Chronic Toxicity and Bioaccumulation of Mercuric Chloride in
the Fathead Minnow (Pimephales promelas)" Aquatic Toxicology. Volume 2. Pages 143-156.
Snarski, V.M., and F. A. Puglisi. 1976. Effects ofAroclor 1254 on Brook Trout (Salvelinus fontinalis).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA-600/3-76-112. Environmental Research Laboratory-
Duluth. Duluth, Minnesota.
Sodergren, A. 1982. "Significance of Interfaces in the Distribution and Metabolism of Di-2-ethylhexyl
Phthalate in an Aquatic Laboratory Model Ecosystem." Environmental Pollution (Series A).
Volume 27. Pages 263-274.
Southworth, G.R., J.J. Beauchamp, and P.K. Schmieder. 1978. "Bioaccumulation Potential of Polycyclic
Aromatic Hydrocarbons in Daphnia Pulex. " Water Research. Volume 12. Pages 973-977. As
cited in Lyman, Reehl, and Rosenblatt (1982). As cited in Lyman, Reehl, and Rosenblatt (1982).
Spehar, R.L. 1976. "Cadmium and Zinc Toxicity to Jordanella floridae " U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, EPA-600/3 -76-096. Environmental Research Laboratory-Duluth. Office of Research
and Development. Duluth, Minnesota. November.
Spehar, R.L., J.T. Fiandt, R.L. Anderson, and D.L. DeFoe. 1980. "Comparative Toxicity of Arsenic
Compounds and Their Accumulation in Invertebrates and Fish." Archives, Environmental
Contamination and Toxicology. Volume 9. Pages 53-63.
Spehar, R.L., H.P. Nelson, M.J. Swanson, and J.W. Renoos. 1985. "Pentachlorophenol Toxicity to
Amphipods and Fathead Minnows at Different Test pH Values." Environmental Toxicology and
Chemistry. Volume 4. Pages 389-397.
Spehar, R.L., G.D. Veith, D.L. DeFoe, and B.V. Bergstedt. 1979. "Toxicity and Bioaccumulation of
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene, Hexachloronorbornadiene and Heptachloronorbornene in Larval and
Early Juvenile Fathead Minnows, (Pimephales promelas).'" Bulletin, Environmental
Contamination and Toxicology. Volume 21. Pages 576-583.
Stehly, G.R., and W.L. Hayton. 1990. "Effect of pH of the Accumulation Kinetics of Pentachlorophenol
in Goldfish." Archives of the Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. Volume 19.
Pages 464-470.
Stephan, C.E. 1993. "Derivation of Proposed Human Health and Wildlife Bioaccumulation Factors for
the Great Lakes Initiative." U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and
Development. U.S. Environmental Research Laboratory. NTIS PB93-154672.
Stokes, P.M., T.C. Hutchinson, and K. Krauter. 1973. "Heavy Metal Tolerance in Algae Isolated From
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering C-l 13
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Appendix C: Media-To-Receptor BCF Values August 1999
Polluted Lakes Near the Sudbury, Ontario Smelters." Water Pollution Research Journal of
Canada. Volume 8. Pages 178-201. (Abstract only).
Sundelin, B. 1983. "Effects of Cadmium on Pontoporeia affinls (Crustacea: Amphipoda) in Laboratory
Soft-Bottom Microcosms." Marine Biology. Volume 74. Pages 203-212.
Tarr, B.D., M.G. Barren, and W.L. Hayton. 1990. "Effect of Body Size on the Uptake and
Bioconcentration of Di-2-ethylhexyl Phthalate in Rainbow Trout." Environmental Toxicology and
Chemistry. Volume 9. Pages 989-995.
Theede, H., N. Scholz, and H. Fischer. 1979. "Temperature and Salinity Effects on the Acute Toxicity of
Cadmium to Laomedea loveni (Hydrozoa)." Marine Ecology - Progress Series. Volume 1.
Pages 13-19.
Thompson, S.E., C.A. Burton, D.L. Quinn, and Y.C. Ng. 1972. Concentration Factors of Chemical
Elements in Edible Aquatic Organisms. UCRL-50564 Rev. 1. Lawrence Livermore Laboratory.
University of California.
Thurberg, P.P., A. Calabrese, E. Gould, R.A. Greig, M.A. Dawson, and R.K. Tucker. 1977. "Response
of the Lobster, Homarus americanus, to Sublethal Levels of Cadmium and Mercury." In:
Vernberg, F.J., A. Calabrese, P.P. Thurberg, and W.B. Verberg (eds.). Physiological Responses
of Marine Biota to Pollutants. Academic Press. New York, NY.
Travis, C.C., and A.D. Arms. 1988. "Bioconcentration of Organics in Beef, Milk, and Vegetation."
Environmental Science and Technology. 22(3): 271-274.
U.S. EPA. 1976. "An Ecological Study of Hexachlorobutadiene (HCBD)." Office of Toxic Substances.
Washington, D.C. EPA 560/6-76/010.
U.S. EPA. 1978. "In-depth Studies on Health and Environmental Impacts of Selected Water Pollutants."
Washington, D.C.
U.S. EPA. 1979. "Water Related Environmental Fate of 129 Priority Pollutants." EPA Monitoring and
Data Support Division. Washington, D.C. Volume I and II. EPA 440/4-79-029a.
U.S. EPA. 1980a. "Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Heptachlor." Office of Water Regulations and
Standards. Criteria and Standards Division. Washington, D.C. EPA 440/5-80-052. October.
U.S. EPA. 1980b. "Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Polychlorinated Biphenyls." EPA 400/5-80/068.
Office of Water Regulations and Standards Division. Washington, D.C.
U.S. EPA. 1980c. "Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Hexachlorobenzene. EPA 400/5-80/. Office of
Water Regulations and Standards. Washington, D.C.
U.S. EPA. 1985. "Health Assessment Document for Polychlorinated Dibenzo-p-dioxins." Office of
Health and Environmental Assessment. Washington, D.C. EPA 600/8-84/014F.
U.S. EPA. 1987. "Health Advisories for Hexachlorobenzene." Office of Drinking Water, Washington,
D.C.
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering C-l 14
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Appendix C: Media-To-Receptor BCF Values August 1999
U.S. EPA. 1992a. "National Study of Chemical Residues in Fish." Office of Science and Technology.
EPA 823/R-92/008b. September.
U.S. EPA. 1992b. "Criteria and Related Information for Toxic Pollutants." Water Management Division,
EPA Region VI.
U.S. EPA. 1992c. Technical Support Document for Land Application of Sewage Sludge. Office of
Water. EPA 822/R-93/001a. November.
U.S. EPA. 1992d. Estimating Exposure to Dioxin-Like Compounds. Draft Report. Office of Research
and Development. Washington, D.C. EPA/600/6-88/005B. August.
U.S. EPA. 1994a. Estimating Exposure to Dioxin-Like Compounds. Draft Report. Office of Research
and Development. Washington, D.C. EPA/600/6-88/005a,b,c. June.
U.S. EPA. 1994b. Draft Report Chemical Properties for Soil Screening Levels. Prepared for the Office
of Emergency and Remedial Response. Washington, D.C. July 26.
U.S. EPA. 1994c. Review Draft Technical Background Document for Soil Screening Guidance. Office
of Solid Waste Emergency Response. EPA/540/R-94/106. December.
U.S. EPA. 1994d. CHEMS-Compound Properties Estimation and Data. Version 1.00. CHEMDAT8
Air Emissions Program. Prepared for Chemical and Petroleum Branch, OAQPS. Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina. November 18.
U.S. EPA. 1994e. Revised Draft Guidance for Performing Screening Level Risk Analyses at
Combustion Facilities Burning Hazardous Wastes: Attachment C, Draft Exposure Assessment
Guidance for RCRA Hazardous Waste Combustion Facilities. Office of Emergency and
Remedial Response. Office of Solid Waste. December 14.
U.S. EPA. 1995a. Review Draft Development of Human Health Based and Ecologically Based Exit
Criteria for the Hazardous Wastes Identification Project. Volumes I and II. Office of Solid
Waste. March 3.
U.S. EPA. 1995b. "Great Lakes Water Quality Initiative Technical Support Document for the Procedure
to Determine Bioaccumulation Factors." EPA 820/B-95/005. March.
U.S. EPA. 1996. Ecological Data Quality Levels Reference Database, Version 3.0. EPA Region 5,
Wastes, Pesticides, and Toxics Division.
U.S. EPA. 1998. Human Health Risk Assessment Protocol for Hazardous Waste Combustion Facilitites.
External Peer Review Draft. U.S. EPA Region 6 and U.S. EPA OSW. Volumes 1-3.
EPA530-D-98-001A. July.
Van Hoogen, G., and A. Opperhuizen. 1988. "Toxicokinetics of Chlorobenzenes in Fish." Environmental
Toxicology and Chemistry. Volume 7. Pages 213-219.
Van Hook, R.I. 1974. "Cadmium, Lead, and Zinc Distributions Between Earthworms and Soils:
Potentials for Biological Accumulation." Bull. Contam. Toxicol. 12:509-512.
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering C-l 15
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Appendix C: Media-To-Receptor BCF Values August 1999
Veith, G.D., D.L. DeFoe and B.V. Bergstedt. 1979. "Measuring and Estimating the Bioconcentration
Factor of Chemicals in Fish." Journal of Fisheries Research Board of Canada. Volume 36.
Pages 1040-1048.
Veith, G.D., D.W. Kuehl, F.A. Puglisis, G.E. Glass, and J.G. Eaton. 1977. "Residues of PCBs and DDT
in the Western Lake Superior Ecosystem." Archives of Environmental Contamination and
Toxicology. Volume 5. Pages 487-499.
Veith, G.D., K.J. Macek, S.R. Petrocelli, and J. Carroll. 1980. "An Evaluation of Using Partition
Coefficients and Water Solubility to Estimate Bioconcentration Factors for Organic Chemicals in
Fish." Pages 116-129. In J. G. Eaton, P. R. Parrish, and A. C. Hendricks (eds.), Aquatic
Toxicology. ASTM STP 707. American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia.
Vighi, M. 1981. "Lead Uptake and Release in an Experimental Trophic Chain." Ecotoxicology and
Environmental Safety. Volume 5. Pages 177-193.
Wang, X., S. Harada, M. Watanabe, H. Koshikawa, and H.J. Geyer. 1996. "Modelling the
Bioconcentration of Hydrophobic Organic Chemicals in Aquatic Organisms." Chemosphere. Vol
32, Number 9. Pages 1783-1793.
Watras, C.J., and N.S. Bloom. 1992. "Mercury and Methylmercury in Individual Zooplankton:
Implications for Bioaccumulation." Limnology and Oceanography. Volume 37, Number 6.
Pages 1313-1318.
Watras, C.J., J. MacFarlane, and F.M.M. Morel. 1985. "Nickel Accumulation by Scenedesmus and
Daphnia: Food Chain Transport and Geochemical Implications." Canadian Journal of Fisheries
and Aquatic Science. Volume 42. Pages 724-730.
Williams, D.R., and J.P.Giesy, Jr. 1979. "Relative Importance of Food and Water Sources to Cadmium
Uptake by Gambusia afftnis (Poecilidae)." Environmental Research. Volume 16.
Pages 326-332.
Wofford, H.W., C.D. Wilsey, G.S. Neff, C.S. Giam, and J.M. Neff 1981. "Bioaccumulation and
Metabolism of Phthalate Esters by Oysters, Brown Shrimp, and Sheepshead Minnows."
Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety. Volume 5. Pages 202-210.
Wood, L.W., P. O'Keefe, and B. Bush. 1997. "Similarity Analysis of PAH and PCB Bioaccumulation
Patterns in Sediment-Exposed Chironomus tentans Larvae." Environmental Toxicology and
Chemistry. Volume 16, Number 2. Pages 283-292.
Yockim, R.S., A.R. Isensee, and G.E. Jones. 1978. "Distribution and Toxicity of TCDD and 2,4,5-T in
an Aquatic Model Ecosystem." Chemosphere. Volume 7, Number 3. Pages 215-220.0
Zaroogian, G.E., and S. Cheer. 1976. "Accumulation of Cadmium by the American Oyster, Crassostrea
virginica" Nature. Volume 261. Pages 408-410.
Zaroogian, G.E., G. Morrison, and J.F. Heltshe. 1979. "Crassostrea virginica as an Indicator of Lead
Pollution." Marine Biology. Volume 52. Pages 189-196.
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering C-l 16
-------
APPENDIX D
BIOCONCENTRATION FACTORS (BCFs)
FOR WILDLIFE MEASUREMENT RECEPTORS
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
August 1999
-------
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Appendix D: Wildlife Measurement Receptor BCF Values August 1999
APPENDIX D
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
D-1.0 GENERAL GUIDANCE D-l
D-l.l BIOTRANSFER FACTORS FOR MAMMALS (Bamammal) D-3
D-1.2 BIOTRANSFER FACTORS FOR BIRDS (Babird) D-5
REFERENCES: APPENDIX D TEXT D-9
TABLES OF WILDLIFE MEASUREMENT RECEPTOR BCF VALUES D-l 1
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering D-i
-------
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Appendix D: Wildlife Measurement Receptor BCF Values August 1999
APPENDIX D
WILDLIFE MEASUREMENT RECEPTOR BCFs
Appendix D provides recommended guidance for determining values for compound-specific, media to
receptor, bioconcentration factors (BCFs) for wildlife measurement receptors. Wildlife measurement
receptor BCFs should be based on values reported in the scientific literature, or estimated using physical
and chemical properties of the compound. Guidance on use of BCF values in the screening level
ecological risk assessment is provided in Chapter 5.
Section D-1.0 provides the general guidance recommended to select or estimate compound BCF values for
wildlife measurement receptors. Sections D-1.0 through D-1.3 further discuss determination of BCFs for
specific media and receptors. References cited in Sections D-l.l through D-1.3 are located following
Section D-1.3.
For the compounds commonly identified in risk assessments for combustion facilities (identified in Chapter
2) and the mammal and bird example measurement receptors listed in Chapter 4, BCF values have been
determined following the guidance in Sections D-1.0 through D-1.3. BCF values for these limited number
of compounds and pathways are included in this appendix (see Tables D-l through D-3) to facilitate the
completion of screening ecological risk assessments. However, it is expected that BCF values for
additional compounds and receptors may be required for evaluation on a site specific basis. In such cases,
BCF values for these additional compounds could be determined following the same guidance
(Sections D-1.0 through D-1.3) used in determination of the BCF values reported in this appendix. For the
calculation of BCF values for measurement receptors not represented in Sections D-l.l through Dl-3 (e.g.,
amphibians and reptiles), an approach consistent to that presented in this appendix could be utilized by
applying data applicable to those measurement receptors being evaluated.
For additional discussion on some of the references and equations cited in Sections D-1.0 through D-1.3,
the reader is recommended to review the Human Health Risk Assessment Protocol (HHRAP) (U.S. EPA
1998) (see Appendix A-3), and the source documents cited in the reference section of this appendix.
D-1.0 GENERAL GUIDANCE
This section describes general procedures for developing compound-specific BCFs from biotransfer
factors (Bd) for assessing exposure of measurement receptors. A biotransfer factor is the ratio of the
compound concentration in fresh (wet) weight animal tissue to the daily intake of compound by the
animal through ingestion of food items and media (soil, sediment, surface water). Therefore, as
discussed in Chapter 5, biotransfer factors and receptor-specific ingestion rates can be used to calculate
food item- and media-to-animal BCFs. This approach provides an estimate of biotransfer of compounds
from applicable food items and media to measurement receptors ingesting these items.
Biotransfer factors could also be used directly in equations to calculate dose to measurement receptors.
However, in order to promote consistency in evaluating exposure across all trophic levels within complex
food webs, BCFs calculated from Ba values are recommended in this guidance for evaluating
measurement receptors. The use of Ba values to determine BCF values, and the use of BCF values in
general, for the estimation of compound concentrations in measurement receptors may introduce
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering D-l
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Appendix D: Wildlife Measurement Receptor BCF Values August 1999
uncertainty. Major factors that influence the uptake of a compound by an animal, and therefore
uncertainty, include bioavailability, metabolic rate, type of digestive system, and feeding behavior.
Uncertainties also should be considered regarding the development of biotransfer values in comparison to
how they are being applied for estimating exposure. For example, biotransfer values may be used to
estimate contaminant uptake to species from items ingested that differ from the species and intakes used
to empirically develop the values. Also, biotransfer data reported in literature may be specific to tissue or
organ analysis versus whole body. As a result, BCFs may be under- or over-estimated to an unknown
degree.
BCFs for Measurement Receptors Ingesting Food Items BCF values for measurement receptors
ingesting food items (plants or prey) can be calculated using the compound specific Ba value applicable
to the animal (e.g., mammal, bird, etc.) and the measurement receptor-specific ingestion rate as follows:
BCFF_A = BaA • IRF Equation D-l-1
where
BCFF_A = Bioconcentration factor for food item (plant or prey)-to-animal
(measurement receptor) [(mg COPC/kg FW tissue)/(mg COPC/kg FW
food item)]
BaA = COPC-specific biotransfer factor applicable for the animal
(day/kg FW tissue)
IRF = Measurement receptor food item ingestion rate (kg FW/day)
As an example of applying the above equation, BCF values for plants-to-wildlife measurement receptors
listed in Chapter 4 are provided in Table D-l at the end of this appendix. Measurement-receptor specific
ingestion rates used to calculate BCFs are presented in Table 5-1. Ba values applicable to the mammal
and bird measurement receptors in Table D-l are discussed in Sections D-l.l and D-l.2, respectively.
BCFs for Measurement Receptors Ingesting Media BCF values for measurement receptors in trophic
levels 2, 3, and 4 ingesting media (i.e., soil, surface water, and sediment) can be calculated using the
compound specific Ba value applicable to the animal (e.g., mammal, bird, etc.) and the measurement
receptor-specific ingestion rate as follows:
BCFM_A = BaA • IRM Equation D-l-2
where
BCFM_A = Bioconcentration factor for media-to-animal (measurement receptor)
[(mg COPC/kg FW tissue)/(mg COPC/kg WW or DW media)]
BaA = COPC-specific biotransfer factor applicable for the animal
(day/kg FW tissue)
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering D-2
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Appendix D: Wildlife Measurement Receptor BCF Values August 1999
IRM = Measurement receptor media ingestion rate (WW or DW kg/day)
Equation D-l-2 assumes that .604 provides a reasonable estimate of the uptake of a compound from
incidental ingestion of abiotic media during foraging.
As an example of applying the above equation, BCF values for various wildlife measurement receptors
listed in Chapter 4 are provided in Table D-2 (water) and Table D-3 (soil and sediment).
Measurement-receptor specific ingestion rates used to calculate BCFs are presented in Table 5-1. Ba
values applicable to the mammal and bird measurement receptors for which values were calculated are
discussed in Sections D-l.l and D-1.2, respectively.
BCFs for Dioxins and Furans As discussed in Chapter 2, the BCF values for PCDDs and PCDFs are
calculated using bioaccumulation equivalency factors (BEFs). Consistent with U.S. EPA (1995b), BEFs
are expressed relative to the BCF for 2,3,7,8-TCDD as follows:
BEFj Equation D-1-3
where
BCF = Food item-to-animal or media-to-animal BCF for/th PCDD or
PCDF congener for food item-to-animal pathway [(mg
COPC/kg FW tissue)/(mg COPC/kg FW plant)]or media-to-
animal pathway [(mg COPC/kg FW tissue)/(mg COPC/kg WW
media)]
BCF2 3 7 s-TCDD = Food item-to-animal or media-to-animal BCF for 2,3,7,8-TCDD
BEFj = Bioaccumulation equivalency factor for/th PCDD or PCDF
congener (unitless)
The use of BEFs for dioxin and furan congeners is further discussed in Chapter 2.
D-l.l BIOTRANSFER FACTORS FOR MAMMALS (Bamammal)
As discussed in Section D-1.0, calculation of BCF values to be used in pathways for mammals ingesting
food items and media requires the determination of COPC-specific biotransfer factors for mammal
measurement receptors (Bamammal). This section discusses selection of the Bamammal values used to
calculate the COPC and measurement receptor specific BCF values presented in Tables D-l through D-3.
Or sanies For organics (except PCDDs and PCDFs), the following correlation equation from Travis and
Arms (1988) was used to derrive Bamammal values on a FW basis:
l°SBamammal =-7.6 + \ogKow Equation D-l-4
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering D-3
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Appendix D: Wildlife Measurement Receptor BCF Values August 1999
where
Bamammal = Biotransfer factor for mammals (day/kg FW tissue)
Kow = Octanol-water partition coefficient (unitless)
To calculate the values presented in Tables D-l through D-3, COPC-specific Kow values were obtained
from Appendix A-2.
Biotransfer factors obtained from Travis and Arms (1988) were derived from correlation equations
developed from data on experiments conducted with beef cattle ingesting food items and media
containing compound classes such as DDT, pesticides, PCDDs, PCDFs, and PCBs. As further literature
is developed for other species and compounds, the Travis and Arms (1988) correlation equation should
be compared for applicability to species and compound, and best fit correlation for estimation of uptake.
PCDDs and PCDFs Bamammal values for PCDD and PCDFs were derrived from Ba values for cattle as
presented in:
• U.S. EPA 1995a. "Further Studies for Modeling the Indirect Exposure Impacts from
Combustor Emissions." Memorandum from Matthew Lorber, Exposure Assessment
Group, and Glenn Rice, Environmental Criteria and Assessment Office, Washington,
D.C. January 20.
U.S. EPA (1995a) determined Ba values for cattle from McLachlan, Thoma, Reissinger, and Hutzinger
(1990). These empirically determined Ba values were recommended by U.S. EPA (1995a) over the
Travis and Arms (1988) correlation equation for dioxins and furans.
Inorganics For metals (except cadmium, mercury, selenium, and zinc), Ba values on a fresh weight
basis were obtained from Baes, Sharp, Sjoreen, and Shor (1984). For cadmium, selenium, and zinc, U.S.
EPA (1995a) indicated that Ba values were derived by dividing uptake slopes [(g compound/kg DW
tissue)/(g compound/kg DW feed)], obtained from U.S. EPA (1992), by a daily consumption rate of
20 kilograms DW per day by cows.
For use in calculating BCF values presented in Tables D-l through D-3 of this appendix, dry weight Ba
values were converted to fresh weight basis by assuming a tissue moisture content (by mass) of
70 percent for cows. Moisture content information was obtained from the following:
• U.S. EPA. 1997a. Exposure Factors Handbook. "Food Ingestion Factors". Volume II.
EPA/600/P-95/002Fb. August.
• Pennington, J.A.T. 1994. Food Value of Portions Commonly Used. Sixteenth Edition.
J.B. Lippincott Company, Philadelphia.
Mercuric Compounds Based on assumptions made regarding speciation and fate and transport of
mercury from stack emissions (as discussed in Chapter 2), elemental mercury is assumed not to deposit
onto soils, water, or plants. Therefore, it is also not available in food items or media for ingestion and
subsequent uptake by measurement receptors. As a result, no BCF values for elemental mercury are
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering D-4
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Appendix D: Wildlife Measurement Receptor BCF Values August 1999
presented in Tables D-l through D-3 of this appendix. If site-specific field data suggest otherwise, Ba
values for elemental mercury can be derived from uptake slope factors provided in U.S. EPA (1992) and
U.S. EPA (1995a), using the same consumption rates as were discussed earlier for the metals like
cadmium, selenium, and zinc.
Bamammal values for mercuric chloride and methyl mercury were derived from data in U.S. EPA (1997b).
U.S. EPA (1997b) provides Ba values for mercury in cows, but does not specify the form of mercury. To
obtain the Ba values for mercuric chloride and methyl mercury presented in Tables D-l through D-3 of
this guidance, consistent with U.S. EPA (1997b) total mercury was assumed to be composed of
87 percent divalent mercury (as mercuric chloride) and 13 percent methyl mercury in herbivore animal
tissue. Also, assuming that the Ba value provided in U.S. EPA (1997b) is for the total mercury in the
animal tissue, then biotransfer factors in U.S. EPA (1997b) can be determined for mercuric chloride and
methyl mercury, as follows:
• The default Ba value of 0.02 day/kg DW fortotal mercury obtained from U.S. EPA
(1997b) was converted to a fresh weight basis assuming a 70 percent moisture content in
cow tissue (U.S. EPA 1997a; Pennington 1994). The fresh weight Ba value fortotal
mercury was multiplied by 0.13 to obtain a Bamammal value for methyl mercury, and
by 0.87 to obtain a Bamammal value for mercuric chloride.
D-1.2 BIOTRANSFER FACTORS FOR BIRDS (Babird)
As discussed in Section D-1.0, calculation of BCF values to be used in pathways for birds ingesting food
items and media requires the determination of COPC-specific biotransfer factors for bird measurement
receptors (Babird). This section discusses selection of the Babird values used to calculate the COPC and
measurement receptor specific BCF values presented in Tables D-l through D-3.
Organics Bahird values for organic compounds (except PCDDs and PCDFs) were derived from Bamammal
values by assuming that the lipid content (by mass) of birds and mammals is 15 and 19 percent,
respectively. Therefore, Bahird values presented in Tables D-l through D-3 were determined by
multiplying Bamammal values by the bird and mammal fat content ratio of 0.8 (15/19).
Notable uncertainties associated with this approach include (1) extent to which specific organic
compounds bioconcentrate in fatty tissues, and (2) differences in lipid content, metabolism, and feeding
characteristics between species.
PCDDs and PCDFs 5aWrd values presented in Tables D-l through D-3 for PCDD and PCDF congeners
were derrived from data provided in the following:
• Stephens, R.D., M. Petreas, and G.H. Hayward. 1995. "Biotransfer and
Bioaccumulation of Dioxins and Furans from Soil: Chickens as a Model for Foraging
Animals." The Science of the Total Environment. Volume 175. Pages 253-273.
Stephens, Petreas, and Hayward (1995) conducted experiments to determine the bioavailability and the
rate of PCDDs and PCDFs uptake from soil by foraging chickens. Three groups of White Leghorn
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering D-5
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Appendix D: Wildlife Measurement Receptor BCF Values August 1999
chickens were studied—control group, low exposure group, and high exposure group. Eggs, tissues
(liver, adipose, and thigh), feed, and feces were analyzed.
Congener specific Babird values were derrived from the Stephens, Petreas, and Hayward (1995) study by
dividing estimated whole body bioconcentration values for the high exposure group by a daily
consumption rate of soil. If congener specific BCF values were not reported for the high exposure group,
then estimated whole body values were determined using reported data for the low exposure group, if
available. A default consumption rate of soil by chicken of 0.02 kg DW/day was determined as follows:
(1) Consumption rate of feed by chicken was obtained from U.S. EPA (1995a), which cites a
value of 0.2 kg (DW) feed/day obtained from various literature sources.
(2) The fraction of feed that is soil (0.1) was obtained from Stephens, Petreas, and
Hayward (1995).
(3) Feed consumption rate of 0.2 kg/day was multiplied by fraction of feed that is soil (0.1),
to obtain the soil consumption rate by chicken of 0.2 x 0.1 = 0.02 kg DW soil/day.
Inorganics For metals (except cadmium, selenium, and zinc), Babird values were not available in the
literature. For cadmium, selenium, and zinc, U.S. EPA (1995a) cites Ba values that were derived by
dividing uptake slopes [(g compound/kg dry DW tissue)/(g compound/kg DW feed)], obtained from U.S.
EPA (1992), by a daily ingestion rate of 0.2 kilograms DW per day by poultry. To determine BCF
values presented in Tables D-l through D-3 in this appendix, reported dry weight Ba values were
converted to fresh weight basis by assuming a tissue moisture content (by mass) of 75 percent for
poultry (U.S. EPA 1997a; Pennington 1994).
Mercuric Compounds Based on assumptions made regarding speciation and fate and transport of
mercury from stack emissions (as discussed in Chapter 2), elemental mercury is assumed not to deposit
onto soils, water, or plants. Therefore, it is also not available in food items or media for ingestion and
subsequent uptake by measurement receptors. As a result, no BCF values for elemental mercury are
presented in Tables D-l through D-3 of this appendix. If site-specific field data suggest otherwise, Ba
values for elemental mercury can be derived from uptake slope factors provided in U.S. EPA (1992) and
U.S. EPA (1995a), using the same consumption rates as were discussed earlier for the metals like
cadmium, selenium, and zinc.
Babird values for mercuric chloride and methyl mercury were derived from data in U.S. EPA (1997b).
U.S. EPA (1997b) provides Ba values for mercury in poultry, but does not specify the form of mercury.
To obtain the Ba values for mercuric chloride and methyl mercury presented in Tables D-l through D-3
of this guidance, consistent with U.S. EPA (1997b) total mercury was assumed to be composed of
87 percent divalent mercury (as mercuric chloride) and 13 percent methyl mercury in herbivore animal
tissue. Also, assuming that the Ba value provided in U.S. EPA (1997b) is for the total mercury in the
animal tissue, then biotransfer factors in U.S. EPA (1997b) can be determined for mercuric chloride and
methyl mercury, as follows:
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering D-6
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Appendix D: Wildlife Measurement Receptor BCF Values August 1999
• The default Ba value of 0.02 day/kg DW for total mercury obtained from U.S. EPA
(1997b) was converted to a fresh weight basis assuming a 75 percent moisture content in
poultry tissue (U.S. EPA 1997a; Pennington 1994). The fresh weight Ba value for total
mercury was multiplied by 0.13 to obtain a Babird value for methyl mercury, and by 0.87
to obtain a Babird value for mercuric chloride.
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering D-7
-------
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Appendix D: Wildlife Measurement Receptor BCF Values August 1999
Baes, C.F., R.D. Sharp, A.L. Sjoreen, and R.W. Shor. 1984. "Review and Analysis of Parameters and
Assessing Transport of Environmentally Released Radionuclides through Agriculture."
Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Oak Ridge, Tennessee.
McLachlan, M.S., H. Thoma, M. Reissinger, and O. Hutzinger. 1990. "PCDD/F in an Agricultural
Food Chain. Part I: PCDD/F Mass Balance of a Lactating Cow." Chemosphere. Volume 20.
Pages 1013-1020.
Pennington, J.A.T. 1994. Food Value of Portions Commonly Used. Sixteenth Edition. J.B. Lippincott
Company, Philadelphia.
Stephens, R.D., M. Petreas, and G.H. Hayward. 1995. "Biotransfer and Bioaccumulation of Dioxins and
Furans from Soil: Chickens as a Model for Foraging Animals." The Science of the Total
Environment. Volume 175. Pages 253-273.
Travis, C.C., and A.D. Arms. 1988. "Bioconcentration of Organics in Beef, Milk, and Vegetation."
Environmental Science and Technology. 22:271-274.
U.S. EPA. 1992. Health Reassessment of Dioxin-Like Compounds, Chapters 1 to 8. Workshop Review
Draft. OHEA. Washington, D.C. EPA/600/AP-92/00la through 00Ih. August.
U.S. EPA. 1994. "Draft Guidance for Performing Screening Level Risk Analyses at Combustion
Facilities Burning Hazardous Wastes. Attachment C, Draft Exposure Assessment Guidance for
RCRA Hazardous Waste Combustion Facilities. " April 15.
U.S. EPA 1995a. "Further Studies for Modeling the Indirect Exposure Impacts from Combustor
Emissions." Memorandum from Matthew Lorber, Exposure Assessment Group, and Glenn Rice,
Indirect Exposure Team, Environmental Criteria and Assessment Office, Washington, D.C.
January 20.
U.S. EPA. 1995b. Great Lakes Water Quality Initiative Technical Support Document for the Procedure
to Determine Bioaccumulation Factors. EPA-820-B-95-005. Office of Water, Washington, D.C.
March.
U.S. EPA. 1997a. Exposure Factors Handbook. "Food Ingestion Factors". Volume II.
EPA/600/P-95/002Fb. August.
U.S. EPA. 1997b. Mercury Study Report to Congress, Volumes I through VIII. Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards and ORD. EPA/452/R-97-001. December.
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering D-9
-------
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Appendix D: Wildlife Measurement Receptor BCF Values August 1999
TABLES OF MEASUREMENT RECEPTOR BCF VALUES
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
August 1999
D-l PLANTS TO WILDLIFE MEASUREMENT RECEPTORS D-13
D-2 WATER TO WILDLIFE MEASUREMENT RECEPTORS D-16
TABLE D-3 SOIL/SEDIMENT TO WILDLIFE MEASUREMENT RECEPTORS D-22
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering D-l 1
-------
-------
TABLE D-l
BIOCONCENTRATION FACTORS FOR PLANTS TO WILDLIFE MEASUREMENT RECEPTORS
(Page 1 of 3)
Compound
Measurement Receptor
American
Robin
(BCFTMB)
Canvas
Back
(BCF TMm)
Deer
Mouse
(BCFTMm)
Least
Shrew
(BCFmOM)
Mallard
Duck
(BCFTP_OB)
Marsh Rice
Rat
(BCFTP_OM)
Marsh
Wren
(BCFTP_OB)
Mourning
Dove
(BCFTMra)
Muskrat
(BCFTP_OM)
Northern
Bobwhite
(BCFTP_OB)
Salt-marsh
Harvest
Mouse
(BCFTMM)
Short-
tailed
Shrew
(BCFTP_OM)
Western
Meadow
Lark
(BCFTP_OM)
White-
footed
Mouse
(BCFTP_OM)
Dioxins and Furans
2,3,7,8-TCDD
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD
OCDD
2,3,7,8-TCDF
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF
2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF
2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF
1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF
OCDF
1.53e+02
1.41e+02
4.74e+01
1.83e+01
2.14e+01
7.79e+00
1.83e+00
1.22e+02
3.36e+01
2.44e+02
1.16e+01
2.90e+01
1.02e+02
9.63e+01
1.68e+00
5.96e+01
2.44e+00
6.85e+01
6.30e+01
2.12e+01
8.22e+00
9.59e+00
3.49e+00
8.22e-01
5.48e+01
1.51e+01
1.10e+02
5.21e+00
1.30e+01
4.59e+01
4.32e+01
7.54e-01
2.67e+01
1.10e+00
3.25e-02
2.99e-02
l.Ole-02
3.91e-03
4.56e-03
1.66e-03
3.91e-04
2.60e-02
7.16e-03
5.21e-02
2.47e-03
6.18e-03
2.18e-02
2.05e-02
3.58e-04
1.27e-02
5.21e-04
3.37e-02
3.10e-02
1.04e-02
4.04e-03
4.71e-03
1.72e-03
4.04e-04
2.69e-02
7.41e-03
5.39e-02
2.56e-03
6.40e-03
2.26e-02
2.12e-02
3.70e-04
1.31e-02
5.39e-04
6.16e+01
5.67e+01
1.91e+01
7.39e+00
8.63e+00
3.14e+00
7.39e-01
4.93e+01
1.36e+01
9.86e+01
4.68e+00
1.17e+01
4.13e+01
3.88e+01
6.78e-01
2.40e+01
9.86e-01
2.39e-02
2.20e-02
7.41e-03
2.87e-03
3.35e-03
1.22e-03
2.87e-04
1.91e-02
5.26e-03
3.83e-02
1.82e-03
4.54e-03
1.60e-02
1.51e-02
2.63e-04
9.33e-03
3.83e-04
3.19e+02
2.93e+02
9.88e+01
3.83e+01
4.46e+01
1.63e+01
3.83e+00
2.55e+02
7.01e+01
5.10e+02
2.42e+01
6.06e+01
2.14e+02
2.01e+02
3.51e+00
1.24e+02
5.10e+00
1.20e+02
l.lle+02
3.72e+01
1.44e+01
1.68e+01
6.13e+00
1.44e+00
9.61e+01
2.64e+01
1.92e+02
9.13e+00
2.28e+01
8.05e+01
7.57e+01
1.32e+00
4.69e+01
1.92e+00
1.45e-02
1.33e-02
4.50e-03
1.74e-03
2.03e-03
7.40e-04
1.74e-04
1.16e-02
3.19e-03
2.32e-02
1.10e-03
2.76e-03
9.72e-03
9.14e-03
1.60e-04
5.66e-03
2.32e-04
1.20e+02
l.lle+02
3.72e+01
1.44e+01
1.68e+01
6.13e+00
1.44e+00
9.61e+01
2.64e+01
1.92e+02
9.13e+00
2.28e+01
8.05e+01
7.57e+01
1.32e+00
4.69e+01
1.92e+00
4.02e-02
3.70e-02
1.25e-02
4.83e-03
5.63e-03
2.05e-03
4.83e-04
3.22e-02
8.85e-03
6.44e-02
3.06e-03
7.64e-03
2.70e-02
2.53e-02
4.43e-04
1.57e-02
6.44e-04
3.37e-02
3.10e-02
1.04e-02
4.04e-03
4.71e-03
1.72e-03
4.04e-04
2.69e-02
7.41e-03
5.39e-02
2.56e-03
6.40e-03
2.26e-02
2.12e-02
3.70e-04
1.31e-02
5.39e-04
1.45e+02
1.33e+02
4.49e+01
1.74e+01
2.03e+01
7.39e+00
1.74e+00
1.16e+02
3.19e+01
2.32e+02
1.10e+01
2.75e+01
9.70e+01
9.13e+01
1.59e+00
5.65e+01
2.32e+00
3.33e-02
3.07e-02
1.03e-02
4.00e-03
4.67e-03
1.70e-03
4.00e-04
2.67e-02
7.34e-03
5.34e-02
2.53e-03
6.34e-03
2.23e-02
2.10e-02
3.67e-04
1.30e-02
5.34e-04
Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs)
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Chrysene
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
Indeno( 1 ,2,3-cd)pyrene
1.19e-02
4.20e-03
1.40e-02
1.39e-02
4.84e-03
3.11e-02
7.24e-02
5.32e-03
1.88e-03
6.29e-03
6.25e-03
2.17e-03
1.39e-02
3.25e-02
2.03e-02
7.19e-03
2.40e-02
2.39e-02
8.27e-03
5.31e-02
1.24e-01
2.10e-02
7.44e-03
2.48e-02
2.47e-02
8.56e-03
5.49e-02
1.28e-01
4.78e-03
1.69e-03
5.66e-03
5.62e-03
1.95e-03
1.25e-02
2.92e-02
1.49e-02
5.28e-03
1.76e-02
1.75e-02
6.08e-03
3.90e-02
9.12e-02
2.47e-02
8.76e-03
2.93e-02
2.91e-02
l.Ole-02
6.48e-02
1.51e-01
9.32e-03
3.30e-03
1.10e-02
1.10e-02
3.81e-03
2.44e-02
5.69e-02
9.03e-03
3.21e-03
1.07e-02
1.06e-02
3.69e-03
2.37e-02
5.53e-02
9.32e-03
3.30e-03
1.10e-02
1.10e-02
3.81e-03
2.44e-02
5.69e-02
2.50e-02
8.89e-03
2.96e-02
2.95e-02
1.02e-02
6.57e-02
1.53e-01
2.10e-02
7.44e-03
2.48e-02
2.47e-02
8.56e-03
5.49e-02
1.28e-01
1.12e-02
3.98e-03
1.33e-02
1.32e-02
4.59e-03
2.95e-02
6.86e-02
2.08e-02
7.37e-03
2.46e-02
2.44e-02
8.47e-03
5.44e-02
1.27e-01
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs)
Aroclor, 1016
Aroclor, 1254
2.23e-03
1.42e-02
l.OOe-03
6.35e-03
3.82e-03
2.43e-02
3.95e-03
2.51e-02
9.01e-04
5.71e-03
2.81e-03
1.78e-02
4.66e-03
2.96e-02
1.76e-03
l.lle-02
1.70e-03
1.08e-02
1.76e-03
l.lle-02
4.72e-03
3.00e-02
3.95e-03
2.51e-02
2.12e-03
1.34e-02
3.91e-03
2.49e-02
Nitroaromatics
1,3-Dinitrobenzene
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
2.73e-07
8.70e-07
1.22e-07
3.90e-07
4.67e-07
1.49e-06
4.83e-07
1.54e-06
1.10e-07
3.51e-07
3.43e-07
1.10e-06
5.70e-07
1.82e-06
2.15e-07
6.84e-07
2.08e-07
6.65e-07
2.15e-07
6.84e-07
5.77e-07
1.85e-06
4.83e-07
1.54e-06
2.59e-07
8.25e-07
4.78e-07
1.53e-06
D-13
-------
TABLE D-l
BIOCONCENTRATION FACTORS FOR PLANTS TO WILDLIFE MEASUREMENT RECEPTORS
(Page 2 of 3)
Compound
2,6-Dinitrotoluene
Nitrobenzene
Pentachloronitrobenzene
Measurement Receptor
American
Robin
(BCFTMB)
6.79e-07
5.99e-07
3.85e-04
Canvas
Back
(BCF TMm)
3.05e-07
2.69e-07
1.72e-04
Deer
Mouse
(BCFTP™)
1.16e-06
1.03e-06
6.59e-04
Least
Shrew
(BCFmOM)
1.20e-06
1.06e-06
6.82e-04
Mallard
Duck
(BCFTP_OB)
2.74e-07
2.42e-07
1.55e-04
Marsh Rice
Rat
(BCFTP_OM)
8.50e-07
7.53e-07
4.84e-04
Marsh
Wren
(BCFTP_OB)
1.42e-06
1.25e-06
8.02e-04
Mourning
Dove
(BCFTMra)
5.34e-07
4.71e-07
3.02e-04
Muskrat
(BCFTP_OM)
5.16e-07
4.57e-07
2.94e-04
Northern
Bobwhite
(BCFTP_OB)
5.34e-07
4.71e-07
3.02e-04
Salt-marsh
Harvest
Mouse
(BCFTMM)
1.43e-06
1.27e-06
8.15e-04
Short-
tailed
Shrew
(BCFTP_OM)
1.20e-06
1.06e-06
6.82e-04
Western
Meadow
Lark
(BCFTP_OM)
6.44e-07
5.68e-07
3.65e-04
White-
footed
Mouse
(BCFTP_OM)
1.19e-06
1.05e-06
6.76e-04
Phthalate Esters
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Di(n)octyl phthalate
1.41e-03
1.88e+01
6.33e-04
8.44e+00
2.42e-03
3.22e+01
2.50e-03
3.33e+01
5.69e-04
7.59e+00
1.77e-03
2.36e+01
2.95e-03
3.93e+01
l.lle-03
1.48e+01
1.08e-03
1.43e+01
l.lle-03
1.48e+01
2.99e-03
3.98e+01
2.50e-03
3.33e+01
1.34e-03
1.78e+01
2.47e-03
3.30e+01
Volatile Organic Compounds
Acetone
Acrylonitrile
Chloroform
Crotonaldehyde
1,4-Dioxane
Formaldehyde
Vinyl chloride
5.28e-09
1.57e-08
7.82e-07
NA
4.75e-09
1.94e-08
1.23e-07
2.37e-09
7.03e-09
3.50e-07
NA
2.13e-09
8.68e-09
5.53e-08
9.05e-09
2.68e-08
1.34e-06
NA
8.15e-09
3.31e-08
2.11e-07
9.36e-09
2.77e-08
1.39e-06
NA
8.43e-09
3.43e-08
2.18e-07
2.13e-09
6.32e-09
3.15e-07
NA
1.92e-09
7.81e-09
4.98e-08
6.65e-09
1.97e-08
9.87e-07
NA
5.99e-09
2.44e-08
1.55e-07
1.10e-08
3.27e-08
1.63e-06
NA
9.91e-09
4.04e-08
2.58e-07
4.15e-09
1.23e-08
6.14e-07
NA
3.74e-09
1.52e-08
9.71e-08
4.03e-09
1.19e-08
5.98e-07
NA
3.63e-09
1.48e-08
9.40e-08
4.15e-09
1.23e-08
6.14e-07
NA
3.74e-09
1.52e-08
9.71e-08
1.12e-08
3.31e-08
1.66e-06
NA
l.Ole-08
4.10e-08
2.61e-07
9.36e-09
2.77e-08
1.39e-06
NA
8.43e-09
3.43e-08
2.18e-07
5.01e-09
1.49e-08
7.41e-07
NA
4.50e-09
1.84e-08
1.17e-07
9.27e-09
2.75e-08
1.38e-06
NA
8.35e-09
3.40e-08
2.16e-07
Other Chlorinated Organics
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Pentachlorobenzene
Pentachlorophenol
2.80e-03
4.75e-04
7.11e-04
1.08e-03
1.06e-03
1.26e-03
2.13e-04
3.19e-04
4.84e-04
4.76e-04
4.79e-03
8.09e-04
1.22e-03
1.84e-03
1.81e-03
4.95e-03
8.37e-04
1.26e-03
1.90e-03
1.87e-03
1.13e-03
1.92e-04
2.87e-04
4.35e-04
4.28e-04
3.52e-03
5.95e-04
8.94e-04
1.35e-03
1.33e-03
5.85e-03
9.91e-04
1.48e-03
2.25e-03
2.21e-03
2.20e-03
3.74e-04
5.59e-04
8.48e-04
8.34e-04
2.13e-03
3.61e-04
5.42e-04
8.20e-04
8.07e-04
2.20e-03
3.74e-04
5.59e-04
8.48e-04
8.34e-04
5.92e-03
l.OOe-03
1.50e-03
2.27e-03
2.24e-03
4.95e-03
8.37e-04
1.26e-03
1.90e-03
1.87e-03
2.66e-03
4.50e-04
6.74e-04
1.02e-03
l.Ole-03
4.91e-03
8.29e-04
1.25e-03
1.89e-03
1.85e-03
Pesticides
4,4-DDE
Heptachlor
Hexachlorophene
1.59e-02
9.10e-04
3.06e-01
7.13e-03
4.08e-04
1.37e-01
2.72e-02
1.56e-03
5.22e-01
2.81e-02
1.61e-03
5.40e-01
6.41e-03
3.67e-04
1.23e-01
2.00e-02
1.15e-03
3.84e-01
3.32e-02
1.90e-03
6.37e-01
1.25e-02
7.16e-04
2.40e-01
1.21e-02
6.95e-04
2.33e-01
1.25e-02
7.16e-04
2.40e-01
3.36e-02
1.93e-03
6.45e-01
2.81e-02
1.61e-03
5.40e-01
1.51e-02
8.63e-04
2.90e-01
2.78e-02
1.60e-03
5.35e-01
Inorganics
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium (hexavalent)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
4.71e-02
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
2.11e-02
NA
NA
5.99e-04
1.20e-03
8.99e-05
5.99e-04
7.19e-05
3.30e-03
NA
6.20e-04
1.24e-03
9.30e-05
6.20e-04
7.44e-05
3.41e-03
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.90e-02
NA
NA
4.40e-04
8.81e-04
6.61e-05
4.40e-04
5.28e-05
2.42e-03
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
9.82e-02
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
3.70e-02
NA
NA
2.67e-04
5.34e-04
4.01e-05
2.67e-04
3.21e-05
1.47e-03
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
3.70e-02
NA
NA
7.41e-04
1.48e-03
l.lle-04
7.41e-04
8.89e-05
4.08e-03
NA
6.20e-04
1.24e-03
9.30e-05
6.20e-04
7.44e-05
3.41e-03
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
4.46e-02
NA
NA
6.14e-04
1.23e-03
9.21e-05
6.14e-04
7.37e-05
3.38e-03
D-14
-------
TABLE D-l
BIOCONCENTRATION FACTORS FOR PLANTS TO WILDLIFE MEASUREMENT RECEPTORS
(Page 3 of 3)
Compound
Copper
Total Cyanide
Lead
Mercuric chloride
Methylmercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Zinc
Measurement Receptor
American
Robin
(BCFTMB)
NA
NA
NA
1.06e-02
1.59e-03
NA
5.02e-01
NA
NA
3.89e-03
Canvas
Back
(BCF TMm)
NA
NA
NA
4.76e-03
7.13e-04
NA
2.25e-01
NA
NA
1.74e-03
Deer
Mouse
(BCFTP™)
NA
NA
1.80e-04
3.13e-03
4.68e-04
3.60e-03
1.36e-03
1.80e-03
2.40e-02
5.39e-05
Least
Shrew
(BCFmOM)
NA
NA
1.86e-04
3.24e-03
4.84e-04
3.72e-03
1.41e-03
1.86e-03
2.48e-02
5.58e-05
Mallard
Duck
(BCFTP_OB)
NA
NA
NA
4.28e-03
6.41e-04
NA
2.02e-01
NA
NA
1.57e-03
Marsh Rice
Rat
(BCFTP_OM)
NA
NA
1.32e-04
2.30e-03
3.44e-04
2.64e-03
l.OOe-03
1.32e-03
1.76e-02
3.96e-05
Marsh
Wren
(BCFTP_OB)
NA
NA
NA
2.21e-02
3.32e-03
NA
1.05e+00
NA
NA
8.11e-03
Mourning
Dove
(BCFTMra)
NA
NA
NA
8.34e-03
1.25e-03
NA
3.95e-01
NA
NA
3.05e-03
Muskrat
(BCFTP_OM)
NA
NA
8.02e-05
1.39e-03
2.08e-04
1.60e-03
6.07e-04
8.02e-04
1.07e-02
2.40e-05
Northern
Bobwhite
(BCFTP_OB)
NA
NA
NA
8.34e-03
1.25e-03
NA
3.95e-01
NA
NA
3.05e-03
Salt-marsh
Harvest
Mouse
(BCFTMM)
NA
NA
2.22e-04
3.87e-03
5.78e-04
4.45e-03
1.68e-03
2.22e-03
2.96e-02
6.67e-05
Short-
tailed
Shrew
(BCFTP_OM)
NA
NA
1.86e-04
3.24e-03
4.84e-04
3.72e-03
1.41e-03
1.86e-03
2.48e-02
5.58e-05
Western
Meadow
Lark
(BCFTP_OM)
NA
NA
NA
l.Ole-02
1.51e-03
NA
4.76e-01
NA
NA
3.68e-03
White-
footed
Mouse
(BCFTP_OM)
NA
NA
1.84e-04
3.21e-03
4.79e-04
3.68e-03
1.39e-03
1.84e-03
2.46e-02
5.53e-05
Notes:
NA - Indicates insufficient data to determine value
HB - Herbivorous bird
HM - Herbivorous mammal
OB - Omnivorous bird
OM - Omnivorous mammal
TP - Terrestrial plant
- Values provided were determined as specified in the text of Appendix D. BCF values for omnivores were determined based on an equal diet. BCF values for dioxin and furan congeners determined using BEF values
specified in Chapter 2.
D-15
-------
Table D-2
Bioconcentration Factors for Water to Wildlife Measurement Receptors
(Page 1 of 6)
Compound
Measurement Receptors
American
Kestrel
(BCFW_CB)
American
Robin
(BCFW_OB)
Canvas
Back
(BCFWJIB)
Deer
Mouse
(BCFWJIM)
Least
Shrew
(BCFW_OM)
Long-tailed
Weasel
(BCFW_OM)
Mallard
Duck
(BCFW_OB)
Marsh
Rice Rat
(BCFW_OM)
Marsh
Wren
(BCFW_OB)
Mink
(BCFW_CM)
Mourning
Dove
(BCFW_OM)
Dioxins and Furans
2,3,7,8-TCDD
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD
OCDD
2,3,7,8-TCDF
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF
2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF
2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF
1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF
OCDF
4.30e+01
3.96e+01
1.33e+01
5.16e+00
6.02e+00
2.19e+00
5.16e-01
3.44e+01
9.46e+00
6.88e+01
3.27e+00
8.17e+00
2.88e+01
2.71e+01
4.73e-01
1.686+01
6.88e-01
4.71e+01
4.34e+01
1.46e+01
5.66e+00
6.60e+00
2.40e+00
5.66e-01
3.77e+01
1.04e+01
7.54e+01
3.58e+00
8.95e+00
3.16e+01
2.97e+01
5.186-01
1.84e+01
7.54e-01
2.21e+01
2.04e+01
6.86e+00
2.65e+00
3.10e+00
1.13e+00
2.65e-01
1.77e+01
4.87e+00
3.54e+01
1.68e+00
4.20e+00
1.48e+01
1.39e+01
2.43e-01
8.63e+00
3.54e-01
8.19e-03
7.54e-03
2.54e-03
9.83e-04
1. 15e-03
4.18e-04
9.83e-05
6.55e-03
1.80e-03
1.31e-02
6.23e-04
1.56e-03
5.49e-03
5.16e-03
9.01e-05
3.20e-03
1.31e-04
9.34e-03
8.59e-03
2.89e-03
1.12e-03
1.31e-03
4.76e-04
1.12e-04
7.47e-03
2.05e-03
1.49e-02
7.10e-04
1.77e-03
6.26e-03
5.88e-03
1.03e-04
3.64e-03
1.49e-04
6.88e-03
6.33e-03
2.13e-03
8.25e-04
9.63e-04
3.51e-04
8.25e-05
5.50e-03
1.51e-03
1.10e-02
5.23e-04
1.31e-03
4.61e-03
4.33e-03
7.57e-05
2.68e-03
1.10e-04
2.00e+01
1.84e+01
6.21e+00
2.40e+00
2.80e+00
1.02e+00
2.40e-01
1.606+01
4.40e+00
3.20e+01
1.52e+00
3.80e+00
1.34e+01
1.26e+01
2.20e-01
7.81e+00
3.20e-01
1.03e-02
9.44e-03
3.18e-03
1.23e-03
1.44e-03
5.23e-04
1.23e-04
8.21e-03
2.26e-03
1.64e-02
7.80e-04
1.95e-03
6.88e-03
6.47e-03
1.13e-04
4.00e-03
1.64e-04
9.46e+01
8.70e+01
2.93e+01
1.14e+01
1.32e+01
4.82e+00
1.14e+00
7.57e+01
2.08e+01
1.51e+02
7.19e+00
l.SOe+Ol
6.34e+01
5.96e+01
1.04e+00
3.69e+01
1.51e+00
5.39e-03
4.96e-03
1.67e-03
6.47e-04
7.55e-04
2.75e-04
6.47e-05
4.31e-03
1.19e-03
8.62e-03
4.10e-04
1.02e-03
3.61e-03
3.40e-03
5.93e-05
2.10e-03
8.62e-05
3.75e+01
3.45e+01
1.16e+01
4.50e-01
5.25e+00
1.91e+00
4.50e-01
3.00e+01
8.25e+00
6.00e+01
2.85e+00
7.12e+00
2.51e+01
2.36e+01
4.12e-01
1.46e+01
6.00e-01
Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs)
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Chrysene
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
Indeno( 1 ,2,3-cd)pyrene
3.34e-03
1.18e-03
3.95e-03
3.92e-03
1.36e-03
8.74e-03
2.04e-02
3.67e-03
1.30e-03
4.34e-03
4.31e-03
1.50e-03
9.61e-03
2.24e-02
1.72e-03
6.08e-04
2.03e-03
2.02e-03
7.01e-04
4.50e-03
1.05e-02
5.10e-03
1.81e-03
6.03e-03
6.00e-03
2.08e-03
1.34e-02
3.12e-02
5.81e-03
2.06e-03
6.88e-03
6.84e-03
2.37e-03
1.52e-02
3.56e-02
4.28e-03
1.52e-03
5.07e-03
5.04e-03
1.75e-03
1.12e-02
2.62e-02
1.55e-03
5.50e-04
1.84e-03
1.83e-03
6.34e-04
4.07e-03
9.48e-03
3.75e-03
1.33e-03
4.44e-03
4.41e-03
1.53e-03
9.84e-03
2.29e-02
7.35e-03
2.60e-03
8.70e-03
8.64e-03
3.00e-03
1.93e-02
4.49e-02
3.36e-03
1.19e-03
3.97e-03
3.95e-03
1.37e-03
8.79e-03
2.05e-02
2.92e-03
1.03e-03
3.46e-03
3.43e-03
1.19e-03
7.66e-03
1.78e-02
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs)
Aroclor 1016
Aroclor 1254
6.28e-04
3.98e-03
6.91e-04
4.38e-03
3.24e-04
2.05e-03
9.61e-04
6.116-03
1.10e-03
6.96e-03
8.07e-04
5.13e-03
2.93e-04
1.86e-03
7.07e-04
4.48e-03
1.38e-03
8.78e-03
6.32e-04
4.02e-03
5.50e-04
3.49e-03
Nitroaromatics
1,3-Dinitrobenzene
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
7.68e-08
2.45e-07
8.45e-08
2.69e-07
3.96e-08
1.26e-07
1.18e-07
3.76e-07
1.34e-07
4.28e-07
9.87e-08
3.15e-07
3.58e-08
1.14e-07
8.65e-08
2.76e-07
1.69e-07
5.39e-07
7.73e-08
2.47e-07
6.73e-08
2.14e-07
D-16
-------
Table D-2
Bioconcentration Factors for Water to Wildlife Measurement Receptors
(Page 2 of 6)
Compound
2,6-Dinitrotoluene
Nitrobenzene
Pentachloronitrobenzene
Measurement Receptors
American
Kestrel
(BCFW_CB)
1.91e-07
1.69e-07
1.08e-04
American
Robin
(BCFW_OB)
2.10e-07
1.85e-07
1.19e-04
Canvas
Back
(BCFWJIB)
9.84e-08
8.68e-08
5.57e-05
Deer
Mouse
(BCFWJIM)
2.91e-07
2.58e-07
1.66e-04
Least
Shrew
(BCFW_OM)
3.32e-07
2.94e-07
1.89e-04
Long-tailed
Weasel
(BCFW_OM)
2.44e-07
2.17e-07
1.39e-04
Mallard
Duck
(BCFW_OB)
8.90e-08
7.86e-08
5.04e-05
Marsh
Rice Rat
(BCFW_OM)
2.15e-07
1.90e-07
1.22e-04
Marsh
Wren
(BCFW_OB)
4.21e-07
3.72e-07
2.38e-04
Mink
(BCFW_CM)
1.92e-07
1.70e-07
1.09e-04
Mouming
Dove
(BCFW_OM)
1.67e-07
1.48e-07
9.47e-05
Phthalate Esters
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Di(n)octyl phthalate
3.97e-04
5.30e+00
4.37e-04
5.82e+00
2.05e-04
2.73e+00
6.08e-04
8.10e+00
6.93e-04
9.23e+00
5.11e-04
6.80e+00
1.85e-04
2.47e+00
4.47e-04
5.96e+00
8.75e-04
1.17e+01
4.00e-04
5.33e+00
3.48e-04
4.64e+00
Volatile Organic Compounds
Acetone
Acrylonitrile
Chloroform
Crotonaldehyde
1,4-Dioxane
Formaldehyde
Vinyl chloride
1.49e-09
4.41e-09
2.20e-07
NA
1.34e-09
5.45e-09
3.47e-08
1.63e-09
4.84e-09
2.42e-07
NA
1.47e-09
5.99e-09
3.82e-08
7.65e-10
2.27e-09
1.13e-07
NA
6.88e-10
2.80e-09
1.79e-08
2.28e-09
6.74e-09
3.38e-07
NA
2.05e-09
8.34e-09
5.31e-08
2.60e-09
7.69e-09
3.85e-07
NA
2.34e-09
9.51e-09
6.05e-08
1.91e-09
5.66e-09
2.84e-07
NA
1.72e-09
7.01e-09
4.46e-08
6.92e-10
2.05e-09
1.02e-07
NA
6.23e-10
2.54e-09
1.62e-08
1.67e-09
1.27e-09
2.47e-07
NA
1.50e-09
6.13e-09
3.91e-08
3.28e-09
9.71e-09
4.84e-07
NA
2.95e-09
1.20e-08
7.65e-08
1.50e-09
4.44e-09
2.22e-07
NA
1.35e-09
5.49e-09
3.49e-08
1.30e-09
3.85e-09
1.93e-07
NA
1.17e-09
4.77e-09
3.04e-08
Other Chlorinated Organics
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Pentachlorobenzene
Pentachlorophenol
7.88e-04
1.34e-04
2.00e-04
3.04e-04
2.99e-04
8.67e-04
1.47e-04
2.20e-04
3.34e-04
3.28e-04
4.06e-04
6.88e-05
1.03e-04
1.56e-04
1.54e-04
1.21e-03
2.04e-04
3.06e-04
4.63e-04
4.56e-04
1.37e-03
2.32e-04
3.49e-04
5.28e-04
5.19e-04
l.Ole-03
1.71e-04
2.57e-04
3.89e-04
3.83e-04
3.67e-04
6.23e-05
9.31e-05
1.41e-04
1.39e-04
8.87e-04
1.51e-04
2.25e-04
3.42e-04
3.36e-04
1.74e-03
2.94e-04
4.40e-04
6.69e-04
6.58e-04
7.93e-04
1.34e-04
2.02e-04
3.05e-04
3.00e-04
6.90e-04
1.17e-04
1.75e-04
2.66e-04
2.61e-04
Pesticides
4,4-DDE
Heptachlor
Hexachlorophene
4.47e-03
2.56e-04
8.59e-02
4.92e-03
2.82e-04
9.45e-02
2.30e-03
1.32e-04
4.42e-02
6.83e-03
3.92e-04
1.31e-01
7.79e-03
4.47e-04
1.50e-01
5.74e-03
3.29e-04
1.10e-01
2.08e-03
1.19e-04
4.00e-02
5.03e-03
2.88e-04
9.67e-02
9.85e-03
5.64e-04
1.89e-01
4.50e-03
2.58e-04
8.65e-02
3.92e-03
2.24e-04
7.53e-02
Inorganics
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium (hexavalent)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.32e-02
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.46e-02
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
6.82e-03
NA
NA
1.51e-04
3.02e-04
2.26e-05
1.51e-04
1.81e-05
8.30e-04
NA
1.72e-04
3.44e-04
2.58e-05
1.72e-04
2.06e-05
9.46e-04
NA
1.27e-04
2.53e-04
1.90e-05
1.27e-04
1.52e-05
6.97e-04
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
6.17e-03
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.49e-02
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
2.92e-02
NA
NA
9.93e-05
1.99e-04
1.49e-05
9.93e-05
1.19e-05
5.46e-04
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.16e-02
NA
D-17
-------
Table D-2
Bioconcentration Factors for Water to Wildlife Measurement Receptors
(Page 3 of 6)
Compound
Copper
Total Cyanide
Lead
Mercuric Chloride
Methylmercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Zinc
Measurement Receptors
American
Kestrel
(BCFM)
NA
NA
NA
2.99e-03
4.48e-04
NA
1.41e-01
NA
NA
1.09e-03
American
Robin
(BCFW.OB)
NA
NA
NA
3.27e-03
4.90e-04
NA
1.55e-01
NA
NA
1.20e-03
Canvas
Back
(BCFw_m)
NA
NA
NA
1.54e-03
2.30e-04
NA
7.27e-02
NA
NA
5.63e-04
Deer
Mouse
(BCFW_™)
NA
NA
4.53e-05
7.88e-04
1.18e-04
9.05e-04
3.42e-04
4.53e-04
6.03e-03
1.36e-05
Least
Shrew
(BCFW_OM)
NA
NA
5.16e-05
8.98e-04
1.34e-04
1.03e-03
3.90e-04
5.16e-04
6.88e-03
1.55e-05
Long-tailed
Weasel
(BCFw_nM)
NA
NA
3.80e-05
6.63e-04
9.91e-05
7.60e-04
2.88e-04
3.80e-04
5.07e-03
1.14e-05
Mallard
Duck
(BCFW_OB)
NA
NA
NA
1.39e-03
2.08e-04
NA
6.58e-02
NA
NA
5.09e-04
Marsh
Rice Rat
(BCFW_OM)
NA
NA
NA
2.99e-03
5.05e-04
NA
1.59e-01
NA
NA
1.23e-03
Marsh
Wren
(BCFW.OB)
NA
NA
NA
6.57e-03
9.85e-04
NA
3.11e-01
NA
NA
2.41e-03
Mink
(BCF,,.™)
NA
NA
2.98e-05
5.18e-04
7.74e-05
5.96e-04
2.25e-04
2.98e-04
3.97e-03
8.93e-06
Mourning
Dove
(BCFW_OM)
NA
NA
NA
2.61e-03
3.90e-04
NA
1.24e-01
NA
NA
9.57e-04
Notes:
NA
HB
HM
OB
OM
TP
- Indicates insufficient data to determine value
- Herbivorous bird
- Herbivorous mammal
- Omnivorous bird
- Omnivorous mammal
- Terrestrial plant
Values provided were determined as specified in the text of Appendix D. BCF values for omnivores were determined based on an equal diet. BCF values for dioxin and furan congeners determined using BEF
values specified in Chapter 2.
D-18
-------
Table D-2
Bioconcentration Factors for Water to Wildlife Measurement Receptors
(Page 4 of 6)
Compound
Measurement Receptors
Muskrat
(BCFW.OM)
Northern
Bobwhite
(BCFW.OB)
Northern
Harrier
(BCFW.™)
Red Fox
(BCF^o,,)
Red-tailed
Hawk
(BCTVm,)
Salt-marsh
Harvest
Mouse
(BCF-w.mt)
Short-tailed
Shrew
(BCFw_nM)
Spotted
Sandpiper
(BCFW_CSB)
Swift Fox
(BCFW_OM)
Western
Meadow
Lark
(BCFW_OM)
White-footed
Mouse
(BCFW_OM)
Dioxins and Furans
2,3,7,8-TCDD
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD
OCDD
2,3,7,8-TCDF
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF
2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF
2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF
1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF
OCDF
5.33e-03
4.90e-03
1.65e-03
6.40e-05
7.46e-04
2.72e-04
6.40e-05
4.26e-03
1.17e-03
8.53e-03
4.05e-04
l.Ole-03
3.57e-03
3.36e-03
5.86e-05
2.08e-03
8.53e-05
3.75e+01
3.45e+01
1.16e+01
4.50e+00
5.25e+00
1.91e+00
4.50e-01
3.00e+01
8.25e+00
6.00e+01
2.85e+00
7.12e+00
2.51e+01
2.36e+01
4.12e-01
1.46e+01
6.00e-01
2.06e+01
1.90e+01
6.39e+00
2.47e+00
2.88e+00
1.05e+00
2.47e-01
1.65e+01
4.53e+00
3.30e+01
1.57e+00
3.92e+00
1.38e+01
l.SOe+Ol
2.27e-01
8.04e+00
3.30e-01
4.69e-03
4.31e-03
1.45e-03
5.62e-04
6.56e-04
2.39e-04
5.62e-05
3.75e-03
1.03e-03
7.50e-03
3.56e-04
8.91e-04
3.14e-03
2.95e-03
5.16e-05
1.83e-03
7.50e-05
2.06e+01
1.90e+01
6.39e+00
2.47e+00
2.88e+00
1.05e+00
2.47e-01
1.65e+01
4.53e+00
3.30e+01
1.57e+00
3.92e+00
1.38e+01
l.SOe+Ol
2.27e-01
8.04e+00
3.30e-01
8.60e-03
7.91e-03
2.67e-03
1.03e-03
1.20e-03
4.39e-04
1.03e-04
6.88e-03
1.89e-03
1.38e-02
6.54e-04
1.63e-03
5.76e-03
5.42e-03
9.46e-05
O.OOe+00
1.38e-04
8.18e-03
7.53e-03
2.54e-03
9.82e-04
1. 15e-03
4.17e-04
9.82e-05
6.55e-03
1.80e-03
1.31e-02
6.22e-04
1.55e-03
5.48e-03
5.15e-03
9.00e-05
3.19e-03
1.31e-04
5.99e+01
5.51e+01
1.866+01
7.18e+00
8.38e+00
3.05e+00
7.18e-01
4.79e+01
1.32e+01
9.58e+01
4.55e+00
1.14e+01
4.01e+01
3.77e+01
6.58e-01
2.33e+01
9.58e-01
5.07e-03
4.66e-03
1.57e-03
6.08e-04
7.10e-04
2.59e-04
6.08e-05
4.06e-03
1.12e-03
8.11e-03
3.85e-04
9.63e-04
3.40e-03
3.19e-03
5.58e-05
1.98e-03
8.116-05
4.51e+01
4.15e+01
1.40e+01
5.41e+00
6.31e+00
2.30e+00
5.41e-01
3.61e+01
9.91e+00
7.21e+01
3.42e+00
8.56e+00
3.02e+01
2.84e+01
4.96e-01
1.76e+01
7.21e-01
8.24e-03
7.58e-03
2.55e-03
9.89e-04
1. 15e-03
4.20e-04
9.89e-05
6.59e-03
1.81e-03
1.32e-02
6.26e-04
1.57e-03
5.52e-03
5.19e-03
9.06e-05
3.21e-03
1.32e-04
Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs)
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Chrysene
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
Indeno( 1 ,2,3-cd)pyrene
3.32e-03
1.18e-03
3.93e-03
3.91e-03
1.35e-03
8.70e-03
2.03e-02
2.92e-03
1.03e-03
3.46e-03
3.43e-03
1.19e-03
7.66e-03
1.78e-02
1.60e-03
5.66e-04
1.89e-03
1.88e-03
6.53e-04
4.19e-03
9.76e-03
2.92e-03
1.04e-03
3.45e-03
3.44e-03
1.19e-03
7.65e-03
1.79e-02
1.60e-03
5.66e-04
1.89e-03
1.88e-03
6.53e-04
4.19e-03
9.76e-03
5.35e-03
1.90e-03
6.34e-03
6.30e-03
2.19e-03
1.40e-02
3.28e-02
5.09e-03
1.81e-03
6.03e-03
6.00e-03
2.08e-03
1.33e-02
3.12e-02
4.64e-03
1.64e-03
5.49e-03
5.46e-03
1.89e-03
1.22e-02
2.83e-02
3.16e-03
1.12e-03
3.73e-03
3.72e-03
1.29e-03
8.27e-03
1.93e-02
3.49e-03
1.24e-03
4.13e-03
4.10e-03
1.42e-03
9.14e-03
2.13e-02
5.13e-03
1.82e-03
6.07e-03
6.04e-03
2.09e-03
1.34e-02
3.14e-02
Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)
Aroclor 1016
Aroclor 1254
6.25e-04
3.98e-03
5.50e-04
3.49e-03
3.01e-04
1.91e-03
5.50e-04
3.50e-03
3.01e-04
1.91e-03
l.Ole-03
6.41e-03
9.60e-04
6.10e-03
8.74e-04
5.54e-03
5.95e-04
3.78e-03
6.57e-04
4.16e-03
9.66e-04
6.14e-03
Nitroaromatics
1,3-Dinitrobenzene
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
7.65e-08
2.44e-07
6.73e-08
2.14e-07
3.68e-08
1.17e-07
6.72e-08
2.15e-07
3.68e-08
1.17e-07
1.23e-07
3.94e-07
1.17e-07
3.75e-07
1.07e-07
3.41e-07
7.27e-08
2.32e-07
8.03e-08
2.56e-07
1.18e-07
3.78e-07
D-19
-------
Table D-2
Bioconcentration Factors for Water to Wildlife Measurement Receptors
(Page 5 of 6)
Compound
2,6-Dinitrotoluene
Nitrobenzene
Pentachloronitrobenzene
Measurement Receptors
Muskrat
(BCFW.OM)
1.89e-07
1.68e-07
1.08e-04
Northern
Bobwhite
(BCFW.OB)
1.67e-07
1.48e-07
9.47e-05
Northern
Harrier
(BCFW.™)
9.16e-08
8.08e-08
5.18e-05
Red Fox
(BCF^™,)
1.67e-07
1.48e-07
9.49e-05
Red-tailed
Hawk
(BCF^m,)
9.16e-08
8.08e-08
5.18e-05
Salt-marsh
Harvest
Mouse
(BCF^m,)
3.06e-07
2.71e-07
1.74e-04
Short-tailed
Shrew
(BCFw_nM)
2.91e-07
2.58e-07
1.66e-04
Spotted
Sandpiper
(BCFw_rsB)
2.66e-07
2.35e-07
1.50e-04
Swift Fox
(BCFW_OM)
1.80e-07
1.60e-07
1.03e-04
Western
Meadow
Lark
(BCFW_OM)
2.00e-07
1.76e-07
1.13e-04
White-footed
Mouse
(BCFW_OM)
2.93e-07
2.59e-07
1.67e-04
Phthalate Esters
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Di(n)octyl phthalate
3.96e-04
5.27e+00
3.48e-04
4.64e+00
1.90e-04
2.54e+00
3.48e-04
4.64e+00
1.90e-04
2.54e+00
6.38e-04
8.51e+00
6.07e-04
8.09e+00
5.52e-04
7.37e+00
3.76e-04
5.01e+00
4.15e-04
5.54e+00
6.11e-04
8.15e+00
Volatile Organic Compounds
Acetone
Acrylonitrile
Chloroform
Crotonaldehyde
1,4-Dioxane
Formaldehyde
Vinyl chloride
1.48e-09
4.39e-09
2.20e-07
NA
1.33e-09
5.43e-09
3.45e-08
1.30e-09
3.85e-09
1.93e-07
NA
1.17e-09
4.77e-09
3.04e-08
7.12e-10
2.11e-09
1.05e-07
NA
6.41e-10
2.61e-09
1.66e-08
1.30e-09
3.86e-09
1.93e-07
NA
1.17e-09
4.77e-09
3.04e-08
7.12e-10
2.11e-09
1.05e-07
NA
6.41e-10
2.61e-09
1.66e-08
2.39e-09
7.08e-09
3.55e-07
NA
2.15e-09
8.76e-09
5.58e-08
2.28e-09
6.73e-09
3.38e-07
NA
2.05e-09
8.33e-09
5.30e-08
2.07e-09
6.14e-09
3.06e-07
NA
1.86e-09
7.58e-09
4.83e-08
1.41e-09
4.17e-09
2.09e-07
NA
1.27e-09
5.16e-09
3.29e-08
1.55e-09
4.62e-09
2.30e-07
NA
1.40e-09
5.69e-09
3.63e-08
2.29e-09
6.78e-09
3.40e-07
NA
2.06e-09
8.39e-09
5.34e-08
Other Chlorinated Organics
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Pentachlorobenzene
Pentachlorophenol
7.84e-04
1.33e-04
1.99e-04
3.01e-04
2.96e-04
6.90e-04
1.17e-04
1.75e-04
2.66e-04
2.61e-04
3.78e-04
6.41e-05
9.58e-05
1.45e-04
1.43e-04
6.90e-04
1.17e-04
1.75e-04
2.65e-04
2.61e-04
3.78e-04
6.41e-05
9.58e-05
1.45e-04
1.43e-04
1.27e-03
2.13e-04
3.22e-04
4.86e-04
4.78e-04
1.20e-03
2.04e-04
3.06e-04
4.63e-04
4.55e-04
1.10e-03
1.86e-04
2.78e-04
4.22e-04
4.15e-04
7.46e-04
1.26e-04
1.90e-04
2.87e-04
2.82e-04
8.24e-04
1.40e-04
2.09e-04
3.17e-04
3.12e-04
1.21e-03
2.05e-04
3.08e-04
4.66e-04
4.58e-04
Pesticides
4,4-DDE
Heptachlor
Hexachlorophene
4.45e-03
2.55e-04
8.55e-02
3.92e-03
2.24e-04
7.53e-02
2.14e-03
1.23e-04
4.12e-02
3.91e-03
2.24e-04
7.52e-02
2.14e-03
1.23e-04
4.12e-02
7.18e-03
4.12e-04
1.38e-01
6.83e-03
3.92e-04
1.31e-01
6.22e-03
3.56e-04
1.20e-01
4.23e-03
2.43e-04
8.13e-02
4.67e-03
2.68e-04
8.98e-02
6.87e-03
3.94e-04
1.32e-01
Inorganics
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium (hexavalent)
NA
9.82e-05
1.96e-04
1.47e-05
9.82e-05
1.18e-05
5.40e-04
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.16e-02
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
6.35e-03
NA
NA
8.63e-05
1.73e-04
1.29e-05
8.63e-05
1.04e-05
4.75e-04
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
6.35e-03
NA
NA
1.58e-04
3.17e-04
2.38e-05
1.58e-04
1.90e-05
8.71e-04
NA
1.51e-04
3.01e-04
2.26e-05
1.51e-04
1.81e-05
8.29e-04
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.84e-02
NA
NA
9.33e-05
1.87e-04
1.40e-05
9.33e-05
1.12e-05
5.13e-04
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.38e-02
NA
NA
1.52e-04
3.03e-04
2.28e-05
1.52e-04
1.82e-05
8.34e-04
D-20
-------
Table D-2
Bioconcentration Factors for Water to Wildlife Measurement Receptors
(Page 6 of 6)
Compound
Copper
Total Cyanide
Lead
Mercuric chloride
Methylmercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Zinc
Measurement Receptors
Muskrat
(BCFW.OM)
NA
NA
2.94e-05
5.13e-04
7.66e-05
5.89e-04
2.23e-04
2.94e-04
3.93e-03
8.83e-06
Northern
Bobwhite
(BCFW.OB)
NA
NA
NA
2.61e-03
3.90e-04
NA
1.24e-01
NA
NA
9.57e-04
Northern
Harrier
(BCFM)
NA
NA
NA
1.43e-03
2.14e-04
NA
6.76e-02
NA
NA
5.24e-04
Red Fox
(BCF^™,)
NA
NA
2.59e-05
4.50e-04
6.73e-05
5.18e-04
1.96e-04
2.59e-04
3.45e-03
7.77e-06
Red-tailed
Hawk
(BCF^m,)
NA
NA
NA
1.43e-03
2.14e-04
NA
6.76e-02
NA
NA
5.24e-04
Salt-marsh
Harvest
Mouse
(BCF^m,)
NA
NA
4.75e-05
8.25e-04
1.24e-04
9.50e-04
3.60e-04
4.75e-04
6.34e-03
1.43e-05
Short-tailed
Shrew
(BCFw_nM)
NA
NA
4.52e-05
7.88e-04
1.18e-04
9.04e-04
3.42e-04
4.52e-04
6.03e-03
1.36e-05
Spotted
Sandpiper
(BCFw_rsB)
NA
NA
NA
4.16e-03
6.23e-04
NA
1.96e-01
NA
NA
1.52e-03
Swift Fox
(BCFW_OM)
NA
NA
2.80e-05
4.88e-04
7.28e-05
5.60e-04
2.12e-04
2.80e-04
3.73e-03
8.40e-06
Western
Meadow
Lark
(BCFW_OM)
NA
NA
NA
3.13e-03
4.69e-04
NA
1.48e-01
NA
NA
1.14e-03
White-footed
Mouse
(BCFW_OM)
NA
NA
4.55e-05
2.99e-03
1.18e-04
9.10e-04
3.44e-04
4.55e-04
6.07e-03
1.37e-05
Notes:
NA
HB
HM
OB
OM
TP
- Indicates insufficient data to determine value
- Herbivorous bird
- Herbivorous mammal
- Omnivorous bird
- Omnivorous mammal
- Terrestrial plant
Values provided were determined as specified in the text of Appendix D. BCF values for omnivores were determined based on an equal diet. BCF values for dioxin and furan congeners determined using BEF
values specified in Chapter 2.
D-21
-------
TABLE D-3
BIOCONCENTRATION FACTORS FOR SOIL/SEDIMENT TO WILDLIFE MEASUREMENT RECEPTORS
(Page 1 of 6)
Compound
Measurement Receptors
American
Kestrel
(BCFs.™)
American
Robin
(BCFS_OB)
Canvas
Back
(BCFs_m)
Deer
Mouse
(BCFS_™)
Least
Shrew
(BCFS_OM)
Long-tailed
Weasel
(BCFS_OM)
Mallard
Duck
(BCFS_OB)
Marsh Rice
Rat
(BCFS_OM)
Marsh
Wren
(BCFS_OB)
Mink
(BCFS_CM)
Mourning
Dove
(BCFS_OM)
Dioxins and Furans
2,3,7,8-TCDD
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD
OCDD
2,3,7,8-TCDF
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF
2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF
2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF
1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF
OCDF
4.78e-01
4.40e-01
1.48e-01
5.74e-02
6.69e-02
2.44e-02
5.74e-03
3.83e-01
1.05e-01
7.65e-01
3.63e-02
9.09e-02
3.20e-01
S.Ole-Ol
5.26e-03
1.86e-01
7.65e-03
4.92e+00
4.53e+00
1.53e+00
5.90e-01
6.89e-01
2.51e-01
5.90e-02
3.94e+00
1.08e+00
7.87e+00
3.74e-01
9.35e-01
3.30e+00
3.10e+00
5.41e-02
1.92e+00
7.87e-02
6.26e-01
5.76e-01
1.94e-01
7.51e-02
8.77e-02
3.19e-02
7.51e-03
5.01e-01
1.38e-01
l.OOe+00
4.76e-02
1.19e-01
4.19e-01
3.94e-01
6.89e-03
2.44e-01
l.OOe-02
7.81e-05
7.19e-05
2.42e-05
9.37e-06
1.09e-05
3.98e-06
9.37e-07
6.25e-05
1.72e-05
1.25e-04
5.94e-06
1.48e-05
5.23e-05
4.92e-05
8.59e-07
3.05e-05
1.25e-06
7.41e-04
6.81e-04
2.30e-04
8.89e-05
1.04e-04
3.78e-05
8.89e-06
5.93e-04
1.63e-04
1.19e-03
5.63e-05
1.41e-04
4.96e-04
4.67e-04
8.15e-06
2.89e-04
1.19e-05
1.62e-04
1.49e-04
5.02e-05
1.94e-05
2.27e-05
8.26e-06
1.94e-06
1.30e-04
3.56e-05
2.59e-04
1.23e-05
3.08e-05
1.09e-04
1.02e-04
1.78e-06
6.32e-05
2.59e-06
1.09e+00
l.Ole+00
3.39e-01
l.Sle-Ol
1.53e-01
5.58e-02
1.31e-02
8.75e-01
2.41e-01
1.75e+00
8.31e-02
2.08e-01
7.33e-01
6.89e-01
1.20e-02
4.27e-01
1.75e-02
1.70e-04
1.56e-04
5.26e-05
2.04e-05
2.38e-05
8.66e-06
2.04e-06
1.36e-04
3.74e-05
2.72e-04
1.29e-05
3.23e-05
1.14e-04
1.07e-04
1.87e-06
6.62e-05
2.72e-06
6.74e+00
6.20e+00
2.09e+00
8.09e-01
9.44e-01
3.44e-01
8.09e-02
5.39e+00
1.48e+00
l.OSe+Ol
5.12e-01
1.28e+00
4.52e+00
4.25e+00
7.42e-02
2.63e+00
l.OSe-Ol
1.05e-04
9.66e-05
3.25e-05
1.26e-05
1.47e-05
5.35e-06
1.26e-06
8.40e-05
2.31e-05
1.68e-04
7.98e-06
1.99e-05
7.03e-05
6.61e-05
1. 15e-06
4.09e-05
1.68e-06
2.41e+00
2.22e+00
7.48e-01
2.89e-02
3.38e-01
1.23e-01
2.89e-02
1.93e+00
5.31e-01
3.86e+00
1.83e-01
4.58e-01
1.62e+00
1.52e+00
2.65e-02
9.40e-01
3.86e-02
Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs)
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Chrysene
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
Indeno( 1 ,2,3-cd)pyrene
3.71e-05
1.32e-05
4.39e-05
4.36e-05
1.52e-05
9.73e-05
2.27e-04
3.81e-04
1.35e-04
4.50e-04
4.48e-04
1.55e-04
9.98e-04
2.32e-03
4.85e-05
1.72e-05
5.74e-05
5.71e-05
1.98e-05
1.27e-04
2.96e-04
4.86e-05
1.73e-05
5.75e-05
5.73e-05
1.99e-05
1.27e-04
2.98e-04
4.61e-04
1.64e-04
5.46e-04
5.43e-04
1.88e-04
1.21e-03
2.82e-03
l.Ole-04
3.58e-05
1.19e-04
1.19e-04
4.12e-05
2.64e-04
6.18e-04
8.50e-05
3.01e-05
l.Ole-04
l.OOe-04
3.47e-05
2.23e-04
5.19e-04
6.21e-05
2.20e-05
7.35e-05
7.30e-05
2.54e-05
1.63e-04
3.79e-04
5.22e-04
1.85e-04
6.18e-04
6.14e-04
2.13e-04
1.37e-03
3.19e-03
6.53e-05
2.32e-05
7.73e-05
7.69e-05
2.67e-05
1.71e-04
4.00e-04
1.87e-04
6.63e-05
2.22e-04
2.20e-04
7.64e-05
4.91e-04
1.14e-03
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs)
Aroclor 1016
Aroclor 1254
6.99e-06
4.43e-05
7.17e-05
4.55e-04
9.14e-06
5.80e-05
9.16e-06
5.83e-05
8.69e-05
5.52e-04
1.90e-05
1.21e-04
1.60e-05
1.02e-04
1.17e-05
7.42e-05
9.83e-05
6.24e-04
1.23e-05
7.83e-05
3.53e-05
2.24e-04
Nitroaromatics
1,3-Dinitrobenzene
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
2,6-Dinitrotoluene
8.55e-10
2.72e-09
2.13e-09
8.77e-09
2.79e-08
2.18e-08
1.12e-09
3.56e-09
2.78e-09
1.12e-09
3.58e-09
2.78e-09
1.06e-08
3.40e-08
2.63e-08
2.32e-09
7.43e-09
5.76e-09
1.96e-09
6.24e-09
4.87e-09
1.43e-09
4.56e-09
3.56e-09
1.20e-08
3.83e-08
2.99e-08
1.51e-09
4.81e-09
3.73e-09
4.31e-09
1.37e-08
1.07e-08
D-22
-------
TABLE D-3
BIOCONCENTRATION FACTORS FOR SOIL/SEDIMENT TO WILDLIFE MEASUREMENT RECEPTORS
(Page 2 of 6)
Compound
Nitrobenzene
Pentachloronitrobenzene
Measurement Receptors
American
Kestrel
(BCFs.™)
1.88e-09
1.20e-06
American
Rohm
(BCFS_OB)
1.92e-08
1.23e-05
Canvas
Back
(BCFs_m)
2.45e-09
1.57e-06
Deer
Mouse
(BCFS_™)
2.46e-09
1.58e-06
Least
Shrew
(BCFS_OM)
2.33e-08
1.50e-05
Long-tailed
Weasel
(BCFS_OM)
5.10e-09
3.28e-06
Mallard
Duck
(BCFS_OB)
4.30e-09
2.76e-06
Marsh Rice
Rat
(BCFS_OM)
3.14e-09
2.01e-06
Marsh
Wren
(BCFS_OB)
2.64e-08
1.69e-05
Mink
(BCFS_CM)
3.31e-09
2.13e-06
Mourning
Dove
(BCFS_OM)
9.47e-09
6.07e-06
Phthalate Esters
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Di(n)octyl phthalate
4.42e-06
5.89e-02
4.53e-05
6.04e-01
5.78e-06
7.71e-02
5.80e-06
7.72e-02
5.50e-05
7.32e-01
1.20e-05
1.606-01
l.Ole-05
1.35e-01
7.40e-06
9.86e-02
6.22e-05
8.29e-01
7.79e-06
1.04e-01
2.23e-05
2.97e-01
Volatile Organic Compounds
Acetone
Acrylonitrile
Chloroform
Crotonaldehyde
1,4-Dioxane
Formaldehyde
Vinyl chloride
1.65e-ll
4.91e-ll
2.45e-09
NA
1.49e-ll
6.06e-ll
3.86e-10
1.70e-10
5.05e-10
2.51e-08
NA
1.53e-10
6.21e-10
3.96e-09
2.166-11
6.426-11
3.20e-09
NA
1.946-11
7.926-11
5.05e-10
2.176-11
6.436-11
3.22e-09
NA
1.966-11
7.956-11
5.06e-10
2.06e-10
6.10e-10
3.06e-08
NA
1.86e-10
7.54e-10
4.80e-09
4.516-11
1.33e-10
6.68e-09
NA
4.066-11
1.65e-10
1.05e-09
3.796-11
1.12e-10
5.60e-09
NA
3.416-11
1.39e-10
8.85e-10
2.776-11
2.116-11
4.09e-09
NA
2.496-11
l.Ole-10
6.47e-10
2.33e-10
6.92e-10
3.44e-08
NA
2.09e-10
8.52e-10
5.44e-09
2.926-11
8.646-11
4.33e-09
NA
2.636-11
1.07e-10
6.80e-10
8.346-11
2.47e-10
1.23e-08
NA
7.506-11
3.06e-10
1.95e-09
Other Chlorinated Organics
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Pentachlorobenzene
Pentachlorophenol
8.77e-06
1.49e-06
2.22e-06
3.38e-06
3.32e-06
8.99e-05
1.53e-05
2.28e-05
3.46e-05
3.41e-05
1. 15e-05
1.95e-06
2.91e-06
4.42e-06
4.34e-06
1. 15e-05
1.94e-06
2.92e-06
4.42e-06
4.34e-06
1.09e-04
1.84e-05
2.77e-05
4.19e-05
4.12e-05
2.38e-05
4.02e-06
6.06e-06
9.16e-06
9.01e-06
2.01e-05
3.40e-06
5.09e-06
7.74e-06
7.61e-06
1.47e-05
2.49e-06
3.72e-06
5.65e-06
5.56e-06
1.23e-04
2.10e-05
3.13e-05
4.75e-05
4.67e-05
1.54e-05
2.61e-06
3.92e-06
5.93e-06
5.84e-06
4.42e-05
7.50e-06
1.12e-05
1.70e-05
1.68e-05
Pesticides
4,4-DDE
Heptachlor
Hexachlorophene
4.98e-05
2.85e-06
9.56e-04
5.10e-04
2.92e-05
9.81e-03
6.51e-05
3.73e-06
1.25e-03
6.52e-05
3.74e-06
1.25e-03
6.18e-04
3.55e-05
1.19e-02
1.35e-04
7.76e-06
2.60e-03
1.14e-04
6.53e-06
2.19e-03
8.33e-05
4.77e-06
1.60e-03
7.00e-04
4.01e-05
1.35e-02
8.76e-05
5.03e-06
1.68e-03
2.51e-04
1.44e-05
4.82e-03
Inorganics
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium (hexavalent)
Copper
Total Cyanide
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.47e-04
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.51e-03
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.93e-04
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.44e-06
2.88e-06
2.16e-07
1.44e-06
1.73e-07
7.91e-06
NA
NA
NA
1.36e-05
2.73e-05
2.05e-06
1.36e-05
1.64e-06
7.50e-05
NA
NA
NA
2.98e-06
5.97e-06
4.48e-07
2.98e-06
3.58e-07
1.64e-05
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
3.37e-04
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
2.47e-04
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
2.07e-03
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.93e-06
3.87e-06
2.90e-07
1.93e-06
2.32e-07
1.06e-05
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
7.43e-04
NA
NA
NA
D-23
-------
TABLE D-3
BIOCONCENTRATION FACTORS FOR SOIL/SEDIMENT TO WILDLIFE MEASUREMENT RECEPTORS
(Page 3 of 6)
Compound
Lead
Mercuric chloride
Methylmercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Zinc
Measurement Receptors
American
Kestrel
(BCFs.™)
NA
3.32e-05
4.98e-06
NA
1.57e-03
NA
NA
1.22e-05
American
Robin
(BCFS_OB)
NA
3.42e-04
5.12e-05
NA
1.61e-02
NA
NA
1.25e-04
Canvas
Back
(BCFs_m)
NA
4.35e-05
6.52e-06
NA
2.05e-03
NA
NA
1.59e-05
Deer
Mouse
(BCFS_™)
4.32e-07
7.52e-06
1.12e-06
8.63e-06
3.27e-06
4.32e-06
5.75e-05
1.29e-07
Least
Shrew
(BCFS_OM)
4.09e-06
7.10e-05
1.06e-05
8.18e-05
3.10e-05
4.09e-05
5.46e-04
1.23e-06
Long-tailed
Weasel
(BCFS_OM)
8.95e-07
1.56e-05
2.33e-06
1.79e-05
6.77e-06
8.95e-06
1.19e-04
2.69e-07
Mallard
Duck
(BCFS_OB)
NA
7.60e-05
1.14e-05
NA
3.60e-03
NA
NA
2.79e-05
Marsh Rice
Rat
(BCFS_OM)
NA
5.57e-05
8.34e-06
NA
2.63e-03
NA
NA
2.04e-05
Marsh
Wren
(BCFS_OB)
NA
4.68e-04
7.02e-05
NA
2.21e-02
NA
NA
1.71e-04
Mink
(BCFS_CM)
5.80e-07
l.Ole-05
1.51e-06
1.16e-05
4.39e-06
5.80e-06
7.73e-05
1.74e-07
Mourning
Dove
(BCFS_OM)
NA
1.68e-04
2.51e-05
NA
7.92e-03
NA
NA
6.13e-05
Notes:
NA - Indicates insufficient data to determine value
HB - Herbivorous bird
HM - Herbivorous mammal
OB - Omnivorous bird
OM - Omnivorous mammal
S - Soil/Sediment
- Values provided were determined as specified in the text of Appendix D. BCF values for omnivores were determined based on an equal diet. BCF values for dioxin and furan congeners
determined using BEF values specified in Chapter 2.
D-24
-------
TABLE D-3
BIOCONCENTRATION FACTORS FOR SOIL/SEDIMENT TO WILDLIFE MEASUREMENT RECEPTORS
(Page 4 of 6)
Compound
Measurement Receptors
Muskrat
(BCFS_OM)
Northern
Bobwhite
(BCFS_OB)
Northern
Harrier
(BCFs_rM)
Red Fox
(BCFs.™)
Red-tailed
Hawk
(BCFS™)
Salt-marsh
Harvest
Mouse
(BCFS_™)
Short-tailed
Shrew
(BCFS_OM)
Spotted
Sandpiper
(BCFS_CSB)
Swift Fox
(BCFS_OM)
Western
Meadow
Lark
(BCFS_OM)
White-footed
Mouse
(BCFS_OM)
Dioxins and Furans
2,3,7,8-TCDD
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD
OCDD
2,3,7,8-TCDF
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF
2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF
2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF
1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF
OCDF
3.48e-05
3.20e-05
1.08e-05
4.18e-07
4.87e-06
1.78e-06
4.18e-07
2.79e-05
7.66e-06
5.57e-05
2.65e-06
6.62e-06
2.33e-05
2.19e-05
3.83e-07
1.36e-05
5.57e-07
4.13e+00
3.80e+00
1.28e+00
4.95e-01
5.78e-01
2.11e-01
4.95e-02
3.30e+00
9.08e-01
6.60e+00
3.14e-01
7.84e-01
2.77e+00
2.60e+00
4.54e-02
1.61e+00
6.60e-02
3.42e+00
3.15e+00
1.06e+00
4.11e-01
4.79e-01
1.75e-01
4.11e-02
2.74e+00
7.53e-01
5.48e+00
2.60e-01
6.50e-01
2.29e+00
2.16e+00
3.77e-02
1.33e+00
5.48e-02
8.19e-05
7.53e-05
2.54e-05
9.82e-06
1.15e-05
4.17e-06
9.82e-07
6.55e-05
1.80e-05
1.31e-04
6.22e-06
1.56e-05
5.48e-05
5.16e-05
9.00e-07
3.19e-05
1.31e-06
3.42e+00
3.15e+00
1.06e+00
4.11e-01
4.79e-01
1.75e-01
4.11e-02
2.74e+00
7.53e-01
5.48e+00
2.60e-01
6.50e-01
2.29e+00
2.16e+00
3.77e-02
1.33e+00
5.48e-02
9.66e-05
8.88e-05
2.99e-05
1.16e-05
1.35e-05
4.92e-06
1.16e-06
7.72e-05
2.12e-05
1.55e-04
7.34e-06
1.83e-05
6.47e-05
6.08e-05
1.06e-06
O.OOe+00
1.55e-06
7.41e-04
6.81e-04
2.30e-04
8.89e-05
1.04e-04
3.78e-05
8.89e-06
5.93e-04
1.63e-04
1.19e-03
5.63e-05
1.41e-04
4.96e-04
4.67e-04
8.15e-06
2.89e-04
1.19e-05
1.43e+01
1.31e+01
4.43e+00
1.71e+00
2.00e+00
7.28e-01
1.71e-01
1.14e+01
3.14e+00
2.28e+01
1.09e+00
2.71e+00
9.56e+00
8.99e+00
1.57e-01
5.57e+00
2.28e-01
9.41e-05
8.66e-05
2.92e-05
1.13e-05
1.32e-05
4.80e-06
1.13e-06
7.53e-05
2.07e-05
1.51e-04
7.15e-06
1.79e-05
6.30e-05
5.93e-05
1.04e-06
3.67e-05
1.51e-06
4.78e+00
4.40e+00
1.48e+00
5.74e-01
6.69e-01
2.44e-01
5.74e-02
3.83e+00
1.05e+00
7.65e+00
3.63e-01
9.09e-01
3.20e+00
3.01e+00
5.26e-02
1.86e+00
7.65e-02
1.47e-04
1.35e-04
4.55e-05
1.76e-05
2.05e-05
7.48e-06
1.76e-06
1.17e-04
3.23e-05
2.35e-04
1.12e-05
2.79e-05
9.83e-05
9.24e-05
1.61e-06
5.72e-05
2.35e-06
Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs)
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Chrysene
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
Indeno( 1 ,2,3-cd)pyrene
2.17e-05
7.69e-06
2.57e-05
2.55e-05
8.85e-06
5.68e-05
1.33e-04
3.19e-04
1.13e-04
3.78e-04
3.75e-04
1.30e-04
8.37e-04
1.95e-03
2.66e-04
9.41e-05
3.14e-04
3.12e-04
1.08e-04
6.97e-04
1.62e-03
5.10e-05
1.81e-05
6.03e-05
6.00e-05
2.08e-05
1.34e-04
3.12e-04
2.66e-04
9.41e-05
3.14e-04
3.12e-04
1.08e-04
6.97e-04
1.62e-03
6.01e-05
2.13e-05
7.11e-05
7.08e-05
2.45e-05
1.58e-04
3.68e-04
4.61e-04
1.64e-04
5.46e-04
5.43e-04
1.88e-04
1.21e-03
2.82e-03
l.lle-03
3.93e-04
1.31e-03
1.30e-03
4.53e-04
2.91e-03
6.77e-03
5.86e-05
2.08e-05
6.93e-05
6.90e-05
2.39e-05
1.54e-04
3.59e-04
3.72e-04
1.32e-04
4.40e-04
4.37e-04
1.52e-04
9.75e-04
2.27e-03
9.13e-05
3.24e-05
1.08e-04
1.08e-04
3.73e-05
2.39e-04
5.59e-04
Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)
Aroclor 1016
Aroclor 1254
4.08e-06
2.60e-05
6.01e-05
3.81e-04
5.01e-05
3.17e-04
9.60e-06
6.11e-05
5.01e-05
3.17e-04
1.13e-05
7.20e-05
8.69e-05
5.52e-04
2.09e-04
1.32e-03
1.10e-05
7.02e-05
7.01e-05
4.44e-04
1.72e-05
1.09e-04
Nitroaromatics
1,3-Dinitrobenzene
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
5.00e-10
1.60e-09
7.35e-09
2.34e-08
6.12e-09
1.95e-08
1.17e-09
3.75e-09
6.12e-09
1.95e-08
1.39e-09
4.43e-09
1.06e-08
3.40e-08
2.55e-08
8.14e-08
1.35e-09
4.32e-09
8.57e-09
2.73e-08
2.10e-09
6.73e-09
D-25
-------
TABLE D-3
BIOCONCENTRATION FACTORS FOR SOIL/SEDIMENT TO WILDLIFE MEASUREMENT RECEPTORS
(Page 5 of 6)
Compound
2,6-Dinitrotoluene
Nitrobenzene
Pentachloronitrobenzene
Measurement Receptors
Muskrat
(BCFS_OM)
1.24e-09
1.10e-09
7.05e-07
Northern
Bobwhite
(BCFS_OB)
1.83e-08
1.61e-08
1.04e-05
Northern
Harrier
(BCFs_rM)
1.52e-08
1.34e-08
8.62e-06
Red Fox
(BCFs.™)
2.91e-09
2.58e-09
1.66e-06
Red-tailed
Hawk
(BCFS™)
1.52e-08
1.34e-08
8.62e-06
Salt-marsh
Harvest
Mouse
(BCFS_™)
3.43e-09
3.04e-09
1.96e-06
Short-tailed
Shrew
(BCFS_OM)
2.63e-08
2.33e-08
1.50e-05
Spotted
Sandpiper
(BCFS_CSB)
6.35e-08
5.61e-08
3.60e-05
Swift Fox
(BCFS_OM)
3.34e-09
2.96e-09
1.91e-06
Western
Meadow
Lark
(BCFS_OM)
2.13e-08
1.88e-08
1.21e-05
White-footed
Mouse
(BCFS_OM)
5.21e-09
4.62e-09
2.97e-06
Phthalate esters
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Di(n)octyl phthalate
2.58e-06
3.44e-02
3.80e-05
5.07e-01
3.16e-05
4.22e-01
6.07e-06
8.09e-02
3.16e-05
4.22e-01
7.17e-06
9.55e-02
5.50e-05
7.32e-01
1.32e-04
1.76e+00
6.98e-06
9.31e-02
4.43e-05
5.91e-01
1.09e-05
1.45e-01
Volatile organic compounds
Acetone
Acrylonitrile
Chloroform
Crotonaldehyde
1,4-Dioxane
Formaldehyde
Vinyl chloride
9.68e-12
2.87e-ll
1.44e-09
NA
8.72e-12
3.55e-ll
2.26e-10
1.42e-10
4.42e-10
2.10e-08
NA
1.28e-10
5.21e-10
3.32e-09
1.18e-10
3.51e-ll
1.75e-08
NA
1.06e-10
4.34e-10
2.77e-09
2.28e-ll
6.74e-ll
3.38e-09
NA
2.05e-ll
8.34e-ll
5.31e-10
1.18e-10
3.51e-10
1.75e-08
NA
1.06e-10
4.34e-10
2.77e-09
2.69e-ll
7.95e-ll
3.98e-09
NA
2.42e-ll
9.83e-ll
6.26e-10
2.06e-10
6.10e-10
3.06e-08
NA
1.86e-10
7.54e-10
4.80e-09
4.94e-10
1.46e-09
7.31e-08
NA
4.44e-10
1.81e-09
1.15e-08
2.62e-ll
7.75e-ll
3.88e-09
NA
2.36e-ll
9.58e-ll
6.10e-10
1.66e-10
4.91e-10
2.45e-08
NA
1.49e-10
6.07e-10
3.87e-09
4.08e-ll
1.21e-10
6.05e-09
NA
3.67e-ll
1.49e-10
9.51e-10
Other chlorinated organics
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Pentachlorobenzene
Pentachlorophenol
5.12e-06
8.65e-07
1.30e-06
1.97e-06
1.94e-06
7.54e-05
1.28e-05
1.91e-05
2.90e-05
2.86e-05
6.28e-05
1.06e-05
1.59e-05
2.42e-05
2.38e-05
1.20e-05
2.04e-06
3.06e-06
4.63e-06
4.55e-06
6.28e-05
1.06e-05
1.59e-05
2.42e-05
2.38e-05
1.42e-05
2.40e-06
3.61e-06
5.46e-06
5.37e-06
1.09e-04
1.84e-05
2.77e-05
4.19e-05
4.12e-05
2.62e-04
4.44e-05
6.64e-05
l.Ole-04
9.93e-05
1.38e-05
2.34e-06
3.52e-06
5.32e-06
5.23e-06
8.79e-05
1.49e-05
2.23e-05
3.39e-05
3.33e-05
2.16e-05
3.65e-06
5.49e-06
8.30e-06
8.16e-06
Pesticides
4,4-DDE
Heptachlor
Hexachlorophene
2.90e-05
1.67e-06
5.59e-04
4.28e-04
2.45e-05
8.22e-03
3.56e-04
2.04e-05
6.85e-03
6.83e-05
3.92e-06
1.31e-03
3.56e-04
2.04e-05
6.85e-03
8.06e-05
4.62e-06
1.55e-03
6.18e-04
3.55e-05
1.19e-02
1.49e-03
8.51e-05
2.86e-02
7.85e-05
4.51e-06
1.51e-03
4.99e-04
2.86e-05
9.58e-03
1.22e-04
7.03e-06
2.35e-03
Inorganics
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium (hexavalent)
NA
6.41e-07
1.28e-06
9.62e-08
6.41e-07
7.69e-08
3.53e-06
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.27e-03
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.05e-03
NA
NA
1.51e-06
3.01e-06
2.26e-07
1.51e-06
1.81e-07
8.29e-06
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.05e-03
NA
NA
1.78e-06
3.56e-06
2.67e-07
1.78e-06
2.13e-07
9.78e-06
NA
1.36e-05
2.73e-05
2.05e-06
1.36e-05
1.64e-06
7.50e-05
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
4.40e-03
NA
NA
1.73e-06
3.47e-06
2.60e-07
1.73e-06
2.08e-07
9.53e-06
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.48e-03
NA
NA
2.70e-06
5.40e-06
4.05e-07
2.70e-06
3.24e-07
1.49e-05
D-26
-------
TABLE D-3
BIOCONCENTRATION FACTORS FOR SOIL/SEDIMENT TO WILDLIFE MEASUREMENT RECEPTORS
(Page 6 of 6)
Compound
Copper
Total Cyanide
Lead
Mercuric chloride
Methylmercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Zinc
Measurement Receptors
Muskrat
(BCFS_OM)
NA
NA
1.92e-07
3.35e-06
5.00e-07
3.85e-06
1.46e-06
1.92e-06
2.57e-05
5.77e-08
Northern
Bobwhite
(BCFS_OB)
NA
NA
NA
2.87e-04
4.30e-05
NA
1.35e-02
NA
NA
1.05e-04
Northern
Harrier
(BCFs_rM)
NA
NA
NA
2.38e-04
3.56e-05
NA
1.12e-02
NA
NA
8.71e-05
Red Fox
(BCFs.™)
NA
NA
4.52e-07
7.88e-06
1.18e-06
9.04e-06
3.42e-06
4.52e-06
6.03e-05
1.36e-07
Red-taUed
Hawk
(BCFS™)
NA
NA
NA
2.38e-04
3.56e-05
NA
1.12e-02
NA
NA
8.71e-05
Salt-marsh
Harvest
Mouse
(BCFS_™)
NA
NA
5.33e-07
9.29e-06
1.39e-06
1.07e-05
4.04e-06
5.33e-06
7.11e-05
1.60e-07
Short-tailed
Shrew
(BCFS_OM)
NA
NA
4.09e-06
7.10e-05
1.06e-05
8.18e-05
3.10e-05
4.09e-05
5.46e-04
1.23e-06
Spotted
Sandpiper
(BCFS_CSB)
NA
NA
NA
9.92e-04
1.49e-04
NA
4.69e-02
NA
NA
3.63e-04
Swift Fox
(BCFS_OM)
NA
NA
5.20e-07
9.03e-06
1.35e-06
1.04e-05
3.93e-06
5.20e-06
6.93e-05
1.56e-07
Western
Meadow
Lark
(BCFS_OM)
NA
NA
NA
3.32e-04
4.98e-05
NA
1.57e-02
NA
NA
1.22e-04
White-footed
Mouse
(BCFS_OM)
NA
NA
8.11e-07
1.41e-05
2.11e-06
1.62e-05
6.13e-06
8.11e-06
1.08e-04
2.43e-07
Notes:
NA - Indicates insufficient data to determine value
HB - Herbivorous bird
HM - Herbivorous mammal
OB - Omnivorous bird
OM - Omnivorous mammal
S - Soil/Sediment
- Values provided were determined as specified in the text of Appendix D. BCF values for omnivores were determined based on an equal diet. BCF values for dioxin and furan congeners
determined using BEF values specified in Chapter 2.
D-27
-------
-------
APPENDIX E
TOXICITY REFERENCE VALUES
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
August 1999
-------
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Appendix E: Toxicity Reference Values August 1999
APPENDIX E
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
E-l .0 TRVs FOR COMMUNITY MEASUREMENT RECEPTORS IN SURFACE WATER,
SEDIMENT, AND SOIL E-l
E-2.0 TRVs FOR WILDLIFE MEASUREMENT RECEPTORS E-5
REFERENCES: APPENDIX E TEXT E-7
TABLES OF TOXICITY REFERENCE VALUES E-9
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering E-i
-------
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Appendix E: Toxicity Reference Values August 1999
APPENDIX E
TOXICITY REFERENCE VALUES
Appendix E presents implementation of the recommended approach (described in Chapter 5) for identifying
toxicity reference values (TRVs) for measurement receptors. Discussion is provided for determining
compound-specific TRVvalues for community and wildlife measurement receptors.
Following the guidance in Sections E-1.0 through E-1.2, U.S. EPA OSW has identified default TRVvalues
for the measurement receptors of the seven example food webs (listed in Chapter 4) and the compounds
commonly identified in ecological risk assessments for combustion facilities (identified in Chapter 2).
Section E-1.0 describes the determination of TRV values for surface water, sediment, and soil community
measurement receptors in the example food webs. Section E-2.0 describes determination of TRVvalues for
wildlife measurement receptors in the example food webs. Tables E-l through E-8 present the default TRV
values selected, the basis for selection of each value, and the references evaluated in determination of each
value.
TRV values for a limited number of compounds are included in this appendix (see Tables E-l through E-3)
to facilitate the completion of screening ecological risk assessments. However, it is expected that TRV
values for additional compounds and receptors may be required for evaluation on a site specific basis. In
such cases, TRV values for these additional compounds could be determined following the same guidance
used in determination of the TRV values reported in this appendix. For the determination of TRV values for
measurement receptors not specifically represented in Sections E-1.0 through E-2.0 (e.g., amphibians and
reptiles), an approach consistent to that presented in this appendix could be utilized by applying data
applicable to those measurement receptors being evaluated.
The default TRVs provided in Tables E-l through E-8 are based on values reported in available scientific
literature. Toxicity values identified in secondary reference sources were verified, where possible, by
reviewing the primary reference source. As noted in Chapter 5, TRV values may change as additional
toxicity research is conducted and the availability of toxicity data in the scientific literature increases. As a
result, U.S. EPA OSW recommends evaluating the latest toxicity data before completing a risk assessment
to ensure that the toxicity data used in the risk assessment is the most current. If more appropriate TRV
values can be documented, they should be used presented to the respective permitting authority for
approval.
TRVs were not identified for amphibians and reptiles because of the paucity of toxicological information on
these receptors. Additional guidance on determination and use of TRV values in the screening level
ecological risk assessment is provided in Chapter 5.
E-1.0 TRVs FOR COMMUNITY MEASUREMENT RECEPTORS IN SURFACE WATER,
SEDIMENT, AND SOIL
TR V values provided in this appendix for community measurement receptors in surface water, sediment,
and soil were identified from screening toxicity values developed and/or adopted by federal and/or state
regulatory agencies. As discussed in Chapter 5, these screening toxicity values are generally provided in
the form of standards, criteria, guidance, or benchmarks. For compounds with no available screening
toxicity value, TRVs were determined using toxicity values from available scientific literature. The
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering E-l
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Appendix E: Toxicity Reference Values August 1999
equilibrium partitioning (EqP) approach was used to compute several sediment TRVs. Uncertainty factors
(UFs) were applied to toxicity values, as necessary, to meet the TRY criteria discussed in Chapter 5. The
following sections discuss determination of TRVvalues for community receptors in surface water,
sediment, and soil.
Freshwater TRVs Freshwater TRVs should be used for freshwater and estuarine ecosystems with a
salinity less than 5 parts per thousand. Freshwater TRVs, based on the dissolved concentration of the
compound in surface water, are listed in Table E-l. TRVs were identified using the following hierarchy:
1. Federal chronic ambient water quality criteria (AWQC) calculated for with no final
residue value (U.S. EPA 1999; 1996b). Federal AWQC for cadmium, copper, lead,
nickel, and zinc were multiplied by a chemical-specific conversion factor to determine a
TRVbased on dissolved concentration (U.S. EPA 1999; 1996b).
2. Final chronic values (FCV) for COPCs for which their AWQC included a final residue
value (U.S. EPA 1996b).
3. If inadequate data (insufficient number of families of aquatic life with toxicity data) were
available to compute an AWQC or FCV, U.S. EPA (1999; 1996b) also reported
secondary chronic values (SCV) calculated using the Tier II method in the Great Lakes
Water Quality Initiative (GLWQI) (reported in 40 CFR Part 122). This method is similar
to the procedures for calculating an FCV. It uses statistically-derived "adjustment factors"
to address deficiencies in available data. The adjustment factor decreases as the number of
representative families increases.
4. If an AWQC, FCV, or GLWQI Tier II SCV value were not available, toxicity values cited
by U.S. EPA (1987) were identified. These toxicity values represent the lowest available
values. Further, additional toxicity values available from the AQUIRE database in U.S.
EPA's ECOTOXicology Database System (U.S. EPA 1996a) were identified. If collected
from a secondary source (such as AQUIRE), original studies were obtained and reviewed
for accuracy. The toxicity values reported in Table E-l represent the lowest (most
conservative), ecologically relevant, available value.
5. If toxicity data were unavailable, a surrogate TRV from a COPC with a similar structure
was identified.
6. If no surrogate was available, a TRVwas not listed. The potential toxicity of a COPC
with no TRV should be addressed as an uncertainty (see Chapter 6)
Standard AQUIRE report summaries on tests were screened for duration, endpoint, effect, and
concentration. Studies were also screened for ecologically relevant effects by focusing on studies that
evaluated effects on survival, reproduction, and growth. Aspects of endpoint, duration, and test organism
in each toxicity study were evaluated to identify the most appropriate study. Several compounds, most
notably metals, had a large number of toxicity values based on various endpoints, organisms, and exposure
durations. In these instances, best scientific judgment was used to identify the most appropriate toxicity
value (see Chapter 5).
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering E-2
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Appendix E: Toxicity Reference Values _ August 1999
Chronic NOAEL-based values were not adjusted, but rather were carried through unchanged to become the
TRY. Toxicity values identified as "less than" a particular concentration were divided by 2 to represent an
average value because the true value is unknown, and it occurs between 0 and the noted concentration.
UFs discussed in Chapter 5 were applied to toxicity values not meeting TRV criteria.
Saltwater TRVs Saltwater TRVs are applicable to marine water bodies and estuarine systems with a
salinity greater than 5 ppt. Saltwater TRVs are listed in Table E-2. Saltwater water TR V development
followed the same procedure as described above for freshwater receptors, except no GLWQI Tier II SCVs
were available. In addition, if no saltwater TR V for a surrogate compound was available, the
corresponding freshwater TRV was adopted.
Freshwater Sediment TRVs Freshwater sediment TRVs are listed in Table E-3. They are applicable to
water bodies with a salinity less than 5 ppt. Freshwater sediment TRVs were identified from various sets of
screening values and ecotoxicity review documents. The lowest available screening values among the
following sources were identified:
1 . No effect level (NEL) and lowest effect level (LEL) values from "Ontario's Approach to
Sediment Assessment and Remediation" (Persaud et al. 1993)
2. Apparent effects threshold (AET) values for the amphipod, Hyallela azteca, reported in
"Creation of Freshwater Sediment Quality Database and Preliminary Analysis of
Freshwater Apparent Effects Thresholds" (Washington State Department of Ecology
1994)
3 . Sediment effect concentrations jointly published by the National Biological Service and the
U.S. EPA (Ingersoll et al. 1996).
If a screening value was not available in the sources listed above, toxicity studies and other values compiled
and reported by Jones, Hull, and Suter (1997) were reviewed to identify possible TRVs. Relevant studies
were prioritized based on the criteria listed in Chapter 5, and uncertainty factors were applied, as
applicable, based on criteria presented (see Chapter 5).
If a screening or sediment toxicity value was not available for an organic COPC, a freshwater sediment
TR V was computed, using the EqP approach (see Chapter 5), from the compounds corresponding
freshwater TRV and Koc value. The U.S. EPA Office of Water utilizes the EqP approach to develop
sediment quality criteria for nonionic (neutral) organic chemicals (U.S. EPA 1993). The EqP approach
assumes that the toxicity of a compound in sediment is a function of the concentration in pore water and
that to be nontoxic, the pore water must meet the surface water final chronic value. The EqP approach also
assumes that the concentration of a compound in sediment pore water depends on the carbon content of the
sediment and the compound's organic carbon partitioning coefficient (U.S. EPA 1993). A TRV may be
calculated using the following equation (U.S. EPA 1993):
TRVsed = KOC • foe • TRVSW Equation E-l
where
TRVsed = Sediment TRV ((ig/kg)
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering E-3
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Appendix E: Toxicity Reference Values August 1999
Koc = Organic carbon partition coefficient (L/kg)
foc = Fraction of organic carbon in sediment (unitless)—default value = 4%
(0.04)
TRVSW = Corresponding surface water TRV(^.g/L)
Marine Sediment TRVs Marine sediment TRVs are listed in Table E-4. They are applicable to sediments
of marine water bodies and estuarine systems with a salinity greater than 5 ppt. Marine sediment TRVs
were developed following the procedures used to identify the freshwater sediment TRVs. Screening values
were compiled from the following sources:
1. No observed effect level (NOEL) sediment quality assessment guidelines for State of
Florida coastal waters (MacDonald 1993).
2. Marine and estuarine effects range low (ERL) values from "Incidence of Adverse
Biological Effects Within Ranges of Chemical Concentrations in Marine and Estuarine
Sediments" (Long et al. 1995)
3. ERL values from "The Potential for Biological Effects of Sediment-Sorbed Contaminants
Tested in the National Status and Trends Program" (Long and Morgan 1991)
4. Marine sediment quality criteria from "Sediment Management Standards" (Washington
State Department of Ecology 1991)
Screening values were adopted directly as TRVs. If a screening value was not available in the sources
listed above, toxicity values from a search of the scientific literature and those compiled and reported by
Hull and Suter (1994) were reviewed to identify possible TRVs. Original studies were obtained, where
possible, and toxicity values were verified. Relevant studies were prioritized based on the criteria listed in
Chapter 5, and uncertainty factors were applied, as appropriate, based on criteria (see Chapter 5). If a
screening or ecologically relevant sediment toxicity value from the scientific literature were not available
for an organic COPC, a marine sediment TRVwas computed, using the EqP approach, from the COPC's
corresponding saltwater TRVand Koc value (see Equation E-l).
Terrestrial Plant TRVs The terrestrial plant TRVs listed in Table E-5 are based on bulk soil exposures.
Available terrestrial plant toxicity values from the scientific literature were used to develop presented TRV
values. Toxicity values were first identified from the following secondary sources:
1. Studies cited in Toxicological Benchmarks for Screening Potential Contaminants of
Concern for Effects on Terrestrial Plants: 1997 Revision (Efroymson, Will, Suter, and
Wooten 1997). Available studies were obtained and reviewed for accuracy of toxicity
values. UFs were applied depending on study endpoint and available information.
2. Toxicity values in the Phytotox database in U.S. EPA's ECOTOXicology Database
System. Available studies were obtained and toxicity values were verified. UFs were
applied depending on study endpoint and available information.
3. Toxicity values in U.S. EPA Region 5 Ecological Data Quality Levels (EDQL) Database
(PRC 1995). The database contains media-specific EDQLs for the RCRA Appendix IX
constituents (40 CFR Part 264). The EDQLs represent conservative media concentrations
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering E-4
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Appendix E: Toxicity Reference Values August 1999
protective of media receptors and wildlife that might be exposed through food chains based
in these media. Available studies were obtained and toxicity values were verified. UFs
were applied depending on study endpoint and available information.
Original studies were obtained, where possible, and prioritized based on criteria listed in Chapter 5.
Uncertainty factors were applied, as appropriate, based on criteria (discussed in Chapter 5) to develop TRV
values. For COPCs without toxicity data, the TRV for a surrogate COPC was adopted. If an appropriate
surrogate TRV was not available, no TRVvalue was identified. Generally, review of toxicity data available
in the scientific literature indicates that limited TRVs are available for organic compounds; while TRVs for
metals are available.
Soil Invertebrate TRVs The soil invertebrate TRVs listed in Table E-6 are based on bulk soil exposures.
Available soil invertebrate toxicity values from the scientific literature were used to develop TRVs for these
receptors. Soil invertebrate toxicity values were first identified from the following secondary sources:
1. Studies cited in Toxicological Benchmarks for Potential Contaminants of Concern for
Effects on Soil and Litter Invertebrates and Heterotrophic Process (Will and Suter II
1995a). Available studies were obtained and toxicity values were verified. UFs were
applied depending on study endpoint and available information.
2. Scientific literature was searched for toxicity values for outstanding compounds. Relevant
studies were obtained, toxicity values were verified, and UFs were applied as described.
Original studies were obtained, where possible, and prioritized based on criteria listed in Chapter 5.
Uncertainty factors were applied, as appropriate, based on criteria to develop TR Vs. If no toxicity value
was available for a COPC, the TRV for a surrogate COPC was adopted.
E-2.0 TRVs FOR WILDLIFE MEASUREMENT RECEPTORS
TRVvalues for wildlife measurement receptors are listed in Tables E-7 (mammals) and E-8 (birds). TRVs
were not developed for each avian and mammalian measurement receptor in the seven example food webs
because of the paucity of species-specific data. Rather, U.S. EPA OSW focused on identifying a set of
avian TRVs and a set of mammalian TRVs for the classes of compounds listed in Section 2.3. U.S. EPA
OSW assumed that, among the literature reviewed for a particular guild, the lowest available toxicity value
across orders in class Aves and across orders in class Mammalia would provide a conservative estimate of
toxicity. Available mammalian and avian toxicity values from the scientific literature were used to develop
TRVs for these receptors. Also, as previously noted, TRVvalues were not identified for amphibians and
reptiles because of the paucity of toxicological information on these receptors. Wildlife measurement
receptors TRVvalues were first identified from the following secondary sources:
1. Toxicity values compiled in Toxicological Benchmarks for Wildlife: 1996 Revision
(Sample, Opresko, and Suter 1996).
2. Toxicity values listed in the Terretox database of U.S. EPA's ECOTOXicology Database
System (U.S. EPA 1996b) were screened to identify studies potentially meeting the criteria
listed in Chapter 5.
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering E-5
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Appendix E: Toxicity Reference Values August 1999
Original studies were compiled, where possible, and reviewed to verify their accuracy based on criteria
listed in Chapter 5. In many cases, best scientific judgement was used to screen out studies with poor
experimental design (see Chapter 5). Uncertainty factors were applied, as appropriate, to develop TRVs
based on criteria presented in Chapter 5.
Conversions Some avian and mammalian toxicity data are expressed in terms of compound concentration
in the food of the test organism. To convert to daily dose, it is necessary to determine the exposure
duration and organism body weight. If the study does not report this information, the results should not be
used to compute a TRY. If information on exposure duration and organism body weight is available,
dietary concentration can be computed to dose using the following generic equation:
r>r> -
~ —mxr Equation E-2
BW
where
DD = COPC dose (mg COPC/kg BW/day)
C = Concentration of COPC in diet (mg COPC/kg food)
IR = Food ingestion rate (kg/day)
BW = Test organism body weight (kg)
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering E-6
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Appendix E: Toxicity Reference Values August 1999
Efroymson, R.A., M.E. Will, G.W. Suter II, and A.C. Wooten. 1997. Toxicological Benchmarks for
Screening Contaminants of Potential Concern for Effects on Terrestrial Plants: 1997 Revision.
Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN. 128 pp. ES/ER/TM-85/R3. November.
Ingersoll, C.G., P.S. Haverland, E.L. Brunson, T.J. Canfield, F.J. Dwyer, C.E. Henke, N.E. Kemble, D.R.
Mount, and R.G. Fox. 1996. "Calculation and Evaluation of Sediment Effect Concentrations for
the Amphipod Hyallela azteca and the Midge Chironomous riparius.'" International Association
of Great Lakes Research. Volume 22. Pages 602-623.
Jones, D.S., G.W. Suter II, and R.N. Hull. 7997. Toxicological Benchmarks for Screening Contaminants
of Potential Concern for Effects on Sediment-Associated Biota: 1997 Revision. Oak Ridge
National Laboratory, Oak Ridge TN. 34 pp. ES/ER/TM-95/R4. November.
Long, E.R., and L.G. Morgan. 1991. The Potential for Biological Effects of Sediment-Sorbed
Contaminants Tested in the National Status and Trends Program. National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Technical Memorandum No. 5, OMA52, NOAA National
Ocean Service. August.
Long, E.R., D.D. MacDonald, S.L. Smith, and F.D. Calder. 1995. "Incidence of Adverse Biological
Effects Within Ranges of Chemical Concentrations in Marine and Estuarine Sediments. "
Environmental Management. Volume 19. Pages 81-97.
MacDonald, D.D. 1993. Development of an Approach to the Assessment of Sediment Quality in Florida
Coastal Waters. Florida Department of Environmental Regulation. Tallahassee, Florida.
January.
Persaud, D., R. Jaaguagi, and A. Hayton. 1993. Guidelines for the Protection and Management of
Aquatic Sediment Quality in Ontario. Ontario Ministry of the Environment. Queen's Printer of
Ontario. March.
Sample, B.E., D.M. Opresko, and G.W Suter II. 1996. Toxicological Benchmarks for Wildlife: 1996
Revision. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN. 227 pp. ES/ER/TM-86/R3. June.
U.S. EPA. 1987. Quality Criteria for Water—Update #2. EPA 440/5-86-001. Office of Water
Regulations and Standards. Washington, D.C. May.
U.S. EPA. 1996a. ECOTOX. ECOTOXicology Database System. A User's Guide. Version 1.0. Office
of Research and Development. National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory.
Mid-Continent Ecology Division. Duluth, MN. March.
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering E-7
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Appendix E: Toxicity Reference Values August 1999
U.S. EPA. 1996b. "Ecotox Thresholds." ECO Update. EPA 540/F-95/038. Office of Emergency and
Remedial Response. January.
U.S. EPA. 1999. National Recommended Water Quality Criteria-Correction. EPA 822-Z-99-001.
Office of Water. April.
Washington State Department of Ecology. 1991. Sediment Management Standards. Washington
Administrative Code 173-204.
Washington State Department of Ecology. 1994. Creation and Analysis of Freshwater Sediment Quality
Values in Washington State. Publication No. 97-32-a. July.
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering E-8
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Appendix E: Toxicity Reference Values August 1999
TABLES OF TOXICITY REFERENCE (TRV) VALUES
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
August 1999
E-l FRESHWATER TOXICITY REFERENCE VALUES E-ll
E-2 MARINE/ESTUARINE SURFACE WATER TOXICITY REFERENCE VALUES . . E-19
E-3 FRESHWATER SEDIMENT TOXICITY REFERENCE VALUES E-27
E-4 MARINE/ESTUARINE SEDIMENT TOXICITY REFERENCE VALUES E-34
E-5 TERRESTRIAL PLANT TOXICITY REFERENCE VALUES E-42
E-6 SOIL INVERTEBRATE TOXICITY REFERENCE VALUES E-57
E-7 MAMMAL TOXICITY REFERENCE VALUES E-69
E-8 BIRD TOXICITY REFERENCE VALUES E-84
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering E-9
-------
-------
TABLE E-l
FRESHWATER TOXICITY REFERENCE VALUES
(Page 1 of 8)
Compound
Toxicity Value
Duration and
Endpoint3
Concentration
Uncertainty
Factor"
TRVC
Reference and Notes d
Polychlorinateddibenzo-p-dioxins (,ug/L)
2,3,7,8-TCDD
Chronic LOEL
0.000038
0.1
0.0000038
Mehrle et al. (1988). 2,3,7,8-TCDD toxicity value for rainbow
trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss).
Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) (jUg/L)
Total high molecular weight (HMW)
PAHs
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Chrysene
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
hideno( 1 ,2,3-cd)pyrene
—
Tier n value
Tier H SCV
--
--
--
--
--
—
0.014
0.027
--
--
--
--
--
—
Not applicable
Not applicable
--
--
--
--
--
0.014
0.014
0.027
0.027
0.027
0.027
0.027
0.027
Benzo(a)pyrene toxicity used as surrogate measure of toxicity.
This TRY should be used if assessing the risk of total HMW
PAHs.
U.S. EPA (1996). Calculated using Great Lakes Water Quality
Initiative Tier n methodology.
Suter and Tsao (1996). Calculated using Great Lakes Water
Quality Initiative Tier n methodology.
Toxicity value not available. Benzo(a)anthracene used as
surrogate.
Toxicity value not available. Benzo(a)anthracene used as
surrogate.
Toxicity value not available. Benzo(a)anthracene used as
surrogate.
Toxicity value not available. Benzo(a)anthracene used as
surrogate.
Toxicity value not available. Benzo(a)anthracene used as
surrogate.
Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB) (jug/L)
Aroclor 1016
--
0.19
Not applicable
0.19
Adopted from U.S. EPA (1996) value for Total PCB. Calculated
using Great Lakes Water Quality Initiative Tier n methodology.
E-ll
-------
TABLE E-l
FRESHWATER TOXICITY REFERENCE VALUES
(Page 2 of 8)
Compound
Aroclor 1254
Toxicity Value
Duration and
Endpoint3
--
Concentration
0.19
Uncertainty
Factor"
Not applicable
TRVC
0.19
Reference and Notes d
Adopted from U.S. EPA (1996) value for Total PCB. Calculated
using Great Lakes Water Quality Initiative Tier n methodology.
Nitroaromatics 0/g/L)
1 ,3-Dinitrobenzene
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
2,6-Dinitrotoluene
Nitrobenzene
Pentachloronitrobenzene
Subchronic
NOEC
Chronic LOEL
Chronic NOEC
Acute LOEL
LC50
260
230
60
27,000
1,000
0.1
0.1
Not applicable
0.01e
0.01
26
23
60
270
10
van der Schalie (1983). Algal growth test with Selenastrum
capricornutum.
U.S. EPA (1987)
Kuhn et al. (1989). Toxicity value for water flea (Daphnia
magna).
U.S. EPA (1987)
Hashimoto and Nishiuchi (1981). Toxicity value for common carp
(Cyprinus carpio).
Phthalate esters (//g/L)
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Di(n)octyl phthalate
Tier H SCV
Chronic NOEL
3.0
320
Not applicable
Not applicable
3.0
320
Suter and Tsao (1996). Calculated using Great Lakes Water
Quality Initiative Tier n methodology.
McCarthy and Whitmore (1985). Toxicity value for water flea (D.
magna).
Volatile organic compounds (Mg/L)
Acetone
Acrylonitrile
Chloroform
Tier H SCV
Chronic LOEL
Tier H SCV
1,500
2,600
28
Not applicable
0.1
Not applicable
1,500
260
28
Suter and Tsao (1996). Calculated using Great Lakes Water
Quality Initiative Tier n methodology.
U.S. EPA (1987)
Suter and Tsao (1996). Calculated using Great Lakes Water
Quality Initiative Tier n methodology.
E-12
-------
TABLE E-l
FRESHWATER TOXICITY REFERENCE VALUES
(Page 3 of 8)
Compound
Crotonaldehyde
1 ,4-Dioxane
Formaldehyde
Vinyl chloride
Toxicity Value
Duration and
Endpoint3
Acute LC50
Acute ECO
Acute LC50
Subchronic
LCI 00
Concentration
3,500
6,210,000
4,960
388,000
Uncertainty
Factor"
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01e
TRVC
35
62,100
49.6
3,880
Reference and Notes d
Dawson et al. (1977). Toxicity value for bluegill sunfish (Lepomis
macrochirus).
Bringmann and Kilhn (1982). Toxicity value for water flea (D.
magna).
Reardon and Harrell (1 990). No data available for formalehyde.
Formalin containing 37 percent formaldehyde used as a surrogate.
Endpoint based on formaldehyde concentration.
Brown et al. (1977)
Other chlorinated organics (//g/L)
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Pentachlorobenzene
Pentachlorophenol
Proposed chronic
criterion
Chronic LOEL
Chronic LOEL
Tier n value
Chronic criterion
3.68
9.3
5.2
0.47
15
Not applicable
0.1
0.1
Not applicable
Not applicable
3.68
0.93
0.52
0.47
15
U.S. EPA (1987)
U.S. EPA (1987)
U.S. EPA (1987)
U.S. EPA (1996). Calculated using Great Lakes Water Quality
Initiative Tier n methodology.
U.S. EPA (1999). Value expressed as a function of pH and
calculated as follows: TRV = exp(1.005(pH)-5.134). A pH of 7.8
is assumed to calculate the displayed value.
Pesticides (//g/L)
4,4'-DDE
Heptachlor
Acute LOEL
Chronic criterion
1,050
0.0038
0.01e
Not applicable
10.5
0.0038
U.S. EPA (1987)
U.S. EPA (1987)
E-l 3
-------
TABLE E-l
FRESHWATER TOXICITY REFERENCE VALUES
(Page 4 of 8)
Compound
Hexachlorophene
Toxicity Value
Duration and
Endpoint3
Subchronic
NOEC
Concentration
8.8
Uncertainty
Factor"
0.1
TRVC
0.88
Reference and Notes d
Call et al. (1989). Toxicity value for fathead minnow (P.
promelas).
Inorganics (mg/L) f
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic (trivalent)
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium (hexavalent)
Copper
FCV
Proposed chronic
criterion
Chronic criterion
Tier H SCV
Tier H SCV
Chronic criterion
Chronic criterion
Chronic criterion
0.087
0.03
0.15
0.004
0.00066
0.0022
(dissolved)
0.011
0.009
(dissolved)
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
0.087
0.03
0.15
0.004
0.00066
0.0022
0.011
0.009
U.S. EPA (1988)
U.S. EPA (1987)
U.S. EPA (1999)
Suter and Tsao (1996). Calculated using Great Lakes Water
Quality Initiative Tier n methodology.
Suter and Tsao (1996). Calculated using Great Lakes Water
Quality Initiative Tier n methodology.
U.S. EPA (1999). Value expressed as a function of water hardness
and calculated as follows: TRV = exp(mc[ln(hardness)]+bc) where
mc = 0.7852 and bc = -2.715. Criterion was converted to dissolved
concentration using the following conversion factor: 1.101672-[(ln
hardness)(0. 041838]. A assumed hardness of 100 mg/L and a
conversion from mg/L to //g/L were used to calculate the displayed
value.
U.S. EPA (1999).
U.S. EPA (1999). Value expressed as a function of water hardness
and calculated as follows: TRV = exp(mc[ln(hardness)]+bc) where
mc = 0.8545 and bc = -1 .702. Criterion was converted to dissolved
concentration using a conversion factor of 0.960. A assumed
hardness of 100 mg/L and a conversion from mg/L to Aig/L were
used to calculate the displayed value.
E-14
-------
TABLE E-l
FRESHWATER TOXICITY REFERENCE VALUES
(Page 5 of 8)
Compound
Total Cyanide
Lead
Mercuric chloride
Methyl mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Toxicity Value
Duration and
Endpoint3
Chronic criterion
Chronic criterion
Chronic criterion
Tier H SCV
Chronic criterion
Chronic criterion
Proposed chronic
criterion
Chronic LOEL
Concentration
0.0052
0.0025
(dissolved)
0.00077
0.0000028
0.052
(dissolved)
0.005
0.00012
0.04
Uncertainty
Factor"
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
0.1
TRVC
0.0052
0.0025
0.00077
0.0000028
0.052
0.005
0.00012
0.004
Reference and Notes d
U.S. EPA (1999). This value is expressed as mg free cyanide (as
CN)/L.
U.S. EPA (1999). Value expressed as a function of water hardness
and calculated as follows: TRV = exp(mc[ln(hardness)]+bc) where
mc = 1 .273 and bc = -4.705. Criterion was converted to dissolved
concentration using the following conversion factor: 1 .46203-[(ln
hardness)(0. 145712]. A assumed hardness of 100 mg/L and a
conversion from mg/L to /j.g/L were used to calculate the displayed
value.
U.S. EPA (1999). This value was from data for inorganic
mercury (It).
Suter and Tsao (1996). Calculated using Great Lakes Water
Quality Initiative Tier n methodology.
U.S. EPA (1999). Value expressed as a function of water hardness
and calculated as follows: TRV = exp(mc[ln(hardness)]+bc) where
mc = 0.8460 and bc = 0.0584. Criterion was converted to dissolved
concentration using a conversion factor of 0.997. A assumed
hardness of 100 mg/L and a conversion from mg/L to Aig/L were
used to calculate the displayed value.
U.S. EPA (1999)
U.S. EPA (1987)
U.S. EPA (1987)
E-l 5
-------
TABLE E-l
FRESHWATER TOXICITY REFERENCE VALUES
(Page 6 of 8)
Compound
Toxicity Value
Duration and
Endpoint"
Concentration
Uncertainty
Factor"
TRVC
Reference and Notesd
Zinc
Chronic criterion
0.118
(dissolved)
Not applicable
0.118
U.S. EPA (1999). Value expressed as a function of water hardness
and calculated as follows: TRV = exp(mc[ln(hardness)]+bc) where
mc = 0.8473 and bc = 0.884. Criterion was converted to dissolved
concentration using a conversion factor of 0.986. A assumed
hardness of 100 mg/L and a conversion from mg/L to Aig/L were
used to calculate the displayed value.
Notes:
ECO
FCV
HMW
LC50
LCI 00
LOEL
NOEC
NOEL
SCV
TRV
The duration of exposure is defined as chronic if it represents about 10 percent or more of the test animals lifetime expectancy. Acute exposures represent single exposures or multiple
exposures occurring within a short time. For evaluating exposure duration, the following general guidelines were used. For invertebrates and other lower trophic level aquatic biota:
(1) chronic duration lasted for 7 or more days, (2) subchronic duration lasted from 3 to 6 days, and (3) acute duration lasted 2 days or less. For fish: (1) chronic duration lasted for more
than 90 days, (2) subchronic duration lasted from 14 to 90 days, and (3) acute duration lasted less than 2 weeks.
Uncertainty factors are used to extrapolate a toxicity value to a chronic NOAEL TRV. See Chapter 5 (Section 5.4) of the SLERAP for a discussion of the use of uncertainty factors.
TRV was calculated by multiplying the toxicity value with the uncertainty factor.
The references refer to the source of the toxicity value. Complete reference citations are provided below.
Best scientific judgment used to identify uncertainty factor. See Chapter 5 (Section 5.4.1.2) for a discussion the use of best scientific judgement. Factors evaluated include test
duration, ecological relevance of endpoint, experimental design, and availability of toxicity data.
TRVs for metals are based on the dissolved metal concentration. According to U.S. EPA (1993) policy, concentrations of dissolved metal more closely approximate the bioavailable
fraction of metal in the water column.
= Effective concentration for zero percent of the test organisms.
= Final Chronic Value
= High molecular weight
= Lethal concentration for 50 percent of the test organisms.
= Lethal concentration for 100 percent of the test organisms.
Lowest Observed Effect Level
No Observed Effect Concentration
No Observed Effect Level
Secondary Chronic Value
Toxicity Reference Value
E-16
-------
TABLE E-l
FRESHWATER TOXICITY REFERENCE VALUES
(Page 7 of 8)
REFERENCES
Bringmann, V.G. and R. Kilhn. 1982. "Results of Toxic Action of Water Pollutants onDaphnia magna Straus Tested by an Improved Standardized Procedure." Z. Wasser Abwasser Forsch. 15.
Nr.l. S. 1-6.
Brown, E.R., T. Sinclair, L. Keith, P. Beamer, II Hazdra, V. Nair, and O. Callaghan. 1977. "Chemical Pollutants in Relation to Diseases in Fish." Annals NewYork Academy of Sciences.
Volume 298. Pages 535-546.
Call, D.J. S.H. Poirier, C.A. Lindberg, S.L. Halting, T.P. Markee, L.T. Brooke, N. Zarvan, andC.E. Northcott. 1989. "Toxicity of Selected Uncoupling and Acetylcholinesterase-Inhibiting
Pesticides to the Fathead Minnow (Pimephales promelas)." Pesticides in Terrestrial and Aquatic Environments. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA.
Pages 317-336.
Dawson, G.W., A.L. Jennings, D. Drozdowski, and E. Rider. 1977. "The Acute Toxicity of 47 Industrial Chemicals to Fresh and Saltwater Fishes." Journal of Hazardous Materials. Volume
1. Pages 303-318.
Hashimoto, Y., and Y. Nishiuchi. 1981. "Establishment of Bioassay Methods for the Evaluation of Acute Toxicity of Pesticides to Aquatic Organisms." Journal of Pesticide Science. Volume
6. Pages 257-264. (Japanese, with English abstract).
Kuhn, R., M. Pattard, K-D. Pemak, and A. Winter. 1989. "Results of the Harmful Effects of Water Pollutants toDaphnia magna in the 21 Day Reproduction Test." Water Re search. Volume 23.
Pages 501-510.
McCarthy, J.F., and D.K. Whitmore. 1985. "Chronic Toxicity of Di-n-butyl and Di-n-octyl Phthalate to Daphnia magna and the Fathead Minnow." Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry.
Volume 4. Pages 167-179.
Mehrle, P.M., D.R. Buckler, E.E. Little, L.M. Smith, J.D. Petty, P.H. Peterman, D.L. Stalling, G.M. DeGraeve, J.J. Coyle, and W.J. Adams. 1988. "Toxicity and Bioconcentration of
2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzodioxin and 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzofuran in Rainbow Trout." Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry. Volume 7. Pages 47-62.
Reardon, I.S., andR.M. Harrell. 1990. "Acute Toxicity of Formalin and Copper Sulfate to Striped Bass Fingerlings Held in Varying Salinities." Aquaculture. Volume 87. Pages 255-270.
Suterll, G.W., andC.L. Tsao. 1996. Toxicological Benchmarks for Screening Potential Contaminants of Concern for Effects on Aquatic Biota. ES/ER/TM-96/R2. Environmental Sciences
Division, Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Oak Ridge, Tennessee. June.
U.S. EPA. 1988. Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Aluminum--1988. EPA 440/5-86-008. Office of Water Regulations and Standards. Washington, D.C. August.
U.S. EPA. 1987. Quality Criteria for Water—Update #2. EPA 440/5-86-001. Office of Water Regulations and Standards. Washington, D.C. May.
E-17
-------
TABLE E-l
FRESHWATER TOXICITY REFERENCE VALUES
(Page 8 of 8)
U.S. EPA. 1993. Office of Water Policy and Technical Guidance on Interpretation and Implementation of Aquatic Life Metals Criteria. Memorandum from Martha G. Protho to Water
Management Division Directors and Environmental Service Directors, Regions 1 through 10. October 1.
U.S. EPA. 1996. "Ecotox Thresholds." ECO Update. EPA 540/F-95/038. Office of Emergency and Remedial Response. January.
U.S. EPA. 1999. National Recommended Water Quality Criteria-Correction. EPA 822-Z-99-001. Office of Water. April.
van der Schalie, W.H. 1983. The Acute and Chronic Toxicity of3,5-Dinitroaniline, 1,3-Dinitrobenzene, and 1,3,5-Trinitrobenzene to Freshwater Aquatic Organisms. Technical Report 8305.
U.S. Army Medical Bioengineering Research and Development Laboratory. Fort Detrick, Frederick, Maryland. 53 p.
E-l 8
-------
TABLE E-2
MARINE/ESTUARINE SURFACE WATER TOXICITY REFERENCE VALUES
(Page 1 of 8)
Compound
Toxicity Value
Duration and
Endpoint3
Concentration
Uncertaint
y Factor"
Toxicity
Reference
Valuec
Reference and Notes d
Polychlorinateddibnzo-p-dioxins (Mg/L)
2,3,7,8-TCDD
LOEC
0.000038
0.1
0.0000038
No saltwater data were available, therefore, corresponding freshwater
toxicity value was used (rainbow trout, Oncorhynchus mykiss) from
Mehrle et al. (1988). 2,3,4,5-TCDD toxicity value used.
Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) (//g/L)
Total high molecular weight (HMW)
PAHs
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Chrysene
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
Indeno( 1 ,2,3-cd)pyrene
Acute LC50
Acute LC50
Acute LC50
Acute LC50
Acute LC50
Acute LC50
Acute LC50
Acute LC50
>50
>50
>50
>50
>50
>50
>50
>50
0.01e
0.01e
0.01e
0.01e
0.01e
0.01e
0.01e
0.01e
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
Rossi and Neff (1978) evaluated toxicity of three HMW (three or more
aromatic rings) PAHs to the polychaete, Neanthes arenaceodentata.
LC50 of each HMW PAH exceeded 50 ^g/L. This TRY should be used if
assessing the risk of total HMW PAHs.
Rossi and Neff ( 1 978). Toxicity value for polychaete (N.
arenaceodentata).
Toxicity value not available. TRY for benzo(a)pyrene used as surrogate.
Toxicity value not available. TRY for benzo(a)pyrene used as surrogate.
Toxicity value not available. TRY for benzo(a)pyrene used as surrogate.
Rossi and Neff (1978). Toxicity of several PAHs was evaluted. LC50
of each individual HMW PAH exceeded 50 Aig/L.
Rossi and Neff (1978). Toxicity of several PAHs was evaluted. LC50
of individual HMW PAHs exceeded 50 Aig/L.
Toxicity value not available. TRY for benzo(a)pyrene used as surrogate.
Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB) (//g/L)
Aroclor 1016
--
0.03
Not
applicable
0.03
U.S. EPA (1987) chronic criterion for ambient water quality.
E-19
-------
TABLE E-2
MARINE/ESTUARINE SURFACE WATER TOXICITY REFERENCE VALUES
(Page 2 of 8)
Compound
Aroclor 1254
Toxicity Value
Duration and
Endpoint3
--
Concentration
0.03
Uncertaint
y Factor"
Not
applicable
Toxicity
Reference
Valuec
0.03
Reference and Notes d
U.S. EPA (1987) chronic criterion for ambient water quality.
Nitroaromatics (//g/L)
1 ,3-Dinitrobenzene
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
2,6-Dinitrotoluene
Nitrobenzene
Pentachloronitrobenzene
-
Chronic criterion
--
Acute criterion
Acute LC50
-
370
--
6,680
1,000
-
Not
applicable
--
0.01
0.01
66.8
370
370
66.8
10
Toxicity data not available. TRV for nitrobenzene used as surrogate.
U.S. EPA (1987)
Toxicity data not available. TRV for 2,4-dinitrotoluene used as
surrogate.
U.S. EPA (1987)
No toxicity value or surrogate TRV available, therefore, corresponding
freshwater toxicity value (common carp, Cyprinus carpio) from
Hashimoto andNishiuchi (1981) adopted.
Phthalate esters (Mg/L)
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Di(n)octyl phthalate
Acute LC50
NOEL
>170
320
0.01
Not
applicable
1.7
320
Adams et al. (1995). Toxicity value for sheepshead minnow
(Cyprinodon variegatus).
No toxicity value or surrogate TRV available, therefore, corresponding
freshwater toxicity value used (water flea, D. magna) from McCarthy
and Whitmore (1985).
Volatile organic compounds (//g/L)
Acetone
Acrylonitrile
Acute LC50
Acute LC50
2,100,000
10,000
0.01
0.01
21,000
100
Price et al. (1974). Toxicity value for brine shrimp (Artemia sp.).
Portmann and Wilson (1971). Toxicity value for common shrimp
(Crangon crangon).
E-20
-------
TABLE E-2
MARINE/ESTUARINE SURFACE WATER TOXICITY REFERENCE VALUES
(Page 3 of 8)
Compound
Chloroform
Crotonaldehyde
1 ,4-Dioxane
Formaldehyde
Vinyl chloride
Toxicity Value
Duration and
Endpoint3
Acute LC 50
Acute LC50
Acute LC50
Acute LC50
SubchronicLClOO
Concentration
18,000
1,300
6,700,000
4,960
388,000
Uncertaint
y Factor"
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01e
Toxicity
Reference
Valuec
180
13
67,000
49.6
3,880
Reference and Notes d
Anderson and Luster (1980). Toxicity value for Rainbow trout (Salmo
gairdnari).
Dawson et al. (1977). Toxicity value for inland silverside (Menidia
beryllina).
Dawson et al. (1977). Toxicity value for inland silverside (M. beryllina).
No toxicity value or surrogate TRV available for this constituent,
therefore, corresponding freshwater toxicity value used (Striped bass,
Morons saxatilis) from Reardon and Harell (1990). No data available
for formadehyde. Formalin containing 37 percent formaldehyde used as
surrogate. TRV expressed on formaldehyde basis.
No toxicity value of surrogate TRV available, therefore, corresponding
freshwater toxicity value used (Northern pike, Esox lucius) from Brown
etal. (1977).
Other chlorinated organics (//g/L)
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Pentachlorobenzene
Pentachlorophenol
Acute EC50
Acute LOEL
Acute LOEL
Subchronic NOEC
Chronic criterion
>1,000
32
7.0
18
7.9
0.01
0.01e
0.01e
0.1
Not
applicable
10
0.32
0.07
1.8
7.9
Zaroogian (1981). Toxicity value for American oyster (Crassostrea
virginica).
U.S. EPA (1987)
U.S. EPA (1987)
Hansen and Cripe (1991). Toxicity value for sheepshead minnow
(Cyprinodon variegatus).
U.S. EPA (1987)
Pesticides (//g/L)
E-21
-------
TABLE E-2
MARINE/ESTUARINE SURFACE WATER TOXICITY REFERENCE VALUES
(Page 4 of 8)
Compound
4,4-DDE
Heptachlor
Hexachlorophene
Toxicity Value
Duration and
Endpoint3
Acute LOEL
Chronic criterion
Acute LC50
Concentration
14
0.0036
3.3
Uncertaint
y Factor"
0.01e
Not
applicable
0.01
Toxicity
Reference
Valuec
0.14
0.0036
0.033
Reference and Notes d
U.S. EPA (1987)
U.S. EPA (1987)
Calleja et al. (1994). Toxicity value for brine shrimp (Artemia salina).
Inorganics (mg/L)
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic (trivalent)
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium (hexavalent)
Copper
Acute LT50
Proposed chronic
criterion
Chronic criterion
Subchronic LC50
Tier H SCV
Chronic criterion
Chronic criterion
Chronic criterion
0.271
0.5
0.036
>500.
0.00066
0.0093
0.05
0.0031
0.01
Not
applicable
Not
applicable
0.01e
Not
applicable
Not
applicable
Not
applicable
Not
applicable
0.00271
0.5
0.036
5.0
0.00066
0.0093
0.05
0.0031
Study examined influence of pH and temperature on acute (48-hour)
toxicity (as time to mortality) of aluminum to smoltifying Atlantic
salmon (Salmo solar). Endpoint concentration based on sum of
inorganic and organic aluminum for exposure at pH 6.5 (Poleo and
Muniz 1993).
U.S. EPA (1987)
U.S. EPA (1987)
U.S. EPA (1978)
No toxicity value or surrogate TRV available, therefore, corresponding
freshwater TRV adopted. Suter and Tsao (1996); value calculated using
Great Lakes Water Quality Initiative Tier n methodology.
U.S. EPA (1987)
U.S. EPA (1987)
U.S. EPA 1999. When the concentration of dissolved organic carbon is
elevated, copper is substantially less toxic and use of a water effects
ratio may be appropriate.
E-22
-------
TABLE E-2
MARINE/ESTUARINE SURFACE WATER TOXICITY REFERENCE VALUES
(Page 5 of 8)
Compound
Total Cyanide
Lead
Mercuric chloride
Methyl mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Zinc
Toxicity Value
Duration and
Endpoint3
Chronic criterion
Chronic criterion
Chronic criterion
Subchronic
NOAEL
Chronic criterion
Chronic criterion
Chronic criterion/
proposed criterion
Acute LOEL
Chronic criterion
Concentration
0.001
0.0081
0.00094
0.030
0.0082
0.071
0.0023
2.13
0.081
Uncertaint
y Factor"
Not
applicable
Not
applicable
Not
applicable
0.1
Not
applicable
Not
applicable
Not
applicable
0.01e
1.0
Toxicity
Reference
Valuec
0.001
0.0081
0.00094
0.003
0.0082
0.071
0.0023
0.02
0.081
Reference and Notes d
U.S. EPA (1987)
U.S. EPA (1999)
U.S. EPA (1999). This value was from data for inorganic mercury (II).
Sharp and Neff ( 1 982). Toxicity value for mummichog (Fundulus
heteroclitus).
U.S. EPA (1999)
U.S. EPA (1987)
U.S. EPA (1987)
U.S. EPA (1987)
U.S. EPA (1999)
E-23
-------
Notes:
TABLE E-2
MARINE/ESTUARINE SURFACE WATER TOXICITY REFERENCE VALUES
(Page 6 of 8)
a The duration of exposure is defined as chronic if it represents about 10 percent or more of the test animals lifetime expectancy. Acute exposures represent single exposures or multiple
exposures occurring within a short time. For evaluating exposure duration, the following general guidelines were used. For invertebrates and other lower trophic level aquatic biota:
(1) chronic duration lasted for 7 or more days, (2) subchronic duration lasted from 3 to 6 days, and (3) acute duration lasted 2 days or less. For fish: (1) chronic duration lasted for more
than 90 days, (2) subchronic duration lasted from 14 to 90 days, and (3) acute duration lasted less than 2 weeks.
b Uncertainty factors are used to extrapolate a toxicity value to a chronic NOAEL TRY. See Chapter 5 (Section 5.4) of the SLERAP for a discussion of the use of uncertainty factors.
c TRY was calculated by multiplying the toxicity value with the uncertainty factor.
d The references refer to the source of the toxicity value. Complete reference citations are provided at the end of this appendix.
e Best scientific judgment used to identify uncertainty factor. See Chapter 5 (Section 5.4.1.2) for a discussion of the use of best scientific judgement. Factors evaluated include test
duration, ecological relevance of endpoint, experimental design, and availability of toxicity data.
EC50 = Effective concentration for 50 percent of the test organisms.
FCV = Final Chronic Values
HMV = High molecular weight
LC50 = Lethal concentration for 50 percent of the test organisms.
LCI 00 = Lethal concentration for 100 percent of the test organisms.
LOEC = Lowest Observed Effect Concentration
LOEL = Lowest Observed Effect Level
LT50 = Lethal threshold concentration for 50 percent of the test organisms.
NOAEL = No Observed Adverse Effect Level
NOEL = No Observed Effect Level
SCV = Secondary Chronic Value
TRV = Toxicity Reference Value
E-24
-------
TABLE E-2
MARINE/ESTUARINE SURFACE WATER TOXICITY REFERENCE VALUES
(Page 7 of 8)
REFERENCES
Adams, W.J., G.R. Biddinger, K.A. Robillard, and J. W. Gorsuch. 1995. "A Summary of the Acute Toxicity of 14 Phthalate Esters to Representative Aquatic Organisms." Environmental
Toxicology and Chemistry. Volume 14. Pages 1569-1574.
Brown, E.R., T. Sinclair, L. Keith, P. Beamer, J.J. Hazdra, V. Nair, and O. Callaghan. 1977. "Chemical Pollutants in Relation to Diseases in Fish."
Annals NewYork Academy of Sciences. Volume 298. Pages 535-546. Calleja, M.C., G. Persoone, and P. Geladi. 1994. "Comparative Acute Toxicity of the First 50 Multicentre Evaluation of hi
Vitro Cytotoxicity Chemicals to Aquatic Non-Vertebrates." Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. Volume 26. Pages 69-78.
Dawson, G.W., A.L. Jennings, D. Drozdowski, andE. Rider. 1977. "The Acute Toxicity of 47 Industrial Chemicals to Fresh and Saltwater Fishes." Journal of Hazardous Materials. Volume 1.
Pages 303-318.
Hansen, D.J., and G.M. Cripe. 1991. "Interlaboratory Comparison of the Early Life-Stage Toxicity Test Using Sheepshead Minnows (Cyprinodon variegates)". Aquatic Toxicology and Risk
Assessment. Vol. 14, ASTM STP 1124, Philadelphia, PA. Pages 354-375. As cited in AQUIRE 1997
Hashimoto, Y., and Y. Nishiuchi. 1981. "Establishment of Bioassay Methods for the Evaluation of Acute Toxicity of Pesticides to Aquatic Organisms." Journal of Pesticide Science. Volume
6. Pages 257-264. (Japanese, with English abstract).
McCarthy, J.F., and D.K. Whitmore. 1985. "Chronic Toxicity of Di-n-butyl and Di-n-octyl Phthalate to Daphnia magna and the Fathead Minnow." Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry.
Volume 4. Pages 167-179.
Mehrle, P.M., D.R. Buckler, E.E. Little, L.M. Smith, J.D. Petty, P.H. Peterman, D.L. Stalling, G.M. DeGraeve, J.J. Coyle, and W.J. Adams. 1988. "Toxicity and Bioconcentration of
2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzodioxin and 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzofuran in Rainbow Trout." Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry. Volume 7. Pages 47-62.
Poleo, A.B.S., and IP. Muniz. 1993. "The Effect of Aluminum in Soft Water at Low pH and Different Temperatures on Mortality, Ventilation Frequency, and Water Balance in Smoltifying
Atlantic Salmon (Salmo salar)" Environmental Biology of Fishes. Volume 36. Pages 193-203.
Portmann, J.E., andK.W. Wilson. 1971. The Toxicity of '140 Substances to the Brown Shrimp and Other Marine Animals. Shellfish Information Leaflet No. 22 (Second Edition). Ministry of
Agric. Fish. Food, Fish. Lab. Burnham-on-Crouch, Essex, and Fish Exp. Station Conway, North Wales: 12 P. As cited in AQUIRE 1997.
Price, K.S., G.T. Waggy, and R.A. Conway. 1974. "Brine Shrimp Bioassay and Seawater BOD of Petrochemicals." Journal of Water Pollution Control Federation. Volume 46. Pages 63-77.
Reardon, IS., and R.M. Harrell. 1990. "Acute Toxicity of Formalin and Copper Sulfate to Striped Bass Fingerlings Held in Varying Salinities." Aquaculture. Volume 87. Pages 255-270.
E-25
-------
TABLE E-2
MARINE/ESTUARINE SURFACE WATER TOXICITY REFERENCE VALUES
(Page 8 of 8)
Rossi, S.S., and J.M. Neff. 1978. "Toxicity of Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons to the Polychaete Neanthes arenaceodentata." Marine Pollution Bulletin. Volume 9. Pages 220-223.
Sharp, J.R. and J.M. Neff. 1982. "The Toxicity of Mercuric Chloride and Methyl Mercuric Chloride to Fundulus heteroclitus Embryos in Relation to Exposure Conditions." Environmental
Biology of Fishes. Volume 7. Pages 277-284.
Suterll, G.W., andC.L. Tsao. 1996. Toxicological Benchmarks for Screening Potential Contaminants of Concern for Effects on Aquatic Biota. ES/ER/TM-96/R2. Environmental Sciences
Division, Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Oak Ridge, Tennessee. June.
U.S. EPA. 1988. Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Aluminum -1988. EPA 440/5-86-008. Office of Water Regulations and Standards. Washington, B.C. August.
U.S. EPA. 1987. Quality Criteria for Water—Update #2. EPA 440/5-86-001. Office of Water Regulations and Standards. Washington, B.C. May.
U.S. EPA. 1996. "Ecotox Thresholds." ECO Update. EPA 540/F-95/038. Office of Emergency and Remedial Response. January.
U.S. EPA. 1999. National Recommended Water Quality Criteria-Correction. EPA 822-Z-99-001. Office of Water. April.
Zaroogian, G.E. 1981. Interlaboratory Comparison—Acute Toxicity Tests Using the 48 Hour Oyster Embryo-Larval Assay. U.S. EPA, Narragansett, Rhode Island. 17 pages. As cited in U.S.
EPA 1997.
E-26
-------
TABLE E-3
FRESHWATER SEDIMENT TOXICITY REFERENCE VALUES
(Page 1 of 7)
Compound
Freshwater TRV a
K,,, Value"
Bed Sediment
TRV (dry
weight)
Reference and Notes c
Polychlorinateddibenzo-p-dioxins (,ug/kg)
2,3,7,8-TCDD
0.0000038
2,691,535
0.41
TRV was calculated using equilibrium partitioning (EqP) approach (EPA
1993), assuming a fractional organic content of 0.04.
Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) (,ug/kg)
Total high molecular weight (HMW) PAH
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Chrysene
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
hideno( 1 ,2,3-cd)pyrene
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
170
84
19
37
37
30
10
30
TRV is ERL value computed by Ingersoll et al. (1996) based on 28-day
amphipod (Hyalella azteca) toxicity tests. This TRV may be used if risk of
total HMW PAHs is assessed.
TRV is an ERL value calculated by Ingersoll et al. (1 996) based on 28-day
H. azteca toxicity tests.
TRV is an ERL value calculated by Ingersoll et al. (1996) based on 28-day
H. azteca toxicity tests.
TRV is an ERL value calculated by Ingersoll et al. (1996) based on 28-day
H. azteca toxicity tests.
TRV is an ERL value calculated by Ingersoll et al. (1996) based on 28-day
H. azteca toxicity tests.
TRV is an ERL value calculated by Ingersoll et al. (1996) based on 28-day
H. azteca toxicity tests.
TRV is an ERL value calculated by Ingersoll et al. (1996) based on 28-day
H. azteca toxicity tests.
TRV is an ERL value calculated by Ingersoll et al. (1996) based on 28-day
H. azteca toxicity tests.
E-27
-------
TABLE E-3
FRESHWATER SEDIMENT TOXICITY REFERENCE VALUES
(Page 2 of 7)
Compound
Freshwater TRV a
K,,, Value"
Bed Sediment
TRV (dry
weight)
Reference and Notes c
Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB) (,ug/kg)
Aroclor 1016
Aroclor 1254
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
50
50
TRV is an ERL value for Total PCB calculated by Ingersoll et al. (1996)
based on 28-day H. azteca toxicity tests.
TRV is an ERL value for Total PCB calculated by Ingersoll et al. (1996)
based on 28-day H. azteca toxicity tests.
Nitroaromatics (//g/kg)
1 ,3-Dinitrobenzene
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
2,6-Dinitrotoluene
Nitrobenzene
Pentachloronitrobenzene
26
23
60
270
10
20.6
51
41.9
119
5,890
21.4
46.9
100.6
1285.2
2356
TRV was calculated using EqP approach (EPA 1993), assuming a
fractional organic content of 0.04. d
TRV was calculated using EqP approach (EPA 1993), assuming a
fractional organic content of 0.04.
TRV was calculated using EqP approach (EPA 1993), assuming a
fractional organic content of 0.04. d
TRV was calculated using EqP approach (EPA 1993), assuming a
fractional organic content of 0.04.
TRV was calculated using EqP approach (EPA 1993), assuming a
fractional organic content of 0.04. d
Phthalate esters (//g/kg)
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Di(n)octyl phthalate
3
320
111,000
9. 03 x 10s
1.33xl04
1. 16x10 10
TRV was calculated using EqP approach (EPA 1993), assuming a
fractional organic content of 0.04. d
TRV was calculated using EqP approach (EPA 1993), assuming a
fractional organic content of 0.04.
E-28
-------
TABLE E-3
FRESHWATER SEDIMENT TOXICITY REFERENCE VALUES
(Page 3 of 7)
Compound
Freshwater TRV a
K,,, Value"
Bed Sediment
TRV (dry
weight)
Reference and Notes c
Volatile organic compounds (//g/kg)
Acetone
Acrylonitrile
Chloroform
Crotonaldehyde
1 ,4-Dioxane
Formaldehyde
Vinyl chloride
1,500
260
28
35
62,100
49.6
3,880
0.951
2.22
53.0
Not available
0.876
2.62
11.1
57.1
23.1
59.4
Not calculated
2176.0
5.2
1722.7
TRV was calculated using EqP approach (EPA 1993), assuming a
fractional organic content of 0.04.
TRV was calculated using EqP approach (EPA 1993), assuming a
fractional organic content of 0.04. d
TRV was calculated using EqP approach (EPA 1993), assuming a
fractional organic content of 0.04.
No TRV was calculated because no Koc or Kow values were identified for
this constituent.
TRV was calculated using EqP approach (EPA 1993), assuming a
fractional organic content of 0.04.
TRV was calculated using EqP approach (EPA 1993), assuming a
fractional organic content of 0.04. d
TRV was calculated using EqP approach (EPA 1993), assuming a
fractional organic content of 0.04.
Other chlorinated organics (//g/kg)
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Not applicable
0.93
0.52
Not applicable
6,940
9,510
20
258.2
197.8
TRV is an LEL value (Persaud et al. 1993).
TRV was calculated using EqP approach (EPA 1993), assuming a
fractional organic content of 0.04. d
TRV was calculated using EqP approach (EPA 1993), assuming a
fractional organic content of 0.04.
E-29
-------
TABLE E-3
FRESHWATER SEDIMENT TOXICITY REFERENCE VALUES
(Page 4 of 7)
Compound
Pentachlorobenzene
Pentachlorophenol
Freshwater TRV a
0.47
Not applicable
K,,, Value"
32,148
Not applicable
Bed Sediment
TRV (dry
weight)
604.4
7,000
Reference and Notes c
TRV was calculated using EqP approach (EPA 1993), assuming a
fractional organic content of 0.04. d
TRV is an AET value for H. azteca (Washington State Department of
Ecology 1994).
Pesticides (//g/kg)
4,4-DDE
Heptachlor
Hexachlorophene
Not applicable
Not applicable
0.88
Not applicable
Not applicable
1,800,000
5
0.3
63,360
TRV is an LEL value (Persaud et al. 1993). p,p'-DDE used as a surrogate.
TRV is an NEL value (Persaud et al. 1993). The NEL was selected because
no LEL was available.
TRV was calculated using EqP approach (EPA 1993), assuming a
fractional organic content of 0.04.
Inorganics (mg/kg)
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
14,000
64.0
6.0
20
Not available
0.6
TRV is an ERL value calculated by Ingersoll et al. (1996) based on 28-day
H. azteca toxicity tests.
TRV is an AET for//, azteca (Washington State Department of Ecology
1994).
TRV is an LEL value (Persaud et al. 1993).
TRV is a U.S. EPA Region 5 guideline value for classification of sediments
for determining the suitability of dredged sediments for open water
disposal, as cited in Hull and Suter n (1994).
Regulatory or toxicity value not available.
TRV is an LEL value (Persaud et al. 1993).
E-30
-------
TABLE E-3
FRESHWATER SEDIMENT TOXICITY REFERENCE VALUES
(Page 5 of 7)
Compound
Chromium (total)
Copper
Total Cyanide
Lead
Mercuric chloride
Methyl mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Zinc
Freshwater TRV a
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
K,,, Value"
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
Bed Sediment
TRV (dry
weight)
26
16
0.1
31
0.2
0.2
16
0.1
4.5
Not available
110
Reference and Notes c
TRV is an LEL value (Persaud et al. 1993).
TRV is an LEL value (Persaud et al. 1993).
TRV is a U.S. EPA Region 5 guideline value for classification of sediments
for determining the suitability of dredged sediments for open water
disposal, as cited in Hull and Suter n (1994).
TRV is an LEL value (Persaud et al. 1993).
No toxicity data available for divalent inorganic mercury. Total mercury
used as surrogate for divalent inorganic mercury. TRV is an LEL value
(Persaud et al. 1993).
No toxicity data available for methyl mercury. Total mercury used as
surrogate for methylmercury. TRV is an LEL value (Persaud et al. 1993).
TRV is an LEL value (Persaud et al. 1993).
TRV is an AET for H. azteca (Washington State Department of Ecology
1994).
TRV is an AET for H. azteca (Washington State Department of Ecology
1994).
Regulatory value or toxicity value not available.
TRV is an ERL value calculated by Ingersoll et al. (1996) based on 28-day
H. azteca toxicity tests.
E-31
-------
TABLE E-3
FRESHWATER SEDIMENT TOXICITY REFERENCE VALUES
(Page 6 of 7)
Notes:
a Toxicity reference values are in units of micrograms per kilogram (Mg/kg) and milligrams per kilograms (mg/kg) for organic and inorganic constituents, respectively.
b Values are in units of liters per kilogram (L/kg). Koc = Organic carbon normalized sorption coefficient. References and equations used to calculate Koc values are provided in
Appendix A.
c The references refer to the study from which the TRY was identified. Complete reference citations are provided below.
d Freshwater sediment TRY calculated with the following equation:
Freshwater sediment TRY = Freshwater TRY (Table E-l) * Koc * foc-bs
where,
Koc = organic carbon partition coefficient, and
focbs= fraction of organic carbon in bed sediment, assumed to be 4 percent = 0.04.
Koc values discussed in Appendix A.
AET = Apparent Effects Threshold
ERL = Effects Range-Low
EqP = Equilibrium Partitioning
HMV = High molecular weight
LEL = Lowest Effect Level
NEL = No Effect Level
TRY = Toxicity Reference Value
E-32
-------
TABLE E-3
FRESHWATER SEDIMENT TOXICITY REFERENCE VALUES
(Page 7 of 7)
REFERENCES
Default TRVs for sediments in freshwater habitats were identified from the three sets of freshwater toxicity values presented below. While some compound-specific freshwater sediment toxicity
information is available in the scientific literature, available toxicity values were not used because of the compexity in understanding the role of naturally-occurring sediment features (such as
grain size, ammonia, sulfide, soil type, and organic carbon content) in toxicity to benthic invertebrates. Among these sets of value, the lowest available toxicity value for a particular compound
was adopted as the TRY. hi many cases, a default TRY was calculated from the corresponding freshwater TRY using EPA's equilibrium partitioning approach, assuming a 4 percent organic
carbon content.
Hull, R.N. and G.W. Suterll. 1994. Toxicological Benchmarks for Screening Contaminants of'Potential Concern for Effects on Sediment-Associated Biota: 1994 Revision. ES/ER/TM-95/R1.
Environmental Sciences Division, Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Oak Ridge, Tennessee. June.
Ingersoll, C.G., P.S. Haverland, E.L. Brunson, T.J. Canfield, F.J. Dwyer, C.E. Henke, N.E. Kemble, D.R. Mount, and R.G. Fox. 1996. "Calculation and Evaluation of Sediment Effect
Concentrations for the Amphipod Hyallela azteca and the Midge Chironomous riparius." International Association of Great Lakes Research. Volume 22. Pages 602-623.
Persaud, D., R. Jaaguagi, and A. Hayton. 1993. Guidelines for the Protection and Management of Aquatic Sediment Quality in Ontario. Ontario Ministry of the Environment. Queen's Printer
of Ontario. March.
U. S. EPA. 1993. Technical Basis for Deriving Sediment Quality Criteria for Nonionic Organic Contaminants for the Protection of Benthic Organisms by Using Equilibrium Partitioning.
Office of Water. EPA-822-R-93-011. September.
Washington State Department of Ecology. 1991. Sediment Management Standards. Washington Administrative Code 173-204.
Washington State Department of Ecology. 1994. Creation and Analysis of Freshwater Sediment Quality Values in Washington State. Publication No. 97-32-a. July.
E-3 3
-------
TABLE E-4
MARINE/ESTUARINE SEDIMENT TOXICITY REFERENCE VALUES
(Page 1 of 8)
Compound
Marine/Estuarine
Surface Water
TRVa
K,,c Value"
Bed
Sediment
TRV (dry
weight)
Reference and Notes c
Ploychlorinateddibenzo-p-dioxins (//g/kg)
2,3,7,8-TCDD
0.0000038
2,691,535
0.41
TRV was calculated using EqP approach (EPA 1993),
assuming a fractional organic content of 0.04.
Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) (,ug/kg)
Total high molecular weight (HMW) PAH
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Chrysene
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
hideno( 1 ,2,3-cd)pyrene
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
0.5
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not
applicable
Not
applicable
Not
applicable
836,000
Not
applicable
Not
applicable
Not
applicable
Not
applicable
870
230
160
418,000
240
220
31
1,360
Recommended NOEL for Florida Department of
Environmental Regulation (DER) (MacDonald 1993).
This TRV may be used in risk of total HMW PAHs is
assessed.
Recommended NOEL for Florida DER (MacDonald 1993).
Recommended NOEL for Florida DER (MacDonald 1993).
TRV was calculated using EqP approach (EPA 1993),
assuming a fractional organic content of 0.04. d
TRV is a LEL value from Persaud et al. (1993).
Recommended NOEL for Florida DER (MacDonald 1993).
Recommended NOEL for Florida DER (MacDonald 1993).
TRV was computed from OC-based marine sediment
quality criterion from Washington State Department of
Ecology (1991) and fractional organic carbon content of
0.04, as follows: TRV = 34 mg/kg * 0.04 * 1000 Mg/mg.
E-34
-------
TABLE E-4
MARINE/ESTUARINE SEDIMENT TOXICITY REFERENCE VALUES
(Page 2 of 8)
Compound
Marine/Estuarine
Surface Water
TRVa
K,,c Value"
Bed
Sediment
TRV (dry
weight)
Reference and Notes c
Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB) (//g/kg)
Aroclor 1016
Aroclor 1254
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not
applicable
Not
applicable
22.7
22.7
TRV is an ERL value for Total PCB from Long et al.
(1995).
TRV is an ERL value for Total PCB from Long et al.
(1995).
Nitroaromatics (//g/kg)
1 ,3-Dinitrobenzene
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
2,6-Dinitrotoluene
Nitrobenzene
Pentachloronitrobenzene
66.8
370
370
66.8
10
20.6
51
41.9
119
5,890
55.0
754.8
620.1
318.0
2356
TRV was calculated using EqP approach (EPA 1993),
assuming a fractional organic content of 0.04. d
TRV was calculated using EqP approach (EPA 1993),
assuming a fractional organic content of 0.04.
TRV was calculated using EqP approach (EPA 1993),
assuming a fractional organic content of 0.04. d
TRV was calculated using EqP approach (EPA 1993),
assuming a fractional organic content of 0.04.
TRV was calculated using EqP approach (EPA 1993),
assuming a fractional organic content of 0.04. d
E-35
-------
TABLE E-4
MARINE/ESTUARINE SEDIMENT TOXICITY REFERENCE VALUES
(Page 3 of 8)
Compound
Marine/Estuarine
Surface Water
TRVa
K,,c Value"
Bed
Sediment
TRV (dry
weight)
Reference and Notes c
Phthalate esters (,ug/kg)
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Di(n)octyl phthalate
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not
applicable
Not
applicable
470
580
TRV was calculated using OC-based marine sediment
quality criterion from Washington State Department of
Ecology (1991) and fractional organic carbon content of
0.04, as follows:
TRV = 47 mg/kg * 0.04 * 1000 Mg/mg.
TRV was calculated using OC-based marine sediment
quality criterion from Washington State Department of
Ecology (1991) and fractional organic carbon content of
0.04, as follows:
TRV = 58 mg/kg * 0.04 * 1000 Mg/mg.
Volatile organic compounds (jug/kg)
Acetone
Acrylonitrile
Chloroform
Crotonaldehyde
1 ,4-Dioxane
Formaldehyde
21,000
100
180
13
67,000
49.6
0.951
2.22
53.0
Not available
0.876
2.62
798.8
8.88
381.6
Not
computed
2348
5.2
TRV was calculated using EqP approach (EPA 1993),
assuming a fractional organic content of 0.04. d
TRV was calculated using EqP approach (EPA 1993),
assuming a fractional organic content of 0.04.
TRV was calculated using EqP approach (EPA 1993),
assuming a fractional organic content of 0.04. d
No TRV was calculated because no Koc or Km value was
identified.
TRV was calculated using EqP approach (EPA 1993),
assuming a fractional organic content of 0.04. d
TRV was calculated using EqP approach (EPA 1993),
assuming a fractional organic content of 0.04.
E-36
-------
TABLE E-4
MARINE/ESTUARINE SEDIMENT TOXICITY REFERENCE VALUES
(Page 4 of 8)
Compound
Vinyl chloride
Marine/Estuarine
Surface Water
TRVa
3,880
K,,c Value"
11.1
Bed
Sediment
TRV (dry
weight)
1722.7
Reference and Notes c
TRV was calculated using EqP approach (EPA 1993),
assuming a fractional organic content of 0.04. d
Other chlorinated organics (//g/kg)
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Pentachlorobenzene
Pentachlorophenol
Not applicable
Not applicable
0.07
1.8
Not applicable
Not
applicable
Not
applicable
9,510
32,148
Not
applicable
15.2
156
26.6
2315
360
TRV was calculated using OC-based marine sediment
quality criterion from Washington State Department of
Ecology (1991) and a fractional OC content of 0.04, as
follows: TRV = 0.38 mg/kg * 0.04 * 1000 Mg/mg.
TRV was calculated using OC-based marine sediment
quality criterion from Washington State Department of
Ecology (1991) and a fractional OC content of 0.04, as
follows: TRV = 3.9 mg/kg * 0.04 * 1000 Mg/mg.
TRV was calculated using EqP approach (EPA 1993),
assuming a fractional organic content of 0.04. d
TRV was calculated using EqP approach (EPA 1993),
assuming a fractional organic content of 0.04.
TRV is marine sediment quality criterion from Washington
State Department of Ecology (1991).
Pesticides (//g/kg)
4,4-DDE
Heptachlor
Hexachlorophene
Not applicable
0.0036
0.033
Not
applicable
9,530
1,800,000
1.7
1.37
2376
Recommended NOEL for p,p'-DDE for Florida DER
(MacDonald 1993).
TRV was calculated using EqP approach (EPA 1993),
assuming a fractional organic content of 0.04.
TRV was calculated using EqP approach (EPA 1993),
assuming a fractional organic content of 0.04. d
E-37
-------
TABLE E-4
MARINE/ESTUARINE SEDIMENT TOXICITY REFERENCE VALUES
(Page 5 of 8)
Compound
Marine/Estuarine
Surface Water
TRVa
K,,c Value"
Bed
Sediment
TRV (dry
weight)
Reference and Notes c
Inorganics (mg/kg)
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium (hexavalent)
Copper
Total Cyanide
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not
applicable
Not
applicable
Not
applicable
Not
applicable
Not
applicable
Not
applicable
Not
applicable
Not
applicable
Not
applicable
Not
available
2
6
20
Not
available
1.0
8.1
28
0. 1
Screening or toxicity value not available.
TRV is an ERL value (Long and Morgan 1991).
TRV is an LEL value for Province of Ontario (Persaud et
al. 1993).
TRV is a U.S. EPA Region 5 guideline value for
classification of sediments for determining the suitability
of dredged material for open water disposal, as cited in
Hull and Suter 11(1994).
Screening or toxicity value not available.
Recommended NOEL for Florida DER (MacDonald 1993).
TRV is an ERL value for total chromium (Long et al.
1995).
Recommended NOEL for Florida DER (MacDonald 1993).
TRV is a U.S. EPA Region V guideline value for
classification of sediments for determining the suitability
of dredged material for open water disposal, as cited in
Hull and Suter 11(1994).
E-38
-------
TABLE E-4
MARINE/ESTUARINE SEDIMENT TOXICITY REFERENCE VALUES
(Page 6 of 8)
Compound
Lead
Mercuric chloride
Methyl mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Zinc
Marine/Estuarine
Surface Water
TRVa
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not appliable
Not applicable
K,,c Value"
Not
applicable
Not
applicable
Not
applicable
Not
applicable
Not
applicable
Not
applicable
Not
applicable
Not
applicable
Bed
Sediment
TRV (dry
weight)
21.0
0.1
0.1
20.9
Not
Available
0.5
Not
available
68
Reference and Notes c
Recommended NOEL for Florida DER (MacDonald 1993).
No toxicity data available for divalent inorganic mercury.
Total mercury is used as surrogate. Recommended NOEL
for Florida DER (MacDonald 1993).
No toxicity data available for methyl mercury. Total
mercury is used as surrogate. Recommended NOEL for
Florida DER (MacDonald 1993).
TRV is an ERL value (Long et al. 1995).
Screening or toxicity value not available.
Recommended NOEL for Florida DER (MacDonald 1993).
Screening or toxicity value not available.
Recommended NOEL for Florida DER (MacDonald 1993).
E-39
-------
TABLE E-4
MARINE/ESTUARINE SEDIMENT TOXICITY REFERENCE VALUES
(Page 7 of 8)
Notes:
a Sediment TRVs are in units of micrograms per kilogram (Mg/kg) and milligrams per kilograms (mg/kg) for organic and inorganic constituents, respectively.
b Values are in units of liters per kilogram (L/kg). Koc = Organic carbon normalized sorption coefficient. References and equations used to calculate values are provided in Appendix A.
c The references refer to the study or studies from which the endpoint and concentrations were identified. Complete reference citations are provided below.
d Sediment TRY calculated with the following equation:
Sediment TRY = Marine/estuarine surface water TRY (Table E-2) * Koc * focbs
where,
Koc = organic carbon partition coefficient, and
focbs= fraction of organic carbon in bed sediment, assumed to be 1 percent = 0.01.
Koc values are discussed in Appendix A.
EqP = Equilibrium Partitioning
ERL = Effects Range-Low
HMW = High molecular weight
LEL = Lowest Effect Level
NOEL = No Observed Effect Level
TRY = Toxicity Reference Value
E-40
-------
TABLE E-4
MARINE/ESTUARINE SEDIMENT TOXICITY REFERENCE VALUES
(Page 8 of 8)
REFERENCES
Default TRVs for sediments in marine and estuarine habitats were identified from several sets of toxicity values (standards, benchmarks, and guidelines) presented below. While some
compound-specific marine/estuarine sediment toxicity information is available in the scientific literature, available toxicity values were not used because of the compexity in
understanding the role of naturally-occurring sediment features (such as grain size, ammonia, sulfide, soil type, and organic carbon content) in toxicity to benthic invertebrates. Among
these sets of value, the lowest available toxicity value for a particular compound was adopted as the TRY. hi many cases, a default TRY was calculated from the corresponding
freshwater TRY using EPA's equilibrium partitioning approach, assuming a 4 percent organic carbon content.
Hull, R.N. and G.W. Suter H 1994. Toxicological Benchmarks for Screening Contaminants of Potential Concern for Effects on Sediment-Associated Biota: 1994 Revision.
ES/ER/TM-95/R1. Environmental Sciences Division, Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Oak Ridge, Tennessee. June.
Long, E.R., andL.G. Morgan. 1991. The Potential for Biological Effects of Sediment-Sorbed Contaminants Tested in the National Status and Trends Program. National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Technical Memorandum No. 5, OMA52, NOAA National Ocean Service. August.
Long, E.R., D.D. MacDonald, S.L. Smith, and F.D. Calder. 1995. "Incidence of Adverse Biological Effects Within Ranges of Chemical Concentrations in Marine and Estuarine
Sediments. " Environmental Management. Volume 19. Pages 81-97.
MacDonald, D.D. 1993. Development of an Approach to the Assessment of Sediment Quality in Florida Coastal Waters. Florida Department of Environmental Regulation.
Tallahassee, Florida. January.
Persaud, D., R. Jaaguagi, and A. Hayton. 1993. Guidelines for the Protection and Management of Aquatic Sediment Quality in Ontario. Ontario Ministry of the Environment.
Queen's Printer of Ontario. March.
U.S. EPA. 1993. Technical Basis for Deriving Sediment Quality Criteria for Nonionic Organic Contaminants for the Protection of Benthic Organisms by Using Equilibrium
Partitioning. Office of Water. EPA-822-R-93-011. September.
Washington State Department of Ecology. 1991. Sediment Management Standards. Washington Administrative Code 173-204.
E-41
-------
TABLE E-5
TERRESTRIAL PLANT TOXICITY REFERENCE VALUES
(Page 1 of 15)
Compound
Basis for TRV
Duration and
Endpoint a
Test
Organism
Concentration
Uncertainty
Factor b
TRVC
Reference and Notes d
Polychlorinateddibenzo-p-dioxins (wg/kg)
2,3,7,8-TCDD
-
-
-
-
-
Toxicity value not identified.
Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) (/^g/kg)
Total high molecular weight (HMW)
PAH
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Chrysene
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
Chronic
NOAEL
Chronic
NOAEL
Not available
Chronic
NOAEL
Not available
Not available
Not available
Wheat
Wheat
-
Wheat
-
-
-
1,200
1,200
-
1,200
-
-
-
Not
applicable
Not
applicable
-
Not
applicable
-
-
-
1,200
1,200
1,200
1,200
1,200
1,200
1,200
Benzo(a)pyrene toxicity used as
representative toxicity of all HMW
PAHs. This TRV may be used to
characterize risk of total HMW PAHs
to terrestrial plants.
Sims and Overcash (1983)
Toxicity value not available.
Benzo(a)pyrene used as surrogate.
Sims and Overcash (1983).
Toxicity value not available.
Benzo(a)pyrene used as surrogate.
Toxicity value not available.
Benzo(a)pyrene used as surrogate.
Toxicity value not available.
Benzo(a)pyrene used as surrogate.
E-42
-------
TABLE E-5
TERRESTRIAL PLANT TOXICITY REFERENCE VALUES
(Page 2 of 15)
Compound
Indeno( 1 ,2,3 -cd)pyrene
Basis for TRV
Duration and
Endpoint a
Not available
Test
Organism
-
Concentration
-
Uncertainty
Factor b
-
TRVC
1,200
Reference and Notes d
Toxicity value not available.
Benzo(a)pyrene used as surrogate.
Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB) (wg/kg)
Aroclor 1016
Aroclor 1254
-
Chronic
NOAEL
-
Soybean
shoot weight
-
10,000
-
Not
applicable
10,000
10,000
No toxicity value available. Aroclor
1254 TRV adopted as surrogate.
Value for toxicity of Aroclor 1254
(Weber and Mrozek 1979).
Nitroaromatics (ag/kg)
1 , 3 -Dinitrobenzene
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
2,6-Dinitrotoluene
Nitrobenzene
Pentachloronitrobenzene
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Toxicity value not available.
Toxicity value not available.
Toxicity value not available.
Toxicity value not available.
Toxicity value not available.
Phthalate esters (wg/kg)
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Di(n)octyl phthalate
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Toxicity value not available.
Toxicity value not available.
Volatile organic compounds (wg/kg)
E-43
-------
TABLE E-5
TERRESTRIAL PLANT TOXICITY REFERENCE VALUES
(Page 3 of 15)
Compound
Acetone
Acrylonitrile
Chloroform
Crotonaldehyde
1,4-Dioxane
Formaldehyde
Vinyl chloride
Basis for TRV
Duration and
Endpoint a
~
-
-
-
-
-
-
Test
Organism
~
-
-
-
-
-
-
Concentration
~
-
-
-
-
-
-
Uncertainty
Factor b
~
-
-
-
-
-
-
TRVC
~
-
-
-
-
-
-
Reference and Notes d
Toxicity value not available.
Toxicity value not available.
Toxicity value not available.
Toxicity value not available.
Toxicity value not available.
Toxicity value not available.
Toxicity value not available.
Other chlorinated organics (//g/kg)
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Pentachlorobenzene
Pentachlorophenol
-
-
Acute EC50
-
Chronic LOAEL
-
-
Lettuce
growth
-
Rice
-
-
10,000
-
17,300
-
-
0.01
-
0.1
-
-
100
-
1,730
Toxicity value not available.
Toxicity value not available.
Hulzebos et al. (1993)
Toxicity value not available.
Nagasawa et al. (1981)
Pesticides (wg/kg)
4,4 '-DDE
-
-
-
-
-
Toxicity value not available.
E-44
-------
TABLE E-5
TERRESTRIAL PLANT TOXICITY REFERENCE VALUES
(Page 4 of 15)
Compound
Heptachlor
Hexachlorophene
Basis for TRV
Duration and
Endpoint a
Chronic
NOAEL
-
Test
Organism
Carrot
-
Concentration
1,000
-
Uncertainty
Factor b
Not
applicable
-
TRVC
1,000
-
Reference and Notes d
Ahrens and Kring (1968)
Toxicity value not available.
Inorganics (mg/kg)
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium (hexavalent)
Copper
Subchronic
NOAEL
Not specified
Chronic LOAEL
Chronic LOAEL
Not specified
Chronic LOAEL
Subchronic
EC50
Chronic LOAEL
White clover
seedling
establishmen
t
Not specified
Corn yield
(weight)
Barley shoot
growth
Not specified
Spruce
seedling
growth
Lettuce
growth
Barley
50
5
10
500
10
2
1.8
10
O.le
O.le
0.1
0.01e
0.01e
O.le
0.01
0.1
5
0.5
1
5
0.1
0.2
0.018
1.0
Mackay et al. (1990)
Kabata-Pendias and Pendias (1992)
Woolsonetal. (1971)
Chaudry et al. (1977)
Kabata-Pendias and Pendias (1992)
Burton et al. (1984)
Adema and Hazen (1989)
Toivonem and Hofstra (1979)
E-45
-------
TABLE E-5
TERRESTRIAL PLANT TOXICITY REFERENCE VALUES
(Page 5 of 15)
Compound
Cyanide, total
Lead
Mercuric chloride
Methyl mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Zinc
Basis for TRV
Duration and
Endpoint a
~
Chronic LOAEL
Acute
NOEC
-
Chronic
NOAEL
Subchronic
NOAEL
Not specified
Not specified
Chronic LOAEL
Test
Organism
~
Senna
Barley
-
Bush bean
shoot growth
Alfalfa shoot
weight
Not specified
Not specified
Spring barley
Concentration
~
46
34.9
-
25
0.5
2
1
9
Uncertainty
Factor b
~
0.1
0.01e
-
Not
applicable
0.1
0.01e
0.01e
0.1
TRVC
~
4.6
0.349
-
25
0.05
0.02
0.01
0.9
Reference and Notes d
Toxicity value not available.
Krishnayya and Bedi (1986)
Panda et al. (1992)
Toxicity value not available.
Wallace et al. (1977)
Wan et al. (1988)
Kabata-Pendias and Pendias (1992)
Kabata-Pendias and Pendias (1992)
Davis, Beckett, and Wollan (1978)
E-46
-------
TABLE E-5
TERRESTRIAL PLANT TOXICITY REFERENCE VALUES
(Page 6 of 15)
Notes:
a To evaluate exposure duration, the following general guidelines were used: Chronic duration represents exposures occurring about 10 or more days, including exposure during
a critical life stage, such as germination and shoot development. Subchronic duration generally lasts 2 days through several days, however a sensitive life stage is not
exposed. Acute duration generally includes exposures occurring 0 to 2 days.
b Uncertainty factors are used to extrapolate a toxicity value to a chronic NOAEL TRV. See Chapter 5 (Section 5.4) of the SLERAP for a discussion on the use of uncertainty
factors.
c TRV was calculated by multiplying the toxicity value with the uncertainty factor.
d The references refer to the source of the toxicity value. Complete reference citations are provided below.
e Best scientific judgment was used to identify uncertainty factor. See Chapter 5 (Section 5.4.1.2) for a discussion on the use of best scientific judgement. Factors evaluated
include test duration, ecological relevance of endpoint, and experimental design.
EC50 = Effective concentration for 50 percent of the test organisms.
HWC = High molecular weight
LOAEL = Lowest Observed Adverse Effects Level
NOAEL = No Observed Adverse Effects Level
NOEC = No Observed Effects Concentration
TRV = Toxicity Reference Value
E-47
-------
TABLE E-5
TERRESTRIAL PLANT TOXICITY REFERENCE VALUES
(Page 7 of 15)
REFERENCES
Efroymson, Will, Suter n, and Wooten (1997) provides a comprehensive review of ecologically-relevant terrestrial plant toxicity information. This source was reviewed to identify
studies to develop TRVs for terrestrial plant. Based on the information presented, one or more references were obtained and reviewed to identify compound-specific toxicity values.
For some compounds, the available information identified a single study meeting the requirements for a TRV, as discussed in Chapter 5 (Section 5.4) of the SLERAP. hi most cases,
each reference was obtained and reviewed to identify a single toxicity value to develop a TRV for each compound, hi a few cases where a primary study could not be obtained, a
toxicity value is based on a secondary source. As noted below, additional compendia were reviewed to identify toxicity studies to review. For compounds not discussed in Efroymson,
Will, Suter n, and Wooten (1997), the scientific literature was searched, and relevant studies were obtained and reviewed. The references reviewed are listed below. The study selected
for the TRV is highlighted in bold.
Benzo(a)pyrene
Sims R.C. and Overcash M.R. 1983. "Fate of Polynuclear Aromatic Compounds (PNAs) in Soil-Plant Systems." Residue Reviews. Volume 88.
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Sims R.C. and Overcash M.R. 1983. "Fate of Polynuclear Aromatic Compounds (PNAs) in Soil-Plant Systems." Residue Reviews. Volume 88.
Aroclor 1254
Weber, J.B., and E. Mrozek, Jr. 1979. "Polychlorinated Biphenyls: Phytotoxicity, Absorption, and Translocation by Plants, and Inactivation by Activated Carbon." Bulletin
of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. Volume 23. Pages 412-417. As cited in Will and Suter II (1995b).
Weber, J. B. and E. Mrozek, Jr. 1979. "Polychlorinated Biphenyls: Phytotoxicity, Absorption and Translocation by Plants, and Inactivation by Activated Carbon". Bulletin of
Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. Volume 23. Pages 412-17.
Nitroaromatics
McFarlane, C. M., T. Pfleeger, and J. Fletcher. 1990. "Effect, Uptake and Disposition of Nitrobenzene in Several Terrestrial Plants." Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry. Volume
9. Pages 513-520.
E-48
-------
TABLE E-5
TERRESTRIAL PLANT TOXICITY REFERENCE VALUES
(Page 8 of 15)
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Hulzebos, E.M., D.M.M. Adema, E.M, Dirven-van Breeman, L. Henzen, W.A. van Dis, HA. Herbold, J.A. Hoekstra, R. Baerselman, and C.A.M. van Gestel. 1993.
"Phototoxicity Studies with Latuca sativa in soil and soil nutrient solution." Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry. Volume 12. Pages 1079-1094.
Pentachlorophenol
Nagasawa, S., and others. 1981. "Concentration of PCP Inhibiting the Development of Roots at the Early Growth Stage of Rice and the Difference of Susceptibilities in
Varieties." Bull. Fac. Agricul. Shimane Univ. Volume 15. Pages 101-108. As cited in U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1989. Pentachlorophenol Hazards to Fish,
Wildlife, and Invertebrates: A Synoptic Review. April.
van Gestel, C. A. M., D. M. M. Adema, andE. M. Dirven-van Breemen. 1996. "Phytotoxicity of Some Chloroanilines and Chlorophenols, in Relation to Bioavailability in Soil." Water,
Air and Soil Pollution. Volume 88. Pages 119-132.
Heptachlor
Ahrens, J.F., and J.B. Kring. 1968. "Reduction of Residues of Heptachlor and Chlordane in Carrots with Soil Applications of Activated Carbon." Journal of Economic
Entomology. Volume 61. Pages 1540-1543.
Aluminum
Mackay, A.D., J.R. Caradus, and M.W. Pritchard. 1990. "Variation for Aluminum Tolerance in White Clover." Plant and Soil. Volume 123. Pages 101-105.
Godbold, D. L., and C. Kettner. 1991. "Use of Root Elongation Studies to Determine Aluminum and Lead Toxicity mPicea abies Seedlings." Journal Plant Physiology. Volume 138.
Pages 231-235.
Gorransson, A. and T. D. Eldhuset. 1991."Effects of Aluminum on Growth and Nutrient Uptake of Small Picea abies andPinus sylvestris Plants." Trees. Volume 5. Page 136-42.
Llugany, M., C. Poschenrieder, and J. Barcelo. 1995. "Monitoring of Aluminum-Induced Inhibition of Root Elongation in Four Maize Cultivars Differing in Tolerance to Aluminum
and Proton Toxicity." Physiologia Plantarum. Volume 93. Pages 265-271.
Wheeler, D. M. and J. M. Follet. 1991. "Effect of Aluminum on Onions, Asparagus and Squash." Journal Plant Nutrients. Volume 14(9). Page 897-912.
E-49
-------
TABLE E-5
TERRESTRIAL PLANT TOXICITY REFERENCE VALUES
(Page 9 of 15)
Antimony
Kabata-Pendias, A., and H. Pendias. 1992. Trace Elements in Soils and Plants. CRC Press, Inc. Boca Raton, Florida.
Arsenic
Woolson, E.A., J.H. Axley, and P.C. Kearney. 1971. "Correlation Between Available Soil Arsenic, Estimated by Six Methods, and Response of Corn %ea mays L.)."
Proceedings of Soil Science Society of America. Volume 35. Pages 101-105.
Deuel, L. E. and A. R. Swoboda. 1972. "Arsenic Toxicity to Cotton and Soybeans." Journal of Environmental Quality. Volume 1. Page 317-20.
Fargasova, A. 1994. "Effect of Pb, Cd, Hg, As, and Cr on Germination and Root Growth ofSinapis alba seeds." Bulletin Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. Volume 52.
Page 452-456.
Rosehart, R. G., and J. Y. Lee. 1973. "The Effect of Arsenic Trioxide on the Growth of White Spruce Seedlings." Water, Air, and Soil Pollution. Volume 2. Page 439-443.
Barium
Chaudhry, P.M., A. Wallace, and R.T. Mueller. 1977. "Barium Toxicity in Plants." Communities in Soil Science and Plant Analysis. Volume 8. Pages 795-797.
Beryllium
Kabata-Pendias, A., and H. Pendias. 1992. Trace Elements in Soils and Plants. CRC Press, Inc. Boca Raton, Florida.
Romney, E. M. and J. D. Childress. 1965. "Effects of Beryllium in Plants and Soil." Soil Science. Volume 100(2). Pages 210-17.
Romney, E. M., J. D. Childress, and G. V. Alexander. 1962. "Beryllium and the Growth of Bush Beans." Science. Volume 185. Pages 786-87.
Cadmium
E-50
-------
TABLE E-5
TERRESTRIAL PLANT TOXICITY REFERENCE VALUES
(Page 10 of 15)
Burton, K.W., E. Morgan, and A. Roig. 1984. "The Influence of Heavy Metals Upon the Growth of Sitka-Spruce in South Wales Forests. II. Greenhouse Experiments."
Plant and Soil. Volume 78. Pages 271-282.
Al-Attar, A. F., M. H. Martin, and G. Nickless. 1988. "Uptake and Toxicity of Cadmium, Mercury and Thallium toLolium perenne Seedlings." Chemosphere. Volume 17. Page
1219-1225.
Carlson, R. W., F. A. Bazzaz, and G. L. Rolfe. 1975. "The Effects of Heavy Metals on Plants. H Net Photosynthesis and Transpiration of Whole Corn and Sunflower Plants Treated
with Pb, Cd, Ni, and Tl." Environ. Res. Volume 10. Pages 113-120.
Fargasova, A. 1994. "Effect of Pb, Cd, Hg, As, and Cr on Germination and Root Growth ofSinapis alba Seeds." Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. Volume
52. Page 452-456.
Godbold, D. L., and A. Huttermann. 1985." Effect of Zinc, Cadmium, and Mercury on Root Elongation ofPicea abies (Karst.) Seedlings and the Significance of These Metals to Forest
Die-Back." Environmental Pollution. Volume 38. Pages 375-381.
Jalil, A., F. Selles, and J. M. Clarke. 1994. "Growth and Cadmium Accumulation in Two Durum Wheat Cultivars." Communities in Soil Science and Plant Analysis. Volume 25
(15&16). Pages 2597-2611.
John, M. K. , C. Van Laerhoven, and H.H. Chuah. 1972. "Factors Affecting Plant Uptake and Phytotoxicity of Cadmium Added to Soils." Environmental Science Technology. Volume
6(12). Pages 1005-1009.
Khan, D. H. and B. Frankland. 1983. "Effects of Cadmium and Lead on Radish Plants with Particular Reference to Movement of Metals Through Soil Profile and Plant." Plant Soil.
Volume 70. Pages 335-345.
Kummerova, M., andR. Brandejsova. 1994. Project TOCOEN. "The Fate of Selected Pollutants in the Environment. Part XIX. The Phytotoxicity of Organic and Inorganic
Pollutants-Cadmium. The Effect of Cadmium on the Growth of Germinating Maize Plants." Toxicological and Environmental Chemistry. Volume 42. Pages 115-132.
Miles, L. J. and G. R. Parker. 1979. "The Effect of Soil-Added Cadmium on Several Plant Species." Journal of Environmental Quality. Volume 8(2). Pages 229-232.
Rascio, N., F. D. Vecchia, M. Ferretti, L. Merlo, andR. Ghisi. 1993. "Some Effects of Cadmium on Maize Plants. "Archives of Environmental Contammination and Toxicology.
Volume 25. Pages 244-249.
Reber, H. H. 1989. "Threshold Levels of Cadmium for Soil Respiration and Growth of Spring Wheat (Triticum aestivum L.), and Difficulties with Their Determination." Biology and
Fertility of Soils. Volume 7. Pages 152-157.
E-51
-------
TABLE E-5
TERRESTRIAL PLANT TOXICITY REFERENCE VALUES
(Page 11 of 15)
Rehab, F. I., and A. Wallace. 1978. "Excess Trace Metal Effects on Cotton: 6. Nickel and Cadmium in Yolo Loam Soil." Communities in Soil Science and Plant Analysis. Volume
9(8). Pages 779-784.
Rehab, F. I, and A. Wallace. 1978. "Excess Trace Metal Effects on Cotton: 5. Nickel and Cadmium in Solution Culture." Communities in Soil Science and Plant Analysis. Volume
9(8). Pages 771-778.
Strickland, R. C., W. R. Chaney, andR. J. Lamoreaux. 1979. "Organic Matter Influences Phytotoxicity of Cadmium to Soybeans." Plant Soil Volume 53(3). Pages 393-402.
Chromium
Adema, D.M.M., and L. Henzen. 1989. "A Comparison of Plant Toxicities of Some Industrial Chemicals in Soil Culture and Soilless Culture." Ecotoxicology and
Environmental Safety. Volume 18. Pages 219-229.
Fargasova, A. 1994. "Effect of Pb, Cd, Hg, As, and Cr on Germination and Root Growth ofSinapis alba Seeds." Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. Volume
52. Pages 452-456.
McGrath, S. P. 1982. "The Uptake and Translocation of Tri- and Hexa-Valent Chromium and Effects on the Growth of Oat in Flowing Nutrient Solution." New Phytology. Volume 92.
Pages 381-390.
Smith, S. P. J. Peterson, and K. H. M. Kwan. 1989. "Chromium Accumulation, Transport and Toxicity in Plants." Toxicology and Environmental Chemistry. Volume 24. Pages
241-251.
Turner, M. A. andR. H. Rust. 1971. "Effects of Chromium on Growth and Mineral Nutrition of Soybeans." Soil Science. Soc. Am. Proc. Volume 35. Pages 755-58.
Wallace, A., G. V. Alexander, and F. M. Chaudhry. 1977. "Phytotoxicity of Cobalt, Vanadium, Titanium, Silver, and Chromium." Communities in Soil Science and Plant Analysis.
Volume 8(9). Pages 751-56.
Copper
Toivonem, P.M.A., and G. Hofstra. 1979. "The Interaction of Copper and Sulfur Dioxide in Plant Injury." Canadian Journal of Plant Sciences. Volume 59. Pages 475-479.
Gupta, D. B. and S. Mukherji. 1977. "Effects of Toxic Concentrations of Copper on Growth and Metabolism of Rice Seedlings." Z. Pflanzenphysiol. Ed. Volume 82. Pages 95-106.
E-52
-------
TABLE E-5
TERRESTRIAL PLANT TOXICITY REFERENCE VALUES
(Page 12 of 15)
Heale, E .L., and D .P. Ormrod. 1982. "Effects of Nickel and Copper on Acer rubrum, Cornus stolonifera, Lonicera tatarica, andPinus resinosa." Canadian Journal of Botany.
Volume 60. Pages 2674-2681.
Mocquot, B., J. Vangronsveld, H. Clijsters, and M. Mench. 1996. "Copper Toxicity in Young Maize (Zea mays L.) Plants: Effects on Growth, Mineral and Chlorophyll Contents, and
Enzyme Activities." Plant and Soil. Volume 182. Pages 287-300.
Mukherji, S., and B. Das Gupta. 1972. "Characterization of Copper Toxicity in Lettuce Seedlings." Physiol. Plant. Volume 27. Pages 126-129.
Wallace, A., G. V. Alexander, and F. M. Chaudhry. 1977. "Phytotoxicity and Some Interactions of the Essential Trace Metals Iron, Manganese, Molybdenum, Zinc, Copper, and
Boron." Communities in Soil Science and Plant Analysis. Voilume 8(9). Pages 741-50.
Lead
Krishnayya, N.S.R., and S.J. Bedi. 1986. "Effect of Automobile Lead Pollution in Cassis tora L. and Cassia occidentalis L." Environmental Pollution. Volume 40A. Pages
221-226. As cited in U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1988. Lead Hazards to Fish, Wildlife, and Invertebrates: A Synoptic Review. April. Page 56.
Carlson, R. W., F. A. Bazzaz, and G. L. Rolfe. 1975. "The Effects of Heavy Metals on Plants. H Net Photosynthesis and Transpiration of Whole Corn and Sunflower Plants Treated
With Pb, Cd, Ni, and Tl." Environ. Res. Volume 10. Pages 113-120.
Fargasova, A. 1994. "Effect of Pb, Cd, Hg, As, and Cr on Germination and Root Growth ofSinapis alba Seeds." Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. Volume
52. Pages 452-456.
Godbold, D. L., and C. Kettner. 1991. "Use of Root Elongation Studies to Determine Aluminum and Lead Toxicity inPicea abies Seedlings." Journal of Plant Physiology. Volume
138. Pages 231-235.
Hooper, M. C. 1937. "An Investigation of the Effect of Lead on Plants." Annals of Applications of Biology. Volume 24. Pages 690-695.
Khan, D. H. andB. Frankland. 1983. "Effects of Cadmium and Lead on Radish Plants with Particular Reference to Movement of Metals Through Soil Profile and Plant." Plant Soil.
Volume 70. Pages 335-345.
Liu, D., W. Jiang, W. Wang, F. Zhao, and C. Lu. 1994. "Effects of Lead on Root Growth, Cell Division, and Nucleolus of Allium cepa." Environmental Pollution. Volume 86. Pages
1-4.
Rolfe, G. L. andF. A. Bazzaz. 1975." Effect of Lead Contamination on Transpiration and Photosynthesis of Loblolly Pine and Autumn Olive." Forest Science. Volume 21(1). Pages
33-35.
E-5 3
-------
TABLE E-5
TERRESTRIAL PLANT TOXICITY REFERENCE VALUES
(Page 13 of 15)
Mercuric chloride
Panda, K.K., M. Lenka, and B.B. Panda. 1992. "Monitoring and Assessment of Mercury Pollution in the Vicinity of a Chloralkali Plant, n. Plant-Bioavailability,
Tissue-Concentration and Genotoxicity of Mercury from Agricultural Soil Contaminated with Solid Waste Assessed in Barley (Hordeum vulgare L.)." Environmental
Pollution. Volume 76. Pages 33-42.
Al-Attar, A. F., M. H. Martin, and G. Nickless. 1988. "Uptake and Toxicity of Cadmium, Mercury and Thallium toLolium perenne Seedlings." Chemosphere. Volume 17. Pages
1219-1225.
Fargasova, A. 1994. "Effect of Pb, Cd, Hg, As, and Cr on Germination and Root Growth ofSinapis alba Seeds." Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. Volume
52. Pages 452-456.
Godbold, D. L., and A. Huttermann. 1985. "Effect of Zinc, Cadmium, and Mercury on Root Elongation ofPicea abies (Karst.) Seedlings and the Significance of These Metals to Forest
Die-Back." Environmental Pollution. Volume 38. Pages 375-381.
Mukhiya, Y. K., K. C. Gupta, N. Shrotriya, J. K. Joshi, and V. P. Singh. 1983. "Comparative Responses of the Action of Different Mercury Compounds on Barley." International
Journal of Environmental Studies Volume 20. Pages 323-327.
Suszcynsky, E. M., and J. R. Shann. 1995. "Phytotoxicity and Accumulation of Mercury in Tobacco Subjected to Different Exposure Routes." Environmental Toxicology and
Chemistry. Volume 14(1). Pages 61-67.
Nickel
Wallace, A., R.M. Romney, J.W. Cha, S.M. Soufi, and F.M Chaudry. 1977. "Nickel Phytotoxicity in Relationship to Soil pH Manipulation and Chelating Agents." Commun.
Soil Sd. Plant Anal. Volume 8. Pages 757-764.
Carlson, R. W., F. A. Bazzaz, and G. L. Rolfe. 1975. "The Effects of Heavy Metals on Plants, n. Net Photosynthesis and Transpiration of Whole Corn and Sunflower Plants Treated
with Pb, Cd, Ni, and Tl." Environ. Res. Volume 10. Pages 113-120.
Heale, E .L., and D .P. Ormrod. 1982. "Effects of Nickel and Copper onAcer rubrum, Cornus stolonifera, Lonicera tatarica, andPinus resinosa." Canadian Journal of Botany.
Volume 60. Pages 2674-2681.
Khalid,B. Y. and J. Tinsley. 1980. "Some Effects of Nickel Toxicity on Rye Grass." Plant Soil. Volume 55. Pages 139-44.
E-54
-------
TABLE E-5
TERRESTRIAL PLANT TOXICITY REFERENCE VALUES
(Page 14 of 15)
Rehab, F. I., and A. Wallace. 1978. "Excess Trace Metal Effects on Cotton: 6. Nickel and Cadmium in Yolo Loam Soil." Communities in Soil Science and Plant Analysis. Volume
9(8). Pages 779-784.
Rehab, F. I, and A. Wallace. 1978. "Excess Trace Metal Effects on Cotton: 5. Nickel and Cadmium in Solution Culture." Communities in Soil Science and Plant Analysis. Volume
9(8). Pages 771-778.
Wallace, A., R. M. Romney, J. W. Cha, S. M. Soufi, and F. M. Chaudhry. 1977. "Nickel Phytotoxicity in Relationship to Soil pH Manipulation and Chelating Agents." Communities in
Soil Science and Plant Analysis. Volume 8(9). Pages 757-64.
Selenium
Wan, H.F., R.L. Mikkelsen, and A.L. Page. 1988. "Selenium Uptake by Some Agricultural Crops from Central California Soils." Journal of Environmental Quality. Volume
17. Pages 269-272.
Banuelos, G. S., H. A. Ajwa, L. Wu, X. Guo, S. Akohoue, and S. Zambrzuski. 1997. "Selenium-Induced Growth Reduction wBrassica Land Races Considered for Phytoremediation."
Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety Volume 36. Pages 282-287
Broyer, T. C., C. M. Johnson, andR. P. Huston. 1972." Selenium and Nutrition of Astragalus. I. Effects of Selenite or Selenate Supply on Growth and Selenium Content". Plant Soil.
Volume 36. Page 635-649.
Singh, M., andN. Singh. 1978. "Selenium Toxicity in Plants and its Detoxication by Phosphorus." Soil Science. Volume 126. Pages 255-262.
Silver
Kabata-Pendias, A., and H. Pendias. 1992. Trace Elements in Soils and Plants. CRC Press, Inc. Boca Raton, Florida.
Cooper. C. F., and W. C. Jolly. 1970. "Ecological Effects of Silver Iodide and Other Weather Modification Agents: A Review." Water Resour. Res. Volume 6. Pages 88-98.
Wallace, A., G. V. Alexander, and F. M. Chaudhry. 1977. "Phytotoxicity of Cobalt, Vanadium, Titanium, Silver, and Chromium." Communities in Soil Science and Plant Analysis.
Volume 8(9). Pages 751-56.
Thallium
E-5 5
-------
TABLE E-5
TERRESTRIAL PLANT TOXICITY REFERENCE VALUES
(Page 15 of 15)
Kabata-Pendias, A., and H, Pendias. 1992. Trace Elements in Soils and Plants. CRC Press, Inc. Boca Raton, Florida.
Al-Attar, A. F., M. H. Martin, and G. Nickless. 1988. "Uptake and Toxicity of Cadmium, Mercury and Thallium toLolium perenne Seedlings." Chemosphere. Volume 17. Pages
1219-1225.
Carlson, R. W., F. A. Bazzaz, and G. L. Rolfe. 1975. "The Effects of Heavy Metals on Plants. H Net Photosynthesis and Transpiration of Whole Corn and Sunflower Plants Treated
with Pb, Cd, Ni, and Tl." Environ. Res. Volume 10. Pages 113-120.
Zinc
Davis, R.D., P.H.T. Beckett, and E. Wollan. 1978. "Critical Levels of Twenty Potentially Toxic Elemenets in Young Spring Barley." Plant and Soil. Volume 49. Pages
395-408.
Godbold, D. L., and A. Huttermann. 1985. "Effect of Zinc, Cadmium, and Mercury on Root Elongation ofPicea abies (Karst.) Seedlings and the Significance of These Metals to Forest
Die-Back." Environmental Pollution. Volume 38. Pages 375-381.
Lata, K. andB. Veer. 1990. "Phytotoxicity of Zn Amended Soil toSpinacia and Coriandrum." Acta Bot. Indica. Volume 18. Pages 194-198.
Wallace, A., G. V. Alexander, and F. M. Chaudhry. 1977. "Phytotoxicity and Some Interactions of the Essential Trace Metals Iron, Manganese, Molybdenum, Zinc, Copper, and
Boron." Communities in Soil Science and Plant Analysis. Volume 8(9). Pages 741-50.
E-56
-------
TABLE E-6
SOIL INVERTEBRATE TOXICITY REFERENCE VALUES
(Page 1 of 12)
Compound
TRV
Duration and
Endpoint a
Test Species
Concentration
Uncertain!
y Factor b
TRVC
Reference and Notes d
Polychlorinateddibenzo-p-dioxins (//g/kg)
2,3,7,8-TCDD
Chronic (85-day); no
mortality reported at
5,000 Mg/kg
Earthworm
(Allolobophora
caliginosa)
5,000
O.le
500
Toxicity value for 2,3,7,8-TCDD (Reinecke and Nash
1984). LTF applied to concentration because mortality
only endpoint available and data not subjected to
statistical analysis.
Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) (//g/kg)
Total HMW PAH
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Chrysene
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
Indeno( 1 ,2,3-cd)pyrene
Not available
Chronic (28-day)
NOAEL for growth
Not available
Not available
Not available
Not available
Not available
Not available
-
Woodlouse
(Porcellio
scaber)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
25,000
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Not
applicable
-
-
-
-
-
-
25,000
25,000
25,000
25,000
25,000
25,000
25,000
25,000
Benzo(a) pyrene used as surrogate for HMW PAH
compounds.
van Straalen and Verweij (1991)
Toxicity value not available. TRV for benzo(a)pyrene
used as surrogate.
Toxicity value not available. TRV for benzo(a)pyrene
used as surrogate.
Toxicity value not available. TRV for benzo(a)pyrene
used as surrogate.
Toxicity value not available. TRV for benzo(a)pyrene
used as surrogate.
Toxicity value not available. TRV for benzo(a)pyrene
used as surrogate.
Toxicity value not available. TRV for benzo(a)pyrene
used as surrogate.
E-57
-------
TABLE E-6
SOIL INVERTEBRATE TOXICITY REFERENCE VALUES
(Page 2 of 12)
Compound
TRV
Duration and
Endpoint a
Test Species
Concentration
Uncertain!
y Factor b
TRVC
Reference and Notes d
Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB) C"g/kg)
Aroclor 1016
Aroclor 1254
Acute median LC50
Acute median LC50
Earthworm
(Eisenia foetida)
Earthworm
(Eisenia foetida)
251,000
251,000
0.01
0.01
2,510
2,510
Rhettetal. (1989).
Rhettetal. (1989).
Nitroaromatics (//g/kg)
1 ,3-Dinitrobenzene
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
2,6-Dinitrotoluene
Nitrobenzene
Pentachloronitrobenzene
--
-
—
Subchronic
(14-day) LC50
—
-
-
—
Earthworm
(species
uncertain)
—
--
-
—
226,000
—
--
-
—
0.01e
—
2,260
-
—
2,260
Toxicity value not available. Nitrobenzene used as
surrogate.
Toxicity value not available.
Toxicity value not available.
Neuhauseretal. (1986).
Toxicity value not available.
Phthalate esters (//g/kg)
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Di(n)octyl phthalate
—
-
—
-
—
-
—
-
—
-
Toxicity value not available.
Toxicity value not available.
Volatile organic compounds (//g/kg)
Acetone
Acrylonitrile
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Toxicity value not available.
Toxicity value not available.
E-58
-------
TABLE E-6
SOIL INVERTEBRATE TOXICITY REFERENCE VALUES
(Page 3 of 12)
Compound
Chloroform
Crotonaldehyde
1 ,4-Dioxane
Formaldehyde
Vinyl chloride
TRV
Duration and
Endpoint a
—
-
—
-
—
Test Species
—
-
—
-
—
Concentration
—
-
—
-
—
Uncertain!
y Factor b
—
-
—
-
—
TRVC
—
-
—
-
—
Reference and Notes d
Toxicity value not available.
Toxicity value not available.
Toxicity value not available.
Toxicity value not available.
Toxicity value not available.
Other chlorinated organics (,ug/kg)
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Pentachlorobenzene
Pentachlorophenol
—
-
—
LC50 of unspecified
duration
Chronic (21 -day)
NOAEL for hatching
success
—
-
—
Earthworm
(species
uncertain)
Earthworm
(Eisenia andrei)
—
-
—
115,000
10,000
—
-
—
0.01e
Not
applicable
—
-
—
1,150
10,000
Toxicity value not available.
Toxicity value not available.
Toxicity value not available.
van Gesteletal. (1991)
van Gestel et al. (1988)
Pesticides (//g/kg)
4,4-DDE
Heptachlor
Hexachlorophene
—
-
—
—
-
—
—
-
—
—
-
—
—
-
—
Toxicity value not available.
Toxicity value not available.
Toxicity value not available.
Inorganics (mg/kg)
E-59
-------
TABLE E-6
SOIL INVERTEBRATE TOXICITY REFERENCE VALUES
(Page 4 of 12)
Compound
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium (hexavalent)
Copper
Cyanide, total
Lead
TRV
Duration and
Endpoint a
—
-
Chronic (56-day);
reduced cocoon
production reported
at single
concentration tested
-
-
Chronic (4-month)
NOAEL for cocoon
production
Chronic (60-day);
survival reduced 25
percent at lowest
tested concentration
Chronic (56-day)
NOAEL for cocoon
production
-
Chronic (4-month)
NOAEL for cocoon
production
Test Species
—
-
Earthworm
(Eisenia fetida)
-
—
Earthworm
(Dendrobaena
rubida)
Earthworm
(Octochaetus
pattoni)
Earthworm
(Eisenia fetida)
—
Earthworm
(Dendrobaena
rubida)
Concentration
—
-
25
-
-
10
2
32.0
-
100
Uncertain!
y Factor b
—
-
0.01e
-
-
Not
applicable
O.le
Not
applicable
-
Not
applicable
TRVC
—
-
0.25
-
-
10
0.2
32.0
-
100
Reference and Notes d
Toxicity value not available.
Toxicity value not available.
Fischer and Koszorus (1992)
Toxicity value not available.
Toxicity value not available.
Bengtsson and et al. (1986)
Abbasi and Soni (1983)
Spurgeon et al. (1994)
Toxicity value not available.
Bengtsson et al. 1986
E-60
-------
TABLE E-6
SOIL INVERTEBRATE TOXICITY REFERENCE VALUES
(Page 5 of 12)
Compound
Mercuric chloride
Methyl mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Zinc
TRV
Duration and
Endpoint a
Not available
Chronic (12-week)
NOAEL for segment
regeneration and
survival
Chronic (20-week)
NOAEL for cocoon
production
Chronic; reduced
cocoon production at
single tested
concentration
—
-
Chronic (56-day)
NOEC for cocoon
production
Test Species
-
Earthworm
(Eisenia foetida)
Earthworm
(Eisenia foetida)
Earthworm
(Eisenia foetida)
—
-
Earthworm
(Eisenia fetida)
Concentration
-
2.5
100
77
-
-
199
Uncertain!
y Factor b
-
Not
applicable
Not
applicable
O.le
-
-
Not
applicable
TRVC
2.5
2.5
100
7.7
-
-
199
Reference and Notes d
Toxicity value not available. TRV for methyl mercury
used as a surrogate.
Beyer et al. (1985). Wet weight NOAEL of 1 mg/kg
converted to corresponding dry weight NOAEL based on
60 percent moisture content. Uncertainty factor of 0. 1
used because segment regeneration may not be a
sensitive endpoint.
Maleckietal. (1982)
Fischer and Koszorus (1992)
Toxicity value not available.
Toxicity value not available.
Spurgeon et al. (1994)
E-61
-------
TABLE E-6
SOIL INVERTEBRATE TOXICITY REFERENCE VALUES
(Page 6 of 12)
Notes:
a - duration, the following general guidelines were used: Chronic duration represents exposures occurring about 10 or more days, including exposure during a critical life stage
encompassing a sensitive endpoint. Subchronic duration generally lasts 2 days through several days, however a sensitive life stage is not exposed. Acute duration generally includes
exposures from 0 to 2 days.
b Uncertainty factors are used to extrapolate a toxicity value to a chronic NOAEL TRY. See Chapter 5 (Section 5.4) of the SLERAP for a discussion on the use of uncertainty factors.
c TRY was calculated by multiplying the toxicity value with the uncertainty factor.
d The references refer to the source of the toxicity value. Complete reference citations are provided below.
e Best scientific judgment used to identify uncertainty factor. See Chapter 5 (Section 5.4.1.2) for a discussion on the use of best scientific judgement. Factors evaluated include test
duration, ecological relevance of measured effect, experimental design, and availability of toxicity data.
HMW = High molecular weight
LC50 = Concentration lethal to 50 percent of the test organisms.
NOAEL = No Observed Adverse Effects Level
NOEC = No Observed Effects Level
UF = Uncertainty Factor
TRY = Toxicity Reference Value
E-62
-------
TABLE E-6
SOIL INVERTEBRATE TOXICITY REFERENCE VALUES
(Page 7 of 12)
REFERENCES
Efroymson, Will, and Suter n (1997) provides a comprehensive review of ecologically-relevant soil invertebrate toxicity information. This source was reviewed to identify studies to develop
TRVs for invertebrates. Effects of compounds on microbial communities were not considered. Based on the information presented, one or more references were obtained and reviewed to
identify compound-specific toxicity values. For some compounds, the available information identified a single study meeting the requirements for a TRY, as discussed in Section 5.4. hi most
cases, each reference was obtained and reviewed to identify a single toxicity value to develop a TRY for each compound, hi a few cases where a primary study could not be obtained, a toxicity
value is based on a secondary source. As noted below, additional compendia were reviewed to identify toxicity studies to review. For compounds not discussed in Efroymson, Will, and Suter n
(1997), the scientific literature was searched, and relevant studies were obtained and reviewed. The references reviewed are listed below. The study selected for the TRY is highlighted in bold.
Polychlorinated dibenzo(p)dioxins
Reinecke, A.J., and R.G. Nash. 1984. "Toxicity of 2,3,7,8-TCDD and Short-Term Bioaccumulation by Earthworms (Oligochaeta)." Soil Biology Biochemistry. Volume 16. Pages
45-49. As cited in U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1986. Dioxin Hazards to Fish, Wildlife, and Invertebrates: A Synoptic Review. Biological Report 85 (1.8). May.
Benzo(a)pyrene
van Straallen, N.M, and R.A. Verweij. 1991. "Effects of Benzo(a)pyrene on Food Assimilation and Growth Efficiency in Porcellio scaber (Isopoda)." Bulletin of Environmental
Contamination and Toxicology. Volume 46. Pages 134-140.
van Brummelen, T.C., and S.C. Stuijfzand. 1993. "Effects of benzo(a)pyrene on survival, growth and energy reserves in terrestrial isopods Oniscus asellus and Porcellio scaber." Science of the
Total Environment. Supplement. Pages 921-930.
van Straalen, N.M., and R.A. Verweij. 1991. "Effects of benzo(a)pyrene on food assimilation and growth efficiency in Porcellio scaber (Isopoda)." Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and
Toxicology. Volume 46. Pages 134-140.
Polychlorinated biphenyls
Rhett, G., and others. 1989. "Rate and Effects of PCB Accumulation on Eiseniafoetida." U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Waterways Experiment Station. Vicksburg, Mississippi.
September 21.
Nitrobenzene
E-63
-------
TABLE E-6
SOIL INVERTEBRATE TOXICITY REFERENCE VALUES
(Page 8 of 12)
Neuhauser, E.F., P.R. Durkin, MR. Malecki, and M. Anatra. 1986. "Comparative Toxicity of Ten Organic Chemicals to Four Earthworm Species." Comparitive Biochemistry and
Physiology. Volume 83C. Pages 197-200.
Pentachlorobenzene
van Gestel, C.A.M., W.-C. Ma, and C.E. Smit. 1991. "Development of QSARs in Terrestrial Ecotoxicology: Earthworm Toxicity and Soil Sorption of Chlorophenols, Chlorobenzenes,
andDichloroaniline." The Science of the Total Environment. Volume 109/110. Pages 589-604.
Pentachlorophenol
van Gestel, C.A.M. and W.-C. Ma. 1988. "Toxicity and Bioaccumulation of Chlorophenols in Earthworms, in Relation to Unavailability in Soil." Ecotoxicology and Environmental
Safety. Volume 15. Pages 289-297.
Fitzgerald, D. G., K. A. Warner, R. P. Lanno, and D. G. Dixon. 1996. "Assessing the Effects of Modifying Factors on Pentachlorophenol Toxicity to Earthworms: Applications of Body
Residues." Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry. Volume 15. Pages 2299-2304.
Heimbach, F. 1992. "Effects of Pesticides on Earthworm Populations: Comparison of Results from Laboratory and Field Tests." hi Ecotoxicology of Earthworms. P.W. Greig-Smith et al. (eds).
Intercept Ltd., U.K. Pages 100-106.
Kammenga, J.E., C.A.M. van Gestel, and J. Bakker. 1994. "Patterns of Sensitivity to Cadmium and Pentachlorophenol (among nematode species from different taxonomic and ecological
groups)" Archives of Environmental Contamination Toxicology. Volume 27. Pages 88-94.
van Gestel, C.A.M., W.A. van Dis, E.M. Dirven-van Breemen, P.M. Sparenburg, and R. Baerselman. 1991. "Influence of Cadmium, Copper, and Pentachlorophenol on Growth and Sexual
Development of Eisenia andrei (Oligochaeta; Annelida)." Biology and Fertility of Soils. Volume 12. Pages 117-121.
Arsenic
Fischer, E., and L. Koszorus. 1992. "Sublethal Effects, Accumulation Capacities, and Elimination Rates of As, Hg, and Se in the Manure Worm Eisenia fetida (Oligochaeta,
Lumbricidae)." Pedobiologia. Volume 36. Pages 172-178.
Fischer, E., and L. Koszorus. 1992. "Sublethal Effects, Accumulation Capacities and Elimination Rates of As, Hg and Se in the Manure Worm, Eisenia fetida (Oligochaeta, Lumbricidae)."
Pedobiologia. Volume 36. Pages 172-178.
Cadmium
E-64
-------
TABLE E-6
SOIL INVERTEBRATE TOXICITY REFERENCE VALUES
(Page 9 of 12)
Bengtsson, G., T. Gunnarsson, and S. Rundgren. 1986. "Effects of Metal Pollution on the Earthworm Dendrobaena rubida (Sav.) in Acidified Soils." Water, Air, and Soil Pollution.
Volume 28. Pages 361-383.
Crommentuijr, T., J. Brils, and N.M. van Straaler. 1993. "Influence of Cadmium on Life-History Characteristics ofFolsomia Candida (Willem) in an Artificial Soil Substrate." Ecotoxicology
Environmental Safety. Volume 26. Pages 216-227.
Russell, L.K., J.I. De Haven, and R.P. Botts. 1981. "Toxic effects of Cadmium on the Garden Snail (Helix aspersa)" Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. Volume 26.
Pages 634-640.
Spurgeon, D.J., S.P. Hopkin, and D.T. Jones. 1994. "Effects of Cadmium, Copper, Lead, and Zinc on Growth, Reproduction, and Survival of the Earthworm Eisenia fetida (Savigny): Assessing
the Environmental Impact of Point-source Metal Contamination in Terrestrial Ecosystems." Environmental Pollution. Volume 84. Pages 123-130.
van Gestel, C.A.M., W.A. van Dis, E.M. Dirven-van Breemen, P.M. Sparenburg, and R. Baerselman. 1991. "Influence of Cadmium, Copper, and Pentachlorophenol on Growth and Sexual
development of Eisenia andrei (Oligochaeta; Annelida)." Biology and Fertility of Soils. Volume 12. Pages 117-121.
van Gestel, C.A.M., E.M. Dirven-van Breemen, and R. Baerselman. 1993. "Accumulation and Elimination of Cadmium, Chromium and Zinc and Effects on Growth and Reproduction mEisenia
andrei (Oligochaeta; Annelida)." Science of the Total Environment. Supplement. Pages 585-597.
Chromium (Hexavalent)
Abbasi, S.A. and R. Soni. 1983. "Stress-Induced Enhancement of Reproduction in Earthworm, Octochaetm pattoni, Exposed to Chromium (VI) and Mercury (II)—Implications in
Environmental Management." International Journal of Environmental Studies. Volume 22. Pages 43-47.
Molnar, L., E. Fischer, and M. Kallay. 1989. "Laboratory Studies on the Effect, Uptake and Distribution of Chromium in Eisenia foetida (Annelida, Oligochaeta)." Zoo/. Anz. Volume 223(1/2).
Pages 57-66.
Soni, R., and S.A. Abbasi. 1981. "Mortality and Reproduction inEearthworms Pheretima posthuma Exposed to Chromium (VI)." International Journal of Environmental Studies. Volume 17.
Pages 147-149.
Copper
Spurgeon, D.J., S.P. Hopkin, and D.T. Jones. 1994. "Effects of Cadmium, Copper, Lead, and Zinc on Growth, Reproduction, and Survival of the Earthworm Eisenia fetida (Savigny):
Assessing the Environmental Impact of Point Source Metal Contamination in Terrestrial Ecosystems." Environmenal Pollution. Volume 84. Pages 123-130.
E-65
-------
TABLE E-6
SOIL INVERTEBRATE TOXICITY REFERENCE VALUES
(Page 10 of 12)
Korthals, G. W., A. D. Alexiev, T. M. Lexmond, J. E. Kammenga, and T. Bongers. 1996. "Long-term Effects of Copper and pH on the Nematode Community in an Agroecosystem."
Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry. Volume 15. Pages 979-985.
Ma, W.-C. 1984. "Sublethal Toxic Effects of Copper on Growth, Reproduction and Litter Breakdown Activity in the Earthworm Lumbricus rubellus, with Observations on the Influence of
Temperature and Soil pH." Environmental Pollution. Series A. Volume 33. Pages 207-219.
Ma, W.-C. 1988. "Toxicity of Copper to Lumbricid Earthworms in Sandy Agricultural Soils Amended with Cu-enriched Organic Waste Materials." Ecology Bulletin. Volume 39. Pages 53-56.
Marigomez, J.A., E. Angulo, and V. Saez. 1986. "Feeding and Growth Responses to Copper, Zinc, Mercury, and Lead in the Terrestrial Gastropod Arion ater (Linne)." Journal ofMolluscan
Studies. Volume 52. Pages 68-78.
Streit, B. 1984. "Effects of High Copper Concentrations on Soil Invertebrates (Earthworms and Oribatid Mites): Experimental Results and a Model." Oecologia. Volume 64. Pages 381-388.
Streit, B, and A. Jaggy. 1983. "Effect of Soil Type on Copper Toxicity and Copper Uptake in Octolasium cyaneum (Lumbricidae)." hi: New Trends in Soil Biology. Ph. Lebrun et al. (eds).
Pages 569-575. Ottignies-Louvain-la-Neuve.
van Gestel, C.A.M., W.A. van Dis, E.M. Dirven-van Breemen, P.M. Sparenburg, and R. Baerselman. 1991. "Influence of Cadmium, Copper, and Pentachlorophenol on Growth and Sexual
Development of Eisenia andrei (Oligochaeta; Annelida)." Biology and Fertility of Soils. Volume 12. Pages 117-121.
van Rhee, J.A. 1975. "Copper Contamination Effects on Earthworms by Disposal of Pig Waste in Pastures." Progress in Soil Zoology. Volume 1975. Pages 451-457.
Lead
Bengtsson, G., T. Gunnarsson, and S. Rundgren. 1986. "Effects of Metal Pollution on the Earthworm Dendrobaena rubida (Sav.) in Acidified Soils." Water, Air, and Soil Pollution.
Volume 28. Pages 361-383.
Beyer, W.N., and A. Anderson. 1985. "Toxicity to Woodlice of Zinc and Lead Oxides Added to Soil Litter." Ambio. Volume 14(3). Pages 173-174.
Marigomez, J.A., E. Angulo, and V. Saez. 1986. "Feeding and Growth Responses to Copper, Zinc, Mercury, and Lead in the Terrestrial Gastropod Arion ater (Linne)." Journal ofMolluscan
Studies. Volume 52. Pages 68-78.
Spurgeon, D.J., S.P. Hopkin, and D.T. Jones. 1994. "Effects of Cadmium, Copper, Lead, and Zinc on Growth, Reproduction, and Survival of the Earthworm Eisenia fetida (Savigny): Assessing
the Environmental Impact of Point-source Metal Contamination in Terrestrial Ecosystems." Environmental Pollution. Volume 84. Pages 123-130.
Mercuric chloride
E-66
-------
TABLE E-6
SOIL INVERTEBRATE TOXICITY REFERENCE VALUES
(Page 11 of 12)
Abbasi, S.A., and R. Soni. 1983. "Stress-induced Enhancement of Reproduction in Earthworm Octochaetus pattoni Exposed to Chromium (VI) and Mercury (II) - Implications in Environmental
Management." International Journal of Environmental Studies. Volume 22. Pages 43-47.
Fischer, E., and L. Koszorus. 1992. "Sublethal Effects, Accumulation Capacities and Elimination Rates of As, Hg and Se in the Manure Worm, Eisenia fetida (Oligochaeta, Lumbricidae)."
Pedobiologia. Volume 36. Pages 172-178.
Marigomez, J.A., E. Angulo, and V. Saez. 1986. "Feeding and Growth Responses to Copper, Zinc, Mercury, and Lead in the Terrestrial Gastropod Arion ater (Linne)." Journal of Molluscan
Studies. Volume 52. Pages 68-78.
Methyl mercury
Beyer, W.N., E. Cromartie, and G.B. Moment. 1985. "Accumulation of Methyl Mercury in the Earthworm, Eisenia foetida, and its Effects on Regeneration." Bulletin of
Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. Volume 35. Pages 157-162.
Beyer, W.N., E. Cromartie, and G.B. Moment. 1985. "Accumulation of Methylmercury in the Earthworm Eisenia foetida, and its Effect on Regeneration." Bulletin of Environmental
Contamination Toxicology. Volume 35. Pages 157-162.
Nickel
Malecki, M.R., E.F. Neuhauser, and R.C. Loehr. 1982. "The Effect of Metals on the Growth and Reproduction of Eisenia foetida (Oligochaeta, Lumbricidae)." Pedobiologia. Volume
24. Pages 129-137.
Selenium
Malecki, M.R., E.F. Neuhauser, and R.C. Loehr. 1982. "The Effect of Metals on the Growth and Reproduction of Eisenia foetida (Oligochaeta, Lumbricidae)." Pedobiologia. Volume
24. Pages 129-137.
Fischer, E., and L. Koszorus. 1992. "Sublethal Effects, Accumulation Capacities and Elimination Rates of As, Hg and Se in the Manure Worm, Eisenia fetida (Oligochaeta, Lumbricidae)."
Pedobiologia. Volume 36. Pages 172-178.
Zinc
Beyer, W.N., and A. Anderson. 1985. "Toxicity to Woodlice of Zinc and Lead Oxides Added to Soil Litter." Ambio. Volume 14. Pages 173-174.
E-67
-------
TABLE E-6
SOIL INVERTEBRATE TOXICITY REFERENCE VALUES
(Page 12 of 12)
Beyer, W.N., G.W. Miller, and E.J. Cromartie. 1984. "Contamination of the O2 Soil Horizon by Zinc Smelting and its Effect on Woodlouse Survival." Journal of Environmental Quality. Volume
13. Pages 247-251.
Marigomez, J.A., E. Angulo, and V. Saez. 1986. "Feeding and Growth Responses to Copper, Zinc, Mercury, and Lead in the Terrestrial Gastropod Arion ater (Linne)." Journal of Molluscan
Studies. Volume 52. Pages 68-78.
Spurgeon, D.J., S.P. Hopkin, and D.T. Jones. 1994. "Effects of Cadmium, Copper, Lead, and Zinc on Growth, Reproduction, and Survival of the Earthworm Eiseniafetida (Savigny): Assessing
the Environmental Impact of Point Source Metal Contamination in Terrestrial Ecosystems." Environmental Pollution. Volume 84. Pages 123-130.
van Gestel, C.A.M., E.M. Dirven-van Breemen, and R. Baerselman. 1993. "Accumulation and Elimination of Cadmium, Chromium and Zinc and Effects on Growth and Reproduction rnEisenia
andrei (Oligochaeta; Annelida)." Science of the Total Environment (Supplement^. Pages 585-597.
E-68
-------
TABLE E-7
MAMMAL TOXICITY REFERENCE VALUES
(Page 1 of 15)
Compound
Basis for Toxicity Reference Value (TRV)
Duration and Endpoint a
Test
Organism
Dose"
Uncertainty
Factor c
TRV
Reference and Notes d
Polychlorinateddibenzo-p-dioxins (,ug/kg BW-day)
2,3,7,8-TCDD
Chronic (multigenerational)
NOAEL for reproduction
Rat
0.001
Not
applicable
0.001
Murray et al. (1979). TRV based on toxicity of
2,3,7,8-TCDD.
Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) (,ug/kg BW-day)
Total high molecular weight (HMW)
PAH
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Chrysene
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
hideno( 1 ,2,3-cd)pyrene
-
Acute (10 days) LOAEL
(reproductive effects)
Single dose LOAEL
(gastrointestinal effects)
-
-
-
Subchronic (15 days) LOAEL
(reduced growth rate)
-
-
Mouse
Mouse
-
-
-
Rat
-
-
10,000
16,666
-
-
-
200
-
-
0.01
0.01
-
-
-
0.01e
-
100
100
167
-
-
-
2
-
TRV based on benzo(a)pyrene toxicity. This
TRV should be assessing the risk of Total HMW
PAH.
Mackenzie and Angevine (1981)
Bock and King (1959)
Toxicity value not available.
Toxicity value not available.
Toxicity value not available.
Haddowetal. (1937)
Toxicity value not available.
E-69
-------
TABLE E-7
MAMMAL TOXICITY REFERENCE VALUES
(Page 2 of 15)
Compound
Basis for Toxicity Reference Value (TRV)
Duration and Endpoint a
Test
Organism
Dose"
Uncertainty
Factor c
TRV
Reference and Notes d
Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB) (jug/kg BW-day)
Aroclor 1016
Aroclor 1254
Subchronic (14.5 weeks)
LOAEL (mortality)
Subchronic (14.5 weeks)
LOAEL (mortality)
Mink
Mink
20.6
20.6
0.01
0.01
0.206
0.206
Aulerich et al. (1985). TRV based on toxicity of
3,4,5 -hexachlorobiphenyl .
Aulerich et al. (1985). TRV based on toxicity of
3,4,5 -hexachlorobiphenyl .
Nitroaromatics 0/g/kg BW-day)
1 ,3-Dinitrobenzene
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
2,6-Dinitrotoluene
Nitrobenzene
Pentachloronitrobenzene
Chronic (16 weeks) NOAEL
Chronic (24 months) NOAEL
Single dose LOAEL (mortality)
-
Chronic (2 years) NOAEL
Rat
Dog
Dog
-
Mouse
1,051
700
4,000
-
458,333
1.0
1.0
0.01
-
1.0
1,051
700
400
-
458,333
Cody etal. (1981)
Ellis etal. (1979)
Lee etal. (1976)
Toxicity value not available.
National Toxicology Program (1987)
Phthalate esters dug/kg BW-day)
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Di(n)octyl phthalate
Chronic (2 years) NOAEL
Chronic (105 days) NOAEL
Rat
Mouse
60,000
7,500,000
1.0
1.0
60,000
7,500,000
Carpenter et al. (1953)
Heindel etal. (1989)
Volatile organic compounds (,ug/kg BW-day)
Acetone
Acrylonitrile
Chloroform
Subchronic (90 days) NOAEL
Chronic (2 years) LOAEL
(lesions and other organ effects)
Chronic (80 weeks) NOAEL
Albino Rat,
male
Rat
Mouse
100,000
4,600
60,000
0.1
0.1
1.0
10,000
460
60,000
U.S. EPA (1986)
Quastetal. (1980)
Roe etal. (1979)
E-70
-------
TABLE E-7
MAMMAL TOXICITY REFERENCE VALUES
(Page 3 of 15)
Compound
Crotonaldehyde
1 ,4-Dioxane
Formaldehyde
Vinyl chloride
Basis for Toxicity Reference Value (TRV)
Duration and Endpoint a
Acute (4-hour) LD50
Chronic (23 months) LOAEL
(lung tumors)
Acute (single dose ) LOAEL
(mortality)
Chronic (2 years) NOAEL
Test
Organism
Rat
Guinea Pig
Rat
Rat
Dose"
8,000
1,069,767
230,000
1,700
Uncertainty
Factor c
0.01
0.1
0.01
0.1
TRV
80
106,777
2,300
170
Reference and Notes d
Rinehart(1967)
Hoch-Ligeti and Argus (1970)
Tsuchiya et al. (1975)
Feronetal. (1981)
Other chlorinated organics (//g/kg BW-day)
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Pentachlorobenzene
Pentachlorophenol
Chronic (>247 days) NOAEL
Chronic (2 years) NOAEL
Subchronic (13 weeks) NOAEL
Chronic (180 days) NOAEL
Subchronic (62 days) NOAEL
Rat
Rat
Rat
Rat
Rat
1,600
200
38,000
7,250
3,000
1.0
1.0
0.1
1.0
0.1
1,600
200
3,800
7,250
300
Grant et al. (1977)
Kocibaetal. (1977)
Abdoetal. (1984)
Linderetal. (1980)
Schwetzetal. (1978)
Pesticides (//g/kg BW-day)
4,4-DDE
Heptachlor
Hexachlorophene
Subchronic (5 weeks) NOAEL
Subchronic (60 days) LOAEL
(mortality)
Acute LD50
Rat
Rat
Rat
10,000
250
560,000
0.1
0.01
0.01
1,000
2.5
5600
Kornburst et al. (1986)
Green (1970)
Meister(1994)
Inorganics (mg/kg BW-day)
Aluminum
Chronic (>1 year) LOAEL
(growth)
Rat
19.3
0.1
1.93
Ondreicka et al. (1966)
E-71
-------
TABLE E-7
MAMMAL TOXICITY REFERENCE VALUES
(Page 4 of 15)
Compound
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium (hexavalent)
Copper
Total Cyanide
Lead
Mercuric chloride
Methyl mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Basis for Toxicity Reference Value (TRV)
Duration and Endpoint a
Chronic (4 years) LOAEL
(mortality)
Chronic (2 years) NOAEL
Chronic (16 months) NOAEL
Chronic (>1 year) NOAEL
Chronic (>150 days) LOAEL
(reproduction)
Chronic (1 year) NOAEL
Chronic (357 days) NOAEL
Chronic (2 years) NOAEL
Chronic (>150 days) LOAEL
(mortality)
Chronic (6 months) NOAEL
(reproduction)
Subchronic (93 days) NOAEL
Chronic (2 years) NOAEL
Chronic (>150 days) LOAEL
(mortality)
Chronic (125 days) LOAEL
(hypoactivity)
Test
Organism
Rat
Dog
Rat
Rat
Mouse
Rat
Mink
Rat
Mouse
Mink
Rat
Rat
Mouse
Mouse
Dose"
0.66
1.25
0.51
0.66
2.52
3.5
12.0
24
3.75
1.01
0.032
50
0.76
3.75
Uncertainty
Factor c
0.1
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.01
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.01
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.1
0.1
TRV
0.066
1.25
0.51
0.66
0.0252
3.5
12.0
24
0.0375
1.01
0.032
50
0.076
0.375
Reference and Notes d
Schroeder et al. (1970)
Byron et al. (1967)
Perry et al. (1983)
Schroeder and Mitchner (1975)
Schroeder and Mitchner (1971)
MacKenzie et al. (1958)
Aulerich et al. (1982)
Howard and Hanzal (1955)
Schroeder and Mitchner (1971)
Aulerich et al. (1974)
Verschuuren et al. (1976)
Ambrose et al. (1976)
Schroeder and Mitchner (1971)
Rungby and Danscher (1984)
E-72
-------
TABLE E-7
MAMMAL TOXICITY REFERENCE VALUES
(Page 5 of 15)
Compound
Thallium
Zinc
Basis for Toxicity Reference Value (TRV)
Duration and Endpoint a
Subchronic (60 days) LOAEL
(testicular function)
Subchronic (13 weeks) NOAEL
Test
Organism
Rat
Mouse
Dose"
1.31
104
Uncertainty
Factor c
0.01h
0.1
TRV
0.0131
10.4
Reference and Notes d
Formigli et al. (1986)
Maitaetal. (1981)
Notes:
The duration of exposure is defined as chronic if it represents about 10 percent or more of the test animal's lifetime expectancy. Acute exposures represent single exposure or multiple
exposures occurring within about two weeks or less. Subchronic exposures are defined as multiple exposures occurring for less than 10 percent of the test animal's lifetime expectancy
but more that 2 weeks.
Reported values, which were dose in food or diet, were converted to dose based on body weight and intake rate using Opresko, Sample, and Suter 1996.
Uncertainty factors are used to extrapolate a toxicity value to a chronic NOAEL TRV. See Chapter 5 (Section 5.4) for a discussion on the use of uncertainty factors. The TRV was
calculated by multiplying the toxicity value by the uncertainty factor.
The references refer to the study or studies from which the endpoint and doses were identified. Complete reference citations are provided at the end of this table.
Best scientific judgement used to identify uncertainty factor. See Chapter 5 (Section 5.4.1.2) for a discussion of the use of best scientific judgement. Factors evaluated include test
duration, ecological relevance of endpoint, experimental design, and availability of toxicity data.
HMW = High molecular weight
LD50 = Lethal dose to 50 percent of the test organisms.
LOAEL = Lowest Observed Adverse Effect Level
NOAEL = No Observed Adverse Effect Level
TRV = Toxicity Reference Value
E-73
-------
TABLE E-7
MAMMAL TOXICITY REFERENCE VALUES
(Page 6 of 15)
REFERENCES
Sample, Opresko, and Suter n (1996) provides a comprehensive review of ecologically-relevant mammal toxicity information. This source was reviewed to identify studies to develop TRVs for
mammals. Based on the information presented, one or more references were obtained and reviewed to identify compound-specific toxicity values. For some compounds, the available
information identified a single study meeting the requirements for a TRY, as discussed in Section 5.4. hi most cases, each reference was obtained and reviewed to identify a single toxicity value
to develop a TRY for each compound, hi a few cases where a primary study could not be obtained, a toxicity value is based on a secondary source. As noted below, additional compendia were
reviewed to identify toxicity studies to review. For compounds not discussed in Sample, Opresko, and Suter n (1996), the scientific literature was searched, and relevant studies were obtained
and reviewed. The references reviewed are listed below. The study selected for the TRY is highlighted in bold.
Polychlorinated dibenzo(p)dioxins
Murray, F.J., F.A. Smith, KD. Nitschke, C.G. Humiston, R.J. Kociba, and B.A.Schwetz. 1979. "Three-Generation Reproduction Study of Rats Given
2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) in the Diet." Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology. Volume 50. Pages 241-252.
U.S. EPA. 1993. Interim Report on Data andMethods for Assessment of 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzop-dioxin Risks to Aquatic Life and Associated Wildlife. EPA/600/R-93/055. Office of
Research and Development. Washington, B.C. March. This report identified the four studies listed below.
Aulerich, R.J., R.K. Ringer, and S. Iwamoto. 1973. "Reproductive Failure and Mortality in Mink Fed on Great Lakes Fish." Journal of Reproduction and Fertility. Volume 19. Pages 365-376.
Aulerich, R.J., SJ. Bursian, and A.C. Napolitano. 1988. "Biological Effects of Epidermal Growth Factor and 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin on Developmental Parameters of Neonatal
Mink." Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. Volume 17. Pages 27-31.
Aulerich, R.J., SJ. Bursian, W.J. Breslin, B.A. Olson, and R.K. Ringer. 1985. "Toxicological Manifestations of 2,4,5,2',4',5'-, 2,3,6,2',3',6'-, and 3,4,5,3',4',5'-Hexachlorobiphenyl and Aroclor 1254
in Mink." Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health. Volume 15. Pages 63-79.
Hochstein, J.R., R.J. Aulerich, and SJ. Bursain. 1988. "Acute Toxicity of 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin to Mink." Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. Volume 17.
Pages 33-37.
Benzo(a)pyrene
MacKenzie, K.M., and D.M Angevine. 1981. "Infertility in Mice Exposed in Utero to Benzo(a)pyrene." Biology of Reproduction. Volume 24. Pages 183-191.
E-74
-------
TABLE E-7
MAMMAL TOXICITY REFERENCE VALUES
(Page 7 of 15)
Benzo(a) anthracene
Bock, F.G. and D.W. King. 1959. "A Study of the Sensitivity of the Mouse Forestomach Toward Certain Polycyclic Hydrocarbons." Journal of the National Cancer Institute. Volume
23. Page 833-839.
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
Haddow, A., C.M. Scott, and J.D. Scott. 1937. "The Influence of Certain Carcinogenic and Other Hydrocarbons on Body Growth in the Rat." Proceeding R. Soc. London. Series B.
Volume 122. Pages 477-507. As cited in IARC Monographs, 1983.
Polychlorinated biphenyls
Aulerich, R.J., S.J. Bursian, W.J. Breslin, B.A. Olson, and R.K. Ringer. 1985. "Toxicological Manifestations of 2,4,5-, 2',4',5'-, 2,3,6-, 2',3',6'- and 3,4,5-, 3',4',5'- Hexachlorobiphenyl
and Aroclor 1254 in Mink." Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health. Volume 15. Pages 63-79.
Aulerich, R. J. and R. K. Ringer. 1977. "Current Status of PCB Toxicity, Including Reproduction in Mink" Archives of Environmental Containation and Toxicology. Volume 6. Page 279.
ATSDR (Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry). 1989. Toxicological profile for Selected PCBs (Aroclor-1260, -1254, -1248, -1242, -1232, -1221, and-1016). ATSDR/TP-88/21.
Barsotti, D. A., R. J. Marlar and J. R. Allen. 1976. "Reproductive Dysfunction in Rhesus Monkeys Exposed to Low Llevels of Polychlorinated Biphenyls (Aroclor 1248)." Food and Cosmetics
Toxicology. Volume 14. Pages 99-103.
Bleavins, M. R., R. J. Aulerich, and R. K. Ringer. 1980. "Polychlorinated Biphenyls (Aroclors 1016 and 1242): Effect on Survival and Reproduction in Mink and Ferrets." Archives of
Environmental Contamination and Toxicology Volume 9. Pages 627-635.
Collins, W. T., and C. C. Capen. 1980. "Fine structural lesions and hormonal alterations in thyroid glands of perinatal rats exposed in utero and by milk to polychlorinated biphenyls." American
Journal of Pathology. Volume 99. Pages 125-142.
Linder, R. E., T. B. Gaines, and R. D. Kimbrough. 1974. "The effect of PCB on rat reproduction." Food and Cosmetics Toxicology. Volume 63.
Pages 63- 67.
Linzey, A. V. 1987. "Effects of chronic polychlorinated biphenyls exposure on reproductive success of white-footed mice (Peromyscus leucopus)" Archives of Environmental Contamination and
Toxicology. Volume 16. Pages 455-460.
E-75
-------
TABLE E-7
MAMMAL TOXICITY REFERENCE VALUES
(Page 8 of 15)
McCoy, G, M. F. Finlay, A. Rhone, K. James, and G. P. Cobb. 1995. "Chronic Polychlorinated Biphenyls Exposure on Three Generations of Oldfield Mice (Permyscus polionotus)'. Effects on
Reproduction, Growth, and Body Residues. Archives of. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. Volume 28. Pages 431-435.
Merson, M. H., and R. L. Kirkpatrick. 1976. "Reproductive Performance of Captive White-Footed Mice Fed a Polychlorinated Biphenyl." Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and
Toxicology. Volume 16. Pages 392-398.
Ringer, R. K., R. J. Aulerich, andM. R. Bleavins. 1981. "Biological Effects of PCBs andPBBs on Mink and Ferrets: a Review." \n'.Halogenated Hydrocarbons: Health and Ecological Effects.
M.A.Q. Khan, ed. Permagon Press, Elmsford, NY. Pages 329-343.
Sanders, O.T., and R.L. Kirkpatrick. 1975. "Effects of a Polychlorinated Biphenyl on Sleeping Times, Plasma Corticosteroids, and Testicular Activity of White-Footed Mice." Environmental
Physiology and Biochemistry. Volume 5. Pages 308-313.
Villeneuve, B.C., D.L. Grant, K. Khera, D.J. Klegg, H. Baer, and W.E.J. Phillips. 1971. "The Fetotoxicity of a Polychlorinated Biphenyl Mixture (Aroclor 1254) in the Rabbit and in the Rat."
Environmental Physiology. Volume 1. Pages 67-71.
1,3-Dinitrobenzene
Cody, T.E., S. Witherup, L. Hastings, K. Stemmer, and R.T. Christian. 1981. "1,3-Dinitrobenzene: Toxic Effects in Vivo and in Vitro." Journal of Toxicology and Environmental
Health. Volume 7. Pages 829-847.
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
Ellis, H.V.III, J.H. Hagensen, J.R. Hodgson, J.L. Minor, C-B. Hong, E.R. Ellis, J.D. Girvin, D.O. Helton, B.L. Herndon, and C-C. Lee. 1979. "Mammalian Toxicity of Munitions
Compounds. Phase III: Effects of Lifetime Exposure. Parti: 2,4-Dinitrotoluene." Final Report No. 7. Midwest Research Institute. Kansas City, Missouri. Contract No.
DAMD 17-74-C-4073, ODC No. ADA077692.
2,6-Dinitrotoluene
Lee, C.C., H.V. Ellis III, J.J. Kowalski, J.R. Hodgsen, R.D. Short, J.C. Bhandari, T.W. Reddig, and J.L. Minor. 1976. "Mammalian Toxicity of Munitions Compounds. Phase II: Effects
of Multiple Doses. Part HI: 2,6-Dinitrotoluene. Progress Report No. 4." Midwest Research Institute. Project No. 3900-B. Contract No. DAMD-17-74-C-4073. As cited in
ATSDR Toxicological Profile for 2,4- Dinitrotoluene and 2,6-Dinitrotoluene. December 1989.
Pentachloronitrobenzene
E-76
-------
TABLE E-7
MAMMAL TOXICITY REFERENCE VALUES
(Page 9 of 15)
National Toxicology Program. 1987. "Toxicology and Carcinogenesis Studies of Pentachloronitrobenzene in B6C3Fj Mice." Report No. 325. National Institutes of Health Publication
No. 87-2581.
Bis(2)ethylhexylphthalate
Carpenter, C.P., C.S. Weil, H.F. Smyth, Jr. 1953. "Chronic Oral Toxicity of Di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate for Rats, Guinea Pigs, and Dogs." Drinker, P. (ed.). Archives of Industrial
Hygeine and Occupational Medicine. Volume 8. Pages 219-226.
Lamb, J. C., IV, R. E. Chapin, J. Teague, A. D. Lawton, and J. R. Reel. 1987. Reproductive effects of four phthalic acid esters in the mouseToxicol. Appl. Pharmacol. 88: 255-269.
Di(n) octyl phthalate
Heindel, J.J., D.K Gulati, R.C. Mounce, S.R. Russell, and J.C. Lamb TV. 1989. "Reproductive Toxicity of Three Phthalic Acid Esters in a Continuous Breeding Protocol."
Fundamental and Applied Toxicology. Volume 12. Pages 508-18.
Acetone
U.S. EPA. 1986. "Ninety-Day Gavage Study in Albino Rats Using Acetone." Office of Solid Waste. Washington, DC. As cited in IRIS Database. January 1995.
Acrylonitrile
Quasi J.F. and others. 1980. A Two-Year Toxicity and Oncogenicity Study With Acrylonitrile Incorporated in the Drinking Water of Rats. Toxicol. Res. Lab., Health Environ. Res.,
Dow Chemical Co. As cited in EPA (1980) Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Acrylonitrile.
Chloroform
Roe, F. J.C., A.K. Palmer, A.N. Worden, and N. J. Van Abbe. 1979. "Safety Evaluation of Toothpaste Containing Chloroform. 1. Long-Term Studies in Mice." Journal of
Environmental Pathology and Toxicology. Volume 2. Pages 799-819.
Crotonaldehyde
E-77
-------
TABLE E-7
MAMMAL TOXICITY REFERENCE VALUES
(Page 10 of 15)
Rinehart, W.E. 1967. "The Effect on Rats of Single Exposures to Crotonaldehyde Vapor." American Industrial Hygiene Association Journal Volume 28. Pages 561-566.
1,4-Dioxane
Hoch-Ligeti, C. and M.F. Argus. 1970. "Effects of Carcinogens on the Lung of Guinea Pigs." In: Proceedings of Biology Division, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Conference.
Morphology of Experimental Respiratory Carcinogenesis. (Eds) P. Nettesheir, M.G. Hanna, Jr., and J.W. Deatherase, Jr. U.S. Atomic Energy Commission. December.
Formaldehyde
Tsuchiya, K., Y. Hayashi, M. Onodera, and T. Hasegawa. 1975. "Toxicity of Formaldehyde in Experimental Animals - Concentrations of the Chemical in the Elution from Dishes of
Formaldehyde Resin in Some Vegetables." Keio Journal of Medicine. Volume 24. Page 19-37.
Hurni, H. andH. Ohder. 1973. Reproduction study with formaldehyde and hexamethylenetetramine in Beagle dogs. Fd. Cosmet. Toxicol. 11: 459-462.
Vinyl chloride
Feron, V.J., C.F.M. Hendriksen, A.J. Speek, H.P. Til, and B.J. Spit. 1981. "Lifespan Oral Toxicity Study of Vinyl Chloride in Rats." Fd. Cosmet. Toxicol. Volume 19. Pages 317-333.
Quast, J. F., C. G. Humiston, C. E. Wade, et al. 1983. A chronic toxicity and oncogenicity study in rats and subchronic toxicity in dogs on ingested vinylidene chloride.Fund. Appl. Toxicol.
3: 55-62.
Hexachlorobenzene
Grant, D.L., W.E.J. Phillips, G.V. Hatina. 1977. "Effect of Hexachlorobenzene on Reproduction in the Rat." Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. Volume 5.
Pages 207-216.
Bleavins, M. R., R. J. Aulerich, and R. K. Ringer. 1984. Effects of chronic dietary hexachlorobenzene exposure on the reproductive performance and survivability of mink and European ferrets.
Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 13: 357-365.
Hexachlorbutadiene
E-78
-------
TABLE E-7
MAMMAL TOXICITY REFERENCE VALUES
(Page 11 of 15)
Kociba, R.J., Keyes, D.G., Jersey, G.C., Ballard, J.J., Dittenber, D.A., Quasi, J.F., Wade, C.E., Humiston, C.G., and Schwetz, B.A. 1977. Results of a Two Year Chronic Toxicity
Study With Hexachlorobutadiene in Rats." American Industrial Hygiene Association Journal. Volume 38. Pages 589-602.
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Abdo, K.M, C.A. Montgomery, W.M. Kluwe, D.R. Farnell, and J.D. Prejean. 1984. "Toxicity of Hexachlorocyclopentadiene: Subchronic (13-Week) Administration by Gavage to
F344 Rats and B6C3Fi Mice." Journal of Applied Toxicology. Volume 4. Pages 75-81.
Pentachlorobenzene
Linder, R., T. Scotti, J. Goldstein, and K. McElroy. 1980. "Acute and Subchronic Toxicity of Pentachlorobenzene." Journal of Environmental Pathology and Toxicology. Volume 4.
Pages 183-196.
Pentachlorophenol
Schwetz, B.A., J.F. Quasi, P.A. Keeler, C.G. Humiston, and R.J. Kociba. 1978. "Results of Two-Year Toxicity and Reproduction Studies on Pentachlorophenol in Rats." In:
Pentachlorophenol: Chemistry, Pharmacology, and Environmental Toxicology. Rao, K.R. (ed). Pages 301-309. Plenum Press, New York.
4,4'-DDE
Kornbrust, D., B. Gillis, B. Collins, T. Goehl, B. Gupta, and B. Schwetz. 1986. "Effects of l,l-Dichloro-2,2-bis(p-chlorophenyl)ethylene (DDE) on Lactation in Rats." Journal of
Toxicology and Environmental Health. Volume 17. Pages 23-36.
Heptachlor
Green, V.A. 1970. "Effects of Pesticides on Rat and Chick Embryo." Proceedings of the 3rd Annual Conference on Trace Substances in Environmental Health. University of Missouri
Press. Columbia, Missouri.
Cram, J. A., S. J. Bursian, R. J. Aulerich, P. Polin, and W. E. Braselton. 1993. The reproductive effects of dietary heptachlor in mink (Mustela visori). Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 24:
156-164.
Hexachlorophene
E-79
-------
TABLE E-7
MAMMAL TOXICITY REFERENCE VALUES
(Page 12 of 15)
Meister, R. J. (ed.) 1994. Farm Chemicals Handbook '94. Meister Publishing Company, Willoughby, Ohio. Volume 80. Page C189.
Aluminum
Schroeder, H.A., andM. Mitchener. 1975. "Life-Term Studies in Rats: Effects of Aluminum, Barium, Beryllium, and Tungsten." Journal of Nutrition. Volume 105. Pages 421-427.
Ondreicka, R., E. Ginter, and J. Kortus. 1966. Chronic toxicity of aluminum in rats and mice and its effects on phosphorus metabolism. Brit J. Indust Med. 23: 305-313.
Antimony
Schroeder, H. A., M. Mitchner, and A.P. Nasor. 1970. "Zirconium, Niobium, Antimony, Vanadium and Lead in Rats: Life Term Studies." Journal of Nutrition. Volume 100. Pages
59-68.
Arsenic (trivalent)
Byron, W.R., G.W. Bierbower, J.B. Brouwer, and W.H. Hansen. 1967. "Pathological Changes in Rats and Dogs from Two-Year Feeding of Sodium Arsenite or Sodium Arsenate."
Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology. Volume 10. Pages 132-147.
Baxley, M. N., R. D. Hood, G. C. Vedel, W. P. Harrison, and G. M. Szczech. 1981. Prenatal toxicity of orally administered sodium arsenite in rmce.Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 26: 749-756.
Blakely, B. R., C. S. Sisodia, and T. K. Mukkur. 1980. The effect of methyl mercury, tetrethyl lead, and sodium arsenite on the humoral immune response in mice. Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol. 52:
245-254.
Harrison, J. W.,E. W. Packman, andD.D. Abbott. 1958. Acute oral toxicity and chemical and physical properties of arsenic trioxides. Arch. Ind. Health. 17: 118-123.
Neiger, R. D. andG. D. Osweiler. 1989. Effect of subacute low level dietary sodium arsenite on dogs.Fund. Appl. Toxicol. 13: 439-451.
Robertson, I.D., W. E. Harms, and P. J. Ketterer. 1984. Accidental arsenical toxicity to cattle.Aust. Vet. J. 61: 366-367.
Schroeder, H. A. and J. J. Balassa. 1967. Arsenic, germanium, tin, and vanadium in mice: effects on growth, survival and tissue levels. J. Nutr. 92: 245-252.
Schroeder, H. A., M. Kanisawa, D. V. Frost, and M. Mitchener. 1968a. Germanium, tin, and arsenic in rats: effects on growth, survival and tissue levels. J. Nutr. 96: 37-45.
E-80
-------
TABLE E-7
MAMMAL TOXICITY REFERENCE VALUES
(Page 13 of 15)
Barium
Perry, H.M.Jr., S.J. Kopp, M.W. Erlanger, and E.F. Perry. 1983. "Cardiovascular Effects of Chronic Barium Ingestion." Proceedings of the 17th Annual Conference on Trace
Substances in Environmental Health. University of Missouri Press. Columbia, Missouri.
Borzelleca, J. F., L. W. Condie, Jr., and J. L. Egle, Jr. 1988. Short-term toxicity (one-arid ten-day gavage) of barium chloride in male and female rats. J. American College of Toxicology. 7: 675-685.
Beryllium
Schroeder, H.A., and M Mitchener. 1975. "Life-Term Studies in Rats: Effects of Aluminum, Barium, Beryllium, and Tungsten." Journal of Nutrition. Volume 105. Pages 421-427.
Cadmium
Schroeder, H.A., and M. Mitchner. 1971. "Toxic Effects of Trace Elements on Reproduction of Mice and Rats." Archives of Environmental Health. Volume23. Pages 102-106.
Baranski, B., I. Stetkiewisc, K. Sitarek, and W. Szymczak. 1983. "Effects of Oral, Subchronic Cadmium Administration on Fertility, Prenatal and Postnatal Progeny Development in Rats."
Archives of Toxicology. Volume 54. Pages 297 through 302.
Machemer, L., and D. Lorke. 1981. "Embryotoxic Effect of Cadmium on Rats Upon Oral Administration." Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology. Volume 58. Pages 438^43.
Sutou, S., K. Yamamoto, H. Sendota, K. Tomomatsu, Y. Shimizu, and M. Sugiyama. 1980a. "Toxicity, Fertility, Teratogenicity, and Dominant Lethal Tests in Rats Administered Cadmium
Subchronically. I. Toxicity studies." Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety. Volume 4. Pages 39-50.
Sutou, S., K. Yamamoto, H. Sendota, and M. Sugiyama. 1980b. "Toxicity, Fertility, Teratogenicity, and Dominant Lethal Tests in Rats Administered Cadmium Subchronically. n. Fertility,
Teratogenicity, and Dominant Lethal Tests." Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety. Volume 4. Page 51-56.
Webster, W. S. 1978. Cadmium-induced fetal growth retardation in the mouse. Arch. Environ. Health. 33:36^3.
Wills, J. H., G. E. Groblewski, andF. Coulston. 1981. Chronic and multigeneration toxicities of small concentrations of cadmium in the diet rats. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Safety 5: 452-464.
Chromium
E-81
-------
TABLE E-7
MAMMAL TOXICITY REFERENCE VALUES
(Page 14 of 15)
MacKenzie, R.D., R.U. Byerrum, C.F. Decker, C.A. Hoppert, and R.F. Langham. 1958. "Chronic Toxicity Studies: II. Hexavalent and Trivalent Chromium Administered in Drinking
Water to Rats." American Medical Association Archives of Industrial Health. Volume 18. Pages 232-234.
Copper
Aulerich, R. J., R.K. Ringer, M.R. Bleavins, and A. Napolitano. 1982. "Effects of Supplemental Dietary Copper on Growth, Reproductive Performance and Kit Survival of Standard
Dark Mink and the Acute Toxicity of Copper to Mink." Journal of Animal Science. Volume 55. Pages 337-343.
Cyanide
Howard, J.W., and R.F. Hanzal. 1955. "Chronic Toxicity for Rats of Food Treated with Hydrogen Cyanide." JournalofAgricultural and Food Chemistry. Volume 3. Pages 325-329.
Tewe, O. O. and J. H. Maner. 1981. Long-term and carry-over effect of dietary inorganic cyanide (KCN) in the life cycle performance and metabolism of rats. Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol. 58: 1-7.
Lead
Schroeder, H.A., M. Mitchner, and A.P. Nasor. 1970. "Zirconium, Niobium, Antimony, Vanadium and Lead in Rats: Life Term Studies." Journal of Nutrition. Volume 100. Pages 59-68.
Schroeder, H.A., and M. Mitchner. 1971. "Toxic Effects of Trace Elements on Reproduction of Mice and Rats." Archives of Environmental Health. Volume23. Pages 102-106.
Mercuric chloride
Aulerich, R.J., R.K Ringer, and S. Iwamoto. 1974. "Effects of Dietary Mercury on Mink." Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. Volume 2. Pages 43-51. As cited
in Sample, Opresko, and Suter (1996).
Sample, B.E., D.M. Opresko, G.W. Suter II. 1996. Toxicological Benchmarks for Wildlife: 1996 Revision. Risk Assessment Program Health Sciences Research Division, Oak Ridge, Tennessee.
Prepared for U.S. Department of Energy.
Methyl mercury
Verschuuren, H.G., R. Kroes, E.M den Tonkelaar, J.M. Berkvens, P.W. Helleman, A.G. Rauws, P.L. Schuller, and G.J. van Esch. 1976. "Toxicity of Methyl Mercury Chloride in
Rats. II. Reproduction Study." Toxicology. Volume 6. Pages 97-106.
E-82
-------
TABLE E-7
MAMMAL TOXICITY REFERENCE VALUES
(Page 15 of 15)
Blakely, B. R., C. S. Sisodia, and T. K. Mukkur. 1980. The effect of methyl mercury, tetrethyl lead, and sodium arsenite on the humoral immune response in mice. Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol. 52:
245-254.
Nobunga, T., H. Satoh, and T. Suzuki. 1979. Effects of sodium selenite on methyl mercury embryotoxicity and teratogenicity in mice. Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol. 47:79-88.
Nickel
Ambrose, A.M., P.S. Larson, J.F. Borzelleca, and G.R. Hennigar, Jr. 1976. "Long Term Toxicologic Assessment of Nickel in Rats and Dogs." Journal of Food Science and
Technology. Volume 13. Pages 181-187.
Selenium
Schroeder, H.A., and M. Mitchner. 1971. "Toxic Effects of Trace Elements on Reproduction of Mice and Rats." Archives of Environmental Health. Volume 23. Pages 102-106.
Chiachun, T., C. Hong, andR. Haifun. 1991. The effects of selenium on gestation, fertility, and offspring in mice. Biol. Trace Elements Res. 30: 227-231.
Rosenfeld, I. and O. A. Beath. 1954. Effect of selenium on reproduction in rats. Proc. Soc. Exp. Biol. Med. 87: 295-297.
Silver
Rungby, J., and G. Danscher. 1984. "Hypoactivity in Silver Exposed Mice." Acta. Pharmacol et Toxicol. Volume 55. Pages 398-401. As cited in ATSDR Toxicological Profile for
Silver. December 1990.
Thallium
Formigli, L., R. Scelsi, P. Poggi, C. Gregotti, A. Di Nucci, E. Sabbioni, L. Gottardi, and L. Manzo. 1986. "Thallium-Induced Testicular Toxicity in the Rat." Environmental Research.
Volume 40. Pages 531-539.
Zinc
E-83
-------
TABLE E-8
BIRD TOXICITY REFERENCE VALUES
(Page 1 of 13)
Maita, K., M. Hirano, K. Mitsumori, K. Takahashi, and Y. Shirasu. 1981. "Subacute Toxicity Studies with Zinc Sulfate in Mice and Rats." Journal of Pesticide Science. Volume 6.
Pages 327- 336.
Gasaway, W. C. and I. O. Buss. 1972. Zinc toxicity in the mallard. J. WML Manage. 36: 1107-1117.
Compound
Basis for TRV
Duration and
Endpoint a
Test
Organism
Dose"
Uncertainty
Factor c
TRV
Reference and Notes d
Polychlorinateddibenzo(p)dioxins (//g/kg BW-day)
2,3,7,8-TCDD
Subchronic (10 weeks)
NOAEL
Ring-necked
pheasant hen
0.01
Not applicable
0.01
Nosek et al. (1992). TRV based on toxicity of
2,3,7,8-TCDD.
Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) (//g/kg BW-day)
Total high molecular weight (HMW)
PAH
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Chrysene
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
Acute
NOAEL
Acute LD50
--
Acute LD50
Acute
LOAEL
Acute LD50
Chicken
embryo
Chicken
embryo
--
Chicken
embryo
Chicken
embryo
Chicken
embryo
100
79
--
14
100
39
0.01
0.01
--
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.14
1.0
0.79
0.14
0.14
1.0
0.39
TRV based on toxicity of benzo(k)fluoranthene. If TRVs
are not available for all individual HMW PAHs, this
TRV should be used to assess potential risk of Total
HMW PAH.
Brunstrom et al. (1991).
Brunstrom et al. (1991).
No toxicity data available for benzo(b) fluoranthene.
Benzo(k)fluoranthene used as surrogate.
Brunstrom et al. (1991).
Brunstrom et al. (1991).
Brunstrom et al. (1991).
E-84
-------
TABLE E-8
BIRD TOXICITY REFERENCE VALUES
(Page 2 of 13)
Compound
Indeno( 1 ,2,3-cd)pyrene
Basis for TRV
Duration and
Endpoint a
Acute
LOAEL
Test
Organism
Chicken
embryo
Dose"
100
Uncertainty
Factor c
0.01
TRV
1.0
Reference and Notes d
Brunstrom et al. (1991).
Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB) C"g/kg BW-day)
Aroclor 1016
Aroclor 1254
--
Chronic (3 months)
LOAEL (embryonic
mortality)
--
Ring dove
--
720
--
0.1
--
72
No toxicity data available. Aroclor 1254 TRV used as
surrogate.
Peakall et al. (1972). TRV based on toxicity of Aroclor
1254.
Nitroaromatics (//g/kg BW-day)
1 ,3-Dinitrobenzene
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
2,6-Dinitrotoluene
Nitrobenzene
Pentachloronitrobenzene
Acute LD50
-
-
-
Chronic (35 weeks)
NOAEL
Redwing
blackbird
-
-
-
Chicken
42.2
-
-
-
68,750
0.01
-
-
-
Not applicable
0.422
-
-
-
68,750
Schafer(1972)
Toxicity value not available.
Toxicity value not available.
Toxicity value not available.
Dunnetal. (1979)
Phthalate esters Og/kg BW-day)
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Di(n)octyl phthalate
Subchronic (4 weeks)
NOAEL
-
Ring dove
-
1,110
-
0.1
-
111
-
Peakall (1974)
Toxicity value not available.
Volatile organic compounds (//g/kg BW-day)
E-85
-------
TABLE E-8
BIRD TOXICITY REFERENCE VALUES
(Page 3 of 13)
Compound
Acetone
Acrylonitrile
Chloroform
Crotonaldehyde
1 ,4-Dioxane
Formaldehyde
Vinyl chloride
Basis for TRV
Duration and
Endpoint a
Acute (5 days)
NOAEL
-
-
-
-
-
-
Test
Organism
Coturnix quail
-
-
-
-
-
-
Dose"
5,200,000
-
-
-
-
-
-
Uncertainty
Factor c
0.01h
-
-
-
-
-
-
TRV
52,000
-
-
-
-
-
-
Reference and Notes d
Hill and Camardese (1986)
Toxicity value not available.
Toxicity value not available.
Toxicity value not available.
Toxicity value not available.
Toxicity value not available.
Toxicity value not available.
Other chlorinated organics (//g/kg BW-day)
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Pentachlorobenzene
Pentachlorophenol
Acute (5 days)
NOAEL
Chronic (3 months)
NOAEL
-
-
Acute (5 days)
NOAEL
Coturnix quail
Japanese quail
-
-
Quail
22,500
3185
-
-
403,000
0.01
Not applicable
-
-
0.01
225
3185
-
-
4,030
Hill and Camardese (1986)
Schwertz et al. (1974)
Toxicity value not available.
Toxicity value not available.
Hill and Camardese (1986)
Pesticides (//g/kg BW-day)
4,4-DDE
Acute (5 days) LOAEL
(mortality)
Coturnix quail
84,500
0.01
845
Hill and Camardese (1 986). Test data for 1 ,1 -DDE used
as a surrogate for 4, 4 '-DDE.
E-86
-------
TABLE E-8
BIRD TOXICITY REFERENCE VALUES
(Page 4 of 13)
Compound
Heptachlor
Hexachlorophene
Basis for TRV
Duration and
Endpoint a
Acute (5 days) LOAEL
(mortality)
Acute LD50
Test
Organism
Quail
Bobwhite
quail
Dose"
6,500
575,000
Uncertainty
Factor c
0.01
0.01
TRV
65
5,750
Reference and Notes d
Hill and Camardese (1986)
Meister(1994)
Inorganics (mg/kg BW-day)
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium (hexavalent)
Copper
Chronic (4 -months)
NOAEL (reproduction)
Chronic (7 months)
NOAEL
Subchronic (4 weeks)
NOAEL
-
Chronic (90 days)
NOAEL
Chronic (5 months)
NOAEL
Chronic (10 weeks)
NOAEL (growth)
Ringed Turtle
Dove
Brown-headed
cowbird
One day old
chick
-
Mallard drake
Black duck
1 -day old
chicks
110
2.46
208.26
-
1.45
1.0
46.97
1.0
1.0
0.1
-
Not applicable
Not applicable
1.0
100
2.46
20.8
-
1.45
1.0
46.97
Carriere et al. (1986)
Toxicity value not available. Ridgeway and Karnofsky
(1952) reported LD50 for doses to eggs; however, that
value could not be converted to a dose based on
post-hatching environmental exposure.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (1969)
Johnson et al. (1960)
Toxicity value not available.
White and Finley ( 1978)
Haseltine et al. (1 985). TRV based on trivalent
chromium.
Mehringetal. (1960)
E-87
-------
TABLE E-8
BIRD TOXICITY REFERENCE VALUES
(Page 5 of 13)
Compound
Total Cyanide
Lead
Mercuric chloride
Methyl mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Zinc
Basis for TRV
Duration and
Endpoint a
Acute LD50
Acute (7 days) LOAEL
(altered enzyme levels)
Acute (5 days) LOAEL
(mortality)
Chronic (3
generations) LOAEL
(mortality)
Subchronic (5 days)
NOAEL
Chronic (78 days)
NOAEL
Subchronic (14 days)
NOAEL
Acute LD50
Chronic (44 weeks)
NOAEL
Test
Organism
American
kestrel
Ringed turtle
dove
Coturnix quail
Mallard
Coturnix quail
Mallard
Mallard
Starling
Leghorn hen
and New
Hampshire
rooster
Dose"
4
25
325
0.064
650
0.5
1,780
35
130.9
Uncertainty
Factor c
0.01
0.001
0.01
0.1
0.1
1.0
0.1
0.01
1.0
TRV
0.04
0.025
3.25
0.0064
65
0.5
178
0.35
130.9
Reference and Notes d
Wiemeyer et al. (1986). Sodium cyanide is used as a
surrogate for total cyanides.
Kendall and Scanlon (1982)
Hill and Camardese (1986)
Heinz (1979)
Hill and Camardese (1986)
Heinz et al. (1987)
U.S. EPA (1997)
Schafer(1972)
Stahletal. (1990)
E-8
-------
Notes:
TABLE E-8
BIRD TOXICITY REFERENCE VALUES
(Page 6 of 13)
The duration of exposure is defined as chronic if it represents about 10 percent or more of the test animal's lifetime expectancy. Acute exposures represent single exposure or multiple
exposures occurring within about two weeks or less. Subchronic exposures are defined as multiple exposures occurring for less than 10 percent of the test animal's lifetime expectancy
but more that 2 weeks.
Reported value which were dose in diet or water were converted to dose based on body weight and intake rate using Opresko, Sample, and Suter (1996).
Uncertainty factors are used to extrapolate a reported toxicity value to a chronic NOAEL TRV. See Chapter 5 (Section 5.4) of the SLERAP for a discussion on the use of uncertainty
factors. The TRV was calculated by multiplying the toxicity value by the uncertainty factor. A "not applicable" uncertainty factor is equivalent to a value equal to 1.0.
The references refer to the study from which the endpoint and doses were identified. Complete reference citations are provided below.
Best scientific judgement used to identify uncertainty factor. See Chapter 5 (Section 5.4.1.2) for a discussion on the use of best scientific judgement. Factors evaluated
include test duration, ecological relevance of endpoint, experimental design, and availability of toxicity data.
HMW = High molecular weight
LOAEL = Lowest Observed Adverse Effect Level
LD50 = Concentration lethal to 50 percent of the test organisms.
NOAEL = No Observed Adverse Effect Level
TRV = Toxicity Reference Value
E-89
-------
TABLE E-8
BIRD TOXICITY REFERENCE VALUES
(Page 7 of 13)
REFERENCES
Sample, Opresko, and Suter n (1996) provides a comprehensive review of bird toxicity information. This source was reviewed to identify studies to develop TRVs for birds. Based on the
information presented, one or more references were obtained and reviewed to identify compound-specific toxicity values. For some compounds, the available information identified a single
study meeting the requirements for a TRV, as discussed in Chapter 5 (Section 5.4) of the SLERAP. hi most cases, each reference was obtained and reviewed to identify a single toxicity value to
develop a TRV for each compound. As noted below, additional compendia were reviewed to identify toxicity studies to review, hi a few cases where a primary study could not be obtained, a
toxicity value is based on a secondary source. For compounds not discussed in Sample, Opresko, and Suter n (1996), the scientific literature was searched, and relevant studies were obtained
and reviewed. The references reviewed are listed below. The study selected for the TRV is highlighted in bold.
Poly chlorinated dibenzo(p)dioxins
Nosek, J.A., S.R. Craven, J.R. Sullivan, S.S. Hurley, and R.E. Peterson. 1992. "Toxicity and Reproductive Effects of 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin in Ring-Necked Pheasant
Hens." Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health. Volume 35. Pages 187-198.
U.S. EPA. 1993. Interim Report on Data andMethods for Assessment of 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzop-dioxin Risks to Aquatic Life and Associated Wildlife. EPA/600/R-93/055. Office of
Research and Development. Washington, D.C. March. This report identified the two studies listed below.
Greig, J.B., G. Jones, W.H. Butler, and J.M. Barnes. 1973. "Toxic Effects of 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins. Food and Cosmetics Toxicology. Volumell. Pages 585-595.
Hudson, R., R.Tucker, and M. Haegele. 1984. Handbookof Toxicity of Pesticides to Wildlife. Second Ed. U.S. Fish and Wildlife, Resources Publication No. 153. Washington, D.C.
Benzo(a)pyrene
Brunstrom, B., D. Broman, and C. Naf. 1991. "Toxicity and EROD-Inducing Potency of 24 Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) in Chick Embryos." Archives of Toxicology.
Volume 65. Pages 485-489.
Benzo(a)anthracene
Brunstrom, B., D. Broman, and C. Naf. 1991. "Toxicity and EROD-Inducing Potency of 24 Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) in Chick Embryos." Archives of Toxicology.
Volume 65. Pages 485-489.
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
E-90
-------
TABLE E-8
BIRD TOXICITY REFERENCE VALUES
(Page 8 of 13)
Brunstrom, B., D. Broman, and C. Naf. 1991. "Toxicity and EROD-Inducing Potency of 24 Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) in Chick Embryos." Archives of Toxicology.
Volume 65. Pages 485-489.
Chyrsene
Brunstrom, B., D. Broman, and C. Naf. 1991. "Toxicity and EROD-Inducing Potency of 24 Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) in Chick Embryos." Archives of Toxicology.
Volume 65. Pages 485-489.
Dibenz(a, h)anthracene
Brunstrom, B., D. Broman, and C. Naf. 1991. "Toxicity and EROD-Inducing Potency of 24 Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) in Chick Embryos." Archives of Toxicology.
Volume 65. Pages 485-489.
Indeno (1,2,3-cd)pyrene
Brunstrom, B., D. Broman, and C. Naf. 1991. "Toxicity and EROD-Inducing Potency of 24 Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) in Chick Embryos." Archives of Toxicology.
Volume 65. Pages 485-489.
Poly chlorinated Biphenyls
Peakall, D.B., J.L. Lincer, S.E. Bloom. 1972. "Embryonic Mortality and Chromosomal Alterations Caused by Aroclor 1254 in Ring Doves." Environmental Health Perspectives.
Volume 1. Pages 103-104.
Dahlgren, R.B., R.L. Linder, andC.W. Carlson. 1972. "Poly chlorinated Biphenyls: Their Effects on Penned Pheasants." Environmental Health Perspectives. Volume 1. Pages 89-101.
McLane, M.A.R., andD.L. Hughes. 1980. "Reproductive Success of Screech Owls Fed Aroclor 1248." Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicolog. Volume 9. Pages 661-665.
1,3-Dinitrobenzene
Schafer, E.W. 1972. "The Acute Oral Toxicity of 369 Pesticidal, Pharmaceutical and Other Chemicals to Wild Birds." Toxicolagical and Applied Pharmacology. Volume 21. Pages
315-330.
E-91
-------
TABLE E-8
BIRD TOXICITY REFERENCE VALUES
(Page 9 of 13)
Pentachloronitrobenzene
Dunn, J. S., P. B. Bush, N. H. Booth, R.L. Farrell, D. M, Thomason, and D. D. Goetsch. 1979. Effect of Pentachloronitrobenzene upon Egg Production, Hatchability, and Residue
Accumulation in the Tissues of White Leghorn Hens. Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology. Volume 48. Pages 425-433.
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Peakall, D.B. 1974. "Effects of Di-n-butyl and Di-2-ethylhexyl Phthalate on the Eggs of Ring Doves. Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology." Volume 12. Pages
698-702.
Acetone
Hill, E.F., and M.B. Camardese. 1986. "Lethal Dietary Toxicities of Environmental Contaminants and Pesticides to Coturnix." Fish and Wildlife Service. Technical Report 2.
1,4-Dioxane
Giavini, E., C. Vismara, and L. Broccia. 1985. "Teratogenesis Study of Dioxane in Rats." Toxicology Letters. Volume 26. Pages 85-88. This study did not evaluate an ecologically relevant
endpoint. Therefore, the data were not used to develop a TRV.
Hexachlorobenzene
Hill, E.F., and M.B. Camardese. 1986. "Lethal Dietary Toxicities of Environmental Contaminants and Pesticides to Coturnix." Fish and Wildlife Service. Technical Report 2.
Hexachlorobutadiene
Schwetz, B.A., J.M. Norris, R.J. Kociba, P.A. Keeler, R.F. Cornier, and P.J. Gehring. 1974. "Reproduction Study in Japanese Quail Fed Hexachlorobutadiene for 90 Days."
Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology. Volume 30. Pages 255-265.
Pentachlorophenol
Hill, E.F., and M.B. Camardese. 1986. "Lethal Dietary Toxicities of Environmental Contaminants and Pesticides to Coturnix." Fish and Wildlife Service. Technical Report 2.
E-92
-------
TABLE E-8
BIRD TOXICITY REFERENCE VALUES
(Page 10 of 13)
4,4-DDE
Hill, E.F., and M.B. Camardese. 1986. "Lethal Dietary Toxicities of Environmental Contaminants and Pesticides to Coturnix." Fish and Wildlife Service. Technical Report 2.
Mendenhall, V.M., E.E. Klaas, andM.A.R. McLane. 1983. "Breeding Success of Barn Owls (Tyto alba) Fed Low Levels of DDE andDieldrin."/lrcfcVe.s of Environmental Contamination and
Toxicology. Volumell. Pages 235-240.
Shellenberger, T.E. 1978. "A Multi-Generation Toxicity Evaluation of P-P'-DDT and Dieldrin with Japanese Quail. I. Effects on Growth and Reproduction." Drug Chemistry and Toxicology.
Volume 1. Pages 137-146
Heptachlor
Hill, E.F., and M.B. Camardese. 1986. "Lethal Dietary Toxicities of Environmental Contaminants and Pesticides to Coturnix." Fish and Wildlife Service. Technical Report 2.
Hexachlorophene
Meister, R. J. (ed.) 1994. Farm Chemicals Handbook '94. Meister Publishing Company, Willoughby, Ohio. Volume 80. Page C189.
Aluminum
Carriere, D., K.L. Fischer, D.B. Peakall, and P. Anghern. 1986. "Effects of Dietary Aluminum Sulphate on Reproductive Success and Growth of Ringed Turtle Doves (Streptopelia
risoria)." Canadian Journal of Zoology. Volume 64. Pages 1500-1505.
Carriere, D., K. Fischer, D. Peakall, and P. Angehrn. 1986. "Effects of Dietary Aluminum in Combination with Reduced Calcium and Phosphorus on the Ring Dove (^treptopelia risoria)"
Water, Air, and Soil Pollution. Volume 30. Pages 757-764.
Antimony
Ridgeway, L.P. and D.A. Karnofsky. 1952. "The Effects of Metals on the Chick Embryo: Toxicity and Production of Abnormalities in Development." Annals of New York Academy of Sciences.
Volume 55. Pages 203-215.
E-93
-------
TABLE E-8
BIRD TOXICITY REFERENCE VALUES
(Page 11 of 13)
Arsenic
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1969. "Publication 74." Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife. As cited in Sample, Opresko, and Suter II (1996).
Barium
Johnson, D., Jr., A.L. Mehring, Jr., and H.W. Titus. 1960. "Tolerance of Chickens for Barium." Proceedings ofthe Society for Experimental Biology and Medicine. Volume 104.
Pages 436-438.
Cadmium
White, D.H., and M.T. Finley. 1978. "Uptake and Retention of Dietary Cadmium in Mallard Ducks." Environmental Research. Volume 17. Pages 53-59.
Chromium
Haseltine, S.D., and others. 1985. "Effects of Chromium on Reproduction and Growth of Black Ducks." As cited in U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1986. Chromium Hazards to Fish,
Wildlife, and Invertebrates: A Synoptic Review. January. Page 38.
Copper
Mehring, A.L. Jr., J.H. Brumbaugh, A. J. Sutherland, and H.W. Titus. 1960. "The Tolerance of Growing Chickens for Dietary Copper." Poultry Science. Volume 39. Pages 713-719.
Cyanide
Wiemeyer, S.N., E.F. Hill, J.W. Carpenter, and A. J. Krynitsky. 1986. "Acute Oral Toxicity of Sodium Cyanide in Birds." Journal of Wildlife Diseases. Volume 22. Pages 538-46.
Lead
Kendall, R.J., andP.F. Scanlon. 1982. "The Toxicology of Ingested Lead Acetate in Ringed Turtle Doves Stretopelia risoria." Environmental Pollution. Volume 27. Pages 255-262.
E-94
-------
TABLE E-8
BIRD TOXICITY REFERENCE VALUES
(Page 12 of 13)
Edens, F., W.E. Benton, S J. Bursian, and G.W. Morgan. 1976. "Effect of Dietary Lead on Reproductive Performance in Japanese Quail, Coturnix cotumixjaponica." Toxicology and Applied
Pharmacology. Volume 38. Pages 307-314.
Pattee, O.H. 1984. "Eggshell Thickness and Reproduction in American Kestrels Exposed to Chronic Dietary Lead." Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. Volume 13.
Pages 29-34.
Mercuric chloride
Hill, E.F., and M.B. Camardese. 1986. "Lethal Dietary Toxicities of Environmental Contaminants and Pesticides to Coturnix." Fish and Wildlife Service. Technical Report 2.
Hill, E. F. and C. S. Schaffner. 1976. "Sexual Maturation and Productivity of Japanese Quail Fed Graded Concentrations of Mercuric Chloride." Poultry Science. Volume 55. Pages
1449-1459.
Methyl mercury
Heinz, G.H. 1979. "Methylmercury: Reproductive and Behavioral Effects on Three Generations of Mallard Ducks." Journal of Wildlife Management. Volume 43. Pages 394-401.
Spann, J.W., G.H. Heinz, M.B. Camardese, E.F. Hill, J.F. Moore, and H.C. Murray. 1986. "Differences in Mortality Among Bobwhite Fed Methylmercury Chloride Dissolved in Various
Carriers." Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry. Volume 5. Pages 721-724.
Nickel
Hill, E.F., and M.B. Camardese. 1986. "Lethal Dietary Toxicities of Environmental Contaminants and Pesticides to Coturnix." Fish and Wildlife Service. Technical Report 2.
Cain, B.W., andE.A. Pafford. 1981. "Effects of Dietary Nickel on Survival and Growth of Mallard Ducklings." Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. Volume 10. Pages
737-745.
Selenium
Heinz, G., and others. 1987. "Research at Patuxent Wildlife Research Center." As cited in Sample, Opresko, and Suter II (1996).
Heinz, G.H., D.J. Hoffman, A.J. Krynitsky, and D.M.G. Weller. 1987. "Reproduction in Mallards Fed Selenium." Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry. Volume 6. Page 423-433.
E-95
-------
TABLE E-8
BIRD TOXICITY REFERENCE VALUES
(Page 13 of 13)
Heinz, G.H., D.J. Hoffman, and L.G. Gold. 1989. "Impaired Reproduction of Mallards Fed an Organic Form of Selenium." Journal of Wildlife Management. Volume53. Pages 418-428.
Sample, B.E., D.M. Opresko, G.W. Suterll. 1996. Toxicological Benchmarks for Wildlife: 1996 Revision. Risk Assessment Program Health Sciences Research Division, Oak
Ridge, Tennessee. Prepared for U.S. Department of Energy.
Silver
U.S. EPA. 1997. Aquatic Toxicity Information Retrieval Database (AQUIRE). Office of Research and Development, National Health and Environmental Effects
Research Laboratory, Mid-Continent Ecology Division. January.
Thallium
Schafer, E.W. 1972. "The Acute Oral Toxicity of 369 Pesticidal, Pharmaceutical and Other Chemicals to Wild Birds." Toxicological and Applied Pharmacology. Volume 21. Pages
315-330.
Zinc
Stahl, J.L., J.L. Greger, and M.E. Cook. 1990. "Breeding-Hen and Progeny Performance When Hens Are Fed Excessive Dietary Zinc." Poultry Science. Volume 69. Pages 259-263.
E-96
-------
APPENDIX F
EQUATIONS FOR COMPUTING COPC CONCENTRATIONS
AND COPC DOSE INGESTED TERMS
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
August 1999
-------
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Appendix F: Equations for COPC Concentration and Dose Ingested August 1999
APPENDIX F
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table Page
EQUATIONS FOR COMPUTING COPC CONCENTRATIONS
F-1 -1 COPC CONCENTRATIONS IN TERRESTRIAL PLANTS FOR TERRESTRIAL
FOOD WEBS F-l
F-l-2 COPC CONCENTRATIONS IN HERBIVOROUS MAMMALS IN FOREST,
SHORTGRASS PRAIRIE, TALLGRASS PRAIRIE, AND SHRUB/SCRUB FOOD
WEBS F-3
F-l-3 COPC CONCENTRATIONS IN INVERTEBRATES IN FOREST, SHORTGRASS
PRAIRIE, TALLGRASS PRAIRIE, AND SHRUB/SCRUB FOOD WEBS F-7
F-l-4 COPC CONCENTRATIONS IN HERBIVOROUS BIRDS IN FOREST,
SHORTGRASS PRAIRIE, TALLGRASS PRAIRIE, AND SHRUB/SCRUB FOOD
WEBS F-9
F-l-5 COPC CONCENTRATIONS IN OMNIVOROUS MAMMALS IN FOREST,
TALLGRASS PRAIRIE, SHORTGRASS PRAIRIE, AND SHRUB/SCRUB FOOD
WEBS F-13
F-l-6 COPC CONCENTRATIONS IN OMNIVOROUS BIRDS IN FOREST, TALLGRASS
PRAIRIE, SHORTGRASS PRAIRIE, AND SHRUB/SCRUB FOOD WEBS .... F-22
F-1 -7 COPC CONCENTRATIONS IN AQUATIC VEGETATION IN THE
FRESHWATER/WETLAND, BRACKISH/INTERMEDIATE MARSH, AND
SALTMARSH FOOD WEBS F-29
F-1 -8 COPC CONCENTRATIONS IN ALGAE IN THE
FRESHWATER/WETLAND BRACKISH/INTERMEDIATE MARSH,
AND SALTMARSH FOOD WEBS F-31
F-1 -9 COPC CONCENTRATIONS IN HERBIVOROUS MAMMALS IN
FRESHWATER/WETLAND, BRACKISH/INTERMEDIATE MARSH, AND
SALTMARSH FOOD WEBS F-33
F-l-10 COPC CONCENTRATIONS IN HERBIVOROUS BIRDS IN
FRESHWATER/WETLAND, BRACKISH/INTERMEDIATE MARSH, AND
SALTMARSH FOOD WEBS F-38
F-1 -11 COPC CONCENTRATIONS IN BENTHIC INVERTEBRATES IN
FRESHWATER/WETLAND, BRACKISH/INTERMEDIATE MARSH, AND
SALTMARSH FOOD WEBS F-43
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering F-i
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Appendix F: Equations for COPC Concentration and Dose Ingested August 1999
APPENDIX F
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table Page
F-l-12 COPC CONCENTRATIONS IN WATER INVERTEBRATES IN
FRESHWATER/WETLAND, BRACKISH/INTERMEDIATE MARSH, AND
SALTMARSH FOOD WEBS F-45
F-l-13 COPC CONCENTRATIONS IN HERBIVOROUS AND PLANKTIVOROUS FISH IN
FRESHWATER/WETLAND, BRACKISH/INTERMEDIATE MARSH, AND
SALTMARSH FOOD WEBS F-47
F-l-14 COPC CONCENTRATIONS IN OMNIVOROUS MAMMALS IN
FRESHWATER/WETLAND, BRACKISH/INTERMEDIATE MARSH, AND
SALTMARSH FOOD WEBS F-50
F-l-15 COPC CONCENTRATIONS IN OMNIVOROUS BIRDS IN
FRESHWATER/WETLAND, BRACKISH/INTERMEDIATE MARSH, AND
SALTMARSH FOOD WEBS F-60
F-1 -16 COPC CONCENTRATIONS IN OMNIVOROUS FISH IN
FRESHWATER/WETLAND, BRACKISH/INTERMEDIATE MARSH, AND
SALTMARSH FOOD WEBS F-69
F-1 -17 COPC CONCENTRATIONS IN CARNIVOROUS FISH IN
FRESHWATER/WETLAND, BRACKISH/INTERMEDIATE MARSH, AND
SALTMARSH FOOD WEBS F-72
EQUATIONS FOR COMPUTING COPC DOSE INGESTED TERMS
F-2-1 COPC DOSE INGESTED TERMS IN HERBIVOROUS MAMMALS IN FOREST,
SHORTGRASS PRAIRIE, TALLGRASS PRAIRIE, AND SHRUB/SCRUB FOOD
WEBS F-75
F-2-2 COPC DOSE INGESTED TERMS IN HERBIVOROUS BIRDS IN FOREST,
SHRUB/SCRUB, SHORTGRASS PRAIRIE, AND TALLGRASS PRAIRIE FOOD
WEBS F-79
F-2-3 COPC DOSE INGESTED TERMS IN OMNIVOROUS MAMMALS IN FOREST,
SHRUB/SCRUB, SHORTGRASS PRAIRIE, AND TALLGRASS PRAIRIE FOOD
WEBS F-84
F-2-4 COPC DOSE INGESTED TERMS IN OMNIVOROUS BIRDS IN FOREST,
SHRUB/SCRUB, TALLGRASS PRAIRIE, AND SHORTGRASS PRAIRIE FOOD
WEBS F-92
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering F-ii
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Appendix F: Equations for COPC Concentration and Dose Ingested August 1999
APPENDIX F
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table Page
F-2-5 COPC DOSE INGESTED TERMS IN CARNIVOROUS MAMMALS IN FOREST,
SHORTGRASS PRAIRIE, TALLGRASS PRAIRIE, AND SHRUB/SCRUB FOOD
WEBS F-98
F-2-6 COPC DOSE INGESTED TERMS IN CARNIVOROUS BIRDS IN FOREST,
SHORTGRASS PRAIRIE, TALLGRASS PRAIRIE, AND SHRUB/SCRUB FOOD
WEBS F-106
F-2-7 COPC DOSE INGESTED TERMS IN HERBIVOROUS MAMMALS IN
FRESHWATER/WETLAND, BRACKISH/INTERMEDIATE MARSH, AND
SALTMARSH FOOD WEBS F-l 14
F-2-8 COPC DOSE INGESTED TERMS IN HERBIVOROUS BIRDS IN
FRESHWATER/WETLAND, BRACKISH/INTERMEDIATE MARSH, AND
SALTMARSH FOOD WEBS F-120
F-2-9 COPC DOSE INGESTED TERMS IN OMNIVOROUS MAMMALS IN
FRESHWATER/WETLAND MARSH, BRACKISH/INTERMEDIATE MARSH, AND
SALTMARSH FOOD WEBS F-126
F-2-10 COPC DOSE INGESTED TERMS IN OMNIVOROUS BIRDS IN
BRACKISH/INTERMEDIATE MARSH, SALTMARSH, AND
FRESHWATER/WETLAND FOOD WEBS F-136
F-2-11 EQUATIONS FOR COMPUTING COPC DOSE INGESTED TERMS IN
CARNIVOROUS MAMMALS IN BRACKISH/INTERMEDIATE MARSH,
SALTMARSH, AND FRESHWATER/WETLAND FOOD WEBS F-143
F-2-12 COPC DOSE INGESTED TERMS IN CARNIVOROUS BIRDS IN
BRACKISH/INTERMEDIATE MARSH, SALTMARSH, AND
FRESHWATER/WETLAND FOOD WEBS F-153
F-2-13 COPC DOSE INGESTED TERMS IN CARNIVOROUS SHORE BIRDS IN
BRACKISH/INTERMEDIATE MARSH, SALTMARSH, AND
FRESHWATER/WETLAND FOOD WEBS F-164
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering F-iii
-------
-------
TABLE F-l-1
COPC CONCENTRATIONS IN TERRESTRIAL PLANTS
FOR TERRESTRIAL FOOD WEBS
(Page 1 of 2)
Description
This equation calculates the COPC concentration in plants due to: (1) Pd - wet and dry deposition of COPCs onto plant surfaces, (2) Pv - uptake of vapor phase COPCs onto plant surfaces, (3)
Pr uptake of COPCs from soil through plant roots. Uncertainties associated with the use of this equation include the following:
Uncertainties introduced by this variable include the following:
(1) Some of the variables in the equations in Tables B-3-7, B-3-8, and B-3-9—including Cs, Cyv, Q, Dydp, andDywp—are COPC- and site-specific. Uncertainties associated with these
variables are site-specific.
(2) hi the equation in Table B-3-7, uncertainties associated with other variables include the following: Fv (values for organic compounds estimated on the basis of the behavior of
polystyrene microspheres), Rp (estimated on the basis of a generalized empirical relationship), kp (estimation process does not consider chemical degradation). All of these
uncertainties contribute to the overall uncertainty associated with CTP.
Equation
CTP = ( Pd + Pv + Pr )
Variable
Description
Units
Value
CT
COPC concentration in terrestrial
plants
mg COPC/kg
WW
F-l
-------
TABLE F-l-1
COPC CONCENTRATIONS IN TERRESTRIAL PLANTS
FOR TERRESTRIAL FOOD WEBS
(Page 2 of 2)
Variable
Description
Units
Value
Pd Plant concentration due to direct
deposition
mg COPC/kg
WW
Varies
This variable is calculated with the equation in Table B-3-1. This variable represents the COPC concentration in
plants due to wet and dry deposition of COPCs onto plant surfaces. The limitations and uncertainty introduced in
calculating this variable include the following:
(1) Variables Q, Dydp, andDywp are COPC- and site-specific. Uncertainties associated with these variables are
site-specific.
(2) In calculating the variable Fw, values of r assumed for most organic compounds—based on the behavior of
insoluble polystyrene microspheres tagged with radionuclides— may accurately represent the behavior of
organic compounds under site-specific conditions.
(3) The empirical relationship used to calculate the variable Rp, and the empirical constant for use in the
relationship, may not accurately represent site-specific plant types.
(4) The recommended procedure for calculating the variable kp does not consider chemical degradation
processes. This conservative approach contributes to the possible overestimation of plant concentrations.
Pv Plant concentration due to air-to-
plant transfer
mg COPC/kg
WW
Varies
This variable is calculated with the equation in Table B-3-2.
Uncertainties associated with the use of this equation include the following:
(1) The algorithm used to calculate values for the variable Fv assumes a default value for the parameter ST
(Whitby's average surface area of particulates [aerosols]) of background plus local sources, rather than an ST
value for urban sources. If a specific site is located in an urban area, the use of the latter ST value may be
more appropriate. The ST value for urban sources is about one order of magnitude greater than that for
background plus local sources and would result in a lower Fv value; however, the Fv value is likely to be
only a few percent lower.
Pr Plant concentration due to root
uptake
mg COPC/kg
WW
Varies
This variable is calculated with the equation in Table B-3-3. Cs is the COPC concentration in soil due to deposition.
This variable is calculated using emissions data, ISCST3 air dispersion and deposition model, and soil fate and
transport equations (presented in Appendix B).
Uncertainties associated with the use of this equation include the following:
(1) The availability of site-specific information, such as meteorological data, will affect the accuracy of Cs
estimates.
F-2
-------
TABLE F-l-2
COPC CONCENTRATIONS IN HERBIVOROUS MAMMALS
IN FOREST, SHORTGRASS PRAIRIE, TALLGRASS PRAIRIE,
AND SHRUB/SCRUB FOOD WEBS
(Pagel of 4)
Description
This equation calculates the COPC concentration in herbivorous mammals through the ingestion of plants, soil, and water in the forest, shortgrass prairie, tallgrass prairie, and shrub/scrub
food webs. The limitations and uncertainty introduced in calculating this variable include the following:
(1) Variables: CTP, Cs, and Cmtot are COPC- and site-specific. Uncertainties associated with these variables are site-specific.
(2) Variables: BCFTP_HM, BCFS_HM and BCFW_HM are based on biotransfer factors for beef cattle (Bateej), and receptor specific ingestion rates, and therefore may introduce uncertainty
when used to compute concentrations in site-specific herbivorous mammals.
BCFTp_HM • PTp • FTp
Equation
Cs • BCFS_HM -Ps)
BCFW_HM • Pw
Variable
Description
Units
Value
(-HM
COPC concentration in herbivorous
mammals
mg COPC/kg
FW tissue
CT
COPC concentration in terrestrial
plants
mg COPC/kg
WW
Varies
This variable is site- and COPC-specific; it is calculated using the equation in Table F-l-1.
Uncertainties introduced by this variable include the following:
(1) Some of the variables in the equations in Tables B-3-1, B-3-2, and B-3-3—including Cs, Cyv, Q, Dydp,
and Dywp—are COPC- and site-specific.
(2) hi the equation in Table B-3-1, uncertainties associated with other variables include the following: Fv
(values for organic compounds estimated on the basis of the behavior of polystyrene microspheres), Rp
(estimated on the basis of a generalized empirical relationship), and kp (estimation process does not
consider chemical degradation). All of these uncertainties contribute to the overall uncertainty associated
with CTP.
(3) hi the equation in Table B-3-3, COPC-specific soil-to-plant bioconcentration factors (BCFTP) may not
reflect site-specific conditions.
F-3
-------
TABLE F-l-2
COPC CONCENTRATIONS IN HERBIVOROUS MAMMALS
IN FOREST, SHORTGRASS PRAIRIE, TALLGRASS PRAIRIE,
AND SHRUB/SCRUB FOOD WEBS
(Page 2 of 4)
Variable
Description
Units
Value
BCFTP_HU Bioconcentration factor for
terrestrial plant-to-herbivorous
mammal
unitless [(mg
COPC/kg FW
tissue )/(mg
COPC/kg WW)]
Varies
This variable is COPC-, site-, and receptor-specific, and is calculated using the following equation to compute the
COPC concentration in herbivorous mammals through dietary exposure. BCFTP_HM values are provided in Appendix
D.
PT
Proportion of terrestrial plant in
diet that is contaminated
unitless
Otol
Default: 1.0
This variable is species- and site-specific, and depends on the percentage of the dietary food item that is
contaminated. U.S. EPA OSW recommends that a default value of 1.0 be used for all food types when site specific
information is not available. The following uncertainty is associated with this variable:
(1) The actual amount of contaminated food ingested by a species depends on food availability, diet
composition, and animal behavior. Therefore, the default value of 100 percent may not accurately reflect
site-specific conditions, and may overestimate the proportion of contaminated food ingested.
FTI
Fraction of diet comprised of
terrestrial plants
unitless
Otol
This variable is species- and site-specific, and depends on the percentage of the diet that is comprised of terrestrial
plants. The default value for a screening level ecological risk assessment is 100 percent for computing
concentration based on an exclusive diet. For calculating an equal diet, Fdia is determined based on the number of
dietary components in the total diet. The application of an equal diet is further discussed in Chapter 5.
Uncertainties associated with this variable include:
(1) The actual proportion of the diet that is comprised of a specific dietary item depends on several factors
including: food availability, animal behavior, species composition, and seasonal influences. These
uncertainties may over- or under- estimate Fdia when applied to site-specific receptors.
(2) The default value of 100 percent for an exclusive diet introduces uncertainty and may over-estimate
exposure from ingestion of a single dietary item.
(3) The default value for an equal diet introduces uncertainty and may over- or under- estimate exposure
when applied to site-specific receptors.
F-4
-------
TABLE F-l-2
COPC CONCENTRATIONS IN HERBIVOROUS MAMMALS
IN FOREST, SHORTGRASS PRAIRIE, TALLGRASS PRAIRIE,
AND SHRUB/SCRUB FOOD WEBS
(Page 3 of 4)
Variable
Description
Units
Value
COPC concentration in soil
mg COPC /kg
DW soil
Varies
This variable is COPC- and site-specific, and should be calculated using the equation in Table B-l-1. This variable
is calculated using emissions data, ISCST3 air dispersion and deposition model, and soil fate and transport
equations (presented in Appendix B). Cs is expressed on a dry weight basis.
Uncertainties associated with this variable include:
(1) For soluble COPCs, leaching might lead to movement to below 1 centimeter in untilled soils, resulting a
greater mixing depth. This uncertainty may overestimate Cs.
(2) Deposition to hard surfaces may result in dust residues that have negligible dilution (as a result of
potential mixing with in situ materials) in comparison to that of other residues. This uncertainty may
underestimate Cs.
(3) Modeled soil concentrations may not accurately represent site-specific conditions. As a result, the actual
COPC concentration in soil may be under- or overestimated to an unknown degree.
BCF,i_HM Bioconcentration factor for soil-to-
herbivorous mammal
unitless [(mg
COPC/kg FW
tissue )/(mg
COPC/kg DW
soil)]
Varies
This variable is COPC-, site-, and receptor-specific, and is calculated using the following equation to compute the
COPC concentration in herbivorous mammals through soil exposure. BCFS_HM values are provided in Appendix D.
Proportion of ingested soil that is
contaminated
unitless
Otol
Default: 1.0
This variable is species- and site-specific, and depends on the percentage of soil ingested that is contaminated.
U.S. EPA OSW recommends that a default value of 1.0 be used for a screening level risk assessment when site
specific information is not available. The following uncertainty is associated with this variable:
(1) The actual amount of contaminated soil ingested by species depends on site-specific information, receptor
home range, and animal behavior; therefore, the default value of 100 percent may not accurately reflect
site-specific conditions, and the proportion of soil ingested that is contaminated will likely be
overestimated.
F-5
-------
TABLE F-l-2
COPC CONCENTRATIONS IN HERBIVOROUS MAMMALS
IN FOREST, SHORTGRASS PRAIRIE, TALLGRASS PRAIRIE,
AND SHRUB/SCRUB FOOD WEBS
(Page 4 of 4)
Variable
^-•wclol
BCFW_HM
Description
Total COPC concentration in water
column
Bioconcentration factor for water-
to-herbivorous mammal pathways
Units
mg COPC/L water
(or
g COPC/m3
water)
unitless [(mg
COPC/kg FW
tissue )/(mg
COPC/L water)]
Value
Varies (calculated - Table B-2-17)
This variable is COPC- and site-specific and is calculated using Table B-2-17. Uncertainties associated with this
equation include the following:
(1) All of the variables in the equation in Table B-2-17 are COPC- and site-specific. Therefore, the use of
default values rather than site-specific values, for any or all of these variables, will contribute to the
under- or overestimation of Cwctot.
(2) Uncertainty associated with/,,, is largely the result of uncertainty associated with default OC content
values and may be significant in specific instances. Uncertainties associated with the variable LT and Kwt
may also be significant because of many variable-specific uncertainties.
The degree of uncertainly associated with the variables dm and dts is expected to be minimal either because
information for estimating a variable (dm) is generally available or because the probable range for a variable (dbs) is
narrow. The uncertainty associated with the variables/,,, and Cwtot is associated with estimates of OC content.
Because OC content values can vary widely for different locations in the same media, the uncertainty associated
with using default OC values may be significant in specific cases.
Varies
This variable is COPC-, site-, and receptor-specific, and is calculated using the following equation to compute the
COPC concentration in herbivorous mammals through indirect water exposure (total water body concentration).
BCFW_HM values are provided in Appendix D.
F-6
-------
TABLE F-l-3
COPC CONCENTRATIONS IN INVERTEBRATES
IN FOREST, SHORTGRASS PRAIRIE, TALLGRASS PRAIRIE, AND SHRUB/SCRUB FOOD WEBS
(Page 1 of 2)
Variable
Description
Units
Value
Proportion of ingested water that is
contaminated
unitless
Otol
Default: 1.0
This OSW variable is species- and site-specific, and depends on the percentage of water ingested that is
contaminated. U.S. EPA recommend that a default value of 1.0 be used when site specific information is not
available.
The following uncertainty is associated with this variable:
(1) The actual amount of contaminated water ingested by species depends on site-specific information,
receptor home range, and animal behavior; therefore, the default value of 100 percent may not accurately
reflect site-specific conditions, and the proportion of ingested water that is contaminated will likely be
overestimated.
Description
This equation calculates the COPC concentration in invertebrates through exposure to soil in the forest, shortgrass prairie, tallgrass prairie, and shrub/scrub food webs. The limitations and
uncertainty introduced in calculating this variable include the following:
(1) Cs values are COPC- and site-specific. Uncertainties associated with these variables are site specific.
(2) BCFS_IN¥ values are intended to represent "generic invertebrate species", and therefore may over- or under-estimate exposure for site-specific organisms.
Equation
S-INV
Variable
Description
Units
Value
COPC concentration in
invertebrates
mg COPC/kg FW
F-7
-------
TABLE F-l-3
COPC CONCENTRATIONS IN INVERTEBRATES
IN FOREST, SHORTGRASS PRAIRIE, TALLGRASS PRAIRIE, AND SHRUB/SCRUB FOOD WEBS
(Page 2 of 2)
Variable
Description
Units
Value
COPC concentration in soil
mg COPC /kg
DW soil
Varies
This variable is COPC- and site-specific, and should be calculated using the equation in Table B-l-1. This variable is
calculated using emissions data, ISCST3 air dispersion and deposition model, and soil fate and transport equations
(presented in Appendix B). Cs is expressed on a dry weight basis.
Uncertainties associated with this variable include:
(1) For soluble COPCs, leaching might lead to movement to below 1 centimeter in unfilled soils, resulting a
greater mixing depth. This uncertainty may overestimate Cs.
(2) Deposition to hard surfaces may result in dust residues that have negligible dilution (as a result of potential
mixing with in situ materials) in comparison to that of other residues. This uncertainty may underestimate
Cs.
(3) Modeled soil concentrations may not accurately represent site-specific conditions. As a result, the actual
COPC concentration in soil may be under- or overestimated to an unknown degree.
Bioconcentration factor for soil-to-
invertebrate
unitless [(mg
COPC/kg FW
tissue )/(mg
COPC/kg DW
soil)]
Varies
This variable is COPC-, site- and species-specific, and is provided in Appendix C.
The following uncertainties are associated with this variable:
(1) The COPC specific BCFS_IN¥ values may not accurately represent site-specific soil conditions which could
influence the bioavailability of COPCs, therefore over-or under-estimating CIN¥to an unknown degree.
(2) The data set used to calculate BCFS_IN¥ is based on a limited number of test organism. The uncertainty
associated with calculating concentrations using BCFS_IN¥ in site-specific organisms is unknown and may
over- or under-estimate CIN¥.
-------
TABLE F-l-4
COPC CONCENTRATIONS IN HERBIVOROUS BIRDS
IN FOREST, SHORTGRASS PRAIRIE, TALLGRASS PRAIRIE, AND SHRUB/SCRUB FOOD WEBS
(Pagel of 4)
Description
This equation calculates the COPC concentration in herbivorous birds through the ingestion of plants, soil, and water in the forest, shortgrass prairie, tallgrass prairie, and shrub/scrub food
webs. The limitations and uncertainty introduced in calculating this variable include the following:
(1) Variables: CTP, Cs, and Cwctot are COPC- and site-specific. Uncertainties associated with these variables are site specific.
(2) Variables: BCFTP_HB, BCFS_HB, and BCFW_HB are calculated based on biotransfer factors for chicken (Bachicken), and receptor specific ingestion rates, and therefore may introduce
uncertainty when used to compute concentrations in site-specific herbivorous birds.
(3) The use of a single Bachicken value for each COPC may not accurately reflect site-specific conditions. The default values may under- or overestimate CHB.
Equation
- BCFTP-HB • PTP ' FTP) + (Cs ' BCFs-HB
' BCFW-HB
Variable
Description
Units
Value
COPC concentration in
herbivorous birds
mg COPC/kg FW
tissue
r
^•T
COPC concentration in terrestrial
plants
mg COPC/kg
WW
Varies
This variable is site- and COPC-specific; it is calculated using the equation in Table F-l-1.
Uncertainties introduced by this variable include the following:
(1) Some of the variables in the equations in Tables B-3-1, B-3-2, and B-3-3 — including Cs, Cyv, Q, Dydp, and
Dywp — are COPC- and site-specific.
(2) hi the equation in Table B-3-1, uncertainties associated with other variables include the following: Fw
(values for organic compounds estimated on the basis of the behavior of polystyrene microspheres), Rp
(estimated on the basis of a generalized empirical relationship), and kp (estimation process does not
consider chemical degradation). All of these uncertainties contribute to the overall uncertainty associated
with CTP.
F-9
-------
TABLE F-l-4
COPC CONCENTRATIONS IN HERBIVOROUS BIRDS
IN FOREST, SHORTGRASS PRAIRIE, TALLGRASS PRAIRIE, AND SHRUB/SCRUB FOOD WEBS
(Page 2 of 4)
Variable
BCFTP_HB
FTP
FTP
Description
Bioconcentration factor for plant-
to-herbivorous bird
Proportion of terrestrial plant in
diet that is contaminated
Fraction of diet comprised of
terrestrial plants
Units
unitless [(mg
COPC/kg FW
tissue )/(mg
COPC/kg WW)]
unitless
unitless
Value
Varies
This variable is COPC-, site-, habitat- and receptor-specific, and is calculated using the following equation to
compute the COPC concentration in herbivorous birds through dietary exposure. BCFTP_HB values are porvided in
Appendix D.
Otol
Default: 1.0
This variable is species- and site-specific, and depends on the percentage of the dietary food item that is
contaminated. U.S. EPA OSW recommends that a default value of 1 .0 be used for all food types when site specific
information is not available. The following uncertainty is associated with this variable:
(1) The actual amount of contaminated food ingested by a species depends on food availability, diet
composition, and animal behavior. Therefore, the default value of 100 percent may not accurately reflect
site-specific conditions, and may overestimate the proportion of contaminated food ingested.
Otol
This variable is species- and site-specific, and depends on the percentage of the diet that is comprised of terrestrial
plants. The default value for a screening level ecological risk assessment is 100 percent for computing concentration
based on an exclusive diet. For calculating an equal diet, Fdia is determined based on the number of dietary
components in the total diet. The application of an equal diet is further discussed in Chapter 5.
Uncertainties associated with this variable include:
(1) The actual proportion of the diet that is comprised of a specific dietary item depends on several factors
including: food availability, animal behavior, species composition, and seasonal influences. These
uncertainties may over- or under- estimate Fdiet when applided to site-specific receptors.
(2) The default value of 100 percent for an exclusive diet introduces significant uncertaintiy and may over-
estimate exposure from ingestion of a single dietary item.
(3) The defalut value for an equal diet introduces significant uncertainity and may over- or under- estimate
exposure when applied to site-specific receptors.
F-10
-------
TABLE F-l-4
COPC CONCENTRATIONS IN HERBIVOROUS BIRDS
IN FOREST, SHORTGRASS PRAIRIE, TALLGRASS PRAIRIE, AND SHRUB/SCRUB FOOD WEBS
(Page 3 of 4)
Variable
Description
Units
Value
COPC concentration in soil
mg COPC /kg
DW soil
Varies
This variable is COPC- and site-specific, and should be calculated using the equation in Table B-l-1. Q is expressed
on a dry weight basis.
Uncertainties associated with this variable include:
(1)
(2)
(3)
For soluble COPCs, leaching might lead to movement to below 1 centimeter in untilled soils, resulting a
greater mixing depth. This uncertainty may overestimate C*.
Deposition to hard surfaces may result in dust residues that have negligible dilution (as a result of potential
mixing with in situ materials) in comparison to that of other residues. This uncertainty may underestimate
Cs.
Modeled soil concentrations may not accurately represent site-specific conditions. As a result, the actual
COPC concentration in soil may be under- or overestimated to an unknown degree.
Bioconcentration factor for soil-
to-herbivorous bird
unitless [(mg
COPC/kg FW
tissue )/(mg
COPC/kg DW
soil)]
Varies
This variable is COPC-, site-, habitat- and receptor-specific, and is calculated using the following equation to
compute the COPC concentration in herbivorous birds through soil exposure. BCFS_HB values are provided in
Appendix D.
Proportion of ingested soil that is
contamanted
unitless
Otol
Default: 1.0
This variable is species- and site-specific, and depends on the percentage of soil ingested that is contaminated. U.S.
EPA OSW recommends that a default value of 1.0 be used for a screening level risk assessment when site specific
information is not available. The following uncertainty is associated with this variable:
(1) The actual amount of contaminated soil ingested by species depends on site-specific information, receptor
home range, and animal behavior; therefore, the default value of 100 percent may not accurately reflect site-
specific conditions, and the proportion of soil ingested that is contaminated will likely be overestimated.
F-ll
-------
TABLE F-l-4
COPC CONCENTRATIONS IN HERBIVOROUS BIRDS
IN FOREST, SHORTGRASS PRAIRIE, TALLGRASS PRAIRIE, AND SHRUB/SCRUB FOOD WEBS
(Page 4 of 4)
Variable
Description
Units
Value
CWCM Total COPC concentration in
water column
mg COPC/L
water
(or
g COPC/m3
water)
Varies (calculated - Table B-2-17)
This variable is COPC- and site-specific and is calculated using Table B-2-17. Uncertainties associated with this
equation include the following:
(1) All of the variables in the equation in Table B-2-17 are COPC- and site-specific. Therefore, the use of
default values rather than site-specific values, for any or all of these variables, will contribute to the under-
or overestimation of Cmtot.
(2) Uncertainty associated with/,,, is largely the result of uncertainty associated with default OC content values
and may be significant in specific instances. Uncertainties associated with the variable LT and KM may also
be significant because of many variable-specific uncertainties.
The degree of uncertainly associated with the variables dm and dbs is expected to be minimal either because
information for estimating a variable (rfw) is generally available or because the probable range for a variable (dbs) is
narrow. The uncertainty associated with the variables/,,, and CMot is associated with estimates of OC content.
Because OC content values can vary widely for different locations in the same media, the uncertainty associated with
using default OC values may be significant in specific cases.
BCFW_HB Bioconcentration factor for water-
to-herbivorous bird
unitless [(mg
COPC/kg FW
tissue )/(mg
COPC/L water)]
Varies
This variable is COPC-, site-, and receptor-specific, and is calculated using the following equation to compute the
COPC concentration in herbivorous birds through indirect exposure to water. BCFW_HB values are provided in
Appendix D.
Pw Proportion of ingested water that
is contaminated
unitless
Otol
Default: 1.0
This variable is species- and site-specific, and depends on the percentage of water ingested that is contaminated. U.S.
EPA OSW recommends that a default value of 1.0 be used when site specific information is not available.
The following uncertainty is associated with this variable:
(1) The actual amount of contaminated water ingested by species depends on site-specific information, receptor
homerange, and animal behavior; therefore, the default value of 100 percent may not accurately reflect site-
specific conditions, and the proportion of ingested water that is contaminated will likely be overestimated.
F-12
-------
TABLE F-l-5
COPC CONCENTRATIONS IN OMNIVOROUS MAMMALS
IN FOREST, TALLGRASS PRAIRIE, SHORTGRASS PRAIRIE, AND SHRUB/SCRUB FOOD WEBS
(Pagel of 9)
Description
This equation calculates the COPC concentration in omnivorous mammals through ingestion of plants, soil, and water in the forest, shortgrass prairie, tallgrass prairie, and shrub/scrub food
webs. The limitations and uncertainty introduced in calculating this variable include the following:
(1) Variables Cs, and Cwctot are COPC- and site-specific. Uncertainties associated with these variables are site specific.
(2) Variables: BCFW_OM and BCFS_OM are calculated based on biotransfer factors for beef cattle (Babeef), and receptor specific ingestion rates, and may introduce significant uncertainty
when used to compute concentrations in site-specific omnivorous mammals.
(3) FCMs are COPC- and site-specific and may introduce uncertainty when applied to terrestrial environments to account for COPC bioaccumulation between trophic level (see Chapter
5 for further discussion).
Equation
FCM
P
f
FCM
TT,
TP TP
P
HM HM
FCM
HB
(Cs • BCFS_OM -Ps)+ (CwcM • BCFW_OM- Pw
Variable
L OM
Description
COPC concentration in
omnivorous mammals
Units
mg COPC/kg I1 W
tissue
Value
Stp;:?!:?;:?!:?;:?!:?;:?;:?;:?!:?;:?;^
!ifWS«js5ftfftSf!^
^:V^^fJ?^';>i/?ty:$?'^$t$V^^^
F-13
-------
TABLE F-l-5
COPC CONCENTRATIONS IN OMNIVOROUS MAMMALS
IN FOREST, TALLGRASS PRAIRIE, SHORTGRASS PRAIRIE, AND SHRUB/SCRUB FOOD WEBS
(Page 2 of 9)
Variable
Description
Units
Value
C,r
COPC concentration in
invertebrates
mg COPC/kg FW
tissue
Varies (calculated - Table F-l-3)
This variable is site-specific and COPC-specific; it is calculated using the equation in Table F-l-3. Uncertainties
associated with this variable include:
(1) Modeled soil concentrations may not accurately represent site-specific conditions. As a result, the actual
COPC concentration in soil used to calculate the COPC concentration in invertebrates may be under- or
overestimated to an unknown degree.
(2) BCFS_IN¥ values may not accurately represent site-specific soil conditions and therefore, may over- or under-
estimate CIN¥.
FCMTL3 Food chain multiplier for trophic
FCMTT? level 3 predator consuming
trophic level 2 prey
unitless
Varies
This variable is COPC- and trophic level-specific and are provided in Chapter 5. The following uncertainties are
associated with this variable:
(1) FCMs do not account for metabolism, thus for COPCs with significant metabolism concentrations may be
over-estimated to an unknown degree.
(2) The application of FCMs for computing concentration in terrestrial food webs may introduce significant
uncertainty (see Chapter 5)
FCMs are obtained from the U.S. EPA (1995) "Great Lakes Water Quality Initiative Technical Support Document for
the Procedure to Determine Bioaccumulation Factors."
Proportion of invertebrate in diet
that is contaminated
unitless
Otol
Default: 1.0
This variable is species- and site-specific, and depends on the percentage of the dietary food item that is
contaminated. U.S. EPA OSW recommends that a default value of 1.0 be used for all food types when site specific
information is not available. The following uncertainty is associated with this variable:
(1) The actual amount of contaminated food ingested by a species depends on food availability, diet
composition, and animal behavior. Therefore, the default value of 100 percent may not accurately reflect
site-specific conditions, and may overestimate the proportion of contaminated food ingested.
F-14
-------
TABLE F-l-5
COPC CONCENTRATIONS IN OMNIVOROUS MAMMALS
IN FOREST, TALLGRASS PRAIRIE, SHORTGRASS PRAIRIE, AND SHRUB/SCRUB FOOD WEBS
(Page 3 of 9)
Variable
Description
Units
Value
Fraction of diet comprised of
invertebrates
unitless
Otol
This variable is species- and site-specific, and depends on the percentage of the diet that is comprised of
invertebrates. The default value for a screening level ecological risk assessment is 100 percent for computing
concentration based on an exclusive diet. For calculating an equal diet, Fdiet is determined based on the number of
dietary components in the total diet. The application of an equal diet is further discussed in Chapter 5.
Uncertainties associated with this variable include:
(1) The actual proportion of the diet that is comprised of a specific dietary item depends on several factors
including: food availability, animal behavior, species composition, and seasonal influences. These
uncertainties may over- or under- estimate Fdiet when applied to site-specific receptors.
(2) The default value of 100 percent for an exclusive diet introduces significant uncertainty and may over-
estimate exposure from ingestion of a single dietary item.
(3) The default value for an equal diet introduces significant uncertainty and may over- or under- estimate
exposure when applied to site-specific receptors.
COPC concentration in terrestrial
plants ingested by the animal
mg COPC/kg
WW
Varies
This variable is site- and COPC-specific; it is calculated using the equation in Table F-l-1.
Uncertainties introduced by this variable include the following:
(1) Some of the variables in the equations in Tables B-3-1, B-3-2, and B-3-3—including Cs, Cyv, Q, Dydp, and
Dywp—are COPC- and site-specific.
(2) hi the equation in Table B-3-1, uncertainties associated with other variables include the following: Fw
(values for organic compounds estimated on the basis of the behavior of polystyrene microspheres), Rp
(estimated on the basis of a generalized empirical relationship), kp (estimation process does not consider
chemical degradation), and Yp (estimated on the basis of national harvest yield and area planted values).
All of these uncertainties contribute to the overall uncertainty associated with CTP.
(3) hi the equation in Table B-3-3, COPC-specific soil-to-plant bioconcentration factors (BCFTP) may not
reflect site-specific conditions.
BCFTP_nM Bioconcentration factor for
terrestrial plant-to-omnivorous
mammal
unitless [(mg
COPC/kg FW
tissue )/(mg
COPC/kg WW)]
Varies
This variable is COPC-, site-, habitat- and receptor-specific, and is calculated using the following equation to
compute the COPC concentration in omnivorous mammals through dietary exposure. BCFTP_OM values are provided
in Appendix D.
F-15
-------
TABLE F-l-5
COPC CONCENTRATIONS IN OMNIVOROUS MAMMALS
IN FOREST, TALLGRASS PRAIRIE, SHORTGRASS PRAIRIE, AND SHRUB/SCRUB FOOD WEBS
(Page 4 of 9)
Variable
FTP
FTP
t-HM
Description
Proportion of terrestrial plant in
diet that is contaminated
Fraction of diet comprised of
terrestrial plants
COPC concentration in
herbivorous mammals
Units
unitless
unitless
mg COPC/kg FW
tissue
Value
Otol
Default: 1.0
This variable is species- and site-specific, and depends on the percentage of the dietary food item that is
contaminated. U.S. EPA OSW recommends that a default value of 1 .0 be used for all food types when site specific
information is not available. The following uncertainty is associated with this variable:
(1) The actual amount of contaminated food ingested by a species depends on food availability, diet
composition, and animal behavior. Therefore, the default value of 100 percent may not accurately reflect
site-specific conditions, and may overestimate the proportion of contaminated food ingested.
Otol
This variable is species- and site-specific, and depends on the percentage of the diet that is comprised of terrestrial
plants. The default value for a screening level ecological risk assessment is 100 percent for computing concentration
based on an exclusive diet. For calculating an equal diet, Fdia is determined based on the number of dietary
components in the total diet. The application of an equal diet is further discussed in Chapter 5.
Uncertainties associated with this variable include:
(1) The actual proportion of the diet that is comprised of a specific dietary item depends on several factors
including: food availability, animal behavior, species composition, and seasonal influences. These
uncertainties may over- or under- estimate Fdia when applied to site-specific receptors.
(2) The default value of 100 percent for an exclusive diet introduces uncertainty and may over-estimate
exposure from ingestion of a single dietary item.
(3) The default value for an equal diet introduces uncertainty and may over- or under- estimate exposure when
applied to site-specific receptors.
Varies (calculated - Table F-l-2)
This variable is site-specific and COPC-specific; it is calculated using the equation in Table F-l-2. Uncertainties
associated with this variable include:
(1) Variables: CTP, Cs, and Cmtot are COPC- and site-specific.
(2) Variables: BCFTP_HM, BCFS_HM, and BCFW_HM are based on biotransfer factors for beef cattle (Babeef\ and
receptor specific ingestion rates, and therefore may introduce uncertainty when used to compute
concentrations in site-specific mammals.
F-16
-------
TABLE F-l-5
COPC CONCENTRATIONS IN OMNIVOROUS MAMMALS
IN FOREST, TALLGRASS PRAIRIE, SHORTGRASS PRAIRIE, AND SHRUB/SCRUB FOOD WEBS
(Page 5 of 9)
Variable
"HM
FHM
t-HB
Description
Proportion of herbivorous
mammal in diet that is
contaminated
Fraction of diet comprised of
herbivorous mammals
COPC concentration in
herbivorous birds
Units
unitless
unitless
mg COPC/kg FW
tissue
Value
Otol
Default: 1.0
This variable is species- and site-specific, and depends on the percentage of the dietary food item that is
contaminated. U.S. EPA OSW recommends that a default value of 1 .0 be used for all food types when site specific
information is not available. The following uncertainty is associated with this variable:
(1) The actual amount of contaminated food ingested by a species depends on food availability, diet
composition, and animal behavior. Therefore, the default value of 100 percent may not accurately reflect
site-specific conditions, and may overestimate the proportion of contaminated food ingested.
Otol
This variable is species- and site-specific, and depends on the percentage of the diet that is comprised of herbivorous
mammal. The default value for a screening level ecological risk assessment is 100 percent for computing
concentration based on an exclusive diet. For calculating an equal diet, Fdia is determined based on the number of
dietary components in the total diet. The application of an equal diet is further discussed in Chapter 5.
Uncertainties associated with this variable include:
(1) The actual proportion of the diet that is comprised of a specific dietary item depends on several factors
including: food availability, animal behavior, species composition, and seasonal influences. These
uncertainties may over- or under- estimate Fdia when applied to site-specific receptors.
(2) The default value of 100 percent for an exclusive diet introduces significant uncertainty and may over-
estimate exposure from ingestion of a single dietary item.
(3) The default value for an equal diet introduces significant uncertainty and may over- or under- estimate
exposure when applied to site-specific receptors.
Varies (calculated - Table F-l-4)
This variable is site-specific and COPC-specific; it is calculated using the equation in Table F-l-4. Uncertainties
associated with this variable include:
(1) Variables: CTP, Cs, and Cmtot are COPC- and site-specific.
(2) Variables: BCFTP_HB, BCFS_HB, and BCFW_HB are based on biotransfer factors for chicken (Bachicken ), and
receptor specific ingestion rates, and therefore may introduce uncertainty when used to compute
concentrations for site-specific herbivorous birds.
F-17
-------
TABLE F-l-5
COPC CONCENTRATIONS IN OMNIVOROUS MAMMALS
IN FOREST, TALLGRASS PRAIRIE, SHORTGRASS PRAIRIE, AND SHRUB/SCRUB FOOD WEBS
(Page 6 of 9)
Variable
"HB
FHB
Description
Proportion of herbivorous birds in
diet that is contaminated
Fraction of diet comprised of
herbivorous birds
Units
unitless
unitless
Value
Otol
Default: 1.0
This variable is species- and site-specific, and depends on the percentage of the dietary food item that is
contaminated. U.S. EPA OSW recommends that a default value of 1 .0 be used for all food types when site specific
information is not available. The following uncertainty is associated with this variable:
(1) The actual amount of contaminated food ingested by a species depends on food availability, diet
composition, and animal behavior. Therefore, the default value of 100 percent may not accurately reflect
site-specific conditions, and may overestimate the proportion of contaminated food ingested.
Otol
This variable is species- and site-specific, and depends on the percentage of the diet that is comprised of herbivorous
birds. The default value for a screening level ecological risk assessment is 100 percent for computing concentration
based on an exclusive diet. For calculating an equal diet, Fdia is determined based on the number of dietary
components in the total diet. The application of an equal diet is further discussed in Chapter 5.
Uncertainties associated with this variable include:
(1) The actual proportion of the diet that is comprised of a specific dietary item depends on several factors
including: food availability, animal behavior, species composition, and seasonal influences. These
uncertainties may over- or under- estimate Fdia when applied to site-specific receptors.
(2) The default value of 100 percent for an exclusive diet introduces uncertainty and may over-estimate
exposure from ingestion of a single dietary item.
(3) The default value for an equal diet introduces uncertainty and may over- or under- estimate exposure when
applied to site-specific receptors.
F-18
-------
TABLE F-l-5
COPC CONCENTRATIONS IN OMNIVOROUS MAMMALS
IN FOREST, TALLGRASS PRAIRIE, SHORTGRASS PRAIRIE, AND SHRUB/SCRUB FOOD WEBS
(Page 7 of 9)
Variable
Description
Units
Value
COPC concentration in soil
mg COPC /kg
DW soil
Varies
This variable is COPC- and site-specific, and should be calculated using the equation in Table B-l-1. Q is expressed
on a dry weight basis.
Uncertainties associated with this variable include:
(1)
(2)
(3)
For soluble COPCs, leaching might lead to movement to below 1 centimeter in untilled soils, resulting a
greater mixing depth. This uncertainty may overestimate C*.
Deposition to hard surfaces may result in dust residues that have negligible dilution (as a result of potential
mixing with in situ materials) in comparison to that of other residues. This uncertainty may underestimate
Cs.
Modeled soil concentrations may not accurately represent site-specific conditions. As a result, the actual
COPC concentration in soil may be under- or overestimated to an unknown degree.
BCFs_nu Bioconcentration factor for soil-
to-omnivorous mammal
unitless [(mg
COPC/kg FW
tissue )/(mg
COPC/kg DW
soil)]
Varies
This variable is COPC-, site-, and receptor-specific, and is calculated using the following equation to compute the
COPC concentration in omnivorous mammals through indirect soil exposure. BCFS_OM values are provided in
Appendix D.
Proportion of ingested soil that is
contamanted
unitless
Otol
Default: 1.0
This variable is species- and site-specific, and depends on the percentage of soil ingested that is contaminated. U.S.
EPA OSW recommends that a default value of 1.0 be used for a screening level risk assessment when site specific
information is not available. The following uncertainty is associated with this variable:
(1) The actual amount of contaminated soil ingested by species depends on site-specific information, receptor
home range, and animal behavior; therefore, the default value of 100 percent may not accurately reflect site-
specific conditions, and the proportion of soil ingested that is contaminated will likely be overestimated.
F-19
-------
TABLE F-l-5
COPC CONCENTRATIONS IN OMNIVOROUS MAMMALS
IN FOREST, TALLGRASS PRAIRIE, SHORTGRASS PRAIRIE, AND SHRUB/SCRUB FOOD WEBS
(Page 8 of 9)
Variable
Description
Units
Value
CWCM Total COPC concentration in
water column
mg COPC/L
water
(or
g COPC/m3
water)
Varies (calculated - Table B-2-17)
This variable is COPC- and site-specific and is calculated using Table B-2-17. Uncertainties associated with this
equation include the following:
(1) All of the variables in the equation in Table B-2-17 are COPC- and site-specific. Therefore, the use of
default values rather than site-specific values, for any or all of these variables, will contribute to the under-
or overestimation of Cmtot.
(2) Uncertainty associated with/,,, is largely the result of uncertainty associated with default OC content values
and may be significant in specific instances. Uncertainties associated with the variable LT and KM may also
be significant because of many variable-specific uncertainties.
The degree of uncertainly associated with the variables dm and dbs is expected to be minimal either because
information for estimating a variable (rfw) is generally available or because the probable range for a variable (dbs) is
narrow. The uncertainty associated with the variables/,,, and CMot is associated with estimates of OC content.
Because OC content values can vary widely for different locations in the same media, the uncertainty associated with
using default OC values may be significant in specific cases.
BCFW_OM Bioconcentration factor for water-
to-omnivorous mammal pathways
unitless [(mg
COPC/kg FW
tissue )/(mg
COPC/L water)]
Varies
This variable is COPC-, site-, and receptor-specific, and is calculated using the following equation to compute the
COPC concentration in herbivorous mammals through indirect water exposure (total water body concentration).
BCFW_OM values are provided in Appendix D.
Pw Proportion of ingested water that
is contaminated
unitless
Otol
Default: 1.0
This variable is species- and site-specific, and depends on the percentage of water ingested that is contaminated. U.S.
EPA OSW recommends that a default value of 1.0 be used when site specific information is not available.
The following uncertainty is associated with this variable:
(1) The actual amount of contaminated water ingested by species depends on site-specific information, receptor
homerange, and animal behavior; therefore, the default value of 100 percent may not accurately reflect site-
specific conditions, and the proportion of ingested water that is contaminated will likely be overestimated.
F-20
-------
TABLE F-l-5
COPC CONCENTRATIONS IN OMNIVOROUS MAMMALS
IN FOREST, TALLGRASS PRAIRIE, SHORTGRASS PRAIRIE, AND SHRUB/SCRUB FOOD WEBS
(Page 9 of 9)
REFERENCES AND DISCUSSIONS
U.S. EPA (1995) "Great Lakes Water Quality Initiative Technical Support Document for the Procedure to Determine Bioaccumulation Factors."
F-21
-------
TABLE F-l-6
COPC CONCENTRATIONS IN OMNIVOROUS BIRDS
IN FOREST, TALLGRASS PRAIRIE, SHORTGRASS PRAIRIE, AND SHRUB/SCRUB FOOD WEBS
(Page 1 of 7)
Description
This equation calculates the COPC concentration in omnivorous birds through the ingestion of plants, soil, and water in the forest, shortgrass prairie, tallgrass prairie, and shrub/scrub food
webs. The limitations and uncertainty introduced in calculating this variable include the following:
(1) Variables Cs, and Cwctot are COPC- and site-specific. Uncertainties associated with these variables are site specific.
(2) Variables: BCFW_OB, and BCFS_OB are calculated based on biotransfer factors for chicken (Bachicken), and receptor specific ingestion rates, and may introduce uncertainty when used to
compute concentrations in site-specific omnivorous birds.
(3) FCMs are COPC- and site-specific and may introduce uncertainty when applied to terrestrial environments to account for COPC bioaccumulation between trophic (see Chapter 5).
Equation
FCMTL3
j^^j.f ' INV ' * ' INV>
FCM
TP-OM * TP * TP'
TL2
(CS- BCFS_
S_OB
BCFW_OB • Pw
Variable
Description
Units
Value
Cn
COPC concentration in
omnivorous birds
mg COPC/kg FW
tissue
COPC concentration in
invertebrates
mg COPC/kg FW
tissue
Varies (calculated - Table F-l-3)
This variable is site-specific and COPC-specific; it is calculated using the equation in Table F-l-3. Uncertainties
associated with this variable include:
(1) Modeled soil concentrations may not accurately represent site-specific conditions. As a result, the actual
COPC concentration in soil used to calculate the COPC concentration in invertebrates may be under- or
overestimated to an unknown degree.
(2) BCFS_IN¥ values may not accurately represent site-specific soil conditions and therefore, may over- or under-
estimate CIN¥.
F-22
-------
TABLE F-l-6
COPC CONCENTRATIONS IN OMNIVOROUS BIRDS
IN FOREST, TALLGRASS PRAIRIE, SHORTGRASS PRAIRIE, AND SHRUB/SCRUB FOOD WEBS
(Page 2 of 7)
Variable
FCMT,,
FCMTL2
p
rIN¥
Description
Food chain multiplier for trophic
level 3 predator consuming
trophic level 2 prey
Proportion of invertebrates in diet
that is contaminated
Units
unitless
unitless
Value
Varies
This variable is COPC- and trophic level-specific and is provided in Chapter 5 Table 5-2. The following
uncertainties are associated with this variable:
(1) FCMs do not account for metabolism, thus for COPCs with metabolism concentrations may be over-
estimated to an unknown degree.
(2) The application of FCMs for computing concentration in terrestrial food webs may introduce uncertainty
(see Chapter 5)
FCMs are obtained from the U.S. EPA 1995 "Great Lakes Water Quality Initiative Technical Support Document for
the Procedure to Determine Bioaccumulation Factors."
Otol
Default: 1.0
This variable is species- and site-specific, and depends on the percentage of the dietary food item that is
contaminated. U.S. EPA OSW recommends that a default value of 1 .0 be used for all food types when site specific
information is not available. The following uncertainty is associated with this variable:
(1) The actual amount of contaminated food ingested by a species depends on food availability, diet
composition, and animal behavior. Therefore, the default value of 100 percent may not accurately reflect
site-specific conditions, and may overestimate the proportion of contaminated food ingested.
F-23
-------
TABLE F-l-6
COPC CONCENTRATIONS IN OMNIVOROUS BIRDS
IN FOREST, TALLGRASS PRAIRIE, SHORTGRASS PRAIRIE, AND SHRUB/SCRUB FOOD WEBS
(Page 3 of 7)
Variable
Description
Units
Value
Fraction of diet comprised of
invertebrates
unitless
Otol
This variable is species- and site-specific, and depends on the percentage of the diet that is comprised of
invertebrates. The default value for a screening level ecological risk assessment is 100 percent for computing
concentration based on an exclusive diet. For calculating an equal diet, Fdiet is determined based on the number of
dietary components in the total diet. The application of an equal diet is further discussed in Chapter 5.
Uncertainties associated with this variable include:
(1) The actual proportion of the diet that is comprised of a specific dietary item depends on several factors
including: food availability, animal behavior, species composition, and seasonal influences. These
uncertainties may over- or under- estimate Fdiet when applied to site-specific receptors.
(2) The default value of 100 percent for an exclusive diet introduces uncertainty and may over-estimate
exposure from ingestion of a single dietary item.
(3) The default value for an equal diet introduces uncertainty and may over- or under- estimate exposure when
applied to site-specific receptors.
COPC concentration in terrestrial
plants
mg COPC/kg
WW
Varies
This variable is site- and COPC-specific; it is calculated using the equation in Table F-l-1.
Uncertainties introduced by this variable include the following:
(1) Some of the variables in the equations in Tables B-3-1, B-3-2, and B-3-3—including Cs, Cyv, Q, Dydp, and
Dywp—are COPC- and site-specific.
(2) hi the equation in Table B-3-1, uncertainties associated with other variables include the following: Fw
(values for organic compounds estimated on the basis of the behavior of polystyrene microspheres), Rp
(estimated on the basis of a generalized empirical relationship), kp (estimation process does not consider
chemical degradation). All of these uncertainties contribute to the overall uncertainty associated with CTP.
(3) hi the equation in Table B-3-3, COPC-specific soil-to-plant bioconcentration factors (BCFTP) may not
reflect site-specific conditions.
BCFTP_na Bioconcentration factor for plant-
to-omnivorous bird
unitless [(mg
COPC/kg FW
tissue )/(mg
COPC/kg WW)]
Varies
This variable is COPC-, site-, habitat- and receptor-specific, and is calculated using the following equation to
compute the COPC concentration in omnivorous birds through indirect dietary exposure. BCFTP_OB values are
provided in Appendix D.
F-24
-------
TABLE F-l-6
COPC CONCENTRATIONS IN OMNIVOROUS BIRDS
IN FOREST, TALLGRASS PRAIRIE, SHORTGRASS PRAIRIE, AND SHRUB/SCRUB FOOD WEBS
(Page 4 of 7)
Variable
FTP
FTP
Description
Proportion of terrestrial plant in
diet that is contaminated
Fraction of diet comprised of
terrestrial plants
Units
unitless
unitless
Value
Otol
Default: 1.0
This variable is species- and site-specific, and depends on the percentage of the dietary food item that is
contaminated. U.S. EPA OSW recommend that a default value of 1 .0 be used for all food types when site specific
information is not available. The following uncertainty is associated with this variable:
(1) The actual amount of contaminated food ingested by a species depends on food availability, diet
composition, and animal behavior. Therefore, the default value of 100 percent may not accurately reflect
site-specific conditions, and may overestimate the proportion of contaminated food ingested.
Otol
This variable is species- and site-specific, and depends on the percentage of the diet that is comprised of terrestrial
plants. The default value for a screening level ecological risk assessment is 100 percent for computing concentration
based on an exclusive diet. For calculating an equal diet, Fdia is determined based on the number of dietary
components in the total diet. The application of an equal diet is further discussed in Chapter 5.
Uncertainties associated with this variable include:
(1) The actual proportion of the diet that is comprised of a specific dietary item depends on several factors
including: food availability, animal behavior, species composition, and seasonal influences. These
uncertainties may over- or under- estimate Fdia when applied to site-specific receptors.
(2) The default value of 100 percent for an exclusive diet introduces uncertainty and may over-estimate
exposure from ingestion of a single dietary item.
(3) The default value for an equal diet introduces uncertainty and may over- or under- estimate exposure when
applied to site-specific receptors.
F-25
-------
TABLE F-l-6
COPC CONCENTRATIONS IN OMNIVOROUS BIRDS
IN FOREST, TALLGRASS PRAIRIE, SHORTGRASS PRAIRIE, AND SHRUB/SCRUB FOOD WEBS
(Page 5 of 7)
Variable
Description
Units
Value
COPC soil concentration
mg COPC /kg
DW soil
Varies
This variable is COPC- and site-specific, and should be calculated using the equation in Table B-l-1. Q is expressed
on a dry weight basis.
Uncertainties associated with this variable include:
(1)
(2)
(3)
For soluble COPCs, leaching might lead to movement to below 1 centimeter in untilled soils, resulting a
greater mixing depth. This uncertainty may overestimate C*.
Deposition to hard surfaces may result in dust residues that have negligible dilution (as a result of potential
mixing with in situ materials) in comparison to that of other residues. This uncertainty may underestimate
Cs.
Modeled soil concentrations may not accurately represent site-specific conditions. As a result, the actual
COPC concentration in soil may be under- or overestimated to an unknown degree.
BCFn.ni> Bioconcentration factor for soil-
to-omnivorous bird pathways
unitless [(mg
COPC/kg FW
tissue )/(mg
COPC/kg DW
soil)]
Varies
This variable is COPC-, site-, habitat- and receptor-specific, and is calculated using the following equation to
compute the COPC concentration in omnivorous birds through indirect soil exposure. BCFS_OB values are provided in
Appendix D.
Proportion of ingested soil that is
contaminated
unitless
Otol
Default: 1.0
This variable is species- and site-specific, and depends on the percentage of soil ingested that is contaminated. U.S.
EPA OSW recommends that a default value of 1.0 be used for a screening level risk assessment when site specific
information is not available. The following uncertainty is associated with this variable:
(1) The actual amount of contaminated soil ingested by species depends on site-specific information, receptor
home range, and animal behavior; therefore, the default value of 100 percent may not accurately reflect site-
specific conditions, and the proportion of soil ingested that is contaminated will likely be overestimated.
F-26
-------
TABLE F-l-6
COPC CONCENTRATIONS IN OMNIVOROUS BIRDS
IN FOREST, TALLGRASS PRAIRIE, SHORTGRASS PRAIRIE, AND SHRUB/SCRUB FOOD WEBS
(Page 6 of 7)
Variable
Description
Units
Value
CWCM Total COPC concentration in
water column
mg COPC/L
water
(or
g COPC/m3
water)
Varies (calculated - Table B-2-17)
This variable is COPC- and site-specific and is calculated using Table B-2-17. Uncertainties associated with this
equation include the following:
(1) All of the variables in the equation in Table B-2-17 are COPC- and site-specific. Therefore, the use of
default values rather than site-specific values, for any or all of these variables, will contribute to the under-
or overestimation of Cmtot.
(2) Uncertainty associated with/,,, is largely the result of uncertainty associated with default OC content values
and may be significant in specific instances. Uncertainties associated with the variable LT and KM may also
be significant because of many variable-specific uncertainties.
The degree of uncertainly associated with the variables dm and dbs is expected to be minimal either because
information for estimating a variable (rfw) is generally available or because the probable range for a variable (dbs) is
narrow. The uncertainty associated with the variables/,,, and CMot is associated with estimates of OC content.
Because OC content values can vary widely for different locations in the same media, the uncertainty associated with
using default OC values may be significant in specific cases.
BCFW_OB Bioconcentration factor for water-
to-omnivorous bird
unitless [(mg
COPC/kg FW
tissue )/(mg
COPC/L water)]
Varies
This variable is COPC-, site-, and receptor-specific, and is calculated using the following equation to compute the
COPC concentration in omnivorous birds through indirect exposure to water. BCFW_OB values are provided in
Appendix D.
Pw Proportion of ingested water that
is contaminated
unitless
Otol
Default: 1.0
This variable is species- and site-specific, and depends on the percentage of water ingested that is contaminated. U.S.
EPA OSW recommends that a default value of 1.0 be used when site specific information is not available.
The following uncertainty is associated with this variable:
(1) The actual amount of contaminated water ingested by species depends on site-specific information, receptor
home range, and animal behavior; therefore, the default value of 100 percent may not accurately reflect site-
specific conditions, and the proportion of ingested water that is contaminated will likely be overestimated.
F-27
-------
TABLE F-l-6
COPC CONCENTRATIONS IN OMNIVOROUS BIRDS
IN FOREST, TALLGRASS PRAIRIE, SHORTGRASS PRAIRIE, AND SHRUB/SCRUB FOOD WEBS
(Page 7 of 7)
REFERENCES AND DISCUSSIONS
U.S. EPA 1995 "Great Lakes Water Quality Initiative Technical Support Document for the Procedure to Determine Bioaccumulation Factors."
F-28
-------
TABLE F-l-7
COPC CONCENTRATIONS IN AQUATIC VEGETATION IN THE FRESHWATER/WETLAND, BRACKISH/INTERMEDIATE
MARSH, AND SALTMARSH FOOD WEBS
(Page 1 of 2)
Description
This equation calculates the COPC concentration in aquatic vegetation through direct sediment exposure in the freshwater/wetland, brackish/intermediate marsh, and saltmarsh food webs.
The limitations and uncertainty introduced in calculating this variable include the following:
(1) Csed values are COPC- and site-specific. Uncertainties associated with these variables are site specific.
(2) BCFW_AV values are intended to represent "generic benthic invertebrate species", and therefore may over- or under-estimate exposure when applied to site-specific organisms.
Equation
Variable
Description
Units
Value
COPC concentration in aquatic
vegetation
mg COPC/kg
WW
COPC concentration in bed
sediment
mg COPC/kg DW
sediment
Varies (calculated - Table B-2-19)
This equation calculates the concentration of contaminants sorbed to bed sediments. Uncertainties associated with
this equation include the following:
(1) The default variable values recommended for use in the equation in Table B-2-19 may not accurately represent
site-specific water body conditions. The degree of uncertainty associated with variables 9ts, Csed, dwc, and dts is
expected to be limited either because the probable ranges for these variables are narrow or because information
allowing reasonable estimates is generally available.
(2) Uncertainties associated with variables^, Cmtot and Kdts are largely associated with the use of default OC
content values in their calculation. The uncertainty may be significant in specific instances, because OC content
is known to vary widely in different locations in the same medium. This variable is site-specific.
F-29
-------
TABLE F-l-7
COPC CONCENTRATIONS IN AQUATIC VEGETATION IN THE FRESHWATER/WETLAND, BRACKISH/INTERMEDIATE
MARSH, AND SALTMARSH FOOD WEBS
(Page 2 of 2)
Variable
BCFS_A¥
Description
Bioconcentration factor for
sediment-to-aquatic vegetation
Units
unitless [(mg
COPC/kg
WW)/(mg
COPC/kg DW
sediment)]
Value
Varies
This variable is COPC-, site- and species-specific, and is provided in Appendix C. This variable is calculated using
laboratory and field measured values as discussed in Appendix C.
The following uncertainties are associated with this variable:
( 1 ) The COPC specific BCFS_A¥ values may not accurately represent site-specific sediment conditions which could
strongly influence the bioavailability of COPCs, therefore over-or under-estimating CA¥to an unknown degree.
(2) The data set used to calculate BCFS_A¥ is based on soil-to-plant bioconcentration studies. The uncertainty
associated with calculating concentrations using BCFBS_A¥ in site-specific organisms is unknown and may over-
or under-estimate CA¥.
F-30
-------
TABLE F-l-8
COPC CONCENTRATIONS IN ALGAE IN THE FRESHWATER/WETLAND, BRACKISH/INTERMEDIATE MARSH, AND
SALTMARSH FOOD WEBS
(Page 1 of 2)
Description
This equation calculates the COPC concentration in algae through direct water exposure in the freshwater/wetland, brackish/intermediate marsh, and saltmarsh food webs. The limitations and
uncertainty introduced in calculating this variable include the following:
(1) Cdn values are COPC- and site-specific. Uncertainties associated with these variables are site specific.
(2) BCFff,^ values are intended to represent "generic algae species", and therefore may over- or under-estimate exposure when applied to site-specific organisms.
Equation
CAL ~ Cdw ' BCFW-AL
Variable
Description
Units
Value
COPC concentration in algae
mg COPC/kg
WW
Dissolved phase water
concentration
mg COPC/
L water
Varies
This variable is COPC- and site-specific, and is calculated by using the equation in Table B-2-18.
Uncertainties associated with this variable include the following:
(1) The variables in the equation in Table B-2-18 are site-specific. Therefore, the use of default values rather than
site-specific values, for any or all of these variables, will contribute to the under- or overestimation of Cdn. The
degree of uncertainty associated with TSS is expected to be relatively small, because information regarding
reasonable site-specific values for this variable is generally available or can be easily measured.
(2) The uncertainty associated with the variables Cwctot and Kdm is dependent on estimates of OC content. Because
OC content values can vary widely for different locations in the same medium, the uncertainty associated with
using different OC content values may be significant in specific cases.
F-31
-------
TABLE F-l-8
COPC CONCENTRATIONS IN ALGAE IN THE FRESHWATER/WETLAND, BRACKISH/INTERMEDIATE MARSH, AND
SALTMARSH FOOD WEBS
(Page 2 of 2)
Variable
BCFWAL
Description
Bioconcentration factor for water-
to-algae
Units
unitless [(mg
COPC/kg
WW)/(mg
COPC/L water)]
Value
Varies
This variable is COPC-, site- and species-specific, and is provided in Appendix C. This variable is computed using
laboratory and field measured values as discussed in Appendix C.
The following uncertainties are associated with this variable:
(1) The COPC specific BCF^^ values may not accurately represent site-specific sediment conditions, therefore
over-or under-estimating CM to an unknown degree.
(2) The data set used to calculate BCF^^ is based on a limited number of test organisms. The uncertainty
associated with calculating concentrations using BCF^^ in site-specific organisms is unknown and may over-
or under-estimate CM.
F-32
-------
TABLE F-l-9
COPC CONCENTRATIONS IN HERBIVOROUS MAMMALS
IN FRESHWATER/WETLAND, BRACKISH/INTERMEDIATE MARSH, AND SALTMARSH FOOD WEBS
(Page 1 of 5)
Description
This equation calculates the COPC concentration in aquatic herbivorous mammals through the ingestion of plants, sediment, and water in the freshwater/wetland, brackish/intermediate marsh,
and saltmarsh food webs. The limitations and uncertainty introduced in calculating this variable include the following:
(1) Variables: CAV, Csed, and Cwtot are COPC- and site-specific. Uncertainties associated with these variables are site specific.
(2) Variables: BCFTP_HM, BCFbs_HM, and BCFW_HM are based on biotransfer factors for beef cattle (Babeef), and receptor specific ingestion rates, and therefore may introduce uncertainty when
used to compute concentrations in site-specific herbivorous mammals.
(3) The use of single Ba^ value for each COPC may not accurately reflect site-specific conditions, and may under- or overestimate CHM.
Equation
CHM = (CAV ' BCFHM ' PAV ' FAv) + (CAL ' BCFHM ' P AL ' FAL> + ( C sed ' BCFBS-HM ' P BS ) + (CWctot ' BCFW-HM ' Pw)
Variable
(-HM
CAV
BCFA¥_HM
Description
COPC concentration in
herbivorous mammals
COPC concentration in aquatic
vegetation
Bioconcentration factor for aquatic
vegetation -to-aquatic herbivorous
mammals
Units
mg COPC/kg FW
tissue
mg COPC/kg
WW
unitless [(mg
COPC/kg FW
tissue )/(mg
COPC/kg WW)]
Value
BS0;JSS^S¥S¥;W^S^^
W;«>S8S<;;W®S'8^
?S§'SS'8s'vtEP;isr4ffi
Varies (calculated - Table F-l-7)
This variable is site- and COPC-specific; it is calculated using the equation in Table F-l-7. Uncertainties associated
with this variable include:
(1) Csed values are COPC- and site-specific.
(2) BCFBS_A¥ values are intended to represent "generic aquatic vegetation species", and therefore may over- or
under-estimate exposure when applied to site-specific vegetation.
Varies
This variable is COPC-, site-, habitat- and receptor-specific, and is calculated using the following equation to
compute the COPC concentration in aquatic herbivorous mammals through indirect dietary exposure. BCFA¥_HM
values are provided in Appendix D.
F-33
-------
TABLE F-l-9
COPC CONCENTRATIONS IN HERBIVOROUS MAMMALS
IN FRESHWATER/WETLAND, BRACKISH/INTERMEDIATE MARSH, AND SALTMARSH FOOD WEBS
(Page 2 of 5)
Variable
PAY
FAV
CM
Description
Proportion of aquatic vegetation in
diet that is contaminated
Fraction of diet comprised of
aquatic vegetation
COPC concentration in algae
Units
unitless
unitless
mg COPC/kg
WW
Value
Otol
Default: 1.0
This variable is species- and site-specific, and depends on the percentage of the dietary food item that is
contaminated. U.S. EPA OSW recommends that a default value of 1 .0 be used for all food types when site specific
information is not available. The following uncertainty is associated with this variable:
The actual amount of contaminated food ingested by a species depends on food availability, diet composition,
and animal behavior. Therefore, the default value of 100 percent may not accurately reflect site-specific
conditions, and may overestimate the proportion of contaminated food ingested.
Otol
This variable is species- and site-specific, and depends on the percentage of the diet that is comprised of aquatic
vegetation. The default value for a screening level ecological risk assessment is 100 percent for computing
concentration based on an exclusive diet. For calculating an equal diet, Fdia is determined based on the number of
dietary components in the total diet. The application of an equal diet is further discussed in Chapter 5.
Uncertainties associated with this variable include:
(1) The actual proportion of the diet that is comprised of a specific dietary item depends on several factors
including: food availability, animal behavior, species composition, and seasonal influences. These
uncertainties may over- or under- estimate Fdia when applied to site-specific receptors.
(2) The default value of 100 percent for an exclusive diet introduces uncertainty and may over-estimate exposure
from ingestion of a single dietary item.
(3) The default value for an equal diet introduces uncertainty and may over- or under- estimate exposure when
applied to site-specific receptors.
Varies (calculated - Table F-l-8)
This variable is site-specific and COPC-specific; it is calculated using the equation in Table F-l-8. Uncertainties
associated with this variable include:
(1) Cfa values are COPC- and site-specific.
(2) BCFff,^ values are intended to represent "generic algae species", and therefore may over- or under-estimate
exposure when applied to site-specific species.
F-34
-------
TABLE F-l-9
COPC CONCENTRATIONS IN HERBIVOROUS MAMMALS
IN FRESHWATER/WETLAND, BRACKISH/INTERMEDIATE MARSH, AND SALTMARSH FOOD WEBS
(Page 3 of 5)
Variable
Description
Units
Value
BCFA,_m Bioconcentration factor for algae •
to-aquatic herbivorous mammals
unitless [(mg
COPC/kg FW
tissue )/(mg
COPC/kg WW)]
Varies
This variable is COPC-, site-, habitat- and receptor-specific, and is calculated using the following equation to
compute the COPC concentration in aquatic herbivorous mammals through indirect dietary exposure.
values are provided in Appendix D.
P..
Proportion of algae in diet that is
contaminated
unitless
Otol
Default: 1.0
This variable is species- and site-specific, and depends on the percentage of the dietary food item that is
contaminated. U.S. EPA OSW recommends that a default value of 1.0 be used for all food types when site specific
information is not available. The following uncertainty is associated with this variable:
(1) The actual amount of contaminated food ingested by a species depends on food availability, diet composition,
and animal behavior. Therefore, the default value of 100 percent may not accurately reflect site-specific
conditions, and may overestimate the proportion of contaminated food ingested.
Fraction of diet comprised of algae
unitless
Otol
This variable is species- and site-specific, and depends on the percentage of the diet that is comprised of algae. The
default value for a screening level ecological risk assessment is 100 percent for computing concentration based on
an exclusive diet. For calculating an equal diet, Fdia is determined based on the number of dietary components in
the total diet. The application of an equal diet is further discussed in Chapter 5.
Uncertainties associated with this variable include:
(1) The actual proportion of the diet that is comprised of a specific dietary item depends on several factors
including: food availability, animal behavior, species composition, and seasonal influences. These
uncertainties may over- or under- estimate Fdiet when applied to site-specific receptors.
(2) The default value of 100 percent for an exclusive diet introduces uncertainty and may over-estimate exposure
from ingestion of a single dietary item.
(3) The default value for an equal diet introduces uncertainty and may over- or under- estimate exposure when
applied to site-specific receptors.
F-35
-------
TABLE F-l-9
COPC CONCENTRATIONS IN HERBIVOROUS MAMMALS
IN FRESHWATER/WETLAND, BRACKISH/INTERMEDIATE MARSH, AND SALTMARSH FOOD WEBS
(Page 4 of 5)
Variable
Description
Units
Value
COPC concentration in bed
sediment
mg COPC/kg DW
sediment
Varies (calculated - Table B-2-19)
This equation calculates the concentration of contaminants sorbed to bed sediments. Uncertainties associated with
this equation include the following:
(1) The default variable values recommended for use in the equation in Table B-2-19 may not accurately represent
site-specific water body conditions. The degree of uncertainty associated with variables 9bs, Csed, „,„,„ and dbs
is expected to be limited either because the probable ranges for these variables are narrow or because
information allowing reasonable estimates is generally available.
(2) Uncertainties associated with variables/^, CMot and Kdbs are largely associated with the use of default OC
content values in their calculation. The uncertainty may be significant in specific instances, because OC
content is known to vary widely in different locations in the same medium. This variable is site-specific.
Bioconcentration factor for bed
sediment-to-aquatic herbivorous
mammal
unitless [(mg
COPC/kg FW
tissue )/(mg
COPC/kg DW
sediment)]
Varies
This variable is COPC-, site-, and receptor-specific, and is calculated using the following equation to compute the
COPC concentration in aquatic herbivorous mammals through indirect sediment exposure. BCFBS_HM values are
provided in Appendix D.
Proportion of ingested bed
sediment that is contaminated
unitless
Otol
Default: 1.0
This variable is species- and site-specific, and depends on the percentage of sediment ingested that is contaminated.
U.S. EPA OSW recommends that a default value of 1.0 be used for a screening level risk assessment when site
specific information is not available. The following uncertainty is associated with this variable:
(1) The actual amount of contaminated soil ingested by species depends on site-specific information, receptor
home range, and animal behavior; therefore, the default value of 100 percent may not accurately reflect site-
specific conditions, and the proportion of soil ingested that is contaminated will likely be overestimated.
F-36
-------
TABLE F-l-9
COPC CONCENTRATIONS IN HERBIVOROUS MAMMALS
IN FRESHWATER/WETLAND, BRACKISH/INTERMEDIATE MARSH, AND SALTMARSH FOOD WEBS
(Page 5 of 5)
Variable
Description
Units
Value
CWCM Total COPC concentration in water
column
mg COPC/L
water
(or
g COPC/m3
water)
Varies (calculated - Table B-2-17)
This variable is COPC- and site-specific and is calculated using Table B-2-17. Uncertainties associated with this
equation include the following:
(1) All of the variables in the equation in Table B-2-17 are COPC- and site-specific. Therefore, the use of default
values rather than site-specific values, for any or all of these variables, will contribute to the under- or
overestimation of Cmtot.
(2) Uncertainty associated with fwc is largely the result of uncertainty associated with default OC content values
and may be significant in specific instances. Uncertainties associated with the variable LT and KM may also be
significant because of many variable-specific uncertainties.
The degree of uncertainty associated with the variables dm and dbs is expected to be minimal either because
information for estimating a variable (rfw) is generally available or because the probable range for a variable (dbs) is
narrow. The uncertainty associated with the variables/,,, and CMot is associated with estimates of OC content.
Because OC content values can vary widely for different locations in the same media, the uncertainty associated
with using default OC values may be significant in specific cases.
BCFW_HM Bioconcentration factor for water-
to-aquatic herbivorous mammal
pathways
unitless [(mg
COPC/kg FW
tissue )/(mg
COPC/L water)]
Varies
This variable is COPC-, site-, and receptor-specific, and is calculated using the following equation to compute the
COPC concentration in aquatic herbivorous mammals through indirect water exposure. BCFW_HM values are
provided in Appendix D.
Pw
Proportion of ingested water that is
contaminated
unitless
Otol
Default: 1.0
This variable is species- and site-specific, and depends on the percentage of water ingested that is contaminated.
U.S. EPA OSW recommends that a default value of 1.0 be used when site specific information is not available.
The following uncertainty is associated with this variable:
(1) The actual amount of contaminated water ingested by species depends on site-specific information, receptor
home range, and animal behavior; therefore, the default value of 100 percent may not accurately reflect site-
specific conditions, and the proportion of ingested water that is contaminated will likely be overestimated.
F-37
-------
TABLE F-l-10
COPC CONCENTRATIONS IN HERBIVOROUS BIRDS
IN FRESHWATER/WETLAND, BRACKISH/INTERMEDIATE MARSH, AND SALTMARSH FOOD WEBS
(Page 1 of 5)
Description
This equation calculates the COPC concentration in aquatic herbivorous birds through ingestion of contaminated plants, sediment, and water in the freshwater/wetland, brackish/intermediate
marsh, and saltmarsh food webs. The limitations and uncertainty introduced in calculating this variable include the following:
(1) Variables: CAV, Csed, and Cwctot are COPC- and site-specific. Uncertainties associated with these variables are site specific.
(2) Variables: BCFA¥_HB, BCFBS_HB, and BCFW_HB are calculated based on biotransfer factors for chicken (Bachicken), and receptor specific ingestion rates, and therefore may introduce
uncertainty when used to compute concentrations for site-specific herbivorous birds.
(3) The use of single Bachicken value for each COPC may not accurately reflect site-specific conditions; and may under- or overestimate CHB.
Equation
c = (c
^HB \-Ay
HB
D/^ZT1 . p • 771 ^ 4- ( (~* • R^/71 • P ^ + ( (~* • RC'J? • P
D^rHB r AL rAL> \^sed D^r BS-HB rBS > V ^wctot D^rW-HB rW
Variable
Description
Units
Value
CH
COPC concentration in
herbivorous birds
mg COPC/kg FW
tissue
CAV
COPC concentration in aquatic
vegetation
mg COPC/kg
WW
Varies (calculated - Table F-l-7)
This variable is site- and COPC-specific; it is calculated using the equation in Table F-l-7. Uncertainties associated
with this variable include:
(1) Csed values are COPC- and site-specific.
(2) BCFBS_A¥ values are intended to represent "generic aquatic vegetation species", and therefore may over- or
under-estimate exposure when applied to site-specific vegetation.
BCFAV_H
Bioconcentration factor for aquatic
vegetation -to-aquatic herbivorous
birds
unitless [(mg
COPC/kg FW
tissue )/(mg
COPC/kg WW)]
Varies
This variable is COPC-, site-, habitat- and receptor-specific, and is calculated using the following equation to
compute the COPC concentration in aquatic herbivorous birds through indirect dietary exposure. BCFA¥_HB values
are provided in Appendix D.
F-38
-------
TABLE F-l-10
COPC CONCENTRATIONS IN HERBIVOROUS BIRDS
IN FRESHWATER/WETLAND, BRACKISH/INTERMEDIATE MARSH, AND SALTMARSH FOOD WEBS
(Page 2 of 5)
Variable
PAY
FAV
CM
Description
Proportion of aquatic vegetation in
diet that is contaminated
Fraction of diet comprised of
aquatic vegetation
COPC concentration in algae
Units
unitless
unitless
mg COPC/kg
WW
Value
Otol
Default: 1.0
This variable is species- and site-specific, and depends on the percentage of the dietary food item that is
contaminated. U.S. EPA OSW recommends that a default value of 1 .0 be used for all food types when site specific
information is not available. The following uncertainty is associated with this variable:
(1) The actual amount of contaminated food ingested by a species depends on food availability, diet composition,
and animal behavior. Therefore, the default value of 100 percent may not accurately reflect site-specific
conditions, and may overestimate the proportion of contaminated food ingested.
Otol
This variable is species- and site-specific, and depends on the percentage of the diet that is comprised of aquatic
vegetation. The default value for a screening level ecological risk assessment is 100 percent for computing
concentration based on an exclusive diet. For calculating an equal diet, Fdia is determined based on the number of
dietary components in the total diet. The application of an equal diet is further discussed in Chapter 5.
Uncertainties associated with this variable include:
(1) The actual proportion of the diet that is comprised of a specific dietary item depends on several factors
including: food availability, animal behavior, species composition, and seasonal influences. These
uncertainties may over- or under- estimate Fdia when applied to site-specific receptors.
(2) The default value of 100 percent for an exclusive diet introduces uncertainty and may over-estimate exposure
from ingestion of a single dietary item.
(3) The default value for an equal diet introduces uncertainty and may over- or under- estimate exposure when
applied to site-specific receptors.
Varies (calculated - Table F-l-8)
This variable is site-specific and COPC-specific; it is calculated using the equation in Table F-l-8. Uncertainties
associated with this variable include:
(1) Cfa values are COPC- and site-specific.
(2) BCFff,^ values are intended to represent "generic algae species", and therefore may over- or under-estimate
exposure when applied to site-specific species.
F-39
-------
TABLE F-l-10
COPC CONCENTRATIONS IN HERBIVOROUS BIRDS
IN FRESHWATER/WETLAND, BRACKISH/INTERMEDIATE MARSH, AND SALTMARSH FOOD WEBS
(Page 3 of 5)
Variable
Description
Units
Value
BCFA,_m Bioconcentration factor for algae •
to-aquatic herbivorous birds
unitless [(mg
COPC/kg FW
tissue )/(mg
COPC/kg WW)]
Varies
This variable is COPC-, site-, habitat- and receptor-specific, and is calculated using the following equation to
compute the COPC concentration in aquatic herbivorous birds through indirect dietary exposure: BCF^,^ values
are provided in Appendix D.
P..
Proportion of algae in diet that is
contaminated
unitless
Otol
Default: 1.0
This variable is species- and site-specific, and depends on the percentage of the dietary food item that is
contaminated. U.S. EPA OSW recommends that a default value of 1.0 be used for all food types when site specific
information is not available. The following uncertainty is associated with this variable:
(1) The actual amount of contaminated food ingested by a species depends on food availability, diet composition,
and animal behavior. Therefore, the default value of 100 percent may not accurately reflect site-specific
conditions, and may overestimate the proportion of contaminated food ingested.
Fraction of diet comprised of algae
unitless
Otol
This variable is species- and site-specific, and depends on the percentage of the diet that is comprised of algae. The
default value for a screening level ecological risk assessment is 100 percent for computing concentration based on
an exclusive diet. For calculating an equal diet, Fdia is determined based on the number of dietary components in
the total diet. The application of an equal diet is further discussed in Chapter 5.
Uncertainties associated with this variable include:
(1) The actual proportion of the diet that is comprised of a specific dietary item depends on several factors
including: food availability, animal behavior, species composition, and seasonal influences. These
uncertainties may over- or under- estimate Fdia when applied to site-specific receptors.
(2) The default value of 100 percent for an exclusive diet introduces uncertainty and may over-estimate exposure
from ingestion of a single dietary item.
(3) The default value for an equal diet introduces uncertainty and may over- or under- estimate exposure when
applied to site-specific receptors.
F-40
-------
TABLE F-l-10
COPC CONCENTRATIONS IN HERBIVOROUS BIRDS
IN FRESHWATER/WETLAND, BRACKISH/INTERMEDIATE MARSH, AND SALTMARSH FOOD WEBS
(Page 4 of 5)
Variable
Description
Units
Value
COPC concentration in bed
sediment
mg COPC/kg DW
sediment
Varies (calculated - Table B-2-19)
This equation calculates the concentration of COPSs in bed sediments. Uncertainties associated with this equation
include the following:
(1) The default variable values recommended for use in the equation in Table B-2-19 may not accurately represent
site-specific water body conditions. The degree of uncertainty associated with variables 9bs, Csed, „,„,„ and dbs
is expected to be limited either because the probable ranges for these variables are narrow or because
information allowing reasonable estimates is generally available.
(2) Uncertainties associated with variables/^, CMot and Kdbs are largely associated with the use of default OC
content values in their calculation. The uncertainty may be significant in specific instances, because OC
content is known to vary widely in different locations in the same medium. This variable is site-specific.
Bioconcentration factor for bed
sediment-to-aquatic herbivorous
bird
unitless [(mg
COPC/kg FW
tissue )/(mg
COPC/kg DW
sediment)]
Varies
This variable is COPC-, site-, habitat- and receptor-specific, and is calculated using the following equation to
compute the COPC concentration in aquatic herbivorous birds through indirect sediment exposure. BCFBS_HB values
are provided in Appendix D.
Proportion of ingested bed
sediment that is contaminated
unitless
Otol
Default: 1.0
This variable is species- and site-specific, and depends on the percentage of soil ingested that is contaminated. U.S.
EPA OSW recommends that a default value of 1.0 be used for a screening level risk assessment when site specific
information is not available. The following uncertainty is associated with this variable:
(1) The actual amount of contaminated soil ingested by species depends on site-specific information, receptor
home range, and animal behavior; therefore, the default value of 100 percent may not accurately reflect site-
specific conditions, and the proportion of soil ingested that is contaminated will likely be overestimated.
F-41
-------
TABLE F-l-10
COPC CONCENTRATIONS IN HERBIVOROUS BIRDS
IN FRESHWATER/WETLAND, BRACKISH/INTERMEDIATE MARSH, AND SALTMARSH FOOD WEBS
(Page 5 of 5)
Variable
Description
Units
Value
CWCM Total COPC concentration in water
column
mg COPC/L
water
(or
g COPC/m3
water)
Varies (calculated - Table B-2-17)
This variable is COPC- and site-specific and is calculated using Table B-2-17. Uncertainties associated with this
equation include the following:
(1) All of the variables in the equation in Table B-2-17 are COPC- and site-specific. Therefore, the use of default
values rather than site-specific values, for any or all of these variables, will contribute to the under- or
overestimation of Cmtot.
(2) Uncertainty associated with/,,, is largely the result of uncertainty associated with default OC content values
and may be significant in specific instances. Uncertainties associated with the variable LT and KM may also be
significant because of many variable-specific uncertainties.
The degree of uncertainty associated with the variables dm and dbs is expected to be minimal either because
information for estimating a variable (rfw) is generally available or because the probable range for a variable (dbs) is
narrow. The uncertainty associated with the variables/,,, and CMot is associated with estimates of OC content.
Because OC content values can vary widely for different locations in the same medium, the uncertainty associated
with using default OC values may be significant in specific cases.
BCFW_HB Bioconcentration factor for water-
to-aquatic herbivorous bird
unitless [(mg
COPC/kg FW
tissue )/(mg
COPC/L water)]
Varies
This variable is COPC-, site-, and receptor-specific, and is calculated using the following equation to compute the
COPC concentration in aquatic herbivorous birds through indirect exposure to water. BCFW_HB values are provided
in Appendix D.
Pw
Proportion of ingested water that is
contaminated
unitless
Otol
Default: 1.0
This variable is species- and site-specific, and depends on the percentage of water ingested that is contaminated.
U.S. EPA OSW recommends that a default value of 1.0 be used when site specific information is not available.
The following uncertainty is associated with this variable:
(1) The actual amount of contaminated water ingested by species depends on site-specific information, receptor
home range, and animal behavior; therefore, the default value of 100 percent may not accurately reflect site-
specific conditions, and the proportion of ingested water that is contaminated will likely be overestimated.
F-42
-------
TABLE F-l-11
COPC CONCENTRATIONS IN BENTHIC INVERTEBRATES
IN FRESHWATER/WETLAND, BRACKISH/INTERMEDIATE MARSH, AND SALTMARSH FOOD WEBS
(Page 1 of 2)
Description
This equation calculates the COPC concentration in benthic invertebrates through direct exposure to benthic sediment in the freshwater/wetland, brackish/intermediate marsh, and saltmarsh
food webs. The limitations and uncertainty introduced in calculating this variable include the following:
(1) Csed values are COPC- and site-specific. Uncertainties associated with these variables are site specific.
(2) BCFBS_BI values are intended to represent "generic benthic invertebrate species", and therefore may over- or under-estimate exposure when applied to site-specific organisms.
Equation
BS-BI
Variable
Description
Units
Value
COPC concentration in benthic
invertebrates
mg COPC/kg FW
tissue
COPC concentration in bed
sediment
mg COPC/kg DW
sediment
Varies (calculated - Table B-2-19)
This equation calculates the concentration of COPCs in bed sediments. Uncertainties associated with this equation
include the following:
(1) The default variable values recommended for use in the equation in Table B-2-19 may not accurately represent
site-specific water body conditions. The degree of uncertainty associated with variables 9ts, Csed, dwc, and dts is
expected to be limited either because the probable ranges for these variables are narrow or because information
allowing reasonable estimates is generally available.
(2) Uncertainties associated with variables^,, Cwtot and Kdts are largely associated with the use of default OC
content values in their calculation. The uncertainty may be significant in specific instances, because OC content
is known to vary widely in different locations in the same medium. This variable is site-specific.
F-43
-------
TABLE F-l-11
COPC CONCENTRATIONS IN BENTHIC INVERTEBRATES
IN FRESHWATER/WETLAND, BRACKISH/INTERMEDIATE MARSH, AND SALTMARSH FOOD WEBS
(Page 2 of 2)
Variable
BCFBS_BI
Description
Bioconcentration factor for
sediment-to-benthic invertebrate
Units
unitless [(mg
COPC/kg FW
tissue )/(mg
COPC/kg DW
sediment)]
Value
Varies
This variable is COPC-, site- and species-specific, and is provided in Appendix C. This variable is calculated using
laboratory and field measured values as discussed in Appendix C.
The following uncertainties are associated with this variable:
(1) The COPC specific BCFBS_BI values may not accurately represent site-specific sediment conditions which could
strongly influence the bioavailability of COPCs, therefore over-or under-estimating CBI to an unknown degree.
(2) The data set used to calculate BCFBS_BI is based on a limited number of test organisms. The uncertainty
associated with calculating concentrations using BCFBS_BI in site-specific organisms is unknown and may over-
or under-estimate CBI.
F-44
-------
TABLE F-l-12
COPC CONCENTRATIONS IN WATER INVERTEBRATE
IN FRESHWATER/WETLAND, BRACKISH/INTERMEDIATE MARSH, AND SALTMARSH FOOD WEBS
(Page 1 of 2)
Description
This equation calculates the COPC concentration in water invertebrates through direct water exposure in the freshwater/wetland, brackish/intermediate marsh, and saltmarsh food webs. The
limitations and uncertainty introduced in calculating this variable include the following:
(1) Cdn values are COPC- and site-specific. Uncertainties associated with these variables are site specific.
(2) BCFm values are intended to represent "generic water invertebrate species", and therefore may over- or under-estimate exposure when applied to site-specific organisms.
Equation
Variable
Description
Units
Value
COPC concentration in water
invertebrates
mg COPC/kg FW
tissue
Dissolved phase water
concentration
mg COPC/L
water
Varies (calculated - Table B-2-18)
This variable is COPC- and site-specific. This equation calculates the concentration of COPC dissolved in the water
column. Uncertainties associated with this equation include the following:
(1) The variables in the equation in Table B-2-18 are site-specific. Therefore, the use of default values rather than
site-specific values, for any or all of these variables, will contribute to the under- or overestimation of Cdn. The
degree of uncertainty associated with TSS is expected to be relatively small, because information regarding
reasonable site-specific values for this variable are generally available or it can be easily measured. On the
other hand, the uncertainty associated with the variables Cwctot and Kdm is associated with estimates of OC
content. Because OC content values can vary widely for different locations in the same medium, using default
OC values may result in significant uncertainty in specific cases.
F-45
-------
TABLE F-l-12
COPC CONCENTRATIONS IN WATER INVERTEBRATE
IN FRESHWATER/WETLAND, BRACKISH/INTERMEDIATE MARSH, AND SALTMARSH FOOD WEBS
(Page 2 of 2)
Variable
BCFw_m
Description
Bioconcentration factor for water-
to-invertebrate
Units
unitless [(mg
COPC/kg FW
tissue )/(mg
COPC/L water)]
Value
Varies
This variable is COPC-, site- and species-specific, and should be determined using Appendix C. This variable is
calculated using laboratory and field measured values as discussed in Appendix C.
The following uncertainties are associated with this variable:
(1) The COPC specific BCFw_m values may not accurately represent site-specific conditions, therefore over-or
under-estimating Cm to an unknown degree.
(2) The data set used to calculate BCFw_m is based on a limited number of test organisms. The uncertainty
associated with calculating concentrations using BCFw_m in site-specific organisms is unknown and may over-
or under-estimate CM.
F-46
-------
TABLE F-l-13
COPC CONCENTRATIONS IN HERBIVOROUS AND PLANKTIVOROUS FISH
IN FRESHWATER/WETLAND, BRACKISH/INTERMEDIATE MARSH, AND SALTMARSH FOOD WEBS
(Page 1 of 3)
Description
This equation calculates the COPC concentration in herbivorous/planktivorous fish through ingestion of contaminated food and direct water exposure in the freshwater/wetland,
brackish/intermediate marsh, and saltmarsh food webs. The limitations and uncertainty introduced in calculating this variable include the following:
(1) Cdn values are COPC- and site-specific. Uncertainties associated with these variables are site specific.
(2) The data set used to calculate BCFfis based on a limited number of test organisms and therefore may over- or under-estimate exposure when applied to site-specific organisms.
Equation
Variable
Description
Units
Value
CH
COPC concentration in herbivorous
and planktivorous fish
mg COPC/kg FW
tissue
C.,
Dissolved phase water
concentration
mg COPC/L
water
Varies (calculated - Table B-2-18)
This variable is COPC- and site-specific. This equation calculates the concentration of COPC dissolved in the water
column. Uncertainties associated with this equation include the following:
(1) The variables in the equation in Table B-2-18 are site-specific. Therefore, the use of default values rather than
site-specific values, for any or all of these variables, will contribute to the under- or overestimation of Cdn. The
degree of uncertainty associated with TSS is expected to be relatively small, because information regarding
reasonable site-specific values for this variable are generally available or it can be easily measured. On the
other hand, the uncertainty associated with the variables Cmtot and Kdm is associated with estimates of OC
content. Because OC content values can vary widely for different locations in the same medium, using default
OC values may result in significant uncertainty in specific cases.
F-47
-------
TABLE F-l-13
COPC CONCENTRATIONS IN HERBIVOROUS AND PLANKTIVOROUS FISH
IN FRESHWATER/WETLAND, BRACKISH/INTERMEDIATE MARSH, AND SALTMARSH FOOD WEBS
(Page 2 of 3)
Variable
Description
Units
Value
BCFf
Bioconcentration factor for water-
to-fish pathways
unitless [(mg
COPC/kg FW
tissue )/(mg
COPC/L water)]
Varies
This variable is COPC-, site- and species-specific, and is provided in Appendix C. This variable is calculated using
laboratory and field measured values as discussed in Appendix C.
The following uncertainties are associated with this variable:
(1) The COPC specific BCFf values may not accurately represent site-specific conditions, therefore over-or under-
estimating CHP to an unknown degree.
(2) The data set used to calculate BCFf is based on a limited number of test species. The uncertainty associated
with calculating concentrations using BCFf in site-specific organisms is unknown and may over- or under-
estimate CHF.
FCMTL2
Food chain multiplier for trophic
level 2 predator
unitless
Varies
This variable is COPC- and trophic level-specific and is provided in Chapter 5, Table 5-2. The following
uncertainties are associated with this variable:
(1) FCMs do not account for metabolism, thus for COPCs with significant metabolism concentrations may be over-
estimated to an unknown degree.
(2) The application of FCMs for computing concentration in terrestrial food webs introduce uncertainty (see
Chapter 5).
FCMs are obtained from the U.S. EPA (1995) "Great Lakes Water Quality Initiative Technical Support Document for
the Procedure to Determine Bioaccumulation Factors."
F-48
-------
TABLE F-l-13
COPC CONCENTRATIONS IN HERBIVOROUS AND PLANKTIVOROUS FISH
IN FRESHWATER/WETLAND, BRACKISH/INTERMEDIATE MARSH, AND SALTMARSH FOOD WEBS
(Page 3 of 3)
REFERENCES AND DISCUSSIONS
U.S. EPA. 1995. Great Lakes Water Quality Initiative Technical Support Document for the Procedure to Determine Bioaccumulation Factors. Office of Water. EPA-820-B-95-005.
F-49
-------
TABLE F-l-14
COPC CONCENTRATIONS IN OMNIVOROUS MAMMALS
IN FRESHWATER/WETLAND, BRACKISH/INTERMEDIATE MARSH, AND SALTMARSH FOOD WEBS
(Page 1 of 10)
Description
This equation calculates the COPC concentration in aquatic omnivorous mammals through ingestion of plants, sediment, and water in the freshwater/wetland, brackish/intermediate marsh,
and saltmarsh food webs. The limitations and uncertainty introduced in calculating this variable include the following:
(1) Variables: Csed, and Cmtot are COPC- and site-specific. Uncertainties associated with these variables are site specific.
(2) Variables: BCFBS_OM, and BCFW_OM are based on biotransfer factors for beef cattle (Bateej), and receptor specific ingestion rates, and therefore may introduce uncertainty when used to
compute concentrations in site-specific omnivorous mammals.
Equation
FCMTT,
_
J-V-T, r
FCM
P • ff \ +
BI BI '
FCM
TT,
TL2
,-,,-,, ,
FCM
P • ff
r Wl r Wl
TL2
FCMTT,
_ • P
,-,,-,, , r
FCMTL2
HM
(C
' ' HB>
4- t C* • TIC'J? • P
v sed D^-rBS-OM rBS
"
> + ' ^ AV ' ' AV-
AL AL
Cwctot ' BCFW-OM ' PW
AV-OM
Variable
Description
Units
Value
Cn
COPC concentration in
omnivorous mammals
mg COPC/kg FW
tissue
F-50
-------
TABLE F-l-14
COPC CONCENTRATIONS IN OMNIVOROUS MAMMALS
IN FRESHWATER/WETLAND, BRACKISH/INTERMEDIATE MARSH, AND SALTMARSH FOOD WEBS
(Page 2 of 10)
Variable
CBI
FCMr,,
FCMTL2
PB,
Description
COPC concentration in benthic
invertebrates
Food chain multiplier for trophic
level 3 predator consuming
trophic level 2 prey
Proportion of benthic invertebrate
in diet that is contaminated
Units
mg COPC/kg FW
tissue
unitless
unitless
Value
Varies
This variable is site-specific and COPC-specific; it is calculated using the equation in Table F-l-1 1 . Uncertainties
associated with this variable include the following:
(1) Csed values are COPC- and site-specific.
(2) BCFBS_BI values are intended to represent "generic benthic invertebrate species", and therefore may over- or
under-estimate exposure when applied to site-specific organisms.
Varies
This variable is COPC- and trophic level-specific and is provided in Chapter 5, Table 5-2. The following
uncertainties are associated with this variable:
(1) FCMs do not account for metabolism, thus for COPCs with significant metabolism, concentrations may be
over-estimated to an unknown degree.
(2) The application of FCMs for computing concentration in terrestrial food webs may introduce uncertainty (see
Chapter 5)
FCMs are obtained from the U.S. EPA 1995 "Great Lakes Water Quality Initiative Technical Support Document for
the Procedure to Determine Bioaccumulation Factors."
Otol
Default: 1.0
This variable is species- and site-specific, and depends on the percentage of the dietary food item that is
contaminated. U.S. EPA OSW recommends that a default value of 1 .0 be used for all food types when site specific
information is not available. The following uncertainty is associated with this variable:
(1) The actual amount of contaminated food ingested by a species depends on food availability, diet composition,
and animal behavior. Therefore, the default value of 100 percent may not accurately reflect site-specific
conditions, and may overestimate the proportion of contaminated food ingested.
F-51
-------
TABLE F-l-14
COPC CONCENTRATIONS IN OMNIVOROUS MAMMALS
IN FRESHWATER/WETLAND, BRACKISH/INTERMEDIATE MARSH, AND SALTMARSH FOOD WEBS
(Page 3 of 10)
Variable
Description
Units
Value
Fraction of diet comprised of
benthic invertebrates
unitless
Otol
This variable is species- and site-specific, and depends on the percentage of the diet that is comprised of benthic
invertebrates. The default value for a screening level ecological risk assessment is 100 percent for computing
concentration based on an exclusive diet. For calculating an equal diet, Fdia is determined based on the number of
dietary components in the total diet. The application of an equal diet is further discussed in Chapter 5.
Uncertainties associated with this variable include:
(1) The actual proportion of the diet that is comprised of a specific dietary item depends on several factors
including: food availability, animal behavior, species composition, and seasonal influences. These
uncertainties may over- or under- estimate Fdia when applied to site-specific receptors.
(2) The default value of 100 percent for an exclusive diet introduces uncertainty and may over-estimate exposure
from ingestion of a single dietary item.
(3) The default value for an equal diet introduces uncertainty and may over- or under- estimate exposure when
applied to site-specific receptors.
Cm COPC concentration in water
invertebrates
mg COPC/kg FW
tissue
Varies (calculated - Table F-l-12)
This variable is site-specific and COPC-specific; it is calculated using the equation in Table F-l-12. Uncertainties
associated with this variable include:
(1) Cdn values are COPC- and site-specific.
(2) BCFw_m values are intended to represent "generic water invertebrate species", and therefore may over- or under-
estimate exposure when applied to site-specific organisms.
Proportion of water invertebrate in
diet that is contaminated
unitless
Otol
Default: 1.0
This variable is species- and site-specific, and depends on the percentage of the dietary food item that is
contaminated. U.S. EPA OSW recommends that a default value of 1.0 be used for all food types when site specific
information is not available. The following uncertainty is associated with this variable:
(1) The actual amount of contaminated food ingested by a species depends on food availability, diet composition,
and animal behavior. Therefore, the default value of 100 percent may not accurately reflect site-specific
conditions, and may overestimate the proportion of contaminated food ingested.
F-52
-------
TABLE F-l-14
COPC CONCENTRATIONS IN OMNIVOROUS MAMMALS
IN FRESHWATER/WETLAND, BRACKISH/INTERMEDIATE MARSH, AND SALTMARSH FOOD WEBS
(Page 4 of 10)
Variable
FWI
r
^•HM
"HM
Description
Fraction of diet comprised of
water invertebrates
Concentration of COPC in
herbivorous mammals
Proportion of aquatic herbivorous
mammal in diet that is
contaminated
Units
unitless
mg COPC/kg FW
tissue
unitless
Value
Otol
This variable is species- and site-specific, and depends on the percentage of the diet that is comprised of water
invertebrates. The default value for a screening level ecological risk assessment is 100 percent for computing
concentration based on an exclusive diet. For calculating an equal diet, Fdiet is determined based on the number of
dietary components in the total diet. The application of an equal diet is further discussed in Chapter 5.
Uncertainties associated with this variable include:
(1) The actual proportion of the diet that is comprised of a specific dietary item depends on several factors
including: food availability, animal behavior, species composition, and seasonal influences. These
uncertainties may over- or under- estimate Fdia when applied to site-specific receptors.
(2) The default value of 100 percent for an exclusive diet introduces uncertainty and may over-estimate exposure
from ingestion of a single dietary item.
(3) The default value for an equal diet introduces uncertainty and may over- or under- estimate exposure when
applied to site-specific receptors.
Varies (calculated - Table F-l-9)
This variable is site-specific and COPC-specific; it is calculated using the equation in Table F-l-9. Uncertainties
associated with this variable include:
(1) Variables: CAV, C^C^j, and Cmtot are COPC- and site-specific.
(2) Variables: BCFBS_HM and BCFW_HM are based on biotransfer factors for beef cattle (Babeef), and receptor specific
ingestion rates, and therefore may introduce uncertainty when used to compute concentrations for site-specific
herbivorous mammals.
Otol
Default: 1.0
This variable is species- and site-specific, and depends on the percentage of the dietary food item that is
contaminated. U.S. EPA OSW recommends that a default value of 1 .0 be used for all food types when site specific
information is not available. The following uncertainty is associated with this variable:
(1) The actual amount of contaminated food ingested by a species depends on food availability, diet composition,
and animal behavior. Therefore, the default value of 100 percent may not accurately reflect site-specific
conditions, and may overestimate the proportion of contaminated food ingested.
F-53
-------
TABLE F-l-14
COPC CONCENTRATIONS IN OMNIVOROUS MAMMALS
IN FRESHWATER/WETLAND, BRACKISH/INTERMEDIATE MARSH, AND SALTMARSH FOOD WEBS
(Page 5 of 10)
Variable
FHM
r
^HB
"HB
Description
Fraction of diet comprised of
aquatic herbivorous mammals
COPC concentration in
herbivorous birds
Proportion of herbivorous birds in
diet that is contaminated
Units
unitless
mg COPC/kg FW
tissue
unitless
Value
Otol
This variable is species- and site-specific, and depends on the percentage of the diet that is comprised of aquatic
herbivorous mammals. The default value for a screening level ecological risk assessment is 100 percent for
computing concentration based on an exclusive diet. For calculating an equal diet, Fdia is determined based on the
number of dietary components in the total diet. The application of an equal diet is further discussed in Chapter 5.
Uncertainties associated with this variable include:
(1) The actual proportion of the diet that is comprised of a specific dietary item depends on several factors
including: food availability, animal behavior, species composition, and seasonal influences. These
uncertainties may over- or under- estimate Fdia when applied to site-specific receptors.
(2) The default value of 100 percent for an exclusive diet introduces uncertainty and may over-estimate exposure
from ingestion of a single dietary item.
(3) The default value for an equal diet introduces uncertainty and may over- or under- estimate exposure when
applied to site-specific receptors.
Varies (calculated - Table F-l-10)
This variable is site-specific and chemical-specific; it is calculated using the equation in Table F-l-10. Uncertainties
associated with this variable include:
(1) Variables: CAV, C^C^j, and Cmtot are COPC- and site-specific.
(2) Variables: BCFBS_HB and BCFW_HB are based on biotransfer factors for chicken (Bachicken ), and receptor specific
ingestion rates, and therefore may introduce uncertainty when used to compute concentrations for site-specific
herbivorous birds.
Otol
Default: 1.0
This variable is species- and site-specific, and depends on the percentage of the dietary food item that is
contaminated. U.S. EPA OSW recommends that a default value of 1 .0 be used for all food types when site specific
information is not available. The following uncertainty is associated with this variable:
(1) The actual amount of contaminated food ingested by a species depends on food availability, diet composition,
and animal behavior. Therefore, the default value of 100 percent may not accurately reflect site-specific
conditions, and may overestimate the proportion of contaminated food ingested.
F-54
-------
TABLE F-l-14
COPC CONCENTRATIONS IN OMNIVOROUS MAMMALS
IN FRESHWATER/WETLAND, BRACKISH/INTERMEDIATE MARSH, AND SALTMARSH FOOD WEBS
(Page 6 of 10)
Variable
FHB
CM
BCF^oM
Description
Fraction of diet comprised of
herbivorous birds
COPC concentration in algae
Bioconcentration factor for algae-
to-omnivorous mammal
Units
unitless
mg COPC/kg
WW
unitless [(mg
COPC/kg FW
tissue )/(mg
COPC/kg WW)]
Value
Otol
This variable is species- and site-specific, and depends on the percentage of the diet that is comprised of aquatic
herbivorous birds. The default value for a screening level ecological risk assessment is 100 percent for computing
concentration based on an exclusive diet. For calculating an equal diet, Fdiet is determined based on the number of
dietary components in the total diet. The application of an equal diet is further discussed in Chapter 5.
Uncertainties associated with this variable include:
(1) The actual proportion of the diet that is comprised of a specific dietary item depends on several factors
including: food availability, animal behavior, species composition, and seasonal influences. These
uncertainties may over- or under- estimate Fdia when applied to site-specific receptors.
(2) The default value of 100 percent for an exclusive diet introduces uncertainty and may over-estimate exposure
from ingestion of a single dietary item.
(3) The default value for an equal diet introduces uncertainty and may over- or under- estimate exposure when
applied to site-specific receptors.
Varies (calculated - Table F-l-8)
This variable is site-specific and COPC-specific; it is calculated using the equation in Table F-l-8. Uncertainties
associated with this variable include:
(1) Cdn values are COPC- and site-specific.
(2) BCFff,^ values are intended to represent "generic algae species", and therefore may over- or under-estimate
exposure when applied to site-specific species.
Varies
This variable is COPC-, site-, habitat- and receptor-specific, and is calculated using the following equation to
compute the COPC concentration in aquatic omnivorous mammals through indirect dietary exposure. BCF^,^
values are provided in Appendix D.
F-55
-------
TABLE F-l-14
COPC CONCENTRATIONS IN OMNIVOROUS MAMMALS
IN FRESHWATER/WETLAND, BRACKISH/INTERMEDIATE MARSH, AND SALTMARSH FOOD WEBS
(Page 7 of 10)
Variable
PAL
FAL
t-AV
Description
Proportion of algae in diet that is
contaminated
Fraction of diet comprised of
algae
COPC concentration in aquatic
vegetation ingested by the animal
Units
unitless
unitless
mg COPC/kg
WW
Value
Otol
Default: 1.0
This variable is species- and site-specific, and depends on the percentage of the dietary food item that is
contaminated. U.S. EPA OSW recommends that a default value of 1 .0 be used for all food types when site specific
information is not available. The following uncertainty is associated with this variable:
(1) The actual amount of contaminated food ingested by a species depends on food availability, diet composition,
and animal behavior. Therefore, the default value of 100 percent may not accurately reflect site-specific
conditions, and may overestimate the proportion of contaminated food ingested.
Otol
This variable is species- and site-specific, and depends on the percentage of the diet that is comprised of algae. The
default value for a screening level ecological risk assessment is 100 percent for computing concentration based on an
exclusive diet. For calculating an equal diet, Fdia is determined based on the number of dietary components in the
total diet. The application of an equal diet is further discussed in Chapter 5.
Uncertainties associated with this variable include:
(1) The actual proportion of the diet that is comprised of a specific dietary item depends on several factors
including: food availability, animal behavior, species composition, and seasonal influences. These
uncertainties may over- or under- estimate Fdia when applied to site-specific receptors.
(2) The default value of 100 percent for an exclusive diet introduces uncertainty and may over-estimate exposure
from ingestion of a single dietary item.
(3) The default value for an equal diet introduces uncertainty and may over- or under- estimate exposure when
applied to site-specific receptors.
Varies (calculated - Table F-l-7)
This variable is site- and COPC-specific; it is calculated using the equation in Table F-l-7. Uncertainties associated
with this variable include:
(1) Csed values are COPC- and site-specific. Uncertainties associated with this variable may be significant, and
should be summarized as part of each SLERA report.
(2) BCFBS_A¥ values are intended to represent "generic aquatic vegetation species", and therefore may over- or
under-estimate exposure when applied to site-specific vegetation.
F-56
-------
TABLE F-l-14
COPC CONCENTRATIONS IN OMNIVOROUS MAMMALS
IN FRESHWATER/WETLAND, BRACKISH/INTERMEDIATE MARSH, AND SALTMARSH FOOD WEBS
(Page 8 of 10)
Variable
BCFA¥_OM
PAV
FAV
Description
Bioconcentration factor for
aquatic vegetation-to-aquatic
omnivorous mammal
Proportion of aquatic vegetation in
diet that is contaminated
Fraction of diet comprised of
aquatic vegetation
Units
unitless [(mg
COPC/kg FW
tissue )/(mg
COPC/kg WW)]
unitless
unitless
Value
Varies
This variable is COPC-, site-, habitat- and receptor-specific, and is calculated using the following equation to
compute the COPC concentration in aquatic omnivorous mammals through indirect dietary exposure. BCFA¥_OM
values are provided in Appendix D.
Otol
Default: 1.0
This variable is species- and site-specific, and depends on the percentage of the dietary food item that is
contaminated. U.S. EPA OSW recommends that a default value of 1 .0 be used for all food types when site specific
information is not available. The following uncertainty is associated with this variable:
(1) The actual amount of contaminated food ingested by a species depends on food availability, diet composition,
and animal behavior. Therefore, the default value of 100 percent may not accurately reflect site-specific
conditions, and may overestimate the proportion of contaminated food ingested.
Otol
This variable is species- and site-specific, and depends on the percentage of the diet that is comprised of aquatic
vegetation. The default value for a screening level ecological risk assessment is 1 00 percent for computing
concentration based on an exclusive diet. For calculating an equal diet, Fdiet is determined based on the number of
dietary components in the total diet. The application of an equal diet is further discussed in Chapter 5.
Uncertainties associated with this variable include:
(1) The actual proportion of the diet that is comprised of a specific dietary item depends on several factors
including: food availability, animal behavior, species composition, and seasonal influences. These
uncertainties may over- or under- estimate Fdia when applied to site-specific receptors.
(2) The default value of 100 percent for an exclusive diet introduces uncertainty and may over-estimate exposure
from ingestion of a single dietary item.
(3) The default value for an equal diet introduces uncertainty and may over- or under- estimate exposure when
applied to site-specific receptors.
F-57
-------
TABLE F-l-14
COPC CONCENTRATIONS IN OMNIVOROUS MAMMALS
IN FRESHWATER/WETLAND, BRACKISH/INTERMEDIATE MARSH, AND SALTMARSH FOOD WEBS
(Page 9 of 10)
Variable
Description
Units
Value
COPC concentration sorbed to bed
sediment
mg COPC/kg DW
sediment
Varies (calculated - Table B-2-19)
This equation calculates the concentration of contaminants sorbed to bed sediments. Uncertainties associated with
this equation include the following:
(1) The default variable values recommended for use in the equation in Table B-2-19 may not accurately represent
site-specific water body conditions. The degree of uncertainty associated with default variable values is
expected to be limited either because the probable ranges for these variables are narrow or because information
allowing reasonable estimates is generally available.
(2) Uncertainties associated with variables/^, CMot and Kdbs are largely associated with the use of default OC
content values in their calculation. The uncertainty may be significant in specific instances, because OC content
is known to vary widely in different locations in the same medium. This variable is site-specific.
BCFn,;_nu Bioconcentration factor for bed
sediment-to-aquatic omnivorous
mammal pathways
unitless [(mg
COPC/kg FW
tissue )/(mg
COPC/kg DW
sediment)]
Varies
This variable is COPC-, site-, and receptor-specific, and is calculated using the following equation to compute the
COPC concentration in aquatic omnivorous mammals through indirect sediment exposure. BCFBS_OM values are
provided in Appendix D.
Portion of ingested bed sediment
that is contaminated
unitless
Otol
Default: 1.0
This variable is species- and site-specific, and depends on the percentage of soil ingested that is contaminated. U.S.
EPA OSW recommends that a default value of 1.0 be used for a screening level risk assessment when site specific
information is not available. The following uncertainty is associated with this variable:
(1) The actual amount of contaminated soil ingested by species depends on site-specific information, receptor home
range, and animal behavior; therefore, the default value of 100 percent may not accurately reflect site-specific
conditions, and the proportion of soil ingested that is contaminated will likely be overestimated.
F-58
-------
TABLE F-l-14
COPC CONCENTRATIONS IN OMNIVOROUS MAMMALS
IN FRESHWATER/WETLAND, BRACKISH/INTERMEDIATE MARSH, AND SALTMARSH FOOD WEBS
(Page 10 of 10)
Variable
Description
Units
Value
CWCM Total COPC concentration in
water column
mg COPC/L
water
(or
g COPC/m3
water)
Varies (calculated - Table B-2-17)
This variable is COPC- and site-specific and is calculated using Table B-2-17. Uncertainties associated with this
equation include the following:
(1) All of the variables in the equation in Table B-2-17 are COPC- and site-specific. Therefore, the use of default
values rather than site-specific values, for any or all of these variables, will contribute to the under- or
overestimation of Cmtot.
(2) Uncertainty associated with fwc is largely the result of uncertainty associated with default OC content values and
may be significant in specific instances. Uncertainties associated with the variable LT and KM may also be
significant because of many variable-specific uncertainties.
The degree of uncertainly associated with the variables dm and dbs is expected to be minimal either because
information for estimating a variable (rfw) is generally available or because the probable range for a variable (dbs) is
narrow. The uncertainty associated with the variables/,,, and CMot is associated with estimates of OC content.
Because OC content values can vary widely for different locations in the same medium, the uncertainty associated
with using default OC values may be significant in specific cases.
BCFW_OM Bioconcentration factor for water-
to-aquatic omnivorous mammal
unitless [(mg
COPC/kg FW
tissue )/(mg
COPC/L water)]
Varies
This variable is COPC-, site-, and receptor-specific, and is calculated using the following equation to compute the
COPC concentration in aquatic omnivorous mammals through indirect water exposure. BCFW_OM values are provided
in Appendix D.
Pw Portion of ingested water that is
contaminated
unitless
Otol
Default: 1.0
This variable is species- and site-specific, and depends on the percentage of water ingested that is contaminated. U.S.
EPA OSW recommends that a default value of 1.0 be used when site specific information is not available.
The following uncertainty is associated with this variable:
(1) The actual amount of contaminated water ingested by species depends on site-specific information, receptor
homerange, and animal behavior; therefore, the default value of 100 percent may not accurately reflect site-
specific conditions, and the proportion of ingested water that is contaminated will likely be overestimated.
F-59
-------
TABLE F-l-15
COPC CONCENTRATIONS IN OMNIVOROUS BIRDS
IN FRESHWATER/WETLAND, BRACKISH/INTERMEDIATE MARSH, AND SALTMARSH FOOD WEBS
(Pagel of 9)
Description
This equation calculates the COPC concentration in aquatic omnivorous birds through ingestion of plants, sediment, and water in the freshwater/wetland, brackish/intermediate marsh, and
saltmarsh food webs. The limitations and uncertainty introduced in calculating this variable include the following:
(1) Variables: C,ed, and Cmtot are COPC- and site-specific. Uncertainties associated with these variables are site specific.
(2) Variables: BCFBS_OB, and BCFW_OB are calculated based on biotransfer factors for chicken (Bachicken\ and receptor specific ingestion rates, and therefore may introduce uncertainty when
used to compute concentrations for site-specific omnivorous birds.
FCMTT,
_ ILs . p . rf \
r^.,^ BI BI '
_
^B1 r^.,^
FCMTL2
(CAL • BCFAL_OM
Equation
FCMTT,
_ 1L.3 . p . E1 \ _j_
j^,, , rWl r Wl >
_
j^,, ,
FCM
TL2
AV-OM
• PAL • FAL
Csed • BCFBS_OB • PBS ) + ( Cwctot • BCFW_OB • Pw
Variable
Description
Units
Value
Cn
COPC concentration in omnivorous
birds
mg COPC/kg FW
tissue
COPC concentration in benthic
invertebrates
mg COPC/kg FW
tissue
Varies (calculated - Table F-l-11)
This variable is site-specific and COPC-specific; it is calculated using the equation in Table F-l-11. Uncertainties
associated with this variable include the following:
(1) C,ed values are COPC- and site-specific.
(2) BCFBS_BI values are intended to represent "generic benthic invertebrate species", and therefore may over- or
under-estimate exposure when applied to site-specific organisms.
F-60
-------
TABLE F-l-15
COPC CONCENTRATIONS IN OMNIVOROUS BIRDS
IN FRESHWATER/WETLAND, BRACKISH/INTERMEDIATE MARSH, AND SALTMARSH FOOD WEBS
(Page 2 of 9)
Variable
FCMT,,
FCMTL2
PB,
FBI
Description
Food chain multiplier for trophic
level 3 predator consuming trophic
level 2 prey
Proportion of benthic invertebrate
in diet that is contaminated
Fraction of diet comprised of
benthic invertebrates
Units
unitless
unitless
unitless
Value
Varies
This variable is COPC- and trophic level-specific and is provided in Chapter 5, Table 5-2. The following
uncertainties are associated with this variable:
(1) FCMs do not account for metabolism, thus for COPCs with significant metabolism, concentrations may be over-
estimated to an unknown degree.
(2) The application of FCMs for computing concentration in terrestrial food webs may introduce uncertainty (see
Chapter 5)
FCMs are obtained from the U.S. EPA 1995 "Great Lakes Water Quality Initiative Technical Support Document for
the Procedure to Determine Bioaccumulation Factors."
Otol
Default: 1.0
This variable is species- and site-specific, and depends on the percentage of the dietary food item that is
contaminated. U.S. EPA OSW recommends that a default value of 1 .0 be used for all food types when site specific
information is not available. The following uncertainty is associated with this variable:
(1) The actual amount of contaminated food ingested by a species depends on food availability, diet composition,
and animal behavior. Therefore, the default value of 100 percent may not accurately reflect site-specific
conditions, and may overestimate the proportion of contaminated food ingested.
Otol
This variable is species- and site-specific, and depends on the percentage of the diet that is comprised of benthic
invertebrates. The default value for a screening level ecological risk assessment is 100 percent for computing
concentration based on an exclusive diet. For calculating an equal diet, Fdiet is determined based on the number of
dietary components in the total diet. The application of an equal diet is further discussed in Chapter 5.
Uncertainties associated with this variable include:
(1) The actual proportion of the diet that is comprised of a specific dietary item depends on several factors
including: food availability, animal behavior, species composition, and seasonal influences. These
uncertainties may over- or under- estimate Fdia when applied to site-specific receptors.
(2) The default value of 100 percent for an exclusive diet introduces uncertainty and may over-estimate exposure
from ingestion of a single dietary item.
(3) The default value for an equal diet introduces uncertainty and may over- or under- estimate exposure when
applied to site-specific receptors.
F-61
-------
TABLE F-l-15
COPC CONCENTRATIONS IN OMNIVOROUS BIRDS
IN FRESHWATER/WETLAND, BRACKISH/INTERMEDIATE MARSH, AND SALTMARSH FOOD WEBS
(Page 3 of 9)
Variable
Description
Units
Value
Cm COPC concentration in water
invertebrates
mg COPC/kg FW
tissue
Varies (calculated - Table F-l-12)
This variable is site-specific and COPC-specific; it is calculated using the equation in Table F-l-12. Uncertainties
associated with this variable include:
(1) Cfa values are COPC- and site-specific.
(2) BCFw_m values are intended to represent "generic water invertebrate species", and therefore may over- or under-
estimate exposure when applied to site-specific organisms.
Pm Proportion of water invertebrate in
diet that is contaminated
unitless
Otol
Default: 1.0
This variable is species- and site-specific, and depends on the percentage of the dietary food item that is
contaminated. U.S. EPA OSW recommends that a default value of 1.0 be used for all food types when site specific
information is not available. The following uncertainty is associated with this variable:
(1) The actual amount of contaminated food ingested by a species depends on food availability, diet composition,
and animal behavior. Therefore, the default value of 100 percent may not accurately reflect site-specific
conditions, and may overestimate the proportion of contaminated food ingested.
Fm Fraction of diet comprised of water
invertebrates
unitless
Otol
This variable is species- and site-specific, and depends on the percentage of the diet that is comprised of water
invertebrates. The default value for a screening level ecological risk assessment is 100 percent for computing
concentration based on an exclusive diet. For calculating an equal diet, Fdia is determined based on the number of
dietary components in the total diet. The application of an equal diet is further discussed in Chapter 5.
Uncertainties associated with this variable include:
(1) The actual proportion of the diet that is comprised of a specific dietary item depends on several factors
including: food availability, animal behavior, species composition, and seasonal influences. These
uncertainties may over- or under- estimate Fdia when applied to site-specific receptors.
(2) The default value of 100 percent for an exclusive diet introduces uncertainty and may over-estimate exposure
from ingestion of a single dietary item.
(3) The default value for an equal diet introduces uncertainty and may over- or under- estimate exposure when
applied to site-specific receptors.
F-62
-------
TABLE F-l-15
COPC CONCENTRATIONS IN OMNIVOROUS BIRDS
IN FRESHWATER/WETLAND, BRACKISH/INTERMEDIATE MARSH, AND SALTMARSH FOOD WEBS
(Page 4 of 9)
Variable
Description
Units
Value
CAV COPC concentration in aquatic
vegetation ingested by the animal
mg COPC/kg
WW
Varies (calculated - Table F-l-7)
This variable is site- and COPC-specific; it is calculated using the equation in Table F-l-7. Uncertainties associated
with this variable include:
(1) Csed_A¥ values are COPC- and site-specific.
(2) BCFBS_A¥ values are intended to represent "generic aquatic vegetation species", and therefore may over- or
under-estimate exposure when applied to site-specific vegetation.
BCFA¥_OB Bioconcentration factor for aquatic
vegetation-to-aquatic omnivorous
bird
unitless [(mg
COPC/kg FW
tissue )/(mg
COPC/kg WW)]
Varies
This variable is COPC-, site-, habitat- and receptor-specific, and is calculated using the following equation to
compute the COPC concentration in aquatic omnivorous birds through indirect dietary exposure. BCFA¥_OB values are
provided in Appendix D.
PAV Proportion of aquatic vegetation in
diet that is contaminated
unitless
Otol
Default: 1.0
This variable is species- and site-specific, and depends on the percentage of the dietary food item that is
contaminated. U.S. EPA OSW recommends that a default value of 1.0 be used for all food types when site specific
information is not available. The following uncertainty is associated with this variable:
(1) The actual amount of contaminated food ingested by a species depends on food availability, diet composition,
and animal behavior. Therefore, the default value of 100 percent may not accurately reflect site-specific
conditions, and may overestimate the proportion of contaminated food ingested.
F-63
-------
TABLE F-l-15
COPC CONCENTRATIONS IN OMNIVOROUS BIRDS
IN FRESHWATER/WETLAND, BRACKISH/INTERMEDIATE MARSH, AND SALTMARSH FOOD WEBS
(Page 5 of 9)
Variable
Description
Units
Value
FAV Fraction of diet comprised of
aquatic vegetation
unitless
Otol
This variable is species- and site-specific, and depends on the percentage of the diet that is comprised of aquatic
vegetation. The default value for a screening level ecological risk assessment is 100 percent for computing
concentration based on an exclusive diet. For calculating an equal diet, Fdia is determined based on the number of
dietary components in the total diet. The application of an equal diet is further discussed in Chapter 5.
Uncertainties associated with this variable include:
(1) The actual proportion of the diet that is comprised of a specific dietary item depends on several factors
including: food availability, animal behavior, species composition, and seasonal influences. These
uncertainties may over- or under- estimate Fdia when applied to site-specific receptors.
(2) The default value of 100 percent for an exclusive diet introduces uncertainty and may over-estimate exposure
from ingestion of a single dietary item.
(3) The default value for an equal diet introduces uncertainty and may over- or under- estimate exposure when
applied to site-specific receptors.
COPC concentration in algae
mg COPC/kg
WW
Varies (calculated - Table F-l-8)
This variable is site-specific and COPC-specific; it is calculated using the equation in Table F-l-8. Uncertainties
associated with this variable include:
(1) Cdn values are COPC- and site-specific.
(2) BCFw,^ values are intended to represent "generic algae species", and therefore may over- or under-estimate
exposure when applied to site-specific species.
BCFA,_nE Bioconcentration factor for algae-
to-aquatic omnivorous bird
unitless [(mg
COPC/kg FW
tissue )/(mg
COPC/kg WW)]
Varies
This variable is COPC-, site-, habitat- and receptor-specific, and is calculated using the following equation to
compute the COPC concentration in aquatic omnivorous birds through indirect dietary exposure. BCF^o,, values are
provided in Appendix D.
F-64
-------
TABLE F-l-15
COPC CONCENTRATIONS IN OMNIVOROUS BIRDS
IN FRESHWATER/WETLAND, BRACKISH/INTERMEDIATE MARSH, AND SALTMARSH FOOD WEBS
(Page 6 of 9)
Variable
PAL
FAL
Description
Proportion of algae in diet that is
contaminated
Fraction of diet comprised of algae
Units
unitless
unitless
Value
Otol
Default: 1.0
This variable is species- and site-specific, and depends on the percentage of the dietary food item that is
contaminated. U.S. EPA OSW recommend that a default value of 1 .0 be used for all food types when site specific
information is not available. The following uncertainty is associated with this variable:
(1) The actual amount of contaminated food ingested by a species depends on food availability, diet composition,
and animal behavior. Therefore, the default value of 100 percent may not accurately reflect site-specific
conditions, and may overestimate the proportion of contaminated food ingested.
Otol
This variable is species- and site-specific, and depends on the percentage of the diet that is comprised of algae. The
default value for a screening level ecological risk assessment is 100 percent for computing concentration based on an
exclusive diet. For calculating an equal diet, Fdia is determined based on the number of dietary components in the
total diet. The application of an equal diet is further discussed in Chapter 5.
Uncertainties associated with this variable include:
(1) The actual proportion of the diet that is comprised of a specific dietary item depends on several factors
including: food availability, animal behavior, species composition, and seasonal influences. These
uncertainties may over- or under- estimate Fdia when applied to site-specific receptors.
(2) The default value of 100 percent for an exclusive diet introduces uncertainty and may over-estimate exposure
from ingestion of a single dietary item.
(3) The default value for an equal diet introduces uncertainty and may over- or under- estimate exposure when
applied to site-specific receptors.
F-65
-------
TABLE F-l-15
COPC CONCENTRATIONS IN OMNIVOROUS BIRDS
IN FRESHWATER/WETLAND, BRACKISH/INTERMEDIATE MARSH, AND SALTMARSH FOOD WEBS
(Page 7 of 9)
Variable
Description
Units
Value
COPC concentration in bed
sediment
mg COPC/kg DW
sediment
Varies (calculated - Table B-2-19)
This equation calculates the concentration of contaminants sorbed to bed sediments. Uncertainties associated with
this equation include the following:
(1) The default variable values recommended for use in the equation in Table B-2-19 may not accurately represent
site-specific water body conditions. The degree of uncertainty associated with default variable values is
expected to be limited either because the probable ranges for these variables are narrow or because information
allowing reasonable estimates is generally available.
(2) Uncertainties associated with variables/^, CMot and Kdbs are largely associated with the use of default OC
content values in their calculation. The uncertainty may be significant in specific instances, because OC content
is known to vary widely in different locations in the same medium. This variable is site-specific. It is the
maximum COPC concentration in sediment in the assessment area and is computed from soil and surface water
concentrations using the ISCST3 air dispersion and deposition model, and fate and transport equations presented
in Chapter 3.
BCFaK_Ha Bioconcentration factor for bed
sediment-to-aquatic omnivorous
bird pathways
unitless [(mg
COPC/kg FW
tissue )/(mg
COPC/kg DW
sediment)]
Varies
This variable is COPC-, site-, habitat- and receptor-specific, and is calculated using the following equation to
compute the COPC concentration in aquatic herbivorous birds through indirect sediment exposure. BCFBS_OB values
are provided in Appendix D.
Portion of ingested bed sediment
that is contaminated
unitless
Otol
Default: 1.0
This variable is species- and site-specific, and depends on the percentage of soil ingested that is contaminated. U.S.
EPA OSW recommends that a default value of 1.0 be used for a screening level risk assessment when site specific
information is not available. The following uncertainty is associated with this variable:
(1) The actual amount of contaminated soil ingested by species depends on site-specific information, receptor home
range, and animal behavior; therefore, the default value of 100 percent may not accurately reflect site-specific
conditions, and the proportion of soil ingested that is contaminated will likely be overestimated.
F-66
-------
TABLE F-l-15
COPC CONCENTRATIONS IN OMNIVOROUS BIRDS
IN FRESHWATER/WETLAND, BRACKISH/INTERMEDIATE MARSH, AND SALTMARSH FOOD WEBS
(Page 8 of 9)
Variable
Description
Units
Value
Cwcta Total COPC concentration in water
column
mg COPC/L
water
(or
g COPC/m3
water)
Varies (calculated - Table B-2-17)
This variable is COPC- and site-specific and is calculated using Table B-2-17. Uncertainties associated with this
equation include the following:
(1) All of the variables in the equation in Table B-2-17 are COPC- and site-specific. Therefore, the use of default
values rather than site-specific values, for any or all of these variables, will contribute to the under- or
overestimation of Cmtot.
(2) Uncertainty associated with/,,, is largely the result of uncertainty associated with default OC content values and
may be significant in specific instances. Uncertainties associated with the variable LT and KM may also be
significant because of many variable-specific uncertainties.
The degree of uncertainly associated with the variables dm and dbs is expected to be minimal either because
information for estimating a variable (rfw) is generally available or because the probable range for a variable (dbs) is
narrow. The uncertainty associated with the variables/,,, and CMot is associated with estimates of OC content.
Because OC content values can vary widely for different locations in the same medium, the uncertainty associated
with using default OC values may be significant in specific cases.
BCFW_OB Bioconcentration factor for water-
to-aquatic omnivorous bird
unitless [(mg
COPC/kg FW
tissue )/(mg
COPC/L water)]
Varies
This variable is COPC-, site-, and receptor-specific, and is calculated using the following equation to compute the
COPC concentration in aquatic omnivorous birds through indirect exposure to water. BCFW_OB values are provided in
Appendix D.
Pw Portion of ingested water that is
contaminated
unitless
Otol
Default: 1.0
This variable is species- and site-specific, and depends on the percentage of water ingested that is contaminated. U.S.
EPA OSW recommend that a default value of 1.0 be used when site specific information is not available.
The following uncertainty is associated with this variable:
(1) The actual amount of contaminated water ingested by species depends on site-specific information, receptor
home range, and animal behavior; therefore, the default value of 100 percent may not accurately reflect site-
specific conditions, and the proportion of ingested water that is contaminated will likely be overestimated.
F-67
-------
TABLE F-l-15
COPC CONCENTRATIONS IN OMNIVOROUS BIRDS
IN FRESHWATER/WETLAND, BRACKISH/INTERMEDIATE MARSH, AND SALTMARSH FOOD WEBS
(Page 9 of 9)
REFERENCES AND DISCUSSIONS
U.S. EPA. 1995. Great Lakes Water Quality Initiative Technical Support Document for the Procedure to Determine Bioaccumulation Factors. Office of Water. EPA-820-B-95-005.
F-68
-------
TABLE F-l-16
COPC CONCENTRATIONS IN OMNIVOROUS FISH
IN FRESHWATER/WETLAND, BRACKISH/INTERMEDIATE MARSH, AND SALTMARSH FOOD WEBS
(Page 1 of 3)
Description
This equation calculates the COPC concentration in omnivorous fish through ingestion of contaminated food and water exposure in the freshwater/wetland, brackish/intermediate marsh, and
saltmarsh food webs. The limitations and uncertainty introduced in calculating this variable include the following:
(1) Cfa values are COPC- and site-specific.
(2) The data set used to calculate BCFfis based on a limited number of test organisms and therefore may over- or under-estimate exposure when representing site-specific organisms.
Equation
Variable
Description
Units
Value
COPC concentration in omnivorous
fish
mg COPC/kg FW
tissue
Dissolved phase water
concentration
mg COPC/L
water
Varies (calculated - Table B-2-18)
This variable is COPC- and site-specific. This equation calculates the concentration of COPC dissolved in the water
column. Uncertainties associated with this equation include the following:
(1) The variables in the equation in Table B-2-18 are site-specific. Therefore, the use of default values rather than
site-specific values, for any or all of these variables, will contribute to the under- or overestimation of C^. The
degree of uncertainty associated with TSS is expected to be relatively small, because information regarding
reasonable site-specific values for this variable are generally available or it can be easily measured. On the
other hand, the uncertainty associated with the variables Cmtot and Kd^ is associated with estimates of OC
content. Because OC content values can vary widely for different locations in the same media, using default OC
values may result in uncertainty in specific cases.
F-69
-------
TABLE F-l-16
COPC CONCENTRATIONS IN OMNIVOROUS FISH
IN FRESHWATER/WETLAND, BRACKISH/INTERMEDIATE MARSH, AND SALTMARSH FOOD WEBS
(Page 2 of 3)
Variable
BCFf
FCMTL3
Description
Bioconcentration factor for water-
to-fish
Food chain multiplier for trophic
level 3 predator
Units
unitless [(mg
COPC/kg FW
tissue )/(mg
COPC/L water)]
unitless
Value
Varies
This variable is COPC-, site- and species-specific, and is provided in Appendix C. This variable is calculated using
laboratory and field measured values as discussed Appendix C.
The following uncertainties are associated with this variable:
(1) The COPC specific BCFf values may not accurately represent site-specific conditions, therefore over-or under-
estimating COF to an unknown degree.
(2) The data set used to calculate BCFf is based on a limited number of test species. The uncertainty associated
with calculating concentrations using BCFf in site-specific organisms is unknown and may over- or under-
estimate Cop.
Varies
This variable is COPC- and trophic level-specific, and is provided in Chapter 5, Table 5-2. The following
uncertainties are associated with this variable:
(1) FCMs do not account for metabolism, thus for COPCs with significant metabolism concentrations may be over-
estimated to an unknown degree.
(2) The application of FCMs for computing concentration in terrestrial food webs introduce uncertainty (see
Chapter 5).
FCMs are obtained from the U.S. EPA 1995 "Great Lakes Water Quality Initiative Technical Support Document for
the Procedure to Determine Bioaccumulation Factors."
F-70
-------
TABLE F-l-16
COPC CONCENTRATIONS IN OMNIVOROUS FISH
IN FRESHWATER/WETLAND, BRACKISH/INTERMEDIATE MARSH, AND SALTMARSH FOOD WEBS
(Page 3 of 3)
REFERENCES AND DISCUSSIONS
U.S. EPA. 1995. Great Lakes Water Quality Initiative Technical Support Document for the Procedure to Determine Bioaccumulation Factors. Office of Water. EPA-820-B-95-005.
F-71
-------
TABLE F-l-17
COPC CONCENTRATIONS IN CARNIVOROUS FISH
IN FRESHWATER/WETLAND, BRACKISH/INTERMEDIATE MARSH, AND SALTMARSH FOOD WEBS
(Page 1 of 3)
Description
This equation calculates the COPC concentration in carnivorous fish through ingestion of contaminated prey and water exposure in the freshwater/wetland, brackish/intermediate marsh, and
saltmarsh food webs. The limitations and uncertainty introduced in calculating this variable include the following:
(1) Cdn values are COPC- and site-specific.
(2) The data set used to calculate BCFfis based on a limited number of test organisms and therefore may over- or under-estimate exposure when representing site-specific organisms.
Equation
BCFf • FCMTL4
Variable
Description
Units
Value
COPC concentration in carnivorous
fish
mg COPC/kg
FW tissue
Varies
Tissue concentration is expressed on a wet weight basis (mg COPC/kg wet tissue).
Dissolved phase water
concentration
mg COPC/L
water
Varies (calculated - Table B-2-18)
This variable is COPC- and site-specific. This equation calculates the concentration of COPC dissolved in the water
column. Uncertainties associated with this equation include the following:
(1) The variables in the equation in Table B-2-18 are site-specific. Therefore, the use of default values rather than
site-specific values, for any or all of these variables, may contribute to the under- or overestimation of C^. The
uncertainty associated with the variables Cmtot and Kd^ is associated with estimates of OC content. Because OC
content values can vary widely for different locations in the same media, using default OC values may result in
uncertainty in specific cases.
F-72
-------
TABLE F-l-17
COPC CONCENTRATIONS IN CARNIVOROUS FISH
IN FRESHWATER/WETLAND, BRACKISH/INTERMEDIATE MARSH, AND SALTMARSH FOOD WEBS
(Page 2 of 3)
Variable
BCFf
FCMTL4
Description
Bioconcentration factor for water-
to-fish
Food chain multiplier for trophic
level 4 predator
Units
unitless [(mg
COPC/kg FW
tissue )/(mg
COPC/L water)]
unitless
Value
Varies
This variable is COPC-, site- and species-specific, and is provided in Appendix C. This variable is calculated using
laboratory and field measured values as discussed in Appendix C.
The following uncertainties are associated with this variable:
(1) The COPC specific BCFf values may not accurately represent site-specific conditions, therefore over-or under-
estimating CCF to an unknown degree.
(2) The data set used to calculate BCFf is based on a limited number of test species. The uncertainty associated
with calculating concentrations using BCFf in site-specific organisms is unknown and may over- or under-
estimate CCF.
Varies
This variable is COPC- and trophic level-specific and is provided in Chapter 5, Table 5-2. The following
uncertainties are associated with this variable:
(1) FCMs do not account for metabolism, thus for COPCs with significant metabolism concentrations may be over-
estimated to an unknown degree.
(2) The application of FCMs for computing concentration in terrestrial food webs introduce uncertainty (see
Chapter 5).
FCMs are obtained from the U.S. EPA 1995 "Great Lakes Water Quality Initiative Technical Support Document for
the Procedure to Determine Bioaccumulation Factors."
F-73
-------
TABLE F-l-17
COPC CONCENTRATIONS IN CARNIVOROUS FISH
IN FRESHWATER/WETLAND, BRACKISH/INTERMEDIATE MARSH, AND SALTMARSH FOOD WEBS
(Page 3 of 3)
REFERENCES AND DISCUSSIONS
U.S. EPA. 1995. Great Lakes Water Quality Initiative Technical Support Document for the Procedure to Determine Bioaccumulation Factors. Office of Water. EPA-820-B-95-005.
F-74
-------
TABLE F-2-1
COPC DOSE INGESTED TERMS IN HERBIVOROUS MAMMALS
IN FOREST, SHORTGRASS PRAIRIE, TALLGRASS PRAIRIE, AND SHRUB/SCRUB FOOD WEBS
(Pagel of 4)
Description
This equation calculates the daily dose through exposure to contaminated food or prey, soil, and water in herbivorous mammals in upland forest, shortgrass prairie, tallgrass prairie, and
shrub/scrub food webs. The limitations and uncertainties introduced in calculating this variable include the following:
(1) Variables Cs and Cmtot are COPC- and site-specific. Uncertainties associated with these variables will be site specific.
(2) Variables BCFS_HM and BCFW_HM are based on biotransfer factors for beef cattle (Babeef), and receptor-specific ingestion rates, and therefore may introduce uncertainty when used to
compute a daily dose for representative site-specific herbivorous mammals.
D
HM
IRHM ' PTP ' FTP
Equation
IR
S-HM
' Ps)
IRW-HM ' P
Variable
Description
Units
Value
DH
Dose COPC ingested for
herbivorous mammals
mg COPC/kg
BW-day
CT
COPC concentration in terrestrial
plants
mg COPC/kg
WW
Varies
This variable is site- and COPC-specific; it is calculated using the equation in Table F-l-1.
Uncertainties introduced by this variable include the following:
(1) Some of the variables in the equations in Tables B-3-1, B-3-2, and B-3-3—including Cs, Cyv, Q, Dydp, and
Dywp—are COPC- and site-specific.
(2) hi the equation in Table B-3-1, uncertainties associated with other variables include the following: Fv (values
for organic compounds estimated on the basis of the behavior of polystyrene microspheres), Rp (estimated on
the basis of a generalized empirical relationship), kp (estimation process does not consider chemical
degradation). All of these uncertainties contribute to the overall uncertainty associated with CTP.
F-75
-------
TABLE F-2-1
COPC DOSE INGESTED TERMS IN HERBIVOROUS MAMMALS
IN FOREST, SHORTGRASS PRAIRIE, TALLGRASS PRAIRIE, AND SHRUB/SCRUB FOOD WEBS
(Page 2 of 4)
Variable
Description
Units
Value
IRHM Food ingestion rate of herbivorous
mammal
kg WW/kg BW-
day
Varies
Food ingestion rates (!RHM) are site-, receptor-, and habitat-specific and are provided in Chapter 5, Table 5-1.
(1) Food ingestion rates are influenced by several factors including: metabolic rate, energy requirements for growth
and reproduction, and dietary composition. Ingestion rates are also influenced by ambient temperature, receptor
activity level and body weight (U.S. EPA 1993). These factors introduce an unknown degree of uncertainty
when used to estimate daily dose.
PTP Proportion of terrestrial plant in
diet that is contaminated
unitless
Otol
Default: 1
This variable is species- and site-specific, and depends on the percentage of the dietary food item that is
contaminated. U.S. EPA OSW recommends that a default value of 1.0 be used for all food types when site specific
information is not available. The following uncertainty is associated with this variable:
(1) The actual amount of contaminated food ingested by a species depends on food availability, diet composition,
and animal behavior. Therefore, the default value of 100 percent may not accurately reflect site-specific
conditions, and may overestimate the proportion of contaminated food ingested.
FTp Fraction of diet comprised of
terrestrial plants
unitless
Otol
This variable is species- and site-specific, and depends on the percentage of the diet that is comprised of terrestrial
plants. The default value for a screening level ecological risk assessment is 100 percent for computing concentration
based on an exclusive diet. For calculating an equal diet, Fdia is determined based on the number of dietary
components in the total diet. The application of an equal diet is further discussed in Chapter 5.
Uncertainties associated with this variable include:
(1) The actual proportion of the diet that is comprised of a specific dietary item depends on several factors
including: food availability, animal behavior, species composition, and seasonal influences. These
uncertainties may over- or under- estimate Fdia when applied to site-specific receptors.
(2) The default value of 100 percent for an exclusive diet introduces uncertainty and may over-estimate exposure
from ingestion of a single dietary item.
(3) The default value for an equal diet introduces uncertainty and may over- or under- estimate exposure when
applied to site-specific receptors.
F-76
-------
TABLE F-2-1
COPC DOSE INGESTED TERMS IN HERBIVOROUS MAMMALS
IN FOREST, SHORTGRASS PRAIRIE, TALLGRASS PRAIRIE, AND SHRUB/SCRUB FOOD WEBS
(Page 3 of 4)
Variable
Description
Units
Value
Cs
COPC concentration in soil
mg COPC /kg
DW soil
Varies
This variable is COPC- and site-specific, and should be calculated using the equation in Table B-l-1. Cs is expressed
on a dry weight basis.
Uncertainties associated with this variable include:
(1) For soluble COPCs, leaching might lead to movement to below 1 centimeter in unfilled soils, resulting a greater
mixing depth. This uncertainty may overestimate Cs.
(2) Deposition to hard surfaces may result in dust residues that have negligible dilution (as a result of potential
mixing with in situ materials) in comparison to that of other residues. This uncertainty may underestimate Cs
(3) Modeled soil concentrations may not accurately represent site-specific conditions. As a result, the actual COPC
concentration in soil may be under- or overestimated to an unknown degree.
Soil ingestion rate of omnivorous
mammal
kg DW/kg BW-
day
Varies
This variable is site-, receptor-, and habitat-specific, and is discussed in Chapter 5. Ingestion rates for example
measurement receptors are presented in Chapter 5, Table 5-1. Uncertainties associated with this variable include the
following:
(1) IRS values may under- or over-estimate BCFS when applied for site-specific organisms.
Pa
Proportion of ingested soil that is
contaminated
unitless
Otol
Default: 1
This variable is species- and site-specific, and depends on the percentage of soil ingested that is contaminated. U.S.
EPA OSW recommends that a default value of 1.0 be used for a screening level risk assessment when site specific
information is not available. The following uncertainty is associated with this variable:
(1) The actual amount of contaminated soil ingested by species depends on site-specific information, receptor
homerange, and animal behavior; therefore, the default value of 100 percent may not accurately reflect site-
specific conditions, and the proportion of soil ingested that is contaminated will likely be overestimated.
F-77
-------
TABLE F-2-1
COPC DOSE INGESTED TERMS IN HERBIVOROUS MAMMALS
IN FOREST, SHORTGRASS PRAIRIE, TALLGRASS PRAIRIE, AND SHRUB/SCRUB FOOD WEBS
(Page 4 of 4)
Variable
Description
Units
Value
Total COPC concentration in water
column
mg COPC/L
water
Varies (calculated - Table B-2-17)
This variable is COPC- and site-specific and is calculated using Table B-2-17. Uncertainties associated with this
equation include the following:
(1) All of the variables in the equation in Table B-2-17 are COPC- and site-specific. Therefore, the use of default
values rather than site-specific values, for any or all of these variables, will contribute to the under- or
overestimation of Cmtot.
(2) Uncertainty associated with fwc is largely the result of uncertainty associated with default OC content values and
may be significant in specific instances. Uncertainties associated with the variable LT and kwt may also be
significant because of many variable-specific uncertainties.
The degree of uncertainly associated with the variables dwc and dts is expected to be minimal either because
information for estimating a variable (dm) is generally available or because the probable range for a variable (dbs) is
narrow. The uncertainty associated with the variables/,,, and Cwctot is associated with estimates of OC content.
Because OC content values can vary widely for different locations in the same media, using default OC values may
result in uncertainty in specific cases.
Water ingestion rate of herbivorous
mammal
L/kg BW-day
Varies
This variable is receptor- and habitat-specific, and is discussed in Chapter 5. Ingestion rates for example
measurement receptors are presented in Chapter 5, Table 5-1. The following uncertainty is associated with this
variable:
(1) Water ingestion rates are strongly influenced by animal behavior and environmental factors and may over- or
under- estimate BCFW_HM to an unknown degree.
Pw Proportion of ingested water that is
contaminated
unitless
Otol
Default: 1
This variable is species- and site-specific, and depends on the percentage of water ingested that is contaminated. U.S.
EPA OSW recommends that a default value of 1.0 be used when site specific information is not available.
The following uncertainty is associated with this variable:
(1) The actual amount of contaminated water ingested by species depends on site-specific information, receptor
homerange, and animal behavior; therefore, the default value of 100 percent may not accurately reflect site-
specific conditions, and the proportion of ingested water that is contaminated will likely be overestimated.
F-78
-------
TABLE F-2-2
COPC DOSE INGESTED TERMS IN HERBIVOROUS BIRDS
IN FOREST, SHRUB/SCRUB, SHORTGRASS PRAIRIE, AND TALLGRASS PRAIRIE FOOD WEBS
(Page 1 of 5)
Description
This equation calculates the daily dose through exposure to contaminated food/prey, soil, and water in herbivorous birds in upland forest, shortgrass prairie, tallgrass prairie, and shrub/scrub
food webs. The limitations and uncertainties introduced in calculating this variable include the following:
(1) Variables Cs, and CHB are COPC- and site-specific. Uncertainties associated with these variables will be site-specific.
(2) Variables BCFS.HB, and BCFW_HB are based on biotransfer factors for chicken (Bachicken), and receptor specific ingestion rates, and therefore may introduce uncertainty when used to
compute a daily dose representing site-specific herbivorous birds.
Equation
D
HB
IRHB ' PTP
IR
S-HB
' Ps)
IRW-HB ' P
Variable
Description
Units
Value
DH
Dose COPC ingested for
herbivorous birds
mg/kg BW-day
CT
Concentration of COPC in
terrestrial plants ingested by the
animal
mg COPC/kg
WW
Varies
This variable is site- and COPC-specific; it is calculated using the equation in Table F-l-1.
Uncertainties introduced by this variable include the following:
(1) Some of the variables in the equations in Tables B-3-1, B-3-2, and B-3-3—including Cs, Cyv, Q, Dydp, and
Dywp—are COPC- and site-specific. Uncertainties associated with these variables may be significant, and
should be summarized as part of each SLERA report.
(2) hi the equation in Table B-3-1, uncertainties associated with other variables include the following: Fv (values
for organic compounds estimated on the basis of the behavior of polystyrene microspheres), Rp (estimated on
the basis of a generalized empirical relationship), and kp (estimation process does not consider chemical
degradation). All of these uncertainties contribute to the overall uncertainty associated with CTP.
F-79
-------
TABLE F-2-2
COPC DOSE INGESTED TERMS IN HERBIVOROUS BIRDS
IN FOREST, SHRUB/SCRUB, SHORTGRASS PRAIRIE, AND TALLGRASS PRAIRIE FOOD WEBS
(Page 2 of 5)
Variable
Description
Units
Value
IRHa Food ingestion rate of herbivorous
bird
kg WW/kg BW-
day
Varies
This variable is receptor-specific, and is discussed in Chapter 5. Ingestion rates for example measurement receptors
are provided in Chapter 5, Table 5-1. Uncertainties associated with this variable include:
(1) Food ingestion rates are influenced by several factors including: metabolic rate, energy requirements for growth
and reproduction, and dietary composition. Ingestion rates are also influenced by ambient temperature, receptor
activity level and body weight U.S. EPA (1993). These factors introduce an unknown degree of uncertainty
when used to estimate daily dose.
(2) IR values may over- or under- estimate exposure when applied to site-specific receptors.
PTP Proportion of terrestrial plant diet
that is contaminated
unitless
Otol
Default: 1
This variable is species- and site-specific, and depends on the percentage of the dietary food item that is
contaminated. U.S. EPA OSW recommends that a default value of 1.0 be used for all food types when site specific
information is not available. The following uncertainty is associated with this variable:
(1) The actual amount of contaminated food ingested by a species depends on food availability, diet composition,
and animal behavior. Therefore, the default value of 100 percent may not accurately reflect site-specific
conditions, and may overestimate the proportion of contaminated food ingested.
FTp Fraction of diet comprised of
terrestrial plants
unitless
Otol
This variable is species- and site-specific, and depends on the percentage of the diet that is comprised of terrestrial
plants. The default value for a screening level ecological risk assessment is 100 percent for computing concentration
based on an exclusive diet. For calculating an equal diet, Fdia is determined based on the number of dietary
components in the total diet. The application of an equal diet is further discussed in Chapter 5.
Uncertainties associated with this variable include:
(1) The actual proportion of the diet that is comprised of a specific dietary item depends on several factors
including: food availability, animal behavior, species composition, and seasonal influences. These
uncertainties may over- or under- estimate Fdia when applided to site-specific receptors.
(2) The default value of 100 percent for an exclusive diet introduces uncertaintiy and may over-estimate exposure
from ingestion of a single dietary item.
(3) The defalut value for an equal diet introduces uncertainity and may over- or under- estimate exposure when
applied to site-specific receptors.
F-80
-------
TABLE F-2-2
COPC DOSE INGESTED TERMS IN HERBIVOROUS BIRDS
IN FOREST, SHRUB/SCRUB, SHORTGRASS PRAIRIE, AND TALLGRASS PRAIRIE FOOD WEBS
(Page 3 of 5)
Variable
Description
Units
Value
Cs
COPC soil concentration
mg COPC /kg
DW soil
Varies
This variable is COPC- and site-specific, and should be calculated using the equation in Table B-l-1. This variable is
calculated from stack emissions using the ISCST3 air dispersion and deposition model and soil fate and transport
equations presented in Appendix B. Cs is expressed on a dry weight basis.
Uncertainties associated with this variable include:
(1) For soluble COPCs, leaching might lead to movement to below 1 centimeter in unfilled soils, resulting a greater
mixing depth. This uncertainty may overestimate Cs and Cs^.
(2) Deposition to hard surfaces may result in dust residues that have negligible dilution (as a result of potential
mixing with in situ materials) in comparison to that of other residues. This uncertainty may underestimate Cs
(3) Modeled soil concentrations may not accurately represent site-specific conditions. As a result, the actual COPC
concentration in soil may be under- or overestimated to an unknown degree.
Soil ingestion rate for herbivorous
bird
kg DW/kg BW-
day
Varies
This variable is site-, receptor-, and habitat-specific, and is discussed in Chapter 5. Ingestion rates for example
measurement receptors are presented in Chapter 5, Table 5-1. Uncertainties associated with this variable include the
following:
(1) IRS values may under- or over-estimate BCFS when applied for site-specific organisms.
Proportion of ingested soil that is
contamanted
unitless
Otol
Default: 1
This variable is species- and site-specific, and depends on the percentage of soil ingested that is contaminated. U.S.
EPA OSW recommends that a default value of 1.0 be used for a screening level risk assessment when site specific
information is not available. The following uncertainty is associated with this variable:
(1) The actual amount of contaminated soil ingested by species depends on site-specific information, receptor
homerange, and animal behavior; therefore, the default value of 100 percent may not accurately reflect site-
specific conditions, and the proportion of soil ingested that is contaminated will likely be overestimated.
F-81
-------
TABLE F-2-2
COPC DOSE INGESTED TERMS IN HERBIVOROUS BIRDS
IN FOREST, SHRUB/SCRUB, SHORTGRASS PRAIRIE, AND TALLGRASS PRAIRIE FOOD WEBS
(Page 4 of 5)
Variable
Description
Units
Value
Total COPC concentration in water
column
mg COPC/L
water
(or
g COPC/m3
water)
Varies (calculated - Table B-2-16)
This variable is COPC- and site-specific and is calculated using Table B-2-16. Uncertainties associated with this
equation include the following:
(1) All of the variables in the equation in Table B-2-16. are COPC- and site-specific. Therefore, the use of default
values rather than site-specific values, for any or all of these variables, will contribute to the under- or
overestimation of Cmtot.
(2) Uncertainty associated with fwc is largely the result of uncertainty associated with default OC content values and
may be significant in specific instances. Uncertainties associated with the variable LT and Kwt may also be
significant because of many variable-specific uncertainties.
The degree of uncertainly associated with the variables dwc and dts is expected to be minimal either because
information for estimating a variable (dnc) is generally available or because the probable range for a variable (dbs) is
narrow. The uncertainty associated with the variables/,,, and Cmtot is associated with estimates of OC content.
Because OC content values can vary widely for different locations in the same medium, the uncertainty associated
with using default OC values may be significant in specific cases.
Water ingestion rate for
herbivorous bird
kg WW/kg BW-
day
Varies
This variable is receptor- and habitat-specific, and is discussed in Chapter 5. Ingestion rates for example
measurement receptors are presented in Chapter 5, Table 5-1. The following uncertainty is associated with this
variable:
(1) Water ingestion rates are strongly influenced by animal behavior and environmental factors and may over- or
under- estimate BCFW_HB to an unknown degree.
Pw Proportion of ingested water that is
contaminated
unitless
Otol
Default: 1
This variable is species- and site-specific, and depends on the percentage of water ingested that is contaminated. U.S.
EPA OSW recommends that a default value of 1.0 be used when site specific information is not available.
The following uncertainty is associated with this variable:
(1) The actual amount of contaminated water ingested by species depends on site-specific information, receptor
homerange, and animal behavior; therefore, the default value of 100 percent may not accurately reflect site-
specific conditions, and the proportion of ingested water that is contaminated will likely be overestimated.
F-82
-------
TABLE F-2-2
COPC DOSE INGESTED TERMS IN HERBIVOROUS BIRDS
IN FOREST, SHRUB/SCRUB, SHORTGRASS PRAIRIE, AND TALLGRASS PRAIRIE FOOD WEBS
(Page 5 of 5)
REFERENCES AND DISCUSSIONS
U.S. EPA. 1993. Wildlife Exposure Factor Handbook. Volumes I and H. Office of Research and Development. EPA/600/R-93/187a.
F-83
-------
TABLE F-2-3
COPC DOSE INGESTED TERMS IN OMNIVOROUS MAMMALS
IN FOREST, SHRUB/SCRUB, SHORTGRASS PRAIRIE, AND TALLGRASS PRAIRIE FOOD WEBS
(Page 1 of 8)
Description
This equation calculates the daily dose through exposure to contaminated food/prey, soil, and water in omnivorous mammals in upland forest, shortgrass prairie, tallgrass prairie, and
shrub/scrub food webs. The limitations and uncertainties introduced in calculating this variable include the following:
(1) Variables C, and Cmtot are COPC- and site-specific. Uncertainties associated with these variables will be site-specific.
(2) Variables BCFS_OM, and BCFW_OM are based on biotransfer factors for beef cattle (BabeeJ), and receptor-specific ingestion rates, and therefore may introduce uncertainty when used to
compute a representative daily dose for site-specific omnivorous mammals.
Equation
= M ' *ROM ' "HM ' ^ HM) + \^HB ' ^OM ' "HB ' * ' HB) + \^INV ' ^OM ' "INV ' ^ IN
(CTp • IROM • PTp •
IR
S_OM
(Cwctot • IRW-QM ' Pw}
Variable
Description
Units
Value
DOM
Dose COPC ingested for
omnivorous mammals
mg COPC/kg
BW-day
Concentration of COPC in
herbivorous mammals
mg COPC/kg FW
tissue
Varies (calculated - Table F-l-2)
This variable is site-specific and COPC-specific; it is calculated using the equation in Table F-l-9. Uncertainties
associated with this variable include:
(1) Variables Csed and Cwclol are COPC- and site-specific.
(2) Variables BCFS_HM and BCFW_HM are based on biotransfer factors for beef cattle (Babeef\ and receptor-specific
ingestion rates, and therefore may introduce uncertainty when used to compute concentrations for site-specific
herbivorous mammals.
F-84
-------
TABLE F-2-3
COPC DOSE INGESTED TERMS IN OMNIVOROUS MAMMALS
IN FOREST, SHRUB/SCRUB, SHORTGRASS PRAIRIE, AND TALLGRASS PRAIRIE FOOD WEBS
(Page 2 of 8)
Variable
Description
Units
Value
IR0M Food ingestion rate of omnivorous
mammal
kg WW/kg BW-
day
Varies
This variable is receptor-specific, and is discussed in Chapter 5. Ingestion rates for example measurement receptors
are provided in Chapter 5, Table 5-1. Uncertainties associated with this variable include:
(1) Food ingestion rates are influenced by several factors including: metabolic rate, energy requirements for growth
and reproduction, and dietary composition. Ingestion rates are also influenced by ambient temperature, receptor
activity level and body weight U.S. EPA (1993). These factors introduce an unknown degree of uncertainty
when used to estimate daily dose.
(2) IR values may over- or under- estimate exposure when applied to site-specific receptors.
PHM Proportion of herbivorous mammal
in diet that is contaminated
unitless
Otol
Default: 1
This variable is species- and site-specific, and depends on the percentage of the dietary food item that is
contaminated. U.S. EPA OSW recommend that a default value of 1.0 be used for all food types when site specific
information is not available. Uncertainties associated with this variable include:
The actual amount of contaminated food ingested by a species depends on food availability, diet composition,
and animal behavior. Therefore, the default value of 100 percent may not accurately reflect site-specific
conditions, and may overestimate the proportion of contaminated food ingested.
FHM Fraction of diet comprised of
herbivorous mammals
unitless
Otol
This variable is species- and site-specific, and depends on the percentage of the diet that is comprised of herbivorous
mammals. The default value for a screening level ecological risk assessment is 100 percent for computing
concentration based on an exclusive diet. The application of an equal diet is further discussed in section Chapter 5.
Uncertainties associated with this variable include:
(1) The actual proportion of the diet that is comprised of herbivorous mammals depends on several factors
including: food availability, animal behavior, species composition, and seasonal influences. Therefore a
default value of 100 percent for the exclusive diet, may over-estimate dietary exposure.
F-85
-------
TABLE F-2-3
COPC DOSE INGESTED TERMS IN OMNIVOROUS MAMMALS
IN FOREST, SHRUB/SCRUB, SHORTGRASS PRAIRIE, AND TALLGRASS PRAIRIE FOOD WEBS
(Page 3 of 8)
Variable
r
^HB
"HB
FHB
Description
Concentration of COPC in
herbivorous birds
Proportion of herbivorous birds in
diet that is contaminated
Fraction of diet comprised of
herbivorous birds
Units
mg COPC/kg FW
tissue
unitless
unitless
Value
Varies (calculated - Table F-l-10)
This variable is site-specific and chemical-specific; it is calculated using the equation in Table F-l-10. Uncertainties
associated with this variable include:
(1) Variables: Csld, and Cwctot are COPC- and site-specific.
(2) Variables: BCFS_HB andBCFw_HB are based on biotransfer factors for beef cattle (Bachicken), and receptor-specific
ingestion rates, and therefore may introduce uncertainty when used to compute concentrations for site-specific
herbivorous mammals.
Otol
Default: 1
This variable is species- and site-specific, and depends on the percentage of the dietary food item that is
contaminated. U.S. EPA OSW recommends that a default value of 1 .0 be used for all food types when site specific
information is not available. The following uncertainty is associated with this variable:
(1) The actual amount of contaminated food ingested by a species depends on food availability, diet composition,
and animal behavior. Therefore, the default value of 100 percent may not accurately reflect site-specific
conditions, and may overestimate the proportion of contaminated food ingested.
Otol
This variable is species- and site-specific, and depends on the percentage of the diet that is comprised of herbivorous
birds. The default value for a screening level ecological risk assessment is 100 percent for computing concentration
based on an exclusive diet. For calculating an equal diet, Fdia is determined based on the number of dietary
components in the total diet. The application of an equal diet is further discussed in Chapter 5.
Uncertainties associated with this variable include:
(1) The actual proportion of the diet that is comprised of a specific dietary item depends on several factors
including: food availability, animal behavior, species composition, and seasonal influences. These
uncertainties may over- or under- estimate Fdia when applied to site-specific receptors.
(2) The default value of 100 percent for an exclusive diet introduces uncertainty and may over-estimate exposure
from ingestion of a single dietary item.
(3) The default value for an equal diet introduces uncertainty and may over- or under- estimate exposure when
applied to site-specific receptors.
F-86
-------
TABLE F-2-3
COPC DOSE INGESTED TERMS IN OMNIVOROUS MAMMALS
IN FOREST, SHRUB/SCRUB, SHORTGRASS PRAIRIE, AND TALLGRASS PRAIRIE FOOD WEBS
(Page 4 of 8)
Variable
Description
Units
Value
Concentration of COPC in
invertebrates
mg COPC/kg FW
tissue
Varies (calculated - Table F-l-3)
This variable is site-specific and COPC-specific; it is calculated using the equation in Table F-l-3. Uncertainties
associated with this variable include:
(1) Modeled soil concentrations may not accurately represent site-specific conditions. As a result, the actual COPC
concentration in soil used to calculate the COPC concentration in invertebrates may be under- or overestimated
to an unknown degree.
(2) BCFS_IN¥ values may not accurately represent site-specific soil conditions and therefore, may over- or under-
estimate Cnar.
PINV Proportion of invertebrate in diet
that is contaminated
unitless
Otol
Default: 1
This variable is species- and site-specific, and depends on the percentage of the dietary food item that is
contaminated. U.S. EPA OSW recommends that a default value of 1.0 be used for all food types when site specific
information is not available. The following uncertainty is associated with this variable:
(1) The actual amount of contaminated food ingested by a species depends on food availability, diet composition,
and animal behavior. Therefore, the default value of 100 percent may not accurately reflect site-specific
conditions, and may overestimate the proportion of contaminated food ingested.
Fraction of diet comprised of
invertebrates
unitless
Otol
This variable is species- and site-specific, and depends on the percentage of the diet that is comprised of
invertebrates. The default value for a screening level ecological risk assessment is 100 percent for computing
concentration based on an exclusive diet. For calculating an equal diet, Fdia is determined based on the number of
dietary components in the total diet. The application of an equal diet is further discussed in Chapter 5.
Uncertainties associated with this variable include:
(1) The actual proportion of the diet that is comprised of a specific dietary item depends on several factors
including: food availability, animal behavior, species composition, and seasonal influences. These
uncertainties may over- or under- estimate Fdia when applied to site-specific receptors.
(2) The default value of 100 percent for an exclusive diet introduces uncertainty and may over-estimate exposure
from ingestion of a single dietary item.
(3) The default value for an equal diet introduces uncertainty and may over- or under- estimate exposure when
applied to site-specific receptors.
F-87
-------
TABLE F-2-3
COPC DOSE INGESTED TERMS IN OMNIVOROUS MAMMALS
IN FOREST, SHRUB/SCRUB, SHORTGRASS PRAIRIE, AND TALLGRASS PRAIRIE FOOD WEBS
(Page 5 of 8)
Variable
r
i_rp
FTP
FTP
Description
COPC concentration in terrestrial
plants
Proportion of terrestrial plant in
diet that is contaminated
Fraction of diet comprised of
terrestrial plants
Units
mg COPC/kg
WW
unitless
unitless
Value
Varies
This variable is site- and COPC-specific; it is calculated using the equation in Table F-l-1.
Uncertainties introduced by this variable include the following:
(1) Some of the variables in the equations in Tables B-3-1, B-3-2, and B-3-3 — including Cs, Cyv, Q, Dydp, and
Dywp — are COPC- and site-specific.
(2) In the equation in Table B-3-1, uncertainties associated with other variables include the following: Fw (values
for organic compounds estimated on the basis of the behavior of polystyrene microspheres), Rp (estimated on
the basis of a generalized empirical relationship), and kp (estimation process does not consider chemical
degradation). All of these uncertainties contribute to the overall uncertainty associated with CTP.
Otol
Default: 1
This variable is species- and site-specific, and depends on the percentage of the dietary food item that is
contaminated. U.S. EPA OSW recommends that a default value of 1 .0 be used for all food types when site specific
information is not available. The following uncertainty is associated with this variable:
(1) The actual amount of contaminated food ingested by a species depends on food availability, diet composition,
and animal behavior. Therefore, the default value of 100 percent may not accurately reflect site-specific
conditions, and may overestimate the proportion of contaminated food ingested.
Otol
This variable is species- and site-specific, and depends on the percentage of the diet that is comprised of terrestrial
plants. The default value for a screening level ecological risk assessment is 100 percent for computing concentration
based on an exclusive diet. For calculating an equal diet, Fdia is determined based on the number of dietary
components in the total diet. The application of an equal diet is further discussed in Chapter 5.
Uncertainties associated with this variable include:
(1) The actual proportion of the diet that is comprised of a specific dietary item depends on several factors
including: food availability, animal behavior, species composition, and seasonal influences. These
uncertainties may over- or under- estimate Fdia when applied to site-specific receptors.
(2) The default value of 100 percent for an exclusive diet introduces uncertainty and may over-estimate exposure
from ingestion of a single dietary item.
(3) The default value for an equal diet introduces uncertainty and may over- or under- estimate exposure when
applied to site-specific receptors.
F-8
-------
TABLE F-2-3
COPC DOSE INGESTED TERMS IN OMNIVOROUS MAMMALS
IN FOREST, SHRUB/SCRUB, SHORTGRASS PRAIRIE, AND TALLGRASS PRAIRIE FOOD WEBS
(Page 6 of 8)
Variable
Description
Units
Value
Cs
COPC concentration in soil
mg COPC /kg
DW soil
Varies
This variable is COPC- and site-specific, and should be calculated using the equation in Table B-l-1. Cs is expressed
on a dry weight basis.
Uncertainties associated with this variable include:
(1) For soluble COPCs, leaching might lead to movement to below 1 centimeter in unfilled soils, resulting a greater
mixing depth. This uncertainty may overestimate Cs.
(2) Deposition to hard surfaces may result in dust residues that have negligible dilution (as a result of potential
mixing with in situ materials) in comparison to that of other residues. This uncertainty may underestimate Cs
(3) Modeled soil concentrations may not accurately represent site-specific conditions. As a result, the actual COPC
concentration in soil may be under- or overestimated to an unknown degree.
Soil ingestion rate of omnivorous
mammal
kg DW/kg BW-
day
Varies
This variable is site-, receptor-, and habitat-specific, and is discussed in Chapter 5. Ingestion rates for example
measurement receptors are presented in Chapter 5, Table 5-1. Uncertainties associated with this variable include the
following:
(1) IRS values may under- or over-estimate BCFS when applied for site-specific organisms.
Pa
Proportion of ingested soil that is
contaminated
unitless
Otol
Default: 1
This variable is species- and site-specific, and depends on the percentage of soil ingested that is contaminated. U.S.
EPA OSW recommends that a default value of 1.0 be used for a screening level risk assessment when site specific
information is not available. The following uncertainty is associated with this variable:
(1) The actual amount of contaminated soil ingested by species depends on site-specific information, receptor
homerange, and animal behavior; therefore, the default value of 100 percent may not accurately reflect site-
specific conditions, and the proportion of soil ingested that is contaminated will likely be overestimated.
F-89
-------
TABLE F-2-3
COPC DOSE INGESTED TERMS IN OMNIVOROUS MAMMALS
IN FOREST, SHRUB/SCRUB, SHORTGRASS PRAIRIE, AND TALLGRASS PRAIRIE FOOD WEBS
(Page 7 of 8)
Variable
Description
Units
Value
Total COPC concentration in water
column
mg COPC/L
water
(or
g COPC/m3
water)
Varies (calculated - Table B-2-17)
This variable is COPC- and site-specific and is calculated using Table B-2-17. Uncertainties associated with this
equation include the following:
(1) All of the variables in the equation in Table B-2-17 are COPC- and site-specific. Therefore, the use of default
values rather than site-specific values, for any or all of these variables, will contribute to the under- or
overestimation of Cmtot.
(2) Uncertainty associated with fwc is largely the result of uncertainty associated with default OC content values and
may be significant in specific instances. Uncertainties associated with the variable LT and Kwt may result
because of many variable-specific uncertainties.
The degree of uncertainly associated with the variables dwc and dts is expected to be minimal either because
information for estimating a variable (dnc) is generally available or because the probable range for a variable (dbs) is
narrow. The uncertainty associated with the variables/,,, and Cmtot is associated with estimates of OC content.
Because OC content values can vary widely for different locations in the same media, using default OC values may
result in uncertainty in specific cases.
IR w.nu Water ingestion rate for
omnivorous mammal
L/kg DW-day
Varies
This variable is receptor- and habitat-specific, and is discussed in Chapter 5. Ingestion rates for example
measurement receptors are presented in Chapter 5, Table 5-1. The following uncertainty is associated with this
variable:
(1) Water ingestion rates are influenced by animal behavior and environmental factors and may over- or under-
estimate BCFW_OM to an unknown degree.
Pw Proportion of ingested water that is
contaminated
unitless
Otol
Default: 1
This variable is species- and site-specific, and depends on the percentage of water ingested that is contaminated. U.S.
EPA OSW recommends that a default value of 1.0 be used when site specific information is not available.
The following uncertainty is associated with this variable:
(1) The actual amount of contaminated water ingested by species depends on site-specific information, receptor
homerange, and animal behavior; therefore, the default value of 100 percent may not accurately reflect site-
specific conditions, and the proportion of ingested water that is contaminated will likely be overestimated.
F-90
-------
TABLE F-2-3
COPC DOSE INGESTED TERMS IN OMNIVOROUS MAMMALS
IN FOREST, SHRUB/SCRUB, SHORTGRASS PRAIRIE, AND TALLGRASS PRAIRIE FOOD WEBS
(Page 8 of 8)
REFERENCES AND DISCUSSIONS
U.S. EPA. 1993. Wildlife Exposure Factor Handbook. Volumes I and H. Office of Research and Development. EPA/600/R-93/187a
F-91
-------
TABLE F-2-4
COPC DOSE INGESTED TERMS IN OMNIVOROUS BIRDS
IN FOREST, SHRUB/SCRUB, TALLGRASS PRAIRIE, AND SHORTGRASS PRAIRIE FOOD WEBS
(Pagel of 6)
Description
This equation calculates the daily dose through exposure to contaminated food/prey, soil, and water in omnivorous birds in upland forest, shortgrass prairie, tallgrass prairie, and shrub/scrub
food webs. The limitations and uncertainties introduced in calculating this variable include the following:
(1) Variables C, and Cmtot are COPC- and site-specific. Uncertainties associated with these variables will be site specific.
(2) Variables BCFS_OB, and BCFW_OB are based on biotransfer factors for chicken (Bachicken), and receptor specific ingestion rates, and therefore may introduce uncertainty when used to
compute a daily dose for site-specific omnivorous birds.
Equation
"iNV
\^TP ' ^OB ' " TP ' * ' IP) + ( s '
"
Variable
Description
Units
Value
Dn
Dose COPC ingested for
omnivorous birds
mg COPC/kg
BW-day
C,r
Concentration of COPC in
invertebrates
mg COPC/kg FW
tissue
Varies (calculated - Table F-l-3)
This variable is site-specific and COPC-specific; it is calculated using the equation in Table F-l-3. Uncertainties
associated with this variable include:
(1) Modeled soil concentrations may not accurately represent site-specific conditions. As a result, the actual COPC
concentration in soil used to calculate the COPC concentration in invertebrates may be under- or overestimated
to an unknown degree.
(2) BCFS_IN¥ values may not accurately represent site-specific soil conditions and therefore, may over- or under-
estimate CIN¥.
F-92
-------
TABLE F-2-4
COPC DOSE INGESTED TERMS IN OMNIVOROUS BIRDS
IN FOREST, SHRUB/SCRUB, TALLGRASS PRAIRIE, AND SHORTGRASS PRAIRIE FOOD WEBS
(Page 2 of 6)
Variable
Description
Units
Value
Food ingestion rate of omnivorous
bird
kg WW/kg BW-
day
Varies
This variable is receptor-specific, and is discussed in Chapter 5. Ingestion rates for example measurement receptors
are provided in Chapter 5, Table 5-1. Uncertainties associated with this variable include:
(1) Food ingestion rates are influenced by several factors including: metabolic rate, energy requirements for growth
and reproduction, and dietary composition. Ingestion rates are also influenced by ambient temperature, receptor
activity level and body weight U.S. EPA (1993). These factors introduce an unknown degree of uncertainty
when used to estimate daily dose.
(2) IR values may over- or under- estimate exposure when applied to site-specific receptors.
PINV Proportion of invertebrate in diet
that is contaminated
unitless
Otol
Default: 1
This variable is species- and site-specific, and depends on the percentage of the dietary food item that is
contaminated. U.S. EPA OSW recommends that a default value of 1.0 be used for all food types when site specific
information is not available. The following uncertainty is associated with this variable:
(1) The actual amount of contaminated food ingested by a species depends on food availability, diet composition,
and animal behavior. Therefore, the default value of 100 percent may not accurately reflect site-specific
conditions, and may overestimate the proportion of contaminated food ingested.
Fraction of diet comprised of
invertebrates
unitless
Otol
This variable is species- and site-specific, and depends on the percentage of the diet that is comprised of
invertebrates. The default value for a screening level ecological risk assessment is 100 percent for computing
concentration based on an exclusive diet. For calculating an equal diet, Fdia is determined based on the number of
dietary components in the total diet. The application of an equal diet is further discussed in Chapter 5.
Uncertainties associated with this variable include:
(1) The actual proportion of the diet that is comprised of a specific dietary item depends on several factors
including: food availability, animal behavior, species composition, and seasonal influences. These
uncertainties may over- or under- estimate Fdia when applied to site-specific receptors.
(2) The default value of 100 percent for an exclusive diet introduces uncertainty and may over-estimate exposure
from ingestion of a single dietary item.
(3) The default value for an equal diet introduces uncertainty and may over- or under- estimate exposure when
applied to site-specific receptors.
F-93
-------
TABLE F-2-4
COPC DOSE INGESTED TERMS IN OMNIVOROUS BIRDS
IN FOREST, SHRUB/SCRUB, TALLGRASS PRAIRIE, AND SHORTGRASS PRAIRIE FOOD WEBS
(Page 3 of 6)
Variable
r
i_rp
FTP
FTP
Description
COPC concentration in terrestrial
plants
Proportion of terrestrial plant in
diet that is contaminated
Fraction of diet comprised of
terrestrial plants
Units
mg COPC/kg
WW
unitless
unitless
Value
Varies
This variable is site- and COPC-specific; it is calculated using the equation in Table F-l-1.
Uncertainties introduced by this variable include the following:
(1) Some of the variables in the equations in Tables B-3-1, B-3-2, and B-3-3 — including Cs, Cyv, Q, Dydp, and
Dywp — are COPC- and site-specific.
(2) In the equation in Table B-3-1, uncertainties associated with other variables include the following: Fw (values
for organic compounds estimated on the basis of the behavior of polystyrene microspheres), Rp (estimated on
the basis of a generalized empirical relationship), and kp (estimation process does not consider chemical
degradation).
Otol
Default: 1
This variable is species- and site-specific, and depends on the percentage of the dietary food item that is
contaminated. U.S. EPA OSW recommends that a default value of 1 .0 be used for all food types when site specific
information is not available. The following uncertainty is associated with this variable:
(1) The actual amount of contaminated food ingested by a species depends on food availability, diet composition,
and animal behavior. Therefore, the default value of 100 percent may not accurately reflect site-specific
conditions, and may overestimate the proportion of contaminated food ingested.
Otol
This variable is species- and site-specific, and depends on the percentage of the diet that is comprised of terrestrial
plants. The default value for a screening level ecological risk assessment is 100 percent for computing concentration
based on an exclusive diet. For calculating an equal diet, Fdia is determined based on the number of dietary
components in the total diet. The application of an equal diet is further discussed in Chapter 5.
Uncertainties associated with this variable include:
(1) The actual proportion of the diet that is comprised of a specific dietary item depends on several factors
including: food availability, animal behavior, species composition, and seasonal influences. These
uncertainties may over- or under- estimate Fdia when applied to site-specific receptors.
(2) The default value of 100 percent for an exclusive diet introduces uncertainty and may over-estimate exposure
from ingestion of a single dietary item.
(3) The default value for an equal diet introduces uncertainty and may over- or under- estimate exposure when
applied to site-specific receptors.
F-94
-------
TABLE F-2-4
COPC DOSE INGESTED TERMS IN OMNIVOROUS BIRDS
IN FOREST, SHRUB/SCRUB, TALLGRASS PRAIRIE, AND SHORTGRASS PRAIRIE FOOD WEBS
(Page 4 of 6)
Variable
Description
Units
Value
Cs
COPC concentration in soil
mg COPC /kg
DW soil
Varies
This variable is COPC- and site-specific, and should be calculated using the equation in Table B-l-1. Cs is expressed
on a dry weight basis.
Uncertainties associated with this variable include:
(1) For soluble COPCs, leaching might lead to movement to below 1 centimeter in unfilled soils, resulting a greater
mixing depth. This uncertainty may overestimate Cs.
(2) Deposition to hard surfaces may result in dust residues that have negligible dilution (as a result of potential
mixing with in situ materials) in comparison to that of other residues. This uncertainty may underestimate Cs.
(3) Modeled soil concentrations may not accurately represent site-specific conditions. As a result, the actual
IRx.na Soil ingestion rate for omnivorous
bird
kg DW/kg BW-
day
Varies
This variable is site-, receptor-, and habitat-specific, and is discussed in Chapter 5. Ingestion rates for example
measurement receptors are presented in Chapter 5, Table 5-1. Uncertainties associated with this variable include the
following:
(1) IRS values may under- or over-estimate BCFS when applied to site-specific organisms.
Proportion of ingested soil that is
contamanted
unitless
Otol
Default: 1
This variable is species- and site-specific, and depends on the percentage of soil ingested that is contaminated. U.S.
EPA OSW recommends that a default value of 1.0 be used for a screening level risk assessment when site-specific
information is not available. The following uncertainty is associated with this variable:
(1) The actual amount of contaminated soil ingested by species depends on site-specific information, receptor
homerange, and animal behavior; therefore, the default value of 100 percent may not accurately reflect site-
specific conditions, and the proportion of soil ingested that is contaminated may be overestimated.
F-95
-------
TABLE F-2-4
COPC DOSE INGESTED TERMS IN OMNIVOROUS BIRDS
IN FOREST, SHRUB/SCRUB, TALLGRASS PRAIRIE, AND SHORTGRASS PRAIRIE FOOD WEBS
(Page 5 of 6)
Variable
Description
Units
Value
Total COPC concentration in water
column
mg COPC/L
water
(or
g COPC/m3
water)
Varies (calculated - Table B-2-17)
This variable is COPC- and site-specific and is calculated using Table B-2-17. Uncertainties associated with this
equation include the following:
(1) All of the variables in the equation in Table B-2-17 are COPC- and site-specific. Therefore, the use of default
values rather than site-specific values, for any or all of these variables, will contribute to the under- or
overestimation of Cmtot.
(2) Uncertainty associated with fwc is largely the result of uncertainty associated with default OC content values and
may be significant in specific instances. Uncertainties associated with the variable LT and Kwt may also be
significant because of many variable-specific uncertainties.
The degree of uncertainly associated with the variables dwc and dts is expected to be minimal either because
information for estimating a variable (dm) is generally available or because the probable range for a variable (dbs) is
narrow. The uncertainty associated with the variables/,,, and Cwctot is associated with estimates of OC content.
Because OC content values can vary widely for different locations in the same media, default OC values will result in
uncertainty in specific cases.
Water ingestion rate for
omnivorous bird
L/kg BW-day
Varies
This variable is receptor- and habitat-specific, and is discussed in Chapter 5. Ingestion rates for example
measurement receptors are presented in Chapter 5, Table 5-1. The following uncertainty is associated with this
variable:
(1) Water ingestion rates are influenced by animal behavior and environmental factors and may over- or under-
estimate BCFW_OB to an unknown degree.
Pw Proportion of ingested water that is
contaminated
unitless
Otol
Default: 1
This variable is species- and site-specific, and depends on the percentage of water ingested that is contaminated. U.S.
EPA OSW recommends that a default value of 1.0 be used when site specific information is not available.
The following uncertainty is associated with this variable:
(1) The actual amount of contaminated water ingested by species depends on site-specific information, receptor
homerange, and animal behavior; therefore, the default value of 100 percent may not accurately reflect site-
specific conditions, and the proportion of ingested water that is contaminated may be overestimated.
F-96
-------
TABLE F-2-4
COPC DOSE INGESTED TERMS IN OMNIVOROUS BIRDS
IN FOREST, SHRUB/SCRUB, TALLGRASS PRAIRIE, AND SHORTGRASS PRAIRIE FOOD WEBS
(Page 6 of 6)
REFERENCES AND DISCUSSIONS
U.S. EPA. 1993. Wildlife Exposure Factor Handbook. Volumes I and H. Office of Research and Development. EPA/600/R-93/187a.
F-97
-------
TABLE F-2-5
COPC DOSE INGESTED TERMS IN CARNIVOROUS MAMMALS
IN FOREST, SHORTGRASS PRAIRIE, TALLGRASS PRAIRIE, AND SHRUB/SCRUB FOOD WEBS
(Page 1 of 8)
Description
This equation calculates the daily dose through exposure to food/prey, soil, and water in carnivorous mammal in upland forest, shortgrass prairie, tallgrass prairie, and shrub/scrub food webs.
The limitations and uncertainties introduced in calculating this variable include the following:
(1) Variables C, and Cmtot are COPC- and site-specific. Uncertainties associated with these variables will be site-specific
(2) Variables BCFS_CM, and BCFW_CM are based on biotransfer factors for beef cattle (BabeeJ), and receptor-specific ingestion rates, and therefore may introduce uncertainty when used to
compute a representative daily dose for site-specific carnivorous mammals.
Equation
D
^
TR
*^
P
r
HB
HB
\ + If • TR
] \^ OB *^
P
r
OB
OB)
OM
TR
*^
• P • ff \ + If • TR • P • J? \
3W *OM r OM] \^HM II^CM *HM r HM]
Variable
Description
Units
Value
DC*,
Dose COPC ingested for
carnivorous mammals
mg COPC/kg
BW-day
CH
Concentration of COPC in
herbivorous birds
mg COPC/kg FW
tissue
Varies (calculated - Table F-l-10)
This variable is site-specific and chemical-specific; it is calculated using the equation in Table F-l-10. Uncertainties
associated with this variable include:
(1) Variables Cs and Cmtot are COPC- and site-specific.
(2) Variables BCFS.HB and BCFW_HB are based on biotransfer factors for chicken (Bachicken\ and receptor-specific
ingestion rates, and therefore may introduce uncertainty when used to compute concentrations for site-specific
herbivorous birds.
F-98
-------
TABLE F-2-5
COPC DOSE INGESTED TERMS IN CARNIVOROUS MAMMALS
IN FOREST, SHORTGRASS PRAIRIE, TALLGRASS PRAIRIE, AND SHRUB/SCRUB FOOD WEBS
(Page 2 of 8)
Variable
Description
Units
Value
IRCM Food ingestion rate of carnivorous
mammal
kgWW/kg
BW-day
Varies
This variable is receptor-specific, and is discussed in Chapter 5, Table 5-1. Uncertainties associated with this variable
include:
(1) Food ingestion rates are influenced by several factors including: metabolic rate, energy requirements for growth
and reproduction, and dietary composition. Ingestion rates are also influenced by ambient temperature, receptor
activity level and body weight U.S. EPA (1993). These factors introduce an unknown degree of uncertainty
when used to estimate daily dose.
(2) IR values may over- or under- estimate exposure when applied for site-specific receptors.
Proportion of herbivorous birds in
diet that is contaminated
unitless
Otol
Default: 1
This variable is species- and site-specific, and depends on the percentage of the dietary food item that is
contaminated. U.S. EPA OSW recommends that a default value of 1.0 be used for all food types when site specific
information is not available. The following uncertainty is associated with this variable:
(1) The actual amount of contaminated food ingested by a species depends on food availability, diet composition,
and animal behavior. Therefore, the default value of 100 percent may not accurately reflect site-specific
conditions, and may overestimate the proportion of contaminated food ingested.
Fraction of diet comprised of
herbivorous birds
unitless
Otol
This variable is species- and site-specific, and depends on the percentage of the diet that is comprised of herbivorous
birds. The default value for a screening level ecological risk assessment is 100 percent for computing concentration
based on an exclusive diet. For calculating an equal diet, Fdia is determined based on the number of dietary
components in the total diet. The application of an equal diet is further discussed in Chapter 5.
Uncertainties associated with this variable include:
(1) The actual proportion of the diet that is comprised of a specific dietary item depends on several factors
including: food availability, animal behavior, species composition, and seasonal influences. These
uncertainties may over- or under- estimate Fdia when applied to site-specific receptors.
(2) The default value of 100 percent for an exclusive diet introduces uncertainty and may over-estimate exposure
from ingestion of a single dietary item.
(3) The default value for an equal diet introduces uncertainty and may over- or under- estimate exposure when
applied to site-specific receptors.
F-99
-------
TABLE F-2-5
COPC DOSE INGESTED TERMS IN CARNIVOROUS MAMMALS
IN FOREST, SHORTGRASS PRAIRIE, TALLGRASS PRAIRIE, AND SHRUB/SCRUB FOOD WEBS
(Page 3 of 8)
Variable
r
^OB
"OB
FOB
Description
Concentration of COPC in
omnivorous birds
Proportion of omnivorous bird diet
that is contaminated
Fraction of diet comprised of
omnivorous birds
Units
mg COPC/kg FW
tissue
unitless
unitless
Value
Varies (calculated - Table F-l-6)
This variable is site-specific and COPC-specific; it is calculated using the equation in Table F-l-6. Uncertainties
associated with this variable include:
(1) Variables Cs and Cmtot are COPC- and site-specific. Uncertainties associated with these variables will be site-
specific.
(2) Variables BCFS_OB and BCFW_OB are based on biotransfer factors for chicken (Bachicken ), and receptor-specific
ingestion rates, and therefore may introduce uncertainty when used to compute concentrations for site-specific
omnivorous birds.
Otol
Default: 1
This variable is species- and site-specific, and depends on the percentage of the dietary food item that is
contaminated. U.S. EPA OSW recommend that a default value of 1 .0 be used for all food types when site specific
information is not available. The following uncertainty is associated with this variable:
(1) The actual amount of contaminated food ingested by a species depends on food availability, diet composition,
and animal behavior. Therefore, the default value of 100 percent may not accurately reflect site-specific
conditions, and may overestimate the proportion of contaminated food ingested.
Otol
This variable is species- and site-specific, and depends on the percentage of the diet that is comprised of omnivorous
birds. The default value for a screening level ecological risk assessment is 100 percent for computing concentration
based on an exclusive diet. For calculating an equal diet, Fdia is determined based on the number of dietary
components in the total diet. The application of an equal diet is further discussed in Chapter 5.
Uncertainties associated with this variable include:
(1) The actual proportion of the diet that is comprised of a specific dietary item depends on several factors
including: food availability, animal behavior, species composition, and seasonal influences. These
uncertainties may over- or under- estimate Fdia when applied to site-specific receptors.
(2) The default value of 100 percent for an exclusive diet introduces uncertainty and may over-estimate exposure
from ingestion of a single dietary item.
(3) The default value for an equal diet introduces uncertainty and may over- or under- estimate exposure when
applied to site-specific receptors.
F-100
-------
TABLE F-2-5
COPC DOSE INGESTED TERMS IN CARNIVOROUS MAMMALS
IN FOREST, SHORTGRASS PRAIRIE, TALLGRASS PRAIRIE, AND SHRUB/SCRUB FOOD WEBS
(Page 4 of 8)
Variable
Description
Units
Value
CnM Concentration of COPC in
omnivorous mammals
mg COPC/kg FW
tissue
Varies (calculated - Table F-l-5)
This variable is site-specific and COPC-specific, and is calculated using the equation in Table F-l-5. Uncertainties
associated with this variable include:
(1) Variables Cs and Cmtot are COPC- and site-specific. Uncertainties associated with these variables will be
site-specific.
(2) Variables BCFS_OM and BCFW_OM are based on biotransfer factors for beef (Babeef), and receptor specific ingestion
rates, and therefore may introduce uncertainty when used to compute concentrations for site-specific
omnivorous mammals.
PnM Proportion of omnivorous mammal
diet that is contaminated
unitless
Otol
Default: 1
This variable is species- and site-specific, and depends on the percentage of the dietary food item that is
contaminated. U.S. EPA OSW recommends that a default value of 1.0 be used for all food types when site specific
information is not available. The following uncertainty is associated with this variable:
(1) The actual amount of contaminated food ingested by a species depends on food availability, diet composition,
and animal behavior. Therefore, the default value of 100 percent may not accurately reflect site-specific
conditions, and may overestimate the proportion of contaminated food ingested.
FOM Fraction of diet comprised of
omnivorous mammals
unitless
Otol
This variable is species- and site-specific, and depends on the percentage of the diet that is comprised of omnivorous
mammals. The default value for a screening level ecological risk assessment is 100 percent for computing
concentration based on an exclusive diet. For calculating an equal diet, Fdiet is determined based on the number of
dietary components in the total diet. The application of an equal diet is further discussed in Chapter 5.
Uncertainties associated with this variable include:
(1) The actual proportion of the diet that is comprised of a specific dietary item depends on several factors
including: food availability, animal behavior, species composition, and seasonal influences. These
uncertainties may over- or under- estimate Fdiet when applied to site-specific receptors.
(2) The default value of 100 percent for an exclusive diet introduces uncertainty and may over-estimate exposure
from ingestion of a single dietary item.
(3) The default value for an equal diet introduces uncertainty and may over- or under- estimate exposure when
applied to site-specific receptors.
F-101
-------
TABLE F-2-5
COPC DOSE INGESTED TERMS IN CARNIVOROUS MAMMALS
IN FOREST, SHORTGRASS PRAIRIE, TALLGRASS PRAIRIE, AND SHRUB/SCRUB FOOD WEBS
(Page 5 of 8)
Variable
Description
Units
Value
CHM Concentration of COPC in
herbivorous mammals
mg COPC/kg FW
tissue
Varies (calculated - Table F-l-9)
This variable is site-specific and COPC-specific; it is calculated using the equation in Table F-l-9. Uncertainties
associated with this variable include:
(1) Variables Cs and Cmtot are COPC- and site-specific.
(2) Variables BCFS_HM and BCFW_HM are based on biotransfer factors for beef cattle (Babeej-), and receptor specific
ingestion rates, and therefore may introduce uncertainty when used to compute concentrations for site-specific
herbivorous mammals.
PHM Proportion of herbivorous mammal
in diet that is contaminated
unitless
Otol
Default: 1
This variable is species- and site-specific, and depends on the percentage of the dietary food item that is
contaminated. U.S. EPA OSW recommend that a default value of 1.0 be used for all food types when site specific
information is not available. Uncertainties associated with this variable include:
(1) The actual amount of contaminated food ingested by a species depends on food availability, diet composition,
and animal behavior. Therefore, the default value of 100 percent may not accurately reflect site-specific
conditions, and may overestimate the proportion of contaminated food ingested.
FHM Fraction of diet comprised of
herbivorous mammals
unitless
Otol
This variable is species- and site-specific, and depends on the percentage of the diet that is comprised of herbivorous
mammals. The default value for a screening level ecological risk assessment is 100 percent for computing
concentration based on an exclusive diet. For calculating an equal diet, Fdiet is determined based on the number of
dietary components in the total diet. The application of an equal diet is further discussed in Chapter 5.
Uncertainties associated with this variable include:
(1) The actual proportion of the diet that is comprised of herbivorous mammals depends on several factors
including: food availability, animal behavior, species composition, and seasonal influences. Therefore a
default value of 100 percent for the exclusive diet, may over-estimate dietary exposure.
F-102
-------
TABLE F-2-5
COPC DOSE INGESTED TERMS IN CARNIVOROUS MAMMALS
IN FOREST, SHORTGRASS PRAIRIE, TALLGRASS PRAIRIE, AND SHRUB/SCRUB FOOD WEBS
(Page 6 of 8)
Variable
Description
Units
Value
Cs
COPC concentration in soil
mg COPC /kg
DW soil
Varies
This variable is COPC- and site-specific, and should be calculated using the equation in Table B-l-1. Cs is expressed
on a dry weight basis.
Uncertainties associated with this variable include:
(1) For soluble COPCs, leaching might lead to movement to below 1 centimeter in unfilled soils, resulting a greater
mixing depth. This uncertainty may overestimate Cs.
(2) Deposition to hard surfaces may result in dust residues that have negligible dilution (as a result of potential
mixing with in situ materials) in comparison to that of other residues. This uncertainty may underestimate Cs
(3) Modeled soil concentrations may not accurately represent site-specific conditions. As a result, the actual COPC
concentration in soil may be under- or overestimated to an unknown degree.
Soil ingestion rate for carnivorous
mammal
kg DW/kg BW-
day
Varies
This variable is site-, receptor-, and habitat-specific, and is discussed in Chapter 5; Table 5-1. Uncertainties
associated with this variable include the following:
(1) IRS values may under- or over-estimate BCFS when applied to site-specific organisms.
Proportion of ingested soil that is
contaminated
unitless
Otol
Default: 1
This variable is species- and site-specific, and depends on the percentage of soil ingested that is contaminated. U.S.
EPA OSW recommends that a default value of 1.0 be used for a screening level risk assessment when site specific
information is not available. The following uncertainty is associated with this variable:
(1) The actual amount of contaminated soil ingested by species depends on site-specific information, receptor
homerange, and animal behavior; therefore, the default value of 100 percent may not accurately reflect site-
specific conditions, and the proportion of soil ingested that is contaminated may be overestimated.
F-103
-------
TABLE F-2-5
COPC DOSE INGESTED TERMS IN CARNIVOROUS MAMMALS
IN FOREST, SHORTGRASS PRAIRIE, TALLGRASS PRAIRIE, AND SHRUB/SCRUB FOOD WEBS
(Page 7 of 8)
Variable
Description
Units
Value
Total COPC concentration in water
column
mg COPC/L
water
(or
g COPC/m3
water)
Varies (calculated - Table B-2-17)
This variable is COPC- and site-specific and is calculated using Table B-2-17. Uncertainties associated with this
equation include the following:
(1) All of the variables in the equation in Table B-2-17 are COPC- and site-specific. Therefore, the use of default
values rather than site-specific values, for any or all of these variables, will contribute to the under- or
overestimation of Cmtot.
(2) Uncertainty associated with fwc is largely the result of uncertainty associated with default OC content values.
Uncertainties may also be associated with the variable LT and Knt.
The degree of uncertainly associated with the variables dwc and dts is expected to be minimal either because
information for estimating a variable (dm) is generally available or because the probable range for a variable (dbs) is
narrow. The uncertainty associated with the variables/,,, and Cwctot is associated with estimates of OC content.
Because OC content values can vary widely for different locations in the same medium, the uncertainty associated
with using default OC values may be significant in specific cases.
Water ingestion rate for
carnivorous mammal
L/kg BW-day
Varies
This variable is receptor- and habitat-specific, and is discussed in Chapter 5. Ingestion rates for example
measurement receptors are presented in, Table 5-1. The following uncertainty is associated with this variable:
(1) Water ingestion rates are strongly influenced by animal behavior and environmental factors and may over- or
under- estimate BCFW_CM to an unknown degree.
Pw
Proportion of ingested water that is
contaminated
unitless
Otol
Default: 1
This variable is species- and site-specific, and depends on the percentage of water ingested that is contaminated. U.S.
EPA OSW recommends that a default value of 1.0 be used when site specific information is not available.
The following uncertainty is associated with this variable:
(1) The actual amount of contaminated water ingested by species depends on site-specific information, receptor
homerange, and animal behavior; therefore, the default value of 100 percent may not accurately reflect site-
specific conditions, and the proportion of ingested water that is contaminated may be overestimated.
F-104
-------
TABLE F-2-5
COPC DOSE INGESTED TERMS IN CARNIVOROUS MAMMALS
IN FOREST, SHORTGRASS PRAIRIE, TALLGRASS PRAIRIE, AND SHRUB/SCRUB FOOD WEBS
(Page 8 of 8)
REFERENCES AND DISCUSSIONS
U.S. EPA. 1993. Wildlife Exposure Factor Handbook. Volumes I and H. Office of Research and Development. EPA/600/R-93/187a
F-105
-------
TABLE F-2-6
COPC DOSE INGESTED TERMS IN CARNIVOROUS BIRDS
IN FOREST, SHORTGRASS PRAIRIE, TALLGRASS PRAIRIE, AND SHRUB/SCRUB FOOD WEBS
(Page 1 of 8)
Description
This equation calculates the potential daily dose through exposure to contaminated food/prey, soil, and water in carnivorous birds in upland forest, shortgrass prairie, tallgrass prairie, and
shrub/scrub food webs. The limitations and uncertainties introduced in calculating this variable include the following:
(1) Variables Cs and Cmtot are COPC- and site-specific. Uncertainties associated with these variables will be site-specific.
(2) Variables BCFS_CB and BCFW_CB are based on biotransfer factors for chicken (Bachicken), and receptor-specific ingestion rates, and therefore may introduce uncertainty when used to
compute a representative daily dose for site-specific carnivorous birds.
Equation
= 1C • JR • P • F \ + (C • JR • P • F \ + 1C • JR • P • F \
|^¥B ^VCB J HB L HB] XT'OM ^VCB J OM L OM) \^HM ^CB J HM L HMJ
, l(~< . rr> . p . p \ , //^ . 7r> . p \ , l(~" . 7n . p \
\^OB 2I^CB r OB r OB] \ s ^S-CB r S] \ wctof ^W-CB r W]
Variable
Description
Units
Value
DC,
Dose COPC ingested for
carnivorous birds
mg COPC/kg
BW-day
CH
Concentration of COPC in
herbivorous birds
mg COPC/kg FW
tissue
Varies (calculated - Table F-l-10)
This variable is site-specific and COPC-specific; it is calculated using the equation in Table F-l-10. Uncertainties
associated with this variable include:
(1) Variables Cs and Cmtot are COPC- and site-specific.
(2) Variables BCFS.HB and BCFW_HB are based on biotransfer factors for chicken (Bachichln), and receptor-specific
ingestion rates, and therefore may introduce uncertainty when used to compute concentrations for site-specific
herbivorous birds.
F-106
-------
TABLE F-2-6
COPC DOSE INGESTED TERMS IN CARNIVOROUS BIRDS
IN FOREST, SHORTGRASS PRAIRIE, TALLGRASS PRAIRIE, AND SHRUB/SCRUB FOOD WEBS
(Page 2 of 8)
Variable
Description
Units
Value
Food ingestion rate of carnivorous
bird
kg WW/kg DW-
day
Varies
This variable is receptor-specific, and is discussed in Chapter 5. Ingestion rates for example measurement receptors
are provided in Table 5-1. Uncertainties associated with this variable include:
(1) Food ingestion rates are influenced by several factors including: metabolic rate, energy requirements for growth
and reproduction, and dietary composition. Ingestion rates are also influenced by ambient temperature, receptor
activity level and body weight U.S. EPA (1993). These factors introduce an unknown degree of uncertainty
when used to estimate daily dose.
(2) IR values may over- or under- estimate exposure when applied for site-specific receptors.
Proportion of herbivorous birds in
diet that is contaminated
unitless
Otol
Default: 1
This variable is species- and site-specific, and depends on the percentage of the dietary food item that is
contaminated. U.S. EPA OSW recommends that a default value of 1.0 be used for all food types when site specific
information is not available. The following uncertainty is associated with this variable:
(1) The actual amount of contaminated food ingested by a species depends on food availability, diet composition,
and animal behavior. Therefore, the default value of 100 percent may not accurately reflect site-specific
conditions, and may overestimate the proportion of contaminated food ingested.
Fraction of diet comprised of
herbivorous birds
unitless
Otol
This variable is species- and site-specific, and depends on the percentage of the diet that is comprised of herbivorous
birds. The default value for a screening level ecological risk assessment is 100 percent for computing concentration
based on an exclusive diet. For calculating an equal diet, Fdia is determined based on the number of dietary
components in the total diet. The application of an equal diet is further discussed in Chapter 5.
Uncertainties associated with this variable include:
(1) The actual proportion of the diet that is comprised of a specific dietary item depends on several factors
including: food availability, animal behavior, species composition, and seasonal influences. These
uncertainties may over- or under- estimate Fdia when applied to site-specific receptors.
(2) The default value of 100 percent for an exclusive diet introduces uncertainty and may over-estimate exposure
from ingestion of a single dietary item.
(3) The default value for an equal diet introduces uncertainty and may over- or under- estimate exposure when
applied to site-specific receptors.
F-107
-------
TABLE F-2-6
COPC DOSE INGESTED TERMS IN CARNIVOROUS BIRDS
IN FOREST, SHORTGRASS PRAIRIE, TALLGRASS PRAIRIE, AND SHRUB/SCRUB FOOD WEBS
(Page 3 of 8)
Variable
Description
Units
Value
CnM Concentration of COPC in
omnivorous mammals
mg COPC/kg FW
tissue
Varies (calculated - Table F-l-5)
This variable is site-specific and COPC-specific; it is calculated using the equation in Table F-l-5. Uncertainties
associated with this variable include:
(1) Variables Cs and Cmtot are COPC- and site-specific. Uncertainties associated with these variables will be
site-specific.
(2) Variables BCFS_OM and BCFW_OM are based on biotransfer factors for beef (Babeef), and receptor specific ingestion
rates, and therefore may introduce uncertainty when used to compute concentrations for site-specific
omnivorous mammals.
PnM Proportion of omnivorous mammal
diet that is contaminated
unitless
Otol
Default: 1
This variable is species- and site-specific, and depends on the percentage of the dietary food item that is
contaminated. U.S. EPA OSW recommends that a default value of 1.0 be used for all food types when site specific
information is not available. The following uncertainty is associated with this variable:
(1) The actual amount of contaminated food ingested by a species depends on food availability, diet composition,
and animal behavior. Therefore, the default value of 100 percent may not accurately reflect site-specific
conditions, and may overestimate the proportion of contaminated food ingested.
FOM Fraction of diet comprised of
omnivorous mammals
unitless
Otol
This variable is species- and site-specific, and depends on the percentage of the diet that is comprised of omnivorous
mammals. The default value for a screening level ecological risk assessment is 100 percent for computing
concentration based on an exclusive diet. For calculating an equal diet, Fdiet is determined based on the number of
dietary components in the total diet. The application of an equal diet is further discussed in Chapter 5.
Uncertainties associated with this variable include:
(1) The actual proportion of the diet that is comprised of a specific dietary item depends on several factors
including: food availability, animal behavior, species composition, and seasonal influences. These
uncertainties may over- or under- estimate Fdiet when applied to site-specific receptors.
(2) The default value of 100 percent for an exclusive diet introduces uncertainty and may over-estimate exposure
from ingestion of a single dietary item.
(3) The default value for an equal diet introduces uncertainty and may over- or under- estimate exposure when
applied to site-specific receptors.
F-108
-------
TABLE F-2-6
COPC DOSE INGESTED TERMS IN CARNIVOROUS BIRDS
IN FOREST, SHORTGRASS PRAIRIE, TALLGRASS PRAIRIE, AND SHRUB/SCRUB FOOD WEBS
(Page 4 of 8)
Variable
Description
Units
Value
CHM Concentration of COPC in
herbivorous mammals
mg COPC/kg FW
tissue
Varies (calculated - Table F-l-9)
This variable is site-specific and COPC-specific; it is calculated using the equation in Table F-l-9. Uncertainties
associated with this variable include:
(1) Variables Cs and Cmtot are COPC- and site-specific. Uncertainties associated with these variables will be
site-specific.
(2) Variables BCFS_HM and BCFW_HM are based on biotransfer factors for beef cattle (Bateej), and receptor-specific
ingestion rates, and therefore may introduce uncertainty when used to compute concentrations for site-specific
herbivorous mammals.
PHM Proportion of herbivorous mammal
in diet that is contaminated
unitless
Otol
Default: 1
This variable is species- and site-specific, and depends on the percentage of the dietary food item that is
contaminated. U.S. EPA OSW recommends that a default value of 1.0 be used for all food types when site specific
information is not available. Uncertainties associated with this variable include:
(1) The actual amount of contaminated food ingested by a species depends on food availability, diet composition,
and animal behavior. Therefore, the default value of 100 percent may not accurately reflect site-specific
conditions, and may overestimate the proportion of contaminated food ingested.
FHM Fraction of diet comprised of
herbivorous mammals
unitless
Otol
This variable is species- and site-specific, and depends on the percentage of the diet that is comprised of herbivorous
mammals. The default value for a screening level ecological risk assessment is 100 percent for computing
concentration based on an exclusive diet. For calculating an equal diet, Fdia is determined based on the number of
dietary components in the total diet. The application of an equal diet is further discussed in Chapter 5.
Uncertainties associated with this variable include:
(1) The actual proportion of the diet that is comprised of herbivorous mammals depends on several factors
including: food availability, animal behavior, species composition, and seasonal influences. Therefore a
default value of 100 percent for the exclusive diet, may over-estimate dietary exposure.
F-109
-------
TABLE F-2-6
COPC DOSE INGESTED TERMS IN CARNIVOROUS BIRDS
IN FOREST, SHORTGRASS PRAIRIE, TALLGRASS PRAIRIE, AND SHRUB/SCRUB FOOD WEBS
(Page 5 of 8)
Variable
r
^OB
"OB
FOB
Description
Concentration of COPC in
omnivorous birds
Proportion of omnivorous bird diet
that is contaminated
Fraction of diet comprised of
omnivorous birds
Units
mg COPC/kg FW
tissue
unitless
unitless
Value
Varies (calculated - Table F-l-6)
This variable is site-specific and COPC-specific; it is calculated using the equation in Table F-l-6. Uncertainties
associated with this variable include:
(1) Variables Cs and Cmtot are COPC- and site-specific. Uncertainties associated with these variables will be
site-specific.
(2) Variables BCFS_OB and BCFW_OB are based on biotransfer factors for chicken (Bachicken ), and receptor specific
ingestion rates, and therefore may introduce uncertainty when used to compute concentrations for site-specific
omnivorous birds.
Otol
Default: 1
This variable is species- and site-specific, and depends on the percentage of the dietary food item that is
contaminated. U.S. EPA OSW recommends that a default value of 1 .0 be used for all food types when site specific
information is not available. The following uncertainty is associated with this variable:
(1) The actual amount of contaminated food ingested by a species depends on food availability, diet composition,
and animal behavior. Therefore, the default value of 100 percent may not accurately reflect site-specific
conditions, and may overestimate the proportion of contaminated food ingested.
Otol
This variable is species- and site-specific, and depends on the percentage of the diet that is comprised of omnivorous
birds. The default value for a screening level ecological risk assessment is 100 percent for computing concentration
based on an exclusive diet. For calculating an equal diet, Fdia is determined based on the number of dietary
components in the total diet. The application of an equal diet is further discussed in Chapter 5.
Uncertainties associated with this variable include:
(1) The actual proportion of the diet that is comprised of a specific dietary item depends on several factors
including: food availability, animal behavior, species composition, and seasonal influences. These
uncertainties may over- or under- estimate Fdia when applied to site-specific receptors.
(2) The default value of 100 percent for an exclusive diet introduces uncertainty and may over-estimate exposure
from ingestion of a single dietary item.
(3) The default value for an equal diet introduces uncertainty and may over- or under- estimate exposure when
applied to site-specific receptors.
F-110
-------
TABLE F-2-6
COPC DOSE INGESTED TERMS IN CARNIVOROUS BIRDS
IN FOREST, SHORTGRASS PRAIRIE, TALLGRASS PRAIRIE, AND SHRUB/SCRUB FOOD WEBS
(Page 6 of 8)
Variable
Description
Units
Value
Cs
COPC concentration in soil
mg COPC /kg
DW soil
Varies
This variable is COPC- and site-specific, and should be calculated using the equation in Table B-l-1. Cs is expressed
on a dry weight basis.
Uncertainties associated with this variable include:
(1) For soluble COPCs, leaching might lead to movement to below 1 centimeter in unfilled soils, resulting a greater
mixing depth. This uncertainty may overestimate Cs.
(2) Deposition to hard surfaces may result in dust residues that have negligible dilution (as a result of potential
mixing with in situ materials) in comparison to that of other residues. This uncertainty may underestimate Cs
(3) Modeled soil concentrations may not accurately represent site-specific conditions. As a result, the actual COPC
concentration in soil may be under- or overestimated to an unknown degree.
Soil ingestion rate for carnivorous
bird
kg DW/kg BW-
day
Varies
This variable is site-, receptor-, and habitat-specific, and is discussed in Chapter 5. Ingestion rates for example
measurement receptors are presented in Chapter 5, Table 5-1. Uncertainties associated with this variable include the
following:
(1) IRS values may under- or over-estimate BCFS when applied for site-specific organisms.
Pa Proportion of ingested soil that is
contamanted
unitless
Otol
Default: 1
This variable is species- and site-specific, and depends on the percentage of soil ingested that is contaminated. U.S.
EPA OSW recommends that a default value of 1.0 be used for a screening level risk assessment when site specific
information is not available. The following uncertainty is associated with this variable:
(1) The actual amount of contaminated soil ingested by species depends on site-specific information, receptor
homerange, and animal behavior; therefore, the default value of 100 percent may not accurately reflect site-
specific conditions, and the proportion of soil ingested that is contaminated will likely be overestimated.
F-lll
-------
TABLE F-2-6
COPC DOSE INGESTED TERMS IN CARNIVOROUS BIRDS
IN FOREST, SHORTGRASS PRAIRIE, TALLGRASS PRAIRIE, AND SHRUB/SCRUB FOOD WEBS
(Page 7 of 8)
Variable
Description
Units
Value
Total COPC concentration in water
column
mg COPC/L
water
(or
g COPC/m3
water)
Varies (calculated - Table B-2-17)
This variable is COPC- and site-specific and is calculated using Table B-2-17. Uncertainties associated with this
equation include the following:
(1) All of the variables in the equation in Table B-2-17 are COPC- and site-specific. Therefore, the use of default
values rather than site-specific values, for any or all of these variables, will contribute to the under- or
overestimation of Cmtot.
(2) Uncertainty associated with fwc is largely the result of uncertainty associated with default OC content values.
The degree of uncertainly associated with the variables dwc and dts is expected to be minimal either because
information for estimating a variable (dm) is generally available or because the probable range for a variable (dbs) is
narrow. The uncertainty associated with the variables/,,, and Cwctot is associated with estimates of OC content.
Because OC content values can vary widely for different locations in the same medium, the uncertainty associated
with using default OC values may be significant in specific cases.
IRw-cn Water ingestion rate for
carnivorous bird
L/kg DW-day
Varies
This variable is receptor- and habitat-specific, and is discussed in Chapter 5.. Ingestion rates for example
measurement receptors are presented in Chapter 5, Table 5-1. The following uncertainty is associated with this
variable:
(1) Water ingestion rates are strongly influenced by animal behavior and environmental factors and may over- or
under- estimate BCFW_CB to an unknown degree.
Pw Proportion of ingested water that is
contaminated
unitless
Otol
Default: 1
This variable is species- and site-specific, and depends on the percentage of water ingested that is contaminated. U.S.
EPA OSW recommends that a default value of 1.0 be used when site specific information is not available.
The following uncertainty is associated with this variable:
(1) The actual amount of contaminated water ingested by species depends on site-specific information, receptor
homerange, and animal behavior; therefore, the default value of 100 percent may not accurately reflect site-
specific conditions, and the proportion of ingested water that is contaminated will likely be overestimated.
F-112
-------
TABLE F-2-6
COPC DOSE INGESTED TERMS IN CARNIVOROUS BIRDS
IN FOREST, SHORTGRASS PRAIRIE, TALLGRASS PRAIRIE, AND SHRUB/SCRUB FOOD WEBS
(Page 8 of 8)
REFERENCES AND DISCUSSIONS
U.S. EPA. 1993. Wildlife Exposure Factor Handbook. Volumes I and H. Office of Research and Development. EPA/600/R-93/187a
F-113
-------
TABLE F-2-7
COPC DOSE INGESTED TERMS IN HERBIVOROUS MAMMALS
IN FRESHWATER/WETLAND, BRACKISH/INTERMEDIATE MARSH, AND SALTMARSH FOOD WEBS
(Pagel of 6)
Description
This equation calculates the daily dose through the ingestion of contaminated food/prey, sediment, and water in aquatic herbivorous mammals in freshwater marsh, brackish/intermediate
marsh, and saltwater marsh food webs. The limitations and uncertainties introduced in calculating this variable include the following:
(1) Variables C,ed and Cmtot are COPC- and site-specific. Uncertainties associated with these variables will be site-specific.
(2) Variables BCFBS_HM, and BCFW_HM are based on biotransfer factors for beef cattle (Babeef), and receptor specific ingestion rates, and therefore may introduce uncertainty when used to
compute a representative daily dose for site-specific herbivorous mammals.
Equation
PAV
(CAL • IRHM • PAL • FAL) + (Csed • IRS_HM • Ps) + (Cwctot • IRW_HM • Pw)
Variable
Description
Units
Value
DHM
Dose COPC ingested for aquatic
herbivorous mammals
mg COPC/kg
BW-day
CAV
Concentration of COPC in aquatic
vegetation
mg COPC/kg
WW
Varies (calculated - Table F-l-7)
This variable is site- and COPC-specific; it is calculated using the equation in Table F-l-7. Uncertainties associated
with this variable include:
(1) Csed values are COPC- and site-specific. Uncertainties associated with this variable will be site-specific.
(2) BCFS_A¥ values are intended to represent "generic aquatic vegetation species", and therefore may over- or under-
estimate exposure when applied to site-specific vegetation.
F-114
-------
TABLE F-2-7
COPC DOSE INGESTED TERMS IN HERBIVOROUS MAMMALS
IN FRESHWATER/WETLAND, BRACKISH/INTERMEDIATE MARSH, AND SALTMARSH FOOD WEBS
(Page 2 of 6)
Variable
Description
Units
Value
IRHM Food ingestion rate of aquatic
herbivorous mammal
kg WW/kg BW-
day
Varies
This variable is receptor-specific, and is discussed in Chapter 5. Ingestion rates for example measurement receptors
are provided in Chapter 5, Table 5-1. Uncertainties associated with this variable include:
(1) Food ingestion rates are influenced by several factors including: metabolic rate, energy requirements for growth
and reproduction, and dietary composition. Ingestion rates are also influenced by ambient temperature, receptor
activity level and body weight U.S. EPA (1993). These factors introduce an unknown degree of uncertainty
when used to estimate daily dose.
(2) IR values may over- or under- estimate exposure when applied for site-specific receptors.
PAV Proportion of aquatic vegetation in
diet that is contaminated
unitless
Otol
Default: 1
This variable is species- and site-specific, and depends on the percentage of the dietary food item that is
contaminated. U.S. EPA OSW recommends that a default value of 1.0 be used for all food types when site specific
information is not available. The following uncertainty is associated with this variable:
(1) The actual amount of contaminated food ingested by a species depends on food availability, diet composition,
and animal behavior. Therefore, the default value of 100 percent may not accurately reflect site-specific
conditions, and may overestimate the proportion of contaminated food ingested.
FAV Fraction of diet comprised of
aquatic vegetation
unitless
Otol
This variable is species- and site-specific, and depends on the percentage of the diet that is comprised of aquatic
vegetation. The default value for a screening level ecological risk assessment is 100 percent for computing
concentration based on an exclusive diet. For calculating an equal diet, Fdia is determined based on the number of
dietary components in the total diet. The application of an equal diet is further discussed in Chapter 5.
Uncertainties associated with this variable include:
(1) The actual proportion of the diet that is comprised of a specific dietary item depends on several factors
including: food availability, animal behavior, species composition, and seasonal influences. These
uncertainties may over- or under- estimate Fdia when applied to site-specific receptors.
(2) The default value of 100 percent for an exclusive diet introduces uncertainty and may over-estimate exposure
from ingestion of a single dietary item.
(3) The default value for an equal diet introduces uncertainty and may over- or under- estimate exposure when
applied to site-specific receptors.
F-115
-------
TABLE F-2-7
COPC DOSE INGESTED TERMS IN HERBIVOROUS MAMMALS
IN FRESHWATER/WETLAND, BRACKISH/INTERMEDIATE MARSH, AND SALTMARSH FOOD WEBS
(Page 3 of 6)
Variable
CM
PAL
FAL
Description
Concentration of COPC in algae
Proportion of algae in diet that is
contaminated
Fraction of diet comprised of algae
Units
mg COPC/kg
WW
unitless
unitless
Value
Varies (calculated - Table F-l-8)
This variable is site-specific and COPC-specific; it is calculated using the equation in Table F-l-8. Uncertainties
associated with this variable include:
(1) Cfa values are COPC- and site-specific. Uncertainties associated with this variable will be site-specific.
(2) BCFff.jiL values are intended to represent "generic algae species", and therefore may over- or under-estimate
exposure when applied to site-specific species.
Otol
Default: 1
This variable is species- and site-specific, and depends on the percentage of the dietary food item that is
contaminated. U.S. EPA OSW recommends that a default value of 1 .0 be used for all food types when site specific
information is not available. The following uncertainty is associated with this variable:
(1) The actual amount of contaminated food ingested by a species depends on food availability, diet composition,
and animal behavior. Therefore, the default value of 100 percent may not accurately reflect site-specific
conditions, and may overestimate the proportion of contaminated food ingested.
Otol
This variable is species- and site-specific, and depends on the percentage of the diet that is comprised of algae. The
default value for a screening level ecological risk assessment is 100 percent for computing concentration based on an
exclusive diet. For calculating an equal diet, Fdia is determined based on the number of dietary components in the
total diet. The application of an equal diet is further discussed in Chapter 5.
Uncertainties associated with this variable include:
(1) The actual proportion of the diet that is comprised of a specific dietary item depends on several factors
including: food availability, animal behavior, species composition, and seasonal influences. These
uncertainties may over- or under- estimate Fdia when applied to site-specific receptors.
(2) The default value of 100 percent for an exclusive diet introduces uncertainty and may over-estimate exposure
from ingestion of a single dietary item.
(3) The default value for an equal diet introduces uncertainty and may over- or under- estimate exposure when
applied to site-specific receptors.
F-116
-------
TABLE F-2-7
COPC DOSE INGESTED TERMS IN HERBIVOROUS MAMMALS
IN FRESHWATER/WETLAND, BRACKISH/INTERMEDIATE MARSH, AND SALTMARSH FOOD WEBS
(Page 4 of 6)
Variable
Description
Units
Value
C,,j COPC concentration in bed
sediment
mg COPC/kg DW
sediment
Varies (calculated - Table B-2-19)
This equation calculates the concentration of COPCs in bed sediments. Uncertainties associated with this equation
include the following:
(1) The default variable values recommended for use in the equation in Table B-2-19 may not accurately represent
site-specific water body conditions. The degree of uncertainty associated with default variable values is
expected to be limited either because the probable ranges for these variables are narrow or because information
allowing reasonable estimates is generally available.
(2) Uncertainties associated with variables^,, Cwctot and Kdbs are largely associated with the use of default OC
content values in their calculation. The uncertainty may be significant in specific instances, because OC content
is known to vary widely in different locations in the same medium. This variable is site-specific.
IRa.HM Sediment ingestion rate for aquatic
herbivorous mammal
kg DW/kg BW-
day
Varies
This variable is site-, receptor-, and habitat-specific, and is discussed in Chapter 5. Ingestion rates for example
measurement receptors are presented in Chapter 5, Table 5-1. Uncertainties associated with this variable include the
following:
(1) IRS values may under- or over-estimate BCFS when applied for site-specific organisms.
Proportion of ingested bed
sediment that is contaminated
unitless
Otol
Default: 1
This variable is species- and site-specific, and depends on the percentage of sediment ingested that is contaminated.
U.S. EPA OSW recommends that a default value of 1.0 be used for a screening level risk assessment when site
specific information is not available. The following uncertainty is associated with this variable:
(1) The actual amount of contaminated soil ingested by species depends on site-specific information, receptor
homerange, and animal behavior; therefore, the default value of 100 percent may not accurately reflect site-
specific conditions, and the proportion of soil ingested that is contaminated will likely be overestimated.
F-117
-------
TABLE F-2-7
COPC DOSE INGESTED TERMS IN HERBIVOROUS MAMMALS
IN FRESHWATER/WETLAND, BRACKISH/INTERMEDIATE MARSH, AND SALTMARSH FOOD WEBS
(Page 5 of 6)
Variable
Description
Units
Value
Total COPC concentration in water
column
mg COPC/L
water
(or
g COPC/m3
water)
Varies (calculated - Table B-2-17)
This variable is COPC- and site-specific and is calculated using Table B-2-17. Uncertainties associated with this
equation include the following:
(1) All of the variables in the equation in Table B-2-17 are COPC- and site-specific. Therefore, the use of default
values rather than site-specific values, for any or all of these variables, will contribute to the under- or
overestimation of Cmtot.
(2) Uncertainty associated with fwc is largely the result of uncertainty associated with default OC content values.
Uncertainties may also be associated with the variable LT and kwt.
The degree of uncertainly associated with the variables dwc and dts is expected to be minimal either because
information for estimating a variable (dm) is generally available or because the probable range for a variable (dbs) is
narrow. The uncertainty associated with the variables/,,, and Cwctot is associated with estimates of OC content.
Because OC content values can vary widely for different locations in the same medium, the uncertainty associated
with using default OC values may be significant in specific cases.
Water ingestion rate for aquatic
herbivorous mammal
L/kg-BW-day
Varies
This variable is receptor- and habitat-specific, and is discussed in Chapter 5.. Ingestion rates for example
measurement receptors are presented in Chapter 5, Table 5-1. The following uncertainty is associated with this
variable:
(1) Water ingestion rates are influenced by animal behavior and environmental factors and may over- or under-
estimate BCFW_HM to an unknown degree.
Pw Proportion of ingested water that is
contaminated
unitless
Otol
Default: 1
This variable is species- and site-specific, and depends on the percentage of water ingested that is contaminated. U.S.
EPA OSW recommends that a default value of 1.0 be used when site specific information is not available.
The following uncertainty is associated with this variable:
(1) The actual amount of contaminated water ingested by species depends on site-specific information, receptor
homerange, and animal behavior; therefore, the default value of 100 percent may not accurately reflect site-
specific conditions, and the proportion of ingested water that is contaminated will likely be overestimated.
F-118
-------
TABLE F-2-7
COPC DOSE INGESTED TERMS IN HERBIVOROUS MAMMALS
IN FRESHWATER/WETLAND, BRACKISH/INTERMEDIATE MARSH, AND SALTMARSH FOOD WEBS
(Page 6 of 6)
REFERENCES AND DISCUSSIONS
U.S. EPA. 1993. Wildlife Exposure Factor Handbood. Volumes I and H. Office of Research and Development. EPA/600/R-93/187a
F-119
-------
TABLE F-2-8
COPC DOSE INGESTED TERMS IN HERBIVOROUS BIRDS
IN FRESHWATER/WETLAND, BRACKISH/INTERMEDIATE MARSH, AND SALTMARSH FOOD WEBS
(Pagel of 6)
Description
This equation calculates the daily dose through ingestion of contaminated food/prey, sediment, and water in aquatic herbivorous birds in freshwater marsh, brackish/intermediate marsh, and
saltwater marsh food webs. The limitations and uncertainties introduced in calculating this variable include the following:
(1) Variables C,ed and Cmtot are COPC- and site-specific. Uncertainties associated with these variables will be site-specific.
(2) Variables BCFS.HB and BCFW_HB are based on biotransfer factors for chicken (Bachicken), and receptor-specific ingestion rates, and therefore may introduce uncertainty when used to
compute a representative daily dose for site-specific herbivorous birds.
Equation
(CAV '
P
AL
Variable
Description
Units
Value
DH
Dose ingested for herbivorous
birds
mg/kg BW-day
CAV
Concentration of COPC in aquatic
vegetation
mg COPC/kg
WW
Varies (calculated - Table F-l-7)
This variable is site- and COPC-specific; it is calculated using the equation in Table F-l-7. Uncertainties associated
with this variable include:
(1) Csed values are COPC- and site-specific.
(2) BCFS_A¥ values are intended to represent "generic aquatic vegetation species", and therefore may over- or under-
estimate exposure when applied to site-specific vegetation.
IRH
Food ingestion rate of aquatic
herbivorous bird
kg WW/kg BW-
day
Varies
This variable is receptor-specific, and is discussed in Chapter 5. Ingestion rates for example measurement receptors
are provided in Chapter 5, Table 5-1. Uncertainties associated with this variable include:
(1) Food ingestion rates are influenced by several factors including: metabolic rate, energy requirements for growth
and reproduction, and dietary composition. Ingestion rates are also influenced by ambient temperature, receptor
activity level and body weight U.S. EPA (1993). These factors introduce an unknown degree of uncertainty
when used to estimate daily dose.
(2) IR values may over- or under- estimate exposure when applied for site-specific receptors.
F-120
-------
TABLE F-2-8
COPC DOSE INGESTED TERMS IN HERBIVOROUS BIRDS
IN FRESHWATER/WETLAND, BRACKISH/INTERMEDIATE MARSH, AND SALTMARSH FOOD WEBS
(Page 2 of 6)
Variable
PAT
FAV
CM
Description
Proportion of aquatic vegetation in
diet that is contaminated
Fraction of diet comprised of
aquatic vegetation
Concentration of COPC in algae
Units
unitless
unitless
mg COPC/kg
WW
Value
Otol
Default: 1
This variable is species- and site-specific, and depends on the percentage of the dietary food item that is
contaminated. U.S. EPA OSW recommends that a default value of 1 .0 be used for all food types when site specific
information is not available. The following uncertainty is associated with this variable:
(1) The actual amount of contaminated food ingested by a species depends on food availability, diet composition,
and animal behavior. Therefore, the default value of 100 percent may not accurately reflect site-specific
conditions, and may overestimate the proportion of contaminated food ingested.
Otol
This variable is species- and site-specific, and depends on the percentage of the diet that is comprised of aquatic
vegetation. The default value for a screening level ecological risk assessment is 1 00 percent for computing
concentration based on an exclusive diet. For calculating an equal diet, Fdia is determined based on the number of
dietary components in the total diet. The application of an equal diet is further discussed in Chapter 5.
Uncertainties associated with this variable include:
(1) The actual proportion of the diet that is comprised of a specific dietary item depends on several factors
including: food availability, animal behavior, species composition, and seasonal influences. These
uncertainties may over- or under- estimate Fdia when applied to site-specific receptors.
(2) The default value of 100 percent for an exclusive diet introduces uncertainty and may over-estimate exposure
from ingestion of a single dietary item.
(3) The default value for an equal diet introduces uncertainty and may over- or under- estimate exposure when
applied to site-specific receptors.
Varies (calculated - Table F-l-8)
This variable is site-specific and COPC-specific; it is calculated using the equation in Table F-l-8. Uncertainties
associated with this variable include:
(1) Cdn values are COPC- and site-specific. Uncertainties associated with this variable will be site-specific.
(2) BCFw,^ values are intended to represent "generic algae species", and therefore may over- or under-estimate
exposure when applied to site-specific species.
F-121
-------
TABLE F-2-8
COPC DOSE INGESTED TERMS IN HERBIVOROUS BIRDS
IN FRESHWATER/WETLAND, BRACKISH/INTERMEDIATE MARSH, AND SALTMARSH FOOD WEBS
(Page 3 of 6)
Variable
PAL
FM
Description
Proportion of algae in diet that is
contaminated
Fraction of diet comprised of
algae
Units
unitless
unitless
Value
Otol
Default: 1
This variable is species- and site-specific, and depends on the percentage of the dietary food item that is
contaminated. U.S. EPA OSW recommends that a default value of 1 .0 be used for all food types when site specific
information is not available. The following uncertainty is associated with this variable:
(1) The actual amount of contaminated food ingested by a species depends on food availability, diet composition,
and animal behavior. Therefore, the default value of 100 percent may not accurately reflect site-specific
conditions, and may overestimate the proportion of contaminated food ingested.
Otol
This variable is species- and site-specific, and depends on the percentage of the diet that is comprised of algae. The
default value for a screening level ecological risk assessment is 100 percent for computing concentration based on an
exclusive diet. For calculating an equal diet, Fdia is determined based on the number of dietary components in the
total diet. The application of an equal diet is further discussed in Chapter 5.
Uncertainties associated with this variable include:
(1) The actual proportion of the diet that is comprised of a specific dietary item depends on several factors
including: food availability, animal behavior, species composition, and seasonal influences. These
uncertainties may over- or under- estimate Fdia when applied to site-specific receptors.
(2) The default value of 100 percent for an exclusive diet introduces uncertainty and may over-estimate exposure
from ingestion of a single dietary item.
(3) The default value for an equal diet introduces uncertainty and may over- or under- estimate exposure when
applied to site-specific receptors.
F-122
-------
TABLE F-2-8
COPC DOSE INGESTED TERMS IN HERBIVOROUS BIRDS
IN FRESHWATER/WETLAND, BRACKISH/INTERMEDIATE MARSH, AND SALTMARSH FOOD WEBS
(Page 4 of 6)
Variable
Description
Units
Value
COPC concentration in bed
sediment
mg COPC/kg DW
sediment
Varies (calculated - Table B-2-19)
This equation calculates the concentration of COPCs in bed sediments. Uncertainties associated with this equation
include the following:
(1) The default variable values recommended for use in the equation in Table B-2-19 may not accurately represent
site-specific water body conditions. The degree of uncertainty associated with default variable values is
expected to be limited either because the probable ranges for these variables are narrow or because information
allowing reasonable estimates is generally available.
(2) Uncertainties associated with variables^, Cmtot and Kdts are largely associated with the use of default OC
content values in their calculation. The uncertainty may be significant in specific instances, because OC content
is known to vary widely in different locations in the same medium. This variable is site-specific.
Sediment ingestion rate for
herbivorous bird
kg DW/kg BW-
day
Varies
This variable is site-, receptor-, and habitat-specific, and is discussed in Chapter 5. Ingestion rates for example
measurement receptors are presented in Chapter 5, Table 5-1. Uncertainties associated with this variable include the
following:
(1) IRS values may under- or over-estimate BCFS when applied for site-specific organisms.
Proportion of ingested bed
sediment that is contaminated
unitless
Otol
Default: 1
This variable is species- and site-specific, and depends on the percentage of soil ingested that is contaminated. U.S.
EPA OSW recommends that a default value of 1.0 be used for a screening level risk assessment when site specific
information is not available. The following uncertainty is associated with this variable:
(1) The actual amount of contaminated soil ingested by species depends on site-specific information, receptor
homerange, and animal behavior; therefore, the default value of 100 percent may not accurately reflect site-
specific conditions, and the proportion of soil ingested that is contaminated will likely be overestimated.
F-123
-------
TABLE F-2-8
COPC DOSE INGESTED TERMS IN HERBIVOROUS BIRDS
IN FRESHWATER/WETLAND, BRACKISH/INTERMEDIATE MARSH, AND SALTMARSH FOOD WEBS
(Page 5 of 6)
Variable
Description
Units
Value
Total COPC concentration in
water column
mg COPC/L
water
(or
g COPC/m3
water)
Varies (calculated - Table B-2-17)
This variable is COPC- and site-specific and is calculated using Table B-2-17. Uncertainties associated with this
equation include the following:
(1) All of the variables in the equation in Table B-2-17 are COPC- and site-specific. Therefore, the use of default
values rather than site-specific values, for any or all of these variables, will contribute to the under- or
overestimation of Cmtot.
(2) Uncertainty associated with fwc is largely the result of uncertainty associated with default OC content values.
Uncertainties may also be associated with the variable LT and kwt.
The degree of uncertainly associated with the variables dwc and dts is expected to be minimal either because
information for estimating a variable (dm) is generally available or because the probable range for a variable (dbs) is
narrow. The uncertainty associated with the variables/,,, and Cwctot is associated with estimates of OC content.
Because OC content values can vary widely for different locations in the same medium, the uncertainty associated
with using default OC values may be significant in specific cases.
Water ingestion rate for aquatic
herbivorous bird
L/kg BW-day
Varies
This variable is receptor- and habitat-specific, and is discussed in Chapter 5, Section 5. Ingestion rates for example
measurement receptors are presented in Chapter 5, Table 5-1. The following uncertainty is associated with this
variable:
(1) Water ingestion rates are influenced by animal behavior and environmental factors and may over- or under-
estimate BCFW_HB to an unknown degree.
Pw Proportion of ingested water that
is contaminated
unitless
Otol
Default: 1
This variable is species- and site-specific, and depends on the percentage of water ingested that is contaminated. U.S.
EPA OSW recommends that a default value of 1.0 be used when site specific information is not available.
The following uncertainty is associated with this variable:
(1) The actual amount of contaminated water ingested by species depends on site-specific information, receptor
homerange, and animal behavior; therefore, the default value of 100 percent may not accurately reflect site-
specific conditions, and the proportion of ingested water that is contaminated will likely be overestimated.
F-124
-------
TABLE F-2-8
COPC DOSE INGESTED TERMS IN HERBIVOROUS BIRDS
IN FRESHWATER/WETLAND, BRACKISH/INTERMEDIATE MARSH, AND SALTMARSH FOOD WEBS
(Page 6 of 6)
REFERENCES AND DISCUSSIONS
U.S. EPA. 1993. Wildlife Exposure Factor Handbook. Volumes I and H. Office of Research and Development. EPA/600/R-93/187a
F-125
-------
TABLE F-2-9
COPC DOSE INGESTED TERMS IN OMNIVOROUS MAMMALS
IN FRESHWATER/WETLAND MARSH, BRACKISH/INTERMEDIATE MARSH, AND SALTMARSH FOOD WEBS
(Page 1 of 10)
Description
This equation calculates the daily dose through ingestion of contaminated food/prey, sediment, and water in aquatic omnivorous mammals in freshwater marsh, brackish/intermediate marsh,
and saltwater marsh food webs. The limitations and uncertainties introduced in calculating this variable include the following:
(1) Variables C,ed and Cmtot are COPC- and site-specific. Uncertainties associated with these variables will be site-specific .
(2) Variables BCFS_OM and BCFW_OM are based on biotransfer factors for beef cattle (Babeef), and receptor specific ingestion rates, and therefore may introduce uncertainty when used to
compute a representative daily dose for site-specific omnivorous mammals.
Equation
TR
^
P • P?
r HM r
If
^
TR
2n~
P
*
HB HB
P
AL
\ + (C* • TR
} \^ BI II^
(Csed ' ^S
• P • J7 \ + If • TR • P • J? \
* BI r Bl) \^WI 2n~OM rWl r WIj
M ' Ps) + (Cwctot ' ^W-OM ' PW)
Variable
Description
Units
Value
Dn
Dose ingested for omnivorous
mammals
mg/kg BW-day
CH
Concentration of COPC in aquatic
herbivorous mammals
mg COPC/kg FW
tissue
Varies (calculated - Table F-l-9)
This variable is site-specific and COPC-specific; it is calculated using the equation in Table F-l-9. Uncertainties
associated with this variable include:
(1) Variables Csed and Cmtot are COPC- and site-specific.
(2) Variables BCFS_HM and BCFW_HM are based on biotransfer factors for beef cattle (Bateef), and receptor-specific
ingestion rates, and therefore may introduce uncertainty when used to compute concentrations for site-specific
omnivorous mammals.
F-126
-------
TABLE F-2-9
COPC DOSE INGESTED TERMS IN OMNIVOROUS MAMMALS
IN FRESHWATER/WETLAND MARSH, BRACKISH/INTERMEDIATE MARSH, AND SALTMARSH FOOD WEBS
(Page 2 of 10)
Variable
Description
Units
Value
IR0M Food ingestion rate of aquatic
omnivorous mammal
kg WW/kg BW-
day
Varies
This variable is receptor-specific, and is discussed in Chapter 5. Ingestion rates for example measurement receptors
are provided in Chapter 5, Table 5-1. Uncertainties associated with this variable include:
(1) Food ingestion rates are influenced by several factors including: metabolic rate, energy requirements for growth
and reproduction, and dietary composition. Ingestion rates are also influenced by ambient temperature, receptor
activity level and body weight U.S. EPA (1993). These factors introduce an unknown degree of uncertainty
when used to estimate daily dose.
(2) IR values may over- or under- estimate exposure when applied for site-specific receptors.
PHU Proportion of aquatic herbivorous
mammal in diet that is
contaminated
unitless
Otol
Default: 1
This variable is species- and site-specific, and depends on the percentage of the dietary food item that is
contaminated. U.S. EPA OSW recommends that a default value of 1.0 be used for all food types when site specific
information is not available. The following uncertainty is associated with this variable:
(1) The actual amount of contaminated food ingested by a species depends on food availability, diet composition,
and animal behavior. Therefore, the default value of 100 percent may not accurately reflect site-specific
conditions, and may overestimate the proportion of contaminated food ingested.
FHM Fraction of diet comprised of
aquatic herbivorous mammals
unitless
Otol
This variable is species- and site-specific, and depends on the percentage of the diet that is comprised of aquatic
herbivorous mammals. The default value for a screening level ecological risk assessment is 100 percent for
computing concentration based on an exclusive diet. For calculating an equal diet, Fdiet is determined based on the
number of dietary components in the total diet. The application of an equal diet is further discussed in Chapter 5.
Uncertainties associated with this variable include:
(1) The actual proportion of the diet that is comprised of a specific dietary item depends on several factors
including: food availability, animal behavior, species composition, and seasonal influences. These
uncertainties may over- or under- estimate Fdia when applied to site-specific receptors.
(2) The default value of 100 percent for an exclusive diet introduces uncertainty and may over-estimate exposure
from ingestion of a single dietary item.
(3) The default value for an equal diet introduces uncertainty and may over- or under- estimate exposure when
applied to site-specific receptors.
F-127
-------
TABLE F-2-9
COPC DOSE INGESTED TERMS IN OMNIVOROUS MAMMALS
IN FRESHWATER/WETLAND MARSH, BRACKISH/INTERMEDIATE MARSH, AND SALTMARSH FOOD WEBS
(Page 3 of 10)
Variable
r
^HB
"HB
FHB
Description
Concentration of COPC in aquatic
herbivorous birds
Proportion of aquatic herbivorous
birds in diet that is contaminated
Fraction of diet comprised of
aquatic herbivorous birds
Units
mg COPC/kg FW
tissue
unitless
unitless
Value
Varies (calculated - Table F-l-10)
This variable is site-specific and COPC-specific, and is calculated using the equation in Table F-l-10. Uncertainties
associated with this variable include:
(1) Variables Csed and Cmtot are COPC- and site-specific.
(2) Variables BCFS_HB and BCFW_HB are based on biotransfer factors for chicken (Bachicken ), and receptor specific
ingestion rates, and therefore may introduce uncertainty when used to compute concentrations for site-specific
aquatic herbivorous birds.
Otol
Default: 1
This variable is species- and site-specific, and depends on the percentage of the dietary food item that is
contaminated. U.S. EPA OSW recommends that a default value of 1 .0 be used for all food types when site specific
information is not available. The following uncertainty is associated with this variable:
(1) The actual amount of contaminated food ingested by a species depends on food availability, diet composition,
and animal behavior. Therefore, the default value of 100 percent may not accurately reflect site-specific
conditions, and may overestimate the proportion of contaminated food ingested.
Otol
This variable is species- and site-specific, and depends on the percentage of the diet that is comprised of aquatic
herbivorous birds. The default value for a screening level ecological risk assessment is 100 percent for computing
concentration based on an exclusive diet. For calculating an equal diet, Fdiet is determined based on the number of
dietary components in the total diet. The application of an equal diet is further discussed in Chapter 5.
Uncertainties associated with this variable include:
(1) The actual proportion of the diet that is comprised of a specific dietary item depends on several factors
including: food availability, animal behavior, species composition, and seasonal influences. These
uncertainties may over- or under- estimate Fdia when applied to site-specific receptors.
(2) The default value of 100 percent for an exclusive diet introduces uncertainty and may over-estimate exposure
from ingestion of a single dietary item.
(3) The default value for an equal diet introduces uncertainty and may over- or under- estimate exposure when
applied to site-specific receptors.
F-128
-------
TABLE F-2-9
COPC DOSE INGESTED TERMS IN OMNIVOROUS MAMMALS
IN FRESHWATER/WETLAND MARSH, BRACKISH/INTERMEDIATE MARSH, AND SALTMARSH FOOD WEBS
(Page 4 of 10)
Variable
CBI
PB,
FBI
Description
Concentration of COPC in benthic
invertebrates
Proportion of benthic invertebrate
in diet that is contaminated
Fraction of diet comprised of
benthic invertebrates
Units
mg COPC/kg FW
tissue
unitless
unitless
Value
Varies (calculated - Table F-l-11)
This variable is site-specific and COPC-specific; it is calculated using the equation in Table F-l-11. Uncertainties
associated with this variable include the following:
(1) Csed values are COPC- and site-specific. Uncertainties associated with this variable will be site-specific.
(2) BCFS_BI values are intended to represent "generic benthic invertebrate species", and therefore may over- or
under-estimate exposure when applied to site-specific organisms.
Otol
Default: 1
This variable is species- and site-specific, and depends on the percentage of the dietary food item that is
contaminated. U.S. EPA OSW recommends that a default value of 1 .0 be used for all food types when site specific
information is not available. The following uncertainty is associated with this variable:
(1) The actual amount of contaminated food ingested by a species depends on food availability, diet composition,
and animal behavior. Therefore, the default value of 100 percent may not accurately reflect site-specific
conditions, and may overestimate the proportion of contaminated food ingested.
Otol
This variable is species- and site-specific, and depends on the percentage of the diet that is comprised of benthic
invertebrates. The default value for a screening level ecological risk assessment is 100 percent for computing
concentration based on an exclusive diet. For calculating an equal diet, Fdiet is determined based on the number of
dietary components in the total diet. The application of an equal diet is further discussed in Chapter 5.
Uncertainties associated with this variable include:
(1) The actual proportion of the diet that is comprised of a specific dietary item depends on several factors
including: food availability, animal behavior, species composition, and seasonal influences. These
uncertainties may over- or under- estimate Fdia when applied to site-specific receptors.
(2) The default value of 100 percent for an exclusive diet introduces uncertainty and may over-estimate exposure
from ingestion of a single dietary item.
(3) The default value for an equal diet introduces uncertainty and may over- or under- estimate exposure when
applied to site-specific receptors.
F-129
-------
TABLE F-2-9
COPC DOSE INGESTED TERMS IN OMNIVOROUS MAMMALS
IN FRESHWATER/WETLAND MARSH, BRACKISH/INTERMEDIATE MARSH, AND SALTMARSH FOOD WEBS
(Page 5 of 10)
Variable
Description
Units
Value
CM Concentration of COPC in water
invertebrates
mg COPC/kg FW
tissue
Varies (calculated - Table F-l-12)
This variable is site-specific and COPC-specific; it is calculated using the equation in Table F-l-12. Uncertainties
associated with this variable include:
(1) Cfa values are COPC- and site-specific.
(2) BCFw_m values are intended to represent "generic water invertebrate species", and therefore may over- or under-
estimate exposure when applied to site-specific organisms.
Pm Proportion of water invertebrate in
diet that is contaminated
unitless
Otol
Default: 1
This variable is species- and site-specific, and depends on the percentage of the dietary food item that is
contaminated. U.S. EPA OSW recommends that a default value of 1.0 be used for all food types when site specific
information is not available. The following uncertainty is associated with this variable:
(1) The actual amount of contaminated food ingested by a species depends on food availability, diet composition,
and animal behavior. Therefore, the default value of 100 percent may not accurately reflect site-specific
conditions, and may overestimate the proportion of contaminated food ingested.
Fm Fraction of diet comprised of water
invertebrates
unitless
Otol
This variable is species- and site-specific, and depends on the percentage of the diet that is comprised of water
invertebrates. The default value for a screening level ecological risk assessment is 100 percent for computing
concentration based on an exclusive diet. For calculating an equal diet, Fdia is determined based on the number of
dietary components in the total diet. The application of an equal diet is further discussed in Chapter 5.
Uncertainties associated with this variable include:
(1) The actual proportion of the diet that is comprised of a specific dietary item depends on several factors
including: food availability, animal behavior, species composition, and seasonal influences. These
uncertainties may over- or under- estimate Fdia when applied to site-specific receptors.
(2) The default value of 100 percent for an exclusive diet introduces uncertainty and may over-estimate exposure
from ingestion of a single dietary item.
(3) The default value for an equal diet introduces uncertainty and may over- or under- estimate exposure when
applied to site-specific receptors.
F-130
-------
TABLE F-2-9
COPC DOSE INGESTED TERMS IN OMNIVOROUS MAMMALS
IN FRESHWATER/WETLAND MARSH, BRACKISH/INTERMEDIATE MARSH, AND SALTMARSH FOOD WEBS
(Page 6 of 10)
Variable
CAV
PAV
FAV
Description
Concentration of COPC in aquatic
vegetation
Proportion of aquatic vegetation in
diet that is contaminated
Fraction of diet comprised of
aquatic vegetation
Units
mg COPC/kg
WW
unitless
unitless
Value
Varies (calculated - Table F-l-7)
This variable is site- and COPC-specific; it is calculated using the equation in Table F-l-7. Uncertainties associated
with this variable include:
(1) Csld values are COPC- and site-specific.
(2) BCFS_A¥ values are intended to represent "generic aquatic vegetation species", and therefore may over- or under-
estimate exposure when applied to site-specific vegetation.
Otol
Default: 1
This variable is species- and site-specific, and depends on the percentage of the dietary food item that is
contaminated. U.S. EPA OSW recommends that a default value of 1 .0 be used for all food types when site specific
information is not available. The following uncertainty is associated with this variable:
(1) The actual amount of contaminated food ingested by a species depends on food availability, diet composition,
and animal behavior. Therefore, the default value of 100 percent may not accurately reflect site-specific
conditions, and may overestimate the proportion of contaminated food ingested.
Otol
This variable is species- and site-specific, and depends on the percentage of the diet that is comprised of aquatic
vegetation. The default value for a screening level ecological risk assessment is 1 00 percent for computing
concentration based on an exclusive diet. For calculating an equal diet, Fdiet is determined based on the number of
dietary components in the total diet. The application of an equal diet is further discussed in Chapter 5.
Uncertainties associated with this variable include:
(1) The actual proportion of the diet that is comprised of a specific dietary item depends on several factors
including: food availability, animal behavior, species composition, and seasonal influences. These
uncertainties may over- or under- estimate Fdia when applied to site-specific receptors.
(2) The default value of 100 percent for an exclusive diet introduces uncertainty and may over-estimate exposure
from ingestion of a single dietary item.
(3) The default value for an equal diet introduces uncertainty and may over- or under- estimate exposure when
applied to site-specific receptors.
F-131
-------
TABLE F-2-9
COPC DOSE INGESTED TERMS IN OMNIVOROUS MAMMALS
IN FRESHWATER/WETLAND MARSH, BRACKISH/INTERMEDIATE MARSH, AND SALTMARSH FOOD WEBS
(Page 7 of 10)
Variable
CM
PAL
FAL
Description
Concentration of COPC in algae
Proportion of algae in diet that is
contaminated
Fraction of diet comprised of algae
Units
mg COPC/kg
WW
unitless
unitless
Value
Varies (calculated - Table F-l-8)
This variable is site-specific and COPC-specific; it is calculated using the equation in Table F-l-8. Uncertainties
associated with this variable include:
(1) Cfa values are COPC- and site-specific.
(2) BCFff.jiL values are intended to represent "generic algae species", and therefore may over- or under-estimate
exposure when applied to site-specific species.
Otol
Default: 1
This variable is species- and site-specific, and depends on the percentage of the dietary food item that is
contaminated. U.S. EPA OSW recommends that a default value of 1 .0 be used for all food types when site specific
information is not available. The following uncertainty is associated with this variable:
(1) The actual amount of contaminated food ingested by a species depends on food availability, diet composition,
and animal behavior. Therefore, the default value of 100 percent may not accurately reflect site-specific
conditions, and may overestimate the proportion of contaminated food ingested.
Otol
This variable is species- and site-specific, and depends on the percentage of the diet that is comprised of algae. The
default value for a screening level ecological risk assessment is 100 percent for computing concentration based on an
exclusive diet. For calculating an equal diet, Fdia is determined based on the number of dietary components in the
total diet. The application of an equal diet is further discussed in Chapter 5.
Uncertainties associated with this variable include:
(1) The actual proportion of the diet that is comprised of a specific dietary item depends on several factors
including: food availability, animal behavior, species composition, and seasonal influences. These
uncertainties may over- or under- estimate Fdia when applied to site-specific receptors.
(2) The default value of 100 percent for an exclusive diet introduces uncertainty and may over-estimate exposure
from ingestion of a single dietary item.
(3) The default value for an equal diet introduces uncertainty and may over- or under- estimate exposure when
applied to site-specific receptors.
F-132
-------
TABLE F-2-9
COPC DOSE INGESTED TERMS IN OMNIVOROUS MAMMALS
IN FRESHWATER/WETLAND MARSH, BRACKISH/INTERMEDIATE MARSH, AND SALTMARSH FOOD WEBS
(Page 8 of 10)
Variable
Description
Units
Value
C,,
COPC concentration in bed
sediment
mg COPC/kg DW
sediment
Varies (calculated - Table B-2-19)
This equation calculates the concentration of contaminants sorbed to bed sediments. Uncertainties associated with
this equation include the following:
(1) The default variable values recommended for use in the equation in Table B-2-19 may not accurately represent
site-specific water body conditions. The degree of uncertainty associated with default variable values is
expected to be limited either because the probable ranges for these variables are narrow or because information
allowing reasonable estimates is generally available.
(2) Uncertainties associated with variables^,, Cwctot and Kdbs are largely associated with the use of default OC
content values in their calculation. The uncertainty may be significant in specific instances, because OC content
is known to vary widely in different locations in the same media. This variable is site-specific.
Sediment ingestion rate for aquatic
omnivorous mammal
kg DW/kg BW-
day
Varies
This variable is site-, receptor-, and habitat-specific, and is discussed in Chapter 5. Ingestion rates for example
measurement receptors are presented in Chapter 5, Table 5-1. Uncertainties associated with this variable include the
following:
(1) IRS values may under- or over-estimate BCFS when applied to site-specific organisms.
Portion of ingested bed sediment
that is contaminated
unitless
Otol
Default: 1
This variable is species- and site-specific, and depends on the percentage of soil ingested that is contaminated. U.S.
EPA OSW recommends that a default value of 1.0 be used for a screening level risk assessment when site specific
information is not available. The following uncertainty is associated with this variable:
(1) The actual amount of contaminated soil ingested by species depends on site-specific information, receptor
homerange, and animal behavior; therefore, the default value of 100 percent may not accurately reflect site-
specific conditions, and the proportion of soil ingested that is contaminated will likely be overestimated.
F-133
-------
TABLE F-2-9
COPC DOSE INGESTED TERMS IN OMNIVOROUS MAMMALS
IN FRESHWATER/WETLAND MARSH, BRACKISH/INTERMEDIATE MARSH, AND SALTMARSH FOOD WEBS
(Page 9 of 10)
Variable
Description
Units
Value
Total COPC concentration in water
column
mg COPC/L
water
(or
g COPC/m3
water)
Varies (calculated - Table B-2-17)
This variable is COPC- and site-specific and is calculated using Table B-2-17. Uncertainties associated with this
equation include the following:
(1) All of the variables in the equation in Table B-2-17 are COPC- and site-specific. Therefore, the use of default
values rather than site-specific values, for any or all of these variables, will contribute to the under- or
overestimation of Cmtot.
(2) Uncertainty associated with/,,, is largely the result of uncertainty associated with default OC content values.
Uncertainties may also be associated with the variable LT and kwt
The degree of uncertainly associated with the variables dwc and dts is expected to be minimal either because
information for estimating a variable (dnc) is generally available or because the probable range for a variable (dbs) is
narrow. The uncertainty associated with the variables/,,, and Cmtot is associated with estimates of OC content.
Because OC content values can vary widely for different locations in the same media, the uncertainty associated with
using default OC values may be significant in specific cases.
IRw-r>M Water ingestion rate for aquatic
omnivorous mammal
L/kg BW-day
Varies
This variable is receptor- and habitat-specific, and is discussed in Chapter 5. Ingestion rates for example measurement
receptors are presented in Chapter 5, Table 5-1. The following uncertainty is associated with this variable:
(1) Water ingestion rates are strongly influenced by animal behavior and environmental factors and may over- or
under- estimate BCFW_OM to an unknown degree.
Pw Portion of ingested water that is
contaminated
unitless
Otol
Default: 1
This variable is species- and site-specific, and depends on the percentage of water ingested that is contaminated. U.S.
EPA OSW recommends that a default value of 1.0 be used when site specific information is not available.
The following uncertainty is associated with this variable:
(1) The actual amount of contaminated water ingested by species depends on site-specific information, receptor
homerange, and animal behavior; therefore, the default value of 100 percent may not accurately reflect site-
specific conditions, and the proportion of ingested water that is contaminated will likely be overestimated.
F-134
-------
TABLE F-2-9
COPC DOSE INGESTED TERMS IN OMNIVOROUS MAMMALS
IN FRESHWATER/WETLAND MARSH, BRACKISH/INTERMEDIATE MARSH, AND SALTMARSH FOOD WEBS
(Page 10 of 10)
REFERENCES AND DISCUSSIONS
U.S. EPA. 1993. Wildlife Exposure Factor Handbood. Volumes I and H. Office of Research and Development. EPA/600/R-93/187a
F-135
-------
TABLE F-2-10
COPC DOSE INGESTED TERMS IN OMNIVOROUS BIRDS
IN BRACKISH/INTERMEDIATE MARSH, SALTMARSH, AND FRESHWATER/WETLAND FOOD WEBS
(Page 1 of 7)
Description
This equation calculates the daily dose through ingestion of contaminated food/prey, sediment, and water in aquatic omnivorous birds in freshwater marsh, brackish/intermediate marsh, and
saltwater marsh food webs. The limitations and uncertainties introduced in calculating this variable include the following:
(1) Variables C,ed and Cmtot are COPC- and site-specific. Uncertainties associated with these variables will be site-specific .
(2) Variables BCFS_OB and BCFW_OB are based on biotransfer factors for chicken (Bachicken), and receptor specific ingestion rates, and therefore may introduce uncertainty when used to
compute a representative daily dose for site-specific omnivorous birds.
Equation
D
OB
' IROB ' PBI ' FBj) + (C»7 ' IROB ' PW1 ' Fm)
AV ' IROB ' P AV
' PAL ' FAL) + (Csed ' MS-OB ' Ps) + ^ ' KW-OB ' Pw)
Variable
Description
Units
Value
Dn
Dose ingested for aquatic
omnivorous birds
mg/kg BW-day
Concentration of COPC in benthic
invertebrates
mg COPC/kg FW
tissue
Varies (calculated - Table F-l-11)
This variable is site-specific and COPC-specific; it is calculated using the equation in Table F-l-11. Uncertainties
associated with this variable include the following:
(1) C,ed values are COPC- and site-specific.
(2) BCFS_BI values are intended to represent "generic benthic invertebrate species", and therefore may over- or
under-estimate exposure when applied to site-specific organisms.
F-136
-------
TABLE F-2-10
COPC DOSE INGESTED TERMS IN OMNIVOROUS BIRDS
IN BRACKISH/INTERMEDIATE MARSH, SALTMARSH, AND FRESHWATER/WETLAND FOOD WEBS
(Page 2 of 7)
Variable
Description
Units
Value
Food ingestion rate of aquatic
omnivorous bird
kg WW/kg BW-
day
Varies
This variable is receptor-specific, and is discussed in Chapter 5. Ingestion rates for example measurement receptors
are provided in Chapter 5, Table 5-1. Uncertainties associated with this variable include:
(1) Food ingestion rates are influenced by several factors including: metabolic rate, energy requirements for growth
and reproduction, and dietary composition. Ingestion rates are also influenced by ambient temperature, receptor
activity level and body weight U.S. EPA (1993). These factors introduce an unknown degree of uncertainty
when used to estimate daily dose.
(2) IR values may over- or under- estimate exposure when applied for site-specific receptors.
Pm Proportion of benthic invertebrate
in diet that is contaminated
unitless
Otol
Default: 1
This variable is species- and site-specific, and depends on the percentage of the dietary food item that is
contaminated. U.S. EPA OSW recommends that a default value of 1.0 be used for all food types when site specific
information is not available. The following uncertainty is associated with this variable:
(1) The actual amount of contaminated food ingested by a species depends on food availability, diet composition,
and animal behavior. Therefore, the default value of 100 percent may not accurately reflect site-specific
conditions, and may overestimate the proportion of contaminated food ingested.
Fm Fraction of diet comprised of
benthic invertebrates
unitless
Otol
This variable is species- and site-specific, and depends on the percentage of the diet that is comprised of benthic
invertebrates. The default value for a screening level ecological risk assessment is 100 percent for computing
concentration based on an exclusive diet. For calculating an equal diet, Fdia is determined based on the number of
dietary components in the total diet. The application of an equal diet is further discussed in Chapter 5.
Uncertainties associated with this variable include:
(1) The actual proportion of the diet that is comprised of a specific dietary item depends on several factors
including: food availability, animal behavior, species composition, and seasonal influences. These
uncertainties may over- or under- estimate Fdia when applied to site-specific receptors.
(2) The default value of 100 percent for an exclusive diet introduces uncertainty and may over-estimate exposure
from ingestion of a single dietary item.
(3) The default value for an equal diet introduces uncertainty and may over- or under- estimate exposure when
applied to site-specific receptors.
F-137
-------
TABLE F-2-10
COPC DOSE INGESTED TERMS IN OMNIVOROUS BIRDS
IN BRACKISH/INTERMEDIATE MARSH, SALTMARSH, AND FRESHWATER/WETLAND FOOD WEBS
(Page 3 of 7)
Variable
Description
Units
Value
CM Concentration of COPC in water
invertebrates
mg COPC/kg FW
tissue
Varies (calculated - Table F-l-12)
This variable is site-specific and COPC-specific; it is calculated using the equation in Table F-l-12. Uncertainties
associated with this variable include:
(1) Cfa values are COPC- and site-specific.
(2) BCFw_m values are intended to represent "generic water invertebrate species", and therefore may over- or under-
estimate exposure when applied to site-specific organisms.
Pm Proportion of water invertebrate in
diet that is contaminated
unitless
Otol
Default: 1
This variable is species- and site-specific, and depends on the percentage of the dietary food item that is
contaminated. U.S. EPA OSW recommends that a default value of 1.0 be used for all food types when site specific
information is not available. The following uncertainty is associated with this variable:
(1) The actual amount of contaminated food ingested by a species depends on food availability, diet composition,
and animal behavior. Therefore, the default value of 100 percent may not accurately reflect site-specific
conditions, and may overestimate the proportion of contaminated food ingested.
Fm Fraction of diet comprised of water
invertebrates
unitless
Otol
This variable is species- and site-specific, and depends on the percentage of the diet that is comprised of water
invertebrates. The default value for a screening level ecological risk assessment is 100 percent for computing
concentration based on an exclusive diet. For calculating an equal diet, Fdia is determined based on the number of
dietary components in the total diet. The application of an equal diet is further discussed in Chapter 5.
Uncertainties associated with this variable include:
(1) The actual proportion of the diet that is comprised of a specific dietary item depends on several factors
including: food availability, animal behavior, species composition, and seasonal influences. These
uncertainties may over- or under- estimate Fdia when applied to site-specific receptors.
(2) The default value of 100 percent for an exclusive diet introduces uncertainty and may over-estimate exposure
from ingestion of a single dietary item.
(3) The default value for an equal diet introduces uncertainty and may over- or under- estimate exposure when
applied to site-specific receptors.
F-138
-------
TABLE F-2-10
COPC DOSE INGESTED TERMS IN OMNIVOROUS BIRDS
IN BRACKISH/INTERMEDIATE MARSH, SALTMARSH, AND FRESHWATER/WETLAND FOOD WEBS
(Page 4 of 7)
Variable
CAV
PAV
FAV
Description
Concentration of COPC in aquatic
vegetation ingested by the animal
Proportion of aquatic vegetation in
diet that is contaminated
Fraction of diet comprised of
aquatic vegetation
Units
mg COPC/kg
WW
unitless
unitless
Value
Varies (calculated - Table F-l-7)
This variable is site- and COPC-specific; it is calculated using the equation in Table F-l-7. Uncertainties associated
with this variable include:
(1) Csld values are COPC- and site-specific.
(2) BCFS_A¥ values are intended to represent "generic aquatic vegetation species", and therefore may over- or under-
estimate exposure when applied to site-specific vegetation.
Otol
Default: 1
This variable is species- and site-specific, and depends on the percentage of the dietary food item that is
contaminated. U.S. EPA OSW recommends that a default value of 1 .0 be used for all food types when site specific
information is not available. The following uncertainty is associated with this variable:
(1) The actual amount of contaminated food ingested by a species depends on food availability, diet composition,
and animal behavior. Therefore, the default value of 100 percent may not accurately reflect site-specific
conditions, and may overestimate the proportion of contaminated food ingested.
Otol
This variable is species- and site-specific, and depends on the percentage of the diet that is comprised of aquatic
vegetation. The default value for a screening level ecological risk assessment is 1 00 percent for computing
concentration based on an exclusive diet. For calculating an equal diet, Fdia is determined based on the number of
dietary components in the total diet. The application of an equal diet is further discussed in Chapter 5.
Uncertainties associated with this variable include:
(1) The actual proportion of the diet that is comprised of a specific dietary item depends on several factors
including: food availability, animal behavior, species composition, and seasonal influences. These
uncertainties may over- or under- estimate Fdia when applied to site-specific receptors.
(2) The default value of 100 percent for an exclusive diet introduces uncertainty and may over-estimate exposure
from ingestion of a single dietary item.
(3) The default value for an equal diet introduces uncertainty and may over- or under- estimate exposure when
applied to site-specific receptors.
F-139
-------
TABLE F-2-10
COPC DOSE INGESTED TERMS IN OMNIVOROUS BIRDS
IN BRACKISH/INTERMEDIATE MARSH, SALTMARSH, AND FRESHWATER/WETLAND FOOD WEBS
(Page 5 of 7)
Variable
Description
Units
Value
C,,j COPC concentration in bed
sediment
mg COPC/kg DW
sediment
Varies (calculated - Table B-2-19)
This equation calculates the concentration of COPCs in bed sediments. Uncertainties associated with this equation
include the following:
(1) The default variable values recommended for use in the equation in Table B-2-19 may not accurately represent
site-specific water body conditions. The degree of uncertainty associated with default variable values is
expected to be limited either because the probable ranges for these variables are narrow or because information
allowing reasonable estimates is generally available.
(2) Uncertainties associated with variables^,, Cwctot and Kdbs are largely associated with the use of default OC
content values in their calculation. The uncertainty may be significant in specific instances, because OC content
is known to vary widely in different locations in the same medium. This variable is site-specific.
Sediment ingestion rate for aquatic
omnivorous bird
kg DW/kg BW-
day
Varies
This variable is site-, receptor-, and habitat-specific, and is discussed in Chapter 5. Ingestion rates for example
measurement receptors are presented in Chapter 5, Table 5-1. Uncertainties associated with this variable include the
following:
(1) IRS values may under- or over-estimate BCFS when applied to site-specific organisms.
Portion of ingested bed sediment
that is contaminated
unitless
Otol
Default: 1
This variable is species- and site-specific, and depends on the percentage of soil ingested that is contaminated. U.S.
EPA OSW recommends that a default value of 1.0 be used for a screening level risk assessment when site specific
information is not available. The following uncertainty is associated with this variable:
(1) The actual amount of contaminated soil ingested by species depends on site-specific information, receptor
homerange, and animal behavior; therefore, the default value of 100 percent may not accurately reflect site-
specific conditions, and the proportion of soil ingested that is contaminated will likely be overestimated.
F-140
-------
TABLE F-2-10
COPC DOSE INGESTED TERMS IN OMNIVOROUS BIRDS
IN BRACKISH/INTERMEDIATE MARSH, SALTMARSH, AND FRESHWATER/WETLAND FOOD WEBS
(Page 6 of 7)
Variable
Description
Units
Value
Total COPC concentration in water
column
mg COPC/L
water
(or
g COPC/m3
water)
Varies (calculated - Table B-2-17)
This variable is COPC- and site-specific and is calculated using Table B-2-17. Uncertainties associated with this
equation include the following:
(1) All of the variables in the equation in Table B-2-17 are COPC- and site-specific. Therefore, the use of default
values rather than site-specific values, for any or all of these variables, will contribute to the under- or
overestimation of Cmtot.
(2) Uncertainty associated with/,,, is largely the result of uncertainty associated with default OC content values.
Uncertainties may also be associated with the variable LT and kwt.
The degree of uncertainly associated with the variables dwc and dts is expected to be minimal either because
information for estimating a variable (dm) is generally available or because the probable range for a variable (dbs) is
narrow. The uncertainty associated with the variables/,, and Cwtot is associated with estimates of OC content.
Because OC content values can vary widely for different locations in the same media, the uncertainty associated with
using default OC values may be significant in specific cases.
Water ingestion rate for aquatic
omnivorous bird
L/kg BW-day
Varies
This variable is receptor- and habitat-specific, and is discussed in Chapter 5. Ingestion rates for example
measurement receptors are presented in Chapter 5, Table 5-1. The following uncertainty is associated with this
variable:
(1) Water ingestion rates are influenced by animal behavior and environmental factors and may over- or under-
estimate BCFW_HM to an unknown degree.
Portion of ingested water that is
contaminated
unitless
Otol
Default: 1
This variable is species- and site-specific, and depends on the percentage of water ingested that is contaminated. U.S.
EPA OSW recommends that a default value of 1.0 be used when site specific information is not available.
The following uncertainty is associated with this variable:
(1) The actual amount of contaminated water ingested by species depends on site-specific information, receptor
homerange, and animal behavior; therefore, the default value of 100 percent may not accurately reflect site-
specific conditions, and the proportion of ingested water that is contaminated may be overestimated.
F-141
-------
TABLE F-2-10
COPC DOSE INGESTED TERMS IN OMNIVOROUS BIRDS
IN BRACKISH/INTERMEDIATE MARSH, SALTMARSH, AND FRESHWATER/WETLAND FOOD WEBS
(Page 7 of 7)
REFERENCES AND DISCUSSIONS
U.S. EPA. 1993. Wildlife Exposure Factor Handbook. Volumes I and H. Office of Research and Development. EPA/600/R-93/187a.
F-142
-------
TABLE F-2-11
EQUATIONS FOR COMPUTING COPC DOSE INGESTED TERMS IN CARNIVOROUS MAMMALS
IN BRACKISH/INTERMEDIATE MARSH, SALTMARSH, AND FRESHWATER/WETLAND FOOD WEBS
(Page 1 of 10)
Description
This equation calculates the daily dose through exposure to food/prey, sediment, and water in aquatic carnivorous mammals in freshwater marsh, brackish/intermediate marsh, and saltwater
marsh food webs. The limitations and uncertainties introduced in calculating this variable include the following:
(1) Variables C,ed and Cmtot are COPC- and site-specific. Uncertainties associated with these variables will be site-specific
(2) Variables BCFS_CM, and BCFW_CM are based on biotransfer factors for beef cattle (BabeeJ), and receptor specific ingestion rates, and therefore may introduce uncertainty when used to
compute a representative daily dose for site-specific carnivorous mammals.
Equation
\^HB ' *RCM ' PHB ' ^ HB) + \^OF ' *RCM ' "OF ' ^ OF) + \^CF ' *RCM ' PCF ' ^ CF) + \^OB '
"
OB OB
IRCM ' POM
IRCM ' P HM
' IRS-CM ' Ps)
IRW-CM
Variable
Description
Units
Value
DC
Dose ingested for carnivorous
mammals
mg/kg BW-day
r
^H
Concentration of COPC in
herbivorous birds
mg COPC/kg FW
tissue
Varies
This variable is site-specific and COPC-specific; it is calculated using the equation in Table F-l-10. Uncertainties
associated with this variable include:
(1) Variables Csed and Cmtot are COPC- and site-specific.
(2) Variables BCFS_HB and BCFW_HB are based on biotransfer factors for chicken (Bachicken), and receptor specific
ingestion rates, and therefore may introduce uncertainty when used to compute concentrations for site-specific
herbivorous birds.
F-143
-------
TABLE F-2-11
EQUATIONS FOR COMPUTING COPC DOSE INGESTED TERMS IN CARNIVOROUS MAMMALS
IN BRACKISH/INTERMEDIATE MARSH, SALTMARSH, AND FRESHWATER/WETLAND FOOD WEBS
(Page 2 of 10)
Variable
Description
Units
Value
IRCM Food ingestion rate of carnivorous
mammal
kg WW/kg BW-
day
Varies
This variable is receptor-specific, and is discussed in Chapter 5. Ingestion rates for example measurement receptors
are provided in Chapter 5, Table 5-1. Uncertainties associated with this variable include:
(1) Food ingestion rates are influenced by several factors including: metabolic rate, energy requirements for growth
and reproduction, and dietary composition. Ingestion rates are also influenced by ambient temperature, receptor
activity level and body weight U.S. EPA (1993). These factors introduce an unknown degree of uncertainty
when used to estimate daily dose.
(2) IR values may over- or under- estimate exposure when applied for site-specific receptors.
Proportion of herbivorous birds in
diet that is contaminated
unitless
Otol
Default: 1
This variable is species- and site-specific, and depends on the percentage of the dietary food item that is
contaminated. U.S. EPA OSW recommends that a default value of 1.0 be used for all food types when site specific
information is not available. The following uncertainty is associated with this variable:
(1) The actual amount of contaminated food ingested by a species depends on food availability, diet composition,
and animal behavior. Therefore, the default value of 100 percent may not accurately reflect site-specific
conditions, and may overestimate the proportion of contaminated food ingested.
Fraction of diet comprised of
herbivorous birds
unitless
Otol
This variable is species- and site-specific, and depends on the percentage of the diet that is comprised of aquatic
herbivorous birds. The default value for a screening level ecological risk assessment is 100 percent for computing
concentration based on an exclusive diet. For calculating an equal diet, Fdiet is determined based on the number of
dietary components in the total diet. The application of an equal diet is further discussed in Chapter 5.
Uncertainties associated with this variable include:
(1) The actual proportion of the diet that is comprised of a specific dietary item depends on several factors
including: food availability, animal behavior, species composition, and seasonal influences. These
uncertainties may over- or under- estimate Fdiet when applied to site-specific receptors.
(2) The default value of 100 percent for an exclusive diet introduces uncertainty and may over-estimate exposure
from ingestion of a single dietary item.
(3) The default value for an equal diet introduces uncertainty and may over- or under- estimate exposure when
applied to site-specific receptors.
F-144
-------
TABLE F-2-11
EQUATIONS FOR COMPUTING COPC DOSE INGESTED TERMS IN CARNIVOROUS MAMMALS
IN BRACKISH/INTERMEDIATE MARSH, SALTMARSH, AND FRESHWATER/WETLAND FOOD WEBS
(Page 3 of 10)
Variable
r
^•OF
POF
FOF
Description
Concentration of COPC in
omnivorous fish
Proportion of omnivorous fish diet
that is contaminated
Fraction of diet comprised of
omnivorous fish
Units
mg COPC/kg FW
tissue
unitless
unitless
Value
Varies (calculated - Table F-l-16)
This variable is site-specific and COPC-specific; it is calculated using the equation in F-l-16. Uncertainties
associated with this variable include:
(1) Cfa values are COPC- and site-specific.
(2) The data set used to calculate BCFjish is based on a limited number of test organisms and therefore may over- or
under-estimate exposure when applied for site-specific organisms.
Otol
Default: 1
This variable is species- and site-specific, and depends on the percentage of the dietary food item that is
contaminated. U.S. EPA OSW recommends that a default value of 1 .0 be used for all food types when site specific
information is not available. The following uncertainty is associated with this variable:
(1) The actual amount of contaminated food ingested by a species depends on food availability, diet composition,
and animal behavior. Therefore, the default value of 100 percent may not accurately reflect site-specific
conditions, and may overestimate the proportion of contaminated food ingested.
Otol
This variable is species- and site-specific, and depends on the percentage of the diet that is comprised of omnivorous
fish. The default value for a screening level ecological risk assessment is 1 00 percent for computing concentration
based on an exclusive diet. For calculating an equal diet, Fdia is determined based on the number of dietary
components in the total diet. The application of an equal diet is further discussed in Chapter 5.
Uncertainties associated with this variable include:
(1) The actual proportion of the diet that is comprised of a specific dietary item depends on several factors
including: food availability, animal behavior, species composition, and seasonal influences. These
uncertainties may over- or under- estimate Fdia when applied to site-specific receptors.
(2) The default value of 100 percent for an exclusive diet introduces uncertainty and may over-estimate exposure
from ingestion of a single dietary item.
(3) The default value for an equal diet introduces uncertainty and may over- or under- estimate exposure when
applied to site-specific receptors.
F-145
-------
TABLE F-2-11
EQUATIONS FOR COMPUTING COPC DOSE INGESTED TERMS IN CARNIVOROUS MAMMALS
IN BRACKISH/INTERMEDIATE MARSH, SALTMARSH, AND FRESHWATER/WETLAND FOOD WEBS
(Page 4 of 10)
Variable
r
^CF
PCF
FCF
Description
Concentration in carnivorous fish
Proportion of carnivorous fish in
diet that is contaminated
Fraction of diet comprised of
carnivorous fish
Units
mg COPC/kg FW
tissue
unitless
unitless
Value
Varies (calculated - Table F-l-17)
This variable is site-specific and COPC-specific; it is calculated using the equation in F-l-17. Uncertainties
associated with this variable include:
(1) Cfa values are COPC- and site-specific.
(2) The data set used to calculate BCFjish is based on a limited number of test organisms and therefore may over- or
under-estimate exposure when applied to site-specific organisms.
Otol
Default: 1
This variable is species- and site-specific, and depends on the percentage of the dietary food item that is
contaminated. U.S. EPA OSW recommends that a default value of 1 .0 be used for all food types when site specific
information is not available. The following uncertainty is associated with this variable:
(1) The actual amount of contaminated food ingested by a species depends on food availability, diet composition,
and animal behavior. Therefore, the default value of 100 percent may not accurately reflect site-specific
conditions, and may overestimate the proportion of contaminated food ingested.
Otol
This variable is species- and site-specific, and depends on the percentage of the diet that is comprised of carnivorous
fish. The default value for a screening level ecological risk assessment is 100 percent for computing concentration
based on an exclusive diet. For calculating an equal diet, Fdia is determined based on the number of dietary
components in the total diet. The application of an equal diet is further discussed in Chapter 5.
Uncertainties associated with this variable include:
(1) The actual proportion of the diet that is comprised of a specific dietary item depends on several factors
including: food availability, animal behavior, species composition, and seasonal influences. These
uncertainties may over- or under- estimate Fdia when applied to site-specific receptors.
(2) The default value of 100 percent for an exclusive diet introduces uncertainty and may over-estimate exposure
from ingestion of a single dietary item.
(3) The default value for an equal diet introduces uncertainty and may over- or under- estimate exposure when
applied to site-specific receptors.
F-146
-------
TABLE F-2-11
EQUATIONS FOR COMPUTING COPC DOSE INGESTED TERMS IN CARNIVOROUS MAMMALS
IN BRACKISH/INTERMEDIATE MARSH, SALTMARSH, AND FRESHWATER/WETLAND FOOD WEBS
(Page 5 of 10)
Variable
r
^OB
"OB
FOB
Description
Concentration of COPC in
omnivorous birds
Proportion of omnivorous bird diet
that is contaminated
Fraction of diet comprised of
omnivorous birds
Units
mg COPC/kg FW
tissue
unitless
unitless
Value
Varies (calculated - Table F-l-15)
This variable is site-specific and COPC-specific; it is calculated using the equation in Table F-l-6. Uncertainties
associated with this variable include:
(1) Variables Csed and Cmtot are COPC- and site-specific.
(2) Variables BCFS_OB and BCFW_OB are based on biotransfer factors for chicken (Bachicken ), and receptor specific
ingestion rates, and therefore may introduce uncertainty when used to compute concentrations for site-specific
aquatic omnivorous birds.
Otol
Default: 1
This variable is species- and site-specific, and depends on the percentage of the dietary food item that is
contaminated. U.S. EPA OSW recommends that a default value of 1 .0 be used for all food types when site specific
information is not available. The following uncertainty is associated with this variable:
(1) The actual amount of contaminated food ingested by a species depends on food availability, diet composition,
and animal behavior. Therefore, the default value of 100 percent may not accurately reflect site-specific
conditions, and may overestimate the proportion of contaminated food ingested.
Otol
This variable is species- and site-specific, and depends on the percentage of the diet that is comprised of aquatic
omnivorous birds. The default value for a screening level ecological risk assessment is 100 percent for computing
concentration based on an exclusive diet. For calculating an equal diet, Fdiet is determined based on the number of
dietary components in the total diet. The application of an equal diet is further discussed in Chapter 5.
Uncertainties associated with this variable include:
(1) The actual proportion of the diet that is comprised of a specific dietary item depends on several factors
including: food availability, animal behavior, species composition, and seasonal influences. These
uncertainties may over- or under- estimate Fdia when applied to site-specific receptors.
(2) The default value of 100 percent for an exclusive diet introduces uncertainty and may over-estimate exposure
from ingestion of a single dietary item.
(3) The default value for an equal diet introduces uncertainty and may over- or under- estimate exposure when
applied to site-specific receptors.
F-147
-------
TABLE F-2-11
EQUATIONS FOR COMPUTING COPC DOSE INGESTED TERMS IN CARNIVOROUS MAMMALS
IN BRACKISH/INTERMEDIATE MARSH, SALTMARSH, AND FRESHWATER/WETLAND FOOD WEBS
(Page 6 of 10)
Variable
Description
Units
Value
CnM Concentration of COPC in
omnivorous mammals
mg COPC/kg FW
tissue
Varies (calculated - Table F-l-5)
This variable is site-specific and COPC-specific; it is calculated using the equation in Table F-l-5. Uncertainties
associated with this variable include:
(1) Variables Csed and Cmtot are COPC- and site-specific.
(2) Variables BCFS_OM and BCFW_OM are based on biotransfer factors for beef (Bateej), and receptor-specific ingestion
rates, and therefore may introduce uncertainty when used to compute concentrations for site-specific
omnivorous mammals.
PnM Proportion of omnivorous mammal
diet that is contaminated
unitless
Otol
Default: 1
This variable is species- and site-specific, and depends on the percentage of the dietary food item that is
contaminated. U.S. EPA OSW recommends that a default value of 1.0 be used for all food types when site specific
information is not available. The following uncertainty is associated with this variable:
(1) The actual amount of contaminated food ingested by a species depends on food availability, diet composition,
and animal behavior. Therefore, the default value of 100 percent may not accurately reflect site-specific
conditions, and may overestimate the proportion of contaminated food ingested.
FOM Fraction of diet comprised of
omnivorous mammals
unitless
Otol
This variable is species- and site-specific, and depends on the percentage of the diet that is comprised of omnivorous
mammals. The default value for a screening level ecological risk assessment is 100 percent for computing
concentration based on an exclusive diet. For calculating an equal diet, Fdiet is determined based on the number of
dietary components in the total diet. The application of an equal diet is further discussed in Chapter 5.
Uncertainties associated with this variable include:
(1) The actual proportion of the diet that is comprised of a specific dietary item depends on several factors
including: food availability, animal behavior, species composition, and seasonal influences. These
uncertainties may over- or under- estimate Fdia when applied to site-specific receptors.
(2) The default value of 100 percent for an exclusive diet introduces uncertainty and may over-estimate exposure
from ingestion of a single dietary item.
(3) The default value for an equal diet introduces uncertainty and may over- or under- estimate exposure when
applied to site-specific receptors.
F-148
-------
TABLE F-2-11
EQUATIONS FOR COMPUTING COPC DOSE INGESTED TERMS IN CARNIVOROUS MAMMALS
IN BRACKISH/INTERMEDIATE MARSH, SALTMARSH, AND FRESHWATER/WETLAND FOOD WEBS
(Page 7 of 10)
Variable
r
^•HM
"HM
FHM
Description
Concentration of COPC in
herbivorous mammals
Proportion of herbivorous mammal
in diet that is contaminated
Fraction of diet comprised of
herbivorous mammals
Units
mg COPC/kg FW
tissue
unitless
unitless
Value
Varies (calculated - Table F-l-9)
This variable is site-specific and COPC-specific; it is calculated using the equation in Table F-l-9. Uncertainties
associated with this variable include:
(1) Variables Csed and Cmtot are COPC- and site-specific.
(2) Variables BCFS_HM and BCFW_HM are based on biotransfer factors for beef cattle (Babeej-), and receptor specific
ingestion rates, and therefore may introduce uncertainty when used to compute concentrations for site-specific
aquatic herbivorous mammals.
Otol
Default: 1
This variable is species- and site-specific, and depends on the percentage of the dietary food item that is
contaminated. U.S. EPA OSW recommends that a default value of 1 .0 be used for all food types when site specific
information is not available. Uncertainties associated with this variable include:
(1) The actual amount of contaminated food ingested by a species depends on food availability, diet composition,
and animal behavior. Therefore, the default value of 100 percent may not accurately reflect site-specific
conditions, and may overestimate the proportion of contaminated food ingested.
Otol
This variable is species- and site-specific, and depends on the percentage of the diet that is comprised of aquatic
herbivorous mammals. The default value for a screening level ecological risk assessment is 100 percent for
computing concentration based on an exclusive diet. For calculating an equal diet, Fdia is determined based on the
number of dietary components in the total diet. The application of an equal diet is further discussed in Chapter 5.
Uncertainties associated with this variable include:
(1) The actual proportion of the diet that is comprised of herbivorous mammals depends on several factors
including: food availability, animal behavior, species composition, and seasonal influences. Therefore a
default value of 100 percent for the exclusive diet, may over-estimate dietary exposure.
F-149
-------
TABLE F-2-11
EQUATIONS FOR COMPUTING COPC DOSE INGESTED TERMS IN CARNIVOROUS MAMMALS
IN BRACKISH/INTERMEDIATE MARSH, SALTMARSH, AND FRESHWATER/WETLAND FOOD WEBS
(Page 8 of 10)
Variable
Description
Units
Value
C,,j COPC concentration in bed
sediment
mg COPC/kg DW
sediment
Varies (calculated - Table B-2-19)
This equation calculates the concentration of contaminants sorbed to bed sediments. Uncertainties associated with
this equation include the following:
(1) The default variable values recommended for use in the equation in Table B-2-19 may not accurately represent
site-specific water body conditions. The degree of uncertainty associated with default variable values is
expected to be limited either because the probable ranges for these variables are narrow or because information
allowing reasonable estimates is generally available.
(2) Uncertainties associated with variables^,, Cwctot and Kdbs are largely associated with the use of default OC
content values in their calculation. The uncertainty may be significant in specific instances, because OC content
is known to vary widely in different locations in the same medium. This variable is site-specific.
Sediment ingestion rate for
carnivorous mammal
kg DW/kg BW-
day
Varies
This variable is site-, receptor-, and habitat-specific, and is discussed in Chapter 5. Ingestion rates for example
measurement receptors are presented in Chapter 5, Table 5-1. Uncertainties associated with this variable include the
following:
(1) IRS values may under- or over-estimate BCFS when applied to site-specific organisms.
Portion of ingested bed sediment
that is contaminated
unitless
Otol
Default: 1
This variable is species- and site-specific, and depends on the percentage of soil ingested that is contaminated. U.S.
EPA OSW recommends that a default value of 1.0 be used for a screening level risk assessment when site specific
information is not available. The following uncertainty is associated with this variable:
(1) The actual amount of contaminated soil ingested by species depends on site-specific information, receptor
homerange, and animal behavior; therefore, the default value of 100 percent may not accurately reflect site-
specific conditions, and the proportion of soil ingested that is contaminated will likely be overestimated.
F-150
-------
TABLE F-2-11
EQUATIONS FOR COMPUTING COPC DOSE INGESTED TERMS IN CARNIVOROUS MAMMALS
IN BRACKISH/INTERMEDIATE MARSH, SALTMARSH, AND FRESHWATER/WETLAND FOOD WEBS
(Page 9 of 10)
Variable
Description
Units
Value
Total COPC concentration in water
column
mg COPC/L
water
(or
g COPC/m3
water)
Varies (calculated - Table B-2-17)
This variable is COPC- and site-specific and is calculated using Table B-2-17. Uncertainties associated with this
equation include the following:
(1) All of the variables in the equation in Table B-2-17 are COPC- and site-specific. Therefore, the use of default
values rather than site-specific values, for any or all of these variables, will contribute to the under- or
overestimation of Cmtot.
(2) Uncertainty associated with/,,, is largely the result of uncertainty associated with default OC content values.
Uncertainties may also be associated with the variable LT and kwt.
The degree of uncertainly associated with the variables dwc and dts is expected to be minimal either because
information for estimating a variable (dm) is generally available or because the probable range for a variable (dbs) is
narrow. The uncertainty associated with the variables/,, and Cwctot is associated with estimates of OC content.
Because OC content values can vary widely for different locations in the same medium, the uncertainty associated
with using default OC values may be significant in specific cases.
Water ingestion rate for
carnivorous mammal
kg WW/kg BW-
day
Varies
This variable is receptor- and habitat-specific, and is discussed in Chapter 5. Ingestion rates for example
measurement receptors are presented in Chapter 5, Table 5-1. The following uncertainty is associated with this
variable:
(1) Water ingestion rates are strongly influenced by animal behavior and environmental factors and may over- or
under- estimate BCFW_HM to an unknown degree.
Pw
Portion of ingested water that is
contaminated
unitless
Otol
Default: 1
This variable is species- and site-specific, and depends on the percentage of water ingested that is contaminated. U.S.
EPA OSW rsecommends that a default value of 1.0 be used when site specific information is not available.
The following uncertainty is associated with this variable:
(1) The actual amount of contaminated water ingested by species depends on site-specific information, receptor
homerange, and animal behavior; therefore, the default value of 100 percent may not accurately reflect site-
specific conditions, and the proportion of ingested water that is contaminated will likely be overestimated.
F-151
-------
TABLE F-2-11
EQUATIONS FOR COMPUTING COPC DOSE INGESTED TERMS IN CARNIVOROUS MAMMALS
IN BRACKISH/INTERMEDIATE MARSH, SALTMARSH, AND FRESHWATER/WETLAND FOOD WEBS
(Page 10 of 10)
REFERENCES AND DISCUSSION
U.S. EPA. 1993. Wildlife Exposure Factor Handbood. Volumes I and H. Office of Research and Development. EPA/600/R-93/187a
F-152
-------
TABLE F-2-12
COPC DOSE INGESTED TERMS IN CARNIVOROUS BIRDS
IN BRACKISH/INTERMEDIATE MARSH, SALTMARSH, AND FRESHWATER/WETLAND FOOD WEBS
(Page 1 of 11)
Description
This equation calculates the daily dose through exposure to contaminated food/prey, soil, and water in aquatic carnivorous birds in freshwater marsh, brackish/intermediate marsh, and
saltwater marsh food webs. The limitations and uncertainties introduced in calculating this variable include the following:
(1) Variables C,ed, and Cmtot are COPC- and site-specific. Uncertainties associated with these variables will be site-specific.
(2) Variables BCFBS_CB, and BCFW_CB are based on biotransfer factors for chicken (Bachicken), and receptor specific ingestion rates, and therefore may introduce uncertainty when used to
compute a representative daily dose for site-specific carnivorous birds.
D
^
Equation
IRCB ' POF ' FOP) + (CCF ' IRCB ' PCF ' FCp) + (COM ' IRCB ' POM ' FOM) + ^HM ' IRCB ' PHM ' FHAf)
IRCB • POB
IRCB • PHB
• IRS_CB • Ps) + (Cwctot • IRW-CB ' /V)
Variable
Description
Units
Value
DC,
Dose ingested for carnivorous birds
mg/kg BW-day
CO
Concentration of COPC in
omnivorous fish
mg COPC/kg FW
tissue
Varies (calculated - Table F-l-16)
This variable is site-specific and COPC-specific; it is calculated using the equation in F-l-16. Uncertainties
associated with this variable include:
(1) Cfa values are COPC- and site-specific.
(2) The data set used to calculate BCFfsh is based on a limited number of test organisms and therefore may over- or
under-estimate exposure when applied to site-specific organisms.
F-153
-------
TABLE F-2-12
COPC DOSE INGESTED TERMS IN CARNIVOROUS BIRDS
IN BRACKISH/INTERMEDIATE MARSH, SALTMARSH, AND FRESHWATER/WETLAND FOOD WEBS
(Page 2 of 11)
Variable
Description
Units
Value
Food ingestion rate of carnivorous
birds
kg WW/kg BW-
day
Varies
This variable is receptor-specific, and is discussed in Chapter 5. Ingestion rates for example measurement receptors
are provided in Chapter 5, Table 5-1. Uncertainties associated with this variable include:
(1) Food ingestion rates are influenced by several factors including: metabolic rate, energy requirements for growth
and reproduction, and dietary composition. Ingestion rates are also influenced by ambient temperature, receptor
activity level and body weight U.S. EPA (1993). These factors introduce an unknown degree of uncertainty
when used to estimate daily dose.
(2) IR values may over- or under- estimate exposure when applied to site-specific receptors.
Proportion of omnivorous fish diet
that is contaminated
unitless
Otol
Default: 1
This variable is species- and site-specific, and depends on the percentage of the dietary food item that is
contaminated. U.S. EPA OSW recommends that a default value of 1.0 be used for all food types when site specific
information is not available. The following uncertainty is associated with this variable:
(1) The actual amount of contaminated food ingested by a species depends on food availability, diet composition,
and animal behavior. Therefore, the default value of 100 percent may not accurately reflect site-specific
conditions, and may overestimate the proportion of contaminated food ingested.
FOF Fraction of diet comprised of
omnivorous fish
unitless
Otol
This variable is species- and site-specific, and depends on the percentage of the diet that is comprised of omnivorous
fish. The default value for a screening level ecological risk assessment is 100 percent for computing concentration
based on an exclusive diet. For calculating an equal diet, Fdia is determined based on the number of dietary
components in the total diet. The application of an equal diet is further discussed in Chapter 5.
Uncertainties associated with this variable include:
(1) The actual proportion of the diet that is comprised of a specific dietary item depends on several factors
including: food availability, animal behavior, species composition, and seasonal influences. These
uncertainties may over- or under- estimate Fdia when applied to site-specific receptors.
(2) The default value of 100 percent for an exclusive diet introduces uncertainty and may over-estimate exposure
from ingestion of a single dietary item.
(3) The default value for an equal diet introduces uncertainty and may over- or under- estimate exposure when
applied to site-specific receptors.
F-154
-------
TABLE F-2-12
COPC DOSE INGESTED TERMS IN CARNIVOROUS BIRDS
IN BRACKISH/INTERMEDIATE MARSH, SALTMARSH, AND FRESHWATER/WETLAND FOOD WEBS
(Page 3 of 11)
Variable
r
^CF
PCF
FCF
Description
Concentration in carnivorous fish
Proportion of carnivorous fish diet
that is contaminated
Fraction of diet comprised of
carnivorous fish
Units
mg COPC/kg FW
tissue
unitless
unitless
Value
Varies
This variable is site-specific and COPC-specific; it is calculated using the equation in F-l-17. Uncertainties
associated with this variable include:
(1) Cdn values are COPC- and site-specific.
(2) The data set used to calculate BCFjish is based on a limited number of test organisms and therefore may over- or
under-estimate exposure when applied to site-specific organisms.
Otol
Default: 1
This variable is species- and site-specific, and depends on the percentage of the dietary food item that is
contaminated. U.S. EPA OSW recommends that a default value of 1 .0 be used for all food types when site specific
information is not available. The following uncertainty is associated with this variable:
(1) The actual amount of contaminated food ingested by a species depends on food availability, diet composition,
and animal behavior. Therefore, the default value of 100 percent may not accurately reflect site-specific
conditions, and may overestimate the proportion of contaminated food ingested.
Otol
This variable is species- and site-specific, and depends on the percentage of the diet that is comprised of carnivorous
fish. The default value for a screening level ecological risk assessment is 100 percent for computing concentration
based on an exclusive diet. For calculating an equal diet, Fdia is determined based on the number of dietary
components in the total diet. The application of an equal diet is further discussed in Chapter 5.
Uncertainties associated with this variable include:
(1) The actual proportion of the diet that is comprised of a specific dietary item depends on several factors
including: food availability, animal behavior, species composition, and seasonal influences. These
uncertainties may over- or under- estimate Fdia when applied to site-specific receptors.
(2) The default value of 100 percent for an exclusive diet introduces uncertainty and may over-estimate exposure
from ingestion of a single dietary item.
(3) The default value for an equal diet introduces uncertainty and may over- or under- estimate exposure when
applied to site-specific receptors.
F-155
-------
TABLE F-2-12
COPC DOSE INGESTED TERMS IN CARNIVOROUS BIRDS
IN BRACKISH/INTERMEDIATE MARSH, SALTMARSH, AND FRESHWATER/WETLAND FOOD WEBS
(Page 4 of 11)
Variable
Description
Units
Value
CnM Concentration of COPC in
omnivorous mammals
mg COPC/kg FW
tissue
Varies (calculated - Table F-l-5)
This variable is site-specific and COPC-specific; it is calculated using the equation in Table F-l-5. Uncertainties
associated with this variable include:
(1) Variables Csed and Cmtot are COPC- and site-specific.
(2) Variables BCFS_OM and BCFW_OM are based on biotransfer factors for beef (Bateej), and receptor specific ingestion
rates, and therefore may introduce uncertainty when used to compute concentrations for site-specific aquatic
omnivorous mammals.
POM Proportion of aquatic omnivorous
mammal in diet that is
contaminated
unitless
Otol
Default: 1
This variable is species- and site-specific, and depends on the percentage of the dietary food item that is
contaminated. U.S. EPA OSW recommends that a default value of 1.0 be used for all food types when site specific
information is not available. The following uncertainty is associated with this variable:
(1) The actual amount of contaminated food ingested by a species depends on food availability, diet composition,
and animal behavior. Therefore, the default value of 100 percent may not accurately reflect site-specific
conditions, and may overestimate the proportion of contaminated food ingested.
FOM Fraction of diet comprised of
omnivorous mammals
unitless
Otol
This variable is species- and site-specific, and depends on the percentage of the diet that is comprised of aquatic
omnivorous mammals. The default value for a screening level ecological risk assessment is 100 percent for
computing concentration based on an exclusive diet. For calculating an equal diet, Fdiet is determined based on the
number of dietary components in the total diet. The application of an equal diet is further discussed in Chapter 5.
Uncertainties associated with this variable include:
(1) The actual proportion of the diet that is comprised of a specific dietary item depends on several factors
including: food availability, animal behavior, species composition, and seasonal influences. These
uncertainties may over- or under- estimate Fdia when applied to site-specific receptors.
(2) The default value of 100 percent for an exclusive diet introduces uncertainty and may over-estimate exposure
from ingestion of a single dietary item.
(3) The default value for an equal diet introduces uncertainty and may over- or under- estimate exposure when
applied to site-specific receptors.
F-156
-------
TABLE F-2-12
COPC DOSE INGESTED TERMS IN CARNIVOROUS BIRDS
IN BRACKISH/INTERMEDIATE MARSH, SALTMARSH, AND FRESHWATER/WETLAND FOOD WEBS
(Page 5 of 11)
Variable
r
^•HM
"HM
FHM
Description
Concentration of COPC in
herbivorous mammals
Proportion of aquatic herbivorous
mammal in diet that is
contaminated
Fraction of diet comprised of
herbivorous mammals
Units
mg COPC/kg FW
tissue
unitless
unitless
Value
Varies (calculated - Table F-l-9)
This variable is site-specific and COPC-specific; it is calculated using the equation in Table F-l-9. Uncertainties
associated with this variable include:
(1) Variables Csed and Cmtot are COPC- and site-specific.
(2) Variables BCFS_HM and BCFW_HM are based on biotransfer factors for beef cattle (Babeej-), and receptor specific
ingestion rates, and therefore may introduce uncertainty when used to compute concentrations for site-specific
aquatic herbivorous mammals.
Otol
Default: 1
This variable is species- and site-specific, and depends on the percentage of the dietary food item that is
contaminated. U.S. EPA OSW recommends that a default value of 1 .0 be used for all food types when site specific
information is not available. Uncertainties associated with this variable include:
(1) The actual amount of contaminated food ingested by a species depends on food availability, diet composition,
and animal behavior. Therefore, the default value of 100 percent may not accurately reflect site-specific
conditions, and may overestimate the proportion of contaminated food ingested.
Otol
This variable is species- and site-specific, and depends on the percentage of the diet that is comprised of aquatic
herbivorous mammals. The default value for a screening level ecological risk assessment is 100 percent for
computing concentration based on an exclusive diet. For calculating an equal diet, Fdia is determined based on the
number of dietary components in the total diet. The application of an equal diet is further discussed in Chapter 5.
Uncertainties associated with this variable include:
(1) The actual proportion of the diet that is comprised of herbivorous mammals depends on several factors
including: food availability, animal behavior, species composition, and seasonal influences. Therefore a
default value of 100 percent for the exclusive diet, may over-estimate dietary exposure.
F-157
-------
TABLE F-2-12
COPC DOSE INGESTED TERMS IN CARNIVOROUS BIRDS
IN BRACKISH/INTERMEDIATE MARSH, SALTMARSH, AND FRESHWATER/WETLAND FOOD WEBS
(Page 6 of 11)
Variable
r
^OB
"OB
FOB
Description
Concentration of COPC in
omnivorous birds
Proportion of omnivorous bird in
diet that is contaminated
Fraction of diet comprised of
omnivorous birds
Units
mg COPC/kg FW
tissue
unitless
unitless
Value
Varies
This variable is site-specific and COPC-specific; it is calculated using the equation in Table F-l-6. Uncertainties
associated with this variable include:
(1) Variables Csed and Cmtot are COPC- and site-specific.
(2) Variables BCFS_OB and BCFW_OB are based on biotransfer factors for chicken (Bachicken ), and receptor specific
ingestion rates, and therefore may introduce uncertainty when used to compute concentrations for site-specific
aquatic omnivorous birds.
Otol
Default: 1
This variable is species- and site-specific, and depends on the percentage of the dietary food item that is
contaminated. U.S. EPA OSW recommends that a default value of 1 .0 be used for all food types when site specific
information is not available. The following uncertainty is associated with this variable:
(1) The actual amount of contaminated food ingested by a species depends on food availability, diet composition,
and animal behavior. Therefore, the default value of 100 percent may not accurately reflect site-specific
conditions, and may overestimate the proportion of contaminated food ingested.
Otol
This variable is species- and site-specific, and depends on the percentage of the diet that is comprised of aquatic
omnivorous birds. The default value for a screening level ecological risk assessment is 100 percent for computing
concentration based on an exclusive diet. For calculating an equal diet, Fdiet is determined based on the number of
dietary components in the total diet. The application of an equal diet is further discussed in Chapter 5.
Uncertainties associated with this variable include:
(1) The actual proportion of the diet that is comprised of a specific dietary item depends on several factors
including: food availability, animal behavior, species composition, and seasonal influences. These
uncertainties may over- or under- estimate Fdia when applied to site-specific receptors.
(2) The default value of 100 percent for an exclusive diet introduces uncertainty and may over-estimate exposure
from ingestion of a single dietary item.
(3) The default value for an equal diet introduces uncertainty and may over- or under- estimate exposure when
applied to site-specific receptors.
F-158
-------
TABLE F-2-12
COPC DOSE INGESTED TERMS IN CARNIVOROUS BIRDS
IN BRACKISH/INTERMEDIATE MARSH, SALTMARSH, AND FRESHWATER/WETLAND FOOD WEBS
(Page 7 of 11)
Variable
r
^HB
"HB
FHB
Description
Concentration of COPC in
herbivorous birds
Proportion of herbivorous birds in
diet that is contaminated
Fraction of diet comprised of
herbivorous birds
Units
mg COPC/kg FW
tissue
unitless
unitless
Value
Varies (calculated - Table F-l-10)
This variable is site-specific and chemical-specific; it is calculated using the equation in Table F-l-10. Uncertainties
associated with this variable include:
(1) Variables Csed and Cmtot are COPC- and site-specific.
(2) Variables BCFS_HB and BCFW_HB are based on biotransfer factors for chicken (Bachicken ), and receptor-specific
ingestion rates, and therefore may introduce uncertainty when used to compute concentrations for site-specific
aquatic herbivorous birds.
Otol
Default: 1
This variable is species- and site-specific, and depends on the percentage of the dietary food item that is
contaminated. U.S. EPA OSW recommends that a default value of 1 .0 be used for all food types when site specific
information is not available. The following uncertainty is associated with this variable:
(1) The actual amount of contaminated food ingested by a species depends on food availability, diet composition,
and animal behavior. Therefore, the default value of 100 percent may not accurately reflect site-specific
conditions, and may overestimate the proportion of contaminated food ingested.
Otol
This variable is species- and site-specific, and depends on the percentage of the diet that is comprised of aquatic
herbivorous birds. The default value for a screening level ecological risk assessment is 100 percent for computing
concentration based on an exclusive diet. For calculating an equal diet, Fdiet is determined based on the number of
dietary components in the total diet. The application of an equal diet is further discussed in Chapter 5.
Uncertainties associated with this variable include:
(1) The actual proportion of the diet that is comprised of a specific dietary item depends on several factors
including: food availability, animal behavior, species composition, and seasonal influences. These
uncertainties may over- or under- estimate Fdia when applied to site-specific receptors.
(2) The default value of 100 percent for an exclusive diet introduces uncertainty and may over-estimate exposure
from ingestion of a single dietary item.
(3) The default value for an equal diet introduces uncertainty and may over- or under- estimate exposure when
applied to site-specific receptors.
F-159
-------
TABLE F-2-12
COPC DOSE INGESTED TERMS IN CARNIVOROUS BIRDS
IN BRACKISH/INTERMEDIATE MARSH, SALTMARSH, AND FRESHWATER/WETLAND FOOD WEBS
(Page 8 of 11)
Variable
Description
Units
Value
C,,j COPC concentration in bed
sediment
mg COPC/kg DW
sediment
Varies (calculated - Table B-2-19)
This equation calculates the concentration of COPCs in bed sediments. Uncertainties associated with this equation
include the following:
(1) The default variable values recommended for use in the equation in Table B-2-19 may not accurately represent
site-specific water body conditions. The degree of uncertainty associated with default variable values is
expected to be limited either because the probable ranges for these variables are narrow or because information
allowing reasonable estimates is generally available.
(2) Uncertainties associated with variables^,, Cwctot and Kdbs are largely associated with the use of default OC
content values in their calculation. The uncertainty may be significant in specific instances, because OC content
is known to vary widely in different locations in the same medium. This variable is site-specific.
IRs_cB Sediment ingestion rate for
carnivorous bird
kg DW/kg BW-
day
Varies
This variable is site-, receptor-, and habitat-specific, and is discussed in Chapter 5. Ingestion rates for example
measurement receptors are presented in Chapter 5, Table 5-1. Uncertainties associated with this variable include the
following:
(1) IRS values may under- or over-estimate BCFS when applied to site-specific organisms.
Portion of ingested bed sediment
that is contaminated
unitless
Otol
Default: 1
This variable is species- and site-specific, and depends on the percentage of soil ingested that is contaminated. U.S.
EPA OSW recommends that a default value of 1.0 be used for a screening level risk assessment when site specific
information is not available. The following uncertainty is associated with this variable:
(1) The actual amount of contaminated soil ingested by species depends on site-specific information, receptor
homerange, and animal behavior; therefore, the default value of 100 percent may not accurately reflect site-
specific conditions, and the proportion of soil ingested that is contaminated will likely be overestimated.
F-160
-------
TABLE F-2-12
COPC DOSE INGESTED TERMS IN CARNIVOROUS BIRDS
IN BRACKISH/INTERMEDIATE MARSH, SALTMARSH, AND FRESHWATER/WETLAND FOOD WEBS
(Page 9 of 11)
Variable
^wclol
IRfF-CB
Description
Total COPC concentration in water
column
Water ingestion rate for aquatic
carnivorous bird
Units
mg COPC/L
water
(or
g COPC/m3
water)
L/kg BW-day
Value
Varies (calculated - Table B-2-17)
This variable is COPC- and site-specific and is calculated using Table B-2-17. Uncertainties associated with this
equation include the following:
(1) All of the variables in the equation in Table B-2-17 are COPC- and site-specific. Therefore, the use of default
values rather than site-specific values, for any or all of these variables, will contribute to the under- or
overestimation of Cmtot.
(2) Uncertainty associated with/,,, is largely the result of uncertainty associated with default OC content values.
Uncertainties may also be associated with the variable LT and kwt
The degree of uncertainly associated with the variables dwc and dts is expected to be minimal either because
information for estimating a variable (dm) is generally available or because the probable range for a variable (dbs) is
narrow. The uncertainty associated with the variables/,, and Cwtot is associated with estimates of OC content.
Because OC content values can vary widely for different locations in the same medium, the uncertainty associated
with using default OC values may be significant in specific cases.
Varies
This variable is receptor- and habitat-specific, and is discussed in Chapter 5. Ingestion rates for example
measurement receptors are presented in Chapter 5, Table 5-1 . The following uncertainty is associated with this
variable:
(1) Water ingestion rates are strongly influenced by animal behavior and environmental factors and may over- or
under- estimate BCFW_HM to an unknown degree.
F-161
-------
TABLE F-2-12
COPC DOSE INGESTED TERMS IN CARNIVOROUS BIRDS
IN BRACKISH/INTERMEDIATE MARSH, SALTMARSH, AND FRESHWATER/WETLAND FOOD WEBS
(Page 10 of 11)
Variable
Description
Units
Value
Pw Portion of ingested water that is
contaminated
unitless
Otol
Default: 1
This variable is species- and site-specific, and depends on the percentage of water ingested that is contaminated. U.S.
EPA OSW recommends that a default value of 1.0 be used when site specific information is not available.
The following uncertainty is associated with this variable:
(1) The actual amount of contaminated water ingested by species depends on site-specific information, receptor
homerange, and animal behavior; therefore, the default value of 100 percent may not accurately reflect site-
specific conditions, and the proportion of ingested water that is contaminated will likely be overestimated.
F-162
-------
TABLE F-2-12
COPC DOSE INGESTED TERMS IN CARNIVOROUS BIRDS
IN BRACKISH/INTERMEDIATE MARSH, SALTMARSH, AND FRESHWATER/WETLAND FOOD WEBS
(Page 11 of 11)
REFERENCES AND DISCUSSIONS
U.S. EPA. 1993. Wildlife Exposure Factor Handbook. Volumes I and H. Office of Research and Development. EPA/600/R-93/187a
F-163
-------
TABLE F-2-13
COPC DOSE INGESTED TERMS IN CARNIVOROUS SHORE BIRDS
IN BRACKISH/INTERMEDIATE MARSH, SALTMARSH, AND FRESHWATER/WETLAND FOOD WEBS
(Page 1 of 10)
Description
This equation calculates the daily dose through exposure to contaminated food/prey, sediment, and water in carnivorous shore birds in freshwater marsh, brackish/intermediate marsh, and
saltwater marsh food webs. The limitations and uncertainties introduced in calculating this variable include the following:
(1) Variables C,ed and Cmtot are COPC- and site-specific. Uncertainties associated with these variables will be site-specific
(2) Variables BCFS_CSB, and BCFW_CSB are based on biotransfer factors for chicken (Bachicken), and receptor-specific ingestion rates, and therefore may introduce uncertainty when used to
compute a representative daily dose for site-specific carnivorous birds.
D = If • TR
^CSB \^BI ^
* • TR • P
*n *
P
r
OF OF
• J? \
r Bl]
\ + If •
) \^OB
Equation
TR • P • J7 \ + If • TR • P •
^CSB rWl r Wl) \^ HPF ^CSB f HPF HPF]
TR
^
P • J7 \
r OB r OBJ
+ • TR
sed ^S
TR • P • J? \
^CSB f HPF r HPF]
• P \ + (C* • TR • P \
f Sj ^victot ^W-CSB r Wj
Variable
Description
Units
Value
Dose ingested for carnivorous
shore birds
mg/kg BW-day
Concentration of COPC in benthic
invertebrates
mg COPC/kg FW
tissue
Varies (calculated - Table F-l-11)
This variable is site-specific and COPC-specific; it is calculated using the equation in Table F-l-11. Uncertainties
associated with this variable include the following:
(1) Csed values are COPC- and site-specific.
(2) BCFS_BI values are intended to represent "generic benthic invertebrate species", and therefore may over- or
under-estimate exposure when applied to site-specific organisms.
F-164
-------
TABLE F-2-13
COPC DOSE INGESTED TERMS IN CARNIVOROUS SHORE BIRDS
IN BRACKISH/INTERMEDIATE MARSH, SALTMARSH, AND FRESHWATER/WETLAND FOOD WEBS
(Page 2 of 10)
Variable
Description
Units
Value
Food ingestion rate of carnivorous
shore birds
kg WW/kg BW-
day
Varies
This variable is receptor-specific, and is discussed in Chapter 5. Ingestion rates for example measurement receptors
are provided in Chapter 5, Table 5-1. Uncertainties associated with this variable include:
(1) Food ingestion rates are influenced by several factors including: metabolic rate, energy requirements for growth
and reproduction, and dietary composition. Ingestion rates are also influenced by ambient temperature, receptor
activity level and body weight U.S. EPA (1993). These factors introduce an unknown degree of uncertainty
when used to estimate daily dose.
(2) IR values may over- or under- estimate exposure when applied to site-specific receptors.
Pm Proportion of benthic invertebrate
in diet that is contaminated
unitless
Otol
Default: 1
This variable is species- and site-specific, and depends on the percentage of the dietary food item that is
contaminated. U.S. EPA OSW recommends that a default value of 1.0 be used for all food types when site specific
information is not available. The following uncertainty is associated with this variable:
(1) The actual amount of contaminated food ingested by a species depends on food availability, diet composition,
and animal behavior. Therefore, the default value of 100 percent may not accurately reflect site-specific
conditions, and may overestimate the proportion of contaminated food ingested.
F-165
-------
TABLE F-2-13
COPC DOSE INGESTED TERMS IN CARNIVOROUS SHORE BIRDS
IN BRACKISH/INTERMEDIATE MARSH, SALTMARSH, AND FRESHWATER/WETLAND FOOD WEBS
(Page 3 of 10)
Variable
Description
Units
Value
Fm Fraction of diet comprised of
benthic invertebrates
unitless
Otol
This variable is species- and site-specific, and depends on the percentage of the diet that is comprised of benthic
invertebrates. The default value for a screening level ecological risk assessment is 100 percent for computing
concentration based on an exclusive diet. For calculating an equal diet, Fdiet is determined based on the number of
dietary components in the total diet. The application of an equal diet is further discussed in Chapter 5.
Uncertainties associated with this variable include:
(1) The actual proportion of the diet that is comprised of a specific dietary item depends on several factors
including: food availability, animal behavior, species composition, and seasonal influences. These
uncertainties may over- or under- estimate Fdia when applided to site-specific receptors.
(2) The default value of 100 percent for an exclusive diet introduces uncertaintiy and may over-estimate exposure
from ingestion of a single dietary item.
(3) The defalut value for an equal diet introduces uncertainity and may over- or under- estimate exposure when
applied to site-specific receptors.
Cm Concentration of COPC in water
invertebrates
mg COPC/kg FW
tissue
Varies (calculated - Table F-l-12)
This variable is site-specific and COPC-specific; it is calculated using the equation in Table F-l-12. Uncertainties
associated with this variable include:
(1) Cfa values are COPC- and site-specific.
(2) BCFw_m values are intended to represent "generic water invertebrate species", and therefore may over- or under-
estimate exposure when applied to site-specific organisms.
Pm Proportion of water invertebrate in
diet that is contaminated
unitless
Otol
Default: 1
This variable is species- and site-specific, and depends on the percentage of the dietary food item that is
contaminated. U.S. EPA OSW recommends that a default value of 1.0 be used for all food types when site specific
information is not available. The following uncertainty is associated with this variable:
(1) The actual amount of contaminated food ingested by a species depends on food availability, diet composition,
and animal behavior. Therefore, the default value of 100 percent may not accurately reflect site-specific
conditions, and may overestimate the proportion of contaminated food ingested.
F-166
-------
TABLE F-2-13
COPC DOSE INGESTED TERMS IN CARNIVOROUS SHORE BIRDS
IN BRACKISH/INTERMEDIATE MARSH, SALTMARSH, AND FRESHWATER/WETLAND FOOD WEBS
(Page 4 of 10)
Variable
Fm
t-HPF
p
rHPF
Description
Fraction of diet comprised of water
invertebrates
Concentration in herbivorous and
planktivorous fish
Proportion of herbivorous and
planktivorous fish diet that is
contaminated
Units
unitless
mg/kg
unitless
Value
Otol
This variable is species- and site-specific, and depends on the percentage of the diet that is comprised of water
invertebrates. The default value for a screening level ecological risk assessment is 100 percent for computing
concentration based on an exclusive diet. For calculating an equal diet, Fdiet is determined based on the number of
dietary components in the total diet. The application of an equal diet is further discussed in Chapter 5.
Uncertainties associated with this variable include:
(1) The actual proportion of the diet that is comprised of a specific dietary item depends on several factors
including: food availability, animal behavior, species composition, and seasonal influences. These
uncertainties may over- or under- estimate Fdia when applided to site-specific receptors.
(2) The default value of 100 percent for an exclusive diet introduces uncertaintiy and may over-estimate exposure
from ingestion of a single dietary item.
(3) The defalut value for an equal diet introduces uncertainity and may over- or under- estimate exposure when
applied to site-specific receptors.
Varies (calculated - Table F-l-13)
This variable is site-specific and COPC-specific; it is calculated using the equation in F-l-16. Uncertainties
associated with this variable include:
(1) Cfa values are COPC- and site-specific.
(2) The data set used to calculate BCFfsh is based on a limited number of test organisms and therefore may over- or
under-estimate exposure when applied to site-specific organisms.
Otol
Default: 1
This variable is species- and site-specific, and depends on the percentage of the dietary food item that is
contaminated. U.S. EPA OSW recommends that a default value of 1 .0 be used for all food types when site specific
information is not available. The following uncertainty is associated with this variable:
(1) The actual amount of contaminated food ingested by a species depends on food availability, diet composition,
and animal behavior. Therefore, the default value of 100 percent may not accurately reflect site-specific
conditions, and may overestimate the proportion of contaminated food ingested.
F-167
-------
TABLE F-2-13
COPC DOSE INGESTED TERMS IN CARNIVOROUS SHORE BIRDS
IN BRACKISH/INTERMEDIATE MARSH, SALTMARSH, AND FRESHWATER/WETLAND FOOD WEBS
(Page 5 of 10)
Variable
FHPF
(~-OB
Description
Fraction of diet comprised of
herbivorous and planktivorous fish
Concentration of COPC in
omnivorous birds
Units
unitless
mg COPC/kg FW
tissue
Value
Otol
This variable is species- and site-specific, and depends on the percentage of the diet that is comprised of
herbivorous/piscivorous fish. The default value for a screening level ecological risk assessment is 100 percent for
computing concentration based on an exclusive diet. For calculating an equal diet, Fdia is determined based on the
number of dietary components in the total diet. The application of an equal diet is further discussed in Chapter 5.
Uncertainties associated with this variable include:
(1) The actual proportion of the diet that is comprised of a specific dietary item depends on several factors
including: food availability, animal behavior, species composition, and seasonal influences. These
uncertainties may over- or under- estimate Fdia when applided to site-specific receptors.
(2) The default value of 100 percent for an exclusive diet introduces uncertaintiy and may over-estimate exposure
from ingestion of a single dietary item.
(3) The defalut value for an equal diet introduces uncertainity and may over- or under- estimate exposure when
applied to site-specific receptors.
Varies (calculated - Table F-l-6)
This variable is site-specific and COPC-specific; it is calculated using the equation in Table F-l-6. Uncertainties
associated with this variable include:
(1) Variables Csfd and Cmtot are COPC- and site-specific.
(2) Variables BCFS_OB and BCFW_OB are based on biotransfer factors for chicken (Bachicken ), and receptor specific
ingestion rates, and therefore may introduce uncertainty when used to compute concentrations for site-specific
omnivorous birds.
F-168
-------
TABLE F-2-13
COPC DOSE INGESTED TERMS IN CARNIVOROUS SHORE BIRDS
IN BRACKISH/INTERMEDIATE MARSH, SALTMARSH, AND FRESHWATER/WETLAND FOOD WEBS
(Page 6 of 10)
Variable
Description
Units
Value
Pnn Proportion of omnivorous bird in
diet that is contaminated
unitless
Otol
Default: 1
This variable is species- and site-specific, and depends on the percentage of the dietary food item that is
contaminated. U.S. EPA OSW recommends that a default value of 1.0 be used for all food types when site specific
information is not available. The following uncertainty is associated with this variable:
(1) The actual amount of contaminated food ingested by a species depends on food availability, diet composition,
and animal behavior. Therefore, the default value of 100 percent may not accurately reflect site-specific
conditions, and may overestimate the proportion of contaminated food ingested.
Fna Fraction of diet comprised of
omnivorous birds
unitless
Otol
This variable is species- and site-specific, and depends on the percentage of the diet that is comprised of omnivorous
birds. The default value for a screening level ecological risk assessment is 100 percent for computing concentration
based on an exclusive diet. For calculating an equal diet, Fdiet is determined based on the number of dietary
components in the total diet. The application of an equal diet is further discussed in Chapter 5.
Uncertainties associated with this variable include:
(1) The actual proportion of the diet that is comprised of a specific dietary item depends on several factors
including: food availability, animal behavior, species composition, and seasonal influences. These
uncertainties may over- or under- estimate Fdiet when applied to site-specific receptors.
(2) The default value of 100 percent for an exclusive diet introduces uncertainty and may over-estimate exposure
from ingestion of a single dietary item.
(3) The default value for an equal diet introduces uncertainty and may over- or under- estimate exposure when
applied to site-specific receptors.
Cnp Concentration of COPC in
omnivorous fish
mg COPC/kg FW
tissue
Varies (calculated - Table F-l-16)
This variable is site-specific and COPC-specific; it is calculated using the equation in F-l-16. Uncertainties
associated with this variable include:
(1) Cdn values are COPC- and site-specific.
(2) The data set used to calculate BCFjish is based on a limited number of test organisms and therefore may over- or
under-estimate exposure when applied to site-specific organisms.
F-169
-------
TABLE F-2-13
COPC DOSE INGESTED TERMS IN CARNIVOROUS SHORE BIRDS
IN BRACKISH/INTERMEDIATE MARSH, SALTMARSH, AND FRESHWATER/WETLAND FOOD WEBS
(Page 7 of 10)
Variable
P
rOF
FOF
Description
Proportion of omnivorous fish diet
that is contaminated
Fraction of diet comprised of
omnivorous fish
Units
unitless
unitless
Value
Otol
Default: 1
This variable is species- and site-specific, and depends on the percentage of the dietary food item that is
contaminated. U.S. EPA OSW recommends that a default value of 1 .0 be used for all food types when site specific
information is not available. The following uncertainty is associated with this variable:
(1) The actual amount of contaminated food ingested by a species depends on food availability, diet composition,
and animal behavior. Therefore, the default value of 100 percent may not accurately reflect site-specific
conditions, and may overestimate the proportion of contaminated food ingested.
Otol
This variable is species- and site-specific, and depends on the percentage of the diet that is comprised of omnivorous
fish. The default value for a screening level ecological risk assessment is 1 00 percent for computing concentration
based on an exclusive diet. For calculating an equal diet, Fdia is determined based on the number of dietary
components in the total diet. The application of an equal diet is further discussed in Chapter 5.
Uncertainties associated with this variable include:
(1) The actual proportion of the diet that is comprised of a specific dietary item depends on several factors
including: food availability, animal behavior, species composition, and seasonal influences. These
uncertainties may over- or under- estimate Fdia when applied to site-specific receptors.
(2) The default value of 100 percent for an exclusive diet introduces uncertainty and may over-estimate exposure
from ingestion of a single dietary item.
(3) The default value for an equal diet introduces uncertainty and may over- or under- estimate exposure when
applied to site-specific receptors.
F-170
-------
TABLE F-2-13
COPC DOSE INGESTED TERMS IN CARNIVOROUS SHORE BIRDS
IN BRACKISH/INTERMEDIATE MARSH, SALTMARSH, AND FRESHWATER/WETLAND FOOD WEBS
(Page 8 of 10)
Variable
Description
Units
Value
C,,
COPC concentration in bed
sediment
mg COPC/kg DW
sediment
Varies (calculated - Table B-2-19)
This equation calculates the concentration of COPCs in bed sediments. Uncertainties associated with this equation
include the following:
(1) The default variable values recommended for use in the equation in Table B-2-19 may not accurately represent
site-specific water body conditions. The degree of uncertainty associated with default variable values is
expected to be limited either because the probable ranges for these variables are narrow or because information
allowing reasonable estimates is generally available.
(2) Uncertainties associated with variables^,, Cwctot and Kdbs are largely associated with the use of default OC
content values in their calculation. The uncertainty may be significant in specific instances, because OC content
is known to vary widely in different locations in the same medium. This variable is site-specific.
Sediment ingestion rate for
carnivorous shorebird
kg DW/kg BW-
day
Varies
This variable is site-, receptor-, and habitat-specific, and is discussed in Chapter 5. Ingestion rates for example
measurement receptors are presented in Chapter 5, Table 5-1. Uncertainties associated with this variable include the
following:
(1) IRS values may under- or over-estimate BCFS when applied to site-specific organisms.
Portion of ingested bed sediment
that is contaminated
unitless
Otol
Default: 1
This variable is species- and site-specific, and depends on the percentage of soil ingested that is contaminated. U.S.
EPA OSW recommends that a default value of 1.0 be used for a screening level risk assessment when site specific
information is not available. The following uncertainty is associated with this variable:
(1) The actual amount of contaminated soil ingested by species depends on site-specific information, receptor
homerange, and animal behavior; therefore, the default value of 100 percent may not accurately reflect site-
specific conditions, and the proportion of soil ingested that is contaminated will likely be overestimated.
F-171
-------
TABLE F-2-13
COPC DOSE INGESTED TERMS IN CARNIVOROUS SHORE BIRDS
IN BRACKISH/INTERMEDIATE MARSH, SALTMARSH, AND FRESHWATER/WETLAND FOOD WEBS
(Page 9 of 10)
Variable
Description
Units
Value
Total COPC concentration in water
column
mg COPC/L
water
(or
g COPC/m3
water)
Varies (calculated - Table B-2-17)
This variable is COPC- and site-specific and is calculated using Table B-2-17. Uncertainties associated with this
equation include the following:
(1) All of the variables in the equation in Table B-2-17 are COPC- and site-specific. Therefore, the use of default
values rather than site-specific values, for any or all of these variables, will contribute to the under- or
overestimation of Cmtot.
(2) Uncertainty associated with/,,, is largely the result of uncertainty associated with default OC content values.
Uncertainties may also be associated with the variable LT and kwt.
The degree of uncertainly associated with the variables dwc and dts is expected to be minimal either because
information for estimating a variable (dm) is generally available or because the probable range for a variable (dbs) is
narrow. The uncertainty associated with the variables/,, and Cwctot is associated with estimates of OC content.
Because OC content values can vary widely for different locations in the same medium, the uncertainty associated
with using default OC values may be significant in specific cases.
Water ingestion rate for
carnivorous shorebird
L/kg BW-day
Varies
This variable is receptor- and habitat-specific, and is discussed in Chapter 5. Ingestion rates for example
measurement receptors are presented in Chapter 5, Table 5-1. The following uncertainty is associated with this
variable:
(1) Water ingestion rates are strongly influenced by animal behavior and environmental factors and may over- or
under- estimate BCFW_CSB to an unknown degree.
Pw
Portion of ingested water that is
contaminated
unitless
Otol
Default: 1
This variable is species- and site-specific, and depends on the percentage of water ingested that is contaminated. U.S.
EPA OSW recommends that a default value of 1.0 be used when site specific information is not available.
The following uncertainty is associated with this variable:
(1) The actual amount of contaminated water ingested by species depends on site-specific information, receptor
homerange, and animal behavior; therefore, the default value of 100 percent may not accurately reflect site-
specific conditions, and the proportion of ingested water that is contaminated will likely be overestimated.
F-172
-------
TABLE F-2-13
COPC DOSE INGESTED TERMS IN CARNIVOROUS SHORE BIRDS
IN BRACKISH/INTERMEDIATE MARSH, SALTMARSH, AND FRESHWATER/WETLAND FOOD WEBS
(Page 10 of 10)
REFERENCES AND DISCUSSIONS
U.S. EPA. 1993. Wildlife Exposure Factor Handbook. Volumes I and H. Office of Research and Development. EPA/600/R-93/187a
F-173
-------
-------
APPENDIX G
STATE NATURAL HERITAGE PROGRAMS
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
August 1999
-------
-------
Screening level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Appendix G: State Natural Heritage Programs August 1999
APPENDIX G
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table Page
G STATE NATURAL HERITAGE PROGRAMS G-l
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering G-i
-------
-------
APPENDIX G
STATE NATURAL HERITAGE PROGRAMS
(Page 1 of 3)
Alabama Natural Heritage Program
Huntingdon College
1500 East Fairview Avenue
Montgomery, AL 36106
334-834-4519
334-834-5439 (Fax)
Department of Conservation & Natural Resources
Game and Fish Divison
Folsom Administration Building
64 N. Union Street, Room 421
Montgomery, AL 36130
334-242-3484
334-242-0098 (Fax)
Alaska Natural Heritage Program
University of Alaska Anchorage
707 A Street
Anchorage, AK 99501
907-257-2702
907-258-9139 (Fax)
Arizona Heritage Data Management System
Arizona Game & Fish Department
WM-H
2221 W. Greenway Road
Phoenix, AZ 85023
602-789-3612
602-789-3928 (Fax)
Arkansas Natural Heritage Commission
Suite 1500, Tower Building
323 Center Street
Little Rock, AR 72201
501-324-9150
501-324-9618 (Fax)
California Natural Heritage Division
Department of Fish & Game
1220 S Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
916-322-2493
916-324-0475 (Fax)
Colorado State University
254 General Services Building
Fort Collins, CO 80523
970-491-1309
970-491-3349 (Fax)
Connecticut Natural Diversity Database
Natural Resources Center
Department of Environmental Protection
79 Elm Street, Store Level
Hartford, CT 06106-5127
860-424-3540
860-424-4058 (Fax)
Delaware Natural Heritage Program
Division of Fish & Wildlife
Department of Natural Resources &
Environmental Control
4876 Hay Point Landing Road
Smyrna, DA 19977
302-653-2880
302-653-3431 (Fax)
District of Columbia Natural Heritage Program
13025 Riley's Lock Road
Poolesville, MD 20837
301-427-1354
301-427-1355 (Fax)
Florida Natural Areas Inventory
1018 Thomasville Road
Suite 200-C
Tallahassee, FL 32303
904-224-8207
904-681-9364 (Fax)
Georgia Natural Heritage Program
Wildlife Resources Division
Georgia Department of Natural Resources
2117 U.S. Highway 278 S.E.
Social Circle, GA 30279
706-557-3032 or 770-918-6411
706-557-3033 or 706-557-3040 (Fax)
Hawaii Natural Heritage Program
The Nature Conservancy of Hawaii
1116 Smith Street, Suite 201
Honolulu, HI 96817
808-537-4508
808-545-2019 (Fax)
Idaho Conservation Data Center
Department of Fish & Game
600 South Walnut Street, Box 25
Boise, ID 83707-0025
208-334-3402
208-334-2114 (Fax)
Illinois Natural Heritage Division
Department of Natural Resources
Division of Natural Heritage
524 South Second Street
Springfield, IL 62701-1787
217-785-8774
217-785-8277 (Fax)
Indiana Natural Heritage Data Center
Division of Nature Preserves
Department of Natural Resources
402 West Washington Street, Room W267
Indianapolis, IN 46204
317-232-4052
317-233-0133 (Fax)
Iowa Natural Areas Inventory
Bureau of Preserves & Ecological Services
Department of Natural Resources
Wallace State Office Building
Des Moines, IA 50319-0034
515-281-8524 (Fax)
G-l
-------
APPENDIX G
STATE NATURAL HERITAGE PROGRAMS
(Page 2 of 3)
Kansas Natural Heritage Inventory
Kansas Biological Survey
2041 Constant Avenue
Lawrence, KS 66047-2906
913-864-3453
913-864-5093 (Fax)
Kentucky Natural Heritage Program
Kentucky State Nature Preserves Commission
801 Schenkel Lane
Frankfort, KY 40601
502-573-2886
502-573-2355 (Fax)
Louisiana Natural Heritage Program
Department of Wildlife & Fisheries
P.O. Box 98000
Baton Rouge, LA 70898-9000
504-765-2821
504-765-2607 (Fax)
Maine Natural Areas Program
Department of Conservation
(FedEx/UPS: 159 Hospital Street)
93 State House Station
Augusta, ME 04333-0093
207-287-8044
207-287-8040 (Fax)
Maryland Heritage & Biodiversity Conservation
Programs
Department of Natural Resources
Tawes State Office Building, E-l
Annapolis, MD 21401
410-974-2870
410-974-5590 (Fax)
Massachusetts Natural Heritage & Endangered
Species Program
Division of Fisheries & Wildlife
Route 135
Westborough, MA 01581
508-792-7270
508-792-7275 (Fax)
Michigan Natural Features Inventory
Mason Building, 5th Floor Box 30444
(FedEx/UPS: 530 W. Allegan, 48933)
Lansing, MI 48909-7944
517-373-1552
517-373-6705 (Fax)
Minnesota Natural Heritage & Nongame
Research
Department of Natural Resources
500 Lafayette Road, Box 7
St. Paul, MN 51555
612-297-4964
612-297-4961 (Fax)
Mississippi Natural Heritage Program
Museum of Natural Science
111 North Jefferson Street
Jackson, MS 39201
601-354-7303
601-354-7227 (Fax)
Missouri Natural Heritage Division
Missouri Department of Conservation
P.O. Box 180
(FedEx: 2901 West Truman Blvd.)
Jefferson City, MO 65102-0180
573-751-4115
573-526-5582 (Fax)
Montana Natural Heritage Program
State Library Building
1515 E. 6th Avenue
Helena, MT 59620
406-444-3009
406-444-0581 (Fax)
Nebraska Natural Heritage Program
Game and Parks Commission
2200 North 33rd Street
P.O. Box 30370
Lincoln, NE 68503
402-471-5421
402-471-5528 (Fax)
Nevada Natural Heritage Program
Department of Conservation & Natural Resources
1550 E. College Parkway, Suite 145
Carson City, NV 89710
702-687-4245
702-885-0868 (Fax)
New Hampshire Natural Heritage Inventory
Department of Resources & Economic Development
172 Pembroke Street
P.O. Box 1856
Concord, NH 03302
603-271-3623
603-271-2629 (Fax)
New Jersey Natural Heritage Program
Office of Natural Lands Management
22 South Clinton Ave., CN404
Trenton, NJ 08625-0404
609-984-1339
609-984-1427 (Fax)
New Mexico Natural Heritage Program
University of New Mexico
2500 Yale Boulevard, SE, Suite 100
Albuquerque, NM 87131-1091
505-277-1991
505-277-7587 (Fax)
New York Natural Heritage Program
Department of Environmental Conservation
700 Troy-Schenectady Road
Latham, NY 12110-2400
518-783-3932
518-783-3916 (Fax)
North Carolina Heritage Program
NC Department of Environment, Health & Natural
Resources
Division of Parks & Recreation
P.O. Box 27687
Raleigh, NC 27611-7687
919-733-7701
919-715-3085 (Fax)
North Dakota Natural Heritage Inventory
North Dakota Parks and Recreation Department
1835 Bismarck Expressway
Bismarck, ND 58504
701-328-5357
701-328-5363 (Fax)
Ohio Natural Heritage Data Base
Division of Natural Areas & Preserves
Department of Natural Resources
1889 Fountain Square, Building F-1
Columbus, OH 43224
614-265-6453
614-267-3096 (Fax)
G-2
-------
APPENDIX G
STATE NATURAL HERITAGE PROGRAMS
(Page 3 of 3)
Oklahoma Natural Heritage Inventory
Oklahoma Biological Survey
111 East Chesapeake Street
University of Oklahoma
Norman, OK 73019-0575
405-325-1985
405-325-7702 (Fax)
Oregon Natural Heritage Program
Oregon Field Office
821 SE 14th Avenue
Portland, OR 97214
503-731-3070; 230-1221
503-230-9639 (Fax)
Pennsylvania Natural Diversity Inventory PNDI •
East
The Nature Conservancy
34 Airport Drive
Middletown, PA 17057
717-948-3962
717-948-3957 (Fax)
PNDI - West
Western Pennsylvania Conservancy
Natural Areas Program
316 Fourth Avenue
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
412-288-2777
412-281-1792 (Fax)
PNDI Central
Bureau of Forestry
P.O. Box 8552
Harrisburg, PA 17105-8552
717-783-0388
717-783-5109 (Fax)
Rhode Island Natural Heritage Program
Department of Environmental Management
Division of Planning & Development
83 Park Street
Providence, RI 02903
401-277-2776 x4308
401-277-2069 (Fax)
South Carolina Heritage Trust
SC Department of Natural Resources
P.O. Box 167
Columbia, SC 29202
803-734-3893
803-734-6310 (Call first fax)
South Dakota Natural Heritage Data Base
SD Department of Game, Fish & Parks
Wildlife Division
523 E. Capitol Avenue
Pierre, SD 57501-3182
605-773-4227
605-773-6245 (Fax)
Tennessee Division of Natural Heritage
Department of Environment & Conservation
401 Church Street
Life and Casualty Tower, 8th Floor
Nashville, TN 37243-0447
615-532-0431
615-532-0614 (Fax)
Texas Biological and Conservation Data System
3000 South IH-35, Suite 100
Austin, TX 78704
512-912-7011
512-912-7058
Utah Natural Heritage Program
Division of Wildlife Resources
1596 West North Temple
Salt Lake City, UT 84116
801-538-4761
801-538-4709 (Fax)
Vermont Nongame & Natural Heritage Program
Vermont Fish & Wildlife Department
103 S. Main Street, 10 South
Waterbury, VT 05671-0501
802-241-3700
802-241-3295 (Fax)
Virginia Division of Natural Heritage
Department of Conservation & Recreation
Main Street Station
1500 E. Main Street, Suite 312
Richmond, VA 23219
804-786-7951
804-371-2674 (Fax)
Washington Natural Heritage Program
Department of Natural Resources
(FedEx: 1111 Washington Street, SE)
P.O. Box 47016
Olympia, WA 98504-7016
360-902-1340
360-902-1783 (Fax)
West Virginia Natural Heritage Program
Department of Natural Resources Operations
Center
Ward Road, P.O. Box 67
Elkins, WV 26241
304-637-0245
304-637-0250 (Fax)
Wisconsin Natural Heritage Program
Endangered Resources/4
Department of Natural Resources
101 S. Webster Street, Box 7921
Madison, WI 53707
608-266-7012
608-266-2925 (Fax)
Wyoming Natural Diversity Database
1604 Grand Avenue, Suite 2
Laramie, WY 82070
307-745-5026
3Q7-745-5Q26 (Call first fax)
G-3
-------
-------
APPENDIX H
TOXICOLOGICAL PROFILES
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
August 1999
-------
-------
Protocol for Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment
Toxicological Profile; Contents
August 1999
Profile
APPENDIX H
TOXICOLOGICAL PROFILES
Page
H-l ACETONE
H-2 ACRYLONITRILE
H-3 ALUMINUM
H-4 ANTIMONY
H-5 ARSENIC
H-6 BERYLLIUM
H-7 BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL)PHTHALATE
H-8 CADMIUM
H-9 CHROMIUM
H-10 COPPER
H-l 1 CROTONALDEHYDE
H-12 CUMENE (ISOPROPYLBENZENE) .
H-13 DDE
H-l4 DICHLOROFLUOROMETHANE . . .
H-l5 DICHLOROETHENE, 1-1-
H-16 DINITROTOLUENES
H-l 7 DI(N)OCTYLPHTHALATE
H-18 DIOXAN, 1,4-
H-l9 DIBENZO-/7-DIOXINS
H-20 DIBENZOFURANS
H-l
H-4
H-8
H-ll
H-14
H-19
H-21
H-26
H-29
H-32
H-35
H-38
H-41
H-45
H-47
H-51
H-55
H-58
H-61
H-67
U.S. EPA Region 6
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering
U.S. EPA
Office of Solid Waste
H-i
-------
Protocol for Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment
Toxicological Profile; Contents
August 1999
APPENDIX H
TOXICOLOGICAL PROFILES
Profile
H-21 HEXACHLOROBENZENE
H-22 HEXACHLOROBUTADIENE
H-23 HEXACHLOROCYCLOPENTADIENE
H-24 HEXACHLOROPHENE
H-25 HYDRAZINE
H-26 MERCURY
H-27 METHANOL
H-28 NITROPROPANE, 2-
H-29 POLYNUCLEAR AROMATIC HYDROCARBONS (PAHS)
H-30 POLYCHLORINATED BIPHENYLS (PCBs)
H-31 PENTACHLOROPHENOL
H-32 THALLIUM
H-33 VINYL CHLORIDE
Page
H-69
H-73
H-77
H-80
H-82
H-84
H-88
H-90
H-92
H-97
H-101
H-105
H-109
U.S. EPA Region 6
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering
U.S. EPA
Office of Solid Waste
H-ii
-------
Protocol for Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment
Toxicological Profile H-l; Acetone August 1999
ACETONE
1.0 SUMMARY
Acetone is a highly volatile organic compound. Volatilization and biodegradation are the major fate
processes affecting acetone released to soil, surface water, and sediment. Routes of exposure for wildlife
include ingestion, inhalation, and dermal uptake. Acetone is not bioconcentrated by aquatic organisms, and
is not bioaccumulated by mammals and birds. Therefore, it does not bioaccumulate in aquatic or terrestrial
food chains.
The following is a profile of the fate of acetone in soil, surface water and sediment; and the fate after
uptake by ecological receptors. Section 2 discusses the environmental fate and transport in soil, water and
sediment. Section 3 discusses the fate in ecological receptors.
2.0 FATE IN SOIL, SURFACE WATER AND SEDIMENT
Volatilization and leaching are the two primary transport properties affecting the fate of acetone in soils
(HSDB 1997). Volatilization is more significant than leaching. The extent of leaching depends on soil
characteristics. Evidence also suggests that acetone rapidly degrades in soil (HSDB 1997).
Volatilization and biodegradation are the major fate processes affecting the fate of acetone in surface water.
The volatilization half-life for acetone from a model river is approximately 18 hours when estimated using
1-meter depth, a current of 1 m/second, and wind velocity of 3 m/second (Thomas 1982). In addition,
acetone does not partition well to sediments because it is highly soluble in water. Dispersion of acetone
from the water column to sediment and suspended solids in water is likely to be insignificant, due to the
complete miscibility of acetone in water.
Biodegredation is the most significant degradation process of acetone in water (Rathbun et al. 1982).
Studies on wastewater have shown that aquatic microbial communities quickly acclimate to acetone, and
rapidly biodegrade it (Urano and Kato 1986a,b). When tested in seawater, acetone was biodegraded much
slower than when tested in freshwater (Takemoto et al. 1981).
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering H-l
-------
Protocol for Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment
Toxicological Profile H-l; Acetone August 1999
Photolysis as a degradation process for acetone in water is insignificant. Studies have shown that
photodecomposition was not observed when acetone contaminated distilled or natural water was exposed to
sunlight for 2-3 days (Rathbun et al. 1982).
3.0 FATE IN ECOLOGICAL RECEPTORS
For most aquatic systems, acetone will exist in water rather than sediment, due to acetone's high water
solubility and low sediment adsorption coefficient. Bioaccumulation does not occur in aquatic organisms
as suggested by the low log Kow value for acetone (Rathbun et al. 1982). Adult haddock tested under static
conditions at 7.9°C showed a bioconcentration factor of 1 for acetone (Rustung et al. 1931).
Biomagnification along the aquatic food chain is also considered insignificant for acetone as suggested by
the low Kow value.
Acetone is a highly volatile compound and may be inhaled in large quantities. Acetone is very water
soluble, so it is quickly absorbed following inhalation into the blood stream and dispersed throughout the
body. A large portion of acetone is excreted primarily unchanged through the lungs and urine, with only a
small portion reduced and excreted as carbon dioxide (Encyclopedia of Occupational Health and Safety
1983). Because acetone is quickly eliminated, wildlife receptors will not accumulate it in tissues.
No information was available on the fate of acetone after exposure by birds or plants.
4.0 REFERENCES
ATSDR. 1994. Toxicological Profile for Acetone. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry,
Atlanta, GA.
Encyclopedia of Occupational Health and Safety. 1983. p 38. As cited in HSDB 1997.
HSDB. 1997. Hazardous Substances Data Bank.
Rathbun R, Stephens D, Schultz D,Tai D. 1982. "Fate of Acetone in Water." Chemosphere
11:1097-1114.
Rustung E, Frithjof K, Foyen A. 1931. "The Uptake and Distribution of Acetone in the Coldblooded
Organism." Biochem Z 242:366-376.
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering H-2
-------
Protocol for Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment
Toxicological Profile H-l; Acetone August 1999
Takemoto S, Kuge Y, Nakamoto M. 1981. "The Measurement of BOD in Sea Water." Suishitsu Okaku
Kenkyu 4:80-90. As cited in ATSDR 1994.
Thomas R. 1982. "Volatilization from Water." In: Lyman W, Reehl W, Rosenblatt D, eds. Handbook of
Chemical Property Estimation Methods. McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, pp 15-1 to
15-34.
Urano K, Kato Z. 1986a. "Evaluation of Biodegradation Rates of Priority Organic Compounds." J Haz
Matr 13:147-159.
Urano K, Kato Z. 1986b. "A Method to Classify Biodegradabilities of Organic Compounds." J Haz Matr
13:135-145.
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering H-3
-------
Protocol for Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment
Toxicological Profile H-2; Acrylonitrile August 1999
ACRYLONITRILE
1.0 SUMMARY
Acrylonitrile is a highly water soluble volatile organic compound. Volatilization and biodegradation are the
major fate processes affecting acrylonitrile released to surface soil, surface water, and sediment. Routes of
exposure for wildlife include ingestion, inhalation, and dermal uptake. Acrylonitrile is not bioconcentrated
by aquatic organisms, and is not bioaccumulated by mammals and birds. Therefore, it does not
bioaccumulate in aquatic or terrestrial food chains.
The following is a profile of the fate of acrylonitrile in soil, surface water, and sediment; and the fate after
uptake by ecological receptors. Section 2 discusses the environmental fate and transport in surface soil,
surface water, and sediment. Section 3 discusses the fate in ecological receptors.
2.0 FATE IN SOIL, SURFACE WATER, AND SEDIMENT
Due to its high water solubility, acrylonitrile is highly mobile in moist soils (EPA 1987). Adsorption into
the soil is considered insignificant (Kenaga 1980). Evaporation of acrylonitrile from dry soils is expected
to occur rapidly because of its high vapor pressure (Norris 1967; EPA 1987) and high Henry's Law
constant (Meylan 1991).
Acrylonitrile is readily soluble in water and does not strongly adsorb to soil or sediment (Klein et al. 1957;
ATSDR 1990). Acrylonitrile biodegrades rapidly in water (Miller and Villaume 1978; EPA 1987).
Aerobic microorganisms readily degrade acrylonitrile, particularly if acclimation time is allowed (Cherry et
al. 1956; Stover and Kincannon 1983; Mills and Stack 1954, 1955).
Acrylonitrile rapidly volatilizes from surface water. A volatilization half-life of 1-6 days in water has been
estimated (Thomas 1982; HSDB 1997).
3.0 FATE IN ECOLOGICAL RECEPTORS
Based on experimental and estimated bioconcentration factors, the bioconcentration of acrylonitrile in
aquatic organisms is not believed to be significant (Kenaga 1980). A steady-state bioconcentration factor
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering H-4
-------
Protocol for Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment
Toxicological Profile H-2; Acrylonitrile August 1999
(BCF) of 48 was measured in bluegill sunfish (Barrows et al. 1978). The estimated average BCF for
edible portions of freshwater and marine species was approximately 30 based on the relative proportion of
fat in sunfish and other organisms (EPA 1980). Also, based on a low log Kow, acrylonitrile is estimated to
show low bioconcentration in aquatic organisms (Verschueren 1983; Kenaga 1980).
Acrylonitrile is readily absorbed into the body through lung and intestinal mucosa following inhalation,
ingestion, or dermal contact (Clayton and Clayton 1982). Once absorbed into the body, acrylonitrile is
distributed throughout the body to the major organs (Pilon et al. 1988a). Following a single oral dose of
radiolabeled acrylonitrile, rapid distribution of acrylonitrile and its metabolites was shown in all tissues of
rats (Ahmed et al. 1982, 1983; Silver et al. 1987; Young et al. 1968). Another metabolic pathway includes
the formation of CO2 which is excreted via the lungs (Young et al. 1968). The rate of acrylonitrile
metabolism is inconclusive; however, evidence suggests that it is rapid (Pilon et al. 1988b; Ghanayem and
Ahmed 1982; Miller and Villaume 1978). Values representing the amount of acrylonitrile metabolized
range from 4% to 30% (IARC 1979).
No information was available on the fate of acrylonitrile after exposure by birds or plants.
4.0 REFERENCES
Ahmed A, Farooqui M, Upreti R, El-Shabrawy O. 1982. "Distribution and Covalent Interactions of
[l(-14)c]acryolontrile in the Rat." Toxicology 23:159-175.
Ahmed A, Farooqui M, Upreti R, El-Shabrawy O. 1983. "Comparative Toxicokinetics of 2,3-(14)c- and
l-(14)c-acrylonitrile in the Rat." J Appl Toxicol 3:39-47.
ATSDR. 1990. Toxicological Profile for Acrylonitrile. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease
Registry. December.
Barrows M, Petrocelli S, Macek K, et al. 1978. "Bioconcentration and Elimination of Selected Water
Pollutants by Bluegill Sunfish." Proc Am Chem Soc 18:345-346.
Cherry A, Bagaccia A, Senn H. 1956. "The Assimilation Behavior of Certain Toxic Organic Compounds
in Natural Water." Sewage Industrial Wastes 28:1137-1146.
Clayton G, Clayton F. 1982. Patty's Industrial Hygiene and Toxicology. 3rd ed. Vol 2c. John Wiley &
Sons, New York. pp. 4863-4866.
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering H-5
-------
Protocol for Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment
Toxicological Profile H-2; Acrylonitrile August 1999
EPA. 1980. Ambient Water Quality Criteria Document for Acrylonitrile. EPA 440/5-80-017. Office of
Water Regulations and Standards, Washington, DC.
EPA. 1987. Health Assessment Document for Acrylonitrile. Cincinnati, OH: US Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development. EPA 600/8-88/014. NTIS No.
PB88-179411.
Ghanayem B, Ahmed A. 1982. "In Vivo Biotransformation and Biliary Excretion of l-14c-acrylonitrile in
Rats." Arch Toxicol 50:175-185.
HSDB. 1997. Hazardous Substance Data Bank.
IARC. 1979. "Acrylonitrile, Acrylic and Modacrylic Fibers, and Acrylonitrile-butadiene-styene and
Styrene-acrylonitrile Copolymers." IARC monographs, Vol 19. IARC, Lyon. pp. 73-113.
Kenaga E. 1980. "Predicted Bioconcentration Factors and Soil Sorption Coefficients of Pesticides and
Other Chemicals." Ecotoxicol Environ Safety 4:26-38.
Klein E, Weaver J, Webre B. 1957. "Solubility of Acrylonitrile in Aqueous Bases and Alkali Salts." Ind
EngChem2:DS72-75.
MeylanW, Howard P. 1991. Environ Toxicol Chem 10:1283-1293. As cited in HSDB 1997.
Miller L, Villaume J. 1978. Investigation of Selected Potential Environmental Contaminants:
Acrylonitrile. Office of Toxic Substances. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Washington,
DC.
Mills E, Stack V. 1954. "Biological Oxidation of Synthetic Organic Chemicals." Engineering Bulletin,
Proceedings 8th Ind Waste Conf Ext Ser. 83:492-517. As cited in ATSDR 1990.
Mills E, Stack V. 1955. "Acclimation of Microorganisms for the Oxidation of Pure Organic Chemicals."
Proceedings 9th Ind Waste Conf Ext Ser. 87:449-464. As cited in ATSDR 1990.
Norris M. 1967. Acrylonitrile. Encyclopedia of Industrial Chemical Analysis. Interscience Publ., New
York. 4:368-371.
Pilon D, Roberts A, Rickert D. 1988a. "Effect of Glutathione Depletion on the Uptake of Acrylonitrile
Vapors and on its Irreversible Association with Tissue Macromolecules." Toxicol Appl Pharmacol
95:265-278.
Pilon D, Roberts A, Rickert D. 1988b. "Effect of Glutathione Depletion on the Irreversible Association of
Acrylonitrile with Tissue Macromolecules after Oral Administration to Rats." Toxicol Appl
Pharmacol 95:311-320.
Silver E, Szabo S, Cahill M, Jaeger R. 1987. "Time-course Studies of the Distribution of
[l-14c]acrylonitrile in Rats after Intravenous Administration." J Appl Toxicol 7:303-306.
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering H-6
-------
Protocol for Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment
Toxicological Profile H-2; Acrylonitrile August 1999
Stover E, Kincannon D. 1983. "Biological Treatability of Specific Organic Compounds Found in
Chemical Industry Wastewaters." J Water Pollut Control Fed 55:97-109.
Thomas R. 1982. "Volatilization from Water." In: Handbook of 'Chemical Property Estimation
Methods. Environmental Behavior of Organic Compounds. McGraw-Hill, New York. pp. 15.1
to 15.34.
Verschueren K. 1983. Handbook oj'Environmental Data on Organic Chemicals. 2nd ed. VanNostrand
Reinhold Co., New York. pp. 162-165.
Young J, Slauter R, Karbowski R. 1968. The Pharmacokinetic and Metabolic Profile of
14c-acrylonitrile Given to Rats by Three Routes. Dow Chemical Company, Toxicology Research
Laboratory, Midland, MI. As cited in ATSDR 1990.
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering H-7
-------
Protocol for Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment
Toxicological Profile H-3; Aluminum August 1999
ALUMINUM
1.0 SUMMARY
In nature, aluminum does not exist in the elemental state, but partitions between the liquid and solid phases
by forming complexes with various compounds. Aluminum adsorbs to clays and suspended solids in
water. Exposure routes for aquatic organisms include ingestion, gill uptake and dermal contact.
Aluminum bioconcentrates in aquatic organisms. Exposure routes for mammals include ingestion,
inhalation and dermal exposure; however, regardless of the route of exposure, aluminum is poorly absorbed
by mammals. Aluminum is not readily metabolized. Aluminum causes pulmonary and developmental
effects. Aluminum uptake by plants varies between species, resulting in differing rates of bioconcentration
in plant tissues.
The following is a profile of the fate of aluminum in soil, surface water and sediment; and the fate after
uptake by ecological receptors. Section 2 discusses the environmental fate and transport in soil, surface
water and sediment. Section 3 discusses the fate in ecological receptors.
2.0 FATE IN SOIL, SURFACE WATER AND SEDIMENT
Aluminum does not exist as a free metal in nature due to its reactivity, but rather partitions between the
solid and liquid phases by reacting with water, chloride, fluoride, sulfate, nitrate, phosphate, humic
materials and clay (Bodek et al. 1988). Soils with a greater mineral content result in reduced mobility of
aluminum (James and Riha 1989).
In water, aluminum forms relatively water-insoluble complexes, or is found as a water-soluble complex.
Aluminum adsorbs to suspended solids and sediment. If large amounts of organic matter or fulvic acid are
present, aluminum binds to them (Brusewitz 1984). In water, aluminum undergoes hydrolysis to form
hydroxy aluminum species (Snoeyink and Jenkins 1980). The pH of the water determines which hydrolysis
products are formed.
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering H-!
-------
Protocol for Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment
Toxicological Profile H-3; Aluminum August 1999
3.0 ECOLOGICAL RECEPTORS
Exposure routes for aquatic organisms include ingestion, gill uptake, and dermal absorption. Aluminum
bioconcentrates in aquatic species (Cleveland et al. 1989).
Exposure routes for mammals include ingestion, inhalation and dermal exposure. Aluminum is poorly
absorbed. Aluminum is distributed to the brain (Santos et al. 1987), bone, muscle and kidneys (Greger and
Donnaubauer 1986). No studies were located that described excretion of aluminum in animals; however in
humans, absorbed aluminum is excreted primarily through the kidney (Gorsky et al. 1979).
Information was not available on the fate of aluminum in birds.
Aluminum is taken up by plants (Brusewitz 1984). Some plants bioaccumulate aluminum in the root
tissues. Plant uptake of aluminum and the transport to stems and leaves varies considerably between
species (Kabata-Pendias and Pendias 1984).
4.0 REFERENCES
ATSDR. 1992. Toxicological Profile for Aluminum. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease
Registry. July.
Bodek I, Lyman W, Reehl W, et al., eds. 1988. Environmental Inorganic Chemistry-properties,
Processes, and Estimation Methods. Pergamon Press, New York. pp. 6.7-1 to 6.7-9.
Brusewitz S. 1984. Aluminum. Vol 203. University of Stockholm, Institute of Theoretical Physics,
Stockholm, Sweden, p 138. As cited in ATSDR 1992.
Cleveland L, Little E, Wiedmeyer R, Buckler D. 1989. "Chronic No-observed-effect Concentrations of
Aluminum for Brook Trout Exposed in Low-calcium, Dilute Acidic Water." In: Lewis T, ed.
Environmental Chemistry and Toxicology of Aluminum. Lewis Publishers, Chelsea, MI.
pp. 229-246.
Gorsky J, Dietz A, Spencer H, Osis D. 1979. "Metabolic Balance of Aluminum Studied in Six Men."
ClinChem25:1739-1743.
Greger J, Donnaubauer S. 1986. "Retention of Aluminum in the Tissues of Rats after the Discontinuation
of Oral Exposure to Aluminum." Food Chem Toxicol 24:1331-1334.
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering H-9
-------
Protocol for Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment
Toxicological Profile H-3; Aluminum August 1999
James B, Riha S. 1989. "Aluminum Leaching by Mineral Acids in Forest Soils: I. Nitric-sulfuric Acid
Differences." Soil Sci Soc Am J 53:259-264.
Kabata-Pendias A, Pendias H, eds. 1984. Trace Elements in Soils and Plants. CRC Press, Boca Raton,
FL. pp. 135-136.
Santos F, Chan J, Yang M, Savory J, Wills M. 1987. "Aluminum Deposition in the Central Nervous
System. Preferential Accumulation in the Hippocampus in Weanling Rats." Med Biol 65:53-55.
Snoeyink V, Jenkins D, ed. 1980. Water Chemistry. John Wiley and Sons, New York. pp. 209-210.
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering H-10
-------
Protocol for Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment
Toxicological Profile H-5; Arsenic August 1999
ANTIMONY
1.0 SUMMARY
Antimony binds to soil and participates and is oxidized by bacteria in soil. Exposure routes for aquatic
organisms include ingestion and gill uptake. Antimony bioconcentrates in aquatic organisms. Exposure
routes for mammals include ingestion and inhalation. It does not biomagnify in terrestrial food chains.
Antimony is not significantly metabolized and is excreted in the urine and the feces. Antimony causes
reproductive, pulmonary and hepatic effects in mammals. Antimony uptake by plants occurs following
surface deposition.
The following is a profile of the fate of antimony in soil, surface water and sediment; and the fate after
uptake by ecological receptors. Section 2 discusses the environmental fate and transport in soil, surface
water and sediment. Section 3 discusses the fate in ecological receptors.
2.0 FATE IN SOIL, SURFACE WATER AND SEDIMENT
Antimony binds to soil, particularly to particles containing iron, manganese, or aluminum Ainsworth
1988). In water, antimony is oxidized when exposed to atmospheric oxygen (Parris and Brinckman 1976).
3.0 ECOLOGICAL RECEPTORS
Exposure routes for aquatic organisms include ingestion and gill uptake. Antimony bioconcentrates in
aquatic organisms (ACQUIRE 1989; Callahan et al. 1979; EPA 1980).
Exposure routes for mammals include ingestion and inhalation (Groth et al. 1986, EPA 1988). Dermal
absorption is low (Myers et al. 1978) and absorption from the respiratory tract is dependent on particle size
(Thomas et al. 1973). Following absorption, antimony is distributed to the liver, kidney, bone, lung, spleen
and thyroid (Sunagawa 1981; Ainsworth 1988). Antimony is excreted in the urine and the feces (Felicetti
et al. 1974). Antimony does not biomagnify in the food chain (Ainsworth 1988). Data regarding the
amount of antimony that reaches the site of action and assimilation efficiency were not available.
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering H-l 1
-------
Protocol for Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment
Toxicological Profile H-5; Arsenic August 1999
Information was not available on the fate of antimony in birds.
Antimony is taken up by plants following surface deposition, with uptake from soil dependent on the
solubility of the antimony in the soil (Ainsworth 1988).
4.0 REFERENCES
Acquire. 1989. Acquire database. September 7. As cited in ATSDR 1990.
Ainsworth N. 1988. Distribution and Biological Effects of Antimony in Contaminated Grassland.
Dissertation. As cited in ATSDR 1990.
ATSDR. 1990. Toxicological Profile for Antimony. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.
October.
Callahan M, Slimak M, Gabel N, et al. 1979. Water-Related Environmental Fate of 129 Priority
Pollutants. Vol 1. EPA 440/4-79-029a. Office of Water Planning and Standards, Washington,
DC. pp. 5-1 to 5-8.
EPA. 1988. Drinking Water Criteria Document for Antimony. EPA contract no. 68-03-3417. p. 111-16.
EPA. 1980. Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Antimony. EPA 440/5-80-020. Office of Water
Regulations and Standards Criteria Division, Washington, DC.
Felicetti S, Thomas R, McClellan R. 1974. "Metabolism of Two Valence States of Inhaled Antimony in
Hamsters." Am Ind Hyg Assoc J 355:292-300.
Groth D, Stettler L, Burg J. 1986. "Carcinogenic Effects of Antimony Trioxide and Antimony Ore
Concentrate in Rats." J Toxicol Environ Health 18:607-626.
Myers R, Homan E, Well C, et al. 1978. Antimony Trioxide Range-finding Toxicity Studies. Ots206062.
Carnegie-Mellon Institute of Research, Carnegie-Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pa. Sponsored by
Union Carbide. As cited in ATSDR 1990.
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering H-12
-------
Protocol for Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment
Toxicological Profile H-5; Arsenic August 1999
Parris G, Brinckman F. 1976. "Reactions Which Relate to the Environmental Mobility of Arsenic and
Antimony. li. Oxidation of Trimethylarsine and Trimethylstibine." Environ Sci Technol
10:1128-1134.
Sunagawa S. 1981. "Experimental Studies on Antimony Poisoning." Igaku Kenkyu 51: 129-142.
Thomas R, Felicetti S, Lucchino R, McClellan R. 1973. "Retention Patterns of Antimony in Mice
Following Inhalation of Particles Formed at Different Temperatures." Proc Exp Biol Med
144:544-550.
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering H-l 3
-------
Protocol for Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment
Toxicological Profile H-5; Arsenic August 1999
ARSENIC
1.0 SUMMARY
Arsenic, because of its complex chemistry, exists in the environment in many different inorganic and
organic forms, which have different toxicological and physicochemical properties. Inorganic arsenic exists
as either the trivalent (3+) form or the pentavalent (5+) form. The inorganic trivalent arsenic forms are
more toxic than the pentavalent forms. Elemental arsenic (the metalloid -0+) is essentially nontoxic even at
high intakes.
Arsenic in soil is usually tightly bound. The bioconcentration potential in soil invertebrates and aquatic
species is low. Biomagnification through the food chain is minimal because once ingested, arsenic is
metabolized to methylated compounds that are rapidly excreted. Absorbed arsenic is distributed to all
tissues where it interferes with normal enzymatic activity or disrupts the functioning of other cellular
macromolecules. Evaluation of the potential for toxicity from exposure to low levels of arsenic is
complicated by the current understanding that arsenic is an essential element in some mammalian species,
and that arsenic deficiency may result in adverse reproductive and developmental effects.
The following is a profile of the fate of arsenic in soil, surface water and sediment; and the fate after uptake
by ecological receptors. Section 2 discusses the environmental fate and transport in soil, surface water and
sediment. Section 3 discusses the fate in ecological receptors.
2.0 FATE IN SOIL, SURFACE WATER, AND SEDIMENT
The dominant form of arsenic in soil and its transport are largely dependent on the physical characteristics
of the soil matrix. Insoluble arsenic compounds, such as arsenic trioxide, bind tightly to organic matter in
soil or sediment (EPA 1984; ATSDR 1993). Various forms of arsenic in soil are interconverted by
chemical reactions and microbial activity. Soil microorganisms convert small amounts of arsenic to
volatile arsines. These volatile arsines are released to the air, become adsorbed to particles, and are
redeposited (ATSDR 1993) or, under certain conditions, react to form oxides (Ghassemi et al. 1981).
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering H-14
-------
Protocol for Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment
Toxicological Profile H-5; Arsenic August 1999
The bioavailability of arsenic in soil is inversely proportional to the organic carbon and clay content of the
soil matrix. Arsenic in soil is directly taken up by plants and soil microbes and invertebrates, and indirectly
taken up by terrestrial receptors via ingestion.
In surface water, soluble inorganic arsenate (As5+) predominates under normal conditions and is more
stable than arsenite (EPA 1980a). Movement and partitioning of arsenic in water depends on the chemical
form of arsenic and on interactions with other materials present (Callahan et al. 1979). Soluble forms of
arsenic remain dissolved in the water column or adsorb onto sediments or soils, especially those containing
clays, iron oxides, aluminum hydroxides, manganese compounds, and organic matter (Callahan et al. 1979;
Welch et al. 1988). Sediment bound arsenic is released back into the water by chemical or biological
interconversions. This interconversion is influenced by the Eh (the oxidation-reduction potential), pH,
temperature, other metals, salinity, and biota (Callahan et al. 1979). Arsenate is transformed by microbes
to arsenite and methylated arsenicals (Benson 1989; Braman and Foreback 1973).
3.0 ECOLOGICAL RECEPTORS
Exposure routes for aquatic organisms include gill uptake, ingestion of arsenic suspended on particles in
the water column or deposited in sediment, and ingestion of plant matter and lower trophic level aquatic
species. Arsenic bioconcentration in aquatic organisms is low (Spehar et al. 1980; EPA 1980b). Fish and
shellfish rapidly metabolize arsenic to non-toxic forms (EPA 1984, Garcia-Vargas and Cebrian 1996;
ATSDR 1993). Biomagnification does not readily occur in aquatic food chains (Callahan et al. 1979).
Soil invertebrates are directly exposed to arsenic found in soil and soil pore water. Exposure routes for
soil invertebrates include ingestion and dermal absorption. Arsenic bioconcentration in soil invertebrates is
low (Rhett et al. 1988).
The majority of ecological mammalian exposure occurs through ingestion. The oral absorption efficiency
is dependent on the form of arsenic, its solubility, and the media ingested. Soluble arsenic compounds in
aqueous solution are more readily absorbed from the gastrointestinal tract than insoluble compounds.
Absorption from water ingested is approximately 85%. Inorganic arsenic in food sources is expected to be
readily bioavailable with absorption rates of greater than 85% expected. Once absorbed, arsenic is readily
transported throughout the body with little tendency to accumulate preferentially in any one internal organ
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering H-l 5
-------
Protocol for Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment
Toxicological Profile H-5; Arsenic August 1999
(ATSDR 1993). Dermal absorption is a minor route of exposure with absorption estimated at 0.1%
(ATSDR 1993).
Metabolism of arsenic occurs primarily in the liver. The methylated metabolites are less toxic than the
inorganic precursors, and metabolism results in lower tissue retention of inorganic arsenic (Marafante and
Vahter 1984, 1986, 1987; Marafante et al. 1985). Inorganic arsenic and its methylated products are
rapidly eliminated.
The toxicokinetic data for arsenic indicate there is little potential for bioaccumulation in animal tissue
exposed to doses that are below the level required to saturate detoxifying methylation reactions. The level
of biomagnification in mammals depends on the diet of the animal. Herbivores have a low arsenic
biomagnification rate due to the general lack of transport of arsenic from soil to above ground plant parts.
Omnivores have a higher biomagnification rate based on the higher proportion of soil invertebrates in their
diet. Carnivores have the highest biomagnification rate due to their diet of aquatic invertebrates, small
mammals, and fish and the incidental ingestion of soil. However, arsenic is rapidly metabolized in
mammalian species, therefore, arsenic does not readily bioaccumulate in mammals.
Exposure routes for avian receptors include ingestion of surface water, soil, soil and aquatic invertebrates,
and plant material. Absorption studies specific to avian species are not available. Based on mammalian
absorption (ATSDR 1993), avian absorption can be assumed to be 85% absorption from water, 30% to
40% absorption from soil, and 85% absorption from food sources.
Arsenic uptake by plants depends on the form of arsenic and the type of soil. The higher the soil's organic
carbon and clay content the more the arsenic will bind to the soil and, therefore, less arsenic is available for
uptake by plant roots. That which is readily taken up by the plant is accumulated in the roots. Arsenite
(3+) is highly toxic to cell membranes and, therefore, not readily translocated once taken up; arsenate (5+)
is less toxic and, therefore, more readily translocated after uptake (ORNL 1996; Speer 1973). Rice, most
legumes, and members of the bean family are sensitive to arsenic in most forms, with spinach being the
most sensitive plant (Woolson et al 1975).
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering H-16
-------
Protocol for Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment
Toxicological Profile H-5; Arsenic August 1999
4.0 REFERENCES
ATSDR. 1993. Toxicological Profile for Arsenic. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.
April.
Benson A. 1989. "Arsonium Compounds in Algae." Proc Natl Acad Sci 86:6131-6132.
Braman R, Foreback C. 1973. "Methylated Forms of Arsenic in the Environment." Science
182:1247-1249.
Callahan M, Slimak M, Gabel N et al. 1979. Water-related Environmental Fate of 129 Priority
Pollutants. Volume 1. EPA/440/4-79-029a. Office of Water Planning and Standards,
Washington, DC. As cited in ATSDR 1993.
EPA. 1980a. Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Arsenic. EPA 440/5-80-021. Office of Water
Regulations and Standards, Washington, DC.
EPA. 1980b. Unpublished laboratory data. Environmental Research Lab, Narragansett, Rhode Island.
As cited in EPA 1980a.
EPA. 1984. Health Assessment Document for Inorganic Arsenic. EPA/600/8-83-02 If Office of Health
and Environmental Assessment, Washington, DC.
Garcia-Vargas G, Cebrian M. 1996. "Health Effects of Arsenic." In: Chang L, ed. Toxicology of
Metals. Lewis Publ, Boca Raton, FL. pp. 423-438.
Ghassemi M, Fargo L, Painter P, et al. 1981. Environmental Fates and Impacts of Major Forest Use
Pesticides. Prepared by TRW Environmental Division, Redondo Beach, CA. Prepared for EPA,
Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances, Washington, DC.
Marafante F, Vahter M. 1984. "The Effect of Methyltransferase Inhibition on the Metabolism of [74as]
Arsenite in Mice and Rabbits." Chem Biol Interact 50:49-57.
Marafante E, Vahter M. 1986. "The Effect of Dietary and Chemically Induced Methylation Deficiency on
the Metabolism of Arsenate in the Rabbit." Acta Pharmacol Toxicol 59(Suppl 7):35-38.
Marafante E, Vahter M. 1987. "Solubility, Retention, and Metabolism of Intratracheally and Orally
Administered Inorganic Arsenic Compounds in the Hamster." Environ Res 42:72-82.
Marafante E, Vahter M, Envall J. 1985. "The Role of the Methylation in the Detoxication of Arsenate in
the Rabbit." Chem-Biol Interact 56:225-238.
ORNL. 1996. Toxicological Benchmarks for Screening Potential Contaminants of Concern for Effects
on Terrestrial Plants: 1995 Revision. ES/ER/TM-82-R2. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak
Ridge, TN.
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering H-17
-------
Protocol for Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment
Toxicological Profile H-5; Arsenic August 1999
Rhett RG, Simmers JW, Lee CR. 1988. Eisenia Foetida Used as a Biomonitoring Tool to Predict the
Potential Bioaccumulation of Contaminants from Contaminated Dredging Material. SPB
Academic Publishing. Pp. 321-328.
Speer, H.L. 1973. "The Effect of Arsenic and Other Inhibitors on Early Events During the Germination of
Lettuce Seeds." Plant Physiology 52: 142-146.
Spehar R, Fiandt J, Anderson R, Defoe D. 1980. "Comparative Toxicity of Arsenic Compounds and
Their Accumulation in Invertebrates and Fish." Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 9:53-63.
Welch A, Lico M, Hughes J. 1988. "Arsenic in Groundwater of the Western United States." Ground
Water 26:333-347.
Woolson E.A., Axley J.H., and Kearney P.C. 1973. "The Chemistry and Phytotoxicity of Arsenic in Soils
li. Effects of Time and Phosphorus." Soil Science Society of America Proceedings 37:254-259.
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering H-l 8
-------
Protocol for Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment
Toxicological Profile H-6; Beryllium August 1999
BERYLLIUM
1.0 SUMMARY
In environmental media, beryllium usually exists as beryllium oxide. Beryllium has limited solubility and
mobility in sediment and soil. Exposure routes for aquatic organisms include ingestion and gill uptake.
Beryllium does not bioconcentrate in aquatic organisms. Beryllium is toxic to warm water fish, especially in
soft water. Exposure routes for mammalian species include inhalation. Mammals exposed via inhalation
exhibit pulmonary effects which may last long after exposure ceases.
The following is a profile of the fate of beryllium in soil, surface water and sediment, and the fate after uptake
by biological receptors. Section 2 discusses the environmental fate and transport in soil, surface water and
sediment. Section 3 discusses the fate in ecological receptors.
2.0 FATE IN SOIL, SURFACE WATER, AND SEDIMENT
Beryllium adsorbs to clays at low pH, precipitates as insoluble complexes at higher pH, and has limited
solubility in soil (Callahan et al. 1979). Chemical reactions in soil transform one beryllium compound into
another (ATSDR 1993). Reactions in soil include hydrolysis of soluble salts, anion exchange, and
complexation with ligands such as humic substances (ATSDR 1993).
In water, beryllium is speciated often by hydrolysis in which soluble beryllium salts are hydrolyzed to form
relatively insoluble beryllium hydroxide (Callahan et al. 1979). Beryllium is not volatilized from water
(ATSDR 1993). Beryllium is retained in an insoluble and immobile form in sediment (EPA 1980).
3.0 ECOLOGICAL RECEPTORS
Beryllium uptake from water is low, resulting in low bioconcentration rates (EPA 1980; Callahan etal. 1979).
Biomagnification of beryllium in aquatic food chains does not occur (Fishbein 1981).
In mammals, beryllium compounds are absorbed primarily through the lung (ATSDR 1993). Beryllium is
poorly absorbed from the gastrointestinal tract, and is not absorbed through intact skin to any significant degree
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering H-l 9
-------
Protocol for Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment
Toxicological Profile H-6; Beryllium August 1999
(ATSDR 1993). Beryllium is distributed to the liver, skeleton, tracheobronchial rymphnodes, and blood (Finch
et al. 1990). Beryllium is not biotransformed, but soluble beryllium salts are partially converted to less soluble
forms in the lung (Reeves and Vorwald 1967). Excretion is predominantly via the feces (Finch et al. 1990).
Data regarding the amount of beryllium that reaches the site of action or assimilation efficiency were not
located.
Information was not available on the fate of beryllium in birds.
Beryllium uptake by plants occurs when beryllium is present in the soluble form. The highest levels of
beryllium are found in the roots, with lower levels in the stems and foliage (EPA 1985).
4.0 REFERENCES
ATSDR. 1993. Toxicological Profile for Beryllium. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease
Registry.
Callahan M, Slimak M, Gabel N, et al. 1979. Water-Related Environmental Fate of 129 Priority
Pollutants. EPA-440/4-79-029a. Vol 1. Office of Water Planning and Standards, Washington,
DC. pp. 8-1 to 8-7.
EPA. 1980. Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Beryllium. EPA 440/5-80-024. Office of Water
Regulations and Standards, Washington, DC.
EPA. 1985. Environmental Profiles and Hazard Indices for Constituents of Municipal Sludge:
Beryllium. Office of Water Regulations and Standards. Washington, DC.
Finch G, Mewhinney J, Hoover M, Eidson A, Haley P, Bice D. 1990. "Clearance, Translocation, and
Excretion of Beryllium Following Acute Inhalation of Beryllium Oxide by Beagle Dogs."
Fundam Appl Toxicol 15:231-241.
Fishbein L. 1981. "Sources, Transport and Alterations of Metal Compounds: an Overview. I. Arsenic,
Beryllium, Cadmium, Chromium, and Nickel." Environ Health Perspect 40:43-64.
Reeves A, Vorwald A. 1967. "Beryllium Carcinogenesis. li. Pulmonary Deposition and Clearance of
Inhaled Beryllium Sulfate in the Rat." Cancer Res 27:446-451.
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering H-20
-------
Protocol for Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment
Toxicological Profile H-7; Bis(2-Ethylhexyl)Phthalate August 1999
BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL)PHTHALATE
1.0 SUMMARY
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (BEHP) is a high molecular weight, semi-volatile organic compound. BEHP
adsorbs strongly to soil and sediment, and it may be biodegraded in aerobic environments. It has a low
water solubility and low vapor pressure. It does not undergo significant photolysis, hydrolysis, or
volatilization in soil or water. Receptors may be exposed to BEHP by the oral, inhalation, and dermal
routes. BEHP bioconcentration in aquatic organisms is generally low, therefore significant food chain
biomagnification in upper-trophic-level fish is unlikely. Mammalian and avian wildlife can metabolize and
eliminate BEHP, therefore, it does not biomagnify in these receptors.
The following summarizes the fate of BEHP in surface soil, surface water and sediment; and the fate after
uptake by ecological receptors. Section 2 discusses the environmental fate after released to surface soil,
surface water, and sediment. Section 3 discusses the fate in ecological receptors.
2.0 FATE IN SOIL, SURFACE WATER AND SEDIMENT
BEHP adsorbs strongly to soil and does not undergo significant volatilization or photolysis (HSDB 1997).
Limited information indicates that, under aerobic conditions, degradation in soil may occur (Hutchins et al.
1983; Mathur 1974). However, because BEHP adsorbs strongly to soil, biodegradation is slow (Warns
1987). Biodegradation in anaerobic conditions is slower than under aerobic conditions (Johnson et al.
1984).
BEHP has a low water solubility. In surface water environments, adsorption is the major mechanism
affecting the concentration of BEHP. BEHP strongly adsorbs to suspended solids and sediments (Al-
Omran and Preston 1987; Sullivan et al. 1982; Wolfe et al. 1980). However, in marine environments,
adsorption to sediments may be decreased because BEHP is not as soluble in salt water when compared to
fresh water (Al-Omran and Preston 1987). BEHP may also form complexes with fulvic acid, potentially
increasing its mobility in aquatic environments (Johnson et al. 1977).
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering H-21
-------
Protocol for Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment
Toxicological Profile H-7; Bis(2-Ethylhexyl)Phthalate August 1999
In aquatic environments, biodegradation is the primary route of degradation. BEHP is biodegraded in
aerobic conditions; however, under anaerobic conditions, biodegradation is limited (O'Connor et al. 1989;
Tabek et al. 1981; O'Grady et al. 1985). A half-life of approximately one month, due to microbial
biodegradation has been reported for BEHP in river water (Warns 1987). BEHP does not undergo
significant hydrolysis or photolysis in aquatic environments (Callahan et al. 1979). A hydrolysis half-life
of 2,000 years has been estimated (Callahan et al. 1979); and in water a photolysis half-life of 143 days
has been reported (Wolfe et al. 1980). BEHP does not significantly volatilize from water, with an half-life
of 15 years reported (Callahan et al. 1979).
3.0 FATE IN ECOLOGICAL RECEPTORS
Aquatic receptors may be exposed through ingestion of contaminated food or water, dermal exposure, or in
the case offish, by direct contact of the gills with the surrounding water. Based on its low water solubility
and high soil partition coefficient (ATSDR 1993), dietary uptake is the most significant route of exposure
anticipated for BEHP.
Based on its high log Kow value, BEHP is expected to accumulate in aquatic species (Barrows et al. 1980;
Mayer 1977). Invertebrates will bioconcentrate BEHP from surface water and from sediment. The level
of bioconcentration is receptor-specific, because some invertebrates can metabolize BEHP, while some
have limited capability (Sanders et al. 1973). Under continuous exposure conditions, fish will
bioconcentrate BEHP to levels moderately higher than the concentration in surface water (Mehrle and
Mayer 1976). BEHP has a short half-life in fish, indicating that it is quickly eliminated (Park et al. 1990).
Fish eliminate BEHP by metabolizing it to polar byproducts, which are quickly excreted (Melancon and
Lech 1977; Menzie 1980). Therefore, food chain accumulation and biomagnification of BEHP in aquatic
food webs is not significant (Callahan et al. 1979; Johnson et al. 1977; Wofford et al. 1981).
BEHP is absorbed by mammals following oral (Astill 1989; Rhodes et al. 1986) or dermal exposure
(Melnick et al. 1987), with oral exposure being the route with the greatest absorption efficiency in
laboratory animals. In laboratory animals, small amounts of BEHP have been shown to be absorbed
following dermal exposure (Melnick et al. 1987). Following oral exposure, it has been reported that a
portion of the BEHP is hydrolyzed in the small intestine to 2-ethylhexanol and mono(ethylhexyl)phthalate
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering H-22
-------
Protocol for Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment
Toxicological Profile H-7; Bis(2-Ethylhexyl)Phthalate August 1999
which is subsequently absorbed (Albro, et al. 1982). Following absorption, BEHP is distributed primarily
to the liver and kidney, and in some species, to the testes (Rhodes et al. 1986).
In mammals, BEHP is metabolized by tissue esterases that hydrolyze one of the ester bonds resulting in the
formation of mono(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate and 2-ethylhexanol. Small amounts of
mono(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate may be further hydrolyzed to form phthalic acid; however, the majority
undergoes aliphatic side chain oxidation followed by alpha- or beta-oxidation. These oxidized products
may then be conjugated with glucuronic acid and excreted (Albro 1986). Metabolites of BEHP are
excreted in both the urine and the feces (Astill 1989; Short et al. 1987; Ikeda et al. 1980).
BEHP may evaporate from the leaves of plants. In one study, using a closed terrestrial simulation
chamber, BEHP was applied to the leaves ofSinapis alba. Evaporation rates from the leaves were
<0.8 ng/cm2-hr for a time interval of 0-1 days and <0.5 ng/cm2-hr for a time interval of 8-15 days (Loekke
and Bro-Rasumussen 1981). Uptake of BEHP by plants has also been reported (Overcash et al. 1986).
No data were available on the fate of BEHP in birds.
4.0 REFERENCES
Al-Omran L, Preston M. 1987. "The Interactions of Phthalate Esters with Suspended Particulate Material
in Fresh and Marine Waters." Environ Pollut 46:177-186.
Albro P. 1986. "Absorption, Metabolism and Excretion of Di(2-ethyhexyl)phthalate by Rats and Mice."
Environ Health Perspect 65:293-298.
Albro PW, Hass JR, Peck CC, et al. 1982. "Identification of Metabolites of Di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate in
Urine from the African Green Monkey." Drug Metab Dispos 9:223-225. As cited in ATSDR
1993.
Astill B. 1989. "Metabolism of Dehp: Effects of Prefeeding and Dose Variation, and Comparative Studies
in Rodents and the Cynomolgus Monkey (CMS Studies)." Drug Metab Rev 21:35-53.
ATSDR. 1993. Toxicological Profile for Di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate. Agency for Toxic Substances and
Disease Registry. April.
Barrows M, Petrocelli S, Macel K, et al. 1980. "Bioconcentration and Elimination of Selected Water
Pollutants by Bluegill Sunfish." In: Haque R, ed. Dynamics, Exposure Hazard Assessment of
Toxic Chemicals. Ann Arbor Sci., Ann Arbor, MI. pp. 379-392.
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering H-23
-------
Protocol for Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment
Toxicological Profile H-7; Bis(2-Ethylhexyl)Phthalate August 1999
Callahan M, Slimak M, Gabel N, et al. 1979. Water-Related Environmental Fate of 129 Priority
Pollutants. Vol. II. EPA-440/4-79-029b. U.S. EPA, Office of Water Planning and Standards,
Washington, DC. pp. 94-6 to 94-14.
HSDB. 1997. Hazardous Substances Data Bank.
Hutchins S, Tomson M, Ward C. 1983. "Trace Organic Contamination of Ground Water from Rapid
Infiltration Site: A Laboratory-Field Coordinated Study." Environ Toxicol Chem 2:195-216.
Ikeda G, Sapienza P, Couvillion J, et al. 1980. "Comparative Distribution, Excretion and Metabolism of
Di-(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate in Rats, Dogs and Miniature Pigs." Food Cosmet Toxicol 18:637-642.
As cited in ATSDR 1993.
Johnson B, Heitkamp M, Jones J. 1984. "Environmental and Chemical Factors Influencing the
Biodegradation of Phthalic Acid Esters in Freshwater Sediments." Environ Pollut (Series
6)8:101-118.
Johnson B, Stalling D, Hogan J, et al. 1977. "Dynamics of Phthalic Acid Esters in Aquatic Organisms."
In: Suffet I, ed. Fate of Pollutants in the Air and Water Environments. Part 2. John Wiley, New
York. pp. 283-300.
Loekke H, Bro-Rasumussen F. 1981. "Studies of Mobility of Di-iso-butyl Phthalate (Dibp), Di-n-butyl
Phthalate (Dbp), and Di-(2-ethyl Hexyl) Phthalate (Dehp) by Plant Foliage Treatment in a Closed
Terrestrial Simulation Chamber." Chemosphere 10:1223-1235.
Mathur S. 1974. "Respirometric Evidence of the Utilization of Di-octyl and Di-2-ethylhexyl Phthalate
Plasticizers." J Environ Qual 3:207-209.
Mayer F. 1977. J Fish Res Board Can 33:2610.
Mehrle P, Mayer F. 1976. Trace Substances in Environmental Health, pp.518. As cited in HSDB
1997.
Melancon M, Lech J. 1977. "Metabolism of Di-2-ethylhexyl Phthalate by Subcellular Fractions from
Rainbow Trout Liver." Drug Metab Dispos 5(1):29.
Melnick R, Morrissey R, Tomaszewski K. 1987. "Studies by the National Toxicology Program on
Di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate." Toxicol Ind Health 3:99-118.
Menzie C. 1980. Metabolism of Pesticides. Update III. U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife
Service, p. 453.
O'Connor O, Rivera M, Young L. 1989. "Toxicity and Biodegradation of Phthalic Acid Esters under
Methanogenic Conditions." Environ Toxicol Chem 8:569-576.
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering H-24
-------
Protocol for Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment
Toxicological Profile H-7; Bis(2-Ethylhexyl)Phthalate August 1999
OXrrady D, Howard P, Werner A. 1985. Activated Sludge Biodegradation of 12 Commercial Phthalate
Esters. Report to Chemical Manufacturers Association by Syracuse Research Corporation.
Contract no. PE-17.0-ET-SRC. SRC 11553-03. As cited in ATSDR 1993.
Overcash M, Weber J, Tucker W. 1986. Toxic and Priority Organics in Municipal Sludge Land
Treatment Systems. EPA/600/2-86/010. EPA, ORD, Cincinnati, OH NTIS PB86-50208.
Park, C.W., O. Imamura, and T. Yoshida. 1990. "Uptake, Excretion, and Metabolism of 14C-labeled
Di-2-ethylhexyl Phthalate by Mullet, Mugil cephalus" Bulletin of Korean Fish. Soc. 22:424-428.
Rhodes C, Orton T, Pratt I, Batten P, Bratt H, Jackson S, Elcombe C. 1986. "Comparative
Pharmacokinetics and Subacute Toxicity of Di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate in Rats and Marmosets:
Extrapolation of Effects in Rodents to Man." Environ Health Perspect 65:299-308.
Sanders H, Mayer F, Walsh D. 1973. "Toxicity, Residues Dynamics, and Reproductive Effects of
Phthalate Esters in Aquatic Invertebrates." Environ Res 6:84-90.
Short R, Robinson E, Lington A, Chin A. 1987. "Metabolic and Peroxisome Proliferation Studies with
Di(2-ethylhexylphthalate in Rats and Monkeys." Toxicol Ind Health 3:185-195.
Sullivan K, Atlas E, Giam C. 1982. "Adsorption of Phthalic Acid Esters from Seawater." Environ Sci
Technol 16:428-432.
Tabak H, Quave S, Mashni C, Earth E. 1981. "Biodegradability Studies with Organic Priority Pollutant
Compounds." J Water Pollut Contr Fed 5 3:15 03 -1518.
Warns T. 1987. "Diethylhexylphthalate as a Environmental Contaminant—a Review." Sci Total Environ
66:1-16.
Wofford HW, Wilsey CD, Neff GS, et al. 1981. "Bioaccumulation and Metabolism of Phthalate Esters
by Oysters, Brown Shrimp, and Sheepshead Minnows." Ecotoxicol Environ Safety 5:202-210. As
cited in ATSDR 1993.
Wolfe N, Burns L, Steen W. 1980. "Use of Linear Free Energy Relationships and an Evaluative Model to
Assess the Fate and Transport of Phthalate Esters in the Aquatic Environment." Chemosphere
9:393-402.
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering H-25
-------
Protocol for Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment
Toxicological Profile H-8; Cadmium August 1999
CADMIUM
1.0 SUMMARY
Cadmium exists in the elemental (0+) state or the 2+ valance state in nature. Exposure routes for aquatic
organisms include ingestion and gill uptake. Freshwater biota are the most sensitive organisms to cadmium
exposure, with toxicity inversely proportional to water hardness. Cadmium bioaccumulates in both aquatic
and terrestrial animals, with higher bioconcentration in aquatic organisms. Exposure routes for ecological
mammalian species include ingestion and inhalation. Cadmium interferes with the absorption and
distribution of other metals and causes renal toxicity in vertebrates.
The following is a profile of the fate of cadmium in soil, surface water and sediment, and the fate after
uptake by biological receptors. Section 2 discusses the environmental fate and transport in soil, surface
water and sediment. Section 3 discusses the fate in ecological receptors.
2.0 FATE IN SOIL, SURFACE WATER AND SEDIMENT
Cadmium has a low vapor pressure and is released from soil to air by entrainment with soil particles (EPA
1980; OHM/TADS 1997). Cadmium compounds in soil are stable and are not subject to degradation
(ATSDR 1993). Cadmium compounds can be transformed by precipitation, dissolution, complexation, and
ion exchange (McComish and Ong 1988).
Cadmium compounds in aquatic environments are not affected by photolysis, volatilization, or biological
methylation (Callahan et al. 1979). Precipitation and sorption to mineral surfaces and organic materials
are important removal processes for cadmium compounds (ATSDR 1993). Concentrations of cadmium are
generally higher in sediments than in overlying water (Callahan et al. 1979).
3.0 ECOLOGICAL RECEPTORS
Cadmium bioconcentrates in aquatic organisms, primarily in the liver and kidney (EPA 1985). Cadmium
accumulated from water is slowly excreted, while cadmium accumulated from food is eliminated more
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering H-26
-------
Protocol for Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment
Toxicological Profile H-8; Cadmium August 1999
rapidly (EPA 1985). Metal-binding, proteinaceous, metallothionens appear to protect vertebrates from
deleterious effects of high metal body burdens (Eisler 1985).
Exposure routes in ecological mammalian species include ingestion and inhalation, while dermal absorption
is negligible (Goodman and Oilman 1985). Absorption and retention of cadmium decreases with prolonged
exposure. Cadmium absorption through ingestion is inversely proportional to intake of other metals,
especially iron and calcium (Friberg 1979). Cadmium accumulates primarily in the liver and kidneys
(IARC 1973). Cadmium crosses the placental barrier (Venugopal 1978). Cadmium does not undergo
direct metabolic conversion, but the ionic (+2 valence) form binds to proteins and other molecules
(Nordberg et al. 1985). Absorbed cadmium is excreted very slowly, with urinary and fecal excretion being
approximately equal (Kjellstrom and Nordberg 1978).
Freshwater aquatic species are most sensitive to the toxic effects of cadmium, followed by marine
organisms, birds, and mammals.
4.0 REFERENCES
ATSDR. 1993. Toxicological Profile for Cadmium. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.
Callahan M, Slimak M, Gable N, et al. 1979. Water-Related Fate of 129 Priority Pollutants.
EPA-440/4-79-029a. Vol 1. Office of Water Planning and Standards, Washington, DC. pp. 9-1
to 9-20.
Eisler 1985. Cadmium Hazards to Fish, Wildlife, and Invertebrates: A Synoptic Review. U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the Interior. Biological Report 85 (1.2).
EPA. 1980. Fate of Toxic and Hazardous Materials in the Air Environment. Environmental Sciences
Research Laboratory, Research Triangle Park, NC.
EPA. 1985. Cadmium Contamination of the Environment: an Assessment of Nationwide Risk. EPA
600/8-83/025f Office of Water Regulations and Standards, Washington, DC.
Friberg L. 1979. Handbook of the Toxicity of Metals. As cited in HSDB 1997.
Goodman L, Oilman A, eds. 1985. The Pharmacological Basis of Therapeutics. 7th ed. Macmillan
Publ, New York. pp. 1617-1619.
HSDB. 1997. Hazardous Substance Data Base.
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering H-27
-------
Protocol for Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment
Toxicological Profile H-8; Cadmium August 1999
IARC. 1973. IARC monographs. 2:74-99.
Kjellstrom T, Nordberg G. 1978. "A Kinetic Model of Cadmium Metabolism in the Human Being."
Environ Res 16:248-269.
McComish MF, Ong JH. 1988. "Trace Metals." In: Bodek I, Lyman W, Reehl W, Rosenblatt DH eds.
Environmental Inorganic Chemistry: Properties, Processes, and Estimation Methods.
Pergammon Press, New York. pp. 7.5.1 to 7.5.12. As cited in ATSDR 1993.
Nordberg G, Kjellstrom T, Nordberg M. 1985. "Kinetics and Metabolism." In: Friberg L,Elinder C,
Kjellstrom T, et al., eds. Cadmium and Health: A Toxicological and Epidemiological Appraisal.
Vol 1. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL. pp. 103-178. As cited in ATSDR 1993.
OHM/TADS. 1997. Oil and Hazardous Materials/Technical Assistance Data System.
Venugopal. 1978. Metal Toxicity in Mammals 2. pp. 78, 83. As cited in HSDB 1997.
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering H-28
-------
Protocol for Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment
Toxicological Profile H-9; Chromium August 1999
CHROMIUM
1.0 SUMMARY
Chromium exists primarily in the Cr3+ and Cr6+ valence forms in environmental and biological media. It
exists in soil primarily in the form of insoluble oxides with very limited mobility. In the aquatic phase,
chromium may be in the soluble state or attached to clay-like or organic suspended solids.
Exposure routes for aquatic organisms include ingestion, gill uptake, and dermal absorption.
Bioaccumulation occurs in aquatic receptors; biomagnification does not occur in aquatic food chains.
Exposure routes for ecological mammalian species include ingestion, inhalation, and dermal absorption.
Chromium is not truly metabolized, but undergoes various changes in valence states and binding with
ligands and reducing agents in vivo. Elimination of chromium is slow.
The following is a profile of the fate of chromium in soil, surface water and sediment, and the fate after
uptake by biological receptors. Section 2 discusses the environmental fate and transport in soil, surface
water and sediment. Section 3 discusses the fate in ecological receptors.
2.0 FATE IN SOIL, SURFACE WATER, AND SEDIMENT
In soil, chromium 3+ is readily hydrolyzed and precipitated as chromium hydroxide. It exists in soil
primarily as insoluble oxide with very limited mobility (EPA 1984a, b).
In water, chromium 6+ occurs in the soluble state or as suspended solids adsorbed onto clay-like materials,
organics, or iron oxides. Cr6+ persists in water for long periods of time, but is eventually reduced to
chromium 3+ by organic matter or other reducing agents in water (Gary 1982).
3.0 ECOLOGICAL RECEPTORS
Exposure routes for aquatic organisms include ingestion, gill uptake, and dermal absorption. Chromium
bioconcentrates in aquatic organisms (ATSDR 1993; OHM/TADS 1997; EPA 1985; EPA 1984a). The
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering H-29
-------
Protocol for Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment
Toxicological Profile H-9; Chromium August 1999
biomagnification and toxicity of chromium 3+ is low relative to chromium 6+ because of its low membrane
permeability and noncorrosivity. Chromium is not significantly biomagnified in aquatic food chains.
In vertebrates, chromium 3+ is an essential nutrient needed to produce glucose tolerance factor (GTF),
which is required for regulation of glucose levels (ATSDR 1993). Exposure routes for ecological
mammalian species include ingestion, inhalation, and dermal absorption. Chromium is poorly absorbed
from the gastrointestinal tract after oral exposure, but fasting increases the absorption (Chen et al. 1973).
Absorbed chromium is distributed to various organs including the liver and spleen (Maruyama 1982 as
cited in ATSDR 1993; Witmer et al. 1989, 1991, as cited in ATSDR 1993).
Following inhalation exposure, chromium is distributed to the lung, kidney, spleen, and erythrocytes
(Weber 1983; Baetjer et al. 1959). Following dermal exposure, chromium is readily absorbed and is
distributed to the blood, spleen, bone marrow, lymph glands, urine, and kidneys. Chromium is not truly
metabolized, but undergoes various changes in valence states and binding with ligands and reducing agents
in vivo. Elimination of chromium is slow (Langard et al. 1978).
A large degree of accumulation by aquatic and terrestrial plants and animals in the lower trophic levels has
been documented, however, the mechanism of this accumulation remains unknown.
4.0 REFERENCES
ATSDR. 1993. Toxicological Profile for Chromium. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease
Registry.
Baetjer A, Damron C, Budacz V. 1959. "The Distribution and Retention of Chromium in Men and
Animals." Arch Ind Health 20:136-150.
Gary E. 1982. "Chromium in Air, Soil and Natural." In: Langard S, ed. Topics in Environmental
Health 5: Biological and Environmental Aspects of Chromium. Elsevier Science, New York.
pp. 49-64.
Chen N, Tsai A, Dyer I. 1973. "Effect of Chelating Agents on Chromium Absorption in Rats." JNutr
103:1182-1186.
EPA. 1985. Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Chromium. Office of Water Regulations and Standards.
EPA 440/5-84-029.
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering H-30
-------
Protocol for Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment
Toxicological Profile H-9; Chromium August 1999
EPA. 1984a. Health Assessment Document for Chromium. Research Triangle Park, NC: Environmental
Assessment and Criteria Office. US Environmental Protection Agency. EPA-600/8-81-014F.
EPA. 1984b. Health Assessment Document for Chromium. Final report. As cited in ATSDR 1993.
Langard S, Gundersen N, Tsalev D, Gylseth B. 1978. "Whole Blood Chromium Level and Chromium
Excretion in the Rat after Zinc Chromate Inhalation." Acta Pharmacol et Toxicol 42:142-149.
Maruyama Y. 1982. "The Health Effect of Mice Given Oral Administration of Trivalent and Hexavalent
Chromium over a Long-term." Acta Scholae Med Univ Gifu 31:24-46. As cited in ATSDR 1993.
OHM/TADS. 1997. Oil and Hazardous Materials/Technical Assistance Data System.
Weber H. 1983. "Long-term Study of the Distribution of Soluble Chromate-51 in the Rat after a Single
Intratracheal Administration." J Toxicol Environ Health 11:749-764.
Witmer C, Harris R, Shupack S. 1991. "Oral Bioavailability of Chromium from a Specific Site." Environ
Health Perspect 92:105-110.
Witmer C, Park H-S, Shupack S. 1989. "Mutagenicity and Disposition of Chromium." Sci Total Environ
86:131-148.
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering H-31
-------
Protocol for Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment
Toxicological Profile H-10; Copper August 1999
COPPER
1.0 SUMMARY
Copper binds to soils and sediment. Copper is not biodegraded or transformed. Exposure routes for
aquatic organisms include ingestion, gill uptake, and dermal absorption. In aquatic organisms, exposures
to copper are associated with developmental abnormalities. Copper bioconcentrates in aquatic organisms,
however, biomagnification does not occur. Exposure routes for ecological mammalian species include
ingestion, inhalation, and dermal absorption. Copper is associated with adverse hematological, hepatic,
developmental, immunological, and renal effects in mammals. Copper does not bioaccumulate in
mammals.
The following is a profile of the fate of copper in soil, surface water and sediment; and the fate after uptake
by ecological receptors. Section 2 discusses the environmental fate and transport in soil, surface water and
sediment. Section 3 discusses the fate in ecological receptors.
2.0 FATE IN SOIL, SURFACE WATER AND SEDIMENT
Copper occurs naturally in many animals and plants and is an essential micronutrient. Copper may exist in
two oxidation states: +1 or +2. Copper (+1) is unstable and, in aerated water over the pH range of most
natural waters (6 to 8), oxidizes to the +2 state. In the aquatic environment, the fate of copper is
determined by the formation of complexes, especially with humic substances, and sorption to hydrous metal
oxides, clays, and organic materials. The amount of copper able to remain in solution is directly dependent
on water chemistry, especially pH and temperature, and the concentration of other chemical species
(Callahan et al. 1979; Tyler and McBride 1982; Fuhrer 1986).
The majority of copper released to surface waters settles out or adsorbs to sediments (Harrison and Bishop
1984). Copper is affected by photolysis (Moffett and Zika 1987). Some copper complexes undergo
metabolism however, biotransformation of copper is low (Callahan 1979).
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering H-32
-------
Protocol for Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment
Toxicological Profile H-10; Copper August 1999
3.0 ECOLOGICAL RECEPTORS
Copper bioconcentrates in aquatic organisms. Copper does not biomagnify in aquatic food chains (Heit
and Klusek 1985; Perwack et al. 1980).
Copper is absorbed by mammals following ingestion, inhalation, and dermal exposure (Batsura 1969; Van
Campen and Mitchell 1965; Crampton et al. 1965). Once absorbed, copper is distributed to the liver
(Marceau et al. 1970). Copper is not metabolized. Copper exerts its toxic effects by binding to DNA
(Sideris et al. 1988) or by generating free radicals (EPA 1985). Copper does not bioaccumulate in
mammals and is excreted primarily in the bile (Bush et al. 1955).
Copper is known to inhibit photosynthesis and plant growth. Because copper is an essential micronutrient
for plant nutrition, most adverse effects result from copper deficiency (Adriano 1986).
4.0 REFERENCES
Adriano B.C. 1986. Trace elements in the terrestrial environment. Springer-Verlag. New York.
ATSDR. 1990. Toxicological Profile for Copper. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.
December.
Batsura Y. 1969. "Electron-microscopic investigation of penetration of copper oxide aerosol from the
lungs into the blood and internal organs." Bull Exp Biol Med 68:1175-1178.
Bush J, Mahoney J, Markowitz H, Gubler C, Cartwright G, Wintrobe M. 1955. "Studies on copper
metabolism. XVI. Radioactive copper studies in normal subjects and in patients with
hepatolenticular degeneration." J Clin Invest 34:1766-1778. .
Callahan M, Slimak M, Gabel N, et al. 1979. Water-Related Environmental Fate of 129 Priority
Pollutants. Vol. 1&2. EPA-440/4-79-029. Office of Water Planning and Standards,
Washington, DC. 11-1 to 11-19.
Crampton R, Matthews D, Poisner R. 1965. "Observations on the mechanism of absorption of copper by
the small intestine." J Physiol 178:111-126.
EPA. 1985. Drinking Water Criteria Document for Copper. Final draft. EPA-600/X-84-190-1.
P. VII-1.
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering H-33
-------
Protocol for Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment
Toxicological Profile H-10; Copper August 1999
Fuhrer G. 1986. "Extractable cadmium, mercury, copper, lead, and zinc in the lower Columbia River
estuary, Oregon and Washington." In: U.S. geological survey water-resources investigations
report. U.S. Department of the Interior. 86:4088.
Harrison F, Bishop D. 1984. A review of the impact of copper released into freshwater environments.
Prepared for Division of Health, Siting and Waste Management, Office of Nuclear Regulatory
Research. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC. As cited in ATSDR 1990.
Heit M, Klusek C. 1985. "Trace element concentrations in the dorsal muscle of white suckers and brown
bullheads from two acidic Adirondack lakes." Water Air Soil Pollut 25:87-96.
HSDB. 1997. Hazardous Substance Data Base.
Marceau N, Aspin N, Sass-Kortsak A. 1970. "Absorption of copper 64 from gastrointestinal tract of the
rat." Am JPhysiol 218:377-383.
Moffett J, Zika R. 1987. "Photochemistry of copper complexes in sea water." In: Zika R, Copper W, ed.
ACS Symposium Series, Washington, DC. 327:116-130. As cited in ATSDR 1990.
Perwak J, Bysshe S, Goyer M, et al. 1980. Exposure and risk assessment for copper. EPA
400/4-81-015. EPA, Cincinnati, OH. NTIS PB85-211985. As cited in ATSDR 1990.
Sideris E, Sylva C, Charalambous AT, and Katsaros N. 1988. "Mutagenesis; Carcinogenisis and the
metal elements - DNA interaction." Prog Clin Biol Res 259:13-25.
Tyler L, McBride M. 1982. "Mobility and extractability of cadmium, copper, nickel, and zinc in organic
and mineral soil columns." Soil Sci 134:198-205.
Van Campen D, Mitchell E. 1965. "Absorption of Cu64, Zn66, Mo", and Fe59 from ligated segments of the
rat gastrointestinal tract." J Nutr 86:120-124.
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering H-34
-------
Protocol for Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment
Toxicological Profile H-ll; Crotonaldehyde August 1999
CROTONALDEHYDE
1.0 SUMMARY
Crotonaldehyde is a highly volatile, water-soluble, low molecular weight, organic compound.
Volatilization is the major fate process for crotonaldehyde in surface water and surface soil.
Crotonaldehyde does not bioconcentrate in aquatic organisms and does not accumulate in wildlife.
Therefore, food chain transfer is insignificant.
The following summarizes information about the fate of crotonaldehyde in soil, surface water, and
sediment; and the fate after uptake by ecological receptors. Section 2 discusses the environmental fate and
transport in soil, water and sediment. Section 3 discusses the fate in ecological receptors.
2.0 FATE IN SOIL, SURFACE WATER, AND SEDIMENT
Crotonaldehyde has a low Koc value, therefore it will not strongly adsorb to soils (Irwin 1988 as cited in
ATSDR 1990), and may dissolve in soil water. Crotonaldehyde has a short half-life (Lyman 1982) and it
will quickly volatilize from surface soils.
Crotonaldehyde is completely miscible in water and does not dissolve in oils. However, based on its
volatilization half-life of about 1 to 2 days (Bowmer et al. 1974; Thomas 1982), crotonaldehyde is
expected to quickly volatilize from surface water. The adsorption of crotonaldehyde to suspended solids
and sediment is not expected to be significant because of its low Koc value (Lyman 1982).
Aerobic biodegradation may degrade crotonaldehyde at low concentrations in natural water (Bowmer and
Higgins 1976; Callahan et al. 1979; Tabak et al. 1981). In addition, data suggest that persistence of
crotonaldehyde in aerobic aquatic environments for moderate to long periods of time will not occur
(Jacobson and Smith 1990 as cited in ATSDR 1990).
3.0 FATE IN ECOLOGICAL RECEPTORS
Based on its short volatilization half life and low bioconcentration factor (Bysshe 1982; Hansch
and Leo 1985), crotonaldehyde will not concentrate in aquatic organisms.
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering H-35
-------
Protocol for Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment
Toxicological Profile H-ll; Crotonaldehyde August 1999
Little information was available on the fate of crontonaldehyde in mammals. Because crotonaldehyde has a
low soil adsorption coefficient and strongly volatilizes, inhalation is the primary exposure route for
mammals. Studies have indicated that inhaled crotonaldehyde is quickly absorbed by the upper and lower
respiratory tracts (Egle 1972). Studies also suggest that absorbed crotonaledhyde is quickly metabolized
(Alarcon 1976; Kaye 1973; Patel et al. 1980).
No information was available on the fate of crotonaldehyde in birds or plants.
4.0 REFERENCES
Alarcon R. 1976. "Studies on the in vivo formation of acrolein. 3-hydroxypropylmercapturic acid as an
index of cyclophosphamide (nsc-26271) activation." Cancer Treat Rep 60:327-335.
ATSDR. 1990. Toxicological Profile for Acrolein. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry,
Atlanta, GA. December.
Bowmer K, Higgins M. 1976. "Some aspects of the persistence and fate of acrolein herbicide in water."
Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 5:87-96.
Bowmer K, Lang A, Higgins M, et al. 1974. "Loss of acrolein from water by volatilization and
degradation." Weed Res 14:325-328.
Bysshe S. 1982. "Bioconcentration factor in aquatic organisms." In: Lyman W, Reehl W, Rosenblatt D,
eds. Handbook of Chemical Property Estimation Methods. McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York.
pp 5-1 to 5-30. As cited in ATSDR 1990.
Callahan M, Slimak M, Gabel N, et al. 1979. Water-Related Environmental Fate of 129 Priority
Pollutants. Vol 1 & 2. EPA-440/4-79-029a. USEPA, Washington, DC.
Egle J. 1972. "Retention of inhaled formaldehyde, propionaldehyde, and acrolein in the dog." Arch
Environ Health 25:119-124.
Hansch C, Leo A. 1985. Medchem Project Issue No. 26, Pomona College, Claremont, CA. As cited in
ATSDR 1990.
Irwin K. 1988. Soil Adsorption Coefficient For Acrolein (Magnicide, HHerbicide AndMagnicide, B
Microbiocide). Prepared by SRI International, Menlo Park, CA, for Baker Performance
Chemicals, Houston, TX. SRI Project No. PYU 3562. As cited in ATSDR 1990.
Jacobson B, Smith J. 1990. Aquatic Dissipation for Acrolein. Prepared by Analytical Bio-Chemistry
Laboratories, Inc., Columbia, MI, for Baker Performance Chemicals, Houston, TX. ABC Final
Report No. 37891. As cited in ATSDR 1990.
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering H-36
-------
Protocol for Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment
Toxicological Profile H-ll; Crotonaldehyde August 1999
Kaye C. 1973. "Biosynthesis of mercapturic acids from allyl alcohol, allyl esters, and acrolein." Biochem
J 134:1093-1101.
LymanW. 1982. "Adsorption coefficient for soils and sediments." In: Lyman W, Reehl W, Rosenblatt
D, eds. Handbook of Chemical Property Estimation Methods. McGraw-Hill Book Co., New
York, pp 4-1 to 4-3 3.
Patel J, Wood J, Leibman K. 1980. "The biotransformation of allyl alcohol and acrolein in rat liver and
lung preparations." Drug Metab Dispos 8:305-308.
Tabak H, Quave S, Mashni C, et al. 1981. "Biodegradability studies with organic priority pollutant
compounds." J Water Pollut Cont Fed 5 3:15 03 -1518.
Thomas R. 1982. "Volatilization from water." In: Lyman W, Reehl W, Rosenblatt D, eds. Handbook of
Chemical Property Estimation Methods. McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, pp 15-1 to
15-34.
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering H-37
-------
Protocol for Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment
Toxicological Profile H-12; Cumene (Isopropylbenzene) August 1999
CUMENE (ISOPROPYLBENZENE)
1.0 SUMMARY
1-methylethylbenzene is also called cumene. Cumene and its superoxidized form, cumene hydroperoxide,
are moderately volatile organic compounds. Cumene released to soil and surface water will rapidly
dissipate through biodegradation and volatilization. Routes of exposure for cumene and cumene
hydroperoxide include inhalation, ingestion, and dermal exposure. However, due to its high potential to
volatilize, inhalation is the major exposure route for wildlife receptors. Bioconcentration of cumene is not
likely in aquatic organisms. No information was available regarding the environmental fate of cumene
hydroperoxide in air, water, or soil. However, degradation in soil and water is expected to be very rapid
based on the high reactivity of cumene hydroperoxide with multivalent metal ions and free radicals.
The following is a profile of the fate of cumene and cumene hydroperoxide in soil, surface water and
sediment; and the fate after uptake by ecological receptors. Section 2 discusses the environmental fate and
transport in soil, surface water and sediment. Section 3 discusses the fate in ecological receptors.
2.0 FATE IN SOIL, SURFACE WATER, AND SEDIMENT
The primary removal process for cumene in soil is expected to be through biodegradation in surface soil,
and volatilization (HSDB 1997). Based on its log Koc value (Lyman 1982), cumene that does not volatilize
is expected to strongly adsorb to soil.
The environmental fate of cumene hydroperoxide in soil is unknown. However, based on its high reactivity
with multivalent metal ions and free radicals, degradation in soil is expected to be very rapid (HSDB
1997).
In surface water, cumene is expected to have a relatively short half-life. The primary removal processes
for cumene when released in water are volatilization and biodegradation (GEMS 1986; HSDB 1997).
Based on different water characteristics, volatilization half-lives ranging from a few hours to a few days
have been estimated (GEMS 1986). Cumene is amenable to biodegradation (Price et al. 1974; Kappeler
and Wuhrmann 1978), and biodegrades in 10 to 30 days (Walker and Colwell 1975; Price et al. 1974).
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering H-38
-------
Protocol for Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment
Toxicological Profile H-12; Cumene (Isopropylbenzene) August 1999
The environmental fate of cumene hydroperoxide in water is unknown. However, based on its high
reactivity with multivalent metal ions and free radicals, degradation in water is expected to be very rapid
(HSDB 1997).
3.0 FATE IN ECOLOGICAL RECEPTORS
Cumene is reported to have relatively low bioconcentration in fish (ITC/EPA 1984; Geiger 1986;).
In wildlife, cumene and cumene hydroperoxide enter the body primarily via inhalation and dermal
absorption (Lefaux 1968; HSDB 1997). Cumene is readily absorbed in mammalian systems and oxidized
(Clayton and Clayton 1982). In the event that cumene is ingested, it is readily metabolized and excreted
(Robinson et al. 1955). Long-term exposure by mammals results in cumene distribution to many tissues
and organs (Gorban et al. 1978).
4.0 REFERENCES
Clayton G, Clayton F, eds. 1982. Patty's Industrial Hygiene and Toxicology. 3rd ed. Vol 2. John Wiley
& Sons, New York. pp. 3309-3310.
Geiger. 1986. Acute Tox Org Chem to Minnows. Vol III. p.213. As cited in HSDB 1997.
GEMS. 1986. Graphical Exposure Modeling System. Fate of atmospheric pollution. EPA, Office of
Toxic Substances.
Gorban G, et al. 1978. Gig Sanit 10:113. As cited in HSDB 1997.
HSDB. 1997. Hazardous Substance Data Bank.
ITC/EPA. 1984. Information review #464. Draft. Cumene. pp. 10; 23. As cited in HSDB 1997.
Kappeler T, Wuhrmann K. 1978. "Microbial degradation of the water-soluble fraction of gas oil~II.
Bioassayw with pure strains." Water Res 12:335-342.
Lefaux. 1968. Prac tox of plastics. p. 166. As cited in HSDB 1997.
LymanW. 1982. "Adsorption coefficient for soils and sediments." In: Lyman W, Reehl W, Rosenblatt
D, eds. Handbook of Chemical Property Estimation Methods. McGraw Hill Book Co., New
York. pp. 4-1 to 4-33.
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering H-39
-------
Protocol for Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment
Toxicological Profile H-12; Cumene (Isopropylbenzene) August 1999
Price K, Waggy G, Conway R. 1974. "Brine shrimp bioassay and seawater BOD of petrochemicals."
J Water Pollut Cont Fed 46:63-77.
Robinson D, Smith J, Williams R. 1955. "Studies in detoxication." Biochem J 59:153-159.
Walker J, Colwell R. 1975. J Gen Appl Microbiol 21:27-39.
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering H-40
-------
Protocol for Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment
Toxicological Profile H-13; DDE August 1999
DDE
1.0 SUMMARY
Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane (DDE) is a high molecular weight, chlorinated pesticide. It is also a
congener of dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT), a full-spectrum pesticide. DDE is stable,
accumulates in soil and sediment, and concentrates in fatty tissue. DDE has a low water solubility, and is
adsorbed strongly in soils and sediments. Soil and benthic organisms accumulate DDE from soil and
sediment. Wildlife will accumulate DDE in fatty tissue. Following chronic exposure by wildlife to DDE,
an equilibrium between absorption and excretion may occur; however, concentrations will continue to
increase because accumulation is related to fat content, which increases with age.
The following summarizes the fate of DDE in surface soil, surface water, and sediment; and the fate after
uptake by ecological receptors. Section 2 discusses the environmental fate and transport in soil, water, and
sediment. Section 3 discusses the fate in ecological receptors.
2.0 FATE IN SOIL, SURFACE WATER, AND SEDIMENT
DDE absorbs strongly to soil and is only slightly soluble in water. Under normal environmental conditions,
DDE does not hydrolyze or biodegrade. In soils with low organic content, evaporation from the surface of
soil may be significant (HSDB 1997).
DDE is bioavailable to plants and soil invertebrates despite being highly bound to soil. DDT has been
found to accumulate in grain, maize, and rice plants with the majority located in the roots. Mobilization of
soil-bound DDT by earthworms to more bioavailable forms has also been reported (Verma and Pillai
1991).
DDE is very persistent in the aquatic environment, has a very low water solubility, and is highly soluble in
lipids. Compounds with these characteristics tend to partition to the organic carbon fraction of sediments
and lipid fraction of biota (EPA 1986). DDE absorbs very strongly to sediment, and bioconcentrates in
aquatic organisms (HSDB 1997). In aquatic environments, the small fraction of dissolved DDE may be
photolyzed.
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering H-41
-------
Protocol for Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment
Toxicological Profile H-13; DDE August 1999
3.0 FATE IN ECOLOGICAL RECEPTORS
In general, DDE will bioconcentrate in lower-trophic-level organisms and will accumulate in food chains.
Fish and other aquatic organisms readily take up pesticides, including DDE. Pesticides are taken up by
organisms through the gills, by direct contact with the contaminant in the water, or by ingestion of
contaminated food, sediment, or water. The lipophilic nature and extremely long half life of DDE result in
bioaccumulation when it is present in ambient water. DDE will bioconcentrate in freshwater and marine
plankton, insects, mollusks and other invertebrates, and fish (Oliver and Niimi 1985). When these
organisms are consumed by other receptors, DDE is transferred up food chains. Following absorption,
either through the gills or by ingestion, pesticides appear in the blood and may be distributed to tissues of
all soft organs (Nimmo 1985).
DDE is accumulated to high concentrations in fatty tissues of carnivorous receptors. Elimination and
absorption of DDE may occur simultaneously once an equilibrium is reached. This equilibrium may be
disturbed by high concentrations of DDE, but termination of exposure usually results in elimination of the
stored substance. This elimination occurs in two phases—an initial rapid phase followed by a much slower
gradual loss (Nimmo 1985).
DDE can be introduced into mammals through oral, dermal, and inhalation exposure. Inhalation
absorption is considered minor because the large particle size of DDE precludes entry to the deeper spaces
of the lung; DDE is deposited in the upper respiratory tract and, through mucociliary action, is eventually
swallowed and absorbed in the gastrointestinal tract. Gastrointestinal absorption following oral exposure
has been shown in experimental animals (Hayes 1982). Dermal absorption is limited and the toxic effects
are less than those seen following oral exposure. The highest concentration of DDE and metabolites has
been found in adipose tissue, followed by reproductive organs, liver, kidneys, and brain (EPA 1980).
The metabolism of DDE in animals is similar to that in humans. DDE metabolism and elimination occurs
very slowly. The primary route of elimination is in the urine (Gold and Brunk 1982, 1983, 1984);
however, DDE may also be eliminated through the feces, semen, or breast milk. When exposure ceases,
DDE is slowly eliminated from the body (Murphy 1986). The biological half-life of DDE is 8 years (NAS
1977).
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering H-42
-------
Protocol for Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment
Toxicological Profile H-13; DDE August 1999
Bioaccumulation has been reported in one Alaskan study of two raptor species—the Rough-legged hawk
and the Peregrine falcon. Higher tissue residues were reported in the peregrine falcon than in the
rough-legged hawk. It was believed that these differences may have been due to the different feeding habits
of the birds (Matsumura 1985).
No information was available on the fate of DDE taken up by plants.
4.0 REFERENCES
ATSDR. 1994. Toxicological Profile for p,p '-DDT, p,p '-DDE, andp,p '-DDD. Agency for Toxic
Substances and Disease Registry. April.
EPA. 1980. Ambient Water Quality Criteria for DDT. EPA 440/5-80-038. EPA, Office of Water
Regulations and Standards, Washington, DC. October. 95 PP.
EPA. 1986. Superfund Public Health Evaluation Manual. EPA 540/1-86/000. Office of Emergency and
Remedial Response, Washington, DC.
Gold B, Brunk G. 1982. "Metabolism of 1,1,1-trichloro-2,2-bis(p-chlorophenyl)-ethane and
l,l-dichloro-2,2-bis(p-chlorophenyl)ethane in the mouse." Chem-Biol Interact 41:327-339.
Gold B, Brunk G. 1983. "Metabolism of l,l,-trichloro-2,2-bis(p-chlorophenyl)ethane (DDT),
l,l-dichloro-2,2-bis(p-chlorphenyl)ethane, and l-chloro-2,2-bis(p-chlorophenyl)ethene in the
hamster." Cancer Res 43:2644-2647.
Gold B, Brunk G. 1984. "A mechanistic study of the metabolism of l,l-dichloro-2,2-bis(p-chloropheny
l)ethane (DDD) to 2,2-bis(p-chlorophenyl)acetic acid (DDA)." Biochem Pharmacol 33:979-982.
Hayes W. 1982. "Chlorinated hydrocarbon insecticides." In: Pesticides Studied in Man. Williams and
Wilkins, Baltimore, MD.. pp. 180-195.
HSDB. 1997. Hazardous Substances Data Bank.
Matsumura F. 1985. Toxicology of Insecticides. 2nd ed. Plenum Press, New York.
Murphy S. 1986. "Toxic effects of pesticides." In: Klaassen C, et al., eds. Casarett and Doull's
Toxicology. 3rd ed. MacMillan Publishing Company, New York, pp 519-580.
NAS. 1977. Drinking Water and Health. Safe Drinking Water Committee, National Research Council.
National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC. p. 576.
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering H-43
-------
Protocol for Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment
Toxicological Profile H-13; DDE August 1999
Nimmo D. 1985. "Pesticides." In: Fundamentals of Aquatic Toxicology Methods and Applications.
Hemisphere Publishing Corp. pp. 335-373.
Oliver B, Niimi A. 1985. "Bioconcentration factors of some halogenated organics for rainbow trout:
Limitations in their use for prediction of environmental residues." Environ Sci Technol
19:842-849.
Verma A, Pillai M. 1991. "Bioavailability of soil-bound residues of DDT and HCH to earthworms."
Curr Sci 61(12):840-843. As cited in ATSDR 1994.
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering H-44
-------
Protocol for Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment
Toxicological Profile H-14; Dichlorofluoromethane August 1999
DICHLOROFLUOROMETHANE
1.0 SUMMARY
Dichlorofluoromethane (DCFM) is a highly volatile hydrocarbon. It has a high vapor pressure and low soil
adsorption coefficient; therefore, volatilization is the main fate process for DCFM released to surface soil
and surface water. For terrestrial animals, inhalation is the main exposure route and ingestion is a minor
exposure route. DCFM is not expected to bioconcentrate in fish; however, it can accumulate in tissues of
mammals. DCFM is not expected to move up food chains.
The following information summarizes the fate of dichlorofluoromethane in soil, surface water and
sediment; and the fate after uptake by ecological receptors. Section 2 discusses the environmental fate and
transport in soil, water and sediment. Section 3 discusses the fate in ecological receptors.
2.0 FATE IN SOIL, SURFACE WATER, AND SEDIMENT
If released to soil, DCFM, an inert gas at room temperature, is expected to volatilize into the air due to its
low soil adsorption coefficient (Koc) value (Lyman et al. 1982). Because it does not have a strong affinity
for organic carbon, it may dissolve in soil pore water, thus becoming bioavailable. Photooxidation,
hydrolysis, and biodegradation are not likely to be significant removal processes for DCFM in soil due to
its high volatility and minimal reactivity (HSDB 1997).
Based on its high water solubility and low soil adsorption coefficient, DCFM does not adsorb strongly to
suspended solids or sediment. Based on a reported half-life of less than 1 day, DCFM is expected to
rapidly volatilize from water (Lyman et al. 1982). The hydrolysis of DCFM is reported to be very low
(<0.01 g/1 of water-yr) (Du Pont de Nemours Co. 1980).
3.0 FATE IN ECOLOGICAL RECEPTORS
DCFM is not expected to bioconcentrate in aquatic organisms, based on its low log Kow value (Hansch and
Leo 1985) and low estimated BCF value (Lyman et al. 1982).
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering H-45
-------
Protocol for Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment
Toxicological Profile H-14; Dichlorofluoromethane August 1999
Information was not available on the fate of DCFM in mammals, birds, or plants.
4.0 REFERENCES
Du Pont de Nemours Company. 1980. Freon Product Information B-2. DuPont de Nemours and
Company, Wilmington, DE. As cited in HSDB 1997.
Hansch C, Leo A. 1985. Medchem Project Issue No. 26, Pomona College, Claremont, CA. As cited in
HSDB 1997.
HSDB. 1997. Hazardous Substance Data Bank.
LymanW. 1982. "Adsorption coefficient for soils and sediments." In: Lyman W, Reehl W, Rosenblatt
D, eds. Handbook of Chemical Property Estimation Methods. McGraw-Hill Book Co., New
York, pp 4-1 to 4-3 3.
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering H-46
-------
Protocol for Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment
Toxicological Profile H-15; Dichloroethene, 1,1- August 1999
DICHLOROETHENE, 1,1-
1.0 SUMMARY
1,1-dichloroethene is a hydrophillic, low molecular weight, chlorinated hydrocarbon. It has a short half-life
in the environment, thus acute exposures by ecological receptors are the main concern. Evaporation and
biodegradation are major fate processes for 1,1-dichloroethene in soil, surface water, and sediment. It will
also adsorb to detritus in soils and sediments. Ingestion and respiratory uptake are the significant direct
exposure routes for ecological receptors exposed to 1,1-dichloroethene. Metabolic intermediates are
responsible for the toxicity of 1,1-dichloroethene to upper trophic level receptors. Indirect (food chain)
exposure through ingestion of contaminated food is minor because it is readily biotransformed and
excreted. Hence, the biomagnification potential is very low.
The following is a profile of the fate of 1,1-dichloroethene in soil, surface water and sediment; and the fate
after uptake by ecological receptors. Section 2 discusses the environmental fate and transport in soil, water
and sediment. Section 3 discusses the fate in ecological receptors.
2.0 FATE IN SOIL, SURFACE WATER AND SEDIMENT
If released onto the soil surface, the majority of 1,1-dichloroethene will quickly evaporate. Depending on
the hydrogeology of a site, some may leach into ground water. Based on its high water solubility and small
Koc value, 1,1-dichloroethene may migrate through soils by adsorbing to dissolved organic carbon (EPA
1982). Studies have also documented that 1,1-dichloroethene will biodegrade in soils (HSDB 1997). A
bioaccumulation factor for 1,1-dichloroethene in soil was not reported. However, based on its volatility
and polarity, 1,1-dichloroethene is not expected to significantly bioaccumulate in soil (Callahan et al.
1979).
Evaporation is the major fate of 1,1-dichloroethene in surface water, with a short half-life of 1-6 days.
Only a small quantity of 1,1-dichloroethene will be lost by adsorption onto the sediment (HSDB 1997).
1,1-dichloroethene also quickly biodegrades in aqueous environments. Degradation studies showed that
45-78% was lost in 7 days, when incubated with a wastewater inoculum. A large amount was also lost
due to volatilization (Patterson and Kodukala 1981). In anaerobic environments, 1,1-dichloroethene
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering H-47
-------
Protocol for Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment
Toxicological Profile H-15; Dichloroethene, 1,1- August 1999
degrades (through reductive dechlorination) to vinyl chloride. Anaerobic degredation is slower that aerobic
degradation. Approximately 50-80% of 1,1-dichloroethene underwent degradation in 6 months in a
simulated groundwater environment (Barrio-Lage et al. 1986; Hallen et al. 1986). Photo-oxidation and
hydrolysis are not expected to be significant removal processes for 1,1-dichloroethene (Callahan et al.
1979; Mabey et al. 1981; Cline and Delfmo 1987). A bioaccumulation factor for 1,1-dichloroethene in
water and sediment was not reported. However, based on its volatility and polarity, 1,1-dichloroethene is
not expected to significantly bioaccumulate in water or sediment (Callahan et al. 1979).
3.0 FATE IN ECOLOGICAL RECEPTORS
Aquatic receptors may be directly exposed to dissolved 1,1-dichloroethene through gill respiration or
through ingestion of suspended particles. Because 1,1-dichloroethene generally is not persistent in surface
water, exposures are expected to be of short duration. 1,1-dichloroethene is not expected to bioconcentrate
in fish or aquatic invertebrates, based on its low log Kow value (Tute 1971; HSDB 1997). Due to limited
bioconcentration, 1,1-dichloroethene is not expected to biomagnifiy in terrestrial or aquatic food chains
(Barrio-Lage et al. 1986; Wilson et al. 1986).
1,1-dichloroethene is readily absorbed following inhalation (Dallas et al. 1983; McKenna et al. 1978a) or
oral exposure, and is rapidly distributed in the body. Following inhalation exposure to 1,1-dichloroethene,
uptake is dependent upon the duration of the exposure and the dose. Until equilibrium is reached, as
exposure concentration increases, the percentage of 1,1-dichloroethene uptake decreases. Studies show that
2 minutes after inhalation exposure, substantial amounts of 1,1-dichloroethene were found in the venous
blood of rats. Concentrations of 150 ppm or less of 1,1-dichloroethene showed a linear cumulative uptake.
However, at 300 ppm steady state was not achieved, indicating saturation at high concentrations (Dallas et
al. 1983).
Following oral administration of 1,1-dichloroethene in corn oil, rapid and almost complete absorption from
the gastrointestinal tract of rats and mice was observed (Jones and Hathway 1978a; Putcha et al. 1986).
Recovery of radio-labeled 1,1-dichloroethene was 43.55, 53.88, and 42.11%, 72 hours following oral
administrations of 0.5, 5.0, and 50 mg/kg, respectively, to rats (Reichert et al. 1979). Also, 14.9-22.6%
1,1 dichloroethene was recovered in expired air, 42.11-53.88% in urine, 7.65-15.74% in feces, 2.77-5.57%
in the carcass, and 5.91-9.8% in the cage rinse (Reichert et al. 1979).
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering H-48
-------
Protocol for Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment
Toxicological Profile H-15; Dichloroethene, 1,1- August 1999
1,1-dichloroethene is distributed mainly to the liver and kidneys following inhalation or oral exposure. In
rodents, the highest levels of 1,1-dichloroethene are found in the liver and kidneys. Rats that were fasted
and exposed to 1,1-dichloroethene showed significantly greater tissue burden than nonfasted rats (McKenna
et al. 1978b; Jones and Hathway 1978b).
1,1-dichloroethene does not appear to be stored or accumulated in tissues, but is metabolized by the hepatic
microsomal cytochrome P-450 system. This reaction produces reactive intermediates responsible for the
toxicity of 1,1-dichloroethene. These reactive intermediates are detoxified through hydroxylation or
conjugation with GSH, which is the primary biotransformation pathway in the rat. Excretion of
unmetabolized 1,1-dichloroethene is through exhaled air, and metabolites are excreted via urine and exhaled
air (Fielder et al. 1985; ATSDR 1994).
Avian receptors may be directly exposed to 1,1-dichloroethene through the ingestion of surface water and
soil. Absorption studies specific to avian species were not identified in the literature.
Data on the fate of 1,1-dichloroethene in plant receptors were not identified in the literature. However,
based on the low probability of significant bioaccumulation, uptake by plant receptors is expected to be
minimal.
4.0 REFERENCES
ATSDR. 1994. Toxicological Profile for 1,1-Dichloroethene. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease
Registry.
Barrio-Lage G, Parsons F, Nassar R, Lorenzo P. 1986. "Sequential Dehalogenation of Chlorinated
Ethenes." Environ Sci Technol 20:96-99.
Callahan M, Slimak M, Gabel N, et al. 1979. Water-Related Environmental Fate of 129 Priority
Pollutants. Vol 2. EPA-440/4-79-029b. USEPA, Washington, DC. pp. 50-1 to 50-10.
Cline P, Delfmo J. 1987. Am Chem Soc Div Environ Chem preprint. New Orleans, LA. 27:577-579.
As cited in HSDB 1997.
Dallas C, Weir R, Feldman S, et al. 1983. "The Uptake and Disposition of 1,1-dichloroethene in Rats
During Inhalation Exposure." Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 68:140-151.
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering H-49
-------
Protocol for Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment
Toxicological Profile H-15; Dichloroethene, 1,1- August 1999
EPA. 1982. Aquatic Fate Process Data for Organic Priority Pollutants. Washington, DC: US
Environmental Protection Agency. Code of Federal Regulations 40 CFR 61.65.
Fielder R, Dale E, Williams S. 1985. Toxicity Review 13: Vinylidene Chloride. Her Majesty's
Stationary Office, London, England. As cited in ATSDR 1994.
Hallen R, et al. 1986. "Am Chem Soc Div Environ Chem, 26th Natl Mtg." 26:344-346. As cited in
HSDB 1997.
HSDB 1997. Hazardous Substance Data Base. June 1997.
Jones B, Hathway D. 1978a. "Differences in Metabolism of Vinylidene Chloride Between Mice and
Rats." BrJ Cancer 37:411-417.
Jones B, Hathway D. 1978b. "The Biological Fate of Vinylidene Chloride in Rats." Chem-Biol Interact
20:27-41.
Mabey W, Smith J, Podoll R, et al. 1981. Aquatic Fate Process Data for Organic Priority Pollutants.
EPA 440/4-81-014. EPA Office of Water Regulations and Standards, Washington, DC.
McKenna M, Zempel J, Madrid E, et al. 1978a. "Metabolism and Pharmacokinetic Profile of Vinylidene
Chloride in Rats Following Oral Administration." Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 45:821-835.
McKenna M, Zempel J, Madrid E, et al. 1978b. "The Pharmacokinetics of [14c]vinylidene Chloride in
Rats Following Inhalation Exposure." Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 45:599-610.
Patterson J, Kodukala P. 1981. "Biodegradation of Hazardous Organic Pollutants." Chem Eng Prog
77:48-55.
Putcha L, Bruchner J, D'Soyza R, et al. 1986. "Toxicokinetics and Bioavailability of Oral and
Intravenous 1,1-dichloroethene." Fundam Appl Toxicol 6:240-250.
Reichert D, Werner H, Metzler M, et al. 1979. "Molecular Mechanism of 1,1-dichloroethene Toxicity:
Excreted Metabolites Reveal Different Pathways of Reactive Intermediates." Arch Toxicol
42:159-169.
TuteM. 1971. Adv Drug Res 6:1-77. As cited in HSDB 1997.
Wilson B, Smith G, Rees J. 1986. "Biotransformations of Selected Alkylbenzenes and Halogenated
Aliphatic Hydrocarbons in Methanogenic Acquifer Material; a Microcosm Study." Environ Sci
Technol 20:997-1002.
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering H-50
-------
Protocol for Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment
Toxicological Profile H-16; Dinitrotoluenes August 1999
DINITROTOLUENES
1.0 SUMMARY
2,4-dinitrotoluene and 2,6-dinitrotoluene are semi-volatile, nitrogen-substituted, organic compounds. They
are moderately persistent in soil and have short half-lives in aqueous environments due to high rates of
photolysis. Evidence also indicates that they are biodegraded in soil, surface waters and sediment. For
wildlife, all routes of exposure are significant. Dinitrotoluenes are not expected to bioconcentrate in
aquatic organisms and bioaccumulation is not expected in animal tissues. The major target organs
following exposure to 2,4-dinitrotoluene are the liver and kidney. 2,6-dinitrotoluene is distributed to
various organs following uptake. Evidence indicates that upper-trophic-level receptors rapidly metabolize
2,4-dinitrotoluene to innocuous by-products that are readily excreted. 2-6-dinitrotoluene is metabolized to
a highly electrophilic ion that is capable of reacting with DNA and other biological nucleophiles.
The following summarizes the fate of 2,4-dinitrotoluene and 2,6-dinitrotoluene in soil, surface water and
sediment; and the fate after uptake by ecological receptors. Section 2 discusses the environmental fate and
transport in soil, water and sediment. Section 3 discusses the fate in ecological receptors.
2.0 FATE IN SOIL, SURFACE WATER, AND SEDIMENT
2,4-dinitrotoluene is expected to be slightly mobile in soil, based on its estimated Koc value (Lyman et al
1982; Kenaga 1980). Information on the biodegradation of 2,4-dinitrotoluene in soil was not located;
however, biodegradation is thought to occur in both aerobic and anaerobic zones of soil, based on aqueous
biodegradation experiments (HSDB 1997).
2,6-dinitrotoluene readily biodegrades when released into the soil. Half-lives of 73 and 92 days were
reported, when tested in two soils, with degradation rates of 0.5 to 0.7 mg/kg/day reported (Loehr 1989).
Based on the calculated Koc value (Lyman et al. 1982) and the estimated log Kow value (GEMS 1984), 2,6-
dinitrotoluene is expected to be slightly mobile in soil (Kenaga 1980).
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering H-51
-------
Protocol for Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment
Toxicological Profile H-16; Dinitrotoluenes August 1999
Volatilization of dinitrotoluenes from surface soil is expected to be negligible due to very low vapor
pressures of these compounds (Banerjee et al. 1990). Hydrolysis is not a significant removal process for
nitroaromatic hydrocarbons (Lyman et al. 1982).
2,4-dinitrotoluene and 2,6-dinitrotoluene have a slight tendency to sorb to sediments, suspended solids, and
biota, based on measured log Kow values (GEMS 1984). In surface water, photolysis is the primary
removal process for 2,4-dinitrotoluene and 2,6-dinitrotoluene. Reported half-lives range from a few
minutes to a few hours (Spanggord et al. 1980; Zepp et al. 1984). Hydrolysis is not a removal process for
nitroaromatics (Lyman et al. 1982).
Dinitrotoluenes do not readily volatilize in surface water. Volatilization half-lives of 2-4 dinitrotoluene
from distilled water were 248 and 133 hours, which correspond to the volatilization rate constants of
0.0028 and 0.0052/hour (Smith et al. 1981). Davis et al. (1981), reported a 0.3 percent loss of 2,6-
dinitrotoluene in a model waste stabilization pond. Empirical evidence indicates that dinitrotoluenes are
expected to biodegrade in surface waters (Uchimura and Kido 1987; Umeda et al. 1985; Kondo et al. 1988;
Tabaketal. 1981).
3.0 FATE IN ECOLOGICAL RECEPTORS
Aquatic organisms take up 2,4-dinitrotoluene, however, it does not bioconcentrate because it is readily
eliminated. Measured BCF values for dinitrotoluenes are low indicating that bioconcentration does not
occur in aquatic organisms (Deneer et al. 1987; EPA 1980).
Evidence indicates that once it is ingested by wildlife, 2,4-dinitrotoluene is rapidly absorbed into the
bloodstream (Rickert et al. 1983). 2,4-dinitrotoluene is quickly distributed, with the highest concentrations
in the liver and kidney (Rickert and Long 1981). The metabolism of 2,4-dinitrotoluene occurs in the liver
and the intestine (via intestinal microflora), and it is quickly eliminated through the urine and feces (Lee et
al. 1978; Long and Rickert 1982; Rickert and Long 1981; Schut et al. 1983). Based on the low log P value
for 2,4-dinitrotoluene, bioaccumulation in animal tissues is not expected (Callahan et al. 1979; Mabey et
al. 1981).
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering H-52
-------
Protocol for Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment
Toxicological Profile H-16; Dinitrotoluenes August 1999
Dinitrotoluenes are expected to be readily taken up by plants, based on structural analogies with
1,3-dinitrobenzene and p-nitrotoluene (McFarlane et al. 1987; Nolt 1988).
4.0 REFERENCES
ATSDR. 1989. Toxicological Profile for 2,4-Dinitrotoluene, 2,6-Dinitrotoluene. Agency for
Toxicological Substances and Disease Registry.
Banerjee S, et al. 1990. Chemosphere 21:1173-1180. As cited in HSDB 1997.
Callahan M, Slimak M, Gabel N, et al. 1979. Water-Related Environmental Fate of 129 Priority
Pollutants. Vol2. EPA-440/4-79-029b. USEPA, Washington, DC.. PP. 81-1 TO 82-8.
Davis E, etal. 1981. Water Res 15:1125-1127. As cited in HSDB 1997.
Deneer J, et al. 1987. Aquatic Toxicol 10:115-129. As cited in HSDB 1997.
EPA. 1980. Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Dinitrotoluene. EPA 440/5-80-045. Office of Water
Regulations and Standards, Washington, DC. P. C-6.
GEMS. 1984. Graphical Exposure Modeling System. CLOGP3. Office of Toxic Substances. As cited
in HSDB 1997.
HSDB. 1997. Hazardous Substances Data Bank.
Kenaga E. 1980. "Predicted bioconcentration factors and soil sorption coefficients of pesticides and other
chemicals." Ecotoxicol Environ Safety 4:26-38. As cited in HSDB 1997.
Kondo M, et al. 1988. Eisei Kagaku 34:115-122. As cited in HSDB 1997.
Lee C, Ellis H, Kowalski J, et al. 1978. Mammalian Toxicity of Munitions Compounds. Phase II.
Effects of Multiple Doses. Part II: 2,4-Dinitrotoluene. DAMD 17-74-C-4073. Midwest
Research Institute, Kansas City, MO. As cited in ATSDR 1989.
LoehrR. 1989. Treatability Potential for EPA Listed Hazardous Wastes in Soil. EPA 600/2-89-011.
Robert S. Kerr Environ Res Lab, Ada, OK. As cited in HSDB 1997.
Long L, Rickert D. 1982. "Metabolism and Excretion of 2,6-dinitro-[14c]toluene in Vivo and in Isolated
Perfused Rat Livers." Drug Metab Dispos 10:455-458. As cited in ATSDR 1989.
LymanW, Reehl W, Rosenblatt D, eds. 1982. Handbook of 'Chemical Property Estimation Methods.
McGraw-Hill, New York.
Mabey W, Smith J, Podoll R, et al. 1982. Aquatic Fate Process Data for Organic Priority Pollutants.
EPA 440/4-81-014. EPA Office of Water Regulations and Standards, Washington, DC.
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering H-53
-------
Protocol for Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment
Toxicological Profile H-16; Dinitrotoluenes August 1999
McFarlane C, Nolt C, Wickliff C, et al. 1987. "The uptake, distribution and metabolism of four organic
chemicals by soybean plants and barley roots." Environ Toxicol Chem 6:874-856. As cited in
ATSDR 1989.
Nolt C. 1988. Uptake and Translocation of Six Organic Chemicals in a Newly-Designed Plant Exposure
System and Evaluation of Plant Uptake Aspects of the Prebiologic Screen for Ecotoxicologic
Effects. Master's Thesis. Cornell Univ., Ithaca, NY. As cited in ATSDR 1989.
Rickert D, Long R. 1981. "Metabolism and excretion of 2,4-dinitrotoluene in male and female
Fischer-344 rats after different doses." Drug Metab Dispos 9(3):226-232. As cited in ATSDR
1989.
Rickert D, Schnell S, Long R. 1983. "Hepatic macromolecular covalent binding and intestinal disposition
of 2,4-(14C)dinitrotoluene." J Toxicol Environ Health 11:555-568. As cited in ATSDR 1989.
SchutH, etal. 1983. J Toxicol Environ Health 12(4-6):659-670. As cited in ATSDR 1989.
Smith J, etal. 1981. Chemosphere 10:281-289. As cited in HSDB 1997.
Spanggord R, et al. 1980. Environmental Fate Studies on Certain Munitions Wastewater Constituents.
NTIS AD A099256.
Tabak H, Quave S, Mashni C, et al. 1981. "Biodegradability studies with organic priority pollutant
compounds." J Water Pollut Cont Fed 5 3:15 03 -1518..
Uchimura Y, Kido K. 1987. Kogai to Taisaku 23:1379-1384. As cited in HSDB 1997.
Umeda H, et al. 1985. Hyogo-Ken Kogai Kenkysho Kenkyu Hokoku 17:76-82.
ZeppR, etal. 1984. "Dynamics of pollutant photoreactions in the hydrosphere." Fresenius Z Anal Chem
319:119-125.
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering H-54
-------
Protocol for Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment
Toxicological Profile H-17; Di(N)octylphthalate August 1999
DI(N)OCTYLPHTHALATE
1.0 SUMMARY
Di(n)octylphthalate (DOP) is a high-molecular-weight, semi-volatile compound. It has a low water
solubility and low vapor pressure, therefore it adsorbs strongly to the soil and sediment. Biodegradation is
possible under aerobic conditions, but is slow under anaerobic conditions. DOP also undergoes hydrolysis
in water. DOP may be absorbed following oral (dietary), inhalation, or dermal exposures, however dietary
exposure is the most significant route of exposure. DOP may accumulate to increasing concentrations in
algae, aquatic invertebrates, and fish, and accumulate to low levels in terrestrial wildlife. However, higher-
trophic-level receptors will quickly metabolize it, therefore it does not biomagnify in food chains.
The following is a profile of the fate of DOP in soil, surface water and sediment; and the fate after uptake
by ecological receptors. Section 2 discusses the environmental fate and transport in soil, water and
sediment. Section 3 discusses the fate in ecological receptors.
2.0 FATE IN SOIL, SURFACE WATER AND SEDIMENT
DOP has a very high Koc value; therefore, it should adsorb strongly and remain immobile in soil (Wolf et
al. 1980). Degradation in soil is slow, especially under anaerobic conditions (HSDB 1997).
Following release into aquatic environments, DOP adsorbs strongly to sediments and particulate material
suspended in the water column (HSDB 1997). DOP has a moderate half-life in aquatic environments;
losses are due to both volatilization and microbial degradation. Slow degradation is possible in aerobic
conditions; however, DOP is resistant to anaerobic degradation (HSDB 1997). Approximately 50%
degradation was observed within 5 days in a model terrestrial-aquatic ecosystem, with the monoester and
phthalic acids the primary degradation products (Sanborn et al. 1975). DOP may bioconcentrate in aquatic
organisms (Sanborn et al. 1975).
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering H-55
-------
Protocol for Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment
Toxicological Profile H-17; Di(N)octylphthalate August 1999
3.0 FATE IN ECOLOGICAL RECEPTORS
Sanborn et al. (1975) evaluated the bioconcentration and trophic transfer of DOP in model aquatic
ecosystems containing phytoplankton, zooplankton, snails, insects, and fish. Evidence showed that the
algae and invertebrates bioconcentrated DOP. Fish accumulated DOP to low levels, indicating that these
receptors readily eliminate DOP.
DOP may be absorbed following oral, inhalation or dermal exposures (EPA 1980a); however, due to low
volatility of DOP, inhalation is not a significant route of exposure (Meditext 1997). Following absorption,
DOP is rapidly distributed with the highest amounts concentrated in the liver, kidney and bile (EPA
1980b). DOP is rapidly metabolized to water-soluble derivatives (Gosselin et al. 1984) prior to and after
absorption (EPA 1980b). These metabolites are then excreted through the urine and the bile (Ikeda et al.
1978).
No information was available on the fate of DOP in birds or plants.
4.0 REFERENCES
EPA. 1980a. Ambient Water Quality Criteria Document for Phthalate Esters. EPA 440/5-80-067.
Office of Water Regulations and Standards, Washington, DC. pp. B-8; C-12. As cited in HSDB
1997.
EPA. 1980b. Atlas Document for Phthalate Esters. EPA/ECAO. XI-2; XI-5; XI-21. As cited in HSDB
1997.
Gosselin R, Smith R, Hodge H. 1984. Clinical Toxicology of Commercial Products. Vol II. 5th ed.
Williams and Wilkins, Baltimore, MD. p. 204. As cited in ATSDR 1993, Meditext 1997, and
ATSDR 1993.
HSDB. 1997. Hazardous Substances Data Bank.
Ikeda G, Sapienza P, Couvillion J, Farber T, Smith C, Inskeep P, Marks E, Cerra F, van Loon E. 1978.
"Distribution and excretion of two phthalate esters in rats, dogs and miniature pigs." Fd Cosmet
Toxicol 16:409-413. As cited in HSDB 1997.
Meditext. 1997. Medical Management Data Base.
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering H-56
-------
Protocol for Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment
Toxicological Profile H-17; Di(N)octylphthalate August 1999
Sanborn J, Metcalf R, Yu C-C, Lu P-Y. 1975. "Plasticizers in the environment: The fate of di-n-octyl
phthalate (DOP) in two model ecosystems and uptake and metabolism of DOP by aquatic
organisms." Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 3:244-255.
Wolfe N, Burns L, Steen W. 1980. "Use of linear free energy relationships and an evaluative model to
assess the fate and transport of phthalate esters in the aquatic environment." Chemosphere
9:393-02.
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering H-57
-------
Protocol for Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment
Toxicological Profile H-18; Dioxane, 1,4- August 1999
DIOXANE, 1,4-
1.0 SUMMARY
1,4-dioxane is a highly water-soluble, moderately volatile organic compound. In soil, surface water, and
sediment environments, 1,4-dioxane is not persistent because it is volatile and because it has a low affinity
for adsorption to organic carbon. It has a low potential to bioconcentrate in aquatic receptors. Wildlife
can be exposed to 1,4-dioxane through ingestion, inhalation, and dermal contact. It does not bioaccumulate
in food chains.
The following is a profile of the fate of 1,4-dioxane in soil, surface water and sediment; and the fate after
uptake by ecological receptors. Section 2 discusses the environmental fate and transport in soil, water and
sediment. Section 3 discusses the fate in ecological receptors.
2.0 FATE IN SOIL, SURFACE WATER AND SEDIMENT
Based on an estimated log Koc value (Lyman et al. 1982), 1,4-dioxane is expected to have a low affinity for
organic carbon in soil, thus having a high potential to leach out of surface soils (HSDB 1997). This
reduces the exposure potential for vegetation (through root uptake) and soil invertebrates. In addition,
because of its moderate vapor pressure, volatilization is expected to be a significant fate process in soil
(Verschueren 1983). Based on the volatility of 1,4-dioxane, biaccumulation is not considered to be a
significant fate process in soil.
1,4-dioxane is infinitely soluble in water (Lange 1967). However, because 1,4-dioxane has a moderate
vapor pressure at 25 °C, volatilazation from water is a significant removal process (Verschueren 1983;
HSDB 1997). 1,4-dioxane is not expected to adsorb to suspended sediments or detritus due to the
estimated Koc value (HSDB 1997). Based on its high volatility in water and low absorption to sediments,
bioaccumulation is not expected to be a significant fate process for 1,4-dioxane in water and sediment.
3.0 FATE IN ECOLOGICAL RECEPTORS
Because it is highly soluble in water, aquatic receptors can take up 1,4-dioxane through direct exposure,
however, it is not expected to bioconcentrate based on its low Kow value (Hansch and Leo 1985).
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering H-58
-------
Protocol for Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment
Toxicological Profile H-18; Dioxane, 1,4- August 1999
Information suggests that 1,4-dioxane has a low potential to be biodegraded in aerobic aquatic
environments. Biodegradation experiments with activated sludge showed a negligible biochemical oxygen
demand for 1,4-dioxane, therefore, classifying 1,4-dioxane as relatively undegradable (Mills 1954;
Alexander 1973; Heukelekian and Rand 1955; Fincher and Payne 1962; Lyman et al. 1982; Kawasaki
1980).
No information was available on the fate of 1,4-dioxane after uptake by aquatic receptors. However, its
low bioconcentration factor suggests that 1,4-dioxane is readily eliminated after uptake (Hansch 1985).
The metabolism of 1,4-dioxane in rats has been studied, and information indicates that at high daily doses,
1,4-dioxane can induce its own metabolism. There is an apparent threshold of toxic effects of 1,4-dioxane
that coincides with saturation of the metabolic pathway for its detoxification (Young et al. 1978).
1,4-dioxane is highly toxic via all routes of exposure (OHM/TADS 1997), and is readily absorbed through
intact skin (Gosselin 1984). Once 1,4-dioxane enters the body, it is distributed throughout the tissues,
including the liver, kidney, spleen, lung, colon, and skeletal muscle (Woo et al. 1977). The excretion of
1,4-dioxane is primarily through the urine, in which approximately 85% of excreted material is in the form
of beta-hydroxyethoxyacetic acid, a metabolic byproduct. The remaining material is excreted as
unchanged dioxane (Braun & Young 1977).
Information was not available on the fate of 1,4-dioxane in birds or plants.
4.0 REFERENCES
Alexander M. 1973. "Nonbiodegradable and Other Recalcitrant Molecules." Biotechnol Bioeng
15:611-647.
Braun W, Young J. 1977. "Identification of B-hydroxyethoxyacetic Acid as the Major Urinary Metabolite
of 1,4-dioxane in the Rat." Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 39:33-38.
Fincher E, Payne W. 1962. "Bacterial Utilization of Ether Glycols." Appl Microbiol 10:542-547.
Gosselin R, Smith R, Hodge H. 1984. Clinical Toxicology of Commercial Products. 5th ed. Vol II.
Williams and Wilkins, Baltimore, MD. p. 408.
Hansch C, Leo A. 1985. Medchem Project Issue No. 26, Pomona College, Claremont, CA. As cited in
ATSDR 1990.
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering H-59
-------
Protocol for Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment
Toxicological Profile H-18; Dioxane, 1,4- August 1999
Heukelekian H, Rand M. 1955. "Biochemical Oxygen Demand of Pure Organic Compounds." J Water
Pollut Contr Assoc 27:1040-1053.
HSDB. 1997. Hazardous Substances Data Bank. June 1997.
Kawasaki M. 1980. "Experiences with the Test Scheme under the Chemical Control Law of Japan: an
Approach to Structure-activity Correlations." Ecotox Environ Safety 4:444-454.
LangeN. 1967. Handbook of Chemistry. 10th ed. McGraw-Hill, New York. p. 523.
LymanW, ReehlW, Rosenblatt D, eds.. 1982. Handbook oj'Chemical Property Estimation Methods.
McGraw-Hill, New York. pp. 7-4; 9-64.
Mills E, Stack V. 1954. Proceedings 8th Ind Waste Conf Ext Ser. 83:492-517.
OHM/TADS. 1997. Oil and Hazardous Materials/Technical Assistance Data System. June 1997.
Verschueren K. 1983. Handbook oj'Environmental Data on Organic Chemicals. 2nd ed. VanNostrand
Reinhold, New York. pp. 578-580.
Woo Y-T, Argus M, Arcos J. 1977. "Tissue and Subcellular Distribution of 3h-dioxane in the Rat and
Apparent Lack of Microsome-catalyzed Covalent Binding in the Target Tissue." Life Sci
21(10):1447-1456.
Young J, Braun w, Gehring P. 1978. "Dose-dependent Fate of 1,4-dioxane in Rats." J Toxicol Enivorn
Health 4(5-6): 709-726.
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering H-60
-------
Protocol for Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment
Toxicological Profile H-19; Dibenzo-p-Dioxins August 1999
DIBENZO-p-DIOXINS
1.0 SUMMARY
Dibenzo-p-dioxins (dioxins) are a group of high molecular weight chlorinated compounds that are highly
soluble in fatty tissues. The congener tetrachlorodibenzodioxin (TCDD) is commonly used as a surrogate
for estimating the fate of dioxins in the environment and in ecological receptors. Dioxins have low water
solubilities and adsorb strongly to organic carbon in sediment and soil. Dioxins bioaccumulate in aquatic
organisms and wildlife, and biomagnify in food chains because of their affinity for lipids. Biomagnification
of TCDD appears to be significant between fish and fish-eating birds, but not between fish and their food
(other fish).
The following is a profile of the fate of dioxins in soil, surface water, and sediment; and the fate after
uptake by ecological receptors. Section 2 discusses the environmental fate and transport in soil, water, and
sediment. Section 3 discusses the fate in ecological receptors.
2.0 FATE IN SOIL, SURFACE WATER, AND SEDIMENT
TCDD adsorbs strongly to soils (HSDB 1997). TCDD in soil may be susceptible to photodegradation.
Volatilization from soil surfaces during warm months may be a major mechanism by which TCDD is
removed from soil. Various biological screening studies have demonstrated that TCDD is generally
resistant to biodegradation. The half-life of TCDD in surface soil varies from less than 1 year to 3 years.
Half-lives in deeper soils may be as long as 12 years (EPA 1993).
TCDD is very persistent in the aquatic environment, has a very low aqueous solubility, and is highly
soluble in lipids. Aquatic sediments are an important reservoir for dioxins, and may be the ultimate
environmental sink for all global releases of TCDD (HSDB 1997). TCDD may be removed from water
through either photolysis or volatilization. The photolysis half-life at surface level has been estimated to
range from 21 hours in summer to 118 hours in winter (HSDB 1997). These rates increase significantly
with increasing water depths. Therefore, many bottom sediments may not be susceptible to significant
photodegradation. The volatilization half-life from the water column of an environmental pond has been
estimated to be 46 days, and may be as high as 50 years if adjusted for the effects of sediment adsorption.
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering H-61
-------
Protocol for Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment
Toxicological Profile H-19; Dibenzo-p-Dioxins August 1999
Various biological screening studies have demonstrated that TCDD is generally resistant to biodegradation.
The persistent half-life of TCDD in lakes has been estimated to be in excess of 1.5 years (HSDB 1997).
3.0 FATE IN ECOLOGICAL RECEPTORS
Ecological exposures to TCDD can occur via ingestion of contaminated soils, water, and sediment, dermal
exposure to soil and water, and to a much lesser extent via inhalation of airborne vapors and particulates.
It should be noted that, unlike toxicokinetic and toxicodynamic studies where exposures are closely
controlled, environmental exposure to dioxin occurs as a complex mixture of congeners, including TCDD.
It is generally understood that persistent, lipophilic compounds accumulate in fish in proportion to the lipid
content and age of each animal (Gutenmann et al. 1992). Also, it has been demonstrated that the influence
of biotransformation on bioaccumulation increases as a function of the Kow of the compound (de Wolf et al.
1992). The dependence of metabolic rate on TCDD dose and length of exposure is not well understood,
but time-course studies of P-450 induction in rainbow trout by (3-napthoflavone demonstrate that different
toxicity responses can occur over time depending on the frequency and duration of exposure (Zhang et al.
1990).
Dioxins readily bioconcentrate in aquatic organisms (Branson et al. 1985; Mehrle et al. 1988; Cook et al.
1991; and Schmieder et al. 1992). Evidence indicates that dioxins will distribute in fish tissues in
proportion to the total lipid content of the tissues (Cook et al 1993). Dioxins are metabolized and
eliminated very slowly from fish (Kleeman et al. 1986a,b; Opperhuizen and Sijm 1990; Kuehl et al. 1987).
Several studies in a wide range of mammalian and aquatic species indicate that TCDD is metabolized to
more polar metabolites (Ramsey et al. 1979; Poiger and Schlatter 1979; Olson et al. 1980; Olson 1986;
Poiger et al. 1982; Sijm et al. 1990; Kleeman et al. 1986a,b, 1988; Gasiewicz et al. 1983; Ramsey et al.
1982). The metabolism of TCDD and related compounds is required for urinary and biliary elimination
and plays an important role in regulating the rate of excretion of these compounds.
Dioxins are transferred through food chains, biomagnifying in upper-trophic-level receptors, especially
birds. Biomagnification of TCDD appears to be significant between fish and fish-eating birds but not
between fish and their food (Carey et al. 1990). The lack of apparent biomagnification between fish and
their prey is probably due to the influence of biotransformation of TCDD by the fish. Limited data for the
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering H-62
-------
Protocol for Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment
Toxicological Profile H-19; Dibenzo-p-Dioxins August 1999
base of the Lake Ontario lake trout food chain indicates little or no biomagnification between zooplankton
and forage fish (Whittle et al. 1992). BMFs based on fish consuming invertebrate species probably are
close to 1.0 because of the TCDD biotransformation by forage fish.
Oral absorption of dioxin related compounds in laboratory animals has been reported to be contingent on
species, test compound, administered dose, and vehicle. Typical oral absorption values range from 50 to
90 percent (EPA 1994). Because TCDD in the environment is likely to be adsorbed strongly to soil, the
oral bioavailability of TCDD varies significantly from laboratory values. Studies have shown that oral
bioavailability of TCDD in soil is lower by as much as 50 percent as compared to oral bioavailability of
TCDD administered in corn oil over a 500-fold dose range (EPA 1994). Moreover, oral bioavailability of
TCDD may be significantly lower in different soil types, with values as low as 0.5 percent bioavailability
reported (Umbreit et al. 1986 a,b).
Dermal absorption of TCDD has been studied extensively in laboratory animals. Dermal absorption has
been demonstrated to depend on applied dose, with lower relative absorption (percentage of administered
dose ) decreasing at higher doses (Brewster et al. 1989). Dermal absorption rates in laboratory rats ranged
from 17 to 40 percent of administered dose (Brewster et al. 1989). Percent bioavailability of TCDD
following dermal absorption is significantly lower than bioavailability following oral absorption by as
much as 60 percent (Poiger and Schlatter 1980). As with oral absorption of TCDD in soil, percent
bioavailability following dermal exposure to TCDD in soil was significantly lower than percent
bioavailability following an equivalent oral dose (approximately 1 percent of an administered dose) (Shu et
al. 1988).
Transpulmonary absorption of TCDD has been studied in laboratory animals following intratracheal
instillation of the compound in various vehicles (Nessel et al. 1990, 1992). Systemic effects characteristic
of TCDD exposures, including hepatic microsomal cytochrome p-450 induction, were observed after
inhalation exposures, indicating that transpulmonary absorption does occur and that inhalation may be an
important route of TCDD exposure. Transpulmonary bioavailability was estimated at approximately 92
percent of administered dose, very similar to that observed after oral exposures (Diliberto et al. 1992). It
should be noted that in an environmental setting, inhalation exposures to TCDD in fly ash, dust and soil
particulates may be associated with very different absorption and bioavailability patterns.
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering H-63
-------
Protocol for Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment
Toxicological Profile H-19; Dibenzo-p-Dioxins August 1999
Tissue distribution studies in laboratory rats and mice indicate that TCDD is distributed preferentially to
adipose tissue and liver (EPA 1994). TCDD is distributed to other organs as well, but to a lesser extent.
Also, tissue distribution of TCDD has been demonstrated to be time and dose-dependent, with increasing
levels of TCDD distributing to adipose and liver associated with higher doses and increased latency period
from time of dosage (EPA 1994).
Plants will take up TCDD through root uptake from soil and through foliar uptake from air (EPA 1994).
No other information was available on the fate of dioxins after uptake by plants.
No information was available on the fate of dioxins in birds.
4.0 REFERENCES
Branson D, Takahashi I, Parker W, Blau G. 1985. "Bioconcentration of
2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin in rainbow trout." Environ Toxicol Chem 4:779-788.
Brewster D, Banks Y, Clark A-M, Birnbaum L. 1989. "Comparative dermal absorption of
2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin and three polychlorinated dibenzofurans." Toxicol Appl
Pharmacol97:156-166.
Carey A, Shifrin N, Cook P. 1990. "Derivation of a Lake Ontario bioaccumulation factor for
2,3,7,8-TCDD." In: Lake Ontario TCDD bioaccumulation study, final report, Chapter 9. EPA,
Region II, New York. As cited in EPA 1993.
Cook et al. 1991. As cited in EPA 1993. Interim Report on Data and Methods for Assessment of
2,3,7,8-Tetracholorodibenzo-p-dioxin Risks to Aquatic Life and Associated Wildlife. EPA
600/R-93/055. Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC.
Cook P, Nichols J, Berini C, Libal J. 1993. Disposition of 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin and
co-planar chlorinated biphenyls in tissue of male lake trout following ingestion of food. EPA,
Duluth, MN. As cited in EPA 1993.
de Wolf W, de Bruijn J, Seinen W, Hermens J. 1992. "Influence of biotransformation on the relationship
between bioconcentration factors and octanol-water partition coefficients." Environ Sci Technol
26:1197-1201.
Diliberto J, Jackson J, Birnbaum L. 1992. "Disposition and absorption of intratracheal, oral, and
intravenous 3H-TCDD in male Fischer rats." Toxicologist 12:79.
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering H-64
-------
Protocol for Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment
Toxicological Profile H-19; Dibenzo-p-Dioxins August 1999
EPA. 1993. Interim report on data and methods for assessment of 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
risks to aquatic life and associated wildlife. EPA 600/r-93/055. Office of Research and
Development, Washington, DC.
EPA. 1994. Health Assessment Document for 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) and related
compounds. EPA/600/bp-92/001. Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC.
Gasiewicz T, Olson J, Geiger L, Neal R. 1983. "Absorption, distribution and metabolism of
2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) in experimental animals." In: Tucker R, Young A,
Gray A, eds. Human and Environmental Risks of Chlorinated Dioxins and Related Compounds.
Plenum Press, New York pp. 495-525. As cited in EPA 1994.
Gutenmann W, Ebel J, Kuntz H, Yourstone K, Lisk D. 1992. "Residues of p,p'-DDE and mercury in lake
trout as a function of age." Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 22:452-455.
HSDB. 1997. Hazardous Substance Data Bank.
Kleeman J, Olson J, Chen S, Peterson R. 1986a. "2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin metabolism and
disposition in yellow perch." Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 83:401-411.
Kleeman J, Olson J, Chen S, Peterson R. 1986b. "Metabolism and disposition of
2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin in rainbow trout." Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 83:391-401.
Kleeman J, Olson J, Peterson R. 1988. "Species differences in 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
toxicity and biotransformation in fish." Fundam Appl Toxicol 10:206-213.
Kuehl D, Cook P, Batterman A, Lothenbach D, Butterworth B. 1987. "Bioavailability of polychlorinated
dibenzo-p-dioxins and dibenzofurans from contaminated Wisconsin river sediment to carp."
Chemosphere 16(4): 667-679.
Mehrle P, Buckler D, Little E, et al. 1988. "Toxicity and bioconcentration of
2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzodioxin and 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzofuran in rainbow trout." Environ
Toxicol Chem 7:47-62.
Nessel C, Amoruso M, Umbreit T, Gallo M. 1990. "Hepatic aryl hydrocarbon hydroxylase and
cytochrome P450 induction following the transpulmonary absorption of TCDD from
intratracheally instilled particles." Fundam Appl Toxicol 15:500-509.
Nessel C, Amoruso M, Umbreit T, Meeker R, Gallo M. 1992. "Pulmonary bioavailability and fine
particle enrichment of 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin in respirable soil particles." Fundam
Appl Toxicol 19:279-285.
Olson J. 1986. "Metabolism and disposition of 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin in guinea pigs."
Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 85:263-273.
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering H-65
-------
Protocol for Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment
Toxicological Profile H-19; Dibenzo-p-Dioxins August 1999
Olson J, Gasiewicz T, Neal R. 1980. "Tissue distribution, excretion, and metabolism of
2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenz o-p-dioxin (TCDD) in the golden Syrian hamster." Toxicol Appl
Pharmacol 56:78-85.
Opperhuizen A, SijmD. 1990. "Bioaccumulation and biotransformation of polychlorinated
dibenzo-p-dioxins and dibenzofurans in fish." Environ Toxicol Chem 9:175-186.
Poiger H, Buser H-R, Weber H, Zweifel U, Schlatter C. 1982. "Structure elucidation of mammalian
TCDD-metabolites." Experientia 38:484-486.
Poiger H, Schlatter C. 1979. "Biological degradation of TCDD in rats." Nature 281:706-707.
Poiger H, Schlatter C. 1980. "Influence of solvents and adsorbents on dermal and intestinal absorption of
TCDD." FD Cosmet Toxicol 18:477-481.
Ramsey J, Hefner J, Karbowski R, Braun W, Gehring P. 1979. "The in vivo biotransformation of
2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) in the rat." Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 42:A162.
Ramsey J, Hefner J, Karbowski R, Braun W, Gehring P. 1982. "The in vivo biotransformation of
2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) in the rat." Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 65:180-194.
Schmieder P, Lothenbach D, Johnson R, Erickson R, Tietge J. 1992. "Uptake and elimination kinetics of
3H-TCDD in medaka." Toxicologist 12:138. As cited in EPA 1993.
Shu H, Teitelbaum P, Webb A, et al. 1988. "Bioavailability of soil-bound TCDD: Dermal bioavailability
in the rat." Fund Appl Toxicol 10:335-343.
Sijm D, Tarechewski A, Muir D, Webster G, Seinen W, Opperhuizen A. 1990. "Biotransformation and
tissue distribution of 1,2,3,7-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin, 1,2,3,4,7-pentachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin,
2,3,4,7,8-pentachlorodibenzofuran in rainbow trout." Chemosphere 21(7):845-866.
Umbreit T, Hesse E, Gallo M. 1986a. "Bioavailability of dioxin in soil from a 2,4,5-T manufacturing
site." Science 232:497-499.
Umbreit T, Hesse E, Gallo M. 1986b. "Comparative toxicity of TCDD contaminated soil from Times
Beach, Missouri, and Newark, New Jersey." Chemosphere 15:2121-2124.
Whittle D, Sergent D, Huestis S, Hyatt W. 1992. "Foodchain accumulation of PCDD and PCDF isomers
in the Great Lakes aquatic community." Chemosphere 25:181-184.
Zhang Y, Anderson T, Forlin L. 1990. "Induction of hepatic xenobiotic biotransformation enzymes in
rainbow trout by beta-napthoflavone." Time-course studies. Comp Biochem Physiol
956:247-253.
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering H-66
-------
Protocol for Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment
Toxicological Profile H-20; Dibenzofurans August 1999
DIBENZOFURANS
1.0 SUMMARY
Polychlorinated dibenzofurans (PCDF) are a class of hydrophobia chlorinated compounds that adsorb
strongly to soils and sediments. Like dioxins, PCDFs are persistent in the environment, bioconcentrate in
aquatic organisms, and biomagnify in some food chains. Because PCDFs are associated with organic
material in abiotic media, direct contact by soil and sediment receptors, and ingestion by bottom-feeding
fish and upper trophic level wildlife, are the most important exposure routes.
Since PCDFs are structurally similar to, and behave in the environment like dioxins, fate of PCDFs is
inferred from information about dioxins. Most of the description on the fate of PCDFs is based on the
behavior of tetrachlorodibenzofuran (TCDF), one of the most toxic PCDF congeners. The following is a
profile of the fate of polychlorinated dibenzofurans (PCDFs) in soil, water, and sediment; and the fate after
uptake by ecological receptors. Section 2 discusses the environmental fate and transport in soil, surface
water, and sediment. Section 3 discusses the fate in ecological receptors.
2.0 FATE IN SOIL, SURFACE WATER, AND SEDIMENT
TCDF adsorbs strongly to soils. Based upon its high Koc value, TCDF is expected to sorb very strongly in
soil and not be susceptible to leaching under most soil conditions. No data are available regarding the
biological degradation of TCDF in soil (HSDB 1997).
TCDF in the water column can be expected to partition strongly to sediment and suspended particulate
matter. Volatilization from the water column can be important, however the significance of this fate
process is limited by strong sorption to sediments (HSDB 1997). Bioconcentration in aquatic organisms
may be significant. Aquatic hydrolysis is not expected to be important. Data on biodegradation of TCDF
are unavailable (HSDB 1997).
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering H-67
-------
Protocol for Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment
Toxicological Profile H-20; Dibenzofurans August 1999
3.0 FATE IN ECOLOGICAL RECEPTORS
Based on high Kow values, PCDFs are expected to accumulate in aquatic receptors (Gutenmann et al.
1992).
Based on its similar structure to dioxins, PCDFs are expected to accumulate to high concentrations in
aquatic and semi-aquatic mammals and in fish-eating birds.
Information was not available on the disposition of PCDFs in plants.
4.0 REFERENCES
Gutenmann W, Ebel J, Kuntz H, Yourstone K, Lisk D. 1992. "Residues of p,p'-DDE and mercury in lake
trout as a function of age." Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 22:452-455.
HSDB. 1997. Hazardous Substance Data Bank.
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering H-68
-------
Protocol for Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment
Toxicological Profile H-21; Hexachlorobenzene August 1999
HEXACHLOROBENZENE
1.0 SUMMARY
Hexachlorobenzene (HCB) is a persistent chemical that adsorbs strongly to soil and sediment. It is
relatively stable in the environment and is resistant to hydrolysis, photolysis, and oxidation, with relatively
no metabolism by microorganisms. Due to its high affinity for organic carbon, HCB will accumulate in
sediments. Soil invertebrates and benthic invertebrates will take up HCB directly from these media. For
higher-trophic-level receptors, indirect (food chain) exposure is anticipated to be the most significant
pathway because HCB is resistant to metabolism and is very soluble in fat. The major toxic effect that has
been observed across all species tested is porphyria.
The following is a profile of the fate of HCB in soil, surface water and sediment; and the fate after uptake
by ecological receptors. Section 2 discusses the environmental fate and transport in soil, water and
sediment. Section 3 discusses the fate in ecological receptors.
2.0 FATE IN SOIL, SURFACE WATER, AND SEDIMENT
Due to a long half-live in soil and its strong affinity for organic carbon, HCB released to soil is likely to
remain there for extended periods of time (Beck and Hansen 1974). Minimal biodegradation occurs,
depending on the organic carbon content of the soil. Some evaporation from surface soil to air may occur,
again depending on the organic carbon content of the soil (Gile and Gillett 1979).
Once released to water, HCB will either evaporate rapidly or adsorb to sediments, with very little dissolved
in water (HSDB 1997; Kelly et al. 1991). Limited degradation of HCB is expected, since it appears to be
stable to hydrolysis, photolysis, and oxidation (Callahan et al. 1979). Since HCB adsorbs strongly to
sediments, it may build up in bottom sediments.
3.0 FATE IN ECOLOGICAL RECEPTORS
Aquatic organisms may be exposed to HCB through ingestion of contaminated water, soil, sediment, or
food. Empirical information indicates that HCB bioconcentrates in fish and invertebrates (Giam et al.
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering H-69
-------
Protocol for Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment
Toxicological Profile H-21; Hexachlorobenzene August 1999
1980; Konemann and Vanleeuwen 1980; Veith et al. 1979; Oliver and Niimi 1983; Parrish et al. 1978;
Kosian et al. 1978; Neely et al. 1974; Zitko and Hutzinger 1976; Laseter et al. 1976).
HCB can be transferred through aquatic food chains. Knezovich and Harrison (1988) reported that
chironomid larvae, a common food item of young fish and other aquatic receptors, rapidly bioaccumulate
HCB and other chlorobenzenes from contaminated sediments, achieving steady state within 48 hours.
Information was not available about metabolism of HCB by fish.
Ingestion of contaminated media and food is the main route of mammalian exposure to HCB (HSDB 1997;
ATSDR 1994; Edwards et al. 1991). Following ingestion, HCB is readily absorbed and is distributed
through the lymphatic system to all tissues. It accumulates in fatty tissues and persists for many years
since it is highly lipophilic and is very slowly metabolized (Weisenberg 1986; Mathews 1986).
HCB is slowly metabolized by the hepatic cytochrome P-450 system, conjugated with glutathione, or
reductively dechlorinated (ATSDR 1994). The metabolites of HCB in laboratory animals include
pentachlorophenol, pentachlorobenzene, tetrachlorobenzene, traces of trichlorophenol, a number of sulfur
containing compounds, and some unidentified compounds (Mehendale et al. 1975; Renner and Schuster
1977, 1978; Renner et al. 1978; Edwards et al. 1991).
Plants take up relatively minimal amounts of HCB from soils (EPA 1985; Carey et al. 1979).
Information was not available on the fate of HCB in birds.
4.0 REFERENCES
ATSDR. 1994. Toxicological Profile for Hexachlorobenzene. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease
Registry. August.
Beck J, Hansen K. 1974. The degradation of quintozene, pentachlorobenzene, hexachlorobenzene and
pentachloraniline in soil. Pestic Sci 5:41-48. As cited in ATDSR 1994.
Callahan M, Slimak M, Gabel N, et al. 1979. Water-Related Environmental Fate of 129 Priority
Pollutants. EPA-440/4-79-029b. Office of Water Planning and Standards, Washington, DC.
p. 77-1 to 77-13.
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering H-70
-------
Protocol for Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment
Toxicological Profile H-21; Hexachlorobenzene August 1999
Carey A, Gowen J, Tai H, Mitchell W, Wiersma G. 1979. Pesticide residue levels in soils and crops from
37 states, 1972—National soils monitoring program (IV). Pestic Monit J 12:209-229.
Edwards I, Ferry D, Temple W. 1991. Fungicides and related compounds. In: Hayes W, laws E,eds.
Handbook of Pesticide Toxicology. Vol 3. Classes of Pesticides. Academic Press, New York.
pp. 1409-1470.
EPA. 1985. Environmental Profiles and Hazard Indices for Constituents of Municipal Sludge:
Hexachlorobenzene. Office of Water Regulations and Standards, Washington, DC. June.
Giam C, Murray HE, Lee ER, Kira S. 1980. Bioaccumulation of hexachlorobenzene in killifish (Fundulus
similis). Bull Environ Contam Toxicol 25:891-897.
Gile J, Gillett J. 1979. Fate of selected fungicides in a terrestrial laboratory ecosystem. J Agric Food
Chem 27(6): 1159-1164.
HSDB. 1997. Hazardous Substance Data Bank.
Kelly T, Czuczwa J, Sticksel P, Sverdrup G. 1991. Atmospheric and tributary inputs to toxic substances
to Lake Erie. J Great Lakes Res 14(4):504-516.
Knezovich P, Harrison F. 1988. The bioavailability of sediment-sorbed chlorobenzenes to larvae of the
midge, Chironomus decorus. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 15(2):226-241.
Konemann H, Van Leeuwen K. 1980. Toxicokinetics in fish: Accumulation and elimination of six
chlorobenzenes by guppies. Chemosphere 9:3-19.
Kosian P, Lemke A, Studders K, Veith G. 1981. The precision of the ASTM bioconcentration test. EPA
600/3-81-022. Environmental Research Lab, Duluth, MN. As cited in HSDB 1997.
Laseter J, et al. 1976. Govt rept announce index. NTIS PB-252671. 76:66. As cited in HSDB 1997.
MathewsH. 1986. IARC Sci Publ 77:253-260. As cited in HSDB 1997.
Mehendale H, Fields M, Matthews H. 1975. Metabolism and effects of hexachlorobenzene on hepatic
microsomal enzymes in the rat. J Agric Food Chem 23:261-265.
Neely W, Branson D, Blau G. 1974. Partition coefficient to measure bioconcentration potential of organic
chemicals in fish. Environ Sci Technol 8:1113-1115.
Oliver B, Niimi A. 1983. Bioconcentration of chlorobenzenes from water by rainbow trout: Correlations
with partition coefficients and environmental residues. Environ Sci Technol 17:287-291.
Parrish P, et al. 1978. Chronic toxicity of chlordane, trifluralin, and pentachlorophenol to sheepshead
minnows (cyprinodon variegatus). EPA-600/3-78-010. Environmental Research Laboratory, pp.
35-40.
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering H-71
-------
Protocol for Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment
Toxicological Profile H-21; Hexachlorobenzene August 1999
Rentier G, Schuster K. 1977. 2,4,5-trichlorophenol, a new urinary metabolite of hexachlorobenzene.
Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 39:355-356.
Renner G, Richter E, Schuster K. 1978. N-acetyl-s-(pentachlorophenyl)cysteine, a new urinary metabolite
of hexachlorobenzene. Chemosphere 8:663-668.
Renner G, Schuster K. 1978. Synthesis of hexachlorobenzene metabolites. Chemosphere 8:669-674.
Veith G, Defoe D, Bergstedt B. 1979. Measuring and estimating the bioconcentration factor of chemicals
in fish. J Fish Res Board Can 36:1040-1048.
Weisenberg E. 1986. Hexachlorobenzene in human milk: A polyhalogenated risk. IARC Sci Publ
77:193-200.
Zitko V, Hutzinger D. 1976. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol 16:665-673.
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering H-72
-------
Protocol for Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment
Toxicological Profile H-22; Hexachlorobutadiene August 1999
HEXACHLOROBUTADIENE
1.0 SUMMARY
Hexachlorobutadiene (HCBD) is a moderately volatile, high molecular weight, chlorinated compound. In
surface soil and sediment, it will adsorb to organic carbon. It is moderately soluble in water. In surface
water, it will adsorb to suspended material; however, it has a tendency to volatilize. In aerobic
environments, in will biodegrade. Exposure routes for aquatic organisms include ingestion, gill uptake, and
dermal contact. HCBD bioconcentrates in aquatic life. For mammalian and avian wildlife, HCBD can be
taken up through oral, inhalation, and dermal exposure routes. HCBD is not expected to bioaccumulate to
high levels in upper-trophic-level receptors. HCBD metabolites cause adverse effects.
The following is a profile of the fate of HCBD in soil, surface water and sediment; and the fate after uptake
by ecological receptors. Section 2 discusses the environmental fate and transport in soil, water and
sediment. Section 3 discusses the fate in ecological receptors.
2.0 FATE IN SOIL, SURFACE WATER, AND SEDIMENT
HCBD has a high soil partition coefficient, and would, therefore, be expected to adsorb to soils with a high
organic content (Montgomery and Welkom 1990); however, in sandy soils with a low organic content,
HCBD is more mobile and will be found in soil pore water (Piet and Zoeteman 1980). HCBD also has a
moderate potential to evaporate from surface soils, unless it is bound to organic carbon (Pearson and
McConnel 1975). HCBD is expected to biodegrade in aerobic soils (Tabak et al. 1981), but not in
anaerobic environments (Johnson and Young 1983).
Following release into water, HCBD will either quickly volatilize or adsorb to sediments and suspended
material (Montgomery and Welkom 1990). HCBD will accumulate concentrations in sediments (Elder et
al. 1981; EPA 1976; Oliver and Charlton 1984). Biodegradation is a significant removal process for
HCBD in aerobic environments (Tabak et al. 1981). However, under anaerobic conditions biodegradation
does not occur (Johnson and Young 1983).
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering H-73
-------
Protocol for Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment
Toxicological Profile H-22; Hexachlorobutadiene August 1999
3.0 FATE IN ECOLOGICAL RECEPTORS
HCBD dissolved in surface water is expected to bioconcentrate in aquatic organisms, including algae,
benthic macroinvertebrates (such as worms and bivalves), detritivore (crayfish), and plantivorous fish
(EPA 1976, Oliver andNiimi 1983). HCBD also accumulates in carnivorous fish (EPA 1976). In fish,
HCBD will distribute to fatty tissue, especially the liver (Pearson and McConnell 1975 as cited in ATSDR
1994).
Mammals may be exposed to HCBD through (1) ingestion of soil and exposed sediment while foraging for
food, grooming, and soil covering plant matter, (2) ingestion of drinking water, and (3) indirect ingestion of
contaminated plant and animal matter. Based on HCBD's affinity for soil and sediment, and its potential to
be bioconcentrated, it is anticipated that indirect exposure will be the most significant exposure route for
mammals. Once ingested, HCBD is readily absorbed in the gastrointestinal tract (Reichert et al. 1985).
Following absorption, HCBD is distributed primarily to the kidney, liver, adipose tissue, and brain (Dekant
et al. 1988; Nash et al. 1984; Reichert et al. 1985).
HCBD does not appear to be metabolized by the hepatic mixed function oxidase system; however, it does
undergo conjugation with glutathione in the liver (Garle and Fry 1989). Metabolic derivatives of these
conjugates are believed to be responsible for the renal damage associated with exposure to HCBD (Dekant
et al. 1991; Koob and Dekant 1992).
In gravid birds, low levels of HCBD will be transferred to eggs (Dow Chemical Co. 1972).
Information was not available on the fate of HCBD in plants.
4.0 REFERENCES
ATSDR. 1994. Toxicological Profile for Hexachlorobutadiene. Agency for Toxic Substances and
Disease Registry, Atlanta, GA.
Dekant W, Schrenk D, Vamvakas S, et al. 1988. "Metabolism of hexachloro-1,3-butadiene in mice: in
vivo and in vitro evidence for activation by glutathione conjugation." Xenobiotica 18:803-816. As
cited in ATSDR 1994.
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering H-74
-------
Protocol for Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment
Toxicological Profile H-22; Hexachlorobutadiene August 1999
Dekant W, Urban G, Gorsman C, et al. 1991. "Thioketene formation from haloalkenyl 2-nitrophenyl
disulfides: models for biological reactive intermediates of cytotoxic S-conjugates." J Am Chem
Soc 113:5120-5122.
Dow Chemical Company. 1972. Analysis of Quail Eggs for Hexachlorobutadiene by Gas Liquid
Chromatography. EPA Document No. 878211372, Fiche No. OTS0206136. As cited in HSDB
1997.
Elder V, Proctor B, Hites R. 1981. "Organic compounds found near dump sites in Niagara Falls, New
York." Environ Sci Technol 15:1237-1243.
EPA. 1976. An Ecological Study oj'Hexachlorobutadiene (HCBD). EPA/560/6-76-010. Office of
Toxic Substances, Washington, DC.
Garle M, Fry J. 1989. "Detection of reactive metabolites in vitro." Toxicology 54:101-110. As cited in
ATSDR 1994.
HSDB. 1997. Hazardous Substances Data Base.
Johnson L, Young J. 1983. "Inhibition of anaerobic digestion by organic priority pollutants." J Water
Pollut Control Fed 5 5:1141 -1149.
Koob M, Dekant W. 1992. "Biotransformation of the hexachlorobutadiene metabolites
l-(glutathione-S-yl)-pentachlorobutadiene and l-(cystein-S-yl)-pentachlorobutadiene in the isolated
perfused rat liver." Xenobiotica 22:125-138. As cited in ATSDR 1994.
Montgomery J, Welkom L. 1990. Groundwater Chemicals Desk Reference. Lewis Publications,
Chelsea, MI. pp. 334-336. As cited in ATSDR 1994.
Nash J, King L, Lock E, et al. 1984. "The metabolism and disposition of hexachloro-1,3-butadiene in the
rat and its relevance to nephrotoxicity." Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 73:124-137. As cited in
ATSDR 1994.
Oliver B, Charlton M. 1984. "Chlorinated organic contaminants on settling particulates in the Niagara
River vicinity of Lake Ontario." Environ Sci Technol 18:903-908.
Oliver B, Niimi A. 1983. "Bioconcentration of chlorobenzenes from water by rainbow trout: Correlations
with partition coefficients and environmental residues." Environ Sci Technol 17:287-291.
Pearson C, McConnell G. 1975. "Chlorinated Cl and C2 hydrocarbons in the marine environment." Proc
Royal Soc Lond Biol 189:305-332. As cited in HSDB 1997 and ATSDR 1994.
Piet G, Zoeteman B. 1980. "Organic water quality changes during sand bank and dune filtration of
surface waters in the Netherlands." J Am Water Works Assoc 72:400-404. As cited in ATSDR
1994.
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering H-75
-------
Protocol for Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment
Toxicological Profile H-22; Hexachlorobutadiene August 1999
Reichert D, Schutz S, Metzler M. 1985. "Excretion pattern and metabolism of hexachlorobutadiene in the
rats: Evidence for metabolic activation by conjugation reactions." Biochem Pharmacol 34:499-
505. As cited in ATSDR 1994.
Tabak H, Quave S, Mashni C, et al. 1981. "Biodegradability studies with organic priority pollutant
compounds". J Water Pollut Cont Fed 53:1503-1518.
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering H-76
-------
Protocol for Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment
Toxicological Profile H-23; Hexachlorocyclopentadiene August 1999
HEXACHLOROCYCLOPENTADIENE
1.0 SUMMARY
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene (HCCP) is a semi-volatile, chlorinated compound. If HCCP is released as an
emission product, it has been shown to exist mostly in the vapor phase, with photolysis resulting in rapid
degradation. HCCP in soil will adsorb to soil particles. Degradation of HCCP may also occur in the
environment by chemical hydrolysis and biodegradation by soil biota. Depending on the route of exposure,
HCCP may distribute mainly to the lungs, kidneys, and liver. HCCP could potentially bioaccumulate in
some aquatic organisms depending upon the species. The respiratory system is the major site of toxicity
following inhalation exposure, while, depending on the species, the kidney or the liver are the major sites of
toxicity following oral exposure.
The following is a profile of the fate of HCCP in soil, surface water and sediment, and the fate after uptake
by ecological receptors. Section 2 discusses the environmental fate and transport in soil, water and
sediment. Section 3 discusses the fate in ecological receptors.
2.0 FATE IN SOIL, SURFACE WATER, AND SEDIMENT
HCCP deposited to soil is expected to adsorb strongly to organic carbon in the soil (HSDB 1997).
Volatilization from soil surfaces is expected to be minor. In moist soil, hydrolysis and biodegradation
under aerobic and anaerobic conditions may occur (HSDB 1997). HCCP on the surface of soil may be
subject to photolysis.
HCCP present in surface water will degrade primarily by photolysis and chemical hydrolysis. The half-life
of HCCP from photodegradation is very short; Wolfe et al.(1982) reported a half-life of less than 15
minutes in the top of the water column. In unlit or deep, turbid water, the degradation of HCCP occurs by
chemical hydrolysis. Hydrolytic half-lives for HCCP range from several hours to 2-3 weeks, depending on
the temperature of the water (Chou et al. 1981; Zepp and Wolfe 1987). HCCP has the potential to adsorb
to suspended solids in surface water and sediments; however, this adsorption does not affect the rate of
hydrolysis (Wolfe et al. 1982).
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering H-77
-------
Protocol for Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment
Toxicological Profile H-23; Hexachlorocyclopentadiene August 1999
Volatilization from water is also expected to be a significant removal mechanism; however, adsorption to
suspended solids and sediments may interfere with this process. (EPA 1987).
3.0 FATE IN ECOLOGICAL RECEPTORS
HCCP is expected to be moderately bioconcentrated by algae, invertebrates, and fish. (Lu et al. 1975;
Spehar et al. 1979; Veith et al. 1979; Podowski and Khan 1984; Freitag et al. 1982) (Geyer et al. 1981).
HCCP taken up by freshwater fish (goldfish) is readily distributed, stored, and metabolized (Podowski et
al. 1991). In fish, HCCP is excreted in the bile. The biological half-life of HCCP in the goldfish was
approximately 9 days (Podowski and Khan 1984).
Inhalation is the main exposure route for HCCP toxicity in mammals. HCCP is less absorbed following
ingestion (Lawrence and Borough 1981). Following ingestion, HCCP will move primarily to the liver and
the kidney (Lawrence and Borough 1981), which appear to be the main sites of toxicity (Abdo et al. 1984;
Southern Research Inst 1981).
Limited information was available regarding the metabolism of HCCP. Some degradation may occur in the
gut following oral administration (Borough and Ranieri 1984; Mehendale 1977).
Information was not available on the fate of HCCP in birds or plants.
4.0 REFERENCES
Abdo K, Montgomery C, Kluwe W, Farnell B, Prejean J. 1984. "Toxicity of Hexachlorocyclopentadiene:
Subchronic (13-week) administration by gavage to F344 rats and B6C3F mice." J Appl Toxicol
42(2):75-81.
Chou S, et al. 1981. Aqueous chemistry and adsorption ofhexachlorocyclopentadiene by earth
materials. NTIS PB81-173882. As cited in HSBB 1997.
Borough H, Ranieri T. 1984. "Bistribution and elimination ofhexachlorocyclopentadiene in rats and
mice." Brug Chem Toxicol 7(l):73-89.
EPA. 1987. Exams II. Computer simulation. As cited in HSBB 1997.
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering H-78
-------
Protocol for Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment
Toxicological Profile H-23; Hexachlorocyclopentadiene August 1999
Freitag D, Geyer H, Kraus A, Viswanathan R, Kotzias D, Attar A, Klien W, Korte F. 1982.
"Ecotoxicological profile analysis. VII. Screening chemicals for their environmental behavior by
comparative evaluation." Ecotox Environ Safety 6:60-81.
Geyer H, Viswanathan R, Freitag D, Korte F. 1981. "Relationship between water solubility of organic
chemicals and their bioaccumulation by the alga chlorella." Chemosphere 10:1307-1313.
HSDB. 1997. Hazardous Substance Data Bank.
Lawrence L, Borough H. 1981. "Retention and fate of inhaled hexachlorocyclopentadiene in the rat."
Bull Environ Contam Toxicol 26(5):663-668.
Lu P, Metcalf R, Hirwe A, Williams J. 1975. "Evaluation of environmental distribution and fate of
hexachlorocyclopentadiene, chlordane, heptachlor, and heptachlor epoxide in a laboratory model
ecosystem." J Agric Food Chem 23:967-973.
Meditext. 1997. Medical Management Data Base.
Mehendale H. 1977. "Chemical reactivity-absorption, retention, metabolism, and elimination of
hexachlorocyclopentadiene." Environ Health Perspect 21:275-278.
Podowski A, Khan M. 1984. "Fate of hexachlorocyclopentadiene in water and goldfish." Arch Environ
Contam Toxicol 13(4):471-481.
Podowski A, Sclove S, Pilipowicz A, Khan M. 1991. "Biotransformation and disposition of
hexachlorocyclopentadiene in fish." Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 20(4):488-496.
Southern Research Institute. 1981. Subchronic toxicity report on report hexachlorocyclopentadiene
(C53607) in rats and mice. EPA Document No. 40-8349130, Fiche No. OTS0507497. As cited
in HSDB 1997.
Spehar R, Veith G, DeFoe D, Bergstedt B. 1979. "Toxicity and bioaccumulation of
hexachlorocyclopentadiene, hexachloronorbornadiene and heptachloronorbornene in larval and
early juvenile fathead minnows, Pimephales promelas." Bull Environ Contam Toxicol
21(4-5):576-583.
Veith G, Defoe D, Bergstedt B. 1979. "Measuring and estimating the bioconcentration factor of chemicals
in fish." J Fish Res Board Can 36:1040-1048.
Wolfe N, Zepp RG, Schlotzhauer, Sink M. 1982. "Transformation pathways of
hexachlorocyclopentadiene in the aquatic environment." Chemosphere 11:91-101.
Zepp R, Wolfe N. 1987. Aquatic Surf Chem Vol:423-455. As cited in HSDB 1997.
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering H-79
-------
Protocol for Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment
Toxicological Profile H-24; Hexachlorophene August 1999
HEXACHLOROPHENE
1.0 SUMMARY
Hexachlorophene is a persistent organic chemical that is highly soluble in lipids and adsorbs strongly to soil
and sediment In surface soils and the euphotic (light-penetrating) zone of surface waters, hexachlorophene
is degraded by photolysis. Hexachlorophene may be bioconcentrated by aquatic and soil organisms. In
upper-trophic-level receptors, hexachlorophene may be absorbed following oral or dermal exposure and is
distributed throughout all body tissues. Due to its high lipid solubility, hexachlorophene has the potential
to be transferred significantly in food chains. In mammals, the nervous system is the major site of toxicity
for hexachlorophene; however, reproductive and developmental effects have also been reported. Exposure
to hexachlorophene may result in decreased egg production in birds.
The following is a profile of the fate of hexachlorophene in soil, surface water, and sediment; and the fate
after uptake by ecological receptors. Section 2 discusses the environmental fate and transport in soil,
water, and sediment. Section 3 discusses the fate in ecological receptors.
2.0 FATE IN SOIL, SURFACE WATER, AND SEDIMENT
Hexachlorophene adsorbs strongly to soil and once bound does not tend to leach from soil or mobilize in
soil. Hexachlorophene does not undergo significant hydrolysis or evaporation from the soil; however, slow
photodegradation may occur if exposed to light above 290 nm (Kotzias et al. 1982).
Hexachlorophene does not undergo hydrolysis, evaporation or volatilization in water; however, slow
photodegradation may occur. Hexachlorophene adsorbs strongly to sediments and has been identified in
the humic acid portion of sediment. The half-life of hexachlorophene in water is expected to be greater
than 50 years with a half-life of 290 days reported in sediment. Hexachlorophene has been reported to
bioconcentrate in aquatic organisms (Kotzias et al. 1982; Hansch and Leo 1985; Lyman et al. 1982).
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering H-80
-------
Protocol for Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment
Toxicological Profile H-24; Hexachlorophene August 1999
3.0 FATE IN ECOLOGICAL RECEPTORS
Based on its high octanol-water partition coefficient, hexachlorophene is expected to bioconcentrate in
aquatic life living in the water column and in the sediment. Bioconcentration has been measured in
mosquito fish and snail (Hansch and Leo 1985; Lyman et al. 1982).
Hexachlorophene is absorbed rapidly following oral exposure (Hatch 1982). Hexachlorophene may also be
absorbed following dermal exposure with blood levels peaking approximately 6 to 10 hours post-
application (Meditext 1997). Hexachlorophene is highly lipid-soluble. After entering the bloodstream, it
distributes into adipose tissue and tissue with a high lipid content including the central nervous system.
Hexachlorophene binds preferentially to myelin (Meditext 1997). Transplacental transfer of
hexachlorophene has also been reported (Hatch 1982). Target organs include the nervous system, the
gastrointestinal system, and skin (Meditext 1997).
Hexachlorophene has been reported to have low volatility from plant leaves (Goetchius et al. 1986).
Additional data regarding the potential effects of hexachlorophene on plants were not located. Information
was not available on the fate of hexachlorophene in exposed birds.
4.0 REFERENCES
Goetchius P, et al. 1986. Health and environmental effect profile on hexachlorophene. SR-TR-220.
Syracuse Research Corporation, pp. 2-1 to 3-1. As cited in HSDB 1997.
Hansch C, Leo A. 1985. Medchem project issue no. 26, Pomona College, Claremont, CA.
Hatch R. 1982. Veterinary toxicology. In: Booth N, McDonald L, eds. Veterinary Pharmacology and
Therapeutics. 5th ed. Iowa State University Press, Ames, IA. pp. 927-1021.
HSDB. 1997. Hazardous Substance Data Base.
Kotzias D, Parlar H, Korte F. 1982. "Photoreaktivitat organischer chemikalien in wabrigen systemen in
gegenwart von nitraten und nitriten." Naturwiss 69:444-445. As cited in HSDB 1997.
Lyman W, Reehl W, Rosenblatt D, eds. 1982. Handbook oj'Chemical Property Estimation Methods.
McGraw Hill Book Company, New York.
Meditext (r). 1997. Medical Management Data Base..
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering H-81
-------
Protocol for Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment
Toxicological Profile H-25; Hydrazine August 1999
HYDRAZINE
1.0 SUMMARY
Hydrazine is a reactive, nitrogen-containing compound. It is readily biodegraded after release to soil and
surface water. Volatilization may also be a significant removal process. Hydrazine is readily absorbed
following inhalation, ingestion, and dermal absorption. Mammals rapidly break down and excrete
hydrazine.
The following is a profile of the fate of hydrazine in soil, surface water and sediment; and the fate after
uptake by ecological receptors. Section 2 discusses the environmental fate and transport in soil, surface
water, and sediment. Section 3 discusses the fate in ecological receptors.
2.0 FATE IN SOIL, SURFACE WATER, AND SEDIMENT
Studies show that hydrazine is expected to biodegrade in soils high in organic carbon, and to adsorb to soils
high in clay content (Braun and Zirrolli 1983; Sun et al. 1992). For dry surface soil, volatilization may be
a significant process (HSDB 1997).
Hydrazine is expected to have a relatively short half-life of 8.3 days in pond water (Braun and Zirrolli
1983). Hydrazine has been reported to react with dissolved oxygen at a rate inversely proportional to its
concentration (Slonim and Gisclard 1976); its degradation rate increases with increasing temperature,
dissolved oxygen, and the presence of microorganisms (Sun et al. 1992).
3.0 FATE IN ECOLOGICAL RECEPTORS
Hydrazine is absorbed rapidly from the lungs, gastrointestinal tract, and through skin (ACGIH 1991).
Hydrazine is reported to be neurotoxic, hepatotoxic and nephrotoxic in rodents (Lambelt and Shank 1988).
Hydrazine is rapidly metabolized in the liver and eliminated (Jenner and Timbrell 1995).
Information was not available on the fate of hydrazine in exposed birds, aquatic life, or plants.
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering H-82
-------
Protocol for Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment
Toxicological Profile H-25; Hydrazine August 1999
4.0 REFERENCES
ACGIH. 1991. Documentation of TLVs. 6th ed. p. 761.
Braun B, Zirrolli J. 1983. Environmental fate of hydrazinefitels in aqueous and soil environments. Air
Force Report No. ESLTR-82-45. NTIS AD-A125813. As cited in HSDB 1997.
HSDB. 1997. Hazardous Substance Data Bank.
Jenner A, Timbrell J. 1995. "In vitro microsomal metabolism of hydrazine." Xenobiotica 25(6):599-609.
Lambelt C, Shank R. 1988. "Role of formaldehyde hydrazone and catalase in hydrazine-induced
methylation of DNAguanine." Carcinogenesis 9(1):65-70.
Slonim A, Gisclard J. 1976. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol 16:301-309. As cited in HSDB 1997.
SunH, etal. 1992. Huanjing Kexue 13:35-39. As cited in HSDB 1997.
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering H-83
-------
Protocol for Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment
Toxicological Profile H-26; Mercury August 1999
MERCURY
1.0 SUMMARY
Mercury is a highly toxic compound with no known natural biological function. Mercury exists in three
valence states: mercuric (Hg2+), mercurous (Hgl+), and elemental (HgO+) mercury. It is present in the
environment in inorganic and organic forms. Inorganic mercury compounds are less toxic than
organomercury compounds, however, the inorganic forms are readily converted to organic forms by
bacteria commonly present in the environment. The organomercury compound of greatest concern is
methylmercury.
Mercury sorbs strongly to soil and sediment. Elemental mercury is highly volatile. In aquatic organisms,
mercury is primarily absorbed through the gills. In aquatic and terrestrial receptors, some forms of
mercury, especially organomercury compounds, bioaccumulate significantly and biomagnify in the food
chain. In all receptors, the target organs are the kidney and central nervous system. However, mercury
causes numerous other effects including teratogenicity and mutagenicity.
The following is a profile of the fate of mercury in soil, surface water and sediment, and the fate after
uptake by biological receptors. Section 2 discusses the environmental fate and transport in soil, surface
water and sediment. Section 3 discusses the fate in ecological receptors.
2.0 FATE IN SOIL, SURFACE WATER, AND SEDIMENT
In soil, mercury exists in the mercuric (Hg2+) and mercurous (Hgl+) states. Mercury adsorbs to soil or is
converted to volatile forms (Krabbenhoft and Babiarz 1992; Callahan et al. 1979). Mercury can migrate
by volatilization from aquatic and terrestrial sources through the reduction of metallic mercury to complex
species and by the deposition in reducing sediments. Atmospheric transport is a major environmental
distribution pathway.
Mercury 2+ is the predominant form of mercury in surface waters (ATSDR 1993). Nonvolatile mercury in
surface water binds to organic matter and sediment particles (Lee and Iverfeldt 1991).
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering H-8
-------
Protocol for Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment
Toxicological Profile H-26; Mercury August 1999
Sorption to suspended and bed sediments is one of the most important processes determining the fate of
mercury in aquatic systems; sorption onto organic materials is the strongest for mercury 2+. As a result,
mercury is generally complexed to organic compounds and is not readily leached from either organic-rich
or mineral-rich soils (Rosenblatt et al 1975). Most mercury compounds can be remobilized in aquatic
systems by microbial conversion to methyl and dimethyl forms. Conditions reported to enhance microbial
conversion include large amounts of available mercury, large numbers of bacteria, absence of strong
complexing agents, near neutral pH, high temperatures, and moderately aerobic conditions.
3.0 ECOLOGICAL RECEPTORS
Sorption at the gill surface is the major pathway of mercury entry in aquatic organisms (EPA 1984). In
aquatic organisms, bioaccumulation is rapid and elimination is slow. Biomagnification occurs in the
aquatic food chain (NRCC 1979). Absorbed mercury is distributed to the blood and ultimately the internal
organs. Mercury which is not absorbed is eliminated rapidly in the feces (Eisler 1987). The biological
half-life of mercury in fish is approximately 2 to 3 years (EPA 1985). In general, mercury accumulation is
enhanced by elevated water temperatures, reduced water hardness or salinity, reduced water pH, increased
age of the organism, reduced organic matter content of the medium, and the presence of zinc, cadmium, or
selenium in solution.
Mercury is readily absorbed by terrestrial species following oral and inhalation exposure. Elemental and
organomercury compounds are readily transferred across the placenta and blood-brain barrier. Mercury is
bioaccumulated primarily in the kidney (Rothstein and Hayes 1964; Nielsen and Andersen 1991), and
mercury is biomagnified in mammals (Eisler 1987). Retention of mercury in mammals is longer for
organomercury compounds (especially methylmercury) than for inorganic forms. Mercury elimination
occurs via the urine, feces, expired air, and breast milk (Clarkson 1989; Yoshida et al. 1992).
All mercury compounds interfere with metabolism in organisms, causing inhibition or inactivation of
proteins containing thiol ligands and ultimately leading to miotic disturbances (Das et al 1982; Elhassani
1983). Mercury also binds strongly with sulfhydryl groups. Phenyl and methyl mercury compounds are
among the strongest known inhibitors of cell division (Birge et al 1979). In mammals, methyl mercury
irreversibly destroys the neurons of the central nervous system.
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering H-85
-------
Protocol for Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment
Toxicological Profile H-26; Mercury August 1999
Information was not available on the fate of mercury in birds.
Mercury in soils is generally not available for uptake by plants due to the high binding capacity to clays
and other charged particles (Beauford et al 1977). However, mercury levels in plant tissues increase as soil
levels increase with 95% of the accumulation and retention in the root system (Beauford et al 1977;
Cocking et al 1991). Mercury is reported to inhibit protein synthesis in plant leaves and may affect water-
adsorbing and transporting mechanisms in plants (Adriano 1986).
4.0 REFERENCES
Adriano B.C. 1986. Trace elements in the terrestrial environment. Springer-Verlag. New York.
ATSDR. 1993. Toxicological Profile for Mercury. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry,
Atlanta, GA.
Beauford, W. et al. 1977. "Uptake and distribution of mercury within higher plants." Physiol. Plant
39:261-265.
Birge W.J., Black J.A, Westerman A.G, and Hudson J.E. 1979. The effect of mercury on reproduction of
fish and amphibians. In: The biogeochemistry of mercury in the environment. Editor J.O.
Nriagu. Elsevier/North Holland Biomedical Press. New York.
Callahan M, Slimak M, Gabel N, et al. 1979. Water-Related Environmental Fate of 129 Priority
Pollutants. Vol 1 & 2. Office of Water and Waste Management, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, DC. EPA-440/4-79-029a, EPA-440/4-79-029b. pp. 14-1 to 14-15.
ClarksonT. 1989. "Mercury." J Am Coll Toxicol 8:1291-1295.
Cocking D.R., Hayes M.L., Rohrer M.J., Thomas R., and Ward D. 1991. "Compartmentalization of
mercury in biotic components of terrestrial floodplain ecosystems adjacent to the south river at
Wayneboro, Virginia." Water, Air and Soil Pollution 57-58: 159-170.
Das S.K., Sharma A, and Talukder G. 1982. "Effects of mercury on cellular systems in mammals - A
review." Nucleus (Calcutta) 25: 193-230.
Eisler R. 1987. Mercury Hazards to Fish, Wildlife, and Invertebrates: A Synoptic Review. U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service. Biological Report 85(1.10).
Elhassani S.B. 1983. "The many faces of mercury poisoning." Journal of Toxicology 19: 875-906.
EPA. 1984. Ambient Water Quality Criteria Document for Mercury. EPA 440/5-84-026. p. 10-11.
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering H-8
-------
Protocol for Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment
Toxicological Profile H-26; Mercury August 1999
EPA. 1985. Ambient Water Quality Criteria Document for Mercury. Office of Water Regulations and
Standards. Washington D.C. EPA 440/5-84-026.
HSDB. 1997. Hazardous Substances Data Bank.
Krabbenhoft D, Babiarz C. 1992. "The role of groundwater transport in aquatic mercury cycling." Water
Resour Res 28(12):3119-3129. As cited in ATSDR 1993.
Lee Y, Iverfeldt A. 1991. "Measurement of methylmercury and mercury in run-off, lake and rain waters."
Water Air Soil Pollut 56:309-321. As cited in ATSDR 1993.
NRCC. 1979. "Effects of Mercury in the Canadian Environment." National research Council of Canada.
NRCCNo. 16739. pp. 89, 101. As cited in HSDB 1997.
Nielsen J, Andersen O. 1991. "Methyl mercuric chloride toxicokinetics in mice. I: Effects of strain, sex,
route of administration and dose." Pharmacol Toxicol 68:201-207. As cited in ATSDR 1993.
Rosenblatt D.H., Miller T.A., Dacre J.C., Mull I. And Cogley D.R. 1975. Problem definition studies on
potential environmental pollutants II. Physical, chemical, toxicological, and biological
properties of 16 substances. Technical Report 7509. U.S. Army Medical Bioengineering
Research and Development Laboratory. Fort Detrick, Frederick, Maryland.
Rothstein A, Hayes A. 1964. "The turnover of mercury in rats exposed repeatedly to inhalation of vapor."
Health Phys 10:1099-1113.
Yoshida M, Satoh H, Kishimoto T, Yamamura Y. 1992. "Exposure to mercury via breast milk in
suckling offspring of maternal guinea pigs exposed to mercury vapor after parturition." J Toxicol
Environ Health 35:135-139. As cited in ATSDR 1993.
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering H-87
-------
Protocol for Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment
Toxicological Profile H-27; Methanol August 1999
METHANOL
1.0 SUMMARY
Methanol is a highly water soluble hydrocarbon. It does not adsorb to organic carbon. The primary
removal process for methanol in soil and water is biodegradation. Aquatic, soil, and sediment communities
can be exposed to methanol through direct contact. Upper-trophic-level receptors may be directly exposed
through ingestion, inhalation, or dermal exposure. Methanol does not bioconcentrate or move through
food chains.
The following is a profile of the fate of methanol in soil, surface water, and sediment; and the fate after
uptake by ecological receptors. Section 2 discusses the environmental fate and transport in soil, surface
water, and sediment. Section 3 discusses the fate in ecological receptors.
2.0 FATE IN SOIL, SURFACE WATER, AND SEDIMENT
Based on biological screening studies, including soil microcosm studies, methanol undergoes
biodegradation if released to the soil. Methanol is expected to be highly mobile in soil, based on its
miscibility in water and low log Kow value. Evaporation from dry surfaces is also expected to occur, based
on the high vapor pressure of methanol (Weber et al. 1981; Hansch and Leo 1985; HSDB 1997).
Methanol is completely soluble in water. Methanol is significantly biodegradable in water, based on
screening studies (HSDB 1997). Volatilization is expected to be a significant removal process (Lyman
1982). Aquatic hydrolysis, oxidation, photolysis, adsorption to sediment, and bioconcentration are not
considered significant removal processes for methanol (HSDB 1997).
3.0 FATE IN ECOLOGICAL RECEPTORS
Methanol uptake across gill epithelia is the most significant exposure route. However, based on its low
bioconcentration factor for fish, methanol does not bioconcentrate (Freitag et al. 1985; Bysshe 1982)
(Hansch and Leo 1985).
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering H-8
-------
Protocol for Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment
Toxicological Profile H-27; Methanol August 1999
Mammals are exposed to methanol through ingestion, inhalation, and dermal contact. Methanol is reported
to readily absorb from the gastrointestinal and respiratory tracts (Gosselin et al. 1984), and rapidly
distribute within tissues (Clayton and Clayton 1982). Following absorption, methanol is widely distributed
in body tissue. Small amounts are excreted in the urine and expired air; however, methanol is mostly
oxidized to formaldehyde and formic acid (Goodman and Gillman 1985).
Information was not available on the fate of methanol in exposed birds or plants.
4.0 REFERENCES
Bysshe S. 1982. Bioconcentration factor in aquatic organisms. In: Lyman W, Reehl W, Rosenblatt D,
eds. Handbook of Chemical Property Estimation Methods. McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York.
pp 5-1 to 5-30.
Clayton G, Clayton F, eds. 1982. Patty's Industrial Hygiene and Toxicology. 3rd ed. Vol 2. John Wiley
& Sons, New York. pp. 4531-4534. As cited in HSDB 1997.
Freitag D, Ballhorn L, Geyer H, Korte F. 1985. "Environmental hazard profile of organic chemicals: An
experimental method for the assessment of the behavior of organic chemicals in the ecosphere by
means of simple laboratory tests with 14C labeled chemicals." Chemosphere 14:1589-1616.
Goodman L, Oilman A, eds. 1985. The Pharmacological Basis of Therapeutics. 7th ed. Macmillan
Publ, New York. p. 381-382.
Gosselin R, Smith R, Hodge H. 1984. Clinical toxicology of commercial products. Vol II. 5th ed.
Williams and Wilkins, Baltimore, MD. p. III-275.
Hansch C, Leo A. 1985. Medchem Project Issue No. 26, Pomona College, Claremont, CA. As cited in
HSDB 1997.
HSDB. 1997. Hazardous Substance Data Bank.
Lyman W, Reehl W, Rosenblatt D, eds.. 1982. Handbook oj'Chemical Property Estimation Methods.
McGraw Hill Book Company, New York.
Weber R, Parker P, Bowser M. 1981. Vapor pressure distribution of selected organic chemicals. EPA
600/2-81-021. Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH. As cited in HSDB
1997.
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering H-89
-------
Protocol for Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment
Toxicological Profile H-28; Nitropropane, 2- August 1999
NITROPROPANE, 2-
1.0 SUMMARY
2-nitropropane is a highly volatile, low molecular weight hydrocarbon. Generally, it does not adsorb to soil
or sediment, and rapidly volatilizes from soil and surface water. Wildlife may be exposed to
2-nitropropane through ingestion or inhalation. Due to its high water solubility, 2-nitropropane does not
bioconcentrate in fish, and does not bioaccumulate in wildlife. 2-nitropropane is rapidly metabolized and
excreted by mammals.
The following summarizes information on the fate of 2-nitropropane in soil, surface water and sediment,
and its fate after uptake by ecological receptors. Section 2 discusses the environmental fate and transport
in soil, water and sediment. Section 3 discusses the fate in ecological receptors.
2.0 FATE IN SOIL, SURFACE WATER, AND SEDIMENT
2-nitropropane rapidly volatilizes from soil, and also has the potential to leach in moist soils.
2-nitropropane undergoes minimal degradation in soil (Freitag et al. 1988).
2-nitropropane is highly soluble in water (Baker and Bollmeier 1981). It is expected to have a short
half-life in surface water because of its propensity for rapid volatilization, based on its high vapor pressure
(Dougan et al. 1976). Adsorption of 2-nitropropane to suspended solids or sediment is not expected, based
on its low Koc value (Lyman 1982).
3.0 FATE IN ECOLOGICAL RECEPTORS
2-nitropropane does not bioconcentrate in aquatic organisms (Baker and Bollmeier 1981; Freitag et al.
1988). 2-nitropropane is readily absorbed by the gastrointestinal tract and the lungs, when inhaled.
Accumulation of 2-nitropropane in tissues of mammals is low because it is rapidly metabolized and
eliminated after uptake (Nolan et al. 1982). 2-nitropropane may be excreted unchanged in expired air or as
nitrite and nitrate in the urine (Browning 1965).
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering H-90
-------
Protocol for Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment
Toxicological Profile H-28; Nitropropane, 2- August 1999
No information was available on the fate of 2-nitropropane in birds or plants.
4.0 REFERENCES
Baker B, Bollmeier A. 1981. "Nitroparaffms." In: Kirk-Otmer Encyclopedia of 'Chemical Technology.
Srded. John Wiley & Sons, New York. 15:969-987.
Browning E. 1965. Toxicology and Metabolism of Industrial Solvents. Elsevier, New York. pp.
285-288.
Dougan J, et al. 1976. Preliminary Scoring of Selected Organic Air Pollutants. Apd III. EPA
450/3-77-008d. pp.303. As cited in HSDB 1997.
Freitag D, et al. 1988. "Ecotoxicological Profile Analysis of Nitroparaffms According to Oecd Guidelines
with C14-labelled Compounds." In: Tsca Set 8d Submissions to EPA for Nitromethane (Fiche
No. ITS516767). As cited in HSDB 1997.
HSDB. 1997. Hazardous Substance Data Bank.
LymanW. 1982. "Adsorption Coefficient for Soils and Sediments." In: Lyman W, Reehl W, Rosenblatt
D, eds. Handbook of Chemical Property Estimation Methods. McGraw-Hill Book Co., New
York, pp 4-1 to 4-3 3.
Nolan R, Unger A, Muller C. 1982. "Pharmacokinetics of Inhales [14c]-2-nitropropane in Male
Sprague-dawley Rats." Ecotoxicol Environ Safety 6(4):388-397.
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering H-91
-------
Protocol for Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment
Toxicological Profile H-29; Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHS) August 1999
POLYNUCLEAR AROMATIC HYDROCARBONS (PAHS)
1.0 SUMMARY
Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) are a class of semi-volatile compounds that have a high affinity
for soil and sediment particles. PAHs have low water solubility. Low molecular weight PAHs volatilize
and photolyze from soil and surface water, and may be biodegraded as well. High molecular weight PAHs
are resistant to volatilization, photolysis, and biodegradation. PAHs can be bioconcentrated to high
concentrations by some aquatic organisms. However, many aquatic organisms can metabolize PAHs. The
main PAH exposure route for upper-trophic-level receptors is ingestion. However, wildlife can readily
metabolize PAHs and eliminate the by-products. Therefore, food chain transfer and biomagnification are
anticipated to be minimal.
The following is a profile of the fate of PAHs in soil, surface water and sediment; and the fate after uptake
by ecological receptors. The PAHs considered are benzo(a)anthracene, benzo(b)fluoranthene,
benzo(k)fluoranthene, chrysene, dibenzo(a,h)anthracene, and indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene. Section 2 discusses
the environmental fate and transport in soil, surface water and sediment. Section 3 discusses the fate in
ecological receptors.
2.0 FATE IN SOIL, SURFACE WATER, AND SEDIMENT
PAHs strongly adsorb to the soil; therefore, leaching to groundwater and volatilization are slow
insignificant processes in most instances (HSDB 1997). However, the persistence of PAHs in soil is
dependent upon the number of condensed rings that a PAH contains. The major source of degradation of
PAHs in soil is microbial metabolism (ATSDR 1995). Volatilization and photolysis were determined to be
important processes for the degradation of PAHs containing less than four aromatic rings, when analyzed
from four surface soils amended with PAHs in sewage sludge. However, PAHs containing four or more
aromatic rings showed insignificant abiotic losses (Wild and Jones 1993).
Within aquatic systems, PAHs are found sorbed to particles suspended in the water column or particles
which have settled to the bottom. This is due to the low solubility and high affinity PAHs have for organic
carbon. Studies have estimated that two-thirds of PAHs found in aquatic systems are in particle form and
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering H-92
-------
Protocol for Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment
Toxicological Profile H-29; Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHS) August 1999
only one-third are in dissolved form (Eisler 1987). Low molecular weight PAHs (2 to 3 rings) studied in
estuaries show that the primary removal processes are volatilization and biodegradation, while high
molecular weight PAHs (4 or more rings) volatilize and adsorb to suspended sediments (Thomas 1982;
Southworth et al. 1978; Southworth 1979).
Photo-oxidation, chemical oxidation, and biodegradation by aquatic microorganisms are the primary
degradation processes associated with PAHs in water (Neff 1979). The process of photo-oxidation varies
widely among PAHs when considering the rate and extent of degradation. Benzo(a)pyrene is the most
resistant to photo-oxidation, while benzo(a)anthracene is the most sensitive (Neff 1979). Microbial
degradation of PAHs in water is very rapid under oxygenated conditions, but extremely slow under anoxic
conditions (Neff 1979).
3.0 FATE IN ECOLOGICAL RECEPTORS
Sources of PAH accumulation in aquatic organisms include water, sediment, and food. Bioconcentration
factors can range from low to very high, depending on the PAH and the receptor. Invertebrates and
bottom-dwelling fish may accumulate PAHs through ingestion of sediment (Eisler 1987).
Studies indicate that fish are capable of metabolizing PAHs by the mixed function oxidase (MFO) system
in the liver. The breakdown products are then eliminated through the urine and feces. Half-lives ranging
from 2 to 9 days have been reported for the elimination of PAHs in fish (Niimi 1987). Chrysene has a
near-surface half-life computed for sunlight at latitude 40°N of 4.4 hours (Zepp and Schlotzhauer 1979).
Assimilation of PAHs from contaminated food is readily achieved by fish and crustaceans; however, this
process is limited for mollusks and polychaete worms (Eisler 1987). It is also noted that aquatic organisms
such as phytoplankton, certain zooplankton, mussels, scallops, and snails lack a metabolic detoxification
enzyme system. Therefore, these organisms have potential for PAH accumulation (Malins 1977).
PAHs can be introduced into mammals through ingestion, inhalation, and dermal exposure. Because PAHs
are highly lipid soluble and can cross epithelial membranes, they are readily absorbed from the
gastrointestinal tract and lung (HSDB 1997). PAHs are absorbed through the mucous lining of bronchi
when inhaled (Bevan and Ulman 1991) and taken up by the gastrointestinal tract in fat-soluble compounds
when ingested. Passive diffusion is the process in which PAHs are distributed following percutaneous
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering H-93
-------
Protocol for Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment
Toxicological Profile H-29; Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHS) August 1999
absorption (Ng et al. 1991). Once absorbed into the body, PAHs are distributed to the lymph fluid and
then the blood stream. Following oral or inhalation exposure, PAHs are widely distributed in animal tissue
(Bartosek et al. 1984; Withey et al. 1991; Yamazaki and Kakiuchi 1989).
PAHs have limited transfer across the placenta; therefore, PAH levels are generally lower in the fetus,
when compared to maternal levels (Neubert and Tapken 1988; Withey et al. 1992). The major metabolism
sites for PAHs are the liver and kidneys. Additional sites of metabolism include the adrenal glands, testes,
thyroid, lungs, skin, sebaceous glands, and placenta (Meditext 1997). PAHs are primarily excreted
through the urine and bile (Bevan and Weyand 1988; Grimmer et al. 1988; Petridou-Fischer et al. 1988;
Weyand and Bevan 1986; Wolff et al. 1989).
PAHs may be taken up by terrestrial plants from the soil or air depending on the concentration, solubility,
and molecular weight of the PAHs. Lower molecular weight PAHs are absorbed by plants more readily
than higher molecular weight PAHs (USFWS 1987). Some plants are capable of producing
benzo(b)fluoranthene (HSDB 1997). The partitioning of PAHs between vegetation and the atmosphere
was found to be primarily dependent upon the atmospheric gas-phase PAH concentration and the ambient
temperature, when studied throughout the growing season under natural conditions (Simonich and Kites
1994). Above-ground parts of vegetables have been found to contain more PAHs than underground parts,
mainly attributable to airborne deposition and subsequent adsorption (USFWS 1987). Growth promoting
effects were observed in higher plants, as well as cultures of lower plants, when benzo(a)anthracene,
indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene, and benzo(b)fluoranthene were tested in a series of soil and hydrocultures (Graf
and Nowak 1968).
Information was not available on the fate of PAHs in exposed birds.
4.0 REFERENCES
ATSDR. 1995. Toxicological Profile for Polycydie Aromatic Hydrocarbons. Agency for Toxic
Substances and Disease Registry, U.S. Public Health Service. August.
Bartosek I, Guaitani A, Modica R, Fiume M, Urso R. 1984. "Comparative kinetics of oral
benz(a)anthracene, chrysene and triphenylene in rats: Study with hydrocarbon mixtures." Toxicol
Lett 23:333-339.
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering H-94
-------
Protocol for Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment
Toxicological Profile H-29; Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHS) August 1999
Bevan D, Ulman M. 1991. "Examination of factors that may influence disposition of benzo(a)pyrene in
vivo: Vehicles and asbestos." Cancer Lett 57(2): 173-180.
Bevan D, Weyand E. 1988. "Compartmental analysis of the disposition of benzo(a)pyrene in rats."
Carcinogenesis 9(11):2027-2032.
Eisler R. 1987. Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon Hazards to Fish, Wildlife, and Invertebrates: A
Synoptic Review. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the Interior. Biological
report 85(1.11). As cited in ATSDR 1995.
Graf W, Nowak W. 1968. "Wachstumsforderung bei niederen und hoheren pflanzen durch kanzerogene
polyzyklische aromate." Arch Hyg Bakt 150:513-528.
Grimmer G, Brune H, Dettbarn G, Heinrich U, Jacob J, Mohtashamipur E, Norpoth K, Pott F,
Wenzel-Hartung R. 1988. "Urinary and fecal excretion of chrysene and chrysene metabolites by
rats after oral, intraperitoneal, intratracheal or intrapulmonary application." Arch Toxicol
62(6):401-405.
HSDB. 1997. Hazardous Substances Data Bank.
Malins D. 1977. "Metabolism of aromatic hydrocarbons in marine organisms." AnnNYAcadSci
298:482-496.
Meditext. 1997. Medical Management Data Base. June.
Neff J. 1979. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in the aquatic environment. Sources, fates and
biological effects. Applied Science Publishers, Ltd. London, England.
Neubert D, Tapken S. 1988. "Transfer of benzo(a)pyrene into mouse embryos and fetuses." Arch
Toxicol 62(2-3):236-239.
Ng K, Chu I, Bronaugh R, Franklin C, Somers D. 1991. "Percutaneous absorption/metabolism of
phenanthrene in the hairless guinea pig: Comparison of in vitro and in vivo results." Fundam Appl
Toxicol 16(3):517-524.
Niimi A. 1987. "Biological half-lifes of chemicals in fishes." Rev Environ Contam Toxicol 99:1-46.
Petridou-Fischer J, Whaley S, Dahl A. 1988. "In vivo metabolism of nasally instilled benzo(a)pyrene in
dogs and monkeys." Toxicology 48(1):31-40.
Simonich S, Kites R. 1994. "Importance of vegetation in removing polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
from the atmosphere." Nature 370:49-51.
Southworth G. 1979. "The role of volatilization on removing polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons from
aquatic environments." Bull Environ Contam Toxicol 21:507-514.
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering H-95
-------
Protocol for Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment
Toxicological Profile H-29; Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHS) August 1999
Southworth G, Beauchamp J, Schmeider P. 1978. "Bioaccumulation potential of polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons in Daphnia pulex." Water Research 12:973-977.
Thomas R. 1982. Volatilization from water. In: LymanW, ReehlW, Rosenblatt D, eds. Handbook of
Chemical Property Estimation Methods. McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, pp 15-1 to
15-34.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1987. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon hazards to fish,
wildlife, and invertebrates: A synoptic review. Biological Report 85 (1.11). Washington B.C.
Weyand E, Bevan D. 1986. "Benzo(a)pyrene disposition and metabolism in rats following intratracheal
instillation." Cancer Res 46:5655-5661.
Wild S, Jones K. 1993. "Biological and abiotic losses of polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) from
soils freshly amended with sewage sludge." Environ Toxicol Chem 12:5-12.
Withey J, Law F, Endrenyi L. 1991. "Pharmacokinetics and bioavailability of pyrene in the rat." J
Toxicol Environ Health 32(4):429-447.
Withey J, Shedden J, Law F, Abedini S. 1992. "Distribution to the fetus and major organs of the rat
following inhalation exposure to pyrene." J Appl Toxicol 12(3):223-231.
Wolff M, Herbert R, Marcus M, Rivera M, Landrigan P, Andrews L. 1989. "Polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbon (PAH) residues on skin in relation to air levels among roofers." Arch Environ Health
44(3):157-163.
Yamazaki H, Kakiuchi Y. 1989. "The uptake and distribution of benzo(a)pyrene in rat after continuous
oral administration." Toxicol Environ Chem 24(!/2):95-104.
Zepp R, Schlotzhauer P. 1979. In: Jones P, Leber P, eds. Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons. Ann
Arbor Science Publ, Ann Arbor MI. pp. 141-158. As cited in HSDB 1997.
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering H-96
-------
Protocol for Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment
Toxicological Profile H-30; Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) August 1999
POLYCHLORINATED BIPHENYLS (PCBs)
1.0 SUMMARY
Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB) are mixtures of different congeners of chlorobiphenyl. PCBs are a group
of highly fat-soluble, semi-volatile compounds that readily bioaccumulate and biomagnify in ecological
receptors, especially upper-trophic-level carnivores in aquatic food webs. In general, PCBs adsorb
strongly to soil and sediment, and are soluble in fatty tissues. Volatilization and biodegradation of the
lower chlorinated congeners also occur. The toxicological properties of individual PCBs are influenced
primarily by: (1) lipophilicity, which is correlated with log Kow, and (2) steric factors resulting from
different patterns of chlorine substitution on the biphenyl molecule. In general, PCB isomers with high Kow
values and high numbers of substituted chlorines in adjacent positions constitute the greatest environmental
concern. Biological responses to individual isomers or mixtures vary widely, even among closely related
taxonomic species.
The following is a profile of the fate of PCBs in soil, surface water, and sediment; and the fate after uptake
by ecological receptors. Section 2 discusses the environmental fate and transport in soil, surface water, and
sediment. Section 3 discusses the fate in ecological receptors.
2.0 FATE IN SOIL, SURFACE WATER, AND SEDIMENT
The environmental fate of PCBs in soil depends on the degree of chlorination of the molecule. In general,
adsorption and the persistence of PCBs increases with an increase in the degree of chlorination (EPA
1988). Mono-, di-, and trichlorinated biphenyls (Aroclors 1221 and 1232) biodegrade relatively rapidly.
Tetrachlorinated biphenyls (Aroclors 1016 and 1242) biodegrade slowly, and higher chlorinated biphenyls
(Aroclors 1248, 1254, and 1260) are resistant to biodegradation (HSDB 1997). Although biodegradation
of higher chlorinated congeners may occur very slowly, no other degradation mechanisms have been shown
to be significant in soil (HSDB 1997). Vapor loss of PCBs from soil surfaces appears to be an important
mechanism with the rate of volatilization decreasing with increasing chlorination. Although the
volatilization rate may be low, the total loss by volatilization over time may be significant because of
persistence and stability of PCBs (Sklarew and Girvin 1987).
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering H-97
-------
Protocol for Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment
Toxicological Profile H-30; Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) August 1999
In water, adsorption to sediments and organic matter is a major fate process for PCBs (EPA 1988;
Callahan et al. 1979). Volatilization of dissolved PCBs is an important aquatic process. Strong PCB
adsorption to sediment significantly decreases the rate of volatilization, with higher chlorinated PCBs
having longer half-lives than the lower chlorinated PCBs (EPA 1988).
3.0 FATE IN ECOLOGICAL RECEPTORS
Diet is a major route of PCB uptake in many aquatic species (Eisler 1986). However, some species
accumulate PCBs from the water column to a much larger extent than the diet, even when comparing
closely-related species. Based on its high log Kow value, receptors are expected to bioconcentrate and
bioaccumulate PCBs to tissue levels much greater than the concentrations in water and sediment (Eisler
1986). Due to their high lipophilicity, PCBs concentrate mostly in fatty tissues. For upper-trophic-level
receptors, diet is the main exposure pathway for PCB exposure (Eisler 1986). In aquatic food webs,
evidence indicates that PCBs biomagnify in upper trophic levels, but not in lower trophic levels (Shaw and
Cornell 1982).
Among mammals, aquatic predators (e.g., mink, otters, seals, etc.) have been found to accumulate PCBs to
significant levels. Lower chlorinated PCBs are eliminated more rapidly from lipids than higher chlorinated
PCBs. Placental transfer of PCBs occurs in mammals (Hidaka et al. 1983).
The primary biochemical effect of PCBs is to induce hepatic mixed function oxidase systems, increasing an
organism's capacity to biotransform or detoxify xenobiotic chemicals. PCBs also induce hepatic enzymes
that metabolize naturally occurring steroidal hormones (Peakall 1975). These hepatic microsomal enzyme
systems are most likely correlated with observed adverse reproductive effects (Tanabe 1988).
PCBs accumulate in bird tissues and eggs (Eisler 1986). Residues of PCBs in birds are affected by
numerous biotic factors including fat content, tissue specificity, sex, and the developmental stage of an
organism (Eisler 1986). Sexual differences in PCB bioaccumulation are pronounced due to the female's
ability to pass a significant portion of the PCB burden to eggs (Lemmetyinen and Rantamaki 1980).
Water snakes (Nerodia spp.) and turtles accumulate PCB levels similar to those of PCB residues in their
prey. Aroclor 1260 accounted for most of the PCBs detected in water snakes (Sabourin et al. 1984;
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering H-98
-------
Protocol for Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment
Toxicological Profile H-30; Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) August 1999
Olafsson et al. 1983). These data suggest diet is an important route of PCB transfer in reptiles (McKim
and Johnson 1983).
Organic matter and clay content of soil influences the bioavailability of PCBs to plants (Strek and Weber
1982). Uptake of PCBs from soils by plants has been documented, however, only very low amounts are
typically accumulated (Iwata et al 1974, Iwata and Gunther 1976, Weber and Mrozek 1979). Effects of
PCBs on plants include reduced growth and chlorophyll content, and negative effects on photosynthesis
(Strek and Weber 1982).
Terrestrial and aquatic plants bioconcentrate PCBs (Sawhney and Hankin 1984). Aquatic plants also
bioaccumulate PCBs from both the water column and sediments. Transfer of PCBs on microparticulate
materials to phytoplankton is well documented, as is partitioning from aqueous solution into algal lipids
(Rohreretal. 1982).
4.0 REFERENCES
Callahan M, Slimak M, Gabel N, et al. 1979. Water-Related Environmental Fate of 129 Priority
Pollutants. Vol 1 & 2. Office of Water and Waste Management, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, DC. EPA-440/4-79-029a, EPA-440/4-79-029b. pp. 36+.
Eisler R. 1986. Polychlorinated Biphenyl Hazards to Fish, Wildlife, and Invertebrates: A Synoptic
Review. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Biological Reports 85(1.7).
EPA. 1988. Drinking Water Criteria Document for Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs).
ECAO-CIN-414. Environmental Criteria and Assessment Office, Cincinnati, OH.
Hidaka H, Tanake S, Tatsukawa R. 1983. "DDT compounds and PCB isomers and congeners in Weddel
seals and their fate in the Antarctic marine ecosystem." Agric Biol Chem 47:2009-2017. As cited
in Eisler 1986.
HSDB. 1997. Hazardous Substance Data Bank.
Iwata Y. And Gunther F.A. 1976. "Translocation of the polychlorinated biphenyl Aroclor 1254 from soil
into carrots under field conditions." Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 4:
44-59.
Iwata Y., Gunther F.A., and Westlake W.E. 1974. "Uptake of a PCB (Aroclor 12554) from soil by
carrots under field conditions." Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 11:523-
528.
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering H-99
-------
Protocol for Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment
Toxicological Profile H-30; Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) August 1999
Lemmetyinen R, Rantamaki P. 1980. "DDT and PCB residues in the arctic tern (Sternaparadisaea)
nesting in the archipelago of southwestern Finland." Ann Zool Fennici 17:141-146. As cited in
Eisler 1986.
McKim J, Johnson K. 1983. "Polychlorinated biphenyls and p,p'-DDE in loggerhead and green
postyearling Atlantic sea turtles." Bull Environ Contam Toxicol 31:53-60.
Olafsson P, Bryan A, Bush B, Stone W. 1983. "Snapping turtles ~ a biological screen for PCBs."
Chemosphere 12:1525-1532. As cited in Eisler 1986.
Peakall D.B. 1975. "PCBs and their environmental effects." CRC Critical Reviews in Environmental
Control. 5:469-508.
Rohrer T, Forney J, Hartig J. 1982. "Organochlorine and heavy metal residues in standard fillets of coho
and chinook salmon of the Great Lakes-1980." J Great Lakes Res 8:623-634.
Sabourin T, Stickle W, Michot T, Villars C, Garton D, Mushinsky H. 1984. "Organochlorine residue
levels in Mississippi River water snakes in southern Louisiana." Bull Environ Contam Toxicol
32:460-468.
Sawhney B, Hankin L. 1984. "Plant contamination by PCBs from amended soils." J Food Prot
47:232-236.
Shaw G, Cornell D. 1982. "Factors influencing polychlorinated biphenyls in organisms from an estuarine
ecosystem." Aust J Mar Freshwater Res 33:1057-1010. As cited in Eilser 1986.
Sklarew D, Girvin D. 1987. Rev Environ Contam Toxicol 98:1-41. As cited in HSDB 1997.
Strek H.J. and Weber J.B. 1982. "Behavior of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in soils and plants."
Environmental Pollution (Series A). 28: 291-312.
Tanabe S. 1988. "PCB problems in the future: foresight from current knowledge." Environmental
Pollution. 50: 5-28.
Weber J.B. and Mrozek E. 1979. "Polychlorinated biphenyls: absorption and translocation by plants and
inactivation by activated carbon." Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology.
23:412-417.
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering H-100
-------
Protocol for Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment
Toxicological Profile H-31; Pentachlorophenol August 1999
PENTACHLOROPHENOL
1.0 SUMMARY
Pentachlorophenol (PCP) has a strong affinity for soil, with sorption higher at lower pH and with increased
organic content. Microorganisms readily metabolize PCP in soil, surface water, and sediment. Photolysis
rapidly breaks down PCP in surface water. Ecological receptors will rapidly absorb PCP, but will also
rapidly excrete it. Therefore, the potential for bioconcentration and bioaccumulation is only moderate.
PCP biomagnification has not been observed.
The following is a profile of the fate of PCP in soil, surface water, and sediment, and the fate after uptake
by ecological receptors. Section 2 discusses the environmental fate and transport in soil, water and
sediment. Section 3 discusses the fate in ecological receptors.
2.0 FATE IN SOIL, SURFACE WATER, AND SEDIMENT
PCP adsorbs strongly to soil, with adsorption higher in acidic conditions (Callahan et al. 1979). The
amount of PCP adsorbed to soil at a given pH also increases with increasing organic content of the soil
(Chang and Choi 1974). The half-life of PCP in soil ranges from weeks to months (Ide et al. 1972; Murthy
1979; Rao and Davidson 1982). Photolysis and hydrolysis do not appear to be significant processes of
degradation in soil (Ball 1987). In certain soil environments, PCP may volatilize; however, in general,
mobility of PCP in soil is limited (Arsenault 1976).
Biodegradation is considered the major transformation mechanism for PCP in soil, with PCP metabolized
rapidly by acclimated microorganisms (Kaufman 1978). The main degradation products of PCP in soil are
2,3,7,8-tetrachlorophenol and carbon dioxide (Knowlton and Huckins 1983).
The fate of PCP in water and sediment is heavily dependent upon the pH of the water. At lower pH, more
of the PCP dissociates and is available for degradation (Weiss et al. 1982). PCP also adsorbs to sediment
more readily under acidic conditions, and is more mobile under neutral or alkaline conditions (Kuwatsuka
andlgarashi 1975).
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering H-101
-------
Protocol for Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment
Toxicological Profile H-31; Pentachlorophenol August 1999
In surface water, photolysis and biodegradation are the predominant transformation processes for PCP
(ATSDR 1994). Photolysis occurs mainly at the water surface, with its impact decreasing with increasing
depth (Callahan et al. 1979). The reported half-life for the photolysis of PCP is about 1 hour (Callahan et
al. 1979). Biodegradation of PCP can occur under both aerobic and anaerobic conditions, with more rapid
degradation under aerobic conditions (Pignatello et al. 1983). The greatest biodegradation of PCP was
observed in the top 0.5 to 1 cm layer of sediment.
3.0 FATE IN ECOLOGICAL RECEPTORS
The aquatic toxicity of PCP depends on water pH; at low pH, PCP is more lipophilic, with a high potential
for accumulation. At alkaline pH, PCP is more hydrophilic, with a decreased potential for bioconcentration
(Eisler 1989). Fish and bivalves may moderately bioconcentrate PCP (Makela et al. 1991).
Accumulation of PCP in fish is rapid, and occurs primarily by direct uptake from water rather than through
the food chain or diet. In fish, PCP residues are found in the liver, gill, muscle, and hepatopancreas. PCP
is readily metabolized in the liver and hepatopancreas. (Menzie 1978). Half-lives in tissues are less than
24 hours (Eisler 1989).
In mammals, PCP may be absorbed into the body through inhalation, diet or skin contact (Eisler 1989).
The degree of accumulation is small, since PCP is efficiently and rapidly excreted. The highest residuals
are found in the liver and kidneys, likely reflecting that these organs are the principal organs for metabolism
and excretion (Gasiewicz 1991). Small amounts of PCP have been shown to cross the placenta (Shepard
1986).
Uptake into rice has been demonstrated in a 2-year study under flooded conditions. After a single
application of radiolabeled PCP, 12.9% of the application was taken up by the plants within the first year,
with the highest levels found in the roots (Eisler 1989).
4.0 REFERENCES
Arsenault R. 1976. Pentachlorophenol and Contained Chlorinated Dibenzodioxins in the Environment.
American Wood-Preservers Association, Alexandria, VA. pp. 122-147. As cited in ATSDR
1994.
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering H-102
-------
Protocol for Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment
Toxicological Profile H-31; Pentachlorophenol August 1999
ATSDR. 1994. Toxicological Profile for Pentachlorophenol. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease
Registry, Atlanta, GA.
BallJ. 1987. Proclnd Waste Conference. 41:347-351. As cited in HSDB 1997.
Callahan M, Slimak M, Gabel N, et al. 1979. Water-Related Environmental Fate of 129 Priority
Pollutants. Vol 1 & 2. Office of Water and Waste Management, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, DC. EPA-440/4-79-029a, EPA-440/4-79-029b. pp. 87-1 to 87-13.
Chang N, Choi J. 1974. "Studies on the adsorption of pentachlorophenol (PCP) in soil." Hanguk Touang
Bilyo Hakkhoe Chi 7:197-220. As cited in ATSDR 1994.
Eisler R. 1989. Pentachlorophenol Hazards to Fish, Wildlife, and Invertebrates: A Synoptic Review.
US Fish and Wildlife Service. Biological Rep 85(1.17).
Gasiewicz T. 1991. Nitro compounds and related phenolic pesticides. In: Hayes W, Laws E, eds.
Handbook of Pesticide Toxicology. Vol 3. Academic Press, New York. pp. 1191-1269.
HSDB. 1997. Hazardous Substances Data Bank.
IdeA, etal. 1972. Agric Biol Chem 36:1937-1944. As cited in HSDB 1997.
Kaufman D. 1978. Degradation of pentachlorophenol in soil, and by soil organisms. In: Rao K, ed.
Pentachlorophenol: Chemistry, Pharmacology, and Environmental Toxicology. Plenum Press,
New York. pp. 27-39.
Knowlton M, Huckins J. 1983. "Fate of Radiolabeled Sodium Pentachlorophenate in Littoral
Microcessing." Bull Environ Contam Toxicol 30:206-213.
Kuwatsuka S, Igarashi M. 1975. "Degradation of PCP in soil: II. The relationship between the
degradation." Soil Sci Plant Nutr 21:405-414. As cited in ATSDR 1994.
Makela T, Petanan T, Kukkonen J, et al. 1991. "Accumulation and depuration of chlorinated phenolics in
the freshwater mussel (Anodonta anatina L.)." Ecotoxicol Environ Safety 22:153-163. As cited in
ATSDR 1994.
Menzie C. 1978. Metabolism of Pesticides. U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service.
p. 221.
MurthyB. 1979. "Degradation of pentachlorophenol (PCP) in aerobic and anaerobic soil." J Environ Sci
Health B 14:1-14. As cited in HSDB 1997.
Pignatello J, Martinson M, Steiert J, et al. 1983. "Biodegradation and photolysis of pentachlorophenol in
artificial freshwater streams." Appl Environ Microbiol 46:1024-1031.
Rao P, Davidson J. 1982. Retention and Transformation of Selected Pesticides and Phosphorus in
Soil-Water Systems. EPA 600/S3-82-060. As cited in HSDB 1997.
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering H-103
-------
Protocol for Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment
Toxicological Profile H-31; Pentachlorophenol August 1999
Shepard T. 1986. Catalog of Teratogenic Agents. 5th ed. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore,
MD. p. 443. As cited in HSDB 1997.
Weiss U, etal. 1982. JAgric Food Chem 30:1191-1194.
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering H-104
-------
Protocol for Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment
Toxicological Profile H-32; Thallium August 1999
THALLIUM
1.0 SUMMARY
In the environment, thallium exists in either the monovalent (thallous) or trivalent (thallic) form. Thallium is
chemically reactive with air and moisture, undergoing oxidation. Thallium is relatively insoluble in water,
although thallium compounds exhibit a wide range of solubilities. Thallium adsorbs to soil and sediment and
is not transformed or biodegraded. In aquatic organisms, thallium is absorbed primarily from ingestion and
thereafter bioconcentrates in the organism. In mammals, thallium is absorbed primarily from ingestion and is
distributed to several organs and tissues, with the highest levels reported in the kidneys. Thallium exposure
in mammals causes cardiac, neurologic, reproductive and dermatological effects. Thallium is taken up by
plants and inhibits chlorophyll formation and seed germination.
The following is a profile of the fate of thallium in soil, surface water and sediment; and the fate after uptake
by ecological receptors. Section 2 discusses the environmental fate and transport in soil, surface water and
sediment. Section 3 discusses the fate in ecological receptors.
2.0 FATE IN SOIL, SURFACE WATER, AND SEDIMENT
In soil, thallium exists in either the monovalent (thallous) or trivalent (thallic) form, with the monovalent form
being more common and stable and, therefore, forming more numerous salts (Hampel 1968). Thallium is
reactive with air and moisture, oxidizing slowly in air at 20 °C and more rapidly with increasing temperatures
(Standen 1967). Moisture increases the oxidation of thallium. Thallium adsorbs to soil and is not transformed
or biodegraded (Callahan et al. 1979).
Elemental thallium is relatively insoluble in water (Windholz 1976). However, thallium compounds exhibit
solubilities ranging from 220 mg/L to more than 700,000 mg/L (Standen 1967; Weast 1975).
Thallium adsorbs to sediments and micaceous clays (Callahan et al. 1979; Frantz and Carlson 1987). Data
regarding the transformation or biodegradation of thallium in water were not located.
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering H-105
-------
Protocol for Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment
Toxicological Profile H-32; Thallium August 1999
3.0 ECOLOGICAL RECEPTORS
The primary exposure route for aquatic organisms exposed to thallium is ingestion. Thallium bioconcentrates
in aquatic organisms (Zitko and Carson 1975). Toxic effects have been observed in numerous aquatic
organisms including daphnia, fat-head minnow, sheepshead minnow, saltwater shrimp, atlantic salmon, bluegill
sunfish, and others (USEPA 1980).
Birds and mammals are exposed to thallium via ingestion of soil, water, and plant material (Lie et al. 1960).
Following absorption, thallium is distributed to numerous organs including the skin, liver, and muscle, with
the greatest amount found in the kidneys (Downs et al. 1960; Manzo et al. 1983). Thallium is excreted
primarily in the urine, with some excretion in the feces (Lehman and Favari 1985). Thallium is distributed
from the maternal circulation to the fetus (Gibson et al. 1967; Gibson and Becker 1970). Various effects and
toxic responses have been reported. Tikhonova (1967) reported paralysis and pathological changes in the liver,
kidneys, and stomach mucosa in rabbits chronically exposed to thallium. Formigli et al. (1986) reported
testicular toxicity in rats exposed to thallium. Grunfeld et al. (1963) reported changes in the
electrocardiographs of rabbits following oral exposure to thallium.
Some levels of thallium occurs naturally in plants (Seiler 1988). Thallium is taken up by the roots of higher
plants (Cataldo and Wildung 1983). Thallium has been shown to inhibit chlorophyll formation and seed
generation (OHM/TADS 1997).
4.0 REFERENCES
ATSDR. 1992. Toxicological Profile for Thallium. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.
July.
Callahan M, Slimak M, Gabel N, et al. 1979. Water-Related Environmental Fate of 129 Priority
Pollutants. Vol 1. EPA-440/4-79-029. Office of Water Planning and Standards, Washington,
DC. pp. 18-1 to 18-8.
Cataldo D, Wildung R. 1983. "The role of soil and plant metabolic processes in controlling trace element
behavior and bioavailability to animals." Sci Total Environ 28:159-168.
Downs, W.L., Scott J.K., Steadman L.T., Maynard E.A. 1960. "Acute and Sub-acute Toxicity Studies of
Thallium Compounds." American Industrial Hygiene Association Journal. 21: 399-406.
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering H-106
-------
Protocol for Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment
Toxicological Profile H-32; Thallium August 1999
Formigli L., Scelsi R., Poggi P., Gregotti C., DiNucci A., Sabbioni E., Gottardi L., Manzo L. 1986.
O ? 5 OO ? O ? 5 5 5
"Thallium-Induced Testicular Toxicity in the Rat." Env. Res. 40: 531-539.
Frantz G, Carlson R. 1987. "Division S-2-soil chemistry: Effects of rubidium, cesium, and thallium on
interlayer potassium release from transvaal vermiculite." Soil Sci Soc Am J 51:305-308.
Grunfeld O, Battilana G., Aldana L., Hinostroza G., Larrea P. 1963. "Electrocardiographic Changes in
Experimental Thallium Poisoning." Am. Journal Vet Res. 24: 1291-1296.
Gibson J.E. and Becker B.A. 1970. "Placental transfer, embryo toxicity and teratogenicity of thallium
sulfate in normal and potassium-deficient rats." Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol. 16:120. As cited in
USEPA 1980.
Gibson J.E. et al. 1967. "Placental transport and distribution of thallium-204 sulfate in newborn rats and
mice." Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol. 10: 408 (abst). As cited in USEPA 1980.
Hampel C.A. (ed.). 1968. The Encyclopedia of Chemical Elements. Reinhold Publishers, New York. As
cited in USEPA 1980.
HSDB. 1997. Hazardous Substance Data Base
Lehman P, Favari L. 1985. "Acute thallium intoxication: Kinetic study of the relative efficacy of several
antidotal treatments in rats." Arch Toxicol 57:56-60.
Lie R, Thomas R, Scott J. 1960. "The distribution and excretion of thallium-204 in the rat, with
suggested mpc's and a bioassay procedure." Health Phys 2:334-340.
Manzo L, Scelsi R, Moglia A, Poggi P, Alfonsi E, Pietra R, Mousty F, Sabbioni E. 1982. "Long-term
toxicity of thallium in the rat". In: Chemical Toxicology and Clinical Chemistry of Metals.
Academic Press, London, pp. 401-405.
OHM/TADS. 1997. Oil and Hazardous Materials/Technical Assistance Data System. June.
Seiler. 1988. Handbookof the Toxicity of Inorganic Compounds, p. 678. As cited in HSDB 1997.
Standen A. (ed.). 1967. Kirk-Othmer Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology. Interscience Publishers,
New York. As cited in USEPA 1980.
Tikhonova T.S. 1967. "Toxicity of thallium and its compounds in workers." Nov. Dannye Toksikol.
Redk. Metal. Ikh Soedin. Chem. Abstr. 71: 53248J, 1969. As cited in USEPA 1980.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1980. Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Thallium.
EPA 440/5-80-074. October.
Weast R.C. (ed.). 1975. Handbookof Chemistry and Physics. 56th ed. CRC Press. Cleveland, Ohio.
As cited in USEPA 1980.
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering H-107
-------
Protocol for Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment
Toxicological Profile H-32; Thallium August 1999
Windholz M. (ed.). 1976. The Merck Index. 9th Edition. Merck and Co., Inc. Rathway, New Jersey.
As cited in USEPA 1980.
Zitko V, Carson W, Carson W. 1975. "Thallium: Occurrence in the environment and toxicity to fish."
Bull Environ Contam Toxicol 13:23-30. As cited in ATSDR 1992.
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering H-108
-------
Protocol for Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment
Toxicological Profile H-33; Vinyl Chloride August 1999
VINYL CHLORIDE
1.0 SUMMARY
Vinyl chloride is a low molecular weight organic compound that rapidly volatilizes after released to soil and
surface water. Aquatic organisms may take up vinyl chloride, however it is rapidly depurated because it is
highly water-soluble. Routes of exposure for wildlife include inhalation, ingestion, and dermal exposure.
Bioaccumulation in terrestrial and aquatic organisms is not an important process in the environmental fate
of vinyl chloride because of its high volatility and the rapid metabolism by higher-tropic-level receptors.
The following is a profile of the fate of vinyl chloride in soil, surface water and sediment, and the fate after
uptake by ecological receptors. Section 2 discusses the environmental fate and transport in soil, surface
water, and sediment. Section 3 discusses the fate in ecological receptors.
2.0 FATE IN SOIL, SURFACE WATER, AND SEDIMENT
Vinyl chloride in dry soil has a very short half-life (less than 1 day) (Jury et al. 1984). Vinyl chloride has a
high vapor pressure, indicating rapid volatilization from dry soil surfaces (Riddick et al. 1986; Verschueren
1983). Vinyl chloride is also biodegraded and photolyzed in surface soil (ATSDR 1995; Nelson and
Jewell 1993). Vinyl chloride does not adsorb to soil in significant amounts.
Vinyl chloride in surface water has a half-life of a few hours (Thomas 1982). An estimated half-life in
fresh water for vinyl chloride of 2.5 hours was reported (Mabey et al. 1981). Vinyl chloride is slightly
soluble (Cowfer and Magistro 1983). However, vinyl chloride released to surface water will quickly
volatilize, negating other fate processes that might be significant based on physical and chemical
parameters.
3.0 FATE IN ECOLOGICAL RECEPTORS
Vinyl chloride is not expected to significantly bioconcentrate in aquatic organisms because it has a very low
log Kow value. Bioconcentration and accumulation in aquatic carnivores is not expected because of the
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering H-109
-------
Protocol for Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment
Toxicological Profile H-33; Vinyl Chloride August 1999
high volatility of vinyl chloride and the rapid metabolism of vinyl chloride by higher-tropic-level organisms
(Freitag et al. 1985; Lu et al. 1977).
In mammals, vinyl chloride may be absorbed by the body via inhalation (Bolt et al. 1977; Krajewski et al.
1980; Withey 1976), ingestion (Feron et al. 1981; Watanabe et al. 1976; Withey 1976) and dermal contact
(Hefner et al. 1975). It is rapidly absorbed and distributed throughout the tissues following uptake.
Because of the rapid metabolism and excretion of vinyl chloride, storage within the body is limited.
Information was not available on the fate of vinyl chloride in birds or plants.
4.0 REFERENCES
ATSDR. 1995. Toxicological Profile for Vinyl Chloride. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease
Registry. August.
Bolt H, Laib R, Kappus H, Buchter A. 1977. "Pharmacokinetics of vinyl chloride in the rat." Toxicology
7:179-188.
Cowfer J, Magistro A. 1983. Vinyl chloride. In: Kirk-Othmer Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology.
Wiley Interscience, New York. 23:865-885.
Feron V, Hendriksen C, Speek A, Til H, Spit B. 1981. "Lifespan oral toxicity of vinyl chloride in rats."
FD Cosmet Toxicol 19:317-333.
Freitag D, Ballhorn L, Geyer H, Korte F. 1985. "Environmental hazard profile of organic chemicals: An
experimental method for the assessment of the behavior of organic chemicals in the ecosphere by
means of simple laboratory tests with 14C labeled chemicals." Chemosphere 14:1589-1616.
Hefner R, Watanabe P, Gehring P. 1975. "Percutaneous absorption of vinyl chloride." Toxicol Appl
Pharmacol 34:529-532.
HSDB. 1997. Hazardous Substance Data Bank.
Jury W, Spencer W, Farmer W. 1984. "Behavior assessment model for trace organics in soil: III.
Application of screening model." J Environ Qual 13:573-579.
Krajewski J, Dobecki M, Gromiec J. 1980. "Retention of vinyl chloride in the human lung." Br J Ind
Med 37:373-374.
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering H-l 10
-------
Protocol for Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment
Toxicological Profile H-33; Vinyl Chloride August 1999
Lu P, Metcalf R, Plummer N, Mandel D. 1977. "The environmental fate of three carcinogens:
Benzo-a-pyrene, benzidine, and vinyl chloride evaluated in lab model ecosystems." Arch Environ
Contam Toxicol 6:129-142.
Mabey W, Smith J, Podoll R, et al. 1981. Aquatic Fate Process Data for Organic Priority Pollutants.
EPA 440/4-81-014. EPA Office of Water Regulations and Standards, Washington, DC. As cited
inHSDB 1997.
Nelson Y, Jewell W. 1993. "Vinyl chloride biodegradation with methanotrophic attached films."
J Environ Eng 119(5):890-907.
Riddick J, Bunger W, Sakano T. 1986. Organic solvents: Physical properties and methods of
purification, techniques of chemistry. Vol II. 4th ed. John Wiley & Sons, New York.
pp. 488-489. As cited in HSDB 1997.
Thomas R. 1982. Volatilization from water. In: LymanW, ReehlW, Rosenblatt D, eds. Handbook of
Chemical Property Estimation Methods. McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York. PP 15-1 TO
15-34.
Verschueren K. 1983. Handbook oj'Environmental Data on Organic Chemicals. 2nd ed. VanNostrand
Reinhold Co., New York. pp. 1185-1186.
Watanabe P, McGowan G, Gehring P. 1976. "Fate of [14C]vinyl chloride after single oral administration
in rats." Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 36:339-352. As cited in ATSDR 1995.
Withey J. 1976. "Pharmacodynamics and uptake of vinyl chloride monomer administered by various
routes to rats." J Toxicol Environ Health 1:381-394.
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering H-l 11
-------
------- |