EPA 600/R-14/222 I March 2015 I www.epa.gov/research
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Adherence of Chemical, Biological,
and Radiological Contaminants
to Drinking Water Storage Tanks
Sediments
Office of Research and Development
National Homeland Security Research Center
-------
Adherence of Chemical, Biological, and Radiological
Contaminants to Drinking Water Storage Tanks Sediments
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, OH 45268
11
-------
DISCLAIMER
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), through its Office of Research and
Development's National Homeland Security Research Center (NHSRC), funded and managed
this technology evaluation under EPA Contract EP-C-10-001 with Battelle. This report has been
peer and administratively reviewed and has been approved for publication as an EPA document.
It does not necessarily reflect the views of the EPA. Mention of trade names or commercial
products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use of a specific product.
Questions concerning this document or its application should be addressed to:
JeffSzabo, Ph.D., P.E.
National Homeland Security Research Center
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
26 W. Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
szabo.i eff@epa. gov
in
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Contributions of the following organizations to the development of this document are
acknowledged:
Battelle
Utility Service Group
IV
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
DISCLAIMER iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS v
ABBREVIATIONS/ACRONYMS vii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY viii
1.0 Introduction 1
2.0 Test Design and Procedures 1
3.0 Quality Assurance/Quality Control 12
3.2.1 Cesium 12
3.2.2 Lindane 12
3.2.3 E.coliandBaS 13
3.3.1 Performance Evaluation Audit 13
3.3.2 Technical Systems Audit (TSA) 14
4.0 Results 15
5.0 Results Summary 34
6.0 REFERENCES 36
Tables
Table 2-1. Sediment Sample Inventory 3
Table 2-2. Sediment Characterization Methods 5
Table 2-3. Selected Sediment and Corresponding Water Sample Analyses 7
Table 2-4. Experimental Matrix for the Contaminant Adherence Study 9
Table 3-1. Experimental Controls 12
Table 4-1. Sediment Characterization Results 15
Table 4-2. Tennessee Cesium Adherence Results 16
Table 4-3. Tennessee Lindane Adherence Results 17
Table 4-4. Tennessee E.coli Adherence Results 17
Table 4-5. Tennessee BaS Adherence Results 18
Table 4-6. North Carolina Cesium Adherence Results 19
Table 4-7. North Carolina Lindane Adherence Data 19
Table 4-8. North Carolina E.coli Adherence Results 20
Table4-9. North Carolina BaS Adherence Results 20
Table 4-10. Ohio 1 Cesium Adherence Results 21
Table 4-11. Ohio 1 Lindane Adherence Results 22
Table 4-12. Ohio 1 E.coli Adherence Results 22
Table4-13. Ohio 1 BaS Adherence Results 23
Table 4-14. Alabama Cesium Adherence Results 24
Table 4-15. Alabama Lindane Adherence Results 24
Table 4-16. AlabamaE-co//' Adherence Results 25
Table 4-17. Alabama BaS Adherence Results 25
Table 4-18. Arkansas Cesium Adherence Results 26
Table 4-19. Arkansas Lindane Adherence Results 26
Table 4-20. Arkansas E.coli Adherence Results 27
-------
Table 4-21. Arkansas BaS Adherence Results 27
Table 4-22. Ohio 4 Cesium Adherence Results 28
Table 4-23. Ohio 4 Lindane Adherence Results 28
Table 4-24. Ohio 4 E.coli Adherence Results 29
Table 4-25. Ohio 4 BaS Adherence Results 29
Table 4-26. Arizona Cesium Adherence Results 30
Table 4-27. Arizona Lindane Adherence Results 30
Table 4-28. Arizona E.coli Adherence Results 31
Table 4-29. Arizona BaS Adherence Results 31
Table 4-30. Illinois Cesium Adherence Results 32
Table 4-31. Illinois Lindane Adherence Results 32
Table 4-32. Illinois E.coli Adherence Results 32
Table 4-33. Illinois BaS Adherence Results 33
Table 5-1. Average Cesium Adherence 34
Table 5-2. Average Lindane Adherence 34
Table 5-3. Average E.coli Adherence 35
Table 5-4. Average Bacillus anthracis Sterne Adherence 35
VI
-------
ABBREVIATIONS/ACRONYMS
ASTM ASTM International
BaS Bacillus anthracis Sterne (spores)
CBR chemical, biological, or radiological
CDW contaminant drinking water
CPU colony forming units
COC chain of custody
COR Contracting Officer's Representative
°C degrees Celsius
DI deionized
DW drinking water
E. coli Escherichia coll
BCD electron capture detector
EPA U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
GC gas chromatography
ICP-MS inductively-coupled plasma mass spectrometer
LRB laboratory record book
L liter
uL microliter
mg milligram
mL milliliter
mmol millimole
MS matrix spike
ND not detectable
NHSRC National Homeland Security Research Center
PBST phosphate buffered saline
pdf portable document format
PE performance evaluation
QA quality assurance
QAPP Quality Assurance Project Plan
QC quality control
QCS quality control standard
QMP Quality Management Plan
rcf relative centrifugal force
RMO Records Management Office
rpm revolutions per minute
SOP standard operating procedure
TEC total exchange capacity
TOC total organic carbon
ISA technical systems audit
TTEP Technology Testing & Evaluation Program
WA work assignment
WAL Work Assignment Leader
vn
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This study evaluated the adherence of four target contaminants onto sediments that were
collected from drinking water storage tanks located across the United States. The target
contaminants for this study were non-radioactive cesium (Cs-133), the insecticide lindane,
Escherichia coll, and Bacillus anthracis Sterne (BaS), an avirulent strain.
Experimental Design. Between 2012 and 2014, twenty-five sediment samples were collected
from drinking water storage tanks in 12 different states and were named by their state of origin.
The eight samples with a sufficient amount of sediment were used for contaminated adherence
testing with each of the four contaminants. Background levels of each of the four target
contaminants were measured prior to the adherence experiments to establish baseline
concentrations before introducing the target contaminant. Before beginning the contaminant
adherence experiments, the physical and chemical properties of the sediment samples were
determined in order to provide for the possibility of correlating contaminant adherence and
sediment characteristics in the future. Sediment characteristics included particle size, pH, total
exchange capacity, total organic carbon, and organic matter. Individual solutions of
contaminated drinking water of each target contaminant were prepared at pH 7.5 and pH 8.5.
Aliquots of the sediment samples were then placed in centrifuge tubes and the contaminated
drinking water was added to the tubes. These samples were rotated for 16 hours (cesium and
lindane), or 6 hours (E.coli and BaS spores,) to enable adherence. Following rotation, the
supernatant was analyzed to determine the amount of contaminant partitioning from the solution
to the sediment.
Results. Across all the samples collected, cesium sediment adherence percentages ranged from
5% for one Tennessee sample to 88% for the Arkansas sample. Lindane sediment adherence
ranged from 7% in the Tennessee sample to 88% in one Ohio sample. More than 50% of the
E.coli adhered to all of the sediments studied except for two samples. The largest extent of
E.coli sediment adherence occurred in the Arkansas sample with 99% and 100% adherence at pH
8.5 and 7.5, respectively. In general, the BaS adhered more readily to the sediments than the
E.coli. The adherence percentages for BaS ranged from 31% for one North Carolina sediment, to
100% for the Arkansas samples. However, most BaS sediment adherences were greater than
90%. The pH differences in the contaminated drinking water did not consistently impact the
adherence results.
Vlll
-------
1.0 Introduction
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) National Homeland Security Research Center
(NHSRC) conducts research to protect, detect, respond to, and recover from terrorist attacks on
the nation's water and wastewater infrastructure. One concern is the adsorption of chemical,
biological, or radiological (CBR) contaminants to sediments in drinking water storage tanks and
reservoirs. Sediments can serve as sinks for contaminants. Therefore, adhesion to sediments
following the introduction of any intentional contamination must be taken into account when
developing treatment and decontamination strategies. The objective of this project was to collect
data the adherence of selected contaminants on sediments collected from drinking water storage
tanks located across the United States. Sediments were characterized so that correlations
between sediment characteristics and contaminant adherence could occur in the future.
2.0 Test Design and Procedures
This study evaluated the adherence of four target contaminants onto sediments that were
collected from drinking water storage tanks located across the United States. The target
contaminants for this study were non-radioactive cesium (Cs-133), the insecticide lindane,
Escherichia coll, and spores of Bacillus anthracis Sterne (BaS), an avirulent strain. Non-
radioactive Cs-133 acted as a surrogate for radioactive Cs-137. Lindane is an organic chemical.
E. coli is a coliform bacteria of interest in the drinking water community. BaS spores acted as a
surrogate for pathogenic B. anthracis spores. This work was performed under the auspices of the
Quality Management Plan for the National Homeland Security Research Center, Office of
Research and Development, U.S. EPA, August 2009.
2.1 Sediment Sampling
Battelle and EPA identified drinking water utilities that would be willing to provide tank
sediment and water samples while draining their tank for cleaning. Some of these utilities were
identified through Utility Service Group (Utility Service), a tank cleaning and Maintenance
Company that had been contracted to provide tank cleaning/maintenance services. The rest were
identified through email communication asking utilities if they were planning to clean their
storage tanks and if so, would they be willing to collect samples for this project. Following
initial contact with the utilities, Battelle would discuss the project with them. If they agreed to
participate, Battelle provided a sampling kit and detailed sampling instructions to either Utility
Service (if they were going to perform sampling during tank maintenance) or directly to the
utility (if the utility was going to perform the sampling). In either case, Battelle would talk on
the phone with the crew that would actually be performing the sampling so the sampling
instructions were clear.
The sampling kit included all the necessary supplies for sample collection (e.g., pre-paid
shipping cooler packed with pre-cleaned sampling tools, sample containers and labels, and
miscellaneous supplies such as sterile gloves, permanent markers, and tape). In most cases the
sediment samples were collected from the drinking water storage tanks after the water had been
drained in preparation for tank cleaning. The objective of sediment sampling was for the
1
-------
sampling crew to fill five one-gallon containers with sediment from the tank. In addition, the
sampling crew filled four one-liter containers with water from a faucet connected to the tank or a
sampling point immediately downstream from the tank. Depending on the moisture content of
the sediment, as much as 20 liters (L) of sediment sample was required in order to have enough
material to complete the characterization, background, and adherence tests. A summary of the
samples received can be seen in Table 2-1.
-------
Table 2-1. Sediment Sample Inventory
Tank Location
Alabama
Arizona
Arizona
Arkansas
California
California 1
California 2
California 3
Florida
Georgia
Illinois
Maryland
North Carolina
Ohiol
Ohio 2
Ohio 2013 A
Ohio 2013 B
Ohio 2013 B
Ohio 3
Ohio 4
Pennsylvania 1
Pennsylvania 2
Southern OH 1
Southern OH 2
Tennessee
Source
Water
surface
ground
ND
surface
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ground
surface
ND
ground
surface
surface
ND
ND
ND
surface
surface
ground
ND
ground
ground
ground
Tank Details
5 million gal,
ground storage
500,000 gal
surface
ND
ground storage
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
500,000 gal
elevated
elevated
ND
TBD
elevated
elevated
ND
ND
ND
elevated
elevated
l.lMgal,
standpipe
ND
150,000 gal
elevated
600,000 in-
ground
6 M gal, surface
Sediment Description
Five gallons of water/sediment slurry
containing —50% sediment (by volume).
Five gallons of water/sediment slurry, <25%
sediment (by volume).
Muddy clay-like sediment.
Five gallons of water/sediment slurry
containing —50% sediment (by volume).
One container half full of rocky sediment and
one container mostly water with a small
amount of sand.
Small amount of watery sediment. Sediment
was collected with a vacuum.
Not enough sample for adherence testing.
Not enough sample for adherence testing.
Small sample with no water.
One gallon of water/sediment slurry
containing 25-50% sediment (by volume).
4, one-liter bottles collected aseptically
containing sandy sediment.
Mostly water.
Five gallons of dark water/sediment slurry
containing -50% sediment (by volume).
Approximately 3 kg of dry sediment.
-300 g moist soil-like sediment.
-1 quart of muddy /rocky sediment.
1 gallon container -1/3 full of muddy paint
chips.
1 gallon container -1/4 full of watery, muddy
paint chips and sediment.
— 1800 grams moist soil/sand texture.
—1 800 grams moist clay/soil texture.
Five gallons of water/sediment slurry
containing <25% sediment (by volume).
3 of the 4 sediment sample containers were
open when received.
Three gallons of water/sediment slurry
containing -50% sediment (by volume).
One gallon of water/sediment slurry
containing less than <25% sediment (by
volume).
Two gallon of water/sediment slurry
containing 50-75% sediment (by volume).
Enough
Sediment for
Adherence
Testing
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
Yes
ND-not determined
Shading indicates a sample used in adherence experiments.
On a dry basis, 700 grams (g) of sediment was required for the characterization and background
tests, and another 80 g for the adherence tests. However, when the crews would sample
sediment from the tanks, they often found that there was not an adequate amount of sediment in
the tanks to fill all of the sampling containers. Therefore, they collected as much sample as
possible. Twenty five drinking water tank sediment and water samples were collected from 2012
-------
through the first half of 2014, but only eight of these samples contained enough sediment to
perform sediment adherence experiments.
2.2 Sediment Characterization
Out of the 25 sediment samples collected, 8 samples contained enough sediment to be fully or
partially characterized, with enough sediment left over to complete adherence testing. The
characterization methods are listed in Table 2-2.
-------
Table 2-2. Sediment Characterization Methods
Test Parameter Method
Sources
Total Organic
Carbon
Automated instrumental analysis of carbon and
nitrogen in plant and soil samples (Comparable
to EPA Method 9060A)
McGeehan, S.L., andD.V. Naylor. 1988. Automated
instrumental analysis of carbon and nitrogen in plant
and soil samples. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal.
19:493-505.
U.S. EPA, EPA Method 9060A, Total Organic Carbon,
Rev. 1, November 2004.
Organic matter
Estimation of soil organic matter by weight,
loss on ignition (Comparable to EPA
Method 160.4)
Schulte, E.E., and E.G. Hopkins. 1996. Estimation of
soil organic matter by weight Loss-On-Ignition. P.
21-32; in: Soil Organic Matter: Analysis and
interpretation. (ed.)F.R. Magdoff, M.A. Tabatabai,
and E.A. Hanlon, Jr. Special publication No. 46. Soil
Sci. Soc. Am. Madison, WI.
U.S. EPA, EPA Method 160.4, Volatile Residue,
Rev. 1, 1971 in Methods for Chemical Analysis of
Water and Wastes, EPA/600/4-79/020, March 1983.
Particle Size
Analysis (Sand,
Silt, and Clay)
ASTM D422 (sieve/hydrometer)
ASTM Standard D422,1998, "Standard Test Method
for Particle-Size Analysis of Soils," ASTM
International, West Conshohocken, PA,
www.astm.org.
pH
EPA Method 9045 C rev 3
U.S. EPA, EPA Method 9045C, Soil and Waste pH,
SW-846, Rev. 3, January 1995
Elemental
analysis
Aluminum - EPA Method 200.8
Boron - EPA Method 200.8
Calcium - EPA Method 200.8
Copper - EPA Method 200.8
Iron - EPA Method 200.8
Magnesium - EPA Method 200.8
Manganese - EPA Methods 200.8
Phosphorus - EPA Method 200.8
Potassium - EPA Method 200.8
Silica - EPA Method 200.8
Sulfur - EPA Method 200.8
Sodium - EPA Method 200.8
Zinc - EPA Method 200.8
U.S. EPA, EPA Method 200.8, Determination of
Trace Elements in Waters and Wastes by Inductively
Coupled Plasma - Mass Spectrometry, Revision July
1991 in: Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water
and Wastes. EPA/600/4-79/020
Cation
Exchange
Capacity (CEC)
Soil Sampling and Method of Analysis
Canadian Society of Soil Science -
Ammonium acetate replacement
(Comparable to EPA Method 9080)
Soil Sampling and Methods of Analysis, (ed.) M.R.
Carter and E.g. Gregorich, "Ion Exchange and
Exchangeable Cations." W.H. Hendershot, H.
Lalande, and M. Duquette. Ch. 18 pp. 197-206.
Canadian Society of Soil Science: Pinawa, Manitoba.
1993. Method 19.4.2.2.
U.S. EPA, EPA Method 9080, Cation Exchange
Capacity in Soils. Rev. 0, 1986.
-------
2.3 Measurement Methods
Investigation of the adsorption of Cs-133, lindane, E.coli, andBaS spores onto the selected
sediment samples included the determination of the background concentrations of these target
contaminants in the sediments and water samples used for adherence experiments. The
background concentration of each contaminant in the sediment and water samples was accounted
for in the adherence experiments. These analyses were performed following the methods shown
in Table 2-3.
For Cs-133, sediments were acid digested and the digestate analyzed by inductively-coupled
plasma mass spectrometry (ICP-MS). The water samples were analyzed directly (no acid
digestion) following the same method. Lindane was determined by gas chromatography -
electron capture (GC-ECD) detection of the resulting extract obtained during Soxhlet extraction
of the sediment and liquid-liquid extraction of the water. The background biological growth from
each sediment sample was observed by rinsing of the sediment samples with 0.01% phosphate
buffered saline Triton® (Alfa Aesar, Ward Hill, Massachusetts (PBST) solution and plating the
supernatant solution on tryptic soy agar plates (tank water samples were plated directly).
-------
Table 2-3. Selected Sediment and Corresponding Water Sample Analyses
Contaminant Laboratory Method Sources
Cesium
Analytical Balance
Corporation
(Middleboro, MA)
Modification to EPA
Method 200.8 -
inductively-coupled
plasma mass
spectrometry (ICP-MS)
U.S. EPA, EPA Method
200.8, Determination of
Trace Elements in Waters and
Wastes by Inductively
Coupled Plasma - Mass
Spectrometry, Revision July
1991 in: Methods for
Chemical Analysis of Water
and Wastes. EPA/600/4-
79/020
Lindane
Brookside
Laboratories3 (New
Bremen, OH),
Allowayb (Marion, OH)
EPA Method 8081-gas
chromatography with
sediment extraction by
3540C. EPA Method
508 with liquid-liquid
extraction by 35 IOC
U.S. EPA, EPA Method
8081B, Organochlorine
Pesticides by Gas
Chromatography, SW-846,
Rev.2, February 2007.
U.S. EPA, EPA Method
3540C, Soxhlet Extraction,
SW-846, Rev. 3, December
1996.
U.S. EPA, EPA Method 508,
Determination of Chlorinated
Pesticides in Water by Gas
Chromatography with an
Electron Capture Detector,
Revision 3.0,1989. EPA
600/4-81-053
U.S. EPA, EPA Method
35IOC, Separatory Funnel
Liquid-Liquid Extraction,
SW-846, Rev. 3, December
1996.
E.coli
Battelle (Columbus,
OH)
Tryptic soy agar plate
enumeration
NA
Bacillus anthracis Battelle (Columbus,
Sterne OH)
Tryptic soy agar plate
enumeration
NA
a Sediment and water background analyses.
b Adherence measurements.
2.4 Contaminant Adherence Experiments
Prior to determining the adherence of a target contaminant, the moisture content of each
sediment sample was determined by thoroughly mixing the sediment sample, then weighing
approximately 100 g of wet sediment into a pre-weighed glass dish. The sediment was then
dried for 24 hours at 100 °C. The dried sediment was allowed to cool completely and was then
reweighed. After obtaining the percent moisture, the wet equivalent of 2 g of dry sediment (e.g.,
50% moisture content, 4 g wet sediment would be equivalent to 2 g dry sediment) was
calculated.
-------
To initiate the contaminant adherence experiments, the wet sediment equivalent of 2 g dry
sediment was then transferred into three separate glass centrifuge tubes (50 mL Glass Centrifuge
Tubes, #45167-50 Kimble, Vineland, NJ) for lindane and three separate plastic centrifuge tubes
each (50 mL Centrifuge Tube, #3252P Stockwell Scientific, Scottsdale, AZ) for Cs-133, BaS,
and E.coli. In each contaminant-specific experiment, a volume of the applicable contaminated
drinking water (CDW) was transferred into the centrifuge tubes to completely fill the tube
(approximately 55 mL). CDW is a mixture of water from the tank spiked with contaminant. As
an experimental control to determine the extent that contaminants adhered to the walls of the
centrifuge tubes in the absence of sediment, 55 mL of CDW was added to three additional
centrifuge tubes. The CDW pH was measured using a calibrated Thermo Orion meter with an
Orion 9157 BNMD triode. If necessary, the pH was then adjusted to 7.5 or 8.5 using 1 N HC1
(Fisher SA48-500, Lot 124379 expiration 7/2014) and 1 NNaOH (Fisher SS266-1, Lot 137688
expiration 11/2015).
The sample and control centrifuge tubes were sealed and placed on a sample rotator (Fisher
Scientific Tube Rotator 05-450-200 and 05-450-201, Fisher Scientific, Pittsburgh, PA; or
equivalent) and vertically rotated for 16 hours at 10 revolutions per minute (rpm) for cesium and
lindane at room temperature (22 to 24 °C). This is based on the procedure used in the EPA
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response Batch-Type Procedures for Estimating Soil
Adsorption of Chemicals (1). During initial experiments it was discovered that E.coli began a
significant replication during the 16 hour rotation at room temperature, so E.coli and BaS were
rotated for approximately 6 hours at 2 to 8°C during adhesion experiments, which resulted in no
growth of either organism. Following rotation, particles were allowed to settle for 10 minutes.
The cesium and lindane samples were then centrifuged (2,500 relative centrifugal force [rcf]), for
10 minutes and the aqueous phase decanted for analysis. For the E.coli and BaS samples, 1 mL
aliquots of the aqueous portion of the settled sample were removed and enumerated. These
samples were not centrifuged, since centrifugation would remove the microorganisms from the
supernatant. Each sample was analyzed following the reference methods given in Table 2-3.
Table 2-4 details the experimental matrix for the sediment adherence experiments.
-------
Table 2-4. Experimental Matrix for the Contaminant Adherence Study
Water Matrix
Contaminant
Cesium
Lindane
E. coli
BaS
Cesium
Sample
Adherence replicate 1
Adherence replicate 2
Adherence replicate 3
Control (CDW only)
Total cesium samples
Adherence replicate 1
Adherence replicate 2
Adherence replicate 3
Control (CDW only)
Total lindane samples
Adherence replicate 1
Adherence replicate 2
Adherence replicate 3
Control (CDW only)
Total E. coli samples
Adherence replicate 1
Adherence replicate 2
Adherence replicate 3
Control (CDW only)
Total Bacillus anthracis Steme
samples
Sediment Blank
Sediment Specific Drinking
Water Replicate Samples at
pH7.5
3
3
3
3
12
3
3
3
3
12
3
3
3
3
12
3
3
3
3
12
3
Sediment Specific Drinking
Water Replicate Samples at
pH8.5
3
3
3
3
12
3
3
3
3
12
3
3
3
3
12
3
3
3
3
12
3
Lindane
E.coli Total sediment blank samples
BaS
CDW-contaminant drinking water
It should be noted that the rotation of sediment and contaminated water was designed to produce
good contact between the sediment and contaminant so that adherence could be observed.
Should a water tank actually become contaminated, the contact between the sediment and
contaminant may not be so vigorous.
The adherence of the four target contaminants were evaluated separately for each sediment
sample at two different pH levels. Before each adherence experiment, separate aliquots of the
CDW were prepared with each target contaminant as follows:
• Cs-133 - A 1000 mL CDW of Cs-133 with a concentration of 5 mg/L was prepared by
diluting 5 mL of a 1,000 mg/L Cs-133 standard (1,000 mg/L Cs-133 standard solution,
Catalog # CGCS1-1, Inorganic Ventures, Christiansburg, VA) to 1000 mL using the
drinking water from the storage tank from which the sediment had been collected).
• Lindane - A 1000 mL CDW of lindane, also known as gamma-hexachlorocyclohexane,
with a concentration of 5 mg/L was prepared by diluting 5 mL of a 1,000 mg/L lindane
standard (1,000 mg/L lindane standard in methanol, Catalog # 32226, Restek, State
College, PA) to 1000 mL using the drinking water from the storage tank from which the
sediment had been collected. The concentration of lindane was verified following EPA
Method 508 (see table 2-3 for a full reference).
• For Kcott, a lyophilized stock (ATCC 8739, Catalog # 0483E7, Microbiologies, St.
Cloud, MN) was rehydrated and streaked onto tryptic soy agar for colony isolation. This
-------
plate was stored at 2-8°C and used as needed for up to one month. Prior to each test, an
isolated colony was grown overnight in tryptic soy broth to make a concentrated stock of
approximately 1 x 109 cfu/ml. The concentration was estimated by measuring the optical
density and then calculating the concentration using a predetermined ODeoo versus cell
density value (derived from previous E. coli growth curve data). For BaS spores (BEI
Resources #34F2 (NR-1400), BEI Resources, Manassas, VA), a spore stock was prepared
by incubating the purchased BaS in generic sporulation broth at 35 °C for 5 days, which
yielded a concentration of approximately 1 x 109 cfu/ml. Spores, suspended in sterile
water, were stored at 2-8°C until ready for use. Suspensions of 100 ml of E. coli or BaS
spores at 1 x 106 CFU/mL were prepared by serially diluting the IxlO9 cfu/mL
suspensions in the appropriate test water at pH 7.5 or 8.5. The densities of both the E.coli
and BaS suspensions were confirmed using Standard Method 9222G (2) and the 1 x 106
CFU/mL stock solutions were stored at 3°C.
Each of the three sediment adherence samples were analyzed in triplicate. The resulting
concentration is that of the contaminant remaining in the aqueous component of the mixture
when at equilibrium with the sediment phase (Cas) or with the centrifuge tube walls (Caw). These
measurements were used to determine the percent adherence (%A) of the target contaminant to
the sediment in each centrifuge tube as follows:
^W = Qw x 50 ml (1)
mas = Cas x 50 ml (2)
™s = "W - mas (3)
%A = -^_ x 100 (4)
maw
where maw is the average amount of target contaminant in the aqueous phase of the three control
replicates when there is no sediment present (equilibrated with the walls of the centrifuge tube
only), mas is the amount of target contaminant in the aqueous phase in each of the centrifuge
tubes containing sediment, and ms is the amount of target contaminant adhered to the sediment at
equilibrium. Use of m^ in Equation 4 provides correction for possible contaminant adherence
to the centrifuge tube walls. The %A was calculated and reported for each replicate sample.
This process was repeated for each water matrix and contaminant combination.
Included in the adherence experiment was a separate blank control sample consisting of
uncontaminated sediment specific water and the applicable sediment sample (the sediment blank
in Table 2-4). In order to generate this control sample, the wet sediment equivalent of 2 g dry
sediment sample was weighed into three separate centrifuge tubes and a volume of sediment
specific uncontaminated water was added to each centrifuge tube to completely fill the tube
(approximately 55 mL). The sediment blank was subjected to the same experimental protocol as
the sediment adherence test samples. The aqueous phase of the blank samples was analyzed for
each target contaminant to determine background levels of the target contaminants that partitions
from the sediment to the water and any interferences that may have partitioned to the water from
the sediment.
The uncertainty of each of the individual measurements required to calculate the %A (i.e.,
uncertainty in the measurements required to determine the control and experimental results) was
used to propagate the uncertainty in the %A calculation. The combined experimental uncertainty
10
-------
in the %A calculation (A%A) was determined using the method of propagation of errors and is
defined below:
A%A = J(^pJ + (c ) X%A (5)
Where SDACS and SDATS are the standard deviations of the contaminant concentrations measured
in the contaminated control sample and sediment adherence (test) sample, respectively, being
compared. Similarly, Ccs and CTS are the average contaminant concentrations of the
contaminated control sample and the sediment adherence (test) samples, respectively, being
compared.
In order to further clarify the data throughout the section, t-tests were performed to determine if
the contaminated control and sediment adherence (test) samples were different from one another
at the 95% confidence interval. The null hypotheses of the t-tests were that the difference in
contaminant concentrations between the contaminated control and the sediment adherence
samples was zero. The probabilities (p) generated by the t-test were the probabilities of the null
hypothesis being confirmed. Therefore, p-values less than 0.05 indicated a small likelihood the
difference between the two data sets was zero, and thus, are considered to be significantly
different from one another. These p-value are presented for each experimental replicate in
Section 4.
11
-------
3.0 Quality Assurance/Quality Control
3.1 Quality Control Samples
Table 3-1 summarizes the controls included in this study. The controls are important
because the results of the sediment adherence experiments are dependent on the original
concentration of each target contaminant in the water matrix.
Table 3-1. Experimental Controls
Component of Sediment
Adherence Test
Type of Control
Description
Sediment Background
Measurements
Pre-test Allows determination of background concentration of
measurement the target contaminants.
Uncontaminated Sediment
Blank
Two blanks (one for
each pH level) per
target contaminant
adherence
experiment
A sediment sample that is rotated with
uncontaminated sediment-specific water.
Uncontaminated sediment blanks are treated
identically to the contaminated sediment samples to
control for any background contamination that might
be present in the sediment samples.
Contaminated Solution Control
Two contaminated
control samples (one
per pH level) per
target contaminant
adherence
experiment
A volume of contaminated sediment-specific water
that contains no sediment. The contaminated control
solution is treated identically to the contaminated
sediment samples to control for contaminant
adherence to the tube walls.
3.2 Measurement Methods
3.2.1 Cesium
The analytical method that was used for cesium was EPA Method 200.8 "Determination of Trace
Elements in Waters and Wastes by Inductively Coupled Plasma - Mass Spectrometry".
Calibration standards were prepared in ASTM Type 1 water with external standards and
acidified. A six-point calibration curve was generated prior to sample analyses. A calibration
blank was also prepared using ASTM Type I water and acidified with the same acid matrix as
the calibration standards. The calibration levels bracketed the sample concentration. The limit
of quantification for this method was approximately 0.001 mg/L. Two continuing calibration
check solutions were analyzed after every 10 samples and at the end of the sequence in order to
verify instrument sensitivity and calibration throughout the analysis. The results of these
samples were always between 90 -110% of the known concentration. A laboratory reagent blank
consisting of ASTM Type I water was analyzed and no contamination was found. A laboratory
fortified matrix sample was analyzed with each batch of samples. Recoveries for these samples
were always within the acceptable range of 85-115%.
3.2.2 Lindane
The analytical method that was used for lindane was EPA Method 508 "Determination of
Chlorinated Pesticides in Water by Gas Chromatography with and Electron Capture Detector".
12
-------
Calibration standards were prepared in methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE). A six-point calibration
curve was generated prior to sample analyses. A calibration blank was also prepared using the
same acid matrix as the calibration standards. The calibration levels bracketed the sample
concentration. The practical quantification limit (PQL) for this method was 0.021 mg/L. Two
continuing calibration check solutions were analyzed after every 10 samples and at the end of the
sequence in order to verify instrument sensitivity and calibration throughout the analysis. The
results of these samples were always between 90 -110% of the known concentration. A
laboratory fortified blank was analyzed every 20 samples and no background contamination was
found. A laboratory fortified matrix sample was analyzed with each batch of samples.
Recoveries for these samples were always within the acceptable range of 85-1 15%.
3.2.3 E. coli and BaS
The concentration ofE.coli and BaS in the samples was measured by tryptic soy agar
enumeration. After rotation and settling, an aliquot of the supernatant from the centrifuge tubes
was serially diluted using a sterile PBST solution. The resulting solutions were plated in
triplicate by dispensing 100 jiL onto tryptic soy agar plates (BD, #221283, Becton Dickinson and
Company, Franklin Lakes, NJ). Using a spreader, the aliquot was evenly distributed on the
plates then incubated for 24-48 hrs at 35-37°C. After incubation, the distinguishable colonies on
each plate were counted. In order to be considered a viable plate count, the number of colonies
on a given plate was required to be between 30 and 300. If the number of colonies was higher
than the most dilute plate, an additional dilution was performed and the extracts re-plated to
achieve countable results. If the number of colonies were below this range, either a more
concentrated extract was plated, or the result was considered "too few to count". To obtain the
number of colonies on the coupon, the average number of colonies was divided by the plated
volume and then multiplied by the inverse of the combined dilution factors.
3.3 Audits
3.3.1 Performance Evaluation A udit
Performance evaluation audits were conducted to assess the accuracy of the ICP-MS
reference method (EPA Method 200.8) and the GC-ECD method (EPA Method 508). A
performance evaluation sample containing 0.250 mg/L cesium, and 0.400 mg/L of lindane were
provided for analysis. Accuracy of the measurement was expressed in terms of the percent error
(%E), as calculated from the following equation:
\d-CR\
l- - ^
CR
where CRwas the standard or reference concentration of the performance evaluation sample and d
is the measurement obtained using the reference method. Ideally, if the reference value and the
measured value are the same, there would be a percent error of zero percent. The results of the
reference methods indicated %E of 2% for cesium, and 20% for lindane which are within the
acceptable %E of 20%.
13
-------
3.3.2 Technical Systems A udit (TSA)
The Battelle QA manager conducted a TSA at the Columbus, OH testing location to ensure that
the evaluation was performed in accordance with the QAPP for this study. As part of the audit,
the Battelle QA manager reviewed the reference sampling and analysis methods used, compared
actual evaluation procedures with those specified in the QAPP, and reviewed data acquisition
and handling procedures. No significant adverse findings were noted in this audit. The records
concerning the TSA are permanently stored with the Battelle QA manager.
3.4 Deviations from the QAPP
The drinking water used for adherence tests was adjusted to pH levels 7.5 and 8.5 instead of each
utility's reported minimum, maximum, and average pH values. In some cases a utility's reported
pH range was very small making it unlikely that a difference in adherence would be seen at the
various pH values. Upon discussion with EPA, the pH targets were adjusted to 7.5 and 8.5 for
consistency.
The sediment specific contaminated water samples for cesium and lindane were prepared at 5
mg/L instead of 1 mg/L. In order to perform replicate measurements during the contaminant
adherence experiments, more sample volume was required than what the centrifuge tubes
allowed for. Preparing the contaminated water solutions at a higher concentration allowed the
samples to be diluted after they were rotated. Diluting the samples created the extra sample
volume necessary to perform replicate measurements.
Bacillus atrophaeus subsp. globigii was the original B. anthracis surrogate planned for this
study. B. anthracis Sterne was used instead, but the method used to enumerate the spores was
the same for both organisms.
3.5 Data Quality Audit
At least 10% of the data acquired during the evaluation were audited. The Battelle QA manager
traced the data from the initial acquisition, through reduction and statistical analysis, to final
reporting, to ensure the integrity of the reported results. All calculations performed on the data
undergoing the audit were checked.
3.6 QA/QC Reporting
Each assessment and audit was documented in accordance with the QAPP. Once an assessment
report was prepared by the Battelle QA manager, it was routed to the work assignment manager
and Battelle Testing and Evaluation contract program manager for review and approval. The
Battelle QA manager then distributed the final assessment report to the EPA Contracting
Officer's Representative, QA manager, and Battelle staff.
14
-------
4.0 Results
The adherence of several target contaminants to eight sediment samples from separate drinking
water storage tanks was determined. Drinking water storage tank sediment and the
corresponding tank water were collected from eight storage tanks located across the United
States. Each sample was characterized prior to beginning adherence testing to provide
information about the chemical/physical interaction between the target contaminants and the
sediment.
4.1 Background and Sediment Characterization Results
Lindane and viable E. coli and BaS were not detected in any of the sediment background
samples. The chemical (non-radioactive) form of cesium was detected in Alabama, Arkansas,
Ohio 4 and Arizona samples at levels ranging from 0.3 to 0.4 |ig/kg. Any measurable cesium
leaching from the sediments to the test water was at least 50 times less than the concentration of
the contaminated water, thus too small to interfere with the adherence experiments. Given the
non-specific culture media, several of the sediment samples produced a background flora when
the non-diluted rinse was plated. However, none of the colony morphologies were consistent
with that of E. coli or BaS. Also, with each adherence experiment, a sediment sample was
rotated with uncontaminated tank water and the resulting solution plated at a tenfold dilution. No
growth of E. coli, BaS, or any other background microorganism was ever observed at those
dilution levels. Also, E. coli and BaS were contaminated at a relatively high density of
approximately 106 cfu/ml in the adherence experiment solutions.
The results from the sediment characterization are presented in Table 4-1. The total exchange
capacity varied greatly across samples with the lowest being the Tennessee sample at 3
(mmol/L)/100 g, and the highest being the Arizona sample at 154.14 (mmol/L)/100 g. However,
the sediment pH ranged from 6.6 to 8.2. There was also a wide range in the percentage of total
organic carbon (TOC) and organic matter. The highest TOC was found in the Arizona sample,
and the highest percentage of organic matter was found in the Illinois sample. While most of the
particle size distributions were predominately greater than 75% sand, the Illinois and Arizona
samples provided two samples of smaller particle distributions.
Table 4-1. Sediment Characterization Results
Tank Location
Tennessee
North Carolina
Ohiol
Alabama
Arkansas
Ohio 4
Arizona
Illinois
Particle Size
% Clay
(<0.005
mm)
0.4
7.63
1.36
2.73
3.91
1.68
7.35
41.68
% Silt
(0.005-0.74
mm)
1.06
23.39
6.7
2.33
14.44
21.67
34.34
21.39
% Sand
(0.075-2
mm)
98.54
68.98
91.94
94.94
81.65
76.65
58.31
36.93
PH
8.2
7.6
7.1
7.8
6.7
6.6
6.7
7.6
Total Exchange
Capacity
((mmol/L)/100g)
3
110.8
26.7
12.2
12.17
57.34
154.14
9.66
Total
Organic
Carbon
(%TOC)
0.42
3.11
0.25
0.42
2.78
2.09
9.42
1.69
Organic
Matter (%)
0.43
5.45
0.89
0.88
11.45
5.9
4.08
16.52
15
-------
4.2 Contaminant Adherence Results
Tables 4-2 through 4-33 provide the results from all the sediment adherence experiments. Each
table includes the residual concentrations (with standard deviations) of contaminants in the
aqueous component of the adherence experiment as well as the control experiments. It also
includes the p-value of the comparison between the adherence experiment and the control, as
well as the %A for each replicate along with the propagated uncertainty. Because three reference
measurements were collected for each cesium and lindane experiments, an average and standard
deviation of the individual %A was determined. This was not determined for BaS and E.coli
because only one reference samples (based on three enumerations) was measured.
The results from the cesium and lindane adherence tests conducted on the Tennessee sediment
sample are presented in Table 4-2 and Table 4-3, respectively. The Tennessee sample was over
98% sand, and had the lowest total exchange capacity (TEC), total organic carbon (TOC), and
organic matter compared to the other sediment samples that were characterized. Less than 10%
of the cesium and lindane adhered. The E.coli and BaS adherence results for the Tennessee
sample can be found in Table 4-4 and Table 4-5. E.coli had an average adherence of 54%, while
BaS had an average adherence of 82-86%. No significant difference was seen between the two
pH levels.
Table 4-2. Tennessee Cesium Adherence Results
pH
7.5
8.5
Description
Adherence Rep 1
Adherence Rep 2
Adherence Rep 3
Control - contaminated water,
no sediment
Blank - sediment and
uncontaminated water
Adherence Rep 1
Adherence Rep 2
Adherence Rep 3
Control - contaminated water,
no sediment
Blank - sediment and
uncontaminated water
Avg.
(HS/L)
398
372
360
395
ND
356
364
365
398
ND
SD
74
5
8
14
NA
8
3
11
13
NA
p-value;
compared
to control
4.8E-01
2.8E-02
l.OE-02
4.1E-03
5.0E-03
1.4E-02
% Adherence (%A)
%A
-1
6
9
11
9
8
A%A
-0.1
0.2
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.4
Avg.
%A.
5
9
%SD
5
1
16
-------
Table 4-3. Tennessee Lindane Adherence Results
pH
7.5
8.5
Description
Adherence Rep 1
Adherence Rep 2
Adherence Rep 3
Control - contaminated water,
no sediment
Blank - sediment and
uncontaminated water
Adherence Rep 1
Adherence Rep 2
Adherence Rep 3
Control - contaminated water,
no sediment
Blank - sediment and
uncontaminated water
Avg.
(HS/L)
423
423
429
459
ND
432
450
440
472
ND
SD
6
4
7
6
NA
4
12
8
6
NA
p-value;
compared
to control
1.2E-03
6.7E-04
3.4E-03
5.9E-04
2.6E-02
3.7E-03
% Adherence (%A)
Sediment
8
8
7
8
5
7
A%A
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.2
Avg.
%A
7
7
%SD
1
2
Table 4-4. Tennessee E.coli Adherence Results
pH
7.5
8.5
Sample Description
Adherence Rep 1
Adherence Rep 2
Adherence Rep 3
Contaminated Control Rep 1
Contaminated Control Rep 2
Contaminated Control Rep 3
Blank - sediment and
uncontaminated water
Adherence Rep 1
Adherence Rep 2
Adherence Rep 3
Contaminated Control Rep 1
Contaminated Control Rep 2
Contaminated Control Rep 3
Blank - sediment and
uncontaminated water
Measured Cone.
(cfu/mL)
7.8E+05
7.1E+05
8.3E+05
1.8E+06
1.7E+06
1.5E+06
ND
7.5E+05
7.4E+05
7.4E+05
1.7E+06
1.6E+06
1.6E+06
ND
Avg.
Cone.
7.7E+05
1.7E+06
NA
7.4E+05
1.6E+06
NA
SD
6.0E+04
1.5E+05
NA
5.8E+03
5.8E+04
NA
p-value;
compared
to control
7.1E-04
1.2E-05
% Sediment
Adherence
53
57
50
54
55
55
Avg. %A
54
54
A%A
6
2
17
-------
Table 4-5. Tennessee BaS Adherence Results
pH
7.5
8.5
Sample Description
Adherence Rep 1
Adherence Rep 2
Adherence Rep 3
Contaminated Control Rep 1
Contaminated Control Rep 2
Contaminated Control Rep 3
Blank - sediment and
uncontaminated water
Adherence Rep 1
Adherence Rep 2
Adherence Rep 3
Contaminated Control Rep 1
Contaminated Control Rep 2
Contaminated Control Rep 3
Blank - sediment and
uncontaminated water
Measured Cone.
(cfu/mL)
2.2E+04
2.2E+04
2.3E+04
1.7E+05
1.4E+05
1.8E+05
ND
2.5E+04
3.8E+04
3.5E+04
1.6E+05
1.8E+05
2.0E+05
ND
Avg.
Cone.
2.2E+04
1.6E+05
NA
3.3E+04
1.8E+05
NA
SD
8.1E+02
2.1E+04
NA
7.1E+03
2.1E+04
NA
p-value;
compared
to control
3.1E-04
3.5E-04
% Sediment
Adherence
87
86
86
86
79
80
Avg. %A
86
82
A%A
11
20
Results from the North Carolina cesium and lindane adherence tests can be seen in Table 4-6 and
Table 4-7. The North Carolina sediment sample had a TEC of 110.8 (mmol/L)/100g. This
sample also had one of the highest percentages of silt of those studied with 23% (7.6% clay, and
69% sand). Cesium adhered more readily to the North Carolina sample than for the Tennessee
sample with approximately 20% of the cesium adhering to the sediment. Lindane also adhered
more readily to the North Carolina sediment with average %A of 40% and 27% for the two pHs.
The E.coli and BaS adherence results for the North Carolina sediment sample are presented in
Table 4-8 and Table 4-9. E.coli generated higher average adherences (66% and 78%) than BaS
(31% and 49%), but the E.coli results had rather large uncertainties making differences unlikely.
18
-------
Table 4-6. North Carolina Cesium Adherence Results
pH
7.5
8.5
Description
Adherence Rep 1
Adherence Rep 2
Adherence Rep 3
Control - contaminated water,
no sediment
Blank - sediment and
uncontaminated water
Adherence Rep 1
Adherence Rep 2
Adherence Rep 3
Control - contaminated water,
no sediment
Blank - sediment and
uncontaminated water
Avg.
(HS/L)
295
303
301
373
ND
299
298
311
383
ND
SD
3
7
1
8
NA
12
10
16
16
NA
p-value;
compared
to control
3.5E-05
1.3E-04
3.9E-05
8.7E-04
6.5E-04
2.5E-03
% Adherence (%A)
%A
21
19
19
22
22
19
A%A
0.5
0.6
0.4
1
1
1
Avg.
%A.
20
21
%SD
1
2
Table 4-7. North Carolina Lindane Adherence Data
pH
7.5
8.5
Description
Adherence Rep 1
Adherence Rep 2
Adherence Rep 3
Control - contaminated water,
no sediment
Blank - sediment and
uncontaminated water
Adherence Rep 1
Adherence Rep 2
Adherence Rep 3
Control - contaminated water,
no sediment
Blank - sediment and
uncontaminated water
Avg.
(HS/L)
107
133
131
207
ND
122
116
87
149
ND
SD
13
12
39
44
NA
10
17
6
43
NA
p-value;
compared
to control
9.8E-03
2.4E-02
7.2E-02
1.8E-01
1.5E-01
3.6E-02
% Adherence (%A)
%A
48
36
37
18
22
41
A%A
12
8
13
5
7
12
Avg.
%A.
40
27
%SD
7
12
19
-------
Table 4-8. North Carolina E.coli Adherence Results
pH
7.5
8.5
Sample Description
Adherence Rep 1
Adherence Rep 2
Adherence Rep 3
Contaminated Control Rep 1
Contaminated Control Rep 2
Contaminated Control Rep 3
Blank - sediment and
uncontaminated water
Adherence Rep 1
Adherence Rep 2
Adherence Rep 3
Contaminated Control Rep 1
Contaminated Control Rep 2
Contaminated Control Rep 3
Blank - sediment and
uncontaminated water
Measured
Cone. (cfu/mL)
2.0E+05
8.8E+05
8.1E+05
1.8E+06
1.9E+06
1.8E+06
ND
4.8E+05
4.3E+05
2.8E+05
2.0E+06
1.8E+06
1.7E+06
ND
Avg.
Cone.
6.3E+05
1.8E+06
NA
4.0E+05
1.8E+06
NA
SD
3.7E+05
5.2E+04
NA
l.OE+05
1.5E+05
NA
p-value;
compared
to control
5.1E-03
1.6E-04
% Sediment
Adherence
89
52
56
74
76
85
Avg. %A
66
78
A%A
39
21
Table 4-9. North Carolina BaS Adherence Results
pH
7.5
8.5
Sample Description
Adherence Rep 1
Adherence Rep 2
Adherence Rep 3
Contaminated Control Rep 1
Contaminated Control Rep 2
Contaminated Control Rep 3
Blank - sediment and
uncontaminated water
Adherence Rep 1
Adherence Rep 2
Adherence Rep 3
Contaminated Control Rep 1
Contaminated Control Rep 2
Contaminated Control Rep 3
Blank - sediment and
uncontaminated water
Measured
Cone. (cfu/mL)
1.8E+04
1.6E+04
1.9E+04
2.4E+04
2.3E+04
3.0E+04
ND
2.2E+04
1.8E+04
2.6E+04
4.3E+04
4.1E+04
4.6E+04
ND
Avg.
Cone.
1.8E+04
2.6E+04
NA
2.2E+04
4.3E+04
NA
SD
1.5E+03
3.8E+03
NA
4.0E+03
2.5E+03
NA
p-value;
compared
to control
2.7E-02
1.4E-03
% Sediment
Adherence
30
38
26
49
58
40
Avg. %A
31
49
A%A
5
9
20
-------
Four sediment samples were collected from Ohio locations (because of the availability of several
tanks being cleaned), however only two locations were used for adherence testing. Those
locations are referred to as "Ohio 1" and "Ohio 4". The cesium and lindane adherence results for
the Ohio 1 sample can be seen in Table 4-10 and Table 4-11. The Ohio 1 sample had TOC and
organic matter values of 0.25% and 0.89%, respectively. In addition, it was 92% sand. The
cesium adhered to similar extent in both the pH 7.5 and the pH 8.5 solutions, with approximately
67% and 60%, for pH 7.5 and pH 8.5, respectively. Almost 90% of the lindane in both the pH
7.5 and pH 8.5 solutions adhered to the Ohio 1 sample. The adherence results for E.coli and BaS
on the Ohio 1 sample can be seen in Table 4-12 and Table 4-13. For E.coli, the results indicated
that pH may be a factor in the adherence with 72% adhering in the pH 7.5 solution, but only 27%
adhering in the pH 8.5 solution. However, the uncertainty was rather large making differences
unlikely. For BaS, pH did not make a significant difference as 93% and 99% of the BaS adhered
to the Ohio 1 sediment.
Table 4-10. Ohio 1 Cesium Adherence Results
pH
7.5
8.5
Description
Adherence Rep 1
Adherence Rep 2
Adherence Rep 3
Control - contaminated water,
no sediment
Blank - sediment and
uncontaminated water
Adherence Rep 1
Adherence Rep 2
Adherence Rep 3
Control - contaminated water,
no sediment
Blank - sediment and
uncontaminated water
Avg.
(HS/L)
104
95
128
329
ND
128
104
84
265
ND
SD
2
5
2
2
NA
26
2
1
11
NA
p-value;
compared
to control
7.6E-09
8.4E-08
1.2E-08
5.2E-04
6.5E-06
3.9E-06
% Adherence (%A)
%A
69
71
61
52
61
68
A%A
1
4
1
11
3
3
Avg.
%A.
67
60
%SD
5
8
21
-------
Table 4-11. Ohio 1 Lindane Adherence Results
pH
7.5
8.5
Description
Adherence Rep 1
Adherence Rep 2
Adherence Rep 3
Control - contaminated water,
no sediment
Blank - sediment and
uncontaminated water
Adherence Rep 1
Adherence Rep 2
Adherence Rep 3
Control - contaminated water,
no sediment
Blank - sediment and
uncontaminated water
Avg.
(HS/L)
48
46
46
367
ND
45
45
45
373
ND
SD
3
2
3
6
NA
1
2
2
21
NA
p-value;
compared
to control
6.2E-08
4.5E-08
6.0E-08
5.4E-06
5.4E-06
5.5E-06
% Adherence (%A)
%A
87
88
88
88
88
88
A%A
6
4
6
5
6
6
Avg.
%A.
87
88
%SD
0
0
Table 4-12. Ohio 1 E.coli Adherence Results
pH
7.5
8.5
Sample Description
Adherence Rep 1
Adherence Rep 2
Adherence Rep 3
Contaminated Control Rep 1
Contaminated Control Rep 2
Contaminated Control Rep 3
Blank - sediment and
uncontaminated water
Adherence Rep 1
Adherence Rep 2
Adherence Rep 3
Contaminated Control Rep 1
Contaminated Control Rep 2
Contaminated Control Rep 3
Blank - sediment and
uncontaminated water
Measured
Cone. (cfu/mL)
3.5E+05
3.5E+05
7.8E+05
1.7E+06
1.7E+06
1.9E+06
ND
l.OE+06
9.7E+05
8.3E+05
1.3E+06
1.2E+06
1.3E+06
ND
Avg.
Cone.
5.0E+05
1.8E+06
NA
9.3E+05
1.3E+06
NA
SD
2.5E+05
1.1E+05
NA
9.0E+04
3.8E+04
NA
p-value;
compared
to control
1.2E-03
4.0E-03
% Sediment
Adherence
80
80
56
21
24
35
Avg. %A
72
27
A%A
36
3
22
-------
Table 4-13. Ohio 1 BaS Adherence Results
pH
7.5
8.5
Sample Description
Adherence Rep 1
Adherence Rep 2
Adherence Rep 3
Contaminated Control Rep 1
Contaminated Control Rep 2
Contaminated Control Rep 3
Blank - sediment and
uncontaminated water
Adherence Rep 1
Adherence Rep 2
Adherence Rep 3
Contaminated Control Rep 1
Contaminated Control Rep 2
Contaminated Control Rep 3
Blank - sediment and
uncontaminated water
Measured
Cone. (cfu/mL)
1.2E+03
1.4E+03
1.7E+03
3.6E+04
1.2E+04
9.8E+03
ND
1.3E+03
1.6E+03
2.1E+03
2.3E+05
2.1E+05
1.7E+05
ND
Avg.
Cone.
1.4E+03
1.9E+04
NA
1.7E+03
2.0E+05
NA
SD
2.5E+02
1.5E+04
NA
4.0E+02
3.1E+04
NA
p-value;
compared
to control
l.OE-01
3.3E-04
% Sediment
Adherence
94
93
91
99
99
99
Avg. %A
93
99
A%A
72
28
With the exception of exchange capacity, the Alabama sediment sample had similar
characteristics to the Ohio 1 sample. The Alabama sample had a lower TEC at 12.2
(mmol/L)/100g as compared to 26.7 (mmol/L)/100g for the Ohio 1 sample. The cesium and
lindane adherence results are shown in Table 4-14 and Table 4-15, respectively. Between 26%
and 44% of cesium and lindane adhered to the Alabama sediment while between 52% and 88%
adhered to the Ohio 1 sediment. Table 4-16 and Table 4-17 show the results for E.coli and BaS
in the Alabama sediment sample. High percentages of both biological contaminants adhered to
the Alabama sample: 72 to 76% of the E.coli, and 91 to 92% of the BaS.
23
-------
Table 4-14. Alabama Cesium Adherence Results
pH
7.5
8.5
Description
Adherence Rep 1
Adherence Rep 2
Adherence Rep 3
Control - contaminated
water, no sediment
Blank - sediment and
uncontaminated water
Adherence Rep 1
Adherence Rep 2
Adherence Rep 3
Control - contaminated
water, no sediment
Blank - sediment and
uncontaminated water
Avg.
(HS/L)
233
197
226
353
2
240
265
225
360
ND
SD
7
2
7
6
NA
4
13
5
6
NA
p-value;
compared
to control
8.2E-06
6.9E-07
8.1E-06
3.9E-06
1.9E-04
2.6E-06
% Adherence (%A)
%A
34
44
36
33
26
38
A%A
1
1
1
1
1
1
Avg.
%A.
38
32
%SD
5
6
Table 4-15. Alabama Lindane Adherence Results
pH
7.5
8.5
Description
Adherence Rep 1
Adherence Rep 2
Adherence Rep 3
Control - contaminated water,
no sediment
Blank - sediment and
uncontaminated water
Adherence Rep 1
Adherence Rep 2
Adherence Rep 3
Control - contaminated water,
no sediment
Blank - sediment and
uncontaminated water
Avg.
(HS/L)
240
243
247
387
ND
270
283
237
380
ND
SD
10
6
6
15
NA
0
12
15
17
NA
p-value;
compared
to control
7.7E-05
5.5E-05
6.0E-05
1.9E-04
6.5E-04
2.1E-04
% Adherence (%A)
%A
38
37
36
29
25
38
A%A
2
2
2
1
2
3
Avg.
%A.
37
31
%SD
1
6
24
-------
Table 4-16. Alabama E.coli Adherence Results
pH
7.5
8.5
Sample Description
Adherence Rep 1
Adherence Rep 2
Adherence Rep 3
Contaminated Control Rep 1
Contaminated Control Rep 2
Contaminated Control Rep 3
Blank - sediment and
uncontaminated water
Adherence Rep 1
Adherence Rep 2
Adherence Rep 3
Contaminated Control Rep 1
Contaminated Control Rep 2
Contaminated Control Rep 3
Blank - sediment and
uncontaminated water
Measured
Cone. (cfu/mL)
5.6E+05
5.8E+05
5.7E+05
2.4E+06
2.3E+06
2.5E+06
ND
5.3E+05
9.6E+05
5.3E+05
2.6E+06
2.3E+06
2.4E+06
ND
Avg.
Cone.
5.7E+05
2.4E+06
NA
6.7E+05
2.4E+06
NA
SD
l.OE+04
1.3E+05
NA
2.5E+05
1.7E+05
NA
p-value;
compared
to control
1.8E-05
5.1E-04
% Sediment
Adherence
77
76
76
78
61
78
Avg. %A
76
72
A%A
4
27
Table 4-17. Alabama BaS Adherence Results
pH
7.5
8.5
Sample Description
Adherence Rep 1
Adherence Rep 2
Adherence Rep 3
Contaminated Control Rep 1
Contaminated Control Rep 2
Contaminated Control Rep 3
Blank - sediment and
uncontaminated water
Adherence Rep 1
Adherence Rep 2
Adherence Rep 3
Contaminated Control Rep 1
Contaminated Control Rep 2
Contaminated Control Rep 3
Blank - sediment and
uncontaminated water
Measured
Cone. (cfu/mL)
1.7E+04
1.2E+04
1.6E+04
1.1E+05
2.0E+05
2.0E+05
ND
1.3E+04
1.3E+04
1.5E+04
2.0E+05
1.7E+05
1.7E+05
ND
Avg.
Cone.
1.5E+04
1.7E+05
NA
1.4E+04
1.8E+05
NA
SD
2.8E+03
4.9E+04
NA
1.2E+03
1.9E+04
NA
p-value;
compared
to control
5.5E-03
1.2E-04
% Sediment
Adherence
90
93
90
93
92
92
Avg. %A
91
92
A%A
32
13
The Arkansas sediment had a similar TEC to the Alabama sample, but it contained more organic
matter, with 11.5% compared to 0.9%, respectively. The results for the Arkansas sediment's
cesium and lindane adherence tests are presented in Table 4-18 and Table 4-19. An average of
25
-------
88% of the cesium in the pH 7.5 solution, and an average of 82% of the cesium in the pH 8.5
solution adhered to the Arkansas sediment. Lindane adherence was 41% and 43% at pH 7.5 and
8.5, respectively. The adherence results for E.coli and BaS on the Arkansas sample can be seen
in Table 4-20 and Table 4-21. Almost all of both biological contaminants adhered to the
Arkansas sample. The E.coli pH 8.5 sample exhibited a large uncertainty (121%) around the
percent adherence result relative to other adherence testing results. The large uncertainty is
driven by adherence replicate number three that had a higher post-adherence microbial density
that the other two replicates. If that replicate were removed, the uncertainty would drop to 34%.
Table 4-18. Arkansas Cesium Adherence Results
pH
7 5
8 5
Description
Adherence Rep 1
Adherence Rep 2
Adherence Rep 3
Control - contaminated water,
no sediment
Blank - sediment and
uncontaminated water
Adherence Rep 1
Adherence Rep 2
Adherence Rep 3
Control - contaminated water,
no sediment
Blank - sediment and
uncontaminated water
Avg.
(HS/L)
47
57
37
387
6
52
54
63
308
6
SD
0
2
1
6
NA
1
0
1
1
NA
p-value;
to control
3.5E-08
4.5E-08
3.2E-08
1.4E-10
8.0E-11
3.7E-10
% Adherenc
%A
88
85
90
83
82
80
e (%A)
A%A
1
3
2
1
0
1
Avg.
%A.
88
82
%SD
3
2
Table 4-19. Arkansas Lindane Adherence Results
pH
7.5
8.5
Description
Adherence Rep 1
Adherence Rep 2
Adherence Rep 3
Control - contaminated water,
no sediment
Blank - sediment and
uncontaminated water
Adherence Rep 1
Adherence Rep 2
Adherence Rep 3
Control - contaminated water,
no sediment
Blank - sediment and
uncontaminated water
Avg.
(HS/L)
103
99
107
175
ND
140
110
100
203
ND
SD
6
1
6
0
NA
0
0
0
10
NA
p-value;
compared
to control
1.7E-05
1.1E-09
1.7E-05
2.3E-04
5.0E-05
3.4E-05
% Adherence (%A)
%A
41
43
39
31
46
51
A%A
2
0
2
2
2
3
Avg.
%A.
41
43
%SD
2
10
26
-------
Table 4-20. Arkansas E.coli Adherence Results
pH
7.5
8.5
Sample Description
Adherence Rep 1
Adherence Rep 2
Adherence Rep 3
Contaminated Control Rep 1
Contaminated Control Rep 2
Contaminated Control Rep 3
Blank - sediment and
uncontaminated water
Adherence Rep 1
Adherence Rep 2
Adherence Rep 3
Contaminated Control Rep 1
Contaminated Control Rep 2
Contaminated Control Rep 3
Blank - sediment and
uncontaminated water
Measured
Cone. (cfu/mL)
1.1E+04
9.5E+03
1.3E+04
2.9E+06
2.3E+06
2.8E+06
ND
9.6E+03
1.5E+04
l.OE+05
2.5E+06
3.3E+06
2.9E+06
ND
Avg.
Cone.
1.1E+04
2.7E+06
NA
4.2E+04
2.9E+06
NA
SD
1.8E+03
3.2E+05
NA
5.1E+04
4.0E+05
NA
p-value;
compared
to control
1.4E-04
2.5E-04
% Sediment
Adherence
100
100
100
100
99
97
Avg. %A
100
99
A%A
20
121
Table 4-21. Arkansas BaS Adherence Results
pH
7.5
8.5
Sample Description
Adherence Rep 1
Adherence Rep 2
Adherence Rep 3
Contaminated Control Rep 1
Contaminated Control Rep 2
Contaminated Control Rep 3
Blank - sediment and
uncontaminated water
Adherence Rep 1
Adherence Rep 2
Adherence Rep 3
Contaminated Control Rep 1
Contaminated Control Rep 2
Contaminated Control Rep 3
Blank - sediment and
uncontaminated water
Measured
Cone. (cfu/mL)
5.7E+03
4.9E+03
5.7E+03
1.9E+06
1.4E+06
1.6E+06
ND
4.0E+03
5.4E+03
5.0E+03
1.4E+06
1.1E+06
1.5E+06
ND
Avg.
Cone.
5.4E+03
1.6E+06
NA
4.8E+03
1.3E+06
NA
SD
4.6E+02
2.5E+05
NA
7.2E+02
2.1E+05
NA
p-value;
compared
to control
3.6E-04
3.8E-04
% Sediment
Adherence
100
100
100
100
100
100
Avg. %A
100
100
A%A
18
22
27
-------
The cesium and lindane adherence results for the Ohio 4 sample can be seen in Table 4-22 and
Table 4-23. Only 28% and 11% of the cesium in the pH 7.5 and pH 8.5 solutions adhered to the
Ohio 4 sample, which is relatively low compared to the other sediments. Average lindane %A
was 39% and 44% at pH 7.5 and 8.5, respectively. The adherence results for E.coli and BaS on
the Ohio 4 sample can be seen in Table 4-24 and Table 4-25. Most of both biological
contaminants adhered to the Ohio 4 sample.
Table 4-22. Ohio 4 Cesium Adherence Results
pH
7.5
8.5
Description
Adherence Rep 1
Adherence Rep 2
Adherence Rep 3
Control - contaminated water,
no sediment
Blank - sediment and
uncontaminated tank water
Adherence Rep 1
Adherence Rep 2
Adherence Rep 3
Control - contaminated water,
no sediment
Blank - sediment and
uncontaminated tank water
Avg.
(HS/L)
262
231
269
354
7
269
239
260
287
8
SD
12
9
15
2
NA
1
13
7
21
NA
p-value;
compared
to control
1.1E-04
1.1E-05
3.1E-04
1.1E-01
1.4E-02
5.2E-02
% Adherence (%A)
%A
26
35
24
6
17
10
A%A
1
1
1
0
2
1
Avg.
%A.
28
11
%SD
6
5
Table 4-23. Ohio 4 Lindane Adherence Results
pH
7.5
8.5
Description
Adherence Rep 1
Adherence Rep 2
Adherence Rep 3
Control - contaminated water,
no sediment
Blank - sediment and
uncontaminated water
Adherence Rep 1
Adherence Rep 2
Adherence Rep 3
Control - contaminated water,
no sediment
Blank - sediment and
uncontaminated water
Avg.
(HS/L)
217
220
203
350
ND
213
220
230
393
ND
SD
6
10
6
0
NA
6
10
10
15
NA
p-value;
compared
to control
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0001
% Adherence (%A)
%A
38
37
42
46
44
42
A%A
1
2
1
2
3
2
Avg.
%A.
39
44
%SD
3
2
28
-------
Table 4-24. Ohio 4 E.coli Adherence Results
pH
7.5
8.5
Sample Description
Adherence Rep 1
Adherence Rep 2
Adherence Rep 3
Contaminated Control Rep 1
Contaminated Control Rep 2
Contaminated Control Rep 3
Blank - sediment and
uncontaminated water
Adherence Rep 1
Adherence Rep 2
Adherence Rep 3
Contaminated Control Rep 1
Contaminated Control Rep 2
Contaminated Control Rep 3
Blank - sediment and
uncontaminated water
Measured
Cone. (cfu/mL)
1.2E+05
1.2E+05
l.OE+05
9.4E+05
5.1E+05
8.5E+05
ND
8.7E+04
6.7E+04
8.1E+04
6.5E+05
4.4E+05
8.0E+05
ND
Avg.
Cone.
1.1E+05
7.7E+05
NA
7.8E+04
6.3E+05
NA
SD
1.2E+04
2.3E+05
NA
l.OE+04
1.8E+05
NA
p-value;
compared
to control
7.6E-03
6.2E-03
% Sediment
Adherence
84
84
87
86
89
87
Avg. %
A.
85
88
A%A
27
28
Table 4-25. Ohio 4 BaS Adherence Results
pH
7.5
8.5
Sample Description
Adherence Rep 1
Adherence Rep 2
Adherence Rep 3
Contaminated Control Rep 1
Contaminated Control Rep 2
Contaminated Control Rep 3
Blank - sediment and
uncontaminated water
Adherence Rep 1
Adherence Rep 2
Adherence Rep 3
Contaminated Control Rep 1
Contaminated Control Rep 2
Contaminated Control Rep 3
Blank - sediment and
uncontaminated water
Measured
Cone. (cfu/mL)
1.3E+04
1.2E+04
8.2E+03
7.6E+05
8.1E+05
7.3E+05
ND
7.5E+03
7.9E+03
6.6E+03
6.5E+05
5.3E+05
5.0E+05
ND
Avg.
Cone.
1.1E+04
7.7E+05
NA
7.3E+03
5.6E+05
NA
SD
2.5E+03
4.0E+04
NA
6.7E+02
7.9E+04
NA
p-value;
compared
to control
5.5E-06
2.7E-04
% Sediment
Adherence
98
98
99
99
99
99
Avg. %A
99
99
A%A
23
33
The cesium and lindane adherence results for the Arizona sample can be seen in Table 4-26 and
Table 4-27. The Arizona sample had one of the lower percentages of sand, and the highest
percent of silt of those studied as it was comprised of 58% sand, 34% silt, and 7% clay. In
29
-------
addition, it had the highest TEC value at 154.14 (mmol/L)/100g. More than half of the cesium
adhered to the sediment in both pHs of water and more than 80% of the lindane adhered to the
Arizona sediment. There was no significant difference in cesium or lindane adherence with the
pH 7.5 and pH 8.5 solutions. The adherence results for E.coli and BaS on the Arizona sample can
be seen in Table 4-28 and Table 4-29. More than 75% of both biological contaminants adhered
to the Arizona sample.
Table 4-26. Arizona Cesium Adherence Results
pH
7.5
8.5
Description
Adherence Rep 1
Adherence Rep 2
Adherence Rep 3
Control - contaminated water,
no sediment
Blank - sediment and
uncontaminated water
Adherence Rep 1
Adherence Rep 2
Adherence Rep 3
Control - contaminated water,
no sediment
Blank - sediment and
uncontaminated water
Avg.
(HS/L)
106
120
142
291
2
118
137
154
321
4
SD
6
1
11
25
NA
2
7
6
9
NA
p-value;
compared
to control
1.2E-04
1.4E-04
3.4E-04
1.4E-06
4.4E-06
6.1E-06
% Adherence (%A)
%A
64
59
51
63
57
52
A%A
7
5
6
2
3
3
Avg.
%A.
58
57
%SD
6
6
Table 4-27. Arizona Lindane Adherence Results
pH
7.5
8.5
Description
Adherence Rep 1
Adherence Rep 2
Adherence Rep 3
Control - contaminated water,
no sediment
Blank - sediment and
uncontaminated tank water
Adherence Rep 1
Adherence Rep 2
Adherence Rep 3
Control - contaminated water,
no sediment
Blank - sediment and
uncontaminated tank water
Avg.
(WJ/L)
41
52
55
363
NA
59
55
52
327
ND
SD
2
1
3
38
NA
1
4
5
38
NA
p-value;
compared to
control
6.2E-05
7.1E-05
7.4E-05
1.3E-04
1.2E-04
1.2E-04
% Adherence (%A)
%A
89
86
85
82
83
84
A%A
10
9
10
10
12
12
Avg.
%A.
86
83
%SD
2
1
30
-------
Table 4-28. Arizona E.coli Adherence Results
pH
7.5
8.5
Sample Description
Adherence Rep 1
Adherence Rep 2
Adherence Rep 3
Contaminated Control Rep 1
Contaminated Control Rep 2
Contaminated Control Rep 3
Blank - sediment and
uncontaminated water
Adherence Rep 1
Adherence Rep 2
Adherence Rep 3
Contaminated Control Rep 1
Contaminated Control Rep 2
Contaminated Control Rep 3
Blank - sediment and
uncontaminated water
Measured
Cone. (cfu/mL)
3.7E+05
3.1E+05
2.4E+05
1.4E+06
1.5E+06
1.5E+06
ND
3.8E+05
4.7E+05
3.0E+05
1.6E+06
1.8E+06
1.5E+06
ND
Avg.
Cone.
3.1E+05
1.5E+06
NA
3.8E+05
1.6E+06
NA
SD
6.5E+04
5.8E+04
NA
8.5E+04
1.5E+05
NA
p-value;
compared
to control
2.1E-05
2.4E-04
% Sediment
Adherence
75
79
84
77
71
82
Avg. %A
79
77
A%A
17
18
Table 4-29. Arizona BaS Adherence Results
pH
7.5
8.5
Sample Description
Adherence Rep 1
Adherence Rep 2
Adherence Rep 3
Contaminated Control Rep 1
Contaminated Control Rep 2
Contaminated Control Rep 3
Blank - sediment and
uncontaminated water
Adherence Rep 1
Adherence Rep 2
Adherence Rep 3
Contaminated Control Rep 1
Contaminated Control Rep 2
Contaminated Control Rep 3
Blank - sediment and
uncontaminated water
Measured
Cone. (cfu/mL)
1.1E+04
8.7E+03
8.6E+03
5.2E+05
5.1E+05
6.1E+05
ND
8.6E+03
8.8E+03
l.OE+04
6.5E+05
5.3E+05
5.2E+05
ND
Avg.
Cone.
9.4E+03
5.5E+05
NA
9.1E+03
5.7E+05
NA
SD
1.4E+03
5.5E+04
NA
7.6E+02
7.2E+04
NA
p-value;
compared
to control
7.2E-05
1.8E-04
% Sediment
Adherence
98
98
98
98
98
98
Avg. %A
98
98
A%A
17
15
The cesium and lindane adherence results for the Illinois sample can be seen in Table 4-30 and
Table 4-31. The particle size characteristics for the Illinois sample were different than the other
sediments. The Illinois sample had the highest amount of clay by a large margin; it had almost
31
-------
42% clay whereas the other sediments were less than 8% clay. Additionally, the Illinois sample
had the lowest percentage of sand with 37%. The Illinois sample was only tested with the pH 7.5
solution due to the small amount of sediment received. An average of 20% of the cesium
adhered, and an average of 27% of the lindane adhered to the Illinois sediment. The adherence
results for E.coli and BaS on the Illinois sample can be seen in Table 4-32 and Table 4-33. Less
than 50% of the E.coli adhered and more than 90% of the BaS adhered to the Illinois sample.
Table 4-30. Illinois Cesium Adherence Results
pH
7.5
Description
Adherence Rep 1
Adherence Rep 2
Adherence Rep 3
Control - contaminated water,
no sediment
Blank - sediment and
uncontaminated water
Avg.
(HS/L)
246
195
197
266
NA
SD
14
4
4
10
NA
p-value;
compared
to control
5.2E-02
1.5E-04
1.6E-04
% Adherence (%A)
%A
8
27
26
A%A
1
1
1
Avg.
%A.
20
%SD
11
Table 4-31. Illinois Lindane Adherence Results
pH
7.5
Description
Adherence Rep 1
Adherence Rep 2
Adherence Rep 3
Control - contaminated water,
no sediment
Blank - sediment and
uncontaminated water
Avg.
(HS/L)
253
267
273
360
0.23
SD
6
6
6
10
NA
p-value;
compared
to control
4.5E-05
7.6E-05
l.OE-04
% Adherence (%A)
%A
30
26
24
A%A
1
1
1
Avg.
%A.
27
%SD
3
Table 4-32. Illinois E.coli Adherence Results
pH
7.5
Sample Description
Adherence Rep 1
Adherence Rep 2
Adherence Rep 3
Contaminated Control Rep 1
Contaminated Control Rep 2
Contaminated Control Rep 3
Blank - sediment and
uncontaminated water
Measured
Cone. (cfu/mL)
1.5E+05
1.8E+05
1.2E+05
3.6E+05
1.7E+05
2.5E+05
ND
Avg.
Cone.
1.5E+05
2.6E+05
NA
SD
3.0E+04
9.5E+04
NA
p-value;
compared
to control
1.3E-01
% Sediment
Adherence
42
31
54
Avg. %A
42
A%A
18
32
-------
Table 4-33. Illinois BaS Adherence Results
pH
7.5
Sample Description
Adherence Rep 1
Adherence Rep 2
Adherence Rep 3
Contaminated Control Rep 1
Contaminated Control Rep 2
Contaminated Control Rep 3
Blank - sediment and
uncontaminated water
Measured
Cone. (cfu/mL)
8.5E+03
1.5E+04
1.5E+04
9.4E+05
7.5E+05
7.1E+05
ND
Avg.
Cone.
1.3E+04
8.0E+05
NA
SD
3.8E+03
1.2E+05
NA
p-value;
compared
to control
3.8E-04
% Sediment
Adherence
99
98
98
Avg. %A
98
A%A
33
33
-------
5.0 Results Summary
Tables 5-1 through 5-4 summarize the percent adherence data for all contaminant-sediment
combinations at pH 7.5 and 8.5. In general, the biological contaminants adhered more readily
than the chemical contaminants. The average cesium adherences ranged from 5% to 88%. The
range of adherences for lindane was 7% to 88%. All adherences for E.coli were greater than
50% except for the pH 8.5 Ohio 1, and pH 7.5 Illinois samples. Out of the four target
contaminants, BaS had the highest percentages of adhesion. All BaS samples had average
adherences greater than 90% except the Tennessee and North Carolina samples although the
Tennessee adherences were greater than 80%. Overall, adherences at different pH levels were
often within the experimental uncertainty of the measurements. The results of this work suggest
that when sediment is present, chemical and biological contaminants do adhere to the sediment.
Table 5-1. Average Cesium Adherence
Sediment
Tennessee
North Carolina
Ohio 1
Alabama
Arkansas
Ohio 4
Arizona
Illinois
PH
7.5
8.5
7.5
8.5
7.5
8.5
7.5
8.5
7.5
8.5
7.5
8.5
7.5
8.5
7.5
Average %A
5
9
20
21
67
60
38
32
88
82
28
11
58
57
20
%SD
5
1
1
2
5
8
5
6
3
2
6
5
6
6
11
Table 5-2. Average Lindane Adherence
Sediment
Tennessee
North Carolina
Ohio 1
Alabama
Arkansas
Ohio 4
Arizona
Illinois
pH
7.5
8.5
7.5
8.5
7.5
8.5
7.5
8.5
7.5
8.5
7.5
8.5
7.5
8.5
7.5
Average % A
7
7
40
27
87
88
37
31
41
43
39
44
86
83
27
%SD
1
2
7
12
0
0
1
6
2
10
3
2
2
1
3
34
-------
Table 5-3. Average E.coli Adherence
Sediment
Tennessee
North Carolina
Ohio 1
Alabama
Arkansas
Ohio 4
Arizona
Illinois
pH
7.5
8.5
7.5
8.5
7.5
8.5
7.5
8.5
7.5
8.5
7.5
8.5
7.5
8.5
7.5
Average %A
54
54
66
78
72
27
76
72
100
99
85
88
79
77
42
A%A
6
2
39
21
36
3
4
27
20
121
27
28
17
18
18
Table 5-4. Average Bacillus anthracis Sterne Adherence
Sediment
Tennessee
North Carolina
Ohio 1
Alabama
Arkansas
Ohio 4
Arizona
Illinois
PH
7.5
8.5
7.5
8.5
7.5
8.5
7.5
8.5
7.5
8.5
7.5
8.5
7.5
8.5
7.5
Average %A
86
82
31
49
93
99
91
92
100
100
99
99
98
98
98
A%A
11
20
5
9
72
28
32
13
18
22
23
33
17
15
33
35
-------
6.0 REFERENCES
U.S. EPA, Batch-Type Procedures for Estimating Soil Adsorption of Chemicals. U.S. EPA,
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response: Washington DC. April 1992. EPA/530/SW-
87-006-F
Standard Method 9222G, Membrane Filter Technique for Members of the Coliform Group,
MF Partition Procedures. American Public Health Association, American Water Works
Association, and Water Environment Federation. 2005. Standard Methods for the
Examination of Water and Wastewater. 21st Edition.
36
-------
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
PRESORTED STANDARD
POSTAGE & FEES PAID
EPA
PERMIT NO. G-35
Office of Research and Development (8101R)
Washington, DC 20460
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use
$300
------- |