Synthetic Turf Field Recycled Tire Crumb Rubber Research Under the Federal Research Action Plan Final Report: Part 1 - Tire Crumb Characterization Appendices Volume 2.


vvEPA
EPA/600/R-19/051.2 | July 2019 | www.epa.gov/research
United States

Environmental Protection

Agency

Atsdr
AGENCY FOR TOXIC SUBSTANCES
AND DISEASE REGISTRY
Centers for disease
Control and Prevention
Synthetic Turf Field Recycled Tire Crumb
Rubber Research Under the Federal
Research Action Plan
FINAL REPORT PART 1-
TIRE CRUMB RUBBER CHARACTERIZATION APPENDICES VOLUME 2
National Exposure Research Laboratory

-------

-------
EPA/600/R-19/051.2
July 2019
Synthetic Turf Field Tire Crumb Rubber
Research Under the Federal Research
Action Plan
Final Report Part 1 -
Tire Crumb Rubber Characterization Appendices
Volume 2
July 25, 2019
By
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency / Office of Research and Development (EPA/ORD)
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention / Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease

-------
Disclaimer
This document has been reviewed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Agency for
Toxic Substances and Disease Registry and approved for release. Mention of trade names or
commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
Preferred citation: U.S. EPA & CDC/ATSDR. (2019). Synthetic Turf Field Recycled Tire Crumb
Rubber Research Under the Federal Research Action Plan Final Report: Part 1 - Tire Crumb
Characterization (Volumes 1 and2). (EPA/600/R-19/051). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention/Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.

-------
Foreword
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Office of Research and Development (ORD) and the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
(ATSDR) have worked collaboratively to complete the research activities on synthetic turf playing fields
under the "Federal Research Action Plan on Recycled Tire Crumb Used on Playing Fields and
Playgrounds." The Agencies plan to release the research activities' results in two parts. This report (Part
1) summarizes the research effort to characterize tire crumb rubber, which includes characterizing the
components of, and emissions from, recycled tire crumb rubber. The exposure characterization report
(Part 2) will summarize the potential exposures that may be experienced by users of synthetic turf
playing fields with recycled tire crumb rubber infill, such as how people come in contact with the
materials, how often and for how long. Part 2 will be released at a later date, along with results from a
planned biomonitoring study conducted by CDC/ATSDR.
The study is not a risk assessment; however, the results of the research described in this and future
reports will advance our understanding of exposure to inform the risk assessment process. We anticipate
that the results from this multi-agency research effort will be useful to the public and interested
stakeholders to understand the potential for human exposure to chemicals found in recycled tire crumb
rubber used on synthetic turf fields.
This report has been prepared to communicate to the public the research objectives, methods, results and
findings for the tire crumb rubber characterization research conducted as part of the Federal Action
Research Plan. The report has undergone independent, external peer review in accordance with EPA and
CDC policies. A summary of key reviewer recommendations and relevant responses on this part of the
research is provided with this report. A response-to-peer review comments document will be released
with Part 2.
The mission of the EPA is to protect human health and the environment so that future generations inherit
a cleaner, healthier environment that supports a thriving economy. Science at EPA provides the
foundation for credible decision-making to safeguard human health and ecosystems from environmental
pollutants. ORD is the scientific research arm of EPA, whose leading-edge research helps provide the
solid underpinning of science and technology for the Agency. ORD supports six research programs that
identify the most pressing environmental health research needs with input from EPA offices, partners
and stakeholders.
CDC works 24/7 to protect America from health, safety and security threats, both foreign and in the
United States. ATSDR is a non-regulatory, environmental public health agency that was established by
Congress under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980.
ATSDR protects communities from harmful health effects related to exposure to natural and man-made
hazardous substances by responding to environmental health emergencies; investigating emerging
environmental health threats; conducting research on the health impacts of hazardous waste sites; and
building capabilities of and providing actionable guidance to state and local health partners.
Jennifer Orme-Zavaleta
Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator for Science
EPA Office of Research and Development
Patrick Breysee
Director
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry

-------
Authors, Contributors, and Reviewers
Lead Authors:
Kent Thomas
Elizabeth Irvin-Barnwell
Annette Guiseppi-Elie
Angela Ragin-Wilson
Jose Zambrana, Jr.
U.S. EPA, Office of Research and Development, National Exposure
Research Laboratory (EPA/ORD/NERL)
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Agency for Toxic Substances
and Disease Registry (CDC/ATSDR)
U.S. EPA, Office of Research and Development, National Exposure
Research Laboratory (EPA/ORD/NERL)
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Agency for Toxic Substances
and Disease Registry (CDC/ATSDR)
U.S. EPA, Office of Research and Development, National Exposure
Research Laboratory (EPA/ORD/NERL)
Collaborating Federal Organizations:
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission
U.S. Army Medical Command, Army Public Health Center

-------
Contributing Authors:
Authors
Affiliation
Kelsey McCall Benson, Michael Lewin, Zheng Li
CDC/ATSDR
Nichole Brinkman, Matthew Clifton, Carry
Croghan, Peter Egeghy, Steven Gardner, Edward
Heithmar, Ashley Jackson, Kasey Kovalcik,
Georges-Marie Momplaisir, Marsha Morgan,
Karen Oliver, Gene Stroup, Mark Strynar,
Jianping Xue, Donald Whitaker, Larissa
Hassinger (Student Services Contractor [SSC],
Oak Ridge Associated Universities [ORAU])
EPA/ORD/NERL
Barbara Jane George
U.S. EPA, Office of Research and Development,
National Health and Environmental Effects
Research Laboratory (EPA/ORD/NHEERL)
Xiaoyu Liu
U.S. EPA, Office of Research and Development,
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
(EPA/ORD/NRMRL)
Monica Linnenbrink
U.S. EPA, Office of Research and Development,
National Center for Computational Toxicology
(EPA/ORD/NCCT)
Linda Phillips
U.S. EPA, Office of Research and Development,
National Center for Environmental Assessment
(EPA/ORD/NCEA)
Chris Carusiello, Ksenija Janjic
U.S. EPA, Office of Land and Emergency
Management, Office of Resource Conservation
and Recovery (EPA/OLEM/ORCR)
Brandon Law, Aleksandr Stefaniak
CDC, The National Institute for Occupational

-------
Contributors:
Contributors
Affiliation
Lillian Alston (Senior Environmental Employee
[SEE]), Christine Alvarez (Quality Assurance [QA]),
Fu-Lin Chen, Andrea Clements, Michelle Henderson
(QA), Kathleen Hibbert, Tammy Jones-Lepp, Scott
Keely, Asja Korajkic, James McCord (Oak Ridge
Institute for Science and Education [ORISE]
Participant), Larry McMillan (SEE), Brian McMinn,
Myriam Medina-Vera, Maliha Nash, James Noel
(QA), Gary Norris, Brian Schumacher, Brittany Stuart
(QA), Sania Tong-Argao (QA), Elin Ulrich, Margie
Vazquez (QA), Sandra Utile-Okechukwu (ORISE
Participant), Richard Walker (SEE), Alan Williams,
Ron Williams
EPA/ORD/NERL
Desmond Bannon, Debra Colbeck, Ellyce Cook,
William Darby, Patrick Dickinson, Kevin M. Doherty,
Mike Eck, Sherri Hutchens, Jeffrey Killpatrick,
Daysha C. Liggins, Clint Logan, Mark A. Lucas,
Rolando Mancha, Marybeth Markiewicz, Jeffrey K.
Mason, Walter E. Miller, Kenneth Mioduski, Craig S.
Miser, Matt Nicodemus, Todd Richard, Nathan A.
Silsby, Sandy Toscano, Dawn Valdivia, Robert L. von
Tersch, Jenny Ybarra
U.S. Army Public Health Center (APHC)
Holly Ferguson (QA)
EPA/ORD/NHEERL
LibbyNessley (QA)
EPA/ORD/NRMRL
Ann Richard, Antony Williams
EPA/ORD/NCCT
Gregory Grissom (ORISE Participant)
U.S. EPA, Office of Research and
Development, Sustainable and Healthy
Communities Research Program
Susan Burden, Jacqueline McQueen
U.S. EPA, Office of Research and
Development, Office of Science Policy
(EPA/ORD/OSP)
Kelly Widener
U.S. EPA, Office of Research and
Development, National Center for
Environmental Research (EPA/ORD/NCER)
Matt Allen, Tamira Cousett, Christopher Fuller,
Denise Popeo-Murphy
Jacobs Technology Incorporated (JTI)
Julia Campbell, Justicia Rhodus, Samantha Shattuck
Pegasus Technical Services

-------
Reviewers:
Reviewers
Affiliation
Eric Hooker
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission
Kiran Alapaty, Kevin Oshima
EPA/ORD/NERL
Geoffrey Braybrooke, Michael R. Bell, Debra C.
Colbeck, Jarod M. Hanson, Sherri L. Hutchens,
Mark S. Johnson, Jeffrey G. Leach, Charles E.
McCannon, Robert L. von Tersch
APHC
Bob Thompson
EPA/ORD/NRMRL
Michael Firestone, Kathleen Schroeder (SEE)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
the Administrator, Office of Children's Health
Protection (EPA/OA/OCHP)
Nicole Villamizar
EPA/OLEM/ORCR
Marcus Aguilar

-------
Acknowledgments
Contract support to the EPA was provided by Jacobs Technology, Inc under Contract EP-C-15-008, the
Eastern Research Group, Inc. under Contract EP-C-12-029, and Pegasus Technical Services under
Contract EP-C-15-010. Special acknowledgements are given to Justicia Rhodus of Pegasus Technical
Services for technical editing. Authors and contributors included student service contractors to EPA
Larissa Hassinger under Contract EP-D-15-003, and Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education
(ORISE) participants Gregory Grissom, James McCord, and Sandra Utile-Okechukwu under an
interagency agreement with the Department of Energy. Larry McMillan, Lillian Alston and Richard
Walker were supported under the Senior Environmental Employment Program.
Special acknowledgements are given to the external peer reviewers who reviewed the draft report under
contract EP-C-17-017 with the Eastern Research Group, Inc.
• Alesia Ferguson, MPH, Ph.D.: Associate Professor, College of Public Health, University of
Arkansas Medical Sciences
• Panagiotis Georgopoulos, Ph.D.: Professor, School of Public Health, Rutgers University
• Tee L. Guidotti, MD, MPH: Consultant, Occupational and Environmental Health
• Maria Llompart, Ph.D.: Professor, Department of Analytical Chemistry, University of Santiago
de Compostela, Spain
• Martin Reinhard, Ph.D.: Professor Emeritus, Stanford University
• P. Barry Ryan, Ph.D.: Professor, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University
• Clifford P. Weisel, Ph.D.: Tenured Professor, Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences
Institute (EOHSI), Rutgers University
Special acknowledgements are given to collaborators at the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission,
Army Public Health Center, the National Toxicology Program of the National Institutes of
Environmental Health Sciences, and the California Environmental Protection Agency's Office of
Environmental Health Hazard Assessment.

-------
Table of Contents
Disclaimer	i
Foreword	ii
Authors, Contributors, and Reviewers	iii
Acknowledgments	vii
Table of Contents	viii
Acronyms and Abbreviations	x
Appendix A Industry Overview	1
Appendix B Stakeholder Outreach	9
Appendix C State-of-Science Literature Review/ Gaps Analysis	15
Appendix D Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) Lists for Tire Crumb Rubber Characterization
Research	115
Appendix E Quality Assurance and Quality Control	119
Appendix F Synthetic Turf Field Facility Owner/Manager Questionnaire	167
Appendix G Shapiro-Wilk Test Results for Selected Tire Crumb Rubber Characterization
Measurement Distributions	179
Appendix H Tire Crumb Rubber Particle Size Characterization Results and Sample Photos	195
Appendix I Tire Crumb Rubber Measurement Results - Summary Statistics	209
Appendix J Dynamic Chamber Emissions Measurements Time Series Test Results	233
Appendix K Tire Crumb Rubber Measurement Results - Differences Between Recycling Plants
and Synthetic Turf Fields	253
Appendix L Tire Crumb Rubber Measurement Results - Replicate and Duplicate Analysis
Precision and Homogeneity	261
Appendix M Tire Crumb Rubber Measurement Results - Within and Between Recycling Plant
Variability	271
Appendix N Tire Crumb Rubber Measurement Results - Within and Between Synthetic Turf Field
Variability	277
Appendix O Tire Crumb Rubber Measurement Results - Differences Between Outdoor and Indoor
Synthetic Turf Fields	283
Appendix P Tire Crumb Rubber Measurement Results - Differences Among Synthetic Turf Fields
with Different Installation Ages	291
Appendix Q Tire Crumb Rubber Measurement Results - Differences Among Synthetic Turf
Fields in Different U.S. Census Regions	305
Appendix R Non-Targeted Screening Analysis Results for SVOCs and VOCs	313
Appendix S Targeted Microbiological Analysis Results for Tire Crumb Rubber Infill Samples
Collected at Synthetic Turf Fields	351

-------
Appendix T Dynamic Chamber Silicone Wristband Experiments	359
Appendix U Toxicity Reference Information	369
Appendix V Summary of the Tire Crumb Rubber Characterization Peer Review and Responses	433

-------
Acronyms and Abbreviations
ACGIH	American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists
ACH	Air change per hour
ADI	Acceptable daily intake
ADPA	Acetone-diphenylamine condensation product
AEMD	Air and Energy Management Division
ANOVA	Analysis of variance
ANSI	American National Standards Institute
APHC	U.S. Army Public Health Center
ASTM	American Society for Testing and Materials
ASTSWMO Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials
ATSDR	Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
BHA	Butyl ated hydroxyanisole
BTEX	Benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylenes
°C	Degrees Celsius
CAES	Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station
CalEPA	California Environmental Protection Agency
CalOSHA	California Division of Occupational Safety and Health
CAS	Chemical Abstracts Service
CASE	Connecticut Academy of Science and Engineering
CDC	Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
CDEP	Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection
CDPH	Connecticut Department of Public Health
CFU	Colony forming units
CICAD	Concise International Chemical Assessment Documents
cm	Centimeter
COC	Chemicals of concern
COPC	Chemicals of potential concern
CPSC	Consumer Product Safety Commission
CSF	Cancer slope factor
CV	Coefficient of variance
d	day
DAD	Diode array detector
DAS	Data acquisition system
DBA + ICDP Sum of Dibenz[a,h]anthracene and Indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene
DCC	Daily calibration checks
DDC	Direct dermal contact
ddPCR	Droplet digital polymerase chain reaction
DGI	Dust and gas inhalation
DNA	Deoxyribonucleic acid
DQI	Data quality indicators
ECHA	European Chemicals Agency
ECR	Excess cancer risk

-------
EHHI
EOHSI
EPA
EU
FDEP
FLM
FR
FRAP
g
GC/MS
GC/TOFMS
GS/MS/MS
h
h"1
HEAST
HHRA
HI
HPLC
HR-ICPMS
IAP
IARC
ICP/AES
ICP/MS
ICP-OES
IDL
IOAA
IPCS
IRIS
ISRI
JTI
KEMI
kg
L
LC/MS
LC/TOFMS
LIMS
LOD
LOQ
LRGA
m
mg
MADL
Max
MCL
MDL
Environment and Human Health, Inc.
Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences Institute
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
European Union
Florida Department of Environmental Protection
Fence line monitor
Federal Register
Federal Research Action Plan on Recycled Tire Crumb Used on Playing Fields and
Playgrounds
Gram
Gas chromatography/mass spectrometry
Gas chromatography/time-of-flight mass spectrometry
Gas chromatography/tandem mass spectrometry
Hour
Per hour
Health Effects Assessment Summary Table
Human health risk assessment
Hazard index
High performance liquid chromatography
High resolution magnetic sector inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometer
Internal audit program
International Agency for Research on Cancer
Inductively coupled plasma-atomic emission spectrometry
Inductively coupled plasma/mass spectrometry
Inductively coupled plasma - optical emission spectrometry
Instrument detection limit
Immediate Office of the Assistant Administrator
WHO International Programme on Chemical Safety
U.S. EPA Integrated Risk Information System
Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries, Inc.
Jacobs Technology, Inc.
Swedish Chemicals Inspectorate
Kilogram
Liter
Liquid chromatography/mass spectrometry
Liquid chromatography/time-of-flight mass spectrometry
Laboratory Information Management System
Limit of detection
Limit of quantitation
Literature Review and Data Gaps Analysis
Meter
Milligram
Maximum allowable dose levels
Maximum
Maximum contaminant limit
Method detection limit

-------
mecA
Gene for methicillin resistance
mg
Milligram
min
Minute
mL
Milliliter
MOS
Margin of safety
MQL
Method quantifiable limit
MQL
Minimum quantitation level
MRL
Minimum reportable limit
MRL
Minimum risk level
MRM
Multiple reaction monitoring
MRSA
Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus
N/A
Not applicable/Not available
NAAQS
National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NCCT
U.S. EPA National Center for Computational Toxicology
NCEA
U.S. EPA National Center for Environmental Assessment
NCEH
CDC National Center for Environmental Health
ND
Nondetect
NERL
U.S. EPA National Exposure Research Laboratory
NFL
National Football League
ng
Nanogram
NHEERL
U.S. EPA National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory
NHTSA
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
NIOSH
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health
NIPH
Norwegian Institute of Public Health
NIST
National Institute of Standards and Technology
NOAEL
No observed adverse effect level
NOEC
No observable effects concentration
NOEL
No observable effects limit
NR
Not reported
NRMRL
U.S. EPA National Risk Management Research Laboratory
NSRL
No significant risk level
NTP
U.S. National Toxicology Program
NYDEC
New York Department of Environmental Conservation
NYDOH
New York Department of Health
OCHP
U.S. EPA Office of Children's Health Protection
OEHHA
California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment
OEHHA
U.S. EPA Office of Land and Emergency Management
OLEM
U.S. Office of Management and Budget
OMB
Oak Ridge Associated Universities
ORAU
U.S. EPA Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery
ORCR
U.S. EPA Office of Research and Development
ORD
Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education
ORISE
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
OSHA
U.S. EPA Office of Science Policy
OSP
N-Oxy di ethyl enedithi ocarb amyl - NT -oxy di ethyl ene sulfenami de
OTOS
Off-the-road
OTR

-------
PAH
PCB
PCR
PQL
PEHSU
PEL
PM
PNEC
POP
ppbv
ppm
PQAM
PPRTV
PRA
PSA
PUF
QA
QAM
QAPP
QMP
QC
REACH
REL
RfC
RfD
RH
RIVM
RM
RMA
RNA
RPD
rRNA
%RSD
RTP
RWC
SA/BW
SBR
SEE
SEM
SF
SOP
SPME
ssc
STC
STEL
Suml5PAH
Polyaromatic hydrocarbon
Polychlorinated biphenyl
Polymerase chain reaction
Practical quantification limit
Pediatric Environmental Health Specialty Unit
Permissible exposure limit
Particulate matter
Predicted no effect concentration
Priority organic pollutants
Parts per billion by volume
Parts per million
Program Quality Assurance Manager
Provisional peer-reviewed toxicity value
Paperwork Reduction Act
Particle size analysis
Polyurethane foam
Quality assurance
Quality assurance manager
Quality assurance project plan
Quality management plan
Quality control
Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation, and Restriction of Chemicals
Recommended exposure limit/Reference exposure levels
Reference concentration
Reference dose
Relative humidity
Netherlands National Institute for Public Health and the Environment
Rubber mulch
Rubber Manufacturers Association
Ribonucleic acid
Relative percent difference
Ribosomal ribonucleic acid
Percent relative standard deviation
Research Triangle Park (North Carolina)
Rain water contact
Surface area to body weight ratio
Styrene-butadiene rubber
Senior Environmental Employee
Scanning electron microscopy
Slope factor
Standard operating procedure
Solid-phase microextraction
Student Services Contractor
Synthetic Turf Council
Short term exposure limit
Sum of 15 of the 16 EPA 'priority' PAHs

-------
SumBTEX
Sum of benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, m/p-xylene, and o-xylene
SVOC
Semivolatile organic compound
TCC
Tire Crumb Characterization
TCLP
Toxicity characteristic leaching procedure
TCR
Tire crumb rubber
TCRS
Tire Crumb Research Study
TLV
Threshold limit value
TOF
Time of flight
TOFMS
Time-of-flight mass spectrometry
TPE
Thermoplastic elastomers
TSA
Technical systems audit
TSP
Total suspended solids
TWA
Time weighted average
TWP
Tire wear particles
UCHC
University of Connecticut Health Center
Hg
Microgram
|im
Micrometer
|iL
Microliter
UR
Unit risk
URL
Uniform resource locator
U.S.
United States of America
U.S. EPA
United States Environmental Protection Agency
UV
Ultraviolet spectrometry
VID
Video identification number
VOC
Volatile organic compound
WDOH
Washington State Department of Health
WHO
World Health Organization
WM
Wood mulch
XRF
X-ray fluorescence spectrometry
yr

-------
[This page intentionally left blank.]

-------
Appendix A
Industry Overview

-------
Industry Overview
The agencies used outreach efforts and publicly
available information to gain a better
understanding of the synthetic turf industry, tire
manufacturing process, processes for creating
tire crumb rubber, and procedures for synthetic
turf field installation and maintenance. This
section provides information related to these
topics.
Waste Tire Generation and Recovery
Estimates
A large volume of used automobile and truck
tires enters the waste stream in the United States
each year. An estimated 4.77 million tons of
waste tires were generated in 2013, and 40.5 percent, or 1.93 million tons, were recovered
through recycling and production of retreaded tires (U.S. EPA, 2015). Much of the waste tire
material is used in fuel markets, including cement kilns, utility boilers, industrial boilers, pulp
and paper mills, and dedicated scrap tire-to-energy facilities (RMA, 2016a). In 2013,
approximately 172,000 tons of scrap tires were converted to tire shreds for use in road and
landfill construction, septic tank leach fields, and other construction applications (RMA, 2016a).
Approximately 975,000 tons of scrap tires (i.e., approximately 59.5 million tires) were used in
the ground rubber applications market, which includes the manufacture of new rubber products,
mbber-modified asphalt, and playground and sports surfacing (RMA, 2014 and 2016a). The
Rubber Manufacturers Association (RMA) estimated that in 2013, 33 percent of these scrap tires
were used in molded/extruded products, 31 percent in playground mulch, 17 percent in sports
surfaces, 7 percent in asphalt, 6 percent in automotive products, and 6 percent were exported
(RMA, 2014). Recycled rubber from tires is used in several types of recreational venues,
including use as infill material in synthetic turf fields, on playgrounds either as loose rubber
mulch or rubber mats, for running surfaces, and in equestrian arenas. Recycled tire material may
also be used in other applications, such as tire-derived rubber flooring materials (CalRecycle,
2010).
Synthetic Turf Fields
Synthetic turf field systems initially were introduced in the 1960s. Currently, there are between
12,000 and 13,000 synthetic turf sports fields in the United States, with approximately 1,200 to
1,500 new installations each year (See Figure 1) (STC et al., 2016a). Synthetic turf fields are
installed at municipal and county parks; schools and colleges; professional team stadiums and
practice fields; and military installations. Users include professional and college athletes, youth
athletes in school and/or other athletic organizations, adult and youth recreational users, coaches,

-------
team and facility staff, referees, and fans and bystanders of all ages. No data were identified to
estimate the number of individuals using synthetic turf fields in the United States; however,
given the large number of installed fields it can be reasonably anticipated that the number of
users nationwide is in the millions.
Tire Manufacturing Process
The five main components of tires are tread,
sidewall, steel belts, body plies, and bead
(ChemRisk, 2008). Tires are manufactured with
range of materials, including natural and
synthetic rubber and elastomers; reinforcement
filler material; curatives including vulcanizing
agents, activators, accelerators, antioxidants,
antiozonants, inhibitors, and retarders; extender
oils and softeners; phenolic resins and
plasticizers; metal wire; polyester or nylon
fabrics; and bonding agents (Dick and Rader,
2014; Cheng et aL, 2014; ChemRisk, 2008;
NUTS A, 2006). In tire manufacturing, the
natural and synthetic ingredients are mixed together under heat and high pressure and rolled into
rubber sheets. These rubber sheets either can be calendared with textile sheets or extruded
together and forced through a die. A tire is built by applying layers of rubber, rubber-encased
materials, steel belts, and tread rubber. The built tire then is cured at a temperature between 150°
and 180 °C (300° and 360 °F) (ChemRisk, 2008). This tire-curing process is referred to as
vulcanization, and it involves the formation of crosslinks between polymer chains in rubber.
Figure 2 displays a cross-section of a tire.
Chemicals of Interest or Concern in Tires
Many of the concerns that have been raised by the public are about the potential exposure to
chemicals in tire crumb rubber infill used in synthetic turf fields. Chemicals of interest or
concern used in tire manufacturing range from polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in carbon
black to zinc oxide (ZnO), which is used as a vulcanizing agent and could contain trace amounts
of lead and cadmium oxides. Chemicals in many other classes could be used in tire
manufacturing, including sulphenamides, guanidines, thiazoles, thiuams, dithiocarbamates,
sulfur donors, phenolics, phenylenediamines, and others (ChemRisk, 2008). There is limited
information to assess whether some of these chemicals might carry impurities or byproducts.
During vulcanization, the rubber is heated with vulcanizing agents under pressure, which causes
profound chemical changes at the molecular level, altering the initial composition of the tire and
giving it its elasticity (Coran, 1994).
There is uncertainty about whether rubber material in vulcanized tires might undergo chemical
transformation over time. The rubber could serve as a sorbent for chemicals in the air and in dust
that falls onto the field. One laboratory reported irreversible adsorption of volatile organic
¦iis
i a
Blart S*w-.
i3xm t
BoSvPlv
BaaaFHa
Bead Bundte'
AKasien G«m Strip
TtMd
SuttWM!
JlKfcflTMli
Nytoo Cap Ply
RSMEM
ik-ViVedgo
»1 Steel Ben
¦jj/ SnouUor
Figure 2: Cross Section of a Tire (NHTSA, 2016)

-------
compounds (VOCs) and semivolatile organic compound (SVOC) analytes spiked onto tire crumb
rubber (NYDEC, 2009).
Tire Manufacturing Standards
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration conducts research and mandates certain
requirements for passenger-car tires to ensure crash avoidance and fuel efficiency (NHTSA,
n.d.). The reason NHTSA was established was to implement the provisions of the Congressional
Safety Act of 1966. For example, 49 CFR 571.109 (Standard Number 109: New Pneumatic and
Certain Specialty Tires) requires testing of tires for physical properties and provides standards
for tire labeling and serial numbers. Industry associations, such as the Tire and Rim Association,
also establish engineering standards for tires, rims, and allied parts (NHTSA, 2006).
Tires introduced on the European tire market are also subject to the European Union's
Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation, and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) regulation that
restricts the use of high-aromatic oils in tires produced after January 2010 (Eur-Lex-
32005L0069-EN, n.d.). Tires or parts of tires must not contain more than 1 mg/kg of
benzo[a]pyrene, or more than 10 mg/kg of the sum of benzo[a]pyrene, benzo[e]pyrene,
benzo[a]anthracene, chrysene, benzo[A]fluoranthene, benzo[/']fluoranthene, benzo[£]fluoranthene
and dibenzo[c/,/?]anthracene (Eur-Lex-32005L0069-EN, n.d.).
Tire Crumb Rubber Manufacturing Process
In the United States, tires typically are collected at tire dealerships and automobile service
stations and shipped to tire recyclers. Tires of different types (e.g., passenger cars, trucks) and
from different manufacturers are mixed together at tire collection stations and tire recycling
plants. According to the Synthetic Turf Council (STC)1, there are nine tire crumb rubber
producers in the United States produce approximately 95 percent of the recycled rubber used as
infill in synthetic turf field applications (STC et al., 2016a).
Tire Types
The STC's guidelines state that tire crumb rubber is derived from scrap car and truck tires that
are ground up and recycled (STC, 2011) to a certain size for use in synthetic turf fields. The
exact proportion of each tire type in the infill product is unclear and appears to vary depending
on the tire crumb rubber producer.
The use of off-the-road (OTR) tires to produce tire crumb rubber infill may be more limited. An
article in the newsletter published by the Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries, Inc. (ISRI)
discusses the many challenges and considerations associated with the sourcing, transportation,
and processing of OTR tires, including the needs for downsizing larger tires before feeding them
into primary shredders and for removing bead bundles to reduce the wear on the shredders
1 The Synthetic Turf Council is a non-profit trade association whose objective is to encourage, promote, and facilitate better
understanding among all parties involved in the manufacture, selection, delivery, and use of today's synthetic turf systems
(STC, n.d.-c).

-------
(Mota, 2013). The logistics, cost, and additional processing required to use OTR tires limits their
use as feedstock for producing tire crumb rubber infill (Sikora, 2016).
Ambient and Cryogenic Processes
Two tire recycling processes, (1) ambient and (2) cryogenic, are used to create tire crumb rubber
in the 10- to 20-mesh (0.84- to 2.0-mm) size, which is generally the size used in synthetic turf
infill. ASTM International a not-for-profit organization that develops and publishes international
voluntary consensus standards2 for materials, products, systems and services (ASTM, n.d.),
developed Method ASTM D56443, which can be used to determine the average particle size
distribution of recycled vulcanizate particulate (ASTM, 2013a). The number of tire recycling
facilities using the ambient process is greater than the number of facilities using the cryogenic
process (STC et al., 2016a).
The ambient process uses granulation or cracker mills to produce tire crumb rubber at room
temperature (Scrap Tire News, 2016). Cracker mills use revolving rollers with serrations in them
to size-reduce the tires. Once the granules are produced, they are fed through screens and sorted
to the appropriate size (Scrap Tire News, 2016). The cryogenic process uses liquid nitrogen to
freeze partially shredded tires, which then are fed into a hammer mill to create tire crumb rubber.
Fabric (i.e., polyester, nylon, or other fibers) and steel belt components of the scrap tire are
separated in both processes (Scrap Tire News, 2016). Fabric is removed from the rubber using
air classifiers or vacuums, while the steel is removed using magnetic separators. Gravity
separators also can be used to remove contaminant particles, such as rocks, and can aid in the
sorting process. Likewise, water can be used for pre-washing to remove gravel and dirt and
cooling during the ambient process; otherwise no chemicals are added to the original rubber
composition during either process. Following processing, tire crumb rubber typically is placed
into one-ton sacks and distributed to fields for spreading.
2 The ASTM standards can be incorporated into contracts; used in laboratories and offices; referenced in codes, regulations,
and laws; or referred to for guidance. Although ASTM standards are voluntary, in cases in which an ASTM standard is
referenced in a law, regulation, or code, compliance with the ASTM standard could be required (ASTM, n.d.).
3 All ASTM standards can be found at https://www.astm.org/.

-------
Synthetic Turf Fields
Synthetic turf fields are installed for
various activities played at both the
recreational and professional level,
including football, soccer, and lacrosse.
There are approximately eight major
synthetic field installers in the United
States with the largest four being national
in scope, installing coast to coast
(Sprinturf, 2016). An estimated 95 percent
of the existing fields in North America use
recycled rubber infill exclusively or in a
mixture with sand or alternative infills; the
remaining five percent contain only
alternative infills (STC et al., 2016a). STC
also reports that the use of exclusively
alternative infills in new installations
increased in 2016 (STC et al, 2016b).
Outdoor synthetic turf fields are more
common than indoor fields (FieldTurf,
2016a), with some sources indicating that indoor fields constitute approximately five to 15
percent of the market (Sprinturf, 2016). The differences in the construction between outdoor and
indoor fields are the use of a more durable fiber in indoor fields (Sprinturf, 2016) and the use of
adhesives to glue down the fiber carpet to the floor of indoor facilities (FieldTurf, 2016b).
Figure 3: A cross-section of the layers of a typical synthetic turffield
(STC, n.d.-b)
Current generation synthetic turf fields
are typically constructed with a bottom
gravel/stone base layer to allow for
drainage (STC, 2011). On top of the
drainage layer lies the turf component,
which is composed of multi-layered
polypropylene and urethane backing
material with polyethylene fiber blades.
Sometimes a pad can be used for
additional cushioning on a field (STC,
2011). Figure 3 displays a cross-section
of a typical turf field and Figure 4 shows
materials for a synthetic turf field before
installation.
Figure 4: Sand and packaged crumb rubber awaiting field
installation (USEPA, 2016b)
The colored lines, hash marks, numbers, and logos on a field are created either as part of the turf
during the manufacturing process, or at the job site by cutting the original backing material from

-------
the field and gluing or sewing the colored pieces onto the backing material (STC, n.d.-c). Lines
also can be temporarily painted on the field.
Fields can be infilled with material in a
few different ways. Sand is often used asa
lower layer infill material to act as a
ballast for the turf component. On top of
this lower layer either will be tire crumb
rubber or a sand/tire crumb rubber mix,
topped by additional tire crumb rubber.
Other fields can use an infill exclusively
compri sed of tire caimb rubber. On a
small number of fields, tire crumb rubber
could be coated with paint, typically
green, either for aesthetic purposes or heat . ,, ,, ,,. , , .
° 1 ' Figure 5: lire crumb rubber is placed on a field m layers during
control (FieldTurf, n.d.-d; Sprinturf, n.d.). installation (USEPA, 2016c)
To a much lesser extent, natural materials
(e.g., ground coconut husk), ethylene propylene diene monomer (EPDM), or thermoplastic
elastomers (TPE) granules are used as the complete infill. These materials also can be used as the
uppermost layer of infill (STC et al ., 2016a). Infill material typically is spread using small utility
vehicles that make multiple passes across entire fields, laying the material down in thin layers that
are placed one on top of the other until the appropriate height is reached (Figure 5). Additional
machinery can be used to drag or brush the blades upright to allow the material to fall between the
blades (STC, 2011).
Synthetic Turf Field Standards
The Standard Test Methods for Comprehensive Characterization of Synthetic Turf Playing
Surfaces and Materials (ASTM, 2009) can be used to identify the physical properties and
compare the performance of synthetic turf systems and components of the system. The standard
presents a list of test methods that can be used to test components of the field, including turf
blades, carpet backing material, shock absorbing pads, and infill material.
The Standard Specification for Extractable Hazardous Metals in Synthetic Turf Infill Materials
(ASTM, 2016a) specifies a test method to determine the amount of hazardous metals that have
the potential to be extracted from synthetic turf infill materials, if ingested. The standard adopts
both the specified test method and the limits on the extractable amounts of heavy metals from
the Consumer Safety Specification for Toy Safety (ASTM 2016b). It also applies to any infill
materi al used in synthetic turf, irrespective of whether it is synthetic or natural. On November
30, 2016, recycled rubber and synthetic turf industry groups announced that leading members of
the Recycled Rubber Council, Safe Fields Alliance, and STC are voluntarily moving to ensure
all synthetic turf infill products created and used by their organizations will comply with ASTM
F3188-16 (BusinessWire, 2016).
Figure 5: Tire cnimb rubber is placed on a Jield in layers during
installation (USEPA, 2016c)

-------
Synthetic Turf Field Maintenance
As is the case with natural fields, synthetic turf fields, too need to be maintained through a set of
routine maintenance practices (STC, 2015). Routine synthetic turf field maintenance is
conducted to maintain a safe playing surface, improve its appearance, and extend the life of the
field (STC, 2015). Recommended maintenance practices include brushing the field for infill
redistribution, raking to rejuvenate the fibers and to relevel the top portion of the infill, and
sweeping for debris removal (STC et al., 2016a; FieldTurf, n.d.-b). It is recommended that some
of these practices be performed more frequently than others, depending on the frequency with
which the field is used and specific guidelines for the sport played on the field. There are also
guidelines that recommend using surfactants, such as liquid laundry fabric softener or static
conditioner, to help reduce static electricity that builds up during maintenance (STC, 2015;
FieldTurf, n.d.-b). Water also is used to reduce the static electricity in synthetic turf fields (Daily,
2016).
It is important to maintain an appropriate amount of infill in the field for proper cushioning and
firmness. Tire crumb rubber can be lost for a number of reasons, such as migration in the shoes
and clothing of athletes, in weather events such as rain or snow, and through routine maintenance
practices (Pennsylvania State University Center for Sports Surface Research, 2016). Because of
tire crumb rubber migration, new infill material sometimes is added to existing fields to refresh
or replace the tire crumb rubber that is lost over time. Infill material also can be added to modify
the sponginess of a field, which, as in the case of the National Football League (NFL), is
required to maintain a certain field firmness level (NFL, 2014). Certain high-use locations on a
field might require replacement material more often than others (STC, 2015). Prior to every
game, the NFL field testing program requires surface hardness to be measured in multiple field
locations using the Clegg Impact Tester device (NFL, 2014) which can determine the surface
hardness of a field by measuring how quickly a weight stops upon impact to that field (NFL,
2014). Through the use of the Clegg Impact Tester, a Gmax4 score can be determined,
quantifying field firmness. Outside the NFL testing program, the Standard Specification for
Impact Attenuation of Turf Playing Systems as Measured in the Field (ASTM F1936) also can be
used to determine the field surface firmness (Sports Turf Managers Association, n.d.). This
standard establishes its own test method (ASTM F355) to determine surface firmness, suggests
test point locations and specifies an upper limit of surface hardness when using another testing
device (ASTM, 2015).
Maintenance practices can vary based on the budget for field maintenance and employee
knowledge of these practices (Pennsylvania State University Center for Sports Surface Research,
2016). Synthetic turf fields typically last about eight years before replacement, but can last
longer, depending on the frequency of their use and level of maintenance (STC, 2016).
4 Surface hardness is measured in Gmax, which is the ratio of maximum negative acceleration on impact in units of gravities
to the acceleration due to gravity (McNitt & Petrunak, 2013). The higher the Gmax value, the harder the surface. A Gmax
value should be related to the device that is measuring hardness. For instance, a 100 Gmax with the Clegg Impact Tester is
not the same as a 100 Gmax with the F355 device (NFL, 2014).

-------
Appendix B
Stakeholder Outreach

-------
The EPA, CDC/ATSDR, and CPSC teams have engaged in a number of outreach activities to
inform interested stakeholders about the Federal Research Action Plan (FRAP) and to gather and
share information that may be used to inform the research. These outreach activities focused on
three areas: 1) informing the public about the FRAP and encouraging them to provide feedback
through a public comment process, 2) sharing information with government organizations that
have planned and/or ongoing research efforts on this topic, and 3) conducting targeted outreach
with organizations to gather additional information to help inform the implementation of the
FRAP. These stakeholder outreach activities are further described below.
Informing the Public
Website
The FRAP was released on February 12, 2016. EPA, ATSDR, and CPSC developed a website
(http ://www.epa.gov/tirecrumb) describing the action plan and notified interested groups when
the plan was announced. This website has been updated regularly throughout the research
process in an effort to keep all stakeholders informed on the progress of the study. The website
includes:
•	An overview of the research;
•	Frequently asked questions with answers;
•	A fact sheet about the FRAP;
•	Links to other available tire crumb rubber informational materials;
•	A link to the Federal Register (FR) Notice, link to public comments and the agencies
responses to public comments, and other information.
Using the website, interested individuals can sign-up to receive study updates via e-mail. To-
date, more than 800 stakeholders have requested to receive updates about the study.
Webinar
The agencies published a FR Notice on February 18, 2016 requesting public comment on the
data collection components of the FRAP (tire crumb rubber sample collection and collections
related to the development of exposure scenarios). The data collection components were required
to go through an Information Collection Request (hftps ://www.epa.eov/icr) review conducted by
Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
To encourage the general public to provide comments on the Federal Register Notice, the
agencies hosted a webinar on April 14, 2016 describing the research study for anyone that was
interested. This webinar was promoted on EPA's tire crumb rubber webpage, through the tire
crumb rubber stakeholder e-mail list, and through EPA social media. The EPA, CDC/ATSDR,
and CSPC research teams were available throughout the webinar to answer questions and
provide extra detail where needed. More than 150 people participated in the webinar. The
webinar was recorded and can be accessed through the FRAP website
(http ://www. epa. gov/tirecrumb Y

-------
Public Comment Period
The plans for the agencies to collect information (i.e. tire crumb sample collection and exposure
information collection from field users) that are a part of the FRAP were available for public
comment through a FR Notice. The agencies published the 60-day FR Notice on February 18,
2016 and extended the comment period at the public's request for two additional weeks to May
2, 2016. Once the FR Notice was posted, public comments were solicited by promoting the FR
Notice on EPA's tire crumb rubber webpage, through the tire crumb rubber stakeholder e-mail
list and through EPA social media. Members of the public submitted over 80 comments; these
were addressed. The Notice, public comments, and responses to public comments are publicly
available on OMB's website
(http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAViewDocument?ref_nbr=201607-0923-001).
Sharing Information with Other Government Agencies
The EPA, CDC/ATSDR, and CSPC teams engaged in outreach activities to share information
with government organizations that have planned or ongoing research efforts. These outreach
activities facilitated the sharing of expertise and information to help inform the implementation
of the FRAP. Specific outreach activities included in-person meetings and conference calls.
Examples of government organizations sharing expertise and information through these outreach
activities are included below.
Regular Conference Calls with States
CDC/ATSDR hosts monthly calls with state public health agencies to discuss the FRAP. These
calls were held to share information and updates on the on-going research and to answer
questions. These calls typically have between 10 andl5 state public agencies participating. EPA
also kept the Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials
(ASTSWMO) and interested state solid waste agencies informed through periodic conference
calls and updates at meetings throughout 2016.
Webinar
The EPA team hosted a webinar on April 12, 2016 for state and local government organizations
describing the FRAP and the FR Notice. The EPA, CDC/ATSDR, and CSPC research teams
were available throughout the webinar to answer questions and provide extra detail where
needed. About 100 state and local groups participated in the webinar. The webinar was recorded
and shared with states to distribute to others within their organizations who might be interested
in the topic.
Government Agencies Sharing Expertise and Information
Other government agencies that are sharing information and have ongoing or planned tire crumb
rubber research include California's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, the
U.S. National Toxicology Program (NTP), headquartered at the National Institute of
Environmental Health Sciences, the European Chemicals Agency, and the Netherlands National
Institute for Public health and the Environment. The EPA, CDC/ATSDR, and CPSC teams have
been meeting regularly with these organizations through conference calls and in-person
meetings.

-------
• California. As mentioned above, the state of California's Office of Environmental Health
Hazard Assessment has an in-depth tire crumb rubber study underway. This study
includes a series of scientific studies to determine if chemicals in tire crumb rubber and
synthetic turf field materials can potentially be released under various environmental
conditions and what, if any, exposures or health risks these potential releases may pose to
players who frequently play on artificial fields constructed with tire crumb rubber. The
evaluation includes expert solicitation and stakeholder participation to help guide the
design. EPA, CDC/ATSDR and CPSC have shared information about methodology being
used for the studies. The research plan includes animal toxicity studies, which are being
conducted by NTP/NIEHS.
• International Agencies. Once the FRAP was announced, the European Chemicals
Agency (ECHA) contacted EPA expressing their interest. ECHA is an agency of the
European Union that implements chemical legislation for the protection of human health
and the environment. This interest has resulted in regular calls with ECHA and an in-
person meeting. During these meetings, information related to research efforts are shared.
In addition, the Netherlands and France are also interested in studying tire crumb rubber
exposure and characterization and communications with these organizations are on-
going.
Conducting Targeted Outreach to Gather Additional Information
The purpose of conducting targeted outreach was to request informational resources from
industry and non-profit organization/interest groups to inform the implementation of the FRAP.
The EPA team held discussions with stakeholder groups, toured recycling facilities and observed
field installations. Specifically, EPA, CDC/ATSDR, and CPSC requested information and
existing studies about how tires and tire crumb rubber are manufactured; how synthetic turf
fields are constructed, installed, and maintained; and other studies or information that could be
used for the study
The objective was to enhance the agencies' understanding of how tires and tire crumb rubber are
manufactured; and how synthetic turf fields are constructed, installed, and maintained, in order to
identify potential variabilities in the tire crumb rubber product that is produced and installed in
synthetic turf fields across the country.
Approach
The Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) limited the number of entities that could be engaged by
EPA to fewer than nine within a stakeholder group. In meetings that involved several different
stakeholders, EPA was not seeking group consensus, input, or advice. Between February and
September of 2016, EPA met or held conference calls with: five industry trade associations, three
synthetic turf field companies, two synthetic turf field maintenance professionals, one academic
institution, and five non-profit organizations. The EPA team also toured a total of five tire
recycling facilities located in the south, west, and northeast regions of the United States., where
both the ambient and cryogenic tire processing technologies were observed. The facilities ranged
in size from small to large operations with varying degrees of mechanized technologies to

-------
process the tires. EPA observed the tire crumb rubber infilling process on two field installations
in the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area. Study team members from CDC and CPSC also
participated in several of the recycling facility and field installation observations. Collectively,
presentations and information exchanges spanned a number of topics, including:
• The state of tire manufacturing and scrap-tire collection and recycling;
• The nature and varieties of processes and machinery used in the processing of scrap tires
into tire crumb rubber;
• Tire-manufacturing standards;
• Tire recycling processing standards and/or tire crumb rubber product standards;
• Tire crumb rubber infill product types; storage, packaging, and transportation of tire
crumb rubber to fields;
• The number and distribution of synthetic turf fields;
• Synthetic turf field construction, installation, and maintenance practices.
Participants often recommended resources the study team could consult for more information.
Use of Information Obtained
As previously stated, the purpose of the outreach effort was to help inform the study design and
implementation of the FRAP. The information was also used to develop a preliminary summary
of the tire and tire crumb rubber manufacturing process, as well as the process by which
synthetic turf fields are constructed, installed and maintained. Over the next several months, EPA
will continue to review, analyze, and supplement the information included in this status report
and will provide an updated summary in the study's final report.

-------
[This page intentionally left blank.]

-------
Appendix C
State-of-Science Literature Review/
Gaps Analysis
White Paper Summary of Results, December 2016

-------
Literature Review and Data Gaps Analysis
The EPA, CDC/ATSDR, and CPSC FRAP research team conducted a Literature Review/Gaps Analysis
(LRGA) to provide a summary of the available literature and to capture data gaps as characterized in
relevant publications. The overall goals of the LRGA were to inform the FRAP research studies and to
identify potential areas for future research. The LRGA did not include critical reviews of the strengths
and weaknesses of each study, but does provide the authors' conclusions regarding their research, where
applicable. The LRGA also did not make any conclusions or recommendations regarding the safety of
recycled tire crumb rubber used in synthetic turf fields and playgrounds.
The review provides information useful for guiding and designing future research efforts needed to
further address questions regarding exposures and risks for tire crumb rubber used in synthetic turf fields
and playgrounds. The LRGA has been previously published in the FRAP 2016 status report (U.S. EPA,
CDC/ATSDR, and CPSC, 2016b). The peer-reviewed LRGA report is included after this introduction.
Literature Review and Gaps Analysis Summary
To comprehensively understand the current state-of-the science and data gaps associated with the
toxicity of and human exposure to constituents in tire crumb rubber, CDC/ATSDR, EPA and CPSC
undertook a collaborative effort to review the scientific literature and analyze data gaps. The first
objective of the Literature Review/Gaps Analysis (LRGA) collaboration was to identify the existing
body of literature related specifically to human exposure to tire crumb rubber through the use of
synthetic turf athletic fields and playgrounds. The second objective was to characterize and summarize
the relevant data from the scientific literature. The final objective was to review the summary
information and identify data gaps to build on the current understanding of the state-of-the-science and
inform the development of specific research efforts that would be most impactful in the near-term.
Federal researchers examined a wide variety of information sources to build a list of relevant citations.
The literature search included the following databases: PubMed Medline (OVID); Embase (OVID);
Scopus; Primo (Stephen B. Thacker CDC Library); ProQuest Environmental Science Collection; Web of
Science; ScienceDirect and Google Scholar. The LRGA focused on scientific publications that
addressed tire crumb rubber use, physical characteristics and chemical composition, potential pathways
of exposures, bioavailability, and component toxicity and risk assessment. It included studies that
examined occupational exposures at tire recycling plants, human exposures related to field and
playground installations, and subsequent exposures involved with use of synthetic turf and playground
facilities. It did not include studies on automotive tire manufacturing processes and related exposures
and risks. In determining whether or not to include a publication found in the course of the literature
search, a set of relevance criteria was developed.
The LRGA identified 88 relevant references published through August 2016. Each reference that was
reviewed was categorized according to 20 general information categories (e.g., study topic, geographic
location, sample type, conditions, populations studied) and more than 100 sub-categories (e.g., for the
study topic sub-categories included: site characterization, production process, leaching, off-gassing,
microbial analysis, and human risk). As part of the effort, greater than 350 discrete chemical compounds
also were identified in the literature collected for this effort and a list of potential chemical constituents
was compiled to inform further research efforts.
The studies that were identified covered a wide range of topics and locations, but some topic areas
received greater coverage than others. For example, information on chemical leaching and offgassing

-------
and volatilizing from tire crumb rubber was found in 36 and 25 studies, respectively, but less
information was available on microbiological, bioavailability, and biomonitoring aspects of tire crumb
rubber exposures (i.e., seven, five, and three studies, respectively). No epidemiological studies were
identified in the literature search. Data gaps could be more pronounced for locations such as
playgrounds and indoor fields, and for studies that examine environmental background levels of tire
crumb rubber constituents. Studies on occupational exposures from turf and playground installations
were also limited. Metal constituents of tire crumb rubber, such as lead and zinc, have been frequently
identified in the literature as constituents of concern, but research on exposures to these metals by field
and playground users is limited. While a number of volatile and semivolatile organic chemicals
(especially polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons) have been measured in some studies, research on other
organic chemical constituents identified by the LRGA is more limited.
Other important data gaps include the lack of more in-depth characterizing of dermal and ingestion
exposure pathways, identifying constituents and scenarios resulting in the highest exposures, developing
and applying biomonitoring for constituents of concern, and assessing the feasibility and approaches for
epidemiological investigations. Several important data gaps for assessing exposures and risks of tire
crumb rubber at synthetic fields and playgrounds are summarized in the report.
Recent Research - Published After the LRGA was Released in December 2016
Several organizations and researchers have published important information on this topic since the
FRAP literature review and data gaps analysis was completed and published in December 2016. Brief
summaries of some of these research efforts and publications are provided below.
The California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) has continued planning
and conducting research on tire crumb rubber and human exposures at synthetic turf fields. Regarding
the latest study, no research reports have been published by Cal-OEHHA at this time, but materials
documenting and describing their research efforts have been made available (https://oehha.ca.gov/risk-
assessment/synthetic-turf-studies). Cal-OEHHA study components include:
•	Expert, public and interagency consultation and input
•	Hazard Identification
•	Exposure Scenario Development
•	Characterization of chemicals that can be released from synthetic turf and playground mats, and
determination of the potential for human exposures
•	Biomonitoring and personal monitoring protocol development
•	Reporting
•	Health assessment from play on synthetic turf and playground mats
The Netherlands National Institute for Health and Environment (RIVM) released a December 2016
report, updated in March 2017, titled "Evaluation of health risks of playing sports on synthetic turf
pitches with rubber granulate" (RIVM, 2017). The RIVM collected rubber infill from 100 synthetic turf
fields and performed analyses for selected polyaromatic hydrocarbons, phthalates, and metals along with
bisphenol A and other chemicals of interest. Tests were conducted to determine to what extent
substances are released from crumb rubber through ingestion, skin contact and by evaporation in hot
weather. Exposure estimates were performed for five exposure scenarios using assumed exposure
parameters for different ages and player categories. Exposure estimates and toxicological information
were used to evaluate potential health risks. In addition, relationships between leukemia and lymphoma

-------
and sports on synthetic turf with rubber infill was examined compared to historical and overall rates in
the Netherlands. RIVM conclusions from the 2016 research include:
"The results of this research indicate that playing sports on these fields is safe. The risk to health from
playing sports on these synthetic turf fields is virtually negligible. While rubber granulate contains
harmful substances, these substances are only releasedfrom the rubber granulate in very small
quantities after ingestion, contact with the skin or evaporation in hot weather. RIVM recommends
adjusting the standardfor rubber granulate to one that is closer to the standard applicable to consumer
products."
"No indications of a relationship between leukemia, lymph node cancer and sports on synthetic grass
have been found."
RIVM researchers have also published a journal article, titled: "Synthetic turf pitches with rubber
granulate infill: are there health risks for people playing sports on such pitches?" (Pronk, 2018). The
article summarizes the research efforts and results included in the 2017 report. Findings and conclusions
from this journal article included:
"Risks to human health were assessed by comparing toxicological reference values for these substances
with the exposure estimates. A number of carcinogenic, mutagenic and reprotoxic substances were
present in rubber granulate used on Dutch pitches. No concern was, however, identified for phthalates,
benzothiazoles, bisphenol A and the metals cadmium, cobalt and lead, as their exposures were below the
levels associated with adverse effects on health. PAHs appeared to be the substances of highest concern,
but even they present no appreciable health risk with exposures resulting in additional cancer risks at or
below the negligible risk level of one in a million. Our findings for a representative number of Dutch
pitches are consistent with those of prior and contemporary studies observing no elevated health risk
from playing sports on synthetic turf pitches with recycled rubber granulate. Based on current evidence,
there is no reason to advise people against playing sports on such pitches. "
The Washington State Department of Health released a report January 2017, updated in April 2017,
"Investigations of Reported Cancer among Soccer Players in Washington State" (WDOH, 2017). The
investigations were based on concerns raised by Amy Griffin, University of Washington Women's
Associate Head Soccer Coach, regarding the number of soccer players, and goalkeepers in particular,
identified with cancer and exposure to synthetic turf fields with tire crumb rubber infill. The Washington
State Department of Health, in collaboration with the University of Washington School of Public Health,
performed an investigation with two primary goals: 1) compare the number of cancers on a list compiled
by the coach list to the number that would be expected if rates among soccer players were the same as
rates among all Washington residents of the same ages; and, 2) describe individuals reported by the
coach in terms of their demographics, factors related to cancer, and history of playing soccer and other
sports. Of the 53 people on Coach Griffin's list, 27 met the investigation's case definition (diagnosis
between 2002-2015, 6-24 years old at diagnosis, played soccer in Washington state prior to diagnosis,
played soccer at least 0.4 years prior to diagnosis). The 27 people experienced 28 cancers. A total of
1384 cancers would have been expected among comparable Washington state soccer players. The report
addresses complex questions about whether the number of expected cases were likely to be over- or
underestimated. Conclusions and recommendations from the Washington DOH report include:
"Our investigation was not designed to determine if soccer players in general were at increased risk of
cancer due to exposures from crumb rubber in artificial turf. Rather, its purpose was to explore whether
the information from Coach Griffin's list warrantedfurther public health response.

-------
This investigation did not find increased cancer among the soccer players on the coach's list compared
to what would be expected based on rates of cancer among Washington residents of the same ages. This
finding is true for all soccer players on the coach's list, as well as soccer players on the list at the WYS-
defined select and premier levels, and goalkeepers on the list. The variety offields and residences
suggests that no specific field or geographic residence is problematic in terms of soccer players getting
cancer.
In addition, the currently available research on the health effects of artificial turf does not suggest that
artificial turfpresents a significant public health risk. Assurances of safety, however, are limited by lack
of adequate information on potential toxicity and exposure. The Washington State Department of Health
will continue to monitor new research on health and environmental impacts of crumb rubber.
Thus, the Washington State Department of Health recommends that people who enjoy soccer continue to
play irrespective of the type of field surface. "
The European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) released a report in February 2017 titled "Annex XV Report;
An Evaluation of the Possible Health Risks of Recycled Rubber Granules Used as Infill in Synthetic
Turf Sports Fields" (ECHA, 2017). ECHA evaluated human health risks for chemicals found in tire
crumb rubber used on outdoor and indoor synthetic turf football (soccer) fields. ECHA compiled
information for PAHs, metals, phthalates, VOCs, and SVOCs primarily from European studies. ECHA
then created several exposure scenarios for children, adults, and workers installing or maintaining field
and estimated inhalation, dermal, and ingestion exposures. Conclusions from the ECHA report include:
"ECHA has found no reason to advise people against playing sports on synthetic turf containing
recycled rubber granules as infill material. This advice is based on ECHA 's evaluation that there is a
very low level of concern from exposure to substances found in the granules. This is based on the
current evidence available. However, due to the uncertainties, ECHA makes several recommendations
to ensure that any remaining concerns are eliminated. "
A journal article was published, titled "Comprehensive multipathway risk assessment of chemicals
associated with recycled ("crumb") rubber in synthetic turf fields" (Peterson, 2017). The article
described approaches for selecting and using measurements of chemicals in tire crumb rubber (primarily
from North American studies) as well as chemical release and/or bioaccessibility data. A systematic
process was used for selecting 'chemicals of potential concern' for exposure and risk characterization.
Exposures were estimated for youth soccer players and adult and child bystanders at synthetic turf fields.
Information for toxicity for each chemical of potential concern, or similar-chemical surrogate toxicity
information, were combined with exposure estimates assess cancer and non-cancer risks. Conclusions
from Peterson et al. include:
"Estimated non-cancer hazards and cancer risks for all the evaluated scenarios were within US EPA
guidelines. In addition, cancer risk levels for users of synthetic turffield were comparable to or lower
than those associated with natural soil fields. "
"This HHRA 's results add to the growing body of literature that suggests recycled rubber infill in
synthetic turfposes negligible risks to human health. This comprehensive assessment provides data that
allow stakeholders to make informed decisions about installing and using these fields. "

-------
A journal article was published, titled "Incidence of malignant lymphoma in adolescents and young
adults in the 58 counties of California with varying synthetic turf field density" (Bleyer & Keegan,
2018). The article describes an ecologic epidemiologic evaluation of county-level incidence of
lymphomas among adolescents and young adults and synthetic turf field density in California, USA.
Conclusions from Bleyer & Keegan include:
"Our findings in the state with the greatest number of such fields and a large, diverse patient population
are consistent with those of a prior study observing no association between individual-level exposures
to turffields and cancer incidence. Avoidance of synthetic turffields for fear of increased cancer risk is
not warranted."
"Higher rates of lymphoma incidence in regions with synthetic turffields generally are explained by the
age range, race/ethnicity distribution, and socioeconomic status as measured by family income
assignable to counties that have such fields. County-level ecological evidence mitigates against a strong
lymphomagenic effect of synthetic turffields and supports the Washington State and Netherlands
studies. Because regular physical activity during adolescence and early adulthood early adulthood
helps prevent cancer later in life, restricting use or availability of all-weather year-round synthetic
fields and thereby potentially reducing exercise could, in the long run, actually increase cancer
incidence, as well as cardiovascular disease and other chronic illnesses. Therefore, it is important to
consider the results of our and ongoing studies before the use and development of synthetic turf
fields and playgrounds, which promote physical activity, are blocked, prevented or precluded because of
cancer concerns."
A journal article was published, titled "Evaluation of organic and inorganic compounds extractable
by multiple methods from commercially available crumb rubber mulch" (Benoit & Demars, 2018). The
article describes characterization of metals and organic chemicals associated with tire crumb rubber
infill and shredded tire material sold for home use. Laboratory experiments were also performed to
assess leaching with simulated acid rain and emissions from passive degassing. Findings and
conclusions from Benoit & Demars include:
"Solvent extraction yielded 92 separate compounds, of which only about half have been testedfor
human health effects. Of these, nine are known carcinogens and another 20 are recognized irritants,
including respiratory irritants that may complicate asthma. Strong acid extraction released measurable
amounts of Pb and Cd and relatively large amounts of Zn. These three metals were specifically targeted
for analysis, and others may be present as well, but were unmeasured. Simulated acid rain extracted
only Zn in significant quantities. Passive volatilization yielded detectable amounts of 11 compounds.
Results demonstrate that recycled tire materials contain and can release a wide variety of substances
known to be toxic, and caution would argue against their use where human exposure is likely. "
A journal article was published, titled "Release of particles, organic compounds, and metals from crumb
rubber used in synthetic turf under chemical and physical stress" (Canepari, 2018). The research
characterized the chemical and morphological characteristics of materials released under chemical and
physical stress for tire crumb rubber, natural rubber, and thermoplastic elastomer. Headspace analysis
was performed for materials heated to 70 °C, the release of metals under slightly acidic conditions was
measured, and the formation of particles under mechanical and thermal stress was examined. Findings
and conclusions include:
"The headspace solid-phase micro-extraction GC-MS analysis evidenced that at 70 °C natural rubber
and thermoplastic elastomer release amounts of organic species much higher than recycled scrap tires.

-------
In particular, the desorption of mineral oils, with a prevalence of toxicologically relevant low viscosity
alkanes in the range C17-C22, andplasticizers (diisobutylphthalate) was clearly evidenced. The new
generation thermoplastic elastomer material also releases butylated hydroxy toluene. In slightly acidic
conditions, quite high amounts of bioaccessible Zn, Cu, and Co are releasedfrom recycled scrap tires,
while natural rubber releases mainly Se and Tl. In contrast, the thermoplastic elastomer does not
contain significant concentrations of leachable heavy metals. The formation of small particles, also in
the inhalable fraction, was evidenced by electron microscopy after mechanical or thermal treatment of
natural rubber."
"The chemical and morphological characterization of the considered crumb rubber materials put into
evidence how potential risks for health and environment can arise from the exposition of rubbers to
chemical and physical agents. "
"The use of natural rubber and of not-recycled thermoplastic materials, which are progressively
replacing recycled tire scraps as synthetic turf fillers, does not seem to be adequately safe for human
health, particularly when considering that children are the most exposed bracket of population.
Exposure risks arising from the use of these materials deserve to be further deepened. "
A journal article was published, titled "Evaluation of potential carcinogenicity of organic chemicals in
synthetic turf crumb rubber" (Perkins, 2019). The article reports on a literature search for identifying
chemicals associated with associated with crumb rubber from recycled tires, followed by prediction of
carcinogenicity and genotoxicity of those chemicals using a computer program, and through comparison
to US EPA and ECHA databases. Findings and conclusions from Perkins, et al., include:
"Through a literature review, we identified 306 chemical constituents of crumb rubber infill from 20
publications. Utilizing ADMET Predictor™, a computational program to predict carcinogenicity and
genotoxicity, 197 of the identified 306 chemicals met our a priori carcinogenicity criteria. Of these, 52
chemicals were also classified as known, presumed or suspected carcinogens by the US EPA and
ECHA. Of the remaining 109 chemicals which were not predicted to be carcinogenic by our
computational toxicology analysis, only 6 chemicals were classified as presumed or suspected human
carcinogens by US EPA or ECHA. Importantly, the majority of crumb rubber constituents were not
listed in the US EPA (n=207) and ECHA (n=262) databases, likely due to an absence of evaluation or
insufficient information for a reliable carcinogenicity classification. By employing a cancer hazard
scoring system to the chemicals which were predicted and classified by the computational analysis and
government databases, several high priority carcinogens were identified, including benzene, benzidine,
benzo(a)pyrene, trichloroethylene and vinyl chloride. Our findings demonstrate that computational
toxicology assessment in conjunction with government classifications can be used to prioritize
hazardous chemicals for future exposure monitoring studies for users of synthetic turffields.
This approach could be extended to other compounds or toxicity endpoints. "

-------
Tire Crumb Research Study
State-of-the-Science Literature Review/Gaps Analysis
White Paper Summary of Results
December 2016

-------
Prepared By
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency / Office of Research and Development
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention / Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission / Directorate for Health Sciences
Disclaimer
This document has been reviewed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Research and Development, the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, and the
Consumer Product Safety Commission and approved for release. In accordance with guidance in
the US EPA's Peer Review Handbook, the document was sent out for an independent, external peer
review to three subject matter experts with expertise in analytical chemistry, human exposure
assessment, and human exposure modeling. The document was revised based on reviewer
recommendations.
Any mention of trade names, products, or services does not imply an endorsement by the US
Government.

-------
I. Executive Summary
Concerns have been raised by the public about the safety of recycled tire crumb rubber used in
synthetic turf fields and playgrounds in the United States. Recycled tire materials used for
synthetic turf infill and playground surface applications may lead to human exposures to
chemical constituents in tire material. Human exposures to tire crumb rubber vary with time and
activity associated with use of synthetic fields and playgrounds. Limited studies have not shown
an elevated health risk from playing on fields with tire crumb, but the existing studies have not
comprehensively evaluated the concerns about health risks from exposure to tire crumb rubber
and important data gaps exist (U.S. EPA, 2016).
Because of the need for additional information, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention/Agency for Toxic Substances and
Disease Registry (ATSDR), and the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC)
launched a multi-agency action plan to study key environmental human health questions. The
Federal Research Action Plan on Recycled Tire Crumb Used on Playing Fields and Playgrounds
(referred to hereafter as the Federal Research Action Plan) includes numerous activities,
including research studies (U.S. EPA, 2016). The Federal Research Action Plan includes
numerous activities related to the design and implementation of a tire crumb research study. An
important component of the Action Plan is to identify key knowledge gaps to inform the conduct
of other elements of the Federal Research Action Plan.
To comprehensively understand the current state-of-the science and data gaps associated with the
toxicity of and human exposure to constituents in tire crumb rubber, CDC/ATSDR, EPA and
CPSC undertook a collaborative effort to review the scientific literature and analyze data gaps
(See Appendix B). The first objective of the Literature Review/Gaps Analysis (LRGA)
collaboration was to identify the existing body of literature related specifically to human
exposure to tire crumb rubber through the use of synthetic turf athletic fields and playgrounds.
The second objective was to characterize and summarize the relevant data from the scientific
literature. The final objective was to review the summary information and identify data gaps to
build on the current understanding of the state-of-the-science and inform the development of
specific research efforts that would be most impactful in the near-term.
Federal researchers examined a wide variety of information sources to build a list of relevant
citations. The LRGA focused on scientific publications that addressed tire crumb rubber use,
physical characteristics and chemical composition, potential pathways of exposures,
bioavailability, and component toxicity and risk assessment. It included studies that examined
occupational exposures at tire recycling plants, human exposures related to field and playground
installations, and subsequent exposures involved with use of synthetic turf and playground
facilities. It did not include studies on automotive tire manufacturing processes and related
exposures and risks. In determining whether or not to include a publication found in the course
of the literature search, a set of relevance criteria was developed. A Quality Assurance Project

-------
Plan was also developed to guide data collection, organization and analysis. A number of other
steps were taken to ensure quality in data entry and analysis.
The LRGA identified 88 relevant references. Each reference that was reviewed was categorized
according to 20 general information categories (e.g., study topic, geographic location, sample
type, conditions, populations studied) and more than 100 sub-categories (e.g., study topic sub-
categories: site characterization, production process, leaching, off-gassing, microbial analysis,
and human risk). As part of the effort, greater than 350 discrete chemical compounds also were
identified in the literature collected for this effort and a list of potential chemical constituents
was compiled to inform further research efforts.
The studies that were identified covered a wide range of topics and locations, but some topic
areas received greater coverage than others. For example, information on chemical leaching and
offgassing and volatilizing from tire crumb rubber was found in 36 and 25 studies, respectively,
but less information was available on microbiological, bioavailability, and biomonitoring
aspects of tire crumb rubber exposures (i.e., seven, five, and three studies, respectively). No
epidemiological studies were identified in the literature search. Data gaps could be more
pronounced for locations such as playgrounds and indoor fields, and for studies that examine
environmental background levels of tire crumb rubber constituents. Studies on occupational
exposures from turf and playground installations were also limited. Metal constituents of tire
crumb rubber, such as lead and zinc, have been frequently identified in the literature as a
constituent of concern, but research on exposures to these metals by field and playground users
is limited. While a number of volatile and semivolatile organic chemicals (especially polycyclic
aromatic hydrocarbons) have been measured in some studies, research on other organic
chemical constituents identified by the LRGA is more limited.
Other important data gaps include the lack of more in-depth characterizing of dermal and
ingestion exposure pathways, identifying constituents and scenarios resulting in the highest
exposures, developing and applying biomonitoring for constituents of concern, and assessing the
feasibility and approaches for epidemiological investigations. Several important data gaps for
assessing exposures and risks of tire crumb rubber at synthetic fields and playgrounds are
summarized in Table B-l.
The LRGA does not include critical reviews of the strengths and weaknesses of each study but
does provide the author's conclusions regarding their research, where applicable. The LRGA
does not make any conclusions or recommendations regarding the safety of the use of recycled
tire crumb rubber in synthetic turf fields and playgrounds. The review provides information
useful for guiding and designing future research efforts needed to further address questions
regarding exposures and risks for tire crumb rubber used in synthetic turf fields and playgrounds.

-------
Table B-l. Data Ga
js for Research on Tire Crumb Rubber in Synthetic Fields and Playgrounds
Research Area
Data Gaps
s
eO
N
*•=
2
es
-=
u
•-
-------
Table B-l (continued). Data Gaps for Research on Tire Crumb Rubber in Synthetic Fields and
Playgrounds

Research Area
Data Gaps
Exposure/Risk Characterization
Exposure Factors
•	Exposure and risk assessments have typically relied on generic exposure factors.
Information specific to the frequency and duration of synthetic field and
playground uses, physical activities, contact rates, and hygiene are limited.
•	Exposure factor data are not available either across the wide variety of sports and
recreational users of synthetic turf fields and playgrounds with tire crumb rubber,
or for occupational exposures.
Dermal/Ingestion
Exposures
• While multiple studies have attempted to characterize potential inhalation
exposures to tire crumb rubber chemical constituents, more limited information is
available for understanding dermal and ingestion exposures.
Broken Skin/Ocular
Exposures
• Little information is available on the potential for increased exposures via broken
skin (i.e., due to cuts and scrapes) and through ocular fluids.
Particle Exposures
• There is limited information on exposure to tire crumb particles and their
constituents through inhalation, dermal, and ingestion. Information on the
exposure potential as synthetic fields and playgrounds age and weather, and for
various uses and activities on synthetic fields and playgrounds is limited.
Variability
•	Few studies have evaluated the variability of exposures to tire crumb rubber
constituents by activity type, exposure scenario, age, material type and condition,
facility type and condition, and ambient conditions such as temperature and wind
or ventilation. Limited information is available on the variability of exposures and
related factors across a wide range of user groups and scenarios.
•	A few studies suggest that inhalation exposures at indoor facilities are higher
compared to those at outdoor facilities, but the available information is limited.
Biomonitoring
•	Only a few biomonitoring studies have been performed. Only hydroxypyrene has
been measured as a biomarker in athletes and workers.
•	Additional tire rubber-specific biomarker measurements have not been reported for
synthetic field and playground users and biomarker analysis methods might be
lacking for some chemicals.
•	Large scale biomonitoring studies of populations exposed and not-exposed to
synthetic turf fields and playgrounds with tire crumb rubber have not been
reported.
Cumulative/Aggregate
Assessments
• Exposures to multiple tire crumb constituents are likely to occur via multiple
pathways (e.g., inhalation, ingestion, and dermal contact). However, studies that
evaluated cumulative and aggregate exposure and risks are limited.
Epidemiology Studies
•	No epidemiological investigations for synthetic turf field or playground users were
identified in the literature review.
•	Survey and biomonitoring tools for accurate assessment of relative exposures for
synthetic field and playground users in an epidemiological study are lacking.
Alternative
Assessments
Alternative
Infills/Materials
• Most research to date has focused on characterizing tire crumb rubber infill.
Similar research on other infill materials, including natural materials, ethylene
propylene diene monomer (EPDM), thermoplastic elastomers (TPE), and recycled
shoe rubber are either lacking or limited.
Natural Grass Fields
• Few studies have been performed to assess potential chemical exposures from
natural grass playing fields.
Other Exposure Sources
• Only a few comparative assessments have been performed on relative exposures to
chemicals associated with tire crumb rubber from other sources.
-------
II. Table of Contents
I.	Executive Summary
II.	Table of Contents
III.	Background
a.	Problem Statement
b.	Goals of Literature Review & Gap Analysis
c.	Scope of Effort
IV.	Methodology
a.	Data Sources and how they were identified
b.	Factors & criteria for literature source inclusion
c.	Quality Assurance & Assumptions
V.	Results
a.	Summary Statistics
b.	Reference Types
c.	Study Topics
d.	Geographic Locations
e.	Study/Sample Locations
f.	Sample Types
g.	Conditions Studied
h.	Populations Studied
i.	Constituents Evaluated
j.	Human Exposure Routes
k.	Exposure Factors
I. Risk Assessment
VI.	Discussion of general conclusions as stated in literature
VII.	Gaps Analysis Discussion
VIII.	References
IX.	Appendices
Appendix A - CDC Review of Published Literature and Select Federal Studies on Crumb
Rubber and Synthetic Turf
Appendix B - Literature Review of Microbial Work Done on Tire Crumb Rubber Artificial
Fields
Appendix C - EPA-NCEA Summary of Available Exposure and Health Risk Assessment Studies
on Artificial Turf, Playgrounds and Tire Crumbs
Appendix D - EPA Library Literature Search Results
Appendix E - List of Literature Reviewed
Appendix F - Constituents List
-------
III. Background
a.	Problem Statement
Synthetic turf installations for athletic fields and other applications in the United States began to
rise in popularity in the mid twentieth century. Modern synthetic turf products are typically
composed of three layers - fiber material used to simulate grass blades, infill material for
cushioning and stability, and backing material (Cheng et al., 2014). A common material used for
infill is granulated crumb rubber from recycled tires.
One method of producing crumb rubber involves grinding used tires, removing steel and fiber
tire components and sorting the rubber pellets by size. Pellet sizes can range from about one-
sixteenth to one-quarter inch in diameter and are typically applied at a rate of two to three
pounds per square foot of field surface (NYDOH, 2008). The Rubber Manufacturer's
Association (2014) estimates that 24.4 percent of used scrap tires in the U.S. were recycled into
crumb rubber. A major focus of the LRGA effort was to provide additional information on
potential exposures at synthetic turf fields and playgrounds. Of the total tires recycled into crumb
rubber in 2013, 31 percent was used in playground mulch and 17 percent was used in sports
surfacing.
Given the widespread use of recycled tire rubber in synthetic turf and playground mulch
applications, concerns about the toxicity of the recycled materials have arisen. Human exposures
to the tire crumb rubber vary with time and activity associated with use of synthetic fields and
playgrounds. Limited studies have not shown an elevated health risk from playing on fields with
tire crumb rubber, but the existing studies do not comprehensively evaluate the concerns about
health risks from exposure to tire crumb rubber (U.S. EPA, 2016).
Because of the need for additional information, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention/Agency for Toxic Substances and
Disease Registry (ATSDR), and the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC)
launched a multi-agency action plan to study key environmental human health questions. The
Federal Research Action Plan includes numerous activities, including a literature search and data
gap analysis (LRGA) as well as various other research efforts (U.S. EPA, 2016). A key objective
of the Action Plan is to identify key knowledge gaps.
b.	Objectives of Literature Review/Gaps Analysis
In order to more fully understand data gaps associated with human exposure to tire crumb rubber
and their toxicity, ATSDR, CPSC and EPA undertook a collaborative effort in the form of a
scientific literature review and subsequent gaps analysis. The first objective of the collaboration
was to identify the existing body of literature related specifically to human exposure to tire
crumb rubber through the use of synthetic turf athletic fields and playgrounds. The second
-------
objective was to characterize and summarize the relevant data from the scientific literature. The
final objective was to review the summary information and identify data gaps to help inform the
development of specific research efforts.
c. Scope of Effort
The ultimate objective of the Literature Review and Gap Analysis (LRGA) effort was to inform
the design of a Tire Crumb Research Study (TCRS) (EPA, 2016). Therefore, the scope of the
LRGA was focused on the needs of the scientists designing the TCRS. The LRGA focused on
identification of scientific publications that studied tire crumb rubber use, physical characteristics
and chemical composition, potential pathways of exposures, bioavailability, and component
toxicity. The LRGA did not include studies related to human or ecological exposures in
automotive tire manufacturing processes. The LRGA focused only on the life cycle of tires that
reach the facilities where they are converted to crumb rubber. Studies that examine occupational
exposures at "tire to crumb rubber" generation facilities, human exposures related to field /
playground installations, and subsequent exposures involved with use of synthetic turf /
playground facilities were considered as part of the scope for this effort. Where literature existed
in these areas of study, it was included in the LRGA analysis.
IV. Methodology
a. Data Sources
Research and commentary on tire crumb rubber is represented in a diverse set of publications.
The LRGA effort explored a wide variety of information sources to build a list of relevant
citations for this effort. Initial searches for relevant material began with the preliminary list of
reports and bibliographic lists below. Additional literature relevant to this effort was identified
by reviewing the references listed in the preliminary lists. Material collection for this document
was completed in late May 2016, with sources ranging in release dates from 1991 to 2015.
Literature sources released after May 2016 have not been included in the LRGA.
Preliminary Lists used to Identify Relevant Literature
•	A Scoping-Level Field Monitoring Study of Synthetic Turf Fields and Playgrounds (U.S.
EPA, 2009)
•	Tire Crumb and Synthetic Turf Field Literature and Report List as of Nov. 2015 (U.S.
EPA, 2015)
•	CDC Review of Published Literature and Select Federal Studies on Crumb Rubber and
Synthetic Turf (see Appendix A)
•	Literature review of microbial work done on tire crumb rubber artificial fields (See
Appendix B)
•	EPA-NCEA Summary of Available Exposure and Health Risk Assessment Studies on
Artificial Turf, Playgrounds and Tire Crumbs (See Appendix C)
-------
The sources listed in Appendices A, B and C provided an initial starting point for identifying
relevant publications for the LRGA. The scientists working on the LRGA conducted a literature
search using the following databases: PubMed, Medline (OVID), Embase (OVID), Scopus,
Primo (Stephen B. Thacker CDC Library), ProQuest Environmental Science Collection, Web of
Science, ScienceDirect, and Google Scholar. The Key Terms used in these searches included the
following terms: Artificial Turf, Synthetic Turf, Crumb Rubber, Tire Crumb Rubber, Sports
Field, Turf, Exposure, Analytes, Chemicals, Elements, Human Health Effects, Adverse Health
Effects, Environmental Exposure, Health Risk, Health Impact, Toxicity, Toxic, Carcinogen,
Emission, Off-gas, Routes of Exposure, Infill, Risk.
A separate, independent literature search was performed by the EPA library in Durham, NC. The
goal of this search was to identify any relevant tire crumb rubber exposure publications and
sources that were not identified in the initial search conducted by the LRGA scientists. The
following terms were used for both searches:
•	Tire Crumb
•	Artificial Turf
•	Synthetic Turf
•	Toxicity
•	Health Risks
•	Eco Risks
•	Leaching
•	Human Exposure
•	Benzothiazole (BHT)
•	Lead
•	PAHs
The EPA library literature search can be found in Appendix D.
Based on these information sources, the LRGA team identified relevant literature from the
following areas: (1) Journal publications, (2) Reports, white papers, fact sheets, and similar
publications developed by federal and state agencies (3) Reports on industry-sponsored research,
including white papers, fact sheets, and similar publications and (4) Symposium/conference
proceedings. The list of relevant publications is provided in Appendix E.
The references were stored in an Excel spreadsheet that was also used to synthesize the
information from the studies. A Microsoft SharePoint site was created as a central repository of
all the information relevant to the LRGA, including the literature, spreadsheet, and other
materials.
b. Factors & Criteria for Literature Source Inclusion
Factors outlined by the EPA Science Policy Council in "A Summary of General Assessment
Factors for Evaluating the Quality of Scientific and Technical Information" were considered in
the identification of literature for this project (U.S. EPA, 2003). These are (1) Applicability and
-------
Utility; (2) Evaluation and Review; (3) Soundness; (4) Clarity and Completeness; and (5)
Uncertainty and Variability.
The objective of the LRGA team was to cite literature that conformed to these five factors.
However, several of the studies did not fully conform to some aspect of the outlined criteria. For
instance, there were several white papers and reports in relevant technical areas that were not
independently peer-reviewed or peer review was not documented. Although these and other
references did not fully conform to one or more of the criteria, they were included in the LRGA
because they provided useful information in better understanding risks from tire crumb rubber.
In determining whether or not to include a publication in the LRGA, a set of relevance criteria
were developed. An iterative approach was used to address the relevancy of the publications.
First, the title of the publication was reviewed to see if it included one or more of the criteria
terms below. If it was unclear whether the publication was relevant based upon the title, the
publication abstract was reviewed for relevance. If it was unclear whether the publication was
relevant based upon the abstract, parts or all of the body of the publication was reviewed. If the
information was found to be applicable, the publication was included in the LRGA.
Relevance Criteria
Tire Crumb
Artificial Turf
Synthetic Turf
Tire Crumb Toxicity
Tire Crumb Health Risks
Tire Crumb Ecological Risks
Synthetic Turf Leaching
Human Exposure to Tire Crumb
c. Quality Assurance & Assumptions
A Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) was developed as part of this effort to guide data
collection, organization and analysis. EPA policy (U.S. EPA, 2008) is based on the national
consensus standard ANSI/ASQ E4-2004 Quality Systems for Environmental Data and
Technology Programs: Requirements with Guidance for Use. This standard recommends a
tiered approach that includes the development and use of Quality Management Plans (QMPs).
The organizational units in EPA that generate and/or use environmental data are required to have
Agency-approved QMPs. A programmatic QMP was developed for the overall TCRS. The
TCRS QMP is supported by project-specific QA project plans (QAPPs). A QAPP was prepared
and included the technical details and associated QA/QC procedures for the LRGA components.
Due primarily to time constraints, a number of assumptions were made in the conduct of the
literature review and subsequent analysis of data gaps. For example, while the LRGA team
performed extensive searches to find relevant literature for analysis it is possible that other
sources exist which were inaccessible, unavailable or not found during the literature search.
-------
Because publications were typically "screened" for relevance based upon their title and/or
abstract, but not always the entire publication, it is possible that relevant information may have
been overlooked. Finally, as indicated in Section IV B., it was assumed that most, if not all,
journal articles from the scientific literature had been peer reviewed. However, peer review
status was not always used as a deciding factor whether to include a source in the LRGA (see
Section IV B).
d. Literature Review and Data Extraction
All relevant studies were reviewed and characterized according to the information categories and
sub-categories shown in Table B-2 The information was extracted from the papers and reports
and entered into an Excel spreadsheet that allowed the data to be sorted according to the various
topic areas. The results were filtered according to the various categories and subcategories to
assess the frequency that the various topic categories were represented by the universe of
literature reviewed. A brief description of the results and conclusions from each study was also
provided in the spreadsheet. A screenshot of a portion of the LRGA spreadsheet is provided in
Figure B-l. The entire LRGA spreadsheet can be viewed on the EPA's Federal Research Action
Plan on Recycled Tire Crumb Status Report website.
-------
Table B-2. Information Categories and Subcategories Used in LRGA Spreadsheet
Categories
Subcategories
1. Reference Type
Journal Article
Report
Report of Peer Review
Abstract
1. Reference Type
2. Study Topic(s)
Literature Review
Data Gaps
Site Characterization
Production Process
Constituent Characterization
Leaching
Stormwater Runoff
Site Monitoring
Headspace/de-gassing-Bulk
Off-gassing/volatilizing
Human Exposure
2. Study Topic(s)
3. Geographic Location
See spreadsheet: Status Report website
4. Study/sample Location
Laboratory
Indoor Field
Outdoor Field
Natural Grass Field
4. Study/sample Location
5. Sample Type
Bulk Crumb Rubber
Bulk Grass Blades or Fibers
Alternative Fill Type
Leachate
Urine
5. Sample Type
6. Conditions Studies
Age or Weathering
Meteorological
Geographical
Indoor vs Outdoor
Synthetic vs Natural
6. Conditions Studies
7. Populations Studied
Children/Teens
Adults
Athletes
7. Populations Studied
8. Constituents Evaluated
VOCs
SVOCs
Inorganics
Lead
8. Constituents Evaluated
9. Specific Constituents Studies
See Appendix F and Status Report website
10. Constituents of Highest Concern
See Status Report website
11. Number of Observations/Samples
See Status Report website
12. Human Exposure Route
Ingestion
Inhalation
Dermal

13. Exposure Factors Used to Assess Exposure
Body Weight
Inhalation Rate
Ingestion Rate
Skin Surface Area
Adherence
Bioavailability Fraction
Absorption Fraction
13. Exposure Factors Used to Assess
Exposure
14. Risk Assessment
Cancer
Non-cancer
Screening
14. Risk Assessment
15. Toxicity or Regulatory Data Used
See Status Report website
16. Risk Characterization
See Status Report website
17. Risk of Highest Concern
See Status Report website
18. Brief Description of Results
See Section VI, and Status Report website
19. Additional Information or Comments
See Status Report website
20. Related References
See Status Report website
-------
Literature Review and Data Gap Analysis Spreadsheet
Reference Type
Study Topic(s)
%
¦o
3
4
(/)
¦o
a;
=>
I
TJ
4J
3
.2
V
0£
See Constituent Tab
See Related References
References - Scientific Literature
a;
u
1
<
(0
c
3
o
£
o
a.
6
X
!
s>
01
a:
oi
0)
Q.
*6
£
0
a.
01
C
2
5
.e
<
Q.
3
C
re
5
c
0
£¦
1
E
3

8
CO
1
Y
Y
n
n
Anderson, ME; Kirkland, KH; Guidotti, TL, Rose, C. (2006). A Case Study of Tire
Crumb Use on Playgrounds: Risk Analysis and Communication When Major
Clinical Knowledge Gaps Exist. Environ Health Perspect. 114(l):l-3.
X







X
X














2
Y
y
Y
n
Anthony, D.H.J, and Latawiec, A. (1993). A preliminary chemical examination
of hydrophobic tire leachate components. National Water Research Institute,
Burlington, Ontario, Canada, Report No. 93-78. Part III. Parts 1 and II not
reviewed: not relevant (see comments).

X











X










3
Y
Y
n
n
Bass, JJ; Hintze, DW. (2013). Determination of Microbial Populations in a
Synthetic Turf System. Skyline-The Big Sky Undergraduate Journal 1(1):1.
X


















X
X



4
y
Y
n
n
Beausoleil, M; Price, K; Muller, C. (2009). Chemicals in outdoor artificial turf: a
health risk for users? Public Health Branch, Montreal

X






X
X








X
X




Figure B-l. Screenshot of a portion of the LRGA spreadsheet (see full spreadsheet on the Status
Report website).
A list of potential chemical constituents was also developed based on chemicals identified in the
various studies. The list included the name of the chemical, CAS number, synonyms, and
concentrations observed in the various studies. EPA's National Center for Computational
Toxicology assisted by providing CAS numbers and synonyms for constituents for which this
type of information was not provided in the study. The constituents list is provided in Appendix
F. A screenshot of a portion of the chemical constituents' spreadsheet is provided in Figure B-2.
-------




15. CDPH 2010;
Maximum Detected
Analyte
Synonym(s)
CAS#
12. Cheng and
Reinhard 2014;
Potential
Contaminants
that can Leach
4 Outdoor Fields
1 Indoor Field



from Tires
ug/m3
Monitor type
ug/m3
Monitor typ
Carbon Tetrachloride

56-23-5





Chlorobenzene

108-90-7




Chloroform
Trichloromethane
67-66-3





Chloromethane
Methyl chloride
74-87-3

1.7
Personal
1.57
Personal
Chrysene

218-01-9
X
3.40E-04
Stationary


Coronene

191-07-1
X




o-Cyanobenzoic acid
2-Cyanobenzoic acid
3839-22-3





Cyclohexanamine
Cyclohexylamine
108-91-8





Cydohexanamine, N-cyclohexyl-
Dicyclohexylamine
101-83-7





Cyclohexanamine, N-cyclohexyl-N-methyl-
N-Cyclohexyl-N-methylcyclohexanamine
7560-83-0





Cyclohexane

110-82-7

17.5
Personal
10.3
Personal
Cyclohexane, isocyanato
Isocyanatocyclohexane
3173-53-3





Cyclohexane, isothiocyanato-

1122-82-3





Cyclohexanone

108-94-1





N-Cyclohexyl-2-benzothiazolesulfenamide (CBS)
N-Cyclohexyl-2-benzothiazolesulfenamide
95-33-0





n-Cyclohexyl-formamide
N-Cyclohexylformamide; Formamide, N-cyclohexyl
766-93-8





Cycloninasiloxane, octadecamethyl-
Octadecamethylcyclononasiloxane
556-71-8





Cyclopenta[cd]pyrene

27208-37-3
X




4H-cyclopenta[def]phenanthreri-4-one
4H-Cyclopenta(def)phenanthren-4-one
5737-13-3
x




4H-cvcloDentafdefl-Dhenanthrene
4-H-Cvclooenta(d.e.ftohenanthrene
203-64-5
X




Figure B-2. Screenshot of a portion of the constituent spreadsheet (see Appendix F for the list of
constituents; the full spreadsheet is available on the Status Report website).
-------
V. Results
a. Summary Statistics
A total of 97 studies were identified by the methods described in Section IV. Seven were
reviewed, but not included in the LRGA analysis because were found to be outside the scope of
the project, and two were found to be duplicates of studies already included in the LRGA (see the
full literature review spreadsheet for additional details on the Status Report website). The final
number of studies evaluated was 88. More than 350 potential chemical constituents were
identified in the resources reviewed for the LRGA (see Appendix F for additional details).
Tabic B-3. Summary Statistics
References Identified for Consideration in the LRGA
97
References Not Included in LRGA Analysis Due to Irrelevance, etc.
7
Duplicate references
2
TOTAL NUMBER OF REFERENCES INCLUDED IN LRGA
88
Discrete Chemical Compounds Identified in Constituent Analysis
>350
LRGA References Included in Constituents List
38
b.	Reference Types
Reference Type refers to the nature of the document reviewed. Journal articles are publications
in the scientific literature that are typically peer reviewed. Reports represent documents prepared
by government, contractor, university, industry or other entities. Reports of peer reviews are
typically summaries of comments by reviewers of reviewed documents. Abstracts include short
descriptions of documents which may precede a more detailed discussion on the relevant topic.
Additional reference types included summaries only, website text, and memos which are self-
explanatory.
The Literature Review/Gaps Analysis (LRGA) team examined all of the above reference types in
the course of the effort. The majority of sources identified were either Journal Articles (43) or
Reports (40). Of the other reference types included in the analysis (i.e., Report of Peer Review,
Abstract, Summary Only, Website, and Memo), only one citation was identified for each
reference type. This demonstrated the extent to which the literature search was oriented toward
Journal Articles and Reports, which typically provided the most relevant, comprehensive
information on tire crumb rubber.
c.	Study Topics
The LRGA team identified 20 different Study Topics across the literature reviewed. An "other"
category was also included to capture additional topics not covered by the 20 main categories.
"Study Topic" refers to the focus of the document. In some cases, documents included
information on one topic (e.g., a literature review). In other cases, documents addressed more
than one topic. For example, a document may include both a review of the existing scientific
-------
(e.g., leaching of chemicals from tire crumb rubber, or site monitoring to assess human health
risk from exposure to tire crumb rubber). Table B-4 provides a summary of the number of
studies that addressed each of the various topic areas.
Table B-4. Number (if Studies that
Addressed Various Topic Areas
Leaching
36
Human Risk
32
Human Exposure
27
Eco Exposure/Risk
26
Literature Review
24
Toxicity Assessment
19
Constituent Characterization
16
Headspace/de-gassing-Bulk (lab)
13
Off-gassing/volatilizing (field)
12
Site Monitoring
12
Data Gaps
11
Stormwater Runoff
7
Microbial
7
Production Process
6
Bioavailability
5
Modeling
5
Site Characterization
4
Biomonitoring
3
Risk Communication
2
Epidemiologic
0
Other
31
The bulk of the Study Topics identified in the LRGA addressed leaching of tire crumb rubber
constituents, exposures to humans and ecosystems from tire crumb rubber and subsequent risks
from those exposures, and previous literature reviews intended to better understand tire crumb
rubber constituents, exposures or toxicity. Toxicity assessment, characterization of constituents
found in tire crumb rubber and site monitoring and volatilizing of constituents from crumb
material in either the lab or field were also frequently recorded Study Topics. Studies that were
categorized in the 'Other' topic category included topics such as gastric digestion simulations,
skin abrasion, assessments of study protocols, mutagenicity assessments, etc. A full list of the
"Other" types can be found in the Literature Review Spreadsheet on the Status Report website.
Lack of information in Study Topic areas may be an early indicator of data gaps which may
require more research.
d. Geographic Locations
Information related to geographic location was collected as part of the LRGA effort in order to
provide spatial context for the data. The level of geographic information was typically recorded at
the state or country scale. Geographic location was recorded for more than 50 of the studies
included in the LRGA. Thirteen U.S. states were represented by one or more studies (i.e.,
California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Maine, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Ohio,
Pennsylvania, Utah, Virginia, and Washington). Other countries identified in the analysis
included nations such as Canada, Denmark, France, Italy, Japan, Korea, Norway, Spain, Sweden,
Taiwan and The Netherlands. There were a total of 30 sources for which no locational
information was provided or was non-applicable.
-------
e. Study/Sample Locations
The Study/Sample Location category differs from the Geographic Location category. It refers to
the type(s) of site(s) where samples were collected or analyzed. For example, a study to identify
the constituents in tire crumb rubber may have been conducted entirely in the laboratory using
manufactured tire crumb rubber. Alternatively, tire crumb rubber samples may have been
collected from an indoor or outdoor field. Samples may also have been collected from both
synthetic turf and natural fields or background locations, or from playgrounds or other locations
where tire crumb rubber may be used.
The subset of Study/Sample Locations included Scientific Laboratories, Indoor Fields, Outdoor
Fields, Natural Grass Fields, Synthetic Grass Fields, Playgrounds and Other types. For the
purpose of the LRGA, "Scientific Laboratories" were defined as indoor facilities with controlled
environments and specific quality assurance procedures. "Indoor Fields" were located inside
enclosed facilities with climate control, and "Outdoor Fields" were in open or partially contained
facilities with some open air access. "Synthetic Grass Fields" included a variety of designs, but
were typically composed of an underlay material, tire crumb rubber infill and synthetic blades.
"Natural Grass Fields" were surfaces with specifically real grass plants with natural soil material.
A variety of "Playgrounds" were included which generally refer to an area with recreational
equipment anchored in the ground with surrounding tire crumb rubber used for cushioning
surface. An eighth type of Study/Sample Location was identified as "Background" which refers
to analyses conducted to determine background levels of tire crumb rubber constituents.
Of the sources included in the LRGA, most (42) involved analysis in a scientific laboratory
(Table B-5). The analysis also showed that 35 literature sources included analysis conducted on
or in the area of a synthetic turf field; 20 of these involved outdoor fields and 8 involved indoor
fields, and others did not specify. There were 8 studies that addressed natural grass fields and 8
that addressed background locations. Nine sources examined playground environments, however
because Kim et al. (2012b) uses the term "playgrounds" to mean facilities traditionally defined
as athletic fields, this number was adjusted to eight sources. The 13 "Other" locations included
roadbeds, parking lots, new/commercial products, test plots, mulch, green roofs, and rubber
running tracks. A full list of the "Other" types can be found in the Literature Review Spreadsheet
on the Status Report website.
The focus of the LRGA was synthetic athletic field and playground environments. Artificial turf
marketed for private residential homes may also provide an additional exposure pathway and
may contribute to cumulative exposures to a variety of materials found in tire crumb rubber.
However, publications pertaining to residential use were not included in the LRGA.
-------
Table B-5. Number of Studies .in
Each Studv/Sample Site Category
Laboratory
42
Synthetic Grass Field
35
Outdoor Field
20
Playground
8
Indoor Field
8
Natural Grass Field
8
Background
8
Other
13
f. Sample Types
The Sample Type category refers to the nature of the sample(s) collected. For example, samples
of bulk tire crumb rubber or artificial grass blades/fibers may have been collected for the purpose
of leaching studies, or air samples may have been collected by stationary area samplers or by
personal breathing zone samplers. Other examples include wipe samples from fields or tire
crumb rubber for assessing dermal exposure, or urine samples from biomonitoring studies.
The term "Alternative Infill Type" was used to designate sources that examined infill materials
other than tire crumb rubber (e.g., sand). Another sample type identified as "Leachate" generally
refers to sources that studied samples of liquid or solid material that had been removed from the
immediate area of the tire crumb rubber via normal maintenance, meteorological or
hydrogeologic processes.
The majority of the literature sources (44) provided information of the analysis of bulk crumb
rubber (Table B-6). Leachate samples were studied in 22 sources, while stationary air samples
were evaluated in another 20 sources. The 20 "Other" sample types included materials such as
elastic compounds, dust, glue, bio-fluid extracts, rubber pavers natural grass and soil from test
plots, and other materials. A full list of the "Other" types can be found in the Literature Review
Spreadsheet on the Status Report website.
Table B-6. Number (if Studies
Addressing Sample Tvpe Category
Bulk Crumb Rubber
44
Leachate
22
Stationary Air Samples
20
Bulk Grass Blades or Fibers
13
Personal Exposure (air)
9
Wipe Samples
5
Alternative Fill Type
4
Urine
3
Other
20
g. Conditions Studied
The Conditions Studied category refers to analyses that may have been done to identify
differences in constituent concentrations or exposures based on age or weathering of the artificial
turf, or the effects of meteorological conditions or geography. This study element also refers to
analyses that evaluate for differences between indoor and outdoor environments, synthetic and
-------
natural turf, site and background conditions, differences based on active or inactive play, or other
activity related conditions.
The LRGA team identified 20 literature sources that examined exposures based upon age or
weathering of the artificial turf, while 10 other sources analyzed the effect of meteorological
conditions on artificial turf and tire crumb rubber (Table B-7). Nine of the literature sources
examined levels of constituents found in tire crumb rubber in relation to background levels of the
same constituents at the study sites. There were 12 "Other" conditions studied types, which
included temperature, coated vs non-coated crumb rubber, tire crumb rubber chip size, and pH. A
full list of the "Other" types can be found in the Literature Review Spreadsheet on the Status
Report website.
Table B-7. Number (if Studies by
Conditions Studied
Age or Weathering
20
Meteorological
10
Site vs Background
9
Synthetic vs Natural
6
Indoor vs Outdoor
5
Activity Related
5
Active vs Inactive Play
4
Other Sources
3
Geographical
1
Other
12
h. Populations Studied
Populations Studied are those populations that were considered in an exposure or human health
assessment (e.g., children/teens, adults, workers, athletes). Fourteen literature sources examined
children/teen exposures, while 13 sources studies adults and 10 studied athletes (Table B-8).
Four sources included in the LRGA looked at worker exposures to tire crumb rubber installations
/ maintenance. "Other" types of populations identified in the analysis include athletic coaches,
spectators, gardeners, and microbial populations. A full list of the "Other" types can be found in
the Literature Review Spreadsheet on the Status Report website.
The age groups identified in the various studies differed for non-adult individuals. Thus, for the
purpose of categorizing the studies based on age, children and teens were combined in one
category and adults were categorized separately. Activities based on the ages of the populations
studied may be different due to differing behavior patterns. Likewise, other exposure factors
(e.g., inhalation rates, skin surface area, body weight) may differ based on age, and can affect
exposure levels.
Table B-8. Number of Studies by
Populations Studied
Children/Teens
14
Adults
13
Athletes
10
Workers
4
Other
6
-------
i. Constituents Evaluated
The Constituents Evaluated results capture the general category of contaminants that were
addressed in the study (e.g., volatile organic compounds (VOCs), semi volatile organic
compounds (SVOCs), inorganics, microbes, particulate matter). Polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons (PAHS) are also included as a broad category because they are frequently included
in the literature sources. Likewise, lead and benzothiazole are included because they are
frequently included in the sources. A separate column in the spreadsheet (found on the Status
Report website) is included to capture information on the Specific Constituents Studied. A
separate Constituents Tab in the spreadsheet provides additional information on the constituents
studied (e.g., concentration data) (see Appendix F for a list of constituents with more details
available on the spreadsheet found on the Status Report website).
Forty-nine of the literature sources included in the LRGA evaluated inorganic compounds related
to rubber exposures (Table B-9). The next most prevalent constituents identified in the literature
review were PAHs, identified in 41 sources, followed by VOCs (38 sources), SVOCs (31
sources) and lead (Pb) by 29 sources. Particulate matter, Benzothiazole and Microbes were
constituents studied to a lesser extent. "Other" types of constituents identified included
'extractable substances,' dissolved organic carbon, and 'organics.' A full list of the "Other"
types can be found in the Literature Review Spreadsheet on the Status Report website. Specific
references were made to zinc and a variety of metals, phthalates, benzene, nitrosamines, a variety
of complex organic compounds, and others. Zinc and other metals were identified most often as
the constituents of highest concern in the literature sources.
Table B-9. Number (if Studies by
Chemical Constituents Studied
Inorganics
49
PAHs
41
VOCs
38
SVOCs
31
Lead
29
Benzothiazole
20
Particulate Matter
18
Microbes
6
Other
6
j. Number of Samples or Number of Observations
The number of observations or number of samples collected in each of the studies reviewed for
the LRGA varied according to the study purpose and scope. These data were included in the
spreadsheet when they were available in the publication reviewed. For detailed information on
the numbers of observations or number of samples collected, see the LRGA spreadsheet on the
-------
k. Human Exposure Routes
Human Exposure Route identifies whether ingestion, inhalation, or dermal exposures were
evaluated in a human exposure/risk assessment. Some studies evaluated more than one route of
exposure. Twenty-two of the LRGA literature sources investigated inhalation exposures. Another
16 sources considered ingestion exposures, while 12 sources reviewed dermal exposure
scenarios. Secondary exposures (e.g., from residual tire crumb rubber contacted through
activities such as washing clothes) is also possible, but were not considered in the literature
reviewed.
I. Exposure Factors
The Exposure Factors category provides specific information on the exposure factors used
studies that estimated human exposure/risk. The U.S. EPA generally defines exposure factors as
factors related to human behavior and characteristics that help determine an individual's exposure
to an agent. The LRGA identified 14 unique exposure factors, as well as an "other" group. The
14 unique factors included: Body Weight, Inhalation Rate, Ingestion Rate, Skin Surface Area,
Surface Area to Body Weight ratio (SA/BW), Adherence, Bioavailability fraction, Absorption
fraction, Hand-to-mouth contacts/hr, Hand-to-surface contacts/hr, Hand-to-mouth transfer
fraction, Exposure Duration, Exposure Frequency, and Exposure Time.
Fourteen literature sources in the LRGA provided information on the use of one or more
exposure factors. The exposure factors that were reportedly used are summarized in Table B-10.
Exposure frequency (d/yr or d/week) (n=13) and exposure time (hr/day) (n=l 1) were the
exposure factors that were most often reported, followed by exposure duration (years) (n=10),
body weight (kg) (n=9), and inhalation rate (m3/hr or m3/day) (n=9). Ingestion rate (g/day) was
reported in 8 studies and skin surface area (cm2) was reported in 6 studies. The other factors were
reported by three or fewer LRGA literature sources (for additional details see the spreadsheet on
the Status Report website).
Table B-10. Exposure Factors Used bv LRGA References
Factor
N
Value(s)
Exposure Frequency (d/yr or d/wk)
13
24-365 d/yr; 4-7 d/wka
Exposure Time (hr/day)
11
0.54-10a
Exposure Duration (yrs)
10
l-50a'b
Body Weight (kg)
9
15-70b
Inhalation Rate (m3/hr or m3/day))
9
1.9-6 m3/hr; 17.0-22.4 m3/daya,b
Ingestion Rate (g/day)
8
0.02-103
Skin Surface Area (cm2)
6
20-17,084a'b
Adherence Factor (mg/cm2)
2
0.04-1
Bioavailability
2
0.04-1
Absorption Fraction
2
7
Hand-to-mouth Contacts/hr
1
0.01-0.1
Surface Area to BW Ratio (cm2/kg)
1
246-352b
Hand to Surface Contacts/hr
1
23
a Varies depending on scenario evaluated.
-------
m. Risk Assessment
The Risk Assessment category refers to the type of endpoints evaluated and the type of
assessment conducted. Five endpoints / assessment types were identified. Fifteen quantitative
assessments were identified, in addition to 14 qualitative assessments, and nine screening level
assessments. The LRGA also identified fourteen literature sources with cancer endpoints and 13
sources with non-cancer endpoints. Eight "other" types of assessments were also noted including
ecological risk, aquatic or cell toxicity, worst-case, margin of safety, microbial risks, and growth
inhibition. A full list of the "Other" types can be found in the Literature Review Spreadsheet on
the Status Report website.
Table B-l 1. Number (if Studies by
Tvpe (if Risk Assessment
Quantitative
15
Qualitative
14
Cancer
14
Non-cancer
13
Screening
9
Other
8
n. Toxicity or Regulatory Data Used to Assess Risk
A variety of data sources were used to evaluate risks in the literature sources evaluated in the
LRGA, including reference doses (RfDs) and cancer slope factors (CSFs) from EPA's integrated
Risk Information System (IRIS), Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables (HEAST),
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and drinking water standards. Other data
sources included the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) Minimal Risk
Levels (MRLs), Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) guidance, American Council of
Government Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) threshold limit values (TLVs), and state and
regional guidance. Some studies used World Health Organization (WHO) drinking water
standards, European acceptable daily intakes (ADIs), or other country-specific national targets,
limits, or regulatory values. In some cases, no observable effects concentrations (NOECs) or no
observable effects limits (NOELs) were used. The Ames test, AhR-based bioassays, and toxicity
characteristic leaching procedures (TCLPs) were used by others (for details see the spreadsheet
on the Status Report website).
VI. General Conclusions as Stated in the Literature
Brief summaries of results, conclusions, and recommendations from the LRGA studies are
provided below. They are provided in chronological order according to eight broad topic areas:
(1) exposure and human health risks to children and athletes, (2) occupational risks, (3)
ecological risks, (4) leaching, (5) air concentrations, volatilization, and particulate matter, (6)
microbial populations, (7) weathering/aging, and (8) data gaps and recommendations for further
study. Although some LRGA studies covered more than one topic area, summaries of their
conclusions are provided primarily under a single topic area. In most cases, the conclusions are
provided exactly as written by the author(s). These summaries are intended to provide the reader
-------
details on these studies, see the LRGA spreadsheet on the Status Report website, or refer to the
individual studies which provide the reader with a sense of the distribution of results when
utilizing the LRGA.
Exposure, Toxicity, and Human Health Risk to Children and Athletes from Chemical
Constituents in Tire Crumb Rubber
Several of the LRGA studies provided conclusions with regard to the human health risks
associated with the use of tire crumb rubber in artificial turf fields or other applications. Some of
these conclusions were based on reviews of existing literature. Others were based on data
collection and analysis. Examples of the conclusions are provided below. While many of the
studies indicated that risks to human were minimal, others suggested that potential risks exist and
should be further explored.
Birkholz et al. (2003) "designed a comprehensive hazard assessment to evaluate and
address potential human health and environmental concerns associated with the use of
tire crumb in playgrounds. Human health concerns were addressed using conventional
hazard analyses, mutagenicity assays, and aquatic toxicity tests of extracted tire crumb.
Hazard to children appears to be minimal. Toxicity to all aquatic organisms (bacteria,
invertebrates, fish, and green algae) was observed; however, this activity disappeared
with aging of the tire crumb for three months in place in the playground. We conclude
that the use of tire crumb in playgrounds results in minimal hazard to children and the
receiving environment."
Sullivan (2006) conducted an assessment of environmental toxicity and potential
contamination from artificial turf using shredded or crumb rubber and concluded that
"The impacts on human health of crumb rubber used in artificial turf are not known at
this time. However, there is some evidence that tire rubber can be harmful either from
direct contact or from associated dust. The most common detrimental health effect
resulting from direct exposure to tire rubber is allergic or toxic dermatitis. Inhalation of
components of tire rubber or dust particles from tire rubber can be irritating to the
respiratory system and can exacerbate asthma. It is not clear whether dermal or
inhalation exposure to tire rubber can lead to sufficient absorption of chemicals to cause
mutagenic or carcinogenic effects. The degree of direct contact between the rubber used
in artificial turf is not well enough known at this time to determine whether the level of
the potential for harm to humans playing on artificial turf containing crumb rubber. "
The Norwegian Institute of Public Health and the Radium Hospital (2006) conducted an
assessment of the risks to football players on indoor artificial turf fields and concluded
that "the use of artificial turf halls does not cause any elevated health risk. This applies to
children, older children, juniors and adults. "
In 2006, KEMI, the Swedish Chemicals Inspectorate, published a status report on
synthetic turf from a chemical perspective. The conclusions were that "Measurement of
-------
indoor air and exposure calculations have shown that there is probably a small health
risk associated with simply being on or playing on synthetic turf surfaces that use rubber
from recycled tyres. The exposure levels and any allergic reactions, however, have been
poorly studied"(KEMI, 2006).
California's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment evaluated the health
effects of recycled waste tires in playground and track products, and stated "Overall, we
consider it unlikely that a onetime ingestion of tire shreds would produce adverse health
effects. " "Only exposure to zinc exceeded its health-based screening value " (OEHHA,
2007).
Hofstra (2007a) stated that "Based on the available literature on exposure to rubber
crumb by swallowing, inhalation and skin contact and our experimental investigations on
skin contact we conclude, that there is not a significant health risk due to the presence of
rubber infill for football players an artificial turfpitch with rubber infill from used car
tyres."
Based on a study involving leaching of lead from turf glades blades, the U.S. Consumer
Product Safety Commission (CPSC, 2008) reported that "The results...for this set of
tested synthetic turf fields show no case in which the estimated exposure for children
playing on the field would exceed 15 ug lead/day. "
Johns (2008) conducted an initial evaluation of potential human health risks associated
with playing on synthetic turf fields on Bainbridge Island, Washington using the highest
chemical concentrations obtained from Norwegian Institute of Public Health and Radium
Hospital (2006), Plesser and Lund (2004), and California OHHEA (2007). Health risks
were evaluated for children (8-10 yrs old) and teenagers (11-18 years old) participating in
team sports. Johns (2008) concluded that "Overall, the balance of the studies reviewed
indicate that human health risks from playing on synthetic turffields is minimal, even
though low concentrations of some chemicals have been demonstrated to leach from the
tire crumb, or volatilize as vapor. "
Based on a literature review and the results of the 2007 CalEPA study, Denly et al.
(2008) concluded that "Based on the information reviewed none of the risk assessments
showed concentrations of contaminants that would be at a level of concern, even under
conservative assumptions and thus it does not appear that the ingestion of tire crumb
would pose a significant health risk for children or adults."
Based on a Danish study conducted by Nilsson et al., (2008), "Four representative
substances were selectedfor the health assessment: benzothiazole, dicyclohexylamine,
cyclohexanamine and dibutylphthalate. These substances are present in high
concentrations in contact water from the leaching tests and are representative of the
harmful substances emittedfrom the products. " Nilsson et al. (2008) reported that "there
-------
are no health effects associated with exposure to the four substances tested, with the
exception of a potential risk for developing allergy in particularly sensitive individuals
(benzothiazole and the two amines). "
Beausoleil et al. (2009) concluded that "the health risks for players who use artificial turf
are not significant and that it is completely safe to engage in sports activities on this type
of outdoor field" Aased on literature reviews and qualitative reviews of the data.
The New York Department of Environmental Conservation (NYDEC, 2009) conducted a
public health evaluation "on the results from the ambient air sampling and concluded
that the measured levels of chemicals in air at the Thomas Jefferson and John Mullaly
Fields do not raise a concern for non-cancer or cancer health effects for people who use
or visit the fields...the findings do not indicate that these fields are a significant source of
exposure to respirable particulate matter."
A human health risk assessment of five artificial turf fields in Connecticut indicated that
"cancer risks were only slightly above de minimis levels for all scenarios evaluated
including children playing at the indoor facility, the scenario with the highest exposure "
(CDPH, 2010). The Connecticut Academy of Science and Engineering (CASE) (2010)
Peer Review Committee "concluded based on a review of the state's reports that there is
a limited human health risk, and an environmental risk as shown by the high zinc levels
detected."
Based on a literature review, Van Ulirsch et al. (2010) concluded that "Data collected
from recreational fields and child care centers indicate lead in synthetic turffibers and
dust at concentrations exceeding the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of2008
statutory lead limit of300 mg/kgfor consumer products intended for use by children, and
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's lead-dust hazard standard of 40 /ig/ft2 for
floors	Synthetic turf can deteriorate to form dust containing lead at levels that may
pose a risk to children. "
Simon (2010) stated that "A review of existing literature points to the relative safety of
crumb rubber fill playground and athletic field surfaces. Generally, these surfaces,
though containing numerous elements potentially toxic to humans, do not provide the
opportunity in ordinary circumstances for exposure at levels that are actually
dangerous."
Van Rooij and Jongeneelen (2010) monitored football players in The Netherlands before
and after playing on artificial turf fields. Only 1 of the 7 participants showed an increase
in post-exposure urine concentration over pre-exposure concentrations. Van Rooij and
Jongeneelen (2010) concluded that there is "evidence that uptake of PAH by football
players active on artificial grounds with rubber crumb infill is minimal. If there is any
-------
exposure, then the uptake is very limited and within the range of uptake of PAHfrom
environmental sources and/or diet. "
Shalat (2011) conducted an evaluation of potential exposures to lead and other metals as
the result of aerosolized particulate matter from artificial turf playing fields in New
Jersey and concluded that "there is a potential for inhalable lead to be present on turf
fields that have significant amounts of lead present as detectable by surface wipes. It also
would appear likely from this sample that if the lead is present to any appreciable extent
in the wipes it will likely be present in the breathing zone of players who are active on
these fields, and that furthermore, these levels potentially exceed ambient EPA standards.
Given that these are only occasional exposures this tends to reduce the risk of adverse
health effects."
Likewise, Lioy and Weisel (2011) concluded that "Overall the metals, PAHs and semi-
volatile compounds found all classes of materials to be at very low concentrations. Thus,
for the metals and compounds identified there would be de minimus exposures and risk
among anyone using fields with the exception of lead in a single new turf material. It is
therefore prudent to reemphasize the need to avoid lead-based pigments in these
materials as coloring agents."
Ginsberg et al. (2011) conducted a human health risk assessment of synthetic turf fields
based upon investigation of five fields in Connecticut. The results indicated that "Cancer
and noncancer risk levels were at or below de minimis levels of concern. The scenario
with the highest exposure was children playing on the indoor field. The acute hazard
index (HI) for this scenario approached unity, suggesting a potential concern, although
there was great uncertainty with this estimate. The main contributor was benzothiazole, a
rubber-related semivolatile organic chemical (SVOC) that was 14-fold higher indoors
than outdoors. Based upon these findings, outdoor and indoor synthetic turffields are not
associated with elevated adverse health risks."
Menichini et al. (2011) concluded that "Compared with the Italian limits for "green
area " soils, high contents of Zn and PAHs were found in the granulates present in
playing fields, whatever the origin of the rubber. Zn and BaP concentrations largely
exceeded such limits by up to two orders of magnitude...PCBs and PCDDs+PCDFs were
found in a recycled tyre granulate, at levels in the order of magnitude of the mentioned
limits."
In a Korean study, Kim et al. (2012a) calculated the risk of ingestion exposure of lead by
particle sizes of crumb rubber in artificial turf filling material with consideration of
bioavailability. The range of bioavailability depended on the particle size and the type of
extraction used. The <250 um and acid extraction had the highest bioavailability.
"Results of this study confirm that the exposure of lead ingestion and risk level increases
as the particle size of crumb rubber" (Kim et al., 2012a). Average lead exposure ranged
-------
from 1.7 x 10-5 mg/kg-day to 4.1x 10-4 mg/kg-day with the highest exposure value for
children 7-9 years old with the acid extraction method and the lowest exposure to
children 13-18 years in both the acid and digestion extraction. Mean hazard quotients
were <1.
Kim et al. (2012b) conducted a health risk assessment for artificial turf playgrounds in
school athletic facilities in Korea and concluded that "On the basis of the knowledge that
is currently available concerning health effects and exposure linked to the use of
artificial turfplaygrounds, we did not find a direct health risk for users, except for
children with pica." The LRGA team noted that this publication uses the term
"playgrounds" to mean facilities traditionally defined as athletic fields in US installations
Cardno Chem Risk (2013) concluded that "adverse health effects are not likely for
children or athletes exposed to recycled tire materials found at playgrounds or athletic
fields...similarly, no adverse ecological or environmental outcomes from field leachate
are likely."
Pavilonis et al. (2014) conducted a study in New Jersey to assess the bioaccessibility and
risk of exposure to metals and SVOCs in artificial turf field fill materials and fibers.
"Artificial biofluids were hypothesized to yield a more representative estimation of dose
than the levels obtainedfrom total extraction methods. PAHs were routinely below the
limit of detection across all three biofluids precluding completion of a meaningful risk
assessment. No SVOCs were identified at quantifiable levels in any extracts based on a
match of their mass spectrum to compounds that are regulated in soil. The metals were
measurable but at concentrations for which human health risk was estimated to be low.
The study demonstrated that for the products andfields we tested, exposure to infill and
artificial turf was generally considered de minimus, with the possible exception of lead
for some fields and materials" (Pavilonis et al., 2014).
Ruffino et al. (2013) conducted a risk assessment for synthetic turf fields in Italy,
including the following exposure pathways: "direct dermal contact (DDC)), dermal
contact with the rainwater soaking the infill (rain water contact (RWC)) and inhalation
of dusts and gases from the fields (dust and gas inhalation (DGI)." Based on a variety of
inorganic and organic chemicals, "the cumulative carcinogenic risk proved to be lower
than 10 6 and the cumulative noncarcinogenic risk lower than 1. The outdoor inhalation
of dusts and gases was the main route of exposure for both carcinogenic and non-
carcinogenic sub stances.... the inhalation of atmospheric dusts and gases from vehicular
traffic gave risk values of one order of magnitude higher than those due to playing soccer
on an artificial field" (Ruffino et al., 2013).
Llompart et al. (2013) analyzed rubber recycled tire playgrounds and pavers. "The
analysis confirmed the presence of a large number of hazardous substances including
PAHs, phthalates, antioxidants (e.g. BHT, phenols), benzothiazole and derivatives,
-------
among other chemicals. The study evidences the high content of toxic chemicals in these
recycled materials. The concentration of PAHs in the commercial pavers was extremely
high, reaching values up to 1%" (Llompart et al., 2013).
Marsili et al. (2014) conducted a preliminary hazard assessment for athletes based on the
release of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and heavy metals from rubber crumb in
synthetic turf fields in Italy. "The results of the present study demonstrate that PAHs are
continuously releasedfrom rubber crumb through evaporation. Athletes frequenting
grounds with synthetic turf are therefore exposed to chronic toxicity from PAHs. The
main conclusion we can draw from this preliminary study, which will be validated by
further field and laboratory research, is that although synthetic turf offers various
advantages over natural grass, the quantity of toxic substances it releases when heated
does not make it safe for public health" (Marsili et al., 2014).
The health impact assessment of the use of artificial turf in Toronto, Canada concluded
that, "Available evidence indicates that under ordinary circumstances, adverse health
effects among adults and children are unlikely to occur as a result of exposure to
artificial turf infilled with crumb rubber in both outdoor and indoor settings. " The
assessment elaborated further by stating, "Based upon a review of the available evidence,
third generation artificial turf is not expected to result in exposure to toxic substances at
levels that pose a significant risk to human health provided it is properly installed and
maintained and users follow good hygienic practices (for example washing hands,
avoiding eating on artificial turf and supervision of young children to ensure they do not
eat the infill material) " (Toronto Public Health, 2015).
Analytical results of lead in crumb rubber from 113 athletic fields In New York City was
provided online by the New York City Department of Parks and Recreation: Synthetic
Turf Lead Results (http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/materials minerals pdf/erumbrubfr.pdf)
"Aside from Thomas Jefferson Park, the test results for the remaining 112 fields and play
areas were below the acceptable EPA lead level for soil (400 parts per million), the best
standard available, and no potential lead hazards were found. Lead levels for the 112
fields rangedfrom 'not detected' to 240 ppm and 96% of the results were less than 100
ppm. Thomas Jefferson Park was the only field with an elevated lead level above the EPA
standard."
Occupational Exposure and Risk
A limited number of studies evaluated in the LRGA addressed occupational risks. Workers
included coaches and those working in tire crumb rubber production facilities. These studies
provide insight on potential human health risks for potentially exposed populations other than
-------
Chien et al. (2003) evaluated occupational health hazards in scrap tire shredding facilities
in Taiwan and observed that "Levels of volatile organics were not significant, but a few
mutagens/carcinogens, such as styrene, benzothiazole, phthalate ester and naphthalene
were identified. Total particulate levels rangedfrom 0.43 to 6.54 mg/m3, while respirable
particulates were in the range 0.23-1.25 mg/m3. Ames testing revealed indirect
mutagenicity on strain TA98, indicating possible effects offrame-shift type mutagens.
Chemical analysis of airborne particulates confirmed the presence of amines, aniline,
quinoline, amides and benzothiazole, which are potentially convertible to frame-shift type
mutagenic nitrosoamines." Chien et al. (2003) concluded that "particulate generated
from scrap-tire shredding may pose a health threat to workers, and should not be
regulated as 'nuisance'. "
Castellano et al. (2008) conducted a study of coaches working in areas where artificial
turf pitches were used in Italy and concluded that "there was no occupational exposure
nor any additional exposure to the substances of interest other than an environmental
exposure in urban areas. "
Savary and Vincent (2011) assessed exposure in four facilities in France where used tires
are turned into rubber granulates. "The results of this study indicate significant exposure
to complex mixtures of rubber dust... exposure levels measured in these four facilities
were between 0.31 and 41.00 mg/m3; the ambient concentrations were between 0.17 and
6.23 mg/m3. " "VOC levels >1 ppm were not detected. "
Ecological Toxicity and Risk
While the primary focus of the LRGA was on human health risks, several of the papers reviewed
provided information relevant to ecological risks. Examples of conclusions from these studies is
provided below.
Kallqvist (2005) conducted an environmental risk assessment of artificial turf systems in
Norway and concluded that "The risk assessment shows that the concentration of zinc
poses a significant local risk of environmental effects in surface water which receives
run-off from artificial turf pitches. In addition, it is predicted that concentrations of
alkylphenols and octylphenol in particular exceed the limits for environmental effects in
the scenario which was used (dilution of run-off by a factor of ten in a recipient). The
leaching of chemicals from the materials in the artificial turf system is expected to
decrease only slowly, so that environmental effects could occur over many years. The
total quantities ofpollution components which are leached out into water from a normal
artificial turf pitch are however relatively small, so that only local effects can be
anticipated."
Sullivan (2006) conducted an assessment of environmental toxicity and potential
contamination from artificial turf using shredded or crumb rubber and concluded that
-------
"The impacts on the environment of using crumb rubber in artificial turf also are not
known at the present time...Zinc is the predominant toxicant to plants... The aquatic
toxicity issue is not very clear cut."
In 2006, KEMI, the Swedish Chemicals Inspectorate, published a status report on
synthetic turf from a chemical perspective. The conclusions were that "Current
knowledge allows the conclusion to be drawn that synthetic turf that contains rubber
from recycled tyres may give rise to local environmental risks. Investigations have shown
that zinc and phenols can leach from the rubber granulate, and these substances can
affect aquatic and sediment dwelling organisms, if they reach neighbouring water
courses" (KEMI, 2006).
Based on an environmental and health evaluation of the use of elastomer granulates used
as filling in artificial turf in France, Moretto (2007) concluded that "From an
ecotoxological point of view, the nature of the percolates having passed through a 3rd
generation artificial pitch are proven to be without impact on the environment,
irrespective of the type of filling granulates. "
California's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) (2007)
evaluated the effects of recycled waste tires in playground and track products and stated
"...ecological effects from contaminated soil cannot be ruled out... the selenium level in
the soil was only marginally higher than the PRG and the zinc levels were close to the
normal background levels."
Johns and Goodlin (2008) found that "Toxicity tests on storm water collectedfrom
installedfields, or in laboratory tests using simulated precipitation events, indicate that
water the percolates through turf fields with tire crumb is not toxic in tests that cover a
wide range of aquatic plants and animals, including algae, bacteria, crustaceans, and
fish."
Milone and McBroom (2008) reported that "An analysis of the concentration of metals in
the actual drainage water indicates that metals do not leach in amounts that would be
considered a risk to aquatic life as compared to existing water quality standards. "
The New York Department of Environmental Conservation (NYDEC, 2009) conducted a
risk assessment for aquatic life protection and found that "...crumb rubber may be used as
an infill without significant impact on groundwater quality... Analysis of crumb rubber
samples digested in acid revealed that the lead concentration in the crumb rubber
samples were well below the federal hazard standardfor lead in soil... A risk assessment
for aquatic life protection...found that crumb rubber derived entirely from truck tires may
have an impact on aquatic life due to the release of zinc. "
-------
Based on an environmental and mutagenicity assessment of artificial turf fields
conducted in Italy, Schiliro et al. (2013) concluded that "On the basis of environmental
monitoring, artificial turffootball fields present no more exposure risks than the rest of
the city."
Leaching
Among the studies reviewed for the LRGA, leaching studies were frequently represented. Some
of these studies addressed laboratory analyses of bulk samples, and other addressed leaching in
the natural environment. Conclusions based on these studies are provided below.
Zelibor (1991) analyzed leachate from tire samples and reported that "The results of the
study indicated that none of the tire and other rubber products tested, cured and uncured,
exceeded proposed TCLP Regulatory Levels or US EPA Drinking Water Standards.
Most compounds detected were found at trace levels (near method detection limits) from
ten to one hundred times less than proposed TCLP regulatory limits."
Based on a study conducted in Canada, Groenevelt and Grunthal (1998) found "No
elevated levels ofVOC's or BNA's were detected in the leachate collected. Slightly
elevated levels of boron, sodium and zinc, leached from acidic sandy loam soil amended
with 30% rubber crumb. Concentrations of these elements from soil mixed with rubber
crumb and lime, however, did not differ from those observedfor control plots...Rubber
also significantly increased the concentration of zinc in turf grass clippings. However,
elevated concentrations were not sufficient to produce zinc toxicity in turf grass."
Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP, 1999) evaluated stormwater
runoff from a parking lot surface using ground tire rubber and other water samples and
found that "Except for the iron concentrations detected in groundwater samples collected
from MW-1, MW-3, and MW-4, all remaining soil, groundwater, rain water, and surface
water runoff concentrations were below State guidance concentrations. "
Plesser and Lund (2004) found that "The leachate from the fibres contained zinc. The
concentration is higher than the Norwegian Pollution Control Authority's limit for zinc in
water with Environmental Quality Class V (very strongly polluted water), but lower than
the permitted zinc concentration in Canadian drinking water... The total concentrations of
zinc and PAH in the recycled rubber granulates exceed the Norwegian Pollution Control
Authority's normative values for most sensitive land use. The concentrations of
dibutylphthalate (DBP) and diisononylphthalate (DINP) exceed the PNEC values for
terrestrial life taken from the EU's programme for risk assessment. The concentration of
isononylphenol is above the limits specifiedfor cultivated land in the Canadian
Environmental Quality Guidelines...The concentration of zinc indicates that the leachate
water is placed in the Norwegian Pollution Control Authority's Environmental Quality
Class V (very strongly polluted water), but is lower than the permissible zinc
-------
concentration in Canadian drinking water. The concentration of anthracene,
fluoranthene, pyrene and nonylphenols exceed the limits for freshwater specified in the
Canadian Environmental Quality Guidelines. "
A laboratory study conducted in Italy by Gualteri et al. (2005) evaluated the effects of
leachate from tire debris on human lung cells andX laevis. Gualteri et al. (2005)
concluded that the "results confirm the significant role of zinc in leached [tire debris]
and the presence of additional organic toxicants. "
Sheehan et al. (2006) conducted a study in Maine and observed "Elevated levels of iron,
manganese, and several other chemicals... in tire shred leachate s. However, chronic
toxicity tests with Ceriodaphnia dubia and fathead minnows (Pimephales promelas)
showed no adverse effects caused by leachates collected from tire shreds installed above
the water table. Exposure to leachates collectedfrom tire shreds installed below the
water table resulted in significant reductions to both survival and reproduction in C.
dubia."
Verschoor (2007) observed that zinc from rubber infill in artificial turf in The
Netherlands "leaches to the soil, groundwater and surface water" and "environmental
quality standards for zinc in surface water and groundwater are exceeded. " However,
"The risks of zinc to public health are of no concern: the human toxicity of zinc is low
and WHO drinking water criteria are not exceeded. "
As part of a study conducted in Connecticut, Mattina et al. (2007) examined crumb
rubber produced from recycled tires. According to Mattina et al. (2007), "The laboratory
data... support the conclusion that under relatively mild conditions of temperature and
leaching solvent, components of crumb rubber produced from tires (i) volatilize into the
vapor phase and (ii) are leached into water in contact with the crumbs."
Based on a study conducted in Washington, Johns and Goodlin (2008) suggested that
"The available literature demonstrates that some chemicals can leach from tire crumb
when it is exposed to water. While some studies report the presence of organic chemicals
in leachate, the chemicals were detected at such low concentrations that authors
considered them to be of little environmental relevance. The most consistent chemical to
be detected in leachate tests is the metal zinc."
Based on a study in Japan, Aoki (2008) found that "The concentrations of leaching heavy
metals [from infills on artificial turf] increased with an increase in the acidity of the acid
solutions."
Based on a Danish study, Nilsson et al. (2008) reported that "a number of
environmentally harmful substances were found in the contact water from leaching tests
on infills and artificial turf mats. "
-------
Bocca et al. (2009) conducted a laboratory study in Italy to identify and quantify metal
concentrations in leachate from crumb rubber samples. According to Bocca et al. (2009),
"The total amount and the amount leached during the acidic test variedfrom metal to
metal andfrom granulate to granulate. The highest median values were foundfor Zn
(10,229 mg/kg), Al (755 mg/kg), Mg (456 mg/kg), Fe (305 mg/kg), followed by Pb, Ba,
Co, Cu and Sr... The highest leaching was observedfor Zn (2300 /ig/l) andMg (2500
ug lj, followed by Fe, Sr, Al, Mn and Ba. Little As, Cd, Co, Cr, Cu, Li, Mo, Ni, Pb, Rb, Sb
and V leached, and Be, Hg, Se, Sn, Tl and W were below quantification limits. Data
obtained were compared with the maximum tolerable amounts reported for similar
materials, and only the concentration ofZn (total and leached) exceeded the expected
values."
Based on a study in Portugal, Mota et al. (2009) stated that "PAH leaching is
negligenciable...heavy metals content in the acidic water leachates considerably lower
than the limit values. "
Kanematsu et al. (2009) found that "aqueous extracts of rubber mulches (RM) contain
high concentrations of zinc (Zn) compared with wood mulches (WM), and its
concentration increased at lower pH and higher temperature...Our results suggest that
organic constituents in water extracts of RM which have AhR activity may not be of
significant concern while leaching of Zn from RM appears to be a potentially larger
water quality issue for RM."
The Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection concluded that "Zinc is the
most prevalent contaminant in the leachate and stormwater studies. " "The DEP
concludes that there is a potential risk to surface waters and aquatic organisms
associated with whole effluent and zinc toxicity of stormwater runofffrom artificial turf
fields... This study did not identify any significant risks to groundwater protection criteria
in the stormwater runoff from artificial turf fields" (CDEP, 2010).
Rhodes et al. (2012) found that "zinc leaching from tire crumb rubber increases with
smaller crumb rubber and longer exposure time. "
Cheng et al. (2014) reviewed studies where the toxicity characteristic leaching procedure
(TCLP) was used and indicated that constituent concentrations were well below
maximum contaminant limits (MCLs) or TCLP regulatory limits.
In a case study of PAH and other hazardous contaminant occurrence in recycled tire
rubber surfaces at a restaurant playground in an indoor shopping center, Celeiro et al.
(2014) found that, "fourteen out of the sixteen EPA priority PAHs were identified and
quantified in the investigated recycled tyre rubber playground surfaces. The analytical
measurements also confirmed the presence of other harmful compounds including
-------
phthalates, adipates, antioxidants and benzothiazole among others, in some cases at high
concentration levels
Crampton et al. (2014) assessed the effects of leachate from crumb rubber and zinc in
green roofs on the survival, growth, and resistance characteristics of Salmonella enterica
subsp. enterica serovar typhimurium. "The median concentration of zinc in the crumb
rubber-amended roof was 0.2 mg/liter ..., while the median concentration of zinc in the
commercial medium was 0.15 mg/liter."
The results of an Ohio study conducted by Dorsey et al. (2015) "suggest that at the
higher temperatures such as those on artificial athletic field surfaces, the crumb rubber
infill on these artificial athletic fields can become the source of a water soluble agent
with mutagenic potential in bacteria. "
Selbes et al. (2015) observed "...a constant rate ofleachingwas observedfor iron and
manganese, which are attributed to the metal wires present inside the tires. Although the
total amounts that leached varied, the observed leaching rates were similar for all tire
chip sizes and leaching solutions."
Air Concentration, Volatilization/Off-gassing, and Particulate Matter
Several of the studies reviewed collected air samples using stationary, personal breathing zone
monitors, or other methods to assess the potential for volatilization of chemical constituents from
artificial turf or other materials that contain tire crumb rubber. Conclusions from these studies
are provided below.
Dye et al. (2006) conducted a study in Norway to obtain measurements of air quality for
three indoor artificial turf pitches. The measurements were taken in a hall with recently
laid rubber granulate (SBR rubber or Styrene Butadiene Rubber) and a hall with rubber
granulate (SBR rubber) which had been in use for one year and a hall which used
granulate made from thermoplastic elastomer. "In all three halls, the proportion of
organic material is considerable. The airborne dust contains polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons (PAH), phthalates, semi-volatile organic compounds, benzothiazoles and
aromatic amines. It also contains organic and inorganic pollutants which are not
specified in this study. Possible problem areas linked to latex exposure via the skin and
air passages should be assessed by specialists."
Van Bruggen (2007) conducted a study in The Netherlands to assess releases of
nitrosamines from crumb rubber by taking measurements at two different levels above
artificial turf surfaces and found that "None of the measurements showed the presence of
nitrosamines in the atmosphere above the pitch. Supplementary laboratory tests on the
materials showed that nitrosamines can only be releasedfrom rubber crumb to a very
limited extent."
-------
EHHI (2007) concluded that "It is clear that the recycled rubber crumbs are not inert,
nor is a high-temperature or severe solvent extraction needed to release metals, volatile
organic compounds, or semi-volatile organic compounds. The release of airborne
chemicals and dust is well established by the current information. There are still data
gaps that need to be filled in and additional studies are warranted."
Vetrano and Ritter (2009) stated that "An analysis of the air in the breathing zones of
children above synthetic turf fields [in New York City] did not show appreciable levels
from COPCs contained in the crumb rubber," but constituent characterization of bulk
samples revealed lead and zinc concentrations that were above soil cleanup objectives for
restricted residential land use.
California OEHHA (2010) collected air samples from 4 artificial fields and 4 natural
fields and found that "PM2.5 and associated elements (including lead and other heavy
metals) were either below the level of detection or at similar concentrations above
artificial turf athletic fields and upwind of the fields" and "The large majority of air
samples collectedfrom above artificial turf had VOC concentrations that were below the
limit of detection."
The University of Connecticut Health Center (UCHC) (2010) found that "Of the 60 VOCs
tested in air, 4 VOCs appear to be associated with turf. Of 22 PAHs, 6 were found in the
air on the turf at 2 fold greater concentrations than in background locations on at least
two fields...benzothiazole and butylated hydroxytoluene were the only chemicals detected
in the personal and area air samples from outdoor turffields ranging from <80-1200
ng/m3 and <80-130 ng/m3, respectively. Nitrosamine air levels were below reporting
levels. PM10 air concentrations were greater in background locations than on the turf at
all fields with the exception of Field B. However, the PM10 air concentration on turf at
Field B, 5.89 ug/m3, was within the range of other PM10 background concentrations. All
of the composite samples of turf fibers and crumb rubber were below the level EPA
considers as presenting a "soil-lead hazard" in play areas (400 ppm). "
Li et al. (2010) found that "Ten volatile compounds were identified in the vapor phase
over all commercial [crumb rubber] samples and two agedfield [crumb rubber] samples
by SPME coupled with GC-MS. Six volatile compounds were quantitated by direct vapor
phase injection. In all 16 virgin commercial [crumb rubber] samples, [benzothiazole]
was the most abundant volatile compound. Zinc was the highest of all extractable metals
in the acidified extraction fluid."
Simcox et al. (2011) conducted a synthetic turf field investigation in Connecticut. The
"Results showed that personal concentrations were higher than stationary concentrations
and were higher on turf than in background samples for certain VOC. In some cases,
personal VOC concentrations from natural grass fields were as high as those on turf.
-------
Naphthalene, BZT, and butylated hydroxy toluene (BHT) were detected in greater
concentration at the indoor field compared to the outdoor fields. Nitrosamine air levels
were below reporting levels. PM10 air concentrations were not different between on-field
and upwind locations. All bulk lead (Pb) samples were below the public health target of
400 ppm."
Microbial Assessment
Assessments of microbial populations associated with artificial turf were limited compared to
those of other topics areas. Conclusions for some of these studies are summarized below.
McNitt et al. (2006) collected crumb rubber samples from both "high use" areas and "low
used" areas in fields used by elementary to professional athletes in Pennsylvania. " While
microbes exist in the infill media the number was low compared to natural turfgrass field
soils." The range of CFU was 0-80,000 in the infill material compared to 259,500 found
in natural soil.
California OEHHA (2010) found that "Fewer bacteria were detected on artificial turf
compared to natural turf. "
Serentis et al. (2011) found that in Pennsylvania, "Indoor fields tended to have lower
overall microbial populations (0-7267CFU/g of infill) than outdoor fields (0-80
OOOCFU/g)... While it is clear that microbes exist on synthetic turf surfaces, the number
was low compared with those on natural turf grass." "S. aureus colonies were not found
to be present on any field; however, S. aureus colonies were found on other tested
surfaces, including blocking pads, used towels, and weight equipment. "
Bass and Hintze (2013) compared "the occurrence of microbial populations on two
infilled synthetic turffields (year old turf us. 6 year old turf) in three locations...Much
higher microbial populations were found on the older turffield" compared to the newer
turf. "Counts from the MSA plates revealed a relatively high number of mannitol-
fermenting salt-tolerant bacteria, a possible indication of staphylococci. "
W eathering/Aging
Based on a study in Taiwan, Chang et al. (1999) found that "Twoyears after the track
installation, the VOC concentrations measured at 1.5 m above the track, the breathing
height of school children, were not significantly higher than the background levels. "
Chang et al. (1999) also noted that the synthetic fields were all installed with adhesive
and backings which might also contribute to VOC offgassing.
Based on a study in The Netherlands, Hofstra (2007b) concluded that "The impact of
weathering of the rubber crumb for the technical lifetime of an artificial turffield
-------
(approx. 10 to 15 years) does not cause the leaching of zinc from the rubber crumb made
from recycled car tyres to exceed the threshold values for dissolved zinc in surface water
or the derived threshold value from the Decree on Soil Quality for the emission of zinc
into the soil."
Verschoor (2007) observed that "Laboratory experiments and measurements of field
samples of the rubber infill show that the emission of zinc increases over time, due to
chemical and physical changes of the rubber particle."
Zhang et al. (2008) reported on studies conducted in New York and concluded that
"Rubber granules often, especially when the synthetic turf fields were newer, contained
PAHs at levels above health-based soil standards. PAH levels generally appear to
decline as the field ages. "
A report on a study conducted at the Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station
(CAES) concluded that "...although there is a decrease in the amounts of all six
compounds which outgas over the ten weeks of this experiment, the decrease is the least
for 4-t-octylphenol. Second, at approximately 20 days of weathering under the conditions
in this experiment, the five compounds appear to reach a consistent level of outgassing"
(CAES, 2010).
Data Gaps/Recommendations for Further Study
Several studies provided information on data gaps and recommendations for further study. These
conclusions ranged from statements about the general need for further investigation to specific
suggestions for further research. Some examples of these recommendations are provided below.
Zelibor (1991) recommended "that a field study be prepared in conjunction with key
states (Ohio, Illinois, Pennsylvania, California, Texas, New York, New Jersey, North and
South Carolina, Florida, Georgia, among others) and coordinated by the Scrap Tire
Management Council." Its purpose would be to address questions "concerning the effect
ofleachate from scrap tire products in the environment...[specifically], 1) Which
regulatory standards are appropriate to evaluate potential adverse effects on human
health and environment from compounds leachedfrom scrap tire or rubber products?; 2)
Are there any realistic environmental conditions/applications where scrap tires leach
compounds that exceed regulatory standards? 3) Are compounds leachedfrom scrap tire
products in the environment under specific applications? If so, what is the fate of those
compounds in the environment?; [and] 4) Is there an adverse effect on groundwater,
surface water or wetlands from the storage or application of scrap tires? "
Plesser and Lund (2004) found that "recycled rubber granulates give off a significant
number of alkylated benzenes in gaseous form. Trichloromethane (sample 1) and cis-1,2-
dichlorethene (sample 5) were also found. " They also recommended that "measurements
be taken of air quality above pitches to determine whether the air quality is satisfactory. "
-------
Sullivan (2006) concluded that "The actual amount of contamination leaching from
artificial turf used on playgrounds or athletic fields needs further research to determine
the potential harm to human health or the environment." In term of human health,
Sullivan et al. (2006) suggested that "It is not clear whether dermal or inhalation
exposure to tire rubber can lead to sufficient absorption of chemicals to cause mutagenic
or carcinogenic effects. The degree of direct contact between the rubber used in artificial
turf is not well enough known at this time to determine whether the level of the potential
for harm to humans playing on artificial turf containing crumb rubber. " In terms of
aquatic toxicity, Sullivan et al. (2006) stated that "The unknown factor is how much zinc
or organic compounds would be releasedfrom crumb rubber used on or beneath
artificial turf."
In 2006, KEMI, the Swedish Chemicals Inspectorate, published a status report on
synthetic turf from a chemical perspective. Data gaps with regard to health risks from the
use of synthetic turf were summarized as follows: "Certain investigations and
assessments have been carried out in order to illuminate the risks of using synthetic turf
but there remain major gaps in our knowledge. This is particularly true with respect to
the extent to which the hazardous substances are releasedfrom the rubber, and the
subsequent exposure to these substances of people and the environment. "
Verschoor (2007) made the following recommendations: "Mechanisms of behaviour and
ageing of (different types of) rubber should be investigated to obtain a better
understanding of the risks of zinc and other components leaching from rubber ...It is
recommended that measurements are first taken in drainage water from existing artificial
turf with rubber infill of differing age and quality. Sampling at several time intervals in
different seasons is preferred...Bioassay is recommended to assess the toxicity of the
drainage water...A mini artificial turf field (lxlxl m) can be built and exposed to outdoor
weather conditions in a lysimeter...more advanced models can be usedfor a refined risk
assessment."
LeDoux (2007) conducted a preliminary assessment of the toxicity from exposure to
crumb rubber based on a literature review and concluded that "Insufficient information
was found to perform a complete formal exposure assessment/risk characterization on
crumb rubber for the stated outdoor use at this time due to existing data gaps in the
available information. After reviewing the information available, with the possible
exception of allergic reactions among individuals sensitized to latex, rubber and related
products, there was no obvious toxicological concern raised that crumb rubber in its
intended outdoor use on playgrounds and playing fields would cause adverse health
effects in the normal population."
Based on a literature review, ChemRisk (2008) concluded that "The current state of
knowledge indicates that there are data gaps which significantly limit a scientifically
robust analysis of the potential environmental health risks associated with the selected
-------
tire materials and tire wear particles [TWP]" "It was concluded that the most significant
data gaps are: 1) lack of understanding of the chemical composition of TWP, 2) lack of
understanding of the levels of TWP in the environment (air, soil, and sediments) and their
potential associated health risks; and 3) lack of understanding of the potential for TWP
to leach chemicals into the environment. " "As such is it recommended that the following
research be conducted to allow for environmental health risk assessment of TWP:
chemical composition analysis of TWP generated under representative driving
conditions; acute aquatic toxicity studies of TWP; characterization of TWP leachate
under simulated environmental/biological conditions; development of chemical marker
for TWP in environmental media; and, measurement of TWP in air, soil, water and
sediment to determine representative exposure concentrations. "
In a 2008 editorial, Lioy and Weisel (2008) stated that "At the present time, we believe
that the million dollar expense to produce and install a synthetic field by communities
and athletic facilities demands a much more thorough understanding of the
environmental impacts, human exposure and health risk implications associated with all
synthetic turfproducts available on the market. This calls for a comprehensive evaluation
of artificial turf by exposure scientists, and others in environmental science and
environmental health sciences."
The New York Department of Environmental Conservation (NYDEC, 2008) noted that
"Many governmental bodies including Norway, Sweden and California have recently
reviewed the health issues associated with the use of crumb rubber as infill at
playgrounds and synthetic turffields. Their assessments did not find a public health
threat. However, several recent preliminary studies... indicated the presence of organic
compounds, such as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) and heavy metals, such as
zinc, and raised concerns that these substances could have potential adverse impacts on
the environment and public health, especially for children playing on these synthetic turf
fields for extended time periods.... to address these concerns, the DEC has initiated a
study to assess the potential environmental impacts from the use of crumb rubber as an
infill material in synthetic turffields and to collect data that would be relevant for a
public health and environmental assessment."
U.S. EPA (2009) conducted a scoping-level field monitoring study of synthetic turf and
playgrounds in the U.S. and concluded that "On average, concentrations of components
monitored in this study were below levels of concern; however, given the very limited
nature of this study (i.e., limited number of components monitored, samples sites, and
samples taken at each site) and the wide diversity of tire crumb material, it is not possible
to reach any more comprehensive conclusions without the consideration of additional
data."
Based on a study conducted by the University of Connecticut Health Center (UCHC,
2010) "airborne concentrations ofVOCs, targeted SVOCs (e.g. benzothiazole) and
miscellaneous SVOCs were highest at the indoor field. These data were collectedfrom
-------
only one indoor facility. Higher concentrations of these chemicals at the indoor field
likely reflects the lack of air movement relative to outdoor fields. " UCHC (2010)
suggested that "more research is needed to better understand chemical exposures in
indoor facilities."
Simcox et al. (2011) concluded that "More research is needed to better understand air
quality at indoor facilities."
Menichini et al. (2011) suggested that "Further work is needed to assess the actual
scenarios of exposure to PAHs by inhalation and the corresponding risks, and to reach
more comprehensive conclusions."
Kriiger et al. (2012) suggested that "Considering the risk assessment of artificial turf
systems, emphasis should be placed not only on the plastic components but also on
mineral aggregates usedfor basic layers, which might contribute to the release of
contaminants, especially of zinc. For a thorough and realistic risk assessment, column
tests of complete artificial turf systems, simulating the actual installation, may be more
realistic."
Cheng et al. (2014) conducted a literature review of environmental and health impacts of
artificial turf and stated "There remains a significant knowledge gap that must be
urgently addressed with the fast expansion of the artificial turf market. Given the wide
range of designs, ages, and conditions of artificial turffields, it is likely that the
contaminant release and the environmental impacts are variable from site to site. It is
also important to assess more systematically the risk posed by the tire rubber crumb on
the environment and human health ".
The health impact assessment of the use of artificial turf in Toronto, conducted by the
city of Toronto (2015) concluded that there are "still some information gaps: the
allergenic potential of latex in crumb rubber has not been thoroughly investigated;
exposure to lead, other metals, carbon nanotubes, as well as other contaminants have not
been fully evaluated in all types of turf systems
The Virginia Department of Health (VDOH, 2015) suggested that studies "done
exclusively in a controlled laboratory setting may not necessarily represent a "real world
exposure " to chemicals in crumb rubber. However, laboratory analysis provides an
alternative to identifying chemicals (by employing strong extraction techniques and
concentrating chemicals to detectable concentration before analysis) in crumb rubber
that might be present in low concentrations in the environment. "
Dorsey et al. (2015) conducted a study in Ohio and concluded that "Risk assessment
studies are needed to consider the health impact of repeated exposure to crumb rubber at
the conditions relevant to artificial athletic fields."
-------
VII. Gaps Analysis Based on the Literature Review
Despite the use of tire crumb rubber in synthetic fields over the last several decades, there is not
an extensive body of scientific research on the exposure to and toxicity of tire crumb rubber, and
questions about the effects of this material on human health and the environment remain. The
Literature Review/Gaps Analysis (LRGA) effort considered 97 reference sources for information
related to tire crumb rubber. Eighty-eight of the references were included in the analysis. The
LRGA analysis categorized the studies according to a set of general topic areas, to evaluate the
relative areas of data richness and data gaps. Important data gaps remain in the characterization
of tire crumb rubber material used in synthetic turf fields and playgrounds, assessing exposures
for users of these fields and playgrounds, human and ecological risk assessment, and in health
impact assessments. Selected data gaps described in Table B-12 focused on potential human
exposure and health impact assessments for exposure to tire crumb rubber and its constituents.
Some concerns related to synthetic turf fields and playgrounds were not addressed in this
Literature Review/Gaps Analysis, including heat exposure and injury. Other potential gaps that
might be important but were not directly addressed in the reviewed literature included limitations
in tools and methodology available for characterizing constituents, exposure, and health impacts
among user populations.
One of the LRGA topic areas was risk assessment characterizing the human and ecological
effects of interaction with tire crumb rubber. While there are many definitions of the term "risk",
the U.S. EPA considers risk to be the chance of harmful effects to human health or to ecological
systems resulting from exposure to an environmental stressor (U.S. EPA, About Risk
Assessment). In general terms, risk depends on the following three factors:
•	How much of a stressor (e.g., chemical) is present in an environmental medium (e.g.,
soil, water, air),
•	How much contact (exposure) a person or ecological receptor has with the contaminated
environmental medium,
•	The inherent toxicity of the stressor.
In the ideal world, risk assessments would be based on a very strong knowledge base (i.e.,
reliable and complete data on the nature and extent of contamination, fate and transport
processes, the magnitude and frequency of human and ecological exposure, and the inherent
toxicity of all of the chemicals). Based on the tire crumb rubber literature reviewed here, data are
not available for all of these factors in all of the studies, and only a limited number of studies
provided quantitative estimates of risk to human or ecological population from tire crumb rubber
constituents.
Only a subset of the 88 available references evaluated risks associated with constituents of tire
crumb rubber. Among the studies that estimated human health risks, both cancer and non-cancer
endpoints were considered, and the available studies each considered one or more routes of
exposure (i.e., inhalation, ingestion, and dermal). A limited number of studies examined the
activity patterns associated with tire crumb rubber exposures or provided population - and
activity-specific exposure factors (e.g., time spent in contact with artificial turf fields) for use in
-------
risk assessment. There was a balance in the populations studied with respect to adults, children
and athletes. Fewer studies addressed occupational exposures from turf and playground
installations. Given the relative paucity of investigations on worker-associated risks and activity-
related studies, there remains uncertainty in potential risks associated with the use of tire crumb
rubber at synthetic turf fields and playgrounds.
Table B-12. Data Gaps for Research on Tire Crumb Rubber in Synthetic Fields and Playgrounds

Research Area
Data Gaps
Tire Crumb Rubber Characterization
Che mien 1
Cliaracterization
•	Studies thai have measured metal, volatile organic chemicals (VOCs). and scmivolalilc
organic chemicals (SVOCs) (e.g., polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons [PAHs] and
benzothiazole) were usually based on small numbers of tire crumb rubber samples. The
wide range of organic chemicals potentially used in tire manufacture, or their degradates,
have not been analyzed systematically across a large range of tire crumb rubber samples
from synthetic fields and playgrounds in the United States.
•	Limited information is available on chemical constituents in molded rubber products
made with tire crumb rubber used in some playground settings.
Emissions
Assessments
• Few laboratory-based studies have investigated VOC and SVOC emissions from
synthetic fields and playgrounds under different temperature conditions. Measurements
using dynamic emission chamber measurements have been reported, but the number and
types of measured chemical emissions have been limited.
Microbial
Assessments
• Microbiological assessments for synthetic turf fields and playgrounds have been limited
and have been based on traditional culture methods. The use of molecular methods has
not been applied in studies of tire crumb rubber.
Bioaccessibility
• Several studies have examined potential bioaccessibility of metals and PAHs. However,
studies that systematically measure a wider range of metal and organic chemical
constituents, using multiple simulated biological fluids, and across a large range of tire
crumb rubber samples are lacking.
Variability
• Most studies characterizing tire crumb rubber from synthetic fields and playgrounds in
the United States have been relatively small and restricted to a few fields or playgrounds.
Measurements for samples collected from a wider range of tire recycling plants,
synthetic fields, and playgrounds across the United States is lacking. Also, information is
limited on the range of chemical, microbiological, and physical characteristics and
factors related to variability in tire crumb rubber and potential exposures.
-------
Table B-12 (continued). Data Gaps for Research on Tire Crumb Rubber in Synthetic Fields and
Playgrounds

Research Area
Data Gaps
Exposure/Risk Characterization
Exposure Factors
•	Exposure and risk assessments have typically relied on generic exposure factors.
Information specific to the frequency and duration of synthetic field and
playground uses, physical activities, contact rates, and hygiene are limited.
•	Exposure factor data are not available either across the wide variety of sports and
recreational users of synthetic turf fields and playgrounds with tire crumb rubber,
or for occupational exposures.
Dermal/Ingestion
Exposures
• While multiple studies have attempted to characterize potential inhalation
exposures to tire crumb rubber chemical constituents, more limited information is
available for understanding dermal and ingestion exposures.
Broken Skin/Ocular
Exposures
• Little information is available on the potential for increased exposures via broken
skin (i.e., due to cuts and scrapes) and through ocular fluids.
Particle Exposures
• There is limited information on exposure to tire crumb particles and their
constituents through inhalation, dermal, and ingestion. Information on the
exposure potential as synthetic fields and playgrounds age and weather, and for
various uses and activities on synthetic fields and playgrounds is limited.
Variability
•	Few studies have evaluated the variability of exposures to tire crumb rubber
constituents by activity type, exposure scenario, age, material type and condition,
facility type and condition, and ambient conditions such as temperature and wind
or ventilation. Limited information is available on the variability of exposures and
related factors across a wide range of user groups and scenarios.
•	A few studies suggest that inhalation exposures at indoor facilities are higher
compared to those at outdoor facilities, but the available information is limited.
Biomonitoring
•	Only a few biomonitoring studies have been performed. Only hydroxypyrene has
been measured as a biomarker in athletes and workers.
•	Additional tire rubber-specific biomarker measurements have not been reported for
synthetic field and playground users and biomarker analysis methods might be
lacking for some chemicals.
•	Large scale biomonitoring studies of populations exposed and not-exposed to
synthetic turf fields and playgrounds with tire crumb rubber have not been
reported.
Cumulative/Aggregate
Assessments
• Exposures to multiple tire crumb constituents are likely to occur via multiple
pathways (e.g., inhalation, ingestion, and dermal contact). However, studies that
evaluated cumulative and aggregate exposure and risks are limited.
Epidemiology Studies
•	No epidemiological investigations for synthetic turf field or playground users were
identified in the literature review.
•	Survey and biomonitoring tools for accurate assessment of relative exposures for
synthetic field and playground users in an epidemiological study are lacking.
Alternative
Assessments
Alternative
Infills/Materials
• Most research to date has focused on characterizing tire crumb rubber infill.
Similar research on other infill materials, including natural materials, ethylene
propylene diene monomer (EPDM), thermoplastic elastomers (TPE), and recycled
shoe rubber are either lacking or limited.
Natural Grass Fields
• Few studies have been performed to assess potential chemical exposures from
natural grass playing fields.
Other Exposure Sources
• Only a few comparative assessments have been performed on relative exposures to
chemicals associated with tire crumb rubber from other sources.
-------
Many of the studies that did not characterize risks, examined factors related to potential public or
environmental health impacts (e.g., identifying chemical constituents, or assessing leaching or
off-gassing of chemicals from artificial turf). Among these other topic areas, there was relatively
less information available on microbiological and bioavailability aspects of tire crumb rubber
exposures. The availability of biomonitoring studies was also limited. No studies were identified
that produced or evaluated epidemiological data on potential associations between the incidence
of health effects and exposures related to tire crumb rubber. Related to sampling locations, there
were more studies conducted in laboratories and synthetic fields. Thus, data gaps may be more
pronounced for locations such as playgrounds and indoor fields, as well as studies that compare
site-specific concentrations of tire crumb rubber constituents to background levels. Another less-
studied factor relates to potential differences between constituent levels in environmental media
and corresponding exposures based on activity levels (e.g., active versus inactive play) on
artificial turf fields.
A wide range of chemicals were evaluated in the literature reviewed for the LRGA, and a
significant portion of the LRGA involved compiling a list of potential tire crumb rubber
constituents identified in the available literature. The constituents list spreadsheet, which can be
found on the Status Report website, identifies more than 350 distinct chemical compounds. A
list of the chemicals is provided in Appendix F. This spreadsheet is a comprehensive list of
unique chemicals that were identified in the LRGA literature. Some major classes of constituents
identified in the LRGA include inorganics, and VOCs/SVOCs. Frequently studied inorganics
include lead, zinc, cadmium, and chromium. Frequently studied VOCs/SVOCs include
benzothiazole and PAHs. Less frequently studied constituents included microbials, and a variety
of complex organic compounds. In general, the available studies do not establish whether the
observed results are widespread and generalizable. Systematic studies based on larger numbers
of athletic fields and playgrounds designed to include a range of characteristics (rubber material
source, location, age, etc) for the population of such fields and playgrounds across the United
States have not been performed.
VIII. References
Anderson, ME; Kirkland, KH; Guidotti, TL, Rose, C. (2006). A case study of tire crumb Use on
playgrounds: risk analysis and communication when major clinical knowledge gaps exist.
Environ Health Perspect. 114(1): 1-3.
Aoki, T. (2008) Leaching of heavy metals from infills on artificial turf by using acid solutions.
Football Science. 5:51-53.
Bass, JJ; Hintze, DW. (2013). Determination of microbial populations in a synthetic turf system.
Skyline-The Big Sky Undergraduate Journal. 1(1): 1.
Beausoleil, M; Price, K; Muller, C. (2009). Chemicals in outdoor artificial turf: a health risk for
users? Public Health Branch, Montreal Health and Social Services Agency.
http://www.ncceh.ca/sites/default/files/Outdoor Artificial Turf.pdf.
-------
Birkholz, DA: Belton, KL, Guidotti, TL. (2003). Toxicological evaluation of hazard assessment
of tire crumb for use on public playgrounds. J Air Waste Manag. 53:903-07.
Bocca, B; Forte, G; Petrucci, F; Costantini, S; Izzo, P. (2009). Metals contained and leached
from rubber granulates used in synthetic turf areas. Science of the Total Environment.
407(7):2183-90.
Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station (CAES). (2010) 2009 Study of crumb rubber
derived from recycled tires, final report.
http://www.ct.gov/deep/lib/deep/artificialtiiil7caes_artificial_turf_report.pdf
California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA). (2007). Evaluation of
health effects of recycled waste wires in playground and track products. Prepared for the
California Integrated Waste Management Board.
http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/publications/Detail.aspx?PublicationID=1206.
California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA). (2010). Safety study
of artificial turf containing crumb rubber infill made from recycled tires: measurements of
chemicals and particulates in the air, bacteria in the turf, and skin abrasions caused by contact
with the surface. Prepared for the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery.
http://www.calrecvcle.ca.gOv/publications/Documents/Tires/2.010009.pdf.
Cardno Chem Risk. (2013). Review of the human health & ecological safety of exposure to
recycled tire rubber found at playgrounds and synthetic turf fields. Prepared for: Rubber
Manufacturers Association, Washington, DC.
Castellano, P; Proietto, AR; Gordiani, A; Ferrante, R; Tranfo, G; Paci, E; Pigini, D. (2008).
Assessment of exposure to chemical agents in infill material for artificial turf soccer pitches:
development and implementation of a survey protocol. Prev Today 4(3):25-42.
Celeiro, M; Lamas, JP; Garcia-Jares, D; Dagnac, T; Ramos, L; Llompart, M. (2014).
Investigation of PAH and other hazardous contaminant occurrence in recycled tyre rubber
surfaces: case study: restaurant playground in an indoor shopping centre. International Journal
of Environmental Analytical Chemistry. 94(12): 1264-1271.
Chang, F; Lin, T; Huang, C; Chao, H; Chang, T; Lu, C. (1999). Emission characteristics of
VOCs from athletic tracks. J Haz Materials. A70: 1-20.
ChemRisk, Inc. (2008). State of knowledge report for tire materials and tire wear particles.
Cheng, H; Hu, Y; Reinhard, M. (2014). Environmental and health impacts of artificial turf: A
review. Environ Sci Technol. 48(4):2114-29.
Chien, YC; Ton, S; Lee, MH; Chia, T; Shu, HY; Wu, YS. (2003) Assessment of occupational
health hazards in scrap-tire shredding facilities. Sci Total Environ. 309: 35-46.
-------
Connecticut Academy of Science and Engineering (CASE). (2010). Peer review of an
evaluation of the health and environmental impacts associated with synthetic turf playing fields.
http://www.ct.gov/deep/lib/deep/artificialturf7case artificial turf review report.pdf.
Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection (CDEP). (2010) Artificial turf study:
leachate and stormwater characteristics.
http://www.ct.gov/deep/lib/deep/artificialturf7dep artificial turf report.pdf.
Connecticut Department of Public Health (CDPH). (2010). Human health risk assessment of
artificial turf fields based upon results from five fields in Connecticut.
http://www.ct.gov/deep/lib/deep/artificialturf7dph artificial turf report.pdf.
Connecticut: University of Connecticut Health Center (UCHC). (2010) Artificial turf field
investigation in Connecticut; Final Report.
http://www.ct.gov/deep/lib/deep/artificialtiirf7iichc artificial turf report.pdf.
Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC). 2008. CPSC staff analysis and assessment of
synthetic turf grass blades. Available at: https://www.epsc.gov/s3fs-
public/pdfs/turfassessment.pdf.
Crampton, M; Ryan, A; Eckert, C; Baker, KH; Herson, DS. (2014). Effects of leachate from
crumb rubber and zinc in green roofs on the survival, growth, and resistance characteristics of
Salmonella enterica subsp. enterica serovar typhimurium. Appl Environ Micro. 80.9:2804-2810.
Denly, E; Rutkowski, K; Vetrano, KM. (2008). A review of the potential health and safety risks
from synthetic turf fields containing crumb rubber infill. Prepared by TRC for the New York
City Department of Mental Health and Hygiene, New York, NY.
http://www.nyc.gov/html/doh/downloads/pdf/eode/turf report 05-08.pdf
Dorsey, M J; Anderson, E; Ardo, O; Chou, M; Farrow, E; Glassman, EL; Manley, M; Meisner,
H; Meyers, C; Morley, N; Rominger, K; Sena, M; Stiefbold, M; Stites, B; Tash, M; Weber, E;
Counts, P. (2015). Mutagenic potential of artificial athletic field crumb rubber at increased
temperatures. The Ohio Journal of Science 115(2).
Dye, C; Bjerke, A; Schmidbauer, N; Mano, S. (2006). Measurement of air pollution in indoor
artificial turf halls. Norwegian Pollution Control Authority/Norwegian Institute for Air Research,
State Programme for Pollution Monitoring, http://www.isss-
sport.surfacescieHce.org/downloads/docum.eHts/SIlHPZNZPS NILIJEngelsk.pdf.
Environment & Human Health Inc. (EHHI). (2007). Artificial Turf - Exposures to ground-up
rubber tires - athletic fields - playgrounds - gardening mulch, http://www.ehhi.org/artificial4iirf
-------
Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP). (1999). Study of the suitability of
ground rubber tire as a parking lot surface.
http://www.dep.state.fl.us/waste/qiiick topics/publications/shw/tires/FCCJstudy.pdf.
Ginsberg, G; Toal, B; Simcox, N; Bracker, A; Golembiewski, B; Kurland, T; Hedman, C.
(2011). Human health risk assessment of synthetic turf fields based upon investigation of five
fields in Connecticut. J Toxicol Environ Health A74(17): 1150-74.
Groenevelt, P. H. and P. E. Grunthal (1998). Utilisation of crumb rubber as a soil amendment for
sports turf. Soil and Tillage Research. 47(1-2): 169-172.
Gualteri, M; Andrioletti, M; Mantecca, P; Vismara, C; Camatini, M. (2005). Impact of tire debris
on in vitro and in vivo systems. Particle and Fibre Toxicology. doi:10.1186/1743-8977-2-1.
Hofstra, U. (2007a). Environmental and health risks of rubber infill: rubber crumb from car tyres
as infill on artificial turf. INTRON A833860/R20060318.
Hofstra, U. (2007b). Follow-up study of the environmental aspects of rubber infill: a lab study
(performing weathering tests) and a field study rubber crumb from car tyres as infill on artificial
turf. Report prepared for the Tyre and Environment Association and Tyre and Wheel Trade
Association.
Johns, DM. (2008). Initial evaluation of potential human health risks associated with playing on
synthetic turf fields on Bainbridge Island. Seattle, WA: Windward Environmental LLC.
Johns, DM; Goodlin, T. (2008). Evaluation of potential environmental risks associated with
installing synthetic turf fields on Bainbridge Island. Seattle, Washington: Windward
Environmental LLC.
Kallqvist, T. (2005). Environmental risk assessment of artificial turf systems. Report 5111-2005.
Norwegian Institute for Water Research. Oslo, http://www.isss-
sportsuifacescience.org/downloads/dociiments/5veii2czb25_nivaengelsk.pdf
Kanematsu, M; Hayashi, A; Denison, MS; Young, TM. (2009). Characterization and potential
environmental risks of leachate from shredded rubber mulches. Chemosphere 76:952-958.
KemI (Swedish Chemicals Inspectorate). (2006). Synthetic turf from a chemical perspective—a
status report. Swedish Chemicals Inspecorate Order No. 510 834.
Kim, S; Yan, JY; Kim, HH; Yeo, IY; Shin, DC; Lim, YW. (2012a). Health risk assessment of
lead ingestion exposure by particle sizes in crumb rubber on artificial turf considering
bioavailability. Environ Health Toxicol. 27:e2012005.
Kim, HH; Lim, YW; Kim, SD; Yeo, IY; Shin, DC; Jang, JY. (2012b). Health risk assessment
for artificial turf playgrounds in school athletic facilities: multi-route exposure estimation for use
patterns. Asian Journal of Atmospheric Environment. 6(3): 206-221.
-------
Kriiger, O; Kalbe, U; Berger, W; NordhauP, K; Christoph, G; Walzel, HP. (2012). Comparison
of batch and column tests for the elution of artificial turf system components. Environ Sci
Technol. 46(24): 13085-92.
LeDoux, T. (2007). Preliminary assessment of the toxicity from exposure to crumb rubber: Its
use in playgrounds and artificial turf playing fields. Division of Science, Research and
Technology. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection.
http://www.state.ni.us/dep/dsr/research/whitepaper%20-%20rubber.pdf
Li, X; Berger, W; Musante, C; Incorvia Mattina, MJ. (2010). Characterization of substances
released from crumb rubber material used on artificial turf fields. Chemosphere. 80(3):279-85.
Lioy, P; Weisel, C. (2008). Artificial turf: safe or out on ball fields around the world; Editorial. J
of Expos Anal Environ Epidem. 18:533-534.
Lioy, P; Weisel, C. (2011). Crumb infill and turf characterization for trace elements and organic
materials. Report prepared for NJDEP, Bureau of Recycling and Planning.
Llompart, M; Sanchez-Pardo, L; Lamas, J; Garcia-Jares, C; Roca, E. (2013). Hazardous organic
chemicals in rubber recycled tire playgrounds and pavers. Chemosphere. 90(2):423-31.
Marsili, L; Coppola, D; Bianchi, N; Maltese, S; Bianchi, M; Fossi, MC. (2014). Release of
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and heavy metals from rubber crumb in synthetic turf fields:
Preliminary Hazard Assessment for Athletes. Journal of Environmental and Analytical
Toxicology. 5:(2).
Mattina, MJI; Isleyen, M; Berger, W; Ozdemir, S. (2007). Examination of crumb rubber
produced from recycled tires. Department of Analytical Chemistry. The Connecticut Agricultural
Research Station, New Haven, CT.
http://www.ct.gov/caes/lib/caes/dociiments/publications/fact sh eets/exam in ati on ofcrumbrubb era
c005.pdf.
McNitt, AS; Petrunak, D; Serensits, T. (2006). A survey of microbial populations in infilled
synthetic turf fields. Penn State University, College of Agricultural Sciences, Department of
Plant Science, http://plantscience.psu.edu/research/centers/ssrc/research/microbial.
Menichini, E; Abate, V; Attias, L; DeLuca, S; Di Domenico, A; Fochi, I; Forte, G; Iacovella, N;
Iamiceli, AL, Izzo, P; Merli, F; Bocca, B. (2011). Artificial-turf playing fields: contents of
metals, PAHs, PCBs, PCDDs and PCDFs, inhalation exposure to PAHs and related preliminary
risk assessment. Sci Total Environ. 409(23):4950-7.
MilonaiKl MacBroom, Inc., Evaluation oflte environinentadfteatf^sfthetitfitrftfeletic
fields. (2008). http://www.actelobalsports.com/media/Milone MacBroom.pdf.
-------
Moretto, R. (2007). Environmental and health evaluation of the use of elastomer granulates
(Virgin and From Used Tyres) as filling in third-generation artificial turf, France, ALIAPUR in
partnership with Fieldturf Tarkett and the ADEME (Environmental French Agency).
http://www.aliapur.fr/media/files/RetD new/Synthetic turf - Environmental Study Report.pdf.
Mota, H; Gomes, J; Sarmento, G. (2009). Coated rubber granulates obtained from used tyres for
use in sport facilities: A toxicological assessment. Ciencia & Tecnologia dos Materials. 21(3-4):
26-30.
National Academy of Science. (2009) Science and Decisions: Advancing Risk Assessment.
https://www.nap.edu/catalog/12209/science-and-decisions-advancing-risk-assessment
New York City Department of Parks and Recreation. Synthetic turf lead results (online).
las to do/facilities/synthetic turf test results.html.
New York Department of Environmental Conservation (NYDEC). (2008). A study to assess
potential environmental impacts from the use of crumb rubber as infill material in synthetic turf
fields, http://www.dec .ny.gov/docs/materials minerals pdf/tirestudy.pdf.
New York Department of Environmental Conservation (NYDEC). (2009). An assessment of
chemical leaching, releases to air and temperature at crumb-rubber infilled synthetic turf fields.
http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/materials minerals pdf/crumbmbfr.pdf.
New York State Department of Health (NYDOH). (2008). Fact Sheet: Crumb-rubber infilled
synthetic turf athletic fields, August 2008.
https://www.health.ny.gov/environm.en.tal/oiitdoors/syn.thetic turf/crumb-
rubber infilled/docs/fact sheet.pdf
Nilsson, NH; Malmgren-Hansen, B; Thomsen, US. (2008). Mapping emissions and
environmental and health assessment of chemical substances in artificial turf. Danish Ministry of
the Environment, Environmental Protection Agency.
http://www2.mst.dk/udgiv/publications/2008/978-87-7052-866-5/pdf/978-87-7052-867-2.pdf.
Norwegian Institute of Public Health and the Radium Hospital. (2006). Artificial turf pitches: an
assessment of the health risks for football players. Norwegian Institute of Public Health and the
Radium Hospital, Oslo, Norway.
Pavilonis, BT; Weisel, CP; Buckley, B; Lioy, PJ. (2014). Bioaccessibility and risk of exposure to
metals and SVOCs in artificial turf field fill materials and fibers. Risk Analysis. 34: 44-55
Plesser, T; Lund, O. (2004). Potential health and environmental effects linked to artificial turf
systems-final report. Norwegian Building Research Institute, Trondheim, Norway, Project #0-
10820.
Rhodes, EP; Ren, Z; Mays, DC. (2012). Zinc leaching from tire crumb rubber. Environ Sci
Technol. 46(23): 12856-63.
-------
Rubber Manufacturer's Association. 2014. U.S. scrap tire management summary;
Ruffino, B; Fiore, S; Zanetti, MC. (2013). Environmental sanitary risk analysis procedure
applied to artificial turf sports fields. Environ Sci Pollut Res. 20:4980-4992. DOI
10.1007/sl 1356-012-1390-2
Savary, B; Vincent, R. (2011). Used tire recycling to produce granulates: evaluation of
occupational exposure to chemical agents. Ann Occup Hygen. 55(8):931-936.
Schilird, T; Traversi, D; Degan, R; Pignata, C; Alessandria, L; Scozia, D; Bono R; Gilli, G.
(2013). Artificial turf football fields: environmental and mutagenicity assessment. Arch Environ
Contam Toxicol. 64(1): 1-11.
Selbes, M; Yilmaz, O; Khan, AA; Karanfil, T. (2015). Leaching of DOC, DN and inorganic
constituents from scrap tires. Chemosphere. 139:617-23.
Serentis,T J; McNitt, AS; Petrunak, DM. (2011) Human health issues on synthetic turf in the
USA. Proceedings of the Institute of Mechanical Engineers, Part P, Journal of Sports
Engineering and Technology. 225(3): 139-146.
Shalat, SL. (2011). An evaluation of potential exposures to lead and other metals as the result of
aerosolized particulate matter from artificial turf playing fields. Submitted to the New Jersey
Department of Environmental Protection, http://www.ni.gov/dep/dsr/publications/artificial-tuif-
report.pdf.
Sheehan, PJ; Warmerdam, JM; Ogle, S; Humphrey, D; Patenaude, S. (2006). Evaluating the risk
to aquatic ecosystems posed by leachate from tire shred fill in roads using toxicity tests, toxicity
identification evaluations, and groundwater modeling. Environmental Toxicology and
Chemistry. 25(2): 400-411.
Simcox, NJ; Bracker, A; Ginsberg, G; Toal, B; Golembiewski, B; Kurland, T; Hedman, C.
(2011). Synthetic turf field investigation in Connecticut. J Toxicol Environ Health A.
74(17): 1133-49.
Simon, R. (2010). Review of the impacts of crumb rubber in artificial turf applications.
University of California, Berkeley, Laboratory for Manufacturing and Sustainability, prepared
for The Corporation for Manufacturing Excellence (Manex).
Sullivan, JP. (2006). An assessment of environmental toxicity and potential contamination from
artificial turf using shredded or crumb rubber. Ardea Consulting: Woodland, CA. p. 1-43.
Toronto Public Health (2015). Health impact assessment of the use of artificial turf in Toronto.
April 2015. City of Toronto.
https://wwwl.toronto.ca/City%200f%20Toronto/Toronto%20Piiblic%20H.ealth/Healthy%20Pub
lic%20Policy/Built%20Environment/Files/pdf/H/HIA <	al Turf Summary Report Fin
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. About Risk Assessment.
https://www.epa.eov/risk/about-risk-assessmeHt
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2003). A summary of general assessment factors for
evaluating the quality of scientific and technical information. Washington, DC: Office of
Research and Development, Science Policy Council; Report No. EPA/100/B-03/001.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2008). Procedure for quality policy. Washington, DC:
Office of Environmental Information. https://www. epa. gov/sites/production/fttes/2013 -
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (Highsmith, R; Thomas, KW; Williams, RW.) (2009). A
scoping-level field monitoring study of synthetic turf fields and playgrounds. Washington, DC:
Office of Research and Development, National Exposure Research Laboratory; Report No.
EPA/600/R-09/135
http://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si public record report.cfm?dirEntry!c	ssimpleSearch=l&searc
h A.11=EP A.%2F600%2FR-09^i
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2015). Tire crumb and synthetic turf field literature and
report list as of Nov. 2015. Washington, DC; http://www.epa.gov/chemical-research/tire-crumb-
and-svnthetic-turf-field-literature-and-report-list-nov-2015
U.S. EPA. (2016). Federal research action plan on recycled tire crumb used on playing fields and
playgrounds; https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-
02/documents/federat research action plan tirecrumb final 2.pdf
Van Bruggen, M. (2007). Nitrosamines released from rubber crumb. RIVM report
609300002/2007.
Van Rooij, JGM; Jongeneelen, FJ. (2010). Hydroxypyrene in urine of football players after
playing on artificial sports fields with tire crumb infill. Int Arch Occup Environ Health.
83(1): 105-10.
Van Ulirsch, G; Gleason, K; Gerstenberger, S; Moffett, DB; Pulliam, G; Ahmed, T; Fagliano, J.
(2010). Evaluating and regulating lead in synthetic turf. Environmental Health Perspectives.
118(10):1345-9.
Verschoor, AJ. (2007). Leaching of zinc from rubber infill in artificial turf (football pitches). RIVM
Report 601774011 Bilthoven: http://www.parks.sfgov.org/wcm recpark/SPTF/Verschoor.pdf.
Vetrano, KM; Ritter, G. (2009). Air quality survey of synthetic turf fields containing crumb
rubber infill. Prepared by TRC for the New York City Department of Mental Health and
-------
Hygiene, New York, NY.
https://wwwl .nyc.gov/assets/doh/downloads/pdf/eode/turF aqs report0409.pdf.
Virginia Department of Health (VDH). (2015). Memo to Gloria Addo-Ayensu, Fairfax County
Health Dept., from Dwight Flammia, Virginia Department of Health. September 28, 2015.
Zhang, J; Han, IK; Zhang, L; Crain, W. (2008). Hazardous chemicals in synthetic turf materials
and their bioaccessibility in digestive fluids. J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol. 18(6):600-7.
Zelibor, J L. (1991). The RMA TCLP assessment project: Leachate from tire samples. Scrap
-------
IX. Appendices
Appendix A - CDC Review of Published Literature and Select Federal Studies on
Crumb Rubber and Synthetic Turf
Review of Published Literature and Select Federal Studies on Crumb Rubber and
Synthetic Turf
Product Sampling and Chemical Composition Studies
1. Synthetic Turf Field Investigation in Connecticut
N. Simcox, A. Bracker, G. Ginsberg, B. Toal, B. Golembiewski, T. Kurland, C. Hedman; Journal of Toxicology and Environmental
Health, Part A, 2011.
The purpose of the study is to characterize concentrations of VOCs, SVOCs, rubber-related chemicals, and PM10 in ambient air at
selected fields with crumb rubber infill in Connecticut during summertime conditions and during active field use.
Methods:
•	During July 2009, three types of fields were sampled:
o Outdoor field with crumb rubber infill
o Indoor facility with crumb rubber infill
o Outdoor field with grass turf as background location
•	Air samples collected at older fields (>3 years) and at new fields (< 2 years).
•	Personal air sampling during simulated soccer game:
o VOCs
o SVOCs
o Benzothiazole (BZT)
o 2-mercaptobenzothiazole
o 4-tert-octylphenol
o Butylated hydroxyanisole
o Butylated hydroxytoluene (BHT)
o Nitrosamines
o PM10
Study results and/or conclusions:
•	For turf fiber and crumb rubber infill, lead levels were below the EPA "soil-lead hazard" limit and below the 300ppm target set
by Consumer Product Safety Act for products to be used by children.
•	Of 60 VOCs, 31 were detected on field.
•	Personal air monitoring concentrations were higher on artificial turf than on grass for 21 VOCs.
•	Stationary samples on the outdoor fields were similar to background.
•	Total VOCs were higher indoors than outdoors, however, only a few VOCs were elevated indoors
compared to background.
•	Benzo(a)pyrene was higher at the outdoor field than background (range ND-0.19 versus ND-0.05).
•	For the indoor field, 1-methylnapthalene, 2-methylnapthalene, fluorene, napthalene, and pyrene were 10-fold higher than
background.
•	There were several other PAHs found only on the indoor turf, acenapthene, acenaphthylene, fluorene, napthalene, and 2,6-
dimethylnapthalene.
•	BZT and BF1T were higher on the indoor field than outdoor field (BZT range 11,000-14,000 ng/m3 versus <80-1,200 ng/m3;
BF1T range 1,240-3900 ng/m3versus <80-130 ng/m3).
Study limitations:
•	Potential selection bias as field location participation was voluntary.
•	Sample size was small.
•	Summer 2009 temperatures were lower than normal.
•	Personal sampling occurred at waist height, not in the breathing zone.
•	Some VOCs were found in the personal samples, but not the turf or background indicated non-turf related sources.
-------
2.
Hazardous organic chemicals in rubber recycled tire playgrounds and pavers
M. Llompart, L. Sanchez-Pardo, J. Lamas, C. Garcia-Jares, E. Roca; Chemosphere\ 2013.
The purpose of the study was to investigate the presence of hazardous organic chemicals in recycled tire playground surfaces.
Methods:
•	21 samples from 9 urban playgrounds
•	2 types of ground covers - floor tiles compositions and carpet covers
•	7 samples from a local store; 2 puzzle pavers and 5 recycled rubber tire tiles of different colors
•	Ultrasound-assisted extraction followed by pressurized solvent extraction
•	GC-MS for PAHs, plasticizers and other phthalates (31 compounds total)
•	Solid-phase microextraction (SPME) for vapour phase composition profiles
Study results and/or conclusions:
•	For playground samples
o Full GC-MS scan identified a large number of VOCs, SVOCs, and POPs.
o All samples contained PAHs with a range of 1.25 jig g-1 to 70.4(ig g-1 total PAH amount with one sample having a
concentration of 178(xg g-1
o Pyrene was the most abundant congener found in all samples.
o Napthalene, phenanthrene, fluoranthene, and chrysene were found in 20 or 21 samples,
o B(a)P was found in 5 samples with values ranging from 0.4jig g-1 to 5.0fj.g g-1.
o Benzothiazole (BTZ) was found in all playground samples with a mean concentration of lOfxg g-1.
o 2-mercaptobenzathiole (MBTZ) was found in playground samples, but there were methodological issues with the
analysis.
o 4-tert-butylphenol (TBP) was present in half the playground samples at low concentrations.
o Butylated hydroxytoluene (BHT) was found in all samples but butylated hydroxyanisole (BHA) was not found in the
samples.
o Phthalates were found in all samples with the most abundant congener being di(2-thylhexyl)phthalate,
concentrations ranging from 4 to 64 pg g-1.
o Diisononyl phthalate (DINP) was found in 8 of 21 playground samples but was not detected in commercial pavers,
o For the SPME analysis, all PAHs found in the samples were detected excluding the less volatile ones. BZT, DEP, DIBP,
DBP, DEHP, and BHT were found in all cases.
•	For commercial pavers:
o Higher PAH concentrations compared to playground samples,
o For 5 of 7 samples, concentrations were extremely high - 2000pg g-1 to 8000pg g-1.
o All PAHs were found in all samples with a mean concentration of B(a)P = 500pg g-1.
o BZT was found in all commercial pavers with concentrations ranging from ~20 to >150 pg g-1.
o MBTZ was not detected in commercial pavers.
o TBP was present in all pavers with concentrations ranging from 8.6 to 21pg g-1.
o BHT was found in all pavers with a mean concentration 19pg g-1.
o Phthalate concentrations were higher in pavers than playground samples. DEHP concentrations ranged from 22 to
1200pg g-1.
o For the SPME analysis, volatile PAHs and some less volatile PAHs (including B(a)P) were found in some samples.
BZT, DEP, DIBP, DBP, DEHP, and BHT were found in all cases,
o TBP was also found in most samples.
•	Research is ongoing as a high number of compounds (excluding the ones in this study) were found in the samples.
Study Limitations:
•	The study did not determine bioavailability of the chemicals after ingestion or upon dermal exposure.
•	For the SPME analysis, inhalation exposure is indicated as possible by the authors; however, laboratory vapor phase
composition does not mimic field conditions and thus potential exposure conditions.
3. Metals contained and leached from rubber granulates used in synthetic turf areas
B. Bocca, G. Forte, F. Petrucci, S. Costantini, P. Izzo; Science of the Total Environment; 2009.
The purpose of the study was to quantify metals contained in and leached from different types of rubber granulates used in
synthetic turf.
Methods:
-------
•	32 samples from 32 different playgrounds in Italy were collected with samplings performed at different positions in the
playground to obtain a representative sample for each area with 250g granulate obtained from 12 sectors.
•	50g granulate from each of the 12 samples pooled to obtain 1 sample per playground.
•	Each sample was analyzed for metal content.
o Al, As, Ba, Be, Cd, Co, Cr, Cu, Fe, Hg, Li, Mg, Mn, Mo, Ni, Pb, Rb, Sb, Se, Sn, Sr, Tl, V, W, Zn
•	The levels were compared to the maximum concentrations allowable for soils.
Study results and/or conclusions:
•	The rubber granulates contained all the metals included in the analysis, but the concentration range was wide in the different
samples.
•	Relatively high levels of Al, Fe, Mg, and Zn were found.
•	All samples had metal concentrations significantly lower than the allowable limit, except Co, Sn, and Zn.
•	50% of samples exceeded the Co and Sn limit, while 97% of samples exceeded the limit for Zn with values around lOOx higher
than the standard.
•	The highest leaching was observed for Zn (2,300 |jg/L).
•	Very low concentrations of As, Cd, CO, Cr, Cu, Li, Mo, Ni, Pb, Rb, Sb, and V were leached and Be, Hg, Se, Sn, Tl, and W were
underthe LOQ.
Study Limitations:
•	Assessments of risk should be conducted for each individual case at a local level due to differences in local ground conditions,
type of drainage, and the composition of the filler material.
•	The results were compared to the allowable limit for metals in soil which may not be an appropriate comparison.
Health Risk Assessment for Artificial Turf Playgrounds in School Athletic Facilities: Multi-route Exposure Estimation for Use
Patterns
H. Kim, Y. Lim, S. Kim, I. Yeo, D. Shin, J. Yang; Environmental Health and Toxicology; 2012.
The purpose of the study was to identify major exposure routes and calculate total risk through a health risk assessment for
chemicals released from artificial turf playgrounds and urethane flooring tracks.
Methods:
50 schools with artificial turf and urethane flooring at the playgrounds; 27 elementary schools and 23 middle and high schools
Inhalation of VOCs and formaldehydes due to volatile outdoor air from surfaces of artificial turf and urethane flooring
Dermal uptake from surfaces of artificial turf and urethane flooring
Ingestion exposure to fine particles
Trace metals (Pb, Cr, Ni, Cd, Zn, Hg)
o Dust collected at 5L/min for 8 hours,
o Urethane layer collected from flooring materials in schools,
o Infill chip layer collected from chip flooring material in parks,
o Product surface sampling was conducted using texwipe.
o Hand surface sampling was performed using texwipe after children played on the facility.
VOCs
o Air samples collected at 0.2L/min at 1.5m for 2 hours
o Infill chips (see Metals #2 and #3).
o Air samples collected
o Infill materials (see Metals #2 and #3; surface sampling and hand sampling not performed)
Phthalates
o Infill materials (see Metals #2 and #3)
o Surface sampling (see Metals #4)
o Hand sampling (see Metals #5)
Sampling was conducted at the top of the central playground so as to eliminate other potential emission sources.
Study results and/or conclusions:
•	Infill content for heavy metals had highest concentration of Zn > Pb > Cr.
•	Pb exceeded standard in infill from 8 of the schools and exceeded the domestic standard (lOmg/kg) in 2 of the schools.
•	For the air monitoring, Zn had the highest concentration; Pb was detected but levels were 10% of Korean ambient air
standards.
•	Bioavailability values were estimated and for infill chips were shown to be 10-10,000 times lowerthan the measured content
level; forthe urethane flooring, the bioavailability was estimated to be approximately lOx lowerthan the infill chips.
•	The excess cancer risk (ECR) for individual chemicals was estimated to be a level of one person out of one million (1x10-6) or
-------
•	The ECR for carcinogens in children with pica, who represent the most extreme exposure type among the facility users, was
shown to be 1.14x10-7 for benzene and 8.47x10-7 for PAHs.
•	The hazard index (HI) of the facility users for each individual chemical according to the mean exposure scenario was shown to
be less than 0.1, which was low, except for children with pica.
•	The HI of children with pica for non-carcinogenic materials was shown to be less than O.OOlfor Pb, 0.067 for Cr, Cd and Hg,
0.005 for Zn, 0.001 for VOCs; and 0.273 for phthalates, all of which were low, except for phthalates.
Study Limitations:
•	The study did not consider asthma or allergic reactions in the health assessment.
•	The authors assumed that all chemicals in the air sampling were from artificial turf or urethane flooring, and that there were
no other air emission sources.
5.	Comparison of Batch and Column Test for the Elution of Artificial Turf System Components
O. Kruger, U. Kalbe, W. Berger, K. Nordhaub, G. Christoph, H.P. Walzel; Environmental Science and Technology; 2012
The purpose of the study was to compare the behavior of synthetic sports flooring components at different elution methods.
Methods:
•	Artificial turf components from 6 German producers.
•	Batch tests were performed with a liquid to solid ratio of 2L/kg.
•	Column tests were performed with a liquid to solid ratio of 26.5 L/kg.
•	pH, electric conductivity, turbidity of the eluates, and contaminant release were measured.
•	Specific emphasis placed on zinc (ICP-OES) and PAHs (15 measured with HPLC).
Study results and/or conclusions:
•	Lead and cadmium were underthe LOQ while zinc concentrations varied from below LOQ-129 mg/L.
•	The PAH concentrations varied from 0.07-3.41 iJg/L.
•	The batch testing produced higher concentrations of zinc; however, column testing provides conditions closer to actual field
conditions.
Study Limitations:
•	Batch test conditions did not mimic actual field conditions.
6.	Release of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons and Heavy Metals from Rubber Crumb in Synthetic Turf Fields: Preliminary Hazard
Assessment for Athletes
L. Marsili, D. Coppola, N. Bianchi, S. Maltese, M. Bianchi, M.C. Fossi; Journal of Environmental and Analytical Toxicology; 2014.
The purpose of the study was to quantify the PAHs and heavy metals contained in the crumb rubber (tires produced before 2010), to
determine whether PAHs are released and at what concentrations, and to estimate respiratory uptake by athletes training on these
fields.
Methods:
•	Samples were taken from nine different synthetic turfs from football fields in Italy
•	4 samples were new tire crumb rubber that was not yet on a fields.
•	4 samples of tire crumb rubber from fields 1-8 years old, and 1 sample from virgin rubber (i.e. not recycled tires)
•	Heavy metals: Pb, Cu, Ni, Zn, Cr, Cd, Fe
o Concentrations determined via spectrophotometer and spectrometer
•	PAHs: 14 analytes determine via HPLC
Study results and/or conclusions:
•	The majority of samples had concentrations of heavy metals that were below the maximum limits set by the Italian National
Amateur League.
•	Cd exceed the limit in 3 samples, 2 new and 1 installed.
•	Zn was very high in all samples, exceeding the limit by a minimum factor of 20.
•	PAH concentrations varied by sample. For all crumb rubber samples, highest concentrations were benzo(b)fluoranthene or
pyrene.
•	The data indicate that PAHs are released continually from the crumb rubber via evaporation and athletes frequenting fields
could be exposed to chronic toxicity from PAHs.
-------
Study Limitations:
•	The preliminary hazard assessment overestimates the PAH contribution.
•	Theoretical approach which must be considered as an extreme worst case scenario.
7.	A Scoping-Level Field Monitoring Study of Synthetic Turf Fields and Playgrounds
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; 2009.
The purpose of the study was to generate limited field monitoring data that will be used by EPA to help determine possible next
steps to address concerns regarding the safety of tire crumb infill in recreational fields.
Methods:
•	Scoping level study evaluating environmental concentrations of tire crumb constituents in recreational fields.
•	Two synthetic turf fields and one playground were chosen as the sampling locations.
•	Air sampling was conducted at lm height:
o PM10 analyzed for mass, metals, and particle morphology
o VOCs for 56 analytes (2pm collection time at the fields and at an upwind background location).
•	Wipe sampling was conducted at the fields and also with tire crumb infill and turf blade samples
o Pb, Cr, Zn, As, Al, Ba, Cd, Cu, Fe, Mn, Ni (ICP/MS).
•	Percent bioaccessible Pb was calculated.
Study results and/or conclusions:
•	All VOCs, PM, and metals were similar to all background levels and were below the national ambient air quality standards.
•	Methyl isobutyl ketone was detected at one synthetic turf field and was not detected in the background samples.
•	The extractable lead concentrations from the infill, turf blades, and tire crumb materials were low and below the EPA standard
for lead in soil.
•	Lead concentrations in the wipe samples were low and below the EPA standard for lead in residential floor dust.
Study Limitations:
•	Semi volatile organic compounds were not measured in this study.
•	Sites where samples were taken could have many variabilities in the materials used and possible environmental differences.
•	There were some difficulties obtaining permission to access the playgrounds and synthetic turf fields.
8.	CPSC Staff Analysis and Assessment of Synthetic Turf "Grass Blades"
Consumer Product Safety Commission
The purpose of the study was to determine the total lead content and accessibility of the lead.
Methods:
•	Samples of synthetic turf at the time of installation and samples from when 1 field was dismantled.
•	Lead content of grass blades was determined using ICP.
•	Samples with detectable lead were tested for accessibility of lead.
•	For in-service fields, X-ray fluorescence was used to detect the presence of lead.
Study results and/or conclusions:
•	Synthetic turf lead content ranged from 0.09% to 0.96% and varied between the turfs and also within a field depending on
color.
•	The results for this set of tested synthetic turf fields show no case in which the estimated exposure for children playing on the
field would exceed 15 mg lead/day (according to the CPSC's recommendation for chronic lead ingestion not exceeding 15 mg
lead/day, daily).
Study Limitations:
•	Accuracy of wipe sampling method for estimating exposure to lead contact residue is unknown.
•	Dermal contact to skin with lead residue during a typical play event on a field was assumed.
•	Experimental wipe method overestimated transfer to a persons' bare skin by a factor of 5 to 13.
•	Bioavailability of lead from synthetic turf may not be the same as it is for the food and drink exposures that were the basis of
the dose-response.
-------
•	Staff did not make adjustments in the assessment to account for differences in lead content as fields can have areas with
different lead content (i.e. painted areas, etc.).
9.	Environmental-sanitary risk analysis procedure applied to artificial turf sports fields
B. Ruffino, S. Fiore, M. C. Zanetti; Environmental Science and Pollution Research; 2013.
The purpose of the study was to characterize chemicals in crumb rubber and assess their capacity to release the chemicals on
contact with water. The study also evaluated if the rubber granules may pose a risk to child and adult players via direct contact,
contact with rainwater soaking the field, or inhalation of dusts and gases released.
Methods:
•	Four sports turf fields with crumb rubber infill, 1 field with thermoplastic elastomer, and 1 natural turf field.
•	Field age varied from 1-3 years old.
•	Rubber and soil samples were analyzed for BTX (GC-MS), PAHs (8, GC-MS), and metals (18, ICO-OES).
•	In-water extractable compounds (BTX, PAHs, and metals) were analyzed.
•	Gases and dusts were collected immediately above the ground, close to the sports fields, and at a point in the center of the
city.
o Samples were analyzed for BTX (gases) and PAHs (dust).
Study results and/or conclusions:
•	Concentration of benzene is similarto those in the natural turf field.
•	Pyrene concentrations in synthetic turf are approximately 20 mg/kg and B(a)P concentrations were 10 mg/kg.
•	Zinc concentrations were substantially higher in synthetic turf compared to the natural turf sample; 115 times higher at the
synthetic turf field with the lowest percentage zinc.
•	The leaching tests identified higher BTX and PAHs in leachatesfrom new infill material was higher than the old infill materials.
•	For all turf fields examined and for all routes considered, the cumulative CR proved to be lower than 10-6 and the non-
carcinogenic risk (for the sum of COCs) lower than 1, in line with Italian guidelines.
•	Additionally, for the inhalation route, the inhalation of dust and gases from activity on artificial turf fields gave risk values less
than those due to inhalation of atmospheric dust and gases from vehicular traffic.
Study Limitations:
•	Some of the artificial turf fields were in various stages of age (the samples that were from newer fields had higher chemical and
metals concentrations than older fields).
•	Sample comparison was limited to one city's atmospheric dusts and gases and may not be the best representation of typical
vehicular dust and gases being emitted.
10.	Human Health Risk Assessment of Synthetic Turf Fields Based Upon Investigation of Five Fields in Connecticut
G. Ginsberg, B. Toal, N. Simcox, A. Bracker, B. Golembiewski, T. Kurland, C. Hedman; Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health,
Part A; 2011.
The purpose of the study was to develop a screening level risk assessment in which high-end assumptions for exposure were used
for uncertain parameters and surrogate data were employed for chemicals with inadequate toxicity information so that chemicals
did not fall out of the assessment on the basis of missing data.
Methods:
•	Personal air samples were taken from volunteers during 2-h sampling event at 5 artificial grass fields (4 outdoor and 1 indoor)
with crumb rubber infill.
•	Stationary air samples were also taken near the field.
•	Air samples were analyzed for VOCs (60), SVOCs (120, including 22 PAHs), lead, nitrosamines (7), and PM10.
Study results and/or conclusions:
•	10 VOCs were considered chemicals of potential concern (COPC) for the outdoor and fields and 13 VOCs for the indoor fields.
•	Personal monitoring results were higher for VOCs than the stationary sampling results.
•	The VOCs of potential concern were above background concentrations at only one of the outdoorfields (not the same field in
every case), except for toluene and hexane which were above background at two fields.
-------
•	Personal monitoring samples showed VOCs were 1.5-to-3-fold greater than background at outdoor fields, except methylene
chloride which was 12.8-fold higher.
•	Indoor VOCs detections tended to have greater elevations relative to background.
•	2 SVOCs were selected as COPC, benzothiazole (BTZ) and butylated hydroxytoluene (BHT).
•	BZT was above background at indoor and outdoor fields; max indoor result was 11.7-fold higher than max outdoor result.
•	BHT was detected at all fields and results were higher for stationary monitoring.
•	BHT is a COPC for the indoor field.
•	A variety of PAHs were detected above background but the concentrations were generally low (well below l^/m3).
•	Less volatile PAHs were detected in the outdoor field while the more volatile PAHs were found indoors but generally not
outdoors
•	Lead results were below the 300ppm target set by the CPSC for lead in products intended for children.
•	Based upon the findings, outdoor and indoor synthetic turf fields are not associated with elevated adverse health risks.
Study Limitations:
•	Small number of fields in the study.
•	Only one indoorfield was included in the study.
•	Some limitations in weather variables when taking samples at outdoor fields.
•	Small numberofsamplestaken perfield.
•	The study did not attempt to measure latex antigen in the crumb rubber or in the PM10 collected from on field air samples.
•	Some VOC detections in the personal monitoring may have originated in the device. Artificial Turf Football Fields:
Environmental and Mutagenicity Assessment
T. Schiliro, D. Traversi, R. Degan, C. Pignata, L. Alessandria, D. Scozia, R. Bono, G. Gilli; Archives of Environmental Contamination and
Toxicology; 2013.
The purpose of the study is to develop an environmental analysis drawing a comparison between artificial turf football fields and
urban areas relative to concentrations of particles (PM10 and PM2.5) and PAHs, BTEX, and mutagenicity of organic extracts from
PM10 and PM2.5.
Methods:
•	24 Air samples were taken from 6 football fields (5 were artificial turf) and 2 urban locations in 2 sampling events to study
influence of meteorological and seasonal conditions and the presence of play.
•	PM10, PM2.5, BTX (benzene, toluene and Xylene), and PAHs were measured in the air samples.
•	The mutagenicity of the organic extracts of the PM and PM2.5 samples were studied using the Ames test.
Study results and/or conclusions:
•	Air samples from the artificial turf field had no significant differences from the samples from the urban sites.
•	BTX concentrations at the urban site were significantly greater than on the turf fields.
•	Seasonal differences were also seen.
•	In regards to environmental monitoring, artificial turf fields present no worse exposure risks than those found in the city.
•	PAH concentrations, when detected, were low.
•	PAH concentrations were greater in the winterthan the summer.
•	B(a)P was present on the football fields during the winter sampling.
•	During the winter season sampling, PAHs, except anthracene, were often present on each football field and at the urban site.
•	The mutagenicity showed a seasonal trend and was greater on fields characterized by traffic and/or industrial emissions in the
surrounding area.
Study Limitations:
•	Urban locations used to compare field results might not be a good overall representation of urban areas in general.
•	Non-turf related environmental variables at both the fields and urban areas could be of influence.
Artificial-turf playing fields: Contents of metals, PAHs, PCBs, PCDDs and PCDFs, inhalation exposure to PAHs and related
-------
E. Menichini, V. Abate, L. Attias, S. De Luca, A. di Domenico, I. Fochi, G. Forte, N. lacovella, A. L. lamiceli, P. Izzo, F. Merli, B. Bocca;
Science of the Total Environment; 2011
The purpose of this study was to identify some potential chemical risks and to roughly assess the risk associated with inhalation
exposure to PAHs from materials used to make up artificial turf fields.
Methods:
•	Rubber granulates were collected from 13 Italian fields. For the 13 fields, samplings were performed at different positions in
the playground to obtain a representative sample for each area (see Bocca et al #4).
•	Rubber samples varied and included virgin thermoplastic, coated and uncoated recycled tires, recycled vulcanized rubber, and
recycled ground gaskets.
•	Samples were analyzed for 25 metals and 9 PAHs.
•	Air samples were collected on filter at two fields, using static and personal samplers, and at background locations outside the
fields.
Study results and/or conclusions:
•	High contents of Zn and benzo(a)pyrene were found in the granules present in playing fields (above the Italian standards for
soils).
•	Other chemicals such as PAHs, VOCs, PCBs, PCDDs and PCDFs were found in the recycled crumb rubber but were at levels
within the mentioned limits.
•	Based on the 0.4 ng/m3 concentration and using a worst-case conservative approach, an excess lifetime cancer risk of lx 10-6
was calculated for an intense 30-year activity (5h/d, 5d/w, all year long).
Study Limitations:
•	Only particle phase air samples were taken (TSP or PM10). So the inhalation exposure may be under-estimated for missing
information on contaminants in the gaseous phase.
•	Inhalation risk assessment was based on limited data and the risk assessment should be regarded as preliminary.
•	Fields may vary in age and type of rubber used which could affect the samples and chemicals found in them. Environmental
factors such as climate and weather could have an effect on study samples at the time of sampling.
12.	Characterization of substances released from crumb rubber material used on artificial turf fields
X. Li, W. Berger, C. Musante, M. I. Mattina; Chemosphere; 2010.
The purpose of the study was to assess major volatilized and leached chemicals from crumb rubber material (CRM); assess the
change of alteration of the pattern of volatile compounds with time after installation for both laboratory and field-aged samples
under natural weathering conditions.
Methods:
•	Vapor offgas and leachate samples from 15 crumb rubber material (CRM) samples were analyzed.
•	The CRM samples were obtained from local schools and commercial suppliers.
•	10 organic chemicals (PAHs and VOCs) were measured in the vapor phase over CRM.
Study results and/or conclusions:
•	During the vapor phase, CRM emitted volatile PAHs and other compounds.
•	Benzothiazole (BTZ) was the most abundant volatile compound found in all the samples.
•	Zinc was found to be the highest of all metals found in the samples' extraction fluid.
•	There was a significant reduction in volatile compounds found in samples that were from artificial turf fields that were 2 years
old compared to newer fields.
•	It was also determined that there is some variability in the out-gassing profile of CRM from different manufacturers.
Study Limitations:
•	This study provides mostly qualitative, not quantitative results, which makes the results difficult to compare to other studies.
13.	Toxicological Assessment of Coated Versus Uncoated Rubber Granulates Obtained from Used Tires for Use in Sports Facilities
J. Gomes, H. Mota, J. Bordado, M. Cadete, G. Sarmento, A. Ribeiro, M. Baiao, J. Fernandes, V. Pampulim, M. Custodio, I. Veloso;
Journal of the Air and Waste Management Association; 2012.
-------
The purpose of the study was to investigate whether coating rubber granulates decreased emissions of leachates and airborne
substances.
Methods:
•	Raw rubber granulates were obtained along with two coatings, a polyvinyl chloride and a cross-linked alquidic polymer, both
which contained color additives and a flame-retarding agent.
•	The coated rubber granulates were compared with the raw rubber granulates.
•	Chemicals analyzed:
o PM2.5 and PM10
o PAHs (16; GC-MS)
o Heavy metals (Cd, Cr, Hg, Pb, Sn, Zn; ICP-OES)
Study results and/or conclusions:
•	Rubber granulates obtained cryogenically and semicryogenically have lower inhalable particles than those obtained
mechanically
•	For PAHs in raw and coated samples, one type of coating resulted in increased content of some PAHs.
•	However, the leaching of PAHs from raw, R1 coated or R2 coated is negligible.
•	For heavy metals, the concentrations in the leachate is very small and the coating does appearto prevent leaching ofthe
metals.
•	Both R1 and R2 coatings showed lower ecotoxicity than the non-coated rubber granulates.
Study Limitations:
•	There are only two types of coating included in the analysis.
•	It is noted that one of the coatings include polyvinyl chloride which has been excluded from certain textile products due to
concerns over potential adverse health effects after human exposure.
14. Evaluating and Regulating Lead in Synthetic Turf
G. Van Ulirsch, K. Gleason, S. Gerstenberger, D. B. Moffett, G. Pulliam, T. Ahmed, and J. Fagliano; Environmental Health Perspectives;
2010
The purpose ofthe study was to present data showing elevated lead in fibers and turf-derived dust; identify risk assessment
uncertainties; recommend that government agencies determine appropriate methodologies for assessing lead in synthetic turf; and
recommend an interim standardized approach for sampling, interpreting results, and taking health-protective actions.
Methods:
•	This is a commentary on lead in synthetic turf, using data collected from recreational fields and child care centers on lead levels
in turf fibers and surface dusts.
Study results and/or conclusions:
•	Synthetic turf can deteriorate to form dust containing lead at levels that may pose a risk to children.
•	Given elevated lead levels in turf and dust on recreational fields and in child care settings, it is imperative that a consistent,
nationwide approach for sampling, assessment, and action be developed.
Study Limitations:
•	N/A. This is a commentary.
•	Updated guidelines/standards for lead in synthetic turf blades were released after publication ofthe article.
Biomonitoring Study
1. Hydroxypyrene in urine of football players after playing on artificial sports field with tire crumb infill
J. G. M. Van Rooij, F. J. Jongeneelen; International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health; 2010.
The purpose ofthe study was to assess the exposure of football players to PAHs from sporting on synthetic ground with rubber
crumb infill (by measuring urinary 1-hydroxypyrene).
-------
Methods:
•	All urine samples were collected over 3 days (the days before, of, and after a 2.5-h football match) from 7 football players.
•	1-Hydroxypyrene (PAH biomarker) was measured in urine.
Study results and/or conclusions:
•	The football players spent a total of 2.5 hours on the synthetic turf field.
•	Three players likely had PAH exposure from pre-sporting activities and were omitted from the analysis.
•	Uptake of PAH by football players playing on synthetic turf with rubber crumb infill is minimal.
•	If there is any exposure, then the uptake is very limited and within the range of uptake of PAH from environmental sources
and diet.
Study Limitations:
•	Only 7 football players were in the study. The sample size is too small to represent the target population.
•	Short exposure duration (2.5-h) and PAHsfrom other sources (such as diet) could have affected the player's results.
•	Dietary and lifestyle questionnaires were not administered.
Bioavailability Studies
1.	Bio-accessibility and Risk of Exposure to Metals and SVOCs in Artificial Turf Field Fill Materials and Fibers
B. T. Pavilonis, C. P. Weisel, B. Buckley, P. J. Lioy; Risk Analysis; 2014
The purpose of the study was to determine whether the bio-accessible fraction of metals and SVOCs found in artificial turf fields
exceeded non-cancerous risk-based guidance values for children and adult athletes.
Methods:
•	New crumb infill (n=9), new turf fiber products (n=8), and field samples (n=7) were collected.
•	Using synthetic biofluid solutions, bio-accessibility analyses for metals and SVOCs were performed forthe digestive system,
respiratory system, and dermal absorption.
Study results and/or conclusions:
•	PAHs were generally below the limit of detection in all three artificial biofluids.
•	SVOCs found were not present in toxicological databases evaluated and were in everyday consumer products.
•	Trace metals found were at minimal levels.
Study Limitations:
•	Possible selection bias and the small number of fields used in this study.
•	The simulated digestive fluid may not reflect accurately true digestive capabilities in humans.
•	A large amount of variability was found among the field samples used in this study (some samples may have been from older
fields or different versions/types of artificial turf).
2.	Health Risk Assessment of Lead Ingestion Exposure by Particle Sizes in Crumb Rubber on Artificial Turf Considering Bioavailability
S. Kim, J. Yang, H. Kim, I. Yeo, D. Shin, Y. Lim; Environmental Health and Toxicology; 2012.
The purpose of the study was to assess the risk of ingestion exposure of lead by particle sizes of crumb rubber in artificial turf filling
material with consideration of bioavailability
Methods:
•	Lead was measured using ICP-MS in the extracts of tire crumb particles of various size (larger or smaller than 250 um)
extracted using artificial digestive and acid extraction methods.
•	Average lead exposure amounts were calculated for students.
Study results and/or conclusions:
•	Lead was found in the digestion extracts of tire crumb material.
•	Acid extraction method resulted in lead concentrations 6.5 times higherthan content concentration.
•	Digestive extraction resulted in lead concentration 10.3 times higherthan content concentration.
-------
•	Results of this study confirm that the exposure of lead via ingestion and risk level increases as the particle size of crumb rubber
gets smaller.
Study Limitations:
•	It appears that only one type of crumb rubber was investigated.
•	There is uncertainty as to whether or not the EDPM rubber powder prototype used in the study is representative of the entire
artificial turf.
3. Hazardous chemicals in synthetic turf materials and their bio-accessibility in digestive fluids
J. Zhang, I. Han, L. Zhang, W. Crain; Journal of Exposure Science and Environmental Epidemiology; 2008.
The purpose of the study was to obtain data that will help assess potential health risks associated with chemical exposure from
artificial turf and to determine the bio-accessibility of PAHs and toxic metals in synthetic human saliva, gastric fluid and intestinal
fluid.
Methods:
•	Seven samples of rubber granules and one sample of artificial grass fiber from synthetic turf fields at different ages of the
fields.
•	PAHs (15) and metals (Cr, Zn, As, Cd, Pb; ICP-MS) were measured in the granule/grass fiber samples and synthetic digestive
fluids (saliva, gastric fluid, intestinal fluid).
Study results and/or conclusions:
•	Total PAHs ranged from 4.4ppm to 38.15ppm.
•	PAHs in rubber granules had low bio-accessibility (i.e., hardly dissolved) in synthetic saliva, gastric fluid, and intestinal fluid.
•	Rubber granules often contained PAHs at levels above health-based soil standards.
•	PAH levels declined as the field ages.
•	Decay trend may be complicated by adding new rubber granules to compensate for loss of the material.
•	Zinc contents were found to far exceed the soil limit, range 5710-9988.
•	Lead content was low in all the samples compared to soil standards.
•	Lead in the rubber granules was highly bioaccessible in the synthetic gastric fluid.
Study Limitations:
•	The digestive system is difficult to simulate, and the simulated digestive fluid may not accurately reflect true digestive
capability in humans.
Toxicological Studies
1. Toxicological Evaluation for the Hazard Assessment of Tire Crumb for Use in Public Playgrounds
D. A. Birkholz, K. L. Belton, T. L. Guidotti; Journal of the Air and Waste Management Association; 2012.
The purpose of the study was to design a comprehensive hazard assessment to evaluate and address potential human health and
environmental concerns associated with the use of tire crumb in playgrounds.
Methods:
•	200g tire crumbs were leached in water to produce the test leachate.
•	Genotoxicity was assessed using Salmonella typhimurium mutagenicity fluctuation assay, SOS chromotest, and Mutatox.
•	Human health concerns were addressed using conventional hazard analyses.
Study results and/or conclusions:
•	All samples analyzed did not meet the criteria for genotoxicity and were considered negative.
•	Genotoxicity testing of tire crumb samples following solvent extraction concluded that no DNA or chromosome-damaging
chemicals were present.
•	This suggests that ingestion of small amounts of tire crumb by small children will not result in an unacceptable hazard/risk for
development of cancer.
•	The use of tire crumb in playgrounds results in minimal hazard to children and the receiving environment.
-------
Study Limitations:
•	The authors of this study concentrated only on potential genotoxicity from the exposure to tire crumb material in playgrounds,
other adverse health effects that may be caused by other elements/compounds in the tire crumbs may have been overlooked.
2.	Benzothiazole toxicity assessment in support of synthetic turf field human health risk assessment
G. Ginsberg, B. Toal, T. Kurland; Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, Part A; 2011.
The purpose of the study was to assess benzothiazole (BZT) toxicity in support of a risk assessment of synthetic turf fields conducted
by the Connecticut Department of Public Health.
Methods:
•	The study reviewed the following information on BZT and its surrogate, 2-mercaptobenzothiazole (2MBZT), to derive BZT
toxicity values for cancer and non-cancer effects:
o properties and uses
o BZT exposure
o toxicokinetics of BZT and 2MBZT
o toxicity of BZT and 2MBZT with regard to acute toxicity, mutagenicity, subchronic and chronic toxicity and cancer,
developmental and reproductive effects
Study results and/or conclusions:
•	The following BZT toxicity values were derived:
o Acute air target of 110 ng/m3 based upon a BZT RD50 study in mice relative to results for formaldehyde,
o A chronic, noncancer target of 18 ng/m3 based upon the no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL) in a subchronic
dietary study in rats, dose route extrapolation, and uncertainty factors that combine to 1000.
o A cancer unit risk of 1.8E-07/^-m3 based upon a published oral slope factor for 2-MBZT and dose-route
extrapolation.
Study Limitations:
•	There were numerous uncertainties and limited information in the BZT toxicology database.
•	BZT was not tested in sub-chronic/ chronic studies, cancer bioassay, or developmental and reproductive studies.
•	Some endpoints were studied using 2-MBZT as a surrogate, which makes an imperfect comparison due to differences in
structure and metabolic pathways.
•	Only a screening-level assessment for BZT exposure.
•	The proposed toxicity values are for BZT in general, not specifically for BZT in synthetic turf.
3.	Evaluating the Risk to Aquatic Ecosystems Posed by Leachate from Tire Shred Fill in Roads Using Toxicity Tests, Toxicity
Identification Evaluations, and Groundwater Modeling
P.J. Sheehan, J.M. Warmerdam, S. Ogle, D. Humphrey, S. Patenaude; Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry; 2006.
The purpose of the study was to evaluate the toxicity of leachates from tire shreds used as roadbed fill and to define the
circumstances under which use of the tire shreds as roadbed fill, both above and below the water table, will pose a negligible hazard
to adjacent surface-water ecosystems.
Methods:
•	Shred infill obtained from two study sites, one above the water table and one at and below the water table. For this infill, tire
shreds contain a mixture of steel and glass belted scrap tires and substantial amounts of steel belts are exposed at the cut
edges.
•	Site #1 constructed in 1993 with 3 sample collection areas with precipitation infiltrating the road embankment and into
collection basins for sampling. There was one "control" basin without a tire shred layer.
•	Site #2 was constructed in 1994 and tire shreds come into direct contact with groundwater. Water samples were collected
from 3 wells: 1 upgradient, 1 within the trench with direct contact to tire shreds and 1 downgradient.
•	Leachates analyzed for metals, VOCs, and SVOCs.
•	Short-term chronic C. dubia test and short-term chronic fathead minnow test used to determine toxicity.
Study results and/or conclusions:
•	Site #1:
o No adverse effects on P. promelas survival or growth
-------
o Substantial reduction in C. dubia survival in phase 2 of the reference water likely due to high conductivity of the
leachate sample.
o Metals, VOCs and SVOCs were detected in two samples but the concentrations were low and not indicative of
leaching substantial amounts of chemicals.
Site #2:
o Slight reductions in P. promelas survival in both phase 1 and 2 of the reference sample,
o No impairment in survival seen in the two samples (at and down gradient).
o Significant reductions in growth seen for both the reference sample and the other two site samples,
o For C. dubia, > 80% mortality was seen in the leachate samples (phase 1); significant reductions in reproduction also
seen but reductions in reproduction were also seen in the reference samples,
o Elevated levels of some VOCs and metals (especially iron and manganese) indicated chemicals leach from shred fill;
however, the leaching of iron is likely from the steel belts exposed on the cut edge.
Study Limitations:
•	The type of infill used in road beds is quite different from the crumb rubber infill used in synthetic turf.
•	The modeling estimates used numerous different scenarios to determine amount of filtration needed which is not applicable
to studies investigating human exposure to chemicals synthetic turf.
Impact of tire debris on in vitro and in vivo systems
M. Gualteri, M. Andrioletti, P. Mantecca, C. Vismara, M. Camatini; Particle and Fibre Toxicology; 2005.
The purpose of the study was to investigate tire debris effects on the development of X. laevis and on human cell lines.
Methods:
•	Tire debris samples were obtained from laboratory processing using tire scrap materials.
•	Eluates were obtained after soaking in water (pH 3); organic extracts obtained and used for the cell line test (A549) and the
tests using X. laevis embryos
•	Cell viability assay and Comet assay were used to determine toxicity, doses 10, 50, 60, 75 iJg/mL
•	in vivo: X. laevis embryos were exposed to 50,80,100, 120 ng/mL organic extracts
Study results and/or conclusions:
•	A time-dependent increase of Zn in the human liver cell line was seen after treatment with 50^g/ml zinc at 2, 4, and 24 hours.
•	An increase in cell death was seen at the higher doses (50, 60, 75 iJg/ml) compared to controls.
•	Cell proliferation was decreased in a time and dose-dependent manner.
•	DNA damage increased at 50 and 60^/mL as shown by the comet assay.
•	Cell morphology was impacted after 72 hours treatment. The highest dose showed visible vacuolization in the cytoplasm and
apoptotic nuclear images; present in 50% of cells at 72 hours with 75^/ml treatment.
•	Zn concentration of 44.73^/ml (50 g/l tire debris) resulted in 80% mortality of embryos and a concentration of 35.28^/ml
(100 g/L tire debris) resulted in 26.8% mortality. Malformation was similar between the two doses. Dilutions of the organic
extracts showed significant increases at 1% for 44.73 and at 10% for 35.28.
•	The eluates had teratogenic effects for both doses.
•	ForX. laevis development, 80^g/ml and above resulted in significant mortality with 15.9% mortality at 120^g/mL.
•	Increase in malformed larvae found at 80 and 100^/mL; at 120 iJg/mL, 37.8% of larvae were malformed.
•	Most frequent malformation was gut roiling.
Study Limitations:
•	The type of sample used in the analysis (tire debris) is not the same type of tire material as seen in crumb rubber infill.
•	The analysis only looked at zinc and did not include other known contaminants of tire crumb/tire debris.
-------
Appendix B - Literature review of microbial work done on tire crumb rubber
artificial fields
Overall summary:
Most of the work in tire crumb rubber use in synthetic turf fields has focused on chemicals such as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
(PAH), metals, volatile organic carbons (VOCs), polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), or ecotoxicity work using sensitive bioindicators such
as Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata and Daphnia magna. There is a very limited amount of literature on health risks from biological
material (i.e., human pathogens) in tire crumb rubber artificial fields. Of the literature that does exist, most studies have been conducted
by academia, or published in open access journals, or by state government/environmental groups, and thus have not undergone thorough
peer review and therefore may show inherent bias. Regardless, most work has focused on quantifying total bacteria using non-selective
agar, reporting colony forming units per gram (CFU/g) of infill material. Additional work has been done on the ability of opportunistic
human pathogens (methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) and Burkholderia cepacia complex) to survive in tire crumb rubber
leachate, including toxicity to these bacteria due to chemicals such as zinc. There has been no work published on enteric pathogens/risks
from artificial turf fields.
1)	Keller, Marcus. "The fate of methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus in a synthetic field turf system." (2013).
This study looked the survivability of methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) on turf infill (rubber, sand, organic, or polymer
materials), and turf fibers (monofilament, slit-film or nylon turf blades), and the toxicity of infill materials to MRSA. MRSA was
measured as the incubation time in which 50% of the inoculated MRSA are still viable (A50). MRSA persisted longer in infill (A50 =
13hr) vs turf fibers (A50 = 4hr, p<0.05). A50 for crumb rubber was 13hr. The role of infill toxicity to the MRSA A50 was assessed using
a dialysis assay, which showed that 94% of MRSA cells remained viable following 6 h of exposure to organic infill, 91% for sands, 79%
for polymer coated materials, 71% for crumb rubber, 68% for TPE rubber, and 17% for EPDM rubber.
Conclusion: MRSA survived less in crumb rubber materials than other fill materials such as sand/organic.
2)	Miller, Suzanne CM, John J. LiPuma, and Jennifer L. Parke. "Culture-based and non-growth-dependent detection of the Burkholderia
cepacia complex in soil environments." Applied and environmental microbiology 68.8 (2002): 3750-3758.
This study looked at Burkholderia cepacia complex (Bcc) - an opportunistic human pathogen, in a variety of soils and other surfaces,
including turf athletic fields from 3 US cities (Philadelphia, Cleveland, Portland, OR). Bcc was not isolated from any turf samples (n=6).
Conclusion: using PCR, Bcc appears to be prevalent in soil from urban and suburban sites.
3)	A Survey of Microbial Populations in Infilled Synthetic Turf Fields. McNitt, Andrew, and Petrunak, Dianne. A Draft Report by
Faculty of the Center for Turfgrass Science at Penn State University. 2006.
Took samples from a couple of fields in PA, both crumb rubber and soil, specifically looking for MRSA and non-selective cultural
bacteria on R2A agar over a 2-week period in 2006. Total number of samples not provided. Sampled areas included a "high use" and "low
use" area of each field taking approx. 2-3mL sample of the crumb rubber, and cut fibers from synthetic fields. No samples were S. aureus
positive via selective media, gram stain or latex agglutination tests. Of the 8 fields that were tested with crumb rubber only, total culturable
bacteria from R2A agar averaged 3.971ogl0 CFU per gram of crumb rubber. Soil (silty loam and sand-based soil) samples (n=2) averaged
5.41ogl0 CFU/g soil. S. aureus was positively identified from other public areas and/or athletic facilities such as blocking pads, weight
equipment, stretching tables, and used towels.
Conclusion: lower counts of microbes were found indoors as opposed to outdoors, and soil fields had over an order of magnitude more
microbes than synthetic crumb-rubber fields.
4)	Safety Study of Artificial Turf Containing Crumb Rubber Infill Made From Recycled Tires: Measurements of Chemicals and
Particulates in the Air, Bacteria in the Turf, and Skin Abrasions Caused by Contact with the Surface. Report produced under contract by:
Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. Pesticide and Environmental Toxicology Branch. California Department of
Resources Recycling and Recovery. 2010.
Chapter 3: Sampled 5 artificial turf (soccer) fields with crumb rubber mixed with sand and 2 natural fields in San Francisco, CA in
September or October 2009 (all outdoor). l-2g of material was sampled per event, and each field was sampled 3 times in various areas.
The three most prominent species assay was used to quantify culturable bacteria in samples (agar not provided). Artificial turf (n=30)
ranged from 0-50,000 CFU per gram crumb rubber compared to 637,000-305,000,000 CFU/g natural soil (n=12). 2/12 and 6/12 samples
were positive for Staphylococci in crumb rubber and soil, respectively. No MRSA was detected in crumb rubber or synthetic blades of
grass; one sample (n=12) was positive for MRSA from a blade from natural turf.
Conclusion: Synthetic turfs, including crumb rubber, harbor fewer bacteria than soil, which, according to authors, could be due to lower
moisture content and high temperatures of artificial turf compared to natural turf.
Chapter 4: using a survey of 33 trainers from collegiate athletic programs in CA and NV, it was reported that athletes experienced ~2-3
times higher turf burn ratios compared to natural soil, but the severity of turf burns between soil and synthetic turfs remained similar.
-------
5)	Crampton, Mollee, et al. "Effects of leachate from crumb rubber and zinc in green roofs on the survival, growth, and resistance
characteristics of Salmonella enterica subsp. enterica serovar typhimurium." Applied and environmental microbiology 80.9 (2014): 2804-
2810.
This study investigated the impact of rainwater leachate from crumb rubber in green roofs on the growth of Salmonella enterica subsp.
enterica serovar Typhimurium ATCC 14208S. S. Typhimurium was incubated for up to 48hr in crumb rubber leachate from synthetic
rainwater (pH=4.3). When compared to a control of just synthetic rainwater incubation over the same time period, S. Typhimurium
survived less in crumb rubber leachate than the control, leading the authors to suggest that crumb rubber contains compounds that are
inhibitory to bacterial growth. Dilutions of the crumb rubber leachate showed increased survivability of the bacteria, supporting the idea
that crumb rubber contains compounds that are toxic to S. Typhimurium. The same crumb rubber extract was washed 10 separate times
with lOmL of synthetic rainwater. The leachate exhibited the same effects on microbial growth, with the authors concluding that the toxic
effects that crumb rubber are not expected to decrease with time and additional rainfall/washing events.
Conclusion: crumb rubber leachate contains compounds that inhibit microbial growth and survivability.
6)	Bass, Jason J., and David W. Hintze. "Determination of Microbial Populations in a Synthetic Turf System." Skyline-The Big Sky
Undergraduate Journal 1.1 (2013): 1. - Open access journal
This study took samples from 2 infilled crumb rubber fields, one 1-year old field and one 6-year old field over a 14-week period in late
fall/early winter in Ogden, Utah. Indoors/outdoors field information was not provided. Tryptic Soy Agar was used to determine total
microbial load, Mannitol Salt Agar for Staphylococcus, and Eosin Methylene Blue Agar to count the number of enteric organisms such as
Escherichia coli. Bacterial counts in the older field were up to 10,000 times higher than the newer field. Bacterial counts were highest on
the sideline of the older field with average of 1. 1x108 CFU/g soil infill compared to 2.5x105 CFU/g on the sideline of the newer field. A
higher number of salt-tolerant organisms were able to grow on MSA, indicating possible staphylococci, with an average of 2.77x102
CFUs per gram on the new field and 6.58x103 CFUs per gram on the older field.
Conclusion: bacterial populations are much higher in older fields and newer fields, and the sideline near the 50-yd line contained the
highest bacterial populations. This data suggests that microbial populations can accumulate from year to year in synthetic turf.
Below is less related to micro-related work, but focused on ecotoxicity of turf field leachates
7) Krtiger, O., et al. "New approach to the ecotoxicological risk assessment of artificial outdoor sporting grounds." Environmental
Pollution 175 (2013): 69-74.
Kruger et al., 2013 investigated growth inhibition (Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata) and acute toxicity tests (Daphnia magna) with
leachates obtained from batch tests of granular infill material and column tests of complete sporting ground assemblies. Ethylene
propylene diene monomer rubber (EPDM) leachate showed the highest effect on Daphnia magna (EC50 < 0.4% leachate) and the leachate
of scrap tires made of styrene butadiene rubber (SBR) had the highest effect on P. subcapitata (EC10 Vi 4.2% leachate; EC50 lA 15.6%
leachate). No correlations between ecotoxicity of leachates and zinc or polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) was found.
-------
Appendix C - EPA-NCEA Summary of Available Exposure and Health Risk
Assessment Studies on Artificial Turf, Playgrounds and Tire Crumbs
Summary of Available Exposure and Health Risk Assessment Studies on
Artificial Turf, Playgrounds and Tire Crumbs
Bulleted Summary
Artificial turf is made of plastic blades that simulate grass and a layer of "infill" material made of recycled tire crumb or
crumb rubber.
There are benefits to using these materials, but concerns have been raised by the public and others regarding health
issues associated with their use.
EPA formed a workgroup in 2008; performed a scoping study and published a report in 2009.
There are several studies found in the literature conducted by federal and state governments, academia, and industry.
The studies varied in scope ranging from studies focused on environmental concentrations found in air; concentrations of
the chemicals found in the bulk material; and health risk assessments. Some studies focused the inhalation pathway,
while others considered other pathways including ingestion and dermal exposures. Chemicals studied included VOCs,
SVOCs, PMio, and metals. Other studies examine the potential for environmental impacts, including leaching of metal
into waterways.
Federal and state government studies include:
>	Norwegian Institute of Public Health (2006) "Artificial turf pitches - an assessment of the health risks for football
players"
>	OEHHA 2007 "Evaluation of Health Effects of Recycled Waste Tires in Playground and Track Products"
>	CPSC 2008 "CPSC Staff Analysis and Assessment of Synthetic Turf Grass Blades"
>	New Jersey Department of Health and Senior Services (April 2008) "New Jersey Investigation of Artificial Turf and
Human Health Concerns; Fact Sheet"
>	New York Department of Health (2008) "A Review of the Potential Health and Safety Risks From Synthetic Turf Fields
Containing Crumb Rubber Infill"
>	New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene (March 2009) "Air Quality Survey of Synthetic Turf Fields
Containing Crumb Rubber Infill"
>	New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (May 2009) "An Assessment of Chemical Leaching.
Releases to Air, and Temperature at Crumb-Rubber Infilled Synthetic Turf Fields
>	EPA (2009) "A Scoping-Level Field Monitoring Study of Synthetic Turf Fields and Playgrounds"
>	Connecticut Department of Health (2010) "Human Health Risk Assessment of Artificial Turf Fields Based Upon Results
from Five Fields in Connecticut"
>	New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (July 2011) "An Evaluation of Potential Exposures to Lead and
Other Metals as the Result of Aerosolized Particulate Matter from Artificial Turf Playing Fields"
These studies concluded that there is no or limited health risk associated with the use of these materials. However, the
studies were limited in scope and not all of them carried out a complete exposure/risk assessment. There are
uncertainties associated with the assumptions used to derive these conclusions.
Some potential future activities can be undertaken including: reviewing additional reports and scientific literature;
examining the available data more closely; reviewing exposure assumptions; determine if an exposure/risk assessment
can be conducted with the available data; studying other factors that may influence exposure; identify key data gaps;
and assess the potential for microbiological exposures.
Background
Artificial turf is made of plastic blades that simulate grass and a layer of "infill" material to keep the blades upright. This
"infill" is made of recycled "tire crumb" or "crumb rubber" material. This artificial or synthetic turf is often used to cover
the surfaces of athletic field. Tire crumbs and crumb rubber are also used as groundcover under playground equipment,
running track material, and as a soil additive on sports and playing fields. Although use of these materials has been
recognized as beneficial (e.g., recycling, reduction of sports injuries), concerns have been raised by the public and others
-------
In 2005, EPA Region 8 Pediatric Environmental Health Specialty Unit (PEHSU) received telephone inquiries from parents
concerned about health risks to children exposed to a recycled tire crumb product used in fields and school playgrounds.
EPA Region 8 requested that the Agency consider this issue and a workgroup was formed and charged to consider the state
of science and make recommendations for future research. A second science workgroup was formed to consider available
methods to study the situation, and they recommended conducting a scoping study to assess approaches and methods, and to
provide limited measurement data for consideration. The workgroup produced a report entitled "Scoping-level Field
Monitoring Study of Synthetic Turf Fields and Playgrounds" published in 2009.
Over the years, there have been several published articles on the health concerns resulting from exposures to the materials
used in artificial turf. In October of 2014, a soccer coach reportedly suggested an association between cancer cases found in
soccer players and exposures to artificial turf. A list of 38 American soccer players (34 of them goalies) had been diagnosed
with cancer (http://www.nbcnews.com/news/investigations/how-safe-artificial-turf-your-child-plays-n2201661. In response
to the news report, a representative from FieldTurf, an artificial field turf company, requested a meeting with EPA to present
their views with regard to the safety of turf fields. A conference call was hosted by Michael Firestone of OCHP. FieldTurf
stated that scientific research from academia, federal and state governments has failed to find any link between synthetic turf
and cancer. More recently, in March 16, 2015, another news article in claimed that the federal government is promoting
artificial turf despite health concerns (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2015/03/15/artificial-turf-health-safety-
studies/24727111/1.
Several studies have been conducted on artificial turf and the use of tire crumb materials. Some focused primarily on
obtaining concentration data for various compounds that may off-gas from recycled tire materials, while others attempted to
estimate health risks associated with their use. There are also several studies that focus on characterizing the compounds
contained in bulk samples of artificial turf. Summarized below are the studies conducted by EPA, CPSC, and the states of
New York, Connecticut, and California. Included also is a study conducted in Norway. It is important to note that this list is
not comprehensive and focuses primarily on studies conducted by federal and state governments.
Norwegian Institute of Public Health (WIPED and the Radium Hospital 2006
NIPH conducted a health risk assessment of football players that played in artificial turf fields. They examined 9 scenarios
including: inhalation, dermal, and ingestion exposures (only for children) for adults, juniors, older children and children.
The assessment included various constituents in the tire crumb: VOCs, PAHs, phthalates, PCBs, PMio, and alkyl phenols.
The study was limited because of the absence of toxicity data. The study concluded that the use of artificial turf does not
cause any elevated health risk. The estimated Margins of Safety (MOS) were no cause for concern.
http://www.isss.de/conferences/Dresden%202006/Technica1/FHI%20Engelsk.pdf
OF 111 IA California study 2007
Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) conducted a risk assessment of the recycled waste tires in
playgrounds and track products in 2007. Their study included VOCs, SVOCs and metals. The pathways included in the risk
assessment were the ingestion of the tire crumbs via hand to mouth or surface to mouth and dermal contact. They concluded
that risk levels were below the di minimis level of 1 x 10~6.
http://www.caliecycle.ca.gov/publications/Documents/Tires%5C62206013.pdf
CPSC 2008
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission investigated the potential hazards from lead in some artificial turf sports
fields across the country. The study focused on ingestion of lead from the material that transfers to the mouth from the skin
after contact with the lead containing turf. The study concluded that exposure to children playing on the field would not
exceed 15 \ig of lead/day.
http://www.cpsc.gOv//PageFiles/104716/turfassessment.pdf
New Jersey Department of Health and Senior Services 2008
NJDHSS collected samples of artificial turf fibers from 12 fields. Ten fields with polyethylene fibers had very low Pb levels.
Two fields with nylon fibers had 3,400 to 4,100 mg/kg of Pb. In addition, they collected artificial turf samples from
consumer products that are used for residential lawns and play surfaces. Two of the products that were nylon or
nylon/polyethylene contained Pb at 4,700 and 3,500 mg/Kg. These concentrations higher than the Residential Direct
Contact Soil Cleanup Criteria (which is 400 mg/kg). "There is a need for a comprehensive and coordinated approach to
evaluating the public health risks and benefits of artificial turf fields." http://www.nj.gov/dep/dsr/publications/artificial-turf-
report.pdf
New York Department of Health Study 2008
In 2008, the NY Department of Health conducted a study where they reviewed data from 11 different risk assessments found
in the literature on exposures to artificial turf and concluded that the levels found of the contaminants of concern did not
result in an increased risk for human health effects as a result of ingestion, dermal or inhalation exposure to crumb rubber.
They stated, however, that additional air studies at synthetic turf fields as well as background air measurements would
-------
provide more representative data for characterizing potential exposures related to synthetic field use in NYC, particularly
among children.
http://www.nyc.gov/html/doh/dowloads/pdf/eode/turf_report	05-08.pdf
New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene March 2009
NYCDHMH conducted field sampling for VOCs, SVOCs, metals, particulate matter (PM2.5) in two synthetic fields, one
grass field. They used stationary samplers on field during simulate playing conditions. The sampling was conducted during
the summer under simulated playing conditions. Eight of the 69 VOC were detected, but concentrations were similar
between upwind background and turf fields. None of the SVOCs were detected, including benzothiozole a "chemical
marker" for synthetic rubber. Two of 10 metals were detected, but similar concentrations were found in upwind and grass
field. PM was within background levels upwind and at grass field. The report concluded that air in the breathing zones of
children above synthetic turf fields did not show appreciable levels from contaminants of potential concern contained in the
crumb rubber and that a risk assessment from exposure through the inhalation route was not warranted.
http://www.nyc.gov/html/doh/downloads/pdf/eode/turf_aqs_report0409.pdf
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation May 2009
In 2008, NYDEC conducted a laboratory evaluation of four types of tire-derived crumb rubber to assess the release of
chemicals using the simulated precipitation leaching procedure. Results indicated that zinc, aniline, phenol, and
benzothiazole can potentially be release to ground water. Zinc, aniline, phenol were all below standards; there are no
standards for benzothiazole. Lead concentration in the crumb rubber was below federal hazard standard for soil. Risk
assessment for aquatic life indicated that zinc may be a problem for aquatic life. Air samples were collected above fields at
two locations. Many of the analytes detected (e.g., benzene, 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene, ethyl benzene, carbon tetrachloride)
are commonly found in an urban environment. A number of analytes found were detected at low concentrations (e.g., 4-
methyl-2-pentanone, benzothiazole, alkane chains. Public health evaluation at the two fields tested concluded measured air
levels do not raise a concern for non-cancer or cancer human health Indicators. PM concentrations were not different from
concentrations upwind from the fields, http://www.dec.nv.gov/docs/materials minerals pdf/crumbrubfr.pdf
EPA 2009
The overall objectives of EPA's study were to evaluate the methodology and protocols for monitoring and analyzing data
needed to characterize the contribution of tire crumb constituents to environmental concentrations and to collect limited
environmental data from playgrounds and synthetic turf fields. EPA analyzed air samples for 56 volatile organic compounds
(VOCs), air particulate matter (PMio) for selected metals and the relative contribution of tire crumb particles to the overall
particle mass, wet surface wipe samples for metals including Pb, Cr, Zn, and others, and turf field tire crumb infill granules,
turf blades, and playground tire crumb materials for metals. The study protocol was implemented at two synthetic turf fields
and one playground. Conclusions: "On average, concentrations of components monitored in the study were below levels of
concern." Concentrations for many of the analytes were close to background levels. Due to the limitations of the study, the
authors concluded that "it is not possible to reach any more comprehensive conclusions without the consideration of
additional data." The study did not evaluate semivolatile organic compounds such as PAHs because of resource limitations.
No exposure or risk assessment was conducted by EPA. Potential exposure pathways include: ingestion of loose tire crumbs
via hand to mouth or surface to mouth; dermal contact; and inhalation exposures of VOCs and PMio.
http://www.epa.gov/nerl/features/tire	crumbs.html
Connecticut Department of Public Health study 2010
Connecticut Department of Public Health conducted a human health risk assessment of artificial turf in 2010. They collected
data from one indoor and four outdoor artificial turf fields. The study focused on two pathways, inhalation of offgassed and
particle-bound chemicals. The study included 27 chemicals (VOCs, SVOCs, lead and PMio). Using conservative
assumptions, Connecticut Department of Public Health Program found that cancer risks are slightly above de minimis in all
scenarios, and two fold higher at the indoor field compared to outdoors and being higher for children than adults. The non-
cancer risk estimate is below unity for all analytes in all scenarios.
http://www.ct.gov/deep/lib/deep/artificialturf/dph_artificial_turf_report.pdf
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection 2011
In 2009, NJDEP tested 5 artificial turf fields. They tested for PM and metals including Pb using wipe samples as well as
stationary sampling and mobile robot sampling. In addition, a 12 year old boy was recruited to simultaneously collect a
personal breathing zone sample. The age of the fields ranged between 1 and 8 years. The testing was done during the
summer time. No levels exceeded guidance or NAAQS values; robot air Pb value on one field was 71 ng/m3 (approx 50% of
NAAQS), remainder below 10 ng/m3
-------
Potential Future Activities
Review additional reports and scientific literature that may provide information on the chemical constituents in artificial
turf, and their bioavailability and toxicity, exposure pathways and factors, and potential human health risks.
Examine more closely all the available data, especially for indoor fields where inhalation exposures may be higher.
Determine if sufficient data exist to conduct an exposure/risk assessment with the available data. Given the uncertainties
with some of the exposure factors assumptions (e.g., amount of material ingested, exposure frequency), several "what if'
scenarios can be developed to determine for example the amount of material that would need to be ingested to exceed some
health level. If an assessment cannot be done, identify key data gaps.
Examine the exposure factor assumptions used by the studies in the literature to evaluate their "reasonableness."
Study other factors that may influence exposure levels; for example; the age of the fields, uncertainties about the amount of
material that can be inadvertently ingested, potential for dermal exposures, and exposure frequency and duration.
Examine the literature for microbiological exposures and risks from exposures to the materials in these fields and
playgrounds.
Other Potentially Useful Sources (not vet reviewed: not based on a comprehensive search)
Reports
CDEP (2010) (Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection). Artificial Turf Study: leachate and stormwater characteristics.
http://wmy.ct.goy/deep/lifa/deep/artificialliirf/dep artificial turf report.pdf
EHHI (2007) (Environment and Human Health, Inc.). Artificial Turf: exposures to ground-up rubber tires.
http://www.elihi.org/reports/turf/tiirf' report07.pdf
FDEP (1999) (Florida Department of Environmental Protection) Study of the suitability of ground rubber tire as a parking lot surface.
http://www.dep.state.fl.us/waste/quick topics/publications/sliw/lires/FCCJstudy.pdf
NYDEC (2008) (New York Department of Environmental Conservation) A study to assess potential environmental impacts from the use of
crumb runner as infill material in synthetic turf fields, http://www.dec .nY.gov/docs/niaterials minerals pdf/tirestudv.pdf
News, Websites, and Fact Sheets
CDEP (2010) (Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection). Recent news concerning artificial turf fields.
http://www.fieldturr.com/sitesyfieldturf/assets/Circular%20Ltr%202015~
02%20Con.necticut%20Reaffii-nis%20SafetY%20of%20Ai1ificial%20Tui-f.pdf
CPSC. CPSC Staffl Analysis and Assessment of Synthetic Turf "Grass Blades" http://www.cpsc.gOv//PageFiles/104716/turfassessment.pdf
CPSC (2008) Press release: CPSC Staff Finds Synthetic Turf Fields OK to Install, OK to Play On.
European Tyre and Rubber Association (2008) Rubber infilled artificial turf environmental and health risk assessment.
http://tools.elTnia.org/public/Pdf%20fToni%20Julv/PR/20080305 ETRMA - Synthesis on synthetic turf studies - final.txif
PEER.org. (2013) EPA retracts synthetic turf safety assurances, http://www.peer.org/news/news-release/2013/12/23/epa-relracts-synthetic-
lurf-safetv-assiirances
Soccer America (2015) Are tire crumbs on fields a cancer threat? http://www.socceramerica.coni/ailicle/62922/are-tire-ciiinibs-on-fields-a-
cancer-threat.html
USA Today (2014) Ground up tires give new meaning to synthetic turf. January 9, 2014.
http://www.usatoday.coni/story/sports/nfl/2014/01/09/ground-up-tires-svnthetic-turf-nietlifestadiuni/4395673/
USA Today (2015) Fed promote artificial turf as safe despite health concerns. March 17, 2015.
http://wwvy.usatoday.coni/storv/news/20f5/03/f5/artificial-turf-health-safetv-studies/24727f f 1/
US Army. Guidance on Lead in Artificial Turf Including Child Care Centers.
http://phc.amedd.armv.mil/PHC%20Resource%20Library/LeadArtificialTurfw-child%20care%20centers%20Mar%20f0.pdf
US EPA. Health and Environmental Concerns: Common wastes and materials: Playgrounds and synthetic turf fields.
http://www.epa.gov/solidwaste/conserva/materials/tires/health.htm
Scientific papers
Birkholz, DA; Belton, KL; Guidotti, TL (2003) Toxicological evaluation for the hazard assessment of tire crumb for use in public
-------
Bocca, B; Forte, G; Petrucci, F; Costantini, S; Izzo, P (2009) Metals contained and leached from rubber granulates used in synthetic turf
areas. Sci Total Environ 407:2183-2189. http://ac.els-cdn.eom/S0048969708012904/l-s2.0-S0048969708012904-maiii.pdf? tid=7Q225ce6-
cf0fa-l le4~91f'5~00000aafa0fDl&acclnat=1426861056 50bfc390clda7ac3d8644667757ce9d2
Cheng, H; Hu, Y; Reinhard, M (2014) Environmental and health impacts of artificial turf: a review. Environ Sci Technol 48(4): 2114-2129.
h ttp://pub s. acs. org/doi/pdf /10.1021 /es4044193
Claudio, L (2008) Synthetic turf: health debate takes root. Environ Health Persp 116(3): A116-A122.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2265Q67/pdl/ehpQl 16-a00116.pdf
Ginsberg, G; Toal, B; Simcox, N; Bracker, A; Golembiewski, B; Kurland, T; Hedman, C (201 la) Human Health Risk Assessment of
Synthetic Turf Fields Based Upon Investigation of Five
Fields in Connecticut, Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, Part A: Current Issues, 74:17, 1150-1174,
POLIO. 1080/15287394.2011.586942: http://dx.doi.oi-g/10.1080/15287394.2011.586942
Ginsberg, G; Toal, B; Kurland, T (201 lb) Benzothiazole Toxicity Assessment in Support of Synthetic Turf Field Human Health Risk
Assessment, Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, Part A: Current Issues, 74:17, 1175-1183, DOI:
10.1080/15287394.2011.586943: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15287394.2011.586943
Kim, S; Yang, J; Kim, H; Yeo, Y; Shin, D; Lim, Y (2005) Health Risk Assessment of Lead Ingestion Exposure by Particle Sizes in Crumb
Rubber on Artificial Turf Considering Bioavailability. Environmental Health and Toxicology, Volume: 27, Article ID: e2012005: 10 pages
http://dx.doi.org/10.5620/eht.2012.27.e2012005 elSSN 2233-6567 http://www.ncbi.nlm.iiih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3278598/pdf/eht-27-
e2012005 .pdf
Li, X; Berger, W; Musante, C; Incorvia Mattina, MJ (2010) Characterization of substances released from crumb rubber material used on
artificial turf fields. Chemosphere 80: 279-285.
Menichini, E; Abate, V; Attias, L; De Luca, S; di Domenico, A; Fochi, I; Forte, G; Iacovella, N; Iamiceli, L; Izzo, P; Merli, F; Bocca, B
(2011) Artificial-turf playing fields: Contents of metals, PAHs, PCBs, PCDDs and PCDFs, inhalation exposure to PAHs and related
preliminary risk assessment. Sci Total Environ 409(23):4950-4957. http://ac.els-cdii.com/S004896971100760l/l-s2.0~
SO048969711007601 -main.pdf? tid=lb9c79f6-cf09-lle4-a4eb-0Q0Q0aabQf5c&acdnat=1426860055 3acl79a31ccd83f208bl390edfd80cl5
Pavilonis, BT; Weisel, CP; Buckley, B; Lioy, PJ (2014) Bio-accessibility and Risk of Exposure to Metals and SVOCs in Artificial Turf
Field Fill Materials and Fibers. Risk Analysis.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4Q38666/pdf/nihms565643.pdf
Schiliro, T; Traversi, D; Degan, R; Pignata, C; Alessandria, L; Scozia, D; Bono, R.; Gilli, G(2012) Artificial turf football fields:
environmental and mutagenicity assessment. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol. 64(1): 1-11. doi: 10.1007/s00244-012-9792-1. Epub 2012 Sep
25 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/230Q7896
Simcox, NJ; Bracker, A; Ginsberg, G; Toal, B; Golembiewski, B; Kurland, T; Hedman, C (2011) Synthetic Turf Field Investigation in
Connecticut, Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, Part A: 74:17, 1133-1149, DOI: 10.1080/15287394.2011.586941;
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15287394.2011.586941
Zhang, J; Han, I; Zhang, L; Crain, W (2008) Hazardous chemicals in synthetic turf materials and their bioaccessibility in digestive fluids. J
Exposure Sci Environ Epidemiol 18:600-607. http://www.nature.com/ies/ioumal/vl8/n6/pdf/ies2QQ855a.pdf
Websites
http://www.nycgovparks.org/news/reports/synthetic-turf-tests
-------
Appendix D - EPA Library Literature Search Results
Literature Search Results
February 2016
Summary
Subject: Health effects associated with exposure to tire crumbs or artificial turf fields
Databases searched: ProQuest Environmental Science Collection, Web of Science,
ScienceDirect, Google Scholar
Number of citations: 55
Search terms:
"crumb rubber" OR "tire crumb"
AND
(field or infill or turf)
AND
(exposure or risk or toxic*)
Anderson, M. E., et al. (2006). "A Case Study of Tire Crumb Use on Playgrounds: Risk Analysis and Communication
When Major Clinical Knowledge Gaps Exist." Environmental Health Perspectives 114(1): 1 -3.
Physicians and public health professionals working with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Region 8
Pediatric Environmental Health Specialty Unit (PEHSU) received several telephone calls requesting information
regarding the safety of recycled tire crumb as a playground surface constituent placed below children's play
structures. There were no reported symptoms or adverse health effects in exposed children. The literature
available on the safety and risk of exposure to crumb rubber constituents was limited and revealed no
information quantifying exposures associated with product use. Callers were informed by the PEHSU that no
evidence existed suggesting harm from intended use of the product, but gaps in knowledge about the product
were identified and communicated. Here the case of crumb rubber on playgrounds is used as a model to present
an approach to similar environmental medicine questions. From defining the question, to surveying traditional
-------
and nontraditional resources for information, synthesis of findings, and risk communication, the case provides a
model to approach similar questions. Already on our list.
Aoki, T. (2011). "Current State and Perspective for Artificial Turf as Sport Environment: Focusing on Third-
generation Artificial Turf as Football Playing Surface." - This paper was added to our list.
Beausoleil, M., et al. (2009). "Chemicals in outdoor artificial turf: a health risk for users." Public Health Branch,
Montreal Health and Social Services Aqency.faccessed 2015 April 221. http://www. ncceh.
ca/sites/default/files/Outdoor Artificial Turf, pdf. Already on our list.
Birkholz, D. A, et al. (2003). "Toxicological evaluation for the hazard assessment of tire crumb for use in public
playgrounds." Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association 53(7): 903-907.
Disposal of used tires has been a major problem in solid waste management. New uses will have to be found to
consume recycled tire products. One such proposed use is as ground cover in playgrounds. However, concern
has been expressed regarding exposure of children to hazardous chemicals and the environmental impact of
such chemicals. We designed a comprehensive hazard assessment to evaluate and address potential human
health and environmental concerns associated with the use of tire crumb in playgrounds. Human health concerns
were addressed using conventional hazard analyses, mutagenicity assays, and aquatic toxicity tests of extracted
tire crumb. Hazard to children appears to be minimal. Toxicity to all aquatic organisms (bacteria, invertebrates,
fish, and green algae) was observed; however, this activity disappeared with aging of the tire crumb for three
months in place in the playground. We conclude that the use of tire crumb in playgrounds results in minimal
hazard to children and the receiving environment. Already on our list.
Bocca, B., et al. (2009). "Metals contained and leached from rubber granulates used in synthetic turf areas."
Science of the Total Environment 407(7): 2183-2190.
The aim of this study was to quantify metals contained in and leached from different types of rubber granulates
used in synthetic turf areas. To investigate the total content of metals, ca 0.5 g of material was added with HN03,
HF and HCI04 and microwave digested with power increasing from 250 W to 600 W. Leachates were prepared by
extraction of about 5.0 g of material at room temperature for 24 h in an acidic environment (pH 5). Leaching with
deionized water was also performed for comparison. Aluminium, As, Ba, Be, Cd, Co, Cr, Cu, Hg, Fe, Li, Mg, Mn,
Mo, Ni, Pb, Rb, Sb, Se, Sn, Sr, Tl, V, W and Zn were quantified by high-resolution inductively coupled plasma mass
spectrometry (HR-ICP-MS) and ICP optical emission spectrometry (ICP-OES). Results indicated that the developed
method was accurate and precise for the multi-element characterization of rubber granulates and leachates. The
total amount and the amount leached during the acidic test varied from metal to metal and from granulate to
granulate. The highest median values were found for Zn (10,229 mg/kg), Al (755 mg/kg), Mg (456 mg/kg), Fe
(305 mg/kg), followed by Pb, Ba, Co, Cu and Sr. The other elements were present at few units of mg/kg. The
highest leaching was observed for Zn (2300 (j.g/1) and Mg (2500 (j.g/1), followed by Fe, Sr, Al, Mn and Ba. Little As,
Cd, Co, Cr, Cu, Li, Mo, Ni, Pb, Rb, Sb and V leached, and Be, Hg, Se, Sn, Tl and Wwere below quantification limits.
Data obtained were compared with the maximum tolerable amounts reported for similar materials, and only the
concentration of Zn (total and leached) exceeded the expected values. Already on our list.
Brown, D. "Artificial Turf: Exposures to Ground-up Rubber Tires." - This is the same as EHHI2007 which is
already on our list.
Cheng, H., et al. (2014). "Environmental and Health Impacts of Artificial Turf: A Review." Environmental Science &
Technology 48(4): 2114-2129.
With significant water savings and low maintenance requirements, artificial turf is increasingly promoted as a
replacement for natural grass on athletic fields and lawns. However, there remains the question of whether it is
an environmentally friendly alternative to natural grass. The major concerns stem from the infill material that is
typically derived from scrap tires. Tire rubber crumb contains a range of organic contaminants and heavy metals
that can volatilize into the air and/or leach into the percolating rainwater, thereby posing a potential risk to the
environment and human health. A limited number of studies have shown that the concentrations of volatile and
semivolatile organic compounds in the air above artificial turf fields were typically not higher than the local
-------
background, while the concentrations of heavy metals and organic contaminants in the field drainages were
generally below the respective regulatory limits. Health suggested that users of artificial turf fields, even
professional athletes, were not exposed to elevated risks. Preliminary life cycle assessment suggested that the
environmental impacts of artificial turf fields were lower than equivalent grass fields. Areas that need further
research to better understand and mitigate the potential negative environmental impacts of artificial turf are
identified. Already on our list.
Claudio, L. (2008). "Synthetic Turf Health Debate Takes Root." Environmental Health Perspectives 116(3): A116-
122. Already on our list.
Dorsey, M. J., et al. (2015). "Mutagenic Potential of Artificial Athletic Field Crumb Rubber at Increased
Temperatures." The Ohio Journal of Science 115(2). This paper was added to our list.
Drakes, M. C., et al. (2013). "Synthetic playing surfaces and athlete health." Journal of the American Academy of
Orthopaedic Surgeons 21 (5): 293-302. - This paper was added to our list, but it is not suitable. It addresses
injuries to athletes.
Ginsberg, G„ et al. (2011). "BENZOTHIAZOLE TOXICITY ASSESSMENT IN SUPPORT OF SYNTHETIC TURF FIELD
HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT." Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health-Part a-Current Issues
74(17): 1175-1183.
Synthetic turf fields cushioned with crumb rubber may be a source of chemical exposure to those playing on the
fields. Benzothiazole (BZT) may volatilize from crumb rubber and result in inhalation exposure. Benzothiazole has
been the primary rubber-related chemical found in synthetic turf studies. However, risks associated with BZT have
not been thoroughly assessed, primarily because of gaps in the database. This assessment provides toxicity
information for a human health risk assessment involving BZT detected at five fields in Connecticut. BZT exerts
acute toxicity and is a respiratory irritant and dermal sensitizer. In a genetic toxicity assay BZT was positive in
Salmonella in the presence of metabolic activation. BZT metabolism involves ring-opening and formation of
aromatic hydroxylamines, metabolites with mutagenic and carcinogenic potential. A structural analogue 2-
mercaptobenzothiazole (2-MBZT) was more widely tested and so is used as a surrogate for some endpoints. 2-
MBZT is a rodent carcinogen with rubber industry data supporting an association with human bladder cancer.
The following BZT toxicity values were derived: (1) acute air target of 110 mu g/m(3) based upon a BZT RD(50)
study in mice relative to results for formaldehyde; (2) a chronic noncancer target of 18 mu g/m(3) based upon the
no-observed-adverse-effect level (NOAEL) in a subchronic dietary study in rats, dose route extrapolation, and
uncertainty factors that combine to 1000; (3) a cancer unit risk of 1.8E-07/mu g-m(3) based upon a published oral
slope factor for 2-MBZT and dose-route extrapolation. While there are numerous uncertainties in the BZT
toxicology database, this assessment enables BZT to be quantitatively assessed in risk assessments involving
synthetic turf fields. However, this is only a screening-level assessment, and research that better defines BZT
potency is needed. Already on our list.
Ginsberg, G„ et al. (2011). "HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT OF SYNTHETIC TURF FIELDS BASED UPON
INVESTIGATION OF FIVE FIELDS IN CONNECTICUT." Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health-Part a-
Current Issues 74(17): 1150-1174.
Questions have been raised regarding possible exposures when playing sports on synthetic turf fields cushioned
with crumb rubber. Rubber is a complex mixture with some components possessing toxic and carcinogenic
properties. Exposure is possible via inhalation, given that chemicals emitted from rubber might end up in the
breathing zone of players and these players have high ventilation rates. Previous studies provide useful data but
are limited with respect to the variety of fields and scenarios evaluated. The State of Connecticut investigated
emissions associated with four outdoor and one indoor synthetic turf field under summer conditions. On-field
and background locations were sampled using a variety of stationary and personal samplers. More than 20
chemicals of potential concern (COPC) were found to be above background and possibly field-related on both
indoor and outdoor fields. These COPC were entered into separate risk assessments (1) for outdoor and indoor
fields and (2) for children and adults. Exposure concentrations were prorated for time spent away from the fields
and inhalation rates were adjusted for play activity and for children's greater ventilation than adults. Cancer and
noncancer risk levels were at or below de minimis levels of concern. The scenario with the highest exposure was
-------
children playing on the indoor field. The acute hazard index (HI) for this scenario approached unity, suggesting a
potential concern, although there was great uncertainty with this estimate. The main contributor was
benzothiazole, a rubber-related semivolatile organic chemical (SVOC) that was 14-fold higher indoors than
outdoors. Based upon these findings, outdoor and indoor synthetic turf fields are not associated with elevated
adverse health risks. However, it would be prudent for building operators to provide adequate ventilation to
prevent a buildup of rubber-related volatile organic chemicals (VOC) and SVOC at indoor fields. The current
results are generally consistent with the findings from studies conducted by New York City, New York State, the
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and Norway, which tested different kinds of fields and under a
variety of weather conditions. Already on our list.
Gomes, J., et al. (2010). "Toxicological Assessment of Coated versus Uncoated Rubber Granulates Obtained from
Used Tires for Use in Sport Facilities." Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association 60(6): 741 -746.
Reuse of tire crumb in sport facilities is currently a very cost-effective waste management measure. Considering
that incorporation of the waste materials in artificial turf would be facilitated if the rubber materials were already
colored green, coatings were specifically developed for this purpose. This paper presents an experimental
toxicological and environmental assessment aimed at comparing the obtained emissions to the environment in
terms of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), heavy metals, and ecotoxicity for coated and noncoated
rubber granulates. This study is a comprehensive evaluation of the major potential critical factors related with the
release of all of these classes of pollutants because previous studies were not systematically performed. It was
concluded that between the two types of coatings tested, one is particularly effective in reducing emissions to
the environment, simultaneously meeting the requirements of adherence and color stability. Already on our
list
Groenevelt, P. H. and P. E. Grunthal (1998). "Utilisation of crumb rubber as a soil amendment for sports turf." Soil
and Tillage Research 47(1-2): 169-172.
In Canada, the Province of Ontario generates about ten million waste tires per year. According to 1991
government statistics less than 20% of these tires are recycled, some of which are granulated to produce crumb
rubber. An innovation application for this secondary resource is as an efficient, economical and environmentally
sound soil amendment. A rubber crumb-based soil amendment can enhance the physical properties of soils
susceptible to the negative effects of compaction. Highly compacted sports fields require constant aeration to
maintain a healthy and safe playing surface. Rubber crumb adds resiliency to sports turf. Standard United States
Golf Association tests revealed that admixtures containing 20% or less crumb rubber maintained recommended
total porosity values. Field tests showed that 10-20% crumb rubber significantly reduced surface hardness.
Analysis of metals, VOC's and BNA extractable compounds from admixture leachate revealed no deleterious
effects to the environment due to inclusion of rubber crumb in turfgrass root zones. This paper was added to
our list.
Haering, S. A. (2012). "Alexandria Health Department."
This memorandum provides information regarding the infill material used in synthetic turf fields in the City
of Alexandria - This is a memo; not suitable for this effort.
Johns, D. M. (2008). "Initial evaluation of potential human health risks associated with playing on synthetic turf
fields on Bainbridge Island." Windward Environmental LLC .Already on our list.
Johns, D. M. and T. Goodlin (2008). "Evaluation of Potential Environmental Risks Associated with Installing
Synthetic Turf Fields on Bainbridge Island." Seattle, Washington: Windward Environmental LLC. This paper was
added to our list.
Kim, H.-H., et al. (2012). "Health Risk Assessment for Artificial Turf Playgrounds in School Athletic Facilities: Multi-
route Exposure Estimation for Use Patterns." Asian Journal of Atmospheric Environment 6(3): 206-221. This
paper was added to our list.
Kim, S., et al. (2012). "Health risk assessment of lead ingestion exposure by particle sizes in crumb rubber on
artificial turf considering bioavailability." Environmental health and toxicology 27: e2012005-e2012005.
-------
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to assess the risk of ingestion exposure of lead by particle sizes of
crumb rubber in artificial turf filling material with consideration of bioavailability. METHODS: This study estimated
the ingestion exposure by particle sizes (more than 250 um or less than 250 um) focusing on recyclable ethylene
propylene diene monomer crumb rubber being used as artificial turf filling. Analysis on crumb rubber was
conducted using body ingestion exposure estimate method in which total content test method, acid extraction
method and digestion extraction method are reflected. Bioavailability which is a calibrating factor was reflected in
ingestion exposure estimate method and applied in exposure assessment and risk assessment. Two methods
using acid extraction and digestion extraction concentration were compared and evaluated. RESULTS: As a result
of the ingestion exposure of crumb rubber material, the average lead exposure amount to the digestion
extraction result among crumb rubber was calculated to be 1.56*10(-4) mg/kg-day for low grade elementary
school students and 4.87*10(-5) mg/kg-day for middle and high school students in 250 um or less particle size,
and that to the acid extraction result was higher than the digestion extraction result. Results of digestion
extraction and acid extraction showed that the hazard quotient was estimated by about over 2 times more in
particle size of lower than 250 |_im than in higher than 250 |_im. There was a case of an elementary school student
in which the hazard quotient exceeded 0.1. CONCLUSIONS: Results of this study confirm that the exposure of
lead ingestion and risk level increases as the particle size of crumb rubber gets smaller. Already on our list.
Kruger, O., et al. (2013). "New approach to the ecotoxicological risk assessment of artificial outdoor sporting
grounds." Environmental Pollution 175: 69-74.
Artificial surfaces for outdoor sporting grounds may pose environmental and health hazards that are difficult to
assess due to their complex chemical composition. Ecotoxicity tests can indicate general hazardous impacts. We
conducted growth inhibition (Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata) and acute toxicity tests (Daphnia magna) with
leachates obtained from batch tests of granular infill material and column tests of complete sporting ground
assemblies. Ethylene propylene diene monomer rubber (EPDM) leachate showed the highest effect on Daphnia
magna (EC50 & It; 0.4% leachate) and the leachate of scrap tires made of styrene butadiene rubber (SBR) had the
highest effect on P. subcapitata (EC10 = 4.2% leachate; EC50 = 15.6% leachate). We found no correlations
between ecotoxicity potential of leachates and zinc and PAH concentrations. Leachates obtained from column
tests revealed lower ecotoxicological potential. Leachates of column tests of complete assemblies may be used
for a reliable risk assessment of artificial sporting grounds. Already on our list.
Li, X., et al. (2010). "Characterization of substances released from crumb rubber material used on artificial turf
fields." Chemosphere 80(3): 279-285.
Crumb rubber material (CRM) used as infill on artificial turf fields can be the source of a variety of substances
released to the environment and to living organisms in the vicinity of the CRM. To assess potential risks of major
volatilized and leached substances derived from CRM, methods were developed to identify organic compounds
and elements, either in the vapor phase and/or the leachate from CRM. A qualitative method based on solid
phase micro-extraction (SPME) coupled with gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (GC-MS) was developed to
identify the major volatile and semi-volatile organic compounds out-gassing from CRM samples under defined
laboratory conditions. Direct vapor phase injection into the GC-MS was applied for the quantitative analysis. Ten
organic compounds were identified in the vapor phase by the SPME method. Volatile benzothiazole (BT) was
detected at the highest level in all commercial CRM samples, in the range 8.2-69 ng g-1 CRM. Other volatile
PAHs and antioxidants were quantified in the vapor phase as well. A decrease of volatile compounds was noted
in the headspace over CRM samples from 2-years-old fields when compared with the virgin CRM used at
installation. An outdoor experiment under natural weathering conditions showed a significant reduction of out-
gassing organic compounds from the CRM in the first 14 d; thereafter, values remained consistent up to 70 d of
observation. Zinc was the most abundant element in the acidified leachate (220-13 000 |ag g-1), while leachable
BT was detected at relatively low amounts. Already on our list.
Li, X., et al. (2010). "Corrigendum to "Characterization of substances released from crumb rubber material used on
artificial turf fields" [Chemosphere 80 (3) (2010) 279-2851." Chemosphere 80(11): 1406-1407. Already on our
list.
Lioy, P. J., et al. "UMDNJ-EOHSI Crumb Infill and Turf Report-October 31, 2011." Already on our list.
-------
Lioy, P. J. and C. P. Weisel (2008). "Artificial turf: safe or out on ball fields around the world." Journal of Exposure
Science and Environmental Epidemiology 18(6): 533-534. Already on our list.
Llompart, M., et al. (2013). "Hazardous organic chemicals in rubber recycled tire playgrounds and pavers."
Chemosphere 90(2): 423-431. Already on our list.
Marsili, L., et al. (2015). "Release of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons and Heavy Metals from Rubber Crumb in
Synthetic Turf Fields: Preliminary Hazard Assessment for Athletes." Journal of Environmental & Analytical
Toxicology 5(2): 1-8.
Synthetic turf, made with an infill of rubber crumb from used tyres or virgin rubber, is now common in many
sporting facilities. It is known that it contains compounds such as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) and
heavy metals. The researchers evaluated in nine samples of rubber crumb the total content of some heavy metals
(Zn, Cd, Pb, Cu, Cr, Ni, Fe) normally found in tyres by microwave mineralization and the levels of the 14 US EPA
priority PAHs by Soxhlet extraction and HPLC analysis. The results showed high levels of PAHs and zinc in all
rubber crumb samples compared to rubber granulate limits set by Italian National Amateur League. Finally, the
aim of this study was to estimate the hazard for athletes inhaling PAHs released at the high temperatures this
synthetic turf may reach. Then a sequence of proofs was carried out at 60 degrees Celsius, a temperature that this
rubber crumb can easily reach in sporting installations, to see whether PAH release occurs. Already on our list.
Mattina, M. I., et al. (2007). "Examination of crumb rubber produced from recycled tires." The Connecticut
Agricultural Experiment Station, New Haven, CT. Available online at: http://www. ct.
gov/caes/lib/caes/documents/publications/fact sheets/examinationofcru mbrubberac005. pdf. Accessed on
12(10): 07. Already on our list as Incorvia Mattina.
Menichini, E., et al. (2011). "Artificial-turf playing fields: Contents of metals, PAHs, PCBs, PCDDs and PCDFs,
inhalation exposure to PAHs and related preliminary risk assessment." Science of the Total Environment 409(23):
4950-4957.
The artificial-turf granulates made from recycled rubber waste are of health concern due the possible exposure of
users to dangerous substances present in the rubber, and especially to PAHs. In this work, we determined the
contents of PAHs, metals, non-dioxin-like PCBs (NDL-PCBs), PCDDs and PCDFs in granulates, and PAH
concentrations in air during the use of the field. The purposes were to identify some potential chemical risks and
to roughly assess the risk associated with inhalation exposure to PAHs. Rubber granulates were collected from 13
Italian fields and analysed for 25 metals and nine PAHs. One further granulate was analysed for NDL-PCBs,
PCDDs, PCDFs and 13 PAHs. Air samples were collected on filter at two fields, using respectively a high volume
static sampler close to the athletes and personal samplers worn by the athletes, and at background locations
outside the fields. In the absence of specific quality standards, we evaluated the measured contents with respect
to the Italian standards for soils to be reclaimed as green areas. Zn concentrations (1 to 19 g/kg) and BaP
concentrations (0.02 to 11 mg/kg) in granulates largely exceeded the pertinent standards, up to two orders of
magnitude. No association between the origin of the recycled rubber and the contents of PAHs and metals was
observed. The sums of NDL-PCBs and WHO-TE PCDDs + PCDFs were, respectively, 0.18 and 0.67 x 10- 5 mg/kg.
The increased BaP concentrations in air, due to the use of the field, varied approximately from < 0.01 to 0.4
ng/m3, the latter referring to worst-case conditions as to the release of particle-bound PAHs. Based on the 0.4
ng/m3 concentration, an excess lifetime cancer risk of 1 x 10- 6 was calculated for an intense 30-year activity.
Already on our list.
Moretto, R. (2007). "Environmental and health assessment of the use of elastomer granulates (virgin and from
used tyres) as filling in third-generation artificial turf." EEDEMS (Ademe, Aliapur, Fieldturf Tarkett. Already on our
list.
Mota, H., et al. (2009). "Coated rubber granulates obtained from used tyres for use in sport facilities: A
toxicological assessment." Ciencia & Tecnologia dos Materials 21 (3-4): 26-30. This paper was added to our list.
Pavilonis, B. T., et al. (2014). "Bioaccessibility and Risk of Exposure to Metals and SVOCs in Artificial Turf Field Fill
Materials and Fibers." Risk Analysis 34(1): 44-55.
-------
To reduce maintenance costs, municipalities and schools are starting to replace natural grass fields with a new
generation synthetic turf. Unlike Astro-Turf, which was first introduced in the 1960s, synthetic field turf provides
more cushioning to athletes. Part of this cushioning comes from materials like crumb rubber infill, which is
manufactured from recycled tires and may contain a variety of chemicals. The goal of this study was to evaluate
potential exposures from playing on artificial turf fields and associated risks to trace metals, semi-volatile organic
compounds (SVOCs), and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) by examining typical artificial turf fibers (n =
8), different types of infill (n = 8), and samples from actual fields (n = 7). Three artificial biofluids were prepared,
which included: lung, sweat, and digestive fluids. Artificial biofluids were hypothesized to yield a more
representative estimation of dose than the levels obtained from total extraction methods. PAHs were routinely
below the limit of detection across all three biofluids, precluding completion of a meaningful risk assessment. No
SVOCs were identified at quantifiable levels in any extracts based on a match of their mass spectrum to
compounds that are regulated in soil. The metals were measurable but at concentrations for which human health
risk was estimated to be low. The study demonstrated that for the products and fields we tested, exposure to
infill and artificial turf was generally considered de minimus, with the possible exception of lead for some fields
and materials. Already on our list.
Rhodes, E. P., et al. (2012). "Zinc leaching from tire crumb rubber." Environmental Science & Technology 46(23):
12856-12863. Already on our list.
Ruffino, B., et al. (2013). "Environmental-sanitary risk analysis procedure applied to artificial turf sports fields."
Environmental Science and Pollution Research International 20(7): 4980-4992.
Owing to the extensive use of artificial turfs worldwide, over the past 10 years there has been much discussion
about the possible health and environmental problems originating from styrene-butadiene recycled rubber. In
this paper, the authors performed a Tier 2 environmental-sanitary risk analysis on five artificial turf sports fields
located in the city of Turin (Italy) with the aid of RISC4 software. Two receptors (adult player and child player) and
three routes of exposure (direct contact with crumb rubber, contact with rainwater soaking the rubber mat,
inhalation of dusts and gases from the artificial turf fields) were considered in the conceptual model. For all the
fields and for all the routes, the cumulative carcinogenic risk proved to be lower than 10Asup -6A and the
cumulative non-carcinogenic risk lower than 1. The outdoor inhalation of dusts and gases was the main route of
exposure for both carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic substances. The results given by the inhalation pathway
were compared with those of a risk assessment carried out on citizens breathing gases and dusts from traffic
emissions every day in Turin. For both classes of substances and for both receptors, the inhalation of atmospheric
dusts and gases from vehicular traffic gave risk values of one order of magnitude higher than those due to
playing soccer on an artificial field. [PUBLICATION ABSTRACT] Already on our list.
Schiliro, T., et al. (2013). "Artificial Turf Football Fields: Environmental and Mutagenicity Assessment." Archives of
Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 64(1): 1-11.
The public has recently raised concerns regarding potential human health and environmental risks associated
with tire crumb constituents in the artificial turf of football fields. The aim of the present study was to develop an
environmental analysis drawing a comparison between artificial turf football fields and urban areas relative to
concentrations of particles (PM10 and PM2.5) and related polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), aromatic
hydrocarbons (BTXs), and mutagenicity of organic extracts from PM10 and PM2.5. No significant differences were
found between PM10 concentrations at an urban site and on a turf football field, both during warm and in cold
seasons, either with or without on-field activity. PM2.5 concentrations were significantly greater at the urban site
in the cold season as was the ratio of PM2.5 to PM10. BTXs were significantly greater at urban sites than on turf
football fields on both on warm and cold days. The ratio of toluene to benzene (T/B ratio) was always comparable
with that of normal urban conditions. The concentration of PAHs on the monitored football fields was
comparable with urban levels during the two different sampling periods, and the contribution of PAHs released
from the granular material was negligible. PM10 organic extract mutagenicity for artificial turf football fields was
greater, whereas PM2.5 organic extract mutagenicity was lower, compared with the urban site studied. However,
both organic extract mutagenicity values were comparable with the organic extract mutagenicity reported in the
literature for urban sites. On the basis of environmental monitoring, artificial turf football fields present no more
exposure risks than the rest of the city. Already on our list.
-------
Simcox, N. J., et al. (2011). "SYNTHETIC TURF FIELD INVESTIGATION IN CONNECTICUT." Journal of Toxicology and
Environmental Health-Part a-Current Issues 74(17): 1133-1149.
The primary purpose of this study was to characterize the concentrations of volatile organic compounds (VOC),
semivolatile organic compounds (SVOC), rubber-related chemicals such as benzothiazole (BZT) and nitrosamine,
and particulate matter (PM(10)) in air at synthetic turf crumb rubber fields. Both new and older fields were
evaluated under conditions of active use. Three types of fields were targeted: four outdoor crumb rubber fields,
one indoor facility with crumb rubber turf, and an outdoor natural grass field. Background samples were
collected at each field on grass. Personal air sampling was conducted for VOC, BZT, nitrosamines, and other
chemicals. Stationary air samples were collected at different heights to assess the vertical profile of release. Air
monitoring for PM(10) was conducted at one height. Bulk samples of turf grass and crumb rubber were analyzed,
and meteorological data were recorded. Results showed that personal concentrations were higher than stationary
concentrations and were higher on turf than in background samples for certain VOC. In some cases, personal
VOC concentrations from natural grass fields were as high as those on turf. Naphthalene, BZT, and butylated
hydroxytoluene (BHT) were detected in greater concentration at the indoor field compared to the outdoor fields.
Nitrosamine air levels were below reporting levels. PM(10) air concentrations were not different between on-field
and upwind locations. All bulk lead (Pb) samples were below the public health target of 400 ppm. More research
is needed to better understand air quality at indoor facilities. These field investigation data were incorporated
into a separate human health risk assessment. Already on our list.
Simon, R. (2010). "Review of the impacts of crumb rubber in artificial turf applications." University of California,
Berkeley, Laboratory for Manufacturing and Sustainability, prepared for The Corporation for Manufacturing
Excellence (Manex). - This paper was added to our list.
Sullivan, J. P. (2006). "An assessment of environmental toxicity and potential contamination from artificial turf
using shredded or crumb rubber." Ardea Consulting 43. Already on our list.
van Rooij, J. G. and F. J. Jongeneelen (2010). "Hydroxypyrene in urine of football players after playing on artificial
sports field with tire crumb infill." International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health 83(1): 105-
110.
Artificial sports fields are increasingly being used for sports. Recycled rubber from automotive and truck scrap
rubber tires are used as an infill material for football grounds. There are concerns that football players may be at
risk due to exposure from released compounds from rubber infill. Compounds from crumb infill may be inhaled
and dermal exposure may occur. A study was performed to assess the exposure of football players to polycyclic
aromatic hydrocarbons due to sporting on synthetic ground with rubber crumb infill. In this study, football
players were trained and had a match on the artificial turf pitch during 2.5 h. They had an intensive skin contact
with rubber infill. All urine of seven nonsmoking football players was collected over a 3-day period, the day
before sporting, the day of sporting and the day after sporting. Urine samples were analyzed for 1-
hydroxypyrene. Confounding exposure from environmental sources and diet was controlled for. The individual
increase of the amount of excretion over time was used as a measure to assess the uptake of PAH. It appeared
that the baseline of excreted 1-hydroxypyrene in 4 of 7 volunteers was sufficient stable and that 1 volunteer out
of 4 showed after the 2.5-h period of training and match on the playground an increase in hydroxypyrene in
urine. However, concomitant dietary uptake of PAH by this volunteer was observed. This study provides evidence
that uptake of PAH by football players active on artificial grounds with rubber crumb infill is minimal. If there is
any exposure, than the uptake is very limited and within the range of uptake of PAH from environmental sources
and/or diet. [PUBLICATION ABSTRACT] Already on our list.
Zhang, J., et al. (2008). "Hazardous chemicals in synthetic turf materials and their bioaccessibility in digestive
fluids." Journal of Exposure Science and Environmental Epidemiology 18(6): 600-607.
Many synthetic turf fields consist of not only artificial grass but also rubber granules that are used as infill. The
public concerns about toxic chemicals possibly contained in either artificial (polyethylene) grass fibers or rubber
granules have been escalating but are based on very limited information available to date. The aim of this
research was to obtain data that will help assess potential health risks associated with chemical exposure. In this
small-scale study, we collected seven samples of rubber granules and one sample of artificial grass fiber from
synthetic turf fields at different ages of the fields. We analyzed these samples to determine the contents
-------
(maximum concentrations) of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and several metals (Zn, Cr, As, Cd, and
Pb). We also analyzed these samples to determine their bioaccessible fractions of PAHs and metals in synthetic
digestive fluids including saliva, gastric fluid, and intestinal fluid through a laboratory simulation technique. Our
findings include: (1) rubber granules often, especially when the synthetic turf fields were newer, contained PAHs
at levels above health-based soil standards. The levels of PAHs generally appear to decline as the field ages.
However, the decay trend may be complicated by adding new rubber granules to compensate for the loss of the
material. (2) PAHs contained in rubber granules had zero or near-zero bioaccessibility in the synthetic digestive
fluids. (3) The zinc contents were found to far exceed the soil limit. (4) Except one sample with a moderate lead
content of 53 p.p.m., the other samples had relatively low concentrations of lead (3.12-5.76 p.p.m.), according to
soil standards. However, 24.7-44.2% of the lead in the rubber granules was bioaccessible in the synthetic gastric
fluid. (5) The artificial grass fiber sample showed a chromium content of 3.93 p.p.m., and 34.6% and 54.0%
bioaccessibility of lead in the synthetic gastric and intestinal fluids, respectively. Already on our list.
-------
Appendix F - Constituents List
Analyte
Synonym(s)
CAS#
Aluminum

7429-90-5
Antimony

7440-36-0
Arsenic

7440-38-2
Barium

7440-39-3
Beryllium

7440-41-7
Cadmium

7440-43-9
Calcium

7440-70-2
Chloride

16887-00-6
Chromium

7440-47-3;
16065-83-1 (Crlll);
18540-29-9 (CrVI)
Cobalt

7440-48-4
Copper

7440-50-8
Iron

7439-89-6
Lead

7439-92-1
Lithium

7439-93-2
Magnesium

7439-95-4
Manganese

7439-96-5
Mercury

7439-97-6
Molybdenum

7439-98-7
Nickel

7440-02-0
Phosphorous

7723-14-0
Potassium

7440-09-7
Rubidium

7440-17-7
Selenium

7782-49-2
Silver

7440-22-4
Sodium

7440-23-5
Strontium

7440-24-6
Sulfur

7704-34-9
Thallium

7440-28-0
Tin

7440-31-5
Titanium

7440-32-6
Tungsten

7440-33-7
Vanadium

7440-62-2
Zinc

7440-66-6
Cadmium and Zinc Soaps


Acenaphthene

83-32-9
Acenaphthylene

208-96-8
Acetaldehyde
Ethanone
75-07-0
Acetamide, N-cyclohexyl-

1124-53-4
Acetone

67-64-1
Acetone-diphenylamine condensation product (ADPA)


Acetonitrile

75-05-8
Acetophenone

98-86-2
6-Acetoxy-2,2-dimethyl-m-dioxane
Dimethoxane
828-00-2
Acrolein

107-02-8
Alcohols
Ethanol
64-17-5
Aldehydes


Alkyl benzenes


Alkyl dithiols


Alkyl naphthalenes


Alkyl phenols


Alpha pinene
alpha-Pinene
80-56-8
-------
Analyte
Synonym(s)
CAS#
Amine (N-dialkyl analine derivative)


Amines


Anathrene


Aniline
Benzeneamine; aminobenzene
62-53-3
Anthanthrene

191-26-4
Anthracene

120-12-7
Aromatic oil


9,10-Anthracenedione, 2-ethyl
2-Ethylanthracene-9,10-dione
84-51-5
Azobenzene

103-33-3
Benz(e)acenaphthylene
Acephenanthrylene
201-06-9
Benzaldehyde, 3-hydroxyl-4-methoxy
3-Hydroxy-4-methoxy-benzaldehyde
621-59-0
Benz(a)anthracene

56-55-3
Benzene

71-43-2
Benzene, l,3-bis(l-methylethenyl)-
l,3-bis(l-methylethenyl)benzene; 1,3-
Diisopropenylbenzene
3748-13-8
Benzene, l,4-bis(l-methylethenyl)-
l,4-Bis(l-methylethenyl)benzene
1605-18-1
1,4-Benzenediamine, N,N'-diphenyl-
N,N'-Diphenyl-p-phenylenediamine
74-31-7
1,4-Benzendiamin, N-(l-methylethyl)-N'-phenyl-, (IPPD)
N-lsopropyl-N'-phenyl-p-phenylenediamine,
Isopropylaminodephenylamine (IPPD)
101-72-4
Benzene, isocyanato-
Phenyl isocyanate
103-71-9
Benzenemethanol
Benzyl alcohol
100-51-6
Benzo(def)dibenzothiophene
Phenanthro[4,5-bcd]thiophene
30796-92-0
Benzo(g)dibenzothiophene


Benzo(b)fluoranthene

205-99-2
Benzo(bjk)fluoranthene
2,ll-(Metheno)benzo[a]fluorene

Benzo(ghi)fluoranthene
Benzo[ghi]fluoranthene,
203-12-3
Benzo(i)fluoranthene
Benzo(j)fluoranthene
205-82-3
Benzo(k)fluoranthene

207-08-9
Benzo(mno)fluoranthene


Benzo(a)fluorene
llH-Benzo[a]fluorene
238-84-6
Benzo(b)fluorene
2,3-Benzofluorene
243-17-4
Benzo(def)naphthobenzothiophene


6H-Benzo[cd]pyren-6-one
6H-Benzo(cd)pyren-6-one
3074-00-8
Benzo(a)pyrene

50-32-8
Benzo(e)pyrene

192-97-2
Benzo(ghi)perylene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
191-24-2
Benzoic acid

65-85-0
Benzothiazole

95-16-9
Benzothiazole, 2-(methylthio)
2-(Methylthio)benzothiazole
615-22-5
Benzothiazole, 2-phenyl
2-Phenylbenzothiazole
883-93-2
Benzothiazolone
2-Hydroxybenzothiazole, 2(3H)-Benzothiazolone, 2(3H)
benzothiazolone
934-34-9
Benzoyl and other peroxides


Benzylbutyl phthalate
Butyl benzyl phthalate
85-68-7
Biphenyl
1, l'-Biphenyl
92-52-4
l,l'-Biphenyl, 4, 4', 5', 6'-tetramethoxy-


(N,N'-Bis(l,4-dimethylpentyl)pphenylendiamine) (7PPD)
N,N'-Bis(l,4-dimethylpentyl)-4-phenylenediamine
3081-14-9
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
Di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
117-81-7
Bis-(2,2,6,6-tetramethyl-4-piperidinyl)sebacate
Bis(2,2,6,6-tetramethyl-4-piperidyl) sebacate
52829-07-9
Bisthiol acids


Black rubber


Bromodichloromethane

75-27-4
Bromoform

75-25-2
Butadiene oligomers


Butoxyethoxyethanol
2-(2-Butoxyethoxy)ethanol, diethylene glycol monobutyl
ether
112-34-5
Butylated hydroxyanisole

25013-16-5
Butylated hydroxytoluene
2,6-Di-tert-butyl-4-methylphenol (BHT)
128-37-0
Butylbenzene

104-51-8
Caprolactam disulfide (CLD)
l,l'-Disulfanediyldiazepan-2-one
23847-08-7
-------
Analyte
Synonym(s)
CAS#
Carbazole

86-74-8
Carbon Black
Furnace Black
1333-86-4
Carbon Disulfide

75-15-0
Carbon Tetrachloride

56-23-5
Chlorobenzene

108-90-7
Chloroform
Trichloromethane
67-66-3
Chloromethane
Methyl chloride
74-87-3
Chrysene

218-01-9
Coronene

191-07-1
o-Cyanobenzoic acid
2-Cyanobenzoic acid
3839-22-3
Cyclohexanamine
Cyclohexylamine
108-91-8
Cyclohexanamine, N-cyclohexyl-
Dicyclohexylamine
101-83-7
Cyclohexanamine, N-cyclohexyl-N-methyl-
N-Cyclohexyl-N-methylcyclohexanamine
7560-83-0
Cyclohexane

110-82-7
Cyclohexane, isocyanato
Isocyanatocyclohexane
3173-53-3
Cyclohexane, isothiocyanato-

1122-82-3
Cyclohexanone

108-94-1
N-Cyclohexyl-2-benzothiazolesulfenamide (CBS)
N-Cyclohexyl-2-benzothiazolesulfenamide
95-33-0
n-Cyclohexyl-formamide
N-Cyclohexylformamide; Formamide, N-cyclohexyl
766-93-8
Cycloninasiloxane, octadecamethyl-
Octadecamethylcyclononasiloxane
556-71-8
Cyclopenta[cd]pyrene

27208-37-3
4H-cyclopenta[def]phenanthren-4-one
4H-Cyclopenta(def)phenanthren-4-one
5737-13-3
4H-cyclopenta[def]-phenanthrene
4-H-Cyclopenta(d,e,f)phenanthrene
203-64-5
Cyclopentane, methyl-
Methylcyclopentane
96-37-7
Decane

124-18-5
Diazoaminobenzenes


Dibenzo(a,h) anthracene
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
53-70-3
Dibenzofurane
Dibenzofuran
132-64-9
Dibenzo(ae)pyrene
Naphtho(l,2,3,4-def)chrysene
192-65-4
Dibenzo(ai)pyrene
Dibenzo[a,i]pyrene
189-55-9
Dibenzo(ah)pyrene
Dibenzo[a,h]pyrene
189-64-0
Dibenzothiophene

132-65-0
Dibutyl phthalate

84-74-2
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
p-dichlorobenzene
106-46-7
Dichlorodifluoromethane
Freon 12
75-71-8
1,2-Dichloroethane
Ethylene dichloride
107-06-2
cis-l,2-Dichloroethene
(Z)-l,2-Dichloroethylene
156-59-2
1,2-Dichloropropane

78-87-5
N,N-Dicyclohexyl-2-benzothiazolesulfenamide (DCBS)
N,N-Dicyclohexyl-2-benzothiazolesulfenamide
4979-32-2
Dicyclohexylphthalate (DCHP)
Dicyclohexyl phthalate
84-61-7
1,3-Dicyclohexylurea
N,N'-Dicyclohexylurea
2387-23-7
Diethenylbenzene
Divinylbenzene
1321-74-0
Di(2-ethylhexyl) adipate
Hexanedioic acid, bis(2-ehtylhexyl); Bis(2-
ethylhexyl)hexanedioic acid
103-23-1
Diethyl phthalate

84-66-2
Diethylthiourea (DETU)
N,N'-Diethylthiourea
105-55-5
Dihydrocyclopentapyrene
2,3-Acepyrene
25732-74-5
Diisobutyl phthalate

84-69-5
Diisodecylphthalate
bis(8-Methylnonyl) phthalate
89-16-7
Diisononyl phthalate
DINP
28553-12-0
9,I0-Dimethyl-1,2-Benzanthracene
7,12-Dimethylbenz(a)anthracene
57-97-6
(N-l,3-dimethyl-butyl)-N'- phenyl-p-phenylenediamine (6PPD)
N-(l,3-Dimethylbutyl)-N'-phenyl-p-phenylenediamine
793-24-8
Dimethyldiphenylthiuram disulfide (MPTD)
Dimethyldiphenylthiuram disulfide
53880-86-7
2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene

581-42-0
2,4-Dimethylphenol

105-67-9
Dimethyl phthalate

131-11-3
Dinitroarenes


Di-n-octyl phthalate
Dioctyl phthalate
117-84-0
Di-ortho-tolylguanidine

97-39-2
-------
Analyte
Synonym(s)
CAS#
Dipentamethylenethiuramtetrasulfide (DPTT)
Bis(pentamethylenethiuram)tetrasulfide
120-54-7
Diphenylamine

122-39-4
N,N'-Diphenylguanidine (DPG)
1,3-Diphenylguanidine
102-06-7
N,N'-Diphenyl-p-phenylenediamine (DPPD)
N,N'-Diphenyl-p-phenylenediamine
74-31-7
Disulfides


Di-(2-ethyl)hexylphosphorylpolysulfide) (SDT)
Bis-(ethylhexylthiophosphoryl) polysulfide

3,5-Di-tert-Butyl-4-hydroxybenzaldehyde

1620-98-0
2,2'-Dithiobis(benzothiazole)
2,2'-Dithiobisbenzothiazole
120-78-5
Dithiocarbamates


Dithiomorpholine (DTDM)
4,4'-Dithiodimorpholine
103-34-4
Dithiophosphates


N,N'-Ditolyl-p-phenylenediamine (DTPD)
N,N'-Ditolyl-p-phenylenediamine
27417-40-9
Docosanoic acid

112-85-6
Dodecanoic acid

143-07-7
Dotriacontane

544-85-4
Drometrizol
2-(2H-Benzotriazol-2-yl)-4-methylphenol
2440-22-4
Eicosane

112-95-8
Erucylamide
Erucamide
112-84-5
Esters


Ethanol, 2-butoxy-
2-Butoxyethanol
111-76-2
Ethanol, l-(2-butoxyethoxy)
l-(2-Butoxyethoxy)ethanol
54446-78-5
Ethanone, l,l'-(l,3-phenylene)bis-
Benzene-l,3-bis(acetyl)
6781-42-6
Ethanone, l,l'-(l,4-phenylene)bis-
l,l-(l,4-Phenylene)bis-ethanone
1009-61-6
Ethanone, l-[4-(l-methylethenyl)phenyl]-
l-[4-(l-Methylethenyl)phenyl]ethanone
5359-04-6
Ethyl Acetate

141-78-6
Ethyl benzene
Ethylbenzene
100-41-4
Ethyl benzene aldehyde
Benzaldehyde, 2-ethyl-
22927-13-5
Ethylene thiourea (Ethylene thiourea)

96-45-7
2-Ethyl-l-hexanol

104-76-7
l-Ethyl-4-Methyl Benzene
4-Ethyltoluene
622-96-8
Fluoranthene

206-44-0
Fluorene

86-73-7
Formaldehyde

50-00-0
Furan, 2-methyl
2-Methylfuran
534-22-5
2(3H)-Furanone,dihydro-4-hydroxy-
Dihydro-4-hydroxy-2(3H)-furanone; beta-
Hydroxybutyrolactone
5469-16-9
Guanidines


Halocarbon 11
Trichlorofluoromethane, Trichloro-fluoromethane, Freon
11
75-69-4
Hemeicosane


Heptadecane

629-78-7
Heptane

142-82-5
Heptanonitrile
Heptanenitrile
629-08-3
Hexacosane

630-01-3
Hexadecane

544-76-3
Hexa(methoxymethyl)melamine
N,N,N',N',N",N"-Hexakis(methoxymethyl)-l,3,5-triazine-
2,4,6-triamine
3089-11-0
Hexamethylenetetramine
Methenamine
100-97-0
Hexane
n-Hexane
110-54-3
Hexanedioic acid, methyl ester
Methyl hexanedioate
627-91-8
Hexanoic acid, 2-ethyl-
2-Ethylhexanoic acid
149-57-5
Hydrocarbon (olefin/aromatic)


7-Hydroxybenzo[f]flavone
7-Hydroxy-3-phenyl-lH-naphtho[2,l-b]pyran-l-one
86247-95-2
1-Hydroxypyrene

5315-79-7
lndeno[l,2,3-cd]pyrene
o-Phenylenepyrene
193-39-5
lH-isoindole-1,3 (2H)-dione
Phthalimide
85-41-6
iso-nonylphenol
3-Nonylphenol
11066-49-2
Isophorone

78-59-1
Isopropyl Alcohol
2-Propanol, Isopropanol
67-63-0
Isopropylbenzene
Cumene
98-82-8
-------
Analyte
Synonym(s)
CAS#
Isopropyltoluene
l-Methyl-2-(propan-2-yl)benzene
527-84-4
Ketones


Latex protein


Limonene

138-86-3
MEK
Methyl ethyl ketone
78-93-3
2-Mercaptobenzothiazole

149-30-4
Methane, diethoxy-cyclohexane
Diethoxycyclohexanemethane; Bis(cyclohexyloxy)methane
1453-21-0
Methyl Alcohol
Methanol
67-56-1
2-Methylanthracene

613-12-7
2-Methyl-Butane
2-Methylbutane
78-78-4
2,2-Methylene-bis-(4-methyl-6-tert-butylphenol) (BPH)

119-47-1
Methylene Chloride
Dichloromethane
75-09-2
5-Methyl-2-hexanone
Methyl isoamyl ketone
110-12-3
1-Methylnaphthalene

90-12-0
2-Methylnaphthalene

91-57-6
3-Methyl-Pentane
3-Methylpentane
96-14-0
4-Methyl-2-pentanone
MIBK
108-10-1
1-Methylphenanthrene
1-Methyl phenanthrene
832-69-9
2-Methylphenanthrene

2531-84-2
3-Methylphenanthrene

832-71-3
9-Methylphenanthrene

883-20-5
2-Methylphenol
o-Cresol
95-48-7
4-Methylphenol
p-Cresol
106-44-5
MES (special purified aromatic oil)


2-(4-morpholino)benzothiazole
2-morpholinothio benzothiazole (MBS); Morpholinothio-
benzothiazole; N-Oxydiethylenebenzothiazole-2-
sulfenamide
102-77-2
2-Morpholinodithiobenzothiazole (MBSS)
2-(Morpholin-4-yldithio)-l,3-benzothiazole
95-32-9
Naphthalene

91-20-3
Naphthalene, 2-(bromomethyl)-
2-Bromomethylnaphthalene
939-26-4
Naphthalic Anhydride
lH,3H-Naphtho(l,8-cd)pyran-l,3-dione
81-84-5
Napthenic oil


Nitro compound (isomer of major peak)


Nitro compound (nitro-ether derivative)


Nitrogen containing substances


Nitrosodibutylamine (n-)
N-Nitrosodibutylamine
924-16-3
Nitrosodiethylamine (n-)
N-Nitrosodiethylamine
55-18-5
Nitrosodimethylamine (n-)
N-Nitrosodimethylamine
62-75-9
n-Nitrosodiphenylamine
N-Nitrosodiphenylamine
86-30-6
Nitrosodipropylamine (n-)
N-Nitrosodipropylamine
621-64-7
Nitrosomorpholine (n-)
N-Nitrosomorpholine
59-89-2
Nitrosopiperidine (n-)
N-Nitrosopiperidine
100-75-4
Nitrosopyrrolidine (n-)
N-Nitrosopyrrolidine
930-55-2
Nonadecane

629-92-5
Nonanale
Nonanal
124-19-6
Nonane

111-84-2
4-n-nonylphenol
4-Nonylphenol
104-40-5
Octadecanoic acid, methyl ester
Methyl stearate
112-61-8
Octane

111-65-9
4-t-octylphenol
4-(l,l,3,3-Tetramethylbutyl)phenol, 4-tert-(octyl)-phenol
140-66-9
Optadecane


Organicthiola and sulfides


Orthocarbonate - Carboxy compound)


N-Oxydiethylenedithiocarbamyl-N'-oxydiethylenesulfenamide
(OTOS)

13752-51-7
PAHs
Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons

Parrafinic oils
Mineral oil
8012-95-1
PCB sum


-------
Analyte
Synonym(s)
CAS#
PCDD/F sum


Pentacosane

629-99-2
Pentane

109-66-0
Perylene

198-55-0
Petroleum Naphtha
Naphtha
8030-30-6
Phenalone
Phenalen-l-one
548-39-0
Phenanthrene

85-01-8
1-Phenanthrenecarboxylic acid, 1,2,3,4,4
1,2,3,4,4-1-Phenanthrene carboxylic acid; Dehydroabietic
acid
1740-19-8
Phenol
2,4-Di-tert-butylphenol
108-95-2
Phenolics


Phenol, 2,4-bis(l,l-dimethylethyl)-

96-76-4
Phenol, 2,4-bis(l-methyl-l-phenylethyl)-
2,4-Bis(l-methyl-l-phenylethyl)phenol
2772-45-4
Phenol, m-tert-butyl-
3-tert-Butylphenol
585-34-2
Phenylbenzimidazole
2-Phenylbenzimidazole
716-79-0
p-Phenylenediamines


Phenylenediamines


2-(l-phenylethyl)-phenol
2-(l-Phenylethyl)phenol
26857-99-8
3-Phenyl-2-propenal
3-Phenylprop-2-enal
104-55-2
Phthalates


PM 2.5


PM10


Poly- and di-nitrobenzenes


Poly-p-dinitrosobenzene


Propene
1-Propene; propylene
115-07-1
Propylbenzene

103-65-1
Pyrazole

288-13-1
Pyrene

129-00-0
Pyrimidine, 2-(4-pentylphenyl)-5-propyl-

94320-32-8
2-Pyrrolidinone. 1-methyl-
N-Methyl-2-pyrrolidone
872-50-4
Quinones


Resorcinol

108-46-3
Rethene


Siloxanes


Styrene

100-42-5
Styrene oligomers


Substituted p-Phenylenediamines


Sulfur containing organics


Sulfur Donors


Sulphenamides


TDAE (special purified aromatic oil)


Tertbutylacetophenone
3,3-dimethyl-l-phenylbutan-l-one
31366-07-1
N-tert-Butyl-2-benzothiazolesulfenamide (TBBS)

95-31-8
4-tert butylphenol
4-tert-Butylphenol
98-54-4
Tetraalkylthiuram disulfides


Tetrabenzylthiuram disulfide (TBZTD)

10591-85-2
Tetrabutylthiuram disulfide (TBTD)

1634-02-2
Tetrachloroethene
Tetrachloroethylene; perch loroethylene
127-18-4
Tetracosane

646-31-1
Tetraethylthiuram disulfide
Disulfiram
97-77-8
Tetrahydrofuran

109-99-9
Tetramethylthiuram disulfide
Thiram
137-26-8
Tetramethylthiuram monosulfide

97-74-5
Thiazoles


Thioureas


Thiurams


Thiuram sulfides


Toluene

108-88-3
Total petroleum hydrocarbons


Trans trans-muconic acid
(E,E)-Muconic acid
3588-17-8
-------
Analyte
Synonym(s)
CAS#
Trimethyl-l,2-dihydroquinoline (TMDQ)
l,2-Dihydro-2,2,4-trimethylquinoline, polymer
26780-96-1
1,1,1-Trichloroethane

71-55-6
Trichloroethylene

79-01-6
l,l,2-Trichloro-l,2,2-trifluoroethane

76-13-1
Trichloro-trifluoroethane
l,l,l-Trichloro-2,2,2-trifluoroethane
354-58-5
Tricosane

638-67-5
1,2,3-Trimethyl benzene
1,2,3-Trimethylbenzene
526-73-8
1,2,4-Trimethyl benzene
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
95-63-6
1,3,5-Trimethyl benzene
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene
108-67-8
2,2,4-Trimethyl-l,2-dihydroquinoline (TMQ)
l,2-Dihydro-2,2,4-trimethylquinoline, polymer
26780-96-1
Vinyl Acetate

108-05-4
White gasoline
Natural gasoline
8006-61-9
o-Xylene

95-47-6
Xylenes

1330-20-7
Zn-Dibenzyldithiocarbamate (ZBEC)

136-23-2
Zn-Diethyldithiocarbamate (ZDEC)
Zinc diethyldithiocarbamate
14324-55-1
Zn-Dimethyldithiocarbamate (ZDMC)
Ziram
137-30-4
Zn-dibutyldithiocarbamate (ZDBC)


ZnO
Zinc Oxide
1314-13-2
-------
Appendix D
Standard Operating Procedure (SOP)
Lists for Tire Crumb Rubber
Characterization Research
-------
Tables D1 and D2 list the standard operating procedures (SOPs) that were prepared or used for the tire
crumb rubber characterization research activities by research area. The SOPs will also be made available
in a separate EPA report. These are research-level SOPs. Descriptions in the table below are the SOP
topic areas, not the formal SOP titles.
Table D-l. Summary of the Tire Crumb Rubber Field Collection Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs)
Type of Sample Collection
Associated SOPs
Tire Crumb Rubber from Tire Recycling Plants
D-EMMD-PHCB-038-SOP-01
Tire Crumb Rubber from Synthetic Turf Fields
D-SED-IEMB-001-SOP-01
Tire Crumb Rubber from Synthetic Turf Fields for Microbiome Analysis
D-SED-EFAB-009-SOP-01
Questionnaire for administrators of Synthetic Turf Fields on operations, turf history
and maintenance, use
D-SED-EHCAB-002-SOP-01
iButton Temperature logging system to assure the integrity of samples collected for
microbial analysis
D-SED-EFAB-010-SOP-01
Table D-2. Summary of the Tire Crumb Rubber Characterization Study Laboratory SOPs"
Sample or Analysis
Type
Analytcs
Type of Analysis
SOP Identification Number
Preparation of Sub-
samples for Analysis
SVOCs, Metals
Preparation of Tire Crumb Rubber Substances
for Multi-residue Characterization
D-EMMD-PHCB-040-SOP-l
Tire Crumb Rubber
Particle Characterization
Particle Size
Analysis (PSA)
Sieving Procedure for Tire Crumb Rubber
Samples
D-EMMD-ECB-002-SOP-03
Tire Crumb Rubber
Particle Characterization
Bulk samples-
total element
concentration
Innov-X XRF ANALYSIS PROCEDURES:
For Tire Crumb Samples
D-EMMD-ECB-004-SOP-01
Tire Crumb Rubber
Particle Characterization
Particle size &
distribution
SEM Analysis of Tire Crumb Particles for
Sizing and Metals
D-EMMD-ECB -001 -SOP-01
Tire Crumb Rubber
Particle Characterization
Particle
Moisture
Determination of Moisture Content in Tire
Crumb Rubber
D-EMMD-PHCB-041-SOP-01
Tire Crumb Emissions
Experiments
VOCs
Setup and operation of small environmental
chambers during testing
NRMRL MOP-802
Tire Crumb Emissions
Experiments
VOCs
Setup and Operation of the Markes Micro-
Chamber
NRMRL SOP AEMD-6401
Tire Crumb Emissions
Experiments
VOCs
Operation of the OPTO Display Software
Data Acquisition System in the small chamber
laboratory
NRMRL MOP-803
Tire Crumb Emissions
Experiments
VOCs
Chain of Custody Procedures for the Receipt
and Transfer of Samples
NRMRL SOP AEMD-6402
Tire Crumb Emissions
Experiments
VOCs
Operation of Clean Air System for the Small
Chamber Laboratory
NRMRL MOP-806
Tire Crumb Emissions
Experiments
VOCs
Sampling and extraction procedures for
DNPH-Coated Silica gel cartridges used to
determine air concentrations of formaldehyde
and other aldehydes
NRMRL MOP-812
Tire Crumb Emissions
Experiments
VOCs-
Formaldehyde
Operation of the Agilent 1200 HPLC for
Analysis of DNPH-Carbonyls
NRMRL MOP-826
Tire Crumb Emissions
Experiments
VOCs-
Formaldehyde
High Performance Liquid Chromatography
(HPLC) Calibration Standard Preparation
Procedure
NRMRL MOP-827
-------
Table D-2 Continued
Sample or Analysis
Type
Analytcs
Tvpc of Analysis
SOP Identification Number
Tire Crumb Emissions
Experiments
(Continued)
VOCs
Actively loading sorbent tubes with volatile
organic compounds
D -EMMD - AQB -015 - SOP -01
Tire Crumb Emissions
Experiments
VOCs
Determination of Volatile Organic
Compounds Desorbed from Sorbent Tubes
Using the Markes International Bench ToF-
Select ToF GC/MS System
D-EMMD-AQB-017-SOP-01
Tire Crumb Emissions
Experiments
VOCs
Determination of Volatile Organic
Compounds Desorbed from Sorbent Tubes
Using the Markes International Ultra/Unity
Thermal Desorption System
D-EMMD-AQB -018-SOP-01
Companion SOP to D-EMMD-
AQB-017-SOP-01
Tire Crumb Emissions
Experiments
VOCs
Collecting Air Samples from the Small
Environmental Testing Chambers Using
Carbopack™ X Sorbent Tubes
NRMRL-SOP-AEMD-6404
Tire Crumb Emissions
Experiments
SVOCs
Collecting Air Samples from the Markes
Micro-chambers Using PUF Plugs
NRMRL-SOP-AEMD-6403 -01 -0
Tire Crumb Emissions
Experiments
Chamber
clean-up
Glassware and Chamber Cleaning Procedure
NRMRL-SOP-AEMD-6405
Tire Crumb Emissions
Experiments
SVOCs
Standard Operating Procedure for
Preparation of Air Samples Collected on
PUF Plugs for GC/MS Analysis
D -EMMD -PHCB -036- SOP -01
Organic Analysis
VOCs
Determination of Volatile Organic
Compounds Desorbed from Sorbent Tubes
Using the Markes International Bench ToF-
Select ToF GC/MS System
D-EMMD-AQB-017-SOP-01
Organic Analysis
VOCs
Determination of Volatile Organic
Compounds Desorbed from Sorbent Tubes
Using the Markes International Ultra/Unity
Thermal Desorption System
D-EMMD-AQB-018-SOP-01
Companion SOP to D-EMMD-
AQB-017-SOP-01
Organic Analysis
Extraction of
SVOCs and
GC analysis
Extraction and Analysis of SVOCs in Tire
Crumb Rubber Samples
D-EMMD- PHCB-033-SOP-01
Organic Analysis
SVOCs
Standard Operating Procedure for
Preparation of Air Samples Collected on
PUF Plugs for GC/MS Analysis
D -EMMD -PHCB -036- SOP -01
Organic Analysis
SVOCs
LC/ToF/MS
analysis
Analytical method for non-targeted and
suspect screening in environmental and
biological samples using Time of Flight
Mass Spectrometry (TOFMS)
D -EMMD -PHCB -034- SOP -01
Metals Analysis
Extraction
Total Nitric Acid Extractable Metals from
Solid Samples by Microwave Digestion
D-EMMD-ECB-003-SOP-01
Metals Analysis
ICP/MS
analysis
Operation and Maintenance of the Element
High-Resolution Inductively Coupled Plasma
Mass Spectrometry Instrument
D-EMMD-PHCB-042-SOP-03
Microbial Analysis
Extraction
Extraction of microbes and DNA genomes
from samples collected from artificial turf
athletic fields
D-SED-EFAB-01 l-SOP-01
Microbial Analysis
PCR analysis
PCR, Library Preparation and MiSeq
Sequencing of Samples for 16S microbiome
analysis
D-SED-EFAB-012-SOP-01
-------
Table D-2 Continued
Sample or Analysis
Type
Analytcs
Type of Analysis
SOP Identification Number
Microbial Analysis
(Continued)
Genome
analysis
16S rRNA Gene Sequence Analysis
D-SED-EIB-SOP-1907-0
Microbial Analysis
PCR
Droplet digital PCR (ddPCR) analysis of
genomic targets;
D-SED-EFAB-014-SOP-01
Microbial Analysis
Data analysis
Analysis of data generated from the droplet
digital PCR (ddPCR)
D-SED-EFAB-015-SOP-01
a SOP = standard operating procedure; SVOC = semivolatile organic compound; VOC = volatile organic compound; XRF =
X-ray fluorescence spectrometry; SEM = Scanning electron microscopy; DNPH = 2, 4-dinitrophenylhydrazine; HPLC =
High performance liquid chromatography; ToF = time of flight; GC/MS = gas chromatography/mass spectrometry; PUF =
polyurethane foam; DNA = deoxyribonucleic acid; ICP/MS = inductively couple plasma/mass spectrometry; PCR =
polymerase chain reaction; rRNA = ribosomal ribonucleic acid; ddPCR = digital droplet polymerase chain reaction
-------
Appendix E
Quality Assurance and Quality Control
-------
E.1 Quality Overview and Planning
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) requires that all data collected for the
characterization of environmental processes and conditions are of the appropriate type and quality for
their intended use. This is accomplished through an EPA-wide quality system for environmental data.
Components of the EPA quality system can be found at http ://www. epa. gov/quality/. EPA policy is
based on ANSI/ASQ E4-2004 (an American National Standard). This standard recommends a tiered
approach that includes the development and use of Quality Management Plans (QMPs). The
organizational units in EPA that generate and/or use environmental data are required to have EPA-
approved QMPs. Programmatic QMPs may also be written when program managers and their quality
assurance (QA) staff decide a program is of sufficient complexity to benefit from a QMP.
A programmatic QMP was developed for the research conducted under the Federal Research Action
Plan on Recycled Tire Crumb Used on Playing Fields and Playgrounds, described here as the Tire
Crumb Research Study (TCRS). The TCRS QMP describes the program's organizational structure,
defines and assigns QA and quality control (QC) responsibilities, and describes the processes and
procedures used to plan, implement and assess the effectiveness of the quality system. The TCRS QMP
is supported by project-specific QA project plans (QAPPs).
The TCRS QAPPs provide the technical details and associated QA/QC procedures for the research
activities that address TCRS objectives as described in the TCRS Research Protocol, "Collections
Related to Synthetic Turf Fields with Crumb Rubber Infill." Written sample collection and analysis
research-level standard operating procedures (SOPs) were also prepared to support the QAPPs, when
appropriate.
The EPA worked cooperatively with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention/Agency for Toxic
Substances and Disease Registry (CDC/ATSDR) on QA and QC activities across the TCRS research
topic areas. Analyses conducted by CDC/ATSDR and/or their associates followed the QA/QC
guidelines and protocols required and approved by their associated organizations. QC results for
bioaccessibility measurements conducted by CDC are included in this QA/QC Appendix.
The following elements were critical for producing high-quality research results:
•	Research projects comply with Agency requirements and guidance for QAPPs, including the
use of systematic planning;
•	Technical system audits (TSAs) and data quality reviews, as described in the QMP or project-
specific QAPPs;
•	QA review of all products that include environmental data; and
•	Inclusion of a QA/QC section in the final study report.
This research was supported by a Program QA Manager (PQAM) who was independent of the technical
work and who assisted the QA staff in the implementation of the TCRS quality program and QMP
requirements. Requirements specified in the TCRS QMP and QAPPs were intended to ensure
consistency in the QA approach for all participating organizations.
-------
E.2 Quality Assurance Activities and Results
E.2.1 Quality Assurance Project Plans
As part of the QA processes implemented in this research study, QAPPs were prepared by research staff
for several components of the TCRS, including the Literature Review/Gaps Analysis and the tire crumb
rubber characterization. QAPPs were reviewed and approved by the respective research staff supervisors
and QAMs. One QMP and four QAPPs (or QAPP addendums) were prepared for the TCRS (Table E-l).
Table E-l. Quality Management Plan and Quality Assurance Project Plans (QAPPs)/Addendumsa
#
QMP/QAPP Title
Approval Date
1
QAPP for Literature Review and Data Gap Analysis for the EPA-ORD
portion of the Tire Crumb Research Study
May 2016
2
QAPP for Characterization of the Microbiome and Occurrence of the
Antibiotic Resistance Genes in Tire Crumb Rubber Artificial Turf Athletic
Fields QAPP
July 2016
3
Quality Management Plan Tire Crumb Science Workgroup
August 2016
4
QAPP for Tire Crumb Research Study Sampling and Analyses
October 2016
(provisional approval for
field study August 2016)
5
QAPP Addendum for the Tire Crumb Research Study - Statistical Analysis
February 2018
a EPA-ORD = U.S. Environmental Protection Agency-Office of Research and Development
E.2.2 Standard Operating Procedures
Research-level SOPs were developed for all sample collection, data collection and sample analysis
activities. Prior to undertaking the activities covered by a SOP, the SOP was reviewed and approved by
the respective researcher staff supervisors and QAMs. A list of research-level SOPs developed or
applied in this study is provided in Appendix D. The research SOPs will also be published as part of an
EPA research report.
E.2.3 Technical Systems Audits
The EPA Office of Research and Development (ORD) quality program requires at least one audit be
conducted per project, at a minimum,. However, due to the high visibility and multi-component nature
of the TCRS, a robust quality review process (including technical system audits and data quality
reviews) was implemented to identify and correct issues immediately. Seven separate technical system
audits (TSAs) were conducted of tire crumb rubber characterization activities and included audits on
field sampling activities, field measurement activities and laboratory analyses. The purpose of each audit
was to ensure that the research tasks prescribed within the QAPPs or SOPs were verified and
documented. These audits are summarized in Table E-2. Most discrepancies/inconsistencies identified in
the audits were minor and were classified as observations. Minor findings included lack of some field
documentation, inadequate use of research notebooks or some researchers not using a research
notebook, and outdated balance calibrations. Observations and findings were noted in audit reports and
corrected during or shortly after each audit. No significant findings were identified during the audits,
and minor findings that were identified did not directly affect the integrity or quality of the data.
-------
Table E-2. Technical System Audits of Tire Crumb Rubber Characterizationa b
Date
Target
Description
Interviewed
Auditor
11/2/2016
Tire Crumb
Characterization
field sampling
activities
TSA of field data collection activities and adherence to planned activities was
conducted at two undisclosed recreational field locations near Concord, Missouri.
The TSA was performed using the TCRS Sampling and Analysis QAPP and
referenced field SOPs as the audit standard. Findings and observations identified
included incomplete field documentation or inadequate information on the chain of
custody. Corrective actions were addressed during exposure measurement field
activities (reported in Part II of the TCRS).
CDC participants
Christine Alvarez
11/28/2016
SVOCs GC/MS
On-site TSA of laboratory sample receipt, storage, processing and analysis
activities for GC/MS analysis of SVOCs. The audit standard used for the TSA was
Appendix H of the TCRS Sampling and Analysis QAPP and ORD QA Policies and
Procedures for Scientific Recordkeeping (Paper) and ORD Laboratory and Field-
Based Research (PPM 13.2 and PPM 13.4). Minor observations included
suggestions on improvement of 3-ring binder usage and documentation of lot
numbers used for solvents.
Scott Clifton
Sania Tong-Argao
and Christine
Alvarez
11/28/2016
and
11/30/2016
ICP/MS
On-site TSA of laboratory sample receipt, storage, processing and analysis
activities for ICP/MS analysis of metals. The audit standard used for the TSA was
Appendix J of the TCRS Sampling and Analysis QAPP and ORD QA Policies and
Procedures for Scientific Recordkeeping (Paper) and ORD Laboratory and Field-
Based Research (PPM 13.2 and PPM 13.4). Observations included suggestions to
improve how data information was shared between laboratories and improve
documentation of where files were stored.
Kasey Kovalcik
Sania Tong-Argao
and Christine
Alvarez
2/9/2017
and
2/10/2017
VOCs
On-site TSA of laboratory sample receipt, storage, processing and analysis
activities for TOF GC/MS analysis of VOCs. The audit standard used for the TSA
was Appendix G of the TCRS Sampling and Analysis QAPP and ORD QA Policies
and Procedures for Scientific Recordkeeping (Paper) and ORD Laboratory and
Field-Based Research (PPM 13.2 and PPM 13.4). Minor observations included
suggestions to improve research notebook documentation and management of
project files.
Don Whitaker
Sania Tong-Argao
and Christine
Alvarez
-------
Table E-2 Continued
Date
Target
Description
Interviewed
Auditor
11/14/2016
SVOCs LC/MS
On-site TSA of laboratory sample receipt, storage, processing and analysis
activities for LC/MS analysis of SVOCs. The audit standard used for the TSA was
Appendix I of the TCRS Sampling and Analysis QAPP and ORD QA Policies and
Procedures for Scientific Recordkeeping (Paper) and ORD Laboratory and Field-
Based Research (PPM 13.2 and PPM 13.4). Findings included a lack of
refrigerator temperature monitoring for the refrigerator where samples were stored
and the redundant backup system for data backup not being in operation at the time.
Minor observations included sample preparation discrepancies that were not
outlined in the cited SOP, lack of formal chain-of-custody forms (but
documentation of sample tracking was readily available), labeling/documentation
for solvents/solutions used, storage/expiration date of tuning solution,
documentation of calibration file location, and file management recommendations.
Mark Strynar
Sania Tong-Argao
and Christine
Alvarez
10/4/2016
Microbiological
activities
On-site TSA conducted at the NERL Cincinnati Laboratory of a variety of
activities performed for this project, including project management, sample receipt,
processing and analysis. Findings included balances that had exceeded their
calibration date, insufficient or lack of documentation and inadequate storage of
electronic files.
Nichole Brinkman
Brittany Stuart
and Margie
Vazquez
11/23/2016
TCRS particle
characterization,
metals digestion, and
XRF analysis activities
On-site TSA conducted at the Las Vegas EPA laboratory to assess QA/QC
procedures specified in the TCRS Quality Management Plan, TCRS Sampling and
Analyses QAPP and Las Vegas SOPs. Findings included the need to update a
laboratory SOP to describe how samples were being dried and outdated calibration
of balances.
Steve Gardner,
Georges-Marie
Momplasir
Margie Vazquez
a Note: All documentation associated with these audits, including audit reports, corrective actions and email correspondence is documented and saved in the
TCRS QA SharePoint, https://usepa.sharepoint.com/sites/ORD Work/TCRS%20QA/SitePages/Home.aspx.
b TSA = technical system audit; TCRS = Tire Crumb Research Study; QAPP = quality assurance project plan; SOP = standard operating procedure; CDC = U.S.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; RTP = Research Triangle Park; EPA = U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; NERL = National Exposure
Research Laboratory; ICP/MS = inductively coupled plasma/mass spectrometry; ORD = Office of Research and Development; QA = quality assurance; VOC =
volatile organic compound; SVOC = semivolatile organic compound; GC/MS = gas chromatography/mass spectrometry; TOF = time of flight; LC/MS = liquid
chromatography/mass spectrometry; QC = quality control
-------
E.2.4 Deviations from the QAPPs or SOPs
There were no significant deviations from the QAPPs and/or QAPP addendums listed in Table E-l.
Deviations from SOPs identified during field or laboratory activities were documented in the
researcher's research notebook and confirmed, if applicable, during field or laboratory audits. All SOPs
unique to this project that deviated from the original procedure were amended and, if needed, reviewed
by the QAM and approved by the analyst's supervisor. Minor changes related to specific samples or
information collection were documented on the TCRS field forms and chain of custody.
E.2.5 Data Quality Reviews
Reviews of data quality were performed at several stages throughout the course of the research study
(Table E-3). Data produced through field sample collection, data collection and sample analysis received
data quality reviews by QAMs and/or secondary technical expert reviewers. Reviews were performed
after data were produced and before they were submitted for data processing or included in data
analysis.
Much of the analytical chemistry measurement data for the tire crumb rubber characterization was
compiled, standardized and processed by data managers to prepare data analysis files. Data quality
reviews were performed to verify that the data in the data analysis files were correct and complete and
that all processing calculations were performed correctly.
Using the data analysis files, data were organized to prepare outputs for reporting, such as tables and
figures. Statistical summaries of the data were prepared and in some cases, statistical testing was
performed. Data quality reviews were performed to ensure that the data analysis outputs were complete
and correct and that data calculations and analyses were performed correctly.
Finally, multiple data quality reviews were performed to verify that the outputs from the data analyses
were correctly and completely compiled in report tables and figures. This set of data quality reviews is
depicted in the last two rows of Table E-3, with no quantification of the number of reviews completed
for data compilation and analysis; the completion date reflects the completion of the last data
compilation and/or analysis reviews.
-------
Table E-3. Data Quality Reviews of Tire Crumb Rubber Characterization3
Data/Information Type
Technical Lead
Reviewer
Completion Date
Synthetic field questionnaire
CDC used the forms,
developed jointly by EPA
and CDC
Kent Thomas
11/2016
Emissions chamber data
Xiaoyu Liu
Libby Nessley
01/26/2017
Formaldehyde emissions
Xiaoyu Liu
Libby Nessley
01/26/2017
Microbial targeted
Nichole Brinkman
Emily Annekan
04/04/2017
Microbial non-targeted
Scott Keely
Nichole Brinkman
04/04/2017
Microbial Analysis
Nichole Brinkman
Brittany Stuart
04/04/2017
Field sample data
Kent Thomas
Larry McMillian
05/03/2017
Moisture content
Kasey Kovalcik
Myriam Medina-Vera
05/08/2017
SVOC LC/MS extractions
Mark Strynar
James McCord
05/08/2017
SVOC LC/MS emissions
Mark Strynar
James McCord
05/08/2017
VOC & SVOC non-targeted
data
Don Whitaker, Scott Clifton,
Mark Strynar
James McCord
05/08/2017
SEM characterization
Ed Heithmar
Tammy Jones-Lepp
05/08/2017
Metals XRF
Steve Gardner
Tammy Jones-Lepp
05/18/2017
Metals ICP/MS digests
Kasey Kovalcik
Clay Nelson
06/20/2017
Particle size measurements
Steve Gardner
Tammy Jones-Lepp
08/20/2017
VOC emissions
Don Whitaker
Christine Alvarez
12/14/2017
SVOC GC/MS emissions
Scott Clifton
Elin Ulrich
12/20/2017
SVOC GC/MS extractions
Scott Clifton
Elin Ulrich
02/13/2018
Metals Determination by HR-
ICPMS
Kasey D. Kovalcik
Georges-Marie Momplaisir
02/15/2018
Data Analysis
BJ George
Christine Alvarez
03/29/2018
Data Compilation
Carry Croghan
James Noel and Christine
Alvarez
03/30/2018
11 CDC = U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; EPA = U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; ICP/MS =
inductively coupled plasma/mass spectrometry; XRF = x-ray fluorescence spectrometry; VOC = volatile organic compound;
SVOC = semivolatile organic compound; GC/MS = gas chromatography/mass spectrometry; LC/MS = liquid
chromatography/mass spectrometry; SEM = scanning electron microscopy; HR-ICPMS = high resolution magnetic sector
inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometer
E.3 Quality Control Overview
Numerous quality control activities and analyses were performed over the course of the study and
included, but were not limited to the following:
•	Sample collection media and sample containers were pre-cleaned or purchased as certifiably
clean, when appropriate;
•	Whenever possible, media were evaluated prior to field deployment to ensure minimal
background or interferences, and blank media were analyzed to assess potential background
contamination;
•	Chain of custody procedures were implemented for all samples;
•	Field quality control samples, consisting of blank, spike, and duplicate samples, were taken
when applicable; location-specific field blanks were taken to and handled in the field in the
same manner as samples, including opening and closing of containers, where appropriate;
-------
•	Laboratory quality control samples were applied, as appropriate, for each analysis method and
included one or more of the following: procedure or method blanks and spikes, matrix blanks
and spikes where feasible, and replicate sample analysis;
•	Reference standards were obtained from reputable and traceable sources, where available;
•	Solvents used for device cleaning, media preparation, or sample extraction were HPLC-grade or
better in purity;
•	Appropriate methods were used to determine analytical detection or quantifiable limits and to
quantify target chemical amounts in samples;
•	Blank and recovery correction were applied, as appropriate;
•	Research notebooks were maintained.
However, there were limitations in implementing quality control assessment approaches for the tire
crumb rubber characterization due to the nature of the matrix and the lack of available quality control or
quality assurance materials and standards. No reliable procedures were identified for preparing spiked
field control or matrix recovery samples (i.e., for spiking tire crumb rubber with metal, VOC or SVOC
target analytes). Extraction and digestion spikes were used to evaluate analyte recovery through
analytical methods for tire crumb rubber.
Key quality control measures and their results are reported in this Appendix, including:
•	Completeness: a measure of the amount of verified data obtained from a measurement system
compared to the amount of data that was expected to be obtained under normal conditions.
•	Quantification Limits: the lowest concentration or amount of analyte that can be measured in an
analytical method to a known and acceptable degree of confidence and precision. This is
determined in a manner that is appropriate and applicable for each type of measurement.
•	Background: the amount of analyte or signal present that was not associated with the sample
and can interfere with or inflate measurement results. Background is assessed by using unspiked
field and/or laboratory media and analyses.
•	Precision: a measure of mutual agreement among individual measurements of the same
property, usually under prescribed similar conditions. Precision is best expressed in terms of the
standard deviation.
•	Accuracy: the degree of agreement of measurements (or an average of measurements) with an
accepted reference or true value. Accuracy is a measure of the bias or systematic error in a
system and was assessed by measuring recovery of target analytes through laboratory analysis
and where applicable, through combined field and laboratory conditions and procedures.
Each of these general quality criteria and the process by which they were addressed were not universal
throughout the study. Each analyst's technique, task and characterization process could differ
substantially; therefore, it was impossible to have a standard operating procedure or consistent approach
for addressing or validating all methods used in tire crumb rubber characterization. This Appendix
describes how each method addressed the general quality controls described above.
Each analytical method had its own set of quality control measures appropriate for that method. In
addition to the assessments listed above, the SOPs for the sample collection and sample analysis
methods described quality control elements that were implemented for each method. Not all quality
control procedures and results are reported here, however. For example, calibration procedures and
acceptance criteria, mass spectrometer tuning check procedures and other quality-related activities
-------
related to quantitative analysis were described in the quantitative analysis SOPs. Quality control
procedures for field sample collection were also described in their respective SOPs.
E.3.1 Tire Crumb Rubber Characterization Study Data Quality Indicators
Overall project-level data quality indicators (DQI) were developed for the tire crumb rubber
characterization (Table E-4). Because the laboratories had limited experience analyzing the tire crumb
rubber matrix, and because there are no standard methods for these analysis procedures, the DQI target
values developed for tire crumb rubber characterization were considered to be objectives and were
assessed as the work proceeded and following work completion. Additional data quality indicators were
described, where applicable, in the technical SOPs for each experimental or analytical method.
Table E-4. Target Quantitative Data Quality Indicator Objectives for Tire Crumb Rubber Characterization3
Metric
Precision (%)
Accu racy (%)
% Completeness -
Collection
% Completeness -
Analysis
Metals ICP/MS
±25
75 - 125
95
95
DNPH HPLC/UV
±25
75 - 125
95
95
SVOC GC/MS/MS
±25
70 - 130
95
95
VOC GC/TOFMS
±25
70 - 130
95
95
ICP/MS = inductively coupled plasma/mass spectrometry; DNPH = 2, 4-dinitrophenylhydrazine; HPLC/UV = High
performance liquid chromatography/ultraviolet spectrometry; SVOC = semivolatile organic compound; GS/MS/MS = gas
chromatography/tandem mass spectrometry; VOC = volatile organic compound; GC/TOFMS = gas chromatography/time-of-
flight mass spectrometry
E.4 Tire Crumb Rubber Characterization Quality Control Results
Tire crumb rubber quality control measurement results are reported in the following subsections for:
•	Metals analysis by inductively coupled plasma/mass spectrometry (ICP/MS) in tire crumb
rubber digestion samples (Section E.4.1),
•	Emission chamber experiments (Section E.4.2),
•	Analysis of formaldehyde in chamber emission samples (Section E.4.3),
•	Analysis of SVOCs by gas chromatography/tandem mass spectrometry (GC/MS/MS) in tire
crumb rubber extract samples (Section E.4.4),
•	Analysis of SVOCs by GC/MS/MS in chamber emission samples (Section E.4.5),
•	Analysis of SVOCs by liquid chromatography/time-of-flight mass spectrometry (LC/TOFMS)
in tire crumb rubber extract and chamber emission samples (Section E.4.6),
•	Analysis of VOCs by gas chromatography/time-of-flight mass spectrometry (GC/TOFMS) in
chamber emission samples (Section E.4.7),
•	Microbiological analyses (Section E.4.8), and
•	Bioaccessibility analyses for metals by ICP/MS (Section E.4.9).
-------
E.4.1 Metals Analysis by ICP/MS
Completeness - All (100%) of the scheduled tire crumb rubber samples were successfully analyzed for
metals by ICP/MS.
Quantification Limits - Table E-5 reports the minimum reporting limit for metal analytes in tire crumb
rubber, when applied to the volume of tire crumb rubber typically digested.
Table E-5. ICP/MS Minimum Reportable Limits (MRL) for Metals in Crumb Rubber3
Chemical
Minimum Reportable Limit
(mg/kg)
Aluminum
0.024
Antimony
0.0014
Arsenic
0.0020
Barium
0.011
Beryllium
0.0017
Cadmium
0.00076
Chromium
0.0018
Cobalt
0.00062
Copper
0.0018
Iron
0.0071
Lead
0.0013
Magnesium
0.018
Manganese
0.0012
Molybdenum
0.00058
Nickel
0.0012
Rubidium
0.0040
Selenium
0.040
Strontium
0.0022
Tin
0.00070
Vanadium
0.0029
Zinc
0.024
11 ICP/MS = inductively coupled plasma/mass spectrometry
Blanks - Table E-6 reports average concentrations of metals in method blanks. One method blank was
analyzed in each of nine digestion/analysis batches. Metals concentrations were adjusted for each
sample by subtracting the method blank result for each metal analyte within each analysis batch.
Table E-6. Method Blank Quality Control Results for Metals in the Tire Crumb Matrix by ICP/MSa'b
Chemical
Tire Crumb Rubber Matrix
Method Blanks
Mean 0ij»/L)
Tire Crumb Rubber Matrix
Method Blanks
Standard Deviation (jajj/L)
Aluminum
0.321
0.279
Antimony
< MRL
N/A
Arsenic
< MRL
N/A
Barium
0.591
1.647
Beryllium
0.011
0.007
Cadmium
< MRL
N/A
-------
Table E-6 Continued
Chemical
Tire Crumb Rubber Matrix
Method Blanks
Mean Oig/L)
Tire Crumb Rubber Matrix
Method Blanks
Standard Deviation (jijj/L)
Chromium
< MRL
N/A
Cobalt
0.020
0.033
Copper
< MRL
N/A
Iron
0.069
0.061
Lead
0.032
0.072
Magnesium
0.489
0.394
Molybdenum
0.011
0.011
Nickel
0.017
0.049
Rubidium
0.022
0.026
Selenium
< MRL
N/A
Strontium
0.020
0.018
Tin
0.020
0.027
Vanadium
0.026
0.024
Zinc
0.176
0.268
a Tire Crumb Rubber Matrix Method Blanks (n=9)
b ICP/MS = inductively coupled plasma/mass spectrometry; MRL = minimum reportable limit; N/A = not applicable
Recovery - Table E-7 reports method spike recovery results for each analyte. One method spike was
analyzed for each digestion/analysis batch, with the exception of one batch. All analytes had average
recoveries ranging from 80% to 118%, except for selenium at 72% recovery. No recovery adjustments
were made in the sample analysis results.
Table E-7. Spike Recovery Quality Control Results for Metals in Crumb Microwave
Digestion by ICP/MSab
Chemical
Tire Crumb Rubber Matrix
Mean % Recovery
Tire Crumb Rubber Matrix
% Recovery Standard Deviation
Aluminum
118
55
Antimony
98
12
Arsenic
80
5
Barium
90
3
Beryllium
90
3
Cadmium
89
4
Chromium
96
6
Cobalt
107
8
Copper
89
12
Iron
91
43
Lead
96
10
Magnesium
95
9
Molybdenum
93
4
Nickel
91
7
Rubidium
98
4
-------
Table E-7 Continued
Chemical
Tire Crumb Rubber Matrix
Mean % Recovery
Tire Crumb Rubber Matrix
% Recovery Standard Deviation
Selenium
72
5
Strontium
100
5
Tin
98
12
Vanadium
92
6
Zinc
103
5
a ICP/MS = inductively coupled plasma/mass spectrometry
b Method Spikes (n=8); Spike = 250 microliters (|iL): Spike solution from SCP Science (Champlain, NY)
Precision - Analysis precision was assessed by replicate analysis of tire crumb rubber digestion
samples. Results are shown for selected metals in Section 4.9.1, Table 4-50 of the Volume 1 report
(EPA/600/R-19/051a). Mean % relative standard deviations for 10 to 11 replicate analyses ranged from
0.47 to 1.3% for the selected metals.
DQI - Based on the quality control measurement results, all of the DQI objectives were met for metals
ICP/MS analyses.
E.4.2 Chamber Emission Experiments
QA/QC procedures for the chamber emission experiments were implemented by following the
guidelines and procedures detailed in the approved addendum to the overarching NERL QAPP for Tire
Crumb Research Study Sampling and Analysis.
Data Quality Indicators Objectives - DQI objectives for critical chamber emission measurements in this
study were based on historical data obtained in similar studies and from laboratory evaluations of
chamber emissions sampling methods and analysis. DQI objectives for the measurement parameters and
validation methods of chamber testing are listed in Tables E-8 and E-9.
Table E-8. Data Quality Indicator Objectives for 53-L Small Chamber Operating Parameters"
Measurement Parameters
Control Method
Target Point
% Relative Standard Deviation
Chamber temperature
Incubator
25/60 audit °C
5
Chamber RH
Water vapor generator/
dilution system
45% RH (25 °C)
7% RH (60 °C)
10
Chamber ACH
Mass flow controllers/meters
1.0 ACH
10
11 °C = degrees Celsius; RH = relative humidity; ACH = air changes per hour
Table E-9. Data Quality Indicator Objectives for Micro-chamber Operating Parameters3
Measurement Parameters
Control Method
Target Point
% Relative Standard Deviation
Chamber temperature
Internal heater
25/60 °C
5
Chamber inlet air RH
Water vapor
generator/dilution system
45% RH (25 °C)
7% RH (60 °C)
10
ACH for 44 mL chambers
(H-CTE™ system)
Mass flow controllers/meters
82 ACH (25 °C)b /
72 ACH (60 °C)b
10
ACH for 114 mL chambers
(M-CTE250™ system)
Mass flow controllers/meters
32 ACH (25 °C)b /
28 ACH (60 °C)b
10
11 °C = degrees Celsius; RH = relative humidity; ACH = air changes per hour; |i = micro; CTE = Chamber/Thermal Extractor
b Based on a 60 mL/min air flow through each micro-chamber.
-------
Instrument Calibration - Calibration of the system components was conducted prior to collection of the
reportable data. The small test chamber environmental system components operated by the OPTO 22
data acquisition system (DAS), including temperature sensors, relative humidity (RH) sensors, and mass
flow controllers were calibrated between May and July 2016 by the Air and Energy Management
Division (AEMD) Metrology Laboratory. The chamber testing started on August 16, 2016. Any
equipment received after testing had begun was either calibrated by the AEMD Metrology Laboratory or
received from the manufacturer with a valid calibration certificate. The thermocouple and RH probes for
micro-chamber operation were calibrated by the AEMD Metrology Laboratory between April and May
2016. The Gilibrator primary flow calibrators used to measure sampling air flows were calibrated
between April and June 2016 by the manufacturer. The balances were calibrated between April and July
2016 by the AEMD Metrology Laboratory.
Temperature sensors were calibrated by comparison to a National Institute for Standards and Technology
(NIST)-traceable reference device. RH sensors were calibrated using aqueous salt solutions at 11% and
75% (nominal). Mass flow controllers were calibrated using a Molbloc mass flow rate calibration system
reference device (DH Instruments, Phoenix, AZ, USA). The balances were calibrated using NIST-
traceable weights. In addition, before and after a subsample was weighed, the balance was checked with
NIST-traceable weights.
Data Quality: Environmental Parameters of Small Chamber Tests - Environmental conditions in the
small chambers, such as temperature and RH, were recorded by the OPTO 22 DAS continuously during
the tests (about 103 data points for a 24-hour test). The air exchange rate of the small chamber was
calculated in air changes per hour (ACH) based on the average flow rate of outlet air measured with a
Gilibrator at the start and end of each test. Overall, the test conditions under 25 °C, 45% RH, and 1 ACH
were much more stable than the test conditions under 60 °C, 7% RH, and 1 ACH (Table E-10 and Table
E-l 1). For the 25 °C tests, one test had % relative standard deviation (%RSD) for temperature above the
5% DQI objective and two tests had %RSD for % RH above the 10% DQI objective (Table E-10). The
majority of 60 °C tests failed to meet DQI objectives for both temperature and % RH (Table E-l 1). One
reason for these failures under 60 °C test conditions was that the tire crumb rubber samples were at room
temperature before they were placed into the 60 °C testing chamber, so it took minutes to reach
equilibrium at 60 °C. In addition, moisture was observed in the tested tire crumb samples. When the
samples were heated up to 60 °C, the moisture coming off the samples affected the RH measurement in
the chamber.
Table E-10. Summary of 53-L Small Chamber Operating Parameters at 25 °C (88 tests)3
Parameters
Temperature (°C)
% RH
ACH
Average
25.04
46.09
1.00
Minimum
24.93
43.61
0.97
Maximum
25.42
48.76
1.03
% Out of DQI
1
2
0
a °C = degrees Celsius; % RH = percent relative humidity; ACH = air changes per hour; DQI = data quality indicator listed in
Table E-8. If any of those criteria failed for the parameter measured during the course of each chamber test, that parameter is
marked out of DQI for the test.
-------
Table E-ll. Summary of 53-L Small Chamber Operating Parameters at 60 °C (88 tests)"
Parameters
Temperature (°C)
% RH
ACH
Average
59.10
6.59
0.99
Minimum
57.36
4.78
0.90
Maximum
61.51
8.32
1.03
% Out of DQI
72
97
7
a °C = degrees Celsius; % RH = percent relative humidity; ACH = air changes per hour; DQI = data quality indicator listed in
Table E-8. If any of those criteria failed for the parameter measured during the course of each chamber test, that parameter is
marked out of DQI for the test.
Data Quality: Environmental Parameters of Micro-chamber Tests - Micro-chamber environmental
parameters were measured and recorded manually prior to the start of a test during chamber setup, prior
to and after the collection of chamber background samples, immediately following introduction of the
tire crumb test material into the chambers, and prior to and following polyurethane foam (PUF) air
sampling. Micro-chamber temperatures were measured using the Omega HH-KC25 digital thermometer
with a type K thermocouple inserted directly into the micro-chamber pots to the approximate center of
the chamber's volume. Micro-chamber RH measurements were collected at the micro-chambers'
exhaust port outlets using the handheld Hanna Instruments HI 9565 dewpoint hygrometer unit included
in the Markes Humidifier Accessory for the micro-chambers. A correction calculation was used to
determine the micro-chamber's %RH based on this direct measurement at the exhaust ports (Vaisala
Oyj, Humidity Conversion Formulas: Calculating Formulas for Humidity. 2013. Helsinki, Finland.).
Overall, temperature and air exchange rates were stable at 25 °C and 60 °C (Table E-12 and Table E-13)
for all tests with the exception of three that had %RSD of temperature above the 5% DQI objective. The
% RH varied more due to the same reasons noted for the small chamber tests.
Table E-12. Summary of Micro-chamber Operating Parameters at 25 °Ca
Parameters
Tempcratu re (°C)
% RH
ACH - 44mL
ACH - 114mL
Average
24.61
46.06
80.65
31.76
Minimum
23.42
41.46
75.68
30.88
Maximum
25.21
57.69
87.24
33.37
N (tests)
88
88
67
21
% Out of DQI
3
14
0
0
a °C = degrees Celsius; % RH = percent relative humidity; ACH = air changes per hour; DQI = data quality indicator listed in
Table E-9. If any of those criteria failed for the parameter measured during the course of each chamber test, that parameter is
marked out of DQI for the test.
-------
Table E-13. Summary of Micro-chamber Operating Parameters at 60 °Ca
Parameters
Temperatu re (°C)
% RH
ACH -44mL
ACH - 114mL
Average
60.13
8.43
71.34
27.86
Minimum
58.54
6.74
67.08
27.26
Maximum
62.15
15.85
76.72
28.62
N (tests)
88
88
67
21
% Out of DQI
0
43
0
0
a °C = degrees Celsius; % RH = percent relative humidity; ACH = air changes per hour; DQI = data quality indicator listed in
Table E-9. If any of those criteria failed for the parameter measured during the course of each chamber test, that parameter is
marked out of DQI for the test.
E.4.3 Formaldehyde Analysis in Chamber Emission Samples by HPCL/UV
Data Quality Indicators Goals - The formaldehyde-DNPH (2,4-dinitrophenylhydrazine) air samples
were collected from small chamber tests. DQI goals for critical measurements during this study were
based on historical data obtained in similar studies and from laboratory evaluations of sampling methods
and analysis. To the extent possible, standardized methods were followed. The DQI objectives for the
measurement parameters and validation methods of formaldehyde-DNPH analysis were 100 ± 25% for
the recoveries of daily calibration checks (DCCs) and internal audit program (IAP) standards and ± 25%
for the %RSD of duplicates.
HPLC Calibration - The Agilent 1200 High Performance Liquid Chromatography (HPLC) with diode
array detector (DAD) was calibrated on August 3, 2016 at six concentration levels with triplicate
injections in the concentration range of 0.03 to 15 |ig/mL. The stock solution of calibration standards
was Aldehyde/Ketone-DNPH Stock Standard-15 (Cerilliant Corporation, Round Rock, TX, USA). The
calibration was performed by using the response factor. The %RSD of the response factor was less than
6% and thus met the DQI goal of ±25% RSD.
E.4.3.1 Data Quality
Internal Audit Program (IAP) - The IAP standard was instituted to assess the accuracy and precision of
the HPLC/DAD system. The IAP standard was prepared by someone other than the person who
prepared the calibration standards, using a formaldehyde standard (TOl 1/IP-6A Aldehyde/Ketone-
DNPH Mix, Supelco) obtained from a second source (Sigma Aldrich, St. Louis, MO, USA). The IAP
standard was submitted to the analyst for calibration verification without stating its concentration. The
percentage recovery of IAP standard was 95% and the %RSD of triplicate injections was 0.3%. They all
met the criteria for IAP analysis, which were 100 ± 25% recoveries and % RSD of triplicate analyses
within ± 25%.
Detection Limit - The method detection limit (MDL) was not investigated for this study. After the
calibration, the instrument detection limit (IDL), 0.008 |ig/mL, was determined by analyzing the lowest
calibration standard seven times and then calculating three standard deviations from the measured
concentrations of the standard. The practical quantification limit (PQL), the lowest calibration
concentration in the calibration (0.03 |ig/mL), was used in analysis, as well.
-------
E.4.3.2 Quality Control Samples
Quality control samples consisted of chamber background samples, field blanks, duplicate samples,
daily calibration checks and solvent blanks.
Chamber Background - For each chamber test, chamber background samples were collected prior to the
tire crumb test material being loaded into the chambers. The duration and sampling volume of the
background samples were the same as the duration and sampling volume of tire crumb emission
samples. A typical background sample included the contribution of the contamination in the empty
chamber, the sampling device, and the clean air supply. In the 25 °C tests, concentrations of
formaldehyde detected in small chamber background samples were all less than the PQL. In the 60 °C
small chamber tests, two chamber background samples were above the PQL. The background
concentration was subtracted when the formaldehyde emission rate was calculated for each test.
Field Blanks - Field blanks accompanied every batch of background and tire crumb test samples. The
field blank samples were DNPH cartridges that were unopened and handled and stored in the same
manner as the formaldehyde-DNPH samples. They were stored with the samples in the same way the
samples were stored. Field blank samples were used to determine background contamination on the
sampling media due to media preparation, handling, and storage.
A total of 46 field blank samples were collected for all small chamber tests. Thirty-one (31) of the field
blanks had no detectable formaldehyde. Fourteen (14) field blanks had formaldehyde concentrations
below the PQL, and one (1) field blank sample had a formaldehyde concentration slightly above the
PQL, with an on-column concentration of 0.033 |ag/mL or 0.165 |ig/cartridge.
Duplicates - Duplicate samples were used to estimate the precision of the sampling and analysis
methods. A total of 38 duplicate DNPH samples were collected for the formaldehyde emission tests, of
which 6 duplicates had formaldehyde concentrations above the lowest calibration concentration. The
results of these 6 duplicates are summarized in Table E-14, which shows that the %RSDs of all duplicate
samples were less than 25%, meeting the data quality indicator objective. Overall, the precision of the
sampling and analysis methods were very good when formaldehyde concentrations were above the PQL.
Table E-14. Summary of Percent Relative Standard Deviation of Analyses of Duplicate
Formaldehyde-DNPH Samples"
Statistic
Value
Nb
6 duplicates
Minimum
1.77 %RSD
Maximum
10.62 %RSD
Average
7.31 %RSD
% Out of DQI
0
a DNPH = 2,4-dinitrophenylhydrazine; DQI = data quality indicators
b 32 duplicate samples with concentration below the practical quantification limit (PQL) were not included.
Twelve duplicate small chamber tests were conducted for this study. All formaldehyde emissions from
those tests were below the lowest HPLC calibration level.
E.4.3.3 Daily Calibration Check
A daily calibration check (DCC) sample was analyzed to document the performance of the HPLC/DAD
analysis. DCC samples were analyzed at the beginning and during the analysis sequence on each
-------
analysis day. Table E-15 summarizes the average recovery of DCCs for the analysis of formaldehyde-
DNPH samples from the emission tests. The recoveries met the DQI acceptance criterion of 75 - 125%
recovery.
Table E-15. Summary of the Recoveries of DCCs for Formaldehyde-DNPH Analysis"
Statistic
Value
Average
98.87% recovery
% Relative Standard Deviation
4.42
Minimum
111.84% recovery
Maximum
87.26% recovery
N
56 DCCs
% Out of DQI
0
aDCC = daily calibration check; DNPH = 2,4-dinitrophenylhydrazine; DQI = data quality indicators
E.4.3.4 Daily Solvent Blank Check
Two acetonitrile solvent blanks were also analyzed daily with every HPLC sample sequence, one before
and the other after the sequence. The solvent blanks were free of formaldehyde-DNPH for all the
samples.
E.4.3.5 Confirmation by LC/TOFMS
A calibration standard and several samples were analyzed by LC/TOFMS. Mass spectral confirmation
was made confirming the presence of the DNPH derivative of formaldehyde in chamber emission
samples.
E.4.4 SVOC Analysis by GC/MS/MS in Tire Crumb Rubber Extract Samples
Completeness - All (100%) of the scheduled tire crumb rubber samples were successfully analyzed for
SVOCs by GC/MS/MS.
Quantification Limits - Table E-16 reports the minimum quantitation levels (MQLs) for SVOC analytes
in tire crumb rubber extracts. There was variability in the MQLs across extraction/analysis batches.
Table E-16. Minimum Quantitation Level (MQL) Ranges for SVOCs in
Tire Crumb Rubber Extracts by GC/MS/MSa
Chemical
MQL Range (nig/kg)
Aniline
0.001-0.0025
n-Butylbenzene
0.00025-0.0025
Naphthalene
0.0001-0.0005
Benzothiazole
0.001-0.01
Cyclohexylisothiocyanate
0.0005-0.0025
2-Methylnaphthalene
0.0001-0.001
1 -Methy lnaphthalene
0.0001-0.05
Dimethyl Phthalate
0.00025-0.0025
Acenaphthalene
0.0001-0.001
2,6-Di-tert-butyl-p-cresol
0.0001-0.05
-------
Table E-16 Continued
Chemical
IMQL Range (mjj/k^)
Diethyl phthalate
0.0001-0.025
n-Hexadecane
0.0005-0.01
Fluorene
0.00025-0.005
4-tert-octylphenol
0.0025-0.025
2-Bromomethylnaphthalene
0.0001-0.025
2-Hydroxybenzothiazole
0.0025-0.05
Dibenzothiophene
0.0001-0.0025
Phenanthrene
0.0001-0.05
Anthracene
0.00025-0.001
Diisobutyl phthalate
0.00025-0.005
3 -Methy lphenanthrene
0.00025-0.0025
2-Methylphenanthrene
0.0005-0.025
1 -Methy lphenanthrene
0.0001-0.0025
Dibutyl phthalate
0.00025-0.005
Fluoranthene
0.00025-0.0025
Pyrene
0.00025-0.001
Di-N-hexylphthalate (2)13C2b
0.0001
Benzyl butyl phthalate
0.0001-0.0025
bis(2-ethylhexyl) adipate
0.0025-0.05
Benz(a)anthracene
0.00025-0.0025
Chrysene
0.0001-0.0025
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
0.0005-0.005
Di-n-octyl phthalate
0.0001-0.05
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
0.001-0.005
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
0.001-0.005
Benzo(e)pyrene
0.001-0.0025
Benzo(e)pyrene dl2b
0.0001-0.001
Benzo[a]pyrene
0.0001-0.0025
Benzo[a]pyrene dl2b
0.0005
Bis(2,2,6,6-tetramethyl-4-piperidyl) sebacate
0.005-0.05
Indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene dl2b
0.0005
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene dl4b
0.0025
DBA + ICDP0
0.0005-0.025
Benzo[ghi]perylene dl2b
0.00025-0.005
Benzo [ghijperylene
0.0005-0.01
Coronene
0.00025-0.025
11 SVOC = semivolatile organic compound; GC/MS/MS = gas chromatography/tandem mass spectrometry
b Added internal standard and surrogate recovery compounds
-------
Blanks - Table E-17 reports average concentrations of SVOCs in reagent blanks. Groups of samples
were prepared as 'batches' for extraction on the same date and subsequent analysis together. One
reagent blank was analyzed in each of nine extraction/analysis batches. Cyclohexylisothiocyanate had
the highest analyte background level, an average of 169 ng/g (equivalent to 0.169 mg/kg) in the reagent
blanks. Sample concentrations were adjusted by subtracting the average reagent blank result for each
SVOC analyte from the measured SVOC concentration.
Table E-17. Blanks Quality Control Results for SVOCs in Tire Crumb Rubber Extraction by
GC/MS/MSa'b
Chemical
Reagent Blank
Mean
ng/g (equivalent)
Reagent Blank
Standard Deviation
ng/g (equivalent)
Aniline
6.9
5.3
n-Butylbenzene
0.1
0.4
Naphthalene
0
0.1
Benzothiazole
3.5
5.2
Cyclohexylisothiocyanate
169.1
43.2
2-Methylnaphthalene
0
0
1 -Methylnaphthalene
0
0
Dimethyl Phthalate
0
0
Acenaphthalene
0
0
2,6-Di-tert-butyl-p-cresol
8.3
12.9
Diethyl phthalate
14
23.2
n-Hexadecane
19.2
31.6
Fluorene
0.1
0.3
4-tert-octylphenol
1.2
3.6
2 -B romo methylnaphthalene
0
0
2-Hydroxybenzothiazole
0
0
Dibenzothiophene
0
0
Phenanthrene
0.1
0.2
Anthracene
0
0
Diisobutyl phthalate
23.5
8.3
3 -Methylphenanthrene
3.1
9.2
2 -Methylphenanthrene
0
0
1 -Methylphenanthrene
0
0
Dibutyl phthalate
17
11.5
Fluoranthene
0
0
Pyrene
0
0
Di-N-hexylphthalate (2)13C2°
53.4
5.7
Benzyl butyl phthalate
5.2
3.9
bis(2-ethylhexyl) adipate
0
0
Benz(a)anthracene
0
0
Chrysene
0.2
0.4
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
11.1
7.5
Di-n-octyl phthalate
0.3
0.9
-------
Table E-17 Continued
Chemical
Reagent Blank
Mean
ng/g (equivalent)
Reagent Blank
Standard Deviation
ng/g (equivalent)
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
0
0
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
0
0
Benzo(e)pyrene
0
0
Benzo(e)pyrene dl2°
25.7
13.4
Benzo[a]pyrene
0
0
Benzo[a]pyrene dl2°
38.2
10.1
Bis(2,2,6,6-tetramethyl-4-piperidyl) sebacate
5.5
8.4
Indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene dl2°
44
38.4
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene dl4°
27.4
7.7
DBA + ICDPd
0
0
Benzo[ghi]perylene d 12"
39.2
12.7
Benzo [ghijperylene
0
0
Coronene
0
0
11 SVOC = semivolatile organic compound; GC/MS/MS = gas chromatography/tandem mass spectrometry
b Reagent Blank (n=9)
0 Added internal standard and surrogate recovery compounds
d DBA + ICDP = Dibenz(a,h)anthracene + Indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene
Recovery - Table E-18 reports reagent spike and calibration check recovery results for each analyte.
One reagent spike was analyzed for each extraction/analysis batch. For the calibration checks, most
analytes had average recoveries in the 70% to 130% DQI objective range. For reagent spikes, about half
of the average recovery values were outside the 70% to 130% range. Variability in recoveries was
observed across the extraction/analysis batches. Therefore, batch-specific recovery adjustments were
performed by multiplying the measurement result by the average reagent spike result across all batches
divided by that batch's reagent spike result, using the following formula:
Analyte Cone adj = Analyte Cone batch,i x (Average Reagent Spi ke/,t„c/,, /VReagent Spikes,/c/u)
Table E-18. Recovery Quality Control Results for SVOCs in Tire Crumb Rubber Extracts by GC/MS/MSa b
Chemical
Reagent Spike
% Recovery
Mean
Reagent Spike
% Recovery
Standard Deviation
Calibration Checks
% Recovery
Mean
Calibration Checks
% Recovery
Standard Deviation
Aniline
77.2
7.7
91.3
14
n-Butylbenzene
122.1
13.9
104.2
8.9
Naphthalene
107.3
11.5
103.8
9.4
Benzothiazole
57.8
26.1
98.5
15.8
Cyclohexylisothiocyanate
168
38.2
112.4
17.2
2-Methylnaphthalene
104.6
24.9
103.1
15
1 -Methylnaphthalene
137.9
34.4
112.7
15.1
Dimethyl Phthalate
125.7
28.4
97.7
14.5
Acenaphthalene
90.6
6.1
95.6
4.1
2,6-Di-tert-butyl-p-cresol
294.3
85.5
122.9
49
-------
Table E-18 Continued
Chemical
Reagent Spike
% Recovery
Mean
Reagent Spike
% Recovery
Standard Deviation
Calibration Checks
% Recovery
Mean
Calibration Checks
% Recovery
Standard Deviation
Diethyl phthalate
104.4
27.3
67.5
52.5
n-Hexadecane
85.3
12.8
93.1
10.1
Fluorene
99.8
3
101.1
4.3
4-tert-octylphenol
37.8
23.8
141.2
25
2-Bromomethylnaphthalene
31.6
33.9
144.7
87.3
2-Hydroxybenzothiazole
0.5
1.4
86.7
86.3
Dibenzothiophene
94.8
6.6
100.5
5.5
Phenanthrene
78.3
12
93.3
6.8
Anthracene
99.4
13.4
101.1
8.9
Diisobutyl phthalate
104.9
25.8
123.8
26.4
3 -Methy lphenanthrene
66.1
23.1
90.3
14
2-Methylphenanthrene
82.8
52.6
97.3
37.1
1 -Methy lphenanthrene
116.8
23.7
103.2
11.6
Dibutyl phthalate
105.8
32.3
129.2
35.6
Fluoranthene
97.8
10.7
96.5
7.8
Pyrene
95.1
6.6
96.2
7.8
Di-N-hexylphthalate (2)13C2°
111.9
19.9
100.9
6.1
Benzyl butyl phthalate
92
18.5
95.6
8.7
bis(2-ethylhexyl) adipate
154.7
161
85.4
47.8
Benz(a)anthracene
96.5
12.8
92.1
8.4
Chrysene
104.3
7
98.9
6.8
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
102.7
20.4
97.4
10.8
Di-n-octyl phthalate
103.8
18.8
89.5
24.4
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
106.5
31.4
102.5
31.8
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
98.6
17.2
105.6
14.6
Benzo(e)pyrene
54.8
12.4
100.8
25.8
Benzo(e)pyrene dl2°
44.4
15.7
105.5
19.9
Benzo[a]pyrene
65.9
10.4
101.8
28
Benzo[a]pyrene dl2°
59.9
8.9
98.7
19
Bis(2,2,6,6-tetramethyl-4-
piperidyl) sebacate
42.3
25.4
56
30
Indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene dl2°
78.4
65.9
171.8
127.5
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene dl4°
46
4
97.1
25.9
DBA + ICDPd
58.1
25
110.9
45.2
Benzo[ghi]perylene dl2°
59.7
15
87.9
24
Benzo [ghijperylene
64.2
24.2
94.3
30.6
Coronene
64.7
48.7
95.4
46.4
a SVOC = semivolatile organic compound; GC/MS/MS = gas chromatography/tandem mass spectrometry
b Reagent Spike (n=9), Spike = 500 nanograms (ng); Calibration Checks (n=70), Spike = 5-500 ng
0 Added internal standard and surrogate recovery compounds
dDBA + ICDP = Dibenz(a,h)anthracene + Indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene
-------
Precision - Analysis precision was assessed by the replicate analysis of tire crumb rubber sample
extracts and by the analysis of duplicate portions of tire crumb rubber samples. Results are shown for
select SVOCs in Section 4.9.1, Table 4-51 of the Volume 1 report (EPA/600/R-19/051a). Mean %RSDs
for seven replicate analyses ranged from 13 to 63% for the select SVOCs. Except for 4-tert-octylphenol,
all average %RSDs were < 34%. In addition, duplicate extractions and analyses were performed for
100%) of the tire crumb rubber samples. These duplicate measurements assess a homogeneity component
in addition to the measurement precision. Mean %>RSDs for 101 duplicate sample analyses ranged from
4.8%o to 20% for the select SVOCs. Overall, the duplicate sample analyses showed a higher degree of
precision than the replicate extract analyses. It is not clear why this level of precision was not reflected
in the replicate extract analysis results.
Table E-19 shows results for the repeated analysis of a composite tire crumb rubber matrix that was
prepared by adding and mixing portions of tire crumb rubber collected from all nine recycling plants.
The purpose of this analysis was to assess whether a standard control material could be prepared and
used to evaluate performance over time. In order to be a suitable standard, the material would need to be
very homogeneous with regard to the target analytes. A portion of the mixed reference standard was
extracted and analyzed along with each tire crumb rubber sample extraction/analysis batch. The results
in Table E-19 show a fairly high degree of variability. At this time, it is not clear whether this variability
is related to non-homogeneity in the prepared standard material or whether it reflects the batch-to-batch
differences in analyte recoveries described above. (The reference standard results were not adjusted for
recovery on a batch-wise basis as the samples were.) More work would need to be performed to confirm
this approach for preparing a standard material for quality control assessment use.
Table E-19. Precision Quality Control Results for SVOCs in Tire Crumb Rubber Extracts by GC/MS/MSa b
Chemical
Replicate Extract Injection
Range of Relative Percent
Difference (RPD)
Reference Samples
Mean ± Standard Deviation (%
RSD) (ng/g)
Aniline
2.9-21.2
2259.3 ±424.3 (18.8)
n-Butylbenzene
0-100
129.6 ± 14.9(11.5)
Naphthalene
3.2-3.7
1313.4 ±227.8 (17.3)
Benzothiazole
4.2 - 17
42247 ± 20377.7 (48.2)
Cyclohexylisothiocyanate
0.8 - 17.6
763.2 ± 182.7 (23.9)
2-Methylnaphthalene
12.8-26.6
1571.2 ±446.6 (28.4)
1 -Methylnaphthalene
8.1 -8.3
1625.8 ±516.8 (31.8)
Dimethyl Phthalate
1.2 - 16
47.7 ±68 (142.6)
Acenaphthalene
6.1 -7.5
370.3 ±34.3 (9.3)
2,6-Di-tert-butyl-p-cresol
2.7-7
8714.1 ±5201 (59.7)
Diethyl phthalate
1-2.4
60.8 ±27.9 (45.9)
n-Hexadecane
1.2-7.7
2760.9 ±645.1 (23.4)
Fluorene
12.1 - 15
407.8 ±67 (16.4)
4-tert-octylphenol
0.9 - 17
20920.8 ± 6862.7 (32.8)
2 -B romo methylnaphthalene
0-0
0
2-Hydroxybenzothiazole
14.6-20.7
5854.8 ±4849.7 (82.8)
Dibenzothiophene
4.8-8.5
473.9 ±76.2 (16.1)
Phenanthrene
5.3 - 10
3711.4 ±628.5 (16.9)
Anthracene
1.3 -37.9
662.5 ±241.8 (36.5)
-------
Table E-19 Continued
Chemical
Replicate Extract Injection
Ranjje of Relative Percent
Difference (RPD)
Reference Samples
Mean ± Standard Deviation (%
RSD)
(ng/g)
Diisobutyl phthalate
4.4-4.9
538.9 ±267.4 (49.6)
3 -Methylphenanthrene
2.1 -9.2
2327.9 ±770.1 (33.1)
2 -Methylphenanthrene
2.5-8.4
2128.7 ± 1107.6(52)
1 -Methylphenanthrene
1.2-9.7
1566.5 ±490.9 (31.3)
Dibutyl phthalate
4.2-8.2
1036.1 ±837.5 (80.8)
Fluoranthene
9.9 - 10.8
5731.8 ±810.2 (14.1)
Pyrene
10.9-11.6
17065.9 ±2064.1 (12.1)
Di-N-hexylphthalate (2)13C2°
13.9 - 14.1
53 ±9.5 (17.9)
Benzyl butyl phthalate
11.4 - 12.1
652.7 ± 147.2 (22.6)
bis(2-ethylhexyl) adipate
3.5-8.5
8190.8 ±7160.9 (87.4)
Benz(a)anthracene
18-25.5
2068 ± 935.8 (45.3)
Chrysene
9.7-29.2
3023.8 ± 1280.9(42.4)
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
2.4-6.1
6250.5 ±2657.8 (42.5)
Di-n-octyl phthalate
38.2 - 112.6
140.2 ± 135 (96.3)
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
8-23
1304.1 ±692.4 (53.1)
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
9.3 - 15.5
462.2 ± 124.6 (27)
Benzo(e)pyrene
1.3 - 18.4
1303.4 ±518.9 (39.8)
Benzo(e)pyrene dl2°
11.3 - 15.5
34.1 ±7 (20.5)
Benzo[a]pyrene
24.4 -36.3
753.4 ± 153.1 (20.3)
Benzo[a]pyrene dl2°
12.8-25.6
34.6 ±7.9 (22.8)
Bis(2,2,6,6-tetramethyl-4-piperidyl) sebacate
2.6 - 19.6
547.8 ±557.6 (101.8)
Indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene dl2°
9-19.7
39.6 ±36.6 (92.4)
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene dl4°
9.6 - 19.7
22.9 ±7.2 (31.4)
DBA + ICDPd
31.5-46.9
372.5 ± 153.5 (41.2)
Benzo[ghi]perylene dl2°
12.3 - 17.2
15.3 ±4.3 (28.1)
Benzo [ghi]perylene
11.9-20
1022.3 ±280.9 (27.5)
Coronene
29.1 -30.6
422.5 ± 165.8 (39.2)
11SVOC = semivolatile organic compound; GC/MS/MS = gas chromatography/tandem mass spectrometry; RPD = Relative
percent difference; % RSD = percent relative standard deviation
b Replicate Extract Injection (n = 7); Reference Samples (n = 9)
0 Added internal standard and surrogate recovery compounds
dDBA + ICDP = Dibenz(a,h)anthracene + Indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene
DQI - Completeness DQI objectives were met for SVOC extract analyses. Precision DQI objectives
were met for most SVOC extract analytes based on the quality control measurement results, with a
particular focus on the mean %RSD duplicate sample extraction/analysis across 101 samples. However,
analyte recovery variability was observed across batches, and recovery adjustments were performed. In
addition to the quality control measures, the lead analyst evaluated the chromatography of the analytes.
As a result of the overall review of quality control and a review of the chromatographic performance by
the lead analyst, 2-hydroxybenzothiazole and bis(2-ethylhexyl) adipate were not included in data
reporting for tire crumb rubber extract analysis. It should be noted that selecting only one extraction and
-------
analysis method for the varied analyte types in this study presented challenges for method performance.
It is also important to note that many non-target chemicals were present in the extracts, creating further
challenges for successful and consistent target analyte identification and quantitation.
E.4.5 SVOCs in Chamber Emission Samples Analyzed by GC/MS/MS
Completeness - All (100%) of the scheduled tire crumb rubber chamber emission samples collected at
25 °C and 60 °C were successfully analyzed for SVOC emissions by GC/MS/MS.
Quantification Limits - Table E-20 reports the minimum quantitation levels for SVOC analytes in tire
crumb rubber emission samples. The values were calculated as nominal emission factors using typical
chamber operation and sampling conditions. There was variability across the analysis batches.
Table E-20. Minimum Quantitation Level (MQL) for SVOCs in Emissions Samples by GC/MS/MSa
Chemical
Lowest Nominal
Minimum Quantitation
Level (ng/g/h)
Highest Nominal
Minimum Quantitation
Level (ng/g/h)
Aniline
0.034
0.085
n-Butylbenzene
0.003
0.017
Naphthalene
0.003
0.085
Benzothiazole
0.003
0.170
Cyclohexylisothiocyanate
0.009
0.017
2-Methylnaphthalene
0.009
0.034
1 -Methy lnaphthalene
0.003
0.017
Dimethyl Phthalate
0.003
0.034
Acenaphthalene
0.017
0.034
2,6-Di-tert-butyl-p-cresol
0.085
0.085
Diethyl phthalate
0.003
0.341
n-Hexadecane
0.017
0.341
Fluorene
0.003
0.017
4-tert-octylphenol
0.034
0.085
2-Bromomethylnaphthalene
0.085
0.085
2-Hydroxybenzothiazole
0.085
3.409
Dibenzothiophene
0.003
0.034
Phenanthrene
0.017
0.034
Anthracene
0.009
0.085
Diisobutyl phthalate
0.003
0.034
3 -Methy lphenanthrene
0.034
0.085
2-Methylphenanthrene
0.003
0.341
1 -Methy lphenanthrene
0.003
0.034
Dibutyl phthalate
0.003
0.034
Fluoranthene
0.009
0.034
Pyrene
0.009
0.034
Benzyl butyl phthalate
0.009
0.017
bis(2-ethylhexyl) adipate
0.009
0.341
Benz(a)anthracene
0.009
0.034
-------
Table E-20 Continued
Chemical
Lowest Nominal
Minimum Quantitation
Level (ng/g/h)
Highest Nominal
Minimum Quantitation
Level (ng/g/h)
Chrysene
0.009
0.085
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
0.009
0.034
Di-n-octyl phthalate
0.009
0.034
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
0.017
0.085
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
0.003
0.085
Benzo(e)pyrene
0.009
0.085
Benzo[a]pyrene
0.009
0.085
Bis(2,2,6,6-tetramethyl-4-piperidyl) sebacate
0.170
1.705
DBA + ICDPb
0.034
1.705
Benzo [ghijperylene
0.009
0.085
Coronene
0.009
0.170
a SVOC = semivolatile organic compound; GC/MS/MS = gas chromatography/tandem mass spectrometry
bDBA + ICDP = Sum of Dibenz[a,h]anthracene and Indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene
Blanks - Table E-21 reports average concentrations of SVOCs in method blanks, which were extracts of
unused PUF filters. One method blank was prepared for each of the 19 emission sample analysis
batches. Several analytes had average method blank levels ranging from approximately 430 to 670
ng/sample, including benzothiazole, n-hexadecane, 2-hydrocybenzothiazole, and bis(2-
ethylhexyl)phthalate. But very high average levels of cyclohexylisothiocyanate (approximately 12,000
ng/sample) were observed. For the first 10 chamber experiment batches, the PUF filter sampling media
was used directly from the supplier. While the filters were sold as precleaned material, they were found
to have higher background levels of some target analytes in this study. (In initial testing of solvent
cleaning in the laboratory, it was found that drying the filter media in a drying oven with rubber door
seals resulted in contamination of the filters with benzothiazole. Upon finding this, an alternate drying
approach was used.) The PUF filters used for chamber experiment batches 11-19 were solvent cleaned
in the research laboratory, which provided filter media with much lower background levels for most
target analytes.
Table E-21. Blanks Quality Control Results for SVOCs in PUF for Emissions Testing by GC/MS/MSa'b
Chemical
Method Blank
Mean (ng/sample)
Method Blank
Standard Deviation
(ng/sample)
Aniline
30.7
111.7
n-Butylbenzene
7.9
29.4
Naphthalene
2.5
2.9
Benzothiazole
665.3
1054.7
Cyclohexylisothiocyanate
11843.4
51220.4
2-Methylnaphthalene
16.5
64.1
1 -Methy lnaphthalene
00
00
34.5
Dimethyl Phthalate
0.5
0.6
-------
Table E-21 Continued
Chemical
Method Blank
Mean (ng/sample)
Method Blank
Standard Deviation
(njj/sample)
Acenaphthalene
0.9
1.6
2,6-Di-tert-butyl-p-cresol
172.6
425.2
Diethyl phthalate
43.5
112.5
n-Hexadecane
427.3
1493.5
Fluorene
0.9
2.1
4-tert-octylphenol
6.7
18.3
2-Bromomethylnaphthalene
1.3
2.3
2-Hydroxybenzothiazole
473.2
1638.2
Dibenzothiophene
0.3
0.3
Phenanthrene
2.7
5.2
Anthracene
1.7
6.5
Diisobutyl phthalate
23.6
14.8
3 -Methy lphenanthrene
0.9
0.7
2-Methylphenanthrene
0.5
0.5
1 -Methy lphenanthrene
0.4
0.4
Dibutyl phthalate
38.3
38.9
Fluoranthene
0.7
0.6
Pyrene
2
2.1
Di-N-hexylphthalate (2)13C2°
0
0
Benzyl butyl phthalate
83.1
95.4
bis(2-ethylhexyl) adipate
28.7
36.5
Benz(a)anthracene
0.9
3.3
Chrysene
0.2
0.2
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
485.6
609.6
Di-n-octyl phthalate
4.8
8.4
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
0.2
0.2
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
0
0.1
Benzo(e)pyrene
0
0
Benzo[a]pyrene
0.3
0.5
Bis(2,2,6,6-tetramethyl-4-piperidyl) sebacate
0.8
2.1
DBA + ICDPd
0.6
0.5
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
0.4
0.7
Benzo [ghijperylene
0.2
0.2
Coronene
0.1
0.1
a SVOC = semivolatile organic compound; PUF = polyurethane foam; GC/MS/MS = gas chromatography/
tandem mass spectrometry
b Method Blank (n= 19)
0 Added internal standard compound
dDBA + ICDP = Dibenz(a,h)anthracene + Indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene
-------
Chamber Background Samples - Table E-22 reports chamber background sample measurement results
for chamber emission tests performed at 25 °C and 60 °C. One chamber background sample was
collected prior to the test performed for each tire crumb rubber sample. Relatively high average chamber
background levels were observed for cyclohexylisothiocyanate, n-hexadecane, and diethyl phthalate.
Lower chamber background levels were observed for benzothiazole and several other phthalates. There
was considerable variability in chamber background levels across chamber experiment batches. In some
cases, the variability was associated with the differences in PUF media for batches 1-10 and 11-19,
as described above. For diethyl phthalate, very high levels were measured in three of the early chamber
test sets. There were also differences in chamber background measurements at 25 °C and 60 °C. Sample
emission results were adjusted by subtracting the average chamber background measurement result for
each batch from the sample VOC measurement results for samples in that batch. Each batch was
conducted at either 25 °C or 60 °C, so the chamber background adjustments were effectively made on a
temperature-specific basis.
Table E-22. Emission Test Chamber Background Sample Quality Control Results for SVOCs by
GC/MS/MSa'b
Chemical
Emission
Chamber
Background
at 25 °C
Mean
(ng/samplc)
Emission
Chamber
Background
at 25 °C
Standard
Deviation
(ng/samplc)
Emission
Chamber
Background
at 60 °C
Mean
(ng/samplc)
Emission
Chamber
Background
at 60 °C
Standard
Deviation
(ng/samplc)
Aniline
4.9
3.8
5.1
4.7
n-Butylbenzene
2.2
8.7
1.4
0.92
Naphthalene
6.2
6.2
12
18
Benzothiazole
29
31
36
24
Cyclohexylisothiocyanate
240
430
360
490
2-Methylnaphthalene
4.0
2.7
4.6
3.4
1 -Methylnaphthalene
2.0
1.4
2.3
1.7
Dimethyl Phthalate
0.50
0.55
0.67
0.84
Acenaphthalene
0.62
0.79
0.59
0.55
2,6-Di-tert-butyl-p-cresol
17
33
16
14
Diethyl phthalate
662
2600
1300
3800
n-Hexadecane
170
170
210
200
Fluorene
0.87
0.63
1.0
0.82
4-tert-octylphenol
3.8
4.2
4.5
6.7
2 -B romo methylnaphthalene
0.65
1.0
0.61
0.95
2-Hydroxybenzothiazole
25
160
7.6
10
Dibenzothiophene
0.30
0.19
0.35
0.25
Phenanthrene
3.1
3.2
3.7
4.3
Anthracene
1.2
3.6
2.1
5.3
Diisobutyl phthalate
22
13
23
13
3 -Methylphenanthrene
1.2
1.9
1.7
3.6
2 -Methylphenanthrene
0.59
1.2
0.75
1.8
1 -Methylphenanthrene
0.63
1.7
0.88
2.6
Dibutyl phthalate
29
14
30
15
Fluoranthene
0.46
0.51
0.40
0.26
-------
Table E-22 Continued
Chemical
Emission
Chamber
Background
at 25 °C
Mean
(ng/samplc)
Emission
Chamber
Background
at 25 °C
Standard
Deviation
(ng/samplc)
Emission
Chamber
Background
at 60 °C
Mean
(ng/samplc)
Emission
Chamber
Background
at 60 °C
Standard
Deviation
(ng/samplc)
Pyrene
0.38
0.24
0.44
0.52
Benzyl butyl phthalate
55
59
48
34
bis(2-ethylhexyl) adipate
20
25
23
59
Benz(a)anthracene
0.13
0.13
0.10
0.11
Chrysene
0.14
0.20
0.19
0.25
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
39
51
45
48
Di-n-octyl phthalate
3.3
11
1.2
2.2
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
0.12
0.23
0.11
0.21
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
0.03
0.09
0.01
0.04
Benzo(e)pyrene
0
0
0
0
Benzo[a]pyrene
0.27
0.52
0.27
0.51
Bis(2,2,6,6-tetramethyl-4-piperidyl) sebacate
0.5
3.7
0.92
4.3
DBA + ICDP0
0.38
0.52
0.46
0.48
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
0.45
0.95
0.41
0.90
Benzo [ghijperylene
0.06
0.07
0.07
0.08
Coronene
0.01
0.04
0
0.01
a SVOC = semivolatile organic compound; GC/MS/MS = gas chromatography/tandem mass spectrometry; °C = degrees Celsius
b Emission Chamber Background at 25 °C (n=96), at 60 °C (n=100)
°DBA + ICDP = Dibenz(a,h)anthracene + Indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene
Recovery - Table E-23 reports recovery results for method spikes (spiked unused PUF filters), recovery
spikes (spiked extraction solvent), and calibration check standards. Recovery values were not corrected
for PUF or chamber background values. Average recoveries for most target analytes fell within the 75%
to 130% range. Benzothiazole, cyclohexylisothiocyanate, dibutyl phthalate, and bis(2-ethylhexyl)
phthalate had average recoveries between 150% and 200% in the method spikes. However, had they
been corrected for background, the recoveries would have been lower. The average recovery for 2-
hydroxybenzothiazole in method spikes was 290%. No recovery adjustments were made in the emission
sample analysis results.
-------
Table E-23. Recovery Quality Control Results for SVOCs in PUF for Emissions Testing by GC/MS/MSa'b
Chemical
Method
Spike %
Recovery
Mean
Method
Spike %
Recovery
Standard
Deviation
Recovery
Spike %
Recovery
Mean
Recovery
Spike %
Recovery
Standard
Deviation
Calibration
Check %
Recovery
Mean
Calibration
Check %
Recovery
Standard
Deviation
Aniline
75.5
27.5
85.5
26.9
93.5
8.4
n-Butylbenzene
99.6
14.2
101.1
13.2
98.6
12.1
Naphthalene
72.7
21.3
107.1
20.3
140.6
62.3
Benzothiazole
202.3
101.3
141.7
33.2
95.1
7.6
Cyclohexylisothiocyanate
195
111.8
156.6
123.6
96.1
4.9
2-Methylnaphthalene
119.2
15.3
99
17.6
101.4
7.4
1 -Methy lnaphthalene
116.6
15.4
98.5
18.3
102.2
7
Dimethyl Phthalate
83.9
11.5
88.8
18.4
93.3
5.6
Acenaphthalene
88.7
8.1
99
11.5
90.9
10.8
2,6-Di-tert-butyl-p-cresol
107.4
89.5
177.7
69.4
97.6
19
Diethyl phthalate
102.9
15.7
100.9
18.8
79.5
18.3
n-Hexadecane
114.8
18.4
121
20.9
91.4
8.8
Fluorene
100.2
10.7
90.7
16.7
100.8
8.2
4-tert-octylphenol
125.4
34.3
118.3
39.7
101
15
2-Bromomethylnaphthalene
107.1
35.6
97.9
54.5
73.8
26.2
2-Hydroxybenzothiazole
290.9
340.8
241.8
260.6
65.3
65.5
Dibenzothiophene
102.9
7.5
104.5
10.9
96.2
5
Phenanthrene
102.6
7.3
102.8
11.1
91.2
9.1
Anthracene
97.6
10.3
106
13.4
96.4
14.9
Diisobutyl phthalate
137.8
28.4
118
23.2
98.4
14.7
3 -Methy lphenanthrene
125
11.6
115.9
16
91.9
18.6
2-Methylphenanthrene
110.8
17.3
102.5
17.2
97.1
12.6
1 -Methy lphenanthrene
118.9
16.3
108.1
15.8
97.5
11
Dibutyl phthalate
155.1
42.1
126.7
31.9
99.2
20.5
Fluoranthene
103
9.6
102.9
15.1
93.1
11.9
Pyrene
103.8
9
104.1
14.1
92.2
11.7
Di-N-hexylphthalate (2)13C2°
38.1
47.8
37
44.7
75.6
56.8
Benzyl butyl phthalate
127.6
16.8
128
21.3
94.7
12.5
bis(2-ethylhexyl) adipate
133.6
44.4
124.3
34.7
97.7
35.8
Benz(a)anthracene
104.2
16.2
102.6
20.3
93.8
17.6
Chrysene
102.3
8.4
104.4
9.6
100.7
25.9
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
191.6
95.5
194
104.7
95
11.4
Di-n-octyl phthalate
97.7
19.8
97.5
25.7
90.6
11.6
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
104.3
10.7
100
25.8
91.9
27.9
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
108.4
9.6
190.9
347.1
102.4
25.3
Benzo(e)pyrene
115.7
11.8
107.7
10.7
98
8.5
Benzo[a]pyrene
123.6
33
111.5
32.4
89.7
33
Bis(2,2,6,6-tetramethyl-4-piperidyl)
sebacate
43.3
48.4
105.2
60.4
42.1
31
DBA + ICDPd
102.2
15.3
103.9
17.9
83.9
14.7
-------
Table E-23 Continued
Chemical
Method
Spike %
Recovery
Mean
Method
Spike %
Recovery
Standard
Deviation
Recovery
Spike %
Recovery
Mean
Recovery
Spike %
Recovery
Standard
Deviation
Calibration
Check %
Recovery
Mean
Calibration
Check %
Recovery
Standard
Deviation
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
104.8
33.2
113.3
25.6
96.4
53.1
Benzo [ghi] perylene
107.6
7.6
109.4
10.3
97.4
8.3
Coronene
97.9
17
98.2
16.7
89.8
11.4
11SVOC = semivolatile organic compound; PUF = polyurethane foam; GC/MS/MS = gas chromatography/tandem mass
spectrometry
bMethod Spike (Spike=500 ng; n=19); Recovery Spike (Spike=500 ng; n=19); Calibration Check (Spike=5-500 ng; n=93)
0 Added internal standard compound
°DBA + ICDP = Dibenz(a,h)anthracene + Indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene
Precision - Analysis precision was assessed by the replicate analysis of emission sample PUF extracts.
Results are shown for select SVOCs in Section 4.9.1, Table 4-52 of the Volume 1 report (EPA/600/R-
19/05 la). For these select analytes, average %RSDs ranged from <0.1% to 31%. Table E-24 shows the
range of relative percent differences (RPDs) for SVOC measurements without any PUF background
adjustments. Several analytes had relatively high RPDs. It is likely that the relatively poor precision for
some analytes is due to measurements near or below the minimum quantifiable limits.
Table E-24. Precision Quality Control Results for SVOCs in Chamber Emission Sample
PUF Extracts by GC/MS/MS3 b
Chemical
Duplicate Injections
Ranjjc of RPD
Aniline
67-218.5
n-Butylbenzene
32 -59.3
Naphthalene
4.8-4.9
Benzothiazole
14.8-20.9
Cyclohexylisothiocyanate
2.2-26.2
2-Methylnaphthalene
2.3-2.4
1 -Methy lnaphthalene
3.7-4.4
Dimethyl Phthalate
6.4-17.7
Acenaphthalene
5.4-10.1
2,6-Di-tert-butyl-p-cresol
12.9-31.7
Diethyl phthalate
12 - 16.3
n-Hexadecane
5.9-24
Fluorene
5.3 - 11.5
4-tert-octylphenol
23 -23.7
2-Bromomethylnaphthalene
4.2-7.3
2-Hydroxybenzothiazole
14.8-99.1
Dibenzothiophene
6.1 - 17.9
Phenanthrene
4.7-5.4
Anthracene
8.5-28.5
Diisobutyl phthalate
4.5-22.3
3 -Methy lphenanthrene
5.2-9.5
-------
Table E-24 Continued
Chemical
Duplicate Injections
Range of RPD
2-Methylphenanthrene
5.2-125.3
1 -Methy lphenanthrene
71.7-97.7
Dibutyl phthalate
3.6-18.4
Fluoranthene
7.4-7.8
Pyrene
5.2-7.7
Di-N-hexylphthalate (2)13C2°
3 - 13.1
Benzyl butyl phthalate
2.4-4.3
bis(2-ethylhexyl) adipate
35.7-39
Benz(a)anthracene
12.5-36.2
Chrysene
21.6-29.4
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
0.9-14.4
Di-n-octyl phthalate
100 - 115.9
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
14.5 - 14.8
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
0 - 13.6
Benzo(e)pyrene
0 - 1.9
Benzo[a]pyrene
14.7 - 100
Bis(2,2,6,6-tetramethyl-4-piperidyl) sebacate
5.2-113.6
DBA + ICDPd
17.5-307
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
0-0
Benzo [ghi]perylene
21.6-23.3
Coronene
3 - 105.3
a SVOC = semivolatile organic compound; PUF = polyurethane foam; GC/MS/MS = gas chromatography/
tandem mass spectrometry; RPD = Relative percent difference
b Duplicate Injections (n=16)
0 Added internal standard compound
dDBA + ICDP = Dibenz(a,h)anthracene + Indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene
DQI - Most DQI objectives were met for most SVOC emission samples based on the quality control
measurement results. Recovery and precision DQI values were not met for some analytes, likely as a
result of relatively high PUF and/or chamber background levels, or due to measurements below or near
the method detection limits. Due to high recoveries and poor chromatographic peak shape, 2-
hydroxybenzothiazole and bis(2-ethylhexyl) adipate were not included in the reported results. Due to the
high and highly variable chamber background and/or PUF background levels of diethyl phthalate,
n-hexadecane, bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate, benzyl butyl phthalate, cyclohexylisothiocyanate, and
2,6-di-tert-butyl-p-cresol, we elected not to report emission results for these chemicals.
E.4.6 Analysis of SVOCs by LC/TOFMS in Tire Crumb Rubber Extract and Chamber
Emission Samples
Completeness - All (100%) of the scheduled tire crumb rubber extraction samples were analyzed for
SVOCs by LC/TOFMS. All (100%) of the scheduled tire crumb rubber chamber emission samples
collected at 60 °C were analyzed for SVOC emissions by LC/TOFMS, as well. However, only a portion
of the chamber emission samples collected at 25 °C were analyzed. A decision was made not to
complete those analyses since target analytes were not being observed above chamber background
levels.
-------
Quantification Limits - The SVOC analyses by LC/TOFMS were not performed as quantitative
analyses, so no quantification limits were determined.
Blanks - Method blanks were analyzed for the SVOC extract samples. The average method blank
chromatographic peak intensity was subtracted from the intensity measured for each target analyte in
each sample.
Chamber Background - Chamber background samples were analyzed for the 60 °C emission tests.
Sample emission measurement chromatographic peak intensity results were adjusted by subtracting the
average chamber background measurement result for each chamber experiment batch from the sample
measurement results for samples in that chamber experiment batch. Relatively high amounts of
diisononyl phthalate and diisodecyl phthalate were observed in the chamber background samples, and
the amounts were variable across the chamber experiment batches.
Recoveries - The SVOC analyses by LC/TOFMS were not performed as quantitative analyses, so no
recovery values were determined.
Precision - The SVOC analyses by LC/TOFMS were not performed as quantitative analyses, so no
precision values were determined.
DQIs - The SVOC analyses by LC/TOFMS were not performed as quantitative analyses, so
measurement results were not evaluated against the data quality indicators. While no quantitative
analyses were performed, known standards were analyzed to confirm target analyte retention times and
mass spectra. Two target analytes, diisononyl phthalate and diisodecyl phthalate, were not included in
measurement reporting for chamber emission sample results due to relatively high and variable amounts
of those analytes found in the chamber background samples.
E.4.7 VOC Analysis in Chamber Emission Samples by GC/TOFMS
Completeness - All (100%) of the scheduled tire crumb rubber samples collected from recycling plants
were successfully analyzed for VOC emissions by GC/TOFMS. Two synthetic turf field infill composite
25 °C emission samples and three 60 °C emission samples did not result in usable data. The overall
completeness rate was 97% (159 of 164 planned sample analyses were completed).
Quantification Limits - Table E-25 reports the method detection limits for VOC analytes in tire crumb
rubber emission samples. The values were calculated as nominal emission factors using typical chamber
operation and sampling conditions.
-------
Table E-25. Method Detection Limits (MDLs) for VOCs Measured in Recycling Plant and Synthetic Turf
Field Tire Crumb Rubber Chamber Emission Samples3
Chemical
Nominal Field
Tire Crumb Rubber Infill
Chamber Emission Samples
MDL (nj»/jj/h)
Nominal Recycling Plant
Tire Crumb Rubber
Chamber Emission Samples
MDL (nj»/jj/h)
Freon 12
0.029
0.035
1,3-Butadiene
0.081
0.185
trans-2-Butene
0.064
0.029
cis-2-Butene
0.081
0.035
Freon 11
0.052
0.035
1,1 -Dichloroethene
0.144
0.324
Freon 113
0.040
0.144
1,1 -Dichloroethane
0.208
0.116
cis-l,2-Dichloroethene
0.428
0.092
1,2-Dichoroethane
0.208
0.202
1,1,1 -T richloroethane
0.445
0.456
Benzene
0.485
0.352
Carbon tetrachloride
0.347
1.046
1,2 -Dichloropropane
0.289
0.341
Trichloroethene
0.797
0.312
Methyl isobutyl ketone
0.630
2.773
Toluene
0.144
0.092
T etrachloroethene
0.023
0.058
Chlorobenzene
0.017
0.035
Ethylbenzene
0.046
0.092
m,p-Xylene
0.092
0.127
Styrene
0.139
0.202
o-Xylene
0.052
0.081
4-Ethyltoluene
0.300
0.173
1,3,5 -T rimethy lbenzene
0.196
0.110
m-Dichlorobenzene
0.058
0.104
p-Dichlorobenzene
0.092
0.110
o-Dichlorobenzene
0.052
0.092
Benzothiazole
6.876
1.294
aMDL= method detection limit; VOC = volatile organic compound
-------
Blanks - Tables E-26 and E-27 report average concentrations of VOCs in field blanks (Fenceline
monitor [FLM] tubes taken to the chamber facility, but not used) and run blanks (FLM tubes that stayed
unopened in the analysis laboratory).
Table E-26. Blanks Quality Control Results for VOCs in Recycling Plant Tire Crumb Rubber
Characterization Chamber Emission Samplesa'b
Chemical
FLM Field
Blank Mean
(njj/tube)
FLM Field
Blank
Standard
Deviation
(njj/tube)
FLM Run
Blank Mean
(n^/tube)
FLM Run
Blank
Standard
Deviation
(njj/tube)
Freon 12
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1,3-Butadiene
0.32
0.34
0.11
0.18
trans-2-Butene
0.12
0.07
0.04
0.07
cis-2-Butene
0.12
0.08
0.05
0.07
Freon 11
0.09
0.05
0.09
0.06
1,1 -Dichloroethene
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Freon 113
0.05
0.05
0.02
0.05
1,1 -Dichloroethane
-0.01
0.02
0.00
0.00
cis-l,2-Dichloroethene
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1,2-Dichoroethane
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1,1,1 -T richloroethane
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Benzene
1.29
0.92
0.67
0.19
Carbon tetrachloride
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1,2 -Dichloropropane
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Trichloroethene
0.05
0.00
0.04
0.02
Methyl isobutyl ketone
1.85
2.82
0.34
0.40
Toluene
0.37
0.04
0.31
0.05
T etrachloroethene
0.15
0.00
0.08
0.08
Chlorobenzene
0.13
0.03
0.12
0.04
Ethylbenzene
0.11
0.01
0.10
0.01
m,p-Xylene
0.56
0.02
0.55
0.02
Styrene
0.28
0.01
0.27
0.03
o-Xylene
0.07
0.04
0.09
0.01
4-Ethyltoluene
0.06
0.01
0.04
0.02
1,3,5 -T rimethy lbenzene
0.10
0.06
0.05
0.03
m-Dichlorobenzene
0.10
0.06
0.10
0.05
p-Dichlorobenzene
0.11
0.02
0.10
0.04
o-Dichlorobenzene
0.11
0.01
0.09
0.04
Benzothiazole
5.42
3.18
23.01
22.96
a VOC = volatile organic compound; FLM = fence line monitor
b FLM Field Blank (n=4); FLM Run Blank (n=23)
-------
Table E-27. Blanks Quality Control Results for VOCs in Synthetic Turf Field Tire Crumb Rubber
Characterization Chamber Emission Samplesa'b
Chemical
FLM Field
Blank Mean
(ng/tube)
FLM Field
Blank
Standard
Deviation
(njj/tube)
FLM Run
Blank Mean
(ng/tube)
FLM Run
Blank
Standard
Deviation
(njj/tube)
Freon 12
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.01
1,3-Butadiene
-0.04
0.10
0.07
0.53
trans-2-Butene
0.05
0.03
0.05
0.05
cis-2-Butene
0.05
0.03
0.05
0.05
Freon 11
0.05
0.06
0.04
0.05
1,1 -Dichloroethene
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Freon 113
0.08
0.05
0.03
0.05
1,1 -Dichloroethane
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene
-0.02
0.15
0.00
0.00
1,2-Dichoroethane
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1,1,1 -T richloroethane
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Benzene
1.26
0.35
1.28
0.39
Carbon tetrachloride
0.05
0.11
0.05
0.11
1,2 -Dichloropropane
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Trichloroethene
-0.20
0.07
-0.18
0.09
Methyl isobutyl ketone
0.12
0.18
0.35
1.35
Toluene
0.29
0.19
0.29
0.23
T etrachloroethene
0.08
0.02
0.07
0.03
Chlorobenzene
0.07
0.02
0.07
0.03
Ethylbenzene
0.07
0.02
0.07
0.02
m,p-Xylene
0.16
0.04
0.16
0.07
Styrene
0.14
0.15
0.15
0.10
o-Xylene
0.06
0.03
0.07
0.07
4-Ethyltoluene
0.00
0.03
0.01
0.07
1,3,5 -T rimethylbenzene
0.01
0.05
0.02
0.11
m-Dichlorobenzene
-0.04
0.05
-0.04
0.10
p-Dichlorobenzene
-0.09
0.06
-0.08
0.10
o-Dichlorobenzene
-0.21
0.10
-0.22
0.15
Benzothiazole
4.73
4.79
4.36
3.89
11VOC = volatile organic compound; FLM = fence line monitor
b FLM Field Blank (n=43); FLM Run Blank (n=49)
Chamber Background Samples - Table E-28 reports chamber background sample measurement results
for chamber emission tests performed at 25 °C and 60 °C. One chamber background sample was
collected prior to the test performed for each tire crumb rubber sample. Sample emission results were
adjusted by subtracting the average chamber background measurement result for each batch from the
sample VOC measurement results for samples in that batch. Each batch was at either 25 °C or 60 °C, so
the chamber background adjustments were effectively made on a temperature-specific basis.
-------
Table E-28. Emission Test Chamber Background Sample Quality Control Results for VOCsa'b
Chemical
Mean Emission
Chamber
Background at
25 °C (ng/samplc)
Emission Chamber
Background at 25 °C
Standard Deviation
(ng/samplc)
Mean Emission
Chamber
Background at
60 °C (ng/samplc)
Emission Chamber
Background at 60 °C
Standard Deviation
(ng/samplc)
Benzene
0.3009
0.5352
0.9733
1.0122
Benzothiazole
0.7958
11.5077
6.1112
21.0472
Carbon tetrachloride
0.00973
0.0935
0.0608
0.1199
Chlorobenzene
0.0108
0.0289
0.0606
0.0385
Freon 11
0.4539
0.0843
0.4481
0.0795
Ethylbenzene
0.0431
0.0264
0.6647
0.5250
Freon 113
0.0633
0.0458
0.0628
0.0488
Methyl isobutyl ketone
0.3006
0.4819
1.9614
2.1588
Styrene
0.1240
0.4953
1.0900
0.5634
T etrachloroethene
0.0347
0.0381
0.0553
0.0370
Toluene
0.1280
0.3020
0.7423
0.5505
Trichloroethene
0.00603
0.0723
-0.0197
0.0320
Freon 12
1.2034
0.9950
1.2079
1.0174
1,1,1 -T richloroethane
0
0
-0.00211
0.0199
1,1 -Dichloroethane
-0.00093
0.0259
0.000639
0.0298
1,1 -Dichloroethene
0.00306
0.0289
0.00255
0.0241
1,2-Dichoroethane
0
0
0
0
1,2 -Dichloropropane
0.000440
0.000323
0.000447
0.000321
1,3,5 -T rimethy lbenzene
0.0238
0.0656
0.0406
0.0497
1,3-Butadiene
0.0171
0.2626
0.0315
0.2610
4-Ethyltoluene
0.0308
0.0209
0.1591
0.1267
cis-l,2-Dichloroethene
-0.0214
0.1420
-0.0115
0.1090
cis-2-Butene
0.0995
0.0595
0.9517
0.5326
m-Dichlorobenzene
0.0203
0.0607
0.0363
0.0342
m,p-Xylene
0.1489
0.1000
2.6777
2.2244
o-Dichlorobenzene
0.0269
0.0954
0.0192
0.0560
o-Xylene
0.1367
0.1051
1.9389
1.8241
p-Dichlorobenzene
0.0405
0.0717
0.3271
0.2666
trans-2-Butene
0.0973
0.0568
1.0360
0.5871
11VOC = volatile organic compound; °C = degrees Celsius
b Emission Chamber Background samples at 25 °C (n=89), at 60 °C (n=89)
-------
Recovery - Table E-29 reports tube matrix spike recovery results for each analyte and Table E-30
reports recovery results for FLM run calibration checks. Recoveries ranged from 77% to 108%. No
recovery adjustments were made in the sample analysis results.
Table E-29. Recovery Quality Control Results for VOCs in Tube Matrix Spike Samples a b c
Chemical
Tube Matrix Spikes
Mean % Recovery
Tube Matrix Spikes
% Recovery Standard Deviation
Freon 12
92
16
1,3-Butadiene
92
18
trans-2-Butene
90
18
cis-2-Butene
90
17
Freon 11
94
16
1,1 -Dichloroethene
95
19
Freon 113
101
9
1,1 -Dichloroethane
108
12
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene
104
20
1,2-Dichoroethane
110
16
1,1,1 -T richloroethane
102
14
Benzene
99
5
Carbon tetrachloride
97
30
1,2 -Dichloropropane
99
11
Trichloroethene
97
18
Methyl isobutyl ketone
91
44
Toluene
98
3
T etrachloroethene
100
3
Chlorobenzene
100
2
Ethylbenzene
99
2
m,p-Xylene
99
3
Styrene
102
4
o-Xylene
100
3
4-Ethyltoluene
103
8
1,3,5 -T rimethylbenzene
102
4
m-Dichlorobenzene
106
4
p-Dichlorobenzene
107
4
o-Dichlorobenzene
108
4
Benzothiazole
85
29
a VOC = volatile organic compound
b Tube Matrix Spikes (n=23), Spike = 4.8 to 27.8 nanograms (ng)/tube; all Lab Spikes were prepared on Carbopack X tubes
at nominal concentrations of 2 parts per billion by volume (ppbv)
0 Recoveries are calculated using the blank corrected tube results and the theoretical mass (ng) loaded
-------
Table E-30. Recovery Quality Control Results for VOCs in FLM Run Calibration Check Samples a'b'c
Chemical
FLM Run Calibration Check
Mean % Recovery
FLM Run Calibration Check
% Recovery Standard Deviation
Freon 12
93
6
1,3 -Butadiene
95
7
trans-2-Butene
88
6
cis-2-Butene
90
6
Freon 11
93
5
1,1 -Dichloroethene
88
16
Freon 113
98
6
1,1 -Dichloroethane
93
12
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene
89
12
1,2-Dichoroethane
89
11
1,1,1 -T richloroethane
105
16
Benzene
91
5
Carbon tetrachloride
108
31
1,2 -Dichloropropane
97
9
Trichloroethene
89
10
Methyl isobutyl ketone
107
57
Toluene
96
4
T etrachloroethene
95
4
Chlorobenzene
92
4
Ethylbenzene
94
5
m,p-Xylene
92
8
Styrene
94
6
o-Xylene
93
5
4-Ethyltoluene
96
7
1,3,5 -T rimethylbenzene
95
6
m-Dichlorobenzene
92
5
p-Dichlorobenzene
93
5
o-Dichlorobenzene
95
5
Benzothiazole
77
25
a VOC = volatile organic compound; FLM = fence line monitor
b FLM Run Calibration Check (n=50); Spike = 4.6 to 15.2 nanograms (ng)/tube. All Lab Spikes were prepared on Carbopack
X tubes at nominal concentrations of 2 parts per billion by volume (ppbv).
0 Recoveries are calculated using the blank corrected tube results and the theoretical mass (ng) loaded.
Precision - Analysis precision was assessed by the analysis of duplicate tire crumb rubber emission
samples collected during an emissions test. Results are shown for select VOCs in Section 4.9.1, Tables
4-54 and 4-55 of the Volume 1 report (EPA/600/R-19/051a). Mean %RSDs of chamber emissions VOC
measurements for 18 duplicate sample pairs analyzed at 25 °C ranged from 17% for benzothiazole
(which was present at the highest concentrations among the target analytes) to 67% for benzene. Mean
%RSDs of chamber emissions VOC measurements for 17 duplicate sample pairs analyzed at 60 °C
ranged from 8.8% for benzothiazole (which was present at the highest concentrations among target
analytes) to 100% for 1,3-butadiene. The average precision for benzothiazole, formaldehyde, methyl
isobutyl ketone, styrene and m/p-xylene 60 °C emission samples were all < 17%RSD. It is likely that the
-------
relatively poor precision for some analytes is due to measurements near or below the method detection
limits. Based on tube matrix spike samples, the %RSDs were < 30% for most analytes, with methyl
isobutyl ketone somewhat higher.
DQI - Most DQI objectives were met for VOC emission samples based on the quality control
measurement results. Precision DQI values were not met for some analytes, likely as a result of
measurements below or near the method detection limits.
E.4.8 Microbiological Analysis
Quality control (QC) procedures were employed for the microbiological component of the tire crumb
rubber study as outlined in the QAPP "Characterization of the Microbiome and Occurrence of Antibiotic
Resistance Genes in Tire Crumb Rubber Artificial Turf Athletic Fields."
A sample holding time of 24 hours was assigned to minimize growth and degradation of bacterial
community members. This metric was met for 20% of sample collection events. The minimum
exceedance time was 4 minutes and the maximum was 11.4 hours. The mean (± standard deviation)
exceedance time was 2.4 hours (± 2.1). Also, to minimize growth and degradation processes of bacterial
community members in collected samples, the holding temperature from sample collection to receipt
was targeted to be between 2-8 °C. This criterion was met for 20% of collection events. The minimum
holding temperature recorded was -40 °C and the maximum was 42 °C. Despite these derivations from
ideal conditions, all samples were processed and analyzed. It is unclear how specific taxa in the sample
may have been impacted by the exceeded holding time and temperatures, but it is likely that some taxa
may not have survived and could be absent in resulting analyses.
Field and laboratory quality control samples were implemented to assess process proficiency and
monitor potential contamination during sample processing and analysis. A description of the quality
control samples implemented during sample collection and sample processing, as well as a summary of
performance is shown in Table E-31. All processes performed within acceptance criteria except elution
of microbes from tire crumb rubber. However, despite falling below acceptance criteria and indicating
reduced recovery, those samples were still analyzed. Quality control samples were also implemented for
each analytical procedure. Table E-32 lists the control samples utilized for each analytical procedure and
resulting performance. All analytical procedure quality controls met acceptance criteria except the
Universal Staphylococcus droplet digital polymerase chain reaction (ddPCR) assay and 1 of 13 positive
controls for MiSeq sequencing. Because the Universal Staphylococcus ddPCR positive controls failed to
meet acceptance criteria, results from tire crumb rubber samples were not reported. MiSeq sequencing
included 6 replicates, so failure of a single replicate was accepted.
-------
Table E-31. Description of Quality Control Samples for Sample Collection and Processing3
Sam ple/Labo ratorv P roccss
Control
Type
Number of
Control
Samples
% Meet
Acceptance
Criteria
Qualifier
Sample Collection
Negative
40
100
N/A
Elution of microbes from TCR
Positive
23
87
Corresponding samples may
have reduced recovery of
microbes from tire crumb
rubber, but samples were
analyzed anyway
Elution of microbes from TCR
Negative
23
0
All samples were sequenced
to identify potential
contaminants
Extraction of genomic DNA of
eluted microbes
Positive
17
100
N/A
Extraction of genomic DNA of
eluted microbes
Negative
17
100
N/A
aN/A = Not applicable; TCR = Tire crumb rubber; DNA = deoxyribonucleic acid
Finally, some quality control metrics were implemented to evaluate sample quality. For targeted gene
analysis, an internal amplification control was instituted with each sample to evaluate potential
interference of the PCR reaction. Four samples failed to meet the acceptance criteria and were omitted
from analysis (Table E-33). Analysis of the non-targeted data resulted in 1 sample falling outside of the
quality metrics during sequence read processing (Table E-33). In addition, the negative controls for
sample collection and elution of microbes from tire crumb showed one sample from each cohort
contained potential bacterial contaminants. These two samples represented sample processing steps for
four fields. As a result, 28 samples were omitted from analysis (Table E-33). Furthermore, the minimum
sequence read count after quality filtering was set at 1000 per sample. A total of 8 samples fell below
this threshold and were removed from analysis.
Table E-32. Description of Quality Control Samples for Analytical Procedures3
Microbial
Analysis Type
Analytical Procedure
Control
Type
Number of
Control Samples
% Meet
Acceptance
Criteria
Action
Targeted
ddPCR - Internal
Amplification Control
Positive
16
100
N/A
Targeted
ddPCR - Internal
Amplification Control
Negative
16
100
N/A
Targeted
ddPCR - 16S rRNA gene
Positive
32
100
N/A
Targeted
ddPCR - 16S rRNA gene
Negative
32
100
N/A
Targeted
ddPCR - S. aureus SA104
protein gene
Positive
16
100
N/A
Targeted
ddPCR - S. aureus SA104
protein gene
Negative
32
100
N/A
Targeted
ddPCR - Universal
Staphylococcus
Positive
16
0
Results are not
reported for this
gene target
Targeted
ddPCR - Universal
Staphylococcus
Negative
32
100
N/A
-------
Table E-32 Continued
Microbial
Analysis Type
Analytical Procedure
Control
Type
Number of
Control Samples
% Meet
Acceptance
Criteria
Action
Targeted
ddPCR - mecA methicillin
resistance gene
Positive
16
100
N/A
Targeted
ddPCR - mecA methicillin
resistance gene
Negative
16
100
N/A
Non-largclcd
PCR for non-largclcd
analysis
Positive
39
100
N/A
Non-largclcd
PCR for non-largclcd
analysis
Negative
39
100
N/A
Non-targeted
MiSeq Sequencing
Positive
13
92
Accept failure of 1
replicate; Proceed
with analysis
addPCR = droplet digital polymerase chain reaction; N/A = Not applicable; rRNA = ribosomal ribonucleic acid; PCR =
polymerase chain reaction
Table E-33. Description of Quality Control Criteria Exceedances for Tire Crumb Rubber Samples
Microbial Analysis Type
Criteria
Number of
Samples
Corrective Action
Targeted
Internal amplification Control
4
Samples were omitted from analysis
Non-targeted
Sequence Read Filter
1
Samples were omitted from analysis
Non-targeted
Potential Contamination
28
Samples were omitted from analysis
Non-targeted
Total Read Counts
8
Samples were omitted from analysis
Precision was examined within samples collected from artificial turf fields using duplicate ddPCR
measurements (Table E-34). Only samples with quantifiable molecule counts for both duplicate ddPCR
reactions were included in the analysis. The mean (± standard deviation) percent relative standard
deviation was 12.7% (± 22.5), 37.3% (±29.3) and 22.3% (± 21.6) for the 16S rRNA gene, S. aureus
SA0140 protein gene and mecA methicillin resistance gene, respectively. Precision was also examined
between the 7 samples collected at each artificial turf field (Table E-35). To be included in analysis, all 7
replicate field samples had to have quantifiable results. Some variability was observed in replicate field
samples as %RSD ranged from 58-63% for the targeted microbial genes. However, less variability was
observed in 16S rRNA sequence read counts among replicated field samples as the %RSD was 28.7%.
Table E-34. Precision of ddPCR Measurements of Targeted Genes Within Samples3
Gene Target
Number of Samples
Mean % Relative
Standard Deviation
Standard
Deviation
16S rRNA gene
274
12.7
22.5
S. aureus SAO 140 protein gene
70
37.3
29.3
nice. I methicillin resistance gene
131
22.3
21.6
a ddPCR = droplet digital polymerase chain reaction; rRNA = ribosomal ribonucleic acid
-------
Table E-35. Precision of Measurements Between Samples of a Field Where Microbes were Detected for All
Seven Samples from the Field3
Microbial Analysis Type
Measurement
Number
of Fields
Mean % Relative
Standard Deviation
Standard
Deviation
Targeted
16S rRNA gene
36
63.44
35.84
Targeted
S. aureus SAO 140 protein gene
3
58.37
28.81
Targeted
nice A methicillin resistance gene
14
58.89
23.34
Non-targeted
16S rRNA Sequence Reads
36
28.7
22.6
a rRNA = ribosomal ribonucleic acid
E.4.9 Bioaccessibility Analysis for Metals
The QA/QC protocol for the bioaccessibility testing of metals in tire crumb rubber materials included
QA/QC procedures for each individual step and an overall QA/QC assessment for the entire
bioaccessibility analysis scheme. Bioaccessibility testing involves numerous steps and procedures, each
following its own "base method," including formulation of the four artificial biofluids, dissolution of
target analytes in tire crumb samples into biofluids, acid digestion of artificial biofluid extracts (EPA
Method 3010), and analytical measurements by ICP/MS (EPA Method 6020), ICP/AES (EPA Method
6010), and mercury cold vapor technique (EPA Method 7470). Therefore, QA/QC procedures were
employed for each step and documented following the guidelines specified in each of the base methods.
Maxxam Laboratories is a subsidiary of Buena Veritas North America and was contracted to perform
analytical services for the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). The company
participates in the American Industrial Hygiene Association Industrial Hygiene Proficiency Analytical
Testing program and the Environmental Lead Proficiency Analytical Testing program and is
documented to be fully proficient by these independent testing programs. Results from each 6-month
testing period are available from Maxxam Laboratories. Maxxam Laboratories was subject to NIOSH
QA/QC checks and required to comply with requirements outlined by NIOSH Division of Applied
Research and Technology quality assurance and quality control protocol.
E.4.9.1 QA/QC for Dissolution in Artificial Biofluids
All fluids were produced using commercially-available reagents. All reagents were stored according to
manufacturer recommendations. Artificial fluid pH was monitored using third party annually-calibrated
pH meters (certificates are on file at the CDC/NIOSH in Morgantown, WV). Artificial biofluids were
stored at -20 °C until use. Once thawed, fluids were stored at 4 °C for one month, then discarded. All
freezers and refrigerators were monitored for temperature using traceable thermometers, but records
were not maintained. Tire crumb rubber samples were weighed on an annually-calibrated balance.
Balance accuracy was verified prior to each use using calibration weights within the range of individual
sample masses. All tire crumb samples were 2.0 ± 0.005g. Balance calibration certificates are on file at
NIOSH in Morgantown, WV. Pipetting was performed using annually-calibrated pipettes and pipette
accuracy was verified weekly using 18 megQ water. Pipette and balance precision was assumed to be
±2.0 %, as reported by the manufacturer.
E.4.9.2 QA/QC for Analytical Measurements at the Maxxam Laboratories
QA/QC for the metal analyses in this study was conducted according to guidelines set forth in EPA
Methods 3010, 6010, 6020, and 7470, for acid digestion, ICP/AES analysis, ICP/MS analysis, and
mercury cold vapor analysis, respectively. After the laboratory analyses were completed, the result
-------
reports underwent a QA/QC review at the Maxxam Laboratories before being uploaded to the NIOSH
Laboratory Information Management System (LIMS).
E.4.9.3 QA/QC Review at NIOSH Laboratory Information Management System
Once the result reports were submitted to the NIOSH LIMS, they were reviewed by the NIOSH
Comprehensive Analytical Support Contract quality assurance team. The report review process included
reviews of data accuracy, errors of omission, and report formatting in accordance with the United States
Department of Health and Human Services Section 508 compliance for digital communications. The
review process was a multi-level process as outlined in Table E-36.
Table E-36. QA/QC Review Process at NIOSH for the Analytical Measurements of the Bioaccessibility
Testing Sample Extracts3
Review levels
Actions
Level 1 - Data checker
Checker reviews QC sheets and narrative report to confirm data and determines whether
report follows Branch policy.
Level 2 - Lab coordinator
Laboratory coordinator determines that the analyses have covered all aspects of the original
laboratory request.
Level 3 - QA coordinator
QA coordinator assesses all QC data, reviews report for SOP conformance and creates and
uploads a QA pdf file which includes the QC sheets.
Level 4 - Team leader
Team leader reviews comments of previous reviewers and provides final review to the author
indicating anything that remains to be done.
Level 5 - Branch chief
Branch chief approves report. The LIMS automatically sends e-mail with URL to client,
prints a hard copy of the report for the files and closes with date the report is approved.
a QA/QC = quality assurance/quality control; NIOSH = National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health; SOP= standard
operating procedure; LIMS = laboratory information management system; URL = universal resource locator
E.4.9.4 QA/QC Scheme for the Entire Bioaccessibility Testing
This study used a series of systematic approaches to document the QA/QC process for the entire
bioaccessibility analysis scheme, including method blanks, QC samples and repeated samples.
•	Method blanks: artificial biofluids with no tire crumb rubber materials that was carried through
the entire bioaccessibility testing process (extraction-digestion-analysis).
•	QC samples: a native tire crumb material collected in bulk from a manufacturer facility that was
carried through the entire bioaccessibility testing process
•	Repeated samples: unknown field or facility tire crumb samples that had two or more repeated
bioaccessibility tests. The repeated tests occurred either within the same batch or in different
batches.
Tire crumb samples were processed in nine batches. For the first eight batches, each batch consisted of
one method blank, two QC samples, 10 unknown field or facility tire crumb samples, and two repeated
unknown tire crumb samples. The last batch consisted of one method blank, two QC samples, two
unknown field or facility tire crumb samples, and 10 repeated unknown tire crumb samples. In addition,
one batch was repeated for gastric fluid and another batch was repeated for sweat plus sebum. All results
were blank-subtracted before further analysis.
-------
QC results - QC samples were evaluated and monitored throughout this study. Before bioaccessibility
testing on the tire crumb samples, 40 QC samples were tested over 5 different batches to assess the
variability in the three artificial biofluids. In addition, 20, 18, and 20 QC samples were tested along with
tire crumb samples for artificial gastric fluid, saliva, and sweat plus sebum, respectively. The preparation
and analytical measurement of these QC samples spanned a period of six months. Therefore, the
variability observed in the QC samples reflects the overall precision of all steps (dissolution, digestion,
and analytical measurement), the temporal variability of the entire test scheme, and the heterogeneity of
the tire crumb samples. Summary statistics of the QC samples for selected analytes and artificial
biofluids are given in Table E-37. Only the analytes/artificial biofluids with mean concentrations 10
times above the analytical limit of detection (LOD) were monitored for variability and consistency.
Overall, the coefficient of variance (CV) for the monitored analytes/artificial biofluid ranged from 22%
to 40%.
Table E-37. Summary Statistics of the QC Samples for Selected Analytes and Artificial Biofluids3
Matrix
Analvtc
Method
N
Mean
(m«/k« TCR)
Standard
Deviation
(m«/k« TCR)
CV
Gastric Fluid
Barium
ICP/MS
60
0.32
0.09
30%
Gastric Fluid
Cobalt
ICP/MS
60
0.21
0.06
31%
Gastric Fluid
Copper
ICP/MS
60
2.32
0.71
31%
Gastric Fluid
Iron
ICP/AES
60
21
7.2
34%
Gastric Fluid
Lead
ICP/MS
60
0.22
0.06
29%
Gastric Fluid
Magnesium
ICP/AES
60
3.7
1.1
31%
Gastric Fluid
Strontium
ICP/MS
60
0.11
0.04
35%
Gastric Fluid
Zinc
ICP/AES
60
122
34
28%
Saliva
Magnesium
ICP/AES
58
0.7
0.3
39%
Sweat plus Sebum
Cobalt
ICP/MS
60
0.10
0.03
32%
Sweat plus Sebum
Magnesium
ICP/AES
60
1.0
0.2
22%
Sweat plus Sebum
Zinc
ICP/AES
60
12
4.9
40%
a QC = quality control; mg/kg TCR = milligram of analyte per kilogram of tire crumb rubber; CV = coefficient of variance;
ICP/MS = inductively coupled plasma/mass spectrometry; ICP/AES = inductively coupled plasma/atomic emission
spectrometry
Repeated bioaccessibility testing results - Twenty-four (24) tire crumb samples were repeated for the
bioaccessibility test for each of the three artificial biofluids, either in the same batch or over different
batches. In addition, one entire batch was repeated for artificial gastric fluid and another batch was
repeated for artificial sweat plus sebum. A batch was not repeated for artificial saliva, because very few
analytes were detected in artificial saliva extracts. In total, 34 (41%), 24 (29%), and 34 (41%) tire crumb
samples were repeated for the bioaccessibility test for artificial gastric fluid, saliva and sweat plus
sebum, respectively.
Correlation analyses were conducted on 10 metals with 50% or higher detection rates (i.e., 50% or more
of results were above the LOD) in these repeated samples, combining results from all three artificial
biofluids. The correlation parameters between the repeated results are given in Table E-38, stratified by
analyte. Figures E-l and E-2 present the scatter plots between the repeated bioaccessibility test results
for the 10 metals with >50%> detection rate, including 4 metals measured by ICP/AES and 6 metals
-------
measured by ICP/MS. As shown from the results of the correlation analyses, the repeated
bioaccessibility results were, in general, consistent with each other; this demonstrates the reproducibility
and consistency of the entire bioaccessibility test procedure, which included dissolution of tire crumb
samples in artificial biofluids, acid digestion of the artificial biofluid extracts, and analytical
measurements by ICP/MS and ICP/AES.
Table E-38. Correlation Parameters of Repeated Bioaccessibility Testing Results (mg/kg TCR)
for Analytes with 50% or Higher Detection Rate3
Analyte
Method
N
Slope
Intercept
R2
Aluminum
AES
92
0.96
0.03
0.938
Barium
MS
92
1.03
-0.03
0.908
Cobalt
MS
92
0.83
0.02
0.901
Copper
MS
92
0.90
0.07
0.972
Iron
AES
92
0.90
1.35
0.958
Lead
MS
92
0.91
0.01
0.911
Magnesium
AES
92
1.00
-0.17
0.974
Manganese
MS
92
1.02
-0.03
0.882
Strontium
MS
92
1.00
0.00
0.977
Zinc
AES
92
0.96
0.44
0.923
11 mg/kg TCR = milligram of analyte per kilogram of tire crumb rubber; R2 = statistical constant variability
test; AES = atomic emission spectrometry; MS = mass spectrometry
-------
Magnesium
60
SO
46
30
10
0
10
20
40
TO
0
Aluminum
20
15
10
0
0
a
10
13
20
25
RESULTS 7C1
Iron
Zinc
IX

20
ft
163
0
M
13
Figure E-l. Scatter plots between repeated bioaccessibility analyses results (mg/kg TCR) for four analytes
with 50% or higher detection rate, as measured by ICP/AES (all three artificial biofluids combined).[mg/kg
TCR = milligram of analyte per kilogram of tire crumb rubber; ICP/AES= inductively coupled plasma/atomic emission
spectrometry]
-------
RESULTS_TC2
H
Barium
fit SUITS TC2
Cobalt
¦ ¦< • id
RESULTS TC1
RESULTS TC?
14
BESULTS TC2
Copper
UUL11 R31
RESULTS TCI
REflUUB ICS
WESULTS.TC?
*5
Manganese
Strontium
nm TC1
RESULTS TCI
Figure E-2. Scatter plots between repeated bioaccessibility analyses results (mg/kg TCR) for six analytes
with 50% or higher detection rate, as measured by ICP/MS (all three artificial biofluids combined), [mg/kg
TCR = milligram of analyte per kilogram of tire crumb rubber; ICP/MS= inductively coupled plasma/mass spectrometry]
-------
[This page intentionally left blank.]
-------
Appendix F
Synthetic Turf Field Facility Owner/Manager
Questionnaire
-------
DRAFT AND DELIBERATIVE -INTERNAL ONLY-DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Owner/Manager Synthetic Turf Fields Questionnaire
Site ID number	Interview Date	Interviewer ID
Form Approved
OMB No. 0923-0054
Exp. Date 01/31/2017
Interviewer: In this interview, I would like to ask you some general
questions about your role and responsibilities at this facility and about the
operation, maintenance, and use of the synthetic turf fields with crumb
rubber infill at your facility.
A1. Who owns the facility?
A1 .a What type of organization owns the facility?	Private
School
A2. What is your profession and relationship to this
facility?

City
County
State
Military/Federal
(enter other if necessary)
(owner or manager)
A3. How long have you operated this facility?
| yrs	I months
'
A4. May I have your phone number and E-mail address for future contact?
j Phone
E-Mail
ATSDR estimates the average public reporting burden for this collection of information as 30 minutes per
response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and
maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. An agency may
not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to collection of information unless it
displays a currently valid OMB control number. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any
other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden to
CDC/ATSDR Reports Clearance Officer; 1600 Clifton Road, MS D-74, Atlanta, GA 30333, ATTN: PRA
(0923-0054).
-------
DRAFT AND DELIBERATIVE -INTERNAL ONLY-DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Facility User Information
A5. Are the synthetic fields at this facility open to the public?
O Yes
O No
O Don't Know
O Refused
A6. Is there an open or free-play schedule at this facility?
A7. Is field use at this facility limited to organization membership
or school use only?
If yes, what organization(s) use the synthetic fields?
O Yes
O No
O Don't Know
O Refused
O Yes
O No
O Don't Know
O Refused
A8. How many days per week are the synthetic fields open at this facility during each
season?
Days per Week Spring
Days per Week Summer
Days per Week Fall
Days per Week Wnter
A9. What is average number of hours per day that people use the
synthetic fields at this facility during the four seasons?
Hours
per
Day
Spring
Hours
per
Day
Summer
Hours
per
Day
Fall
Hours
per
Day
Wnter
-------
DRAFT AND DELIBERATIVE -INTERNAL ONLY-DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
A10a. On average, how many people per day use the synthetic fields at this
facility during Spring?
A10b. On average, how many people per day use the synthetic fields at this
facility during Summer?
A10c. On average, how many people per day use the synthetic fields at this
facility during Fall?
A10d. On average, how many people per day use the synthetic fields at this
facility during Winter?
A11. For each of the different age groups, what sports or other activities are
played on the synthetic turf fields at this facility during which seasons (check all
that apply)?


Spring
Summer
Fall
Winter
~
Soccer
~
~
~
~
~
Football
~
~
~
~
~
Field Hockey
~
~
~
~
~
Baseball
~
~
~
~
~
Softball
~
~
~
~
~
Rugby
~
~
~
~
~
Ultimate Frisbee
~
~
~
~
~
Physical Training (PT)
~
~
~
~
~
Physical Education (PE)
~
~
~
~
~
Other:
~
~
~
~
~
Other:
~
~
~
~
~
Soccer
~
~
~
~
~
Football
~
~
~
~
~
Field Hockey
~
~
~
~
~
Baseball
~
~
~
~
~
Softball
~
~
~
~
~
Rugby
~
~
~
~
~
Ultimate Frisbee
~
~
~
~
~
Physical Training (PT)
~
~
~
~
~
Physical Education (PE)
~
~
~
~
~
Other:
~
~
~
~
~
Other:
~
~
~
~
-------
DRAFT AND DELIBERATIVE -INTERNAL ONLY-DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
A11. For each of the different age groups, what sports or other
activities are played on the synthetic turf fields at this facility during
which seasons (check all that apply)? (continued)


Spring
Summer
Fall
Winter
~
Soccer
~
~
n
~
Football
~
~
~
~
~
Field Hockey
~
~
~
~
~
Baseball
~
~
~
~
~
Softball
~
~
~
~
~
Rugby
~
~
~
~
~
Ultimate Frisbee
~
~
~
n
~
Physical Training
~
~
~
~
~
Physical Education (PE)
~
~
~
~
~
Other: I
~
~
~
~
~
Other:
~
~
~
~


Spring
Summer
Fall
Winter
~
Soccer
~
~
n
~
Football
~
~
~
~
~
Field Hockey
~
~
~
~
~
Baseball
~
~
~
n
~
Softball
~
~
~
~
~
Rugby
~
~
~
n
~
Ultimate Frisbee
~
~
~
~
~
Physical Training
~
~
~
~
~
Physical Education (PE)
~
~
~
~
~
Other:
~
~
~
~
~
Other:
~
~
~
~
Facility Information
A12. Do you have any standard practices in place to reduce tire crumb exposure to
people using the synthetic fields?	~
If so (describe):
-------
DRAFT AND DELIBERATIVE -INTERNAL ONLY-DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Outdoor Fields Only
A13. Are there outdoor fields at this facility? ~
A14. When was each outdoor synthetic field installed at this facility?
Field	Month	Year
A15. Which company or companies installed these fields?
I	1|
I	I
A16. Do you ever replace all of the tire crumb infill on the outdoor synthetic turf
field(s) at your facility?
O Yes
O No
O Don't Know
O Refused
If yes, how often do you replace all of the tire crumb infill on the synthetic turf
fields?
0
Never/rarely
0
Every 6 months
0
Yearly
0
Every 2-3 years
0
Every 3-5 years
0
Every 5-7 years
0
More than 7 years
0
Don't Know
0
-------
DRAFT AND DELIBERATIVE -INTERNAL ONLY-DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
A17. Do you ever refresh or add tire crumb infill to your outdoor synthetic turf field(s) at your
facility?
O Yes
O No
O Don't Know
O Refused
If yes, how often do you refresh or add tire crumb infill to your synthetic turf
fields?
0
Rarely/Never
0
Every 6 months
0
Yearly
0
Every 2-3 years
0
Every 3-5 years
0
Every 5-7 years
0
More than 7 years
0
Don't Know
0
Refuse
A18. What was the date of the most recent replacement/refreshment?
A19. Which company or companies provides crumb rubber infill material
for replacement/refreshment?
A20. Are the following routine field maintenance activities performed on the
outdoor synthetic field(s) at this facility?

Activity
Times
per
U
Sweeping

Day/week/month/year
U
Brushing

Day/week/month/year
~
Redistribution/leveling

Day/week/month/year
u
Aerating

Day/week/month/year
u
Magnet sweep

Day/week/month/year
~
Rejuvenation

Day/week/month/year
~
Deep Cleaning

Day/week/month/year
-------
DRAFT AND DELIBERATIVE -INTERNAL ONLY-DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
A21. Has the outdoor synthetic field(s) ever been treated with biocides, herbicides,
insecticides, fungicides, or other agents?
O Yes
O No
O Don't Know
O Refused
A22. Have any of the following chemicals been used on the field? (check all that
apply) and how often?
Chemical
~	Algae Died B
~	Qualgex
~	Steri-maX
~	Other (specify)
Times per
Day/week/month/year
Day/week/month/year
Day/week/month/year
Day/week/month/year
~
Unknown Biocide
Daily/weekly/
monthly/annually
Indoor Fields Only
A23. Are there indoor fields at this facility? ~
A24. When was each indoor synthetic field installed at this facility?
Field	Month	Year
A25. Which company or companies installed these fields?
-------
DRAFT AND DELIBERATIVE -INTERNAL ONLY-DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
A26. Do you ever replace all of the tire crumb infill on the indoor synthetic turf field(s) at your
facility?
O Yes
O No
O Don't Know
O Refused
If yes, how often do you replace all of the tire crumb infill on the synthetic turf
fields?
0
Rarely/Never
0
Every 6 months
0
Yearly
0
Every 2-3 years
0
Every 3-5 years
0
Every 5-7 years
0
More than 7 years
0
Don't Know
0
Refuse
A27. Do you ever refresh or add tire crumb infill to your indoor synthetic turf field(s) at your
facility?	q yes
O No
O Don't Know
G Refused
If yes, how often do you refresh or add tire crumb infill to your synthetic turf
fields?
-------
DRAFT AND DELIBERATIVE -INTERNAL ONLY-DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
0
Rarely/Never
0
Every 6 months
0
Yearly
0
Every 2-3 years
0
Every 3-5 years
0
Every 5-7 years
0
More than 7 years
0
Don't Know
0
Refuse
A28. What was the date of the most recent replacement/refreshment?
A29. What company or companies provides crumb rubber infill material for
replacement/refreshment?
A30. Are the following routine field maintenance activities performed on the indoor
synthetic field(s) at this facility?

Activity
Times
per
U
Sweeping

Day/week/month/year
U
Brushing

Day/week/month/year
~
Redistribution/leveling

Day/week/month/year
u
Aerating

Day/week/month/year
u
Magnet sweep

Day/week/month/year
u
Rejuvenation

Day/week/month/year
u
Deep Cleaning

Day/week/month/year
A31. Has the outdoor synthetic field(s) ever been treated with biocides,
herbicides, insecticides, fungicides, or other agents?
O Yes
ONo
O Don't Know
O Refused
-------
DRAFT AND DELIBERATIVE -INTERNAL ONLY-DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
A32. Have any of the following chemicals been used on the field? (check
all that apply) and how often?
~	Algae Died B
~	Qualgex
~	Steri-maX
~	Other (specify)
Daily/weekly/monthly/annually
Daily/weekly/monthly/annually
Daily/weekly/monthly/annually
Daily/weekly/monthly/annually
~ Unknown Biocide
Daily/weekly/monthly/annually
A33. Do you know the outdoor air fraction ventilation rates for this facility during each
season? ~
If yes (please specify):
Spring
Summer
Fall
Winter
(cfm)
(cfm)
(cfm)
(cfm)
If you do not know, can you identify a person, including their phone number,
who can provide us with your facility ventilation rates?
(full name)	(phone number)
Thank you so much for your time. I know that your time is valuable. If you have
any questions or concerns, please, refer to the contact sheet for information on
who to contact.
-------
[This page intentionally left blank.]
-------
Appendix G
Shapiro-Wilk Test Results for Selected Tire
Crumb Rubber Characterization
Measurement Distributions
-------
G.1 Overview
Some data analyses for tire crumb rubber characterization included statistical tests of differences for
measurement results between recycling plants and synthetic turf fields, or among synthetic turf fields
with different characteristics (indoor vs. outdoor, installation age, and geographic region). For chemical
concentration value, emission factor, and particle size tables, tests for equality of group means were
performed in log-scale by 1-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) models fitted in the SAS MIXED
procedure. The decision to use logarithmic transformations for these tests of group means was based on
Shapiro-Wilk tests for normality that showed for a majority of the analytes the hypothesis of a normal
distribution was not rejected following log transformation. Results for Shapiro-Wilk testing for
untransformed and transformed data are shown below, first for recycling plant measurement and then for
synthetic turf field measurements. The hypothesis of a normal distribution of untransformed or log-
transformed data was considered not rejected when Shapiro-Wilk test values exceeded 0.05. For some
particle groups or chemicals/analysis combinations, Shapiro-Wilk test results were below 0.05 for both
untransformed and log-transformed measurement results. Caution is warranted in interpreting statistical
testing results. Because the synthetic turf field sampling design was based on a stratified selection for
specific field characteristics, it was not assumed that the field measurement results would necessarily
follow a normal distribution. A conservative approach was taken to suppress reporting p-values when
any chemical-specific or particle size data values represented in a table was not >0, since log-
transformation could not be performed and the result was a less than complete data set.
G.2 Recycling Plant Shapiro-Wilk Test Results
Table G-l. P-values for Shapiro-Wilk Tests of Normality for Particle Size from Recycling Plants (Source
Particle Size by Sieve with Gravimetric Analysis)
Particle Size Category
Linear Scale
Log Scale
<0.063 mm
<0.0001
0.0015
>0.063 - 0.125 mm
<0.0001
0.0001
>0.125 - 0.25 mm
<0.0001
0.0744
>0.25 -1 mm
<0.0001
0.0001
>1 - 2 mm
0.0003
<0.0001
>2 - 4.75 mm
0.0462
<0.0001
>4.75 mm
<0.0001
0.9357
-------
Table G-2. P-values for Shapiro-Wilk Tests of Normality for Metals from Recycling Plants (Source Tire
Crumb Rubber Digests by ICP-MS)3
Analytc
Linear Scale
Log Scale
Aluminum
0.1087
0.4420
Antimony
0.1029
0.0610
Arsenic
0.0249
0.1854
Barium
<0.0001
0.0007
Beryllium
<0.0001
0.1286
Cadmium
0.0216
0.2732
Chromium
0.0095
0.4736
Cobalt
0.0638
0.9341
Copper
0.0220
0.5851
Iron
<0.0001
0.0291
Lead
<0.0001
0.0007
Magnesium
0.0003
0.068
Manganese
<0.0001
0.0058
Molybdenum
<0.0001
0.0226
Nickel
0.0285
0.2138
Rubidium
0.0202
0.0179
Selenium
0.2650
0.7832
Strontium
0.0741
0.3898
Tin
0.6180
0.8099
Vanadium
0.0023
0.7152
Zinc
0.0737
0.2543
a ICP/MS= inductively coupled plasma/mass spectrometry
Table G-3. P-values for Shapiro-Wilk Tests of Normality Metals from Recycling Plants (Source XRF)a
Analytc
Linear Scale
Log Scale
Barium
<0.0001
<0.0001
Chromium
0.3892
0.4017
Cobalt
0.0124
0.5930
Copper
0.1053
0.7091
Iron
<0.0001
0.0355
Lead
0.8025
0.2753
Manganese
N/A
N/A
Molybdenum
0.8564
0.1942
Rubidium
0.0464
0.1690
Strontium
0.0876
0.0169
Zinc
0.0218
0.0479
a XRF = X-ray fluorescence spectrometry; N/A = not applicable (no test performed)
-------
Table G-4. P-values for Shapiro-Wilk Tests of Normality for SVOCs from Recycling Plants (Source Tire
Crumb Rubber Extracts by GC/MS/MS)3
Analvtc
Linear Scale
Log Scale
1 -Methylnaphthalene
0.0142
0.0040
1 -Methylphenanthrene
0.0111
0.7006
2 -B romo methylnaphthalene
N/A
N/A
2-Methylnaphthalene
0.0333
0.0085
2 -Methylphenanthrene
<0.0001
0.0062
3 -Methylphenanthrene
0.0103
0.1969
4-tert-octylphenol
0.0331
0.1862
Acenaphthylene
0.1227
0.4656
Aniline
<0.0001
0.0001
Anthracene
<0.0001
0.0192
Benz(a)anthracene
0.0009
0.3186
Benzo[a]pyrene
0.0029
0.8584
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
<0.0001
0.1612
Benzo(e)pyrene
0.0592
0.0114
Benzo [ghijperylene
<0.0001
0.0546
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
0.2822
0.4439
Benzothiazole
0.2232
0.1869
Benzyl butyl phthalate
0.0086
0.1111
Bis(2,2,6,6-tetramethyl-4-piperidyl) sebacate
0.0209
0.0471
2,6-Di-tert-butyl-p-cresol
<0.0001
0.0217
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
<0.0001
0.0259
Chrysene
0.0129
0.4231
Coronene
<0.0001
0.0368
Cyclohexylisothiocyanate
0.2151
0.2015
DBA + ICDPb
0.0100
0.3865
Di-n-octyl phthalate
0.0092
0.9637
Dibenzothiophene
0.0026
0.1214
Dibutyl phthalate
0.0013
0.0370
Diethyl phthalate
<0.0001
0.1621
Diisobutyl phthalate
<0.0001
0.0130
Dimethyl phthalate
0.0124
<0.0001
Fluoranthene
0.0690
0.7391
Fluorene
0.0217
0.8336
Naphthalene
0.0410
0.0364
Phenanthrene
0.1723
0.0958
Pyrene
0.0311
0.0921
Suml5PAH°
0.1095
0.3324
n-Butylbenzene
0.0185
0.0059
n-Hexadecane
0.0004
0.0033
11SVOC = semivolatile organic compound; GC/MS/MS = gas chromatography/tandem mass spectrometry; N/A = not applicable
(no test performed)
bDBA = ICDP = Dibenz(a,h)anthracene + Indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene
0 Suml5PAH = Sum of 15 of the 16 EPA 'priority' PAHs, including Acenaphthylene, Anthracene, Benz[a]anthracene,
Benzo[a]pyrene, Benzo(b)fluoranthene, Benzo[ghi]perylene, Benzo(k)fluoranthene, Chrysene, Dibenz[a,h]anthracene,
Fluoranthene, Fluorene, Indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene, Naphthalene, Phenanthrene, Pyrene
-------
Table G-5. P-values for Shapiro-Wilk Tests of Normality for SVOCs from Recycling Plants (Source Tire
Crumb Rubber Extracts by LC/TOFMS in Positive Mode)3
Analytc
Linear Scale
Los Scale
2-benzothiazolone
0.0972
<0.0001
2-mercaptobenzothiazole
<0.0001
0.0181
N-cyclohexyl-N-methylcyclohexanamine
0.0011
0.3153
cyclohexylamine
0.1591
0.0008
di-cyclohexylamine
<0.0001
0.0080
diisodecylphthalate
<0.0001
0.0919
diisononylphthalate
<0.0001
0.2940
a SVOC = semivolatile organic compound; LC/TOFMS = liquid chromatography/time-of-flight mass spectrometry
Table G-6. P-values for Shapiro-Wilk Tests of Normality for VOCs from Recycling Plants at 25 °C (Source
Chamber Emissions by GC/TOFMS)3
Analytc
Linear Scale
Lojj Scale
1,1,1 -T richloroethane
N/A
N/A
1,1 -Dichloroethane
<0.0001
<0.0001
1,1 -Dichloroethene
0.3581
N/A
1,2-Dichloroethane
N/A
N/A
1,2-Dichloropropane
0.3581
N/A
1,3,5 -T rimethylbenzene
0.7229
<0.0001
1,3-Butadiene
<0.0001
N/A
4-Ethyltoluene
0.0049
<0.0001
Benzene
0.003
0.7634
Benzothiazole
0.0001
<0.0001
Carbon Tetrachloride
<0.0001
N/A
Chlorobenzene
0.0002
0.0148
Dichlorodifluoromethane (Freon 12)
<0.0001
0.0495
Ethylbenzene
0.0029
0.0714
Formaldehyde
<0.0001
0.2755
Methyl isobutyl ketone
0.0148
<0.0001
Styrene
0.0045
0.5834
SumBTEXb
0.0513
0.0232
T etrachloroethylene
<0.0001
0.0003
Toluene
0.0117
0.2127
T richloroethylene
<0.0001
0.8823
Trichlorofluoromethane (Freon 11)
0.0752
0.0007
Trichlorotrifluoroethane (Freon 113)
<0.0001
0.2350
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene
0.3581
0.2860
cis-2-Butene
0.9183
0.5889
m-Dichlorobenzene
<0.0001
0.0793
m/p-Xylene
0.0002
0.3748
o-Dichlorobenzene
<0.0001
0.7381
-------
Table G-6 Continued
Analytc
Linear Scale
Log Scale
o-Xylene
0.0016
0.0777
p-Dichlorobenzene
<0.0001
0.4276
trans-2-Butene
0.8181
0.1223
11VOC = volatile organic compound; °C = degrees Celsius; GC/TOFMS = gas chromatography/time-of-flight mass
spectrometry; N/A = not applicable (no test performed)
b SumBTEX = Sum of benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, m/p-xylene, and o-xylene
Table G-7. P-values for Shapiro-Wilk Tests of Normality for VOCs from Recycling Plants at 60 °C (Source
Chamber Emissions by GC/TOFMS)
Analytc
Linear Scale
Lojj Scale
1,1,1 -T richloroethane
0.7347
0.8037
1,1 -Dichloroethane
<0.0001
N/A
1,1 -Dichloroethene
0.7347
N/A
1,2-Dichloroethane
<0.0001
N/A
1,2-Dichloropropane
0.7347
N/A
1,3,5 -T rimethylbenzene
0.2217
0.0194
1,3-Butadiene
0.7347
N/A
4-Ethyltoluene
0.0097
0.3283
Benzene
0.0187
0.0295
Benzothiazole
0.8964
0.9574
Carbon Tetrachloride
0.0005
N/A
Chlorobenzene
0.0003
0.6211
Dichlorodifluoromethane (Freon 12)
<0.0001
0.0004
Ethylbenzene
0.0002
0.3206
Formaldehyde
0.2745
0.1932
Metyl isobutyl ketone
0.6141
0.3681
Styrene
0.1845
0.0293
SumBTEXb
0.1675
0.0157
T etrachloroethylene
<0.0001
0.0282
Toluene
0.0016
0.1065
T richloroethylene
0.0007
0.1213
Trichlorofluoromethane (Freon 11)
0.0235
0.0005
Trichlorotrifluoroethane (Freon 113)
<0.0001
0.3394
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene
<0.0001
<0.0001
cis-2-Butene
<0.0001
0.9493
m-Dichlorobenzene
0.0008
0.7655
m/p-Xylene
0.1398
0.2296
o-Dichlorobenzene
<0.0001
0.5595
o-Xylene
0.0052
0.7793
-------
Table G-7 Continued
Analvtc
Linear Scale
Log Scale
p-Dichlorobenzene
0.1290
0.0322
trans-2-Butene
<0.0001
0.9076
a VOC = volatile organic compound; °C = degrees Celsius; GC/TOFMS = gas chromatography/time-of-flight mass
spectrometry; N/A = not applicable (no test performed)
b SumBTEX = Sum of benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, m/p-xylene, and o-xylene
Table G-8. P-values for Shapiro-Wilk Tests of Normality for SVOCs from Recycling Plants at 25 °C
(Source Chamber SVOC Emissions by GC/MS/MS)3
Analvtc
Linear Scale
Log Scale
1 -Methylnaphthalene
0.0151
0.0020
1 -Methylphenanthrene
<0.0001
0.0612
2 -B romo methylnaphthalene
<.0001
0.9588
2-Methylnaphthalene
0.0194
0.0019
2 -Methylphenanthrene
<0.0001
0.0189
3 -Methylphenanthrene
0.0060
0.1741
4-tert-octylphenol
0.0065
0.6520
Acenaphthylene
0.5936
0.0016
Aniline
0.1129
0.0002
Anthracene
<0.0001
0.0867
Benz(a)anthracene
0.0001
0.0535
Benzo[a]pyrene
<0.0001
<0.0001
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
<0.0001
0.3549
Benzo(e)pyrene
N/A
N/A
Benzo [ghijperylene
<0.0001
1
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
<0.0001
N/A
Benzothiazole
<0.0001
0.6140
Bis(2,2,6,6-tetramethyl-4-piperidyl) sebacate
<0.0001
N/A
Chrysene
<0.0001
0.0134
Coronene
<0.0001
N/A
DBA + ICDPb
0.0045
0.1378
Di-n-octyl phthalate
<0.0001
0.0045
Dibenzothiophene
0.0155
0.3881
Dibutyl phthalate
<0.0001
0.4369
Diisobutyl phthalate
0.0056
0.2616
Dimethyl phthalate
0.1597
0.0433
Fluoranthene
0.0003
0.1747
Fluorene
0.5162
0.7803
Naphthalene
0.1666
0.0075
Phenanthrene
0.0002
0.8634
Pyrene
0.0007
-------
Table G-8 Continued
Analvtc
Linear Scale
Lojj Scale
Suml5PAH°
0.1514
0.0249
n-Butylbenzene
0.0003
0.3233
a SVOC = semivolatile organic compound; °C = degrees Celsius; GC/MS/MS = gas chromatography/tandem mass
spectrometry; N/A = not applicable (no test performed)
bDBA + ICDP = Sum of Dibenz[a,h]anthracene and Indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene
0 Suml5PAH = Sum of 15 of the 16 EPA 'priority' PAHs, including Acenaphthylene, Anthracene, Benz[a]anthracene,
Benzo[a]pyrene, Benzo(b)fluoranthene, Benzo[ghi]perylene, Benzo(k)fluoranthene, Chrysene, Dibenz[a,h]anthracene,
Fluoranthene, Fluorene, Indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene, Naphthalene, Phenanthrene, Pyrene
Table G-9. P-values for Shapiro-Wilk Tests of Normality for SVOCs from Recycling Plants at 60 °C
(Source Chamber SVOC Emissions by GC/MS/MS)3
Analvtc
Linear Scale
Los Scale
1 -Methylnaphthalene
0.0097
0.0064
1 -Methylphenanthrene
0.0011
0.3548
2 -B romo methylnaphthalene
<0.0001
0.0671
2-Methylnaphthalene
0.0002
0.0822
2 -Methylphenanthrene
<0.0001
0.0029
3 -Methylphenanthrene
<0.0001
0.0077
4-tert-octylphenol
0.0035
0.0148
Acenaphthylene
0.0181
0.5671
Aniline
0.0016
0.0610
Anthracene
0.1202
0.5441
Benz(a)anthracene
<0.0001
0.0096
Benzo[a]pyrene
<0.0001
1.000
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
<0.0001
0.4205
Benzo(e)pyrene
<0.0001
N/A
Benzo [ghijperylene
<0.0001
0.0506
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
<0.0001
N/A
Benzothiazole
0.0019
0.9565
Bis(2,2,6,6-tetramethyl-4-piperidyl) sebacate
<0.0001
0.2920
Chrysene
0.0013
0.2476
Coronene
<0.0001
N/A
DBA + ICDPb
0.2196
0.1486
Di-n-octyl phthalate
<0.0001
0.6766
Dibenzothiophene
0.0007
0.2079
Dibutyl phthalate
<0.0001
0.9917
Diisobutyl phthalate
<0.0001
0.3226
Dimethyl phthalate
<0.0001
0.2597
Fluoranthene
0.0563
0.3667
Fluorene
0.0342
0.0248
Naphthalene
0.0004
0.2293
Phenanthrene
0.4948
0.0564
-------
Table G-9 Continued
Analytc
Linear Scale
Log Scale
Pyrene
0.4833
0.2053
Suml5PAH°
0.0012
0.3191
n-Butylbenzene
0.0001
0.1759
a SVOC = semivolatile organic compound; °C = degrees Celsius; GC/MS/MS = gas chromatography/tandem mass
spectrometry; N/A = not applicable (no test performed)
bDBA + ICDP = Sum of Dibenz[a,h]anthracene and Indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene
0 Suml5PAH = Sum of 15 of the 16 EPA 'priority' PAHs, including Acenaphthylene, Anthracene, Benz[a]anthracene,
Benzo[a]pyrene, Benzo(b)fluoranthene, Benzo[ghi]perylene, Benzo(k)fluoranthene, Chrysene, Dibenz[a,h]anthracene,
Fluoranthene, Fluorene, Indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene, Naphthalene, Phenanthrene, Pyrene
Table G-10. P-values for Shapiro-Wilk Tests of Normality for SVOCs from Recycling Plants at 60 °C
(Source Chamber SVOC Emissions by LC/TOFMS in Positive Mode)
Analytc
Linear Scale
Log Scale
2-benzothiazolone
<0.0001
0.0024
N-cyclohexyl-N-methylcyclohexanamine
<0.0001
0.2995
cyclohexylamine
0.0058
0.7152
di-cyclohexylamine
<0.0001
0.0651
a SVOC = semivolatile organic compound; °C = degrees Celsius; LC/TOFMS = liquid chromatography/time-of-flight mass
spectrometry
G.3 Synthetic Turf Field Shapiro-Wilk Test Results
Table G-ll. P-values for Shapiro-Wilk Tests of Normality for Particle Size from Synthetic Turf Fields
(Source Particle Size Fractions Prepared by Sieve with Gravimetric Analysis)
Particle Size Category
Linear Scale
Log Scale
<0.063 mm
<0.0001
0.0002
>0.063 - 0.125 mm
<0.0001
0.0046
>0.125 - 0.25 mm
<0.0001
0.0353
>0.25 -1 mm
<0.0001
0.0200
>1 -2 mm
0.3397
0.0008
>2 - 4.75 mm
<0.0001
0.0078
>4.75 mm
<0.0001
0.9301
-------
Table G-12. P-values for Shapiro-Wilk Tests of Normality for Metals from Synthetic Turf Fields
(Source Tire Crumb Digests by ICP-MS)3
Analytc
Linear Scale
Log Scale
Aluminum
0.0015
0.4626
Antimony
0.0099
0.2053
Arsenic
0.0014
0.6626
Barium
<0.0001
0.1518
Beryllium
<0.0001
0.9401
Cadmium
<0.0001
0.0186
Chromium
0.0277
0.3043
Cobalt
0.0502
0.4517
Copper
0.0694
0.5052
Iron
<0.0001
0.0527
Lead
<0.0001
0.0002
Magnesium
<0.0001
<0.0001
Manganese
<0.0001
0.0047
Molybdenum
0.0442
<0.0001
Nickel
0.9208
0.2439
Rubidium
0.0005
0.2676
Selenium
<0.0001
0.0494
Strontium
<0.0001
0.0122
Tin
0.4436
0.0223
Vanadium
0.0020
0.0350
Zinc
0.1045
0.4915
a ICP/MS = inductively coupled plasma/mass spectrometry
Table G-13. P-values for Shapiro-Wilk Tests of Normality Metals from Synthetic Turf Fields
(Source XRF)a
Analytc
Linear Scale
Log Scale
Arsenic
N/A
N/A
Barium
0.0016
0.0162
Cadmium
<0.0001
<0.0001
Chromium
0.8191
0.0463
Cobalt
0.0708
0.0025
Copper
0.0006
0.0243
Iron
<0.0001
0.6394
Lead
<0.0001
0.5391
Molybdenum
0.5513
0.0030
Rubidium
0.0005
0.7724
Strontium
<0.0001
<0.0001
Zinc
0.0219
0.0915
a XRF = X-ray fluorescence spectrometry; N/A = not applicable (no test performed)
-------
Table G-14. P-values for Shapiro-Wilk Tests of Normality for SVOCs from Synthetic Turf Fields
(Source Tire Crumb Extracts by GC/MS/MS)3
Analytc
Linear Scale
Los Scale
1 -Methylnaphthalene
<0.0001
0.0050
1 -Methylphenanthrene
0.0003
0.4355
2 -B ro mo methylnaphthalene
N/A
N/A
2-Methylnaphthalene
<0.0001
0.0157
2 -Methylphenanthrene
<0.0001
0.2821
3 -Methylphenanthrene
<0.0001
0.2677
4-tert-octylphenol
<0.0001
0.1739
Acenaphthylene
<0.0001
0.0596
Aniline
0.0001
0.5433
Anthracene
<0.0001
0.7132
Benz(a)anthracene
0.0145
0.2736
Benzo[a]pyrene
<0.0001
0.5280
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
0.0001
0.2868
Benzo(e)pyrene
0.0382
0.1703
Benzo [ghijperylene
0.0942
0.0088
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
<0.0001
0.8732
Benzothiazole
<0.0001
0.4140
Benzyl butyl phthalate
<0.0001
0.0576
Bis(2,2,6,6-tetramethyl-4-piperidyl) sebacate
<0.0001
0.1197
2,6-Di-tert-butyl-p-cresol
<0.0001
0.8491
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
<0.0001
0.1217
Chrysene
0.0007
0.1290
Coronene
0.0129
0.3921
Cyclohexylisothiocyanate
0.0028
0.0003
DBA + ICDPb
0.0038
0.1567
Di-n-octyl phthalate
0.0001
0.3877
Dibenzothiophene
<0.0001
0.1807
Dibutyl phthalate
0.0002
0.0051
Diethyl phthalate
<0.0001
0.0684
Diisobutyl phthalate
<0.0001
0.1401
Dimethyl phthalate
<0.0001
0.4050
Fluoranthene
0.0273
0.2158
Fluorene
<0.0001
0.1470
Naphthalene
<0.0001
0.1776
Phenanthrene
<0.0001
0.2971
Pyrene
0.2571
0.0234
Suml5PAH°
0.0898
-------
Table G-14 Continued
Analvtc
Linear Scale
Log Scale
n-Butylbenzene
<0.0001
N/A
n-Hexadecane
<0.0001
0.0042
a SVOC = semivolatile organic compound; GC/MS/MS = gas chromatography/tandem mass spectrometry; N/A = not
applicable (no test performed)
bDBA + ICDP = Sum of Dibenz[a,h]anthracene and Indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene
0 Suml5PAH = Sum of 15 of the 16 EPA 'priority' PAHs, including Acenaphthylene, Anthracene, Benz[a]anthracene,
Benzo[a]pyrene, Benzo(b)fluoranthene, Benzo[ghi]perylene, Benzo(k)fluoranthene, Chrysene, Dibenz[a,h]anthracene,
Fluoranthene, Fluorene, Indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene, Naphthalene, Phenanthrene, Pyrene
Table G-15. P-values for Shapiro-Wilk Tests of Normality for SVOCs from Synthetic Turf Fields
(Source Tire Crumb Extracts by LC/TOFMS in Positive Mode)3
Analvtc
Linear Scale
Log Scale
2-benzothiazolone
<0.0001
0.0092
2-mercaptobenzothiazole
<0.0001
0.0022
N-cyclohexyl-N-methylcyclohexanamine
<0.0001
0.0016
cyclohexylamine
<0.0001
0.0843
di-cyclohexylamine
0.0006
0.0037
diisodecylphthalate
<0.0001
<0.0001
diisononylphthalate
<0.0001
0.2162
a SVOC = semivolatile organic compound; LC/TOFMS = liquid chromatography/time-of-flight mass spectrometry
Table G-16. P-values for Shapiro-Wilk Tests of Normality for VOCs from Synthetic Turf Fields at 25 °C
(Source Chamber by GC/TOFMS)3
Analvtc
Linear Scale
Log Scale
1,1,1 -T richloroethane
N/A
N/A
1,1 -Dichloroethane
<0.0001
<0.0001
1,1 -Dichloroethene
<0.0001
0.8222
1,2-Dichloroethane
<0.0001
N/A
1,2-Dichloropropane
<0.0001
<0.0001
1,3,5 -T rimethylbenzene
<0.0001
0.2848
1,3-Butadiene
0.0002
0.1488
4-Ethyltoluene
<0.0001
0.1172
Benzene
<0.0001
0.8466
Benzothiazole
<0.0001
0.0049
Carbon Tetrachloride
<0.0001
0.2155
Chlorobenzene
<0.0001
0.5569
Dichlorodifluoromethane (Freon 12)
<0.0001
0.0003
Ethylbenzene
<0.0001
0.4328
Formaldehyde
<0.0001
0.3552
Metyl isobutyl ketone
<0.0001
0.0340
Styrene
<0.0001
0.6279
-------
Table G-16 Continued
Analytc
Linear Scale
Log Scale
SumBTEXb
<0.0001
0.3509
T etrachloroethylene
<0.0001
0.6958
Toluene
<0.0001
0.1165
T richloroethylene
<0.0001
0.0003
Trichlorofluoromethane (Freon 11)
<0.0001
0.0003
Trichlorotrifluoroethane (Freon 113)
<0.0001
0.7372
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene
<0.0001
<0.0001
cis-2-Butene
<0.0001
0.9127
m-Dichlorobenzene
<0.0001
0.6828
m/p-Xylene
<0.0001
0.3651
o-Dichlorobenzene
<0.0001
0.5926
o-Xylene
0.0002
0.0051
p-Dichlorobenzene
<0.0001
0.4388
trans-2-Butene
<0.0001
0.8271
a VOC = volatile organic compound; °C = degrees Celsius, GC/TOFMS = gas chromatography/time-of-flight mass
spectrometry; N/A = not applicable (no test performed)
b SumBTEX = Sum of benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, m/p-xylene, and o-xylene
Table G-17. P-values for Shapiro-Wilk Tests of Normality for VOCs from Synthetic Turf Fields at 60 °C
(Source Chamber by GC/TOFMS)3
Analytc
Linear Scale
Log Scale
1,1,1 -T richloroethane
<0.0001
<0.0001
1,1 -Dichloroethane
<0.0001
N/A
1,1 -Dichloroethene
<0.0001
0.6013
1,2-Dichloroethane
<0.0001
N/A
1,2-Dichloropropane
<0.0001
<0.0001
1,3,5 -T rimethylbenzene
<0.0001
0.6718
1,3-Butadiene
<0.0001
0.7425
4-Ethyltoluene
0.0004
0.4653
Benzene
0.2162
0.0117
Benzothiazole
0.0003
0.0002
Carbon Tetrachloride
<0.0001
0.0010
Chlorobenzene
0.0007
0.3653
Dichlorodifluoromethane (Freon 12)
<0.0001
0.7770
Ethylbenzene
0.0029
0.0426
Formaldehyde
<0.0001
0.1826
Metyl isobutyl ketone
0.0055
0.2172
Styrene
0.0991
0.0030
SumBTEXb
0.0122
0.0297
T etrachloroethylene
<0.0001
0.0098
Toluene
0.0020
0.1135
-------
Table G-17 Continued
Analytc
Linear Scale
Log Scale
T richloroethylene
<0.0001
0.2095
Trichlorofluoromethane (Freon 11)
0.0002
<0.0001
Trichlorotrifluoroethane (Freon 113)
<0.0001
0.5418
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene
<0.0001
<0.0001
cis-2-Butene
0.0516
0.0013
m-Dichlorobenzene
<0.0001
0.5732
m/p-Xylene
0.0266
0.2234
o-Dichlorobenzene
<0.0001
0.3476
o-Xylene
0.0010
0.8715
p-Dichlorobenzene
0.0117
0.0063
trans-2-Butene
0.0291
0.3927
a VOC = volatile organic compound; °C = degrees Celsius; GC/TOFMS = gas chromatography/time-of-flight mass
spectrometry; N/A = not applicable (no test performed)
b SumBTEX = Sum of benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, m/p-xylene, and o-xylene
Table G-18. P-values for Shapiro-Wilk Tests of Normality for SVOCs from Synthetic Turf Fields at 25 °C
(Source Chamber SVOC by GC/MS/MS)8
Analytc
Linear Scale
Log Scale
1 -Methylnaphthalene
<0.0001
0.0451
1 -Methylphenanthrene
0.0349
0.2340
2 -B romo methylnaphthalene
<0.0001
0.3780
2-Methylnaphthalene
<0.0001
0.3015
2 -Methylphenanthrene
0.0002
<0.0001
3 -Methylphenanthrene
0.0015
0.0825
4-tert-octylphenol
<0.0001
0.0016
Acenaphthylene
<0.0001
<0.0001
Aniline
<0.0001
0.0162
Anthracene
<0.0001
0.2682
Benz(a)anthracene
<0.0001
0.0771
Benzo[a]pyrene
<0.0001
0.0097
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
<0.0001
0.5310
Benzo(e)pyrene
N/A
N/A
Benzo [ghijperylene
<0.0001
0.0260
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
<0.0001
N/A
Benzothiazole
<0.0001
0.0758
Bis(2,2,6,6-tetramethyl-4-piperidyl) sebacate
<0.0001
N/A
Chrysene
<0.0001
<0.0001
Coronene
<0.0001
1.000
DBA + ICDPb
<0.0001
0.7175
Di-n-octyl phthalate
<0.0001
0.2274
Dibenzothiophene
0.7905
0.4084
Dibutyl phthalate
0.4677
0.0351
Diisobutyl phthalate
0.3137
0.2738
-------
Table G-18 Continued
Analytc
Linear Scale
Log Scale
Dimethyl phthalate
<0.0001
0.1504
Fluoranthene
<0.0001
<0.0001
Fluorene
0.003
0.0413
Naphthalene
<0.0001
0.6471
Phenanthrene
0.0035
0.1351
Pyrene
<0.0001
0.0418
Suml5PAH°
<0.0001
0.0011
n-Butylbenzene
<0.0001
0.3008
a SVOC= semivolatile organic compound; °C = degrees Celsius; GC/MS/MS = gas chromatography/tandem mass
spectrometry; N/A = not applicable (no test performed)
bDBA + ICDP = Sum of Dibenz[a,h]anthracene and Indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene
0 Suml5PAH = Sum of 15 of the 16 EPA 'priority' PAHs, including Acenaphthylene, Anthracene, Benz[a]anthracene,
Benzo[a]pyrene, Benzo(b)fluoranthene, Benzo[ghi]perylene, Benzo(k)fluoranthene, Chrysene, Dibenz[a,h]anthracene,
Fluoranthene, Fluorene, Indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene, Naphthalene, Phenanthrene, Pyrene
Table G-19. P-values for Shapiro-Wilk Tests of Normality for SVOCs from Synthetic Turf Fields at 60 °C
(Source Chamber SVOC by GC/MS/MS)3
Analytc
Linear Scale
Log Scale
1 -Methylnaphthalene
<0.0001
0.0673
1 -Methylphenanthrene
0.0002
0.2412
2 -B romo methylnaphthalene
<0.0001
0.3204
2-Methylnaphthalene
<0.0001
0.1229
2 -Methylphenanthrene
<0.0001
0.1848
3 -Methylphenanthrene
<0.0001
0.2753
4-tert-octylphenol
0.0006
0.0284
Acenaphthylene
<0.0001
0.3313
Aniline
<0.0001
0.0502
Anthracene
<0.0001
0.0824
Benz(a)anthracene
<0.0001
0.0021
Benzo[a]pyrene
<0.0001
0.3791
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
<0.0001
0.5785
Benzo(e)pyrene
<0.0001
N/A
Benzo [ghijperylene
<0.0001
0.0297
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
<0.0001
1.000
Benzothiazole
<0.0001
0.0713
Bis(2,2,6,6-tetramethyl-4piperidyl) sebacate
<0.0001
1.000
Chrysene
<0.0001
0.0661
Coronene
<0.0001
0.0371
DBA + ICDPb
<0.0001
0.0114
Di-n-octyl phthalate
<0.0001
0.6675
Dibenzothiophene
<0.0001
0.1480
Dibutyl phthalate
0.1505
0.0173
Diisobutyl phthalate
0.2630
0.0075
Dimethyl phthalate
<0.0001
0.0005
-------
Table G-19 Continued
Analytc
Linear Scale
Log Scale
Fluoranthene
0.0031
0.5544
Fluorene
<0.0001
0.4065
Naphthalene
<0.0001
0.5042
Phenanthrene
<0.0001
0.0626
Pyrene
0.0036
0.5481
Suml5PAH°
<0.0001
0.2764
n-Butylbenzene
0.0017
0.7679
a SVOC = semivolatile organic compound; °C = degrees Celsius; GC/MS/MS = gas chromatography/tandem mass
spectrometry; N/A = not applicable (no test performed)
bDBA + ICDP = Sum of Dibenz[a,h]anthracene and Indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene
0 Suml5PAH = Sum of 15 of the 16 EPA 'priority' PAHs, including Acenaphthylene, Anthracene, Benz[a]anthracene,
Benzo[a]pyrene, Benzo(b)fluoranthene, Benzo[ghi]perylene, Benzo(k)fluoranthene, Chrysene, Dibenz[a,h]anthracene,
Fluoranthene, Fluorene, Indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene, Naphthalene, Phenanthrene, Pyrene
Table G-20. P-values for Shapiro-Wilk Tests of Normality for SVOCs from Synthetic Turf Fields at 60 °C
(Source Chamber SVOC by LC/TOFMS - Positive Mode)8
Analytc
Linear Scale
Log Scale
2-benzothiazolone
<0.0001
0.0190
N-cyclohexyl-N-methylcyclohexanamine
<0.0001
0.8144
cyclohexylamine
<0.0001
0.2814
di-cyclohexylamine
<0.0001
0.0318
a SVOC = semivolatile organic compound; °C = degrees Celsius; LC/TOFMS = liquid chromatography/time-of-flight mass
spectrometry
-------
Appendix H
Tire Crumb Rubber Particle Size
Characterization Results and Sample
-------
Table H-l. Particle Size Fractions for Tire Crumb Rubber Collected at Tire Recycling Plants
Recycling
Plant ID"
Particle
Size
Fractions
>4.75 mm
(g/kg)
Particle
Size
Fractions
>2-4.75 mm
(g/kg)
Particle
Size
Fractions
>1-2 mm
(g/kg)
Particle
Size
Fractions
>0.25-1 mm
(g/kg)
Particle
Size
Fractions
>0.125-0.25 mm
(g/kg)
Particle
Size
Fractions
>0.063-0.125 mm
(g/kg)
Particle
Size
Fractions
<0.063 mm
(g/kg)
A-l
0
21
850
130
5.9
1.3
0.1
A-2
0
5.4
830
160
5.1
1.3
0.1
A-3
0
12
870
110
5.5
1.3
0.2
B-l
0
67
830
100
0.5
0.1
0
B-2
0
60
810
130
0.5
0.1
0
B-3
0
93
810
96
0.7
0.1
0
C-l
0
150
830
18
0.5
0.1
0
C-2
0
130
810
59
0.6
0.1
0
C-3
0
100
840
60
0.9
0.1
0
D-l
0.4
62
930
1.9
0.6
0.1
0
D-2
0
110
890
2.2
0.5
0.1
0
D-3
0.1
270
730
0.5
0.1
0.1
0
E-l
0
66
790
140
1.5
0.5
0
E-2
0
95
780
130
1.6
0.6
0
E-3
0
77
790
130
1.4
0.7
0.1
F-l
0
93
850
61
0.3
0.1
0
F-2
0
80
840
79
0
0
0
F-3
0
100
840
63
0.7
0.1
0
G-l
0
8.1
750
240
0.7
0.1
0
G-2
0
16
870
110
0.5
0.1
0
G-3
0
14
830
160
0.5
0.1
0
H-l
0
0.1
380
620
1
0.8
0.2
H-2
0
230
760
15
0.1
0
0
H-3
0
0.2
580
420
0.2
0
0
1-1
0
160
610
230
1.5
0.8
0.2
1-2
0
150
620
230
0.6
0.3
0
1-3
1.9
170
630
190
1.1
0.5
0.1
a The 1, 2, or 3 refers to the samples collected from three different storage bags at each recycling plant.
-------
Table H-2. Particle Size Fractions for Tire Crumb Rubber Infill Collected from Synthetic Turf Fields
Synthetic
Turf
Field ID
Particle
Size
Fractions
>4.75 mm
(g/kg)
Particle
Size
Fractions
>2-4.75 mm
(g/kg)
Particle
Size
Fractions
>1-2 mm
(g/kg)
Particle
Size
Fractions
>0.25-1 mm
(g/kg)
Particle
Size
Fractions
>0.125-0.25 mm
(g/kg)
Particle
Size
Fractions
>0.063-0.125 mm
(g/kg)
Particle
Size
Fractions
<0.063 mm
(g/kg)
1
0
930
73
0.5
0
0
0
2
0
640
350
7.7
0
0
0.1
3
0
0.4
390
610
0.8
0.3
0.2
4
0
20
650
330
0.3
0.1
0.2
5
0
4.3
770
230
0.2
0.1
0
6
0
49
900
44
2.3
0.9
0.5
7
0
1.7
990
4.7
0.4
0.5
0.2
8
0.6
40
950
6.5
0
0
0
9
0
4.3
420
580
0.8
0.2
0.2
10
0.2
11
480
510
0.3
0.1
0
11
0
17
890
92
0.5
1.2
3.2
12
0
17
790
170
3.2
5
13
13
0.9
3.1
680
310
1.5
1.1
0.9
14
0.9
11
690
290
1.8
1.2
1
15
2.8
250
740
12
0
0
0
16
0
480
510
10
0
0
0
17
0
19
910
69
0.2
0.1
0.1
18
0
100
530
360
4.5
0.7
0.4
19
1.5
760
240
5.1
0
0
0
20
0
20
920
40
5.7
4.8
3.9
21
0
27
970
0.6
0
0
0
22
0
140
700
160
0.3
0.1
0.1
23
0
5
420
570
1.3
0.2
0.1
24
0
680
310
16
0.3
0.2
0.2
25
0
780
220
4
0.1
0
0
26
0
350
650
3.6
0
0
0
27
0
8
560
440
0.1
0
0
28
0
460
500
39
0.5
0.4
0.3
29
0
31
940
28
0.2
0.2
0.1
30
0
27
540
430
1.3
0.3
0.1
31
0
160
670
170
0.3
0
0.1
32
0
1.4
350
640
0.3
0.1
0.1
33
0
370
580
51
0.3
0.2
0.1
34
0
320
530
150
0.1
0.1
0.1
35
0
430
520
54
0.1
0
0
36
0
390
520
89
0.1
0.1
0
37
0.3
770
230
0.9
0.1
0
0
38
0
630
340
24
0
0
0
39
0
250
670
82
2.1
0.6
0.3
40
0
820
180
3.1
0
0
0
-------
Figure H-l. Photos of tire crumb rubber infill collected from nine tire
recycling plants (Plant ID letters are shown). Scale gradations are 1 mm.
-------
Figure H-2. Photos of tire crumb rubber infill collected from 15 synthetic
turf fields (Field ID numbers are shown). Scale gradations are 1 mm.
-------
Figure H-3, Photos of tire crumb rubber infill collected from 15 synthetic
turf fields (Field ID numbers are shown). Scale gradations are 1 mm.
-------
Figure H-4. Photos of tire crumb rubber infill collected from 10 synthetic
turf fields (Field ID numbers are shown). Scale gradations are 1 mm.
-------
as* §k^
¦fw. $a&
£$& ¥m
iitt n 11 ill 11 fctrtintuti iititii lin y
j*$* >,*h»r V hvtSi.Srt'
i Mil til 141 til tiliittimttltliil ill III t II III I lililil Ultifl >illl»lli|i tMiM
Figure H-5. Photos of tire crumb rubber infill collected from nine tire recycling plants
(Plant ID letters are shown). Scale gradations are 1 mm.
-------
Figure H-6. Photos of tire crumb rubber infill collected from eight synthetic turf fields
-------

Figure H-7. Photos of tire crumb rubber infill collected from eight synthetic turf fields
(Field ID numbers are shown). Scale gradations are 1 mm.
204
10 11SW

-------
HIM
Figure H-8. Photos of tire crumb rubber infill collected from eight synthetic turf fields
(Field ID numbers are shown). Scale gradations are 1 mm.
-------
MJkj [26 r
wv*

ijyj
29 'KvijL'ji 30 r"
Mi

31 32 ~
vf®
to *Jr A •«

Figure H-9. Photos of tire crumb rubber infill collected from eight synthetic turf fields
(Field ID numbers are shown). Scale gradations are 1 mm.
-------
-II It-1 Mm. 11 Ml »411 imill tlHiil
40
**«

Figure H-10. Photos of tire crumb rubber infill collected from eight synthetic turf fields
(Field ID numbers are shown). Scale gradations are 1 mm.
-------
[This page intentionally left blank.]
-------
Appendix I
Tire Crumb Rubber Measurement Results -
Summary Statistics
-------
Table 1-1. Summary Statistics for Metals Analyzed by ICP/MS in Tire Crumb Rubber Samples Collected from Tire Recycling Plants3
Chemical
n
%
>LOD
Mean
(mg/kg)
Standard
Deviation
(nig/kg)
% Relative
Standard
Deviation
10th
Percentile
(nig/kg)
25th
Percentile
(m«/k«)
50th
Percentile
(m«/k«)
75th
Percentile
(m«/k«)
90th
Percentile
(m»/k«)
Max
(mg/kg)
Arsenic
27
100
0.30
0.088
29
0.2
0.24
0.28
0.37
0.45
0.51
Cadmium
27
100
0.55
0.13
23
0.4
0.45
0.55
0.63
0.73
0.93
Chromium
27
100
1.8
0.70
39
1.0
1.2
1.7
2.0
2.4
3.6
Cobalt
27
100
190
87
46
96
120
180
250
280
440
Lead
27
100
13
10
78
7.7
9.4
10
14
22
61
Zinc
27
100
17000
3500
20
13000
14000
16000
20000
21000
25000
Aluminum
27
100
1000
510
49
430
580
980
1300
1900
2000
Antimony
27
100
1.2
0.41
34
0.66
0.81
1.3
1.5
1.7
2.0
Barium
27
100
7.4
7.9
110
3.3
3.8
5.1
7.0
11
39
Beryllium
27
100
0.015
0.0071
49
0.0083
0.011
0.012
0.017
0.022
0.042
Copper
27
100
42
22
53
20
23
35
56
73
100
Iron
27
100
490
290
59
260
320
440
520
640
1700
Magnesium
27
100
290
78
27
210
240
290
310
370
590
Manganese
27
100
5.7
2.1
37
3.9
4.5
5.1
6.1
9.3
13
Molybdenum
27
100
0.22
0.09
41
0.14
0.18
0.2
0.23
0.32
0.56
Nickel
27
100
3.2
1.0
32
2.1
2.3
2.8
4.1
4.3
5.8
Rubidium
27
100
1.8
0.46
26
1.2
1.3
1.8
2.2
2.4
2.5
Selenium
27
0
*
*
*
LOD is > 60%.
-------
Table 1-2. Summary Statistics for Metals Analyzed by ICP/MS in Tire Crumb Rubber Infill Samples Collected from Synthetic Turf Fields3
Chemical
n
%
>LOD
Mean
(m«/k«)
Standard
Deviation
(mg/ks)
% Relative
Standard
Deviation
10th
Percentile
(mjj/kjj)
25th
Percentile
(m«/k«)
50th
Percentile
(m«/k«)
75th
Percentile
(m«/k«)
90th
Percentile
(m»/k«)
Max
(mg/kg)
Arsenic
40
100
0.38
0.20
52
0.19
0.26
0.34
0.45
0.6
1.1
Cadmium
40
100
0.95
0.68
72
0.49
0.57
0.70
1.1
1.7
4.2
Chromium
40
100
1.6
0.84
51
0.97
1.2
1.6
1.9
2.7
3.7
Cobalt
40
100
140
60
44
68
85
120
180
220
290
Lead
40
100
24
26
110
9.3
11
14
25
55
160
Zinc
40
100
15000
3000
20
11000
13000
14000
16000
19000
22000
Aluminum
40
100
1300
740
58
540
670
1100
1600
2500
3400
Antimony
40
100
0.95
0.43
45
0.48
0.66
0.91
1.1
1.6
2.2
Barium
40
100
8.3
5.3
63
3.6
4.8
7.3
10
12
29
Beryllium
40
85
0.008
0.03
380
LOD is > 60%
-------
Table 1-3. Summary Statistics for Metals Analyzed by XRF in Tire Crumb Rubber Samples Collected from Tire Recycling Plants3
Chemical
n
%
>LOD
Mean
(m«/k«)
Standard
Deviation
(mg/ks)
% Relative
Standard
Deviation
10th
Percentile
(mjj/kjj)
25th
Percentile
(mg/kg)
50th
Percentile
(m«/k«)
75th
Percentile
(m«/k«)
90th
Percentile
(m»/k«)
Max
(mg/kg)
Arsenic
27
0
*
*
*
LOD is > 60%
-------
Table 1-4. Summary Statistics for Metals Analyzed by XRF in Tire Crumb Rubber Infill Collected from Synthetic Turf Fields3
Chemical
n
%
>LOD
Mean
(m«/k«)
Standard
Deviation
(mg/ks)
% Relative
Standard
Deviation
10th
Percentile
(m«/k«)
25th
Percentile
(mg/kg)
50th
Percentile
(m«/k«)
75th
Percentile
(m«/k«)
90th
Percentile
(m»/k«)
Max
(mg/kg)
Arsenic
40
3
*
*
*
-------
Table 1-5. Summary Statistics for SVOCs Analyzed by GC/MS/MS in Solvent Extracts for Tire Crumb Rubber Samples Collected from
Tire Recycling Plants3
Chemical
n
%
>LOD
Mean
(m«/k«)
Standard
Deviation
(m^/ks)
% Relative
Standard
Deviation
10th
Percentile
(mg/kg)
25th
Percentile
(mg/kg)
50th
Percentile
(m«/k«)
75th
Percentile
(m«/k«)
90th
Percentile
(mg/kg)
Max
(nrg/kg)
Phenanthrene
27
100
3.6
1.3
35
1.8
2.6
3.6
4.5
5.8
5.9
Fluoranthene
27
100
6.1
1.7
27
4.3
4.8
5.8
6.7
8.6
10
Pyrene
27
100
18
2.4
13
16
17
18
20
22
23
Benzo[a]pyrene
27
100
0.74
0.39
52
0.39
0.47
0.64
0.95
1.4
1.9
Benzo [ghi] perylene
27
100
1.3
0.59
45
0.82
0.97
1.1
1.3
2.0
3.4
Suml 5PAHb
27
100
41
8.9
22
31
34
39
49
53
62
Benzothiazole
27
100
79
19
24
54
61
79
96
100
110
Dibutyl phthalate
27
100
0.68
0.44
65
0.27
0.31
0.44
0.85
1.5
1.7
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
27
100
12
14
120
2.9
3.5
6.1
15
34
58
Aniline
27
100
3.8
1.8
47
2.3
2.3
2.6
5.5
6.3
7.2
4-tert-octylphenol
27
100
30
6.2
21
23
25
30
34
40
46
n-Hexadecane
27
100
3.6
1.8
51
1.8
2.1
2.7
5.5
6.5
6.6
Naphthalene
27
100
1.4
0.75
55
0.45
0.54
1.3
1.6
2.6
3.3
1 -Methylnaphthalene
27
100
1.6
1.3
76
0.26
0.35
1.7
2.3
3.7
4.3
2-Methylnaphthalene
27
100
1.8
1.3
72
0.31
0.44
1.9
2.7
3.8
4.7
Acenaphthylene
27
100
0.37
0.085
23
0.28
0.29
0.37
0.43
0.49
0.56
Fluorene
27
100
0.37
0.14
37
0.24
0.27
0.35
0.42
0.58
0.79
Anthracene
27
100
0.59
0.4
68
0.26
0.35
0.47
0.55
1.3
1.6
1 -Methylphenanthrene
27
100
1.4
0.53
38
0.74
1.0
1.3
1.5
2.3
2.8
2-Methylphenanthrene
27
100
1.4
0.8
57
0.79
0.87
1.1
1.6
3.4
3.5
3 -Methylphenanthrene
27
100
2.1
1.1
52
0.95
1.2
1.7
2.7
3.9
4.9
Benz(a)anthracene
27
100
1.1
0.57
53
0.52
0.66
0.98
1.3
1.8
2.9
Chrysene
27
100
4.3
1.7
39
2.6
2.9
4.1
5.1
6.3
OO
OO
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
27
100
1.6
1.0
64
0.84
1.0
1.2
1.8
2.9
5.3
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
27
100
0.44
0.19
44
0.18
0.26
0.4
0.59
0.73
0.82
Benzo(e)pyrene
27
100
1.7
1.1
63
0.59
0.74
1.4
2.4
3.3
3.9
DBA + ICDPC
27
100
0.35
0.21
59
0.13
0.18
0.31
0.48
0.65
0.97
-------
Table 1-5 Continued
Chemical
n
%
>LOD
Mean
(m«/k«)
Standard
Deviation
(m«/k«)
% Relative
Standard
Deviation
10th
Percentile
(ms/kj?)
25th
Percentile
(m«/k«)
50"'
Percentile
(mjj/kjj)
75th
Percentile
(m«/k«)
90th
Percentile
(m»/k«)
Max
(mg/kg)
Coronene
27
100
0.82
0.48
58
0.38
0.55
0.69
0.81
1.9
2.0
Dibenzothiophene
27
100
0.42
0.13
31
0.29
0.34
0.4
0.45
0.59
0.78
2-Bromomethylnaphthalene
27
0
*
*
*
CLOD
CLOD
CLOD
CLOD
CLOD
CLOD
n-Butylbenzene
27
78
0.14
0.12
87
CLOD
0.012
0.11
0.2
0.32
0.39
Dimethyl phthalate
27
93
0.04
0.022
54
0.0061
0.038
0.045
0.051
0.074
0.077
Diethyl phthalate
27
100
0.091
0.17
180
0.013
0.024
0.059
0.11
0.12
0.9
Diisobutyl phthalate
27
100
0.5
0.39
79
0.21
0.25
0.40
0.47
1.2
1.6
Benzyl butyl phthalate
27
100
0.64
0.37
57
0.23
0.36
0.5
1.0
1.2
1.3
Di-n-octyl phthalate
27
100
0.32
0.19
61
0.11
0.19
0.26
0.41
0.57
0.9
2,6-Di-tert-butyl-p-cresol
27
100
13
10
80
4.8
5.4
9.3
18
34
40
Bis(2,2,6,6-tetramethyl-4-
piperidyl) sebacate
21
100
0.44
0.30
66
0.12
0.17
0.45
0.72
0.84
0.93
Cyclohexylisothiocyanate
27
100
0.98
0.33
34
0.55
0.74
0.97
1.2
1.5
1.7
11SVOC = semivolatile organic compound; GC/MS/MS = gas chromatography/tandem mass spectrometry; LOD = limit of detection; Max = maximum
b Suml5PAH = Sum of 15 of the 16 EPA 'priority' PAHs, including Acenaphthylene, Anthracene, Benz[a]anthracene, Benzo[a]pyrene, Benzo(b)fluoranthene,
Benzo[ghi]perylene, Benzo(k)fluoranthene, Chrysene, Dibenz[a,h]anthracene, Fluoranthene, Fluorene, Indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene, Naphthalene, Phenanthrene, Pyrene
°DBA + ICDP= Sum of Dibenz[a,h]anthracene and Indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene
-------
Table 1-6. Summary Statistics for SVOCs Analyzed by GC/MS/MS in Solvent Extracts for Tire Crumb Rubber Infill Collected from Synthetic
Turf Fields3
Chemical
n
%
>LOD
Mean
(m«/k«)
Standard
Deviation
(mg/kg)
%
Relative
Standard
Deviation
10th
Percentile
(mg/kg)
25th
Percentile
(nig/kg)
50th
Percentile
(m«/k«)
75th
Percentile
(m«/k«)
90th
Percentile
(mg/kg)
Max
(nrg/kg)
Phenanthrene
40
100
2.3
2.6
110
0.26
0.44
1.1
3.3
6.1
10
Fluoranthene
40
100
4.5
2.6
57
2.0
2.4
3.9
6.5
8.1
10
Pyrene
40
100
12
6.2
49
4.2
7.0
13
17
21
25
Benzo[a]pyrene
40
100
0.78
0.52
66
0.38
0.43
0.62
0.91
1.4
3.0
Benzo [ghi] perylene
40
100
1.3
0.64
49
0.47
0.64
1.4
1.8
2.0
2.8
Suml 5PAHb
40
100
29
15
51
13
17
27
38
49
68
Benzothiazole
40
100
11
13
120
1.1
1.8
7.0
14
31
54
Dibutyl phthalate
40
100
1.5
1.5
100
0.054
0.26
0.97
2.3
3.5
6.6
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
40
100
43
42
100
4.9
7.8
28
58
100
170
Aniline
40
100
0.67
0.53
79
0.16
0.27
0.57
0.96
1.2
2.4
4-tert-octylphenol
40
100
9.8
9.7
99
0.90
2.5
5.6
16
27
33
n-Hexadecane
40
100
0.94
1.3
130
0.079
0.1
0.26
1.3
2.6
5.4
Naphthalene
40
100
0.034
0.041
120
0.0058
0.01
0.017
0.039
0.082
0.22
1 -Methylnaphthalene
40
100
0.050
0.10
200
0.0024
0.0044
0.0081
0.052
0.13
0.52
2-Methylnaphthalene
40
100
0.083
0.17
200
0.0059
0.010
0.018
0.082
0.19
0.85
Acenaphthylene
40
100
0.046
0.057
120
0.0086
0.011
0.024
0.055
0.11
0.25
Fluorene
40
100
0.18
0.28
150
0.0055
0.012
0.051
0.26
0.47
1.3
Anthracene
40
100
0.52
0.75
140
0.038
0.087
0.17
0.54
1.5
3.1
1 -Methylphenanthrene
40
100
1.6
1.3
82
0.33
0.54
1.3
2.1
3.4
5.2
2-Methylphenanthrene
40
100
3.0
4.6
150
0.43
0.58
1.5
3.1
6.3
23
3 -Methylphenanthrene
40
100
2.3
2.1
91
0.48
0.69
1.6
3.7
4.8
9.2
Benz(a)anthracene
40
100
2.2
1.4
63
0.71
1.2
1.9
3.1
4.3
6
Chrysene
40
100
2.5
1.8
70
0.73
1.0
2
3.9
5.4
6.2
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
40
100
1.3
0.80
59
0.58
0.72
1.1
1.8
2.2
3.9
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
40
100
0.45
0.31
68
0.18
0.24
0.40
0.58
0.77
1.5
Benzo(e)pyrene
40
100
1.9
0.98
51
0.72
1.1
1.9
2.4
3.5
4.1
-------
Table 1-6 Continued
Chemical
n
%
>LOD
Mean
(m«/k«)
Standard
Deviation
(mg/kg)
%
Relative
Standard
Deviation
10th
Percentile
(nig/kg)
25th
Percentile
(mg/kg)
50"'
Percentile
(m«/k«)
75th
Percentile
(nig/kg)
90th
Percentile
(m»/k«)
Max
(nig/kg)
DBA + ICDPC
40
100
0.54
0.31
58
0.19
0.34
0.44
0.78
1.0
1.3
Coronene
40
100
0.54
0.31
58
0.19
0.28
0.49
0.74
1.0
1.4
Dibenzothiophene
40
100
0.31
0.35
110
0.026
0.049
0.16
0.50
0.78
1.4
2-Bromomethylnaphthalene
40
0
*
*
*
CLOD
CLOD
CLOD
CLOD
CLOD
CLOD
n-Butylbenzene
40
0
*
*
*
CLOD
CLOD
CLOD
CLOD
CLOD
CLOD
Dimethyl phthalate
40
65
0.027
0.061
230
CLOD
CLOD
0.0065
0.019
0.08
0.32
Diethyl phthalate
34
68
0.52
2.4
460
CLOD
CLOD
0.0029
0.19
0.55
14
Diisobutyl phthalate
40
100
1.2
1.8
150
0.04
0.22
0.59
1.4
3.2
9.1
Benzyl butyl phthalate
40
100
1.2
2.0
170
0.049
0.16
0.7
1.4
2.2
12
Di-n-octyl phthalate
40
98
0.25
0.24
96
0.027
0.067
0.19
0.36
0.62
0.99
2,6-Di-tert-butyl-p-cresol
40
20
*
*
*
CLOD
CLOD
CLOD
CLOD
0.56
5.3
Bis(2,2,6,6-tetramethyl-4-
piperidyl) sebacate
39
82
0.78
0.89
110
CLOD
0.20
0.37
1.1
2.5
3.0
Cyclohexylisothiocyanate
40
100
0.25
0.18
74
0.016
0.13
0.23
0.32
0.43
0.78
a SVOC = semivolatile organic compound; GC/MS/MS = gas chromatography/tandem mass spectrometry; LOD = limit of detection; Max = maximum
b Suml5PAH = Sum of 15 of the 16 EPA 'priority' PAHs, including Acenaphthylene, Anthracene, Benz[a]anthracene, Benzo[a]pyrene, Benzo(b)fluoranthene,
Benzo[ghi]perylene, Benzo(k)fluoranthene, Chrysene, Dibenz[a,h]anthracene, Fluoranthene, Fluorene, Indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene, Naphthalene, Phenanthrene, Pyrene
°DBA + ICDP= Sum of Dibenz[a,h]anthracene and Indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene
*Values reported only when % >LOD is > 60%.
-------
Table 1-7. Summary Statistics for VOC 25 °C Emission Factors for Tire Crumb Rubber Samples Collected from Tire Recycling Plants3
Chemical
n
%
>LOD
Mean
(mg/kg)
Standard
Deviation
(mg/kg)
%
Relative
Standard
Deviation
10th
Percentile
(mg/kg)
25th
Percentile
(mg/kg)
50"'
Percentile
(mg/kg)
75th
Percentile
(mg/kg)
90th
Percentile
(mg/kg)
Max
(mg/kg)
Formaldehyde
26
11
*
*
*
-------
Table 1-7. Continued
Chemical
n
%
>LOD
Mean
(mg/kg)
Standard
Deviation
(mg/kg)
%
Relative
Standard
Deviation
10th
Percentile
(mg/kg)
25th
Percentile
(mg/kg)
50"'
Percentile
(mg/kg)
75th
Percentile
(mg/kg)
90th
Percentile
(mg/kg)
Max
(mg/kg)
p-Dichlorobenzene
27
11
*
*
*
LOD is > 60%.
Table 1-8. Summary Statistics for VOC 60 °C Emission Factors for Tire Crumb Rubber Samples Collected from Tire Recycling Plants3
Chemical
n
%
>LOD
Mean
(mg/kg)
Standard
Deviation
(mg/kg)
%
Relative
Standard
Deviation
10th
Percentile
(mg/kg)
25th
Percentile
(mg/kg)
50th
Percentile
(mg/kg)
75th
Percentile
(mg/kg)
90"'
Percentile
(mg/kg)
Max
(mg/kg)
Formaldehyde
27
96
40
16
40
20
24
40
49
62
73
Metyl isobutyl ketone
27
100
140
15
11
110
130
130
150
160
160
Benzothiazole
27
100
220
8.3
3.7
210
220
220
230
230
240
1,3-Butadiene
27
0
*
*
*
CLOD
CLOD
CLOD
CLOD
CLOD
CLOD
Styrene
27
100
1.1
0.58
53
0.33
0.55
1.0
1.6
1.9
2.1
Benzene
27
89
0.21
0.45
220
CLOD
-0.098
0.027
0.64
0.92
1.2
Toluene
27
100
1.1
0.95
85
0.20
0.3
0.64
1.7
2.6
3.2
Ethylbenzene
27
100
-0.0055
0.26
-4800
-0.22
-0.18
-0.13
0.092
0.52
0.68
m/p-Xylene
27
100
1.2
0.71
57
0.36
0.60
1.1
1.6
2.1
2.9
o-Xylene
27
100
-0.4
0.43
-110
-0.80
-0.73
-0.49
-0.28
0.23
0.79
SumBTEXb
27
100
2.1
2.2
100
-0.57
0.36
1.9
3.4
5.7
7.7
trans-2-Butene
27
100
-0.22
0.25
-120
-0.42
-0.36
-0.27
-0.19
0.26
0.59
-------
Table 1-8 Continued
Chemical
n
%
>LOD
Mean
(mg/kg)
Standard
Deviation
(nig/kg)
%
Relative
Standard
Deviation
10th
Percentile
(nig/kg)
25th
Percentile
(mg/kg)
50"'
Percentile
(m«/k«)
75th
Percentile
(m«/k«)
90th
Percentile
(m»/k«)
Max
(nig/kg)
cis-2-Butene
27
100
-0.2
0.21
-110
-0.38
-0.34
-0.24
-0.16
0.18
0.5
4-Ethyltoluene
27
22
*
*
*
CLOD
CLOD
CLOD
CLOD
0.15
0.21
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene
27
63
0.10
0.058
57
CLOD
CLOD
0.10
0.14
0.17
0.27
1,1 -Dichloroethene
27
0
*
*
*
CLOD
CLOD
CLOD
CLOD
CLOD
CLOD
1,1 -Dichloroethane
27
0
*
*
*
CLOD
CLOD
CLOD
CLOD
CLOD
CLOD
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene
27
0
*
*
*
CLOD
CLOD
CLOD
CLOD
CLOD
CLOD
1,2-Dichloroethane
27
0
*
*
*
CLOD
CLOD
CLOD
CLOD
CLOD
CLOD
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
27
0
*
*
*
CLOD
CLOD
CLOD
CLOD
CLOD
CLOD
Carbon Tetrachloride
27
0
*
*
*
CLOD
CLOD
CLOD
CLOD
CLOD
CLOD
1,2-Dichloropropane
27
0
*
*
*
CLOD
CLOD
CLOD
CLOD
CLOD
CLOD
Trichloroethylene
27
26
*
*
*
CLOD
CLOD
CLOD
0.36
0.58
1.0
Tetrachloroethylene
27
63
0.14
0.23
160
CLOD
CLOD
0.042
0.15
0.66
0.89
Chlorobenzene
27
41
*
*
*
CLOD
CLOD
CLOD
0.035
0.13
0.24
m-Dichlorobenzene
27
22
*
*
*
CLOD
CLOD
CLOD
CLOD
0.16
0.34
p-Dichlorobenzene
27
85
0.019
0.12
650
CLOD
-0.027
0.0067
0.065
0.21
0.30
o-Dichlorobenzene
27
22
*
*
*
CLOD
CLOD
CLOD
CLOD
0.19
0.38
Trichlorofluoromethane
(Freon 11)
27
93
0.23
0.58
250
-0.66
-0.47
0.42
0.58
1.1
1.2
Dichlorodifluoromethane
(Freon 12)
27
100
0.041
0.047
110
0.0041
0.028
0.045
0.067
0.08
0.098
Trichlorotrifluoroethane
(Freon 113)
27
0
*
*
*
CLOD
CLOD
CLOD
CLOD
CLOD
CLOD
a VOC = volatile organic compound; °C = degrees Celsius; LOD = limit of detection; Max = maximum
b SumBTEX = Sum of benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, m/p-xylene, and o-xylene
*Values reported only when % >LOD is > 60%.
-------
Table 1-9. Summary Statistics for VOC 25 °C Emission Factors for Tire Crumb Rubber Infill Samples Collected from Synthetic Turf Fields3
Chemical
n
%
>LOD
Mean
(m«/k«)
Standard
Deviation
(mg/ks)
%
Relative
Standard
Deviation
10th
Percentile
(ms/kj?)
25th
Percentile
(m«/k«)
50"'
Percentile
(m«/k«)
75th
Percentile
(m«/k«)
90th
Percentile
(m»/k«)
Max
(m«/k«)
Formaldehyde
38
0
*
*
*
-------
Table 1-9 Continued
Chemical
n
%
>LOD
Mean
(m«/k«)
Standard
Deviation
(mg/ks)
%
Relative
Standard
Deviation
10th
Percentile
(ms/kj?)
25th
Percentile
(m«/k«)
50"'
Percentile
(m«/k«)
75th
Percentile
(m«/k«)
90th
Percentile
(m»/k«)
Max
(m«/k«)
p-Dichlorobenzene
38
21
*
*
*
LOD is > 60%.
Table 1-10. Summary Statistics for VOC 60 °C Emission Factors for Tire Crumb Rubber Infill Samples Collected from Synthetic Turf Fields3
Chemical
il
%
>LOD
Mean
(m«/k«)
Standard
Deviation
(m«/k«)
%
Relative
Standard
Deviation
10th
Percentile
(mg/kg)
25th
Percentile
(m«/k«)
50th
Percentile
(mg/kg)
75th
Percentile
(mg/kg)
90"'
Percentile
(m«/k«)
Max
(mg/kg)
Formaldehyde
40
75
16
9.5
58
CLOD
11
15
19
24
48
Metyl isobutyl ketone
37
100
42
26
61
15
22
34
61
87
96
Benzothiazole
37
95
56
39
70
8
14
68
93
100
110
1,3-Butadiene
37
11
*
*
*
CLOD
CLOD
CLOD
CLOD
0.12
0.81
Styrene
37
100
0.45
0.41
91
-0.016
0.092
0.40
0.73
0.96
1.3
Benzene
37
49
*
*
*
CLOD
CLOD
CLOD
0.21
0.55
0.73
Toluene
37
100
0.15
0.31
200
-0.15
-0.048
0.07
0.22
0.72
0.91
Ethylbenzene
37
100
-0.082
0.22
-270
-0.33
-0.27
-0.16
0.14
0.28
0.40
m/p-Xylene
37
100
0.24
1.0
410
-0.96
-0.58
0.16
0.73
1.7
2.5
o-Xylene
37
100
-0.35
0.66
-190
-0.99
-0.88
-0.44
-0.024
0.61
1.5
SumBTEXb
37
100
-0.085
2.2
-2600
-2.5
-2.3
-0.4
0.94
3.3
4.6
trans-2-Butene
37
89
-0.25
0.24
-95
CLOD
-0.42
-0.29
-0.12
-0.022
0.33
-------
Table 1-10 Continued
Chemical
n
%
>LOD
Mean
(mg/kg)
Standard
Deviation
(mg/kg)
%
Relative
Standard
Deviation
10th
Percentile
(m«/k«)
25th
Percentile
(m«/k«)
50th
Percentile
(m^/k")
75th
Percentile
(mg/kg)
90th
Percentile
(m«/k»)
Max
(nig/kg)
cis-2-Butene
37
89
-0.23
0.21
-92
LOD is > 60%.
-------
Table 1-11. Summary Statistics for SVOC 25 °C Emission Factors for Tire Crumb Rubber Samples Collected from Tire Recycling Plants3
Chemical
n
%
>LOD
Mean
(m«/k«)
Standard
Deviation
(mg/kg)
%
Relative
Standard
Deviation
10",
Percentile
(mg/kg)
25th
Percentile
(nig/kg)
50"'
Percentile
(m«/k«)
75th
Percentile
(nig/kg)
90".
Percentile
(m«/k»)
Max
(nig/kg)
Phenanthrene
27
100
-0.0071
0.07
-980
-0.12
-0.02
0.014
0.037
0.051
0.087
Fluoranthene
27
22
*
*
*
CLOD
CLOD
CLOD
CLOD
0.0074
0.024
Pyrene
27
22
*
*
*
CLOD
CLOD
CLOD
CLOD
0.010
0.034
Benzo[a]pyrene
27
0
*
*
*
CLOD
CLOD
CLOD
CLOD
CLOD
CLOD
Benzo [ghi] perylene
27
0
*
*
*
CLOD
CLOD
CLOD
CLOD
CLOD
CLOD
Suml 5PAHb
27
100
2.3
1.1
46
0.84
1.2
2.3
3.2
3.7
4.2
Benzothiazole
27
100
41
26
65
16
20
38
52
65
140
Dibutyl phthalate
27
100
-0.021
0.67
-3200
-0.50
-0.36
-0.067
0.14
0.44
2.9
Aniline
27
100
3.5
2.0
58
0.42
2.0
4.1
4.7
6.4
6.9
4-tert-octylphenol
27
100
0.47
0.25
52
0.21
0.31
0.42
0.63
0.8
1.3
Naphthalene
27
100
1.9
1.1
56
0.49
0.79
1.9
2.8
3.3
3.7
1 -Methylnaphthalene
27
100
0.97
0.73
75
0.16
0.19
0.84
1.6
2.1
2.5
2-Methylnaphthalene
27
100
1.6
1.2
74
0.25
0.29
1.4
2.6
3.4
3.8
Acenaphthylene
27
100
0.059
0.019
32
0.032
0.049
0.056
0.074
0.083
0.094
Fluorene
27
100
0.016
0.0099
63
0.0064
0.0097
0.013
0.020
0.03
0.042
Anthracene
27
0
*
*
*
CLOD
CLOD
CLOD
CLOD
CLOD
CLOD
1 -Methylphenanthrene
27
26
*
*
*
CLOD
CLOD
CLOD
0.0048
0.005
0.014
2-Methylphenanthrene
27
19
*
*
*
CLOD
CLOD
CLOD
CLOD
0.02
0.021
3 -Methylphenanthrene
27
30
*
*
*
CLOD
CLOD
CLOD
0.0048
0.0097
0.029
Benz(a)anthracene
27
0
*
*
*
CLOD
CLOD
CLOD
CLOD
CLOD
CLOD
Chrysene
27
0
*
*
*
CLOD
CLOD
CLOD
CLOD
CLOD
CLOD
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
27
7
*
*
*
CLOD
CLOD
CLOD
CLOD
CLOD
0.038
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
27
0
*
*
*
CLOD
CLOD
CLOD
CLOD
CLOD
CLOD
Benzo(e)pyrene
27
0
*
*
*
CLOD
CLOD
CLOD
CLOD
CLOD
CLOD
DBA + ICDPC
27
0
*
*
*
CLOD
CLOD
CLOD
CLOD
CLOD
CLOD
-------
Table 1-11 Continued
Chemical
n
%
>LOD
Mean
(m«/k«)
Standard
Deviation
(m«/k«)
%
Relative
Standard
Deviation
10th
Percentile
(mg/kg)
25th
Percentile
(m«/kg)
50"'
Percentile
(m«/k«)
75th
Percentile
(nig/kg)
90".
Percentile
(m«/k»)
Max
(nig/kg)
Coronene
27
0
*
*
*
-------
Table 1-12. Summary Statistics for SVOC 60 °C Emission Factors for Tire Crumb Rubber Samples Collected from Tire Recycling Plants a
Chemical
n
%
>LOD
Mean
(m«/k«)
Standard
Deviation
(m«/k«)
%
Relative
Standard
Deviation
10th
Percentile
(ms/kj?)
25th
Percentile
(m«/k«)
50"'
Percentile
(m«/k«)
75th
Percentile
(m«/k«)
90th
Percentile
(m»/k«)
Max
(mg/kg)
Phenanthrene
26
100
0.83
0.34
41
0.4
0.63
0.76
1.0
1.3
1.6
Fluoranthene
26
100
0.16
0.054
33
0.11
0.12
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.27
Pyrene
26
100
0.34
0.072
22
0.23
0.28
0.34
0.40
0.44
0.45
Benzo[a]pyrene
26
0
*
*
*
CLOD
CLOD
CLOD
CLOD
CLOD
CLOD
Benzo [ghi] perylene
26
4
*
*
*
CLOD
CLOD
CLOD
CLOD
CLOD
0.013
Suml 5PAHb
26
100
13
7.0
56
4.8
7.6
13
16
18
38
Benzothiazole
26
100
520
340
66
220
290
400
690
950
1500
Dibutyl phthalate
26
100
0.21
0.72
350
-0.49
0.014
0.085
0.34
0.95
3.0
Aniline
26
100
23
7.2
31
18
19
21
25
34
46
4-tert-octylphenol
26
100
20
OO
00
43
14
15
18
23
35
47
Naphthalene
26
100
9.5
6.9
73
2.4
4.7
9.3
13
14
35
1 -Methylnaphthalene
26
100
7.5
5.9
78
1.3
1.8
6.9
11
16
20
2-Methylnaphthalene
26
100
11
11
94
2.1
2.6
9.3
16
21
48
Acenaphthylene
26
100
0.93
0.34
37
0.59
0.64
0.96
1.1
1.3
2.0
Fluorene
26
100
0.33
0.14
44
0.17
0.23
0.28
0.42
0.53
0.67
Anthracene
26
100
0.12
0.063
55
0.044
0.06
0.10
0.17
0.21
0.26
1 -Methylphenanthrene
26
100
0.12
0.052
42
0.074
0.092
0.11
0.15
0.19
0.29
2-Methylphenanthrene
26
92
0.18
0.1
57
0.11
0.11
0.15
0.19
0.31
0.58
3 -Methylphenanthrene
26
100
0.28
0.17
61
0.16
0.17
0.24
0.29
0.40
0.96
Benz(a)anthracene
26
4
*
*
*
CLOD
CLOD
CLOD
CLOD
CLOD
0.02
Chrysene
26
27
*
*
*
CLOD
CLOD
CLOD
0.0068
0.012
0.017
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
26
0
*
*
*
CLOD
CLOD
CLOD
CLOD
CLOD
CLOD
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
26
0
*
*
*
CLOD
CLOD
CLOD
CLOD
CLOD
CLOD
Benzo(e)pyrene
26
0
*
*
*
CLOD
CLOD
CLOD
CLOD
CLOD
CLOD
DBA + ICDPC
26
0
*
*
*
CLOD
CLOD
CLOD
CLOD
CLOD
CLOD
-------
Table 1-12 Continued
Chemical
n
%
>LOD
Mean
(m«/k«)
Standard
Deviation
(mg/kg)
%
Relative
Standard
Deviation
10th
Percentile
(mg/kg)
25th
Percentile
(nig/kg)
50th
Percentile
(m«/k«)
75th
Percentile
(m«/k«)
90th
Percentile
(mg/kg)
Max
(nig/kg)
Coronene
26
4
*
*
*
LOD is > 60%.
-------
Table 1-13. Summary Statistics for SVOC 25 °C Emission Factors for Tire Crumb Rubber Infill Collected at Synthetic Turf Fields3
Chemical
n
%
>LOD
Mean
(m«/k«)
Standard
Deviation
(m«/k«)
%
Relative
Standard
Deviation
10th
Percentile
(ms/kj?)
25th
Percentile
(m«/k«)
50"'
Percentile
(m«/k«)
75th
Percentile
(mjj/kK)
90th
Percentile
(m»/k«)
Max
(m»/k«)
Phenanthrene
40
100
0.025
0.049
200
-0.015
-0.0003
0.018
0.043
0.093
0.15
Fluoranthene
40
28
*
*
*
-------
Table 1-13 Continued
Chemical
n
%
>LOD
Mean
(m«/k«)
Standard
Deviation
(m«/k«)
%
Relative
Standard
Deviation
10th
Percentile
(m«/k«)
25th
Percentile
(m«/k«)
50th
Percentile
(m«/k«)
75th
Percentile
(mg/kK)
90th
Percentile
(mg/kg)
Max
(m«/k«)
DBA + ICDPC
40
0
*
*
*
LOD is > 60%.
-------
Table 1-14. Summary Statistics for SVOC 60 °C Emission Factors for Tire Crumb Rubber Infill Collected at Synthetic Turf Fields3
Chemical
n
%
>LOD
Mean
(m«/k«)
Standard
Deviation
(m«/k«)
%
Relative
Standard
Deviation
10th
Percentile
(ms/kj?)
25th
Percentile
(mg/kg)
50"'
Percentile
(m«/k«)
75th
Percentile
(m«/k«)
90th
Percentile
(m»/k«)
Max
(mg/kg)
Phenanthrene
40
100
0.58
0.71
120
0.035
0.069
0.29
0.89
1.4
3.1
Fluoranthene
40
98
0.16
0.11
73
0.046
0.068
0.12
0.23
0.33
0.46
Pyrene
40
98
0.29
0.21
73
0.083
0.15
0.22
0.40
0.62
0.89
Benzo[a]pyrene
40
0
*
*
*
CLOD
CLOD
CLOD
CLOD
CLOD
CLOD
Benzo [ghi] perylene
40
0
*
*
*
CLOD
CLOD
CLOD
CLOD
CLOD
CLOD
Suml 5PAHb
40
100
2.0
1.9
93
0.55
0.70
1.5
2.7
3.7
9.4
Benzothiazole
40
100
34
50
150
1.9
3.1
18
34
120
220
Dibutyl phthalate
40
100
0.14
0.41
290
-0.30
-0.15
0.073
0.38
0.63
1.5
Aniline
40
100
3.5
5.1
150
0.12
0.26
0.81
3.8
11
22
4-tert-octylphenol
40
98
5.8
5.5
94
0.50
1.2
5.1
9.1
14
21
Naphthalene
40
98
-0.14
0.56
-410
-1.1
-0.086
0.021
0.087
0.21
1.6
1 -Methylnaphthalene
40
100
0.24
0.63
260
-0.027
0.0068
0.022
0.21
0.63
3.6
2-Methylnaphthalene
40
100
0.46
1.3
280
-0.055
0.013
0.043
0.30
1.0
6.4
Acenaphthylene
40
68
0.10
0.18
180
CLOD
CLOD
0.037
0.10
0.24
0.97
Fluorene
40
100
0.19
0.35
190
-0.0005
0.0085
0.056
0.25
0.42
1.9
Anthracene
40
53
*
*
*
CLOD
CLOD
0.053
0.13
0.22
1.2
1 -Methylphenanthrene
40
98
0.14
0.13
91
0.029
0.038
0.10
0.23
0.31
0.57
2-Methylphenanthrene
40
90
0.23
0.28
120
0.025
0.045
0.11
0.34
0.59
1.2
3 -Methylphenanthrene
40
90
0.37
0.44
120
0.041
0.075
0.20
0.53
0.92
1.8
Benz(a)anthracene
40
3
*
*
*
CLOD
CLOD
CLOD
CLOD
CLOD
0.057
Chrysene
40
30
*
*
*
CLOD
CLOD
CLOD
0.011
0.017
0.082
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
40
0
*
*
*
CLOD
CLOD
CLOD
CLOD
CLOD
CLOD
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
40
3
*
*
*
CLOD
CLOD
CLOD
CLOD
CLOD
0.023
Benzo(e)pyrene
40
0
*
*
*
CLOD
CLOD
CLOD
CLOD
CLOD
CLOD
DBA + ICDPC
40
0
*
*
*
CLOD
CLOD
CLOD
CLOD
CLOD
CLOD
-------
Table 1-14 Continued
Chemical
n
%
>LOD
Mean
(m«/k«)
Standard
Deviation
(m«/k«)
%
Relative
Standard
Deviation
10th
Percentile
(m«/k«)
25th
Percentile
(m«/k«)
50th
Percentile
(m«/k«)
75th
Percentile
(mjj/kK)
90th
Percentile
(mg/kg)
Max
(m«/k«)
Coronene
40
0
*
*
*
LOD is > 60%.
-------
[This page intentionally left blank.]
-------
Appendix J
Dynamic Chamber Emissions Measurements
Time Series Test Results
-------
J.1 Chamber Emission Time Series Tests
J.1.1 Purpose
Determine VOC, formaldehyde, and SVOC emission factor profiles over a 48-hour period in tire crumb
rubber dynamic emissions tests performed at 25 ° and 60 °C.
J.1.2 Materials and Experiments
Number of Tire Crumb Rubber Samples = 2
1 recycling plant tire crumb rubber sample
1 relatively new synthetic turf field tire crumb rubber infill sample
15 g of tire crumb rubber used in the small chamber tests for VOCs and formaldehyde
10 g tire crumb rubber used for each micro chamber test for SVOCs
Chamber Emission Experiments
-	VOC/Formaldehyde recycling plant 25 °C - Small chamber
-	VOC/Formaldehyde recycling plant 60 °C - Small chamber
-	VOC/Formaldehyde synthetic turf field 25 °C - Small chamber
-	VOC/Formaldehyde synthetic turf field 60 °C - Small chamber
SVOC recycling plant 25 °C - Micro chamber
SVOC recycling plant 60 °C - Micro chamber
SVOC synthetic turf field 25 °C - Micro chamber
SVOC synthetic turf field 60 °C - Micro chamber
Chamber setup and sampling followed the same procedures as those used for all dynamic chamber
emission experiments. The only differences included addition of sampling time points prior to the usual
24-hour collection time and extending the chamber experiment time for collection of samples at a 48-
hour time point.
J.1.3 Sampling Schedule
Sampling schedules are described in Table J-l for the small chamber tests for VOCs and formaldehyde,
and in Table J-2 for the micro chamber tests for SVOCs.
J.1.4 Chamber Time Series Test Measurement Results
The chamber emission time series test results are shown in Tables J-3 through J-6 for VOCs and
formaldehyde. Time series test results are shown graphically for selected chemicals in Figures J-l
through J-8.
The chamber emission time series test results are shown in Tables J-7 through J-10 for SVOCs. Time
series test results are shown graphically for selected chemicals in Figures J-9 through J-16.
-------
Table J-l. Sampling Schedule for One Small Chamber Test for VOCs and Formaldehyde3
Sample Type
Elapsed Time (hours)
Background for VOCs
-71.50
Background for formaldehyde
-71.25
Tire crumb rubber sample placed into chamber
0
VOC Sample
1.0
Formaldehyde Sample
1.0
VOC Sample
2.5
Formaldehyde Sample
2.5
VOC Sample
5.0
Formaldehyde Sample
5.0
VOC Sample
8.0
Formaldehyde Sample
8.0
VOC Sample
24.0
Formaldehyde Sample
24.0
VOC Sample
48.0
Formaldehyde Sample
48.0
VOC = volatile organic compound

able J-2. Sampling Schedule for One Micro-Chamber Test for SVOCs3
Sample Tvpc
Elapsed Time (hours)
Background for SVOCs
-70.5
Tire crumb rubber sample placed into chamber
0
SVOC Sample
1.5
SVOC Sample
5.5
SVOC Sample
9.0
SVOC Sample
24.0
SVOC Sample
48.0
-------
Table J-3. VOC 25 °C Chamber Emission Factor Time Series Test Results for Tire Crumb Rubber from a
Tire Recycling Plant3
Chemical
Emission
Factor -
1 Hr in Test
Chamber
(ng/g/h)
Emission
Factor-
2.5 H r in Test
Chamber
(ng/g/h)
Emission
Factor-
5 Hr in Test
Chamber
(ng/g/h)
Emission
Factor-
8 Hr in Test
Chamber
(ng/g/h)
Emission
Factor-
24 Hr in Test
Chamber
(ng/g/h)
Emission
Factor-
48 Hr in Test
Chamber
(ng/g/h)
Formaldehyde
12
12
00
00
5.5
6.9
3.8
Metyl isobutyl ketone
NR
199
153
78
22
14
Benzothiazole
NR
150
150
154
146
136
1,3-Butadiene
NR
-0.077
-0.076
-0.076
-0.076
-0.075
Styrene
NR
5.7
3.0
1.5
0.14
0.062
Benzene
NR
0.59
0.065
0.045
-0.027
0.085
Toluene
NR
6.2
1.8
0.72
0.13
0.27
Ethylbenzene
NR
1.5
0.62
0.26
0.022
0.033
m/p-Xylene
NR
22
10
4.7
0.31
0.16
o-Xylene
NR
2.6
1.3
0.68
0.058
0.029
SumBTEXb
NR
33
14
6.4
0.49
0.58
trans-2-Butene
NR
0.038
0.038
0.038
0.021
0.029
cis-2-Butene
NR
0.040
0.029
0.032
0.019
0.019
4-Ethyltoluene
NR
2.2
1.4
0.90
0.093
0.025
1,3,5 -T rimethy lbenzene
NR
3.7
2.6
1.8
0.299
0.054
1,1 -Dichloroethene
NR
-0.0018
-0.0018
-0.0018
-0.0018
-0.0018
1,1 -Dichloroethane
NR
0.00055
0.00055
0.00055
0.00054
0.00054
cis-l,2-Dichloroethene
NR
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.012
0.012
1,2 -Dichloroethane
NR
0
0
0
0
0
Carbon Tetrachloride
NR
0.099
-0.017
-0.00569
-0.00566
-0.011
1,2 -Dichloropropane
NR
-0.00026
-0.00026
-0.00026
-0.00026
-0.00025
T richloroethylene
NR
1.9
0.70
0.20
0.086
0.039
T etrachloroethylene
NR
5.0
1.9
0.70
0.089
0.045
Chlorobenzene
NR
-0.077
-0.077
0.0060
-0.0059
-0.0042
m-Dichlorobenzene
NR
0.014
0.037
0.015
0.026
-0.067
p-Dichlorobenzene
NR
1.8
1.4
1.0
0.27
0.067
o-Dichlorobenzene
NR
0.0037
0.029
0.0060
0.014
-0.070
T richlorofluoro methane
(Freon 11)
NR
0.18
-0.091
-0.13
-0.11
-0.11
Dichlorodifluoromethane
(Freon 12)
NR
0.089
0.060
0.071
0.057
0.046
T richlorotrifluoroethane
(Freon 113)
NR
0.21
-0.051
-0.051
-0.051
-0.051
a VOC = volatile organic compound; °C = degrees Celsius; NR = not reported
b SumBTEX = Sum of benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, m/p-xylene, and o-xylene
-------
Table J-4. VOC 60 °C Chamber Emission Factor Time Series Test Results for Tire Crumb Rubber from a
Tire Recycling Plant3
Chemical
Emission
Factor -
1 Hr in Test
Chamber
(ng/g/h)
Emission
Factor-
2.5 Hr in Test
Chamber
(ng/g/h)
Emission
Factor-
5 Hr in Test
Chamber
(ng/g/h)
Emission
Factor-
8 Hr in Test
Chamber
(ng/g/h)
Emission
Factor-
24 Hr in Test
Chamber
(ng/g/h)
Emission
Factor-
48 Hr in Test
Chamber
(ng/g/h)
Formaldehyde
48
126
84
73
44
31
Metyl isobutyl ketone
229
188
164
149
135
129
Benzothiazole
221
242
246
245
220
196
1,3-Butadiene
-0.086
-0.084
-0.083
-0.084
-0.083
-0.087
Styrene
12
13
3.6
2.0
0.96
0.56
Benzene
1.4
1.6
1.0
0.28
0.15
-0.0015
Toluene
16
5.0
2.3
0.98
0.33
0.36
Ethylbenzene
3.4
1.5
0.39
-0.080
-0.15
-0.22
m/p-Xylene
35
22
5.4
2.2
0.97
0.36
o-Xylene
4.1
1.9
-0.033
-0.47
-0.61
-0.74
SumBTEXb
60
32
9.1
2.9
0.70
-0.23
trans-2-Butene
-0.099
-0.23
0.077
-0.19
-0.24
-0.34
cis-2-Butene
-0.099
-0.22
0.013
-0.19
-0.20
-0.31
4-Ethyltoluene
5.2
3.7
1.0
0.12
-0.027
-0.050
1,3,5 -T rimethy lbenzene
7.8
6.8
2.1
0.42
0.054
0.016
1,1 -Dichloroethene
-0.0015
-0.0015
-0.0015
-0.0015
-0.0015
-0.0015
1,1 -Dichloroethane
-0.00038
-0.00037
-0.00037
-0.00037
-0.00037
-0.00039
cis-l,2-Dichloroethene
0.0069
0.0067
0.0066
0.0067
0.0066
0.0070
1,2 -Dichloroethane
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,1,1 -T richloroethane
-0.084
0.0012
0.0012
0.0012
0.0012
0.0013
Carbon Tetrachloride
0.50
0.15
-0.035
-0.031
-0.035
-0.035
1,2 -Dichloropropane
-0.00027
-0.00026
-0.00026
-0.00026
-0.00026
-0.00027
T richloroethylene
6.1
4.1
2.0
0.85
0.28
0.15
T etrachloroethylene
9.3
3.2
0.59
0.22
0.098
0.070
Chlorobenzene
-0.11
-0.11
-0.10
-0.10
-0.10
-0.11
m-Dichlorobenzene
0.018
0.014
0.019
0.010
0.013
0.0033
p-Dichlorobenzene
4.6
4.1
1.7
0.47
0.057
0.0049
o-Dichlorobenzene
0.047
0.037
0.025
0.0095
0.014
0.0054
T richlorofluoro methane
(Freon 11)
1.1
0.18
-0.0086
-0.014
-0.1585
-0.085
Dichlorodifluoromethane
(Freon 12)
0.071
0.053
0.071
0.066
0.047
0.039
T richlorotrifluoroethane
(Freon 113)
1.3
0.14
0.033
0.052
0.022
-0.053
a VOC = volatile organic compound; °C = degrees Celsius
b SumBTEX = Sum of benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, m/p-xylene, and o-xylene
-------
Table J-5. VOC 25 °C Chamber Emission Factor Time Series Test Results for Tire Crumb Rubber Infill
from a Synthetic Turf Field3
Chemical
Emission
Factor-
1 Hr in Test
Chamber
(ng/g/h)
Emission
Factor-
2.5 Hr in Test
Chamber
(ng/g/h)
Emission
Factor-
5 Hr in Test
Chamber
(ng/g/h)
Emission
Factor -
8 Hr in Test
Chamber
(ng/g/h)
Emission
Factor-
24 Hr in Test
Chamber
(ng/g/h)
Emission
Factor-
48 Hr in Test
Chamber
(ng/g/h)
Formaldehyde
9.4
0
0
0
2.5
0.80
Metyl isobutyl ketone
57
39
18
12
3.9
1.8
Benzothiazole
37
48
53
51
41
41
1,3-Butadiene
-0.033
-0.10
-0.049
-0.050
-0.100
-0.094
Styrene
0.34
0.21
0.12
0.080
-0.015
-0.028
Benzene
0.56
-0.066
0.17
0.16
0.27
-0.079
Toluene
1.9
0.54
0.14
0.16
0.036
0.059
Ethylbenzene
0.23
0.080
0.040
0.037
0.0081
0.0097
m/p-Xylene
0.98
0.46
0.26
0.14
0.051
0.052
o-Xylene
0.26
0.095
0.038
0.025
-0.00083
0.0060
SumBTEXb
3.9
1.1
0.65
0.52
0.36
0.048
trans-2-Butene
0.012
-0.019
-0.00581
-0.021
-0.020
-0.022
cis-2-Butene
0.011
-0.025
-0.010
-0.026
-0.025
-0.027
4-Ethyltoluene
0.10
0.034
0.0071
-0.0029
-0.0046
-0.017
1,3,5 -T rimethy lbenzene
0.089
0.021
-0.0077
-0.015
-0.01069
-0.031
1,1 -Dichloroethene
-0.0018
-0.0018
-0.0018
-0.0018
-0.0018
-0.0018
1,1 -Dichloroethane
0.00055
0.00055
0.00055
0.00055
0.00055
0.00055
cis-l,2-Dichloroethene
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
1,2 -Dichloroethane
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,1,1 -T richloroethane
-0.11
0
0
0
0
0
Carbon Tetrachloride
0.33
0.15
0.13
-0.03296
0.12
0.16
1,2 -Dichloropropane
0.00014
0.00014
0.00014
0.00014
0.00014
0.00014
T richloroethylene
-0.024
-0.028
-0.03
-0.031
-0.028
-0.032
T etrachloroethylene
0.092
0.021
-0.0031
-0.0073
-0.0074
-0.0095
Chlorobenzene
0.00079
-0.0066
0.0025
0.0097
0.013
-0.0027
m-Dichlorobenzene
-0.016
-0.027
-0.022
-0.024
-0.00030
-0.016
p-Dichlorobenzene
0.065
0.018
0.011
0.0027
0.0073
-0.00075
o-Dichlorobenzene
-0.027
-0.050
-0.056
-0.055
-0.0087
-0.053
T richlorofluoro methane
(Freon 11)
1.0
0.094
-0.12
-0.063
-0.15
0.039
Dichlorodifluoromethan
e (Freon 12)
-0.0072
-0.010
0.0091
0.0065
0.0033
0.0047
T richlorotrifluoroethane
(Freon 113)
0.63
0.13
0.015
0.0096
0.011
0.054
a VOC = volatile organic compound; °C = degrees Celsius
b SumBTEX = Sum of benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, m/p-xylene, and o-xylene
-------
Table J-6. VOC 60 °C Chamber Emission Factor Time Series Test Results for Tire Crumb Rubber Infill
from a Synthetic Turf Field3
Chemical
Emission
Factor -
1 Hr in Test
Chamber
(ng/g/h)
Emission
Factor-
2.5 Hr in Test
Chamber
(ng/g/h)
Emission
Factor-
5 Hr in Test
Chamber
(ng/g/h)
Emission
Factor-
8 Hr in Test
Chamber
(ng/g/h)
Emission
Factor-
24 Hr in Test
Chamber
(ng/g/h)
Emission
Factor-
48 Hr in Test
Chamber
(ng/g/h)
Formaldehyde
8.2
14
16
40
11
13
Metyl isobutyl ketone
67
68
66
66
77
56
Benzothiazole
94
103
99
97
90
82
1,3-Butadiene
-0.057
-0.057
-0.057
-0.057
-0.057
-0.057
Styrene
0.48
0.64
0.40
0.40
0.18
0.076
Benzene
0.27
0.075
0.39
0.077
-0.10912
0.092
Toluene
2.3
0.60
0.11
0.055
-0.044
0.0096
Ethylbenzene
0.096
0.13
0.089
0.082
-0.14
-0.18
m/p-Xylene
0.58
1.5
1.7
1.4
0.53
0.10
o-Xylene
-0.16
1.1
1.3
0.97
-0.16
-0.61
SumBTEXb
3.1
3.4
3.6
2.6
0.076
-0.58
trans-2-Butene
-0.29
-0.23
-0.63
-0.28
-0.46
-0.31
cis-2-Butene
-0.27
-0.22
-0.12
-0.25
-0.41
-0.29
4-Ethyltoluene
0.17
0.059
-0.023
-0.051
-0.057
-0.066
1,3,5 -T rimethy lbenzene
0.20
0.096
0.039
-0.0033
-0.010
-0.015
1,1 -Dichloroethene
-0.0015
-0.0015
-0.0015
-0.0015
-0.0015
-
1,1 -Dichloroethane
-0.60
-0.00037
-0.00037
-0.00037
-0.00037
-0.00037
cis-l,2-Dichloroethene
0.0066
0.0066
0.0067
0.0067
0.0067
0.0067
1,2 -Dichloroethane
-0.60
0
0
0
0
0
1,1,1 -T richloroethane
-0.098
0.0012
0.0012
0.0012
0.0012
0.0012
Carbon Tetrachloride
0.35
0.17
0.093
0.11
0.10
0.10
1,2 -Dichloropropane
0.00013
0.00013
0.00013
0.00013
0.00013
0.00013
T richloroethylene
0.0011
-0.014
-0.0055
-0.014
-0.016
-0.015
T etrachloroethylene
0.12
0.015
-0.0040
-0.018
-0.023
-0.023
Chlorobenzene
0.0025
0.013
0.039
-0.076
0.0078
-0.076
m-Dichlorobenzene
0.0014
-0.026
0.027
-0.030
-0.030
-0.034
p-Dichlorobenzene
0.25
0.21
0.19
0.11
0.10
0.095
o-Dichlorobenzene
0.041
-0.033
0.058
-0.051
-0.036
-0.041
T richlorofluoro methane
(Freon 11)
1.1
0.20
-0.043
-0.025
0.0063
-0.10
Dichlorodifluoromethane
(Freon 12)
0.016
0.0043
0.0095
0.012
0.0055
-0.0063
T richlorotrifluoroethane
(Freon 113)
0.69
0.14
0.011
0.024
0.011
0.023
a VOC = volatile organic compound; °C = degrees Celsius
b SumBTEX = Sum of benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, m/p-xylene, and o-xylene
-------
		.250
j:
,200
O 150
tJ
2.
c 100
o
150
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone
Recycling Plant Tire Crumb Rubber
VOC Chamber Emission Time SeriesTest


25C 60C















10
20	30
Hours
40
50

90
JZ


80
OD
00
70
c

' 1
60
0
r,
50
£
40
c

o
30



?n
i-

LLI
10

0
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone
Synthetic Turf Field Tire Crumb Rubber Infill
VOC Chamber Emission Time Series Test

25C 60C




\

\

\

\





10
20	30
Hours
40
50
Figure J-l. Chamber emission factor time series test results for methyl isobutyl ketone from recycling plant
tire crumb rubber (left) and synthetic turf field tire crumb rubber infill (right).[VOC = volatile organic
compound; 25C = 25 degrees Celsius; 60C = 60 degrees Celsius]
	300
ao
250
200
150
100
50
0
Benzothiazole
Recycling Plant Tire Crumb Rubber
VOC Chamber EmissionTime SeriesTest


—25C —60C









10
20	30
Hours
40
50

120
-C

-2?
100
M

C

L_
80
o

t;
60
c

o
40
iA



E
m
20

0
Benzothiazole
Synthetic Turf Field Tire Crumb Rubber Infill
VOC Chamber EmissionTime SeriesTest

——25C -^60C


——.





10
20	30
Hours
40
50
Figure J-2. Chamber emission factor time series test results for benzothiazole from recycling plant tire
crumb rubber (left) and synthetic turf field tire crumb rubber infill (right). [VOC = volatile organic compounds
25C = 25 degrees Celsius; 60C = 60 degrees Celsius]
-------
_ 14
m 12
eto
£ 10
o
tJ
S.
c
o
Styrene
Recycling Plant Tire Crumb Rubber
VOC Chamber Emission Time Series Test


—25C -*-600


















10
20	30
Hours
40
50
Styrene
Synthetic Turf Field Tire Crumb Rubber Infill
VOC Chamber EmissionTime Series Test
_ 0.7
-c
"m 0.6
HO
£.0.5
°0.4
0.3
0
w 0.2
1	0.1
0

— 25C
—-60C

















10
20	30
Hours
40
50
Figure J-3. Chamber emission factor time series test results for styrene from recycling plant tire crumb
rubber (left) and synthetic turf field tire crumb rubber infill (right). [VOC = volatile organic compound; 25C =
25 degrees Celsius; 60C = 60 degrees Celsius]
Toluene
Recycling Plant Tire Crumb Rubber
VOC Chamber EmissionTime SeriesTest

18
.c

00
16
qo
14
c


12
o
tl
10
St
8
c

0
6


t/)
4
t-

LU
2

0


—25C —60C
I


1



L_











	
•
10
20	30
Hours
40
50
00
ao
Toluene
Synthetic Turf Field Tire Crumb Rubber Infill
VOC Chamber EmissionTime SeriesTest
. 2-5
1.5
o
13
8.
c
o
-C 0.5
1
—^25C
-^60C
1







	L
10
20	30
Hours
40
50
Figure J-4. Chamber emission factor time series test results for toluene from recycling plant tire crumb
rubber (left) and synthetic turf field tire crumb rubber infill (right). [VOC = volatile organic compound; 25C =
25 degrees Celsius; 60C = 60 degrees Celsius]
-------
m,p-Xylene
Recycling Plant Tire Crumb Rubber
VOC Chamber Emission Time Series Test
40
25C
60C
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
Hours
m,p-Xylene
SyntheticTurf Field Tire Crumb Rubber Infill
VOC Chamber EmissionTime Series Test

—25C -^-eoc






0	10	20	30	40	50
Hours
Figure J-5. Chamber emission factor time series test results for m/p-xylene from recycling plant tire crumb
rubber (left) and synthetic turf field tire crumb rubber infill (right).[VOC = volatile organic compound; 25C = 25
degrees Celsius; 60C = 60 degrees Celsius]
SumBTEX
Recycling Plant Tire Crumb Rubber
VOC Chamber Emission Time Series Test


—-25C
—60C
























0	10	20	30	40	50
Hours
SumBTEX
SyntheticTurf Field Tire Crumb Rubber Infill
VOC Chamber EmissionTime Series Test


—25C 60C

























0	10	20	30	40	50
Hours
Figure J-6. Chamber emission factor time series test results for the sum of benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene,
m/p-xyene, and o-xylene (SumBTEX) from recycling plant tire crumb rubber (left) and synthetic turf field
tire crumb rubber infill (right). [VOC = volatile organic compound; 25C = 25 degrees Celsius; 60C = 60 degrees
Celsius; SumBTEX = Sum of benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, m/p-xylene, and o-xylene]
-------
_140
.C
^120
W)
£.100
0
1
TO
80
60
c
o
"co 40
E
UJ
20
0
Formaldehyde
Recycling Plant Tire Crumb Rubber
VOC Chamber Emission Time Series Test


—25C
—»-60C
























10
20	30
Hours
40
50
Formaldehyde
Synthetic Turf Field Tire Crumb Rubber Infill
VOC Chamber Emission Time SeriesTest
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
—25C -«-60C


















10
20	30
Hours
40
50
Figure J-7. Chamber emission factor time series test results for formaldehyde from recycling plant tire
crumb rubber (left) and synthetic turf field tire crumb rubber infill (right). [VOC = volatile organic compound;
25C = 25 degrees Celsius; 60C = 60 degrees Celsius]
Table J-7. SVOC 25 °C Chamber Emission Factor Time Series Test Results for Tire Crumb Rubber
Collected from a Tire Recycling Plant"
Chemical
Emission
Factor -
2 Hr in Test
Chamber
(ng/g/h)
Emission
Factor -
5.5 Hr in Test
Chamber
(ng/g/h)
Emission
Factor -
9 Hr in Test
Chamber
(ng/g/h)
Emission
Factor -
24 Hr in Test
Chamber
(ng/g/h)
Emission
Factor -
48 Hr in Test
Chamber
(ng/g/h)
Phenanthrene
0.020
0.094
0.047
0.060
0.030
Fluoranthene
0.0051
0.0050
0.0017
0.0017
-0.0017
Pyrene
0.0067
0.0067
0.0067
0.0066
0.0033
Benzo[a]pyrene
0
0
0
0
0
Benzo [ghi]perylene
0
0
0.0034
0
0
Suml 5PAHb
2.5
2.1
2.3
1.8
1.3
Benzotliiazole
81
55
48
38
30
Dibutyl phthalate
0.71
0.36
0.29
0.30
0.21
Aniline
3.3
3.2
2.7
2.7
2.5
4-tert-octylphenol
0.018
0.14
0.055
0.26
0.31
Naphthalene
2.2
1.7
1.9
1.4
0.99
1 -Methyl naphtha lene
1.2
1.2
1.1
1.1
0.93
2-Methylnaphtlialene
2.0
2.1
1.8
1.8
1.5
Acenaphthylene
0.067
0.070
0.063
0.069
0.063
Fluorene
0.025
0.035
0.039
0.028
0.022
Anthracene
-0.00084
0.0092
0.0059
0.0058
0.0025
1 -Methylphenantlirene
0.0034
0.0034
0.0034
0.0033
0.0033
2 -Methylphenantlirene
0.0034
0.0067
0.0034
0.0033
0.0033
-------
Table J-7 Continued
Chemical
Emission
Factor-
2 Hr in Test
Chamber
(ng/g/h)
Emission
Factor-
5.5 Hr in Test
Chamber
(ng/g/h)
Emission
Factor-
9 Hr in Test
Chamber
(ng/g/h)
Emission
Factor-
24 Hr in Test
Chamber
(ng/g/h)
Emission
Factor-
48 Hr in Test
Chamber
(ng/g/h)
3 -Methylphenanthrene
0.0042
0.011
0.0042
0.0075
0.0042
Benz(a)anthracene
0
0
0
0
0
Chrysene
0
0
0
0
0
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
0
0
0
0
0
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
0
0
0
0
0
Benzo(e)pyrene
0
0
0
0
0
DBA + ICDP°
0
0
0
0
0
Coronene
0
0
0.0034
0
0
Dibenzothiophene
0.0025
0.0059
0.0059
0.0058
0.0025
n-Butylbenzene
-0.078
-0.20
-0.22
-0.37
-0.46
Dimethyl phthalate
0.0042
0.00084
0.0076
0.0042
0.00083
Diisobutyl phthalate
0.23
0.59
0.18
0.26
0.14
Di-n-octyl phthalate
0.15
-0.013
0.014
-0.012
0.011
a SVOC = semivolatile organic compound; °C = degrees Celsius
b Suml5PAH = Sum of 15 of the 16 EPA 'priority' PAHs, including Acenaphthylene, Anthracene, Benz[a]anthracene,
Benzo[a]pyrene, Benzo(b)fluoranthene, Benzo[ghi]perylene, Benzo(k)fluoranthene, Chrysene, Dibenz[a,h]anthracene,
Fluoranthene, Fluorene, Indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene, Naphthalene, Phenanthrene, Pyrene
°DBA + ICDP= Sum of Dibenz[a,h]anthracene and Indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene
-------
Table J-8. SVOC 60 °C Chamber Emission Factor Time Series Test Results for Tire Crumb Rubber
Collected from a Tire Recycling Plant3
Chemical
Emission
Factor-
2 Hr in Test
Chamber
(ng/g/h)
Emission
Factor-
5.5 Hr in Test
Chamber
(ng/g/h)
Emission
Factor-
9 Hr in Test
Chamber
(ng/g/h)
Emission
Factor-
24 Hr in Test
Chamber
(ng/g/h)
Emission
Factor-
48 Hr in Test
Chamber
(ng/g/h)
Phenanthrene
1.2
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
Fluoranthene
0.18
0.19
0.18
0.17
0.17
Pyrene
0.44
0.44
0.43
0.42
0.40
Benzo[a]pyrene
0
0
0
0
0
Benzo [ghijperylene
0
0
0
0
0
Suml5PAHb
26
22
21
14
9.4
Benzothiazole
1987
2128
1019
NR
622
Dibutyl phthalate
0.33
0.40
0.56
0.16
0.81
Aniline
51
55
38
42
25
4-tert-octylphenol
20
20
19
19
13
Naphthalene
22
18
17
10
5.6
1 -Methylnaphthalene
18
18
18
15
11
2-Methylnaphthalene
56
67
39
21
15
Acenaphthylene
1.3
1.2
1.2
1.1
1.0
Fluorene
0.69
0.67
0.65
0.63
0.60
Anthracene
0.24
0.22
0.14
0.20
0.19
1 -Methylphenanthrene
0.16
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.14
2 -Methylphenanthrene
0.22
0.21
0.20
0.19
0.19
3 -Methylphenanthrene
0.36
0.34
0.33
0.31
0.32
Benz(a)anthracene
0
0
0
0
0
Chrysene
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.0100
0.0099
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
0
0
0
0
0
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
0
0
0
0
0
Benzo(e)pyrene
0
0
0
0
0
DBA + ICDP°
0
0
0
0
0
Coronene
0
0
0
0
0
Dibenzothiophene
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
n-Butylbenzene
6.1
4.1
2.1
-0.18
-0.71
Dimethyl phthalate
0.021
0.021
0.018
0.017
0.017
Diisobutyl phthalate
0.36
0.49
1.2
0.49
0.66
Di-n-octyl phthalate
-0.013
0.024
-0.013
0.004
-0.012
" SVOC = semivolatile organic compound; °C = degrees Celsius; NR = not reported
b Suml5PAH = Sum of 15 of the 16 EPA 'priority' PAHs, including Acenaphthylene, Anthracene, Benz[a]anthracene,
Benzo[a]pyrene, Benzo(b)fluoranthene, Benzo[ghi]perylene, Benzo(k)fluoranthene, Chrysene, Dibenz[a,h]anthracene,
Fluoranthene, Fluorene, Indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene, Naphthalene, Phenanthrene, Pyrene
°DBA + ICDP= Sum of Dibenz[a,h]anthracene and Indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene
-------
Table J-9. SVOC 25 °C Chamber Emission Factor Time Series Test Results for Tire Crumb Rubber Infill
Collected from a Synthetic Turf Field3
Chemical
Emission
Factor-
2 Hr in Test
Chamber
(ng/g/h)
Emission
Factor-
5.5 Hr in Test
Chamber
(ng/g/h)
Emission
Factor-
9 Hr in Test
Chamber
(ng/g/h)
Emission
Factor-
24 Hr in Test
Chamber
(ng/g/h)
Emission
Factor-
48 Hr in Test
Chamber
(ng/g/h)
Phenanthrene
0
0.010
-0.0034
0.0033
0.070
Fluoranthene
-0.0017
0.0017
0.0017
-0.0017
-0.0017
Pyrene
0
0.0034
0.0034
0.0033
0.0033
Benzo[a]pyrene
0
0
0
0
0
Benzo [ghijperylene
0
0
0
0
0
Suml5PAHb
0.26
0.31
0.28
0.26
0.35
Benzothiazole
7.6
6.7
6.8
6.5
5.5
Dibutyl phthalate
0.12
-0.021
0.28
0.27
0.59
Aniline
0.81
0.78
0.56
0.74
0.55
4-tert-octylphenol
0.068
0.014
-0.0025
0.057
0.0075
Naphthalene
0.014
0.051
0.031
0.027
0.037
1 -Methylnaphthalene
0.019
0.013
0.019
0.012
0.0091
2-Methylnaphthalene
0.029
0.022
0.032
0.022
0.015
Acenaphthylene
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.0091
0.0091
Fluorene
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
-0.0017
0.0083
Anthracene
-0.00084
-0.00084
-0.00084
-0.00083
-0.00083
1 -Methylphenanthrene
0.0034
0
0
0.0033
0.0033
2 -Methylphenanthrene
0
0
0
0
0
3 -Methylphenanthrene
0.00084
0.00084
0.00084
0.00083
0.00083
Benz(a)anthracene
0
0
0
0
0
Chrysene
0
-0.0034
0
0
-0.0033
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
0
0
0
0
0
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
0
0
0
0
0
Benzo(e)pyrene
0
0
0
0
0
DBA + ICDP°
0
0
0
0
0
Coronene
0
0
0
0
0
Dibenzothiophene
-0.00084
-0.00084
0.0025
-0.00083
0.0025
n-Butylbenzene
-0.72
-0.75
-0.73
-0.76
-0.74
Dimethyl phthalate
0.00084
0.00084
0.0042
0.00083
0.00083
Diisobutyl phthalate
0.028
-0.11
0.24
0.27
0.56
Di-n-octyl phthalate
0.028
-0.013
-0.013
-0.012
0.011
" SVOC = semivolatile organic compound; °C = degrees Celsius
b Suml5PAH = Sum of 15 of the 16 EPA 'priority' PAHs, including Acenaphthylene, Anthracene, Benz[a]anthracene,
Benzo[a]pyrene, Benzo(b)fluoranthene, Benzo[ghi]perylene, Benzo(k)fluoranthene, Chrysene, Dibenz[a,h]anthracene,
Fluoranthene, Fluorene, Indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene, Naphthalene, Phenanthrene, Pyrene
°DBA + ICDP= Sum of Dibenz[a,h]anthracene and Indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene
-------
Table J-10. SVOC 60 °C Chamber Emission Factor Time Series Test Results for Tire Crumb Rubber Infill
Collected from a Synthetic Turf Field3
Chemical
Emission
Factor 2 Hr
in Test
Chamber
(ng/g/h)
Emission
Factor 5.5 Hr
in Test
Chamber
(ng/g/h)
Emission
Factor 9 Hr
in Test
Chamber
(ng/g/h)
Emission
Factor 24 Hr
in Test
Chamber
(ng/g/h)
Emission
Factor 48 Hr
in Test
Chamber
(ng/g/h)
Phenanthrene
0.28
0.27
0.31
0.26
0.27
Fluoranthene
0.11
0.11
0.10
0.11
0.11
Pyrene
0.29
0.29
0.31
0.30
0.29
Benzo[a]pyrene
0
0
0
0
0
Benzo [ghijperylene
0
0
0
0
0
Suml5PAHb
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.3
1.2
Benzothiazole
82
125
54
74
80
Dibutyl phthalate
0.18
0.01
0.42
0.39
0.27
Aniline
6.9
5.0
4.4
3.5
4.3
4-tert-octylphenol
8.4
5.1
7.2
6.8
6.1
Naphthalene
0.014
0.14
0.099
0.11
0.068
1 -Methylnaphthalene
0.20
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.099
2-Methylnaphthalene
0.24
0.21
0.22
0.21
0.13
Acenaphthylene
0.23
0.19
0.22
0.18
0.18
Fluorene
0.069
0.059
0.079
0.061
0.062
Anthracene
0.020
0.023
0.026
0.019
0.019
1 -Methylphenanthrene
0.083
0.074
0.074
0.086
0.080
2 -Methylphenanthrene
0.091
0.091
0.094
0.090
0.083
3 -Methylphenanthrene
0.15
0.14
0.15
0.14
0.14
Benz(a)anthracene
0
0
0
0
0
Chrysene
0
0.0034
0.0034
0.0033
0.0033
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
0
0
0
0
0
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
0
0
0
0
0
Benzo(e)pyrene
0
0
0
0
0
DBA + ICDP°
0
0
0
0
0
Coronene
0
0
0
0
0
Dibenzothiophene
0.038
0.036
0.040
0.036
0.036
n-Butylbenzene
-0.70
-0.73
-0.75
-0.73
-0.73
Dimethyl phthalate
-0.0025
0.00084
0.0042
0.00083
0.0042
Diisobutyl phthalate
0.20
0.041
0.75
0.56
0.24
Di-n-octyl phthalate
-0.013
0.018
0.0076
0.0075
-0.013
a SVOC = semivolatile organic compound; °C = degrees Celsius
b Suml5PAH = Sum of 15 of the 16 EPA 'priority' PAHs, including Acenaphthylene, Anthracene, Benz[a]anthracene,
Benzo[a]pyrene, Benzo(b)fluoranthene, Benzo[ghi]perylene, Benzo(k)fluoranthene, Chrysene, Dibenz[a,h]anthracene,
Fluoranthene, Fluorene, Indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene, Naphthalene, Phenanthrene, Pyrene
°DBA + ICDP= Sum of Dibenz[a,h]anthracene and Indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene
-------
_ 25
.c
ao
Naphthalene
Recycling Plant Tire Crumb Rubber
SVOC Chamber Emission Time Series Test
20
15
10
5
0


—-25C —60C













10
20	30
Hours
40
50
Naphthalene
SyntheticTurf Field Tire Crumb Rubber Infill
SVOC Chamber Emission Time Series Test
_0.16
j§P.M
jjb.12
o 0.1
^0.08
§0.06
$0.04
w0.02

—25C —60C














10
20	30
Hours
40
50
Figure J-8. Chamber emission factor time series test results for naphthalene from recycling plant tire
crumb rubber (left) and synthetic turf field tire crumb rubber infill (right). [SVOC = semivolatile organic
compound; 25C = 25 degrees Celsius; 60C = 60 degrees Celsius]
Phenanthrene
Recycling Plant Tire Crumb Rubber
SVOC Chamber Emission Time Series Test
_ 1.4
SL
1.2
00
=. 1
1	0.8
¦j? 0.6
0
 0.4
1	0.2
0

—-25C -»-60C












10
20	30
Hours
40
50
Phenanthrene
SyntheticTurf Field Tire Crumb Rubber Infill
SVOC Chamber Emission Time Series Test
		.0.35
-C
,00 0.3
00
£0.25
1	02
nj
£0.15
o
0.1
|o.05
0

25C 60C









	.


10
20	30
Hours
40
50
Figure J-9. Chamber emission factor time series test results for phenanthrene from recycling plant tire
crumb rubber (left) and synthetic turf field tire crumb rubber infill (right). [SVOC = semivolatile organic
compound; 25C = 25 degrees Celsius: 60C = 60 degrees Celsius]
-------
Pyrene
Recycling Plant Tire Crumb Rubber
SVOC Cha mber Emission Time Series Test


—-25C
—60C
















0	10	20	30	40	50
Hours
Pyrene
SyntheticTurf Field Tire Crumb Rubber Infill
SVOC Chamber Emission Time Series Test


—25C 60C























0	10	20	30	40	50
Hours
Figure J-10. Chamber emission factor time series test results for pyrene from recycling plant tire crumb
rubber (left) and synthetic turf field tire crumb rubber infill (right). [SVOC = semivolatile organic compound;
25C = 25 degrees Celsius; 60C = 60 degrees Celsius]
Suml5PAH
Recycling Plant Tire Crumb Rubber
SVOC Chamber Emission Time Series Test

-•-25C -»-60C











0	10	20	30	40	50
Hours

Suml5PAH

SyntheticTurf Field Tire Crumb Rubber Infill

SVOC Chamber EmissionTime Series Test
	 1.6
|oo 1.4

—»-25C 60C

£1.2
		

O 1


^ 0.8
LL




§ 0.6


8 0.4


£ 0.2
-	'

0



0 10 20 30 40 50

Hours
Figure J-ll. Chamber emission factor time series test results for the sum of 15 PAH compounts from
recycling plant tire crumb rubber (left) and synthetic turf field tire crumb rubber infill (right).
[Suml5PAH = Sum of 15 of the 16 EPA 'priority' PAHs, including Acenaphthylene, Anthracene. Benz[a]anthracene,
Benzo|a]pyrene, Benzo(b)fluoranthene, Benzo[ghi]perylene, Benzo(k)fluoranthene, Chiysene. Dibenz[a,h]anthracene,
Fluoranthene, Fluorene, Indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene. Naphthalene, Phenanthrene, Pyrene; SVOC = semivolatile organic
compound; 25C = 25 degrees Celsius; 60C = 60 degrees Celsius]
-------
Benzothiazole
Recycling Plant Tire Crumb Rubber
SVOC Chamber Emission Time Series Test
-2500
jz
00
"3000
c
OL500
1
£
ri.000
.0
\n
T 500



—-25C
—-60C
A




\








•





10
20	30
Hours
40
50
Benzothiazole
Synthetic Turf Field Tire Crumb Rubber Infill
SVOC Chamber Emission Time Series Test
_140
.c
3jl20
00
Sioo
80
60
c
O
\r> 40
mtn
| 20
0

->-25C —— 60C













10
20	30
Hours
40
50
Figure J-12. Chamber emission factor time series test results for benzothiazole from recycling plant tire
crumb rubber (left) and synthetic turf field tire crumb rubber infill (right). [SVOC = semivolatile organic
compound; 25C = 25 degrees Celsius; 60C = 60 degrees Celsius]
4-tert-Octylphenol
Recycling Plant Tire Crumb Rubber
SVOC Chamber Emission Time Series Test
„ 25
20
15
10
c 5



—25C —»-60C
















10
20	30
Hours
40
50
4-tert-Octylphenol
Synthetic Turf Field Tire Crumb Rubber Infill
SVOC Chamber EmissionTime Series Test
25C
-60C
10
20	30
Hours
40
50
Figure J-13. Chamber emission factor time series test results for 4-tert-octylphenol from recycling plant
tire crumb rubber (left) and synthetic turf field tire crumb rubber infill (right). [SVOC = semivolatile organic
compound; 25C = 25 degrees Celsius; 60C = 60 degrees Celsius]
-------
Aniline
Recycling Plant Tire Crumb Rubber
SVOC Chamber Emission Time Series Test
SO
25C
60C
50
40
30
20
10
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
Hours
Aniline
Synthetic Turf Field Tire Crumb Rubber Infill
SVOC Chamber Emission Time SeriesTest


—-25C — 60C
















0	10	20	30	40	50
Hours
Figure J-14. Chamber emission factor time series test results for aniline from recycling plant tire crumb
rubber (left) and synthetic turf field tire crumb rubber infill (right). [SVOC = semivolatile organic compound;
25C = 25 degrees Celsius; 60C = 60 degrees Celsius]
-------
[This page intentionally left blank.]
-------
Appendix K
Tire Crumb Rubber Measurement Results -
Differences Between Recycling Plants and
Synthetic Turf Fields
-------
Table K-l. Comparison of Metal ICP/MS Analysis Results Between Tire Rubber Collected from Tire
Recycling Plants and Tire Crumb Rubber Infill Composite Samples from Synthetic Turf Fieldsa'b'c
Analvtc
Recycling
Plants
Mean
(mg/kg)
Recycling Plants
Standard Deviation
(mg/kg)
Synthetic Turf
Fields Mean
(mg/kg)
Synthetic Turf Fields
Standard Deviation
(mg/kg)
t-tcst
p-valuc'1
Arsenic
0.30
0.088
0.38
0.20
0.2261
Cadmium
0.55
0.13
0.95
0.68
0.0002
Chromium
1.8
0.70
1.6
0.84
NR
Cobalt
190
87
140
60
0.0056
Lead
13
10
24
26
0.0060
Zinc
17000
3500
15000
3000
0.0063
Aluminum
1000
510
1300
740
0.1907
Antimony
1.2
0.41
0.95
0.43
0.0097
Barium
7.4
7.9
8.3
5.3
0.0923
Beryllium
0.015
0.0071
0.008
0.03
NR
Copper
42
22
26
12
0.0003
Iron
490
290
610
400
0.2118
Magnesium
290
78
330
230
0.7467
Manganese
5.7
2.1
7.7
5.2
0.0403
Molybdenum
0.22
0.09
0.16
0.064
0.0013
Nickel
3.2
1.0
2.7
0.89
0.0397
Rubidium
1.8
0.46
1.9
0.58
0.5729
Strontium
2.9
0.68
3.4
1.4
0.1584
Tin
1.8
0.64
1.6
1.1
NR
Vanadium
1.7
0.64
1.9
0.87
NR
a ICP/MS= inductive coupled plasma/mass spectrometry
b Recycling Plants (n=27); Synthetic Turf Fields (n=40)
0 NR = not reported; one or more measurement results were <0, precluding ln-transformed testing for the complete data set
d Statistical tests performed using ln-transformed measurement values
-------
Table K-2. Comparison of Metal XRF Analysis Results Between Tire Rubber Collected from Tire
Recycling Plants and Tire Crumb Rubber Infill Composite Samples from Synthetic Turf Fieldsa'b
Analvtc
Recycling
Plants
Mean
(mg/kg)
Recycling Plants
Standard Deviation
(mg/kg)
Synthetic Turf
Fields Mean
(mg/kg)
Synthetic Turf Fields
Standard Deviation
(mg/kg)
t-test
p-valuec
Chromium
15
4.0
14
2.9
0.0702
Cobalt
58
35
39
17
0.0208
Lead
35
8.6
36
22
0.463
Zinc
39000
8800
33000
7100
0.0019
Barium
60
20
60
16
0.9424
Copper
200
80
120
44
<0.0001
Iron
1500
1100
1300
550
0.5811
Molybdenum
54
7.0
47
13
0.0071
Rubidium
86
34
56
29
0.0001
Strontium
8.6
2.1
14
13
0.0212
aXRF= X-ray fluorescence spectrometry
b Recycling Plants (n=27); Synthetic Turf Fields (n=40)
0 Statistical tests performed using ln-transformed measurement values.
Table K-3. Comparison of SVOC GC/MS/MS Analysis Results Between Tire Rubber Solvent Extracts for
Samples Collected from Tire Recycling Plants and Synthetic Turf Fieldsa'b
Analvtc
Recycling
Plants -
n
Recycling
Plants
Mean
(mg/kg)
Recycling
Plants
Standard
Deviation
(mg/kg)
Synthetic
Turf Fields -
it
Synthetic
Turf Fields
Mean
(mg/kg)
Synthetic
Turf Fields
Standard
Deviation
(mg/kg)
t-tcst
p-value'
Phenanthrene
27
3.6
1.3
40
2.3
2.6
<0.0001
Fluoranthene
27
6.1
1.7
40
4.5
2.6
0.001
Pyrene
27
18
2.4
40
12
6.2
<0.0001
Benzo[a]pyrene
27
0.74
0.39
40
0.78
0.52
0.9556
Benzo [ghi] perylene
27
1.3
0.59
40
1.3
0.64
0.5983
Suml5PAHd
27
41
8.9
40
29
15
<0.0001
Benzothiazole
27
79
19
40
11
13
<0.0001
Dibutyl phthalate
27
0.68
0.44
40
1.5
1.5
0.6508
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
27
12
14
40
43
42
<0.0001
Aniline
27
3.8
1.8
40
0.67
0.53
<0.0001
4-tert-octylphenol
27
30
6.2
40
9.8
9.7
<0.0001
n-Hexadecane
27
3.6
1.8
40
0.94
1.3
<0.0001
Naphthalene
27
1.4
0.75
40
0.034
0.041
<0.0001
1 -Methy lnaphthalene
27
1.6
1.3
40
0.05
0.10
<0.0001
2-Methylnaphthalene
27
1.8
1.3
40
0.083
0.17
<0.0001
Acenaphthylene
27
0.37
0.085
40
0.046
0.057
<0.0001
Fluorene
27
0.37
0.14
40
0.18
0.28
<0.0001
Anthracene
27
0.59
0.40
40
0.52
0.75
0.0041
-------
Table K-3 Continued
Analvtc
Recycling
Recycling
Recycling
Svnthetic
Svnthetic
Svnthetic
t-test

Plants
Plants
Plants
Turf Fields
Turf Fields
Turf Fields
p-valuc'

n
Mean
(mg/kg)
Standard
Deviation
(mg/kg)
n
Mean
(mg/kg)
Standard
Deviation
(mg/kg)

1 -Methy lphenanthrene
27
1.4
0.53
40
1.6
1.3
0.4311
2-Methylphenanthrene
27
1.4
0.8
40
3.0
4.6
0.3292
3 -Methy lphenanthrene
27
2.1
1.1
40
2.3
2.1
0.3725
Benz(a)anthracene
27
1.1
0.57
40
2.2
1.4
0.0002
Chrysene
27
4.3
1.7
40
2.5
1.8
<0.0001
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
27
1.6
1.0
40
1.3
0.8
0.147
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
27
0.44
0.19
40
0.45
0.31
0.6553
Benzo(e)pyrene
27
1.7
1.1
40
1.9
0.98
0.2047
DBA + ICDPe
27
0.35
0.21
40
0.54
0.31
0.0076
Coronene
27
0.82
0.48
40
0.54
0.31
0.0014
Dibenzothiophene
27
0.42
0.13
40
0.31
0.35
0.0004
Dimethyl phthalate
27
0.040
0.022
40
0.027
0.061
NR
Diethyl phthalate
27
0.091
0.17
34
0.52
2.4
NR
Diisobutyl phthalate
27
0.50
0.39
40
1.2
1.8
0.568
Benzyl butyl phthalate
27
0.64
0.37
40
1.2
2.0
0.757
Di-n-octyl phthalate
27
0.32
0.19
40
0.25
0.24
NR
Bis(2,2,6,6-tetramethyl-4-
21
0.44
0.30
39
0.78
0.89
NR
piperidyl) sebacate







Cyclohexylisothiocyanate
27
0.98
0.33
40
0.25
0.18
NR
a SVOC = semivolatile organic compound; GC/MS/MS = gas chromatography/tandem mass spectrometry
b NR = not reported; one or more measurement results were <0, precluding ln-transformed testing for the complete data set.
0 Statistical tests performed using ln-transformed measurement values.
d Suml5PAH = Sum of 15 of the 16 EPA 'priority' PAHs, including Acenaphthylene, Anthracene, Benz[a]anthracene,
Benzo[a]pyrene, Benzo(b)fluoranthene, Benzo[ghi]perylene, Benzo(k)fluoranthene, Chrysene, Dibenz[a,h]anthracene,
Fluoranthene, Fluorene, Indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene, Naphthalene, Phenanthrene, Pyrene
eDBA + ICDP= Sum of Dibenz[a,h]anthracene and Indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene
-------
Table K-4. Comparison of VOC 25 °C Emission Factor Results Between Tire Rubber Collected from Tire
Recycling Plants and Tire Crumb Rubber Infill Composite Samples from Synthetic Turf Fields a'b'c
Analvtc
Recycling
Plants
Mean
(mg/kg)
Recycling Plants
Standard Deviation
(mg/kg)
Synthetic
Turf Fields
Mean
(mg/kg)
Synthetic Turf Fields
Standard Deviation
(mg/kg)
t-test
p-value'1
Benzothiazole
150
41
25
28
NR
o-Xylene
0.21
0.20
0.032
0.09
NR
SumBTEX6
1.7
1.3
0.31
0.84
NR
Trichlorofluoromethane
(Freon 11)
0.16
0.55
0.034
0.66
NR
Dichlorodifluoro methane
(Freon 12)
0.029
0.053
-0.022
0.049
NR
a VOC = volatile organic compound; °C = degrees Celsius
b Recycling Plants (n=27); Synthetic Turf Fields (n=38)
0 NR = not reported; one or more measurement results were <0, precluding ln-transformed testing for the complete data set.
d Statistical tests performed using ln-transformed measurement values.
e SumBTEX = Sum of benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, m/p-xylene, and o-xylene
Table K-5. Comparison of VOC 60 °C Emission Factor Results Between Tire Rubber Collected from Tire
Recycling Plants and Tire Crumb Rubber Infill Composite Samples from Synthetic Turf Fields a'b
Analvtc
Recycling
Plants -
it
Recycling
Plants
Mean
(mg/kg)
Recycling
Plants
Standard
Deviation
(mg/kg)
Synthetic
Turf Fields -
n
Synthetic
Turf Fields
Mean
(mg/kg)
Synthetic
Turf Fields
Standard
Deviation
(mg/kg)
t-tcst
p-value'
Formaldehyde
27
40
16
40
16
9.5
NR
Metyl isobutyl ketone
27
140
15
37
42
26
<0.0001
Benzothiazole
27
220
8.3
37
56
39
<0.0001
Styrene
27
1.1
0.58
37
0.45
0.41
NR
Toluene
27
1.1
0.95
37
0.15
0.31
NR
Ethylbenzene
27
-0.0055
0.26
37
-0.082
0.22
NR
m/p-Xylene
27
1.2
0.71
37
0.24
1.0
NR
o-Xylene
27
-0.4
0.43
37
-0.35
0.66
NR
SumBTEXd
27
2.1
2.2
37
-0.085
2.2
NR
trans-2-Butene
27
-0.22
0.25
37
-0.25
0.24
NR
cis-2-Butene
27
-0.2
0.21
37
-0.23
0.21
NR
Tetrachloroethylene
27
0.14
0.23
37
0.0035
0.032
NR
p-Dichlorobenzene
27
0.019
0.12
37
0.079
0.23
NR
Trichlorofluoromethane
(Freon 11)
27
0.23
0.58
37
0.079
0.64
NR
Dichlorodifluoro methane
(Freon 12)
27
0.041
0.047
37
-0.0050
0.038
NR
11 VOC = volatile organic compound; °C = degrees Celsius
b NR = not reported; one or more measurement results were <0, precluding ln-transformed testing for the complete data set.
0 Statistical tests performed using ln-transformed measurement values.
d SumBTEX = Sum of benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, m/p-xylene, and o-xylene
-------
Table K-6. Comparison of SVOC 25 °C Emission Factor Results Between Tire Rubber Collected from Tire
Recycling Plants and Tire Crumb Rubber Infill Composite Samples from Synthetic Turf Fields a'b
Analvtc
Recycling
Recycling
Recycling
Svnthctic
Svnthctic
Svnthctic
t-tcst

Plants
Plants
Plants
Turf Fields
Turf Fields
Turf Fields
p-valuc'

n
Mean
Standard
n
Mean
Standard



(nig/kg)
Deviation

(mg/kg)
Deviation




(mg/kg)


(mg/kg)

Phenanthrene
27
-0.0071
0.070
40
0.025
0.049
NR
Suml5PAHd
27
2.3
1.1
40
0.62
0.63
<0.0001
Benzothiazole
27
41
26
40
4.2
5.2
NR
Dibutyl phthalate
27
-0.021
0.67
40
-0.011
0.38
NR
Aniline
27
3.5
2.0
40
0.34
0.45
NR
4-tert-octylphenol
27
0.47
0.25
40
0.85
3.3
NR
Naphthalene
27
1.9
1.1
40
0.14
0.37
NR
1 -Methy lnaphthalene
27
0.97
0.73
40
0.034
0.09
NR
2-Methylnaphthalene
27
1.6
1.2
40
0.064
0.17
NR
Fluorene
27
0.016
0.0099
40
0.011
0.019
NR
n-Butylbenzene
27
0.56
0.50
40
0.019
0.12
NR
Diisobutyl phthalate
27
-0.044
0.26
40
0.014
0.24
NR
a VOC = volatile organic compound; °C = degrees Celsius
b NR = not reported; one or more measurement results were <0, precluding ln-transformed testing for the complete data set.
0 Statistical tests performed using ln-transformed measurement values.
d Suml5PAH = Sum of 15 of the 16 EPA 'priority' PAHs, including Acenaphthylene, Anthracene, Benz[a]anthracene,
Benzo[a]pyrene, Benzo(b)fluoranthene, Benzo[ghi]perylene, Benzo(k)fluoranthene, Chrysene, Dibenz[a,h]anthracene,
Fluoranthene, Fluorene, Indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene, Naphthalene, Phenanthrene, Pyrene
-------
Table K-7. Comparison of SVOC 60 °C Emission Factor Results Between Tire Rubber Collected from Tire
Recycling Plants and Tire Crumb Rubber Infill Composite Samples from Synthetic Turf Fieldsa'b
Analvtc
Recycling
Recycling
Recycling
Svnthctic
Svnthctic
Svnthctic
t-tcst

Plants -
Plants
Plants
Turf Fields -
Turf Fields
Turf Fields
p-valuc'

it
Mean
Standard
n
Mean
Standard



(nig/kg)
Deviation

(mg/kg)
Deviation




(mg/kg)


(mg/kg)

Phenanthrene
26
0.83
0.34
40
0.58
0.71
NR
Fluoranthene
26
0.16
0.054
40
0.16
0.11
NR
Pyrene
26
0.34
0.072
40
0.29
0.21
NR
Suml5PAHd
26
13
7.0
40
2.0
1.9
<0.0001
Benzothiazole
26
520
340
40
34
50
NR
Dibutyl phthalate
26
0.21
0.72
40
0.14
0.41
NR
Aniline
26
23
7.2
40
3.5
5.1
NR
4-tert-octylphenol
26
20
00
00
40
5.8
5.5
NR
Naphthalene
26
9.5
6.9
40
-0.14
0.56
NR
1 -Methy lnaphthalene
26
7.5
5.9
40
0.24
0.63
NR
2-Methylnaphthalene
26
11
11
40
0.46
1.3
NR
Acenaphthylene
26
0.93
0.34
40
0.10
0.18
NR
Fluorene
26
0.33
0.14
40
0.19
0.35
NR
1 -Methy lphenanthrene
26
0.12
0.052
40
0.14
0.13
NR
2-Methylphenanthrene
26
0.18
0.10
40
0.23
0.28
NR
3 -Methy lphenanthrene
26
0.28
0.17
40
0.37
0.44
NR
Dibenzothiophene
26
0.11
0.043
40
0.087
0.12
NR
n-Butylbenzene
26
1.1
1.0
40
-0.0037
0.027
NR
Dimethyl phthalate
26
0.037
0.058
40
0.016
0.027
NR
Diisobutyl phthalate
26
0.15
0.40
40
0.11
0.31
NR
a SVOC = semivolatile organic compound; °C = degrees Celsius
b NR = not reported; one or more measurement results were <0, precluding ln-transformed testing for the complete data set.
0 Statistical tests performed using ln-transformed measurement values.
d Suml5PAH = Sum of 15 of the 16 EPA 'priority' PAHs, including Acenaphthylene, Anthracene, Benz[a]anthracene,
Benzo[a]pyrene, Benzo(b)fluoranthene, Benzo[ghi]perylene, Benzo(k)fluoranthene, Chrysene, Dibenz[a,h]anthracene,
Fluoranthene, Fluorene, Indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene, Naphthalene, Phenanthrene, Pyrene
-------
[This page intentionally left blank.]
-------
Appendix L
Tire Crumb Rubber Measurement Results -
Replicate and Duplicate Analysis Precision
and Homogeneity
-------
Table L-l. Precision and Variability of Tire Crumb Rubber Sample Digestion Metals Measurements by
ICP/MSabc
Chemical
Replicate
Sample
Digest
Analysis
%RSD -
n
Replicate
Sample
Digest
Analysis
%RSD -
Mean
Replicate
Sample
Digest
Analysis
%RSD -
Minimum
Replicate
Sample
Digest
Analysis
%RSD -
Maximum
Duplicate
Tire Crumb
Sample
Analysis
%RSD -
n
Duplicate
Tire Crumb
Sample
Analysis
%RSD -
Mean
Duplicate
Tire Crumb
Sample
Analysis
%RSD -
Minimum
Duplicate
Tire Crumb
Sample
Analysis
%RSD -
Maximum
Arsenic
10
1.3
0.33
3.6
10
32
7.1
58
Cadmium
10
0.47
0.021
1.4
10
20
4.4
37
Chromium
11
1.5
0.05
5.8
8
15
1.5
33
Cobalt
11
0.72
0.12
2.3
9
13
2.4
29
Lead
10
1.3
0.32
3.1
10
25
0.2
96
Zinc
11
0.81
0.17
2.6
9
4.8
1
8.7
Aluminum
12
12
0.11
140
9
26
2.2
52
Antimony
10
0.51
0.076
1.9
10
23
4.7
71
Barium
10
1.4
0.097
2.9
10
9.3
2.6
15
Beryllium
9
17
5.9
27
8
25
7.1
56
Copper
11
0.82
0.064
2
9
7.5
0.98
25
Iron
11
0.7
0.015
2.4
9
13
0.29
33
Magnesium
11
0.75
0.084
2.3
9
12
0.6
45
Manganese
11
0.61
0.048
1.5
9
14
2.4
59
Molybdenum
10
3.2
0.61
20
10
20
0.18
94
Nickel
11
1.9
0.076
9.2
9
19
8.5
30
Rubidium
10
0.85
0.088
1.7
10
7.7
0.22
25
Selenium
9
18
0.75
32
9
53
2.6
110
Strontium
10
0.73
0.11
2.3
10
9.3
2.1
30
Tin
11
3.1
0.59
7
8
33
7.9
53
Vanadium
11
2.5
0.57
7.1
8
16
1.5
26
a ICP/MS = inductively coupled plasma/mass spectrometry
b Replicate Sample Digest Analysis = replicate analyses of the same digest from a sample; %RSD is the percent relative
standard deviation between pairs of measurements.
0 Duplicate Tire Crumb Sample Analysis = two different portions of tire crumb rubber samples from the same bottle extracted
and analyzed separately; %RSD is the percent relative standard deviation between pairs of measurements.
-------
Table L-2. Precision and Variability of Tire Crumb Rubber Sample Solvent Extract SVOC Measurements by GC/MS/MSa'b'c
Chemical
Replicate
Sample
Extract
Analysis
%RSD -
n
Replicate
Sample
Extract
Analysis
%RSD -
Mean
Replicate
Sample
Extract
Analysis
%RSD -
Minimum
Replicate
Sample
Extract
Analysis
%RSD -
Maximum
Duplicate
Tire Crumb
Sample
Analysis
%RSD -
n
Duplicate
Tire Crumb
Sample
Analysis
%RSD -
Mean
Duplicate
Tire Crumb
Sample
Analysis
%RSD -
Minimum
Duplicate
Tire Crumb
Sample
Analysis
%RSD -
Maximum
Phenanthrene
7
13
3.3
25
101
4.8
0.12
40
Fluoranthene
7
15
0.96
49
101
4.9
0.015
50
Pyrene
7
32
4.3
120
101
5.1
0.016
52
Benzo[a]pyrene
7
34
0.00077
63
101
20
0.35
64
Benzo [ghi] perylene
7
34
16
47
100
17
0.18
130
Suml5PAHd
7
21
0.8
110
101
5.1
0.035
49
Benzothiazole
7
29
0.28
72
101
8.9
0.19
78
Dibutyl phthalate
7
13
0.000062
71
101
11
0.031
71
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
7
31
0.62
82
100
14
0.076
130
Aniline
7
11
0.0013
27
101
7.8
0.13
37
4-tert-octylphenol
7
63
37
110
101
8.3
0.02
41
n-Hexadecane
7
12
0.0006
51
96
10
0.0038
130
Naphthalene
7
10
0.00011
42
101
12
0.049
62
1 -Methy lnaphthalene
6
10
0.00037
32
101
10
0
64
2-Methylnaphthalene
7
13
0.00073
41
99
11
0.0042
58
Acenaphthylene
7
3.8
0.000089
20
101
5.4
0.013
45
Fluorene
7
10
0.00041
30
101
13
0.05
130
Anthracene
7
4.6
0.00033
31
100
14
0.023
73
1 -Methy lphenanthrene
7
9.7
0.00049
23
101
7.4
0.041
38
2-Methylphenanthrene
7
12
0.48
29
101
9.8
0.1
63
3 -Methy lphenanthrene
7
25
5.5
57
101
6.2
0.13
65
Benz(a)anthracene
7
17
0.2
40
101
13
0.098
92
Chrysene
7
17
9.2
35
101
10
0.076
84
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
7
24
0.0003
59
101
20
0.52
89
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
7
3.4
0.00019
14
100
18
0.029
94
Benzo(e)pyrene
7
29
6.3
50
101
18
0.15
120
DBA + ICDPe
7
31
0.00046
52
98
25
0.33
87
-------
Table L-2 Continued
Chemical
Replicate
Sample
Extract
Analysis
%RSD -
it
Replicate
Sample
Extract
Analysis
%RSD -
Mean
Replicate
Sample
Extract
Analysis
%RSD -
Minimum
Replicate
Sample
Extract
Analysis
%RSD -
Maximum
Duplicate
Tire Crumb
Sample
Analysis
%RSD -
n
Duplicate
Tire Crumb
Sample
Analysis
%RSD -
Mean
Duplicate
Tire Crumb
Sample
Analysis
%RSD -
Minimum
Duplicate
Tire Crumb
Sample
Analysis
%RSD -
Maximum
Coronene
7
28
0.00014
60
100
18
0.038
120
Dibenzothiophene
7
4.2
0.0002
26
101
4.6
0.058
36
n-Butylbenzene
1
0.032
0.032
0.032
31
14
0.9
47
Dimethyl phthalate
5
12
0.003
45
74
8
0.091
63
Diethyl phthalate
4
11
0.00028
43
71
17
0.017
140
Diisobutyl phthalate
7
12
0.000036
78
101
9.3
0.2
67
Benzyl butyl phthalate
7
5.9
0.00016
17
99
14
0.021
120
Di-n-octyl phthalate
7
8.8
0.000053
62
99
32
0.056
120
2,6-Di-tert-butyl-p-cresol
3
11
5.5
19
38
8.8
0.27
44
Bis(2,2,6,6-tetramethyl-4-
piperidyl) sebacate
5
16
0.00019
58
82
17
0.027
110
Cyclohexylisothiocyanate
6
13
0.0004
34
86
12
0.093
85
11SVOC = semivolatile organic compound; GC/MS/MS = gas chromatography/tandem mass spectrometry
b Replicate Sample Extract Analysis = replicate analyses of the same extract from a sample; %RSD is the percent relative standard deviation between pairs of
measurements.
0 Duplicate Tire Crumb Sample Analysis = two different portions of tire crumb rubber samples from the same bottle extracted and analyzed separately; %RSD is the
percent relative standard deviation between pairs of measurements.
d Suml5PAH = Sum of 15 of the 16 EPA 'priority' PAHs, including Acenaphthylene, Anthracene, Benz[a]anthracene, Benzo[a]pyrene, Benzo(b)fluoranthene,
Benzo[ghi]perylene, Benzo(k)fluoranthene, Chrysene, Dibenz[a,h]anthracene, Fluoranthene, Fluorene, Indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene, Naphthalene, Phenanthrene, Pyrene
eDBA + ICDP= Sum of Dibenz[a,h]anthracene and Indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene
-------
Table L-3. Precision and Variability of 25 °C Chamber Emission VOC Measurements by GC/TOFMSa'b'c
Chemical
Duplicate
Chamber
Sample
Analysis
%RSD -
n
Duplicate
Chamber
Sample
Analysis
%RSD -
Mean
Duplicate
Chamber
Sample
Analysis
%RSD -
Minimum
Duplicate
Chamber
Sample
Analysis
%RSD -
Maximum
Repeated
Chamber
Emission
Experiment
%RSD -
n
Repeated
Chamber
Emission
Experiment
%RSD -
Mean
Repeated
Chamber
Emission
Experiment
%RSD -
Minimum
Repeated
Chamber
Emission
Experiment
%RSD -
Maximum
Formaldehyde
6
51
13
91
2
7.8
5.6
10
Metyl isobutyl ketone
17
45
1.1
130
4
10
2.1
21
Benzothiazole
18
17
0.79
91
4
6.8
1.4
18
1,3-Butadiene
1
65
65
65
1
82
82
82
Styrene
6
56
3.8
110
2
46
16
77
Benzene
6
67
22
86
1
140
140
140
Toluene
7
45
0.26
110
2
6.6
2.7
10
Ethylbenzene
8
59
0.1
140
2
67
36
98
m/p-Xylene
12
40
0.12
130
3
63
1.2
110
o-Xylene
12
28
0.22
110
3
68
12
110
SumBTEXd
10
59
2.4
140
3
57
12
100
trans-2-Butene
6
37
1.8
89
1
5.5
5.5
5.5
cis-2-Butene
6
56
19
97
1
9.9
9.9
9.9
4-Ethyltoluene
7
44
0.36
130
2
42
18
67
1,3,5-Trimethy lbenzene
6
27
2.7
140
2
27
8
46
1,1 -Dichloroethane
19
2
0.21
15
4
1.7
0.04
3.5
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene
16
2
0.21
15
2
1
0.04
2
Carbon Tetrachloride
1
8.9
8.9
8.9
0
-
-
-
1,2-Dichloropropane
17
2.1
0.21
15
2
2.3
1.2
3.5
Trichloroethylene
2
25
20
29
2
28
21
34
Tetrachloroethylene
2
17
0.6
33
2
35
15
55
Chlorobenzene
3
110
110
110
2
88
84
91
m-Dichlorobenzene
2
63
41
86
3
58
26
90
p-Dichlorobenzene
8
51
7.2
96
3
64
22
110
o-Dichlorobenzene
1
100
100
100
3
80
66
100
-------
Table L-3 Continued
Chemical
Duplicate
Duplicate
Duplicate
Duplicate
Repeated
Repeated
Repeated
Repeated

Chamber
Chamber
Chamber
Chamber
Chamber
Chamber
Chamber
Chamber

Sample
Sample
Sample
Sample
Emission
Emission
Emission
Emission

Analysis
Analvsis
Analvsis
Analvsis
Experiment
Experiment
Experiment
Experiment

%RSD -
%RSD -
%RSD -
%RSD -
%RSD -
%RSD -
%RSD -
%RSD -

n
Mean
Minimum
Maximum
n
Mean
Minimum
Maximum
Trichlorofluoromethane
14
19
3.2
56
1
19
19
19
(Freon 11)








Dichlorodifluoro methane
4
54
10
130
1
85
85
85
(Freon 12)








Trichlorotrifluoroethane
7
52
9.4
110
2
35
24
46
(Freon 113)








11 °C = degrees Celsius; VOC = volatile organic compound; GC/TOFMS = gas chromatography/time-of-flight mass spectrometry
b Duplicate Chamber Sample Analysis = two samples collected from the chamber air at the same time during the same chamber experiment; %RSD is the percent relative
standard deviation between pairs of measurements.
0 Repeated Chamber Emission Experiment = two completely different chamber experiments using different portions of tire crumb rubber samples from the same bottle;
%RSD is the percent relative standard deviation between pairs of measurements.
d SumBTEX = Sum of benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, m/p-xylene, and o-xylene
Table L-4. Precision and Variability of 60 °C Chamber Emission VOC Measurements by GC/TOFMSa'b'c
Chemical
Duplicate
Chamber
Sample
Analysis
%RSD -
n
Duplicate
Chamber
Sample
Analysis
%RSD -
Mean
Duplicate
Chamber
Sample
Analysis
%RSD -
Minimum
Duplicate
Chamber
Sample
Analysis
%RSD -
Maximum
Repeated
Chamber
Emission
Experiment
%RSD -
n
Repeated
Chamber
Emission
Experiment
%RSD -
Mean
Repeated
Chamber
Emission
Experiment
%RSD -
Minimum
Repeated
Chamber
Emission
Experiment
%RSD -
Maximum
Formaldehyde
10
11
0.34
31
5
9.7
1.2
30
Metyl isobutyl ketone
17
17
0.55
85
4
29
7.1
87
Benzothiazole
17
8.8
0.47
43
4
3.4
2
7.4
1,3-Butadiene
3
100
76
130
1
11
11
11
Styrene
14
14
1.7
43
4
46
11
130
Benzene
8
60
1.4
130
1
11
11
11
Toluene
11
40
4.1
120
2
50
45
55
Ethylbenzene
4
51
33
89
0
-
-
-
-------
Table L-4 Continued
Chemical
Duplicate
Chamber
Sample
Analysis
%RSD -
n
Duplicate
Chamber
Sample
Analysis
%RSD -
Mean
Duplicate
Chamber
Sample
Analysis
%RSD -
Minimum
Duplicate
Chamber
Sample
Analysis
%RSD -
Maximum
Repeated
Chamber
Emission
Experiment
%RSD -
n
Repeated
Chamber
Emission
Experiment
%RSD -
Mean
Repeated
Chamber
Emission
Experiment
%RSD -
Minimum
Repeated
Chamber
Emission
Experiment
%RSD -
Maximum
m/p-Xylene
9
16
0.58
30
2
65
55
75
o-Xylene
3
45
6.9
69
0
-
-
-
SumBTEXd
6
36
9.4
83
1
29
29
29
trans-2-Butene
3
100
84
120
0
-
-
-
cis-2-Butene
2
97
96
98
0
-
-
-
4-Ethyltoluene
8
60
9.3
120
2
49
22
75
1,3,5-Trimethy lbenzene
9
59
10
130
1
32
32
32
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene
12
11
0.41
110
2
1.5
1
2
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
16
1.8
0.41
10
4
1.7
1
2.4
Carbon Tetrachloride
3
7.2
1.2
11
1
41
41
41
1,2-Dichloropropane
13
1.1
0.41
2.3
3
1.6
1
2.4
Trichloroethylene
7
43
4.7
130
1
20
20
20
Tetrachloroethylene
7
60
5.9
120
1
36
36
36
Chlorobenzene
4
60
22
100
3
89
46
110
m-Dichlorobenzene
8
110
39
140
2
110
98
110
p-Dichlorobenzene
10
30
1.5
79
3
72
30
120
o-Dichlorobenzene
7
97
25
140
2
120
110
130
Trichlorofluoromethane
(Freon 11)
13
22
0.22
92
2
13
3.6
23
Dichlorodifluoro methane
(Freon 12)
4
39
11
68
2
130
120
140
Trichlorotrifluoroethane
(Freon 113)
9
58
0.84
130
1
47
47
47
a °C = degrees Celsius; VOC = volatile organic compound; GC/TOFMS = gas chromatography/time-of-flight mass spectrometry
b Duplicate Chamber Sample Analysis = two samples collected from the chamber air at the same time during the same chamber experiment; %RSD is the percent relative
standard deviation between pairs of measurements.
0 Repeated Chamber Emission Experiment = two completely different chamber experiments using different portions of tire crumb rubber samples from the same bottle;
%RSD is the percent relative standard deviation between pairs of measurements.
d SumBTEX = Sum of benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, m/p-xylene, and o-xylene
-------
Table L-5. Precision of Replicate Extracts Analyses for Chamber Emission SVOC Measurements by
GC/MS/MSa'b
Chemical
n
Replicate Emission
Sample Extract
Analysis %RSD -
Mean
Replicate Emission
Sample Extract
Analysis %RSD -
Minimum
Replicate Emission
Sample Extract
Analysis %RSD -
Maximum
Phenanthrene
3
0.43
0.013
1.2
Fluoranthene
2
0.12
0.096
0.14
Pyrene
3
31
0.013
94
Benzo[a]pyrene
1
1.3
1.3
1.3
Benzo [ghijperylene
2
8.2
5.9
10
Suml5PAH°
4
0.91
0.058
3.4
Benzothiazole
4
14
0.0024
42
Dibutyl phthalate
2
23
0.3
46
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
2
38
0.024
76
Aniline
4
2.7
0.0035
11
4-tert-octylphenol
3
0.092
0.0046
0.25
n-Hexadecane
3
68
0.016
140
Naphthalene
3
0.61
0.061
1.7
1 -Methylnaphthalene
4
1.6
0.32
5.2
2-Methylnaphthalene
4
0.69
0.025
2.1
Acenaphthylene
3
1.1
0.32
1.9
Fluorene
3
2.4
0.4
6.1
Anthracene
3
8.2
0.34
24
1 -Methylphenanthrene
3
9.7
0.11
29
2 -Methylphenanthrene
3
0.63
0.17
1.5
3 -Methylphenanthrene
3
5.1
0.067
15
Benz(a)anthracene
2
0.84
0.32
1.4
Chrysene
3
3
1.2
6.2
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
1
1
1
1
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
1
3.1
3.1
3.1
Benzo(e)pyrene
1
12
12
12
DBA + ICDPd
1
7.3
7.3
7.3
Coronene
1
5.1
5.1
5.1
Dibenzothiophene
4
18
0.43
61
2 -B ro mo methylnaphthalene
1
0.13
0.13
0.13
n-Butylbenzene
2
0.83
0.29
1.4
Dimethyl phthalate
3
4.5
3.9
5.3
Diisobutyl phthalate
2
0.29
0.15
0.43
Benzyl butyl phthalate
1
0.033
0.033
0.033
Di-n-octyl phthalate
1
2.2
2.2
2.2
2,6-Di-tert-butyl-p-cresol
2
0.14
0.054
0.23
a SVOC = semivolatile organic compound; GC/MS/MS = gas chromatography/tandem mass spectrometry
b Replicate analyses of the same extract from an emission sample; %RSD is the percent relative standard deviation between
pairs of measurements.
0 Suml5PAH = Sum of 15 of the 16 EPA 'priority' PAHs, including Acenaphthylene, Anthracene, Benz[a]anthracene,
Benzo[a]pyrene, Benzo(b)fluoranthene, Benzo[ghi]perylene, Benzo(k)fluoranthene, Chrysene, Dibenz[a,h]anthracene,
Fluoranthene, Fluorene, Indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene, Naphthalene, Phenanthrene, Pyrene
dDBA + ICDP = Sum of Dibenz[a,h]anthracene and Indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene
-------
Table L-6. Variability of 25 °C and 60 °C Chamber Emission SVOC Measurements by GC/MS/MSa b
Chemical
25 °C
25 °C
25 °C
25 °C
60 °C
60 °C
60 °C
60 °C

Repeated
Repeated
Repeated
Repeated
Repeated
Repeated
Repeated
Repeated

Chamber
Chamber
Chamber
Chamber
Chamber
Chamber
Chamber
Chamber

Emission
Emission
Emission
Emission
Emission
Emission
Emission
Emission

Experiment
Experiment
Experiment
Experiment
Experiment
Experiment
Experiment
Experiment

%RSD -
%RSD -
%RSD -
%RSD -
%RSD -
%RSD -
%RSD -
%RSD -

n
Mean
Minimum
Maximum
n
Mean
Minimum
Maximum
Phenanthrene
3
50
18
76
5
8.4
0.23
16
Fluoranthene
4
29
22
42
5
21
7.4
35
Pyrene
3
30
8.7
54
5
18
8
30
Suml5PAH°
6
35
1.4
84
6
30
9.7
72
Benzothiazole
5
28
10
48
5
37
15
65
Dibutyl phthalate
2
130
130
130
0
N/A
N/A
N/A
Aniline
5
30
6.4
56
5
35
17
59
4-tert-octylphenol
5
74
24
130
5
18
11
27
Naphthalene
2
9.7
1.9
18
2
23
23
23
1 -Methylnaphthalene
3
41
6.8
88
4
16
6.1
36
2-Methylnaphthalene
3
28
4.3
42
3
11
5.2
20
Acenaphthylene
5
29
0.68
89
5
14
0.51
31
Fluorene
5
28
12
62
5
18
0.35
72
Anthracene
1
30
30
30
2
22
15
30
1 -Methylphenanthrene
3
39
8.3
56
5
14
2.4
26
2 -Methylphenanthrene
3
75
31
140
5
5.6
3.2
13
3 -Methylphenanthrene
0
N/A
N/A
N/A
5
20
5.6
45
Dibenzothiophene
3
28
24
32
5
12
0.54
24
n-Butylbenzene
3
11
5.7
18
3
38
1.5
110
Dimethyl phthalate
1
140
140
140
4
47
2.4
97
Diisobutyl phthalate
1
98
98
98
3
50
20
110
a °C = degrees Celsius; SVOC = semivolatile organic compound; GC/MS/MS = gas chromatography/tandem mass spectrometry; N/A = not applicable
b Two completely different chamber experiments using different portions of tire crumb rubber samples from the same bottle; %RSD is the percent relative standard
deviation between pairs of measurements.
0 Suml5PAH = Sum of 15 of the 16 EPA 'priority' PAHs, including Acenaphthylene, Anthracene, Benz[a]anthracene, Benzo[a]pyrene, Benzo(b)fluoranthene,
Benzo[ghi]perylene, Benzo(k)fluoranthene, Chrysene, Dibenz[a,h]anthracene, Fluoranthene, Fluorene, Indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene, Naphthalene, Phenanthrene, Pyrene
-------
[This page intentionally left blank.]
-------
Appendix M
Tire Crumb Rubber Measurement Results -
Within and Between Recycling Plant
Variability
-------
Table M-l. Within- and Between-Recycling Plant Variability for Metal ICP/MS Analysis Results for
Tire Crumb Rubber Collected from Tire Recycling Plants3
Analvtc
Number
of Plants
Number of
Samples per Plant
Between Plant
% Variance
Within Plant
% Variance
Arsenic
9
3
38
62
Cadmium
9
3
27
73
Chromium
9
3
61
39
Cobalt
9
3
46
54
Lead
9
3
8
92
Zinc
9
3
71
29
Aluminum
9
3
34
66
Antimony
9
3
63
37
Barium
9
3
0
100
Beryllium
9
3
20
80
Copper
9
3
67
33
Iron
9
3
15
85
Magnesium
9
3
14
86
Manganese
9
3
0
100
Molybdenum
9
3
66
34
Nickel
9
3
67
33
Rubidium
9
3
68
32
Strontium
9
3
45
55
Tin
9
3
7
93
Vanadium
9
3
33
67
a ICP/MS = inductively coupled plasma/mass spectrometry
Table M-2. Within- and Between-Recycling Plant Variability for Metal XRF Analysis Results for
Tire Crumb Rubber Collected from Tire Recycling Plants8
Analvtc
Number
of Plants
Number of
Samples per Plant
Between Plant
% Variance
Within Plant
% Variance
Chromium
9
3
48
52
Cobalt
9
3
29
71
Lead
9
3
25
75
Zinc
9
3
56
44
Barium
9
3
0
100
Copper
9
3
61
39
Iron
9
3
17
83
Molybdenum
9
3
46
54
Rubidium
9
3
67
33
Strontium
9
3
62
38
a XRF — X-ray fluorescence spectrometry
-------
Table M-3. Within- and Between-Recycling Plant Variability for SVOC Extraction GC/MS/MS
Analysis Results for Tire Crumb Rubber Collected from Tire Recycling Plants3
Analvte
Number
Nu mber of
Between Plant
Within Plant

of Plants
Samples per Plant
% Variance
% Variance
Phenanthrene
9
3
37
63
Fluoranthene
9
3
64
36
Pyrene
9
3
60
40
Benzo[a]pyrene
9
3
39
61
Benzo [ghi] perylene
9
3
59
41
Suml5PAHb
9
3
54
46
Benzothiazole
9
3
76
24
Dibutyl phthalate
9
3
91
9
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
9
3
17
83
Aniline
9
3
84
16
4-tert-octylphenol
9
3
80
20
n-Hexadecane
9
3
77
23
Naphthalene
9
3
63
37
1 -Methy lnaphthalene
9
3
63
37
2-Methylnaphthalene
9
3
66
34
Acenaphthylene
9
3
78
22
Fluorene
9
3
33
67
Anthracene
9
3
41
59
1 -Methy lphenanthrene
9
3
63
37
2-Methylphenanthrene
9
3
39
61
3 -Methy lphenanthrene
9
3
35
65
Benz(a)anthracene
9
3
55
45
Chrysene
9
3
38
62
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
9
3
46
54
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
9
3
46
54
Benzo(e)pyrene
9
3
38
62
DBA + ICDP°
9
3
57
43
Coronene
9
3
59
41
Dibenzothiophene
9
3
29
71
n-Butylbenzene
9
3
67
33
Dimethyl phthalate
9
3
96
4
Diethyl phthalate
9
3
7
93
Diisobutyl phthalate
9
3
52
48
Benzyl butyl phthalate
9
3
92
8
Di-n-octyl phthalate
9
3
51
49
2,6-Di-tert-butyl-p-cresol
9
3
94
6
Bis(2,2,6,6-tetramethyl-4-
piperidyl) sebacate
7
3
70
30
Cyclohexylisothiocyanate
9
3
90
10
11 SVOC = semivolatile organic compound; GC/MS/MS= gas chromatography/tandem mass spectrometry
bSuml5PAH = Sum of 15 of the 16 EPA 'priority' PAHs, including Acenaphthylene, Anthracene, Benz[a]anthracene,
Benzo[a]pyrene, Benzo(b)fluoranthene, Benzo[ghi]perylene, Benzo(k)fluoranthene, Chrysene, Dibenz[a,h]anthracene,
Fluoranthene, Fluorene, Indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene, Naphthalene, Phenanthrene, Pyrene
°DBA + ICDP= Sum of Dibenz[a,h]anthracene and Indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene
-------
Table M-4. Within- and Between-Recycling Plant Variability for VOC 25 °C Emission Factor
Analysis Results for Tire Crumb Rubber Collected from Tire Recycling Plants3
Analvtc
Number
Nu mber of
Between Plant
Within Plant

of Plants
Samples per Plant
% Variance
% Variance
Metyl isobutyl ketone
9
3
19
81
Benzothiazole
9
3
8
92
Styrene
9
3
16
84
Toluene
9
3
43
57
m/p-Xylene
9
3
29
71
o-Xylene
9
3
26
74
SumBTEXb
9
3
36
64
trans-2-Butene
9
3
34
66
cis-2-Butene
9
3
22
78
4-Ethyltoluene
9
3
0
100
1,3,5 -T rime thy lbenzene
9
3
0
100
Tetrachloroethylene
9
3
37
63
Trichlorofluoromethane (Freon 11)
9
3
93
7
Dichlorodifluoromethane (Freon 12)
9
3
89
11
a VOC = volatile organic compound; °C = degrees Celsius
b SumBTEX = Sum of benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, m/p-xylene, and o-xylene
Table M-5. Within- and Between-Recycling Plant Variability for VOC 60 °C Emission Factor
Analysis Results for Tire Crumb Rubber Collected from Tire Recycling Plants8
Analvtc
Number
Number of
Between Plant
Within Plant

of Plants
Samples per Plant
% Variance
% Variance
Formaldehyde
9
3
76
24
Metyl isobutyl ketone
9
3
45
55
Benzothiazole
9
3
0
100
Styrene
9
3
88
12
Benzene
9
3
63
37
Toluene
9
3
62
38
Ethylbenzene
9
3
47
53
m/p-Xylene
9
3
16
84
o-Xylene
9
3
44
56
SumBTEXb
9
3
60
40
trans-2-Butene
9
3
84
16
cis-2-Butene
9
3
80
20
1,3,5 -T rime thy lbenzene
9
3
25
75
Tetrachloroethylene
9
3
57
43
p-Dichlorobenzene
9
3
1
99
Trichlorofluoromethane (Freon 11)
9
3
88
12
Dichlorodifluoromethane (Freon 12)
9
3
47
53
a SVOC = semivolatile organic compound; °C = degrees Celsius
b SumBTEX = Sum of benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, m/p-xylene, and o-xylene
-------
Table M-6. Within- and Between-Recycling Plant Variability for SVOC 25 °C Emission Factor
Analysis Results for Tire Crumb Rubber Collected from Tire Recycling Plants3
Analvtc
Number
Nu mber of
Between Plant
Within Plant

of Plants
Samples per Plant
% Variance
% Variance
Phenanthrene
9
3
90
10
Suml5PAHb
9
3
61
39
Benzothiazole
9
3
47
53
Dibutyl phthalate
9
3
14
86
Aniline
9
3
84
16
4-tert-octylphenol
9
3
54
46
Naphthalene
9
3
62
38
1 -Methy lnaphthalene
9
3
67
33
2-Methylnaphthalene
9
3
70
30
Acenaphthylene
9
3
78
22
Fluorene
9
3
31
69
n-Butylbenzene
9
3
59
41
Diisobutyl phthalate
9
3
0
100
a SVOC = semivolatile organic compound; °C = degrees Celsius
b Suml5PAH = Sum of 15 of the 16 EPA 'priority' PAHs, including Acenaphthylene, Anthracene, Benz[a]anthracene,
Benzo[a]pyrene, Benzo(b)fluoranthene, Benzo[ghi]perylene, Benzo(k)fluoranthene, Chrysene, Dibenz[a,h]anthracene,
Fluoranthene, Fluorene, Indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene, Naphthalene, Phenanthrene, Pyrene
Table M-7. Within- and Between-Recycling Plant Variability for SVOC 60 °C Emission Factor
Analysis Results for Tire Crumb Rubber Collected from Tire Recycling Plants3
Analvtc
Number
Nu mber of
Between Plant
Within Plant %

of Plants
Samples per Plant
% Variance
Variance
Phenanthrene
9
2
15
85
Fluoranthene
9
2
54
46
Pyrene
9
2
56
44
Suml5PAHb
9
2
47
53
Benzothiazole
9
2
60
40
Dibutyl phthalate
9
2
25
75
Aniline
9
2
55
45
4-tert-octylphenol
9
2
51
49
Naphthalene
9
2
48
52
1 -Methy lnaphthalene
9
2
53
47
2-Methylnaphthalene
9
2
81
19
Acenaphthylene
9
2
63
37
Fluorene
9
2
15
85
Anthracene
9
2
34
66
1 -Methy lphenanthrene
9
2
0
100
2-Methylphenanthrene
9
2
0
100
3 -Methy lphenanthrene
9
2
0
100
Dibenzothiophene
9
2
0
100
-------
Table M-7 Continued
Analvte
Number
Nu mber of
Between Plant
Within Plant %

of Plants
Samples per Plant
% Varianee
Varianee
n-Butylbenzene
9
2
61
39
Dimethyl phthalate
9
2
88
12
Diisobutyl phthalate
9
2
0
100
Di-n-octyl phthalate
9
2
9
91
a SVOC = semivolatile organic compound; °C = degrees Celsius
b Suml5PAH = Sum of 15 of the 16 EPA 'priority' PAHs, including Acenaphthylene, Anthracene, Benz[a]anthracene,
Benzo[a]pyrene, Benzo(b)fluoranthene, Benzo[ghi]perylene, Benzo(k)fluoranthene, Chrysene, Dibenz[a,h]anthracene,
Fluoranthene, Fluorene, Indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene, Naphthalene, Phenanthrene, Pyrene
-------
Appendix N
Tire Crumb Rubber Measurement Results -
Within and Between Synthetic Turf Field
Variability
-------
Table N-l. Within- and Between-Field Variability for Metal ICP/MS Analysis Results for Tire Crumb
Rubber Infill Collected from Synthetic Turf Fields3
Analvtc
Number
of Fields
Number of
Samples per Field
Between Field
% Variance
Within Field
% Variance
Arsenic
5
7
5
95
Cadmium
5
7
6
94
Chromium
5
7
13
87
Cobalt
5
7
65
35
Lead
5
7
48
52
Zinc
5
7
60
40
Aluminum
5
7
55
45
Antimony
5
7
24
76
Barium
5
7
16
84
Beryllium
5
7
39
61
Copper
5
7
79
21
Iron
5
7
0
100
Magnesium
5
7
7
93
Manganese
5
7
6
94
Molybdenum
5
7
6
94
Nickel
5
7
24
76
Rubidium
5
7
83
17
Strontium
5
7
48
52
Tin
5
7
26
74
Vanadium
5
7
36
64
a ICP/MS = inductively coupled plasma/mass spectrometry
Table N-2. Within- and Between-Field Variability for Metal XRF Analysis Results for Tire Crumb Rubber
Infill Collected from Synthetic Turf Fields3
Analvtc
Number
of Fields
Number of
Samples per Field
Between Field
% Variance
Within Field
% Variance
Chromium
5
7
72
28
Cobalt
5
7
66
34
Lead
5
7
43
57
Zinc
5
7
90
10
Barium
5
7
56
44
Copper
5
7
87
13
Iron
5
7
24
76
Molybdenum
5
7
68
32
Rubidium
5
7
78
22
Strontium
5
7
91
9
a XRF = x-ray fluorescence
-------
Table N-3. Within- and Between-Field Variability for SVOC Extraction GC/MS/MS Analysis Results for
Tire Crumb Rubber Infill Collected from Synthetic Turf Fields3
Analytc
Nu mber of
Fields
Nu mber of
Samples per Field
Between Field
% Variance
Within Field
% Variance
Phenanthrene
5
7
98
2
Fluoranthene
5
7
95
5
Pyrene
5
7
98
2
Benzo[a]pyrene
5
7
77
23
Benzo [ghijperylene
5
7
83
17
Suml5PAHb
5
7
99
1
Benzothiazole
5
7
90
10
Dibutyl phthalate
5
7
88
12
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
5
7
100
0
Aniline
5
7
82
18
4-tert-octylphenol
5
7
91
9
n-Hexadecane
5
7
98
2
Naphthalene
5
7
96
4
1 -Methylnaphthalene
5
7
95
5
2-Methylnaphthalene
5
7
94
6
Acenaphthylene
5
7
97
3
Fluorene
5
7
98
2
Anthracene
5
7
95
5
1 -Methylphenanthrene
5
7
94
6
2 -Methylphenanthrene
5
7
73
27
3 -Methylphenanthrene
5
7
92
8
Benz(a)anthracene
5
7
17
83
Chrysene
5
7
80
20
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
5
7
86
14
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
5
7
87
13
Benzo(e)pyrene
5
7
91
9
DBA + ICDP°
5
7
74
26
Coronene
5
7
73
27
Dibenzothiophene
5
7
99
1
Dimethyl phthalate
5
7
54
46
Diethyl phthalate
5
7
81
19
Diisobutyl phthalate
5
7
98
2
Benzyl butyl phthalate
5
7
65
35
Di-n-octyl phthalate
5
7
96
4
Bis(2,2,6,6-tetramethyl-4-piperidyl)
sebacate
5
7
16
84
Cyclohexylisothiocyanate
5
7
52
48
a SVOC = semivolatile organic compound; GC/MS/MS = gas chromatography/tandem mass spectrometry
b Suml5PAH = Sum of 15 of the 16 EPA 'priority' PAHs, including Acenaphthylene, Anthracene, Benz[a]anthracene,
Benzo[a]pyrene, Benzo(b)fluoranthene, Benzo[ghi]perylene, Benzo(k)fluoranthene, Chrysene, Dibenz[a,h]anthracene,
Fluoranthene, Fluorene, Indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene, Naphthalene, Phenanthrene, Pyrene
°DBA + ICDP= Sum of Dibenz[a,h]anthracene and Indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene
-------
Table N-4. Within- and Between-Field Variability for VOC 25 °C Emission Factor Analysis Results for
Tire Crumb Rubber Infill Collected from Synthetic Turf Fields3
Analvtc
Number
Number of
Between Field
Within Field

of Fields
Samples per Field
% Variance
% Variance
Benzothiazole
5
3
98
2
o-Xylene
5
3
24
76
SumBTEXb
5
3
30
70
Trichlorofluoromethane (Freon 11)
5
3
100
0
Dichlorodifluoromethane (Freon 12)
5
3
5
95
a VOC = volatile organic compound; °C = degrees Celsius
b SumBTEX = Sum of benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, m/p-xylene, and o-xylene
Table N-5. Within- and Between- Field Variability for VOC 60 °C Emission Factor Analysis Results for
Tire Crumb Rubber Infill Collected from Synthetic Turf Fields3
Analyte
Number
of Fields
Number of
Samples per Field
Between Field
% Variance
Within Field
% Variance
Formaldehyde
5
3
34
66
Metyl isobutyl ketone
5
3
91
9
Benzothiazole
5
3
98
2
Styrene
5
3
95
5
Toluene
5
3
26
74
Ethylbenzene
5
3
82
18
m/p-Xylene
5
3
85
15
o-Xylene
5
3
72
28
SumBTEXb
5
3
86
14
trans-2-Butene
5
3
46
54
cis-2-Butene
5
3
49
51
T etrachloroethylene
5
3
86
14
Chlorobenzene
5
3
0
100
p-Dichlorobenzene
5
3
0
100
Trichlorofluoro methane (Freon 11)
5
3
99
1
Dichlorodifluoromethane (Freon 12)
5
3
9
91
11 VOC = volatile organic compound; °C = degrees Celsius
b SumBTEX = Sum of benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, m/p-xylene, and o-xylene
-------
Table N-6. Within- and Between-Field Variability for SVOC 25 °C Emission Factor Analysis Results for
Tire Crumb Rubber Infill Collected from Synthetic Turf Fields3
Analytc
Number
of Fields
Number of
Samples per Field
Between Field
% Variance
Within Field
% Variance
Phenanthrene
5
3
10
90
Suml5PAHb
5
3
91
9
Benzothiazole
5
3
96
4
Dibutyl phthalate
5
3
0
100
Aniline
5
3
94
6
4-tert-octylphenol
5
3
70
30
Naphthalene
5
3
68
32
1 -Methylnaphthalene
5
3
77
23
2-Methylnaphthalene
5
3
71
29
Fluorene
5
3
65
35
n-Butylbenzene
5
3
23
77
Diisobutyl phthalate
5
3
0
100
a SVOC = semivolatile organic compound; °C = degrees Celsius
b Suml5PAH = Sum of 15 of the 16 EPA 'priority' PAHs, including Acenaphthylene, Anthracene, Benz[a]anthracene,
Benzo[a]pyrene, Benzo(b)fluoranthene, Benzo[ghi]perylene, Benzo(k)fluoranthene, Chrysene, Dibenz[a,h]anthracene,
Fluoranthene, Fluorene, Indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene, Naphthalene, Phenanthrene, Pyrene
-------
Table N-7. Within- and Between-Field Variability for SVOC 60 °C Emission Factor Analysis Results for
Tire Crumb Rubber Infill Collected from Synthetic Turf Fields3
Analytc
Number
of Fields
Number of
Samples per Field
Between Field
% Variance
Within Field
% Variance
Phenanthrene
5
3
92
8
Fluoranthene
5
3
97
3
Pyrene
5
3
99
1
Suml5PAHb
5
3
97
3
Benzothiazole
5
3
94
6
Dibutyl phthalate
5
3
80
20
Aniline
5
3
99
1
4-tert-octylphenol
5
3
96
4
Naphthalene
5
3
97
3
1 -Methylnaphthalene
5
3
97
3
2-Methylnaphthalene
5
3
95
5
Acenaphthylene
5
3
98
2
Fluorene
5
3
98
2
1 -Methylphenanthrene
5
3
92
8
2 -Methylphenanthrene
5
3
45
55
3 -Methylphenanthrene
5
3
98
2
Dibenzothiophene
5
3
98
2
n-Butylbenzene
5
3
0
100
Dimethyl phthalate
5
3
63
37
Diisobutyl phthalate
5
3
88
12
a SVOC = semivolatile organic compound; °C = degrees Celsius
b Suml5PAH = Sum of 15 of the 16 EPA 'priority' PAHs, including Acenaphthylene, Anthracene, Benz[a]anthracene,
Benzo[a]pyrene, Benzo(b)fluoranthene, Benzo[ghi]perylene, Benzo(k)fluoranthene, Chrysene, Dibenz[a,h]anthracene,
Fluoranthene, Fluorene, Indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene, Naphthalene, Phenanthrene, Pyrene
-------
Appendix O
Tire Crumb Rubber Measurement Results -
Differences Between Outdoor and Indoor
Synthetic Turf Fields
-------
Table O-l. Comparison of Metals Analyzed by ICP/MS in Tire Crumb Rubber Infill Collected at Outdoor
and Indoor Synthetic Turf Fieldsa'b
Analytc
Outdoor Fields
Mean
(nig/kg)
Outdoor Fields
Standard Deviation
(mg/kg)
Indoor Fields
Mean
(mg/kg)
Indoor Fields
Standard Deviation
(mg/kg)
F-test
p-value11'
Arsenic
0.39
0.18
0.37
0.23
0.488
Cadmium
0.86
0.45
1.1
0.96
0.3997
Chromium
1.7
0.88
1.5
0.8
NR
Cobalt
140
60
140
63
0.8128
Lead
20
14
31
39
0.4709
Zinc
15000
3300
15000
2600
0.6996
Aluminum
1400
810
1100
590
0.3431
Antimony
0.91
0.43
1.0
0.42
0.2828
Barium
8.6
5.5
7.8
5.1
0.631
Beryllium
0.011
0.033
0.0035
0.025
NR
Copper
26
11
25
15
0.3715
Iron
710
460
430
170
0.0129
Magnesium
320
190
340
300
0.9777
Manganese
8.5
6.3
6.3
2.0
0.2704
Molybdenum
0.15
0.067
0.16
0.061
0.7457
Nickel
2.5
0.78
3.1
0.96
0.0754
Rubidium
2.0
0.62
1.6
0.42
0.0287
Strontium
3.4
1.6
3.4
1.2
0.7799
Tin
1.6
1.1
1.6
1.0
NR
Vanadium
2.0
1.0
1.7
0.43
NR
a ICP/MS = inductively coupled plasma/mass spectrometry
b Outdoor Fields (n=25); Indoor Fields (n=15)
0 Statistical tests performed using ln-transformed measurement values
d NR = not reported; one or more measurement results were <0, precluding ln-transformed testing for the complete data set
-------
Table 0-2. Comparison of Metals Analyzed by XRF in Tire Crumb Rubber Infill Collected at Outdoor and
Indoor Synthetic Turf Fieldsa'b
Analytc
Outdoor Fields
Mean
(mg/kg)
Outdoor Fields
Standard Deviation
(mg/kg)
Indoor Fields
Mean
(mg/kg)
Indoor Fields
Standard Deviation
(mg/kg)
F-test
p-value'
Chromium
14
3.0
14
2.9
0.9667
Cobalt
40
17
36
17
0.4099
Lead
31
13
45
31
0.1433
Zinc
33000
7900
34000
5800
0.458
Barium
57
16
64
15
0.1521
Copper
130
46
120
41
0.4724
Iron
1300
640
1100
320
0.2353
Molybdenum
47
15
46
9.8
0.809
Rubidium
58
34
52
19
0.8533
Strontium
15
13
12
13
0.4236
aXRF = X-ray fluorescence spectrometry
b Outdoor Fields (n=25); Indoor Fields (n=15)
0 Statistical tests performed using ln-transformed measurement values.
Table 0-3. Comparison of SVOCs in Extracts Analyzed by GC/MS/MS for Tire Crumb Rubber Infill
Collected at Outdoor and Indoor Synthetic Turf Fieldsa'b
Analvte
Outdoor Fields
Outdoor Fields
Indoor Fields
Indoor Fields
F-test

Mean
Standard Deviation
Mean
Standard Deviation
p-value'1'

(mg/kg)
(mg/kg)
(mg/kg)
(mg/kg)

Phenanthrene
0.76
0.71
4.8
2.6
<0.0001
Fluoranthene
3.5
2.3
6.2
2.2
0.0004
Pyrene
00
00
3.9
19
3.7
<0.0001
Benzo[a]pyrene
0.66
0.37
0.98
0.67
0.0375
Benzo [ghijperylene
1.1
0.54
1.6
0.68
0.0315
Suml5PAHe
21
9.4
42
12
<0.0001
Benzothiazole
5.6
9.2
19
14
<0.0001
Dibutyl phthalate
0.63
0.70
2.9
1.4
<0.0001
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
29
27
65
53
0.0185
Aniline
0.38
0.24
1.2
0.54
<0.0001
4-tert-octylphenol
3.5
2.2
20
7.9
<0.0001
n-Hexadecane
0.20
0.2
2.2
1.3
<0.0001
Naphthalene
0.014
0.0082
0.067
0.053
<0.0001
1 -Methylnaphthalene
0.0085
0.011
0.12
0.14
<0.0001
2-Methylnaphthalene
0.016
0.016
0.20
0.24
<0.0001
Acenaphthylene
0.020
0.017
0.090
0.072
<0.0001
Fluorene
0.036
0.054
0.43
0.34
<0.0001
Anthracene
0.13
0.13
1.2
0.91
<0.0001
1 -Methylphenanthrene
0.87
0.63
2.8
1.2
<0.0001
2 -Methylphenanthrene
1.2
1.4
5.9
6.4
<0.0001
3 -Methylphenanthrene
1.2
1.1
4.2
2.2
<0.0001
Benz(a)anthracene
2.2
1.3
2.3
1.6
0.8612
-------
Table 0-3 Continued
Analvtc
Outdoor Fields
Outdoor Fields
Indoor Fields
Indoor Fields
F-test

Mean
Standard Deviation
Mean
Standard Deviation
p-value'11

(mg/kg)
(mg/kg)
(mg/kg)
(mg/kg)

Chrysene
2.0
1.7
3.4
1.6
0.0033
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
1.2
0.74
1.6
0.82
0.0237
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
0.38
0.29
0.58
0.31
0.0113
Benzo(e)pyrene
1.6
0.92
2.4
0.91
0.0088
DBA + ICDPf
0.48
0.30
0.65
0.31
0.0564
Coronene
0.45
0.28
0.69
0.31
0.0085
Dibenzothiophene
0.096
0.092
0.66
0.33
<0.0001
Dimethyl phthalate
0.0043
0.0069
0.065
0.09
NR
Diethyl phthalate
-0.0055
0.010
1.5
4.0
NR
Diisobutyl phthalate
0.36
0.34
2.7
2.3
<0.0001
Benzyl butyl phthalate
0.44
0.40
2.4
2.8
<0.0001
Di-n-octyl phthalate
0.13
0.12
0.44
0.26
NR
Bis(2,2,6,6-tetramethyl-4-
piperidyl) sebacate
0.96
1.0
0.49
0.62
NR
Cyclohexylisothiocyanate
0.16
0.10
0.40
0.19
NR
11SVOC = semivolatile organic compound; GC/MS/MS= gas chromatography/tandem mass spectrometry
b Outdoor Fields (n=25); Indoor Fields (n=15)
0 Statistical tests performed using ln-transformed measurement values
d NR = not reported; one or more measurement results were <0, precluding ln-transformed testing for the complete data set
e Suml5PAH = Sum of 15 of the 16 EPA 'priority' PAHs, including Acenaphthylene, Anthracene, Benz[a]anthracene,
Benzo[a]pyrene, Benzo(b)fluoranthene, Benzo[ghi]perylene, Benzo(k)fluoranthene, Chrysene, Dibenz[a,h]anthracene,
Fluoranthene, Fluorene, Indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene, Naphthalene, Phenanthrene, Pyrene
fDBA + ICDP = Sum of Dibenz[a,h]anthracene and Indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene
Table 0-4. Comparison of VOC 25 °C Emission Factors for Tire Crumb Rubber Infill Collected at
Outdoor and Indoor Synthetic Turf Fieldsa'b
Analvtc
Outdoor Fields
Mean
(ng/g/h)
Outdoor Fields
Standard Deviation
(ng/g/h)
Indoor Fields
Mean
(ng/g/h)
Indoor Fields
Standard Deviation
(ng/g/h)
F-tcst
p-valuc11'
Benzothiazole
9.4
16
51
26
NR
o-Xylene
0.0024
0.068
0.081
0.10
NR
SumBTEX6
0.22
0.98
0.46
0.51
NR
T richlorofluoro methane
(Freon 11)
-0.15
0.63
0.35
0.61
NR
Dichlorodifluoromethane
(Freon 12)
-0.027
0.040
-0.014
0.062
NR
a VOC = volatile organic compound; °C = degrees Celsius
b Outdoor Fields (n=24-25); Indoor Fields (n=13-15)
0 Statistical tests performed using ln-transformed measurement values
d NR = not reported; one or more measurement results were <0, precluding ln-transformed testing for the complete data set
e SumBTEX = Sum of benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, m/p-xylene, and o-xylene
-------
Table 0-5. Comparison of VOC 60 °C Emission Factors for Tire Crumb Rubber Infill Collected at
Outdoor and Indoor Synthetic Turf Fieldsa'b
Analytc
Outdoor Fields
Mean
(ng/g/h)
Outdoor Fields
Standard Deviation
(ng/g/h)
Indoor Fields
Mean
(ng/g/h)
Indoor Fields
Standard Deviation
(ng/g/h)
F-test
p-value11'
Formaldehyde
12
5.7
23
10
NR
Metyl isobutyl ketone
28
16
68
20
<0.0001
Benzothiazole
35
31
95
9.6
<0.0001
Styrene
0.24
0.29
0.84
0.29
NR
Toluene
0.11
0.33
0.24
0.24
NR
Ethylbenzene
-0.12
0.20
-0.0059
0.26
NR
m/p-Xylene
0.043
0.97
0.61
0.97
NR
o-Xylene
-0.39
0.70
-0.27
0.60
NR
SumBTEX6
-0.44
2.2
0.58
2.1
NR
trans-2-Butene
-0.25
0.28
-0.26
0.16
NR
cis-2-Butene
-0.23
0.25
-0.24
0.15
NR
T etrachloroethylene
-0.0013
0.033
0.012
0.027
NR
Chlorobenzene
0.0036
0.038
-0.015
0.088
NR
p-Dichlorobenzene
0.028
0.17
0.17
0.29
NR
T richlorofluoro methane
(Freon 11)
-0.12
0.60
0.44
0.57
NR
Dichlorodifluoromethane
(Freon 12)
-0.0029
0.033
-0.009
0.047
NR
11 VOC = volatile organic compound; °C = degrees Celsius
b Outdoor Fields (n=24-25); Indoor Fields (n=13-15)
0 Statistical tests performed using ln-transformed measurement values
d NR = not reported; one or more measurement results were <0, precluding ln-transformed testing for the complete data set
e SumBTEX = Sum of benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, m/p-xylene, and o-xylene
-------
Table 0-6. Comparison of SVOC 25 °C Emission Factors for Tire Crumb Rubber Infill Collected at
Outdoor and Indoor Synthetic Turf Fieldsa'b
Analytc
Outdoor Fields
Mean
(ng/g/h)
Outdoor Fields
Standard Deviation
(ng/g/h)
Indoor Fields
Mean
(ng/g/h)
Indoor Fields
Standard Deviation
(ng/g/h)
F-test
p-value11'
Phenanthrene
0.017
0.05
0.038
0.045
NR
Suml5PAHe
0.56
0.56
0.72
0.74
0.323
Benzothiazole
1.5
2.6
8.7
5.3
NR
Dibutyl phthalate
0.088
0.36
-0.18
0.36
NR
Aniline
0.088
0.20
0.77
0.42
NR
4-tert-octylphenol
0.65
3.2
1.2
3.5
NR
Naphthalene
0.087
0.24
0.23
0.52
NR
1 -Methylnaphthalene
0.0055
0.035
0.082
0.13
NR
2-Methylnaphthalene
0.0084
0.071
0.16
0.24
NR
Fluorene
0.0026
0.013
0.025
0.020
NR
n-Butylbenzene
-0.0019
0.025
0.053
0.19
NR
Diisobutyl phthalate
0.046
0.24
-0.039
0.23
NR
a SVOC = semivolatile organic compound; °C = degrees Celsius
b Outdoor Fields (n=25); Indoor Fields (n=15)
0 Statistical tests performed using ln-transformed measurement values
d NR = not reported; one or more measurement results were <0, precluding ln-transformed testing for the complete data set
e Suml5PAH = Sum of 15 of the 16 EPA 'priority' PAHs, including Acenaphthylene, Anthracene, Benz[a]anthracene,
Benzo[a]pyrene, Benzo(b)fluoranthene, Benzo[ghi]perylene, Benzo(k)fluoranthene, Chrysene, Dibenz[a,h]anthracene,
Fluoranthene, Fluorene, Indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene, Naphthalene, Phenanthrene, Pyrene
-------
Table 0-7. Comparison of SVOC 60 °C Emission Factors for Tire Crumb Rubber Infill Collected at
Outdoor and Indoor Synthetic Turf Fieldsa'b
Analytc
Outdoor Fields
Mean
(ng/g/h)
Outdoor Fields
Standard Deviation
(ng/g/h)
Indoor Fields
Mean
(ng/g/h)
Indoor Fields
Standard Deviation
(ng/g/h)
F-test
p-value11'
Phenanthrene
0.17
0.22
1.2
0.75
NR
Fluoranthene
0.11
0.085
0.23
0.11
NR
Pyrene
0.20
0.14
0.44
0.24
NR
Suml5PAHe
1.0
0.65
3.6
2.1
<0.0001
Benzothiazole
9.7
11
74
64
NR
Dibutyl phthalate
0.11
0.43
0.2
0.39
NR
Aniline
0.79
1.0
8.0
6.1
NR
4-tert-octylphenol
2.9
3.1
11
5.0
NR
Naphthalene
-0.23
0.50
0.022
0.63
NR
1 -Methylnaphthalene
0.0092
0.053
0.62
0.92
NR
2-Methylnaphthalene
0.0081
0.084
1.2
1.9
NR
Acenaphthylene
0.026
0.034
0.23
0.25
NR
Fluorene
0.026
0.041
0.46
0.47
NR
1 -Methylphenanthrene
0.074
0.063
0.26
0.13
NR
2 -Methylphenanthrene
0.092
0.10
0.46
0.32
NR
3 -Methylphenanthrene
0.17
0.19
0.71
0.52
NR
Dibenzothiophene
0.020
0.025
0.20
0.12
NR
n-Butylbenzene
-0.010
0.015
0.0075
0.038
NR
Dimethyl phthalate
0.0011
0.0097
0.040
0.030
NR
Diisobutyl phthalate
0.022
0.28
0.25
0.30
NR
a SVOC = semivolatile organic compound; °C = degrees Celsius
b Outdoor Fields (n=25); Indoor Fields (n=15)
0 Statistical tests performed using ln-transformed measurement values
d NR = not reported; one or more measurement results were <0, precluding ln-transformed testing for the complete data set
e Suml5PAH = Sum of 15 of the 16 EPA 'priority' PAHs, including Acenaphthylene, Anthracene, Benz[a]anthracene,
Benzo[a]pyrene, Benzo(b)fluoranthene, Benzo[ghi]perylene, Benzo(k)fluoranthene, Chrysene, Dibenz[a,h]anthracene,
Fluoranthene, Fluorene, Indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene, Naphthalene, Phenanthrene, Pyrene
-------
[This page intentionally left blank.]
-------
Appendix P
Tire Crumb Rubber Measurement Results -
Differences Among Synthetic Turf Fields
with Different Installation Ages
-------
Table P-l. Comparison of Metals Analyzed by ICP/MS in Tire Crumb Rubber Infill Collected from
Synthetic Turf Fields in Three Field Installation Age Groupsa'b
Analytc
2004-2008
Mean
(mg/kg)
2004-2008
Standard
Deviation
(mg/kg)
2009-2012
Mean
(mg/kg)
2009-2012
Standard
Deviation
(mg/kg)
2013-2016
Mean
(mg/kg)
2013-2016
Standard
Deviation
(mg/kg)
F-test
p-value'11
Arsenic
0.39
0.15
0.42
0.25
0.30
0.10
0.4723
Cadmium
0.97
0.45
1.1
0.91
0.72
0.37
0.3463
Chromium
1.8
1.0
1.7
0.79
1.3
0.68
NR
Cobalt
150
46
100
56
170
56
0.0006
Lead
33
42
25
20
13
4.6
0.079
Zinc
15000
2700
14000
2600
16000
3400
0.0501
Aluminum
1200
550
1500
840
1100
720
0.4202
Antimony
0.95
0.57
0.99
0.37
0.90
0.38
0.8238
Barium
9.1
5.7
7.9
3.2
8.4
7.6
0.6328
Beryllium
0.0014
0.029
0.013
0.028
0.0057
0.036
NR
Copper
26
13
22
12
30
11
0.1642
Iron
590
320
580
380
660
520
0.9428
Magnesium
380
340
280
100
360
260
0.4142
Manganese
7.8
2.7
7.4
4.4
8.2
8.0
0.7714
Molybdenum
0.17
0.069
0.16
0.068
0.14
0.054
0.7477
Nickel
2.6
0.78
2.8
0.99
2.6
0.87
0.937
Rubidium
1.8
0.34
1.8
0.67
2.1
0.61
0.3395
Strontium
3.7
1.3
3.5
1.7
3
1.0
0.3637
Tin
1.5
1.1
1.8
1.1
1.3
1.0
NR
Vanadium
1.8
0.66
2
1.0
1.7
0.86
NR
a ICP/MS = inductively coupled plasma/mass spectrometry
bFields installed 2004-2008 (n=ll); 2009-2012 (n=18); 2013-2016 (n=ll)
0 Statistical tests performed using ln-transformed measurement values
d NR = not reported; one or more measurement results were <0, precluding ln-transformed testing for the complete data set.
-------
Table P-2. Comparison of Metals Analyzed by XRF in Tire Crumb Rubber Infill Collected from Synthetic
Turf Fields in Three Field Installation Age Groupsa'b
Analytc
2004-2008
Mean
(mg/kg)
2004-2008
Standard
Deviation
(mg/kg)
2009-2012
Mean
(mg/kg)
2009-2012
Standard
Deviation
(mg/kg)
2013-2016
Mean
(mg/kg)
2013-2016
Standard
Deviation
(mg/kg)
F-test
p-value'
Chromium
14
2.7
13
3.2
15
2.3
0.1121
Cobalt
39
16
32
16
49
17
0.0629
Lead
38
26
41
24
27
12
0.2297
Zinc
33000
7200
31000
6300
37000
7500
0.1074
Barium
60
14
64
17
52
13
0.0958
Copper
120
40
110
36
150
51
0.0389
Iron
1400
840
1200
410
1100
370
0.6262
Molybdenum
42
17
49
12
48
12
0.1688
Rubidium
50
22
50
17
72
45
0.3837
Strontium
18
18
12
7.4
13
15
0.391
aXRF = X-ray fluorescence spectrometry
bFields installed 2004-2008 (n=ll); 2009-2012 (n=18); 2013-2016 (n=ll)
0 Statistical tests performed using ln-transformed measurement values.
Table P-3. Comparison of SVOCs in Extracts Analyzed by GC/MS/MS in Tire Crumb Rubber Infill
Collected from Synthetic Turf Fields in Three Field Installation Age Groupsa b
Analytc
2004-2008
Mean
(mg/kg)
2004-2008
Standard
Deviation
(mg/kg)
2009-2012
Mean
(mg/kg)
2009-2012
Standard
Deviation
(mg/kg)
2013-2016
Mean
(mg/kg)
2013-2016
Standard
Deviation
(mg/kg)
F-test
p-value11'
Phenanthrene
2.1
2.2
3.0
3.3
1.3
0.93
0.389
Fluoranthene
3.6
2.6
5.1
2.9
4.5
1.7
0.1098
Pyrene
11
7.8
14
6.6
12
2.9
0.2171
Benzo[a]pyrene
0.59
0.24
0.95
0.62
0.68
0.48
0.0531
Benzo [ghijperylene
1.4
0.7
1.5
0.59
0.88
0.47
0.0232
Suml5PAHe
25
16
33
17
26
8.2
0.2033
Benzothiazole
7.5
7.2
12
16
12
12
0.4355
Dibutyl phthalate
1.9
2.1
1.5
1.4
1.1
0.84
0.8196
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
61
60
45
34
20
21
0.0215
Aniline
0.55
0.37
0.81
0.71
0.58
0.25
0.563
4-tert-octylphenol
11
11
12
11
5.0
2.4
0.4372
n-Hexadecane
0.95
0.85
1.3
1.7
0.43
0.41
0.5861
Naphthalene
0.029
0.024
0.047
0.056
0.017
0.011
0.1423
1 -Methylnaphthalene
0.039
0.041
0.079
0.14
0.014
0.016
0.3953
2-Methylnaphthalene
0.058
0.057
0.14
0.24
0.023
0.023
0.254
Acenaphthylene
0.036
0.033
0.061
0.078
0.031
0.019
0.7372
Fluorene
0.17
0.23
0.26
0.37
0.069
0.075
0.605
Anthracene
0.46
0.59
0.75
0.97
0.21
0.16
0.3112
1 -Methylphenanthrene
1.4
1.3
2.0
1.6
1.1
0.53
0.2175
2 -Methylphenanthrene
2.4
2.4
4.0
6.4
1.9
1.9
0.5348
3 -Methylphenanthrene
1.9
1.7
2.9
2.7
1.8
1.1
0.292
-------
Table P-3 Continued
Analvtc
2004-2008
2004-2008
2009-2012
2009-2012
2013-2016
2013-2016
F-test

Mean
Standard
Mean
Standard
Mean
Standard
p-valuc11'

(mg/kg)
Deviation
(mg/kg)
(mg/kg)
Deviation
(mg/kg)
(mg/kg)
Deviation
(mg/kg)

Benz(a)anthracene
2.1
1.2
2.4
1.6
2.0
1.3
0.8282
Chrysene
1.7
1.3
3.2
1.9
2.3
1.8
0.0776
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
1.1
0.58
1.6
0.82
1.2
0.91
0.1455
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
0.36
0.24
0.53
0.30
0.42
0.37
0.1254
Benzo(e)pyrene
1.6
0.8
2.3
0.97
1.6
1.0
0.0888
DBA + ICDPf
0.51
0.31
0.60
0.34
0.48
0.29
0.7038
Coronene
0.56
0.35
0.62
0.29
0.39
0.27
0.0562
Dibenzothiophene
0.29
0.29
0.41
0.44
0.17
0.12
0.3689
Dimethyl phthalate
0.011
0.015
0.049
0.087
0.0072
0.0067
NR
Diethyl phthalate
0.17
0.25
1.0
3.5
0.018
0.085
NR
Diisobutyl phthalate
1.3
1.6
1.5
2.3
0.67
0.56
0.6687
Benzyl butyl phthalate
1.9
3.4
0.94
1.1
0.79
0.49
0.7288
Di-n-octyl phthalate
0.35
0.35
0.22
0.14
0.19
0.20
NR
Bis(2,2,6,6-tetramethyl-4-
piperidyl) sebacate
0.26
0.18
0.99
1.0
0.99
0.93
NR
Cyclohexylisothiocyanate
0.25
0.15
0.27
0.25
0.21
0.066
NR
" SVOC = semivolatile organic compound; GC/MS/MS= gas chromatography/tandem mass spectrometry
bFields installed 2004-2008 (n=ll); 2009-2012 (n=18); 2013-2016 (n=ll)
0 Statistical tests performed using ln-transformed measurement values
dNR = not reported; one or more measurement results were <0, precluding ln-transformed testing for the complete data sete
Suml5PAH = Sum of 15 of the 16 EPA 'priority' PAHs, including Acenaphthylene, Anthracene, Benz[a]anthracene,
Benzo[a]pyrene, Benzo(b)fluoranthene, Benzo[ghi]perylene, Benzo(k)fluoranthene, Chrysene, Dibenz[a,h]anthracene,
Fluoranthene, Fluorene, Indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene, Naphthalene, Phenanthrene, Pyrene
fDBA + ICDP = Sum of Dibenz[a,h]anthracene and Indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene
Table P-4. Comparison of VOC 25 °C Emission Factor Results for Tire Crumb Rubber Infill Collected from
Synthetic Turf Fields in Three Field Installation Age Groupsab	
Analvte
2004-2008
Mean
(ng/g/h)
2004-2008
Standard
Deviation
(ng/g/h)
2009-2012
Mean
(ng/g/h)
2009-2012
Standard
Deviation
(ng/g/h)
2013-2016
Mean
(ng/g/h)
2013-2016
Standard
Deviation
(ng/g/h)
F-tcst
p-valuccd
Benzothiazole
25
26
26
34
22
22
NR
o-Xylene
0.054
0.083
0.042
0.11
-0.012
0.053
NR
SumBTEX6
0.25
0.91
0.39
0.72
0.22
1.0
NR
T richlorofluoro methane
(Freon 11)
0.32
0.66
0.069
0.66
-0.34
0.55
NR
Dichlorodifluoromethane
(Freon 12)
-0.035
0.061
-0.014
0.033
-0.022
0.059
NR
a VOC = volatile organic compound; °C = degrees Celsius
bFields installed 2004-2008 (n=ll); 2009-2012 (n=18); 2013-2016 (n=ll)
0 Statistical tests performed using ln-transformed measurement values
dNR = not reported; one or more measurement results were <0, precluding ln-transformed testing for the complete data set
e SumBTEX = Sum of benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, m/p-xylene, and o-xylene
-------
Table P-5. Comparison of VOC 60 °C Emission Factor Results for Tire Crumb Rubber Infill Collected from
Synthetic Turf Fields in Three Field Installation Age Groupsa'b
Analytc
2004—2008
Mean
(ng/g/h)
2004-2008
Standard
Deviation
(ng/g/h)
2009-2012
Mean
(ng/g/h)
2009-2012
Standard
Deviation
(ng/g/h)
2013-2016
Mean
(ng/g/h)
2013-2016
Standard
Deviation
(ng/g/h)
F-test
p-value11'
Formaldehyde
17
5.6
18
13
13
3.7
NR
Metyl isobutyl ketone
50
29
39
27
40
20
0.5356
Benzothiazole
63
44
49
40
59
34
0.8176
Styrene
0.53
0.39
0.51
0.46
0.26
0.28
NR
Toluene
0.092
0.16
0.14
0.31
0.25
0.42
NR
Ethylbenzene
-0.11
0.22
-0.067
0.24
-0.071
0.23
NR
m/p-Xylene
0.29
1.1
0.33
1.1
0.059
0.82
NR
o-Xylene
-0.30
0.75
-0.28
0.70
-0.52
0.51
NR
SumBTEX6
-0.26
2.0
0.055
2.5
-0.11
2.0
NR
trans-2-Butene
-0.34
0.18
-0.19
0.25
-0.27
0.27
NR
cis-2-Butene
-0.31
0.16
-0.18
0.22
-0.24
0.25
NR
T etrachloroethylene
0.011
0.044
0.00032
0.029
0.00069
0.02
NR
Chlorobenzene
-0.015
0.062
0.013
0.067
-0.014
0.04
NR
p-Dichlorobenzene
0.08
0.22
0.073
0.28
0.086
0.15
NR
T richlorofluoro methane
(Freon 11)
0.36
0.65
0.12
0.61
-0.31
0.52
NR
Dichlorodifluoromethane
(Freon 12)
-0.016
0.050
0.0027
0.040
-0.0054
0.013
NR
a VOC = volatile organic compound; °C = degrees Celsius
bFields installed 2004-2008 (n=ll); 2009-2012 (n=18); 2013-2016 (n=ll)
0 Statistical tests performed using ln-transformed measurement values
dNR = not reported; one or more measurement results were <0, precluding ln-transformed testing for the complete data set
e SumBTEX = Sum of benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, m/p-xylene, and o-xylene
-------
Table P-6. Comparison of SVOC 25 °C Emission Factor Results for Tire Crumb Rubber Infill Collected
from Synthetic Turf Fields in Three Field Installation Age Groupsa'b
Analytc
2004—2008
Mean
(ng/g/h)
2004-2008
Standard
Deviation
(ng/g/h)
2009-2012
Mean
(ng/g/h)
2009-2012
Standard
Deviation
(ng/g/h)
2013-2016
Mean
(ng/g/h)
2013-2016
Standard
Deviation
(ng/g/h)
F-test
p-value11'
Phenanthrene
0.027
0.035
0.032
0.045
0.012
0.066
NR
Suml5PAHe
0.73
0.83
0.58
0.55
0.58
0.56
0.7377
Benzothiazole
3.7
4.5
5.2
6.3
3.2
3.5
NR
Dibutyl phthalate
-0.031
0.25
0.029
0.42
-0.056
0.43
NR
Aniline
0.46
0.53
0.34
0.48
0.24
0.26
NR
4-tert-octylphenol
0.12
0.15
0.9
3.3
1.5
4.8
NR
Naphthalene
0.28
0.57
0.096
0.27
0.067
0.24
NR
1 -Methylnaphthalene
0.043
0.036
0.050
0.13
-0.0015
0.036
NR
2-Methylnaphthalene
0.088
0.084
0.098
0.23
-0.014
0.074
NR
Fluorene
0.012
0.016
0.017
0.023
0.00006
0.011
NR
n-Butylbenzene
-0.00027
0.0089
0.046
0.17
-0.0074
0.028
NR
Diisobutyl phthalate
-0.074
0.13
0.087
0.26
-0.018
0.26
NR
a SVOC = semivolatile organic compound; °C = degrees Celsius
bFields installed 2004-2008 (n=ll); 2009-2012 (n=18); 2013-2016 (n=ll)
0 Statistical tests performed using ln-transformed measurement values
dNR = not reported; one or more measurement results were <0, precluding ln-transformed testing for the complete data set
e Suml5PAH = Sum of 15 of the 16 EPA 'priority' PAHs, including Acenaphthylene, Anthracene, Benz[a]anthracene,
Benzo[a]pyrene, Benzo(b)fluoranthene, Benzo[ghi]perylene, Benzo(k)fluoranthene, Chrysene, Dibenz[a,h]anthracene,
Fluoranthene, Fluorene, Indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene, Naphthalene, Phenanthrene, Pyrene
-------
Table P-7. Comparison of SVOC 60 °C Emission Factor Results for Tire Crumb Rubber Infill Collected
from Synthetic Turf Fields in Three Field Installation Age Groupsa'b
Analytc
2004—2008
Mean
(ng/g/h)
2004-2008
Standard
Deviation
(ng/g/h)
2009-2012
Mean
(ng/g/h)
2009-2012
Standard
Deviation
(ng/g/h)
2013-2016
Mean
(ng/g/h)
2013-2016
Standard
Deviation
(ng/g/h)
F-test
p-value11'
Phenanthrene
0.46
0.51
0.81
0.93
0.31
0.27
NR
Fluoranthene
0.13
0.10
0.19
0.13
0.13
0.088
NR
Pyrene
0.21
0.20
0.35
0.24
0.27
0.15
NR
Suml5PAHe
1.6
1.2
2.6
2.5
1.4
0.77
0.2777
Benzothiazole
21
25
51
69
18
14
NR
Dibutyl phthalate
0.048
0.21
0.19
0.52
0.17
0.39
NR
Aniline
3.0
3.7
5.0
6.8
1.5
1.4
NR
4-tert-octylphenol
5.7
6.2
6.9
6.3
4.2
2.9
NR
Naphthalene
-0.14
0.51
-0.00068
0.57
-0.35
0.58
NR
1 -Methylnaphthalene
0.13
0.16
0.43
0.90
0.033
0.057
NR
2-Methylnaphthalene
0.21
0.28
0.88
1.9
0.039
0.072
NR
Acenaphthylene
0.067
0.064
0.15
0.25
0.049
0.043
NR
Fluorene
0.14
0.16
0.30
0.49
0.056
0.053
NR
1 -Methylphenanthrene
0.13
0.12
0.19
0.16
0.094
0.069
NR
2 -Methylphenanthrene
0.17
0.18
0.32
0.36
0.14
0.14
NR
3 -Methylphenanthrene
0.25
0.26
0.52
0.57
0.24
0.24
NR
Dibenzothiophene
0.075
0.076
0.12
0.15
0.037
0.033
NR
n-Butylbenzene
0.0014
0.030
-0.0046
0.032
-0.0073
0.014
NR
Dimethyl phthalate
0.016
0.027
0.021
0.032
0.0067
0.019
NR
Diisobutyl phthalate
0.074
0.26
0.16
0.35
0.055
0.29
NR
a SVOC = semivolatile organic compound; °C = degrees Celsius
bFields installed 2004-2008 (n=ll); 2009-2012 (n=18); 2013-2016 (n=ll)
0 Statistical tests performed using ln-transformed measurement values
dNR = not reported; one or more measurement results were <0, precluding ln-transformed testing for the complete data set
e Suml5PAH = Sum of 15 of the 16 EPA 'priority' PAHs, including Acenaphthylene, Anthracene, Benz[a]anthracene,
Benzo[a]pyrene, Benzo(b)fluoranthene, Benzo[ghi]perylene, Benzo(k)fluoranthene, Chrysene, Dibenz[a,h]anthracene,
Fluoranthene, Fluorene, Indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene, Naphthalene, Phenanthrene, Pyrene
-------
Table P-8. Comparison of Metals Analyzed by ICP/MS in Tire Crumb Rubber Infill Collected from Outdoor
Synthetic Turf Fields in Three Field Installation Age Groupsa'b
Analytc
2004—2008
Mean
(mg/kg)
2004-2008
Standard
Deviation
(mg/kg)
2009-2012
Mean
(mg/kg)
2009-2012
Standard
Deviation
(mg/kg)
2013-2016
Mean
(mg/kg)
2013-2016
Standard
Deviation
(mg/kg)
F-test
p-value11'
Arsenic
0.43
0.12
0.46
0.22
0.29
0.094
0.0618
Cadmium
0.96
0.30
0.94
0.56
0.73
0.39
0.3877
Chromium
2.1
0.83
1.9
0.98
1.3
0.71
NR
Cobalt
160
45
87
29
170
59
0.0002
Lead
22
4.1
25
20
13
4.7
0.09
Zinc
13000
1700
13000
2800
17000
3400
0.02
Aluminum
1400
680
1700
880
1100
750
0.1507
Antimony
0.80
0.60
0.95
0.41
0.92
0.39
0.6376
Barium
8.6
2.9
9.0
3.3
8.3
8.0
0.3767
Beryllium
0.014
0.0081
0.016
0.038
0.0037
0.037
NR
Copper
26
8.7
21
9.8
31
11
0.0539
Iron
830
310
700
460
670
550
0.4439
Magnesium
280
48
300
120
360
270
0.765
Manganese
00
00
2.9
8.7
5.6
8.2
8.4
0.5984
Molybdenum
0.16
0.053
0.16
0.085
0.14
0.057
0.7452
Nickel
2.6
0.88
2.4
0.76
2.5
0.84
0.9051
Rubidium
1.8
0.38
2.1
0.74
2.0
0.62
0.8065
Strontium
3.6
1.0
3.8
2.2
3.0
1.1
0.4458
Tin
1.3
0.61
1.9
1.4
1.4
1.0
NR
Vanadium
2.1
0.83
2.1
1.3
1.7
0.9
NR
a ICP/MS = inductively coupled plasma/mass spectrometry
b Outdoor fields installed 2004-2008 (n=5); 2009-2012 (n=10); 2013-2016 (n=10)
0 Statistical tests performed using ln-transformed measurement values
dNR = not reported; one or more measurement results were <0, precluding ln-transformed testing for the complete data set
-------
Table P-9. Comparison of Metals Analyzed by XRF in Tire Crumb Rubber Infill Collected from Outdoor
Synthetic Turf Fields in Three Field Installation Age Groupsa'b
Analytc
2004—2008
Mean
(mg/kg)
2004-2008
Standard
Deviation
(mg/kg)
2009-2012
Mean
(mg/kg)
2009-2012
Standard
Deviation
(mg/kg)
2013-2016
Mean
(mg/kg)
2013-2016
Standard
Deviation
(mg/kg)
F-test
p-value'
Chromium
14
1.7
13
3.9
14
2.4
0.2588
Cobalt
38
14
33
16
49
18
0.1183
Lead
29
13
38
14
26
12
0.1714
Zinc
29000
7400
30000
6800
37000
7900
0.0534
Barium
63
18
64
19
48
4.3
0.0541
Copper
100
31
110
34
150
51
0.0237
Iron
1800
1100
1300
470
1100
390
0.2264
Molybdenum
32
19
52
14
49
11
0.0077
Rubidium
46
28
54
19
70
46
0.5513
Strontium
27
24
15
00
00
8.4
2.7
0.014
aXRF = X-ray fluorescence spectrometry
b Outdoor fields installed 2004-2008 (n=5); 2009-2012 (n=10); 2013-2016 (n=10)
0 Statistical tests performed using ln-transformed measurement values
Table P-10. Comparison of SVOCs in Extracts Analyzed by GC/MS/MS in Tire Crumb Rubber Infill
Collected from Outdoor Synthetic Turf Fields in Three Field Installation Age Groupsa'b
Analytc
2004-2008
Mean
(mg/kg)
2004-2008
Standard
Deviation
(mg/kg)
2009-2012
Mean
(mg/kg)
2009-2012
Standard
Deviation
(mg/kg)
2013-2016
Mean
(mg/kg)
2013-2016
Standard
Deviation
(mg/kg)
F-tcst
p-value'll
Phenanthrene
0.18
0.13
0.64
0.44
1.2
0.87
0.0001
Fluoranthene
1.4
0.71
3.5
2.5
4.6
1.8
0.0002
Pyrene
3.5
0.74
8.6
2.8
12
2.8
<0.0001
Benzo[a]pyrene
0.46
0.12
0.73
0.26
0.70
0.51
0.2415
Benzo [ghijperylene
1.1
0.41
1.4
0.54
0.84
0.48
0.07
Suml5PAHe
11
3.8
22
8.7
25
8.5
0.0004
Benzothiazole
1.0
0.58
2.3
1.4
11
13
0.0002
Dibutyl phthalate
0.074
0.043
0.58
0.70
0.95
0.72
0.0034
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
33
34
41
29
15
16
0.029
Aniline
0.18
0.10
0.31
0.18
0.54
0.23
0.0005
4-tert-octylphenol
1.1
1.2
3.6
1.9
4.6
2.0
0.0001
n-Hexadecane
0.13
0.027
0.11
0.067
0.33
0.27
0.0212
Naphthalene
0.0088
0.006
0.015
0.0059
0.015
0.01
0.1061
1 -Methylnaphthalene
0.0035
0.0023
0.0057
0.0022
0.014
0.017
0.0708
2-Methylnaphthalene
0.0083
0.0055
0.013
0.0051
0.022
0.024
0.2075
Acenaphthylene
0.0079
0.0021
0.013
0.0068
0.032
0.020
0.0002
Fluorene
0.0065
0.0042
0.027
0.031
0.061
0.074
0.0039
Anthracene
0.033
0.021
0.14
0.13
0.18
0.14
0.0012
1 -Methylphenanthrene
0.29
0.15
1.0
0.76
1.0
0.49
0.0009
2 -Methylphenanthrene
0.45
0.22
1.1
0.58
1.8
2.0
0.0259
-------
Table P-10 Continued
An aly tc
2004—2008
Mean
(mg/kg)
2004-2008
Standard
Deviation
(mg/kg)
2009-2012
Mean
(mg/kg)
2009-2012
Standard
Deviation
(mg/kg)
2013-2016
Mean
(mg/kg)
2013-2016
Standard
Deviation
(mg/kg)
F-test
p-value'll
3 -Methylphenanthrene
0.36
0.14
1.3
1.3
1.6
0.95
0.0007
Benz(a)anthracene
1.6
1.1
2.4
1.4
2.2
1.3
0.4013
Chrysene
1.1
0.60
2.3
1.8
2.2
1.9
0.2017
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
0.81
0.44
1.3
0.62
1.2
0.96
0.2939
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
0.23
0.19
0.40
0.21
0.43
0.39
0.1316
Benzo(e)pyrene
1.2
0.44
1.9
0.87
1.6
1.1
0.3032
DBA + ICDPf
0.46
0.32
0.50
0.34
0.46
0.29
0.9801
Coronene
0.41
0.19
0.58
0.32
0.34
0.24
0.1236
Dibenzothiophene
0.017
0.013
0.081
0.057
0.15
0.11
<0.0001
Dimethyl phthalate
0.0014
0.0024
0.0040
0.0091
0.006
0.0056
NR
Diethyl phthalate
0.003
0.0041
-0.0066
0.011
-0.0079
0.0097
NR
Diisobutyl phthalate
0.043
0.017
0.35
0.34
0.53
0.33
0.0001
Benzyl butyl phthalate
0.056
0.041
0.38
0.34
0.69
0.39
0.0002
Di-n-octyl phthalate
0.053
0.049
0.15
0.11
0.15
0.15
NR
Bis(2,2,6,6-tetramethyl-4-
piperidyl) sebacate
0.30
0.22
1.2
1.2
1.1
0.92
NR
Cyclohexylisothiocyanate
0.15
0.14
0.11
0.11
0.20
0.067
NR
a SVOC = semivolatile organic compound; GC/MS/MS= gas chromatography/tandem mass spectrometry
b Outdoor fields installed 2004-2008 (n=5); 2009-2012 (n=10); 2013-2016 (n=10)
0 Statistical tests performed using ln-transformed measurement values
dNR = not reported; one or more measurement results were <0, precluding ln-transformed testing for the complete data set
e Suml5PAH = Sum of 15 of the 16 EPA 'priority' PAHs, including Acenaphthylene, Anthracene, Benz[a]anthracene,
Benzo[a]pyrene, Benzo(b)fluoranthene, Benzo[ghi]perylene, Benzo(k)fluoranthene, Chrysene, Dibenz[a,h]anthracene,
Fluoranthene, Fluorene, Indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene, Naphthalene, Phenanthrene, Pyrene
fDBA + ICDP = Sum of Dibenz[a,h]anthracene and Indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene
-------
Table P-ll. Comparison of VOC 25 °C Emission Factor Results for Tire Crumb Rubber Infill Collected
from Outdoor Synthetic Turf Fields in Three Field Installation Age Groupsa'b
Analytc
2004—2008
Mean
(mg/kg)
2004-2008
Standard
Deviation
(mg/kg)
2009-2012
Mean
(mg/kg)
2009-2012
Standard
Deviation
(mg/kg)
2013-2016
Mean
(mg/kg)
2013-2016
Standard
Deviation
(mg/kg)
F-test
p-value'll
Benzothiazole
2.6
6.0
3.5
4
20
23
NR
o-Xylene
0.073
0.10
-0.012
0.041
-0.021
0.047
NR
SumBTEXe
0.47
1.4
0.11
0.77
0.19
1.1
NR
T richlorofluoro methane
(Freon 11)
0.11
0.70
-0.013
0.7
-0.46
0.44
NR
Dichlorodifluoromethane
(Freon 12)
-0.016
0.031
-0.029
0.029
-0.030
0.055
NR
11 VOC = volatile organic compound; °C = degrees Celsius
b Outdoor fields installed 2004-2008 (n=5); 2013-2016 (n=9-10)
0 Statistical tests performed using ln-transformed measurement values
dNR = not reported; one or more measurement results were <0, precluding ln-transformed testing for the complete data set
e SumBTEX = Sum of benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, m/p-xylene, and o-xylene
Table P-12. Comparison of VOC 60 °C Emission Factor Results for Tire Crumb Rubber Infill Collected
from Outdoor Synthetic Turf Fields in Three Field Installation Age Groupsa'b
Analytc
2004-2008
Mean
(mg/kg)
2004-2008
Standard
Deviation
(mg/kg)
2009-2012
Mean
(mg/kg)
2009-2012
Standard
Deviation
(mg/kg)
2013-2016
Mean
(mg/kg)
2013-2016
Standard
Deviation
(mg/kg)
F-test
p-valuecd
Formaldehyde
15
7.7
10
6.3
12
3.3
NR
Metyl isobutyl ketone
22
5.3
22
8.4
39
21
0.061
Benzothiazole
27
41
20
14
55
33
0.0709
Styrene
0.27
0.32
0.26
0.36
0.20
0.21
NR
Toluene
0.073
0.21
-0.013
0.24
0.27
0.44
NR
Ethylbenzene
-0.14
0.19
-0.13
0.22
-0.11
0.21
NR
m/p-Xylene
0.14
1.3
0.11
1.1
-0.089
0.71
NR
o-Xylene
-0.18
1.0
-0.3
0.74
-0.62
0.44
NR
SumBTEX6
-0.45
2.4
-0.51
2.5
-0.36
1.9
NR
trans-2-Butene
-0.35
0.19
-0.17
0.31
-0.29
0.28
NR
cis-2-Butene
-0.31
0.17
-0.16
0.27
-0.26
0.26
NR
T etrachloroethylene
0.022
0.065
-0.014
0.011
0.00008
0.022
NR
Chlorobenzene
0.029
0.059
0.00089
0.023
-0.0074
0.036
NR
p-Dichlorobenzene
0.000017
0.26
0.0074
0.14
0.067
0.15
NR
T richlorofluoro methane
(Freon 11)
0.12
0.61
0.037
0.67
-0.42
0.40
NR
Dichlorodifluoromethane
(Freon 12)
-0.0065
0.017
0.0022
0.050
-0.0067
0.013
NR
a VOC = volatile organic compound; °C = degrees Celsius
b Outdoor fields installed 2004-2008 (n=5); 2009-2012 (n=10); 2013-2016 (n=9-10)
0 Statistical tests performed using ln-transformed measurement values
dNR = not reported; one or more measurement results were <0, precluding ln-transformed testing for the complete data set
e SumBTEX = Sum of benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, m/p-xylene, and o-xylene
-------
Table P-13. Comparison of SVOC 25 °C Emission Factor Results for Tire Crumb Rubber Infill Collected
from Outdoor Synthetic Turf Fields in Three Field Installation Age Groupsa'b
Analytc
2004—2008
Mean
(mg/kg)
2004-2008
Standard
Deviation
(mg/kg)
2009-2012
Mean
(mg/kg)
2009-2012
Standard
Deviation
(mg/kg)
2013-2016
Mean
(mg/kg)
2013-2016
Standard
Deviation
(mg/kg)
F-test
|)-valuccd
Phenanthrene
0.0064
0.023
0.027
0.038
0.013
0.070
NR
Suml5PAHe
0.63
0.29
0.49
0.67
0.61
0.58
0.3117
Benzothiazole
0.065
0.14
0.70
0.46
3.1
3.7
NR
Dibutyl phthalate
0.076
0.34
0.16
0.38
0.021
0.37
NR
Aniline
0.011
0.065
0.00092
0.084
0.21
0.26
NR
4-tert-octylphenol
0.010
0.044
0.0012
0.12
1.6
5.0
NR
Naphthalene
0.16
0.13
0.071
0.27
0.067
0.26
NR
1 -Methylnaphthalene
0.035
0.044
0.00011
0.020
-0.0039
0.037
NR
2-Methylnaphthalene
0.069
0.090
0.0052
0.033
-0.019
0.075
NR
Fluorene
0.0037
0.019
0.0047
0.011
0.00002
0.012
NR
n-Butylbenzene
0.00050
0.010
0.0045
0.026
-0.0095
0.028
NR
Diisobutyl phthalate
-0.042
0.18
0.13
0.23
0.0041
0.27
NR
a SVOC = semivolatile organic compound; °C = degrees Celsius
b Outdoor fields installed 2004-2008 (n=5); 2009-2012 (n=10); 2013-2016 (n=10)
0 Statistical tests performed using ln-transformed measurement values
dNR = not reported; one or more measurement results were <0, precluding ln-transformed testing for the complete data set
e Suml5PAH = Sum of 15 of the 16 EPA 'priority' PAHs, including Acenaphthylene, Anthracene, Benz[a]anthracene,
Benzo[a]pyrene, Benzo(b)fluoranthene, Benzo[ghi]perylene, Benzo(k)fluoranthene, Chrysene, Dibenz[a,h]anthracene,
Fluoranthene, Fluorene, Indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene, Naphthalene, Phenanthrene, Pyrene
-------
Table P-14. Comparison of SVOC 60 °C Emission Factor Results for Tire Crumb Rubber Infill Collected
from Outdoor Synthetic Turf Fields in Three Field Installation Age Groupsa'b
Analytc
2004—2008
Mean
(mg/kg)
2004-2008
Standard
Deviation
(mg/kg)
2009-2012
Mean
(mg/kg)
2009-2012
Standard
Deviation
(mg/kg)
2013-2016
Mean
(mg/kg)
2013-2016
Standard
Deviation
(mg/kg)
F-test
|)-valuecd
Phenanthrene
0.0023
0.095
0.15
0.17
0.28
0.27
NR
Fluoranthene
0.059
0.037
0.11
0.091
0.13
0.092
NR
Pyrene
0.12
0.050
0.19
0.13
0.26
0.16
NR
Suml5PAHe
0.54
0.029
0.97
0.48
1.3
0.80
0.0774
Benzothiazole
2.4
1.1
6.0
5.8
17
14
NR
Dibutyl phthalate
-0.14
0.11
0.21
0.53
0.14
0.40
NR
Aniline
0.17
0.096
0.48
0.43
1.4
1.4
NR
4-tert-octylphenol
0.47
0.37
2.9
3.6
4.0
2.9
NR
Naphthalene
-0.22
0.49
-0.08
0.4
-0.38
0.59
NR
1 -Methylnaphthalene
-0.022
0.073
0.0041
0.020
0.030
0.059
NR
2-Methylnaphthalene
-0.052
0.15
0.015
0.035
0.031
0.071
NR
Acenaphthylene
0.0081
0.0028
0.012
0.0076
0.050
0.045
NR
Fluorene
-0.0048
0.031
0.020
0.025
0.048
0.048
NR
1 -Methylphenanthrene
0.028
0.0084
0.086
0.069
0.084
0.065
NR
2 -Methylphenanthrene
0.027
0.0059
0.099
0.092
0.12
0.13
NR
3 -Methylphenanthrene
0.041
0.0078
0.18
0.18
0.22
0.23
NR
Dibenzothiophene
0.0020
0.0065
0.018
0.018
0.032
0.030
NR
n-Butylbenzene
-0.015
0.024
-0.0092
0.011
-0.0090
0.013
NR
Dimethyl phthalate
-0.00092
0.0087
0.0017
0.011
0.0016
0.0095
NR
Diisobutyl phthalate
-0.081
0.23
0.049
0.29
0.048
0.31
NR
11 SVOC = semivolatile organic compound; °C = degrees Celsius
b Outdoor fields installed 2004-2008 (n=ll); 2009-2012 (n=18); 2013-2016 (n=ll)
0 Statistical tests performed using ln-transformed measurement values
dNR = not reported; one or more measurement results were <0, precluding ln-transformed testing for the complete data set
e Suml5PAH = Sum of 15 of the 16 EPA 'priority' PAHs, including Acenaphthylene, Anthracene, Benz[a]anthracene,
Benzo[a]pyrene, Benzo(b)fluoranthene, Benzo[ghi]perylene, Benzo(k)fluoranthene, Chrysene, Dibenz[a,h]anthracene,
Fluoranthene, Fluorene, Indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene, Naphthalene, Phenanthrene, Pyrene
-------
[This page intentionally left blank.]
-------
Appendix Q
Tire Crumb Rubber Measurement Results -
Differences Among Synthetic Turf Fields in
Different U.S. Census Regions
-------
Table Q-l. Comparison of Metals Analyzed by ICP/MS in Tire Crumb Rubber Infill Collected at Synthetic Turf
Fields in Four Geographic Regionsa'b
Analytcs
Northeast
Mean
(mg/kg)
Northeast
Standard
Deviation
(mg/kg)
South
Mean
(mg/kg)
South
Standard
Deviation
(mg/kg)
Midwest
Mean
(mg/kg)
Midwest
Standard
Deviation
(mg/kg)
West
Mean
(mg/kg)
West
Standard
Deviation
(mg/kg)
F-test
|)-valuccl1
Arsenic
0.36
0.13
0.33
0.23
0.43
0.29
0.42
0.11
0.2021
Cadmium
1.1
0.49
0.75
0.41
1.3
1.2
0.78
0.38
0.1562
Chromium
1.9
0.68
1.3
1.1
1.5
0.51
2.0
0.78
NR
Cobalt
110
43
140
55
150
84
150
59
0.3609
Lead
20
16
18
13
25
22
34
44
0.5454
Zinc
14000
2400
15000
3500
17000
3000
14000
2400
0.1387
Aluminum
1300
910
1300
650
1000
800
1400
690
0.3681
Antimony
1.1
0.50
0.93
0.44
0.95
0.28
0.88
0.46
0.6493
Barium
8.0
2.0
10
8.4
6.0
2.4
8.2
3.0
0.4157
Beryllium
0.014
0.021
-0.0093
0.044
0.0094
0.0073
0.023
0.013
NR
Copper
26
12
27
14
28
15
23
7.3
0.9566
Iron
690
440
580
480
410
170
720
370
0.1118
Magnesium
280
57
310
250
420
410
330
100
0.5941
Manganese
8.5
5.1
7.9
7.8
6.1
2.3
8.0
2.4
0.4026
Molybdenum
0.18
0.042
0.13
0.087
0.16
0.029
0.16
0.064
0.1136
Nickel
2.8
0.63
2.1
0.70
3.6
0.76
2.7
0.85
0.001
Rubidium
1.6
0.34
1.8
0.71
1.8
0.49
2.2
0.51
0.0442
Strontium
4.1
1.8
3.1
1.4
3.5
1.6
3.2
0.85
0.2841
Tin
1.6
0.59
1.6
1.3
1.3
0.89
1.7
1.3
NR
Vanadium
2
1.1
1.6
0.88
1.7
0.58
2.3
0.74
NR
a ICP/MS = inductively coupled plasma/mass spectrometry
bNortheast (n=9); South (n=13); Midwest (n=8); West (n=10)
0 Statistical tests performed using ln-transformed measurement values
d NR = not reported; one or more measurement results were <0, precluding ln-transformed testing for the complete data set
-------
Table Q-2. Comparison of Metals Analyzed by XRF in Tire Crumb Rubber Infill Collected at Synthetic Turf
Fields in Four Geographic Regionsa'b
Analytcs
Northeast
Mean
(mg/kg)
Northeast
Standard
Deviation
(mg/kg)
South
Mean
(mg/kg)
South
Standard
Deviation
(mg/kg)
Midwest
Mean
(mg/kg)
Midwest
Standard
Deviation
(mg/kg)
West
Mean
(mg/kg)
West
Standard
Deviation
(mg/kg)
F-test
p-value'
Chromium
14
2.3
14
2.8
14
3.3
13
3.4
0.419
Cobalt
29
16
42
16
42
17
40
18
0.2355
Lead
38
28
35
20
36
11
37
28
0.94
Zinc
29000
6700
34000
7400
37000
6400
33000
6700
0.0767
Barium
59
17
58
15
64
13
60
19
0.8035
Copper
100
36
130
51
130
37
120
44
0.179
Iron
1400
440
1200
780
1100
380
1200
420
0.406
Molybdenum
41
10
48
13
46
7.3
50
19
0.6138
Rubidium
41
15
54
39
62
31
67
19
0.071
Strontium
12
4.3
10
6.5
8.2
1.9
25
22
0.0045
aXRF = X-ray fluorescence spectrometry
b Northeast (n=9); South (n=13); Midwest (n=8); West (n=10)
0 Statistical tests performed using ln-transformed measurement values.
Table Q-3. Comparison of SVOCs in Extracts Analyzed by GC/MS/MS for Tire Crumb Rubber Infill Collected at
Synthetic Turf Fields in Four Geographic Regionsa'b	
Analytcs
Northeast
Mean
(mg/kg)
Northeast
Standard
Deviation
(mg/kg)
South
Mean
(mg/kg)
South
Standard
Deviation
(mg/kg)
Midwest
Mean
(mg/kg)
Midwest
Standard
Deviation
(mg/kg)
West
Mean
(mg/kg)
West
Standard
Deviation
(mg/kg)
F-test
p-value c'd
Phenanthrene
3.8
4.2
1.3
1.3
3.3
2.3
1.4
1.4
0.1894
Fluoranthene
5.1
3.4
5.2
2.6
4.9
1.9
2.8
1.3
0.0494
Pyrene
13
8.3
12
5.3
16
4.8
9.9
5.6
0.1743
Benzo[a]pyrene
1.1
0.80
0.80
0.49
0.69
0.27
0.57
0.25
0.1887
Benzo [ghijperylene
1.5
0.37
1.4
0.83
1.1
0.63
1.2
0.57
0.4213
Suml5PAHe
33
21
29
12
34
12
22
11
0.1567
Benzothiazole
13
19
8.6
12
15
12
7.7
6.4
0.3539
Dibutyl phthalate
2
2.5
1.0
1.1
1.8
1.1
1.4
1.2
0.3835
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
33
26
47
51
45
55
43
36
0.9489
Aniline
0.75
0.75
0.57
0.33
0.98
0.68
0.50
0.31
0.2898
4-tert-octylphenol
8.0
6.7
8.2
11
19
11
6.5
6.6
0.0392
n-Hexadecane
1.3
1.8
0.52
0.90
1.6
1.4
0.68
0.80
0.0665
Naphthalene
0.038
0.043
0.017
0.0093
0.069
0.068
0.024
0.021
0.047
1 -Methylnaphthalene
0.10
0.17
0.011
0.011
0.094
0.10
0.019
0.030
0.0294
2-Methylnaphthalene
0.13
0.21
0.018
0.016
0.20
0.28
0.033
0.042
0.0255
Acenaphthylene
0.067
0.086
0.028
0.020
0.08
0.072
0.023
0.020
0.0911
Fluorene
0.38
0.51
0.079
0.098
0.26
0.19
0.089
0.11
0.1874
Anthracene
1.0
1.3
0.24
0.25
0.68
0.60
0.31
0.39
0.2131
1 -Methylphenanthrene
2.1
1.9
1.3
0.88
1.9
1.2
1.2
1.1
0.2871
2 -Methylphenanthrene
6.9
8.5
1.4
0.91
2.4
1.5
2.1
2.3
0.0938
-------
Table Q-3 Continued
Analytcs
Northeast
Mean
(mg/kg)
Northeast
Standard
Deviation
(mg/kg)
South
Mean
(mg/kg)
South
Standard
Deviation
(mg/kg)
Midwest
Mean
(mg/kg)
Midwest
Standard
Deviation
(mg/kg)
West
Mean
(mg/kg)
West
Standard
Deviation
(mg/kg)
F-test
p-value'll
3 -Methylphenanthrene
3.1
3.1
1.7
1.3
2.9
2.4
2.0
1.7
0.6722
Benz(a)anthracene
3.1
1.4
2.3
1.4
1.6
1.2
1.8
1.1
0.0451
Chrysene
2.4
1.9
2.9
2.1
2.8
1.3
1.9
1.7
0.4118
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
1.4
1.0
1.6
0.93
1.2
0.53
1.0
0.48
0.3877
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
0.49
0.43
0.56
0.35
0.44
0.16
0.28
0.13
0.0971
Benzo(e)pyrene
2.0
0.96
2.1
1.2
1.9
0.91
1.5
0.72
0.5566
DBA + ICDPf
0.47
0.18
0.64
0.38
0.53
0.32
0.49
0.32
0.8927
Coronene
0.46
0.14
0.58
0.43
0.59
0.25
0.51
0.32
0.8249
Dibenzothiophene
0.48
0.55
0.18
0.20
0.45
0.30
0.21
0.22
0.2496
Dimethyl phthalate
0.066
0.11
0.0054
0.0051
0.044
0.059
0.0055
0.0088
NR
Diethyl phthalate
0.13
0.19
1.2
4.1
0.33
0.27
0.029
0.099
NR
Diisobutyl phthalate
2.1
3.1
0.72
0.70
1.6
1.7
0.91
1.0
0.49
Benzyl butyl phthalate
1.1
1.6
0.76
0.75
2.3
3.9
0.82
0.65
0.2073
Di-n-octyl phthalate
0.18
0.31
0.23
0.23
0.38
0.13
0.22
0.22
NR
Bis(2,2,6,6-tetramethyl-4-
piperidyl) sebacate
0.52
0.27
1.2
1.1
0.55
0.80
0.76
0.98
NR
Cyclohexylisothiocyanate
0.30
0.31
0.18
0.086
0.32
0.19
0.24
0.12
NR
a SVOC = semivolatile organic compound; GC/MS/MS= gas chromatography/tandem mass spectrometry
bNortheast (n=9); South (n=13); Midwest (n=8); West (n=10)
0 Statistical tests performed using ln-transformed measurement values
dNR = not reported; one or more measurement results were <0, precluding ln-transformed testing for the complete data set
e Suml5PAH = Sum of 15 of the 16 EPA 'priority' PAHs, including Acenaphthylene, Anthracene, Benz[a]anthracene,
Benzo[a]pyrene, Benzo(b)fluoranthene, Benzo[ghi]perylene, Benzo(k)fluoranthene, Chrysene, Dibenz[a,h]anthracene,
Fluoranthene, Fluorene, Indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene, Naphthalene, Phenanthrene, Pyrene
fDBA + ICDP = Sum of Dibenz[a,h]anthracene and Indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene
-------
Table Q-4. Comparison of VOC 25 °C Emission Factor Results for Tire Crumb Rubber Infill Collected at Synthetic
Turf Fields in Four Geographic Regionsa'b
Analytcs
Northeast
Mean
(mg/kg)
Northeast
Standard
Deviation
(mg/kg)
South
Mean
(mg/kg)
South
Standard
Deviation
(mg/kg)
Midwest
Mean
(mg/kg)
Midwest
Standard
Deviation
(mg/kg)
West
Mean
(mg/kg)
West
Standard
Deviation
(mg/kg)
F-test
p-value11'
Benzothiazole
23
31
15
22
46
38
21
18
NR
o-Xylene
0.068
0.12
0.005
0.081
0.04
0.097
0.03
0.068
NR
SumBTEXe
0.17
0.53
0.12
0.89
0.37
0.61
0.63
1.1
NR
T richlorofluoro methane
(Freon 11)
0.061
0.84
-0.33
0.51
0.67
0.12
-0.028
0.63
NR
Dichlorodifluoro methane
(Freon 12)
-0.019
0.023
-0.039
0.069
-0.0071
0.028
-0.013
0.044
NR
a VOC = volatile organic compound; °C = degrees Celsius
bNortheast (n=8); South (n=13); Midwest (n=8); West (n=9)
0 Statistical tests performed using ln-transformed measurement values
dNR = not reported; one or more measurement results were <0, precluding ln-transformed testing for the complete data sete SumBTEX =
Sum of benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, m/p-xylene, and o-xylene
Table Q-5. Comparison of VOC 60 °C Emission Factor Results for Tire Crumb Rubber Infill Collected at Synthetic
Turf Fields in Four Geographic Regionsa'b 							
Analytcs
Northeast
Mean
(mg/kg)
Northeast
Standard
Deviation
(mg/kg)
South
Mean
(mg/kg)
South
Standard
Deviation
(mg/kg)
Midwest
Mean
(mg/kg)
Midwest
Standard
Deviation
(mg/kg)
West
Mean
(mg/kg)
West
Standard
Deviation
(mg/kg)
F-test
p-value1'1
Formaldehyde
20
18
12
4.9
19
4.7
16
2.3
NR
Methyl isobutyl ketone
37
31
33
19
67
26
38
22
0.0267
Benzothiazole
37
43
44
38
81
38
62
32
0.0393
Styrene
0.57
0.44
0.21
0.30
0.78
0.42
0.41
0.34
NR
Toluene
0.032
0.18
0.074
0.35
0.29
0.30
0.22
0.29
NR
Ethylbenzene
-0.074
0.24
-0.20
0.17
0.038
0.20
-0.023
0.25
NR
m/p-Xylene
0.20
0.83
-0.34
0.66
0.78
0.97
0.60
1.2
NR
o-Xylene
-0.31
0.46
-0.72
0.47
-0.19
0.56
-0.024
0.87
NR
SumBTEX6
-0.31
1.8
-1.2
1.7
1.0
2.0
0.67
2.5
NR
trans-2-Butene
-0.21
0.12
-0.32
0.31
-0.19
0.12
-0.24
0.27
NR
cis-2-Butene
-0.18
0.11
-0.30
0.27
-0.18
0.10
-0.21
0.24
NR
T etrachloroethylene
-0.0064
0.017
-0.0003
0.023
0.014
0.033
0.0062
0.046
NR
Chlorobenzene
-0.0058
0.049
-0.019
0.040
0.015
0.099
0.0050
0.049
NR
p-Dichlorobenzene
0.0063
0.22
-0.018
0.16
0.26
0.31
0.10
0.16
NR
T richlorofluoro methane
(Freon 11)
0.31
0.73
-0.33
0.50
0.71
0.22
-0.033
0.56
NR
Dichlorodifluoro methane
(Freon 12)
-0.0072
0.019
-0.024
0.039
0.017
0.031
0.0032
0.043
NR
11 VOC = volatile organic compound; °C = degrees Celsius
b Northeast (n=6-9); South (n=13); Midwest (n=8); West (n=10)
0 Statistical tests performed using ln-transformed measurement values
dNR = not reported; one or more measurement results were <0, precluding ln-transformed testing for the complete data set
e SumBTEX = Sum of benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, m/p-xylene, and o-xylene
-------
Table Q-6. Comparison of SVOC 25 °C Emission Factor Results for Tire Crumb Rubber Infill Collected at
Synthetic Turf Fields in Four Geographic Regionsa'b
Analvtcs
Northeast
Mean
(mg/kg)
Northeast
Standard
Deviation
(mg/kg)
South
Mean
(mg/kg)
South
Standard
Deviation
(mg/kg)
Midwest
Mean
(mg/kg)
Midwest
Standard
Deviation
(mg/kg)
West
Mean
(mg/kg)
West
Standard
Deviation
(mg/kg)
F-test
p-value1'1
Phenanthrene
0.021
0.074
0.040
0.055
0.028
0.025
0.0056
0.011
NR
Suml5PAHe
0.71
0.37
0.92
0.97
0.37
0.23
0.35
0.15
0.0403
Benzothiazole
4.8
6.5
2.8
3.6
7.9
6.7
2.5
2.9
NR
Dibutyl phthalate
0.095
0.41
0.15
0.37
-0.27
0.27
-0.11
0.33
NR
Aniline
0.25
0.38
0.19
0.28
0.82
0.57
0.24
0.36
NR
4-tert-octylphenol
1.7
4.6
1.3
4.4
0.23
0.16
0.061
0.082
NR
Naphthalene
0.13
0.24
0.29
0.58
0.062
0.18
0.021
0.12
NR
1 -Methy lnaphthalene
0.09
0.16
0.0094
0.039
0.040
0.067
0.011
0.027
NR
2-Methylnaphthalene
0.13
0.23
0.018
0.093
0.12
0.26
0.018
0.047
NR
Fluorene
0.025
0.032
0.0071
0.011
0.012
0.014
0.0031
0.0097
NR
n-Butylbenzene
0.078
0.25
-0.0018
0.028
0.0050
0.019
0.0026
0.020
NR
Diisobutyl phthalate
0.0091
0.30
0.081
0.27
-0.14
0.082
0.058
0.18
NR
a SVOC = semivolatile organic compound; °C = degrees Celsius
bNortheast (n=9); South (n=13); Midwest (n=8); West (n=10)
0 Statistical tests performed using ln-transformed measurement values
dNR = not reported; one or more measurement results were <0, precluding ln-transformed testing for the complete data set
e Suml5PAH = Sum of 15 of the 16 EPA 'priority' PAHs, including Acenaphthylene, Anthracene, Benz[a]anthracene,
Benzo[a]pyrene, Benzo(b)fluoranthene, Benzo[ghi]perylene, Benzo(k)fluoranthene, Chrysene, Dibenz[a,h]anthracene,
Fluoranthene, Fluorene, Indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene, Naphthalene, Phenanthrene, Pyrene
-------
Table Q-7. Comparison of SVOC 60 °C Emission Factor Results for Tire Crumb Rubber Infill Collected at
Synthetic Turf Fields in Four Geographic Regionsa'b
Analytcs
Northeast
Mean
(mg/kg)
Northeast
Standard
Deviation
(mg/kg)
South
Mean
(mg/kg)
South
Standard
Deviation
(mg/kg)
Midwest
Mean
(mg/kg)
Midwest
Standard
Deviation
(mg/kg)
West
Mean
(mg/kg)
West
Standard
Deviation
(mg/kg)
F-test
p-value1'1
Phenanthrene
1.0
1.2
0.35
0.44
0.71
0.57
0.35
0.36
NR
Fluoranthene
0.23
0.15
0.16
0.10
0.13
0.081
0.11
0.093
NR
Pyrene
0.42
0.29
0.29
0.19
0.26
0.18
0.20
0.14
NR
Suml5PAHe
3.2
3.2
1.5
1.0
2.4
1.6
1.2
0.7
0.4212
Benzothiazole
49
75
15
15
70
64
16
12
NR
Dibutyl phthalate
0.14
0.34
0.27
0.31
-0.037
0.45
0.13
0.55
NR
Aniline
6.2
8.1
1.0
1.2
6.5
5.3
1.9
2.2
NR
4-tert-octylphenol
6.3
6.5
6.2
6.4
7.3
5.1
3.8
3.5
NR
Naphthalene
-0.38
0.52
-0.37
0.63
0.34
0.53
0.012
0.086
NR
1 -Methylnaphthalene
0.55
1.2
0.042
0.062
0.42
0.49
0.060
0.12
NR
2-Methylnaphthalene
0.78
1.7
0.076
0.099
1.2
2.1
0.087
0.18
NR
Acenaphthylene
0.20
0.32
0.044
0.042
0.16
0.16
0.037
0.039
NR
Fluorene
0.44
0.67
0.072
0.089
0.23
0.17
0.078
0.10
NR
1 -Methylphenanthrene
0.21
0.19
0.12
0.098
0.15
0.12
0.12
0.11
NR
2 -Methylphenanthrene
0.38
0.44
0.14
0.16
0.25
0.25
0.19
0.20
NR
3 -Methylphenanthrene
0.64
0.71
0.26
0.28
0.35
0.37
0.29
0.27
NR
Dibenzothiophene
0.16
0.19
0.046
0.063
0.11
0.092
0.054
0.060
NR
n-Butylbenzene
-0.025
0.030
-0.0021
0.0069
0.024
0.035
-0.0084
0.015
NR
Dimethyl phthalate
0.018
0.025
0.0034
0.0082
0.043
0.038
0.0082
0.024
NR
Diisobutyl phthalate
0.17
0.39
0.19
0.28
0.03
0.21
0.019
0.32
NR
a SVOC = semivolatile organic compound; °C = degrees Celsius
bNortheast (n=9); South (n=13); Midwest (n=8); West (n=10)
0 Statistical tests performed using ln-transformed measurement values
dNR = not reported; one or more measurement results were <0, precluding ln-transformed testing for the complete data set
e Suml5PAH = Sum of 15 of the 16 EPA 'priority' PAHs, including Acenaphthylene, Anthracene, Benz[a]anthracene,
Benzo[a]pyrene, Benzo(b)fluoranthene, Benzo[ghi]perylene, Benzo(k)fluoranthene, Chrysene, Dibenz[a,h]anthracene,
Fluoranthene, Fluorene, Indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene, Naphthalene, Phenanthrene, Pyrene
-------
[This page intentionally left blank.]
-------
Appendix R
Non-Targeted Screening Analysis
Results for SVOCs and VOCs
-------
R.1 Non-Targeted Analysis
In this study we selected a subset of tire crumb rubber samples from recycling plants and a
subset of tire crumb rubber infill samples from indoor and outdoor synthetic turf fields for non-
targeted screening analysis. This strategy allows assessment of chemicals potentially associated
with 'fresh' recycled tire material and to see whether those chemicals are also observed in the
infill collected at synthetic turf fields. It also allows the reverse assessment - chemicals found in
synthetic turf field infill samples that are not observed in the recycling plant samples - to better
assess the extent that chemicals from sources other than the tire crumb rubber material are
appearing in the infill.
Six tire recycling plant samples, five outdoor field infill samples, and five indoor field infill
samples were selected for non-targeted screening analyses. Non-targeted analyses were
performed for solvent extract samples by both GC/MS and LC/TOFMS. Non-targeted analyses
were also performed for chamber emission test samples generated at 60° C using GC/MS and
LC/TOFMS methods for SVOCs, and by GC/TOFMS for VOCs. The highly tentative non-
targeted screening results for each type of analysis are shown in Tables R-l to R-7.
Emphasizing that these non-targeted screening analysis chemical identifications are highly
tentative, it is not recommended that these results be used for cumulative exposure assessment,
toxicity information collation, or risk assessment at this time. Additional work would be needed
to build upon these results for more certain chemical identity confirmations and determination or
estimations of relative amounts.
-------
Table R-l. Non-Targeted Analysis SVOC Results for Tire Crumb Rubber Extracts by GC/MS - Highly Tentative Screening Resultsa'b'c
Tentative Chemical Identification
•	Match Factor >50%
•	Minimum Frequency = 3
•	In Order of Retention Time
CAS
Number'1
Recycling
Plants
Frequency
Recycling
Plants
Mean
Area
Counts
Indoor
Fields
Frequency
Indoor
Fields
Mean
Area
Counts
Outdoor
Fields
Frequency
Outdoor
Fields
Mean
Area
Counts
Reagent
Blanks
Mean
Area
Counts
Nonane, 2,6-dimethyl-
17302-28-2
0
N/A
2
2.0E+05
4
3.3E+05
0
1-Octanol, 2-butyl-
3913-02-8
0
N/A
2
1.8E+05
3
1.5E+05
0
Dodecane, 4,6-dimethyl-
61141-72-8
0
N/A
1
1.2E+05
5
8.4E+04
0
Benzothiazole
95-16-9
6
4.9E+06
3
1.8E+06
1
2.8E+05
0
Benzene, 1,3 -bis(l, 1 -dimethylethyl)-
1014-60-4
1
8.9E+05
3
9.8E+05
4
1.3E+06
0
1-Decanol, 2-methyl-
18675-24-6
0
N/A
4
2.0E+05
6
2.2E+05
0
Cyclohexanamine, N-cyclohexyl-
101-83-7
4
3.0E+06
3
1.4E+06
2
1.5E+06
0
Quinoline, 1,2-dihydro-2,2,4-trimethyl-
147-47-7
3
1.5E+06
0
N/A
1
1.0E+05
0
7-Methoxy-2,2,4,8-tetramethyltricyclo[5.3.1.0(4,1 l)]undecane
1000140-32-8
6
1.1E+06
3
7.2E+05
1
9.3E+04
0
Phthalimide
85-41-6
3
1.1E+06
0
N/A
0
N/A
0
1-Decanol, 2-hexyl-
2425-77-6
0
N/A
3
6.8E+04
2
9.6E+04
0
Phenol, 4-(l,l,3,3-tetramethylbutyl)- (Alternate name: 4-tert-octylphenol)
140-66-9
6
7.7E+06
5
3.9E+06
4
8.0E+05
0
cis-11 -Eicosenoic acid
5561-99-9
3
1.7E+06
0
N/A
0
N/A
0
2-Dodecen-1 -yl(-)succinic anhydride
19780-11-1
0
N/A
1
5.6E+04
3
1.3E+05
0
3,5 -di -tert-Butyl -4 -hy droxybenzaldehy de
1620-98-0
1
5.0E+05
3
3.1E+05
0
N/A
0
1 -Heptatriacotanol
105794-58-9
0
N/A
1
2.5E+04
5
2.2E+05
0
Octadecane
593-45-3
3
2.6E+05
2
1.5E+05
1
1.9E+05
0
Heptadecane, 9-hexyl-
55124-79-3
1
8.8E+05
4
5.7E+05
3
2.8E+05
0
Nonadecane
629-92-5
4
7.3E+05
3
4.4E+05
1
4.0E+05
0
Hexadecanoic acid, methyl ester
112-39-0
5
1.0E+06
3
6.2E+05
1
7.2E+04
0
lH-Cyclopropa[l]phenanthrene, 1 a,9b-dihydro-
949-41-7
0
N/A
3
2.7E+05
0
N/A
0
Eicosane
112-95-8
3
8.8E+05
0
N/A
1
7.5E+05
0
Benzothiazole, 2-phenyl-
883-93-2
3
7.0E+05
1
1.2E+06
2
5.8E+05
0
10,18-Bisnorabieta-8,11,13 -triene
32624-67-2
1
3.8E+05
2
5.6E+05
3
4.6E+05
0
8,11-Octadecadienoic acid, methyl ester
56599-58-7
3
2.2E+05
0
N/A
0
N/A
0
Fluoranthene
206-44-0
1
3.5E+06
2
1.7E+06
4
1.8E+06
0
Heneicosane
629-94-7
4
1.4E+06
2
5.0E+05
4
4.9E+05
0
Heptacosane
593-49-7
4
2.1E+06
3
9.4E+05
0
N/A
0
Phorbol
17673-25-5
1
9.4E+04
3
1.3E+05
3
5.9E+04
0
-------
Table R-l Continued
Tentative Chemical Identification
CAS Number
Recycling
Recycling
Indoor
Indoor
Outdoor
Outdoor
Reagent
• Match Factor >50%

Plants
Plants
Fields
Fields
Fields
Fields
Blanks
•	Minimum Frequency = 3
•	In Order of Retention Time

Frequency
Mean
Area
Counts
Frequency
Mean
Area
Counts
Frequency
Mean
Area
Counts
Mean
Area
Counts
Methyl stearate
112-61-8
5
1.1E+06
3
7.5E+05
1
5.5E+05
0
Silane, diethylheptyloxy(3 -methylbutoxy) -
1000362-99-7
3
3.1E+06
2
2.8E+06
2
1.6E+06
0
Silane, diethylisobutoxyoctyloxy-
1000363-06-4
3
2.6E+06
2
1.4E+06
1
2.0E+06
0
Pyrene
129-00-0
5
2.7E+06
4
3.4E+06
3
1.6E+06
0
Phenanthrene, 2,3,5-trimethyl-
3674-73-5
0
N/A
4
4.4E+05
2
2.1E+05
0
Docosane
629-97-0
6
1.3E+06
4
5.5E+05
4
9.3E+05
0
Acetic acid n-octadecyl ester
822-23-1
6
3.3E+05
2
4.1E+05
2
2.6E+05
0
7,8-Epoxylanostan-11 -ol, 3 -acetoxy-
1000187-60-9
2
2.5E+05
2
9.1E+04
9
4.3E+04
0
Octadecane, 3 -ethyl-5 -(2-ethylbutyl)-
55282-12-7
2
1.5E+05
2
2.0E+05
10
1.8E+05
0
4H-Cyclopropa[5',6']benz[r,2':7,8]azuleno[5,6-b]oxiren-4-one, 8-(acetyloxy)-
l,la,lb,lc,2a,3,3a,6a,6b,7,8,8a-dodecahydro-3a,6b,8a-trihydroxy-2a-
(hydroxymethyl)-l,l,5,7-tetramethyl-, (la.alpha.,lb.beta.,lc.beta.,2a.beta.,3a.beta.
,6a.alpha.,6b.alpha.,7.alpha.,8.beta.,8a.alpha.)-
77646-23-2
0
N/A
1
2.0E+05
3
5.6E+04
0
Pentacosane
629-99-2
9
2.2E+06
7
1.4E+06
7
1.6E+06
0
Tetracosane
646-31-1
6
2.3E+06
6
1.5E+06
5
1.7E+06
0
Triacontane
638-68-6
0
N/A
3
2.7E+05
4
5.5E+05
0
Methyl dehydroabietate
1235-74-1
1
N/A
3
3.1E+05
3
2.2E+05
0
1,4-Benzenediamine, N-(l,3-dimethylbutyl)-N'-phenyl (Alternate name: 6PPD)
793-24-8
6
3.9E+07
4
1.2E+07
2
3.4E+06
0
Hexanedioic acid, bis(2-ethylhexyl) ester
103-23-1
3
5.0E+05
0
N/A
2
6.1E+05
0
Nonacosane
630-03-5
20
1.6E+06
12
9.5E+05
11
1.3E+06
0
Hexa(methoxymethyl)melamine
68002-20-0
3
6.6E+05
1
3.9E+05
0

0
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
117-81-7
1
1.4E+06
4
3.4E+06
3
3.3E+06
0
7,1 l-Dioxapentacyclo[15.3.0.0(4,16).0(5,13).0(5,10)]eicos-13-en-20-ol-8-one,
1 .beta., 12,12-trimethyl-
1000195-82-2
3
4.6E+05
3
3.4E+05
3
4.4E+05
0
Hexacosane
630-01-3
6
2.5E+06
3
9.8E+05
4
2.0E+06
0
Octacosane
630-02-4
5
2.0E+06
6
9.8E+05
8
2.1E+06
0
2,7 -Dipropoxy-fluoren-9-one
303735-73-1
1
2.7E+05
1
3.1E+05
3
4.1E+05
0
4,4'-((p-Phenylene)diisopropylidene)diphenol (Alternate name: Bisphenol P)
2167-51-3
6
1.6E+07
4
1.1E+07
4
5.7E+06
0
1,4-Benzenediamine, N,N'-diphenyl- (Alternate name: DPPD)
74-31-7
4
1.8E+06
2
2.1E+06
1
5.0E+05
0
N-(2,4-Dinitrophenyl)-m-phenylenediamine
101927-38-2
6
4.9E+06
2
5.2E+06
2
2.0E+06
0
-------
Table R-l Continued
Tentative Chemical Identification
•	Match Factor >50%
•	Minimum Frequency = 3
•	In Order of Retention Time
CAS Number
Recycling
Plants
Frequency
Recycling
Plants
Mean
Area
Counts
Indoor
Fields
Frequency
Indoor
Fields
Mean
Area
Counts
Outdoor
Fields
Frequency
Outdoor
Fields
Mean
Area
Counts
Reagent
Blanks
Mean
Area
Counts
5-Phenyl-2,4-pyrimidinediamine di tms
1000332-62-1
4
5.9E+05
3
3.9E+05
2
5.6E+05
0
N( 1) -(2,4 -Dinitropheny 1) -4 -methyl -m-pheny lenediamine
130498-34-9
5
2.7E+06
2
3.1E+06
2
1.6E+06
0
I7.alfa.,21.beta.-28,30-Bisnorhopane
1000360-26-1
4
2.7E+05
7
2.7E+05
9
2.1E+05
0
Hexatriacontane
630-06-8
13
1.1E+06
4
6.2E+05
16
7.6E+05
0
.gamma.-Sitosterol
83-47-6
1
5.4E+04
1
6.9E+04
3
1.1E+05
0
a SVOC = semivolatile organic compound; GC/MS= gas chromatography/mass spectrometry; N/A = not applicable
b Recycling Plants (n=6); Indoor Fields (n=5); Outdoor Fields (n=4); Reagent Blanks (n=3)
0 Total compounds tentatively identified = 60; Compounds identified by source: Recycling Plants - 49 compounds (Sum of Frequency = 205), Indoor Fields - 54 compounds (Sum
of Frequency = 166), Outdoor Fields - 53 compounds (Sum of Frequency = 195)
d Unique numerical identifier assigned by the Chemical Abstracts Services (CAS)
Table R-2. Non-Targeted Analysis SVOC Results for Tire Crumb Rubber Extracts by LC/TOFMS Positive Mode - Highly Tentative Screening Resultsa b
Tentative Chemical Identification''
CAS
Number'1
Chemical
Formula
Score
Number
of
Chemicals
Same
Formula
Recycling
Plants -
Frequency
Recycling
Plants -
Mean
Area
Counts
Indoor
Fields -
Frequency
Indoor
Fields -
Mean
Area
Counts
Outdoor
Fields -
Frequency
Outdoor
Fields -
Mean
Area
Counts
Blanks -
Frequency
Blanks -
Mean
Area
Counts
3-(2-Fluoro-4,5-dihydroxyphenyl)-2-
methylalanine
6482-05-9
C10H12FNO4
97.73
3
18
7.32E+05
6
1.48E+05
3
6.66E+04
0
N/A
Ethanol, 2,2'-(hexylimino)bis-
6752-33-6
C10H23NO2
87.06
5
18
2.52E+05
15
1.53E+05
6
7.66E+04
0
N/A
N-tert-Butyl-2-
benzothiazolesulfenamide
95-31-8
C11H14N2S2
98.72
14
12
3.49E+05
15
5.88E+04
9
4.45E+04
0
N/A
Tamitinol
59429-50-4
C11H18N20S
92.41
16
12
9.71E+04
3
7.82E+04
9
9.24E+04
0
N/A
1,3-Propanediamine, N,N-diethyl-N'-(2-
nitro-3-thienyl)-, monohydrochloride
122777-89-3
C11H19N302S
82.43
13
0
N/A
3
2.32E+05
3
3.53E+05
0
N/A
Diphenylamine
122-39-4
C12H11N
87.72
68
6
6.87E+05
0
N/A
0
N/A
0
N/A
1,2-Dihydro-2,2,4-trimethylquinoline
147-47-7
C12H15N
87.16
1984
12
4.32E+06
9
6.12E+05
12
5.84E+05
0
N/A
Piperidine, 4-(phenylmethyl)-
31252-42-3
C12H17N
86.91
197
18
1.30E+06
6
3.20E+05
3
1.22E+05
0
N/A
2,6-Diisopropylaniline
24544-04-5
C12H19N
98.63
137
18
1.37E+06
6
2.93E+05
0
N/A
0
N/A
-------
Table R-2 Continued
Tentative Chemical Identification''
CAS
Number'1
Chemical
Formula
Score
Number
of
Chemicals
Same
Formula
Recycling
Plants -
Frequency
Recycling
Plants -
Mean
Area
Counts
Indoor
Fields -
Frequency
Indoor
Fields -
Mean
Area
Counts
Outdoor
Fields -
Frequency
Outdoor
Fields -
Mean
Area
Counts
Blanks -
Frequency
Blanks -
Mean
Area
Counts
4-(4-Ethoxybutyl)-2,2-dimethyl-5-
(trifluoromethyl) -1,3-dioxolane
189019-72-5
C12H21F303
80.86
4
12
1.44E+06
6
7.89E+05
0
N/A
0
N/A
4-(4-Ethoxybutyl)-2,2-dimethyl-5-
(trifluoromethyl) -1,3-dioxolane
189019-72-5
C12H21F303
95.51
4
18
3.43E+05
6
2.16E+05
0
N/A
0
N/A
l,8-Diazacyclotetradecane-2,9-dione
56403-09-9
C12H22N202
93.7
192
15
5.74E+05
0
N/A
3
1.14E+05
0
N/A
4-tert-Butylcyclohexyl acetate
32210-23-4
C12H2202
86.95
272
3
5.27E+04
15
1.26E+05
0
N/A
0
N/A
Undecyl isothiocyanate
19010-96-9
C12H23NS
86.48
7
6
1.06E+06
6
6.94E+05
12
1.42E+06
0
N/A
N6-D-Gluconoyl-L-lysine
94071-01-9
C12H24N208
81.85
2
18
5.87E+04
15
4.82E+04
3
5.15E+04
0
N/A
l,17-Diazido-3,6,9,12,15-
pentaoxaheptadecane
356046-26-9
C12H24N605
98.93
2
12
3.47E+05
6
1.64E+05
0
N/A
0
N/A
Dodecamethylcyclohexasiloxane
540-97-6
C12H3606Si6
84.44
2
0
N/A
6
3.10E+05
9
1.99E+05
0
N/A
Naphtho [ 1,2-d] thiazole-2( 1 H)-thione, 1 -
ethyl-3a,4, 5,9b-tetrahydro-9b-hydroxy-
63123-24-0
C13H15NOS2
96.91
8
12
9.37E+04
6
5.49E+04
0
N/A
0
N/A
Hydroxyprocaine [INN:BAN:DCF]
487-53-6
C13H20N2O3
90.66
122
6
4.46E+05
15
1.17E+05
6
3.48E+04
0
N/A
Hydroxyprocaine [INN:BAN:DCF]
487-53-6
C13H20N2O3
99.45
122
18
5.34E+05
6
1.49E+05
3
4.15E+04
0
N/A
Ethanethiol, 2-(5-(4-methyl-2-
pyridyloxy)pentyl) amino-,
hydrochloride
41287-58-5
C13H22N20S
84.11
5
3
3.88E+05
12
2.99E+05
0
N/A
0
N/A
Ethyl 3-ethyl-2-methyl-3-
[(trimethylsilyl)oxy] pentanoate
112611-66-2
C13H2803Si
85.98
2
18
3.99E+05
6
3.38E+05
3
1.61E+05
0
N/A
l,3-bis[3-(propan-2-ylamino)propyl]
thiourea
6962-26-1
C13H30N4S
88.11
1
15
1.93E+05
6
1.78E+05
0
N/A
0
N/A
Benzo(f)quinoline
85-02-9
C13H9N
81.8
34
3
1.04E+05
3
2.47E+05
0

0
N/A
2-[(2,3-Dimethoxybenzoyl)sulfanyl]-
N,N,N-trimethylethan-1 -aminium
iodide
110386-96-4
C14H22N03S
80.38
1
18
1.27E+05
9
2.50E+05
9
3.59E+05
0
N/A
1 H-Imidazolium, 1 -(2-carboxyethyl)-2-
hexyl-4,5-dihydro-3-(2-hydroxyethyl)-,
inner salt
68991-92-4
C14H26N203
80.22
10
9
9.10E+04
0
N/A
0
N/A
0
N/A
Ethanol, 2-(dicyclohexylamino)-
4500-31-6
C14H27NO
85.75
42
6
2.88E+05
9
2.15E+05
0
N/A
0
N/A
Phenyl bis[(trimethylsilyl)methyl]
phosphate
61357-04-8
C14H27Q4PSi2
95.07
1
9
4.56E+04
0
N/A
12
1.30E+05
0
N/A
-------
Table R-2 Continued
Tentative Chemical Identification''
CAS
Number'1
Chemical
Formula
Score
Number
of
Chemicals
Same
Formula
Recycling
Plants -
Frequency
Recycling
Plants -
Mean
Area
Counts
Indoor
Fields -
Frequency
Indoor
Fields -
Mean
Area
Counts
Outdoor
Fields -
Frequency
Outdoor
Fields -
Mean
Area
Counts
Blanks -
Frequency
Blanks -
Mean
Area
Counts
1 -Etheny 1-N,N,N' ,N' ,N'' ,N" -
hexaethylsilanetriamine
61423-53-8
C14H33N3Si
89.32
1
18
3.34E+05
12
1.89E+05
6
7.77E+04
0
N/A
1,1' -sulfanediy lbis(2 -
isothiocyanatobenzene)
40939-90-0
C14H8N2S3
95.46
8
36
8.84E+04
30
1.39E+05
30
1.21E+05
0
N/A
1,1' -sulfanediy lbis(2 -
isothiocyanatobenzene)
40939-90-0
C14H8N2S3
97.82
8
36
2.80E+05
30
4.10E+05
30
4.61E+05
0
N/A
N-Isopropyl-N'-phenyl-p-
phenylenediamine
101-72-4
C15H18N2
87.26
102
9
7.29E+05
12
6.69E+05
0
N/A
0
N/A
Benzonitrile, 4-(trans-4-
ethylcyclohexyl)-
72928-54-2
C15H19N
81.8
84
18
9.10E+04
12
8.67E+04
9
5.26E+04
0
N/A
Benzonitrile, 4-(trans-4-
ethylcyclohexyl)-
72928-54-2
C15H19N
84.29
84
18
1.16E+05
6
1.12E+05
0
N/A
0
N/A
tert-Butyl 3-[(4-fluoroanilino)methyl]
azetidine-1 -carboxylate
887590-04-7
C15H21FN202
98.06
12
18
6.11E+06
6
8.00E+05
3
4.68E+05
0
N/A
Pyridine, 1 -butyl-1,2,3,6-tetrahydro-4-
phenyl-
102003-99-6
C15H21N
99.1
67
18
3.78E+05
12
2.14E+05
9
9.62E+04
0
N/A
alpha-pyrrolidinovalerophenone
14530-33-7
C15H21NO
96.82
137
18
1.85E+06
15
8.20E+05
3
5.17E+04
0
N/A
Nootkatone
4674-50-4
C15H220
98.97
142
0
N/A
9
3.57E+05
12
2.73E+05
0
N/A
l-[3-(4-Fluorophenoxy)propyl]-3-
methoxypiperidin-4-amine
104860-26-6
C15H23FN202
98
1
18
3.09E+06
12
6.25E+05
9
3.41E+05
0
N/A
Alprenolol
13655-52-2
C15H23N02
92.96
141
18
2.64E+06
9
1.02E+06
12
8.84E+05
0
N/A
2,6-Di-tert-butyl-4-hydroperoxy-4-
methy 1-2,5 -cy clohexadienone
6485-57-0
C15H2403
87.14
216
36
9.79E+05
12
1.03E+06
0
N/A
0
N/A
Tris(dimethylamino)(2,4,6-
trimethylphenoxy) phosphanium azide
73014-63-8
C15H29N30P
95.86
1
15
1.88E+06
9
7.22E+05
0
N/A
0
N/A
Succinyl-leucyl-agmatine
126673-18-5
C15H29N504
95.67
2
18
1.99E+05
15
5.13E+05
9
2.29E+05
0
N/A
Succinyl-leucyl-agmatine
126673-18-5
C15H29N504
86.93
2
12
1.20E+05
15
2.09E+05
6
9.19E+04
0
N/A
Hexa(methoxymethyl)melamine
3089-11-0
C15H30N6O6
89.83
2
18
2.59E+07
15
1.24E+07
6
5.81E+05
0
N/A
Ezogabine
150812-12-7
C16H18FN302
84.13
6
12
3.21E+05
15
1.76E+05
6
4.94E+04
0
N/A
(3S)-N-Cyclopentyl-N-[(2,4-
difluoropheny 1) methyl] pyrrolidin- 3 -
amine
820980-07-2
C16H22F2N2
84.62
2
12
1.81E+05
6
1.01E+05
0
N/A
0
N/A
-------
Table R-2 Continued
Tentative Chemical Identification''
CAS
Number'1
Chemical
Formula
Score
Number
of
Chemicals
Same
Formula
Recycling
Plants -
Frequency
Recycling
Plants -
Mean
Area
Counts
Indoor
Fields -
Frequency
Indoor
Fields -
Mean
Area
Counts
Outdoor
Fields -
Frequency
Outdoor
Fields -
Mean
Area
Counts
Blanks -
Frequency
Blanks -
Mean
Area
Counts
Allyxycarb
6392-46-7
C16H22N202
85.07
93
18
9.37E+05
15
7.06E+05
9
3.28E+05
0
N/A
Ethyl (2-cyclohexyloxiran-2-yl)
pheny lpho sphinate
87989-28-4
C16H2303P
81.42
2
6
2.43E+04
15
4.29E+04
12
4.19E+04
0
N/A
l-(2-fluoroethyl)-3-(3,5,7-trimethyl
tricyclo[3.3.1. 13,7]dec-l-yl) urea
33044-13-2
C16H27FN20
98.5
1
18
3.27E+06
6
1.19E+06
3
5.50E+05
0
N/A
16-Azidohexadecanoic acid
112668-54-9
C16H32N302
86.85
1
3
6.29E+05
0
N/A
3
8.79E+05
0
N/A
2,3-Bis(((2-((2-aminoethyl)amino)ethyl)
amino) methyl)phenol
93940-98-8
C16H32N60
87.08
2
18
6.27E+05
6
4.31E+05
0
N/A
0
N/A
4-Dodecylmorpholine
1541-81-7
C16H33NO
82.72
116
18
1.03E+05
15
1.49E+05
9
7.03E+04
0
N/A
4-Dodecylmorpholine
1541-81-7
C16H33NO
92.78
116
18
1.46E+06
15
2.95E+05
9
2.11E+05
0
N/A
Bis-2-ethylhexylamine
106-20-7
C16H35N
97.9
41
12
1.47E+05
3
1.88E+05
0
N/A
0
N/A
MCI 568
852475-26-4
C17H15FN203
82.01
7
6
6.22E+04
3
4.04E+04
12
6.35E+04
0
N/A
Diphenhydramine
58-73-1
C17H21NO
97.95
140
6
4.80E+05
12
5.17E+05
12
5.66E+05
0
N/A
Phosphine oxide, (diethoxymethyl)
diphenyl-
20570-20-1
C17H2103P
82.67
16
6
9.65E+04
9
1.21E+05
15
1.90E+05
0
N/A
Eperisone hydrochloride
56839-43-1
C17H25NO
86.7
61
18
1.42E+05
6
7.47E+04
0
N/A
0
N/A
Cedr-8-en-15-yl acetate
1405-92-1
C17H2602
87.25
92
0
N/A
3
1.74E+05
9
2.67E+05
0
N/A
1,1,1 -Trifluoroheptadec- 12-en-2-one
878997-67-2
C17H29F30
85.81
1
9
1.32E+05
0
N/A
6
2.85E+05
0
N/A
tert-Butyl (2S,4S)-2-
[(cyclohexylmethoxy) carbamoyl] -4-
fluoropyrrolidine-1 -carboxylate
1204334-30-4
C17H29FN204
97.72
1
18
1.14E+06
9
2.64E+05
6
1.15E+05
0
N/A
l-[(Decylsulfanyl)methyl]-3-
methylpyridin-1 -ium chloride
76652-33-0
C17H30NS
92.61
1
18
4.24E+05
6
1.32E+05
6
5.76E+04
0
N/A
l,3,5-Triazine-2,4-diamine, 6-
tetradecyl-
191486-18-7
C17H33N5
91.98
1
15
3.21E+05
6
5.36E+05
0
N/A
0
N/A
L-Valyl-L-alanyl-L-alanyl-L-lysine
798540-45-1
C17H33N505
96.22
4
15
2.37E+05
15
4.53E+05
9
1.62E+05
0
N/A
L-Valyl-L-alanyl-L-alanyl-L-lysine
798540-45-1
C17H33N505
95.31
4
6
1.36E+05
15
2.11E+05
3
1.21E+05
0
N/A
N-( 13 -Methyltetradecyl)acetamide
64317-66-4
C17H35NO
96.43
120
18
1.72E+05
30
1.73E+05
6
1.10E+05
0
N/A
N-( 13 -Methyltetradecyl)acetamide
64317-66-4
C17H35NO
98.95
120
36
4.28E+05
30
2.58E+05
18
1.74E+05
0
N/A
-------
Table R-2 Continued
Tentative Chemical Identification''
CAS
Number'1
Chemical
Formula
Score
Number
of
Chemicals
Same
Formula
Recycling
Plants -
Frequency
Recycling
Plants -
Mean
Area
Counts
Indoor
Fields -
Frequency
Indoor
Fields -
Mean
Area
Counts
Outdoor
Fields -
Frequency
Outdoor
Fields -
Mean
Area
Counts
Blanks -
Frequency
Blanks -
Mean
Area
Counts
N,N' -Dipheny 1-p-pheny lenediamine
74-31-7
C18H16N2
98
74
18
1.48E+06
3
4.91E+05
0
N/A
0
N/A
Benzenediazonium, 2,5-diethoxy-4-[(4-
methyl benzoyl)amino]-, (T-4)-
tetrachlorozincate(2-) (2:1)
38656-58-5
C18H20N3O3
90.13
1
6
7.47E+04
9
1.54E+05
6
1.51E+05
0
N/A
N-(3 -Phenyl-n-propyl)-1 -phenyl-2-
aminopropane
131903-56-5
C18H23N
96.98
38
9
1.29E+06
9
3.54E+05
12
3.12E+05
0
N/A
Pyridinium, 4-[2-[4-(diethylamino)
phenyl] etheny 1] -1 -methy 1-
133338-40-6
C18H23N2
96.11
3
3
1.35E+06
12
1.24E+06
15
1.12E+06
0
N/A
N-(l,3-Dimethylbutyl)-N'-phenyl-p-
phenylenediamine
(Alternate name: 6PPD)
793-24-8
C18H24N2
83.12
52
6
4.55E+07
12
2.18E+07
6
6.26E+06
2
2.64E+05
Dextromethorphan
125-71-3
C18H25NO
86.26
132
18
2.13E+05
12
1.59E+05
3
1.14E+05
0
N/A
Dextromethorphan
125-71-3
C18H25NO
92.36
132
18
2.42E+05
9
1.32E+05
6
7.64E+04
0
N/A
tert-Butyl 3-( {[(4-lluorophenyl)methyl]
amino} methyl)piperidine-1 -carboxylate
887587-55-5
C18H27FN202
80.3
6
15
2.23E+05
12
3.41E+05
6
5.21E+05
0
N/A
3-Carbamoyl-1 -[2-(decylamino)-2-
oxoethyl] pyridine-1-ium chloride
110177-28-1
C18H30N3O2
84.65
1
3
2.53E+04
9
4.53E+05
15
6.02E+05
0
N/A
2-[2-[4-(l ,1,3,3-Tetramethylbutyl)
phenoxy]ethoxy] ethanol
2315-61-9
C18H30O3
84.57
58
12
1.61E+05
12
6.80E+05
9
2.88E+05
0
N/A
7-[(Benzyloxy)methyl]-3,6,9,12-
tetraoxatetra decane-l,14-diol
91472-18-3
C18H30O7
84.17
2
18
8.31E+06
15
4.08E+06
6
1.86E+05
0
N/A
Oleic acid
112-80-1
C18H3402
84.62
107
15
2.51E+05
9
1.84E+05
9
1.95E+05
0
N/A
1-Piperazinecarboxylic acid, 4-(2-
(pentylamino) ethyl)-, cyclohexyl ester,
hydrochloride
24269-89-4
C18H35N302
98.5
5
12
2.74E+05
6
1.25E+05
0
N/A
0
N/A
5 -T etradecy lpyrimidine-2,4,6-triamine
94087-77-1
C18H35N5
84.35
3
12
3.03E+05
3
6.25E+05
0
N/A
0
N/A
Spiroxamine
118134-30-8
C18H35N02
86.77
66
15
2.74E+05
6
2.41E+05
12
1.93E+05
0
N/A
1-Piperazinecarboxylic acid, 4-(2-
(dibutylamino) ethyl)-, isopropyl ester,
hydrochloride
24269-60-1
C18H37N302
94.14
6
12
1.50E+05
3
4.76E+04
0
N/A
0
N/A
Octadecanamide
124-26-5
C18H37NO
93.72
372
45
5.23E+05
27
1.51E+05
18
8.27E+04
0
N/A
-------
Table R-2 Continued
Tentative Chemical Identification''
CAS
Number'1
Chemical
Formula
Score
Number
of
Chemicals
Same
Formula
Recycling
Plants -
Frequency
Recycling
Plants -
Mean
Area
Counts
Indoor
Fields -
Frequency
Indoor
Fields -
Mean
Area
Counts
Outdoor
Fields -
Frequency
Outdoor
Fields -
Mean
Area
Counts
Blanks -
Frequency
Blanks -
Mean
Area
Counts
Octadecanamide
124-26-5
C18H37NO
86.19
372
36
1.75E+05
45
1.16E+05
18
1.75E+05
0
N/A
Octadecanamide
124-26-5
C18H37NO
92.65
372
54
2.84E+05
45
2.22E+05
36
1.99E+05
0
N/A
Octadecanamide
124-26-5
C18H37NO
90.82
372
54
1.39E+06
45
1.33E+06
36
7.38E+05
0
N/A
Palmitoylethanolamide
544-31-0
C18H37N02
87.34
468
18
1.64E+05
6
1.02E+05
15
1.46E+05
0
N/A
Palmitoylethanolamide
544-31-0
C18H37N02
96.07
468
18
7.35E+05
15
2.82E+05
9
1.07E+05
0
N/A
Mega 11
119772-49-5
C18H37N06
91.32
1
0
N/A
6
4.79E+05
0
N/A
0
N/A
1,9,10-Octadecanetriol
7023-01-0
C18H3803
89.34
6
18
4.03E+06
9
1.65E+06
6
2.10E+06
0
N/A
Tris(2-butoxyethyl) phosphate
78-51-3
C18H3907P
94.38
3
15
3.92E+05
15
5.29E+05
3
2.10E+05
0
N/A
Disiloxane, hexapropyl-
17841-51-9
C18H420Si2
81.68
2
3
1.26E+05
3
3.23E+05
0
N/A
0
N/A
1,1,1 -Tri(propan-2-yl)-N- [tri(propan-2-
yl)silyl] silanamine
923027-92-3
C18H43NSi2
88.4
2
18
4.81E+05
12
3.36E+05
3
3.59E+05
3
1.04E+05
9-Anilinoacridine
3340-22-5
C19H14N2
85.86
31
18
2.71E+05
15
2.92E+05
9
2.56E+05
0
N/A
Naftoxate
28820-28-2
C19H14N20S2
94.26
3
18
1.66E+05
6
5.19E+04
0

0
N/A
Thiazole, 2-(lH-imidazol-l-
yldiphenylmethyl)-
49620-36-2
C19H15N3S
91.75
4
18
1.40E+05
9
1.35E+05
12
1.47E+05
0
N/A
Benzenemethanol, 4-amino-
.alpha.,,alpha.-bis(4-aminophenyl)-
467-62-9
C19H19N30
83.67
37
15
3.06E+05
6
2.07E+05
0
N/A
0
N/A
Triprolidine
486-12-4
C19H22N2
86.42
53
9
8.26E+05
3
1.46E+05
12
1.14E+05
0
N/A
Cinchonine
118-10-5
C19H22N20
95.76
88
18
6.60E+05
15
5.13E+05
9
2.74E+05
0
N/A
Amitraz
33089-61-1
C19H23N3
99.38
23
12
5.43E+05
3
2.77E+05
0
N/A
0
N/A
Labetalol
36894-69-6
C19H24N203
93.27
39
18
1.37E+06
3
4.10E+05
3
1.53E+05
0
N/A
Propanedinitrile, (((2-(((5-((bis( 1 -
methylethyl) amino )methyl)-2-
furanyl)methyl)amino)ethyl)
amino )(methy lamino )methy lene)-
135017-15-1
C19H30N6O
84.18
1
0
N/A
3
4.13E+05
15
3.66E+05
0
N/A
Bencyclane
2179-37-5
C19H31NO
97.63
22
18
8.82E+05
3
1.49E+05
0
N/A
0
N/A
1 -(Piperidin-1 -yl)tetradeca-2,4-dien-1 -
one
52657-12-2
C19H33NO
91.52
20
18
1.11E+06
15
5.21E+05
6
1.09E+05
0
N/A
1,9-di(piperidin-1 -yl)nonane-1,9-dione
66759-29-3
C19H34N202
89.33
7
12
9.52E+04
12
1.74E+05
6
2.80E+05
0
N/A
PUBCHEM_54607300
67606-56-8
C19H37N5
80.97
2
18
2.85E+05
15
3.05E+05
6
1.35E+05
0
N/A
-------
Table R-2 Continued
Tentative Chemical Identification''
CAS
Number'1
Chemical
Formula
Score
Number
of
Chemicals
Same
Formula
Recycling
Plants -
Frequency
Recycling
Plants -
Mean
Area
Counts
Indoor
Fields -
Frequency
Indoor
Fields -
Mean
Area
Counts
Outdoor
Fields -
Frequency
Outdoor
Fields -
Mean
Area
Counts
Blanks -
Frequency
Blanks -
Mean
Area
Counts
N',2-Bis(2,2,6,6-tetramethylpiperidin-4-
ylidene) hydrazine-1-
carbohydrazonamide
64636-27-7
C19H37N7
86.4
1
9
1.14E+05
3
9.37E+04
0
N/A
0
N/A
Tridemorph
24602-86-6
C19H39NO
80.81
14
18
1.54E+05
12
1.30E+05
9
1.42E+05
0
N/A
NSC297111
63595-54-0
C19H40N8S2
93.44
1
18
1.05E+06
6
6.34E+05
12
3.33E+05
0
N/A
AGN-PC-OODGDP
47363-93-9
C20H15N4
83.95
3
18
1.91E+05
12
2.51E+05
6
1.41E+05
0
N/A
{2,2-Bis[(benzyloxy)methyl]-3,3-
difluorocyclo propyl}methanol
220825-78-5
C20H22F2O3
83.08
1
15
2.78E+05
3
4.05E+05
3
3.52E+04
0
N/A
1,3-Propanediamine, N-
benzo(g)quinolin-4-yl-N,N-diethyl-
56297-68-8
C20H25N3
92.65
16
18
7.51E+05
15
9.49E+05
6
2.97E+05
0
N/A
1,3-Propanediamine, N-
benzo(g)quinolin-4-yl-N,N-diethyl-
56297-68-8
C20H25N3
96.46
16
15
3.75E+05
15
6.78E+05
6
2.73E+05
0
N/A
Estradiol acetate
4245-41-4
C20H26O3
81.77
32
6
2.21E+05
15
2.45E+05
6
5.16E+05
0
N/A
Aspidospermidine, 17-methoxy-
2447-50-9
C20H28N2O
83.64
24
9
1.31E+06
6
3.93E+05
0
N/A
0
N/A
Oxyphencyclimine
125-53-1
C20H28N2O3
93.19
18
9
6.79E+05
0

0
N/A
0
N/A
Oxyphencyclimine
125-53-1
C20H28N2O3
97.77
18
18
9.24E+05
3
4.34E+05
3
1.42E+05
0
N/A
all-trans-Retinoic acid
302-79-4
C20H28O2
89.66
62
9
4.34E+05
12
5.28E+05
9
4.79E+05
0
N/A
3,4-Piperidinediol, 4-(3-(diethylamino )-
1 -propynyl)-l ,3-dimethyl-6-(4-
fluorophenyl)-, (3-aIpha,4-beta,6-beta)-
120768-88-9
C20H29FN2O2
80.26
1
9
3.40E+05
6
3.09E+05
0
N/A
0
N/A
Retinol
68-26-8
C20H300
97.4
31
0
N/A
3
4.90E+05
9
5.65E+05
0
N/A
17-Methy ltesto sterone
58-18-4
C20H3002
83.78
132
18
1.35E+05
6
5.57E+04
0
N/A
0
N/A
Lubipro stone
136790-76-6
C20H32F2O5
81.37
1
18
1.01E+05
3
6.53E+04
0
N/A
0
N/A
Arachidonic acid
506-32-1
C20H32O2
84.16
120
0
N/A
6
7.16E+05
9
1.33E+06
0
N/A
Dimethyl[(9Z)-octadec-9-en-1 -yl] amine
oxide
14351-50-9
C20H41NO
90.93
360
36
1.16E+05
45
9.06E+04
27
1.51E+05
0
N/A
Dimethyl[(9Z)-octadec-9-en-1 -yl] amine
oxide
14351-50-9
C20H41NO
88.57
360
45
3.09E+05
45
2.26E+05
36
1.19E+06
0
N/A
Dimethyl[(9Z)-octadec-9-en-1 -yl] amine
oxide
14351-50-9
C20H41NO
95.64
360
54
4.75E+05
45
4.45E+05
18
2.32E+05
0
N/A
-------
Table R-2 Continued
Tentative Chemical Identification''
CAS
Number'1
Chemical
Formula
Score
Number
of
Chemicals
Same
Formula
Recycling
Plants -
Frequency
Recycling
Plants -
Mean
Area
Counts
Indoor
Fields -
Frequency
Indoor
Fields -
Mean
Area
Counts
Outdoor
Fields -
Frequency
Outdoor
Fields -
Mean
Area
Counts
Blanks -
Frequency
Blanks -
Mean
Area
Counts
Dimethyl[(9Z)-octadec-9-en-1 -yl] amine
oxide
14351-50-9
C20H41NO
91.69
360
54
1.18E+06
45
8.20E+05
36
1.30E+06
0
N/A
N-(2-Hydroxyethyl)octadecanamide
111-57-9
C20H41NO2
83.94
19
12
3.54E+05
12
2.29E+05
6
1.72E+05
0
N/A
2- {2-[(2-Hexyldecyl)oxy]ethoxy} ethan-
l-ol
113181-09-2
C20H42O3
80.76
12
9
6.44E+05
6
2.05E+05
6
5.04E+05
0
N/A
N,N-Dimethyl-1 -octadecanamine
124-28-7
C20H43N
92.77
33
18
4.33E+06
15
1.55E+06
9
4.58E+05
0
N/A
Bromonickel—1,4,16,19-tetraoxa-
7,10,13,22,25,28-
hexaazacyclotriacontane—water (1/1/4)
7238-17-7
C20H46N6O4
87.03
2
12
1.42E+06
12
1.06E+06
6
5.81E+05
0
N/A
ST029102
5193-48-6
C21H20N4O2S2
86.87
1
18
1.91E+05
15
1.26E+05
6
4.35E+04
0
N/A
PF-622
898235-65-9
C21H22N40
93.22
12
15
4.74E+05
3
4.28E+05
6
3.28E+05
0
N/A
T5244034
5521-48-2
C21H24F3N304
87.68
1
18
1.16E+05
6
1.11E+05
3
8.37E+04
0
N/A
Acetamide, N-(l-(10,l l-dihydro-5H-
dibenzo(a,d) cyclohepten-5-yl)-3-
azetidinyl)-N-methyl-
61450-45-1
C21H24N20
81.56
34
18
1.07E+05
12
1.20E+05
9
9.31E+04
0
N/A
3~4—Fluoro-l~4—propyl-
1—1—,1 ~2~, 1—3—,1 ~4~, 1—5—,1—6—
hexahy dro-1~1~,2~1~:2~4~,3~1—
terphenyl
87260-24-0
C21H25F
84.63
1
6
2.06E+05
0
N/A
3
2.99E+05
0
N/A
Benzenamine, 4,4'-methylenebis[N-
butylidene-
72089-11-3
C21H26N2
83.82
36
18
4.97E+05
3
3.41E+05
6
2.21E+05
0
N/A
Benzenamine, 4,4'-methylenebis[N-
butylidene-
72089-11-3
C21H26N2
95.69
36
18
1.60E+06
15
1.22E+06
9
9.40E+05
0
N/A
STK108220
5669-53-4
C21H26N205S
85.21
5
9
2.82E+05
9
1.29E+05
9
1.14E+05
0
N/A
ETH-LAD
65527-62-0
C21H27N30
98.21
50
15
3.68E+05
15
6.06E+05
9
1.55E+05
0
N/A
ETH-LAD
65527-62-0
C21H27N30
93.96
50
18
1.25E+06
15
1.28E+06
9
3.94E+05
0
N/A
MLS000579055
5637-46-7
C21H27N305S
89.51
3
18
8.11E+05
6
3.84E+05
3
1.28E+05
0
N/A
N(1),N(8)-Bis(2,3-
dihydroxybenzoyl)spermidine
54135-84-1
C21H27N306
88.48
4
18
1.36E+06
12
8.08E+05
6
7.02E+05
0
N/A
Amorolfme
78613-35-1
C21H35NO
92.06
14
18
6.84E+05
9
3.87E+05
0
N/A
0
N/A
4-Amino-1 -hexadecylpyridin-1 -ium
bromide
13554-67-1
C21H39N2
81.53
1
18
4.97E+05
6
2.66E+05
3
4.17E+05
0
N/A
-------
Table R-2 Continued
Tentative Chemical Identification''
CAS
Number'1
Chemical
Formula
Score
Number
of
Chemicals
Same
Formula
Recycling
Plants -
Frequency
Recycling
Plants -
Mean
Area
Counts
Indoor
Fields -
Frequency
Indoor
Fields -
Mean
Area
Counts
Outdoor
Fields -
Frequency
Outdoor
Fields -
Mean
Area
Counts
Blanks -
Frequency
Blanks -
Mean
Area
Counts
1 -Hexyl-4-( {2-[hexyl(dimethyl)
azaniumyl]ethyl} sulfanyl)pyridin-l-
ium diiodide
878547-58-1
C21H40N2S
92.6
1
18
3.32E+06
6
3.93E+06
3
2.56E+06
0
N/A
Netilmicin sulfate
56391-57-2
C21H41N507
96.24
2
15
1.31E+05
15
2.18E+05
6
1.21E+05
0
N/A
2,2-Dibutyl-N~l~,N~3—bis(4-
methylpiperazin-1 -yl)propanediamide
88172-29-6
C21H42N602
97.86
1
3
2.55E+05
0
N/A
3
1.83E+05
0
N/A
1 -Hexadecylpyridine N-oxide
53669-72-0
C21H43NO
81.85
8
18
1.79E+05
12
1.71E+05
9
1.85E+05
0
N/A
6-Azidoketan serin
97930-92-2
C22H21FN603
86.19
2
18
1.49E+05
6
1.08E+05
3
9.95E+04
0
N/A
C.I. 50030
3562-46-7
C22H24N6
83.37
2
18
2.02E+05
9
8.44E+04
6
6.82E+04
0
N/A
4-(9 -Acridiny lamino )-2,2,6,6 -
tetramethy 1-1 -piperidiny loxy
58814-40-7
C22H27N30
96.53
34
18
6.28E+05
12
3.69E+05
9
1.83E+05
0
N/A
4-(9 -Acridiny lamino )-2,2,6,6 -
tetramethy 1-1 -piperidiny loxy
58814-40-7
C22H27N30
88.3
34
18
5.51E+05
3
1.70E+05
3
9.57E+04
0
N/A
Mafoprazine
80428-29-1
C22H28FN303
99.39
1
18
8.47E+05
6
2.69E+05
0
N/A
0
N/A
Fentanyl
437-38-7
C22H28N20
97.1
32
15
3.12E+05
12
3.21E+05
9
2.18E+05
0
N/A
2-(2H-Benzotriazol-2-yl)-4,6-bis(l,l-
dimethyl propyl)phenol
25973-55-1
C22H29N30
81.78
20
6
2.01E+05
3
7.13E+04
0
N/A
0
N/A
AFP-07 free acid
788799-13-3
C22H30F2O5
87.31
3
18
1.36E+06
15
7.38E+05
3
7.94E+04
0
N/A
SCHEMBL9702839
51549-37-2
C22H31N305Si
80.11
2
9
2.20E+05
0
N/A
0
N/A
0
N/A
Benzquinamide
63-12-7
C22H32N205
94.61
6
18
3.25E+05
6
1.20E+05
3
6.29E+04
0
N/A
1 -Octadecyl-1 H-pyrrole-2,5 -dione
17450-30-5
C22H39N02
96.44
7
6
9.38E+04
9
3.73E+05
15
3.90E+05
0
N/A
7224-39-7
7224-39-7
C22H40N4
91.87
2
18
2.49E+06
6
1.43E+06
6
2.03E+06
0
N/A
Ethanol, 2,2'-( 1,4-piperazinylene)di-,
diheptanoate, dihydrochloride
54468-75-6
C22H42N204
83.21
1
6
9.20E+04
9
1.00E+05
0
N/A
0
N/A
5 -Octadecy lpyrimidine-2,4,6-triamine
94087-81-7
C22H43N5
93.58
2
18
1.35E+06
6
7.67E+05
6
1.10E+06
0
N/A
[(6-Heptadecyl-1,3,5 -triazine-2,4-diyl)
diazanediyl] dimethanol
51604-73-0
C22H43N502
93.98
1
18
1.96E+05
9
3.25E+05
0
N/A
0
N/A
Docosanamide
3061-75-4
C22H45NO
95.22
52
30
4.08E+05
30
2.08E+05
24
4.38E+05
0
N/A
Docosanamide
3061-75-4
C22H45NO
94.37
52
36
6.64E+05
30
4.48E+05
30
8.11E+05
0
N/A
1-Docosanamine
14130-06-4
C22H47N
88.92
9
6
1.63E+05
12
4.04E+06
0
N/A
0
N/A
-------
Table R-2 Continued
Tentative Chemical Identification''
CAS
Number'1
Chemical
Formula
Score
Number
of
Chemicals
Same
Formula
Recycling
Plants -
Frequency
Recycling
Plants -
Mean
Area
Counts
Indoor
Fields -
Frequency
Indoor
Fields -
Mean
Area
Counts
Outdoor
Fields -
Frequency
Outdoor
Fields -
Mean
Area
Counts
Blanks -
Frequency
Blanks -
Mean
Area
Counts
3H-Indolium, 1,3,3-trimethyl-2-[[2-
methyl-2-(2-naphthalenyl)
hydrazinylidene]methyl]-, chloride (1:1)
38936-33-3
C23H24N3
83.2
2
18
3.59E+05
3
1.08E+05
0
N/A
0
N/A
Isoreserpiline, citrate
6270-51-5
C23H28N205
87.78
12
18
3.31E+05
3
9.61E+04
0
N/A
0
N/A
Urea, l,3-bis(2,6-xylyl)-l-(2-
(diethylamino)ethyl)-, hydrochloride
78371-87-6
C23H33N30
81.66

18
5.36E+05
6
3.26E+05
0
N/A
0
N/A
1 -Fluoro-4- {4-[2-(4-propylcyclohexyl)
ethyl] cyclohexyl} benzene
91162-04-8
C23H35F
83.14
1
18
1.74E+06
12
1.69E+06
6
1.78E+06
0
N/A
N-[4-(5 -Sulfanylidene-2,5 -dihydro-1H-
tetrazo 1-1 -y l)pheny 1] hexadecanamide
97916-68-2
C23H37N50S
80.27
1
18
1.72E+05
15
3.46E+05
9
1.23E+05
0
N/A
(Cyclotetradeca-1,2-dien-9-yne-l ,3,8-
triyl)tris (trimethylsilane)
61173-64-6
C23H44Si3
82.2
1
6
1.77E+05
0
N/A
0
N/A
0
N/A
Triethylsilyl 11-
(triethoxysilyl)undecanoate
194343-84-5
C23H50O5Si2
89.26
1
9
1.34E+05
9
1.46E+05
6
1.84E+05
0
N/A
(1 )Benzopyrano(2,3-b)(l ,5)
benzodiazepin-13(6H)-one, 6-benzoyl-
2-methyl-
77436-67-0
C24H16N203
97.73
14
18
9.94E+04
15
9.17E+04
9
5.49E+04
0
N/A
5-Methoxy-3-methyl-2-(2-((3-(3-
sulphonatopropyl) -3H-benzothiazol-2-
ylidene)methyl)but-1 -enyl)
benzoxazolium
55811-26-2
C24H27N205S2
92.77
4
36
2.34E+05
30
1.94E+05
30
1.59E+05
0
N/A
5-Methoxy-3-methyl-2-(2-((3-(3-
sulphonatopropyl) -3H-benzothiazol-2-
ylidene)methyl)but-1 -enyl)
benzoxazolium
55811-26-2
C24H27N205S2
90.72
4
36
1.50E+05
30
1.29E+05
30
1.40E+05
0
N/A
Phenol, 2-(2H-naphtho[l,2-d]triazol-2-
yl)-4-( 1,1,3,3-tetramethylbutyl)-
27876-55-7
C24H27N30
95.95
72
36
8.20E+05
30
6.98E+05
30
8.02E+05
0
N/A
Phenol, 2-(2H-naphtho[l,2-d]triazol-2-
yl)-4-( 1,1,3,3-tetramethylbutyl)-
27876-55-7
C24H27N30
92.16
72
36
8.66E+05
12
3.87E+05
0
N/A
0
N/A
1,3,8-Triazaspiro(4.5 )decane-2,4-dione,
8-(2-phenylethyl)-3-(3-phenylpropyl)-
124312-80-7
C24H29N302
83.56
10
9
2.38E+05
3
1.82E+05
12
2.03E+05
0
N/A
4-Butyl-N-[4-(2,4,4-trimethylpentan-2-
yl)phenyl] aniline
142944-36-3
C24H35N
82.64
5
12
3.18E+05
12
3.24E+05
3
1.17E+05
0
N/A
-------
Table R-2 Continued
Tentative Chemical Identification''
CAS
Number'1
Chemical
Formula
Score
Number
of
Chemicals
Same
Formula
Recycling
Plants -
Frequency
Recycling
Plants -
Mean
Area
Counts
Indoor
Fields -
Frequency
Indoor
Fields -
Mean
Area
Counts
Outdoor
Fields -
Frequency
Outdoor
Fields -
Mean
Area
Counts
Blanks -
Frequency
Blanks -
Mean
Area
Counts
N~1 ~-[ 1 -(2,2-Diphenylethyl)piperidin-
4-yl] -N~3~-ethylpropane-1,3 -diamine
827045-76-1
C24H35N3
93.58
1
12
1.92E+05
3
5.75E+04
0
N/A
0
N/A
2-naphthalen-1 -yl-6-piperidin-1 -yl-2-
propan-2-ylhexan-1 -amine
27566-49-0
C24H36N2
90.04
11
18
1.21E+06
6
1.04E+06
6
4.45E+05
0
N/A
Lovastatin ammonium salt
77550-67-5
C24H3806
90.5
11
15
1.85E+05
12
2.46E+05
3
5.52E+04
0
N/A
1, l'-(Decane-1,10-diyl)bis[4-
(dimethylamino) pyridin-l-ium]
dibromide
99082-26-5
C24H40N4
92.45
2
12
9.51E+04
9
8.85E+04
6
1.08E+05
0
N/A
Octadecanamide, N-phenyl-
637-54-7
C24H41NO
83.53
8
3
6.22E+05
0
N/A
6
7.64E+05
0
N/A
N~2~-Butyl-6-heptadecyl-l ,3,5-
triazine-2,4-diamine
66709-66-8
C24H47N5
80.1
1
12
2.64E+05
9
1.05E+05
9
1.93E+05
0
N/A
1 -(3,7,11,15-T etramethylhexadecanoyl)
pyrrolidine
56630-63-8
C24H47NO
87.67
6
12
1.62E+05
12
1.17E+05
9
1.83E+05
0
N/A
3-[2-Hydroxy-3-(octadecyloxy)
propoxy] propane-1,2-diol
121637-23-8
C24H50O5
95.87
2
18
5.66E+05
6
3.38E+05
6
4.66E+05
0
N/A
Trioctylamine
1116-76-3
C24H51N
94.89
18
12
1.24E+05
12
8.79E+04
3
6.35E+04
0
N/A
Phosphine, trioctyl-
4731-53-7
C24H51P
91
4
12
4.54E+05
6
2.32E+05
6
4.43E+05
0
N/A
9,9'-Spirobi[fluorene]-2,2'-diamine
67665-45-6
C25H18N2
81.68
5
0
N/A
9
1.09E+05
3
4.07E+04
0
N/A
4-amino-N,N-dibenzyl-2-
benzylsulfanyl-1,3-thiazole-5-
carboxamide
63238-10-8
C25H23N30S2
82.28
4
18
8.82E+05
6
6.97E+04
0
N/A
0
N/A
4-amino-N,N-dibenzyl-2-
benzylsulfanyl-1,3-thiazole-5-
carboxamide
63238-10-8
C25H23N30S2
88.83
4
18
1.43E+06
6
1.16E+05
0
N/A
0
N/A
Phenothiazine, 10-(2-(4-benzyl-l-
piperazinyl) ethyl)-
103168-78-1
C25H27N3S
92.13
1
18
1.89E+05
3
1.84E+05
12
3.88E+05
0
N/A
Benzene-l,4-diamine, N-
(benzo(g)quinolin-4-yl)-N'-(2-
(diethy lamino )ethy 1)-
127136-27-0
C25H28N4
90.87
3
9
6.16E+05
9
2.86E+05
3
1.44E+05
0
N/A
Nufenoxole
57726-65-5
C25H29N30
96.79
9
18
7.62E+05
15
4.55E+05
6
1.77E+05
0
N/A
Metergoline
17692-51-2
C25H29N302
96.05
6
18
3.29E+05
6
1.42E+05
0
N/A
0
N/A
-------
Table R-2 Continued
Tentative Chemical Identification''
CAS
Number'1
Chemical
Formula
Score
Number
of
Chemicals
Same
Formula
Recycling
Plants -
Frequency
Recycling
Plants -
Mean
Area
Counts
Indoor
Fields -
Frequency
Indoor
Fields -
Mean
Area
Counts
Outdoor
Fields -
Frequency
Outdoor
Fields -
Mean
Area
Counts
Blanks -
Frequency
Blanks -
Mean
Area
Counts
3-(2-Aminoethyl)-8-(3-(4-
fluorobenzoyl)propyl)-4-oxo-1 -phenyl-
1,3,8-triazaspiro(4.5)decan-4-one
125094-03-3
C25H31FN402
97.33
1
6
1.86E+05
3
2.02E+05
9
1.76E+05
0
N/A
A 55453
89687-06-9
C25H32N603
81.24
2
9
1.76E+05
6
8.18E+04
9
6.50E+04
0
N/A
N-[ 1 -({2-[(l -Hydroxy-3-phenylpropan-
2-yl)amino] -2-oxoethyl} amino )-4-
(methanesulfmyl)-1 -oxobutan-2-
yl]tyrosinamide
82598-04-7
C25H34N406S
87.76
1
18
1.79E+05
6
1.18E+05
0
N/A
0
N/A
1 -Butyl-1 - {2-[(diphenylacetyl)oxy]
ethyl} piperidin-l-ium iodide
62088-57-7
C25H34N02
86.85
1
9
2.38E+05
3
2.10E+05
6
2.28E+05
0
N/A
Propylamine, N-(4-tert-butylcyclohexyl)
-3,3-diphenyl-, hydrochloride, cis-
61925-70-0
C25H35N
86.81
3
6
2.54E+05
3
9.31E+04
0
N/A
0
N/A
5H-Dibenz(b,f)azepine-5-propanamine,
10,11-dihydro-N,N-dimethyl-2-( 1-
piperidinylmethyl)-
64097-63-8
C25H35N3
90.06
2
18
7.94E+05
15
7.31E+05
9
1.92E+05
0
N/A
Amesergide
121588-75-8
C25H35N30
80.36
16
18
2.39E+05
12
2.05E+05
9
1.17E+05
0
N/A
Bis {3 - [2 -(diethy lamino )ethoxy ] phenyl}
methanone
67588-09-4
C25H36N203
84.31
3
18
2.40E+05
9
1.29E+05
0
N/A
0
N/A
Diamocaine
27112-37-4
C25H37N30
83.98
5
18
5.61E+05
12
4.40E+05
6
3.16E+05
0
N/A
1 -Hexadecyl-5-hydroxyquinolin-1 -ium
113451-64-2
C25H40NO
89.51
1
18
1.84E+06
12
8.26E+05
6
2.50E+06
1
1.93E+04
(1" ,2" -Dimethy 1-5'' -ethy l)-delta6-
tetrahydro cannabinol
343770-62-7
C25H40O2
91.14
5
0
N/A
9
6.65E+05
15
1.96E+06
0
N/A
Butanamide, 2-(3-pentadecylphenoxy)-
62609-89-6
C25H43N02
86.82
22
6
2.69E+05
3
1.91E+05
0
N/A
0
N/A
Butanamide, 2-(3-pentadecylphenoxy)-
62609-89-6
C25H43N02
92.25
22
0

9
9.33E+05
15
2.46E+06
0
N/A
N-[ 1 -(Octadecyloxy)-4-(2H-tetrazol-5-
yl)butan-2-yl] acetamide
192563-92-1
C25H49N502
87.67
1
18
1.71E+05
15
2.32E+05
6
5.42E+04
0
N/A
1-Dodecanamine, N-dodecyl-N-methyl-
2915-90-4
C25H53N
94.59
3
12
1.06E+06
12
1.37E+06
3
2.21E+06
0
N/A
1 H-Indole, 1 ,l'-(3,7-dimethyl-6-octen-
1-ylidene) bis-
67801-16-5
C26H30N2
92.7
12
18
5.47E+05
6
4.88E+05
3
2.88E+05
0
N/A
-------
Table R-2 Continued
Tentative Chemical Identification''
CAS
Number'1
Chemical
Formula
Score
Number
of
Chemicals
Same
Formula
Recycling
Plants -
Frequency
Recycling
Plants -
Mean
Area
Counts
Indoor
Fields -
Frequency
Indoor
Fields -
Mean
Area
Counts
Outdoor
Fields -
Frequency
Outdoor
Fields -
Mean
Area
Counts
Blanks -
Frequency
Blanks -
Mean
Area
Counts
2-({4-[(2-Amino-4-oxo-4,5-dihydro-
1,3-thiazol-5-yl)methyl]phenoxy}
methy l)-2,5,7,8 -tetramethy 1-3,4 -
dihydro-2H-l-benzopyran-6-yl acetate
171485-87-3
C26H30N2O5S
91.6
1
18
1.51E+05
12
9.03E+04
9
7.55E+04
0
N/A
9,10-Anthracenedione, l,4-bis[(l,3-
dimethylbutyl) amino]-
19720-42-4
C26H34N202
93.32
15
0
N/A
0
N/A
6
2.83E+05
0
N/A
2,3 -dimethoxy- 5 -octadecy lsulfany 1
cyclohexa-2,5-diene-1,4-dione
53092-24-3
C26H4404S
80.5
2
15
2.24E+05
3
1.55E+05
0
N/A
0
N/A
{[ 18-(4-Methylpiperidin-1 -yl)-18-
oxooctadecan-9-yl] sulfanyl} acetic acid
65768-88-9
C26H49N03S
87.66
1
15
9.53E+04
3
2.02E+04
3
2.76E+04
0
N/A
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) decanedioate
122-62-3
C26H50O4
88.19
14
18
1.12E+06
6
7.75E+05
6
1.84E+06
0
N/A
1-Tridecanamine, N-tridecyl-
5910-75-8
C26H55N
96.96
6
12
2.57E+05
12
1.71E+05
3
1.35E+05
0
N/A
3,6,9,12-Tetraazatriacontane-1 - sulfonic
acid
29401-55-6
C26H58N403S
80.16
1
15
3.13E+05
3
2.04E+05
12
2.64E+05
0
N/A
Carbamic acid, (5,6,7,9-tetrahydro-
1,2,3-trimethoxy-10-(methylthio)-9-
oxobenzo(a) heptalene-7-yl)-, phenyl
ester, (S)-
96737-27-8
C27H27N06S
84.34
1
18
1.09E+06
15
5.71E+05
6
8.21E+04
0
N/A
N-[2-(Cyclohexylamino)-l-(2-
methylphenyl)-2-oxoethyl]-N-(3-
fluorophenyl)-2-(2-methyl-1H-
imidazol-1 -yl)acetamide
1355326-35-0
C27H31FN402
93.52
8
36
4.33E+05
30
5.58E+05
30
6.13E+05
0
N/A
N-[2-(Cyclohexylamino)-l-(2-
methylphenyl)-2-oxoethyl]-N-(3-
fluorophenyl)-2-(2-methyl-1H-
imidazol-1 -yl)acetamide
1355326-35-0
C27H31FN402
92.79
8
0
N/A
6
3.29E+05
24
6.69E+05
0
N/A
AC1NSNAY
5784-09-8
C27H31N303
85.29
2
3
8.26E+04
3
2.12E+05
3
2.05E+05
0
N/A
Rolitetracycline
751-97-3
C27H33N308
81.97
2
12
4.91E+04
9
5.38E+04
12
1.05E+05
0
N/A
Duokvin
120509-24-2
C27H34N2
85.01
36
0
N/A
9
8.16E+05
3
1.15E+06
0
N/A
Duokvin
120509-24-2
C27H34N2
82.02
36
18
5.85E+05
3
4.90E+05
3
2.11E+05
0
N/A
Duokvin
120509-24-2
C27H34N2
91.67
36
18
7.37E+05
9
5.47E+05
12
6.88E+05
0
N/A
-------
Table R-2 Continued
Tentative Chemical Identification''
CAS
Number'1
Chemical
Formula
Score
Number
of
Chemicals
Same
Formula
Recycling
Plants -
Frequency
Recycling
Plants -
Mean
Area
Counts
Indoor
Fields -
Frequency
Indoor
Fields -
Mean
Area
Counts
Outdoor
Fields -
Frequency
Outdoor
Fields -
Mean
Area
Counts
Blanks -
Frequency
Blanks -
Mean
Area
Counts
2-[2-Fluoro-4-(octyloxy)phenyl]-5-
(nonyloxy) pyrimidine
143625-23-4
C27H41FN202
97.89
1
18
2.21E+06
9
1.32E+06
6
6.15E+05
0
N/A
2,2',2"-Phosphanetriyltris(4,5-dipropyl-
lH-imidazole)
89210-52-6
C27H45N6P
82.33
2
18
2.36E+05
3
2.01E+05
0
N/A
0
N/A
3-Pentadecyl-4-(piperidin-1 -ylmethyl)
benzene-1,2-diol hydrochloride
66495-64-5
C27H47N02
87.99
4
6
6.70E+04
12
3.17E+05
15
6.17E+05
0
N/A
1-Octanamine, 7-methyl-N,N-bis(7-
methyloctyl)-
18198-40-8
C27H57N
93.39
2
12
1.88E+06
12
2.45E+06
3
4.21E+06
0
N/A
4-Quinolinecarboxylic acid, 2-(10-(2-
(dimethy lamino )ethy 1)-10H-
phenothiazin-2-yl)-, ethyl ester,
monohydrochloride
72170-44-6
C28H27N302S
86.06
1
18
2.78E+05
15
2.33E+05
9
1.09E+05
0
N/A
N-Propyl-1 -(triphenylmethyl)-L-
histidinamide
171176-63-9
C28H30N4O
90.93
1
15
5.80E+05
6
3.80E+05
9
1.69E+05
0
N/A
GBR 12935
76778-22-8
C28H34N20
83.16
7
3
1.68E+05
3
1.42E+05
9
1.02E+05
0
N/A
2-Naphthalenol, 1 -[(4-dodecylphenyl)
azo]-
68310-09-8
C28H36N20
95.09
5
12
2.53E+05
9
5.44E+05
3
3.35E+05
0
N/A
N-[ 1 -[4-(4-methylphenyl)-5-[(3-
methylphenyl) methylsulfanyl] -1,2,4-
triazol-3-yl]ethyl] nonanamide
5977-63-9
C28H38N40S
80.83
1
18
4.48E+05
6
4.58E+05
6
1.24E+05
0
N/A
(2S)-l-[(2S,3S)-3-Hexyl-4-oxooxetan-
2-yl]tridecan -2-yl N-formyl-L-
methioninate
1356354-38-5
C28H51N05S
80.1
1
3
9.67E+04
12
1.54E+05
0
N/A
0
N/A
Impacarzine
41340-39-0
C28H55N502
85.92
1
18
9.65E+05
12
4.04E+05
6
7.82E+05
0
N/A
1 -(T etradecy lperoxy )tetradecane
2130-45-2
C28H5802
86.93
2
12
2.62E+05
9
1.01E+05
6
3.56E+05
0
N/A
Dimyristylamine
17361-44-3
C28H59N
90.89
3
12
1.51E+05
9
1.08E+05
3
6.71E+04
0
N/A
1 -(2-(2-(Diphenyl)methoxy )ethyl)-4-(3 -
phenyl propyl)homopiperazine
150151-14-7
C29H36N20
86.98
4
18
1.70E+05
6
1.90E+05
0
N/A
0
N/A
Onapristone
96346-61-1
C29H39N03
89.69
5
18
4.97E+05
3
5.30E+05
0
N/A
0
N/A
Nonyl 4-[(E)- {[4-(hexyloxy)phenyl]
imino} methyl] benzoate
793724-55-7
C29H41N03
88.9
1
18
2.22E+05
6
2.60E+05
0
N/A
0
N/A
PUBCHEM_71314385
83274-68-4
C29H50O6Si
92.47
1
18
6.48E+05
15
3.79E+05
9
3.27E+05
0
N/A
-------
Table R-2 Continued
Tentative Chemical Identification''
CAS
Number'1
Chemical
Formula
Score
Number
of
Chemicals
Same
Formula
Recycling
Plants -
Frequency
Recycling
Plants -
Mean
Area
Counts
Indoor
Fields -
Frequency
Indoor
Fields -
Mean
Area
Counts
Outdoor
Fields -
Frequency
Outdoor
Fields -
Mean
Area
Counts
Blanks -
Frequency
Blanks -
Mean
Area
Counts
2,2-Bis(((l-oxoheptyl)oxy)methyl)butyl
nonan-l-oate
84788-10-3
C29H5406
84.69
1
18
2.64E+05
6
1.85E+05
3
2.83E+05
0
N/A
1,3,5,6-Tetraphenyl-5,6-dihydro-4H-
thieno[3,4-c]pyrrole-4-thione
61505-64-4
C30H21NS2
82.5
1
18
1.21E+05
6
7.69E+04
0
N/A
0
N/A
N-[3-(l,3-benzothiazol-2-yl)-5,5,7,7-
tetramethyl-4,6-dihydrothieno[2,3-
c]pyridin-2-yl] -3-methoxy naphthalene-
2-carboxamide
6268-77-5
C30H29N3O2S2
81.79
1
6
5.19E+04
12
9.73E+04
15
1.61E+05
0
N/A
4-(2-Phenylpropan-2-yl)-N-[4-(2-
phenylpropan-2-yl)phenyl] aniline
10081-67-1
C30H31N
91.88
3
15
1.01E+05
6
1.25E+05
6
1.49E+05
0
N/A
T0503-2801
6544-75-8
C30H31N2OP
97.92
1
15
1.32E+05
6
3.36E+04
9
8.76E+04
0
N/A
Pyrimidine, 4-methoxy-2-(4-(3,3,3-
triphenyl propyl)- 1-piperazinyl)-
20980-13-6
C30H32N4O
95.48
3
18
2.73E+06
12
1.23E+06
9
1.03E+06
0
N/A
Triphenyl {[(tricyclo [3.3.1.1-3,7~] dec
ane-1 -carbonyl)amino]methyl}
phosphanium chloride
142414-38-8
C30H33NOP
81.6
1
3
1.03E+05
0
N/A
6
2.62E+05
0
N/A
N-[ 1 -(3,3-Diphenylpropyl)piperidin-4-
yl] -N'-phenyl-N-prop-2-en-1 -ylurea
821008-04-2
C30H35N3O
83.16
2
18
4.09E+05
3
3.14E+05
0
N/A
0
N/A
Benzo(g)quinolin-4-ol, 3-((3,5-
bis((diethylamino) methyl)-4-
hydroxyphenyl)methyl)-
127136-58-7
C30H37N3O2
86.05
2
15
1.82E+05
9
1.52E+05
3
1.76E+05
0
N/A
PUBCHEM_24184170
6275-38-3
C30H38N2
89.74
3
18
6.24E+05
6
4.16E+05
9
1.96E+05
0
N/A
N-Decyl-N-ethyl-4-[(E)- {4-[(E)-
phenyldiazenyl] phenyl} diazenyl]
aniline
89132-17-2
C30H39N5
88.43
1
15
3.26E+05
6
1.22E+05
0
N/A
0
N/A
l-Nonyl-4-[(Z)-(4-nonylphenyl)-NNO-
azoxy] benzene
37592-91-9
C30H46N2O
93.38
1
3
8.82E+04
0
N/A
3
9.03E+04
0
N/A
2-(4-{4-[(2-Fluorooctyl)oxy]butoxy}
phenyl)-5-octylpyrimidine
118642-49-2
C30H47FN2O2
96.29
1
18
3.66E+05
3
1.38E+05
0
N/A
0
N/A
Bis(2-nonylphenoxy)phosphanolate
53197-99-2
C30H47O3P
85.66
3
18
3.55E+05
6
2.72E+05
6
5.44E+04
0
N/A
4-[2-(Benzylsulfanyl)-3-
(hexadecyloxy)propoxy] butan-1 -amine
89449-40-1
C30H55NO2S
88.05
1
9
1.22E+05
6
1.02E+05
0
N/A
0
N/A
-------
Table R-2 Continued
Tentative Chemical Identification''
CAS
Number'1
Chemical
Formula
Score
Number
of
Chemicals
Same
Formula
Recycling
Plants -
Frequency
Recycling
Plants -
Mean
Area
Counts
Indoor
Fields -
Frequency
Indoor
Fields -
Mean
Area
Counts
Outdoor
Fields -
Frequency
Outdoor
Fields -
Mean
Area
Counts
Blanks -
Frequency
Blanks -
Mean
Area
Counts
15-Decyl-3,6,9,12,18,21,24,27-octaoxa-
15-azanonacosane-l ,29-diol
61480-62-4
C30H63N010
97.47
1
0
N/A
9
3.90E+05
0
N/A
0
N/A
2,5 -dibenzy 1-1 -methy 1-3,4 -dipheny 1-1 h-
pyrrole
31396-94-8
C31H27N
83.33
2
9
5.87E+04
3
1.41E+05
6
1.13E+05
0
N/A
Di-tert-butyl[3,6-dimethoxy-2',4',6'-
tri(propan-2-yl)[ 1, l'-biphenyl]-2-
yl]phosphane
1160861-53-9
C31H4902P
97.85
1
18
2.99E+05
15
4.26E+05
6
5.37E+05
0
N/A
(2S,2'S,2"S)-2,2',2"-{(2S,5S,8S,llS)-
2,5,8,11-Tetramethyl-10-[(2S)-l-oxo-1-
({2-[(pyridin-2-yl)disulfanyl] ethyl}
amino )propan-2-yl] -1,4,7,10-
tetraazacyclododecane-1,4,7-
triyl}tripropanoic acid
1192364-56-9
C31H52N607S2
81.6
1
18
3.60E+05
15
1.61E+05
9
1.77E+05
0
N/A
PUBCHEM_46780403
125175-64-6
C31H5206Si
89.43
1
18
5.51E+05
6
2.72E+05
3
1.21E+05
0
N/A
4-{(E)-[4-(2,2-Diphenylethenyl)phenyl]
diazenyl} -N,N-dipropylaniline
726180-87-6
C32H33N3
96.64
1
6
3.55E+05
0
N/A
3
1.04E+05
0
N/A
(2R, 10R)-2-(Acetyloxy )nonadecan-10-
yl naphthalene-2-carboxylate
825623-09-4
C32H4804
83.28
2
9
3.00E+05
3
1.63E+05
0
N/A
0
N/A
(2R, 10R)-2-(Acetyloxy )nonadecan-10-
yl naphthalene-2-carboxylate
825623-09-4
C32H4804
88.43
2
12
3.30E+05
3
1.94E+05
0
N/A
0
N/A
(3beta,5alpha,22S)-3-[(Oxan-2-yl)oxy]
cholestane-20,22-diol
61893-31-0
C32H5604
80.95
2
12
8.39E+04
6
1.21E+05
0
N/A
0
N/A
L-Arginine, L-glutaminyl-L-seryl-L-
seryl-L-asparaginyl-L-leucyl-L-valyl-
265099-06-7
C32H58N12012
88.37
1
15
1.44E+05
6
7.24E+04
0
N/A
0
N/A
(5,5 -Dipheny 1-4,5-dihydro-1 H-pyrazol-
3-yl) (triphenyl)phosphanium bromide
32251-65-3
C33H28N2P
81.05
2
18
1.43E+05
15
1.15E+05
9
6.04E+04
0
N/A
1 -[2,4-Dimethyl-1 -(3-phenylpropanoyl)
- lH-pyrrol-3-yl]octadecan-l-one
185696-43-9
C33H51N02
91.06
2
18
1.36E+06
0
N/A
3
3.09E+05
0
N/A
3-(Dodecyloxy)-6- {[4-(octyloxy)
anilino] methylidene} cyclohexa-2,4-
dien-l-one
643755-26-4
C33H51N03
87.95
3
18
5.67E+05
15
2.91E+05
6
3.04E+05
0
N/A
2- {4-[(6-Methyldecyl)oxy]phenyl} -5-
undecyl pyridine
111336-38-0
C33H53NO
88.73
1
18
5.42E+05
9
3.40E+05
9
2.50E+05
0
N/A
-------
Table R-2 Continued
Tentative Chemical Identification''
CAS
Number'1
Chemical
Formula
Score
Number
of
Chemicals
Same
Formula
Recycling
Plants -
Frequency
Recycling
Plants -
Mean
Area
Counts
Indoor
Fields -
Frequency
Indoor
Fields -
Mean
Area
Counts
Outdoor
Fields -
Frequency
Outdoor
Fields -
Mean
Area
Counts
Blanks -
Frequency
Blanks -
Mean
Area
Counts
Akt inhibitor VIII
612847-09-3
C34H29N70
80.85
1
18
2.50E+05
9
1.29E+05
9
9.13E+04
0
N/A
Urea, N-(2,6-bis( 1 -methylethyl)phenyl)-
N'-(( 1 -(1 -methyl-2-phenyl-1 H-indol-3-
yl)cyclopentyl) methyl)-
145131-60-8
C34H41N30
82.85
2
18
3.62E+05
6
3.22E+05
6
5.26E+04
0
N/A
Butanediamide, N1 -((1 S,2R)-3-((2S)-2-
(((1,1 -dimethy lethy l)amino )carbony 1)-
1 -piperidinyl)-2-hydroxy-1 -
(phenylmethyl)propyl)-2-((2-
quinolinylcarbonyl)amino)-, (2S)-
127749-99-9
C34H44N605
80
2
18
3.33E+05
9
8.67E+04
0
N/A
0
N/A
N-[(3beta,5alpha,6beta)-3,5-
Dihydroxycholestan-6-yl]benz amide
62684-27-9
C34H53N03
89.29
2
15
1.21E+06
15
4.29E+05
6
1.91E+05
0
N/A
2,3-Dibenzyl-1 -[(naphthalen-1 -
yl)methyl]-5-phenyl -lH-pyrrole
824421-64-9
C35H29N
84.03
2
18
7.63E+05
15
8.21E+05
9
2.72E+05
0
N/A
1 -[ 10-(9H-Carbazol-9-yl)decyl] -1
propyl-4,4'-bipyridin-1 -ium dibromide
141484-71-1
C35H43N3
85.62
1
15
1.35E+05
6
6.60E+04
0
N/A
0
N/A
N- {2- [Benzyl( {1 - [(4-fluoropheny 1)
methyl] -1 H-pyrrol-2-yl} methyl)amino] -
2-oxoethyl} -4-tert-butyl-N-(3-
methoxypropyl)benz amide
5951-50-8
C36H42FN303
80.29
1
15
1.19E+05
9
1.29E+05
6
1.43E+05
0
N/A
N- {4- [2-(Quinolin-2-yl)ethenyl]phenyl}
nonadec-2-enamide
143252-47-5
C36H48N20
81.87
1
18
3.96E+05
9
2.28E+05
3
1.41E+05
0
N/A
1,8-Octanediamine, N,N'-bis(3,5-
dimethoxy-9-acridinyl)-
64955-58-4
C38H42N404
92.48
3
18
8.92E+04
6
5.52E+04
9
7.51E+04
0
N/A
Azithromycin B
307974-61-4
C38H72N2011
87.68
1
18
1.67E+06
15
5.00E+05
9
5.16E+05
0
N/A
1,6-Hexanediamine, N,N'-bis(4-butoxy-
9-acridinyl)-
64955-53-9
C40H46N4O2
84.55
4
18
1.15E+05
9
2.30E+05
6
3.43E+05
0
N/A
AGN-PC-OLOLQU
6115-58-8
C41H57N04
87.02
1
12
7.26E+05
15
6.57E+05
9
3.58E+05
0
N/A
Propane-1,2,3-triyl (9Z,9'Z,9"Z)tri-
tetradec-9-enoate
99483-10-0
C45H80O6
80.73
1
18
3.11E+05
3
1.92E+05
6
7.67E+04
0
N/A
Dimepranol
108-16-7
C5H13NO
87.32
74
18
1.77E+05
15
1.24E+05
3
3.98E+04
0
N/A
Dacarbazine
4342-03-4
C6H10N6O
85.91
12
12
2.51E+05
9
2.26E+05
0
N/A
0
N/A
Dacarbazine
4342-03-4
C6H10N6O
87.35
12
18
3.17E+05
15
2.46E+05
9
8.61E+04
0
N/A
Ethane, l,l-diethoxy-2,2,2-trifluoro-
31224-45-0
C6H11F302
87.79
1
12
5.07E+04
15
1.75E+05
9
1.66E+05
2
4.78E+04
-------
Table R-2 Continued
Tentative Chemical Identification''
CAS
Number'1
Chemical
Formula
Score
Number
of
Chemicals
Same
Formula
Recycling
Plants -
Frequency
Recycling
Plants -
Mean
Area
Counts
Indoor
Fields -
Frequency
Indoor
Fields -
Mean
Area
Counts
Outdoor
Fields -
Frequency
Outdoor
Fields -
Mean
Area
Counts
Blanks -
Frequency
Blanks -
Mean
Area
Counts
Methanol, (l,3,5-triazine-2,4,6-
triyltriimino)tris-
1017-56-7
C6H12N603
87.29
4
6
5.70E+04
6
2.43E+05
6
1.60E+05
0
N/A
l-(diaminomethylidene)-2-pyrazin-2-
ylguanidine
51531-75-0
C6H9N7
84.33
6
12
1.41E+05
9
7.61E+04
0
N/A
0
N/A
3-(4(5)-Imidazolyl)propylguanidine
46129-28-6
C7H13N5
83.97
17
18
1.31E+05
15
3.36E+05
9
4.49E+05
2
1.16E+05
N~2~,N~2~-Diethyl-N~4~,N~6~-
dihydroxy-l,3,5-triazine-2,4,6-triamine
33901-81-4
C7H14N602
87.38
6
18
3.04E+05
6
2.35E+05
0
N/A
0
N/A
N~2~,N~2~-Diethyl-N~4~,N~6~-
dihydroxy-l,3,5-triazine-2,4,6-triamine
33901-81-4
C7H14N602
86.84
6
18
1.97E+05
6
2.01E+05
0
N/A
0
N/A
1-Phenylurea
64-10-8
C7H8N20
87.12
157
12
2.12E+05
3
2.08E+05
0
N/A
0
N/A
N,N-Dimethylcyclohexylamine
98-94-2
C8H17N
87.26
125
18
3.56E+05
12
9.29E+04
6
6.16E+04
0
N/A
Valpromide
2430-27-5
C8H17NO
82.39
398
18
2.48E+05
6
1.29E+05
6
7.93E+04
0
N/A
Valpromide
2430-27-5
C8H17NO
98.49
398
18
1.22E+06
9
7.72E+04
3
1.14E+05
0
N/A
alpha-Methylstyrene
98-83-9
C9H10
87.75
47
6
9.73E+04
6
2.21E+05
9
2.17E+05
0
N/A
3 -Pheny 1-2-propen-1 -ol
104-54-1
C9H10O
87.48
109
3
1.62E+05
6
2.23E+05
9
2.28E+05
0
N/A
gamma-Nonanolactone
104-61-0
C9H1602
86.67
373
6
2.99E+04
3
5.30E+04
9
2.21E+05
0
N/A
Triisopropanolamine
122-20-3
C9H21N03
99.54
16
18
8.08E+05
15
5.99E+05
9
1.57E+05
0
N/A
2,2-Dihydroxy-5-nitroindene-1,3-dione
106483-66-3
C9H5N06
82.24
9
18
3.78E+05
6
9.68E+04
6
7.02E+04
0
N/A
Hippuric acid
495-69-2
C9H9N03
85.23
374
18
3.28E+05
9
3.52E+05
0
N/A
0
N/A
Hippuric acid
495-69-2
C9H9N03
97.69
374
18
2.68E+05
9
2.19E+05
0
N/A
0
N/A
a SVOC = semivolatile organic compound; LC/TOFMS = liquid chromatography/time-of-flight mass spectrometry; N/A = not applicable
b Recycling Plants (n=6); Indoor Fields (n=5); Outdoor Fields (n=5); Blanks (n=3)
°Some pharmaceutical chemicals have been highly tentatively identified; while these chemicals are sometimes found in the environment, these results may also reflect a bias
in chemical assignment that is partly based on frequency of appearance in literature data sources.
d Unique numerical identifier assigned by the Chemical Abstracts Services (CAS)
-------
Table R-3. Non-Targeted Analysis SVOC Results for Tire Crumb Rubber Extracts by LC/TOFMS Negative Mode - Highly Tentative Screening Resultsa'b
Tentative Chemical Identification
CAS
Number1'
Chemical
Formula
Score
Number
of
Chemicals
Same
Formula
Recycling
Plants -
Frequency
Recycling
Plants -
Mean
Area
Counts
Indoor
Fields -
Frequency
Indoor
Fields -
Mean
Area
Counts
Outdoor
Fields -
Frequency
Outdoor
Fields -
Mean
Area
Counts
Blanks -
Frequency
Blanks -
Mean
Area
Counts
Cyclooct-4-en-l-yl methyl carbonate
87731-18-8
C10H16O3
87.48
256
0
N/A
9
7.14E+04
9
5.58E+04
0
N/A
1 -[ 1 -(tert-Butoxycarbonyl)pyrrolidin-2-
yl] -2-diazonioethen-1 -olate
28094-74-8
C11H18N303
86.47
1
18
9.58E+04
6
7.19E+04
0
N/A
0
N/A
2-Fluoro-1 -[4-(3-methylbut-2-en-l -yl)
piperazin-1 -yl] ethan-1 -one
76825-94-0
C11H19FN20
97.63
1
18
5.31E+05
15
3.28E+05
6
1.60E+05
0
N/A
Methyl decanoate
110-42-9
C11H2202
86.8
209
18
2.07E+05
15
1.17E+05
3
6.32E+04
0
N/A
Guanidine, (4-phenyl-1 -piperidinyl)-,
sulfate (2:1)
59083-99-7
C12H18N4
86.5
32
18
1.06E+05
3
9.47E+04
0
N/A
0
N/A
Dodec-11-ene-l-sulfonyl fluoride
623114-66-9
C12H23F02S
96.3
1
18
2.78E+05
15
1.63E+05
3
4.16E+04
0
N/A
Dodecanoic acid
143-07-7
C12H2402
84.7
229
18
1.75E+05
15
1.45E+05
9
8.63E+04
0
N/A
Sodium dodecyl sulfate
151-21-3
C12H2604S
98.43
34

3.13E+04
12
6.23E+04
0
N/A
0
N/A
S-(4-Methylphenyl) 4-(hydroxy(oxido)
amino) benzenesulfonothioate
94583-15-0
C13H11N04S2
93.74
3
15
6.03E+04
3
5.68E+04
0
N/A
0
N/A
Diphenylurea
102-07-8
C13H12N20
80.91
177
15
1.04E+05
9
1.73E+05
3
9.19E+04
0
N/A
Bis(4-hydroxyphenyl)methane
620-92-8
C13H1202
85.55
155
12
1.09E+05
6
8.84E+04
0
N/A
0
N/A
Acetanilide, 2-(diethylamino)-5'-ethyl-
2'-fluoro-
787-99-5
C14H21FN20
83.62
1
18
1.00E+05
12
5.37E+04
3
4.95E+04
0
N/A
2,6-Di-tert-butyl-4-nitrophenol
728-40-5
C14H21N03
85.47
140
6
4.49E+04
15
6.81E+04
0
N/A
0
N/A
4-(l ,1,3,3-Tetramethylbutyl)phenol
140-66-9
C14H220
85.32
214
6
5.66E+04
3
3.17E+04
0
N/A
0
N/A
Sodium myristyl sulfate
1191-50-0
C14H30O4S
87.13
11
0
N/A
3
8.33E+04
0
N/A
0
N/A
2,6-Di-tert-butyl-4-hydroperoxy-4-
methy 1-2,5 -cy clohexadienone
6485-57-0
C15H2403
84.68
54
0
N/A
9
1.31E+05
12
6.92E+04
0
N/A
6-Fluoro-3,7,l 1-trimethyldodeca-
l,6,10-trien-3-ol
116058-31-2
C15H25FO
83.31
8
36
1.44E+05
30
1.79E+05
30
9.01E+04
0
N/A
6-Fluoro-3,7,l 1-trimethyldodeca-
l,6,10-trien-3-ol
116058-31-2
C15H25FO
96.27
8
36
2.65E+06
30
3.10E+06
30
1.32E+06
0
N/A
2,6-Diphenylpyridine
3558-69-8
C17H13N
85.03
38
3
9.19E+04
3
9.49E+04
0
N/A
0
N/A
Linalyl benzoate
126-64-7
C17H2202
95.97
68
18
1.29E+05
15
1.10E+05
9
6.22E+04
0
N/A
Alkylbenzenesulfonate, linear
42615-29-2
C17H2803S
89.17
15
18
9.97E+04
6
4.18E+04
0
N/A
0
N/A
Triphenylamine
603-34-9
C18H15N
85.41
48
18
9.59E+04
15
1.15E+05
6
5.50E+04
0
N/A
-------
Table R-3 Continued
Tentative Chemical Identification
CAS
Number1'
Chemical
Formula
Score
Number
of
Chemicals
Same
Formula
Recycling
Plants -
Frequency
Recycling
Plants -
Mean
Area
Counts
Indoor
Fields -
Frequency
Indoor
Fields -
Mean
Area
Counts
Outdoor
Fields -
Frequency
Outdoor
Fields -
Mean
Area
Counts
Blanks -
Frequency
Blanks -
Mean
Area
Counts
4(lH)-Pyrimidinone, 2-((2,2-
dimethoxyethyl) thio)-5-(l-
methylethyl)-6-(phenylmethyl)-
199852-00-1
C18H24N203S
93.65
7
18
1.35E+05
6
1.25E+05
0
N/A
0
N/A
Linolenic acid
463-40-1
C18H30O2
84.04
76
15
1.83E+05
9
1.85E+05
6
1.22E+05
0
N/A
2-[2-[4-(l ,1,3,3-Tetramethylbutyl)
phenoxy] ethoxy]ethanol
2315-61-9
C18H30O3
84.74
58
18
1.07E+05
15
1.85E+05
9
9.35E+04
0
N/A
Dodecylbenzenesulfonic acid
27176-87-0
C18H30O3S
92.26
75
12
8.68E+04
9
6.08E+04
0
N/A
0
N/A
Cyclopropanecarboxylic acid, 2-[l-(3,3-
dimethylcyclohexyl)ethoxy]-2-
methylpropyl ester
477218-42-1
C18H3203
84.92
28
18
3.31E+05
15
3.72E+05
9
1.27E+05
0
N/A
Tritylamine
5824-40-8
C19H17N
83.37
148
30
8.27E+04
30
1.12E+05
24
6.05E+04
0
N/A
Tritylamine
5824-40-8
C19H17N
84.64
148
30
1.21E+05
30
1.80E+05
24
7.71E+04
0
N/A
2alpha-Fluorodihydrotestosterone
1649-46-3
C19H29F02
98.18
3
15
1.91E+05
6
3.72E+04
6
4.68E+04
0
N/A
1 -(Dodecyloxy)-4-fluoro-2-
methylbenzene
451-98-9
C19H31FO
99.08
1
15
1.29E+06
9
1.40E+05
6
1.77E+05
0
N/A
[Bis(2-hydroxy ethyl)amino]methyltetra
decanoate
88519-61-3
C19H39N04
94.88
3
15
1.82E+05
9
1.07E+05
0
N/A
0
N/A
Ethyl [bis(octyloxy)phosphanyl]
carbamate
61670-40-4
C19H40NO4P
89.62
2
18
3.17E+05
6
1.91E+05
0
N/A
0
N/A
Estradiol acetate
4245-41-4
C20H26O3
83.87
32
12
5.11E+04
12
5.58E+04
9
6.62E+04
0
N/A
1 -(3,7,11 -Trimethyldodeca-2,6,10-trien-
1-yl) pyridin-l-ium
927670-34-6
C20H30N
82.21
2
0

6
4.87E+04
0

0
N/A
17-Methy ltesto sterone
58-18-4
C20H3002
97.51
760
9
2.60E+05
15
1.97E+05
9
9.38E+04
0
N/A
Eicosanoic acid
506-30-9
C20H4002
82.32
308
36
4.78E+04
30
4.90E+04
24
4.11E+04
0
N/A
Eicosanoic acid
506-30-9
C20H4002
98.84
308
36
6.98E+04
30
9.86E+04
30
1.71E+05
0
N/A
2-Hexadecanol, 1 -[bis(2-hydroxy ethyl)
oxido amino]-
28865-36-3
C20H43NO4
83.72
2
0
N/A
3
7.19E+04
0
N/A
0
N/A
1 -(4-Methoxy-3,5 -dimethylbenzyl)-4-
(3-(ethylamino)-2-pyridyl)piperazine
hydrochloride
136818-99-0
C21H30N4O
83.65
4
18
1.14E+05
9
8.23E+04
0
N/A
0
N/A
[Bis(2-hydroxy ethyl)amino]methyl
hexadecanoate
88519-62-4
C21H43N04
98.59
1
18
1.28E+05
15
7.97E+04
6
3.54E+04
0
N/A
-------
Table R-3 Continued
Tentative Chemical Identification
CAS
Number1'
Chemical
Formula
Score
Number
of
Chemicals
Same
Formula
Recycling
Plants -
Frequency
Recycling
Plants -
Mean
Area
Counts
Indoor
Fields -
Frequency
Indoor
Fields -
Mean
Area
Counts
Outdoor
Fields -
Frequency
Outdoor
Fields -
Mean
Area
Counts
Blanks —
Frequency
Blanks -
Mean
Area
Counts
Ethanol, 2,2'-(heptadecylimino)bis-
7517-26-2
C21H45N02
82.86
1
0
N/A
3
1.27E+05
0
N/A
0
N/A
Phenol, 2,4-bis(l-phenylethyl)-
2769-94-0
C22H220
96.2
19
12
1.73E+05
15
1.19E+05
3
4.75E+04
0
N/A
Norethindrone acetate
51-98-9
C22H2803
90.22
54
18
6.88E+04
6
5.80E+04
0
N/A
0
N/A
Norethindrone acetate
51-98-9
C22H2803
82.86
54
6
6.66E+04
12
7.27E+04
12
1.00E+05
0
N/A
Promegestone
34184-77-5
C22H30O2
82.37
57
15
7.85E+04
6
1.06E+05
0
N/A
0
N/A
Ahr 12234
125651-31-2
C22H40N4O3S
86.09
1
9
4.42E+04
3
3.15E+04
0
N/A
0
N/A
Hexadecyl glucoside
75319-63-0
C22H4406
93.78
5
9
3.62E+04
3
1.34E+05
0
N/A
0
N/A
Megestrol acetate
595-33-5
C24H3204
96.79
21
3
2.53E+05
0
N/A
0
N/A
0
N/A
3-Oxochola-4,6-dien-24-oic Acid
88179-71-9
C24H3403
92
10
3
8.53E+04
0
N/A
3
5.29E+04
0
N/A
2,2'-Methylenebis(ethyl-6-tert-
butylphenol)
88-24-4
C25H3602
82.35
57
18
5.15E+04
6
7.73E+04
6
1.32E+05
0
N/A
2,2'-Methylenebis(ethyl-6-tert-
butylphenol)
88-24-4
C25H3602
99.13
57
18
3.30E+05
15
1.22E+05
6
1.68E+05
0
N/A
CB-25
869376-63-6
C25H41N03
97.38
7
18
8.80E+04
15
4.89E+04
6
4.23E+04
0
N/A
Pyridinium, 1,1'-[ 1,4-phenylenebis
(methylene )]bis[4-( 1 -pyrrolidinyl)-
807314-59-6
C26H32N4
98.5
6
3
3.68E+05
0
N/A
0
N/A
0
N/A
Estradiol cypionate
313-06-4
C26H3603
96.99
10
9
6.48E+04
12
9.80E+04
15
4.90E+04
0
N/A
Resocortol butyrate
76738-96-0
C26H3805
99.45
5
3
3.00E+05
0

0
N/A
0
N/A
NSC103655
27702-16-5
C26H42N6
87.09
1
18
3.52E+04
15
4.97E+04
6
4.26E+04
0
N/A
Hydrocortisone 21-hexanoate
3593-96-2
C27H40O6
96.38
5
18
1.68E+05
15
1.68E+05
6
2.22E+05
0
N/A
[2,2-Bis[(3,7-dimethyl-2,6-octadienyl)
oxy] ethyl]benzene
67634-02-0
C28H4202
93.61
19
18
7.69E+04
15
8.68E+04
9
4.20E+04
0
N/A
5-benzyl-6-hydroxy-1,2,3-triphenyl
pyrimidin-1 -ium-4-one
56409-80-4
C29H23N202
99.1
1
18
1.26E+05
15
5.30E+04
3
5.44E+04
0
N/A
ethyl 2,5-dimethyl-3,4,6-triphenyl
benzoate
76331-32-3
C29H2602
94
2
12
7.51E+04
15
1.12E+05
6
1.03E+05
0
N/A
1 H,3H,5H-Oxazolo [3,4-c]oxazole,
dihydro-3,5-bis[l-methyl-2-[4-(l-
methylethyl)phenyl] ethyl]-
1001164-15-3
C29H41N02
98.32
2
18
1.17E+05
6
9.96E+04
0
N/A
0
N/A
-------
Table R-3 Continued
Tentative Chemical Identification
CAS
Number1'
Chemical
Formula
Score
Number
of
Chemicals
Same
Formula
Recycling
Plants -
Frequency
Recycling
Plants -
Mean
Area
Counts
Indoor
Fields -
Frequency
Indoor
Fields -
Mean
Area
Counts
Outdoor
Fields -
Frequency
Outdoor
Fields -
Mean
Area
Counts
Blanks —
Frequency
Blanks -
Mean
Area
Counts
Nonyl 4-[(E)- {[4-(hexyloxy)phenyl]
imino} methyl]benzoate
793724-55-7
C29H41N03
97.15
1
18
2.50E+05
6
3.24E+05
0
N/A
0
N/A
2-{3-[Dimethyl(octadecyl)silyl]
propoxy} propane-l,2,3-tricarboxylic
acid
923273-68-1
C29H5607Si
84.89
1
3
1.63E+05
0
N/A
0
N/A
0
N/A
1 H-Indole- 3 -tetradecanol, 5 -methoxy-1 -
[(4-methoxyphenyl)sulfonyl] -
651331-73-6
C30H43NO5S
82.27
2
18
4.67E+04
12
3.88E+04
6
2.77E+04
0
N/A
RH292
119738-64-6
C30H46N3
96.78
1
6
5.15E+04
12
1.39E+05
15
1.13E+05
0
N/A
Tetrabutyl ethylidenebisphenol
35958-30-6
C30H46O2
96.74
11
15
1.26E+05
9
1.35E+05
6
5.52E+04
0
N/A
Abieslactone
38577-26-3
C31H4803
97.37
3
18
4.94E+04
6
5.68E+04
0
N/A
0
N/A
[l,l'-Biphenyl]-4-carboxylic acid, 4'-
octyl-, 4-(2-methylbutyl)phenyl ester
93798-26-6
C32H40O2
98.21
4
6
4.82E+04
3
6.48E+04
12
6.62E+04
0
N/A
1 - {4-[(4'-Pentyl[l,l'-biphenyl]-4-
yl)methoxy] phenyl} octane-1,3-diol
915316-39-1
C32H4203
95.71
2
12
8.59E+04
9
8.47E+04
0
N/A
0
N/A
1 H-Indole-3-hexadecano 1, 5-methoxy-1 -
[(4-methoxyphenyl)sulfonyl] -
651331-74-7
C32H47N05S
86.56
2
15
5.93E+04
3
5.05E+04
0
N/A
0
N/A
4-(4-Hydroxy-3,5 -bis(2-methylbutan-2-
yl) phenyl)-2,6-bis(2-methylbutan-2-
yl)phenol
65901-03-3
C32H50O2
94.99
6
18
5.99E+04
15
7.08E+04
9
2.91E+04
0
N/A
Phenol, 2,2'-methylenebis[4-methyl-6-
nonyl-
7786-17-6
C33H5202
97.98
36
36
1.13E+05
30
9.61E+04
30
2.15E+05
0
N/A
Phenol, 2,2'-methylenebis[4-methyl-6-
nonyl-
7786-17-6
C33H5202
97.89
36
36
2.33E+06
30
1.76E+06
30
4.61E+05
0
N/A
2- {4-[Ethoxy(diphenyl)methyl]phenyl} -
3 -hydroxy-1 H-phenalen-1 -one
113337-70-5
C34H2603
86.99
1
12
8.82E+04
9
4.88E+04
0
N/A
0
N/A
Phenol, 4,4',4"-(l-methyl-l-propanyl-3-
ylidene)tris[2-( 1,1 -dimethylethyl)-
25211-93-2
C34H4603
95.41
2
15
4.64E+04
3
3.81E+04
0
N/A
0
N/A
N-[(3beta,5alpha,6beta)-3,5-Dihydroxy
cholestan-6-yl]benz amide
62684-27-9
C34H53N03
99.53
2
18
1.86E+05
9
1.82E+05
6
4.95E+04
0
N/A
1 -[(Octadecyloxy)methyl]pyrene
134217-20-2
C35H480
95.27
9
45
7.35E+04
45
7.85E+04
45
4.08E+04
0
N/A
1 -[(Octadecyloxy)methyl]pyrene
134217-20-2
C35H480
97.5
9
54
6.70E+05
45
2.88E+05
36
1.07E+05
0
N/A
1 -[(Octadecyloxy)methyl]pyrene
134217-20-2
C35H480
98.65
9
54
1.12E+05
45
9.87E+04
45
4.49E+04
0
N/A
-------
Table R-3 Continued
Tentative Chemical Identification
CAS
Number1'
Chemical
Formula
Score
Number
of
Chemicals
Same
Formula
Recycling
Plants -
Frequency
Recycling
Plants -
Mean
Area
Counts
Indoor
Fields -
Frequency
Indoor
Fields -
Mean
Area
Counts
Outdoor
Fields -
Frequency
Outdoor
Fields -
Mean
Area
Counts
Blanks —
Frequency
Blanks -
Mean
Area
Counts
3-[(Oxan-2-yl)oxy]lup-20(29)-en-28-aI
59741-99-0
C35H5603
99.34
1
0
N/A
6
1.00E+05
15
1.34E+05
0
N/A
2-Propenoic acid, 3-(4-hydroxyphenyl)-,
hexacosyl ester
71660-26-9
C35H60O3
98.26
3
12
1.45E+05
3
1.38E+05
9
2.61E+05
1
8.39E+04
1,1,12-Triphenyloctadec-9-ene-l ,12-
diol
91533-11-8
C36H4802
92.13
1
12
5.51E+04
6
5.94E+04
0
N/A
0
N/A
4'-(Nonyloxy)[ 1,1 -biphenyl] -4-yl 4-
[(octan-2-yl)oxy]benzoate
104586-47-2
C36H4804
89.46
2
18
8.00E+04
15
7.55E+04
6
2.62E+04
0
N/A
1,1' - [ 1,4 -Pheny lenebis(methy leneoxy)]
bis(4-nonylbenzene)
88457-40-3
C38H5402
92.68
2
0
N/A
12
1.06E+05
3
3.01E+04
0
N/A
l,3-Bis(4-dodecylphenyl)propan-2-one
189139-40-0
C39H620
94.93
1
0
N/A
0
N/A
6
1.08E+05
0
N/A
Lutein
127-40-2
C40H56O2
88.76
4
9
6.18E+04
12
7.05E+04
12
4.62E+04
0
N/A
(3beta)-Cholest-5-en-3-yl anthracene-9-
carboxylate
2641-40-9
C42H5402
96.78
1
18
2.68E+05
12
2.45E+05
3
4.83E+04
0
N/A
L-Lysyl-L-lysyl-L-leucyl-L-methionyl-
L-phenylalanyl-L-lysyl-L-threonine
189813-01-2
C42H74N10O9S
87.22
1
6
5.76E+04
6
1.02E+05
0

0
N/A
6-Fluoropurine
1480-89-3
C5H3FN4
85.24
6
6
7.86E+04
0
N/A
0
N/A
0
N/A
2-Hydroxyethyl acrylate
818-61-1
C5H803
81.73
111
0
N/A
6
5.15E+04
6
8.55E+04
0
N/A
1,5-Trisiloxanediol, 1,1,3,3,5,5-
hexamethyl-
3663-50-1
C6H20O4Si3
97.87
40
0
N/A
24
1.95E+05
48
1.09E+05
0
N/A
1,5-Trisiloxanediol, 1,1,3,3,5,5-
hexamethyl-
3663-50-1
C6H20O4Si3
96.04
40
24
1.33E+05
36
2.99E+05
48
2.59E+05
4
8.34E+04
1,7-Tetrasiloxanediol, 1,1,3,3,5,5,7,7-
octamethyl-
3081-07-0
C8H2605Si4
93.14
75
0
N/A
45
2.40E+05
60
2.61E+05
0
N/A
1,7-Tetrasiloxanediol, 1,1,3,3,5,5,7,7-
octamethyl-
3081-07-0
C8H2605Si4
94.1
75
15
2.41E+04
45
3.11E+05
60
1.40E+05
0
N/A
1,7-Tetrasiloxanediol, 1,1,3,3,5,5,7,7-
octamethyl-
3081-07-0
C8H2605Si4
91.08
75
15
2.41E+04
45
3.75E+05
60
1.93E+05
0
N/A
1,7-Tetrasiloxanediol, 1,1,3,3,5,5,7,7-
octamethyl-
3081-07-0
C8H2605Si4
94.73
75
15
2.41E+04
45
2.83E+05
60
1.87E+05
0
N/A
1,7-Tetrasiloxanediol, 1,1,3,3,5,5,7,7-
octamethyl-
3081-07-0
C8H2605Si4
93.84
75
0
N/A
30
1.21E+05
60
5.92E+04
0
N/A
-------
Table R-3 Continued
Tentative Chemical Identification
CAS
Chemical
Score
Number
Recycling
Recycling
Indoor
Indoor
Outdoor
Outdoor
Blanks —
Blanks -

Number1'
Formula

of
Plants -
Plants -
Fields -
Fields -
Fields -
Fields -
Frequency
Mean




Chemicals
Frequency
Mean
Frequency
Mean
Frequency
Mean

Area




Same

Area

Area

Area

Counts




Formula

Counts

Counts

Counts


2,4(lH,3H)-Pteridinedione, 1,3-
13401-18-8
C8H8N402
80.06
54
6
9.18E+04
0
N/A
3
4.15E+04
0
N/A
dimethyl-












a SVOC = semivolatile organic compound; LC/TOFMS = liquid chromatography/time-of-flight mass spectrometry; N/A = not applicable
b Recycling Plants (n=6); Indoor Fields (n=5); Outdoor Fields (n=5); Blanks (n=3)
0 Unique numerical identifier assigned by the Chemical Abstracts Services (CAS)
Table R-4. Non-Targeted Analysis for VOC 60 °C Chamber Emission Samples by GC/TOFMS - Highly Tentative Screening Resultsa'b'c
Tentative Chemical Identifications
•	Match Factor > 75% Forward and Reverse
•	Listed in Order of Retention Time
Recycling
Plants -
Frequency
Recycling
Plants -
Mean
Area
Counts
Indoor
Fields -
Frequency
Indoor
Fields -
Mean
Area
Counts
Outdoor
Fields -
Frequency
Outdoor
Fields -
Mean Area
Counts
Chamber
Backgrounds -
Frequency
Chamber
Backgrounds -
Mean Area
Counts
Tube
Blanks -
Frequency
Tube
Blanks -
Mean
Area
Counts
Sulfur dioxide
5
2.99E+05
2
2.00E+05
3
2.95E+04
0
N/A
0
N/A
Ethanol
6
3.69E+06
6
1.24E+06
5
6.20E+05
3
8.41E+05
3
3.39E+05
Acetaldehyde
5
4.50E+06
4
2.27E+07
5
5.38E+06
3
3.83E+06
3
2.94E+06
Ethylenimine
4
3.82E+06
2
1.24E+07
2
1.77E+06
0
N/A
1
8.75E+05
1-Propene, 2-methyl-
1
1.73E+08
5
5.95E+07
5
2.70E+07
3
1.70E+07
2
1.32E+06
2-Butene
6
2.16E+08
1
9.70E+05
3
6.94E+05
2
1.07E+06
0
N/A
Nitrous Oxide
5
2.01E+06
7
3.15E+05
4
7.94E+04
3
5.51E+04
3
5.38E+04
Methanethiol
5
4.56E+05
3
2.84E+05
3
1.70E+05
0
N/A
2
1.41E+05
Trimethylsilyl fluoride
4
6.52E+05
3
2.79E+05
3
3.02E+05
1
2.61E+04
0
N/A
Acetonitrile
6
1.79E+07
5
4.03E+07
5
7.28E+06
3
1.15E+06
3
4.71E+06
2-Propenenitrile
5
6.84E+05
3
2.72E+06
4
1.16E+06
3
7.82E+05
3
3.60E+05
Argon
3
5.39E+04
0
N/A
2
1.49E+04
0
N/A
0
N/A
Methane, isocyanato-
1
1.19E+04
3
3.09E+05
2
5.56E+04
0
N/A
1
2.12E+04
Acetone
6
2.62E+07
4
3.85E+07
5
1.85E+07
3
7.94E+06
3
4.66E+06
2-Butanone
9
4.65E+05
4
7.13E+06
5
2.75E+06
3
2.32E+06
4
6.16E+05
-------
Table R-4 Continued
Tentative Chemical Identifications
•	Match Factor > 75% Forward and Reverse
•	Listed in Order of Retention Time
Rccvcling
Plants -
Frequency
Recvclin"
Plants -
Mean
Area
Counts
Indoor
Fields -
Frequency
Indoor
Fields -
Mean
Area
Counts
Outdoor
Fields -
Frequency
Outdoor
Fields -
Mean
Area
Counts
Chamber
Backgrounds -
Frequency
Chamber
Backgrounds -
Mean Area
Counts
Tube
Blanks -
Frequency
Tube
Blanks -
Mean
Area
Counts
2-Propanamine, 2-methyl-
9
4.26E+08
7
1.76E+07
3
2.66E+06
0
N/A
0
N/A
1,3-Pentadiene, (E)-
0
N/A
1
1.35E+05
4
2.42E+05
0
N/A
0
N/A
Formamide, N-methyl-
3
4.34E+05
1
4.77E+05
1
1.53E+05
0
N/A
0
N/A
Propane, 2-methyl-l-nitro-
6
2.15E+06
1
1.63E+05
0
N/A
0
N/A
0
N/A
N, 1 -Dimethylhexylamine
4
3.71E+06
1
1.92E+06
0
N/A
0
N/A
0
N/A
Carbon disulfide
6
1.70E+06
4
1.16E+06
4
6.93E+05
0
N/A
1
2.76E+04
1,3-Cyclopentadiene
6
7.62E+06
4
2.27E+06
5
1.73E+06
3
1.58E+06
1
6.60E+04
Carbon tetrafluoride
2
7.30E+04
4
2.20E+04
3
2.53E+04
0
N/A
2
2.00E+04
Propanal, 2-methyl-
3
1.82E+06
2
7.94E+06
2
7.41E+05
0
N/A
0
N/A
Propanenitrile
6
1.15E+06
2
1.42E+06
3
1.65E+05
1
3.40E+04
1
2.94E+05
1-Pentene, 4-methyl-
6
5.27E+06
4
2.46E+06
4
6.99E+05
0
N/A
0
N/A
Silanol, trimethyl-
6
6.85E+06
4
1.37E+07
4
2.89E+06
2
6.65E+05
3
4.32E+05
Methyl vinyl ketone
6
5.39E+06
4
1.36E+07
5
1.73E+07
0
N/A
0
N/A
Acetic acid ethenyl ester
8
7.09E+05
3
1.58E+06
5
2.41E+06
4
3.34E+05
3
4.79E+05
2-Butanone, 3-methyl-
3
8.64E+05
2
2.26E+05
2
2.42E+05
1
7.41E+04
0
N/A
2-Pentene, 4-methyl-
8
4.06E+06
5
2.56E+06
6
1.18E+06
0
N/A
0
N/A
1-Butene, 3,3-dimethyl-
3
1.43E+06
0
N/A
0
N/A
0
N/A
0
N/A
1,2-Ethanediamine, N,N'-diethyl-N,N'-dimethyl-
4
2.22E+05
1
1.37E+05
0
N/A
0
N/A
0
N/A
Acetic acid
6
8.22E+07
3
7.45E+07
5
2.33E+07
3
4.09E+06
1
1.59E+05
Propane, 2-isocyano-2-methyl-
6
4.82E+06
3
1.06E+06
0
N/A
0
N/A
0
N/A
Furan, 2-methyl-
12
3.01E+06
7
9.78E+06
7
1.09E+07
6
2.01E+05
3
2.02E+05
Furan, 3-methyl-
1
8.71E+05
2
1.52E+06
6
3.56E+06
0
N/A
2
3.66E+04
Methane, bromochloro-
6
6.89E+05
4
2.04E+06
5
1.78E+06
3
5.66E+05
3
1.69E+06
2-Hexene
4
2.80E+06
3
1.76E+05
5
1.56E+05
3
1.49E+05
0
N/A
Butanenitrile, 3-methyl-
7
2.65E+06
1
2.65E+06
0
N/A
0
N/A
0
N/A
Propanenitrile, 2,2-dimethyl-
6
1.06E+06
0
N/A
0
N/A
0
N/A
0
N/A
-------
Table R-4 Continued
Tentative Chemical Identifications
•	Match Factor > 75% Forward and Reverse
•	Listed in Order of Retention Time
Rccvcling
Plants -
Frequency
Recycling
Plants -
Mean
Area
Counts
Indoor
Fields -
Frequency
Indoor
Fields -
Mean
Area
Counts
Outdoor
Fields -
Frequency
Outdoor
Fields -
Mean
Area
Counts
Chamber
Backgrounds -
Frequency
Chamber
Backgrounds -
Mean Area
Counts
Tube
Blanks -
Frequency
Tube
Blanks -
Mean
Area
Counts
Propane, 2-isocyanato-2-methyl-
6
3.87E+07
4
1.00E+07
5
1.59E+06
2
1.95E+05
0
N/A
2-Propanone, 1-hydroxy-
1
3.58E+06
3
3.64E+05
2
1.20E+06
0
N/A
2
1.55E+05
4-Methyl-l ,3-pentadiene
6
3.32E+05
1
1.31E+05
1
1.80E+05
0
N/A
0
N/A
1,3-Cyclohexadiene
6
9.72E+05
9
5.12E+05
9
4.82E+05
4
2.53E+05
0
N/A
1,3-Cyclopentadiene, 5-methyl-
8
2.88E+06
2
1.55E+06
0
N/A
0
N/A
0
N/A
Disiloxane, pentamethyl-
4
2.29E+05
1
2.65E+06
0
N/A
0
N/A
0
N/A
N-Ethylidene t-butylamine
6
3.43E+07
1
5.76E+05
0
N/A
0
N/A
0
N/A
1-Butanol
1
4.25E+06
2
3.24E+06
5
5.45E+06
2
1.81E+06
2
4.91E+05
Ethanone, 1-cyclopropyl-
1
6.53E+05
2
5.27E+05
3
4.15E+05
2
5.38E+04
0
N/A
3-Buten-2-one, 3-methyl-
0
N/A
1
3.52E+05
3
4.78E+05
1
1.08E+05
0
N/A
Furan, 2,3-dihydro-5-methyl-
0
N/A
2
8.26E+05
3
1.82E+06
0
N/A
0
N/A
Diisopropylamine
5
2.83E+06
1
1.18E+06
0
N/A
0
N/A
0
N/A
Propanoic acid
7
2.37E+07
2
1.07E+07
1
3.07E+05
1
1.34E+05
0
N/A
Cyclohexene
6
2.03E+07
4
5.40E+06
5
1.96E+06
2
2.78E+05
0
N/A
Trichloroethylene
4
1.10E+06
1
4.92E+04
0
N/A
0
N/A
0
N/A
3-Heptene
3
6.35E+05
2
1.75E+06
4
4.94E+05
0
N/A
0
N/A
(Z)-3-Heptene
5
1.93E+06
1
3.18E+06
0
N/A
2
2.68E+05
0
N/A
2-Cyclopenten-l-one, 3-methyl-
7
9.33E+05
3
4.81E+05
5
6.11E+05
0
N/A
0
N/A
2-Butenal, 2-ethenyl-
0
N/A
0
N/A
3
1.14E+06
1
3.53E+05
0
N/A
Pyrazine
0
N/A
1
6.53E+05
3
5.93E+04
1
1.96E+04
0
N/A
1-Pentene, 2,4,4-trimethyl-
5
1.15E+06
4
2.01E+06
5
1.12E+06
3
1.54E+05
0
N/A
lH-Pyrrole, 2-methyl-
5
2.30E+05
5
1.69E+07
6
6.48E+05
2
3.66E+04
3
6.88E+04
Acetamide
3
1.38E+06
2
5.20E+06
0
N/A
0
N/A
0
N/A
Metyl isobutyl ketone
7
1.14E+08
4
8.81E+07
5
3.40E+07
1
8.26E+05
0
N/A
Pyridine
6
5.70E+05
4
4.52E+05
2
2.96E+05
0
N/A
0
N/A
2-Pentene, 2,4,4-trimethyl-
0
N/A
2
4.15E+05
5
3.18E+05
0
N/A
0
N/A
-------
Table R-4 Continued
Tentative Chemical Identifications
•	Match Factor > 75% Forward and Reverse
•	Listed in Order of Retention Time
Rccvcling
Plants -
Frequency
Recycling
Plants -
Mean
Area
Counts
Indoor
Fields -
Frequency
Indoor
Fields -
Mean
Area
Counts
Outdoor
Fields -
Frequency
Outdoor
Fields -
Mean
Area
Counts
Chamber
Backgrounds -
Frequency
Chamber
Backgrounds -
Mean Area
Counts
Tube
Blanks -
Frequency
Tube
Blanks -
Mean
Area
Counts
3-Cyclohexene-1 -carboxaldehyde
2
1.39E+06
4
5.91E+06
5
7.36E+06
0
N/A
0
N/A
2-Pentanamine, 4-methyl-
4
2.61E+07
0
N/A
0
N/A
0
N/A
0
N/A
2,3 -Dimethyl-1 -hexene
12
1.05E+07
12
8.75E+06
7
7.00E+06
0
N/A
0
N/A
Formamide, N,N-dimethyl-
4
4.39E+06
4
7.62E+05
2
3.78E+05
0
N/A
0
N/A
1,3,5-Cycloheptatriene
3
4.96E+06
1
1.10E+07
2
1.92E+06
0
N/A
0
N/A
Toluene
3
9.28E+06
3
3.38E+06
5
2.41E+06
3
2.38E+06
3
4.95E+05
1,4-Cyclohexadiene, 1-methyl-
3
7.86E+05
0
N/A
0
N/A
0
N/A
0
N/A
1,3-Cyclopentadiene, 5,5-dimethyl-
3
3.73E+05
0
N/A
1
2.64E+05
0
N/A
0
N/A
Thiophene, 3-methyl-
4
2.08E+05
4
1.30E+05
5
1.53E+05
0
N/A
0
N/A
Heptane, 3-methylene-
6
8.05E+06
2
3.15E+06
5
1.38E+06
8
1.50E+06
0
N/A
Morpholine, 4-methyl-
6
2.79E+06
0
N/A
0
N/A
0
N/A
0
N/A
3-Pentanone, 2,4-dimethyl-
4
2.85E+06
3
2.53E+07
2
6.02E+05
2
3.30E+05
0
N/A
Propanoic acid, 2,2-dimethyl-
5
7.28E+06
0
N/A
0
N/A
0
N/A
0
N/A
Furfural
1
6.16E+07
1
1.76E+06
6
3.44E+06
3
7.65E+05
3
6.80E+05
Pyridine, 2-methyl-
5
5.00E+05
2
1.12E+06
1
3.36E+05
0
N/A
0
N/A
1 -Hexene ,2,5,5 -trimethy 1-
3
3.47E+06
3
1.70E+06
1
2.80E+06
0
N/A
0
N/A
Propanamide
4
2.45E+06
0
N/A
0
N/A
0
N/A
0
N/A
Butanoic acid, 3-methyl-
4
5.02E+06
1
6.85E+06
0
N/A
0
N/A
0
N/A
2-Cyclopentene-l ,4-dione
0
N/A
0
N/A
5
1.19E+06
0
N/A
0
N/A
3,5-Dimethyl-3-heptene
5
2.73E+06
3
2.89E+06
2
4.50E+06
0
N/A
0
N/A
Cyclopentanone, 2,4,4-trimethyl-
4
1.45E+07
3
1.22E+06
1
1.34E+06
0
N/A
0
N/A
Propane, 2-isothiocyanato-2-methyl-
5
6.57E+05
2
4.79E+05
1
2.15E+05
0
N/A
0
N/A
1-Heptene, 2,6-dimethyl-
3
1.57E+07
3
1.89E+07
1
2.04E+06
0
N/A
0
N/A
Pyridine, 3-methyl-
5
1.53E+06
1
1.03E+06
0
N/A
0
N/A
0
N/A
2,4 -Dimethyl-1 -heptene
4
1.31E+07
5
1.20E+07
2
1.10E+07
0
N/A
0
N/A
3-Nonene, (E)-
5
1.86E+07
5
1.24E+07
1
7.85E+06
0
N/A
0
N/A
-------
Table R-4 Continued
Tentative Chemical Identifications
•	Match Factor > 75% Forward and Reverse
•	Listed in Order of Retention Time
Recyclin"
Plants -
Frequency
Recycling
Plants -
Mean
Area
Counts
Indoor
Fields -
Frequency
Indoor
Fields -
Mean
Area
Counts
Outdoor
Fields -
Frequency
Outdoor
Fields -
Mean
Area
Counts
Chamber
Backgrounds -
Frequency
Chamber
Backgrounds -
Mean Area
Counts
Tube
Blanks -
Frequency
Tube
Blanks -
Mean
Area
Counts
lH-Pyrrole, 2,4-dimethyl-
3
1.31E+06
1
4.52E+05
1
3.44E+05
0
N/A
1
1.33E+05
Formamide, N-(l ,1-dimethylethyl)-
4
1.00E+08
1
2.46E+07
0
N/A
0
N/A
0
N/A
2,3,3 -T rimethy 1-1 -hexene
6
7.13E+06
4
7.15E+06
2
5.80E+06
0
N/A
0
N/A
Cyclopentanone, 2-methyl-
3
8.45E+06
1
1.31E+06
0
N/A
0
N/A
1
3.80E+05
N-tert-Butylacetamide
6
1.45E+07
4
8.34E+06
0
N/A
0
N/A
0
N/A
2-Furancarboxaldehyde, 5-methyl-
1
2.70E+06
2
4.24E+05
8
4.12E+05
0
N/A
0
N/A
2,3 -Dimethy 1-2-heptene
6
5.07E+06
4
5.57E+06
2
4.40E+06
0
N/A
0
N/A
Benzonitrile
2
1.30E+07
1
5.64E+06
3
2.68E+06
1
2.38E+06
2
3.89E+05
N-t-Butylpyrrole
6
2.46E+06
2
1.74E+06
1
1.30E+06
0
N/A
0
N/A
Phenol, 3,5-dimethyl-
0
N/A
3
2.18E+06
2
1.61E+06
0
N/A
0
N/A
Benzene, l-methoxy-4-methyl-
0
N/A
0
N/A
3
2.28E+06
0
N/A
0
N/A
Hexanoic acid
0
N/A
3
6.11E+06
0
N/A
0
N/A
0
N/A
Benzoxazole
3
1.11E+06
1
6.85E+05
2
2.49E+05
0
N/A
0
N/A
Phenol
3
3.85E+07
3
9.39E+06
3
2.60E+06
3
5.62E+06
2
8.58E+05
Aniline
6
2.02E+08
4
4.42E+07
3
1.44E+07
0
N/A
0
N/A
Benzene, 1,3,5-trimethyl-
1
1.34E+06
0
N/A
3
7.95E+05
1
2.83E+05
0
N/A
5-Hepten-2-one, 6-methyl-
1
2.10E+06
3
2.49E+06
2
1.47E+06
0
N/A
0
N/A
Cyclohexane, isocyanato-
6
2.37E+07
3
9.99E+06
1
1.66E+06
0
N/A
0
N/A
2(3H)-Furanone, 5-ethenyldihydro-5-methyl-
0
N/A
3
1.40E+07
4
1.61E+07
0
N/A
0
N/A
2-Pyrrolidinone
4
8.06E+06
0
N/A
0
N/A
0
N/A
0
N/A
4,7-Methano-lH-indene, 3a,4,7,7a-tetrahydro-
3
4.02E+06
1
4.67E+06
1
7.28E+05
0
N/A
0
N/A
2-Propanamine, N,N'-1,2-ethanediylidenebis[2-
methyl-
6
5.50E+06
3
4.92E+06
1
1.16E+06
0
N/A
0
N/A
Benzaldehyde, 3-methyl-
0
N/A
0
N/A
3
2.76E+06
0
N/A
1
1.58E+05
p-Aminotoluene
6
2.64E+07
4
1.32E+07
3
8.12E+06
0
N/A
0
N/A
2-Pentanamine, N-ethyl-4-methyl-
4
7.20E+07
1
1.54E+07
0
N/A
0
N/A
0
N/A
-------
Table R-4 Continued
Tentative Chemical Identifications
•	Match Factor > 75% Forward and Reverse
•	Listed in Order of Retention Time
Rccvcling
Plants -
Frequency
Recycling
Plants -
Mean
Area
Counts
Indoor
Fields -
Frequency
Indoor
Fields -
Mean
Area
Counts
Outdoor
Fields -
Frequency
Outdoor
Fields -
Mean
Area
Counts
Chamber
Backgrounds -
Frequency
Chamber
Backgrounds -
Mean Area
Counts
Tube
Blanks -
Frequency
Tube
Blanks -
Mean
Area
Counts
N-F ormylmorpholine
6
1.66E+07
1
9.64E+06
0
N/A
0
N/A
0
N/A
Hexanoic acid, 2-ethyl-
4
1.80E+07
3
2.15E+07
0
N/A
0
N/A
0
N/A
2-Piperidinone
3
1.01E+07
1
5.57E+06
0
N/A
0
N/A
0
N/A
Pentadecane ,2,6,10,14 -tetramethy 1-
3
2.48E+07
0
N/A
1
9.40E+05
0
N/A
1
3.38E+06
lH-Indene, 2,3-dihydro-5-methyl-
5
5.30E+06
0
N/A
0
N/A
0
N/A
0
N/A
lH-Indene, 2,3-dihydro-4-methyl-
3
6.21E+06
0
N/A
0
N/A
0
N/A
0
N/A
Benzenamine, 4-butoxy-
5
1.05E+07
4
1.03E+07
1
2.32E+06
0
N/A
0
N/A
Benzene, 1 -methyl-4-( 1 -methylpropyl)-
6
6.38E+06
0
N/A
0
N/A
0
N/A
0
N/A
Benzene, pentamethyl-
15
2.45E+07
0
N/A
0
N/A
0
N/A
0
N/A
Naphthalene
4
6.91E+07
3
2.54E+06
5
8.26E+05
3
1.69E+06
2
5.79E+05
Benzene, 1 -(1 -methylethenyl)-4-( 1 -methylethyl)-
3
6.92E+06
0
N/A
0
N/A
0
N/A
0
N/A
Benzothiazole
6
2.74E+08
4
3.29E+08
5
1.01E+08
1
9.22E+05
0
N/A
Fonnamide, N-cyclohexyl-
3
1.14E+07
4
2.79E+07
0
N/A
0
N/A
0
N/A
Benzene, 2-ethenyl-l,3,5-trimethyl-
3
1.58E+07
0
N/A
0
N/A
0
N/A
0
N/A
Acetamide, N-cyclohexyl-
6
5.07E+07
2
5.39E+07
2
2.61E+06
0
N/A
0
N/A
Phenol, p-tert-butyl-
6
9.56E+07
2
7.42E+07
2
2.88E+06
0
N/A
0
N/A
Fonnamide, N-phenyl-
1
2.16E+07
4
1.04E+07
0
N/A
0
N/A
0
N/A
1 H-Indene ,2,3 -dihy dro-4,7-dimethy 1-
5
1.32E+07
0
N/A
0
N/A
0
N/A
0
N/A
Naphthalene, 1,2,3,4-tetrahydro-6-methyl-
3
1.55E+07
0
N/A
0
N/A
0
N/A
0
N/A
Phthalic anhydride
0
N/A
0
N/A
3
2.84E+05
0
N/A
0
N/A
Pentadecane
7
7.14E+07
4
6.62E+07
3
8.41E+06
1
5.24E+06
1
6.11E+05
Naphthalene, 2-methyl-
3
9.20E+07
2
4.00E+06
0
N/A
2
5.38E+05
0
N/A
Naphthalene, 1-methyl-
9
9.11E+07
6
5.38E+06
3
1.51E+06
1
1.22E+06
0
N/A
Benzene, 1,3,5-tris(l -methylethyl)-
3
1.12E+07
0
N/A
0
N/A
0
N/A
0
N/A
Phenol, 2-(l ,1-dimethylethy^^-methyl-
3
3.87E+07
1
1.75E+06
0
N/A
0
N/A
0
N/A
Naphthalene, 1,2,3,4-tetrahydro-2,6-dimethyl-
3
2.13E+07
1
3.47E+06
1
5.58E+05
0
N/A
0
N/A
Hexadecane
7
7.65E+07
4
1.11E+08
4
1.26E+07
2
1.14E+07
1
9.23E+05
Tetradecane
6
6.54E+07
4
3.84E+07
2
7.41E+06
1
4.72E+06
1
5.13E+05
Diphenyl ether
6
3.56E+07
1
2.51E+07
2
3.28E+06
0
N/A
0
N/A
Naphthalene, 2-ethyl-
4
1.39E+07
2
1.82E+06
0

0
N/A
0
N/A
-------
Table R-4 Continued
Tentative Chemical Identifications
•	Match Factor > 75% Forward and Reverse
•	Listed in Order of Retention Time
Recvcling
Plants -
Frequency
Recycling
Plants -
Mean
Area
Counts
Indoor
Fields -
Frequency
Indoor
Fields -
Mean
Area
Counts
Outdoor
Fields -
Frequency
Outdoor
Fields -
Mean
Area
Counts
Chamber
Backgrounds -
Frequency
Chamber
Backgrounds -
Mean Area
Counts
Tube
Blanks -
Frequency
Tube
Blanks -
Mean
Area
Counts
1,4-Methanoazulene, decahydro-4,8,8-trimethyl-9-
methylene-, [lS-(la,3aP,4a,
8aP)]-
8
9.43E+07
4
3.85E+07
2
6.53E+06
0
N/A
0
N/A
1,2,4-Methenoazulene, decahydro-1,5,5,8a-
tetramethyl-, [lS-(la,2a,3aP,4a,
8aP,9R*)]-
4
1.17E+07
0
N/A
0
N/A
0
N/A
0
N/A
Naphthalene, 1,5-dimethyl-
9
2.03E+07
3
7.98E+06
3
9.88E+05
0
N/A
0
N/A
Phthalimide
5
5.05E+07
3
1.79E+07
0

0
N/A
0
N/A
Naphthalene, 1,3-dimethyl-
6
1.73E+07
5
7.18E+06
1
1.80E+06
1
4.54E+05
0
N/A
Quinoline, 2,4-dimethyl-
6
1.32E+08
4
2.70E+07
3
7.00E+06
1
7.39E+05
0
N/A
1,4-Methano-lH-indene, octahydro-1,7a-dimethyl-
4-(l-methylethenyl)-, [lS-(la,
3aP,4a,7aP)]-
3
1.70E+07
0
N/A
0
N/A
0
N/A
0
N/A
Butylated Hydroxytoluene
7
2.11E+08
4
1.16E+08
1
2.15E+07
0
N/A
0
N/A
2,5-Cyclohexadiene-l ,4-dione, 2,6-bis
(1,1 -dimethy lethy 1)-
3
2.77E+07
3
1.93E+07
2
2.85E+06
3
4.35E+06
0
N/A
l,l'-Biphenyl, 3-methyl-
8
4.99E+06
4
4.71E+06
2
7.05E+05
1
5.24E+05
0
N/A
Naphthalene, 1,6,7-trimethyl-
10
8.37E+06
9
4.64E+06
5
6.96E+05
0
N/A
0
N/A
Naphthalene, 2,3,6-trimethyl-
3
6.40E+06
1
3.14E+06
0
N/A
0
N/A
0
N/A
Pentadecane, 2-methyl-
1
2.66E+06
3
5.26E+06
0
N/A
0
N/A
0
N/A
Phenol, 4-(l ,1,3,3-tetramethylbutyl)-
5
1.27E+08
4
5.77E+07
2
4.42E+06
0
N/A
0
N/A
Diphenylamine
6
3.44E+07
4
3.94E+07
3
6.74E+06
1
1.36E+06
0
N/A
Benzothiazole, 2-(methylthio)-
3
1.46E+07
4
3.29E+07
1
8.88E+06
1
7.96E+05
0
N/A
a VOC = volatile organic compound; °C = degrees Celsius; GC/TOFMS = gas chromatography/time-of-flight mass spectrometry; N/A = not applicable
b Recycling Plants (n=6); Indoor Fields (n=4); Outdoor Fields (n=5); Chamber Backgrounds (n=3); Tube Blanks (n=3)
0 Total compounds tentatively identified = 164; Compounds identified by source: Recycling Plants - 151 compounds (Sum of Frequencies = 725; Sum of Frequencies per n =
121), Indoor Fields - 136 compounds (Sum of Frequencies = 136; Sum of Frequencies per n= 103), Outdoor Fields - 115 compounds (Sum of Frequencies = 186, Sum of
Frequencies per n = 74), Chamber Backgrounds - 52 compounds (Sum of Frequencies = 117, Sum of Frequencies per n = 39), Tube Blanks - 36 compounds (Sum of
Frequencies = 74, Sum of Frequencies per n = 25)
-------
Table R-5. Non-Targeted Analysis for SVOC 60 °C Chamber Emission Samples by GC/MS - Highly Tentative Screening Resultsa'b'c
Tentative Compound Identification
•	Match Factor >50%
•	Minimum Frequency = 3
•	In Order of Retention Time
CAS
Number'1
Recycling
Plants -
Frequency
Recycling
Plants -
Mean Area
Counts
Indoor
Fields -
Frequency
Indoor
Fields -
Mean Area
Counts
Outdoor
Fields -
Frequency
Outdoor
Fields -
Mean Area
Counts
Chamber
Backgrounds -
Mean Area
Counts
Thiopivalic acid
55561-02-9
1
1.4E+05
0
N/A
7
1.8E+06
0
Pentanal, 2,2-dimethyl-
14250-88-5
4
8.1E+06
5
4.8E+05
8
6.3E+06
0
2,5-Hexanedione
110-13-4
0
N/A
0
N/A
3
3.0E+05
0
Hydroperoxide, 1-ethylbutyl
24254-56-6
3
5.8E+06
4
6.1E+05
3
1.4E+06
0
Hexane, 2-nitro-
14255-44-8
0
N/A
0
N/A
4
5.3E+06
0
Hydroperoxide, 1-methylpentyl
24254-55-5
3
5.8E+06
3
1.1E+06
2
2.1E+06
0
2H-Pyran-2-methanol, tetrahydro-
100-72-1
0
N/A
0
N/A
3
5.2E+06
0
1,5-Heptadien-4-one, 3,3,6-trimethyl-
546-49-6
3
4.9E+07
2
5.3E+06
3
3.5E+06
0
Oxalic acid, cyclohexyl nonyl ester
1000309-31-1
0
N/A
4
8.7E+06
2
2.4E+07
0
Cyclopropane, 2-bromo-l,1,3-trimethyl-
36617-00-2
3
1.9E+07
0
N/A
8
2.8E+07
0
Cyclohexane, nitro-
1122-60-7
0
N/A
1
2.6E+06
4
1.4E+06
0
Oxalic acid, cyclohexyl isobutyl ester
1000309-30-4
3
1.4E+06
3
2.8E+05
1
7.9E+05
0
Sulfurous acid, dicyclohexyl ester
6214-17-1
1
3.0E+05
3
1.1E+05
3
2.6E+05
0
1-Butene, 2,3,3-trimethyl-
594-56-9
3
3.8E+06
1
4.8E+05
1
5.0E+05
0
Cyclobutanecarboxylic acid, 2-propenyl ester
1000282-60-3
0
N/A
0
N/A
6
8.7E+05
0
Cyclohexanol, 1-methyl-
590-67-0
0
N/A
0
N/A
3
2.8E+05
0
Benzothiazole
95-16-9
4
7.2E+06
2
6.0E+05
0
N/A
0
4-Oxopentanethioic acid
1000193-80-6
1
3.5E+05
0
N/A
3
7.9E+05
0
7-Methoxy-2,2,4,8-tetramethyltricyclo[5.3.1.0(4,ll)]undecane
1000140-32-8
3
5.2E+05
0
N/A
0
N/A
0
Cyclooctasiloxane, hexadecamethyl-
556-68-3
3
2.6E+05
3
5.2E+04
2
1.1E+05
0
cis-13-Eicosenoic acid
17735-94-3
2
5.5E+05
0
N/A
0
N/A
0
Cyclononasiloxane, octadecamethyl-
556-71-8
5
1.5E+05
4
1.7E+04
1
6.7E+04
0
Tetracosamethyl-cyclododecasiloxane
18919-94-3
3
1.4E+05
1
1.0E+04
0
N/A
0
Cyclodecasiloxane, eicosamethyl-
18772-36-6
14
3.5E+05
0
N/A
0
N/A
0
Squalene
111-02-4
3
1.8E+06
0
N/A
1
3.9E+05
0
a SVOC = semivolatile organic compound; °C = degrees Celsius; GC/MS = gas chromatography/mass spectrometry; N/A = not applicable
b Recycling Plants (n=6); Indoor Fields (n=5); Outdoor Fields (n=5); Chamber Backgrounds (n=3)
0 Total compounds tentatively identified = 25; Compounds identified by source: Recycling Plants - 18 compounds (Sum of Frequencies = 62), Indoor Fields - 13
compounds (Sum of Frequencies = 36), Outdoor Fields - 20 compounds (Sum of Frequencies = 68)
d Unique numerical identifier assigned by the Chemical Abstracts Services (CAS)
-------
Table R-6. Non-Targeted Analysis for SVOC 60 °C Chamber Emission Samples by LC/TOFMS Positive Mode - Highly Tentative Screening Resultsa'b
Tentative Chemical
Identification
CAS
Number1'
Chemical
Formula
Score
Number
of
Chemicals
Same
Formula
Recycling
Plants -
Frequency
Recycling
Plants -
Mean
Area
Counts
Indoor
Fields -
Frequency
Indoor
Fields -
Mean
Area
Counts
Outdoor
Fields -
Frequency
Outdoor
Fields -
Mean
Area
Counts
Chamber
Backgrounds -
Frequency
Chamber
Backgrounds -
Mean A rea
Counts
Decamethylcyclopentasiloxane
541-02-6
C10H3005Si5
91.15
1
3
1.58E+05
1
4.22E+05
0
N/A
0
N/A
Dicyclohexylamine
101-83-7
C12H23N
99.31
198
6
1.49E+06
5
6.09E+05
0
N/A
0
N/A
1-Piperazineethanol, 4-[2-[(2-
hydroxypropyl)amino]ethyl]-
. alpha.-methyl-
68310-64-5
C12H27N302
98.44
3
2
4.28E+05
2
4.61E+05
4
4.03E+05
0
N/A
N",N"'-Ethane-1,2-diylbis(N,N'-
diethylguanidine)
13561-03-0
C12H28N6
99.13
1
5
1.27E+06
5
1.34E+06
4
1.16E+06
0
N/A
CTK3H8080
918313-44-7
C13H16N7
89.78
2
3
1.61E+05
1
1.17E+05
1
1.08E+05
0
N/A
1,1 -Dimethyl-2-phenylethyl
butanoate
10094-34-5
C14H20O2
97.7
225
4
1.41E+05
3
2.07E+05
2
1.07E+05
0
N/A
N,N-Diethyl-4-[2-(l-oxido-4-
pyridinyl) diazenyl]benzenamine
7347-49-1
C15H18N40
86.27
22
3
1.43E+05
1
6.93E+04
2
4.21E+05
0
N/A
alpha-pyrrolidinovalerophenone
14530-33-7
C15H21NO
81.71
137
4
1.74E+05
3
6.13E+04
0
N/A
0
N/A
2,6 -Di-tert-buty 1-4-hy droperoxy-
4-methyl -2,5-cyclohexadienone
6485-57-0
C15H2403
92.34
54
2
5.72E+05
3
2.40E+05
0
N/A
0
N/A
1,3-bis(cyclohexylmethyl)urea
5472-16-2
C15H28N20
82.8
10
4
1.39E+05
1
1.02E+05
0
N/A
0
N/A
Dodecanoic acid, 5-hydroxy-,
2,3-dihydroxypropyl ester
93762-24-4
C15H30O5
82.99
12
5
7.79E+04
4
7.81E+04
4
1.06E+05
0
N/A
Hexahydro-1,3,5-tris(3-
methoxypropyl)-s-triazine
3960-05-2
C15H33N303
96.84
2
4
2.43E+05
4
1.08E+05
3
4.73E+05
4
1.34E+05
N,N-Dimethyl-1,2 -
diphenylethanamine
6319-84-2
C16H19N
81.7
82
3
9.98E+04
2
8.58E+04
1
1.94E+05
1
3.50E+04
13-Hexyl-1,4,7,10-tetraoxa-l 3-
azacyclopentadecane
75006-53-0
C16H33N04
98.27
16
8
1.10E+05
8
2.00E+05
6
8.11E+04
6
6.51E+04
Benzenamine, N,N-diethyl-4-
[(2-methoxy-4-nitrophenyl)azo]-
6373-95-1
C17H20N4O3
94.55
17
4
1.46E+05
3
1.39E+05
4
9.70E+04
1
4.12E+04
(9Z)-Octadec-9-enamide
301-02-0
C18H35NO
94.77
108
5
4.56E+05
4
3.76E+05
4
2.35E+06
4
4.23E+05
(9Z)-Octadec-9-enamide
301-02-0
C18H35NO
94.77
108
6
1.03E+06
5
7.54E+05
5
2.41E+06
5
6.64E+05
1 -Phenyl-N-(2-phenylaziridin-1 -
yl)-3-(trimethylsilyl)propan-l -
imine
144487-92-3
C20H26N2Si
80.01
2
2
1.13E+05
2
1.05E+05
3
1.35E+05
0
N/A
10-[(3,7-Dimethylocta-2,6-dien-
l-yl)oxy]decyl thiocyanate
586966-65-6
C21H37NOS
83.81
3
2
1.16E+05
3
1.77E+05
1
9.51E+04
2
5.02E+04
-------
Table R-6 Continued
Tentative Chemical
Identification
CAS
Number1'
Chemical
Formula
Score
Number
of
Chemicals
Same
Formula
Recycling
Plants -
Frequency
Recycling
Plants -
Mean
Area
Counts
Indoor
Fields -
Frequency
Indoor
Fields -
Mean
Area
Counts
Outdoor
Fields -
Frequency
Outdoor
Fields -
Mean
Area
Counts
Chamber
Backgrounds -
Frequency
Chamber
Backgrounds -
Mean A rea
Counts
Decanedioic acid, methyl
1,2,2,6,6-pentamethyl-4-
piperidinyl ester
82919-37-7
C21H39N04
98.47
5
4
1.04E+05
3
1.12E+05
4
6.38E+05
3
9.80E+04
lH-Pyrido(3,4-b)indole-l ,3(2H)-
dione, 4,9-dihydro-2-(4-(4-(2-
pyrimidinyl)-l-
piperazinyl)butyl)-
184691-49-4
C23H26N602
98.82
6
5
4.15E+06
5
4.39E+06
4
2.30E+06
2
1.36E+06
lH-Pyrido(3,4-b)indole-l ,3(2H)-
dione, 4,9-dihydro-2-(4-(4-(2-
pyrimidinyl)-l-
piperazinyl)butyl)-
184691-49-4
C23H26N602
98.2
6
6
4.03E+06
5
3.35E+06
5
7.82E+06
4
8.76E+05
L-Glutamic acid, N-(l-
oxooctadecyl)-, sodium salt (1:2)
38079-62-8
C23H43N05
99.07
9
3
1.14E+05
2
1.08E+05
2
8.09E+05
3
8.87E+04
Bis-ferulamidobutane
91000-13-4
C24H28N206
95.19
32
5
1.62E+06
3
5.14E+05
4
1.29E+06
2
2.93E+05
Diisodecyl phthalate
26761-40-0
C28H4604
96.66
24
5
2.75E+05
4
6.59E+05
4
1.81E+05
5
1.53E+05
6-Deoxocathasterone
NOCAS_40952
C28H50O2
83.94
10
3
1.55E+05
4
2.11E+05
2
8.77E+04
1
5.78E+04
1,1 '-(9H-Fluorene-2,7-
diy l)di(o ctan-1 -one)
61314-10-1
C29H3802
89.29
3
4
8.14E+05
4
1.44E+06
3
9.77E+05
1
3.72E+05
(17beta)- 3 -Hy droxy estra-
l,3,5(10)-trien-17-yl methyl
2,3,4-tri-O-acetyl-beta-D-
glucopyrano siduronate
14364-66-0
C31H40O11
81.36
2
4
2.51E+05
4
2.70E+05
3
2.32E+05
0
N/A
1 -Acetyl-L-prolyl-L-alanyl-L-
prolyl-L-phenylalanyl-L-
phenylalaninamide
60240-22-4
C33H42N606
92.03
2
6
3.81E+05
5
3.15E+05
4
6.15E+05
3
1.52E+05
L-Phenylalanyl-L-valyl-L-
alanyl-L-prolyl-L-phenylalanyl-
L-proline
161258-30-6
C36H48N607
91.81
2
6
5.49E+05
5
4.34E+05
4
8.69E+05
3
2.64E+05
Triethylamine
121-44-8
C6H15N
87.73
279
5
8.36E+05
2
2.46E+05
0
N/A
0
N/A
Ethanamine, 2,2'-[oxybis(2,l-
ethanediyloxy)]bis-
929-75-9
C8H20N2O3
98.92
3
4
1.95E+06
3
1.84E+06
4
1.06E+06
0
N/A
" SVOC = semivolatile organic compound; °C = degrees Celsius; LC/TOFMS = liquid chromatography/time-of-flight mass spectrometry; N/A = not applicable
b Recycling Plants (n=6); Indoor Fields (n=5); Outdoor Fields (n=5); Chamber Backgrounds (n=3)
0 Unique numerical identifier assigned by the Chemical Abstracts Services (CAS)
-------
Table R-7. Non-Targeted Analysis for SVOC 60 °C Chamber Emission Samples by LC/TOFMS Negative Mode - Highly Tentative Screening Resultsa'b
Tentative Chemical
Identification
CAS
Number1'
Chemical
Formula
Score
Number
of
Chemicals
Same
Formula
Recycling
Plants -
Frequency
Recycling
Plants -
Mean
Area
Counts
Indoor
Fields -
Frequency
Indoor
Fields -
Mean
Area
Counts
Outdoor
Fields -
Frequency
Outdoor
Fields -
Mean
Area
Counts
Chamber
Backgrounds -
Frequency
Chamber
Backgrounds -
Mean A rea
Counts
Oleic acid
112-80-1
C18H3402
99.19
107
4
5.41E+05
4
2.81E+05
2
1.89E+05
1
1.79E+05
lH-Pyrido(3,4-b)indole-l ,3(2H)-
dione, 4,9-dihydro-2-(4-(4-(2-
pyrimidinyl)-l-
piperazinyl)butyl)-
184691-49-4
C23H26N602
98.1
8
5
1.35E+05
3
1.38E+05
3
4.50E+05
1
8.30E+04
lH-Pyrido(3,4-b)indole-l ,3(2H)-
dione, 4,9-dihydro-2-(4-(4-(2-
pyrimidinyl)-l-
piperazinyl)butyl)-
184691-49-4
C23H26N602
99.48
8
6
6.50E+05
4
3.24E+05
4
2.81E+06
3
1.37E+05
1,5-Trisiloxanediol, 1,1,3,3,5,5-
hexamethyl-
3663-50-1
C6H20O4Si3
98.35
4
3
3.42E+05
2
2.49E+05
1
1.27E+06
2
2.14E+05
a SVOC = semivolatile organic compound; °C = degrees Celsius; LC/TOFMS = liquid chromatography/time-of-flight mass spectrometry
b Recycling Plants (n=6); Indoor Fields (n=5); Outdoor Fields (n=5); Chamber Backgrounds (n=3)
0 Unique numerical identifier assigned by the Chemical Abstracts Services (CAS)
-------
Appendix S
Targeted Microbiological Analysis Results
for Tire Crumb Rubber Infill Samples
Collected at Synthetic Turf Fields
-------
Table S-l. Variability in Targeted Microbial Gene Quantities of 16S rRNA Within Each Field"
Field
ID
Individual
Field
Location
Samples -
Mean
Individual
Field
Location
Samples -
Standard
Deviation
Individual
Field
Location
Samples -
% Relative
Standard
Deviation
Individual
Field Sample
Location 1
Results
(molecules/';
TCR)
Individual
Field Sample
Location 2
Results
(molecules/;;
TCR)
Individual
Field Sample
Location 3
Results
(molecules/^
TCR)
Individual
Field Sample
Location 4
Results
(molecules/";
TCR)
Individual
Field Sample
Location 5
Results
(molecules/^
TCR)
Individual
Field Sample
Location 6
Results
(molecules/;;
TCR)
Individual
Field Sample
Location 7
Results
(molcculcs/g
TCR)
1
2.73E+07
9.92E+06
36.3
1.55E+07
2.40E+07
2.09E+07
4.37E+07
3.70E+07
2.13E+07
2.87E+07
2
1.29E+07
8.43E+06
65.1
7.33E+06
1.44E+07
7.26E+06
3.01E+07
1.13E+07
5.21E+06
1.51E+07
3
4.77E+07
1.28E+07
26.9
5.14E+07
2.59E+07
5.34E+07
3.54E+07
4.78E+07
5.74E+07
6.24E+07
4
2.99E+05
2.83E+05
94.8
8.01E+05
3.81E+05
3.17E+05
4.53E+05
3.59E+03
2.96E+04
1.04E+05
5
9.26E+06
7.56E+06
81.6
4.51E+06
2.91E+06
4.12E+05
2.24E+07
1.01E+07
1.46E+07
9.94E+06
6
5.72E+05
4.13E+05
72.2
2.18E+05
3.49E+05
1.40E+06
3.63E+05
7.88E+05
5.98E+05
2.93E+05
7
3.55E+05
1.89E+05
53.1
3.26E+05
3.45E+05
7.57E+05
2.35E+05
1.73E+05
2.98E+05
3.53E+05
8
2.97E+06
1.85E+06
62.1
3.63E+06
1.21E+06
9.20E+05
2.97E+06
1.91E+06
3.92E+06
6.24E+06
9
1.65E+07
1.26E+07
76.3
1.02E+07
1.95E+07
3.84E+07
1.85E+07
QCF
1.06E+07
1.63E+06
10
2.02E+06
1.18E+06
58.5
8.60E+05
1.38E+06
2.06E+06
3.33E+06
7.88E+05
1.86E+06
3.84E+06
11
2.25E+05
1.77E+05
78.4
1.10E+04
1.56E+05
5.88E+05
2.17E+05
1.71E+05
1.91E+05
2.41E+05
12
2.10E+07
2.28E+07
109
2.74E+07
1.44E+07
7.02E+07
9.74E+06
6.31E+06
7.15E+06
1.19E+07
13
3.35E+06
2.51E+06
74.9
4.27E+06
3.07E+06
QCF
3.21E+06
4.25E+05
1.49E+06
7.65E+06
14
4.67E+06
2.72E+06
58.3
3.70E+06
9.29E+05
3.35E+06
6.58E+06
4.69E+06
8.75E+06
QCF
15
7.38E+06
3.66E+06
49.6
7.85E+06
2.79E+06
3.05E+06
7.65E+06
7.63E+06
1.35E+07
9.24E+06
16
7.09E+06
4.73E+06
66.7
2.13E+06
1.18E+06
8.89E+06
9.96E+06
1.06E+07
1.33E+07
3.59E+06
17
2.32E+07
7.31E+06
31.5
2.01E+07
1.66E+07
1.62E+07
1.85E+07
3.47E+07
2.57E+07
3.09E+07
18
5.05E+07
2.44E+07
48.2
2.64E+07
2.32E+07
3.99E+07
6.32E+07
7.35E+07
8.70E+07
4.03E+07
19
2.60E+06
9.80E+05
37.6
2.59E+06
1.54E+06
3.38E+06
1.49E+06
4.14E+06
3.00E+06
2.08E+06
20
1.85E+06
1.88E+06
102
3.37E+06
1.39E+06
5.45E+06
8.71E+05
5.79E+05
4.27E+05
8.26E+05
21
2.35E+06
1.32E+06
56.3
5.01E+06
1.47E+06
2.54E+06
1.55E+06
1.37E+06
1.55E+06
2.94E+06
22
1.67E+06
8.74E+05
52.3
1.78E+06
1.35E+06
3.38E+06
1.83E+06
1.46E+06
1.43E+06
4.84E+05
23
1.38E+07
5.42E+06
39.3
5.52E+06
1.15E+07
1.37E+07
2.26E+07
1.75E+07
1.06E+07
1.51E+07
24
1.50E+06
1.12E+06
74.3
3.85E+06
1.62E+06
1.71E+06
6.40E+05
8.82E+05
1.10E+06
7.19E+05
-------
Table S-l Continued
Field
ID
Individual
Field
Loeation
Samples -
Mean
Individual
Field
Loeation
Samples -
Standard
Deviation
Individual
Field
Loeation
Samples -
% Relative
Standard
Deviation
Individual
Field Sample
Loeation 1
Results
(molecules/;;
TCR)
Individual
Field Sample
Loeation 2
Results
(molecules/
TCR)
Individual
Field Sample
Loeation 3
Results
(molecules/^
TCR)
Individual
Field Sample
Loeation 4
Results
(molecules/
TCR)
Individual
Field Sample
Location 5
Results
(molecules/";
TCR)
Individual
Field Sample
Location 6
Results
(molecules/";
TCR)
Individual
Field Sample
Location 7
Results
(molecules/;;
TCR)
25
1.25E+06
1.78E+06
143
9.53E+05
6.32E+05
5.25E+06
4.04E+05
6.43E+05
3.49E+05
4.92E+05
26
2.56E+07
1.28E+07
50.1
2.08E+07
2.21E+07
3.81E+07
1.88E+07
1.31E+07
1.75E+07
4.85E+07
27
1.73E+06
4.96E+05
28.6
2.54E+06
2.08E+06
1.71E+06
9.82E+05
1.75E+06
1.38E+06
1.67E+06
28
2.37E+05
1.47E+05
61.9
9.94E+04
QCF
2.76E+05
1.86E+05
1.52E+05
5.12E+05
1.95E+05
29
8.27E+05
5.10E+05
61.7
1.58E+06
4.30E+04
1.15E+06
7.79E+05
1.08E+06
7.99E+05
3.65E+05
30
1.45E+06
5.44E+05
37.6
1.32E+06
1.99E+06
6.90E+05
2.12E+06
1.80E+06
9.19E+05
1.28E+06
31
1.59E+07
5.11E+06
32.1
1.35E+07
2.26E+07
1.32E+07
1.47E+07
1.23E+07
2.38E+07
1.13E+07
32
2.40E+07
1.19E+07
49.5
2.26E+07
1.11E+07
1.08E+07
4.23E+07
2.41E+07
3.65E+07
2.05E+07
33
8.20E+06
3.29E+06
40.1
6.80E+06
1.16E+07
1.37E+07
7.57E+06
7.57E+06
4.09E+06
6.16E+06
34
1.81E+07
5.00E+06
27.6
1.76E+07
1.38E+07
2.80E+07
1.56E+07
1.64E+07
1.43E+07
2.11E+07
35
2.01E+07
9.51E+06
47.2
6.00E+06
2.29E+07
3.43E+07
1.59E+07
2.68E+07
1.21E+07
2.30E+07
36
2.13E+05
1.45E+05
68.4
1.54E+05
8.27E+04
3.47E+05
1.25E+05
4.66E+05
8.63E+04
2.27E+05
37
1.95E+06
2.68E+06
138
1.94E+06
1.29E+06
7.88E+06
1.08E+06
3.47E+05
6.30E+05
4.45E+05
38
7.61E+06
1.45E+07
190
1.88E+06
4.02E+07
7.23E+05
7.17E+05
6.58E+05
3.95E+06
5.10E+06
39
2.57E+07
1.13E+07
43.8
4.67E+07
1.51E+07
1.18E+07
2.60E+07
2.86E+07
2.75E+07
2.40E+07
40
1.44E+07
4.53E+06
31.5
1.71E+07
9.31E+06
2.31E+07
1.44E+07
1.30E+07
1.27E+07
1.12E+07
a molecules/g TCR = molecules/gram of tire crumb rubber; rRNA = ribosomal ribonucleic acid; QCF = Failed QC, Result Not Reported
-------
Table S-2. Variability in Targeted Microbial Gene Quantities of S. aureus SA0140 protein Within Each Field3
Field
ID
Individual
Field
Location
Samples -
Mean
Individual
Field
Location
Samples -
Standard
Deviation
Individual
Field
Location
Samples -
% Relative
Standard
Deviation
Individual
Field Sample
Location 1
Results
(molecules/^
TCR)
Individual
Field Sample
Location 2
Results
(molecules/;?
TCR)
Individual
Field Sample
Location 3
Results
(molcculcs/g
TCR)
Individual
Field Sample
Location 4
Results
(molecules/
TCR)
Individual
Field Sample
Location 5
Results
(molecules/^
TCR)
Individual
Field Sample
Location 6
Results
(molecules/^
TCR)
Individual
Field Sample
Location 7
Results
(molecules/";
TCR)
1
0
0
N/A
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
N/A
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
5.70E+00
N/A
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
1.01E+01
1.03E+01
101
1.50E+01
0
1.86E+01
2.51E+01
0
0
1.23E+01
5
0
0
N/A
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
4.02E+01
5.43E+01
135
4.24E+01
2.13E+01
1.55E+02
1.12E+01
0
0
5.19E+01
7
1.43E+02
3.31E+02
232
8.90E+02
0
1.91E+01
0
6.10E+01
0
2.75E+01
8
0
0
N/A
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
9
0
0
N/A
0
0
0
0
QCF
0
0
10
1.36E+02
3.10E+02
228
0
0
1.22E+02
8.30E+02
0
0
0
11
0
0
N/A
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
12
0
0
N/A
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
13
0
0
N/A
0
0
QCF
0
0
0
0
14
0
0
N/A
0
0
0
0
0
0
QCF
15
0
0
N/A
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
16
0
0
N/A
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
17
0
0
N/A
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
18
0
0
N/A
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
19
2.10E+00
5.50E+00
265
0
0
0
1.45E+01
0
0
0
20
3.96E+01
5.36E+01
136
6.93E+01
2.88E+01
1.49E+02
1.87E+01
0
0
1.15E+01
21
0
0
N/A
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
22
6.26E+01
6.26E+01
100
4.02E+01
3.21E+01
8.84E+01
1.91E+02
3.28E+01
5.34E+01
0
23
0
0
N/A
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-------
Table S-2 Continued
Field
ID
Individual
Field
Loeation
Samples -
Mean
Individual
Field
Loeation
Samples -
Standard
Deviation
Individual
Field
Loeation
Samples -
% Relative
Standard
Deviation
Individual
Field Sample
Loeation 1
Results
(moleeules/jj
TCR)
Individual
Field Sample
Loeation 2
Results
(molecules/;?
TCR)
Individual
Field Sample
Loeation 3
Results
(molecules/*;
TCR)
Individual
Field Sample
Location 4
Results
(molecules/^
TCR)
Individual
Field Sample
Location 5
Results
(molecules/^
TCR)
Individual
Field Sample
Location 6
Results
(molecules/^
TCR)
Individual
Field Sample
Location 7
Results
(molecules/^
TCR)
24
3.99E+01
7.00E+01
176
1.95E+02
2.14E+01
3.04E+01
0
0
3.21E+01
0
25
3.04E+01
7.63E+01
251
0
0
0
0
2.03E+02
0
9.6
26
0
0
N/A
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
27
4.79E+01
1.94E+01
40.5
7.23E+01
4.66E+01
3.33E+01
3.37E+01
7.84E+01
3.57E+01
3.50E+01
28
6.60E+00
1.62E+01
245
0
QCF
0
0
0
39.8
0
29
1.45E+01
2.19E+01
151
4.12E+01
0
5.07E+01
0
0
9.60E+00
0
30
4.05E+01
1.74E+01
43
4.22E+01
6.89E+01
2.82E+01
1.90E+01
4.39E+01
5.46E+01
2.69E+01
31
2.10E+00
5.60E+00
265
0
1.47E+01
0
0
0
0
0
32
0
0
N/A
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
33
1.10E+02
1.01E+02
91.6
3.21E+02
1.15E+02
1.36E+02
7.48E+01
5.51E+01
4.11E+01
2.78E+01
34
0
0
N/A
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
35
0
0
N/A
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
36
0
0
N/A
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
37
3.38E+01
3.26E+01
96.3
5.18E+01
7.01E+01
7.68E+01
2.78E+01
1.02E+01
0
0
38
2.65E+01
1.78E+01
67.1
5.11E+01
4.66E+01
0
1.43E+01
2.44E+01
2.81E+01
2.10E+01
39
0
0
N/A
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
40
0
0
N/A
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
a molecules/g TCR = molecules/gram of tire crumb rubber; QCF = Failed QC, Result Not Reported; N/A= Not applicable
-------
Table S-3. Variability in Targeted Microbial Gene Quantities of mecA methicillin resistance gene Within Each Field3
Field
ID
Individual
Field
Location
Samples -
Mean
Individual
Field
Location
Samples -
Standard
Deviation
Individual
Field
Location
Samples -
% Relative
Standard
Deviation
Individual
Field Sample
Location 1
Results
(molecules/^
TCR)
Individual
Field Sample
Location 2
Results
(molecules/;?
TCR)
Individual
Field Sample
Location 3
Results
(molcculcs/g
TCR)
Individual
Field Sample
Location 4
Results
(molecules/
TCR)
Individual
Field Sample
Location 5
Results
(molecules/g
TCR)
Individual
Field Sample
Location 6
Results
(molecules/^
TCR)
Individual
Field Sample
Location 7
Results
(molecules/";
TCR)
1
9.30E+00
1.50E+01
161
4.18E+01
0
0
6.20E+00
0
5.40E+00
1.16E+01
2
8.70E+00
7.10E+00
81.3
1.35E+01
1.48E+01
1.93E+01
4.50E+00
4.80E+00
4.10E+00
0
3
7.40E+00
9.90E+00
133
0
8.80E+00
0
5.80E+00
2.78E+01
9.70E+00
0
4
5.64E+01
5.22E+01
92.4
1.70E+02
6.54E+01
3.94E+01
2.56E+01
3.48E+01
3.81E+01
2.14E+01
5
0
0
N/A
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
2.05E+02
8.70E+01
42.4
2.83E+02
1.33E+02
3.63E+02
1.39E+02
1.75E+02
1.41E+02
2.00E+02
7
7.46E+01
5.57E+01
74.6
5.43E+01
2.09E+01
1.86E+02
4.57E+01
6.59E+01
1.07E+02
4.31E+01
8
0
0
N/A
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
9
0
0
N/A
0
0
0
0
QCF
0
0
10
1.02E+01
2.70E+01
265
0
0
7.16E+01
0
0
0
0
11
2.10E+00
5.60E+00
265
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.47E+01
12
0
0
N/A
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
13
0
0
N/A
0
0
QCF
0
0
0
0
14
0
0
N/A
0
0
0
0
0
0
QCF
15
0
0
N/A
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
16
0
0
N/A
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
17
5.50E+00
7.60E+00
140
0
1.95E+01
0
8.30E+00
1.06E+01
0
0
18
0
0
N/A
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
19
3.50E+00
9.30E+00
265
0
0
0
0
2.46E+01
0
0
20
3.41E+02
2.60E+02
76.2
7.02E+02
2.09E+02
7.33E+02
2.18E+02
1.88E+02
1.21E+02
2.15E+02
21
4.30E+00
5.10E+00
119
14.2
0
5.60E+00
0
4.60E+00
6.00E+00
0
22
5.65E+02
3.45E+02
61.1
7.35E+02
3.46E+02
1.28E+03
3.96E+02
2.91E+02
4.71E+02
4.37E+02
23
0
0
N/A
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
24
3.94E+02
3.80E+02
96.3
1.20E+03
4.98E+02
3.21E+02
3.27E+02
1.01E+02
2.04E+02
1.12E+02
-------
Table S-3 Continued
Field
ID
Individual
Field
Loeation
Samples -
Mean
Individual
Field
Loeation
Samples -
Standard
Deviation
Individual
Field
Loeation
Samples -
% Relative
Standard
Deviation
Individual
Field Sample
Loeation 1
Results
(molecules/g
TCR)
Individual
Field Sample
Loeation 2
Results
(molecules/g
TCR)
Individual
Field Sample
Location 3
Results
(molecules/g
TCR)
Individual
Field Sample
Location 4
Results
(molecules/g
TCR)
Individual
Field Sample
Location 5
Results
(molecules/g
TCR)
Individual
Field Sample
Location 6
Results
(molcculcs/g
TCR)
Individual
Field Sample
Location 7
Results
(molcculcs/g
TCR)
25
5.03E+01
1.98E+01
39.3
5.08E+01
8.04E+01
6.51E+01
3.26E+01
4.84E+01
2.04E+01
5.46E+01
26
5.80E+00
5.50E+00
96.3
1.06E+01
0
7.30E+00
1.13E+01
0
0
1.11E+01
27
3.74E+02
2.02E+02
53.8
5.38E+02
3.72E+02
3.82E+02
2.44E+02
3.78E+02
2.95E+02
4.12E+02
28
1.20E+02
9.53E+01
79.6
4.49E+01
QCF
7.19E+01
9.79E+01
1.12E+02
3.09E+02
8.35E+01
29
2.68E+02
7.52E+01
28.1
3.65E+02
3.42E+02
3.14E+02
1.67E+02
2.66E+02
2.29E+02
1.95E+02
30
5.20E+02
2.94E+02
56.5
4.21E+02
2.56E+02
3.77E+02
5.00E+02
1.16E+03
4.51E+02
4.75E+02
31
4.23E+01
9.48E+01
224
8.10E+00
3.24E+01
2.56E+02
0
0
0
0
32
0
0
N/A
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
33
6.59E+02
1.80E+02
27.3
7.99E+02
9.30E+02
5.38E+02
7.69E+02
6.37E+02
4.29E+02
5.11E+02
34
0
0
N/A
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
35
3.70E+00
7.00E+00
187
0
0
8.10E+00
0
0
1.80E+01
0
36
3.04E+01
1.94E+01
63.7
3.71E+01
3.06E+01
6.87E+01
8.00E+00
2.73E+01
1.59E+01
2.56E+01
37
4.58E+02
3.77E+02
82.2
4.43E+02
4.89E+02
1.26E+03
2.10E+02
1.51E+02
4.20E+02
2.35E+02
38
1.03E+02
3.15E+01
30.5
6.75E+01
1.34E+02
6.36E+01
1.41E+02
9.24E+01
9.73E+01
1.27E+02
39
8.70E+00
1.29E+01
149
1.32E+01
1.31E+01
0
0
0
0
3.45E+01
40
1.30E+00
3.40E+00
265
8.90E+00
0
0
0
0
0
0
a molecules/g TCR = molecules/gram of tire crumb rubber; QCF = Failed QC, Result Not Reported; N/A= Not applicable
-------
[This page intentionally left blank.]
-------
Appendix T
Dynamic Chamber Silicone Wristband
Experiments
-------
T.1 Introduction
Silicone wristbands have seen increasing interest and use as a tool for personal and area chemical sample
collection in exposure assessment research. Silicone wristbands can serve as passive samplers for many
types of organic chemicals and are especially effective for chemicals present in the air. With no power
requirements, ease of use, and minimal participant burden and interaction requirements make them
attractive for personal sample collection. There is interest in how silicone wristbands might be used in future
exposure measurement studies for synthetic field users where bulky air sampling equipment can't be worn
safely during intense athletic activity. A critical question regarding their suitability for synthetic turf field
personal sampling is whether, and at what rate they are able to collect chemicals of interest associated with
tire crumb rubber or other field materials.
As a first step towards determining feasibility, it is important to understand how to measure the relevant
chemicals in wristbands and to assess the sorption of chemicals when exposed to tire crumb rubber
materials. Exploratory tests were designed to provide an initial assessment and demonstration. The results
are intended to inform evaluation of the potential utility in future facility and personal monitoring and/or
field air monitoring in future synthetic turf field research studies.
T.2 Methods
In an effort to investigate the future viability of using silicone wristbands as a passive sampling device, we
conducted a set of screening-level experiments in controlled dynamic emission chambers. The tests were
designed to measure the amount of selected tire crumb rubber SVOCs absorbed to wristbands buried in the
tire crumb rubber, and suspended in the air above tire crumb rubber, under controlled conditions of
temperature, humidity, and ventilation.
A total of four identical experiments were conducted using tire crumb material collected from three separate
fields and one recycling plant. The synthetic field samples were selected to test tire crumb rubber infill from
fields selected across a range of installation ages. (The age selection criterion was applied prior to
discovering the important differences in content and emission factors for indoor and outdoor fields). The
four samples were designated as follows:
Field A	New outdoor field sample (installation age group 2013-2016)
Field B	Middle age indoor field sample (installation age group 2009-2012)
Field C	Older age indoor field sample (installation age group 2004-2008)
Plant Z	New recycling plant sample (collected in 2016)
Silicone wristbands were adult-sized bands procured from 24hourwristbands.com and were pre-cleaned
using a solvent extraction procedure (SOP D-EMMD-PHCB-029-SOP-01).
The experiments were conducted inside 53 L small electro-polished stainless-steel chambers at 25 °C and
45% RH which were ventilated at 1 air exchange per hour (Figure T-l). The chambers included a mixing
fan suspended in the center of the chamber. For each experiment, one wristband was placed inside of an
aluminum foil tray that was 90 mm in diameter and approximately 17 mm deep. A pre-determined amount
of tire crumb material (60 g) was used to completely cover the wristband in the tray. Two additional
wristbands were suspended separately with fine wire from the chamber's inlet and outlet manifolds (Figure
T-2). The chambers were sealed and air samples from the chamber exhaust were collected onto 22-mm PUF
-------
plugs at 48- to 64-hour intervals, collecting 288 L to 384 L of air per sample (100 mL/minute sampling
rate). During the 7-day exposure time, three separate PUF air samples were collected consecutively to allow
measurement SVOC concentrations in the chamber air across the entire experiment duration (Figure T-3).
After collection, air samples collected on PUF were stored inside their collection tubes, capped and wrapped
in foil inside of a zip-lock bag, under freezer conditions (-20 °C) until analysis. Silicone wristbands were
transferred to certified clean, 60 mL amber jars with polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE)-lined lids and were
also stored under freezer conditions (-20 °C) until analysis.
Themecoupte
Figure T-l. 53-L test chambers 1-4 inside the incubator set up for the
wristband test.
Figure T-2. Tire crumb in aluminum foil tray with 60 g of tire crumb
rubber, buried wristband, and suspended wristbands in chamber prior
to test start.
-------
Figure T-3. Exhaust manifold with polyurethane foam (PUF) samplers.
Samples were extracted and analyzed using SOP D-EMMD-PHCB-036-SOP-01. Briefly, samples were
extracted by sonication using 1:1 acetone:hexane. Extracts were evaporated to a final volume of 1 mL and
were analyzed by GC/MS/MS in MRM mode.
T.3 Results
Measurement data from these experiments are summarized in Tables T-l through T-4.
In order to estimate the effective sampling rates for the wristbands, the concentration found on each
wristband (ng/band) was divided by the mean concentration in chamber air from the PUF samples (ng/L).
The result was multiplied by 1/sampling time (hours) to give the effective sampling rate for each chemical.
This was done for each experiment and results were averaged to estimate the mean effective sampling rates.
/ Concentrationnq/band \ f	1	\
Effective Sampling Rate,,/Iwur- [— I	-J x
For example, the measured concentration of benzothiazole on the wristband located at the left outlet from
the Field A experiment was found to be 2108 ng/band for the 161-hour sampling time. The mean air
concentration from PUF samples for that experiment was found to be 1.95 ng/L.
Effective Sampling RateL/hour = ("10^7fcand ) x (—-—) = 6.72
'	\ i-^ng/L ) VI61 hours-'
The effective sampling rate from the right outlet was found to be 6.44 L/h, so the average for Field A was
6.58 ng/L for benzothiazole. The mean effective sampling rate was calculated using the average rates from
each of the four experiments. For benzothiazole, this was calculated to be 5.1 L/h.
Once the effective sampling rate has been measured, the concentration in air per unit volume can be
estimated for a wristband sample. This can be done using the following formula:
-------
Estimated Air Concentration^/L
	Concentration^lband	\
(,Sampling Timehours x Effective Sampling RateL/h)J
As an example, using the average effective sampling rate calculated across the four experiments, the
chamber air concentration of benzothiazole was estimated for the band at the left outlet in the Field A
experiment:
20 S /bctTid i
Estimated Air Concentration^/L = I 	r- J = 2.6ng/L
* 5-1i/h)/
The average air concentration found in the chamber air from the PUF samples was 1.9 ng/L, so the
calculated estimate is reasonable. Estimated effective sampling rates are reported in Table T-5 for all
chemicals with measurable air concentrations in at least 3 samples.
Table T-l. Wristband Testing Measurement Results for Tire Crumb Rubber Infill from Synthetic Turf Field A
in Dynamic Emissions Chamber Testinga b
Chemical
Tire
Crumb
Extract
(ng/g)
Wristband
Buried in
Tire Crumb
(ng/band)
Suspended
Wristband
Left Side
(ng/band)
Suspended
Wristband
Right Side
(ng/band)
Mean
Wristband
Blank
(ng/samplc)
Mean
Chamber
Air
(ng/L)
Mean PUF
Field Blank
(ng/samplc)
Aniline
640
640
170
150
0.3
0.3
3.3
n-Butylbenzene
0
0.80
0.3
0.3
0.4
0
0.6
Naphthalene
24
7.3
3.8
3.7
1.3
0.01
1.6
Benzothiazole
4600
3500
2100
2000
5.4
1.9
37
2-Methylnaphthalene
54
110
29
28
0.7
0.04
1.2
1 -Methy lnaphthalene
37
60
16
15
0.2
0.03
0.5
Dimethyl Phthalate
9.2
0.80
2.3
2.4
0.3
0
0.6
Acenaphthalene
31
42
13
13
0.4
0.01
0.4
Diethyl phthalate
26
49
64
63
14
0.07
16
Fluorene
92
150
40
38
0.1
0.01
0.4
4-tert-octylphenol
5100
3200
690
630
1.5
0.05
2.0
2-Bromomethylnaphthalene
0
140
44
39
1.4
0.01
1.5
2-Hydroxybenzothiazole
0
1600
46
40
3.8
0.03
11
Dibenzothiophene
290
210
28
28
0.2
0
0.2
Phenanthrene
2000
870
190
180
0.5
0.02
1.2
Anthracene
300
220
33
30
0
0
0
Diisobutyl phthalate
360
280
220
190
68
0.06
17
3 -Methy lphenanthrene
2700
770
98
93
0.9
0.01
0.9
2-Methylphenanthrene
2600
540
71
67
0
0
0
1 -Methy lphenanthrene
1500
480
43
39
0.9
0
0
Dibutyl phthalate
520
280
120
99
54
0.07
23
Fluoranthene
5900
540
40
35
0.2
0
0.3
Pyrene
13000
550
32
32
0.4
0
0.3
Benz(a)anthracene
2900
41
0
0.5
0
0
0
-------
Table T-l Continued
Chemical
Tire
Crumb
Extract
(ng/g)
Wristband
Buried in
Tire Crumb
(ng/band)
Suspended
Wristband
Left Side
(ng/band)
Suspended
Wristband
Right Side
(ng/band)
Mean
Wristband
Blank
(ng/samplc)
Mean
Chamber
Air
(ng/L)
Mean PUF
Field Blank
(ng/samplc)
Chrysene
2500
98
0.3
0.3
0.1
0
0.1
Di-n-octyl phthalate
45
13
4.4
0.7
1.3
0
0
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
1600
21
0.2
0.2
0.3
0
0.3
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
0
5.6
0
0
0
0
0
Benzo(e)pyrene
2000
21
0
0
0
0
0
Benzo[a]pyrene
1000
12
0.2
0.1
0.2
0
0.3
Bis(2,2,6,6-tetramethyl-4-
piperidyl) sebacate
1300
32
0
0
0
0
0.1
DBA + ICDP°
300
4.0
0
0
0.1
0
0.3
Benzo [ghi] perylene
1600
16
0.1
0.1
0.1
0
0.3
Coronene
680
5.0
0
0
0
0
0.1
a ng = nanogram; PUF = polyurethane foam
b Wristband Blanks (n=3), Chamber Air Samples (n=3); PUF Field Blanks (n=3)
°DBA + ICDP= Sum of Dibenz[a,h]anthracene and Indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene
Table T-2. Wristband Testing Measurement Results for Tire Crumb Rubber Infill from Synthetic Turf Field B
in Dynamic Emissions Chamber Testinga b
Chemical
Tire
Crumb
Extract
(ng/g)
Wristband
Buried in
Tire Crumb
(ng/band)
Suspended
Wristband
Left Side
(ng/band)
Suspended
Wristband
Right Side
(ng/band)
Mean
Wristband
Blank
(ng/samplc)
Mean
Chamber
Air
(ng/L)
Mean PUF
Field Blank
(ng/samplc)
Aniline
1950
1900
810
860
0.3
1.7
3.3
n-Butylbenzene
0
22
0
0
0.4
0
0.6
Naphthalene
115
98
17
19
1.3
0.06
1.6
Benzothiazole
14000
3800
3400
3400
5.4
6.3
37
2-Methylnaphthalene
650
620
210
220
0.7
0.3
1.2
1 -Methy lnaphthalene
540
510
140
140
0.2
0.2
0.5
Dimethyl Phthalate
110
80
18
18
0.3
0
0.6
Acenaphthalene
240
200
69
69
0.4
0.04
0.4
Diethyl phthalate
180
320
93
88
14
0.06
16
Fluorene
1400
570
300
310
0.1
0.05
0.4
4-tert-octylphenol
16000
3900
2000
1700
1.5
0.1
2
2-Bromomethylnaphthalene
0
370
95
98
1.4
0.02
1.5
2-Hydroxybenzothiazole
0
3500
280
210
3.8
0.03
11
Dibenzothiophene
1500
590
83
83
0.2
0.01
0.2
Phenanthrene
8100
1500
510
510
0.5
0.04
1.2
Anthracene
2600
850
87
80
0
0.01
0
Diisobutyl phthalate
6400
760
360
330
68
0.05
17
3 -Methy lphenanthrene
7200
1300
230
220
0.9
0.01
0.9
2-Methylphenanthrene
10000
840
170
160
0
0.01
0
1 -Methy lphenanthrene
4700
790
77
71
0.9
0
0
-------
Table T-2 Continued
Chemical
Tire
Crumb
Extract
(ng/g)
Wristband
Buried in
Tire Crumb
(ng/band)
Suspended
Wristband
Left Side
(ng/band)
Suspended
Wristband
Right Side
(ng/band)
Mean
Wristband
Blank
(ng/samplc)
Mean
Chamber
Air
(ng/L)
Mean PUF
Field Blank
(ng/samplc)
Dibutyl phthalate
2700
490
150
120
54
0.06
23
Fluoranthene
9900
480
50
57
0.2
0
0.3
Pyrene
26000
680
77
76
0.4
0
0.3
Benz(a)anthracene
5300
61
0.1
0.2
0
0
0
Chrysene
5400
180
0.8
0.7
0.07
0
0.1
Di-n-octyl phthalate
180
10
1.3
1.2
1.3
0
0
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
2800
34
0.2
0.2
0.3
0
0.3
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
910
14
0
0
0
0
0
Benzo(e)pyrene
3200
39
0
0
0
0
0
Benzo[a]pyrene
2100
30
0.3
0.2
0.2
0
0.3
Bis(2,2,6,6-tetramethyl-4-
piperidyl) sebacate
1700
51
0
0
0
0
0.1
DBA + ICDP°
790
6.7
0
0.1
0.1
0
0.3
Benzo [ghi] perylene
2500
25
0.2
0.1
0.1
0
0.3
Coronene
1400
7.8
0
0
0
0
0.1
a ng = nanogram; PUF = polyurethane foam
b Wristband Blanks (n=3), Chamber Air Samples (n=3); PUF Field Blanks (n=3)
°DBA + ICDP= Sum of Dibenz[a,h]anthracene and Indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene
Table T-3. Wristband Testing Measurement Results for Tire Crumb Rubber Infill from Synthetic Turf Field C in
Dynamic Emissions Chamber Testinga'b
Chemical
Tire
Crumb
Extract
(ng/g)
W ristband
Buried in
Tire Crumb
(ng/band)
Suspended
Wristband
Left Side
(ng/band)
Suspended
Wristband
Right Side
(ng/band)
Mean
Wristband
Blank
(ng/samplc)
Mean
Chamber
Air
(ng/L)
Mean PUF
Field Blank
(ng/samplc)
Aniline
1100
970
370
310
0.3
0.5
3.3
n-Butylbenzene
0
2.1
0.6
0.6
0.4
0
0.6
Naphthalene
37
17
4.9
5.2
1.3
0.02
1.6
Benzothiazole
7500
3600
2600
2300
5.4
2.1
37
Cyclohexylisothiocyanate
650
140
38
200
67
1.2
90
2-Methylnaphthalene
110
110
28
28
0.7
0.04
1.2
1 -Methy lnaphthalene
95
89
21
21
0.2
0.04
0.5
Dimethyl Phthalate
18
50
16
14
0.3
0
0.6
Acenaphthalene
100
69
27
27
0.4
0.01
0.4
Diethyl phthalate
170
350
120
120
14
0.06
16
Fluorene
790
420
190
180
0.1
0.03
0.4
4-tert-octylphenol
16000
3300
1100
1000
1.5
0.06
2.0
2-Bromomethylnaphthalene
0
230
72
68
1.4
0.01
1.5
2-Hydroxybenzothiazole
10000
2700
140
180
3.8
0.02
11
Dibenzothiophene
840
390
66
65
0.2
0
0.2
Phenanthrene
7000
1200
460
450
0.5
0.03
1.2
-------
Table T-3 Continued
Chemical
Tire
Crumb
Extract
(ng/g)
Wristband
Buried in
Tire Crumb
(ng/band)
Suspended
Wristband
Left Side
(ng/band)
Suspended
Wristband
Right Side
(ng/band)
Mean
Wristband
Blank
(ng/samplc)
Mean
Chamber
Air
(ng/L)
Mean PUF
Field Blank
(ng/samplc)
Anthracene
1700
440
53
54
0
0
0
Diisobutyl phthalate
6200
620
300
300
68
0.05
17
3 -Methy lphenanthrene
4700
900
120
130
0.9
0.01
0.9
2-Methylphenanthrene
3000
610
84
86
0
0
0
1 -Methy lphenanthrene
2900
550
54
54
0.9
0
0
Dibutyl phthalate
8600
640
150
170
54
0.07
23
Fluoranthene
8000
420
49
58
0.2
0
0.3
Pyrene
19000
550
74
70
0.4
0
0.3
Benz(a)anthracene
2900
24
0
0.5
0
0
0
Chrysene
1800
51
0.5
0.5
0.07
0
0.1
Di-n-octyl phthalate
1200
8.5
0.3
4.9
1.3
0
0
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
1000
14
0.3
0.2
0.3
0
0.3
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
440
3.1
0
0
0
0
0
Benzo(e)pyrene
1900
14
0
0
0
0
0
Benzo[a]pyrene
460
10
0.1
0.1
0.2
0
0.3
Bis(2,2,6,6-tetramethyl-4-
piperidyl) sebacate
520
5.4
0
0
0
0
0.1
DBA + ICDP°
570
3.7
0.1
0.1
0.1
0
0.3
Benzo [ghi] perylene
1600
13
0.1
0.1
0.1
0
0.3
Coronene
410
3
0
0
0
0
0.1
a ng = nanogram; PUF = polyurethane foam
b Wristband Blanks (n=3), Chamber Air Samples (n=3); PUF Field Blanks (n=3)
°DBA + ICDP= Sum of Dibenz[a,h]anthracene and Indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene
Table T-4. Wristband Testing Measurement Results for Tire Crumb Rubber from Recycling Plant Z in
Dynamic Emissions Chamber Testinga b
Chemical
Tire
Crumb
Extract
(ng/g)
Wristband
Buried in
Tire Crumb
(ng/band)
Suspended
Wristband
Left Side
(ng/band)
Suspended
Wristband
Right Side
(ng/band)
Mean
Wristband
Blank
(ng/samplc)
Mean
Chamber
Air
(ng/L)
Mean PUF
Field Blank
(ng/samplc)
Aniline
2160
760
880
800
0.3
1.7
3.3
n-Butylbenzene
0
52
6.6
9.0
0.4
0
0.6
Naphthalene
510
360
68
81
1.3
0.3
1.6
Benzothiazole
83000
5700
4700
4100
5.4
8.0
37
2-Methylnaphthalene
300
460
100
100
0.7
0.2
1.2
1 -Methy lnaphthalene
220
300
62
62
0.2
0.1
0.5
Dimethyl Phthalate
55
20
6.4
5.9
0.3
0
0.6
Acenaphthalene
600
490
170
170
0.4
0.1
0.4
Diethyl phthalate
32
79
80
69
14
0.05
16
Fluorene
240
260
61
59
0.1
0.01
0.4
-------
Table T-4 Continued
Chemical
Tire
Crumb
Extract
(ng/g)
Wristband
Buried in
Tire Crumb
(ng/band)
Suspended
Wristband
Left Side
(ng/band)
Suspended
Wristband
Right Side
(ng/band)
Mean
Wristband
Blank
(ng/samplc)
Mean
Chamber
Air
(ng/L)
Mean PUF
Field Blank
(ng/samplc)
4-tert-octylphenol
26000
4200
2200
2100
1.5
0.1
2
2-Bromomethylnaphthalene
0
320
68
58
1.4
0.01
1.5
2-Hydroxybenzothiazole
28000
3600
180
140
3.8
0.02
11
Dibenzothiophene
280
120
21
20
0.2
0
0.2
Phenanthrene
2200
840
120
120
0.5
0.01
1.2
Anthracene
330
170
18
16
0
0
0
Diisobutyl phthalate
270
160
260
260
68
0.05
17
3 -Methy lphenanthrene
1000
400
46
44
0.9
0
0.9
2-Methylphenanthrene
940
360
29
28
0
0
0
1 -Methy lphenanthrene
660
260
21
20
0.9
0
0
Dibutyl phthalate
400
190
140
130
54
0.05
23
Fluoranthene
4300
350
18
18
0.2
0
0.3
Pyrene
15000
280
47
17
0.4
0
0.3
Benz(a)anthracene
510
20
0
0
0
0
0
Chrysene
2300
42
0.3
0.3
0.07
0
0.1
Di-n-octyl phthalate
180
8.4
0.6
2.6
1.3
0
0
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
670
12
0.2
0.2
0.3
0
0.3
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
340
2.1
0
0
0
0
0
Benzo(e)pyrene
860
16
0
0
0
0
0
Benzo[a]pyrene
320
9.2
0.1
0.1
0.2
0
0.3
Bis(2,2,6,6-tetramethyl-4-
piperidyl) sebacate
160
84
0
0
0
0
0.1
DBA + ICDP°
230
2.2
0.1
0
0.1
0
0.3
Benzo [ghi] perylene
620
23
0.1
0.1
0.1
0
0.3
Coronene
220
5.7
0
0
0
0
0.1
11 ng = nanogram; PUF = polyurethane foam
b Wristband Blanks (n=3), Chamber Air Samples (n=3); PUF Field Blanks (n=3)
°DBA + ICDP= Sum of Dibenz[a,h]anthracene and Indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene
-------
Table T-5. Estimated Silicone Wristband Effective Sampling Rates (L/h) for SVOCs Emitted from Tire Crumb
Rubber in Controlled Dynamic Chamber Testing3
Chemical
Field A
(L/h)
Field B
(L/h)
Field C
(L/h)
Recycling
Plant D
(L/h)
Mean
(L/h)
Standard
Deviation
(L/h)
% Relative
Standard
Deviation
Aniline
3.1
3.0
4.1
3.1
3.3
0.44
13
Naphthalene
2.3
1.9
1.6
1.7
1.9
0.28
15
Benzothiazole
6.6
3.3
7.1
3.4
5.1
1.7
34
2-Methylnaphthalene
4.4
3.6
4.3
3.6
4.0
0.39
9.8
1 -Methylnaphthalene
3.2
3.3
3.3
3.2
3.2
0.03
0.9
Acenaphthalene
7.9
11
17
10
11
3.3
29
Diethyl phthalate
5.7
9.4
13
9.3
9.2
2.5
27
Fluorene
24
38
38
37
34
5.8
17
4-tert-octylphenol
82
82
110
88
91
13
14
2 -B ro mo methylnaphthalene
26
30
44
39
35
7.2
21
2-Hydroxybenzothiazole
8.9
51
50
50
40
18
45
Phenanthrene
58
80
95
76
77
13
17
Diisobutyl phthalate
21
43
37
32
33
7.8
23
3 -Methylphenanthrene
59
140
78
ND
92
33
36
Dibutyl phthalate
9.8
14
14
17
13
2.6
19
a Results only reported for chemicals with measurable chamber air concentrations in at least three samples.
T.4 References
D-EMMD-PHCB-029-SOP-01, Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for the Collection of Personal
Exposure Samples Using Silicone Bands
D-EMMD-PHCB-036-SOP-01, Standard Operating Procedure for Preparation of Air Samples Collected on
PUF Plugs for GC/MS Analysis
-------
Appendix U
Toxicity Reference Information
-------
a Spelling of analyte names is consistent with the authors' spelling in the original literature.
b Synonym names and CAS numbers for chemicals for which the authors provided no CAS number were added
based on curation conducted by EPA's National Center for Computation Toxicology. Additional synonyms were
added based on chemical names provided in the toxicity resources used.
0	Chemical name possibly misspelled, but author's spelling was retained. Rethene may be a misspelling of Retene,
and Hemeicosane may be a misspelling of Heneicosane; Anathrene may also be a misspelling, but the correct
chemical name is not known (cannot be a misspelling of anthracene because the author also provides data for
anthracene).
Data Sources:
1	EPA IRIS (https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/iris2/atoz.cfm)
2EPAPPRTVs (https ://hhpprtv. o nil. gov/q uickv iew/pprtv. php)
3EPA HEAST (https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/risk/reco rdisplay.cfm?deid=2877)
4	ATSDR MRLs (http://www.atsdr.cdc.gOv/mrls/pd:fs/atsdr niris.pdf)
5	IPCS CICADs (http://www.who.int/ipcs/pnblications/cicadycicads alphabetical/en/)
7	CalEPA PR65 (http://oeMia.ca.gOv/prop65/pdf/P65sa:feharborleveis040116.pdf)
8	CalEPA RELs (http://www.oehha.ca.gov/air/aHreis.html)
9	CalEPA Cancer Values (http://www.oeliha.ca.gov/air/tiot spots/pdf/CPFs042909.pdf)
1'OSHA. CalOSHA, NIOSH, ACGIH (Zl-3) (https://www.osha.gov/dsg/annotated-peis/)
11 CalOSHA (htt p ://www. di r. ca.gov/ti t le8/ac .1.. pdf)
12NIOSH (https://www.cdc.gov/niosli/npg/npgsyn-a.html)
Abbreviations:
ACGIH = American Council of Government Industrial Hygienists; ATSDR = Agency for Toxic Substance and
Disease Registry; CalEPA PR65 = California Proposition 65; CalOSHA = California Occupational Safety and
Health Administration; CAS = Chemical Abstract Service; CICAD = Concise International Chemical
Assessment Documents; Cone. = Concentration; Dr. Water = Drinking Water; EPA = Environmental Protection
Agency; HEAST = Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables; IARC = International Agency for Research on
Cancer; IHL = Inhalable; Inhal. = Inhalation; Inorg. cmpds. = Inorganic compounds; Insol. = Insoluble; Inter.
= Intermediate; IPCS = International Programme on Chemical Safety; IRIS = Integrated Risk Information
System; MADL = Maximum Allowable Dose Levels; Monogr. = Monograph; MRL = Minimal Risk Level;
NIOSH = National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health; NSRL = No Significant Risk Level; OSHA =
Occupational Safety and Health Administration; Partic. = Particulates; PEL = Permissible Exposure Limit;
PPRTV = Provisional Peer Reviewed Toxicity Values for Superfund; REL = Recommended Exposure Limit;
Resp. = Respirable; RfC = Reference Concentration; RfD = Reference Dose; SF = Slope Factor; Sol. = Soluble;
STEL = Short Term Exposure Limit; TLV = Threshold Limit Value; TWA = Time Weighted Average; UR =
Unit Risk
EPA IRIS Cancer Classifications:
A = Human Carcinogen; B1 = Probable human carcinogen - based on limited evidence of carcinogenicity in
humans; B2 = Probable human carcinogen - based on sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in animals; C =
Possible human carcinogen; D = Not classifiable as to human carcinogenicity; E = Evidence of non
carcinogenicity in humans
IARC Cancer Class:
Group 1 = Carcinogenic to humans; Group 2A = Probably carcinogenic to humans; Group 2B = Possibly
carcinogenic to humans; Group 3 = Not classifiable as to its carcinogenicity to humans; Group 4 = Probably not
carcinogenic to humans
-------
Appendix V
Summary of the Tire Crumb Rubber
Characterization Peer Review and
Responses
-------
V.1 Introduction
An independent letter peer review was conducted in May 2018 for the draft report detailing specific
research activities under the Federal Research Action Plan on Recycled Tire Crumb Used on Playing
Fields and Playgrounds developed by EPA and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention/Agency
for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (CDC/ATSDR). Eastern Research Group, Inc. (ERG), a
contractor to EPA, independently selected the external peer reviewers and conducted this external peer
review. This appendix includes a description of the peer review process and a summary of key reviewer
recommendations and responses relevant to the Part 1 report on tire crumb rubber characterization. A
response-to-peer review comments document will be released, at a later date, along with the final report
- Part 2 - detailing the exposure characterization research activities.
V.2 Peer Review Process
For this peer review, ERG identified, contacted, and screened qualified experts, and then proposed a
pool of 12 candidate reviewers who had no conflicts of interest (COI) in performing the review and who
collectively met the following technical selection criteria provided by EPA:
•	Expertise in human exposure assessment, including
o Characterization of chemical constituents
o Human exposures associated with synthetic turf fields and/or crumb rubber infill
•	Expertise in human exposure modeling, including
o Characterization of human activity information through questionnaires and/or videography
for exposure model development and application
•	Expertise in analytical chemistry, including
o Analysis of metals, volatile organic compounds (VOCs)/semivolatile organic compounds
(SVOCs) in rubber and/or environmental media
o Product emissions testing
o Bioaccessibility/bioavailability measurements for chemicals in solid media
•	Expertise in environmental microbiology
EPA verified that the experts in the candidate pool were appropriately qualified. ERG then
independently selected seven reviewers from the pool who collectively best met the selection criteria
and could meet the review schedule.
ERG provided reviewers with instructions, the draft report for review, and the charge to reviewers
prepared by EPA and CDC/ATSDR. Reviewers worked independently (e.g., without contact with other
reviewers, colleagues, the public, EPA or CDC/ATSDR) to prepare written comments in response to the
charge questions. Reviewers completed their reviews and submitted written comments to ERG. ERG
compiled the comments and forwarded to EPA. ERG, EPA and CDC/ATSDR checked the comments to
ensure that reviewers had responded clearly to all charge questions. EPA and CDC/ATSDR indicated
that no clarifications were needed on the reviewers' comments.
V.3 Summarized Comments and Responses
EPA and CDC/ATSDR examined all review comments and identified several common themes on the
tire crumb rubber characterization elements of the report. EPA and CDC/ATSDR then developed
summary responses describing how the comments were considered and addressed. These comment and
response summaries are described below.
In general, the peer reviewers found that the findings and conclusions were supported by the results of
-------
the tire crumb rubber characterization components of the report. No fundamental flaws were identified
that would preclude proceeding with dissemination of results and findings in a public report. The
reviewers provided numerous substantial recommendations for improving the clarity, conciseness, and
communication of research findings. Reviewers also provided a number of technical questions and
comments for consideration; as a result, the authors made corrections where needed and clarified
technical approaches and results. In some cases, reviewers made well-reasoned comments and
recommendations that were beyond the scope of this research or would require additional time and effort
not feasible. Overall, the peer reviewers provided valuable feedback that was used to revise the report.
Regarding the Executive Summary, reviewers provided three types of recommendations. First,
reviewers suggested that high-level research findings and conclusions be more clearly formulated and
highlighted, using language accessible to the general public where possible. In response, plain language
summaries of key results and findings were prepared and highlighted in callout boxes throughout the
executive summary. Second, reviewers recommended providing additional information and highlighting
additional results from the tire crumb rubber characterization, including the toxicology reference
information. Therefore, the Executive Summary was expanded to include additional results and findings
from the tire crumb rubber characterization and a short section on the toxicity reference information
gathering and results. Finally, some reviewers recommended providing more detailed information on
specific chemicals of interest and more specific measurement results, in support of the key findings.
However, the authors elected not to include measurement results for a range of specific chemicals or
chemical groups in the Executive Summary as this would greatly expand the size of the summary and
distract from highlighting key results and findings. Instead, Section 2 was used to provide summaries for
detailed information and results from across the entire study.
Regarding the organization and presentation of the report, some reviewers recommended providing
schematic figures to summarize and explain the study's approaches, methodology and findings, given
different types and complexities of the research activities. Several actions were taken to address these
comments. A schematic overview figure was added to the Executive Summary and to the beginning of
the methods section, Section 3, to describe the tire crumb characterization research activities (Figure ES-
1 and Figure 3-1). In Section 2, a table describing key research topic areas and specific research
activities was moved to the beginning of the section, and this overview table was also provided at the
beginning of the detailed results section, Section 4, to refresh readers' understanding about the scope of
tire crumb characterization results (Table 2-1 and Table 4-1). In addition, side-bar text boxes were
developed and included in both the Executive Summary and Section 2 to highlight key results and
findings in plain language. Finally, the entire report was thoroughly edited by an experienced technical
editor to improve readability, ensure technical conformance, and to ensure 508 compliance.
•	Reviewers also provided specific comments to help improve the report's organization and
presentation. In response to these comments, Sections 1 and 2 were re-organized and revised
substantially to improve presentation and clarity. In addition, a new conclusions sub-section was
added at the end of Section 2.
•	Many tables and figures received specific recommendations and were subsequently revised. For
example, the comparison tables in Section 2 (Tables 2-2, 2-3, 2-4, and 2-5) were updated to
group the recycling plant, indoor field, and outdoor field study results together. A table was
added in Section 4 (Table 4-23) to describe the characteristics for each individual field. All
figures showing the within- and between-plant and field results (in Section 4.9.2) were adjusted
so that the recycling plant and field figures had the same y-axis scales. All scatter-plot and box-
plot figures (for example, Figures 4-14, 4-21, 4-27, 4-37, 4-43 and 4-47) showing chemical
-------
analysis results comparisons throughout the Section were revised to improve the x-axis and y-
axis labels. Figures in Section 4.10.3 showing results for different age groups for recycling
plants, indoor fields and outdoor fields were substantially revised to improve clarity.
Regarding the technical approaches, methods and research results, reviewers provided a number of
specific technical comments and questions. Several examples are described here, along with how they
were addressed. Other technical review comments were also considered and addressed, where
appropriate, through report revision.
•	A reviewer raised an important question about the adequacy of the method used to extract
SVOCs from tire crumb rubber. In this study, a simple vortex solvent extraction method was
applied rather than a more vigorous method such as soxhlet or accelerated solvent extraction. In
response, more information was provided in the report regarding the preliminary testing
performed in support of this method and the potential benefits including speed, lower processing
losses of analytes and keeping the extracts relatively clean to avoid analytical system
contamination. The response also acknowledges that this method probably does not exhaustively
extract all SVOCs in the material but may provide a good representation about what is
potentially available for exposure. It was also noted that the SVOC measurement results in this
study compare well with similar results to those in other studies; for a few chemicals,
concentrations were even higher compared to measurements in other studies where more
vigorous extraction methods were used.
•	Reviewers raised several questions regarding the approach and interpretation for the dynamic
emissions testing for VOCs and SVOCs. For example, how the 60 °C test condition was selected
and whether it adequately represents 'upper end' temperature conditions. In response, more
information was provided in Section 2 to better describe the current information available about
tire crumb temperatures on fields, and to acknowledge the uncertainty as a potential limitation in
whether this best represents upper end conditions. Reviewers also commented on observations
and interpretation of emission results that may show some chemicals having higher intrinsic
levels in the crumb rubber versus chemicals that may have higher levels at the surface,
potentially as a result of atmospheric absorption. More discussion was added to the limitations
section in Section 2, and the discussion of results in Section 4. The discussion acknowledges the
need for additional testing to better understand these dynamic results.
•	Questions were also raised about adjusting emission results for chamber background levels and
the resulting creation of some less-than-zero measurement results. As a result of these questions,
the chemical emission results were reviewed and decisions were made to remove the results for
several SVOCs most affected by the relatively high and variable amounts found in chamber
background samples. Additional text was also added to the report and tables regarding the
presence of some remaining less-than-zero results.
•	Reviewers also asked about the implications of the results for human exposure and suggested
applying the emission results towards the prediction of air concentrations at fields. While there
is interest in such estimations, there remains considerable uncertainty regarding the many factors
associated in translating these emission results to air concentration predictions, and the effort to
do so was outside the current study scope.
•	Reviewers commented on the challenges for interpreting the microbial measurement results
given that no other synthetic turf field or tire crumb rubber studies have reported results based on
genetic analyses. In several sections, new information was included to compare and contrast the
-------
several smaller synthetic turf field and natural grass studies in the literature based on bacterial
culture methods with the genetic results from this study. In addition, information on the presence
and levels of bacteria in other human environments (particularly those obtained through
quantitative polymerase chain reaction or qPCR) was cited to better frame the results for tire
crumb rubber on synthetic turf fields in this study.
• Some reviewers suggested that additional toxicological data are available in the literature for
chemicals associated with tire crumb rubber or in databases other than the 11 toxicological
reference data sets examined as part of this work. While additional toxicity data may be available
for some chemicals, searching the literature, curating the information, and reporting the results in
a way that is useful for potential assessments was beyond the scope of work of these research
activities.
Regarding recommendations for future research, reviewers recommended conducting additional work
to further identify and confirm chemicals tentatively identified in this study and additional work to
further develop and apply approaches for 'whole material' toxicity testing for tire crumb rubber. These
recommendations for future research have been included in Section 2.5. Some comments noted that
future research should also include assessing environmental impacts of synthetic turf fields with tire
crumb rubber infill. While this may be an important topic of interest or concern, the focus of this
research is on human exposure, so environmental impacts were not included as a recommendation for
future research in this report.
Finally, several reviewers recommended extending this research effort to risk evaluation and to
communicate risk information to the public. It is important to note that the study activities completed
as part of this multi-agency research effort were not designed, and are not sufficient by themselves, to
directly answer questions about potential health risks. We recognize that communities, parents, and state
and local officials are concerned about tire crumb used in synthetic turf fields. Risk is a function of both
hazard (toxicity) and exposure; therefore, understanding what is present in the material (Part 1 of the
report, describing tire crumb rubber characterization) and how individuals are potentially exposed (Part
2 of the report, describing exposure characterization, to be released at a future date) is critical to
understanding potential risk. While this short-term study will not provide all the answers, characterizing
the chemicals in recycled tire crumb rubber and identifying the ways in which people may be exposed to
those chemicals based on their activities on synthetic turf fields, will contribute to future risk
assessments.
-------