IDX ZERO VALENT IRON BENCH SCALE RPT-OCR

*6011 HSSF1066*
1111111111111111111111111111
DocumentID NONCD0001814
Site Name HAMILTON BEACH/PROCTOR SILEX.
OocumentType Remedial Pilot Study (PIL)
RptSegment 1
DocOate
DocRcvd
Box
Access Level
Division
Section
Program
DocCat
6/14/2001
2/20/2007
SF1066
PUBLIC
WASTE MANAGEMENT
SUPERFUND
IHS (IHS)
FACILITY
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Bench Study to
Evaluate the Use of Zero-Valent Iron
for
Remediation of Solvent Contamination
at the.
Hamilton Beach-Proctor Silex Site . Ill
Washington, North Carolina
May 8, 2001
Prepared by
NESCO Inc., Remediation Technologies Group
6870 North Broadway, Unit H
Denver, CO 80221
I/DJ fi-~ n_ ii(~,; rn1[i~15 2001 :'.'11 _______ J
Prepared for WASHINGTON REGIONAL OFFICE DWQ Radian International/URS Corporation '-----..::::.:::::._ ___ _J
1600 Perimeter Park Drive
Morrisville, NC 27560
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
INTRODUCTION
For some time, Radian/URS Corporation has been discussing with NESCO the opti9ns for
cleanup of chlorinated solvent contamination at the Hamilton Beach-Proctor Silex, Inc., site in
Washington, North Carolina. Pursuant to these discussions, NESCO has worked with
Radian/URS Corporation on a bench evaluation and eventual pilot test of zero valent iron (ZVI)
for_ possible application at the site. In October 2000, samples of groundwater and soil from the
two affected formations were taken for analysis and use in a bench evaluation of ZVI. This
report describes the experimental design and results obtained from the study.
Principal contaminants of concern in the vicinity of monitor well 227 (227) include 1, 1, 1-
trichloroethane (TCA), 1,1-dichloroethane (1,1-DCA), cis-dichloroethene, (c-DCE), and 1,1-
dichloroethene (1,1-DCE). Perchloroethene (PCE), trichloroethene (TCE), 1,1-DCA, 1,1-DCE,
and vinyl chloride (VC) are the principal contaminants of concern in the vicinity of monitor well
213 (213). Minor amounts of other solvents are also present, however they are not expected to
significantly affect overall reduction of contaminant levels ·or attainment of remedial goals.
THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
For purposes of this report, only a cursory review of the applicable chemistry is needed, however
additional references are provided in the appendix, should an in-depth review be of interest. ZVI
is nothing more than iron powder and is usually manufactured from cast iron by grinding or
milling operations followed by mechanical separation of the material into various size
classifications. The material used in the present study is a 60 to 120-mesh, medium-grained
powder, specially activated under reducing conditions for use in reductive dechlorination
applications. ·
In the presence of ZVI, dissolved phase chlorinated solvents can undergo the following reaction
types: abiotic reductive dechlorination, reduction, dehydrohalogenation, hydrolysis, and
biodegradation. As it turns out, the most important process for biodegradation of chlorinated
solvents is also reductive dechlorination. During this process, the chlorinated hydrocarbon is
used as the electron acceptor, not as a source of carbon, and a chlorine atom is removed and
replaced with a hydrogen atom. In the process, iron is oxidized and localized groundwater
concentrations of ferrous iron may increase along with chloride levels. Reductive dechlorination
is a stepwise process involving removal of one chlorine atom at a time. For the chlorinated
ethenes the process is as follows:
PCE ~ TCE ~ DCE ~ vc ~ Ethene
Although one can imagine three dichloroethene isomers resulting from the dechlorination of
trichloroethene (1,1-DCE, c-DCE, and t-DCE), the cis isomer (c-DCE) is preferentially
produced, and only minor amounts of the other isomers are formed. As a rule of thumb, it is
generally accepted that the more highly chlorinated compounds within a series degrade at a faster
rate than subsequent daughter compounds. Given the above series, this means that transient
concentrations of daughter products that are formed from PCE and TCE, such as VC and DCE, ·
may initially rise more rapidly than they are degraded. For chlorinated ethanes the process is
3
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
similar, and concentrations of chloroethane (ClEt) and DCA may initially increase. Keep in
mind that the above reactions are most efficient when subsurface conditions are anaerobic. In
other words, the soil/groundwater reduction potential should be high, and the dissolved oxygen
level should be low.
As stated earlier, the iron powder used is specially activated under reducing conditions and is
particularly reactive. It is so reactive that hydrogen gas is typically generated from reaction of
the material with water. As a result, reduction is very likely to be an important reaction and
would typically produce chloroethanes from chloroethenes.
Dehydrohalogenation of chloroethanes is well documented in groundwater (see ORNL/TM-
11300 Stability of Volatile Organics in Environmental Water Samples: Storage and Preservation
Final Report August 1989). This reaction is just the opposite of reduction and could produce
chloroethenes from chloroethanes.
Hydrolysis is not expected to be a significant reaction affecting the contaminants of concern.
BENCH STUDY
Objectives
1. Determine if contaminant concentration changes in a manner consistent with expected
reaction mechanisms.
2. Obtain estimates of reaction rate constants for key contaminants. ·
3. Confirm that ZVI will react with recalcitrant compounds such as vinyl chloride.
4. Evaluate the performance of selected amendments and determine if an "optimal" mix is
indicated.
5. Extrapolate results from bench study to pilot installation.
Experimental Design
Experimental Parameters
The experimental design should recreate conditions expected to exist within the contaminated
formation as closely as possible. Field installation of iron powder is accomplished by preparing
a slurry in water and then rapidly injecting the slurry into the formation under pressure. A
thixotropic agent is used to increase solution viscosity so that the iron c~ be kept suspended
during injection operations. Small "fractures" in the formation are created by pressure and the
slurry tends to flow out into the formation in thin irregular horizontal sheets. The thixotropic
agent rapidly disperses leaving the iron powder interspersed throughout the formation in close
contact with contaminants. The resulting system is fairly static in that very little mixing occurs,
and transport of contamination principally results from diffusion and the flux generated by
groundwater flow. In the bench study, serum vials were prepared containing iron powder and
contaminated groundwater. The vials were sealed and placed on a shaker table to mix the
contents gently. No effort was made to keep the iron suspended and the shaker table was set to
4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
move slowly. An average temperature of roughly 60 degrees Fahrenheit (F) was maintained
throughout the bench study. -
The two thixotropic agents evaluated during the study were guar gum and a high molecular
weight polyacrylamide resin. As stated earlier, anaerobic conditions are required for optimal
reaction conditions, so molasses was added to selected vials to determine if a readily metabolized
carbon source significantly affects reaction rate.
Vial Preparation
The following vials were prepared for each groundwater sample: sample number 213 and sample
number 227. In each case, the sample was prepared in a new, clean serum vial. Once prepared,
the vial was sealed with a septum and crimp top closure and vigorously shaken to mix the
contents. The groundwater was added last to minimize loss of volatile organics during this
manually tedious process. The serum vial capacity ranges from 155 milliliters (ml) to 160 ml.
Statistical requirements mandated preparation of several duplicate vials for each groundwater
sample and each treatment. In addition, kinetic modeling requires sample analysis at selected
times and sampling error increas~s when m~ltiple sub-samples are withdrawn from a single vial.
As a result, five vials .were initially pn;!pared for each treatment. This resulted in preparation of
25 vials for each groundwater sample. Vials were prepared on November 19, 2000.
Control (C)
Control vials contained 125 ml of groundwater. The purpose of control vials is to monitor
independent changes having nothing to do with experimental treatments that may occur during
the experiment. For example, concentrations may drop due to the headspace existing in the vial
or from absorption by the rubber septum. The control vials provided a mechanism to determine
if such losses were significant.
Molasses (M)
12.5 grams of molasses were added to these vials, followed by 125 ml of groundwater. These
vials enabled evaluation of bi ode gradation under anaerobic conditions using a readily
metabolized carbon source.
Guar and Iron (GFe)
Each vial contained 38 grams (gm) of iron powder, 0.8 gm of guar gum, and 125 ml of
groundwater. Since the guar is readily biodegraded, this allowed the guar to be evaluated in
combination with iron powder but independently of molasses.
5
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Polymer and Iron (PFe)
Each vial contained 38 grams of iron powder, 0.25 gm of polymer, and 125 ml of groundwater.
The polymer is fairly inert, because it degrades very slowly biologically. The advantage of using
polyacrylamide resin is that significantly less material is required for installation of the iron, so a
direct comparison of its performance against guar gum was of interest.
Molasses, Polymer, and Iron (MPFe)
Each vial contained 38 grams of iron powder, 0.25 gm of polymer, 12.5 gm of molasses, and 125
ml of groundwater. This mix was a complete system ensuring anaerobic conditions and the
presence of ZVI for reductive dechlorination.
Statistical Evaluation
Comparison of performance between controls and various treatments or between treatments was
accomplished using the "t" statistic. The test compares population means and assumes a normal
distribution along with some estimate or knowledge of the population variance. In the present
case, sample size was necessarily limited, due to cost constraints, and therefore, the normal
assumption that population variance was equivalent within each data set may not apply. To
overcome this limitation, the Smith-Satterthwaite test was employed.
In order to answer questions regarding the length of time required to achieve cleanup goals, a
reasonable kinetic model must be developed. This process normally entails ·curve fitting
followed by comparison with an assumed kinetic model. The simplest model is first order
kinetics. First order kinetics is widely used throughout industry to model a variety of reacting
system including biodegradation. If the system follows first order kinetics, a plot of the natural
log (ln) of concentration versus time results in a straight line. The slope of the line corresponds
to the reaction rate constant (see Appendix 4 for a detailed development). Consequently, linear
regression was applied to a number of semi-log plots to back out rate constants for key
contaminants.
Sample Analysis
Sample analysis was performed using USEPA Method 8260B. This method is sensitive to a
broad range of volatile compounds and allowed detection of degradation products produced from
non-biological chemical reactions and biodegradation. Sample analysis was limited to the liquid
phase, so no headspace analyses were performed. The nominal reporting limit is 1 ppb.
DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
Initial Data Quality Check
The bench study was structured to include quality control at each stage of the process and
incorporated a check on data quality in October 2000 when groundwater samples were taken
from the wells, for use in the bench study. At that time, several one liter bottles of groundwater
6
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
from each well were obtained for the bench study and several standard VOA vials were also
taken for submission to an outside QC laboratory ~d to NESCO. Subsequent analysis and
comparison of results provided an independent check on analytical results generated by NESCO.
Precision between the two labs was estimated using industry standard procedures and results of
the comparison were very good. A summary table of this comparison is shown in Appendix 1.
Bench Study Raw Data
Summary tables showing raw data for samples 213 and 227 are provided in Appendices 2 and 3
respectively. Data from control vials is displayed first, followed by M, GFe, PFe, and MPFe.
Once vial preparation was completed, a small sample (5 ml) was withdrawn from one vial in
each treatment set and analyzed to establish a baseline. In theory, this baseline analytical data
should be identical for each group of treatment samples after adjusting for dilution from the
addition of molasses, as required. In other words, the November 19th sampling data for 213 C,
213M, 213GFe, 2 l 3PFe, and the 23 lMPFe vials should be fairly consistent. Inspection of the
213 data resulting from this initial sampling shows that it is fairly consistent and suggests that
any error resulting from vial preparation was not significant. A low bias appears to be present in
this initial data from sample 227 treatment vials and no clear cause for this could be determined.
Analytical results from the initial groundwater analysis in October were included with the 213
and 227 control data. Comparison of213 groundwater results with its associated control data
from the November 19th sampling suggests that there are no significant differences. This is a
very positive result as it supports the assumption that no significant error was introduced into the
study due to storage of groundwater in one liter bottles for several weeks prior to or during vial
preparation. The low bias evident in the sample 227 initial data clouds this comparison.
Inspection of the results from the December 12th sampling suggests, however, that no significant
error was introduced into this data set from either sample storage or vial preparation.
Ideally, control vials should not exhibit any change over time, as nothing should be present to
react with contaminants and the only losses would be due to volatile loss to the headspace as
equilibrium is established. Although some variability apparently existed between vials, in
general, controls were fairly stable and results over time compared favorably with baseline data
and initial groundwater results.
The final sampling of vials occurred on January 5, 2001. As replicate analyses were required for
planned evaluations, all intact vials remaining were sampled and analyzed at this time. These
replicates are identified in the data tables as vial 1, vial 2, etc. The number of replicate analyses
varies somewhat across treatments as selected vials were sacrificed over the course of the study
and some became unusable and were purged. For example, the crimp seals ruptured from
internal pressure, literally exploding, on several of the 227 MPFe vials, leaving only two intact
vials in January.
The "*LIS" flag on the November 19th and January 5th (vial 3) 227 GFe data means that the
results are likely to be biased due to an analytical QC failure. A similar problem occurred with
the November 21st 213 PFe sample analysis and no useful data could be obtained.
7
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Unfortunately, since composition in the vials is changing rapidly with time, resampling is not a
practical solution for this problem. The good news is that only a few samples were affected.
Evidence of Reaction
Evidence of reaction is available from several different sources within the study. Firstly, gross
inspection of the raw data clearly shows rapid reduction of principal contaminants such as TCA
and TCE over the first few weeks. Secondly, pressure inside the vials rapidly increased over the
first few weeks, becoming so great in some vials that seals ruptured. Certainly, most of the ·
observed pressure increases were due to bio-activity as metabolic byproducts such as alcohols,
esters, and aldhydes rapidly appeared and excessive foaming occurred in a number of the vials.
Since entrapped air was minimized during vial preparation, very little oxygen was available to
support aerobic growth and the biocosm should have rapidly gone anaerobic. This suggests thaf
gasses that were liberated during reaction more than likely consisted mainly of light alkanes
and/or alkenes.
Graphical plots of contaminant concentration versus time are the easiest way to view the data
and check for evidence of reaction. Plots of the 227 data are included in Appendi_x 4 (Figures 1
through 8) and plots of213 data.are included in Appendix 5 (Figures 9 through 13). Looking at
Figures 1, i, and 3, which use semi-log plots-to show the behavior ofTCA over tim~ and the
production of related daughter products, TCA levels rapidly drop in each case, although it is
clear that reductions are less efficient in the GFe system. As TCA concentrations are declining,
1,1-DCA and ClEt levels are on the rise. This result is consistent with reductive dechlorination
of the TCA, as.discussed in Section 3. Figure 4 provides a clearer picture of the magnitude of
the reaction. In the first 23 days, TCA concentration drops from 730 ppb to zero and during this
same period, l, 1-DCA increases from a low of approximately 440 ppb to a high of 1600 ppb.
The primary source for formation of DCA is removed once the TCA is gone, and the plot clearly
shows DCA reaching a maximum and then declining once TCA is removed. Similar behavior is
shown for ClEt, and it is evident that its level is still rising at day 47 in all but the MPFe system.
This is due to the elevated 1,1-DCA levels that remain in the vials. Clearly, the rate of formation
of daugJ.iter products exceeds the rate of daughter product degradation.
·Sample 227 did not contain significant amounts of PCE or TCE, so one might expect to obtain a
relatively clear picture of degradation of the cis-DCE and 1,1-DCE present in the sample. This
did not prove to be the case, as depicted in Figures 5 and 7. These figures present behavior of
the compounds across treatments, and in spite of the lack of PCE and TCE, levels typically
increased over the first 23 days. This was more than likely due to dehydrohalogenation ofTCA
and strongly suggests that reductive dechlorination is not the only important reaction taking
place.
Sample 213 data is presented in Figures 9 through 11. In each case, TCE concentrations
decrease, however daughter products differ widely depending on treatment. As with sample 227,
PFe, and MPFe systems appear to be superior to GFe. The MPFe system appears to be
particularly effective with vinyl chloride, as it was rapidly eliminated from the system and
remained absent as TCE and DCE continued to react.
8
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1·
I
I
As discussed previously, TCE preferentially degrades into cis-DCE so it was expected that 1,1-
DCE degradation would not be complicated by formation ofthis compound from outside sources
in this sample. Figures 12 and 13 show a semi-log plot of 1,1-DCE concentration versus time
and aside from the initial drop, the plot is very linear indicating first order kinetics is a
reasonable model for this compound.
Treatment Performance
As previously described, visual inspection of the raw data strongly suggests that treatment
performance is considerably different depending on the mix. Also, it is apparent that molasses
alone does not affect contaminant concentrations significantly despite vigorous bio-activity as
evidenced by the appearance of metabolic products and pressure increases; To determine ifthe
differences seen are significant or perhaps due to chance or propagated error, statistical testing
was performed. Since inferences are based on a comparison of population means, a concerted
effort was made to preserve as many of the vials as possible to maximize the ending sample size.
Results of the statistical comparisons are included in Appendix 6.
The molasses only tr~atment was important to evaluate if anaerobic conditions might be effective
without the presence of iron powder. Comparisons between control and molasses data, for each
sample, show that with only minor exceptions, no significant differe.Q.ce in performance was
noted. One exception to this in sample 213 was trans-DCE, however the initial concentration
was less than 2 ppb, so this compound is not critical for sample 213. On the surface, it would
appear that 1, 1-DCA and TCA exhib~ted significant differences in sample 227 molasses
treatment, however closer inspection' shows that concentrations are lower in the controls so we
must conclude that molasses alone is irieffectual. ·
Next, the guar/iron and polymer/iron treatments were compared. The most notable differences
between these two treatments involve chloroethenes. Specifically, vinyl chloride, 1,1-DCE, and
cis-DCE concentrations in the polymer/iron treatments are significantly lower than the guar/iron
values. Since the polymer is more resistant to biodegradation than the guar gum, it was
anticipated that the guar/iron performance would include a significant contribution from
biodegradation that would be absent in the polymer system. Surprisingly, not only does it appear
that the polymer system is more effective than guar gum, but it is most effective at degrading the
more difficult compounds like vinyl chloride.
Lastly, a comparison of the PFe and MPFe systems was performed to evaluate whether concerted
bio-activity significantly affected performance. It was anticipated that the PFe system would not
support significant bio-activity, and this was confirmed by the absence of metabolic by-products
in the final sample analysis. As previously noted, excessive activity was observed in the MPFe
system. The resulting comparison showed that significant differences existed for nearly every
contaminant in the 213 sample and the 227 sample.
Kinetic Rate Constants
Kinetic rate constants were calculated for each of the contaminants of concern and, wherever
possible, constants. were obtained from each of the treatments to better understand the differences
9
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
in performance. In each case, linear regression was utilized to obtain estimates for the rate
constants.
Contaminant Best Estimate Hi~h Low
Trichloroethene -0.0862 ·-0.1760 -0.0550
Vinyl Chloride -0.0353 -0.0975 -0.0144
c-Dichloroethene -0.0305 -0.0395 -0.0221
1, 1-Dichloroethene -0.0577 -0.0781 -0.0320
l, l, I-Trichloroethane -0.2947 -0.2947 -0.1033
1, 1-Dichloroethane -0.0217 -0.0308 -0.0142
The negative sign associated with each rate constant simply means that concentrations are
declining and the values are expressed in units of inverse days (days-1). As a result, the highest
rates are indicated by the smallest numbers. For example, TCA exhibits the highest rate of
degradation of any contaminant present, and DCA is the slowest compound to degrade. The best
estimates shown presume that ZVI installation would be performed using molasses and polymer.
The above rate constants can be used to estimate the time to attain established cleanup goals for
the site. The lowest groundwater standard applicable to the she appears to be that for vinyl
chloride (15 parts per trillion). One scenario would be to convert all chloroethenes to vinyl
chloride and use this value for the initial contaminant concentration. This may represent a worst
case as study results indicate that one~ transient effects dissipate, the rate of vinyl chloride
generation _is lower than· the rat<;: of degradation. As a result, no long-term increase irt
concentration may occur and ~nitial conditions could control.· Under this scenario, several initial
concentrations were chosen, and the associated periods of time to attain the cleanup standard
calculated.
Initial Concentration
(ug/L)
600
1000
1500
Cleanup Time
(days)
300
315
326
It is readily apparent that a significant increase in the initial concentration has very little effect on
the overall time to reach the standard. In fact, once the concentration is reduced to I ppb, an
additional 120 days could be required to attain the 15 ppt standard, so the process is controlled
by the tail end rather than by initial conditions.
It should be noted that the above rate constants were estimated under strictly controlled
laboratory conditions and that performance obtained in the field may not be comparable. In spite
of this limitation, the above exercise is of value as it suggests that cleanup goals could be
attained in months rather than years.
10
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CONCLUSIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the above discussion, the following conclusions are supported:
I. Contaminants of concern at the Hamilton Beach/Proctor Silex site can be effectively reduced
by ZVI.
2. The most efficient system for installation of ZVI appears to be slurry preparation using
polyacrylamide resin and 5 to I 0 percent by volume commercial molasses.
3. Anaerobic bacterial action significantly contributes to the overall rate of reductive
dechlorination of contaminants present at the site.
4. It appears that first order kinetics will effectively model the cleanup process.
5. Pilot installation of ZVI at selected site locations is recommended to optimize injection
parameters and confirm the kinetic model derived from bench data.
6. Groundwater sampling within pilot areas should be continued for a minimum of21 days to
ensure confirmation of the proposed design.
11
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
REFERENCES
Application of ZVI to chlorinated solvent groundwater plumes.
1. Natural Attenuation of Fuels and Chlorinated Solvents in the Subsurface
Todd H. Wiedemeier, Hanadi S. Rifia, Charles J. Newell, John T. Wilson
1999 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
2. Technical Protocol for Evaluating Natural Attenuation of Chlorinated Solvents in
Groundwater.
1999 Air Force Center for Environmental Excellence, Technology Transfer Division
Brooks Air Force Base
3. Design Guidance for Application of Permeable Barriers to Remediate Dissolved Chlorinated
Solvents
Battelie February, 1997
Statistical Tests
4. Probability and Statistics for Engineers
Irwin Miller and John E. Freund
1965 Prentice-Hall, Inc.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
·Appendix 1
Comparison of NESCO and
QC-Lab Results .from
Groundwater Sample Analysis
-------------------
Sample ID. No. HBWW-213 sa·mple 213
Date Sampled 10/18/00 10/18/00
Date Analyzed 10/23/00 10/24/00
Units ug/L ug/I
(Nesco) (Radian)
Analyte
Vinyl Chloride 24 15.7
Chloroethane ND (1) ND (0.462)
1, 1-Dichloroethene 490 403
Methylene Chloride 7 (1) 1.34 JS
t-1,2-Dichloroethene 2 '1.42 J
c-1,2-Dichloroethene 38 36.5
1, 1-Dichloroethane 150 148
1,2-Dichloroethane 3 3.45
1, 1, 1-Trich loroethane ND (1) 0.782 j
Trichloroethene 490 414
1, 1,2-Trichloroethane 2 (1) 2.23 J
Tetrachloroethene 30 27.3
Surrogates (% Recovery)
Dibromofluoromethane 97 NR
dB-Toluene 99 NR
p-Bromofluorobenzene 96 'NR
RPO -relative percent difference
ND -not detected·
NC -not calculated
Hamilton Beach
Bench Study
Laboratory Results
HBWW227
10/18/00
10/23/00
ug/L
RPO (Nesco)
41.8 5
NC 38
19.5 350
NC ND (1)
NC ND (1)
4.0 240
1.3 1440
14.0 12
NC 1900
16.8 64
NC 2 ( 1)
9.4 ND (1)
102
101
95
Sample 227
10/18/00
10/24/00
ug/I
(Radian) RPO
4.19 17.6
35.2 7.7
428 20.1
0.764 JB NC
5.3 NC
254 5.7
2030 34.0
13.4 11.0
2370 22.0
73.6 14.0
ND (0.821) NC
ND (1.44) NC
NR
NR
NR
I
1·
I
I Appendix 2
I
I Summary of Raw Data from
Bench Study -Sample 213
I·
I
I
I
I
I·
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-- - -- - --- - ---------
Hamilton Beach
Bench Study
Laboratory Results
Sample ID. No. HBWW-213 HBW-213 HBW-213 HBW-213 HBW-213
GW Control Control Control Control
Date Sampled 10/18/00 10/18/00 10/18/00 10/18/00 10/18/00
Date Analyzed 10/23/00 11/19/00 12/12/00 1/5/01 1/5/01
Units ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L
Analyte Vial 1 Vial2
Vinyl Chloride 24 36.8 21.6 28.4 31.6
Chloroethane ND (1) ND (1) ND (1) ND (1) ND (1)
1, 1-Dichloroethene 490 557 263 370 416
Methylene Chloride 7 10.7 3.42 ND (1) ND (1)
t-1,2-Dichloroethene 2 2.18 1.39 1.89 1.83
c-1,2-Dichloroethene 38 37.9 22.5 35.4 37
1, 1-Dichloroethane 150 155 88.7 157 167
1,2-Dichloroethane 3 3.06 2.13 5.2 5.29
1, 1, 1-Trichloroethane ND (1) ND (1) ND (1) 1.2 ND (1)
Trichloroethene 490 393 169 230 253
1, 1,2-Trichloroethane 2 2.65 1.05 3.23 3.46
Tetrachloroethene 30 26.7 3.03 4.9 5.12
Surrogates (% Recovery)
Dibromofluoromethane 97 105 76 106 108
dB-Toluene 99 100 128 97 98
p-Bromofluorobenzene 96 105 71 102 103
-------------------
Sample ID. No. HBW-213 HBW-213
Control Molasses
Date Sampled 10/18/00 10/18/00
Date Analyzed 11/19/00 11/19/00
Units ug/L ug/L
Analyte
Vinyl Chloride 36.8 22.6
Chloroethane ND (1) ND (1)
1, 1-Dichloroethene 557 422
Methylene Chloride 10.7 4.95
t-1,2-Dichloroethene 2.18 ND (1)
c-1,2-Dichloroethene 37.9 37.3
1, 1-Dichloroethane 155 144
1,2-Dichloroethane 3.06 3.78
1, 1, 1-Trichloroethane ND (1) ND (1)
Trichloroethene 393 388
1, 1,2-Trichloroethane 2.65 3.21
Tetrachloroethene 26.7 29.1
Surrogates (%Recovery)
Dibromofluoromethane 105 101
d8-Toluene 100 98
p-Bromofluorobenzene 105 99
Hamilton Beach
Bench Study
Laboratory Results
HBW-213 HBW-213 HBW-213
Molasses Molasses Molasses
10/18/00 10/18/00 10/18/00
12/12/00 1/6/01 1/6/01
ug/L ug/L ug/L
Vial 1 Vial2
23.9 30.8 31.4
ND (1) ND (1) ND (1)
274 407 420
3.54 ND (1) ND (1)
1.41 1.32 1.39
21.8 32.1 33
85.8 142 144
2.05 4.13 4.22
ND (1) ND (1) ND (1)
178 235 251
ND (1) 2.51 2.45
5.2 6.68 6.87
77 100 99
113 96 97
70 90 88
HBW-213 HBW-213
Molasses Molasses
10/18/00 10/18/00
1/6/01 1/6/01
ug/L ug/L
Vial 3 Vial4
31.6 38.9
ND (1) ND (1)
432 517
ND (1) ND (1)
1.34 1.66
33.5 41.2
150 181
"4.53 5.29
ND (1) ND (1)
258 322
2.64 3.31
6.58 8.23
102 112
100 90
90 98
-------------------
Sample ID. No. HBW-213 HBW-213
Control Guar-Fe
Date Sampled 10/18/00 10/18/00
Date Analyzed 11/19/00 11/19/00
Units ug/L ug/L
Analyte
Vinyl Chloride 36.8 32.9
Chloroethane ND (1) ND (1)
1, 1-Dichloroethene 557 404
Methylene Chloride 10.7 5.61
t-1,2-Dichloroethene 2.18 1.59
c-1,2-Dichloroethene 37.9 36.4
1, 1-Dichloroethane 155 147
1,2-Dichloroethane 3.06 3.2
1,1,1-Trichloroethane ND (1) ND (1)
Trichloroethene 393 330
1, 1,2-Trichloroethane 2.65 2.61
Tetrachloroethene 26.7 14.2
Surrogates (% Recovery)
Dibromofluoromethane 105 97
dB-Toluene 100 105
p-Bromofluorobenzene 105 108
Hamilton Beach
Bench Study
Laboratory Results
HBW-213 HBW-213 HBW-213
Guar-Fe Guar-Fe Guar-Fe
10/18/00 10/18/00 10/18/00
11/21/00 12/12/00 1/6/01
ug/L ug/L ug/L
*IS Vial 1
8.87 14.7 3.93
ND (1) ND (1) 7.66
175 136 38.6
3.14 1.72 ND (1)
ND (1) ND (1) ND (1)
20.4 11.3 11.2
95.7 71 250
1.88 1.5 3.22
ND (1) ND (1) ND (1)
143 50.7 15.7
ND (1) ND (1) ND (1)
21.2 ND (1) 1
NC 75 98
NC 116 95
NC 73 90
HBW-213 HBW-213 HBW-213
Guar-Fe Guar-Fe Guar-Fe
10/18/00 10/18/00 10/18/00
1/6/01 1/6/01 1/6/01
ug/L ug/L ug/L
Vial2 Vial3 Vial4
9.2 6.09 6.17
2.82 2.33 2.33
102 56.9 58.9
ND (1) ND (1) ND (1)
ND (1) ND (1) ND (1)
12 8.54 9.55
135 102 110
2.89 2.89 3.01
ND (1) ND (1) ND (1)
42 24.9 22.1
ND (1) ND (1) ND (1)
1.34 1.28 1.23
98 96 98
95 97 95
85 89 90
-------------------
Sample ID. No. HBW-213 HBW-213
Control Polymer-Fe
Date Sampled 10/18/00 10/18/00
Date Analyzed 11/19/00 11/19/00
Units ug/L ug/L
Analyte
Vinyl Chloride 36.8 24.7
Chloroethane ND (1) ND (1)
1, 1-Dichloroethene 557 315
Methylene Chloride 10.7 4.52
t-1,2-Dichloroethene 2.18 2.21
c-1,2-Dichloroethene 37.9 34.8·
1, 1-Dich loroethane 155 137
1,2-Dichloroethane 3.06 3.64
1, 1, 1-Trichloroethane ND (1) ND (1)
Trichloroethene 393 281
1, 1,2-Trichloroethane 2.65 3.78
Tetrachloroethene 26.7· 11.7
Surrogates (% Recovery)
Dibromofluoromethane 105 109
dB-Toluene 100 109
p-Bromofluorobenzene 105 111
Hamilton Beach
Bench Study
Laboratory Results
HBW-213 HBW-213 HBW-213
Polymer-Fe Polymer-Fe Polymer-Fe
10/18/00 10/18/00 10/18/00
11/21/00 12/12/00 1/5/01
ug/L ug/L ug/L
Vial 1
4.82 2.64
ND (1) ND (1)
No 20.6 10.7
ND (1) ND (1)
Useful ND (1) ND (1)
5.25 5.4
67.4 101
Data 1.42 2.75
ND (1) ND (1)
6.91 6
ND (1) ND (1)
ND (1) ND (1)
72 100
114 96
72 98
HBW-213 HBW-213 HBW-213
Polymer-Fe Polymer-Fe Polymer-Fe
10/18/00 10/18/00 10/18/00
1/5/01 1/5/01 1/5/01
ug/L ug/L ug/L
Vial2 Vial3 Vial4
6.36 2.76 1.84
2.52 2.39 3.32
51.4 11.6 8.89
ND (1) ND (1) ND (1)
ND (1) ND (1) ND (1)
8.25 5.06 4.83
122 96 119
2.73 2.54 3.08
ND (1) ND (1) ND (1)
27.1 7.46 5.24
ND (1) ND (1) ND (1)
1.58 ND (1) ND (1)
103 94 103
96 97 89
97 91 97
-------------------
Sample ID. No. HBW-213 HBW-213
Control M-P-Fe
Date Sampled 10/18/00 10/18/00
Date Analyzed 11/19/00 11/19/00
Units ug/L ug/L
Analyte
Vinyl Chloride 36.8 26.7
Chloroethane ND (1) ND (1)
1, 1-Dich loroethene 557 383
Methylene Chloride 10.7 7.6
t-1,2-Dichloroethene 2.18 1.21
c-1,2-Dichloroethene 37.9 29.2
1, 1-Dichloroethane 155 118
1,2-Dichloroethane 3.06 2.58
1, 1, 1-Trichloroethane ND (1) ND (1)
Trichloroethane 393 264
1, 1,2-Trichloroethane 2.65 2.08
Tetra ch loroethene 26.7 14.6
Surrogates (%Recovery)
Dibromofluoromethane 105 95
dB-Toluene 100 101
p-Bromofluorobenzene 105 98
Hamilton Beach
Bench Study
Laboratory Results
HBW-213 HBW-213 HBW-213
M-P-Fe M-P-Fe M-P-Fe
10/18/00 10/18/00 10/18/00
11/21/00 12/12/00 1/6/01
ug/L ug/L ug/L
Vial 1
9.25 1.23 ND (1)
ND (1) ND (1) 1.27
221 69.5 16.5
ND (1) ND (1) 1.24
ND (1) ND (1) ND (1)
27.6 12.9 57.8
106 73.1 84.6
2.69 2.02 4.52
1.96 ND (1) ND (1)
220 36.1 18.7
ND (1) ND (1) ND (1)
6.71 1.68 1.9
80 87 107
133 117 100
127 76 95
HBW-213
M-P-Fe
10/18/00
1/6/01
ug/L
Vial2
ND (1)
1.47
13
1.78
ND (1)
26.4
74
3.6
ND (1)
19.1
ND (1)
1.67
92
101
95
I
I
I
I Appendix3
I
I Summary of Raw Data from
Bene~ Study -Sample 227
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-·------ -- ------ ----
Hamilton Beach
Bench Study
Laboratory Results
Sample ID. No. HBW-227 HBW-227 HBW-227 HBW-227 HBW-227 HBW-227 HBW-227 HBW-227
GW Control Control Control Control Control Control Control
Date Sampled 10/18/00 10/18/00 10/18/00 10/18/00 10/18/00 10/18/00 10/18/00 10/18/00
Date Analyzed 10/23/00 11/19/00 11/21/00 12/12/00 1/5/01 1/5/01 1/5/01 1/5/01
Units ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L
Analyte Vial 1 Vial2 Vial 3 Vial4
Chloromethane ND (1) ND (1) ND (1) ND (1) ND (1) ND (1) ND (1) ND (1)
Vinyl Chloride 5 2.16 (1) ND (1) 6.75 7.49 7.16 8.58 11.2
Chloroethane 38 12.1 (1) 9.07 (1) 32.54 46 42.5 44.4 45
1, 1-Dichloroethene 350 129 (1) 102 (1) 352 463 423 454 494
Methylene Chloride ND (1) ND (1) ND (1) ND (1) 1.52 2.31 1.69 1.59
t-1,2-Dichloroethene ND (1) 2.39 (1) 1.92 (1) 4.93 6.42 6.35 7.38 6.98
c-1,2-Dichloroethene 240 76.2 (1) 77.1 (1) 218 297 281 292 304
1, 1-Dichloroethane 1440 554 (1) 590 (1) 1291 1366 1291 1369 1408
1,2-Dichloroethane 12 2.98 (1) ND (1) 11 21.7 21.8 21.8 22.7
1, 1, 1-Trich loroethane 1900 729 (1) 782 (1) 2096 1726 1527 1606 1701
Trichloroethene 64 25.6 (1) 24 (1) 56.6 77.2 69.8 69.3 78
1, 1,2-Trichloroethane 2 ND (1) ND (1) 1.35 3.25 3.41 3.47 3.5
Tetrachloroethene ND (1) ND (1) ND (1) ND (1) ND (1) ND (1) ND (1) ND (1)
Surrogates (% Recovery)
Dibromofluoromethane 102 111 111 78 104 103 105 102
dB-Toluene 101 103 105 108 95 93 95 96
p-Bromofluorobenzene 95 106 102 69 102 100 103 100
-------------------
Sample ID. No. HBW-227 HBW-227
Control Molasses
Date Sampled 10/18/00 10/18/00
Date Analyzed 11/19/00 11/19/00
Units ug/L ug/L
Analyte
Vinyl Chloride 2.16 ND (1)
Chloroethane 12.1 8.92 (1)
1, 1-Dichloroethene 129 112 (1)
Methylene Chloride ND (1) ND (1)
t-1,2-Dichloroethene 2.39 1.63 (1)
c-1,2-Dichloroethene 76.2 63.7 (1)
1, 1-Dichloroethane 554 455 (1)
1,2-Dichloroethane 3 3.42 (1)
1, 1, 1-Trichloroethane 729 638 (1)
Trichloroethene 25.6 22.6 (1)
1, 1,2-Trichloroethane ND (1) 2.63 (1)
Tetrachloroethene ND (1) ND (1)
Surrogates (%Recovery)
Dibromofluoromethane 111 106
dB-Toluene 103 103
p-Bromofluorobenzene 106 110
Hamilton Beach
Bench Study
Laboratory Results
HBW-227 HBW-227 HBW-227
Molasses Molasses Molasses
10/18/00 10/18/00 10/18/00
11/21/00 12/12/00 1/6/01
ug/L ug/L ug/L
Vial 1
ND (1) 6.17 4.27
8.18 (1) 28.9 29.8
101 (1) 316 222
ND (1) ND (1) 1.18
2.04 (1) 4.54 3.34
73.6 (1) 191 Ml*
493 (1) 1194 1773
ND (1) 9.98 19.9
762 (1) 2006 1583
24.2 (1) 53.1 54.7
ND (1) 1.36 3.14
ND (1) ND (1) ND (1)
110 76 108
103 107 89
107 64 93
HBW-227 HBW-227 HBW-227 HBW-227
Molasses Molasses Molasses Molasses
10/18/00 10/18/00 10/18/00 10/18/00
1/6/01 1/6/01 1/6/01 1/6/01
ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L
Vial2 Vial 3 Vial4 Via15
9.93 11 10.1 11.3
56.2 64.9 61.2 65.9
594 643 639 570
1.49 1.63 1.75 1.46
6.38 6.88 6.68 7.09
498 387 372 384
2122 2255 2292 2436
24.5 24.5 26.2 21.9
2655 2667 2748 3122
106 104 107 116
3.59 3.35 3.57 2.82
ND (1) ND (1) ND (1) ND (1)
106 111 113 97
89 86 89 85
92 93 98 89
-------------------
Sample ID. No. HBW-227 HBW-227
Control Guar-Fe
Date Sampled 10/18/00 10/18/00
Date Analyzed 11/19/00 11/19/00
Units ug/L ug/L
Analyte *LIS
Vinyl Chloride 2.16. 5.66
Chloroethane 12.1 51.8
1, 1-Dichloroethene 129 516
Methylene Chloride ND (1) ND (1)
t-1,2-Dichloroethene 2.39 234
c-1,2-Dichloroethene 76.2 303
1, 1-Dichloroethane 554 2402
1,2-Dichloroethane 3 16.2
1, 1, 1-Trichloroethane 729 2458
Trichloroethene 25.6 63.4
1, 1,2-Trichloroethane ND (1) 10.3
Tetrachloroethene ND (1) ND (1)
Surrogates (% Recovery)
Dibromofluoromethane 111 126
dB-Toluene 103 95
p-Bromofluorobenzene 106 118
Hamilton Beach
Bench Study
Laboratory Results
HBW-227 HBW-227 HBW-227
Guar-Fe Guar-Fe Guar-Fe
10/18/00 10/18/00 10/18/00
11/21/00 12/12/00 1/5/01
ug/L ug/L ug/L
Vial 1
ND (1) 8.09 5.23
9.24 52.6 110
81.8 113 41.5
ND (1) ND (1) 1.21
ND (1) ND (1) ND (1)
60.2 78.9 56.3
553 1419 1492
ND (1) 8.28 14.1
440 28.4 6.72
10.6 8.12 1.75
ND (1) ND (1) ND (1)
ND (1) ND (1) ND (1)
117 80 94
111 111 97
109 70 90
HBW-227 HBW-227
Guar-Fe Guar-Fe
10/18/00 10/18/00
1/5/01 1/5/01
ug/L ug/L
*lis
Vial2 Vial 3
5.98 6.52
103 96.9
57.9 58.1
1.69 1.34
ND (1) ND (1)
67.1 57.6
1538 1989
15.8 10
5.5 4.73
7.79 10.1
ND (1) ND (1)
ND (1) ND (1)
101 59
96 93
91 78
----·---------------
Sample ID. No. HBW-227 HBW-227
Control Polymer-Fe
Date Sampled 10/18/00 10/18/00
Date Analyzed 11/19/00 11/19/00
Units ug/L ug/L
Analyte
Chloromethane ND (1)E ND (1)E
Vinyl Chloride 2.16 2.29
Chloroethane 12.1 9.47
1, 1-Dichloroethene 129 112
Methylene Chloride ND (1) ND (1)
t-1,2-Dichloroethene 2.39 ND (1)
c-1,2-Dichloroethene 76.2 66.4
1, 1-Dichloroethane 554 536
1,2-Dichloroethane 3 3.16
1, 1, 1-Trichloroethane 729 633
Trichloroethene 25.6 19
1, 1,2-Trichloroethane ND (1) ND (1)
Tetrachloroethene ND (1) ND (1)
Dibromofluoromethane 111 106
dB-Toluene 103 104
p-Bromofluorobenzene 106 104
Hamilton Beach
Bench Study
Laboratory Results
HBW-227 HBW-227 HBW-227
Polymer-Fe Polymer-Fe Polymer-Fe
10/18/00 10/18/00 10/18/00
11/21/00 12/12/00 1/5/01
ug/L ug/L ug/L
Vial 1
ND (1)E ND (1)E 4.04
ND (1) 4.46 3.33
ND (1) 59.2 109
49.7 52.6 23
ND (1) ND (1) 1.55
ND (1) ND (1) ND (1)
40.2 55.5 33.6
350 1363 1633
ND (1) 7.08 12.8
238 4.07 1.46
7.43 3.79 2.73
ND (1) ND (1) ND (1)
ND (1) ND (1) ND (1)
137 80 101
122 110 94
121 71 100
HBW-227 HBW-227 HBW-227 HBW-227
Polymer-Fe Polymer-Fe Polymer-Fe Polymer-Fe
10/18/00 10/18/00 10/18/00 10/18/00
1/5/01 1/5/01 1/5/01 1/5/01
ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L
Vial2 Via13 Vial4 Vials
3.82 ND (1) ND (1) ND (1)
4.84. 3.88 3.34 3.99
92.5 97.8 98.4 130
31.7 16 20.8 30.7
1.36 1.23 1.26 1.46
ND (1) ND (1) ND (1) ND (1)
34.6 24 30.7 40
1520 1415 1530 1761
12.3 11.3 12.3 15.2
11.9 6.72 22.9 12
3.45 2.48 3.33 5.24
ND (1) ND (1) ND (1) ND (1)
ND (1) ND (1) ND (1) ND (1)
90 88 90 99
96 96 97 95
99 102 101 104
--------------------
Sample ID. No. HBW-227 HBW-227
Control P-M-Fe
Date Sampled 10/18/00 10/18/00
Date Analyzed 1 !f19/00 11/19/00
Units ug/L ug/L
Analyte
Chloromethane ND (1)E ND (1)E
Vinyl Chloride 2.16 1.1
Chloroethane 12.1 15.8
1, 1-Dichloroethene 129 121
Methylene Chloride ND (1) ND (1)
t-1,2-Dichloroethene 2.39 ND (1)
c-1,2-Dichloroethene 76.2 69.6
1, 1-Dichloroethane 554 562
1,2-Dichloroethane 3 3.16
1, 1, 1-Trichloroethane 729 557
Trichloroethene 25.6 13.5
1, 1,2-Trichloroethane ND (1) ND (1)
Tetrachloroethene ND (1) ND (1)
Surrogates (% Recovery)
Dibromofluoromethane 111 115
dB-Toluene 103 100
p-Bromofluorobenzene 106 103
Hamilton Beach
Bench Study
Laboratory Results
HBW-227 HBW-227 HBW-227
P-M-Fe P-M-Fe P-M-Fe
10/18/00 10/18/00 10/18/00
11/21/00 12/12/00 1/5/01
ug/L ug/L ug/L
Vial2
ND (1)E ND (1)E 24
ND (1) 7.1 1.68
7.73 36.1 36.7
77.7 67.8 8.55
ND (1) ND (1) 2.47
ND (1) ND (1) ND (1)
58.9 110 54.7
434 1590 1008
ND (1) 12.35 12.9
624 ND (1) ND (1)
14.9 9.62 8.94
ND (1) ND (1) ND (1)
ND (1) ND (1) ND (1)
99 96 90
107 139 101
107 72 95
HBW-227 HBW-227 HBW-227
P-M-Fe P-M-Fe P-M-Fe
10/18/00 10/18/00 10/18/00
1/5/01 1/5/01 1/5/01
ug/L ug/L ug/L
Vial 3 Vial4 Vial 5
33.6 14.2 57
2.18 2.48 1.54
38.3 28 24.5
13.3 12.4 7.22
3.38 1.11 ND (1)
ND (1) ND (1) ND (1)
56 61.2 39.7
978 1016 773
11.9 14.9 7.81
ND (1) ND (1) ND (1)
8.6 8.8 11.5
ND (1) ND (1) ND (1)
ND (1) ND (1) ND (1)
81 86 94
97 96 95
93 92 87
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1.
I
I
I
Appendix 4
Figures Showing Plots of Concentration
versus
Time for Sample 227
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
FIRST ORDER KINETIC MODEL
The purpose of kinetic modeling is to enable calculation of future performance and to predict, for
example, at what point in time TCA levels will be below the established cleanup goal. As a
result, the model provides some insight into how rapidly or slowly any given contaminant is_
degraded and what daughter products are produced in the process. First order kinetics says that
the rate of change of concentration at any point in time is simply equal to the product of a
constant (the rate constant) and the concentration existing at that time. In other words, the rate of
degradation will be faster when contaminant levels are high and slow down as the level drops.
Expressed in mathematical terms, we have:
Rate of Change = d[TCA]/dt = -k[TCA]
Where: [TCA] represents the concentration of TCA at time t, and
k is the rate constant.
This equation can easily be solved by separation of variables as follows:
d[TCA]/dt = -k[TCA]
d[TCA] = -kdt
[TCA]
and finally
-k fdt = f lf[TCA] d[TCA]
The resulting solution is a natural log function in the following form:
In [TCA] == kt -In [TCA]0
Where
In [TCA] -is the natural log of the TCA concentration at time t;
In [TCA]0 -is the natural log of the initial TCA concentration;
t= time
Since the initial concentration is not a changing variable, the natural log of this number is a
constant. The above equation is then recognizable as an equation of a straight line,
y = mx + b. The intercept (b), is given by the log of the initial concentration, and slope (m) is the
first order rate constant.
J:i' c.. c.. -c 0 :;::::
"' ... -c
Q)
CJ c 0 (..)
Figure 5
227 -c-DCE Plots
80
60
40
O -l-~~~-,.-~~~----.~~~--,~~~~,.-~~~--.--~~~-,--~~~----.~~~~,-~~~.-~~------j
0 5 10 15 20 25
Time (days)
30 35 40 45 50
-------------------
I
I
I
I
I
I
1··
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Appendix 5.
Figures Showing Plots of Concentration
versus
Time for Sample 213
100
~ 0.
0. -c:
0 .. <1' ... -c:
Q)
CJ c: 0 <..>
10
0 5 10 15
Figure 12
213 - MPFe Plot for 1,1-DCE
20 25
Time (days)
30 35 40 45 50
-------------------
1000
I
100 -.0 c. c. -c 0 :o:; n:I ... -c
Q)
(.)
0 (.)
10
0 5 10 15
Figure 13
213 -GFE Plot for 1, 1-DCE
20
-
25
Time (days)
'
30 35 40 45 50
-------------------
I
I
I
I -
Appendix 6
I
I Statistical Results
I·
I
I
I
I
1.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-------------------
Sample ID. No. 227 n=5
Control
Mean Std. Dev.
Chloromethane ND (1) NC
Vinyl Chloride 7.697 2.076
Chloroethane 41.407 5.184
1, 1-Dichloroethene 422.667 59.952
Methylene Chloride 1.778 0.362
t-1,2-Dichloroethene 6.412 0.930
c-1,2-Dichloroethene 272.000 34.843
1, 1-Dichloroethane 1360.833 60.562
1,2-Dichloroethane 18.500 0.469
1, 1, 1-Trichloroethane 1759.333 207.430
Trichloroethene 69.150 8.094
1, 1,2-Trichloroethane 2.830 0.922
Tetrachloroethene ND (1) NC
NS = Not Significant
NC = Not Calculated
Hamilton Beach
Bench Study
Laboratory Results
Statistical Evaluation
227 n=6
Molasses
Mean Stdev.
NC NC
8.795 2.881
51.15 17.228
497.333 181.441
1.502 0.214
5.8183 1.522
366.4 110.509
2012 459.471
21.163 5.913
2463.5 561.646
90.133 28.371
2.9717 0.841
NC NC
value Signif.
0.732962 NS
1.315671 NS
0.947831 NS
-1.498279 NS
-0.794021 NS
1.977783 NS
3.43581 0.02
1.09902 NS
2.846895 0.05
1.729143 NS
0.264086 NS
-------------------
Sample ID. No. 227 n=3
GFe
Mean Stdev.
Vinyl Chloride 5.91 0.648
Chloroethane 103.30 6.555
1, 1-Dichloroethene 52.50 9.527
Methylene Chloride 1.41 0.248
t-1,2-Dichloroethene ND (1) NC
c-1,2-Dichloroethene 60.33 5.896
1, 1-Dichloroethane 1673.00 274.629
1,2-Dichloroethane 13.30 2.982
1, 1, 1-Trichloroethane 5.65 1.003
Trichloroethene 6.55 4.312
1, 1,2-Trichloroethane ND (1) NC
Tetrachloroethene · ND (1) NC
NS = Not Significant
NC = Not Calculated
Hamilton Beach
Bench Study
Laboratory Results
Statistical Evaluation
227 n=5
PFe
Mean Stdev.
3.88 0.618
105.54 14.926
24.44 6.679
1.37 0.1344
N.C NC
32.58 5.8594
1571.8 130.9187
12.78 1.4584
11 7.9491
3.45 1.0814
NC NC
NG NC
value Signif.
-4.364988 0.01
0.291919 NS
-4.483141 0.02
-0.278804 NS
-6.460505 0.01
-0.59874 NS
-0.282479 NS
1.485351 NS
-1.221153 NS
-------------------
Sample ID. No. 227 n=4
MP Fe
Mean Stdev.
Chloromethane 32.2 18.33248
Vinyl Chloride 1.97 0.437112
Chloroethane 31.875 6.682502
1, 1-Dichloroethene 10.3675 2.94056
Methylene Chloride ND (1)
t-1,2-Dichloroethene ND (1)
c-1,2-Dichloroethene 52.9 9.237243
1, 1-Dichloroethane 943.75 115.0025
1,2-Dichloroethane 11.8775 2.984743
1, 1, 1-Trichloroethane ND (1)
Trichloroethene 9.46 1.367138
1, 1,2-Trichloroethane ND (1)
Tetrachloroethene ND (1)
NS = Not Significant
NC = Not Calculated
Hamilton Beach
Bench Study
Laboratory Results
Statistical Evaluation
227 n=5
PFe
Mean Stdev.
3.93 0.1556
3.88 0.618
105.54 14.926
24.44 6.679
1.37 0.1344
NC NC
32.58 5.8594
1571.8 130.9187
12.78 1.4584
11 7.9491
3.45 1.0814
NC NC
NC NC
value Sign if.
-3.084054 0.05
5.420726 0.01
9.868509 0.01
4.226999 0.01
NC
NC
-3.826601 0.02
7.653266 0.01
0.554134 NS
NC
-7.177421 0.01
NC
NC
- --- - - --- -- ---- -- --
Hamilton Beach
Bench Study
Laboratory Results
Statistical Evaluation
Sample ID. No. 213 n=5 213 n=6
Control Molasses
Mean Stdev Mean Stdev. t
Value Signif.
Vinyl Chloride 28.48 6.049132 29.8667. 5.937 0.381777 . NS Chloroethane ND (1) NC ND (1) NC NC 1, 1-Dichloroethene 419.2 112.7284 412 78.304 -0.120614 NS Methylene Chloride NC NC ND (1) NC NC t-1,2-Dichloroethene 1.858 0.293547 1.424 0.1369 -3.04177 0.05 c-1,2-Dichloroethene 34.16 6.600985 33.15 6.513 -0.254218 NS 1, 1-Dichloroethane 143.54 31.27312 141.133 30.812 -0.127961 NS 1,2-Dichloroethane 3.736 1.426194 4 1.0827 0.340205 NS 1, 1, 1-Trichloroethane ND (1) NC ND (1) NC NC Trichloroethene 307 131.124 272 73.209 -0.531772 NS 1, 1,2-Trichloroethane 2.478 0.978146. 2.824 0.405 0.739878 NS Tetrachloroethene 13.95 13.22198 10.443 9.1904 -0.500789 NS
NS = Not Significant
NC = Not Calculated
-------------------
Sample ID. No. 213 n=4
Gfe
Mean Stdev.
Vinyl Chloride 6.3475 2.166324
Chloroethane 3.785 2.59364
1, 1-Dichloroethene 64.1 26.8672
Methylene Chloride ND (1)
t-1,2-Dichloroethene ND (1)
c-1,2-Dichloroethene 10.3225 1.566107
1, 1-Dichloroethane 149.25 68.62155
1,2-Dichloroethane 3.0025 0.155644
1, 1, 1-Trichloroethane ND (1)
Trichloroethane 26.175 11.23072
1, 1,2-Trichloroethane ND (1)
Tetrachloroethene 1.2125 0.148633
NS = Not Significant
NC = Not Calculated
Hamilton Beach
Bench Study
Laboratory Results
Statistical Evaluation
213 n=4
Pf e
Mean Stdev.
3.4 2.0151
2.743 0.50362
20.647 20.5326
5.885 1.594
109.5 12.9228
2.775 0.2243
11.45 10.4739
value Sign if.
-1.992465 0.1
-0.788772 NS
-2.570065 0.05
-3.971592 0.01
-1.138516 NS
-1.666594 NS
-1.917715 0.1
NC NC
-------------------
Sample ID. No. 213 n=2
MP Fe
Mean Stdev.
Vinyl Chloride ND (1) NC
Chloroethane 1 .. 37 0.141421
1, 1-Dichloroethene 14.75 2.474874
Methylene Chloride 1.51 0.381838
t-1,2-Dichloroethene ND (1) NC
c-1,2-Dichloroethene 42.1 22.20315
1, 1-Dichloroethane 79.3 7.495332
1,2-Dichloroethane 4.06 0.650538
1, 1, 1-Trichloroethane ND (1) NC
Trichloroethene 18.9 0.282843
1, 1,2-Trichloroethane ND (1) NC
Tetrachloroethene 1.785 0.162635
Hamilton Beach
Bench Study
Laboratory Results
Statistical Evaluation
213 n=4
PFe
Mean Stdev.
3.4 2.0151
2.743 0.50362
20.647 20.5326
ND (1) NC
ND (1) NC
5.885 1.594
109.5 12.9228
2.775 0.2243
ND (1) NC
11.45 10.4739
ND (1) NC
ND (1) NC
*Statistical comparison difficult to calculate, although the difference is probably significant.
NS = Not Significant
NC = Not Calculated
t
value Sign if.
NC *
5.06755 0.01
0.566236 NS
NC
NC
-2.303721 NS
3.613731 0.05
-2.713982 NS
NC
-1.421547 NS
NC
NC