United States

Environmental Protection

Agency

Office of Research and

Development

Washington DC 20460

EPA/600/R-98/076

June 1998

Development of a

Hazardous Waste

Incinerator Target Analyte

List of Products of

Incomplete Combustion

Prepared for:

Office of Solid Waste

Prepared by:

National Risk Management Research Laboratory

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
FOREWORD

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is charged by Congress with protecting the Nation's 

land, air, and water resources. Under a mandate of national environmental laws, the Agency 

strives to formulate and implement actions leading to a compatible balance between human 

activities and the ability of natural systems to support and nurture life. To meet this mandate, 

EPA's research program is providing data and technical support for solving environmental 

problems today and building a science knowledge base necessary to manage our ecological 

resources wisely, understand how pollutants affect our health, and prevent or reduce 

environmental risks in the future.

The National Risk Management Research Laboratory is the Agency's center for investigation of 

technological and management approaches for reducing risks from threats to human health and the 

environment. The focus of the Laboratory's research program is on methods for the prevention and 

control of pollution to air, land, water, and subsurface resources; protection of water quality in 

public water systems; remediation of contaminated sites and groundwater; and prevention and

control of indoor air pollution. The goal of this research effort is to catalyze development and 

implementation of innovative, cost-effective environmental technologies; develop scientific and 

engineering information needed by EPA to support regulatory and policy decisions; and provide 

technical support and information transfer to ensure effective implementation of environmental 

regulations and strategies.

This publication has been produced as part of the Laboratory's strategic long-term research plan. It 

is published and made available by EPA's Office of Research and Development to assist the user 

community and to link researchers with their clients.

E. Timothy Oppelt, Director

National Risk Management Research Laboratory

EPA REVIEW NOTICE

This report has been peer and administratively reviewed by the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, and approved for publication. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not 

constitute endorsement or recommendation for use. This document is available to the public 

through the National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161.
DEVELOPMENT OF A HAZARDOUS WASTE INCINERATOR TARGET 

ANALYTE LIST OF PRODUCTS OF INCOMPLETE COMBUSTION

FINAL REPORT

Prepared by:

Paul M. Lemieux and Jeffrey V. Ryan

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

National Risk Management Research Laboratory

Air Pollution Prevention and Control Division

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711

Prepared for:

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Research and Development

Washington, DC 20460
ABSTRACT

Pilot-scale incineration experiments were performed to develop a comprehensive list of products of 

incomplete combustion (PICs) from hazardous waste combustion (HWC) systems. The goals of 

this project were: 1) to develop an expanded list of HWC target analytes for EPA's Office of Solid 

Waste (OSW) to use as a basis for a PIC-based regulatory approach; 2) to identify the total mass of 

organic compounds sufficiently to estimate the toxicity of the complex mixture; and 3) to enable 

OSW to assess the relative importance of polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins and polychlorinated 

dibenzofurans (PCDDs/PCDFs) to other PICs.

These tests were performed under varied combustion conditions feeding a mixed surrogate waste, 

resulting in the generation of numerous PICs. While many of these PICs were identified as target 

analytes using standardized sampling and analytical methods, the majority of PICs present in the 

incineration emissions were not target analytes. Although a substantial number of PICs have been 

tentatively identified, a considerably larger number have not been identified at this time. It can be 

concluded from these experiments that the current sampling and analytical schemes for 

characterizing HWC emissions provide an incomplete picture of the emission profile.

Innovative analytical techniques, such as multi-dimensional gas chromatography (MDGC) appear 

to show great promise for identifying the unknown compounds present in the stack gases. In 

many cases, "clean" chromatographic peaks were not able to be identified via mass spectral search 

algorithms because what appeared to be a single peak was really many compounds co-eluting off 

the column. When these types of peaks were analyzed using the MDGC system, the co-eluting 

compounds were resolved and identified.

As a result of these experiments, an expanded list of PIC target analytes has been developed. This 

list is by no means complete or comprehensive. This list should be viewed in context with this 

particular set of experiments; i.e., waste mix. The PICs generated from the incineration of other 

mixed waste streams have not been evaluated. 

The PICs identified fall into several chemical classes. A wide variety of chloro, bromo, and mixed 

bromochloro alkanes, alkenes, alkynes, aromatics, and polyaromatics were detected. In addition, 

nonhalogenated hydrocarbon homologues along with oxygenated, nitrogenated, and sulfonated 

organics were detected. Analytical methods specifically suited to identify these chemical classes 

are needed to enhance PIC characterizations. Of the non-target semivolatile organic compounds 

that were detected but not identified, the vast majority were large alkanes (with more than 10 

carbons), esters of high molecular weight carboxylic acids, and phthalates. The authors believe 

that improved analytical methodologies emphasizing validation and quantification of these 

compounds would provide the greatest opportunity to reduce uncertainty in risk assessment 

calculations. 

Other secondary goals of this project were also realized. It was observed that increases in feed 

bromine concentration could dramatically impact emissions of many chlorinated organics, 

including PCDDs/PCDFs. It was also observed that concentrations of chlorinated alkenes dropped 

as residence time in the secondary combustion chamber increased, while ring growth reactions 

were observed in-flight in moderate temperature regions prior to gas quenching. Finally, evidence 

has been found to support the use of certain easily measured volatile organic PICs as surrogates for 

PCDD/PCDF emissions.

ii
Some goals of this project were not attained. A mass balance between identified PICs and total 

hydrocarbon (THC) measurements was not established. THC concentrations were in the very low 

ppm range, within the analytical accuracy of the instruments. Attempts to measure non-chlorinated 

alkanes, alkenes, and alkynes via bag sampling did not detect measurable levels of those 

compounds.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This work was performed by Acurex Environmental Corp., under EPA Contract No. 68-D4-0005, 

under the direction of EPA Work Assignment Manager Paul Lemieux. The authors would like to 

thank Kevin Bruce, J. Frank Day, Tony Lombardo, Mark Calvi, Ray Thomas, and Eric Squier, 

Acurex Corp. for their dedication in performing these tests. The authors would also like to thank 

Senior Environmental Employees (SEE) John Dawkins, Robert King, and Bob Frazier for 

operating the continuous emission monitoring systems. The authors would also like to thank 

Wayne Rubey of the University of Dayton Research Institute for his invaluable help in performing 

the multi-dimensional gas chromatography analyses.

iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT..................................................................................................ii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS................................................................................. iii

LIST OF FIGURES........................................................................................vi

LIST OF TABLES.........................................................................................vii

1.0 INTRODUCTION................................................................................... 1-1

1.1 - Focus........................................................................................1-1

1.2 - Regulatory Basis...........................................................................1-1

1.3 - Surrogate Indicators....................................................................... 1-2

1.4 - Emission Characterization................................................................ 1-2

1.5 - Limitations..................................................................................1-3

2.0 EXPERIMENTAL APPROACH...................................................................2-1

2.1 - Focus........................................................................................2-1

2.2 - Experimental Equipment.................................................................. 2-1

2.2.1 - Rotary Kiln Incinerator Simulator............................................2-1

2.2.2 - Flue Gas Cleaning System.................................................... 2-2

2.3 - Waste Feed................................................................................. 2-3

2.4 - Sampling Approach........................................................................2-4

2.4.1 - General Sampling Information................................................2-4

2.4.2 - Continuous Emissions Monitors............................................. 2-7

2.4.3 - On-Line GC.....................................................................2-7

2.4.4 - Volatile Organics............................................................... 2-8

2.4.5 - Semivolatile and Non-Volatile Organics.....................................2-9

2.4.6 - PCDDs/PCDFs................................................................2-10

2.5 - Analytical Approach......................................................................2-10

2.5.1 - General Analytical Information..............................................2-10

2.5.2 - Volatile Organics..............................................................2-10

2.5.3 - Semivolatile and Non-Volatile Organics................................... 2-11

2.5.4 - PCDDs/PCDFs................................................................2-12

3.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION................................................................... 3-1

3.1 - Results from Continuous Measurements................................................3-1

iv
3.2 - Volatile Organic Results...................................................................3-3

3.2.1 - On-Line GC Results........................................................... 3-3

3.2.2 - VOST and Tedlar Bag Results................................................3-5

3.3 - Semivolatile and Non-Volatile Organics...............................................3-16

3.3.1 - Conventional GC/MS Analytical Results.................................. 3-16

3.3.2 - Multi-Dimensional GC/MS Analytical Results............................ 3-22

3.4 - PCDDs/PCDFs and PBDDs/PBDFs...................................................3-23

3.5 - Surrogate Performance Indicators......................................................3-25

4.0 CONCLUSIONS.....................................................................................4-1

4.1 - Target Analyte List.........................................................................4-1

4.2 - Effect of Presence of Bromine........................................................... 4-2

4.3 - Surrogate Performance Indicators....................................................... 4-2

4.4 - Implications of These Results............................................................ 4-3

4.5 - Recommendations......................................................................... 4-3

5.0 REFERENCES.......................................................................................5-1

APPENDIX A: QUALITY CONTROL EVALUATION REPORT................................ A-1

A.1 - Continuous Measurement Results...................................................... A-1

A.2 - Volatile Organic Compound Analyses..................................................A-2

A.2.1 - VOST Samples................................................................ A-2

A.2.2 - Tedlar Bag Samples...........................................................A-3

A.3 - Semivolatile Organic Compound Analyses........................................... A-3

A.4 - PCDD/PCDF and PBDD/PBDF Analyses.............................................A-4

A.5 - Online GC Samples.......................................................................A-5

v
LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2-1. Rotary kiln incinerator simulator..........................................................2-2

Figure 2-2. Flue gas cleaning system...................................................................2-3

Figure 2-3. Metal solution injection system............................................................2-6

Figure 2-4. On-line GC system.........................................................................2-8

Figure 2-5. MDGC-MS Setup (Courtesy of UDRI)................................................2-12

Figure 3-1. OLGC results of tetrachloroethylene concentrations at choke and SCC exit........3-3

Figure 3-2. OLGC results of 1,2 dichlorobenzene concentrations at choke and SCC exit...... 3-5

Figure 3-3. Average concentrations of analogous C1 and C2 halogenated compounds........3-15

Figure 3-4. MDGC/MS Analysis of Methylene Chloride Extract from Run 10. The upper trace is 

for the single-column, "one-dimensional" analysis. "Two dimensional" resolution of a singlet and 

a doublet are shown. (Courtesy of UDRI)........................................................... 3-22

Figure 3-5. Trichloroethylene vs. Total PCDDs; R2=0.6476.....................................3-25

Figure 3-6. Trichloroethylene vs. Total PCDFs; R2=0.6956..................................... 3-26

Figure 3-7. Trichloroethylene vs. Total PCDDs+PCDFs; R2=0.6915.......................... 3-26

vi
LIST OF TABLES

Table 2-1. Waste Feed Composition...................................................................2-5

Table 2-2. Test Conditions...............................................................................2-6

Table 2-3. Samples Taken During Each Test for Which Analytical Results Are Available.......2-7

Table 3-1. Temperature Results (°C)...................................................................3-1

Table 3-2. CEM Emissions Results....................................................................3-2

Table 3-3. On-line Gas Chromatograph Results for Volatile Organic PICs (μg/m3)............ 3-4

Table 3-4. Tedlar Bag Results: Target Compounds (μg/m3)....................................... 3-6

Table 3-5. Tedlar Bag Results: Tentatively Identified Compounds (μg/m3)......................3-7

Table 3-6. VOST Results (μg/m3)..................................................................... 3-8

Table 3-7. Target Volatile Organic Compounds Detected...........................................3-10

Table 3-8. Tentatively Identified VOST Compounds...............................................3-11

Table 3-9. Combinations of Detected C1 and C2 Compounds....................................3-12

Table 3-10. C1 & C2 Halogenated Hydrocarbons (μg/m3)....................................... 3-14

Table 3-11. Halogenated Aromatic VOC Results (μg/m3).........................................3-16

Table 3-12. Semivolatile Organic Target Results (μg/m3).........................................3-17

Table 3-13. Semivolatile Organic Tentatively Identified Compounds (μg/m3)..................3-20

Table 3-14. Compounds identified via MDGC/MS.................................................3-23

Table 3-15. Polychlorinated and Polybrominated Dioxins and Furans...........................3-24

Table A-1. Data Quality Indicator Summary for Critical Measurements.......................... A-2

vii
1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 - Focus

Assessing the risk posed by combustor emissions requires sampling and analysis of what is 

leaving the stack. The chemical analysis must be compound specific in order to consider the 

toxicity of each compound. Efficient and cost effective sampling and analysis for routine 

regulatory control requires a target analyte list to focus the effort. A list of Products of Incomplete 

Combustion (PICs) suitable for focusing this effort is not well developed. The primary goal of 

this project is to develop such a list. This list will help serve as a basis for EPA's Office of Solid 

Waste (OSW) to pursue a PIC-based regulatory approach.

In the past, the Appendix VIII1 list of hazardous compounds has become the de facto list for 

hazardous waste combustor (HWC) investigations. The Appendix VIII list was generated by 

appending lists of chemicals that were previously regulated by other government agencies (U.S. 

Department of Transportation (DOT) shipping labels, etc.). And, as such, it is not a list of 

compounds well focused to HWC stack emissions. Moreover, this list focuses on compounds 

possessing hazardous characteristics that are most often the Primary Organic Hazardous 

Constituents (POHCs). As a result, existing required analytical methodologies focus on measuring 

the POHC. Very few PICs that are formed are targeted by current analytical methodologies. 

Analytical methodologies capable of identifying and quantifying PICs are required. This effort 

avoids the focus provided by Appendix VIII by approaching the task with an open mind in order to 

establish a list of compounds of importance to HWC emissions.

As a starting point, this study used existing trial burn data, laboratory-scale research literature, and, 

where relevant, target analyte lists based on Appendix VIII and the hazardous air pollutant (HAP) 

list from the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments2 . It must be stressed, though, that this was only a 

starting point. The vast majority of the effort for this study was consumed in identification and 

quantification of unknown compounds.

1.2 - Regulatory Basis

HWCs have been regulated by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA),3 based on 

the destruction and removal efficiency (DRE) of POHCs as defined in a trial burn. This approach 

used the initial decomposition of the POHC, the first step in converting the organic POHC 

molecule to carbon dioxide (CO2) and water (H2O), as a surrogate for the extent of complete 

conversion to CO2 and H2O. The goal of reducing the toxicity of the hazardous constituents 

requires many reactions (chlorobenzene has 12 bonds to break and 18 new bonds to make) to 

completely react to CO2 and H2O. If the reaction sequence goes to completion, the toxicity is 

reduced completely (i.e., CO2 and H2O are not toxic). However, partial destruction can mute the 

reduction in toxicity, and reformation reactions can occur that cause molecular size growth; these 

can also mute the reduction in toxicity or, in some cases, increase the toxicity from that of the 

original organic molecule being incinerated4. Additionally, chlorine from the hazardous waste, 

released in the form of hydrochloric acid (HCl) or diatomic chlorine (Cl2), can react with naturally 

occurring hydrocarbons in the cool end of some incineration facilities (e.g., cement kilns) and 

generate potentially toxic hazardous organic compounds5. A new PIC-based approach can 

potentially avoid these problems associated with the POHC DRE approach.

1-1
Current regulatory approaches use carbon monoxide (CO) as a surrogate for PICs. This approach 

is based on the assumption that the oxidation of CO to CO2 is the final step in the long chain of 

complex combustion reactions. Minimization of CO thus is assumed to minimize PICs. 

Unfortunately, this assumption does not hold up well when polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins and 

polychlorinated dibenzofurans (PCDDs/PCDFs), which are generally formed in the cooler regions 

of the incinerator, are taken into account. In the case where PCDDs and PCDFs constitute a 

significant component of the organics-based toxicity of the mixture, the "CO-as-a-PIC-surrogate" 

approach breaks down. CO appears to be a viable surrogate to distinguish between "poor" 

combustion and "good" combustion, but as emissions limits get lower and lower, CO is not a 

reliable surrogate to distinguish between "good" combustion and "great" combustion. At that 

point, other parameters have a much more significant influence on the emissions of 

PCDDs/PCDFs, such as the temperature at which the particulate control device operates.6 In other 

words, minimization of CO is a necessary, but not sufficient condition for PIC minimization.

1.3 - Surrogate Indicators

A surrogate incinerator performance indicator is an easily measured parameter, compound, or 

group of compounds whose variance can account for the variance in the measurements of a more 

difficult-to-measure compound, such as PCDDs/PCDFs. Although this work will not be used 

directly to develop surrogate indicators of performance, it will lay ground work for that purpose. 

The task of choosing a surrogate indicator of performance implies that a significant PIC of concern 

(one that can significantly influence the results of a risk assessment) is known. PCDDs/PCDFs 

have gained notoriety as being potentially significant PICs in many cases, although some critics 

have suggested that PCDDs/PCDFs are the most important PICs simply because they are the class 

of PICs most frequently investigated. The problem that exists is that PCDDs/PCDFs are present at 

the low parts-per-trillion (ppt) levels in the stacks of a well-operated combustion facility. Sampling 

and analytical procedures to measure PCDDs/PCDFs are expensive and time consuming. If an 

easily measured surrogate were available that gave a strong correlation with PCDDs/PCDFs, 

routine compliance tests could potentially be replaced by continuous or semi-continuous 

monitoring of that surrogate. In addition, the process could be optimized based on continuous 

measurements of that surrogate. 

1.4 - Emission Characterization

An additional issue this work may help to address is that of "what fraction of the emissions are 

toxic and what fraction are low or non-toxic?" By attempting to quantify as large a percentage of 

the mass of organic emissions as possible (in a research level effort) it may be possible to get a 

better handle on the question. The public has been quick to assume that the unidentified 

compounds are hazardous; since they have not been identified it is not possible to assure the public 

that they are of low toxicological significance. This research effort and the Omnibus regulatory 

effort intend to identify and quantify both the toxic and low/non-toxic compounds to the extent 

possible. It is expected that the bulk of the emissions will be low molecular weight low/non-toxic 

compounds.

Although PCDDs/PCDFs, due to their high toxicity7, are likely to be the most toxic organic hazard 

in the HWC stack, they are typically present in minute quantities. In addition, there may be entire 

classes of PICs that are not even being measured, some of which could potentially influence the 

risk assessment calculations. The conservative nature of risk assessment assumes that unknown 

1-2
compounds are toxic. Because of this, risk assessment uncertainties can be influenced not only by 

not detecting PICs that are important from a toxicological point of view, but also by not detecting 

harmless compounds that potentially comprise much of the mass of stack emissions. Sampling 

and analytical methodologies may not be sufficiently developed to generate reliable emissions data. 

Compounds that fall into this category are the brominated and bromochloro analogs to 

PCDDs/PCDFs (the polybrominated dibenzo-p-dioxins and polybrominated dibenzofurans 

[PBDDs/PBDFs] and mixed bromochloro dibenzo-p-dioxins and mixed bromochloro 

dibenzofurans [PXDDs/PXDFs]), and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) substituted with 

various species (oxygen, chlorine, sulfur)8. Another issue is the measurement of compounds such 

as phthalates, which are frequently detected in HWC emissions, but may be artifacts of sampling 

and analytical treatments.

1.5 - Limitations

The experiments were performed on EPA's rotary kiln incinerator simulator (RKIS) located in 

Research Triangle Park, NC. Exact quantification of concentrations was not a primary goal for 

this study. A more important goal was to derive a detailed list of target compounds that can be 

found at levels above the detection limits. The existing database of PIC data from bench, 

laboratory, pilot, and full-scale was used as a starting point for development of this list.

It is critical to understand that all quantified PICs generated in this study are based on the pilotscale RKIS, burning the chosen waste mix, at the given conditions, prior to any flue gas cleaning 

equipment. The RKIS is a small pilot-scale kiln, and many of the fluid mechanical features of fullscale kilns that can produce excess emissions are not present in the RKIS. As such, the system 

sometimes needs to be operated slightly outside what would constitute normal incinerator operating 

conditions in order to properly quantify important emission trends and measure subtle phenomena. 

It is believed that this system generates qualitatively applicable data, although emissions results 

from the RKIS should not be quantitatively compared to full-scale systems.

1-3
2.0 EXPERIMENTAL APPROACH

2.1 - Focus

The emphasis of this effort was placed on analytical operations rather than sampling operations. 

The sampling methods selected were appropriate for the quantitative capture of volatile, 

semivolatile, and non-volatile organics. The issue was how to retrieve and analyze the organic 

compounds captured by these methods. Both standard and non-routine approaches were used. 

Methods development/validation was not within the scope of this project. It must be reiterated that 

the emphasis of this project was to identify PICs that are not routinely identified by conventional 

methodologies. Once these PICs have been identified and their relative toxicological importance 

evaluated, emphasis can more appropriately be placed on method development and validation.

Certain samples, such as those collected using SW-846 Draft Method 00409 (Tedlar bags) or 

Method 003010 (VOST), must be analyzed soon after the samples have been taken. These 

analyses were performed within 24 hours. Other samples, though, such as Method 001011

(MM5) or Method 2312, can be stored for a longer time after extraction of the sampling media. In 

addition, since this effort was directed at identification of the multitude of unknowns in the 

semivolatile and non-volatile fraction, the majority of the effort was directed at the higher molecular 

weight compounds. 

2.2 - Experimental Equipment

2.2.1 - Rotary Kiln Incinerator Simulator

The incineration tests were performed using the RKIS facility at the EPA's Air Pollution 

Prevention and Control Division's (APPCD's) combustion laboratory in Wing-G of the EPA's 

Environmental Research Center (ERC) located in Research Triangle Park, NC. The facility has a 

RCRA Research, Development, and Demonstration (RD&D) permit to burn actual and surrogate 

hazardous waste. The RKIS, shown in Figure 1, consists of a 73 kW (250,000 Btu/hr) rotary kiln 

section, a transition section, and a 73 kW (250,000 Btu/hr) secondary combustion chamber 

(SCC). The RKIS was designed for the testing of liquid and solid surrogate hazardous waste 

materials.

The RKIS was designed to contain the salient features of full-scale kilns, but still be sufficiently 

versatile to allow experimentation by varying one parameter at a time or controlling a set of 

parameters independently. The rotating kiln section contained a recess which contains the solid 

waste during incineration. The recess was designed with a length to diameter (L/D) ratio of 0.8, 

which is 20 to 25% of a full-scale system. The main burner, based on an International Flame 

Research Foundation (IFRF) variable swirl design, was the primary heat source for the system. 

Natural gas was used as the primary fuel during startup and idle, then was switched over to the 

surrogate waste feed used throughout testing. 

From the kiln section, the combustion gases entered the transition section. The gases then flowed 

into the SCC. The SCC consisted of three regions: the mixing chamber, the plug flow section, and 

the stack transition section. A replaceable choke section separated the mixing chamber from the 

plug flow section.

2-1
Rotary Leaf

Spring Seal

Main Ramrod

Burner

Afterburner

Kiln Section Transition Section

Sample Ports

Choke

Liquid 

Waste

Liquid Waste

Water Jacket

Sampling Duct

Dilution Air

Duct 1 TC

Duct 2 TC Duct 3 TC

Secondary 

Combustion Chamber

Duct 4 TC

Figure 2-1. Rotary kiln incinerator simulator

A conical refractory insert was installed into the first plug flow sub-section to provide a gradual 

divergence from the choke diameter to the plug flow section diameter and minimize recirculation 

zones downstream of the choke. The afterburner, also based on an IFRF variable swirl design, 

provided heat and flame to the SCC, and was also fired with natural gas during startup and idle 

times, then switched to the liquid surrogate waste during the tests. 

Combustion gases exiting the afterburner passed through a water-jacketed convective cooling 

section of 20.3 cm (8-in nominal pipe thread [NPT]) diameter stainless steel (SS) ducting. Further 

cooling was achieved by adding ambient dilution air via a dilution damper located upstream of the 

9.9-m (35-ft) sampling duct. Emissions samples were collected at sampling locations 66.7-cm 

(169.5-in) and 98.6-cm (250.5-in) downstream of the dilution damper. These sampling locations 

were oriented to meet isokinetic sampling requirements. 

2.2.2 - Flue Gas Cleaning System

All of the research combustors in the Wing-G combustion research facility were manifolded into a 

common flue gas cleaning system (FGCS). The FGCS consisted of a 1.02 MW (3.5 x 106

Btu/hr) afterburner followed by a water quench, baghouse, and wet scrubber. The purpose of the 

2-2
FGCS was to take exhaust gases from the research combustors, destroy any unburned organic 

material, and remove any particulates and acid gases from the effluents prior to their release to the 

atmosphere.

A roof-mounted induced-draft (ID) fan pulled exhaust gases from research combustors into a 

manifold. Flow direction of emissions was then determined by the position of a three-way valve. 

By-pass (vent fumes mode) flow feeds directly to the draft fan. The flow of fumes (permit mode) 

feeds through the afterburner, quench, baghouse, scrubber and draft fan.

Exhaust gases were oxidized at temperatures of 1000 °C (1,832 °F) or greater for at least 2 s in a 

natural-gas-fired Hirt afterburner. The exhaust gases of the afterburner were then cooled by a 

controlled water spray that is air-aspirated through a nozzle in the quench section. Particulate 

matter was then removed by filter cartridges in a baghouse. Acid gases were removed in the 

scrubber by a sodium hydroxide caustic solution that is sprayed into the exhaust stream. After 

exiting the draft fan, exhaust emissions are continuously monitored for CO2, CO, and oxygen 

(O2). The FGCS is depicted in Figure 2-2.

Roof

ID 

Fan

Scrubber

Baghouse

Quench

Afterburner

Manifold

Effluent 

from 

RKIS

Figure 2-2. Flue gas cleaning system.

2.3 - Waste Feed

The surrogate hazardous waste that was fed during tests was designed to possess representative 

compounds from many common classes of organic hazardous wastes. The composition of the 

surrogate hazardous waste feed was developed based on recommendations from members of OSW 

and the Regional Permit Writers. Table 2-1 lists the composition of the surrogate waste feed. In 

addition to the organic surrogate waste, an aqueous mixture of metal salts, including zinc 

nitrate•hexahydrate, nickel nitrate•hexahydrate, and copper nitrate•hexahydrate, was also fed into 

2-3
the kiln. The purpose of the metals injection was to provide a representative supply of metal 

catalyst to promote any heterogeneous reactions forming PCDDs/PCDFs. Copper (Cu), nickel 

(Ni), and zinc (Zn) were fed as metal nitrate•hexahydrate compounds dissolved in 100 mL/hr of 

water with sufficient metal present to reach the target gas-phase concentrations of 60 μg/m3 (Cu), 

40 μg/m3 (Ni), and 90 μg/m3 (Zn). 

Hazardous wastes are burned in blended mixtures of many waste streams. These tests were 

designed to mimic this complexity. The principal purpose of this work was to establish a list of 

possible compounds that should be investigated as PICs from hazardous waste incineration. In 

order to have as many compounds on the list as possible, the feed stream was designed to have 

several organic compounds of several different classes in its makeup. Additionally, since as much 

of the effort as possible was to be directed at analysis, the cost of the waste feed was designed to 

be held to as low a level as possible. In addition, it was required that personnel safety be 

maximized.

With the exception of runs where batch feeding occurred, all runs were performed using the same 

standard mix of compounds. The nominal chlorine (Cl) content of the waste was 10 % by weight. 

The waste consisted of a mixture of several compounds co-fired with No. 2 fuel oil. Some 

brominated organic compounds were substituted for a fraction of the chlorinated compounds. The 

composition of the waste that was fed is shown in Table 2-1. Note that too much dibromoethane 

was inadvertently added in Run 10, resulting in a bromine (Br) mass percent 3 times the intended 

level. 

In addition, some of the tests involved batch charging of containerized liquid wastes. The charges 

consisted of 0.9 L (1 qt) polyvinyl chloride (PVC) containers filled with No. 6 fuel oil that had 

been doped with hexachlorobenzene (1000 ppm). This waste was fed in 10 minute intervals with 

the kiln rotating at 0.5 rpm. 

During all runs, the kiln and afterburner burned the standard mix of wastes in both the primary and 

secondary burners, by pumping the makeup fuel (No. 2 fuel oil) from 55 gal. drums, and mixing it 

with the stream of waste compounds that are being pressure-fed from a 5 gal. container using 

pressurized nitrogen. The entire system was tied into the flame safety interlock system so that any 

flameout resulted in the waste feed's being cut off. Flow rates were measured using rotameters. 

The nominal experimental descriptions that were used are listed in Table 2-2. The combustion 

blanks consisted of samples taken while no waste was being fed.

The metals solution was injected into the primary combustion chamber using the apparatus shown 

in Figure 2-3.

2.4 - Sampling Approach

2.4.1 - General Sampling Information

The sampling methodologies and procedures used to conduct this study followed EPAstandardized test methods for the collection of volatile, semivolatile, and non-volatile organics. In 

general, the test procedures were followed as described in the reference method. Analytical results 

are not available for all runs for which sampling occurred. Table 2-3 lists the samples taken during 

the tests for which analytical results are available. With the exception of the continuous emission 

2-4
monitors (CEMs), all extractive samples were taken at the sample ports in the horizontal duct 

between the RKIS and the FGCS. As shown in Figure 2-1, one set of CEMs sampled at the port 

located near the kiln exit; another set of CEMs sampled at the port located near the SCC exit; and 

the HCl CEM sampled just downstream of the sample port where all of the extractive organics 

sampling trains were located.

Table 2-1. Waste Feed Composition

Class Compound Formula Mass %

carrier liquid No. 2 fuel oil n/a 50.0

chlorinated non-aromatic methylene chloride CH2Cl2 8.0

chloroform CHCl3 4.5

carbon tetrachloride CCl4 2.4

chlorinated aromatic monochlorobenzene C6H5Cl 3.3

dichlorobenzene C6H4Cl2 3.8

chlorophenol C6H5ClO 1.5

non-chlorinated aromatic toluene C7H8 5.2

xylene C8H10 5.2

alcohol isopropanol C3H8O 2.4

ketone methyl ethyl ketone C4H8O 4.8

nitrated waste pyridine C5H5N 5.9

PAHa naphthalene C10H8 1.5

brominated waste bromoform CHBr3 0.75

ethylene dibromide C2H4Br2 0.75b

a - Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon.

b - On Run 10, too much ethylene dibromide was inadvertently added.

2-5
Voltage

Source

Controller

Reservoir

Pump

Combustion 

Air

Natural Gas

Atomization 

Air

Rotameter

Figure 2-3. Metal solution injection system.

Table 2-2. Test Conditions.

Run Description Date

1 Combustion Blank 4/13/95

2 Combustion Blank 4/18/95

3 High Temperature 4/20/95

4 High Temperature 4/26/95

5 Baseline 5/3/95

6 Baseline 5/4/95

7 SCC Off 5/9/95

8 SCC Off 5/10/95

9 Low Temperature 5/12/95

10 Low Temperature 5/16/95

11 Fuel-Rich 5/23/95

12 Fuel-Rich 5/31/95

13 Fuel-Rich 8/14/95

14 Fuel-Rich 8/16/95

15 Batch Charging 8/21/95

16 Batch Charging 8/23/95

2-6
Table 2-3. Samples taken during each test for which analytical results are available.

Run CEMs Method 0040 Method 0023 Method 0030 Method 0010 OLGC

 Tedlar Bags Dioxins VOST MM5

1X X

2X X

3X X X

4X X X

5X X X X X

6X X X X X X

7X X X

8X X X

9X X X X X

10 X X X X

11 X X X

12 X X

13 X X X X

14 X X X X X

15 X X X

16 X X X

2.4.2 - Continuous Emissions Monitors

Two separate CEM benches provided simultaneous gas monitoring of O2, CO2, CO, nitric oxide 

(NO), and THC before and after the SCC. In addition to the two CEM benches, a Perkin 

Elmer/Bodenseewerk MCS 100 Emission Monitoring System (which is capable of measuring HCl, 

CO2, and H2O simultaneously and continuously under wet conditions) was available throughout 

most of the tests.

2.4.3 - On-Line GC

Volatile organic PIC emissions were measured on selected runs using an on-line gas 

chromatograph (OLGC) system, shown in Figure 2-4. The OLGC analytical system13,14 

contained a heated sample delivery system, a purge and trap sample concentrating system, and the 

GC analytical system. The sample concentrating device was a Tekmar LSC-2000 thermal 

desorption unit that had been modified to accommodate the direct collection of combustion 

samples. The GC analytical system was a HP 5890 series II GC equipped with both flame 

ionization detector (FID) and an electron capture detector (ECD). The effluent of the column is 

split (ratio 9:1, respectively) to deliver sample to both the FID and ECD simultaneously. Ninteen 

individual volatile organic PICs can be quantified at concentration levels of about 1 ppbv. The 

OLGC sampled at two different locations: 1) at the choke in the SCC, and 2) near the exit of the 

SCC where the other CEMs sampled, in an attempt to measure changes in PICs as a function of 

residence time.

2-7
ECD

FID

Purge

and

Trap

Concentrator

GC

Computer

Heated

Filter Heated

Pump

6-Port

Valve

Mass Flow

Controller

Vent

Vacuum

Pump

Vent

Stack

Figure 2-4. On-line GC system.

2.4.4 - Volatile Organics

Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) were collected using both the Volatile Organic Sampling Train 

(VOST – SW-846 Method 0030)10 and Tedlar bags (SW–846 Draft Method 0040)9. The VOST 

method is intended to be used for VOCs with boiling points (BPs) ranging from 30 to 110 °C. For 

the more volatile VOCs (BPs < 30 °C), Tedlar bag samples were collected.

VOST samples were collected as described in SW-846 "Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste" 

Method 0030 "Volatile Organic Sampling Train." Four sets of samples were collected for each test 

condition (two sets per test day). A total volume of ~ 20 L was collected for each sample. 

Sampling was performed at 0.5 L/min for 40 min. Liquid condensate samples were also collected 

daily for separate analysis. 

The VOST tube sets were quality control (QC) checked for background contaminants by GC/MS 

under the same conditions used for actual sample analysis. The acceptable blank level was less 

than 10 ng for any single target analyte per tube. There is no established level for total VOC 

contamination. VOST tubes were conditioned in batches of seven sets. At least one set of tubes 

out of each batch of seven (14.3%) was QC checked.

Once the tubes were QC checked, the Tenax-only tubes were spiked with known quantities of D6-

labeled benzene and bromofluorobenzene (BFB) as part of the quality assurance (QA) procedure 

for the sampling. The tubes were then individually placed in metal cigar tube-type containers which 

were secondarily placed in a metal container or glass jar containing activated charcoal. The 

secondary container was then kept in a refrigerator maintained near 0 °C until delivery for 

sampling. Following sampling, the tubes were returned to their respective individual containers 

2-8
and then placed in a separate secondary container, also containing activated charcoal, and kept 

refrigerated until analyzed. All samples were analyzed within 30 days of collection.

Tedlar bag samples were collected as described in SW-846, "Test Methods for Evaluating Solid 

Waste," and Draft Method 0040, "Sampling of Principal Organic Hazardous Constituents from 

Combustion Sources Using Tedlar Bags." Only one sample was collected for each test condition. 

A total volume of ~ 20 L was collected for each sample. The liquid condensate was also collected 

for separate analysis.

The Tedlar bags were conditioned for use by sequentially filling the bags with nitrogen and then 

evacuating them with a vacuum pump. This conditioning process was performed at least three 

times or until the bags were demonstrated to be free of background contaminants. The bags 

themselves were QC checked for background contamination as described above. The nitrogen 

used for conditioning was also tested for background contamination. All bags used for sampling 

were QC checked. Once the bags were demonstrated to be free from background contamination, 

they were once again evacuated and stored at ambient temperature until used for sampling. 

Following sampling, the bags were resealed. All samples were analyzed within 72 h of collection.

2.4.5 - Semivolatile and Non-Volatile Organics

Semivolatile organic compounds (SVOCs) were collected using the Modified Method 5 (MM5)11

train train as described in SW-846 "Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste" Method 0010 

"Modified Method 5 Sampling Train." Two MM5 samples were collected for each test condition. 

Samples were collected on separate test days. The trains were operated isokinetically as required by 

the method. As stipulated in EPA 40 CFR Part 60 Method 1A, the Pitot tube was not attached to 

the probe. Radial sampling locations were based on the preliminary velocity traverse. A post-test 

velocity traverse was also performed. The pre- and post-test velocity traverses were used to assess 

isokinetic variation. The run times were increased to maximize the total volume sampled. A 

nominal run time of 4 hours was used. As no particulate measurements were made from this train, 

filters were not weighed. No other method deviations are anticipated.

The MM5 trains were recovered so as to generate five separate components for analysis:

1. The particulate filter (labeled Container 1)

2. The front-half rinse (labeled Container 2)

3. The back-half rinse – all train components between filter and sorbent module (labeled 

Container 5)

4. The XAD-2 module (labeled Container 3)

5. The condensate and condensate rinse of 1st empty impinger (labeled Container 4) 

Note: Container labeling is consistent with Method 0010.

Given the high acid concentration of the sample stream, flushing the XAD-2 sorbent modules with 

high performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) grade water to remove the concentrated acid was 

required. This rinse was combined with the contents of Container 5.

The XAD-2 was cleaned and QC checked as described in Method 0010 with several additional 

solvents. The methylene chloride extraction was followed by acetone, toluene, and once again 

2-9
methylene chloride extractions, respectively. The cleaned XAD-2 was subjected to background 

contamination quality control checks. Although the method requires that the XAD-2 blank exhibit 

a TCO level less that 10 μg/g, experience has shown that we can also outperform the recommended 

level of 4 μg/g, typically demonstrating background levels in the 1 μg/g range. The XAD-2 was 

also QC checked by GC/MS to screen for any target analyte background contaminants. No QC 

acceptance criteria have been established for this additional QC check, although less than 5 

μg/sample (based on ~30 g sample) has been achieved for individual target analytes. Prior to 

sampling, 40 g of XAD-2 was packed into the sorbent modules, capped with glass stoppers, the 

ends wrapped in cleaned aluminum foil, and stored, refrigerated at 4° C until use. Following 

sample retrieval, the XAD-2 modules were stored in an identical manner. All samples were 

extracted within 30 days of sample collection.

2.4.6 - PCDDs/PCDFs

PCDDs/PCDFs were collected as described in 40 CFR, Part 60, Appendix A, Method 23 

"Determination of Polychlorinated Dibenzo–p–dioxins and Polychlorinated Dibenzofurans from 

Stationary Sources"12. This method is virtually identical to California Air Resources Board 

(CARB) Method 428 "Determination of Polychlorinated Dibenzo–p–dioxin (PCDD), 

Polychlorinated Dibenzofuran (PCDF), and Polychlorinated Biphenyl Emissions from Stationary 

Sources"15. The only real differences are in the analytical approach. The MM5 sampling train 

location and operation criteria presented above also apply to Method 23. The run times were 

increased to maximize the total volume sampled. All samples were extracted within 45 days of 

collection.

2.5 - Analytical Approach

2.5.1 - General Analytical Information

The analytical approach considered both screening and analyte-specific analytical techniques. A 

literature review of bench-, laboratory-, and pilot-scale incineration studies was used to help 

establish an expanded target analyte list. Similarly, target compound classes such as PAHs, that 

are made up of many more than the 16 or so compounds routinely targeted, were expanded to 

include alkylated, chlorinated, and nitrogenated PAHs that have harmful health effects. 

Sulfonated, oxygenated, and nitrogenated heterocyclic compounds were also targeted.

2.5.2 - Volatile Organics

The VOST and Tedlar bag samples collected were analyzed by gas chromatography/mass 

spectrometry (GC/MS) following the procedures described in SW-846 Methods 5040/824016,17. 

This method was suitable for the analysis of both sample types. Method 8240 quantifies 

compounds with BPs ranging from ~–30 to ~ 200 °C, encompassing the capabilities of both 

sampling methods. The Method 8240 target analyte list was modified/expanded to include 

additional potential PICs.

The resulting GC/MS total ion chromatograms were analyzed to identify peaks that were not target 

analytes. Nontarget PICs were identified by comparing spectral data of the unknown to spectral 

data contained in the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and Wiley mass 

spectral databases. A probability-based spectral matching algorithm assigned tentative 

2-10
identification. The quality of the match, along with investigator spectral interpretation and physical 

data (e.g., boiling point vs. retention time) was used to assist in identification. Where possible, 

additional standards containing tentatively identified compounds were prepared and analyzed to 

confirm identification. Following Method 8240, these unknowns are quantified based on the 

internal standard closest in retention time and a relative response factor (RRF) of 1. A 

multiconcentration calibration was performed using standards of the identified compounds to 

establish RRFs specific to each compound to enhance quantitative accuracy.

The Tedlar bag samples were also analyzed to characterize the highly volatile organic species. The 

bag samples were analyzed by gas chromatography/flame ionization detector (GC/FID) to quantify 

such compounds as methane, ethane, propane, chloromethane, and acetylene. The FID response to 

nontarget analytes was also reported.

2.5.3 - Semivolatile and Non-Volatile Organics

A detailed chemical characterization was performed on the MM5 samples. MM5 analyses were 

performed quantitatively; however, the main emphasis was on qualitative identification of major 

emissions components.

Following collection, the MM5 samples were Soxhlet extracted sequentially with several solvents 

of decreasing polarity. The samples were extracted sequentially with methylene chloride, acetone, 

and toluene. The individual sample extracts were concentrated to a known volume and archived 

for analysis. The five containers from each sample train were extracted so as to generate three 

separate sample components. For each solvent, separate sample extracts were generated from each 

train. The filter and front-half rinse (Containers 1 and 2) were composited as a single extract as 

were the XAD-2 sorbent and back-half rinse (Containers 3 and 5). The condensate and condensate 

rinse (Container 4) is the third sample component. For methylene chloride, the extractions were 

performed as described in SW-846 Draft Method 5060, "Preparation of MM5 Train Components 

for Analysis by SW-846 Method 8270." The acetone and toluene extractions were performed 

similarly with only the filters and XAD-2 being extracted. Surrogates were added only to the MM5 

train components.

After initial analyses were performed using conventional GC/MS, and significant unidentified 

peaks were found, an alternative analytical approach was taken. The methylene chloride extracts 

from Run 10 were sent to the University of Dayton Research Institute (UDRI), where the 

technique of multi-dimensional GC/MS (MDGC/MS) was used to further characterize the samples.

The MDGC/MS system used18,19 is shown in Figure 2-5. The uniqueness of the MDGC 

technique lies in the ability to further resolve coeluting peaks from the primary column on a 

secondary column. This system uses a "Deans switching mechanism" for obtaining narrow 

fractions (heartcuts) from a primary chromatogram. It uses a low-temperature cryogenically cooled 

trap at -80 °C and uses two 30 m X 0.25 mm open tube columns (OTCs) with a 0.25 μm film 

thickness. The primary column contained a non-polar 5% phenylmethylsiloxane stationary phase, 

while the secondary column used a moderately polar 1701 cyanosiloxane stationary phase. Using 

the second column with a stationary phase of differing polarity enables better separation of 

compounds that were not cleanly separated in the first column. The effluent from the secondary 

OTC was passed directly into an HP 5970B mass selective detector. Both OTCs were mounted 

inside an HP 5890 GC system.

2-11
2.5.4 - PCDDs/PCDFs

PCDDs/PCDFs were quantified from the Method 23 sampling train. This procedure is described in 

CARB Method 428. The PCDD/PCDF analyses were performed as described in Method 23 with 

only one exception: the analyses were performed by low resolution mass spectrometry (LRMS) as 

opposed to high resolution mass spectrometry (HRMS). The use of LRMS can generally quantify 

only different PCDD/PCDF congener groups, rather than individual isomers within the congener 

groups.

Figure 2-5. MDGC-MS Setup (Copyright © 1996; reproduced with permission of UDRI).

2-12
3.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

3.1 - Results from Continuous Measurements

Results from temperature measurements made during the incineration tests are shown in Table 3-1. 

Note that the thermocouple at the kiln exit broke and was not operational for some of the tests. 

Also note that we had only mixed success in maintaining constant temperatures in the transition 

duct. This inability to hold the duct temperatures constant from run to run impacted our ability to 

develop surrogate performance indicators for PCDDs/PCDFs that are explicitly based on only 

combustion parameters. The temperatures labeled Duct 1, 2, 3, and 4 represent thermocouples 

placed at axial positions in the duct leaving the SCC. The Duct 1 thermocouple is just downstream 

of the water jacket, and the Duct 4 thermocouple is near where the extractive sampling was 

performed.

Table 3-2 lists the results from the conventional gas CEMs. The columns labeled CO Low and CO 

High represent the high- and low-range CO analyzers. For runs where CO values were within the 

normal operating range of the CO Low CEM, the data for the high-range CO analyzer were labeled 

n/a. The high concentration of acid gases damaged both THC CEMs, eventually resulting in the 

failure of both instruments (note the n/a's near the end of the test matrix). The HCl CEM was not 

available for the test days during August 1995. Note that the Duct CO2 concentrations are 

approximately 50% of the CO2 concentrations at the SCC Exit. This is due to dilution air's being 

added in the transition duct leading to the FGCS. Extractive samples were sampled downstream of 

the addition of dilution air.

Table 3-1. Temperature Results (°C)

Run Kiln SCC Mix SCC Exit Duct 1 Duct 2 Duct 3 Duct 4

1 886 890 1006 674 534 327 301

2 865 851 1054 701 552 334 305

3 698 796 1049 712 568 348 320

4 618 778 1007 681 543 333 307

5 470 592 863 548 433 259 236

6 554 632 932 589 462 277 251

7 532 517 497 339 280 218 193

8 495 492 459 313 264 210 186

9 n/a 485 624 387 302 228 193

10 n/a 457 578 352 272 211 181

11 n/a 697 845 488 369 280 243

12 n/a 695 899 548 406 297 258

13 911 567 856 524 370 279 240

14 939 612 867 520 362 263 230

15 925 574 836 554 397 312 272

16 945 562 848 559 403 312 273

3-1
3-2

Table 3-2. CEM Emissions Results

Kiln Exit SCC Exit Duct

Run O2 CO2 CO Low CO High NO THC O2 CO2 CO Low CO High NO THC CO2 HCl H2O

(%) (%) (ppm) (%) (ppm) (ppm) (%) (%) (ppm) (%) (ppm) (ppm) (%) (ppm) (%)

1 4.53 12.18 33 n/aa 190 0 4.25 11.84 41 n/a 148 0 6.69 0 6.59

2 3.79 12.8 27 n/a 217 0 3.51 13.07 46 n/a 150 0 6.98 2 4.933 7.73 10.19 25 n/a 540 0 7.09 10.63 30 n/a 454 1 3.13 1259 3.964 7.75 10.29 28 n/a 432 1 5.86 11.57 27 n/a 367 0 2.39 1034 2.555 9.96 8.3 107 n/a 439 13 8.54 8.91 42 n/a 371 0 5.44 2295 5.56 10.53 8.06 41 n/a 364 4 8.89 8.82 11 n/a 478 0 5.76 2577 6.017 7.68 10.2 35 n/a 439 3 13.4 5.53 40 n/a 265 10 6.24 2783 3.218 9.73 8.6 25 n/a 310 2 14.24 4.84 19 n/a 245 0 5.96 3289 3.789 13.77 5.58 37 n/a 162 7 13.15 5.51 306 0.05 229 8 6.34 2436 4.4910 15.02 4.73 448 0.05 189 3 12.86 5.92 1310 0.14 290 0 5.44 2896 5.8111 3.73 12.43 1917 0.65 116 33 1.33 14.26 968 0.22 186 59 11.53 5163 11.6312 3.83 11.98 1891 0.92 108 0 1.47 13.89 1473 0.3 131 0 9.4 4084 9.9513 2.76 13.2 1770 0.68 231 0 2.64 11.77 1011 0.25 183 0 0 n/a n/a14 0.93 14.69 1912 0.82 242 0 1.24 13.67 607 0.11 208 0 0 n/a n/a15 4.08 12.34 583 0.35 270 n/a 5.04 16.07 319 0.13 251 n/a 0 n/a n/a16 2.45 12.56 524 0.28 215 n/a 4.67 10.58 231 0.15 227 n/a 0 n/a n/a

a - Not available
3.2 - Volatile Organic Results

3.2.1 - On-Line GC Results

OLGC sampling results are shown in Table 3-3. There are several interesting observations made 

from these measurements. First, all of the samples taken while no waste was being fed into the 

RKIS still showed measurable levels of many of the OLGC target analytes. This is likely due to 

residual contamination of the RKIS itself with some of the chlorinated PICs of interest. 

Another observation is that the measurements made at the SCC choke are generally higher than the 

measurements at the SCC exit, particularly with respect to the chlorinated target analytes. The 

exception is on Runs 7 and 8, where the SCC's afterburner was off. It is likely that some ring 

growth was occurring as the gases from the kiln passed through the SCC when no flame was 

present in the SCC. This observation is illustrated in Figure 3-1, showing the concentration of 

tetrachloroethylene. Measured values of tetrachloroethene at the choke are consistently higher than 

at the SCC exit. Figure 3-2 shows this observation for 1,2-dichlorobenzene, a potentially 

important precursor to PCDDs/PCDFs. Note how the concentration of 1,2-dichlorobenzene is 

higher at the SCC exit for those runs where the afterburner was off. This shows the potential for 

significant ring growth to occur in the moderate temperature region of incinerators after the 

combustion sections, but prior to any heat recovery or rapid quenching.

4677834678

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

tetrachloroethylene (

μg/m3)

Run

Choke SCC Exit

Figure 3-1. OLGC results of tetrachloroethylene concentrations at choke and SCC exit.

3-3
3-4

Table 3-3. On-line Gas Chromatograph Results for Volatile Organic PICs (μg/m3)

unR

hloromethanec

vinyl chloride

e 1,1 dichloroethen e methylene chlorid

e t-1,2 dichloroethylen m chlorofor e 1,1,1 trichloroethan

carbon tetrachloride

enzeneb

e 1,2 dichloroethane trichloroethylen e toluen

etrachloroethylenet

e chlorobenzen

thyl benzenee

m,p xylenes

styrene

e 1,3 dichlorobenzene 1,2 dichlorobenzen

3Ba 32.0 NDb ND ND 6.0 ND ND ND ND ND ND 3.0 2.0 ND ND ND 1.6 ND ND

3 24.8 ND ND ND 9.0 ND ND ND ND ND ND 4.4 2.0 ND ND 2.0 2.9 2.7 1.14 3.8 23.4 ND ND ND 2.0 0.9 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 2.1 ND ND4Cc 23.6 ND 9.6 ND ND 37.5 ND 38.3 4.3 ND 15.9 4.3 79.3 1.7 ND ND 7.3 30.2 75.96B ND ND 6.8 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND6 ND ND 13.0 ND ND ND 16.1 ND ND ND ND 11.1 ND ND ND 3.5 ND ND ND6C ND 44.9 17.4 ND ND ND ND 25.6 5.0 ND 11.6 ND 21.2 14.3 ND ND ND 25.9 150.97B ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 1.17 ND 1.7 ND ND ND ND ND ND7 ND ND ND ND ND 26.6 5.8 8.5 ND ND 1.9 ND 1.7 5.6 ND ND ND 6.2 6.87C ND ND ND ND ND 22.9 10.6 27.7 ND ND 3.4 ND 8.3 ND ND ND ND ND ND7C ND ND ND ND ND 21.9 2.3 17.7 3.5 ND 0.7 ND 2.9 ND ND ND ND 8.6 ND8B ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND8BC ND ND ND ND ND ND 11.0 9.0 ND ND 3.1 ND 11.0 ND ND 3.4 ND ND 15.38 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 3.7 ND ND 6.8 ND 11.8 ND 3.2 ND ND 49.18C ND ND ND ND ND ND 8.0 66.8 ND ND 3.8 ND 4.1 ND ND ND ND ND 16.2

a - sample taken as combustion blank prior to initiation of waste feed.b - not detected.c - sample taken at SCC choke.
4677834678

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

1,2 dichlorobenzene (

μg/m3)

Run

Choke SCC Exit

Figure 3-2. OLGC results of 1,2 dichlorobenzene concentrations at choke and SCC exit.

3.2.2 - VOST and Tedlar Bag Results

Analyses of the Tedlar bag samples for C1 and C2 non-halogenated alkanes, alkenes, and alkynes 

resulted in none of those compounds being detected. Estimated minimum detection limits are on 

the order of 1 - 2 ppm, and apparently none of these compounds were present at these levels. This 

is consistent, however, with our measured THC concentrations on the order of 1-2 ppm.

The VOST and Tedlar bag analytical results indicate that a significant number of VOC PICs have 

been identified both as target analytes and as tentatively identified compounds (TICs). Table 3-4 

shows the Tedlar bag results for the target analytes, and Table 3-5 shows the Tedlar bag TIC 

results. VOST results are shown in Table 3-6. The VOST target analyte results are displayed 

qualitatively in Table 3-7, showing which of the VOST target analytes were detected. Table 3-8 

qualitatively lists the VOST TICs. Although differences exist in quantitation levels between VOST 

and the Tedlar bags, it must be remembered that VOST samples are taken over longer periods of 

time. Of the 44 target analytes, 38 were detected. It should be noted that several of these 

compounds are POHCs. Over 50 nontarget analytes were tentatively identified as PICs. 

However, a large number of PICs present in the VOST samples were not identified. To aid in 

perspective, at least 82 compounds were detected in a single sample. Of those, 28 were identified 

as target analytes, 21 were tentatively identified, and 33 remained unidentified.

3-5
Table 3-4. Tedlar Bag Results: Target Compounds (μg/m3)

Run 5 6 9 1 4

chloromethane 18742 2827 1 55

vinyl chloride ND ND ND ND

bromomethane 8304 667 ND 29

chloroethane ND 18 ND ND

1,1-dichloroethene ND ND ND ND

iodomethane ND ND ND ND

carbon disulfide ND ND 6 33

acetone ND 1703 137 288

methylene chloride ND 116 ND 28

1,2-dichloroethene ND ND ND ND

1,1-dichloroethane ND ND ND ND

chloroform ND 50 ND ND

1,2-dichloroethane ND ND ND ND

2-butanone 569 232 46 28

1,1,1-trichloroethane ND ND ND ND

carbon tetrachloride 75 65 ND ND

benzene 232 64 5 11

trichloroethene 19 ND ND ND

1,2-dichloropropane ND ND ND ND

dibromomethane ND 5 ND ND

bromo dichloromethane 15 16 ND ND

cis-1,3-dichloropropene ND ND ND ND

2-hexanone ND ND ND ND

trans-1,3-dichloropropene ND ND ND ND

1,1,2-trichloroethane ND ND ND ND

dibromochloro-methane ND 17 ND ND

1,2-dibromoethane ND 7 ND ND

bromoform 15 22 ND ND

4-methyl-2-pentanone ND ND ND ND

toluene 27 16 ND 21

tetrachloroethene ND ND ND 20

chlorobenzene ND 20 ND ND

ethylbenzene 9 3 ND ND

1,1,1,2-tetrachloroethane ND ND ND ND

m,p-xylene 30 8 ND ND

o-xylene 12 4 ND ND

styrene 14 4 10 ND

1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane ND ND ND ND

1,2,3-trichloropropane ND ND ND ND

trans-1,4-dichloro-2-butene ND ND ND ND

pentachloroethane ND ND ND ND

1,2-dibromo-3-chloropropane ND ND ND ND

3-6
Table 3-5. Tedlar Bag Results: Tentatively Identified Compounds (μg/m3)

Run 5 6 9 1 4

1,1-dimethoxy ethane ND 489 ND ND

1,2-dichlorobenzene ND 71 ND ND

1-pentene 3-methyl 2-ethyl ND ND 19 357

1-phenyl ethanone 443 296 ND ND

2-methyl 1-propene ND ND 9 175

2-nitrophenol 81 ND ND ND

3-methylene pentane ND ND ND 130

3-methyl heptane ND ND 6 80

3-methyl pentane ND ND 20 2490

3-methylene nonane ND ND 7 ND

acetaldehyde ND ND ND 164

benzaldehyde 481 218 ND ND

benzoic acid methyl ester 325 68 ND ND

benzonitrile 122 194 ND ND

cyclohexane ND ND ND 339

dodecane ND ND 17 ND

hexane 2402 ND 661 3904

methyl cyclopentane 4850 ND ND 4896

nitromethane 1223 ND ND ND

tetrahydrofuran 7836 ND 96 ND

tridecane ND 61 ND ND

trimethyl hexane ND ND 77 ND

undecane 103 ND 32 ND

3-7
3-8

Table 3-6. VOST Results (μg/m3)

Run

5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

dichlorodifluoromethane 819.6 418.5 50.2 257.9 2.3 0.1 0.6 14.7 2.3 11.4 169.0 1.9chloromethane 1066 2.0 0.8 4.8 12.6 2.7 5.6 142.8 16.2 3.5 41.5 19.1vinyl chloride 1.7 0.1 0.7 0.9 11.3 42.3 1.8 94.8 4.5 3.6 44.0 20.0bromomethane 197.4 6.2 4.1 9.9 27.6 1.7 12.5 74.3 2.3 2.4 12.0 11.0chloroethane 7.5 0.4 0.1 1.7 0.8 0.1 1.1 2.3 0.1 0.4 1.7 0.9trichlorofluoromethane 5.9 12.3 0.6 0.7 0.3 ND 0.03 0.2 ND ND 0.1 0.11,1-dichloroethene 6.6 ND 0.9 2.0 46.3 15.4 1.9 56.1 0.7 0.6 5.6 4.8iodomethane 0.3 0.3 ND ND ND ND 0.1 0.2 0.1 ND ND 0.6carbon disulfide 17.4 2.5 1.3 4.7 1.7 0.3 4.6 3.6 1.2 1.5 81.7 31.6acetone 15.8 8.4 7.1 6.0 2.4 0.3 3.2 37.3 1.6 2.4 4.6 3.5methylene chloride 26.9 42.7 10.3 15.8 3.3 2.3 3.8 59.5 10.5 13.5 73.6 39.01,2-dichloroethene 1.0 ND 0.2 0.4 15.9 1.9 3.6 44.3 1.1 4.6 26.6 23.51,1-dichloroethane ND 0.1 ND 0.1 ND ND 0.03 0.1 ND ND 0.1 0.1chloroform 15.9 26.7 5.5 7.7 9.9 6.3 11.7 19.5 2.1 4.8 19.9 30.81,2-dichloroethane 0.7 0.4 ND 0.2 0.2 1.0 1.1 11.0 1.4 1.0 5.5 8.42-butanone 2.6 2.4 0.6 0.6 ND 1.0 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 ND 1.31,1,1-trichloroethane 0.3 0.5 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 ND ND ND 0.1carbon tetrachloride 6.7 22.7 5.0 29.6 152.4 297.9 8.5 13.9 1.4 1.9 24.5 28.8benzene 1.9 1.1 1.2 2.1 1.4 268.9 26.0 7.0 36.6 226.7 218.6 221.2trichloroethene 1.7 0.3 0.7 2.0 40.1 96.2 13.8 54.2 24.4 32.3 52.4 54.81,2-dichloropropane ND 0.1 ND 0.1 ND ND 0.03 0.1 1.7 1.9 0.1 0.2dibromomethane 1.4 0.8 4.0 12.2 3.8 201.1 7.4 11.5 1.7 0.8 8.3 9.2bromodichloromethane 2.4 2.6 5.3 9.5 35.1 165.2 12.6 13.0 2.2 4.4 19.7 27.5cis-1,3-dichloropropene ND 0.1 ND ND 0.1 ND 0.2 0.2 ND ND 0.7 0.92-hexanone ND 0.2 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.4 ND NDtrans-1,3-dichloropropene ND 0.2 ND ND 0.4 ND 0.3 0.3 ND ND 0.6 0.81,1,2-trichloroethane 0.1 ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.7 0.1 ND ND NDdibromochloromethane 3.1 3.3 6.4 14.2 43.4 223.2 11.2 5.1 0.4 2.1 15.0 26.41,2-dibromoethane 1.6 8.0 0.3 1.9 1.9 109.7 1.9 7.6 1.2 0.5 62.8 39.6bromoform 16.7 19.4 37.8 44.1 73.0 817.4 40.7 18.0 0.2 0.4 31.7 43.9

(continued)
3-9

Table 3-6 (cont). VOST Results (μg/m3)

Run

5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

4-methyl-2-pentanone ND 0.9 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND NDtoluene 15.6 32.6 2.0 2.2 1.4 2.6 0.8 24.1 2.8 1.5 23.1 25.1tetrachloroethene 5.4 1.5 1.0 5.8 97.0 750.5 20.7 90.2 25.1 31.7 52.5 59.4chlorobenzene 3.5 36.3 2.1 3.9 46.3 8530 4.3 15.3 5.8 4.7 75.6 72.0ethylbenzene 1.6 7.2 0.2 0.1 0.4 ND 0.2 0.2 1.3 ND 0.9 1.31,1,1,2-tetrachloroethane ND 0.1 ND ND 0.1 ND ND ND ND ND ND NDm,p-xylene 5.4 23.2 0.6 0.4 1.5 3.0 0.8 0.6 5.8 0.6 1.3 2.0o-xylene 1.6 9.7 0.2 0.1 ND 1.2 0.3 ND 0.9 ND 0.6 0.9styrene 0.2 ND 0.03 0.2 ND ND 0.1 ND 1.8 1.4 12.0 23.31,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane ND 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.3 ND 0.2 0.03 ND ND 0.1 ND1,2,3-trichloropropane ND 0.3 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND NDtrans-1,4-dichloro-2-butene ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.2 ND 4.8 13.6pentachloroethane ND 0.1 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND1,2-dibromo-3-chloropropane 0.1 0.4 ND 0.4 0.8 237.1 ND 1.3 ND ND ND ND
Table 3-7. Target Volatile Organic Compounds Detected

Dichlorodifluoromethane 1,2-Dichloropropane

Chloromethane Dibromomethane

Vinyl chloride Bromodichloromethane

Bromomethane cis-1,3-Dichloropropene

Chloroethane trans-1,3-Dichloropropene

Trichlorotrifluoromethane Dibromochloromethane

1,1-Dichloroethene 1,2-Dibromoethane

Carbon disulfide Bromoform

Acetone 4-Methyl-2-pentanone

Methylene chloride Toluene

1,2-Dichloroethene Tetrachloroethane

1,1-Dichloroethane Chlorobenzene

Chloroform Ethylbenzene

1,2-Dichloroethane 1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane

2-Butanone Xylene (m, p)

1,1,1-Trichloroethane Xylene (o)

Carbon tetrachloride Styrene

Benzene trans-1,4-Dichloro-2-butene

Trichloroethene 1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane

3-10
Table 3-8. Tentatively Identified VOST Compounds

Bromotrichloromethane Propene

Chloroethyne Methyl propene

Bromoethyne Methyl butane

Bromochloroethyne Butadiyne

Dichloroethyne Butadiene

Bromoethene Pentene

Bromochloroethene Pentane

Dibromoethene Hexene

Bromodichloroethene Hexane

Dibromochloroethene Methylcyclohexane

Tribromoethene Heptane

Bromotrichloroethene Methylheptane

Tribromochloroethene Dimethylheptane

Dibromodichloroethene Octane

Tetrabromoethene Nonane

Bromochloroethane Decane

Bromopropyne Methyldecane

Bromochloropropyne Undecane

Bromodichloropropyne Methylfuran

Bromopropene Benzaldehyde

Pentachloropropene Methylpentenal

Dibromopropane Benzonitrile

Hexachlorobutadiene Chlorothiophene

Pentachlorobutadiene Tetrachlorothiophene

Chlorobutane Dibromothiophene

Bromoheptane

Chlorooctane

Benzylchloride

Bromobenzene

Bromomethylbenzene

Bromdimethylbenzene

Bromochlorobenzene

Dibromobenzene

Bromodichlorobenzene

3-11
An interesting comparison was made of the C1 and C2 halogenated alkanes, alkenes, and alkynes. 

A table was made of the possible chloro, bromo, and mixed bromochloro organics with one and 

two carbons (Table 3-9). With only a few exceptions, each compound was detected in at least one 

sample. These C1 and C2 compounds are of particular interest: they are considered to be 

precursors in aromatic ring propagation reactions leading to higher molecular weight PICs20. 

Table 3-9. Combinations of Detected C1 and C2 Compounds

Target Analyte Compound Detected

C1 Hydrocarbons

chloromethane Yes •a

bromomethane Yes •

dichloromethane Yes •

dibromomethane Yes •

bromochloromethane Yes •

trichloromethane Yes •

tribromomethane Yes •

bromodichloromethane Yes •

dibromochloromethane Yes •

tetrachloromethane Yes •

tetrabromomethane No •

bromotrichloromethane No •

dibromodichloromethane No

tribromochloromethane No

C2 Alkynes

chloroethyne No •

bromoethyne No •

dichloroethyne No •

dibromoethyne No

bromochloroethyne No •

C2 Alkenes

chloroethene Yes •

bromoethene No •

dichloroethene (total) Yes •

dibromoethene No •

bromochloroethene No •

trichloroethene Yes •

tribromoethene No •

bromodichloroethene No •

dibromochloroethene No •

tetrachloroethene Yes •

tetrabromoethene No •

bromotrichloroethene No •

dibromodichloroethene No •

tribromochloroethene No •

(continued)

3-12
Table 3-9 (cont). Combinations of Detected C1 and C2 Compounds

Target Analyte Compound Detected

C2 Alkanes

chloroethane Yes •

bromoethane No

dichloroethane Yes •

dibromoethane Yes •

bromochloroethane No •

trichloroethane Yes •

tribromoethane No

bromodichloroethane No

dibromochloroethane No

tetrachloroethane Yes •

tetrabromoethane No

bromotrichloroethane No

dibromodichloroethane No

tribromochloroethane No

a - Detected, but not quantified.

The results of analysis (from both VOST and Tedlar bags) for halogenated C1 and C2 VOCs are 

listed in Table 3-10. The list contains possible chloro, bromo, and bromochloro organics with one 

or two carbons. Note that dichloromethane (CH2Cl2) was found as a contaminant in some of the 

blanks, possibly as a laboratory contaminant. Also, it is not known why the chloromethane 

concentration was so high on one of the VOST tubes for Run 5. The Tedlar bag measurements of 

chloromethane were also very high for that run. An interesting observation is that, with few 

exceptions, almost all of these possible compounds were detected in at least one of the runs. If the 

data are further analyzed, by simply averaging the concentrations of all identified compounds for 

all of the reported runs, Figure 3-3 can be constructed. Figure 3-3 shows the concentrations of 

some of the halogenated C1 and C2 compounds grouped together, with the chlorinated and 

brominated analogs compared side by side. Note that the concentrations of the brominated and 

chlorinated analogs are similar in most cases, even though Br was present in the feed at a mass 

fraction of only about 10 % of the level of the Cl. This observation indicates that the presence of 

relatively small amounts of Br can potentially produce quantities of brominated PICs at levels 

comparable to those of the chlorinated PICs. Table 3-10 also shows that significant quantities of 

mixed bromochloro PICs were also measured. These low-carbon halogenated PICs are 

participants in aromatic ring growth reactions leading to the larger organic PIC molecules, such as 

the chlorinated benzenes and phenols, and possibly PCDDs/PCDFs.

Table 3-11 lists the concentrations of the aromatic VOCs found in the tests. Although the aromatic 

compounds are not identified as commonly throughout all the runs as the smaller molecules were, a 

similar pattern is found. The data from Run 10, which had the increased Br feed concentration, 

show the highest concentration and highest number of identified aromatic brominated and 

bromochloro PICs. The concentrations of brominated compounds are generally on the same order 

of magnitude as their chlorinated analogs.

3-13
Table 3-10. C1 & C2 Halogenated Hydrocarbons (μg/m3)

Compound Run 5 Run 6 Run 9 Run 10 Run 13 Run 14

chloromethane 1066 2.6 12.7 2.8 16.3 3.5

bromomethane 197 7.7 27.6 1.8 2.3 2.4

dichloromethane 26.9 69.3 3.3 2.3 10.5 13.6

dibromomethane 1.35 1.3 3.8 208 1.7 0.8

bromochloromethane 0 0 0 0 0 0

trichloromethane 16.0 24 9.9 6.6 2.1 4.8

tribromomethane 16.7 30.7 73 846 0.17 0.4

bromodichloromethane 2.4 2.2 35.1 171 2.2 4.4

dibromochloromethane 3.1 6.0 43.4 231 0.4 2.1

tetrachloromethane 6.7 19.2 152 308 1.4 1.9

tetrabromomethane 0 0 0 0 0 0

bromotrichloromethane 0 0 12.2 42.1 0 0

dibromodichloromethane 0 0 0 0 0 0

tribromochloromethane 0 0 0 0 0 0

chloroethyne 0 0 0 0 21.1 10.6

bromoethyne 0 0 0 0.8 13.4 9.1

dichloroethyne 0 0 0 0 0 0

dibromoethyne 0 0 0 0 0 0

bromochloroethyne 0 0 0 0 6.5 2.3

chloroethene 1.7 0.2 11.25 43.8 4.5 3.6

bromoethene 0 0 0 2.6 0 0

dichloroethene (total) 7.5 0.15 62.2 17.9 1.8 5.2

dibromoethene 0 2.1 0 0.8 0 6.7

bromochloroethene 0 0 2.3 46.7 1.5 0

trichloroethene 1.7 0.5 40.1 99.6 24.4 32.5

tribromoethene 0 0 0 3.1 8.5 9.1

bromodichloroethene 0 0 0 0 0 38.6

dibromochloroethene 0 0 0 0 14.8 25.9

tetrachloroethene 5.5 1.9 0 0 0 31.9

tetrabromoethene 0 0 0 0 0 0

bromotrichloroethene 0 0 2.4 0 0 0

dibromodichloroethene 0 0 0 5.2 32.4 28.9

tribromochloroethene 0 0 0 0 0 9.5

chloroethane 7.5 0.5 0.8 0.1 0.1 0.4

bromoethane 0 0 0 0 0 0

dichloroethane 0.8 0.5 0.2 1 1.4 1

dibromoethane 1.6 6.3 1.9 114 1.8 0.5

bromochloroethane 0 2.3 7.5 187 2.8 0

(continued)

3-14
Table 3-10 (cont). C1 & C2 Halogenated Hydrocarbons (μg/m3)

Compound Run 5 Run 6 Run 9 Run 10 Run 13 Run 14

trichloroethane 0.5 0.6 0.1 0.2 ND ND

tribromoethane NDa ND ND ND ND ND

bromodichloroethane ND ND ND ND ND ND

dibromochloroethene ND ND ND ND ND ND

tetrachloroethane ND 0.2 97.1 ND 11.2 ND

tetrabromoethane ND ND ND ND ND ND

bromotrichloroethane ND ND ND ND ND ND

dibromodichloroethane ND ND ND ND ND ND

tribromochloroethane ND ND ND ND ND ND

a - none detected

chloromethane

bromomethane

dichloromethane

dibromomethane

trichloromethane

tribromomethane

chloroethyne bromoethyne

chloroethene

bromoethene

dichloroethene (total)

dibromoethene

trichloroethene

tribromoethene

dibromodichloroethene

tribromochloroethene

chloroethane

bromoethane

dichloroethane

dibromoethane

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

Average Concentration (

μg/m3)

Figure 3-3. Average concentrations of analogous C1 and C2 halogenated compounds

3-15
Table 3-11. Halogenated Aromatic VOC Results (μg/m3)

|_______Baseline________||___Low SCC Temp___||_____SCC Fuel Rich_____|

Test Condition 5 5 6 6 9 9 10a 13 13 13 14

chlorobenzene 4.2 2.7 36.3 14.8 16.8 75.8 8828 3.7 0 13.7 4.7

bromobenzene 0 0 0 0 0 0 13.2 0 0 1.6 0

dichlorobenzene 0 0 3.8 8.1 0 36.7 37.4 3.5 0 2.8 0.9

bromochlorobenzene 0 0 0 0 0 3.9 38.1 0 0 0.6 0

dibromobenzene 0 0 0 0 0 0 4.0 0 0 0 0

trichlorobenzene 0 0 0 0 2.6 8.7 32.7 0 0 0 0

bromodichlorobenzene 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.7 0 0 0 0

dibromochlorobenzene 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

tribromobenzene 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

bromomethylbenzene 3.0 0 1.3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

bromodimethylbenzene 0 0 5.7 1.6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

a - on Run 10, too much ethylene dibromide was inadvertently added

3.3 - Semivolatile and Non-Volatile Organics

3.3.1 - Conventional GC/MS Analytical Results

The semivolatile organic analytical results of the methylene chloride extracts indicate that a 

significant number of PICs have been identified both as target analytes and as TICs. For the 

analytical data evaluated, PICs identified as target analytes and TICs are presented in Tables 3-12 

and 3-13, respectively. Many of the target analytes were detected. It should be noted once again 

that several of these compounds were in the original surrogate waste feed. Over 50 nontarget 

analytes were tentatively identified as PICs. Many of the PICs present in the MM5 samples were 

not identified. Also, the mix of PICs found on the filter sample fraction differed from that of the 

XAD-2 sample fraction. For a selected filter sample, at least 174 compounds were detected: 25 

were identified as target analytes, 11 were tentatively identified, and 138 remained unidentified. 

For a selected XAD-2 sample, at least 194 compounds were detected: 18 were identified as target 

analytes, 17 were tentatively identified, and 159 remained unidentified. Identification of non-target 

analytes was particularly complicated by coeluting compounds. Coeluting compounds result in 

combined mass spectra that cannot be compared easily to reference spectra.

Many of the TICs were oxygenated compounds, such as esters, aldehydes, diones, and carboxylic 

acids. There were also many brominated TICs. There were also a significant number of 

unidentifiable aliphatic hydrocarbons, silanes, and phthalates that were not reported in Table 3-13. 

Silanes are frequently found as chromatographic artifacts from degradation of GC columns. 

Phthalates are commonly found in combustor emissions, but it is not well-established whether they 

are actual PICs or artifacts resulting from sampling and analytical treatments. 

Analysis of the acetone and toluene sample extracts did not result in the identification of additional 

compounds. These analyses do verify the acceptable performance of methylene chloride as the 

single extraction solvent.

3-16
3-17

Table 3-12. Semivolatile Organic Target Results (μg/m3)

Run 1 2 3 4 5 6 9 10 11 13 14 15N-methyl-N-nitroso-ethanamine ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND NDBis(2-chloroethyl)ether ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND NDAniline ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND NDPhenol 0.3 0.8 ND 0.5 ND 0.5 ND ND 4.0 ND ND ND2-Chlorophenol ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND1,3-Dichlorobenzene ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.4 1.8 0.5 1.31,4-Dichlorobenzene ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.3 1.0 0.2 1.01,2-Dichlorobenzene ND ND ND 0.6 ND 21.9 ND 1.5 0.7 29.3 0.5 2.7Benzyl alcohol ND 0.5 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 1.6 ND NDBis(2-chloroisopropyl) ether ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND2-Methylphenol ND 0.2 ND ND ND 1.5 ND ND 0.3 0.3 ND NDAcetophenone ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 6.2 1.4 ND NDHexachloroethane ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND NDN-Nitrosodipropylamine ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND NDNitrobenzene ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.4 ND ND1-Nitrosopiperidine ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND NDIsophorone ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND2,4-Dimethylphenol ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND NDBis(2-chloroethoxy)methane ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND2,4-Dichlorophenol ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene ND ND ND 0.2 ND 0.2 ND ND 2.5 3.6 1.0 3.1Naphthalene ND 0.3 ND 1.6 ND 7.7 ND 1.0 110 21.9 3.5 1072-Nitrophenol ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.2 ND ND ND2,6-Dichlorophenol ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND NDHexachloropropene ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND4-Chloroaniline ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND NDHexachlorobutadiene ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.4N-Butyl-N-nitroso-butanamine ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND4-Chloro-3-methyl-phenol ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND2-Methylnaphthalene ND 0.2 ND 0.8 ND 1.3 ND ND 1.6 0.4 ND ND1,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene ND 0.2 ND 0.7 ND 0.2 ND ND 4.5 1.0 1.2 39.5Hexachlorocyclopentadiene ND ND ND 0.7 ND ND ND ND ND 0.2 ND 7.7

(continued)
3-18

Table 3-12. Semivolatile Organic Target Results (continued) (μg/m3)

Run 1 2 3 4 5 6 9 10 11 13 14 152,4,6-Trichlorophenol ND 0.3 ND ND ND 0.3 ND 0.4 13.1 2.8 1.2 30.92,4,5-Trichlorophenol ND 0.5 ND ND ND 0.5 ND 0.5 ND ND ND 30.52-Chloronaphthalene ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.7 4.2 0.9 ND 1992-Nitroaniline ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND3-Nitroaniline ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND NDAcenaphthylene ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 1.1 ND ND ND1,4-Naphthoquinone ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 4.4 ND ND ND NDDimethylphthalate ND 0.2 ND ND ND 7.4 ND 1.6 ND ND ND 34.62,6-Dinitrotoluene ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND NDAcenaphthene ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.7 ND ND ND4-Nitroaniline ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND2,4-Dinitrophenol ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND NDDibenzofuran ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 5.9 5.7 1.3 ND 74.6Pentachlorobenzene ND 1.2 ND 1.8 ND 1.2 ND 0.8 29.3 6.9 2.8 1282,4-Dinitrotoluene ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND2,3,4,6-Tetrachlorophenol ND 0.3 ND 0.2 ND 0.3 ND 1.8 30.9 5.4 2.5 36.94-Nitrophenol ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND NDFluorene ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 3.2 ND ND NDDiethyl phthalate 0.2 2.2 ND 1.9 0.8 3.1 0.5 0.3 4.1 0.8 1.2 ND4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND2-Methyl-4,6-dinitrophenol ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND NDDiphenylamine ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND NDPhenacetin ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND NDHexachlorobenzene ND ND ND 0.5 ND 2.6 ND 2.3 9.4 3.4 2.2 18.5Pentachlorophenol ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 1.4 31.3 5.5 1.4 13.8Pentachloronitrobenzene ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND NDPhenanthrene ND 0.2 ND ND ND ND ND 8.1 26.7 4.1 0.3 2.2Anthracene ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND NDDibutyl phthalate 35.4 41.9 58.8 91.3 49.9 69.4 153 42.3 50.0 12.9 13.5 3.0Fluoranthene ND 0.2 ND ND ND ND ND 0.8 6.8 0.7 ND NDPyrene ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.4 ND ND ND

(continued)
3-19

Table 3-12. Semivolatile Organic Target Results (continued) (μg/m3)

Run 1 2 3 4 5 6 9 10 11 13 14 15P-Dimethylaminoazobenzene ND ND ND 0.5 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND NDBenzyl butyl phthalate 0.2 0.3 ND 0.2 0.9 ND ND ND 0.3 0.8 ND NDChrysene ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND NDBenzo(a)anthracene ND 0.2 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND NDDi-N-octyl phthalate 1.4 1.4 3.6 38.9 0.8 278 0.3 ND 448 ND 146 6743Benzo(b)fluoranthene ND 0.2 ND 0.2 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND7,12-Dimethylbenz(a)anthracene ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND NDBenzo(k)fluoranthene ND 0.2 ND 0.2 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND NDBenzo(a)pyrene ND 0.2 ND 0.3 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND3-Methylcholanthrene ND 0.2 ND 0.2 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND NDIndeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene ND 0.3 ND 0.2 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND NDDibenz(a,h)anthracene ND 0.2 ND 0.3 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND NDBenzo(ghi)perylene ND 0.3 ND 0.3 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
3-20

Table 3-13. Semivolatile Organic Tentatively Identified Compounds (μg/m3)

Run 1 2 3 4 5 6 9 10 11 13 14 151,1'-Biphenyl ND 0.5 ND ND ND ND ND ND 3.2 ND ND 3.31,1'-Biphenyl, 2-phenoxy 0.3 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND1,1,2,2-Tetrabromoethylene ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 5.0 ND1,1,2-Tribromo-2-chloro-ethylene ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 6.0 ND1,1,2-Trichloroethane ND 0.7 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND1,2,3,4-Tetrachlorobenzene ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 3.1 ND ND ND1,2-Dibromo-1,2-dichloroethylene ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 12.4 ND1,2-Dibromo-trans-cyclohexane ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 60.0 ND ND1,3-Isobenzofurandione ND ND 0.7 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND1,4-Dibromo-cyclohexane ND ND ND 2.4 ND 25.5 ND ND 23.7 ND 42.4 ND1,4-Dimethyl benzene ND ND ND ND ND 5.8 ND ND ND ND ND ND1,8-Naphthalic anhydride ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 29.9 ND ND ND ND1-Bromo-1,2,2-trichloroethylene ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 8.61-Bromo-2-methoxy-,cis-cyclohexane ND ND 1.6 0.9 ND ND ND ND ND ND 67.6 ND1-Bromo-2-methyl-benzene ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 6.71-Bromo-4-methyl-benzene ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 7.41-Bromo-naphthalene ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 7.61-Hexanol, 2-ethyl ND ND ND 3.3 ND 9.6 ND 12.2 ND ND ND ND1H,3H-Naphtho[1,8-cd]pyran-1-3-dione ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.5 ND ND ND1H-Isoindole-1,3(2H)-dione ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.5 ND ND ND2,2,3-Tribromobutane ND ND ND 5.9 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND2,4,5-Tribromotoluene ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 7.6 ND ND ND2,5-Cyclohexadiene-1,4-dione ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.4 ND ND ND ND ND2,5-Dibromothiophene ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.52,6-Dibromo-p-chlorophenol ND ND ND ND ND 7.1 ND ND ND ND ND 3.72-Butoxy-ethanol ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.4 ND ND ND2-Chloro-pyridine ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.4 ND ND ND2-Ethyl hexanoic acid ND ND ND ND ND 0.5 ND ND ND ND ND ND2-Ethyl-1-hexanol ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 11.6 ND ND ND4-Bromo-benzonitrile ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 3.1 ND ND ND6-Bromo-1,1,a,6-cycloprop[a]indene ND ND ND 1.5 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

(continued)
3-21

Table 3-13. Semivolatile Organic Tentatively Identified Compounds (continued) (μg/m3)

Run 1 2 3 4 5 6 9 10 11 13 14 159,10-Anthracenedione ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 10.4 ND ND ND ND9-Bromo-anthracene ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.5 ND ND ND9H-Fluoren-9-one ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND NDBenzaldehyde ND 2.5 ND 2.3 ND 8.3 ND ND ND ND ND NDBenzaldehyde, ethyl ND 0.5 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND NDBenzoic acid ND ND ND 5.9 ND 5.7 ND ND 11.2 ND ND NDBenzoic acid, methyl ester ND ND ND 0.9 ND 33.8 ND ND 4.6 ND ND 4.2Bromobenzene ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND NDButanoic acid, methyl ester ND ND ND 0.5 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND NDChlorobenzene ND ND ND ND ND 6.0 ND ND ND ND ND 9.1Cyclohexadecane ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.8 ND ND ND ND NDCyclopentanecarboxaldehyde ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.4 4.9 ND NDDecane ND ND ND 2.2 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND NDDichlorobromoethene ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 15.1 ND NDEthyl benzene ND 1.6 ND 6.1 ND 11.3 ND ND ND ND ND NDHexanedecanoic acid ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 37.3 ND NDHexanedecanoic acid, methyl ester ND ND ND ND 0.4 12.3 ND 22.0 9.9 18.3 ND 10.4Hexanedioic acid ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 9.7 ND NDHexanedioic acid, bis(2-ethylhexyl) ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 12.9 ND NDHexanedioic acid, dimethyl ester ND ND ND 0.8 0.5 ND ND ND ND ND ND NDHexanedioic acid, dioctyl ester ND 61.1 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND NDHexanedioic acid, mono(2-ethylhexyl) ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND NDHexanoic acid ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.4 ND ND NDMethyl benzene 147.5 577.3 5.4 840.5 20.5 1446.6 ND ND 202.2 ND ND NDNonane ND ND ND 106.4 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND NDOctadecanoic acid ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 21.4 ND NDOctadecanoic acid, methyl ester 0.7 ND ND 0.7 ND 31.1 ND ND 8.2 17.2 ND 4.8Styrene ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 12.7Tetrachloroethane ND 5.0 2.9 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND NDTetrachloroethene ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 4.6Triacetin ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 155.1 ND NDTribromoethene ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 11.1 ND NDTribromomethane ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND NDTrichlorobromobenzene ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
3.3.2 - Multi-Dimensional GC/MS Analytical Results

Figure 3-4 shows the results from the MDGC/MS analysis of the extract from Run 10. A 15 

second heartcut (showing a doublet, two closely spaced peaks) and a 10-second heartcut from a 

single peak (a singlet) were trapped at low temperature, and then both collected fractions were rechromatographed by the secondary OTC (the more polar phase column). Both heartcuts were 

chosen by the difficulty of compound identification through MS spectral library searches. The 

lower section of Figure 3-4 shows the chromatograms and MS identifications for these two 

heartcuts. It is readily apparent that many more compounds were present in both of the heartcuts 

than would appear from examination of the primary chromatogram. More importantly, good 

separation was obtained by using the second chromatography step, resulting in reliable MS 

identifications. This technique verifies that complex samples, such as incinerator emissions, 

cannot be fully characterized using conventional techniques due to the problem of compound 

coelution. Table 3-14 shows a list of compounds identified from the two heartcut fractions. The 

potential benefits of using this technique for detailed examination of each peak of the primary 

chromatogram are obvious. 

Figure 3-4. MDGC/MS Analysis of Methylene Chloride Extract from Run 10. The upper trace is 

for the single-column, "one-dimensional" analysis. "Two dimensional" resolution of a singlet and 

a doublet are shown. (Copyright © 1996; reproduced with permission of UDRI).

3-22
Table 3-14. Compounds identified via MDGC/MS

fluorobiphenyl bromothiophene

bromonaphthalene dibenzofuran

dichlorinated PAH benzopyran-2-one

benzoquinoline tribromophenol

nitrated PAH fluoren-9-one

pentachlorobenzene bromophenoxy benzene

tribromobenzene-diol naphthalene dicarboxylic acid

3.4 - PCDDs/PCDFs and PBDDs/PBDFs

Table 3-15 lists the PCDDs/PCDFs and PBDDs/PBDFs found in the tests. Some congeners were 

found in all tests. These values reflect data taken at duct temperatures ranging from approximately 

200 to 350 °C, and reflect short residence time in-flight formation of PCDDs/PCDFs and 

PBDDs/PBDFs and emissions of those compounds as PICs rather than formation at longer 

residence times, such as those found in particulate control devices. In general, the low temperature 

and high Br process conditions tended to yield higher levels of PICs than the baseline and even the 

fuel-rich conditions. Of particular interest is the observation of the very high levels of 

PCDDs/PCDFs that were found during Run 10, when the Br was at the high feed concentration. 

Tripling the concentration of Br in the feed resulted in an order of magnitude increase in 

PCDD/PCDF emissions, plus measured quantities of PBDDs/PBDFs were much higher. It may 

be that the presence of Br inhibits reactions that reduce the production of PCDDs/PCDFs. It may 

also be that Br may enhance some of the reactions that produce PCDDs/PCDFs. Further work is 

planned to investigate this phenomenon. It is also of interest that variations between the different 

run conditions produced a wide variation in concentrations of PCDDs/PCDFs. These data are 

undergoing further analyses to evaluate differences between run conditions. In spite of efforts to 

maintain a constant duct temperature, variations did occur, and this may be sufficient to account for 

some of the variations. HCl concentrations in the sampling duct were on the order of 5000 ppmv, 

which could provide more than sufficient gas-phase Cl to achieve these levels of PCDD/PCDF 

emissions. This is not typical of normal incinerator operation, since typically the HCl is removed 

prior to passing the flue gases through the optimal PCDD/PCDF formation temperature window.

3-23
Table 3-15. Polychlorinated and Polybrominated Dioxins and Furans

|____Baseline____| |_Low SCC Temp_| |__SCC Fuel Rich___|

Run Run Run Run Run Run

5 6 9 10a 13 14

(ng/m3) (ng/m3) (ng/m3) (ng/m3) (ng/m3) (ng/m3)

Monochlorodibenzofuran 0 0 693.79 10944.93 67.38 1.22

Monochlorodibenzodioxin 0 0 16.89 1770.38 0 1.57

Dichlorodibenzofuran 0 0 1145.83 16640.27 52.04 0

Dichlorodibenzodioxin 0 0 35.53 3671.38 0 0

Trichlorodibenzofuran 28.87 0 957.67 8940.27 48.35 0

Trichlorodibenzodioxin 0 0 53.01 4677.70 0 0

Tetrachlorodibenzofuran 28.30 0 421.75 1332.95 39.22 0

Tetrachlorodibenzodioxin 0 0 43.11 29.78 0 0

Pentachlorodibenzofuran 54.34 8.33 358.83 659.23 57.28 0

Pentachlorodibenzodioxin 0 0 43.69 373.04 0 0

Hexachlorodibenzofuran 39.81 0 310.49 470.22 177.09 0

Hexachlorodibenzodioxin 0 0 78.64 386.36 5.63 0

Heptachlorodibenzofuran 47.55 7.04 230.10 206.49 126.99 10.43

Heptachlorodibenzodioxin 7.74 0 73.98 289.18 29.13 0

Octachlorodibenzofuran 16.42 0 535.92 306.49 27.96 14.43

Octachlorodibenzodioxin 56.04 0 553.98 96.51 79.81 8.00

Totals 279 15 5553 50795 711 36

Bromotrichlorodibenzodioxin 0 0 0 90.52 0 0

Bromotrichlorodibenzofuran 0 0 0 0 •b 0

Dibromodichlorodibenzodioxin 0 0 0 32.45 0 0

Tetrabromodibenzodioxin 0 0 0 0 0 0

Pentabromodibenzodioxin 0 0 0 0 0 0

Bromotrichlorodibenzofuran 0 0 9.71 295.51 0 0

Tetrabromodibenzofuran 0 0 0 8.49 0 0

Pentabromodibenzofuran 0 0 0 0 0 0

a - On Run 10, too much ethylene dibromide was inadvertently added

b - Detected, but not quantified

3-24
3.5 - Surrogate Performance Indicators

A surrogate performance indicator is an easily measured compound or group of compounds whose 

variance can account for the variance in the measurements of a more difficult-to-measure 

compound, such as PCDDs/PCDFs. In light of that, the data from the VOST analyses were 

compared to the emissions of total PCDD and total PCDF, both singly and in combination using 

the STEPWISE regression in the SAS JMP software package. STEPWISE first looked at all 

compounds measured by VOST and determined whether variance in those compounds could 

account for any of the variance in PCDDs/PCDFs. Then individual analytes were compared (using 

the statistical correlation coefficient, R2) to see if an R2>0.5 was possible by correlating the 

concentration of that pollutant vs LOG(PCDD) and LOG(PCDF). 

Figure 3-5 shows trichloroethylene vs. total PCDD, Figure 3-6 shows trichloroethylene vs total 

PCDF, and Figure 3-7 shows trichloroethylene vs. total PCDD+PCDF. Trichloroethylene was 

chosen because it showed the highest correlation coefficient (R2) for any single compound. These 

are remarkably good correlations considering that these data points span a wide range of 

combustion conditions and temperatures, particularly in the transition duct where the maximum 

formation temperature window for PCDDs/PCDFs can be found. The fact that one of the 

chlorinated ethenes was found to be the best indicator is also promising. Chlorinated ethenes have 

been implicated as some of the primary precursors to ring growth reactions resulting in the 

formation of chlorinated benzenes and chlorinated phenols, the suspected precursors to 

PCDDs/PCDFs.21 

1

10

100

1000

10000

100000

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Total PCDD (ng/m3)

Trichloroethylene (μg/m3)

Figure 3-5. Trichloroethylene vs. Total PCDDs; R2=0.6476 [based on LOG(PCDD)].

3-25
1

10

100

1000

10000

100000

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Total PCDF (ng/m3)

Trichloroethylene (μg/m3)

Figure 3-6. Trichloroethylene vs. Total PCDFs; R2=0.6956 [based on LOG(PCDF)].

1

10

100

1000

10000

100000

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Total PCDD + PCDF (ng/m3)

Trichloroethylene (μg/m3)

Figure 3-7. Trichloroethylene vs. Total PCDDs+PCDFs; R2=0.6915 [based on LOG(TOTAL)].

3-26
It must be reiterated that these are preliminary findings, based on pilot-scale tests performed on a 

single waste stream. However, if it is borne out by further investigation that trichloroethylene is an 

appropriate surrogate for PCDDs/PCDFs, there is good potential that this information could be 

used for compliance assurance or system optimization, since trichloroethylene is one of the 

OLGC's target analytes, and could be easily measured in the stack of an incinerator.

Potential surrogate indicators were further investigated by evaluating linear combinations of 

multiple VOST analytes. JMP was used to do a principal component statistical analysis on all 

VOST analytes, excluding brominated and fluorinated compounds. Principal component analysis 

is a statistical tool that is used to transform data to group interrelated variables. It is not statistically 

valid to directly use many VOST targets simultaneously to predict variance in PCDDs/PCDFs 

since, with a limited number of measurements such as are present here, you can explicitly predict 

virtually all of the variance in PCDDs/PCDFs by using a large enough group of VOST targets. 

However, principal component analysis can allow you to reduce the number of predictors by 

transforming their axes.The principal components represent variables that take into account the 

interrelations between similar VOST targets since, for example, it is not possible to use benzene 

and toluene as completely separate predictors, since their concentrations in the stack are related to 

each other. This statistical analysis yielded interesting results, indicating that 72% of the 

variability in the VOST PICs can be accounted for by the first three principal components, which 

are linear combinations of the various VOST analytes. Performing a least squares regression using 

the first three principal components vs total PCDD yielded an R2 of 0.8182, and an R2 of 0.8450 

when correlated against total PCDF, and an R2 of 0.8487 when correlated against total 

PCDD+PCDFs.

Using a principal component analysis of multiple volatile PICs may be a useful method with which 

to derive a surrogate indicator of PCDDs/PCDFs that is based on several analytes rather than a 

single analyte. It is unknown, however, how site-specific this approach might be. It would be 

worthwhile to explore this possibility on other existing incinerator datasets to see if this method 

holds promise.

3-27
4.0 CONCLUSIONS

The conclusions are divided into sections relating to the various primary and secondary goals of 

this study.

4.1 - Target Analyte List

Pilot-scale incineration tests have been performed under varied combustion conditions feeding a 

mixed surrogate waste, resulting in the generation of numerous PICs. While many of these PICs 

were identified as target analytes using standardized sampling and analytical methods, the majority 

of PICs present in the incineration emissions were not target analytes. Although a substantial 

number have been tentatively identified, a considerably larger number have not been identified at 

this time. It can be concluded from these experiments that the current sampling and analytical 

schemes for characterizing HWC emissions are inadequate and provide an incomplete picture of the 

emission profile. This is primarily due to the presence of an extremely complex mixture of organic 

compounds in the HWC emission samples. This is particularly evidenced in the semivolatile 

organic samples. Nearly 200 chromatographic peaks were resolved through conventional 

methodologies, many of which were coeluting peaks. These coeluting peaks could not be 

identified due to combined spectra. The complexity of the samples was further illustrated by the 

MDGC technique. Heartcuts of single, conventional peaks resulted in the resolution and 

identification of 10 times the number of compounds initially evident. As a result, the number of 

compounds suspected to be present in incinerator emissions may be an order of magnitude greater 

than initially suspected. Other techniques, such as fractionation with HPLC, may provide similar 

benefits for identification of coeluting peaks.

A very promising technique for enabling identification of the complex mixtures present in 

combustion emissions is multi-dimensional GC/MS. This technique of performing an additional 

chromatographic separation on chromatographic peaks that confound mass spectral identification, 

enabled significant additional identification of unknowns on the limited sample for which it was 

performed. The authors believe that a much more complete listing of PICs could be generated by 

performing a careful analysis of complex samples such as these using MDGC/MS. However, 

although MDGC/MS may eventually lend itself to routine analyses, in its current incarnation it is 

still an experimental technique. 

As a result of these experiments, an expanded list of PIC target analytes has been developed. This 

list is by no means complete or comprehensive. This list should be viewed in context with this 

particular set of experiments; i.e., waste mix. The PICs resulting from other varied waste streams 

have not been evaluated. 

The PICs identified fall into several chemical classes. A wide variety of chloro, bromo, and mixed 

bromochloro alkanes, alkenes, alkynes, aromatics, and polyaromatics were detected. In addition, 

nonhalogenated hydrocarbon homologues along with oxygenated, nitrogenated, and sulfonated 

organics were detected. MDGC/MS detected chlorinated PAHs. Analytical methods specifically 

suited to these chemical classes are needed to enhance PIC characterizations.

For this facility burning this particular waste stream, conventional C1 and C2 hydrocarbons were 

present in levels below 1-2 ppm. Since THC analyzer readings were on the same order of 

magnitude as the detection levels for C1 and C2 hydrocarbons, no carbon balance was attempted. 

In addition, below 10 ppm, THC analyzer readings are not accurate due to biases introduced by the 

4-1
presence of common flue gas constituents.22

4.2 - Effect of Presence of Bromine

Brominated C1 and C2 PICs were present at higher-than-expected concentrations than their 

chlorinated analogs, in spite of Br's being present at only 10% of the mass concentration of Cl in 

the feed. This phenomenon was also observed with aromatic halogenated PICs such as 

brominated and chlorinated benzenes. A large number of chlorinated, brominated, and 

bromochloro semivolatile organics were also detected. Even though the sampling was performed 

upstream of a particulate matter control device, and samples were taken after a fairly short 

residence time in the optimal formation window between 600 and 200 °C, chlorinated, brominated, 

and bromochloro dioxins and furans were detected, and some congeners of the PBDDs/PBDFs 

were detected. During Run 10, with an erroneously high level of Br in the feed, emissions of 

PCDDs/PCDFs were increased dramatically, and significant emissions of PBDDs/PBDFs and 

bromochloro dioxins and furans were found. It is not known whether the presence of Br enhances 

production or inhibits destruction of PCDDs/PCDFs. Additional experiments are needed to 

confirm these results.

It is also unknown whether bromination increases or decreases the relative amounts and toxicities 

of the PCDD/PCDF, PBDD/PBDF, and PXDD/PXDF PICs. If bromination of PICs is additive, 

then brominated compounds (e.g., PBDDs/PBDFs) could add significantly to risk assessment 

calculations, especially if emissions of PBDDs/PBDFs are at a similar concentration as 

PCDDs/PCDFs. If the process is substitutive, Br could bring into question trial burn and 

compliance test PCDD/PCDF results due to bromination of chlorinated PICs resulting in 

brominated or bromochloro PICs that aren’t considered in risk assessment calculations. 

4.3 - Surrogate Performance Indicators

Based on these tests, on this facility, burning this particular waste stream, emissions of 

trichloroethylene give a very good correlation with emissions of total PCDD and total PCDF, even 

though PCDD/PCDF emissions varied over several orders of magnitude. Trichloroethylene is a 

relatively easily measured compound in the stack of incinerators, and because of its importance as a 

ring growth precursor, has a scientific basis for its use as a surrogate for PCDDs/PCDFs, as well 

as other chlorinated aromatic PICs of interest. It is not known whether trichloroethylene correlates 

with PCDDs/PCDFs in practical systems, although the authors will investigate whether this is the 

case. Likely, if trichloroethylene is a viable surrogate in full-scale systems, it will correlate with 

PCDDs/PCDFs prior to flue gas cleaning equipment, and would need to be coupled with flue gas 

cleaning equipment temperatures in order to be a viable surrogate for stack emissions of 

PCDDs/PCDFs.

It is possible to account for most or all of the variance in the PCDD/PCDF data by using linear 

combinations of several common volatile PICs, using a principal component statistical analysis to 

account for the interrelationships between the volatile PICs of interest. The first three principal 

components of the VOST analytes, when correlated against PCDDs/PCDFs, were able to generate 

R2s in excess of 0.80. It is not known how broadly applicable or facility specific this observation 

is.

Measurement of surrogate performance indicators via OLGC appears to have good promise. Not 

4-2
only can the OLGC system make stack measurements, but can measure PICs at intermediate 

locations within the combustor, to gain insight into PIC formation processes and for system 

optimization. The analytes that gave good promise for potential surrogates for PCDDs/PCDFs 

were also OLGC targets. Observations made with the OLGC system show formation of 

chlorinated aromatics as gases passed through moderate temperature regions.

4.4 - Implications of These Results

The results from these tests have implications regarding incinerator trial burns and compliance 

tests. Although it is not within the scope of this report to make recommendations related to EPA 

policy, it is within ORD's charter to bring scientific implications of our results to OSW's attention. 

This study raises the following questions:

• Can compliance with potential PCDD/PCDF emission limits that have been demonstrated in 

a trial burn, using a synthetic POHC feed with no Br in the system, be ensured during 

actual operation when Br is present in the feed?

• If a facility will eventually burn Br-containing wastes during operation, should Br be added 

to the system during trial burns to challenge the system, even though brominated organics, 

including PBDDs/PBDFs, are not included in the regulations or the risk assessment 

calculations?

• How can PICs such as PBDDs/PBDFs be accounted for if their sampling and analytical 

methodologies have not been validated?

• Is it possible to use a common volatile PIC, such as trichloroethylene, as a surrogate for 

PCDDs/PCDFs and other chlorinated aromatic compounds? If one can be found, what is 

an appropriate level to control to?

• How facility specific would it be to use linear combinations of multiple volatile PICs as a 

surrogate for PCDDs/PCDFs?

4.5 - Recommendations

Much was learned analytically attempting to expand the target analyte list. Foremost is the obvious 

conclusion that conventional analytical methodologies and approaches are inadequate to 

characterize the inherently complex emissions samples. This is evidenced by the small number of 

target analytes observed relative to the large number of compounds present. Part of the problem 

lies in the fact that existing methodologies focus on the identification and quantification of 

hazardous waste components and not PICs. The greater problem is that, with complex samples, 

chromatographic interferences inhibit the ability to identify unknowns as well as confirm target 

analytes. Complex samples often result in significant numbers of coeluting peaks. The mass 

spectral fragmentation patterns of coeluting peaks are combined and additive, making individual 

spectral identifications difficult. This phenomenon would exhibit itself in the form of large 

numbers of tentatively identified compounds with poor identification probabilities from the mass 

spectral search. Fortunately, techniques were identified and demonstrated that were capable of 

deconvoluting the complex samples. The authors strongly believe that improved analytical 

methodologies emphasizing identification and quantification of unknown compounds would 

4-3
provide the greatest opportunity to reduce uncertainty in risk assessment calculations with minimal 

expenditure.

Additional testing is recommended that incorporate these techniques. This additional testing should 

use as a foundation, EPA's Total Organics Approach (TOA). Particular emphasis should be placed 

on characterization of the semivolatile and nonvolatile fractions. This would equate to total 

chromatographable organic (TCO) and gravimetric organic (GRAV) fractions of the TOA. Each 

sample fraction should be segregated or fractionated, based on polar characteristics, to provide a 

first step towards deconvoluting the sample. This can be quantitatively accomplished using High 

Performance Liquid Chromatography (HPLC). Each segregated fraction should then be resubjected to the TCO and GRAV analyses to ensure mass recovery. Then each sample fraction 

should be reanalyzed by GC/MS as well as MDGC/MS. This will not only improve compound 

identification and quantitation, but also demonstrate this particular approach as a potential method 

for characterizing incinerator emissions.

This testing should also include separate efforts to identify the components present in the GRAV 

fraction. Theoretically, the GRAV fraction includes primarily nonvolatile organics possessing high 

molecular weight compounds. It is possible, even probable, that a considerable portion of these 

compounds are not amenable to conventional GC analyses. However, the ability to characterize 

this fraction has met with mixed results. This fraction typically remains uncharacterized, with only 

a small percentage of the mass being identified. 

It is the authors' strong contention that the GRAV fraction may consist of organic and/or inorganic 

mass not directly attributable to organic incinerator emissions. This artifact may be comprised of 

inorganic salts, super-fine particulate, fractured XAD-2 resin, or some other unknown. This 

artifact may account for the inability to identify a significant percentage of the GRAV fraction. 

Experiments can be designed to further determine the representativeness of the GRAV fraction. 

Based on these results, more efficient analytical approaches can be devised to characterize the 

GRAV fraction, thereby improving the potential for identifying a larger percentage of the GRAV 

fraction.

Finally, it may be possible to develop a multi-tiered approach to measuring PICs from incineration 

systems. Some incineration systems may exhibit a relatively small number of identifiable PICs, 

whereas others may have an exceedingly complex mixture in the stack. This multi-tiered approach 

could be performed by commercial analytical laboratories on a routine basis. The multi-tiered 

approach would consist of the following:

Tier 1: First Pass Analysis

The first pass analysis would focus on using existing analytical methodologies that 

focus more on potential PICs. The MM5 samples would be extracted and analyzed 

conventionally using a Method 8270C analysis, directed at the Method 8270C 

targets. The existing target list should be expanded to include common PICs that 

are amenable to GC/MS analysis. Aliquots from these same extracts would be 

subjected to further analyte-specific analyses for chlorobenzenes and chlorophenols 

(Method 8041), PAHs (CARB Method 429), and nitroaromatics and cyclic ketones 

4-4
(Method 8091). These are more analyte-specific analyses and offer greater 

sensitivity, particularly through the use of selective ion monitoring techniques. 

High resolution mass spectrometry (HRMS) may also be used to improve 

sensitivity, if needed. 

Greater emphasis should be placed on the identification and accurate quantitation of 

unknowns. Guidelines should be developed that standardize this approach. These 

guidelines should include spectral library searching and spectral interpretation 

requirements, confirmation of unknowns with known standards where possible, 

and other criteria that add to the quality of the identification (e.g., retention time, 

boiling point). In addition, tentatively identified unknowns should be quantified 

using a response factor of a compound similar to the characteristics of the unknown 

rather than an unrelated compound closest in retention time. 

The Method 23 samples would be analyzed for PCDDs/PCDFs and PCBs using 

HRMS. The PCB analysis should include both totals and the co-planar isomer 

specific analyses. Two PCB Methods exist which can accomplish this method: 

CARB 428 and Draft Method 1668. The Method 23 target analyte list should be 

expanded to include the mono-, di-, and tri- substituted dioxin and furan congeners 

as well as the tetra- through octa- as are normally measured. Limited laboratory and 

field data suggest that the lower chlorinated congeners may be suitable surrogates 

for the higher chlorinated congeners, and measurement of the lower chlorinated 

congeners with a CEM may be practical in the near future. It is necessary to 

develop a database of the lower substituted congeners to develop correlations for 

different facility and feed types.

Based on the results from the Tier 1 analysis, it will be decided whether the sample 

was sufficiently complex to merit further investigation (e.g., number of peaks 

identified relative to total number of peaks). Again, complex samples would result 

in significant numbers of coeluting peaks, making spectral identifications difficult. 

This would ultimately result in a large number of unidentified compounds. If the 

samples analyzed using the Tier 1 approach indicate that a significant number of 

coeluting peaks exist, then Tier 2 should be used.

Tier 2: Sample Deconvolution

For Tier 2, the MM5 extracts would be run through an HPLC fractionation system. 

A solvent gradient would be used to partition the material eluting off an HPLC 

column according to elution time. Separating the MM5 extracts into multiple 

fractions of varying polarity, then running those fractions back through a GC/MS 

analysis, dramatically reduces the problems of coeluting peaks. This reduction is 

due to the fact that GC and HPLC use different techniques to differentiate 

compounds: GC separates primarily based on compound boiling points; whereas, 

HPLC separates primarily based on compound polarity. 

The fractionated samples could also be run on a GC with atomic emission detection 

(AED). This detector is element specific and would aid in the interpretation of mass 

spectral data by confirming the presence of elements such as halogens, oxygen, 

4-5
nitrogen, and sulfur.

Finally, the fractionated extracts could be analyzed by multidimensional gas 

chromatography (MDGC). The power of this technique has been demonstrated 

through this study.

4-6
5.0 REFERENCES

1 40 CFR Part 261 Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste - Appendix VIII-Hazardous 

Constituents, July 1, 1990, Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.

2 Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, P.L. 101-549, U.S. Congress, Washington, DC, 

November 15, 1990.

3 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), as amended by the Hazardous and Solid 

Waste Amendments of 1984, 40 CFR.

4 Hartzell, G.E., “Overview of Combustion Toxicology,” Toxicology, 115: 1-3, 7-23, 

December 1996.

5 Dellinger, B., P.H. Taylor, and D.A. Tirey, “Minimization and Control of Hazardous 

Combustion By-Products,” EPA/600/S2-90/039 (NTIS PB90-259854), Risk Reduction 

Engineering Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH, August 1990.

6 Rigo, G.H., A.J. Chandler, and W.S. Lanier, “The Relationship Between Chlorine in Waste 

Streams and Dioxin Emissions from Waste Combustor Stacks,” ASME Research Report 

CRTD-Vol 36, 1996.

7 Okey, A.B., D. Riddick, and P. Harper, “The Ah receptor: Mediator of the Toxicity of 2,3,7,8 

TCDD and Related Compounds,” Toxicology Letters, 70: 1-22, 1994.

8 Ryan, J., P. Lemieux, C. Lutes, and D. Tabor, “Development of PIC Target Analyte List for 

Hazardous Waste Incineration Processes,” Paper presented at the International Incineration 

Conference, Savannah, GA, May 6-10, 1996. 

9 EPA Test Method 0040 “Sampling of Principal Organic Hazardous Constituents from 

Combustion Sources Using Tedlar Bags” in Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Volume 

II, SW-846 (NTIS PB88-239223). Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste, 

Washington, DC. (August 1994).

10 EPA Test Method 0030 “Volatile Organic Sampling Train” in Test Methods for Evaluating 

Solid Waste, Volume II, SW-846 (NTIS PB88-239223). Environmental Protection Agency, 

Office of Solid Waste, Washington, DC. (September 1986).

11 EPA Test Method 0010 “Modified Method 5 Sampling Train” in Test Methods for Evaluating 

Solid Waste, Volume II, SW-846 (NTIS PB88-239223). Environmental Protection Agency, 

Office of Solid Waste, Washington, DC. (September 1986).

12 EPA Test Method 23 “Determination of Polychlorinated Dibenzo-p-dioxins and 

Polychlorinated Dibenzofurans from Stationary Sources” in Code of Federal Regulations, Title 

40, Part 60, Appendix A, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC. (July 1991).

13 Richards, M.K., L.R. Waterland, and E. Whitworth, “Innovative Continuous Emission 

Monitors: Results of the EPA/DOE Demonstration Test Program,” Paper presented at the 

International Incineration Conference, Savannah, GA, May 1996.

5-1
14 Ryan, J.V., P.M. Lemieux, W.T. Preston, and L.R. Waterland, “Field Demonstration of a 

Prototype On-Line Gas Chromatograph for Near-Real-Time Measurement of Trace Volatile 

Organic Products of Incomplete Combustion from Incinerators,” AWMA J., in press.

15 California Air Resources Board Method 428 “Determination of Polychlorinated Dibenzo-pdioxin (PCDD), Polychlorinated Dibenzofuran (PCDF), and Polychlorinated Biphenyl 

Emissions from Stationary Sources” in Methods for Determining Emissions of Toxic Air 

Contaminants from Stationary Sources, Volume III, State of California Air Resources Board, 

December 1991.

16 EPA Test Method 5040 “Protocol for Analysis of Sorbent Cartridges from Volatile Organic 

Sampling Train” in Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Volume II, SW-846 (NTIS PB239223). Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste, Washington, DC, 

September 1986.

17 EPA Test Method 8240 “Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry for Volatile Organics” in 

Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Volume II, SW-846 (NTIS PB-239223). 

Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste, Washington, DC, September 1986.

18 Rubey, W.A., B. Dellinger, and R.C. Striebich, “Chemical Analysis of Combustion Samples 

Using Multi-Dimensional Gas Chromatography,” Paper presented at the International 

Conference on Incineration and Thermal Treatment Technologies, May 12-16, 1997, Oakland, 

CA.

19 Anderson, S., J. Garver, W. Rubey, R. Striebich, and R. Grinstead, “The Separation and 

Identification of Trace Heteroatomic Species in Jet Fuel by Sample Enrichment and 

Multidimensional Gas Chromatography with Mass Selective Detection (MDGC-MSD),” 

Proceedings of the 17th ISCCE, Wintergreen, VA, May 1995.

20 Tsang, W., “Mechanisms for the Formation and Destruction of Chlorinated Organic Products 

of Incomplete Combustion,” Combustion Science and Technology, 74:99-116 (1990).

21 Tirey, D.A., P.H. Taylor, J. Kasner, and B. Dellinger, “Gas Phase Formation of Chlorinated 

Aromatic Compounds from the Pyrolysis of Tetrachloroethylene,” Comb. Sci. Tech., 7 4 , 137-157, 1990.

22 Ryan, J.V., P.M. Lemieux, and P.W. Groff, “Evaluation of the Behavior of Flame Ionization 

Detection Total Hydrocarbon Continuous Emission Monitors at Low Concentrations,” Paper 

presented at the International Conference on Incineration and Thermal Treatment Technologies, 

May 12-16, 1997, San Francisco, CA.

5-2
APPENDIX A

QUALITY CONTROL EVALUATION REPORT

This project was conducted under the guidance of an EPA-approved QA Test Plan (APPCD 

Category III) . The Test Plan describes the intended experimental approach and procedures. 

The Test Plan also presents Data Quality Objectives (DQOs) for this study: to collect data of 

sufficient quality to develop a qualitative list of organic compounds present in HWC emissions. 

This list is not meant to be representative of all incineration configurations, conditions, or waste 

mixtures. Data Quality Indicator (DQI) goals were established to meet DQOs.

Table A-1 presents the DQI summaries for accuracy, precision, and completeness achieved 

during testing along with the planned DQI goals for each measurement or analysis performed. In 

general, the intended RKIS operational DQI goals were achieved. However, DQI goals for 

quantitative organic measurements generally were either not achieved or could not be assessed 

from the available data. Quantitative DQI goals were not met primarily due to poor surrogate 

and/or internal standard recoveries. As a result, the analytical data should be viewed as 

semiquantitative at best. While it is not appropriate to report organic emissions concentrations as 

absolute, the data are of sufficient quality to make rough order of magnitude quantitative 

comparisons between test condition data sets. It should be stressed, though, that qualitative 

identification was the primary goal of this project, not quantitative. The recovery problems have 

negligible impact on the qualitative identification of the PICs. As a result, the data are of 

sufficient quality to meet project objectives to develop a qualitative list of organic compounds 

present in HWC emissions.

Case narratives for specific analytical activities are included in the following subsections.

A.1 - Continuous Measurement Results

The THC analyzers failed after Run 11 due to the high HCl content of the flue gas. Their data 

were not available for Runs 12 through 16, resulting in a completeness of 69.4%, which was 

slightly below the desired 70% completeness. In addition, the Bodenseewerk HCl CEM was not 

available during Runs 13 through 16 due to its redeployment on other facilities, resulting in a 

75% completeness of data. Other CEMs passed QC criteria.

The thermocouple at the kiln exit failed after Run 8 and was not available during Runs 9 through 

12, resulting in a completeness of 75% for that thermocouple. A replacement thermocouple was 

installed at that point, and kiln exit temperatures were measured during subsequent tests. All 

other thermocouples operated normally within QC guidelines.

A-1
There was an anomaly in the bromine feed concentration in the batch of feed used in Run 10. 

All of the other runs were prepared at 449.8 g Br per batch, while run 10 was at 1589.8 g Br per 

batch.

Table A-1. Data Quality Indicator Summary for Critical Measurements

Measurement Accuracy Accuracy Precision Precision Completeness Completeness

Goal Achieved Goal Achieved Goal Achieved

O2 ±5 pass 5 pass 70 100

CO2 ±5 pass 5 pass 70 100

CO ±5 pass 5 pass 70 100

THC ±5 passa 5 passa 70 68.75

NO ±5 pass 5 pass 70 100

Temperature ±2 NA ±2 ±2 100 100 (75)

HCl ±5 NA 5 pass 70 75

VOCs (VOST) 50-150 fail NA NA 75 100

VOCs (Tedlar Bag) 50-150 fail 30 NA 75 100

SVOCs 18-120 fail 30 NA 75 100

PCDDs/PCDFs 40-120 *a 30 NA 70 100

VOCs (OLGC) NA NA NA NA NA NA

a - see additional information in text.

A.2 - Volatile Organic Compound Analyses

A.2.1 - VOST Samples

The 30 day holding times to analysis for these samples were generally adhered to.

The surrogate recoveries for the VOST compounds were mostly below the pass/fail criterion of 

50-150%. The insufficient recoveries do not, however, impact the qualitative analysis of the 

data. A possible reason for the failure of the recoveries of internal standards is that the extremely 

high HCl content (several thousand ppmv) of the flue gas may have degraded the Tenax' ability 

to adsorb VOCs. The VOST method is intended for application downstream of particulate and 

acid gas control systems and not in the highly corrosive environment during these tests.

The first internal standard (bromochloromethane) was identified as a PIC. Because of this, the 

A-2
second internal standard was used to quantify the targets that are normally referenced to the first 

internal standard. 

The blanks showed a general trend of having common ketones, solvents, and chloromethane 

present (as is common for VOST samples) as contaminants. There were also a few instances of a 

minor carryover from the daily standard. But with target hits as high as 5000 ng per tube of 

benzene and many other compounds being near 1000 ng per tube, the contaminant levels were 

insignificant relative to sample levels.

Many of the VOST samples exhibited concentrations higher than the calibration range. The 

concentrations of these compounds will tend to be over-estimated due to non-linear responses of 

the mass spectrometer at regions above the calibration range. The nature of the VOST 

sampling/analysis does not allow reanalysis or dilution to bring these compounds into the 

calibration range. Data exceeding calibration levels are flagged as estimates. Given the 

semiquantitative nature of reported results, these estimates do not pose a problem.

A.2.2 - Tedlar Bag Samples

Hold times did not exceed 1 day, which is acceptable. 

The blank samples were generally clean with only a few compounds reported above the practical 

quantitation limit (PQL). Few PICs were found in the blank samples.

There were inconsistencies in the reported recoveries of surrogate standards, which make it 

difficult to assess the quality of the quantitations. Based on careful examination of available 

data, in both hard copy and disk form, it is believed that the qualitative results are correct, but 

that the quantitative results may be in error by a factor of 2.5. Since these data are compared 

only to other test conditions, relative differences are not affected.

A.3 - Semivolatile Organic Compound Analyses

Semivolatile analysis by SW-846 Method 8270 was completed for eight samples. Filter and 

XAD-2 fractions were extracted separately. In general, filter extract surrogate recoveries were 

low, with many being just barely acceptable. The XAD samples, generally showed acceptable 

recovery. In all analyses, the surrogate recovery is worse for the earlier eluting (lower boiling 

point) compounds. A contributor to poor recovery was that some sample extracts were 

concentrated on a rotary evaporator (Roto-Vap) instead of the Kaderna-Danish concentrating 

apparatus which is specified in the method. This technique is less efficient and would result in 

greater azeotroping and, therefore, the preferential loss of the more volatile surrogate standards. 

A-3
After these samples exhibited the poor recoveries, the laboratory stopped using the Roto-Vap 

apparatus for semivolatile samples and resumed using the Kaderna-Danish apparatus. Volatile 

surrogate standard recoveries improved somewhat. Matrix effects, due to the extremely high 

HCl content of the sample collected, also likely impacted surrogate recoveries. Fortunately, the 

poor volatile surrogate standard recoveries were associated primarily with the filter extracts. 

During sampling, the more volatile species would tend to be collected on the XAD-2 rather than 

the filter. While the poor surrogate recovery problem impacts quantitative capabilities, 

qualitative information should not be compromised. This tenet is supported by the independent 

identification of overlapping PICs in both the VOST and MM5 samples. 

Due to the high concentrations of nontarget analytes in the initial MM5 analyses, many reactive 

compounds responded poorly. Initial MM5 extracts, once concentrated to 1 mL, were dark and 

non-transparent. It is likely that the cumulative effect of injection of these corrosive, complex 

samples caused active sites to develop in the injection port and entrance of the column causing 

poorer responses for these more reactive compounds. Frequent injector and guard column 

maintenance reduced this problem. To verify acceptable MS and chromatographic performance, 

the decafluorotriphenylphosphine (DFTPP) tuning criterion was met prior to sample analyses 

each day, and the degradation products of dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) (compound in 

the DFTPP tuning solution) demonstrated less than 6% degradation prior to sample analyses for 

each day. DDT is a typical example of a labile compound used by the method to determine the 

condition of the chromatographic system. If degradation of DDT was greater than 20%, GC 

maintenance was performed. In an effort to improve chromatographic separations, GC 

conditions were modified to reduce the oven temperature ramping rate and to optimize column 

carrier flowrate from levels used during the initial analyses.

The five-point calibration ranged from 10 to 120 ng injected on column (except for the acid 

surrogates which ranged from 20 to 240 ng). Poorer responding compounds' PQLs -- defined 

here as the lowest point on the calibration curve -- were raised to 30 and sometimes 60 ng to 

obtain good response correlation throughout the calibration range. 

All continuing calibration check compounds (CCC) and System Performance Check Compounds 

(SPCCs) had less than 30 % relative standard deviation and greater than 0.05 relative response, 

respectively (prior to daily sample analyses), which satisfies Method 8270 cutoff values.

A.4 - PCDD/PCDF and PBDD/PBDF Analyses

Both chlorinated and brominated DD/DF analyses were performed. As described earlier, the 

PCDD/PCDF analyses were performed following standardized procedures. A significant portion 

of the internal standard surrogate recovery results were outside of the method criteria (40-120%) 

A-4
with many recoveries in the 20-30% range. Recoveries were highly variable but didn't seem to 

have a pattern. Run 11's filter fraction, Run 12's XAD fraction, and Run 13's filter fraction 

exhibited below 1% recoveries of the internal standards. Run 14's filter was lost and no extract 

was produced. These results, although not quantifiable within method criteria, are still usable to 

evaluate trends between test conditions. 

Formalized methods for identifying and quantifying brominated DD/DF do not exist. As a 

result, the analyses performed were essentially a screening technique attempting to verify the 

presence or absence of select PBDD/PBDF congeners for which limited standards are available. 

For the brominated compounds, the ion ratio was the only definitive criterion available to 

confirm presence: no window defining mixes are available. The retention time was evaluated 

compared to the 13C labeled TBDD/F standards. We used a general rule that a compound with a 

bromo substitution would correspond roughly to the retention time area of the same compound 

with a dichloro substitution. The fully brominated penta, hexa, and hepta diphenyl ethers were 

monitored for, but none were detected. This indicates that there was no interference between the 

fully brominated furans and these compounds. This approach is sufficient to screen for the 

presence of PBDD/PBDF PICs.

A.5 - Online GC Samples

On-line GC measurements were performed primarily to evaluate performance as a potential 

VOC monitor. No DQI goals were established. Each day a system bias check was performed to 

verify that recoveries of a 200 ppb sample were within the range of 50-150% by injecting a VOC 

standard mix into the probe at the stack and comparing the measured concentrations to the same 

mix injected directly into the sparge vessel of the OLGC. The system passed the system bias 

check each day. In addition, system blanks were performed to verify that no targets were present 

in the system prior to each run day, and a calibration was performed each day to verify retention 

times and concentrations. 

A-5