1

EPA/540/S-95/503

July 1995

United States

Environmental Protection

Agency

Office of Solid Waste

and Emergency

Response

Office of

Research and

Development

Ground Water Issue

Nonaqueous Phase Liquids Compatibility

with Materials Used in Well Construction,

Sampling, and Remediation

Robert S. Kerr Environmental

Research Laboratory

Ada, Oklahoma

Superfund Technology Support Center for

Ground Water

Douglas R. McCaulou(1), David G. Jewett(2), and Scott G. Huling(3)

Technology Innovation Office

Office of Solid Waste and Emergency

Response, US EPA, Washington, DC

Walter W. Kovalick, Jr., Ph.D.

Director

(1) Hydrologist, Hydro Geo Chem, Inc., Tucson, AZ

(2) Asst. Prof., Geology Dept., Indiana Univ.-Purdue Univ.

Indianapolis, Indianapolis, IN

(3) Environmental Engineer, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,

 Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory, Ada, OK

Background

The EPA Regional Ground Water Forum is a group of EPA

professionals representing Regional Superfund and

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Offices (RCRA),

committed to the identification and resolution of ground-water

issues impacting the remediation of Superfund and RCRA

sites. The Forum is supported by and advises the Superfund

Technical Support Project. The compatibility of remediation,

well construction, and sampling materials with nonaqueous

phase liquids (NAPLs) is an issue that is a concern of

Superfund decision-makers.

This issue paper provides a comprehensive literature review

regarding the compatibility of NAPLs with a wide variety of

materials used at hazardous waste sites. A condensed

reference table of compatibility data for 207 chemicals and 28

commonly used well construction and sampling equipment

materials is provided. Field experiences illustrating

incompatibility problems of common wastes are also included.

This will assist monitoring and recovery system design

personnel with the decision making process concerning the

most effective materials to be used in heavily contaminated

subsurface environments.

For further information contact Scott G. Huling (405-436-

8610).

Introduction

NAPLs typically have been divided into two general

categories, dense and light. Dense nonaqueous phase

liquids (DNAPLs) have a specific gravity greater than water,

and light nonaqueous phase liquids (LNAPLs) have a specific

gravity less than water [Huling and Weaver, 1991]. Both of

these liquids are of major environmental concern because

they are commonly found in the subsurface at Superfund sites

as well as other hazardous waste sites.

A national Superfund DNAPL site assessment study

concluded that approximately 60% of the National Priorities

List sites are expected to have a medium to high potential of

having DNAPL present [Hubbard et al., 1993]. It is also

known that LNAPLs affect ground-water quality at thousands

of sites across the country [Newell et al., 1995]. DNAPLs

[Mercer and Cohen, 1990; Huling and Weaver, 1991; Cohen

and Mercer, 1993] and LNAPLs [Newell et al., 1995] present

significant technical challenges to remediation efforts and

their transport and fate are often complex.

DNAPLs commonly found at Superfund sites include

halogenated solvents (e.g., tetrachloroethylene (PCE),

trichloroethylene (TCE), dichloroethane (DCA) and carbon

tetrachloride); polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs); pesticides;

chlorinated benzenes and phenols; and polycyclic aromatic

hydrocarbons (PAHs). Common LNAPLs include fuels and

oils. Constituents of NAPLs include volatile aromatics

(benzene, toluene, styrene and xylenes); halogenated

volatiles (vinyl chloride and chloroethane); and volatile

ketones and furans. Due to the diverse characteristics of

these chemicals in conjunction with the broad range of
2

contaminants present as NAPLs or in high dissolved

concentrations, may have a minimal effect on water quality

measurements, while the effects on the structural integrity of

the materials may be at a maximum. Compatibility in the

Chemical Compatibility Table of this issue paper is defined as

a material’s ability to withstand corrosion or degradation

under specific experimental conditions. This refers to the

effects that NAPLs and high concentrations of dissolved

organic compounds have on the structural integrity of

materials. While the focus of this issue paper is the structural

integrity issue, a short discussion on incompatibility issues

from a water quality measurement point of view is included for

clarification.

Water Quality Measurement Incompatibility

Incompatibility caused by contaminants sorbing to or leaching

from monitoring well materials and sampling devices yielding

misleading information on the quality of ground water has

been demonstrated repeatedly [Llopis, 1992; Gillham and

O’Hannesin, 1990; Barcelona et al., 1988; Jones and Miller,

1988; Sykes et al., 1986]. This type of incompatibility is

greatest with low dissolved concentrations of heavy metals

and organic compounds. Presently, the high degree of

accuracy (parts per billion) required of some chemical

analyses dictates that all potential sources of error of a

ground-water sampling program be identified and minimized

[Llopis, 1992]. Correspondingly, a properly installed groundwater monitoring well should be constructed so that well

materials do not influence the ground-water sample for at

least 30 years [Morrison, 1986].

The composition of contaminated ground water and sediment

(pH, Eh, conductivity, temperature, specific organic

compound species, and co-solvent effects) in contact with

well construction and sampling materials influences sorption

and leaching processes. In addition, the complex and varied

nature of site-specific ground-water contamination in

conjunction with numerous material types makes it

challenging to predict the sorption and leaching potential of

various sampling materials. However, recent studies show a

general agreement on which well casing materials are the

best to use to reduce measurement anomalies.

Rigid polyvinylchloride (PVC), polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE),

and fiberglass reinforced epoxy (FRE) had relatively low

sorption rates when exposed to trichloroethane,

tetrachloroethane, trichloroethylene, tetrachloroethylene,

hexachloroethane, and bromoform compared to flexible

polymers [Reynolds et al., 1990]. Stainless steel, rigid PVC,

and fluoropolymer well casings generally adsorb minor

amounts of trace-level organic compounds once equilibrated

with the subsurface environment and none of the casings

leached organic compounds when solvent cements were not

used to connect the casings [Gillham and O’Hannesin, 1990;

Parker et al., 1990: Parker and Ranney, 1994]. Some ironbased casing materials may influence abiotic degradation of

halogenated aliphatics [Reynolds et al., 1990; Gillham and

O’Hannesin, 1994].

Studies indicate that stainless steel can leach dissolved

metals under anoxic conditions [Hewitt, 1989; 1992; 1993;

Parker et al., 1990].

materials available, it is apparent that the incompatibility issue

is complex and broad in scope.

Contaminants may be introduced into the subsurface as a

LNAPL or DNAPL, but may partition into the soil pore water

and ground water; volatilize into the gaseous phase; and

partition onto soil and aquifer material. The two phases of

contamination that will be the focus of this issue paper are the

nonaqueous phase and the soluble phase. NAPLs may be

held relatively immobile by capillary forces as small

discontinuous blobs or isolated droplets, generally referred to

as residual saturation. As the NAPL saturation increases, the

NAPL phase becomes continuous and the mobility of the

NAPL increases. NAPLs at residual saturation may affect

equipment and materials similar to continuous phase NAPLs.

Lastly, the soluble constituents of mixed NAPLs differentially

dissolve into the ground water as a function of their mole

fraction and solubility. Although these dissolved compounds

are no longer NAPLs, near-solubility concentrations of some

organic compounds may adversely affect the structural

integrity of some materials.

All ground-water sampling, well construction, and remediation

materials are subject to degradation or corrosion in the

natural environment. For example, metal components may

corrode when:

• pH < 7.0,

• dissolved oxygen > 2 ppm,

•H 2

S > 1 ppm,

• total dissolved solids > 1000 ppm,

•CO 2 > 50 ppm, or

• chloride > 5000 ppm [Aller et al., 1989].

Materials exposed to NAPLs may also be degraded or

corroded, which may lead to structural failure. This

vulnerability applies to materials exposed to these chemicals

in both the subsurface and above ground. A design

consideration during any NAPL recovery program should

include a material compatibility review to minimize failures

[Huling and Weaver, 1991]. Additionally, at sites where the

presence of NAPLs is suspected, a materials compatibility

review should be conducted. Since the time requirements for

subsurface remediation systems (product recovery, groundwater remediation) at most RCRA and CERCLA sites are

usually long-term, it is economically and technically important

that these systems be constructed of materials with known

chemical resistance qualities to provide reliable service over

many years.

Compatibility

There are two types of effects that NAPLs have on materials

used in well construction, sampling, and remediation. First,

the structural integrity of a material may be compromised by

corrosion or solvation. Secondly, dissolved ground-water

contaminants from NAPLs can sorb to or leach from

monitoring materials which affect ground-water quality

measurements. Another way of viewing these two effects is

from a concentration perspective. Sorption to monitoring

surfaces may have the greatest effect on water quality

measurements when contaminants are present at low

dissolved concentrations. Conversely, sorption of
3

Structural Integrity Incompatibility

Structural integrity of materials can be affected by both purephase NAPLs and dissolved organic compounds in ground

water. In the following discussion, corrosion of metals and

the types of polymer degradation are presented with a review

of concentration-related effects of dissolved organic

compounds with monitoring materials. The Chemical

Compatibility Table in this issue paper was prepared to

evaluate the effects of pure-phase or 100% concentrations of

compounds, except where noted.

Corrosion: Chemical corrosion results from chemical

reactions with metals and soil or water [U.S. Dept. of Interior,

1981]. The corroded metal usually goes into solution and is

carried away from the point of attack [Moehrl, 1961]. Galvanic

corrosion occurs when two or more dissimilar metals are in

contact and an electrolyte is present [Schweitzer, 1991].

Accordingly, corrosion in this issue paper applies to the

breakdown of a metal surface attacked by chemicals,

resulting in a measurable reduction of metal thickness over

time.

Degradation: Plastics do not exhibit a corrosion rate, but

undergo degradation by various mechanisms. Types of

plastic degradation in a ground-water environment are

oxidative, mechanical, microbial, and chemical attack.

Oxidative degradation of polymers is catalyzed by heavy

metals, such as copper, in a redox reaction in which peroxide

groups are decomposed, accelerating the degradation

reaction [Al-Malaika, 1987]. However, many polymeric

formulations include antioxidants which inhibit oxidation

reactions. Bond cleavage may result in mechanical

degradation when stress is imposed on polymer chains

through grinding, milling, or stretching [Dole, 1983; Agarwal

and Porter, 1988]. Mechanical degradation is a term that

describes changes in a material when applied stresses from

manufacturing, machining, handling, and installation

techniques cause chips, fractures, and other deformations.

It has been observed that enzymes attack noncrystalline

regions preferentially; therefore, the resistance of susceptible

polymers to microbial degradation is related directly to the

degree of crystallinity of the polymer [Bradley et al., 1973].

Chemical resistance of a polymer is its ability to withstand

attack by chemicals over a period of time without excessive

changes in dimensions, weight, or mechanical properties

[Seymour, 1989]. Plastic materials are primarily degraded by

solvation, which is the penetration of the plastic by an organic

solvent that causes softening, swelling, and ultimate failure

[Schweitzer, 1991]. At a given chemical concentration,

diffusion of a chemical into the polymer will proceed until

equilibrium conditions are attained. Due to the inter-polymer

diffusion of these chemicals, polymers may dissolve, swell

due to absorption and diffusion, or they may stress crack by

selectively absorbing solvents [Seymour, 1989]. The

Chemical Compatibility Table in this issue paper does not

differentiate between types of degradation.

Concentration-Related Effects: Ambiguity exists on the

subject of structural compatibility. This is partially attributed to

studies being conducted at different aqueous concentrations,

from NAPLs to below solubility concentrations. For example,

a lack of agreement exists concerning the use of PVC well

casing in the presence of gasoline [U.S.EPA, 1986]. EPA has

concluded that PVC is not an acceptable material for

monitoring well construction because the PVC casing may

swell and deteriorate in the presence of the aromatic

hydrocarbon fraction of gasoline. This finding is consistent

with the Chemical Compatibility Table in this report where

pure-phase aromatic compounds (e.g., benzene, toluene, and

xylenes), which are a few of the numerous components of

gasoline, will degrade Type I PVC. However, Schmidt [1987]

published an opposing report concerning PVC and gasoline

compatibility that included both laboratory immersion tests

and field observations. Schmidt’s conclusion was that

“Schedule 40, rigid, Type I PVC casing and screen could be

used with confidence when monitoring for the occurrence of

gasolines on the ground water table.” The literature review

conducted for this issue paper found that all chemical

resistance test data recommend Type I PVC for use in

gasoline, diesel, and jet fuels. The conflicting

recommendations of these reports may be related to the

different concentrations of aromatic compounds tested.

Recent work with methylene chloride, an excellent solvent of

PVC, softened PVC at activities as low as 0.1 (10% of the

solubility limit)[Parker and Ranney, 1994]. Activity of a

compound was estimated by dividing the aqueous

concentration by its solubility. Experiments with TCE, which

is not as good a solvent of PVC as methylene chloride,

suggest that softening of PVC did not occur at activities below

0.6. A mixed-organic-solvent study indicated that when

dealing with an aqueous mixture of organic solvents there is

some type of cumulative or interactive effect resulting in

softening of PVC at activities above 0.3 [Parker and Ranney,

1994]. Acetone, miscible in water and a good solvent of PVC,

caused rapid softening at 50% concentrations (0.5 g/ml)

[Parker and Ranney, 1994].

Another example illustrating the lack of agreement involves

structural degradation effects under high concentrations.

Barcelona et al., [1988], suggested that significant losses of

strength and durability of rigid PVC may be expected under

conditions where organic contaminants are present in high

concentrations. However, Taylor and Parker [1990] reported

that PVC, PTFE, and stainless steel (304, 316) casing

material did not change surface structure (using scanning

electron microscopy) when exposed to dichlorobenzenes,

toluene, and PCE at activities of 0.25 after 6 months. This

discrepancy may be partly due to the different compatibility

testing protocols; strength and durability versus visual effects.

Annular Sealants and Barrier Wall Materials

Compatibility of annular sealant materials, cements, and

grouts with NAPLs has not been comprehensively studied.

However, the permeability of clay and other materials in

landfill liners and barrier walls has been measured to study

the deterioration effect of various leachates and select soluble

organic liquids.

Abdul et al., [1990], found that organic solvents (benzene,

toluene, p-xylene, nitrobenzene, TCE, PCE, ethyl acetate, 2-

butanone, and phenol) at 0.1 to 0.5 activities in water

solutions did not significantly increase the permeability of

bentonite or kaolin clays that were first stabilized with

0.005 N CaSO4. The hydraulic conductivity of bentonite in all

of the 0.1 solutions was lower than with water, while kaolin

was slightly more permeable with these solutions. However,

it was determined that neat (100%) solutions increased the
4

measured hydraulic conductivity of the clay materials by up to

two orders of magnitude. Phenol, ethyl acetate, and p-xylene

neat solutions increased the permeability of bentonite.

Benzene, phenol, and toluene neat solutions increased the

permeability of kaolin. In general, hydrophobic solvents

caused clays to shrink, producing distinct large vertical

cracks. The hydrophillic solvents typically caused the clays to

aggregate and fracture, forming a network of cracks [Abdul et

al., 1990].

In another study, cement-asphalt (Aspemix), bentonite-sand,

and organophilic clay-cement mixtures were found to have

increased hydraulic conductivities above 1x10-7 cm/s when

contacted with pure methylene chloride [Sai and Anderson,

1992]. In the same study, attapulgite clay-cement (Impermix)

mixture maintained hydraulic conductivities below 1x10-7 cm/s

in the presence of pure methylene chloride.

DNAPL composed of dichloromethane, xylene, halogenated

semi-volatiles and a mixture of other solvents (density 1.1

g/cm3 ) was used to evaluate the effects of DNAPL on the

integrity of cement and a 3% bentonite-cement grout [Cassil

and Barton, 1994]. In column studies where cement was

added to tubes containing varying amounts of DNAPL, the

DNAPL amended columns were discolored, pitted, and had

channels where the DNAPL had moved along the interface of

the tube wall and the grout. This was not observed in the

control where water was initially present. In a column study

where a 3% bentonite-cement grout was added to the same

DNAPL in a column, the permeability was significantly greater

than in the control where an equal volume of water was

added. The grout was mottled, irregular, and had the

presence of voids, cavities, and channels. The control

column which initially contained water did not exhibit these

characteristics. Therefore, both the cement and cementbentonite mixture were more permeable when set in a DNAPL

environment.

In light of these few studies, NAPLs may act to promote

vertical migration of contaminants along a well casing or

breach containment systems designed to separate

contaminated zones from cleaner zones. However, this issue

has not been fully investigated. The compatibility of NAPLs

with annular sealants, well packing, and barrier wall materials

should be determined on a site-specific basis by testing the

proposed materials and chemicals that are likely to be in

contact with those materials.

Annular sealants, well packing, and barrier wall materials are

not included in the Chemical Compatibility Table because of

the limited information available.

Field Experience and Practical Considerations

Relatively little field experience is reported in the literature

regarding remediation, well construction, and sampling

materials compatibility with contaminants. This may be due to

several reasons. The environmental field is relatively young

and many materials may not have had sufficient contact time

for significant failures to be observed. Lack of reporting may

also be due to the inherent hidden effects of subsurface

chemical incompatibility with materials. For example,

extraction and monitoring well structural failures are seldom

observed from the surface. Wells that do appear to be

malfunctioning are usually sealed or grouted without knowing

the real cause of the problem. Additionally, silting-in of a well

is routinely diagnoised as a screen size design problem, but

may acutally be the result of screen deterioration from

chemical incompatibilty.

Field experience with various types of wastes and materials

commonly found at hazardous waste sites provides useful

information. While the information is qualitative, it illustrates a

few guidelines regarding chemical compatibility.

Creosote Wastes: Creosote manufacturers generally

recommend against the use of PVC and recommend the use

of steel materials when creosote is pumped under pressure.

In the field, the PVC will become "gummy", (i.e., altered

physical integrity) and will definitely fail under pressure [Sale,

1993]. However, PVC has been used with creosote fairly

reliably as a product thickness well, or gravity drainline, where

it is not under pressure. Polyethylene was used successfully

as creosote drainline material ( i.e., DNAPL recovery). These

drainlines have been jet-routed to remove solids which have

accumulated in the pipe and continue to operate successfully.

Most of the components used in pumps are made of steel.

However, there are some butyl rubber or plastic washers and

seals which will fail in the presence of creosote [Sale, 1993].

Therefore, it is recommended to examine the various

pumping parts that come in contact with creosote and

ascertain that they are not butyl rubber or plastic.

Specifications for pump parts can be provided by pump

manufacturers. Typically, incompatible washers, seals, and

bushings may be replaced with more chemically resistant KelF® or Viton-A®.

Coal Tars: There are several distinct types of coal tars from

manufactured gas plant processes, hereinafter all types are

inclusive to the term coal tar. There are similarities between

coal tar and creosote; they are both a by-product from the

production of coke from coal and when coal tar is distilled, the

200o

 to 400o C fractions are creosote [McGinnis et al., 1988].

Many of the same PAHs in creosote are also found in coal tar

[Ripp et al., 1993]. Taylor [1993] and Unites [1993] report that

PVC material used in heavily contaminated coal tar sediments

under non-pressurized conditions appears to function

properly. However, PVC wells placed in coal tar sediments

did appear swollen after prolonged exposure and the

screened interval may have been compromised [Villaume,

1993]. Others have observed that screened intervals

become clogged with coal tar, presumably due to the viscous

nature of coal tar [Murarka, 1993]. Based on the chemical

similarities between creosote and coal tar, it is reasonable to

assume that PVC is suitable for product thickness wells, or

gravity drainlines, under non-pressurized conditions, but it

may fail under pressurized conditions.

Mixed NAPL (Solvents) Wastes: Hazardous waste sites

usually involve the co-disposal of various chemicals which

collectively float or sink as a NAPL. For example, a mixed

DNAPL composed primarily of bis, 2-chloro-ethyl ether (38%),

DCA (2.5%), styrene, TCE, and an oil carrier was found at a

Superfund site in Texas. At this site, a dedicated PVC bailer

in a PVC cased well underwent partial solvation due to the

incompatibility between the dedicated PVC material and the

NAPL. The remaining PVC bailer and well casing were
5

sufficiently degraded so that both materials became fused

together as a single unit. This resulted in a permanent

“cementation” of the bailer to the casing requiring

abandonment of the well and construction of a new well with

compatible materials [Newell, 1993]. This field observation is

consistent with information in the Chemical Compatibility

Table. For example, PVC is reported as unacceptable

material to use with ethers (general), dichloroethane, styrene,

and trichloroethylene.

At the same site, a paddle-wheel flowmeter was used to

evaluate flow of a water-DNAPL mixture. The flowmeter had

a rubber seal component that lasted approximately 48 hours

before failure. A Viton® covered rubber (inflatable) packer

and a pump with Viton® seals were unaffected after 30 days

by the same DNAPL. The Chemical Compatibility Table does

not include butyl rubber. However, butyl rubber is known to

be vulnerable to degradation in the presence of some organic

solvents. In this particular case, there is a conflict in the

literature regarding the compatibility of Viton® with ethers

(general) and trichloroethylene. Therefore, the potential for

failure exists in this situation.

Material incompatibility with chemical wastes generally

requires the use of a more resistant, and usually more costly

material. One approach to minimize cost is to use PVC

casing that is not in contact with the incompatible chemical,

with a resistant (stainless steel) screen which is in more

immediate contact with the chemical. This must be evaluated

and designed on a site specific basis [Newell, 1993].

Additionally, the use of PVC material on the periphery of the

source area where NAPL is not present may also minimize

construction costs.

While very little information regarding fiberglass reinforced

epoxy (FRE) exists and is not included in the Chemical

Compatibility Table, field information from a DNAPL

Superfund site in Texas was obtained with respect to FRE

compatibility with chlorinated solvents. An interception well

field with five extraction wells was installed to collect DNAPL

and prevent it from discharging to a stream. The DNAPL

primarily consisted of 1,1,2-trichloroethane, vinyl chloride, and

1,2-DCA with a smaller amount of methylene chloride.

Previous experience at this site indicated that PVC material

was clearly incompatible due to its almost instantaneous

deformation upon installation [Meyer, 1993]. The potentially

responsible party selected FRE casing and screens due to its

predicted superior performance. Approximately one month

after installation of the FRE wells, the pumps in two wells with

DNAPL failed due to clogging with pieces of fiberglass.

Subsequently, complete deterioration of the screen and/or the

casing occurred as evidenced by the silting up of the pumps.

The pumps were cleaned and the wells were retrofitted with

smaller diameter stainless steel insert wells which presently

are functioning appropriately [Meyer, 1993].

Surfactants: There is a significant amount of surfactant

research presently being conducted for its potential use in the

field. Since there is very little information on the compatibility

of surfactants with remediation materials, specific

compatibility testing should be conducted. One case study

involves the use of an alkaline polymer surfactant (APS) in a

pilot treatability study at a creosote waste site in Laramie,

Wyoming. The APS completely destroyed PVC material

under non-pressure conditions presenting significant

incompatibility problems [Sale, 1993]. Ultimately, steel piping

was necessary to minimize incompatibility failures.

General DNAPL Consideration: Due to the known

heterogeneous nature of stratigraphy at any site, it is likely for

DNAPLs to be present at numerous vertical locations.

Therefore, compatibility evaluations need to be made for each

contaminated zone along the complete length of a well

casing. It is possible that subsequent degradation or

corrosion of well casing material or annular sealants may

create a vertical pathway where DNAPLs can migrate through

previously uncontaminated hydrostratigraphic units.

Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that a compromised

well, through improper construction or deterioration, may

facilitate the transport of DNAPLs.

Remediation, Well Construction, and Sampling

Material

Well casing and screening, plumbing appurtenances, bailers,

sampling tubes, sample bottles, pumps, water-level

indicators, interface probes and a variety of water chemistry

probes all may be exposed to corrosive and degrading

compounds in heavily contaminated subsurface

environments. The information available from equipment

manufacturers for each of these products currently on the

market either does not exist or is too voluminous to assimilate

into a single compatibility table. These products do have a

common ground, namely the materials from which they are

constructed. Therefore, the materials provide the basis for

the Chemical Compatibility Table. Many manufacturers use

similar chemical resistance data for their materials to specify

acceptable applications for their products.

Quite often, equipment manufacturers recommend that

compatibility experiments be constructed by the user prior to

use. This practice has the added benefit of providing specific

information regarding the specific composition and

concentration of the chemicals involved. One problem with

this approach is the uncertainty associated with the duration

of the experiment. For example, compatibility testing is

typically conducted for a short duration. Since the selection of

proper materials is partially dependent on long-term

performance, data from the short-term tests do not

necessarily represent long-term performance.

Manufacturers of polymer resins, metals, and metal alloys

provide chemical resistance test data for a variety of

chemicals. These data have been incorporated into the

Chemical Compatibility Table. Since there is no

comprehensive compatibility guide available for subsurface

contaminants with specific ground-water sampling and well

construction products, it is necessary to determine what

materials (e.g., wetted parts) will be exposed to which

contaminant.

The following materials (and their acronyms) were included in

the compilation of the Chemical Compatibility Table:

acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS), acetal / Delrin®,

chlorinated polyvinyl chloride (CPVC), fluorinated ethylene

propylene(FEP), nylon 6 and 66, high density polypropylene

(HDPE), polytetrafluoroethylene / Teflon® (PTFE), polyvinyl

chloride (PVC), polyvinylidiene fluoride / Kynar® (PVDF),

ethylenepropylenediene (EPDM), perfluoroelastomer(Kel-F® ),

neoprene, Nitrile Buna-N, polyurethane, silicone, Tygon®,
6

Viton-A®, ceramic, silica, 304 and 316 stainless steel, carbon

steel, aluminum, brass, copper, and nickel-alloy steel

(Hastelloy-C®). Rigid PVC is listed in two columns, mediumimpact Type I, and high-impact Type II [Harper, 1975].

In the table, well construction and sampling materials listed

are referenced by these materials and not the many available

configurations (e.g., schedule 40 vs. schedule 80 PVC pipe).

Bailers, well casing, and drain materials generally are

constructed from PVC Types I and II, CPVC, nylon, HDPE,

PTFE, FEP, 304 and 316 stainless steel, carbon steel,

Hastelloy-C®, or aluminum. Fittings and tubing are made of

brass, copper, stainless steel, aluminum, nylon, Tygon®,

PTFE, or silicone. Pump diaphragms, gaskets, and o-rings

are made of PTFE, EPDM, Kel-F®, Neoprene, Nitrile Buna-N,

polyurethane, silicone, or Viton-A®. Other wetted pump parts

are made of various metals and plastics. Silica was included

to represent sand packing material. Ceramics represent

lysimeter material. There was very little compatibility

information published on fiberglass reinforced epoxy (FRE);

therefore, FRE was not included in the Chemical Compatibility

Table.

Compilation of Contaminants

The Chemical Compatibility Table contains 207 organic

compounds which are primarily NAPLs or contaminants

associated with EPA’s list of 129 priority pollutants [Viessman

and Hammer, 1985]. Metals from the EPA’s priority pollutant

list were not included in the Chemical Compatibility Table.

The compatibility table does not differentiate between isomers

of a single compound (e.g., 2-nitrophenol and 4-

nitrophenol) or variations of trade name chemicals (e.g., the 7

different Aroclors). In addition to the EPA’s priority pollutant

list, the table includes several common mixtures (e.g.,

gasoline, white liquor) and other organic compounds that may

be problematic if present in pure phase. Although the data

presented were compiled primarily for NAPLs, there are

numerous exceptions. For example, there are several entries

for compounds which are miscible with water (e.g., acetone,

ethyl alcohol, methyl alcohol). Some entries are reported as

percent (%) mixtures of organic compounds which represent

the aqueous phase concentration in water (i.e., Aldrin,

Chlorodane, DDT). Additionally, there are several inorganic

chemicals (e.g., carbonic acid, H2

O2).

There are 47 environmentally important chemicals listed at

the end of the Chemical Compatibility Table for which no data

were found. Thirteen (13) of these compounds are polycyclic

aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) which are commonly found in

creosote and coal tar type wastes [McGinnis et al., 1988; Ripp

et al., 1993]. Creosote and coal tar are mixtures of hundreds

of compounds which these PAHs represent only a fraction. At

room temperature (and below), these compounds are solids

in pure form. As such, no compatibility data for these

compounds were available.

References and data tables listing the resistance properties of

common well construction and sampling equipment materials

to hundreds of additional chemicals (i.e., calcium hydroxide,

nickel nitrate, butylbromide, etc.) can be found among the

published literature [Cole-Parmer Instrument Co. Catalog,

1995-1996; Schweitzer, 1991; Craig, 1989; De Renzo,

1985; Harper, 1975; Rabald, 1968]. These additional

chemicals, however, have not been included in the Chemical

Compatibility Table because of their limited occurrence as

environmental contaminants.

Several references were used to compile the Chemical

Compatibility Table. The two major references were the

1995-1996 Cole-Parmer Instrument Co. Catalog, Chemical

Resistance Charts, and the Corrosion Resistance Tables

presented in Schweitzer, 1991. Other references were used

for cross-checking data and for less common chemicals

[Craig, 1989; De Renzo, 1985; Harper, 1975; Rabald, 1968].

Chemical Compatibility Table

The Chemical Compatibility Table has been compiled to

assist remediation design personnel with selecting the most

appropriate remediation, well construction, and sampling

materials for specific waste conditions. This table should only

be used as a guide since it is extremely difficult to universally

represent actual conditions in the testing procedure. It may

be necessary to perform additional, site-specific testing under

actual operating conditions to obtain compatibility information

regarding the suitability of a particular material. This is

especially true considering the number of possible

combinations of chemical and physical conditions which occur

at any given hazardous waste site.

At a minimum, the references used in compiling the Chemical

Compatibility Table generally reported findings from 48-hour

immersion tests with 100% or neat solutions, unless

otherwise noted.

Remediation, well construction, and sampling materials have

been divided into four categories: plastics, elastopolymers,

earth-materials, and metals. The compatibility classification

for the corrosion of metals is:

Excellent (E) = less than 2 mils per year

Satisfactory (S) = less than 20 mils per year

Good (G) = less than 50 mils per year

Unsatisfactory (U) = greater than 50 mils per year

(note: 1 mil equals one one-thousandth of an inch)

The corrosion rate data may be used with material thickness

data to estimate the lifetime of the materials. There are

several other variables and parameters which will influence

actual corrosion rates and, therefore, this approach should

only be considered a rough estimate.

Two classification schemes were used to represent

degradation data for the plastics, elastopolymers, and earthmaterials categories:

applicable to applicable to

at least 22oC at least 15oC

A = Excellent - No Effect

B = Good - Minor Effect R = Resistant

C = Fair - Moderate Effect

U = Poor - Severe Effect U = Unsatisfactory

The A, B, and C classifications are roughly equivalent to the R

“resistant” classification. In order to provide a reliable

compatibility table, data for each chemical were cross-
7

This issue paper provides a guide on the compatibility of

NAPLs and other environmentally important contaminants

with materials used in well construction, subsurface sampling,

and other various remediation activities. A Chemical

Compatibility Table is presented which identifies the

compatibility of 207 contaminants with materials such as

metals (stainless steel, nickel steel, aluminum, etc.), plastics

(PVC, PTFE, polypropylene, etc.), earth materials (ceramic,

silica) and elastopolymers (Tygon®, silicone, Viton-A®, etc.).

This information can assist scientists and engineers with the

decision-making process when designing monitoring and

recovery systems for heavily contaminated subsurface

environments.

The Chemical Compatibility Table was compiled from

numerous sources which employed various testing protocols.

The conditions and duration under which the information was

generated are not universal. As such, the compatibility

information should only be used as a guideline. Site-specific

compatibility tests would provide more reliable information.

The field experiences reported in this issue paper serve to

illustrate the compatibility problems of a few of the common

wastes and materials found at hazardous waste sites. These

experiences also emphasize the need to report material

failures to minimize similar occurrences in future remediation

work.

References

Abdul A. S., T. L. Gibson and D. N. Rai, 1990, Laboratory

studies of the flow of some organic solvents and their

aqueous solutions through Bentonite and Kaolin Clays,

Ground Water, Vol. 28, No.4, pp. 524-533.

Agarwal S. H., and R. S. Porter, 1988, J. Appl. Polym. Sci.,

Vol. 25, pp. 173.

Aller, L., T. W. Bennett, G. Hackett, R. J. Petty, J. H. Lehr, H.

Sedoris, D. M. Nielsen, and J. E. Denne, 1989, Handbook of

Practices for the Design and Installation of Ground-Water

Monitoring Wells. EPA/600/4-89/034.

Al-Malaika, S., 1987, History of polymeric composites, R.

B. Seymour and R. D. Deanin, Eds., VNU Science Press,

Chapter 13.

Barcelona, M. J., J. A. Helfrich, and E. E. Garske, 1988,

Verification of sampling methods and selection of materials

for ground water contamination studies, Ground-Water

Contamination: Field Methods, ASTM STP 963, A. G. Collins

and A. I. Johnson, Eds., American Society for Testing and

Materials, Philadelphia, PA, pp. 221-231.

Bradley, S. A., P. Engler, and S. H. Carr, 1973, Microbial

degradation of polymer solids, Appl. Polym. Sym., Vol. 22, pp.

269.

Cassil, J.K., and T. S. Barton, 1994, Effect of dense

nonaqueous phase liquids on neat cement and bentonitecement grout intregrity, Syntex Agribusiness, Inc.,

Environmental Projects Department, Springfield, MO, DRAFT

Report.

checked between references whenever possible. The

notation “ X = Conflicting Data” refers to the situation when a

chemical and a corresponding material had two or more

references that did not agree on the compatibility

classification, and at least one of the references reported the

compatibility as unsatisfactory. For example, a conflict was

noted when the compatibility of a chemical with a given

material was reported as “U” and “A”,” B” or “C”; or if the

compatibility was reported as “U” and “R”. The notation “ - “

refers to no data available when none of the references had

compatibility data for a chemical and material.

Example

Remediation, well construction, and sampling materials

comprise the columns of the Chemical Compatibility Table,

while the chemicals are listed alphabetically by row. The

compatibility classification may be read from the chemical

(row) and material (column) intersection. For example, if

trichloroethylene (TCE) was the chemical of concern and

compatible well construction and sampling materials needed

to be identified, then TCE could be located by row and

compatible materials could be determined.

Materials in the metals group are compatible with pure-phase

TCE, but many plastics and elastopolymers are not. If a

recovery well was being designed, then 304 or 316 stainless

steel would be a compatible choice. PVC, however, is

incompatible with pure-phase TCE and is not suggested for a

recovery system.

In designing a sampling system, compatibility of materials for

pumps and sampling lines can be evaluated. Specifically, all

components of the system should be evaluated, including well

casing and screen, sampling lines, bailers, pumps and their

component parts, above ground piping, etc. For example,

wetted parts of a pump such as seals and bushings

constructed of Kel-F® and Teflon® are compatible with TCE,

but products containing neoprene and silicone are not

recommended. It should be noted that no compatibility data

were reported for TCE and Tygon® and that conflicting data

were reported for TCE and Viton-A®.

In general, most metal and plastic materials may be adequate

for use in low dissolved concentrations of NAPLs, from a

structural integrity point of view. However, some

elastopolymers may not provide adequate service because

these materials seem to be the most susceptible to

degradation. The Chemical Compatibility Table provides a

comprehensive list of published information for pure-phase

compounds. Data on various concentrations of compounds in

water are not included in the table.

Summary

NAPLs are common contaminants at hazardous waste sites

and are present in the subsurface in continuous and residual

phases. Their soluble constituents dissolve into the

surrounding ground water. High aqueous concentrations of

organic compounds and NAPLs can be detrimental to longterm subsurface monitoring and recovery systems by

degrading well construction, sampling, and remediation

materials.
8

Cohen, R.M. and J.W. Mercer, 1993, DNAPL Site Evaluation,

EPA/600/R-93/022.

Cole-Parmer Instrument Company Catalog 1995-1996,

Chemical resistance charts, pp.1463-1471.

Craig, B. D., 1989, Handbook of Corrosion Data, ASM

International, Metals Park, OH.

De Renzo, D. J., 1985, Corrosion Resistant Materials

Handbook, 4th Ed., Noyes Data Corp.

Dole M., 1983, The effects of hostile environments on coating

and plastics, D. P. Garner and G. A. Stahl, Eds., ACS

Symposium Series No. 229, American Chemical Society.

Gillham, R. W., and S. F. O’Hannesin, 1990, Sorption of

aromatic hydrocarbons by material used in construction of

ground water sampling wells, Ground Water and Vadose

Zone Monitoring, ASTM STP 1053, D. M. Nielsen and A. I.

Johnson, Eds., American Society for Testing and Materials,

Philadelphia, PA, pp. 108-122.

Gillham, R. W., and S. F. O’Hannesin, 1994, Enhanced

degradation of halogenated aliphatics by zero-valent iron,

Ground Water, Vol. 32, No. 6, pp. 958-967.

Harper, C. A., 1975, Handbook of Plastics and Elastomers,

McGraw-Hill, Inc., New York, NY, Chapter 4, pp. 32-33.

Hewitt, A. D., 1989, Leaching of metal pollutants from four

well casings used for ground-water monitoring. Special

Report 89-32, USA Cold Regions Research and Engineering

Laboratory, Hanover, NH.

Hewitt, A. D., 1992, Potential of common well casing materials

to influence aqueous metal concentrations, Ground Water

Monitoring Review, Vol. 12, No. 2, pp. 131-135.

Hewitt, A. D., 1993, Dynamic study of common well screen

materials, Ground Water Monitoring Review, Vol. 13, No. 1,

pp. 87-94.

Hubbard, T., S. Wilhelm, and R. Breeden, 1993, Superfund

DNAPL Site Assessment Study, National Results, Draft Final

Report.

Huling, S. G., and J. W. Weaver, 1991, Dense Nonaqueous

Phase Liquids, EPA/540/4-91/002.

Jones, J. N., and G. D. Miller, 1988, Adsorption of selected

organic contaminants onto possible well casing materials,

Ground-Water Contamination: Field Methods, ASTM STP

963, A. G. Collins and A. I. Johnson, Eds., American Society

for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, PA, pp. 185-198.

Llopis, J. L., EPA, 1992, Survey of Laboratory Studies

Relating to the Sorption/Desorption of Contaminants on

Selected Well Casing Material, EPA/540/4-91/005, Revised

August 1992.

McGinnis G. D., H. Borazjani, L. MacFarland, D. Pope, and D.

Strobel, 1988, Characterization and Laboratory Soil

Treatability Studies for Creosote and Pentachlorophenol

Sludges and Contaminated Soil, EPA/600/2-88/055.

Meyer, J., Personal Communication, EPA Region 6 Remedial

Project Manager, Dallas, TX, September, 1993.

Mercer, J. W. and R. M. Cohen, 1990. A Review of Immiscible

Fluids in the Subsurface: Properties, Models,

Characterization, and Remediation, J. of Contam. Hydrol.,

Vol. 6, pp. 107-163.

Moehrl, K. E., 1961, Corrosion attack in water wells,

Corrosion, Vol. 17, No. 2, pp. 26-27.

Morrison, R. D., 1986, The new monitoring well, Ground

Water Age, April, pp. 19-21.

Murarka, I. P., Personal Communication, Electric Power

Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA, September 1993.

Newell, C., Personal communication, Ground Water Services,

Houston, TX, August 1993.

Newell, C., S. D. Acree, R. R. Ross, and S. G. Huling, 1995,

Light Nonaqueous Phase Liquids, EPA/540/S-95/500.

Parker, L. V., A. D. Hewitt, and T. F. Jenkins, 1990, Influence

of casing materials on trace-level chemicals in well water,

Ground Water Monitoring Review, Vol. 10, No. 2, pp. 146-

156.

Parker, L. V., and T. A. Ranney, 1994, Softening of rigid

polyvinyl chloride by high concentrations of aqueous solutions

of methylene chloride, Special Report 94-27, USA Cold

Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory, Hanover, NH.

Rabald, E., 1968, Corrosion Guide, 2nd Ed., Elsevier

Science, Inc., Publishing Co., New York, NY, 900 pp.

Reynolds, C. W., J. T. Hoff, R. W. Gillham, 1990, Sampling

bias caused by materials used to monitor halocarbons in

ground water, Environmental Science and Technology, Vol.

24, No. 1, pp. 135-142.

Ripp, J., B. Taylor, D. Mauro, and M. Young, 1993, Chemical

and physical characteristics of tar samples from selected

manufactured gas plant (MGP) sites, prepared for Electric

Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA, TR-102184,

Research Project 2879-12.

Sai J. O., D. C. Anderson, 1992, Barrier Wall Materials for

Containment of Dense Nonaqueous Phase Liquid (DNAPL),

Hazardous Waste & Hazardous Materials, Vol. 9, No. 4, pp.

317-330.

Sale, T., Personal Communication, CH2

M Hill, Denver, CO,

August 1993.

Schmidt, G.W., 1987, The use of PVC casing and screen in

the presence of gasolines on the ground water table, Ground

Water Monitoring Review, Vol. 7, No. 2, pp. 94.

Schweitzer, Philip A., 1991, Corrosion Resistance Tables,

3rd Ed., Parts A and B, Mercel Dekker, Inc., New York, NY.

Seymour, R. B., 1989, Influence of long-term environmental

factors on properties, Engineered Materials Handbook, Vol.
9

2, Engineering Plastics, ASM International, Metals Park, OH,

pp. 423-432.

Sykes, A. L., R. A. McAllister, and J. B. Homolya, 1986,

Sorption of organics by monitoring well construction materials,

Ground Water Monitoring Review, Vol. 6, No. 4, pp. 44-47.

Taylor B., Personal Communication, META Environmental,

Inc., Watertown, MA, September 1993.

Taylor, S., and L. Parker, 1990, Surface changes in well

casing pipe exposed to high concentrations of organics in

aqueous solution, Special Report 90-7, USA Cold Regions

Research and Engineering Laboratory, Hanover, NH.

Unites, D., Personal Communication, Atlantic Environmental

Services, Inc., Colchester, CT, September 1993.

U.S.EPA 1986, RCRA Ground Water Monitoring Technical

Enforcement Guidance Document, Washington D.C. OSWER9950.1 pp. 78-79.

U.S. Dept. of Interior, 1981, A guide for the investigation,

development, and management of ground-water resources,

Ground Water Manual, 371 pp.

Viessman, W. Jr., and M. J. Hammer, 1985, Water Supply

and Pollution Control, 4th ed., Harper & Row, New York, NY,

pp. 232-234.

Villaume, J., Personal Communication, Pennsylvania Power

and Light Company, Allentown, PA, September 1993.
Acetaldehyde U A U R U U A A U U X A A C U U A U U - R E E G E G U U

Acetamide - A - R R R A A U - C A A B A U B U B - - G G - - G - -

Acetate Solvent U - U R R R B A U U A A A C U - A U U - - E E G E E S G

Acetic Acid 10% X X C R U R B A U - C A A C C - C U R A R E E U E G U G

Acetic Acid, Glacial U U U R U R A A U U B U A X X U B U U A R E E U E E U U

Acetone U A U R R R A A U U U A A U U U B U U A R E E G E E G E

Acetonitrile U - - R R - R R - - R R - - - - - - - - - G G G - E G G

Acetophenone U - - R R U R R U U R R - U U - - - U - - G G G G G G G

Acetyl Chloride U - U R U U U A U U R U - U U U - - R - R G G G - U U U

Acetylene R - R R R - R R R R R R - R R - - - R - - E E G G E U U

Acrylonitrile U - X R R R A A X U A X - C U - U - U - - G G G G E G G

Adipic Acid R - A R - R B A R R A A A B X - U - X - - G G G E G - G

Aldrin (1 oz/gal) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E E G - E - -

Allyl Alcohol U - R R R R R R R R R R - R R - - - R - - E E G G G G E

Allyl Chloride U - U R - R R R U U R U - U U - - - - - R G E U - U - -

Ammonium Acetate - - A R A - A A R R R A - A B - - A A - - G G - - G U U

Ammonium Oxalate 10% - - - R - - R R R - - R - - - - - - - - - G G U E E - U

Amyl Acetate U B U R R R X A U U A A A U U U U U U A R E E G E E E G

Amyl Alcohol R A A R A R B A R U A A A A B U U A B A R G G G G G G G

Amyl Chloride U - U R U U U R U U U R - U U - - - R - - G G U E U G G

Aniline U A X R X R X A U U A X A U U U U C B A R E E G G G U U

Aniline Hydrochloride U - U R U U X A X U A B - U U - U U A - R U U U U U U G

Antifreeze B U A - U - U - A - - A - C A - C B A - - - A - - A - -

Aroclor 1248 - - - R A U U A - - - B A U X - B - A - - G G G E E E E

Asphalt - B X R A R B A A - A U A U X - U - A - - G G G - E E E

Benzaldehyde X A U R A U X A U U A A A U U U U U U A R G G U G G G G

Benzene U A U R A U X A U U A U B U U U U C A A R G G G G E G G

Benzo Sulfonic Acid 10% R - R R U R R R R R R U - R U U - - R - R G G U G U G -

Benzyl Alcohol U A X R B U A A U U A B A X X U - U A A R E E G G G G E

Benzoic Acid R B A R X B R A R R A U A B U U B A A A R G G U E G G G

Benzol U A U R X U U A U U A U A U U U U C A A R G G G G E G G

Benzonitrile - - - R R A - A - - - - A - - - A - - - - U U - C - - -

Benzyl Chloride U A U R R - C R R - R U - U U - U - A - - G G U - U U U

Bromobenzene - - - R - - U R - - R U - U U - - - R - - - - - - - - -

Butadiene U A A R R U U A R U A X A B X U U - B - - G G G G G G G

Butane B A C R R U U A R R A U A A A R U C A - - G G E G G G G

Butyl Alcohol U A A R B B R A R U A A A A X - B B A - R E E G G E G G

n-Butyl Amine - X U R R U U A U U X - U U R - B U U - - - G G G G - -

Butyl Ether - U U R A - - A R - A U A U B - U A U - - - E E - E - -

Butyl Phenol U - U R - - U R U U R - - U - - - - U - - G E - G G - -

Butyl Phthalate - - U R R - R R R - R B A D U - A - C - - G G - G U G G

Plastics Elastopolymers Metals

 CHEMICAL COMPATIBILITY TABLE

For All Non- Metals For Metals

R = Resistant E < 2 mils Penetration/Year

A = Excellent - No effect G < 20 mils Penetration/Year

B = Good - Minor effect S < 50 mils Penetration/Year

C = Fair - Moderate effect U > 50 mils Penetration/Year

U = Unsatisfactory ( 1 mil = .001 inch )

X = Conflicting Data A = Excellent - No effect*

- = No Data Available B = Good - Minor effect*

C = Fair - Moderate effect*

* No corrision rate reported

ABSAcetal (Delrin)CPVCFEPNylon 6, 66HDPEPolypropylenePTFE (Teflon)PVC Type IPVC Type IIPVDF (Kynar)EPDMKel-FNeopreneNitrile Buna-NPolyurethaneSiliconeTygonViton-ACeramicSilica304 Stainless316 StainlessCarbon SteelHastelloy-CAluminumBrassCopper
ABS

Acetal (Delrin)CPVCFEPNylon 6, 66HDPEPolypropylenePTFE (Teflon)PVC Type IPVC Type IIPVDF (Kynar)EPDMKel-FNeopreneNitrile Buna-NPolyurethaneSiliconeTygonViton-ACeramicSilica304 Stainless316 StainlessCarbon SteelHastelloy-CAluminumBrassCopper

Plastics Elastopolymers Metals

Butylacetate U A X R A R X A U U B B A X U - U U U - R G G G G E G G

Butyric Acid U A U R U U R R U U A B A U U - U U B - R G G U E G G G

Carbon Tetrachloride U B U R X U U R U U R U A U U U U B A A R E E G E U G E

Carbonic Acid R B A R R R A A R R A B A X X R A - A A - G G G E E G G

Chloroacetic Acid U U U R U U C A R R A B A U U U U A U - - U U U E U U U

Chlorobenzene U X U R R U U B U U A U A U U - U A A A R G G G E G G G

Chlorobromomethane - - - - C - A A U - - B - U U - U - A A - - - - - - B -

Chlordane (1/4 lb/gal) U - - - - - - R - - - U - C B - U - A - - G G G - - - -

Chloroethane U A U R R R X A U U A X A U U - U - B - - G G G - - - G

Chloroform U A U R R U X A U U A U B U U U U B A A R E E U G G G G

Chloronaphthalene U - - - - - - - R - - - - U U - - - - - - - G - E U - -

Chlorophenol 5% (aq.) - R U R U - - R U U R - - - - - - - - - - G G S E - - -

Citric Acid U B B R R A A A R - A A A A A - A - A A R E E U E E - E

Cresol U U U R U U U R X U R U A U U U U U X - R E G G G G - -

Cresylic Acid 50% U U U R U R X R R R R X - U U U U - A - - G G G G G - -

Crude Oil R R R R R U R U U U U U - U R R - - R - - E E G E E G G

Cyclohexane R A U R R R U A X - R U A U B R U U A - - G G G G G G G

Cyclohexanone U A U R R U U A U U R B U U U - U U U A - G G U G G G G

DDT 5% - - U - - - - - U U - - - - - - - - - - - E E G - E - -

Detergents (general) B A A R R R A A R R A A A B A - A A A A - E G G E G G E

Diacetone Alcohol - A U R R R R A R - A A B U U - U B U - - G G G E E E E

Dibutyl Phthalate U - U R R U R R U U U R - U U U - - U - - G G G G G G G

Dichlorobenzene U - U R X U C A U U A U - U U - U - C - - - G - E G - -

Dichloroethane U A U R R R X A U U A U A U U - - U C A R G G G G G G -

Dichloroethylene U - - R R - R R U U R U - U U - - - R - - G G - G G - -

Dichlorofluoromethane - - - R - - - R U U - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Diesel Fuel - A A R R R A A R - A U A B A - U - A - - E E G G E E -

Diethanolamine - - - R R - R R U U U - - R - - - - - - - E E E E E - G

Diethyl Amine U B U R R U A X U - X B A A C - B C A - - G G U - G - -

Diethyl Ether U R U R R U R A U U R U C U U - U - U - - G G G G G G G

Diethyl Phthalate - - - - - - - R - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Diethylene Glycol B A A R R R A A X - A A - A A - B C A - - E E E G G - G

Dimethyl Aniline U U U R R - X A U U A B A U U - U U U - - B B - B A - -

Dimethyl Ether - - - R - - - R - - - - - U R - - - - - - G G - G - G G

Dimethyl Formamide U X U R R R A X U U U X A X U - C U X - - - G U - E - -

Dimethyl Phthalate U - - R R - R R U U R - - U U - - - R - - E E E - E - -

Dimethyl Sulfoxide - R U R R R R R U - U - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Dinitrotoluene - - - - - - - R - - - U - U U - U - X - - G G - - - - -

Dioctyl Phthalate U - U R R U U R U U R R - U U U - - R - - G G G - E - -

Dioxane U R - R R U R R U - U U - U U - - - U - - G G G G G G G

Diphenyl - - - R R - U A U - - U - B U R U - A - - G G G G G G G

Diphenyl Oxide - U - - - - U A U - B U - U A - C U A - - B A - B B - A

Esters (general) - - U R R - - R U U R - - - - - - - - - - - G - - - - -

Ethane - A A - U - U A A - A U - B A - U A A - - A A - - - - A

Ethanolamine - U U R R - X A U - X B U B B - B - U A - E E G G G - -

Ethers (general) U A U - R U U A U U R C B U X - U C X - R E E G G G G G

Ethyl Acetate U A U R R R A A U U X B A U U U B U U A R G G G G - G G

Ethyl Alcohol B A B R R R A A R R R A B A C U B C A A R G G G E E G G

Ethyl Benzene - R - R - U U R U U R U - U U - - - R - - S G U E G - -

Ethyl Benzoate U - U - - U B A U - U - - U U - U U A - - - - - - - - -

Ethyl Chloride U R U R R U U R U U R R - U R U - - B - R E E G G - - G

Ethyl Ether U A U R R U U A U U R U A U X U U - U - R G G G G G G G
ABS

Acetal (Delrin)CPVCFEPNylon 6, 66HDPEPolypropylenePTFE (Teflon)PVC Type IPVC Type IIPVDF (Kynar)EPDMKel-FNeopreneNitrile Buna-NPolyurethaneSiliconeTygonViton-ACeramicSilica304 Stainless316 StainlessCarbon SteelHastelloy-CAluminumBrassCopper

Plastics Elastopolymers Metals

Ethyl Sulfate - - - - - - - A - - - - A - A - - - A - - U U - - - - B

Ethylene Bromide U - U R R U U A U U A X B X U - U U A - - E E - E - - -

Ethylene Chloride U A U R R R X A U U A X A U U - U - B - - G G G - - - G

Ethylene Chlorohydrin U U U R U U X A U U A B - X U U C U A - - G G G G G G G

Ethylene Diamine U X U R U - R A U U B A U X A - A - B - - G G G U G U U

Ethylene Dibromide - - - R - - R R - - R - - - - - - - - - - - G - G - G -

Ethylene Glycol A B A R R R A A R R A A A A A R A B R A - G G G E E G G

Ethylene Oxide U U X R R R U A U U A X C U U U U - U - R G G G E E U -

Formaldehyde 100% B A A - U - C A A - A A A C C - B B U - - C A - A A - A

Formaldehyde 37% A A A R R R A A R R A A A B X U - - R - R E E U G G E G

Formic Acid 5% - U R R U R R R R - R R - R U - - - R - - G E - E U S E

Fuel oils U A - R R R A B R R B U A B X R U A A - - G G G G G G G

Gasoline (high-aromatic) U B A - - - A B A - A U A A A - U A A A - A A - A U - -

Gasoline (leaded) U A U R R U X A R - A U A B A R U C A A - G G G E G G G

Gasoline (unleaded) U A X R R U X A R - A U A B A R U C A - - G G G E G G G

Glycolic Acid B A A R - R A A R R B A B A A - A A A - - G G U G G - -

Heptane X A A R R R C A R R A U A B A U U B A - - G G G E G G G

Hexachloroethane - - - - - - - R - - - - - - - - - - - - - G G - G G S G

Hexamine - - - R - - - R - - - - - - - - - - - - - E E - E E G -

Hexane U A B R R U B A R R A U A B A R U U A - - E E G E G G -

Hexyl Alcohol - A - - A - - A A - - C - A A - B A C - - A A - A A - -

Hydraulic Oil (petro.) - B - - A - U A A - A U - A A - B A A - - A A - A A A A

Hydraulic Oil (synthetic) - - - - A - U A A - A A - A U - B A A - - A A - A A A A

Hydrazine - B U - - U C C - - A A - B B - B - A - - A A - - - - A

Hydrogen Peroxide (dilute) R R U R R R R R R - R R - U R - - - R - - G G U E E U U

Hydroquinone X A A R U - A A R R R U - A X - - - B - - G G G G G G -

Hydroxyacetic Acid 70% - A A - - - - A U - A A - A A - - - A - - - - - - - - -

Iodoform - - - R - - R C - - C A - A U - - C R - R E E U U G - G

Isobutyl Alcohol B A - - A - A A A - - A - A B - A A A - - - - - - - - -

Isooctane - - - - A B A A A - A U A B A - U A A - - A A - - A A -

Isopropyl Acetate U U U R R R B A U U X B - U U - U - U - - E G E G G - -

Isopropyl Alcohol R A C R U R A A R R R A - B B U A A A A - G G G G G G G

Isopropyl Ether - U R R R - X A R R X U A U B R U A U - - E G - - - G G

Isotane - - - - U - U - A - A - - U A - - - - A - - - - - U - -

Jet Fuel JP-4, JP-5 - A R R R - A A R R A U A U A U U A A - - G G G E G E -

Kerosene X A R R R R R A R R A U A A A U U U A A - G G G G G G G

Lacquer thinners A U - - A - U A U - - U - U U - U U U - - - G - - G - -

Lacquers A U - - A - U A U - U U - U U - U A U - - E E - - - - -

Lactic Acid U B A R R - B A R R B A A A X - A A A A - G G U G G G G

Lead Acetate B B A R R R A A R R A A A A B - A B U A - G G U G U U G

Linoleic Acid A B A R U U B A R R A U - U B - B A B - - G G U G G U U

Maleic Acid R A A R X R R A R R A X - U U - - C A - R G G U G - G -

Malic Acid R A R R X R A A R R A U - X A - B A A - - E E U G G - U

Melamine - A A - A - A A U - - A - U C - C U A - - - U - - - - -

Methane - A - R R - A A R R A X - B A - U - A - - E E G E E E G

Methyl Acetate U X U R R R X A U U B X A X U - U A U - - G G S E G - -

Methyl Acetone - U - - A - - A U - U A - U U - - A U - - A A - - A A -

Methyl Acylate - B - - - - U - - - B B - B U - U - U - - A - - - - - -

Methyl Alcohol U A A R R R A A R R A A A A A U A A U A R G G G E G G G

Methyl Alcohol 10% U A A - B B A A - - A A A A A - A A A A - - - - - - - -

Methyl Amide U U - - - - A A U - C A A - B - - U U - - A A - - A U* -

Methyl Bromide U U U R U R X A U U A U - U B - - - A - - G G G - U - -

Methyl Butyl Ketone - U - - U U U - - - U A - U U - U - U - - A A - - - - -
ABS

Acetal (Delrin)CPVCFEPNylon 6, 66HDPEPolypropylenePTFE (Teflon)PVC Type IPVC Type IIPVDF (Kynar)EPDMKel-FNeopreneNitrile Buna-NPolyurethaneSiliconeTygonViton-ACeramicSilica304 Stainless316 StainlessCarbon SteelHastelloy-CAluminumBrassCopper

Plastics Elastopolymers Metals

Methyl Chloride U B U R R U U A U U A U A U U U U U A - - E E U G U E G

Methyl Chloroform U - U R - - U R U U R U - U U - - - R - - - - - - - - -

Methyl Dichloride - U - - C - U - - - U U - - U - - - A - - - - - - - - -

Methyl Ethyl Ketone U U U R R U B A U U U A A U U U U U U A - G G G G G G G

Methyl Isopropyl Ketone - - - - A - - A U - - C - U U - C - U - - A A - - A - A

Methyl Methacrylate - U R R - - X R R U B U - U U - C - U - - G G U - G - -

Methyl Pentanone U - U R R R R A U U X B A U U - U - U - - G G G G G G G

Methylene Chloride U B U R U U B A U U B X A U U U - U B - R G G G E E G G

Monochloroacetic acid - U - - U U - A - - B C B A U - - - C - - A A - A U* B

U*

Monoethanolamine - U - R R - B A U U U B - X B - B - X - - E E G G G G G

Motor Oil C B A R R U U A R R B U A B A - - A R A - G G G - - G G

Napthalene U X U R R U R A U U A U A U U R U C A A - E E G G G G G

Nitrobenzene U X U R R U B A U U A U A U U U U U B - R G G G G E G G

Nitromethane U A U R U - R A R R A B A U U - U B U - - G G G - G - -

Nitrophenol - - - - - - - R - - - - - - - - - - - - - G G - - G - G

Octane - - - R - R R R U U R U - R R - - - R - - - G G - G G G

Octyl Alcohol A A B - A - - - - - - B - B B - B - B - - A A - C A - A

Oleic Acid X A A R R U B A R R A B B X B R U C B A - E E G G G S G

Oxalic Acid 5% R U R R U R R R R R R R - R U - - - R - - U G U G G S G

Palmitic Acid 10% A A A R R R B A R R A B - U A R U B A - - - G - - G G G

Pentachlorophenol - - - - - - - R - - - - - - - - - - R - - - - E - - - -

Pentane - B - - A - U A A - A U - B A - U A A - - C C - A B - -

Petroleum B B A R - U B A R - A U - B A - U - A - - G G - - G G G

Phenol 10% U X A R U R B A U U A B B U U U U C A A - G G G G E G G

Phthalic Acid B C X R R - A A U U A A - A U - B - A - - G E S G G G G

Phthalic Anhydride B C U R - - U A U - A A - A U - - B A - - E E G E E G -

Picric Acid X A U R U U A A U U A A - A X - B - A - R G G U G E U U

Propyl Alcohol X A A R U R A A R R A A A A A - A A A A - E E G E G G G

Propylene B - - - - - - A B - - U - U U - U B A - - B A - - A - A

Propylene Glycol B B X R R R A A U U A A - C A - A - A A - G G G G G G G

Propylene Oxide - - - R - R R R U U U R - U U - - - U - - E E - - - - -

Pyridine - B U R R R A A U U U X A U U - U U U A - G G G E G G G

Sodium Acetate B B A R R R A A R R A A A B B - U - U A - G G U G E G G

Sodium Benzoate A - A R R R A A R R A A - A B - - B A - - - - - G G - E

Sodium Hypochlorite 20% R U R R U R R R R R R R A U U - B C A - U U U U U G G S

Stearic Acid U A B R R R A A R R A X - B B R B B A - R G E S E G S G

Styrene - A U - A U - A U - - U - U U - U - B - - A A - U* A A B

Tartaric Acid - B A - B - A A A - B B A A A - A B A A - C C - B B U* A

Tetrachloroacetic Acid R - R R R R R R R R R U - R R R - - R - - E E - G G S U

Tetrachloroethane - A X R R - C A U U A U A U U - U - A - R E E E E G - S

Tetrachloroethylene U A U R R U U A U U R U A U U U U - A - - E E G G G G G

Tetrachlorophenol - - - - - - R R - - R - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Tetraethyl Lead U - R R - U R R R R R U - - U - - - R - - G G G - G G -

Tetrahydrofuran U A U R R U C A U U B U A U U - U - X A - E G E E U - -

Toluene U X U R R U C A U U A U B U X U U U C A - E E E E E E E

Toxaphene-Xylene 10-90% - - U R - - R R U - - - - - - - - - - - - G G S - S - -

Trichloroacetic Acid - - R R U R A A R - B B A U R - U C C A - U U U G U G G

Trichlorobenzene - - - - - - - R U - - - - U U U - - R - - - - E - - - -

Trichloroethane - A - - - - C A C - A U A U U - U - A - - - - - - - - -

Trichloroethylene U U U R R U C A U U B U A U U U U - X A - G G G E E G G

Trichlorofluoromethane - - - - - - - - U - - - - U U - - - - - - - G - - G - -

Trichloropropane U A - - - - - A - - - - A A U - - U A - - A A - A U* - A
ABS

Acetal (Delrin)CPVCFEPNylon 6, 66HDPEPolypropylenePTFE (Teflon)PVC Type IPVC Type IIPVDF (Kynar)EPDMKel-FNeopreneNitrile Buna-NPolyurethaneSiliconeTygonViton-ACeramicSilica304 Stainless316 StainlessCarbon SteelHastelloy-CAluminumBrassCopper

Plastics Elastopolymers Metals

Triethanolamine R U R R R U R R U U R R - R U U - - R - - G G G G G U E

Triethylamine U U A R R - U A R R A A A A C - - A X B - G G - - - - -

Trimethylpropane U - R R - - U R R R R - - - R R - - - - - - - - - - - -

Turpentine U A A R R U X A X U A U A U R U U B A A - E E G G G S G

Vinyl Acetate U - U R - U B A U U A B - X X - U U A B - E E G E E G -

Vinyl Chloride U - U - A - - A U - B C - U U - - U A A - B A - A B - B

White liquor (Pulp mill) X U R R R - R R R R R R - R R - - - R - - G G S G G - -

White Water (Paper mill) R B - - R - R - R - - - - A - - - - A - - A A - - - - -

Xylene U A U R R U B A U U A U A U U U U U X A - G G G E G G G

This table should only be used as a guide since it is difficult to duplicate operating conditions. To fully guarantee the suitability of

a particular material, chemical resistance tests should be conducted under actual operating conditions.

No data was found on the following environmentally important chemicals:

Acenaphthene (1) Chloromethylether Fluoranthene (1)

Acenapthalene (1) Chlorophenylphenylether Fluorene (1)

Acrolein Chrysene (1) Heptachlor (2)

Anthracene (1) DDD (2) Hexachlorobenzene

Benzidine DDE (2) Hexachlorobutadiene

Benzo(a)athracene (1) Dichlorobenzidine Hexachlorocyclohexane

Benzo(b)fluoranthene (1) Dichlorobromomethane Indeno(1,2,3-c,d)pyrene (1)

Benzo(g,h,i)perylene (1) Dichlorophenol Isophorone

Benzo(a)pyrene (1) Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid 2-Methylnapthalene

Bromophenylphenylether Dichloropropane Parachlorometa cresol

Butylbenzylphthalate Dichloropropylene Phenanthrene (1)

Chlorodibromomethane Dieldrin (2) Phenylenepyrene

Chloroethoxymethane Dinitrophenol Pyrene (1)

Chloroethylether Diphenylhydrazine Trichlorophenol

Chloroethylvinylether Endosulfan Trichlorophenoxyacetic acid

Chloroisopropylether Endrin (2)

(1) Component of cresotoe and coal tar. At room temperature and below, these compounds are solid in pure form.

(2) Pesticides