SPECIAL REPORT 95-1

Susceptibility of ABS, FEP, FRE, FRP,

PTFE, and PVC Well Casing to

Degradation by Chemicals

Thomas A. Ranney and Louise V. Parker January 1995
Abstract

This study compares the chemical resistance of four less commonly used

materials for casing groundwater monitoring wells: acrylonitrile butadiene

styrene (ABS), fluorinated ethylene propylene (FEP), fiberglass-reinforced

epoxy (FRE), and fiberglass-reinforced plastic (FRP), with two more commonly

used casing materials: polyvinyl chloride (PVC) and polytetrafluoroethylene

(PTFE). The six materials were exposed to 28 neat organic compounds

(including one acid) and to extremely acidic and alkaline conditions for up to

112 days. This was done to simulate some of the most aggressive environments

that monitoring well casings may be exposed to. The casings were observed for

changes in weight and signs of physical degradation (swelling, softening,

decrease in strength, deterioration, or dissolution). As expected, the two

fluorinated polymers (FEP and PTFE) were the most inert materials tested. They

were not degraded by any of the test chemicals, although samples exposed to

a few organic chemicals did show a slight weight gain (~1%). Among the

nonfluorinated products tested, FRE was the most inert. Three organic chemicals

caused particles to flake from the FRE surface, followed by separation of the

glass fibers, and two organic chemicals caused weight gains exceeding 10%.

Also, highly acidic conditions (pH <1) degraded this material, and this may limit

the use of this material in acidic environments. ABS was the most readily

degraded material. By the end of the study, only the acid and alkaline solutions

had little effect on ABS. FRP was more severely degraded by the organic

chemicals than FRE was, but was less affected than PVC. Like FRE, FRP was also

degraded under highly acidic conditions.

For conversion of SI metric units to U.S./British customary units of measurement

consult ASTM Standard E380-89a, Standard Practice for Use of the International

System of Units, published by the American Society for Testing and Materials,

1916 Race St., Philadelphia, Pa. 19103.

This report is printed on paper that contains a minimum of 50% recycled

material.
Special Report 95-1

Susceptibility of ABS, FEP, FRE, FRP,

PTFE, and PVC Well Casing to

Degradation by Chemicals

Thomas A. Ranney and Louise V. Parker January 1995

Prepared for

U.S. ARMY ENVIRONMENTAL CENTER

SFIM-AEC-ET-CR-94071

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

US Army Corps


of Engineers

Cold Regions Research &


Engineering Laboratory
PREFACE

This report was prepared by Thomas A. Ranney, Staff Scientist, Science and Technology

Corporation, Hanover, New Hampshire, and Louise V. Parker, Research Physical Scientist,

Applied Research Branch, Experimental Engineering Division, U.S. Army Cold Regions

Research and Engineering Laboratory (CRREL), Hanover, New Hampshire. Funding for

this work was provided by the U.S. Army Environmental Center (AEC), Aberdeen Proving

Ground, Maryland, Martin H. Stutz, Project Monitor.

The authors thank Martin Stutz and AEC for their support of this work; Robert Forest,

CRREL, for carefully cutting the well casing pieces; and Dr. Thomas Jenkins and Daniel

Leggett, CRREL, for their technical reviews of this manuscript.

This publication reflects the personal views of the authors and does not suggest or reflect

the policy, practices, programs, or doctrine of the U.S. Army or Government of the United

States. The contents of this report are not to be used for advertising or promotion purposes.

Citation of company and brand names does not constitute an official endorsement or

approval of the use of such commercial products.

ii
CONTENTS

Page

Preface ................................................................................................................................. ii

Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 1

Literature review ............................................................................................................... 2

Materials and methods ..................................................................................................... 3

Results and discussion ...................................................................................................... 4

Conclusions and recommendations ................................................................................ 8

Literature cited ................................................................................................................... 10

Abstract ............................................................................................................................... 20

TABLES

Table

1. Chemicals used in testing polymeric materials for weight gain

and degradation ................................................................................................ 2

2. Percentage weight gain of PTFE exposed to chemical treatment ...................... 3

3. Percentage weight gain of FEP exposed to chemical treatment ........................ 4

4. Percentage weight gain of FRE exposed to chemical treatment ........................ 5

5. Percentage weight gain of FRP exposed to chemical treatment ........................ 6

6. Percentage weight gain of PVC exposed to chemical treatment ....................... 7

7. Percentage weight gain of ABS exposed to chemical treatment ........................ 8

8. Comparison of CRREL chemical resistance ratings with those given in

Cole-Parmer and Nalge catalogs .................................................................... 9

iii
Susceptibility of ABS, FEP, FRE, FRP, PTFE, and

PVC Well Casings to Degradation by Chemicals

THOMAS A. RANNEY AND LOUISE V. PARKER

INTRODUCTION

Ideally, any material used as either a well casing or a screen in a groundwater monitoring well

should retain sufficient strength once installed in

the well, should resist degradation by the environment, and should not affect contaminant concentrations in samples by leaching or sorbing organics or metals. Recent guidance by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA 1992)

acknowledges that none of the most commonly

used well casing materials in groundwater monitoring (polytetrafluoroethylene [PTFE], polyvinyl chloride [PVC], or stainless steel) can be used

for all monitoring applications. Strength considerations limit the depth to which PTFE, and to a

lesser extent PVC, can be used. The maximum

depth PTFE can be used is 225 to 375 ft (69 to 114

m), while the maximum depth PVC can be used

is 1200 to 2000 ft (366 to 610 m). While PTFE is

very inert to degradation by chemicals (App. A,

B), PVC is degraded by several neat organic solvents, including low molecular weight ketones,

aldehydes, amines, and chlorinated alkanes and

alkenes (Barcelona et al. 1984). (See App. A and B

for specific chemicals.) PVC can also be degraded

by high concentrations (near solubility) of these

organic chemicals in aqueous solution (Berens

1985, Vonk 1985, 1986). Stainless steel will rust if

corrosive conditions exist. These include a pH

<7.0, a dissolved oxygen content >2 ppm, H2S

levels ≥1 ppm, total dissolved solids content

>1000 ppm, CO2 levels >50 ppm, and Cl- concentrations >500 ppm (Aller et al. 1989, modified

from Driscoll 1986). (Additional information on

the susceptibility of stainless steel 304 and 316 to

a wide range of chemicals can be found in the

Cole-Parmer catalog [Cole-Parmer 1992] or in our

previous report [Ranney and Parker 1994]). Also,

previous studies by this laboratory (Hewitt 1989,

1992, 1993, Parker et al. 1990, Ranney and Parker

1994) and others (Reynolds and Gillham 1985,

Gillham and O’Hannesin 1990, Reynolds et al.

1990) have shown that none of these materials are

chemically inert with respect to sorption and

leaching of analytes of interest. In these studies,

PVC and PTFE sorbed organics, and PVC and SS

sorbed and leached metals.

Recently we started a series of laboratory

studies to determine the overall suitability of four

other pipe and casing materials (acrylonitrile butadiene styrene [ABS], fluorinated ethylene propylene [FEP], fiberglass-reinforced epoxy [FRE],

and fiberglass-reinforced plastic [FRP]) for groundwater monitoring applications. In the first study

we (Ranney and Parker 1994) compared sorption

of a suite of dilute organic solutes by these four

materials, along with PVC and PTFE. We found

that ABS sorbed organic contaminants much

more rapidly and to a greater extent than the

other five materials; losses ranged from 19 to 74%

after only eight hours. On the other hand, FRE

and PVC were relatively nonsorptive, and by the

end of the study (6 weeks) losses were no greater

than 25%. FEP, FRP, and PTFE were intermediate

in their performance, and none of these materials

performed consistently better than the other.

We also found that ABS, FRP, and FRE leached

contaminants into the test solution. These contaminants were observed as spurious peaks in the

HPLC analyses. FRE leached one contaminant

while FRP and ABS leached several contaminants

(five and eleven, respectively). Several of these

peaks were identified by purge and trap GC/MS

analyses. With respect to leaching, our results

agree well with those of Cowgill (1988) for FRE
and Barcelona et al. (1985) and Curran and

Tomson (1983) for PTFE. Presumably FEP would

perform similarly to PTFE.

We concluded that FRE looked like the most

promising material for monitoring organics and

that ABS should not be used when monitoring organics. However, any material that is going to be

used for monitoring organic contaminants should

also be relatively resistant to degradation by a wide

range of organic compounds and should ideally

be able to withstand acidic and alkaline environments. This study compares the susceptibility of

ABS, FEP, FRE, FRP, PVC, and PTFE to degradation

by organic solvents and extremely acidic and alkaline conditions.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Information on the ability of these materials to

resist chemical degradation is sketchy. Most of

the information we found was either provided by

the manufacturer or taken from the Cole-Parmer

catalog (1992) or the Nalge catalog (1994). FEP is

a copolymer of tetrafluoroethylene and hexafluoropropylene, and like other fluoropolymers, such

as PTFE, it has excellent resistance to chemical attack by corrosive reagents and dissolution by solvents (Nalge 1994) (App. B). FRE is composed of

75% silica glass and 25% closed molecular epoxy,

and according to its manufacturer is impervious

to gasoline, hydrocarbon products, and most solvents and additives. The Cole-Parmer catalog

(1992) appears to support this claim for hydrocarbons but not for all solvents. They report that

“epoxy” has good resistance to fuel oils, gasoline,

jet fuel, and kerosene. However, they also report

that epoxy is moderately affected by several ketones and is severely degraded by dichloroethane, dimethyl formamide, benzaldehyde, and

others. (See App. A for a more extensive listing.)

ABS is a terpolymer of acrylonitrile, butadiene,

and styrene. According to the Cole-Parmer catalog (1992), it is severely degraded by a number of

organic chemicals, including several ketones,

chlorinated alkanes and alkenes, and several hydrocarbons such as fuel oils, gasoline, and kerosene. (See App. A for a more extensive listing.)

However, it is important to note that the ColeParmer catalog does not give any detail on the

type of epoxy or ABS materials that were tested.

FRP is composed of 70% fiberglass and 30%

Table 1. Chemicals used in testing polymeric materials for weight

gain and degradation (swelling/softening, dissolution).

Hydrocarbons (aliphatic & aromatic)

Benzene Kerosene (K-1)

Gasoline (93 octane, unleaded) Toluene

Hexane (85% N-hexane) o-xylene

Chlorinated solvents (aliphatic & aromatic)

Bromochloromethane 1,2-dichloroethane

Carbon tetrachloride trans-1,2-dichloroethylene

Chlorobenzene Methylene chloride

Chloroform Tetrachloroethylene

1,2-dichlorobenzene Trichloroethylene

Oxygen-containing compounds

(either a ketone, alcohol, aldehyde, or ether)

Acetone Methyl alcohol

Benzaldehyde Methyl ethyl ketone

Benzyl alcohol Tetrahydrofuran

Cyclohexanone

Nitrogen-containing compounds

N-butylamine Dimethylformamide

Diethylamine Nitrobenzene

Acids and bases

Acetic acid (glacial) Sodium hydroxide (25% w/v)

Hydrochloric acid (25% w/v)

2
Table 2. Percentage weight gain of PTFE exposed to chemical treatment.

Contact time (days)

Chemical 1 7 14 21 28 56 112

Acetic acid (glacial) 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.4

Acetone 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3

Benzaldehyde 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Benzene 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.4

Benzyl alcohol 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Bromochloromethane 0.0 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.7

N-butylamine 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2

Carbon tetrachloride 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.6

Chlorobenzene 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3

Chloroform 0.1 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.8 1.0

Cyclohexanone 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

1,2-dichlorobenzene 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2

1,2-dichloroethane 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.4

trans-1,2-dichloroethylene 0.3 0.8 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.4

Diethylamine 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.5

Dimethylformamide 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0

Gasoline (93 octane, unleaded) 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3

Hexane (85% N-hexane) 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.4

Hydrochloric acid (25% w/v) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Kerosene (K-1) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Methyl alcohol 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Methyl ethyl ketone 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3

Methylene chloride 0.1 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.9 0.9

Nitrobenzene 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1

Sodium hydroxide (25% w/v) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Tetrachloroethylene 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.9

Tetrahydrofuran 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3

Toluene 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2

Trichloroethylene 0.1 0.4 0.5 0.7 0.8 1.0 1.3

o-xylene 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1

polyester resin. Its manufacturer claims that this

product is resistant to corrosion but makes no

claims about its resistance to organic solvents. Since

the manufacturer did not specify which particular

polyester was used in its product, we cannot discuss its chemical resistance except in generic terms.

According to Sax and Lewis (1987), polyesters are

resistant to corrosive chemicals and solvents. However, Fuchs (1989) listed at least one organic compound that was a good solvent for each of the polyesters he listed.

Thus, among ABS, FEP and FRE, FEP appears

to be the most resistant polymer to degradation

while ABS is the least resistant.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Six types of 5-cm- (2-in.-) diameter well casing

or pipe were used in this study: PVC, PTFE, FEP,

ABS, FRE, and FRP. For PVC, PTFE, FRP, and

FRE, we used well casings manufactured specifically for groundwater monitoring. We were unable to find a manufacturer that made FEP well

casings but did find one that made “pipe for sampling groundwater.” When we tried to purchase

the ABS well casing, we found that these manufacturers had gone out of business so we purchased waste and vent pipe. Test specimens measuring approximately 1 cm2 were cut from each

pipe material. Special care was taken to eliminate

contamination from grease or oil during the cutting process. We noted that the cutting process

fractured some of the specimen edges of the two

fiberglass materials and were careful not to use

any specimens with fractured edges. All the test

pieces were placed in 2% solutions of detergent

(Liquinox) and deionized water and stirred for

five minutes, then rinsed repeatedly with deionized water until there was no evidence of

sudsing. The pieces were drained and rinsed

with several additional volumes of deionized water, drained, and then left on paper towels to air

dry.

Each test specimen was weighed to ±0.0001

and placed in a 22-mL borosilicate glass vial.

3
Table 3. Percentage weight gain of FEP exposed to chemical treatment.

Contact time (days)

Chemical 1 7 14 21 28 56 112

Acetic acid (glacial) 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3

Acetone 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2

Benzaldehyde 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0

Benzene 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.3

Benzyl alcohol 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0

Bromochloromethane 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.6

N-butylamine 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1

Carbon tetrachloride 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.4

Chlorobenzene 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3

Chloroform 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.8

Cyclohexanone 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

1,2-dichlorobenzene 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1

1,2-dichloroethane 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.3

trans-1,2-dichloroethylene 0.3 0.7 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.2

Diethylamine 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3

Dimethylformamide 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1

Gasoline (93 octane, unleaded) 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2

Hexane (85% N-hexane) 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2

Hydrochloric acid (25% w/v) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 –0.1 0.1 0.0

Kerosene (K-1) 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Methyl alcohol 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Methyl ethyl ketone 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2

Methylene chloride 0.1 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.7 0.8

Nitrobenzene 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0

Sodium hydroxide (25% w/v) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1

Tetrachloroethylene 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.6

Tetrahydrofuran 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3

Toluene 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2

Trichloroethylene 0.2 0.4 0.3 0.5 0.6 0.8 1.1

o-xylene 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1

Twenty-eight neat organic compounds (including

one acid), and 25% solutions of hydrochloric acid

and sodium hydroxide (Table 1) were used in this

study. Twenty-seven neat organic solvents were

tested, including six hydrocarbons (aliphatic and

aromatic), ten chlorinated solvents (aliphatic and

aromatic), seven oxygen-containing compounds

(that were either a ketone, alcohol, aldehyde, or

ether), and four nitrogen-containing compounds.

Most of the test compounds were EPA priority

pollutants. Five mL of the test chemical were

added to a vial and the vial was sealed with a

Teflon-lined, plastic cap. There were no replicate

samples in this study. There were seven sampling

times: 1, 7, 14, 21, 28, 56, and 112 days. On each

sampling day, each test coupon was removed

from the vial using stainless steel forceps, blotted

with a paper towel and allowed to air dry for

approximately one minute before weighing (to ±

0.0001). Weight gain or loss was used as one measure of physical change. Softening was determined by seeing if the specimen could be easily

indented with the forceps using an untreated

piece of material as a reference. After weighing,

the specimen was returned to its vial and the vial

was recapped. Test samples were stored at room

temperature.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Tables 2–7 show the percentage weight gains

for the six materials and any other observations

relative to physical degradation (swelling, softening, decrease in strength, deterioration, and dissolution).

Although PTFE and FEP are generally recognized as being inert to degradation by chemicals,

by the end of the study they did show slight

weight gains (~1%) when exposed to five organic

chemicals (chloroform, trans-1,2-dichloroethylene,

methylene chloride, tetrachloroethylene, and tri4
Table 4. Percentage weight gain of FRE exposed to chemical treatment.

Contact time (days)

Chemical 1 7 14 21 28 56 112

Acetic acid (glacial) 0.9 2.3* 3.1 3.6 3.6 F

Acetone 0.6 1.8 1.8 1.9 2.0 2.2 2.7

Benzaldehyde 0.1 0.1 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.3

Benzene 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Benzyl alcohol 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1

Bromochloromethane 6.2 11.4 20.8 23.5 24.1 25.6 26.2

N-butylamine 1.5 *F

Carbon tetrachloride 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Chlorobenzene 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2

Chloroform 0.3 1.8 4.9 4.7 5.5 6.2 7.3

Cyclohexanone 0.0 0.0 0.7 –0.1 –0.1 –0.1 –0.1

1,2-dichlorobenzene 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1

1,2-dichloroethane 0.1 0.4 1.3 2.1 2.7 2.8 3.1

trans-1,2-dichloroethylene 0.0 0.4 0.7 1.2 2.4 4.6 8.1

Diethylamine 0.2 1.8 2.0 1.9 2.0 2.0 2.0

Dimethylformamide 1.8 3.0* F

Gasoline (93 octane, unleaded) 0.0 0.0 0.1 –0.1 –0.1 –0.1 –0.1

Hexane (85% N-hexane) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 –0.1 –0.2 –0.1

Hydrochloric acid (25% w/v) 0.1 0.3 0.1 –0.2 –0.4 –1.9 –4.7

Kerosene (K-1) 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Methyl alcohol 0.5 1.8 2.9 3.2 3.9 5.2 7.7

Methyl ethyl ketone 0.2 1.3 2.2 2.4 2.4 2.6 3.0

Methylene chloride 4.3 9.7 14.4 15.0 15.4 15.3 15.6

Nitrobenzene 0.3 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.3 0.5 0.4

Sodium hydroxide (25% w/v) 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.2

Tetrachloroethylene 0.0 0.0 0.1 –0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0

Tetrahydrofuran 0.2 0.7 1.6 2.2 2.6 3.1 3.3

Toluene 0.0 0.0 0.0 –0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0

Trichloroethylene 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3

o-xylene 0.0 0.0 0.0 –0.1 –0.1 –0.1 –0.1

* particles began to flake off coupon

F fibers separated

chloroethylene) (Tables 2, 3). The weight gains

were slightly less for FEP than PTFE. We did not

observe any softening, swelling, or decrease in

strength in any of these samples when compared

with unexposed test pieces. For reference, the final pH of the 25% HCl solution containing the

PTFE samples was –0.75 and the final pH of the

25% NaOH solution containing the PTFE samples

was 13.4.

The FRE well casing material used in this

study had a glossy external surface and a dull

(frosted) internal surface. Three organic chemicals (acetic acid, N-butylamine, and dimethylformamide) caused some flaking of the external

surface within the first week and separation of

the glass fibers after one to eight weeks. N-butylamine delaminated FRE after five weeks. The

particles that flaked off the test pieces did not appear to dissolve with time. No further weight

measurements were made on these samples.

Eight other samples had weight gains of 1 to 10%,

and samples exposed to bromochloromethane

(26.2%) and methylene chloride (15.6%) had the

largest weight gains (Table 4). The sample exposed to the hydrochloric acid solution lost

weight (~5%), most likely a result of loss of the

epoxy resin. The alkaline solution had no effect

on this material. None of the FRE specimens appeared to swell or soften, not even the samples

with the largest weight gain. Some fraying of the

edges was observed on some specimens, but it

is not clear whether this was due to chemical exposure, cutting, or handling. In general, FRE did

not appear to be affected by the hydrocarbons or

aromatic solvents.

FRP was more severely degraded than the previous materials. Eight organic solvents (bromochloromethane, N-butylamine, chloroform, 1,2-

5
Table 5. Percentage weight gain of FRP exposed to chemical treatment.

Contact time (days)

Chemical 1 7 14 21 28 56 112

Acetic acid (glacial) 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.6 0.7 0.9 1.5

Acetone 0.2 2.5 5.0 5.5 5.6 5.6 5.6

Benzaldehyde 0.5 0.5 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.8 1.3

Benzene 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.8

Benzyl alcohol 0.4 0.3 0.5 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.5

Bromochloromethane 21.2 L

N-butylamine –0.2 0.3 1.3 L

Carbon tetrachloride 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2

Chlorobenzene 0.7 0.8 1.5 2.1 2.8 4.5 7.8

Chloroform 6.5 L

Cyclohexanone 0.2 0.2 1.1 0.3 0.6 0.5 0.1

1,2-dichlorobenzene 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.8 1.0 1.1

1,2-dichloroethane 1.0 14.0 14.6 L

trans-1,2-dichloroethylene 7.6 11.2 L

Diethylamine 0.0 0.1 0.4 0.4 0.8 1.9 3.5

Dimethylformamide 0.3 1.1 2.3 4.4 6.2 8.7 8.3

Gasoline (93 octane, unleaded) 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1

Hexane (85% N-hexane) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Hydrochloric acid (25% w/v) 0.1 0.1 –0.2 –0.4 –0.7 –1.8 –5.0

Kerosene (K-1) 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2

Methyl alcohol 0.2 0.6 0.9 0.9 1.1 1.5 1.9

Methyl ethyl ketone 0.1 1.5 3.6 4.6 4.9 4.8 4.8

Methylene chloride L

Nitrobenzene 0.7 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.8 1.0

Sodium hydroxide (25% w/v) 0.0 0.1 –0.1 –0.2 –0.2 0.4 1.5

Tetrachloroethylene 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5

Tetrahydrofuran 0.3 2.5 6.9 9.9 L

Toluene 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.5 0.9

Trichloroethylene 0.8 7.9 16.7 16.3 L

o-xylene 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.2

L glass fiber sheets separated

dichloroethane, trans-1,2-dichloroethylene, methylene chloride, tetrahydrofuran, and trichloroethylene) delaminated it, i.e., the fiberglass sheets

separated. This occurred within the first 24 hours

for methylene chloride and within the first one to

four weeks for the other solvents. The samples

that were delaminated more slowly had weight

gains of ~1 to 16% and showed signs of swelling

(i.e., liquid could be squeezed out of the material)

prior to the sheets separating. Eleven other chemicals (including the glacial acetic acid and the sodium hydroxide solution) caused weight gains of

1 to 10% (Table 5). None of these chemicals caused

any noticeable swelling or softening. Again, some

of the specimens showed frayed edges, although

this may have resulted from cutting or handling

and not chemical exposure. As with FRE, the hydrochloric acid solution caused a slight loss in

weight (5%). FRP appeared to be unaffected by

hydrocarbons and the nonpolar chlorinated solvents.

PVC appeared to be much more readily degraded than the previous materials. By the end of

the study, ten chemicals dissolved or so softened

PVC that the test piece could not be weighed because it disintegrated (Table 6). Four chemicals

had this effect within the first day. Ten other

chemicals appeared to soften PVC and four of

those chemicals caused weight gains that exceeded 100%. Squeezing the swollen specimens

forced out some of the liquid. Only nine of the

thirty chemicals used in this study had little or no

effect on PVC. These chemicals were the neat

acid, the acid and hydroxide solutions, the two

alcohols, three hydrocarbons (gasoline, hexane,

and kerosene) and carbon tetrachloride. In general, PVC is especially susceptible to degradation

by polar, non-hydrogen-bonded solvents.*

* Personal communication, Daniel C. Leggett, Research

Chemist, CRREL, 1994.

6
Table 6. Percentage weight gain of PVC exposed to chemical treatment.

Contact time (days)

Chemical 1 7 14 21 28 56 112

Acetic acid (glacial) 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.4

Acetone 142.6s 145.5 146.7 151.4 156.4 157.3 157.8

Benzaldehyde 100.9s D

Benzene 7.2 29.7s 45.4 49.5 49.2 48.8 48.7

Benzyl alcohol 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1

Bromochloromethane D

N-butylamine 63.8s 111.0 110.7 D

Carbon tetrachloride 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1

Chlorobenzene 57.2s 151.1 153.0 156.6 157.3 158.8 159.8

Chloroform 144.2s 216.1 218.2 221.9 220.3 222.8 223.9

Cyclohexanone D

1,2-dichlorobenzene 16.8s 73.5 134.3 206.6 208.6 214.5 217.7

1,2-dichloroethane 206.6s 352.4 D

trans-1,2-dichloroethylene 49.6s 57.7 57.5 56.2 56.2 56.0 56.3

Diethylamine 2.5 8.7 13.8 17.2 20.4 23.9 31.8s

Dimethylformamide D

Gasoline (93 octane, unleaded) 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1

Hexane (85% N-hexane) 0.0 0.0 0.0 –0.1 –0.1 –0.1 –0.1

Hydrochloric acid (25% w/v) 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.3

Kerosene (K-1) 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Methyl alcohol 0.4 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.4

Methyl ethyl ketone 298.9s D

Methylene chloride 454.9s D

Nitrobenzene 138.1s D

Sodium hydroxide (25% w/v) 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1

Tetrachloroethylene 0.1 0.4 0.6 0.7 0.8 1.2 1.7

Tetrahydrofuran D

Toluene 10.5 38.4s 51.6 50.9 50.7 50.6 51.4

Trichloroethylene 34.9s 71.3 72.8 70.1 71.0 70.5 70.9

o-xylene 3.8 11.7s 17.1 23.0 28.2 44.4 65.7

D dissolved or disintegrated upon handling

s first observation of swelling and/or softening

* Personal communication, Daniel C. Leggett, Research

Chemist, CRREL, 1994.

ABS was by far the most readily degraded

polymer. After only one day, nineteen of the

thirty chemicals tested either dissolved ABS or

softened it to the point where it fell apart (Table

7). Four other chemicals caused either softening

or swelling of the test coupon on the first day. By

the end of the study, only the acid and alkali solutions had little effect (~1% weight gain). While

ABS is susceptible to organic solvents in general,

it is especially susceptible to polar solvents.*

Clearly, ABS is a poor choice where exposure to

neat organic solvents may be involved.

Table 8 compares the chemical resistance ratings from the Cole-Parmer catalog and the Nalge

catalog with our (CRREL) findings. In order to

compare our results with the chemical resistance

ratings given by Cole-Parmer and Nalge companies, we developed the following classification

scheme for our data:

A. Excellent. Any chemical that had little or no

effect on the material, i.e., where the change in

weight was 1% or less.

B. Good. Any chemical that had only a minor

effect, i.e., there was no observable effect except

for a slight change in weight (from 1 to 5%).

C. Moderate effect. Those chemicals that caused

more than a 5% change in weight with no other

observable changes.

D. Unacceptable. Any chemical that caused the

material to swell, soften, dissolve, delaminate, or

that caused particles to fall off.

While we realize that our rating system was

totally arbitrary, we generally had good agreement between our results and those given in the

Cole-Parmer catalog. This was especially true for

PTFE and ABS. For these materials there were

7
only five or six chemicals (respectively) where the

ratings did not agree (given in bold print in Table

8). (There were no listings for FEP or FRP.) The

largest disparity is between their ratings for “epoxy” and our findings for FRE. For FRE, we would

change the ratings for 17 of the 30 chemicals tested,

although there is no trend in either direction. The

differences between “epoxy” and FRE most likely

account for these differences. Differences in contact time may also explain some of these differences. For PVC we would change the ratings for

seven chemicals, raising it for six of them.

Generally, our results agreed with those of the

Nalge Company for PTFE, FEP, and rigid PVC.

There were exceptions for two chemicals (TCE

and chloroform) for PTFE and one exception for

FEP (TCE). For rigid PVC there were six chemicals where our results did not agree; we would

raise the rating for four of those chemicals.

CONCLUSIONS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on our findings, we would rank the resistance of these materials to organic solvents,

from greatest to least resistance, as: FEP=PTFE>

FRE> FRP> PVC> ABS. This ranking should be

used only as a general guide, not as a rule. FRE,

FRP, ABS, and PVC casing materials should be

tested with any chemical they are going to be exposed to, if they haven’t been already. It appears

that all the materials have excellent resistance to

alkaline conditions except FRP, which was only

slightly affected. With respect to exposure to

acidic conditions, FEP, PTFE, and PVC all have

excellent resistance, ABS was slightly affected,

and FRE and FRP were affected the most, although weight losses were only 5% by the end of

the study.

Table 7. Percentage weight gain of ABS exposed to chemical treatment.

Contact time (days)

Chemical 1 7 14 21 28 56 112

Acetic acid (glacial) 19.9 46.6s 55.9 61.1 64.0 70.7 76.8

Acetone D

Benzaldehyde D

Benzene D

Benzyl alcohol D

Bromochloromethane D

N-butylamine D

Carbon tetrachloride 80.6s 260.1 269.9 290.5 291.2 303.3 317.2

Chlorobenzene D

Chloroform D

Cyclohexanone D

1,2-dichlorobenzene D

1,2-dichloroethane D

trans-1,2-dichloroethylene D

Diethylamine 83.0s 110.8 112.9 105.5 108.6 110.6 112.8

Dimethylformamide D

Gasoline (93 octane, unleaded) 20.6 50.0s 56.6 58.4 58.7 60.9 61.9

Hexane (85% N-hexane) 1.5 5.8 8.7 9.9 11.2 13.4 15.1

Hydrochloric acid (25% w/v) 0.1 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.9 1.2

Kerosene (K-1) 0.5 1.4 2.0 2.7 3.3 5.6 8.9

Methyl alcohol 4.2 10.0 13.0 15.0 16.5 21.8 27.8

Methyl ethyl ketone D

Methylene chloride D

Nitrobenzene D

Sodium hydroxide (25% w/v) 0.4 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.8 0.7 0.9

Tetrachloroethylene 102.9s 211.2 232.7 237.2 236.9 245.7 251.2

Tetrahydrofuran D

Toluene D

Trichloroethylene D

o-xylene 206.2s D

D dissolved or disintegrated upon handling

s first observation of swelling and/or softening

8
9

Table 8. Comparison of CRREL chemical resistance ratings with those given in Cole-Parmer and Nalge catalogs.

PTFE FEP FRE PVC ABS

Chemical C-P* CRREL Nalge† CRREL Nalge C-P CRREL C-P CRREL Nalge C-P CRREL

“epoxy” rigid flexible

Acetic acid (glacial) A A A C D DA D D

Acetone A A E A E B1 B D D N N D DBenzaldehyde A1 A E A E D A DD N N B DBenzene A A E A E C1 A C1 D N N DD

Benzyl alcohol A A E A E C A DA G F DDBromochloromethane A A A C D DN-butylamine A2 A A B2 D DD DCarbon tetrachloride A A E A E A1 A DA G N DD

Chlorobenzene B A E AE C1 A DD N N DD

Chloroform A1 B E A E C1 C D D N N D DCyclohexanone A A E A E C A DD N N DD

1,2-dichlorobenzene A A E A E A A D D N N D D1,2-dichloroethane A1 A E A E D B D D F N DDtrans-1,2-dichloroethylene B B C D DDiethylamine D A E AE A B DD N N DD

Dimethylformamide D A E AE DD D D F N DD

Gasoline (93 octane, unleaded) A A E A E A2 A C2 A G N DD

Hexane A A E A E A A B2 A G N D C

Hydrochloric acid (25% w/v) A A E A E A1 B A2 A E E A B

Kerosene (K-1) A A E A E A A A2 A E N D CMethyl alcohol A A E A E B1 C A1 A E F D C

Methyl ethyl ketone A A E A E C1 B DD N N DDMethylene chloride A A E A E A C DD N N DDNitrobenzene A A E A E C1 A DD N N DDSodium hydroxide (25% w/v) A A A A A A A B ATetrachloroethylene A A A A D B D

Tetrahydrofuran A A E A E A B DD N N D

Toluene A A E A E B1 A DD N N DD

Trichloroethylene A B E B E C1 A DD N N DD

o-xylene A A E A E A A D D N N D D

* Cole-Parmer chemical resistance ratings † Nalge chemical resistance ratings (20°C) CRREL chemical resistance ratings from experimental observations

A no effect-excellent E no damage after 30 days A Excellent. Any chemical with little or no effect, i.e., the change

in weight was 1% or less.

B minor effect-good G little or no damage after 30 days B Good. Any chemical that had only a minor effect, i.e., there was no

observable effect except for a slight change in weight (from 1 to 5%).

C moderate effect-fair F some effect after 7 days C Moderate effect. Those chemicals that caused more than a 5%

change in weight with no other observable changes.

D severe effect-not recommended N not recommended for continuous use D Unacceptable. Any chemical that caused the material to swell,

1 satisfactory to 22°C soften, dissolve, delaminate, or lose particles.

2 satisfactory to 48°C
Based on our findings and those in other studies (Cowgill 1988, Ranney and Parker 1994), we

feel that FRE appears to make an excellent candidate material for monitoring organics. It is relatively nonsorptive of dissolved organic solutes

(Ranney and Parker 1994) and is more resistant to

degradation by solvents than the more commonly used PVC. Also, our previous study (Ranney and Parker 1994) and that of Cowgill (1988)

show that FRE does not leach many organic contaminants that would interfere with analyses.

However, because we found that strongly acidic

conditions (pH <1) degraded this polymer, its use

in acidic environments may be limited. Further

tests are needed to resolve this issue.

In this study and our previous study (Ranney

and Parker 1994), FEP performed similarly to

PTFE. These polymers are very resistant to degradation by chemicals, do not appear to leach organic contaminants, but are quite sorptive of

some organic solutes. FEP does not appear to offer any clear advantage or disadvantage over

PTFE.

The chemical resistance of FRP is similar to

that of PVC except that, unlike PVC, it is degraded by very acidic conditions. FRP is much

more sorptive of dilute organic solutes than PVC

and has been found to leach organic contaminants (Ranney and Parker 1994). Therefore, we

feel that PTFE, FEP, FRE and PVC would be generally better for monitoring organics than FRP.

Our previous study (Ranney and Parker 1994)

has shown that PVC is relatively nonsorptive of

dilute organic solutes and does not leach organic

contaminants. However, PVC cannot be used

when neat PVC solvents are present or high concentrations of these solvents are present. (This issue has been addressed by our laboratory in several papers [Parker 1992, Parker et al. 1992,

Parker and Ranney 1994a,b].) However, it should

be noted that neat organic (PVC) solvents are not

normally encountered in most groundwater

monitoring situations. High concentrations of organic (PVC) solvents (approaching their aqueous

solubility) are also relatively uncommon. Thus

PVC can be used in most groundwater monitoring applications.

Of the six casing materials we have tested, we

feel that ABS would be the worst material for

monitoring organic contaminants. It was affected

or degraded by all of the organic solvents we

tested. It also leached many organic contaminants and was extremely sorptive of dilute organic solutes (Ranney and Parker 1994).

We are currently testing FRE, FEP, and FRP to

determine whether they sorb or leach metals.

This will help us determine the overall suitability

of these materials for use in groundwater monitoring wells.

LITERATURE CITED

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 Suggested Practices for

the Design and Installation of Ground-water Monitoring Wells. Dublin, Ohio: National Water Well

Association.

Barcelona, M.J., J.P. Gibb, and R.A. Miller (1984)

A guide to the selection of materials for monitoring well construction and ground water sampling. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Report No. EPA-600/2-84-024, U.S. Government

Printing Office, Washington, D.C.

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

(1985) Sampling tubing effects on ground water

samples. Analytical Chemistry, 57: 460–464.

Berens, A.R. (1985) Prediction of organic chemical permeation through PVC pipe. Journal of the

American Water Works Association, 77(11): 57–64.

Cole-Parmer Instrument Company (1992) ColeParmer Instrument Company 1993–1994 Catalog, p.

1463–1471. Niles, Illinois: Cole-Parmer Instrument Company.

Cowgill, U.M. (1988) The chemical composition

of leachate from a two-week dwell-time study of

PVC casing and a three-week dwell time study of

fiberglass reinforced epoxy well casing. In

Ground-Water Contamination: Field Methods, ASTM

STP 963 (A.G. Collins and A.I. Johnson, Eds.), p.

172–184. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: American

Society for Testing and Materials.

Curran, C.M. and M.B. Tomson (1983) Leaching

of trace organics into water from five common

plastics. Ground Water Monitoring Review, 3: 68–71.

Driscoll, F.G. (1986) Ground Water and Wells. St.

Paul, Minnesota: Johnson Division.

Fuchs, O. (1989) Solvents and non-solvents for

polymers. In Polymer Handbook, Third Edition (J.

Brandrup and E.H. Immergut, Eds.). New York:

John Wiley and Sons, Inc.

Gillham, R.W, and S.F. O’Hannesin (1990) Sorption of aromatic hydrocarbons by materials used

in construction of ground-water monitoring sampling wells. In Ground Water and Vadose Zone

Monitoring, ASTM STP 1053 (D.M. Nielsen and

A.I. Johnson, Eds.), p. 108–122. Philadelphia, Penn10
sylvania: American Society for Testing and Materials.

Hewitt, A.D. (1989) Leaching of metal pollutants

from four well casings used for ground-water

monitoring. USA Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory, Special Report 89-32.

Hewitt, A.D. (1992) Potential of common well

casing materials to influence aqueous metal concentrations. Ground Water Monitoring Review,

12(2): 131–135.

Hewitt, A.D. (1993) Dynamic study of common

well screen materials. Ground Water Monitoring

and Remediation, 13(1): 87–94.

Nalge Company (1994) Nalge Labware 1994, p.

202–207. Rochester, New York: Nalge Company.

Parker, L.V. (1992) Suggested guidelines for the

use of PTFE, PVC, and stainless steel in samplers

and well casings. In Current Practices in Ground

Water and Vadose Zone Investigations, ASTM STP

1118 (D.M. Nielsen and M.N. Sara, Eds.), p. 217–

229. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: American Society for Testing and Materials.

Parker, L.V. and T.A. Ranney (1994a) Softening

of rigid PVC by aqueous solutions of organic solvents. USA Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory, Special Report 94-15.

Parker, L.V. and T.A. Ranney (1994b) Effect of

concentration on sorption of dissolved organics

by well casings. Ground Water Monitoring and Remediation, 14(3): 139–149.

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, 10(2): 146–156.

Parker, L.V., T.A. Ranney, and S. Taylor (1992)

Softening of rigid polyvinyl chloride by high concentrations of aqueous solutions of methylene

chloride. USA Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory, Special Report 92-12.

Ranney, T.A. and L.V. Parker (1994) Sorption of

trace-level organics by ABS, FEP, FRE, and FRP

well casings. USA Cold Regions Research and

Engineering Laboratory, Special Report 94-15.

Reynolds, G.W. and R.W. Gillham (1985) Adsorption of halogenated organic compounds by

polymer materials commonly used in groundwater monitors. In Proceedings of Second Canadian/

American Conference on Hydrogeology, Hazardous

Wastes in Ground Water: A Soluble Dilemma. National Water Well Association, Dublin, Ohio, p. 125–

132.

Reynolds, G.W., J.T. Hoff, and R.W. Gillham

(1990) Sampling bias caused by materials used to

monitor halocarbons in groundwater. Environmental Science and Technology, 24(1): 135–142.

Sax, N.I. and R.J. Lewis, Sr. (1987) Hawley’s Condensed Chemical Dictionary, Eleventh Edition. New

York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company.

U.S. EPA (1992) EPA RCRA Ground-Water Monitoring: Draft Technical Guidance. EPA/530-R-93-

001, Office of Solid Waste, U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. 20460. NTIS

#PB 93-139-350, National Technical Information

Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161 (703-487-4650).

Vonk, M.W . (1985) Permeatie en Drinkwaterleidingen. KIWA, N.V., Nieuwegein, The Netherlands, KIWA Report 85 (In Dutch with English

summary).

Vonk, M.W. (1986) Permeation of organic soil

contaminants through polyethylene, polyvinylchoride, asbestos cement and concrete water

pipes. In Proceedings, American Water Works Association Water Quality Technical Conference, 1985,

vol. 13, p. 701–714.

11
1. AGENCY USE ONLY (Leave blank) 2. REPORT DATE 3. REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVERED

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5. FUNDING NUMBERS

6. AUTHORS

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION

 REPORT NUMBER

9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSORING/MONITORING

 AGENCY REPORT NUMBER

11. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

12a. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT 12b. DISTRIBUTION CODE

13. ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 words)

14. SUBJECT TERMS 15. NUMBER OF PAGES

16. PRICE CODE

17. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 18. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 19. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 20. LIMITATION OF ABSTRACT

 OF REPORT OF THIS PAGE OF ABSTRACT

NSN 7540-01-280-5500 Standard Form 298 (Rev. 2-89)

Prescribed by ANSI Std. Z39-18

298-102

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Approved

OMB No. 0704-0188

Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and

maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information,

including suggestion for reducing this burden, to Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington,

VA 22202-4302, and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (0704-0188), Washington, DC 20503.

January 1995

Susceptibility of ABS, FEP, FRE, FRP, PTFE, and PVC Well Casings to

Degradation by Chemicals

Thomas A. Ranney and Louise V. Parker

U.S. Army Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory

72 Lyme Road Special Report 95-1

Hanover, New Hampshire 03755-1290

U.S. Army Environmental Center

Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland SFIM-AEC-ET-CR-94071

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

Available from NTIS, Springfield, Virginia 22161

Organic chemicals 18

ABS FEP FRP PTFE

Chemical degradation FRE Groundwater monitoring wells PVC

UNCLASSIFIED UNCLASSIFIED UNCLASSIFIED UL

This study compares the chemical resistance of four less commonly used materials for casing groundwater

monitoring wells: acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS), fluorinated ethylene propylene (FEP), fiberglass-reinforced epoxy (FRE), and fiberglass-reinforced plastic (FRP), with two more commonly used casing materials:

polyvinyl chloride (PVC) and polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE). The six materials were exposed to 28 neat organic compounds (including one acid) and to extremely acidic and alkaline conditions for up to 112 days. This

was done to simulate some of the most aggressive environments that monitoring well casings may be exposed

to. The casings were observed for changes in weight and signs of physical degradation (swelling, softening,

decrease in strength, deterioration, or dissolution). As expected, the two fluorinated polymers (FEP and PTFE)

were the most inert materials tested. They were not degraded by any of the test chemicals, although samples

exposed to a few organic chemicals did show a slight weight gain (~1%). Among the nonfluorinated products

tested, FRE was the most inert. Three organic chemicals caused particles to flake from the FRE surface, followed

by separation of the glass fibers, and two organic chemicals caused weight gains exceeding 10%. Also, highly

acidic conditions (pH <1) degraded this material, and this may limit the use of this material in acidic environments. ABS was the most readily degraded material. By the end of the study, only the acid and alkaline solutions had little effect on ABS. FRP was more severely degraded by the organic chemicals than FRE was, but

was less affected than PVC. Like FRE, FRP was also degraded under highly acidic conditions.