# December 2001

METROPOLITAN COUNCIL ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES

and
MINNESOTA DENTAL ASSOCIATION

# EVALUATION OF AMALGAM REMOVAL EQUIPMENT AND DENTAL CLINIC LOADINGS TO THE SANITARY SEWER

December 21, 2001

METROPOLITAN COUNCIL ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES

and
MINNESOTA DENTAL ASSOCIATION

Peter A. Berglund Metmpolitan Council Environmental Services Environmenfal Planning and Evaluation Deparfinent Industrial Waste & Pollution Prevention Section

230 

### Eas[ 5'" Street St. Paul, Minnesota 55101

Richard W. Diercks Minnesota Dental Association 2236 

### Marshall Avenue, Suite 200 

### St Paul, MN .55104



## MCES Report No. 01-509

# Table of Contents I. ExecutiveSummary............_.._-.-.....__..._....._.........._..........._...._....._.....1 ILIntroduction .....................__..-......._..........__..... -........................_.......4 

### A Mercury Issues for Publicly Owned Treatment Works ................... __.. __. _..4 

### B. Project Objectives ... .. . ....... . _ ......... . _ _ . .. _ _ ... ... ............ -.. ... ... ... ... ... .... 5 

### C. MDA-MCESPartnership .........................._...........................-..._.....5 

### D. Photographs of Clinic lnstallations, Sampling Equipment, and Sample Processing.,6 E. Dental Clinic Vacuum Systems - General Information ............. __.................8 [II. Procedures........_ .......................___......._.............. _._.....................10 A. Choosing Denta► 

### Clinics ...... ... ......... ... .. _ .. ...... ... ... ... _ ... _ .. ... ... ... .........10 LGeneral ......... ...... ... ... _ .... ... ... ... ......... ... ... ............... ... ... ... .....10 2. Preliminary Clinics Hosting Amalgam Removal Equipment ...................12 3. Other Clinics Hosting Amalgam Removal Equipment ... ...... ... ......... .....13 B. Choosing Amalgam Removal Equipment .................................................15 

### C. Planning And Preparation For Monitoring And Insta(ling Amalgam Removal Equipment... ... ... ...... ... ... ......... ............ .

.................. . _ 16 L Monitoring at clinics with Turbine Vacuum Systems... _ .....................16 2. Monitoring at clinics with Liquid-Ring Vacuum Systems .....................17 3. Is baseline monitoring necessary? ...............................................:17 4. 

### Installing amalgam removal equipment after the vacuum filter, or in place of the vacuum filter?... 

## . _ _ _ .. ... ... ... .. 

## . ... 

## . .. .. 

## _ .. ... ... ... .....18 5. 

### Installing an extra vacuum filter



## . .. .. 

## . ...... .. 

## _ .. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... .....18 

### 6. Hiring a contract plumber with experience in dental clinic systems... ......19 7. Preparations for emergency vacuum pump service and repaic ..............19 D. Sampling and Sample Processing ..........................................................20 1. Overview of types of samples and sample processing ......... ............ ....20 2. Wastewater sample collection methods ..........................................20 3. Wastewater sample processing ...................................................22 4. 

### Solids processing: Solids from wastewater samples and sofids from amalgam removal equipment, chairside traps, and vacuum filters...... ......23 5. 

### Asdex filter processing ............................................................25 6. Special solids processing involving physical removal of amalgam particles prior to analysis for some chairside traps and one vacuum filter .............27 F



## . Analysis ...



## . .. ...... 

## . _ ... ... ... ... ... ... .. 

## . ... 

## . .. ... ... ... ...... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ......29 1. Analysis of liquid sampfes ...... ...... ... ............ ..............................29 2. Analysis of solids samples 

## - Overview .................:........................29 3. Predigestion method to analyze solids samples .................................30 IV. Test Schedule ........................ _:..............................................................32 A. General .......................................................................................32 B. Phase 1— Vacuum System Preparation ... ... ... ............... ............ ... ............34 C. Phases 2& 3— Base(ine Monitoring & Amalgam Removal Equipment Evaluation Monitoring ......................................................................35 D. Preliminary Clinics — Test Schedule ...... ... ............ ...... ......... ......... .........36

### V. Test Results: Findings and Analytical Data. _ ... . _ ... ... ... ... ...... _ . ... ... ... ... ... ... ... .....37

tl Mechanical Performance of Equipment and Impact on Vacuum System.... _...._ 38 B. Equipment Costs - Purchasing and Operating Equipment.. _ .. ... . _ . _ _ . ... .. _ .. _ 39 C. Analytical Data- Baseline Monitoring and Amalgam Removal Equipment Monitoring(Phases2&3)._..._ _._......._...._....._....__._....._.___.....41 1. Discussion Regarding Percent Removal and "ISO" Percent RemovaL.....41 2. Understanding and reporting data on amalgam removal equipment if the equipment was installed after a vacuum filter or in place of a
vacuum 

### filter ... ... .. . ... .. . ... .. . . . . . . . .. . . .. ... . _ .. _ . _ . _ . .. _ . ... ... . .. ... .. . . . .43 

### 3. Analytical Data. .. .. . . . . . . _ . _ . . . . _ . . ... . . . ... . .. ... . . . ... . _ . . . . .. .. . .. . ... .. . . . . 44 4. Variability of inercury loadings in wastewater.... _ ... ... ...... ... ... ... ... _ . 50 5. Reduction in mercury loadings using amalgam removal equipment.........51 6. Quality control data .................. _............................................53 VI. Amalgam Removal Equipment, Additional Discussion on Each Model.. _ ... . .. _ . .. . ... .. . .54 A. AsdexFilter(Avprox,Inc.) ........................°-.._......._.............._.........54 B. The Amalgam Collector (R&D Services)............ _. _ ...............................56 C. Rebec 2000 E and Rebec 2000 EL (Rebec Solutions) ..................................58 D. Durr Centrifuge 7800/7801 (Durr Dental GmbH & Co. KG / Air Techniques, Inc.) ... ...... ......... ...... ... .....60 E. Economy System Type 2- ECO II (Pure Water Development LLC - METASYS Group) .......... ... ... .... _ ... .........62 VII. Outstanding Questions, Recommendations For Future Studies, and Unfinished Work _ 64 VIII. References. .. . _ . .. . _ ... ... ... ... ... ... ... .. . ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... . .. ... ... ... . .. ... ... ... 66

Figure 1 Dental Clinic Vacuum Systems ....... ........... ... ... ... .... _ ...... .................. ......9

Table 1 Review Panel Members ............ ... ...... ............................................. ... ...7 Table 2 Overview of Dental Clinic Test Sites . .. . .. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ........ ... ... ... ... ... . ....11 Table 3 Amalgam Removal Equipment Evaluated .................. ............... :..... ..........15

_ Table 4 Clinic Monitoring Schedule ................... .................. ................................33 Table 5 Amalgam Removal Equipment - Summary of Performance and Ease of Use.......38 Table 6 Amalgam Removal Equipment - Purchase and Operationai Costs...... ..............39

_ Table 7 Monitoring Results ............................... ........................:.. ...... ., ..........46 Table 8 Summary of Monitoring Results .....:. ... ... :.. .. . ... ... ...... ... ... ... ... ... ...... ... .....49 Table 9 Variability of Mercury Loadings in Wastewater ............... ............ ...............50 - Table 10 Reductions in Mercury Discharged to Sewer by Using

~ 

### Amalgam Removal Equipment ... ... ... ... ... .. _ .. ... ... ... ... .. . ... ..... .... ... ... . .. .... 52 Table 11 Asdex Filter - Duration of Use and Mercury Captured ......... ... ......:... ...........55 °



## ii

## Appendix A Amalgam Removal Equipment Brochures for Units Evaluated Appendix B List of Amalgam Removal Equipment Vendors Appendix C Analytical Data for Each Clinic Appendix D Clinic Logging Sheets Appendix E MCES Sample Collection Log Sheets Appendix F Agreement Letter Between MCES and the Dental Clinics Appendix G Photographs of Clinic Installations, Sampling Equipment, and

Sample Processing

iii

## EVALUATION OF AMALGAM REMOVAL EQUIPIviENT

AND DENTAL CLII

~ 

## IIC LOADINGS TO TI- ~ 

## SAIVITARY SEWER December 21, 2001



## L EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (St. Paul, Minnesota) and the Minnesota Dental Association conducted a study to evaluate amalgam removal equipment and 

## to quantify mercury loadings in wastewater dischazged from general practice dental clinics to the sanitary sewer. Amalgam removal equipment was installed within the vacuum systems of dental clinics to treat wastewater for amalgam. The wastewater is generated within the operatories as a dentist cares for their patients and by the routine flushing of a clinic vacuum system. Dental clinic wastewater contains mercury primarily in the form of particles of amalgam. There is also some mercury present in the wastewater that is in a soluble form. Due to the range in size of the amalgam particles and the uneven movement of soGds within a clinic vacuum system, the dischazge of amalgam from a clinic is extremely variable. The amatgam removal equipment was evaluated in tenns of general operation, effectiveness at treating wastewater, and cost: Equipment from five vendors was installed at dental clinics. One vendor provided two models. The total number of models tested was six. Some models were installed in clinics with liquid-ring vacuum pumps, and some models were installed in clinics with turbine vacuum pumps. In total, seven general practice clinics were used to conduct wastewater monitoring and equipment testing. The models tested were designed primarily to remove mercury in the form of amalgam particles. Some models of amalgam removal equipment are also designed to treat clinic wastewater for soluble mercury (none were tested as a part of this study). This study was not conducted to rank the various types of amalgam removai equipment. The period during which wastewater monitoring and/or amalgam removal equipment was in place within any one of the seven clinics ranged from 7 to 18 weeks, for a cumulative total of 87 clinic-weeks. All wastewater monitoring and equipment installations took place within each ciinic's vacuum system at a centralized location near the vacuum pump. There was no monitoring of any other dental clinic wastewater, such as process wastes including x-ray chemicals or wastewater from clean-up of tools. Tap water at the clinics was not analyzed for mercury to check background levels; however, tap water used to process samples was checked at MCES facilities and was found to have insignificant levels of inercury (< 0.2 μg/L). The amalgam removal equipment performed well mechanically and did not cause problems within the cluucs. The equipment removed substantial quantities of inercury from dental clinic wastewater, achieving 91% - 99% removal of amalgam (measured as mercury) not already captured in basic chairside traps (i.e., removal from wastewater after the chairside traps). All seven clinics that were part of this study used basic chairside traps in their operatories.

### or clinics with a vacuum filter already in place (located at the vacuum pump for those clinics with a liquid-ring pump), a vacuum filter may be expected to remove 42% of the amalgam remaining in the wastewater after the chairside traps. Therefore, if a clinic currently operates with a vacuum filter and installs amalgam removal equipment, more than twice as much amalgam may be removed from the wastewater. If a clinic currently operates without a vacuum filter (such as if using a turbine vacuum system), and installs amalgam removal equipment, a reduction of over 90% of the amalgam in the wastewater may be realized. The cost to purchase and install the amalgam removal equipment models tested varies significantly, from approximately $160 (not installed) to $3500 (not installed). Unless there are significant plumbing or space considerations at a particular clinic, installation should be fairly inexpensive, taking approximately '/: to 2 hours of a plumber's time. Some models fall within this price range and include installation. One model tested is installed and operated under a lease arrangement. Annual operational costs are less variable, in the range of approximately $300 -$500. It is possible that some systems may have lower operational costs. There has not been an in-depth evatuation of the costs for aIl of the models tested. There aze other models of amalgam removal equipment that were not tested as part of this study. (Appendix B lists some ofthe other models, along with the models tested.) No cost information was collected for the models not tested. Although the cost to purchase and operate equipment may vary, the range of costs presented in this report likely mirror the general range of costs found in the mazketplace. The baseline amount of inercury dischazged from the seven dental clinics studied, w 

## ithou t 

## amalgam removal e ui

c ~ 

## pment in plac e, was quite variable. The range of the individual overall averages or each of the chmcs was 

# ~ 0 540 mgJdenttst/day (standard deviation for this range was 199 mg/dentist/day). Within any one of the clinics and considering shorter time periods, the range of discharge would be expected to be even greater. This was found to be the case,



# ~ Q 

# ~ with data showing a range of 8 to 1293 mg/dentist/day. The overali weighted average



# ~ s dischazge rate was 234 mg/dentist/day. It is important to point out that because: (1) the number of dental clinics studied was small, (2) the selection of the clinics tested was not completely random, (3) the day-to-day vaziability within each clinic was great, and (4) the variability from clinic to clinic was great, any use of the weighted average should be done with caution and with reference to these limitations of the number. It should also be noted that the majority of inercury present in dental clinic wastewater is in the form of amalgam. Given the high density of amalgatt 

# ~ some of the amalgam waste particles generated from a dental clinic may settle out in the sanitary sewer collection system. Therefore, the weighted average and the range ofvalues reported in this study represent the amount of mercury in amalgam that may be present in wastewater dischazged from a dental cGnic. It may not be appropriate to assume that all of the amaigam would show up directly in a wastewater treatment plant, especially since the study was not meant to determine the fate of amalgam waste in a collection system or in a wastewater treatment plant.

### Despite this range in numbers, and assuming a similarly broad range in the dental populatioi a whole, this study demonstrates potential for significant reduction in amalgam waste. As a result, along with the incorporation of sound internal waste management practices, dental clinics should be encouraged, where feasible, to incorporate amalgam removal equipment technology. In summary, it is felt that the goals of this study were met. Several types of amalgam removal equipment were shown to effectively capture amalgam from dental clinic wastewater. Wastewater mercury loadings, although widely variable, were quantified for the dental clinics used in this study. Additional knowledge was gained regarding dental clinic operating procedures, vacuum system types and configurations, and wastewater monitoring and sample processing methods.

## IL INTRODUCTION II. A. Mercury Issues for Publicly Owned Treatment Works MetropoGtan Council Environmental Services (MCES) operates eight wastewater treatment plants, three of which have stringent National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) mercury limits for the treated wastewater (eflluent). The NPDES permit Gmit for the Metropolitan Wastewater Treatment Plant ("Metro") is 17 nanograms/liter, or 17 parts per trillioa The NPDES limit, for the other two treatment plants with limits, is 6.9 nanograms/liter. The 17 ng/L limit for Metro is in effect, while the 6.9 ng/L timit for the other two treatment plants becomes effective after capacity expansions are put into service. Based on a mercury mass balance study, Metro had discharged at approximately two thirds of the limit (Balogh and Liang, 1995). Recent eftluent monitoring for the three treatment plants (using new analytical techniques — EPA Method 1631) has shown: Metro WWTP average eflluent: 8.0 ng/L (N = 6, NPDES limit of 17 ng/L,) Cottage Grove W WTP average ellluent: 9.8 ng/L (N = 6, NPDES limit of 6.9 ng/L) Rosemount WWTP average effluent: 6.7 ng/L, (N = 4, NPDES (imit of 6.9 ng/L) Regarding air emissions, MCES is working with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency to reduce the amount of inercury emitted by MCES sludge incineration. Other agencies, organizations, and interested parties have also expressed concerns related to MCES' mercury air emissions. The MCES local limit for mercury (for those dischazging to the sanitary sewer) has been lowered &om 100 micrograms/liter (μg/liter) to 2 μg/litec This reduction in the allowable mercury level was one of the recommendations outlined in a"Local Limits Study" completed in 1996 by a professional consulting firm for MCES. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency reviewed and approved this proposed limit. The 2 μg/titer limit was adopted by the Metropolitan Council in 1998, with compliance due at the end of 1999. This new local limit is meant to ensure that MCES treatment plants are in compliance with applicable Gmits, such as the NPDES permit limit. Wastewater, &om dental clinic vacuum systems, contains mercury in par[iculate form as part of amalgam and in dissolved form. Dental clinics currently filter much of the amalgam out of the wastewater passing through the vacuum systems. Virtually all clinic vacuum systems include "chairside trap" filters and many also use vacuum filters, located at the vacuum pump. Equipment is available that is designed to remove additional amalgam (and with some devices, even dissolved mercury, as claimed by vendors — not confirmed by MCES) that would otherwise pass through the basic filters. '1`his report outlines the procedure used to evaluate new, finer mesh filters and other types of amalgam removal equipment.

### II. B. Project Objectives (1) General Operation and Effect on Vacuum Systems The first objective was to see how well five types of amalgam removal equipment operated from a mechanical standpoint. Did the equipment affect the smooth operation of the vacuum system? Were there 

## any indications that the equipment wouid negative(y impact or shorten the life of the vacuum pumps7 Were the units 

## easy to work with? Couid the units be serviced easily to recover the amalgam bearing sludge and other waste materials such as mercury and silver? The evaluation was not meant to rank the effectiveness of amalgam removal devices. The scope of this evaluation was not large enough to result in a definitive ranking. (2) Costs The second objective was to evaluate the costs associated with purchasing, installing, operating, or leasing the advanced removal equipment. (3) Mercury Loadings With and Without Amalgam Removal Equipment The third objective was to determine the amount of inercury (from amalgam and as dissolved) that is dischazged to the sanitary sewer currentiy (baseline), and the amount that would be discharged if new amalgam removal equipment was put into service.



## II. C. MDA - MCES Partnership The Minnesota Dental Association (MDA) is one of 50 state dental associations affiliated with the American Dental Association. Dedicated to preventive and cost effective dentistry, the MDA provides continuing dental education for dentists and dental health information for the pub6c to improve pubhc health through educated dental decision making. Approximately 83% of 1vTinnesota's practicing dentists aze members of MDA. MCES is a division of the Metropolitan Council. The Council is a regional governance and planning organization for the seven county metropolitan area of Minneapolis and St. Paul, Mmnesota. MCES has two core functions: (1) wastewater collection and treatment, and (2) water resources planning. MCES owns and operates eight wastewater treatment plants. The population served is approximately 2.5 million. The eight plants treat 275-300 million gallons per day. MDA and MCES entered into a partnership in 1998 to evaluate amalgam removal equipment. This equipment is designed to remove additional waste amalgam from dental clinic vacuum system wastewater, beyond what is removed by the existing filter(s). MCES and MDA determined that it would be best to gain the experience of installing and operating a vaziety of amalgam removal equipment in actual dental clinics. (The other option considered would have been to test equipment in a laboratory, such as "benchtop" testing.) Dentists voluntarily tested the equipment and MCES provided analytical and technical support.

### MCES and MDA drafted a procedure outlining the methods for sampling and analyzing wastes from the clinics and outlining how the amalgam removal equipment was to be evaluated. A review panel (Panel) was established to review the procedure. See Table l, listing the Panel membe

~ 

### s. The Panel included representatives from the American Dental Association, University of Minnesota School of Dentistry, Royal Dental College - Aarhus University (Denmark), Western Lake Superior Sanitary District (Dututh, Minnesota), Minnesota Office of Environmental Assistance, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Superior Special Services (a mercury recycler), Patterson Dental Supply, Inc., and MCES. The Panel met in September of 1998 to review the draft procedure. After input was received from the Panel; and the Amedcan Dental Association was consulted on some additional technical issues, MCES and MDA finahzed the procedure in March of 1999. MCES and MDA thank the dentists and their staff for participating in this study. MCES had monitoring equipment and/or amalgam removal equipment in the clinics for an extended period of time. The minimum time period was 7 weeks at one clinic, and the maximum time period was 18 weeks at one clinic. The dentists and staff at all of the clinics were very helpful and cooperative. MCES and MDA also thank the members of the Panel for donating their time to review the study procedure initially, and to help review the findings. Their input and interest in this study 

## are greatly appreciated.


## IL D. Photographs of Clinic Installations, Sampling Equipment, and Sample Processing Photographs of some of the models of amalgam removal equipment evaluated and the sampling equipment installed in the dental cGnics are in Appendix G. Photographs of sample processing and laboratory sample digestion ("solids" samples) are also included in Appendix G.

## Table 1 Review Panel Members for the Ama(gam Removal Equipment Evaluation Study

Dorthe Arenholt-Bindslev, D.D.S., Ph.D. Associate Professor, Royal Dental College Faculty of Health Sciences, Aarhus University Vennelyst Boulevazd DK-8000 Aazhus C Denmark William H. Douglas, B.D.S., M.S., Ph.D. Professor, University of Minnesota Dental School 16-212 Moos Tower S 1S Delaware Street Minneapohs, MN 55455 Greg Lazson Equipment Specialist Patterson Dental Supply, Incorporated 2930 Waters Road, Suite 100 Eagan, MN SS L21

Robert Polta, Ph.D. R & D Section Manager Metropolitan Council Enviroumental Services 2400 Childs Road St.PauI,MN SS106

P. L. Fan, Ph D. Edwazd Swain, Ph.D. Senior Director, Research Minneso[a Pollu6on Control Agency American Dental Association Acid Deposition Program, Air Quahty Division 2l t East Chicago Avenue 520 Lafayette Road Chicago, IL 60611-2678 St. Paul, MN SS15S-4194

Marty Brown Superior Special Services (formerly Recyclights, Inc.) 401 West 86th Street Minneapolis, MN SS420-2707
John Gilkeson Minnesota Office of Environmental Assistance 520 Lafayette Road N, 2n d Floor St. Paul, MN SS1SS-4100 Tim Tuominen Pollution Prevention Specialist Westem Lake Supedor Sanitary District 2626 Courtland Street Duluth, MN SS806-1894 7ames F. Westman, D.D.S. 412 North Cenual Avenue Du(uth, MN SS807 (218)628-1270

Richazd W. Diercks, Executive D'uector Minnesota Dental Association 2236 Marshall Avenue Suite 200 St. Paul, MN SS104 (651) 646-7454, Ext. 21S Peter Berglund, P.E., Principal Engiueer Metropofitan Council Environntental Services Industrial Waste & Pollution Prevention Section 230 East Fifth Street St. Paul, MN SS101-1626 (6Sl)602-4708

## IL E. Dental Clinic Vacuum Systems — General Information Figure 1 shows two common types of vacuum pumps and systems. These are: Liquid-Ring Vacuum Pump (also known as: liquid-ring, water-ring, water seal, or wet pump) • Turbine Vacuum Pump (also known as a: dry pump) The vacuum pump usually determines the components of the vacuum system Components that are common to both types of vacuum systems include: • Evacuation/suction equipment in the operatory, • Chairside traps (filters with pore size of approximately 0.7 mm), • Vacuum lines (pipes) between the patient chairs and the vacuum pump, and a • Vacuum pump, Liquid-ring pumps are designed to operate with wastewater passing through the pump itself (hence, "wet"). City, or tap water is piped into the pump to help keep a seal within the pump, between the impeller and the pump housing. This maintains the vacuum. A vacuum filter is installed just upstream of the pump to help protect the pump from the solids passing through the vacuum system. The vacuum filter is usualiy either a 20 mesh (0.84 mm pore size) or 40 mesh (0.42 mm pore size) filtec A 20 mesh filter has 20 openmgs per inch. A 40 mesh filter has 40 openings per inch. Therefore, the pore size of a 20 mesh filter is larger than that of a 40 mesh filter. Some liquid-ring vacuum pump systems include an air/water separator, which is located after the vacuum pump (downstream). In some cases this may be required by a plumbing code. The separator routes the air to a vent and routes the wastewater to a drain line. The separator minimizes the chance of nitrous oxide, or other foul air from entering the building in which the clinic is located, for example, either directly or through a sink or floor trap that has dried out. Turbine vacuum pumps operate without wastewater passing through the pump (hence, "dry"). 

## This is accomplished with an air/water separator installed upstream of the turbine vacuum pump. Air passing through the separator goes to the vacuum pump. The wastewater, and the sofids present in the wastewater, exit the separator from an outlet at the bottom. When the vacuum pump is opetating, the separator is under vacuum. A check valve (ball or some kind of "flapper") is kepL closed when the vacuum is on, holding the wastewater inside the separator. When the vacuum pump is ot ~ 

## the wastewater drams out of the separator. Vacuum system plumbing and the type of pump used will vary from clinic to clinic. Most clinics apparently use a liquid-ring vacuum pump with a basic vacuum filter in the ivfinneapolis and St. Paul Minnesota area (WEF, 1999). It should be noted that if a clinic currently uses a liquid-ring pump, and switches to a turbine pump, the clinic might increase its discharge of amalgam to the sewer, since it may not be using a vacuum filter.

# Figure 1. Dental Clinic Vacuum Systems

water supp!y



# ~ 

# l

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 

### Vacuum Pump Chairside Trap 1 vent 

# 0.7 mm r

Vacuum Optional

AirNVater Filter Separator` `separator with air vent may be required by plumbing code 

## ~
sewer 

## Liquid-Ring Vacuum Pump System



# vent



# ~



# ~~~^

Chairside Trap 

# 0.7 mm Vacuum Pump
AirlVl/ater Separator

Checkvalve 

# 1 sewer 

## Turbine (DryJ Vacuum Pump System
(liquid-ring or turbine vacuum pumps may serve multiple chairs)



# n

## IIL PROCEDURES III. A. Choosing Dental Clinics III. A. [ 1 ] General The Minnesota Dental Association (MDA) sent a survey out to its members asking if they would be willing to be a test site for amalgam removal equipment. Seventy-five dentists responded "yes", they would be willing to participate. Information regarding the 75 dentists was reviewed, a second mailing was sent out, and the list was narrowed down to 22 dentists. MCES staff visited the 22 clinics of these dentists. Four clinics were chosen. The basic criteria for picking the clinics were: • A mix of liquid-ring and turbine vacuum systems among the clinics selected. • Removal and placement of an average number, or close to an average number of amaigam restorations. (Average was considered to be approximately 15-20 removals and 15-20 placements per week.) Note that there were exceptions to this, which are explained below • Clinics that performed primarily general dentistry. Clinics that included other specialist dentists using the same vacuum system were not considered. • Clinics that had 1-2 dentists. Some of the types of amalgam removal equipment may have worked in large ci"mics; however, the volume of wastewater generated may have been too great to allow for collecting all of it. • Good access to the vacuum pump and the area immediately surrounding the pump to allow for installing monitoring equipment and amalgam removal equipment. • Access in general to the clinic and the pump, such as a"service entrance" to allow MCES personnel to get to the pump without disturbing chnic operations. • Reasonable distance from MCES' faciliry to the clinic and pazking for MCES vehicles and the plumbing contractor's vehicle. One of the key factors, in picking clinics and setting up the monitoring schedule, was knowing whether the clinic had a liquid-ring or turbine vacuum pump system. The two types of pumps may operate at different strengths in terms of vacuum power, and the plumbing arrangements aze different with the different systems. Liquid-ring ring pumps tend to operate at a suction level higher (10-15 inches of Hg) than the turbine (dry) pumps (5-10 inches of Hg). Turbine vacuum systems tend to pull greater volumes of air and use larger diameter pipe from the operatories to the air/water (A/t ~ 

### separator and to the pump. Further, the A/W sepazator itsell; upstream of the turbine pump, presents a different plumbing arrangement compared to a liquid-ring pump system. See Figure 1. Where possible, the d

~ 

### 'erent types of amalgam removal equipment were tested in a clinic with a liquid-ring vacuum pump system and in a clinic with a turbine vacuum system. As the clinic selection process was underway, MCES determined that it should complete some preliminary monitoring before initiating the full monitoring procedure. The preliminary monitoring soon developed into extensive work. (Besides gaining experience with overall 

## monitoring, work with the preliminary clinics also helped to prepare for another MCES dental
to

### study. The other MCES study required experience with the Asdex filter and The Amalgam Collector. ) 

### The preliminary clinics included L-PLR, 2-PLR, and 3-PLR. The distinction between the preliminary clinics and the other four clinics is stated to explain how the clinics were chosen and why the monitoring was done differently. Initially, the preliminary clinics were not going to be part of the formal amalgam removal equipment study. However, as the monitoring progressed, MCES felt that the testing was going well and enough work had been accomplished to evaluate the Asdex filter and The Amalgam Collector at these preliminary clinics. 

### The wastewater monitoring at the preliminary clinics was not as extensive as the other clirnc monitoring. However, much experience was gained in terms of the basic mechanical operation and use of Asdex filters and The Amalgam Collector. The preliminary clinics did not have a formal "Phase l, Vacuum System Flushing Preparation" as did the other clinics; however, the preliminary clinics routinely Elushed their vacuum systems prior to MCES installing monitoring and amalgam removal equipment ("Phase 1" preparation is described in Section IV. B. below.) Seven clinics overall were used to gather baseline monitoring experience and test amalgam removal equipment. This included three clinics described as pretiminary and four other clinics. See Table 2 for an overview of these seven clinics.



## Table 2 Overview of Dental C(inic Test Sites
Clinic Dentists Chairs Special Wet Pump: "at Vac. Line Equipment FTE Dr./I

- Iyg Conditions Dry grade" or Int. Diam. Tested total u basement inches 

### 1-PLR 1 2/ 1 no amalg. wet "at grade" 2 Asdex Filter

3 laced 40 ABS TheAmal. Collector 2-PLR 2 5/ 3 wet "at grade" 1 Asdex Filter

8 20 Co r The AmaL Collector 3-PLR 1 3/ 2 wet "at grade" 1'/s Asdex Filter

5 20 Co er The Amal. Collector 4-T 1.75 4/ 3 dry basement '/: Copper Durr

7 ~ 

### t '/= Centrifuge PVC 5-LR 1 2/ 1 pediatric wet basement 1'/z Durr

3 dentist 40 PVC Centrifu e 6-LR 1 2/ 0 wet basement '/a Rebec 2000 E

2 20 ~ 

### CPVC METASYS ECO II 7-T 2 5/ 3 no amalg. dry basement 2 Rebec 2000 EL

8 laced PVC Notes: FTE means number of Full Time Equivalents. Under "Wet Dry pump", the mesh size for the vacuum filter is given. (Only wet pumps used vacuum filters.) If the vacuum pump was on the same floor level as the operatories within the clinic, it is shown in Table 2 as: "at grade" Int. Diam. means: internal diametec

11

## III. A. [2] Preliminary clinics hosting amalgam removal equipment

Clinic 1-PLR (1-Preliminary, Liquid-Ring Vacuum Pump): Clinic l-PLR was located within one mile of MCES. This, and other neighboring clinics, were &rst considered solely due to their location. When MDA was consulted about picking one of these clinics, it was learned that the dentist was an officer of the MDA in the past. It turned out that the dentist did not place amalgam, and after discussing wastewater and filter changing issues with the clinic staff, there was a concern as to the lack of uniform movement of waste material &om the operatories to the vacuum pump. Staff described a non-uniform replacement of vacuum filters at the pump. MCES believed that the movement of amalgam waste within dental chnic plumbing in general may not be very uniform, and 

### it seemed that this might especially be the case at 1-PLR. (See discussion in Section V.C.4. regarding variable loading.) However, even given the concerns that the dentist does not place amatgam and the possible erratic movement of solids in the vacuum system, MCFS thought it would be good to monitor a clinic that was located so close and to use a clinic whose dentist already had good rapport with MDA The vacuum pump was on the same floor as the three operatories. The waste line between the operatories was a 2-inch (intemal diameter) line. This large line, and 

### the large volume of wastewater and sohds it could hold, may explain the uneven movement of solids &om the operatories to the vacuum pump. Also, only water, without any cleaning solution, was used to flush the vacuum lines. At the point at which the vacuum line came up through the floor next to the vacuum pump, the bottom of the Gne was measured at approximately 1'h feet below the level of the floor. As best as could be determined, the wastewater from the operatories dropped down to 1'/z feet below 

## the floor as it was routed to the pump. Monitoring equipment used by MCES to collect samp(es resulted in raising the wastewater approximately 3 feet above "grade" (level of floor). Therefore, the wastewater and solids needed to be raised approximately 4'/

~ 

## feet overall. This clinic had 1 dentist, working 3 full days and 2 half days/week during the study period.

Clinic 2-PLR (2-Preliminary, Liquid-Ring Vacuum Pump): Clinic 2-PLR was associated with a university in the metropolitan area served by MCES. Given that it was associated with a research and academic institution, and was not a private commercial venture, it seemed like a logical clinic to use for MCFS' study. Note that this was not a dental school, but rather a clinic practicing general dentistry for students and staff. The vacuum pump was "at grade" (on the same floor as the operatories). Two vacuum lines came from the operatories. One came from overhead, wltile the other was routed up through the floor. These two lines merged be£ore going to the vacuum pump. (The overhead line may have been part of a scavenger system for nitrous oxideJ The depth of the vacuum Gne beneath the floor could not be determined. 

## This clinic had 3— 4 dentists working. The number of full time equivalent (FTE) dentists was 2, working 5 full days/week. Oral surgery was performed, but usually only on Friday mornings.
12

## Clinic 3-PLR (3-Preliminary, Liquid-Ring Vacuum Pump): MCES needed another clinic for its preliminary monitoring. Since the dentist at this clinic was an MDA officer and therefore had good rapport with MDA, Clinic 3-PLR was chosea The number of samples collected was not as great as with other clinics due to logistical concems. The vacuum pump was located on the same floor as the operatories at clinic 3-PLR. The depth of the waste line at the vacuum pump, at the point at which it came up through the floor was approximately 1— 1'h feet be(ow the floor. Therefore, the wastewater and solids were raised approximately 4— 4'/z feet to enter MCES sampling equipment. This clinic operated with one dentist, working full days, Monday through Thursday.


## III. A. [3] Other clinics hosting amalgam removal equipment Having already worked with three clinics where the vacuum pumps were on the same floor as the operatories, and having handled samples containing dense amalgam waste solids, there was a concern about setting up additional sampling equipment on the same floor as the operatories. MCES thought that it would be best to monitor clinics whose vacuum pumps were in the basement to get samples that were more representative. The flow of wastewater should be "down gradient" from the operatories to MCES sampling equipment, the amalgam removal equipment, and the vacuum pump. Based on interviews of the dentists and their staff, MCES felt that there should not be any significant problems regarding poor movement of wastewater or solids within the plumbing at the following four clinics.
CGnic 4T (4Turbine Vacuum Pump): CI'uuc 4-T operated with a turbine (dry) vacuum system. The system included a standard type air/water (A/VV) separator and a RAMVAC Corporation brand vacuum pump. The A/W separator had a built-in flush system that was meant to flush the A/W separator when the vacuum was tumed off. This flush system was not in use prior to the study period, which was beneficial at Ieast from a sampling standpoint in that it meant the volume of wastewater to be coilected would be kept at a manageable level. As best as could be determined, most of the waste lines from the operatories were made of approximately'/z inch copper piping which then were connected to 1'h inch polyvinyl chloride (PVC) piping in the floor joists above the basement area. The PVC lines merged and were routed to the A/W sepazator. This clinic operated with 2 dentists: one working 4 days/week and the other dentist working 3-dayslweek. The'number of FTE dentists is 1.75. The clinic operated full days, Monday 

## through Friday.

13

### Clinic 5-LR (5-Liquid-Ring Vacuum Pump): The dentist at Clinic 5-LR was a pediatric dentist. Initially it was thought that this dentist performed 

## an average number of amalgam removals and placements. However, shortly before the study began at the clinic, it was learned that the number of amalgam removals was quite low, since most of the patients were children, and therefore the dentist seldom removed amalgam restorations. (The number of new amalgams placed seemed adequate.) MCES seriously considered dropping this clinic from the study, since the common belief was that most amalgam related waste material in wastewater was due to the removal of otd restorations. MCES, with the concurrence of MDA, decided to proceed with the installation of sampling equipment. Since some clinics did not place amalgam restorations, it was considered appropriate to monitor a clinic that did ptace amalgam restorations, but that had very few removals of amalgam restorations. This clinic operated with I dentist working 3 full dayslweek and 2 half days/week.

Clinic 6-LR (6-Liquid-Ring Vacuum Pump): Clinic 6-LR had adequate space within the basement and plumbing that was easy to connect to for installing equipment. The plumbing visible in the basement was'/. inch chlorinated polyvinyl chloride (CPVC) lines. The dentist flushed the vacuum system using relatively lazge quantities of a bleach solution. One gallon of a bleach solution was used per chair, per day. Therefore, MCES expected that there would be good movement of wastewater and soGds from the operatories to the vacuum pump, through (hopefully) clean pipes. 6-LR was asked to stop using the bleach as part of the flushing solution, but to go ahead and keep flushing 1 gallon of tap water per chair, per day, at the beginning of the initial four week "flushing phase". (MCES had the four c!'mics undergo a four week flushing phase prior to any wastewater monitoring to "stabilize" their vacuum system. More information on this is given in Section 7.) After the flushing phase, the baseline monitoring phase began. Due to concerns of bleach possibly oxidizing amalgam and putting mercury into solution, MCES did not want bleach used. Rather than starting the dentist on a new vacuum cleaning solution, it was decided between MCES and the dentist that tap water would be used to flush the vacuum system. This clinic operated with 1 dentist working 4 full days/week, each day except Wednesday. The clinic has 2 operatories that serve all general dentistry functions. The dentist operates with no other staff within the operatories, no assistants or hygienists.

Clinic 7-T (7-Turbine Vacuum Pump): This clinic had a basic turbine ("dry") vacuum system, with a standazd air/water separator. A "scrap trap" was positioned at the inlet of the A/W separator. The scrap trap is 

## an optional piece 

## of hardware provided by RAMVAC Corporation (vacuum pump manufacturer)_ It was not meant to function as a type of amaigam removal equipment. The president of RAMVAC has stated that scrap traps are included with A/W separators for approJCimately 7% - 10% 

## of

14

### their installations. (7-10 % are overall nationwide percentages. RAMVAC stated that the percentage may be higher in Minnesota.) The Rebec 2000 EL system was installed upstream of the "scrap trap", thereby not "giving credit" for any removal achieved by the scrap trap. The installation of the Rebec 2000 EL was done in this manner for three reasons, (I) the 2000 EL was being evaluated, not the scrap trap, (2) the scrap trap is for gross particles, and it is not a formal type of amalgam removal equipment, (3) the scrap trap is not a common piece of equipment. As noted in the Table 2 above, there is no placement of new amalgam restorations at this clinic. The initial survey submitted by the clinic indicated that amalgam was placed. However, the practice of placing amalgam had ceased between the time the survey was submitted and the start of the study. This chnic was still chosen for the study since (1) there was not a lazge number of clinics with turbine systems to choose from, (2) its vacuum pump was located in the basement, and (3) it provided 

## an opportunity to evaluate wastewater toadings due only to the removal of amalgam restorations. This clinic operated with 2 dentists working 4 full days each. One dentist worked Monday through Thursday, the other dentist worked Tuesday through Friday.


## III. B. Choosing Amalgam Removal Equipment Tluee common types of treatment for the removal of solids from wastewater in general includes: filtering, settling, and centrifuging. MCES and MDA evaluated a cross section of equipment employing these treatment methods. The types of amalgam removal equipment that were installed and evaluated at operating clinics are listed in Table 3.



## Table 3 Amalgam Removal Equipment Evaluated Type of Treatment: Model Name and Number. Distributor: Filter Asdex A rox, Inc. Settling (Batch, with manual decanting) The Amalgam Collector — 

### Design I R & 

### D Services Settling (Flow-Through: with a surge tank and Rebec Models 2000 E& 2000 EL coazse ffitration Rebec Solutions Settling (Flow-Through, without a surge tank) METASYS Economy System Type 2 (ECO In

- 

### PWD — 

### METASYS Grou Centrifuge Durr Mode17800/7801 Distributor: Air Techniques, Ina for Durr Dental GmbH & 

### Co. KG Additional information, diagrams, and technical specifications for the systems fisted above are included in Appendix A. fF]

### A side benefit of MCES installing a vacuum filter was that by leaving the original filter in place at the clinic, the original filter would serve as a backup for the vacuum pump, in case any waste solids made it past either the MCES sampling equipment or the amalgam removal equipment.



## III. C. [6] Hiring a contract plumber with experience in dental clinic vacuum system phunbing and dental vacutun ptunps All vacuum system plumbing work related to installing sampling equipment and the new amalgam removal equipment was performed by professionals experienced in such work. The plumbing contractor also understood the plumbing within ctinic operatories and vacuum pumps. The same plumbing contractor performing the main services was also available if any emergency plumbing was needed for work associated with the study. Upon the completion of the study, the vacuum system plumbing was returned to its original condition (with the exception of new sections of piping and fittings) by the same plumbing contractor.



## III. C. [7] Preparations for emergency vacuum pump service and repair Contractual arrangements were set up with three denta( supply companies to provide emergency vacuum pump service to the dental clinics volunteering to host the amalgam removal equipment. If there was a problem with the clinic pump, associated with the wastewater sampling equipment or the amalgam removal equipment, the ctinic would choose one of these supply companies for emergency services.

t9

## LII. D. Sampling and Sample Processing
IIL D. [ 1] Overview of types of samples and sample processing The samples collected in this study were of two basic types: (1) Wastewater samples from either baseline monitoring or treated wastewater collected downstream of the amalgam removal equipment. Wastewater samples were generated on an ongoing basis (e.g., every 1-5 days) over a particular sampling time period (e.g., several weeks). Wastewater sampies were each separated into a wastewater component and a soGds component. (2) Solids samples were the solids collected in the various types of amalgam cemoval equipment, chairside traps and vacuum filters that were in place for an e

~ 

### ctended period of time (days — weeks). The solids separated out from wastewater samples were processed and analyzed similarly as the other solids samples. Tap water was used to clean and extract the solids from sampling containers, sample settling tanks, amalgam removal equipment, chairside traps, and vacuum filters. Originally, reagent water (such as: M'illi- ~ 

### was to be used for this purpose. Since using tap water simplified the process of preparing samples, it was tested for mercury and 

### shown to be an acceptable alternative. Test data for twelve samples of tap water showed non-detect ieveis of inercury (all < 0.0002 mg/t,). The volume of the tap water used was accounted for as part of the data analysis.

~


## III. D. [2] Wastewater sample collection methods Dental ciinic vacuum system wastewater contains dense amalgam particles ofvarying size, making it difficult to take a representative subsample. Therefore, all of the wastewater generated during the sampling time periods was collected and analyzed. This made it impossible to collect both "upstream" and "downstream" samples at the same time while an amalgam removal system was in operation. The only exception when not all of the wastewater was coilected was for some of the samples taken during the testing of The Amalgam Collectoc These sampies were coilected after overnight settling had occurred. It was expected that the settled wastewater was homogeneous at this time. See discussion in Section VI. B. Samples were taken from the vacuum system in the general location of the vacuum pump. Some dental clinics use vacuum pumps that are liquid-ring pumps. City, or fresh suppiy water is plumbed to a typical liquid-ring vacuum pump at the rate of approximately'/. - 1 gallon per minute, which then joins with the wastewater from the operatories, inside the pump. This quantity of wastewater was too much to collect.

Fz

~ 

### l

## If a clinic used such a Iiquid-ring vacuum pump, the pump water could not become part of the wastewater sample due to the volume. This meant that the samples had to be collected upstream of the pump, which also meant that samples from such a clinic were taken "under vacuum". To sample under vacuum, the vacuum system plumbing was opened at 

## an etcisting juncture or fitting, or it was cut open. Sampling tanks, performing the same fitnction as 

## an aic/water separator, were installed to collect the wastewater samples. Vacuum systems were resealed upon completion of the study. Wastewater samples were collected at each of the seven cGnics in either of two types of containers. The two types of containers were: (1) Samples from 1-PLR and 2-PLR were co(lected in custom-made stainless steel containers built to withstand a vacuum. The tops of the tanks were open, with a thick, clear plastic cover bolted to a tlange on the sidewalls that allowed viewing into the tank. The inside of each steel tank was painted with 

## an epoxy paint made for the interior of tanks holding aqueous chemical or petroleum products (paint by: Sherwin-Williams Co. "Shelcote ® IP'). The welded seams of the tanks appeazed rough and possibiy slightly rusted when first deGvered to MCES. The tanks were sandblasted and painted by MCES. Painting provided a clean, smooth, light colored surface. Another reason for painting the interior of the tanks, was that of a possible concem that mercury may amalgamate with the metals in the tank or in the.welded seams. The container for I-PLR held 14.5 Gters. The container for 2-PLR held 27 liters. Samples were drained from the stainless steel tanks and put into multiple 9 fiter high-density polyethylene Nalgene ® containers. The stainless steel tanks were then rinsed with tap water, using a pressure sprayer, and the rinsewater was atso put into the same set of polyethylene containers for each particular sample. The volume of rinsewater was recorded to account for dilution. The containers were transferredto MCES. (This tank rinsewater volume is noted in the tables of Appendix C data as "Sample Tank Rinse".) (2) The second type of sampling container was either a vacuum rated or non-vacuum ZO liter polypropylene container that was customized with plumbing fittings ("bulkhead" &"union" fittings) to be interchangeable at the clinics. These were used to collect samples at the other five clinics. Each clinic had its own set of three dedicated sample containers, also called carboys. One was left at each clinic 

## as a spare. Each sample container itself also served as the transport container to bring the samples back to MCES. The transport containers (a set of 9 liter Nalgene ® containers or a 20 Gter container) were taken to MCES and the wastewater samples were poured into settling tanks. These transport containers were rinsed out with tap watec The volume of tap water was recorded to account for dilutioa (This rinsewater volume is noted in the tables of Appendix C data by different names, such as: "Nalgene Jug Rinse", "Carboy Rinse", and "Sample Tank Rinse".)

21

## IIL D. [3] Wastewater sample processing

Dental clinic wastewater samples are a heterogeneous mixture of water and solids. Therefore, mixing and subsampling did not seem feasible. Given the relatively large volume of water present in each sample, and the small volume of so(ids present, MCES needed a method to separate the water from the solids to facilitate analysis. The methods considered initia(ly for completing the samp(e separation were: simple settling, filtration, and centdfuging. The method chosen was simple sett(ing, for a minimum of 24 hours. MCES tried vacuum filtering some samples using a 0.45 micron filter. The wastewater did not Elow quickly enough through the filter to process large, multi-liter volume samples. Settling was chosen due to its simplicity. Filtering or centrifuging samples would have required the use of more glassware, tubing, and hardware. This would have meant much more cleaning or disposal of this sample hand(ing equipment. Settling also allowed for the preparation of solids samples without filter paper. If samples were filtered, the solids would have been submitted to the laboratory on filter paper, which then would have become part of the anatytical digestion process. Choosing 24 hours as a minimum settling time was based primarily on conversations with R& D Services. Their treatment system (The Amalgam Collector, one of the systems evaluated in this study) made use of simp(e settling The minimum settling time period employed by their system is generally from 5:00 pm to 8:00 am (when a clinic would dose at the end of the day to when the clinic would reopen the next morning). R& D Services be(ieved that the vast majority of solids would settle out overnight, over approximatety IS hours. The data in Appendix C show that the vast amount of inercury in wastewater is associated with the solids, for wastewater not treated with amalgam removaCequipment. While MCES did not scrutinize the data for this purpose, no significant difference was noticed in wastewater samples that were settled for longer time periods, such as samples collected on a Friday and settled over a weekend. Processing of the samples was accomplished by settling to separate out the solids, leaving a water layer and a layer of wet solids. There was no attempt to split or sub-sample the overall sample prior to settling. The settling of the samples was performed at MCES facilities. For purposes of this study, the liquid fraction was assumed to be relatively homogeneous after settling. However, in case there was some stratification, three sub-samples (50 milliliters each) were taken after settling. These three equal volume sub-samples were taken from the top, middle, and bottom of the sample as each settiing tank was decanted. The three sub-samples were mixed together (composited) and put into a glass jar for submittal to MCES' iaboratory. A 50 milliliter, polyethylene ladle was used to collect the sub-samples. A peristaltic pump was used to decant the wastewater from the settling tank. Duplicate composites of three sub-samples were also collected during the decanting of many of the settling tank wastewater samples. These composites were filtered with 

# a 0.45 micron filter by the MCES laboratory to determine the concentration of soluble mercury, as commonly accepted by the US EPA

zz

### Decanted volumes were noted so that the mass of inercury could be determined based on the concentration data reported by the laboratory. A layer of solids, or sludge, remained at the bottom of the setthng tank after decanting most of the liquid off. These solids had to be recovered and processed since it was expected that the solids would contain significant quantities of inercury from amalgam. Processing of these soGds is discussed in more detail in Section III. D. [4]. 

### Settling tanks used for settling the wastewater samples were made of high-density polyethylene. Two sizes were used, both of which were held at an angle on customized wooden racks, such that the solids would settle down into a corner of the tank. t 14 

### hter settling tanks were used initially, when some of the samples came from the 27 

### liter sample tank. Later, 42 ► 

### iter settling tanks were used to settle the samptes from the 20 liter sample containers. Both sizes of the settling tanks were made of high-density polyethylene. Each clinic had its own dedicated settling tank.
To summarize, a common, single wastewater sample collected from a clinic and processed would become:
1. a liquid sample (from decanting the settling tank) 2. another liquid sample (from decanting the water off of the beakers containing the solids) 3. a set of beakers of solids (usually multiple beakers per sample) 4. occasionally, a duplicate liquid sample (same as No. 1) to be filtered for soluble mercury



## III. D. [4] Solids processing: Solids from wastewater samples and solids from amalgam removal equipment, chairside traps, and vacuum filters Solids were present at the bottom of the settling tanks used to settle wastewater samples, after decanting. Solids were also present in the amalgam removal equipment, chairside traps, and vacuum filters when this equipment was taken out of service. These various types of solids had to be processed. The MCES laboratory needed the sofids delivered according to the following criteria: • In single beakers or multiple beakers (250 or 400 mL glass beakers), • With a relatively thin layer of solids at the bottom of each beaker (up to approximately 5 mm deep), • To be as free of water as was possible, via the decanting of the beakers. The solids present at the bottom of a settling tank were washed into multiple beakers. Solids, such as from chairside traps and vacuum filters, were also washed into multiple beakers.

23

### During the processing of some of the types of amalgam removal equipment, more water was usually needed (e.g., multiple liters). In such a case, the water and solids were put into a settling tank. This overall mixture was processed the same way as a wastewater sample. The mixture was settled in a settling tank, and the solids were transferred to beakers. Processing-the solids also involved using water for rinsing tools such as plastic spatulas, spoons, and brushes, which became part of the solids samples. The number of beakers used for each solids sample varied according to the amount of solids. (The number of beakers used per sample is given in Appendix C. Each chairside trap sample usually required only one beaker.) The beakers included water and the solids The beakers were settled for approximately 24 hours. In the vast majority of samples, the water in the beakers was subsampled using a glass pipette. The remaining water was then decanted down close to the solids tayer, such that the soGds were not resuspended. The beakers were covered with Pazafilm®, and delivered to the MCES laboratory. (The volume of the decanted water was recorded.) Generally, if the samples were solids from chairside traps, the water decanted from the beakers was not subsampled. Given that these solids tended to be "flushed" at the chairside, it was felt that [he traps would not contain significant amounts of inercury that would show up in the water used by MCES to rinse the soGds out of the traps. MCES data showed that this was the case. MCES also needed to minimize liquid samples submitted to the MCES laboratory.

__ Further, MCES did not need exact quantities of inercury for the chairside traps since trap contents could not be dischazged to the sanitary sewer. The approximate volume of the solids present in the samples was recorded. This volume was recorded to evaluate the holding capacity of various types of amalgam removal equipment and filters, and for general knowledge.
To summarize, a single solids sample from either a single type of amalgam removal equipment or a filter, after being taken out of setvice, was processed and became:
1. a Gquid sample (from decanting the water off of the beakers containing the solids) 2. a set of beakers of solids (occasionally one beaker, e.g., for a chairside trap) 3. If a large amount of water was used to initially process the solids, and a settling tank was necessary, there would be 

## an additional liquid sample from the decanting of the settling tank. 4. Some solids samples required multiple stages of washing of the solids into beakers or settling tanks. In these cases, there may have been additional liquid samptes submitted due to the extra settling and decanting.

2a

### IIL D. [5] Asdex Filter processing The Asdex filter is made up of polypropylene fibers wound into a cartridge filter, and placed into a sealed po(ypropylene housing. The filter works under vacuum. The only openings in the housing aze two ports that fit into the manifo(d during use. When the filter is saturated and no longer usable, it is removed &om the manifold and caps aze screwed down onto the two ports. Since the solids could not be removed easily from the filter, another method had to be used to quantify the amount of inercury in the solids retained by the filter. The basic method employed was to digest the filter with nitric acid to extract mercury. The filters for 1-PLR and 2-PLR were processed by draining liquid and free solids out of each of the filters. The whole filters, that is, all of the media, were then digested in nitric acid for at least 24 hours. This was the first, and main digestion of the filters. The volume and mercury concentration of the acid determined the mass of inercury. Three subsamples of the media were then cut out of the filter, from areas of the filter that appeared to be loaded lightly, moderately, and heavily. These subsamples were put together in a beaker and submitted to the MCES laboratory for analysis. The results of the three subsamples were scaled up (by weight, accounting for moisture) to estimate the remaining mercury present in the filter. This second digestion of the three subsamples was done to remove mercury not digested and quantified as part of the first extraction. The results of the nitric acid digestion and extraction for the following clinics are: 1-PLR filter (In place 7/23/99 to 8/12/99): Mercury in free liquid drained from filter: Mercury in free solids drained from filter: Mercury in first acid extraction of whole filter. Mercury in second extraction (based on 3 subsamples of inedia): 1-PLR Total mercury measured: 418 mg 119 mg 10,800 mg 2,120 mg 13,457 mg

2-PLR filter (In place 8/4-19/99): Mercury in first acid extraction of whole filter: Mercury in second extraction (based on 3 subsamples of inedia): (No free liquid or solids were present in filter.) 2-PLR Total mercury measured: 7,790 mg 984 mg
8,774 mg

The totals shown here for 1-PLR and 2-PLR are also shown in Appendix C. These totals wsre 

## used to 

## calculate daily averages for the amount of inercury retained in the 

## Asdex fi(ters.


## Zs

### The two Asdex filters used at 3-PLR were processed differently, but using the same basic

principal of nitric acid digestion. Each of the two filters underwent a three-stage digestion: I. New nitric acid was poured into the filter housing, 2. Caps were looselv put on filter, 3. The filter sat for 24 hours (at room temperature), 4. The acid was poured out, 5. The volume of acid was measured, 6. A subsample of the acid was collected and submitted to the MCES laboratory: 7. The above steps were repeated a second and third time.
The results of these digestions are shown in Appendix C for 3-PLR. As was the case for the Asdex filters used at 1-PLR and 2-PLR, the first extraction yielded the majority of the mercury from the filters. The results for the filters used at 3-PLR showed a quick decline in the amount of inercury extracted from the filters over the course of the three digestions. Therefore, the filters were not subjected to a fourth digestion.

The acid used to digest the filters for the three clinics listed here was 10 Normal nitric acid. It was made up by mixing 2/3 parts concentrated nitdc acid (approximately 70 %) with 1/3 part Milli-Q water. A new Asdex filter (whole filter) was digested with nitric acid to check for the presence of mercury in an unused filter. The amount of inercury was measured at 0.00062 mg.

26

## III. D. [6] Special solids processing involving physical removal of amalgam

particles prior to analysis for some chairside traps and one vacuttm filter It was observed that some chairside traps had significant pieces of amalgam present among the other waste solids in the trap. It was decided that if these large pieces of amalgam were removed from the traps, there would be (ess amalgam to be chemically digested as part of the analytical procedures. This would minimize having high concentrations of inercury in the predigestion process, and thus minimize the subsequent analytical work, such as lab dilutions and "reruns". The amalgam particles were put into separate, labeled containers for future reevaluation if necessary. MCES believed that this was an adequate method to quantify amalgam and mercury for chairside traps. An exact determination was not necessary to fulfilt the stated purposes of this study. (Trap solids must be managed in an approved manner other than sewering.) Therefore, while processing some chairside traps, particles of amalgam was separated out of the other waste solids. Based on appearance, the particles were removed, rinsed, dried (at room temperature), and 

### weighed. The rinsewater and the remaining solids were processed and analyzed in the same way as the other solids samples described above. (See Sections: IIL D. [4] and III. E.) If there was any question as to whether a piece of waste solids was amalgam, it was left with the other solids as the chairside trap was cleaned out and the contents transferred to a beaker. The weight of the amalgam was used to estimate the amount of inercury. The weight of the particles was multiplied by 40% (0.40) to estimate the mercury content of the amalgam. This calculated amount was added to the amount of inercury determined by the laboratory for each chairside trap that had amalgam picked out. The data are in Appendix C. If no amalgam weight is given for a particular chairside trap, then no amalgam would have been picked out of the trap.

P~ l

## While processing one vacuum filter, MCES believed that there was a substantia( amount of amalgam present among the solids in the filter. The vacuum filter was in use from July 5, 

## 2000 to August 14, 200Q, at 5-LIZ, during baseline monitoring. The solids were rinsed with water to carry lighter, less dense material out of the beakers. The solids were swirled azound underwater, and rinsed over and over again. All of the rinsewater and the light solids carried out of the beakers were put into a settling tank and settled. This materia( was processed in the same manner 

## as solids from other filters. Analyticat results for the material washed out of the beakers is presented in Appendix C. The cleaned materia(, that is believed to be primarily amalgam, was dried (at room temperature) and weighed. These particles are small, since they passed through a chairside traps. It was not as easy to determine that the particles were amalgam, as it was with the larger particles picked from the chairside traps. However, the particles are dense, and appear to be metallic. At the time of writing this report, these vacuum filter particles have not been processed beyond what has been outlined here. It was not critical to know the exact amount of inercury present in the atnalgam solids within the vacuum filter for this portion of the baseline monitoring period. The most important information was the amount of inercury discharged from the vacuum system after the vacuum filter, which was measured and reported. No estimation has been made to quantify the mercury present in the solids separated out of the vacuum filter (such as multiplying by 40%, as was done with many chairside traps). These solids may contain some material other than amalgam. Therefore, data presented in this report for this specific vacuum filter represents only a partial determination of the amount of inercury. As part of the evaluation of the amalgam removal equipment installed at this clinic (Durr centrifuge), the amount of inercury present in the vacuum filters during the baseline monitoring period was compared to the amount present in the vacuum fiiters during the time that the centrifuge was in place. Even with the partial determination, the 8ata indicated that there was much more mercury present in the vacuum filters during the baseline monitoring period than during the time that the centrifuge was in place at the clinic. This topic is discussed in more detail in Section V, as part of the comments on the Durr centrifuge.

28

## IIL 

# E. Analysis Samples were delivered to the MCES laboratory as either liquid samples in a glass jars, or as solids in glass beakers. IIL E. [1] Analysis of liquid samp(es Liquid samples were analyzed using EPA Method 245. L Some duplicate liquid samples from the decanting of settling tanks containing wastewater were filtered with a 0.45 micron filter. This filtrate was also anatyzed using EPA Method 245.1 to determine the concentration of soluble mercury. All of the volumes associated with the liquid samples were recorded, such as original sample volumes, rinsewater, and decanted volumes. The volume data were used with the laboratory data (given as a concentration) to compute a mass of inercury. III. E. [2] Analysis of solids samp(es - Ovetview Due to the expected heterogeneous nature of the solids, the solids collected and processed as described above were predigested in the beakers to dissolve amalgam and mercury, such that the resulting "predigestate" was homogeneous. The predigestion of the solids was based on Method 3030 E, Standard Methods, 18th Ed., 1992. The predigestion method is given in Section III. E. (3]. The content of each beaker was predigested. The resulting liquid predigestate from each beaker was filtered, put into a volumetric flask (usually a 100 mL flask), and brought up to the mark. The contents of each volumetric flask were analyzed separately, and data aze reported for each beaker. (Filtering the predigestate was done to remove coarse particles, Yo 

## protect the analytical instrument. Coarse particles may include material such as dental hygiene polishing compound.) As the work of the study progressed, the predigestates (from multiple beakers for each overall sample) were combined together prior to analysis to minimize the amount of analytical work. For example, if there were four beakers for one solids sample, each beaker was digested and the four predigestates were put into one volumetric flask (e.g., a 500 mL flask). Subsamples were taken from the volumetric flasks and analyzed using EPA Method 245.1. (Often, the subsamptes needed to be diluted to be within range of the analytical method.) This gave the mercury concentration of the predigestate(s) for each solids sample. By knowing the volume of predigestate(s), the mass of inercury in each solids sample was determined. Data repoited by the laboratory for the solids samples were given as a mass of inercury. The "September 1998 Draft Procedure to Evaluate Amalgam Removal Equipment" developed for this study stated that the solids samples wouldbe dried and weighed. It was deternuned that since all of the solids were being digested it was not necessary to dry and weigh the solids. This avoided the drying procedure and analyzing a portion of the solids and extrapolating the data to the remaining solids (which may possibly be inaccurate if the solids are not homogeneous).

29

## III. E. [3] Predigestion method to analyze solids samples

The following method was used as a predigestion step for the analysis of the waste solids collected and processed as outlined above. This method was used for both the solids from the wastewater samples (after separation) and the solids removed from filters and amalgam remova( equipment. The following is taken from MCES taboratory procedures:

Predigestion Method for Dental Waste Solid Material

January 2001 Samples arrive to the Lab in 250 mL or 400 mL beakers and are refrigerated until analysis. At time of analysis, samples are removed from the cooler and allowed to warm to room temperature (approximately 20 — 30 minutes). 

# Prior to Predigestion

~ 

### . Tum hot plates to desired temperature 2. Arrange samples and label beakers, using a Sharpie, with the sample ID number or other code. Remove sample label and any remaining tape or parafilm from the 

## sample beaker. 3. Include two clean beakers per batch and label as LRB (laboratory reagent blank). Be sure to use caution when handling these samples throughout the digestion to prevent cross contamination. a. Include one amalgam QC sample in a clean beaker. Using the Solids balance, weigh approximately 12 mg's of amalgam into a clean beaker. Be sure to use caution when handling these samples throughout the digestion to prevent cross contamination. Record weight of sample on predigestion sheet. 5. Record sample ID number or other code onto the predigestion sheet. 

# Predigestion

1. Add 10 mLs of milli-q water using an auto pipette 2. Add 20 mLs of concentrated nitric acid using the repipettor -. 3. Place appropriate size watch glass cover on top of beaker and swirl sample gently; place on the hot plate. 4. Allow samples to reflux for 4 hours. If volume appears low, remove sample from hot place immediately so as to prevent sample from going to dryness. 5. Remove samples from hot plate 6. Allow samples to cool - — 7. Slide watch glass cover slightly and add 10 mLs of concentrated nitric acid to the beaker, replace watch glass cover, swirl and retum to the hot plate. 8. Allow samples to reflux for 1 hour. Again, if volume appears low, remove sample from hot place immediately so as to prevent sample from going to dryness. 9. Remove samples from hot ptate 10.Allow samples to cool

30

# Filtering

1. label volumetrics with sample ID number or other code 2. Place filter paper (Schleicher and Schuell, size 12.5 cm, item #10319344, #588 pleated) into plastic funnel and filter all samples into appropriate size volumetrics with caps. 3_ Cap and invert several times. 4. Record volumetric volume on the predigestion sheet 

# Before Analysis Samples in volumetrics may require serial dilutions before digestion, i.e., before analysis. We have discovered that the concentration of inercury in the sample correlates with the color; the deeper the yellow to green color, the more concentrated it is.

f~ 

## l'lalySlS Analyze samples using EPA Method 245.1.

31

## IV. TEST SCI-IEDULE

IV. A. General There were up to three phases of preparation and monitoring at each clinic. Different clinics and specific circumstances detemuned the number of phases. The phases were:
1. "Vacuum System Preparation" Routine flushing of vacuum system in an attempt to establish a steady-state movement of solids through the vacuum system
2. "Baseline Monitoring Sampling with basic chairside traps and if applicable, a vacuum filter (vacuum filter for clinics with liquid-ring pumps).
3. "Amalgam Removal Equipment Evaluation Monitoring" Sampling with the new equipment in p(ace.
The phases are discussed in more detail in Sections N. B. and N. C. Table 4 lists the clinic monitoring schedule for Phases 2& 3, the types of amalgam removal equipment tested, the clinics used to test the equipment, status as to liquid-ring (wet) or turbine (dry) vacuum pump, and other information such as monitoring time periods.

32

## TABLE 4 CLINIC MONITORING SCHEDULE

Clinic Wet or Monitoring Number Phase 1 Vac Filter in AmaL Rem. WasteDry Period of Weeks Completed
` 

### Place During Equip Solids water pump Monitoring Analyzed Monitored



### Baseline Monitoring Phase 

## 2

1-PLR wet 8/t6-9/8/99 4 no yes not app. yes 2-PLR wet 8/20-9/2/99 2 no yes not app. yes 3-PLR wet 11/12-1/6/00 8 no yes not app. yes 5-LR wet 7/5-8/23/00 7 yes yes not app. yes 6-LR wet 7/12-8/16/00 5 yes yes not app. yes

Amalgam Removal Equipment Evaluation Monitoring Phase 

## 3

Asdex Filter 1-PLR wet 7/22-8/13/99 3 no yes yes yes 2-PlR wet 8/3-8/20/99 3 no yes yes yes 3-PLR wet 9/7-10/1l99 4 no yes yes no The Amalgam Collector Settling System 1-PLR (1st) wet 9/8-9/29/99 3 no yes yes yes t-PLR (2nd) wet 9/29-11/4l99 5 no yes no no 2-PLR (1st) wet 9/13-10/1/99 3 no yes ` 

### yes yes 2-PLR(2nd) wet 10/1t-11/8/99 4 no yes no no 3-PLR wet 10/4-11/12/99 6 no yes yes one sample (unrep.) DurcCentrifuge (Mode1780017801) 4-T dry 6l21-8/9/00 7 yes not app. yes yes 5-LR wei 8/23/-9/27/00 5 yes yes yes no Rebec Settling/Fittration System (two models) 7-T dry 8/7-9/28/00 8 yes not app. yes yes Model: 2000 EL 6-LR wet 8/16-9/20/00 5 yes no yes yes 

### Madel: 2000 E METASYS ECO II Settling System 6-LR wet 9/20-10/25/00 5 yes yes yes yes

total weeks 87 `Preliminary clinics shown as "no". These clinics did not have a fonnal Phase 1 flushing period, however they had flushed their system according to their nonnal, routine schedule prior to MCES monitoring.
Dec. 

## 20, 2001

33

### IV. B. Phase 1- Vacuum System Preparation Waste amalgam particles and other waste solids present in a clinic's vacuum system may not move uniformly through the vacuum system. Solids may build up and periodica(ly pass through the system To minimize this potential problem, MCES checked that the clinics did flush their vacuum system routine(y before wastewater monitoring began. The goal was that the movement of solids was at "steady state" within the vacuum system. Flushing a vacuum system was accomplished by drawing water and vacuum system cleaners into the system at the operatories. During the first visit by MCES to the cfinics that were monitored, it was learned that all had established routine vacuum system flushing procedures. The flushing procedure followed by each c6nic was determined by the clinic. The cGnics were asked to follow their own routine procedure to try to maintain, as best as possible, a steady-state movement of solids through their vacuum system. Flushing was done at least weekly. During Phase I, the clinics: (1) Recorded flushing procedures for approximate(y 4 weeks before monitoring began. The amount and type of flushing solution was to be consistent. (2) Recorded amalgam removals and placements. This information was requested in case questions arose during subsequent phase(s) of the study. See example log sheets in Appendix D.

34

## IV. C. Phases 2& 3 Baseline Monitoring & Amalgam Removal Eqttipment Evaluation Monitoring The two phases of monitoring were:
Phase 

## 2 Baseline Monitoring: Vacuum system wastewater samples were collected without new amalgam removal equipment in place. Phase 3 Amalgam Removal Equipment Evaluation Monitoring: 

## Vacuum system wastewater samples were collected with new amalgam removal equipment in place. Conditions for Phases 2& 3: • The maximum collection period for any one wastewater sample was 5 operating days. • Wastewater samples were taken for at least a 5 week period for each of the two phases. (See Table 4 or the individual data sheets, in Appendix C, for more detailed information.) • Wastewater sampling equipment and amalgam removal equipment wece installed near the vacuum pump. • Chairside traps were in place. • Where applicable, a vacuum filter was in place (see Table 4). • At the start of each phase of the evaluation, new chairside traps and a vacuum filter (if applicable at that time) were installed. • Amalgam removals/placements were logged. (See Appendix D.) • Surgical procedures were logged. (See Appendix D.) • A log was kept at the clinics for staff to record the dates that traps and vacuum filters were changed. See Appendix D. (Dates and times of vacuum filter change-outs were also written directly on the vacuum filter housing.) • Vacuum system flushing was performed and logged on a routine schedule. (See Appendix D.) The flushing so(ution became incorporated into the overall wastewater samples, along with the wastewater from the patients. • Solids collected in vacuum filters and the amalgam removal equipment were analyzed for mercury. The data are presented in Table 7 and in Appendix C.
Chairside traps from the clinics were collected for a limited time period during either Phase 2 or Phase 3, and the contents were analyzed. Data are presented in the data sheets in Appendix C.

35

## IV. D. Preliminary Clinics - Test Schedule The three preliminary clinics used for baseline monitoring and testing equipment did not have a formal Phase 1 period, such as logging vacuum system flushing or amalgam removaVplacement counts. They did however, have established, routine flushing procedures in place prior to and 

### during MCES monitoring. Amalgam removals/placements were logged during Phases 2& 3. Baseline monitoring (Phase 2) was conducted at the three preliminary clinics for a total of 14 weeks. This baseline monitoring may not have been necessary, since (1) the vacuum filters were left in place during the Phase 3 monitoring, and (2) the solids in the amalgam removal equipment were analyzed. The baseline monitoring was worthwhile however, since extra monitoring experience and data were beneficiaL The duration of Phase 3 monitoring at the preliminary clinics was less than 5 weeks for any individual clinic, however, the sum total of wastewater monitoring with the Asdex filter was 5'h weeks (1-PLR + 2-PLR), plus 4 additional weeks of Asdex filter operation without wastewater monitoring (3-PLR). Phase 3 wastewater monitoring was conducted for 6 weeks also at the preliminary clinics with The Amalgam Collector in place (sum of 1-PLR + Z-PLR). There were 15 additional weeks of clinic time operating The Amalgam Collector, although there was minimal wastewater and solids monitoring (sum of 1-PLR, 2-PLR, + 3-PLR).

--,

iZ ~

## V. TEST RESULTS: FINDINGS AND ANALYTICAL DATA The three objectives of this study were:
1. Evaluate: How well did the amalgam removal equipment perform from a mechanical standpoint. Were there any indications that the equipment would negativety impact the vacuum system? Were the units easy to work with? Could they be serviced easily?
2. Determine the costs associated with purchasing, installing, operating, or leasing the advanced removal equipment.
3. Determine the amount of inercury (from amalgam and as dissolved) discharged to the sanitary sewer currently, and the amount that would be discharged if new amalgam removal equipment were put into service. Note that this study was not meant to rank the different types of amalgam removal equipment. The findings and analytical data are presented below, in order of the three objectives listed here.

37

## V. A Mechanical Performance of Equipment and Impact on Vacuum System Table 5 gives an overview of how the amalgam removal equipment performed. 

## Table 5 Amalgam Removal Equipment - Sttmmary of Performance and Ease of Use Amalgam Day-to-Day Use Management of Used Removal Equip. of Equipment Unit or Waste SoGds, Mf er & Model other Considerations Avprox, Inc. Filters were easy to Filters loaded sooner than expected. Filters lasted up Asdex Filter change. to 12 operating days (with vacuum filter in place). in Liquid-Ring Assume less time without vacuum filter in place. Vacuum S stem Ca filters for dis osal or re rocessin . R& D Services Easy & quick to Sludge in settling tank to be managed by clinic staff. The Amalgam decant. Requires (up Tank and lid need improving regazding how they Collector

. to) daily decanting. connect together and seal. Centrat inlet fitting should be im roved. se "union" fittin ossibl ? Air Techniques Automatic operation. for Durr Dental No day-to-day Centrifuge cassettes easy to change and seal. 7800/7801 involvement. in Turbine and 

## Liquid-Ring Vacuum S stem Rebec Solutions Automatic operation. Settling/Filtration container easy to change. May be 2000 EL No day-to-day done by service contractor. Verify during installation

involvement. that checkvalve "seats" when vacuum is on. Rebec Solutions Automatic operation. Settling/Filtration container easy to change. May be 2000 E No day-to-day done by service contractor. involvement. PWD-METASYS Automatic operation. Settling container easy to change. Done by service

No day-to-day contractor. Plumbing connections need improving, ECO II involvement. possibly by using `

~ 

## nion" fittings, sized for American i e dimensions. Regazding mechanical function (not wastewater treatment performance), all of the models of amalgam removal equipment functioned satisfactorily, and as intended. There were some mechanical problems that were overcome during the equipment installation and 

## during the evaluation. Additional information for each type of amalgam removal equipment is given in Section VI. There was an instance where the Asdex Slter had to be changed during the middle of a procedure on a patient. This meant that the vacuum pump had to be turned off, which did not take long, but it was an inconvenience. There were no negative impacts on the vacuum system, either temporary or permanent 

## associated with, or caused by the amalgam removal equipment.

38

## V. B. Equipment Costs - Purchasing and Operating Equipment Table 6 gives the basic cost information regarding purchase price and operating costs. Installation is included in the installation cost for some of the types of equipment. For those types of equipment that do not include installation, this cost is not expected to be significant unless there are special plumbing issues, such as too (ittle space or inaccessible vacuum pump and wastewater p(umbing. 

## Table 6 Amalgam Removal Equipment - Ptuchase and Operational Costs

Amalgam Removal Initial [nstallation Operating Waste Processing 

### Equip. Cost Included Cost Mfger & Modet (Dollars) Yes or No (Dollars)

Avprox, Inc. $160 No $50

~ 

### 0 per filter Dentist is responsible for disposal. Asdex Filter which includes Avprox, Inc. may help with

first filter See comment below making arcangements with a

on life of filtec disposal company.

R& D Services No Mfg: "Expect tank to Dentist is responsible for The Amalgam $625* operate for 2 years management of sludge. (Tank is Collector between clean-0uts." reusable after sludge removal J
Air Techniques $3500 No S75 per cassette Dentist is responsible for for Durr Dental mariagement of waste cassettes. 7800/7801 Air Techniques: 

### Centrifuge "Expect cassette to last for I yeaz "



### Rebec Solutions $1700 — Yes $300 — 5400 Cost of sett(ing-filtration unit 2000 E S 1900 per settling-fil[ration includes waste processing and & 2000 EL (depending unit. changeout.

on dealer) which includes Mfg: "Expect unit to Settling-filtration unit changed by first settling- last 1 year." dealer. filtration umt
PWD-METASYS $260 Yes Lease Arrangement Mon[lily fee includes waste ECO II processing and changeout. S30 per month plus (cleaner may be additional cost) possible cost if using cecommended ECO II changed by PWD-METASYS PWD-METASYS brand vacuum contractor. system cleaner 

## *$625 for model tested, which was centrally located near the vacuum pump. Less ($425 each), if a smaller system is Purchased for each operatory.

39

### The test periods for evaluating the amalgam removal equipment were as lengthy as was practical. However, the test periods were not long enough to verify all of the various manufacturers' expectations regarding the useful life of the "solids collection devices". Manufacturers and vendors of amalgam removal equipment need to eithec (I) provide with their equipment some kind of inechanism to alert cGnic staff as to when the equipment is nearing its capacity, or (2) provide information to allow the clinic staff to estimate when the equipment will reach its capacity. The Asdex filter became too loaded to last as long as was expected by the manufacturer (which was approximate(y 6-8 weeks, for the filter tested in this study and installed centrally at the vacuum pump). This was the case even when there was a vacuum fi(ter in place upstream of the Asdex filter. If there was no vacuum filter upstream of the Asdex filter, the Asdex filter would have needed to be changed out sooner. As of the writing of this report, no estimates have been made regazding the "useful life" of either of the: centrifuge cassette, Rebec settling-filtration unit, or The Amalgam Collector tank. It may be possible to estimate the life of the cassette for the centrifuge and to estimate the rate at which The Amalgam Collector fills (the manufacturer stated: "1 mm per operating day, per chair, plus more with hygiene waste".) The more solids The Amalgam Collector holds, the more often it must be decanted, however. The volume of the capacity of waste solids held by the Rebec settling-fihration unit may possibly by determined by loading a new unit with water to quantify the voids, and thereby estimate the amount of waste solids wluch could be held. (As stated at the end of Section VII, more work will be done to estimate the useful life of the various types of amalgam removal equipment.) If a clinic is considering purchasing and operating one of the types of amalgam removal equipment discussed in this report, the clinic should work with the vendors to understand all of the initial and ongoing operating costs. It is up to the clinic and the vendors to agree on terms and to establish what ongoing costs may be incurred by operating amalgam removal equipment. Any cost or service life information given on equipment in this report is presented as approximate.

,~

## V. C. Analytical Data: Baseline Monitoring and



## Amalgam Removal Equipment Monitoring (Phases 2 & 3) Section V. C. presents the results for both baseline monitoring and wastewater monitoring conducted while the amalgam removal equipment was in place, Phases 2& 3. Prior to presenting the data, comments are given on: (1) "percent removal", and {2) the use ofa vacuum filter during monitoring.


## V. C. [1] Discussion Regarding Percent Removal and "ISO" Percent Remova[ It is common to use the phrase "percent removal" when discussing equipment used to treat wastewatec When reporting a percent removal, the type of wastewater entering the equipment should be understood. Ca(culations such as percent removals reported for this study arebased on wastewater that has passed through the chairside traps. Chairside traps were in place at all of the clinics monitored as part of this study. Such traps are common in most dental clinics. Chairside traps may vary slightly in their shape, however their function and pore size openings seem quite uniform. Chairside traps have pore size openings of approximately 0.7 mm (700 microns). Data are presented below as percent removal for vacuum filters and percent removal for amalgam removal equipment. Since this is based on wastewater passing through chairside traps, the amount of solids, or mercury, collected in the chairside traps is not part of calculating a percent removal. If a clinic had both a vacuum filter and amalgam removal equipment in place, an estimate was made as to the percent removal if the vacuum filtec had not been in use. This is discussed further in Section V. C. [2]. Since there is much discussion among publicly owned treatment works (POTV
~ 

## , state and national dental associations, and vendors of amalgam removal equipment regarding ISO testing, it is worthwhile to address this. ISO (the International Organization for Standazdization) developed a standardized testing method to evaluated amalgam removal equipment (ISO 11143, 1999). The test is conducted in a laboratory setting ("benchtop" testing) using a standardized amalgam sample to run through the amatgam removal equipment. The particle size distribution of the ISO standardized amalgam includes amalgam particles up to 3.15 mm. Since the pore size of chairside traps is approximately 0.7 mm, chairside traps would capture the lazger particles at the upper end of the standazd amalgam range. Therefore, percent removal discussed in this report cannot be considered a similar type of ineasurement as compared to an"ISO percent remova(" measurement.

4t

### The focus of "percent removal" in this report is based on the amount of amalgam (as mercury) present in the wastewater passing through, or after, the chairside traps. This is done for the following reasons: • Sotids in chairside traps must be managed as a sotid waste, and not washed into the drain, (solids from the traps must be managed according to appropriate, locai requirements) • Most types of amalgam removal equipment are installed at the vacuum pump, well beyond the chairside traps, • Most types of amalgam removal equipment are installed in place of 

# a vacuum 61ter, (or just upstream of the filter, leaving the filter in as a back-up to protect the pump) • While the majority of vacuum pumps in the IvLnneapolis-St. Paul Minnesota metropolitan azea are liquid-ring with vacuum filters, 

## many vacuum systems do not use vacuum filters, • It is MCES' understanding that as liquid-ring vacuum pumps (with vacuum filters) aze phased out, clinics aze moving toward turbine (dry) pumps, many of which do not use vacuum filters. The percent removal reported for amalgam removat equipment evaluated in this study coincides with the location in which the equipment would be installed and therefore, the waste entering the equipment. Based on the above discussion, amatgam removal equipment evaluated here would presumably achieve a higher percent removal result if tested using the ISO procedure. Conversely, if a type of amalgam removal equipment has been tested using the ISO procedure, and is given a percent removal rating, it may not be possible to expect the equipment to achieve that removal rating if the chairside traps aze removing some of the lazger particles.

42

## V. C. (2] Understanding and reporting data on amalgam removal equipment if

the equipment was installed after a vacuum filter or in place of a vacuum filter Data are reported below showing the amount of inercury captured and the percent remova( for amalgam removal equipment. Some dinics used vacuum fi(ters, while some did not. Most types of removal equipment were installed after a vacuum filter, while for one type of removal equipment, it was installed in place of the vacuum filter. (Section III. C. [4], above, discusses reasons as to how the various types of equipment were installed.) The mixture of clinics with and without a vacuum filter made for non-uniform data. To present the data in a uniform format, the amount of inercury captured in a vacuum filter was added to the amount captured in the amalgam remova( equipment. This was done where it seemed reasonable. If such a calculation was made, it is obvious in the reporting of the data. This study was not meant to rank d

~ 

### e effectiveness of various types of amalgam removal equipment. However, to aid the reader and to be fair to all of the equipment manufacturers, the reporting of the data should be as uniform as is possible. If the vacuum filter was left in place during Phase 3 monitoring, the amalgam removal equipment may not have captured as much waste amalgam, and it therefore may have shown a reduced potential for capturing ama(gam as compared to other equipment that did replace the vacuum filter. In cases of permanent installations (i.e., not part of a study), a clinic would likely install amalgam removal equipment in place of the vacuum filter. Done this way, a clinic would not have to manage waste from both the amalgam removal equipment and the used vacuum filter.

There was another situation regazding the presence/absence of a vacuum filter. This did not deal with the performance of the amalgam removal equipment, but rather estimating how much mercury would have been discharged to the sanitary sewer if the equipment had not been in use. The Rebec 2000 E replaced the vacuum filter at the cGnic during its testing. Therefore, an estimate was needed regarding how much mercury would have been caught in the vacuum filter during that testing period, to calculate the amount passing through and discharged with the wastewater. The estimate is given in the table of data, along with the method for calculating the estimate.

43

## V. C. [3] Analytical Data Table 7, "Monitoring Results" (located on the next two pages) presents an initial overview of all of the monitoring data. A key for Table 7 follows the table and extra explanatory information is given along the bottom rows of Table 7. The complete sets of data for each clinic aze included as Appendix C. Table 8, "Summary of Monitoring Results" presents a summary of the data from Table 7. Table 7(Co(umn O), showing milligrams of inercury/day per dentist is copied to Table 8 (Column D). Table 8 shows how a weighted average for each of the seven clinics is calculated on a"per dentist" basis, see Column F. Table 8, Column F=(Column E clinic total mgldentist) ={Column C clinic total op. days). This weighting step puts proportionately more emphasis on the results of the bnger testing time periods, within each particular clinia (The standazd deviation for the overall clinic averages in Column F is 199 mg/dentist/day.) "Dentist-Days" are also calculated for each clinic (Table 8, Column I). For example, if a clinic was monitored for: 36.75 days, with 1 FTE* dentist (1-PLR), this would represent "36.75 Dentist-Days". if 34.75 days, with 2 FTE dentists (2-PLR), this would represent "69.5 Dentist-Days". * FTE = Full Time Equivalent The amount of inercury generated and sampled from all seven clinics was added together, equaling 86,439 mg. This amount was divided by the total number of 370 "Dentist-Days". The resutting value is 234 mg/dentist per day. This weighting step puts proportionally more emphasis on the results of those clinics that we

~ 

## e monitored for longer time periods and those clinics that had more dentists. The overall weighted average is estimated at 234 mg mercury/dentist per day. This represents the amount of inercury dischazged via a clinic vacuum system, with no amalgam removal equipment in place. The estimate of 234 mg is based on a mixture of seven clinics with and without vacuum filters. The data did not clearly indicate a difference in loading as a function of using a vacuum 81ter. Therefore, the loading estimate is simply a weighted average for all clinics. 

## A 1995-1996 survey of clinics in the MCFS service area oflvfinneapoGs-St. Paul, Minnesota (WEF, 1999) indicated that 88 % used vacuum filters. It is understood that clinics are switching over to dry vacuum pumps (which do not use vacuum filters) as clinics replace pumps, rebuild, or remodeL Ofthe seven clinics monitored, five c6nics (71%) used vacuum filters, two did not use vacuum filters.

~ 

## The weighted average presented here is based on monitoring clinics for a total of 275 operating days. The number of 370 "dentist-days" is higher since some clinics had up to two full time equivalent dentists.

44

### Vacuum filters remove amalgam and other waste solids from clinic wastewater. The range of percent removal was shown to be 16% to 80% (Table 7, Cotumn P). This range represents the percent removal of the amalgam (measured as mercury) &om the wastewater aRer the chairside traps. The average removal was found to be 42%. Therefore, considering just the amalgam remaining in the wastewater after the chairside traps, a vacuum filter was determined to have removed on average, 42% of the amalgam.

45

### TABLE 7 MONITORING RESULTS 12/20/01

_ A B C D E F G H I



## m p ~, 

## h a ~ ~

~ a 

# p v a 

### ~ 

# _, . ~ 

# . o

~ N 

# m E O

m ti '' E m 

# °' ? a

' a ~ ~ ~ a m

~ 

## 41 U C ~ N

~ ~

_ N 

## U U

U ~

~ j y


## ~ 

# U j W ~ C 

## p ~



## p 

# p ,ai m` 

# > t~ aJ ~ a 

## a, ° R m E E E

o 

# '-a ~ 

# m m rn rn Q ~ 

# 'c m E .o

E ~ ~ 

# m m m

~ ~ 

### rn z' 3 

### 3 ¢ ¢ ~

_

, . , 1-PLR Asdex Filter Wet 7/23-8/12/99 1125 58.7 58.7 4.71 0, 4.71 Baseline Monitoring 40 8/16-9/8/99 13.5 51.4 51.4 3.0 4 0 3.04 The Amalgam Colledor 9/9-29l99 12 50.9 13.7 2.50 0 2.50

~ 

### ,«K.,. ~,~~ ` "~ z ~ 

### ,... ~ 

### : ~ ~n 

### , . _ '~~ a< ~ ..,a',,..

~ .. ~ . w


### . _ . . , ..,.. 2-PLR Asdex Filter Wet 8/4-19/99 11.25 138 138 6.84 12.71 19:55 Baseline Monitoring 20 8/20-9/3/99 10 126 126 7.2 13.9 21.1 The Amalgam Collector 9/13-10/1/99 13.5 107 80 6.89 9.85 16.74

~ = a ?, ~ " _.. ~

.. _ 

### 3-PLR Asdex Fitter (1st Filter Wet 9l7-9/99 3 no ~ meas. 0 1.33 0.33 1.67 Asdex Fitter (2nd Fitter) 20 9l13-30/99 12 na mess. 0 3.92 0.50 4.42 Asdex Fitter t ~ s 2 ow ~ 9/7-30l99 15 na meas. 0 3.40 0.47 3.87 The Amalgam Collector 10/4-11l11/99 24 51.1 5 3.29 0.67 3.96 Baseline Monitoring 11/15/99-1/6/00 30 ~ 56.9 56.9 3.20 1.13 4.33
'~~~



## .. -: as:

_ ~~.`~

. _ 

## . . . . .. ,. . . .
z 4T Durr Centrifuge Dry 621-8/9/00 32 173.5 173.5 2.72 2.75 5.47

~ r~ ~ .., ~ r ~ ,

~ 

## -' ; ~.a~"~c.~~+',~,

, , ~ 

## m,....:: - "°. r.
. , r; ~. £
~ 

## . ,< 

## ::,,.b.

~ 

## . . .,. . . ~ 

## . . ~ 

## . .,:_

. .._ .;

. '



## .:: ..,_ sx .., 3 ,~ 

## e : r 5-LR Baseline Monttori Wet 7/7-8/23/00 21 106.8 106.8 0.90 7.86 8.76 Durr Centrifuae 40 8/249/26/00 18.5 na m
~ . 0 0.43 2.11 2.54

1 METASYS ECO II ~ { 9/20-10/24/00 { 20 25 123 { 123 3 21 ~ n 4 00 ~ /11

- r z ~ ~s: ~ . ax ~ ~ ,

~ 

### `,. E `

~ 

### ^.

. . . , _ ,... __ 7-T Rebec 2000 EL Dry 8/7-9/28/00 36.25 150.6 150.6 226 0 2.26

S .~ k ' ~ .. ~ `r; `

~ v' l.a- ~ `~ ~ .~ ~f '~~ f~~.

~ ..oYbx+. ~j~

.. .ae~ `£ki ~~Z.~

. "e..a., m i, 2 ~. ~~ w~ #.&Y. stH. ss2
~ .... 3rt$"`.

~ `:-....+a. m and % Removal refer to mercury. ARE = Amal am Removal Equipment. NA = not applicable. not meas. = not measured no samples were collected) ' Clinic 6-LR, Column N, Estimated value based on 366 -(avp. of 178 8 171, which is 174.5) = 191.5

~~ 2 not meas. : Witl ~ ~ a wastevrater data. Cdumns M& J are unknown.

'

~ . Therefwe. r a percenfages cw be calcula0ad for the 35 not meas. wluawn 9 28 rrot meu. ~ Asdex fifer.

41' poo

~ ime dele w meke reawnable eeM

~ 1°s ~°~ TA~ e~ 6 59 18 36 est 5.9 41 : 

### 17 18 3 81 69 

### 17 17 21

~ 

### 4 ;
.. 

### 17 1

. ~~ _~ ~~ ~, ~

- ~s ~ ~ . ~6

. ,.. . ~~ _ - .... ~ ~ ;~ _ - ~_~,
945 

### 4T NA 912 32 6 945 54R NA 96 55 ; 9 ~ 55 3 45 ~9

~ ~ ~ ~ ~,,~ ; ~~ ~ , ..t r., - ~ ~ ~ ~r ~~ ~~~ ~° ~.. ~ ~. ~ ' ~ _... . ._'.

. ~ ? ~
. .. 5 LR 

### 373 > 629 > 256 373.5 373 : 3I3:
unqqwn 27 17 rwt meas

~ t wqawn unlmoiXMt wqawn wlmmvn

~ edttfuNffl wlaawn x+" aA. '

~

'.',( ~ fi....

^aF ~ "-, ? ~~ YS R, d. , ti._.zv 3, `„'s- '

~ L
~ i
~ fa ~` T a~ ....e.S `~~45 y wlmavn '% y. ~~ "~ _;'.

. E Vl ~ 

# :.

~ 

# . . ~t y

'~ ly~..

_...:
~ ~ 

# 4. a..1 ':. G,. , ,.i 

# .. , n. .S `


# _ £,s.'


# . , . 

# .. . . ' a .. _ _ ~ 6-lR A49 28.4 ! 71.61 449 627 178 449.0 449 366 NA 362 4.6 192' : 192' NA 98.75 98.T5', 1.25 5 232 42 4

~ g 48 41 50

~ 2 9 18 37

~ } ~ ~ ~~~ ~?~.. 403 171 195 37 0 232

a~ ~ `p.~ _~ P ~. :'$C ~'~; G : 2T ~

k i ~ 4i A` ~ ~ . F ~~i_~ . ° ,~ 34' 

### 7T ' 28 NA 95 66 93 86 ; 4 34 1

_. 59 NA 56 2 6 59

~ ;=~,~ ~~~i~` xs? ~~ _ r. ~ : '~~~ .~ ~ _ . ~ , ~ `.t ~ x. a.- ~ x4..... ~.

~~ . ..,, ~. F : ~ t O= P= Q= R= S- TCol. J= Columns K, L, 8 M are based N= 

### P+Q M/J M/FTE CoLK+ onsam lin data L+M N(FTE K/J X 100 

### L/J X 100 (see Key) X 100 Dentists + M See ndix C for all data Dentists 

### Average % Average % 

### 42 95

47

## KEY FOR TABLE 7 AND TABLE 10

Column Headings in Tables:
A: Clinic 4-T = two dentists, one is part-time, overall 1.75 fu(( time equivalents (FTE). Clinic 7-T = 2.0 FTE dentists. Clinic 2-PLR = 2 FTE dentists.
B: Wet is a"liquid-ring" pump with a vacuum fitter to keep solids out of the pump. Common vacuum filter mesh sizes are 20 and 40 openings per inch. Dry is a"turbine" pump.
D: Operating Days = number of days clinic was open and patients were seen. Most dentists in this study worked 4 days per week.
E: Wastewater volume generated from all operatories combined, during the number of operating days shown in the table. (No clinics use free-flowing cuspidors.)
F: Wastewater volume collected, processed, and analyzed during the operating days shown. 7: Mass of inercury/day in vacuum system AFT'ER the chairside traps. Column J= K+ L+ M. Mass shown in Column J would be the mass sewered if there were no vacuum Slter in use. K, L, & M: These cotumns are based on actual measured samples. Subsequent columns aze based on catculations using data from Columns J, K, L, & M.
L: Mass of inercury/day captured in the amalgam removat equipment (ARE).
M: Mass of inercury/day in wastewater samples; including all soluble, colloidal, and solids from wastewater samples.
N: Column N= Columns L+ M. Column N shows the daily loading dischazged to the sewer if no amalgam removal equipment was in place, such as during baseline monitoring, or by adding Columns L+ M for the periods when equipment was in place. (One exception is noted with 

## an asterisk, 6-LR.)
O: Column O= Column N/(FTE Dentists). This shows the mercury loading dischazged to the sewer on a"mg /operating day, per Full Time Equivalent dentist" basis if there was no amalgam removal equipment in place.
P: Percent removed calculated as: (Column K) /(Column >) X 100. Q: Percent removed calculated as: (Column L) /(Column J) X 100.
R: Column R= Cotumns P+ Q, assuming all mercury captured in the vacuum filter would be captured in the amalgam removal equipment. T: Column T= Column M/ FTE dentists. This shows the amount of inercury loading to the sewer on 

# a per dentist basis. Column T shows the effect of treating the wastewater with amalgam removal equipment (for time periods other than 

## baseline monitoring).



## as

### TABLE 8 SUMMARY OF MONITORING RESULTS 12/20/01
A 8 C D E F G H I
Clinic Wet Operating mg/day mg over all Clinic Average Number mg over all Dentist Days

_ or Days per dentist Op. Days mg/dentist/day of FTE Op. Days = Op. Days Dry per den6st weighted dentists CLINIC TOTAL times FTEs Pump Col. E/ CoL C Col. E total Cot C total tusirqtaalxfa X Col. G X Col. G each clinic) (Col. C tIXal is

~ to

~ l fw each dinic)
1-PLR wet 11.25 1293 14546.25 1-PLR 13.5 51 688.5 1-PLR 12 48 576 total 36.75 15810.75 430 1 15810.75 36.75

2-PLR wet 11.25 467 5253.75 2-PLR 10 23 230 2-PLR 13.5 8 108 total 34.75 5591.75

~ 161 2 11183.50 69.50

3-PLR wet 24 41 984 3-PLR 30 17 510 total 54 1494 28 1 1494.00 54.00

4-T dry 32 540 17280 540 1.75 30240.00 56.00

5-LR wet 21 373 7833 373 1 7833.00 21.00
6-LR wet 21 449 9429 6-LR 19 192 3648 6-LR 20.25 232 4698 total 60.25 17775 295 1 17775.00 6025

7-T dry 36.25 29 1051.25 29 2 2102.50 72.50
Column F Standard Deviation

199.3

TOTAIS 275 86439 370

Op. Days mg mercury "dentistdays"


### Total m enerated at all clinics durin com lete stu eriod / Dentist Da s=
86,439 m/ 370 dentist da s= 234 m ldentist/da



### 49

## V. C. [4] Variability of inercury loadings in wastewater The data in Table 8 show loadings that are quite variable, ranging from 8— 1293 mg/dentist per day (see Column D). Column D values are averages. Individual samptes show greater variability; see the baseline data for 5-LR and 6-LR in Appendix C. It is common to see large variations in the amount of inercury present in wastewater &om dental clinics. Table 9 gives the minimums, maximums, and standard deviations of some of the published data, showing lazge variations in mercury. Arenholt-Bindslev and Larsen (1996) also found that there was not a good correlation between the amalgam work performed and the amount released in the wastewater. The variation in the data are understandable given that most of the mercury in dental clinic wastewater is in solid, particulate form, and these solids may not move uniformly through wastewater plumbing located between the operatories and the vacuum pump. 

## Table 9 Variability of Mercury Loadings in Wastewater All data aze given as: Passing Chairside Passing Chairside Discharged milligrams of Trap (per chair, Trap (per chair, (per dentist, without mercury per day soluble + 

## solids) settled solids*) amalgam removal e ui ment Mean 612 773 250 Median 499 522 N 58 66 10 Maximum 3298 842 Mmimum 20 65 Std. Dev. 529 733 Source Cailas, et al. (1994) Drummond, et aL Arenholt-Bindslev (1995) and Larsen (1996) * 

## Supernatant passing chair also variable Drummond et al. also measured the amount of inercury in solids retained in chairside traps. The median value was 819 m da , 

## er chaic = 

## 57, Std. Dev. = 

## 1032

The clinic with the greatest variability in data as part of the MCES/MDA study was 1-PLR. As stated in Section III. A. {1], the vacuum pump at this clinicwas located on the same floor as the operatories, it had large (2 inch) waste lines between the operatories and the vacuum pump, only water was used for flushing, and there seemed to be uneven movement of solids in the vacuum system (irregular replacement of vacuum filters). See Section IILA. 2. A clinic with fairly uniform loadings was 6-LR. The vacuum pump for this clinic was located in the basement, the waste lines from the operatories were only'/. inch, and the system was flushed daily using 1 gallon of water/chair. (Prior to Phase 1, a bleach solution was routinely used to flush the vacuum system. Therefore, the waste lines were likely quite clean at the beginning of the monitoring. See Section III. A[2].)

50

### V. C. [5] Reduction in mercury (oadings using amalgam removal equipment One of the objectives of this study was to determine the potential reduction in mercury discharged to the sewer by using amalgam removal equipment. See Table 10, "Reductions in Mercury Dischazged to Sewer by Using Amalgam Removal Equipment". This tab(e gives data on the wastewater treatment removal efficiency of the various type of amalgam removal equipment. Table l0 is excerpted &om Table Z The key for Table 7 also applies to Table IQ which uses the same column heading lettering. (Table t0 does not include baseline monitoring data, to focus only on the time periods when amalgam removal equipment was in place.) Column R shows the percent removal for the amalgam removal equipment. For the clinics normally using a vacuum filter, the data in Column R assume that the solids caught in the vacuum filter would have been caught in the amalgam removal equipment. This issue is discussed in Section V. C. [2] and in Section VI. for the specific types of amalgam removal equipment. (As stated in Section VI. E_, it may not be valid to assume that the solids caught in a vacuum filter would all be caught by the METASYS ECO II.) The data in Column R indicate that the amalgam removal equipment does a good job of removing amalgam, and therefore mercury. (The Rebec Sotutions models may remove some soluble mercury. This is discussed in Section VI. C.) The range of removat efficiency was 91% - 99%, with 

## an average of 95%. This more than doubles the average removal measured for a vacuum filter, which was determined to remove approximately 42% of the amalgam remaining in the wastewater after the chairside traps_ Column T shows the amount of milligrams of inercury discharged (mg/day/dentist). These measurements may be compared to the figure of 234 mglday/dentist, which is the average amount discharged when amalgam removal equipment is not in use (Section V. C. [3]). Most of the data in Column T show an order of magnitude reduction. In some cases, there was a reduction by two orders of magnitude. Looking at Column S, the data show relatively low percentages of inercury remaining in the wastewatec The Asdex filter allowed a significant amount of inercury to pass into the wastewater. However, Columns Q, R, & S indicate that this filter did remove equal to, or more than, the vacuum filter. There was no wastewater data at 3-PLR while the Asdex filter was in place, therefore, comparing the data in Column L to Column K indicate that the Asdex filter removed three times more mercury than what the vacuum filter removed. The data indicate that there is a substantial amount of inercury removed from dental clinic wastewater by amalgam removal equipment that vacuum filters do not capture. For those clinics operating without a vacuum filter (turbine, "dry"), there is even a greater potential reduction of inercury dischazged by installing amalgam removal equipment. This study was not meant [o rank the various types of amalgam removal equipment. This study was conducted to determine the overal( effectiveness of amalgam removal equipment. The data in Table IO demonstrate that this equipment is effective in substantially reducing the amount of solids, and therefore mercury, discharged 2o the sewec 5tTABLE 10

_ Red 

### uctions in Mercury Di scharged to Sewer 12I20/01 by Using Amalgam Removal Equipment

__ A B J K L



# _—_ M P



# _ Q



# _ R



# _ S T 

# N LL

~ 19 {- U N
~ m 

## I L j 

## m v~ m ` 

## 3
D p ~ ~ ~ n 3 

## m N

~ 0 a ~! 

### m ` 

### LL
~ c~ W C

_ 3

~ m ~ J ~ ; ~ W ti

)'° ~° ~ W 0~ N C " 0

~ ~ ~ , ~ . 0: C 1C ~. m Q D L ~ ~ Q 0 (~ C C C > > m ,C ~

~ 

# m m m m E E E E ' 0 m ~ ~ O 0 O t~ ' c ' ` m ~ ~ C ~ ~ 

# U 3 E E E E ~ ~ ~ ~ F

`~?'~r`~.~ ~ ~

. -.;..r,. ""

~ ~ e
~ ,., ` :~ : :
. . . , .. .;
~ -:::- ~

.. 1-PLR Wet 

### 'Asdex Fiter 1542 249 1196 97.0 16 76 94 6 97 iThe Amalaam Collector 77 29 47 0.8 38 61 99 1 1

TheAmalgamCoYector ~ 76 61 ~ ~ ,.-. 13+ 22 80 ~ 17~ 97~, 3~ ._ t ,
..,. ~ . -, :_...,s
~~ -_ ;°

~ 

## . ~ v.,~



## ,..,K,,,. . 

## - .: - . . _ ..

, .._.. . -. _ _ 

## . ~ : ,



## _ r>.. -« ~

` 

## . _ . .. .

.....:..

~~ 

## °a ..._

. ~ i 3-PLR :. Wet Asdex Fi[er (t a 2 ore

~ ap) un

~ mwm 9 28 na meas. The Amalgam CoAedor est 59 18 36 est 5.9 est. 6 u; ~~ ~ 'h~ :'' .'

. . .

. - ~:~ ~ 4-T~. 

### Dry Dun Cenlrrfuge 945 NA 912 32.6 NA 97 97 3 19



### .,. _ ~.,~ 

### :hm

- '~ 

### bu. vNV ~ ls. ~ v

~ i'rvhh+ , es- ~ - ~ 

### ,
~ -. ~ C

. .'

~ e.i- ~ m^' 

### Y :

'
-. a i ~

_ .--
. - .. . . 4...0 .

_ ..- a ` , wv ~'~ 51R Wet D

~ rr Cenkifuce un

~ mawn 27 17 na meac.
6

~ 1R Wet Rebec 2000 E 366 NA 362 4.6 NA 99 99 1 5 METASYS ECO II 403 171 195 37.0 42 48 91 9 37

~ ~~ _ "" : ~ ~ ~ -. ~ 9 "` ~ .~ ~~~~. `~° ~~: ~ ;.'_ ~~ ~: , . ~ 

## _= - ~a ~~ :: t< I 

### 7 _~~~ D rv

'~ , 

## - .`

~~ 

## t_

~ 

## ..::

, r..?

~ 

## i.. ~. ~.~~



## f>...... -, ~~ 

## -:,. ~ Rebec 2000 EL 59 NA 56 2 6 NA 96 ~ 96 4 ~ 1

_ .. `,. ~, ~^`~ r=:.fi w

~ , m ~ t' .°.t ~ , ..: . _ . ,. . ~ a :.^ ~ .. ~ - ' '. Fs m ~ ;~ ,. • ~ .s . ~ - •.: €' ~i. ~ $`~k~ gweAb
~ gy i~. , ,.aa. ~ xi ~ , s: ,„ x'RC
~~ ' ~.~

r,,. ~ : ~ . ~x~ra~ ..-.-''sb ._ `a. "``t-, ~ ~ ...,, , = , 3

.. , ... _ ~ n. ~ ,. ' ,:

~ CoL J= Cok

~ mns K, L, & M are based P= Q= R= S= T= Co1.K+ onsam fin data K/J L/J P+O M/J ~ M/FTE + M See ndix C for all data X 100 X 100 (see Xey) X 100 Denlisis

ma and % Removal refer to mercurv. ARE = Amalaam Removal Eauipment. NA = not applicable. not meas. = not measured no sam Ies were co9ected Table 7 Key also applies to Tabie 10 _



### 52

### V. C. [6] Quality Control Data
Laboratory quality control work was performed during the study of the amalgam removal equipment and baseline monitoring. As part ofthe analysis ofwastewater samples and digested solids samples (in liquid state, i.e. "predigestate"), duplicate and spiked samples were analyzed. The quality control data for "spike" recovery were: Average: 99.9% Standard Deviation: 9.7% N: 32
Weighed quantities of a known amalgam were also digested and the resulting "predigestates" were analyzed as a check of the solids predigestion method efficiency. Dentsply Caulk brand regular set Dispersalloy ® amalgam was used. The mercury content was 49.8% by weight (596 mg Hg, 600 mg alloy powder). A"2 spill" capsule was triturated and broken into fine particles (similar in size to small grains of sand). The measured quantity of inercury was compazed to the expected mercury content of the weighed, known amalgam. The quality control data for the digestion and analysis of the known amalgam (percent measured over expected) were: Average: 89.1% Standard Deviation: 16.0% N: 31
The quality control data indicate that the analytical methods of the laboratory were good. The digestion of the solids samples may yield slightly less than 100% of the mercury present in the solids samples. Therefore, the data presented in this report may slightly understate the actual amount of inercury from the solids samples. It appears that data for liquid samples (originally as wastewater or as digested solids) are valid data based on an average recovery of 99.9%.

53

### VL AMALGAM REMOVAL EQUIPMENT,

ADDITIONAL DISCUSSION ON EACH MODEL Section VI. gives additional information and comments on the five types of amalgam removal equipment tested. Appendix A has literature provided by the five vendors which includes photographs, schematics, and technical information on the equipment. Note that some of the vendors may have made improvements to their equipment since this study began. Other models may be available 

## and various models may be installed within the operatories as an alternative to installing the equipment centrally at the vacuum pump. Please contact the vendors for more updated information. Some vendors also now have a web site to learn more about their equipment. Some models have set specifications that state their maximum flowrate, such as many models that have undergone ISO testing. Therefore, if a clinic is ptanning on using amalgam removal equipment, clinic staff should understand if the equipment is suited for their flow conditions, especially in terms of the clinic's vacuum system cleaning procedures.



# VL A. ASDEX FILTER The Asdex filter is made of wound polypropylene media and a housing also made of polypropylene. It is rated for removal of particles down to approximately 5-10 microns. Regazding "giving credit for solids captured in the vacuum fitter": 

### MCES befieves that the Asdex filter should work better than a regulaz vacuum filtec It has a lazger chamber (more residence time) and a much smaller pore size; therefore it shoutd be reasonable to assume that any solids retained in a regular vacuum filter would be captured in the Asdex filter. As pazt of the data showing the removal efficiency calculations for the Asdex filter, an estimate assuming the vacuum filter was not in place, is included in Table 7, Column R.
The Asdex filter was not tested at a clinic with a turbine 

# (dry) vacuum system. Some turbine vacuum systems operate by drawing large volumes of sir. While visiting numerous clinics to pick the test sites, turbine vacuum systems seen had 1'/z to 2 inch piping. The Asdex filter manifold has'/. inch fittings. It is not clear how well the Asdex filter would perform in a turbine vacuum system.
POSITIVE COMMENTS: The manifold, used to hold the filter cartridges, was easy to install. The filter removed a good amount of amalgam. The manifold and the filter takes up relatively little space and the filter was easy to change. Used filters are removed from the manifold and are simply sealed with screw-on caps and "O-Rings". The filters appeared to be quite rugged and water-tight after putting the caps on:

54

### POSSiBLE AREAS FOR 1MPROVE[vIENT:

During the Iimited test periods, the filter needed to be changed out more frequently than was expected. The vendor had stated that the filter should last approximately 4 weeks. The filter tife could possibly be extended if it was not "plumbed" to take the polishing compound ("prophy paste") from the hygiene chairs. However, it may be difficult and impractical &om a plumbing standpoint to run a separate vacuum line to the pump, especially if retrofitting a clinic. Plus, if clinic staff switch their work and begin performing general dentistry work at a hygiene chair, then there may be amalgam waste discharged without being treated by the filter. The number of operating days for the Asdex filters is given in Table t I:


## Table 11. Asdex Filter - Dtuation of Use and Merctuy Captured

Clinic Number of"Full Time Equivalent" Dentists Asdex Filter

Duration O eratin Da s Mercury

Captured milli ams 1-PLR 1 11.25 13,450 2-PLR 2 11.25 8,770 3-PLR 1 3.0 6 3-PLR 1 120 419

55

# VI. B. THE AMALGAM COLLECTOR:

The Amalgam Collector appears to do a good job.at settling sohds from clinic wastewater. It is a"batch" treatment system, or "one batch at a time". The primary component of The Amalgam Collector is a vertical tank. Since most of the mercury is associated with the solids, most of the mercury (as amalgam) in wastewater is removed by allowing the wastewater to settle in the tank. (This is the same principal that MCES used to process the wastewater samples, i.e., to separate the soGds from the overall wastewater samples.) For the most part, the clinic staff decanted the tanks in the morning prior to start-up each day, or every 2-3 days, depending on the volume of wastewater in the tank{2 tanks at 2-PLR). This meant the wastewater was allowed to settle from approximately 5:00 pm the prior evening to 7:30 or 8:00 am in the moming, or approximately 14-15 hours. When the wastewater was decanted at two of the cWucs, 1-PLR and 3-PLR, the wastewater went through the vacuum pump and then to the sewer. To take samples, the wastewater was intercepted with a portable vacuum canister connected to the decant fine with simple garden hose fittings. These two clinics did not have enough floor space to accommodate full size sampling equipment. When a sampte was to be collected at 2-PLR, all of the wastewater decanted from The Amalgam Collector tanks was routed to MCES' 27 liter sample container. This clinic had enough floor space to accommodate The Amalgam Collector and MCES sampling equipment. When samples were taken at 1-PLR and 3-PLR, the full volume decanted was not collected, due to the limited size of the portable vacuum canister. However, the wastewater had settled and the decanted wastewater was considered relatively homogeneous. (An exception to this is noted below under "possible areas for improvement".) When samples were taken at 2-PLR, the entire sample was collected for that day, or days. There were some days 

## that MCES staffwere not able to collect samples at 2-PLR. On those days, the cluric staff still decanted The Amalgam Collector tanks as usual, however, the decanted wastewater was routed around the samp(e collection tank. Crenerally, the wastewater was quite "clean" (low in solids, and therefore low in amalgam) wming out of The Amalgam Collector, and it did not appeaz to be necessary to collect a lazge number

. of samples or a lazge quantity of wastewater to evaluate the performance of The Amalgam Collector. The Amalgam Collector was not tested at clinic with a turbine ("dr}

~ 

## ') vacuum system. However, based on the design of The Amalgam Collector, it is expected that The Amalgam Collector would perform as well as it did being used with a hquid-ring vacuum system. While the Amalgam Collector also was not installed in a turbine vacuum system, MCES sees no problem with doing so. The fittings and design of The Amalgam Collector should be able to accommodate larger piping in the clinic_ P us, based on the flow-through chazacteristics and function of The Amalgam Collector, it should operate the same as in a liquid-ring vacuum system.

56

### Regarding "giving credit for solids captured in the vacuum filter": If The Ama(gam Collector is operated as intended, it appears reasonable to assume that any solids large enough to be caught in a regular vacuum filter would sett(e out in The Amalgam Collector, since basically all of the solids settle out. Therefore, data are presented in Table 7(Column R) showing a calculated percent removal assuming that The Amalgam Collector was operated without a vacuum fi(ter. Note that the condition here is that The Amalgam Collector be operated as intended. This condition applies regazdless. [n other words, when reviewing data for The Amalgam Collector, the assumption is that the unit be "operated as intended".
POSITIVE COMMEN"CS: The Amalgam Collector worked quite welL Decanting was accomplished simply and quickly.
POSSIBLE AREAS FOR IMPROVEMENT: MCES personnel generally took care of handling The Amalgam Collector tanks, such as putting the lids on and off. There are pins located on the sidewalls of the tanks, which are used to hold the lids on. On a number of occasions, these pins came loose. MCES chose to re-glue the pins in position. Regardless of having re-glued the pins or not, at times it was difficult to position the Gds, and get a good seal. (The tank operates under vacuum.) MCES personnel decanted a(full) tank while taking a sample at 3-PLR. The wastewater appeared to have been decanted too quickly. Sohds (that had settled the night before) seemed to have been pulled up off the bottom and mixed in with the wastewater during the decanting process. It is possibte that this was a one-time occurrence, however, it may also indicate that care needs to be taken to see that the wastewater is not decanted too quickly. (Even if one takes their time to decant The Amalgam Collector, it still can be accomplished quite quickly.) The design may be improved by having one (or mu(tiple) 90° turns at the bottom of the pipe used to decant the wastewater. (The current design has the decant pipe opening straight down, toward the layer of solids settled at the bottom of the tank) This one sample was the only sample taken, processed, and analyzed for 3-PLR using The 

## Amalgam Collector. The resutts appear to be too high, and aze therefore not used. If the data for this sample were used, it would overstate the amount of inercury being discharged to the sewer. If The Amalgam Collector is not properly maintained and operated, it will simply fi(1 up with wastewater and the removal efficiency will drop. If installed and ignored, it will remain full of wastewater, but it will still operate as "a wide spot in the pipe", and provide for some settling of so(ids. If ignored for an extremely long time period, the layer of solids will rise toward the top of the tank. As the solids rise to the top of the tank, the wastewater and solids would be constantly mixed and there would be minimal to no settling or treatment. Management of the solids in the tank is the responsibility of the clinic. The solids are to be cleaned out of the tank and managed appropriately by the clinic. The cleaned tank is put back in service by the clinic staff. R&D Services may work out a system to help clinic staff change tanks and make the management of the solids easier. R& D Services shoutd be contacted to learn more about any changes in so(ids management.

5~

# VI. C. REBEC 2000 E AND REBEC 2000 EL The original plan for this study called for one type of Rebec Solutions system. As the time approached to acquire and install the equipment, Rebec Solutions provided two systems. The two systems were the 2000 E model and the 2000 EL model. Each system has an upper chamber and a settling/filtration container positioned below. The upper chambers were different for the two models, while the lower settlinglfiltration containers were the same. 

## 2000 E The 2000 E model has an upper chamber with an inlet taking the air and wastewater (with the so6ds) from the operatories and an outlet leading back to the vacuum system (the pump). Therefore, the overall system operates under vacuum. The wastewater (with sofids) and airflow from the operatories flows continuously through the 2000 E. The wastewater and the solids enter the upper chamber, then go into the lower settling/filtration container. The treated wastewater leaves the 2000 E on a continuous basis, as the air flows through the upper chambec This model was installed in a liquid-ring cluuc, 6-LR, after the baseline monitoring was completed. Note that it was installed in place of the vacuum filter. The vendor stated that the system was expected to perform better if extra sofids were present in the settling/filtration container. By not having the vacuum filter in place, the settling/filtration container should load quicker, and filtration should improve. The sample container for the study was installed immediately downstream of the 2000 E, and just upstream of the clinic vacuum pump. The sample container operated under vacuum.



## 2000 EL The 2000 EL model a(so has an upper chamber with an inlet taking the air and wastewater (with the solids) from the operatories and an outlet leading back to the vacuum system (the pump) for sir only. As such, the upper chamber remains under vacuum while the vacuum pump is in use. The 2000 EL has an extra outlet at the bottom of the upper chamber. This outlet isconnected to the lower settling/filtration container using a check-valve. This is similaz in layout to a basic air/water sepazator tank in a standazd turbine ("dt}

~ 

## ') vacuum system. The wastewater and air enter the upper chamber of the 2000 EL model. The air flows out of the upper chamber, while the wastewater and the solids collect in the upper chamber overthe course of the day. When the vacuum is turned off (such as at lunch or at the end of the day) the check-valve opens and the wastewater and solids flow by gravity through the lower settling/filtration container. The treated wastewater would normally be routed to a floor drain or to a standpipe. During the study, the treated wastewater was routed to a sample container. Both the settling/filtration container and the sample container operated under non-vacuum (atmospheric) conditions. The 2000 EL model was installed at 7-T, which uses a turbine vacuum system This clinic did 

## not place new amalgam restorations.



# ss

### Use of beads in the settling/filtration container. The settling/filtration container has beads inside fo help act as filtering media (same for both Rebec Solutions models). These beads may capture some soluble mercury. The beads were rinsed &ee of solids as part of cleaning and retrieving the solids from the settling/filtration container by MCES. However, at the time of writing this report, the beads have not been processed or analyzed further, for example, by trying an acid rinse of the beads. If possible, the beads will be measured for mercury. Collecting soluble mercury is not the main purpose of the beads. The beads are not expected to contain significant amounts of inercury. However, any mercury present with the beads would proportionally increase the percent removal determination for the Rebec Solutions systems.
POSITIVE COMMENTS Both of the Rebec Solutions systems appeazed to have done a good job at treating wastewater. It should be noted that regarding the clinic with the 2000 EL, there was little amalgam/mercury entering the 2000 EL, so the 2000 EL had "little amalgam to work with". This could make it more difficult to achieve a high percent removal, yet the removal efficiency was 95.7 %. There was no maintenance required by the clinic staff for either Rebec Solutions system during its time in service. The settling/filtration container was easy to install and remove.
POSSIBLE AREAS FOR Il

~ 

### fPROVEMENT: When the 2000 EL was first installed at 7-T, and the vacuum pump was tumed on and of ~ 

### the check-valve just below the upper chamber did not appear to be closing completely. This was corrected by simply adjusting the angle at which it was positioned, to put the pipe (containing the check-valve) in a more horizontal position. Initially this pipe was angled down somewhat for the flow of wastewater to the settling/filtration wntainer. Apparently in this position, the vacuum did not always draw the "ball" within the check-valve to a"seated" position. If this check-valve were to stay open, and if wastewater passed through the check-valve, the wastewater would still have passed through the settling/filtration container for treatment. MCES wanted the check-valve to close properly so that there was not a loss of vacutun for the 

## operatories.

59

# VL D. DURR CENTRIFUGE SYSTEM 7800/780I
Two identical models were installed at two clinics. One was installed at the outlet of an air/water separator of a turbine "dry" vacuum system (4-T). Without the centrifuge (or some other amalgam removal equipment) all of the wastewater, and associated solids, would be discharged to the sewer. The centrifuge was left on, such that it waited in a standby mode at 4-T until the vacuum pump was shut off, at lunch or at the end of the day. When the pump was turned off, the "flapper valve" at the bottom outlet of the air/water separator opened up. Then gravity took over and the wastewater and solids flowed out. The wastewater was routed to the centrifuge. When the centrifuge senses the inwming wastewater, it begins processing the wastewater. The treated wastewater went into a sample container. If for some reason the centrifuge did not fu11y turn on, the wastewater would just pass through untreated or partially treated. (The centrifuge does not operate under vacuum conditions.) A identical, second centrifuge was installed at 5-LR, which uses a liquid-ring (wet) vacuum pump. Since the centrifuge is not to operate under vacuum, it was installed downstream of the air/water separator, which was located just after the vacuum pump. (See Figure 1, in Section II. E.) This meant that the tap water routed into the liquid-ring pump became mixed with the operatory wastewater and all was discharged from the liquid-ring pump. With the centrifuge located downstream of the A/W separator, the vacuum pump must still use a filter, to filter the wastewater from the operatories to protect the pump. As such, there will still be used vacuum filters to manage. The centrifuge was left on, in a standby mode. It was to begin processing the wastewater as needed, as it sensed the incoming wastewater. As the centrifuge was observed during its Eime in the clinic, it ran almost constantly. On rare occasion, it would shut off, only then to restart a(most right away. The clinic used tandem liquid-ring pumps, with approximately a quarter inch line supplying city water. Only one pump was on at one time. The centrifuge processed this volume of wastewater, but the quantity was too much for MCES to collect all of the wastewater. Therefore, MCES was not able to collect samples after the centrifuge. Given the dense, particulate nature of amalgam wastes, it was felt that it was not worthwhile to attempt subsampling the treated wastewater after the centrifuge. The plan to evaluate the centrifuge at 5-LR was to compare both the amalgam placement & removal rates and the amount of inercury present in the vacuum pump filters for the baseline monitoring phase and the phase during which the centrifuge was in service. Unfortunately, the amount of amalgam work performed in the operatories was quite different for the two phases of the study at 5-LR During the baseline phase the dentist averaged 8.76 amalgam surfaces (overall placed + removed) as compared to 2.54 amalgam surfaces (overall placed + removed) during the time the centrifuge was in service.

60

## At the time of writing this report, solids from one of the two vacuum filters, in use during basehne monitoring, have not all been processed. However, even after only measuring a portion of the mercury captured in the filters during the baseline phase, the amount greatly exceeds the amount captured in the vacuum filters during the centrifuge testing phase.

POSITIVE COMMENTS The centrifuge performed the whole time it was in service, at both c(uuca It was in service for 32 operating days at 4-T, and it was in service for 18.5 days at 5-LR. While at 5-LI ~ 

## it basically ran non-stop the whole time that the vacuum pump was on due to the constant llow of "tap water" into the pump. (At 4-T, it was in a standby mode most of the time, until the A/W separator tank drained.) There was no "down-time" or problems with its operation at either clinic. MCES staffchanged the centrifuge cassettes. This was done very easily.

POSSIBLE AREAS FOR IIvIPROVEMENT: A Gquid-ring vacuum system still requires a vacuum filter to operate, even if a centrifuge is in service. In addition to managing the waste solids collected by the centrifuge, the used vacuum 6lters must also be managed appropriately.



## NOTE:The centrifuge did not capture a great deal of inercury (amalgam) while in place in the liquidring vacuum system. This amount was to be compazed to the amount of inercury in the wastewater samples collected during the baseline monitoring phase. However, given the signiScant dissimilarities in the amount of amalgam work (removals and placements) and the different amounts of inercury captured in the vacuum Slters across the baseline phase and the centrifuge testing phase, it appears that it may not be possible to draw a good conclusion as to the performance of the centrifuge in a liquid-ring vacuum system, regazding percent removal.

61

# VI. E. METASYS ECONOMY SYSTEM TYPE 2(ECO II) Two specifications to be aware of related to the ECO II: L The maximum atlowabie flow rate is shown on the ECO II as 3 liters/minute. 2. The maximum allowable vacuum level is 300 mbar (8.9 inches of inercury) At approximately 8 am on October 2, 2000 MCES staff spoke with 6-LR about the flow limitations and asked that the vacuum system flushing not exceed the 3 liter/minute rate. The usual flushing at this clinic was 1 gallon/chair per day. (There are 2 chairs at the clinic.) The doctor stated that a gallon (3.7 liters) may be drawn into the vacuum system in approximately one half of a minute, at the chair. If that was the case, the flow rate would have been more than double the ECO II rating. The dentist was to controt the flow rate to meet the ECO II criteria. Regarding the maximum allowable vacuum, this issue was discussed with Pure Water Development LLC — METASYS Graup (PWD-METASYS) representatives, and MCES was told that the ECO II should be able to withstand the fairly strong vacuum used at 6-LR, which operated at approximately 17 inches of inercury. (A spaze ECO II was left at the clinic, plus a section of pipe was fabricated that had special fittings and was shaped to duplicate the fittings and configuration of the ECO II, as an eutra back-up.) In temts of wastewater treatment performance, it is interesting to see less mercury in the wastewater passing from the ECO II as it was used over time, since by its design one would not expect the wastewater to be cleaner as it was used. It is not a filter, which should remove proportionally more over time as it loads itself. There aze two possible explanations as to why the wastewater had less mercury over the course of testing the ECO II. One explanation is that during the second half of the ECO II test period there was significantly less amalgam surfaces removed and placed as compared to the Srst half of this test period. Another possibie explanation is that the vacuum filter in use during the test period became loaded. The filter screen was quite coated with waste material, although the Slter itself was not full of solids. It is possible that this could have acted to slow the flow of wastewater through the vacuum system since the filter was just upstream of the ECO II, which could have helped the perforrnance of the ECO II. It should be noted that this is speculation on the part of MCES, and that further discussion and testing is recommended. PWD-METASYS provides a vacuum cleaning solution ("Green and Clean M2") that is compatible with the p4

~ 

## stics in the ECO II. PWD-METASYS may require that this cieaning solution be used as part of the lease arrangement between the clinic and PWD-METASYS. (Check with PWD-METASYS for more information on this, such as associated costs.) PWD-METASYS states that by using this cieaner, the ECO II shouid remain transparent to allow checking the levei of sludge. Presumably, the clinic would not need to purchase other vacuum system cleaners ifPWD-METASYS' cleaner is used. Clinics are ehcouraged to contact PWD-METASYS for complete details.

62

### 6-LR originally used a bleach solution to clean the vacuum lines, which MCES asked to be discontinued at the start of Phase l, the flushing phase of the study, and throughout the remainder of the study (basehne Phase 2 and Rebec 2000 E Phase 3 testing). Therefore, only tap water was used while testing the ECO II, to remain consistent, rather than trying out a new cleaner. 

### Regazding "giving credit for solids captured in the vacuum filter": It may not be as justifiable to assume that all of the solids captured in the vacuum filter during this study would have been caught in the ECO II. The ECO II has a larger chamber than the vacuum filter used, so the "residence time" to settle solids would be greater than for the vacuum filter. However, the ECO II has no fiitering media to retain soiids if there was a great deal of flow entering the ECO II all at once. The ECO II may be vulnerable if there was too much flushing of the vacuum system.

POSITIVE COM[vfENTS The ECO II performed well from an operational standpoint. It is basically maintenance free.

POSSIBLE AREAS FOR Il

~ 

### IPROVEMENT: The fittings on the ECO II need to be improved. The fittings seated up and did not leak, however, there was not much "mechanical strength" with the fittings. If there was a"pull" on the fittings as the ECO II was installed and as all the plumbing was arranged, the fittings came apart. MCES would recommend that "union" fittings be used to provide a good seal and mechanically strong connections.

63

## VII. OUTSTANDING QUESTIONS, RECOMMENDTIONS FOR

FU"I'LJRE STUD

~ 

## S, AND IJNFINISHED WORK The following activities could be carried out to address existing que'stions and increase the level of understanding and information on the subject of treating dental clinic wastewater with amalgam removal equipment: • Test the performance of an Asdex filter in a turbine vacuum system. • Test the ECO II without a vacuum filter in place, at a liquid-ring cGnic. • Experiment with the ECO II using different flow rates. • Contac[ R& D Services to learn more about their methods (suggested or available) to manage waste solids. • Conduct further evaluation of the ISO test method. Determine if there are any other methods to evaluate amalgam removal equipment, either in clinics or in a laboratory. • Determine if there are any alternatives to the standardized amalgam used to test amalgam removal equipment by the ISO method.

The following is a list of recommendations for those considering testing amalgam removal equipment or conducting dental clinic wastewater monitoring:• If installing equipment at a dental clinic, consider what problems may occur. Have a"backup" plan in case tanks fail (e.g., collapse under vacuum) or fill up with wastewater. This may include: extra piping with interchangeable union fittings to switch out or exclude equipment, spare tanks, and valves to reroute the flow of vacuum and 

### wastewatec • See that the "release valves" on vacuum pumps are clean and functioning properly prior to installing sampling equipment or amalgam removal equipment at clinics. These valves allow air to flow into the pump if no vacuum is needed within the operatories. If the release valves aze plugged, the pump may work too hard and build up exceedingly high vacuum levels. • Use lazge plastic trays or tubs under sample tanks, amalgam removal equipment, valves, and fittings that are opened up periodically. • For installations within liquid-ring clinics: If studying amalgam removal equipment, and if the amount of inercury can be determined from solids removed from that equipment, install the amalgam removal equipment (and wastewater monitoring equipment) upstream of the vacuum filter. Leave the vacuum filter at the pump as a back-up filter. (Most amalgam removal equipment would likely remove more amalgam and solids than a vacuum filter.) • Install amalgam removal equipment and wastewater monitoring equipment downstream of the chairside traps. To determine percent removal, use the amount of inercury present in the wastewater after the chairside traps as the initial value in the calculation. (The initial value would equal the sum of the mercury in the equipment plus the mercury present in the wastewater sampled after the equipment.) • Sample wastewater at the same time that amalgam removal equipment is in place. Also analyze the solids collected in the amalgam removal equipment. Do not sample for different time periods (such as "baseline" and sampling with amalgam removal equipment in place), 

## where just the variation in wastewater mercury content is considered and measured.

G+~

### Analyze homogeneous samples. Do not analyze subsamples of waste solids or wastewater

that are not expected to be homogenous. During sampling of clinic wastewater, keep track of the number of operating days and the number of full time equivalent dentists. Consider a benchtop method, such as the [SO method, as an alternative to testing amalgam removal equipment in actual clinics due to the amount of work required with "field" testing. Another possibility is to consider doing both types of testing on the same modet(s) of equipment.
Certain aspects of the amalgam removal equipment evaluation have not been completed. This work would have no significant bearing on the results reported at this time. A supplemental report will be written addressing these components of the study: • Tabulation and evaluation of chairside trap data. • Final processing of solids removed from vacuum filter (5-LR) Prelisninary separation and analysis of minimal density waste materials from the vacuum <er solids has been completed. Further separation could be attempted to isolate amatgam particles from nonamalgam waste solids. Any suspected nonamalgam waste solids would be digested and analyzed. • Estimation of the "usefu( life" of the centrifuge cassette, The Amalgam Collector tank, and the Rebec settling/filtration container (the lower component of the two Rebec models). • Evaluation of the procedure of filtering the predigestate. Filtering occurs when the predigestates (from solids samples heated on hotplate) are transferred from the beakers into the volumetric Ilasks. Some of these filtered soGds were redigested. Tabulate the data on the mercury content of the redigested "retentate". (The solids may include waste such as dental hygiene polishing compound, referred to as "prophy paste".) • Measurement of inercury collected on beads from the two Rebec models, if possible.

G~

## VIII. REFERENCES
Arenholt-Bindslev, D. and Larsen, A H. (t996) Mercury Levels And Dischazge In Waste Water From Dental Clinics. Water, Air, and Soil Pollution, 86: 93 - 99 Balogh, S., and Liang, L. (1995) Mercury Pathways in Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plants. Water, Air, and Soil Pollution, S0: 1 l81 - 1190 Cailas, M. D., et al., {1994) Physico-chemical Properties ofDental Wastewater. Proceedings of the Water Environment Federation 671h Annual Conference & Exposition, (WEFTEC `94) Chicago, Illinois Drummond, J. L., et al., (1995) Dental Waste Water: Quantification of Constituent Fractions. Transaction Acaderny Dental Materials. 8: 112. (Proceedings) San Diego, California WEF (1999) Controlling Dental Facility Discharges in Wastewater. Water Environment Federation, Alexandria, Virginia



## W

# ~

~



### ~ ~ ~~ ~

# <

~ m.

## INTRODUCING! AFFORDABLE, EFFICIENT AND

ENVIRONMENTALLY FRIENDLY AMALGAM SEPARATION SYSTEMS FOR THE DENTAL INDUSTRY.



# ~ I

-. . 

# ~ ~ ~ :>._
-, ,; , ~,~ ". €,... r1F....,

~,. ~ ~ ,. - . t.

. . . . . M

.... ~~ ._~ v ~

... rv ~ ys ~
. ~
. a ... S
v ~ i. ...a_.. . . . .. . . ..



# ECONOMICAL

5% OF WHAT OTRER UNITS COST 

# ~°~ ~N~ 

# NGE OUT

~ « ~ 1° "~` e "~ O
~ T ' °« "" T MINIMIZE EOUIPMENT DOWNTIME
er 

# CONVENIENT

NO TOOLS REQUIRED 

# SAFE

DISPOSABLE HOUSING WTH LOCKING END CAP FITTING ENSURES NO CONTACT WITH TOXINS



### ~ 

# Sr -. , : _

RATED FOR 90 PSI fOR LIOUIDS. AOL TESTED TO 300+ P51 STATIC BURST PRESSURE 

# VERSATILE

FLOW THROUGH CPTIONS AVAILABLE UPON REQUEST 

# RECYCLABLE 51MPLE CAPTURED AMALGAM WASTEIS ANYONE CAN PERFORM REGYCLABLE MAINTENANCE

TA1 

## CHANGING AN AMALGAM SEPARATOR [S FAST AND CLEAN!
Q DISCONNECT © INSERT ©COMPLETE

PAT ENT PENDING

FOR COMPLETE TECHNICAL INFORMATION, SPECIAL PRICING & DISTRIBUTION, CALL:

~ 

# ,.1 1-800-300-1249

~ 2207 4TH ST. N.,

~ STE B• ST: PETERSSURG, FL 33704

~ 

### NCORPORATED
. , ~ ~

# Procedures For Decontamination of Scrap

Amalgam for Recovery, Disposal, and

Recycle

1. Amalgam and the Asdex cartridge mus[ be sanitized usiug the following procedurc :

a. Use a commercia( vacuum line cleaning/disinfectant solution according to the manufacture's instructions to clean the vacuum line and Asdex cartridge. Typically, a solution of 1:10 sodium hypochclorite or other hospital-grade tuberculocidal cleaner/disinfectant such as a phenolic detergent or iodopher.

b. Place approximately 100 cc (4 to 5 ounces) of prepared solution into a container (gallon jug) and top off with water. Draw disinfeclant in[o the t I VL line using in[ermittent technique (this will avoid damaging sriction equipment). Turn offthe HVE when almost all the liquid has been suckcd out of the container and drawn into the system so that maximum contact time is assured within the cartridge. Let stand for the contact time listed on the disinfectant iabel.

c. Once sufficient time has efapsed, remove cartridge from manifold and place supplied caps on the ports located on the top of the cartridge. 

### Caps nnist be screwed down as tight as possiblc lo avoid leakaKe.

d. Once the case of four cartridges is full, ship back to avprox, INCORPORATED (see below) for separation and recycling per local, state and federal regulations.

avprox, INCORPORATED

2201 Fourth Street North Suite B. St. Petersburg, FL 33704 1-800-300-1249
Amalgam must be stcrilized bcfore shipment, no mcthod that util'rus hcat should 6c used. Thc hcat will causc thc mcrcury to volaliliu and to bc 

### rcicascd ioto lhc 

### cnvironment. -

### R & D Services

__ - -- 8120 Green Lake Drive North . _;(` ~ is ~=~ 

### '-_ :_ Seattle, Washington 98103 Phone (206) 525-4994

~ 

### ,; ;7 , ~~ 

### Fax (206) 525-2063 ;'

~ 

### , ~ 

### ;'+, j ~;~



### Mazch 5, 1997

Peter Berglund 

### Metro Council / Industrial Waste Section 

## 230 E Sth Street St. Paul, MN 55101 Dear Peter, Enclosed is the information about The Amalgam Collector that is of interest to your department. Also enclosed are copies of the original reports submitted to the King County Metropolitan Water Quality office which then certified the device for use here. If you have any further questions please don't hesitate to contact me.


## Sincerely,

Ross M. Fraker, D. D. S.



# ~ ~.~ RMF/lkl

### R & D Services, [nc. 8120 Greenlake Drive N. 

## Seattle, WA 98103 Fa,r 

### (206) 525-2063

~ 

### 2o
~ 

### }S z s-4 9 41


## THE AMALGAM COLLECTOR
The Amalgam Collector is designed to collect the wastewater produced during dental procedures in the opera[ories, treat the liquid, and release the treated water into the general sanitary sewerage system. Empirical data demonstrate that in normal operation the unit traps 95 to 99 percent of the amalgam and heavy metal particles produced by the office. The present model of The Amalgam Coliector is designed to be installed as an interruption in the office vacuum system. When located at or near a chairside position 

## the unit can be spliced into a high volume suction line. If there is a chairside trap it can be connected into the collector line emanating from this trap that leads to the hard plumbing for the system. [n either case the installation is effected in a matter of 2 to 5 minutes. This operatory location has the dis[inct advantage of eliminating the need for large volume flushing of the vacuum system since only relatively clean water will be released from The Amalgam Collector into the rest of the suction lines. This location also has a second advantage in that the unit can be utilized without regazd to the type of vacuum system, i.e., "wet" or "dry", used in the office. The second location that this model of The Amatgam Collector is designed for is at the end of the central plumbing for a"wet" vacuum system just before the intake of the pump. The unit is spliced into the connecting line from the hard plumbing to the pump and may take up to 15 minutes to install. The main advantage of this location is that one unit will serve the entire office. A distinct disadvantage is that the peripheral collec[ing lines of the vacuum system must still be flushed periodically to avoid a sludge buildup and a potential blockage of a suction line. This version of The Amalgam Collector is technology reduced to its simplest form ~ 

## and thus some human input is necessary in order to complete the operation of the unit. ~ 

## As mentioned before the unit collects all of the wastewater generated during the procedures. The treatment of the material collected consists of allowing it to sit in a quiescent state so that the heavy metal particles can settle out of suspension. ~ 

## Experience has shown that 10 to 12 hours is sufficient for 95 ~ 

## of the pazticles to settle

. out. [t remains only to siphon off the supernatant in the top hatf of The Amalgam Collector. A person must do this once a week, twice a week, or once a day depending ~ 

## on the size of the unit and the volume of liquid generated.

_

## Page 2

[f The Amalgam Collector is located at a chairside position then only those chairs where restorative work is performed need have a unit placed to trap the amalgam and other metal particles. However, when the unit is at a central location, sediments other than heavy metal particles, e.g., pumice, will be collected and hence the unit will 6ll faster than necessary. The usual situation shows that each chair generates about 1 mm of sediment per week. Thus it takes approximately 25 weeks to develop one inch of sediment for each chair feeding into The Amalgam Collectoc By matching the size of unit with the location and the expected liquid output, the sediment can be collected until the unit is about half full before it must be replaced or emptied. The determining factor for choosing a final level of sediment is the amount of liquid brought into the unit in the minimal operating period of the office. There must be space above the sediment for at least one day's volume of liquid in order to trap all the materials generated and to allow them to settle out overnight prior to releasing the treated liquid into the sanitary sewerage system. The sizes presently available are 9, t2, 15, and 18" tall. All current units are six inches in diameter. Other sizes can be manufactured by special order, The Anualgam Collector was developed as a service for dentistry so every attempt has been made to keep the overhead low and the costs down. This idea together with the simplified technology of operation allows the units to be sold at the moderate prices of $300.00 to $500.00 depending on the size and attachments needed. Other units aze in development which add technology to preserve the original idea but make purging automatia [n keeping with tha minimal cost approach we have seazched for the best way to recycte the collected sludge. Recently we have received authorization from U.P.S. to seal the material in an appropriate container and send it to our contracted mercury reclaimer at minimal expense.

### THE AMALGAM COLLECTOR

An amalgam separation system developed locally by Ross M. Fraker, D.D.S., President of R 8 D Services, Inc.

Attributes:
1. Straightforward design and operation: The basic unit is a cylindrical collection tank with a baffle and is capped by a removable lid that has an input port and two output ports. All wastewater is collected in the unit and after sedimentation the supernatant is drawn off.
2. Utitizes the office vacuum system: At the chairside the unit is simply spliced right into the high volume vacuum line. At the site of the pump for a water generated vacuum system, the unit is paced on line with the central tubing. If used at a central bcation in a turbine generated vacuum system it is usually placed into the drainage line from the central collection tank to the sewer system. It can be used to replace the present settling tank in some systems.
3. No filters or traps to maintain: The unit contains only a mesh baffle and is sealed at installation to be opened only when a replacement unit is placed in service.
4. No mechanical parts to malfunction: Besides the collection tank and baffle, these are only a few feet of tubing, some connedion adaptors, and an inline valve.
5. Requires minimal human imput: Approximately twice a week, the supernatant is drawn off by the e

~ 

### dsting suction in an operation taking about 30 seconds of auxiliary time. After allowing the contents of the unit to settle over night or over the weekend, an existing tube is lowered into the supematant and a valve is opened to allow the suction to draw off the top liquid. The valve is then closed, the tubing raised to its original position, and the unit is ready to collect 

### more wastewater.
6. Low cost: Rather than trying to develop e

~ 

### ensive technology to process the amalgam wastewater immediately, as most other separator units do, the results of recent research and testing were utilized. This information, common sense, and the idea of taking advantage of the time the office is closed were used to develop the straight fonnrard system described above. Innovative manufacturing and controlled marketing will be used in order to keep the costs to the practitioners to a minimum.
7. Simple Replacement: When the unit fills with sediment to the predetermined level, the liquid is drawn off for the last time. The cap is removed, a second unit is put in place and capped and the full unit is prepared for pick-up.

## +++ 

# ~

E °

-- ~ 

# +

# 2,'



### ~ 

# r ~fL~



# val



# ~ y+iS ' 

# ~"~k 

# is nof pn„-t o r

~ 

# '
T~~,~~~/~~ 

## Gol/GGtov 

# S ys ~e~►

# BLANK PAGE

# C

# ~ 

# ne ciear cno

~ 

# ce for amalgam separation. System 7800/7801

~.

~~. ~ ~ "iY,_ ~ ., ~ _ ._. ..,.:

~ :

~ :<..:.zC°.

. _ . ysax.

~ . , :.
~ .:.

~

V > ..._. ._ .. C 

### ` ..,

" 

## ~ ~ '"k, ~_ ~°~ . ~ . ~'

~ ..., ~ ~.



## IA ,

, y

- ° 'nc ~ ' i

. . .

.. .. . ' t ^ ' ri f + H J i

. .

. ~ jYbN y~ t.r ~ -' 'i ~ 

# ' :

~ 6 H~ 

# rt ~~~~~H~~E~~ 

# N

: T ., '~$~~} x~ ,

~ e '

. 

# The universal system for low-cost,

~ 

# reliable functioning in

" ~ 

# existing environments. ~ I



## ~ '; l

i. , -



## ~

~~ (

F.



## ~ I • ; 

## ~ , l'- ~

_ ~



## ~~. .... ...... -:?



### ~ ~ ey

~ ~ `~.~.. "'

~~ i

~.~ i ' / 

# 1 he economical System 7800/7801 amalg.

Re trofitting at a reasonable price.

The increasing scarcity of pure, sparkling drinking water makes it a personal and professional necessity to make every effort [o protec[ Ihisvaluable msource. Realizing the urgency of the situa[ion, lawmakers on the Con[inent and around the world are enacting legislation to eliminate potential hazards to [he water supply —it being easier to retain poltutants at source than to filter them ou[ of large volumes ot sewage.In Germany, for instance, [he amalgam contentin waterleaving the chair-side basin mus[ be reduced by at least 95 % before it mingles with other waste water. Moreover, exhaustive design and testing regulations issued by the Building Technology Insti[ule in Bedin prescribe wha[ amalgam separatorsmust be able to do and what the dental profession mustobsefve. Let's spare the details here while at lhe same time sparing you problems with unsatisfactory equipment. The System 7800J7801 by D'urr Dental rraturally sa[isfies legal requirements. Illustrated here are a few actual ex

~ amples, representative of many im stalla[ions in a variety of surgeries. The Durr system easily integrates itself, both func[ionalty and visually, into existing equipment schemes_ Another impbrtant advantage ot the Durr amalgam separator:The amalgam cassette normally requires replacement only once a year and you can do it yourself; there's no need to call a technician.Aproblem which should no[ be underestimated is the noise thatamalgam separa[ors can make. The System 7800/7807 mns whisper-quiet. And with comple[e reliability, for years on end. That's because the design is backedby intensive development work, conscientious manufacluring and decat of practice in suction equipmen[. Newcomers may come and go but you can place your trust in Durr'S 50 yearsof experiencefrom desiqn certification' through toachieving and maintaining 96%efficacy, and including a sensible disposalconcept.As a pioneer in denial suction systems and as a leader in this field. DurrDeniaf offers you in the system a particularly economical altemative. Ease of installation alsocontributes to reducing costs: sophistirated add-on units are available for most slandard chair units.

~ ~

' Approved try the Bullding Technology Institute, BeAin ceRifirate number PA-113812

~The design of the DURR amalgam sep

### arator has also been approved by the State Water and Waste Management Agency for NoRh-Rtrine Westplfalra, certificate number. LWA NW-58-90/1.0 Tai V Technical specifications: Electrical connection 250W Voltage 220V/SOHz Rated current 1 A StarOngcurrent 3.SA Noise level

~ wiihhousing 45d8(A) Throughput max.l2Umin Separation efhciency 96% outycycle to0% Weight (with housing) 18 kg

~ (withouthousing) it kg Receivercontainer

~ netvolume 650cm' Dimensions with housing 29cmWx42cmHx33.5cmD Dimensians withou[ housing

~ 24cmWx40.5cmHx28cmq Depth of 45 cm required to change . receiver.

# ;eparator. universa ~ 

# aesign ay uurr uentai.

~ 

# or centrali 

# on.

many cases two - and in the ideal uation even three - chairs can he rved by a single system. :re, of course, the arrangement and

~ hnical facilities must be approia[e. Local by-laws and regulabons ust naturally 6e observed in 3nning.is drawing illustrates one possibilfor joining the water eftluent carry3 heavy me[als from lwo units and :ding inta one Durr system, thus >uring retention of amalgam as escribed by codes. ur Durr representative can provide ialified advice on a customized so- [ioq best sui[ed to the situation in ur office.

~ 

# or trouble-free disposal

. Thefilllevelin[heD' urrrecycling cassette is monitored automatically.A remote indicator signals 6oih optically and acoustically the need to ie disposal concept is jus[ as sophis- change the cassette, and this is :ated as ihe entire installation. narmally required just once a year.

~ — ~ ® ~ "i Y .
~ ~

i ~~ } ' r 'L 1~ Pr ` v , °' '-' s ~ *

. 'a S

~ -.. ~ ' ....-... . . ~ X.Sl

. . fteplacement couldn't be more simple: Just liit the red sate[y lever; the filled cassette ran then be removed like a drawer and replaced with an empty 

### one. The containers have a safety lock system and are hennetically sealed -when the cover is in place. The shipping rarton provides space to stom and transport three cassettes.



# ~

The integral disinfectant paste eliminates any hygienic risk emanating from the full cassette-

~The storage and transportation concept fully satisfies applicable regulations. - In addition, this container is post office appraved for returning

~ to authorized recycling centres try parcel post.

# [Y[lIN6
is Now Safe, Efticient and 1Nbrry Free with the RME2000 Separation System
Rebec i s proud to introduce the RME2000 EffluentCollection System, totlay's simple and most costeffective method to collect and remove toxic dental mercury. It is a system designed in America to accommotlate the demands of the North American dental practice. Its design allows it to fit conveniently where other units won't and its operation is completely safe. 

## Installation is easy — no additional drains or costly plumbing needed. The RME2000 easily adapts to your existing vacuum line with two simple connections.



# Call today for more infonnation 

# Rebec

Reber Ecological Systems 1RQ91 (lail

~ mm

~ rl (lriva . Frlmnnric WA QRn9R 

# ~ 'Safe to Use Totally hands-off to the practitioner and staff. 

## Our trained technicians handle all waste removal. Waste materials are prepared antl shipped to a certified recycling agent where the RME2000 Metals Collector is weighed and cleaned. The tlata collected is documentetl and sent to you for your records and proof of amalgam recycling. The RME2000 system meets and exceeds the demands of Seattle and King County Metro.



# ~ Maintenance free There are no electronics or moving parts to break down. Unit will adapt to virtually any system. One RME2000 Metafs Colfector will accommodate up to six dental units annualfy. 

# G~ Automatic Recycling Recycling is automatically scheduled yearly. You will receive a reminder by mail, then a certified technician will call for an appointment.

# Rebec RME2000 Separation System TECHNICAL DATA Stainless Steel Size: 24H x 20W x 7.5D 

## (height does not include barb fittings) Shipping Weight: 58 Ibs. Available with 1" or 1-1/2" fittings 

## (unit comes with 1" 

## fittings unless otherwise specified)

# Reb :
Reber Ecologica! Systems fS0 Approved RWT(It

~



### /Fssen 18921 Detlwood Drive Edmonds, Washington 98026 Phone: 425.776.0723 t.800S69.1088 Fax:800964.1412 

### rebecsys@cmcnet



# Model 2000EL

The 2000EL is the newest of Rebec's product line. The 2000EL is designed to work in a vacuum system where a drain is available. (floor drain or standpipe) ** The 2000EL collects the effluent while the vacuum is in operation and releases the effluent when the pump is turned off.The 2000EL model has been designed to work specifically with dryvac systems and larger vacuum system piping. The 2000EL is versatile and will also work with virtually any system, including liquid ring pumps. Specifications: 20"wide x 26" high x 8" deep. The holding tank isapproximately 7.5 gallons. All connections are provided. Additional hose may be required. **The Rebec Mode12000E works in a setting where 

# no floor drain is available.

"Dental mercury recapturing specialist:

# BLANK PAGE

### Table of contents, Key to the pictograms

See footer/arthe grouO of persons [a wham each adlvlty aOptles.

a. Table of conteats:

Page

r. Tableolcon[ents z
z. Key to the pictograms z 7. Generalremarks 9 4. Use 3 5. 5tructure ; 6. Modellabel y 7. Technicaldata y 8. Mode of operation

~ q

9. ~ Assembly options 5 io. Installa[ion guidelines 5 tt. Tube connectors 5 tz. Replacing the unit 6

~ 9. Disposing of the filled unit 6 i4. Care, cleaning and disinfection 7

a. Key to tMe plctograws:

means thot disregarding fhe insfruction couW 

# Q endanger human safety, result in an apemtionol fault, or damdge fhe unit or [he immediate en-



### ~ vironment!

means fhat particulor attenfion is 6eing drawn fo



### ~ important information for operating personnel ar the engineer.

oas"e ny

~ e:r

~ l:-

### General remarks.

use and structure

;. Generat rentarksa 

# Q M£TASYScanantyguaran[eefhesafefy,reliabiliry an d performance a f fhe unit i(

O Assembly, al[era[ions and repairs are carried out only be authorised qualified personnel. O The uni[ is used only in accordance with [he installation, operation and maintenance manuaL

~ O Only original parts are used for repairs or exchange work. O The disposal certificates for the amalgam sludge are

~ sto red in accordance with tand regulations. O If requested 6y an authorised engineer, METASYS is pre pared to supply various documents, which would be of assistance to technically qualihed personnel when servicing and repairing unit parts. O METASYS accepts no liability for damage caused by extemal circumstances (faulty instaltation), the use of false informa[ion, incorrect use oi Ihe unit or improperly carried ou[ repairs.

~ O Copies ot this manual may onty be made and distributed by prior permission from METASYS.

y. Use

The METASYS ECONOMY SYSTEM TYPE z(abbrevia[ed to:ECO Iq is a cen[ral amalgam separa[or using so-called advanced sedimentation technology.

~

S.Struc[rra
0 See Fgure

The ECONOMY SYSTEM TYPE z is an amalgam separator and collecting tank in one. This means that the entire ECONOMY . SYSTEM TYPE a needs to be replaced when the unit is full of amalgam sludge,

~

ce cs3

~Vacuum suc[ion range: 5o mbar- 30o mbar Separationrate: r95%in accordance

w l th I50 DI5 tuq3 Collec[ion votume: r.5 litres c. zkg (7oom1) amalgam precipitates

. Maximumambienttemperatore: 70° Celsius Suitable suction systems: wet or dry vacuum suc[ion systems Maximum wa[er flow rate: 31i[res f min via inle[ Dimen5ion5 (HxWxD): 35o x zzo x zzo mm Unit exchange.interval c. tz = zq months

B:Opention

~ See Fgure

The water-air-ama(qam

~ mi#ure en[ers the amalgam separator throagh Ihe inlet in Ihe separa[or lid at the [op of the unit z.l There, the amalgam partides are separated from [he wastewaterbysedimen[a[io z-z

~Very fine partides are separated out in a second sedimentation ste z.l (advanced sedimentation technology = AST), during [he air leaves the syste za . 7he purified wastewater leaves the unit via the opening on the underside of the uni z.s 

### Modet label, techaical data, mode of operation

6. Modd labd

0 See figure

amalgam sepanlor /

~~~ isog
~ /

~~ EC

- tz345 59 0 airNw,,, a -rSOSal/min p#c,upend
~ g

_ a'
META- tiY5 MeAiiintechnt GmbN A-6o63 Rum bei Innsbruck FlorianistraAe 3 ~

~ ~ 431to)Siz/xo54xo'o V9 xo5lza-2

Il 1.2 The modet label may be found direcllyon [he front of the amalgam separator.

l.i Unitname

~ -z Serialnumber 1? Manufac[urer'S address

~ 1 < Maximum 5uction volume 1 5 Maximum wa[er ftow rate
]. TecMical data

## ~ y



# 6I Assembly options, installation guidelines

9. Assaably options The simple ins[allation of [he METASYS ECONOMY SYSTEM II enables various installa[ion options.
A Installatlon upline af the suct(on apparatus: If a wet suction apparatus is used, Ihe separator is ins[ailed in [he wction Iine upline of Ihe suction appara[us. In principle, the separator can be installed in any suitabieplace be[ween the Irea[ment uni[ and [he suc[ion apparatus.

O lnstallation la lhe wastewater Une: If a dry suction apparatus is used, [he unit is installed after theAir/Water-Separa[io a.i 'nthewastewaterline.

~ o. Installa[ion guideUnes a fldng: The following space is needed for installation: HzWxD: 36o z z3o z t90 mmFor the first installation, the fizing ptate is secured to a suitable place on the wali using either [he screws provided with unit, or o[her sui[able scre s.i . Care should be [aken to ensure that the fixing element is installed vertically and above the level of the suction unit. . s.z See „Replacing [he uni[`, page 6)poin[ 7-8

a. Tube waaeROrs ® See Figure:

6

~ t tahe te treatmewt unit b

~ z W be to sudoa motorThe 5eparator is provided wi[h tube connectors wi[h an internal diameter of 26/3o mm. To enable easy connection to othertube sizes, Ihe tube adaptors provided can be inserted into fhe inlet and outlet openings. In each case, care must be taken to ensure that aD mnner tors are watertight.

~ - O Unitfullindintor. The transparen[ hausing enables visual inspection of thepretipitate IeveL When the amalgam sludge reaches mazimum level, please call yaur dental produds warehouse for a replacement tank. ~ . ~ The unit can s[ill be used even when full. However,

~ j when [he ECO II is fuQ a minimum separation rate of y5% cannot be guaranteed.

Tecnni<an G9 7

~ 3=

### Reptacing the unit

,> ;:.: ~ .%_-t ~~'s 

## ' '~~.~i ti ~

~ 

### l

~ a ~ ~ ~ ~

~ 

## _ :

~ ~~ a. Replacing lhe unit

As soon as the level of Ihe ECONOMY SYSTEM iYPE z reaches maximum, [he unit has to be ezchanged for a new ECO II. 

# Q The ECO II cannot be opened and reused! If an attempt is made [o empty [he unit, itwill no longer provide Ihe required separation rate.

0 First, remove the tube from [he inlet opening.

~~~~ p . ` ~~{~'-~~.

6 3 ~ ~ i ~

Z~
~ i ::~~~;~.~~`~.~ x ® Pour the disinfectant provided into the unit Ihrough the inlet opening.

0 Clase the inlet with the stopper provided, pushing it in as far as it will go.

a Remove the tube from [he outlet opening

'»:ks ., ~~a~~ 

## , '•_ _!

~ 

## t k I ~(~~ d a

~ ~~~~

e

• 0 Llose this opening with thestopper provided. Press the stopper in as far as it will go.

.

~ See Figure

6 ~~ Remove Ihe screw from [he tap of [he wall moun[. b.z Remove the unit from the mount by first tipping it forward and then pulling it out upward e ~~ .

~ Now insert [he new unit into [he mount ~ z~~ and attach it with the screw on the upper side of the wallmount ~- ~

z.z

~ Reconned the suc[ion tubes [o the openings label led'IN" and'OUT•. Ifnecessary, use the tube adaptors provided. '

. p Check that the system is watertight by sucking through a larger quantiry of water (more than a litres). lf the sys[em is not watertigh[, check [he tube connectors. If in doubt, please contac[ your supplier (see stamp on the back of this manuaq. 0 For disposal of Ihe full ECO II, please contaU your sup plier (stamp on the back of this manual). . ~

~ - oe „ _._ ..-_ .._, , ... .

### Care, cteaning and dis

## infection

tz Urq deaaing aad dlslnfecNoa

® See Figure:
A(ter each Ireatment, run the basin rinsing sys[em for a short [ime !

® See Figure:

After earh treatrcent, suck a little water [hrough each suction tube!

~ See Figure
W e recommend flushing the unit through twice daily witha deaning agent/disinfedant suitable for amalgam separators.Ideally, the disinfectant should be used 6efore the Ireatment unit is left idle for longer periods (lunch breaks, weekends and holidays).

® See Figure:

The basin shouldalso be rinsed Iwice dailywi[h a disinfectant suitable for amalgam separatars. 

# Q Please note that mere cleaning is not enough, and is no substi[ute for disinfectian !

We recommend Green a Clean Mz as a suitable 

# a deaning product and disinfectant. Do not use phenolic products due [o material incompatibility.

cr

~ r -. . <aa -

# Y '' ''

~ 

# ,;;F_: -cs ~ ~ :

~ 

# s tbf ~ ; ;

;

> ~~~

~ ~ 

## m;

~~

~ ~~ ~

## AMALGAM REMOVAL EQUIPMENT VENDOR LIST

FOR THE TREATMENT OF DENTAL CLINIC VACUUM SYSTEM WASTEWATER: Centrifuge_ .............. _..... _.............Durr Dental GmbH & Co. KG - System 7800/7801 Air Techniques, Inc.; New York, 1-800-247-8324 etd. 5610 (Mr. Frederick Fischer) Filter (Vacuum)...... .. . . . _ . . .. . .... _ .. _ . Asdex Filter Avprox, Inc.; St. Petersburg, F orida, 1-800-300-1249 Settling/Filtration........... _ ..............Sweden Recycling International AB - SRAB 99 and BuIlfroHg models Distributor Dentat Recycling North America; New Jersey 1-800-360-1001 Settling/Filtratioa...__.........._...... Models 2000 E& 2000 EL (also known as: Catch Hg ) Rebec Solutions; Seattle, Washington 1-800-569-1088 Settling.... _.. ... .. . ... . _ . ......... _........ _The Amalgam Collector - Design I R& D Services; Seattle, Washington, 1-206-525-4994 Settling ...... .. . .................. ...... _ .ECO 

## II (Economy System Type 2) Pure Water Development LLC — METASYS; IvTiami, Florida 1-877-638-2797
Electrochemical Batch Reactor........ E-Clean Fazaday Technology, Inc.; Claytoq Ohio 1-937-836-7749 Settling/Filtration/Ion Exchange.......Model Hg5 SolmeteX, Inc.; Northborough, Massachusetts 1-800-216-5505 Settling ........... ...... ......... ........ ... Mode12000 Maximum Separation Systems, Inc.; V'ictoria, BC, Canada 1-250-652-5279 Note: This list has. been compiled by Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (MCES), the POTW in the Minneapolis-St. Paul Minnesota metropolitan azea. The distributors Gsted above may carry other models of amalgam removal equipment. MCES is evaluating some of the models listed. MCFS dces not endorse these models or manufacturers. If there are other distributors or manufacturers of equipment available, please contact MCES. MCES contact person: Peter Berglund, Industrial Waste Section, 651-602-4708. Mailing address: 

## MCES; Industrial Waste Section; 230 East 

## 5 t° Street; St. 

## Paul, MN; 55101
word f le: Hg-Vendor list 12/21/01s

~ '~ "~

~

~ ^

~ z .~ ~~ ~ ;

~ g c.

.

## U

~ 

## i, 

## ¢. Q

# Clinic 5-LR

# BLANK PAGE

### 4-T Processing of Solids from Chairside Traps 2000 3n6/o1
Chairside Traps
Or. 1 Dc 1 Dr. 1 Dr. 2 Dr. 2 Dr. 2

rormuias Op. No. 1 Op. No. 2 Summary Op. No. 1 Op. No. 2 Summary dates in use 7/13-20/00 7l13-20/00 7/13-20/00 7/13-20/00 7/13-20/00 7/13-20/00 days

. Thu-Thu Thu-Thu Thu-Thu Thu-Thu Thu-Thu Thu-Thu 

### time CTS mg Hg 62.01 72.98 73.84 103.41 mg amalgam 291.20 41.00 275.40 1510.00 mg Hg from amal. est. 40 % 116.48 16.4 110.16 604 total mg Hg 178.49 89.38 267.87 184 707.41 891.41 days in use ` 4 4 4 3 3 3 mg Hg/day noivio ~ 

### 45 22 67 61 236 297
' number of days each dentist operates/week (Dr. 1& Dc 2) (Dr. 1 is the primary dentist.)~ , ~.~ 

### 2.300 7.0 0.64950 

### 30105.790 Durc-SW Vol (L) Durr-SW pH 

### Durt-SW Hg mgA DumS mg (soli

~ 

### 4-T Processing "Durr Centrifuge" Solids 2000 3!2/01 Ourr Centrifuge Sample Dates 6/21-8/9/00 

### Days Wed-Wed

~ Time 

### 1415-1300 Operating Days 

### 32 formulas Number of Beakers Durr-S 1/26 (solids from "rear trap" of centrifuge) Durc-S 2/26 (solids from "rear trap" of centrifuge) Durr-S 3/26 (solids from "rear irap" of centrifuge) Durr-S 4/26 Durr-S 5/26 Durr-S 6/26 OurrS 7/26 

## Durr-s efzs Ourr-S 9/26 Durc-S 10/26 Durc-S 11/26 Durc-S 12/26 Durr-S 13/26 Durr-S 14/26 DumS 15/26 Durr-S 16/26 Durr-S 17/26 Dwr-S 18/26 Durr-S 19/26 Durc-S 20/26 Durr-S 21/26 Dun•-S 22/26 OumS 23/26 Durr-S 24/26 Durc-S 25/26 DurnS 26/26 

### 26 1785.0 

### 1552.50 1140.00 0.79 

### 960.00 855.00 1200.00 1500.00 772.50 

### 1530.00 697.50 1320.00 420.00 

### 1980.00 1050.00 1755.00 

### 1410.00 1155.00 

### 1455.00 915.00 1365.00 1155.000 855.000 

### 1290.000 1185.000 802.500

Durc-S Volume est. (ml) 270



# I 940.85 mg/day I Captured bv Durr cerrtrifuge

### 4-T Wastewater Data with Centrifuge (continued) 3/vo1
7/17-20/00 7/20-25/00 7/25-28/00 7/28-8/3/00 a/3-s/oo sn/oo• 8/1 s/oo• Totai Mon-Thu Thu-Tue Tue-Fri Fri-Thu Thu-Wed Cent. Rinse Bottle Rinse 0830-0925 0925-0835 0835-0900 0900-0900 0900-1300 1000 900 - 3 3 3 4 3.5 0 0 32
12.500 14.000 20.200 15.200 18.500 0_000 0.000 t000 1.000 ~ 1.500 1.000 7.000 na na

~ . w

_ : . - .: -.- 0.300 0250 0.250 ~ 0.360 0.200 na na 7.3 6.6 7.9 7.0 6.7 na na

~ 398`, -' U.834 0 4a

' ~St~ ._" ' 0.75T i.; 0.47Ai
1032 ~ ;~ :St.

~ O 0 328 : .; !';;

~ .52$ ` Q.231
4 5 6 6 5 3 2 58 16850

~~ fr 27.560

~ 4:720 53:?80 97.560: 141.260 0.670 

### i#'13t1. ; =: - na '; na,,, na , aa; .. J557S1 ~, ~ na

~. ~~ 

## ,„: na >
. 

## rra.

'

~~ 

### ' 

## r,a

, 

## =1!13i4

~ 

## „ , °
~ 

## na k r ' rt ~ ~~ '~ F~a

.. ~~ 

## a _

° r ~ 

## r+a

_ na `
~ ~ 

## ; na na

~a~ '~na 

### .._ 0.595 0.790 0.935 0.795 0.705 na na 

### 7.4 7.0 7.6 7.5 7.0

37 80 85 129 67 9(not recorded) 767.000

mon-

~ nu inu-

~ ue iue-rn rn-inu

~ nu-wea 0830-09250925-08350835-0900 0900-0900 0900-1300 3 3 3 4 3.5 32
4 6 5 2 7 51 7 10 5 6 6 87 4 4 9 0 6 55 5 6 9 0 9 88 have gone into centrifuge cassette, while some solids would be in this sample. "days" or "sample volume'.

### 4-T Wastewater data with Centrifuge in place June 21 - August 9, 2000 3rvo1

. - ~ 

### . - . ~~ • ~~ ~r ~ ~~ ~ ~~r ~~

~ . -. . . •. -. . . -. -. .
~•~~ i•~~ ~• r~• ~~~ ~~ r•r r•r ~•r~~•~ r r: ~ 

### •.-
. r.

.

. - : rrr • ~~ 

### r .r ~ r~ • ~r~

. ~~r

. .. ~~r ~~r r ~r ir rr ~ ~~r

~~~ `~` ~~f~.~. ~.~.~~.~~,~~ " ~v~ hx9 b .m~~~~~"^ ~~ .ma.@..B

~ N .' ~~ m. rs ~"
. n ~ S
~~ a ~ ?r ` ~ na~°~..~~~-g ~,y,~ yr

~ r. 9 :

~~~~~~ a s. t ' — ~~ 1~~~1 ~~~ ~~;' o ~ s ~ 1 ~ 1

r 1

~ Ir 1 Ir 1 1

" e ~i a~`.~ „,eA '
• 4, , ~`~ ' a" a
. .. ~

z.. , ~ .. . ?.s< y. p.~.~.i~l .'S .a. ~

of 8eakers 5 4 5 4 4 5

WWSW Vol 1.040 0.530 0.685 0.700 0.455 0.795 WWSW pH na 7.3 7.9 7.3 8.8 7.2

WWS Volume est. (ml) 65 60 55 92 33 55 

### Summary Data

SampleDates 6/21-26/00 6/26-29/00 6/29-7/5/00 7/5-10/00 7/10-12/007/12-17/00 Days Wed-Mon Mon-Thu Thu-Wed Wed-Mon Mon-Wed Wed-Mon Time 1415-0900 0900-0930 0930-1005 1005-09050905-09000900-0830 Operating Days 2.5 3 2 3 2 3 Amalgams Removed 1 4 4 4 4 10 Surtaces Removed 1 6 7 11 9 19 Amalgams Placed 5 9 5 2 2 9 Surfaces Placed 6 17 10 5 4 17 "'Centrifuge Rinse" generated by rinsing the cenUifuge at MCES AQ building. Rinsewater adds to "W WS". Some solids would "Bottle Rinse" generated by rinsing the two sample bottles used to collect samples. This sample adds to'1NWS', but not ta

# Clinic 4-TI~~ 

### '-l

~ 

### -gR
Vaa FiKer MCES M dates in use 9l7-9/2Z _ 9l2fi 

### days Tue-RAon Mo times 0800-f1&00. 080

~ days in use 1 t.

~.~~. VFS Beakers 5

~~~

~ n aa



### VFSW mgll volume G[ers VFSW mg VFSW pH total mg days in use 

### mg Hglday Captured in Vacut
Soids vol est mis sumrnary

~ .:

~ 9 9?-30

~ 99 `

F~u~ JFG...-
15' 8'

2

Vac. Filter dates in use days times days in use VFS 

### Beakers

VFSW mgA VFSW-1 Vol. L'Rers 

### VFSW-1 mg VFSW-t pH VFSW -2 mgll VFSW-2 Vol. Lders 

### VFSW mg total mg 

### days m use 

### mg Hg/day

Solids vol est mis 

### 3-PLR Processing Vacuum Filter Solids 1999-2000 3/23101

### 3-P

~ 

### R Baseline Monitoring 1999-2000 3l21/01 rwals SampleDates 1999-2000 11/15-24i99 11l24-12/2

. 12/6-13 12/13-21 12/21-28 12/28-1l6N0 it/15-1/6 Days Mon-Wed Wed-Thu Mon-Mon Mon-iue 7ue-Tue Tue-Thu Time ror„

~ uias 0730.1245 1245-1630 0730.1145 1145-11001100.1035 1035-1700 Numt!er of Days 6.5 4.5 4.5 5 2.75 6.75 30 Sample VoXime (lit.) 10.50 6.30 9.00 11.20 7.70 12.20 SampleTank Rinse Qit.) 2.10 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 2.00 Vd.;M Settkrg Tank (

~ i!)

~

. o,ar

~ :! 12s0 :. 7.80 '

~~~~ . 10.50

~,~

, 12.70 r:

~ : 9.20

~ ' t4.2U': Vd. To 1NWS (Xf J 1.22

. . . . . . . .... 0.44

. . . ._ . 0.625

. _.. .. . Q_40

. . ......_ 0.575

.. .. 0.63

. ..._. . ._. ._ .___ ...... Vd.!ForYVWQR:)

... oao

. ~ . 1138

~ ~~, 7.38

~~.~ .; 988!.:.

~ . t230

~ . ~~ .., 8.63

~~

, 13.57

~ WW pH 5.70 6_50 na 5.30 6.30 5.20 W W Hg mgll 1.172 1 356 0.9651 Q21308 0.81469 0.64131

~ WWHgmg o.ao

~ . . 1334

~ :..

.. 998::. 953

~~ 262

~ .. ~ ... ~ 703

.. B.70 Num6erof8eakeis

~ 8 6 8 f3 5 f0 50 W WS mg 1 2.74 30.97 24.31 2.49 4.00 8.41 WWS mg 2 L44 52.46 31.13 2.66 15.03 74.42 WWSmg3 2.50 10.58 18.08 5.34 7.13 6.13 W WS mg 4

~ 0.94 9.86 10.55 5.05 9.59 3.48 WWSmgS 1.50 15.98 2.82 2.10 7.97 10.69 WWsmg6 1.56 14.13 9.37 1.59 793 W WS mg 7 1.38 10.08 2.04 5.89 W WS mg 8 1.69 18.68 3.53 8.11 W WS mg 9 5.03 11.41

. WWSmg10 6.02 21.62

~ WWSmg17 3.82 WWS mg 12 1.08 W WS

~ mg t3 0.63 WWSW-1 VdumeQd.) 1.5 1.15 1.411 1.375 094 1.325 WWSW-t pFF 5.6 6.6 na 6.2 6.4 5.9 WWSW-1 Hg_mgA

___.. _....... 0945

_ __.. _... ... 096882 0.62669

..._._. ... 0.10654

.__. __...

0.90243 0.4405
....._ _..__. 

### Yu4%ISYy-1 lig qg

~:~ 

### . aoop

~.~~~ 

### 1-418 : 1 114 ' 0884 _: 0.146 ,j 0.848 WWSW-2 Vdune (lit)

~ ~ 0.505

~ 

### _ OSEId_

~ 0.737

~ WWSW-2 Hs1 mt1M1. 0.642 0.192

W WS Volume Est (ml) 200 10 25 155 35 100 525 

### Summary Data Ope!afi

~ g Days o 6.5 4.5 4.5 5 2.75 6.75 30 Sample Vokune (Gters) 0 10:5 6.3 9 112 7.7 122 56.9 W WS 

### Vdune est tN

~ 0 200 10 25 155 35 100 525 mg Hg in waler oao 13.34 9.98 9.53 2.62 7.03 8.70 51.20 mg Hg v! solids o.aao i 5.492 135.094 125.904 41.526 44.568 98.815 461.400 Tofal mg Hg o.000 28.829 145.074 135.435 44.147 51.595 107:518 512598 Hg in

~ vater (mgA) MONqI 1.270 1.584 1.059 0.234 0.913 0.713 0.900 Tdal Hg conc. (mgf

~ 

### yorvm! 2.746 .. 23.028 15.048 3.942 6.701 8.813 9.009 Taal mg HglOp. Days . 

### aavroi 4.435 32239 30.097 8.829 18.762 15.929 17.09 

### H a

, ~ Passing Yacuum Pgter

. Totals SurflOp Day Amalgams Removed

~ 6 12 4 15 4 4 45 Surfaces Removed 16 20 9 32 11 8 96 3.200
M~ algams Placed - 3 3 2 6 5 5 24
~ . Surlaces Placed 3 6 2

~ 6 9 8 34

~ 1.133

### 3-PLR Processing of Solids F rom "The Amalgam Collect 

### or" 1 999 Tank in place Oct. 4 to Nov. 11, 1999 3/23/01 October 4(8am) to November 11 (5 pm) This period represents 24 operating days.

__

Solids "washed" into 15 

### - 250 ml beakers

Hg mg "WWS" 1/15 68.11



### _ 2/15 29.51 3/15 65.84 4/15 86.27 5/15 72.65 6/15 66.40 7/15 59.03 8/15 13L68 9/15 25.98 10J15 4.8 11/15 143.03 12/15 12.92



### _ 13/15 30.65 14/15 42 15/15 14.45 subtotal 853.32
"W WSW" Water generated durittg the processing of the Tank Solids 

### wwsw-1 Vol. Liters 3.33 mgn mg Hg
WWSW-2 Vol. Liters 1.115 mg/I 0.7886 mg Hg 0.8793 total mg Hg 854.20 (WWS 

### + WWSW 1 

### + WWSW 2) operating days 24 mg Hg/op day 

### 35.59 mg Hg/day

Captured in "The Amalgam Collector"

roximate volume of the solids: 150 mis

### 3-PLR Wastewater Data with "The Amalgam Collector" (Cont.) 3/22l01

Daily [nches Decanted Date Day Inches WW Sample pH 1999 Decanted Gen (lit) Vol. L.iters WW Oct 4-5 Mon-Tue 4 2.145 Oct 6 Wed 7 3.754 Oct 7 Thur 11.5 6.167 Oct 11 Mon 0.75 0.402 Oct 12-13 Tue-Wed 1 0.536 Oct 14 Thur 3 1.609 Oct 18 Mon 2.5 1.341 Oct 19 Tue 3 1.609 Od 20 Wed 4 2.145 Od 21 Thur 4 2.145 Od 25 Mon 2 1.072 Oct 26 Tue 4 2.145 Oct 27 Wed 3.5 1.877 Oct 28 Thur 10.5 5.630 Nov 1 Mon 2.25 1.207 0.96 6.9 Nov 2 Tue 11.375 6.100 5.03 6.5 Nov 3 Wed 4 2.145 Nov 4 Thur 4.5 2.413 Nov 8-9 Mon-Tue 1.5 0.804 Nov 10 Wed 2 1.072 Nov 11 Thur 9 4.826 mg/1 WWS Solids WW mis

1.48 1.296 10

Totals 10/4-11/11/99 95.375 51.143

### 3-PLR Wastewater Data While "The Amalgam Collector" Was In Place 3/22/01 

## 1999 subtaa! subtotal Total Sample Dates 10/4-11/1/99 11/2J99 11/3-11/99 10/4-11/11199 Days Mon-Mon Tue Wed-Thu Number of Days 17 1 6 24 Total Inches Decanted' 63 11.375 21 95.375 WW generated (lit.) t.a6aae2 33.782 6.100 11.261 51.143 Sample Volume Qit.) 5.03 Sample Tank Rinse (lit.) 0.75 Vaf; !n Sa#Gng Tank (

~ t:), a.00 5.78 Vol. To WWS (IR.) 0.38 Val: For WW (fR.) !'o.00

~ .40 W W Hg mgA 1.296 W W H9 m9 ', o.o0 7.U0' 

### NumberofBeakers 1 WWS mg 1 28.38 

### W WS mg 2 WWSW Volume (IR.) 0.965 WWSW mg/I 0.45062 W4VSW mg o.000 0'.435 WWSTotalmg o000 28,815

Summary Data Opera6ng Days o 1 Wastewater Gen. (liters) tes 6.10 pH W W 6.5 Hg mg/I = 7.0 mg/5.031iters 1.39 mg Hg in water (n 6.1 liters) o.ao 8.49 MulBplier (WW Gen/Smp Vol) go!vro! 1.21 mg Hg in solids (from above) o.000 28.815 Calculated mg Hg in Solids uo!vro! 34.942 Total mg Hg aoivio! 43.429 Est Volume of Solids {mis) 10 Hg in water (mg/I) 0 1.39 Tatal Hg conc. (mg/I) ao!vro! 7.12 Total mg Hg/Op. Days tFO!vro! d3.43 mg Hg/day' passing through The Amalgam Colledor This wastewater sample is believed to be "UNREPRESENTATIVE". 10/4-11/11/99 SurfJOp. Day Amalgams Removed 37 Surfaces Removed 79 3.2917 Amalgams Placed 12 Surfaces Placed 16 0.6667 ` Estimate of amount passing "The Amalgam Collector": (51.143 liters/24 days)(1.39 mg/

~ (2) = 5.9 mg/day The eslimate is based on using a fador af "2", to effectively double the concentration, whic_h is in line wilh the data from Clinic 1-PLR and Clinic 2-PLR.

### 3-PLR Asdex Filter Solids Processing 1999 3/23/01

_ tst 2nd 1st&2nd

f 

# _ Filter Filter Summary Nitric Acid Filte r in Place ^

__ 9l7-9/9 9 

# ` 9/13-30/99 9/7-30/99 used to Days


# _ _ Tue-Thu Mon-Thu Tue-Thu digest filters Time 0730-1700 0730-1700 0730-1700 Hg mg/I Number of Days 3 12 15 First Digestion Hg mg/I 5.422 324.48 0.00983 Volume liters 0.775 0.825 mg Hg 4202 267.7 Second D'gestion mg/I 1.7115 119.64 0.00062 Volume liters 0.820 0.850 mg Hg 1.403 101.69 Third D'gestion mg/I 0.576 58.08 0.00018 Volume liters 0.830 0.850 mg Hg 0.478 49.37 Total mg Hg 6.084 418.76 424.842 

### mg Hg/day 2.028 34.90 28.32 Captured in Asdex Filter(s) 

# ` Dodor stated that during this time period: "Treatment was mostly surgery and full hygiene schedule 

# '

Summary 9/7-9/99 9/13-30/99 9/7-30/99 Operating Days 3 12 15 Amalgams Removed 1 19 20 Surfaces Removed 4 47 51 Amalgams Placed 1 5 6 Surfaces Placed 1 6 7 Surfaces Removed/Op. Day 1.333 3.917 3.400 Surfaces Placed/Op. Day 0.333 0.500 0.467
Total Surfaces/Op. Day 1.667 4.417 3:867

# BLANK PAGE

# Clinic 3-PLR2-PLR Processing Chairside Traps and Vacuum Filters 1999

Chairaide Traps 2/27/01

Trap 1 Trap 2 Trap Hyg.

~ datesin use 5-Aug 13-Aug 19-Aug

. CTS mg 1151 7Q02 2499 CTSW mg/I volume liters CTSW mg 0 0 0 mg amalg. est. am., mg 0 0

~ 0 total mg 1151 70.02 2499 days in use mg/day #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0!

Vacuum Filters Asdex- 8/4-19 Baseline- 8/20-9/3 The Amalg. Collec. 9/13-30 Total dates in use 8/3-0/19 8/19-92 9/2-9/16 9/16-9/23 9/23-9/30 10/12-11/9 8/3-11/09/99 days Wed-Thu Thu-Thu Thu-Thu Thu-Thu Thu-Thu Tue-Tue Wed-Tue times 1700-1315 1315-0800 0800-0800 0800-0800 0800-0800 0800-0800 1700-0800 operating days 11.5 9.5 9 5 5 20

~ 60 

### Number of Beakers 4 4 5 3 4 5 25 VFS mg 1 1171.6 17.92 46.15 4.05 19.53 16428 VFS mg 2 3398.1 19.33 61.53 20.16 19.77 1441.50

~ , VFS mg 3 3721.4 9.16 479.59 18.57 20.83 172.62

. '

~ VFS mg 4 484.3 53.76 137.35 119.59 70.17 I ! VFS mg 5 1092 649.00 VFSW mg/I 1.038 0.525 0.549 0.160 0.973 0.557 volume liters 0.615 0.774 0.822 0.176 0.563 0.805 VFSW mg 0.63837 0.40635 0.451278 0.02816 0.547799 0.448385 VFSW pH - 6.7

~ total mg 8776.03837 100.57635 1817.0713 42.80816 180.267799 2518.01839 13434.780 days in use 11.5 9.5 9 5 5 20 60 mglday 763.1337713 10.586984 201.89681 8.561632 36.0535598 125.900919 223.9 

### mg/day overall captured Solids vol est mis 40 12 24 12 18 55 in Vacuum

### 2-PLR 1999 vz6/o1 

### Vacuum Filter Solids Processing Data

that Corresponds to the Testing of "The Amalgam Collectot"

dates in use 9/2-9/16 9/16-9/23 9/23-9/30 days Thu-Thu Thu-Thu Thu-Thu times 0800-0800 0800-0800 0800-0800 operating days 9 5 5 

### Number of Beakers 5 3 4 VFS mg 1 46.15 4.05 19.53 VFS mg 2 61.53 20.16 19.77 VFS mg 3 479.59 18.57 20.83 VFS mg 4 137.35 119.59 VFS mg 5 1092.00 VFSW mg/I 0.549 0.160 0.973 volume liters 0.822 0.176 0.563 VFSW mg 0.451 0.02816 0.547799 total mg 1817.071 42.80816 180.2678 daysin use 9 5 5 mg/day 201.897 8.561632 36.05356
Solids vol est mis 24 12 18
Number 

### of days corresponding to The Amalgam Collector Period: 2.5 5 6 times mglday 201.897 8.562 36.054 (from above)



### = mg 504.742 42.808 216.321

sum 

### of mg 763.872 

### divide by 12.5 days 

### 61.110 mg/day

captured in Vacuum Fitter during The Amalgam Collector Period

### 2-PLR Processing of Solids from The Amalgam Collector 1999 Two of The Amalgam Colledor tanks were in place Sep 13 - 30, 1999 r7f

~ i/Gjl September 13 (approx. 12 noon) to September 30 (5 pm) Two tanks were used to ensure enough capacity. They were set up in series.

This period represents 13.5 full operating days.

Upstream Tank Downstream Tank Hg mg Hg mg Total 

### beakers 6 4 10 "WWS" 1 9.2 8.59 2 38.04 7.27 3 33.13 4.27 4 28.22 4.30 5 4.00 6 35.58 subtotal 148.17 24.43 172.6 mg Hg in solids
"WWSW" Water generated during lhe processing of the Amalgam Colledor Solids Vol. Liters 0.636 0.570 mg/1 2.559 0.322 

### mg Hg 1.628 0.184 1.811 mg Hg in water
solids (mis) 31 25 56 operating days 13.5 total mg Hg 174.4 mg Hg in solids and water ("W WS" + "W WSW' ~ Total mg Hg/op days 

### 12.92 mg Hg/day captured by The Amalgam Colledors W WS 5/6 data repoRed as <4.0, recorded on this worksheet as = 4.02-PLR Wastewater with The Amalgam Col

~ ector (contittued) 5/23/01

J K L M N Totals Totals

_ _ 

### 22-Sep 23-Sep 24-Sep 27-29 Sep 30-Sep fordays Overall Wednes. Thursday F_riday Mon-Wed Thursday with samples 1 1 1 3 1 10.5 13.5

_ 22 22 22

_ 6.5 2 149.75 - 199.75 13.00 11.80 11.80

_ _3.80 1.10 80.3 107.11 1.864882 13 1 1.8

_ _ 3.8 1.1 80.3

_ 80.30 inches 1 1

_ _7 _ __0.5 decanted 1 1 1

~ - 0_3

_ ' 15.QQ

~.~ . 2.00 , ~~ 5:80

~ f,90 Q225

~ ... 0.18

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .. 0-15

~ ~ -

~~ .. 14 78

~.~~~ 1 82

~~ . ~ ~ ~ 5 65

~. ~~~.~ ~ 0.13318

~ 045232

~ ~ 057366

~ missingdata

~ 1.97 " 0.$2 ` 3.24 " ?

~~ 3 ~ 3 ~~~~~ 2 ~ ~ ~~~ 1 ~ ~ 30

__ _ divided by

~ liters sampled

1.58 0.32 0.27 missing data missing 0.56 0.41 missing 0.30



### 0.509 0.512 0.634 " 0.06078 0.031

- ~ 0.35417 : 0 181 -' -. 1 361 0.40493

° D 257

. ~ : 0.937 - 2.656 ' a

~ ?


### 5 5 8

If 6cclude 

### 9/14/99 Sample: 

### 1 3 8.5 7.5 11.8 3.8 66.2 55.2 

### 5 8 48 39 0.82 3.24 10.393 8.742 1.361 0.937 28.318 7.920 

### 2.185 4.178 38.711 16.662
0.069765 0.852942 0.156999 0.158367 

### 0.185132 1.099449 0.584764 0.301842 2.184557 1.392635 4.55 2.22 mg/day thru The Amalgam Collector
22Sep 23-Sep 24-Sep 27-29 Sep 30-Se Totals Number/day Wednes. Thursday Friday Mon-Wed Thursday 1

~ 1 1 3 1 13.5

~ 5 7 1 16

~ 11 52 3.85 

### 10 14 1 27 19 93 6.89 7 9 4 24 10 67 4.96 12 16 5 53 21 133 9.85 Used 13.5 da s far calculations

### 2-PLR Wastewater data with The Amalgam Collector 1999 5/23/01

- - - ----- ----- - Column Heading _C O E F G H I Sample Dates

____ 13-Sep 14-Sep 15-Sep 16-Sep 17Sep 20-Sep 21-Sep Days Monday Tuesday W edn es. Thursday Frida Monday Tuesday Number of Days 0.5 1_ 1 1 1

_ 1 1 Totallnches Decanted •

~ 12 22 22 6 22 20 21.25 WW generated (lit.) f.aeaeaz 5.7 11 12.7 3.22 11.80 10.10 11.10 Sample Volume (lit.) 5.7 11 12.7 10.1

_ 11.1 SampleTankRinse(lit.) 1.5 1_

__ 1 1 1 Nalg. Jug Rinse (lit.) Vol.'InSetNing;7ank(lik) o.o0 Vol. To WWS (lit)

. ~ ~ VaL

~ -For WW (Nf.)

-

~ :'

~ : o.no WWH9mgA

- ~ ~~~ ._~ . .... W\AI:Hg mg

.. I'

~ , O.00 

### Number or 8eakers 1 1 1 1 8.20 13:06 1d:70 12.10

~ Q2I 0.6

~ 0.5~ ~ ~ ~ Q55~~~~~

- i 8 00 .., , . ~~ 12 40

~~ !14 20 , ~ .'

~ .1155

~ 0.08189

~ 0.13318

~ 0.13318

~ I ( 0.18452

~ :: 0.66 ~~~:~~ 1.65

~ «

~

. 1.89 :..
... .': 2.13 3 5 5 5 1 13.t0 0.25 !'

~ .12 85

~~'~ . 0.00 3 WWS mg 1

~ 0.75 0.11 0.32 0.02 0.51 WWS m 2 1.12 0.18 0.20 0.14 0.42 WWS mg 3 028 0.54 0.27 0.16 0.42 WWSm 4 0.14 0.30 0.21 WWS m 5 19.3 0.14 0.05 WWs mg 8 WWSW Volume lit.) 0.466 0.937 0.712 0.823 0.48 WWSW mgA

._._. ....._._ ...._... WVUSWmg WYY$ Total mg! ....._..

~ ': o.oao :

~ : oaa0 0.06054

._ ..... ....... .:0028 -:2178 0.1369

.. .'0128 20398 0.02421

._..... '

~ 0017

'

~ :1 247 ....._.. _....... 0.19642

._...... !0162 '0.742 0.21793

._...._ .........

~ :0.195 -:1.455 WWS Volume Est. (ml) <3 <9 12 <5 6 • Oecantin occurs neut da e. . Thursda s sample taken Friday morning). Decantin is from two Fraker Tanks •`This is an estimated value - an average of the W WSW volumes 

### Summary Data Opera6n Da s o 0.5 1 1 1 1 Sample Volume liters)

~ 0 5.7 11 12.7 10.1 11.1 W WS Volume Est (ml) 3 9 12 5 6 mg Hg in water o.o0 0.66 1.65 1.89 2.13 0.00 mg H in solids o.000 2.178 20.398 1.247 0.742 1.455 Total m H o.aoo 2.833 22.050 3.138 2.873 1.455 H concentration in water m) saVro

~ 0.114933 0.15013 0.14891 0.21101 0 Total Hg cono (mg/I) savrol 0.497076 2.004519 0.247118 0.284442 0.131046 Total mg HgiOp. Days atolvrol 5.666663 22.04971 3.138394 2.67286 1.454606

13Sep 14-Sep 15-Sep 16Se 17-Sep 20-Se 21-Se

~ Monday Tuesday Wednes. Thursday Friday Monday Tuesday 0.5 1 1 1 1 1 1
Amal ams Removed 0 1 4 2 2 0 3 SuAaces Removed 0 3 6 5

~ 4 0 4 Amalgams Placed 0 0 4 3 1 0 5 Surfaces Placed 0 0 5 7 2 0 12

### 2-PLR Baseline (continued)

_ _5_/_23/01

_

_ Vacuum Filter Baseline- 8/20-9f3 Totals

_ Aug31-Spt1 Sept 1-2 Sept 2-3 dates in use 8/19-92 9Y2-9/16 Tue-Wed Wed-Thur Thur-Fri da s Thu-Thu Thu-Thu 0900-0925 0925-1130 1130-1330 times 1315-0800 0800-0800 1 1.25 1.25 10 operating days 9.5 9 15.80 14.20 8.50 125.90 Number of Beakers 4 5 1.50 1.50

_ 1.50

_ V FS mg 1

_ 17.92

_ 46.15 2.00 3.00 3.00

"

~~ 19.30

~ 18.70

- ~. ~ 1300

~ 0.105

~ 0.290

~ 0.480

. -'. 19.20 '; 18.41

~. ~ 12.52: 0.0831

~ ~~~ 3.047)

~~~~ 0.3411

___... _._.... ....._.. ._...... I 1.60 '

~ , 56.10

~~~~ 4.27

~

~ 2 3 5 31 VFS mg 2 19.33 61.53

~~ --~~ VFS mg 3 9.16 479.59

VFS mg 4 53.76 137.35 VFS mg 5 1092.00

~ VFSW mg/I 0.525 0.549

volume liters 0.774 0.822 3.89 22.39 5.82 VFSW mg 4406 0.451 4.17 75.07 6.83 total m 100.576 1817.071 23.27 9.48 days in use 9.5 9

8.85 mgJday 10.587 201.897 13.91 Solids vol est mis 12 24 0.330 0.563 0.840 0.1554 QAS1,

._._._ ' 8.1 f 1 1.501 ; O.I

~ fS 121.

~ a75

___ 1.420

1,193; ' 46.083

____ ___. ~ Number of days

~ corresponding to

. Baseline Period: 8_5 1.5

Gmes mg/day 10.587 201.897 12 19 5 from above) = mg 89.989 302.845 sum of mg 392.835 divide by 10 days 

### 39.283 mg/day 1 125

~ 1.25 10 captured in Vacuum Fitter

~~ 15.8 14.2 8.5 125.9

~ during Baseline Period 12 19 5 160 1.60 56.10 4.27 87.13581 8.111 121.575 46.083 378.7069 9.706 177.670 50.353 465.8427
0.100956 3.950371 0.50242 0.692103 0.6143283 12.512 5.823926 3.700101 9.7063865 142.1363 40.2827 

### 46.58 mg/day passin through vacuum filter 31-Au 1-Sep 2-Sep 3Sep Totals Numbers/day 5 1 6 t 38 3.8 12 4 14 1 72 7.2 1 2 5 3 68 6.8 3 3 14 6 139 13.9

Values for Se . 3 shown here are a rmamatef half of the full da amal am counts

# Clinic 1-PLR

### 722-E

~ 

### 1 z 1330-1320 Summary 1 3 4 4 12 14.8 14.7 14.2 15 58.7 2_03 2.67 2.79 8.98 16.464 589.900 229.400 87.915 245.315 1152.530 591.925 232.073 90.703 254.293 1168.994
0.14 0.18 0.20 0.60 0.280 39.99 15.79 6.39 16.95 19.915 591.925 77.358 22.676 63.573 97.4 

## mg/day Passing through Asdex Fitter 

### July 22-26 July 26-29 Jul 29-Aug 5 Aug 5-12 Totals
4 8 11 9 32 9 13 16 15 53 

### 1-PLR Wastewater data with the Asdex Filter in place 1999 1s-Fet

~ 

### o1
Sample Dates r«mu!as 22-Jul July 22-26 July 26-29 Jul 29-Aug 5 Aug 5-12 Days Thur Thur-Mon Mon-Thur Thur-Thur Thur-Thur Service Time 0800-1330 1330-0910 0910-1345 1345-1335 1335-1320 

### Days Represented Thur Thur-Fri Mon-Thur Thur-Thur Thur-Thur Operating Days 0.5 1 3 4 4 Sample Volume {lit.) 15.130 14.800 14.700 14.200 15.000 SampleTank Rinse (lit.) 1.370 1200 1.500 1.000 1.000 Nalg. Jug Rinse (li[.) 0.180 0.600 0.400 1.000 1.500 Vol. (n Setfl'g Tank (lit.j o.ao

_ 16.680 16:600 16.600 ' 16.200 17.500 Vol. To WWS (IR) 0.450 0.100 VoLFartIVW(Gt.); oaa ; 16_68Q i6_604 t6.600 ', 15.750' 17.400 WW Hg mg/I

_ __ 

### 0.176 0.122 0.161 0.177 0.516 W W Eio ttrg _ 

### a.ao ;; 2.936: 2:025 '2.673 2.788 ` 8.978 

### Numbero/Beakers 3 4 4 4 

### 3 WWS mg 1 31.600 115.800 113.700 18.500 33.100 W WS mg 2 29.400 255.300 40.600 31.900 132600 WWS mg 3 24.600 48.900 18.600 8.300 79.600 WWS mg 4 169.900 56.500 28.900 

### W WS mg 5 WWSW Volume (Id.) 0.630 0.490 WWSW mg/I 0.546 0.020 0.028 0.500 0.030

WWS Volume Est. (ml) 

### Summary Data

Operating Days o 0.5 Sample Volume (I'Aers) 0 15.13 mg Hg in water o.ao 2.94' I mg Hg in so6ds O.000 85.600 Total mg Hg o.000 88.536 

### Hg in water (mgA) rOwro! 0.19 Total Hg conc. (mgA) aDNro! 5.85 Total mg Hg/Op. Days 

### ao!vro! 177.071

Sample Dates 22-Jul Amalgams Removed Surtaces Removed Amalgams Placed NONE Surtaces Placed NONE

### 1-PLR Asdex Filters Solids Processirig 1999 2l27/o t



### and Vacuum Filter for same time period

Asdex Hg (over 1125 Op. Days) 13457 mg 1196 

### mg Hg/Day July 23 (8:15 am) to Aug 12 (9:30 am) Captured in Asdex Filter



### Vacuum Filter Solids V.F. data copied from "Traps & V F" worksheet.

dates in use 7R3-8/12/99 iime 0815-0930 VFS Beakers 3 958290 952.340 892.820 The time period for this vacuum filter is the same

as the time period far the Asdex fitter above.

VFSW mgA 0.238 volume fiters 0.540 VFSW mg 0.129 total mg 2803.57852 days in use 11.250 mg/day 249.2 

### mg/day

Caplured in Vacuum Filter with Asdex in place
VFS vol est mIs 60-75

### 1-PLR BASELI NE

~ 

### th only 

### Chair side Traps 8
~ 

### Vac. Filter 1999 2/27/01 Sample Dates rorr„ 

### ~!~s Aug 16_-19 Aug 19-26 Aug26-Spt2 Sept 2-7` Sept 7-8 Totals

_ 

### Days
-- - - -- 

### Mon-Thur Thur-Thur Thur-Thur Thur-Tue Tue-Wed Service Time - 0800-1330 - 1330-1315 1315-1310 1310-1030 10 30-1230 

### - Days Represented Mon-Thur Th_ur-Thur Thur-Thur Thur-Fri Tue-Wed Operating Days 3 4 4 1 1.5 Sample Volume (lit.) 9.2 14.4 10.2 14.3 3.3

_ Samp leTank Rinse (l 

### it.) 1.5

__ _ 1 1__ 1 1 Nalg. Jug Rinse (lit.) 1 3 3 1 1 Vol's In Sett1'g Tank (lit;) o.00 i 11:70 - 18.40 ' 14,20 16:30 5:3Q Vol. To WWS (IitJ 

### ~ I 0.48 

### ~ 0.73 

### ~ 0.485 

### ~ 0.36 

### ~ 0.45 VoI: For UWIf (Id.) o.o0 11.22 17.87 ' 13.72 15_94 d:85s W W Hg mg/I 

### ~ ~ 0.0687 

### ~ 0.337 

### ~ 0.114 

### ~ 0.0773 

### ~ 0.199 WVSI Hg mg ,' ; '¢ao ' 0.77 5.95 '` 1.56 1:23 Ol9 _ T Number 

### of Beakers 4 6 5 5 5 25 -

_

WWS mg 1 166_13 16.67 16.67 21.50 1.06 WWS mg 2 45.74 14.90 41.73 32.76 6.12 WWS mg 3 24.47 31.06 27.82 22.13 5.06 WWS mg 4 15.01 7.58 21.41 24.57 5.30 WWS mg 5 2.12 29.85 67.03 5.18 W Ws mg 6 24.24 

### WWSmg7 WWSW Volume (lit.) 0.62 1.028 0.885 0.725 0.853 WWSW mg/I 1NFIVSW rng :; W WS T 

### ~ al mg ! o000 ! o.aoo 0.0199 0.0331 . 0.012 ' 0.034 251.362 ' 96.604 0.0398

0.035 ': 137.515

_ _ 0.243

0,176 188.1SG

_ . 0.0195 O:Q17` 22.737!

_ _...... WWS Volume Es[. (ml) 60 80 80 80 <17 

### Summary Data Operating Days o 3 4 4 1 1.5 13.5 Sample Volume (liters) 0 9.2 14.4 10.2 14.3 3.3 51.4 F

~ 

### t. Solids VoL (ml) 0 60 80 80 80 17 317 mg Hg in water o.o0 0.77 5.95 1.56 1.23 0.97 10.49 mg Hg in solids o.000 251.362 96.604 137.515 168.166 22.737 676.384 Total mg Hg o.000 252.133 102.559 139.079 169.398 23.702 686.871 Hg Conc. in Water mg/1 r~ 

## !vro! 0.084 0.414 0.153 0.086 0.292 0.204 Total Hg Conc. mgA ro!vro! 27.406 7.122 13.635 11.846 7.182 13.363 Total mg Hg/Op. Days n0!wo! 84.044 25.640 34.770 169.398 15.801 50.88 mg/day Passing through Vacuum Filter Sample Dates Aug 18-19 Aug 19-26 Aug26-Spt2 Sept 2-7` Sept 7-8 Totals Amalgams Removed 10 8 2 2 1 23 Surfaces Removed 17 15 4 4 1 41 Amalgams Placed NONE Surfaces Placed NONE
' Labor Da Holida on Monda Se 1. 6

### 1-PLR V acuum 

### Filte r Solids during baseline period 1999 2/27/01

_ Vac. Filter Baseline Totals

_ dates in use 8/13-8/26 8/26-9/2 9/2-9/8 8/13-9/9/99 

### time 1230-1315 1315-1330 1330-1150 1230-1150

_ VFS vol est mis 20 6 50 76 

### VFS 

### Beake

~ 

### s 3

_ 3 4 f0 3.830 

### 4.0 60 194.320 

### 29.510 3.180 7.480 

### 718.860 150.490 1.110

32.910 VFSW mg/1 0.045 0.036 0.036 volume liters 0.520 0.573 0.685 VFSW mg 0.023 0.021 0.025 total mg 752.223 157.751 235.845 1145.819 days in use 7.5 4 2 13.5 

### mg/day 100.296 39.438 117.922 84.88 mg Hg/day captured in vacuum filters urin Baseline Period

### 1- 

### PLR Wastewa ter data wi 

### th T he Amalgam Collector in place 1999 4/12/Ot

Sample Oates 9/9 9/10 9113 9/14 9/15 9/16 9/17 9%20 Days Thur Fri Mon Tue Wed Thur Fri Mon Number of Days 1 0.5 1 1.00 0.5 1 0.5 1 Total Inches Decanted ' 10.5 2.8 7.0 7.50 4.5 4.0 9.8

_ 9.5 WW generated (lit.) t.esaaez 5.63 1.47 3.75 4.02 2.41 2.14 5.23 5.09 Sample Volume (lit.)

___ ___ 2.00 1.90 1.95 SampleTank Rinse (lit.) Val`. In Seriling Tank (lit!) ' 0.00 2.00 1.90 : 1.95 Vol. To WWS (lit.) I 

### ~ ~ ~ ~ (_ ~ I I VoF For WW:(lit.) 0_00 . 2A0 1.90 1.95 WW pH W W Hg mg/I 

### WV11 Hg mg ,, Number of Beakers 

### 0.00 0.049 

### 0.10 1 0.11



### 0.21 1.00 0.167 

### i 0.33 1 WWS mg 1 0.160 0.10 0.070 

### W WS mg 2 WWSW Volume (lii.) 

### WWSW mgA WINSW tn 

### ~ . i 

### W1NS Tota1 mg 0.000



### U.000 '0.000 

### U,760 0.00



### 0.10 0.000 

### U.07Q ' Decanting occurs next day (e.g. Thursday's sample taken Friday moming). Sep 29 W W sample resutt is an average of top (0.1029), mid (0.1407), bottom (0.1407) 

## Summary Data Operating Days o 1 1.00 0.5 Wastewater Gen. piters) 1.86 5.63 4.02 2.41 mg Hg in water o.o0 0.27 0.44 0.40 MuRiplier (WW GeNSmp Vo ~ 

### 2.82 2.12 1.24 mg Hg in solids (from above) o.aoo 0.160 0.10 0.070 Calculated mg Hg in Solids 0.450 0.21 0.087 Total mg Hg 0.724 0.65 0.49 Hg in water (mg/I) 0 0.04862 0.11 0.167 Total Hg conc. (mgfl) 0 0.12862 0.16 0.202897 Total mg Hg/Op. Days aoivrof 0.72418 0.65 0.979192

Sample Dates 9/9 9/10 9/13 9/14 9/15 9/16 9l17 9/20 Amalgams Removed 0 0 0 1 0 3 0 0 Surfaces Removed 0 0 0 1 0 8 0 0 Amalgams Placed NONE Surfaces Placed NONE

### 1-P LR with The Amalgam Collector (continu 

### ed) a/tvol
Totals 9/21 9/22 9/23 9124 9/27

_ 9/28 9129

_ _ Tue Wed Thur 

### Fri Mon

_ Tue Wed 1 0.5 1 0.5 1 1 0.5 12 

### 4.5 2.3 1 1. 

### 5 1.0 6.5 _4.8 9.0 95.0

_ 2.41 1.2 

### 62 0._5 3.5



### __ 2.55 4.8 50.94 2.00 1.15 

### 1.85 1.90 0.95 13.70
2.00 1.15 1.85 0.07 

### ~ 0.01 

### ~ 0.01 

### ~ 1'.99 1.14 ' t.84 

### 6.2 6.0 6.6 1.90 0.95 0.00

: 

### ~ ~ 0.012 

### ~ ' 1.90 0.94 ; 0_OOt C.

0.083



### __ 0.17 ' 0.090



### _ b.10

_ 1 0.083



### _ 0_15 _' 

### r 0.085



### . :0.1fi

_ 

### ~ 0.167



### _ I 0.16 __' 0.128 ! O.OQ 

### 8 0.130 0.050 0.320 0.200 0.270
0.078 0.047 0.055 0.060 0.033 0.262 0_020 O.i50 0.003 Ui000 0;050

__ 0.031 0_002 __ 0.322 0.027

OA02 Q.202

_ 0.106 ':0.003' '0.273:



### _ _ _



### 1 0.5 1 1 1 7 2.41 1.21 6.17 3.49 2.55 27.8838 020 0.11 0.51 0.30 0.43 2.661 1.21 1.05 3.33 1.83 2.68 0.150 0.050 0.322 0.202 0.273 1.327 0.181 0.053 1.072 0.370 0.733 0.38 0.16 1.59 0.67 1.16 5.819
0.0833 0.08961 0.0833 0.08534 0.167 0.095 0.158514 0.133214 0.257187 0.191468 0.454883 0.209 

### 0.382497 0.321449 1.585975 0.667356 1.158623 0.831 mg Hglday 

### passing through he Amal am Coiledor
9/21 9/22 9/23 9/24 9/27 9/28 9/29 Totais
4 1 1 0 0 3 3 16 7 2 2 0 0 6 4 30

### 1-PLR Processing of The Amalgam Collector Solids 1999 2J9/01

and V.acuum Filter solids during the same time period The Amalgam Collector in place Sep 9- 29, 1999 This period represents 12 full operating days. September 9(8am) to September 29 (12 noon)
Solids 'Washed" into 15 - 250 ml beakers

Hg mg "WWS" 1/15 25.77 2/15 3926 3l15 31.90 4I15 46.62 5/15 39.26 6/15 45.40 7/15 42.94 8/15 36.81 9/15 39.26 10/15 44.17 11/15 23.31 12/15 23.31 13l15 53.99 14/15 47.85 15l15 25.77 subtotal 565.62
'W WSW" Water generated during the procecessing of The Amalgam Collectar Solids Vol. Liters 0.965 mgA 0.134 mg Hg 0.130 total ("W WS" + "W WSW' ~ 565.750 Operating Days 12 Appro

~ dmate volume of The Amalgam Collector sofids was 230 mis. 

### mg Hg/day 47.15 mg/day

Captured in The Amalgam CoAector


### Vacuum F

~ 

### ter Solids Processing Totals V.F. data copied from dates in use 9/8-9l23 9123-9/29 Traps 8 VF worksheet time 1150-1400 1400-1200 VFS vol est mis 43 19 62 VFS Beakers 5 4 9 

### 3.180 18.350 16.460 53.410 c6nic closed Wed. 9/8/99 27.810 29.280 during aftemoon 149.400 2.550 51.930 VFSW mgll 0.256 0.058 vokime liters 0.622 0.505 

### VFSW mg 0.159 0.029 total mg 0 248.939 103.619 352.559 days in use 8.750 3.250 12.000 mg/day 28.450 31.883 

### 29.38 mg/day Caphued ~ Vadwm F

~ ter wifh The Amalgam CoAector in place

# BLANK PAGE~ 

### O O O O

_ ~ 

### O O O O a N 000111 F ` n
._ __ . ....

~~ g ~ _

~~ i _ _ _ N ~ N O lh OI ~ ~ OOO c lll N

N P N N N F

~ n Q
N O O O 1l1

~~ OI 00 (

p p n N~ W ~V ~ O Q < 1- n p p p

__ N O O O O O O O N O d Y iL 

# E N J ~ S N ~ j



### ~~ q p 

# E&

~ i ~ O O ~ O O 1'1 O n l ~ N N O ^ ~~ ~ O

C I~O O O O M~ N 4~ O
~ W~ m~ LL N N~ O O O p~ C I ~ _ N ~ N

j F ~ ^ ~

~ p ~ j f U l p a

~ 004U ~ f0 W m p m OI m V p

~ ~~OtO N m ~ a0 Y ~ N .-.N YOOO ~ OO

10 W d W ~ 0~N N OOOC'l ~ m @' l0 ~ ~ q p b 

# _< o 

### E

~~ 252525 25 ~ mm~°~~~m~m~$~ N"u°' iWm ~ 

# =

~ 

## ooao oa ac ~

~~~~~ 000 ~ ~ W ~ N ~FL Y F ~ Ol '

~

~ p p p

N ~ ~~ p l N ~ 1 O O ~ N W Y dl O O O N a D Y W O C 0 

### ooc~~~ ~n~~ o0 ou~ n 

## r ,_.m

_ 

### m~ N

~ O O ~ O O O O C ~ W ~ O~ O N n P V md'~000~i~oi Y O ~~ aoi~ 000~ ~w ,~ LY N Ly m

~ 

### r N

o O

~ O~ N~~ n N~ O 0 O O Y I N

f I y Ol O D O O O n O C ~ ~ ~~

~~ t• N~ O N

~ ~ ~ y

~0000N y (p

~~ py ~ pp 

### 8
N `~ ~ OW ~m m N~ ~ I n fl~ ( W V 0
~~ N
~ ~~~ O O O N~ Ol ~~~ C O O ~ C~' ~ Ol 1 ~ F ~ C m ffi N O N

~ ~N O.- y ~ p 

### 8 00 O N p q 00 f n 0 ~' 1

E ( p~ ON N O =~ 00 

### G 00 

### G O ~ Ol Q OOND W pp ~ 

### O O O Q N ^~ N 

### ry N ~ N W ~ W N C ' k r ~`I ~ 1~1 N « N N ~OOOI~I( N ~l~ O CI N

~I~ C W '1~0 1~ OnON n ~ IL E ~~ O O O O ' 7 ~ V 17 4 D O O W O W m Y~: p N O~ ~

~ ~ ' N 

### Y 9 

### C ~ V ~n~ 

# a S 0~01'II~ N IN p 

# _ 8

~ ~f0



## 8 (pp OI n ~IO~ p E ~ C A ~~Ol
~ P I O O O 1~ 1 W t 7 Q

J ~: ~ y O

1 A V O G G O D 0

~ O I l~ 1 ~ O ~ ^ N n ~ ~=
~ W

~ p p ~_

~ ~ p € O R V ~ ~ 4 t U b e — 

### W

E 10 a 

### f p E C E ~ 

### E " u E o ~~ m 

### ~ Q~= = m = —Q2~ LL~ oq 

### E—E z m ~ 6 ~ C E 

### 3 E 3 E E ~ a ~ ~ i m 3 v 

### 3 E ~ 

### w a TiN 

### U~

~ ~ /1 ^= a E u °

m Q NN M ~ 

# > ~>~ W

— ~ j 

### ' U 

# a U U E E E o E > v t>> a ~'

# BLANK PAGE

# Clinic 2-PLR

## m Q

~~, m mr 

## Q ~

~ Q t° (° N 0

~ 

# o ~ 

# Z r 

## - - w rn n n m

~ .x Qnr Q W ~ a a~ a~~ C G L ~

_ __ O U ~ O N m N r ~ ~ C m t~°

. f0 Oo

.- ao .- m rn Q v o' o e - ~ ~ .~ . .- m ~ ~- OI ~ n N~ N~ N m Q m V

~ .'. r lE W U

~ ~~ O•° m •I') N O m N 1 ~ r (° ! ~ N m n 1 ~ m f° •° m A(O m N m f° C1

~ m~ t0 N N —

. ~ O N~ `

. m N O m m Q r Q N ~ m m ~ N~ m m < t° N ~ N N `~~ N N aD O aD O O ~•n m Q m N `~ N N O ~ Q O m CI m °I m W o N N ~ p N ~ m O O m •- m m 

## m ~ £ ~ 

## r r m r

~ o ~ `? o 

## ro ~ n o~ oi•n

~ oQOOn.- v ~ m oo ~ m ~ oo mo o NNQOi ~ p m ( p F U N p OI ~ Q N N m

~ m O O m O ~ m Q ~ ~ ~

N ONOt7 N ON m m N °i ~ Oi ~ U ~ O N N N N N ~ ~ m ~ ~ m O V

~ ° O

~~ N.-O N mN

~ - (°f ~ m1

~ N N

~ Q

~ Nm Nm m N NQ t0 W ~y ~ °~ m Q ~ ~ N f0 Q N ~ r ~ m N N O N m Q Y)

~^ •(] m m m Vl

~ (O °f N m ~ ¢ E

_ ~~ t° O(° O 1 ~ N~ O O O ~ ~ m (V m t7 O
.~ vi m m m m

~ ~ LL ~ ¢ O W m ~ ~ O O O O N m~ N Q e- Q) i~ N m~-- ~ ~ N ~ 1~ " m f° 1~ N m•-- m 4

~ (V LL~ O

(V VI
.- O

~ N O Q O Q O~< N•n Q Q l ~l ~ t Q 0 m N ` ~ N f

~ O ° 1° h(

m ° Q U • O O fO ~ O G<
~ O Q O ~ N O (y U

~ O N N m m y > ~ o L 

## •- of ¢ o

~ G) N O.- O O O O ~ UD m m O N O m N 1 ~ i~ ~!° m 1~ m Ol VI 1~ m O W ~ t~ (D N O ~ m 1~ m°~ ~ O~ Q m O O ~ O! O f~ Q Ol t~ ~ L
~ ~ ~ F O

~~ ~ Q O m O Q~ ~ O O N~- m ~ Q m N O N N b v ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ m ~ t~i ~ O) O ~~ o ^ N W

. ¢ ; e- ~ N ~ o 0 0 o f~ m< m N m ~ Q~•U .- 1° m Y1 Ol m ~ °l ro ~ •(f ~

1° N O O ~ m Q VI m N m •(1 m Q N 1° 1° m Y'I I ~ m ~ ~

~ O O N r- ~ N O Q~ t° 1~ N N O N ~ N N m N ~ ~ 1~ ~- Q Q
~ 3

f~u ° + ~ O m ~ ~ m O O Yf m N

mn N •l1 (V

n O ~ ~ ¢ ' ~ 

## o ~ ~ w ~ U ~ ~ O O O O O O m N m N O Q Ol ~ ~ ~ N ~ N O~- N N m o m E

t~~ N ~

O O° f O N m r M O o r O O ~ U

~ ~ ~ p 

### ` o ~ N~~ n



### ` 9 E 

## a 

# = ° a~~_ 

## m ¢

, O~ 00000> f

~ m h ~ NO m m1 ~1~ '-m~tOt~N Nf° 'N (° W Cm O N oN N NO1 ~ ~ .j0 N

~ j f°O mm m N ~f~m

N VJ O mm

m N O ~ NNf°
~°~ m ~ m N O N ~ t 7 Q ~ N f ~ O Q m ~ V ~~ N N N p ~ ~ ~ O~ N f° O m O m m

~~ . C O m m

~ N i° ~. ¢LL O

O Q Q v1 ~ 

### LL
x O ~ O O O O m N m m ® t° m ~ 1~ m O O O ~ N m O O) Ol N Oi m Q N ~ f 4 L O O N N O 1 ~ N Q m Q N Q n ~ ~ f~ O N V) N Q N N t° 1

~ N ~

~ N lL N.- !- Q O R O m Q Q t° ~ N O ~

~ o m ` m W f~ ~ m 1~ h p N •° m m~ m a ~ H O t r ~U ~ O O O O 1° N~ m m O m m o °l ~ N N " m N N O m 1~ O Q f° f° ~ ~~ ~U tQ •ONO

~ Nmm Q m N f ~ V(V m• ~ Yf fN•I

~ 1 ~t 1°
~ la

~ D fO

~ O a~0~ ¢ ~ ~-- r
. ~U ~ N Ol O aD .- N •~ N~- m m O~ ~ ~ N ~ ae ,QO NhN 00 m N ~N ` O ~ Q a 

### ~ ' Q3o m m (o(o to

~ 0 

## « °° 

## o~~ o0 ~ ~ 0 0 0

.. h ~ j ~ ~ ~. v i ~ a

~ = a
. o r ~ ~ c E p ~~

` ~ m N ~ a. m S m F- = Y O a o. E O 

## Y ~~ E ~ a~~ 

## E 

## a K o a m r a 

## O ~ 

## c_

~ ~ m~

~~ 

### 3a= o 

## a c a ~ 

### ad `o ° a.~~~~ 

### EEo 

## Nmvv

~ 

### m>EE«° `oc ° ~ 

### = 0- ' J 

### O m > 0 0'~ o ~ 

### E E E E E o ~ ~ a > 

### o' c c £ ~ E 

### E m E a o o 

### o m E ~~~~ 

### 2 m° 0 

### 1O ° 

### o a a a
~~ -LL==am f~ mtqt z 0 a 2 NtAdJ m ~ W 2x— 

# ~ c— a 10 w 

# E~ N 

# a a E ~ 

# m w m o 0 0 ~~~~~~~ L~{~~~ 7 fA 

# ° 

# a E E~ 

# o xr 

# o.o F 

# E ~ ¢m¢ ~n v~~~ZV~ mZ»> 2 5 S SSS Ov ~

### 2-PLR Asdex Filter Solids Processing 8

~ 

### Vacuum Filter Processing 

## 1999 2127/01

Asdex Hg (over 11.25 operating days) 8774 mg Hg 780 mg Hg/day August 4(8:00 am) to August 19 {10:00 am), 1999 captured in Asdex filter

Vacuum Filter Solids
Vac. Filter Asdex- 8/4-19 V.F. data copied from

Time Period Traps, Vacuum Filters worksheet
dates in use 8/3-8/19 

### days Wed-Thu times 1700-1315 operating days 11.5 

### Number of Beakers 4 VFS mg 1 1171.6 VFS mg 2 3398.1 VFS mg 3 3721.4 VFS mg 4 484.3 VFS mg 5 VFSW mg/I 1.038 volume liters 0.615 VFSW mg 0.63837 total mg 8776.038 days in use 11.5 

### mg/day 763.134 mg/day

captured in Vacuum Filter during Asdex Time Period

Solids vol, est. mis 40

### 2-PLR Baseline Monitoring 1999 5/23/01

Sample Dates in 1999 Aug 20-24 Aug 24-25 Au g 25- 26 Aug 26-27 Aug 27-30 Aug 30-31 Days Fri-Tues Tue-Wed Wed-Thur Thur-Fri Fri-Mon Mon-Tue Times 1400-0850 0850-0850 0850-0855 0855-0920 0920-? ?-0900 Number of Days 1.5 1 1 1 1 1 Sample Volume (lit.) 26.60 12.60 11.70 6.30 15.40 14.80 SampleTank Rinse (lit.) 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.00_ 1.50 Nalg. Jug Rinse (lit) 2.00 Y41_ Ifl Seltli

~ g Tarlk (I!t;) o.ao ~~-~ 30.10 Vol. To WWS pit) ~ ~ ~ 0.145 ~

_ Vvl. For Wy!i (Gt.) o.00 : 29.96 WWHgmg/I ~ ~ 0.1331 ~ 

### W W tlg mg ; : o.00 ! 3.99 Number of l3eakers 4 1.00

~ ,' 15.10

_ 0.425 ~ J 14.68 0.1419 ~ 

### ], 2.08 4 2.00 "' 15,20 0.44 ~ 14.75

~~ 0.3215 ~ 

### ' 4.75 .4 2.00

_ 9,80 0.2 ~ ! 9.60

~ 0.7717 ~ 

### T.41 3 2.00

~~~ 18 40 0.25 ~ ; 16.15

~~ 0.3118 ~ 

### 5.66 4 2.00 ". 18,3G 0.145

__ i8.1fi 0.0712 

### 1.29 2 WWS mg 1 4.55

. 1.82 9.70 8.33 6.96 19.22 WWS mg 2 4.55 8.71 0.03 10.61 22.90 2.73 WWS m 3 13.46 15.15 1.123 17.42 4.45 WWS mg 4 9.15 1.10 24.24 5.56 WWSm 5 WWs mg 6 WWSWVolume(lit.) 0.441 0.76 0.72 0.479 0.567 0.401 WWSW Hg mg/I WWSW Hg ; mg 41Mf5 Tatal ing .; aaap ' a.000 0.0718 ' 0.032 31,742 0.05685

' -- 0,043 26,823 0.1592 I 0.1M5 45.315 1.646

4.786 37.148 0.08284 ' 0.047 '. 39,917 0.1069 ' 0,0q3

_ 21.993 WWS Volume Est (ml) 19 18

. 23 30 22 12 

### Summary Data
Operatin Da s o 1.5 1 1 1 1 1 Sample Volume (Ifters) 0 26.6 12.6 11.7 6.3 15.4 14.8 WWS Volume Est. (ml) 19 18 23 30 22 12 mg Hg in water o.o0 3.99 2.08 4.75 7.41 5.66 1.29 m H in solids a.aoo 31.742 26.823 45.315 37.148 39.917 21.993 Total mg H o.000 35.729 28.906 50.060 44.557 45.576 23.286 Hg in water (m ) m!vro! 0.149888 0.165268 0.405585 1.175924 0.3674786 0.08734 Total Hg conc. (mg/I) fo!vio! 1.343163 2.294094 4.278629 7.072501 2.9594896 1.573345 Total mg Hg/Op. Days so!v

~ o! 23.81912 28.90559 50.05996 44.55675 45.57614 23.2855 20-Aug 8/23/01 24-Aug 25-Aug 26-Aug 27-Aug 30-Aug Amalgams Removed 2 0 8 11 2 2 0 Surfaces Removed 3 0 12 20 3 3 0 Amalgams Placed 6 6 13 15 10 7 0 Surfaces Placed. 10 6 25 38 17

~ 17 0

Values for Au . 20 shown here are a roximatel half of the full da counts

### 5-LR Baseline Monitoring July 5- August 23, 2000 3/vo1 Sample Dates 7/5-7/00 7l7-12/00 7/12-14100 7/14-19/00 7/19-26/00 Days Wed-Fri Fri-Wed Wed-Fri Fri-Wed Wed-Wed Time 0800-0845 0845-0925 0925-0920 0920-0830 0830-0815 Operating Days 1.5 2.5 1.5 2.5 4 fortnulas Sample Volume (L) 9.000 10.900 14.900 13.300 12.800 Carboy Rinsewater ¢) 5.000 3.500 2.000 1.500 1.000 Vol to WWS (l) 0.170 0.200 0.300 0.090 0.140

WWS Volume est. (ml) 60 35 35 40 75

Sample Dates Days Time Operating Days Amalgams Removed Surfaces Removed 

### Amalgams Placed Surfaces Placed 7/5-7/00 7l7-12/00 7/12-14/00 7/14-19/00 7/19-26/00 Wed-Fri Fri-Wed Wed-Fri Fri-Wed Wed-Wed 0800-0845 0845-0925 0925-0920 0920-0830 0830-0815 1.5 2.5 1.5 2.5 4
2 3 0 1 2 4 5 0 2 3 3 7 7 7 9 6 21 18 17 20. - . .. .

: ~~ ~~ : : ~~ : ~~ e~


## ., _ ~

~ 

## : r• ~ ~• ~ ~•~ ~•~ ~~ ~~ ~~~

~

~~ ~ ~~~ •~~ •~~

~~~ ~i~ • ~r~ ~~~ '"'` ~~ ,.#~~~ <... ~~~ , ~ -. 'as, ~~~'~.~ ^ n~ " s

~~ .... ~ 4,:::..

~~ ^,.: ~:.

~ ~ : ~ ~. ~ ~~~..

~ „~ ,', d' ~~ x`
~ ; i

~ '" t?r ~~~?~,

~ ?...

~ s, j. ~ ~~?°~~~

~

~



### .. . o

.,,. ~. ~ z ~ 

### a i •e

`
~.. ~ .~ ~ vi~- ~ ~ t~ ~ ~; >

~a ~a 

### ,.<..__ .
t ..~ - ~ 

### ` ma..., ~

a ~

.. ~ ~

y k~ ,. "`

. '

~ d

~ $ 

### .,s ;

' f j ' .7'. '

a r- ~ ~ ; H t
~ -", a J'3..

~ 4 9 § B .x

~ 5 . am€>z ~~ ~w~i~ .x.'e r

u::.

~ .. :



### 10.1 9.4 7 na 312/01
Totals Totals 7/5/00-8/23/00 7/7/00-8/23J00
22.5 21



### 100 95 115 85 5

115.800 106.800 645.000 585.000

26.592 25.375
12513.040 7843.295
0.23 0.24 108.06 73.44 

### mg/day passing through vacuum fitter
7/26-28l00 7/28-8/11/00 8/11-18/00 8/18-23/00 Wed-Fri Fri-Fri Fri-Fri Fri-Wed 0815-0920 0920-0905 0905-1200 ]200-1145 

### 1.5 3.5 3 2.5
2 2 1 0 3 4 2 0 

### 7 13 13 8 15 27 29 18 Totals Totals 7/5/00-8/23/00 7/7/00-8/23/00
22.5 21


### 13 11 23 19 74 71 171 165

### 5-LR Processing "Durr Centrifuge" Solids 8

~ 

### Amalgam Counts 2000
3/2/01

Sample Oates 

### Days Time Operating Days Number of Beakers Durr 8/24 - 9/26/00 

### Thu-Tue 0800-1700 18.5 formulas 6

Durr-S Volume est. (ml) 30 

## Tatal Hg mgtday '//DiV ~o~ 

## 'I 16.80 mg/day I Captured in Durc Centrifuge 

### Centrifuge casserie did not contain much solid material. Material looked like a thin layer of light colared sand. Clinic staff likened it to a"sandy beach". There is no data on wastewater entering or leaving the centrifuge. The volume was too great to sample



### Amalgam Removal and Amalgam Placement Counts While.Durr Centrifuge Was In Place Sample Dates 8/24-9/26/00 

### Days Thu-Tue Time 0800.1700 Operating Days 18.5 Amalgams Removed 3 Surtaces Removed 8 Amalgams Placed 17 Surfaces Placed 395-LR 2000 3ns/01 Processing of Solids Captured in Vacuum Filters and Chairside Traps

—___- --

__ - Durr Centrifuge Time Period

_ 8aseline M onitoring

__ Tandem Vacuum Pumps Vacuum Filter

__ Time Period' Baseline Vac. Pu_mp 3 Vac. Pump 4 Tandem

____ Summary Yac. Pumps

_ "VFS-A" "VF-A" "VF-t3" Summary Sample Dates 7/5-8/14/00 8/15-23/00 7/5-8/23/00 8/24-926/00 8/24-9/26/00 8/24-9/26/00 Days Wed-Mon Tue-Wed Wed-Wed Thu-Tue Thu-Tue Thu-Tue Time 0800-1200 0800-1200 0800-1200 0800.1700 0800.1700 0800-1700 Operating Days 17.5 5 22.5 18.5 18.5 1&5

formulas 

### Number of Beakers VFS±Tt

~ ?i 

## vFS mg'

~ ~ : ~ .: VFSW Vol (L)

~ 3

~ 363.8

~~ 7.635 3

~ 539a.0', 6 4 2661 3

~ 228- ~;~ 7

0.925 0.09
~ 1.053 VFSW pH F

~ ` - ' ' 7.5 7

~ ;i"

~ . . ,,..Q
~ * ='tQ.Q288

~ : 6.9 7

~ :13:t ~^ ~ ~s~ ,
494.873 VFS Volume est. (ml) 18 30 48 12 24 36.000 

### Tafal Hg

~ 

### mg/day _. #DIV/0

~ 

### ; 2D.8i ]078.2i 255 78 255. 79 

### Y4:38 da is ~~



### -_, i2.37 

### 26.75 mg/day Captured in Vacuum Pump No.s 3 8. 4 are pump numbers used in clinic 

### NOT fhe full amount Fiker During Durr Centrifuge Period • Solids (fitter for 7/5/00 - 8l14/00) were "cleaned" to remove nonamalgam material from amalgam. As of Feb. 1, 2001, 364.15 mg Hg have been processed Gom this first vacuum filter. Solids remain at the AQ buildin for further rocessing to remove more non-amal am material. Much amal am remains in these solids. The plan is to further separate and weigh the amalgam. Clinic was closed durin the aftemoon of August 14, 200Q
~ Durin the baseline eriod, onl one vacuum fitter was in place (MCES' fitter). Vacuum fitters on pumps remained empty, since all wastewater was cau ht in sample bottle.

Chairside Tra s
~ forrnulas CTS-1
~ CTS-2
~ dates in use 8/10.18/00 8/10-20/00 days Thu-Fri ThuSun time 0800-1200 0800-1200 CTS mg Hg 246.260 498.3

. days in use
~ 4 4
~ m /da 62 125

# Clinic 6-LR

# BLANK PAGE4 

### 6-LR Baseline Monitoring July 13 to August 16, 2000 3/1/01
7/13-14/00 7l14-18/007/18-21/007/21-25/007/25-28/00 7/26-8/1l00 Thu-Fri` Fri-Tue Tue-Fri Fri-Tue Tue-Fri Fri-Tue 0800-0700 0700-08150815-07450745-07550735-0635 0835-0840 2 2 2 2 2 2
22.000 14.000 19.000 12.500 17.000 1 Z 200 2.000 2.000 1.500 2.000 2000 3.500
0.190 0200 0.115 0.345 ~~'~ ` _. 7.0 ZO 0.123 0.17i)

~ m q m [t eXiY.k'

. m- • + m e ®•® ® e m m

~~.~ ra= #€ r 2 bw ~ ;~% i~ 4.E y ~ rp i

~ 'z

~ .'+: ~i~ .8 a ~.`~ a§~A. ` d'.a

~ . i a g
~ p'.a. ~&~B ~~ ~ K w 4 8 C

~ y. q ° y ~ ; ~ ,,e
~ 3'aa 7 . E o ' ..'4' a sa ~.e ~ `~e s v ; 

### '~ r ~a~ ~.~~ s" 'sa

~~ yE

~~ ' '"
~~~~~~ .,, 5,5 ~ ` @,.

~

., `S.

~ e.

. ~ .n.8, ~ .t - _~ .a , s. ~ . e ~ . WWS Volume est. (ml) 90 70 56 56 65 50 

### Summary Data Sample Volume 0.000 22.0 14.0 19.0 12.5 17.0 172 Estimated Solids Volume (ml) 0.000 90 70 56 56 65 50 pH 0.0 7.0 7.0 6.9 6.8 7.0 7.0 Soluble Hg mg (ww-fitt mg) 0.000 1.323 1.546 0.650 1.216 0.755 0.468 Colloidal Hg mg (ww mg -ww-filt mg) 0.000 11.891 5.246 1.847 t258 1.567 2.992 mg Hg in water (soluble ~ colloidal) 0.000 13.215 6.794 2.497 2.474 2.323 3.460 mg Hg in sobds 0.000 1841.295 583.359 677.184 500.326 477.255 494.279 Total mg Hg 0.000 1854.509 590.153 679.681 502.800 479.578 497.739 Hg ConcenVation in water mgll #DIV/0! 0.6006614 0.485286 0.131416 0.197912 0.136639 0.2011831 Totaf Hg Concentration mg/l #DIV/0! 84.295879 42.15379 35.7727 4022401 28.21046 28.938307 Total Hg mg/day #DIV/0! 927.25467 295.0765 339.8406 251.4001 239.7889 248.86944 ` Sample includes extra flush. Days represented should be stated as "Z". Tuesday's flushing (7/11/00) did not occur unfil after MCES sampling equipment was installed. Equipment was installed on Wednesday 7/12. Clinic staff flushed vacuum system at end of day on 7/12. (No patients on 7/12. Clinic operated Thulsday 7/13,

~ as normal. ) Sample Dates 7/13-14/00 7/1418/007N8-21/007/21-25/007/25-28/00 7/28-8/1/00 Days Thu-Fri` Fri-Tue Tue-Fri Fri-Tue Tue-Fri Fri-Tue Time 0800-0700 0700-08150815-07450745-07550735-0835 0835-0840 Operating Days 2 2 2 2 2 2 Amalgams Removed 3 2 3 B 4 9 Surfaces Removed 5 4 6 14 8 20 Amalgams Placed 4 4 3 9 5 6 Surfaces Placed 6 5 4 16 9 15

### 5 5 5 4 5

45 45 42 40 50 6-LR Baseline (continued) 3/1/01
8/1

~ /00 8/4-8/00 8/8-11/00 8/11-15/008/15-16/00 Totals Tue-Fri Fri-Tue Tue-Fri Fri-Tue Tue-Wed 

### 0840-08200820-09300930-09450945-08500850-1130 2 2 2 2 1 21


### !!! • !!! : !!t •!! •!! !! !! !!! !! !!!

~ ~~£~, h.. ~s ~ £f ~e~~~ At £.S2 ~`` g ~.~ £ ~ $~! ~ ~~..~ ~~ ~.~~ .. BF~.a ~^~ ..a.....
~ ..` -?m.

~~ o ! 1 ! » ~~~~1 1 1 ! 1
a '~~`' ~~ ID

° ~.~~'fi .• £ 6 :2 d ~ %i~ ~ ' 1 e ! /

0.915 0.855 0.700 0.543 0.812 

### 6.5 6.5 6.4 6.7 7

13.0 14.0 45 45 7.1 7.0 0.935 1.219 0.752 2.228 1.687 3.447 321.069 1992.187 322.756 1995.634 

### 18.0

42 7.0 0.219 0.727 0.946 485.848 486.794 18.9 7.9



### 40 50 7.1 7.0 2.884 0.146 -2.412 3.736 0.472 3.882 656.196 1360.531 656.666 1364.413 173.50 

### 609

41.20 9389.53 9430.73
0.129751 0.246218 0.052554 0.025 0.491423 24.82738 142.5453 27.04414 34.74436 172.7105 161.378 997.817 243.3972 328.3342 1364.413 0.237 54.36 449.08 mg/day passing through vacuum fiker during Baseline period

8/1-0l00 8/4-8/00 8/8-11/00 8/11-15/008/15-16/00 Totals Tue-Fri Fri-Tue Tue-Fri Fri-Tue Tue-Wed 0840-0820 0820.0930 0930-0945 0945-0850 0850-1130 2 2 2 2 1 21 

### 3 11 2 4 1 50 8 20 5 11 3 104 5 12 1 5 1: 55 7 21 2 11 1 97~ 

### :: 

### a """a " ~ ~ .

~ 

### ".a 6-LR Wastewater data with Rebec 2000 E System in place 3/s/o1 Sample Dates (in 2000) 8/17-21/00 8/21-24/00 8/24-28/00 8/28-31l00 8131-9/5/00 9/5-8/00 Days Thu-Mon Mon-Thu Thu-Mon Mon-Thu Thu-Tue Tue-Fri Time 0800-0800 0800-0835 0835-0800 0800-0805 0805-0805 0805-0810 Operating Days 2 2 2 2 2 2 formulas Sample Volume (L) 11.5 14.75 22.375 16.8 15 10.9 Carboy Rinsewater (L) 1 1 1 1 1 1 Vol to WWS (L) M ~ 0.125 0.2 0.27 0.31 0.22 0.6 WWpH 7.9 7.9 7.7 7.5 7.3 7.8 

### W W i9g rt

~ 

### fl 4.126 0.139 D.E08 0_130 0.117 ' 0.119
WkAf-Fiit ; mgtl . ..: '" 0,117., %4:D53 -°:; ; 0,091 • :

_ Num6er of Beakers 2 2 2 3 2 3 WWS mg 1

~ 

### `- 23.960 -6.450 3;?00 8:870 0:870 ; 1_670 — 

## W WS mg 2. NNVSW Vol (l) 0.673 -0.81 0.455 0.69 WWSW pH 7.2 6.9 7.2 — WWSW Hn:moN ' 0_048

. 0'_033 0.174 0936.

WWS Volume est. (ml) 13 10 9 15 Summary Data



# ......... y ,.. ...... ............... a .. , Total Hg mgfday ' Sample Dates ~ 

# .:........

~ 

# . . ~.~ 

# :.,_ ..__. _ :._.__ #DIV/O! '12.75684 4,306736 $,$84225 5.58126E
8/16-2U00 8/21-24/00 8/24-28/00 8/28-31/00 1,39543445
8/31-9l5J00 1,52197$'

9/5-8/00 — 

### Days Wed-Mon Mon-Thu Thu-Mon Mon-Thu Thu-Tue Tue-Fri Time 1130-0800 0800-0835 0835-0800 0800-0805 0805•0805 0805-0810 Operating Days 2 2 2 2 2 2

_ Amalgams Removed 3 2 4 4 2 3 Surfaces Removed 3 3 10 7 3 6

~ 

### Amalgams Placed 1 4 3 2 3 6 Surfaces Placed 2 6 5 4 4 10 ' Wastewater generated by rinsing upper Rebec tank at MCES lab. Rinsewater passed through lower settling/filter box

### 6-LR Wastewater data with Rebec 2000 E System (continued)
9/8-12/00 9/12-15/00 9/15-19/00 9l19/00 10/9/00' Totals Fri-Tue Tue-Fri Fri-Tue Tuesday Thu-Tue 0810-0815 0815-0900 0900-0810 0810-1700 8l17-9l19/00 2 2 2 1 0 19 3/6/01

0.47 0.58 0.42 0.56 0.335 6.9 6.9 6.9 7.1 6.7

20 20 20 25 5



### 4.583 mg/day ia throuah Rebec 2000 E 9/8-12/00 9/12-15/00 9/15-19/00 9/19-20l00 Fri-Tue Tue-Fri Fri-Tue Tue-Wed 0810-0815 0815-0900 0900-0810 0810-0845 2 2 2 1 iB,
5 3 5 0 31 11 8 8 0 59 5 3 5 3 35 11 7 10 3 62 and colleded/processed for analysis. (Holiday on 9/4/00)

### WWSW 

### 6-LR Wastewater data with METASYS ECO II System in place 3/6/01 Sample Dates (in 2000) 9/20-25/00 9/25-28/00 9/28-10/2/00 10/2-5{00 1015-9/00 Days Wed-Mon Mon-Thu Thu-Mon Mon-Thu Thu-Mon Time 1400-0850 0850-0820 0820-0810 0810-0810 0810-0820

_ 

### Operating Days 225 2 2 2 2 formulas Sample Volume (L) 11.000 16.000 13.700 14.000 10.000 Carboy Rinsewater (L) 1.000 1.000 2.000 2.000 1.000 Vol to WWS (l)

~ 

### 0.205 0.245 0.295 0.250 0.400

WWS Volume est. (ml) 10 12 17 10 15 

### Summary Data

Sample Dates Days 

### Time Operating Days Amalgams Removed Surfaces Removed Amalgams Placed Surfaces Placed 

### Surtaces Removed + Surtaces Placetl 9/20-25/00 9/25-28/00 9/28-10l2/00 10/2-5/00 10/5-9/00 Wed-Mon Mon-Thu Thu-Mon Mon-Thu Thu-Mon 1400-0850 0850-0820 0820-0810 0810-0811) 0810-0820 2.25 2 2 - 2 2
6 4 4 6 6 10 7 9 14 12 

### 8 8 9 6 5 16 13 15 11 9 

## 26 20 24 25 21

### 3/6/01 6-LR METASYS ECO II (continued)

~ • ~i ~ : ~r ~ ~~ ~ • ~~ 

### • •. -. . .

~: ~ ~• ~: ~• ~ ~• ~ ~~

~~ :~~ ~~ r~

~~ c$

~ " ~~~

iv3

~ 'y.j ~~~

..YP ~('9 p ~ ~ aha

~ v .S°'F )Y3A ~~~

vh i .. ~".~~~ ,~'~ '[.
~ ._

~ } ~ ~
~F+~ YR'i F E 5 =Yn

~ PC.4n
~

~ ' ~ ~~\ N ~ F: .~~ w+ AaT

~
\tl ~ a° 8;.$ .
y ~ ~ ~ ~

• ~~ i u~ 64 • I\.O.

1

i 0

~ ~ , N
~ '` ~ :"Z ~ ' iv~# ~i ~

~ .'.

~ . ~ .,.{ . S° ::.. s0 v, f

. @ 

## i .~ .: o 

## ~F~~! e'` P 

## ~ c`i 

## ~z~e§

. 4 Y

4~~ :`Y ° 

## ~

~ ~ ~I ~I~~ ~I~I~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~

V'.0 

## ~~~~ ~ 6Y T x9ys 

## ~`~4~~Fi~ P 3.€a 

## ~

~ .~: I ~~~ I ~~ II I 

## ~I ~~ I, I II I li 

## ~ll ~~ I I II 

## ~h ~ I II 

## ~ I ~i ~ ~ ~ ~~~ 1 / i

. 1

. / 

### Totals Wed-Tue 9/20-10/24/00 20.25



### 30 7 30 12

10/9-13/00 10/13-18/00 10/18-23l00 10/23-25/00 Mon-Fri Fri-Wed Wed-Mon Mon-Wed 

### 0820-0835 0835-0920 0920-1115 1115-0930 3 3 2.5 1.5 123.00 143

25.930 

### 722.915 748.845


### 0.21 6.09 

### 36.98 mg/day passing through METASYS ECO 11 Totals

20.25 '


### 2 3 1 1 33 4 5 1 3 65 3 2 4 0 45 5 6 6 0 81 

## 9 11 7 3

~ 

## 146

### Metasys-W 1 0 Metasys-W1

28 

### Met.-S A 1-5

_ _.-.-A Met.-S B 1-5 ° 5 Met-S C 1-5 .

~ 

### .. - d ~ 

### Met.-S D 1-5 t7

_: Met-S E 1-5 :____ 5 Met: S F 1-3 ~

,.~ 

### Metasys-W2

__ _ Metasys-W2 Rebeo-SW pH 

### 1.12 

### 6.8 

## •
. ~ •.~ 

## rrr
. . ~ 

## • . .

..,.

. •

~ . - ~~ r • r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r~

~ . • ~ ~•~r ~r r~ rr 

# •.-
. ~ . ~. ~ '~ JB'".v 2 iS '! ~ 3 .~ ~ Y n ~~ ~~ ~ ~~~~ ~ ~~~~i
~ i i ~ ~a~ {~i t ;-~y~ R ' 9 l y.. l ~ '

. ~rc

3 % ~ " ~ ~ ; v ~ ~,~.~`~

` T ~ ( x _ .g

✓ -' ~ ` ` ~ ` ~ " Vva ~ esst i b' ..13 - J~~iN

~~ .. .t. ~ ~ 1 ~ 1 ~ ~ ~~ Y ~ ~ i vG 'S

~a~ r ' 

### 3l6/01

Rebec-W

Rebec-S Volume est. (ml) 315 ~ 

### Metasys-S vol. est. (ml) 

### 85
361.53 mglday 

### 195.19 mg/day ured bv Rebec 2000 E red by METASYS ECO

Each Letter (A-F) for solids represents a batch of 5 beakers (or 3 for Met.S F 1-3).

### 6-LR 3/16/01 

### Processing of Solids Captured in the Vacuum Filters and Chairside Traps

Vacuum Fitters Baseline: METASYS Period: Period Summary 7/13-8/15 ' 9/20-10/24 10/24f00 9/20-10/24 Thu-Tue Wed-Tue Tuesday Wed-Tue 0800-1700 1400-10001000-1800 1400-1800 21 19.5 0.75 2025 rortnulas 5 5 2 7

' 3747 ' 3434 : 33.99: Sample Dates (in 2000) Days Time Opera6ng Days 

### Numbero(Beakers

_ ~ -.;:-°a -

. . 

### VFSW Vol (L) L293 0.645 0.4 VFSW pH 6.5 7.7 7.9 

### VFSW

~ 

### Ffgtngtl 43375 

### QA4239 -.;Q.O'f

~ 

### Q1'

VFS Volume est. (ml) 46 84 6 Total Hg mgfday

_ 

### woNin
~
_ 

### 176.10 45.33'

_ 

### 178.45 mg/day 

### during baseline monitoring ` See "Asterisk" note on Clinic 6-LR Baseline Spreadsheet

Chairside Traps
formulas "M" "F" Operatory Operatory dates in use (in 2000) 7/10-20/00 7/10-20/00 days Mon-Thu Mon-Thu times 0800-1200 0800-1200 CTS mg Hg 833.4 1003.5 mg amalgam 221 mg Hg from amal. est. 40 °h 88.4 total mg Hg 921.8 1003b daysin use 6.5 6.5 mg/day uDivio ~ 142 154 ~ red in vacuum 

### during the ASYS ECO II a

0

# BLANK PAGE

# Clinic 7-T

### 0

~ 

### 80G, .;' D.480

.,.

~ 

### _._ ~ 

### WWSW Vol (L) WWSW DH

WWS Volume est. (ml)


### Summary Data 40 20 8 6 

### 7-T Wastewater data with Rebec 2000 EL in place 3/5/Ot SampleDates (2000) 8l7-11/00 8/11-17/008/17-22/008/22-28/00 8/28-9/1/00 9/1-8/00 Days Mon-Fri Fri-Thu Thu-Tue Tue-Mon Mon-Fri Fri-Fri Time 0900-0925 0925-0745 0745-0820 0820-0835 0835-0915 0915-0920 Operating Oays 4 4 3 4 4 4 forrnulas Sample Volume (L) 12.750 20.000 9.500 14.200 15.900 11.700 Carboy Rinsewater (L) 1.000 1.500 1.000 1.000 2.000 1.000 Vol to WWS (l) 0.400 0.400 0.125 0.170 0.375 0.500 WW pH 8.8 9.7 9.7 9.6 8.8 8.8

Sample Dates 8/7-11/00 8/11-17/00 8/17-22/00 8/22-28/00 8/28-9l1/00 9/1-8/00 Days Mon-Fri Fri-Thu Thu-Tue Tue-Mon Mon-Fri Fri-Fri Time 0900-0925 0925-0745 0745-0820 0820-D835 0835-0915 0915-0920 — Operating Days 4 4 3 4 4 4 Amalgams Removed 5 3 0 6 14 5 Surfaces Removed 7 5 0 10 17 11 Amalgams Placed NONE Sudaces Placed NONE - ' Wastewater generated by rinsing upper Rebec tank at MCES AO buikfing_ Rinsewater passed through lower Holiday on 9!4/00 and no patients were seen on 9/8/00

_

### 7-T with Rebec 2000 El (continued ~ 

### 3/s/o1
9/8-14/00 9/14-20/00 9/20-25/00 9/25-28/00 10/9/2000' Totals Fri-Thu Thu-Wed Wed-Mon Mon-Thu 0920-1215 1215-1505 1505-0945 0945-1030 3.5 4.5 2 3.25 0 36.25
•AA AAA eAA

AAA :AA

AAA :AA

AAA AAA e A

~'~ ud +i ~~°~ z

~ 1 ~ 5+:.§ 8

~~ 11 ~N

~~

'R 4 8

~ y ~l ~ 1 ~a. ~ 6~ fA::4

~ R4<'+f

~1 ~ 11 ~

1 ~1~~
tti~

~ ' ~;~:o x b~v x~`~.si~`'~'$~(d~b@ :.~ . '

1:

~ S'QF "4 e~

'4i ~~ W~, i 1

f Y 3 L~'~ 2 1:

~.~~ I Lk e~ 1

~ $ e .9 ~ :'

~ 4 .4b ~ i Se 9~ , ti

~~ 5 a.~aE~ ~

~ a ~~.~.. Z. ;
. ; ..F.:•~5 £ ~ r~S o4 r >:~@td$,E y B h
A e

~ e e° e e o

~ e

~ A

A

~ A t• A

~ A~ A A A

10 5 5 2 5



### 150.550 126.000

79.662 12.847 92.510 0,87 0:43 0-35 !0.71 ' 0.43' 0.53 0:9Q



### _ 0:

~ 

### 8



### _ _ i3.61 '0.75 0.87; 0.61 

### 3.580526 2.339SB4 4.210F26 3.876404 

## t► 

## Dlulo!! 2.55 mg/day passing throu_gh Rebec 2000 EL 9l8-14/00 9/14-20/00 9/20-25/00 9/25-28/00 Totals Fri-Thu Thu-Wed Wed-Mon Mon-Thu 0920-1215 1215-1505 1505-0945 0945-1100 3.5 4.5 2 3.25 36.25
3 7 3 3 49 

### 5 14 9 4 82

settling/fiker box and colleded/processed for analysis.~

~ ss; #,,,

~ -<..

~~ Vol to 

### 7-T Processing "Rebec Solids"

Sample Dates (2000) Days Time Operating Days

fonnulas "A" 

# vzao ~



### Totals

"B" Samale 'C"

Rebec-SW Vol (L)



### Rebeo•S Volume esl. (ml) 45 150 

### Total Hg mg/day

Each Letter (A-F) for solids represents a batch of 5 beakers (or 4 for F 1-4).

### 7-T Proce ssing of Solids Captured in Chairside Traps 3/1s/o1

Chairside Traps

_ _ tamulas CTS-1 CTS-2 CTS-3 CTS-4 CTS-7 CTS-8 dates in use (2000) 8/2-9/7/00 8/2-9/7/00 8/2-9/7/00 8/2-9/7/00 8/2-9l7/00 8/2-917l00 days

_ ___ Wed-Thu Wed-Thu Wed-Thu Wed-Thu 

### wed-rnu Wed-Thu time 1800-1700 1800-1700 1800-1700 1800-1700 1800-1700 1800-1700 CTS mg Hg 0.070 279.0 254.18 0.07 29.33 299.7 mg amalgam 1800.50 1203.50 114.00 mg Hg from amal. es<. ao w 720.200 481.400 45.600 total mg Hg 0.070 279.000 974.380 0.070 510.730 345.300 

### daysin use 25 25 25 25 25 25 mg/day aoivm ~ 

### 0.003 11 39 0.003 20 14

'Note-CTS 5 and 6 were not submitted for anal sis

# BLANK PAGE

## C~ 

# r~

, 

### r~

, 

# d

# Clinic Logging Sheets

Phase 1: Vacuum System Flushing Phase 2: Baseline Monitoring Phase 3: Amalgam Removal Equipment Testing

For each Phase 1-3, clinic staff would use a copy of the respective sheet, each week. Clinic staff was given multiple copies of each sheet to cover the whole study period.


# Vacuum System Maintenance

Clinic had one copy of example sheet shown in this Appendix to use during alt phases of the study.

### word file: Hg-dntp6A-Dentist's Name (6/5/00)
Dodor's Name:


# Phase I, Week No. (circte one): 1 2 3 4 Monday (date) (I)se extra sheets as necessary. Please circle Week No., and write in Monday date.)

AMALGAM RESTORATIONS REMOVED

Day Patient's

[nitials Number of Amalg. Removed total for atient) Number of

Amalgam Surf Rem. (totat for atient) Clinic

Staff Ltitials 

### MTWThF MTWThF MTWThF MTWThF MTWThF MTWThF MTWThF MTWThF MTWThF MTWThF MTWThF MTWThF MTWThF MTWThF MTWThF MTWThF MTWThF
AMALGAM RESTORATIONS PLACED

Day 

### Patient's Initials 

### Number of Capsules Used 1 Spill 2 Spill 3 Spill (Sin le) (Double) ri e) 

### Number of

Amalgams Placed (total for ent) 

### Number of

Amalg. Surf. Placed (total for 'ent 

### Clinic

Staff' Initials 

## MTWThF MTWThF MTWThF MTWThF MTWThF MTWThF MTWThF MTWThF MTWThF MTWThF MTWThF
+ Patient's Init

~ 

### als requested to allow clinic staff [o check tliat all data is entered.

### Doctor's Name: 

# Phase 2, Week 1Vo. (circle one): 

## 1 2 3 4 5 Monday (date) (Use ex[ra sheets as necessary. Please circle Week No., and write in Monday da[eJ

AMALGAM RESTORATIONS REMOVED

Day Pa[ient's

Initiats Number of Amalg. Removed (total for ent) Number of

Amalgam Surt Rem. total for ent Clinic

Staff [nifials 

## MTWThF MTWThF MTWThF MTWThF MTWThF MTWThF MTWThF MTWThF MTWThF MTWThF MTWThF MTWThF MTWThF MTWThF
AMALGAM RESTORATIONS PLACED
Day Patient's Lritials Number of Capsules Used 1 Spilt 2 Spil( 3 Spilt Sin le) ouble) ri le Number of

Amalgams Placed totatfor atient) Number of

Amalg. Surf: Placed (tntalfor 'ent Clinic

Staff Initials 

## MTWThF MTWThF MTWThF MTWThF MTWThF MTWThF MTWThF MTWThF MTWThF MTWThF
SURGICAL PROCEDURES
Da Patient's Initials Describe Sur 'cal Procedure e.

. 

### Tooth Eachaction Staff Initials 

## MTWThF MTWThF MTWThF MTWThF MTWThF

## Doctor's Name: 

# Phase 3, Week No. (circle one): 1 2 3 4 5 Monday (date) (Use eMra sheets as necessary. Pfease circle Week No., and wri[e in Monday date.)



## AMALGAM RESTORATIONS REMOVED

Day Padent's

[nitials Number of Amalg. Removed (totalfor alient Number of

Amalgam Surf Rem total for 'ent Clinic

Staff Initials 

## MTWThF MTWThF MTWThF MTWThF MTWThF MTWThF MTWThF MTWThF MTWThF MTWThF MTWThF MTWThF MTWThF MTWThF
AMALGAM RESTORATIONS PLACED

Day Patient's Initials Number of Capsuies Used 1 Spill 2 Spol 3 Spill (Sin le (Doubte (T'ri le Number of

Amalgams Placed total for a[ient Number of

Amalg. Surf. Placed (total for 'ent Clinic

Staff Ini[iaLs 

## MTWThF. MTWThF MTWThF MTWThF MTWThF MTWThF MTWThF MTWThF MTWThF MTWThF
SURGICAL PROCEDURES

Da Patient's Initia(s Describe Sur ical Pracedure e.

. 

### TaothExlraction Stafflnitials 

## MTWThF MTWThF MTWThF MTWThF MTWThF

### word fle: Hg-dntp6B-Dentist's Name (6/5/00)
Doctor's Name: 

# Vacuum System Maintenance Log page l of 2 

## Start Day & Date: to End Day & Date
Overview ofclinic's basic schedule for changing chairside traps, vacuum filters, and the flushing of the vacuum system (for al( operatories): Chairside Traps changed: e
~ 

### g : Weeklx 

## (_ "dentist" chairs, _"hygiene" chairs) Vacuum Filter changed: e.g.: Monthly Vacuum system flushed: e.e: Da

~ 

### . at 

## end ofdav Quantity of flushing: e.Q.: 1 quart per chair, per day X_ chairs X 4 days/week = Xgallons/week

CHAIIiSIDE TRAP CHANGE-OUT.(ALL OPERATORIES):
da circle date time staffinitials comments MTWThF MT W ThF MT W ThF MTWThF MTWThF MT W ThF

VACUUM FILTER CHANGE-OUT
da circle date time staffinitials comments MTWThF MT W ThF

~ 

### MTWThF MT W ThF MTW ThF



# OVER

### Doctor's Name:



# Vacuum System Maintenance Log page 2 of 2

VACUUM SYSTEM FLUSHING note starting date for each week and circle days when flushing occurred
week of date da circle staff initials comments

MT W ThF MT WThF MT W ThF MT W ThF MTW ThF MT W ThF MT W ThF MT W ThF MT W ThF MT W ThF MTW ThF MT W ThF MT W ThF MT W ThF MT W ThF MT WThF MTW ThF~ 

# ; _,

~ 

# . .

~


# ~a '~ 

# rn ~

# ~

~ A'

.a3%a.W = ~~~ .-.w_.. _m ~~

# MCES Clinic Sample Collection Log Sheets

The sheets shown in this appendix are examples of the sheets used by MCES personnel to track sample collection and sample preparation that occurred prior to submitting the samples to the MCES laboratory.

# Schedule of changing sample bottles at Dr. • Da Date Time Initials Comments

### Doctor's Name Clinic Sample Collection Log
Start: Day Date Time Stop: Day Date Time 

### Number ofoperating days: (Note: Dr. Modjeen dces not work Wednesdays. ) 

### Comments: Sample picked up by MCES staff L



## volume in bottle taken from clinic (liters) (time transferred
) 

## + volume of rinsewater used to rinse bottle (liters)

Total volume transferred to settling tank at MCES facility (liters) After approximately 24 hours settling time, Subsampling" for "WW" & "WW-FILT" (pH of WW:
) 

## , and Decanting, then: volume ofremaining wastewater and solids (liters) (- ~ 

## WWS) (volume poured in liter beaker, read before rinsing settling tank) Volume of sample that corresponds to the "WW" sample (liters) Initials of person(s) decanting settling tank and transferring solids to beakers Settling tank is rinsed into liter beaker (usually one). Wastewater & solids from the liter beaker are transferred to muhiple 250 ml beakers. Liter beaker is rinsed into the 250 ml beakers. Each 250 ml beaker is "brought up" to the same volume (or some "round number") to allow for easy subsampling & compositing after the 250 ml beakers have settled.
beaker number starting vol. mis ending volume wat: & sol. mis volume

of sol. mis Starting volume total I;nding volume total -
Volume for WWSW =
pH of WWSW sample Initiats of person decanting the 250 ml beakers totals



# OVER

## ' Info on subsampling: Wastewater is allowed to settle in the settling tank for approximately 24 hours. Three (50 mt) subsamples are taken from the top, middle, & bottom of the settling tank during the decantingprocess, composited together, and submitted to the lab for the "W W' sample. A similar set of topmiddle-bottom composited subsamples are also taken at the same time for a"WW-FILT" sample. (To be filtered at MCES lab for determining soluble mercury.) After most of the wastewater is decanted, the remaining wastewater and solids are poured into a Iiter beaker. The pH of the WW sample should be determined before submitting the sample to MCES lab. (No need to read the pH of the WW-FIL,T sample.)

(Word File Name: Hg Samp Log-2 July 6, 2000)~ : ~ ~

~

E

~~ 

## . a w;.

~

.

. y

, :;

# MCES & Clinic Agreement Letter

The letter shown in this appendix is an example of a letter signed by both MCES and the dentist agreeing to the terms related to monitoring at the clinic and, if necessary, emergency repairs.

# ~ Metropolitan Council Working for the Region. Planning 

### for the 

### Future 

## Environmental Service.

date, 2000 

### Doctor's name, D.D.S. address


### Subject: Amalgam Removal Equipment Study
Dear Dr. Thank you for agreeing to participate in the study to evaluate equipment used to remove amalgam from wastewater discharged by dental offices. This study is being conducted jointly by the Minnesota Dental Association and Metropolitan Council. This letter describes our understanding as to the arrangements between your dentai office and the Metropolitan Council with regard to the equipment study. This study will be administered by the Council's Environmental Services Division (MCES).
Overview ofthe Amagam Removal Equipment Study The two main periods of the study include: (1) A 4 week period during which your dental ofFice will maintain a consistent flushing schedule of its vacuum system, with no MCES equipment in place. (The purpose of this flushing is to establish a uniform flow of waste materials through the vacuum system.) 

## (2) A 5-10 week period during which MCES sampling equipment andJor amalgam removal equipment will be in place. (Your offtce would continue its routine flushing of the vacuum system.) During these two time periods, your office witl be asked to log amalgam placements and removals, maintain the amalgam removal equipment per the manufacturer's instructions, and evaluate the amaigam removal equipment at the end of the study. The equipment installed in your office will include a wastewater sample collection tank, the amalgam removal equipment, and in some offices, an extra vacuum filter.

_ As a part of the study, MCES will directly reimburse Bredahl Plumbing, Inc for the costs of instaliing and removing the study equipment at your office' Work performed by the plumber will be scheduied for time periods agreed upon with your office staff.

230 East Fifth Street SL Paul, Minnesota S5101-1626 (651) 602-1005 Faz 602-1183 TDD/11Y 229-3760

## During the study period, MCES staff will need to periodically inspect the installed equipment and collect samples such as: wastewater, chairside traps, vacuum filters, and amalgam removal equipment solids for analysis. The scheduling for the pickup of these samples will be arranged with your office. MCES will attempt to minimize any disruption of your office operations during sample collection. (Sample containers for traps and filters will be provided to you by MCES.) After analysis, MCES will airange for proper recycling and disposal of equipment or contaminants contained in the equipment, such as 6lters, used by MCES in the analysis. The study period wi11 not exceed 10 weeks after installation of the equipment. Within 2 weeks of completion of the (10 week) study period, the MCES and amalgam removal equipment will be removed and the affected plumbing will be retumed to its original configuration. If at any time you would like the equipment removed from your office, please inform MCES staff.
Emergency Repairs MCES recognizes that during the study it is important that there be procedures in place to respond to emergency repairs that may be related to the study equipment. If problems aze experienced with the sampGng equipment, tbe amalgam removal equipment, or any equipment or plumbing work performed in connection with the installation or removal of such equipment, MCES will reimburse Bredahl Plumbing, Inc. directly for response to the problem. Your office should contact Bredahl directly for this type of service and promptly inform MCES staff as soon as service has been arranged. With regard to your vacuum pump, MCES does not anticipate that installation, use of the study equipment, or removal of the equipment will adversely affect the vacuum pump. However, if any problems aze experienced with your vacuum pump that are unrelated to the study equipment and result in significant downtime (e.g. one day), a call to MCES would be appreciated if you think it may affect scheduling of MCES crews for sample collection. In the event that you beheve that the installation, removal, oc operation of MCES equipment or the amalgam removal equipment has caused a problem with the vacuum pump which requires immediate repairs, then you should: (1) arrange with one of the preselected dental supply companies to perform necessary repairs and (2) promptly notify MCFS as soon as arrangements are made with the dental supply company for service. Preselected dental supply companies currently consist ofMarcus, Patterson, and Sullivan-Schein. (Ifyou would prefer that another company provide emergency vacuum pump repair services in such a situation, please inform MCES prior to start up of the study.) MCES will pay for up to two hours of service time provided by the dental supply company in such a situation. If more than two hours of repair work by the dentai supply company are necessary, MCES staffwill promptly meet with you to assess the reasons for the vacuum pump probiem and seek to resolve liability for any additional repair costs beyond the two hours.

### If there is a link between vacuum pump failure and the MCES study (sampling or amalgam removal equipment testing), MCES will pay for the portion of the cost of repair that seems reasonably related to the MCES study. If the vacuum pump needs replacement, MCES will pay a fair portion of the replacement costs, taking into consideration the value and life expectancy of the vacuum pump being replaced. If the above accurately describes your understanding of the arrangements made with regard to this study please sign below and return this letter to Peter Berglund. If there are any questions, please phone Peter Berglund, at 651-602-4708.
Sincerely,

Keith Buttleman Director, Environmental Plaruiing and Evaluation

This letter accurately describes the arrangements between Dr.

, 

### and the Metropolitan Council with regard to the referenced study.

(Dr. signature)

cc: Richard Diercks, MDA

FII,E: Hg-clinic letter-2 9/87/00 

## DRAFT

3

# Y ~ ~. ~
~

~

.~^

•} ~

~.~ .

~~,~~ _ s 

### S 3> -.

~

### ~ l ,



# ~ c7 :;} 

# a. Q

~`' ~~

.

# Appendix G 

# Photographs of Clinic Installations, Sampling Equipment, and Sample Processing

### SAMPLE COLLECTION BOTTLE

BASELINE MONITORING UNDER VACUCJM - CLINIC 5-LR • Sample bottle holds 20 liters. It is vacuum rated and made of polypropylene. • Wastewater from operatories enters via white line on left. • Wastewater passes through a vacuum filter pdor to sampling (wastewater normally passes through a vacuum fiher before going [o the liquid-ring vacuum pumps). • Only air leaves the sample bottle, and then goes to the tandem liquid-ring vacuum pumps, at right. • Valves above sample bottle are set to direct Ilow into sample bottle. • Valves would be reset to change bottle, while still maintaining vacuum at the operatories. • Union fittings are located just below valves. This is point where bottles are disconnected. • All piping and bottle are under vacuum during the time that wastewater is being coltected_ • Piping near valves is clear to al(ow viewing of flow. Person can wait until there is no flow passing through system, before changing bottle. • Sample bottle placed in a plastic tub in case of leaks. '

### SAMPLE COLLECTION BOTTLE

BASELINE MONTTORING UNDER VACUUM - CLINIC 6-LR • Sample bottle holds 20 liters. It is vacuum rated and made of polypropylene. • Wastewater from operatories enters via white line on right. • Wastewater passes through a vacuum filter prior to sampling (wastewater normally passes through a vacuum filter before going to the liquid-ring vacuum pump). • On(y air leaves the sample bottle, and then goes to the liquid-ring vacuum pump at left. • Valves above sample bottle are set to direct flow into sample bottle. • Valves would be reset to change bottle, while still maintaining vacuum at the operatories. • Union ftttings are located just below valves. This is point where bottles aze disconnected. • All piping and bottle aze under vacuum during the time that wastewater is being collected. • Piping near va(ves is clear to allow viewing of flow. Person can wait until there is no flow passing through system, before changing bottle. • Sample bottle placed in a plastic tub in case of leaks.

## SAMI'LE COLLECTION BOTTLE, CLOSE-UP VIEW - CLIAiIC 6-LR • 20 liter polypropylene, vacuum rated sample bottle. • Valves above sample bottle are set to direct Itow into sample bottle. • Valves would be reset to change bottle whi(e still maintaining vacuum at the operatories. • Union fittings aze located just below valves. This is point where bottles are disconnected. • All piping and bottle are under vacuum during the time that wastewater is being collected. • Sample bottle placed in a plastic tub in case of leaks.

3

### REBEC MODEL 2000 E AND SAMPLE COLLECTION BOTTLE - CLINIC 6-LR • The 2000 E system and the sample collection bottle are under vacuum while the vacuum pump is on. • The liquid-ring vacuum pump is located at right:

0x:.
~~~~'~~~~ '~~ 1 ~ ~ ~ f '.:. s ~ ~~ ~«~~~~ ~ ~ } s ~x ' ~~~ ~ ,~+~~~~

bn _ t
„ ft"'^m f > 2?, ~ w ~~`~'~ ,.
~~~ :~c~ 11'I v ~~~'~ . ~ ~ '~

.. °d } ~ y ""

~ ,. ti Y -v 7

.

~ ~~~ ~`~~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~ ~~~I ~ ~ ti... ~ ~ ~~ ~ N5 F.} R ~~Y ~ +~ t ~ I~ } ~` ~, ~ • ,

y c~ ~ ~ ~ $

~ ~~~ '

~ `m+ , A. 3 ~ ~ .J

. ~i~^5 3 fr` ~ `..( 6 .z ~ Y~~. ~~~ h a. ~ lt°l`kt§ ~
. i' ~ ~~ A' y i

r ~ a 'i` ~ 

# ~~ e. c ~''~~

r ~5~'~

~ a `:.` ~. '~ ' ~ ~~.

",x. ~~ c$T ~ b i / '~~9 ~ )/ 'i ~

.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .:

S ~ ~ ~ ~. „~~~ 44 L'F 4

~ '°Y ~S~

~ f T

. 'h / .! Y ~ -J

~ 4 S Y g' wsc .

~ + k^ ~ `'^.y "'S-

~ =Ei ~ h Y ~~ v~

° ^ 1 ~ '"

~

,' ~ ..



# ~ e ~ `} ~ ~ ..TP ~1~

.v~~ ~~'~ y ~

~ v- .,'i - ~ W ✓ ~

.,+' ~~~ Y " 5 ' ~ ~ ', `t" ~ Y `x 2 ~~ x y ,^ •i ~ ;er ~ / ` * ~v @. y
T ~ { 3 ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ''

sc. ~ y~ ~ g S~n`~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ qY

.. 3 [., Y

~ L R ~ ,': ~ el+" r" : °~ " Tt ~ ~ h'. 3" ~T-~ 4.
% ( ~ F +*~ S:. fmA t£ f-

~ , g
. ~ ~ ~

~ t t

~ F~ ~ ~1 ~ ` Y bl-' ~fY9 y 5"~~ ` G `

~ .F

. . > a" .T t 3

~ . ~ I t

## REBEC MODEL 2000 EL AND SAMPLE COLLECTION BOTTLE - CLINIC 7-T • Wastewater originates from operatories above, turns diagona(ly down white pipe, and enters the Rebec Model 2000 EL. • Wastewater is retained in the 2000 EL system until the vacuum pump is turned off. (There is a check-valve between the upper chamber and the settling/filtration container.) • Wastewater then passes through the settling/filtration container, to the sample bottle. • The settling/filtration container and the sample bottle both are not under vacuum, even when the vacuum pump is on, due to the check-valve. • The line leaving the sample bottle is routed to the drain. This would only carry wastew

~ 

## ter if the bottie overflowed. The sample bottles were changed prior to filling completely. • The bottles were changed using the union fittings located on the bottles. • Only air leaves the Rebec 2000 EL, through the grey line (below the white diagonal line). • The white tank at the right is the clinic's preexisting air/water separator tanlc, which is part of the turbine (dry) vacuum pump system (basically nonfunctional during this testing).

## DURR CENTRIFCTGE AND AIIt/WATER SEPARATOR - CLII

~ 

## IIC 5-LR • The air/water sepazator is the square container mounted on the wall. This sepazator was a preexisting component of the liquid-ring vacuum pump system. • Wastewater (from the operatories and the city tap water that is routed through the tandem vacuum pumps, which mix in the pumps) is routed to the right side of the air/water separator, behind the centrifuge. • Air leaves the air/water sepazator via the white vent pipe at the top of the separator. • Wastewater leaves the bottom of the separator, and is normally routed to a drain (see disconnected white line just above sink). During the study, the wastewater was routed to the rear, bottom of the centrifuge. • The centrifuge treats the wastewater, and it is routed to the drain. • The centrifuge does not operate under vacuum. Therefore, when using a liquid-ring vacuum pump, the centrifuge is connected to the air/water separator outlet.

7

## STAINLESS STEEL SAMPLE COLLECTION TANK

• This 27 liter sample colledion tank was used in Clinic 2-PLR. (A similar, 14 liter stainless steel sample collection tank was used in Clinic 1-PLR.) • Tank operates under vacuum. •_ Same valve arrangement as the interchangeable potypropylene sample collection bottle used in the other clinics (Clinics 3-7). • Tank shown as it wou(d look when draining the tank into a jug to transport the wastewater samples. (Multiple 9(iter jugs, made of high-density po(yethylene, weie used to collect full sample.) • Port on top of tank would be opened to allow air into tank for draining and to allow a pressure sprayer wand inside to rinse tank after draining. • Tank is lined with a white, epoxy paint made for tank interiors. • More detailed information on the tank is given in Section III. D. 2 of the report.

### PRESSURE SPRAYER • Pressure sprayer used to rinse solids out of stainless steel sample collection tanks. (For this function, a straight wand was used, and the tip cover was removed to allow for a "right-angle" spray out of the end of the wand.) • Pressure sprayer was also used to deliver a jet of low-volume water to rinse the solids off of the sidewalis of the wastewater sample sett(ing tanks (see next picture). • All volumes of rinse water used with such a sprayer were accounted for.

0

### WASTEWATER SETTLING TANKS AND ISCO DECANTING PLJMP • Settling tanks used to sett(e wastewater collected from dental ctinics. • Tanks shown held 42 liters (if upright). • Tanks were made of high-density polyethylene. • Tanks positioned in racks, tilted forward and turned sideways, to maximize the settling of solids to one corner of tank. • After wastewater was allowed to settle, subsamples of the liquid layer were collected with a ladle as the liquid was decanted by an ISCO pump, shown at center, and routed to the sink drain at right. • Banding azound each tank is co(ored tape to code the tanks for each of the clinics. Each clinic (4-T, 5-LR, 6-LR, and 7-T) had their own, dedicated settling tank. Similaz color coding tape was also used on dedicated sample collection bottles. (Other dedicated wastewater sample settiing tanks were used for the other three clinics; not shown here.) • Clipboards hanging below each tank held the "Clinic Sample Collection Log" for each sample (see form in Appendix E). • Sink at right is custom sink installed to wash settling tanks between samples. • More detai(ed information on sample processing is given in Section III: D. 1-4 of the report. • Tanks were kept covered during settling periods and when empty.

10

## OVERVIEW OF PROCESSING BEAKERS WIIICH CONTAIN SOLIDS • Section III. D. 1-4 of the report discusses methods used to prepare samples for analysis. • Included in this photograph are: (1) pipette used to subsamp(e liquid from beakers that have been allowed to settle, (2) pump, hose, pipette tip that are used to decant settled liquid from beakers, (3) beakers containing solids from one ofthe types ofamalgam removal equipment, and (4) Parafilm® used to cover beakers. (Pump also shown below.) • Decanted liquid, after settling and sampling, was routed to sink drain at left.

il

# -_ _

~ 

# .._ ~ 

# _ .

~ 

# i

MCES 8/30/2000 12:2R

## DIGESTION OF SOLIDS ON HOT PLATES IN 

## LABORATORY HOOD

TRANSFER OF "PREDIGESTATE" FROM BEAKERS TO VOLUMETRIC FLASKS • After solids were digested in beakers, on a hot plate, the resulting "predigestate" was transferred into volumetric flasks. • The predigestate was poured through a coarse paper fitter as part of the transfer procedure, to protect the analytical instrument, which would be used latec (The fitter would retain material that did not dissolve during the digestion process, such as dental hygiene polishing compound.) • More detailed information is given in Section III. E. 1-3 of the report. 13

### TRANSFER OF "PREDIGESTATE" FROM BEAKERS TO VOLUMETRIC FLASKS

14

### VOLUMETRIC FLASKS CONTAIIVING PREDIGESTATE • 500 milliliter flasks containing predigestate after analysis. • Each flask contains the predigestate of five beakers from the processing of the solids removed from the Rebec 2000 E sett(ing/filtration container used in Clinic 6-LR • Although not visible in a black & white photograph, the color of the predigestate was often blue or green, with darker shades indicating higher levels of inercury. • The amount of inercury shown here for each flask is in milligrams. This was determined by the analysis (concentration) multiplied by the volume (0.5 liters). See Appendix C.

15