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 ithout 

amalgam removal e ui c~ pment in place, 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 

~sdischazge 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, 2ndFloor 

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 ~ ~ 

v a ~ _, .~ . o a ~ p 

~ N m E Om 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 3.04 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: _ ~~.`~ . _ . . . . .. ,. . . . 

z4T 

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 

- rz ~ ~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. ra 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~faa~~`T ....e.S `~~45 

ywlmavn 

'% y.~~ "~ _;'. 

. E 

Vl~ :. ~. . ~t 

y 

'~ ly~.. _...: 

~ ~4. a..1 ':. G,. , .. , n. ,.i .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.....~.~~ ~t . ..,,~. F : 

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 

5t 
TABLE 10 _ Reductions 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 Lj m v~ m` 3 

D p ~ ~ ~ n 3 

m 

N 

~0 a ` LL ~ c~ W ~! m _C 3 

~ m ~ J ~ ; ~ 

W ti )'° ~° ~ W 

0~ 

N C " 

0 

~ ~ 

~, ~. 0: 

1C ~. m Q D L ~ C ~ 

Q 0 (~ C C C > > m ,C ~ 

m ~ m m m m E E E E '0 ~ ~ 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 ..._ 

3-PLR . ~ i :. 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 : 

' 

-. ai ~ _ .-- . - .. 

. . 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 ~~ :: 7_~~~ t< I 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~

gyi~. ,,.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 is 

connected 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 

PATENT 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^ '

rif

J+Hi . . 

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

., 

' : ~6H~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. 

Retrofitting 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[ Ihis 

valuable 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 separators 

must 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 backed 

by 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 years 

of experiencefrom desiqn certification' through to 

achieving and maintaining 96%efficacy, and including a sensible disposalconcept. 

As a pioneer in denial suction systems and as a leader in this field. Durr 

Deniaf 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 separator 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~* 

. 

'aS~-.. ~....-... ' . . ~ 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 Effluent 

Collection 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 is 

approximately 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 

wlth 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 590 

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 suitabie 

place 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 mm 

For 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 motor 

The 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 the 

pretipitate 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 disinfection 

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 with 

a 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 

tb 
f~;; 

; 

> ~~~ 

~ ~ 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 5t°Street; St. Paul, MN; 55101 

word f le: Hg-Vendor list 12/21/01 

s 

~ '~ 

"~ 

~ 

~ ^ 

~ 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 ~~fr27.560 ~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-T 
I~~'-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 Collector" 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 ^ 

__ 

9l7-9/99 ` 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-PLR 
2-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 = 4.0 
2-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 Wednes. 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 _ VFS 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 BASELINE ~th onlyChairside 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 1030-1230 - 

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 _ SampleTank 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 VacuumFilter 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 4.060 194.320 

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 Wastewater data with The 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-PLR with The Amalgam Collector (continued) 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 clll N N P N N N 

F 

~ 

n Q 

N O O O 1l1 

~~ OI 00 (pp 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 Onl ~ 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 l p a U 

~ 004U ~ f0 W m p m OImV 

p 

~ a0 Y~ N ~ ~~OtO N m 

.-.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 ~ 

FLY 

F 

~ 

Ol 

' 

~ 

~ 

p p p 

N ~ ~~ p lN~ 1 O O ~ N W Y dl O O O N aD Y W O C 0 r ,_.m ooc~~~ ~n~~ o0 ou~ n 

_ 

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 o N O 

~ O~ N~~ N~ O 0 O O n Y INf 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 

0 N~ ~ nI fl~ (WV ~~ N 

~ ~~~ O O O N~ Ol ~~~ C O O C~' ~ ~ Ol 

1 ~ F ~ C m ffi N N O

~ ~N O.- y~ p 8 

00 

O N pq 00 

nf0 

~' 1E(p~ ON N 

O =~ 00 G 00 G O ~ Ol Q OOND Wpp 

~ 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 CIN~I~ CW'1~0 1~ OnON n ~ IL 

E ~~ O O O O 

' 

7 ~ 

V 

O W m Y~: p N 17 4 D O O O~ W ~ 

~ ~ ' N Y 9 C 

~ 

V ~n~ a S 

0~01'II~NIN 

p_ 8 ~ ~f0 8 (pp 

OIn~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 ~ 

r Z 

- - w rn n n m 

~.x Qnr Q 

W ~ a 

a~ 

a~~ 

C 

G 

L ~ 

U ~ O _ __ O 

N m m t~°. N r ~ f0 ~ Oo C 

.- 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 ~ tQ0 m N ` ~ N ~fO° 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 ~ O ~~ o t~i ~ 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 

~. ¢LL OO Q Q v1 ~ i° 

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 ~t1°~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' Q3om 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 ~ r a~~ E a K o a m 

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~ mtqtz0 a 2NtAdJ m ~ W 2x— 

~ 

c— a 10 w 

N a a E ~ m w m o 0 0 ~~~~~~~ L~{~~~ 7 E~ 

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 Aug 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 ~ 

.. ~ ~k~y ,.

"`. 

~'d ~$ 

.,s ; 

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

4 9 § B .x ~5 . am€>z~~ 

~w~i~.x.'eru::. 

~ .. : 

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 39 
5-LR 2000 3ns/01 

Processing of Solids Captured in Vacuum Filters and Chairside Traps 

—___- -- 

__ 

- Durr Centrifuge Time Period 

_ 8aseline Monitoring __ 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 PAGE 
4 

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 qm[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 ag ~p'.a. ~&~B ~~ ~ K w 4 8 C~y. q°y ~ ; ~ ,,e ~

3'aa 7 . E o ' ..'4' a sa ~.e ~ `~es 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 
6-LR METASYS ECO II (continued) 3/6/01 

~ • ~i ~ : ~r ~ ~~ ~ • ~~ 

• •. -. . . 

~: ~ ~• ~: ~• ~ ~• ~ ~~ 

~~ :~~ ~~ r~ 

~~ 

c$ ~" 

~~~ 

iv3~'y.j 

~~~ 

..YP ~('9p ~ ~ aha ~ v .S°'F )Y3A 

~~~ 

vh i .. ~".~~~ 

,~'~'[. ~ ._ 

~ } ~ ~ 

~F+~YR'i F E 5 

=Yn~PC.4n ~ 

~ ' ~ 

N~ F:.~~ ~~\ 

w+ AaT

~ 

\tl ~ 

a° 8;.$ . 

y~~ ~ ~ 

• u~ ~~i 64 • I\.O. 

1 

i 

0 

~, ~ N ~'`~:"Z 

~ ' 

iv~# ~i 

~ 

~ .'. ~. ~.,.{ .S° s0 v,f . @ ::.. 

.~.: o i 

~F~~! 

e'` P ~ c`i ~z~e§ . 4Y4~~ :`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 __ _ 

Rebeo-SW pH Metasys-W2 

1.12 

6.8 

• . ~ •.~ rrr . . ~ • . . 

..,. 

. • ~ . - ~~ r • r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r~ 

~ . • ~ 

~•~r ~r r~ rr 

•.- . ~ . ~. ~ 

'~ JB'".v 2 iS '! ~ 3 .~ ~Y 

~~ ~~ ~ ~~~~ n 

~ ~~~~i 

~ ii ~ ~a~ {~it ;-~y~ 

R' 

9 ly.. l~' . ~rc 

3%~ 

~ ~,~.~`~` T " ~ ~ ~( ; v x 

_ .g 

✓-' ~` `~` ~" Vva~ 

essti 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 Y3 L~'~ 2 

1: 

~.~~ I Lk 

e~ 1 

~$ 

e .9 

~ :'~4.4b ~ 

i 

Se 9~ , ti~~5a.~aE~ ~ 

~a 

~~.~.. Z.; . ; ..F.:•~5 £ ~ r~S o4 r >:~@td$,EyB 

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 Processing 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~. atend 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 decanting 

process, 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 

~~. aw;. ~ . 

.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: 

0 
x:. 

~~~~'~~~~ '~~ 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~^53 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 ~. ~ ~ ~ 

~ ~.: 

~ ~ ~ ~. „~~~ 44 S L'F 4~ '°Y~S~~fT . 

'h / .!Y~ -J~4 SY 

g' wsc .~+ k^~`'^.y "'S- ~=Ei~ 

h Y ~~ v~°^ 1~ '"~,' ~ .. 

~

e~ `} ~ ~..TP~1~.v~~ ~~'~ y ~~ v- .,'i -~W ✓~.,+'~~~Y " 

5 ' ~ ~ ', `t" ~ Y `x 2 ~~ xy,^•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-'~fY9y5"~~` 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