United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
d-h
Water
Office of Water
Regulations and Standards
Washington, DC 20460
Juria, 1985
-------
PREFACE
This document is one of a series of preliminary assessments dealing
with chemicals of potential concern in municipal sewage sludge. The
purpose of these documents is to: (a) summarize the available data for
the constituents of potential concern, (b) identify the key environ-
mental pathways for each constituent related to a reuse and'disposal
option (based on hazard indices), and (c) evaluate the conditions under
^which such a pollutant may pose a hazard. Each document provides a sci-
entific basis for making an initial determination of whether a pollu-
tant, at levels currently observed in sludges, poses a likely hazard to
human health or the environment when sludge is disposed of by any of
several methods. These methods include landspreading on food chain or
nonfood chain crops, distribution and marketing programs, landfilling,
incineration and ocean disposal.
These documents are intended to serve as a rapid screening tool to
narrow an initial list of pollutants to those of concern. If a signifi-
cant hazard is indicated by this preliminary analysis, a more detailed
assessment will be undertaken to better quantify the risk from this
chemical and to derive criteria if warranted. If a hazard is shown to
be unlikely, no further assessment will be conducted at this time; how-
ever, a reassessment will be conducted after initial regulations are
finalized. In no case, however, will criteria be derived solely on the
basis of information presented in this document.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
PREFACE i
1. INTRODUCTION 1-1
2. PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS FOR TRICRESYL PHOSPHATE IN
MUNICIPAL SEWAGE SLUDGE 2-1
Landspreading and Distribution-and-Marketing 2-1
Landfilling 2-1
Incineration 2-2
Ocean Disposal 2-2
3. PRELIMINARY HAZARD INDICES FOR TRICRESYL PHOSPHATE IN
MUNICIPAL SEWAGE SLUDGE 3-1
Landspreading and Distribution-and-Marketing 3-1
Effect on soil concentration of tricresyl phosphate
(Index 1) 3-1
Effect on soil biota and predators of soil biota
(Indices 2-3) 3-3
Effect on plants and plant tissue
concentration (Indices 4-6) 3-4
Effect on herbivorous animals (Indices 7-8) 3-6
Effect on humans (Indices 9-13) 3-8
Landf illing 3-13
Incineration 3-13
Ocean Disposal 3-14
4. PRELIMINARY DATA PROFILE FOR TRICRESYL PHOSPHATE IN
MUNICIPAL SEWAGE SLUDGE 4-1
Occurrence 4-1
Sludge 4-1
Soil - Unpolluted 4-1
Water - Unpolluted 4-1
Air 4-2
Food 4-2
11
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued)
Page
Human Effects 4-2
Ingestion 4-2
Inhalation 4-2
Plant Effects 4-3
Domestic Animal and Wildlife Effects 4-3
Toxicity 4-3
Uptake 4-3
Aquatic Life Effects 4-3
Soil Biota Effects 4-3
Physicochemical Data for Estimating Fate and Transport 4-3
5. REFERENCES 5-1
APPENDIX. PRELIMINARY HAZARD INDEX CALCULATIONS FOR
TRICRESYL PHOSPHATE IN MUNICIPAL SEWAGE SLUDGE A-l
ill
-------
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
This preliminary data profile is one of a series of profiles
dealing with chemical pollutants potentially of concern in municipal
sewage sludges. Tricresyl phosphate (TCP) was initially identified as
being of potential concern when sludge is landspread (including
distribution and marketing).* This profile is a compilation of
information that may be useful in determining whether TCP poses an
actual hazard to human health or the environment when sludge is disposed
of by this method.
The focus of this document is the calculation of "preliminary
hazard indices" for selected potential exposure pathways, as shown in
Section 3. Each index illustrates the hazard that could result from
movement of a pollutant by a given pathway to cause a given effect
(e.g., sludge •*• soil •*• plant uptake •* animal uptake •* human toxicity).
The values and assumptions employed in these calculations tend to repre-
sent a reasonable "worst case"; analysis of error or uncertainty has
been conducted to a limited degree. The resulting value in most cases
is indexed to unity; i.e., values >1 may indicate a potential hazard,
depending upon the assumptions of the calculation.
The data used for index calculation have been selected or estimated
based on information presented in the "preliminary data profile",
Section 4. Information in the profile is based on a compilation of the
recent literature. An attempt has been made to fill out the profile
outline to the greatest extent possible. However, since this is a pre-
liminary analysis, the literature has not been exhaustively perused.
The "preliminary conclusions" drawn from each index in Section 3
are summarized in Section 2. The preliminary hazard indices will be
used as a screening tool to determine which pollutants and pathways may
pose a hazard. Where a potential hazard is indicated by interpretation
of these indices, further analysis will include a more detailed exami-
nation of potential risks as well as an examination of site-specific
factors. These more rigorous evaluations may change the preliminary
conclusions presented in Section 2, which are based on a reasonable
"worst case" analysis.
The preliminary hazard indices for selected exposure routes
pertinent to landspreading and distribution and marketing are included
in this profile. The calculation formulae for these indices are shown
in the Appendix. The indices are rounded to two significant figures.
* Listing was determined by a series of expert workshops convened during
March-May, 1984 by the Office of Water Regulations and Standards
(OWRS) to discuss landspreading, landfilling, incineration, and ocean
disposal, respectively, of municipal sewage sludge.
1-1
-------
SECTION 2
PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS FOR TRICRESYL PHOSPHATE IN
MUNICIPAL .SEWAGE SLUDGE
The following preliminary conclusions have been derived from the
calculation of "preliminary hazard indices", which represent conserva-
tive or "worst case" analyses of hazard. The indices and their basis
and interpretation are explained in Section 3. Their calculation
formulae are shown in the Appendix.
I. LANDSPREADING AND DISTRIBUTION-AND-MARKETING
A. Effect on Soil Concentration of Tricresyl Phosphate
Assuming a soil background concentration of 0 Ug/g DW, the
concentration of TCP in sludge-amended soil may be expected to
increase. The greatest increases in the TCP concentration are
indicated by the index values obtained when the worst-case
concentration in sludge is assumed (2 orders of magnitude
greater than the values obtained for the typical sludge
concentration) (see Index 1).
B. Effect on Soil Biota or Predators of Soil Biota
Conclusions were not drawn because index values could not be
calculated.
C. Effect on Plants and Plant Tissue Concentration
Conclusions were not drawn because index values could not be
calculated.
D. Effect on Herbivorous Animals
Conclusions were not drawn because index values could not be
calculated.
E. Effect on Humans
Conclusions were not drawn because index values could not be
calculated.
II. LANDPILLING
Based on the recommendations of the experts at the OWRS meetings
(April-May, 1984), an assessment of this reuse/disposal option is
not being conducted at this time. The U.S. EPA reserves the right
to conduct such an assessment for this option in the future.
2-1
-------
III. INCINERATION
Based on the recommendations -of the experts at the OWRS meetings
(April-May, 1984), an assessment of this reuse/disposal option is
not being conducted at this time. The U.S. EPA reserves the right
to conduct such an assessment for this option in the future.
IV. OCEAN DISPOSAL
Based on the recommendations of the experts at the OWRS meetings
(April-May, 1984), an assessment of this reuse/disposal option is
not being conducted at this time. The U.S. EPA reserves the right
to conduct such an assessment for this option in the future.
2-2
-------
SECTION 3
PRELIMINARY HAZARD INDICES FOR TRICRESYL PHOSPHATE
IN MUNICIPAL SEWAGE SLUDGE
I. LANDSPREADING AND DISTRIBUTION-AND-MARKET.ING
A. Effect on Soil Concentration of Tricresyl Phosphate
1. Index of Soil Concentration (index 1)
a. Explanation - Calculates concentrations in Ug/g DW
of pollutant in sludge-amended soil. Calculated for
sludges with typical (median, if available) and
worst (95 percentile, if available) pollutant
concentrations, respectively, for each of four
applications. Loadings (as dry matter) are chosen
and explained as follows:
0 mt/ha No sludge applied. Shown for all indices
for purposes of comparison, to distin-
guish hazard posed by sludge from pre-
existing hazard posed by background
levels or other sources of the pollutant.
5 mt/ha Sustainable yearly agronomic application;
i.e., loading typical of agricultural
practice, supplying ^50 kg available
nitrogen per hectare.
50 mt/ha Higher single -application as may be used
on public lands, reclaimed areas or home
gardens.
500 mt/ha Cumulative loading after 100 years of
application at 5 mt/ha/year.
b. Assumptions/Limitations - Assumes pollutant is
incorporated into the upper 15 cm of soil (i.e., the
plow layer), which has an approximate mass (dry
matter) of 2 x 10^ mt/ha and is then dissipated
through first order processes which can be expressed
as a soil half-life.
c. Data Used and Rationale
i. Sludge concentration of pollutant (SC)
Typical 6.85 Ug/g DW
Worst 1650 ug/g DW
The typical and worst sludge concentrations are
the median and maximum concentrations reported
3-1
-------
for TCP sludges containing detectable
concentrations from publicly-owned treatment
works in Michigan (Jacobs and Zabik, 1983).
(See Section 4, p. 4-1.)
ii. Background concentration of pollutant in soil
(BS) = 0 Ug/g DW
Data were not immediately available concerning
background concentration of TCP in soil. For
the purpose of calculating Index 1, the
background concentration of TCP in soil is
assumed to be 0 Ug/g DW.
iii. Soil half-life of pollutant (t£) = 82 years
Under conditions of neutral pH, the half-life
of TCP is reported to be -r82 years (Brown et
al., 1975). The persistence of TCP in soils of
neutral pH appears to be related to the
relative absence of available OH groups to
which TCP is reactive. At conditions of
elevated pH (10), the half-life of TCP is
reported to be 30 days (Brown et al . , 1975).
(See Section 4, p. 4-3.)
Index 1 Values (yg/g DW)
Sludge Application Rate (mt/ha)
Sludge
Concentration 0 5 50 500
Typical
Worst
0.0
0.0
0.017
4.1
0.17
40
1.2
280
e. Value Interpretation - Value equals the expected
concentration in sludge-amended soil.
f. Preliminary Conclusion - Assuming a soil background
concentration of 0 Ug/g DW, the concentration of TCP
in sludge-amended soil may be expected to increase.
The greatest increases in the TCP concentration are
indicated by the index values obtained when the
worst-case concentration in sludge is assumed (2
orders of magnitude greater than the values obtained
for the typical sludge concentration).
3-2
-------
B. Effect on Soil Biota and Predators of Soil Biota
1. Index of Soil Biota Toxicity (Index 2)
a. Explanation - Compares pollutant concentrations in
sludge-amended soil with soil concentration shown to
be toxic for some soil organism.
b. As sumptions/Limitations - Assumes pollutant form in
sludge-amended soil is equally bioavailable and
toxic as form used in study where toxic effects were
demonstrated.
c. Data Used and Rationale
i. Concentration of pollutant in sludge-amended
soil (Index 1)
See Section 3, p. 3-2.
ii. Soil concentration toxic to soil biota (TB) -
Data not immediately available.
d. Index 2 Values - Values were not calculated due to
lack, of data.
e. Value Interpretation - Value equals factor by which
expected soil concentration exceeds toxic concentra-
tion. Value > 1 indicates a toxic hazard may exist
for soil biota.
f. Preliminary Conclusion - Conclusion was not drawn
because index values could not be calculated.
2. Index of Soil Biota Predator Toxicity (Index 3)
a. Explanation - Compares pollutant concentrations
expected in tissues of organisms inhabiting sludge-
amended soil with food concentration shown to be
toxic to a predator on soil organisms.
b. Assumptions/Limitations - Assumes pollutant form
bioconcentrated by soil biota is equivalent in
toxicity to form used to demonstrate toxic effects
in predator. Effect level in predator may be
estimated from that in a different species.
c. Data Used and Rationale
i. Concentration of pollutant in sludge-amended
soil (Index 1)
See Section 3, p. 3-2.
3-3
-------
ii. Uptake factor of pollutant in soil biota (UB) -
Data not immediately available.
iii. Peed concentration toxic to predator
(TR) - Data not immediately available.
d. Index 3 Values - Values were not calculated due to
lack of data.
e. Value Interpretation - Values equals factor by which
expected concentration in soil biota exceeds that
which is toxic to predator. Value > 1 indicates a
toxic hazard may exist for predators of soil biota.
f. Preliminary Conclusion - Conclusion was not drawn
because index values could not be calculated.
C. Effect on Plants and Plant Tissue Concentration
1. Index of Phytotoxic Soil Concentration (Index 4)
a. Explanation - Compares pollutant concentrations in
sludge-amended soil with the ' lowest soil
concentration shown to be toxic for some plants.
b. Assumptions/Limitations - Assumes pollutant form in
sludge-amended soil is equally bioavailable and
toxic as form used in study where toxic effects were
demons t rated .-
c. Data Used and Rationale
i. Concentration of pollutant in sludge-amended
soil (Index 1)
See- Section 3, p. 3-2.
ii. Soil concentration toxic to plants (TP) - Data
not immediately available.
d. Index 4 Values - Values were not calculated due to
lack of data.
e. Value Interpretation - Value equals factor by which
soil concentration exceeds phytotoxic concentration.
Value > 1 indicates a phytotoxic hazard may exist.
f. Preliminary Conclusion - Conclusion was not drawn
because index values could not be calculated.
2. Index of Plant Concentration Caused by Uptake (Index 5)
a. Explanation - Calculates expected tissue
concentrations, in Ug/g DW, in plants grown in
3-4
-------
sludge-amended soil, using uptake data for the most
responsive plant species in the following
categories: (1) plants included in the U.S. human
diet; and (2) plants serving as animal feed. Plants
used vary according to availability of data.
b. Assumptions/Limitations - Assumes an uptake factor
that is constant over all soil concentrations. The
uptake factor chosen for the human diet is assumed
to be representative of all crops (except fruits) in
the human diet. The uptake factor chosen for the
animal diet is assumed to be representative of all
crops in the animal diet. See also Index 6 for
consideration of phytotoxicity.
c. Data Used and Rationale
i. Concentration of pollutant in sludge-amended
soil (Index 1)
See Section 3, p. 3-2.
ii. Uptake factor of pollutant in plant tissue
(UP) - Data not immediately available.
d. Index 5 Values - Values were not calculated due to
lack of data.
e. Value Interpretation - Value equals the expected
concentration in tissues of plants grown in sludge-
amended soil. However, any value exceeding the
value of Index 6 for the same or a similar plant
species may be unrealistically high because it would
be precluded by phytoxicity.
f. Preliminary Conclusion - Conclusion was not drawn
because index values could not be calculated.
3. Index of Plant Concentration Permitted by Phytotoxicity
(Index 6) .i
a. Explanation - The index value is the maximum tissue
concentration, in Ug/g DW, associated with
phytotoxicity in the same or similar plant species
used in Index 5. The purpose is to determine
whether the plant tissue concentrations determined
in Index 5 for high applications are realistic, or
whether such concentrations would be precluded by
phytotoxicity. The maximum concentration should be
the highest at which some plant growth still occurs
(and thus consumption of tissue by animals is
possible) but above which consumption by animals is
unlikely.
3-5
-------
b. Assumptions/Limitations - Assumes that tissue
concentration will be a consistent indicator of
phytotoxicity.
c. Data Used and Rationale
i. Maximum plant tissue concentration associated
with phytoxicity (PP) - Data not immediately
available.
d. Index 6 Values - Values were not calculated due to
lack of data.
e. Value Interpretation - Value equals the maximum
plant tissue concentration which is permitted by
phytotoxicity. Value is compared with values for
the same or similar plant species given by Index 5.
The lowest of the two indices indicates the maximal
increase that can occur at any given application
rate.
f. Preliminary Conclusion - Conclusion was not drawn
because index values could not be calculated.
D. Effect on Herbivorous Animals
1. Index of Animal Toxicity Resulting from Plant Consumption
(Index 7)
a. Explanation - Compares pollutant concentrations
expected in plant tissues grown in sludge-amended
soil with feed concentration shown to be toxic to
wild or domestic herbivorous animals. Does not con-
sider direct contamination of forage by adhering
sludge.
b. Assumptions/Limitations - Assumes pollutant form
taken up by plants is equivalent in toxicity to form
used to demonstrate toxic effects in animal. Uptake
or toxicity in specific plants or animals may be
estimated from other species.
c. Data Used and Rationale
i. Concentration of pollutant in plant grown in
sludge-amended soil (Index 5) - Values were not
calculated due to lack of data (see Section 3,
p. 3-5).
ii. Feed concentration toxic to herbivorous animal
(TA) - Data not immediately available.
d. Index 7 Values - Values were not calculated due to
lack of data.
3-6
-------
e. Value Interpretation - Value equals factor by which
expected plant tissue concentration exceeds that
which is toxic to animals. Value > 1 indicates a
toxic hazard may exist for herbivorous animals.
f. Preliminary Conclusion - Conclusion was not drawn
because index values could not be calculated.
2. Index of Animal Toxicity Resulting from Sludge Ingestion
(Index 8)
a. Explanation - Calculates the amount of pollutant in
a grazing animal's diet resulting from sludge
adhesion to forage or from incidental ingestion of
sludge-amended soil and compares this with the
dietary toxic threshold concentration for a grazing
animal.
b. Assumptions/Limitations - Assumes that sludge is
applied over and adheres to growing forage, or that
sludge constitutes 5 percent of dry matter in the
grazing animal's diet, and that pollutant form in
sludge is equally bioavailable and toxic as form
used to demonstrate toxic effects. Where no sludge
is applied (i.e., 0 mt/ha), assumes diet is 5 per-
cent soil as a basis for comparison.
c. Data Used and Rationale
i. Sludge concentration of pollutant (SC)
Typical 6.85 Ug/g DW
Worst 1650 yg/g DW
See Section 3, p. 3-1.
ii. Fraction of animal diet assumed to be soil (GS)
= 5%
Studies of sludge adhesion to growing forage
following applications of liquid or filter-cake
sludge show that when 3 to 6 mt/ha of sludge
solids is applied, clipped forage initially
consists of up to 30 percent sludge on a dry-
weight basis (Chaney and Lloyd, 1979; Boswell,
1975). However, this contamination diminishes
gradually with time and growth, and generally
is not detected in the following year's growth.
For example, where pastures amended at 16 and
32 mt/ha were grazed throughout a growing sea-
son (168 days), average sludge content of for-
age was only 2.14 and 4.75 percent,
respectively (Bertrand et al., 1981). It seems
reasonable to assume that animals may receive
3-7
-------
long-term dietary exposure to 5 percent sludge
if maintained on a forage to which sludge is
regularly applied. This estimate of 5 percent
sludge is used regardless of application rate,
since the above studies did not show a clear
relationship between application rate and ini-
tial contamination, and since adhesion is not
cumulative yearly because of die-back.
Studies of grazing animals indicate that soil
ingestion, ordinarily <10 percent of dry weight
of diet, may reach as high as 20 percent for
cattle and 30 percent for sheep during winter
months when forage is reduced (Thornton and
Abrams, 1983). If the soil were sludge-
amended, it is conceivable that up to 5 percent
sludge may be ingested in this manner as well.
Therefore, this value accounts for either of
these scenarios, whether forage is harvested or
grazed in the field.
iii. Peed concentration toxic to herbivorous animal
(TA) - Data not immediately available.
Index 8 Values - Values were not calculated due to
lack of data.
Value Interpretation - Value equals factor by which
expected, dietary concentration exceeds toxic concen-
tration. Value > 1 indicates a toxic hazard may
exist for grazing animals.
Preliminary Conclusion - Conclusion was not drawn
because index values could not be calculated.
E. Effect on Humans
Index of Human Toxicity Resulting from Plant Consumption
(Index 9)
a. Explanation - Calculates dietary intake expected to
result from consumption of crops grown on sludge-
amended soil. Compares dietary intake with the
acceptable daily intake (ADI) of the pollutant.
b. Assumptions/Limitations - Assumes that all crops are
grown on sludge-amended soil and that all those con-
sidered to be affected take up the pollutant at the
same rate. Divides possible variations in dietary
intake into two categories:, toddlers (18 months to
3 years) and individuals over 3 years old.
3-8
-------
c. Data Used and Rationale
i. Concentration of pollutant in plant grown in
sludge-amended soil (Index 5} - Values were not
calculated due to lack of data (see Section 3,
p. 3-5).
ii. Daily human dietary intake of affected plant
tissue (DT)
Toddler 74.5 g/day
Adult 205 g/day
The intake value for adults is based on daily
intake of crop foods (excluding fruit) by
vegetarians (Ryan et al., 1982); vegetarians
were chosen to represent the worst case. The
value for toddlers is based on the FDA Revised
Total Diet (Pennington, 1983) and food
groupings listed by the U.S. EPA (1984). Dry
weights for individual food groups were
estimated from composition data given by the
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) (1975).
These values were composited to estimate dry-
weight consumption of all non-fruit crops.
iii. Average daily human dietary intake of pollutant
(DI) - Data not immediately available.
iv. Acceptable daily intake of pollutant (ADI) -
Data not immediately available.
d. Index 9 Values - Values were not calculated due to
Lack of data.
e. Value Interpretation - Value equals factor by which
expected intake exceeds ADI. Value > 1 indicates a
possible human health threat. Comparison with the
null index value at 0 mt/ha indicates the degree to
which any hazard is due to sludge application, as
opposed to pre-existing dietary sources..
f. Preliminary Conclusion - Conclusion was not drawn
because index values could not be calculated.
2. Index of Human Toxicity Resulting from Consumption of
Animal Products Derived from Animals Feeding on Plants
(Index 10)
a. Explanation - Calculates human dietary intake
expected to result from pollutant uptake by domestic
animals given feed grown on sludge-amended soil
(crop or pasture land) but not directly contaminated
by adhering sludge. Compares expected intake with
ADI.
3-9
-------
b. Assumptions/Limitations - Assumes that all animal
products are from animals receiving all their feed
from sludge-amended soil. Assumes that all animal
products consumed take up the pollutant at the
highest rate observed for muscle of any commonly
consumed species or at the rate observed for beef
liver or dairy products (whichever is higher).
Divides possible variations in dietary intake into
two categories: toddlers (18 months to 3 years) and
individuals over 3 years old.
c. Data Used and Rationale
i. Concentration of pollutant in plant grown in
sludge-amended soil (Index 5) - Values were not
calculated due to lack of data (see Section 3,
p. 3-5).
ii. Uptake factor of pollutant in animal tissue
(UA) - Data not immediately available.
iii. Daily human dietary intake of affected animal
tissue (DA)
Toddler 43.7 g/day
Adult 88.5 g/day
The fat intake values presented, which comprise
meat, fish, poultry, eggs and milk products,
are derived from the FDA Revised Total Diet
(Pennington, 1983), food groupings listed by
the U.S. EPA (198A) and food composition data
given by USDA (1975). Adult intake of meats is
based on males 25 to 30 years of age and that
for milk products on males 14 to 16 years of
age# the age-sex groups with the highest daily
intake. Toddler intake of milk products is
actually based on infants, since infant milk
consumption is the highest among that age group
(Pennington, 1983).
iv. Average daily human dietary intake of pollutant
(DI) - Data not immediately available.
v. Acceptable daily intake of pollutant (ADI) -
Data not immediately available.
d. Index 10 Values - Values were not calculated due to
lack of data.
e. Value Interpretation - Same as for Index 9.
f. Preliminary Conclusion - Conclusion was not drawn
because index values could not be calculated.
3-10
-------
3. Index of Human Toxicity Resulting from Consumption of
Animal Products Derived from Animals Ingesting Soil
(Index 11)
a. Explanation - Calculates human dietary intake
expected to result from consumption of animal
products derived from grazing animals- incidentally
ingesting sludge-amended soil. Compares expected
intake with ADI.
b. Assumptions/Limitations - Assumes that all animal
products are from animals grazing sludge-amended
soil, and that all animal products consumed take up
the pollutant at the highest rate observed for
muscle of any commonly consumed species or at the
rate observed for beef liver or dairy products
(whichever is higher). Divides possible variations
in dietary intake into two categories: toddlers
(18 months to 3 years) and individuals over 3 years
old.
c. Data Used and Rationale
i. Animal tissue - Data not immediately available.
ii. Sludge concentration of pollutant (SC)
Typical 6.85 yg/g DW
Worst 1650 yg/g DW
See Section 3, p. 3-1.
iii. Background concentration of pollutant in soil
(BS) = 0 Ug/g DW
See.Section 3, p. 3-2.
iv. Fraction of animal diet assumed to be soil (GS)
= 5%
See Section 3, p. 3-7.
v. Uptake factor of pollutant in animal tissue
(UA) - Data not immediately available.
vi. Daily human dietary intake of affected animal
tissue (DA)
Toddler 39.4 g/day
Adult 82.4 g/day
The affected tissue intake value is assumed to
be from the fat component of meat only (beef,
pork, lamb, veal) and milk products
3-11
-------
(Pennington, 1983). This is a slightly more
limited choice than for Index 10. Adult intake
of meats is based on males 25 to 30 years of
age and the intake for milk products on males
14 to 16 years of age, the age-sex groups with
the highest daily intake. Toddler intake of
milk products is actually based on infants,
since infant milk consumption is the highest
among that age group (Pennington, 1983).
vii. Average daily human dietary intake of pollutant
(DI) - Data not immediately available.
viii. Acceptable daily intake of pollutant (ADI) -
Data not immediately available.
d. Index 11 Values - Values were not calculated due to
lack of data.
e. Value Interpretation - Same as for Index 9.
f. Preliminary Conclusion - Conclusion was not drawn
because index values could not be calculated.
4. Index of Human Toxicity from Soil Ingestion (Index 12)
a. Explanation - Calculates the amount of pollutant in
the diet of a child who ingests soil (pica child)
amended with sludge. Compares this amount with ADI.
b. Assumptions/Limitations - Assumes that the pica
child consumes an average of 5 g/day of sludge-
amended soil. If an ADI specific for a child is not
available, this index assumes the ADI for a 10 kg
child is the same as that for a 70 kg adult. It is
thus assumed that uncertainty factors used in
deriving the ADI provide protection for the child,
taking into account the smaller body size and any
other differences in sensitivity.
c. Data Used and Rationale
•
i. Concentration of pollutant in sludge-amended
soil (Index 1)
See Section 3, p. 3-2.
ii. Assumed amount of soil in human diet (DS)
Pica child 5 g/day
Adult 0.02 g/day
The value of 5 g/day for a pica child is a
worst-case estimate employed by U.S. EPA's
3-12
-------
Exposure Assessment Group (U.S. EPA, 1983).
The value of 0.02 g/day for an adult is an
estimate from U.S. EPA, 1984.
iii. Average daily human dietary intake of pollutant
(DI) - Data not immediately available.
iv. Acceptable daily intake of pollutant (ADI) -
Data not immediately available.
d. Index 12 Values - Values were not calculated due to
lack of data.
e. Value Interpretation - Same as for Index 9.
f. Preliminary Conclusion - Conclusion was not drawn
because index values could not be calculated.
5. Index of Aggregate Human Toxicity (index 13)
a. Explanation - Calculates the aggregate amount of
pollutant in the human diet resulting from pathways
described in Indices 9 to 12. Compares this amount
with ADI.
b. Assumptions/Limitations - As described for Indices 9
to 12.
c. Data Used and Rationale - As described for Indices 9
to 12.
d. Index 13 Values - Values were not calculated due to
lack of data.
e. Value Interpretation - Same as for Index 9.
f. Preliminary Conclusion - Conclusion was not drawn
because index values could not be calculated.
II. LANDFILLING
Based on the recommendations of the experts at the OWRS meetings
(April-May, 1984), an assessment of this reuse/disposal option is
not being conducted at this time. The U.S. EPA reserves the right
to conduct such an assessment for this option in the future.
III. INCINERATION
Based on the recommendations of the experts at the OWRS .meetings
(April-May, 1984), an assessment of this reuse/disposal option is
not being conducted at this time. The U.S. EPA reserves the right
to conduct such an assessment for this option in the future.
3-13
-------
IV. OCEAN DISPOSAL
Based on the recommendations of the experts at the OWRS meetings
(April-May, 1984), an assessment of this reuse/disposal option is
not being conducted at this time. The U.S. EPA reserves the right
to conduct such an assessment for this option in the future.
3-14
-------
SECTION 4
PRELIMINARY DATA PROFILE FOR TRICRESYL PHOSPHATE
IN MUNICIPAL SEWAGE SLUDGE
I. OCCURRENCE
A. Sludge
1. Frequency of Detection
Found in 162 of 235 sludges from
more than 200 Michigan POTWs
(69%)
2. Concentration
0.069 Ug/g DW
Minimum:
Median of all
detected values: 6.85 Ug/g DW
. Mean: 39.9 Ug/g DW
Maximum 1650 Ug/g DW
B. Soil - Unpolluted
Data not immediately available.
C. Water - Unpolluted
1. Frequency of Detection
Data not immediately available.
2. Concentration
a. Freshwater
Data not immediately available.
b. Seawater
Data not immediately available.
c. Drinking water
Survey of 29 Canadian
municipalities:
Frequency of detection - 23%
Range 0.7 to 4.3
Jacobs and
Zabik., 1983
(p. 425)
Jacobs and
Zabik., 1983
(p. 425)
Williams and
LeBel, 1981 .
(pp. 452-454)
4-1
-------
D. Air
Data not immediately available.
E. Pood
Data not immediately avaialble.
II. HUMAN EFFECTS
A. Ingestion
1. Carcinogenicity
Data not immediately available.
2. "Chronic Toxicity
a. ADI
Data not immediately available.
b. Effects
Lowest lethal dose observed for
humans by oral ingestion =
1.0 g/kg
Ingestion of 6 to 7 mg/kg TCP
has resulted in severe delayed
paralysis presumably resulting
from demyelination of nerve cells.
3. Absorption Factor
Data not immediately available.
4. Existing Regulations
Data not immediately available.
B. Inhalation
1. Carcinogenicity
Data not immediately available.
2. Chronic Toxicity
a. Inhalation Threshold or MPIH
See below, "Existing Regulations."
NIOSH/OSHA,
1978 (p. 2)
NIOSH/OSHA,
1978 (p. 1)
4-2
-------
2. Chronic Toxicity
a. Inhalation Threshold or MPIH
See below, "Existing Regulations."
b. Effects
Data not immediately available.
3. Absorption Factor
Data not immediately available.
4. Existing Regulations
" OSHA Standard 100 ug TCP/m3/day
(averaged over S hours)
III. PLANT EFFECTS
Data not immediately available.
IV. DOMESTIC ANIMAL AND WILDLIFE EFFECTS
A. Toxicity
LC5Q 1 mg/kg subcutaneous (rat)
LC5Q 1900 to 2000 yg/kg oral (mouse)
LC5Q 12.1 g/kg oral (rat)
Tolerated dose 0 to 200 Ug/kg oral (cat)
NIOSH/OSHA,
1978 (p. 1)
Brown et al. ,
1975 (p. 138)
B. Uptake
Data not immediately available.
V. AQUATIC LIFE EFFECTS
*
Data not immediately available.
VI. SOIL BIOTA EFFECTS
«
Data not immediately available.
VII. PHYSICOCHEMICAL DATA FOR ESTIMATING PATE AND TRANSPORT
Uodgman et al.,
Formula:
Molecular wt,
Melting pt.:
Boiling pt.:
Solubility
water:
alcohol:
ether:
(CH3C6H4)3 P04
368.36 1960
77-78°C
410°C
insoluble
very soluble
very soluble
Soil half-life: 82 years
4-3
Brown et al.,
1975 (p. 139)
-------
SECTION 5
REFERENCES
Bertrand, J. E., M. C. Lutrick, G. T. Edds and R. L. West. 1981. Metal
Residue in Tissues, Animal Performance and Carcass Quality with
Beef Steers Grazing Pensacola Bahiagrass Pastures Treated with
Liquid Digested Sludge. J. Ani. Sci. 53:1.
Boswell, F. C. 1975. Municipal Sewage Sludge and Selected Element
Applications to Soil: Effect on Soil and Fescue. J. Environ.
Qual. 4(2):267-273.
Brown, S. L., F. Y. Chan, and J. L. Jones, et al. 1975. Research
Program on Hazard Priority Ranking of Manufactured Chemicals, Phase
II. National Science Foundation, Washington, D.C. PB-263-162,
NTIS.
Chaney, R. L., and C. A. Lloyd. 1979. Adherence of Spray-Applied
Liquid Digested Sewage Sludge to Tall Fescue. J. Environ. Qual.
8(3): 407-411.
Hodgman, C. D., R. C. Weast, and S. M. Selby (eds.). 1960. Handbook of
Chemistry and Physics, 42nd ed. Chemical Rubber Publishing Co.,
Cleveland, OH. 3481 pp.
Jacobs, L. W., and M. J. Zabik. 1983. The Importance of Sludge-Borne
Organic Chemicals for Land Application Programs. Proc. 6th Ann.
Madison Conf. of Applied Research and Practice on Municipal and
Industrial Waste, Madison, WI. September.
Pennington, J. A. T. 1983. Revision of the Total Diet Study Food Lists
and Diets. J. Am. Diet. Assoc. 82:166-173.
Ryan, J. A., H. R. Pahren, and J. B. Lucas. 1982. Controlling Cadmium
in the Human Food Chain: A Review and Rationale Based on Health
Effects. Environ. Res. 28:251-302.
Thornton, I., and P. Abrams. 1983. Soil Ingestion - A Major Pathway of
Heavy Metal into Livestock Grazing Contaminated Land. Sci. Total
Environ. 28:287-294.
NIOSH/OSHA. 1978. Occupational Health Guidelines for Chemical Hazards.
U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1975. Composition of Foods.
Agricultural Handbook No. 8.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1983. Assessment of Human
Exposure to Arsenic: Tacoma, Washington. Internal Document.
OHEA-E-075-U. Office of Health and Environmental Assessment.
Washington, D.C. July 19.
5-1
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1984. Air Quality Criteria for
Lead. External Review Draft. EPA 600/8-83-028B. Environmental
Criteria and Assessment Office. Research Triangle Park, . NC.
September.
Williams, D. T., and G. L. LeBel. 1981. A National Survey of
Tri(haloalky)-, Trialkyl-, and Triarylphosphates in Canadian
Drinking Water. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 27:450-457.
5-2
-------
APPENDIX
PRELIMINARY HAZARD INDEX CALCULATIONS FOR TRICRESYL PHOSPHATE
IN MUNICIPAL SEWAGE SLUDGE
I. LANDSPREADING AND DISTRIBUTION-AND-MARKETING
A. Effect on Soil Concentration of Tricresyl Phosphate
1. Index of Soil Concentration (Index 1)
a. Formula
(SC x AR) + (BS x MS)
Cbs ~ AR + MS
CSr = CSS [1 + 0
where:
CSS = Soil concentration of pollutant after a
single year's application of sludge
(Ug/g DW)
CSr = Soil concentration of pollutant after the
yearly application of sludge has been
repeated for n + 1 years (ug/g- DW)
SC = Sludge concentration of pollutant (Ug/g DW)
AR = Sludge application rate (mt/ha)
MS = 2000 mt ha/DW = ass'umed mass of soil in
upper 15 cm .
BS = Background concentration of pollutant in
soil (Ug/g DW)
t^. = Soil half-life of pollutant (years)
n =99 years
b. Sample calculation
CSS is calculated for AR = 0, 5, and 50 mt/ha only
n m7 ,, / nu - (6.85 Ug/g DW x 5 mt/ha) + (0 Ug/g DW x 2000 mt/ha)
0.017 ug/g DW - (5 mt/ha DW + 2000 mt/ha DW)
CSr is calculated for AR = 5 mt/ha applied for 100 years
1.16 yg/g DW = 6.85 Ug/g DW [1 + 0.5(1/82) + 0.5(2/82) + ... +
0.5(99/82)]
A-l
-------
B. Effect on Soil Biota and Predators of Soil Biota
1. Index of Soil Biota Toxicity (Index 2)
a. Formula
. Il
Index 2 = —
where:
II = Index 1 = Concentration of pollutant in
sludge-amended soil (ug/g DW)
TB = Soil concentration toxic to soil biota
(Ug/g DW)
b. Sample calculation - Values were not calculated due to
lack, of data.
2. Index of Soil Biota Predator Toxicity (Index 3)
a. Formula
, II x UB
Index 3 = ——
where:
II = Index 1 = Concentration of pollutant in
sludge-amended soil (ug/g DW)
UB = Uptake factor of pollutant in soil biota
(yg/g tissue DW [Ug/g soil DW]'1)
TR = Feed concentration toxic to predator (ug/g
DW)
b. Sample calculation - Values were not calculated due to
lack of data.
C. Effect on Plants and Plant Tissue Concentration
1. Index of Phytotoxic Soil Concentration (Index 4)
a. Formula
Index 4 = —
A-2
-------
where:
T! = Index 1 = Concentration of pollutant in
sludge-amended soil (yg/g DW)
TP = Soil concentration toxic to plants (ug/g DW)
b. Sample calculation - Values were not calculated due to
lack of data.
2. Index of Plant Concentration Caused by Uptake (Index 5)
a. Formula
Index 5 = !]_ x UP
where:
1^ = Index 1 = Concentration of pollutant in
sludge - amended soil (ug/g DW)
UP = Uptake factor of pollutant in plant tissue
(Ug/g tissue DW [Ug/g soil DW]"1)
b. Sample Calculation - Values were not calculated due to
lack of data.
3. Index of Plant Concentration Increment Permitted by
Phytotoxicity (Index 6)
a. Formula
Index 6 = PP
where:
PP = Maximum plant tissue concentration associ-
ated with phytotoxicity (ug/g DW)
b. Sample calculation - Values were not calculated due to
lack of data.
D. Effect on Herbivorous Animals
1. Index of Animal Toxicity Resulting from Plant Consumption
(Index 7)
a. Formula
Index 7 =
where:
15 = Index 5 = Concentration of pollutant in
plant grown in sludge-amended soil (pg/g DW)
A-3
-------
TA = Feed concentration toxic to herbivorous
animal (ug/g DW)
b. Sample calculation. - Values were not calculated due to
lack of data.
2. Index of Animal Toxicity Resulting from Sludge Ingestion
(Index 8)
a. Formula
If AR = 0; Index 8=0
If AR * 0; Index 8 = SC *S
where:
AR = Sludge application rate (mt DW/ha)
SC = Sludge concentration of pollutant (ug/g DW)
GS = Fraction of animal diet assumed to be soil
TA = Feed concentration toxic to herbivorous
animal (ug/g DW)
b. Sample calculation - Values were not calculated due to
lack of data.
B. Effect on Humans
1. Index of Human Toxicity Resulting from Plant Consumption
(Index 9)
a. . Formula
(-I5 x DT) * DI
Index 9 = - — -
where:
-4
15 = Index 5 = Concentration of pollutant in
plant grown in sludge-amended soil (pg/g DW)
DT = Daily human dietary intake of affected plant
tissue (g/day DW)
DI = Average daily human dietary intake of
pollutant (ug/day)
ADI - Acceptable daily intake of pollutant
(Ug/day)
b. Sample calculation (toddler) - Values were not
calculated due to lack of data.
A-4
-------
2. Index of Human Tozicity/Cancer Risk Resulting from
Consumption of Animal Products Derived from Animals Feeding
on Plants (Index 10)
a. Formula
(Is x UA x DA) + DI
' IndeX 10 - ADI
where:
15 = Index 5 = Concentration of pollutant in
plant grown in sludge-amended soil (ug/g DW)
UA = Uptake factor of pollutant in animal tissue
(Ug/g tissue DW [ug/g feed OW]"1)
DA = Daily human dietary intake of affected
animal tissue (g/day DW) (milk products and
meat, poultry, eggs, fish)
DI = Average daily human dietary intake of
pollutant (ug/day)
ADI = Acceptable daily intake of pollutant
(Ug/day)
b. Sample calculation (toddler) - Values were not
calculated due to lack of data.
3. Index of Human Toxicity Resulting from Consumption of
Animal Products Derived from Animals Ingesting Soil (Index
11)
a. Formula
' ,- AD n. T A n (BS x GS x UA x DA) + DI
If AR = 0; Index 11 = rrrr
ADI
Tr AD J. n T j n (SC x GS x UA x DA) + DI
If AR r 0; Index 11 =
where:
AR = Sludge application rate (mt DW/ha)
SC = Sludge concentration of pollutant (ug/g DW)
BS = Background concentration of pollutant in
soil (ug/g DW)
GS = Fraction of animal diet assumed to be soil
UA = Uptake factor of pollutant in animal tissue
(Ug/g tissue DW [ug/g feed DW]~1)
DA = Daily human dietary intake of affected
animal tissue (g/day DW) (milk products and
meat only)
DI = Average daily human dietary intake of
pollutant (ug/day)
ADI = Acceptable daily intake of pollutant
(yg/day)
A-5
-------
b. Sample calculation (toddler) - Values were not
calculated due to lack of data.
A. Index of Human Toxicity Resulting from Soil Ingestion
(Index 12)
a. Formula
(Ii x DS) + DI
Index 12 = —
where:
II - Index 1 = Concentration of pollutant in
sludge-amended soil (ug/g DW)
DS = Assumed amount of soil in human diet (g/day)
DI = Average daily human dietary intake of
pollutant (ug/day)
ADI = Acceptable daily intake of pollutant
(Ug/day)
b. Sample calculation (toddler) - Values were not
calculated due to lack of data.
5. Index of Aggregate Human Toxicity/Cancer Risk (Index 13)
a. Formula
Index 13 = I9 + I10 + In + 112 ~ <
where:
Ig = Index 9 = Index of human toxicity/cancer
risk resulting from plant consumption
(unitless)
I10 = Index 10 = Index of human toxicity/cancer
risk resulting from consumption of animal
products derived from animals feeding on
plants (unitless)
111 = Index 11 = Index of human toxicity/cancer
risk resulting from consumption of animal
products derived from animals ingesting soil
(unitless)
Il2 = Index 12 = Index of human toxicity/cancer
risk resulting from soil ingestion
(unitless)
DI = Average daily human dietary intake of
pollutant (ug/day)
ADI = Acceptable daily intake of pollutant
(Ug/day)
b. Sample calculation (toddler) - Values were not
calculated due to lack of data.
A-6
-------
II. LANDFILLING
Based on the recommendations of the experts at the OWRS meetings
(April-May, 1984), an assessment of this reuse/disposal option is
not being conducted at this time. The U.S. EPA reserves the right
to conduct such an assessment for this option in the future.
III. INCINERATION
Based on the recommendations of the experts at the OWRS meetings
(April-May, 198A), an assessment of this reuse/disposal option is
not being conducted at this time. The U.S. EPA reserves the right
to conduct such an assessment for this option in the future.
IV. OCEAN DISPOSAL
Based on the recommendations of the experts at the OWRS meetings
(April-May, 1984), an assessment of this reuse/disposal option is
not being conducted at this time. The U.S. EPA reserves the right
to conduct such an assessment for this option in the future.
A-7
------- |