Docsity
Docsity

Prepare for your exams
Prepare for your exams

Study with the several resources on Docsity


Earn points to download
Earn points to download

Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan


Guidelines and tips
Guidelines and tips

Ge text solutions manual, Exams of Algorithms and Programming

maths - maths

Typology: Exams

2014/2015
On special offer
30 Points
Discount

Limited-time offer


Uploaded on 12/16/2015

om_prakash
om_prakash 🇬🇧

4.6

(12)

3 documents

1 / 72

Toggle sidebar

This page cannot be seen from the preview

Don't miss anything!

bg1
Solutions Manual
for
Green Engineering:
Environmentally Conscious Design of Chemical Processes
David R. Shonnard
Michigan Technological University
David T. Allen
University of Texas at Austin
Other Authors
Fred Arnold
Scott Prothero
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Kirsten Rosselot
Process Profiles
Prentice Hall, 2001
pf3
pf4
pf5
pf8
pf9
pfa
pfd
pfe
pff
pf12
pf13
pf14
pf15
pf16
pf17
pf18
pf19
pf1a
pf1b
pf1c
pf1d
pf1e
pf1f
pf20
pf21
pf22
pf23
pf24
pf25
pf26
pf27
pf28
pf29
pf2a
pf2b
pf2c
pf2d
pf2e
pf2f
pf30
pf31
pf32
pf33
pf34
pf35
pf36
pf37
pf38
pf39
pf3a
pf3b
pf3c
pf3d
pf3e
pf3f
pf40
pf41
pf42
pf43
pf44
pf45
pf46
pf47
pf48
Discount

On special offer

Partial preview of the text

Download Ge text solutions manual and more Exams Algorithms and Programming in PDF only on Docsity!

Solutions Manual

for

Green Engineering:

Environmentally Conscious Design of Chemical Processes

David R. Shonnard

Michigan Technological University

David T. Allen

University of Texas at Austin

Other Authors

Fred Arnold

Scott Prothero

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Kirsten Rosselot

Process Profiles

Prentice Hall, 2001

Chapter 1. An Introduction to Environmental Issues

Q. Chapter 1 Sample Homework Problem Electric Vehicles: Effects on Industrial Production of Fuels Replacing automobiles having internal combustion engines with vehicles having electric motors is seen by some as the best solution to urban smog and tropospheric ozone. Write a short report (1-2 pages double spaced) on the likely effects of this transition on industrial production of fuels. Assume for this analysis that the amount of energy required per mile trav eled is roughly the same for each kind of vehicle. Consider the environmental impacts of using different kinds of fuel for the electricity generation to satisfy the demand from electric vehicles. This analysis does not include the loss of power over the lines/grid.

  1. Electric Vehicles: Effects on Industrial Production of Fuels There are two main points to be addressed by this question of electric vehicles versus conventional gasoline-powered vehicles: 1) what are the changes likely to occur in industrial fuels production, and 2) what are the likely changes in environmental impact as a result of this change due to combustion of these fuels. To address the first question, information is needed on the average mix of energy sources in the United States for electricity generation. According to the Department of Energy (DOE) in a report “GREET 1.5 – Transportation Fuel-Cycle Model” (http://www.transportation.anl.gov/ttrdc/greet/), the average mix is 53.8% coal, 1.0% oil, 14.9% natural gas, 18% nuclear, and 12.3% others (hydroelectric, wind, solar, etc.). Thus, if electric vehicles replace conventional gasoline-powered vehicles for personal transportation, fuels production and import would switch from petroleum and petroleum products to more coal, natural gas, nuclear, and other. There would be more mining activities for the extraction of coal and uranium and less reliance on foreign oil. The second question, regarding the environmental impacts of the combustion processes to supply the electricity, is more complicated. A study using the GREET model indicate that on a per mile traveled basis comparing electric vehicles compared to conventional gasoline- powered vehicles, CO 2 emissions would decrease by about 25%, volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and

CO decrease by about 80%, NOx would increase by about 60%, and SO 2 would increase by about 240%.

  1. Global Energy Balance: No Atmosphere Q 1. A colleague has requested your advice on selection of a safe solvent for a photoresist. A photoresist consists of an acrylate monomer, polymeric binder, and photoinitiator applied to the surface of a copper- clad laminate or silicon wafer. After the solvent evaporates, the photoresist is exposed to ultraviolet light through a mask containing the pattern to be etched on the circuit board or silicon wafer. When exposed, the resist polymerizes and becomes insoluble to the developer. The circuit board or silicon wafer is subsequently washed with the developer solution to remove unpolymerized photoresist exposing the pattern to be etched with acid into the copper metal or the silicon wafer. Your colleague has identified the following solvents as suitable for formulation of the photoresist. Solvent CAS Number Vapor Pressure kPa at 25�C OSHA Concentration Limit (parts per million) Furfuryl alcohol 98-00-0 0.1 50 Diethylamine 109-89-7 30.1 25 Ethyl acetate 141-78-6 12.6 400 Monomethyl ether 109-86-4 1.3 25 Methyl ethyl ketone 79-93-3 12.1 200 n-butyl acetate 123-86-4 1.3 150 a. Using the OSHA Permissible Exposure Limit as a surrogate for relative hazard, a higher OSHA PEL connoting a lower hazard, rank
  1. In order for the global average surface temperature of the earth to rise by 1 ˚C above the value calculated in part b (285.52K), the infrared absorbtivity would need to increase to 0.8166 from 0.80.
  2. Global Carbon Dioxide Mass Balance a) A mass balance for CO 2 at the earth's surface is

Accumulation of CO 2 in atmosphere = rate of CO 2 release from surface - rate of CO 2 removal by surface

Accumulation of CO 2 in atmosphere (metric tons C/yr) = (60+6+1.6) - (60+2+.5+1.8) = 3.3 metric tons C/yr =

  1. +10% change in emissions from fuel combustion is +.6% for a total of 6.6%

Accumulation of CO 2 in atmosphere (metric tons C/yr) = (60+6.6+1.6) - (60+2+.5+1.8) = 3.9 metric tons C/yr =

+1% change in emissions from release by microorganisms is +.6% for a total of 60.6%

Accumulation of CO 2 in atmosphere (metric tons C/yr) = (60.6+6+1.6) - (60+2+.5+1.8) = 3.9 metric tons C/yr =

  1. Rate of change for CO 2 concentration in atmosphere (ppm/yr)

Change in number of moles CO 2 from part a =

Change in mole fraction (ppm) of CO 2 =

This rate of change compares well with the observed rate of change of 0.5%/yr, which at the current concentration of CO 2 is (.005)(360 ppm) = 1.80 ppm/yr.

  1. The rate of CO 2 accumulation would decrease if the processes of CO 2 fertilization and forest growth were enhanced by a future global temperature rise. On the other hand, the rate of CO 2 accumulation would increase if the processes of CO 2 release were accelerated, for example, by microbial metabolism in soil.
  2. Ozone Depletion Potential of Substitute Refrigerants A discussed in chapter 1, bromine is a much more potent ozone depletion substance compared to chlorine on a per-atom basis. Fluorine is thought to have no adverse ozone depletion effects. Therefore,

substituting fluorine for chlorine on alternative refrigerants would help solve the ozone depletion

problem. On the other hand, fluorine on hydrocarbon refrigerants is a potent greenhouse gas and fluorinated compounds have been found to accumulate in the body fat of animals as far away as the arctic, well away from any known sources of these compounds. Apparently the persistence of these fluorinated compounds combined with atmospheric transport over long distances creates exposure to these remote creatures.

Chapter 2. Risk Concepts

1. Risk of Death in Automobile Accidents We can express the risk of death in an automobile accident in the context of chemical risk as presented in Chapter 2.

Risk of Death by Car Accident = (Exposure) (Hazard)

In this equation, risk is the number of excess deaths by car accidents, exposure is the number of people involved over a specified period of time, and hazard is the number of deaths per unit of population per unit of time. This is very similar formulation as for carcinogenic risk due to exposure to harmful chemicals. Restating this risk equation with the data in the problem statement gives,

Solving for Hazard we calculate,

The number of deaths expected in Minneapolis-St. Paul over a three-day weekend is

2. Fault Tree Analysis

The fault tree for the collection sump is

ethylene glycol 50

n-butyl acetate 150 methyl ethyl ketone 200 ethyl acetate 400

b) Rank from higher to lower exposure potential using vapor pressure

Vapor Press. (kPa @ 25˚C)

diethylemine 30. ethyl acetate 12. methyl ethyl ketone 12. monomethyl ether 1. n-butyl acetate 1. furfuryl alcohol 0. ethylene glycol 0.

c) Considering hazard and exposure, rank from higher to lower risk If we take the inverse of the PEL as a measure of potential hazard and multiply by the vapor pressure (a measure of exposure), we could estimate the overall risk potential by inhalation.

1/PEL • Vapor Press. diethylemine 1/25 • 30.1 = 1. methyl ethyl ketone 1/200 • 12.1 = 0. monomethyl ether 1/25 • 1.3 = 0. ethyl acetate 1/400 • 12.6 = 0. n-butyl acetate 1/150 • 1.3 = 0. furfuryl alcohol 1/50 • 0.1 = 0. ethylene glycol 1/50 • 0.008 = 0.

Ethylene glycol is the solvent with the lowest risk.

d) To lower the risk even more, process modifications could be placed on the integrated circuits fabrication process to reduce the amount of vapor generated and to collect and recover any vapors prior to exposure to workers.

6. Carcinogenic Risk Assessment Near a Refinery a) Inhalation dos, I (^) INH :

b) Inhalation Carcinogenic Risk

c) Risk of cancer due to inhalation is greater than the recommended range of < 10 -4^ to 10-^.

d) This calculation might actually over predict the risk because RR and ABS were assumed to be 1 when

actually they would be less than one but greater than zero. Also, we used the outside concentration of benzene in the air, not the inside (the home) concentration which will be lower. In addition, we assumed a 70 year exposure duration (ED) when often people move and actually spend much less time in any given home.

Prevention

1. Provide definitions of the following terms a) pollution prevention: Any act of source reduction, in-process recycle, on-site recycle, and off-site recycle that reduces the amounts of releases and the hazardous characteristics of those releases which ultimately reach the environment. b) source reduction: Any modification of a manufacturing process or of production procedures which reduces the amount of components entering a waste stream or the hazardous characteristics of those components entering waste streams prior to recycle, treatment, or disposal. c) in-process versus on-site versus off-site recycle: In-process recycle is the recovery and return of components that would otherwise become waste to the process unit where these components were generated, usually immediately after they are generated. Examples would be unconverted reactants leaving a reactor that are separated and returned to the reactor inlet. On-site recycle is the recovery of valuable stream components using process units within the same facility where those components were generated. Off-site recycle is the recovery of valuable components at a remote location from waste streams generated at a facility and the return of the valuable components to the facility. d) waste treatment: Any process that renders a waste stream less hazardous prior to disposal or direct release through physical, biological, or chemical means. Examples are primary, secondary, and tertiary wastewater treatment, adsorption of volatile organic compounds from air, and landtreatment of petroleum hydrocarbon sludges from tank bottoms. e) disposal: Long-term isolation of raw or treated waste components in a secured landfill. Examples include landfills for domestic and industrial hazardous and non-hazardous waste. f) direct release: The direct release of components from processes to the air, land, or water. An example of this includes the release of volatile organic compounds from fugitive emission sources in chemical or petroleum refinery processes (from valves, fittings, pumps, flanges, connectors, etc.). 2. Solvent Recovery and Recycle for Automobile Assembly Paint Operations This recycle operation is an example of off-site recycle. The location of the solvent recovery facility is remote from the locations of automobile manufacture. The feed for the solvent recovery facility is the waste streams from these cleaning processes in automobile assembly painting. This activity would be considered pollution prevention using the expanded definition in this text but would not be considered pollution prevention by the federal definition, which only includes source reduction and in-process recycle. 3. Capital and Operating Costs for Federal Regulations

a) The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) of 1976 Chemical manufacturers must submit information on existing chemicals. This information includes chemical identity, name and molecular structure, categories of use, amounts manufactured or processed, byproducts from manufacture, processing, use, or disposal, environmental/health effects of chemical and

byproducts, and exposure information. Companies must also keep records of any incidents involving the

chemical that resulted in adverse health effects or environmental damage. Chemical manufacturers, importers, and processors are required to notify EPA within 90 days of introducing a new chemical into commerce by submitting a Premanufacturing Notice (PMN).

b) The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) of 1972

The decision by EPA to register a pesticide is based on the data submitted by the pesticide manufacturer in the registration application. The data in the registration application is difficult and expensive to develop. A registration is valid for five years, upon which time it automatically expires unless a re- registration petition is received. FIFRA requires older pesticides that were never subject to the current

registration requirements to be registered if their use is to continue.

c) The Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSH Act) of 197 0 The OSH Act’s Hazard Communication Standard requires that several standards be met by manufacturers or importers of chemicals and also for the subsequent users of them. These requirements include the development of hazard assessment data, the labeling of chemical substances, and the informing and training of employees in the safe use of chemicals. This information must be assembled in a material

safety data sheet (MSDS) in accordance with OSH Act standards and accompany any sale or transfer of the chemical. Employers must also develop a written hazards communication plan which outlines the implementation plan for informing and training employees on the safe handling of chemicals in the workplace. Employers must keep records of all steps taken to comply with OSH Act requirements and employers must keep records of all work-related injuries and deaths and report them periodically to OSHA.

d) Clean Air Act (CAA) of 1970 Prior to the completion of new facilities or additions to existing facilities, a permit must be obtained from the state air quality authority. Manufacturers must comply with the state-mandated source-specific emission limits on mobile and stationary sources at a sufficient level to assure compliance with federal quality standards. Meeting these requirements is achieved by installing pollution control equipment on waste streams leaving the process or by modifying the process to eliminate the waste streams.

e) The Clean Water Act (CWA) of 1972 The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program requires any point source of pollution to obtain a permit. NPDES permits contain effluent limits, either requiring the installation of specific pollutant treatment technologies or adherence to specified numerical discharge limits. NPDES permit holders must monitor discharges, collect data, and keep records of the pollutant levels of their effluents. These records must be submitted to the agency that granted the NPDES permit in order to assure that the point source is not exceeding the effluent discharge limits. A permit must be obtained from the United States Army Corp of Engineers before any discharge of dredge or fill materials occurs into navigable waterways, including wetlands.

f) Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976 A generator of hazardous waste must obtain an EPA identification number within 90 days of the initial generation of the waste. RCRA requires generators to properly package hazardous waste for shipment off-site and to use approved labeling and shipping containers. Generators must maintain records of the quantity of hazardous waste generated, where the waste was sent to for treatment, storage, or disposal,

1. Compare Inherently Safer Design with Pollution Prevention

Inherently Safer Design Concepts Pollution Prevention Concepts

Intent : reduce catastrophic releases of hazardous chemicals and the hazards of those releases by modifying the process to eliminate the source of those hazards within the process.

Intent : reduce chronic releases of hazardous chemicals and the hazards of those releases by modifying the process to make them more efficient at using energy and mass.

Minimize : reduce the inventory of hazardous

chemicals within the process.

Source Reduction: reduce the generation and release of hazardous wastes from a process. Substitute: replace hazardous materials with safer chemicals to reduce impacts of catastrophic releases.

Material Substitution: replace hazardous materials or materials that use excessive energy with more benign materials.

Moderate: Use less hazardous conditions to lessen the impacts of any catastrophic releases.

Process/Procedure Modifications: change process conditions to reduce waste generation and energy consumption.

Simplify: design facilities to be less complex and less error prone, and forgiving of any errors that are made.

Process Modification: change the process control strategy to more precisely achieve the desired operating conditions.

2. Effects of Chemical Properties

Safety Concerns: Chemical properties that would indicate the potential for catastrophic release would be boiling point, reactivity with air or water, vapor pressure, corrosivity to process vessels, endothermic or exothermic heat of reaction, ..

Pollution Prevention Concerns: Chemical properties that would reduce the potential for chronic release from process operations include boiling point, vapor pressure, solubility in water, emulsion forming with water, Henry's constant, compatibility with process materials such as gaskets and valve stems, corrosivity to process vessels, …

3. New "Natural" Product from Botanicals: Ethanol vs. n-Hexane

Physical/Toxicological Properties (reference needed)

Properties Ethanol n-Hexane

Toxicity (LD50, oral rat, mg/kg) 7060 >

Toxicity (OSHA PEL, ppm) 1000 50

Carcinogenic no no

Boiling Point (˚C @ 1 atm) 78.3 68.

Melting Point (˚C) -114 -

Vapor Pressure (mm Hg @ 20˚C) 44.6 129

Vapor Density (air = 1.0) 1.59 3

Liquid Density (specific gravity) 0.789 0.

Solubility in Water Infinite Negligible

Flash Point (˚C) 8.9 -

Lower Explosive Limit (%) 3.3 1.

Upper Explosive Limit (%) 24.5 7.

Reactivity Stable Stable

Federal Environmental Permits/Reporting (reference needed)

Environmental Regulation Ethanol n-Hexane

TSCA PMN application yes yes

OSH Requirements yes yes

FIFRA no no

CAA permit yes yes

CWA permit yes yes

RCRA Reporting no no

EPCRA Reporting no yes

CERCLA Reporting no yes

PPA Reporting no yes

a) If the decision is based on a comparison between the solvents, then ethanol would be chosen for the process. Ethanol has a lower toxicity judging from the MSDS information and has fewer reporting requirements compared to n-hexane. Of course, more information would be needed to make a reasonable decision. We must know what effects the solvent choice will have on operating costs, on energy consumption, and quality of product. In addition, we must know what effects of solvent choice will have on overall environmental impact of the process, including energy-related emissions and impacts, which can be significant relative to the impacts of the process materials. Methods for evaluating environmental impacts during process design are the topics of discussion for Part II of the book.

b) A Chemical Engineer’s responsibilities are to him or her self, to the employer, the community, and the customer. Each of these responsibilities must be incorporated into any decision regarding product and process design. A potential plant closure resulting in loss of jobs should not influence the decision as to whether a product will be produced or how it will be produced. The primary decision variables are whether the process and product are profitable, which means that society values it, and whether the process and product causes unacceptable damage to the environment and human health.

c) Same as b).

Chapter 5. Evaluating Environmental Fate: Approaches Based on Chemical

Structure

No corrections factors log K ow = 0.229 + 6(0.2940) + -0.1823 = 1. K (^) ow = 10^ 1.81^ = 64. log K (^) ow (experimental) = 1.

Water solubility (S): (S in mole/L)

log S = 0.796 – 0.854 log K (^) ow - 0.00728(MW) +^ F 05 3 hj (used when melting pt. not available) Corrections factors h (^) j = -.390 (aromatic nitro group)

log S = 0.796 – 0.854(1.85) - 0.00728(123.11) + -.390 = -2. S = 10-2.07^ =8.51x10 -3^ moles/L = 1.05 g/L = 1,047.5 mg/L

Soil sorption coefficient (K (^) oc): log K (^) oc = 0.53^1 F 06 3 + 0.62 + F 05 3 njP (^) j (K (^) oc is ratio of μg/g carbon to μg/ml solution) 1 F 0 6 3 =^

F 0 5 3(^

F 0 6 4i^ *^

F 0 6 4j)^

-0.5 (^) , the first order molecular connectivity index F 0 6 4i^ ,the connectedness of carbon or other heteroatom i) Bond connectedness ( F 06 4i* F 06 4j)

(N-O) (N=O) (N-C) 2(C-C) 4(C-C) (3,1) (3,1) (3,3) 2(3,2) 4(2,2) 1 F 06 3 = F 05 3( F 06 4i * F 06 4j) -0. 1 F 0 6 3 = = 4. log K (^) oc = 0.53(4.305) + 0.62 - 0.632 = 2. K (^) oc = 10^ 2.27^ = 186

Atmospheric half life: The only significant reaction is addition to aromatic ring = 0.2437x10-12^ cm 3 /molecule-sec.

t1/2½ = ln (2) / (k [OH. ]) = 0.693/((0.2437x10-12^ cm^3 /molecule-sec)(1.5x10^6 molecules/ cm^3 )) t1/2½ = 1.896x10^6 sec = 22 days.

Biodegradability: I = 3.199 + a (^) 1f 1 + a2f 2 +…… + a (^) nf (^) n + amMW Unsubstituted phenyl group a = 0. Aromatic (NO (^) 2)^ a^ = -.134 (used aromatic amine as substitute) Molecular weight a = -0. I = 3.199 + 0.022 - .134 + 123.11(-0.00221) = 2.81 (weeks to a month)

2. Estimate properties for 2-Chloroaniline From the EPIWIN software, enter the CAS Number of 95-51-2. The following summary is obtained with the software output listed directly below.

Boiling point (Tb) 216.05 ˚C Vapor pressure (Pvp) at 300 K^ 0.16 mm Hg @ 25˚C Henry’s Law constant (H) 1.41x10 -6^ atm-m^3 /mole using bond method Octanol-water partition coefficient (Kow ) Log K (^) ow = 1.

Bioconcentration Factor (BCF) Log BCF = 0.763 using BCFwin Water solubility (S) 2241 mg/L - no melting pt. formula used. Soil sorption coefficient (K (^) oc) Log K (^) oc = 1. Atmospheric half life 0.340 Days (12-hr day; 1.5E6 OH/cm 3 ) Biodegradability 2.5757 (weeks-months)

SMILES : Nc(c(ccc1)CL)c CHEM : Benzenamine, 2-chloro- CAS NUM: 000095-51- MOL FOR: C6 H6 CL1 N MOL WT : 127. ------------------------------ EPI SUMMARY (v2.40) -------------------------- Physical Property Inputs: Water Solubility (mg/L): ------ Vapor Pressure (mm Hg) : ------ Henry LC (atm-m3/mole) : ------ Log Kow (octanol-water): ------ Boiling Point (deg C) : ------ Melting Point (deg C) : ------

Log Octanol-Water Partition Coef (SRC): Log Kow (KOWWIN v1.60 estimate) = 1. Log Kow (Exper. database match) = 1.

Boiling Pt, Melting Pt, Vapor Pressure Estimations (MPBPWIN v1.28): Boiling Pt (deg C): 216.05 (Adapted Stein & Brown method) Melting Pt (deg C): 24.41 (Mean or Weighted MP) VP(mm Hg,25 deg C): 0.16 (Mean VP of Antoine & Grain methods)

Water Solubility Estimate from Log Kow (WSKOW v1.30): Water Solubility at 25 deg C (mg/L): 2241 log Kow used: 1.90 (expkow database) no-melting pt equation used

ECOSAR Class Program (ECOSAR v0.99b): Class(es) found: Aromatic Amines

Henrys Law Constant (25 deg C) [HENRYWIN v3.00]: Bond Method : 1.41E-006 atm-m3/mole Group Method: 1.86E-006 atm-m3/mole

Probability of Rapid Biodegradation (BIOWIN v3.63): Linear Model : 0. Non-Linear Model : 0. Expert Survey Biodegradation Results: Ultimate Survey Model: 2.5757 (weeks-months) Primary Survey Model : 3.3900 (days-weeks )

Atmospheric Oxidation (25 deg C) [AopWin v1.87]: Hydroxyl Radicals Reaction: OVERALL OH Rate Constant = 31.4297 E-12 cm3/molecule-sec Half-Life = 0.340 Days (12-hr day; 1.5E6 OH/cm3)

Octanol-water partition

coefficient, Log (Kow )

Water solubility (S)

(mg/L)

7.92x105^ 2.72x105^ 6,885 369 17.

Soil sorption coefficient

Log (K (^) oc)

Atmospheric half life

(days)

Biodegradability

(Primary Survey Model)

3.91 (days) 3.

(days)

(days)

(days)

(days)

For each of the properties, comment on whether molecular weight or the presence of a hydrogen bonding group has a more pronounced effect on chemical properties.

Boiling point (Tb) hydrogen bonding Vapor pressure (Pvp)^ hydrogen bonding Henry’s Law constant hydrogen bonding Octanol-water partition coefficient both Water solubility (S) hydrogen bonding Soil sorption coefficient hydrogen bonding Atmospheric half life molecular weight Biodegradability neither

4. Benzene discharge to a river. Total discharge rate to POTW = 2,000 kg benzene / day Removal efficiency in POTW = 85% Net benzene discharge to river = (1-.85) 2,000 kg benzene/day = 300 kg benzene/day

a) Estimate fraction of benzene in water, sediment, and biota at discharge point. From EPIwin, CAS no. 71-43- Log Koc = 2.219, Koc = 165.5 L water/kg or kg water/kg sediment carbon Log BCF = 0.940, BCF = 8.712 L water/kg or kg water/kg biota

Based on the river flow rate the total flow rates of water, sediment and biota are:

Water: (1,250 x10 6 liter/day * 1 kg/liter) = 1,250 x10^6 kg/day Sediment: 1,250 x10 6 kg/day * 15 kg sediment carbon/ 10^6 kg water = 18,750 kg sediment C/day Biota: 1,250 x10^6 kg/day * 0.1 kg biota/ 0.1 x10^6 kg water = 1,250 kg biota/day

Mass balance: “rate of benzene discharge to river” = “rate of benzene flow downriver in water, sediment, and biota”.

300 benzene kg/day = 1,250x10 6 kg water/day (Cwater ) + 18,750 kg sediment carbon/day (165.5 kg water/ kg sediment carbon) Cwater + 1,250 kg biota/day (8.712 kg water/kg biota) Cwater

C (^) water = 2.39x10-7^ kg benzene/kg water = .239 ppm benzene in water. Fraction benzene in water = 1,250x10^6 kg water/day (C^ water) / 300 kg benzene/day = 99.75% Fraction benzene in sediment = 18,750 kg sediment carbon/day (165.5 kg water/kg sediment carbon) C water /300 = .247% Fraction benzene in biota = 1,250 kg biota/day (8.712 kg water/kg biota) Cwater / 300 = .0009%

b) Is volatilization of benzene from the river important? Assume air above river to 10 m height is in equilibrium with benzene in water at discharge point concentration for the full 100 km length of the river. Use Henry’s constant to estimate the air concentration From EPIwin, H = 5.39x10-3^ atm-m^3 /mole

Air Concentration = H Cwater when expressed in units of moles benzene / m 3 = (5.39x10 -3^ atm-m 3 /mole)(2.39x10-7^ kg benzene/kg water)(1 mole/.07811 kg benzene)(1000 kg water / m 3 ) = 1.65x10^ -5^ atm = 1.65x10 -5^ atm (1 mole benzene/mole air•atm)(.07811 kg benzene/mole bz) (1 mole air/.0224 m^3 air) = 5.75x10^ -5^ kg benzene / m^3 air Total Benzene in air = (5.75x10 -5^ kg /m 3 air)(10 m)(30 m)(43.2 km)(1000 m/km) = 745 kg benz

Note – 43.2 km is the distance that the river flows in 1 day. Because this estimate is much greater than the input of benzene into the river, volatilization is important.

c) Estimate the fraction that biodegrades prior to reaching the water inlet 100 km downriver. Time to reach 100 km downriver is (100 km)/(43.2 km/day) = 2.3 days From EPIwin, biodegradation takes weeks – months, so fraction biodegraded is insignificant.

d) Estimate the potential toxicity of the releases to aquatic life From EPIwin, Log Kow = 1.99, MW = 78. A correlation for toxicity to guppies for chlorobenzenes is given by log (1/LC (^) 50) = 0.871 log K (^) ow - 4.87, where LC50is expressed in units of F 06 Dmol/L.

log (1/LC (^) 50) = 0.871 (1.99) - 4.87 = -3. 1/LC 50 = 10-3.14^ = 7.30x10^ - LC 50 = 1,370 F 06 Dmol/L C (^) water = 2.39x10-7^ kg benzene/kg water from part a) = 2.39x10 -4^ g benzene/L water = 3.06 F 06 Dmol/L, thus this concentration is not likely to pose a risk to fish since it is much less than the LC (^) 50.