ENVIRONMENTAL
CONTAMINANTS
ENCYCLOPEDIA
OIL
AND
GREASE
ENTRY
July
1,
1997
COMPILERS/
EDITORS:

ROY
J.
IRWIN,
NATIONAL
PARK
SERVICE
WITH
ASSISTANCE
FROM
COLORADO
STATE
UNIVERSITY
STUDENT
ASSISTANT
CONTAMINANTS
SPECIALISTS:

MARK
VAN
MOUWERIK
LYNETTE
STEVENS
MARION
DUBLER
SEESE
WENDY
BASHAM
NATIONAL
PARK
SERVICE
WATER
RESOURCES
DIVISIONS,
WATER
OPERATIONS
BRANCH
1201
Oakridge
Drive,
Suite
250
FORT
COLLINS,
COLORADO
80525
WARNING/
DISCLAIMERS:

Where
specific
products,
books,
or
laboratories
are
mentioned,
no
official
U.
S.
government
endorsement
is
intended
or
implied.

Digital
format
users:
No
software
was
independently
developed
for
this
project.
Technical
questions
related
to
software
should
be
directed
to
the
manufacturer
of
whatever
software
is
being
used
to
read
the
files.
Adobe
Acrobat
PDF
files
are
supplied
to
allow
use
of
this
product
with
a
wide
variety
of
software,
hardware,
and
operating
systems
(
DOS,
Windows,
MAC,
and
UNIX).

This
document
was
put
together
by
human
beings,
mostly
by
compiling
or
summarizing
what
other
human
beings
have
written.
Therefore,
it
most
likely
contains
some
mistakes
and/
or
potential
misinterpretations
and
should
be
used
primarily
as
a
way
to
search
quickly
for
basic
information
and
information
sources.
It
should
not
be
viewed
as
an
exhaustive,
"
last­
word"
source
for
critical
applications
(
such
as
those
requiring
legally
defensible
information).
For
critical
applications
(
such
as
litigation
applications),
it
is
best
to
use
this
document
to
find
sources,
and
then
to
obtain
the
original
documents
and/
or
talk
to
the
authors
before
depending
too
heavily
on
a
particular
piece
of
information.

Like
a
library
or
many
large
databases
(
such
as
EPA's
national
STORET
water
quality
database),
this
document
contains
information
of
variable
quality
from
very
diverse
sources.
In
compiling
this
document,
mistakes
were
found
in
peer
reviewed
journal
articles,
as
well
as
in
databases
with
relatively
elaborate
quality
control
mechanisms
[
366,649,940].
A
few
of
these
were
caught
and
marked
with
a
"[
sic]"
notation,
but
undoubtedly
others
slipped
through.
The
[
sic]
notation
was
inserted
by
the
editors
to
indicate
information
or
spelling
that
seemed
wrong
or
misleading,
but
which
was
nevertheless
cited
verbatim
rather
than
arbitrarily
changing
what
the
author
said.

Most
likely
additional
transcription
errors
and
typos
have
been
added
in
some
of
our
efforts.
Furthermore,
with
such
complex
subject
matter,
it
is
not
always
easy
to
determine
what
is
correct
and
what
is
incorrect,
especially
with
the
"
experts"
often
disagreeing.
It
is
not
uncommon
in
scientific
research
for
two
different
researchers
to
come
up
with
different
results
which
lead
them
to
different
conclusions.
In
compiling
the
Encyclopedia,
the
editors
did
not
try
to
resolve
such
conflicts,
but
rather
simply
reported
it
all.
It
should
be
kept
in
mind
that
data
comparability
is
a
major
problem
in
environmental
toxicology
since
laboratory
and
field
methods
are
constantly
changing
and
since
there
are
so
many
different
"
standard
methods"
published
by
EPA,
other
federal
agencies,
state
agencies,
and
various
private
groups.
What
some
laboratory
and
field
investigators
actually
do
for
standard
operating
practice
is
often
a
unique
combination
of
various
standard
protocols
and
impromptu
"
improvements."
In
fact,
the
interagency
task
force
on
water
methods
concluded
that
[
1014]:

It
is
the
exception
rather
than
the
rule
that
water­
quality
monitoring
data
from
different
programs
or
time
periods
can
be
compared
on
a
scientifically
sound
basis,
and
that...

No
nationally
accepted
standard
definitions
exist
for
water
quality
parameters.
The
different
organizations
may
collect
data
using
identical
or
standard
methods,
but
identify
them
by
different
names,
or
use
the
same
names
for
data
collected
by
different
methods
[
1014].

Differences
in
field
and
laboratory
methods
are
also
major
issues
related
to
(
the
lack
of)
data
comparability
from
media
other
than
water:
soil
and
sediments.

In
spite
of
numerous
problems
and
complexities,
knowledge
is
often
power
in
decisions
related
to
chemical
contamination.
It
is
therefore
often
helpful
to
be
aware
of
a
broad
universe
of
conflicting
results
or
conflicting
expert
opinions
rather
than
having
a
portion
of
this
information
arbitrarily
censored
by
someone
else.
Frequently
one
wants
to
know
of
the
existence
of
information,
even
if
one
later
decides
not
to
use
it
for
a
particular
application.
Many
would
like
to
see
a
high
percentage
of
the
information
available
and
decide
for
themselves
what
to
throw
out,
partly
because
they
don't
want
to
seem
uniformed
or
be
caught
by
surprise
by
potentially
important
information.
They
are
in
a
better
position
if
they
can
say:
"
I
knew
about
that
data,
assessed
it
based
on
the
following
quality
assurance
criteria,
and
decided
not
to
use
it
for
this
application."
This
is
especially
true
for
users
near
the
end
of
long
decision
processes,
such
as
hazardous
site
cleanups,
lengthy
ecological
risk
assessments,
or
complex
natural
resource
damage
assessments.

For
some
categories,
the
editors
found
no
information
and
inserted
the
phrase
"
no
information
found."
This
does
not
necessarily
mean
that
no
information
exists;
it
simply
means
that
during
our
efforts,
the
editors
found
none.
For
many
topics,
there
is
probably
information
"
out
there"
that
is
not
in
the
Encyclopedia.
The
more
time
that
passes
without
encyclopedia
updates
(
none
are
planned
at
the
moment),
the
more
true
this
statement
will
become.
Still,
the
Encyclopedia
is
unique
in
that
it
contains
broad
ecotoxicology
information
from
more
sources
than
many
other
reference
documents.
No
updates
of
this
document
are
currently
planned.
However,
it
is
hoped
that
most
of
the
information
in
the
encyclopedia
will
be
useful
for
some
time
to
come
even
without
updates,
just
as
one
can
still
find
information
in
the
1972
EPA
Blue
Book
[
12]
that
does
not
seem
well
summarized
anywhere
else.

Although
the
editors
of
this
document
have
done
their
best
in
the
limited
time
available
to
insure
accuracy
of
quotes
or
summaries
as
being
"
what
the
original
author
said,"
the
proposed
interagency
funding
of
a
bigger
project
with
more
elaborate
peer
review
and
quality
control
steps
never
materialized.

The
bottom
line:
The
editors
hope
users
find
this
document
useful,
but
don't
expect
or
depend
on
perfection
herein.
Neither
the
U.
S.
Government
nor
the
National
Park
Service
make
any
claims
that
this
document
is
free
of
mistakes.

The
following
is
one
chemical
topic
entry
(
one
file
among
118).
Before
utilizing
this
entry,
the
reader
is
strongly
encouraged
to
read
the
README
file
(
in
this
subdirectory)
for
an
introduction,
an
explanation
of
how
to
use
this
document
in
general,
an
explanation
of
how
to
search
for
power
key
section
headings,
an
explanation
of
the
organization
of
each
entry,
an
information
quality
discussion,
a
discussion
of
copyright
issues,
and
a
listing
of
other
entries
(
other
topics)
covered.

See
the
separate
file
entitled
REFERENC
for
the
identity
of
numbered
references
in
brackets.

HOW
TO
CITE
THIS
DOCUMENT:
As
mentioned
above,
for
critical
applications
it
is
better
to
obtain
and
cite
the
original
publication
after
first
verifying
various
data
quality
assurance
concerns.
For
more
routine
applications,
this
document
may
be
cited
as:

Irwin,
R.
J.,
M.
VanMouwerik,
L.
Stevens,
M.
D.
Seese,
and
W.
Basham.
1997.
Environmental
Contaminants
Encyclopedia.
National
Park
Service,
Water
Resources
Division,
Fort
Collins,
Colorado.
Distributed
within
the
Federal
Government
as
an
Electronic
Document
(
Projected
public
availability
on
the
internet
or
NTIS:
1998).
Oil
and
Grease
Brief
Introduction:

Br.
Class:
General
Introduction
and
Classification
Information:

Oil
and
grease
includes
not
only
petroleum
oils
but
also
vegetable
and
natural
oils.
Sediments,
biota,
and
decaying
life
forms
are
often
high
in
natural
oils
lipids
which
make
up
part
of
the
oil
and
grease
measure.

Like
Total
Petroleum
Hydrocarbon
(
TPH)
and
Total
Recoverable
Petroleum
Hydrocarbon
(
TRPH)
data,
oil
and
grease
data
is
very
difficult
(
if
not
impossible)
to
interpret
related
to
ecological
effects.
However,
oil
and
grease
does
have
some
indirect
value
as
one
of
the
measures
of
oxygen
demanding
materials.
Oil
and
grease
should
not
be
used
as
a
measure
for
most
oil
pollution
studies
or
other
studies
where
petroleum
hydrocarbons
are
the
main
concern
(
summary
of
information
presented
in
more
detail
below).

A
field
test
of
bioremediation
of
soils
contaminated
with
Bunker
C
at
a
refinery
in
Beaumont,
showed
that
oil
and
grease
was
prone
to
producing
misleading
results
concerning
the
degree
of
bioremediation
taking
place
[
727,728].
For
additional
details,
see
Br.
Fate
and
Fate.
Detail
sections
below.

Br.
Haz:
General
Hazard/
Toxicity
Summary:

Some
of
the
literature
on
sediment
contamination
by
oil
and
grease
from
petroleum
hydrocarbons
was
summarized
in
Olsen's
1984
annotated
bibliography
of
the
effects
of
contaminated
sediments
on
fish
and
wildlife
[
449].
Factors
to
consider
when
interpreting
residues
of
petroleum
hydrocarbons
in
wildlife
tissues
were
summarized
by
Hall
and
Coon
in
1988
[
128].

Oil
and
grease
is
difficult
(
if
not
impossible)
to
interpret
related
to
petroleum
hydrocarbon
levels;
scatter
plots
of
oil
and
grease
levels
versus
the
levels
of
petroleum
hydrocarbons
often
appear
random
(
Brian
Cain,
U.
S.
Fish
and
Wildlife
Service,
personal
communication).

In
general,
oil
and
grease
is
an
inappropriate
measure
when
considering
hazard,
toxicity,
or
risk
(
see
details
in
sections
below).
Better
methods
include
the
expanded
scan
for
PAHs
[
828]
and
other
more
rigorous
methods.

The
debates
on
exactly
how
to
perform
both
ecological
and
human
risk
assessments
on
the
complex
mixtures
of
PAHs
and
other
hydrocarbons
typically
found
at
petroleum
contaminated
sites,
are
likely
to
continue.
There
are
some
clearly
wrong
ways
to
go
about
it,
and
using
oil
and
grease
as
a
primary
measure
is
one
of
ways
many
risk
experts
would
consider
inappropriate.
However,
defining
clearly
right
ways
is
more
difficult.
Petroleum
contamination
is
usually
typified
by
complex
mixtures
of
PAHs,
alkyl
PAHs
and
BTEX
compounds
(
see
entries
on
those
topics).
Perhaps
the
most
unambiguous
thing
that
can
be
said
about
such
complex
mixtures
is
that
they
are
often
hazardous
in
many
ways,
including
carcinogenicity
and
phototoxicity.
(
James
Huckins,
National
Biological
Survey/
USGS,
and
Roy
Irwin,
National
Park
Service,
personal
communication,
1996).

One
way
to
approach
site
specific
risk
assessments
is
to
collect
the
complex
mixture
of
PAHs
and
other
lipophilic
organic
contaminants
in
a
semipermeable
membrane
device
(
SPMD,
also
known
as
a
fat
bag)
[
894,895,896],
retrieve
the
organic
contaminant
mixture
from
the
SPMD,
then
test
the
mixture
for
carcinogenicity,
toxicity,
and
phototoxicity
(
James
Huckins,
National
Biological
Survey/
USGS,
and
Roy
Irwin,
National
Park
Service,
personal
communication,
1996).

Br.
Car:
Brief
Summary
of
Carcinogenicity/
Cancer
Information:

Oil
and
grease
is
an
inappropriate
measure
when
considering
carcinogenicity
(
see
details
in
sections
below
and
in
"
PAHs
as
a
group"
entry).
Better
methods
include
the
expanded
scan
for
PAHs
[
828]
and
other
more
rigorous
methods.

Br.
Dev:
Brief
Summary
of
Developmental,
Reproductive,
Endocrine,
and
Genotoxicity
Information:

Oil
and
grease
is
an
inappropriate
measure
when
considering
developmental,
reproductive,
endocrine,
and
genotoxicity
hazards.
Better
methods
include
the
expanded
scan
for
PAHs
[
828]
and
other
more
rigorous
methods.

Br.
Fate:
Brief
Summary
of
Key
Bioconcentration,
Fate,
Transport,
Persistence,
Pathway,
and
Chemical/
Physical
Information:

Oil
and
grease
is
a
relatively
weak
measure
when
considering
degradation
of
hazardous
mixtures
of
petroleum
compounds.
Better
methods
include
the
expanded
scan
for
PAHs
[
828]
and
other
more
rigorous
methods.

In
a
simultaneous
11­
week
study
of
biodegradation
at
a
Bunker
C
contaminated
refinery
in
Beaumont,
TX,
one
group
of
researchers
used
GC/
MS
SIM
[
727],
while
the
other
group
used
the
standard
TPH
method
for
Oil
and
Grease
[
728]
on
the
same
weekly
composite
soil
samples.
Using
the
more
simple
TPH
analysis,
the
researchers
concluded
that
oil
contents
in
the
soil
were
reduced
over
time
in
general
(
the
raw
TPH
data
was
very
variable)
[
728].
Using
GC/
MS
SIM,
the
other
researchers
concluded
that
the
highly
weathered
oil
did
not
markedly
change
over
the
eleven
weeks
of
the
experiment,
indicating
little
or
no
biodegradation.
These
researchers
used
GC/
MS
SIM
to
quantify
a
series
of
molecular
biomarkers,
such
as
hopane,
in
order
to
test
ratios
as
indicators
of
in
situ
biodegradation.
They
also
suggested
that
low
bioavailability
may
have
accounted
for
the
lack
of
bioremediation
at
this
site
[
727].

Since
different
combinations
of
petroleum
hydrocarbons
and
natural
lipids
typically
contribute
to
"
oil
and
grease"
at
different
sites,
the
fate
characteristics
are
also
typically
different
at
different
sites,
even
if
the
oil
and
grease
concentration
is
the
same.

Synonyms/
Substance
Identification:

No
information
found.

Associated
Chemicals
or
Topics
(
Includes
Transformation
Products):

Site
Assessment­
Related
Information
Provided
by
Shineldecker
(
Potential
Site­
Specific
Contaminants
that
May
be
Associated
with
a
Property
Based
on
Current
or
Historical
Use
of
the
Property)
[
490]:

General
Types
of
Materials
Associated
with
Oil
and
Grease
Processing:

&
Metals
&
Petroleum
hydrocarbons
&
Solvents
Water
Data
Interpretation,
Concentrations
and
Toxicity
(
All
Water
Data
Subsections
Start
with
"
W."):

W.
Low
(
Water
Concentrations
Considered
Low):

No
information
found;
this
method
not
particularly
appropriate
for
this
application.

W.
High
(
Water
Concentrations
Considered
High):

No
information
found;
this
method
not
particularly
appropriate
for
this
application.
W.
Typical
(
Water
Concentrations
Considered
Typical):

No
information
found;
this
method
not
particularly
appropriate
for
this
application.

W.
Concern
Levels,
Water
Quality
Criteria,
LC50
Values,
Water
Quality
Standards,
Screening
Levels,
Dose/
Response
Data,
and
Other
Water
Benchmarks:

W.
General
(
General
Water
Quality
Standards,
Criteria,
and
Benchmarks
Related
to
Protection
of
Aquatic
Biota
in
General;
Includes
Water
Concentrations
Versus
Mixed
or
General
Aquatic
Biota):

Evidence
from
the
following
research
suggests
that
discharges
of
10
mg/
L
oil
and
grease
allowed
by
several
western
states
are
too
high
[
786]:

Cutthroat
trout
(
Salmo
clarki)
were
exposed
for
90
days
to
four
concentrations
(
ranging
from
100
to
520
ug/
L)
of
a
Wyoming
crude
oil
in
water.
Survival
was
reduced
to
52%
at
520
ug/
L,
but
was
not
affected
by
the
3
lower
concentrations.
Growth
was
significantly
slower
than
control
fish
at
all
four
concentrations.
Exposure
concentrations
of
520
and
450
ug/
L
induced
gill
lesions
and
development
of
lesions
on
the
retina
and
lens
of
the
eye.
Accumulation
of
total
hydrocarbons
in
fish
tissue
was
directly
related
to
water
concentration,
except
for
fish
in
the
520
ug/
L
concentration.
Alkylated
mono­
and
dicyclic
aromatic
hydrocarbons
were
accumulated
most
readily,
and
naphthalenes
were
the
dominant
aromatic
component
in
oil,
water,
and
fish.

Narrative
statement
­­
See
Gold
Book
[
302]

W.
Plants
(
Water
Concentrations
vs.
Plants):

No
information
found;
this
method
not
particularly
appropriate
for
this
application.

W.
Invertebrates
(
Water
Concentrations
vs.
Invertebrates):

No
information
found;
this
method
not
particularly
appropriate
for
this
application.

W.
Fish
(
Water
Concentrations
vs.
Fish):

No
information
found;
this
method
not
particularly
appropriate
for
this
application.
W.
Wildlife
(
Water
Concentrations
vs.
Wildlife
or
Domestic
Animals):

No
information
found;
this
method
not
particularly
appropriate
for
this
application.

W.
Human
(
Drinking
Water
and
Other
Human
Concern
Levels):

No
information
found;
this
method
not
particularly
appropriate
for
this
application.

W.
Misc.
(
Other
Non­
concentration
Water
Information):

No
information
found.

Sediment
Data
Interpretation,
Concentrations
and
Toxicity
(
All
Sediment
Data
Subsections
Start
with
"
Sed."):

Sed.
Low
(
sediment
concentrations
considered
low):

no
information
found;
this
method
not
particularly
appropriate
for
this
application.

Sed.
High
(
Sediment
Concentrations
Considered
High):

Texas:
The
statewide
90th
percentile
value
for
oil
and
grease
was
3,700
mg/
kg
dry
weight
[
7].

Sed.
Typical
(
Sediment
Concentrations
Considered
Typical):

No
information
found;
this
method
not
particularly
appropriate
for
this
application.

Sed.
Concern
Levels,
Sediment
Quality
Criteria,
LC50
Values,
Sediment
Quality
Standards,
Screening
Levels,
Dose/
Response
Data
and
Other
Sediment
Benchmarks:

Sed.
General
(
General
Sediment
Quality
Standards,
Criteria,
and
Benchmarks
Related
to
Protection
of
Aquatic
Biota
in
General;
Includes
Sediment
Concentrations
Versus
Mixed
or
General
Aquatic
Biota):

Ontario
Ministry
of
the
Environment
guidelines
for
open
lake
disposal
of
sediments
(
1986):
The
guideline
for
oil
and
grease
is
1,500
ppm
[
347].

Ontario
Ministry
of
the
Environment
Freshwater
Sediment
Guidelines,
1993
[
761].
Lowest
effect
level:
1500
ug/
kg
dry
weight.

Wisconsin
interim
criteria
for
sediments
from
Great
Lakes
harbors
for
disposal
in
water
(
1985):
oil
and
grease
should
not
exceed
1,000
ppm
(
dry
weight)
[
347].

No
other
information
found;
this
method
not
particularly
appropriate
for
this
application.

Sed.
Plants
(
Sediment
Concentrations
vs.
Plants):

No
information
found;
this
method
not
particularly
appropriate
for
this
application.

Sed.
Invertebrates
(
Sediment
Concentrations
vs.
Invertebrates):

No
information
found;
this
method
not
particularly
appropriate
for
this
application.

Sed.
Fish
(
Sediment
Concentrations
vs.
Fish):

No
information
found;
this
method
not
particularly
appropriate
for
this
application.

Sed.
Wildlife
(
Sediment
Concentrations
vs.
Wildlife
or
Domestic
Animals):

No
information
found;
this
method
not
particularly
appropriate
for
this
application.

Sed.
Human
(
Sediment
Concentrations
vs.
Human):

No
information
found;
this
method
not
particularly
appropriate
for
this
application.

Sed.
Misc.
(
Other
Non­
concentration
Sediment
Information):

No
information
found.

Soil
Data
Interpretation,
Concentrations
and
Toxicity
(
All
Soil
Data
Subsections
Start
with
"
Soil."):

Soil.
Low
(
Concentrations
Considered
Low):

No
information
found;
this
method
not
particularly
appropriate
for
this
application.

Soil.
High
(
Concentrations
Considered
High):

No
information
found;
this
method
not
particularly
appropriate
for
this
application.

Soil.
Typical
(
Soil
Concentrations
Considered
Typical):

No
information
found;
this
method
not
particularly
appropriate
for
this
application.
Soil.
Concern
Levels,
Soil
Quality
Criteria,
LC50
Values,
Soil
Quality
Standards,
Screening
Levels,
Dose/
Response
Data
and
Other
Soil
Benchmarks:

Soil.
General
(
General
Soil
Quality
Standards,
Criteria,
and
Benchmarks
Related
to
Protection
of
Soil­
dwelling
Biota
in
General;
Includes
Soil
Concentrations
Versus
Mixed
or
General
Soil­
dwelling
Biota):

Between
25
and
30
states,
and
4
out
of
10
Canadian
provinces,
have
numerical
cleanup
criteria
for
petroleum
contaminated
soils
[
738].
Until
recently,
most
numerical
criteria
were
expressed
as
maximum
concentrations
of
certain
gross
contaminants
such
as
oil
and
grease,
total
petroleum
hydrocarbons,
gasoline,
or
diesel
fuel
[
738].
Numerical
criteria
for
these
parameters
range
from
1,000
mg/
kg
to
20,000
mg/
kg
for
oil
and
grease
[
738].
Aesthetic
or
phytotoxicity
considerations
were
typically
the
basis
for
the
development
of
such
standards;
little
or
no
consideration
was
given
to
the
human
health
risks
associated
with
the
contaminant
levels
[
738].

Soil
cleanup
criteria
for
decommissioning
industrial
sites
in
Ontario
(
1987):
For
residential/
parklands
and
commercial/
industrial
lands
oil
and
grease
should
not
exceed
1
%
[
347].

No
other
information
found;
this
method
not
particularly
appropriate
for
this
application.

Soil.
Plants
(
Soil
Concentrations
vs.
Plants):

No
information
found;
this
method
not
particularly
appropriate
for
this
application.

Soil.
Invertebrates
(
Soil
Concentrations
vs.
Invertebrates):

No
information
found;
this
method
not
particularly
appropriate
for
this
application.

Soil.
Wildlife
(
Soil
Concentrations
vs.
Wildlife
or
Domestic
Animals):

No
information
found;
this
method
not
particularly
appropriate
for
this
application.

Soil.
Human
(
Soil
Concentrations
vs.
Human):

No
information
found;
this
method
not
particularly
appropriate
for
this
application.
Soil.
Misc.
(
Other
Non­
concentration
Soil
Information):

No
information
found.

Tissue
and
Food
Concentrations
(
All
Tissue
Data
Interpretation
Subsections
Start
with
"
Tis."):

Tis.
Plants:

A)
As
Food:
Concentrations
or
Doses
of
Concern
to
Living
Things
Which
Eat
Plants:

No
information
found;
this
method
not
particularly
appropriate
for
this
application.

B)
Body
Burden
Residues
in
Plants:
Typical,
Elevated,
or
of
Concern
Related
to
the
Well­
being
of
the
Organism
Itself:

No
information
found;
this
method
not
particularly
appropriate
for
this
application.

Tis.
Invertebrates:

A)
As
Food:
Concentrations
or
Doses
of
Concern
to
Living
Things
Which
Eat
Invertebrates:

No
information
found;
this
method
not
particularly
appropriate
for
this
application.

B)
Concentrations
or
Doses
of
Concern
in
Food
Items
Eaten
by
Invertebrates:

No
information
found;
this
method
not
particularly
appropriate
for
this
application.

C)
Body
Burden
Residues
in
Invertebrates:
Typical,
Elevated,
or
of
Concern
Related
to
the
Well­
being
of
the
Organism
Itself:

No
information
found;
this
method
not
particularly
appropriate
for
this
application.

Tis.
Fish:

A)
As
Food:
Concentrations
or
Doses
of
Concern
to
Living
Things
Which
Eat
Fish
(
Includes
FDA
Action
Levels
for
Fish
and
Similar
Benchmark
Levels
From
Other
Countries):

No
information
found;
this
method
not
particularly
appropriate
for
this
application.

B)
Concentrations
or
Doses
of
Concern
in
Food
Items
Eaten
by
Fish:

No
information
found;
this
method
not
particularly
appropriate
for
this
application.

C)
Body
Burden
Residues
in
Fish:
Typical,
Elevated,
or
of
Concern
Related
to
the
Well­
being
of
the
Organism
Itself:

No
information
found;
this
method
not
particularly
appropriate
for
this
application.

Tis.
Wildlife:
Terrestrial
and
Aquatic
Wildlife,
Domestic
Animals
and
all
Birds
Whether
Aquatic
or
not:

A)
As
Food:
Concentrations
or
Doses
of
Concern
to
Living
Things
Which
Eat
Wildlife,
Domestic
Animals,
or
Birds:

No
information
found;
this
method
not
particularly
appropriate
for
this
application.

B)
Concentrations
or
Doses
of
Concern
in
Food
Items
Eaten
by
Wildlife,
Birds,
or
Domestic
Animals
(
Includes
LD50
Values
Which
do
not
Fit
Well
into
Other
Categories,
Includes
Oral
Doses
Administered
in
Laboratory
Experiments):

No
information
found;
this
method
not
particularly
appropriate
for
this
application.

C)
Body
Burden
Residues
in
Wildlife,
Birds,
or
Domestic
Animals:
Typical,
Elevated,
or
of
Concern
Related
to
the
Well­
being
of
the
Organism
Itself:

No
information
found;
this
method
not
particularly
appropriate
for
this
application.

Tis.
Human:

A)
Typical
Concentrations
in
Human
Food
Survey
Items:

No
information
found;
this
method
not
particularly
appropriate
for
this
application.

B)
Concentrations
or
Doses
of
Concern
in
Food
Items
Eaten
by
Humans
(
Includes
Allowable
Tolerances
in
Human
Food,
FDA,
State
and
Standards
of
Other
Countries):

No
information
found;
this
method
not
particularly
appropriate
for
this
application.

C)
Body
Burden
Residues
in
Humans:
Typical,
Elevated,
or
of
Concern
Related
to
the
Well­
being
of
Humans:
No
information
found;
this
method
not
particularly
appropriate
for
this
application.

Tis.
Misc.
(
Other
Tissue
Information):

No
information
found.

Bio.
Detail:
Detailed
Information
on
Bioconcentration,
Biomagnification,
or
Bioavailability:

No
information
found;
this
method
not
particularly
appropriate
for
this
application.

Interactions:

No
information
found;
this
method
not
particularly
appropriate
for
this
application.

Uses/
Sources:

No
information
found.

Forms/
Preparations/
Formulations:

No
information
found.

Chem.
Detail:
Detailed
Information
on
Chemical/
Physical
Properties:

Oil
and
grease
includes
not
only
petroleum
oils
but
also
vegetable
and
natural
oils.
Sediments,
biota,
and
decaying
life
forms
are
often
high
in
natural
oils
lipids
which
make
up
part
of
the
oil
and
grease
measure.
Oil
and
grease
results
tell
one
little
about
the
detailed
chemical
composition
of
a
substance.
PAHs
are
important
hazardous
components
of
many
of
the
petroleum
products
sometimes
(
inappropriately)
measured
by
oil
and
grease.
Oil
and
grease
is
not
a
good
measure
of
petroleum
products.
Risk
assessments
involving
petroleum
products
should
include
analyses
of
PAHs
and
alkyl
PAHs
utilizing
the
NOAA
protocol
expanded
scan
[
828]
or
other
rigorous
GC/
MS/
SIM
methods.

Fate.
Detail:
Detailed
Information
on
Fate,
Transport,
Persistence,
and/
or
Pathways:

Oil
and
grease
method
not
particularly
appropriate
for
this
application.
A
field
test
of
bioremediation
of
soils
contaminated
with
Bunker
C
at
a
refinery
in
Beaumont,
Texas,
utilized
oil
and
grease
data,
which
(
although
the
data
was
quite
variable)
seemed
to
indicate
bioremediation
was
taking
place
[
728].
A
comparison
of
the
oil
and
grease
data
at
this
site
with
TPH
data
indicated
that
TPH
was
suggesting
the
same
thing,
that
the
data
was
quite
variable
but
if
anything,
the
oil
was
being
slowly
being
cleaned
up
by
bioremediation
(
Bruce
Herbert,
Texas
A.
and
M.,
Department
of
Geology,
personal
communication,
1995).
However,
a
later
study
of
the
same
site
utilizing
the
expanded
scan
for
PAHs
(
a
modified
EPA
8270
including
alkyl
homologues
and
lower
detection
limits),
indicated
that
very
little
bioremediation
of
hazardous
alkyl
PAHs
and
multi­
ring
PAHs
was
actually
taking
place
[
727].
Thus,
utilizing
either
oil
and
grease
or
TPH
analyses
would
tend
to
lead
one
to
the
faulty
conclusion
that
the
harmful
compounds
were
being
naturally
cleaned
up
at
an
acceptable
rate.
This
is
partly
because
the
TPH
and
oil
and
grease
methods
tend
to
favor
the
lighter
and
less
alkylated
PAHs,
whereas
many
of
the
carcinogenic
and
longer
lasting
PAHs
are
the
heavier
multi­
ringed
and
alkylated
compounds.

See
also:
Br.
Fate
section
above.
No
other
information
found.

Laboratory
and/
or
Field
Analyses:

For
investigating
biological
effects
of
petroleum
products,
do
not
use
oil
and
grease
analyses.
Low
values
tend
to
give
the
mistaken
impression
that
a
site
is
clean
when
it
really
isn't
(
a
false
negative).
For
example,
a
field
test
of
bioremediation
of
soils
contaminated
with
Bunker
C
(
a
heavy
fuel)
at
a
refinery
in
Beaumont,
Texas,
utilized
oil
and
grease
data,
which
(
although
the
data
was
quite
variable)
seemed
to
indicate
bioremediation
was
taking
place
[
728].
A
comparison
of
the
oil
and
grease
data
at
this
site
with
TPH
data
at
this
site
suggested
the
same
thing,
that
the
data
was
quite
variable
but
if
anything,
the
oil
was
slowly
being
cleaned
up
by
bioremediation
(
Bruce
Herbert,
Texas
A.
and
M.,
Department
of
Geology,
personal
communication,
1995).
However,
a
later
study
of
the
same
site
utilizing
the
expanded
scan
for
PAHs
[
828]
(
a
modified
EPA
8270
including
alkyl
homologues
and
lower
detection
limits)
[
828],
indicated
that
very
little
bioremediation
of
hazardous
alkyl
PAHs
and
multi­
ring
PAHs
was
actually
taking
place
[
727].
Thus,
utilizing
either
oil
and
grease
or
TPH
analyses
would
tend
to
lead
one
to
the
faulty
conclusion
that
the
harmful
compounds
were
being
naturally
cleaned
up
at
an
acceptable
rate.
This
is
partly
because
the
TPH
and
oil
and
grease
methods
tend
to
favor
the
lighter
and
less
alkylated
PAHs,
whereas
many
of
the
carcinogenic
and
longer
lasting
PAHs
are
the
heavier
multi­
ringed
and
alkylated
compounds.
For
the
most
useful
chemical
analyses
of
spilled
petroleum
hydrocarbon
products,
it
is
often
appropriate
to
ask
the
laboratories
for
an
"
expanded"
PAH
scan
which
includes
the
most
important
alkylated
PAHs
[
828].
In
cases
where
a
less
expensive
screening
scan
is
desired,
consider
using
a
GC/
FID
or
an
HPLC/
Fluorescence
scan
method
for
sediment
or
bile
metabolite
samples.
Such
scans
are
available
from
laboratories
such
as
Texas
A.
and
M.,
Arthur
D.
Little,
and
the
NOAA
lab
in
Seattle,
It
is
important
to
realize
that
contaminants
data
from
different
labs,
different
states,
and
different
agencies,
collected
by
different
people,
are
often
not
very
comparable
(
see
also,
discussion
in
the
disclaimer
section
at
the
top
of
this
entry).
This
factor
is
particularly
important
for
oil
and
grease.
As
of
1997,
the
problem
of
lack
of
data
comparability
(
not
only
for
water
methods
but
also
for
soil,
sediment,
and
tissue
methods)
between
different
"
standard
methods"
recommended
by
different
agencies
seemed
to
be
getting
worse,
if
anything,
rather
than
better.
The
trend
in
quality
assurance
seemed
to
be
for
various
agencies,
including
the
EPA
and
others,
to
insist
on
quality
assurance
plans
for
each
project.
In
addition
to
quality
control
steps
(
blanks,
duplicates,
spikes,
etc.),
these
quality
assurance
plans
call
for
a
step
of
insuring
data
comparability
[
1015,1017].
However,
the
data
comparability
step
is
often
not
given
sufficient
consideration.
The
tendency
of
agency
guidance
(
such
as
EPA
SW­
846
methods
and
some
other
new
EPA
methods
for
bioconcentratable
substances)
to
allow
more
and
more
flexibility
to
select
options
at
various
points
along
the
way,
makes
it
harder
in
insure
data
comparability
or
method
validity.
Even
volunteer
monitoring
programs
are
now
strongly
encouraged
to
develop
and
use
quality
assurance
project
plans
[
1015,1017].
At
minimum,
before
using
contaminants
data
from
diverse
sources,
one
should
determine
that
field
collection
methods,
detection
limits,
and
lab
quality
control
techniques
were
acceptable
and
comparable.
The
goal
is
that
the
analysis
in
the
concentration
range
of
the
comparison
benchmark
concentration
should
be
very
precise
and
accurate.
It
should
be
kept
in
mind
that
quality
control
field
and
lab
blanks
and
duplicates
will
not
help
in
the
data
quality
assurance
goal
as
well
as
intended
if
one
is
using
a
method
prone
to
false
negatives.
Since
oil
and
grease
is
prone
to
both
false
positives
and
false
negatives,
other
more
rigorous
analyses,
such
as
the
NOAA
expanded
scan
for
PAHs
[
828]
are
often
preferable.
Methods
may
be
prone
to
false
negatives
due
to
the
use
of
detection
limits
that
are
too
high,
the
loss
of
contaminants
through
inappropriate
handling,
or
the
use
of
inappropriate
methods
(
such
as
oil
and
grease
in
many
applications).
The
following
information
on
oil
and
grease
method
413.1
was
provided
by
Peter
Wong,
California
Health
Services
Lab
Certification
Program
(
personal
communication
to
Roy
Irwin):

One
has
to
be
careful
with
oil
and
grease
values
because
different
labs
use
different
methods
for
preparation
of
the
samples
and
different
oils
(
cooking
oil,
mineral
oil
or
motor
oil)
to
calibrate
instruments.

One
of
the
EPA
methods
for
oil
and
grease
is
a
gravimetric
method
called
EAD
1652
"
Oil
and
Grease."
It
is
summarized
as
follows
[
861]:

EAD
1652
Oil
and
Grease
1
EAD_
METHODS
GRAV
mg/
L
DL
"
Oil
and
Grease
by
Solid
Phase
Extraction"
This
method
is
used
to
determine
total
oil
and
grease
and
oil
and
grease
amenable
to
solid
phase
extraction
[
861].
This
method
measures
the
materials
that
may
be
extracted
on
a
bonded
silica
solid
phase
sorbent
material
from
surface
water,
saline
water,
industrial,
and
domestic
wastewater
[
861].
It
is
applicable
to
the
determination
of
relatively
non­
volatile
hydrocarbons,
vegetable
oils,
animal
fats,
waxes,
soaps,
greases,
and
related
matter
[
861].
The
method
is
not
applicable
to
measurement
of
light
hydrocarbons
that
volatilize
at
temperatures
below
70
degrees
C
[
861].
Petroleum
fuels
in
the
range
from
gasoline
through
No
2
fuel
oils
are
completely
or
partially
lost
in
the
solvent
removal
operation
[
861].
The
sample
is
acidified
to
a
pH
<
2
and
drawn
through
a
bonded
silica
sorbent
material
[
861].
The
oil
and
grease
remain
on
the
solid
phase
sorbent
while
the
aqueous
phase
passes
through
[
861].
The
oil
and
grease
are
then
eluted
with
an
organic
solvent
into
an
evaporating
vessel
[
861].
The
solvent
is
evaporated
from
the
extract,
and
the
remaining
residue
is
weighed
[
861].
