Submitted to: Meeting Abstract
Publication Type: Abstract only
Publication Acceptance Date: 8/1/2007
Publication Date: 11/15/2007
Citation: Corsi, S., Geis, S., Loyo-Rosales, J., Rice, C. 2007. Aircraft and Pavement Deicer and Anti-Icer Forensics: Which Formulations Reach the Receiving Water and What are Their Potential Impacts. Meeting Abstract. p. 118. Interpretive Summary: .
Technical Abstract: To characterize the effects from runoff of aircraft deicer and anti-icer fluid (ADAF) and pavement deicer formulations (PDF) on receiving water, multiple deicing and anti-icing formulations must be considered. ADAF formulations used on aircraft include Type I fluids (deicers) and Type IV fluids (anti-icers), both of which use a form of glycol as the freezing point depressant mixed with additives to enhance performance. Additives vary among manufacturers and formulations with their compositions held as trade secrets. These additives are responsible for potential toxicity and endocrine disrupting effects of ADAF formulations. Pavement deicers include primarily formate- and acetate-based salts as the freezing point depressants. In addition to these products, the effects of ADAF and PDF can be confounded by the presence of parking lot and roadway deicers such as road salt applied on airport parking lots and by municipalities in the surrounding urban areas. Nine ADAF formulations and two PDF formulations were tested for toxicity using Microtox, Pimephales promelas, Ceriodaphnia dubia, and Selenastrum capricornutum. Results indicate that toxicity among formulations is widely variable. Type IV ADAF is most toxic followed by PDF and then by Type I ADAF. A portion of ADAF toxicity can be explained by the known additives (alkylphenol ethoxylates and tolyltriazoles) and glycols, but much of the toxicity is due to unidentified additives; whereas, PDF toxicity is primarily due to acetate- and formate-based freezing point depressants. Results of toxicity and chemistry analysis of airport runoff samples from two major airports are compared to toxicity and chemistry of ADAF, PDF, and road salt to identify which products are present and the likely cause of toxicity. Type I, Type IV, and PDF formulations all influence samples with the dominant formulations changing depending on sampling site, climatic conditions, and runoff conditions. Road salt also plays a significant role, effectively dominating the toxic signal observed in some samples.