NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING SERVICE CENTER
Port Hueneme, CA 93043
NFESC
TECHNICAL REPORT
TR-2101-ENV
EVALUATION OF BIO-BASED INDUSTRIAL
PRODUCTS FOR NAVY AND
DOD USE
PHASE I
KENAF ABSORBENT
March 1999
Prepared by
Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center
1100 23rd Avenue
Port Hueneme, CA 93043-4370
Printed on recycled paper
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Alternative Agricultural Research and Commercialization (AARC) Corporation is a wholly
owned corporation of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). AARC is a venture capital
firm that is authorized to make investments in companies to help commercialize bio-based
industrial products (non-food, non-feed) from agricultural, forestry materials, and animal
byproducts. As these bio-based products are made from agricultural materials, they tend to be
environmentally friendly. In many instances, these products replace petroleum products and are
comprised of recovered agricultural waste material.
Since the Federal government has an equity position in these companies, Section 729 of the
1996 Federal Agricultural Improvement and Reform Act (P.L. 104-127, Title VII, Subtitle A,
Chapter 2, Section 1657c) prompted an amendment of the AARC Corporation authorization.
The authorization now allows other Federal agencies to establish procurement set-asides and
encourages preferences for property that has been commercialized with assistance provided under
Subtitle G of Title XVI of the Food, Agriculture, Conservation and Trade Act of 1990. To this
end, the Federal Acquisition Regulations are in the process of being amended to encourage these
preferences. In addition, both the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Agriculture have
signed letters expressing their support of a partnership between Department of Defense (DOD)
and USDA to increase DOD use of these bio-based products.
Under the sponsorship of AARC Corporation, Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center
(NFESC) evaluated the potential use of a number of these bio-based products within the Navy
and DOD. Representatives from both NFESC and AARC selected eleven bio-based products to
undergo a two-phase evaluation process. This document provides the results from the first phase
of the evaluation process.
1
2.0 EVALUATION METHODOLOGY
The evaluation methodology consists of a two-phase approach. Details of the methodology are
outlined in the following two subsections.
2.1 Phase I: Preliminary Product Evaluation
Each vendor鈥檚 manufacturing site was visited to collect product data, discuss product usage, and
to obtain information regarding the performance claims, savings, and environmental benefits.
Existing third-party certifications and test results were also reviewed and current users of the
product were contacted and interviewed. In addition, scientific and engineering literature was
researched to establish the physical, chemical, or biological mechanisms employed by the
product in achieving its claimed performance. Potential opportunities for using the product
within the Navy were identified and a preliminary life cycle cost (LCC) analysis was performed
using the Phase I product data. The evaluation process did not proceed to Phase II if the results
of the Phase I product investigation clearly indicated that the product could not be cost-
effectively employed within the Navy or that the product had no apparent cost-effective potential
for Navy use. An implementation plan was developed for those products evaluated as having
cost effective use within the Navy. Proceeding onward to Phase II product testing was
recommended when the Phase I analysis suggested that the product had potential for cost-
effective Navy use but lacked sufficient data to conclusively validate product performance and/or
LCC.
2.2 Phase II: Product Testing
For those products proceeding onto phase II of the evaluation process, a specific step-by-step test
protocol is developed for each recommended product with the objective of providing sufficient
data to verify product utility within the Navy. The protocol will be designed to evaluate life
cycle performance of the product. Upon approval of the protocol by AARC, the product will be
tested by a certified testing facility under controlled conditions. In addition, the life cycle
performance of the product will be evaluated and the environmental, safety, and health benefits
and trade-offs associated with the product will be estimated. A LCC analysis of the product will
be performed using the proven costing techniques from the NAVFAC Economic Analysis
Handbook P-442.
An implementation plan will be developed for each of the recommended products targeted for
the potential user community within the Navy and DOD. During the development of the
implementation plan, the requirements and needs of the Navy ship, aviation, and shore facilities
will be considered. The resources of the Joint Group on Acquisition Pollution Prevention (JG-
APP) will also be utilized to promote Army and Air Force implementation of the product.
Product visibility may also be achieved through various publications distributed throughout DoD
and other government agencies.
2
3.0 PRODUCTS EVALUATED
Table 3.1 lists the eleven products evaluated in Phase I for potential application within the DoD.
Two of the products were determined unfeasible for use within the DoD. The remaining nine
products are each presented in a separate evaluation report.
(Table 3.1 Omitted Due To Restricted Vendor Information)
4.0 AFFIRMATIVE PROCUREMENT
Section 6002 of Resource Conservation Recovery Act (RCRA) directs government agencies to
promote recycling by increasing their purchases of products containing recovered materials.
RCRA section 6002(e) requires the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to designate items
that are or can be produced with recovered materials and prepare guidelines to assist procuring
agencies in complying with their affirmative procurement responsibilities set forth in paragraphs
(c), (d), and (i) of section 6002. Once EPA has designated items, section 6002 requires that any
procuring agency spending more than $10,000 a year of Federal funds on an item must purchase
the highest percentage of recovered materials practicable. Procuring agencies are Federal, state,
and local agencies, and their contractors, which use appropriated Federal funds.
Executive Order 12873 reinforced RCRA鈥檚 Federal buy recycled program by directing EPA to
adopt modified procedures for designating items and providing procurement recommendations.
Under the order, EPA issued a regulation known as Comprehensive Procurement Guideline
(CPG) which contains the item designations, and also prepared a guidance document known as a
Recovered Materials Advisory Notice (RMAN). The RMAN contains EPA鈥檚 recommendations
to procuring agencies to assist them in purchasing the designated items and meeting their
statutory obligations. The RMAN also provides general guidance for developing an affirmative
procurement program. An affirmative procurement program is an procuring agency鈥檚 strategy for
maximizing its purchases of EPA-designated items, and must consist of the following:
鈥? Recovered materials preference program
鈥? An agency promotion program
鈥? A program for requiring vendors to reasonably estimate, certify, and verify the
recovered materials content of their products; and
鈥? A program to monitor and annually review the effectiveness of the affirmative
procurement program
On September 16, 1998 Executive Order 12873 was replaced by Executive Order 13101
which expanded the affirmative procurement program to include bio-based products on
the EPA designated item list. A bio-based product list will be developed and published
by USDA in the Federal Register no later than March 23, 1999. The list shall also be
updated biannually after publication to include additional items. It is assumed that the
bio-based product evaluated in this report will be included in the list.
3
In the spirit of section 6002 of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and
Executive Order 13101, Federal procuring agencies and personnel should strongly consider
implementing sustainable bio-based products when selecting items to meet the goals of the
affirmative procurement program.
5.0 KENAF ABSORBENT
5.1 Product Description
Kenaf absorbent is manufactured from the dry stalk of a kenaf plant, an annual agricultural crop.
Kenaf, a member of the hibiscus family (Hibiscus cannabinus L.), is related to cotton, hemp, and
okra. The stalk of the kenaf plant is comprised of two fiber types. About one-third of the stalk鈥檚
dry weight is bark fiber known as bast. The remaining fiber is the white inner core commonly
referred to as 鈥渒enaf鈥?. Refined bast fibers, similar to softwood fibers, are used to make writing
paper, cigarette paper, filtration paper, and, with the addition of polypropylene, a fiberglass-like
product. The refined core fibers, similar to hardwood tree fibers, are used to make a range of
paper products including composite panels, animal bedding, potting media, and oil absorbent
materials.
KenGro Corporation of Charleston, Mississippi, one of the largest manufacturers of kenaf,
reports an annual yield of about 2,000-2,500 tons from approximately 500 acres (4-5 tons per
acre). Kenaf grows quickly, often reaching 12-14 feet in as little as about five months. Kenaf is
generally planted in May and harvested in March after drying in the field during the winter
months. The kenaf is collected into loose bales or 鈥渕odules鈥? and usually stored outside, open to
the elements until processing.
The following is a brief description of KenGro鈥檚 proprietary manufacturing process and
absorbent applications. The harvested kenaf plant is first processed in a hammermill where the
plant stalks are pulverized. A trommel screen mechanically separates the bast from the core
allowing for independent processing. The core is then placed on a shaker table, blown into a
separate building, and run through either a mill or hammermill further reducing the core
particles. Screens filter the core particles into two main particle sizes. Particles less than 1/4鈥?
but greater than 1/8鈥? in diameter are referred to as 鈥淏in 2鈥?. Particles less than 1/8鈥? in diameter
are referred to as 鈥淏in 3鈥?. After screening, the Bin 2 and Bin 3 particles are bagged on site in
loose form in plastic or paper bags. KenGro sells these small, large, or mixed particles wholesale
to different distributors under a number of labels (ECOSORB, Kenaf 2000) for a variety of
applications. The kenaf absorbent products are non-reusable and are intended for oil spills on
land, water, or hard surfaces such as floors. On request, the kenaf can be packaged into socks
although this may reduce the absorbency of the product.
KenGro reports using a minimal amount of herbicide and pesticides on their kenaf crops. In
addition, no chemicals or biological organisms are added to the kenaf during or after processing.
However, there are indigenous microbes in the kenaf plant that feed on hydrocarbons that
promote bioremediation. KenGro is also currently investigating the possibility of adding a white
rot fungus to further enhance the bioremediation properties.
4
Contact Information:
Point of Contact: R.H. Burress, President
Address: KenGro Corporation
6605 Hwy. 32 E.
P.O. Box 432
Charleston, MS 38921
Phone: (601) 647-2456
Fax: (601) 647-2468
5.2 Vendor Claims
In regards to their oil absorbent material, KenGro claims the following:
鈥? Products are made from a completely renewable annual agricultural crop (no
depletion of natural resources).
鈥? Products are all natural and 100% biodegradable.
鈥? Products are non-toxic to humans and have no adverse effect on plants or animals.
鈥? Products may be used for spills on land, on water, or as a floor sweep.
鈥? Products absorb up to six times their weight
鈥? Products are best suited for light oils.
鈥? Products have less than a 1% leaching capability.
鈥? Products enhance bioremediation of petroleum hydrocarbons.
鈥? Products are lightweight thus reducing landfill or incineration disposal costs.
鈥? Incineration yields less than 2% ash and a high BTU rating of 7,500 BTU/lb.
鈥? Products are not soluble in water.
鈥? Products used on water spills aid filtration of any liquid contaminants in water.
Table 5.1 lists some of the physical properties of the kenaf Bin 2 and Bin 3 products as reported
by KenGro.
Table 5.1: Physical Properties of Kenaf
Physical Properties Kenaf Bin 2 Kenaf Bin 3
Particle Size (inches) < 1/4 and > 1/8 < 1/8
3
Density (lb/ft ) 6 7
Absorbency Up to 6 times Up to 6 times
its own weight its own weight
Leaching rate (%) < 0.02% < 0.02%
A copy of the vendor鈥檚 product information sheet is included in Appendix A.
5
5.3 Application Procedures
One distributor of kenaf recommends the following applications of kenaf absorbent:
For Bioremediation of Oil Spills On Land: Spread kenaf over spilled hydrocarbon to an average
of 2 inches in thickness and till into soil 5-6 inches deep. Allow natural bioremediation to occur.
For Oil Spills On Water: Spread kenaf manually or mechanically upwind of spill. Use screened
forks or vacuum to remove saturated particles.
For Oil Spills On Hard Surfaces: Spread kenaf on spill until all hydrocarbon is absorbed. Use
broom to sweep up saturated material and place in a suitable container.
5.4 Verification of Product Claims
5.4.1 Third Party Testing and Results
The majority of third party testing on kenaf absorbent has been conducted by Mississippi
Forest Products Laboratory of Mississippi State University and Millsaps Sorbent and
Environmental Laboratory of Millsaps College in Mississippi.
5.4.1.1 Millsaps Sorbent and Environmental Laboratory Sorbency
Millsaps Sorbent and Environmental Laboratory, located at Millsaps College in Jackson,
Mississippi, conducted sorbency tests on various sorbents which included kenaf Bin 2
and Bin 3, peat moss, kitty litter, and polypropylene. Testing was conducted in
accordance with American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) test method F 726,
Section 9.1.2. This test measured the sorbency of a material as defined by dividing the
total amount of oil absorbed by the weight of the dry sorbent sample. The test determines
the optimum absorbent capacity without the competing presence of water. The ASTM
protocol warns that 鈥渦nder normal use conditions, an absorbent will not be exposed to
sufficient oil layer thicknesses to become completely or rapidly saturated. This test
therefore provides an indication of the maximum possible absorbency capacity and the
idealized time to saturation. Table 5.2 summarizes the results of the absorbency tests. A
copy of the test report, dated December 30, 1992, is included in Appendix A.
6
Table 5.2: Average Absorbency Ratios for Kenaf and Other Sorbents
Absorbency Ratio: Grams of Oil Absorbed Per Gram of Absorbent
Polypropylene1
Oil Type Kenaf Milled Kenaf Peat Moss Kitty
Core 2 Milled Fines Litter
(Bin 2) (Bin 3)
T-201 2.90 1.64 1.23 0.31 9.81-15.21
Heavy Crude
#2 Diesel 4.39 5.54 3.50 0.44 9.22-13.16
T-102 5.87 6.92 3.48 0.45 9.81-16.61
Light Crude
1
Ranges based on results of the lowest and highest performing polypropylene materials.
Table 5.2 shows that, aside from the polypropylene absorbents, the kenaf absorbents out-
performed both kitty litter and peat moss. Kenaf鈥檚 absorbency ratio for light crude oil and
#2 diesel were determined to be 6.92 and 5.54 respectively. These findings support the
absorbency claims made by KenGro. It should be noted that kenaf fines (not to be
confused with kenaf milled fines) were also tested. The data, not included in the above
table, showed an absorbency of 11.98 grams T-102 light crude oil absorbed per gram of
sorbent. KenGro states, however, that this absorbency value should not be used because,
in their opinion, the 鈥渇ines鈥? are not a practical or usable form of kenaf. The report asserts
that the kenaf fines proved to be in the same range of efficiency as polypropylene fabrics,
which have become a standard in environmental applications. In addition, the report
recommended that these fines be studied for use as an absorbent filler for socks, pillows,
or booms.
5.4.1.2 Department of Plant Pathology and Weed Science, Mississippi State
University
Kenaf samples were collected from three moisture levels within storage modules and
examined for the occurrence of bacteria and fungi at Mississippi State University (MSU).
The report does not mention using a specific test method. The test protocol, however, is
described. The test results showed that four distinct bacterial colonies were present in all
moisture levels. Five fungal species, one each from Aspergillus, Penicillium, Rhizopus,
Nigrospora, and Sodaria genera were also identified. Along with these five, seven
additional fungi were yet to be identified. A copy of the undated report is included in
Appendix A.
7
5.4.1.3 Mississippi Forest Products Laboratory of Mississippi State
University
Mississippi Forest Products Laboratory (MFPL) of MSU tested the efficacy of kenaf as a
petroleum sorbent in highly contaminated soil. The report does not mention using a
specific test method, although the test protocol is described. Briefly, T-102 light oil was
added and mixed into sandy soil to simulate contaminated soil. A soil sample was
collected and analyzed for total petroleum hydrocarbon (TPH) content. Kenaf was then
added and mixed in with the contaminated soil. After 10 hours of dwell time, kenaf fines
were separated from soil by air fractionation. The soil and kenaf fines were then
extracted and analyzed for TPH content. This preliminary study showed a 56%
petroleum loss from the soil while kenaf showed a 66% petroleum gain. The 10%
difference was attributed to kenaf absorbing organics other than the petroleum from the
soil.
MFPL also conducted a Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) test to
determine the leaching characteristics of kenaf. Initially, the contaminated kenaf
contained 750,000 ppm of total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH). The TCLP test showed
that only a drop in 160 ppm TPH had leached out of the kenaf. This test summary did not
mention using any specific method, stating only that the kenaf was extracted for TCLP by
鈥淓PA鈥? methods and analyzed for TPH content.
The third test conducted by MFPL evaluated the use of microorganisms for bioremoval of
petroleum oil from contaminated kenaf . In a test with unspecified method, kenaf fines
were contaminated with petroleum oil and placed in flasks. Sterile water was added plus
either a bacteria culture (known hydrocarbon bioremoval agent) in nutrient broth or a
nutrient broth without the bacterial culture added to the flasks. After being on a rotary
shaker for 7 days, the kenaf fines were filtered from the liquid media and all samples
were tested for microbiological counts and TPH analysis. Both treatments with and
without the bacteria culture removed petroleum from kenaf fines at 49% and 55%,
respectively. The TPH concentrations in the liquid media were minimal which meant that
the effective bioremoval agent was intrinsic to the kenaf with little contribution from the
bacteria culture.
The report concluded that the preliminary results from the above three tests indicate that
kenaf could be used as an excellent sorbent of oil and also as a carrier of microorganisms
for bioremediation of petroleum wastes. Indigenous microorganisms associated with
kenaf fines were found to be effective biodegraders as the bacterial culture used in the
laboratory study. A summary of the test report entitled 鈥淏ench Scale Study of Kenaf as a
Potential Oil Sorbent and Carrier of Biodegradation Microorganisms, dated September
27, 1993, is included in Appendix A.
8
5.4.1.4 Department of Forest Products, Mississippi State University
A study of a biopile treatment of creosote-contaminated soil at a closed wood-treating
facility was the subject of a dissertation submitted to the faculty of MSU by K. L. Hurt.
Soils contaminated with creosote were placed in biopiles and treated and monitored at
regular intervals for 360 days. The four methods of treatment were: 1) venting, 2)
venting with a 1% by volume addition of kenaf, 3) venting with a 1% by volume addition
of kenaf and a fungi (Cladosporium), and 4) as controls (no additives or vent pipes). Soil
samples were collected periodically and analyzed for TPH, polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons (PAH), nutrients, microbes, and TCLP (of the soil). Methods used
included Standard Method 5520-F and EPA methods 9060, 351.4, 365.3, and 3520 A.
The dissertation concluded that the test results indicated that the final concentrations of
total PAHs in the control treatment were not significantly different than other treatments.
Apparently, the indigenous soil microorganisms, the initial excavation, and the mixing
aerated the soil and caused the rapid degradation rates that occurred before day 90. The
dissertation does point out that, at several points throughout the study, the kenaf biopile
significantly enhanced biodegradation of PAHs. The concentrations of total PAHs
decreased the most through day 45 for the control and kenaf treatments at approximately
62% and 55% respectively. No other worthwhile reduction occurred after day 45. In
addition, the final concentrations of TPH were similar for all treatments. With
appropriate mixing and aeration, these particular native microflora were capable of
degrading the petroleum hydrocarbons in the contaminated soils. A copy of the
dissertation, dated December 1996, is included in Appendix A.
5.4.1.5 Mississippi Agricultural and Forestry Experiment Station,
Mississippi State University
The Mississippi Agricultural and Forestry Experiment Station (MAFES), MSU prepared
an 鈥淥fficial Opinion鈥? statement based on a number of experiments conducted at their
facility. Test methods used were not specified in the statement. Test results from a
chemical analysis indicates the pH of the kenaf core is approximately 6.8 and the specific
gravity is less than one. Being a naturally occurring cellulosic material, kenaf is
considered non-toxic and will have no effect on any plant or animal on land or in water.
Kenaf is also fully biodegradable with biodegradation time dependent upon pH, carbon-
nitrogen ratio and frequency of rainfall or irrigation. Under ambient outdoor conditions
with no supplemental nitrogen, biodegradation occurs in approximately 24 months. In
soil bioremediation and biodegradation of petroleum hydrocarbon contaminated kenaf
core tests, biodegradation is enhanced and can occur in less than nine months.
Indigenous microorganisms in the kenaf core serve as an effective bioremediation agent.
An undated copy of the Official Opinion statement is included in Appendix A.
9
MAFES, MSU also analyzed kenaf core samples for energy and dry matter content. The
data received did not include the method of analysis. Test results showed that kenaf core,
as received, had 7,556.8 BTUs per pound of kenaf. The dry matter, a mass measurement
of a sample after the removal of any water, was found to be 90.74%. Although the ash
content was not determined, it is assumed to be less than 9.26%. A copy of the test
results, dated November 15, 1991, is included in Appendix A.
5.4.1.6 Mississippi State Chemical Laboratory, Mississippi State University
Mississippi State Chemical Laboratory (MSCL) at MSU conducted analytical tests on
kenaf core in October of 1991 and 1992. Samples were analyzed for presence of
pesticide and insecticide residues. The test method used was not specified. The most
recent analytical test results are shown in Table 5.3. Copies of the test results, dated
October 1, 1992, October 14, 1992, and December 14, 1998 are included in Appendix A.
Table 5.3 lists organochlorine and organophosphate pesticides and insecticides. The
organochlorine pesticides identified in Table 5.3 are listed as toxic organic compounds
and regulated by the Clean Water Act. The test results indicate that the concentrations of
organochlorine pesticides present in kenaf were below the maximum contaminant levels
of 0.01 mg/L set forth by the EPA.
10
Table 5.3: 1992 Test Results For Pesticide and Insecticide Residues
COMPOUND Concentration Detection Limit
(ppm) (ppm)
Chlorpyrifos 0.03 0.01
Treflan ND 0.01
Heptachlor* ND 0.01
Heptachlor Epoxide* ND 0.01
Aldrin* ND 0.01
alpha-BHC* ND 0.01
beta-BHC* ND 0.01
delta-BHC* ND 0.01
gamma-BHC (Lindane)* ND 0.01
Chlordane* ND 0.01
4, 4-DDD* ND 0.01
4, 4-DDE* ND 0.01
4, 4-DDT* ND 0.01
Dieldrin* ND 0.01
Endosulfan I* ND 0.01
Endosulfan II* ND 0.01
Endosulfan sulfate* ND 0.01
Endrin* ND 0.01
Mirex ND 0.01
Methoxychlor ND 0.01
Hexachlorobenzene* ND 0.01
Ronnel ND 0.01
Trithion ND 0.01
Diazinon ND 0.01
Methyl Parathion ND 0.01
Ethyl Parathion ND 0.01
Malathion ND 0.01
Toxaphene* ND 0.01
ND 鈥? Not detected at specified level
*Organochlorine pesticides
11
5.4.1.7 Louisiana Agricultural Experimental Station, Louisiana State University
Agricultural Center and Department of Clothing and Textiles, Virginia
Polytechnic Institute and State University
Faculty members from Louisiana Agricultural Experimental Station, Louisiana State
University Agricultural Center and Department of Clothing and Textiles, Virginia
Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, Virginia conducted an absorbent
study. The results of the study were published in Environmental Science and
Technology, Vol. 26, No. 4, 1992 in an article entitled Using Natural Sorbents In Oil
Spill Cleanup. In the study the natural fibers tested included cotton, milkweed, and
kenaf. In addition, polypropylene and a blend of milkweed and polypropylene were used
for comparisons. Absorbents were tested in artificial seawater with light crude oil and
then with Bunker C oil using test methods described in the Technical Manual of the
American Association of Textile Chemists and Colorists 106-1981 and ASTM D 95-70.
The report stated that the oil sorption values of kenaf fiber and core materials were
generally lower than that of milkweed or cotton but were similar to polypropylene web
for Bunker C oil. Also, further separation of the naturally occurring fiber bundles of
kenaf to the single fibers should increase oil sorption comparably to polypropylene. The
study included three additional absorbency tests on the natural fibers that excluded kenaf.
The general conclusions drawn from the report were predominately based upon these
additional test results. Therefore, interpretation of the comparative results, as presented,
may be misleading since a complete absorbency profile of kenaf was not investigated as
fully as the other natural fibers. A copy of the report, dated 1992, is included in
Appendix A.
5.4.2 Review of Material Safety Data Sheet
A review of the Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS), compiled by KenGro, provides
information that appears to be consistent with third party test data. A copy of the MSDS,
dated January 1, 1998, is included in Appendix A.
5.4.3 Verification Issues
The vendor claim that kenaf used on water spills aid filtration of any liquid contaminants in
water could not be verified since supporting third party test data was not submitted.
5.5 Current Users
Distributors for KenGro products state that the oil and gas industries are the major users
of kenaf as an oil absorbent. Although kenaf particles are used as a floor sweep, the
product is mainly used on hydrocarbon spills on water and to bioremediate hydrocarbon
spills on land.
12
5.6 Product Comparisons
(Section 5.6 Omitted Due To Restricted Vendor Information)
5.7 Preliminary Life Cycle Costs
(Section 5.7 Omitted Due To Restricted Vendor Information)
5.8 Specifications
The Federal government has specifications, known as commercial item descriptions
(CID), for various absorbents. A contract may require an absorbent to meet the
requirements of a CID, but use of CIDs is not mandatory for most procurements. Table
5.9 summarizes the requirements of CIDs for a floor sweep absorbent and a loose
absorbent for hydrocarbon spills on water. It should be noted that most particulate and
sweep type absorbents are not sold to the government under contract. Nor do most
absorbents sold to the government meet the specified requirements listed in Table 5.8.
13
Table 5.8: Summary of Federal Specification Requirements For Sweep and Particulate Type Absorbents
Item Description Test Particulate Requirement Sweep Requirement
CID Number N/A A-A-1281A A-A-1280B
Media N/A Oil Sorbent, Particulate Oil Sorbent, Sweep
Absorption Ratio of #2 Fuel Oil ASTM F 726 12 11
(Gram of Oil/ 1 Gram of Absorbent)
Water Absorbency Ratio ASTM F 726 N/A 1
(Gram of Water/ 1 Gram of Absorbent)
Absorbent Buoyancy ASTM F 726 Must Float When Saturated 98 %
Fire Resistance Rating ASTM D 2859 Resistant to Flammability Resistant to
Flammability
(0C)
Ignition Temperature ASTM D 1929 150 150
Sieve Analysis Shake 2g in #100 US Std Minimum of 88% Retention N/A
Sieve for 5 min
Toxicity / Reactivity N/A Nontoxic, Nonpolluting, Nontoxic, Nonpolluting,
Nonreactive With Oil Nonreactive With Oil
14
5.9 Potential Navy / DoD Users
All Joint Service activities with operations that involve petroleum, oil, and hydrocarbon products
are potential users of kenaf absorbent.
5.10 Federal Supply Listings
KenGro does not have National Stock Numbers (NSN) for their absorbents, and they do
not currently sell through the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) or the General Services
Agency (GSA).
5.11 Conclusions
The following conclusions can be made regarding kenaf absorbent:
鈥? Made from a sustainable renewable resource.
鈥? Appears to be an all-natural, bio-based and biodegradable product.
鈥? Appears to accelerate the bioremediation process of TPH and PAH when using land
farming techniques.
鈥? Appears to have the necessary nutrients required for bioremediation.
鈥? Is incompatible with oxidizers or oxidizing materials. Users should avoid prolonged
exposure to highly concentrated acids or bases.
鈥? Is not suitable for use in breezy areas or during windy conditions.
鈥? Test results indicate that concentrations of organochlorine insecticides and pesticides
are within the regulatory limits dictated by the CWA.
鈥? Although kenaf appears to have a low leaching rate, used absorbent will require
evaluation for disposal on a case by case basis given the necessary data submitted by
the generator to allow proper waste classification.
鈥? Provides at least 7,000 BTUs per pound of absorbent when incinerated.
鈥? Contains 90.74 % dry matter.
鈥? Bioremediation protocol is not clearly defined by KenGro. Documented and
recommended kenaf to soil ratios vary considerably.
鈥? Kenaf appears to be cost effective to similar products used by the Navy.
鈥? Wave action may reduce float time to a few hours.
15
5.12 Recommendations
Procuring agencies serving the Federal government should implement purchase
preference for kenaf absorbent where feasible. This action is in the spirit of Executive
Order 13101 and RCRA Section 6002, although kenaf absorbent is not presently
considered an EPA designated item.
5.13 Implementation
Section 6.0 contains detailed implementation methods and additional procurement
contacts applicable to kenaf absorbent. The following processes can assist the visibility
of kenaf absorbent within the military:
鈥? The Defense Technical Information Center (DTIC) will receive a final copy of this
report. Joint Service users can search for specific information using a 鈥渒ey words or
phrases鈥? search engine.
鈥? Kenaf absorbent will be logged into the Joint Service Pollution Prevention Technical
Library. This library exists as a Web site and is accessed by the Joint Service for
Pollution Prevention guidance.
鈥? The findings of this evaluation will be submitted as publication articles for Navy-wide
periodicals. For example, 鈥淐urrents鈥?, a full-color quarterly magazine, is published by
NFESC and offers a wide variety of feature articles. 鈥淚ndoor Air Monitor鈥?, a monthly
periodical in an electronic format, publishes articles related to Safety or OSHA issues.
16
|