Final Screening Assessment Petroleum Sector Stream Approach

Aviation Fuels
[Fuels]

Chemical Abstracts Service Registry Numbers
64741-86-2
64741-87-3
68527-27-5

Environment Canada
Health Canada
April 2014

(PDF Format - 823 KB)

Table of Contents

• Synopsis
• 1. Introduction
  • 1.1 Grouping of Petroleum Substances
• 2. Substance Identity
  • 2.1 Aviation Turbine Fuels
  • 2.2 Aviation Gasoline Fuels
• 3. Physical-Chemical Properties
• 4. Sources
• 5. Uses
• 6. Releases to the Environment
  • 6.1 Release Estimation
• 7. Environmental Fate
• 8. Persistence and Bioaccumulation Potential
  • 8.1 Environmental Persistence
  • 8.2 Potential for Bioaccumulation
• 9. Potential to Cause Ecological Harm
  • 9.1 Ecological Effects Assessment
  • 9.2 Ecological Exposure Assessment
  • 9.3 Characterization of Ecological Risk
  • 9.4 Uncertainties in Evaluation of Ecological Risk
• 10. Potential to Cause Harm to Human Health
  • 10.1 Exposure Assessment
  • 10.2 Health Effects Assessment
  • 10.3 Characterization of Risk to Human Health
  • 10.4 Uncertainties in Evaluation of Risk to Human Health
• 11. Conclusion
• References
• Appendices

Synopsis

The Ministers of the Environment and of Health have conducted a screening assessment of the following substances, identified as aviation fuels:

These aviation fuels were identified as high priorities for action during the categorization of the DSL, as they were determined to present greatest potential or intermediate potential for exposure of individuals in Canada, and were considered to present a high hazard to human health. These substances met the ecological categorization criteria for persistence or bioaccumulation potential and inherent toxicity to aquatic organisms. These substances were included in the Petroleum Sector Stream Approach (PSSA) because they are related to the petroleum sector and are considered to be of Unknown or Variable composition, Complex reaction products or Biological materials (UVCBs).

Aviation fuels fall under two major categories: aviation turbine fuels (jet fuels) intended for use in aviation gas turbines (compression-ignited turbine jet engines), and aviation gasoline fuels (Avgas) intended for use in spark-ignited aviation piston engines. The majority (99%) of refinery production is aviation turbine fuel. Aviation gasoline fuel is used in a much smaller quantity, representing approximately 1% of the total aviation fuels in Canada.

An analysis of Canadian aviation fuel spills data for the years 2000–2009 indicated that there is on average less than 1 spill per year for aviation turbine fuel to water during ship loading, transport and unloading that is of a sufficient size to be expected to be harmful to aquatic organisms (fish, invertebrates, algae, phytoplankton). Aviation gasoline is not transported by ship, and therefore spills to water during transport are not expected. Spills of aviation gasoline fuels and aviation turbine fuel to soil may cause adverse effects to terrestrial organisms (invertebrates, plants), with approximately 4 to 8 spills to the environment occurring per year of which the average spill volume is expected to cause harm. However, the actual number of spills is expected to be closer to the lower end of the range, and not all of the releases will be of a volume to cause significant harm. No systemic cause for the releases was identified. This analysis excluded spills taking place on the properties of commercial airports or industrial sites (e.g., refineries, bulk storage terminals), as releases at these locations are expected to undergo immediate remediation that would minimize entry into the environment.

Considering all available lines of evidence presented in this screening assessment, there is low risk of harm to organisms or the broader integrity of the environment from these substances. It is therefore concluded that the aviation turbine fuel (CAS RN 64741-86-2) and the aviation gasoline fuels (CAS RNs 64741-87-3 and 68527-27-5) do not meet the criteria under paragraphs 64(a) or (b) of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 (CEPA 1999), as they are not entering the environment in a quantity or concentration or under conditions that have or may have an immediate or long-term harmful effect on the environment or its biological diversity, or that constitute or may constitute a danger to the environment on which life depends.

A critical health effect for the initial categorization of aviation fuels was carcinogenicity, based primarily on classifications by international agencies. Additionally, benzene, a component of aviation fuels, has been identified by Health Canada and several international regulatory agencies as a carcinogen, and was added to the List of Toxic Substances in Schedule 1 of CEPA 1999. As the predominant route of exposure to aviation fuels was determined to be inhalation, estimates of cancer potency for inhalation of benzene were used to characterize risk to the general population from evaporative emissions of aviation fuels.

Aviation fuels exhibited mixed results in in vitro and in vivo genotoxicity assays. Results from limited studies in laboratory animals indicated the potential for developmental health effects at high concentrations in mice but not in rats.

The potential for exposure of the general population to evaporative emissions of aviation fuel at Canadian airports and in the vicinity of bulk storage facilities was evaluated. For non-cancer effects, margins of exposure between upper-bounding estimates of exposure and critical effect levels identified in laboratory animals are considered adequate to address uncertainties in the health effects and exposure databases. For cancer, margins of exposure between upper-bounding estimates of exposure and estimates of cancer potency are considered adequate to address uncertainties related to health effects and exposure. Accordingly, it is concluded that the aviation turbine fuel (CAS RN 64741-86-2) and the aviation gasoline fuels (CAS RNs 64741-87-3 and 68527-27-5) do not meet the criteria under paragraph 64(c) of CEPA 1999, as they are not entering the environment in a quantity or concentration or under conditions that constitute or may constitute a danger in Canada to human life or health.

It is therefore concluded that the aviation turbine fuel (CAS RN 64741-86-2) and the aviation gasoline fuels (CAS RNs 64741-87-3 and 68527-27-5) do not meet any of the criteria set out in section 64 of CEPA 1999.

Top of Page

1. Introduction

The Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 (CEPA 1999) (Canada 1999) requires the Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Health to conduct screening assessments of substances that have met the categorization criteria set out in the Act to determine whether these substances present or may present a risk to the environment or human health.

Based on the information obtained through the categorization process, the Ministers identified a number of substances as high priorities for action. These include substances that:

• met all of the ecological categorization criteria, including persistence (P), bioaccumulation potential (B) and inherent toxicity to aquatic organisms (iT), and were believed to be in commerce in Canada; and/or
• met the categorization criteria for greatest potential for exposure (GPE) or presented an intermediate potential for exposure (IPE) and had been identified as posing a high hazard to human health based on classifications by other national or international agencies for carcinogenicity, genotoxicity, developmental toxicity or reproductive toxicity.

A key element of the Government of Canada’s Chemicals Management Plan (CMP) is the Petroleum Sector Stream Approach (PSSA), which involves the assessment of approximately 160 petroleum substances that are considered high priorities for action (“high priority petroleum substances”). These substances are primarily related to the petroleum sector and are considered to be of Unknown or Variable composition, Complex reaction products or Biological materials (UVCBs).

Screening assessments focus on information critical to determining whether a substance meets the criteria set out in section 64 of CEPA 1999. Screening assessments examine scientific information and develop conclusions by incorporating a weight-of-evidence approach and precaution.^Footnote[1]

1.1 Grouping of Petroleum Substances

The high-priority petroleum substances fall into nine groups of substances based on similarities in production, toxicity and physical-chemical properties (Table A-1 in Appendix A). In order to conduct the screening assessments, each high-priority petroleum substance was placed into one of five categories (“Streams”) depending on its production and uses in Canada:

• Stream 0: substances not produced by the petroleum sector and/or not in commerce
• Stream 1: site-restricted substances, which are substances that are not expected to be transported off refinery, upgrader or natural gas processing facility sites^Footnote[2]
• Stream 2: industry-restricted substances, which are substances that may leave a petroleum-sector facility and may be transported to other industrial facilities (for example, for use as a feedstock, fuel or blending component), but that do not reach the public market in the form originally acquired
• Stream 3: substances that are primarily used by industries and consumers as fuels
• Stream 4: substances that may be present in products available to the consumer

An analysis of the available data determined that 13 petroleum substances are fuels under Stream 3, as described above. These substances were grouped according to fuel type as follows: gasoline; diesel fuels; Fuel Oil No. 2; Fuel Oil No. 4, Fuel Oil No. 6 and Residual Fuel Oil; and aviation fuels. The Stream 3 fuels occur within three of the nine substance groups: heavy fuel oils (HFOs), gas oils and low boiling point naphthas (LBPNs). The aviation fuels considered in this assessment occur within the gas oils and LBPN substance groups.

This screening assessment addresses three aviation fuels described under Chemical Abstracts Service Registry Numbers (CAS RNs) 64741-86-2, 64741-87-3 and 68527-27-5. These aviation fuels were identified as GPE or IPE during the categorization exercise, and were considered to present a high hazard to human health. These substances met the ecological categorization criteria for persistence or bioaccumulation potential and inherent toxicity to aquatic organisms.

The analysis of exposure to aviation fuel exhaust from fuel combustion is outside the scope of this assessment. Consideration of the contribution of fuel combustion to air pollution is assessed under different programs within the Government of Canada.

Included in this screening assessment is the consideration of information on chemical properties, uses, exposure and effects. Data relevant to the screening assessment of these substances were identified in original literature, review and assessment documents, stakeholder research reports and from recent literature searches, up to December 2011 for the environmental section of the document and up to September 2011 for the health effects section of the document. Key studies were critically evaluated, and modelling results were used to inform conclusions.

Characterizing risk to the environment involves the consideration of data relevant to environmental behaviour, persistence, bioaccumulation and toxicity, combined with an estimation of exposure to potentially affected non-human organisms from the major sources of releases to the environment. To predict the overall environmental behaviour and properties of complex substances such as these aviation fuels, representative structures were selected from each chemical class contained within these substances. Conclusions regarding risk to the environment were based in part on an estimation of environmental concentrations resulting from releases and the potential for these concentrations to have a negative impact on non-human organisms. Other lines of evidence including fate, temporal/spatial presence in the environment and hazardous properties of the substances were also taken into account. The ecological portion of the screening assessment summarizes the most pertinent data on environmental behaviour and effects, and does not represent an exhaustive or critical review of all available data. Environmental models and comparisons with similar petroleum substances assisted in the assessment.

Evaluation of risk to human health involved consideration of data relevant to the estimation of exposure of the general population, as well as information on health effects. Health effects were assessed using pooled toxicological data from aviation fuels and related substances, as well as for high-hazard components expected to be present in the fuels. Decisions for risk to human health were based on the nature of the critical effect and margins between conservative effect levels and estimates of exposure, taking into account confidence in the completeness of the identified databases on both exposure and effects, within a screening assessment context. The screening assessment does not represent an exhaustive or critical review of all available data. Rather, it presents a summary of the critical information upon which the conclusion is based.

This screening assessment was prepared by staff in the Existing Substances Programs at Health Canada and Environment Canada, and incorporates input from other programs within these departments. The human health and ecological portions of this assessment have undergone external written peer review/consultation. Comments on the technical portions relevant to human health were received from scientific experts selected and directed by Toxicology Excellence for Risk Assessment (TERA), including Dr. Michael Jayjock (The LifeLine Group), Mr. Darrell McCant (Texas Center for Environmental Quality [TCEQ]), Dr. Mark Whitten (Professor [retired] of Pediatrics, University of Arizona College of Medicine), and Dr. Errol Zeiger (Errol Zeiger Consulting). While external comments were taken into consideration, the final content and outcome of the screening assessment remain the responsibility of Health Canada and Environment Canada.

The critical information and considerations upon which the screening assessment is based are summarized below.

Top of Page

2. Substance Identity

For the purpose of this document, the three CAS RNs collectively will be referred to as “aviation fuels.”

Aviation fuels fall under two major categories: aviation turbine fuels (jet fuels) intended for use in aviation gas turbines (compression-ignited turbine jet engines), and aviation gasoline fuels (Avgas) intended for use in spark-ignited aviation piston engines.

CAS RN 64741-86-2 (Distillates [petroleum], sweetened middle) refers to a combination of hydrocarbons with a carbon range of C9–C20 and a boiling point range of 150–345°C, produced by sweetening a petroleum distillate to convert undesirable mercaptans or to remove acidic impurities.

CAS RN 64741-87-3 (Naphtha [petroleum], sweetened) refers to petroleum naphtha with a carbon range of C4–C12 and a boiling point range of 10–230°C, subjected to a sweetening process to convert undesirable mercaptans or to remove acidic impurities.

CAS RN 68527-27-5 (Naphtha [petroleum], full-range alkylate butane-containing) refers to a combination of hydrocarbons produced with a carbon range of C7–C12 and a boiling point range of 35–200°C, produced by the distillation of the reaction products of isobutene with predominantly mono-olefinic hydrocarbons.

These UVCB substances are complex combinations of hydrocarbon molecules that originate in nature or are the result of chemical reactions and processes that take place during the upgrading and refining process. Given their complex and variable compositions, they could not practicably be formed by simply combining individual constituents. 

2.1 Aviation Turbine Fuels

Aviation turbine fuels (which include CAS RN 64741-86-2) consist primarily of aliphatic hydrocarbons with a carbon range of C9–C16 (Tharby 2010).These jet fuels have two principal names in civil aviation, Jet A and Jet A-1, which are made from the same base stock but vary in their additives. Jet A differs from Jet A-1 in that the freezing point of Jet A is -40°C while that of Jet A-1 is -47°C (Tharby 2010). Jet Propellant-5 (JP-5) and JP-8 are military grades of aviation turbine fuels (Tharby 2010). Due to the limited available information on aviation turbine fuel (CAS RN 64741-86-2), a read-across approach to Jet A, Jet A-1, JP-5 and JP-8 was used in this assessment. Furthermore, the read-across approach extended to kerosene and diesel fuel, based on similar boiling points and carbon ranges.

Aviation turbine fuels contain straight-chain n-alkanes, branched-chain isoalkanes, cycloalkanes, one-ring aromatics (alkylated benzene compounds) and very limited amounts of bicyclic aromatics (naphthalene and biphenyl). In general, there are approximately 25–30% each of n-alkanes and isoalkanes, 25% cycloalkanes and 15–20% aromatics (Tharby 2010). However, the actual proportions of each hydrocarbon type can differ based on the crude oil and secondary processing influences (Tharby 2010). A further compositional breakdown of aviation turbine fuels (Jet A/Jet A-1 and JP-8) is presented in Table 2-1. According to technical requirements as specified by the Canadian General Standards Board (CGSB 2009), aviation turbine fuels should not contain more than 25% aromatics. Kerosene, a substance used for read-across for aviation fuels, has a basic composition of at least 70% alkanes and cycloalkanes, up to 25% aromatic hydrocarbons and less than 5% alkenes (U.S. EPA 2011).

2.2 Aviation Gasoline Fuels

Aviation gasoline fuels (which include CAS RN 64741-87-3 and 68527-27-5) are gasoline-based. A general composition of aviation gasoline fuels is presented in Table 2-2. Aviation gasoline fuels are composed of light alkylate (branched alkanes in the range of C7–C10), isomerate (isoalkanes), and other aromatic substances at lower concentrations such as benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylenes (BTEX). They also contain anti-knock additives, primarily in the form of tetraethyl lead (Tharby 2010). The potential health and ecological effects of specific additives, including lead and its compounds, are not considered in this report and may be considered under different programs within the Government of Canada. Leaded aviation gasoline has an ongoing exemption under the Regulations Respecting Concentrations of Lead and Phosphorous in Gasoline (Canada 1990). The Government of Canada is not currently considering a change to the exemption for leaded gasoline used in aircraft until a suitable replacement to tetraethyl lead in aviation gasoline becomes available, and aircraft and their engines are certified to use it (Canada 2008). Aviation gasoline fuels are known to consist of blends of refined hydrocarbons derived from crude petroleum, natural gasoline or blends of the aforementioned. The refining industry does not readily use CAS RNs to denote product streams, but instead blends substances as needed to meet the required functional specifications. Thus, several product streams such as those listed above will be blended to meet product requirements. Furthermore, there is limited information available on the two specific aviation gasoline fuel substances assessed in this report, and thus a read-across approach to automotive gasoline was used in this assessment based on similar boiling points and carbon ranges. The primary difference between gasoline and these two aviation gasoline fuels is in the proportions of alkanes and alkenes.

Top of Page

3. Physical-Chemical Properties

The composition and physical-chemical properties of aviation fuels vary depending on the type of use for the fuel, whether for turbine jet engines or piston-driven engines. Physical-chemical properties of aviation fuels are presented in Table 3-1.

In order to predict the overall behaviour of a complex petroleum mixture in the environment, representative structures were chosen from each chemical class within the substances (Table B-1 in Appendix B). A total of 24 structures were chosen, with some suggested by Tharby (2010). Representative structures were not chosen based on proportions in the substance, but rather on the identity of the components within the substance. Representative structures for alkanes, isoalkanes, cycloalkanes, cycloalkane aromatics and aromatics were chosen. Physical-chemical data were compiled from various sources of scientific literature and modelled using EPI Suite (2008). The results are shown in Table B-1 (Appendix B).

While Table B-1 (Appendix B) provides physical-chemical property data for the individual structures, it should be noted that some of these properties will differ when the substances are present in a mixture, such as the aviation fuels. The vapour pressures of components of a mixture will be lower than their individual vapour pressures due to Raoult’s Law (the total vapour pressure of an ideal mixture is proportional to the sum of the vapour pressures of the mole fractions of each individual component). Similar to Raoult’s Law, the water solubilities of components in a mixture are lower than when they are present individually (Banerjee 1984). Concurrently, however, components that are normally solid under environmental conditions may have lower melting points (and therefore be in a liquid state) and increased vapour pressure and water solubility (Banerjee 1984) when part of a mixture. This is not reflected in Table B-1.

Water solubility of the representative structures of aviation fuel ranges from extremely low (2.7 × 10⁻⁵ mg/L) for the alkanes to high (1790 mg/L) for the monoaromatics (Table B-1 in Appendix B). The components most likely to remain in water are the smallest structures from each chemical group. The larger structures from each group demonstrate an attraction to sediments based on their low water solubilities and moderate to high log octanol-water partition coefficient (log K_ow) and log organic carbon-water partition coefficient (log K_oc) values.

Experimental vapour pressure data found in the EPI Suite (2008) database for the representative structures range from low (0.03 Pa) to very high (2.8 × 10⁴ Pa), and typically decrease inversely with molecular weight (Table B-1 in Appendix B). This indicates that losses from soil and water will likely encompass a wide range, with air being the ultimate and most frequent receiving environment for most components of aviation fuels.

Top of Page

4. Sources

Aviation fuels are produced in Canadian refineries and are also imported into Canada. Statistics Canada (2012) and Environment Canada’s National Enforcement Management Information System and Intelligence System (NEMISIS) database (Environment Canada 2011) show that these substances are used, produced and transported between various locations nationwide.

The volumes of aviation fuels produced in Canada in 2011, including volumes of imports and exports, were obtained from Statistics Canada reports on the supply and disposition of various fuels in Canada (Statistics Canada 2012; Table C-1 in Appendix C). No data were found regarding the three CAS RNs assessed in this report, although Statistics Canada separates its data into Aviation Gasoline and Aviation Turbo Fuel. In 2011, the total production volume of aviation fuels (aviation gasoline fuels and aviation turbine fuels) was 3918 million litres. The majority (99%) of the refinery production was aviation turbine fuel. Aviation gasoline fuel is used in a much smaller quantity than turbine fuel and represents about 1% of the total of aviation fuels in Canada. A similar use ratio is found in the United States, where the use of aviation gasoline fuel has been on the decline since 1983 (EIA 2010). In 2011, aviation gasoline fuel was not imported into Canada, but 8.4 million litres were exported. By comparison, 2218 million litres of aviation turbine fuel were imported and approximately 308 million litres were exported (Table C-1 in Appendix C).

Top of Page

5. Uses

These three substances either enter commerce as aviation fuels or are blending components used within refineries to produce products under different CAS RNs (Environment Canada 2008). Disposition data on aviation gasoline and aviation turbine fuels in 2008 are presented in Table C-2 in Appendix C (Statistics Canada 2009).

Aviation turbine fuel (CAS RN 64741-86-2) is used in turbine-driven engines and primarily handled at airports or on Armed Forces bases, following transport from refineries (Table C-2 in Appendix C). Canadian refineries reported selling this CAS RN as jet fuel (Environment Canada 2008). Other users include public administration (e.g., law enforcement and the Coast Guard), as well as other institutional uses including small private jet aircraft.

Aviation gasoline fuels (CAS RNs 64741-87-3 and 68527-27-5) are used in piston-driven engines, with the majority of use by Canadian airlines and commercial/other institutions (Table C-2 in Appendix C). Canadian airlines using aviation gasoline fuels include northern/Arctic mixed passenger/cargo operations, smaller local air taxi operations and the public service (e.g., law enforcement). Private users can include flying clubs (private pilots), executive aviation and small charter operators (Tharby 2010).

Top of Page

6. Releases to the Environment

Aviation fuels may be released into the environment from activities associated with production, transportation and storage, as well as during refuelling and the operation of aviation turbine or piston engines.

Aviation fuels originate from distillation columns as a distillate in a refinery. Thus, the potential locations for the controlled release of aviation fuel include relief valves and venting valves or drain valves on piping or equipment (e.g., vessels) in the vicinities surrounding this equipment. Under typical operating conditions, releases of aviation fuel would be captured in a closed system, according to defined procedures, and returned to the processing facility or to the wastewater treatment plant. In both cases, exposure of the general population or the environment is not expected.

Unintentional releases (spills and leaks) of aviation fuels may occur at production facilities. Legislation affects releases of aviation fuels and includes requirements at the provincial/territorial level to prevent or manage the unintentional releases of petroleum substances and streams within a facility through the use of operating permits (SENES 2009). Such control measures include appropriate material selection during the design and set-up processes; regular inspection and maintenance of storage tanks, pipelines and other process equipment; the implementation of leak detection and repair or other equivalent programs; the use of floating roofs in above-ground storage tanks to reduce the internal gaseous zone; and the minimal use of underground tanks, which can lead to undetected leaks or spills (SENES 2009).

At the federal level, unintentional releases of some petroleum substances to water from facilities are addressed by the Petroleum Refinery Liquid Effluent Regulations and guidelinesunder the Fisheries Act (Canada 2010). Additionally, existing occupational health and safety legislation specifies measures to reduce occupational exposures of employees, and some of these measures also serve to reduce unintentional releases (CanLII 2001). Non-regulatory measures (e.g., guidelines, best practices) are also in place at petroleum sector facilities to reduce unintentional releases. Aviation fuel evaporative emissions are not anticipated to comprise a large proportion of overall site emissions at production facilities. Thus, on-site releases are not expected to be a significant source of exposure.

Aviation fuels may be stored in bulk prior to transport to export wharves or the marketplace. Potential exposure to evaporative releases from aviation fuels in bulk storage is considered in the human health portion of this assessment.

Aviation fuels are transported from refineries to sectors identified in Table C-2 (Appendix C). Aviation turbine fuel can be transported by ship, rail, transport trucks and pipeline, whereas aviation gasoline fuels are transported only by rail and transport trucks (Tharby 2010). In general, three operating procedures are involved in the process of transportation: loading, transit and unloading. Loading and unloading of aviation fuels is normally conducted at sites with limited access to the general public, such as bulk terminals and wharves.

The handling of aviation fuels at petroleum facilities for the purpose of transportation is regulated at both the federal and provincial levels, with legislation covering loading and unloading (SENES 2009). Collectively, this legislation establishes requirements for the safe handling of petroleum substances, and is intended to minimize or prevent potential releases during loading, transportation and unloading operations (SENES 2009).

Releases from washing or cleaning transportation vessels are not considered in this screening assessment, as tanks or containers for transferring petroleum substances are typically dedicated vessels and therefore washing or cleaning is not required on a routine basis (U.S. EPA 2008a). Cleaning facilities require processing of grey water to meet local and provincial release standards.

6.1 Release Estimation

Environment Canada’s NEMISIS database (Environment Canada 2011) was used to evaluate the overall frequency and volume of releases of aviation fuels. NEMISIS provides national data on releases of substances involving or affecting a federal agency or department, a federal government facility or undertaking, or Aboriginal land; or releases that contravene CEPA 1999 or the Fisheries Act; releases that affect fish, migratory birds or species at risk or that impact an interprovincial or international boundary; and releases from marine vessels. Other spills may be reported to NEMISIS, but there is no legal requirement to do so. In addition, spills data provided to NEMISIS may vary depending on the provincial reporting requirements, such as spill quantity reporting thresholds. 

Spills due to aircraft crash, collision, ice/frost, road conditions, subsidence or vandalism were not considered in the analysis. The remaining spills data documented 825 spills of aviation fuel between 2000 and 2009 (Table C-3 in Appendix C; Environment Canada 2011). Although approximately 1.57 million litres of aviation fuel were reported as spilled (Table C-3 in Appendix C), approximately 8% of the spills had no estimate of the volume released into the environment. To account for reported releases with no associated volumes, the reported volume released was extrapolated to estimate the total volume released, assuming that the statistical distribution of reported volumes released was representative of all releases. This estimation places the volume of aviation fuel reported to be spilled at ~1.69 million litres over ten years (Table C-3 in Appendix C). The average reported spill volume was approximately 2060 L. The provinces with the greatest volume of aviation fuel spilled were Quebec, Newfoundland and Labrador, and Ontario; however, some provinces did not participate in national data collection until 2005, so there are likely gaps in the data (Table C-4 in Appendix C) such that the total reported spilled volume is expected to be a low estimate.

Because the data from the NEMISIS database were generically classified as aviation fuel, the spill volumes were proportionally adjusted into estimated aviation gasoline fuel and aviation turbine fuel spill volumes. According to refinery production statistics in 2011 (Statistics Canada 2012; Table C-1 in Appendix C), 99% of the volume of aviation fuel produced was aviation turbine fuel, while 1% was aviation gasoline fuel. The estimated release volumes and number of spills following this proportional adjustment are shown in Table 6-1.

Table 6-1. Estimated total release volumes and number of reported spills of aviation gasoline and aviation turbine fuels based on total reported release volume from the NEMISIS database from 2000–2009 in Canada (Environment Canada 2011)^{Footnote Table 6-1[a]},^{Footnote Table 6-1 [b]}

Various environmental compartments were reported as receiving media for spills of aviation fuel (Table C-5 in Appendix C; Environment Canada 2011). The majority of spills affected land (68.8%), followed by air (15.8%), saltwater (10.2%) and freshwater (5.2%). On average, there were an estimated 45 aviation fuel spills to land, 7 spills to marine water and 3 spills to freshwater per year.

Although the total annual volume of releases is high, the statistics reflect a pattern of repeated, small quantities of aviation fuel released into the environment, with occasional large spills, especially from trains and storage facilities (Table C-3 in Appendix C). The NEMISIS database provides data on the sources, causes and reasons for many of the releases of aviation fuels (tables C-6a, C-6b and C-6c in Appendix C).

Further refinement of the analysis of frequency and volume related to the ecological significance of spills to soil is outlined in the section on Ecological Exposure Assessment.

Top of Page

7. Environmental Fate

When petroleum substances are released into the environment, four major fate processes will take place: dissolution in water, volatilization, biodegradation and adsorption. These processes will cause changes in the composition of these UVCB substances. In the case of spills on land or water surfaces, photodegradation--another fate process--can also be significant.

As noted previously, the solubility and vapour pressure of components within a mixture will differ from those of the component alone. These interactions are complex for complex UVCBs such as petroleum hydrocarbons.

Each of the fate processes affects hydrocarbon families differently. Aromatics tend to be more water-soluble than aliphatics of the same carbon number, whereas aliphatics tend to be more volatile (Potter and Simmons 1998). Thus, when a petroleum mixture is released into the environment, the principal water contaminants are likely to be aromatics, whereas aliphatics will be the principal air contaminants (Potter and Simmons 1998). The trend in volatility by component class is as follows: alkenes = alkanes greater than aromatics = cycloalkanes. The most soluble and volatile components have the lowest molecular weight; thus there is a general shift to higher molecular weight components in residual materials.

Biodegradation is almost always operative when petroleum mixtures are released into the environment. It has been widely demonstrated that nearly all soils and sediments have populations of bacteria and other organisms capable of degrading petroleum hydrocarbons (Pancirov and Brown 1975). Degradation occurs both in the presence and absence of oxygen. Two key factors that determine degradation rates are oxygen supply and molecular structure. In general, degradation is more rapid under aerobic conditions. Decreasing trends in degradation rates according to structure are as follows (Potter and Simmons 1998):

1. n-alkanes, especially in the C10–C25 range, which are degraded readily;
2. isoalkanes;
3. alkenes;
4. benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylenes (BTEX) (when present in concentrations that are not toxic to microorganisms);
5. monoaromatics;
6. polynuclear (polycyclic) aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs); and
7. higher molecular weight cycloalkanes (which may degrade very slowly (Pancirov and Brown 1975)).

Three weathering processes--dissolution in water, volatilization and biodegradation--typically result in the depletion of the more readily soluble, volatile and degradable compounds and the accumulation of those most resistant to these processes in residues.

Due to the complex interaction of components within a mixture that impact their physical-chemical properties and behaviour, it is difficult to predict the fate of a complex mixture. Therefore, as a general indication of the fate of aviation fuels, the physical-chemical properties of representative structures of aviation fuels (Table B-1 in Appendix B) were examined.  

Based on the physical-chemical properties of representative structures of aviation fuels, the majority of components are expected to partition to air.

The C6–C15 components have boiling points ranging from 60 to 338°C. The individual components of aviation fuels are characterized by low to high water solubilities (less than 0.001 to 1790 mg/L), low to high vapour pressures (0.007 to 1.3 × 10⁴ Pa), low to high Henry’s Law constants (2.8 to 4.6 × 10⁶ Pa·m³/mol), low to moderate log K_ow values (2.1 to 7.7) and low to moderate log K_oc values (1.8 to 7.7) (Table B-1 in Appendix B).

The majority of lighter components (C6–C9) are highly volatile, with vapour pressures ranging from 320 to 2.8 × 10⁴ Pa, and are likely to remain in air. The larger (greater than C12) alkanes, cycloalkanes, and one- and two-ring alkylated aromatics are low to moderately volatile, with vapour pressures ranging from 0.009 to 165 Pa, and are expected to partition out of air. Due to these generally high vapour pressures, if released to air, aviation gasoline and most components of aviation turbine fuel are expected to remain in the air.

Aviation fuels are less dense than water (0.75–0.85 g/mL; CONCAWE 1995), so that upon entering water they will rise to the surface and spread out. Due to their high vapour pressures and Henry’s Law constants, most components will likely volatilize despite some components having appreciable water solubilities or log K_oc. For instance, the n-alkanes will likely partition mainly to air rather than to sediment, despite their high log K_oc, though there is potential to sorb to sediments if they come into contact with sediment or particulate matter. In addition, the isoalkanes, one-ring and two-ring cycloalkanes, one-ring and two-ring aromatics, cycloalkane monoaromatics and cycloalkane diaromatics will mainly partition to air, though there is potential for partitioning to water based on their water solubilities. The aromatic structures, with their lower vapour pressures and higher water solubilities, will likely remain in water. The C12 isoalkanes and polycycloalkanes, in addition to the heavier structures (greater than C15), will partition to sediment if released to water. Therefore, when released to water, aviation gasoline and the lighter (less than C12) components of aviation turbine fuels are expected to partition mainly to air, with some partitioning of some components to water and sediments. Heavier (greater than C12) components of aviation turbine fuels will mainly partition to sediments.

If released solely to soil, many of the heavier components are expected to remain in the soil, with the alkanes, isoalkanes, one-ring cycloalkanes and other, lighter components (less than C10) partitioning to air based on their high Henry’s Law constants.

Empirical data on the degradation (fate) of gasoline are available and can be used as read-across for aviation gasoline. Solano-Serena et al. (1999) reported that in liquid cultures using microflorae from urban-wastewater-activated sludge, 74% of gasoline degrades within 40 hours, and 94% degrades within 25 days. Gasoline also degrades at different rates in different soils, with an ultimate degradation rate ranging from 89% in spruce forest soil to 96% in activated sludge within 28 days (Marchal et al. 2003).

For the aviation turbine fuel (CAS RN 64741-86-2), a read-across approach to diesel fuel was used, due to similar boiling point and carbon range. Experimental biodegradation values for several streams used in the production of diesel fuels were considered (Penet et al. 2004) (Table D-2 in Appendix D). These data indicate that diesel fuel, and thus aviation turbine fuel, is quickly degraded when released to the environment.

When large quantities of a hydrocarbon mixture enter the soil compartment, soil organic matter and other sorption sites in soil are fully saturated and the hydrocarbons will begin to form a separate phase (a non-aqueous phase liquid, or NAPL) in the soil. At concentrations below the retention capacity for the hydrocarbon in the soil, the NAPL will be immobile (Arthurs et al. 1995); this is referred to as residual NAPL (Brost and DeVaull 2000). Above the retention capacity, the NAPL becomes mobile and will move within the soil (Arthurs et al. 1995; Brost and DeVaull 2000). 

Top of Page

8. Persistence and Bioaccumulation Potential

Due to the complex nature of petroleum substances such as aviation fuels, the persistence and bioaccumulation potential of components of these substances were characterized based on empirical and/or modelled data for a suite of petroleum hydrocarbon structures.

8.1 Environmental Persistence

Persistence was characterized based on empirical and/or modelled data for a suite of petroleum hydrocarbons expected to occur in petroleum substances.

Model results and the weighing of information are reported in the petroleum substances persistence and bioaccumulation supporting documentation (Environment Canada 2014). These data are summarized in Table D-3 (Appendix D).

For the aviation gasoline fuels (CAS RNs 64741-87-3 and 68527-27-5), a read-across approach with gasoline was used, due to similar carbon and boiling point ranges. Experimental aerobic half-lives of some hydrocarbons present in formulated gasoline in water are presented in Table D-1 (Appendix D). All median and mean half-lives were less than 182 days in water (Prince et al. 2007a). Prince et al. (2007a) also reported a median half-life of 5 days for components of gasoline in saltwater, pond water and sewage water, without accounting for volatilization. As well, all detectable components of gasoline had degraded within 57 days, although different components of gasoline degraded at different rates (Prince et al. 2007a). The hydrocarbon components of gasoline were also considered to be intrinsically biodegradable (CONCAWE 2001).

Empirical and modelled half-lives in the atmosphere for many components of aviation fuels are less than 2 days (Environment Canada 2014). However, some components, such as C4–C6 n-alkanes and isoalkanes and C6–C8 monoaromatics, can have half-lives greater than 2 days, and thus may travel considerable distances from the source. In addition, some three-ring PAHs can undergo long-range transport to remote regions due to sorption to particulate matter (Environment Canada 2014).

Considering biodegradation in water, soil and sediment, the following components are expected to have half-lives greater than 6 months in water and soils and greater than or equal to 365 days in sediments: C15–C20 two-ring cycloalkanes, C18 polycycloalkanes, C12 one-ring aromatics, C9-C20 cycloalkane monoaromatics, C10-C20 two-ring aromatics, C12 cycloalkane diaromatics, and C14 three-ring PAHs. The C5 alkenes, greater than or equal to C9 dicycloalkanes, C14 polycycloalkanes, and generally the greater than or equal to C9 one-ring aromatics, also have half-lives greater than a year in sediments.

8.2 Potential for Bioaccumulation

Bioaccumulation potential was characterized based on empirical and/or modelled data for a suite of petroleum hydrocarbons expected to occur in petroleum substances. Bioaccumulation factors (BAFs) are the preferred metric for assessing the bioaccumulation potential of substances, as the bioconcentration factor (BCF) may not adequately account for the bioaccumulation potential of substances via the diet, which predominates for substances with log K_ow greater than ~4.5 (Arnot and Gobas 2003).

In addition to fish BCF and BAF data, bioaccumulation data for aquatic invertebrate species were also considered. Biota-sediment/soil accumulation factors (BSAFs), trophic magnification factors and biomagnification factors were also considered in characterizing bioaccumulation potential.

Empirical and modelled bioaccumulation data for petroleum hydrocarbons, as well as the weighing of information, can be found in the supporting document for this assessment (Environment Canada 2014). A summary of the results for bioaccumulation potential is presented below and in Table D-4 in Appendix D.

Overall, there is consistent empirical and predicted evidence to suggest that the following components have the potential for high bioaccumulation, with BAF/BCF values greater than 5000: C13–C15 isoalkanes, C12 alkenes, C12–C15 one-ring cycloalkanes, C12 and C15 two-ring cycloalkanes, C14 polycycloalkanes, C15 one-ring aromatics, C15 and C20 cycloalkane monoaromatics, C12–C13 diaromatics, C20 cycloalkane diaromatics, and C14 and C20 three-ring PAHs (Table D-4, Appendix D). These components are associated with a slow rate of metabolism and are highly lipophilic. Exposures from water and diet, when combined, suggest that the rate of uptake would exceed that of the total elimination rate. Most of these components are not expected to biomagnify in aquatic or terrestrial foodwebs, largely because a combination of metabolism, low dietary assimilation efficiency and growth dilution allows the elimination rate to exceed the uptake rate from the diet (Environment Canada 2014); however, one study (Harris et al. 2011) suggests that some alkyl-PAHs may biomagnify. While only BSAFs were found for some PAHs, it is possible that BSAFs will be greater than 1 for invertebrates, given that they do not have the same metabolic competency as fish. Of the bioaccumulative components, only the C12 alkenes and the C12 one- and two-ring cycloalkanes might be present in the assessed aviation gasoline fuels (CAS RNs 64741-87-3 and 68527-27-5), as it is the only component that fits within the boiling point range of these substances. The aviation turbine fuel (CAS RN 64741-86-2) may contain all of the components.  

Top of Page

9. Potential to Cause Ecological Harm

9.1 Ecological Effects Assessment

Environment Canada’s NEMISIS database from 2001 and 2009 has recorded several aviation fuel spills to soil, freshwater and saltwater that affected migratory birds or caused other environmental damage (Environment Canada 2011). The frequency of reported incidents is low, with an average of approximately 9 incidents per year (ranging between 1 and 26 per year).

9.1.1 Aquatic compartment (fish, invertebrates, alga, phytoplankton)

Experimental aquatic toxicity data on various aviation turbine and aviation gasoline fuels are detailed in Tables E-5a and b (Appendix E).

For the water-soluble fractions (WSF) of aviation gasoline fuel, the freshwater 48-hour median lethal concentrations (LC₅₀) ranged from 15 to 28 mg/L for Daphnia magna (Harris 1994; Table E-1a in Appendix E). The design of this study is acceptable; however, the analytical method used (purge and trap with gas chromatography) did not measure total petroleum hydrocarbons but rather only the very volatile components (e.g., monoaromatics). Therefore, this toxicity value is considered to be conservative. As no saltwater toxicity data were available for aviation gasoline fuels, a read-across approach was used and compared against gasoline.

Empirical aquatic toxicity values for gasoline are presented in Table E-2a (Appendix E). Gasoline exhibits a moderate toxicity to aquatic organisms, with a large range of toxic concentrations. Aquatic 24-hour LC₅₀ values for various types of gasoline ranged from 18 to 47 mg/L; 48-hour LC₅₀ values ranged from 5 to 51 mg/L; and 96-hour LC₅₀ values ranged from 0.1 to 182 mg/L. In saltwater, 96-hour LC₅₀values for gasoline ranged from 0.1 to 171 mg/L. The tropical mysid Metamsidopsis insularis was very sensitive, with a 96-hour LC₅₀ of 0.1 mg/L; however, nominal concentrations were used and the results are not considered acceptable. The mysid shrimp Mysidopsis bahia is especially sensitive, with a 96-hour LC₅₀ of 1.8 mg/L using the API PS-6 standard gasoline. A lower value of 0.3 was obtained with a “synthetic gasoline”. However, as no data on the composition of this fuel were available, the toxicity value was not used. The copepod Tiriopus californicus exhibited a low 24-hour LC85 value of 1 mg/L, but the test was not conducted in a robust, scientifically acceptable manner (CONCAWE 1992).

Aquatic toxicity (LC₅₀) values ranged from 5.5 to 26 mg/L for various aviation turbine fuels (Table E-1b in Appendix E). The lowest value of 5.5 mg/L was a 96-hour LC₅₀ using a water-soluble fraction of JP-8 with Pimephales promelas(fathead minnow) (Fisher et al. 1985). This study, however, had significant loss of test substance over the test duration (70–80% loss over 48 hours), and therefore the results were not considered acceptable. Harris (1994) reported a 48-hour LC₅₀ of 6 mg/L for Daphnia magna using a water-soluble fraction of Jet A. As noted previously, toxicity values from this study are considered conservative due to the analytical method used.

There were no experimental data found on aviation turbine fuels in saltwater; therefore, a read-across approach was used with diesel fuel. Empirical aquatic toxicity values for diesel fuel are presented in Table E-2b (Appendix E). The values varied greatly for aquatic species such as rainbow trout and Daphnia magna, demonstrating the inherent variability of diesel fuel compositions and its effects on toxicity. Most experimental acute toxicity values are above 1 mg/L. The lowest 48-hour LC₅₀ for salmonids was 2.4 mg/L (CONCAWE 1996). Daphnia magna had a 24-hour LC₅₀ of 1.8 mg/L (Khan et al. 2007).

The tropical mysid Metamysidopsis insularis was shown to be very sensitive to diesel fuel, with a 96-hour LC₅₀value of 0.22 mg/L (Mohammed 2005); this species has been shown to be as sensitive as temperate mysids to toxicants (Garcia et al. 2008). However, Mohammed (2005) used nominal concentrations, and therefore this study was not considered acceptable. Franklin and Lloyd (1982) tested a diesel fuel with brown or common shrimp (Crangon crangon) and determined a 96-hour LC₅₀of 22 mg/L. They also tested a “gas oil” and determined a 96-hour LC₅₀ of 12 mg/L.

The steady state cell density of marine phytoplankton decreased with increasing concentrations of diesel fuel, with different sensitivities between species (Hing et al. 2011). The diatom Phaeodactylum tricornutum showed a 20% decrease in cell density in 24 hours following a 3 mg/L exposure with a 24-hour no-observed-effect concentration (NOEC) of 2.5 mg/L. The microalga Isochrysis galbana was more tolerant to diesel fuel, with a 24-hour lowest-observed-effect concentration (LOEC) of 26 mg/L (14% decrease in cell density), and a NOEC of 25 mg/L. Finally, the green algae Chlorella salina was relatively insensitive to diesel fuel contamination, with a 24-hour LOEC of 170 mg/L (27% decrease in cell density), and a NOEC of 160 mg/L (Hing et al. 2011). All populations of phytoplankton returned to a steady state within 5 days of exposure.

CONCAWE developed an aquatic toxicity model specifically for petroleum hydrocarbon mixtures, called PETROTOX (2009). This model assumes chemical action via narcosis, and therefore accounts for additive effects according to the toxic unit approach. It can model petroleum hydrocarbon toxicity for C4–C41 compounds dissolved in the water fraction.^Footnote[3] Substances smaller than C4 are considered too volatile to impart any significant toxicity, while those larger than C41 are considered to be too hydrophobic and immobile to impart any significant acute aquatic toxicity. PETROTOX (2009) generates estimates of toxicity with a median lethal loading (LL⁵⁰) concentration rather than an LC₅₀, due to the insolubility of petroleum products in water. The LL⁵⁰ value is the amount of petroleum product (in mg/L) needed to generate a water-accommodated fraction (WAF) that is lethally toxic to 50% of the test organisms. It is not a measure of the concentration of the petroleum components in the WAF.

A range of modelled aquatic toxicity values were obtained using PETROTOX (2009), and results are shown in Table E-3 (Appendix E). For the two aviation gasoline fuels, the modelled LL⁵⁰s ranged from 0.4 to 19.1 mg/L (Table E-3 in Appendix E). The modelled data for Daphnia magna are lower than the empirical data for these fuels (Table E-1a in Appendix E). The range of values is also lower than the empirical toxicity tests for various types of gasoline (Table E-2a in Appendix E). For the aviation turbine fuel, the modelled LL⁵⁰s ranged from 0.07 to 45 mg/L. Again, the modelled toxicity is lower than what was observed in empirical tests with diesel fuel; however, the model covers the range of values determined in empirical tests. PETROTOX (2009) does predict toxicities in the range to be expected from bioassay tests.

The freshwater critical toxicity value (CTV) used for aviation gasoline fuel was the lowest available experimental value for aviation gasoline, which was the 48-hour LC₅₀ of 15 mg/L for Daphnia magna. While marine toxicity values were reported by CONCAWE (1992) for gasoline, the studies were not available and could not be evaluated for their reliability or acceptability. Therefore, the modelled LL⁵⁰ of 0.4 mg/L for Rhepoxynius abronius (Table E-3 in Appendix E) was used as the marine CTV for aviation gasoline fuel.

The freshwater CTV for aviation turbine fuel was the lowest experimental value, which was the 96-hour LC₅₀ of 6 mg/L for a water-soluble fraction of Jet A with Daphnia magna(Harris 1994). For marine scenarios, the CTV was the 24-hour NOEC of 2.5 mg/L to the marine diatom Phaeodactylum tricornutum(Hing et al. 2011); this study was considered acceptable.

9.1.2 Terrestrial compartment

Overall, aviation fuels have low acute oral (median lethal dose [LD₅₀] greater than 5000 mg/kg-bw) and inhalation toxicity (LC₅₀ greater than 5000 mg/m³) for exposure to mammals (API 1980a, 1985a as cited in API 2003a; API 1986a as cited in CONCAWE 1992 and API 2008; ATDAEI 1990 as cited in RTECS 2009). Kerosene and Jet-A did not elicit developmental toxicity in inhalation studies conducted in rats (API 1979a, 1979b as cited in API 2003a; IARC 1989a); however, in a study conducted with JP-8 in mice, a lowest-observed-adverse-effect concentration (LOAEC) of 1000 mg/m³ was established for maternal, reproductive and developmental toxicity (Harris et al. 2007a).

9.1.2.1 Aviation gasoline fuels

For the aviation gasoline fuels assessed in this report (CAS RNs 64741-87-3 and 68527-27-5), automotive gasoline is a reasonable read-across based on similarities in carbon and boiling point range.

The terrestrial toxicity of gasoline is primarily expected to affect soil invertebrates and plants due to the likelihood of gasoline present in soil to remain in soil. ESG International (2000) investigated the effects of additive-free gasoline in soil on earthworms and springtails in both open- and closed-air systems, and on four plant species in closed-air systems. Due to the highly volatile nature of gasoline, preparation of the soil led to initial exposure concentrations between 8 and 30% of the nominal concentrations, and thus all concentrations of gasoline in soil within this study reflect the original (nominal) concentration initially added and not the measured concentration.

Gasoline appears to be moderately toxic to earthworms (Eisenia fetida) in native sandy-loam soil with a 7-day LC₅₀ of 630 mg/kg dry weight (d.w.) nominal in closed systems, and 710 mg/kg d.w. nominal when exposed to air. The 14-day LC₅₀ was lower, with a toxicity of 400 mg/kg in closed systems. There were no apparent effects on adult earthworm survival or the number of juveniles produced in chronic earthworm tests until the exposure reached or exceeded 1000 mg/kg in both artificial and native soils.

Plants, including alfalfa (Medicago sativa), barley (Hordeum vulgare), corn (Zea mays) and red fescue (Festuca rubra), exhibited mild acute effects when exposed to gasoline, although inhibition of growth often occurred at lower concentrations in native soils relative to artificial soil. Root length was compared with dry mass or shoot length (ESG International 2000). Corn was the most sensitive species, with a root-length 7-day IC₂₀ (20% inhibitory concentration) of 1000 mg/kg d.w. nominal when exposed to soil open to air. Under open conditions, 7-day IC₂₀ toxicity values ranged from 2310 to 4430 mg/kg d.w. nominal in barley for inhibition of both root and shoot growth, respectively

9.1.2.2 Aviation turbine fuel

For the aviation turbine fuel assessed in this report (CAS RN 64741-86-2), diesel fuel is a reasonable read-across based on a similar carbon range and boiling point range.

In sandy soils, earthworm (Eisenia fetida) mortality only occurred at diesel fuel concentrations greater than 10 000 mg/kg, which was also the concentration at which sub-lethal weight loss was recorded (Shin et al. 2005).

Nephrotoxic effects of diesel fuel have been documented in several animal and human studies (Riedenberg et al. 1964; Hartung and Hunt 1966; Barrientos et al. 1977; Crisp et al. 1979; Dede and Kagbo 2001: EHC Monographs 1996). Some species of birds (mallard ducks in particular) are generally resistant to the toxic effects of petrochemical ingestion, and large amounts of petrochemicals are needed in order to cause direct mortality (Stubblefield et al. 1995; Hartung 1995; Coon and Dieter 1981; Fleming et al. 1982).

To determine the effect of aviation kerosene (similar to aviation turbine fuel) on the hatching success of mallard eggs (Anas platyrhynchos), Albers and Gay (1982) applied either 1, 5 or 20 µL of unweathered or weathered aviation kerosene to the surface of eggs and observed the resulting hatching success. They found no statistically significant difference between egg hatching success in the control group and the groups treated with unweathered or weathered aviation kerosene. Likewise, hatching success was not found to be dose-dependent (Albers and Gay 1982).

Hoffman and Albers (1984) applied aviation kerosene externally to mallard eggs during the first week of development. The LD₅₀ was determined to be greater than 50 µL/egg. After 18 days, there was no evidence of reduced growth, abnormal survivors or malformations in survivors (Hoffman and Albers 1984).

9.1.3 Critical toxicity value (CTV) selection

The Canada-Wide Standards for Petroleum Hydrocarbons in Soil (CCME 2008) were used as a data source for the quantification of effects of aviation fuels on terrestrial ecosystems. This system is based on four fractions of total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH): F1 (C6–C10), F2 (greater than C10–C16), F3 (greater than C16–C34), F4 (greater than C34), and assumes an 80:20 ratio of aliphatics to aromatics. This system uses four land-use classes (agricultural, residential, commercial and industrial) and two soil types (coarse grained and fine grained) for the determination of remedial standards. The most sensitive land-use and soil type is typically agricultural coarse-grained soils.

Fractions 1 and 2 (F1 and F2) are most like the aviation gasoline fuels assessed in this report. Table E-4 (Appendix E) shows that for F1 and F2, the standard for soil contact by non-human organisms is 150–210 mg/kg d.w. (CCME 2008). As aviation gasoline fuel could fall into both of these categories, the lower value, 150 mg/kg d.w. of soil, is used as the terrestrial exposure CTV for aviation gasoline fuel.

Fractions 1, 2 and 3 (F1, F2 and F3) are most like the aviation turbine fuel. Table E-4 (Appendix E) shows that for F1, F2 and F3, the standard for soil contact by non-human organisms is 150–300 mg/kg d.w. (CCME 2008). As aviation turbine fuel could fall into all three categories, the lower value, 150 mg/kg d.w. of soil, is used as the terrestrial exposure CTV for aviation turbine fuel.

9.2 Ecological Exposure Assessment

To develop the exposure scenarios, estimations of releases of aviation fuel were made using data from Transport Canada estimations of petrochemical losses to the sea on Canada’s east coast (RMRI 2007), and from Environment Canada’s NEMISIS database (Environment Canada 2011). Release scenarios were developed for loading/transport/unloading operations via ship and transport across terrestrial environments (including truck, train and pipeline transport).

9.2.1 Aquatic compartment

To determine the predicted environmental concentration (PEC), the volume of water predicted to be in contact with spilled oil was provided by a study conducted by the Risk Management Research Institute (RMRI 2007). The area of a slick created within hazard zones around Newfoundland was estimated for specific volume ranges of oil using ocean spill dispersion models, and then the volume of contacted water was estimated by multiplying the area by 10 to represent the top 10 m of water.

For the ship loading scenario, the volume of water in contact with the petroleum product from Hazard Zone 1 was used (RMRI 2007), as this region included loading operations at Whiffen Head and Come By Chance oil refinery. For the ship transport scenarios, the estimated volume of water in contact with aviation fuel was the volume of water averaged over hazard zones 2 to 5 (the average volume of water for summer and winter for Hazard Zone 2 was used in this calculation), as this area is a major ship transportation corridor. The RMRI report was originally prepared based on spills of crude oil, but it can be applied to aviation fuels. The estimations of concentrations in water will be conservative with aviation fuels, as they are considerably less dense and have a higher proportion of volatile components than crude oil. Thus, they tend to disperse more rapidly into air and water than does crude oil.

As aviation gasoline fuels are not transported by ship, this scenario is developed for aviation turbine fuel only, The average aviation turbine fuel spill (2000–2009) in marine waters was approximately 1700 L in a single spill. This is equivalent to 10.7 barrels, and is therefore expected to be in contact with 40 × 10⁹ L of water during loading and unloading (Table E-5 in Appendix E). Aviation turbine fuel has an average density of 0.81 kg/L (CONCAWE 1995), and therefore an average spill is approximately 910 kg, with a resulting concentration of aviation turbine fuel in water of 0.023 mg/L (9.10 × 10⁸ mg / 40 × 10⁹ L), which is considered the PEC for ship loading/unloading in marine waters.

In the case of marine transport of aviation turbine fuels by ship, an average spill of 910 kg of aviation turbine fuel is expected to be in contact with 5.3 × 10¹² L of water (Table E-5 in Appendix E). The resulting concentration in water would be 0.00017 mg/L (9.10 × 10⁸ mg / 5.3 × 10¹² L), which is considered to be the PEC for ship transport in marine waters.

The potential exposure for freshwater scenarios was calculated using the same approach as the marine exposure, but took into consideration unloading a ship at a dock in the Great Lakes.

The average aviation turbine fuel spill (2000–2009) into freshwater was approximately 5850 L (~4740 kg). This is equivalent to 36.8 barrels, and is therefore expected to be in contact with 40 × 10⁹ L of water during loading and unloading (Table E-5 in Appendix E). Based on the average density of aviation turbine fuel, the resulting PEC for aviation fuel in freshwater loading and unloading would be 0.12 mg/L (4.74 × 10⁹mg / 40 × 10⁹ L).

In the case of freshwater transport, an average spill of 4740 kg is expected to be in contact with 5.3 × 10¹² L of water (Table E-5 in Appendix E). The resulting concentration in water would be 0.00089 mg/L (4.74 × 10⁹ mg / 5.3 × 10¹² L), which is considered to be the PEC for freshwater ship transport.

9.2.2 Terrestrial compartment

There were approximately 450 releases of aviation fuel (aviation gasoline fuels and aviation turbine fuel--excluding spills due to aircraft crash, collisions, ice/frost, road conditions, subsidence and vandalism) to land from 2000 to 2009 based on data from the Environment Canada NEMISIS database (Environment Canada 2011). The average spill volume from these releases was approximately 2320 L. Aviation fuels are a specialty petroleum product with use limited mainly to airports; thus, spills of these fuels to land mainly occur at large-scale petroleum handling facilities (including storage facilities), at airports, or during fuel transport.

Spills to soil within the boundaries of industrial facilities (e.g, refineries, bulk storage terminals) or commercial airports are not considered within this assessment, as it is expected that spills at these sites undergo immediate remediation that minimizes their entry into the environment. Therefore, all releases clearly identified as occurring at airports were excluded from the terrestrial exposure scenario. It is additionally assumed that all releases with the source identified in the Environment Canada NEMISIS database as “industrial plant” or “refinery” occurred at an industrial facility and are thus excluded. Releases to land from marine tankers are assumed to occur on portlands/industrial sites and are also excluded. Due to the specialty use of these aviation fuels, a number of other releases to land were assumed to occur at airports and were excluded. These included the following:

• releases with the source identified as “aircraft”;
• releases with the source identified as “service station”, the assumption being that all aviation fuel service stations will be located at an airport; and
• all releases with the source identified as “storage depot”, “other storage facility”, “other”, or “unknown” and that occurred in a city with an airport were assumed to have occurred at the local airport.  

In addition, for any spill to a mode of motor-transport for which “overflow” was given as the cause, it was assumed that this overflow occurred at an industrial fuel terminal or airport during loading. As well, spills from motor-transport for which “overturn” was given as a cause were also excluded, as these were considered to be motor vehicle accidents.

When these exclusions are considered, there were approximately 84 releases of aviation fuel to land from 2000–2009 based on data from the Environment Canada NEMISIS database (Environment Canada 2011). It is acknowledged, however, that the majority of the releases involving motor transport likely occur during the loading, transport and unloading of aviation fuel at the airport. The number of such releases is unknown. If it is assumed that all releases associated with motor-transport that occur in a city with an airport occurred on airport property, the total number of releases of aviation fuel to land from 2000 to 2009 becomes 39. Therefore, the range of releases of aviation fuel to land between 2000 and 2009 is in the range of approximately 40 to 80; the actual number of releases is expected to be closer to the lower estimate. 

An average release volume was determined for the approximately 40 to 80 spills. Releases that were only excluded in the above determination of total spill numbers due to their occurrence in a city with an airport or the spill location being clearly identified as occurring at an airport were included in the volume estimate. The magnitude of such releases is not dependent on their location and, therefore, inclusion of these volumes provides a better estimate of the average spill volume.^Footnote[4] Based on this, the average release volume of aviation fuels to soil is approximately 4940 L.

Due to the paucity of data available on the concentration of aviation fuel in receiving soil following an average spill of aviation fuel, the terrestrial scenario involves a read-across from data on diesel fuel to estimate the level of contamination following a spill. Ganti and Frye (2008) provide data on the volume of diesel fuel spills from truck transport to soil, including volume spilled and TPH concentrations at the center of the spill.

In the first case study, Ganti and Frye (2008) reported a 379-L spill of diesel fuel from a truck that was involved in a highway accident, spilling the diesel fuel at the bottom of an embankment over approximately 30 m. At the center of the spill, approximately 2 inches below the soil surface, the TPH was at a concentration of 65 000 mg/kg. In the second case study, Ganti and Frye (2008) reported a second truck involved in a highway accident spilling approximately 284 L onto a gravel road and the adjacent embankment. The initial TPH concentration was 47 000 mg/kg at the center of the spill.

According to research by Brost and DeVaull (2000), fuel products in the density range of diesel fuel will saturate soil in the range of 7700–34 000 mg/kg, depending on the type of soil. Beyond this range, they will form a light non-aqueous phase liquid (LNAPL).

An average aviation fuel spill to the terrestrial compartment is approximately 4940 L. Based on the above information, that volume of aviation fuel will form an LNAPL in soil. If the concentration in soil is a linear function of the volume spilled, 4940 L would produce a concentration of approximately 832 000 mg/kg in the center of the spill. However, it is likely that a higher-volume spill would spread over a greater soil volume due to the formation of an LNAPL. For this assessment, the PEC for the terrestrial compartment will be 34 000 mg/kg based on the upper concentration above which formation of a LNAPL is expected (Brost and DeVaull 2000).

9.3 Characterization of Ecological Risk

The approach taken in this ecological screening assessment was to examine available scientific information and develop conclusions based on a weight-of-evidence approach as required under section 76.1 of CEPA 1999. For each endpoint organism, an estimate of the potential to cause adverse effects and predicted no-effect concentration (PNEC) was determined. The PNEC is the CTV selected for the organism of interest divided by an appropriate assessment factor. Also, a PEC was determined for each aquatic exposure scenario. A risk quotient (RQ = PEC/PNEC) was calculated for each endpoint organism and is an important line of evidence in evaluating the potential risk to the environment.

For the aviation gasoline fuels, the only relevent release scenario identified was to land. For terrestrial scenarios, the Canada-wide standard (CWS) for eco-soil contact for Fraction 2 in coarse-grained soil, 150 mg/kg d.w. (CCME 2008), was used as the PNEC. The resultant RQ (PEC/PNEC) for releases to land is 227

For the aviation turbine fuel, the PNEC for freshwater scenarios was determined based on the CTV, which was the 96-hour LC₅₀ of 5.5 mg/L JP-8 fuel for Pimpephales promelas (Table E-1b in Appendix E). An assessment factor of 10 was applied to the CTV to account for laboratory to field extrapolations and inter- and intra-species variability, resulting in a freshwater PNEC of 0.55 mg/L. For the marine scenarios, the PNEC was determined based on the 24-hour NOEC of 2.5 mg/L diesel fuel for the marine diatom Phaeodactylum tricornutum(Table E-3 in Appendix E). As this value was already a NOEC, no assessment factor was used, and therefore the PNEC was 2.5 mg/L. For terrestrial scenarios, the CWS for eco-soil contact for Fraction 2 in coarse-grained soil, 150 mg/kg d.w., was used as the PNEC. The resultant RQs (PEC/PNEC) for each exposure scenario are presented in Table 9-1.

Based on calculations during the exposure assessment and the RQ analyses of the potential effects of estimated average releases of aviation fuel, neither freshwater nor marine exposure scenarios for aviation gasoline and aviation turbine fuels show a potential for ecological harm. However, the RQs of 227 for aviation gasoline fuels and aviation turbine fuel indicate that releases to soil may cause harm to terrestrial organisms.

For all aquatic spill scenarios, the spill volume required to obtain an RQ equal to 1 was determined (Table 9-2). The frequency of spills above that threshold was determined from the Environment Canada NEMISIS database (Environment Canada 2011). These spill volumes were calculated based on models developed by RMRI (2007) that relate the volume spilled and concentration of petroleum substance in the water. These models take into consideration dispersion of the petroleum substance spilled, and therefore the calculated spill volume relating to an RQ of 1 is not for the acute, initial exposure to the spilled material. It is recognized that local, acute effects may occur during the initial phase of a spill before significant dispersion occurs. 

For both the marine and freshwater scenarios for the transport of aviation turbine fuel, none of the reported spills from 2000 to 2009 in the NEMISIS database was greater than the threshold volume required to obtain an RQ of 1 (Table 9-2). For the freshwater scenario of ship loading and unloading of aviation turbine fuel substances, less than one reported spill is expected to exceed the threshold volume per year (3% of reported spills). For the marine scenario of ship loading and unloading, no releases reported to the NEMISIS database exceeded an RQ of 1 (Table 9-2).

While there is uncertainty, the overall weight of evidence suggests that there is a low risk of harm to aquatic organisms (fish, invertebrates, algae, phytoplankton) from releases of aviation gasoline and turbine fuels given the frequency and volume of spills of these substances to marine and freshwater aquatic habitats.

RQs for soils were derived using a PEC based on a concentration at which an LNAPL forms. RQs at environmental concentrations above those required for LNAPL formation have less meaning, as the soil is saturated and there is no longer a linear relationship between risk and environmental concentration. However, RQs greater than 1 occur at environmental concentrations below those resulting in an LNAPL. 

Approximately 40 to 80 aviation fuel spills to the terrestrial environment were reported to have occurred between 2000 and 2009 (Environment Canada 2011), or approximately 4 to 8 spills to soil per year. This range reflects the lack of data on the specific location of spills from motor-transport (i.e., bulk carriers, tank trucks, transport trucks, other motor vehicles); it is expected that many of these releases occurred at airports and that the actual yearly number of spills is closer to the lower end of this range. Data provided in the Environment Canada Spills database indicate that there is no systemic cause for these releases to soil.

Based on the available information, the aviation turbine fuel (CAS RN 64741-86-2) and aviation gasoline fuels (CAS RNs 64741-87-3 and 68527-27-5) contain components that may persist in air sufficiently long to be transported a distance from the source of release. They also contain components that may persist in soil, water and/or sediment for long periods of time, thus increasing the duration of exposure to organisms.   

Based on the combined evidence of empirical data and modelled BAFs, the aviation turbine fuel assessed in this report contains components that are highly bioaccumulative. Studies suggest that most components will not likely biomagnify in food webs; however, there is some indication that alkylated PAHs might (Harris et al. 2011). The aviation gasoline fuels assessed in this report are expected to contain a low proportion of components that are highly bioaccumulative.

In general, fish can efficiently metabolize aromatic compounds. There is some evidence that alkylation increases bioaccumulation of naphthalene (Neff et al. 1976; Lampi et al. 2010), but it is not known if this can be generalized to larger PAHs or if any potential increase in bioaccumulation due to alkylation will be sufficient to exceed a BAF/BCF of 5000.

Some lower trophic level organisms (i.e., invertebrates) appear to lack the capacity to efficiently metabolize aromatic compounds, resulting in high bioaccumulation potential for some aromatic components as compared to fish. This is the case for the C14 three-ring PAH, which was bioconcentrated to a high level (BCF greater than 5000) by invertebrates but not by fish. There is potential for such bioaccumulative components to reach toxic levels in organisms if exposure is continuous and of sufficient magnitude, though this is unlikely in the water column following a spill scenario due to relatively rapid dispersal. However, some components of aviation turbine fuel, such as C14 three-ring PAHs, can persist in sediments for long periods of time, which can increase the exposure duration of benthic invertebrates to this component. The proportion in aviation turbine fuel of such bioaccumulative substances with long degradation half-lives is likely low.

Bioaccumulation of aromatic compounds might be lower in natural environments than what is observed in the laboratory. PAHs may sorb to organic material suspended in the water column (dissolved humic material), which decreases their overall bioavailability primarily due to an increase in size. This has been observed with fish (Weinstein and Oris 1999) and Daphnia (McCarthy et al. 1985).

A key consideration in characterizing the ecological risks of these substances is the nature, extent and frequency of spills. Spills during handling of aviation gasoline fuels and aviation turbine fuel have the potential to cause harm to aquatic life in the confined waters around loading/unloading wharves; however, based on the low frequency (less than one per year), and resulting low exposure to the environment from spills, there is a low risk of harm to the environment. Spills of aviation gasoline fuels and aviation turbine fuel to soil may cause adverse effects to terrestrial organisms (invertebrates, plants), with approximately 4 to 8 spills occurring per year of which the average spill volume is expected to cause harm. However, the actual number of spills is likely closer to the lower range, and not all of the releases will be of a sufficient volume to cause harm. In addition, no systemic cause for the releases was identified. 

Considering all available lines of evidence presented in this screening assessment, there is a low risk of harm to organisms and the broader integrity of the environment from these substances. It is concluded that the aviation turbine fuel (CAS RN 64741-86-2) and aviation gasoline fuels (CAS RNs 64741-87-3 and 68527-27-5) do not meet the criteria under paragraphs 64(a) or (b) of CEPA 1999, as they are not entering the environment in a quantity or concentration or under conditions that have or may have an immediate or long-term harmful effect on the environment or its biological diversity, or that constitute or may constitute a danger to the environment on which life depends.

9.4 Uncertainties in Evaluation of Ecological Risk

This analysis addresses uncertainty associated with each component of the current assessment, including but not limited to representative structures selection and quantification, exposure estimation, effects estimation, and risk characterization.

All modelling of the substances’ physical and chemical properties and persistence, bioaccumulation and toxicity characteristics is based on chemical structures. As aviation fuels are UVCBs, they cannot be represented by a single, discrete chemical structure; additionally, the specific chemical compositions of aviation fuels are not well defined. Aviation fuel streams under the same CAS RNs can vary significantly in the number, identity and proportion of constituent components, depending on operating conditions, feedstocks and processing units. Therefore, for the purposes of modelling, a suite of representative structures that would provide average estimates for the entire range of components likely present was identified. Specifically, these structures were used to assess the fate and hazard properties of aviation fuels. Given that more than one representative structure may be used for the same carbon range and type of component, it is recognized that structure-related uncertainties exist for this substance. The physical-chemical properties of 24 representative structures were used to estimate the overall behaviour of aviation fuels, in order to represent the expected range in physical-chemical characteristics. Given the large number of potential permutations of the type and percentages of the structures in aviation fuels, there is uncertainty in the results associated with modelling. However, the limited number of hydrocarbons theoretically present in aviation fuels (based on the required boiling point ranges for aviation fuels, which limits the carbon ranges of the components) also reduces the uncertainty in this approach.

Given the uncertainties associated with the model-estimated values, the reliance on such methods generates uncertainties in the prediction of partitioning to different environmental compartments, and of persistence and bioaccumulation.

The BAF model calculations were derived from a large database of measured BAF values from the Great Lakes for chemicals that are poorly metabolized (e.g., PCBs). With metabolic biotransformation, the BAF model predictions are in general agreement with measured BAFs in fish. The model may not adequately capture biotransformation at the first trophic level for chemicals that are readily biotransformed in invertebrates and plankton. Many petroleum hydrocarbons are readily metabolized--somewhat by invertebrates, and at much higher levels in fish. Model predictions at log K_ow values greater than 8 were not used, due to limitations of the model (Arnot and Gobas 2003; Arnot et al. 2008).

There is uncertainty in the use of historical spills information from the NEMISIS database (Environment Canada 2011), as spill reports did not distinguish between aviation gasoline and aviation turbine fuels. However, this uncertainty was addressed by proportionally adjusting the spills based on the known refinery production proportions of these two substances from Statistics Canada (2009). Reporting requirements to NEMISIS are limited to releases involving or affecting a federal agency or department, a federal government facility or undertaking, or Aboriginal land; or releases that contravene CEPA 1999 or the Fisheries Act; releases that affect fish, migratory birds or species at risk or that impact an interprovincial or international boundary; and releases from marine vessels. Therefore, NEMISIS likely under-reports spills nationally, especially spills to land. However, given that spills of aviation fuels to land will largely occur on federal land (airports), this uncertainty is lessened. 

A number of assumptions were made with regard to the location of the spills and, thereby, their environmental significance. There is uncertainty associated with these assumptions. To address the assumptions with regard to the location of spills during transport by motor vehicles, a range is provided for the number of releases from this source with the acknowledgement that the true number lies between the two extremes.

Top of Page

10. Potential to Cause Harm to Human Health

10.1 Exposure Assessment

The general population of Canada (other than private pilots, considered below) does not have direct access to aviation fuels, and therefore oral and dermal exposures are not expected (Tharby 2010; CONCAWE 1999).

The general population of Canada may be exposed to the volatile fraction of aviation fuels due to evaporative emissions released during fuel handling and during storage at airports and bulk storage facilities. Due to limited information on evaporation associated with these complex mixtures as a whole, it was considered appropriate to characterize the release of specific components. Benzene was selected from the list of components that confer a broad range of potential toxicities, as it is a high-hazard component representing the potential effects on human health of exposure to aviation fuels. It has been cited as likely the most hazardous component of aviation fuels (Egeghy et al. 2003).

Private pilots may potentially be intermittently exposed to aviation gasoline fuels during the refuelling of small piston-engine aeroplanes (Tharby 2010). Given the extensive nature of training required to become a licensed pilot (e.g., pilots are educated on proper techniques for refuelling and grounding of the aircraft, they conduct visual checks of fuel quantity and contamination, and they understand the importance of using the proper grade of fuel and fuel logs, etc. [Transport Canada 2010]), as well as the intermittent nature of the exposure, this scenario is not considered further in this assessment.

In contrast to the relatively uniform use of aviation gasoline fuels at small airports and private airfields across Canada, the use of aviation turbine fuel is concentrated at eight major Canadian airports, accounting for 85% of its use in Canada (Tharby 2010). At a major Canadian airport, annual plane refuelling can require up to approximately 2 billion litres of fuel. Given the potential for evaporative emissions from stored fuels, and the venting of fuel vapours from aircraft wing tips during refuelling, the potential exists for exposure to these releases in the vicinity of such airports (Tharby 2010). Inhalation exposure of the general population to aviation turbine fuel evaporative emissions may therefore occur at major Canadian airports.

Inhalation exposures to individuals in the vicinity of small airports and private airfields are considered to be lower than, and thus conservatively accounted for in, the exposure scenarios for aviation turbine fuel storage and handling at major Canadian airports (considered below).

Estimates of inhalation exposures to evaporative emissions of aviation fuel are derived for scenarios of short-term exposure of the general population at major airports, and of long-term exposure of those that reside in the vicinity of major airports or bulk fuel storage facilities.

10.1.1 Human exposure estimates (inhalation)

10.1.1.1 Short-term exposure at Canadian airports

The general population may be exposed to evaporative emissions of aviation fuel, including the high-hazard component of aviation fuel, benzene, at airports in Canada. For the short-term exposure scenario, an individual was considered to spend four hours at a major Canadian airport, located 300 m from the source of evaporative emissions.

Recent air monitoring data at Canadian airports were not available for determining possible short-term exposure concentrations of airborne pollutants. There are also limited air monitoring data for major international airports. At Hamburg and Frankfurt airports in Germany, Tesseraux (2004) reported the mean annual air concentrations of benzene to be 1 and 2.8 µg/m³, respectively. Additionally, an occupational air monitoring study of United States Air Force workers at a busy military airport reported a median short-term benzene exposure concentration of 3.1 µg/m³ for those not handling or working in direct proximity to jet fuels (Egeghy et al. 2003; Pleil et al. 2000). These monitoring data can include contributions from background ambient air pollution, exhaust from planes and automobiles, uncombusted fuel and evaporative emissions from ground support vehicles and local vehicular traffic, and heating (with the latter fuelled by either gasoline or diesel fuel). Thus, it is not possible to determine the level of exposure to aviation fuel evaporative emissions from these studies, nor is it possible to determine the proportion contributed by aviation fuel evaporation to these air concentrations of benzene. Therefore, modelling of aviation fuel evaporative emissions was used to estimate possible exposure concentrations.

The magnitude of evaporative emissions pertaining to the presence and dispensing of Jet A-1 (aviation turbine fuel) at a major Canadian airport has previously been estimated to be 90–180 kg per day (Tharby 2010; Woodrow 2003). These releases include displaced vapours from aircraft fuel tanks during refuelling, vapours from storage tanks as fresh fuel is reintroduced, and evaporative emissions from mobile refuelling vehicles. This emission range was used in SCREEN3 (1996; discussed below) calculations to characterize the dispersion and thus concentration in air at various distances from the respective release site (input variables are given in Table F-1 in Appendix F).

SCREEN3 is a screening-level Gaussian air dispersion model based on the Industrial Source Complex (ISC) model (for assessing pollutant concentrations from various sources in an industry complex). The key influencing variable for air dispersion in the SCREEN3 model is wind. The maximum calculated exposure concentration is selected based on a built-in meteorological data matrix of different combinations of meteorological conditions, including wind speed, turbulence and humidity. This model directly predicts concentrations resulting from point, area and volume source releases. SCREEN3 gives the maximum concentrations of a substance at chosen receptor heights and at various distances from a release source in the direction downwind from the prevalent wind 1 hour after a given release event. During a 24-hour period, for point emission sources, the maximum 1-hour exposure (as assessed by the ISC Version 3) is multiplied by a factor of 0.4 to account for variable wind direction. This gives an estimate of the air concentration over a 24-hour exposure (U.S. EPA 1992). Similarly, for exposure events happening over the span of a year, it can be expected that the direction of the prevalent winds will be more variable and uncorrelated to the wind direction for a single event; thus, the maximum amortized exposure concentration for one year is determined by multiplying the maximum 1-hour exposure by a factor of 0.08. Such scaling factors are not used for non-point-source emissions. However, to prevent overestimation of the exposures originating from area sources, a scaling factor of 0.2 was used to obtain the yearly amortized concentration from the value of the maximum 1-hour exposure concentration determined by SCREEN3.

SCREEN3 dispersion modelling of estimated total volatiles (90 and 180 kg per day) from aviation turbine fuel storage and handling at a major Canadian airport was used to estimate the maximum 24-hour emissions concentration to which an individual might be exposed (Table F-2 in Appendix F). At 300 m from the release source, the total volatiles in air were estimated to be 14.8 µg/m³. This concentration was taken to represent a conservative estimate of short-term inhalation exposure to aviation fuel.

To estimate human exposure to benzene as a result of exposure to the volatile fraction of aviation fuel as above, the proportion of benzene in the volatile fraction is required. No data specific to aviation fuels were identified to indicate the concentration of benzene in aviation fuel vapour. There are, however, data on the headspace (i.e., vapour) composition of diesel fuel samples. Analysis of two samples of diesel fuel (a summer and winter blend) indicated the percentage of benzene in the vapour phase to be 0.92% and 3.00%, respectively (FLL 2008). The concentration of benzene found in the headspace of diesel fuel provides an approximation of the level that might be found for aviation fuel, because diesel fuel hydrocarbons (predominantly C10–C25) essentially overlap those of aviation turbine fuel (which can be considered similar to kerosene, a narrow cut of the gas oil group--predominantly C9–C16) (CONCAWE 2007). Also, the percentage of benzene in the liquid phase of both diesel fuel and JP-8 is typically below 0.02% (Egeghy et al. 2003; IARC 1989b; Tharby 2010). It has also been shown that benzene, due to its high volatility and lower combustibility than alkanes, is found in the vapour phase in an amount disproportionately higher than its concentration in the liquid phase of jet fuels (Egeghy 2003). Therefore, 0.92–3.00% was taken to represent the proportion of aviation fuel vapours that could be composed of benzene.

As a proportion of the maximum 24-hour, upper-bound aviation fuel volatiles concentration of 14.8 µg/m³ at 300 m, the benzene concentration is therefore estimated to be 0.14–0.44 µg/m³. This benzene concentration (as attributed to evaporative emissions of aviation fuel at a major Canadian airport) is below the average ambient air concentration of benzene in Canada (0.88 μg/m³) (NAPS 2008).

Other air dispersion models such as the U.S. EPA AERMOD and the accompanying screening model AERSCREEN are available. These models require topological and meteorological data from the site for which the dispersion calculation will be performed. Given the nature of the present screening assessment and the use of SCREEN3 in the U.S. EPA Exposure and Fate Assessment Screening Tool, Version 2.0 (EFAST), SCREEN3 was selected for the assessment of aviation fuel inhalation exposure. 

10.1.1.2 Long-term exposure in the vicinity of Canadian airports

Evaporative emissions that result from the storage and handling of aviation fuels at airports may disperse outside the airport boundaries, potentially resulting in exposure of the general population residing in the vicinity. SCREEN3 air dispersion modelling was therefore used to estimate the levels of exposure to the volatile fraction of aviation fuel at various distances from the release source. Emission rates were estimated from the total fugitive release estimates of 90–180 kg per day for Jet A-1 at a large Canadian airport (Tharby 2010; Woodrow 2003). The results for 3000 m from a release source (representative of a distance within which the general population may reside in the vicinity of an airport), gives an annual average concentration range for the volatile fraction of 4.7–9.4 µg/m³ (Table F-2 in Appendix F). Given a benzene proportion of 0.92–3%, the average annual exposure at 3000 m to aviation-fuel derived benzene would therefore be 0.04-0.14 µg/m³ (for the minimum volatile emissions of 90 kg) and 0.09-0.28-µg/m³ (for the maximum volatile emissions of 180 kg). These levels are below the reported average ambient air concentration of benzene in Canada (0.88 μg/m³) (NAPS 2008).

10.1.1.3 Long-term exposure in the vicinity of aviation fuel storage tanks

Refineries and other petroleum facilities (e.g., terminals, bulk plants) typically have storage tanks on site for temporary storage of aviation fuels and other finished products prior to distribution. The stationary nature of these tanks and the constant production and turnover of finished products results in evaporative emissions, because storage tanks have an associated standing (breathing) loss, as well as displacement of vapours during substance loading (U.S. EPA 2006). The emissions level can vary based on tank size and design, tank maintenance, properties of the stored substance, whether the tank is being filled, stable or emptied, as well as wind speed (Chambers et al. 2008). Aerial map analysis of refineries and other facility types (as noted above), and their associated bulk storage facilities (i.e., large numbers of storage tanks), shows that residential homes can be in close proximity to the storage areas. Thus, the evaporative emissions from aviation fuel storage tanks at refineries may be a source of exposure to fuel vapours for the general population in the vicinity of bulk storage facilities.

Bulk storage facilities have previously been identified as a source of emissions in Canada by the Alberta Research Council, and these emissions have been quantified by Differential Absorption Light Detection and Ranging (DIAL) (Chambers and Strosher 2006; Chambers et al. 2008; U.S. EPA 2006, 2010). DIAL has been used in Europe for over 20 years to identify and quantify emissions from specific locations within refineries, thus enabling targeted reductions in emissions (Chambers and Strosher 2006; Chambers et al. 2008). Within a specific Canadian facility, Spectrasyne Environmental Surveying determined an emissions rate for benzene from fixed roof tanks containing gas oils/kerosene to be 0.02 kg/hr per tank (Spectrasyne 2011).

A scenario of benzene emissions from a facility with two fixed-roof aviation fuel storage tanks in a 50 × 100 m² area was thus considered. Using SCREEN3 dispersion modelling with the benzene emissions rate of 0.02 kg/hr per tank and a release height of 10 m (input variables are given in Table F-3 in Appendix F), the maximum concentration of benzene was determined to be at 130 m from the centre of the facility. At this distance, the average annual ambient air concentration of benzene at a receptor height of 1.74 m was determined to be 1.9 μg/m³. At 300 m from the centre of the facility, the distance where residences have been observed, the benzene concentration resulting from emissions from the two storage tanks is 0.91 μg/m³. This level is considered in the context of the conservatism built into the scenario and the average ambient benzene air concentration of 0.88 μg/m³ in Canada.

10.2 Health Effects Assessment

The health effects database was limited with respect to the aviation fuel CAS RNs considered in this screening assessment. A few studies conducted with one aviation gasoline fuel (CAS RN 64741-87-3) were identified, but data on the other two CAS RNs (68527-27-5 and 64741-86-2) were not identified. Therefore, kerosene (straight-run and hydrodesulfurized) and related jet fuels (e.g., JP-5, JP-8, Jet-A, Jet-A1) were selected for characterization of health effects considered representative of the aviation fuels. Kerosene is similar to aviation turbine fuel (CAS RN 64741-86-2) from both a process and physical-chemical perspective, but is refined to less stringent requirements and is not subject to the same additives as final aviation fuels. JP-5, JP-8 and Jet-A are military and commercial grades of aviation turbine fuel, and are therefore also relevant for consideration in the health effects assessment of aviation fuels. A screening-level hazard characterization prepared by the U.S. EPA (2011) included JP fuels and Jet A/A-1 among the supporting substances in its kerosene / jet fuel category.

Appendix G contains an overview of health effects information on aviation fuels and related substances. Key studies outlining potential health effects of exposure to aviation fuels are described below.

CAS RN 64741-87-3 and kerosene have low acute toxicity in laboratory animals via the oral (LD₅₀ greater than 5000 mg/kg body weight [kg-bw]), dermal (LD₅₀ greater than 2000 mg/kg-bw) and inhalation (LC₅₀ greater than 5000 mg/m³) routes of exposure. They are not skin sensitizers, but can produce eye and skin irritation (mild and mild-to-severe, respectively) (API 1980a, 1985a, 1986a; ATDAEI 1990). A one-hour nose-only exposure of female C57Bl/6 mice to 1000 mg/m³ JP-8 caused immediate immunosuppression, a significant loss of viable immune cells and significantly reduced immune organ weights (Harris et al. 2002). Additional one-hour exposures resulted in greater immunosuppression (Harris et al. 1997, 2007b).

Skin irritation was the only effect reported after dermal exposure of male and female Sprague-Dawley (SD) rats to 678 mg/kg-bw per day of aviation gasoline fuel (CAS RN 64741-87-3) 5 days per week for 4 weeks (UBTL 1994). Increased spleen weights and decreased red blood cells were observed in rabbits dermally exposed to 200 mg/kg-bw (a lowest-observed-adverse-effect level [LOAEL]) kerosene 3 times per week for 4 weeks (API 1985a). Immunosuppression (as indicated by impaired induction of contact hypersensitivity and suppression of the delayed-type hypersensitivity response) in female mice was seen after dermal exposure to 1140 mg/kg-bw of JP-8 once per day for 5 days (Ullrich 1999). In female SD rats, immunosuppression was not observed after dermal exposure to Jet-A at 495 mg/kg-bw per day for 4 weeks (Mann et al. 2008).

Generalized sloughing of the bronchiolar epithelium and various cellular changes in alveolar type II epithelial cells, including increased number and size of surfactant-producing lamellar bodies, was observed in male C57Bl/6 mice that were nose-only exposed to JP-8 vapours and aerosols at 45 mg/m³ (a LOAEC) for 1 hour per day for 7 days (Herrin et al. 2006). In another study, groups of male B6.A.D. mice were exposed to 0, 7, 12, 26, 48 and 118 mg/m³ JP-8 for 1 hour per day for 7 days (Robledo et al. 2000). The vapour/aerosol combination in this study would have resulted in actual exposures of 0, 57, 97, 211, 390 and 960 mg/m³ (as specified in Herrin et al. 2006). Thus, exposure to 390 mg/m³ resulted in increased alveolar permeability, increased total protein in the bronchoalveolar lavage fluid, and concentration-dependent morphological lung and alveolar injury. Although these effects occurred in the absence of impaired respiratory function, they were considered by the authors as adverse because they exhibited concentration-dependency and are predictive of longer-term respiratory damage. In another study of mice exposed to JP-8, significant concentration-dependent decreases in thymic cell viability and splenic immune cell proliferation have been noted at 810 mg/m³, the lowest concentration tested (the 100 mg/m³ exposure group was actually exposed to 810 mg/m³ combined vapour/aerosols) (Harris et al. 1997). Mice exposed to 1000 mg/m³ for one 1 per day for 7 days exhibited reduced immune response to influenza viral infection, decreased immune cell viability, decreased immune cell proliferative response to mitogens, and a loss of T cells from the lymph nodes (Harris et al. 2008). Exposure of rats to 1000 mg/m³ JP-8 for 6 hours per day, 5 days per week for 6 weeks, had significant effects on neurobehavioural capacity (Rossi et al. 2001).

A LOAEC of 58 mg/m³ was identified based on decreased blood glucose in Wistar rats exposed to kerosene vapours for 6 hours per day, 6 days per week for 14 weeks (Starek and Vojtisek 1986). In another study, male rats exposed to JP-5 vapours/aerosols at 150 mg/m³ for 90 days exhibited nephrotoxicity. This adverse effect, however, is thought to be linked to the unique and specific male rat protein, α-2-microglobulin, and therefore is not considered relevant to humans. Inhalation exposure to JP-5 at 750 mg/m³ resulted in decreased growth rate in male rats, and statistically significant increases in blood urea nitrogen and serum creatinine levels in both sexes (Bruner 1984; Gaworski et al. 1984; MacNaughton and Uddin 1984). Another inhalation study showed bone marrow histological changes (10% reduction in fat cells), as well as low-level cell proliferation in male rats exposed to 250 mg/m³ JP-5 (Hanas et al. 2010).

No adverse effects were reported in rats administered 3000 mg/kg JP-8 by gavage daily for 90 days (Mattie et al. 1995). In a subchronic dermal study, dose-dependent skin irritation and increased spleen weights in high-dose females were reported after male and female SD rats were exposed to 165, 330 or 495 mg/kg-bw hydrodesulfurized kerosene daily for 13 weeks (U.S. EPA 2011).

No developmental or reproductive studies were identified for the aviation fuels. Kerosene and Jet-A did not exhibit reproductive or developmental effects in rats at high concentrations (no-observed-adverse-effect concentrations [NOAECs] of 2780 and 2945 mg/m³) via the inhalation route of exposure (API 1979a, 1979b; IARC 1989a). Conversely, developmental effects were observed in C57Bl/6 mice exposed to a maternally toxic concentration of JP-8. Mouse dams were exposed, nose-only, to 1000 mg/m³ JP-8 aerosols, in a single-concentration study, 1 time per day from gestational days 7 or 15 to birth. Adverse effects occurred in dams and pups of both groups, and included statistically significant immunosuppression as measured at 6 to 8 weeks postpartum. Other statistically significant effects included decreased spleen weights and splenic cells (pups), decreased thymus weights and precursor T cells (dams and pups), and decreased litter sizes. Male pup birth and survival rates were also decreased (Harris et al. 2007a).

One chronic dermal study assessing non-cancer endpoints was identified for the aviation fuels. No significant health effects were seen in male mice exposed to 970 mg/kg-bw of aviation gasoline fuel (CAS RN 64741-87-3) twice weekly for life; however, mild to moderate desquamation with slight irritation and scabbing was noted at the application site (API 1989a). In a similar study of male and female mice dermally exposed to JP-5, a LOAEL of 250 mg/kg-bw was identified based on a marked increase in dermal ulceration, inflammation and epithelial hyperplasia at the application site (NTP 1986). Skin ulceration and irritation were also seen at the application site in mice after chronic dermal exposure to 1170 mg/kg-bw kerosene twice weekly for up to 24 months (API 1986c). These mice also exhibited increased absolute and relative liver, lung and kidney weights. In mice dermally exposed to 1070 mg/kg-bw JP-5 or JP-8 3 times per week for 60 weeks, renal lesions, nephron atrophy and degeneration, and papillary necrosis were observed (Easley et al. 1982).

The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified “jet fuel” (CAS RN not assigned) as a group 3 carcinogen (“not classifiable as to its carcinogenicity to humans” – inadequate data in humans and inadequate or limited data in animals) (IARC 1989a). In deriving this classification, IARC in part considered health effects data on kerosene (CAS RN 8008-20-6). The aviation fuels (CAS RNs 64741-86-2, 64741-87-3 and 68527-27-5) were classified as EU category 2 carcinogens (“may cause cancer”) by the European Commission (European Commission 2004; ESIS c1995-2012). The risk phrases R65 for classification and labelling (“harmful: may cause lung damage if swallowed”) and R46 (“may cause heritable genetic damage”) were also assigned by the European Commission to CAS RNs 64741-87-3 and 68527-27-5.

Carcinogenicity studies that assessed the aviation fuels were found only for aviation gasoline fuel (CAS RN 64741-87-3). An insignificant number of skin tumours in male mice were observed after dermal application of 970 mg/kg-bw aviation gasoline fuel twice weekly for life (Skisak et al. 1994). Three of 50 mice developed skin tumours in the test substance group (2 squamous cell papillomas and 1 squamous cell carcinoma) with mean latency to tumour formation of 113 weeks. In the vehicle (toluene) control group, 3 mice developed squamous cell carcinoma and 1 developed fibrosarcoma. In another lifetime skin painting study with aviation gasoline fuel, 4 of 50 mice developed benign skin tumours, with a mean latency of development of 112 weeks (API 1986b, 1986d). Another skin painting study exposed male mice to 970 mg/kg-bw twice weekly for 139 weeks, resulting in benign and malignant tumour incidences comparable to that seen in the negative and solvent control groups (API 1989a). Aviation gasoline fuel was negative in tumour initiation and tumour promotion studies (Skisak et al. 1994).

Carcinogenicity studies were available for the related aviation fuel substances. Two studies of dermal application of Jet-A to mice three times per week resulted in skin tumour incidences of 26% and 44%, and mean latency to tumour formation of 79 weeks when exposed for 105 weeks (Clark et al. 1988; Freeman et al 1993). Straight-run kerosene was tested in 3 skin painting assays in mice, for durations ranging from 80 weeks to life. Increased induction of skin tumours in the test groups compared to control groups was reported in all studies, and tumour incidences ranged from 4 of 27 to 20 of 50. Mean latency to tumour development ranged from 62 to 76 weeks (Blackburn et al. 1986; CONCAWE 1991; API 1986c). JP-5 applied daily to mice at 250 or 500 mg/kg-bw for 103 weeks resulted in malignant lymphomas in females with incidences of 19 of 49 and 5 of 47, respectively. However, these incidence levels were within the rate of historical untreated controls and therefore not considered substance-related (NTP 1986).

Evaluation of the genotoxic potential of aviation fuels was conducted through in vivo and in vitro assays. Aviation gasoline fuel (CAS RN 64741-87-3) produced negative results in genotoxicity assays. In an in vivo chromosomal aberration assay, male and female SD rats were exposed via inhalation to up to 5443 mg/m³ for 6 hours per day for 5 days; an induction of chromosomal aberrations in the bone marrow was not observed (API 1986^e). An in vitro mouse lymphoma assay was also negative with and without metabolic activation of the test substance (API 1985c).

Genotoxicity assays of kerosene and jet fuels were also identified. Jet-A was positive for chromosomal aberration in rats and had mixed results (one positive, one negative) for micronuclei induction in mice (API 1979c; Conaway et al. 1984; Vijayalaxmi et al. 2004, 2006). It was also positive in vitro in the mouse lymphoma assay after S9 activation (Conaway et al. 1984). Kerosene gave mixed results in vivo for sister chromatid exchange (API 1988), but was negative in rat bone marrow cytogenetic assays (API 1977, 1979c, 1984, 1985c). Kerosene produced mixed results in vitro in the modified Ames assay and mouse lymphoma assay (API 1977, 1979c, 1985d; Blackburn et al. 1986; CONCAWE 1991). JP-8 had mixed results in vivo for micronuclei induction; studies reported positive results in peripheral blood of mice and negative results in bone marrow and peripheral blood of mice (Vijayalaxmi et al. 2004, 2006). Positive results were reported in vitro for JP-8 and JP-8+100 for induction of DNA strand breaks and lesions (Grant et al. 2001; Jackman et al. 2002). JP-5 was negative in the Ames and mouse lymphoma assays with and without activation, while DNA damage was reported in blood cells (NTP 1986; Jackman et al. 2002).

There are several occupational epidemiological studies of exposure to jet fuel. A cross-sectional study of 63 female United States Air Force employees found that those with high breath concentrations of JP-8 aliphatic hydrocarbons (mean = 280 parts per billion [ppb] for hexane to undecane) exhibited significantly (p = 0.007) reduced urinary luteinizing hormone, indicating an association between jet fuel exposure and possible adverse reproductive effects. Additionally, a trend of decreased urinary luteinizing hormone (p = 0.1) and decreased urinary midluteal pregnanediol 3-glucuronide (Pd3G) (p = 0.08) was noted in the group with the highest breath concentrations of BTEX (mean = 74 ppb) (Reutman et al. 2002). In a case-control study of 3726 men with cancer, the excess risk (odds ratio) of kidney cancer among workers with substantial occupational exposure to aviation gasoline or jet fuel was 3.9 and 3.4 (90% confidence intervals = 1.7–8.8 and 1.5-7.6), respectively (Siemiatycki et al. 1987). However, from this study it is difficult to determine causal relationships, as workers were often occupationally exposed to other substances, and absolute exposure levels were not reported. Recently, occupational inhalation exposures to JP-8 at less than 50 mg/m³ has been linked to adverse immune system effects, including an immediate increase in neutrophils and eosinophils, and decreased total leukocytes in the peripheral blood (Harris 2011). Other studies indicate that exposure to jet fuel may negatively affect neurological function, including associated learning, sensorimotor speed and higher-level brainstem functions (Knave et al. 1978, 1979; Odkvist et al. 1987; Ritchie et al. 2001a).

Aviation fuels contain the high-hazard component benzene at less than 0.02% (weight per weight [w/w]); however, due to its high volatility, benzene may represent up to 3% of aviation fuel vapour (as determined from a headspace analysis on diesel fuel samples). Benzene has been assessed by Health Canada (Canada 1993); it was determined to be a carcinogen and was therefore added to the List of Toxic Substances in Schedule 1 of CEPA 1999. Similarly, IARC classifies benzene as a Group 1 carcinogen (carcinogenic to humans) (IARC 1987, 2004, 2007). The Government of Canada has previously published estimates of benzene carcinogenic potency associated with inhalation exposure. A 5% tumourigenic concentration (TC05) for benzene was calculated to be 14.7 × 10³μg/m³ (Canada 1993) based on epidemiological data of acute myelogenous leukaemia in Pliofilm workers (Rinsky et al. 1987). The TC05 value is the air concentration of a substance associated with a 5% increase in incidence or mortality due to tumours (Health Canada 1996). Reference values for benzene from other international agencies (U.S. EPA 2000; W.H.O. 2000) are similar to the TC05 used below for the characterization of risk to human health.

With respect to the short-term inhalation effects of benzene, Health Canada identified a critical effect level of 32 mg/m³, based on immunological effects in mice after exposure for 6 hours per day for 6 days (Rozen et al. 1984). The Priority Substances List Assessment Report for benzene summarizes the Rinsky et al. (1987) and Rozen et al. (1984) studies (Canada 1993).

10.3 Characterization of Risk to Human Health

Aviation fuels were identified as high priorities for action during categorization of the DSL, as they were determined to present the greatest potential or intermediate potential for exposure of individuals in Canada, and were considered to present a high hazard to human health. A critical effect for the initial categorization of aviation fuels was carcinogenicity, based on classifications by international agencies. Aviation fuels were classified as category 2 carcinogens (“may cause cancer”) by the European Commission (European Commission 2004; ESIS c1995-2012).

Exposure to aviation fuel vapours may occur in the vicinity of airports and fuel storage facilities. Characterizing the risk associated with short-term inhalation exposure at airports involved the consideration of health effects data for the volatile fraction of aviation fuels and the high-hazard component, benzene. Long-term inhalation exposures in the vicinity of airports and bulk storage facilities involved the consideration of health effects data for benzene.

10.3.1 Short-term exposure at Canadian airports

A scenario of an individual present for four hours at a major airport, 300 m from the source of aviation fuel evaporative emissions, was considered. There were no recent Canadian monitoring data available on which to base the characterization of risk of such potential exposures. Modelling the dispersion and air concentration of estimated aviation turbine fuel evaporative emissions from a major Canadian airport resulted in a maximum 24-hour, upper-bounding value for total volatiles of 14.8 µg/m³ at 300 m from the release source. Comparing this estimate with the short-term non-cancer effect level of 45 mg/m³ in mice (as based on generalized sloughing of bronchiolar epithelium following an exposure regimen to jet fuel of 1 hour per day for 7 days) (Herrin et al. 2006) results in a margin of exposure (MOE) of approximately 3000. Comparing the respective benzene concentrations of 0.14–0.44 µg/m³ at 300 m (considering benzene represents 0.92–3% of the estimated total volatiles), with the short-term non-cancer effect level for benzene of 32 mg/m³ (as based on immunological effects in male mice following an exposure regimen of 6 hours per day for 6 days) (Rozen et al. 1984), results in margins of exposure of approximately 73 000–228 000. The above MOEs are considered adequate to address uncertainties related to health effects and exposure.

10.3.2 Long-term exposure in the vicinity of airports or bulk storage facilities

10.3.2.1 Airports

Air dispersion modelling of minimum and maximum volatiles released daily (90 and 180 kg, respectively) from the storage and handling of Jet A-1 at a large Canadian airport indicates that, at 3000 m from the point of release, the average annual air concentration of these volatiles would be 4.7 and 9.4 µg/m³, respectively. Exposure to benzene as a proportion (0.92–3%) of the total volatiles would be 0.04–0.14 µg/m³ (for the minimum release estimate) and 0.09-0.28 µg/m³ (for the maximum release estimate).

To characterize the risk from potential long-term exposures to these evaporative emissions, the maximum annual upper-bound estimated concentration of benzene (0.28 µg/m³), was compared with its carcinogenic potency (14.7 × 10³ µg/m³). The resulting margin of exposure at 3000 m from an airport is approximately 52 500. This margin is considered adequate to address uncertainties related to health effects and exposure.

10.3.2.2 Bulk Storage Facilities

There is potential for inhalation exposure to aviation fuel evaporative emissions in the vicinity of bulk storage facilities. To characterize the risk from potential long-term exposure to these emissions, the annual upper-bound estimated concentration of benzene (0.91 µg/m³) was compared with its carcinogenic potency (14.7 × 10³ µg/m³). The resulting margin of exposure at 300 m from a bulk storage facility with two storage tanks containing aviation fuel is approximately 16 000. This margin is considered adequate to address uncertainties related to health effects and exposure.

10.4 Uncertainties in Evaluation of Risk to Human Health

Uncertainty exists in the estimates of total daily volatiles from Jet A-1 at a major Canadian airport, in the modelling of these dispersions, and in the proportion of benzene present in the volatile fraction of aviation fuels; therefore, there is uncertainty in the derived short-term and long-term margins of exposure. Monitoring data on the amount and composition of vapours released from wing-tip venting of aircraft fuel tanks during various stages of idling and refuelling would aid in estimating exposures in the vicinity of aircraft boarding areas.

There are inherent variables that influence the magnitude of exposures to the volatile fraction of aviation fuels stored at bulk storage facilities, some of which include the size, number and state of repair of the tanks, fuel turnover, and the presence, magnitude and duration of the prevailing winds; these variables are not identical across storage sites, and differences in these variables are not accounted for in the exposure estimation.

For the scenarios of living in the vicinity of bulk storage facilities or airports, there is uncertainty in the characterization of risk of long-term exposure due to the assumption that inhalation exposure occurs continuously. Additionally, the presence of more storage tanks or an increase in fuel throughput in a defined area would increase the estimates of exposure.

As aviation fuels are UVCBs, their specific compositions are broadly defined, and different samples labelled with the same CAS RN can vary in the number, identity and proportion of components, depending on the feedstocks, operating conditions and processing units used to form the final fuel. Thus, it is difficult to obtain a representative toxicological dataset given that health effects may vary from batch to batch and between CAS RNs. For these reasons, all available health effects data on the aviation fuels and related substances were taken into consideration.   

Another contributor to uncertainty is that certain details of the laboratory animals (e.g., body weight) or test substance (e.g., density) were not always reported in the health effects studies, and were thus obtained from standard data. These parameters may not be entirely representative of the physical features of the actual test animals or substances used in the studies.

There is uncertainty in the exposure estimates and in the health effects database, as they pertain to the use of benzene as a single high-hazard component to characterize general population risk. A varying and wide range of chemical components, with individual physical-chemical properties that may change due to mixture effects, are present in the UVCB aviation fuels. Characterizing risk based on a single high-hazard component may be protective of potential risks from other components, but cannot account for the effects of mixtures of substances with differing hazards and potencies (i.e., the influence of concurrent exposure to multiple components on the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties of a single component).

Determining the health effects of individual fuel additives was outside the scope of this assessment.

Top of Page

11. Conclusion

Considering all available lines of evidence presented in this screening assessment, there is low risk of harm to organisms or the broader integrity of the environment from these substances. It is concluded that the aviation turbine fuel (CAS RN 64741-86-2) and the aviation gasoline fuels (CAS RNs 64741-87-3 and 68527-27-5) do not meet the criteria under paragraphs 64(a) or (b) of CEPA 1999, as they are not entering the environment in a quantity or concentration or under conditions that have or may have an immediate or long-term harmful effect on the environment or its biological diversity, or that constitute or may constitute a danger to the environment on which life depends.

For potential non-cancer effects from short-term inhalation exposures, margins of exposure between upper-bounding estimates of exposure to aviation fuel evaporative emissions, and the critical effect levels identified in laboratory animals, are considered adequate to address uncertainties related to health effects and exposure. For cancer from long-term inhalation exposures, margins of exposure between upper-bounding estimates of exposure to benzene (a high-hazard component of aviation fuels) and estimates of cancer potency are considered adequate to address uncertainties related to health effects and exposure. Accordingly, it is concluded that the aviation turbine fuel (CAS RN 64741-86-2) and the aviation gasoline fuels (CAS RNs 64741-87-3 and 68527-27-5) do not meet the criteria under paragraph 64(c) of CEPA 1999 as they are not entering the environment in a quantity or concentration or under conditions that constitute or may constitute a danger in Canada to human life or health.

It is therefore concluded that the aviation turbine fuel (CAS RN 64741-86-2) and the aviation gasoline fuels (CAS RNs 64741-87-3 and 68527-27-5) do not meet any of the criteria set out in section 64 of CEPA 1999.

Top of Page

References

Albers PH, Gay ML. 1982. Unweathered and weathered aviation kerosine: Chemical characterization and effects on hatching success of duck eggs. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol 28(4):430–434.

[AOPWIN] Atmospheric Oxidation Program for Microsoft Windows. Version 1.92a. 2008. Washington (DC): U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics; Syracuse (NY): Syracuse Research Corporation. Available from: www.epa.gov/oppt/exposure/pubs/episuite.htm

[API] American Petroleum Institute. 1977. Mutagenicity evaluation of kerosene. Med. Res. Publ. No. 26-60017 [cited in API 2003a].

[API] American Petroleum Institute. 1979a. Teratology study in rats: Kerosine. Med. Res. Publ. No. 27-32175 [cited in API 2003a].

[API] American Petroleum Institute. 1979b. Inhalation/teratology study in rats: Jet Fuel A. Med. Res. Publ. No. 27-32173 [cited in API 2003a].

[API] American Petroleum Institute. 1979c. In vitro and in vivo mutagenicity studies. Jet Fuel A. Med. Res. Publ. No. 27-30051 [cited in API 2003a].

[API] American Petroleum Institute. 1980a. Acute toxicity tests of API jet fuel A. Report No. 27-32815 [cited in API 2003a].

[API] American Petroleum Institute. 1980b. Mutagenicity evaluation of jet fuel A in the mouse dominant lethal assay. Med. Res. Publ. No. 28-31345 [cited in API 2003a].

[API] American Petroleum Institute. 1983. LC₅₀ acute inhalation toxicity evaluation of a petroleum derived hydrocarbon in rats. Hydrodesulphurized kerosene API sample 81-07. American Petroleum Institute Med. Res. Publ. No. 30-32855 [cited in API 2003a].

[API] American Petroleum Institute. 1984. Mutagenicity evaluation studies: in the rat bone marrow cytogenetic assay; in the mouse lymphoma forward mutation assay. Hydrodesulfurized kerosene API sample 81-07. American Petroleum Institute Med. Res. Publ. No. 32-30240 [cited in API 2003a].

[API] American Petroleum Institute. 1985a. 28-day dermal toxicity study of API 83-09 in the rabbit. API report No. 33-30443 [cited in API 2003a].

[API] American Petroleum Institute. 1985b. Acute oral toxicity study in rats. Acute dermal toxicity study in rabbits. Primary dermal irritation study in rabbits. Primary eye irritation study in rabbits. Dermal sensitization study in guinea pigs. API 83-09 straight run kerosine (CAS 8008-20-6). HESD Res. Publ. No. 32-32858 [cited in API 2003a].

[API] American Petroleum Institute. 1985c. L5178Y +/- Mouse lymphoma assay, API 81-08 sweetened naphtha. API Rpt. No. 32-31233, Washington (DC) [cited in API 2003a, 2008; CONCAWE 1992].

[API] American Petroleum Institute. 1985d. L5178Y +/- Mouse lymphoma assay, API 83-09 straight run kerosine CAS 8008-20-6. Med. Res. Publ. No. 32-32745 [cited in API 2003a].

[API] American Petroleum Institute. 1986a. Acute oral toxicity in rats, acute dermal toxicity study in rabbits, primary dermal irritation study in rabbits, primary eye irritation study in rabbits, dermal sensitization study in guinea pigs on API 81-08, sweetened naphtha (CAS No. 64741-87-3). API Rpt. No. 30-31990, Washington (DC) [cited in CONCAWE 1992; API 2008].

[API] American Petroleum Institute. 1986b. Lifetime dermal carcinogenesis/chronic toxicity screening bioassay of refinery streams in C3H/HeJ mice. Twenty-fourth month progress report (weeks 101-104). API Study No. PS-36. PRI Study No. AP-135r. Washington (DC).

[API] American Petroleum Institute. 1986c. Lifetime dermal carcinogenesis/chronic toxicity screening bioassay of refinery streams in C3H/HeJ mice. Twelve month toxicity evaluation report (vol. 1-3). Three month toxicity evaluation report. Study conducted by New Mexico State University. Report No. 33-31451. Washington (DC) [cited in CONCAWE 1995].

[API] American Petroleum Institute. 1986d. Lifetime dermal carcinogenesis/chronic toxicity screening bioassay of refinery streams in C3H/HeJ mice. Thirty-first month progress report (weeks 131-134). API Study No. PS-36. PRI Study No. AP-135r. Washington (DC).

[API] American Petroleum Institute. 1986e. Mutagenicity evaluation in the bone marrow cytogenetics assay with API 81-08 [IP]. API Rpt. No. 33-31093, Washington (DC) [cited in API 2003a, 2008; CONCAWE 1992].

[API] American Petroleum Institute. 1988. Sister chromatid exchange assay in Chinese hamster ovary (CHO) cell with API 81-07: hydrodesulfurized kerosene. American Petroleum Institute HESD Publ. No. 35-32482 [cited in API 2003a].

[API] American Petroleum Institute. 1989a. Lifetime dermal carcinogenesis bioassay of refinery streams in C3H/HeJ mice [(A)-135R]. Sweetened naphtha, API 81-08; light catalytic cracked naphtha, API 81-02; unleaded gasoline, API 81-24. API Rpt. No. 36-31364. Washington (DC) [cited in API 2001, 2003b, 2008].

[API] American Petroleum Institute. 1989b. Twenty-four month dermal carcinogenesis/chronic toxicity screening bioassay of refinery streams in C3H/HeJ mice (AP-190r). Final report. Study conducted by New Mexico State University. Report No. 36-33220. Washington (DC): American Petroleum Institute [cited in CONCAWE 1995].

[API] American Petroleum Institute. 2001. Robust summary of information on paraffinic naphthas. Available from: http://www.epa.gov/hpv/pubs/summaries/gasnecat/c13409rs.pdf

[API] American Petroleum Institute. 2003a. Robust summary of information on kerosene/jet fuel. Report No. 201-15020B. American Petroleum Institute. Available from: http://iaspub.epa.gov/oppthpv/document_api.download?FILE=Summaries_c15020rs.pdf

[API] American Petroleum Institute. 2003b. Robust summary of information on naphthenic naphthas. Washington (DC): American Petroleum Institute. Available from: http://www.petroleumhpv.org/docs/gasoline/052003_gasoline_robustsummary_nnaphthas_revisedfinal.pdf

[API] American Petroleum Institute. 2008. Gasoline blending streams category assessment document. Final 8-21-08. Submitted to the U.S. EPA by the American Petroleum Institute Petroleum HPV Testing Group. Consortium Registration No. 1100997.

Arnot JA, Gobas FA. 2003. A generic QSAR for assessing the bioaccumulation potential of organic chemicals in aquatic food webs [Internet]. QSAR Comb Sci [cited 2007 Mar 15]; 22(3):337–345. Available from: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/104557877/home [restricted access]

Arnot JA, Mackay D, Bonnell M. 2008. Estimating metabolic biotransformation rates in fish from laboratory data. Environ Toxicol Chem 27(2):341–351.

Arthurs P, Stiver WH, Zytner RG. 1995. Passive volatilization of gasoline from soil. J Soil Contam 4:1–13.

[ATDAEI] Acute toxicity data. 1990. J Am Coll Toxicol, Part B. 1:116 [cited in RTECS 2009].

ATSDR. 2005. Toxicological profile for jet fuels JP-5 and JP-8. Atlanta (GA): U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service.

Baldwin CM, Houston FP, Podgornik MN, Young RS, Barnes CA, Witten ML. 2001. Effects of aerosol-vapor JP-8 jet fuel on the functional observational battery, and learning and memory in the rat. Arch Environ Health 56(3):216–226.

Banerjee S. 1984. Solubility of organic mixtures in water.Environ Sci Technol 18:587–591.

Barrientos A, Ortuno MT, Morales JM, Tello FM, Rodico JL. 1977. Acute renal-failure after use of diesel fuel as shampoo. Arch Intern Med 137:1217.

Beliles RP, Mecler FJ. 1982. Inhalation teratology of jet fuel A, fuel oil and petroleum naphtha in rats. In: MacFarland HN, Holdsworth CE, MacGregor JA, Call RW, Lane ML, editors. Proceedings of a Symposium: The Toxicology of Petroleum Hydrocarbons. Washington (DC): American Petroleum Institute. p. 233–238 [cited in IARC 1989a].

[BIOHCWIN] Biodegradation of Petroleum Hydrocarbons Estimation Program for Windows. Version 1.01a. 2008. Washington (DC): U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics; Syracuse (NY): Syracuse Research Corporation. Available from: www.epa.gov/oppt/exposure/pubs/episuite.htm

[BIOWIN] Biodegradation of Petroleum Hydrocarbons Estimation Program for Windows. Version 4.10. 2009. Washington (DC): U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics; Syracuse (NY): Syracuse Research Corporation. Available from: www.epa.gov/oppt/exposure/pubs/episuite.htm.

Blackburn GR, Deitch RA, Schreiner CA, Mackerer CR. 1986. Predicting carcinogenicity of petroleum distillation fractions using a modified Salmonella mutagenicity assay. Cell Biol Toxicol 2:63–84 [cited in CONCAWE 1995; IARC 1989a].

Bogo V, Young RW, Hill TA, Feser CL, Nold J, Parker GA, Cartledge RM. 1984. Neurobehavioral toxicology of petroleum- and shale-derived jet propulsion fuel No. 5. In: MacFarland HN, Holdsworth CE, MacGregor JA, Call RW, Lane ML, editors. Advances in modern environmental toxicology: Applied toxicology of petroleum hydrocarbons. Vol VI, p. 17–32. Princeton (NJ): Princeton Scientific [cited in Ritchie et al. 2001a].

[BP] Air BP. 2000. Handbook of Products [report on the Internet]. Hertfordshire (UK): Air BP. [accessed 2010 June]. 37 p. Available from: http://www.bp.com/liveassets/bp_internet/aviation/air_bp/STAGING/local_assets/downloads_pdfs/a/air_bp_products_handbook_04004_1.pdf

Brost EJ, DeVaull GE. 2000. Non-aqueous phase liquid (NAPL) mobility limits in soil. API Soil and Groundwater Research Bulletin No. 9. Washington (DC): American Petroleum Institute.

Bruner RH. 1984. Pathologic findings in laboratory animals exposed to hydrocarbon fuels of military interest. In: Mehlman MA, Hemstreet GP III, Thorpe JJ, Weaver NK, editors. Advances in Modern Environmental Toxicology. Vol. VII, Renal Effects of Petroleum Hydrocarbons. Princeton (NJ): Princeton Scientific Publishers, p. 133–140 [cited in IARC 1989a].

Canada. 1990. Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999: Regulations Respecting Concentrations of Lead and Phosphorus in Gasoline. P.C. 1990-740, 26 April, 1990, SOR/90-247, Canada Gazette, Part I, July 15, 1989. Available from: http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SOR-90-247/FullText.html

Canada. 1993. Canadian Environmental Protection Act,Priority Substances List Assessment Report; Benzene. Catalogue No. En 40-215/11E, Beauregard Printers Limited. Available from: http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ewh-semt/alt_formats/hecs-sesc/pdf/pubs/contaminants/psl1-lsp1/benzene/benzene-eng.pdf

Canada. 1999. Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999. S.C., 1999, c. 33. Canada Gazette, Part III, vol. 22, No. 3. Available from: http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-15.31/FullText.html

Canada. 2008. Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999: Regulations Amending the Gasoline Regulations. P.C. 2008-792, 18 April, 2008, SOR/2008-126. Canada Gazette, Part I, Dec. 22, 2007. Available from: http://canadagazette.gc.ca/rp-pr/p2/2008/2008-04-30/html/sor-dors126-eng.html

Canada. 2010. Petroleum Refinery Liquid Effluent Regulations (C.R.C., c. 828) to the Fisheries Act[cited 2010 Feb. 19]. Available from: http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/C.R.C.-c.828/index.html

[CanLII] Canada Legal Information Institute [database on the Internet]. 2001. Ottawa (ON): Canada Legal Information Institute. [cited 2009]. Available from: http://www.canlii.org/en/index.php

[CATABOL] Probabilistic assessment of biodegradability and metabolic pathways [computer model]. c2004–2008. Version 5.10.3. Bourgas (BG): Bourgas Prof. Assen Zlatarov University, Laboratory of Mathematical Chemistry. Available from: http://oasis-lmc.org/?section= software&swid=1

[CCME] Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment. 2008. Canada-wide standards for petroleum hydrocarbons (PHC) in soil: scientific rationale. Supporting technical document. Winnipeg (MB): Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment. Report No.: PN 1399. Available from: www.ccme.ca/assets/pdf/pn_1399_phc_sr_std_1.2_e.pdf

[CGSB] Canadian General Standards Board. 2009. Aviation Turbine Fuel (Grades JET A and JET A-1). Government of Canada. Gatineau, Quebec. CAN/CGSB-3.23-2009. Available from: http://legislation.ccohs.ca/legislation/documents/stds/cgsb/gktat09e.htm

Chambers A, Strosher M. 2006. Refinery Demonstration of Optical Technologies for Measurement of Fugitive Emissions. Final Report. Edmonton (AB): Alberta Research Council. Report No.: CEM-9643-2006.

Chambers AK, Strosher M, Wootton T, Moncrieff J, McCready P. 2008. Direct measurement of fugitive emissions of hydrocarbons from a refinery. J Air Waste Manage Assoc 58(8):1047–1056.

Chevron. 2008. Material Safety Data Sheet: Aviation Gasoline. Houston, Texas: Chevron U.S.A. Inc. [revised 2008 February 26]. Available from: https://cglapps.chevron.com/msdspds/MSDSDetailPage.aspx?docDataId=362017&docFormat=PDF

Clark CR, Walter MK, Ferguson PW, Katchen M. 1988. Comparative dermal carcinogenesis of shale and petroleum-derived distillates. Toxicol Indus Health 4(1):11–22 [cited in API 2003a].

Conaway CC, Schreiner CA, Cragg ST. 1984. Mutagenicity evaluation of petroleum hydrocarbons. In: MacFarland HN, Holdsworth CE, MacGregor JA, Call RW, Lane ML, editors. Advances in Modern Environmental Toxicology. Vol. VI, Applied Toxicology of Petroleum Hydrocarbons. Princeton (NJ): Princeton Scientific, p. 89–107 [cited in IARC 1989a].

[CONCAWE] Conservation of Clean Air and Water in Europe. 1991. Middle distillates - a review of the results of a concawe programme of short-term biological studies. Brussels (BE): CONCAWE. Report No. 91/51 [cited in API 2003a].

[CONCAWE] Conservation of Clean Air and Water in Europe. 1992. Gasolines. Prepared by CONCAWE’s Petroleum Products and Health Management Groups. Brussels (BE): CONCAWE. Product Dossier No. 92/103.

[CONCAWE] Conservation of Clean Air and Water in Europe. 1995. Kerosines/jet fuels. Prepared by CONCAWE’s Petroleum Products and Health Management Groups. Brussels (BE): CONCAWE Product Dossier No. 94/106.

[CONCAWE] Conservation of Clean Air and Water in Europe. 1996. Gas oils (diesel fuels/heating oils). Prepared by CONCAWE’s Petroleum Products and Health Management Groups. Brussels (BE): CONCAWE. Product Dossier No. 95/107. 66 p.

[CONCAWE] Conservation of Clean Air and Water in Europe. 1999. Exposure Profile: Kerosines/Jet Fuels. Prepared by CONCAWE’s Special Task Force on Petroleum Product Exposure Profiles. Brussels (BE): CONCAWE. Report No. 99/2.

[CONCAWE]. Conservation of Clear Air and Water in Europe. 2001. Environmental classification of petroleum substances - summary data and rationale. Prepared by CONCAWE’s Petroleum Products Ecology Group. Brussels (BE). CONCAWE,.

[CONCAWE] Conservation of Clean Air and Water in Europe. 2007. Human Exposure Information for EU substance risk assessment of kerosene. Brussels (BE): CONCAWE. Report No. 6/07.

Coon NC, Dieter MP. 1981. Responses of adult mallard ducks to ingested south Louisiana crude oil. Environ Res 245:309–314.

Crisp AJ, Bhalla AK, Hoffbrand BI. 1979. Acute tubular necrosis after exposure to diesel oil. Brit Med J 2:177.

[CRC] Coordinating Research Council. 2006. Worldwide Fuel Survey – Coordinating Research Council Report 647, June 2006. Coordinating Research Council Inc. Alpharetta (GA).Can be purchased from: http://www.crcao.com/publications/aviation/index.html

Curry P, Kramer G, Newhook R, Sitwell J, Somers D, Tracy B, Oostdam JV. 1993. Reference values for Canadian populations. Ottawa (ON): Environmental Health Directorate Working Group on Reference Values, Health Canada.

Dede EB, Kagbo HD. 2001. Investigation of acute toxicological effects of diesels fuel in rats (Rattus rattus) using histopathological methods. J Appl Sci Environ Man 5:83–84.

Easley JR, Holland JM, Gipson LC, Whitaker MJ. 1982. Renal toxicity of middle distillates of shale oil and petroleum in mice. Toxicol Appl Pharm 65:84–91 [cited in IARC 1989a].

Egeghy PP, Hauf-Cabalo L, Gibson R, Rappaport SM. 2003. Benzene and naphthalene in air and breath as indicators of exposure to jet fuel. Occup Environ Med 60:959–976.

EHC Monographs. 1996. Environmental Health Criteria 171: Diesel fuel and exhaust emissions [Internet]. Geneva (CH): World Health Organization International Programme on Chemical Safety. [cited 2014 Feburary 3] Available from: http://www.inchem.org/documents/ehc/ehc/ehc171.htm

[EIA] U.S. Energy Information Administration. 2010. Petroleum and Other Liquids: Prime Supplier Sales Volumes Annual [Internet]. Washington (DC): the Administration.[cited 2014 Feburary 3] Available from: http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_cons_prim_dcu_nus_a.htm

Environment Canada. 2008. Data for petroleum sector stream substances collected under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, Section 71: Notice with respect to certain high priority petroleum substances. Data prepared by: Environment Canada, Oil, Gas, and Alternative Energy Division.

Environment Canada. c2001. Oil Properties Database [database on the Internet]. Ottawa (ON): Environmental Science and Technology Center, Environment Canada. [updated 2006 Oct 01; cited 2010]. Available from: http://www.etc-cte.ec.gc.ca/databases/OilProperties/oil_prop_e.html

Environment Canada. 2011. National Enforcement Management Information System and Intelligence System (NEMISIS) database, 2000–2009. Unpublished. Gatineau (QC): Environment Canada, Environmental Emergencies Division..

Environment Canada. 2014. Technical document on the persistence and bioaccumulation potential of petroleum hydrocarbons. Gatineau (QC): Ecological Assessment Division, Environment Canada. Available on request from substances@ec.gc.ca.

EPI Suite. 2008. Washington (DC): U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics; Syracuse (NY): Syracuse Research Corporation. Available from: www.epa.gov/oppt/exposure/pubs/episuite.htm

ESG International. 2000. Final report on the acute screening and definitive, chronic toxicity tests with motor gasoline. Final Report. Ottawa (ON): Canadian Petroleum Products Institute. 113 p.

[ESIS] European Chemical Substances Information System [database on the Internet]. c1995-2012. Joint Research Center (JRC). [cited 2011 Mar 11]. Available from: http://esis.jrc.ec.europa.eu

European Commission. c2000a. IUCLID Dataset, Naphtha (petroleum), sweetened, CAS No. 64741-87-3. [place unknown]. European Chemicals Agency, European Commission. [created 2000 Feb 18; cited 2010 April]. Available from: http://esis.jrc.ec.europa.eu/doc/IUCLID/data_sheets/64741873.pdf

European Commission. c2000b. IUCLID Dataset, Naphtha (petroleum), full-range alkylate, butane, CAS No. 68527-27-5. [place unknown]. European Chemicals Agency, European Commission. [created 2000 Feb 18; cited 2010 April]. Available from: http://esis.jrc.ec.europa.eu/doc/IUCLID/data_sheets/68527275.pdf

European Commission. c2000c. IUCLID Dataset, Distillates (petroleum), sweetened middle, CAS No. 64741-86-2. [place unknown]. European Chemicals Agency, European Commission. [created 2000 Feb 18; cited 2010 April]. Available from: http://esis.jrc.ec.europa.eu/doc/IUCLID/data_sheets/64741862.pdf

European Commission. 2004. Commission Directive 2004/73/EC of 29 April 2004 adapting to technical progress for the 29^th  time Council Directive 67/548/EEC on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous substances. Annex IB. Official Journal of the European Union. 16.6.2004. L216/72–L216/86. European Commission. 29^th ATP. [cited 2011 Mar 18]. Available from: http://eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2004:216:0003:0310:EN:PDF

Exxon Mobil. 2008. World Jet Fuel Specifications with Avgas Supplement 2008 Edition [Internet]. ExxonMobil Aviation. Brussels (BE). [cited 2014 Feb] Available from: http://www.exxonmobilaviation.com/AviationGlobal/Files/WorldJetFuelSpec2008_1.pdf

Fechter LD, Gearhart C, Fulton S, Campbell J, Fisher J, Na K, Cocker D, Nelson-Miller A, Moon P, Pouyatos B. 2007. JP-8 jet fuel can promote auditory impairment resulting from subsequent noise exposure in rats. Toxicol Sci 98(2):510–525.

Fechter LD, Gearhart CA, Fulton S. 2010. Ototoxic potential of JP-8 and a Fischer-Tropsch synthetic jet fuel following subacute inhalation exposure in rats. Toxicol Sci 116(1):239–248.

[FLL] Fuels and Lubricants Labaratory (Alberta Research Council, Edmonton, AB). 2008. Results of Gasoline and Diesel Compositional Analysis. Edmonton (AB): EPB-Laboratories, Environment Canada.

Fisher JW, Dilego RA, Putnam ME, Livingston JM, Geiger DL. 1983. Biological monitoring of bluegill activity. Wat Res Bull 19(2):211–215 [cited in CONCAWE 1995].

Fisher JW, Hunt TP, Putnam ME, Livingston MJ. 1985. Toxic effects of petroleum and shale JP-4 and JP-8 aviation fuels on fathead minnows. Water Res Bull 21(1):49–52 [cited in CONCAWE 1995].

Fleming J, Sileo L, Franson C. 1982. Toxicity of Prudhoe Bay crude oil to sandhill cranes. J Wildlife Manage 46(2):474–478.

Franklin F, Lloyd R. 1982. The toxicity of twenty-five oils in relation to the MAFF dispersant test [Internet]. Fisheries Research Technical Report No. 70. Lowestoft (UK): MAFF Available from: http://www.cefas.defra.gov.uk/publications/techrep/tech70.pdf

Freeman JJ, Federici TM, McKee RH. 1993. Evaluation of the contribution of chronic skin irritation and selected compositional parameters to the tumorigenicity of petroleum middle distillates in mouse skin. Toxicology 81(2):103–112 [cited in API 2003a].

Ganti S, Frye B. 2008. Spill cleanup of fuel contaminated soils after roadway accidents using in situ bioremediation. Proceedings of the Annual International Conference on Soils, Sediments, Water and Energy 13: 6. [held October 17–20, 2005; Amherst, Massachusetts].

Garcia K, Agard J, Mohammed A. 2008. Comparative sensitivity of a tropical mysid Metamysidopsis insularis and the temperate species Americamysis bahia to six toxicants. Toxicol Environ Chem 4:779–785.

Gaworski CL, MacEwen JD, Vernot EH, Bruner RH, Cowan MJ Jr. 1984. Comparison of the subchronic inhalation toxicity of petroleum and oil shale JP-5 jet fuels. In: McFarland HN, Holdsworth CE, MacGregor JA, Call RW, Lane ML, editors. Advances in Modern Environmental Toxicology, Vol. VI, Applied Toxicology of Petroleum Hydrocarbons, Princeton (NJ): Princeton Scientific Publishers, p. 33–47 [cited in IARC 1989a].

Grant GM, Jackman SM, Kolanko CJ, Stenger DA. 2001. JP-8 jet fuel-induced DNA damage in H4IIE rat hepatoma cells. Mutat Res 490:67–75.

Hanas JS, Briggs GB, Lerner MR, Lightfoot SA, Larabee JL, Karsies TJ, Epstein RB, Hanas RJ, Brackett DJ, Hocker JR. 2010. Systemic molecular and cellular changes induced in rats upon inhalation of JP-8 petroleum fuel vapor. Toxicol Mech Method 20(4):204–212.

Harris DT, Sakiestewa D, Robledo RF, Witten M. 1997. Immunotoxicological effects of JP-8 jet fuel exposure. Toxicol Ind Health 13(1):43–55.

Harris DT, Sakiestewa Titone D, Robledo RF, Young RS, Witten M. 2000. Jet fuel-induced immunotoxicity. Toxicol Ind Health 16:261–265.

Harris DT, Sakiestewa D, Titone D, Young RS, Witten M. 2002. JP-8 jet fuel exposure results in immediate immunotoxicity, which is cumulative over time. Toxicol Ind Health 18:77–83.

Harris DT, Sakiestewa D, He X, Titone D, Witten M. 2007a. Effects of in utero JP-8 jet fuel exposure on the immune systems of pregnant and newborn mice. Toxicol Ind Health 23:545–552.

Harris DT, Sakiestewa D, Titone D, He X, Hyde J, Witten M. 2007b. JP-8 jet fuel exposure potentiates tumor development in two experimental model systems. Toxicol Ind Health 23:617–623.

Harris DT, Sakiestewa D, Titone D, Witten M. 2007c. JP-8 jet fuel exposure rapidly induces high levels of IL-10 and PGE₂ secretion and is correlated with loss of immune function. Toxicol Ind Health 23:223–230.

Harris DT, Sakiestewa D, Titone D, He X, Hyde J, Witten M. 2008. JP-8 jet fuel exposure suppresses the immune response to viral infections. Toxicol Ind Health 24:209–216.

Harris DT. 2011. The effects of aerosolized JP-8 jet fuel exposure on the immune system. In: Witten ML, Zeiger E, Ritchie GD, editors. Jet Fuel Toxicology. Vol. I. Boca Raton (FL): CRC Press Taylor & Francis Group, p. 196.

Harris G. 1994. The comparative toxicity of crude and refined oils to Daphnia magna. Ottawa (ON): Environment Canada. 29 p.

Harris KA, Nichol LM, Ross PS. 2011. Hydrocarbon concentrations and patterns in free-ranging sea otters (Enhydra lutris) from British Columbia, Canada. Environ Toxicol Chem.30(10):2184–2193.

Hartung R, Hunt GS. 1966. Toxicity of some oils to waterfowl. J Wildlife Manage 30:564–570.

Hartung R. 1995. Assessment of the potential for long-term toxicological effects of the Exxon Valdez oil spill on birds and mammals. In: Wells PG, Butler JN, Hughes JS, editors. Exxon Valdez Oil Spill: Fate and Effects in Alaskan Waters, ASTM STP 1219. Philadelphia (PA): American Society for Testing and Materials.

Health Canada. 1996. Health-based tolerable daily intakes/concentrations and tumorigenic doses / concentrations for priority substances [Internet]. Ottawa (ON): Environmental Health Directorate, Health Protection Branch, Health Canada. 15 p. Available from: http://dsp-psd.pwgsc.gc.ca/Collection/H46-2-96-194E.pdf

[HENRYWIN] Henry’s Law Constant Program for Microsoft Windows [Estimation Model]. 2011. Version 3.20. Washington (DC): US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics; Syracuse (NY): Syracuse Research Corporation. Available from: www.epa.gov/oppt/exposure/pubs/episuite.htm

Herrin BR, Haley JE, Lantz RC, Witten ML. 2006. A reevaluation of the threshold exposure level of inhaled JP-8 in mice. Toxicol Sci 31:219–228.

Hing LS, Ford T, Finch P, Crane M, Morritt D. 2011. Laboratory stimulation of oil-spill effect on marine phytoplankton. Aquatic Toxicol 103:32–37.

Hoffman DJ, Albers PH. 1984. Evaluation of potential embryotoxicity and teratogenicity of 42 herbicides, insecticides, and petroleum contaminants to mallard eggs. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 13:15–27.

[IARC] International Agency for Research on Cancer. IARC Working Group on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans. 1987. Overall evaluations of carcinogenicity: an updating of IARC monographs volumes 1 to 42. IARC Monogr Eval Carcinog Risks Hum Suppl 7:38–74.

[IARC] International Agency for Research on Cancer. IARC Working Group on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks in Humans. 1989a. Occupational Exposures in Petroleum Refining; Crude Oil and Major Petroleum Fuels. Jet Fuel. IARC Monogr Eval Carcinog Risks Hum 45:203–218.

[IARC] International Agency for Research on Cancer. IARC Working Group on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks in Humans. 1989b. Occupational Exposures in Petroleum Refining; Crude Oil and Major Petroleum Fuels. Diesel Fuels. IARC Monogr Eval Carcinog Risks Hum 45:219–238.

[IARC] International Agency for Research on Cancer. IARC Working Group on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans. 2004. Overall evaluations of carcinogenicity to humans: as evaluated in IARC Monographs volumes 1–88 (a total of 900 agents, mixtures and exposures). Lyon (FR): International Agency for Research on Cancer.

[IARC] International Agency for Research on Cancer. IARC Working Group on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans. 2007. Agents reviewed by the IARC Monographs. Volumes 1–100A (alphabetical order). Lyon (FR): International Agency for Research on Cancer.

Imperial Oil. 2013. Material Safety Data Sheet: Aviation Gasoline 100LL. Calgary (AB): Imperial Oil, Products Division. [revised 29 Jul 2013]. Available from: http://www.msds.exxonmobil.com/psims/psims.aspx?brand=iol

Jackman SM, Grant GM, Kolanko CJ, Stenger DA, Nath J. 2002. DNA damage assessment by comet assay of human lymphocytes exposed to jet propulsion fuels. Environ Mol Mutag 40:18–23.

Khan N, Warlth MA, Luk G. 2007. A comparison of acute toxicity of biodiesel, biodiesel blends, and diesel on aquatic organisms. J Air Waste Manage Assoc 57:286–296.

Klein SA, Jenkins D. 1983. The toxicity of jet fuels to fish-II. The toxicity of JP-8 to flagfish (Jordanella floridae) and rainbow trout (Salmo gairdneri) and golden shiners (Notemigonus chysoleucas). Wat Res 17:1213–1220 [cited in CONCAWE 1995].

Knave B, Olson BA, Elofsson S, Gamberale F, Isaksson A, Mindus P, Persson HE, Struwe G, Wennberg A, Westerholm P. 1978. Long-term exposure to jet fuel. II. A cross-sectional epidemiologic investigation on occupationally exposed industrial workers with special reference to the nervous system. Scand J Work Env Hea 4:19–45 [cited in IARC 1989a].

Knave B, Mindus P, Struwe G. 1979. Neurasthenic symptoms in workers occupationally exposed to jet fuel. Acta Psychiatr Scand 60:39–49 [cited in IARC 1989a].

[KOCWIN] Organic Carbon Partition Coefficient Program for Windows [Estimation Model]. 2010. Version 2.00. Washington (DC): US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics; Syracuse (NY): Syracuse Research Corporation. Available from: www.epa.gov/oppt/exposure/pubs/episuite.htm

[KOWWIN] Octanol-Water Partition Coefficient Program for Microsoft Windows [Estimation Model]. 2010. Version 1.68. Washington (DC): US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics; Syracuse (NY): Syracuse Research Corporation. Available from: www.epa.gov/oppt/exposure/pubs/episuite.htm

Lampi M, Paumen ML, Parkerton T. (ExxonMobil Biomedical Sciences, Inc., Annandale (NJ) and ExxonMobil Petroleum and Chemical, Machelen (BE). 2010. An Evaluation of the Persistence, Bioaccumulation and Toxicity of Petroleum Hydrocarbons. Brussels (BE): Conservation of Clean Air and Water in Europe (CONCAWE).

Lockhart WL, Danelle RW, Murray DAJ. 1987. Acute toxicity bioassays with petroleum products: influence of exposure conditions. In: Vandermeulen JH, Hurdy SE, editors. Oil in fresh water: chemistry, biology and counter-measure technology. Oxford (UK): Pergamon Press. From CONCAWE 2003.

MacLean M, Doe K. 1989. The comparative toxicity of crude and refined oils to Daphnia magna and Artemia. Unpublished report. Ottawa (ON): Environmental Protection Directorate, Environment Canada.

MacNaughton MG, Uddin DE. 1984. Toxicology of mixed distillate and high-energy synthetic fuels. In: Mehlman MA, Hemstreet GP III, Thorpe JJ, Weaver NK, editors. Advances in Modern Environmental Toxicology. Vol. VII, Renal Effects of Petroleum Hydrocarbons. Princeton (NJ): Princeton Scientific Publishers, p. 121–132.

Mann CM, Peachee VL, Trimmer GW, Lee JE, Twerdok LE, White KL Jr. 2008. Immunotoxicity evaluation of jet A jet fuel in female rats after 28-day dermal exposure. J Toxicol Env Heal A 71:495–504 [cited in U.S. EPA 2011].

Marchal R, Penet S, Solano-Serena F, Vandecasteele JP. 2003. Gasoline and diesel oil biodegradation. Oil Gas Sci Technol 58:441–448.

Mattie DR, Alden CL, Newell TK, Gaworski CL, Flemming CD. 1991. A 90-day continuous vapor inhalation toxicity study of JP-8 jet fuel followed by 20 or 21 months of recovery in Fischer 344 rats and C57BL/6 mice. Toxicol Pathol 19(2):77–87 [cited in U.S. EPA 2011].

Mattie DR, Marit GB, Flemming CD, Cooper JR. 1995. The effects of JP-8 jet fuel on male Sprague-Dawley rats after a 90-day exposure by oral gavage. Toxicol Ind Health 11:423–435 [cited in Ritchie et al. 2001a].

McCarthy JF, Jimenez BD, Barbee T. 1985. Effect of dissolved humic material on accumulation of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons: Structure-activity relationships. Aquat Toxicol 7:145–156.

Mohammed A. 2005. Toxicity of water-soluble fractions of four fuels for Metamysidopsis insularis an indigenous tropical mysid species. Environ Monit Assess 104:37–44.

Mos L, Cooper GA, Serben K, Cameron M, Koop BF. 2008. Effects of diesel on survival, growth, and gene expression in Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) fry. Environ Sci Technol 42:2656–2662.

[NAPS] National Air Pollution Surveillance Network. 2008. Annual data summary for 2005 and 2006. [Database]. Ottawa (ON): Environment Canada [cited 2010 Mar].

Neff JM, Cox BA, Dixit D, Anderson JW. 1976. Accumulation and release of petroleum-derived aromatic hydrocarbons by four species of marine animals. Mar Biol 38:279–289.

Neff JM, Ostazeski S, Gardiner W, Stejskal I. 2000. Effects of weathering on the toxicity of three offshore Australian crude oils and a diesel fuel to marine animals. Environ Toxicol Chem 19:1809–1821.

[NTP] National Toxicology Program. 1986. Toxicology and carcinogenesis studies of marine diesel fuel and JP-5 navy fuel (CAS No. 8008-20-6) in B6C3F₁ mice (dermal studies). Technical report series No. 310. Research Triangle Park (NC): U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Odkvist LM, Arlinger SD, Edling C, Larsby B, Bergholtz LM. 1987. Audiological and vestibule-oculomotor findings in workers exposed to solvents and jet fuel. Scand Audiol 16:75–81 [cited in Ritchie et al. 2001a].

Paixão JF, Nascimento IA, Pereira SA, Leite MBL, Carvalho GC, Silveira Jr. JSC, Rebouças M, Matias GRA, Rodrigues ILP. 2007. Estimating the gasoline components and formulations toxicity to microalgae (Tetraselmis chuii) and oyster (Crassostrea rhizophorae) embryos: An approach to minimize environmental pollution risk. Environ Res 103:365–374.

Pancirov R, Brown R. 1975. Analytical Methods for Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons in Crude Oils, Heating Oils, and Marine Tissues, Proceedings of a Conference on Prevention and Control of Oil Pollution, San Francisco (CA). Washington (DC): American Petroleum Institute. p. 103–113 [cited in Potter and Simmons 1998].

Parker GA, Bogo V, Young RW. 1981. Acute toxicity of conventional versus shale-derived JP5 jet fuel: light microscopic, hematologic and serum chemistry studies. Toxicol Appl Pharm 57:302–317 [cited in IARC 1989a].

Penet S, Marchal R, Sghir A, Monot F. 2004. Biodegradation of hydrocarbon cuts used for diesel oil formulation. Appl Microbiol Biot 66(1):40–47.

[PETROTOX] [Estimation Model]. 2009. Version 3.04. Brussels (BE): Conservation of Clean Air and Water in Europe (CONCAWE). Available from: http://www.concawe.be/Content/Default.asp?PageID=241

Pleil JD, Smith LB, Zelnick SD. 2000. Personal exposure to JP-8 jet fuel vapours and exhaust at air force bases. Environ Health Persp 108:183–192.

Poirier A, Laurencin FB, Bodennec G, Quentel C. 1986. Experimental poisoning of the rainbow-trout, Salmo-gairdneri richardson, by engine diesel-oils – mortalities, hematological-changes, histology. Aquaculture 55:115–137.

Porter HO. 1990. Aviators intoxicated by inhalation of JP-5 fuel vapour. Aviat Space Envir Md 61:654–656 [cited in Ritchie et al. 2001a].

Potter T, Simmons K. 1998. Composition of Petroleum Mixtures. Vol 2. Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon Criteria Working Group Series. Amherst (MA): Amherst Scientific Publishers.

Prince R, Parkerton T, Lee C. 2007a. The primary aerobic biodegradation of gasoline hydrocarbons. Environ Sci Technol 41:3316–3321.

Prince R, Parkerton T, Lee C. 2007b. The primary aerobic biodegradation of gasoline hydrocarbons [supplementary information to Prince et al. 2007a on the Internet]. Available from: http://pubs.acs.org/doi/suppl/10.1021/es062884d

Reutman SR, LeMasters GK, Knecht EA, Shukla R, Lockey JE, Burroughs GE, Kesner JS. 2002. Evidence of reproductive endocrine effects in women with occupational fuel and solvent exposures. Environ Health Persp 110(8):805–811.

Riedenberg MM, Powers DV, Sevy RW, Bello CT. 1964. Acute renal failure due to nephrotoxins. Am J Med Sci 247:25–29.

Rinsky RA, Smith AB, Hornung R, Filloon TG, Young RJ, Okun AH, Landrigan PJ. 1987. Benzene and leukemia. An epidemiological risk assessment. N Engl J Med 316(17):1044–1050.

Ritchie GD, Still KR, Alexander WK, Nordholm AF, Wilson CL, Rossi III J. 2001a. A review of the neurotoxicity risk of selected hydrocarbon fuels. J Toxicol Env Heal B 4:223–312.

Ritchie GD, Rossi III J, Nordholm AF, Still KR, Wenger GR, Wright DW. 2001b. Effects of repeated exposure to JP-8 jet fuel vapor on learning of simple and difficult operant tasks by rats. J Toxicol Env Heal A 64(5):385–415.

[RMRI] Risk Management Research Institute Canada Inc. (St. John’s, NL). 2007. Quantitative Assessment of Oil Spill Risk for the South Coast of Newfoundland and Labrador. Ottawa (ON): Transport Canada.

Robledo RF, Witten ML. 1998. Acute pulmonary response to inhaled JP-8 jet fuel aerosol in mice. Inhal Toxicol 10:531–553.

Robledo RF, Young RS, Lantz RC, Witten ML. 2000. Short-term pulmonary response to inhaled JP-8 jet fuel aerosol in mice. Toxicol Pathol 28(5):656–663.

Rossi III J, Nordholm AF, Carpenter RL, Ritchie GD, Malcomb W. 2001. Effects of repeated exposure of rats to JP-5 or JP-8 jet fuel vapor on neurobehavioral capacity and neurotransmitter levels. J Toxicol Env Heal A 63(6):397–428.

Rozen MG, Snyder CA, Albert RE. 1984. Depressions in B- and T-lymphocyte mitogen-induced blastogenesis in mice exposed to low concentrations of benzene. Toxicol Lett 20:343–349.

[RTECS] Registry of Toxic Effects of Chemical Substances. 2009. Naphtha (petroleum), sweetened. [Database]. RTECS Number QK8030000. CAS No. 64741-87-3. , Hamilton (ON): Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety. Last updated Nov. 2009.

Salem H, Katz SA, editors. 2006. Inhalation toxicology. 2^nd ed. Boca Raton (FL): CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group.

[SCREEN3] Screening Tool Program for Windows [Estimation Model] 1996. Version 4.10. Research Triangle Park (NC): U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards Emissions, Monitoring, and Analysis Division. Available from: http://www.epa.gov/scram001/dispersion_screening.htm

Selden A, Ahlborg G Jr. 1987. Causes of death and cancer morbidity at [sic] exposure to aviation fuels in the Swedish armed forces. An update (Swed.), Orebro, Department of Occupational Medicine [cited in IARC 1989a].

[SENES] SENES Consultants Limited. 2009. Review of current and proposed regulatory and non-regulatory management tools pertaining to selected petroleum substances under the Chemicals Management Plan. Ottawa (ON): Health Canada.

Shin KH, Jung H, Chang P, Choi H, Kim KW. 2005. Earthworm toxicity during chemical oxidation of diesel-contaminated sand. Environ Toxicol Chem 24(8):1924–929.

Siemiatycki J, Dewar R, Nadon L, Gerin M, Richardson L, Wacholder S. 1987. Associations between several sites of cancer and twelve petroleum-derived liquids: results from a case-control study in Montreal. Scand J Work Env Hea 13:493–504.

Simpson BJ. 2005. Analysis of petroleum hydrocarbon streams on the Health Canada CEPA/DSL Draft Maximal List. Canadian Petroleum Products Institute.

Skisak CM, Furedi-Machacek EM, Schmitt SS, Swanson MS, Vernot EH. 1994. Chronic and initiation/promotion skin bioassays of petroleum refinery streams. Environ Health Persp 102(1):82–87.

Solano-Serena F, Marchal R, Ropars M, Lebeault JM, Vandecasteele JP. 1999. Biodegradation of gasoline: kinetics, mass balance and fate of individual hydrocarbons. J Appl Microbiol 86:1008–1016.

[Spectrasyne] Spectrasyne Environmental Surveying. 2011. Some Examples DIAL Product Tank Emissions Ranges, email communication. January 2011. Available from: http://www.spectrasyne.ltd.uk/html/home.html

Starek A, Vojtisek M. 1986. Effects of kerosene hydrocarbons on tissue metabolism in rats. Pol J Pharmacol Phar 38:461–469.

Statistics Canada. 2009. The Supply and Disposition of Refined Petroleum Products in Canada December 2009. Ottawa (ON): Statistics Canada, Manufacturing and Energy Division, Energy section. Available from: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/45-004-x/45-004-x2009012-eng.pdf

Statistics Canada. 2012. The Supply and Disposition of Refined Petroleum Products in Canada. Ottawa (ON): Statistics Canada, Manufacturing and Energy Division, Energy section. Catalogue no. 45-004-X Vol. 67 no. 3. Available from: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/45-004-x/45-004-x2012003-eng.pdf

Strømgren T, Nielsen MV. 1991. Spawning frequency, growth and mortality of Mytilus edulis larvae, exposed to copper and diesel. Aquat Toxicol 21:171–180.

Stubblefield WA, Hancock GA, Ford WH, Prince HH, Ringer RK. 1995. Evaluation of the Toxic Properties of Naturally Weathered Exxon Valdez Crude Oil to Surrogate Wildlife Species, Exxon Valdez Oil Spill: Fate and Effects in Alaskan Waters. ASTM STP 1219. Wells PG, Butler JN, Hughes JS, editors. Philadelphia (PA): American Society for Testing and Materials.

Transport Canada. 2010. Flight Test Exercises - Ex. 2 - Aeroplane Familiarization and Preparation for Flight [Internet]. Ottawa (ON): Transport Canada. [cited 2014 February 3] Available from: http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/publications/tp12475-ex2-1533.htm

Tesseraux I. 2004. Risk factors of jet fuel combustion products. Toxicol Lett 149:295–300.

Tharby RD (Burlington, ON). 2010. Release Potential of Certain High Priority Petroleum Substances under the Chemicals Management Plan: Aviation Fuels. Final report. Gatineau (QC): Environment Canada. 49 pp. Solicitation Number K2A15-10-0003. [restricted access]

Thomas P, Budiantara L. 1995. Reproductive life history stages sensitive to oil and napthalene in Atlantic Croaker. Mar Environ Res 39:147–150.

[TOPKAT] Toxicity Prediction by Komputer Assisted Technology [Internet]. 2004. Version 6.1. San Diego (CA): Accelrys Software Inc. Available from: http://www.accelrys.com/products/topkat/index.html

[UBTL] UBTL Inc. 1994. 28-day dermal toxicity study in rats ATX-92-064; Test Article F-251 (Sweet Naphtha-Merox Gasoline Stream); Study No. 66743. Salt Lake City (UT) [cited in API 2008].

Ullrich SE. 1999. Dermal application of JP-8 jet fuel induces immune suppression. Toxicol Sci 52(1):61–67.

[U.S. EPA] United States Environmental Protection Agency. 1992. Screening procedures for estimating the air quality impact of stationary sources. Revised. Washington (DC): U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air and Radiation, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. Available from: http://www.epa.gov/oppt/exposure/pubs/usepa_1992b_sp_for_estim_aqi_of_ss.pdf

[U.S. EPA] United States Environmental Protection Agency. 2000. Benzene (cancer) – Integrated Risk Information System [Database on the Internet]. Available from: http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0276.htm.

[U.S. EPA] United States Environmental Protection Agency. 2006. VOC fugitive losses: New monitors, emission losses and potential policy gaps. Washington (DC): U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. Available from: http://www.epa.gov/ttnchie1/efpac/documents/wrkshop_fugvocemissions.pdf

[U.S. EPA] United States Environmental Protection Agency. 2008a. Petroleum Industry. In: Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, AP 42, 5^th ed, Vol. 1. Research Triangle Park (NC): Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Available from: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ch05/final/c05s02.pdf

[U.S. EPA] United States Environmental Protection Agency. 2010. Critical review of DIAL emission test: Data from BP Petroleum refinery in Texas City, Texas. Washington (DC): U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. Available from: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/bp_dial_review_report_12-3-10.pdf

[U.S. EPA] United States Environmental Protection Agency. 2011. Screening-level hazard characterization: Kerosene/Jet fuel category.Washington (DC): High Volume Challenge Program, U.S. EPA. Accessed: April 14, 2011. Available from: http://www.epa.gov/oppt/chemrtk/hpvis/hazchar/Category_Kerosene-Jet%20Fuel_March_2011.pdf

Vernot EH, Drew RT, Kane ML. 1990. Acute toxicological evaluation of straight run kerosene. J Am Coll Toxicol B 1:30–31 [cited in Ritchie et al. 2001a].

Vijayalaxmi, Kligerman AD, Prihoda TJ, Ullrich SE. 2004. Cytogenetic studies in mice treated with the jet fuels, Jet-A and JP-8. Cytogenet Genome Res 104:371-375.

Vijayalaxmi V, Kligerman AD, Prihoda TJ, Ullrich SE. 2006. Micronucleus studies in the peripheral blood and bone marrow of mice treated with jet fuels, JP-8 and Jet-A. Mutat Res 608:82–87.

Wang S, Young RS, Witten ML. 2001. Age-related differences in pulmonary inflammatory responses to JP-8 jet fuel aerosol inhalation. Toxicol Ind Health 17:23–29.

Weinstein JE, Oris JT. 1999. Humic acids reduce the bioaccumulation and photoinduced toxicity of fluoranthene to fish. Environ Toxicol Chem 18(9):2087–2094.

Wernersson A. 2003. Predicting petroleum phototoxicity. Ecotox Environ Safe 54:355–365.

[W.H.O.] World Health Organization. 2000. Air Quality Guidelines. Evaluation of human health risk–Benzene (Chapter 5.2). Copenhagen (DK): Copenhagen WHO Regional Office for Europe.

Wong SS, Hyde J, Sun NN, Lantz RC, Witten ML. 2004. Inflammatory responses in mice sequentially exposed to JP-8 jet fuel and influenza virus. Toxicology 197:139–147.

Wong SS, Vargas J, Thomas A, Fastje C, McLaughlin M, Camponovo R, Clark Lantz R, Heys J, Witten ML. 2008. In vivo comparison of epithelial responses for S-8 versus JP-8 jet fuels below permissible exposure limit. Toxicology 254:106–111.

Woodrow JE. 2003. The laboratory characterization of jet Fuel vapor and liquid. Energy Fuels 17(1):216–224.

[WSKOWWIN] Water Solubility for Organic Compounds Program for Microsoft Windows [Estimation Model]. 2010. Version 1.42. Washington (DC): US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics; Syracuse (NY): Syracuse Research Corporation. Available from: www.epa.gov/oppt/exposure/pubs/episuite.htm

Top of Page

Appendices

• Appendix A: Petroleum Substance Grouping
• Appendix B: Physical-chemical Properties of Representative Structures for Aviation Fuels
• Appendix C: Production and Transportation Information
• Appendix D: Persistence and Bioaccumulation
• Appendix E: Ecological Effects
• Appendix F: Exposure Estimate Modelling Data and Results
• Appendix G: Summary of Health Effects Information for Aviation Fuels