Thread: Waste Oil

My Grand-Dad used to re-cycle his oil, before it became the done thing to do ( Very progressive man my old grand-dad) he put a container of oil on the top shelf in the barn and an empty container down below it, then he placed a wick type material into the oil container leading to the empty container. The oil would then siphon down into the empty container leaving most of the sediment behind (if he wanted it really clear he do it again) then he used the oil for various things around the farm, and he has even re-used it in his old farm landy, with no apparent ill effects.

Originally Posted by B92 8NW

Hey whereabouts is the Banyule depot...? I have a 205 barrel to get rid of, do you need to be a Banyule ratepayer to use it?

Whitehorse charge $0.35 per litre at their "tip"!!!!!!

Heidlberg, didnt ask for any proof of residence, i had the back of the disco full of old oil bottles that i had to pour into their bulk container- took me 30 mins .

Some scientific info.

Using waste oil as fuel is not ideal, but better than letting it contaminate the environment directly. In cement kilns, a lot of the lead and zinc etc end up in the cement.

Author(s): Boughton B, Horvath A
Source: ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY Volume: 38 Issue: 2 Pages: 353-358 Published: JAN 15 2004
Times Cited: 10 References: 17 Citation MapCitation Map beta
Abstract: The 1 billion gal of used oil generated in the U.S. each year are managed in three primary ways: rerefined into base oil for reuse, distilled into marine diesel oil fuel, and marketed as untreated fuel oil. Management of used oil has local, regional and global impacts. Because of the globally distributed nature of fuel markets, used oil as fuel has localized and regional impacts in many areas. In this paper, the human health and environmental tradeoffs of the management options are quantified and characterized. The goal of this study was to assess and compare the environmental impacts and benefits of each management method in a product end-of-life scenario using a life-cycle assessment (LCA) approach. A life-cycle inventory showed that 800 mg of zinc and 30 mg of lead air emissions may result from the combustion of 1 L of used oil as fuel (50-100 times that of crude-derived fuel oils). As an example, up to 136 Mg of zinc and 5 Mg of lead air emissions may be generated from combustion of over 50 M gal of California-generated used oil each year. While occurring elsewhere, these levels are significant (of the same magnitude as reported total stationary source emissions in California). An impact assessment showed that heavy metals-related toxicity dominates the comparison of management methods. Zinc and lead emissions were the primary contributors to the terrestrial and human toxicity impact potentials that were calculated to be 150 and 5 times higher, respectively, for used oil combusted as fuel than for rerefining or distillation. Low profits and weak markets increasingly drive the used oil management method selection toward the untreated fuel oil market. Instead, both the rerefining and distillation methods and associated product markets should be strongly supported because they are environmentally preferable to the combustion of unprocessed used oil as fuel.

Those who mentioned that pouring used oil into the ground is better on a CO2 emissions basis... The cement kilns etc have to burn something as fuel. Using a waste product as fuel rather than a "virgiin" product has better overall greenhouse implications. Likely Eutrophication and pollution of waterways from oil also has environmental impacts associated with it.

It is hard to find general papers on the environmental and health risks of used oil, but in general, the risks are related to contaminants such as PAHs (poly aromatic hydrocarbons), soot, heavy metals, etc...

Author(s): Lee JH, Talaska G
Source: JOURNAL OF TOXICOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH-PART A Volume: 56 Issue: 7 Pages: 463-470 Published: APR 9 1999
Times Cited: 0 References: 16 Citation MapCitation Map beta
Abstract: Used gasoline engine oils (UGEO) are carcinogenic and/or mutagenic in long-term studies and capable of increasing the number of mutagen- or carcinogen-DNA adducts when applied dermally to mice. The carcinogenic or mutagenic risk of UGEO has been attributed to the concentration of polycyclic aromatic compounds (PAC) that accumulate in the lubricating system during combustion of gasoline. When dermal exposure to UGEO takes place, the use of hand cleansers, solvent- or d-limonene-based, is commonly recommended for washing, In this study, female mice aged 4-6 wk (12-17 g) were utilized to evaluate the efficiency of kerosene, as solvent-based cleanser, to remove UGEO following dermal exposure. Using a P-32 postlabeling technique, the total levels of DNA adducts in skin and lung were significantly increased in kerosene-treated mice. Application of UGEO followed by kerosene washing significantly decreased skin DNA adduct levels bur increased lung adduct levels alter 8 h. The observed lower DNA adduct skin levels may reflect greater UGEO skin penetration and absorption in the presence of kerosene cleanser.

Author(s): Hu J, Mao Y, White K
Group Author(s): Canadian Canc Registries Epidemiol
Source: OCCUPATIONAL MEDICINE-OXFORD Volume: 52 Issue: 3 Pages: 157-164 Published: MAY 2002
Times Cited: 24 References: 67 Citation MapCitation Map beta
Abstract: This study assesses the effect of occupational exposure to specific chemicals on the risk of renal cell carcinoma in Canada. Mailed questionnaires were used to obtain data on 1279 (691 male and 588 female) newly diagnosed, histologically confirmed renal cell carcinoma cases and 5370 population controls in eight Canadian provinces, between 1994 and 1997. Data were collected on socio-economic status, smoking habit, alcohol use, diet, residential and occupational histories, and years of exposure to any of 17 chemicals. Odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were derived using unconditional logistic regression. The study found an increased risk of renal cell carcinoma in males only, which was associated with occupational exposure to benzene; benzidine; coal tar, soot, pitch, creosote or asphalt; herbicides; mineral, cutting or lubricating oil; mustard gas; pesticides; and vinyl chloride. Compared with no exposure to the specific chemical, the adjusted ORs were 1.8 (95% CI = 1.2-2.6), 2.1 (1.3-3.6), 1.4 (1.1-1.8), 1.6 (1.3-2.0), 1.3 (1.1-1.7), 4.6 (1.7-12.5), 1.8 (1.4-2.3) and 2.0 (1.2-3.3), respectively; an elevated risk was also associated with exposure to cadmium salts and isopropyl oil. The risk of renal cell carcinoma increased with duration of exposure to benzene, benzidine, cadmium, herbicides and vinyl chloride. Very few females were exposed to specific chemicals in this study; further research is needed to clarify the association between occupational exposure to chemicals and renal cell carcinoma in females.

Author(s): Swiatkowska B (Swiatkowska, Beata)1, Szeszenia-Dabrowska N (Szeszenia-Dabrowska, Neonila)1, Sobala W (Sobala, Wojciech)1, Wilczynska U (Wilczynska, Urszula)1
Source: MEDYCYNA PRACY Volume: 59 Issue: 1 Pages: 25-34 Published: 2008
Times Cited: 0 References: 40 Citation MapCitation Map beta
Abstract: Background: The objective of this work was to investigate the association between occupational exposure and lung cancer risk based on a case-control study. Material and Methods: The study of 414 primary lung cancer cases, recorded in the Lodz industrial center in the years 1998-2002, was carried out under the international multicentre case-control study, coordinated by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). The control group, composed of individuals who did not report any tobacco-related diseases or other cancers, were matched by gender and age. Data on lung cancer risk factors were derived from a questionnaire survey on life styles and occupational exposure. The detailed information on the occupational history of all the study subjects and exposure to lung carcinogens was collected and subsequently assessed by occupational hygienists. Logistic regression was used in the data analysis. Confounders, such as age, gender, education, diet and cigarette smoking were controlled in the analysis. Results: A total of 88 case patients and 79 controls had been employed in occupations and industries associated with the evidenced or suspected risk of lung cancer development. The corresponding odds ratio was 0.71 (95%CI: 0.48-1.06). The study population was mostly exposed to organic dust, lubricating oil mist, sand, mild steel dust, organic solvents and abrasives dust. Conclusions: The present study provides evidence that occupational exposure in the investigated Lodz industrial center is responsible for a moderate increase in lung cancer risk among exposed persons. However, only a small fraction of the study population was exposed to well documented carcinogens.

Author(s): Clonfero E, Nardini B, Marchioro M, Bordin A, Gabbani G
Source: MUTATION RESEARCH-GENETIC TOXICOLOGY Volume: 368 Issue: 3-4 Pages: 283-291 Published: JUL 5 1996
Times Cited: 8 References: 30 Citation MapCitation Map beta
Abstract: Thirteen samples of used motor oil and 33 recycled fractions, obtained in the laboratory by means of a recovery process similar to that currently used in Italy (vacuum distillation followed by thermal clay treatment) were examined. The Ames test (standard and modified version according to Blackburn) was used to determine the mutagenicity of the extracts and their contents of polyaromatic fraction (PAF) (IP346/80 method) and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) (Grimmer's method). Used motor oils are mutagenic, both directly and indirectly. The highest values have been found in used oils from motor vehicles using leaded petrol (up to 118.8 revertants/mg). Samples from vehicles using unleaded petrol or diesel fuel are less mutagenic (up to 31.1 and 16.4 rev/mg, respectively). The enrichment in mutagens due to the use of oil in the three types of engine ranges from mean values of 6.2, 1.1 and 0.4 rev/mg per 1000 km, respectively. Recycled oils are almost completely devoid of direct mutagenic activity (33 samples: mean +/- SD = 1.6 +/- 1.5 rev/mg). Most recycled distillates show considerable mutagenic activity in the presence of microsomial enzymes (up to 82.5 rev/mg), although this is reduced with respect to the original oils (recycled, mean +/- SD = 13.8 +/- 15.5 rev/mg; original oils, mean +/- SD = 30.7 +/- 35.2, Mann-Whitney U-test, z = 1.793, p < 0.05). Both PAF and PAH contents are high in used oils from the two types of petrol engine but not in those from diesel engines. Recycling reduces PAF contents only in used oils from petrol engines, from a mean value of 13.91 +/- 7.32 to 4.23 +/- 2,90% (comparison with original used oils, Mann-Whitney U-test, U = 8, p < 0.01). The light distilled fractions have greater concentrations of indirect mutagens, PAF and PAH than the others. The increase in PAH in light recycled products with respect to the original used oils is significant (Wilcoxon's t-test, z = 2.306, p < 0.05). Benzo[a]pyrene (BaP) is found in appreciable quantities (> 10 ppm) in all used oils from petrol engines and in most of their recycled products. Recycling generally recovers 50% of mutagens and PAF and about 80% of PAH. Considered together, recycled products have in any case contents of mutagens and PAF which are significantly lower than those in the parent oils, but not of PAH (Wilcoxon's t-test: mutagens, z = 2.935, p < 0.01; PAF, z = 3.145, p < 0.01; PAH, z = 1.397, not significant). Lastly, many recycled oils have PAH concentrations which are equal to or higher than those of the original used oils. The health risks linked to professional exposure to these types of oils and the inadequate recycling process currently used (redistillation and thermal clay treatment) in reducing mutagenic and cancerogenic substances from used motor oils are stressed.

OK, there are plenty more like this... But it is clear that USED lubricating oils have been proven to have Carcinogenic (cancer causing), Mutagenic (able to mutate cells), phytotoxic effects, etc, etc, and a whole range of other environmental and health effects.

But the bottom line is this:

Environmental impact of used motor oil

Rafael Vazquez-Duhalt
Centro de Investigaciones Biológicas de Baja California, Apartado Postal 128, La Paz B.C.S., 23000, Mexico

Received 11 May 1988;
accepted 19 July 1988. ;
Available online 1 July 2003.

Abstract

The information concerning the effects of used motor oil on the environment is reviewed. The production and fate of used motor oil are analyzed and the effects on soil and aquatic organisms are described. The combustion of waste crankcase oil, with particular reference to environmental impact, is discussed. The mutagenic and carcinogenic effects of used motor oil are described. Information on the biodegradation of lubricating motor oil is also reviewed.

The available information shows that used motor oil is a very dangerous polluting product. As a consequence of its chemical composition, world-wide dispersion and effects on the environment, used motor oil must be considered a serious environmental problem.

I was tongue in cheek, isuzurover, talking about CO2 emissions. I am quite aware that bacteria love oil and once they munch into oil in the ground you get yep CO2 emissions so no lasting gain there, you would have to seal it somehow. Mind you the science fiction guys think that they can sequester CO2? Otherwise your quotes make interesting reading.

It should be noted though that there is a big difference in ames testing for mutagens being positive and cancer or congenital defects happening in the real world. Can be like saying that nitrogen is bad for you as there is a 100% correlation with having inhaled nitrogen in people who die.

Good to see people taking pollution seriously though.

I understand that the Pine Rivers Shire Council will take it at there dumps at any time. No need to wait for a BCC collection. The catch is you have to know someone who lives in the Pine Shire well enough to accompany you to the dump as they need to show ID before they will accept it.

Thanks again to Izuzurover for looking this info up. To put this in context, concentrations of hazardous chemicals are thousands of times higher than would be accepted in other consumer products.

As a chemical engineer, except for metals levels (which should be low anyway), I'm not sure why waste oil cannot be used as a feed stream to the refinery. I guess it's just easier to use it as heating oil - which will destroy most of the nasties, and stabilise others as ash. Even then, it's worth ~$0.4 per litre - well worth collecting.

/Damien