Document MoaLm6MgLZ8e8q45yNrNRYNV7

Monsanto industrial chemicals company *r*OM tNAMI LOCATION) R. H. Munch DAT! UIJKCT 1 January 18, 1972 , l 1 cci W. R. Richard - WRICH R. A. Baxter - Ruabon E. S. Tucker - Res. 2 TO. : H. A. Vodden Ruabon .. Dear Alf: > \ * t1 r . We are very concerned that we have not received the additional data to fill in Table 3f Appendix 2 and any other text or data you wish to contribute for our joint P.C.B. report. This report should be finished if it is to have any value. Scott Tucker has finished the appendices he was to write and.the report has been circulated for comment. Also t there are several questions concerning data given in Report No. 2, Job No. 660 10 122 13 which we would like to clear up. 1. Are we correct that the data given in Table I of the above report are for 1242 and 1016 with added biphenyl? 2. We assume that the data in Table II also . were obtained using added biphenyl and that they were obtained not on separate samples of the compounds listed but by following - the disappearance of the corresponding peaks from a degradation experiment on Aroclor 1016. ' : 3 ; We understand that the data given in Table 2 of Appendix 2 of the P.C.B. report are for individual isomers studied separately with or without biphenyl as;noted in the table and using the bacterial culture noted in the table. 4. We are confused by the considerable difference in half lives given for the same compound in * the two tables. Do you have a good explana tion for such differences as those between 2,4' - 26 days in Table II and 2-5 days in Table 2 or 2,3',4* - 26 days in Table II and 2-3 days in Table 2? t . ! We would appreciate your comments on the points raised above.. . '! ` \ . DSW 272175 Best regards t ' . I: ! ' ' Ralph H. Munch *. ' . '' STLCOPCB4062912