RP 908

NMERI 96/15/32580
ASSESSMENT OF ANTI-FREEZE SOLUTIONS FOR GROUND-SOURCE

HEAT PUMP SYSTEMS
Everett W. Heinonen and Robert E. Tapscott
Center for Global Environmental Technologies

NEW MEXICO ENGINEERING RESEARCH INSTITUTE
The University of New Mexico
901 University Boulevard SE
Albuquerque, New Mexico 87106-4339
and
Maurice W. Wildin and Andrew N. Beall
Department of Mechanical Engineering

The University of New Mexico
Albuquerque, New Mexico 87131
Final Report for period of September 1995 - August 1996
August 1996
Prepared for:
American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc.

1791 Tullie Circle NE
Atlanta, Georgia 30329-2305
NOTICE
Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement

or recommendation for use. Because of the frequency of usage, Trademarks ® or
™ are not indicated.
Alconex
Copeland
CMA 25
DowFrost
DOWFROST HD
Environol
Exoendosol
ESPRE
Gore-tex
GS-4
Grundfos
LA-CO Slik-Tite
Loctite PST 567
Microsoft
Plexiglas
Snoop
SWAGELOK
Teflon
TRNSYS
Unyte
Whitlam Blue Magic Industrial Grade Thread Sealing Compound w/Teflon
Whitlam Select Unyte Thread Sealing Compound
If it becomes necessary to reproduce any segment of this document containing any

of these names, this notice must be included as part of that reproduction. Mention
of the products listed above does not constitute ASHRAE endorsement or
rejection of this product, and use of information contained herein for advertising
purposes without obtaining clearance according to existing contractual agreements
is prohibited.
ii
PREFACE
This report was prepared by the Center for Global Environmental Technologies (CGET)
Division, New Mexico Engineering Research Institute (NMERI) and the Mechanical Engineering
Department, The University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, New Mexico, for the American
Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc. (ASHRAE), Atlanta,
Georgia; ASHRAE 908-TRP, NMERI Number 8-32580.
The Start Date was September 1, 1995, and the End Date is August 31, 1996. The
ASHRAE Technical Contact is Patrick J. Hughes, the NMERI Principal Investigator is Robert E.
Tapscott, and the UNM Principal Investigator is Maurice W. Wildin.
NMERI 96/15/32580
iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Funding for this program was supplied by the American Society of Heating,
Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers and by the Geothermal Heat Pump Consortium
through USDOE Grant DE-FG07-95ID13347.
The efforts of Glenn Mattson in preparing the corrosion and leakage equipment and
samples are greatly appreciated.
iv
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Ground-Source Heat Pumps (GSHP) are effective space conditioning systems, which
offer many advantages over other heating and cooling systems, conserving energy and
maintaining comfortable living conditions even during the hottest or coldest weather. Utilities
benefit as a result of lower electricity demands during peak periods. Higher initial costs to the
owner are offset by lower operating costs. A concerted effort under the National Earth Comfort
Program has been instituted by the GSHP industry to accelerate market penetration of GSHPs,
with a goal of 400,000 annual shipments by the year 2000. As part of this acceleration, the
GSHP industry desires that all aspects of the system be more environmentally friendly than other
space conditioning methods. One aspect of this involves the assessment of the anti-freeze fluids
required for freeze protection in many applications.
Unlike air-source heat pumps, which use a refrigerant-to-air heat exchanger, GSHPs use a
refrigerant-to-water (or anti-freeze solution) heat exchanger and a second heat exchanger loop,
the ground loop, which is buried in the ground. The loop may be installed either vertically in
boreholes drilled up to a few hundred feet deep or horizontally in trenches. As a heat transfer
fluid, water is an acceptable working fluid in warm climates or in buildings with cooling-
dominated loads; however, anti-freeze solutions are required in colder climates to prevent
freezing of the fluid during the winter. Because the earth is used as a heat source/sink, a risk of
leakage or spillage into soil, surface water, or groundwater (aquifers) exists. Some of the anti-
freezes used are potentially toxic to humans and animals. Many anti-freezes are flammable, and
their installation and use could pose a risk of fire or explosion. Because ground-source heat
pumps are designed for many years of service, the corrosion of piping and equipment could also
pose a problem.
v
A. SCOPE
The assessment of the environmental impact and risk of using anti-freezes involved six
tasks:
1. Detailed thermal, hydraulic, and cost analysis. A comparison of the energy use and
life cycle costs, with inputs of initial cost, energy cost, and the cost of money was made of each
anti-freeze.
2. Corrosion assessment. Tests were performed to assess the corrosion of metal parts
both inside and outside the system, and to determine whether components, sealants, or elastomers
would leak when used in a GSHP system.
3. Health hazard assessment. An assessment of the risk to humans as a result of the

installation and use of the fluids was performed.
4. Fire hazard assessment. An assessment of the risk of fire and explosion of both the
pure and dilute anti-freezes was made.
5. Environmental assessment. An assessment of the air pollution resulting from

electricity generated to power these units, as well as pollution of ground and surface water
resulting from spillage or leakage, was performed.
6. Field survey and integrated report. A survey of manufacturers, installers, and users
relating to their perceptions of the risk of GSHPs was performed; individual installation
guidelines reflecting the risks determined during the project were written; and a matrix to help
guide installers in selecting the appropriate anti-freeze for their specific application was
developed.
vi
B. RESULTS
1. Energy use and cost assessment. In general, the energy use and cost do not vary
greatly among the fluids. This follows from the relative insensitivity of total system energy use
to the type of fluid, for a given case. Also, total energy use costs for a given fluid are not very
sensitive to the system parameters that were varied in this analysis. Energy use and cost are
highest for propylene glycol and lowest for ethanol. For all of the fluids, energy use and cost
decrease with increasing thermal conductivity of the soil, although use of grout instead of soil
backfill reduces the effects of varying the soil conductivity. The differences in life cycle costs for
the fluids is strongly influenced by the cost of the fluid. Thus, potassium acetate has the highest
life cycle cost due to its initial cost and also its relatively high energy use. For all the fluids, life
cycle costs increase with increasing ground loop length, since the increased initial cost more than
offsets reduced energy cost.
2. Corrosion risk. Ten metals were tested for corrosion rates in immersion and spray
environments. Stainless steel, black and cast irons, lead solder, copper, red and yellow brass,
bronze, and galvanized coupons were tested in immersion and spray environments. Aluminum
was tested only in spray tests. High immersion corrosion rates were observed for methanol with
black iron and cast iron; potassium acetate with cast iron; ethanol with cast iron; urea with
copper-based metals such as brass and bronze; and galvanized with all anti-freezes. High spray
corrosion rates were observed for methanol with cast and black iron; potassium acetate with cast
iron; ethanol with yellow brass, bronze, cast and black iron; CMA with solder, black and cast
iron; and urea with solder, black and cast iron, and copper-based metals.
3. Leakage risk. A loop consisting of components similar to those contained in a GSHP

system was constructed and the six anti-freezes circulated alternately at low and high tempera-
tures to evaluate whether leakage occurred. Both brass and iron fittings were included, as were
several brands of sealants and elastomers. Methanol experienced no leaks, while ethanol and
propylene glycol experienced minor leakage. Leakage of potassium acetate was observed where
a polyethylene hose was connected to fittings and at two threaded joints using LA-CO Slik-Tite
Paste with teflon and Whitlam Select Unyte Thread Sealing Compound with teflon. CMA
vii
experienced leakage resulting in small, gummy residues from three joints with the Unyte sealing
compound and at a union. Urea experienced major leakage through SWAGELOK joints and at
the hose ends, and minor leakage through joints with the Unyte, LA-CO, and Loctite PST 567
sealants.
4. Health hazard risk. None of the assessed chemicals is considered dangerous if

properly handled, and each could be safely used in a GSHP installation. Three areas were
assessed: inhalation, ingestion, and chronic effects. Inhalation, which is unavoidable in confined
spaces, was considered to be the major route of exposure; ingestion requires drinking the fluids,
which is not likely unless intentional. Chronic effects included carcinogenic, mutagenetic, and
teratogenic potential. Methanol was assessed to have high inhalation and ingestion risk. None of
the other anti-freezes was assessed to have high risk.
5. Fire risk. Methanol and ethanol present a serious fire risk if pure chemicals are added
to the system in enclosed spaces. The risk is lowered if dilute solutions are added or proper
ventilation and safety procedures are followed. Propylene glycol is flammable, but at a much
higher temperature and is considered less of a risk. Potassium acetate, CMA, and urea do not
have a fire risk.
6. Environmental risk. Air pollution resulting from the generation of electricity to run
GSHPs did not vary significantly among the fluids. Potassium acetate, methanol, and ethanol
have the highest risk of polluting water, with propylene glycol and urea having little risk.
7. Risk of Future Use. Methanol is approved for use in only several states, and many
others specify “non-toxic” materials only for anti-freeze solutions. From this, it is apparent that
methanol use is currently, or may be in the future, limited in many areas. Potassium acetate,
because of its leakage problems, may face future regulation, although it is still approved for use
in many states. Ethanol is not explicitly approved in some locations, although it meets the
criteria of non-toxic and its use is widespread. Propylene glycol is approved in nearly all states.
While urea and CMA have not been submitted for approval as GSHP anti-freeze solutions, they
are used for other applications and it is believed that usage will be allowed.
viii
Regulations and approvals. A separate issue, not connected with any specific task,
concerns the confusing array of regulations governing the installation of GSHP systems. Results
of the GSHP risk understanding survey indicate that community members feel that building
codes and regulations are not clear and unequivocal and that regulators and approvers often do
not understand the technical issues of GSHP and GSHP anti-freezes sufficiently well to make
informed decisions as to the use of GSHP anti-freezes. This in turn often prevents the most
efficient and safe anti-freezes from being used in GSHP applications.
C. CONCLUSIONS
The following table presents the results of the project for each of seven categories. Three
stars indicate that little or no potential for problems has been identified, two stars indicate a
minor potential for problems, and one star indicates a major potential for problems. One or two
star ratings are footnoted with the potential problem area described. Note that in several
instances, the ratings would change with conditions. An example is the fire risk for methanol
and ethanol which is denoted one star for the pure fluid. A footnote states that there is little risk
if the pure fluid is diluted with water.
Although energy usage and life cycle cost are significant, they do not greatly influence the
selection of anti-freeze fluids for GSHP applications due to the small differences between the
anti-freeze fluids. The fire, health hazard, and environmental risks, as well as local restrictions,
are more critical in determining which anti-freeze fluids are optimum for a specific application.
A good choice of anti-freeze for most uses would appear to be propylene glycol, with low
risk (higher factor value) in all areas, although its life cycle cost is relatively high (lower factor
value). Although CMA has low health, fire, and environmental risks, it has a high leakage risk
and relatively high life cycle costs. Potassium acetate has low to medium risk in all areas,
excluding fire, where the risk is negligible and leakage where the risk is high. The results of this
study indicated that the leakage of potassium acetate is medium, due to the extra care taken
during this project in parts and material selection, as well as the technique used to assemble the
test loop. However, leakage has been a problem in some residential and commercial
ix
Category Methanol Ethanol Propylene Potassium CMA Urea
Glycol Acetate
Life Cycle Cost ✪✪✪ ✪✪✪ ✪✪1 ✪✪1 ✪✪1 ✪✪✪

Corrosion ✪✪2 ✪✪3 ✪✪✪ ✪✪ ✪✪4 ✪5
Leakage ✪✪✪ ✪✪6 ✪✪6 ✪7 ✪8 ✪9
Health Hazard Risk ✪10,11 ✪✪10,12 ✪✪✪10 ✪✪✪10 ✪✪✪10 ✪✪✪10
Fire Risk ✪13 ✪13 ✪✪✪14 ✪✪✪ ✪✪✪ ✪✪✪
Environmental Risk ✪✪15 ✪✪15 ✪✪✪ ✪✪15, ✪✪15 ✪✪✪
Risk of Future Use ✪16 ✪✪17 ✪✪✪ ✪✪18 ✪✪19 ✪✪19
Key:
✪ Potential problems, caution in use required
✪✪ Minor potential for problems
✪✪✪ Little or no potential for problems
Category Notes
Life Cycle Cost 1. Higher than average installation and energy costs.
Corrosion 2. High black iron and cast iron corrosion rates.

3. High black iron and cast iron, copper and copper alloy corrosion rates.
4. Medium black iron, copper and copper alloy corrosion rates.
5. Medium black iron, high cast iron, and extremely high copper and copper
alloy corrosion rates.
Leakage 6. Minor leakage observed.
7. Moderate leakage observed. Extensive leakage reported in installed systems.
8. Moderate leakage observed.
9. Massive leakage observed.
Health Risk 10. Protective measures required with use. See MSDS.
11. Prolonged exposure can cause headaches, nausea, vomiting, dizziness,
blindness, liver damage, and death. Use of proper equipment and procedures
reduces risk significantly.
12. Confirmed human carcinogen.
Fire Risk 13. Pure fluid only. Little risk when diluted with water in anti-freeze
14. Very minor potential for pure fluid fire at elevated temperatures.
Environmental Risk 15. Water pollution risk.
Risk of Future Use 16. Toxicity and fire concerns. Prohibited in some locations.
17. Toxicity, fire, and environmental concerns.
18. Potential leakage concerns.
19. Not currently used as GSHP anti-freeze solutions. May be difficult to obtain
approval for use.
x
installations, and the use of potassium acetate must be critically evaluated for situations where
leakage could cause damage to facilities and equipment. Urea has low health, fire, and
environmental risks, but it has high corrosion rates for copper-based metals, as well as a
potentially high leakage risk. Ethanol has low to medium risk in all areas except fire, and that
risk can be lessened by adding only dilute solutions to the loop, or adding the ethanol in properly
ventilated spaces where fumes will not build up to explosive levels. Corrosion may present a
problem based on the high corrosion rates of black and cast iron and the copper-based materials.
Methanol, while having low energy usage and life cycle cost, suffers from the same fire risk as
ethanol, and additionally has greater health and environmental risk. Corrosion rates were also
high with the black and cast iron.
The perception survey indicated that while most members of the community believe that
GSHP units are designed and manufactured to be installed safely for a trouble-free lifetime, state
and local regulations governing the installation process are often confusing and regulators do not
understand the health, environmental, and fire risk differences among the anti-freezes. The
survey indicated a difference of opinion over whether workers were aware of safety issues
regarding anti-freezes, and whether good practices were always followed.
D. RECOMMENDATIONS
All of the factors evaluated during this program should be considered when making a
decision as to which anti-freeze to use in a GSHP installation. The four previously used anti-
freezes (methanol, ethanol, propylene glycol, and potassium acetate) should continue to be used
where possible. While methanol is still the most widely-used anti-freeze, it has higher fire,
health, and environmental risks than other anti-freezes, so greater care must be taken with its use.
Ethanol should be considered in cases where the fire risk can be managed and corrosion is not
considered to be a major problem. Propylene glycol has extremely low environmental, health,
fire risk, and low corrosion risks, and it may be a good choice if life cycle cost is not an
overriding concern. Potassium acetate, likewise, has good environmental and health
characteristics, but system component selection and installation must be monitored carefully to
eliminate leakage risk. CMA and urea possess desirable environmental and health
xi
characteristics; however, they should be considered only after potential corrosion and leakage
problems have been thoroughly addressed.
Finally, it is recommended that the GSHP community work with state and local
regulators to develop regulations on anti-freeze usage based on a full knowledge and
understanding of all risks of the anti-freezes. During the course of this project, the authors have
seen little rhyme or reason as to which anti-freezes may or may not be approved by each
governing body. If the goal of 400,000 new GSHP units installed yearly is to be met, a more
comprehensive and uniform policy for the use of anti-freeze solutions should be developed and
promulgated.
xii
CONTENTS
Section Page
I INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................... 1
A. BACKGROUND.................................................................................................. 1
B. OBJECTIVE......................................................................................................... 2
C. SCOPE ................................................................................................................. 2
1. Detailed Thermal, Hydraulic, and Cost Analysis ........................................ 3
2. Corrosion Assessment ................................................................................. 3
3. Health Hazard Assessment.......................................................................... 3
4. Fire Hazard Assessment .............................................................................. 3
5. Environmental Assessment ......................................................................... 4
6. Field Survey and Integrated Report............................................................. 4
D. APPROACH......................................................................................................... 5
II THERMAL, HYDRAULIC, AND COST ASSESSMENT.......................................... 6
A. INTRODUCTION................................................................................................ 6
B. APPROACH TO SYSTEM ANALYSIS............................................................. 9
C. HEAT PUMP SYSTEM MODEL ..................................................................... 11
D. RESULTS........................................................................................................... 21
E. COST ANALYSIS ............................................................................................. 50
III CORROSION ASSESSMENT ................................................................................... 62
A. INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................. 62
B. MATERIALS ..................................................................................................... 62
1. Fluids ......................................................................................................... 62
2. Corrosion Samples .................................................................................... 63
3. Determination of Corrosion Rates............................................................. 66
xiii
CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
Section Page
C. IMMERSION TESTS ........................................................................................ 67

1. Corrosion Results ...................................................................................... 68
2. Observations.............................................................................................. 70
3. Specific Results ......................................................................................... 71
D. SPRAY TESTS .................................................................................................. 72
1. Results ....................................................................................................... 74
E. LEAKAGE POTENTIAL TESTING................................................................. 76
1. Loop Layout .............................................................................................. 76
2. Loop Fabrication and Lessons Learned..................................................... 78
3. Loop Operation.......................................................................................... 82
4. Results ....................................................................................................... 84
F. RISK ANALYSIS .............................................................................................. 86
1. Corrosion................................................................................................... 86
2. Leakage...................................................................................................... 89
IV HEALTH HAZARD ASSESSMENT......................................................................... 91
A. LEAKAGE AND SPILLAGE SCENARIOS..................................................... 91

1. Filling and Flushing................................................................................... 92
2. Operation ................................................................................................... 93
B. TOXICITY ......................................................................................................... 93
1. Acute Effects ............................................................................................. 95
2. Chronic and Subchronic Effects.............................................................. 103
C. OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE LEVELS...................................................... 105
D. MSDS DATA................................................................................................... 108
E. RISK ASSESSMENT ...................................................................................... 109
1. Health Risk Index.................................................................................... 110
xiv
CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
Section Page
V FIRE HAZARD ASSESSMENT .............................................................................. 112
A. INTRODUCTION............................................................................................ 112
B. FLASH POINTS .............................................................................................. 113
C. DISCUSSION................................................................................................... 114
D. RISK ANALYSIS ............................................................................................ 115
VI ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT...................................................................... 117
A. EMISSIONS ..................................................................................................... 117

B. WATER POLLUTION..................................................................................... 119
1. Aquatic Toxicity...................................................................................... 124
2. Proposed Permissible Concentration Levels ........................................... 126
3. Biodegradability ...................................................................................... 127
4. Groundwater Pollution ............................................................................ 130
C. REGULATORY LISTINGS ............................................................................ 130
1. Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA).................... 130
2. Toxic Substance and Control Act (TSCA).............................................. 132
3. National Toxicology Program (NTP) Carcinogen................................... 132
4. International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC)............................ 132
5. Right to Know (RTK).............................................................................. 133
6. California Proposition 65 (Prop 65) ........................................................ 133
7. Occupational and Safety and Health Act (OSHA) .................................. 133
8. American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists
(ACGIH).................................................................................................. 133
9. Canadian Workplace Hazardous Materials Information System
(WHMIS)................................................................................................. 133
D. RISK ANALYSIS ............................................................................................ 134
xv
CONTENTS (CONCLUDED)
Section Page
VII FIELD SURVEY AND INTEGRATED REPORT................................................... 136
A. GSHP FLUID USAGE..................................................................................... 136

1. Methanol.................................................................................................. 136
2. Ethanol .................................................................................................... 137
3. Ethylene Glycol ....................................................................................... 138
4. Propylene Glycol ..................................................................................... 138
5. Potassium Acetate ................................................................................... 138
6. Calcium Magnesium Acetate .................................................................. 139
7. Urea ......................................................................................................... 139
B. RISK PERCEPTION SURVEY....................................................................... 139
C. INSTALLATION GUIDELINES..................................................................... 140
D. STATE, LOCAL, AND BUILDING CODE AUTHORITIES REGULATIONS140
E. RISK ANALYSIS ............................................................................................ 141
VIII CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.................................................... 147
A. SELECTION MATRIX.................................................................................... 147

B. CONCLUSIONS .............................................................................................. 147
C. RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................. 149
REFERENCES............................................................................................................................ 151
APPENDICES
A RESULTS OF GSHP INSTALLER’S SURVEY ..................................................... 157
B TASK 1 RESULTS ................................................................................................... 162
C COMMERCIAL SYSTEMS ..................................................................................... 167
D INSTALLATION GUIDELINES AND MATERIAL SAFETY DATA SHEETS... 168
E GSHP RISK UNDERSTANDING SURVEY RESULTS ........................................ 200
xvi
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
1. Ground Source Heat Pump System for Hydraulic Model. .................................................. 8
2. TRNSYS Component Schematic Diagram. ...................................................................... 12
3. Comparison of Fluid Viscosities. ...................................................................................... 17
4. Comparison of Fluid Thermal Conductivities................................................................... 18
5. Comparison of Fluid Specific Heats. ................................................................................ 19
6. Comparison of Fluid Densities.......................................................................................... 20
7. Summary of Annual GSHP Energy Use for Methanol...................................................... 30
8. Summary of Annual GSHP Energy Use for Ethanol......................................................... 31
9. Summary of Annual GSHP Energy Use for Propylene Glycol. ........................................ 32
10. Summary of Annual GSHP Energy Use for Potassium Acetate. ...................................... 33
11. Summary of Annual GSHP Energy Use for CMA............................................................ 34
12. Summary of Annual GSHP Energy Use for Urea. ............................................................ 35
13. Fluid and Outdoor Air Temperatures Fopr First 1000 Hours In The Year For
Methanol, 150 Ft Borehole Depth, 10 Ft Borehole Spacing, Soil And Backfill
Thermal Conductivity = 0.8 Btu/H Ft ºF........................................................................... 37
14. Fluid Operating Temperatures for First 1000 Hours in the Year for Methanol,
150 Ft Borehole Depth, 10 Ft Borehole Spacing, Soil and Backfill Thermal
Conductivity = 1.2 Btu/H Ft ºF. ........................................................................................ 38
15. Fluid Operating Temperatures for First 1000 Hours in the Year for Methanol,
150 Ft Borehole Depth, 10 Ft Borehole Spacing, Soil and Backfill Thermal
Conductivity = 0.4 Btu/H Ft ºF. ........................................................................................ 39
16. Supply Air and Ground Loop Fluid Temperatures for a Week in January,
for Baseline Case for Methanol......................................................................................... 40
17. Summary of Monthly Flowrate for Methanol with Soil Backfill...................................... 43
18. Impact of Fluid On Baseline System Installation Cost...................................................... 47
19. Summary of Life Cycle Cost for Methanol. ...................................................................... 55
20. Summary of Life Cycle Cost for Ethanol. ......................................................................... 56
21. Summary of Life Cycle Cost for Propylene Glycol........................................................... 57
22. Summary of Life Cycle Cost for Potassium Acetate......................................................... 58
23. Summary of Life Cycle Cost for CMA. ............................................................................ 59
xvii
LIST OF FIGURES (CONCLUDED)
Figure Page
24. Summary of Life Cycle Cost for Urea............................................................................... 60
25. Comparison of Life Cycle Costs for Case 2 (Baseline)..................................................... 61
26. Filled Cylinders Ready to Place in Oven........................................................................... 69
27. Test Batch in Oven. ........................................................................................................... 69
28. Spray Test Apparatus. ....................................................................................................... 72
29. Coupons After Removal From Spray, Ethanol.................................................................. 76
30. Potential for Leakage Test Loop. ...................................................................................... 77
31. Leakage Potential Loop. .................................................................................................... 78
32. Projected Annual Emissions of CO2 for Baseline GSHP System. .................................. 120
33. Projected Annual Emissions of SO2 for Baseline GSHP System.................................... 121
34. Projected Annual Emissions of NOX for Baseline GSHP System. ................................. 122
35. Projected Annual Emissions of Mercury for Baseline GSHP System. ........................... 123
xviii
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1. IDENTIFICATION OF CASES AND THEIR DEFINING PARAMETERS. ................. 22
2. SUMMARY OF RESULTS FOR ENERGY USE AND FLOW RATE
WITH METHANOL. ........................................................................................................ 23
3. SUMMARY OF RESULTS FOR ENERGY USE AND FLOW RATE WITH
ETHANOL. ....................................................................................................................... 25
PROPYLENE GLYCOL................................................................................................... 26
POTASSIUM ACETATE. ................................................................................................ 27
CALCIUM MAGNESIUM ACETATE............................................................................ 28
7. SUMMARY OF RESULTS FOR ENERGY USE AND FLOW RATE WITH UREA... 29
8. SUMMARY OF GSHP SYSTEM ECONOMICS BASED ON
METHANOL RESULTS. ................................................................................................. 49
ETHANOL RESULTS...................................................................................................... 50
PROPYLENE GLYCOL RESULTS................................................................................. 51
11. SUMMARY OF GSHP SYSTEM ECONOMICS BASED ON POTASSIUM
ACETATE RESULTS. ..................................................................................................... 52
12. SUMMARY OF GSHP SYSTEM ECONOMICS BASED ON CMA RESULTS. ......... 53
13. SUMMARY OF GSHP SYSTEM ECONOMICS BASED ON UREA RESULTS......... 54
14. LIFE CYCLE COST INDEX. ........................................................................................... 61
15. ANTI-FREEZE FLUIDS USED FOR CORROSION AND LEAKAGE TESTS. ........... 63
16. CORROSION SAMPLES................................................................................................. 64
17. DIMENSIONS OF SAMPLE COUPONS FOR CORROSION TESTS. ......................... 64
18. PROCEDURES FOR CLEANING CORROSION SAMPLES........................................ 66
19. MEAN IMMERSION CORROSION RATES AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS. ....... 70
20. SPRAY CORROSION RATES (MILS PER YEAR). ...................................................... 74
21. JOINT NUMBERING KEY.............................................................................................. 79
xix
LIST OF TABLES (CONTINUED)
Table Page
22. MAJOR COMPONENTS OF LEAKAGE POTENTIAL LOOP. .................................... 81
23. CORROSION RATES, IMMERSION TESTS................................................................. 88
24. CORROSION RATES, SPRAY TESTS. ......................................................................... 88
25. LEAKAGE RESULTS...................................................................................................... 90
26. LEAKAGE HAZARD INDEX. ........................................................................................ 90
27. LEAKAGE SCENARIOS. ................................................................................................ 94
28. MEASURES OF TOXICITY............................................................................................ 95
29. ANTI-FREEZE TOXICITY.............................................................................................. 96
30. ACUTE TOXIC AMOUNTS OF ANTI-FREEZE (INGESTION)................................... 97
31. HEALTH HAZARD DATA (INGESTION)..................................................................... 99
32. ACUTE TOXIC AMOUNTS OF ANTI-FREEZE (INHALATION). ............................ 100
33. HEALTH HAZARD DATA (INHALATION). .............................................................. 100
34. ACUTE TOXIC AMOUNTS OF ANTI-FREEZE (INTRAVENOUS). ........................ 101
35. ACUTE TOXIC AMOUNTS OF ANTI-FREEZE (SKIN). ........................................... 101
36. HEALTH HAZARD DATA (SKIN). ............................................................................. 102
37. HEALTH HAZARD DATA (EYES).............................................................................. 104
38. EXPERIMENTAL LONG-TERM HEALTH EFFECTS. .............................................. 104
39. HEALTH HAZARD DATA (CHRONIC)...................................................................... 106
40. EXPOSURE STANDARD AND REGULATORY LIMITS.......................................... 108
41. TYPICAL MSDS CATEGORIES. ................................................................................. 109
42. HEALTH HAZARD INDEX. ......................................................................................... 111
43. CLASSIFICATION OF FLAMMABLE AND COMBUSTIBLE LIQUIDS.................. 112
44. FLASH POINTS. ............................................................................................................ 114
45. FIRE HAZARD INDEX. ................................................................................................ 116
46. PROJECTED NUMBER OF UNITS INSTALLED AND SOLD. ................................. 118
47. AQUATIC TOXICITY OF ANTI-FREEZES................................................................. 125
48. MAXIMUM VOLUME OF SURFACE WATER POTENTIALLY
CONTAMINATED BY LEAKAGE (AQUATIC TOXICITY). .................................... 126
49. MAXIMUM VOLUME OF SURFACE WATER POTENTIALLY
CONTAMINATED BY LEAKAGE (PERMISSIBLE LIMITS).................................... 127
xx
LIST OF TABLES (CONCLUDED)
Table Page
50. ANTI-FREEZE BIOLOGICAL OXYGEN DEMAND AND CHEMICAL
OXYGEN DEMAND...................................................................................................... 129
51. GSHP ANTI-FREEZE REGULATORY LISTING. ....................................................... 131
52. ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARD INDEX........................................................................ 135
53. ANNUAL ANTI-FREEZE USAGE, 400,000 UNITS.................................................... 137
54. RISK OF FUTURE USE INDEX. .................................................................................. 142
55. GSHP ANTI-FREEZE REGULATIONS (BY STATE)................................................. 143
56. ANTI-FREEZE COST/RISK FACTORS. ...................................................................... 148
xxi
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
ACGIH American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists

AIHA American Industrial Health Association
ASHRAE American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc.
ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials
BOD Biochemical oxygen demand
CABO Council of American Building Officials
CAS Chemical Abstracts Service
CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
CGET Center for Global Environmental Technologies
CL Ceiling limits
CMA Calcium magnesium acetate
COD Chemical oxygen demand
DOT Department of Transportation
EIA Energy Information Administration
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
EPDM Ethylene propylene diene monomer
GHPC Geothermal Heat Pump Consortium, Inc.
GSHP Ground-Source Heat Pump
IARC International Agency for Research on Cancer
IGSHPA International Ground Source Heat Pump Association
KOAc Potassium acetate
LCLO Lowest lethal concentration
LC0 Concentration at which no fatalities occurs
LC50 Median lethal concentration
LDLO Lowest lethal dose
LD50 Median lethal dose
MAC Maximum acceptable concentration
MSDS Material Data Safety Sheet
MTBE Methyl tertiary butyl ether
NFPA National Fire Protection Association
xxii
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
(CONCLUDED)
NIOSH National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health

NMERI New Mexico Engineering Research Institute
NTP National Toxicology Program
OEL Occupational exposure level
OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration
PEL Permissive exposure limits
RfD Reference dose
RTK Right-to-know
SARA Superfund Amendments and Reorganization Act
STEL Short term exposure level
TCLO Lowest published toxic concentration
ThOD Theoretical oxygen demand
TLV Threshold level value
TSCA Toxic Substance Control Act
TDLO Lowest published toxic dose
TWA Time-weighted average
UNM University of New Mexico
USP United States Pharmacopoeia
WHMIS Workplace Hazardous Materials Management Information System
xxiii
LIST OF UNITS AND SYMBOLS
A area of corrosion samples in corrosion rate equation

BTU British Thermal Units, English unit of energy
D density of samples in corrosion rate equation
cm centimeters
ft feet
gal gallons
h hours
in inches
K conversion constant in corrosion rate equation
kg kilogram
kJ kilojoules, metric unit of energy
kPa kilopascal
kWh kilowatt hours, mixed unit of energy
lbf-ft pounds force-foot
l liter
m meters
3
m cubic meter
mg milligram
min minutes
mL milliliter
mpy mils per year
Nm Newton-meter
ppm parts per million
psia pounds per square inch, absolute
s seconds
T time of exposure in corrosion rate equation
ton heating or cooling capacity; 12000 BTU/h
W Watts; weight loss of exposure samples in corrosion rate equation
wt.% weight percent
°C degrees Celsius
°F degrees Fahrenheit
xxiv
SECTION I
INTRODUCTION
A. BACKGROUND
Ground-source heat pumps (GSHP), also called geothermal heat pumps, are efficient
space conditioning systems used to heat and cool residential and commercial buildings. Unlike
air-source heat pumps, which have been installed in nearly one-fourth of homes built since 1977,
GSHPs use the more stable energy source of the ground as a heat source or sink and consume
one-third less energy than air-source heat pumps (Reference 1). They generate fewer air
pollution emissions per unit installed than more traditional systems as a result of their greater
energy efficiency.
While air-source heat pumps use a refrigerant-to-air heat exchanger, GSHPs use a
refrigerant-to-water (or refrigerant-to-anti-freeze) heat exchanger and a second heat exchanger,
the ground loop, which is buried in the ground. The loop may be installed either vertically in
boreholes drilled a few hundred feet deep or horizontally in trenches. As a heat transfer fluid,
water is an acceptable working fluid in warm climates, or in buildings with cooling-dominated
loads, but the addition of anti-freeze is required in buildings with heating-dominated loads
located in colder climates to prevent freezing of the fluid during the winter. However, because
the earth is used as a heat source/sink, a risk of leakage or spillage into soil, surface water, or
groundwater (aquifers) exists. Some of the anti-freezes used are potentially toxic to humans and
animals. Many of these anti-freezes are flammable, and their installation and use could pose a
risk of fire or explosion. Because ground-source heat pumps are designed for many years of
service, corrosion of piping and equipment could also pose a problem.
Anti-freeze solutions commonly used in the past include aqueous ethylene and propylene
glycols, methanol, ethanol, potassium acetate, sodium chloride, and calcium chloride. Ethylene
glycol and the last two are not commonly used today, although ethylene glycol is standard in
some European countries, such as Switzerland. Each of the anti-freezes presents some degree of
safety or flammability risk. Methanol, probably the most commonly used anti-freeze, has not
1
been approved for use by the International Ground Source Heat Pump Association (IGSHPA),
which has approved only water, aqueous potassium acetate, and aqueous propylene glycol. Each
of the three approved fluids has characteristics that may preclude their uses in certain
applications. Water freezes; propylene glycol is more viscous than other fluids, resulting in
higher energy use; and the use of potassium acetate has resulted in some leakage and corrosion
problems currently in litigation. Ethylene glycol is banned for use in GHSPs in most
jurisdictions based on toxicity; methanol poses health and safety risks, as well as risks for fire
and explosion. Ethanol is also flammable, and, while the risk to health and safety is less than
other fluids, it also poses some degree of risk. Salt solutions, such as sodium and calcium
chloride, are non-flammable, perform well, and are inexpensive, but pose serious potential
corrosion problems. Each of the anti-freezes currently in use has its advantages and
disadvantages.
B. OBJECTIVE
The objective of this project is to gather data on, and analyze, six anti-freezes—methanol,
ethanol, propylene glycol, and potassium acetate, as well as two alternatives, urea and calcium
magnesium acetate (CMA)—in the context of their respective energy use; environmental, health,
fire, safety, and corrosion risks; and total life cycle costs. The goal is to provide data that
installers, owners, and regulators can use to make rational decisions regarding which anti-freeze
solution(s) best meet the specific needs of an installation. Results are presented in a clear format
that all members of the community can understand.
C. SCOPE
The effort was divided into six tasks. In Task 1, methanol was the baseline, and the three
additional mandatory and two optional fluids were evaluated. All analyses, assessments, and
comparisons were for fluids in concentrations to provide freeze protection to -9.4 °C (15° F).
The six tasks were as follows.
2
1. Detailed Thermal, Hydraulic, and Cost Analysis
This task estimated the energy efficiency and installed cost impacts of each anti-
freeze fluid. A typical northern climate residence was defined, and a system was designed to
satisfy its heating and cooling loads using methanol. A comparison of annual energy use and life
cycle cost was made for all fluids using the same system. A second comparison was made
allowing changes to the ground loop pipe sizes to minimize life cycle cost for each of the fluids.
2. Corrosion Assessment
Corrosion can occur inside the piping and equipment as well as outside as a result of
leakage or spillage of working fluid. Common metals were tested in immersion and spray tests
with fluid at 43.3 °C (110° F) for 14 days and 200 hours, respectively. Leakage at joints, flanges,
fittings, and other points of connection has been a problem in many systems. A loop consisting
of typical components, sealant, and elastomers was constructed, and each fluid was tested at
-6.7 ºC (20 °F) and 43.3 °C (110 °F) to determine which sealants and elastomers resist leakage.
3. Health Hazard Assessment
Because of the potential for long-term or short-term exposure of humans to these

fluids, any fluid considered for use as anti-freeze must be carefully evaluated for toxicity to
humans or animals. Risks include exposure not only to the fluids themselves but to water
sources contaminated by the fluids. Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) and health and
regulatory literature were reviewed and an analysis made regarding the risks of each fluid. These
risks included the various exposure routes (ingestion, inhalation, and skin and eye contact, and
others) and encompassed searches of the MSDSs, toxicological reference books, regulatory
literature, and other sources. Acute (short-term) and chronic (long-term) risks to installers and
building occupants were assessed with respect to realistic leakage or spillage scenarios.
4. Fire Hazard Assessment
Because these fluids pose a risk of fire and explosion, the flammability and
combustibility of each were assessed with respect to the pure and freeze-suppressed fluids.
3
5. Environmental Assessment
Environmental damage can occur indirectly in terms of air pollution emissions

associated with the generation of electricity to operate the GSHP systems and directly in terms of
leakage or spillage of fluids. The average energy usage for a GSHP unit will vary between the
fluids due to differences in viscosity and other thermal and physical properties. While this
difference is small on a unit basis, when translated to 400,000 new units per year, the total
change in electrical generation may be significant. The amount of EPA criteria pollutants—SO2,
NOx, CO2, and heavy metals—due to electrical generation to run GSHPs using each of the anti-
freezes was estimated. The effect of leakage or spillage was assessed with respect to
contamination of ground or surface water, the oxygen consumption of surface water due to
biological or chemical oxygen demand, and damage to aquatic life. Finally, existing regulatory
lists were examined to determine reporting or handling requirements required for the fluids.
6. Field Survey and Integrated Report
This task addressed the impact of the additional amounts of anti-freeze needed for
the new installations projected. The amounts of these fluids used in other applications were
estimated, with a special emphasis on any use resulting in fluid being intentionally “spilled,” for
example, in agriculture or for road or aircraft deicing. The GSHP design, manufacturing, and
installation communities were surveyed to gain their perception on the risks of using GSHPs
(Appendix E). Regulations on the use of anti-freezes in each state were identified. Individual
guidelines were developed for each fluid to include safety, health, and fire assessments and
proper handling procedures; these guidelines will provide the best practice to reduce risk to
humans and the environment. Finally, a matrix has been developed to guide GSHP installers in
making informed and safe decisions regarding the correct anti-freeze for their application.
For each of the above tasks, a simplified “risk analysis” was made to assess the
impact or risk of using each of the fluids. Because a true risk analysis is far more comprehensive
than can be performed in this project, a somewhat subjective evaluation based on 1-3 (with
1 signifying major potential problems; 2 signifying minor potential problems; and 3 signifying
little or no perceived problems) was made for each anti-freeze in the following areas: life cycle
4
cost, corrosion, leakage, health, fire, and environmental risks, and the possibility of regulations
banning future use. These numbers provide the basis for the matrix developed in Task 6.
D. APPROACH
The work statement specified that aqueous solutions of methanol, ethanol, propylene
glycol, and potassium acetate (KOAc), as well as two alternative fluids recommended by the
contractor be assessed. The initial requirement was to select the two alternative fluids. Urea,
CO(NH2)2, and CMA, with a molar ratio of 3:7 calcium to magnesium, were the two alternative
fluids selected. Both offer potentially good heat transfer properties, are non-flammable,
affordable, and relatively benign for humans and the environment. Note that in many of the
analyses, ethylene glycol has been included as a reference fluid. It was neither considered in the
Task 1 analysis nor is it included in the final selection matrix.
Task 1 analysis began with a library search for anti-freeze properties. An assessment of
analytic tools to perform the analysis was undertaken, with a final selection of a modified version
of TRNSYS (a quasi-steady transient system simulation code) to account for anti-freeze fluid
properties. The methodology for conducting the corrosion tests was developed, and the apparati
for the immersion, spray, and leakage tests were designed and constructed. The tests were then
conducted. Health and safety data were collected for each of the fluids. Library research was
performed to assess the combustibility and flammability of the fluids. Environmental data on
each of the fluids were likewise found and the analyses performed. Finally, the data required for
Task 6 were collected.
5
SECTION II
THERMAL, HYDRAULIC, AND COST ASSESSMENT
A. INTRODUCTION
The objective of this task was to estimate annual on-site energy use and life cycle costs of
a residential ground-source heat pump system for a northern location, taking into account the
effects of fluid properties on heat transfer and therefore on system performance. This task
required developing a model of a closed loop ground-source heat pump system and exercising
that model for six alternative anti-freeze solutions. Of course, developing the model required
taking into account the thermophysical properties of the anti-freeze solution. The four anti-
freezes specified in the work statement were methanol, ethanol, propylene glycol, and potassium
acetate. The solutions selected by the investigator were urea and calcium magnesium acetate.
The concentrations of all the anti-freeze solutions were selected to produce -10 ºC (15 ºF) or
lower freeze points.
Vertical ground heat exchanger loops were selected because the groundwater protection
community is primarily concerned with the use of anti-freeze in this configuration and because of
the availability of a thermal model for heat exchangers in vertical bores. This model was
developed by Claesson, Eskilson, Eftring, Hellstrom, and Johansson at Lund University in 1981
(for a description, see Reference 2) and adapted as a TRNSYS component in 1989 by L.
Mazzarella of Politecnico di Milano, with recent revisions by D. Pahud and G. Hellstrom, Lund
University. A heat pump with a nominal cooling capacity of 34,400 BTU/h (2.87 tons, 10.1 kW)
at 21.1 ºC (70 ºF) entering liquid temperature, was used throughout this analysis. In order to take
into account the effects of fluid properties on heat pump performance, data on capacity and
electrical power use of this unit were correlated as functions of evaporator temperature for
heating and condenser temperature for cooling. The data are displayed in Table B-1 in Appendix
B. The data were provided by a member of the Project Monitoring Subcommittee.
The thermal model of the residence in which the heat pump was assumed to be installed
was selected such that the combination of building load and heat pump performance resulted in
6
energy use by the auxiliary heater that comprised from about 6 percent to 11 percent of heat
pump system energy use during the heating season, assumed to extend from October through
April in Madison, WI. It may be noted that a very small portion of the energy input during this
period is used for cooling. The parameters of this residence are displayed in Table B-2 of
Appendix B. It was observed that the heat pump heating capacity satisfied the heating load until
the outdoor air temperature dropped below about -10 ºC (5 ºF). The pipes, fittings, and ground
loop circulation pump were sized and selected to produce a flow rate of uninhibited methanol
anti-freeze of about 5.7x10-4 m3/s (nine gallons per minute) at a heat pump inlet temperature of
-1 ºC (30 ºF). The resulting hydraulic system is shown in Figure 1. It includes pipe sizes of
1.9 cm (3/4 inch) diameter SDR-11 pipe in the ground loops, 3.2-cm (1-1/4 inch) diameter SDR-
11 pipe in the header and inside piping up to the pump kit, and 2.54 cm (1 inch) diameter flexible
piping. (All pipe diameters are nominal.) To permit unambiguous comparison of the effects of
fluid transport properties on system annual energy use and therefore on energy costs and life
cycle costs, results were obtained for exactly the same system for all of the anti-freeze solutions.
However, as described in greater detail below, results were obtained for several cases, including
a range of ground loop lengths, a range of soil thermal conductivities, and for an alternate ground
loop pipe size, namely 2.54 cm (1 inch) diameter, SDR-11. It may be noted that it is not feasible
to use ground loops smaller than 1.9 cm (0.75 inch).
Soil conductivity varies widely from one location to another. It may also vary with
season and operating mode at a given location, since the level of the water table and moisture
content of the soil varies. To facilitate applying the results of this study to alternate soil types,
results were obtained for a range of values of soil conductivity, from 2.49 kJ/h m ºC (0.4 BTU/h
ft ºF) to 7.48 kJ/h m ºC (1.2 BTU/h ft ºF). The model employed used a soil thermal conductivity
that was independent of time; moisture migration and freezing of the soil were ignored. Results
were obtained for both soil backfill and grouted bores. Soil backfill was assumed to have the
same thermophysical properties as the surrounding soil. The grout was Bentonite, and it was
assumed to have a thermal conductivity independent of the surrounding soil, (2.71 kJ/h ºC
[0.435 BTU/h ft ºF]). This value is close to the average for Bentonite grouting materials obtained
by Remund and Lund (Reference 3). The boreholes were 12.7 cm (5 inches) diameter, spaced
7
Figure 1. Ground Source Heat Pump System for Hydraulic Model.
8
3.05 m (10 ft) apart. (It may be noted that in current practice, larger borehole spacings of 5 to
7 m [15 to 20 ft] or greater are recommended, especially in cooling-dominated applications in
warmer climates. See Results for a discussion of the effects of borehole spacing on energy use.)
The spacing between the adjacent tubes in a borehole was assumed to be uniform at 0.0179 m
(0.706 in), the same separation as occurs at the U-bend fitting at the bottom of the bore. It is
recognized that in practice this spacing may vary widely with vertical location in the bore. This
decision was consistent with the fact that predicted results for energy use for alternate uniform
values of spacing between the vertical tubes exhibited low sensitivity to tube spacing. For
example, a change in spacing between the outsides of the tubes from 1.8 cm to 3.8 cm (0.706 in
to 1.5 in) with soil backfill having a thermal conductivity of 6.23 kJ/h m ºC (1.0 BTU/h ft ºF),
and with potassium acetate as the anti-freeze, resulted in a 1.5 percent reduction in annual system
electrical energy use.
The northern location selected was Madison, Wisconsin. Typical meteorological year
(TMY) data were used to represent weather data. Thus the energy use results are representative
of an average weather year. The minimum outdoor temperature for this year occurred in
February, and it was about -29 ºC (-20 ºF).
B. APPROACH TO SYSTEM ANALYSIS
The ground-source heat pump system was simulated using TRNSYS (Reference 4), a
quasi-steady transient system simulation code developed at the University of Wisconsin. This
approach to the simulation was selected primarily due to its capability to account for transient
heat transfer in the soil and the effects of the transport properties of the anti-freeze solutions on
heat transfer in the ground loops and the heat pump heat exchanger. These soil and system
characteristics, together with the building heating and cooling load, are thought to be the factors
that most strongly affect system energy use and that are pertinent to this study. Other approaches
to system simulation were considered and rejected because of their orientation to commercial
buildings, their limited ability to account for coupling of soil temperatures and building heating
and cooling loads, or their inability to account for the effects of the properties of the anti-freeze
solution. The fluid properties of interest include viscosity, density, specific heat, and thermal
9
conductivity. Consideration was given to using “bin” methods for estimating heat pump energy
use. Bin methods are often used for analyzing energy use of heat pump systems, particularly air-
to-air heat pumps. These methods are simple and fast. They use outdoor air temperature as the
primary independent variable. Since ground-source heat pump performance depends on entering
anti-freeze temperature, to apply a bin method to a ground-source heat pump requires assumption
of a relationship between the ambient air temperature and the antifreeze fluid temperature at the
inlet to the heat pump. It is not obvious that such a relationship exists. In fact, judging from an
attempt to correlate these temperatures for a unit installed in a residence in Madison, WI, it is
doubtful that such a correlation exists (Reference 5). It is worth noting that if such a relationship
existed, it would have to be deduced from experimental results or from the results of system
simulation. Experimental results are limited to the system tested. Their use requires, preferably,
several years of data, to obtain results approximating a typical year. If one were to use system
simulation to correlate outdoor air temperature and heat pump inlet liquid temperature, one may
as well use the results of the system simulation directly. That approach was the one selected.
We considered another approach to system simulation, the software package denoted

ESPRE, developed and maintained by Arthur D. Little, Inc. for the Electric Power Research
Institute. Its intended purpose is for analyzing energy use and economics of alternate residential
heating and cooling systems, including ground-source heat pumps. Its execution is very fast,
requiring about a minute to complete a year-long analysis of a ground-source heat pump system
when executed on a 100 MHz computer. However, its ability to deal with the effects of alternate
anti-freeze fluid properties is limited. A method was suggested for doing this,* and it was
implemented in a preliminary analysis. While this method accounted approximately for the fluid
properties that affect the convective heat transfer coefficient between the fluid and the ground
loop pipe, it did not account for either variation of fluid properties with temperature nor the
effects of these properties on heat transfer in the heat pump heat exchanger. Also, the ground
heat exchanger model in the available version of ESPRE was much less sophisticated than that in
TRNSYS.
*Merriam, Richard L., A. D. Little, Inc., Personal communication, December 1995.
10
A secondary consideration that influenced our decision on selection of a system
simulation method is that experience with the application of TRNSYS to ground-source heat
pump systems has been gained in connection with an ongoing project at Ft. Polk, LA. This
project involves retrofitting military housing with ground-source heat pumps, building TRNSYS
models for several housing units, collecting data, calibrating TRNSYS models to data, and
comparing various practical methods for sizing vertical ground heat exchangers to the
data/TRNSYS benchmark. The same contractor who assembled the TRNSYS models for Oak
Ridge National Laboratory was subcontracted to adapt these models for our needs. In this
manner, experience gained from the Ft. Polk project was applied to ours.
C. HEAT PUMP SYSTEM MODEL
The components of the TRNSYS system simulation model used in this project are
identified in Figure 2. All the components identified on that schematic that affect the building
heating and cooling load, such as weather, internal gains, lighting, occupancy, and the building as
a whole, were previously developed. In fact, most of the other components, such as the buried
and exposed (internal) pipes, the vertical ground heat exchanger, hot water demand, fan, and
auxiliary heat, were also previously-existing TRNSYS components or developed for the Ft. Polk
project. However, Unit 49, which includes a hydraulic model of the system, was adapted for our
purposes and modified to include a pump component. Also, the heat pump component, Unit 71,
was modified significantly for this project to take into account the effects of anti-freeze fluid
properties on heat pump performance. These modifications and adaptations were performed by
Jeff Thornton of Thermal Energy System Specialists.
Unit 49 determines the flow rate and pressure drop of the anti-freeze solution through the
components of the liquid flow system, including the pipes, fittings, and heat pump heat
exchanger. The pipes include the ground loops, headers, and the interior piping that connects the
heat pump to the circulation pump and the remainder of the system. This unit functions logically
as follows. First, the pressure drop through all components except the pump is evaluated for an
assumed flow rate. A curve fit to the pump head versus flow rate curve is used to evaluate the
11
Figure 2. TRNSYS Component Schematic Diagram.
pressure rise through the pump for the same flow rate, assuming the fluid is water. Data for both
pump head and efficiency as functions of flow rate for a Grundfos model UP 26-99BF pump
were used. These data were obtained from the manufacturer.* Although it is known that pump
performance depends on the density and viscosity of the fluid, no data that quantify these effects
are available. Hence, the effects of these parameters on pump performance were ignored. An
iterative solution process was implemented by varying the flow rate until the system pressure
drop agreed with the pressure rise through the pump within a user-specified tolerance. This flow
rate and pressure difference were multiplied together and then divided by pump efficiency,
including the motor, to evaluate electrical energy use of the pump.
The TRNSYS heat pump component was modified in two principal ways. In order to
account for the effects of anti-freeze fluid properties on heat exchange between the refrigerant
and the ground loop fluid, and thus on evaporator or condenser temperature, the following
procedure was employed. First, the data for heat pump capacity and power input were correlated
as functions of evaporator temperature of the refrigerant for heating mode operation, or
refrigerant condenser temperature for cooling mode operation. This was accomplished by fitting
polynomials to the capacity and power input data for the range of liquid flow rates for which
these data were available, for a single air flow rate (Table B-1). The second modification was to
include a model of the heat pump heat exchanger, to permit prediction of the refrigerant
temperature in the evaporator or condenser, depending on the mode of operation. Using assumed
values for the average anti-freeze temperature in the heat exchanger and for the heat flow rate
through the heat exchanger, the average temperature difference between the anti-freeze and the
refrigerant can be evaluated once the overall heat transfer coefficient is determined. An iterative
solution process results in final values for each of the assumed quantities and for the overall heat
transfer coefficient at each time step. For the heat pump used in our analysis, the heat exchanger
is a pair of coiled coaxial tubes, termed a coaxial heat exchanger. The inner tube is spirally
fluted, and the outer tube is smooth. The overall heat transfer coefficient depends on the
*Rickerd, Gary, Grundfos Pump Corporation, Personal communications, May and July 1996.
13
convective heat transfer coefficients inside and outside the inner tube. To evaluate these heat
transfer coefficients, correlation equations accounting for the effects of the spiral fluting as well
as single phase flow inside the tube, and both single phase and two phase flow at different
locations along the annulus, are needed. This is a large task. Information available in the
literature indicates that spiral fluting significantly affects the convective heat transfer coefficient
and the friction coefficient both inside and outside the inner tube (Reference 6). However, the
only correlation equations for flow through an annulus with an inner fluted tube that we
identified pertain to single phase flow (for example, Reference 7). A correlation equation for a
boiling fluid flowing through an annulus was identified and used in our model, as discussed
below, but it was for a smooth inner tube (Reference 8). An enhancement factor was deduced
and used to roughly account for effects of the fluted tube on heat exchange with the refrigerant
flowing through the annulus.
The model developed for the heat pump heat exchanger uses correlation equations
proposed by Srinivasan and Christensen (Reference 9) for the enhanced friction factor and
convective heat transfer coefficient at the anti-freeze side (inside) of the fluted tube. This
selection was based on close agreement between predicted pressure drop and data on pressure
drop obtained from the manufacturer for a fluid flow rate of 9 gal/min (5.7x10-4 m3/s), and an
inlet temperature of 30 ºF (-1 ºC). Data were not available against which to check the predicted
convective heat transfer coefficient either inside or outside the fluted tube. Hence, the predicted
heat transfer coefficient inside the fluted tube was assumed to be accurate and the following
procedure was used to deduce an enhancement factor for the refrigerant side. The value
predicted for the evaporator temperature for heating mode operation with the above flow rate and
inlet temperature for methanol solution (and with values of the air inlet temperature and flow rate
specified by the manufacturer) was compared with the value reported by the manufacturer for the
same anti-freeze concentration. The predicted evaporator temperature was lower than the
measured value. It was assumed that this was due to a low value for the convective heat transfer
coefficient for the refrigerant. This assumption is consistent with the fact that the estimated
average coefficient for the refrigerant was less than that for the anti-freeze solution by factors
ranging from about two to six. These low coefficient values were assumed to be partially due to
the refrigerant correlation equation not accounting for the fluted inner tube. A multiplying factor
14
greater than one, termed an enhancement factor, that produced agreement between the measured
and predicted refrigerant evaporator temperatures at the above operating condition was evaluated.
This value was assumed to be applicable for heating mode operation for all the fluids at all
temperatures. A similar procedure was used to estimate a different value of the enhancement
factor for cooling mode operation. For cooling, predicted and measured condenser temperatures
for an entering methanol solution temperature of 26.7 ºC (80 ºF) at a flow rate of 5.7x10-4 m3/s
(9 gal/min) were compared. The same correlation equation used for boiling was also used for
condensation in the annulus, although this equation was not based on data for condensation.
Finally, the effects of curvature of the axis of the heat exchanger were ignored.
Evaluation of the heat transfer coefficient for the refrigerant flowing in the annulus
requires a value for the mass flow rate of refrigerant. A ten-term polynomial equation supplied
by the compressor manufacturer, Copeland, for the specific scroll compressor used in the heat
pump modeled in this analysis, was used to evaluate this flow rate. The independent variables in
this equation are the condenser and evaporator refrigerant temperatures. In the case of heating
mode operation, the evaporator temperature resulted from the iterative solution procedure
identified above, and the condenser temperature was assumed to be 29.4 ºC (85 ºF). This
condenser temperature is about 3 ºC (5 ºF) less than the value corresponding to a heat pump inlet
temperature of 4.4 ºC (40 ºF) , which is a representative average heating season inlet temperature
for a northern location residential installation. (The calculated average heating season inlet
temperature obtained from our base case model was 4 ºC [39.3 ºF].) For cooling mode operation,
the evaporator temperature was assumed to be 7.2 ºC (45 ºF), and the condenser temperature was
obtained from the iterative solution. These condenser and evaporator temperatures apply to the
two phase flow regions in the heat exchanger. The portions of the condenser and evaporator in
which superheated vapor and subcooled liquid flowed were not explicity considered in our
model.
Exercising the TRNSYS model for various fluids over an annual period of operation
required supplying data on transport properties for these fluids over a range of temperatures from
about -12 to 80 ºC (10 to 176 ºF). This temperature range is wider than the actual operating
15
FIGURE REFERENCES:
The documents on this list are referenced on Figures 3-6. They do not appear in the References
list for this report.
1. “Antifreeze Methods,” Waterfurnace International Technical Bulletin, TB8502, Fort

Wayne, Indiana, 1985.
2. Mikhail, S. F., and Kimel, W. R., Journal Chemical Engineering Data, pp. 533-537, 1961.
3. “Synthetic Methanol,” Commercial Solvents Corporation, 1960.
4. Bates, O. K., Hazzard, G., Palmer, G., Industrial Engineering Chemicals 10, pp. 314-318,
1938.
5. Ivin, A. A., and Sukharme, S. P., Indian Journal of Technology, Vol. 5, No. 8, pp. 249-250,
1967.
6. Analytical Chemistry, Vol. 10, pp. 314, 1938.
7. Bulletin No. 14, National Bureau of Standards, Washington, DC.
8. Perry, Chemical Engineering Handbook, 3rd Edition, 1950.
9. Washburn, E. W., International Critical Tables, Vol. 3, pp. 116-117, National Academy of
Sciences, 1928.
10. Presnell, T., “Chevron GS4TM Heat Transfer Fluid,” Vanguard Plastics, 1993.
11. Dow Chemical Company, Engineering and Operating Guide, for Dowfrost and Dowfrost
HD Inhibited Propylene Glycol-Based Heat Transfer Fluids, Midland, Michigan,
pp. 20-21, 24-25, 28-29, 32-33, 1994.
12. Hoenke, K.. Data on Viscosity, Density and Surface Tension for CMA Solutions, Chevron
Chemical Company, 1990.
13. TVA/National Fertilizer Development Center, “Bulletin Y-210,” Fluid Fertilizer Reference
Manual, 1989.
14. Tsei-Yu Chao, G., Urea: Its Properties and Manufacture, 1967.
16
0.016
CMA
0.014
Methanol(1,2)
MFit
0.012
Ethanol(1,7)
P.G.
EFit
0.01 P.G.(11)
Viscosity (kg/m s)
PGFit
0.008 P.A.(10)
ETHANOL
PAFit
METHANOL CMA(12)
0.006
UREA CMAFit
Urea(14)
0.004
P.A. UFit
Water,Fit
0.002
0
-20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50
Temperature (C) NOTE: Curve Fits were extrapolated beyond 50C
for numerical purposes. Urea had to be
extrapolated from -12 C to 10 C.
Figure 3. Comparison of Fluid Viscosities.

0.65
0.6
0.55
Thermal Conductivity (W/m K)
Methanol(1,4)
MFit
0.5 Ethanol(1,6)
EFit
P.G.(11)
0.45 PGFit
P.A.(10)
PAFit
0.4
Water,Fit
0.35
0.3
-20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50
Temperature (C) NOTE: Curve Fits were
extrapolated beyond 50C for
numerical purposes.
Figure 4. Comparison of Fluid Thermal Conductivities.

4.4
4.3
4.2
4.1 Methanol(1,5)
MFit
Specific Heat (kJ/kg K)
4 Ethanol(1,8)
EFit
P.G.(11)
3.9
PGFit
P.A.(10)
3.8
PAFit
Urea(14)
3.7
UFit
WATER,Fit
3.6
3.5
3.4
-20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50
numerical purposes.
Figure 5. Comparison of Fluid Specific Heats.

1150
1100
Methanol(1,3)
MFit
Ethanol(1,9)
Density (kg/m^3)
1050
EFit
P.G.(11)
PGFit
1000 P.A.(10)
PAFit
CMA(12)
CMAFit
950 Urea(13,14)
UFit
Water,Fit
900
-20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50
numerical purposes.
Figure 6. Comparison of Fluid Densities.

range, since the iterative solution process involved a wider range of temperatures than the values
occurring in actual operation, or the results of the iteration, for that matter. Data on viscosity,
thermal conductivity, specific heat and density were required to evaluate the friction factor and
convective heat transfer coefficient. These data were supplied in the form of polynomial curve
fits to tabulated data for these properties for each of the anti-freeze solutions as a function of
temperature. The curve fits are displayed in Figure 3 through Figure 6. The range of tempera-
tures for which data are presented in these plots corresponds approximately to the range of
ground loop fluid temperatures observed during execution of the solution. Data were obtained
from a variety of sources. Manufacturer’s data were used for the following fluids: potassium
acetate, propylene glycol, CMA, and ethanol. In some cases the data did not extend to the lower
or upper temperature limit, so the data were extrapolated. Data were obtained for all anti-freeze
solution properties except the thermal conductivity of CMA and urea and the specific heat of
CMA. The corresponding property values of water were used for the unknown properties.
Fortunately, the results were not very sensitive to thermal conductivity of the anti-freeze, as
discussed below.
D. RESULTS
Results were obtained for each of the six anti-freeze fluids for a range of values of soil
thermal conductivity both with soil and with grout filling the 12.7 cm (5 in) diameter borehole, as
summarized in Table 1.* The thermal conductivity of soil backfill was assumed to be the same
as that of the undisturbed soil. Results were obtained for a range of values of bore depth from
30.5 m (100 ft) to 61 m (200 ft) for an intermediate value of soil thermal conductivity. These
bore depths correspond to vertical heat exchanger lengths ranging from 18.1 m/kW (209 ft/ton) to
36.2 m/kW (418 ft/ton) for a heat pump capacity of 10.1 kW (34,400 BTU/h) at 21.1 ºC (70 ºF)
entering liquid temperature. The base case identified in Table 2 represents an intermediate
design, i.e., neither conservative nor bold, for methanol anti-freeze solution. The ground loop
*In addition to these cases, three cases were analyzed for methanol, with a different grout thermal
conductivity as shown in Table 2.
21
TABLE 1. IDENTIFICATION OF CASES AND THEIR DEFINING PARAMETERS.
Case No. Bore Depth, Back-fill Soil Thermal Conductivity, Ground Loop
m (ft) Material kJ/h m K (BTU/h ft ºF) Pipe Size,
cm (in)
1 45.7 (150) soil 2.49 (0.4) 1.90 (¾)
2 (Base) 45.7 (150) soil 4.98 (0.8) 1.90 (¾)
3 45.7 (150) soil 7.48 (1.2) 1.90 (¾)
a
4 45.7 (150) grout 2.49 (0.4) 1.90 (¾)
a
5 45.7 (150) grout 4.98 (0.8) 1.90 (¾)
a
6 45.7 (150) grout 7.48 (1.2) 1.90 (¾)
7 30.5 (100) soil 4.98 (0.8) 1.90 (¾)
8 45.7 (150) soil 4.98 (0.8) 1.90 (¾)
9 61.0 (200) soil 4.98 (0.8) 1.90 (¾)
10 45.7 (150) soil 4.98 (0.8) 2.54 (1)
b
12 45.7 (150) groutc 2.49 (0.4) 1.90 (¾)

13 45.7 (150) groutc 4.98 (0.8) 1.90 (¾)
14 45.7 (150) groutc 7.48 (1.2) 1.90 (¾)
a
Grout conductivity: 2.71 kJ/h m ºC (0.435 BTU/h ft ºF)
b
Case No. 11 was not used in these calculations.
c
For methanol only, grout conductivity: 5.42 kJ/h m K (0.870 BTU/h ft ºF)
pipe for this case was 1.91 cm (3/4 inch) diameter, the bore depth was 45.7 m (150 ft), and the
soil and backfill thermal conductivity was 4.98 kJ/h m ºC (0.8 BTU/h ft ºF). In the usual cases
involving grout (cases 4, 5, and 6), the grout thermal conductivity was assumed to be constant at
2.71 kJ/h m ºC (0.435 BTU/h ft ºF), which represents thermally unenhanced Bentonite as noted
above. To help assess the effects of grout conductivity, three cases were run for methanol with
twice the above value, i.e., 5.42 kJ/h m ºC (0.870 BTU/h ft ºF). This value corresponds to com-
mercially-available thermally enhanced betonite grout. The results are presented as cases 12, 13,
and 14 for methanol. (Case number 11 was not used in the calculations and is not included.)
22
TABLE 2. SUMMARY OF RESULTS FOR ENERGY USE AND FLOW RATE WITH METHANOL.
Case Compressor Energy Fan Energy Pump Circulation Auxiliary Heat Total Energy Average
No. kWh (% of Total) kWh (% of Total) Energy kWh (% of Total) (kWh) Flow Rate
kWh (% of Total) (gal/min)
1 6823 72.68 1271 13.54 746 7.95 548 5.84 9388 9.39
2 6373 73.78 1200 13.89 705 8.16 360 4.17 8638 9.42
3 6149 74.40 1160 14.04 682 8.25 274 3.32 8265 9.43
4 6770 72.74 1263 13.57 742 7.97 532 5.72 9307 9.39
5 6689 73.32 1248 13.68 733 8.03 453 4.97 9123 9.40
6 6656 73.55 1241 13.71 729 8.06 424 4.69 9050 9.41
7 6725 72.64 1259 13.60 745 8.05 529 5.71 9258 9.91
8 6373 73.78 1200 13.89 705 8.16 360 4.17 8638 9.42
9 6129 74.49 1156 14.05 675 8.20 268 3.26 8228 8.98
10 6275 73.79 1186 13.95 710 8.35 333 3.92 8504 10.70
12a 6510 73.17 1227 13.79 721 8.10 439 4.93 8897 9.40
13a 6364 73.77 1199 13.90 705 8.17 359 4.16 8627 9.42
14a 6307 74.10 1187 13.95 698 8.20 319 3.75 8511 9.42
a
Grout had twice the thermal conductivity used in cases 4 through 6.
Pre-heating of domestic hot water was not included in this analysis. Water heating was
thought to be not essential to comparison of the results for alternate fluids, and difficulty was
encountered in modeling system energy use with preheating of domestic water. Specifically, the
estimated reduction in energy use for water heating was excesive.
Energy use for each of 10 cases is displayed in Table 2 through Table 7 and in Figure 7
through Figure 12 for each of the fluids. All of the results are for a single year of simulated
operation and for 3.3 m (10 ft) between adjacent boreholes. The effects of multiple successive
years of operation and of wider spacing (4.6 m [15 ft]) between boreholes were investigated,
to help assess the effects of annual changes in soil temperatures on fluid temperatures and system
energy use. Analysis of successive years of operation was motivated by suggestions of previous
investigators that unbalanced heating and cooling loads will result in long-term changes of the
ground temperature distribution and therefore of ground loop fluid temperatures and system
energy use. The results obtained, which did not account for moisture migration or soil freezing,
indicated very small increases in annual system energy use from one year to the next. In an effort
to produce relatively large changes in soil temperature, an installation with both low soil thermal
conductivity (2.49 kJ/h m K, 0.4 BTU/h ft ºF) and short bore length (100 ft, 30.48 m), was
simulated for five successive years using methanol as the anti-freeze. The increase in total
energy use from the first to the fifth year was only 0.5 percent. It was concluded that the effects
on the results of simulating multiple years of operation would be negligible for this residential
application. Also, use of greater borehole spacing produced negligible changes in annual energy
use for the same low soil conductivity and borehole depth. The maximum decrease in annual
energy use during a five year simulation period was 0.26 percent as a result of increasing the
borehole spacing from 10 to 15 ft (3.0 to 4.6 m).
The results for energy use shown in both the tables and the figures are resolved into major
components, including compressor, fan, circulation pump, and auxiliary heat. In the tables, the
percent as well as the absolute value of the energy use attributed to each of the components is
shown. Note that to consider fan energy separately is somewhat artificial. Fan power is not
given separately in most manufacturer's catalogs, but rather is reported together with compressor
power. In some units, the fan is controlled to produce constant air flow rate, so fan power varies
24
TABLE 3. SUMMARY OF RESULTS FOR ENERGY USE AND FLOW RATE WITH ETHANOL.
1 6740 72.22 1266 13.56 751 8.05 576 6.17 9333 9.37
2 6289 73.44 1189 13.89 719 8.40 366 4.27 8563 9.34
3 6075 74.32 1148 14.04 690 8.44 261 3.19 8174 9.31
4 6696 72.26 1259 13.59 749 8.08 562 6.07 9266 9.37
5 6589 73.01 1238 13.72 740 8.20 458 5.07 9025 9.38
6 6541 73.23 1228 13.75 734 8.22 429 4.80 8932 9.38
7 6656 72.32 1254 13.63 747 8.12 546 5.93 9203 9.82
8 6289 73.44 1189 13.89 719 8.40 366 4.27 8563 9.34
9 6053 74.08 1144 14.00 710 8.69 264 3.23 8171 8.92
10 6195 73.86 1172 13.97 703 8.38 318 3.79 8388 10.50
TABLE 4. SUMMARY OF RESULTS FOR ENERGY USE AND FLOW RATE WITH PROPYLENE GLYCOL.
1 7035 71.50 1317 13.39 819 8.32 668 6.79 9839 9.00
2 6563 72.70 1244 13.78 774 8.57 446 4.94 9027 9.02
3 6351 73.29 1207 13.93 752 8.68 356 4.11 8666 9.02
4 7004 71.57 1314 13.43 817 8.35 651 6.65 9786 8.98
5 6898 72.04 1293 13.50 804 8.40 580 6.06 9575 9.00
6 6863 72.34 1286 13.56 800 8.43 538 5.67 9487 9.01
7 6939 71.45 1307 13.46 818 8.42 648 6.67 9712 9.47
8 6563 72.70 1244 13.78 774 8.57 446 4.94 9027 9.02
9 6340 73.37 1204 13.93 746 8.63 351 4.06 8641 8.63
10 6484 72.68 1232 13.81 779 8.73 427 4.79 8921 10.08
TABLE 5. SUMMARY OF RESULTS FOR ENERGY USE AND FLOW RATE WITH POTASSIUM ACETATE.
1 6947 71.93 1285 13.31 845 8.75 581 6.02 9658 9.09
2 6438 73.08 1208 13.71 795 9.02 368 4.18 8809 9.09
3 6199 73.72 1167 13.88 768 9.13 275 3.27 8409 9.09
4 6898 72.00 1279 13.35 841 8.78 562 5.87 9580 9.09
5 6789 72.56 1259 13.46 828 8.85 480 5.13 9356 9.09
6 6750 72.82 1251 13.50 823 8.88 445 4.80 9269 9.09
7 6824 71.97 1270 13.39 840 8.86 548 5.78 9482 9.54
8 6438 73.08 1208 13.71 795 9.02 368 4.18 8809 9.09
9 6175 73.76 1161 13.87 760 9.08 276 3.30 8372 8.69
10 6353 72.97 1196 13.74 800 9.19 357 4.10 8706 10.20
TABLE 6. SUMMARY OF RESULTS FOR ENERGY USE AND FLOW RATE WITH CALCIUM
MAGNESIUM ACETATE.
1 6924 71.52 1294 13.37 863 8.91 600 6.20 9681 8.53
2 6470 72.51 1224 13.72 817 9.16 412 4.62 8923 8.59
3 6266 73.06 1189 13.86 794 9.26 328 3.82 8577 8.62
4 6869 71.57 1286 13.40 858 8.94 585 6.10 9598 8.53
5 6794 72.00 1272 13.48 849 9.00 521 5.52 9436 8.55
6 6768 72.28 1267 13.53 845 9.02 484 5.17 9364 8.56
7 6836 71.42 1285 13.42 863 9.02 588 6.14 9572 9.02
8 6470 72.51 1224 13.72 817 9.16 412 4.62 8923 8.59
9 6248 73.20 1185 13.88 787 9.22 315 3.69 8535 8.20
10 6364 72.47 1209 13.77 819 9.33 390 4.44 8782 9.64
TABLE 7. SUMMARY OF RESULTS FOR ENERGY USE AND FLOW RATE WITH UREA.
1 6866 71.78 1280 13.38 839 8.77 580 6.06 9565 9.40
2 6385 73.07 1203 13.77 789 9.03 361 4.13 8738 9.36
3 6141 73.68 1160 13.92 760 9.12 274 3.29 8335 9.34
4 6828 71.93 1275 13.43 836 8.81 553 5.83 9492 9.40
5 6716 72.59 1254 13.55 821 8.87 461 4.98 9252 9.40
6 6675 72.79 1245 13.58 816 8.90 434 4.73 9170 9.40
7 6761 71.86 1267 13.47 836 8.89 545 5.79 9409 9.87
8 6385 73.07 1203 13.77 789 9.03 361 4.13 8738 9.36
9 6123 73.80 1155 13.92 753 9.08 266 3.21 8297 8.93
10 6290 73.04 1190 13.82 793 9.21 339 3.94 8612 10.50
10000
9000
8000
7000
ANNUAL ENERGY USE, kWh
6000
AUXILIARY
CIRC. PUMP
5000
FAN
COMPRESSOR
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
CASE NUMBER
Figure 7. Summary of Annual GSHP Energy Use for Methanol.

10000
9000
8000
7000
6000
AUXILIARY
CIRC. PUMP
5000
FAN
COMPRESSOR
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
CASE NUMBER NOTE: No Convergence
for cases 3 and 6.
Figure 8. Summary of Annual GSHP Energy Use for Ethanol.

10000
9000
8000
7000
ANNUAL ENERGY USE,kWh
6000
AUXILIARY
CIRC. PUMP
5000
FAN
COMPRESSOR
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
CASE NUMBER
Figure 9. Summary of Annual GSHP Energy Use for Propylene Glycol.

10000
9000
8000
7000
6000
AUXILIARY
CIRC. PUMP
5000
FAN
COMPRESSOR
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
CASE NUMBER
Figure 10. Summary of Annual GSHP Energy Use for Potassium Acetate.
10000
9000
8000
7000
6000
AUXILIARY
CIRC. PUMP
5000
FAN
COMPRESSOR
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
CASE NUMBER
Figure 11. Summary of Annual GSHP Energy Use for CMA.

10000
9000
8000
7000
6000
AUXILIARY
CIRC. PUMP
5000
FAN
COMPRESSOR
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
CASE NUMBER
Figure 12. Summary of Annual GSHP Energy Use for Urea.

with system air pressure drop. The fan energy reported here assumes a constant power draw
whenever the fan operates.
A sample of results for detailed heat pump operation is presented here to provide insight
into the nature of heat pump operation as well as background information to help explain some of
the results for energy use. Figure 13 through Figure 15 present results for the fluid temperature
at the inlet and outlet of 1.9 cm (¾ inch) (SDR-11) vertical ground loops for the first 1000 hours
(41.67 days) of the year for methanol. Figure 13 presents results for vertical ground loop inlet
and outlet fluid temperatures and data for ambient air temperature for the baseline case, which
includes 45.7 m (150 foot) deep bore holes spaced 10 feet apart and soil thermal conductivity of
4.98 KJ/h m K (0.8 BTU/h ft ºF). It may be noted that the first part of the typical weather year
for Madison is characterized by approximately a week of relatively mild outdoor temperatures
followed by a plunge to relatively low levels that reoccur periodically through the rest of the
1000 hour period. This is reflected in repeated cycling of the heat pump during approximately
the first week of the year and more nearly continuous operation thereafter. When the outdoor
temperature is lowest, the heat pump operates continuously for periods that are several days in
length. During these periods, both the inlet and outlet fluid temperatures—the middle and upper
curves, respectively—gradually decline due to cooling of the adjacent soil. The longer term
effects of soil temperature decreasing from its initially undisturbed value are also evident in the
gradual decline of average fluid temperatures throughout the 1000 hour period. During relatively
short cycles, fluid temperatures decline in a manner similar to that during the longer cycles, but
the decline is not as great. Between operating cycles, both the inlet and outlet fluid temperatures
rise toward the soil temperature. The difference between the inlet and outlet fluid temperatures is
consistent with the fluid flow rate through the heat pump, the product of density and specific heat
of the fluid, and the heat pump capacity at its inlet fluid temperature. During longer periods of
continuous operation this temperature difference approaches 1.8 ºC (3.2 ºF). While this
temperature difference is small, it should be recognized that there are small additional increases
in it due to heat transfer to the fluid in the headers and power input from the circulation pump.
Taking these into account, our predicted temperature differences appear to agree with those
reported by Mei (10) within about 0.5 ºC (1 ºF).
36
15 Ambient Air
Vertical Ground Loop Inlet
10
Vertical Ground Loop Outlet
5
0
Temperature, C
-5
-10
-15
-20
-25
-30
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
Time, Hours
Figure 13. Fluid and Outdoor Air Temperatures for First 1000 Hours in the Year for
Methanol, 150 ft Borehole Depth, 10 ft Borehole Spacing, Soil and
Backfill Thermal Conductivity = 0.8 BTU/h ft ºF.
Figure 14 illustrates the effects of increasing soil conductivity while holding all other
parameters constant, and Figure 15 shows what happens if soil conductivity is decreased.
Increasing the soil conductivity to a value that is close to the upper limit for heavy, moist soil
increases both the fluid temperatures and the difference between these temperatures. The
increase in temperature difference is consistent with increased heat pump capacity at higher inlet
fluid temperatures. An associated feature is that the heat pump cycles more frequently. The
results in Figure 15 are for a case that was deliberately selected to tax the heat pump capacity and
thus produce additional operation of the auxiliary heater. As the following results for energy use
indicate, the objective of increasing auxiliary energy use was achieved, but the percent increase
of total annual energy use was not great. On the other hand, the fluid temperatures indicate that
this would not be a wise combination of system parameters to select for a design. The heat pump
cycles much less frequently, the fluid temperatures drop to levels that are near the limit of the
37
15

10
Temperature, C
-5
-10
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
Time, Hours
Figure 14. Fluid Operating Temperatures for First 1000 Hours in the Year for Methanol,
150 ft Borehole Depth, 10 ft Borehole Spacing, Soil and Backfill Thermal
Conductivity = 1.2 BTU/h ft ºF.
usual freeze protection levels (anti-freeze concentrations), and the difference between the inlet
and outlet fluid temperatures is very small. Although this would not be a wise design, these
results are consistent with the known tolerance of a ground coupled heat pump system to severe
conditions, at least from the standpoint of energy use.
Figure 16 is presented to illustrate operation of the auxiliary heater during approximately

a week-long period of almost continuous heat pump operation. This period is a subset of that for
which results are presented in Figure 13. It was punctuated by occasional operation of the
auxiliary heater, indicated by the upward spikes in the supply air temperature. These results are
38
15
10
Temperature, C
-5
-10
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
Time, Hours
Figure 15. Fluid Operating Temperatures for First 1000 Hours in the Year for Methanol,
100 ft Borehole Depth, 10 ft Borehole Spacing, Soil and Backfill Thermal
Conductivity = 0.4 BTU/h ft ºF.
for the baseline case. It is apparent that the heat pump was sized such that it satisfied the demand
for heat except when the outdoor temperature dropped to very low levels. Even during this
extended period of harsh outdoor temperatures, the heat pump cycled off when the outdoor
temperature rose relatively briefly. The trends discussed in the next five paragraphs are common
to the results for all the anti-freeze fluids presented in Tables 2 through 7 and Figures 7 through 12.
Total electrical energy use decreases with increasing soil conductivity, whether the bore
hole is grouted or backfilled with soil. This trend is intuitively correct; for a given location,
supplying heating and cooling by exchanging energy with the soil via vertical ground loops
39
40
35
30
25
Temperature, C
20 Supply Air
15
10
-5
-10
190
200
210
220
230
240
250
260
270
280
290
300
310
320
330
340
350
360
370
Time, Hours
Figure 16. Supply Air and Ground Loop Fluid Temperatures for a
Week in January, for Baseline Case for Methanol.
should require less energy input to the heat pump as the soil thermal conductivity increases. It
may be noted that this trend is more pronounced with soil backfill, since the conductivity of the
material near the ground loop varies more without grout than with it. (It may be noteworthy that
preliminary analyses performed using ESPRE showed that for horizontal ground loops,
increasing soil thermal conductivity produces increases in the range of soil temperature at a given
depth and this tends to offset lower thermal resistance between the soil and the ground loop.)
40
Lower heat pump inlet liquid temperatures correspond to higher temperature differences, or lift,
between the evaporator and condenser, which increases compressor energy use. A secondary
effect occurs, because reduced fluid temperature and increased fluid velocity result in a lower
fluid flow rate which reduces the convective heat transfer coefficient on the anti-freeze side of
the heat pump heat exchanger. This tends to increase the temperature lift, compressor energy
use, and heat pump operating time. However, the secondary effects on heat pump energy use are
not large, as discussed later. Reduced soil conductivity results in increased heat pump energy use
during cooling for the same reasons stated for heating. Lower soil conductivity increases the
temperature of the anti-freeze entering the coaxial heat exchanger, which serves as a condenser
during cooling, thus increasing the temperature lift and system energy use.
The presence of grout in the borehole significantly affects heat exchange between the soil
and the ground loop. It therefore affects heat pump energy use and dependence of energy use on
soil thermal conductivity. With grout having a fixed thermal conductivity independent of soil
conductivity, the variation in total system power consumption was much less sensitive to the soil
conductivity, irrespective of the anti-freeze solution. It is apparent that the conductivity of the
medium in the immediate vicinity of the vertical ground loops has a strong effect on heat
exchange between the soil and the ground heat exchanger. This feature of these results is
consistent with the results obtained for a horizontal ground loop with different backfill materials
(Reference 10). It may be noted that the relatively high energy use obtained for intermediate to
high soil thermal conductivity with grout present is due to the relatively low thermal conductivity
of the grout. The effects of a larger grout thermal conductivity are indicated by the results for
methanol in Table 2 for cases 12, 13, and 14. Doubling the grout thermal conductivity reduced
total energy use by approximately 5 percent relative to cases 4, 5, and 6.
Results for average annual flow rate of the anti-freeze solution are shown in the farthest
right columns of the tabulated results. The relative constancy of these flow rates with varying
soil conductivity obscures the fact that with lower soil thermal conductivity the range of the fluid
flow rate increases, as exhibited in the monthly average values displayed in Figure 17. This is a
result of the related effects of larger excursions in soil temperature that occur with lower soil
conductivity and the temperature dependence of anti-freeze viscosity. For example, lower soil
41
temperatures during the heating season result in lower ground loop fluid temperatures, increased
fluid viscosity, and reduced fluid flow rate. The temperature excursions during cooling mode
operation are in the opposite sense, but they also increase with decreasing soil thermal
conductivity. The case-to-case variations in flow rate of potassium acetate are smallest of all the
fluids, corresponding to the weak dependence of viscosity of this solution on temperature.
In relation to these results for flow rate, average heat pump inlet fluid temperatures were
calculated for the year and for three periods during the year, namely 1/1 - 6/15, 6/16 - 11/30, and
12/1 - 12/31, for ¾ inch pipe in 150 foot deep bore holes spaced 3.05 m (10 ft) apart. This was
done for methanol, ethanol, propylene glycol, and potassium acetate for each of two soil
conductivities, 2.49 KJ/h m K (0.4 BTU/h ft ºF) and 7.48 KJ/h m K (1.2 BTU/h ft ºF). The
results indicate smaller fluid temperature excursions for higher soil conductivity, consistent with
the results for flow rate. For example, the average heat pump inlet fluid temperature rose during
a heating-dominated period (12/1 - 12/31) as much as 4.3 ºC (7.7 ºF) and it fell similarly during
the cooling-dominated period (6/16 - 11/30) for a change in soil conductivity from 2.49 to 7.48
KJ/h m K (0.4 to 1.2 BTU/h ft ºF). On the other hand, the annual average heat pump inlet
temperature remained nearly constant at about 12 ºC (54 ºF). These results are almost totally
insensitive to the fluid. However, it may be worth noting that for three of these fluids, except
methanol, the average annual temperature decreased a small fraction of a degree with increasing
soil conductivity, indicating that the average fluid temperature during cooling-dominated periods
decreased more than the increase in average fluid temperature during heating-dominated periods.
The largest decrease was for ethanol. This may help explain why the average annual flow rate of
ethanol decreased with increasing soil conductivity.
The results for cases 7, 8, and 9 indicate relatively strong dependence of system energy
use on ground loop length. For example, decreasing the loop length by 1/3, from 45.7 m (150 ft)
to 30.5 m (100 ft), increases total energy use by about 7.5 percent. Increasing ground loop length
by 1/3, from 45.7 m (150 ft) to 61.0 m (200 ft) decreases energy use by about 5 percent,
depending on the fluid. This indicates that from the standpoint of energy use more is gained by
avoiding undersizing the ground loop length than by oversizing it. An interesting aspect of the
results for these cases is the effect of ground loop length on fluid flow rate. Reducing loop
42
10
9.8
9.6
9.4
FLOWRATE, GPM
Ks = 0.4
Ks = 0.8
9.2
Ks = 1.2
8.8
8.6
8.4
January
Feburary
May
April
March
August
June
October
November
December
September
July
MONTH
Figure 17. Summary of Monthly Flowrate for Methanol with Soil Backfill.
length results in higher flow rate, despite the increase in fluid viscosity due to reduced ground
loop temperature. That is, a 1/3 reduction in pipe length has a greater effect on pressure drop
than increased viscosity. Furthermore, reduced loop length results in higher energy use by the
circulation pump, since increased flow rate more strongly affects pump energy use than reduced
pressure drop.
Increasing the ground loop nominal pipe diameter from 1.9 cm (3/4 inch) to 2.54 cm
(1 inch) reduces system energy use moderately and increases anti-freeze flow rate significantly.
Usually it increases pump energy use slightly. However, for ethanol, pump energy decreased
slightly. The results for more viscous fluids, such as CMA and propylene glycol are affected
even less than the less viscous fluids. In general, the results indicate that a nominal 1.9 cm
(3/4 inch) diameter pipe in the ground loop is satisfactory for all the fluids.
Comparing the results for annual energy use among the various fluids, one of the more
significant features is the relative insensitivity of energy use to the parameters of the system,
including the properties of the anti-freeze fluid. For a given fluid, the largest variation in total
energy use among the ten cases occurred for urea, and it was 15.3 percent of the smallest value.
For all fluids, the highest total energy use occurred for case 1, i.e., with the lowest soil thermal
conductivity for a 45.7 m (150 ft) bore depth; and the lowest total energy use occurred for case 9,
i.e., for the longest loop length with intermediate soil thermal conductivity. For a given case, i.e.,
a given set of system parameters other than the fluid, the minimum variation in total energy use
among the fluids was 4.1 percent, and the maximum was 6.4 percent. The portions of the total
energy used by the major components were also relatively insensitive to the fluid used and to the
system parameters. The compressor was the largest user, ranging from 71.4 to 74.5 percent of
the total, among all cases for all the fluids. The next largest user was the fan, ranging from about
13.4 to 14.1 percent of total energy use. Note that fan power was assumed to be constant, as an
approximation. Circulation pump energy use as a portion of total energy use ranged only from
8.0 to 9.3 percent. Energy use for auxiliary, or supplementary heating varied from 3.2 to
7.0 percent of total energy use. The maximum value for the percent of auxiliary energy use is
small, although wall and ceiling insulation levels were not maximized and window area was not
minimized, in an effort to produce auxiliary heater energy use at a level close to that
44
recommended by the project monitoring committee. This recommendation was stated in terms of
the portion of energy input for heating alone that was supplied to the auxiliary heater, as
discussed previously in connection with selecting the parameters of the house. However, the
tabulated results for auxiliary energy use are presented here in the same terms as for all of the
components—as a portion of total energy use—to avoid confusion.
In terms of absolute values of energy use, propylene glycol used the most total energy and
calcium magnesium acetate used the second highest total energy. However, the differences
between the two fluids are small, on the order of 1 percent. Ethanol and methanol used the least
total energy. Attempts were made to correlate the results for total energy use in terms of fluid
properties such as viscosity, but these efforts were not successful. Probably this is due to control
of heat transfer by parameters other than anti-freeze fluid properties. Resistance to heat exchange
between the soil and the fluid flowing through the ground loop is dominated by thermal
resistance of the backfill material and soil surrounding the borehole. This is illustrated by the
effects of the conductivity of soil backfill and grout, discussed earlier. Also, as discussed earlier
in connection with modifications to the heat pump model, the resistance to heat exchange
between the refrigerant and the anti-freeze in the heat pump heat exchanger is dominated by the
resistance on the refrigerant side of the heat exchanger.
As an associated matter, it was found inadvertently that total energy use is a very weak
function of thermal conductivity of the fluid. Specifically, changing the thermal conductivity of
potassium acetate by a factor of about 3 to correct a mistake in fluid property data changed total
energy use from 1.3 to 1.7 percent for the 10 cases.
The results for circulation pump energy use indicate that it depends on system parameters
in a complex manner. It does not depend on viscosity alone. This is evident from the fact that
the pump energy use results presented in Table 3 through Table 8 do not follow the same order as
the viscosity data presented in Figure 3. Although methanol, with the lowest viscosity over much
of the temperature range, uses the least pump energy, and CMA, with the highest viscosity over
the lower portion of the temperature range, uses the most pump energy, the energy use of fluids
with intermediate viscosities does not follow the same pattern as that of the viscosity. For
example, urea has nearly the same viscosity as methanol over the lower portion of the
45
temperature range, but it requires significantly more pump energy. Ethanol has significantly
higher viscosity than methanol over most of the temperature range, but it uses only slightly more
pump energy. Finally, potassium acetate which has the lowest viscosity for fluid temperatures
below 0 ºC (32 ºF) and relatively low viscosity for fluid temperatures up to 20 ºC (68 ºF) uses the
next-to-highest pump energy. Although various hypotheses were developed to explain this
behavior, none of them explained all of the trends satisfactorily.
Both initial cost and life cycle cost are important to potential purchasers of residential
heating and cooling systems. In this study, emphasis was placed on life cycle costs, to permit
examination of trade-offs between initial costs and energy costs. Initial costs were estimated
using information from installers with extensive experience, including the survey of installers,
summarized in Appendix A. Anti-freeze solution costs were estimated for commercial products,
for example, by obtaining prices from suppliers for lots of a few barrels and assuming a
50 percent mark-up by the installer. Urea costs were estimated from the cost of solid urea (in the
form of prills) required to produce a solution of the desired concentration, and assuming a
50 percent mark-up by the installer. Usually, urea is sold in very large quantities (barge loads,
for example) so the unit cost, which was supplied by a manufacturer, is somewhat speculative. A
summary of fluid costs per gallon is presented in Figure B-1.
The resulting installed system costs are moderate. Total system cost for the base case
system ranged from nearly $7600 to a little over $8000, as illustrated in Figure 18. It may be
noted that the system with potassium acetate has the highest capital cost, due to high fluid cost.
Life cycle costs were computed for a study period of 20 years using operating costs that
included energy and annual maintenance costs and capital costs that included cost of the fluid,
the installed heat pump, and the installed ground heat exchanger plus connecting piping. It was
assumed there would be no equipment replacement during the 20 year study period, since
ground-source heat pumps are likely to have relatively long service lives. No long term service
life data are available, to our knowledge. The following additional values were used to compute
life cycle costs: discount rate, 7 percent; energy cost escalation rate, 2 percent; first year
electrical energy price, 0.0618 $/kWh; electrical service charge, $5/month; and maintenance cost,
46
8100
8000
7900
INSTALLATION, U.S. DOLLARS
7800
7700
7600
7500
7400
7300
Methanol Ethanol Prop Gly KOAc CMA Urea
FLUID TYPE
Figure 18. Impact of Fluid on Baseline System Installation Cost.

$100/year. The electrical energy price and monthly service charge were obtained from
Wisconsin Power and Light, one of the two utility companies that serve Madison, WI. It should
be noted that the energy cost escalation rate is speculative. Currently, electrical energy costs in
Madison are tending to decrease due to an increasingly competitive utility climate.
Results for life cycle costs are presented in Table 8 through Table 13 and in Figure 19
through Figure 24. In the tables, operating costs for energy are shown for each of the major
components, similar to the figures previously presented for energy use. In the figures, life cycle
costs are resolved into two components, capital cost and operating cost. Capital cost includes all
the initial costs including the fluid, and operating cost includes all monthly and annual costs
accumulated, escalated in the case of energy, and discounted over a twenty year period. It may
be noted that these two components are approximately equal for the parameters chosen for this
analysis. For each of the fluids, the life cycle costs follow the same pattern as the energy use for
cases 1 through 6. That is, life cycle cost is highest for the lowest soil thermal conductivity and
lowest for the highest conductivity, whether soil backfill or grout is used. The variation of life
cycle cost with soil conductivity is much less with grout than with soil backfill, as one would
expect from the results for energy use. In contrast, the behavior of life cycle costs with increas-
ing loop length for cases 7 through 9 exhibits an opposite trend to that of energy use. Energy use
cost decreases with increasing loop length, while capital cost increases. The resulting increase in
life cycle cost is because the increase in capital cost is greater than the reduction in energy cost.
Based on preliminary results obtained using ESPRE, it is believed that this trend persists to un-
realistically short loop lengths. Even at bore depths of 100 ft (45.7 m) the minimum anti-freeze
temperature was observed to drop below the 15 ºF (-10 ºC) freeze point. Thus it is concluded
that the decision on bore depth should be made on the basis of practical considerations such as
those adopted by industry (e.g., a lower limit on fluid temperature) rather than on life cycle cost.
Total energy use costs presented in Table 8 through Table 13 in terms of current dollars
do not vary widely among the anti-freeze fluids for a given case. This follows from the relative
insensitivity of total system energy use to the type of fluid, for a given case. Also, total energy
use costs for a given fluid are not very sensitive to the system parameters.
48
TABLE 8. SUMMARY OF GSHP SYSTEM ECONOMICS BASED ON
METHANOL RESULTS.
Case Compressor Auxiliary Fan Circulation Total Energy Installation Life Cycle
No. Energy Cost Energy Energy Pump Use Cost Cost Cost*
($/yr) ($/yr) ($/yr) ($/yr) ($) ($) ($)
1 422 34 79 46 580 7587 15740
2 394 22 74 44 534 7587 15157
3 380 17 72 42 511 7587 14868
4 418 33 78 46 575 7587 15677
5 413 28 77 45 564 7587 15534
6 414 27 77 45 563 7587 15528
7 416 33 78 46 572 6552 14603
8 394 22 74 44 534 7587 15157
9 379 17 71 42 508 8623 15875
10 388 21 73 44 526 7811 15277
* Based on the following assumptions:
a) Electrical service cost of $5/month.
b) Price of electrical energy of 0.0618 $/kWh, Wisconsin Power and Light.
c) A maintenance cost of $100/year.
d) Annual energy escalation cost of 2%.
e) Discount rate of 7%/year.
f) Life study of 20 years.
Increasing the ground loop pipe diameter while maintaining the same pipe length in-
creases capital costs more than it decreases energy costs so life cycle costs increase. For
methanol, additional calculations showed that decreasing the pipe length by 5 percent to take
advantage of increased pipe diameter did not reduce capital costs sufficiently to alter this
conclusion.
Figure 25 is a plot of the life cycle costs for case 2, the baseline. Case 2 was chosen
because the other cases are similar for the six fluids. Note that the difference between the fluid
with the least cost, ethanol, and the greatest cost, potassium acetate, is only $600, or less than
4 percent.
49
ETHANOL RESULTS.
($/yr) ($/yr) ($/yr) ($/yr) ($) ($) ($)
1 417 36 78 46 577 7604 15713
2 389 23 73 44 529 7604 15115
3 375 16 71 43 505 7604 14813
4 414 35 78 46 573 7604 15661
5 407 28 77 46 558 7604 15474
6 404 27 76 45 552 7604 15402
7 411 34 77 46 569 6561 14570
8 389 23 73 44 529 7604 15115
9 374 16 71 44 505 8646 15853
10 383 20 72 43 518 7842 15218
E. COST ANALYSIS
The life cycle costs vary little among the six fluids, as shown in Figure 25. Ethanol,
methanol, and urea have the least cost, and have been assigned a value of 3 (Table 14).
Potassium acetate and propylene glycol are the next most expensive and have been assigned a
value of 2, mostly to account for a higher first cost.
50
PROPYLENE GLYCOL RESULTS.
($/yr) ($/yr) ($/yr) ($/yr) ($) ($) ($)
1 435 41 81 51 608 7679 16181
2 406 28 77 48 558 7679 15551
3 392 22 75 46 536 7679 15271
4 433 40 81 50 605 7679 16141
5 426 36 80 50 592 7679 15977
6 424 33 79 49 586 7679 15908
7 429 40 81 51 600 6608 15012
8 406 28 77 48 558 7679 15551
9 392 22 74 46 534 8750 16323
10 398 25 76 48 546 7983 15712
The results of this task indicate that energy usage and life cycle cost do not vary greatly
among the six fluids. The cost of the fluids (Table B-1), while showing up as a large up-front
cost, are rapidly amortized during the life cycle. Therefore, other factors such as fire, environ-
mental, and health risk impact the choice of anti-freeze to much greater degrees than does the life
cycle cost.
51
POTASSIUM ACETATE RESULTS.
($/yr) ($/yr) ($/yr) ($/yr) ($) ($) ($)
1 429 36 79 52 597 8011 16373
2 398 23 75 49 544 8011 15714
3 383 17 72 47 520 8011 15403
4 426 35 79 52 592 8011 16313
5 420 30 78 51 578 8011 16139
6 417 28 77 51 573 8011 16071
7 422 34 78 52 586 6811 15036
8 398 23 75 49 544 8011 15714
9 382 17 72 47 517 9211 16575
10 393 22 74 49 538 8605 16228
52
CMA RESULTS.
($/yr) ($/yr) ($/yr) ($/yr) ($) ($) ($)
1 428 37 80 53 598 7733 16113
2 400 25 76 50 551 7733 15524
3 387 20 73 49 530 7733 15256
4 425 36 79 53 593 7733 16049
5 420 32 79 52 583 7733 15923
6 418 30 78 52 579 7733 15867
7 422 36 79 53 592 6641 14936
8 400 25 76 50 551 7733 15524
9 386 19 73 49 527 8825 16315
10 393 24 75 51 543 8084 15766
53
UREA RESULTS.
($/yr) ($/yr) ($/yr) ($/yr) ($) ($) ($)
1 424 36 79 52 591 7541 15831
2 395 22 74 49 540 7541 15189
3 380 17 72 47 515 7541 14876
4 422 34 79 52 587 7541 15774
5 415 28 77 51 572 7541 15588
6 413 27 77 50 567 7541 15524
7 418 34 78 52 581 6523 14692
8 395 22 74 49 540 7541 15189
9 378 16 71 47 513 8559 15864
10 389 21 74 49 532 7724 15274
54
18000
16000
14000
LIFE CYCLE COST, U.S.DOLLARS
12000
10000
CAPITAL
OPERATION (20 YEARS)
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
CASE NUMBER
Figure 19. Summary of Life Cycle Cost for Methanol.

18000
16000
14000
LIFE CYCLE COST, U.S. DOLLARS
12000
10000
CAPITAL
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
CASE NUMBER
Figure 20. Summary of Life Cycle Cost for Ethanol.

18000
16000
14000
12000
10000
CAPITAL
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
CASE NUMBER
Figure 21. Summary of Life Cycle Cost for Propylene Glycol.

18000
16000
14000
12000
10000
CAPITAL
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
CASE NUMBER
Figure 22. Summary of Life Cycle Cost for Potassium Acetate.

18000
16000
14000
12000
10000
CAPITAL
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
CASE NUMBER
Figure 23. Summary of Life Cycle Cost for CMA.

18000
16000
14000
12000
10000
CAPITAL
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
CASE NUMBER
Figure 24. Summary of Life Cycle Cost for Urea.

15800.00
15700.00
15600.00
15500.00
Life Cycle Cost, Dollars
15400.00
15300.00
15200.00
15100.00
15000.00
14900.00
14800.00
Fluid Type
Figure 25. Comparison of Life Cycle Costs for Case 2 (Baseline).
TABLE 14. LIFE CYCLE COST INDEX.
Methanol Potassium Propylene Ethanol CMA Urea

Acetate Glycol
Life Cycle Cost 3 2 2 3 2 3
61
SECTION III
CORROSION ASSESSMENT
A. INTRODUCTION
Since GSHP systems are designed to operate in excess of 20 years, the effects of
corrosion on metal parts is considered critical. Corrosion can occur inside piping (valves, metal
lines, heat exchanger, etc.) or external to the system as a result of leakage or spillage of the anti-
freeze fluid. The rate of corrosion depends on the metals, fluids, and the presence of oxygen.
Since the ground loop is sealed and air is removed from the system during installation, undis-
solved oxygen is normally not present inside the loop in proper residential installations where air
is adequately flushed from the system. However, in improper installations where the air is not
adequately flushed from the system or where spills or leakage occur, the presence of air could
increase the corrosion rate. Ten metals were tested for corrosion with each anti-freeze fluid in
two different corrosion tests—immersion testing and spray testing—to simulate corrosion inside
a system and external to a system. Since high temperatures accelerate corrosion, the immersion
and spray tests were conducted at 43 °C (110 °F), a representative upper limit of the working
temperatures in an operating loop.
Since some anti-freeze fluids have leaked at joints and fittings when used with some
sealants or elastomers, testing was also performed to evaluate the leakage of the anti-freeze fluids
through joints, valves, etc. A loop consisting of typical GSHP components was constructed and
several sealants and elastomers were used at various connections. The leakage potential (or
leakability) tests were conducted with anti-freeze fluid flowing at both -6.6 °C and 43 °C (20 °F
and 110 °F).
B. MATERIALS
1. Fluids
Four commercial products and two generic anti-freeze fluids were selected for the
tests (Table 15). All materials except urea were obtained as liquid and diluted with water or used
62
without dilution; urea was obtained as prills (spherical pellets) and dissolved in water prior to
test. Methanol, CMA, and urea were not inhibited for corrosion, while the remaining three anti-
freeze fluids had corrosion inhibitors added. Distilled water was used where required for
dilution. Although distilled water would not normally be used during field installation, it
provided a controlled condition for testing.
TABLE 15. ANTI-FREEZE FLUIDS USED FOR CORROSION AND LEAKAGE TESTS.
Anti-freeze Trade Name and Supplier Concentration for

-9.4 ºC (15 ºF)
Anti-freeze Solution
Methanol Semi-grade (Semi-Conductor Grade) 20 wt.%
Pacific Pac, Inc.,
Hollister, California
Ethanol Exoendosol 101 23% by volume
AAPER Alcohol
Shelbyville, Kentucky
Potassium Acetate GS-4 28.43% by volume
Vanguard Plastics, Inc. (35 wt.%)
McPherson, Kansas
Propylene Glycol DOWFROST HD 25.7% by volume
Dow Chemical Company
Midland, Michigan
Calcium Magnesium Liquid CMA 25 100% Liquid CMA 25
Acetate Cryotech Deicing Technology (23 wt.% CMA)a
Fort Madison, Iowa
Urea 99+% prills 28 wt.%
Arcadian Corporation
Millington, Tennessee
a
Actual concentration of shipped material. Freeze point estimated at -13.3 °C (8 °F) is lower
than that used in energy calculations.
2. Corrosion Samples
Ten metals chosen as test samples are shown in Table 16, and the dimensions are
shown in Table 17.
63
TABLE 16. CORROSION SAMPLES.
Metal Grade Numbering Key

Cast Iron Cut from bottom of cast iron skillet S
Copper 99+% copper pipe, split and flattened P
Bronze Coupons cut from headstone I
Galvanized Commercial galvanized washers C
Stainless Steel Type 316 R
Red Brass Jewelry brass specified as red brass Y
Yellow Brass Commercial pipe, split and flattened B
Solder 50% lead, 50% tin, melted and poured into tube T
Iron Sheet iron of same composition as black iron pipe G
a
Aluminum Unknown A
a
Only used in spray tests.
TABLE 17. DIMENSIONS OF SAMPLE COUPONS FOR CORROSION TESTS.
Material Thickness Diameter Hole Diameter Density (g/cc)

(in) (in) (in) (Ref. 11)
Stainless Steel 0.061±.003 1.000±.004 0.210 7.94
Solder 0.061±.003 1.000±.004 0.210 9.315a
Black Iron 0.060±.003 1.000±.004 0.210 7.85
Copper 0.070±.003 1.000±.004 0.210 8.94
Red Brass 0.051±.003 1.000±.004 0.210 8.75
Yellow Brass 0.061±.003 1.000±.004 0.210 8.52
Bronze 0.129±.003 1.000±.004 0.210 8.80
Cast Iron 0.157±.004 1.000±.004 0.210 7.20
Galvanized 0.109±.005 1.035±.005 0.545 7.20b
Aluminum 0.600±.001 1.192±.001 0.215 2.70
a
50% Pb, 50% Sn
b
90% Zn, 10% Fe
The test coupons were prepared in the University of New Mexico Department of
Mechanical Engineering machine shop. Each sample was stamped with a unique designator.
Coupons were cleaned according to Reference 11, with specific procedures as
follows:
Pre-Test Cleaning
64
1. Mix 2000 mL of hot water with 10 mL Alconex
2. Clean samples 2 min in ultrasonic cleaner
3. Rinse with tap water
4. Rub with 600 grit paper 30 sec each side (do not sand stainless, solder, cast iron, or
galvanized)
5. Clean 1 min in ultrasonic bath containing Alconex
6. Rinse with tap water
7. Clean 30 sec in ultrasonic bath containing distilled water
8. Rinse with methanol
9. Leave 30 min in oven at 75 °C (167 ºF)
10. Cool in dessicator 5 min or more
For stainless steel, eliminate grit rub and dry in hood, store in bags.
Post-Test Cleaning
Note: Wear disposable gloves at all times. Be careful with acid baths.
1. Leave on sample holder with spacers after removal from anti-freeze solution
2. Rinse samples with distilled water, then methanol
Squirt methanol on one side of samples, then the other. Wet edges as well.
3. Place in oven at 75 ° C (167 ºF) for 30 min
4. Cool in dessicator for 5 min or more
5. Weigh samples and record weights
Note: Zero scale between weighings. Do not touch samples with hands (even with
gloves—use tweezers). Do not touch bench or table top on which scale rests. Balance
scale centering at start of each session.
6. Put samples back on tree with spacers
7. Digest for required time in the acid solutions (Table 18)
8. Remove tree and samples from acid bath
9. Repeat 2-5 until two consecutive weights are the same (no less than 3 times, or 2 for
stainless steel)
10. Clean brass with soft toothbrush if required to remove corrosion products.
If it is necessary to stop the process before completion, store samples in dessicator!
65
TABLE 18. PROCEDURES FOR CLEANING CORROSION SAMPLES.
ASTM No. Material Solution Time Temperature

(Ref. 11) (min)
C.1.1 Aluminum 50 mL phosphoric acid 10 90 °C (194 ºF)
20 g chromium trioxide to boiling
Reagent water to make 1000 mL
C.2.1 Copper, Brass, 500 mL hydrochloric acid 3 Room
Bronze Reagent water to make 1000 mL temperature
C.3.5 Cast Iron, 500 mL hydrochloric acid 15 Room
Black Iron 3.5 g hexamethylene tetramine temperature
C.4.1 Lead Solder 10 mL acetic acid 5 Boiling
C.7.1 Stainless Steel 100 mL nitric acid 20 60 °C (140 ºF)
C.9.5 Galvanized 100 g ammonium persulfate 5 Room
Steel (Zinc) Reagent water to make 1000 mL temperature
After the first set of immersion tests, the above pretest cleaning procedures were
found to be inadequate for the cast iron, iron, and stainless steel, large weight losses occurred
during the immersion and first cleaning cycle (even for the stainless steel) when methanol,
propylene glycol, and potassium acetate were used as the anti-freeze fluids (Batch 1), indicating
that not all surface contaminants had been removed by the pretest cleaning. Thereafter, all iron
and steel samples were cleaned by the post-test procedures prior to test, and a single sample of
each of the three metals was retested with the above three anti-freeze fluids in a separate test
batch.
3. Determination of Corrosion Rates
The average corrosion rate for each metal and anti-freeze fluid in mils per year was
determined by Equation 1 (Reference 11):
Corrosion rate = ( K × W ) ( A × T × D) (1)
66
where:
K = a conversion constant (3.45 x 106 for mils per year [mpy])
T = time of exposure in hours
A = surface area in cm2
W = mass loss in grams
D = density in g/cm3
The density of each sample was found in Reference 11. The surface area of each
coupon was calculated based on the dimensions of Table 17. The weight loss was measured to
±0.1 mg after the cleaning of the coupons. One source of variability in any corrosion testing is
the determination of the point at which the actual removal of corrosion products ends and the
removal of base metal due to the cleaning process begins. In general, there is a large weight loss
due to the exposure of the samples to the fluid and the first several cleaning cycles, followed by a
uniform smaller weight loss on succeeding cleaning cycles. Depending on the metals and fluids,
there may be a weight gain due to exposure. For the coupons tested during both the immersion
and spray testing, the cumulative weight losses after the first or second cleaning cycles were used
to determine the corrosion rate. Large weight losses were observed in the galvanized samples for
all fluids in both immersion and spray testing; each cleaning cycle removed significant amounts
of the galvanization.
There are several methods of assessing corrosion damage, including weight loss,
appearance, mechanical properties, electrical properties and microscopic examination. This
program required only weight loss as the corrosion criterion. However, any observable effects
from the conduct of the test were recorded and are reported in the appropriate sections.
C. IMMERSION TESTS
Three samples of each of nine metals (aluminum was only used in the spray tests) were
tested in each of the six fluids. Because of equipment and space limitations, the tests were run in
two batches consisting of three fluids each (Batch 1: methanol, potassium acetate, and propylene
glycol, followed by Batch 2: ethanol, calcium magnesium acetate [CMA], and urea). Cylindrical
glass containers 10.2 cm (4 in) high by 3.5 cm (1-3/8 in) inside diameter held the samples.
67
Samples were placed on glass “trees” with four legs supporting a vertical glass rod inserted
through the hole in each coupon. Spacers, made from hollow glass tubing 1.0 cm (3/8 in) inside
diameter by 0.3 cm (1/8 in) high, separated the samples. Due to the larger hole size, the
galvanized samples required inserts and larger spacers.
The samples were cleaned, weighed, and placed on trees. The fluid was mixed in bulk
and aerated for 5 min using a small aquarium pump. Approximately 50 mL of the anti-freeze
was added to each cylinder, and a sheet of parafilm (a waxy paper used to seal laboratory
samples) was stretched over the top of each cylinder and held by rubber bands (Figure 26) to
minimize evaporation. A sample of each fluid was saved in a small container for future analysis
if required. The filled cylinders (27/batch) were then placed in a pan in the oven at 43 °C
(110 °F) (Figure 27). A preliminary test of the oven using a thermocouple reader and strip
recorder indicated that the internal temperature varied less than ±0.6 °C (1 °F).
Each sample cylinder was shaken daily for the first three days and every third day
thereafter to dislodge the air bubbles created as air came out of solution. This procedure also
served to move any sediment caused by corrosion and allow the top surfaces of the coupons to
freely contact the fluid. Samples were kept in the oven for 333 hours (three hours less than
2 weeks to permit cleaning to occur during work hours), removed, and cleaned according to the
procedures noted above.
1. Corrosion Results
The results presented here should be assumed only to be applicable to the fluids
tested. For example, the corrosion rates using uninhibited propylene glycol will be different from
those presented for DOWFROST HD (inhibited propylene glycol). Table 19 is a summary of the
loss due to immersion in mils per year (mpy) determined through Equation 1. The results shown
are the average of the three samples (except in the case of the black iron, cast iron, and stainless
steels with Batch 1 [methanol, potassium acetate, and propylene glycol] where retesting was
done, and only one sample was retested). A standard deviation was calculated for each metal and
anti-freeze combination where more than one sample was tested and is shown in Table 19. It
was concluded from these consistent results that the weight losses accurately reflected those due
to corrosion in the test scenario.
68
Figure 26. Filled Cylinders Ready to Place in Oven.
Figure 27. Test Batch in Oven.
69
TABLE 19. MEAN IMMERSION CORROSION RATES AND STANDARD
DEVIATIONS.a
Material Methanol Potassium Propylene Ethanol CMA Urea

(mpy) Acetate Glycol (mpy) (mpy) (mpy)
(mpy) (mpy)
Stainless Steel 0.0232 0.0464 +0.0406b 0.0426 0.0232 0.0193
(None)c (None)c (None)c (0.0242) (0.0116) (0.00670)
Solder 0.0702 0.0435 0.0569 0.2642 0.5117 0.0769
(0.0100) (0.0058) (0.0058) (0.0307) (0.0559) (0.0153)
Black Iron 4.0006 0.0355 0.0591 1.8017 0.4613 1.6913
(None) (None) (None) (0.2891) (0.1990) (0.5563)
Copper 0.2272 0.0689 0.0723 0.8435 0.3718 3.2604
(0.0575) (0.0158) (0.0) (0.0158) (0.0372) (0.2123)
Red Brass 0.1371 0.0397 0.0505 0.7866 0.4222 4.3805
(0.0331) (0.0063) (0.0063) (0.0348) (0.0286) (1.7568)
Yellow Brass 0.1160 0.1957 0.0906 0.4676 0.6234 4.3131
(0.0166) (0.0288) (0.0126) (0.0217) (0.0764) (0.2447)
Bronze 0.1954 0.7146 0.1893 1.0566 0.8612 4.0554
(0.0413) (0.0930) (0.0191) (0.1287) (0.2424) (0.2172)
Cast Iron 6.3562 3.6139 1.3180 2.5262 1.7928 3.0506
(None) (None) (None) (0.2613) (0.1065) (0.5536)
Galvanized 18.4562 14.9215 21.9715 22.6110 9.9257 9.9335
(1.3399) (0.7869) (2.0739) (1.7285) (2.3109) (1.1852)
a
Standard deviations of three samples are shown in parenthesis.
b
Weight gain. Discolored during testing. Additional cleaning did not remove the
discoloration.
c
Only one sample tested due to inconsistent results in initial testing (see text).
2. Observations
Observations about the interactions of the metals with the anti-freeze fluids are
noted as follows:
(1) Cast iron/methanol and black iron/methanol. Very soon after the samples were
put in the oven, a gelatinous brownish film covered the samples. Shaking the sample dislodged
the film. The glass tree, spacers, and glass cylinders were stained with a brown paint-like
70
substance that could not be cleaned or scraped by conventional means; only undiluted
hydrochloric acid cleaned the parts. The color of this film indicated that it was hydrated iron III
oxide. Both the cast iron and black iron coupons were extremely corroded after the test. Similar
films, though not to the same extent, were also seen in both the iron (black and cast) in ethanol
and iron (black and cast) in CMA solutions. The cast iron coupons in potassium acetate were
heavily corroded.
(2) Galvanized/methanol. A white powder, probably zinc oxide, formed on the
surface of the coupon. The powder had to be brushed off prior to weighing.
(3) Bronze/potassium acetate. A light colored (almost white) film covered the
samples. This film was removed during the cleaning process and did not require brushing.
(4) Lead solder/CMA. A white substance adhered to the surface of the coupons.
After the second cleaning, where no weight loss was observed, the substance was brushed off.
After the third cleaning, a significant weight loss was observed. The substance adhered to the
surface and prevented the underlying corrosion from being chemically removed by the acid bath.
(5) Copper compounds/urea. Each of the four copper compounds (copper, bronze,
red brass, and yellow brass) experienced significant corrosion in urea. The fluid was tinted a
bright blue in each case, probably due to formation of a copper urea complex.
3. Specific Results
The following are specific results on each of the fluids:

(1) Methanol. The corrosion rate of black iron, cast iron, and galvanized metal was
high.
(2) Potassium acetate. The corrosion rates for all metals except bronze, cast iron,
and galvanized were low; the corrosion rates of bronze with potassium acetate was over three
times that obtained with methanol and propylene glycol, but lower than that obtained with
ethanol, CMA, or urea.
(3) Propylene glycol. The rate of corrosion of all metals was low except for the
galvanized, which was similar to that obtained with ethanol, slightly higher than with methanol
and potassium acetate, and a factor of 2 higher than with CMA or urea. The corrosion rate of
71
cast iron in propylene glycol was lowest of all the fluids; black iron exhibited a corrosion rate
equivalent to the lowest metal/anti-freeze combination.
(4) Ethanol. High rates of corrosion were observed for cast iron and medium
corrosion rates for bronze and black iron.
(5) CMA. A relatively low rate of corrosion was observed for the cast iron
(compared with that obtained with other fluids) and galvanized coupons. There were moderate
rates of corrosion with the copper-containing materials.
(6) Urea. High rates of corrosion were observed with the copper-containing
materials, as much as an order of magnitude higher than those observed with the least corrosive
of the other fluids. Moderate corrosion rates of cast iron and black iron were measured.
D. SPRAY TESTS
The spray tests were conducted inside a 3-gallon (12-liter) polyethylene bucket
(Figure 28). Four polyethylene nozzles were arranged to spray both sides of the coupons, which
were suspended by stainless steel wires from a horizontal support. An FMI Model RP-D lab
pump, with adjustable flow rate, was used to pump the fluid. Although the flow rate was not
measured, the maximum flow rate was listed as 113 mL/min (0.3 gal/min), and the pump was
used at a full flow rate. Fluid was drawn from the bottom of the bucket through 0.96-cm (3/8-in)
Figure 28. Spray Test Apparatus.
72
Teflon tubing to the pump and then pumped through a 91.4-cm (36-in) length of tubing. Heat
tape was wrapped around 53.3 cm (21 in) of this length to raise the temperature to 43.3 °C
(110 °F). Non-heated lengths of tubing were covered by pipe insulation. The spray head
consisted of 0.32 cm (1/8-in) polyethylene tubing, connectors, and nozzles. All connectors were
stainless steel SWAGELOK to prevent contaminating the fluids through corrosion products. The
bucket top was covered with a round piece of 0.635-cm (1/4-in) thick Plexiglas, with
penetrations for the tubing, sample support, and the thermocouple to measure the spray
temperature. The Plexiglas allowed viewing of the interior of the bucket to check fluid level and
verify that the spray pattern adequately covered the samples. Two thermocouples, one measuring
the surface temperature of the heat tape and a second inserted in the spray, measured operating
temperatures. The spray temperature was controlled at 43.3 °C (110 °F).
Approximately 4 liters (1 gallon) of anti-freeze solution was prepared, heated (to reduce
the time required to raise the spray to 43.3 °C [110 °F]), and added to the bucket. One coupon of
each metal, including an aluminum coupon, was suspended on stainless steel wires from a
support below the Plexiglas top. The top of the bucket was lightly greased with vacuum grease
to reduce gaps between the bucket and top, and the top was fastened to the bucket in four places
with wire. The spray manifold was connected to the Teflon tubing, and the pump and heating
tape was turned on. A cooling fan was directed onto the pump to prevent overheating. The
outside and bottom of the bucket were insulated with glass fiber batt insulation to prevent heat
loss. The top was not insulated, to allow viewing of the interior of the bucket (Figure 28).
The apparatus was periodically checked for leakage and for proper spray pattern. The
spray temperature was monitored, and the power to the heat tape adjusted to maintain the desired
spray temperature. Because of the location of the apparatus in the laboratory adjacent to an
exterior door, the spray temperature varied depending on time of day or whether the door was
open, and periodic monitoring was required to maintain temperature, as a temperature feedback
control mechanism was not designed into the system. In general, except for a brief period during
heating system failure in the laboratory, the temperature of the spray did not vary more than
±1.7 °C (3 °F).
73
The nominal test duration was 200 hours. The actual durations ranged from 182.5 to
190 hours due to constraints of daily schedules and the desire to clean the samples in conjunction
with samples from the immersion tests.
1. Results
Results from the spray testing are shown in Table 20. Because only one coupon per
fluid was tested, no standard deviation is reported. The range reported for methanol reflects the
fact that two different tests were conducted.
TABLE 20. SPRAY CORROSION RATES (MILS PER YEAR).
Material Methanola Potassium Propylene Ethanol CMA Urea

Acetate Glycol
Stainless 0.0418 - 0.0627 0.0624 0.0847 +0.0406b 0.0818 0.8783
Steel
Solder 0.2348 - 0.5238 0.3234 0.4028 2.1399 28.1810 2.8777
Black Iron 0.0852 - 9.4312 0.5505 0.0863 108.0253 123.115 4.6253
Copper 0.2231 - 0.3532 0.1479 0.1131 2.9790 0.3822 354.3227
Red Brass 0.1364 - 0.2728 0.0969 0.0593 2.3464 0.7820 251.1508
Yellow Brass 0.2349 - 0.4893 0.4088 0.0794 4.4287 0.9196 73.8603
Bronze 0.5772 - 2.2097 1.7386 0.1337 5.6690 2.1145 74.4982
Cast Iron 9.4515 - 66.6003 12.3502 2.4049 67.6874 61.5763 46.0011
Galvanized 23.2107c 23.1894 72.1542 20.2433 17.7203 12.1529
Aluminum 0.3872c 0.0624 1.2517 3.6178 1.6184 0.3307
a
Range of two tests
b
Weight gain
c
Result from original test
Specific results of the spray series included the following:
(1) Methanol. The original methanol spray test results indicated large weight
losses for most of the samples, including stainless steel. The losses were not due to corrosion
alone, but rather to inadequate cleaning prior to the test. Therefore, for the same reasons the first
batch of immersion tests were rerun, a second methanol spray test was run. All metals except
74
galvanized and aluminum were rerun. Significant corrosion was visible on the black and cast
iron. The results for the copper-based metals and solder varied significantly from the initial
methanol test, so a third test was run. Results from the third test for black iron and cast iron were
significantly different from the second test. As compared to the second test, where massive
amounts of corrosion were visible on the black and cast iron, no visible corrosion was observed,
and the corrosion rate was much lower for this test than the previous one. It is not known why
the results from the second and third tests varied so much, since the same test and cleaning
procedures were followed. It was decided to present the results as a range of the two final tests.
(2) Potassium acetate. Slight corrosion was visible on the cast iron, with a large
weight loss. A white coating was observed on the galvanized. There was little corrosion on the
black iron.
(3) Propylene glycol. There was little corrosion noticed on any sample.
(4) Ethanol. There was significant corrosion on the cast iron; brushing was
required to remove the coating during the third cleaning cycle. The stainless steel was discolored
(light yellow tint) and a slight weight gain was measured. Additional cleaning cycles were
performed on the sample at a later time but the discoloration was not removed nor was there any
weight change. There was significant corrosion on the black iron.
(5) CMA. The spray fluid was brown, foamy, and leaked through the pump seal
and out the holes in the Plexiglas top, leaving a white crystalline residue. A white powder on the
solder had to be brushed off.
(6) Urea. The fluid was black at the conclusion of the spray test. The test was
terminated after 140.5 hours due to excessive leakage through the pump seals and SWAGELOK
joints. The copper-based metals (copper, red and yellow brass, and bronze) were severely
discolored and corroded. The red brass exhibited a whitish coloration; the others showed a
reddish coloration.
Figure 29 shows the samples after removal from the ethanol spray test and before
the initial cleaning. Clockwise from the left are the galvanized (larger inside hole), lead solder,
red brass, copper, yellow brass, aluminum, stainless steel, and black iron. Inside left is the cast
75
Figure 29. Coupons After Removal from Spray, Ethanol.
iron, and inside right is the brass. One interesting observation is that the stainless steel was
discolored by a light yellow tint, and experienced a 1.9 mg weight gain during the test period.
After 5 cleanings, the weight gain was still measured, although reduced to 0.2 mg.
E. LEAKAGE POTENTIAL TESTING
To evaluate leakage of anti-freeze fluids from joints, flanges, unions, valves, and other
components contained in a typical GSHP system, a loop of common components and sealants
was constructed. Anti-freeze fluid was circulated at 43.3 °C (110 °F) for seven days and -6.7 °C
(20 °F) for a second seven days under pressure (nominally 40 psia [276 kPa]) around the loop,
which was checked at least daily for leaks.
1. Loop Layout
The loop consisted of various components representing some that might be

contained in an actual residential GSHP installation as well as those connectors necessary to
complete the installation (Figure 30 and Figure 31). Each joint was numbered individually, and
components specified by the joint number (s) they were adjacent to or between. Table 21
76
Figure 30. Potential for Leakage Test Loop.
Figure 31. Leakage Potential Loop.
provides a listing of the joints, sealants used at each joint, and the numbering key to identify each
joint. Table 22 lists the major components of the system. A manifold section (joints 31-31k)
contained a pressure gauge, a pressure relief valve, and a nitrogen quick-disconnect fitting. Since
this section was higher in elevation than the filling port, it was only partially filled with anti-
freeze fluid.
2. Loop Fabrication and Lessons Learned
Components for the loop were obtained locally in building supply and industrial
stores and assembled. A 20-ft (6-m) piece of 1/4-in (0.635-cm) stainless steel tubing was bent
into a coil to fit in the bath area of the circulating bath. SWAGELOK connections were used to
connect the coil to the loop. All metal threaded joints were originally torqued to 30 lbf-ft
(40.6 Nm) by hanging a known weight from a pipe wrench. Plastic joints and flange bolts were
torqued to 10 lbf-ft (13.6 Nm). Thread sealant or gasket material as specified in Table 21 was
used for each joint.
78
TABLE 21. JOINT NUMBERING KEY.
Joint No. Connecting Parts Sealanta

1 1/2” SS tubing to 1/2” NPT SS SWAGELOK N/A
2 1/2” SS NPT SWAGELOK to 1/2” steel nipple Tape
3 1/2” steel nipple to 1/2” to 3/4” steel bell reducer Tape
4 1/2” to 3/4” steel bell reducer to 3/4” steel nipple 567
5 3/4” steel nipple to 3/4” steel ELL LA-CO
6 3/4” steel ELL to 3/4” brass hose end 567
7 1” brass hose end to 2-way plastic valve Blu
8 2-way plastic valve to 1” brass nipple LA-CO
9 1” brass nipple to 1” plastic TEE Unyte
10 1” 2-way plastic valve to 1” plastic cap PVC pipe cement
11 No joint (removed PVC 2-way valve) N/A
12 1” plastic TEE to 1” brass nipple Unyte
13 1” brass nipple to 1” brass coupler 567
14 1” brass coupler to 1” copper brazed joint Unyte
15 1” copper brazed joint to 1” brass union LA-CO
16 1” brass union to 1” to 1/2” pipe bushing 567
17 1” to 1/2” pipe bushing to 1/2” pump Unyte
18 1/2” pump to 1/2” to 1” steel pipe bushing 567
19 1/2” to 1” pipe bushing to 1” brass coupler 567
20 1” brass coupler to 1” brass nipple Tape
21 1” brass nipple to 1” brass 3-way valve LA-CO
22 1” brass 3-way valve to 1” steel nipple Unyte
23 1” steel nipple to 1” x 1/2” street TEE 567
23a 1” x 1/2” street TEE to 1/2” to 1/4” bushing 567
23b Stainless SWAGELOK TEE-couple connection 567
24 1” x 1/2” street TEE to 1” steel nipple Tape
25 1” steel nipple to 1” steel union Blu
26 1” steel union to 1” steel nipple Unyte
27 1” steel nipple to 1” x 1/2” street TEE LA-CO
79
TABLE 21. JOINT NUMBERING KEY (CONCLUDED).
Joint No. Connecting Parts Sealant

27a 1” x 1/2” street TEE to 1/2” Pressure/temperature port 567
28 1” x 1/2” street TEE to 1” steel nipple Tape
29 1” steel nipple to 1” steel flange Blu
30 1” steel flange to 1” steel nipple Unyte
31 1” steel nipple to 1” steel TEE 567
31a 1” steel TEE to 1” steel nipple 567
31b 1” steel nipple to 1” x 1/2” steel bell reducer 567
31c 1” x 1/2” steel bell reducer to 1/2” close steel nipple Blu
31d 1/2” close steel nipple to 1/2” union Unyte
31e 1/2” union to 1/2” close steel nipple Unyte
31f 1/2” close steel nipple to 1/2” steel TEE Unyte
31g 1/2” steel TEE to 1/2” brass pressure relief valve LA-CO
31h 1/2” steel TEE to 1/2” to 1/4” steel bushing 567
31i 1/2” to 1/4” steel bushing to 1/4” SS TEE Tape
31j 1/4” SS TEE to SS nipple (nitrogen quick disconnect) 567
31k 1/4” SS TEE to steel pressure gage 567
32 1” steel TEE to 1” steel nipple Unyte
33 1” steel nipple to 1” flange LA-CO
34 1” flange to 1” steel nipple Tape
35 1” steel nipple to 1” flange 567
36 1” flange to 1” brass hose end 567
37 3/4” brass hose end to 3/4” to 1/2” steel bell reducer Blu
38 3/4” to 1/2” steel bell reducer to 1/2” steel nipple Blu
39 1/2” steel nipple to SS 1/2” NPT SWAGELOK LA-CO
40 1/2” SS tubing to SS SWAGELOK N/A
a
Blu-Whitlam Blue Magic Industrial Grade Pipe Thread Compound
Unyte—Whitlam Select Unyte Thread Sealing Compound with Teflon
LA-CO—LA-CO Slic-Tite Paste with Teflon
567—Loctite PST 567
Tape—Teflon Tape
N/A—Not applicable
80
TABLE 22. MAJOR COMPONENTS OF LEAKAGE POTENTIAL LOOP.
Position in Loop Description

(Joint Nos.)
6-7 Polyethylene hose
7-8 Plastic 2-way valve, union connection
14-15 Brazed joints (2)
15-16 1” brass union
17-18 Pump, Little Giant
21-22 3-way brass valve, Apollo
23a, 23b SWAGELOK Thermocouple penetration on TEE
25-26 1” steel union
27a Pressure/temperature port
29-30 1” steel flange, buna-n gasket
33-34 1” steel flange, buna-n gasket (originally Gore-tex)
35-36 1” steel flange, ethylene propylene diene monomer gasket (EPDM)
36-37 1” rubber hose
40-1 Heat exchanger (ss coil with SWAGELOK connections to loop)
40-1 Circulating Bath, Forma Scientific Model Number 2095
When first assembled, the system was leak-checked using 50 psia (345 kPa)
nitrogen and “Snoop,” a commercial leak detector soap. Several leaks were apparent, and
lessons learned are presented as a means to assist in proper installation.
a. A cast iron joint sealed with Teflon tape did not seal properly, and upon
removal, it was noticed that the tape had torn during tightening. Teflon tape is not recommended
for use with cast iron.
b. The Gore-tex gasket material leaked during the pressure check. Because of the
construction of Gore-tex materials, gases will pass through the material, making it impossible to
contain gases under pressure and pressure-check the system with nitrogen. Gore-tex material is
claimed to be impervious to most chemicals. If ethylene propylene diene monomer gasket
81
(EPDM) or buna-n material is not acceptable, Gore-Tex can be used in a system, but only where
hydrostatic leak testing with liquid is used.
c. One of the unions in the loop could not be sealed, even after sanding the mating
surfaces with fine sandpaper and torquing to the maximum torque possible with two pipe
wrenches and cheater bars. Comparison with a replacement union showed that the replacement
had a fine finish on the seats, allowing the union to seal, as compared to the original union,
which had a rougher finish. It is critical to obtain the best quality components available.
d. A PVC 2-way valve leaked through the valve handle and had to be removed
from the system. A brass cap screwed into the plastic “T” at joint 10 to replace the valve did not
hold pressure, and a plastic cap was cemented in place. Based on the leakage of the valve and
the inability to seal the plastic opening with a brass cap, polyvinyl chloride (PVC) components
are not recommended in a GSHP system, especially if they mate with metal components.
e. Unions had to be tightened to a far higher torque than 30 lbf-ft (13.6 Nm) in
order to prevent leakage.
f. The packing nut on the brass 3-way valve leaked during the pressure check and,
for each of the anti-freezes, each time the transition to the cold cycle was begun. It was tightened
and the leaks were stopped.
3. Loop Operation
The bath of the cooler/heater used to maintain the loop temperature was filled with
a 50/50 mix of ethylene glycol (Prestone brand automobile anti-freeze). This allowed an
operational temperature range to accommodate both the highest and lowest test temperatures.
(Note that the loop was enclosed by the bath and the ethylene glycol did not mix with the anti-
freeze.)
Originally, the loop system was to be broken open at union 31e-f for filling the system. However,
in order to flush the system of air, the pump had to run, and anti-freeze was added several times
to the system until all the air was removed. It was difficult to uncouple the union as many times
as was required. A SWAGELOK Tee was installed on the stainless steel tubing before joint 1
with a 3-in (7.6-cm) vertical length of pipe and a SWAGELOK cap that could be removed for
82
filling. The system was filled from this pipe, allowing fluid to rise into the manifold to the height
of the top of the filling pipe and ensure that the system was completely filled. The system was
then filled with water, the pump started, and the system was pressurized to 40 psia (276 kPa)
through the quick disconnect adjacent to joint 31j. When changing fluids, the loop was broken at
two SWAGELOK joints and the coil and the rest of the loop flushed with water and dried with
compressed air prior to reassembly and filling. The coil and loop were each filled with the new
fluid; the pump was run to remove the remaining air; and the loop was topped off. Even with
this procedure, the pump did not always operate the first time, and fluid was removed and refilled
into the loop. It was believed that there was air inside the coil which prevented flow, and
refilling and repressurizing the loop removed the air block.
During the cold cycle, the piping was covered with a heavy layer of condensation and later ice, as a
result of the humidity in the room air. This did not prevent the discovery of leakage, as the site
of the leak would be melted due to the anti-freeze. In the case of urea, the crystals melted into
the ice and could be observed at the site of leakage.
To begin the test, a solution of -9.4 °C (15 °F) freeze-protected methanol and water (20 wt.%) was
prepared and added to the system. The pump was started, the system was overpressurized with
nitrogen to 40 psia (276 kPa), and the circulating bath set on 43.3 °C (110 ºF). The air was
removed from the system. It was found that over the next day the system did not hold pressure.
Several of the joints in the manifold had to be tightened, and the pressure relief valve leaked. A
cap was put in place over the pressure relief valve since it was highly unlikely that an
overpressure sufficient to damage the system could develop in the loop.
The addition of anti-freeze fluid solution to the loop was required at the end of the second day into
the cold cycle. The entire loop system was not covered with ice, indicating that sufficient anti-
freeze had leaked from the valve to lower the fluid level. The pump was stopped, the pressure on
the system released, and additional anti-freeze fluid added. The pump was restarted. However,
after approximately one hour, it was noticed that the ice was melting on the loop, due to the
pump having stopped. Ice had formed inside a well supporting the moving shaft of the magnetic
pump, preventing the shaft from turning. This was caused by the vertical position of the pump,
allowing condensing water to drip into the well and freeze due to the low temperature of the
83
pump. The ice in the pump was melted, and water was blown out with high pressure nitrogen.
However, the pump froze again, and it was decided to rotate the pump 90 deg after the methanol
test so that liquid would not settle in the pump well. While this did not completely stop the
pump from freezing (it happened several times later), it reduced the number of occurrences
significantly.
4. Results
a. Methanol
After 7 days of leak-free performance at 43.3 °C (110 °F), the circulating

bath was turned to the cold cycle. It took approximately 6 hours for the fluid to reach -6.7 °C
(20 °F) as measured at the thermocouple location. There was significant ice buildup over all
metal parts of the loop system. The only leak noticed was the previously mentioned leak at the
packing nut of the 3-way brass valve.
At the end of the sixth day in the cold cycle, the temperature was raised
again to 43.3 °C (110 °F) before being returned to ambient on the seventh day prior to changing
fluids in the loop. This allowed an additional transition between the limiting temperature to
evaluate whether the expansion and/or contraction caused additional leakage. This procedure
was continued for the remaining fluids. No leakage was seen during the cold cycle or the
additional hot cycle.
b. Ethanol
After completion of methanol testing, the pump was rotated 90 deg without
otherwise disturbing the loop. The loop was flushed with water and dried with compressed air,
the ethanol-water solution was added, and heating cycle started. Testing at 43.3 °C (110 °F) was
nominal with no leaks. When the loop was cooled at the end of the seventh day, the
aforementioned small leak appeared at the packing nut of the 3-way valve. Tightening the nut
stopped the small leak. There was also a small leak near the pump, which stopped rapidly
without tightening any connections.
84
During the first day of cold testing, the loop froze. It was obvious by the
position of the frost line and the fluid temperature that fluid was not being pumped through the
system. The temperature of the ethylene glycol bath was well below -6.7 °C (20 °F). It must be
noted that the fluid temperature inside the heat exchanger loop can reach temperatures below
-9.4 °C (15 °F) as there is up to a -13.9 °C (7 °F) difference between the ethylene glycol bath in
the circulating cooler and the point where temperature was measured in the loop. The
temperature of the bath was raised, and the flow resumed after the frozen anti-freeze melted.
From that time forward, the loop temperature was kept no lower than -3.9 °C (25 °F) at the
thermocouple (joint 23b) to prevent the temperature in the heat exchanger coil from reaching
below -9.4 °C (15 °F) and freezing the loop. It was also discovered that if the temperature in the
bath was lowered continuously, the loop could freeze due to the temperature of the bath being
below the freeze point of the anti-freeze fluid at the point where the cold fluid enters the bath.
Cooling the loop in discrete increments and allowing the cooler to cycle between heating and
cooling remedied the situation.
A small leak was found at the top of the plastic valve, but it did not appear
to be significant. There was no additional leakage during the cooling and additional heating
cycle using ethanol.
c. Propylene glycol
The loop was flushed and filled with propylene glycol and heated. A small
leak was found in joint 15 after 1 day of heating, with a possible leak at joint 26. Neither of these
leaks grew larger, and the only sign of leakage was minimal fluid at the joint. No leaks were
seen during the cold cycle, except the usual leak at the packing nut on the 3-way valve.
d. CMA
The loop was flushed and filled with the CMA liquid. Small leaks were
seen at joints 12, 14, and 15 (joints 12 and 14 used Unyte as a sealant, while joint 15 used the
LA-CO Slik-tite paste with Teflon, both of a similar composition), and at the union, as well as a
possible small leak at joint 26. All leaks were similar to sap oozing from a tree and hardening.
There was no leakage seen during the cold cycle, except at the 3-way valve during the start of
85
cooling. The fluid was brown when removed from the loop, most likely from corrosion inside
the pipe.
e. Potassium acetate
The loop was flushed and potassium acetate was added to the loop. After
3 days, the circulating bath heater failed. To continue the test, the bath was turned to the cooling
cycle, which had not failed. There were minor leaks around the two SWAGELOK fittings where
the loop was normally opened; significant tightening was required to stop the leak. After seven
days in the cooling mode and to resume the heating cycle, the coil was removed from the bath
and heat tape wrapped around the coil. Moderate leakage was seen at each end of the polyethyl-
ene hose, where it was connected to its fittings, and in joints 8, 12, and possibly 15 (LA-CO and
Unyte sealants). While the order of testing the hot and cold cycles was different for the potass-
ium acetate, the number of transitions from hot to cold (and the reverse) and the amount of time
in each cycle was identical to those for the other fluids.
f. Urea
Major leakage was observed around the ends where the polyethylene hose
was connected to its fittings (the same location where the CMA and potassium acetate leaked)
and at SWAGELOK joints. Moderate leakage was observed during the hot cycle at joints 6, 8,
12, 14, and 15 (LA-CO and Unyte sealants, and Loctite PST 567 at joint 6). Leakage was
observed at the joints that leaked during the hot cycle. Even though the leakage at most of the
joints was small, the massive leakage at the ends of the polyethylene pipe and at the SWAGE-
LOK joints indicate that urea presents potentially serious leakage problems.
F. RISK ANALYSIS
1. Corrosion
As a means of interpreting the corrosion data and determining a single value to be

inserted in the decision matrix, corrosion rates are grouped into four classifications: very low,
low, medium, and high. While these classes are arbitrary, they do indicate in a simplified form
86
the corrosion rates of each anti-freeze and metal combination. To arrive at a single value to
insert into the decision matrix, each of the classes was ranked according to corrosion rates:
Very Low (0.1 mpy or less), Low (over 0.1 but less than 1.0 mpy), Medium (between 1.0 and
2.5 mpy), and High (greater than 2.5 mpy). Because of its poor performance in all fluids,
galvanized metal was eliminated from the numerical determination. When a range of corrosion
rates is presented for methanol spray results, the highest classification is used. Because the
interior corrosion is more critical than corrosion external to the system, only the values from the
immersion tests are used in the decision matrix. A value of 3 was assigned to indicate little or no
potential for corrosion problems (no high or very high corrosion rates); a value of 2 assigned to
indicate minor potential for corrosion problems (only high corrosion rates with one or two
metals); or a value of 1 to indicate major potential for corrosion problems (high corrosion rates in
more than 2 metals).
a. Immersion Corrosion
Table 23 presents the results from Table 19 in simplified groupings.
b. Spray Corrosion
In a manner similar to the immersion testing, Table 23 presents the data

from Table 20.
As in every case where a single number is used to describe a complex

scenario, care should be taken in using the composite averages. Since nearly 50 percent of the
tested materials were copper-based, the corrosion rate of copper heavily influences each
composite value. The impact of corrosion on a system should be determined based on the actual
materials contacting the anti-freeze solution. Therefore, a composite number is only provided to
allow a preliminary screening of the anti-freezes, and a final determination of the most
appropriate anti-freeze to prevent corrosion must be made based on the materials in each
individual application.
87
TABLE 23. CORROSION RATES, IMMERSION TESTS.a
Materials Methanol Potassium Propylene Ethanol CMA Urea

Acetate Glycol
Stainless Steel VL VL VL VL VL VL
Solder VL VL VL L L VL
Black Iron H VL VL M L M
Copper L VL VL L L H
Red Brass L VL VL L L H
Yellow Brass L L VL L L H
Bronze L L L M L H
Cast Iron H H M H M H
b
Galvanized H H H H H H
Composite 2 2 3 2 2 1
a
VL = less than 0.1 mpy; L = over 0.1 but less than 1.0 mpy; M = between 1.0 and 2.5 mpy;
and H = over 2.5 mpy corrosion rate.
b
Not used to determine composite number
TABLE 24. CORROSION RATES, SPRAY TESTS.a

Acetate Glycol
Stainless Steel VL VL VL VL VL L
Solder L L L M H H
Black Iron L-H L VL H H H
Copper L L L M L H
Red Brass L VL VL M L H
Yellow Brass L L VL H L H
Bronze L-M M L H M H
Cast Iron H H M H H H
b
Galvanized H H H H H H
Aluminum L VL M H M L
a
VL = less than 0.1 mpy; L = over 0.1 but less than 1.0 mpy; M = between 1.0 mpy and
2.5 mpy; and H = over 2.5 mpy corrosion rate.
b
Not used to determine composite number
88
2. Leakage
Table 25 presents the results of the leakage tests. Leakage was observed primarily
during the hot cycle. In terms of sealants, leakage was observed at joints using the LA-CO Slic-
Tite and Whitlam Unyte sealants, but not at joints with the Whitlam Blue, or Teflon tape. There
was one incidence of small leakage at a joint sealed with Locktite PST-567. No leakage was
observed at either of the two flanges. Most of the observed leaks, with the exception of urea and
to some extent potassium acetate, were small and were not active, but rather produced a small
amount of gummy substance resembling tree sap.
Since the majority of the joints did not leak with any anti-freeze, it can be assumed
that a system could be designed and constructed such that any of the anti-freezes could be used.
However, the risk of a system leaking would be greatest with urea and CMA, moderate with
propylene glycol and potassium acetate, and least with ethanol and methanol. Table 26 indicates
that methanol presents little or no potential for leakage, and a value of 3 is assigned; ethanol and
propylene glycol show minor potential for leakage, and a value of 2 is assigned. Potassium
acetate, CMA, and urea demonstrate major potential for leakage, and a value of 1 is assigned.
Potassium acetate did not leak significantly at joints; only three minor leaks were
observed at threaded joints. The other leakage was at SWAGELOK joints or where polyethylene
pipe was mechanically joined to metal connectors. However, experience in commercial building
applications where quality of parts and labor can vary widely has indicated that major leakage is
possible. In some cases, this has resulted in litigation. It is apparent that the parts and joining
procedures are as critical, or perhaps even more critical, to a leak-free installation as are the anti-
freeze fluids themselves. While the choice of anti-freeze fluids can minimize potential leakage,
high-quality parts and good installation practices may ensure that a range of fluids can be used in
many applications.
89
TABLE 25. LEAKAGE RESULTS.
Anti-Freeze Temperature Type of Joint Sealant Description

Methanol No leak No Leak
Ethanol Cold Plastic Valve None Very small leak at top
of plastic valve
Propylene Glycol Hot Thread (15) LA-CO Small leak
Thread (26) Unyte Very small leak
Potassium Hot SWAGELOKa None Moderate
Acetate Plastic valve (8) LA-CO Minor
Hose ends (6-7) None Leakage where hose
fastened to connector
Thread (12) Unyte Minor
Thread (15) LA-CO Minor
CMA Hot Thread (12) Unyte Small, solid, gummy
Thread (14) Unyte Small, solid, gummy
Union (15-16) None Small, solid, gummy
Thread (26) Unyte Small, solid, gummy
Urea Hot SWAGELOKb None Massive
Hose ends (6-7) None Massive
Thread (6) 567 Small
Thread (8) LA-CO Small
Thread (12) Unyte Medium
Thread (14) Unyte Small
Thread (15) LA-CO Small
a
Tightening eliminated leakage.
b
Tightening did not eliminate leakage; most SWAGELOK joints leaked.
TABLE 26. LEAKAGE HAZARD INDEX.

Acetate Glycol
90
SECTION IV
HEALTH HAZARD ASSESSMENT
One of the criteria by which the selection of anti-freeze fluids is judged is the potential
toxicity to humans and animals. All materials may be toxic under certain circumstances; even
water itself has a degree of risk associated with its use. Therefore, no anti-freeze can be
considered completely safe, and precautions must be followed during the installation and use of
any anti-freeze solution. This section analyzes the risks to installers and building occupants of
using each of the anti-freezes.
A. LEAKAGE AND SPILLAGE SCENARIOS
During the course of installation, flushing, and operation, the risk of spillage or leakage
exists. While proper equipment, techniques, and operating procedures can reduce this risk
significantly, some will always be present. There are two types of exposure of workers to the
anti-freeze solutions which could result in toxicity. First, short-term acute exposure to the full-
strength or diluted anti-freeze solutions can occur during the filling and flushing of the system. It
could also involve leakage during operation, at which time building occupants could be exposed
to the diluted solution. Second, long-term subchronic or chronic exposure can occur in two
ways: (1) to workers involved with filling or repairing loops, who are exposed to low levels of
anti-freeze but on a regular basis, or (2) to the building occupants or maintenance personnel
should leakage occur over a long period of time. This latter scenario would most likely involve
small leakage of the diluted solution since a large leak would be detected and the system shut
down rapidly. It was reported by manufacturers of residential systems that the loss of as little as
two cups of anti-freeze would lower the loop pressure to ambient, thus tripping the system’s low
pressure sensor and turning off the circulation pump, preventing additional leakage. Therefore,
chronic exposure of building occupants to low levels of anti-freeze solutions as described in (2)
above was not considered during this study. However, the continual exposure of installers
remains a risk. Commercial systems, which may contain significantly more anti-freeze and not
have a low-pressure shut-off, pose different threats. These are discussed in Appendix C.
91
Scenarios have been developed for the most likely leakage and spillage risks associated
with GSHPs. The term “spillage” will refer to release of either full-strength or diluted anti-freeze
solution during filling or flushing, while leakage will refer to release of dilute anti-freeze fluid
during operation.
The contents of a single ground loop and the header could be leaked due to a failure at the
bottom of a loop. Likewise, the contents of the heat pump heat exchanger could also be leaked.
However, the risk of a leak of the entire contents of the system is highly unlikely. The typical
residential installation has been assumed to be a 3-ton unit with three 76.2-m (250-ft) vertical
loops in 38.1 m (125 ft) bores or the equivalent horizontal piping (457.2 m [1500 ft]) and a heat
pump in a basement or utility room with short runs of piping connecting the loop, heat pump, and
pumping module (or pump and valves). The volume of the header is not considered. This report
focuses on residential applications; commercial installations have several differences that should
be noted (Appendix C).
1. Filling and Flushing
The greatest risk of accidental release of anti-freeze fluid is believed to occur during
the filling and flushing operation. Risk associated with the shipping and handling of the full-
strength anti-freeze prior to delivery to the site will not be analyzed. This analysis will involve
risk after the full-strength or dilute anti-freeze fluid is off-loaded from the vehicle delivering it on
site. As a worst case, a full container of full-strength anti-freeze fluid (208-liter [55-gallon] drum
maximum) could be spilled outside or inside the equipment room. It is recommended, based on
the fire safety hazard analysis in Section V, that any anti-freeze flammable at full-strength not be
added in an enclosed space. Therefore, leakage Scenario 1 has been determined to be the leak of
208 liters (55 gallons) of full-strength anti-freeze on the ground, and leakage Scenario 2 to be the
leak of 208 liters (55 gallons) of dilute anti-freeze on the ground. Both scenarios involve
potential contamination of soil and surface water, but pose relatively small risk of contaminating
groundwater.
Loops are normally hydrostatically pressure checked prior to addition of the anti-
freeze, which should reduce the risk of anti-freeze leakage from the loop itself. However, the
contents of an individual loop could leak if the loop breaks at the bottom of the loop and anti-
92
freeze flows by gravity out the breach. Therefore, by estimating individual loops at 152.4-m
(500-foot) lengths of 2.54 cm (1 in) pipe, the amount of anti-freeze in a loop would be 70.8 liter
(18.7 gallons) (Table 6.2 in Reference 12). The 2.54-cm (1-in) pipe was chosen as a worst case;
1.9 cm (3/4-in) is more typical. The concentration of anti-freeze would vary from 18 to
28 percent for the -9.4 ºC (15 °F) freeze protection. Leakage Scenario 3 would then be a leak of
70.8 liters (18.7 gallons) of diluted anti-freeze fluid or 4.7 (17.8 liters) of full-strength anti-freeze
fluid from the bottom of a 76.2-m (250-foot) loop. From the table in Reference 12, leakage
Scenario 4 is the leakage of the contents of 457.2-m (1500-foot) lengths of 2.54 cm (1 in) pipe, or
approximately 212.0 liters (55 gallons) of dilute anti-freeze fluid, or 53.0 liters (14 gallons) of
full-strength anti-freeze fluid, based on a 25 percent concentration. Scenario 3 could involve
contamination of aquifers due to the depth of the installation, while Scenario 4 could involve soil
and surface water contamination.
2. Operation
Since the low-pressure switch on the heat pump will shut off the circulation pump
in a residential system, leakage from a vertical loop would be the volume in that individual loop
plus the header. A leak at the bottom of a vertical loop would release the amount of anti-freeze
fluid in the loop and would be leakage Scenario 3, and the loss of a horizontal loop, due perhaps
to being cut, would be leakage Scenario 4. To account for leakage at the heat pump itself, it is
assumed that a maximum of 2 gallons (7.6 liters) of diluted anti-freeze fluid could leak into the
equipment room if a leak occurs at the heat pump (leakage Scenario 5). Table 27 provides a
description of the scenarios.
B. TOXICITY
The term “toxicity” simply refers to any adverse (destructive or harmful) effect of
chemical or physical agents on biological systems (Reference 13). These adverse effects may
impact any life system, and toxicants (the toxic materials) may enter the body through one or
more of the following routes: inhalation (lungs); ingestion (by mouth); intravenous (by injection
into the vein); subcutaneous (under the skin); dermal (on the skin); and in the eyes. The most
93
TABLE 27. LEAKAGE SCENARIOS.
Leakage Description Dilute Anti- Full-strength Anti-

Scenario Freeze Leakage, Freeze Leakage in
gallons (liters) gallons (l), Average
25% concentration
1 Leakage of full container of full- 55 (208.2)
strength anti-freeze
2 Leakage of full container of diluted 55 (208.2) 13.8 (52.0)
anti-freeze
3 Leakage of single 250 ft 1-in 18.7 (70.8) 4.7 (17.7)
diameter vertical loopa
4 Leakage of 1500 ft 1-in diameter 55 (208.2) 13.8 (52.0)
horizontal loop
5 Leak at heat pump 2 (7.6) 0.5 (1.9)
a
Potential contamination of aquifer
likely exposure routes for anti-freeze fluids would be inhalation (inh); ingestion (oral); and
dermal (skn). Intravenous (inv) and subcutaneous (scu) routes, while possible but not likely, will
also be considered. Eye damage will be considered qualitatively.
Many different measures of the toxicity exist; however, few relate directly to humans.
Most toxicity testing is performed on small mammals such as rats and mice, and results are
reported for those species. How well these results relate to human exposure is an issue of
continual debate, but since these values are for the most part the only ones available, they will be
used for the purposes of the analysis of anti-freeze toxicity on humans. Several commonly used
measures of toxicity are shown in Table 28.
The main source of toxicity data for this project was Dangerous Properties of Industrial
Materials, by Sax and Lewis (Reference 14). This reference is fully documented and for the
most part agrees with data found in the MSDSs and elsewhere. If there are multiple values, the
lowest values available are presented here. Other sources were cited only when there were no
94
TABLE 28. MEASURES OF TOXICITY.
Measure Definition Units

LC50 Median lethal concentration - the concentration mg/m3 or ppm
determined to be fatal to 50% of a test population
LCLO Lowest lethal concentration - the lowest concentration at mg/m3 or ppm
which fatalities were observed
LD50 Median lethal dose - the dose determined to be fatal to mg/kga
50% of a test population
LDLO Lowest lethal dose - the lowest dose at which fatalities mg/kga
were observed
TCLO Lowest published toxic concentration mg/m3 or ppm
TDLO Lowest published toxic dose mg/kg
a
mg of material per kg of subject body weight
entries in Reference 14 (for example, CMA was not included in this volume). Table 29 provides
toxicity data for the six anti-freezes plus ethylene glycol.
Inhalation data is often presented in one of two concentration units: parts per million (by
volume) in the air or in mg/m3. Both values are presented.
1. Acute Effects
Acute exposure is considered a single or multiple oral administration of a chemical

within 24 hours or less; a single or multiple dermal exposure for 24 hours or less; or single
uninterrupted exposure to an inhalable chemical for 24 hours or less. Most inhalation data
provide the test duration as part of the results.
a. Ingestion
Accidental ingestion of large amounts of anti-freeze fluids is not a likely

exposure route. Small amounts could be ingested coincidentally due to residue on hands as a part
of filling and flushing a system. Note that two toxicity values are provided for humans: the LD50
and the LDLO. Using the rat LD50 and LDLO values in Table 29, and extrapolating the value to
95
TABLE 29. ANTI-FREEZE TOXICITY.
Route Species Measure Units Methanol Ethanola Propylene Potassium CMA Urea Ethylene Ref.
Glycol Acetate Glycol No.
oral rat LD50 mg/kg 5628 7060 20,000 3250 14,300 4700 14
LD50 mg/kg 3150 15
human LDLO mg/kg 143 1400 398 14
TDLO mg/kg 1.43 14
b
scu rat LD50 mg/kg 22,500 8200 2800 14
mouse LD50 mg/kg 9800 17,370 14
b
inh rat LC50 ppm 64000 20,000 14
(4 hrs) (10 hrs)
LC50 mg/m3 4.6 16
LC50 mg/m3 >5000 15
human TCLO mg/m3 10,000 14
TCLO ppm 300 14
ivnb rat LD50 mg/kg 2131 1440 6800 5300 3260 14
sknb rabbit LD50 mg/kg 15,800 20,800 9530 14
LD50 mg/kg >5000 17
a
Pure ethanol; test material was 92.14% ethanol, 7.56% water, and less than 0.2% other ingredients.
b
Subcutaneous (scu); inhalation (inh); intravenous (inv); skin (skn).
humans, Table 30 displays the amount of anti-freeze needed to cause death in 50 percent of the
exposed workers (LD50) and the lowest amount reported causing death (LCLO) for a 70-kg
(150-lb) installer.
TABLE 30. ACUTE TOXIC AMOUNTS OF ANTI-FREEZE (INGESTION).a
Anti-Freeze LD50 Median LDLO Minimum Reference Daily Limit-

(mg/kg)b Toxic Dose (mg/kg) Toxic Doseb Dose (RfD) based RfD
(kg) (kg) mg/kg/day (kg/day)
(Ref. 18)
Methanol 5628 0.393 143 0.01 0.5 0.000035
Ethanol 7060 0.494 1400 0.1 50 0.0035
Propylene 20,000 1.40 b b 20 0.0014
Glycol
Potassium 3250 0.228 b b b b
Acetate
CMA 3150 0.221 b b b b
Urea 14,300 1.00 b b b b
Ethylene 4700 0.329 398 0.028 2 0.00014
Glycol
a
Data from Reference 14 unless otherwise noted.
b
No data available.
Many of these fluids may also have cumulative toxic effects. A reference
dose (RfD) has been established by the EPA to estimate the daily exposure for the human
population that is likely not to cause an appreciable risk of deleterious effects during a lifetime
(Reference 18). Table 30 also includes RfDs for the organic materials (ethanol is estimated) and
provides the daily limit in kg for the 70-kg (150-lb) installer. As can be seen, the daily limits
based on the RfDs are far lower than either the median toxic dose or minimum toxic dose,
reflecting the potential cumulative effects of the anti-freezes.
97
Table 30 indicates that if rat data can be extrapolated to humans, 50 percent
of 150-lb humans would die who ingest 0.393 kg (0.71 lb or 0.10 gallons) of methanol. Based on
human data, the lowest toxic dose reported was 0.01 kg (0.02 lb or 0.003 gallons) of methanol.
Table 31 provides data on the hazards of ingestion due to each of the anti-freezes.
b. Inhalation
Inhalation is a potential route of exposure to workers who continually handle

anti-freezes. It is most likely to occur in areas poorly ventilated or in handling facilities. Limits
are set by the EPA and other organizations to guide the maximum concentration of anti-freeze
allowed in the air. These limits are described fully under Section C, Occupational Exposure
Levels. Table 32 shows the acute toxic amounts for inhalation. However, these values are harder
to interpret as they are given in two different values: volume percent in air or mg/m3. These two
values are not easily convertible to each other nor are they easy to interpret as the oral dosages,
and it is impossible to determine a “lethal dosage or concentration” for a 150-lb worker. In this
case, it is more definitive to use the occupational exposure levels (OELs) described in the next
section rather than an absolute number. Table 33 provides inhalation health hazards.
c. Intravenous
The intravenous route of exposure is not likely for anti-freezes.
Table 34 presents toxic amounts of anti-freeze introduced intravenously.

Rather large amounts of anti-freeze would have to be injected into the worker to cause toxic
effects. The median toxic dose is based on a 150-lb (70-kg) installer.
d. Skin
Limited data are available on the effects of skin contact. The amount of
anti-freeze required to cause death is large. The median toxic dose is based on a 70 kg (150 lb)
worker (Table 35). It is highly unlikely that skin contact could cause harmful or long-term
98
TABLE 31. HEALTH HAZARD DATA (INGESTION).
Anti-freeze Information Ref. No.

Methanol Swallowing concentrated chemical may cause severe 19
internal injuries. Narcotic effect. Respiratory failure,
death, nausea, vomiting, headache, behavioral
changes, tremors, convulsions.
Ethanol Can cause depression of central nervous system, 20
nausea, vomiting.
Propylene Glycol Single oral dose toxicity is low. The oral LD50 for 21, 22
rats is about 21 - 33.7 g/kg. No hazards anticipated
from swallowing small amounts incidental to normal
handling operations. There have been no fatalities
related to propylene glycol ingestion.
Potassium If swallowed, this substance is considered practically 23
Acetate non-toxic to internal organs. Ingestion may cause
irritation of the digestive tract, which may result in
nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea.
CMA If swallowed, this substance is considered practically 15
non-toxic to internal organs.
Urea A single dose of 100 g has reportedly caused mild 24, 25
symptoms of central nervous system depression, e.g.,
drowsiness, slow reflexes, slurred speech. Its most
frequent adverse effects are headache, nausea, and
vomiting.
Ethylene Glycol Single dose oral toxicity is moderate. Excessive 21, 26
exposure may cause central nervous system effects,
cardiopulmonary effects (metabolic acidosis), and
kidney failure. Small amounts swallowed
incidentally to normal handling operations are not
likely to cause injury; however, swallowing amounts
larger than that may cause serious injury, even death.
Single dose toxicity is expected to be moderate to
humans even though tests with animals show a lower
degree of toxicity. There have been 5 and 6 fatalities
related to ethylene glycol ingestion for 1989 and
1990, respectively.
99
TABLE 32. ACUTE TOXIC AMOUNTS OF ANTI-FREEZE (INHALATION).a
Anti-freeze LC50 TCLO

Methanol 6.4% (4 hrs) b
Ethanol 2.0% (4 hrs) b
Propylene Glycol 4.6 mg/m3 (Ref. 15) b
Potassium Acetate b b
CMA >5000 mg/m3 (Ref. 15) b
Urea b b
Ethylene Glycol b 10,000 mg/ m3 (0.39%) - human
a
Data from Reference 14
b
No data available
TABLE 33. HEALTH HAZARD DATA (INHALATION).a
Anti-freeze Information Reference

Methanol Gas or vapor is harmful on prolonged exposure or 19, 27
in high concentrations. It can cause headaches,
nausea, vomiting, and dizziness. Exposure can
cause blindness and liver damage, and even death.
Ethanol Exposure to over 1000 ppm may cause headache, 20
drowsiness and lassitude, loss of appetite, and
inability to concentrate. Irritant to throat.
Propylene Glycol A prolonged (hours) inhalation exposure is not 21
likely to cause adverse effects.
Potassium Acetate This material is not expected to be an immediate 23
inhalation hazard.
CMA If inhaled, this product is considered practically 15
nontoxic to internal organs.
Urea No incidents of dust inhalation effects have been 24, 25
reported. Excessive inhalation of urea dust may
cause irritation and coughing.
Ethylene Glycol At room temperature, vapors are minimal due to 26
low vapor pressure. If material is heated or mist is
produced, concentrations may be attained that are
sufficient to cause irritation and other effects.
100
TABLE 34. ACUTE TOXIC AMOUNTS OF ANTI-FREEZE (INTRAVENOUS).a
Anti-freeze LD50 Median Toxic Dose

(mg/kg) (kg)
Methanol 2131 0.150
Ethanol 1440 0.1008
Propylene Glycol 6800 0.476
Potassium Acetate b b
CMA b b
Urea 5300 0.371
Ethylene Glycol 3260 0.228
a
b
No data available.
TABLE 35. ACUTE TOXIC AMOUNTS OF ANTI-FREEZE (SKIN).a
Anti-freeze LD50b Median Toxic Dose

(mg/kg) (kg)c
Methanol 15,800 1.106
Ethanol d d
Propylene Glycol 20,800 1.456
Potassium Acetate d d
CMA >5000 (Ref. 16) >0.350
Urea d d
Ethylene Glycol 9530 0.667
a
Data from Reference 14 unless otherwise noted
b
Skin tests performed on rabbits
c
Based on 150-lb (70 kg) installer
d
No data available
101
effects. Local irritation or skin drying are more likely effects. A subjective evaluation of skin
(dermal) contact is shown in Table 36.
TABLE 36. HEALTH HAZARD DATA (SKIN).

Methanol May cause skin/eye irritation. Toxic through skin 19
absorption.
Ethanol May cause irritation and defatting of skin on 20
prolonged contact.
Propylene Glycol Prolonged contact is essentially non-irritating to 21
skin. A single prolonged exposure is not likely to
result in the material being absorbed through the skin
in harmful amounts. The LD50 for skin absorption in
rabbits is greater than 10,000 mg/kg. Repeated
exposures may cause slight flaking, tenderness, and
softening of the skin.
Potassium Acetate This substance is not expected to cause prolonged or 23
significant skin irritation.
CMA This substance is not expected to cause prolonged or 15
significant skin irritation.
Urea Irritant. Wash with mild soap and water. Get 24, 25
prompt medical attention if irritation persists.
Ethylene Glycol Prolonged or repeated exposure may cause slight 26
skin irritation. May cause more severe response if
the skin is abraded. Repeated skin exposure to large
quantities may result in absorption of harmful
amounts.
e. Eyes
Eye damage may be caused by some of these fluids. Note that contact lenses
should not be worn when handling methanol or urea. Table 37 provides data from the MSDS on
the effects of the anti-freezes on eyes.
102
2. Chronic and Subchronic Effects
Other potential effects of anti-freezes are more long-term than those above—
subchronic if exposure is 10 percent or less of the lifetime or chronic if exposure is over
80 percent of the lifetime of the test animal. Humans must be considered as chronically exposed
if they are repeatedly or seasonally exposed. Therefore, workers who spend the majority of their
time installing ground loops may be considered chronically exposed, although they may spend
only a small portion of their time actually handling anti-freezes. It has already been reported
above that exposure of occupants to low levels of anti-freezes was highly unlikely; the effects
noted here would be most likely to affect personnel such as installation contractors, who are in
constant contact with the fluids. Several long-term effects observed experimentally in animals
exposed to the anti-freeze fluids include the following:
(1) Teratogen—Any substance that causes the production of defects in the

reproductive process. These defects may include fetal fatality or physical, mental, behavioral, or
developmental defects.
(2) Mutagen—Any substance capable of causing an inheritable change, produced

in the genetic information and stored in the DNA of living cells.
(3) Carcinogen—Any substance that induces neoplasms (abnormal cells) that are
not commonly seen.
Table 38 lists each of the above effects and whether they have been experimentally observed
animal tests (not human tests) in connection with each of the anti-freezes (Reference 14). The
fact that these anti-freezes are suspected of causing these health effects or that changes were seen
in laboratory animals should not infer that they are toxic to humans, only that long-term effects
may be possible. Only ethanol is currently on any list of carcinogenic materials. Also, because
anti- freezes have not been determined to cause any specific effect, one should not infer that
long-term effects may not be present with continued heavy exposure. It must be remembered
that the majority of test data have been developed for those chemicals most used; CMA has not
undergone the same degree of in-depth testing as the other chemicals.
103
TABLE 37. HEALTH HAZARD DATA (EYES).

Methanol Repeated exposure may cause chronic eye irritation. 19
May cause chemical eye burns. Contact lenses
should not be worn when handling methanol.
Ethanol Liquid or vapor may cause irritation 20
Propylene Glycol May cause slight transient (temporary) eye 21
irritation. Corneal injury is unlikely.
Potassium Acetate This substance is slightly irritating to the eyes and 23
could cause prolonged (days) impairment of your
vision. The degree of injury will depend on the
amount of material that gets in the eye and the speed
and thoroughness of the first aid treatment. Signs
and symptoms may include pain, tears, swelling,
redness, and blurred vision.
CMA This substance is not likely to cause prolonged or 15
significant eye irritation.
Urea Promptly flush eyes with water. Contact lenses 24, 25
should not be worn.
Ethylene Glycol May cause slight transient (temporary) eye 26
irritation. Corneal injury is unlikely.
TABLE 38. EXPERIMENTAL LONG-TERM HEALTH EFFECTS.a
Tetratogen Mutagen Carcinogen

Methanol Xa X O
Ethanol X X X
Propylene Glycol O O O
Potassium Acetate X X O
b b b
CMA
Urea O X X
Ethylene Glycol X X X
a
X - experimental data observed; O - no experimental data observed
b
No data available.
Additional information is available on some but not all of the anti-freezes
(Table 39). Note that only ethanol has been positively identified as a confirmed human
104
carcinogen; none of the other anti-freezes has appeared on any list of confirmed carcinogens.
Ethanol has been confirmed as a carcinogen only by ingestion in beverage form, it should not be
construed to present a danger when used as an anti-freeze. Although none of the anti-freezes has
been positively identified as being teratogenetic, special care should be taken by pregnant women
when exposed for extended periods during pregnancy to those anti-freezes determined potentially
teratogenic.
C. OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE LEVELS
Occupational Exposure Levels (OEL) are guidelines and standards developed by

governmental and professional organizations to protect workers exposed to chemicals during a
normal 8-hr day, 40-hr week. Common OELs are listed below.
(1) Recommended exposure limits (REL) are developed by the National Institute for
Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH).
(2) Permissible exposure limits (PEL) are established by the Occupational Safety and
Health Administration (OSHA). PELs are standards rather than guidelines and have the force of
law. PELS are expressed in terms of (1) time-weighted averages (TWA), which indicate the
average concentrations allowed within the 8-hr day/40-hr week; (2) ceiling limits (CL), which
indicate the maximum exposure for a prescribed time interval; and (3) peak limits, which
indicate the maximum instantaneous exposure allowable.
(3) Threshold limit values (TLV) are developed by the American Conference of
Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH). TLVs include TWAs (TLV-TWA) and short-
term exposure levels (TLV-STEL), which specify a short-term, time-weighted average (normally
15 min). Where significant exposure through the skin may be possible, the term “skin” is added
after the value. This would indicate the need for protective clothing and measures to prevent skin
exposure.
105
TABLE 39. HEALTH HAZARD DATA (CHRONIC).

Methanol Carcinogenicity - The ingredient of this product is not 28
classified as carcinogenic by the American
Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists
(ACGIH) or the International Agency for Research on
Cancer (IARC), not regulated as carcinogens by
Occupational Health and Safety Administration
(OSHA), and not listed as carcinogens by the NTP
(National Toxicology Program).
Reproductive Effects - No information is available and
no adverse reproductive effects are anticipated.
Mutagenicity Data - No information is available and
no adverse mutagenic effects are anticipated.
Teratogenicity Data - Methanol may cause
teratogenic/embryotoxic effects based on studies in
laboratory animals, but only at high, generally toxic
doses.
Ethanol Carcinogenicity - Ethanol has been confirmed as a 28, 29
human carcinogen for ingestion of beverage alcohol.
Reproductive Effects - No data available.
Mutagenicity Data - No data available.
Teratogenicity Data - No data available.
Propylene Glycol Cancer Information - Did not cause cancer in long- 21
term animal studies.
Teratology - Birth defects are unlikely. Exposures
having no adverse effects on the mother should have
no effect on the fetus.
Reproductive Effects - In animal studies, has not been
shown to interfere with reproduction.
Mutagenicity - Results of in-vitro mutagenicity tests
have been negative. Results of mutagenicity tests in
animals have been negative.
Potassium Carcinogenicity - No data available. 28
Acetate Reproductive Effects - No data available.
106
TABLE 39. HEALTH HAZARD DATA (CHRONIC) (CONCLUDED).

CMA Carcinogenicity - No data available. 27
Reproductive Effects - No data available.
Urea Carcinogenicity - The NTP, IARC, and OSHA do not 25
list urea as a caracinogen; however, experimental
studies on animals and humans have shown urea is a
carcinogen, neoplastigen, and mutagen. Reproductive
and fertility effects are also reported.
Ethylene Glycol Cancer Information - Did not cause cancer in long- 26
term animal studies.
Teratology - Based on animal studies, ingestion of
very large amounts of ethylene glycol appears to be
the major and possibly only route of exposure to
produce birth defects. Exposure by inhalation or skin
contact, the primary routes of occupational exposure,
had minimal or essentially no effect on the fetus.
Reproductive Effects - Ingestion of large amounts of
ethylene glycol has been shown to interfere with
reproduction in animals. Specifically, growth
retardation and decreased litter size in rats and mating
frequency in mice were observed.
Mutagenicity - In-vitro mutagenicity tests were
negative for ethylene glycol. Animal mutagenicity
studies were negative for ethylene glycol.
Other OELs include the workplace environmental exposure level guide from the
American Industrial Health Association (AIHA) and the maximum acceptable concentration
(MAC) of the American National Standards Institute (ANSI).
These limits are commonly reported in the MSDS, however, the reports are often not
clear as to whether the value is a ceiling or time-weighted average. A large number of different
exposure limits exist. For the purpose of this study, the OSHA PEL (TWA) and ACGIH TLV
(TLV-TWA and TLV-CL) have been chosen to compare the fluids (Table 40). Additional values
107
TABLE 40. EXPOSURE STANDARD AND REGULATORY LIMITS.a
Material OSHA PEL, ppm ACGIH TLV, ppm

Methanol 200 (TWA) 200 (TWA)
250 (STEL) (skin)
Ethanol 1000 (TWA) 1000 (TWA)
Propylene Glycolb None None
Potassium Acetate None None
CMA None (Ref. 15) None
Urea None None
Ethylene Glycol 50 ppm (CL) (Ref. 30) 50 ppm (vapor)
a
Data in Reference 14 unless otherwise noted.
b
AIHA Workplace Emergency Exposure Limit (WEEL) 50 ppm total; 10 mg/m3 aerosol
only.
will be presented as available. Many of these fluids or solids have not had standards or limits
established.
D. MSDS DATA
While toxicity data on these anti-freeze fluids are available in many forms, the most
accessible to the installation contractor would be the Material Data Safety Sheet (MSDS). These
sheets are generated on virtually all materials produced and are available for all fluids. A typical
MSDS may contain 12 sections as shown in Table 41; the format, order, and titles may vary from
one MSDS to another.
While each MSDS must contain this information, the amount, type, and format varies
considerably from product to product. Proprietary materials do not have to be listed as
ingredients, but simply noted in Section 9 as “proprietary materials” or “corrosion inhibitors” or
something similar. The MSDS for the anti-freeze fluid contains critical information for handling,
first aid, disposal, and community right-to-know, and should be on site during installation and
retained by the building owner for reference. Valuable data is presented in the MSDS. However,
108
TABLE 41. TYPICAL MSDS CATEGORIES.
Section Title
1. Product Information
2. First Aid Measures
3. Immediate Health Effects
4. Protective Equipment
5. Fire Fighting Measures
6. Storage, Handling, and Reactivity
7. Physical and Chemical Properties
8. Environmental Concerns, Spill Response, and Disposal
9. Exposure Standards, Regulatory Limits, and Composition
10. Regulatory Information
11. Toxicology Information
12. Additional Health Data
the data provided are insufficient to analyze each of the fluids for human toxicity. Generic
MSDSs for the six anti-freeze fluids in this study are provided in Appendix D.
E. RISK ASSESSMENT
None of the assessed anti-freezes is considered a highly dangerous chemical. Properly

handled, each can be used safely in a GSHP system with little risk to installers or building
occupants. However, this should not imply that proper precautions, including proper ventilation
(or respirators, if required), clothing, and hygiene should not be followed. For the most part,
these proper procedures are described in the MSDS for each anti-freeze.
The analyses conducted are for the anti-freeze fluids and not for most additives. The only
additive positively identified, dipotassium phosphate (in DOWFROST HD), is present in
extremely small amounts and appears to be extremely benign. The additives used to denature
ethanol have not been considered; these are also present in extremely small amounts.
109
Fairly complete toxicity data are available on methanol, ethanol, propylene glycol, and
urea; less data are available on potassium acetate and CMA. Acute risks, including ingestion,
inhalation, and skin and eye contact have been fairly well defined, even if by animal tests.
Coincidental aperiodic contact should cause minor transitory effects, at worst. Even the most
toxic chemical by ingestion, methanol, would require a 70-kg (150-lb) installer to ingest 0.393 kg
(almost 0.9 lbs) to cause a fatality, based on the LD50, although the minimum toxic dose
measured is lower (0.01 kg or 0.22 lbs). However, at lower levels, methanol can also cause
blindness and death due to ingestion or inhalation.
Chronic and subchronic effects are also not considered to be critical for any of the anti-
freezes. It is ironic that the only anti-freeze confirmed to be a human carcinogen is ethanol, a
chemical commonly consumed by a large portion of the population. However, while no other
anti-freeze has been confirmed to cause chronic effects in humans, several are suspected of
causing long-term health effects in animals. Care must be taken in using any of these anti-
freezes on a long-term basis, especially by pregnant or potentially pregnant women.
1. Health Risk Index
In an attempt to determine a single value to place in the acceptance matrix, the

following three categories have been identified to describe the health risk of using each of the
anti-freezes. Ingestion describes the risk that ingestion could cause death or disability.
Inhalation describes the risk that inhalation, either for a short or long time period, could cause
harm to humans. It takes into consideration the OEL limits described in Table 40. The final
category is chronic effects, which considers not only whether the anti-freeze has shown
confirmed effects on humans, but also if there have been experimental determinations made on
animals. Table 42 assesses the health risk. A value of 3 indicates little potential for health risk, a
value of 2 indicates minor potential for health risk, and a value of 1 indicates that factors exist
which could present a health risk for this fluid.
110
TABLE 42. HEALTH HAZARD INDEX.

Acetate Glycol
Ingestion H L L L L L
Inhalation H L L M L L
Chronic Effects L M L M a M
a
No data available.
111
SECTION V
FIRE HAZARD ASSESSMENT
A. INTRODUCTION
A major concern for all anti-freeze fluids is the potential for flammability, that is, whether
these fluids could be ignited if they leaked and an adequate ignition source was present. All of
the anti-freeze fluids meet the criteria of being a liquid, meaning that the fluids have vapor
pressures of less than 40 psia at 37.8 ºC (100 °F) (Reference 31). Urea and possibly CMA may
be shipped as prills or crystals. The National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 321, Standard
on Basic Classification of Flammable and Combustible Liquids (Reference 32), and NFPA 30,
Flammable and Combustible Liquids Code (Reference 33) define the basic system for classifying
liquids. Two broad categories exist: flammable liquids, which have flash points (see next section
for definition of flash point) below 37.8 ºC (100 °F), and combustible liquids, which have flash
points of 37.8 ºC (100 °F) or higher. These two groups are further subdivided (Table 43).
TABLE 43. CLASSIFICATION OF FLAMMABLE AND COMBUSTIBLE LIQUIDS.
Classification Flash Point, °C (°F) Boiling Point, °C (°F)

IA Below 22.8 (73) Below 37.8 (100)
IB Below 22.8 (73) 37.8 (100) and above
IC 22.8 to 37.8 (73 to 100) 37.8 (100) and above
II 37.8 to 60.0 (100 to140) 37.8 (100) and above
IIIA 60.0 to 93.3 (140 to 200) 37.8 (100) and above
IIIB 93.3 (200) and higher 37.8 (100) and above
This definition is also included in the Uniform Fire Code (Reference 34), which is
incorporated into many of the building codes used throughout the nation. The Council of
American Building Officials (CABO) One and Two Family Dwelling Code (Reference 35)
references the Uniform Fire Code. Several other building code organizations, including the
112
International Conference of Building Officials, the Building Officials Code Administrators, and
the Southern Building Code Congress International, which have jurisdiction over most of the
U.S., follow the CABO Code. Therefore, the NFPA definitions of flammability and
combustibility are accepted in most jurisdictions, and these definitions will be used throughout
this report.
The Department of Transportation (DOT) has adopted the definition of a flammable

liquid as having a flash point that does not exceed 60.6 °C (141 °F) (Reference 31). DOT does
not regulate the shipment of any Class IIIB material that does not meet any other definition for a
hazardous material. The U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), as stated
in Title 29 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 1910, does not regulate Class IIIB liquids
whose only hazard is combustibility. The NFPA does, however, regulate this class of liquids.
For consumer products, the Federal Hazardous Substances Act (Title 16, Code of Federal
Regulations, part 1500.43a) uses the words “Danger. Extremely Flammable” to mean that the
flash point is -6.7 °C (20 °F) or lower, “Warning. Flammable” to mean a flash point in the -6.7
to 37.8 °C (20 to 100 °F) range, and “Caution. Combustible” to mean a flash point in the -6.7 to
65.6 °C (100 to 150 °F) range.
B. FLASH POINTS
Liquids themselves do not burn. Rather, the vapors given off as the temperature of the
liquid is raised will ignite. The flash point of the liquid occurs when the temperature of the
liquid is sufficient to give off vapor in a concentration to form an ignitable mixture with the air
near the surface of the liquid. The vapors will flash, but they may not continue to burn. The
flash point is nonetheless the measure of flammability used to classify liquids.
Flash points are measured using standards developed by the American Society for Testing
and Materials (ASTM). These standards may involve open cup (o.c.) or closed cup (c.c.)
techniques depending on whether the apparatus is enclosed. NFPA calls out for four separate
closed cup ASTM test techniques depending on the viscosity of the liquids and the flash points.
Many of the flash point values for the fluids of interest are presented as open cup results. In
general, closed cup flash points are several degrees lower than open cup flash points. Flash
113
points will be presented for the pure materials, the -9.4 °C (15 °F) freeze-protected fluid
concentrations, and the -12.2 °C (10 °F) over-protected concentrations (from the standpoint of
freezing) and the -3.9 °C (25 °F) underprotected concentrations (Table 44).
TABLE 44. FLASH POINTS.
Fluid CC Flash CC Flash CC Flash CC Flash Point, References

Point, Point, °C (°F), Point, °C (°F),
°C (°F), 10 °F Fluida °C (°F), 25 °F Fluida
Pure Fluid 15 °F Fluida
Methanol 12.2 (54) 40 (104)b 41 (105.8)b 43 (109.4)b c
Ethanol 12.8 (55) 33.3 (92)b 34.1 (93.4)b 38.9 (102)b 36
Propylene 98.9 (210) None None None 37
Glycol
Urea None None None None 38
CMA None None None None 16
Potassium None None None None 39
Acetate
Ethylene 111.1 (232) None None None 40
Glycol
a
Freeze point
b
20 percent concentrations of methanol and ethanol were not flammable in NMERI tests.
c
Personal Communication, Methanex Corporations, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
C. DISCUSSION
Urea, CMA, and potassium acetate are non-flammable in all concentrations, so

flammability does not have to be considered when installations use these fluids as anti-freezes.
Propylene glycol has a high flash point and is less dangerous than methanol or ethanol. Pure
methanol, with a c.c. flash point of 12.2 °C (54 °F) and a boiling point of 64.96 °C (148.9 °F)
(Reference 41), and pure ethanol, with a c.c. flash point of 12.8 °C (55 °F) and a boiling point of
78.5 °C (173.3 °F) (Reference 41), fall into NFPA Class IB. These two anti-freeze fluids also are
classified as flammable liquids by the DOT. Methanol and ethanol are only flammable within
114
their flammability limits, which are 6.72 to 36.5 percent by volume concentration in air for
methanol and 3.28 to 18.92 percent by volume in air for ethanol (Reference 41). This means that
should the vapors build up within those limits in an enclosed space, a potentially explosive
environment would occur, and a suitable ignition source could cause the mixture to explode.
Attempts were made in the NMERI laboratory to ignite 20 percent solutions of both
ethanol and methanol. While cotton swabs dipped in pure ethanol and methanol easily ignited
with an “Aim and Flame” butane lighter at room temperature, the 20 percent solutions did not
ignite even when raised to 60 °C (140 °F). While these tests are not a positive assurance that
20 percent ethanol and methanol solutions could not be flammable under certain conditions, they
provide some indication that either of the dilute anti-freeze fluids could be safely used when
diluted at the operational concentrations and when proper safety precautions are observed.
D. RISK ANALYSIS
Because of their extreme fire risk, pure methanol and ethanol should never be used to
charge a GSHP system with the flush cart and other equipment in an enclosed space. It is highly
recommended that only dilute methanol or ethanol anti-freeze be added to a system. If pure
methanol or ethanol are used to charge a system, the flush cart must be outside and extreme care
must be taken around hot surfaces or electrical appliances.
Methanol and ethanol have been assigned a value of 1 to indicate the flammability of the
the pure fluids. When diluted anti-freeze solutions are added to the system, the value would be 3,
little potential for fire. Urea, CMA, and potassium acetate have been rated 3. Propylene glycol
has also been rated 3, but a flash point of 98.9 ºC (210 ºF) requires that special precautions must
be taken with the pure fluids in situations where high temperatures, such as might be experienced
with an open flame or welding torch, are present.
Although the anti-freezes themselves may be non-flammable, the danger of shorting

electrical equipment nonetheless exists, as would occur with water alone. It is recommended that
a 10-lb or larger dry chemical fire extinguisher be present on all sites where anti-freeze is being
added.
115
TABLE 45. FIRE HAZARD INDEX.

acetate glycol
Composite 1a 3 3 1a 3 3
a
Pure fluids only. Diluted anti-freeze is rated 3.
116
SECTION VI
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
One of the advantages of the GSHP is that it reduces the total electric power load, relative
to compressor-driven air conditioning systems, especially during the summer months where extra
generating power must often be brought on line to meet demand exacerbated by the use of air-
conditioning systems. However, the anti-freeze solutions used may affect system energy use and
the associated power plant emissions. Energy use and emissions were evaluated for the six anti-
freeze solutions.
Environmental damage can also result from the leakage or spillage of anti-freeze into soil,
either directly or from storm or defective sanitary sewage systems into surface water or into
groundwater (aquifers). If the fluid is toxic and non-biodegradable, water contamination may
occur and the amounts may continue to build up. On the other hand, if the fluid is biodegradable,
that is, it reacts with oxygen to decompose rapidly, oxygen required to support aquatic life may
be removed from the water, causing fish or algae kills. An analysis of the capability of the anti-
freezes to deplete the oxygen in surface and ground waters was performed.
There are many federal, state, and occupational organization lists which identify
chemicals for which certain actions are required (for example, notification of spills over a
threshold level) or set maximum exposure limits for the chemicals. These listings identify which
chemicals have been determined to be carcinogenic, pollute water, or in other ways present a
danger to humans and the environment. Inclusion on these lists indicate that a determination has
been made that the chemicals must be handled with greater care than other chemicals. A
representative group of these lists is included in this report to identify those anti-freezes
determined to pose some degree of threat to health and the environment.
A. EMISSIONS
Electric generation plant emissions as a result of the use of heat pump systems containing
all six anti-freeze fluids for the period 1995 to 2015 were estimated. In order to obtain the
117
annual emissions due to electrical energy use of GSHP systems, the number of installed units was
projected and emission factors for CO2, SO2, NOx and mercury were obtained. Then the annual
energy use by a specific GSHP system, namely the one modeled in Section II, was evaluated for
all six fluids. Finally, the emissions associated with this power generation were estimated.
First, an estimate of the number of GSHP units installed in 1995 was obtained, and the
number of units projected to be sold on an annual basis until the year 2015 was estimated.
Projections from Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory of “Energy Star” devices, including the
number of geothermal heat pumps, were used for the period from 1995 to the year 2010
(Reference 42). To obtain projections to the year 2015, a curve fit was constructed using the data
from Lawrence Berkeley and extended to 2015. Assuming that 75 percent of the units have some
kind of freeze protection, the resulting projections were multiplied by 0.75. The results of the
projections of GSHP sales and installations are presented in Table 46. The number of installed
units is cumulative.
TABLE 46. PROJECTED NUMBER OF UNITS INSTALLED AND SOLD.
No. of YEAR
Units 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015
Installed 2.5E 4.35E 7.80E 1.35E 2.16E 3.01E 3.92E 4.89E 5.93E 7.05E 8.23E
+05 +05 +05 +06 +06 +06 +06 +06 +06 +06 +06
Sold 5.00E 1.9E 3.45E 5.7E 8.1E 8.5E 9.1E 9.7E 1.0E 1.1E 1.2E
+04 +05 +05 +05 +05 +05 +05 +05 +06 +06 +06
Note: Assuming 200,000 existing units.
Emission factors were estimated using data supplied by the Energy Information
Administration (EIA) (Reference 43). The EIA, using the 1994 Utility and Nonutility reports
(EIA-860 [Reference 44], EIA-867 [Reference 45] respectively) in conjunction with the AEO96
National Energy Modeling System, projected utility and nonutility electrical generation along
with annual emissions of CO2, SO2 and NOx to the year 2015. Annual emission factors for each
pollutant were obtained by dividing total emissions for a year by the total utility and nonutility
generation for each year. The emission factors presented were averaged over the study period of
1995 to 2015. A constant emission factor for mercury was found directly from a report by Chu,
118
Nott and Chow (Reference 46) for electric generation using data for only coal fired plants for the
year 1992. The average emission factors over the life of the study are 1.099 lbm/kWh for CO2,
0.00474 lbm/kWh for SO2, 0.0037 lbm/kWh for NOx, and 2.047E-08 lbm/kWh for mercury.
Once emission factors were determined, the number of installed GSHP units was multiplied by
the annual energy use and the emission factor for each pollutant to evaluate the annual emissions
due to GSHP.
The annual energy use for the base case (case 2) was used for each of the anti-freeze
fluids. Of course, the fluid that had the lowest annual energy use also had the least emissions.
This is illustrated by the results in Figure 32 through Figure 35 for three fluids that span the
ranges of values obtained. Methanol has the lowest emissions of the six fluids and propylene
glycol has the highest, with potassium acetate representing an intermediate fluid. Since the
energy use did not differ widely between the fluids, neither did the emissions. For example,
there was only a 4.3 percent difference between methanol and propylene glycol.
The reason that the SO2 curve is not as smooth as the other three is attributable to the
projected data for SO2 emissions. An interesting observation is that the longer the time for which
the emissions are forecast, the greater the spread in the emissions for the different fluids. As an
example, for the years 1995 and 1996, the emissions for the different fluids essentially lie on top
of one another. For the years 2001 and beyond, the differences in the emissions for the six fluids
continue to grow.
Along with other uncertainties, projections for emissions are subject to implementation of
existing regulations, as for SO2, or imposition of additional regulations, anticipated for NOx and
mercury. Hence, these projections are quite speculative.
B. WATER POLLUTION
There is minimal risk of polluting surface water from accidental spillage or leakage of the
full-strength or diluted anti-freeze due to installation techniques and location of the systems (lake
loops pose a different problem). The risk to groundwater and aquifer pollution is also small, but
since groundwater provides domestic water for over 50 percent of the population of the U.S.
119
7.0E+10
6.0E+10
5.0E+10
4.0E+10
CO2, Lbm
3.0E+10
Methanol
2.0E+10
Propylene Glycol
1.0E+10
Potassium Acetate
0.0E+00
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
YEAR
Figure 32. Projected Annual Emissions of CO2 for Baseline GSHP System.
2.5E+08
Methanol
2.0E+08
Propylene Glycol
Potassium Acetate
1.5E+08
SO2, Lbm
1.0E+08
5.0E+07
0.0E+00
1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015
YEAR
Figure 33. Projected Annual Emissions of SO2 for Baseline GSHP System.
2.0E+08
1.8E+08
Methanol
1.6E+08
Propylene Glycol
1.4E+08
Potassium Acetate
1.2E+08
NOx, Lbm
1.0E+08
8.0E+07
6.0E+07
4.0E+07
2.0E+07
0.0E+00
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
YEAR
Figure 34. Projected Annual Emissions of NOx for Baseline GSHP System.
1200
Methanol
1000
Propylene Glycol
800 Potassium Acetate

Mercury, Lbm
600
400
200
0
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
YEAR
Figure 35. Projected Annual Emissions of Mercury for Baseline GSHP System.
(Reference 18), including a large portion of the U.S. served by GSHP installations, it is critical
that the impact of anti-freeze spillage or leakage be assessed.
This assessment has three parts—water pollution, biodegradability, and groundwater

pollution of the anti-freeze. In general, GHSP anti-freeze solutions comprise a very small
percentage of the possible number of ground water contaminants. A limiting factor to the
potential damage is that residential GSHPs contain small amounts of fluid, and large-scale
contamination of either surface or ground water is unlikely. However, localized instances of
contaminated wells have been reported. Commercial systems, which contain greater amounts of
anti-freeze, pose different risks (Appendix C). Two different values for surface water
contamination—aquatic toxicity and permissible limits—will be calculated to assess the amount
of water that can be contaminated by each of the five leakage scenarios. (Note that this is an
artificial situation for analysis; in reality, concentrations would be higher near the point of
leakage. Contamination of groundwater is considered separately.)
1. Aquatic Toxicity
Significant research has been performed to determine the toxicity of chemicals on

different species of aquatic creatures. Table 47 lists the toxicity limits for fish species and
compares similar types of fish. Note that the LD0, LD10, LD50, and the lower end of the toxicity
range have been used based on the data available. The LD10 of 300 mg/l for potassium acetate
was determined using rainbow trout (a cold water fish which is susceptible to low oxygen levels)
and is lower than the toxicity determined for CMA (LD0 > 1000 mg/l). However, an analysis of
the amount of acetate present for each of the compounds indicates that, on a per gallon basis, the
same amount of acetate is available for CMA and potassium acetate anti-freeze solutions.* The
acetate is the primary contributor to the toxicity (through O2 depletion due to microbial
utilization) as potassium, calcium, and magnesium are salts which are not expected to contribute
to toxicity. Therefore, while the 300 mg/l value for potassium acetate will be used to calculate
the amount of water potentially contaminated by potassium acetate, it should be recognized that
124
TABLE 47. AQUATIC TOXICITY OF ANTI-FREEZES.
Anti-Freeze Fish Species Toxicity (mg/l)a Reference

Methanol Creek chub 8000 47
Ethanol Creek chub 7000 47
Propylene Glycol Trout 50,000 47
Potassium Acetateb Trout 300 (LD10) 39
CMA Rainbow trout >1000 16
Urea Creek chub 16,000 47
(bottom end of
critical range)
Ethylene Glycol Goldfish 5,000 (LD50) 47
a
LD0 unless otherwise noted.
b
Vanguard GS-4; 50% potassium acetate; 50% water.
there may be little difference between CMA and potassium acetate based on the amount of
acetate present in solution. In this light, using the lower potassium acetate value toxicity would
present an unfair comparison between CMA and potassium acetate, and the same water pollution
environmental hazard rating for potassium acetate and CMA will be used.
Table 48 provides the maximum amount of water that could be contaminated with
respect to aquatic toxicity, by leakage or spillage scenario (Table 27). The amounts of water are
based on the permissible levels for each fluid, the density of the fluid and the concentrations of
fluids required to lower the freeze point to -9.4 °C (15 °F). All but Scenario 3 would be expected
to affect surface water more than groundwater. Note that the gallons of water potentially
contaminated using both aquatic toxicity and permissible limits assume that all of the
contaminants are instantaneously mixed with the water, and that no biological activity is present
(see Section VI.B.3). Note that the geological fate of anti-freeze solutions in aquifers is affected
by the geology of the aquifer, but this was not presented here. Reference 18 will provide a good
understanding of the problem when it is finalized and released.
*Approximately 95 g/100 ml of anti-freeze solution.
125
Note that the aquatic toxicity value for CMA was reported as greater than
1000 mg/l. This is a worst case condition, and the volume of water polluted may be less than
that reported in Table 48. The value for potassium acetate, however, is a measured value, and the
volume of water potentially contaminated is extremely large. Special care should be taken to
avoid contaminating surface water containing aquatic life with this fluid.
TABLE 48. MAXIMUM VOLUME OF SURFACE WATER POTENTIALLY

CONTAMINATED BY LEAKAGE (AQUATIC TOXICITY).
Anti-Freeze Aquatic Volume of Water Potentially Made Toxic for Aquatic Life
Toxicity per Gallon Anti-freeze Spilled (Gallons)
(mg/l) Leakage Scenario
1 2 3 4 5
Methanol 8000 5,445 3,561 1,211 3,561 130
Ethanol 7000 6,450 1,483 504 1,483 54
Propylene 50,000 1,163 299 101 299 11
Glycol
Potassium 300 231,412 67,110 22,817 67,110 2,440
Acetatea
CMAb >1000 20,896 20,896 7,104 20,896 760
c
Urea 16,000 1,124 1,124 382 1,124 41
Ethylene Glycol 5000 35,710 14,245 3,561 14,245 130
a
Vanguard GS-4: 50% potassium acetate, 50% water
b
Solid crystals mixed with water for 25 wt.% concentration; only dilute fluid considered.
c
Solid prills mixed with water for 28 wt.% concentration; only dilute fluid considered.
2. Proposed Permissible Concentration Levels
Permissible concentration limits have been proposed by the EPA for some of the
anti-freeze fluids. Based on the five leakage and spillage scenarios and the permissible
concentration limits for each anti-freeze, Table 49 lists the maximum amounts of water that
could be contaminated by the anti-freezes. Note that these limits are significantly lower than the
toxicity limits for aquatic life, and the amounts of water potentially contaminated are much
greater.
126
TABLE 49. MAXIMUM VOLUME OF SURFACE WATER POTENTIALLY
CONTAMINATED BY LEAKAGE (PERMISSIBLE LIMITS).
Anti-Freeze Proposed Maximum Volume of Water Polluted per Gallon

Permissible Anti-freeze Spilled (Gallons)
Limit (mg/l)a Leakage Scenario
1 2 3 4 5
Methanol 3.6b 1.21 x 107 2.4 x 107 823,458 2.4 x 107 4.62 x 106
Ethanol 26 1.71 x 106 394,174 134,019 394,174 14,333
Propylene c ——— ——— ——— ——— ———
Glycol
Potassium c ——— ——— ——— ——— ———
Acetate
CMA c ——— ——— ——— ——— ———
Urea c ——— ——— ——— ——— ———
8 8 7 8
Ethylene 0.140 5.09 x 10 1.27 x 10 4.32 x 10 1.27 x 10 4.62 x 106
Glycol
a
b
North Carolina recently proposed a limit of 3.5 mg/l. (Mouberry, A., Letter to Groundwater
Rules Mailing List Recipients, State of North Carolina, Department of Environmental
Health and Natural Resources, Raleigh, North Carolina, 16 January 1996.)
c
No limits found.
The amount of water potentially contaminated by some of these fluids is very large.
As a point of reference, the size of a body of water that could be polluted by a spill of a 55-gallon
drum of methanol (leakage scenario 1) - 1.21 x 107 gallons (4.58 x 107 l) - would be nearly 400 ft
by 400 ft by 10 ft deep (122 m x 122 m x 3 m).
3. Biodegradability
Fortunately, instead of building up in the water, these anti-freezes biodegrade

rapidly in the presence of oxygen, turning the chemicals into benign ones such as carbon dioxide
and nitrates (Reference 49). None of the anti-freezes exhibits any potential for buildup in the
food chain. However, this biological action may also deplete the oxygen levels in surface and
groundwaters, causing potential for fish kills (due to the lack of oxygen), annoying smells, and
annoying tastes, odors, and colors in the water. A common measure of determining the amount
127
of oxygen consumed during microbial utilization of organics is called the biochemical oxygen
demand (BOD). The BOD is measured by determining the oxygen consumed by a sample of the
pollutant placed in an air-tight container and kept in a controlled environment for a period of
time (Reference 50). The most common time period is 5 days, resulting in a 5-day BOD (BOD5).
BODs are often presented in time periods other than 5 days; however, the BOD5 value is
preferred and will be presented in this report when available. The Theoretical Oxygen Demand
(THoD), which is the amount of oxygen required to completely decompose the pollutant, is often
presented as well. Results for both the BOD and THoD are presented as amounts of oxygen
consumed per volume of water containing the pollutant (e.g., milligrams of oxygen per liter
[mg/l]) or as pounds of oxygen consumed by each pound of chemical during the time stated
(Reference 38). BOD results may also be presented as a percentage of the THoD demand after a
certain time period. Because the BOD is dependent on temperature due to microbial kinetics, the
BOD is normally associated with a temperature. The incubation temperature for BOD is
normally 20 ºC (68 ºF). Microbial metabolism rates approximately double for each 10 ºC (18 ºF)
increase between the approximate ranges of 5 and 40 ºC (41-104 ºF).
In a like manner, chemical oxygen demand (COD) measures demand in the

presence of strong oxidizers, such as potassium permanganate. COD values will be larger than
BOD values.
Table 50 shows the BOD5, THoD, and COD for the full-strength anti-freezes.
There may be significant ranges of values presented for both the BOD and COD, depending on
the type of test and the source. The highest BOD5 values are shown unless the range given was
significant, as for ethylene glycol.
128
TABLE 50. ANTI-FREEZE BIOLOGICAL OXYGEN DEMAND AND CHEMICAL
OXYGEN DEMAND.
Anti-Freeze BOD5 (gm O2 THoD (gm O2 COD (gm O2 Reference

consumed per consumed per consumed per
gm anti-freeze)a gm anti-freeze) gm anti-freeze)
Methanol 1.12 1.5 1.5 47
Ethanol 1.58 @ 20 °C 2.10 2.04 47
Propylene Glycol 0.955 1.685 b 47
Potassium Acetate 0.15 @ 10 °C 0.31 b 39
CMA c
0.67 @ 10 °C N.A.b 0.75 16
Uread e b b 38
Ethylene Glycol 0.157 - 0.81 1.26 1.29 47
a
If not followed by temperature, no temperature is given in reference.
b
Not available
c
BOD20
d
Urea may be converted to ammonia, and under aerobic conditions with nitrifying bacteria
present, ammonia can be converted to nitrate, with an apparent BOD.
e
Degradation negligible below @ 8 °C (46.4 °F) for up to 14 days, and should be complete
within 4-6 days @ 20 °C (68 °F) (Reference 47)
CMA presents an interesting study. Reference 51 reports that the BOD differs
between CMA produced in two different processes, i.e., produced from corn or as a reagent. The
difference is believed to be a contaminant, butyrate, found only in the corn-based CMA. This
reference also noted that 100 mg CMA/l completely depleted oxygen within 2 days at 20 °C
(68 °F) for CMA produced from either process, and 10 mg CMA/l caused depletions of 4.5 and
7.0 mg oxygen/liters for reagent-grade and corn-based CMA, respectively. Based on 100 mg
CMA/l depletion value and a weight of nearly 30 g/l* (1138 g CMA per gallon), 208 liters
(55 gallons) of pure CMA could completely deplete the oxygen from 625,000 liters (625,000
gallons) of water. Of course, this is unlikely as reoxygenation of the water supply will occur
*Based on 25% CMA concentration in CMA-25.
129
except in winter, where ice may cover non-flowing sources and result in a temporary drop in
dissolved oxygen.
4. Groundwater Pollution
The rupture of a ground loop in the GSHP system could release anti-freeze
solution into the groundwater and contaminate one or more aquifers. The fate of anti-freeze
solutions which reach ground water is governed by many geological and physical factors
(Reference 18). The permeability and hydraulic conductivity and porosity of the rock, the bulk
motion and dispersion of the groundwater, biodegradation and inorganic processes all contribute
to the fate and transport of the contaminants. Therefore, to some extent, the risk of anti-freeze
leakage into the ground water is site-dependent. Reference 18 defines the relative risk of
potassium acetate, propylene glycol, and ethanol as low, and the relative risk of methanol as
higher. Based on comparisons with the four above compounds, the relative risk of CMA and
urea is also judged to be low. The volume of water potentially contaminated can be estimated as
the same volume of surface water contaminated (Table 48 and Table 49).
C. REGULATORY LISTINGS
Many federal, state, and organizational regulations and guidelines contain listing of
chemicals that require certain actions. Table 51 contains a table of some of those regulations; the
following is a brief description of each. Note that Y means that the anti-freeze is on the list, N
means that it is not, and a blank indicates that data were not found. Each entry is referenced to a
document.
1. Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA)
SARA reauthorized CERCLA and strengthened EPA’s mandate to focus on cleanup

at superfund sites. Title III of SARA is the “Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-
Know Act of 1986” (Reference 52).
a. Section 302 states that a list of extremely hazardous substances shall be

published, establishing threshold planning quantities, which require reporting if contained in a
facility.
130
TABLE 51. GSHP ANTI-FREEZE REGULATORY LISTING.
List Methanol Potassium Propylene Ethanol Urea CMA Ethylene Dipotassium

(Ref. #) Acetate Glycol (Ref. #) (Ref. #) (Ref. #) Glycol Phosphate
(Ref. #) (Ref. #) (Ref. #) (Ref. #)
SARA 302 N (53) N (53) N (53) N (53) N (53) N (16) N (53) N (53)
a a
SARA 304 Y (19) N (54) N (54) N (14) N (24) N (16) Y (54) N (54)
SARA 313 Y (55) N (55) N (22) N (55) N (24) N (16) Y (55) N (55)
SARA 311 Y (19) Y (23) N (22) Y (24) N (16) Y (26)
16 1. Immediate Y (23) -- Y (24) -- Y (26)
2. Delayed N (23) -- N (24) -- N (26)
3. Fire Hazard N (23) -- N (24) -- N (26)
4. Pressure Rel. N (23) -- N (24) -- N (26)
5. Reactivity N (23) -- N (24) -- N (26)
TSCA Y (19) Y (14) Y (14) Y (14) Y (14) Y (16) Y (26)
NTP Carcinogen N (14) N (14) N (14) N (14) N (24) N (16) N (14)
IARC Group I N (30) N (23) N (30) N (16) N (30)
IARC Group 2A N (30) N (23) N (30) N (24) N (16) N (30)
IARC Group 2B N (30) N (23) N (30) N (16) N (30)
NJ RTK Y (56) N (56) N (56) Y (56) N (56) N (56) Y (56) N (56)
MN RTK Y (57) N (57) N (57) N (57) N (57) N (16) Y (57) N (57)
MASS RTK N (16)
b
PA RTK Y (58) N (58) Y (58) Y (58) N (58) N (16) Y (58) N (58)
CA Prop.65 N (59) N (59) N (59) Yc (59) N (59) N (59) N (59) N (59)
OSHA PEL Y (14) N (14) N (14) N (14) Y (6082)
OSHA STEL Y (30) N (14) N (14) N (14) N (16) N (14)
OSHA TWA N (14) N (14) Y (14) N (14) N (16) N (14)
ACGIH TLV Y (14) N (14) N (14) Y (14) N (MSDS) N (16) Y (14)
ACGIH Calc. TLV N (14) N (14) N (14) N (14) N (14) N (16) N (14)
ACGIH STEL N (14) N (14) N (14) N (14) N (14) N (16) N (14)
WHMIS (CANADA) d N (22) N (16) Y (26)
a
Reportable quantity - 5000 lbs under CERCLA.
b
Environmental hazard
c
On Chemicals Known to the State to Cause Cancer List, as part of alcoholic beverages, when associated with
alcohol abuse, and on Chemicals Known to the State to Cause Reproductive Toxicity List, as part of alcoholic
beverages. Fourth Priority (lowest) for determining dose-response assessments.
d
Not provided by manufacturer.
131
b. Section 304 states that a notice be filed if a release of reportable quantities of
listed materials above a reportable quantity occurs.
c. Section 311 states that MSDSs be submitted for all hazardous chemicals.
Listings are made for five categories: immediate health effects, delayed health effects, fire
hazard, sudden release of pressure hazard, and reactivity hazard.
d. Section 313 requires the owner or operator of a facility to prepare a toxic

chemical release form for chemicals listed in the “Specific Toxic Chemical Listings”
(Reference 61).
2. Toxic Substance and Control Act (TSCA)
TSCA (Reference 62) evaluates all new chemical substances entering the U.S.
market for their effects on human health, other living organisms, and the environment. Being
listed under TSCA means only that it has been evaluated. Section 4 requires testing of certain
chemicals that may pose unreasonable risks to health or those produced in large quantities and
may be in contact with humans in significant amounts. Sections 5 deals with new chemicals or
the significant new use of chemicals. Section 6 allows the EPA to limit or prohibit use or
disposal of listed chemicals. Section 8 requires reporting and retention of certain information on
listed chemicals; 8(a) requires general reporting, while 8(c) requires health and safety studies.
Section 12 deals with exports of listed chemicals.
3. National Toxicology Program (NTP) Carcinogen
The NTP publishes a report detailing with known and suspect human carcinogens.
4. International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC)
The IARC evaluates the risk of chemicals to humans. Group 1 includes chemicals
that are carcinogenic to humans, Group 2A includes chemicals that are probably carcinogenic to
humans, and Group 2B includes chemicals that are possibly carcinogenic to humans
(Reference 63).
132
5. Right to Know (RTK)
Several States have RTK regulations that require listings of toxic chemicals.
Pennsylvania also designates environmental hazards, those which pose a danger to the
environment if released.
6. California Proposition 65 (Prop 65)
The Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 requires the State of
California to publish a list of chemicals known to the State of California to cause cancer or
reproductive toxicity, and to update the list and issue warnings for knowing and intentional
discharges of these chemicals to the State’s drinking water sources.
7. Occupational and Safety and Health Act (OSHA)
The OSHA has several types of permissible exposure limits. The limits for
chemicals on these lists were indicated in Table 40.
8. American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH)
The ACGIH also sets limits for exposure. Although these are not laws, they have
been adopted in whole or in part by many countries and local administrations throughout the
world. The chemicals with ACGIH listings were also shown in Table 40.
9. Canadian Workplace Hazardous Materials Information System (WHMIS)
Canada WHMIS has established the that lists hazardous chemicals. All controlled
products are divided into six classes: compressed gases, flammable/combustibles, oxidizers,
toxics (includes three subclasses), corrosives, and reactives.
Note that information on dipotassium phosphate is lacking. It was not included in

any handbooks or lists of dangerous chemicals; therefore, it is not considered to be hazardous,
especially in the low amounts (e.g., less than 5 percent in DOWFROST HD) used in the anti-
freezes. Furthermore, when searching lists for chemicals, ethylene glycol is often referred to as
1,2-ethanediol and propylene glycol is referred to as 1,2-propanediol. It is therefore best to
search by the Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS) number, if listed.
133
D. RISK ANALYSIS
To arrive at a single environmental risk number to be included in the selection matrix, air
pollution and water pollution have been assessed separately and averaged (Table 52). Inclusion
on any regulatory list has not been considered because the inclusion recognizes factors
considered in the health and environmental numbers.
For air pollution, none of the anti-freezes poses a significantly greater risk than any other.
Figure 32 through Figure 35 indicate that propylene glycol would create slightly more pollution
due to the increase in electricity required to operate systems using that anti-freeze, with methanol
creating the least pollution. Based on those figures all anti-freezes have been assigned a low (L)
hazard rating.
Water pollution has been divided into three separate categories: aquatic toxicity,
proposed permissible limits, and biodegradability. Biodegradabiliy depends on many factors
including the temperature of the water, whether ice has formed, whether the water is flowing or
stagnant, and the size of the reservoir. Therefore it is difficult to assess the risk of using one anti-
freeze over another because it is so strongly dependent on the scenario. Therefore,
biodegradability has not been considered in determining the water pollution value.
Permissible limits have been proposed only for methanol and ethanol, and a comparison
with the other anti-freezes cannot be made. However, the proposed establishment of such limits
indicates that an increased risk to the environment has been recognized, and this should be
considered in the final assessment of the anti-freezes. The proposed permissible limit for
methanol is 2,000 times lower than the aquatic toxicity in Table 47, and that of ethanol 270 times
lower. While permissible limits and aquatic toxicity cannot be directly compared, so that
comparison of methanol or ethanol proposed permissible limits with aquatic toxicity of other
anti-freezes would be unfair, the fact that these limits have been proposed should be considered
in the final assessment of environmental risk.
Therefore aquatic toxicity has been selected as the most representative factor for water
pollution. Potassium acetate, with a LD10 of 300 mg/L and CMA, with a LD0 greater than
1000 mg/L, appear to pose the greatest risk. However, it must be noted that the CMA value is a
134
lower limit and the actual value may be much higher. The LD10 value for potassium acetate is
also considered a very low value; it significantly lowers the environmental value of potassium
acetate.
Values shown in Table 52 were assigned based on the aquatic toxicity. A rating of L has
been assigned for LDs of over 10,000 mg/L, a value of M for 1000 to 10,000 mg/L, and H for
below 1000 mg/L. Methanol and ethanol, which would fall into the 1000 to 10,000 mg/L range,
have been assigned values of H to reflect the proposed permissible limits. Overall, propylene
glycol and urea present little environmental risk, and have been assigned a value of 3, while the
other four fluids have been judged to present moderate risk, and have been assigned a value of 2
TABLE 52. ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARD INDEX.

Acetate Glycol
Air L L L L L L
Pollution
Water H Ha L H M L
Pollution
a
Based on single value of 300 mg/L for LD10 for rainbow trout.
135
SECTION VII
FIELD SURVEY AND INTEGRATED REPORT
A. GSHP FLUID USAGE
All of the chemicals proposed as anti-freezes have uses other than as GSHP anti-freezes,
usually in amounts far greater than those projected for use in GSHP’s, even with substantial
projected GSHP growth. The estimated spillage and leakage of these fluids when used as GSHP
anti-freezes will be examined and compared to the usage in other areas. A brief description of
the non-GSHP usage will be presented for all of the fluids. Table 53 shows the usage of the anti-
freeze fluids, should 75 percent of units be freeze-protected with that anti-freeze, and compares
that usage to total annual production of that chemical. The table is based on 75 percent of the
units requiring anti-freeze, 43 gallons of solution per unit corresponding to a 3-ton unit, and
concentration for -9.4 ºC (15 ºF) freeze protection. Total ethanol and potassium acetate are
calculated in gallons to reflect annual production figures reported in gallons. Potassium acetate
production is that of GS-4 only. Note that even with a worst case condition of all units using one
anti-freeze, the percentage of total production of the anti-freezes is small except for potassium
acetate (GS-4), which is over 5 times greater than current GS-4 usage. Other uses of the
chemicals used as anti-freezes are as follows:
1. Methanol
Methanol is manufactured from synthetic gas, or produced from steam-reformed

natural gas and carbon dioxide. Methanol is synthesized under pressure in a catalytic process,
and the crude methanol is purified to chemical grade by distillation. Major uses of methanol are
as a raw material in the manufacture of formaldehyde, acetic acid, methyl tertiary butyl ether
(MTBE, an oxygenate and octane enhancer for automotive fuels), and as a solvent.
In 1995, methanol ranked number 21 in a listing of the top 50 chemicals in

production in the U.S., with 11.29 billion pounds produced (Reference 65). An approximate
breakdown of use is indicated in an older document (Reference 64) where the 1985 demand for
136
TABLE 53. ANNUAL ANTI-FREEZE USAGE, 400,000 UNITS.
Fluid Conc. Gallons Anti-freeze Weight per GSHP Total Fraction

for 15 ºF per density installation Usage Production GSHP
(%) installation (lb/gal) (lbs) (106 lbs) (106 lbs)a Usage
Methanol 0.20 43 6.601 56.77 17.03 11290 0.001508
Ethanolb 0.25 43 10.75b 3.23b 1300b 0.002481
Ethylene 0.25 43 10.8 116.10 34.83 5228 0.006662
Glycol
Propylene 0.257 43 8.75 96.70 29.01 1090 0.026614
Glycol
Potassium 1.0 43 43.00b 12.90c 2.5c,d 5.16
Acetateb,c
CMA 0.23 43 3.14 31.05 9.32 40d 0.23291
Urea 0.3 43 11.1 143.19 42.96 15590 0.002755
a
Data from Reference 65, unless otherwise noted
b
Gallon basis
c
GS-4 only
d
Strawn, Bob, Cryotech, Personal communication, 12 March 1996
methanol is given as: solvent, 110x109 gallons (9%); formaldehyde, 470 x109 gallons (38%);
acetic acid, 155 x109 gallons (12.5%), methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE), 100x109 gallons (8%),
and other, 400x109 gallons (32.5%). Another estimate of the world-wide market for methanol
was 24.7 million tons (Reference 66).
Methanol usage that could result in intentional spills was in amounts so small that
they were not included in the above figures. Because of the evaporation rate of methanol,
automobile windshield washer fluid would be expected to evaporate before reaching the ground
and would be considered air pollution rather than water pollution. Aircraft deicing fluid would
have an impact; figures are not available at this time.
2. Ethanol
Ethanol may be produced from chemicals or from corn and other grains. In 1994,
approximately 1.3 billion gallons were produced in the U.S. Reference 65 reported that in 1995,
137
626 million pounds of synthetic ethanol (approximately 93.6 million gallons, based on a specific
density of 0.82) were produced in the U.S. Ethanol is used as feedstock for various other
chemicals, in pharmaceuticals, plastics and plasticizers, lacquers, perfumes, cosmetics, alcoholic
beverages, soaps and cleaning preparations, solvent, dyes, explosives, and fuel additive. None of
the preceding uses of ethanol would result in significant intentional spillage.
3. Ethylene Glycol
Ethylene glycol ranked number 32 in the list of top 50 chemicals (Reference 65),
with a yearly production of 5.23 billion pounds in 1995. There is the potential for significant
spillage as nearly every automobile and truck uses a 50 percent concentration of ethylene glycol
as engine coolant. No estimate of spillage is available, however, there are almost 200,000,000
vehicles registered in the U.S. (Reference 67), the majority of which use ethylene glycol
solutions for engine coolants. While minor leaks are common, large leaks would occur only at
facilities where installation or removal of anti-freeze are handled improperly.
4. Propylene Glycol
Propylene glycol production in the U.S. was 1 billion pounds in 1995

(Reference 65). Most propylene glycol is used as a coolant and anti-freeze. Other uses are as
food additive, plasticizer, suntan lotion, brake fluid, and runway deicing. Only the runway
deicing would result in significant intentional releases; no data are available on this usage.
5. Potassium Acetate
The annual production of GS-4 is 2.5 million gallons,* 90 percent of which is used
for runway deicing. Therefore, in excess of 2.0 million gallons of GS-4 may be considered to be
intentionally spilled.
*Strawn, Bob, Cryotech, Personal communication, 12 March 1996.
138
6. Calcium Magnesium Acetate
*
The annual production of CMA is less than 20,000 tons, all used for road deicing.
Like GS-4, most of this usage can be considered to be intentionally spilled on the ground.
7. Urea
The domestic urea industry produces urea in both solid and solution form, with
solids being manufactured in two sizes. The smaller size is used for animal feed supplement, and
the larger sized solid is used for fertilizer and in the production of plastics (Reference 68). In
1995, urea ranked 17 in the top 50 chemicals, with a yearly production of 15.59 billion pounds
(Reference 65). A breakdown of that usage in 1977 can be estimated from Reference 68 as:
fertilizer, 7.3 billion pounds; animal feed, 476 million pounds; and plastics and others,
1.35 billion pounds, for a total of 9.1 billion pounds. Assuming that all the fertilizer is put into
the ground, approximately 70 percent, or 11 billion pounds of urea per year is “spilled” on the
ground.
B. RISK PERCEPTION SURVEY
A survey was prepared to obtain the opinions of personnel working in the GHSP industry
(designers, manufacturers, loop installers, contractors) on the risks associated with the use of
anti-freezes in GSHPs. The survey was originally distributed at the 1996 Geothermal Heat Pump
Technical Conference and Expo. Returns were not adequate for analysis, and additional surveys
were sent to members of the GSHP community at the end of June, 1996. The number of
responses (9) was low but adequate to provide feedback. Appendix D contains a copy of that
survey with results.
Of the respondents, four identified themselves as manufacturers (two were pipe

manufacturers); three as designers; four as loop installers; three as system installers; and one as
research and development. Four identified themselves in several categories. Three of the
respondents lived or worked in GSHP-cooled facilities, one living and working in both. In
139
general, the respondents agreed that GSHP could be manufactured and designed, and yield safe
and trouble-free operation. Although they agreed that GSHPs could be installed safely, several
were aware of unsafe practices, poor joining techniques, or installers who had used substandard
parts. They felt that some workers did not understand the health, corrosion, fire and
environmental impacts of the anti-freezes. There was less uniformity of opinion on whether
MSDS and other safety information were always available on site, and whether workers knew
proper procedures should a leak occur. They also agreed that regulations governing GSHP
installations were not clear and regulators did not, for the most part, understand GSHP
installations, and for the most part, the difference between anti-freezes. It was believed that
building occupants were not always aware of the safety impacts of anti-freezes, and that
maintainers were more aware of these impacts, but not to a significant degree.
C. INSTALLATION GUIDELINES
Guidelines reflecting the results of Tasks 3 and 5 have been developed and included in a
separate guideline for each of the fluids. These are included in Appendix D.
D. STATE, LOCAL, AND BUILDING CODE AUTHORITIES REGULATIONS
The type and grade of anti-freeze that can be used in a GSHP installation is controlled in
many locations by state and local regulations. Results from the Risk Perception Survey indicate
that nearly all members of the GSHP community believe that the regulations guiding the use of
anti-freeze are not clear and the regulators themselves do not possess sufficient understanding of
the issues surrounding anti-freeze use (or of GSHP issues in general). The following sections
provide current data on state, local, and building code regulations.
1. State Regulations
Table 55 is a listing of the applicable state regulations for the use of GSHP
anti-freeze fluids. Some states have no policy, other states provide recommendations, and the
*Strawn, Bob, Cryotech, Personal communication, 12 March 1996.
140
remainder have established laws. The state agency in charge of approving the use of anti-freezes
is noted in Table 55, where available. This table should only be used as a guideline since
policies are constantly changing, and this table may be outdated by the publication date of the
document.
2. Local Regulations
Many localities may have local (county, city, water district) etc., regulations
regarding the use of GSHP anti-freezes in addition to or instead of state regulations. Because of
the number of potential jurisdictions of this sort, it is impractical to list them all. Table 55
includes references to local authorities when available.
3. Building Code Organizations
The Council of American Building Officials (CABO), the International

Conference of Building Officials, the Building Officials Code Administrators (BOCA), and the
Southern Building Code Congress International provide building code regulation over most of
the U.S. None of these organizations has any specific published guidance on the installation of
ground-source heat pumps (Reference 35).
E. RISK ANALYSIS
With any chemical, there is the risk of regulatory constraints which may limit the use of
the chemicals under certain circumstances. This is evident in the production ban placed on
chlorofluorocarbons due to the Montreal Protocol. While no such extreme measures are
envisioned for the anti-freezes assessed during this project, a final assessment value called “risk
of future use” has been included in the selection matrix. This factor reflects that certain anti-
freezes are currently not approved in many locations, based on health, environment, and leakage
risks. For example, ethylene glycol has not been included as an anti-freeze in this study, due to
regulations which restrict its use in most locations, despite its being an excellent heat transfer
fluid. Potassium acetate possesses good health and environmental attributes, yet it is not
approved in some locales due to potential leakage problems. Propylene glycol appears to be
accepted by most states as an approved anti-freeze. Ethanol and methanol are approved in some
141
locations, but the toxicity of methanol may prevent its use in those states requiring “non-toxic”
anti-freezes; methanol is determined therefore to have a high risk of being controlled in the
future. Urea and CMA, both having low toxicity and environmental impacts, would appear to be
immune from usage control based on the acceptance of calcium and sodium chloride, although
other factors (such as leakage or corrosion) may prevent their use. Table 54 provides a number
for those potential users who consider the approval of the anti-freeze to be a critical issue.
Methanol has been assigned a value of 1, major potential for problems, based on toxicity,
environmental and fire risk; potassium acetate a 2 based on leakage; ethanol an 2 based on
toxicity, environmental, and fire risk; urea and CMA assigned an 2 because although they have
low health and environmental risk, they are not currently approved as anti-freeze solutions, and
propylene glycol assigned a 3 based on wide-spread current approval and low health and
environmental risks.
TABLE 54. RISK OF FUTURE USE INDEX.

Acetate Glycol
In conclusion, methanol would appear to have the greatest risk of not being approved as
an anti-freeze, potassium acetate and ethanol a lesser risk, and propylene glycol little risk. CMA
and urea, neither of which have been approved for a known installation, would appear to be
acceptable based on criteria established for other anti-freezes.
142
TABLE 55. GSHP ANTI-FREEZE REGULATIONS (BY STATE).
State Regulations? Approved Fluids Comments/Regulator
Water Propylene Potassium Methanol Ethanol Others

Glycol Acetate
Alabama N
Alaska N
Arkansas X Food grade NaCl List kept by Arkansas Water Well
Commission
Arizona Non-toxic recommended
California X X Cal Department of Health
Colorado Potable Food grade Less than NaCl, CaCl Non-toxic
1%
corrosion
inhibitors
Connecticut X Non-toxic; Division of Plumbing
and Piping
Delaware N
Florida N Water Management Districts must
be contacted
Georgia N
Hawaii N
Iowa N
Idaho Non-toxic; methanol with approval
of Dept. of Environmental Water
Resources
TABLE 55. GSHP ANTI-FREEZE REGULATIONS (BY STATE) (CONTINUED).

Glycol Acetate
Illinois X X X Ethylene Glycol, 20% or less concentration

CaCl
Indiana N
Kansas X GS-4 Other substances as approved by
KS Dept. of Health and
Environment
Kentucky N
Louisiana Non-toxic, EPA approved
Massachusetts N Local Health Board approval
Maryland Non-toxic, approved by Dept. of
Environment
Maine N Local Health Board approval
Michigan N
Minnesota Potable Food grade CaCl A permanent sign must be
only or U.S.P.a attached to heat pump
Missouri X Food grade X X X U.S.P.a glycerin; Other fluids as approved by
NaCl; Division of Environmental
dipotassium Quality. Other regulations also in
phosphate effect.
Mississippi N
Montana N
TABLE 55. GSHP ANTI-FREEZE REGULATIONS (BY STATE) (CONTINUED).

Glycol Acetate
North Carolina X w/Water

North Dakota X X CaCl State Geologist approval
Nebraska Food grade Food grade
New Hampshire N
New Jersey X X CaCl; NaCl; Specified as part of well permit.
potassium Other fluids as approved by NJ
carbonate Dept. of Environmental
Protection.
New Mexico N
Nevada N
New York Potable Food grade w/Water Other fluids as approved
/water
Ohio N
Oklahoma N
Oregon N
Pennsylvania Recommend Has GSHP manual. Non-toxic
fluids.
Rhode Island N
South Carolina N
South Dakota N
Tennessee N
Texas N
TABLE 55. GSHP ANTI-FREEZE REGULATIONS (BY STATE) (CONCLUDED).

Glycol Acetate
Utah N
Vermont Non-toxic fluids
Washington N
Wisconsin Food grade
/water
West Virginia N
Wyoming Non-toxic for permit approval
a
United States Pharmacopoeia
N=No
X=Approved
SECTION VIII
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
A. SELECTION MATRIX
Table 56 is a compilation of all cost/risk factors. A simple spreadsheet selection matrix

was developed based on this table to allow users to rank anti-freeze fluids based on the seven
cost/risk criteria presented in this report and a user input to weight the importance of each factor.
Table 56 does not show a weighting factor. The spreadsheet was developed in Microsoft Excel
5.0, and allows the user to supply weighting factors for each of the seven cost/risk criteria with a
higher number giving the most importance to the cost/risk criterion and a zero for no importance.
For example, if the user felt that life cycle cost was critical, a value of 10, with 10 being the
highest value, could be assigned. On the other hand, if the user did not consider life cycle cost
important, a value of 0 could be assigned, and life cycle cost would not be considered at all in the
analysis. The composite score is an average calculated by summing the product of each cost/risk
criterion value times the weighting factor divided by the sum of the weighting factors. This
spreadsheet is easy to understand and use. It can be modified in the future to add other factors or
to change the criteria values.
B. CONCLUSIONS
Although energy usage and life cycle cost are important, they do not significantly
influence the selection of anti-freeze fluids for GSHP applications due to the small differences
among the anti-freeze fluids. The fire, health hazard, and environmental risks, as well as local
restrictions, are more critical in determining which anti-freeze fluids are optimum for a specific
application.
As to specific anti-freeze selections, based on Table 56, a good choice of anti-freeze for
most uses would appear to be propylene glycol, with low risk (higher factor value) in all areas,
although its life cycle cost is relatively high (lower factor value). Although CMA has low health,
fire, and environmental risks, it has a high leakage risk and relatively high life cycle costs.
147
TABLE 56. ANTI-FREEZE COST/RISK FACTORS.
Methanol Ethanol Propylene Potassium CMA Urea

Glycol Acetate
Life Cycle Cost 3 3 2 2 2 3
Corrosion 2 2 3a 2 2 1
Leakage 3 2 2a 1b 1 1
Health Risk 1 2 3 3 3 3
Fire Risk 1c 1c 3 3 3 3
Environmental Risk 2 2 3 2 2 3
Risk of Future Use 1 2 3 2 2 2
Notes:
1 indicates Potential problems, caution in use required
2 indicates Minor potential for problems
3 indicates Little or no potential for problems
a
DOWFROST HD
b
GS-4
c
Pure fluid only. Diluted anti-freeze is rated 3.
Potassium acetate has low to medium risk in all areas, excluding fire where the risk is negligible.
The results of this study indicate that the leakage risk of potassium acetate was medium, although
leakage has been a problem in some residential and commercial installations. The extra care
taken during this project in the selection of parts and materials, as well as the technique to
assemble the test loop, reduced the leakage risk. Urea has low health, fire, and environmental
risks, but it has high corrosion rates for copper-based metals, as well as a potentially high leakage
risk. Ethanol has medium risk in all areas except fire, and that risk can be lessened by adding
only dilute solutions to the loop, or adding the ethanol in properly ventilated spaces where fumes
will not be able to build up to explosive levels. Corrosion may present a problem based on the
high corrosion rates of black and cast iron and the copper-based materials. Methanol, while
having low energy usage and life cycle cost, suffers from the same fire risk as ethanol, and
additionally has greater health and environmental risk. There were also high corrosion rates with
the black and cast iron.
148
The perception survey indicated that while most members of the community believe that
GSHP units are designed and manufactured to be installed safely for a trouble-free lifetime, state
and local regulations governing the installation process are often confusing and regulators do not
understand the health, environmental, and fire risk differences among anti-freeze fluids. The
survey indicated a divergence in opinion over whether workers were aware of safety issues
regarding anti-freezes, and whether good practices were always followed.
C. RECOMMENDATIONS
All of the factors evaluated during this program should be considered when making a
decision as to which anti-freeze to use in a GSHP installation. Based on these factors—life cycle
cost, corrosion and leakage, health risk, fire risk, environmental risk, and the risk that some anti-
freezes are not currently approved in some jurisdictions or may be banned in the future—the four
previously used anti-freeze fluids should continue to be used where possible. While methanol is
still the most widely-used anti-freeze, it has higher fire, health, and environmental risks than
other anti-freeze fluids, so greater care must be taken with its use. Ethanol should be considered
in cases where the fire risk can be managed and corrosion is not considered to be a major
problem. Propylene glycol has extremely low environmental, health, and fire risks, and may be a
good choice if life cycle cost is not an overriding concern. Potassium acetate likewise has good
environmental and health characteristics, but system component selection and installation must
be monitored carefully to eliminate leakage. CMA and urea possess desirable environmental and
health characteristics, but should be considered only after potential corrosion and leakage
problems have been thoroughly addressed.
Finally, it is recommended that the GSHP community work with state and local
regulators to develop regulations on anti-freeze usage based on a full knowledge and
understanding of all risks of anti-freeze fluids. During the course of this project, the authors have
seen little rhyme or reason as to which anti-freeze fluids may or may not be approved by each
governing body. If the goal of 400,000 new units installed yearly is to be met, a more
comprehensive and uniform policy for the use of anti-freeze fluids should be developed and
promulgated.
149
REFERENCES
1. Closed-Loop/Ground-Source Heat Pump Installation Guide, International Ground Source

Heat Pump Association, Stillwater, Oklahoma, 1988.
2. Hellstrom, G., “Duct Ground Heat Storage Model; Manual for Computer Code,”
Department of Mathematical Physics, University of Lund, Lund, Sweden, March, 1989.
3. Remund, C. P., and Lund, J. T., “Thermal Enhancement of Bentonite Grouts for Vertical
GSHP Systems,” Heat Pump and Refrigeration Systems, Design, Analysis and
Applications, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Book No. H00868, AES-Vol.
29, pp. 95-106, 1993.
4. Klein, S. A., et. al., TRNSYS: A Transient System Simulation Program, Engineering
Experiment Station Report 38-12, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI (Version 16
used herein), 1979.
5. Giardina, J. J., “Evaluation of Ground Coupled Heat Pumps for the State of Wisconsin,”
Master of Science Thesis, Mechanical Engineering, University of Wisconsin-Madison,
1995.
6. Bergles, A. E., “Survey of Heat Transfer Characteristics of Deep Spirally Fluted Tubing,”
ASME HTD-Vol. 18 Advances in Enhanced Heat Transfer, 1981.
7. Garimella, S., and Christensen, R. N., “Heat Transfer and Pressure Drop Characteristics
of Spirally Fluted Annuli: Part I - Hydrodynamics, Part II - Heat Transfer,” Journal of
Heat Transfer, ASME Transactions, Vol. 117, pp. 54-68, 1995.
8. Gungor, K. E., and Winterton, R. H. S., “Simplified General Correlation for Saturated
Flow Boiling and Comparisons of Correlations with Data,” Chem. Eng. Res. Des.,
Vol. 65, pp. 148-156, 1987.
9. Srinivasan, V., and Christensen, R. N., “Experimental Investigation of Heat Transfer and
Pressure Drop Characteristics of Flow Through Spirally Fluted Tubes,” Experimental
Thermal and Fluid Science, Vol. 5, pp. 820-827, 1992.
10. Mei, V. C., “Effect of Backfilling Material on Ground Coil Performance,” ASHRAE
Transactions, Vol. 93, Pt. 2, pp. 1845-1855, 1987.
11. “Standard Practice for Preparing, Cleaning, and Evaluating Corrosion Test Specimens,”
ASTM Standard G 1-90, American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania, 1990.
12. “Application Installation Operation Manual,” Commercial Water Source Heat Pump
Systems, Command-Aire Corporation, Waco, Texas, 1992.
151
13. Principles and Methods of Toxicology, Third Edition, Hayes, A. W., editor, Raven Press,
New York, 1994.
14. Sax, N. I., and Lewis, R. J. Sr., Dangerous Properties of Industrial Materials, Vol. III,
Seventh Edition, Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, 1987.
15. Hiatt, G. F. S., George, J. R., Cushman, L. C., Griffis, L. C., and Rausina, G. A.,
“Calcium Magnesium Acetate: Comparative Toxicity Tests and an Industrial Hygiene
Site Investigation,” Transportation Research Record, Vol. 1157, pp. 20-26, 1988.
16. Cryotech CMA Deicer Technical Information, Cryotech Deicing Division, Ft. Madison,
Iowa, 1995.
17. Buteau, G. H., Cushman, J. R., Griffis, L. C., Rogers, B. C., Duke, J. T., and Cooper, P.
N., “The Effects of Exposure to Chevron Ice-B-Gon® Deicer in Laboratory Animals and
Human Volunteers,” Resources, Conservation, and Recycling, Vol. 7, pp. 133-138, 1992.
18. Semi-Quantitative Evaluation of Consequences of Spills of Ground Heat Exchanger

Antifreezes, Residential Efficiency Programs, Office of Air and Radiation, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington DC, 1996. (Draft).
19. Material Safety Data Sheet, “Methyl Alcohol,” Pacific Pac, Inc., 1992.
20. Material Safety Data Sheet, “Exoendosol-101,” AAPER Alcohol and Chemical
Company, Shelbyville, Kentucky, 1994.
21. Clement International Corporation, Technical Report for Ethylene Glycol/Propylene

Glycol, (Draft for Public Comment), Prepared for U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services, Public Health Service, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry,
Washington, DC, May, 1993.
22. Material Safety Data Sheet, “DOWFROST Inhibited Propylene Glycol,” Dow Chemical
Company, 1994.
23. Material Safety Data Sheet, “Vanguard GS-4 Heat Transfer Fluid,” Vanguard Plastics,
Inc., McPherson, Kansas, 10 November 1993.
24. Material Safety Data Sheet, “Urea,” Arcadian Corporation, Memphis, Tennessee, 1991.
25. Material Safety Data Sheet, “Urea,” Sheet No. 528, Genium Publishing Company,
Schenectady, New York, 1990.
26. Material Safety Data Sheet, “Dowtherm SR-1 Heat Transfer Fluid,” Dow Chemical
Company, 1994.
152
27. Hazardous Substance Fact Sheet, “Methyl Alcohol,” U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Toxic Substances, Washington, DC, 30 October 1986.
28. Top, P., and De Lint, N., Investigation of Heat Pump Antifreeze Agents, p. 89-48-6179/1,
Caneta Research, Inc., Mississauga, Ontario, and Ortech International, Mississauga,
Ontario, Canada, 29 April 1992.
29. Lewis, R. J. Sr., Carcinogenically Active Chemicals - A Reference Guide, Van Nostrand
Reinhold, New York, 1991.
30. Chemical Information Manual, (OSHA Instructional Manual CPL 2-2.43A), EPB91-
215848, U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Washington, DC, 1 July
1991.
31. NFPA Inspection Manual, 17th Edition, National Fire Protection Association, Quincy,
Massachusetts, 1994.
32. NFPA 321, “Basic Classification of Flammable and Combustible Liquids,” National Fire
Protection Association, Quincy, Massachusetts, 1991.
33. NFPA 30, “Flammable and Combustible Liquids Code,” National Fire Protection
Association, Quincy, Massachusetts, 1990.
34. Uniform Fire Code, International Conference of Building Officials, Whittier, California,
and the Western Fire Chiefs Association, Whittier, California, 1 May 1985.
35. CABO One and Two Family Dwelling Code, 1992 Edition, The Council of American
Building Officials, Falls Church, Virginia, 1992.
36. NFPA 325M, “Fire Hazard Properties of Flammable Liquids, Gases, and Volatile
Solids,” National Fire Protection Association, Quincy, Massachusetts, 1991.
37. Engineering and Operating Guide for DOWFROST™ and DOWFROST™ HD Inhibited
Glycol-Based Heat Transfer Fluid, 180-01286-1194 AMS, Dow Chemical Company,
Midland, Michigan, November 1994.
38. Hazardous Chemicals Data Book, Second Edition, Weiss, G., editor, Noyes Data
Corporation, Park Ridge, New Jersey, 1986.
39. Vanguard GS4™ Heat Transfer Fluid: Fluid Properties and Engineering Guide, Report
F18 1002952T, Vanguard Plastics, Inc., McPherson, Kansas, 10 November 1993.
40. “Properties of Flammable Liquids, Gases, and Solids,” in Handbook of Industrial Loss
Prevention, Factory Mutual Engineering Corporation, Boston, Massachusetts, Chapter 42,
pp. 1-29, 1967.
153
41. CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, 68th Edition, Weast, R. C., Astle, M. J., and
Beyer, W. H., editors, CRC Press, Inc., Boca Raton, Florida, 1988.
42. Total Annual Shipments of Energy Star Devices, Ernest Orlando Lawrence Berkeley
National Laboratory, Energy and Environment Division, 1995.
43. Form EIA-867, Annual Nonutility Power Procedure Report, Energy Information
Administration (EIA), 1994.
44. Form EIA-860, Annual Electric Generator Report, Energy Information Administration
(EIA), 1994.
45. AEO96, National Energy Modeling System, Energy Information Administration (EIA),
1995
46. Chu, P., Nott, B., and Chow, W., “Results and Issues From the PISCES Field Tests,”
Second International Conference on Managing Hazardous Air Pollutants, Washington,
DC, July, 13-15, 1993.
47. Handbook of Environmental Data on Organic Chemicals, Second Edition, Verschueren,

K., editor, Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, 1983.
48. Sittig, M., Handbook of Toxic and Hazardous Chemicals and Carcinogens, Second
Edition, Noyes Data Corporation, Park Ridge, New Jersey, 1985.
49. Hodges, L., Environmental Pollution, Second Edition, Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, New
York, 1977.
50. Peavy, H. S., Rowe, D. R., and Tchobanoglous, G., Environmental Engineering,
McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, 1985.
51. Brenner, M. V., and Horner, R. R., “Effects of Calcium Magnesium Acetate (CMA) on
Dissolved Oxygen in Natural Waters,” Resources, Conservation, and Recycling, Vol. 7,
pp. 239-265, 1992.
52. Public Law 99-499, 42 USC 9601, 17 October 1986.
53. Title III List of Lists, Consolidated List of Chemicals Subject to the Emergency Planning
and Community Right-To-Know Act (EPCRA) and Section 112(r) of The Clean Air Act,
as Amended, EPA 704-S-95-001, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Prevention,
Pesticides, and Toxic Substances, Washington, DC, April 1995.
54. Federal Register, Volume 60, Number 112, June 12, 1995, 40 CFR Parts 117, 302, and
305, Reportable Quantity Adjustments.
154
55. List of Toxic Chemicals Subject to the Provisions of Section 313 of the Emergency
Planning and Community Right-To-Know Act of 1986, U.S. Government Printing Office,
1986.
56. Right-To-Know Hazardous Substance List, New Jersey Worker and Community Right-
To-Know Act, J.J.S.A. 43:5A-1 et seq., New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection and the New Jersey Department of Health, Trenton, New Jersey, December
1989.
57. Hazardous Materials: You Have a Right to Know, Minnesota Emergency Response
Commission, St. Paul, Minnesota, June 1996.
58. Pennsylvania Code, Title 34. Labor and Industry, Chapters 301-323, Workers and
Community Right-To-Know, Department of Labor and Industry, Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, 19 December 1992.
59. Chemicals Known to the State of California to Cause Cancer or Reproductive Toxicity,
State of California, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Health
Hazard Assessment, Sacramento, California, May 1996.
60. Calabrese, E. J., and Kensyon, E. M., Air Toxics and Risk Assessment, Lewis Publishers
Inc., Chelslea, Michigan, 1991.
61. Fire, F. L., Grant, N. K., and Hoover, D. H., Sara Title III - Intent and Implementation of
Hazardous Materials Regulations, Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, 1989.
62. Worobec, M. D., Toxic Substance Controls Primer: Federal Regulation of Chemicals in
the Enviornment, Bureau of National Affairs, Inc., Washington, DC, 1984.
63. Chemical Information Manual, (OSHA Instructional Manual CPL 2-2.43A), EPB91-
215848, U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Washington, DC, 1 July
1991.
64. A Competitive Assessment of the U.S. Methanol Industry, The Office of Chemicals and
Allied Products, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce,
Washington, DC, 1984.
65. “Facts and Figures for the Chemical Industry,” Chemical & Engineering News,
Volume 74, No. 26, 24 June 1996.
66. Methanex Home Page on World-Wide Web, http://www.methanex.com, Methenex

Corporation, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
67. Statistical Abstract of the United States 1995, U.S. Department of Commerce, Economics
and Statistical Administration, Bureau of the Census, Washington, DC, 1995.
155
68. Urea Manufacturing Industry - Technical Document, Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, EPA 450/3-81-001,
January 1981.
156
APPENDIX A
RESULTS OF GSHP INSTALLER’S SURVEY
A. BACKGROUND
This survey was sent out early in December 1995, and a supplement pertinent to flushing
was sent early in January 1996. Five responses to the survey were received. Despite this limited
response, the geographic areas served by the respondents and their range of experience are
extensive. The locations of the respondents ranged from Ohio southwest to Texas and north to
Montana. One installer has worked in 10 states and Saudi Arabia and has drilled more than
10,000 vertical bores; another has worked in 9 states. Some installers provide most of the
services required for an installation; others subcontract half or more of the services.
Since there were few respondents, individual responses are listed in Table A-1.
157
TABLE A-1. RESULTS OF GSHP INSTALLER’S SURVEY.
Respondent #1 Respondent #2 Respondent #3 Respondent #4 Respondent #5

Geographic Region Served
Nine states, mostly Ten states No response Montana Midwest
in Rocky Mtns.
Ground Heat Exchanger
Branches--Technical
Pipe Material and Size
Polyethylene 3408, Polyethylene 3408, Polyethylene, 3/4 in Polyethylene 3408, Polyethylene 3408,
3/4 in, SDR-11 3/4 in, SDR-11 3/4 in, SDR-11 3/4 in
(resid.), SDR-9 & -
11 (comm.)
Horizontal pipe; length of pipe per ton and configuration
800 ft /ton, 500 ft in 125 ft 1000 ft/ton; 600-750 ft/ton three
Double pipe, trench; 750 ft in Slinky®, 12 in pipes out & three
horizontal 100 ft trench; pitch, horiz. loops pipes back; 1 ft
1000 ft in 80 ft apart horizontally,
trench Slinky® 2 ft apart vertically
Horizontal Trench
2 ft wide, 3 ft wide, 6 ft deep 3 ft wide, 6 ft deep 2 ft wide, 5’ deep
5-6 ft deep
Vertical bore; length of pipe per ton and depth
400 ft/ton, 160-300 ft/ton, 400 ft/ton, 200 ft 300 ft/ton,
150-250 ft deep 150-300 ft deep deep 150-200 ft deep
TABLE A-1. RESULTS OF GSHP INSTALLER’S SURVEY (CONTINUED).

Costs--Horizontal trench
Trench:
$2/ft $1.50/ft $6.00/ft backhoe,
$4.50/ft Directional
bore
Backfill:
$0.50/ft $0.20/ft
Install pipe:
$0.50/ft $2.20/ft
Costs--Vertical trench
Drill:
$4.50/ft $4.25/ft $4.65/ft for drilling, $4.00-$5.00/ft
backfilling, pipe
install
Backfill:
$0.75/ft $.50/ft $1.00/ft
Pipe installation:
$0.75/ft
TABLE A-1. RESULTS OF GSHP INSTALLER’S SURVEY (CONTINUED).

Header pipe material and size
Polyethylene Polyethylene 3408 1 1/4 in, 1 1/2 in, Polyethylene 3408 Polyethylene 3408
1 1/4 to 2 in, varies 1 1/2 in 2 in, as needed 1 to 1 1/4 in 3/4 to 1 1/4 in, with
with loop length and proper reduction
SDR-11 SDR-11
heat pump capacity
Cost of installing pipe other than ground loop
$300-$400/ton (?) $50/ton $50/ton
Joining method and type of joints
Fusion, socket, butt Fusion, socket, butt Fusion, socket Fusion, socket Fusion, socket
Pressure test
Hydrostatic, air 100 psi 50 psi 100 psi for 1 hour
Flushing
35-40 gpm at small purge cart for purge cart with flush cart with
40-45 psi small systems 2 hp pump 1.5 hp motor
Fluid (concentration)
methanol (20%) methanol, prop. Methanol methanol methanol
Glycol, water (20%) (20%-25%) (21% vol.)
GS-4 (30-35%)
usually, mostly
commercial install.
TABLE A-1. RESULTS OF GSHP INSTALLER’S SURVEY (CONCLUDED).

Backfill materials
Horizontal
non-alluvial extracted soil, extracted soil
sometimes on top of
sand
Vertical
grout cuttings and grout grout grout
Circulation Pump
Maker
Grundfos, Taco Grundfos Grundfos Grundfos Grundfos
Model or size
1/6 hp - 1.5 hp UP 26-99 1/6 hp 1/6 hp 1/6 hp
Configuration
parallel series series series series and parallel
Installation Guidelines Used
IGSHPA, CEEA, IGSHPA, Self- IGSHPA IGSHPA Manufacturer
WaterFurnace developed
APPENDIX B
TASK 1 RESULTS
162
TABLE B-1. PERFORMANCE DATA FOR WATER FURNACE HEAT PUMP MODEL AT034 @ 1100 FT3/MIN.
A. Heating Performance Data
Entering Leaving Average Suction Evap. Fluid Pressure Heating Power Heat Leaving Coeff.
Fluid Fluid Fluid Pressure Temp. Flow Drop a b from Air of
Capacity Input
Temp. Temp. Temp. Rate Fluid Temp. Perf.
(F) (F) (F) (psig) (F) (gpm) (ft H2O) (kBTU/h) (kW) (kBTU/h) (F)
30 23.4 26.7 36 13 5 5.5 23.0 1.90 16.5 89.3 3.55
30 25.1 27.5 39 16 7 9.0 23.7 1.92 17.2 90.0 3.63
30 26.1 28.1 42 19 9 14.3 24.2 1.94 17.6 90.3 3.66
50 40.6 45.3 55 30 5 5.3 30.4 2.03 23.5 95.6 4.38
50 43.0 46.5 58 32 7 8.7 31.5 2.05 24.5 96.5 4.49
50 44.5 47.2 61 34 9 13.7 32.0 2.07 25.0 97.0 4.53
70 58.1 64.1 78 46 5 5.1 37.1 2.17 29.7 101.2 5.00
70 61.2 65.6 81 48 7 8.3 38.4 2.19 30.9 102.3 5.13
70 63.0 66.5 83 50 9 13.2 39.1 2.22 31.6 102.9 5.17
90 75.7 82.9 100 59 5 4.9 43.6 2.31 35.7 106.7 5.52
90 79.4 84.7 103 61 7 8.0 45.2 2.34 37.2 108.0 5.67
90 81.6 85.8 106 63 9 12.6 46.0 2.36 38.0 108.7 5.72
a
Entering air temperature: 70 ºF.
b
Pump power not included.
TABLE B-1. PERFORMANCE DATA FOR WATER FURNACE HEAT PUMP MODEL AT034 @ 1100 FT3/MIN
(CONCLUDED).
B. Cooling Performance Data
Entering Leaving Average Head Cond. Fluid Pressure Total Sensible Power Heat Energy
Fluid Fluid Fluid Pressure Temp. Flow Drop Cooling Cooling c to Efficiency
Input
Temp. Temp. Temp. (psig) (F) Rate a,b a,b Fluid Ratio
(ft H2O) Capacity Capacity (kW)
(F) (F) (F) (gpm) (kBTU/h) (kBTU/h) (kBTU/h)
50 67.3 58.6 144 80 5 5.3 37.6 25.5 1.63 43.1 23.0
50 62.3 56.2 136 77 7 8.7 37.8 25.6 1.57 43.1 24.0
50 59.6 54.8 130 73 9 13.7 38.0 25.7 1.54 43.2 24.6
70 86.3 78.2 188 97 5 5.1 34.5 24.0 1.87 40.9 18.5
70 81.7 75.9 179 94 7 8.3 34.9 24.3 1.81 41.1 19.4
70 79.2 74.6 170 91 9 13.2 35.2 24.3 1.77 41.2 19.9
90 106.4 98.2 240 114 5 4.9 33.3 23.6 2.26 41.1 14.7
90 101.9 95.9 230 111 7 8.0 34.0 24.0 2.20 41.5 15.5
90 99.3 94.6 220 108 9 12.6 34.4 24.1 2.16 41.7 15.9
110 125.7 117.8 300 131 5 4.6 30.1 22.1 2.69 39.2 11.2
110 121.4 115.7 291 128 7 7.7 30.9 22.6 2.62 39.9 11.8
110 118.9 114.5 280 125 9 12.0 31.3 22.7 2.57 40.1 12.2
a
Entering air temperature: 70 ºF.
b
Entering dry bulb/wet bulb temperatures: 80 ºF/67 ºF.
c
Pump power not included.
TABLE B-2. PARAMETERS OF HOUSE MODELED.
Parameter English Units Metric Units

Plan Area Dimensions 65.6 ft by 32.8 ft 20 m by 10 m
Floor Area 2583 ft2 200 m2
Ceiling Area 2583 ft2 200 m2
Window Area 194 ft2 18 m2
Wall Area 1744 ft2 162 m2
Wall Resistance 19.6 h ft2 ºF/BTU 0.960 h m2 ºC/kJ
Ceiling Resistance 29.0 h ft2 ºF/BTU 1.42 h m2 ºC/kJ
Window Resistance 1.71 h ft2 ºF/BTU 0.084 h m2 ºC/kJ
Infiltration 0.2 air changes/h with increases due to
wind speed and temp. diff. Same as English
Capacitance of Room Contents 4739 BTU/ºF 9000 kJ/ºC
Occupants 4 4
Activity Level Seated, at rest Seated, at rest
Basement Temperature 70 ºF (same as house interior) 21.1 ºC (same as house interior)
Thermostat setpoints:
Heating (1st stage) 70 ºF 21.1 ºC
Auxiliary Heat 66.4 ºF 19.1 ºC
Cooling: 1st stage 75 ºF 23.9 ºC
2nd stage 80.6 ºF 27.0 ºC
16.00
14.00
12.00
10.00
PRICE, $/gal
8.00
6.00
4.00
2.00
0.00
FLUID TYPE
Figure B-1. Comparison of Pre-mixed Fluid Installation Cost.

APPENDIX C
COMMERCIAL SYSTEMS
The goal of this project was to assess anti-freeze energy usage and risk relative to residential
systems. However, it is recognized that results may be equally as applicable to commercial
systems as well. Commercial systems are characterized by many of the following: multiple heat
pumps per system; many interconnected boreholes; different type of materials used in the system;
long runs of piping inside of buildings; dominant cooling load; and individualized designs for
each application. Many commercial systems do not require anti-freeze protection. The reference
below provides an overview of several commercial installations.*
The level of risk is also different in commercial systems. Some of the increased risk would be
the following: greater amounts of anti-freeze; longer runs of piping, both inside and outside the
building; inside piping runs inside chases, ceilings, and crawlspaces; more and different piping
connections; potential exposure to greater numbers of people; no low-pressure shutoff; longer
periods of time with facility unoccupied (nights, weekends); and in general, a far greater potential
for damage due to leakage or corrosion. Regarding the final risk, leakage in a residential unit
could damage a utility room or basement. In a commercial building, with runs of piping
potentially in the ceiling over work areas, an anti-freeze leak could cause multiple thousands of
dollars damage in a short period of time.
The additional amounts of fluid contained in commercial systems could significantly increase the
environmental risk. Instead of leaks in the range of 50 gallons (190 liters), much greater amounts
may be released. This could potentially contaminate larger bodies of water, and deplete oxygen
from ponds and streams much faster. Therefore, it is critical that commercial installations be
monitored on a regular basis to preclude massive leaks.
*Cane, D., Clemes, B., and Morrison, A., “Experiences with Commercial Ground-Source Heat
Pumps,” ASHRAE Journal, Volume 38, Number 7, pp. 31-36, July 1996.
167
APPENDIX D
INSTALLATION GUIDELINES AND MATERIAL SAFETY DATA SHEETS
168
Anti-Freeze Handling and Installation Guidelines
METHANOL
INTRODUCTION
The following health, safety, and environmental guidelines should be followed when methanol is
to be used as an anti-freeze. These guidelines provide basic information specifically related to
methanol. They should be considered supplementary to other guidelines, instructions guides, or
other literature published by the International Ground Source Heat Pump Association (IGSHPA),
the Canadian Earth Energy Association (CEEA), or the manufacturers of the heat pump, loop,
pumping module, flush cart, or other equipment. Any conflicts between these guidelines and any
other guidelines should be discussed with the heat pump manufacturer.
ANTI-FREEZE DESCRIPTION
Methanol is a colorless, volatile liquid with a mild odor. It boils at 64-65 °C (147-149 ºF) and is
extremely flammable. It has a flash point of 12.2 ºC (54 ºF). It is used as a solvent and cleaner
as well as an anti-freeze. It can affect you when breathed in or by passing through the skin.
SAFETY ISSUES
The attached Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) provides specific safety and health data on the
use of methanol. You should thoroughly read and understand the MSDS before you handle this
anti-freeze or add it to a ground loop system. The following guidelines should be followed when
using methanol.
Fire
Methanol is flammable and explosive. It burns with an almost invisible flame. It may cause an
explosion if vapors are present in concentrations between 6.72% and 36.50% by volume with air.
Always add the pre-mixed solution to the system; never add pure methanol to the system. Under
no circumstances should you bring pure methanol into an enclosed space such as a basement or
equipment room - there have been fires as a result of this. Either mix the pure anti-freeze with
water outside the enclosed space, or, more preferably, buy premixed (or mix the solution yourself
at your shop, using proper precautions with the pure anti-freeze) and transport the diluted
mixture. Do not smoke when methanol is present. Do not let any methanol contact activated
electrical equipment. If methanol is spilled, restrict persons not wearing protective equipment
from area of leak. Remove all ignition sources. Ventilate the area. Absorb liquid in vermiculite,
dry sand, earth, or similar substance. For large spills, call your fire department.
To Extinguish a fire: You should have a 10-lb dry chemical fire extinguisher present whenever
you are handling pure or dilute methanol.
169
Personal Health and Safety
EYES:
Wear splash proof chemical goggles and face shields, unless full faceshield respiratory protection
is worn. For first aid, immediately flush eyes with large amounts of water for at least 15 minutes,
occasionally lifting the upper and lower lids. Seek medical attention immediately.
SKIN:
Avoid skin contact with methanol. Wear solvent resistant gloves and clothing. For first aid,
quickly remove contaminated clothing. Immediately wash area with large amounts of water.
Seek medical attention.
INHALATION:
Where potential exists for exposure over 200 ppm, you need to use an approved MSHA/NIOSH
approved air respirator with full facepiece. For first aid, remove person from exposure, perform
rescue breathing if breathing has stopped or CPR if heart action has stopped. Transfer
immediately to a medical facility.
RECOMMENDED SAFETY EQUIPMENT:
Gloves, respirator, goggles; long sleeves.
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Methanol is toxic to many living organisms and should not be spilled on the ground or
introduced into a loop without the loop having been previously pressure-checked to the
manufacturer’s specifications. This will prevent a spill should some component of the loop be
defective. A spill of 55 gallons of pure methanol could pollute over 5400 gallons of water. You
should be careful not to spill any of the pure or mixed anti-freeze on the ground. If you do, wipe
up the spill immediately and dispose of the fluid and rags immediately. Methanol must be
treated as a hazardous waste; you should check with the local environmental authorities to
determine how methanol can be disposed of properly, and you should have proper equipment on-
site to handle extra anti-freeze. Do not dump fluid onto the ground or release into the storm or
sanitary sewer unless you have approval from your local environmental regulators and
wastewater facility that you may do so legally.
There should be a very minimal risk of a properly constructed and installed system leaking
significant amounts of anti-freeze during installation or use. Because the low-pressure sensor
would shut off the circulation after loss of only a few cups of fluid, the amount of leak at the heat
pump would be relatively small. A leak at the bottom of a 250-foot deep loop could, however,
release nearly 20 gallons of diluted anti-freeze (5 gallons of pure anti-freeze) into the ground (the
amount of anti-freeze in one loop), and a leak in a slinky loop could release more.
170
ANTI-FREEZE ADDITION AND SYSTEM FLUSHING
In general, you should follow the guidelines from IGSHPA, CEEA, or the manufacturer for
adding anti-freeze and flushing. However, some of these guidelines recommend adding the full-
strength anti-freeze into the system. This is not recommended if the heat pump is in an enclosed
space and the flush cart cannot be operated outside that space because the presence of full-
strength anti-freeze is a fire and toxicological hazard. You should contact the heat pump
manufacturer to discuss alternative filling and flushing techniques if the above situation exists.
171
MSDS 1
172
MSDS 2
173
MSDS 3
174
MSDS 4
175
ETHANOL
INTRODUCTION
The following health, safety, and environmental guidelines should be followed when ethanol is to
be used as an anti-freeze. These guidelines provide basic information specifically related to
ethanol. They should be considered supplementary to other guidelines, instructions guides, or
other literature published by the International Ground Source Heat Pump Association (IGSHPA),
the Canadian Earth Energy Association (CEEA), or the manufacturers of the heat pump, loop,
Ethanol is a colorless, volatile liquid with a mild odor. It boils at 78 °-79 °C (172-174 ºF) and is
extremely flammable. It has a flash point of 128 ºC (55 ºF). It has a flash point of 12.8 ºC
(55 ºF). It is used as a solvent and fuel as well as an anti-freeze. It can affect you when breathed
in, by passing through the skin, and eye or skin contact. Ethanol used for industrial processes is
denatured by the addition of certain chemicals to render it undrinkable.
SAFETY ISSUES
use of ethanol. You should thoroughly read and understand the MSDS before you handle this
anti-freeze or add it to a ground loop system. The following guidelines should be followed when
using ethanol.
Fire
Ethanol is flammable and explosive. It burns with an almost invisible flame. It may cause an
explosion if vapors are present in concentrations between 3.38% and 18.95% by volume with air.
Always add the pre-mixed solution to the system where possible; never add pure ethanol to the
system unless there is proper ventilation. Under no circumstances should you bring pure ethanol
into an enclosed space such as a basement or equipment room - there have been fires as a result
of doing this. Either mix the pure anti-freeze with water outside the enclosed space, or, more
preferably, buy premixed (or mix the solution yourself at your shop, using proper precautions
with the pure anti-freeze) and transport the diluted mixture. Do not smoke when ethanol is
present. Do not let any ethanol contact activated electrical equipment. If ethanol is spilled,
restrict persons not wearing protective equipment from area of leak. Remove all ignition
sources. Ventilate the area. Absorb liquid in vermiculite, dry sand, earth, or similar substance.
For large spills, call your fire department.
To Extinguish a fire: You should have a 10-lb dry chemical fire extinguisher present whenever
you are handling pure or dilute ethanol.
176
EYES:
Wear safety glasses meeting the specifications of ANSI Standard Z87.1 where no contact with
the eye is anticipated. Chemical safety goggles meeting specifications of ANSI Standard Z87.1
should be worn whenever there is a possibility of splashing or other contact with the eyes. For
first aid, immediately flush eyes with large amounts of water for at least 15 minutes. Seek
medical attention immediately.
SKIN:
Wear gloves and protective clothing which are impervious to ethanol for the duration of the
anticipated exposure if there is potential for prolonged or repeated skin contact. For first aid,
flush area with large amounts of cool water. Seek medical attention.
INHALATION:
Where potential exists for exposure over 200 ppm, use an approved MSHA/NIOSH approved
respiratory equipment. For first aid, remove person from exposure, perform rescue breathing if
breathing has stopped or CPR if heart action has stopped. Get medical attention immediately.
Gloves, respirator if level is determined to be above 1000 ppm, safety glasses or goggles; long
sleeves.
Ethanol is toxic to many living organisms and should not be spilled on the ground or introduced
into a loop without the loop having been previously pressure-checked to the manufacturer’s
specifications. This will prevent a spill should some component of the loop be defective. A spill
of 55 gallons of pure ethanol could pollute over 6450 gallons of water. You should be careful
not to spill any of the pure or mixed anti-freeze on the ground. If you do, wipe up the spill
immediately and dispose of the fluid and rags immediately. Ethanol must be treated as a
hazardous waste; you should check with the local environmental authorities to determine how
ethanol can be disposed of properly, and you should have proper equipment on-site to handle
extra anti-freeze. Do not dump fluid onto the ground or release into the storm or sanitary sewer
unless you have approval from your local environmental regulators and wastewater facility that
you may do so legally.
177

adding anti-freeze and flushing. However, some of these guidelines recommend adding the full-
strength anti-freeze into the system. This is not recommended if the heat pump is in an enclosed
space and the flush cart cannot be operated outside that space because the presence of full-
strength anti-freeze is a fire and toxicological hazard. You should contact the heat pump
manufacturer to discuss alternative filling and flushing techniques if the above situation exists.
178
MSDS 1
179
MSDS 2
180
PROPYLENE GLYCOL
INTRODUCTION
The following health, safety, and environmental guidelines should be followed when propylene
glycol is to be used as an anti-freeze. These guidelines provide basic information specifically
related to propylene glycol. They should be considered supplementary to other guidelines,
instructions guides, or other literature published by the International Ground Source Heat Pump
Association (IGSHPA), the Canadian Earth Energy Association (CEEA), or the manufacturers of
the heat pump, loop, pumping module, flush cart, or other equipment. Any conflicts between
these guidelines and any other guidelines should be discussed with the heat pump manufacturer.
Propylene glycol is a colorless, practically odorless liquid. It boils at 71 ºC (160 °F) and has a
flash point of 99 ºC (210 °F). It is used as a solvent, emulsifier, food and feed additive, as well
as an anti-freeze. The attached MSDS is an example of propylene glycol used as an anti-freeze.
SAFETY ISSUES
use of propylene glycol. You should thoroughly read and understand the MSDS before you
handle this anti-freeze or add it to a ground loop system. The following guidelines should be
followed when using propylene glycol.
Fire
Propylene glycol is not flammable at room temperature, but may be flammable under conditions
where it is raised to temperature above its flash point (99 ºC [210 ºF]).
To Extinguish a fire: You can use water spray, carbon dioxide, dry chemicals or foams. You
should have a 10-lb dry chemical fire extinguisher present whenever you are handling pure or
dilute propylene glycol in the unlikely event it becomes flammable.

EYES:
Wear safety glasses where no contact with the eye is anticipated and goggles whenever there is a
possibility of splashing or other contact with the eyes as discomfort may result even though it is
unlikely to cause eye damage. For first aid, immediately flush eyes with large amounts of water.
181
SKIN:
No specific protection is required; however, every effort should be made to avoid contact with
the fluid For first aid, flush area with large amounts of cool water.
INHALATION:
Normal ventilation is adequate. Where potential exists for exposure over 50 ppm, use an
approved air-purifying respirator. No adverse affects are expected due to inhalation of propylene
glycol.
Respirator if level is determined to be above 50 ppm, safety glasses or goggles.
Propylene glycol is toxic to many living organisms and should not be spilled on the ground or
defective. A spill of 55 gallons of pure propylene glycol could pollute over 1163 gallons of
water. You should be careful not to spill any of the pure or mixed anti-freeze on the ground. If
you do, wipe up the spill immediately and dispose of the fluid and rags immediately. Propylene
glycol must be treated as a hazardous waste; you should check with the local environmental
authorities to determine how propylene glycol can be disposed of properly, and you should have
proper equipment on-site to handle extra anti-freeze. Do not dump fluid onto the ground or
release into the storm or sanitary sewer unless you have approval from your local environmental
regulators and wastewater facility that you may do so legally.

adding anti-freeze and flushing. You should avoid spilling any fluid on a hot surface as fire
could result.
182
MSDS 1
183
MSDS 2
184
MSDS 3
185
POTASSIUM ACETATE
INTRODUCTION
The following health, safety, and environmental guidelines should be followed when potassium
acetate is to be used as an anti-freeze. These guidelines provide basic information specifically
related to potassium acetate. They should be considered supplementary to other guidelines,
instructions guides, or other literature published by the International Ground Source Heat Pump
Association (IGSHPA), the Canadian Earth Energy Association (CEEA), or the manufacturers of
the heat pump, loop, pumping module, flush cart, or other equipment. Any conflicts between
these guidelines and any other guidelines should be discussed with the heat pump manufacturer.
Potassium acetate itself is a white powder. It has a melting point of 292 ºC (558 °F) and is not-
flammable. It is mixed with water when used as an anti-freeze. It may contain potassium
acetate, water, and a proprietary inhibitor package in the form usualy used as an GSHP anti-
freeze. The attached MSDS is an example of potassium acetate used as an anti-freeze.
SAFETY ISSUES
use of potassium acetate. You should thoroughly read and understand the MSDS before you
handle this anti-freeze or add it to a ground loop system. The following guidelines should be
followed when using potassium acetate.
Fire
Potassium acetate is not flammable.

EYES:
Wear safety goggles when using this product. For first aid, immediately flush eyes with fresh
water for 15 minutes while holding eyelids open. Remove contact lenses if worn. No additional
first aid should be necessary, but if irritation exists, see a doctor.
186
SKIN:
No specific protection is required; however, every effort should be made to avoid prolonged
contact with the fluid For first aid, wash skin thoroughly with soap and water and remove and
wash contaminated clothing.
INHALATION:
No special respiratory protection is normally required.
Safety goggles.
Potassium acetate is toxic to many living organisms and should not be spilled on the ground or
defective. Potassium acetate is extremely toxic to fish based on a toxicity limit of 300 mg/liter.
A spill of 55 gallons of pure potassium acetate could pollute 231,000 gallons of water. You
should be careful not to spill any of the pure or mixed anti-freeze on the ground. If you do, wipe
up the spill immediately and dispose of the fluid and rags immediately. Potassium acetate must
be treated as a hazardous waste; you should check with the local environmental authorities to
determine how potassium acetate can be disposed of properly, and you should have proper
equipment on-site to handle extra anti-freeze. Do not dump fluid onto the ground or release into
the storm or sanitary sewer unless you have approval from your local environmental regulators
and wastewater facility that you may do so legally.

adding anti-freeze and flushing.
187
MSDS 1
188
MSDS 2
189
MSDS 3
190
CALCIUM MAGNESIUM ACETATE

INTRODUCTION
The following health, safety, and environmental guidelines should be followed when calcium
magnesium acetate is to be used as an anti-freeze. These guidelines provide basic information
specifically related to calcium magnesium acetate. They should be considered supplementary to
other guidelines, instructions guides, or other literature published by the International Ground
Source Heat Pump Association (IGSHPA), the Canadian Earth Energy Association (CEEA), or
the manufacturers of the heat pump, loop, pumping module, flush cart, or other equipment. Any
conflicts between these guidelines and any other guidelines should be discussed with the heat
pump manufacturer.
Calcium magnesium acetate itself is a white to gray angular powder. It is mixed with water when
used as an anti-freeze and is nonflammable. In its anti-freeze formulation, it may be prepared by
mixing the powder with water or as a liquid. The attached MSDS is an example of CMA used as
an anti-freeze.
SAFETY ISSUES
use of calcium magnesium acetate. You should thoroughly read and understand the MSDS
before you handle this anti-freeze or add it to a ground loop system. The following guidelines
should be followed when using calcium magnesium acetate.
Fire
Calcium magnesium acetate is not flammable.
You should have a 10-lb dry chemical fire extinguisher present whenever you are handling
calcium magnesium acetate.

EYES:
No specific eye protection is normally necessary. For first aid, flush eyes with fresh water for
15 minutes. Remove contact lenses if worn.
191
SKIN:
No specific protection is required. For first aid, wash skin thoroughly with soap and water and
remove and wash contaminated clothing.
INHALATION:
No special respiratory protection is normally required. However, if the powder is being used to
prepare the anti-freeze, and high airborne concentrations are experienced, the use of an approved
respirator is recommended.
Respirator if using powder.
Calcium magnesium acetate is toxic to many living organisms and should not be spilled on the
ground or introduced into a loop without the loop having been previously pressure-checked to the
defective. A spill of 55 gallons of pure calcium magnesium acetate could pollute over 20,000
gallons of water. You should be careful not to spill any of the pure or mixed anti-freeze on the
ground. If you do, wipe up the spill immediately and dispose of the fluid and rags immediately.
Calcium magnesium acetate must be treated as a hazardous waste; you should check with the
local environmental authorities to determine how calcium magnesium acetate can be disposed of
properly, and you should have proper equipment on-site to handle extra anti-freeze. Do not
dump fluid onto the ground or release into the storm or sanitary sewer unless you have approval
from your local environmental regulators and wastewater facility that you may do so legally.

192
MSDS 1
193
MSDS 2
194
UREA
INTRODUCTION
The following health, safety, and environmental guidelines should be followed when urea is to be
used as an anti-freeze. These guidelines provide basic information specifically related to urea.
They should be considered supplementary to other guidelines, instructions guides, or other
literature published by the International Ground Source Heat Pump Association (IGSHPA), the
Canadian Earth Energy Association (CEEA), or the manufacturers of the heat pump, loop,
Urea itself is a white crystal with a melting point of 133 ºC (271 °F). It may be shipped as prills
(i.e., small pellets). It is mixed with water when used as an anti-freeze and is nonflammable.
SAFETY ISSUES
use of urea. You should thoroughly read and understand the MSDS before you handle this anti-
freeze or add it to a ground loop system. The following guidelines should be followed when
using urea.
Fire
Urea is not flammable. All standard agents (water, CO2, dry chemicals) are acceptable to
extinguish fires when urea is present.
You should have a 10-lb dry chemical fire extinguisher present whenever you are handling urea.

EYES:
Safety glasses should be worn. Do not wear contact lenses. For first aid, flush eyes with fresh
water for 15 minutes. Get prompt medical attention if irritation exists.
195
SKIN:
No specific protection is required, however long sleeves and impervious gloves are
recommended. For first aid, wash skin thoroughly with mild soap and water; get prompt medical
attention if irritation persists.
INHALATION:
A NIOSH-approved dust respirator is recommended.
NIOSH-approved respirator; long sleeves and impervious gloves; safety glasses.
Urea is toxic to many living organisms and should not be spilled on the ground or introduced into
a loop without the loop having been previously pressure-checked to the manufacturer’s
specifications. This will prevent a spill should some component of the loop be defective. A spill
of 55 gallons of pure urea could pollute over 1100 gallons of water. You should be careful not to
spill any of the pure or mixed anti-freeze on the ground. If you do, wipe up the spill immediately
and dispose of the fluid and rags immediately. Urea must be treated as a hazardous waste; you
should check with the local environmental authorities to determine how urea can be disposed of
properly, and you should have proper equipment on-site to handle extra anti-freeze. Do not
dump fluid onto the ground or release into the storm or sanitary sewer unless you have approval
from your local environmental regulators and wastewater facility that you may do so legally.

196
MSDS 1
197
MSDS 2
198
MSDS 3
199
APPENDIX E
GSHP RISK UNDERSTANDING SURVEY RESULTS
Specialty: Manufacturer 4 3
Designer Loop Installer 4 System Installer 3
Regulator 0 R&D1 Other: _________________________
I live or work in a building heated and cooled by a Ground Source Heat Pump 3
Name (Optional)___________________________________________
The following survey will be used to provide data for the contract “Assessment of Anti-Freeze
Solutions For Ground-Source Heat Pump Systems” which the University of New Mexico is
conducting for ASHRAE. Please give your perception on each of the following statements. If
you are not involved with that part of GSHP industry, please check “not applicable.” Thank you
for you cooperation.
Everett Heinonen
University of New Mexico
(505) 272-7255 (phone) (505) 272-7203 (fax)
MANUFACTURE Agree Agree Disagree Disagree Not

Strongly Somewhat Somewhat Strongly Applicable
GSHP units are designed to allow 6 2 1
a safe installation
GSHP units are manufactured to 5 2 2
allow a safe installation
GSHP units are designed for long- 5 2 2
term trouble-free operation
GSHP materials will allow long- 6 1 2
term trouble-free operation
Comments:
DESIGN Agree Agree Disagree Disagree Not

GSHP systems are designed for a 6 2 1
leak-free lifetime
GSHP systems are designed to be 4 4 1
installed safely
Comments:
200
INSTALLATION Agree Agree Disagree Disagree Not
GSHP systems are easy to install 3 3 2 1
GSHP systems can be installed 9
safely
Contractors install GSHPs safely 8 1
and properly
Contractors follow installation 6 3
instructions
Tools are designed to allow a safe 4 5
installation
Flush carts are designed to be used 3 3 1 1 1
safely
Workers understand the 1 5 3
differences between anti-freezes
Workers understand the potential 2 4 3
health hazards of anti-freezes
Workers understand the potential 1 3 2 3
environmental hazards of anti-
freezes
Workers understand the potential 1 2 4 2
fire hazards of anti-freezes
Workers use the correct tools and 6 3
protective gear for each anti-freeze
Workers are aware that anti-freezes 2 1 5 1
can corrode tools and equipment
I am aware of unsafe installation 3 3 1 2
practices in the field
I know workers who were injured 1 2 3 3
during GSHP installations
I am aware of poor joining 4 1 2 2
techniques in loop connections
I am aware of installers who have 3 4 1 1
used substandard parts in
installations
I am aware of installations where 1 1 5 2
large amounts of anti-freeze have
been spilled or leaked
Following IGSHPA installation 3 6
instructions will ensure a safe
installation
Following GSHP manufacturer 4 4 1
installation instructions will ensure
a safe installation
201
Agree Agree Disagree Disagree Not
Adequate safety equipment is 2 4 3 1
specified in the manuals
An MSDS on anti-freezes is 1 2 2 3 1
always available on site
Other safety data on anti-freezes is 1 2 1 4 1
always available on site
Workers know proper procedures 2 1 3 2 1
in case of an anti-freeze leak
Comments: Those companies that do a lot of work in the area are
generally safe.
REGULATIONS Agree Agree Disagree Disagree Not

Building codes governing GSHP 1 3 3 2
installation are clear and
understandable
Regulators understand the special 4 4 1
circumstances of GSHP systems
Federal, state, and local regulations 1 1 6 1
governing GSHP installation are
clear and understandable
Regulators understand the 3 5 1
differences between anti-freezes
Regulators are aware of the safety 2 2 4 1
concerns regarding anti-freezes
Comments:
202
OCCUPANTS Agree Agree Disagree Disagree Not
Building occupants have access to 1 4 2 2
safety information on anti-freezes
Building occupants are aware that 3 3 3
there are safety concerns with anti-
freezes
Building occupants know the 1 2 2 3
proper procedures in case of an
anti-freeze leak
Comments:
MAINTAINERS Agree Agree Disagree Disagree Not

Building maintainers have access 1 3 2 3
to safety information on anti-
freezes
Building maintainers are aware 2 3 1 3
that there are safety concerns with
anti-freezes
Building maintainers know the 2 3 1 3
proper procedures in case of an
anti-freeze leak
Comments:
203

RP 908

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

RP 908

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

NMERI 96/15/32580

ASSESSMENT OF ANTI-FREEZE SOLUTIONS FOR GROUND-SOURCE

Everett W. Heinonen and Robert E. Tapscott

Center for Global Environmental Technologies

Maurice W. Wildin and Andrew N. Beall

Department of Mechanical Engineering

Final Report for period of September 1995 - August 1996

American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc.

Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement

If it becomes necessary to reproduce any segment of this document containing any

3. Health hazard assessment. An assessment of the risk to humans as a result of the

5. Environmental assessment. An assessment of the air pollution resulting from

3. Leakage risk. A loop consisting of components similar to those contained in a GSHP

4. Health hazard risk. None of the assessed chemicals is considered dangerous if

Life Cycle Cost ✪✪✪ ✪✪✪ ✪✪1 ✪✪1 ✪✪1 ✪✪✪

Corrosion 2. High black iron and cast iron corrosion rates.

II THERMAL, HYDRAULIC, AND COST ASSESSMENT.......................................... 6

III CORROSION ASSESSMENT ................................................................................... 62

C. IMMERSION TESTS ........................................................................................ 67

IV HEALTH HAZARD ASSESSMENT......................................................................... 91

A. LEAKAGE AND SPILLAGE SCENARIOS..................................................... 91

VI ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT...................................................................... 117

A. EMISSIONS ..................................................................................................... 117

A. GSHP FLUID USAGE..................................................................................... 136

VIII CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.................................................... 147

A. SELECTION MATRIX.................................................................................... 147

A RESULTS OF GSHP INSTALLER’S SURVEY ..................................................... 157

B TASK 1 RESULTS ................................................................................................... 162

C COMMERCIAL SYSTEMS ..................................................................................... 167

D INSTALLATION GUIDELINES AND MATERIAL SAFETY DATA SHEETS... 168

E GSHP RISK UNDERSTANDING SURVEY RESULTS ........................................ 200

ACGIH American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists

NIOSH National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health

A area of corrosion samples in corrosion rate equation

3. Health Hazard Assessment

Because of the potential for long-term or short-term exposure of humans to these

4. Fire Hazard Assessment

Environmental damage can occur indirectly in terms of air pollution emissions

6. Field Survey and Integrated Report

B. APPROACH TO SYSTEM ANALYSIS

We considered another approach to system simulation, the software package denoted

*Merriam, Richard L., A. D. Little, Inc., Personal communication, December 1995.

C. HEAT PUMP SYSTEM MODEL

1. “Antifreeze Methods,” Waterfurnace International Technical Bulletin, TB8502, Fort

Figure 3. Comparison of Fluid Viscosities.

Figure 4. Comparison of Fluid Thermal Conductivities.

Figure 5. Comparison of Fluid Specific Heats.

Figure 6. Comparison of Fluid Densities.

12 45.7 (150) groutc 2.49 (0.4) 1.90 (¾)

Figure 7. Summary of Annual GSHP Energy Use for Methanol.

Figure 8. Summary of Annual GSHP Energy Use for Ethanol.

Figure 9. Summary of Annual GSHP Energy Use for Propylene Glycol.

Figure 11. Summary of Annual GSHP Energy Use for CMA.

Figure 12. Summary of Annual GSHP Energy Use for Urea.

Vertical Ground Loop Inlet

Figure 16 is presented to illustrate operation of the auxiliary heater during approximately

Figure 18. Impact of Fluid on Baseline System Installation Cost.

Figure 19. Summary of Life Cycle Cost for Methanol.

Figure 20. Summary of Life Cycle Cost for Ethanol.

Figure 21. Summary of Life Cycle Cost for Propylene Glycol.

Figure 22. Summary of Life Cycle Cost for Potassium Acetate.

Figure 23. Summary of Life Cycle Cost for CMA.

Figure 24. Summary of Life Cycle Cost for Urea.