US EPA Method with the Tekmar Lumin P&T Concentrator, AQUATek LVA and Agilent 7890B GC/5977A MS

Similar documents
Roger Bardsley, Applications Chemist; Teledyne Tekmar Page 1

US EPA Method 8260 with the Tekmar Atomx XYZ P&T System and Agilent 7890B GC/5977A MS

Validation of USEPA Method Using a Stratum PTC, AQUATek 100 Autosampler, and Perkin-Elmer Clarus 600 GC/MS

Exploring US EPA Method 524 Purge and Trap Variables: Water Vapor Reduction and Minimizing Cycle Time

Roger Bardsley, Applications Chemist; Teledyne Tekmar P a g e 1

Validation of USEPA Method 8260C Using Teledyne Tekmar Atomx, and Perkin-Elmer Clarus 600 GC/MS

Validation of Environmental Water Methods on One System: Considerations for Sample Volume, Purge Parameters and Quality Control Parameters

Methanol Extraction of high level soil samples by USEPA Method 8260C

Validation of Volatile Organic Compound by USEPA. Method 8260C. Application Note. Abstract. Introduction. Experimental-Instrument Conditions

Solid Phase Micro Extraction of Flavor Compounds in Beer

Using Hydrogen as An Alternative Carrier Gas for US EPA 8260

Analysis of Volatile Organic Compounds in Water and Soil by EPA Method 8260 with the Atomx Concentrator/Multimatrix Autosampler

Analysis of Volatile Organic Compounds in Soil Samples by EPA Method 8260 with The Stratum PTC and SOLATek 72 Multi-Matrix Autosampler

A Comparison of Volatile Organic Compound Response When Using Nitrogen as a Purge Gas

Validation of USEPA Method Using a Stratum PTC and the New AQUATek 100 Autosampler

Analysis of Volatile Organic Compounds Using USEPA Method 8260 and the 4760 Purge and Trap and the 4100 Autosampler

Optimizing. Abstract: is standardd. procedures. altered to

Optimal VOC Method Parameters for the StratUm PTC Purge & Trap Concentrator

A Single Calibration Method for Water AND Soil Samples Performing EPA Method 8260

Optimizing Standard Preparation

Method 8260C by Purge and Trap Gas Chromatography Mass Spectrometry using the Clarus SQ 8

Solid Phase Micro Extraction of Flavor Compounds in Beer

Maximizing Production While Minimizing Costs

Maximizing Sample Throughput In Purge And Trap Analysis

System and JUREK ANNE. Introduction: in an in purge and. trap sampling. Discussion: As part of. consistent and reliable data. (MoRT) to.

Helium conservation in volatile organic compound analysis using U.S. EPA Method 8260C

Ed George and Anaïs Viven Varian, Inc.

Analytical Trap Comparison for USEPA Method 8260C

Analysis. Introduction: necessary. presented. Discussion: As part of be carried. consistent and reliable data. (MoRT) to.

Optimal Conditions for USEPA Method 8260B Analysis using the EST Analytical Sampling system and the Shimadzu GCMS-QP2010s

Optimizing of Volatile Organic Compound Determination by Static Headspace Sampling

Performance of a Next Generation Vial Autosampler for the Analysis of VOCs in Water Matrices

2017 EPA Method Update Rule and EPA Method 624.1

EPA TO-17 Volatile Organic Compounds

INNOVATIVE PRODUCTS, SUPERIOR SUPPORT. Presenter: Anne Jurek, Senior Applications Chemist, EST Analytical

Improved Volatiles Analysis Using Static Headspace, the Agilent 5977B GC/MSD, and a High-efficiency Source

BIO-CHEM Laboratories, Inc. Work Order Sample Summary. CLIENT: Cascade Thornapple River Assoc. Project: Water Analysis Lab Order:

Analysis of Low Level Volatile Organic Compounds in Air Anne Jurek

Application News AD Quantitative Determination of Volatile Organic Compounds in Drinking Water by EPA Method with Headspace Trap GC-MS

Determination of Volatile Organic Compounds in Air

BIO-CHEM Laboratories, Inc. Work Order Sample Summary. CLIENT: CTRA Project: 6454 T Lab Order: A 6454 Aqueous 3/1/2013.

U.S. EPA VOLATILE ORGANICS METHOD USING PURGE AND TRAP GC/MS

UCMR 3 Low-Level VOC Analysis by Purge and Trap Concentration and GC/MS using Selective Ion Monitoring

Reduced VOC Sample Analysis Times Using a New Dual Purge-and-Trap System

Detection of Volatile Organic Compounds in polluted air by an Agilent mini Thermal Desorber and an Agilent 5975T LTM GC/MS

Validation of New VPH GC/MS Method using Multi-Matrix Purge and Trap Sample Prep System

Optimization of 1,4-Dioxane and Ethanol Detection Using USEPA Method 8260 Application Note

Measuring Environmental Volatile Organic Compounds by U.S. EPA Method 8260B with Headspace Trap GC/MS

Application Note. Abstract. Introduction. Experimental-Instrument Conditions. By: Anne Jurek

Application Note. Abstract. Introduction. Experimental-Instrument Conditions. By: Anne Jurek

AUTONOMOUS, REAL TIME DETECTION OF 58 VOCS IN THE PANAMA CANAL

CALA Directory of Laboratories

ANALYTICAL REPORT. Job Number: Job Description: Transform Complete

Solid Phase Microextraction of Cyanogen Chloride and Other Volatile Organic Compounds in Drinking Water with Fast Analysis by GC-TOFMS

A Single Calibration for Waters and Soil Samples Performing EPA Method Anne Jurek Applications Chemist

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES); BADCT Limits for Volatile Organic Compounds

ANALYTICAL REPORT. Results relate only to the items tested and the sample(s) as received by the laboratory. Page 1 of 5

Target Compound Results Summary

Evaluation of a New Analytical Trap for Gasoline Range Organics Analysis

Roger Bardsley, Applications Chemist; Teledyne Tekmar Page 1

Volatile Organic Compounds in Every Day Food

Analysis of Geosmin and 2-Methylisoborneol Utilizing the Stratum PTC and Aquatek 70

Amy Nutter, Applications Chemist; Teledyne Tekmar P a g e 1

Optimization of Method Parameters for the Evaluation of USEPA Method Using a Purge and Trap with GC/MS

Application Note. Application Note 081 Innovative Cryogen-Free Ambient Air Monitoring in Compliance with US EPA Method TO-15. Abstract.

STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES

METHOD 5021 VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS IN SOILS AND OTHER SOLID MATRICES USING EQUILIBRIUM HEADSPACE ANALYSIS

Meeting NJ Low Level TO-15 Air Testing Method Requirements

The following report includes the data for the above referenced project for sample(s) received on 5/15/2017 at Air Toxics Ltd.

Techniques for Optimizing the Analysis of Volatile Organic Compounds in Water Using Purge-and-Trap/GC/MS Application

Electronic Supplementary Material Experimentally Validated Mathematical Model of Analyte Uptake by Permeation Passive Samplers

Rapid Determination of TO-15 Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) in Air

Thermal Desorption Technical Support

Associates. Project No.: October 25, 2017

A Comparative Analysis of Fuel Oxygenates in Soil by Dynamic and Static Headspace Utilizing the HT3 TM Automatic Headspace Analyzer

Standard Operating Procedure for the Analysis of Purgeable Organic Compounds (VOC s) in Water by Capillary Column Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry

McCAMPBELL ANALYTICAL INC Willow Pass Road Pittsburg CA

Copies: Dave Favero, RACER File

Volatile Organic Compounds in Water PBM

ANALYTICAL RESULTS. Project: Mayflower, AR Pipeline Incident

Application Note 116 Monitoring VOCs in Ambient Air Using Sorbent Tubes with Analysis by TD-GC/MS in Accordance with Chinese EPA Method HJ

Study of Residual Solvents in Various Matrices by Static Headspace

ANALYTICAL REPORT. Job Number: SDG Number: Job Description: Joint Base Cape Cod

OREGON Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program ORELAP Fields of Accreditation ALS Environmental - Simi Valley

Laboratory Report Number(s) Lone Tree Road (Deep) 10/5/15, 10/19/15, 6/13/16. Address Sample Date(s) Analyses Requested

Building 280A and Building 450 Soil Sampling Results Richmond Field Station Site Berkeley Global Campus at Richmond Bay, Richmond, California

Table 1 Soil and Groundwater Sampling Summary Table

SUMMARY REPORT OF AIR MONITORING FOR LEED CERTIFICATION PHASE 2 SWANSFIELD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 5610 CEDAR LANE COLUMBIA, MD PREPARED FOR:

Method 1624 Revision C Volatile Organic Compounds by Isotope Dilution GCMS

Enhanced Preconcentrator for the Analysis of Vapor Phase Volatile Organic Compounds

R.E.A.C.T. Roxbury Environmental Action CoaliTion P.O. Box 244 Ledgewood, N.J Website:

Detection of Environmental Contaminants Caused by the Oil Spill in the Gulf of Mexico by GC and Hplc

In-Tube Extraction Sample Preparation for Gas Chromatography

317 Elm Street Milford, NH (603) Fax (603)

ORGANIC COMPOUNDS IN WATER BY GAS CHROMATOGRAPHY/MASS SPECTROMETRY USING NITROGEN PURGE GAS

USP <467> Headspace Residual Solvent Assay with a HT3 Headspace Instrument

METHOD MEASUREMENT OF PURGEABLE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS IN WATER BY CAPILLARY COLUMN GAS CHROMATOGRAPHY/MASS SPECTROMETRY. Revision 4.

Appendix 2 Data Distributions for Contaminants in Water and Sediment Samples in Response to the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill, 2010


/J~ GOLDER. Golder Associates Inc. golder.com. Project No April 25, 2018

Transcription:

APPLICATION NOTE: TECHNOLOGY: INDUSTRY: AN1806 P+T VOC ENV US EPA Method 524.2 with the Tekmar Lumin P&T Concentrator, AQUATek LVA and Agilent 7890B GC/5977A MS Amy Nutter, Applications Chemist; Teledyne Tekmar P a g e 1 Abstract US EPA Method 524.2 was used to determine the concentration of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in drinking water. The Teledyne Tekmar Lumin purge and trap (P&T) concentrator, along with an AQUATek LVA (liquid vial autosampler) and Agilent 7890B GC/5977A MS was used to create a working linear calibration curve and method detection limits (MDLs) for target compounds. This study will demonstrate the ability of the Lumin P&T concentrator with AQUATek LVA to process drinking water samples for VOC analysis according to US EPA Method 524.2. Introduction The AQUATek LVA is Teledyne Tekmar s most advanced water-only P&T autosampler and is based on the proven Atomx XYZ platform. The AQUATek LVA includes whisper-quiet XYZ automation, two standard addition vessels and an optional ph meter. Combined with its 84-position chiller enabled sample tray, the result is simple and reliable sample preparation and handling. While US EPA Method 524.2 is effective at concentrating trace levels of VOCs, it can also transfer a significant amount of water vapor to the Gas Chromatograph/Mass Spectrometer (GC/MS) due to the four-minute desorb time recommendation. By pairing the AQUATek LVA with the Lumin PTC s innovative moisture control system (MCS), water vapor removal is improved by as much as 60%, thereby reducing peak interference and increasing GC column life span. In addition to other refinements, the AQUATek LVA incorporates a precision-machined valve manifold block to reduce potential leak sources and ensure the system is both reliable and robust. Sample Preparation A 25 ppm calibration working standard was prepared in methanol from the following Restek standards: Drinking Water VOA MegaMix, Ketone Mix, and 502.2 Calibration Mix. In total, the standard contained 83 compounds. A calibration curve was prepared from 0.2 ppb to 50 ppb for all compounds. The relative response factor () was calculated for each compound using one internal standard: Fluorobenzene. Surrogate standards consisted of: 4-Bromofluorobenzene and 1,2-Dichlorobenzene-d4. Internal and surrogate standards were prepared in methanol from Restek standards at a concentration of 25 ppm, after which 5 µl was then mixed with each 5 ml sample for a resulting concentration of 25 ppb. Seven 0.2 ppb standards were prepared to calculate the MDL and accuracy and precision calculations. All calibration and MDL standards were analyzed with the Lumin P&T concentrator and AQUATek LVA conditions in Table I. GC-MS conditions are shown in Table II. Sales/Support: 800-874-2004 Main: 513-229-7000

Experimental Instrument Conditions P a g e 2 Table I Teledyne Tekmar Lumin P&T Concentrator Water Method Conditions Standby Variable Desorb Variable Valve Oven Temp 150 ºC Desorb Preheat Temp 245 ºC Transfer Line Temp 150 ºC Desorb Temp 250 ºC Sample Mount Temp 90 ºC Desorb Time 4.00 min Standby Flow 10 ml/min Drain Flow 300 ml/min Purge Ready Temp 40 ºC GC Start Signal Begin Desorb MCS Purge Temp 20 ºC Purge Variable Bake Variable Purge Temp 20 ºC Bake Time 2.00 min Purge Time 11.00 min Bake Temp 280 ºC Purge Flow 40 ml/min Bake Flow 200 ml/min Dry Purge Temp 20 ºC MCS Bake Temp 180 ºC Dry Purge Time 1.00 min Dry Purge Flow 100 ml/min AQUATek LVA Variable Sample Temp 40 ºC Sample Loop Time 0.35 min Pre-Purge Time 0.50 min Sample Transfer Time 0.35 min Pre-Purge Flow 40 ml/min Rinse Loop Time 0.30 min Preheat Time 1.00 min Sweep Needle Time 0.30 min Sample Heater Enable Off Presweep Time 0.25 min Trap K Water Temp 90 ºC Chiller Tray Off Bake Rinse Cycles 1 Purge Gas Helium Bake Rinse Drain Time 0.35 min

P a g e 3 Table II Agilent 7890B GC and 5977A MSD System Conditions Agilent 7890B GC Conditions Column Oven Profile Inlet Rtx -VMS, 20m x 0.18 mm, 1µm Film, Helium 1 ml/min 35 ºC, 4 min, 15 ºC/min to 85 ºC, 30 ºC/min to 225 ºC, 2 min hold, Run Time 14.00 min 180 ºC, 120:1 Split, 19.752 psi Agilent 5977A MSD Conditions Temp Transfer Line 225 ºC; Source 230 ºC; Quad 150 ºC Scan Gain Range 35 m/z to 260 m/z, Solvent Delay 0.50 min, Normal Scanning Gain Factor 10.00, Autotune Results The relative standard deviation (%RSD) of the response factors () for the calibration curves, MDL, and accuracy and precision data are shown in Table III. Figure 1 displays a 30 ppb standard, indicating excellent peak resolution with minimal water interference for all VOCs, including the first six gases. Table III US EPA Method 524.2 Calibration, Accuracy and Precision Data Compound Linearity (%RSD) Calibration Accuracy and Precision (n=7, 0.2 ppb) 1 MDL Concentration Accuracy (±20%) Precision ( 20%) Fluorobenzene (IS) Dichlorodifluoromethane 6.99 0.06 0.071 0.23 113 8.03 Chloromethane 10.3 0.08 0.107 0.23 117 11.0 Vinyl Chloride 8.46 0.06 0.202 0.22 112 8.08 Bromomethane 6.43 0.10 0.276 0.23 114 13.5 Chloroethane 5.58 0.09 0.157 0.24 120 12.5 Trichlorofluoromethane 15.6 0.07 0.483 0.21 103 10.4 Diethyl Ether 12.9 0.08 0.072 0.20 98 13.7 1,1-Dichloroethene 14.7 0.10 0.064 0.22 112 14.1 Acetone 2 0.998 0.10 0.079 0.22 111 14.6 Carbon Disulfide 7.08 0.09 0.046 0.22 109 13.5 Iodomethane 2 0.995 0.12 0.083 0.22 109 17.6 Allyl Chloride 7.83 0.12 0.046 0.21 107 17.8 Methylene chloride 8.29 0.09 0.119 0.23 113 13.0 Acrylonitrile 9.10 0.08 0.052 0.22 111 11.2 trans-1,2-dichloroethene 8.03 0.09 0.210 0.23 116 12.8 Methyl tert-butyl ether 2.69 0.07 0.532 0.22 108 9.96 1,1-Dichloroethane 5.19 0.08 0.213 0.23 117 10.4 Methyl Methacrylate 12.4 0.11 0.063 0.22 109 15.9 2,2-Dichloropropane 5.07 0.12 0.245 0.19 96 19.8 Propionitrile 18.9 0.10 0.033 0.21 104 15.5

P a g e 4 Table III US EPA Method 524.2 Calibration, Accuracy and Precision Data Compound Linearity (%RSD) Calibration Accuracy and Precision (n=7, 0.2 ppb) 1 MDL Concentration Accuracy (±20%) Precision ( 20%) cis-1,2-dichloroethene 11.5 0.09 0.075 0.22 109 12.5 2-Butanone 16.5 0.08 0.092 0.22 112 11.8 Methyl Acrylate 14.3 0.09 0.097 0.23 114 13.0 Methacrylonitrile 7.33 0.09 0.108 0.22 108 12.8 Bromochloromethane 4.25 0.11 0.132 0.21 105 16.5 Chloroform 4.59 0.07 0.419 0.23 115 9.39 Carbon Tetrachloride 6.07 0.08 0.129 0.18 91 13.3 Tetrahydrofuran 11.0 0.08 0.026 0.19 94 13.5 1,1,1-Trichloroethane 5.83 0.06 0.168 0.22 111 9.19 1,1-Dichloropropene 8.91 0.10 0.062 0.22 108 15.3 1-Chlorobutane 7.85 0.09 0.083 0.20 99 14.3 Benzene 5.41 0.05 0.267 0.24 119 6.60 1,2-Dichloroethane 5.44 0.08 0.112 0.23 114 11.3 Trichloroethene 16.2 0.12 0.143 0.23 114 17.4 Dibromomethane 4.61 0.07 0.080 0.20 99 12.0 1,2-Dichloropropane 8.44 0.09 0.105 0.22 112 12.3 2-Nitropropane 13.5 0.13 0.024 0.21 106 20.0 Bromodichloromethane 10.7 0.06 0.173 0.17 84 10.8 Chloroacetonitrile 2 0.995 0.13 0.003 0.22 111 19.0 cis-1,3-dichloropropene 5.66 0.08 0.115 0.22 109 11.3 1,1-Dichloro-2-propanone 6.70 0.09 0.084 0.19 97 14.8 4-Methyl-2-Pentanone 8.08 0.13 0.084 0.22 109 18.4 Toluene 6.23 0.08 0.223 0.19 97 13.2 Tetrachloroethene 12.6 0.09 0.384 0.23 114 12.7 trans-1,3-dichloropropene 6.53 0.05 0.142 0.18 91 8.18 Ethyl Methacrylate 6.80 0.08 0.134 0.20 101 13.3 1,1,2-Trichloroethane 7.91 0.07 0.127 0.22 109 10.5 2-Hexanone 10.4 0.04 0.062 0.18 91 7.55 Dibromochloromethane 13.0 0.08 0.197 0.18 91 13.7 1,3-Dichloropropane 5.57 0.05 0.219 0.23 116 6.42 1,2-Dibromoethane 5.74 0.07 0.140 0.20 100 11.9 Chlorobenzene 4.75 0.08 0.399 0.22 109 11.0 Ethylbenzene 9.18 0.04 0.827 0.19 94 6.44 1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane 3.07 0.04 0.220 0.20 98 7.14 m-, p-xylene 11.8 0.07 0.228 0.37 92 6.03 o-xylene 8.77 0.06 0.248 0.20 99 10.0 Styrene 9.60 0.04 0.459 0.17 85 6.79 Bromoform 12.5 0.09 0.196 0.19 94 15.6 Isopropylbenzene 11.6 0.05 0.721 0.18 91 8.67 4-Bromofluorobenzene (SURR) 6.81 0.329 22.9 92 1.52 Bromobenzene 6.94 0.08 0.283 0.20 98 13.5 n-propylbenzene 11.7 0.03 0.813 0.18 89 6.28

P a g e 5 Table III US EPA Method 524.2 Calibration, Accuracy and Precision Data Compound Linearity (%RSD) Calibration Accuracy and Precision (n=7, 0.2 ppb) 1 MDL Concentration Accuracy (±20%) Precision ( 20%) 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 12.5 0.07 0.169 0.18 91 12.9 2-Chlorotoluene 11.8 0.04 0.812 0.18 90 7.17 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene 12.8 0.02 0.645 0.17 85 3.40 1,2,3-Trichloropropane 7.32 0.05 0.268 0.22 109 7.20 trans-1,4-dichloro-2-butene 7.61 0.12 0.033 0.20 101 19.2 4-Chlorotoluene 9.84 0.02 0.617 0.18 88 4.48 t-butylbenzene 11.9 0.04 0.813 0.16 82 6.90 Pentachloroethane 12.7 0.08 0.150 0.20 99 12.7 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 12.6 0.06 0.696 0.16 81 11.6 sec-butylbenzene 12.6 0.02 0.997 0.17 84 4.52 4-Isopropyltoluene 12.9 0.03 0.889 0.17 84 6.66 1,3-Dichlorobenzene 10.7 0.05 0.574 0.19 94 8.34 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 7.65 0.05 0.640 0.18 89 8.81 n-butylbenzene 9.32 0.04 0.806 0.20 100 5.77 Hexachloroethane 12.2 0.08 0.178 0.18 91 13.7 1,2-Dichlorobenzene-d4 (SURR) 6.54 0.645 22.7 91 0.699 1,2-Dichlorobenzene 4.95 0.05 0.655 0.20 99 8.13 1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane 13.6 0.08 0.033 0.22 111 12.1 Nitrobenzene 2 0.999 0.10 0.006 0.21 106 14.3 Hexachlorobutadiene 12.4 0.06 0.302 0.20 99 10.0 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 9.63 0.04 0.502 0.20 98 6.50 Napthalene 13.1 0.05 0.945 0.20 99 7.92 1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene 11.0 0.03 0.508 0.18 92 5.30 1. Data from seven 0.2 ppb samples. 2. Compounds were linear regressed. Figure 1 Total Ion Chromatogram of a 30 ppb VOC Standard with an Inset of the Primary Characteristic Ions for the First Six Gases Indicating Consistent Peak Shapes for all Compounds with No Water Interference using a Four-Minute Desorb.

Conclusion P a g e 6 This study demonstrates the capability of the Teledyne Tekmar Lumin P&T concentrator with AQUATek LVA to process drinking water samples for VOCs following US EPA Method 524.2 with detection by an Agilent 7890B GC/5977A MS. The %RSD of the calibration curve passed all method requirements. Furthermore, MDL and accuracy and precision for seven 0.2 ppb standards showed no interference from excessive water. By making additional, appropriate changes to the GC oven temperature program, the GC-MS cycle time may also be reduced, increasing laboratory throughput in a 12-hour period. References 1. Munch, J.W., US EPA Method 524.2 - Measurement of Purgeable Organic Compounds in Water by Capillary Column Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry, Revision 4.1, 1995