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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Using Hydrogen as An Alternative Carrier Gas for US EPA 8260

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

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

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

Roger Bardsley, Applications Chemist; Teledyne Tekmar Page 1

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

Optimizing. Abstract: is standardd. procedures. altered to

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

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

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

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

Solid Phase Micro Extraction of Flavor Compounds in Beer

Analytical Trap Comparison for USEPA Method 8260C

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

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

Maximizing Production While Minimizing Costs

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

Optimizing Standard Preparation

Solid Phase Micro Extraction of Flavor Compounds in Beer

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

Maximizing Sample Throughput In Purge And Trap Analysis

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

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

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

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

2017 EPA Method Update Rule and EPA Method 624.1

EPA TO-17 Volatile Organic Compounds

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

Evaluation of a New Analytical Trap for Gasoline Range Organics Analysis

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

Optimizing of Volatile Organic Compound Determination by Static Headspace Sampling

Ed George and Anaïs Viven Varian, Inc.

Volatile Organic Compounds in Every Day Food

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

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

Analysis of Low Level Volatile Organic Compounds in Air Anne Jurek

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

Determination of Volatile Organic Compounds in Air

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

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

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

Target Compound Results Summary

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

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

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

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

ANALYTICAL REPORT. Job Number: Job Description: Transform Complete

CALA Directory of Laboratories

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

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

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

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

Meeting NJ Low Level TO-15 Air Testing Method Requirements

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

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

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

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

STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES

Roger Bardsley, Applications Chemist; Teledyne Tekmar Page 1

Copies: Dave Favero, RACER File

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

McCAMPBELL ANALYTICAL INC Willow Pass Road Pittsburg CA

Associates. Project No.: October 25, 2017

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

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

Thermal Desorption Technical Support

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

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

Headspace Technology for GC and GC/MS: Features, benefits & applications

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

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

Method 1624 Revision C Volatile Organic Compounds by Isotope Dilution GCMS

Volatile Organic Compounds in Water PBM

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

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

ANALYTICAL RESULTS. Project: Mayflower, AR Pipeline Incident

Study of Residual Solvents in Various Matrices by Static Headspace

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

In-Tube Extraction Sample Preparation for Gas Chromatography

Enhanced Preconcentrator for the Analysis of Vapor Phase Volatile Organic Compounds

Date Issued: April 01, 2013 Expiration Date: June 30, 2013

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

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

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

Table 1 Soil and Groundwater Sampling Summary Table

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

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

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

Certificate of Accreditation

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

Non-Potable Water A2LA Certificate

Transcription:

Validation of USEPA Method 8260C Using Teledyne Tekmar Atomx, and Perkin-Elmer Clarus 600 GC/MS Application Note By Tyler Trent Abstract In order to determine the concentration of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in water and soil matrices the USEPA developed Method 8260C 1 in conjunction with preparative Methods 5030 2 and 5035 3. Water and soil samples were analyzed in this study. A working linear calibration curve and Method Detection Limits (s) will be demonstrated for the target compound list. The water study used a 5mL sample volume, while the soil study utilized an in-vial purge. Following the conditions of USEPA Method 8260C, an Atomx Automated VOC Sample Prep system in conjunction with a GC/MS was used to validate the method. Introduction Teledyne Tekmar has developed the Atomx, an Automated VOC Sample Prep system that integrates a purge and trap concentrator with a multi-matrix autosampler. This all-in-one set up allows for increased throughput and efficiency through the features that it provides, such as the three standard addition vessels and 80-postion autosampler tray. Also, the Atomx allows for sampling of multiple matrices, water, soil and methanol extraction in a single run. Using the PerkinElmer Clarus 600/600T GCMS, a linear calibration curve and s were performed for both water and soil matrices. The water samples employed a calibration range from 0.5-200ppb, while the soil calibration curve ranged from 1.0-200ppb. Both water and soil methods require either a 5mL or 5g sample size. Analysis strictly followed the criteria outlined in the USEPA Method 8260C. Experimental-Instrument Conditions The Atomx, equipped with a #9 adsorbent trap, and a PerkinElmer Clarus 600 GC with a Clarus 600T MS were utilized for this study. Tables 1-4 show the CG/MS and purge and trap conditions for both water and soil applications. GC: GC Parameters Perkin-Elmer Clarus 600 Gas Chromatograph MSD: MSD Parameters Clarus 600T Quadrupole Mass Spectrometer Column Restek RTX-VMS 20m x 0.18mmID x 1um Source: 200 C Oven Program: 40 C for 4 min; 16 C/min to 100 C for 0 Transfer Line 200 C min; 30 C /min to 200 C for 4 min, 15.083 min runtime Temp: Inlet: 220 C Solvent Delay: 0.5 min Column Flow 0.9mL/min Scan Range: 35-270 m/z Gas: Helium Scan Time: 0.2 sec Split: 80:1 Inter-scan 0.1 sec Delay: Pressure: 18.4psi Ionization EI+ Mode: Inlet: Split/Split less Tables 1 & 2: GC and MSD Parameters

Atomx Water Parameters Variable Value Variable Value Valve Oven Temp 140 C Dry Purge Flow 100mL/min Transfer Line Temp 140 C Dry Purge Temp 20 C Sample Mount Temp 90 C Methanol Needle Rinse Off Water Heater Temp 90 C Methanol Needle Rinse Volume 3.0mL Sample Vial Temp 20 C Water Needle Rinse Volume 7.0mL Sample Equilibrate Time 0.00 min Sweep Needle Time 0.50min Soil Valve Temp 100 C Desorb Preheat Time 245 C Standby Flow 10mL/min GC Start Signal Start of Desorbs Purge Ready Temp 40 C Desorb Time 2.00 min Condensate Ready Temp 45 C Drain Flow 300mL/min Presweep Time 0.25 min Desorb Temp 250 C Prime Sample Fill Volume 3.0mL Methanol Glass Rinse Off Sample Volume 5.0mL Number of Methanol Glass Rinses 1 Sweep Sample Time 0.25 min Methanol Glass Rinse Volume 3.0mL Sweep Sample Flow 100mL/min Number of Bake Rinses 1 Sparge Vessel Heater On Water Bake Rinse Volume 7.0mL Sparge Vessel Temp 40 C Bake Rinse Sweep Time 0.25 min Prepurge Time 0.00 min Bake Rinse Sweep Flow 100mL/min Prepurge Flow 0mL/min Bake Rinse Drain Time 0.40 min Purge Time 11.00 min Bake Time 4.00 min Purge Flow 40mL/min Bake Flow 200mL/min Purge Temp 20 C Bake Temp 280 C Condensate Purge Temp 20 C Condensate Bake Temp 200 C Dry Purge Time 2.00 min Table 3: Atomx Water Parameters (Parameters highlighted in yellow were not used.)

Atomx Soil Parameters Variable Value Variable Value Valve Oven Temp 140 C Purge Time 11.00 min Transfer Line Temp 140 C Purge Flow 40mL/min Sample Mount Temp 90 C Purge Temp 20 C Water Heater Temp 90 C Condensate Purge Temp 20 C Sample Vial Temp 40 C Dry Purge Time 2.00 min Prepurge Time 0.00 min Dry Purge Flow 100mL/min Prepurge Flow 0 ml/min Dry Purge Temp 20 C Preheat Mix Speed Medium Methanol Needle Rinse Off Sample Preheat Time 0.00 min Methanol Needle Rinse Volume 3.0mL Soil Valve Temp 100 C Water Needle Rinse Volume 7.0mL Standby Flow 10 ml/min Sweep Needle Time 0.25 min Purge Ready Temp 40 C Desorb Preheat Time 245 C Condensate Ready Temp 45 C GC Start Signal Start of Desorbs Presweep Time 0.25 min Desorb Time 2.00 min Water Volume 10 ml Drain Flow 300 ml/min Sweep Water Time 0.25 min Desorb Temp 250 C sweep Water Flow 100 ml/min Bake Time 2.00 min Sparge Vessel Heater Off Bake Flow 400 ml/min Sparge Vessel Temp 20 C Bake Temp 280 C Purge Mix Speed Fast Condensate Bake Temp 200 C Table 4: Atomx Soil Parameters (Parameters highlighted in yellow were not used.) and Minimum Detection Limits A 50ppm working calibration standard was prepared in methanol. standards were made in volumetric flasks using de-ionized water. The water calibration ranged from 0.5-200ppb, while the soil ranged from 1-200ppb. A 25ppm internal standard (IS) was prepared in methanol and transferred to one of the three standard addition vessels on the Atomx. Using the standard addition feature, the Atomx transferred the IS in 5μL aliquots to the sample providing a constant 25ppb final concentration in 5mL. TurboMass software was used to process the calibration and data. The relative response factors (R) of all target analytes were evaluated for average Response Factor () and calibration percent relative standard deviation (). Both water and soil calibration curves met the USEPA 8260C 1 performance criteria with results listed in Table 5. Total Ion Chromatograms (TIC) for 25ppb water and soil standard can be found in Figures 1-2. Method detection limits (s) were established for all compounds by analyzing seven replicates at 1.0ppb for water and 5.0ppb for soil. The s for each matrix can be found in Table 5.

Compound Pentafluorobenzene (IS) Dichlorodifluoromethane Chloromethane Vinyl Chloride Bromomethane* Chloromethane Trichlorofluoromethane Diethyl Ether 1,1-Dichloroethene Carbon Disulfide 1,1,2-Trichlorofluoromethane Iodomethane* Allyl Chloride Methylene Chloride Acetone* Trans-1,2-Dichloroethene Methyl Acetate Methyl-tert-butyl-ether Tert-butyl Alcohol Chloroprene 1,1-Dichloroethane Acrylonitrile* Ethyl Acetate Vinyl Acetate* Ethyl-tert-butyl Ether Cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 2,2-Dichloropropane Bromochloromethane Chloroform Carbon Tetrachloride 1,1,1-Trichloroethane Tetrahydrofuran Dibromofluoromethane (Surr) Methyl Acrylate 1,1-Dichloropropene 2-Butanone (MEK) Benzene Methacrylonitrile Tert-amyl-methyl Ether Water 25 25 Soil 1 0.361 0.237 8.6 5 0.748 0.595 6 1 0.138 0.662 9.6 5 0.631 0.828 9.4 1 0.194 0.443 5.1 5 0.757 0.726 6.6 1 0.132 0.354 0.9989 5 1.342 0.438 17 1 0.242 0.277 15 5 0.728 0.428 18.3 1 0.194 0.408 7.8 5 0.6 0.654 8.3 1 0.177 0.450 3.4 5 0.677 0.485 5.6 1 0.341 0.355 4.7 5 0.712 0.38 7.2 1 0.450 1.34 8.1 5 0.774 1.54 16 1 0.208 0.340 7.2 5 0.957 0.36 4.7 1 1.222 0.292 0.9992 5 1.597 0.313 0.9954 1 0.118 0.925 9.7 5 0.866 0.985 5.9 1 0.085 0.517 11.7 5 0.538 0.53 9.1 1 0.157 0.426 0.9988 5 1.214 0.28 0.9989 1 0.350 0.406 3.6 5 0.747 0.471 9.1 1 0.111 0.968 15.8 5 0.833 0.36 8.4 1 0.099 1.313 5.3 5 0.626 1.275 2.3 5 1.503 0.098 7.5 25 3.937 0.057 11.3 1 0.303 0.459 5.5 5 0.733 0.453 2.7 1 0.110 0.875 4.5 5 0.582 0.995 5 1 0.070 0.593 0.9989 5 0.784 0.163 11.3 1 0.223 0.403 8.8 5 1.031 0.398 3.2 1 0.000 0.168 10.6 5 1.065 0.096 0.9999 1 0.096 1.453 5.5 5 0.600 1.395 0.8 1 0.129 0.550 3.1 5 0.622 0.517 4.3 1 0.185 0.602 3.9 5 0.609 0.666 4 1 0.246 0.235 15.3 5 1.138 0.235 9.1 1 0.158 0.811 4.5 5 0.735 0.857 2.2 1 0.354 0.413 8.8 5 0.688 0.59 3.1 1 0.234 0.561 3.6 5 0.720 0.632 3 1 0.188 0.729 3.3 5 0.720 0.273 5.9 25 0.461 1.7 25 0.522 0.7 1 0.043 1.019 7 5 0.265 0.394 5.6 1 0.275 0.719 4.1 5 0.720 0.734 5.1 1 0.199 0.827 6.9 5 0.829 0.249 2.7 1 0.133 2.510 5.7 5 0.662 2.257 4.2 1 0.081 0.451 6.9 5 0.850 0.2 7 1 0.054 1.568 5.8 5 0.503 1.34 1.5

1,2-Dichloroethane Isopropyl Acetate Trichloroethene Table 5 Continued Water Soil Compound 1,4-Difluorobenzene (IS) Dibromomethane 1,2-Dichloropropane Bromodichloromethane Methyl Methacrylate n-propyl Acetate 2-Chloroethyl Vinyl Ether 1 0.210 1 0.046 0.587 5 5 0.523 0.681 3.9 1 0.061 1.790 5.8 5 0.482 0.989 4.3 1 0.229 0.314 3.6 5 0.599 0.276 6.6 25 25 1 0.284 0.168 9.2 5 0.759 0.118 7.5 1 0.107 0.305 3.9 5 0.687 0.265 2.7 1 0.080 0.382 4.4 5 0.742 0.328 4.4 1 0.077 0.393 6.8 5 0.513 0.185 5.4 1 0.077 1.004 7 5 0.403 0.383 6.4 0.260 cis-1,3-dichloropropene 1 0.158 0.530 6.7 8.4 5 5 0.655 0.148 6 0.629 0.424 6.6 Toluene-D8 (Surr) 25 1.339 0.7 25 1.044 1 Toluene 1 0.116 1.314 4.4 5 0.702 1.042 3.5 2-Nirtopropane 1 0.177 0.162 6.4 5 1.311 0.055 17.3 Tetrachloroethene 1 0.387 0.302 10 5 0.786 0.273 10.7 4-methyl-2-pentanone 1 0.087 0.781 6.7 5 0.586 0.258 6.9 1,1,2-Trichloroethane 1 0.208 0.311 2 5 0.478 0.197 3.5 Ethyl Methacrylate 1 0.051 0.597 9.9 5 0.604 0.351 8.5 Dibromochloromethane 1 0.115 0.293 3.6 5 0.593 0.242 6.4 Trans-1,3-Dichloropropene 1 0.153 0.473 9.2 5 0.693 0.368 8.8 1,3-Dichloropropane 1 0.040 0.668 4.5 5 0.487 0.441 3.2 1,2,3-Trichloropropane 1 0.194 0.370 2.8 5 0.702 0.21 5.2 1,2-Dibromoethane 1 0.186 0.352 3.4 5 0.667 0.216 6 n-butyl acetate 1 0.134 0.439 14.9 5 0.617 0.163 13.5 2-Hexanone 1 0.127 0.694 5.8 5 0.813 0.183 8.1 Chlorobenzene-D5 (IS) 25 25 Chlorobenzene 1 0.175 0.955 5.4 5 0.881 0.898 4.8 Ethylbenzene 1 0.233 0.523 4.8 5 0.760 0.442 5 1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane 1 0.175 0.283 3.9 5 0.873 0.259 5.8 M&P-Xylene 2 0.517 0.647 5.4 10 1.619 0.54 5 O-Xylene 1 0.149 0.623 5.9 5 0.814 0.513 6.5 Styrene 1 0.109 1.066 7 5 0.768 0.851 4.8 Bromoform 1 0.254 0.228 8.2 5 0.691 0.138 7.1 Isopropylbenzene 1 0.171 1.517 5.9 5 0.898 1.264 5.8 n-amyl Acetate 1 0.062 0.884 17.2 5 0.707 0.442 18.1 4-Bromo-1-fluorobenzene (Surr) 25 0.569 2.5 25 0.417 1.4 n-propylbenzene 1 0.248 1.716 5.7 5 0.730 1.375 4.6 trans-1,4-dichloro-2-butene 1 0.153 0.404 9.7 5 1.102 0.183 14.4 Bromobenzene 1 0.182 0.350 4.7 5 0.933 0.314 4.7 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 1 0.076 1.061 4.7 5 0.789 0.531 10

Table 5 Continued Water Soil Compound Compo und Comp ound 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene 1 0.171 2.357 4.9 5 1.290 2.154 5.4 2-Chlorotoluene 1 0.191 1.878 3.7 5 0.942 1.644 5.5 Cis-1,4-Dichloro-2-Butene 1 0.174 0.290 13.8 5 1.197 0.117 20 4-Chlorotoluene 1 0.209 2.010 4.6 5 1.071 1.798 7.3 Tertbutylbenzene 1 0.222 1.943 7.6 5 1.084 2.187 7.2 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 1 0.169 2.412 6.2 5 0.917 2.218 4.7 sec-butylbenzene 1 0.320 2.933 6 5 1.143 2.683 6.4 p-isopropyl toluene 1 0.333 2.228 7.4 5 1.091 2.468 5.2 1,3-Dichlorobenzene 1 0.199 1.359 5.3 5 0.799 1.326 11.6 1,4-Dichlorobenzene-D4 (IS) 25 25 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 1 0.298 1.290 2.8 5 0.939 1.219 9 n-butylbenzene 1 0.396 2.142 7 5 0.984 1.929 8.4 1,2-Dichlorobenzene 1 0.262 1.264 5.2 5 1.170 1.215 9.5 1,2-dibromo-3-Chloropropane 1 0.555 0.305 7.5 5 0.590 0.114 8.7 Hexachlorobutadiene 1 0.430 0.324 5.6 5 0.908 0.358 7.3 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 1 0.436 0.892 7.2 5 1.577 0.724 12 Napthalene 1 0.344 3.268 9.1 5 1.197 2.06 7.8 1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene 1 0.524 0.838 8.4 5 1.241 0.68 8.6 Table 5: Experimental Results For USEPA Method 8260C Water and Soil * Compound was linear regressed Figure 1: TIC of a 25ppb Water Standard for Method 8260C

Conclusions Figure 2: TIC of a 25ppb Soil Standard for Method 8260C This study demonstrates the capability of the Atomx Automated VOC Sample Prep system in conjunction with a PerkinElmer Clarus 600 GC/MS in regards to USEPA Method 8260C. and data met all performance criteria of the method. By completely automating the sample preparation of multiple matrices, efficiency and throughput can be greatly increased, saving time and money. References 1. USEPA Method 8260C Volatile Organic Compounds by Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry (GC/MS) Revision 3, August 2006 2. USEPA Method 5030 Purge-And-Trap For Aqueous Samples Revision 3, May 2003 3. USEPA Method 5035 Closed-System Purge-And Trap and Extractions For Volatile Organics In Soil and Waste Samples Revision 1, July 2002