Roger Bardsley, Applications Chemist; Teledyne Tekmar Page 1

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

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

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

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

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

Solid Phase Micro Extraction of Flavor Compounds in Beer

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

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

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

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

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

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

Using Hydrogen as An Alternative Carrier Gas for US EPA 8260

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

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

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

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

Ed George and Anaïs Viven Varian, Inc.

Maximizing Production While Minimizing Costs

Solid Phase Micro Extraction of Flavor Compounds in Beer

Optimizing Standard Preparation

2017 EPA Method Update Rule and EPA Method 624.1

Maximizing Sample Throughput In Purge And Trap Analysis

Analytical Trap Comparison for USEPA Method 8260C

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

EPA TO-17 Volatile Organic Compounds

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

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

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

Optimizing of Volatile Organic Compound Determination by Static Headspace Sampling

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

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

Analysis of Low Level Volatile Organic Compounds in Air Anne Jurek

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

Determination of Volatile Organic Compounds in Air

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

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

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

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

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

Target Compound Results Summary

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

CALA Directory of Laboratories

ANALYTICAL REPORT. Job Number: Job Description: Transform Complete

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

Roger Bardsley, Applications Chemist; Teledyne Tekmar Page 1

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

STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES

McCAMPBELL ANALYTICAL INC Willow Pass Road Pittsburg CA

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

Meeting NJ Low Level TO-15 Air Testing Method Requirements

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

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

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

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

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

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

Associates. Project No.: October 25, 2017

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

Copies: Dave Favero, RACER File

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

Evaluation of a New Analytical Trap for Gasoline Range Organics Analysis

Volatile Organic Compounds in Every Day Food

Volatile Organic Compounds in Water PBM

Thermal Desorption Technical Support

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ANALYTICAL RESULTS. Project: Mayflower, AR Pipeline Incident

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

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

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

Enhanced Preconcentrator for the Analysis of Vapor Phase Volatile Organic Compounds

Method 1624 Revision C Volatile Organic Compounds by Isotope Dilution GCMS

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

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

Table 1 Soil and Groundwater Sampling Summary Table

METHOD 5030C PURGE-AND-TRAP FOR AQUEOUS SAMPLES

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

January 19, Dear Mr. Nightingale:

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

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

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

Study of Residual Solvents in Various Matrices by Static Headspace

Certificate of Accreditation

Transcription:

Application Note US EPA Method 524.2 with the Teledyne Tekmar Lumin P&T Concentrator and Agilent 7890B GC / 5977A MS Roger Bardsley, Applications Chemist; Teledyne Tekmar Page 1 Abstract US EPA Method 524.2 is used primarily by environmental labs for the analysis of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) in drinking water. While this method is effective at concentrating the trace levels of VOCs sometimes found in finished drinking water, it also tends to transfer significant quantities of water vapor to the Gas Chromatograph/Mass Spectrometer (GC/MS) due to the 4 minute desorb time recommendation. Teledyne Tekmar s Lumin Purge and Trap (P&T) Concentrator incorporates a Moisture Control System (MCS) specifically designed to reduce the amount of water transferred during desorb, in comparison to current purge and trap technologies. This application note will demonstrate the ability of the Lumin to reduce the amount of water transfered to the Agilent GC/MS system when using this method. Introduction Gas Chromatography (GC) inlets, columns and Mass Spectrometers (MS) are sensitive to water. However, to detect toxic VOC compounds, the VOCs must be purged and trapped from water. This places water vapor on the GC/MS system, which contributes to column and inlet issues and frequent MS cleaning to remove the oxidation from the MS source. The US EPA method that places a large amount of water vapor on the GC/MS system is US EPA method 524.2. This method recommends approximately 4 minutes of desorb time from the analytical trap, which inundates the GC/MS system with large volumes of water, and leads to poor chromatography for early eluting gases. Traditionally, purge and trap instruments reduced the amount of water transferred to GC/MS instrument through numerous water management techniques. The Teledyne Tekmar Lumin significantly reduces the amount of water transferred to GC/MS system over the current P&T instrumentation through the design of its MCS. Additionally, improvements in analytical trap cooling have further reduced sample cycle times, permitting more samples to be processed within a 12 hour period. Sample Preparation Calibration standards were prepared from Restek standards from Drinking Water VOA MegaMix, Oxygenates, Ketones and 502.2 Mix. The ketones mix compounds were present at 2.5 times the concentration of other compounds in the mix. The oxygenate compound, t-butanol, was present at 5 times the concentration of other compounds in the mix. A calibration curve was prepared from 0.5 ppb to 50 ppb for all of the compounds except the ketones and t-butanol. The ketones range was from 1.25 ppb to 125 ppb. The t-butanol range was from 2.5 ppb to 250 ppb. The relative Response Factor (RF) using fluorobenzene as the internal standard was calculated for each VOC. Seven 0.5 ppb standards were prepared to calculate the Method Detection Limit (MDL), accuracy and precision data. All calibration and MDL samples were analyzed with the Lumin and AQUATek 100 conditions in Table I and the GC/MS conditions in Table II. The Relative Standard Deviation (RSD) of the Response Factor (RF), MDL, accuracy, and precision data are shown in Table III. A 0.2 ppb standard was analyzed to indicate the lowest detectable peak for the initial six gases unencumbered by excessive water in Figure 1. Figure 2 displays a 5 ppb standard, indicating excellent peak resolution for all of the VOCs, including the first six gases. Sales/Support: 800-874-2004 Main: 513-229-7000

Experimental Instrument Conditions Page 2 Table I Lumin and AQUATek 100 Conditions Standby Variable Bake Variable Valve Oven Temp 150 C Bake Time 2.00 min Transfer Line Temp 150 C Bake Temp 280 C Sample Mount Temp 90 C MCS Bake Temp 200 C Purge Ready Temp 35 C Bake Flow 200 ml/min MCS Purge Temp 20 C AQUATek 100 Variable Standby Flow 10 ml/min Sample Loop Time 0.35 min Purge Variable Sample Transfer Time 0.35 min Purge Time 11.00 min Rinse Loop Time 0.30 min Purge Flow 40 ml/min Sweep Needle Time 0.30 min Dry Purge Temp 20 C Presweep Time 0.25 min Dry Purge Time 1.00 min Water Temp 90 C Dry Purge Flow 100 ml/min Bake Rinse Drain Cycles 1 Desorb Variable Bake Rinse Drain Time 0.35 min Desorb Preheat Temp 245 C Desorb Time 4.00 min Trap K Desorb Temp 250 C Drain Flow 300 ml/min Table II Agilent 7890B GC / 5977A MS Agilent 7890B Conditions Column Oven Profile Inlet DB-624 UI, 20 m x 0.18 mm, 1 m Film, Helium 0.8 ml/min 35 C, 4 min, 15 C/min to 70 C, 25 C/min to 225 C, 2 min hold 150 C, 100:1 Split, helium saver 20 ml/min after 4 min Agilent 5977A Conditions Temp Transfer Line 225 C; Source 230 C; Quad 150 C Scan Range 35 m/z to 260 m/z, Delay 0.8 min Gain Gain Factor 14

Results Page 3 Table III Method 524.2 Calibration, Accuracy and Precision Data Calibration Accuracy and precision (n=7, 0.5 ppb) Compound Linearity RF MDL Avg. Conc. Accuracy (%) Precision Dichlorodifluoromethane 8.0 0.12 0.48 95 8.0 Chloromethane 16.2 0.17 0.69 137 8.0 Vinyl Chloride 3.7 0.15 0.53 105 9.3 Bromomethane 11.7 0.29 0.82 165 11.2 Chloroethane 5.4 0.14 0.56 111 8.2 Trichlorofluoromethane 6.4 0.11 0.50 101 7.0 Diethyl ether 3.8 0.14 0.53 106 8.5 1,1-Dichloroethene 7.6 0.16 0.54 108 9.2 Carbon Disulfide 4.0 0.17 0.55 109 10.0 Iodomethane 12.4 0.08 0.67 133 3.6 Allyl Chloride 4.4 0.15 0.57 115 8.1 Methylene Chloride 8.4 0.18 0.53 107 10.7 Acetone (1.25 ppb) 5.2 1.39 2.58 207 17.1 trans-1,2-dichloroethene 4.0 0.10 0.53 107 6.1 MTBE-d3 (Surrogate, 12.5 ppb) 2.2 12.69 101 1.3 MTBE 3.5 0.13 0.50 100 8.0 t-butyl Alcohol (2.5 ppb) 3.9 0.68 2.56 102 8.4 Diisopropyl Ether (DIPE) 5.2 0.08 0.53 105 5.1 1,1-Dichloroethane 3.4 0.16 0.51 102 9.9 Acrylonitrile 7.9 0.22 0.62 124 11.4 t-butyl Ethyl Ether (ETBE) 2.9 0.10 0.49 99 6.3 cis-1,2-dichloroethene 4.5 0.17 0.54 108 10.1 2,2-Dichloropropane 5.8 0.08 0.49 98 5.3 Bromochloromethane 6.0 0.23 0.55 109 13.3 Chloroform 4.7 0.03 0.51 101 1.9 Carbon Tetrachloride 4.6 0.13 0.47 94 8.6 Methyl Acrylate 5.8 0.18 0.59 118 9.9 Tetrahydrofuran 15.3 0.44 0.62 124 22.6 1,1,1-Trichloroethane 5.3 0.11 0.52 104 6.8 1,1-Dichloropropane 7.1 0.19 0.51 102 12.1 2-Butanone (MEK, 1.25 ppb) 8.3 0.49 1.41 113 11.1 1-Chlorobutane 5.8 0.15 0.50 99 9.9 Benzene 4.4 0.16 0.49 98 10.6 Propionitrile (1 ppb to 50 ppb) 1 6.2

Page 4 Table III Method 524.2 Calibration, Accuracy and Precision Data Calibration Accuracy and precision (n=7, 0.5 ppb) Compound Linearity RF MDL Avg. Conc. Accuracy (%) Precision Methacrylonitrile 7.0 0.40 0.61 121 20.9 t-amyl Methyl Ether (TAME) 3.2 0.05 0.52 104 3.2 1,2-Dichloroethane 2.6 0.16 0.50 100 10.5 Fluorobenzene (IS, 12.5 ppb) 2.8 1.1 Trichloroethene 3.1 0.13 0.51 101 7.9 1,4-Difluorobenzene (Surr, 12.5 ppb) 2.5 12.51 100 1.8 t-amyl Ethyl Ether (TAEE) 2.9 0.10 0.49 99 6.3 Dibromomethane 8.9 0.18 0.52 104 11.2 1,2-Dichloropropane 2.7 0.14 0.55 111 8.3 Bromodichloromethane 7.1 0.10 0.46 92 6.6 Methyl Methacrylate 8.6 0.12 0.51 102 7.4 cis-1,3-dichloropropene 5.7 0.14 0.46 92 9.6 Toluene 4.1 0.08 0.48 96 5.4 2-Nitropropane 7.6 0.32 0.47 95 21.7 Tetrachloroethene 10.1 0.29 0.58 115 16.2 1,1-Dichloropropanone (63 m/z, 1.25 ppb) 2 0.9987 2.07 1.53 123 43.0 4-Methyl-2-pentanone (58 m/z, 1.25 ppb) 2 16.4 0.30 1.23 98 7.8 trans-1,3-dichloropropene 7.1 0.10 0.48 97 6.3 1,1,2-Trichloroethane 5.1 0.11 0.50 101 6.8 Ethyl Methacrylate 10.4 0.17 0.48 97 11.3 Dibromochloromethane 7.1 0.11 0.46 92 7.4 1,3-Dichloropropane 2.5 0.16 0.50 99 10.2 1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB) 5.3 0.15 0.51 102 9.3 2-Hexanone (1.25 ppb) 16.6 0.51 1.27 101 12.8 Chlorobenzene-d5 (Surr, 12.5 ppb) 3.4 12.1 97 2.2 Chlorobenzene 2.5 0.11 0.50 99 6.9 Ethylbenzene 4.4 0.10 0.48 96 6.5 1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane 5.7 0.07 0.45 90 5.0 m-, p-xylene 4.6 0.09 0.94 94 3.1 o-xylene 5.1 0.12 0.48 96 8.2 Styrene 5.9 0.12 0.50 99 7.5 Bromoform 10.1 0.06 0.46 93 3.9 Isopropylbenzene 6.0 0.07 0.46 91 5.2 4-Bromofluorobenzene (Surr, 12.5 ppb) 4.2 12.2 97 1.8 Bromobenzene 3.5 0.08 0.50 100 5.2

Page 5 Table III Method 524.2 Calibration, Accuracy and Precision Data Calibration Accuracy and precision (n=7, 0.5 ppb) Compound Linearity RF MDL Avg. Conc. Accuracy (%) Precision n-propylbenzene 5.7 0.06 0.48 96 4.3 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 7.9 0.17 0.52 104 10.6 2-Chlorotoluene 5.1 0.09 0.48 96 5.6 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene 6.3 0.11 0.47 93 7.5 1,2,3-Trichloropropane 4.9 0.12 0.52 103 7.4 trans-1,4-dichloro-2-butene 8.2 0.34 0.54 108 20.2 4-Chlorotoluene 7.0 0.05 0.49 97 3.5 t-butylbenzene 8.3 0.15 0.47 95 9.7 Pentachloroethane 13.2 0.36 0.37 75 30.2 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 4.4 0.12 0.45 89 8.8 sec-butylbenzene 7.0 0.12 0.47 93 8.0 4-Isopropyltoluene 5.7 0.03 0.45 90 1.8 1,3-Dichlorobenzene 6.0 0.11 0.47 93 7.5 1,4-Dichlorobenzene-d4 (Surr, 12.5 ppb) 4.1 12.3 98 0.5 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 5.1 0.08 0.51 103 4.9 n-butylbenzene 5.2 0.13 0.47 94 8.5 Hexachloroethane 6.8 0.13 0.49 98 8.6 1,2-Dichlorobenzene-d4 (Surr, 12.5 ppb) 4.1 12.1 96 2.4 1,2-Dichlorobenzene 4.7 0.07 0.50 100 4.4 Nitrobenzene (2 ppb to 50 ppb) 1 1.7 1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane 12.1 0.42 0.67 133 20.0 Hexachlorobutadiene 7.1 0.17 0.52 104 10.6 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 9.1 0.12 0.49 97 7.8 Napthalene 13.7 0.08 0.49 98 5.3 1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene 10.3 0.13 0.50 100 8.2 1. Compound is a poor purger. Data is presented for calibration curve data and the detectable range. MDL samples were not detectable. 2. Co-eluting peaks. Different ions used due to interference on this column between 1,1-dichloropropanone and 4-methyl-2- pentanone.

Figure 1 Primary Characteristic Ions for the First Six Gases of a 0.2 ppb Standard Indicating Excellent Detection Limits with Minimal Interference from Water. Page 6 Figure 2 Total Ion Chromatogram of a 5 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. Conclusion The Teledyne Tekmar Lumin Purge and Trap Concentrator and AQUATek 100 was used to process water samples containing 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 with no interference from excessive water. The MDL, precision and accuracy for seven 0.5 ppb standards also indicated no interference from excessive water. 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