United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Environmental Monitoring
Systems Laboratory
Cincinnati, OH 45268
jj^r
Research and Development
EPA/600/S4-89/010 Sept. 1989
Project Summary
USEPA Method Study 36
SW-846 Methods 8270/3510
GC/MS Method for Semivolatile
Organics: Capillary Column
Technique; Separately Funnel
Liquid-Liquid Extraction
Kenneth W. Edgell
An interlaboratory collaborative
study was conducted on SW-846
Methods 8270/3510 entitled "GC/MS
Method for Semivolatile Organics:
Capillary Column Technique; Separa-
tory Funnel Liquid-Liquid Extraction"
to determine the precision and re-
covery of 59 Semivolatile organic
compounds in reagent water, ground
water and leachate. SW-846 Methods
8270/3510 include instructions for
quality control, sample preparation,
and analysis by gas chromatography
mass spectrometry (GC/MS).
The study design was based upon
Youden's non-repllcate plan for
collaborative tests of analytical
methods. The test waters: reagent
water used as a control, ground
water, and hazardous waste leachate
were spiked with 59 Semivolatile
compounds at six concentration
levels (three Youden pairs). In the
study of SW-846 Methods 8270/3510,
ten laboratories extracted the test
waters with methylene chloride,
concentrated the extract to 1 mL and
analyzed the extract for 59
semivolatlle compounds by GC/MS.
The results were analyzed using
USEPA computer programs entitled
"Interlaboratory Method Validation
Study" (IMVS) which produced
measures of precision and recovery
for the 59 Semivolatile compounds in
each water type and compared the
performance of the method among
water types.
The study was conducted under
the direction of the Quality Assur-
ance Research Division, Environ-
mental Monitoring Systems Labora-
tory, Cincinnati, OH (EMSL-Clncinnati)
Environmental Protection Agency,
under Contract No. 6803-3254.
Analytical work was completed as of
September 1987. The report covers a
period from September 10, 1986 to
December 21,1987.
This Project Summary was devel-
oped by EPA's Environmental Monitor-
ing Systems Laboratory, Cincinnati,
OH to announce key findings of the
research project that is fully docu-
mented in a separate report of the
same title (see Project Report
ordering information at back).
Introduction
The Hazardous Waste Management
Facility Permit Regulations promulgated
in July, 1982 (40 CFR 265) establishes
performance standards for the monitoring
of ground waters, wastewaters and solid
wastes at hazardous waste sites. To
facilitate these standards, chemical and
physical analyses are required to assess
the degree of ground water contamination
at and around the the site. The Manual:
-------
[Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste
Physical and Chemical Methods, (SW-
846), November 1986, Third Edition],
provides a unified, up-to-date source of
information on sampling and analyses
related to compliance with Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
regulations. The success of pollution
control activities, particularly when legal
action is involved, depends upon the
reliability of the data generated by the
laboratories, therefore it is important to
evaluate the analytical methods fully.
This is best done through interlaboratory
method validation studies.
The Environmental Monitoring Systems
Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH (EMSL
Cincinnati), develops/selects analytical
methods and provides quality assurance
(QA) support to agency programs
involving water and waste regulations. In
EMSL-Cincinnati, the responsibility for
providing QA support is assigned to the
Quality Assurance Research Division
(QARD). Its QA program is designed to
establish the reliability and legal
defensibility of waste and waste data
collected by the Agency, the state
regulating authorities, the private sector,
and commercial laboratories performing
compliance analyses. One of QARD's QA
activities is to conduct interlaboratory
method validation studies to evaluate
analytical methods selected for the
Agency's operating programs such as the
Office of Solid Waste.
This report describes an interlaboratory
method validation study for SW-846
Method 8270/3510, "GC/MS Method for
Semivolatile Organics: Capillary Column
Technique; Separatory Funnel Liquid-
Liquid Extraction" for the analyses of 59
semivolatile compounds.
The objective of the study was to
characterize the behavior of Method
8270/3510, when performed by multiple
laboratories, in terms of recovery, overall
and single-analyst precision and the
effect of water type on recovery and
precision. The study was conducted with
the cooperation of ten participating
laboratories under the direction of the
Quality Assurance Research Division
(QARD), EMSL-Cincinnati. The Bionetics
Corporation, as primary contractor to
QARD, was responsible for the collection
and characterization of test waters,
preparation of samples, user instructions
and report forms, distribution of samples,
and screening the returned data for gross
errors. The raw data were evaluated
statistically by the QARD using computer
programs entitled, "Interlaboratory
Method Validation Studies" (IMVS). Upon
review of the draft report by EMSL-
Cincinnati, The Bionetics Corporation
prepared the final report.
Description of Study
Two SW-846 methods were
investigated in this study. Method 3510
entitled "Separatory Funnel Liquid-Liquid
Extraction" was used for the extraction
procedure and Method 8270 entitled
"GC/MS Method for Semivolatile
Organics: Capillary Column Technique"
was used for the determinative step.
Method 8270 is applicable to Appendix
IX semivolatile compounds. However, this
study was limited to those compounds
not previously covered under USEPA
Method Study 30 on Method 625 a
similar GC/MS method. Method 625 uses
packed column chromatography while
Method 8270 uses capillary column
chromatography. It was assumed there
would be no significant difference in the
computed statistics of the compounds
covered by both methods therefore these
organics were not included in this study.
Of the remaining 72 compounds, 13 were
unsuitable for the study. Table 2 lists
these compounds and the reasons they
were excluded. The remaining 59
compounds were divided into three mixes
for this method study.
Method Summary
One liter of sample water was extracted
three times with 60 mL portions of
methylene chloride at pH > 11 then re-
extracted three times with 60 ml portions
of methylene chloride of pH < 2. The
collected extracts were passed through
sodium sulfate then concentrated to 1.0
mL using a Kuderna-Danish apparatus.
The concentrated extracts were injected
into a GC/MS instrument equipped with a
30 meter narrow bore DB-5 fused silica
capillary column or equivalent.
Study Design
The design of the study was based
upon Youden's non-replicate design for
collaborative evaluation of analytical
methods. In this design, sample solu-
tions are prepared in pairs, such that the
analyte concentrations of the pairs vary
between 5-20% of the mean of the pairs.
For this study, spiking solution
concentrates of the 59 compounds were
prepared at six concentration levels, as
three Youden pairs. The spiking solutions
were divided into three mixes to facilitate
chromatographic resolution during ana-
lyses and to maximize compound solu-
bility at high concentrate levels. The
ampul concentrates were used to fortify
three water matrices before extraction
and analyses. Analysts from ten
participating laboratories were directed t
extract and analyze each sample an
report one value for each analyte at eac
concentration level. Analyses in reager
water were used to evaluate th
proficiency of the method on a sampl
free of interferences; analyses in th
other waters were intended to reveal th
effects of interferences on the method.
Each participating laboratory wa
required to analyze a matrix blank and
quality control sample. Acceptance limit
were provided with the quality contrc
sample to give the participating labors
tories their "in-control" limits. Eac
laboratory also received a set of standar
solutions for use in preparation c
calibration curves. The cost and limite
availability of several of the compound
included in this study necessitated thi
course of action.
Verification Analyses
Ampulled samples and standard soli
tions were analyzed by Bionetics persor
nel prior to distribution and compared t
freshly prepared standards to verify thi
the solutions were properly prepared an
stable. At the conclusion of the metho
study, the ampulled samples an
standard solutions were again analyze
versus freshly prepared standards t
verify the stability of each compoun
throughout the period of the study.
Selection of the Matrix Waters
Two waters were collected fror
hazardous waste sites for use in thi
study. A ground water sample wa
collected from a monitoring well at
sanitary landfill and a leachate sampl
was collected from a closed cell at
hazardous waste landfill.
GC/MS analyses of the ground wate
sample revealed no background concer
trations of the 59 analytes in the stud]
The leachate sample, on the other han<
contained phenol and phenolic con-
pounds. This matrix was ultimatel
diluted to 10% leachate to reduce th
phenolic background concentration 1
levels that would not saturate th
instrument detector. Interferences wil
the study compounds were not found.
Selection of Participating
Laboratories
The Quality Assurance Researc
Division (QARD) of EMSL-Cincinnati ws
responsible for the selection of th
participating laboratories. As per th
standard competitive bid process, «
abstract of the scope of work wj
announced in the Commerce Busine:
Daily. Over 100 laboratories requeste
-------
the complete request for proposal (RFP)
which included the evaluation criteria
upon which the offerer would be scored.
Submitted technical proposals were
evaluated based upon laboratory
experience and quality control practices.
Laboratories whose proposals were
acceptable were evaluated further in a
preaward performance evaluation study.
The participants selected for the formal
study were the ten laboratories with
acceptable proposals who performed
best in the preaward study.
Results and Discussion
The objective of this study was to
characterize the performance of SW-B46
Method 8270/3510 in terms of recovery,
overall precision, single analyst precision
and the effect of water type on recovery
and precision.
The calculated mean recoveries for
reagent water indicate that the data
presented in this report meet the
objectives outlined for this study. The
pooled mean recovery for all 58
compounds, excluding 3-methylcholan-
threne, was 77.9% with a standard devia-
tion of 13.3%. Forty-four compounds had
recoveries within one standard deviation
of the pooled mean. The average
recovery of these 44 compounds was
80.2% with a standard deviation
improving to 6.3%. The small improve-
ment in the pooled mean recovery with a
large improvement in the standard
deviation, 13.3% to 6.3%, illustrates how
tightly the data are distributed.
Generally, the ground water matrix had
a lower mean recovery, 73.5%, than
reagent water with 77.9% and slightly
more variable data with a standard
deviation of 16.6% versus 13.3% for
reagent water. The leachate matrix had
mean recoveries comparable to reagent
water with 78.9% and a standard
deviation of 14.9%.
Several compounds presented
problems during the study thus making
their regression equations suspect.
Chlorobenzilate suffered from extremely
poor extraction efficiency. The standard
solution for 3-methylcholanthrene
dehydrogenated in the methylene
chloride causing high sample recoveries.
Three compounds: 7,12-dimethyl-
benz(a)anthracene, a,a-dimethyl-
phenethylamine, dibenzo(a,e)pyrene and
tris (2,3-dibromopropyl) phosphate
suffered from poor response and erratic
chromatography.
The preliminary stability studies
revealed that the aromatic amines were
vith the acetone solvent and eluting as
two peaks. The main peak was the
aromatic amine and the second was the
reaction product. The amines were
combining with the acetone and, because
they were stabilized by an aryl group,
formed stable Schiff bases.
To prevent this reaction from interfering
with the 8270 analyses, the aromatic
amines were prepared as a separate
concentrate (mix 1) with methanol as the
solvent. The Schiff base reaction was not
found to occur in this solvent. The
remaining compounds were dissolved
using acetone as the solvent.
Several compounds were only available
as a mixture of isomers or as impure
compounds. They were: di-allate, two
isomers approximately 55% and 45%;
isosafrole, two isomers 80% and 20%;
pronamide with two impurities at 1% and
24% with the main peak at 75%; 2,3,4,6-
tetrachlorophenol 80% pure with a 20%
impurity peak; tris(2,3-dibro-
mopropyl)phosphate 62% pure with two
impurity peaks at 25% and 13%.
The analytical data, processed through
the IMVS programs, were subjected to
three outlier tests, First, the Youden's
Laboratory Ranking Procedure was used
to detect and reject data having a large
systematic error associated with a
particular laboratory. If a laboratory
reported the majority of their data for a
particular compound-water combination
biased either high or low, compared to
the other laboratories, this laboratory
would fail the lab ranking procedure and
all of it's data would be rejected for that
compound-water combination. Next, zero,
negative and non-detected data were
rejected. Finally, the Thompson outlier
test was used to reject individual outliers.
For the study, the IMVS computer
programs rejected 17.0% of the 10,620
data points submitted. The percentage of
rejected data did not vary significantly
among the three water types. Reagent
water had the lowest number of rejected
data, 519 (4.9%), ground water had 695
(6.5%) rejected data and leachate had
595 (5.6%) rejected data.
The average number of rejected data
for all 59 compounds was 30.7. The
compound with the fewest number of
rejected data was safrole at 6 and the
compound with the highest number of
rejected data was Chlorobenzilate at 56.
For purposes of this report, a compound
was considered to have excessive
outliers if the number of rejected data
was greater than 45 (25% of the 180
submitted data points). Using this guide-
line, only five compounds fell in this cate-
gory: 2-sec-butyl-4,6-dinitrophenol (49),
methapyrilene (51), tris(2,3-dibromo-
propyl)phosphate (51), 1,3,5-
trinitrobenzene (53) and Chlorobenzilate
(56).
The laboratory ranking procedure
accounted for 90% of the rejected data
points or 1620 out of the 1809 total data
points rejected. Thompson's individual
outlier test accounted for the remaining
10% of the rejected data.
Of the ten laboratories participating in
the study, Lab 2, Lab 4, and Lab 5,
accounted for 46.5% of the rejected data.
Laboratory 2 had the highest number of
rejected data, 297, which resulted from
their poor performance in the lab ranking
test. Four laboratories (6,8,9, and 10) had
5% or less of their submitted data
rejected.
The overall precision, expressed as
percent relative standard deviation
(%RSD) was 22% for reagent water, 23%
for the leachate matrix and 23% for
ground water. These averages did not
include 3-methylcholanthrene (104%), or
Chlorobenzilate (68%). Aniline had the
lowest mean %RSD across water types
at 9% while Chlorobenzilate had the
highest at 68%. Nine compounds: a,a-
dimethylphenethylamine (29%), p-
nitroaniline (34%), methapyrilene (27%),
benzidine (54%), tris(2,3-dibromo-
propyl)phosphate (52%), Chlorobenzilate
(68%), 7,12-dimethylbenz(a)anthracene
(50%), dibenzo(a,e)pyrene (49%), and 4-
nitroquinoline-N-oxide (27%) had mean
overall %RSOs greater than 25% across
all water types.
The average single-analyst precision,
expressed as %RSD-SR, was 10% for
reagent water, 13% for ground water and
10% for leachate. These precisions,
lower than overall RSDs, were expected
since within-laboratory precision was
expected to be better than between-
laboratory precision. The mean %RSD-
SR ranged from 6% to 33% for all water
types.
Twenty-one compounds showed
statistically significant matrix effects in
the ground water sample yet no matrix
effects were found in the leachate.
Ten of these compounds: N-nitro-
somethylethylamine, N-nitrosopyrrolidine,
2-nitroaniline, 4-aminobiphenyl, benzyl
alcohol, 2-methylphenol, acetophenone,
N-nitrosopiperidine, 2,4,5-trichlorophenol,
and 1,2-dinitrobenzene had statistically
significant matrix effects that were not
considered to be of practical importance.
These compounds exhibited similar
analyte recoveries for the four highest
sample concentrates (Ampuls 1,2,3,4)
whether extracted from reagent water or
ground water. Their overall precisions
were also similar. The two lowest sample
concentrates for ground water (Ampuls
-------
5,6), however, showed marked
differences in recovery versus reagent
water. The precisions of these two
ampuls were also poorer than those of
reagent water. The regression equations
generated by the IMVS series of
programs used a weighted least squares
approach thus giving low concentration
samples equal weight with high
concentration samples. The poorer
recoveries with the low concentration
samples from the ground water have
adversely affected the statistics even
though the other concentration levels
showed comparable recoveries to the
reagent water. Since these differences
were only observed at the low end of the
concentration range, the matrix effects
were not deemed of practical sig-
nificance. In all cases the mean
recoveries for these compounds were no
greater than 6% different between
reagent water and ground water.
One compound, a,a-dimethylphene-
thylamine, showed a statistically
significant matrix effect, but was judged
to be of no practical significance. The
retained data for a,a-dimethylphene-
thylamine in all three waters were
extremely variable with the majority of
the %RSDs between 50%-89%, Even the
reagent water recoveries were variable.
This extreme variability between the
mean recoveries and the overall precision
makes statistical inference difficult for this
compound.
The remaining ten compounds:
naphthylamine, benzidine, 3,3'-dimethyl-
benzidine, 4,4'-methylene bis(2-chloro-
aniline), 3,3'-dimethoxybenzidine,
pronamide, tris(2,3-dibromopropyl)phos-
phate, kepone, N-nitrosomorpholine, and
4-methylphenol had statistically signi-
ficant matrix effects that were judged to
be of practical importance. In all cases
ground water was the affected water
type. These compounds had calculated
mean recoveries which differed more
than 10% from reagent water even
though the precision values were similar.
Also, the leachate mean recoveries
paralleled the reagent water mean
recoveries which supported the view that
the ground water matrix was indeed
different from reagent water.
Conclusions
The objective of this study was to
characterize the performance of SW-846
Methods 8270/3510 in terms of recovery,
overall precision, single analyst precision
and the effect of water types on recovery
and precision. Through the IMVS series
of computer programs, statistical
analyses of 10,620 analytical values
provided estimates of recovery and
precision expressed as regression
equations. These equations regressed
recovery against the true (known) value
and overall precision and single-analyst
precision against mean recovery for each
compound in a given water type. The
linear regression equations obtained from
this study, and presented in Table 1, can
be used to predict the recovery and
precision of the compounds studied at
concentrations in the ranges investigated
in this study.
For the entire project, the IMVS
computer programs rejected 17% of the
10,620 data points submitted. The
percentage of rejected data did not vary
significantly across water types.
The pooled mean recovery for 58 com-
pounds, in reagent water, excluding 3-
methylcholanthrene, was 77.9% with a
standard deviation of 13.3%. Three com-
pounds had recoveries less than 60%.
They were chlorobenzilate (26.9%), 7,12-
dimethylbenz(a)anthracene (51.3%) and
1,3,5-trinitrobenzene (54.8%).
The overall standard deviation
expressed as the percent relative stand-
ard deviation (%RSD) ranged from 9% to
58% across the three waters tested,
except for 3-methylcholanthrene at
104%. The single-analyst precision ex-
pressed as the percent relative standard
deviation (%RSD-SR) ranged from 6% to
33% across the three waters tested. In all
cases, the highest %RSD-SR (poorest
precision) was associated with the lowest
Youden pair concentration.
Statistical comparisons of the effect of
water type were performed on all
samples. The ten compounds listed
below were found to have statistically
significant matrix effects that are of
practical significance.
2-Naphthylamine
Benzidine
3,3'-Dimethylbenzidine
4,4'-Methylene bis(2-chloroaniline)
3,3'-Dimethoxybenzidine
Pronamide
Tris(2,3-dibromopropyl)phosphate
Kepone
N-Nitrosomorpholine
4-Methylphenol
Several compounds did not perform
well during this method validation study.
3-Methylcholanthrene was unstable in the
methylene chloride standard mixture
provided with the study. All data
generated for this compound were
unusable. Chlorobenzilate had the lowest
recovery, 27%, from reagent water of the
59 compounds tested. The uniform low
recoveries among all six concentration
levels point to poor extraction efficiency.
Compounds exhibiting a high degree c
variability as a result of poor chrorru
tography were 7,12-dimethylbenz(a)ar
thracene, 1,3,5-trinitrobenzene, tris(2,3-d
bromopropyl)phosphate, diber
zo(a,e)pyrene, benzidine, 3,3'dimethy
benzidine, 3,3'-dimethoxybenzidine, an
4-nitroquinoline-N-oxide.
Seven compounds: N-nitrosodi-r
butylamine, 1,2-diphenylhydrazine, 2
methylnaphthalene, 1,2,4,5-tetrachlorc
benzene, dibenzofuran, dihydrosafrol
and safrole appeared to have saturate
the detector at the highest Youden cor
centration samples as indicated by low(
mean recoveries for the high concentri
tion samples and uniform recoveries f<
the middle and low concentratio
samples.
Recommendations
SW-846 Methods 8270/3510 ar
recommended for the analyses <
Appendix IX compounds with th
exception of the analytes listed in Table
and with the following observations.
* The strongly acidic and basic cor
ditions encountered during th
extraction procedure were postulate
to have caused chlorobenzilati
methylmethane sulfonate, N-nitr(
somorpholine, hexachloroproper
and 7,12-dimethylbenz(a)anthracr
to have poor extraction efficiencie
Milder extraction conditions ma
improve extraction recoveries f<
these compounds.
* Stability studies revealed th
aromatic amines were reacting wi
the solvent, acetone, to form Sch
bases. Changing the solvent to metl
anol remedied the immedial
problem but this situation should t
addressed in the final method writ
up.
* 3-Methylcholanthrene (molecul;
weight 268) dehydrogenated
methylene chloride to form
compound whose molecular weig
was 266. The causes of this reactic
have not been investigate!
Quantitation by GC/MS is m
possible when a compound's stru
ture changes in standard solutio
Further analytical work is recon
mended to examine this reactio
Analysts should be alerted to th
situation in the final method write-uf
* SW-846 Method 8270 recommen<
use of a DB-5 fused silica colun
with a film thickness of 1.0 um. Tl
preliminary analytical wor
performed under another contrat
used DB-5 column with a fil
thickness of 2.5 um. Furth
-------
analytical work is recommended to
determine which film thickness would
offer the greater advantages.
Table 1. Study 36,SW 846 Method 8270, Semi-Volatiles, GC-MS Weighted Linear Regression Equations for Mean
Recovery and Precision (in UG!L)
flh
w —
° •- N
. .
X
a- x o
o vo 3
, .- co
o •
0 O
II
II II
in, in x
<6
"". S Ch
O • •
o •-
4-
4- 1
x
a x U
- r» r-
o • •
o o
II
PC
n in x
X
o
H
V)
H
U
M
PC X
0. O
H
PC v> H x
H X O PC
X X ft. 0
•.7-B
X U J PC
W *J «
0 0 PC X
* X U *
PC V) 0 C
th
a •- r*
• tt o
o • >
1
X
M X O
•- tt CO
• N r*
o • •
U II
PC
M n x
o
• 00 tt
o • •
•- o
4. 1
X
r- x w
•- tt *a
. *> fh
o . .
o o
II H
W VI X
• O tt
4 |
X
a- x U
o a M
• •- 00
o • •
o o
II II
PC
in in x
a
°. » S
o . .
0 O
4 1
x
N X U
o co eh
— N r-
o
o o
II
H 11
PC
n vi x
x
o
H
VI
M
W
PC X
ft. O
H
H in
Vt M X
PC X O PC
* X ft. 0
X « U
0 M .J DC
X -J •*
» 0 PC X
O X H *
o in o c
^
0< tt Ch
o > •
x
r* X o
eh r*. «
0
CO Ch CO
O tt ^
• — CO
o • •
o o
II II
pe
09 VI X
a* *•• oo
• tt <*)
4. t
x
a x u
o a- «
• — oo
o
0 0
H
II II
DC
in in x
^
<*) J J
• tt N
0 • •
x
r- X O
oo r- a
o w a
— r-
o •
O 0
II
II II
DC
n in x
2
o
H
in
H
u
H
PC X
ft. O
H
H V)
tf) H X
X O PC
X ft. 0
H 1C (J
H 1 *1 W
* W tJ PC
X »4 «*
U 0 M X
« X U «
•J V) O C
w
x
H
S
•c
j^
H
*
x
1
OSODI
tt
H
1
X
H
X
H
H
X
O
PC
H
H
X
1
X
H
M
x
O
PC
o
X
u
ft.
c
ae
H
X
M
X
ft.
X
H
M
E
O
«
*
ft.
N
PC
M
**
X
oa
tt oo a-
• a «n
O 4
4- 4
0 X
CO tt X U
0 O CO
o • •
*O II
M H
Ch PC
~ 10 M X
•-
^ . «- r-
o or*
i
O 4- 1
CO X
a tt x u
co co r-
i o r- m
• •- r-
o o • •
o o o
H
O M It
N PC
— in v> x
« - o «o
0 O —
O 4 |
CO X
3 *> x u
1 O <*> W
• — CO
o o • •
o o o
O M II
M PC
» in to x
a
~ G. £ *
O C* -
o o o
O 4- 1
CO X
a r- X u
•* <*) 00
i •- in o
- <*) 0
o o
0 0 —
II
O II II
M PC
w « in x
X
o
M ft
u in
X H
« u
PC M
PC X
ft. O
O H
X H V)
O OC (ft W >»
U H X U PC
H -I W W
<-3 X X ft. O
•Q * U
« H i -a w
U X U rf PC
M W iJ <«
^ IS 0 PC X
&. < x w *
* P: to o c
e*»
co a- co
• «A (*>
O • '
1
I 4-
X
*fl X U
— o a
• c* o«
O • '
H U
PC
in n x
a
• r- tt
0 tt
i i
X
tt X O
CO CO N
or-*~
0 - •
0 0
n n
W VI X
a 91 cO
<*» •-
^ i
X
P*- X U
O 04 CO
o • •
o o
II
II II
PC
in in X
o
C4 O C4
N C*
1
X
M X O
r- N o
<*> r*- CO
• a r-
o - •
0 O
n ii
«6
V) M X
X
o
H
VI
M
M
PC X
ft. O
H
f-* V)
W H >
ac x u PC
H ») M H
« X ft. O
XX U
O H rf PS
X -J *
» W PC X
O X W *
19 V) 0 C
o
•- •- r-
o • •
1 4
X
a x U
CO 0- 0
o r- *
. -- o>
o • •
u
PC
M V) X
»
• «* r*
0 00
1
1 1
X
CO X U
o « o
• - CO
o • •
o o
H
H n
PC
M n x
„
• •- a
o •-
4 1
X
*fl X O
O N
» co *-
« • o r-
o c- • •
0 1 1
CO X
a- m x u
p" r- a;
1 0 tt «
o o • •
H
CO H N
a1 P(
~ M M X
r-
<*) O O
• « 00
o o —
0 +
4- 1
0 X
00 0 X U
» e* o o*
0 tt tt
1 • V4 CO
o . .
o o o
*O H
II II
o> PC
~ M V) X
^ I"* *~
• a- r»
O O M
0 4
4- 1
0 X
CO ro X U
a N o o
1 • « CO
o • •
0 O O
*A II
tt 11
Ch PC
w in v) x
00
* ".55
O •"- tt
O 4 1
CO X
a- co x u
r- r- o
• ft O*
o o •
o o o
II
O II II
M PC
w M in x
x
o
M H
O V)
X H
PC U
PC X
ft. O
0 H
X H V)
O PC W H >*
U M X U PC
J V X ft. 0
M « 0
H W -» *
j e o PC x
ft. «C X H <•
•c PC in o c
<*>
m ch a-
• Ch sO
o • •
•f i
— Ch 0
- »- CO
O • •
II
H K
M M X
N O Ch
— _
+ 1
X
Ch X O
fO O M
^ - CO
0 - -
0 0
H
II II
PC
V) M X
U)
r* N a*
. — co
n a1
4- 1
X
a- x o
— a- r-
• N r-
o • •
o o
H
II II
PC
in in x
N
- t- \n
o
•"• in
+ I
X
m X U
N a 1/1
. •- flQ
o - -
o o
II
II II
PC
in w x
X
o
H
in
H
o
M
PC X
ft. O
H
H V)
in w >«
•c x o oc
H «« PC >
•< X ft. O
X « U
1 »4 H
X J «
S W PC X
O X W «C
O V) O C
0>
o> — •»
«*^^
1 1
X
a x O
•- r- r-
• CO 00
O • •
H
H H
PC
V) M X
1
X
CO X U
CO tt CO
O »~ tt
. m «h
o • -
o o
II
N H
PC
W V) X
•A o a
•- m
+ 1
X
Ch X U
CO (*- ••"
o o •-
• N Oh
0 • •
O O
H
II 11
in v) x
^
* 5 5
o
O tt
4
4 1
X
tt X U
CO CO tt
o a- y
• M Oh
O • •
O O
II
K U
PC
VI M X
X
0
H
V)
H
u
H
•c x
ft. O
H
n H >*
•4 M H
« PC >
X ft. 0
W •€ V
H 1 •-> W
X *4 ••
U ID OC X
•* X H «*
*j w o r
x
o
H
H
PC
H
X
H
X
O
H
X
H
PC
X O
PC ta.
H
> hi
O =>
U »4
M *
PC >
X M
« a
C H
U H
X U
-------
Table 1.
(Continued)
H
X
O
o
co
o
0)
u
X
o
u
CO
CO to 0
• CO ~
•- r-
1 C«
X
1** X U
co r- 3-
~ * 0
0 —
H
II H
PC
W W X
r-
**! ~ 2
«- m
+ i
x
m x u
• CO 0
o • •
0 —
n
H H
PC
CO VI X
CO
• Ch *
•—
O —
•*•
+ 1
X
m x o
co 3" m
. CO CO
o • •
o o
ii
M it
PC
W V) X
CO
^ Ch tO
o • •
o —
+
I +
X
m x w
m to to
0 tO tO
o - •
o o
n
n H
PC
M VI X
X
o
H
H
u
H
PC X
ft. O
M
H VI
PC W M X
H X U PC
H J H
X X >
S X O
•< u
H 1 M
U rf
O O X
* x -c
PC n o E
3
in co o
• C4 tO
o r-
+ eg
i i
X
«n x u
co co e>
• r- to
o o
H
K II
PC
to w x
^
• o m
o • •
o ••
i
i i
X
CO X U
• o» CO
o • •
o o
H II
PC
W V) X
c*
• CO CO
o • •
~ 3-
+
+ 1
x
eg X U
•- Ch O
• N CO
O • •
O O
II
PC
W 10 X
0
• eg «-
r_ rm
I
t +
X
p- x u
tO 31 3
• ca r-
o • •
0 O
II
II II
PC
VI V) X
X
o
M
H
U
u
PC X
ft. O
H
H in
vi M x
PC X CJ PC
M 1-4 M M
X X ftt O
X •* U
1 »4 H
X rf *
9 (D PC X
O X M X
O W O E
O
CO 0 0
• m o
o • •
r- co
4- 1
X
0 X U
N CO CO
• 3" O
O —
II
n N
PC
VI M X
«0
• c* m
o * •
«- 31
+ 1
X
c* X O
CO CO Ch
o • -
0 0
M
II U
PC
n n x
tO
- CO CO
o - • '
+
+ 1
X
*- X O
co r- w
. ,- co
o * •
0 0
II
n n
PC
to to x
X U
to co m
o — to
0 - -
o o
M
H n
PC
to vi x
x
o
H
10
H
u
H
PC X
ft. O
H
H VJ
tO H X
X U PC
N) H U
X ft. O
MX U
H 1 •-» H
* -3 X
L> ID PC X
X X M X
•-a to o E
X
H
a
N
X
U
(Q
X
X
o
OB
Jg
H
1
CO
CO
K
0
I
N
W
•Q
14
X
H
X
H
H
1
y
a-
14
X
H
M
X
14
M
*>3
X
as
|>4
M
H
1
(*)
fO
M
X
H
N
x
M
•Q
O
X
O
X
H
«^
*3
|H
hi
E
N
Q
ft.
ft,
H
PC
u
H
X
3-
f*, • O (""•
0 <0 CO
O + 1
CO X
31 P- X O
CD C* CD
' °- SS
O O O
H
CO n H
3- M
" VJ V) X
3
~. * 2 *
o c« • -
O CO W
•f «-
O 1 1
CO X
3- M X U
tO CO tO
i o e *•
• «« o
o o • •
o o ^
H
CO H H
3 PC
— V> VJ X
tO
~ -30
o eg co
0 + t
CO X
3- CO X U
*- CO C*
"^ M Ch
O O • •
o o o
CO ll it
w tO M X
r-
• « r^
^ o • •
o o *-
o +
1 1
0 X
CO W X O
o M m
1 • M CO
o •
o o o
tO II
II II
O" PC
— V) V) X
x
o
H H
U 10
X H
X U
PC 14
ft. O
U H
X H VI
O PC VI H X
U H X U PC
H iJ M H
•J V X ft. O
•Q X U
X H 1 »4 M
H M *4 X
*J 19 W PC X
ft. X X M X
« M V) 0 C
C*
CO «- 31
• W Ch
CO • •
CO O
+ CO
+ 1
X
«*> X U
* CO f"
o o
H
K tt
PC
M n x
tO
N CO O
c*a r»
+ ^
+ i
X
- X 0
O» «4 CO
e r- r-
o • •
o o
H
H N
PC
V) 10 X
31
• u> r*
C4 . .
m oo
+ N
+ i
X
3- X U
m co co
• m r-
o • •
o o
n
H n
06
M n x
o>
• » o
o • •
o *-
1
+ 1
X
0 X U
w r- co
• •- CO
o • •
o o
II
II U
PC
in m x
X
o
H
VI
H
U
H
PC X
ft. O
H
H V)
V) H X
PC X O *
H -J H H
X X ft. O
X ••» X
» 0 PC X
O X H X
U tO O E
CO
["• Ch t"*
- r- c*
a- . .
r- 3-
+ eg
+ i
X
CO X U
r* r» ^
• vt »
o o
H
H H
M
n vi x
~
U) O* 9*
• co in
0 • •
o r-
i t
x
3- X O
C- 31 «
0 3- CO
- — 0.
0 - •
0 0
H
II II
PC
n M x
o
. o C*
r* • •
m r-
+ ^
+ i
x
3 X U
co co r-
. — o>
o • •
o o
II
II II
PC
in to x
m
• O 3
o • •
+
+ 1
x
o> X U
i/J tf> tO
o in m
• — CO
e • •
o o
H II
PC
V) 10 X
X
o
H
V)
H
u
M
PC X
ft, O
H
H V)
m H x
X U PC
»4 H U
X ft. O
MX U
X J X
t) O PS X
X X H X
»4 w o r
o
x
M
K
ft.
X
H
M
E
1
31
H
X
H
O
X
ft.
PC
o
E
o
M
O
H
H
X
X
H
H
X
O
5
v>
M
X
X
H
H
^4
X
H
H
E
W
X
H
H
E
1
N
H
ft,
X
PC
M
H
X
PC
w V) 10 X
o>
• O I*)
« o • •
o o —
o +
1 +
0 X
CO CO X U
o m o*
i • — r-
o • •
o o o
%O II
H II
C* O6
~ VI V) X
X
o
U H
O V)
X H
PC M
PC X
ft. 0
O M
x H n
O PC VI H X
U M X CJ PC
X X PC >
X X ft. O
0 0 PC X
X X M X
PC W O E
m
CO eg co
• 0 M
CO • •
J CO
•f +
x
Ch X U
CO — CO
• •- p*
o o
H n
PC
VI VI X
o
m to co
• m *-
o • •
o o
•f
1 +
x
0 X U
Ch CO O
0 0 CO
• oa i—
o • •
0 0
It
II H
PC
W W X
CD
«— • •
O O
+ 1
x
tO X U
ch m ch
°. £ «
o • •
0 0
II
II H
06
to m x
m
• — CO
o • •
o *-
1
X
PO X W
O CO *O
— in o
• *- co
o • •
0 O
II II
06
V) V> X
X
o
H
to
H
O
U
PC X
ft. 0
H
H VI
V) H X
PC X U PC
H X PC >
X X ft. O
i »a H
O X M X
0 V) O E
m
r> «•* co
• CO *
o • •
o *-
+
1 1
x
CO X O
r- 3- 3-
• C4 CO
o o
II
n n
PC
VJ VI X
Ch
• 0 CO
o • •
0 0
+ 1
x
«- x o
co *- o
0 tO —
• « r*
o • •
o o
H
H H
PC
W W X
r-
o • •
o •-
+ I
X
CO X U
o • •
0 O
II
II II
PC
V) W X
Ch
- 3- CO
o • •
o —
1 +
X
r- x o
c* eg ci
O CO 0
• *- CO
o • -
o o
II II
06
VI M X
X
o
H
V)
H
u
H
PC X
ft. O
H
H VI
in H x
X U PC
X PC >
X ft. O
H X U
H 1 »4 M
X M *9 PC
X X H X
rf V) O E
x
0
H
H
PC
H
X
M
u
X
o
u
H
X
H
PC
X O
PC fr.
M
> H
O 3
O -J
PC >
X U
x a
M P£
E H
n n
X U
-------
Table 1.
(Continued)
X
•«
Bf
a
k.
O
M
X
H
M
M
a
n
o
M
H
M
X
O
Bt
O
iJ
X
u
«
M
H
B)
H
co
a
I
O
O
X
ft.
o
Bf
O
•4
X
u
H
O
X
o
u
X
H
o»
a- to m
0 • •
O M
I
1 4
X
C* X V
o a- «
• — CO
o • •
o o
tl
•X
M M X
f>
• m o
0 • -
o o
1
4 4
X
r* x u
o a- w
. .- co
o • •
o o
H II
ft
M M X
f-
• m a-
o • •
o ~
i
i +
X
^ X 0
o m o
. »- .0
0 • •
o o
H
II II
ft
VI M X
r-
m o o>
- cr> co
o • •
— o
•f
4 4
X
o. x u
a to co
o a* in
• O CO
o • •
0 0
H
H U
V) M X
X
0
H
V)
H
U
H
ftf X
ft. o
H
H W
ftf V) H X
H X U ftf
H iJ U H
X X ft. O
•< u
N 1 *J H
X M rf ftt
M »4 •«
0 0 ftf X
< x w <«
tt n o E
^_
m O
• 0 CO
0 • •
o o
H |i
ftf
n n x
m
. a- —
o • •
0 —
+ +
X
r^ x u
o rt a-
o • •
o o
tl 11
Pi
W W X
co m o
. •- o
o • -
O N
x
•e x u
in co
M X ft. O
• « O
1 *4 H
a H »j M
X «9 «
9 19 M X
0 X H 1C
U VI O E
t_
•- «« tt
• tt a
O • '
o »-
1 +
X
tt X U
o o •-
• N CO
o o
H
Bt
n vi x
o
• e e
0 • •
o •-
1 i
X
in x u
tt « r-
o r^ «
. •• (0
o * •
o o
tt
tt •
M
n « x
C"
. M, |0
O • •
O •-
•f +
X
m x o
0 CO CO
. •— <£
o • •
0 0
II
II II
w n x
CO
O €4 a
• CO CO
o • •
o o
t 1
X
J X U
tfi *fi «*
• — CO
o • •
o o
H
II II
M
in v] x
X
o
H
VI
H
t)
M
* X
ft. O
H
H V)
V> H X
X 0 ftt
•J M H
rt ftf >
X ft. O
M « U
•H 1 »4 H
•* H *J ftf
ac J «c
O O ftt X
•* X H «*
•4 n o E
H
14
O
j
1^
H
K
X
M
U
1
M
a
H
^
X
O
ft.
X
M
fr*
H
u
X
H
ft.
H
X
H
c
»4
>t
X
H
K
a.
H
O
n
o
f^
H
|
X
H
ft.
>*
ftt
M
H
X
»
t> c* a
o « * •
o — a-
o 4- i
CO X
a- r- x O
I — O» O
• *• o
o o «-
It
w 10 M X
c-
* • •« o
o •- * •
o •- «
4
O + 1
CO X
31 * X O
O CO to
i — 31 r-
. •-. o
o o - *
o o ~
N
H ft
~ M n x
~ • a r-
o a* • •
o — r-
O 1 1
CO X
a- « x o
o o* m
1 —ON
0 0 • •
o o o
II
CO U H
a* ftf
w n M x
CO 31 C*
• co m
-i O • •
o o —
O 1
I 4
O X
« - X O
* — « —
o • -
o o o
* X ft. 0
* U
H 1 «J «
X M 1-9 M
e o ftf x
« X H «
•t n o c
*0 «— O
^ . .
to a
4 —
1 |
X
a- X o
•
• o <*
o • •
o —
I 4
X
m x u
. •- Ov
o •
O 0
M II
W « X
K
o
H
n
H
u
At X
ft. O
H
H V)
•» H X
ftf X O ft*
M i-4 H H
H «€ ftf B*
•4 X ft. O
X « U
1 »4 M
Ct ftt -J «
X rf *
a o fti x
o x H •<
0 VJ 0 C
*
<4 M Ot
ar • •
in «
4 I
X
e* X O
o r- r-
0 «-
H
VI M X
r. to i>
. ^ 0
o • •
4 1
X
a- x o
o m a-
. — e
o • •
0 —
N
Bf> M X
O tO O
• 0 CO
*« • •
e co
+ i
x
4 H
« H >4 Bt
X -J t
U 0 Bt X
>• X k) tt (^
« . o» CO
o to • •
0 3-1-
e + i
CO X
a N X u
l e M e
e o o
H
» n n x
. to «-
o e —
0 +
0 X
CO B> X U
a r* •- «o
o r- in
l . •- r*
o • .
e o o
tt •
0> Bt
w n n x
e
~ ^ 5 «5
O «4 ' •
o to «•
e + l
CO X
a m x u
l e » to
0 0 • •
o o o
e n H
eg Bt
w n in x
o
tt x u
co mm
emu)
o • •
e e
•
Bt
n M X
in *• co
• o to
e • •
e —
+
+ +
x
e x u
CO r^ a
e M »
• — t»
o > •
e o
H
H tt
M W X
e> in a
• r- a
o> • -
+ 1
X
to x o
in — —
o o a-
• in r-
o • •
e e
H
Bt
W V) X
x
o
H
n
H
U
K X
ft. O
H
H n
M H X
Bt X U BI
H >4 H M
H •* Bt >
•* X ft. O
• » u
1 J H
ata*itt
X >4 •<
a e Bt X
O X H «
19 n o E
«
m- co
. »- to
— —
+ i
X
0 X O
o o e>
* «• e*
o e
H
Bt
M W X
a-
o o t^
. _ e)
o • •
e o
i
+ +
x
CO X U
co m r-
o a- o
• « CO
o • •
e o
H
ft
n n x
«—
• CO tt
o • •
— to
+
+ 1
X
1* X O
in m o
e a e
0 • •
e o
H H
Bt
n n x
CO
a « co
• «• a
Ch »-
+ tt
t 1
X
a x o
to t^ —
* r* tt
o • •
o •-
H
N II
Bt
« n x
x
o
H
M
H
U
Bf X
ft. O
H
H V)
M H X
X U Bt
•4 H H
X 2 O
MM U
H i -a M
« h) >j BS
U <9 Bt X
M X H «
•4 n o E
I
u
X
o
u
X O
« k.
M
> M
o a
u •*
X M
•c a
H X
E H
• «
X U
-------
Table 1.
(Continued)
I
H
X
ft.
O
H
M
•a
o
X
H
X
A,
•a
x
E
I
H
N
X
H
«
O
ftt
O
19
X
O
u
x
N
ft
M
-
. in —
0 0
+ i
x
n X u
^ N in
•- « m
. — co
o « -
o o
M H
ftt
n n x
3
• n oo
i
4 1
X
m x u
0 CO t»
• •- r-
o o
N N
ftt
n M X
m Oh eo
• * *•
0 U)
4 1
X
to X O
CO O> *"
. - CO
o • •
o o
II II
ft
M n x
to
r- to to
• 9 O
o • *
o o
4- 1
X
Oh X U
•- flh r-
• f" *l
o o
H
H H
M
n n x
x
o
H
M
H
U
H
ft X
ft. O
H
H in
ft! M H X
H X U ftt
X *4 M M
tt it ft »
• X ft. 0
X U
"' 32
ac hi M PS
M tJ *
e o * x
« X M rt
Oft W 0 K
W
• O* O
° «- M
•f +
X
m x u
c* o %o
o a- o
. _ co
o • •
o o
N
H H
ftl
n n x
. — o.
«• a-
t
x
« x o
O O» •"
_ _ <0
< t- 1*.
0 0
H
N H
ft
M M X
t> — to
• N *
° ^ «
+ I
X
a- X 0
fi U) U)
• m a*
o • •
o o
H
n N
«
w t» x
a- o co
* 0 0
o • •
o ^
+ 1
X
CO X U
O f) U)
. to «
0 0
H
N M
*
VI M X
X
o
H
W
H
O
H
ftf X
ft, O
H
H M
WHS*
ftf X O ftt
H iJ 14 M
Httft*
X X ft. 0
• X U
1 iJ H
ft M *4 K
X ri x
B 0 ftt X
<9 V) O E
a
• a o
0 0
4 +
X
N X U
t* O CO
OMB
• •- t-
O • •
O O
u
II M
M
n n x
to
• o m
~ ~
4 1
X
- X 0
o a «•
. f- f*>
o o
w
II M
M
n n x
w
a- co m
• to in
«• U)
4 1
X
m x u
•- in ««
. - oo
0 • •
o o
•
n n
ft
vj v> x
0 00 U)
• o in
o • •
o o
4 1
X
W X U
W to ~
• m M
o o
H
H tt
ft
n n x
x
o
H
n
H
U
H
M X
ft. O
H
H n
M H X
x o M
•4 H M
« ftt>
X ft. O
H 1 *4 H
•4 ftl t4 PG
K i4 «C
0 0 ftf X
H H > M
>* V. O C
o
X
H
X
ft.
o
X
o
M
H
1
u>
J>
M
ftl
O
ftf
IN
n
M
X
ft.
O
tt
ft.
o
0
.J
X
u
X
u
X
u
x
x
1
X
M
ft.
H
ftf
H
*•
X
,>
~ "!3«
0 00
0 + 1
CO X
a- *o x u
1 O C4 M
. <— O»
O O • •
o o o
H
to y H
a* ftt
w n n x
ift
^ . o —
0 00
1
O + 1
CO X
a- e*. x o
O CO M
1 — U* ~
. — CO
0 00
II
O N H
«t ftl
w W « X
o w —
• «a u>
0 0 «-
O 1
+ 1
0 X
co r- x u
^ o ««
1 * « tO
o - •
o o o
<0 II
II II
O» ftl
^> n M x
a*
0 CO C*
^ o • •
o o o
O 1
1 1
0 X
CO 0 X O
OWN
I • •- O*
0 00
** n
H II
C* M
w M M X
X
O
H H
O M
X H
-e u
•c fti
ftf X
ft. O
U H
X H M
O ftf W M >*
U H X U M
a x e. o
x u
H 1 |4 H
19 19 M X
ft n o E
r-
. •- o
a- o
i
1 4
X
Ot X U
0 *> [-
• — co
o - •
0 0
H
H N
ft
M n x
—
• *<•
0 N
I
1 +
X
N X U
a CO o
• N t-
O O
N N
ftt
n n x
o
m N co
• t» a
0 N
4 1
X
•- X O
o a a*
• to *
0 • •
o o
H H
ftf
n n x
•- m •-
• m a-
o • •
n «
4 4
X
to X U
— m to
. .- eo
o o
H
ftt
n n x
x
o
H
V)
H
U
M
Bt X
ft. O
H
H n
n H x
•t X U M
H tt ft >
x x •. o
1 >4 H
X J X
s o ft x
O X W X
19 n o E
M
• <• 0
a1 «•
4 1
X
0 X O
tO CD C^
009
. f- eo
O ' •
o o
k
• N
M
n « X
M
• in «-
° — N
+•
X
•- x o
tO ^ CO
o to m
. •- r*
0 O
H
• H
K
n n x
m
n to o
• t- a
o •-
4
4 1
X
CO X U
o«eo
• «c in
O ' •
o o
•
• n
ft
VI V) X
0 « U)
• « M
0 • •
0 O
1
4 1
X
to X U
— a- a
•- CO
0 0
H
• H
ftt
M n x
X
o
H
n
M
U
M
M X
ft. O
H
H «
n H x
XO K
»4 M M
X M >
Xft.0
MX U
M 1 •> H
X iJ X
0 OK X
>* WO E
H
X
H
E
^
X
X
H
ft.
H
O
O
x
H
X
ftt
O
ftt
s
u
M
H
H
1
tO
9
H
X
u
X
H
M
O
M
^
X
U
H
X
H
ft.
H
X
M
H
X
H
H
O
ftt
H
X
2
i
*
ft
~ M W X
O
O "• •-
~ • 09 0
0 — . .
0 NO
1 *-
0 4 1
00 X
a- in x o
o o N
• »- Oh
0 00
n
tO N H
a- ftf
~ VJ V) X
X
o
H H
19 V)
X H
X 0
ftt M
M X
ft. O
U H
X H V)
o at V) M x
U H X U K
H »4 14 H
X X ftt >
> X X ft, 0
•* U
• H 1 *4 M
X H «4 K
H -J *
O 0 K X
hi H > M
•£ V) O E
~
• CO "">
0 0
t
1 +
X
m X U
— M CO
' C« CO
o o
II
II H
W W X
0»
a- a-
+ i
X
CO X U
o to a-
. .- co
o o
u
tt II
W M X
O
• CO •"
o • •
o o
1
x
n X u
o *- o»
o • •
o o
II
II II
M
n n x
•> in m
• «M 9*
ca • •
o a*
i
i t
x
C4 X U
Z 2 *
. — co
0 0
n
H U
ft
M M X
X
0
H
V)
H
U
hi
ftf X
ft. 0
H
H M
n H »
ft. X 0 *
H »4 M H
H X ftt >
X X ft- O
• X U
1 iJ H
5 S M x
0 X H X
K H > H
e m o E
•a
co in m
• 00 W
o * •
o o
4
X
>n x o
o a- eh
. — co
o •
o o
u
H H
vi n x
n
• 0 00
a- —
4
4 |
X
a x u
o — o
o o
N
H It
V) V) X
mom
• m co
o * *
•- o
X
a x u
o •- a-
o • •
o o
II II
V) VJ X
o
eg a- 03
« - -
a- r*
4 1
X
to X U
0 0> —
• O Oh
0 0
n
H H
ftt
W VI X
X
O
H
VI
H
O
H
M X
ft. O
H
M V)
H H X
X U ftt
iJ ft ft
tt ft f
X ft. 0
MX U
H 1 tt ft
X J X
u e Bt x
X X M X
H H » h)
••» W 0 E
o
H
rt
H
X
H
U
X
o
u
hi
K
H
>* O
* K
H
> M
o a
U "»
M X
•t fr
X M
X 9
t H
H H
X U
-------
Table 1.
(Continued)
H
X
H
ft
X
H
X
u
X
X
H
o
CO
co in so
• sO CO
N . .
3- CO
i m
+ i
x
co X 0
3- CO 31
ca •- a
• — ca
o - -
•- co
II
H H
BC
V> VJ X
r- 3- «-
r- • .
m o
i
+ i
x
3- X U
in m 3
' 3- m
o o
n n
w « x
• CO so
sO CO
1 •-
+ 1
x
r- x o
— m i^
o - •
0 O
ii
n n
V) V) X
r- m —
• •- 3-
3
3 m
i
•f i
x
ca X U
CO N sO
• 0 CO
o •
0 O
II
II II
to in x
x
o
H
V3
H
U
M
PC X
ft. O
H
H tO
PC M H X
M X U PC
X X BC >
X X ft. O
x o
H t »9 H
X W rf PC
H .J X
0 0 PC X
X X W X
PC tO 0 E
ca co r-
3- • •
— — CO
I ca
I t
X
ca x u
3" CO •"
ca »- 3
. en o*
o • •
o c*
H
U H
PC
M tO X
O
3 co «n
• sO O
o • •
+
+ i
X
— X W
ca co co
' U) <*!
o o
BC
v» vi x
o ro —
• ch n
— • so
I *—
i |
X
m x u
— o r-
• c> ch
o
o o
n
H II
PC
« w x
ch o o
• m *n
(T)
CO Cl
i
X
so X U
r- m r-
•- o «-
• ca co
0 - •
0 O
II
II II
K
to to x
X
o
H
n
H
U
W
PC X
ft. O
H
H V)
M H X
PC X U PC
H X PC >
x x ft. o
XX U
1 iJ M
O M i-9 PC
X J x
» 0 PC X
0 X M X
19 10 O E
CO CO -
. 3- a-
ca ' *
«4 3
+ — CO
+ 1
X
ca x U
ca r*- in
• 0 CO
o • •
•- co
n
H U
PC
W W X
r-
« 3 so
•» . .
0 3
1
1 1
X
N X O
o ca ^
0 0
ii
PC
vi n x
sO
in v o
• CO O
•- CO
+ ca
+ I
X
ca x U
— — n
•
X ft. O
MX O
X W »9 BC
X ec
~ W W X
O O 3
* - CO CO
O « •
+ *~
CO X
3 Ch X U
ca co 3
• 3 O
0 O •
0 0 *-
II
sO U II
» 10 M X
X
o
W H
o n
X H
X U
PC H
PC X
ft. O
U H
X H 10
O PC tO H X
U H X U PC
H >4 M U
-J X X ft. O
* X U
o x H *a PC
H M J X
i-9 O 19 PC X
ft. X X M X
X PC 10 O E
sO O> 3*
• sO N
O • -
•- O
I
1 •*-
X
in x w
3- •- Ci
•- m ^
o • •
o o
U tt
PC
VI VI X
« 3- 00
• co r-
o • •
O sO
1
+ 1
X
sO X U
"• ^2
0 0
H
H •
PC
V» M X
o *xt tn
• l/l sft
o o
1
X
CO X U
o m »
. •— (o
o
o o
II
II •
ac
W W X
— CO 0
• co r-
3 - -
o r-
i •—
+ i
x
r- x w
in P" ^
• CO O1
o o
II
II •
PC
W W X
X
o
M
M
U
H
PC X
ft. O
H
H M
M H X
PC X U PC
H >J W M
X X ft. O
XX U
1 >J M
X i-9 X
3 s9 PC X
O X H X
0 W 0 E
O
co •- en
• ca •-
^
o o
u
U N
PC
w n x
ca
d CO —
. CO —
o o
1
1 +
X
P» X U
^ CO ca
• — CO
o • •
0 O
II
II II
BC
VI Vt X
co co ca
• co m
o • •
o —
1 ^
+• 1
X
ca x o
C* CO —
ca co d
• co m
0 • •
o o
H
It II
BC
to to x
X
o
H
to
HI
U
M
BC X
ft.
^4
to x
PC X PC
w a H
H X >
XX 0
XX U
1 H
Q M BC
X iJ
19 tfl 0 E
O
o ch in
ca • •
+ <4
+ 1
X
Ch X U
c» o r-
• ca o>
o o
H
PC
VI V) X
CO sO W
• 3 ca
o o
1
1 +
X
co X U
o so in
- — CO
o • •
o o
n
M u
PC
10 (0 X
so r- co
3 • •
ca CO
+ i
X
m x u
m o so
— 3- r-
• 3 m
o • •
0 O
II
II II
PC
to to x
X
o
H
V)
H
U
W
PC X
ft. O
HI
H VI
V) H X
X U PC
•J M H
X PC >
X ft. O
MX U
H 1 »4 H
x hi .J PC
ac *4 x
O 0 PC X
+* Vi O E
H
X
O
X U
o
H 1
H
X PC
PC H
H M
X E
H 3
U X
0 H
(j (5
H V)
X V)
H M
E
PC
X O
PC K X
H PC
> M X
OS E
U t-a E
U X 3
PC > V)
X M H
X 5> (9
M PC X
EH n
II I) H
X O
-------
Table 2. RCRA Appendix IX Analytes not Included in Method 8270
Compound Reason for Exclusion from Study
p-Benzoquinone
Benzenethiol
Pentachloroethane
Resorcinol
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
p-Naphthoqumone
Aramite
Hexachlorophene
Dibenzo (a,h) pyrene
Dibenzo (a,i) pyrene
n-Nitrosodimethylamine
1-Naphthylamine
Phthalic anhydride
No recovery at 20 and 600 ppb.
Unstable in methanol or acetone
Decomposes to tetrachloroethene with less
than 2% recovery at 600 ppb.
No recovery at 20 and 600 ppb.
Unstable by themal decomposition and
solvent reactivity
No recovery at 20 and 600 ppb.
No recovery at 50 ppb. 6 % recovery at 600
ppb. Four peaks are produced from 96%
pure material.
No recovery at 50 ppb. 18% recovery at 600
ppb.
Insoluble in spiking solvents and commercially
unavailable.
No recovery at 50 ppb. Detection limit
approximately 150 ppb.
Compound coelutes with solvent 30%
recovery at 10 ppb.
20% recovery at 10 ppb.
No recovery at 100 ppb.
10
-------
Kenneth W. Edgell is with The Bionetics Corporation, Cincinnati, OH 45246.
Raymond J. Wesselman is the EPA Project Officer (see below).
The complete report, entitled "USEPA Method Study 36 SW-846 Methods
8270/3510 GC/MS Method for Semivolatile Organics: Capillary Column
Technique; Separatory Funnel Liquid-Liquid Extraction," (Order No. PB 89-
190 581J AS; Cost: $28.95, subject to change) will be available only from:
National Technical Information Service
5285 Port Royal Road
Springfield, VA 22161
Telephone: 703-487-4650
The EPA Project Officer can be contacted at:
Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, OH 45268
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Center for Environmental Research
Information
Cincinnati OH 45268
BULK RATE
POSTAGE & FEES PAI
EPA
PERMIT No. G-35
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use $300
EPA/600/S4-89/010
------- |