United States
 Environmental Protection
 Agency       	
Environmental Monitoring
Systems Laboratory
Las Vegas, NV 89193-3478
 Research and Development
EPA/600/S4-89/039 June 1990
 Project  Summary
 Single-Laboratory  Evaluation of
 Method  8060-Phthalate  Esters
 Viorica Lopez-Avila, Franklin Constantine, June Milanes, Robert Gale, and
 Werner F. Beckert
  SW-846 Method 8060  for  the
determination of phthalate esters in
aqueous  and solid matrices  was
modified and evaluated in  a  single
laboratory. The range of compounds
of interest was  expanded  to 16
phthalate  esters.  A  study to
determine the sources of phthalate
esters  contamination  in  the
laboratory, its extent, and  ways to
minimize  background contamination
was  conducted  as part of  the
evaluation. The  packed  columns
specified  for gas chromatographic
analysis  were  replaced  with  two
fused-silica open tubular columns of
dissimilar stationary phases. The two
fused-silica open tubular  columns
are connected to an inlet splitter and
two electron  capture detectors; this
setup  allows  the primary  and
confirmatory  analyses  to be
conducted simultaneously. Extract
cleanup was  performed on alumina
or on Florisil, however, three  of the
target compounds  were  not
recovered from  the 10-g Florisil
column (Method 3620).  The use of
commercially  available  Florisil
cartridges was evaluated. Our results
indicate that this approach is feasible
for   all  16 compounds.  The
interferences  represented by
organochlorine  pesticides were
evaluated, and  possible  internal
standards and surrogate compounds
were identified.  The  revised method
was tested with an estuarine water, a
leachate, a groundwater, an estuarine
sediment,  a municipal sludge, and a
sandy loam soil. The results obtained
indicated  acceptable accuracy  and
precision  for most of the target
analytes.
  This  Project  Summary  was
developed by EPA's Environmental
Monitoring Systems Laboratory, Las
Vegas, NV, to announce key findings
of. the research project that is fully
documented in  a  separate report  of
the same  title  (see  Project  Report
ordering information at back).

Introduction
  Regulations for  hazardous  waste
activities under  the   Resource
Conservation and Recovery  Act (RCRA)
of 1976 and its  elements require
analytical  methodologies that provide
reliable data. The document  "Test
Methods for Evaluating  Solid  Waste,
Physical/Chemical Methods," Office  of
Solid  Waste Manual SW-846 (1),
provides a  compilation of methods for
evaluating  RCRA  solid  wastes for
environmental and human health hazards.
One of  the methods in this document.
Method  8060,  addresses  the
determination of  phthalate esters. This
method  provides conditions  for sample
extraction (Methods 3510, 3520, 3540,
3550), sample  extract cleanup (Methods
3610,  3620,  3640)   and  gas
chromatographic  (GC) determination  of
six phthalates in  environmental matrices
including  groundwater,  liquids, and
solids.  Analyses  are performed  by gas
chromatography (GC) using  two packed
columns at various temperatures, and the
compounds are determined with a flame-
lonization (FID) or an  electron-capture
detector (ECD).
  Problems with the  current Method
8060 include.

-------
•  The primary column specified, a 1.8-m
   x 4-mm ID glass column packed with
   1.5 percent SP-2250/1.95 percent SP-
   2401 on Supelcoport (100/120 mesh),
   needs  to  be  operated  at  two
   temperatures (180°C and  220°C)  in
   order  to  chromatograph the  six
   compounds.
•  The confirmatory column specified, a
   1.8-m x 4-mm ID glass column packed
   with 3 percent OV-I  on Supelcoport
   (100/120  mesh),  also  needs to  be
   operated at  two temperatures (200°C
   and 220 °C) in order to chromatograph
   the six compounds.
•  Only six phthalate esters are currently
   listed, but other phthalates  have been
   found in environmental samples.
•  Surrogate  compounds are required to
   be  spiked into the sample matrix prior
   to  extraction, yet  no compounds are
   specified  or recommended  for this
   purpose.  Likewise, internal standards
   are required  whenever  internal
   standard  calibration  is  used  for
   quantification purposes,  yet no internal
   standards  are  specified   or
   recommended.
•  Extract   cleanup  is  performed
   according  to Method 3610 or 3620, yet
   no  data are  included on the recovery
   of the six compounds from  the extract
   cleanup step.
•  Many phthalate esters are  present  as
   contaminants  in   or on  laboratory
   equipment  and   in solvents  and
   reagents  (2). Procedures  on how  to
   clean  glassware and how  to remove
   phthalate  esters from  solvents and
   materials  should  be tested  and
   incorporated in the  protocol.  Also,
   examples  of  typical  background
   contamination of  some  common
   laboratory items should be given  to
   make  the analyst aware of  such
   problems.
   Acurex,  under  contract to the
Environmental Monitoring  Systems
Laboratory  in  Las Vegas (EMSL-LV),
conducted   an  evaluation   and
improvement study   of Method 8060.
Since the  current  protocol  was
inadequate  in  certain  areas (e.g.,  in
addressing  background contamination)
and was lacking  information in  other
areas  such  as  the sample cleanup and
the GC analysis,  the  method evaluation
and improvement study was approached
in two phases.
   Phase I,  the developmental  phase,
addressed the following:
•  Literature review to gather the relevant
   information
•  Assessment   of   background
   contamination  of solvents,  materials
   used  in  sample  cleanup,  and
   apparatus used for sample extraction
•  Selection  and evaluation  of  capillary
   columns for use  in the analysis of 16
   phthalate esters (Table 1)
•  Evaluation of  sample  extraction
   procedures
•  Evaluation of GC/ECD and GC/FID for
   the analysis of samples containing the
   test compounds
•  Evaluation  of alumina (Method 3610)
   and Florisil chromatography  (Method
   3620)
•  Selection  of surrogate and  internal
   standards for use in Method 8060
•  Sample preservation studies
   Upon completion of the experimental
work in Phase I, the protocol was tested
in  Phase II on  three  aqueous  matrices
and three solid matrices. Performance
data generated during the evaluation of
the revised Method 8060 include:
•  Measures of precision and  accuracy
•  Evidence of analyte identification
•  Evidence of resolution of analyte from
   interfering substances
•  Ruggedness study

•  Method detection limits

Experimental

Apparatus
   (a)  Glassware-Essentially  as specified
      in Methods  3510, 3520, 3540,
      3550, 3610, and 3620.
   (b)  Mixxor-Lidex Technologies, Inc.
   (c)  Sonicator-Heat    Systems
      Ultrasonics, Inc., Model W- 375.
   (d)  Gas chromatographs-Varian  6000
      with constant-current/pulsed  fre-
      quency ECP,  interfaced with  a
      Varian Vista 402 data  system;
      Varian 6500  with FID, interfaced
      with either  a  Spectra  Physics
      4290  integrator or a Varian  Vista
      402  data  system.  For   the
      simultaneous injection on the DB-
      5  and  DB-1701  columns,  the
      Varian 6000  was equipped with a
      J&W Scientific press-fit,  Y-shape,
      glass-splitter, and with dual ECDs.
   (e)  Autosampler-Varian Model 8000.
   (f)  GC  Columns-(1)   DB-5,  (2)
      Supelcowax-10, (3) DB-210,  (4)
      DB-608, (5)  DB-1701, (6) RTx-5,
      30 m x 0.25 mm ID or  30  m x 0.53
      mm  ID  and  different  film
      thickness.

Materials
   (a)  Solvents and other reagents-As
      specified in Methods  3510, 3520,
      3540, 3550, 3610, and 3620.
(b)  Florisil-J. T.  Baker,  Lot N
    442707, 60/80 mesh, activated
    400"C  for   16  hours,  th<
    deactivated with water  (3 perce
    by weight).
(c)  Alumina-Alumina Woelm N  Sup
    I,  activated/deactivated  ,
    described for Florisil.
(d)  C18 membrane disks-Analytiche
    International.
(e)  Florisil  disposable cartridge
    Supelclean SPE tubes consistii
    of  serological-grade   6-n
    polypropylene tubes, packed eai
    with 1  g  LC-Flonsil  (40-p
    particles, 60-A  pores)  he
    between polyethylene frits.
(f)  Standards-DEP was obtained fro
    Scientific Polymer  Products,
    other phthalates, as well as benz
    benzoate    and   diphen
    terephthalate, were obtained frc
    Chem  Service  (distributed  I
    Bryant Laboratories, Inc.). Puriti'
    were stated to be greater than !
    percent. Stock solutions  of eai
    compound  at 1  mg/mL  we
    prepared in  isooctane (Bak
    Resi-Analyzed,  J.  T.  Bakei
    working  calibration  standan
    were   prepared  initially
    isooctane and later in  hexane I
    serial  dilutions  of a  composi
    stock solution prepared from  tl
    individual stock solutions.
(g)  Materials used in contaminate
    evaluation (solvents  and  oth
    materials  used  in  samp
    preparation)-Various  grad<
    purchased  from  a variety
    suppliers.
(h)  Environmental materials-
 •  Sandy  loam  soil,  obtained fro
    Soils  Incorporated,   Puyallu
    Washington, with the followir
    characteristics: pH 5.9  to 6.0; I
    percent  sand,  7  percent silt,
    percent clay;  cation  exchant:
    capacity 7  meq/100 g;  tot
    organic  carbon content 1,290
    185mg/kg.
 •  A sediment sample of unknov
    origin. Analysis of the  extract t
    GC/MS indicated  the presence
    petroleum hydrocarbons.
 •  NBS SRM-1572, Citrus  leaves.
 •  NBS SRM-1632a, Coal.
 •  NBS SRM-1633a, Coal  flyash.
 •  Estuarine water and  sedime
    collected form San Francisco Ba
    South San Francisco, California.
 •  Leachate prepared  by  Methc
    1310 from a soil  contaminate
    with lead.

-------
                               Table 1. Phthalate Esters Included in the Evaluation

                                Compound                                   CAS No.
                                Dimethyl phthalate (DMP)

                                Diethyl phthalate (DEP)

                                Diisobutyl phthalate (DIBP)

                                Di-n-butyl phthalate (DBP)

                                Bis(4-methyl-2-pentyl) phthalate (BMPP)

                                Bis(2-methoxyethyl) phthalate (BMEP)

                                Diamyl phthalate (DAP)

                                Bis(2-ethoxyethyl) phthalate (BEEP)

                                Hexyl 2-ethylhexyl phthalate (HEHP)

                                Dihexyl phthalate (DHP)

                                Benzyl butyl phthalate (BBP)

                                Bis(2-n-butoxyethyl) phthalate (BBEP)

                                Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP)

                                Dicyclohexyl phthalate (DCP)

                                Pi-n-octyl phthalate (OOP)

                                Dinonyl phthalate (DNP)
                                  131-11-3

                                   84-66-2

                                   84-69-5

                                   84-74-2

                                  146-50-9

                                  117-82-8

                                  131-18-0

                                  605-54-9

                                 75673-16-4

                                   84-75-3

                                   85-68-7

                                  117-83-9

                                  117-81-7

                                   84-61-7

                                  117-84-0

                                   84-76-4
    •  Ground  water  collected at  a
       semiconductor plant in Sunnyvale,
       California.
    •  Municipal sludge collected from
       Santa Clara Valley Water District,
       San Jose, California.
    •  Sandy  loam  soil  obtained  by
       mixing 20  percent organic  soil
       with 80 percent sand.


Contamination  Study
   Solvent  samples (acetone  150 mL,
hexane 150 mL,  diethyl  ether  30 mL,
methylene  chloride  180  mL)  were
individually  concentrated  by  K-D
evaporation to 10 mL and further reduced
to 1 mL with  high-purity nitrogen; only
isooctane was not concentrated. At least
two replicate  samples  of each solvent
were prepared and analyzed.
   Samples of Florisil (20  g), silica  gel
(20 g), anhydrous sodium sulfate (50 g)
and glass  wool  (5 g) were immersed
overnight  in  solvent  which was then
separated  and  concentrated to  1  mL for
GC analysis.  Two  washings  were
performed  in  each  case  and the
concentrates analyzed  separately. The
effect of baking at 400 °C for 4 hours was
evaluated  for anhydrous sodium sulfate
and glass wool.
   Samples of  filter paper (10 g),  paper
thimbles (10 g)  and aluminum foil (5 g)
were cut into 0.5-in x 0.5-in  pieces and
immersed overnight in solvent which was
then separated and concentrated to 1 mL
for  GC analysis.  Two  washings  were
performed  in  each  case and  the
concentrates analyzed separately.

Gas Chromatography
   Operating conditions: DB-5--120°C to
160°C (hold 16 min) at 15°C/min, injector
temp.  275°C, detector  temp.  320"C;
Supelcowax-10--150°C  (hold  2  min) to
220°C at 15°C/min, then 260°C  (hold 16
min) at 4°C/min, injector temp. 270 °C,
detector temp. 270°C;  DB-210-125°C
(hold 1  min) to 240°C (hold  16 min) at
5°C/min, injector temp. 250°C,  detector
temp. 250°C;  DB-5/DB-608;  DB-608/DB-
1701;  DB-608/RTx-5;  DB-5/DB-1701-
150°C  (hold  0.5  min)  to  220°C at
3°C/min, then  to 275°C (hold 15 min) at
5°C/min, injector temp. 250°C,  detector
temp. 320°C.

Sample Extraction
   The extraction efficiencies of Methods
3510 (separatory  funnel)  and  3520
(continuous liquid-liquid extraction) for
the target  compounds were determined
with  reagent water. Microextraction of 50
mL samples using a Mixxor device and
hexane (10   mL)  was  also  tested.
Preconcentration  of phthalate esters onto
C18-membrane  disks  (Analytichem
International)  followed  by  elution with
acetonitrile  resulted  in  quantitative
recoveries for all 16 phthalate esters.
   Solid samples were extracted either in
a Soxhlet extractor with hexane/acetone
(1:1) (Method 3540) or by sonication with
methylene chloride/acetone (1:1) (Method
3550).

Extract Cleanup
   Florisil  and alumina Chromatography:
glass columns were packed each with 10
g deactivated Florisil  or alumina  and
topped  with 1  cm  of precleaned
anhydrous sodium sulfate. The charged
columns  were first eluted with  40 mL
hexane  which  was  discarded;  the
phthalate esters were  eluted with 4:1
hexane/diethyl ether  (100 mL  for the
Florisil  column, 140 mL for the  alumina
column).
   Florisil disposable  cartridges:  the
cartridges were  washed  with 4  mL
pesticide-grade hexane  prior to use.  The
eluting  solvents  used were  hexane,
mixtures of hexane and  diethyl ether, and
mixtures of  hexane  and  acetone.
Removal  of organochlorine pesticides  in
the presence of phthalates was attempted
with  mixtures  of 5-percent, 20-percent,
25-percent, and  30-percent methylene
chloride and hexane.

Surrogate Compound and
Internal Standard Evaluation
  Ten  compounds were  evaluated  as
possible internal standards  and
surrogates for Method 8060.

-------
Results and Discussion

Phthalate Ester Contamination
Study
   Only a brief summary of the results is
presented  here.  Detailed results  of  the
study will be published elsewhere (3).

Solvents
   Five organic  solvents from  up to  six
different commercial  suppliers  were
analyzed for 11  phthalate esters. As can
be seen from the summary results listed
in  Table 2,  six  phthalate esters were
detected in some or all of these solvents.
The only phthalate ester detected in any
of the methylene chloride samples above
6 ng/mL was  OOP at  8.8 ng/mL  in one
sample.
   Since typical volumes of hexane and
acetone  used in  sample preparation  are
200 to 300 mL, the amounts of phthalate
esters  that  can  be  introduced  as
contaminants with solvents  could  be
considerable.


Materials
   The phthalate  contamination summary
values (averaged across brands) for  the
materials listed  in  Table 3  represent
averages of second washings.  Florisil,
alumina  and silica gel showed  significant
levels of phthalates even in the second
washing.  Florisil disposable  cartridges
(not listed in Table 3) in the first washing
showed  levels from 10  to 460  iig per
cartridge for 8 of the 11  phthalate esters
listed in Table 3. However, washing of  the
cartridges just prior to use with 4  mL
hexane  resulted  in acceptable  method
blanks. Washing alone is not sufficient for
sodium sulfate and glass wool,  but baking
these materials  at  40°C for 4 hours
followed by  solvent  washing  gave
acceptable  blanks.  High levels  were
found in filter  paper, paper thimbles, and
aluminum foil.
   Precleaning of these materials is a
must when  phthalate  esters  at low
nanogram levels are to be quantified.

GC  Column Evaluation
   Of the  six  fused-silica  capillary
columns evaluated, the  DB-210 column
was  found to be  the  least  desirable
because of a significant baseline drift
during  column  programming and  was
therefore  eliminated from  further
consideration.
   The  retention times  of the  16
phthalates of interest on the DB-5 fused-
silica  capillary  column  and  the
Supelcowax-10 fused-silica open  tubular
column  and  the DB-5 and  DB-1701
fused-silica open tubular  columns are
presented  in Table 4. The GC conditions
were chosen such that all compounds are
resolved and the total  analysis  time  is
approximately  35 min.  All phthalate
esters including surrogates were resolved
on the DB-5 and DB-1701 columns; these
columns were proposed for incorporation
in  the revised method  8060 since  they
can be  used in the dual-column/dual-
detector approach for the  determination
of Method  8060 phthalate esters.

Sample  Extraction
   The extraction of reagent water spiked
with each of the 16 phthalate esters at 50
ng/L per component for separatory funnel
and continuous  liquid-liquid extraction
and 1 mg/L for the Mixxor extraction gave
the following results:
•  The continuous liquid-liquid extraction
   technique   had   unacceptable
   reproducibilities for all compounds; for
   five of the phthalate esters the average
   recoveries were only 20 to 45 percent.
•  Extraction with hexane in the  Mixxor
   device  gave  unacceptable recoveries
   and reproducibilities.
•  The  separatory  funnel extraction
   produced  recoveries  >70 percent for
   most compounds, and reproducibilities
   were  better than  10  percent for  two-
   thirds of the compounds.
   Further evaluation of the  separatory
funnel  extraction technique  at lower
spiking  levels  (25,  10,  and  1 ng/L)
confirmed  its usefulness. At 25 ng/L, the
recoveries ranged  from 90  to  130
percent, with  11  recoveries between 90
and 110 percent, and  at  10  vig/L, the
range was 73 to 117  percent,  with 10
recoveries between 90 and 110 percent.
At 1 ng/L,  the recoveries ranged from 53
to  152 percent;  only four values were
between 90 and 110 percent.

Method Performance
   Method performance, as used  here,
includes  method accuracy  (percent
recovery), method  precision (percent
relative standard deviation), and  method
detection limits. In the  case of aqueous
samples, the method accuracy given as
percent  recovery of the  16  phthalate
esters spiked into an estuarine water,  a
leachate, and a groundwater at  20  ug/L
and 60  jig/L  ranged from 59.5  to  117
percent  (Figure 1). In the  case  of  solid
samples  (an  estuarine  sediment,   a
municipal  sludge, and a sandy loam soil)
the recoveries were  distributed  over  a
much wider range (Figure 2) indicating
that method accuracy  is a function  of
matrix  and  concentration.  Method
precision for aqueous samples (Figure
was  better than 27.5 percent.  Methc
precision for solid samples (Figure
varied from matrix to matrix (Figure 4).
   The method detection  limits (MD
were determined  for HPLC-grade wat
from the  standard  deviations  (SD)
seven  replicate measurements.  The
represent  the  minimum concentratior
that can be measured and reported wi
99 percent confidence. They ranged fro
22  to  640  ng/L for  water sample
subjected  to Florisil cleanup and  26
320 ng/L for water samples not subjecte
to  Florisil cleanup; in both  cases a  DB
capillary  column   (single-colum
approach) was  used.
   Phthalate  recoveries  from  so
samples, spiked at  1  ppm with the  1
phthalates,  using  Method 3540  (Soxhli
extraction),  ranged from 54  percent  fi
BEEP to 135  percent for  DHP  with  1
recoveries >70 percent. When sonicatic
was used, the recoveries ranged from  2
percent  for  BMPP to 112 percent f<
DMP, with 13 recoveries >70 percent.

Extract Cleanup
   Alumina and Florisil chromatograph
were performed with standards in hexar
according  to  Methods 3610 and  362'
respectively  (Table  5). For  the Floris
cartridge cleanup, various solvents ar
solvent combinations  were tried  c
standards in hexane  and on standards
the  presence  of   organochlorin
pesticides. It was  found that th
organochlorine  pesticides  can  b
removed efficiently from  the cartridge
with  hexane/methylene  chloride  (4:1
under these  conditions, the phthalal
esters  are  retained on  the  Floris
cartridge  and   can  be  recovered wil
hexane/acetone (9:1). The recoveries ai
presented in Tables 5 and 6. Addition
details  on the  Florisil cartridge  cleanu
method can be found in Reference 4.

Surrogate Compound and
Internal Standard
   Of 10 compounds  evaluated, benz'
benzoate was selected as   interm
standard and  diphenyl  phthalat*
diphenyl  isophthalate,  and dibenz;
phthalate were considered as surrogai
compounds. The  selection  was base
primarily on the  observation that  bol
compounds  are resolved from the  oth<
phthalate esters under the conditions <
the GC analysis.

Conclusions
Contamination  from solvents,  reagei
materials, and  glassware used in th

-------
Table 2. Phthalate Ester Contamination














Phthalate
Dimethyl
Diethyl
Diisobutyl
Di-n-butyl
Diamyl
Dihexyl
Benzyl butyl
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)
Dicyclohexyl
Di-n-octyl
Dinonyl
No. of diff. brands
Below det. limit
Concentr. factor
Acetone
<0.70
< 0.10 -0.40
<0.10 - 0.35
< 0.1 0-0.50
<0.10
< 0.1 0-0.45
< 0.10 - 0.46
<0.10 - 0.45
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
8
7
750
Ranges
in Common Solvents8
Diethyl
Hexane ether
<0.fO
<0.ro
40 g anhydrous sodium sulfate, second immersion with 300 mL hexane/acetone (1:1).
    95 g glass wool, second immersion with 300 mL hexanel acetone (1:1).
    '10 g filter paper, second immersion  with 100 mL hexanelacetone (1:1).
    910 g paper Oiimbles, second immersion with 100 mL hexaneiacetone.
    h5 g aluminum foil, second immersion with 200 ml hexaneiacetone (1:1).
    'Not able to quantify because of interference.
analysis  limit the detection  of phthalate
esters  at trace levels  (ppt-ppb  range).
Consequently,  their determinations  in
environmental samples at ppt-ppb range
require   pesticide-grade  solvents,
thorough cleaning  of the  glassware
followed   by  heat-treatment (for those
items that  can  withstand  400°C
temperatures), and the  minimum  number
of steps in sample workup.
   Extraction of  water  samples  in a
separatory funnel was  desired over  the
continuous liquid-liquid  extraction since it
gave    good    recoveries    and
reproducibilities for most target analytes,
greatly reduced the extraction time, and
also   minimizes  contamination.
Preconcentration of aqueous samples on
C18.membrane  disks followed  by
extraction of the  phthalate  esters  with
acetonitrile gave  quantitative recoveries
and  good  reproducibilities  and  was
therefore incorporated in  the  revised
Method 8060.
   Extract  cleanup   using  Florisil
disposable cartridges  and  elution  with
hexane/acetone  (9:1) gave  quantitative
recoveries  for  all  16  phthalate  esters
proposed for  incorporation  in Method
8060. Organochlorine pesticides overlap
with the phthalate esters when the GC is
performed on  a DB-5  fused-silica  capil-
lary  column.  Use  of Florisil  disposable
cartridges and  elution  with  20 percent
methylene  chloride in  hexane  helps  to
remove the organochlorine  pesticides.
Phthalate esters are then recovered from
the Florisil cartridge with hexane/acetone
(9:1). The  use of  Florisil  disposable

-------
                   Table 4. GC Retention Times for the Phthalates*
                                                               Retention time (min)
Phthalate
Dimethyl
Diethyl
D/isobutyl
Di-n -butyl
Bis(4-methyl-2-pentyl)
Bis(2-methoxyethyl)
Diamyl
Bis(2-ethoxyethyl)
Hexyl 2-ethy/hexyl
Dihexy/
Benzyl butyl
Bis(2-n-butoxyethyl)
Bis(2-ethythexyl)
Dicyclohexyl
Di-n-octyl
Dinonyl
DB-5"
30 m x
0.25 mm ID
3.42
3.45
6.48
7.14
7.96
740
8.41
8,17
863
9.62
969
70.53
11.13
10.98
13.03
16.00
Supelco-
wax-Wt>
30 m x
0.53 mm ID
5.62
6.11
7.26
8.43
8.14
12.05
10 15
1241
11.13
1221
16.36
16.94
13.31
16.66
17.25
20.73
DB-5<=
30 m x
0.53 mm ID
7.06
9.30
14.44
16.26
1877
1702
2025
19.43
21.07
24.57
24.86
27.56
2923
28.88
3333
38.80
DB-1701C
30 m x
0.53 mm ID
6.37
8.45
72.97
74.66
76.27
76.47
7808
78.27
78.97
27.85
23.08
2524
2567
26.35
2983
33.84
                   Benzyl benzoate (IS)            5.77

                   Diphenyl phthalate (SU)          d
                   Diphenyl isophthalate (SU)       d
                   Dibenzyl phthalate (SU)	d
                     7.87

                     d
                     d
                     d
12.71


29.46
32.99
34.40
11 07

2832
31.37
32.65
                   a The GC conditions have been specified under "Gas Chromatography."
                   b Single-column approach.
                   c Dual-columnidual-detector approach. The two columns were connected to a J&W Scientific press-
                    fit, V'-shape, glass-splitter.
                   d Not available.
cartridges was included  as  an  option
since it results in quantitative  recoveries,
reduces contamination, saves chemicals,
and reduces laboratory waste.
   Preservation of  aqueous  samples  at
neutral  and acidic  pH  and  4°C  is
adequate for 21 days.  Preservation  of
water samples at pH 9  and 4°C  should
be avoided since most compounds show
significant decrease in concentration after
14 days of storage. Storage of spiked soil
samples at -10°C  is  preferred over
refrigeration  at 4°C, since it minimizes
loss  of the lower-molecular-weight esters.
   The  dual-column/dual-detector ap-
proach  for  the  analysis  of phthalate
esters  increases sample throughput  by
allowing the primary  and confirmatory
column analyses  to  be  performed
simultaneously. Excellent reproducibilities
of the retention times and  detector
responses were achieved with two 30 m x
0.53-mm  ID  fused-silica  open  tubular
columns of dissimilar stationary  phases
connected to an injection tee and two
ECDs
References
1. Test Methods  for  Evaluating  Solid
   Waste (1986), 3rd Ed., SW-846, U.S.
       Environmental  Protection Agenc
       Washington, DC.
     2. Giam,  C. S , H. S. Chan,  and Q.
       Neff. Anal. Chem. 47, 225-229 (1975)
     3. Lopez-Avila, V., J. Milanes, and W.
       Beckert.  "Phthalate  Esters  <
       Contaminants       in       Gc
       Chromatography." In preparation.
     4. Lopez-Avila, V.,  J. Milanes,  N.
       Dodhiwala,  and  W.  F.   Beckei
       "Cleanup of Environmental Samp
       Extracts  Using  Florisil  Solid-Pha;
       Extraction Cartridges." J. Chromatoc
       Sci. 27(5), 209-215(1989).

-------
lt(J " —
130-
120-
110-
100-
| 90-
o r
u
£ 80-


§ „
o 70 -
o5
a

oo -
50 -
40 -

30- •

20 -


n -'.
•
•



'





,11 ' > >
1 1 1 i.i
, ,

iii iii
i i *

, ,
, i
, i


1


r





, ,
'


ii iii

,
,
,
,
•
!
, '
(


'






, ,
. 1 i
, ,

S 1 1 '11
k ,
k ,
k ,
k ,
k ,
J
( ]


f '






1 1 1
, (
,

S i 1 ii

,



n

1






'

, ,
'•:
.

	
, ,

, ,
, i
h i


1

1 - '




1

	
i


	
, ,
s •

k 1
s .
1
1 1

1 '


r-



k '

. . ,
:, .,:
k ,

K i 1 • <
k ,
k ,
k ,
k ,
k ,
a
^ ^
i ' '
' '
1 '




'
J
k , - .'
"'' ' '.
s , ,,,

S i i /
. ,
k ,
k ,
k ,
k ,
n


'







'
k i i \ •


,
,
,
, i
•
,
a

r


' '





I ..*
' ' '
,,, ,,,

,
,
•
'
,
, ,

•


' r






'
!' ''
	

.
•
•
•
.
•
r.
p (
'
ill .
'



r


s. , '.,
Ill ' k t
L|, *;

k ' L '
^ ,
k ,
k ,
k ,


, f

'
1
1



'

. , **,
,: [,:
,, L

X i '
II .^-t
i Y
•
k ,
•
•
-,
s \
t


s r L



1 '

V: jj:
V! '",
V i 1 ' i •

•
•
•
•
'
S .

'


1

,




S, ,
I,
,, ,.

'
' '
MI 'Y •
• \
•
•
r.

•^
S '
S '
N '
'

' •
'


',",
,..

•
• i
•
•
. i
• '
             DMP  DEP  DIBP  DBP  BMPP BMEP DAP  BEEP  HEHP  DHP   BBP BBEP DEI-IP  DCP  OOP  DNP
\7~7~\Mici
                             M1C2
M2C1
                                                                                       M3C1
M3C2
Figure 1.  Method accuracy for aqueous matrices (Mt--estuarme water; M2--leachate;  M3--groundwater; C^-concentration  at 20
         component; C2~concentration at 670 ngiL per component)
                                                                                                             per

-------
750-
740 -
730-
720 -
770 -
| 700-
o
8 so-,

1 SO'.
55 70 -,
Q.
60-'

50-'
40-

30 -i '

20-,

70-'


0 -Lu




i .
'

:













3
I
1 1 j
»
, I












i
i. ,
i
i ' '
, :



1


\





1
1 ' '
»
l| ' 1
b

,
i i




i





i
i



i



p.

.









i " [

1 *
•
i


.
>





*
i i

i ' '
i »
i <
, i
i i


, 1 1
'.








•'•

• '



















1

i





•

' ri '
i
, '
tii « ,
, ,
iii i
, i
• •



i i
<





^
>.
f i
' < i


<, ,
' i i


i" i i





•

















*
,
•
i t
a
i •

•
















.




'
'






'

«
'

'

•


•
•




a

i ,

i ,
1 i

•

\ i


\ i
•


,


\
S

s .

^
"
(


••
[•


, ,

               DMP  DEP   DIBP  DBP BMPP BMEP DAP  BEEP HEMP  DHP  BBP 88EP DEHP  DCP   OOP  DNP
  rm Mid
7777A
W3C7
M3C2
Figure 2.  Method accuracy for solid matrices (M,-estuarine sedtment; M2—municipal sludge; M3--sartdy loam soil; C, —concentration at 1
         per component; C2--concentration at 3 itg!g per component).

-------
~] —
26 -
24 -
22 -
c 20 ~
o
1 '8-
Q
"2 16 -
to
•0
c
a 14 -
V)
o
c 12-
? 10-
c
0)
o
oj 8-
o. r
6 -
4 -•'

2— f •



o -M-





n
;
1 '
.
* '
i '

/ i
>
1 '
< ;
/.
1 '
• '
* *
' 1
' f '
S ' * '
1 1 ' '
' 	
1


1 1 1







[
1
'

1 '

1 T
» ,
! ' '
, * i
\ ';


.


N, ' 9 • f
\ '
,11 ' . f



,








(

I



,

'
, >


' '


1 ' r
! • "
,- j -



, ,








•


1 r '

, ,

1 :

. | ;


, ' '


,1
, '
, I . '
\ ' 1 '
• 1
. ' [ :


" r "














fl


,





1 '
N '
3


:,i ,.'.
: 1 f














a


;




n
n ,
•
i .
" '.



(













1








.

' r
,. p,



:'j '











1








1 >

i t
i

. « i m >
	



(










1



,

1
:


• '

• n

;: ;
,.i ,
i








_








•



1




i pn
« i t : .
, J







1

'



1













. r
i ,
i >
ii 'i
,. ,,














C .










| r
,
• ' •
1 1 iii



L











i






. • i

i > i


, p, i
,i ^ii
1 1 • > 1 1



(














1 ,

1



i '

;'

i ' i
S ' 'i
,. ,,


























r
r
, ,
,.
_


	







«
'
S
«
>





s
1
1
,
, 1
;
, '
S ,
"





                DMP   DEP  DIBP  DBP  BMPP  BMEP  DAP  BEEP HEHP  DHP   BBP  BBEP DEHP  DCP  OOP  DNP
   rm
M1C2
M2C1
M3C1
M3C2
Figure 3.  Method precision for aqueous matrices (M,-estuanne water; M2--leachate; M3--groundwater; C,--concentration at 20 ng/L per component;
         C2--concentration at 60 ng/L per component).

-------
       c
       o

       §
       c
       
-------
       Table 5. Extract Cleanup Recoveries (in Percent)
               Phthalate
                                                                  Florisil Cartridges^
                                    Florisil3
Alumina*
Fraction 1
       3 Average of two determinations.
       b Averages of three determinations, RSDs given in parenthesis.
        Fraction 1 was eluted with 5 ml hexane/methylene chloride (4:1) and
        Fraction 2 with 5 mL hexane/acetone (9:1).
Fraction 2
Dimethyl
Diethyl
Diisobutyl
Di-n-butyl
Bis(4-methyl-2-pentyl)
Bis(2-methoxyethyl)
Diamyl
Bis(2-ethoxyethyl)
Hexyl 2-ethylhexyl
Dihexyl
Benzyl butyl
Bis(2-n-butoxyethyl)
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)
Dicyclohexyl
Di-n-octyl
Dmonyl
43
57
80
85
85
0
82
0
105
74
90
0
82
84
115
73
65
62
77
77
89
70
75
67
91
72
37
63
91
84
108
71
0
0
0
12
0
0
3.3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
130
88
118
121
123
32
94
82
94
126
62
98
no
106
123
102
(52)
(2.8)
(16)
(13)
(57)
(31)
(8.3)
(19)
(8.3)
(6.4)
(15)
(6.5)
(2.7)
(3.3)
(7.0)
(8.7)
Table 6. Percent Recoveries of Phthalate Esters from Various Matrices by Florisil Cartridge Cleanup with
         Hexane/Methylene Chloride (4:1) and Hexane/Acetone (9:1) as Eluants"
Phthalate
Dimethyl
Diethyl
Diisobutyl
Dibutyl
Bis(4-methyl-2-pentyl)
Diamyl
Bis(2-ethoxyethyl)
Hexyl 2-ethylhexyl
Dihexyl
Benzyl butyl
Bis(butoxyethyl)
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)
Dicyclohexyl
Dioctyl
Dmonyl
Sandy
Loam
Soil
78
79
79
74
77
82
37
80
78
82
86
74
91
80
84
Sediment
75
79
82
78
84
86
24
88
88
99
94
85
96
92
96
NBS
SRM-1572
80
89
90
84
102
100
62
95
86
114
98
108
106
104
106
NBS
SRM-1632a
76
79
108
83
91
76
32
93
92
102
106
88
98
95
111
NBS
SRM-1633a
82
84
86
83
86
89
33
81
80
98
98
112
95
88
92
a Spiking level is 50 ng/mL for each compound. Data shown are for Fraction 2 which was eluted with 5 mL
 hexane/acetone (9:1).
                                               11

-------
   Viorica  Lopez-Avila, Franklin Constantino, June Milanes, and Robert Gale are
        with Acurex Corp., Mountain View,  CA 94039. The EPA author,  Werner F.
        Beckert (also  the EPA  Project Officer, see below) is   with  the
        Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory, Las Vegas, NV 89193-3478.
   The complete report, entitled  "Single-Laboratory Evaluation of  Method 8060--
        Phthalate Esters," (Order No. PB 90-191 7761 AS; Cost: $39.00,  subject to
        change) will be available only from:
            National Technical Information Service
            5285 Port Royal Road
            Springfield, VA22161
            Telephone:  703-487-4650
   The EPA Project Officer can be contacted at:
            Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory
            U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
            Las Vegas, NV 89193-3478
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Center for Environmental Research
Information
Cincinnati OH 45268
x&N^US-OFrFIC'ALMA'L:
*i>      '.J\*a»tt-Tv
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use $300
U.S.POSTA6E  i«
EPA/600/S4-89/039
                                       iGE'CI
        CHICAGO

-------