ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY OFFICE OF ENFORCEMENT WORKSHOP ON SAMPLE PREPARATION TECHNIQUES FOR ORGANIC POLLUTANT ANALYSIS OCTOBER 2-4, 1913 DENVER, COLORADO DISTRIBUT__ NATIONAL FIELD INVESTIGATIONS CENTER-DENVER DENVER, COLORADO ------- Environmental Protection Agency Workshop on Sample Preparation Techniques for Organic Pollutant Analysis October 2-4, 1973 Denver, Colorado Chairman Dr. Theodore 0. Meiggs, NFIC-Denver Discussion Leaders Mr. James J. Lichtenberg, MDQARL Mr. Roger C. Tindle, NFIC-Denver Dr. Ronald G. Webb, SEWL Distributed by Office of Enforcement National Field Investigations Center Denver, Colorado November, 1973 ------- TABLE OP CONTENTS Page PARTICIPANTS . . . . . , . . . jj INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 I. SAMPLE COLLECTION AND PRESERVATION TECHNIQUES . . . . . 3 Ii . EXTRACTION PROCEDURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 III. FRACTIONATION AN!) DERIVATIZATION PROCEDURES . 20 IV. QUALITY CONTROL IN THE ORGANIC LABORATORY . . 25 V • GENERAL COMMENTS . . . • . . • . • . 30 i ------- Workshop on Sample Preparation Techniques for Organic Pollutant Analysis PART I CIPANTS Dr. Clark Allen Enforcement & Support Branch Region VI 1600 Patterson Street Suite 1100 Dallas, Texas 75201 Dr. William Andrade S & A Division Region I Needham Heights, Mass. 02194 Mr. James Barron Charlottesville Laboratory Region III 1140 RIver Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22901 Mr. H. Gregory Beierl Pesticide Laboratory S & A Division Region VIII Building 45 Denver Federal Center Denver, Colorado 80225 Mr. Thomas Bellar Methods Development & Quality Assurance Research Laboratory NERC—Cjncjnnati Cincinnati, Ohio 45268 Dr. Frank J. Biros Pesticide Effects Laboratory NERC - RTP Research Triangle Park, N.C. 27711 Dr. Joseph Blazevich S & A Division Region X 14515 SE 21st Place Beilvue, Washington Mr. Harvey W. Boyle National Field Investigations Center Building 53, Box 25227 Denver Federal Center Denver, Colorado 80225 Mr. Mike Carter Southeast Water College Station Athens, Georgia Mr. Richard Dobbs Water Supply Research Laboratory NERC — Cincinnati 4676 Columbia Parkway Cincinnati, Ohio 45226 Mr. James W. Eichelberger Analytical Quality Control Laboratory 1014 Broadway Cincinnati, Ohio 45202 Dr. Richard Enrione National Field Investigations Center 5555 Ridge Avenue Cincinnati, Ohio 45268 Mr. Mike E. Garza, Jr. Houston Facility S & A Division Region VI 6608 Hornwood Houston, Texas 77036 Dr. Gary Glass National Water Research Laboratory 6201 Congdon Boulevard Duluth, Minnesota 55804 Dr. Donald F. Goerlitz U. S. Geological Survey Water Resources Division 345 Middlefleld Road Menlo Park, California 94025 !(r. William L. Griffis Consolidated Laboratory Services NERC — Corvallis 200 SW 35th Street Corvallis, Oregon 97330 P4r. Michael Gruenfeld Edison Water Quality Research Laboratory Edison, New Jersey 08R17 Laboratory Road 30601 98007 13 - ------- PARTICIPANTS (Cant. ) Dr. Larry Harris Analytical Quality Control Laboratory 1014 Broadway Cincinnati, Ohio 45202 Mr. Lloyd Kahn S & A Division Region II Edison, New Jersey 08817 Dr. Robert Kleopfer S & A Division Region VII 25 Funs ton Road Kansas City, Kansas 66115 Mr. Fred Kopfler Water Supply Research Laboratory NERC — Cincinnati 4676 Columbia Parkway Cincinnati, Ohio 45268 Mr. Thomas Leiker National Field Investigations Center Building 53, Box 25227 Denver Federal Center Denver, Colorado 60225 Mr. James Lichtenberg Method Development and Quality Assurance Research Laboratory NERC—Cjricinnatj Cincinnati, Ohio 45268 James E. Longbottom ?tethod Development and Quality Assurance Research Laboratory NERC—Cjncjnnat i Cincinnati, Ohio 45268 Mr. William Lay Laboratory Services Branch S & A Division Region IV Southeast Water College Station Athens, Georgia Dr. Theodore 0. Meiggs National Field Investigations Center Building 53, Box 25227 Denver Federal Center Denver, Colorado 80225 Mr. Jerry Muth Laboratory Support Branch S & A Division Region IX 620 Central Avenue Alameda, California 94501 Mr. William L. Reichel Bureau of Sport Fisheries & Wildlife Patuxent Wildlife Research Center Chemistry — Pathology Building Laurel, Maryland 20810 Dr. Peter Rogerson National Marine Water Quality Lab oratory South Ferry Road Narragansett, Rhode Island 02822 Dr. Craig Shew Robert S. Kerr Water Research Center P. 0. Box 1198 Ada, Oklahoma 74820 Dr. David L. Stalling Bureau of Sport Fisheries & Wildlife Fish—Pesticide Research Laboratory RD #1 Columbia, tissouri 65201 Dr. Emillo Sturino S & A Division Region V 1819 tlest Pershing Road Chic ago, Illinois 60609 Mr. John Tjlstra S & A Division Region VIII Box 25345 Denver Federal Center Denver, Colorado 80225 Mr. Roger C. Tindle National Field Investigations Center Building 53, Box 25227 Denver Federal Center Denver, Colorado 80225 Laboratory Road 30601 iii ------- PARTICIPANTS (Cont. ) Dr. Gilman Veith National Water Quality Laboratory 6201 Congdon Boulevard Duluth, Minnesota 55804 Mr. Larry Wapensky S & A Division Region VIII 490 Orchard Street Golden, Colorado 80401 Mr. Virgil L. Warren National Field Investigations Center Building 53, Box 25227 Denver Federal Center Denver, Colorado 80225 Dr. James Watson National Field Investigations Center Building 53, Box 25227 Denver Federal Center Denver, Colorado 80225 Dr. Ronald C. Webb Southeast Water Laboratory College Station Road Athens, Georgia 30601 Mr. Robert E. White Bureau of Sport Fisheries & Wildlife Wildlife Research Center Building 16 Denver Federal Center Denver, Colorado 80225 Dr. A. J. Wilson Gulf Breeze Laboratory Sabjne Island Gulf Breeze, Florida 32561 iv ------- 1 INTRODUCTION Throughout our Country, large quantities of industrial organic chemicals are being discharged daily to our rivers and lakes. Histor- ically, the primary concern for these pollutants has been the oxygen demand they exert unon the receiving waters. However, it has become increasingly apparent that many of these organic chemicals can produce other adverse affects. Many of these compounds are highly toxic to aquatic life, some are carcinogenic, mutagenic, or teratogenic, while others undergo blo—concentration within the food chain. As a result, the discharge of these materials into the aqueous environment can pose a grave threat to the receiving water biota and in some cases even to the ultimate consumer — man. Before much progress can be made to reduce this form of pollution analytical techniques must be developed to identify and quantitate individual chemical pollutants. However, the coi’ plex mixtures of organic compounds, and the low concentrations that are normally encoun- tered, have made the analytical task formidable. Recent advance in analytical techniques and instrumentation have allowed some progress to be made in this difficult task. Consequently, a number of water laboratories have begun to apDly these new techniques to the analysis of industrial—waste discharRes and the receiving—water systems. The purpose and goal of this workshop was to bring together the chemists who are responsible for organic—pollutant analysis, and to serve as a forum to exchange the varied experiences and accomplishments that have occurred in this rapidly developing field. The eNphasis of ------- 2 the workshop was placed upon the problems of sami 1e collection, extraction, and fractionation prior to detection c f the pollutants of interest by the appropriate detection techninu s. ‘herever pos- sible, methods or nrocedures were stressed that werc a’”licable to the analysis for general classes of orr anic compounds as opposed to pro- cedures for individual comnound identifications. What follows Is a summation of the techniquus dt c!sse1 at the workshop. Many of these are currently beinc’ used by water laboratories to analyze industrial effluents, natural waters, bottom sediments, and aquatic biota for industrial and agricultural organic—chemical pollu- tants. In addition, some discussion is provided re nTr 1 irt analytical quality control in the organic laboratory as wefl s a siirnatlon of miscellaneous, qeneral coumients that were expressed t the meeting. It is felt that the summary of this wor :sh n wi1 l serve as a guide to current practices in the analysis for orp anic—chenica1 0i— lutants, and draw attention to those areas where more information is needed. ------- 3 I. SNrnLE COLLECTION AND pr Esr.RvATTm1 Sainnie collection and oreservation is an area where considerable research and development is needed. There was general agreement amon the workshop particinants that there are, at present, no definitive c tiides to samnie collection and preservation for organic—pollutant analysis. In addition, less than ten percent of the laboratories renre— sented indicated that they routinely participate in the actual collection of samples or orc anic analysis. This would indicate that very few chemists have direct input into the nianning and conducting of sampLinc ’ oroc ranis. In this respect, there was unanimous agreement that the analyst should participate in the design of the sample collection nrocess, par— tf.cularly with respect to the preparation of sarrnle containers, check on purity of solvents and reacents, etc. Also, there was agreement that the chemists should be allowed to train sampling crews to avoid potential sources of sample contamination. In light of the expressed attitudes, it seems reasonable that so”ie groun within EPA should he assigned the task of nrerarin a samplin nanual F or use in training and guiding sampling crews who are to collect samples for organic analysis. fly far, the largest number of samples analyzed by the various laboratories are grab—water samples. Despite this ‘act, there seemed to be little real. kno’iledce of the effects of collection method, con- tainer materials, handlinc’ procedures, etc. on the ciualitv of the restiltinc’ samr]e. 1Io ;ever, it should be erinhasi.zed that ciscussions did not include the relatively well—develoned area o pesticide residue ------- 4 analysis since the planners of the workshop felt that pesticide residue methodology is probably not sufficiently applicable to the problem of sampling for the wide variety of industrial organic compounds that may be encountered. There was considerable discussion on the choice of sample container to be used in grab sampling. tost attendees agreed that glass bottles or jars were nref erred, but one chemist suggested the nossibility of sample contamination due to leaching of materials fron soft glass. The mechanism of contamination from this source is not known, but the use of borosilicate glass (Pyrex, Kimax, etc.) seems to avoid the problem. This phenomenon needs to be studied further. 1ost attendees felt that teflon—cap liners should be used to avoic sample contamination and losses, but a limited amount of evidence sug- gests that some solutes, notably PCBs, may be lost to, or throuc’h teflon liners. In these cases, aluminum—foil liners proved sunerior. Again, research is needed in this area. Some attendees pointed out that serious losses of solutes from water samples may occur due to volatilization fror the water surface. This effect has been particularly noticed with petroleum samples. A recent paper by ‘ tackay and TJo].koff [ FJnv. Sci. “echnol. , 7, (ill (1971)1 attempted to mathematically define the losses that occur due to vapori- zation of various compounds, including Aroclor 1260. The authors made some assumptions regarding vapor densities, etc., and produced some rather interestjnr conciusions. For example, if we assume that the sriple bottle cornflon]v used by EPA laboratories contains R50 ml of liquid and 50 ml of air space, then at 4°C about 20 Percent of the ------- 5 Aroclor 1260 from an initially saturated solution will he found in the air space. Also, since this is the equilibrium situation, shakinc ’ the sample should not redissolve the vaporized material. At higher temperatures, these losses would be even greater due to the greater evaporation of water into the air space. While some of the assump- tions used for this estimate are probably not entirely true, the order of magnitude is probably correct. Thus, vaporization from a water sample into the air space in a partially filled jar may represent a major source of error in the analysis of grab sannles for P03 9 , aro— matics, alkanes, and other organic materials. Obviously, the smaller the air space above the sample, the smaller the losses that nay occur due to vaporization. However, as pointed out by some of the Workshop participants, if there is sufficient petroleum, or other organic material, to form a microscopic layer over the surface of the water, then losses due to capillarity (creeping of the organics out of the minute space between the jar lip and the cap liner) may become significant when the jar is nearly full. Again, we have a problem that deserves consid- erable attention. Contamination of grab samples was a major concern of most Workshop participants. Contamination can occur in many ways; one of the most common results from inadequate pre—cleaning of sample containers. To minimize this, the chemists should provide pronerly prepared (pre— washed) containers to the sampling crews. ------- 6 Other sources of contamination are the caps used to sea] sample bottles (metal caps must be freed of lacquer prior to use, while plastic caps may contain plasticizers), sealing tape used to assure that the caps remain tightly closed, glassware or other sampling gear used to prepare the sample for transfer to the sample bottle, reacwnts and solvents used for preservation, and possible other sources. The best answers to the contamination problem seem to be careful pre- paration of the sample containers before use, training of field crews so that they will avoid possible contamination sources, and careful pre—screening (and if necessary, pre—cleaning) of reagents and solvents for field use. Among the most common contaminants are phthalate esters, but many other types of compounds may be encountered. Integrated sampling comprises the various techniques whereby samples are taken over an extended period of time, and in which the rate of sampling is related in some manner to time or the rate of flow of the sampled body. The commonly practiced technique of manually compositino grab samples over a period of time is an example of this type of sampling. Compositing was not discussed to any extent during the workshop, however, as usually practiced, solute losses due to vaporization probably repre- sent a major problem when this method is used. The Workshop participants showed considerable interest in the use of macroreticular resins for integrated sampling. Four of the represented laboratories, including three from EPA, had previously iorked with macroreticular resin columns. Those that had used resins agreed that this approach to sampling seems to hold a great deal of nromise. ------- 7 In a recent example ( . Tindle, /1(2C ‘Yewletter, ‘ l9, October, 1973], a mixed bed of Amberlite ‘ Afl—2 am! AD—7 (50:50 mixturc) had been used in a sampling column, which also contained polyurethane—foam plugs both before and after the resin bed, to sample for several pesticide and industrial—organic compounds ranging from hydrocarbons to phenols. This system exhibited good, trapping efficiencies (>90 percent) for most tested compounds, and upon elution gave overall recoveries generally of >90 percent. Some Workshop attendees pointed out that recoveries may be f low— rate dependent and some gel—filtration effects (exclusion of large molecules) may be noted. The greatest potential for resin—column use seems to lie in the area of long—term (24—96 hours) sampling for low levels of organics in lakes, streams, etc. Much work needs to be done to define the usefulness and limitations of this method. However, the potential usefulness certainly justifies a concerted initial evaluation. Some of the characteristics of the resin—column samplers that need to be defined are: (a) quantitative aspects — “What compounds are quantitatively trapped and over what concentration range?” (b) preparation of resins — “How can resins best be prepared for use?” (c) column capacity — “What is the capacity of a particular size of column? Are there interactions between solutes?” (d) preservation of columns — “How can columns be preserved before extraction?” ------- 8 (e) particulates on columns — “How should particulates be handled? What are the effects of partial plugging?” (f) elution procedures — “What is best method of elutin columns? Are separation based on pH or solubility feasible?” There was some discussion of carbon adsorption. Very few, if any, of the represented laboratories now use this method, although three Regional Offices appear to be considering use of this method for monitoring purposes. There was almost no discussion of methods of collecting tissue and sediment samples. What discussion occurred centered around the idea that EPA needs a written set of guidelines regarding the col- lection of these types of samples. Discussions on the methods of preserving samples quickly revealed an almost total lack of knowledge regarding the effects of various alternative methods of preservation. In general, most laboratories simply place bottled—grab samples on ice for shipment as a means of preservation. However, it was clear that no one really knew whether this approach is effective in preserving samples containing a variety of industrial—organic compounds. Some attendees suggested the use of solvent in sample bottles as a means of preservation. There was, however, little agreement as to which solvent should be used. For low—boiling pollutants, the use of hexa— decane as a keeper solvent seems to have some utility. Various solvents, including methylene chloride, Freon TF, hexane, isooctane, etc., were V ------- 9 suggested for use as keepers for higher—boiling pollutants. Some form of keeper in the bottle would seem desirable to reduce possible loss by volatilization as discussed previously. Petroleum—containing samples are preserved by the addition of sulfuric acid N. Gruenfeld, Env. So . Technol., 7, 636 (1973)], while formalin was suggested for PCB—containing samples [ T. A. Bellar and 3. 3. Lichtenberg, “Some Factors Affecting the Recovery of PCB’s Frori Water and Bottom Samples,” CIC—CCIW Symposium on Water Quality Parameters, Burlington, Ontario, November, 1973]. Copper sulfate and phosphoric acid are often used to preserve samples for phenols analysis. Tissue— and bottom—sediment sariples are preserved by freezing by almost all represented labs. A recent paper [ Butler, Pest. Pon tor. J.,, 6, 23 (1963)] reported the use of a mixture of 90 percent anhydrous sodium sulfate and 10 percent Quso 030 (micro—f me precipitated silica) to preserve field—blended—tissue samples. This method allowed the storage of desiccated—tissue samples for at least 14 days without loss or degradation of pesticide residues. This area of preservation of samples is another highly important area requiring extensive research. Hopefully, the various EPA research groups will expend the needed effort to define suitable preservation techniques for both water and other samples. ------- 10 tI. EXTRACTION PROCEDURES Extraction procedures cover a wide variety of techniques whereby the organic pollutant(s) of interest are transferred from the inorganic or biological matrix (i.e., water, sediment, or tissue) and usually concentrated prior to chemical characterization. During the !7orkshop, extraction techniques were discusscd for separating organic pollutants from water and wastcxiater samples, tissue, bottom sediment, and sludge samples. The simplest situation occurs when no extraction is required. In this case, the chemist may apply such techniques as direct aqueous— injection gas chromatography, head—space analysis, trapping of volatile components by either gas purging or cold trapping and finally 1 steam distillation. The technique of direct aqueous—injection gas chromatography (CC) was familiar to most workshop participants. Those who had applied it had found it most useful for the analysis of volatile organics in effluents where the detection limit of approximately 1 mg/i is adequate. The use of pre—coluinns to prevent salts and other non—volatiles from damaging the CC column was recommended by several participants. Quartz inserts or lengths of column tubing at the head of the GC column, either empty or packed with quartz wool, can be employed for this purpose. These inserts can be changed or cleaned with a ninimum of effort. Direct aqueous injection is currently being recommended by the EPA Methods Development and Quality Assurance Research Laboratory (MDQARL) in the analysis for chlorinated and aliphatic solvents. For these analyses, ------- 11 the halogen specific micro—coulometric or the non—specific flame ionization detectors are employed. Direct aqueous injection is recom- mended by ASTM for the analysis of phenols in their “Standard Nethod of Test for Phenols in Water by Gas Liquid Chromatography” (D2580) and for the analysis of volatile organic matter in water In their Hethod (D2908). Additional methods of direct aqueous injection for organic acids, nitrites, and aliphatic hydrocarbons are presently being pre- pared by ASTh and others tD. Brown, I1QC Newsletter; (19), 5 (1973)]. Head—space analysis can also be applied for the determination of volatile—organic materials although few of the Workshop participants had actually employed it in practice. The use of infrared spectro— scopy has been reported for the quantitative identification of head— space gases in oil samples. Other techniques for the analysis of volatile organics use gas purging to remove volatiles from the samples. Tom ellar reported the use of nitrogen gas to purge volatile—organic components from water samples. The evolverl or anics are then collected on an adsorbent column (Chromosorb 103). The collection column is then inserted into the injection port of a gas chromatograph and the trapped components analyzed under teiiperature—pro r m conditions. The technique ha been applied to a variety of c ilorinated and nor —chlorinated aromatic and aliphatic solvents. Under anbient conditions, the recovery of relatively Insoluble organic compounds has been found r’ore efficient than the recovery of highly water—soluble compounds. Instead of collecting the purged volatile—organics on a column, the materials may be cal— lected in a cold trap. This technique has been used by several of the ------- 12 laboratories in attendance and is a relatively common technique in the analysis of atmospheric samples. Steam distillation can be used to reduce the sanpie volume and to concentrate organic components that are volatile under such conditions. Samples thus concentrated can be analyzed by direct—aqueous injection or by solvent extraction prior to CC or other types of detection. ilowever, possible hydrolysis of sample components must he carefully considered when ever this technique is employed. Liquid—liquid extraction is by far the most common type of extrac- tion technique in dealing with water and wastewater samples. The Uork— shop participants were queried as to the most coimnon types of solvents used for this purpose and it was found that the solvents most commonly used were methylene chloride or chloroform, followed by ethyl ether, hexane, methylene chioride—hexane, and finally by ethyl ether—hexane mixture. Other solvents that were mentioned but not widely used, were carbon tetrachlorlde for oils, freon for oils, benzene—hexane , hexane— acetone and hexadecane. A consensus of the Workshop participants was that, whenever possible, non—flammable solvents such as methylene chloride or freon should be used. The potential explosive hazard of diethyl ether and other flammable solvents should not preclude there use when needed. 7 lowever, the chemist must be aware of the hazard and take measures to minimize the possibility of accident. Obviously, the solvent of choice will depend upon the types of pollutants to be analyzed or to be characterized. In the case where a wide variety of organic types are to be deter- mined, liquid—liquid extraction can be used as a fractionation tool as ------- 13 well as a separation technique. A procedure for the separation of neutrals, acids, and bases was described by William Loy of the Southeast Water Laboratory. In this procedure, conditions for the initial extrac- tion of the sample are determined by the pH of the sample as received. The sample is shaken to provide homogeneity and is divided into two equal portions for replicate analysis. If the pH of the sample is between 5 and 14, the sample is initially extracted with hexane to recover the “neutral organics” which are then analyzed by gas chromatography. After the neutrals have been removed, the sample is then acidified to pH 2 and extracted with methylene chloride. The methylene chloride extract is then concentrated and divided equally. One aliquot is analyzed directly by gas chromatography, the second is esterified, using diazomethane prior to analysis by gas chromatography. If the original sample has a pH less than 5, the sample is acidified to pH 2 and extracted only with methylene chloride. The methylene chloride extract is then divided and analyzed or esterified as above. In some cases, organic bases may be recovered by adjusting the p1-I of the sample to greater than 10 and extracting with methylene chloride or other appropriate solvent. Extraction of the samples may be carried out using separatory funnels or a magnetic stir- ring device. The niagentic stirring approach is satisfactory when extracting with a lighter—than—water solvent; it is not very efficient when using a solvent that is heavier than water. A good discussion of liquid—liquid extraction can be found in the ASTM Manual, Part 23, Method D—277B “Solvent Extraction of Organic Matter from Water”. This method describes a general approach that will ------- 14 separate a wide variety of organic components and allows the analyst to select from a variety of solvents as required to meet his needs. Workshop participants reported that recoveries from industrial waste samples were variable and often poor. Salting out was suggested as a method for improving recovery. The use of sub—ultrasonic (polytron) or ultra onic treatment to break up the suspended solids in a sample was also suggested as a means of improving the extraction efficiency. It should be noted that heavier—than—water solvents can cause problems during phase separation when the samples contain fibers for other solid materials that tend to settle to the bottom. A procedure for breaking emulsions by pouring the sample through glass wool was presented to the Workshop by William Loy. The procedure calls for passing the organic layer through a column of 2—3 inches of Pyrex glass wool (prerinsed with methylene chloride) and collecting it in a beaker. If necessary, the solvent is forced through the glass wool by applying mild air pressure. If a layer of water is present after passing through the glass wool once, it is passed through a second column for final drying. Some unanswered questions regarding this tech- nique are the following: Are organics that may be occluded in emulel— fled material lost as this material is removed by the glass wool? Does the glass wool do an adequate job of removing the water from the solvent extract? Mr. Loy is working to answer these and other questions. Sulfur is often extractod from environmental samples into the organic layer. In order to avoid sulfur interference, the sulfur may be removed with mercury or copper powder (Pull. Pnviron. Cont. cm Toxic!., 6, 9(1971). ------- 15 An a1tern ite approach for recovery of organic pollutants from iater and wastewater is a sorption on organic resins or activated carbon followed by solvent extraction of the resin or carbon to desorh the organic pollutants of interest. A number of Workshop participants have used the Rohm and Haas XAD resins for the recovery of a variety of organic compounds. Though this relatively new technique is not yet fully developed, it has shown considerable promise for some applications. A preliminary literature review of work with this technique has been prepared by Roger Tindle, NFIC—Denver. Investigations of procedures for extracting organic materials from the XAD resins are in progress. A number of solvents have already been applied singly, in series, or as mixtures. Examples are acetone, methanol, or ethanol used singly or acetone followed by methylene chloride followed by acetone again in series, or a single elution using a mixture of acetone in chloroform. Some degree of class separation based upon p11 can be achieved using the resins, however, more work needs to be done in this area. Some of the problems surrounding the use of the resins are the same as those encountered for the carbon adsorption technique. These include, variable particle size, background interference, unknown ef- ficiency, plugging by suspended matter, etc.; ha ever, there are a number of decided advantages of the resin over the carbon such as lack of active sites which minimize chemical changes on the resin surface. Polyurethane foams have also been employed with the extraction of certain organics from water. In general, the foams have been found to work well for the extraction of non—polar compounds, e.g., PCB’s; how- ever, they are not very effective for the extraction of more polar ------- 16 compounds. A combination of the XAD resins and the polyurethane foams have been applied by NFIC—Denver with good success. Historically, carbon adsorption has been widely used for the separation of organic components from water. However, due to its non— quantitative nature, expense of sampling, etc. it has fallen into disuse. The normal procedure for removing organics from carbon has been air drying of the carbon, followed by extraction first with chloroform fol- lowed by extraction with alcohol. Dr. Clark Allen reported at the Work- shop that a considerable increase in extraction efficiency can be obtained if the carbon is dried by freeze drying instead of air drying. Apparently, much greater removal of water is obtained this way and more thorough con- tact is achieved between the carbon and the extraction solvent. Although the Methods Development and Quality Assurance Research Laboratory has now terminated surveillance operations using the carbon adsorption technique, there is still some interest among the Regions in the use of this tech- nique for separating and identifying organic compounds from water. A number of the EPA laboratories have found the need, on occasion, to analyze tissue samples for organic chemical pollutants. It is anti- cipated that the need for this type of activity will be increased since, especially from an enforcement standpoint, there is a legal necessity to demonstrate the effects of pollutants on the environment. Measuring the uptake of chemical pollutants by aquatic life is one way to demon- strate this. The extraction of tissue samples for organic pollutants is con- siderably different from the extraction of water and wastewater samples. ------- 17 Most work in this area has centered around the analysis for pesti- cides and/or petroleum products. Certain types of organic pollutants, such as oils, can be extracted by adding an organic solvent while the tissue sample Is being masserated in a blender. This technique has been found to be especially useful when using sub—ultrasonic mixers, such as the Polytron (Brinkman instruments) and the Tissu—Mizer (Tek— Mar Company). Several Workshop participants have investigated this technique and feel that it shows promise for certain applications (J. Agr. Food Chem. 20. 48, (1972)]. Blenders can also be used to prepare samples for column extraction. For this technique, the sample is ground in the presence of dry ice and sodium sulfate [ J. A9rr. Food chem., 18, 948, (1970)]. Following grinding, the dry Ice Is allowed to sublime from the sample leaving a fine powdery material. Once the tissue has been dried in this fashion, it can be packed in a chromatographic column and extracted by elution with a solvent such as acetone, methanol, or acetone—haxane (1:1) [ (Pull. Envir. C’ontcjn. Toxi., 7, 1151, (1972) and Southeast Water Laboratory, EPA, Athens, Georgia, Method No. SP—8/71J. An alternate technique Is freeze drying the tissue samples. Dr. A. Wilson of EPA’S Cuif Breeze Laboratory has used this method for preparation of phytoplankton samples. Tissue samples can also be extracted by use of a soxhiet extrac- tor. This seems to be about as commonly applied as the column extrac- tion technique. Some of the solvents employed for soxhiet extraction are petroleum ether, methylene chloride, acetone—hexane, niethylene chloride— hexane, acetonitrile, ethyl acetate, and acetone—benzene. The use of ------- 18 phosphoric acid acetone (1:2) has been used for the extraction of pentachiorophenols. Bottom sediment and sludge samples can be extracted by techniques that are similar to those applied to tissue samples, namely, column extraction, soxhlet extraction and blender extraction. Sample pre- treatment, however, varies depending upon whether the extraction is to be done under wet or “dry” conditions. Workshop participants discussed five different approaches to pre—treatment, namely: 1) air drying at ambient conditions, followed by grinding with a mortar and pestle and addition of 10 percent water followed by soxhiet extraction; 2) partial air drying (30—40 percent moisture) at ambient conditions and blending with sodium sulfate followed by column extraction; 3) decanting excess water and blending the wet sample with sodium sulfate followed by column extraction; 4) decanting excess water and extracting the wet sample by shaking with solvent using no dessicant; and 5) blending of the wet sample directly with solvent. Once a sample has been “dried” it may then be extracted either by column elution or soxhiet extraction. Solvents normally employed are acetone-hexane, acetonitrile—hexane, methylene chloride, acetonitrile, ethyl acetate, and acetone—benzene. Soxhiet extraction of sediment samples has been described many times (“The Identification and teasure— ment of Chlorinated Hydrocarbon Pesticides and Surface Waters”, U. S. Department of the Interior, 1014 Broadway, Cincinnati, Ohio, Publication WP—22, 1966.) This technique is found to give good recovery of com- pounds that are stable and do not volatilize under the conditions of treatment. ------- 19 Organic pollutants can be extracted from sediments by mixing directly with the solvent of choice. Although no laboratories are presently using Waring Blenders for this type of extraction, both mechanical shaking (“Methods for the Analysis of Organic Substances in Water”, Book 5, Chapter 83, Techniques of Water Resources Investigations, the U.S.G.S., 1972.) and sub—ultrasonic mixing are being employed with varying degrees of success. The latter technique looks especially promising; however, further work is required to access its full utility. In general, it was concluded at the Workshop that air drying of the sample is not a good practice when a broad spectrum of organic coin— pounds is to be determined. Significant amounts of very volatile organic compounds can be lost if air drying is employed, e.g., BHC has been found to volitalize readily under these conditions. On the other hand, extraction of some compounds from environmentally contaminated sediMents has been significantly more efficient when carried out on an air—dried sample. Thomas Bellar of the MDQARL reported that both PCBs and dieldrin are more efficiently extracted from natural samples that have been dried in this fashion. It was recognized by the Workshop participants that a great deal of work needs to he done to deterriine which extraction procedure, if any, is superior. However, an even greater area of concern is the iido variations that occur during sample collection. It was the general con- cession that for tissues and sediments, the sampling variations and biological variations are much larger than analytical variations and often account for the wide discrepancies in replicate analysis. ------- 20 III. FRACTIONATION ANfl DERIVATIZATION PROCEDURES Samples that are too complex to be separated under normal ( C con- ditions are usually subjected to some form of fractionation durinc , or after, extraction. Six workshop attendees reported that they frequently use some form of acid—base separation for water samples, particularly industrial effluents. They preferred to use a simple two— or three—step scheme although they were aware of Braus, Middleton and Walton’s more complex scheme that separates neutral compounds, strong acids, phenols, bases and amphoteric compounds [ Anal. Chem. 23, 1160 (1951)]. Typically, they extract the sample, as received, to isolate neutral compounds. Then they acidify to about pH 2 and extract to isolate acids and phenols. Phosphoric, sulfuric, or hydrochloric acids are used for this step. The aqueous layer is then adjusted to pH greater than 8 with ammonia or dilute sodium hydroxide to form free bases and the sample is extracted a third time. Some acids and phenols from the acid fraction can be analyzed without further treatment. Acetic through hexanoic acids can be chromatographed directly on Chromosorb 101 in an all—glass system. Carbowax 20!I and FFAP have been used to analyze simple phenols, cresols and similar materials in paper—mill effluents. The longer acids and more complex phenols are usually converted to methyl esters and ethers. The most commonly used methylating agent is diazomethane. Phenols react more completely with this reagent when a little boron trifluoride in methanol is added as a catalyst. The extract must not contain any chloroform because it reacts with diazomethane to form di— and ------- 21 trichiorinated alkanes up to seven carbons long that complicate the CC analysis. Methylene chloride does not cause this problem. A discus- sion of methylation procedures, including several on—column reagents is given in the report from SERL on “Current Practice in CC—MS Analysis of Organics in Water” (EPA—R2—73—277). Other groups feel that trimethylsilyl (TMS) derivatives give more definitive mass spectra than methyl derivatives. They recommend BSTFA (N,O—bis—trimethylsilyl trifluoroacetamide) as the reagent of choice. One trade name Is Regisil. Another derivatization mentioned, but apparently rarely used, is to form pentafluorobenzyl ethers, thioethers or esters from phenols, mercaptans and acids. (Kawahara, Anal. Chem. 40, 1009 and 2073 (1968)1. In contrast to neutral compounds and acids, very few bases have been identified in the environment. The Workshop participants agreed that judging from manufacturing data, Industrial usage and the size of the basic fractions in past CCE studies, these compounds must be in the environment but we are not seeing them. This is a major weakness In our present analytical techniques. Among the bases that have been found are picolines (methyl pyridine isomers) In river water, dibutyl amine from a latex—additives plant and quinoline and di— and trimethyl pyridines from a wood—pre- serving plant. Several dichioroaniline isomers and other nitrogen containing compounds in industrial effluents were identified by NFIC—Denver after conversion to T 1S derivatives. Several aromatic amines from biological sources were reported as analyzed in good ------- 22 yield by conversion to the amides with pentafluoropropionic anhydride and analysis by EC—GC. Some methods—development work on amines has been done. Many simple axnines can be gas chromatographed by direct aqueous injection on Tenax columns. One report was that Chromosorb 101 can also be used for this purpose although the 103 material is recommended. Another worker found that methyl and dimethyl amines can be sampled by the headspace—gas technique and then analyzed by CC on OV—1Ol. Low— molecular weight amines were also reported as separated from other impurities by adsorption on weak acid cation exchange resins. A wide variety of post—extraction chromatographic cleanup techni- ques were discussed. Oils are frequently chromatographed on Florisil or silica gel in a manner similar to pesticides. Some use a column containing silica gel on top of alumina. This column, deactivated with 4 percent water, was reported to separate oils from sewage when eluted with carbon tetrachloride. Another observation was that a useful second dimension of proof in oil fingerprinting by CC was to separate the oil into all.phatic, aromatic and oxygenated fractions by eluting from silica gel with isooctane, benzene and 1:1 chloroform—methanol by the method of flosen and ?tiddleton [ Ana1 . Chem., 27, 790 (1955)]. Phenols can be isolated from carbon chloroform extracts (CCE’s) by extracting the chloroform with base, extracting the acidified—aqueous layer with ether, and then chromatography on Florisil with ether as the eluting solvent. ------- 23 Thin—layer chromatography (TLC) would seem to be a very powerful technique in view of its low cost, and the visual impact it can have in a courtroom. In practice however, it is used little in pollution analysis because of its lack of discrimination and sensitivity. Poly— nuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (i.e., benzopyrene) have been separated and detected; phenols from CCE’s have been detected down to one microgram per spot, and some amines can be analyzed by TLC. Identification of sources of oil spills by TLC has been extensively studied, partially through EPA grants to Esso and Phillips Petroleum, but there are still problems with the method. Two areas for future research on TLC were suggested —— reversed phase TLC for polar compounds, and detection of specific classes of compounds in industrial effluents by specific spray reagents. Nobody seemed to be planning any immediate activity in these areas. Another method mentioned for detecting specific compound groups was the use of CC subtraction columns. These are short lengths of tubing containing a chemical that removes specific compounds. They are placed between the CC injector and the column. Boric acid sub- tracts alcohols, o—dianisjdine subtracts aldehydes and ketones, phos- phoric acid subtracts epoxides [ Beroza, JAOI1C, 54, 251 (1971); see also C zem. Abst., 74, 134709z (1971)]. No one reported first—hand experience with this procedure. Liquid chromatography as a cleanup method has not been extensively applied. It was not an improvement over column techniques for cleanup of oils for fluorescence analysis. There was one report of permaphase ------- 24 columns bleeding enough to show up later in CC—MS analysis of the individual fractions. Of at least ten LC’s in EPA labs, four have been bought within the last year and are too new to be properly evaluated. It was generally concluded that a detector breakthrough will have to be made before LC finds extensive application in pollution analysis. Probably the most promising cleanup technique is some form of automated gel—permeation chromatography. Gel permeation is not uni- versally applicable, but it is useful for eliminating interference from compounds of molecular weights greater than about 700. One example cited was in analysis of an oily—fish extract containing PCB’s toxaphene and chiordane. Gel permeation allowed Isolation of the combined pesti- cide mixture. Further cleanup on silica gel and alumina was required before the separate materials could be analyzed. NPIC—Denver plans to evaluate the application of gel permeation to industrial effluents. ------- 25 IV. QUALITY CONTROL IN TIlE ORGANIC LABORATORY There are two major categories to be considered when discussing analytical quality control in the organic laboratory. The first Is the qualitative aspects of the analysis, that is, the degree of certainty that the unknown constituent has been correctly identified. The second category involves the quantitative aspects of the analysis, that is, the acceptability of the precision and the accuracy of the results obtained. A discussion of this subject is presented in the “Handbook for Analytical Quality Control in Water and T’astewater Laboratories”, Analytical Quality Control Laboratory, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1972. In regard to qualitative control, it was recognized by the Workshop participants that the first step requires checking and eliminating inter- fering background components from all reagents, solvents, glassware and other equipment employed in the analysis. Once the analyst has assured himself that interferences are not present, he must then recognize that selective extraction of particular compounds may occur depending upon the pH of the sample, the solvents used, and other factors. Consequently, various separation or “cleanup operations” may be required to provide additional support for the qualitative identification of specific con— pounds. Final qualitative identifications can be achieved by a variety of techniques. The current best methods are GC—MS, infrared spectro— scopy, and rultiple colunn gas chromatography. The latter techn1qur is enhanced when a sernispecific detector such as the PP or Coulsen riicro—coulometric can be used. Obviously in all cases of instrumental andysis, close control must be imintained of the instrumental parameters. ------- 26 In regard to the quantitative aspects of quality control, both replicate and spiked sample analyses must be performed periodically to assure the precision a d accuracy of the test; however, due to the complexition of organic analysis, time constraints are often the con- trolling factor in limiting the number of replicates or spiked sample analyses that can be performed. As a guide to the types of techniques that can be employed; several of the Workshop participants described the quality control procedures that they presently employ in their laboratories. These are summarized below. William Loy, Chemical Services Branch, Southeast Water Laboratory —- At this laboratory all water samples are analyzed in duplicate. When samples are to be analyzed for a broad spectrum of industrial chemicals, selected samples are spiked with a mixture of six known organic compounds. These known compounds cover the range of volatile, basic, acidic, and neutral compounds at a concentration of 100 jig/i in acetone. Problems with recovery have been encountered only when large amounts of particu- lates are present in the sample. James Lichtenberg, Methods Development Quality Assurance Research Laboratory —— In this laboratory one set of duplicate samples is run with each series that is analyzed, usually one duplicate for every nine samples. Simultaneously, one sample is dosed with a mixture of known compounds of the same class as those to be determined and analyzed along with the other samples. Robert White, Wildlife Research Laboratory —— In this laboratory, which deals primarily with tissue analysis, every ninth sample is ------- 27 repeated though not at the same time as the first analysis. The second analysis is randomly performed either by the same or different analyst. When running the repeat analysis, the chemist goes back to his primary reference standard—stock solution to insure that the standard used in the initial analysis was accurate. The results are independently reviewed by a second analyst before being reported. Control charts are maintained for several concentration levels using a computer program devised by this laboratory. From time to time, collaborative studies are conducted with other laboratories. Dr. David Stalling, Fish Pesticide Research Laboratory —— This laboratory uses many of the techniques described above; however, they also use alternate test procedures to check upon the reliability of the reported results. Primarily, they use carbon—14 tagged materials to check each step in the analytical procedures. With this system, each analyst is required to withdraw 10 percent of the sample extract obtained from each step of the analysis, e.g., extraction, concentration, eluted fractions from cleanup steps, etc. These aliquots are then analyzed by liquid scintillation and the recovery in each step is determined. These results are then compared with the results obtained by routinely applied techniques, such as gas chromatography. So far, the technique has been applied primarily for quality control during tissue analysis and for such analysis, no GC interference is noted at the dosing levels required. However, in the analysis of the low levels of organics found in natural waters, such an interference may be a problem. ------- 28 This approach to quality control appears to be quite intriguing, especially because once it is set up it Is very easy to operate. Liquid scintillation counting requires a minimal amount of time and effort. Consequently, much more quality control information can be gathered than by conventional techniques. One of the main problems with this technique Is the cost of the carhon—14 labeled compounds and the accessibility of a liquid scintillation counter. It is not incon — ceivable, however, that one central location could provide this service to many of the EPA laboratories. A variety of other techniques were discussed by the Tlorkghop participants which should help in the quality control program. For example, several of the participants use internal standards for both qualitative and quantitive purposes. In one laboratory, a known reference standard equivalent to the tentatively identified unknown is added to the sample and the gas chromatographic response compared to that produced by the reference standard alone. In another case, the response factor of a selected internal standard (not the same as the compound identified) relative to the compound to be identified is determined. This factor Is then used for future calculations of the quantitative results. In the quantitatlon of gas chromatographic peaks, it was generally observed by the Workshop participants that peak area is more accurate for later eluting peaks. Peak height, however, is best for very early eluting peaks. It should be noted that the volume of an injection affects the peak width and therefore the Injected volume should be ------- 29 close to the same for both the sample and reference standard. In all cases, the detector must be operated within its linear range. Sample injection technique is critical, during gas chromatographic analysis. A number of laboratories use the solvent—flush technique in which a small volume of pure solvent is pulled up into the barrel of the syringe before the sample. Upon injection, this pure solvent flushes all the sample from the needle and complete transfer of the sample is assured. When they are available, automatic sample injectors have been found to give very reproducible results and their use should be encouraged whenever possible. In all cases, the analyst is encouraged to use the technique best suited to him. ------- 30 V. GENERAL CONENTS A variety of items not covered in the preceding chapters were brought up during the general discussion period of the t lorkshop. Sorte of these items are summarized below in varying detail. A number of Workshop participants were greatly interested in the proposed list of Toxic Substances (Federal Peg -Cater, Vol. 38, No. 173, Sept. 7, 1973)]. Much of this interest was in the form of concern for the brevity of the proposed list and questions as to why the materials listed were the ones chosen. As no answers to these questions were forthcoming, the discussion shifted to analytical procedures for measuring these toxic substances. Most participants agreed that suitable procedures were presently available for measuring polychlorinated biphenyls and the chlorinated hydrocarbon pesticides, aidrin, die ldrin, toxaphene, etc. However, little information was available regarding the analysis for benzidine (4,4—diaminodiphenyl) and its salts. The MDQARL is presently working on methods for benzidine. A color— metric method is currently recommended [ TI. A. El—Dib, JAQAC, 54, (6), 1383 (1971)]; however, it is not specific for benzidine. Uork is pre- sently underway on a thin—layer modification of this method and a CC procedure, both of which would be more specific. It should be noted that the free base form of benzidine can be chromatographed on SE—30 columns and also on Tenax columns although some partial adsorption is observed with the latter. ------- 31 Benzidine can be removed from water by carbon adsorption of the HC1 salt; however, the salt apparently cannot be recovered from the carbon by chloroform or alcohol extraction. A search was made of the CCE extracts on file frori the Surveillance Network of the F’WPCA, and no benzidlne was found. The 1DQARL has found that the free base can be quantitatively extracted front water at pH 10 with chloroform. ‘later samples of benzidine do not appear to be stable. Benzidine was found to react rapidly with Cincinnati tap water (presumably the chlorine) to form a precipitate. Even standards made up with distilled water turned cloudy within one week. An alternate approach was suggested by Dr. David L. Stalling. Trifluoroacetic anhydride is a good derivatizing agent for ainines, and Dr. Stalling suggests that this reagent may form derivatives with benzidine that will be easily chromatographed. This, of course, will need to be checked. With no other comments concerning the Toxic Sub- stance List, the discussion turned to the Ocean Dumping Criteria. These Criteria were recently promulgated by EPA. The Proposed Criteria appeared in the Federal Register, Vol. 38, No. 94, May 16, 1973 and the Final Criteria were published in the October 15, 1973 Federal Register, Vol. 38, No. 198, Part II. The Criteria lists a number of potential organic pollutants that require “special consideration” prior to issuance of a dumping permit. Consequently, many Uorkshop partici- pants felt they may be required at sometime in the future, to analyze wastes for these materials and, as a result, they were quite interested In any information as to how to perform such tests. ------- 32 First on the list were organosilicon compounds. No one at the Workshop was aware of any pollution problems associated with organo— silicon compounds and consequently it was unclear just what compounds would be of most concern. in regard to other organometallic pollutants, it was evident that little work had been done in this area. The National Water Quality Laboratory at Duluth has apparently looked very briefly at organocadmiun and organocopper compounds. The Edison Laboratory has had some exper- ience with organolead materials in oil wastes. The Ocean Dumping Criteria also listed aliphatic solvents as waste components that require “special consideration.” A variety of methods appear to be available for this analysis, namely, direct aqueous injec- tion, head space analysis, CC analysis of volatile components trapped on Chromasorb 101 or other material following purge by inert gas, and finally, extraction with a high—boiling solvent such as hexadecane fol- lowed by GC analysis. The method of choice would depend upon the needs of the particular laboratory although all the cited procedures seem workable. The Workshop participants felt that they could test for phenols either by the steam distillation — 4 —aminoantipyrine — procedure in Standard Methods or by the gas chromatographic procedure in the AST?Y Manual, Part 23. Plastics, plastic intermediates and byproducts seemed to be an unknown quantity to the Workshop participants. Undoubtedly, many compounds in this category could be identified by gas chromatography/ mass spectrometry following work up procedures previously discussed, ------- 33 i.e., phthalate plasticisers [ D. L. Stalling, et. al., L’nvironmental health Proopectives, 159 (1973)]. However, before additional tests can be considered, we will need more information concerning just what compounds in this category actually represent a pollution hazard. Analytical procedures for amines were discussed previously. Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons can be identified by a variety of procedures. Several participants felt that the easiest procedures to apply were colormetric, as recommended by the World Health Organization, and thin—layer chromatography [ E. Sawicki, et. al., health Lab. Sci. 7 (1)68 (1970)] even though the specificity of these procedures is unknown. In addition, many of the aromatic hydrocarbons can be separated and identified by gas chromatography. Participants recommended columns of OV—l, Dexil, and Apiezon L. Undoubtedly, others are available. Liquid chromatography has also been used and appears to hold considerable promise [ N. F. Eves and L. Giuffrida, J 1 4OAC, 55, (4), 757 (1972)]. In tissue samples, polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons can be identified by fluorescence following a rigorous clean—up procedure [ 3. W. Howard, et. al., JAOAC, 51, 122 (1968); AOj1C kthods, 1 1th Ed. 21.001, pg 361 (1971]. From the above discussion, it was evident that a number of potentially suitable procedures are available, however, at present, none of the participants had applied any of these tests to industrial waste— waters, sludges, or dredge spoil. Little work has been done on detergents other than extraction of ABS or LAS by the MBAS tests described in Standard Plethods. The MDQA.RL has used TLC procedures to identify polyoxyethylene—type detergents in CCE extracts from carbon filters [ ASTII Special Tech. Pub. No. 44R, p 7 ------- 34 (1969)]. No other analytical procedures were mentioned by the Workshop participants. This may be a potential—problem area since there are published references to the extreme toxicity of some surfactants to aquatic life [ 1). J. tYildish, and W. C. Carson, Fieheries Reaecrt’ch Board of Canada 1?eport, Series No. 1212, October (1972); 1). J. Wildish, Water Research, 6, 759 (1972)]. A brief discussion took place at the Workshop regarding the limiting— permissible concentrations of pollutants listed in the Criteria. The final revision of the Criteria uses the bioassay tests as the basis for limiting the concentrations of pollutants. It was generally agreed by the Workshop participants that neither bioassay nor concentration limits would be satisfactory by themselves. Hopefully, sometime in the future, limitations will be based upon some suitable combination of pollutant concentrations and bioassay Information. In regard to bioassay and toxicity studies, it was pointed out that a number of computer—based information systems are presently available that store toxicological information. Should any of the EPA offices need such information, NFIC—Denver is tied into a number of these library systems, notably, TOXICON and others, and will be glad to assist in gathering the necessary data. At the conclusion of the Workshop, it was brought out that a real need exists for some simplified, screening methods of analysis. Quite obviously, the complexities and time requirements of detailed organic analysis of Industrial wastes preclude the ability to monitor a large ------- 35 number of waste streams. Hopefully, procedures can and will be devised whereby a large number of samples can be quickly screened and only those that test above a certain level will need to be set aside for detailed analysis. Certainly that is a worthwhile goal and we would encourage any thoughts on the matter. ------- |