EPA-600/R-93-239
December 1993
FINAL REPORT
CHARACTERIZATION OF AIR EMISSIONS FROM THE
SIMULATED OPEN COMBUSTION OF FIBERGLASS MATERIALS
Prepared by:
Christopher C. Lutes and Jeffrey V. Ryan
Acurex Environmental Corporation
4915 Prospectus Drive
P.O. Box 13109
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709
EPA Contract No. 68-DO-0141
TD 92-059, 93-187
Project Officer: Paul M. Lemieux
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Air and Energy Engineering Research Laboratory
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Prepared for:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Research and Development
Washington, D.C. 20460
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA 1M
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before comple; |[ | |||| || |||| ||| || 11||| || 11| |||
1. REPORT NO. 2.
EPA-600/R-93-239
3. Ill llll II llll llllll Mil lllll III
PB94-136231
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Characterization of Air Emissions from the Simulated
Open Combustion of Fiberglass Materials
5. REPORT DATE
December 1993
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
Christopher C. Lutes and Jeffrey V. Ryan
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Acurex Environmental Corporation
P. 0. Box 13109
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27709
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
68-DO-0141, Tasks
92-059 and 93-187
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
EPA, Office of Research and Development
Air and Energy Engineering Research Laboratory
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final; 1/92 - 8/93
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/600/13
is. supplementary notes ^^ERL project officer is Paul M. Lemieux, Mail Drop 65, 919/
541-0962.
16. abstract Tke rep0rt identifies and quantifies a broad range of pollutants that are dis-
charged during small-scale, simulated, open combustion of fiberglass, and reports
these emissions relative to the mass of fiberglass material combusted. Two types of
fiberglass materials (representing the boating and building materials industries)
were combusted in a controlled outbuilding designed to simulate open burning. Vola-
tile, semivolatile, and particulate-bound organics were collected and analyzed by gas
chromatography/mass spectrometry. The emphasis of these analyses was on the
quantification of hazardous air pollutants listed in Title III of the Clean Air Act Amen-
dments of 1990, although further efforts were made to identify and quantify other ma-
jor organic components. Additional sampling and analysis was done for particulate-
phase metals, hydrogen chloride, and respirable fibers. Fixed combustion gases
(carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, nitric oxide, oxygen, and total hydrocarbons)
were monitored continuously throughout the test period. Analytical results show sub-
stantial emissions of many pollutants including arsenic, benzene, benzo(a)pyrene,
carbon monoxide, dibenzofuran, lead, naphthalene, particulate, phenanthrene,
phenol, styrene, and toluene.
17. KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
a. DESCRIPTORS
b. IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
c. cosati Field/Group
Pollution Construction Mja^er-
Glass Fibers ials
Combustion Gas Chromatography
Emission Mass Spectrometry
Physical Properties
Boats Toxicity
Pollution Control
Stationary Sources
Fibrous Glass
Characterization
Boatbuilding
Hazardous Air Pollutants
13 B
HE, 11B 13 C
21B 07D
14G 14B
13 J 06T
13. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Release to Public
19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report)
Unclassified
21. NO. PAGES
105
20. SECURITY CLASS (This page)
Unclassified
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
-------
EPA REVIEW NOTICE
This report has been reviewed by the Control Technology Center (CTC) established by the Office
of Research and Development (ORD) and the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS) of
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and has been approved for publication. Approval does
not signify that the comments necessarily reflect the views and policies of the U.S. EPA nor does mention
of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
This document is available to the public through the National Technical Informa-
tion Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161.
i i
-------
ABSTRACT
The exposure of persons to fiberglass combustion emissions from structural fires, fires at waste
landfills, and fires at demolition sites has become an issue of increasing concern. This study identifies
and quantifies a broad range of pollutants that are discharged during small-scale, simulated, open
combustion of fiberglass and reports these emissions relative to the mass of fiberglass material
combusted. Two types of fiberglass materials (representing the boating and building materials
industries) were combusted in a controlled outbuilding designed to simulate open burning. Volatile,
semivolatile, and particulate-bound organics were collected and analyzed by gas chromatography/mass
spectrometry (GC/MS). The emphasis of these analyses was on the quantification of hazardous air
pollutants listed in Title III of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (CAAAs), although further
efforts were made to identify and quantify other major organic components. Additional sampling and
analysis were done for hydrogen chloride, particulate-phase metals, and respirable fibers. Fixed
combustion gases (carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, nitric oxide, oxygen, and total hydrocarbons)
were monitored continuously throughout the test period. Analytical results show substantial emissions
of a large number of pollutants including arsenic, benzene, benzo(a)pyrene, carbon monoxide,
dibenzofuran, lead, naphthalene, particulate, phenanthrene, phenol, styrene, and toluene.
PREFACE
The CTC was established by EPA's Office of Research and Development (ORD) and Office of
Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS) to provide technical assistance to state and local air
pollution control agencies. Three levels of assistance can be accessed through the CTC. First, a CTC
HOTLINE has been established to provide telephone assistance on matters relating to air pollution
control technology. Second, more in-depth engineering assistance can be provided when appropriate.
Third, the CTC can provide technical guidance through publication of technical guidance documents,
development of personal computer software, and presentation of workshops on control technology
matters.
The technical guidance projects, such as this one, focus on topics of national or regional
interest that are identified through contact with state and local agencies.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors would like to acknowledge the contributions of Mark Calvi, Chris Pressley, Hal
Buck, Jeff Quinto, Ray Thomas, Wojcich Kozlowski, Carl Singer, Frank Mack, and Mitch Howell of
Acurex Environmental; C.W. Lee, and Bobby Daniel of EPA/AEERL; Lynn Cox, Senior
Environmental Employee Program, Triangle J Council of Governments; Ed Chikliwala of EcoChem
Technologies; Hani Kakam and Deborah Hage of Triangle Laboratories, Inc.; Hector MacDonald and
Roberta Hackler of MacDonald Research; and Cheryl Brown and Sue Mitchel of IEA, Inc.
iii
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (concluded)
Section Page
3.7 Fibrous Aerosol Results 34
3.8 General Notes Regarding Results 34
4.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 36
5.0 REFERENCES 37
APPENDIX A: QUALITY CONTROL EVALUATION REPORT A-l
V
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
ABSTRACT i i i
PREFACE iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iii
LIST OF TABLES Vi
LIST OF FIGURES vi i
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1
2.0 EXPERIMENTAL APPROACH 4
2.1 Summary of Experimental Approach 4
2.2 Experimental Apparatus 5
2.2.1 Burn Hut 5
2.2.2 Sample Shed 8
2.2.3 Hazardous Air Pollutants Mobile Laboratory (HAPML) 8
2.3 Test Procedure 9
2.4 Sampling and Analysis Methods 11
2.4.1 Elemental Analysis 11
2.4.2 Continuous Emission Monitors (CEMs) 11
2.4.3 Volatile Organic Sampling and Analysis 12
2.4.4 Semivolatile and Particulate Bound Species Sampling
and Analysis 12
2.4.5 Vapor Phase HC1 Sampling and Analysis 15
2.4.6 Fiber Size and Morphology Sampling and Analysis 15
2.5 Data Processing 16
3.0 DATA, RESULTS, AND DISCUSSION 17
3.1 Elemental Analysis of Materials Combusted 17
3.2 Combustion Conditions, Continuous Emission Monitor, and Total
Particulate Results 17
3.3 Volatile Organic Results 29
3.4 Semivolatile and Particulate Bound Organic Results 32
3.5 Particulate Phase Metals Results 34
3.6 Vapor Phase HC1 Results 34
(continued)
iv
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1 Composition of Fiberglass Materials Tested 40
2 Mass of Material Combusted 41
3 Combustion Gas and PAH Particulate Analyzer Concentrations and Estimated Emissions .... 42
4 Total PM10 Particulate Mass 43
5 Hut Air Concentrations and Blank Masses of Boating Industry Targeted Volatiles, Vost Train 45
6 Boating Industry Fiberglass Targeted Volatile Compound Estimated Emissions 48
7 Boating Industry Fiberglass Tests Tentatively Identified Volatile Compounds 50
8 Boating Industry Fiberglass Tentatively Identified Volatile Compounds, Estimated Emissions . 53
9 Hut Air Concentrations and Blank Amounts of Building Industry Targeted Volatiles,
Vost Train 55
10 Estimated Emissions of Building Industry Targeted Volatiles, Vost Train 57
11 Building Industry Volatile Targeted Compounds, Tedlar® Bag Analysis 59
12 Building Industry Fiberglass Tentatively Identified Volatile Compounds 60
13 Building Industry, Volatile Tentatively Identified Compound, Estimated Emission 64
14 Boating Industry Fiberglass, Targeted Semivolatile and Particulate Bound Compounds 67
15 Boating Industry Fiberglass Semivolatile Tentatively Identified Compounds 73
16 Building Industry Fiberglass, Targeted Semivolatile and Particulate Bound Organics 74
17 Building Industry Fiberglass Semivolitile and Particulate Bound Tentatively Identified
Compounds 78
18 Comparison of PAH-Estimated Emissions and Air Concentrations by Two Methods 80
19 Metals, Air Concentrations 81
20 Metals Estimated Emissions 82
21 Vapor Phase HCL Estimated Emissions 83
22 Fibrous Aerosol Measurements 84
A-l Data Quality Objectives A-5
A-2 Continuous Emission Monitor Calibrations A-l
A-3 Volatile Surrogate Compound Recoveries A-8
A-4 Semivolatile/Particulate Bound Organic Recoveries A-11
vi
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
1 Diagram of the Burn Hut, Boating Industry 6
2 Aerial View of the Open Burning Simulation Facility 7
3 PMj0 Medium Volume Sampler 13
4 Boating Industry Fiberglass, CO Concentrations 18
5 Building Industry Fiberglass, CO Concentrations 19
6 Boating Industry Fiberglass, C02 Concentrations 20
7 Building Industry Fiberglass, C02 Concentrations 21
8 Boating Industry Fiberglass, THC Concentrations 22
9 Building Industry Fiberglass, THC Concentrations 23
10 Boating Industry Fiberglass, NO Concentrations 24
11 Building Industry Fiberglass, NO Concentrations 25
12 Boating Industry Fiberglass, PAH Concentrations 26
13 Building Industry Fiberglass, PAH Concentrations 27
14 Selected Volatile Organics from Fiberglass Combustion 31
vi i
-------
SECTION 1.0
INTRODUCTION
Concerns regarding exposure to air emissions from the open burning of fiberglass in structure
fires, and at waste disposal and demolition sites, have been expressed to the Control Technology
Center (CTC) of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) by various governmental entities,
including the state of Alaska. Though little previous research has been done specifically on
combustion emissions from fiberglass, literature does exist relating to the composition of fiberglass,
the combustion products of some components of commercial fiberglass materials, and the suspected
health effects of fiberglass fibers.
Fiberglass is principally composed of Si02 (approximately 50 percent by weight); additional
major components are A1203. BajO-,, CaO, and MgO (typically 3 to 20 percent each) and trace
components include F, Fe203, K20, Na20, S03, and Ti02, (less then 1 percent by weight each).
Additionally, fiberglass materials may contain sizings, binders or flame retardants1. Fiberglass
containing organic materials can be classified as either epoxy-based or polyester-based2. In 1990 the
"marine" industry used 300 million pounds of polyester-based fiberglass, and the "construction"
industry used 384 million pounds out of a total of 1,590 million pounds consumed.3 The combustion
characteristics of polyester-containing glass fiber materials have been described as, "Burn(s) with a
smoky flame, accompanied by melting, dripping and little char formation. . .resistant to small ignition
sources in low-heat-flux environments, but can still burn readily in fully developed fires."4 These
materials have a flash ignition temperature of approximately 375 °C and a self-ignition temperature of
1
-------
approximately 485 °C.4 The known combustion products of polyester-based materials have been
reviewed and include acetaldehyde, benzene, biphenyl, carbon monoxide, ethyl benzene, pentadiene,
styrene, and toluene.5"8 Much of the available information on these combustion products has been
obtained in small-scale studies of materials that are likely to be less complex than the commercial
materials. Therefore, larger scale tests of complex commercial materials under simulated open
combustion conditions promise increased insight.
The glass fibers themselves are unlikely to undergo chemical transformations as the result of
the application of heat, but fiber dimensions could change under very high temperature conditions.1
However, it is conceivable that intact fibers could be released to the atmosphere as a result of physical
processes during combustion. The physical nature of these fibrous aerosols might lead to additional
health hazards. Epidemiological studies have shown significant increases in non-malignant respiratory
disease in populations exposed to glass fibers.9 Glass fibers are apparently less harmful to health than
asbestos fibers.10 The greatest hazard appears to be related to fibers with a diameter less than 1.5 |im
and a length greater than 8 |im.10 No measurements of fiberglass fiber emissions from combustion
processes have been found in our literature review to date. An assessment of the concentration and
size distribution of fibrous aerosols produced from fiberglass open combustion processes would
therefore be valuable.
In response to these concerns, through the guidance of EPA's Air and Energy Engineering
Research Laboratory (AEERL), a study was undertaken to measure emissions from the simulated open
combustion of fiberglass samples from two industries that use fiberglass extensively. This study
included replicated tests of a mix of fiberglass materials from the boating industry [polyester-based,
some with and some without a gel coating (an epoxy-based sealing material)], and a homogenous
sample from the building industry (vinylester based). The study was designed to collect, identify, and
2
-------
quantify a wide range of air emissions and to report these emissions per mass of fiberglass material
combusted. The emphasis of these analyses was on the quantification of air toxics compounds listed
in the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (CAAAs), although further efforts were made to identify
and semiquantify other major organic components.
3
-------
SECTION 2.0
EXPERIMENTAL APPROACH
2.1 SUMMARY OF EXPERIMENTAL APPROACH
The project consisted of a replicate study to collect and qualitatively and quantitatively
characterize organic and inorganic emissions resulting from the simulated open combustion of boating
and building industry fiberglass materials. Small quantities (4-10 kg [9-21 lb]) of fiberglass were
combusted in several charges within a test facility specifically designed to simulate open-combustion
conditions. Sampling was conducted within the facility through medium volume PM10 heads for
semivolatile organics and particulate phase metals. Sampling trains were also operated within the
facility for airborne fibers and vapor phase HC1. A portion of the combustion effluent was diverted to
an adjacent sampling facility via an induced draft duct. Samples were collected from this stream using
the volatile organics sampling train (VOST) and in some cases Tedlar® bags. A portion of the sample
from the induced draft duct was also analyzed by a series of continuous emission monitors for carbon
dioxide (C02), carbon monoxide (CO), nitric oxide (NO), oxygen (02), particulate bound polycyclic
aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH), and total hydrocarbons (THC). The organic constituents were analyzed
both qualitatively and quantitatively using gas chromatograph/mass spectrometer (GC/MS). The metal
aerosols were characterized using an inductively coupled argon plasma (ICAP) method. Analysis for
vapor phase HC1 utilized ion chromatography and fibers were determined using microscopy
techniques. Measured concentrations were related to dilution air volumes and measured net mass of
4
-------
fiberglass combusted to derive emission rates. The EPA's Open Burning Simulation Facility, used in
this study is further described in this report. This facility has previously been used in previous similar
projects.11"14
2.2 EXPERIMENTAL APPARATUS
2.2.1 Burn Hut
The burn hut (Figures 1 and 2) is an outbuilding with a 2.7 x 3.4 m (8.9 x 11.1 ft) floor area
and a sloping roof with a minimum height of 1.9 m (6.3 ft) and a maximum height of 2.2 m (7.3 ft),
modified for small-scale, open-combustion simulation experiments. The building has been fitted with
a conditioned air handling system which during this study delivered 27.0-27.5 m3/min (953-970
ft3/min). This flow rate was sufficient to maintain a positive pressure within the facility. Thus it
could be assumed that the outflow rate from the facility was equal to this inflow rate. At this flow
rate, the effective air exchange rate of the burn hut is 1.42 - 1.44 exchanges/min. The test material for
the boating industry tests was combusted in a brick and masonry hearth with inside dimensions of 47
cm x 49.5 cm x 28 cm deep (18.5 in X 19.5 in x 11 in deep) on a platform scale to continuously
monitor weight differential. The test material for the building industry fiberglass required a continuous
supplementary liquid propane (LP) gas flame to support combustion. Thus a steel commercial burner
21 in high was located on the hearth (Brinkman model 815-3680-S capable of up to 160,000 BTU/hr).
The building industry fiberglass was contained in a cylindrical stainless steel wire mesh basket, 28 cm
in diameter and 30.5 cm high (11-in diameter and 12 in high) resting on this burner. The LP gas tank
for this burner was located immediately outside of the burn hut. Thus, propane consumption did not
effect the measured weight loss of fiberglass. Testing established that the gas line connecting the
propane tank to the burner did not adversely influence the performance of the platform scale. A
pyramidical, metal deflector shield was located 0.9-1.2 m (3-4 ft) over the hearth to deflect flames,
protect the ceiling, and enhance ambient mixing. The sample transport duct, 17-cm (6.6-in) OD stove
pipe, was located directly over the deflector shield. This duct transported a representative sample from
5
-------
Stack
Air Inlet
Burn Pit
A
Air Inlet
Weighing Platform
Figure 1. Diagram of the burn hut as configured for the boating industry,
some sampling equipment not shown for clarity.
6
-------
Insulated
Sample
Duct
Metals Fiber
PM10 Head Tra™
Organics
PMlOHead
Sample Shed
Burn Hut
f
Scale
Platform
Sampling Controls
Volatiles Sampling
Particulate PAH Analyzer
Scale Control Unit
if
9,
Vapor Phase
HQ Sampling
Heated Sample Line
Hazardous Air
Pollutants Mobile
Laboratory
CEMS
["2"! [th";
|_C°2 ! NO I CO I
Data ;
: System \
1.
7
Figure 2. Aerial view of the
Open Burning Simulation facility.
-------
the burn hut atmosphere to the sampling shed located adjacent to the burn hut (Figure 2). To
minimize heat loss and condensation of organics, the duct was insulated outside the burn hut. The
inner walls and ceiling of the burn hut were covered with 1.6-mm (1/16 in) aluminum sheeting to
provide an inert surface within the test facility.
2.2.2 Sample Shed
The sample shed (Figure 2) contained the majority of the required sampling equipment: the
VOST system, Tedlar® bag train, control units for the PM10, fiber and HC1 sample collection systems,
and the particulate removal device for the continuous emission monitors (CEMs). A digital
readout/control for the platform scale was remotely operated from the sample shed. A real-time
photoelectric analyzer designed to quantify total polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) on
submicron particulate was also operated using a sample stream withdrawn from the
sample transport duct.
VOST, Tedlar® bag, real-time PAH, and CEM samples were extracted from a sampling
manifold within the duct. The manifold consists of 9.5-mm (3/8 in) OD stainless steel probes
positioned in the sample transport duct so that the probe orifice faced the direction of sample flow and
that all samples were collected at the same axial and radial location. The sample stream was pulled
from the burn hut into the sample shed under vacuum by an induced draft (ID) fan located
downstream of the sample manifold.
2.2.3 Hazardous Air Pollutants Mobile Laboratory (HAPML)
The HAPML (Figure 2) was used for the continuous monitoring of the fixed combustion
gases. A heated (121 °C [250 °F]), particulate-free gaseous sample was extracted from the sample
manifold and routed to individual analyzers for continuous measurement. A portion of the heated
sample was routed to the total hydrocarbon (THC) analyzer. The remaining portion of the sample
stream was further conditioned for moisture removal by a refrigeration condenser and silica gel before
being routed to the oxygen (02), carbon dioxide (C02), and carbon monoxide (CO) analyzers. The
8
-------
gas stream for nitric oxide (NO) was obtained from a location between the refrigeration condenser and
desiccant. The analog output of the individual analyzers was recorded by computerized data
acquisition system which recorded all readings at 30 s-intervals. This data acquisition system was also
used to record temperatures from the platform scale and a series of 8 thermocouples located in the
burn hut, air input ducts, and sample transport duct.
2.3 TEST PROCEDURE
Before and after each test, or before and after each change of sample media (if this occurred
more frequently) all sampling trains were leak checked. Before the beginning of each test day at least
10 rriins of background data was acquired on the continuous emission monitors, thermocouples, and
scale platform. The boating industry fiberglass samples were then placed in the facility and ignited by
a brief application of a handheld propane torch which was removed before sampling began. The
fiberglass materials from the boating industry were polyester-based, some with a gel coating (a colored
sealant material). The two types of boating industry material were combusted together in a roughly
constant ratio (see Section 3.0). The boating industry material was subdivided with a power saw into
pieces approximately 30 to 60 cm square (1 to 2 ft square) before combustion to ease materials
handling. The pieces of gel coated material combusted ranged from 6 to 13 mm in thickness (0.25 to
0.5 in). The nongel-coated material was approximately 3 mm thick (.125 in). A "hut blank" test, in
which the propane torch was briefly introduced into the facility, but no fiberglass was combusted, was
conducted for comparison purposes. In order to allow an adequate time period for all necessary
samples to be obtained, three separate charges of fiberglass were combusted during each test.
Combustion of one charge was allowed to go to apparent completion (as signified by constant weight
and near background concentrations of combustion gases) before another charge was introduced
and lit.
Attempts to test the building industry fiberglass sample in a like manner were unsuccessful
because of the high concentration of flame retardant in this sample. The building industry fiberglass
9
-------
samples were assorted structural shapes (hollow square and round bars primarily) cut into
approximately 0.3- to 0.6-m lengths (1- to 2-ft). Therefore, the combustion of the building industry
material was supported by a continuous LP gas flame during sampling as discussed above. This study
design was intended to simulate the behavior of this flame retarded fiberglass material in the presence
of other non-flame retarded combustibles. A "combustion blank" test, in which the LP flame was
operated but no fiberglass was present, was conducted for comparison purposes. In order to allow an
adequate time period for all necessary samples to be obtained, two separate charges of building
industry fiberglass were combusted during each test. Combustion of one charge was allowed to go to
apparent completion, as was done for the boating industry samples before another charge was
introduced and lit. In addition, various field and laboratory blank samples were collected for each
sampling train, as appropriate.
Each continuous emission monitor was calibrated prior to each test. The calibration consisted
of at least 3 points (zero, span, mid-point). After introducing the zero and span gases and adjusting
the gain, a mid-point calibration gas was introduced to verify analyzer linearity. The instrument was
considered linear if the measured value differs from the known by less than two percent of the full
scale of the operating range. At the conclusion of testing for the day the response of the instrument
was again checked by introducing at least one span gas. The instrument was considered to have
remained within adequate calibration if the response to this span gas was within 15 percent of its
certified value. All span gases used were certified by the manufacturer. All span and zero gases were
delivered at a constant pressure and flow identical to those used during sampling. This was done to
avoid biasing the sample gas measurements with respect to the calibration gas measurements.
All dry gas meters were calibrated against a bell prover or wet test meter. The air inputs into
the hut from the air handling system were measured in triplicate before and after each set of tests
using a flowhood backpressure compensated airflow system. In order to make these measurements, a
flowhood (Airdata Row Meter CFM-88, Shortridge Instruments Inc, Scottsdale, Arizona) was fitted
-------
tightly over one of the vents of the air handling system and all other conditions were maintained as
nearly as possible in the state they were in during combustion testing.
2.4 SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS METHODS
2.4.1 Elemental Analysis
An elemental analysis of the test fiberglass materials before combustion was performed by a
contracted laboratory using methodologies best summarized by American Society for Testing &
Materials (ASTM) methods 3176 and 3172.15
2.4.2 Continuous Emission Monitors (CEMs)
Fixed combustion gases C02, CO, NO, 02, and THC were monitored continuously throughout
the test period through the sampling manifold. The analyzers, along with the fundamental principles
on which they are based, that were used during these tests were: a Beckman Model 755, 02,
(paramagnetic); a Thermoelectron, Model 10, NO, (Chemiluminescence); a Scott, Model 415, Total
Hydrocarbon as Methane, (Flame Ionization Detection); and two Beckman Model 868, CO and C02,
(nondispersive infrared). The analog voltage output from each CEM instrument was interfaced with a
computerized data acquisition system. Data were collected over a 30 s timed average and were
automatically stored electronically. Each analyze was calibrated using at least two standard gases and
a nitrogen zero gas prior to testing. After introducing the zero and span gases and adjusting the
analyzer; the zero, span, and midpoint gases were reintroduced and their concentrations measured. A
QC check gas was measured on each CEM following the conclusion of the test day.
A real-time photoelectric analyzer designed to quantify total polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
(PAHs) on submicron particulate was also operated using a sample stream withdrawn from the sample
transport duct. This analyzer was used to compare the results of this innovative instrument against
more conventional PAH sampling techniques (see section 2.4.4).16'17 The electronically recorded
output of this analyzer was converted into PAH concentration according to the "Approximate
i o
Universal Calibration" suggested by the manufacturer. This calibration curve was based on data
-------
from a series of literature studies of sources such as auto emissions, hazardous waste incineration, and
oil combustion across a range of approximately 1 to 10,000 ng/m3.18
2.4.3 Volatile Organic Sampling and Analysis
Volatile organics were collected from the sample manifold on Tenax and Tenax/carbon sorbent
tubes (VOST train), thermally desorbed and analyzed by GC/MS.19'20 All samples remained
refrigerated (4 °C) when not in use. Since extremely high levels of volatile organic compounds were
observed during preliminary tests of the building industry fiberglass, an additional volatile sampling
method was implemented. Samples were collected into Tedlar® bags and analyzed by GC/MS in
accordance with EPA Method 18.21 Since Method 18 does not specify a detailed leak check
procedure the following procedure was used. The integrity of the carboys to be used was verified
before testing to ensure that flow out was equal to flow in when the system was sampling from a
(S>
source at atmospheric pressure. The Tedlar bags, which were prepared freshly for each sample, were
leak-checked when produced. Then they were purged, evacuated, and loaded into the carboys. The
Tedlar® bag sampling train was then leak checked from the carboy exit through the drying tube,
pump, and dry gas meter before and after each change of Tedlar® bag. Finally, the entire sampling
system was leak checked with the carboy bypassed once per test.
2.4.4 Semivolatile and Particulate Bound Species Sampling and Analysis
Samples for semivolatile and particulate-bound organics and metal aerosol analysis were
collected through separate medium volume PM10 samplers located in the burn hut (Figure 3)22 The
metals samples were collected on 142-mm diameter Pallflex 2500QATUP quartz fiber filters held in
uTeflon® coated filter holders. The organic samples were collected on Pallflex TX40H120 Teflon®
impregnated glass fiber filters and in water-cooled glass XAD-2® modules for the boating industry
fiberglass tests. The organic samples were collected on Pallflex T60A20 Teflon® impregnated glass
fiber filters (the filter type was changed in an attempt to address sampler flow rate problems, see
discussion in section 3.2) and in water cooled glass XAD-2® modules for the building fiberglass
-------
Figure 3. PM10 medium volume sampler, particulate metals train shown.
(Semivolatile particulate organic train is similar except it also
includes a water-cooled condenser and XAD-2 module.)
13
-------
industry tests. In both cases, a water cooled condenser was used between the filter and XAD-2®
module, and acetone and methylene chloride rinses were collected from the inlet of the filter holder to
the outlet of the water cooled condenser. The filters were desiccated and weighed before and after
sampling to allow the determination of the total amount of particulate collected. Leak checks were
conducted with the system plugged between the PM10 head and the filter holder since no practical
means were available to seal the PM10 head.
During the boating industry tests one sample was acquired during each test for each train with
the exception that their were two organic samples acquired in the first boating industry test. During
the building industry tests the organic sample for each test consisted of two filters used sequentially,
each with the same XAD-2® module. This modification in procedure was made in attempt to cope
with very high particulate louding. During the building industry tests two metals filter samples were
collected sequentially. The samples for metal aerosol were collected on 142-mm diameter quartz fiber
filters and analyzed by inductively coupled plasma-atomic emission spectrometry in accordance with
an EPA contract laboratory program method (similar to EPA method 200.7) by a contracted
laboratory.23 The two metals samples acquired in each building industry test were pooled for analysis.
The semivolatile and particulate phase organic sample was collected with a 142-mm diameter,
Teflon®-impregnated, glass fiber filter, and XAD-2® resin sorbent. The filter and resin were then
extracted in methylene chloride, and the pooled extract for each pair of one or two filters along with
the one XAD-2® module were combined with the acetone rinse and the methylene chloride rinse and
analyzed in accordance with EPA Method 8270 by a contracted laboratory24.
All organic samples were maintained under refrigeration (4 °C) when not in use or being
placed in a desiccator. The samples were diluted as required in methylene chloride as specified in the
method. Due to the large number of targeted analytes, two separate injections were made of each
sample on two different instruments (GC/MS). Each instrument was used for a particular list of
targeted analytes. The data from the two injections have been reported together. In cases where data
-------
for a given compound were available from two injections, the following rules were applied in
descending order to determine which data set to report for a given compound (note that the boating
and building industry tests were treated as separate data sets):
1) The data set with the most values listed as detected
2) The data set with the most value, listed as estimated
3) If all values are non-detectable, the data set with the lower detection limit
4) If none of the above rules are applicable, the average of the two injections was reported
2.4.5 Vapor Phase HC1 Sampling and Analysis
A sample probe for vapor-phase hydrogen chloride was also located in the burn hut. These
samples were analyzed by ion chromatography. This sampling and analysis was done according to
EPA Method 26 with the following modifications. Full size impingers were used in place of the
midget impingers specified in the method and the filter module and probe were located within the burn
hut and were not additionally heated.21
2.4.6 Fiber Size and Morphology Sampling and Analysis
The sampling train used to sample for fiber size and morphology analysis consisted of a 37
mm mixed cellulose ester filter cassette followed by a low volume sampling pump and dry gas meter.
The filter was operated in an inverted position, parallel to the facility floor during sampling, to
minimize the collection of particulate matter through gravitational settling. Analysis were performed
by phase contrast light microscopy (PCM) and transmission electron microscopy (TEM). For the
purposes of these analyses, a fiber was defined as a particle with an aspect ratio of greater than 3:1.
These sampling and analysis methodologies were based on NIOSH methods for asbestos fibers.25
15
-------
2.5 DATA PROCESSING
After the completion of the chemical and microscopic analyses, analyte concentration data
were coupled with sample volume, facility air flow, and combustible material mass loss data to derive
estimated emissions (expressed as mass of analyte produced per mass of fiberglass material consumed
in the combustion process).
16
-------
SECTION 3.0
DATA, RESULTS, AND DISCUSSION
3.1 ELEMENTAL ANALYSIS OF MATERIALS COMBUSTED
The materials to be combusted were procured by EPA staff and were representative of their
respective industries in their best judgement. The elemental analysis of the fiberglass materials before
combustion (Table 3) indicates that the organic matter content of the boating industry fiberglass is
higher than the building industry material. The building industry material had higher concentrations of
most metals quantified. The substantial halogen concentration found in the building industry material
tends to confirm the manufacturer's statement that the material contained a brominated fire retardant.26
The four metals chosen for elemental analysis were selected on the basis of literature results before
any other data from this project was obtained.
3.2 COMBUSTION CONDITIONS, CONTINUOUS EMISSION MONITOR, AND TOTAL
PARTICULATE RESULTS
The mass of material combusted in each test and the mass of ash obtained is summarized in
Table 2. A higher percentage of the introduced material was consumed in the boating industry tests
then in the building industry tests which is consistent with the higher organic content of the boating
industry material (Tables 1 and 2). Continuous emissions monitor data, weight loss data, and visual
observations indicated that the vast majority of the combustion of each charge of boating industry
material was completed in a 20 to 40 min time period while the majority of the building industry
material in each charge appeared to be consumed in 30 to 60 min (Figures 4 - 13). Table 3
17
-------
1200
1000 -
Time (min) Since First Ignition
9/8/92 First Test 9/17/92 Second Test
9/22/92 Hut Blank
Analyzer calibrated to 471 ppm on 9/8/92
Analyzer calibrated to 702 ppm on other dates
Figure 4. Boating industry fiberglass; CO concentrations.
18
-------
Time (min) Since Ignition
10/13/92 First Test 10/30/92 Second Test
11/4/92 Third Test 11/11/92 Comb. Blank
Instrument calibrated to 702 ppm for all tests
Figure 5. Building industry fiberglass tests; CO concentrations.
19
-------
2.5
£
a
o
c3
£
a
a>
o
a
o
U
o
u
1.5
0.5
0
-100
0
100
200
300
400
Time (min) Since First Ignition
9/8/92 First Test 9/17/92 Second Test
9/22/92 Hut Blank
Analyzer calibrated to 1.56% in all tests
Figure 6. Boating industry fiberglass; C02 concentrations.
20
-------
a
o
"•C
cd
&
a
a)
o
a
o
O
-------
800
Oh
O)
§
¦B
C/3
cd
CO
a
o
•i—i
cd
S-H
a
o
o
c
o
U
U
EC
H
600 -
400
200 -
0
-200
-100
0
100
200
300
400
Time (min) Since First Ignition
9/8/92 First Test 9/17/92 Second Test
9/22/92 Hut Blank
Instrument calibrated to 484 ppm on 9/8/92
Instrument calibrated to 966 ppm on 9/17/92
Calibration problems on 9/17/92, see Table A-l
Figure 8. Boating industry fiberglass; THC concentrations.
22
-------
Time (min) Since Ignition
10/13/92 First Test 10/30/92 Second Test
11/4/92 Third Test 11/11/92 Comb. Blank
Instrument calibrated to 966 for all tests
10/13, 11/4, and 11/11 had some calibration problems, see Table A-l
Figure 9. Building industry fiberglass tests; THC concentrations.
23
-------
6
-100
0
100
200
300
400
Time (min) Since First Ignition
9/17/92 Second Test 9/22/92 Hut Blank
Instrument not functional on 9/8/92
Instrument had some calibration problems 9/17/92, see Table A-l
Figure 10. Boating industry fiberglass; NO concentrations.
24
-------
5
-50 0 50 100 150 200 250
Time (min) Since Ignition
10/13/92 First Test 10/30/92 Second Test
11/4/92 Third Test 11/11/92 Comb. Blank
Instrument calibration problems 11/11/92, see Table A-l
Figure 11. Building industry fiberglass tests; NO concentrations.
25
-------
W)
A
a
o
cd
&
fi
o
a
o
U
53
<
Oh
20000
15000
10000
5000
0
-5000
ill
-100 0 100 200 300 400
Time (min) Since First Ignition
9/8/92 First Test 9/17/92 Second Test
9/22/92 Hut Blank
Note:
Conversion from PAH analyzer current to PAH concentration is based on a
calibration equation provided by the manufacturer, Echochem Technology, Inc.
Data not available from the initial period of the 9/17/92 test due to
instrument failure.
Figure 12. Boating industry fiberglass.
(Particulate PAH concentration as indicated by photoelectric analyzer.)
26
-------
Time (min) Since Ignition
10/13/92 First Test 10/30/92 Second Test
11/4/92 Third Test 11/11/92 Comb. Blank
• IHIIHIIB
Conversion from PAH analyzer output current to PAH
concentration based on calibration equation
provided by manufacturer, Echochem Technologies.
Figure 13. Building industry fiberglass tests.
(Particulate PAH concentration, as indicated by photoelectric analyzer.)
27
-------
summarizes the estimated emissions derived from real time measurements of CO, C02, THC, and total
PAH bound to submicron particulate (as measured by the experimental real time analyzer). The
substantial observed CO emissions (Figures 4 and 5 and Table 3), which are probably underestimated
in this data set (since the average values in Table 3 are based on data truncated to the value of the
highest calibration point), are a concern since CO is believed to be the primary cause of death of most
fire victims.6 Substantial C02 production was observed (Figures 6 and 7 and Table 3); however, this
production was difficult to measure in the building industry case due to the substantial C02 production
from the LP gas burner (Figure 7). High concentrations of total hydrocarbon were observed,
especially in the building industry tests (Figures 8 and 9 and Table 3). This is in reasonable
qualitative agreement with the results of GC/MS volatiles analysis (see section 3.3). Relatively low
NO levels were observed (Figures 10 and 11). The building industry NO concentrations appear to
have a substantial contribution from the LP gas burner (Figure 11). The concentration profiles
observed by the experimental total particulate PAH analyzer (Figures 12 and 13) appear to closely
resemble the THC (Figures 8 and 9) and CO (Figures 4 and 5) profiles as expected since all three
analytes result from incomplete combustion processes.
Substantial emissions of total particulate matter were observed in both types of fiberglass
materials combusted, particularly with the building industry material (Table 4). The wide variance in
particulate emissions in the building industry data set may be attributable to the short sampling times
used. The use of short sampling times was necessary due to rapid particulate buildup on the filters
which caused difficulty in reaching design sampling flow rates. Short sampling times kept the two
PM10 sampling trains from being operated contemporaneously and made it impossible for any one
sample to represent all phases of the combustion process. The high particulate emissions measured are
a concern since a majority of previous studies of combustion products of various polymers have
devoted little attention to the composition of the particulate phase.7
28
-------
Due to operational difficulties the PM10 total particulate measurements made in this study may
have a particle size cutpoint somewhat different then the intended 10 fjm. The PM10 medium volume
samplers used in this study were designed to be used at a flow rate of 0.113 m3/min (4 cfm).22 The
high levels of particulate produced in this study tended to rapidly clog the sampling media and thus
led to flow rates below this optimal value (Table 4). The investigators were unable to avoid these
conditions since facility flow rates could not be feasibly increased, more powerful pumps were not
available and the mass of material being combusted was at its lower limit (due to the sensitivity of the
platform scale being used). The actual flow rates achieved are listed in Table 4. The effects of these
non-optimal flow rates on particle size cutpoint can be estimated however. Discussions with the
developer of this sampler indicate that although the samplers cutpoint has not been investigated in this
flow range, flow rate multiplied by the square of the cutpoint size should be equal to a constant.27
This statement can be substantiated from the well known equations describing impaction processes
(collection of particulate in a PM10 sampler is essentially an impaction process).28 This relationship
would suggest that at a flow rate of 3 cfm (0.084 m3/min) the particle size cutpoint would increase to
11.54 (am and at a flow rate of 1.5 cfm ( 0.042 m3/min) the particle size cutpoint would be 16.3 |am.
Thus the alteration in particle size cutpoint caused by this flow rate problem is likely to be small.
3.3 VOLATILE ORGANIC RESULTS
The volatile organic data set produced from these tests included concentration measurements
for 35 targeted species (the majority of which are consistently non-detectable) and several dozen
tentatively identified species. Targeted species are defined as those for which the analytical instrument
was specifically calibrated. Tentatively identified species are other compounds found in the sample
that can be tentatively identified through searches of mass spectral libraries checked by investigator
examination of the mass spectral match. Table 5 presents boating industry volatile targeted air
concentrations and Table 6 presents the estimated emissions derived from this data. Tables 7 and 8
present the air concentration and estimated emissions data for tentatively identified volatile species
-------
from the boating industry tests. Tables 9 and 10 present the air concentrations and estimated
emissions for targeted volatiles building industry tests derived from samples taken with the VOST
system. Table 11 presents data obtained for high concentration targeted compounds obtained with the
Tedlar® bag sampling system during the building industry tests. Finally, Tables 12 and 13 present
data on tentatively identified compounds found in the VOST samples from the building industry tests.
In these tables, estimated emission values derived from analytical nondetects, assumed to be at the
detection limit are proceeded with a "<" sign.
Benzene, toluene, ethyl benzene, m,p-xylene and styrene ware among the highest concentration
volatiles observed in most of the volatiles samples obtained (Figure 14, Tables 5,6,9,10, and 11). It
appears that the relative ratios of these components are similar for both the boating and building
industry materials, but that the absolute emission rate was higher for the building industry material.
Figure 14 may not be a completely accurate comparison of the relative emissions from the combustion
of these two materials since the boating industry data was derived from VOST measurements (which
in many cases are estimated values since the concentration exceed the calibration curve) and the
building industry data was derived from Tedlar® bag train measurements (which are not as prone to
the problem of concentrations exceeding the calibration curve). In addition, the high loadings of these
compounds may have caused some analytes to breakthrough the sorbent cartridges. Alkenes, dienes,
oxygen containing heterocycles, and alkylated aromatic compounds comprise the majority of the
tentatively identified volatile compounds in the boating industry material emissions (Tables 7 and 8).
Alkenes, dienes, brominated compounds, and alkylated aromatic compounds comprise the majority of
the tentatively identified compounds in the building industry material emissions (Table 12 and 13).
30
-------
60
50 -
40 -
30 -
20 -
10 -
0
Boating Industry
Building Industry
Benzene
m,p-Xylene
Toluene
Styrene
Ethyl Benzene
Figure 14. Selected volatile organics from fiberglass combustion.
31
-------
3.4 SEMIVOLATILE AND PARTICULATE BOUND ORGANIC RESULTS
The semivolatile and particulate bound organics data set generated from this project includes
concentration measurements for more than 90 targeted species (the majority of which were consistently
non-detectable) and several dozen tentatively identified species. The boating industry fiberglass
combustion air concentrations and estimated emissions are summarized in Table 14 for the targeted
compounds and in Table 15 for the tentatively identified compounds. PAHs and oxygenated species
such as phenols, an alcohol and a phthalate account for the majority of species identified in the
boating industry targeted analyses. Alkylated and oxygenated aromatic compounds dominated the list
of semivolatile species tentatively identified in the boating industry analyses.
The building industry fiberglass combustion air concentrations and estimated emissions are
summarized in Table 16 for the targeted compounds, and Table 17 for the tentatively identified
compounds. PAHs and oxygenated aromatic compounds such as phenols, phthalates, and benzoic acid
form the majority of targeted semivolatile and particulate bound species detected in the building
industry samples. Alkyl substituted and oxygenated aromatics and polyaromatics are the predominant
building industry fiberglass tentatively identified semivolatile and particulate bound compounds. It is
interesting to note that although several brominated compounds were identified in the volatile analyses
for the building industry tests, little evidence of brominated compounds was seen in the semivolatile
analyses. Average estimated emissions for the detected semivolatile and particulate bound compounds
from both materials are generally lower than for the volatile species discussed previously. As in
previous measurements, the values obtained in the building industry fiberglass tests are generally
higher than those in the boating industry tests.
In order to evaluate the accuracy of the experimental particulate-bound PAH analyzer used on
this project, we calculated a quantity referred to as "total particulate PAH" from Method 8270 GC/MS
results for targeted PAH species that could be assumed to be predominately on the particulate. This
assumption was based on the work of Ligocki and Pankow29 and Cautreels and Van Cauwenberghe30
-------
as well as molecular weight and boiling point information. These PAH species were
Benzo(a)anthracene, Benzo(a)pyrene, Benzo(b)fluoranthene, Benzo(ghi)perylene, Benzo(k)fluoranthene,
Chrysene, Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene, and Indeno(l,2,3 cd)pyrene. These quantities (listed as the last row
in Tables 14 and 16) can then be compared to the results of the experimental analyzer found in
Table 3; this comparison is summarized in Table 18. In almost all cases, the air concentration values
and estimated emissions values for these two techniques agree within a factor of five.
However, their are several factors that complicate this comparison. First, the values calculated
in Table 3 represent the entire period of the test burns, not just the period during which the
conventional semivolatile and particulate organic sampling train was operating. Second, the list of
PAH species above is almost certainly not a complete list of PAH or PAH-like species present in the
emission that the analyzer is capable of responding to. Thirdly, many of the Method 8270 GC/MS
values that comprise the "total particulate PAH" quantity were only estimates since the concentrations
were off the calibration curve. Fourth, the PAH analyzer is designed to only detect PAH on
submicron particulate while the 8270 samples were collected through a PM10 sampler which probably
had a size cutpoint between 10 and 20 |om as operated during this study (see Section 3.2). Fifth, the
range of concentrations experienced from fiberglass combustion was well in excess of the range of
concentrations from which the analyzer calibration was developed (see Table 3 and Section 2.4.2)
Finally, the assignment of species as either completely particulate bound or completely vapor phase
made for this calculation is a rough approximation of reality. Despite these caveats, the experimental
analyzer does appear to have provided reasonably accurate total particulate PAH results in real-time.
33
-------
3.5 PARTICULATE PHASE METALS RESULTS
The results of particulate-phase metals analysis for eleven elements are reported in Tables 19
and 20. Of these, only lead, silver, and possibly cadmium were detected in the boating industry
emissions, and only arsenic and possibly chromium were detected in the building industry emissions.
As might be expected, the air concentrations and estimated emissions for the detected metals were
considerably lower then the levels seen in the major detected organic species.
3.6 VAPOR PHASE HC1 RESULTS
Vapor-phase hydrochloric acid was not detected in any of the samples analyzed (results are
summarized in Table 21). Detection limits varied from 40 to 260 mg/kg. No other acid gases were
analyzed.
3.7 FIBROUS AEROSOL RESULTS
Fibrous aerosols samples rarely showed significantly more fibers than were seen in blank
samples, as shown in Table 22. However, detection limits were quite high for this analysis, since the
maximum feasible loading of total particulate for these filters was reached after a very small volume
(<20 L) was sampled, it was only feasible to conduct the microscopic examination on a small
representative portion of the filter surface area, and fibers composed only a small portion of the total
particulate.
3.8 GENERAL NOTES REGARDING RESULTS
Because of operational difficulties (i.e., sampling media overloading), the sampling periods for
various trains varied widely. Thus, it is not possible to compute an accurate mass balance on this
system since the rates of emission of various pollutants probably vary during various phases of the
combustion process. In addition, since the rate of emissions from a small mass of combusted
fiberglass was high enough to threaten overloading of the sampling media, it was necessary to sharply
limit the amount of fiberglass combusted in each test phase. This may introduce a significant source
of error into parts of the data set because the resolution of the balance used to measure the weight of
-------
fiberglass lost to combustion was 0.09 kg (0.2 lb), [the average fiberglass weight losses during the
sampling period of the samples were: organic semivolatile/particulate train 1.4 kg (3.0 lb), GEM 3.8
kg (8.3 lb), liber train 0.45 kg (1 lb), hydrochloric acid train 3.3 kg (7.2 lb), metals train 1.7 kg (3.8
lb), VOST train 0.4 kg (0.9 lb), and Tedlar® bag train 0.91 kg (2.0 lb)].
35
-------
SECTION 4.0
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Despite the aforementioned experimental difficulties, this project did succeed in producing
estimated emissions data for a broad range of atmospheric pollutants from a simulated open fiberglass
combustion process. Both air concentrations within the facility where combustion was taking place
and estimated emissions expressed as mass of pollutant per mass of fiberglass material consumed by
combustion were reported for volatile, semivolatile, and particulate bound organics, metals, fibers,
typical combustion gasses, and vapor phase HC1. Substantial emissions of a large number of
pollutants including CO, particulate, lead, arsenic, benzene, toluene, styrene, naphthalene, phenol,
dibenzofuran, phenanthrene, and benzo(a)pyrene were observed.
36
-------
SECTION 5.0
REFERENCES
1. H.C.W. Skinner, M. Ross, and C. Frondel, Asbestos and Other Fibrous Materials. Oxford
University Press: New York, NY, 1988, pp 82-85.
2. J.K. Whitfield (EPA/AEERL), Personal communication to P.M. Lemieux based on
conversations with D. Preiss (N.C. State University), written June 17, 1991.
3. J.D. Shoemaker and R. Krishnan, "Guide to Pollution Prevention: The Fiberglass-Reinforced
and Composite Plastics Industry" EPA/625/7-91/014 (NHS PB91 - 227967), October 1991.
4. A.H. Landrock, Handbook of Plastics Flammabilitv and Combustion Toxicology, Principles.
Materials. Testing, Safety and Smoke Inhalation Effects. Noyes Publications: Park Ridge, NJ,
1983.
5. D.P. Miller, R.V. Petrella, and A. Manca, "An Evaluation of Some Factors Affecting the
Smoke and Toxic Gas Emission From Burning Unsaturated Polyester Resins." Presented at
the 31st Annual Technical Conference of the Reinforced Plastics/Comnosites Institute of The
Society of the Plastics Industry. Inc., 1976.
6. S.C. Gad and R.C. Anderson, Combustion Toxicology. CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, 1990, pp
66,155, 176-92.
7. B.C. Levin, "A Summary of the NBS Literature Reviews on the Chemical Nature and Toxicity
of the Pyrolysis and Combustion Products from Seven Plastics: Acrylonitrile-Butadiene-
Styrenes (ABS), Nylons, Polyesters, Polyethylenes, Polystyrenes, Poly(Vinyl Chlorides) and
Rigid Polyurethane Foams," Fire and Materials: 11:143-57, 1987.
8. E. Braun and B.C. Levin, "Polyesters: A Review of the Literature on Products of Combustion
and Toxicity," Fire and Materials: 10:107-23, 1986.
9. R.I. Mitchell, D.J. Donofrio, and W.J. Moorman, "Chronic Inhalation Toxicity of Fibrous
Glass in Rats and Monkeys," JACT, 5:557-575, 1986.
10. K.P. Lee et al., "Comparative Pulmonary Responses to Inhaled Inorganic Fibers with Asbestos
and Fiberglass," Environmental Research, 24:167-91, 1981.
37
-------
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
W.P. Linak and J.V. Ryan, Chemical and Biological Characterization of Products of
Incomplete Combustion from the Simulated Field Burning of Agricultural Plastic. JAPCA
Volume 39, No. 6, pp. 836-846, June 1989.
J.V. Ryan, Characterization of Emissions from the Simulated Open Burning of Scrap
Tires." EPA-600/2-89-054 (NTIS PB90-126004), October 1989.
P. Kariher, M. Tufts, and L. Hamel, Evaluation of VOC Emissions from Heated
Roofing Asphalt. EPA-600/2-91-061 (NTIS PB92-115286), November 1991.
J.V. Ryan, and C.C. Lutes, Characterization of Emissions from the Simulated Onen-
Burning of Non-Metallic Automobile Shredder Residue. EPA-600/R-93-044 (NTIS
PB93-172914), March 1993.
American Society for Testing and Materials, Annual Book of ASTM Standards. 1990.
E.D. Chikhliwala, J.W. Podlenske, E. Pfeiffer, and W. Seifert, "The Design, Implementation
and Use of a Real-time PAH Analyzer for Combustion Products," Paper presented at the 9th
World Clean Air Congress & Exhibition. Montreal. Canada, August 1992.
R. Niessner, "The Chemical Response of the Photoelectric Aerosol Sensor to Different Aerosol
Systems," J. Aerosol Sci. Vol 17, No. 4, pp 705-714, 1986.
Manual for "Real-time Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons Analyzer for Combustion Aerosols,"
EcoChem Technologies, Inc. West Hills, CA, Section 6, pp 6-7.
E.M. Hansen, Protocol for the Collection and Analysis of Volatile POHCs Using VOST.
EPA-600/8-84-007 (NTIS PB84-170042), March 1984.
U.S. EPA, OSWER, Methods 5040 and 8240 in Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste.
Vol. IB. Field Manual Physical/Chemical Methods (Third Edition). EPA SW-846 (NTIS PB88-
239223), November 1986.
Title 40 - Code of Federal Regulations. Parts 53-60, Revised July 1, 1991, U.S. Government
Printing Office, Washington DC, 1991.
A.R. McFarland and C.A. Ortiz, " A 10 (am Cutpoint Ambient Aerosol Sampling Inlet,"
Atmospheric Environment 16: 2959-2965, 1982.
U.S. EPA, EMSL-CINTI, Method 200.7, in Methods for the Determination of Metals in
Environmental Samples. EPA-600/4-91/010 (NTIS PB91-231498), June 1991.
U.S. EPA, OSWER, Method 8270, in Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Wastes. Vol. IB.
Field Manual Physical/Chemical Methods (Third Editon), EPA SW-846 (NTIS PB 88-239223),
November 1986.
P.M. Eller, Ed., NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods. 3rd Ed.. National Institute for
Occupational Safety and Health, Cincinnati, OH, 1984.
38
-------
26. D. Baylor (Morrison Molded Fiber Glass, Bristol, VA), Personal communication to L.S. Cox
(EPA/AEERL), September 1992.
27. A. McFarland and C. Ortiz (Texas A&M University), Personal communication to C. Lutes
(Acurex Environmental), September 1992.
28. H.E. Hesketh, Fine Particles in Gaseous Media, Lewis Publishers: Chelsea, MI, 1986, pp 109-
118.
29. M. P. Ligocki and J. F. Pankow, "Measurements of the Gas/Particle Distributions of
Atmospheric Organic Compounds," Environ. Sci. Technol., 23:75-83, 1989.
30. W. Cautreels and K. Van Cauwenberghe, "Experiments on the Distribution of Organic
Pollutants Between Airborne Particulate Matter and the Corresponding Gas Phase,"
Atmospheric Environment, 12:1133-1141, 1978.
39
-------
TABLE 1. COMPOSITION OF FIBERGLASS MATERIALS TESTED
(All Data as Percent Composition as Received)
Boating Industry
Fiberglass -
Without Gel Coat
Boating Industry
Fiberglass -
With Gel Coat
Building
Industry
Fiberglass
PROXIMATE ANALYSIS
Moisture
2.06
1.19
0.52
Volatile Matter
63.11
56.24
35.29
Ash
34.83
39.57
60.23
Fixed Carbon
<0.1
3
3.96
ELEMENTAL ANALYSIS
Carbon
52.97
55.06
25.33
Hydrogen
4.79
5.27
2.48
Nitrogen
0.017
0.015
<0.5
Sulfur
<0.03
<0.03
<0.5
Total Halogen (as CI)
<0.5
<0.5
1.9
Oxygen (by difference)
7.1
<0.5
10.06
TRACE ELEMENTS
Aluminum
0.28
0.081
2.2
Cadmium
<0.004
<0.004
<0.01
Chromium
0.0091
0.041
0.086
Magnesium
<0.05
<0.05
0.12
40
-------
TABLE 2. MASS OF MATERIAL COMBUSTED
Date
Test
Mass of
1st
Charge
(lb)
Mass of
1st
Charge
(kg)
% of 1st
Charge
With Gel
Coat
Mass of
2nd
Charge
(lb)
Mass of
2nd
Charge
(kg)
% of 2nd
Charge
With Gel
Coat
Mass of
3rd
Charge
(lb)
Mass of
3rd
Charge
(kg)
% of 3rd
Charge
With Gel
Coat
Overall
Mass
Combusted
(lb)
Overall Mass
Total
Ash
Mass
(lb)
Total
Ash
Mass
(kg)
%
Fiberglass
Consumed
by
Combustion
Combusted
(kg)
Average
% Gel Coat
9/8/92
First Boating
Indistry
6.0
2.7
86.6
6.6
3.0
69.6
6.4
2.9
81.3
19.0
8.6
78.9
5.1
2.3
73.2
9/17/92
Second Boating
Industry
5.8
2.6
75.9
6.9
3.1
85.3
7.4
3.4
78.4
20.1
9.1
80.0
5.3
2.4
73.6
Boating Industry Average
79.5
734
10/13/92
First Building
Industry
5,2
2.4
NA
5.0
2.3
NA
NA
NA
NA
10.2
4.6
NA
5.0
2.3
51.0
10/30/92
Second Building
Industry
4.4
2.0
NA
5.0
2.3
NA
NA
NA
NA
9.4
4.3
NA
4.2
1.9
55.3
11/4/92
Third Building
Industry
5.5
2.5
NA
6.2
2.8
NA
NA
NA
NA
11.7
5.3
NA
7.0
3.2
40.0
Building Industry Average
48.8
NA = Not applicable
-------
TABLE 3. COMBUSTION GAS AND PAH PARTICULATE ANALYZER CONCENTRATIONS AND ESTIMATED EMISSIONS
Date
Test
CO
Average
ppm
co2
Average
%
THC
ppm
PAH
Hg/m3
Length of
Averaging
Period
(min)
Weight
lost in
Averaging
Period (kg)
CO as C
Estimated
Emissions
(g/kg)*
C02 as C
Estimated
Emissions
(g/kg)*
THC as Methane
Estimated
Emissions
(g/kg)*
PAH
Estimated
Emissions
(g/kg)
9/8/92
First Boating Industry
132*
#
0.29
82*
2086
145.5
5.58
48.2*
980.8*
41.6*
1.48
9/17/92
Second Boating Industry
125*
0.24
66
996
192.5
6.10
55.2*
953.4
40.5
0.85
9/22/92
Hut Blank
6
0.04
1
19
133.2
0.35
NA
NA
NA
NA
10/13/92
First Building Industry
312*
0.33
299*
793
104.7
2.27
205.9*
NC
270.3*
0.97
10/30/92
Second Building Industry
263*
0.65
274*
585
85.43
2.27
141.4*
NC
202.3*
0.58
11/4/92
Third Building Industry
278*
0.32
288*
548
79
1.92
163.3*
NC
232.2*
0.59
11/11/92
Combustion Blank
3
0.18
-4
19
113
0.00
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA = Not applicable (estimated emissions are not defined in the case of hut or combustion blanks since they would be calculated as the quotient of two blank values).
NC = Not calculated (estimated emissions were not calculated for C02 in the building industry test since the propane burner contributed a sizeable and somewhat variable percentage of the emissions).
* = In cases where some measured concentrations exceeded the concentration of the high calibration point before calculating the averages, the data set was truncated to the value of the high calibration point.
-------
TABLE 4. TOTAL PM10 PARTICULATE MASS
ORGANIC TRAIN
Field Sample
Name
Lab Sample
Name
Date
Sampled
Test Conditions
Sampling Flow
Rate (SCFM)
Sampling Flow
Rate Standard
(m3/min)
Particulate
Concentration
(mg/ft3)
Particulate
Estimated
Emissions (g/kg)
TF4/XAD1
A
9/8/92
First Boating Industry
1.255
0.0355
5.865
108
TF5/XAD2
B
9/8/92
First Boating Industry
1.676
0.0475
0.927
99
TF6/XAD3
C
9/17/92
Second Boating Industry
1.916
0.0543
5.826
132
TF7/XAD4
D
9/22/92
Hut Blank:
1.932
0.0547
0.048
N/A
TF8/XAD5
E
9/22/92
Field Blank
NA
NA
N/A
N/A
Boating Industry Average (3 samples)
4.206
113
TF12/XAD6^
10/13/92
First Building Industry Test
1.215
0.0344
9.542
301
TFW/XADe1
10/13/92
First Building Industry Test
2.139
0.00606
3.800
182
TF14/XAD7
F
10/30/92
Second Building Industry Test
1.857
0.0526
9.044
296
TF15/XAD7
F
10/30/92
Second Building Industry Test
0.657
0.0186
63.007
884
TF16/XAD8
G
11/4/92
Third Building Industry Test
1.405
0.0398
5.433
160
TF17/XAD8
G
11/4/92
Third Building Industry Test
1.093
0.0309
17.108
480
TF18/XAD9
H
11/4/92
Field Blank
NA
NA
N/A
N/A
TF19/XAD9
H
11/4/92
Field Blank
NA
NA
N/A
N/A
TF20/XAD10
I
11/11/92
Combustion Blank
1.517
0.0430
0.023
N/A
TF21/XAD10
I
11/11/92
Combustion Blank
1.427
0.0404
0.002
N/A
Building Industry Average (6 samples)
17.989
384
(continued)
f = XAD-2 overheated—organic analysis not performed
N/A = Not applicable
-------
TABLE 4. TOTAL PM10 PARTICULATE MASS (concluded)
METALS TRAIN
Field Sample
Name
Lab Sample
Name
Date
Sampled
Test Conditions
Sampling
Flow Rate
SCFM
Sampling
Flow Rate
m3/min
Particulate
Concentration
(mg/ft3)
Particulate Estimated
Emissions (g/kg)
QF1
J
9/8/92
First Boating Industry Test
3.171
0.0898
6.141
90
QF2
K
9/17/92
Second Boating Industry Test
2.446
0.0692
10.876
158
QF3
L
9/22/92
Hut Blank
2.736
0.0794
-0.126
N/A
Boating Industry Average (2 samples)
8.508
124
QF4
M
10/13/92
First Building Industry Test
1.402
0.0397
56.903
865
QF5
M
10/13/92
First Building Industry Test
1.536
0.0435
44.421
701
QF6
N
10/30/92
Second Building Industry Test
1.563
0.0443
29.957
1238
QF7
N
10/30/92
Second Building Industry Test
0.908
0.0257
54.943
1445
QF8
O
11/4/92
Third Building Industry Test
3.09
0.0875
11.487
195
QF9
O
11/4/92
Third Building Industry Test
1.808
0.0512
8.559
540
QF10
P
11/4/92
Field Blank
NA
NA
N/A
N/A
QF11
P
11/4/92
Field Blank
NA
NA
N/A
N/A
QF12
Q
11/11/92
Combustion Blank
2.174
0.0616
0.457
N/A
QF13
Q
11/11/92
Combustion Blank
2.889
0.0818
0.132
N/A
Building Industry Average (6 samples)
34.378
831
t = XAD-2 overheated—organic analysis not performed
N/A = Not applicable
-------
TABLE 5. HUT AIR CONCENTRATIONS AND BLANK MASSES OF BOATING INDUSTRY TARGETED VOLATILES,
YOST TRAIN
Test:
FB
1BO
1BO
1BO
FB
2BO
2BO
FBHB
HB
HB
HB
Sample
Avgng/L
Hut Blank Avg
ng/L
Minimum
Detection
Limit (ng)
Lab Sample No.
Field Sample No.
Date Sampled
Volume Sampled (L)
Units
1189
59,104
09/08/92
NA
ng
1190
100,102
09/08/92
4455
ng/L
1191
270,14
09/08/92
4.442
Bg/L
1192
09,201
09/08/92
8.114
ng/L
1211
223,106
09/17/92
NA
ng
1215
535,107
09/17/92
4.532
ng/L
1216
242,105
09/17/92
4.517
ng/L
1221
169,42
09/22/92
NA
ng
1222
103,352
09/22/92
17.893
ng/L
1223
271,108
09/22/92
4.649
ng/L
1224
365,08
09/22/92
4414
ng/L
Compound
4.0
Chi orome thane
55.6
6449.7e
142.3#
8.6*'#
58.8
26.8*,#
98.2#
62.3
46.0
2874E
95.6
1345.1
143.0
2.0
Vinyl chloride
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.4
0.3
2.3
Bromome thane
ND
15.3
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
34
04
1.9
Chi or oe thane
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.4
0.3
1.1
Trichlorofluoromethane
ND
5.2#*
3.2#*
2.6#*
2.1
23.9
3,9#*
ND
3.5
7.5*
4.0E
7.8
5.0
1.8
1,1-dichloroethene
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
04
0.3
6.8
Acetone
44.7
2>r,#£
72#
21.9#
205.2
647.4E
309.8e
65.1
10.5*
79.2
33.0*
210.6
40.9
2.1
Methylene chloride
4375.8
2527.7**
625.7 *'#*
367.9*#*
1977.9
391.5*'#*
317.3*'#*
1171.3
63.1**
266.5**
288.1*
846.0
205.9
0.8
Trans-1,2-dichloroethene
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.2
0.1
1.9
1,1-dichloroethane
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
04
0.3
1.6
Chloroform
129.5
19.6*
19,4*
12.1*
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
10.4
0.3
1.1
1,1,1-trichloroe thane
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.2
0.2
1.5
Carbon tetrachloride
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.3
0.2
2.3
Benzene
136.2
6174.0E
1028.9E
1808.3E
1563.0
7727^
7907.5E
7.2
ND
4.9e
ND
4929.3
1.8
Note: Average calculated including nondetects at the detection limit.
HB = Hut Blank
ND = Compound not detected
NA = Not applicable (i.e., field blanks are not sampled and therefore have no measured volume)
* = Mass of compound in this sample not greater then 3x the applicable field blank concentration or 3x the field blank detection limit
# = Mass of this compound in this sample is not greater then 3x the maximum hut blank concentration or 3x the hut blank detection limit
E = Estimated, concentration in this sample is either greater then the concentration of the highest calibration standard or lower then the lowest calibration standard
FB = Field Blank
1BO = First Boating Industry Test
2BO = Second Boating Industry Test
(continued)
-------
TABLE 5. HUT AIR CONCENTRATIONS AND BLANK MASSES OF BOATING INDUSTRY TARGETED VOLATILES,
VOST TRAIN (continued)
ON
Test:
FB
1BO
1BO
1BO
FB
2BO
2BO
FBHB
HB
HB
HB
Sample
Avgng/L
Hut Blank Avg
ng/L
Minimum
Detection
limit (ng)
Lab Sample No.
Field Sample No.
Date Sampled
Volume Sampled (L)
Units
1189
59,104
09/08/92
NA
ng
1190
100,102
09/08/92
4.455
ng/L
1191
270,14
09/08/92
4.442
ng/L
1192
09,201
09/08/92
8.114
ng/L
1211
223,106
09/17/92
NA
tig
1215
535,107
09/17/92
4.532
ng/L
1216
242,105
09/17/92
4.517
ng/L
1221
169,42
09/22/92
NA
ng
1222
103,352
09/22/92
17.893
ng/L
1223
271,108
09/22/92
4.649
ng/L
1224
365,08
09/22/92
4414
ng/L
Compound
1.7
1,2-dichloroethane
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.3
0.3
1.9
Trichloroethene
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.4
0,3
2.4
1,2-dtchloropropane
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.5
0.4
1.7
Bromodi chl orome thane
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.3
0.3
1.6
Gs-1,3-dichloropropene
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.3
0.3
4.1
Toluene
27.0
4095.7E
353.1
1067 .8e
169.3
6008#
6455.5E
8.2
ND
5.7e
ND
3596.0
2.3
0.9
Trans-1,3-dichloropropene
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
95.1
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
19.2
0.1
2.0
1,1,2-trichloroethane
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.0
ND
0.4
0.3
2.1
Tetrachloroethene
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.4
0.3
2.2
Dibromochlorome thane
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
04
0.4
3.2
Chlorobenzene
ND
3.4E
ND
ND
ND
4.3e
3.6e
ND
ND
ND
ND
2.5
0.5
2.9
Ethyl benzene
ND
8974E
77.7
208.4
4.1
1027.1E
1168,1E
ND
ND
ND
ND
675.7
0.5
7.1
M,p-xylene
ND
215.8
9#
156.9
5.3
713.8e
795.5E
3.8
ND
ND
ND
378.2
1.2
3.5
O-xylene
ND
59.2
ND
ND
2 4
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
124
0.6
2.2
Bromoform
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.4
0.4
Note: Average calculated including nondetects at the detection limit.
HB = Hut Blank
ND = Compound not detected
NA = Not applicable (i.e., field blanks are not sampled and therefore have no measured volume)
* = Mass of compound in this sample not greater then 3x the applicable field blank concentration or 3x the field blank detection limit
# = Mass of this compound in this sample is not greater then 3x the maximum hut blank concentration or 3x the hut blank detection limit
E = Estimated, concentration in this sample is either greater then the concentration of the highest calibration standard or lower then the lowest calibration standard
FB = Field Blank
1BO = First Boating Industry Test
2BO = Second Boating Industry Test
(continued)
-------
TABLE 5. HUT AIR CONCENTRATIONS AND BLANK MASSES OF BOATING INDUSTRY TARGETED VOLATLLES,
VOST TRAIN (concluded)
Test:
FB
1BO
1BO
1BO
FB
2BO
2BO
FBHB
HB
HB
HB
Sample
Avgng/L
Hut Blank Avg
ng/L
Minimum
Detection
limit (ng)
Lab Sample No.
Field Sample No.
Date Sampled
Volume Sampled (L)
Units
1189
59,104
09/08/92
NA
ng
1190
100,102
09/08/92
4.455
ng/L
1191
270,14
09/08/92
4.442
ng/L
1192
09,201
09/08/92
8.114
ng/L
1211
223,106
09/17/92
NA
ng
1215
535,107
09/17/92
4.532
ng/L
1216
242,105
09/17/92
4.517
ng/L
1221
169,42
09/22/92
NA
ng
1222
103,352
09/22/92
17.893
ng/L
1223
271,108
09/22/92
4.649
ng/L
1224
365,08
09/22/92
4.414
ng/L
Compound
6.1
1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
1.2
1.0
3.5
1,2-Dichiorobenzene
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.7
0.6
4.3
1,4 -Dichlorobenzene
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.9
0.7
2.6
1,3-Dichlorobenzene
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.5
04
Note: Averages calculated including nondetects at the detection limit
HB = Hut Blank
^ ND = Compound not detected
NA = Not applicable (i.e., field blanks are not sampled and therefore have no measured volume)
* = Mass of compound in this sample not greater then 3x the applicable field blank concentration or 3x the field blank detection limit
# = Mass of this compound in this sample is not greater then 3x the maximum hut blank concentration or 3x the hut blank detection limit
E = Estimated, concentration in this sample is either greater then the concentration of the highest calibration standard or lower then the lowest calibration standard
FB = Field Blank
1BO = First Boating Industry Test
2BO = Second Boating Industry Test
-------
TABLE 6. BOATING INDUSTRY FIBERGLASS TARGETED VOLATILE COMPOUND ESTIMATED EMISSIONS
00
Lab Sample ID
Field Sample ID
Collection Date
Compound
1190
100,102
09/08/92
Estimated
Emissions (g/kg)
1191
270,14
09/08/92
Estimated
Emissions (g/kg)
1192
09,201
09/08/92
Estimated
Emissions (g/kg)
1215
535,107
09/17/92
Estimated
Emissions (g/kg)
1216
242,105
09/17/92
Estimated
Emissions (g/kg)
Average
Estimated
Emissions
(g/kg)
% Relative
Standard
Deviation
Estimated
Emissions
chloromethane(spcc)
1.6814 E
0.359 *
0.093 **
0.0101 **
0.0364 *
0.4359
163
vinyl chloride(ccc)
<0.0001 **E'ND
<0.001 *»E^
<0.003 ,#E^®
<0.0002 *"E^ID
<0.0002 ,#EJ®
0.0008
130
hromome thane
0.0040
<0.001 *#E'ND
<0.003 **E>ND
<0.0002 *#H®
<0.0002 **END
0.0017
98
chloroe thane
<0.0001
<0.001 **EJ®
<0.003 ""W®
<0.0002 ,,EJ®
<0.0002 **aND
0.0008
130
trichlorofluorome thane
0.0014 "
0.008 m
0.028 E
0.0090
0.0015 "
0.0095
113
1,1 -dichloroethene(ccc)
<0.0001 ''w®
<0.001 **E'NI>
<0.002 *#EJ,D
<0.0002 **E'ND
<0.0001
0.0008
130
Acetone
0.0006 ,,E
0.182 *
0.236 *
0.2448 E
0.1148 E
0.1556
65
methylene chloride
0.6590 *E
1.577
3.978 E
0.1480 E
0.1175
1.2960
124
trans-1,2-dichloroethene
<0.0000 *,E^D
<0.000 *" E,KD
<0.001 ,,END
<0.0001 **END
<0.0001 **E-ND
0.0003
130
1,1 -dichloroethane(spcc)
<0.0001 **E'ND
<0.001 E'ND
<0.003
<0.0002 tmia>
<0.0002 *»EJ
<0.0001 **EJ®
0.0007
130
trichloroethene
<0.0001 **&ND
<0.001 **EW
<0.003 ••E>ND
<0.0002
<0.0002 *4E'1®
0.0008
130
1,2-dichloropropane(ccc)
<0.0001 **E-f®
<0.001 *#EJ®
<0.003
<0.0002 **E^ID
<0.0002 ,,EJ®
0.0010
130
bromodichlorome thane
<0.0001 *'EJ
<0.0001 **E-ND
0.0007
130
cis-1,3-dichloropropene
<0.0001 "*EJiD
<0.001 *,E'ND
<0.002 ^J®
<0.0001 **EJ®
<0.0001 **E,ND
0.0007
130
toluene(ccc)
1.0677 E
0.890
11.545 E
2.2718 E
2.3914 E
3.6332
123
trans-1,3-dichloropropene
<0.0001 *#E-ND
<0.001 **W®
<0.001 *«B^®
0.0360
<0.0001 ,,E''®
0.0076
210
ND = Compound not detected
NA = Not applicable (i.e., fields blanks are not sampled and therefore have no measured volume)
* = Mass of compound in this sample not greater than 3x the applicable field blank concentration or 3x the field blank detection limit.
# = Mass of this compound in this sample is not greater than 3x the maximum hut blank concentration or 3x the hut blank detection limit.
E = Estimated,concentration in this sample is either greater than the concentration of the highest calibration standard or lower than the lowest calibration standard.
(continued)
-------
TABLE 6. BOATING INDUSTRY FIBERGLASS TARGETED VOLATILE COMPOUND ESTIMATED EMISSIONS (concluded)
vo
Lab Sample ID
Field Sample ID
Collection Date
1190
100,102
09/08/92
Estimated
Emissions (g/kg)
1191
270,14
09/08/92
Estimated
Emissions (g/kg)
1192
09,201
09/08/92
Estimated
Emissions (g/kg)
1215
535,107
09/17/92
Estimated
Emissions (g/kg)
1216
242,105
09/17/92
Estimated
Emissions (g/kg)
Average
Estimated
Emissions
(g/fcg)
% Relative
Standard
Deviation
Estimated
Emissions
1,1,2-trichloroethane
<0.0001
<0.001 *#E'1®
<0.003 **EfD
<0.0002 **E'Nr'
<0,0002 *#E*ND
0.0008
130
tetrachloroethene
<0.0001 *,EfD
<0.001 **EJ®
<0.003
<0.0002
<0.0002 *#E'f®
0.0009
130
dibromochloromethane
<0.0001
<0.001 *#E'ND
<0.003 **E'N:D
<0.0002 ,#!y®
<0.0002 •"y®
0.0009
130
chlor obenzeoe (spec)
0.0009 E
<0.002 *»E.>®
<0.004 **E^®
0.0016 E
0.0013 E
0.0020
67
ethyl benzene(ccc)
0.2340 E
0.196
2.253
0.3884 E
0.4327 E
0.7007
125
m,p-xylene
0.0563
0.023 E
1.696
0.2699 E
0.2947 E
0.4680
149
o-xylene
0.0154
<0.002 *,EJ®
<0.005 **E^ND
<0.0003 ,,EJ .
<0.003 *#EJ®
<0.008 •®iND
<0.0005 *#E'ND
<0.0005 ,ffiJ®
0.0026
130
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
<0.0002
<0.002 '* E'ND
<0.005 ,#EJ®
<0.0003 ,4EJ®
<0.0003 '"W®
0.0015
130
1,4 -Dichlorobenzene
<0.0003 ,,RNI>
<0.002 ** E,NI>
<0.006 **EJTO
1®
<0.003 **E'ND
<0.0002
<0.0002
0.0011
130
ND = Compound not detected
NA = Not applicable (i.e., fields blanks are not sampled and therefore have no measured volume)
* = mass of compound in this sample not greater than 3x the applicable field blank concentration or 3x the field blank detection limit
# = mass of this compound in this sample is not greater than 3x the maximum hut blank concentration or 3x the hut blank detection limit
E = Estimated, concentration in this sample is either greater than the concentration of the highest calibration standard or lower than the lowest calibration standard
-------
TABLE 7. BOATING INDUSTRY FIBERGLASS TESTS TENTATIVELY IDENTIFIED VOLATILE COMPOUNDS
-------
TABLE 7. BOATING INDUSTRY FIBERGLASS TENTATIVELY IDENTIFIED VOLATILE COMPOUNDS (concluded)
Test
Lab Sample Identification No.
Field Sample Identification No.
Concentration
Volume Sampled (L)
Units
Retention
Time
First
1189
59/104FB
9/8/92
NA
ng
First
1190
100/102
9/8/92
74.455
ng/L
First
1191
270/14
9/8/92
4.442
ng/L
First
1192
09/201
9/8/92
8.114
ng/L
Second
1211
223/106FB
9/17/92
NA
ng
Second
1215
535/107
9/17/92
4.532
ng/L
Second
1216
242/105
9/17/92
4.517
ng/L
Hut Blank
1221
169/42FB
9/22/92
NA
ng
Hut Blank
1222
103/352
9/22/92
17.843
ng/L
Hut Blank
1223
271/108
9/22/92
4.649
ng/L
Hut Blank
1224
365/08
9/22/92
4.414
ng/L
Alkyl Substituted Benzene
20.95
341
24
104
480
500
Benzofuran
21.13
48
Alkyl Substituted Benzene
21.62
196
16
69
340
Alkyl Substituted Benzene
21.63
280
1 -Propenylbenzene
22.05
220
1
2
3
Alkyl Substituted Benzene
22.16
321
500
400
Substituted Benzene
22.35
16
10
28
32
Diethynylbenzene
23.44
28
23
28
86
Alkyl Substituted Benzene
23.57
74
30
Substituted Benzene
24.08
68
18
38
120
110
Substituted Benzene
24.31
48
13
30
80
82
Naphthalene
24.99
481
481
396
820
700
8
13
56
Methylnaphthalene
26.89
80*
44*
67
156
2
38
Methylnaphthalene
27.18
74
¦U
00
*
66
141
120
1
21
l,l'-Bipbenyl
28.24
52*#
174*
no*
70*#
128*
30
340
4-methyl-l ,1-Biphenyl
28.39
9
3
Methyl-Biphenyl
29.0357
2
9
2-Ethenyl Naphthalene
29.16
12*
2
9
Acenaphthalene
29.60
64
34*
3
14
Methyl-1-l'-Biphenyl
29.94
18*
4
25
Alkyl Substituted Aromatic
30.32
13*
3
37
Dibenzofuran
30.54
2
13
unknown
31.63
Note: Blank spaces indicate that this tentatively identified compound was not identified in this sample.
*
#
= The amount of this analyte in this sample is not greater than 3x the maximum amount in any applicable field or hut blank sample.
= The concentration in this sample is not greater than three times the maximum hut blank concentration.
-------
TABLE 7. BOATING INDUSTRY FIBERGLASS TENTATIVELY IDENTIFIED VOLATILE COMPOUNDS (concluded)
u<
tsJ
Test
Lab Sample Identification No.
Field Sample Identification No.
Concentration
Volume Sampled (L)
Units
Retention
Time
First
1189
59/104FB
9/8/92
NA
ng
First
1190
100/102
9/8/92
74.455
ng/L
First
1191
270/14
9/8/92
4.442
ng/L
First
1192
09/201
9/8/92
8.114
ng/L
Second
1211
223/106FB
9/17/92
NA
ng
Second
1215
535/107
9/17/92
4.532
ng/L
Second
1216
242/105
9/17/92
4.517
ng/L
Hut Blank
1221
169/42FB
9/22/92
NA
ng
Hut Blank
1222
103/352
9/22/92
17.843
ng/L
Hut Blank
1223
271/108
9/22/92
4.649
ng/L
Hut Blank
1224
365/08
9/22/92
4.414
ng/L
Compound
Alkyl Substituted Benzene
20.95
341
24
104
480
500
Benzofuran
21.13
48
Alkyl Substituted Benzene
21.62
196
16
69
340
Alkyl Substituted Benzene
21.63
280
1-Propenylbenzene
22.05
220
1
2
3
Alkyl Substituted Benzene
22.16
321
5Q0
400
Substituted Benzene
22.35
16
10
28
32
Dietbynylbenzene
23.44
28
23
28
86
Alkyl Substituted Benzene
23.67
74
30
Substituted Benzene
24.08
68
18
38
120
110
Substituted Benzene
24.31
48
13
30
80
82
Naphthalene
24.99
481
481
396
820
700
8
13
56
Methylnaphthalene
26.89
80*
44*
67
156
2
38
Methylnaphthalene
27.18
74
48*
66
141
120
1
21
l.T-Biphenyl
28.24
52*#
174*
110*
70*#
128*
30
340
4-methyl-l ,1-Biphenyl
28.39
9
3
Methyl-Biphenyl
29.0367
2
9
2-Etbenyl Naphthalene
29.16
12*
2
9
Acenaphthalene
29.60
64
34*
3
14
Methyl-1 -1 '-Biphenyl
29.94
18*
4
25
Alkyl Substituted Aromatic
30.32
13*
3
37
Dibenzofuran
30.54
2
13
unknown
31.63
Note: Blank spaces indicate that this tentatively identified compound was not identified in this sample.
* = The amount of this analyte in this sample is not greater than 3x the maximum amount in any applicable field or hut blank sample.
# = The concentration in this sample is not greater than three times the maximum hut blank concentration.
-------
TABLE 8. BOATING INDUSTRY FIBERGLASS TENTATIVELY IDENTIFIED VOLATILE
COMPOUNDS, ESTIMATED EMISSIONS (mg/kg)
Test
Lab Sample Identification No.
Field Sample Identification No.
Date Sample Collected
Compound
First
1190
100/102
9/8/92
First
1191
270/14
9/8/92
First
1192
09/201
9/8/92
Second
1215
535/107
9/17/92
Second
1216
242/105
9/17/92
1-Propene
42.3
121.8
581.9
19.7
60.4
Chlorodifluoromethane
175.7
2-Butene
10.5
97.0
1-Butyne
32.1
266.7
35.6
36.8
l-Buten-3-yne
54.9
73.7
800.0
81.2
81.7
1,3-butadiyne
6.4
97.0
Diene or Alkyne
31.2
Furan
21.6
266.7
58.2
13.9
Pentadiene
4.1
Cyclodiene or Alkyne
70.1
266.3
2666.8
167.3
89.9
Cyclopentene
4.1
12.6
2-Butanone
25.5
Methylcyclopentadiene or
Cyclohexadiene
11.1
18.4
15.5
Cyclodiene or Triene
14.3
8.4
Ethynylbenzene
473.9
909.5
8267.2
794.9
661.7
Styrene
760.7
3405.6
15988.9
1255.0
1225.3
Alkyl Substituted Benzene
23.4
230.3
26.8
Alkyl Substituted Benzene
34.5
45.3
484.9
61.3
1 -Methylethenylbenzene
251.7
561.0
5067.0
384.9
392.1
Substituted Benzene, no 105,
strong 118
581.9
122.5
Substituted Benzene, 105,106
also present
56.1
117.1
Alkyl Substituted Benzene
99.6
68.0
1260.7
200.8
204.2
Benzofuran
136.0
Note: Values are reported only for compounds identified as present in respective samples.
* = The amount of this analyte in this sample is not greater than 3x the maximum amount in any applicable filed or hut blank sample.
# = The concentration in this sample is not greater than three times the maximum hut blank concentration.
(continued)
53
-------
TABLE 8. BOATING INDUSTRY FIBERGLASS TENTATIVELY IDENTIFIED VOLATILE
COMPOUNDS, ESTIMATED EMISSIONS (mg/kg) (concluded)
Test
Lab Sample Identification No.
Field Sample Identification No.
Date Sample Collected
Compound
First
1190
100/102
9/8/92
First
1191
270/14
9/8/92
First
1192
09/201
9/8/92
Second
1215
535/107
9/17/92
Second
1216
242/105
9/17/92
Alkyl Substituted Benzene
57.2
45.3
836.4
138.9
Alkyl Substituted Benzene
117.1
1 -Propenylbenzene
623.3
Alkyl Substituted Benzene
93.7
209.2
163.4
Substituted Benzene
4.7
121.2
11.7
13.1
Diethynylbenzene
8.2
278.8
11.7
35.1
Alkyl Substituted Benzene
31.0
12.3
Substituted Benzene
19.9
51.0
460.6
50.2
44.9
Substituted Benzene
14.0
36.8
363.7
33.5
33.5
Naphthalene
140.5
1362.8
4800.3
343.0
285.9
Methylnaphthalene
23.4*
124.7
812.2
65.3
Methylnaphthalene
21.6
136.0
800.0
59.0
49.0
l,l'-Biphenyl
15.2*#
493.0
1333.4*
29.3*#
52.3*
4-methyl-l ,1 -Biphenyl
109.1
2-Ethenylnaphthalene
34.0
Acenaphthalene
181.3
13.9*
Methyl-1 -1' -Biphenyl
51.0
Alkyl Substituted Aromatic
36.8
Dibenzofuran
Note: Values are reported only for compounds identified as present in respective samples.
* = The amount of this analyte in this sample is not greater than 3x the maximum amount in any applicable filed or hut blank sample.
# = The concentration in this sample is not greater than three times the maximum hut blank concentration.
54
-------
TABLE 9. HUT AIR CONCENTRATIONS AND BLANK AMOUNTS OF BUILDING INDUSTRY TARGETED VOLATILES,
YOST TRAIN
U\
Test:
FB
1BU
FB
2BU
2BU
2BU
FB
3BU
CBFB
CB
CB
Lab Sample No.
Held Sample No.
Date Sampled
Volume Sampled (1)
Units
1378
108/242 FB
10/13/92
NA
ng
1379
107/356
10/13/92
9.84
ng/1
1372
535/42 FB
10/30/92
NA
ng
1390
344/64
10/30/92
1.702
ng/1
1393
169/08
10/30/92
1.226
ng/1
1391
271/06
10/30/92
2.197
ng/1
1377
201/56 FB
11/04/92
NA
ng
1392
131/72
11/4/92
4.798
ng/1
1376
134/09 CB
FB
11/11/92
NA
ng
1385
133/34 CB
11/11/93
13.862
ng/1
1384
138/06 CB
11/11/92
6.126
ng
MDL
(ng)
Sample
Average
ng/1
Combustion
Blank
Average
ng/1
Compound
Chlororaethane
620
32**
ND
934®
ND**®
513E
ND
96*
27
9
272
4.0
315.6
26.6
Vinyl chloride
ND
ND'ffi
ND
ND**®
ND**®
nd",#e
ND
ND*#E
ND
ND*E
ND
2.0
0.9
0.2
Bromomethane
29
257®
ND
3193®
4414®
194
ND
337e
ND
3e
71
2.3
1679.1
7.4
Chi or oe thane
ND
ND'ffi
ND
ND**®
ND**®
ND*#E
ND
ND##e
ND
ND*e
ND
1.9
0.8
0.2
Trichlorofluoromethane
25
ND"®
76
ND**®
ND**®
154
ND
6#E
27
7
120
1.1
32.3
13.1
1,1 -Dichloroethene
ND
nd*4®
ND
ND**®
ND**®
ND***
ND
nd*#e
ND
ND*e
ND
1.8
0.8
0.2
Acetone
100
121e
80
600®
343
30*
41
95
46
4*
47
6.8
237.7
6.1
Methylenechloride
549
28**
310
109**
362*
479e
125
16**
99
16*
321
2.1
198.8
34.3
Trans-1,2-dichloroethene
ND
ND**6
ND
ND**®
ND**®
ND**b
ND
ND*ffi
ND
ND*e
ND
0.8
0.3
0.1
1,1 -Dichloroe thane
ND
ND**®
ND
ND**®
ND**®
ND**3
ND
ND*ffi
ND
nd"^
ND
1.9
0.8
0.2
Chloroform
ND
ND*™
ND
ND**®
45
35
ND
ND**5
ND
7
ND
1.6
16.2
3 A
1,1,1 -Trichloroe thane
ND
ND™
ND
ND**®
ND**®
ND**E
ND
NDt#E
ND
nd*e
ND
1.1
0.5
0.1
Carbontetrachloride
ND
ND**®
ND
ND**®
ND**®
ND*ffi
ND
ND***
ND
nd*e
ND
1.5
0.7
0.2
Benzene
404
2364®
ND
17100®
25761®
1154
ND
3795e
27
ND*®
27
2.3
10034.9
2.2
1,2-Dichloroe thane
ND
ND**®
ND
ND**®
ND**®
ND*ffi
ND
ND*ffi
ND
nd*e
ND
1.7
0.7
0.2
Trichloroe thene
ND
ND**®
ND
ND**®
ND**®
ND*ffi
ND
ND*ffi
ND
nd*e
ND
1.9
0.8
0.2
1,2-Dichloropropane
ND
ND**®
ND
ND**®
ND**®
nd",#e
ND
NDt#E
ND
nd*e
ND
2.4
1.0
0.3
Note: Averages calculated including nondetects at the detection limit
* = Mass of compound in this sample not greater than 3x the applicable field blank concentration or 3x the field blank detection limit
# = Mass of this compound in this sample is not greater than 3x the maximum hut blank concentration or 3x the hut blank detection limit.
E = Estimated, concentration in this sample is either greater than the concentration of the highest calibration standard or lower than the lowest calibration standard.
FB = Field Blank
CB = Combustion Blank
1BU = First Building Industry
2BU = Second Building Industry
3BU = Third Building Industry
(continued)
-------
TABLE 9. HUT AIR CONCENTRATIONS OF BUILDING INDUSTRY TARGETED VOLATILES,
VOST TRAIN (concluded)
0\
Test:
FB
1BU
FB
2BU
2BU
2BU
FB
3BU
CBFB
CB
CB
Lab Sample No.
Field Sample No,
Date Sampled
Volume Sampled (1)
Units
1378
108/242 FB
10/13/92
NA
ng
1379
107/356
10/13/92
9.84
ng/1
1372
535/42 FB
10/30/92
NA
ng
1390
344/64
10/30/92
1.702
ng/1
1393
169/08
10/30/92
1.226
ng/1
1391
271/06
10/30/92
2.197
ng/1
1377
201/56 FB
11/04/92
NA
ng
1392
131/72
11/4/92
4.798
ng/1
1376
134/09 CB
FB
11/11/92
NA
ng
1385
133/34 CB
11/11/93
13.862
ng/1
1384
138/06 CB
11/11/92
6.126
ng
MDL
(ng)
Sample
Average
ng/1
Combustion
Blank
Average
ng/1
Bromodichlorome thane
ND
ND*®
ND
ND**®
nd*®
nd*®
ND
ND*®
ND
nd*e
ND
1.7
0.7
0.2
Cis-1,3-dichloropropene
ND
ND*®
ND
ND*®
nd*®
ND*®
ND
ND*®
ND
nd*e
ND
1.6
0.7
0.2
Toluene
88
1120*
ND
6390e
5528e
456
45
1601e
ND
2e
28
4.1
3079.2
3.5
Trans-1,3-dichloropropene
ND
nd*®
ND
nd*#e
nd*#e
ND4®
ND
ND*®
ND
ND*15
ND
0.9
0.4
0.1
1,1,2-Trichloroe thane
ND
nd*®
ND
ND*®
ND-®
ND*®
ND
ND*®
ND
nd*e
ND
2.0
0.9
0.2
Tetrachloroethene
ND
nd*®
ND
nd*®
ND*®
ND
ND*®
ND
nd*e
ND
2.1
0.9
0.2
Dibromochlorome thane
ND
ND*®
ND
ND*®
nd*®
ND*®
ND
ND*®
ND
nd*e
ND
2.2
1.0
0.3
Chlorobenzene
ND
nd*®
ND
ND*®
nd*®
ND*®
ND
ND*®
ND
nd*e
ND
3.2
1.4
04
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroe thane
ND
nd*®
ND
ND*®
nd*®
ND*®
ND
ND*®
ND
nd*e
ND
2
0.9
0.2
Ethylbenzene
34
nd*®
ND
3693e
1952
464
ND
1729e
ND
nd*e
ND
2.9
1567.6
0.3
M,p*xylene
ND
1200e
ND
5512e
764
36
42
1748e
ND
nd"®
ND
7.1
1851.9
0.8
O-xylene
ND
nd*®
ND
ND'®
34E
10s
ND
ND"®
ND
nd*e
ND
3.5
9.5
04
Styrene
251
125IE
ND
5812E
8536e
1287
ND
ND*®
ND
2E
32
4.1
33774
3.87-20
Bromoform
ND
ND*®
ND
ND*®
26e
ND*®
ND
ND*®
ND
nde
ND
2.2
5.9
0.3
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
ND
ND**3
ND
ND*®
ND*®
ND*®
ND
ND*®
ND
nd*e
ND
6.1
2.6
0.7
1,3-Dichlorobenzene
ND
nd*®
ND
nd*#e
ND*®
ND*®
ND
ND*®
ND
nd*e
ND
2.6
1.1
0.3
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
ND
ND*®
ND
nd*®
ND**®
ND*®
ND
ND*®
ND
nd*e
ND
4.3
1.9
0.5
1,2-Dichlofobenzene
ND
ND*®
ND
nd*#e
ND*®
ND*®
ND
ND*®
ND
nd*e
ND
3.5 .
1.5
0.4
* = Mass of compound in this sample not greater than 3x the applicable field blank concentration or 3x the field blank detection limit
# = Mass of this compound in this sample is not greater than 3x the maximum hut blank concentration or 3x the hut blank detection limit
E = Estimated, concentration in this sample is either greater than the concentration of the highest calibration standard or lower than the lowest calibration standard
FB = Field Blank
CB = Combustion Blank
1BU = First Building Industry
2BU = Second Building Industry
3BU = Third Building Industry
-------
TABLE 10. ESTIMATED EMISSIONS OF BUILDING INDUSTRY TARGETED VOLATILES,
VOST TRAIN
Lab Sample No.
Field Sample No.
Date Sampled
Units
Compound
1379
107/356
10/13/92
(g/kg)
1390
344/64
10/30/92
(g/kg)
1393
169/08
10/30/92
(g/kg)
1391
271/06
10/30/92
(g/kg)
1392
131/72
11/4/92
(g/kg)
Chloromethane
0.0623*#
0.2412®
<0.0009*#ND
1.5824e
0.2183*
Vinyl chloride
<0.0004*#nd
<0.0003*#nd
<0.0004*#nd
0.0028*#nd
<0.0009*#ND
Bromomethane
0.5025e
0.8248e
1.1728e
0.5996
0.7632e
Chloroethane
<0.0004*#nd
<0.0003*#nd
<0.0004*#nd
0.0027*#nd
<0.0009*#nd
Trichlorofluoromethane
<0.0002*#nd
<0.0002*#nd
<0.0002*#nd
0.4756
0.0128#e
1,1 -Dichloroethene
<0.0004*#nd
<0.0003*#ND
<0.0004*#nd
0.0025*#nd
<0.0008*#nd
Acetone
0.2357e
o.isso6
0.0911
0.0923*
0.2158
Methylenechloride
0.0542*#
0.0282*#
0.0961*
1.4802E
0.0368*#
Trans-1,2-dichloroethene
<0.0002*#ND
<0.0001*#ND
<0.0002*#nd
0.0011*#ND
<0.0004*#nd
1,1 -Dichloroethane
<0.0004*#nd
<0.0003*#ND
<0.0004*#nd
0.0027*#ND
<0.0009*#nd
Chloroform
<0.0003*#ND
<0.0002*#ND
0.0119
0.1074
<0.0008*#nd
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
<0.0002*#ND
<0.0002*#ND
<0.0002*#ND
0.0015*#ND
<0.0005*#nd
Carbontetrachloride
<0.0003*#ND
<0.0002*#nd
<0.0003*#nd
0.0021*#nd
<0.0007*#nd
Benzene
4.6245e
4.41 67e
6.8457e
3.5631
8.5862e
1,2-Dichloroethane
<0.0003*#ND
<0.0003*#ND
<0.0004*#nd
0.0024*#nd
<0.0008*#nd
Trichloroethene
<0.0004*#ND
<0.0003*#ND
<0.0004*#nd
0.0027*#nd
<0.0009*#ND
1,2-Dichloropropane
<0.0005*#nd
<0.0004,#nd
<0.0005*#nd
0.0034*#nd
<0.0011*#ND
Bromodichloromethane
<0.0003*#nd
<0.0003*#ND
<0.0004*#nd
0.0024*#nd
<0.0008*#nd
Cis-1,3-dichloropropene
<0.0003*#ND
<0.0002*#nd
<0.0003*#nd
0.0022*#nd
<0.0008*#nd
Toluene
2.1911E
1.6506e
1.4690e
1.4091
3.6225e
Trans-1,3 -dichloropropene
<0.0002*#ND
-------
TABLE 10. ESTIMATED EMISSIONS OF BUILDING INDUSTRY TARGETED VOLATILES,
YOST TRAIN (concluded)
Lab Sample No.
Field Sample No.
Date Sampled
Units
Compound
1379
107/356
10/13/92
(g/kg)
1390
344/64
10/30/92
(g/kg)
1393
169/08
10/30/92
(g/kg)
1391
271/06
10/30/92
(g/kg)
1392
131/72
11/4/92
(g/kg)
Chlorobenzene
<0.0006*#nd
<0.0005*#nd
<0.0007*#nd
0.0045*#ND
<0.0015*#nd
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane
<0.0004*#nd
<0.0003*#nd
<0.0004*#nd
0.0028*#nd
<0.0009*#nd
Ethyl Benzene
<0.0006*#ND
0.9539®
0.5186
1.4323
3.91 13e
M,p-xylene
2.3474e
1.4236E
0.2030
0.1102
3.9552e
O-xylene
<0.0007*#nd
<0.0005*#nd
0.0091E
0.03 14e
<0.0017*#nd
Styrene
2.4460e
1.5012e
2.2684E
3.9739
<0.0019*#nd
Bromoform
<0.0004*#nd
<0.0003*#nd
0.0070PEe
0.003 f#ND
<0.0010*#nd
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
<0.0012*#nd
<0.0009*#ND
<0.0013*#nd
0.0086*#ND
<0.0029*#nd
1,3 -Dichlorobenzene
<0.0005*#ND
<0.0004*#NI>
<0.0006*#nd
0.0037*#nd
<0.0012*#nd
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
<0.0009*#ND
<0.0007*#nd
<0.0009*#nd
0.0060*#nd
<0.0020*#nd
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
<0.0007*#ND
<0.0005*#ND
<0.0008*#nd
0.0049*#nd
<0.0017*#nd
ND = Compound not detected
* = Mass of compound in this sample not greater than 3x the applicable field blank concentration or 3x the field blank detection limit.
# = Mass of this compound in this sample is not greater than 3x the applicable field blank concentration or 3x the field blank detection limit.
E = Estimated, concentration in this sample is either greater than the concentration of the highest calibration standard or lower than the
lowest calibration standard.
+ = The reader is reminded that for these compounds the information in Table 3-11 is more reliable.
< = Less than instrument detection limits
58
-------
TABLE 11. BUILDING INDUSTRY VOLATILE TARGETED COMPOUNDS, TEDLAR BAG ANALYSIS
Compound
Air Concentration (ng/L)
Sample
Average Air
Concentration
(ng/L)
Estimated Emissions (g/kg)
10/30/92
Second
Building
Industry
TB-1
11/4/92, Third Building Industry
11/11/92, Combustion Blank
10/30/92
Second
Building
Industry
TB-1
11/4/92, Third Building
Industry
Sample
Average
Third Building
Industry
TB-4
TB-3
TB-4
TB-5 FB
TB-6 CB
TB-7 CB
TB-8 CB FB
TB-3
TB-4
Benzene
38728
44609
48839
ND
ND
ND
ND
44059
33.9
35.8
34.9
34.8
Toluene
8010
29535
32610
ND
ND
ND
ND
23385
7.0
23.7
23.3
18.0
Ethyl Benzene
2381
15566
18699
ND
ND
ND
ND
12215
2.1
12.5
13.3
9.3
m,p,-Xylene
1195
1677
1333
ND
ND
ND
ND
1402
1.0
1.3
1.0
1.1
Styrene
20242
71218
102621
ND
ND
ND
ND
64694
64694
17.7
73.3
49.4
Note: No footnotes are given in this table since all sample concentrations are greater then 3 times any blank concentration and all sample volumes were controlled to ensure that all listed analytes
were on the calibration curve. The partial quantitation limit for all analytes in the samples was 1000 ng/L and for all analytes in the blanks (of which a larger volume was analyzed) 20 ng/L.
VO ND = Compound not detected
* = Mass of compound in this sample not greater than 3x the applicable field blank concentration or 3x the field blank detection limit.
# = Mass of this compound in this sample is not greater than 3x the applicable field blank concentration or 3x the field blank detection limit
E = Estimated, concentration in this sample is either greater than the concentration of the highest calibration standard or lower than lowest calibration standard.
+ = The reader is reminded that for these compounds the information in Table 3-11 is more reliable.
-------
TABLE 12. BUILDING INDUSTRY FIBERGLASS TENTATIVELY IDENTIFIED VOLATILE COMPOUNDS
Test
Lab Sample Identification No.
Field Sample Identification No.
Date Collected
First
1378
242/108
10/13/92
First
1379 107/356
10/13/92
Second
1372
535/42
10/30/92
Second
1391
271/06
10/30/92
Second
1393
169/08
10/30/92
Second
1390
344/64
10/30/92
Third
1377
201/56
11/04/92
Third
1386
130/102
11/04/92
Third
1392
131/72
11/04/92
Combustion
Blank
1384
138/06
11/11/92
Combustion
Blank
1385
133/34
11/11/92
Units
Retention
Time
Amount
ng
Air
Concentration
ng/L
Amount
ng
Air Concentration
ng/L
Amount
ng
Air Concentration
ng/L
Compound
Propene or cyclopropane
4.38
627
3308
Propene or cyclopropane
4.32
339
2027
951
489
Chi or odifluorome thane
5.636
6.528
Ethanol or Oxybismethane
6.38
lOO*#
669.79
66.55
Alkene or Cycloalkane
7.67
75
469
295
96
1,3-Butadiene
8.08
17
1353
453
213
55
l-Buten-3-yne
9.03
26
2406
693
249
73
Branched alkane
10.35
8.489
3.232
Bromoethene
10.61
286
208
108
1,3-Butadiyne
10.80
729
144
Unknown
11.862
118
Unknown
11.87
20
436
336
47
Alkene or cycloalkane
12.11
56
41
Dichlorinated unknown
12.43
84
Possibly Halogenated Unknown
12.4605
26.08
5.92
Diene or pentenyne
12.89
34
977
501
170
47
Dibromome thane
18.15
39
684
277
52
51
Ethynylbenzene
22.46
2
54
459
64
32
17
Alkyl Substituted Aromatic
23.39
9
17
25
14
17
Bromobenzene
23.78
110
226
64
39
19
The amount of this analyte in this sample is not greater than three times the maximum amount in any applicable filed or hut blank sample.
The concentration in this sample is not greater than three times the maximum hut blank concentration.
(continued)
-------
TABLE 12. BUILDING INDUSTRY FIBERGLASS TENTATIVELY IDENTIFIED VOLATILE COMPOUNDS (continued)
Test
Lab Sample Identification No.
Field Sample Identification No.
Date Collected
First
1378
242/108
10/13/92
First
1379 107/356
10/13/92
Second
1372
535/42
10/30/92
Second
1391
271/06
10/30/92
Second
1393
169/08
10/30/92
Second
1390
344/64
10/30/92
Third
1377
201/56
11/04/92
Third
1386
130/102
11/04/92
Third
1392
131/72
11/04/92
Combustion
Blank
1384
138/06
11/11/92
Combustion
Blank
1385
133/34
11/11/92
Units
Retention
Time
Amount
ag
Air
Concentration
ng/L
Amount
ng
Air Concentration
ng/L
Amount
ng
Air Concentration
ng/L
Compound
Propylbenzeoe
23.97
32
15
10
5
Alkyl Substituted Benzene
24.12
34
5
Alkyl Substituted Benzene
24.59
275
67
218
117
43
2.94
1.17
Unknown aromatic
24.66
8
Unknown aromatic
24.719
29
Unknown aromatic
24.729
82
Unknown aromatic
24.802
25
Unknown aromatic
24.82
15
11
Alkyl Substituted Benzene
24.87
61
Alkyl Substituted Benzene
25.01
43
7
34
10
5
Unknown
25.13
2.85
Unknown, probably hydrocarbon
25.189
1.53
Benzofuran
25.21
110
38
218
69
43
19
Alkyl Substituted Benzene
25.37
30
Possibly chlorinated unknown
25.50
17
Alkyl Substituted aromatic
25.60
75
61
45
30
14
Brominated, Alkyl Substituted aromatic
25.83
24
3-Butenylbenzene
25.83
36
18
12
6
Unknown aromatic
26.05
42
* = The amount of this analyte in this sample is not greater than three times the maximum amount in any applicable filed or hut blank sample.
# = The concentration in this sample is not greater than three times the maximum hut blank concentration.
(continued)
-------
TABLE 12. BUILDING INDUSTRY FIBERGLASS TENTATIVELY IDENTIFIED VOLATILE COMPOUNDS (continued)
Test
Lab Sample Identification No.
Field Sample Identification No.
Date Collected
First
1378
242/108
10/13/92
First
1379 107/356
10/13/92
Second
1372
535/42
10/30/92
Second
1391
271/06
10/30/92
Second
1393
169/08
10/30/92
Second
1390
344/64
10/30/92
Third
1377
201/56
11/04/92
Third
1386
130/102
11/04/92
Third
1392
131/72
11/04/92
Combustion
Blank
1384
138/06
11/11/92
Combustion
Blank
1385
133/34
11/11/92
Units
Retention
Time
Amount
ng
Air
Concentration
ng/L
Amount
ng
Air Concentration
ng/L
Amount
ng
Air Concentration
ng/L
Compound
Alkyl substituted aromatic or
polyaromatic
26.11
53
405
2180
1227
361
181
Unknown
26.25
4.6
Alkyl Substituted Benzene
26.25
21
38
Unknown
26.56
75
699
128
Alkyl Substituted Benzene
26.58
17
Alkyl Substituted Benzene
26.72
39
288
118
51
Unknown aromatic
26.83
21
Unknown
27.08
146
414
181
72
53
Alkyl Substituted Benzene
27.09
33
Methylbenzofuran
27.38
128
585
1504
800
328
245
Dietbenylbenzene
27.56
92
Alkyl Substituted Benzene
27.65
39
87
Unknown aromatic
27.67
164
Unknown possibly brominated aromatic
27.73
205
429
155
Unknown possibly brominated aromatic
28.09
213
286
331
Unknown aromatic
28.11
180
130
Unknown possibly brominated aromatic
28.28
128
Naphthalene
28.47
1086
512
233
188
Unknown aromatic
28.48
46
The amount of this analyte in this sample is not greater than three times the maximum amount in any applicable filed or hut blank sample.
The concentration in this sample is not greater than three times the maximum hut blank concentration.
(continued)
-------
TABLE 12. BUILDING INDUSTRY FIBERGLASS TENTATIVELY IDENTIFIED VOLATILE COMPOUNDS (concluded)
On
Test
Lab Sample Identification No.
Field Sample Identification No.
Date Collected
First
1378
242/108
10/13/92
First
1379 107/356
10/13/92
Second
1372
535/42
10/30/92
Second
1391
271/06
10/30/92
Second
1393
169/08
10/30/92
Second
1390
344/64
10/30/92
Third
1377
201/56
11/04/92
Third
1386
130/102
11/04/92
Third
1392
131/72
11/04/92
Combustion
Blank
1384
138/06
11/11/92
Combustion
Blank
1385
133/34
11/11/92
Units
Retention
Time
Amount
ng
Air
Concentration
ng/L
Amount
ng
Air Concentration
ng/L
Amount
ng
Air Concentration
ng/L
Compound
Unknown aromatic
28.62
117
Azulene
29.07
110
5848
5489
1547
656
508
25.22
15.95
Unknown probably oxygen or nitrogen
containing aromatic
29.32
75
5
Ethenylbenzofuran
29.69
167
Unknown aromatic
30.08
43
Methylnaphthalene
30.91
794
256
128
170
156
Methylnaptbalene
31.21
501
233
134
65
l.l'-Bipbenyl
32.37
104
902
118
64
Unknown substituted aromatic
33.45
286
Methylbiphenyl
34.95
241
Methylfluorene
35.61
263
*
#
= The amount of this analyte in this sample is not greater than three times the maximum amount in any applicable filed or hut blank sample.
= The concentration in this sample is not greater than three times the maximum hut blank concentration.
-------
TABLE 13. BUILDING INDUSTRY, VOLATILE TENTATIVELY IDENTIFIED COMPOUND,
ESTIMATED EMISSION
Test
Lab Sample Identification No.
Field Sample Identification No.
Date Collected
Units
Compound
First
1379
107/356
10/13/92
Estimated
Emissions
mg/kg
Second
1391
271/06
10/30/92
Estimated
Emissions
mg/kg
Second
1393
169/08
10/30/92
Estimated
Emissions
mg/kg
Second
1390
344/64
10/30/92
Estimated
Emissions
mg/kg
Third
1386
130/102
11/04/92
Estimated
Emissions
mg/kg
Third
1392
131/72
11/04/92
Estimated
Emissions
mg/kg
Propene or cyclopropane
2132.5
953.6
Propene or cyclopropane
734.7
576.8
1070.6
1225.0
Ethanol or Oxybismethane
340.1*#
Alkene or Cycloalkane
255.1
133.4
332.1
240.5
1,3-Butadiene
36.8
390.0
128.9
239.8
137.8
l-Buten-3-yne
56.3
693.6
197.2
280.3
182.9
Bromoethene
82.4
59.2
121.6
1,3-Butadiene
210.2
41.0
unknown
132.8
unknown
43.3
125.7
95.6
117.7
alkene or cycloalkane
63.0
102.7
Dichlorinated unknown
285.7
Diene or pentenyne
73.7
281.6
142.6
191.4
117.7
Dibromomethane
84.5
197.2
78.8
58.5
127.8
Ethynylbenzene
4.3
183.7
132.3
18.2
36.0
42.6
Alkyl Substituted Aromatic
19.5
57.8
7.1
15.8
42.6
Bromobenzene
238.4
65.2
18.2
43.9
47.6
Propylbenzene
69.3
4.3
11.3
12.5
Alkyl Substituted Benzene
73.7
12.5
Alkyl Substituted Benzene
596.0
227.9
62.8
33.3
107.7
unknown aromatic
27.2
unknown aromatic
8.4
unknown aromatic
92.3
unknown aromatic
7.1
unknown aromatic
16.9
27.6
Alkyl Substituted Benzene
132.2
Alkyl Substituted Benzene
93.2
23.8
9.7
11.3
12.5
* = The amount of this analyte in this sample is not greater than three times the maximum amount in any applicable filed or hut blank sample.
# = The concentration in this sample is not greater than three times the maximum hut blank concentration.
(continued)
64
-------
TABLE 13. BUILDING INDUSTRY, VOLATILE TENTATIVELY IDENTIFIED COMPOUND,
ESTIMATED EMISSION (continued)
Test
Lab Sample Identification No.
Field Sample Identification No.
Date Collected
Units
Compound
First
1379
107/356
10/13/92
Estimated
Emissions
mg/kg
Second
1391
271/06
10/30/92
Estimated
Emissions
mg/kg
Second
1393
169/08
10/30/92
Estimated
Emissions
mg/kg
Second
1390
344/64
10/30/92
Estimated
Emissions
mg/kg
Third
1386
130/102
11/04/92
Estimated
Emissions
mg/kg
Third
1392
131/72
11/04/92
Estimated
Emissions
mg/kg
Benzofuran
238.4
129.2
62.8
19.6
48.4
47.6
Alkyl Substituted Benzene
65.0
possibly chlorinated unknown
57.8
Alkyl Substituted aromatic
162.5
17.6
12.8
33.8
35.1
Brominated,alkyl substituted aromatic
6.9
3-Butenylbenzene
78.0
5.1
13.5
15.0
Unknown aromatic
91.0
Alkyl substituted aromatic or polyaromatic
114.9
1377.5
628.4
349.1
406.4
453.4
Alkyl Substituted Benzene
45.5
95.2
unknown
255.1
201.5
36.4
Alkyl Substituted Benzene
36.8
Alkyl Substituted Benzene
84.5
81.9
132.8
127.8
unknown aromatic
45.5
unknown
496.6
119.3
51.5
81.1
132.8
Alkyl Substituted Benzene
71.5
Methylbenzofuran
277.4
1989.7
433.6
227.6
369.3
613.7
Diethenylbenzene
312.9
Alkyl Substituted Benzene
84.5
217.9
unknown aromatic
184.6
unknown possibly brominated aromatic
697.2
123.7
44.1
unknown possibly brominated aromatic
724.4
82.4
94.2
unknown aromatic
202.6
325.7
unknown possibly brominated aromatic
36.4
Naphthalene
3693.7
145.7
262.3
471.0
unknown aromatic
99.7
unknown aromatic
397.9
Azulene
238.4
19890.0
1582.4
440.2
738.5
1272.6
* = The amount of this analyte in this sample is not greater than three times the maximum amount in any applicable filed or hut blank sample.
# = The concentration in this sample is not greater than three times the maximum hut blank concentration.
(continued)
65
-------
TABLE 13. BUILDING INDUSTRY, VOLATILE TENTATIVELY IDENTIFIED COMPOUND,
ESTIMATED EMISSION (concluded)
Test
First
Second
Second
Second
Third
Third
Lab Sample Identification No.
1379
1391
1393
1390
1386
1392
Field Sample Identification No.
107/356
271/06
169/08
344/64
130/102
131/72
Date Collected
10/13/92
10/30/92
10/30/92
10/30/92
11/04/92
11/04/92
Estimated
Estimated
Estimated
Estimated
Estimated
Estimated
Emissions
Emissions
Emissions
Emissions
Emissions
Emissions
Units
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
Compound
Unknown probably heteroatom containing
255.1
12.5
aromatic
Ethenylbenzofuran
568.0
unknown aromatic
107.7
Methylnaphthalene
2700.5
73.8
36.4
191.4
390.8
Methylnaphthalene
1704.0
67.2
150.9
162.8
l,l'-Biphenyl
353.7
260.0
132.8
160.3
unknown substituted aromatic
82.4
Methylbiphenyl
69.5
Methylfluorene
75.8
* = The amount of this analyte in this sample is not greater than three times the maximum amount in any applicable filed or hut blank sample.
# = The concentration in this sample is not greater than three times the maximum hut blank concentration.
66
-------
TABLE 14. BOATING INDUSTRY FIBERGLASS, TARGETED SEMIVOLATILE AND PARTICULATE BOUND COMPOUNDS
ON
<1
Sample A
(1BO)
Measured
Concentra-
tion
(Mgtai3)
Sample A
(1BO)
Estimated
Emissions
(mg/kg)
Sample B
(1BO)
Measured
Concentra-
tion (jig/m3)
Sample B
a bo)
Estimated
Emissions
(mg/kg)
Sample C
(2BO)
Measured
Concentra-
tion (ng/m3)
Sample C
(2BO)
Estimated
Emissions
(mg/kg)
Sample D
(FB)
Measured
Concentra-
tion
(Mg/m3)
Average
Measured
Concentra-
tion
(Ug/m3)
Average
Estimated
Emissions
(mg/kg)
Relative
Standard
Deviation
Measured
Concentra-
tion
(Mg/m3)
Relative
Standard
Deviation
Estimated
Emissions
(mg/kg)
Compound
Acenaphthene
<37®.*
<19®,*
<104®'*
<314®'*
<12®*
<8®,*
2
<51
<114
93
153
Acenaphthylene
1467*
765®
127d
384d
706*
452®
3
767
533
88
38
Acetophenone
117**
61**
33**'*
99E.»,»
112*
71E
22
87
77
54
26
4-Aminobiphenyl
<374ND,*
<195nd
<104®'*
<314®'*
<118®*
<75®'*
22
<198
<195
77
61
Aniline
<374®'*
<195™*
<104®'*
<314®'*
<118®'*
<75®'*
22
<198
<195
77
61
o-Anisidme
<374'®*
<195®.*
<104®.*
<314®'*
<118®'*
<75®'*
22
<198
<195
77
61
Anthracene
5<54d
294d
96**'*
291**'*
739*
473*
38
466
353
71
29
Benzidine
<374®,*
<195®'*
<104®.*
<314®'*
<118®,*
<75®'*
22
<198
<195
77
61
Benzoic Add
384°'*
200°'*
1150°'*
3485°'*
279**
179**
90
604
1288
79
148
Benzo(a)anthracene
225d
117d
7Se
228E
265*
170s
3
188
171
53
32
Benzo(a)pyrene
120°
63d
40**
121**
115°
73d
1
92
86
49
37
Benzo(b)fluorantbene
361°
188d
94**
284**
594E
380®
4
349
284
72
34
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
24E3
13e
24**
74**
18d
UD
1
22
33
17
109
Benzo(k)fluoraDtbene
55d
28d
16**
50**
102d
65D
1
58
48
74
39
Benzyl Alcohol
38d
20°
<104®'*
<314®'*
19d
12d
2
<54
<115
82
149
Benzyl Chi wide
<374®'*
<195®'*
<104®,*
<314®.*
<118®'*
<75®'*
22
<198
<195
77
61
Biphenyl
1212d
632°
156D'*
472d'*
1506°
963d
3
958
689
74
36
4- Bromophenyl-phenyle ther
<37®,*
<19®'*
<104®.*
<314®.*
<12®*
<8®,*
2
<51
<114
93
153
(continued)
Note: See Table 4 for detailed sample identity information. Averages derived from values including one or more < values are preceded by a < sign. No < signs or footnotes have been applied to blanks.
* = Mass of this compound in this sample not greater then 3x the largest of the following;
limit, and hut blank quantitation limit
# = Sample hut air concentration not greater than 3x the hut blank air concentration
D = Compound detected, quantitative results given
< = Less than instrument detection limits
FB = Field Blank
E - Compound detected, but concentration not on calibration curve, estimated results given mass in field blank, mass in hut blank, field blank quantitation
ND = Compound not detected
A ss Compound detected in two separate analyses on two separate instruments, one on and one off
the calibration curve, the result present is an average of these two values
1BO ss First Boating Industry Test
2BO = Second Boating Industry Test
-------
TABLE 14. BOATING INDUSTRY FIBERGLASS, TARGETED SEMIVOLATILE AND PARTICULATE BOUND COMPOUNDS (continued)
Sample A
(1BO)
Measured
Concentra-
tion
(Hg/m3)
Sample A
(1BO)
Estimated
Emissions
(mg/kg)
Sample B
(1BO)
Measured
Concentra-
tion (|ig/m3)
Sample B
(1BO)
Estimated
Emissions
(mg/kg)
Sample C
(2BO)
Measured
Concentra-
tion (|4g/m3)
Sample C
(2BO)
Estimated
Emissions
(mg/kg)
Sample D
(FB)
Measured
Concentra-
tion
(Hg/m3)
Average
Measured
Concentra-
tion
(|ig/m3)
Average
Estimated
Emissions
(mg/kg)
Relative
Standard
Deviation
Measured
Concentra-
tion
(Mg/m3)
Relative
Standard
Deviation
Estimated
Emissions
(mg/kg)
Compound
Butylbenzylphthalate
<19™'*
<104™'*
<314™'*
<12™'*
<8™'*
0
<51
<114
93
153
2-Chloroacetophenone
<374ND'*
<195™'*
<104™'*
<314™'*
<118™*
<75™'*
22
<198
<195
77
61
4-Chloroaniline
<37™'*
<19™'*
<104™'*
<314™'*
<12™'*
<8™.*
2
<51
<114
93
153
bis(2-Chloroethoxy)me thane
<37®.*
<19™'*
<104™'*
<314™'*
<12™*
<8™'*
2
<51
<114
93
153
bis-(2-Chloroethyl)ether
<37®,*
<19™'*
<104™'*
<314™*
<12™'*
<8™'*
2
<51
<114
93
153
2-Chloronaphthalene
<37ND.*
<19™'*
<104™'*
<314™'*
<12™'*
<8™'*
2
<51
<114
93
153
2-Chlorophenol
<37"°*
<19™'*
<104™'*
<314™-*
<12™*
<8™'*
2
<51
<114
93
153
4-Chlorophenyl-pbenylether
<371®,*
<19™'*
<104™'*
<314™'*
<12™'*
<8™>*
2
<51
<114
93
153
4-Chloro-3-methylphenol
<37ND<
<19™*
<104™'*
<314™'*
<12™*
<8™'*
2
<51
<114
93
153
Chrysene
326°
171°
167°'*
505°'*
445d
294d
2
313
323
45
52
Cumene
60®'**
JIB,*,#
<104™'*
<314™'*
31e,.,#
20r*'#
22
<65
<122
56
137
p-Cymene
<374™'*
<195™'*
<104™*
<314™'*
<118™'*
<75™'*
22
<198
<195
77
61
Dibenzofuran
160*.*
00
34.5E'*'»
102.5*.*'*
202A
129*
12
132
105
66
22
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
34e
IjE
<£*•*
IgE,*.#
28d
18d
2
19
16
60
19
1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane
<374ND'*
<195™'*
<104™'*
<314™-*
<118™'*
<75™'*
22
<198
<195
77
61
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
<37®'*
<19™'*
<104™'*
<314™'*
<12™'*
<8™'*
2
<51
<114
93
153
1,3-Dichlorobenzene
<37ND,.
<19™'*
<104™'*
<314™'*
2
<47
<111
109
158
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
<37!®,*
<19™'*
<104™'*
<314™'*
<12™'*
<8™'*
2
<51
<114
93
153
(continued)
Note: See Table 4 for detailed sample identity information. Averages derived from values including one or more < values are preceded by a < sign. No < signs or footnotes have been applied to blanks.
E = Compound detected, but concentration not on calibration curve, estimated results given mass in field blank, mass in hut blank, field blank quantitation
ND = Compound not detected
A = Compound detected in two separate analyses on two separate instruments, one on and one off
the calibration curve, the result present is an average of these two values
1BO = First Boating Industry Test
2BO = Second Boating Industry Test
* = Mass of this compound in this sample not greater then 3x the largest of the following;
limit, and hut blank quantitation limit
# = Sample hut air concentration not greater than 3x the hut blank air concentration
D ss Compound detected, quantitative results given
< = Less than instrument detection limits
FB = Field Blank
-------
TABLE 14. BOATING INDUSTRY FIBERGLASS, TARGETED SEMIVOLATILE AND PARTICULATE BOUND COMPOUNDS (continued)
as
Sample A
(1BO)
Measured
Concentra-
tion
Oig/m3)
Sample A
(1BO)
Estimated
Emissions
(mg/kg)
Sample B
(1BO)
Measured
Concentra-
tion (pg/m3)
Sample B
(1BO)
Estimated
Emissions
(mg/kg)
Sample C
(2BO)
Measured
Concentra-
tion (Mg/m3)
Sample C
(2BO)
Estimated
Emissions
(mg/kg)
Sample D
(FB)
Measured
Concentra-
tion
(Hg/m3)
Average
Measured
Concentra-
tion
(Mg/m3)
Average
Estimated
Emissions
(mg/kg)
Relative
Standard
Deviation
Measured
Concentra-
tion
(Mg/m3)
Relative
Standard
Deviation
Estimated
Emissions
(mg/kg)
Compound
3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine
<37®'*
<19nd,*
<104®*
<314®*
<12®*
<8®*
2
<51
<114
93
153
2,3-Dichlorophenol
<374™'*
<195®*
<104®*
<314®*
<118®*
<75®'*
22
<198
<195
77
61
2,4-Dichlorophenol
<37MD,.
<19nd,.
<104®*
<314®*
<12®'*
<8®*
2
<51
<114
93
153
2,6-Dichlorophenol
<374®'*
<195®,*
<104®*
<314®'*
<118®*
<75®*
22
<198
<195
77
61
3,4-Dichloropbenol
<374®*
<195nd.*
<104®'*
<314®*
<118®'*
<75®*
22
<198
<195
77
61
3,5-Dichlorophenol
<374®*
<195®*
<104®*
<314®*
<118®'*
<75®*
22
<198
<195
77
61
N,N-Diethylamline
<374®*
<195'®.*
<104®*
<314®'*
<118®*
<75®*
22
<198
<195
77
61
Diethylphthalate
<57ND.-
<19®*
<104®*
<314®*
<12®*
<8®'*
0
<51
<114
93
153
3,3'-Din»thoxybenzidiDe
<374 ®*
<195®*
<104®*
<314®'*
<118®*
<75®*
22
<198
<195
77
61
Dimethylaminoazobenzene
<374®*
<195®*
<104®*
<314®*
<118®*
<75®*
22
<198
<195
77
61
N,N-Dimethylaniline
<374®*
<195®*
<104®*
<314®*
<118®*
<75®-*
22
<198
<195
77
61
3,3'-Dimethylbenzidine
<374ND,*
<195®*
<104®'*
<314®*
<118®'*
<75®*
22
<198
<195
77
61
2,4-Dimethylphenol
<37!®,.
<19®*
<104®*
<314®'*
<12®'*
<8®*
2
<51
<114
93
153
Dimethylphthalate
227°
118d
46®-*
138E'*
75D
48d
1
116
101
84
46
2,4-Dinitrophenol
<37ND
<19®*
<104®
<314®
<12®
<8®
2
<51
<114
93
153
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
<37®*
<19®
<104®*
<314®*
<12®*
<8®*
2
<51
<114
93
153
2,6-Dinitrotoluene
<37ND,«
<19®*
<104®*
<314®*
<12®*
<8®*
2
<51
<114
93
153
4,6-Dinitro-2-methylphenol
<37®*
<19®*
<104®*
<314®*
<12®'*
<8®*
2
<51
<114
93
153
(continued)
Note: See Table 4 for detailed sample identity information. Averages derived from values including one or more < values are preceded by a < sign. No < signs or footnotes have been applied to blanks.
* = Mass of this compound in this sample not greater then 3x the largest of the following; E = Compound detected, but concentration not on calibration curve, estimated results given mass in field blank, mass in hut blank, field blank quantitation
limit, and hut blank quantitation limit ND = Compound not detected
# « Sample hut air concentration not greater than 3x the hut blank air concentration A = Compound detected in two separate analyses on two separate instruments, one on and one off
D = Confound detected, quantitative results given the calibration curve, the result present is an average of these two values
< as Less than instrument detection limits 1BO * First Boating Industry Test
FB = Field Blank 2BO = Second Boating Industry Test
-------
TABLE 14. BOATING INDUSTRY FIBERGLASS, TARGETED SEMIVOLATILE AND PARTICULATE BOUND COMPOUNDS (continued)
o
o
Sample A
(1BO)
Measured
Concentra-
tion
(ligta3)
Sample A
(1BO)
Estimated
Emissions
(mg/kg)
Sample B
(1BO)
Measured
Concentra-
tion (|ig/m3)
Sample B
(1BO)
Estimated
Emissions
(rag/kg)
Sample C
(2BO)
Measured
Concentra-
tion (ng/m3)
Sample C
(2BO)
Estimated
Emissions
(mg/kg)
Sample D
(FB)
Measured
Concentra-
tion
((Jg/m3)
Average
Measured
Concentra-
tion
(Mg/m3)
Average
Estimated
Emissions
(mg/kg)
Relative
Standard
Deviation
Measured
Concentra-
tion
(Hg/m3)
Relative
Standard
Deviation
Estimated
Emissions
(mg/kg)
Compound
Di-n-butylphthalate
<37nd,»
<19®*
IgB,*.#
55e,.,#
<12nd,.,#
9
<22
<27
60
90
Di-n-octylphthalate
<37nd,*
<19nd,*
<104®*
<314®,*
<12mv
<8®*
2
<51
<114
93
153
bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate
j,e,M
42b.m
129^*'*
<221®*'*
<142®*'*
478
<105
<99
96
64
Fluoranthene
609e
317e
108n*
326n*
467e
298E
9
394
314
66
4
Fluorene
783e
408e
125D'*
4
00
894e
572E
11
601
453
69
23
Hexachlorobenzene
<37ND,.
<19®*
<104nd-*
<3141®.*
<12®*
<8®*
2
<51
<114
93
153
Hexachlorobutadieoe
<37ND,.
<19®*
<104®*
<314®'*
<12®*
<8®*
2
<51
<114
93
153
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
<37®*
<19®*
<104®*
<314ND,*
<12®*
<8®*
2
<51
<114
93
153
Hexachl oroe thane
<37ND,'
<19nd,*
<104ND'*
<314nd,.
<12®*
<8®*
2
<51
<114
93
153
Hydroquinone
<374®'*
<195®*
<104®*
<314ND,'
<118®*
*75®*
22
<198
<195
77
61
Indeno(l ,2,3-cd)pyrene
46d
24d
lO6'*
SI**
43d
28°
0
33
28
60
13
Isophorone
<37"®'*
<19nd,*
<104®*
<314®'*
<12®*
<8®*
2
<51
<114
93
153
Methylenebis-chloroaniline
<374®'*
<195®*
<104"®'*
<314®'
<118®'*
*75®*
22
<198
<195
77
61
4,^-Methylene dianiline
<374®**
<195MD,'
<104®*
<314ND,*
<118®'*
*75®*
22
<198
<195
77
61
2-Methylnaphthalene
194d
101D
25e'*
75a*
143d
91d
0
121
89
72
15
2-Methylphenol
63d
33d
<104®.*
<314®'*
43d
28d
2
70
125
44
131
3/4-Methylphenol
<374®*
<195™"'*
<104®*
<314®'*
27e'*'*
17h,*.»
22
<168
<175
109
85
4-Methylphenol
61°
32d
<104"°'*
<314WV
34D
22°
0
<66
<123
53
135
(continued)
Note: See Table 4 for detailed sample identity information. Averages derived from values including one or more < values are preceded by a < sign. No < signs or footnotes have been applied to blanks.
* = Mass of this compound in this sample not greater then 3x the largest of the following; E = Compound detected, but concentration not on calibration curve, estimated results given mass in field blank, mass in hut blank, field blank quantitation
limit, and hut blank quantitation limit ND = Compound not detected
# = Sample hut air concentration not greater than 3x the hut blank air concentration A = Compound detected in two separate analyses on two separate instruments, one on and one off
D = Compound detected, quantitative results given the calibration curve, the result present is an average of these two values
< = Less than instrument detection limits 1BO = First Boating Industry Test
FB = Field Blank 2BO = Second Boating Industry Test
-------
TABLE 14. BOATING INDUSTRY FIBERGLASS, TARGETED SEMIVOLATILE AND PARTICULATE BOUND COMPOUNDS (continued)
Sample A
(1BO)
Measured
Concentra-
tion
(Hg/m3)
Sample A
(1BO)
Estimated
Emissions
(mg/kg)
Sample B
(1BO)
Measured
Concentra-
tion (ng/m3)
Sample B
(1BO)
Estimated
Emissions
(mg/kg)
Sample C
(2BO)
Measured
Concentra-
tion (|4g/m3)
Sample C
(2BO)
Estimated
Emissions
(mg/kg)
Sample D
(FB)
Measured
Concentra-
tion
(|ig/m3)
Average
Measured
Concentra-
tion
(Mg/m3)
Average
Estimated
Emissions
(mg/kg)
Relative
Standard
Deviation
Measured
Concentra-
tion
(|igfrn3)
Relative
Standard
Deviation
Estimated
Emissions
(mg/kg)
Compound
Naphthalene
4295°
2240°
432D'*
1309d'*
3422E
2189E
7
2716
1913
75
27
2-Nitroaniline
<37ND,'
<19nd,.
<104™'*
<314™'*
<12™'*
<8™'*
2
<51
<114
93
153
3-Nitroaniline
<37NDi*
<19™*
<104™'*
<314™*
<12™'*
<8™**
2
<51
<114
93
153
4-Nitroaniline
<37!®,«
<19nd,.
<104ND'*
<314™'*
<12™'*
<8™'*
2
<51
<114
93
153
Nitrobenzene
<37*®'*
<104®'*
<314™'*
<12™'*
<8™'*
2
<51
<114
93
153
n-Nitrosodime thylamine
<374™'*
<195™**
<104nd,*
<314™'*
<118™'*
<75™'*
22
<198
<195
77
61
N-Nitrosodiphenylamine
<37™'*
<19nd.'
<104™'*
<314™'*
<12™'*
<8™**
2
<51
<114
93
153
n-Nitrosomorpholine
<374™'*
<195™'*
<104™'*
<314™'*
<118™'*
<75™'*
22
<198
<195
77
61
N-Nitroso-di-n-propylamine
<37 ™'*
<19nd,.
<104!®.*
<314™'*
<12™**
<8™'*
2
<51
<114
93
153
2,2'-oxybis( 1-Chloropropane)
<37®*
<19™'*
<104™'*
<314™'*
<12™'*
<8™'*
2
<51
<114
93
153
Pentachloronitrobenzene
<374™.*
<195™*
<104™'*
<314™'*
<118™'*
<75™'*
22
<198
<195
77
61
Pentachlorophenol
<37ND'*
<19NDi*
<104ND'*
OH1®'
<12nd*
<8m'
2
<51
<114
93
153
Pentamethylbenzene
<374®'*
<195nd*
<104nd*
<118™'
<75ND'*
22
<198
<195
77
61
Phenanthrene
177^
922e
336°'*
1018°'*
1198e
766e
101
1101
902
66
14
Phenol
467°
244d
101E'*
307e*
675d
432d
1
415
328
70
29
(continued)
Note: See Table 4 for detailed sample identity information. Averages derived from values including one or more < values are preceded by a < sign. No < signs or footnotes have been applied to blanks.
* = Mass of this compound in this sample not greater then 3x the largest of the following;
limit, and hut blank quantitation limit
# = Sample hut air concentration not greater than 3x the hut blank air concentration
D « Compound detected, quantitative results given
< = Less than instrument detection limits
FB = Field Blank
E = Compound detected, but concentration not on calibration curve, estimated results given mass in field Wank, mass in hut blank, field blank quantitation
ND « Compound not detected
A » Compound detected in two separate analyses on two separate instruments, one on and one off
the calibration curve, the result present is an average of these two values
1BO = First Boating Industry Test
2BO » Second Boating Industry Test
-------
TABLE 14. BOATING INDUSTRY FIBERGLASS, TARGETED SEMIVOLATILE AND PARTICULATE BOUND COMPOUNDS (concluded)
-j
to
Sample A
(1BO)
Measured
Concentra-
tion
(^g/m3)
Sample A
(1BO)
Estimated
Emissions
(mg/kg)
Sample B
(1BO)
Measured
Concentra-
tion (|jg/m3)
Sample B
(1BO)
Estimated
Emissions
(mg/kg)
Sample C
(2BO)
Measured
Concentra-
tion (|jg/m3)
Sample C
(2BO)
Estimated
Emissions
(mg/kg)
Sample D
(FB)
Measured
Concentra-
tion
(Mg/m3)
Average
Measured
Concentra-
tion
(Mg/m3)
Average
Estimated
Emissions
(mg/kg)
Relative
Standard
Deviation
Measured
Concentra-
tion
(Hg/m3)
Relative
Standard
Deviation
Estimated
Emissions
(mg/kg)
Compound
1,4-Phenylenediamine
<374™'*
<195*®*
<104®*
<314®*
<118®*
<75®'*
22
<198
<195
77
61
a-Pinene
<374®'*
<195ND,»
<104®*
<314®*
<118®'*
<75®'*
22
<198
<195
77
61
b-Pinene
374E|*
195e*
<104®*
<314®.*
<118®*
<75®'*
22
<198
<195
77
61
Pyrene
<197®*
<103ND'*
120°*
365D'*
195°
125°
4
<171
<197
26
74
a-Terpineol
<374™'*
<195™'*
<104®*
<314®'*
<118®*
<75®-*
22
<198
<195
77
61
o-Toluidine
<374™'*
195™'*
<104®*
<314®*
<118®*
<75®'*
22
<198
<195
77
61
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
<37™'*
<19®*
<104®*
<314®*
<12®'*
<8®.
2
<51
<114
93
153
2,4,5-Trichlor ophenol
<37ND'*
<19ND'*
<104®*
<314®*
<12®'*
<8®'*
2
<51
<114
93
153
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
<37ND,'
<19™'*
<104®'*
<314®*
<12®*
<8®,*
2
<51
<114
93
153
a,a,a-Trichlorotoluene
<374™'*
<195®*
<104®'*
<314®*
<118®*
<75®'*
22
<198
<195
77
61
Trifluralin
<374®*
<195®*
<104®*
<314®*
<118®*
<75®'*
22
<198
<195
77
61
1,2,4-Trimethy lbenzene
<374®*
<195ND'*
<104®*
<314®*
<118®*
<75®*
22
<198
<195
77
61
Total Particulate PAHs
1180
616
433
1312
1609
1039
15
1074
989
Note: See Table 4 for detailed sample identity information. Averages derived from values including one or more < values are preceded by a < sign. No < signs or footnotes have been applied to blanks.
* = Mass of this compound in this sample not greater then 3x the largest of the following; E = Compound detected, but concentration not on calibration curve, estimated results given mass in field blank, mass in hut blank, field blank
quantitation limit, and hut blank quantitation limit ND = Compound not detected
# = Sample hut air concentration not greater than 3x the hut blank air concentration A = Compound detected in two separate analyses on two separate instruments, one on and one off
D = Compound detected, quantitative results given the calibration curve, the result present is an average of these two values
< s= Less than instrument detection limits 1BO = First Boating Industry Test
FB - Field Blank 2BO = Second Boating Industry Test
-------
TABLE 15. BOATING INDUSTRY FIBERGLASS SEMIVOLATILE TENTATIVELY IDENTIFIED COMPOUNDS
-j
Retention
Time
(rain)
Sample A
Hut Air
Concentration
(Mg/m3)
Sample A
Estimated
Emissions
(mg/kg)
Sample B
Hut Air
Concentration
(Hg/m3)
Sample B
Estimated
Emissions
(mg/kg)
Sample C
Hut Air
Concentration
-------
TABLE 16. BUILDING INDUSTRY FIBERGLASS, TARGETED SEMIVOLATILE AND
PARTICULATE BOUND ORGANICS
Compound
Sample F
(2BU)
Measured
Concentration
Qig/m3)
Sample F
(2BU)
Estimated
Emissions
(mg/kg)
Sample G
(3BU)
Measured
Concentration
(Hg/m3)
Sample G
(3BU)
Estimated
Emissions
(mg/kg)
Sample I
(CB)
Measured
Concentration
(Mg/m3)
Average
Measured
Concentration
(Hg/m3)
Average
Estimated
Emissions
(mg/kg)
Acenaphthene
<64nd*
<51ND*
<244nd*
<200nd*
<6nd
<154
<125
Acenaphthylene
1012°
804d
807°
661d
28d
910
733
Acetophenone
257e
205e
449°
368d
4e
353
286
4-Aminobiphenyl
<636nd*
<505nd*
<244ND,.
<200nd*
<6nd
<440
<353
Aniline
<636nd*
<505nd*
<244nd*
<200nd*
<6nd
<440
<353
o-Anisidine
<636nd
<505nd
<244nd*
<200nd*
<6nd
<440
<353
Anthracene
285d
227d
216e
177e
5e
251
202
Benzidine
<636nd
<505nd
<244nd*
<200nd*
<6nd
<440
<353
Benzoic Acid
490d
389d
1433d
1174d
6
961
781
Benzo(a)anthracene
286°
227D
245d
201d
lE
265
214
Beuzo(a)pyrene
98d
78°
80e
65e
lE
89
72
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
640d
508d
<332nd*
<272nd*
2e
<486
<390
Benzo(gJi,i)perylene
4Se
35e
<244ND'*
<200nd*
<6nd
<145
<118
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
<64ND*
<51nd*
<244nd*
<200nd*
<6nd
<154
<125
Benzyl Alcohol
<397nd
<315nd
<1324nd
<1085nd
<6nd
<861
<700
Benzyl Chloride
<636ND*
<505nd*
<244nd*
<200nd*
<6nd
<440
<353
Biphenyl
3234d
2570°
1589d
1302d
55d
2412
1936
bis-(2-Chloroethyl)ether
<636nd
<505nd
<244™.*
<200nd*
<6nd
<440
<353
4-Bromophenyl-phenylether
<64nd*
<51nd*
<244nd*
<200nd*
<6nd
<154
<125
Butylbenzylphthalate
53e
42e
257°
211d
lE
155
126
Di-n-butylphthalate
3711E
29e
23e*
19e*
4e
30
24
2-Chloroacetophenone
<64nd*
<51nd*
<244nd*
<200nd*
<6nd
<440
<353
4-Chloroaniline
<64nd*
<51ND*
<244nd-*
<200nd*
<6nd
<154
<125
bis(2-Chloroethoxy)methane
<64nd*
<51nd.
<244nd*
<200nd*
<6nd
<154
<125
bis(2-Chloroethyl)ether
<64nd*
<51nd*
<244nd*
<200nd*
<6nd
<154
<125
Note: See Table 4 for detailed sample identity information. Averages derived from one or more < values are preceded by a < sign.
* = Mass of this compound in this sample is not greater then 3x the largest of the following values: field blank mass, field blank quantitation limit, hut blank mass and hut blank quantitation
limit
# = Sample concentration in hut air is not greater than 3x the hut blank air concentration
D = Compound detected in this sample, quantitative results given
E = Compound detected in this sample, but concentration not on calibration curve, estimated results given
A = Compound analyzed on two separate instruments, given result is an average of one D and one E result
ND = Compound not detected
< = Less than instrument detection limits
2BU = Second Building Industry Test
3BU = Third Building Industry Test
(continued)
74
-------
TABLE 16. BUILDING INDUSTRY FIBERGLASS, TARGETED SEMIVOLATILE AND
PARTICULATE BOUND ORGANICS (continued)
Compound
Sample F
(2BU)
Measured
Concentration
(Hg/m3)
Sample F
(2BU)
Estimated
Emissions
(mg/kg)
Sample G
(3BU)
Measured
Concentration
(Mg/m3)
Sample G
(3BU)
Estimated
Emissions
(mg/kg)
Sample I
(CB)
Measured
Concentration
(Hg/m3)
Average
Measured
Concentration
(Hg/m3)
Average
Estimated
Emissions
(mg/kg)
bis(2-Chloroisopropyl)ether
<64™*
<51™*
<244nd'*
<200™*
<6™
<154
<125
2-Chloronaphthalene
<64™'*
<51nd*
<244nd*
<200™*
<6™
<154
<125
2-Chlorophenol
<64™*
<51™*
<244nd*
<200™*
<6™
<154
<125
4-Chlorophenyl-phenylether
<64™*
<51ND*
<244nd*
<200™*
<6™
<154
<125
4-Chloro-3-methylphenol
<64™*
<51nd*
<244nd*
<200™*
<6™
<154
<125
Chrysene
664d
528d
474°
389°
<6™
569
458
Cumene
112e
89e
504°
413d
<6™
308
251
Dibenzofuran
1525°
1212d
827°
677D
69°
1176
945
Dibenz(aji)anthracene
50e
39e
<244™.*
<200™*
<6™
<147
<120
1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane
<636nd
<505nd
<244®.*
<200ND*
<6™
<440
<353
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
<64™*
<51™*
<244nd*
<200™*
<6™
<154
<125
1,3-Dichlorobenzene
<64™*
<51 nd*
<244™.*
<200™*
<6™
<154
<125
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
<64™*
<51™*
<244ND*
<200™*
<6™
<154
<125
3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine
<64™*
<51™*
<244ND'*
<200™*
<6nd
<154
<125
2,4-Dichlorophenol
<64™*
<51nd*
<244ND,»
<200™*
<6™
<154
<125
Diethylphthalate
<64ND *
<51nd*
<244nd*
<200™*
2E
<154
<125
3,3' -Dimethoxybenzidine
<636nd
<505nd
<244ND'*
<200™*
<6™
<440
<353
Dimethylaminoazobenzene
<636™'*
<505nd*
<244™.*
<200™*
<6™
<440
<353
N,N-Dimethylaniline
<636™*
<505nd*
<244™*
<200™*
<6™
<440
<353
3,3'-Dimethylbenzidine
<636™*
<505nd*
<244™'*
<200™*
<6™
<440
<353
2,4-Di methy lphenol
<64™*
<5Xnd*
<244™-*
<200™*
<6™
<154
<125
Dimethylphthalate
<64ND*
<51nd*
<244™.*
<200™*
<6™
<154
<125
2,4-Dinitrophenol
<64™
<51^
<244™
<200™
<6™
<154
<125
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
<64™*
<51nd*
<244™*
<200™*
<6™
<154
<125
2,6-Dinitrotoluene
<64™*
<51nd*
<244™*
<200ND*
<6™
<154
<125
Note: See Table 4 for detailed sample identity information. Averages derived from one or more < values are preceded by a < sign.
* = Mass of this compound in this sample is not greater then 3x the largest of the following values: field blank mass, field blank quantitation limit, hut blank mass and hut blank quantitation
limit
# = Sample concentration in hut air is not greater than 3x the hut blank air concentration
D = Compound detected in this sample, quantitative results given
E = Compound detected in this sample, but concentration not on calibration curve, estimated results given
A = Compound analyzed on two separate instruments, given result is an average of one D and one E result
ND - Compound not detected
< - Less than instrument detection limits
2BU = Second Building Industry Test
3BU = Third Building Industry Test
(continued)
75
-------
TABLE 16. BUILDING INDUSTRY FIBERGLASS, TARGETED SEMIVOLATILE AND
PARTICULATE BOUND ORGANICS (continued)
Compound
Sample F
(2BU)
Measured
Concentration
(jig/m3)
Sample F
(2BU)
Estimated
Emissions
(mg/kg)
Sample G
(3BU)
Measured
Concentration
(Hg/m3)
Sample G
(3BU)
Estimated
Emissions
(mg/kg)
Sample I
(CB)
Measured
Concentration
(jig/m3)
Average
Measured
Concentration
(Hg/m3)
Average
Estimated
Emissions
(mg/kg)
4,6-Dinitro-2-methylphenol
<64nd*
<51nd*
<244™*
<200™*
<6™
<154
<125
Di- n-buty lphthalate
<64™*
<51™*
<244™*
<200™*
2E
<154
<125
Di-n-octylphthalate
<64™'*,#
<51nd«,#
<244™.*
<200™*
40d
<154
<125
bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate
87e,-,#
70e,«,#
60e.*,#
50e.*.#
19°
73
60
Fluoranthene
1166e
926e
564°
462d
3e
865
694
Fluorene
706d
561°
313d
256d
21d
509
409
Hexachlorobenzene
<64™-*
<51™*
<244nd*
<200nd*
<6™
<154
<125
Hexachlorobutadiene
<64™*
<51™*
<244nd*
<200™*
<6™
<154
<125
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
<64nd
<51nd
<244nd
<200^D
<6™
<154
<125
Hexachloroethane
<64™*
<51™*
<244nd*
<200™*
<6™
<154
<125
Hydroquinone
<636nd
<505nd
<244™.*
<200™*
<6™
<440
<353
Indeno(l ,2,3-cd)pyrene
76°
61°
<38nd*
<31™.*
<6™
<57
<46
Isophorone
<64™*
<51™*
<244™.*
<200™*
<6™
<154
<125
Methylenebis-chloroaniline
<636nd
<505nd
<244™.*
<200™*
<6™
<440
<353
4,4'-Methylenedianiline
<636™
<505™
<244™-*
<200™*
<6™
<440
<353
2-Methylnaphthalene
<328™
<261nd
943d
772°
5e
636
516
2-Methylphenol
258°
205d
726d
595°
4e
492
400
3/4-Methylphenol
3447°
2739D
883d
723d
11D
2165
1731
N,N-Diethylaniline
<636™*
<505™*
<244™.*
<200™*
<6nd
<440
353
Naphthalene
11163e
8871e
3610d
2958°
19d
7386
5915
2-Nitroaniline
<64™.*
<51ND*
<244™*
<200™*
<6™
<154
<125
3-Nitroaniline
<64™*
<51™*
<244™*
<200™*
<6™
<154
<125
4-Nitroaniline
<64ND*
<51™*
<244ND.*
<200™*
<6™
<154
<125
Nitrobenzene
<64™*
<51™'*
<244™*
<200™*
<6™
<154
<125
4-Nitrobiphenyl
<636nd
<505nd
<244™.*
<200™*
<6™
<440
<353
Note: See Table 4 for detailed sample identity information. Averages derived from one or more < values are preceded by a < sign.
* = Mass of this compound in this sample is not greater then 3x the largest of the following values: field blank mass, field blank quantitation limit, hut blank mass and hut blank quantitation
limit
# = Sample concentration in hut air is not greater than 3x the hut blank air concentration
D = Compound detected in this sample, quantitative results given
E = Compound detected in this sample, but concentration not on calibration curve, estimated results given
A = Compound analyzed on two separate instruments, given result is an average of one D and one E result
ND = Compound not detected
< = Less than instrument detection limits
2BU = Second Building Industry Test
3BU = Third Building Industry Test
(continued)
76
-------
TABLE 16. BUILDING INDUSTRY FIBERGLASS, TARGETED SEMIVOLATILE AND
PARTICULATE BOUND ORGANICS (concluded)
Compound
Sample F
(2BU)
Measured
Concentration
(Mg/m3)
Sample F
(2BU)
Estimated
Emissions
(mg/kg)
Sample G
(3BU)
Measured
Concentration
(Hg/m3)
Sample G
(3BU)
Estimated
Emissions
(mg/kg)
Sample I
(CB)
Measured
Concentration
(Hg/m3)
Average
Measured
Concentration
(Hg/m3)
Average
Estimated
Emissions
(mg/kg)
2-Nitrophenol
<64™*
<51™*
<244™*
<200ND*
<6ND
<154
<125
4-Nitrophenol
<64™
<51nd
<244nd
<200nd
<6™
<154
<125
n-Nitrosodimethylamine
<636nd
<505nd
<244™*
<200nd*
<6ND
<440
<353
N-Nitrosodiphenylamine
<64™*
<51nd*
<244™*
<200nd*
<6™
<154
<125
n-Nitrosomorpholine
<636nd
<505nd
<244™*
<200nd-*
<6™
<440
<353
N-Nitroso-di-n-propylamine
<64™*
<51™*
<244nd*
<200™*
<6™
<154
<125
Pentachloronitrobenzene
<636nd
<505nd
<244™*
<200™*
<6™
<440
<353
Pentachlorophenol
<64™*
<51™*
<244nd
<200™
<6™
<154
<125
Phenanthrene
3352e
63e
2013d
1649°
53d
2682
2156
Phenol
4807°
3820d
12008e
9840e
58d
8407
6830
1,4-Phenylenediamine
<636nd
<505nd
<244™*
<200™*
<6™
<440
<353
Pyrene
505°
401D
<244™.*
<200™*
<6™
<374
<301
o-Toluidine
<636™*
<505™*
<244™'*
<200™*
<6™
<440
<353
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
<64®.*
<51™*
<244nd*
<200™*
<6™
<154
<125
2,4,5-Trichlorophenol
<64™'*
<51nd*
<244nd*
<200™*
<6™
<154
<125
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
<64nd *
<51™*
<244™**
<200™*
<6™
<154
<125
a,a,a-Trichlorotoluene
<636nd
<505nd
<244™.*
<200™*
<6™
<440
<353
Trifluralin
<636™
<505nd
<244ND*
<200™*
<6™
<440
<353
Total Particulate PAH
1922
1527
1902
1558
35
1912
1542
Note: See Table 4 for detailed sample identity information. Averages derived from one or more < values are preceded by a < sign.
* = Mass of this compound in this sample is not greater than 3x the largest of the following values: field blank mass, field blank quantitation limit, hut blank mass and hut blank
quantitation limit
# = Sample concentration in hut air is not greater than 3x the hut blank air concentration
D = Compound detected in this sample, quantitative results given
E = Compound detected in this sample, but concentration not on calibration curve, estimated results given
A = Compound analyzed on two separate instruments, given result is an average of one D and one E result
ND = Compound not detected
< = Less than instrument detection limits
2BU = Second Building Industry Test
3BU = Third Building Industry Test
77
-------
TABLE 17. BUILDING INDUSTRY FIBERGLASS SEMIVOLATILE AND PARTICULATE-BOUND TENTATIVELY
IDENTIFIED COMPOUNDS
Sample
Units
Molecular
Formula
Retention
Time
(min)
Sample F
Hut Air
Concentration
(Hg/m3)
Sample F
Estimated
Emissions
(mg/kg)
Sample G
Hut Air
Concentration
(Mg/m3)
Sample G
Estimated
Emissions
(mg/kg)
Sample I
Hut Air
Concentration
(tigta3)
Average
Hut Air
Concentration
(Hg/m3)
Average
Estimated
Emissions
(mg/kg)
Compound
Toluene
C7H8
6.37
4125
3380
2062
1690
Aliphatic Ketone
7.82
472
386
236
193
Alkyl Substituted Benzene
C8H10
8.29
2509
2056
1254
1028
Etbynyl Benzene
C8H6
8.57
1546
1266
773
633
Ethenylbenzeoe (Styrene)
C8H8
8.92
15579
12766
7790
6383
Benzaldehyde
C7H60
10.15
560
445
280
222
Alkyl Substituted Aromatic
C9H10
1046
3219
2558
1592
1304
2406
1931
Benzofuran
C8H6O
10.75
2151
1709
485
398
1318
1053
Alkyl Substituted Aromatic
C9H8
11.56
1568
1245
435
356
1001
801
Methylbenzofuran
C9H80
12.51
501
398
248*
203*
374
301
Unknown Cyclic Hydrocarbon
12.59
Polycyclic Aromatic
C10H8
13.3
1054
838
238'"
195*
646
516
Phthalic Anhydride
15.34
1258
1000
629
500
Methyl Naphthalene
CI 1H10
1545
989
786
308*
253*
649
519
Bipbenyl
C12H10
16.23
524
430
262
215
Unknown Aromatic
19.91
797
633
398
316
Polyaromatic Ketone
C13H80
20.37
947
752
473
376
Substituted Polyaromatic
21.43
1977
1571
227*
186*
1102
879
Substituted Polyaromatic
22.02
1055
838
528
419
Substituted Polyaromatic
22.13
950
755
202*
165*
576
460
Phenylnaphthalene
C16H12
22.55
8783
6978
2111
1730
5447
4354
* = Mass of this compound in this sample not greater then 3x the largest of the following mass in field blank, mass in hut blank, or the minimum TIC amount reported for the field or hut blanks.
# = Sample Hut Air Concentration not greater then 3x the hut air blank concentration or the hut air concentration corresponding to the minimum TIC amount reported.
(continued)
-------
TABLE 17. BUILDING INDUSTRY FIBERGLASS SEMIVOLATILE AND PARTICULATE-BOUND TENTATIVELY
IDENTIFIED COMPOUNDS (concluded)
-o
VO
Sample
Units
Molecular
Formula
Retention
Time
(min)
Sample F
Hut Air
Concentration
(jig/m3)
Sample F
Estimated
Emissions
(mg/kg)
Sample G
Hut Air
Concentration
(Hg/m3)
Sample G
Estimated
Emissions
(mg/kg)
Sample I
Hut Air
Concentration
(jig/m3)
Average
Hut Air
Concentration
(Hg/m3)
Average
Estimated
Emissions
(mg/kg)
Compound
Unknown Folyaromatic
23.51
1137
903
546
448
842
675
Phenylmethyl Naphthalene
C17H14
23.6
2064
1640
672
550
1368
1095
Alkyl Substituted Phenol
24
9491
7541
5370
4400
7430
5970
Unknown Polyaromatic
24.72
1761
1399
881
700
Hexanedioic Acid Ester
25.62
6601
5245
809*#
663**
614
3705
2954
Unknown Polyaroraatic
25.79
857
681
428
340
Hydrocarbon
26.8
34
Unknown
27.77
472
387
236
194
Minimum TIC Amount Reported
34
*
#
= Mass of this compound in this sample not greater then 3x the largest of the following mass in field blank, mass in hut blank, or the minimum TIC amount reported for the field or hut blanks.
= Sample Hut Air Concentration not greater then 3x the hut air blank concentration or the hut air concentration corresponding to the minimum TIC amount reported.
-------
TABLE 18. COMPARISON OF PAH-ESTIMATED EMISSIONS AND
AIR CONCENTRATIONS BY TWO METHODS
Test
Date
Continuous Analyzer
PAH Estimated
Emissions (g/kg)
Method 8270 PAH
Estimated Emissions
(g/kg)
Continuous Analyzer
PAH Concentration
ftig/m3)
Method 8270 PAH
Concentration
(tig/m3)
First Boating Industry
9/8/92
1.48
0.964
2086
806.5
Second Boating Industry
9/17/92
0.85
1.609
996
1609
Hut Blank
9/22/92
NA
NA
19
15
Fitst Building Industry
10/13/92
0.97
NAV
793
NAV
Second Building
Industry
10/30/92
0.58
1.527
585
1922
Third Building Industry
11/4/92
0.59
1.558
548
1902
Combustion Blank
11/11/92
NA
NA
19
35
NA = Not applicable
NAV = Not available
80
-------
TABLE 19. METALS, AIR CONCENTRATIONS
Date
Sampled
Test
Conditions
Silver
Hut Air
Concen-
tration
(Mg/m3)
Aluminum
Hut Air
Concen-
tration
(Mg/m3)
Arsenic
Hut Air
Concen-
tration
(Mg/m3)
Barium
Hut Air
Concen-
tration
(Hg/m3)
Cadmium
Hut Air
Concen-
tration
(Mg/m3)
Chromium
Hut Air
Concen-
tration
(Mg/m3)
Copper
Hut Air
Concen-
tration
(Mg/m3)
Magnesium
Hut Air
Concen-
tration
(Mg/m3)
Lead
Hut Air
Concen-
tration
(Mg/m3)
Selenium
Hut Air
Concen-
tration
(Mg/m3)
Zinc Hut
air
Concen-
tration
(Mg/m3)
9/8/92
First Boating Industry
10.6
10.1*
<1.3*
<2.5*
0.2*
3.8*
0.5*
<2.5*
50.4
<1.3*
1.3*
9/17/92
Second Boating Industry
11.1
11.7*
<1.5*
<2.9*
0.7
1.2*
0.6*
<2.9*
93.8
<1.5*
1.8*
9/22/92
Hut Blank
3.0
10.1
<1.3
<2.5
<0.1
5.0
<0.5
<2.5
<1.3
<1.3
1.8
Boating Industry Average
10.9
10.9
1.4
2.7
0.4
2.5
0.5
2.7
72.1
1.4
1.5
10/13/92
First Building Industry
30.7*
51.2*
14.1*
<12.8*
<0.6*
20.5
<2.6*
<12.8*
<6.4*
<6.4*
2.6*
10/30/92
Second Building Industry
14.6*
80.8*
48.5
<16.2*
<0.8*
14.6*
<3.2*
<16.2*
<8.1*
<8.1*
11.3*
11/4/92
Third Building Industry
7.6*
21.6*
14.6
<5.4*
<0.3*
6.5*
<1.1*
5.4*
<2.7*
<2.7*
5.4*
11/11/92
Combustion Blank
4.5
19.8
<2.5
<5.0
<0.2
2.5
<1.0
<5.0
<2.5
<2.5
20
Building Industry Average
17.6
51.2
25.7
11.5
0.6
13.8
2.3
11.5
5.7
5.7
6.4
00
1—1 * = Mass of this compound in this sample not greater then 3x the largest of the following mass in field blank, mass in hut blank, or the minimum TIC amount reported for the field or hut blanks.
< = Below instrumental detection limits
-------
TABLE 20. METALS ESTIMATED EMISSIONS
Date
Sampled
Test
Conditions
Silver
Estimated
Emissions
(mg/kg)
Aluminum
Estimated
Emissions
(mg/kg)
Arsenic
Estimated
Emissions
(mg/kg)
Barium
Estimated
Emissions
(mg/kg)
Cadmium
Estimated
Emissions
(mg/kg)
Chromium
Estimated
Emissions
(mg/kg)
Copper
Estimated
Emissions
(mg/kg)
Magnesium
Estimated
Emissions
(mg/kg)
Lead
Estimated
Emissions
(mg/kg)
Selenium
Estimated
Emissions
(mg/kg)
Zinc
Estimated
Emissions
(mg/kg)
9/8/92
First Boating Industry
4.41
4.20*'*
<0.52**
<1.058**
0.06*'*
1.57*'*
0.21**
<1.05*'*
21.00
<0.52*'*
0.52*'*
9/17/92
Second Boating Industry
4.60
4.84*'*
<0.6*'*
<1.21**
0.29
0.48*'*
0.24**
<1.21*'*
38.72
<0.61*'*
0.73*'*
Boating Industry Average
4.50
4.52
0.56
1.13
0.18
1.03
0.23
1.13
29.86
0.56
0.63
10/13/92
First Building Industry
13.38*
22.30*'*
6.13*
<5.58*'*
<0.28*'*
8.92
<1.12*'*
<5.58*'*
<2.79*'*
<2.79*'*
1.12*'*
10/30/92
Second Building Industry
14.45*
80.25*
48.15
<16.05*
<0.80*
14.45*
<3.21*
<16.05*
<8.03*
<8.03*
11.24*
11/4/92
Third Building Industry
6.76*'*
19.33**
13.05
<4.83*'*
<0.24*'*
5.80*'*
<0.97*'*
4.83*'*
<2.42*'*
<2.42*'*
4.83*'*
Building Industry Average
11.53
40.63
22.44
8.82
0.44
9.72
1.76
8.82
4.41
4.41
5.73
* = Mass of this compound in this sample not greater then 3x the largest of the following mass in field blank, mass in hut blank, or the minimum TIC amount reported for the field or hut blanks.
# = Sample Hut Air Concentration not greater then 3x the hut air blank concentration or the hut air concentration corresponding to the minimum TIC amount reported.
< = Below instrumental detection limits.
00
N>
-------
TABLE 21. VAPOR PHASE HC1 ESTIMATED EMISSIONS
Sample No.
Date
Sampled
Test
Conditions
Air
Concentration
(mg HCl/m3)
HC1 Estimated
Emissions
(mg/kg)
2
9/8/92
First Boating Industry
0.071*
40.64*,#
3
9/17/92
Second Boating Industry
0.097*
64.64*,#
4
9/22/92
Hut Blank
0.141
N/A
5
10/13/92
First Building Industry
0.227*
191.87*,#
6
10/30/92
Second Building Industry
0.294*
243.05*,#
7
11/4/92
Third Building Industry
0.300*
258.57*,#
8
11/11/92
Combustion Blank
0.181
N/A
* = Amount in sample not greater then 3x the largest of the following; applicable hut or combustion blank amount or reagent blank amount.
# = Air concentration not greater then 3x the air concentration in the applicable hut or combustion blank.
N/A = Not applicable, estimated emissions are not calculable for blanks since they would be the quotient of two blank values.
-------
TABLE 22. FIBROUS AEROSOL MEASUREMENTS
Sample
No.
Test Date
Test
PCM
Length
>5 um
S/mm2
ATEM
length >.5
<5.0 um
S/mm2
ATEM
Length
> 5 um
S/mm2
PCM
Length
> 5 um
S/cm3
ATEM
length >.5
<5.0 um
S/cm3
ATEM
Length
>5 um
S/cm3
PCM Length
>5 um
Estimated
Emissions
(million S/kg)
length >.5
<5.0 um
Estimated
Emissions
million S/kg
Length > 5
um
Estimated
Emissions
million S/kg
7
9/17/92
Second Boating
Industry
20.38
<5
<5
1.45
0.36*
0.36*
1710
490*,#
420*,#
8
9/17/92
Second Boating
Industry
12.74
<5
<5
3.90*
1.53*
1.53*
4846*
1902*,#
1902*,#
10
9/17/92
Field Blank
6.369
<13.157
<13.157
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
11
9/17/92
Second Boating
Industry
8.92
NFD
NFD
3.98*
NFD*
NFD*
504*
NFD*,#
NFD*,#
12
9/22/92
Hut Blank
2.55
<13.157
<13.157
0.16
0.81
0.81
N/A
N/A
N/A
16
10/13/92
First Building Industry
6.369
<1.32
<1.32
1.05*
0.22*
0.22*
1904*
395*
395*
17
10/13/92
First Building Industry
6.369
<1.32
1.32
0.74*
0.15*
0.15*
432*
89*,#
89*,#
19
10/30/92
Second Building
Industry
2.548
<1.32
<1.32
0.24*
0.13*
0.13*
231*,#
120*,#
120*,#
21
11/4/92
Field Blank
<1.247
<1.32
<1.32
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
24
11/11/92
Combustion BLANK
2.548
<1.32
<1.32
0.14
0.07
0.07
N/A
N/A
N/A
NFD = No fibers detected, detection limit cannot be stated accurately due to loading problems
S = Structures (fibers), defined as visible particles with more then a 3:1 aspect ratio
PCM = Phase contrast microscopy
ATEM = Analytical transmission electron microscopy
N/A = Not applicable S/cm3 is not defined for field blanks (0 volume) also million S/kg is not defined for field, hut or combustion blanks
* = Number of observed fibers not greater then 3x larger of the applicable field and hut blank values
# = Air concentration of observed fibers not more then 3x larger then the applicable hut or combustion blank value
< = Less than instrument detection limits
-------
APPENDIX A
QUALITY CONTROL EVALUATION REPORT
This task was conducted under the guidance of an EPA-approved Quality Assurance Project
Plan. This plan was used to establish data quality objectives suitable for this study. The quality
control measures employed during this study were used to ensure that the data collected would be
suitable to identify, and quantify air emissions resulting from the simulated open burning of fiberglass
material.
Table A-l presents the data quality indicator (DQI) summaries for accuracy, precision, and
completeness achieved during testing along with the planned DQI goals for each respective
measurement or analysis performed. In general, the intended DQI goals were achieved. In several
instances, however, targeted DQI goals were not achieved or could not be measured from the available
data.
Included in Table A-l are the DQI summaries for the continuous emission monitoring systems.
The data quality indicators demonstrate that the systems performed well within project goals for
accuracy precision and completeness. However, as table A-2 indicates, the NO analyzer was not
operable during one boating industry test and the NO and THC analyzers did not always meet our
strict linearity criteria. However, since the deviations from linearity were generally quite small (see
notes to Table A-2), and the accuracy and precision Data Quality Indicators were quite good, we
believe that high quality data was obtained from the continuous emission monitors.
A-l
-------
Tables A-l and A-3 include DQI summaries for volatile organic compound characterizations.
The VOST tube pairs used to collect volatile organics were spiked with deuterated benzene before
sampling to assess method performance. The D6-benzene recovery values are presented in Table A-3
for each pair of tubes collected along with averages for various groups of tube pairs. D6-benzene
recovery values are generally good for the field, hut, and combustion blanks and mixed for the actual
boating and building industry fiberglass combustion samples. Results from samples in which a very
poor d6-benzene recovery value was obtained (less than 5 percent) were judged to be invalid and
omitted from the data presented in the body of the report. These low recoveries may truly be low
recoveries, which could have been caused by the high concentrations of volatile species in the samples,
leading to sorbent breakthrough. An alternate explanation of these low recovery values is that the
extremely high concentrations of unlabeled benzene collected masked the collating d6-benzene in the
GC-MS analysis. This alternate explanation might also account for the fact that recoveries of d4-l,2-
dichloroethane, which also elutes near unlabeled benzene, were quite low while recoveries of other
surrogates such as dg-toluene and 4-bromofluorobenzene were quite good. Since the d4-l,2-
dichloroethane was spiked at the time of analysis and not before sampling, breakthrough would not
explain why it had low recoveries only in actual samples. Attempts were made to alleviate this
recovery problem during testing by minimizing the volume sampled and by using an alternate Tedlar®
bag sampling method. The Tedlar® bag method allows the analyst to control the portion of the sample
introduced into the GC/MS instrument for any given analysis. Thus, the problem of an overloaded
benzene peak was avoided (note the excellent recoveries of d4-l,2-dichloroethane in the Tedlar® bag
samples).
Tables A-l and A-4 present data quality indicators for semivolatile and particulate bound
organic compound analyses. d14-Terphenyl was spiked onto the XAD-2® prior to sampling. The
other surrogates were spiked prior to extraction. These data quality indicators are in many cases well
within acceptable ranges. Many of the samples, however, required dilution after extraction and before
A-2
-------
analysis due to the presence of excessive levels of analytes. In these cases (as described more fully in
note 9, Table A-l) the concentration of the prespiked surrogates can be diluted so far that their
quantification becomes problematic. Poor recoveries of d4-l,4-Dibromobenzene in samples A, C, and
F may be attributable to the coelution of a very large napthalene peak.
The identification of nontargeted volatile, semivolatile, and particulate-bound organic
compounds collected during the combustion of fiberglass relied primarily on mass spectral information.
Acquired spectra were compared to spectra contained in a computer database associated with the
GC/MS system using a probability-based spectral matching program. The quality of the resulting
match was evaluated manually by an experienced mass spectrometrist, coupled with manual spectra
interpretation and other information such as; likelihood of presence, retention time, and compound
boiling point, led to the assignment of a tentative identification. Low resolution mass spectrometry
has inherent limitations when applied to the identification of unknowns from spectral information.
While it is often possible to determine the molecular formula of organic unknowns, determining
functional substitution groups and specific isomers often proves difficult. Similarly, the relatively low
ionization potential of alkanes coupled with electron ionization (EI) makes determination of molecular
ions difficult. Therefore, many of the compounds tentatively identified in this study are unable to be
presented further than the molecular formula and organic class. Project resources limited further
confirmatory analyses.
The metals analyses were performed by a contracted commercial laboratory (IEA). The
QA/QC measures described in the respective referenced procedures were adhered to and achieved.
Because many of the targeted metals were found at less than detectable levels, emission factors were
also presented as less than levels based on method detection levels.
Hut, combustion, field, and laboratory blanks were performed routinely for many of the
measurements performed during this study. The results of the field and laboratory blank analyses are
described in the respective data presentation section of this report. The test data have not been
A-3
-------
corrected for the blank values. Data has however been footnoted in instances where analyte levels in
blank samples were sufficient to cause concern about the validity of the values reported. Where
possible, the blank values have been presented along with the actual test data.
In summary, the QA project objectives set forth have been adequately met in most cases and
the data collected from this study are sufficient to meet project objectives.
A-4
-------
TABLE A-l. DATA QUALITY OBJECTIVES FOR CRITICAL MEASUREMENTS
Measurement
Objective
Accuracy
(% Bias)
Objective
Precision
(% RSD)
Objective
Recovery
(%)
Objective
Completeness
Achieved
Accuracy
(% Bias)11
Achieved
Precision
(% RSD)
Achieved
Recovery
(%)
Achieved
Completeness
(%>
o2
15
10
N/A
70
1.557
0.35
N/A
100
co2
»
«
2.76
0.683
N/A
100
CO
••
»
»
1.97
0.841
N/A
100
THC
•'
«
5.52
4.51
N/A
100
NO
"
"
»
4.26
3.822
N/A
85
Gas sample volume
2
N/A
100
NM
NM
N/A
*4
Temperature
2
N/A
100
NM
NM
N/A
100
Weight displacement
15
15
100
18.8
NM
N/A
100
Sampling for semivolatile and particulate bound organics
N/A
N/A
70
NM
NM
N/A
1405
Sampling for metals
N/A
N/A
«
NM
NM
N/A
116s
Sampling for Volatile Organics
N/A
N/A
¦'
NM
NM
N/A
122s
Sampling fca- Hydrogen Chloride
N/A
N/A
»
NM
NM
N/A
140s
Fiber sampling
N/A
N/A
70
NM
NM
N/A
1665
Sample of semi-volatile and particulate bound organics for
biological analyses
N/A
N/A
100
N/A
NM
N/A
100
Volatile organic analysis
50
25
50-150
70
NM
NM
*6
*8
Semi-volatile particulate bound organic analysis
50
25
50-150
70
27.810
10.710
917
1009
Metals analysis
20
15
80-120
70
NM
NM
NM
1165
HC1 analysis
20
15
60-140
70
NM
NM
NM
140s
Fiber analysis
N/A
20
N/A
70
N/A
NM
N/A
1665
(continued)
NM = Not measured, Data was not available to determine the value of this DQO
N/A = Not applicable
-------
TABLE A-l. DATA QUALITY OBJECTIVES (continued)
Footnotes: 1. Reported value is the average of precisions for two different gases
2. The reported value is the precision for the 20 ppm gas, used as a QC gas on 4
occasions. A 49.4 ppm QC gas was used on 2 occasions and gave a relative
percent difference of 7.8%. A 10 ppm QC gas was also used on 2 occasions and
gave a relative percent difference of 6%.
3. The reported value is the precision for the 1.56% QC gas, used on 6 occasions.
A 1.03% QC gas was used on 2 occasions, and gave a relative percent difference
of 0.93%.
4. Completeness for gas sample volume was 100% for semi volatile train, fiber train,
metal train and VOST train
5. Values greater than 100% due to corrective action or additional tests added to
matrix after establishment of DQOs.
6. See table A-3
7. See table A-4
8. Acceptable recoveries were achieved for 83% of the number of samples originally
planned to be collected and 53% of the total sample collected
9. This figure reflects the percentage of samples that meet DQOs when the DQOs
were measurable. At dilutions of 1/10 or greater, the concentration of surrogate
compounds nears the quantification limit and thus can only be estimated. As can
be seen from Table A-4, DQO estimates in those cases generally did not fall
within acceptable limits. However, we believe that this is an artifact of the
dilution. In other words, we believe that it is a function of the method of
measuring recovery, not the actual recovery.
10. Based on Laboratory Control Spikes (performed by spiking known mixtures of
compounds of interest on to XAD-2 prior to analysis) of XAD-2 conducted in
conjunction with this project. These spikes were prepared by the analytical
laboratory as part of their QA/QC program.
11. Accuracy values based on analysis of QC check gas at the conclusion of each test
period.
A-6
-------
TABLE A-2. CONTINUOUS EMISSION MONITOR CALIBRATIONS
Test Date
Test Conditions
Beckman 755
o2
Beckman 868
CO
Thermoelectron
Model 10 NO
Scott 415
Total Hydrocarbon
Beckman 868
C02
9/8/92
First Boating Industry
P/P
P/P
N.O.
P/P
P/P
9/17/92
Second Boating Industry
P/P
P/P
F/P1
F/P2
P/P
9/22/92
Hut Blank
P/P
P/P
P/P
P/P
P/P
10/13/92
First Building Industry
P/P
P/P
P/P
F/P3
P/P
10/30/92
Second Building Industry
P/P
P/P
P/P
P/P
P/P
11/4/92
Third Building Industry
P/P
P/P
P/P
F/P4
P/P
11/11/92
Combustion Blank
P/P
P/P
F/P5
F/P6
P/P
Legend:
P = Pass
F = Fail
N.O. = Instrument not operable
Format:
Before test/After test
Criteria:
Before test, 2% of instrument full scale on midrange gas (linearity check)
After test, 15% of actual concentration value (QC check)
Key to Footnotes:
1 = Instrument was reading 7% to 11% high of actual value
2 = Before test instrument read 4% of full scale low on one of two midrange gases and 1% of full scale low on the other
3 = Before test instrument read 3.4% low of full scale on one of two midrange gases and 0.5% of Full scale low on the other
4 = Before test, instrument read 2.3% low of full scale on one of two midrange gases and 0.4% low of full scale on the other
5 = Before test, instrument read 2.4% low of full scale on midrange gas
6 = Before test, instrument read 2.6% low of full scale on one of two midrange gases and 1.4% low of full scale on the other
-------
TABLE A-3. VOLATILE SURROGATE COMPOUND RECOVERIES (continued)
Sampling Date, Test
Tube Set or Bag
Volume
Measured (1)
Recovery of
Bromochloromethane
Recovery of
d4-1,2-dichloroethane
Recovery of
d6-Benzene
Recovery of
d8-toluene
Recovery of
4-bromofluorobenzene
9/8/92, First Boating
100/102
4.990
NA
15
39
83
120
9/8/92, First Boating
201/09
9.097
NA
13
37
79
106
9/8/92, First Boating
59/104 FB
NA
NA
132
120
123
82
9/8/92, First Boating
270/14
4.992
NA
41
79
81
99
9/17/92, Second Boating
535/107
5.000
NA
20
19
70
143
9/17/92, Second Boating
242/105
4.996
NA
16
13
51
125
9/17/92, Second Boating
223/106 FB
NA
NA
109
107
102
63
9/17/92, Second Boating
356/50
18.379
NA
73
0
79
118
9/22/92, Boating Hut Blank
271/108 HB
5.107
NA
97
105
98
115
9/22/92, Boating Hut Blank
103/352 HB
20.002
NA
91
106
88
106
9/22/92, Boating Hut Blank
169/42 FB HB
NA
NA
88
99
81
101
9/22/92, Boating Hut Blank
365/08 HB
5.003
NA
97
106
90
102
10/13/92, First Building
223/106
4.994
106
38
0
26
104
10/13/92, First Building
242/108 FB
NA
61
53
86
88
87
10/13/92, First Building
365/104
2.492
310
34
0
31
85
10/13/92, First Building
107/356
10.903
89
0
32
38
103
10/30/92 Second Building
169/08
1.330
115
0
23
57
99
10/30/92 Second Building
271/06
2.394
115
84
81
87
93
10/30/92 Second Building
535/42 FB
NA
108
113
106
102
101
10/30/92 Second Building
344/64
1.875
112
0
25
29
88
11/4/92 Third Building
201/56 FB
NA
56
61
0
104
103
FB = Field Blank
HB = Hut Blank
CB = Combustion Blank
Ave = Average
(continued)
-------
TABLE A-3. VOLATILE SURROGATE COMPOUND RECOVERIES (continued)
Sampling Date, Test
Tube Set or Bag
Volume
Measured (1)
Recovery of
Bromochloromethane
Recovery of
d4-1,2-dichloroethane
Recovery of
d6-Benzene
Recovery of
d8-toluene
Recovery of
4-bromofluorobenzene
11/4/92 Third Building
130/201
3.050
81
15
8
32
92
11/4/92 Third Building
131/72
5.313
57
5
88
47
94
11/11/92, Combustion
Blank
138/06 CB
6.625
112
120
106
107
110
11/11/92, Combustion
Blank
134/09 CB FB
NA
61
59
92
95
95
11/11/92, Combustion
Blank
133/34 CB
15.008
111
99
94
89
91
Lab Blank
136/30
NA
112
121
99
108
109
10/30/92 Second Building
TB-1
11.81
106
98
NA
102
88
10/30/92 Second Building
TB-2
14.53
102
100
NA
94
87
11/4/92 Third Building
TB-3
20.32
102
100
NA
94
87
11/4/92 Third Building
TB-4
20.80
106
100
NA
110
83
11/4/92 Third Building
TB-5 FB
NA
105
101
NA
103
87
11/11/92, Combustion
Blank
TB-6 CB
23.69
101
101
NA
102
92
11/11/92, Combustion
Blank
TB-7 CB
19.64
99
102
NA
106
92
11/11/92, Combustion
Blank
TB-8 CB FB
NA
100
100
NA
100
99
Average, Boating Industry, VOST, Actual Samples
NA
29.7
31.2
73.8
118.5
Average, Boating Industry, VOST, Actual Samples Whose Data
Was Reported
NA
21.
37.4
72.8
118.6
Average, Boating Industry, VOST, Field Blanks
NA
109.7
108.7
102.0
82.0
FB = Field Blank
HB = Hut Blank
CB = Combustion Blank
Ave = Average
(continued)
-------
TABLE A-3. VOLATILE SURROGATE COMPOUND RECOVERIES (concluded)
Sampling Date, Test
Tube Set or Bag
Volume
Measured (1)
Recovery of
Bromochloromethane
Recovery of
d4-1,2-dichloroethane
Recovery of
d6-Benzene
Recovery of
d8-toluene
Recovery of
4-bromofluorobenzene
Average, Boating Industry, VOST, Hut Blanks
NA
95.0
105.7
92.0
107.7
Average, Building Industry, VOST, Actual Samples
123.1
22.0
32.1
43.4
94.8
Average, Building Industry, VOST, Actual Samples Whose Data
Was Reported
„ 94.8
17.3
42.8
48.3
94.8
Average, Building Industry, VOST, Field Blanks
71.5
71.5
71.0
97.3
96.5
Average, Building Industry, VOST, Combustion Blanks
111.5
109.5
100.0
98.0
100.5
Average, Building Industry, Tedlar Bags, Actual Samples
104.0
99.5
NA
100.0
86.3
Average, Building Industry, Tedlar Bags, Field Blanks
102.5
100.5
NA
101.5
93.0
Average, Building Industry, Tedlar Bags, Combustion Blanks
100.0
101.5
NA
104.0
92.0
FB = Field Blank
H = Hut Blank
CB = Combustion Blank
Avg = Average
-------
TABLE A-4. SEMI VOL ATILE/PARTICULATE-BOUND ORGANIC SAMPLES SURROGATE RECOVERIES
Sample Name
Lab
Name
Date
Sampled
Test
Conditions
First Analysis
Dilution
Analyzed
First Analysis
% Recovery of
d5-Phenol
First Analysis
% Recovery of
d4-l,4-
Dibromobenzene
First Analysis
% Recovery of
2,4,6
Tribromophenol
First Analysis
% Recovery
of
dlO-Pyrene
First Analysis
% Recovery of
dl4-Terphenyl
First Analysis
% Recovery of
d5-Nitrobenzene
TF4/XAD1
A
9/8/92
First Boating
Industry
1/5
77.4
0
89.5
66
58
41
TF5/XAD2
B
9/8/92
First Boating
Industry
1/5
75
87
86
73
67
79
TF6/XAD3
C
9/17/92
Second Boating
Industry
1/5
86
0
110
84
76
46
TF7/XAD4
D
9/22/92
Hut Blank
1/1
68
64
100
84
76
63
TF8/XAD5
E
9/22/92
Field Blank
1/1
43
36
69
87
88
32
TF14/XAD7
F
10/30/92
Second Building
Industry Test
1/10
70
NA
161
115
412
TF16/XAD8
G
11/4/92
Third Building
Industry Test
1/10
70
68
79
89
231
TF18/XAD9
H
11/4/92
Field Blank
1/1
48
54
53
74
76
TF20/XAD10
I
11/11/92
Combustion
Blank
1/1
53
54
103
96
89
(continued)
-------
TABLE A-4. SEMI VOL ATILE/PARTICULATE-BOUND ORGANIC SAMPLES SURROGATE RECOVERIES (continued)
Sample Name
Lab
Name
Date
Sampled
Test
Conditions
First Analysis
% Recovery of
2-Fluorobiphenyl
First Analysis
% Recovery of
<13-1,2,3-
Trichlorobenzene
First Analysis
% Recovery of
dlO- Anthracene
Second
Analysis
Dilution
Analyzed
Second
Analysis
% Recovery of
d5-Phenol
Second Analysis
% Recovery of
d4-l,4-
Dibromobenzene
Second Analysis
% Recovery of
2,4,6
Tribromophenol
TF4/XAD1
A
9/8/92
First Boating
Industry
83
39
93
1/50
63.8
77.5
98
TF5/XAD2
B
9/8/92
First Boating
Industry
90
75
89
1/5
90
80
94
TF6/XAD3
C
9/17/92
Second Boating
Industry
80
43
110
1/50
107
120
142
TF7/XAD4
D
9/22/92
Hut Blank
94
53
93
1/10
57
69
109
TF8/XAD5
F,
9/22/92
Field Blank
62
28
87
1/1
48
35
73
TF14/XAD7
F
10/30/92
Second Building
Industry Test
1/100
NA
70
NA
TF16/XAD8
G
11/4/92
Third Building
Industry Test
1/10
141
122
119
TF18/XAD9
H
11/4/92
Field Blank
1/1
100
126
60
TF20/XAD10
I
11/11/92
Combustion
Blank
1/1
83
112
141
(continued)
-------
TABLE A-4. SEMI VOL ATILE/PARTICULATE-BOUND ORGANIC SAMPLES SURROGATE RECOVERIES (concluded)
Sample
Name
Lab
Name
Date
Sampled
Test
Conditions
Second Analysis
% Recovery of
dlO-Pyrene
Second Analysis
% Recovery of
dl4-Terphenyl
Second Analysis
% Recovery of
d5-Nitrobenzene
Second Analysis
% Recovery of
2-Fluorobiphenyl
Second Analysis
% Recovery of
d3-1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene
Second Analysis
% Recovery of
dlO-Anthracene
TF4/XAD1
A
9/8/92
First Boating Industry
95
102
67
85
66
138
TF5/XAD2
B
9/8/92
First Boating Industry
135
116
100
110
106
112
TF6/XAD3
C
9/17/92
Second Boating
Industry
121
143
102
105
83
157
TF7/XAD4
D
9/22/92
Hut Blank
90
96
53
86
44
90
TF8/XAD5
E
9/22/92
Field Blank
112
100
40
73
39
79
TF14/XAD7
F
10/30/92
Second Building
Industry Test
110
159.2
TF16/XAD8
G
11/4/92
Third Building
Industry Test
196.6
231.4
TF18/XAD9
H
11/4/92
Field Blank
144
131
TF20/XAD10
I
11/11/92
Combustion Blank
113
113
------- |