Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Niosh
Niosh
[This document is current as of the publication date above and will be periodically updated. For
the most current listing of methods and guidance chapters, please visit the NMAM website at
www.cdc.gov/niosh/nmam.]
Foreword
The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) is the U.S. federal agency
responsible for conducting research and making recommendations for the prevention of work-
related injury and illness. NIOSH is part of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)
in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods
(NMAM) is a compilation of validated sampling and analytical methods that are used globally for
occupational exposure assessment in the industrial (occupational) hygiene field and related
professions. The methods that are published in NMAM are evaluated and validated in
consideration of their fitness-for-purpose for exposure monitoring in work areas. NIOSH methods
primarily address workplace air sampling and analysis, but NMAM also includes protocols for
biological, surface, dermal, and bulk samples. Within NMAM, but separate from the methods
themselves, are assorted chapters providing background and guidance covering a number of
subjects. Explanatory chapters on quality assurance, sampling guidance, method development and
evaluation, aerosol collection, etc., provide valuable information to users of NIOSH methods.
NMAM chapters provide a convenient resource that augments technical information often (but not
always) available elsewhere in texts and monographs. Now in its fifth edition, NMAM is
continuously updated as new or revised methods are evaluated and their performance verified.
This document is a compilation of its guidance chapters and methods, current as of the date shown
on the front page. NMAM is published online on the NIOSH web page (www.cdc.gov/niosh/nmam)
and is available worldwide free of charge. Users are encouraged to visit the NMAM 5th edition
website for the most current methods and guidance chapters.
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods (NMAM), Fifth Edition
CHAPTERS
PS - Purpose and Scope
ME - Development and evaluation of methods
UA - Measurement uncertainty and NIOSH method accuracy range
SA - General considerations for sampling airborne contaminants
AE - Factors affecting aerosol sampling
BA - Sampling and characterization of bioaerosols
FP - Filter pore size and aerosol sample collection
FI - Measurement of fibers
SM - Sampling and analysis of soluble metal compounds
DL - Monitoring diesel particulate exhaust in the workplace
CN - Analysis of carbon nanotubes and nanofibers on mixed cellulose ester filters by transmission electron microscopy
GL - Glossary
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods (NMAM), Fifth Edition
METHODS
5040 - DIESEL PARTICULATE MATTER (as Elemental Carbon) 8308 - FLUORIDE in Urine
5504 - ORGANOTIN COMPOUNDS (as Sn) 8319 - ACETONE and METHYL ETHYL KETONE in Urine
5524 - METALWORKING FLUIDS (MWF) ALL CATEGORIES 8322 - TRICHLOROACETIC ACID IN Urine
CHAPTERS
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods (NMAM), 5th Edition
Often there are situations during use where certain NIOSH methods may require
modification, for instance, to accommodate interfering compounds from a particular
workplace, to take advantage of unique laboratory capabilities, to make use of equivalent
sample preparation or analysis techniques, or to make possible the analysis of a single sample
for multiple contaminants. When method modifications are made, quality control data
demonstrating the reliability of the modified method must be obtained, recorded and
reported. Examples where method modifications might be required include the following:
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter PS April 2016 Page PS-2 of PS-9
Purpose, Scope and Use of the NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods
▪ The volume of air sampled on solid sorbents should be reduced in cases of high vapor
concentration or high humidity and, in some cases, may be increased if such
concentrations are relatively low.
▪ Acid mixtures used for sample dissolutions for elemental analysis may require
modification for certain sample matrices that are difficult to dissolve.
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter PS April 2016 Page PS-3 of PS-9
Purpose, Scope and Use of the NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter PS April 2016 Page PS-4 of PS-9
Purpose, Scope and Use of the NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods
An online “Appendixes” link is also available for obtaining unit equivalents or for
carrying out air concentration calculations for comparisons to Occupational Safety and
Health Administration (OSHA) standards.
d. Method format
NIOSH methods consist of three major parts:
1) Front page
The first page of each method concisely summarizes sampling and measurement
parameters and gives estimates of limit of detection, working range, overall and
measurement precision, and interferences. References to other relevant methods are
given. Also provided are Method Classification, NIOSH Registry of Toxic Effects of
Chemical Substances (RTECS) number, and an estimate of method accuracy (see
Figure 1).
2) Instructions
The second page of each method begins with lists of required reagents and equipment.
Please note that these reflect the conditions under which the methods were evaluated
and that there may still be some latitude for variation. The user of the methods is
responsible for assuring the accuracy of the results (e.g., to determine that
breakthrough and recovery are acceptable for each lot of samplers used). For example,
typical tolerances for sorbent tubes are illustrated:
▪ Glass tubing used to contain solid sorbents: Inside diameter is usually not critical
within the range of 4 to 6 mm; length should be sufficient to contain the specified
mass of sorbent.
The Special Precautions section gives guidance on safe practices to be observed during
sampling, sampler preparation and measurement. Next are the step-by-step
instructions for Sampling, Sample Preparation, Calibration and Quality Control,
Measurement, and Calculations. Any lengthy instructions for sampler preparation and
standardization of stock solutions appear in method appendixes. Nomenclature is
consistent with the NMAM Glossary (chapter) of Abbreviations, Definitions and
Symbols. (Note that additional general information relating to sampling and
measurement is contained in other NMAM chapters.)
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter PS April 2016 Page PS-5 of PS-9
Purpose, Scope and Use of the NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods
3) Supporting information
Laboratory and field data relating to the method are summarized in the Evaluation of
Method section and on the summary page, along with pertinent references.
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter PS April 2016 Page PS-6 of PS-9
Purpose, Scope and Use of the NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods
e. Method classification
Methods in previous (fourth) edition of NMAM are classified into evaluation categories:
Full, Partial, Unrated and Not Applicable. Classification is based on the results of
laboratory testing and evaluation criteria as described in a NIOSH guidelines document
[NIOSH 1995] and in Chapter ME (Development and Evaluation of Methods). Most
methods in the fifth edition are classified as ’fully validated.’
The performance data from these evaluations are summarized in the Evaluation of
Method section in each method. This section may also contain other corroborating data,
e.g., results from collaborative testing, Proficiency Analytical Testing (PAT) data, or field
data from NIOSH studies. For partially evaluated methods, this section will state which
evaluation points were not tested, thus providing the user with information on which to
make a reasonable judgment on the quality of the data obtained.
Evaluation – Full: Fully evaluated methods are those that have been tested and found to
have met all of the factors of the NIOSH evaluation protocol [NIOSH, 1995].
Evaluation – Partial: Partially evaluated methods are those that have been subjected to
some of the evaluation experiments but have not received a full evaluation (e.g., short-
term method development). These may also include methods that were fully tested but
did not meet one or two of the evaluation criteria specified in the NIOSH protocol
[NIOSH, 1995]; for example, some of the earlier-developed methods that do not meet the
current ±25% accuracy criterion.
Evaluation – Unrated: Unrated methods have not been tested by NIOSH, but may have
been developed by a recognized independent source such as OSHA.
Evaluation – N/A: The designation, Not Applicable (N/A), is applied to methods where no
quantitative data are collected, such as:
▪ Procedures for sample collection only. The collected samples are analyzed
subsequently by an appropriate analytical method.
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter PS April 2016 Page PS-7 of PS-9
Purpose, Scope and Use of the NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods
NMAM are welcome and should be directed to the editors of the Manual. Their contact
information is provided on the NMAM webpage.
Disclaimer
Mention of any company or product does not constitute endorsement by NIOSH. In
addition, citations to websites external to NIOSH do not constitute NIOSH endorsement
of the sponsoring organizations or their programs or products. Furthermore, NIOSH is
not responsible for the content of these websites. All web addresses referenced in this
document were accessible as of the publication date.
3 References
Angerer J, Greim H, eds. [2006]. Essential biomonitoring methods. Weinheim, Germany:
Wiley-VCH.
Ashley K [2015]. NIOSH manual of analytical methods 5th edition and harmonization of
occupational exposure monitoring. Gefahrstoffe Reinh Luft 75(1/2):7-16.
Behroozy A [2013]. On dermal exposure assessment. Int J Occup Environ Med 4:113-127.
Brisson M, Ashley K, eds. [2011]. Surface and dermal Sampling (ASTM STP No. 1533). West
Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International.
DiNardi SR, ed. [2003]. The occupational environment – Its evaluation, control, and
management, 2nd ed. Fairfax, VA: American Industrial Hygiene Association (AIHA).
Hathaway GJ, Proctor NH, eds. [2004]. Chemical hazards of the workplace, 5th ed. New
York: Wiley.
Kulkarni P, Baron PA, Willeke K, eds. [2011]. Aerosol measurement – Principles, techniques,
and applications, 3rd ed. New York: Wiley.
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter PS April 2016 Page PS-8 of PS-9
Purpose, Scope and Use of the NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods
NIOSH [1995]. Guidelines for air sampling and analytical method development and
evaluation. By Kennedy ER, Fischbach TJ, Song R, Eller PM, Shulman SA. Cincinnati, OH:
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 95-
117.
Rose VE, Cohrssen B, eds. [2011]. Patty’s industrial hygiene and toxicology, 6th ed. New
York: Wiley.
Semple S, Cherrie, JW [2003]. Dermal exposure assessment. In: Nieuwenhuijsen MJ, ed.
Exposure assessment in occupational and environmental epidemiology. Oxford, UK: Oxford
University Press.
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter PS April 2016 Page PS-9 of PS-9
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods (NMAM), 5th Edition
1 Method development
The development and evaluation of analytical methods that are useful, reliable and accurate
for industrial hygiene monitoring problems require the application of some general guidelines
and evaluation criteria. The guiding objective in this work requires that, over a specified
concentration range, the method provide a result that differs no more than ±25% from the
true value 95 times out of 100. The application of consistent evaluation criteria and guidelines
is particularly important when methods are developed by different individuals and
organizations (e.g., contractors or outside laboratories) and compiled into a single manual.
Adherence to guidelines should minimize overlooking potential problems in the methodology
during its development, as well as provide cohesiveness and uniformity to the method that is
developed. This chapter provides an outline of a generalized set of evaluation criteria prepared
by NIOSH researchers for the evaluation of sampling and analytical methodology [NIOSH
1995].
Since innovation is a key element in the sampling and analytical method development
process, detailed experiments for the initial development of the sampling approach and
optimization of the analytical procedure are better left to the discretion of the researcher.
During development, it should be recognized that appropriate, statistically designed
experiments will optimize the amount of information obtained. Therefore, consultation with a
statistician about appropriately designed experiments will be of value during this phase of the
research.
a. Preliminary experimentation
Several key points, including calibration and selection of measurement technique and
sampling media, should be studied during the initial method development experiments.
The selection of sampling medium and procedure is a decision that usually is made early
in the method development process. The physical state of the analyte (i.e., gas, aerosol,
vapor, or combination thereof) plays an important factor in the selection of an appropriate
sampler. Analytes which can exist in more than one physical state may require a
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter ME April 2016 Page ME-2 of ME-19
Development and Evaluation of Methods
combination of sampling media in one sampler for efficient collection [NIOSH 1995].
Where possible, commonly available and easily used samplers should be investigated
initially. As the preliminary testing of a sampling method progresses, further modification
in the sampling medium or sampler design may be required and may affect the
measurement procedure. Sampler design and media selection considerations should
include U.S. Department of Transportation regulations and restrictions for shipment back
to a laboratory for analysis.
Since industrial hygiene analytical methods are geared toward measuring personal
exposure, the size, weight, and convenience of the sampler are important elements in
sampler design. The personal sampler should allow freedom of movement and should be
unobtrusive, unbreakable, and not prone to leakage. The pressure drop across the sampler
should not be so great as to limit sample collection times to 10 h with personal sampling
pumps. For situations where only a short term sample will be required (i.e., 15 min for
ceiling determinations), this 10 h recommendations can be reduced to 1 h. The use of
potentially toxic reagents should be avoided unless they can be used safely. Reagents used
should not pose any exposure hazard to the worker wearing the sampler or to the
industrial hygienist taking the samples.
After initial analyses of the samples, the samples should be resealed and analyzed on the
following day, if possible. If the sample workup procedure results in a solution of the
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter ME April 2016 Page ME-3 of ME-19
Development and Evaluation of Methods
sample, these solutions should be recapped after the initial analysis, if possible, and
reanalyzed on the following day using fresh standards.
The recovery of the analyte should be calculated for the primary and backup media in the
sampler. Although complete recovery of the analyte from the sampler is most desirable, at
a minimum, the estimated recovery of the analyte from the primary collection medium
should be greater than or equal to 75% for concentrations equivalent to sampling 0.1, 0.5,
1.0, and 2.0 times the exposure limit. If recovery varies with analyte loading, results should
be graphed as recovery versus loading during calibration of the method, so that
appropriate correction can be made to sample results, as long as recovery is greater than
75% [Melcher et al. 1978]. If estimated recovery does not exceed 75%, the method is not
suitable for monitoring at this limit.
Estimated recovery from any backup media should be noted so that appropriate
corrections can be applied if breakthrough of the sampler has occurred during sampling.
The recovery of the analyte from the medium in the backup section of a sampler may be
different from that of the front section, since the backup section of a sorbent-based
sampler usually contains only half of the sorbent of the primary section. If the same
volume of desorption solvent is used for both the primary and backup sections of the
sampler, the desorption equilibrium can be shifted, since the backup section is being
desorbed by twice the volume (i.e., on a mL solvent/mg sorbent basis) [Saalwaechter et al.
1977].
Reanalysis of the samples on the day after initial analysis indicates if immediate analysis
after sample preparation is required. Often when processing a large number of samples, it
may be necessary to prepare the samples for analysis as a batch. In these instances, the last
samples may not be analyzed for up to 24 h or more after preparation because of the time
required for analysis. If samples prepared for analysis exhibit time-dependent stability
after desorption, analyses must be conducted within acceptable time constraints. Analysis
and reanalysis results should agree within 5% of each other.
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter ME April 2016 Page ME-4 of ME-19
Development and Evaluation of Methods
of variance (ANOVA) [Posner and Okenfuss 1981] test of the “Day” difference or a paired
t-test [Box et al. 1978] of the means of the Day 1 and Day 7 storage results.
2 Method evaluation
After the initial development experiments for the method have been completed and a method
has been proposed, the sampling and analysis approach should be evaluated to ensure that the
data collected provides reliable, precise, and accurate results. Specifically, the goal of this
evaluation is to determine whether, on the average, over a concentration range of 0.1 to 2
times the exposure limit, the method can provide a result that is within ±25% of the true
concentration 95% of the time. For simplification, the true concentration is assumed to be
represented by an independent method. An experimental approach for collecting the data
necessary for this determination is described below.
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter ME April 2016 Page ME-5 of ME-19
Development and Evaluation of Methods
When attempting to generate a concentration of an analyte, the impact of environmental
conditions, such as temperature, pressure, humidity, and interferences, on sampler
performance and/or generation should be considered. The effect of elevated temperature
on the collection medium of a sampler may decrease the capacity of the sampler or may
decompose the analyte during generation and sampling. Reduced pressure may also
reduce the capacity of a sampler. High relative humidity in many instances has been
observed to reduce sampler capacity [Melcher et al. 1978]. In other instances it has
increased sampler capacity [Cassinelli 1991]. A typical interference(s) should be generated
along with the analyte to approximate a typical workplace sampling environment.
Generation of particulate material can be extremely complex [Willeke 1980; Hinds 1982],
especially if particles of a required size range must be generated for the evaluation of a
specified sampler inlet design. The aerodynamic performance of the generator is a factor
in the generation of this type of atmosphere and should be evaluated carefully.
Appropriate, independent methods should be available to verify particle size, if this is a
critical element in the generation.
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter ME April 2016 Page ME-6 of ME-19
Development and Evaluation of Methods
amount of analyte expected to be collected. In the method report, the fact that samples
were not collected from a generated atmosphere should be discussed.
Sampling times should range from 22.5 min for STELs to 900 min (15 h) for time-
weighted averages. Shorter sampling times (e.g., 7.5 to 22.5 min) may be used for ceiling
(C) measurements. Flow rates should be based on accurately calibrated sampling pumps
or critical orifices. The amount of analyte collected at the lowest flow rate and shortest
sampling time should be greater than the limit of quantitation of the method. The
generated concentration used for capacity determination should be at least 2 times the
highest published exposure limit and verified by an independent method.
Sampling should be conducted at ambient, elevated (>35 °C), and low (<20 °C)
temperatures to assess the effect of temperature on sampling. To assess the effect of
humidity on capacity, sampling should be performed at both low and high humidity (20%
and 80%), since both have been observed to affect capacity [Cassinelli 1991; Melcher et al.
1978]. Triplicate samplers at three different flow rates should be included to verify capacity
at each of the six different humidity and temperature levels. For samplers which contain
backup sampling media, only the front section of the sampler should be used. A means is
required to quantitate analyte in the effluent from the sampler. This may involve the use of
a backup sampler, continuous monitor or other appropriate means which can provide a
measure of analyte concentration in the sampler effluent (ca. 1 to 5% of the influent
concentration). If the mass of analyte found on a backup sampler totals 5% of the mass
found on the front sampler or if the effluent concentration of the sampler contains 5% of
the influent concentration, breakthrough has occurred and the capacity of the sampler has
been exceeded.
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter ME April 2016 Page ME-7 of ME-19
Development and Evaluation of Methods
If the analyte is a particulate material and collected with a filter, the capacity of the filter is
defined by the pressure drop across the sampler or by the loading of the filter. For 37-mm
filter-based samplers, pressure drop should be less than 1000 mm of water for total loading
less than 2 mg. Larger filters and especially filter capsules [Harper and Ashley 2013;
O’Connor et al. 2014] will tolerate higher loadings (e.g, up to 5 mg).
With samplers which use reagents for collection of the analyte, the amount of the reagent
in the sampler will also be a limiting factor in the capacity of the sampler, based on the
stoichiometry of the reaction. Other factors, such as residence time in the sampler and
kinetics of reaction between analyte and reagent, may affect the capacity of this type of
sampler.
The combined temperature and humidity conditions that reduce sampler capacity to the
greatest extent should be used in all further experiments. The Maximum Recommended
Sampling Time (MRST) for a specific flow rate is defined as the time at which sampler
capacity was reached, multiplied by 0.667. This adds a measure of safety to this
determination. The relationship of breakthrough time with flow rate can be used to adjust
flow rates to optimize specific sampling times.
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter ME April 2016 Page ME-8 of ME-19
Development and Evaluation of Methods
concentrations of 0.1, 1.0, and 2.0 times the exposure limit at the humidity determined
above to have reduced sampler capacity for the MRST determined in the preceding
experiment.
If the analyte has a short-term or ceiling exposure limit in addition to an 8-hour time-
weighted average, an additional 12 samplers should be collected at the STEL or C limit for
the recommended sampling period at the appropriate flow rate. Potential interferences in
the work environment should be included in the generation experiments to assess their
impact on method performance. Concentrations up to 2 times the exposure limit value for
the interference should be included. Other environmental factors may be studied, but will
require a more comprehensive experimental design.
d. Sample stability
To assess sample stability, samples should be collected from a generated atmosphere,
stored under defined conditions (i.e., ambient or refrigerated, light or dark), and analyzed
at specified time periods. A concentration of 0.5 times the lowest exposure limit should be
sampled with 30 samplers for a minimum of ½ the MRST. The humidity and temperature
of the generator should be at the same level as defined in the sample capacity experiment
to reduce sample capacity. The samplers should be divided randomly into one group of 12,
one group of 6, and four groups of 3, with the group of 12 analyzed as soon after collection
as possible (Day 0). The group of 6 samplers should be analyzed after 7 days. The four
remaining sets of 3 samplers should be analyzed after 10, 14, 21, and 30 days. The
conditions of storage are determined by the nature of the analyte. If there is an indication
of analyte instability on the sampling medium, refrigeration of the samplers may be
required. However, storage for the first 7 days should be at room temperature.
Samples should normally be stable for a minimum of 7 days under ambient conditions to
simulate shipping to a laboratory for analysis. If the average analysis results of the
samplers analyzed on day 7 differs from the set analyzed on day 0 by more than 10%, the
method does not meet the sample stability criterion. Either additional precautions, such as
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter ME April 2016 Page ME-9 of ME-19
Development and Evaluation of Methods
shipment on ice and refrigerator storage, may be required or the method may have to be
modified to address this problem. (Note: In practice, reactive or unstable samples should
be shipped by overnight mail and analyzed as quickly as possible.) If a plot of recovery
versus time indicates that recovery decreased by more than 10% after the initial 7-day
storage period, sample instability is a problem. If samples need to be stored for longer
periods, more restrictive storage conditions are required. Remedial action, such as cold
storage may solve this longer term storage problem. After remedial precautions have been
instituted in the method, the sample stability of the method must be determined anew.
Bias is assumed to be homogeneous over the evaluation range. This assumption should be
tested by estimating the bias at each concentration and testing these for homogeneity
using the procedures described in the literature [NIOSH 1995]. Method bias should be less
than 10%. A test for this is also described [NIOSH 1980].
The bias and precision estimates can be used with the graph presented in Figure 1 or in
Table I to estimate accuracy [NIOSH 1995]. The bias and precision estimates are plotted
on the x- and y-axes of the graph. The intersection of these points on the parabolic grid in
the graph can be used to estimate the accuracy of the method. This procedure gives an
estimate of method accuracy but does not yield the statistic required to test compliance of
the method with the ±25% accuracy criterion. Techniques for the latter determination are
discussed in the Appendix and elsewhere [NIOSH 1995].
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter ME April 2016 Page ME-10 of ME-19
Development and Evaluation of Methods
If the results for 4 concentrations fail the 25% accuracy criterion, then the set of samples
collected at the lowest concentration level should be excluded from the data set. The
pooled ŜrT and the bias should be recalculated on this reduced data set before performing
the accuracy analysis described in the previous paragraph.
For the 12 samplers collected at the ceiling limit, the accuracy analysis described above
should be repeated using only the data collected at the ceiling limit.
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter ME April 2016 Page ME-11 of ME-19
Development and Evaluation of Methods
Table I. Values of the bias (B) and the precision (SrT) required to obtain designated
values of accuracy (A) in percentage units#
A (%) B (%) Srt (%)
5 -3.5 0.945*
5 -2.5 1.559*
5 0.0 2.551*
5 2.5 1.483*
5 3.5 0.881*
10 -7.5 1.643*
10 -5.0 3.200
10 0.0 5.102
10 5.0 2.895*
10 7.5 1.414*
15 -10.0 3.378*
15 -5.0 6.381
15 0.0 7.653
15 5.0 5.774
15 10.0 2.764*
20 -10.0 6.755
20 -5.0 9.448
20 0.0 10.20
20 5.0 8.548
20 10.0 5.527
25 -10.0 10.13
25 -5.0 12.39
25 0.0 12.75
25 5.0 11.21
25 10.0 8.287
30$ -15.0& 10.73
30$ -7.5 14.55
30$ 0.0 15.31
30$ 7.5 12.52
30$ 15.0& 7.930
35$ -15.0& 14.31
35$ -7.5 17.59
35$ 0.0 17.86
35$ 7.5 15.14
35$ 15.0& 10.57
# Note: the values shown in this table are population or theoretical values.
* Below the minimum attainable precision with a 5% pump correction.
$ Does not fulfill the Accuracy Criterion (±25% of the true value).
& Does not fulfill the bias criterion (±10%).
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter ME April 2016 Page ME-12 of ME-19
Development and Evaluation of Methods
3 Field evaluation
While field evaluation is not required in method evaluation, it does provide a further test of
the method, since conditions which exist in the field are difficult to reproduce in the
laboratory. Also unknown variables may affect sampling results when field samples are taken.
This type of evaluation is recommended to further study the performance of the method in
terms of field precision, bias, interferences and the general utility of the method. Both the
collection of area samples and personal samples should be included in the field evaluation of
the method.
Area samples should provide an estimate of field precision and bias. Personal samples may
confirm these values and also provide a means to assess the utility of the method. A statistical
study design should be prepared, based on the variability of the method and the statistical
precision required for estimates of the differences in analyte concentrations yielded by the
independent method and the method under evaluation [CEN 2015].
If this type of statistically designed study is not feasible, a minimum of 20 pairs of samples of
the method under study and an independent method should be used for personal sampling.
Placement of the samplers on the workers should be random to prevent the biasing of results
due to the "handedness" of the worker. Workers sampled should be in areas where both low
and high concentrations of the analyte may be present.
As a minimum, sets of 6 area samplers paired with independent methods should be placed in
areas of low, intermediate, and high analyte concentration. If the atmosphere sampled is not
homogeneous, precautions may have to be taken to ensure that all samplers are exposed to the
same concentrations. This can be done by using field exposure chambers, such as those
described in the literature [Cassinelli et al. 1985; Kennedy et al. 1985].
Field precision and bias of the area sampler results of the method under study should compare
with laboratory evaluation results, provided that precautions have been taken to ensure that
all samplers have been exposed to the same homogeneous atmosphere. Differences in
precision and bias should be investigated. Sources of variation should be studied and
corrections implemented where necessary. Evaluation of personal sampler results should be
done cautiously, because observable differences may be due to work practices or other
situations which are beyond the control of the method.
A field evaluation of a method also allows the developer of the method to determine its
ruggedness. Although this may be a subjective judgement, first-hand experience with the
method in the field may suggest changes in the sampler or method that may make the method
more easily used in the field and less subject to variability.
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter ME April 2016 Page ME-13 of ME-19
Development and Evaluation of Methods
4 Documentation
Development and evaluation research on a sampling and analytical method should be
documented in a final report. The report should describe what was determined about the
method. If the results of the statistical analysis of the data indicate there is not 95% confidence
that the accuracy of the method is less than or equal to ±25%, the report should state this fact.
In some instances, the method may actually have an accuracy of less than 25%, but a larger
sample size must be used to prove this statistically (See Appendix 1 of NIOSH 1995).
The final report can be either a technical report or a failure report. The technical report
(acceptable method developed) documents the successful development of the method. This
report may be prepared in a format appropriate for submission to a peer-reviewed journal for
publication. The failure report (no acceptable method developed) documents the research
performed on an attempted method development for an analyte or analytes. The report
should describe the failure of the method, as well as other areas of the method research that
were successful. Recommendations to solve the failure of the method may be included.
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter ME April 2016 Page ME-14 of ME-19
Development and Evaluation of Methods
Accuracy refers to the closeness of the measurements to T but it is defined in terms of the
discrepancy of the measurements from T. Inaccuracy (I) is defined as the maximum error,
regardless of sign, expressed as a percentage of T that occurs with a probability of 0.95. Thus,
an inaccuracy (or accuracy) of 20% means that on the average 95 of every 100 measurements
will differ from T by no more than 0.2T. The accuracy criterion for single measurements
mentioned at the beginning of this chapter, often termed the “NIOSH Accuracy Criterion,”
requires inaccuracy to be less than or equal to 25%.
where (ϕ) denotes the probability that a standard normal random variable is less than or equal
to ϕ. A practically exact numerical solution to Equation (1) can be readily programmed using
statistical software packages [Press et al. 1986]. A DOS program, ABCV.EXE, is also available
which solves for I (denoted by A in the program), ŜrT (denoted by CV in the program), or B
when the values for the other two quantities are input. An estimate of I can be obtained in
either case by entering estimates of B and ŜrT. An approximate solution, which is accurate to
about 1.1 percent, is given as follows [NIOSH 1995]:
� + 1) ∙ S� rT )2 + B
Î= 1.57 (𝐵𝐵� +1)ŜrT + " �((0.39 (B � 2 ) for estimates of I
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter ME April 2016 Page ME-15 of ME-19
Development and Evaluation of Methods
Also, the nomogram in Figure 1 can be used to solve for I or an estimate of I by entering B and
SrT or their estimates. Procedures for obtaining “best” single point and 95% confidence
interval estimates of B, and SrT and a 90% confidence interval estimate for I are given in
NIOSH [1995].
The 90% confidence interval for I can be used to infer whether the method passes or fails the
25% accuracy criterion (AC) for single measurements with 95% confidence as follows:
1) The method passes with 95% confidence if the interval is completely less than 25%.
2) The method fails with 95% confidence if the interval is completely greater than 25%.
3) The evidence is inconclusive if the interval includes 25% (there is not 95% confidence that
the AC is true or that it is false).
When researchers interpret the results from analyses of the type described above, it is
important to consider that most methods have many uses in addition to individual
measurement interpretation. Because accuracy is very important whenever any quantity is to
be estimated, the ideal (“other things being equal”) is to use the most accurate estimator
regardless of its bias or imprecision. However, it is crucial to distinguish between the accuracy
of the source or “raw” measurements and that of the final estimator, which might involve
many intermediate analyses or operations. Unfortunately, the most accurate input or raw
measurements do not always produce the most accurate final result unless the latter is a single
measurement. The bias and imprecision of the source measurements can be differentially
affected by intermediate operations in producing the final estimate. For example, if the final
estimate is a function of a single average of many source measurements, its bias is not affected
by the averaging while imprecision is reduced as a function of the square root of the number
of measurements. Thus, a lower biased method might be preferable to another even if the
inaccuracy of the latter is less. On the other hand, in comparative studies, the desired estimate
is either a difference or ratio of means of measurements in which there can be partial or
complete cancellation of the bias in the source measurements. Thus, the bias of the method
used for the source measurements may be of little importance. If there are several methods
applicable for a given user’s project (regardless of whether all fulfill the accuracy criterion for
single measurements), the analyst would be well-advised to consult with the user (preferably
in advance of measurement) to determine which of those methods would produce the optimal
accuracy for the final results or estimates needed by that particular user. Accuracy, bias, and
imprecision jointly form a complete or sufficient set for the efficient description of the
measurement error characteristic of any method.
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter ME April 2016 Page ME-16 of ME-19
Development and Evaluation of Methods
Disclaimer
Mention of any company or product does not constitute endorsement by NIOSH. In addition,
citations to websites external to NIOSH do not constitute NIOSH endorsement of the
sponsoring organizations or their programs or products. Furthermore, NIOSH is not
responsible for the content of these websites. All web addresses referenced in this document
were accessible as of the publication date.
6 References
Anderson C, Gunderson E, Coulson D [1981]. Sampling and analytical methodology for
workplace chemical hazards. In: Choudhary G, Ed. Chemical Hazards in the Workplace.
Washington: American Chemical Society, pp. 3-19.
Ashley K [2015]: NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th edition and harmonization of
occupational exposure monitoring. Gefahrstoffe Reinh Luft 75:7-16 (and references therein).
Box GEP, Hunter WG, Hunter JS [1978]. Statistics for experimenters. New York: John Wiley
& Sons.
Busch K, Taylor D [1981]. Statistical protocol for the NIOSH validation tests. In: Choudhary
G, ed. Chemical Hazards in the Workplace. Washington: American Chemical Society, pp.
503-517.
Cassinnelli ME [1991]. Development of a solid sorbent monitoring method for chlorine and
bromine in air with determination by ion chromatography. Appl Occup Environ Hyg 6:215-
226.
Cassinelli ME, Hull RD, Cuendet PA [1985]. Performance of sulfur dioxide passive monitors.
Am Ind Hyg Assoc J 45:599-608.
Harper M, Ashley K [2013]. Acid-soluble internal capsules for closed-face cassette elemental
sampling and analysis of workplace air. J Occup Environ Hyg 10:297-306.
Hinds WC [1982]. Aerosol technology. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter ME April 2016 Page ME-17 of ME-19
Development and Evaluation of Methods
Jonas LA, Rehrmann JA [1973]. Predictive equations in gas absorption kinetics. Carbon
11:59-64.
Kennedy ER, Smith DL, Geraci CL [1985]. Field evaluations of sampling and analytical
methods for formaldehyde. In: Turoski V, ed. Formaldehyde – Analytical Chemistry and
Toxicology, Washington, DC: American Chemical Society, pp. 151-159.
Melcher R, Langner R, Kagel R [1978]. Criteria for the evaluation of methods for the
collection of organic pollutants in air using solid sorbents. Am Ind Hyg Assoc J 39:349-361.
NIOSH [1980]. Development and validation of methods for sampling and analysis of
workplace toxic substances. By Gunderson E, Anderson C, Smith R, Doemeny L, Busch K.
Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health; DHHS (NIOSH)
Publication No. 80-133.
NIOSH [1984]. Gas and vapor generating systems for laboratories. By Woodfin W.
Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health; DHHS (NIOSH)
Publication No. 84-113.
NIOSH [1995]. Guidelines for air sampling and analytical method development and
evaluation. By Kennedy ER, Fischbach TJ, Song R, Eller PM, Shulman SA Cincinnati, OH:
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health; DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 95-
117.
O’Connor S, O’Connor PF, Feng HA, Ashley K [2014]. Gravimetric analysis of particulate
matter using air samplers housing internal filtration capsules. Gefahrstoffe Reinh Luft 74:403-
410.
Posner J, Okenfuss J [1981]. Desorption of organic analytes from activated carbon. Am Ind
Hyg Assoc J 42:643-646.
Press WH, Flannery BP, Teukolsky SA, Vettering WT [1986]. Numerical recipes – the art of
scientific computing. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter ME April 2016 Page ME-18 of ME-19
Development and Evaluation of Methods
Streicher R, Kennedy E, Lorderau C [1994]. Strategies for simultaneous collection of vapours
and aerosols with emphasis on isocyanate sampling. Analyst 119:89-97.
Willeke K, ed. [1980]. Generation of Aerosols and Facilities for Exposure Experiments. Ann
Arbor, MI: Ann Arbor Science Publishers.
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter ME April 2016 Page ME-19 of ME-19
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods (NMAM), 5th Edition
1 Introduction UA-2
2 ISO GUM UA-4
3 The symmetric accuracy range A as used by NIOSH UA-6
4 Uncertainty and analytical lab procedures UA-9
5 Discussion UA-13
6 Technical notes UA-14
7 References UA-20
8 Terminology UA-22
1 Introduction
Recently, the ISO Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement (GUM) has come
close to being universally adopted as the standardized way to characterize and document
measurement uncertainty [ISO 2002, 2005, 2009, 2010; Ellison and Williams 2012]. Since the
mid-1970s, accuracy criteria have been an integral part of the evaluations of the sampling and
analytical methods used by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health
(NIOSH), the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), the Mine Safety and
Health Administration (MSHA), and others. NIOSH has previously published extensive
discussions addressing the issue of accuracy as a factor in the development, evaluation, and
characterization of analytical methodology. Both traditional method accuracy and new
measurement uncertainty concepts are intended to communicate measurement limitations to
laboratory clients. Naturally, laboratories are interested in how NIOSH accuracy requirements
[Busch 1977; NIOSH 1995] relate to measurement uncertainty.
ISO GUM proposes pooling estimated variance components from diverse error sources. The
square root of the pooled variance estimate is termed the combined uncertainty uc.
Multiplication of uc by a coverage factor k (generally in the range of 2 to 3) results in an
expanded uncertainty U. The purpose of the expanded uncertainty is for each measurement to
provide an interval bracketing the measurand (the true value of what is to be measured) to
account for errors in both the measurement and the determination of the uncertainty
components themselves.
ISO GUM is somewhat unclear about the coverage factor k. Furthermore, the coverage factor
can be interpreted in several ways. Most straightforward is the limited case where the
uncertainty components can be re-evaluated each time the method is used (resulting in k
proportional to a Student-t quantile). In this case, the covering intervals bracket the
measurand for (for example) 95% of the measurements.
Alternatively, the coverage factors based on the Student-t quantile specify intervals containing
measurand values at levels of evaluation confidence in the mean (i.e., averaging over many
method evaluations). In other words, for roughly 50% of method evaluations, intervals used at
each measurement contain the measurand value greater than (for example) 95% of the time.
The concept is consistent with the statistical theory of tolerance or prediction intervals.
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter UA April 2016 Page UA-2 of UA-23
Measurement Uncertainty and NIOSH Method Accuracy Range
This approach is important to industrial hygiene since workplace air concentrations vary
spatially and over time to such a degree that a method cannot be evaluated by simply taking
replicate measurements [Vaughan et al. 1990]. However, industrial hygiene measurement
methods have traditionally required confidence levels greater than 50% in the method
evaluation. Generally, 95% confidence in a method validation is required. The different types
of confidence levels are reflected simply in the numerical value and interpretation of the
coverage factor.
Of equal importance in the industrial hygiene field are details needed to handle systematic
error (bias) relative to reference concentration measurements found during method
evaluation. For example, the sampling rate of a given diffusive sampler for gases or vapors is
generally measured once by the diffusive sampler manufacturer prior to use by multiple
clients. As the samplers are not re-calibrated for each use, residual bias exists in the
measurements due to uncertainty in sampling rates used [ASTM 2013a]. (NIOSH methods
typically do not cite performance for passive samplers because agreement among diffusive
monitor manufacturers on test protocols has not yet been achieved, and a system of third
party evaluation of diffusive monitor manufacturers sampling rates is not available.) Similarly,
the calculation of desorption efficiencies may be performed only once or infrequently and can,
therefore, introduce residual bias in measurements that use sorbent-captured samples, e.g.,
charcoal tubes.
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter UA April 2016 Page UA-3 of UA-23
Measurement Uncertainty and NIOSH Method Accuracy Range
2 ISO GUM
ISO GUM presents several concepts. One of these calls for the identification of sources
(labeled j = 1, 2,...) of uncertainty uj (standard deviation estimate components) in a
measurement method and for their classification into Type A or Type B uncertainties. Type A
uncertainty is one that has been characterized by a statistically sound approach. In this
case, 𝑢𝑢𝑗𝑗2 is given by 𝑠𝑠𝑗𝑗2 , an unbiased estimate (with 𝑣𝑣𝑗𝑗 degrees of freedom) of variance 𝜎𝜎𝑗𝑗2 . On
the contrary, Type B uncertainty generally requires professional judgment. See Table 1 for
examples of possible uncertainty components.
Sampling
personal sampling pump flow rate: setting the pump and subsequent drift sampling rate
of diffusive sampler
sampler dimension (aerosol and diffusive sampling)
Sample handling
sample preparation (e.g., handling silica quasi-suspensions) sample loss during
transport or storage
Analytical
aerosol weighing
recovery (e.g, GC-based methods)
Poisson counting (e.g., in XRD methods)
Sensor variation
operator effects giving inter-lab differences (if data from several labs are to be used)
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter UA April 2016 Page UA-4 of UA-23
Measurement Uncertainty and NIOSH Method Accuracy Range
Evaluation
calibration material uncertainty
evaluation chamber concentration uncertainty
other bias-correction uncertainty
Within the field of industrial hygiene, the quantities uj are often standard deviation
component estimates obtained from a single measurement-method evaluation, rather than
from replicates. When the estimates are independent, a combined uncertainty uc may be
computed (through the propagation of uncertainty approximation) as:
Through a coverage factor k, generally approximated conservatively (e.g., see Technical Note 2
at end of chapter), as equal to 3 for a single method evaluation, an expanded uncertainty U
may be computed as:
𝑈𝑈 = 𝑘𝑘 × 𝑢𝑢𝑐𝑐 (2)
The purpose of the expanded uncertainty U is to provide intervals, which generally contain
measurand values (often referred to as the true values). In particular, given a concentration
estimate 𝑐𝑐̂ (hats, as here, indicate estimates), the measurand value C is bracketed at better
than 95% confidence by intervals of the type:
at 95% confidence in the method evaluation. The coverage factor k is intended to account for
both (1) the fluctuation of the measurement about the measurand value and (2) the
uncertainty in the assessment of this fluctuation.
Note: Requiring only mean confidence in the evaluation leads to k given in terms of a Student-
t quantile. Here, however, in fixing the method evaluation confidence (e.g., at 95%), the chi-
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter UA April 2016 Page UA-5 of UA-23
Measurement Uncertainty and NIOSH Method Accuracy Range
square distribution takes the place of the Student-t distribution. Double confidence levels (in
the measurement and evaluation) directly relate to a well-developed [Bartley 2001; Bartley and
Irwin 2002; Hald 1952; Wald 1942, 1943; Wald and Wolfowitz 1946; Wilks 1941, 1942;
Aitchison and Dunsmore 1975] statistical theory of tolerance or prediction intervals.
Another point of ISO GUM is semantic. Uncertainty, as in common usage, covers only what
is unknown about a measurement. The known but uncorrected systematic deviation or bias
relative to reference concentrations does not enter into measurement uncertainty.
A related concept, accuracy, is defined qualitatively within ISO GUM as the “closeness of
agreement between the result of a measurement and a true value of the measurand”. Accuracy
can have both random and systematic components. It is not surprising then that if a bias
correction is made and if accuracy is quantified reasonably, the expanded uncertainty and an
accuracy confidence limit can be equivalent.
As mentioned above, another aspect of ISO GUM deals with influence factors. If measurement
results are expected to be sensitive to an environmental factor (e.g., ambient temperature),
then the effect of such a factor on the measurement method must be measured in the
laboratory. Given estimates of the environmental variations expected during method
application, influence components of the combined uncertainty can be estimated for inclusion
in the uncertainty budget of Eq. 1. Table 1 lists several influence factors, which may or may not
be significant.
It is clear from this simple definition that the accuracy range function A must increase
with both random effects and bias magnitude and therefore, is one means of quantifying
accuracy as defined above according to ISO GUM.
More specifically, suppose that estimates ĉ are normally distributed about population
mean c with standard deviation σ. Then we may characterize random measurement effects
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter UA April 2016 Page UA-6 of UA-23
Measurement Uncertainty and NIOSH Method Accuracy Range
in terms of the (true) relative standard deviation TRSD and bias of the mean concentration
estimate c relative to the true concentration C as:
𝑐𝑐 − 𝐶𝐶
𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏 =
𝐶𝐶
(5)
𝜎𝜎
𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇 = 𝐶𝐶 .
The descriptive definition of Eq. 4 implies that the symmetric accuracy range A increases
with both TRSD and bias magnitude |bias|. This feature can be seen directly in the
following close approximation to the accuracy range function A, which follows [See
Bartley 2001; Bartley and Irwin 2002 for derivation] from the definition in Eq. 4:
𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇
𝐴𝐴 = 1.960 𝑥𝑥 √𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑠𝑠 2 + 𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝐷𝐷2 , 𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 |𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏| < 1.645
;
This expression is simple enough for calculation by most hand-held calculators, and it is
also a useful starting point for estimating the 95% confidence limit A95% on the accuracy
range as measured during a method evaluation, accounting for evaluation errors.
2) Measurement uncertainty
Suppose then that bias correction has been made. For example, suppose that following
evaluation, the sampler is used for future measurement with bias corrected on the basis
of its measurement during the evaluation itself. Then computation of the confidence
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter UA April 2016 Page UA-7 of UA-23
Measurement Uncertainty and NIOSH Method Accuracy Range
limit A95% is possible accounting for the residual bias which is uncorrectable due to
evaluation limitations, but nevertheless will be present in all future measurements. The
quantity ĉ x A95% forms the counterpart to the expanded uncertainty U of ISO GUM for
specifying evaluation confidence at 95%.
The relationship between ĉ x A95% (with corrected bias) and expanded uncertainty U
can be seen most clearly in the case that A95% is significantly smaller than 100%. In this
case, Eq. 4 can be rewritten as the approximation:
which means that at 95% confidence in the method evaluation, the inequality
bracketing the measurand value C holds at probability > 95%. A study using 10,000-
point simulations indicates that A95% can be as large as 25%, with method evaluation
confidence close to 95% using the approximation of Eq. 7. As can be seen directly, Eq.
7 is the analogue to Eq. 3 when ĉ x A95% is adopted as the expanded uncertainty U:
In the case that bias is known to equal zero (Technical Note 1 at the end of this
chapter), A95% (at 15 degrees of freedom in the evaluation experiment) is simply:
k = 2.8, (11)
The user of a method then may report the expanded uncertainty U in a concentration
Estimate ĉ using Eq. 8, knowing the accuracy range confidence limit A95% as reported in
the method. Of course, this approach relies on the sense of double confidence—in the
evaluation and also in the subsequent application.
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter UA April 2016 Page UA-8 of UA-23
Measurement Uncertainty and NIOSH Method Accuracy Range
Note: The European Assessment of Workplace Exposures Technical Committee, CEN
TC 137, has adopted a similar viewpoint regarding method performance [CEN 2015].
In this case, an overall uncertainty, defined as |bias| + 2 × RSD, is used to quantify
accuracy. When compared to Eq. 6, the overall uncertainty can be regarded as an
approximation to the symmetric accuracy range.
An example of this approach is the current practice in some labs that handle sorbent tubes
to analyze about 4 lab blanks per set of field samples analyzed. The variability in the blank
results are then continually compared to past lab performance so as to detect problems
which may occur in analysis. Though the small number of degrees of freedom (= 3) does
not give a tight figure on the uncertainty, it nevertheless gives assurance that the method is
stable.
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter UA April 2016 Page UA-9 of UA-23
Measurement Uncertainty and NIOSH Method Accuracy Range
Note that the uncertainty (𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇� 𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇/√𝑛𝑛, where n = 16 is the number of measurements) in
the bias is the value that accounts for residual bias due to imperfect correction. Very
similarly, the uncertainty in the reference concentration is pooled to arrive at a combined
uncertainty. Interestingly, neither of these two contributions corresponds to quantities
that vary during sampler application subsequent to its initial evaluation. The background
for documenting residual (uncorrectable) bias can be seen in Technical Note 2 at the end
of this chapter.
results in: Mean bias estimate: biâs = 13.3% from average of 4 × 4 = 16 data points. The
TRSD estimate is 𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇� 𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 = 4.4% having 4 × 3 = 12 degrees of freedom.
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter UA April 2016 Page UA-10 of UA-23
Measurement Uncertainty and NIOSH Method Accuracy Range
Table 2. Continued
Uncertainty budget
The following includes bias correction by dividing future concentration estimates by (1 +
biâs) as in Technical Note 2.
Again, an expanded (relative) uncertainty U means that with greater than 95% of future
bias- corrected estimates ĉ, true concentrations C are bracketed by:
Note that many methods (e.g., those based on sorbent tubes) employ personal sampling
pumps, in which case normally a 5% (Type B) component representing sampling pump
uncertainty would be included in the uncertainty budget.
Note also that the inter-sampler component includes both analytical and sampling sub-
components. Further refinement of the inter-sampler component may perhaps be useful
for improving a method, but is not needed for establishing confidence intervals around
(true) measurand values.
Note further that storage effects require estimating and inclusion in the budget if
considered significant.
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter UA April 2016 Page UA-11 of UA-23
Measurement Uncertainty and NIOSH Method Accuracy Range
effected. The result is (1) a direct measure of the analytical uncertainty of the method as
implemented in the lab, and (2) a means of detecting any problems that may creep into a
method during routine use. Note that a running uncertainty average is similar to a partial
method evaluation and not to a method re-evaluation at each measurement because
consecutive running averages are strongly correlated.
This approach is adopted within a current MSHA procedure for the analysis of silica. A
sampling filter is dissolved and re-deposited onto an analysis filter where the silica is
quantified by infrared absorption. From each batch of samples to be analyzed, an analysis
filter is retained for re-dissolution, re-deposition, and re-analysis within a subsequent
batch. The result is a large number of pairs of nearly identical samples, which can give a
running estimate of the method’s analytical uncertainty.
As an example of this approach [ISO 2002], suppose that a lab estimates only a 30-day
average concentration of a given gas or vapor. Further, every day a measurement is taken
of a known calibration gas concentration. Then, if the method is expected to behave
similarly for measurements of gas and field samples calibrations, the 30 control samples
give analytical uncertainty estimates that differ month-to-month and from field
measurement to field measurement.
In the following examples, several often realistic assumptions are made. The standard
deviation in concentration estimates is assumed constant (i.e., independent of the sampled
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter UA April 2016 Page UA-12 of UA-23
Measurement Uncertainty and NIOSH Method Accuracy Range
concentration), unlike the commonly occurring constant relative standard deviation at
larger concentrations. Also, bias (or uncertainty in its correction) is assumed to be
negligible. More complicated cases generally have specific difficulties that are best be
approached by a statistician.
With these assumptions, in terms of the combined uncertainty uc the limit of detection is
traditionally [Keith et al. 1983; Currie 1997] taken to be:
After LOD and LD have been determined for a method they may be used as follows. A
substance may be asserted as present if an estimate 𝑥𝑥� exceeds LOD. Moreover, if unknown
(true) concentration X exceeds LD, an estimate 𝑥𝑥� is likely to exceed LOD. Given the above
definitions and assumptions, the false positive rate r on asserting presence is closely equal
to the non-detection rate.
2
𝜒𝜒0.05,𝜐𝜐
𝑟𝑟 < 1 − 𝜙𝜙 �3 × � 𝜐𝜐
�, (14)
where 𝜙𝜙 is the cumulative normal function. For example, if υ=15, then r < 3.5%.
5 Discussion
The approach presented here to document method accuracy range and uncertainty relates to
the statistical theory [Bartley 2001; Wald and Wolfowitz 1946; Wilks 1941, 1942; Aitchison
and Dunsmore 1975; CEN 2015; Smith 1936; Saterthwaite 1946] of tolerance or prediction
intervals. This theory was originally developed in simplified form to predict the range of
future measurements of a normally distributed random variable on the basis of n initial
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter UA April 2016 Page UA-13 of UA-23
Measurement Uncertainty and NIOSH Method Accuracy Range
measurements. The initial measurements are analogous to the method evaluation, whereas the
future measurements represent method application subsequent to evaluation.
Several generalizations and variations of the material presented in this chapter are possible.
The relative standard deviation and relative bias sometimes depend on the concentration
sampled in a complicated way, requiring special attention. See, for example Currie [1997].
Also, asymmetric confidence intervals are sometimes required. Single-sided intervals are
useful in some instances, e.g., alarm systems, as well as in quantifying limits of detection or
quantitation, described briefly above. Ways to handle environmental influence parameters
may also be complicated. See, for example ASTM [2013a]. In any case, despite the
complexities possible, the examples given in this chapter may help to characterize method
uncertainty in a reasonable manner. For additional examples and explanations, see
Appendices A and D of Components for Evaluation of Direct-Reading Monitors for Gases
and Vapors [NIOSH 2012] and ASTM standards on accuracy and uncertainty [ASTM 2014,
2015].
6 Technical notes
a. Note 1: Example of accuracy range confidence limit:
Suppose it is known that the bias is zero. For example, an exposure standard may be set
that specifies a given sampling and analytical method. In this case, the hazardous
concentration may be said to be operationally defined. Operationally defined methods
include NIOSH Methods 7400 and NIOSH 5040.
𝐴𝐴 = 1.960 𝑥𝑥 𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇.
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter UA April 2016 Page UA-14 of UA-23
Measurement Uncertainty and NIOSH Method Accuracy Range
Wald 1942] if TRSD has more than one component), then the 95% confidence limit on
TRSD is:
𝜐𝜐
𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇95% = 𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇̂𝑇𝑇 × �𝜒𝜒2 ,
𝜐𝜐,0.05
2
where 𝜒𝜒𝜐𝜐,0.05 is a 5% quantile value for the chi-square distribution, which can be read from
a table in most elementary statistics texts. This determines the 95% confidence limit on the
accuracy range itself as:
𝜐𝜐
𝐴𝐴95% = 𝐴𝐴̂ × �𝜒𝜒2 .
𝜐𝜐,0.05
𝜐𝜐
If υ = 15, �𝜒𝜒2 giving coverage factor k = 2.8 (Eq. 11).
𝜐𝜐,0.05
Note that TRSD95% can be interpreted as a conservative estimate of TRSD and therefore can
be treated as a Type B uncertainty with infinite number of degrees of freedom as described
following Table 1.
where the random variable 𝜀𝜀̂ is approximately normally distributed about zero with
variance TRSD2. For evaluating the method, assume that reference concentration
measurements Ĉ can be made simultaneously and modeled by:
𝐶𝐶̂ = 𝐶𝐶 ∙ �1 + 𝜀𝜀𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑟𝑟
̂ �,
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter UA April 2016 Page UA-15 of UA-23
Measurement Uncertainty and NIOSH Method Accuracy Range
2
where 𝜀𝜀𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑟𝑟
̂ has variance 𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑟𝑟 assumed known accurately. Measure n values of the
�
ratio 𝜃𝜃:
𝑐𝑐̂
𝜃𝜃� ≡ 𝑐𝑐̂ = 1 + 𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑠𝑠 + 𝜀𝜀𝑐𝑐̂
and compute estimates biâs and TȒS𝑇𝑇𝑐𝑐2 at υ= n−1 degrees of freedom, where the
approximately normally distributed random variable 𝜀𝜀𝑐𝑐̂ has variance TȒS𝑇𝑇𝑐𝑐2 given by:
2
𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑐𝑐2 = 𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇2 + (1 + 𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏�𝑠𝑠)2 𝑥𝑥 𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑟𝑟
(to the order of TRSD, neglecting Cauchy effects of reciprocals of random variables).
𝑏𝑏𝑖𝑖𝑎𝑎𝑠𝑠−𝑏𝑏𝑖𝑖𝑎𝑎�𝑠𝑠
𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑠𝑠 ′ = 1+𝑏𝑏𝑖𝑖𝑎𝑎�𝑠𝑠
If n is large enough, |𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑠𝑠′| will be small enough that the corrected symmetric accuracy
range A' can be accurately approximated (Eq. 6) as:
2 𝑎𝑎2 1.9602
𝐴𝐴′ = (1+𝑏𝑏𝑖𝑖𝑎𝑎�𝑠𝑠)2 ,
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter UA April 2016 Page UA-16 of UA-23
Measurement Uncertainty and NIOSH Method Accuracy Range
First note that the expected value of the first term is:
𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝐷𝐷𝑐𝑐2
𝐸𝐸[(𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏 − 𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑎𝑎�𝑠𝑠)2 ] = .
𝑛𝑛
2
Therefore, an estimate 𝑎𝑎� for ɑ can be constructed as:
2
𝑇𝑇𝑅𝑅� 𝑆𝑆𝐷𝐷𝑐𝑐2
𝑎𝑎�2 ≡ + 𝑇𝑇𝑅𝑅� 𝑆𝑆𝐷𝐷2
𝑛𝑛
1
+ 𝑛𝑛 𝑇𝑇𝑅𝑅� 𝑆𝑆𝐷𝐷2
1 2
+ 𝑛𝑛 ∙ (1 + 𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑎𝑎�𝑠𝑠)2 𝑥𝑥 𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝐷𝐷𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 .
Each term can now be identified, forming the basis for an uncertainty budget: the first is
the (uncorrected) method uncertainty (squared); the second and third reflect the bias-
correction uncertainty owing to finiteness of the validation experiment and the
uncertainty in the reference concentration (as here measured n times).
A confidence limit 𝑎𝑎𝛽𝛽2 at confidence level β (e.g., 95%) on ɑ2 is now constructed using ɑ�2 :
𝑎𝑎𝛽𝛽2 = 𝐾𝐾 2 ∙ 𝑎𝑎� 2 ,
𝑎𝑎�2
𝜐𝜐𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 𝐸𝐸[𝑎𝑎�2 ] ≈ 𝜒𝜒 2 ,
where 𝜐𝜐𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 is determined as with the Smith-Satterthwaite [Keith et al. 1983; Currie 1997]
approximation, forcing variances to agree; often 𝜐𝜐𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 ≈ 𝑛𝑛 − 1.
Now,
𝑎𝑎𝛽𝛽2 < 𝑎𝑎2 ⇔ 𝑎𝑎�2 < 𝐾𝐾 −2 𝑎𝑎2 ,
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter UA April 2016 Page UA-17 of UA-23
Measurement Uncertainty and NIOSH Method Accuracy Range
or, in other words:
[Note that, 𝐸𝐸[𝑎𝑎�2 ] = 𝐸𝐸[𝑎𝑎2 ], 𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏 ≠ 𝑎𝑎2 unlike Technical Note 3.]
𝜐𝜐 ∙𝐾𝐾−2
= ∫0 𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 𝑑𝑑𝜒𝜒 2 𝑃𝑃𝜐𝜐𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 [𝜒𝜒 2 ] × (1 + 𝛰𝛰[1⁄𝑛𝑛2 ]) ,
where the correction O[1/n2] is easily proved by expanding the integrand about 𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑐𝑐2
in(𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑎𝑎�𝑠𝑠 − 𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏)2. Therefore, the following simple asymptotic expression for K2 results:
𝜐𝜐𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒
𝐾𝐾 2 ≈ 𝜒𝜒2 .
1−𝛽𝛽,𝜐𝜐𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒
𝜐𝜐𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒
𝑘𝑘 ≈ 1.960 ∙ � 2 ,
𝜒𝜒1−𝛽𝛽,𝜐𝜐
𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒
which is less than and close to 3.0, if the effective number of degrees of freedom 𝜐𝜐𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 ≥12,
and β=0.95.
In summary, the bias uncertainty is pooled together with the uncertainty components in
TȒSD2. It should be remembered, however, that only TȒSD refers to quantities, which vary
at each of the future measurements following the initial evaluation.
𝐴𝐴� 𝜒𝜒𝜐𝜐2
𝐴𝐴
= , 𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜ℎ𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒
𝜐𝜐
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter UA April 2016 Page UA-18 of UA-23
Measurement Uncertainty and NIOSH Method Accuracy Range
2𝐴𝐴4 𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇
𝜐𝜐 = 𝑣𝑣𝑎𝑎𝑖𝑖[𝐴𝐴�2] , 𝑏𝑏𝑖𝑖 |𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑠𝑠| < 1.645 ;
2𝐴𝐴2
𝜐𝜐 = 𝑣𝑣𝑎𝑎𝑖𝑖[𝐴𝐴�] , 𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜ℎ𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑏𝑏𝑠𝑠𝑒𝑒
Calculation of 𝑣𝑣𝑏𝑏𝑒𝑒 �𝐴𝐴̂2 � 𝑜𝑜𝑒𝑒 𝑣𝑣𝑏𝑏𝑒𝑒 �𝐴𝐴̂� is generally straightforward and depends on specifics
of the evaluation experiment and on significant influence parameters. The confidence
limit A95% is then determined as in Eq 9:
𝜐𝜐 𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇
𝐴𝐴95% = 𝐴𝐴̂ × �𝜒𝜒2 , 𝑏𝑏𝑖𝑖 |𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑠𝑠| < 1.645;
0.05,𝜐𝜐
𝜐𝜐
𝐴𝐴95% = 𝐴𝐴̂ × 𝜒𝜒2 , 𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜ℎ𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑏𝑏𝑠𝑠𝑒𝑒
0.05,𝜐𝜐
This expression has been found [Bartley and Irwin 2002] quite accurate, exhibiting
negligible effects from the discontinuity: The chi-square approximation is expected to be
worst when |𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑠𝑠|is large relative to TRSD. As an example, suppose the uncertainty has
the following components: 5% from pump error and also a 5% analytical relative standard
deviation. Suppose bias = 20%. Suppose bias and the analytical uncertainty are measured
with υ = 15 degrees of freedom. Then 10,000-point simulations indicate that the calculated
A95% is slightly conservative, giving 96% confidence.
Disclaimer
Mention of any company or product does not constitute endorsement by NIOSH. In addition,
citations to websites external to NIOSH do not constitute NIOSH endorsement of the
sponsoring organizations or their programs or products. Furthermore, NIOSH is not
responsible for the content of these websites. All web addresses referenced in this document
were accessible as of the publication date.
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter UA April 2016 Page UA-19 of UA-23
Measurement Uncertainty and NIOSH Method Accuracy Range
7 References
ACGIH [2015]. Appendix C: Particle size-selective sampling criteria for airborne particulate
matter. In: 2015 TLVs® and BEIs®. Cincinnati, OH: American Conference of Governmental
Industrial Hygienists.
ASTM [2013a]. D6246-08(2013) Standard practice for evaluating the performance of diffusive
samplers. West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania: American Society for Testing and Materials
International (ASTM).
ASTM [2014]. D3670 Standard guide for determination of precision and bias of methods.
West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania, American Society for Testing and Materials International.
ASTM [2015]. D7440 Standard practice for characterizing uncertainty in air quality
measurements. West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania, American Society for Testing and
Materials International.
Bartley DL and Irwin KC [2001]. Accuracy in measurements using diffusive samplers. In:
Proceedings of the International Conference on Diffusive Samplers, Montpellier, France, pp.
99-107.
Bartley DL [2004]. Reconciling traditional accuracy assessment with the ISO guide to the
expression of uncertainty in measurement (ISO/GUM). J Occup Environ Hyg 1:D37-D41.
Busch KA [1977]. Appendix A: SCP Statistical Protocol. In: Taylor DG, Kupel RE, Bryant JM,
eds. Documentation of the NIOSH validation tests. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of
Health, Education, and Welfare, Center for Disease Control, National Institute for
Occupational Safety and Health, DHEW (NIOSH) Publication. No. 77-185, pp. 7-11.
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter UA April 2016 Page UA-20 of UA-23
Measurement Uncertainty and NIOSH Method Accuracy Range
CEN [1993]. CEN EN481:1993 Workplace atmospheres – size fraction definitions for
measurement of airborne particles. Brussels, Belgium: European Standardization Committee.
Currie LA [1997]. Detection: international update, and some emerging dilemmas involving
calibration, the blank, and multiple detection decisions. Chemom Intell Lab Syst 37(1):151-
181.
Hald A [1952]. A statistical theory with engineering applications. New York: John Wiley &
Sons.
ISO [1995]. Air quality–particle size fraction definitions for health-related sampling. ISO
7708:1995(en). Geneva, Switzerland: International Organization Standardization.
ISO [2002]. ISO 11222:2002 Air quality - determination of the uncertainty of the time average
of air quality measurements. Geneva, Switzerland: International Organization for
Standardization.
ISO [2005]. ISO/IEC 17025:2005 General requirements for the competence of testing and
calibration laboratories. Geneva, Switzerland: International Organization for Standardization.
Keith LH, Crummett W, Deegan J Jr., Libby RA, Taylor JK, Wentler G [1983]. Principles of
environmental analysis. Anal Chem 55(14):2210-2218.
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter UA April 2016 Page UA-21 of UA-23
Measurement Uncertainty and NIOSH Method Accuracy Range
NIOSH [2012]. Components for Evaluation of Direct-Reading Monitors for Gases and
Vapors. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, DHHS
(NIOSH) Publication No. 2012-162.
NIOSH [1995]. Guidelines for air sampling and analytical method development and
evaluation. By Kennedy ER, Fischbach TJ, Song R, Eller PM and Shulman SA. Cincinnati,
Ohio: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, DHHS (NIOSH)
Publication No. 95-117.
Smith HF [1936]: The problem of comparing the results of two experiments with unequal
errors. Journal of the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research 9:211-212.
Vaughn NP, Chalmers CP, Botham RA. [1990]. Field comparison of personal samplers for
inhalable dust. Ann Occup Hyg, 34(6):553-573.
Wald A [1942]. Setting tolerance limits when the sample is large, Ann Math Statist 13(4):389-
399.
Wald A [1943]. An extension of Wilk’s method for setting tolerance limits. Ann Math Statist
14(1):45-55.
Wald A, Wolfowitz J [1946]. Tolerance limits for a normal distribution. Ann Math Statist
17(2):208-215.
Wilks SS [1941]. Determination of sample sizes for setting tolerance intervals. Ann Math
Statist 12(1):91-96.
Wilks SS [1942]. Statistical prediction with special reference to the problem of tolerance
limits. Ann Math Statist 13(4):400-409.
8 Terminology
A — symmetric accuracy range, relative (%) range of 95% of a method’s measurements about
the (true) measurand
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter UA April 2016 Page UA-22 of UA-23
Measurement Uncertainty and NIOSH Method Accuracy Range
ĉ — concentration estimate
C— true concentration
U— expanded uncertainty, a value giving intervals bracketing the (true) measurand at given
confidence in the measurement and method evaluation
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter UA April 2016 Page UA-23 of UA-23
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods (NMAM), 5th Edition
Whether through consultation with the laboratory or as cited in the relevant measurement
method, the sampling media will be specifically identified. Methods will specify parameters
such as: a) pore size and type of filter (for aerosol collection); b) concentration and amount of
liquid media required (e.g., for impinger sampling or impregnation of filters); and c) type and
amount of solid sorbent (for collection of gases / vapors); see below for common types and
characteristics of various sampling media.
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter SA April 2016 Page SA-2 of SA-23
General Considerations for Sampling Airborne Contaminants
The physical state(s) of the contaminant(s) being sampled may also be a factor in determining
the media required. In the case of polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), for example, the
correct sampler consists of a membrane filter to collect particulate matter and a solid sorbent
tube to trap the vapors of certain PAHs so that total collection is assured. Also, for sampling
of gases and vapors, it is generally necessary to mount a prefilter in front of the gas/vapor
collection media in order to trap aerosols that might otherwise interfere with subsequent
analysis of target analytes.
The sampling pump used to collect the sample must also be compatible with the sampling
needs and the media used. Specifically, the pump must be capable of maintaining the desired
flow rate over the time period needed using the sampling media specified. Some pumps may
not be able to handle the large pressure drop of the media. This may be the case for fine mesh
solid sorbent tubes, small pore size filters or when attempting to take a short-term sample on a
sorbent tube of a higher than normal pressure drop at higher flow rates. As a rule of thumb,
higher-flow pumps (>1 L/min) can handle at least 3 kPa pressure drop at 1 L/min for 8 h.
Some pumps can handle up to 7.5 kPa pressure drop at flows up to 5 L/min. Most low flow
pumps (0.01 to 0.2 L/min) can handle the pressure drops of available sorbent tubes without
problems, except that the nominal flow rate may decrease for certain models. All pumps
should be calibrated with representative sampling media prior to use. It is good practice to
check the pump calibration before and after use each day. As a minimum, calibration should
be done before and after each use.
*NOTE: Solid sorbents are used for the collection of vapors only. Aerosols are
notcollected effectively by most sorbent beds, but may be collected by other components
of the sampler (e.g., a prefilter).
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter SA April 2016 Page SA-3 of SA-23
General Considerations for Sampling Airborne Contaminants
b. Silica gel
Silica gel is less reactive than charcoal. In part because of its polar nature, coated silica gel
has been shown to be effective for sampling airborne ketones and aldehydes [Tejada 1986;
García-Alonzo and Pérez-Pastor 1998].
c. Porous polymers
Porous polymers feature lower surface area and much less reactive surface than charcoal.
Adsorptive capacity is, therefore, generally lower, but reactivity is much lower as well.
d. Synthetic sorbents
Synthetic carbonaceous sorbents demonstrate properties midway between charcoal and
porous polymers.
e. Coated sorbents
Coated sorbents are those upon which a layer of a reagent has been deposited. The
adsorptive capacity of such systems usually approaches the capacity of the reagent to react
with the particular analyte of interest [Kennedy 1988].
f. Molecular sieves
Zeolites and carbon molecular sieves retain adsorbed species according to molecular size.
A limiting factor is that the water molecule is of similar size to many small organic
compounds and is usually many orders of magnitude higher in concentration than the
species of interest. This unfavorable situation may result in the displacement of the analyte
by water molecules. Drying tubes may be used during sampling to eliminate the effects of
humidity [Langhorst 1983].
g. Thermal desorption
Thermal desorption tubes may contain several different sorbents in order to collect a wide
range of different chemical agents [Hodgson et al. 1988]. These tubes are generally used in
situations where unknown chemicals or a wide variety of organics are present, e.g., in
indoor environmental air quality investigations. Subsequent analysis is often by gas
chromatography/mass spectrometry (GC/MS).
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter SA April 2016 Page SA-4 of SA-23
General Considerations for Sampling Airborne Contaminants
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter SA April 2016 Page SA-5 of SA-23
General Considerations for Sampling Airborne Contaminants
rate of such reactions increases at higher temperatures. The temperature stability of a filter
must be considered when sampling in hot environments.
b. Humidity**
Water vapor is adsorbed by polar sorbents; their breakthrough capacity for the analyte is
thereby reduced for most organic compounds. However, for water-soluble compounds,
the breakthrough capacity is increased, e.g., for chlorine and bromine [Cassinelli 1991]
and formaldehyde [NIOSH 1994b]. This effect varies from substantial for more polar
sorbents, such as charcoal and silica gel, to a smaller effect for synthetic carbonaceous and
porous polymers.
Filter media may also be affected by humidity; moisture may affect a filter’s collection
efficiency. Very low humidities (≤10% RH) may make some filters (e.g., MCE) develop
high charge levels, causing non-uniform deposits and repulsion of particles [Chen and
Baron 1996]. Water absorption by some filters (e.g., MCE) can cause difficulty in
obtaining tare weights for gravimetric analysis; thus weight-stable filter materials must be
used for this application.
d. Concentration**
As the concentration of contaminant in air increases, breakthrough capacity (mg
adsorbed) of a solid sorbent bed increases, but breakthrough volume (L of air sampled)
decreases [Foerst 1979]. The effect of concentration is similar for filters.
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter SA April 2016 Page SA-6 of SA-23
General Considerations for Sampling Airborne Contaminants
e. Particle characteristics
Filter collection efficiency is a function of effective pore size [Lee and Ramamurthi 1993].
Particles smaller than about 0.2 µm are collected primarily by diffusion, while particles
larger than about 0.2 µm are collected primarily by impaction and interception. Most
sampling filters are highly efficient (>95%) for all particle sizes, with the minimum
efficiency in the 0.2 µm size range. Polycarbonate straight pore filters exhibit poor
collection by diffusion, so particles smaller than the pores are not collected efficiently.
f. Filter considerations
The pressure drop of a filter can limit the sampling time because of the load on the
personal sampling pump [Breuer 2012]. In addition, pressure drop increases with dust
loading on the filter [Lippman 1995]. Fine particles (<0.5 µm) will increase the pressure
drop much faster than coarse particles (>10 µm). Heavy loading (> about 2 mg) may result
in poor adhesion of collected particles to the filter surface.
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter SA April 2016 Page SA-7 of SA-23
General Considerations for Sampling Airborne Contaminants
Suppose it is desired to determine both ceiling and TWA exposures of workers exposed to
vinyl acetate and the concentrations are unknown.
Also to be considered are the other organics present. If a concentration of 200 ppm
acetone exists in this environment, then an additional safety factor should be added.
An arbitrary 50% reduction in sampling rate at 0.1 L/min might be done. With the
safety factors built in, collecting a 6-L sample should be acceptable.
In this particular example, let us say that the object is to estimate exposure down to 0.1
ppm (0.44 mg/m3), which is below the working range. In order to collect 8 µg of vinyl
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter SA April 2016 Page SA-8 of SA-23
General Considerations for Sampling Airborne Contaminants
bromide (the limit of quantitation) at this concentration, 20 L of air will have to be
collected. This volume is substantially above the maximum recommended sample volume
of 10 L. Since the recommended sample volume is generally a conservative value used to
protect against breakthrough under worst case conditions (i.e., high humidity and high
concentrations), considerable leeway exists for the size of the air sample. In this example,
the 20-L air samples should be taken at 0.2 L/min or lower, and the possibility of
breakthrough should be monitored by observing the relative amounts of analyte on the
backup sections of the samples.
The best approach is to consult with the analytical laboratory and then to take a sufficient
number of samples to determine the useful limits of the sampler in the particular
application. The presence of high relative humidity and other organic solvents will
severely reduce the number of active sites available on the sorbent for collection of the
contaminant of interest (with concomitant breakthrough a concern). In pushing a method
to the limit, it is often necessary to sample beyond the breakthrough volume, normally
while observing recommended maximum sampling flow rate, in order to obtain the
sensitivity to determine the concentration of interest. If this is done, then the risk must be
accepted that the method may not apply outside the limits tested.
Suppose it is desired to determine both an exposure taking place during a specific 15-
minute operation as well as a TWA exposure of workers exposed to phosphoric acid, and
the concentrations are unknown.
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter SA April 2016 Page SA-9 of SA-23
General Considerations for Sampling Airborne Contaminants
2.) TWA Determination:
In this situation, it is necessary to collect an 8-h sample to compare with the 1 mg/m3
NIOSH REL. Since an 8-h TWA sample covers 480 minutes, sampling can no longer
be done at 5 L/min since this would collect >2000 L, in excess of the upper
recommended sample volume. Sampling at 1 L/min would collect a 480 L sample, and
sampling at 2 L/min would collect a 960 L sample: both acceptable per the conditions
of the method.
6 Bulk samples
The collection of bulk samples can often assist with air sampling efforts. This is especially true
where there is mixed solvent exposure or unknown dust exposure, and for determining silica
content of dusts. The primary purpose of obtaining bulk samples is to provide the analytical
laboratory with a large enough sample for qualitative and sometimes quantitative analysis.
The two main types of bulk samples are bulk air and mass bulk (liquid or solid) samples.
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter SA April 2016 Page SA-10 of SA-23
General Considerations for Sampling Airborne Contaminants
In choosing bulk samples for collection, the end goal must be considered: qualitative
and/or quantitative analysis. Any information that can be given to the laboratory on what
may or may not be present will help with the analysis. Advance consultation with the
laboratory is desirable. In choosing bulk dust samples, the sample should be representative
of the airborne dust to which the workers are being exposed. Usually this is a settled dust
sample collected from locations near the workers' job site. In other cases, a process dust
sample may be chosen to determine the composition of the material before it becomes
airborne.
When shipping bulk samples, care must be taken to preserve the integrity of the samples
and to follow established shipping regulations. If applicable, hazardous shipping
procedures must be followed. Consult with an experienced hazardous goods shipper to
determine appropriate protocol. Only 5 to 10 mL of the liquid or 10 to 100 mg solid is
typically needed, so generally bulk sample sizes are kept small. It is important to consult
with the laboratory before collecting bulk samples to ensure proper sample size and
containers. In general, leak-proof glass containers are best since they will not react with
most chemicals; however, polyethylene containers can be used in the majority of cases. A
convenient container is a 20-mL scintillation vial with PTFE-lined cap. Specific chemicals
for which polyethylene containers should not be used include aromatic compounds,
chlorinated hydrocarbons and strong acids. The lids of the containers should be sealed
with shrink bands or tape for further assurance against leakage. Specific restrictions and
labeling requirements should be checked prior to shipping any samples.
In the case of volatile bulk samples (and some air samples), consideration should be given
to shipping the samples on dry ice or with bagged refrigerant (e.g., "blue ice"). Do not ship
volatile compounds together with air samples. Specific labeling is usually required when
dry ice is used in shipping.
7 Blanks
Certain numbers of blanks are required by the analytical laboratory for each set of samples to
be analyzed. The specific method being used should be consulted concerning the number and
type of blanks required. There are two types of sampler blanks: field and media blanks. Field
blanks are clean samplers taken to the sampling site, handled in the same way as the air
samples, except that no air is drawn through them. Media blanks are simply unopened, new
samplers which are sent to the laboratory with the field samples (these blanks are not usually
taken to the field). It is also recommended that additional blind field blanks be sent along with
the field samples, and labeled as field samples, as a further check on the analysis. Blanks are
good insurance to deal with contamination, but the best approach is to avoid sample
contamination by using careful sampling protocols. The general recommendation for the
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter SA April 2016 Page SA-11 of SA-23
General Considerations for Sampling Airborne Contaminants
number of field blanks is three field blanks for each batch of samples. Media blanks should
also be included. These unexposed, unopened samplers are used to give an estimate of media
background. The laboratory should analyze at least three (3) media blanks from the same lot
as the field samples. This number should be increased for media which are coated or
impregnated with reagent. Again, it is crucial to consult the specific method for the number
and type of blanks as these numbers will vary. Another recommended practice is to include
blind spiked samples as quality control checks of the analytical laboratory.
Some of the considerations (e.g., specificity and sensitivity) for the use of direct-reading
methods for quantitative determinations are similar to those already given for filter or sorbent
sampling and analytical methods. In many cases, direct-reading instruments, which are
physically small and portable, qualify as personal sampling devices.*** These offer the
additional advantages over classical methods by reducing labor and analytical costs and may
be the methods of choice when instantaneous results are important, even at the expense of
some degree of sensitivity or specificity. In general, manufacturers' instructions should be
followed in the calibration and use of these devices. Because of the severe conditions to which
direct-reading instruments may be subjected, performance checks and preventive
maintenance on a periodic basis or before each use are very important. Many direct-reading
instruments are powered by batteries which can fail to provide a full charge over the full
sampling period unless frequently or fully discharged and recharged several times just prior to
use. An additional responsibility, i.e., that of field calibration of the direct-reading instrument,
falls on the field sampling personnel.
***NOTE: Portable instrument are generally described as weighing less than 5 kg and
powered by self-contained batteries [Ashley 2003]. For personal monitoring, the instrument
configuration should be such that the breathing zone can be monitored.
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter SA April 2016 Page SA-12 of SA-23
General Considerations for Sampling Airborne Contaminants
9 Sampling Strategy
To obtain the maximum amount of information during the course of a sampling campaign
with a minimum number of samples, a statistical sampling strategy should be developed
before conducting any study [Leidel et al. 1977; ASTM International 2013]. Several pieces of
information must be known in advance to plan a sampling strategy, including the size of the
workforce to be sampled, the accuracy of the sampling and measurement method to be used
and the confidence one wishes to have in predicting the occupational exposures.
For example, to determine with 90% confidence that at least one worker from a workplace
subgroup will be in the top 10% of the exposures occurring in the group, the number of
employees to sample would be chosen from the scheme below. (Other figures are applicable
for confidence limits of 95% and for the top 20% of exposures.) Again, judicious use of
sampling statistics will optimize the number of samples needed.
Table 1. Minimum sample size (n) for including (@ 90% confidence level) at least one high
risk employeeA [Leidel et al. 1977]
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter SA April 2016 Page SA-13 of SA-23
General Considerations for Sampling Airborne Contaminants
The choice of a reference instrument will depend on where the calibration is to be
performed. For laboratory use, primary standards, such as a spirometer or soap-bubble
meter, are recommended [Okladek 1988]. Several electronic soap-bubble calibrators and
dry-cell calibrators are commercially available as primary calibrators. Other instruments,
such as a wet-test, mass-flow or a dry-gas meter, may be used. The following instructions
are for the soap-bubble meter. If another calibration device is used, equivalent procedures
should be followed.
2.) Ensure that the rechargeable batteries will power the pump for the entire sampling
interval by one of the following methods: 1) run the pump for that length of time,
checking for satisfactory operation; or 2) test the battery independently of the pump
using a current capacity tester [Kovein and Hentz 1988]. Fully recharge the batteries.
3.) Turn the pump on and moisten the inner surface of the soap-bubble meter with the
soap solution. Draw bubbles upward until they travel the entire length of the buret
without breaking.
4.) Adjust the pump to the desired nominal flow rate. Check the water manometer. The
pressure drop across the sampler should not exceed 2.5 cm Hg of water.
5.) Start a soap bubble in the buret and, with a stopwatch, measure the time that it takes to
traverse two calibration marks. For a 1000-mL buret, a convenient calibration volume
is 500 mL. Repeat the determination at least twice more. Average the results and
calculate the flow rate by dividing the calibration volume by the average time.
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter SA April 2016 Page SA-14 of SA-23
General Considerations for Sampling Airborne Contaminants
7.) If the sampling pump used for sample collection uses a variable area flow meter
(rotameter) for flow rate indication, the calibrated flow rate must be adjusted for the
actual air pressure and temperature during sampling [Okladek 1988]. The expression
for this correction is as follows.
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter SA April 2016 Page SA-15 of SA-23
General Considerations for Sampling Airborne Contaminants
1.) Calibrate each personal sampling pump at the desired flow rate with a representative
solid sorbent tube in line. Use a bubble meter or equivalent flow measuring device.
2.) Break the ends of the solid sorbent tube immediately before sampling to provide an
opening at least one-half of the internal diameter at each end.
3.) Connect the solid sorbent tube to a calibrated personal sampling pump with flexible
tubing with the smaller sorbent section (backup section) nearer to the pump. Do not
pass the air being sampled through any hose or tubing before entering the solid
sorbent tube. Position the solid sorbent tube vertically during sampling to avoid
channeling and premature breakthrough.
4.) Prepare the field blanks at about the same time as sampling is begun. These field
blanks should consist of unused solid sorbent tubes from the same lot used for sample
collection. Handle and ship the field blanks exactly as the samples (e.g., break the ends
and seal with plastic caps) but do not draw air through the field blanks. A minimum of
three field blanks are normally required for each batch of samples.
5.) Take the sample at an accurately known flow rate as specified in the method for the
substance and for the specified air volume. Typical flow rates are in the range 0.01 to
0.2 L/min. Check the pump during sampling to determine that the flow rate has not
changed. If sampling problems preclude the accurate measurement of air volume,
discard the sample. Take a minimum of three replicate samples for quality control for
each set of field samples.
6.) Record pertinent sampling data including location of sample, times of beginning and
end of sampling, initial and final air temperatures, relative humidity and atmospheric
pressure.
7.) Seal the ends of the tube immediately after sampling with plastic caps. Label each
sample and blank clearly with waterproof identification.
8.) Pack the tubes tightly with adequate padding to minimize breakage for shipment to the
laboratory. In addition to the sample tubes and field blanks, ship at least six unopened
tubes to be used as media blanks and three additional tubes so that desorption
efficiency studies can be performed on the same lot of sorbent used for sampling.
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter SA April 2016 Page SA-16 of SA-23
General Considerations for Sampling Airborne Contaminants
9.) Ship bulk samples in a separate package from the air samples to avoid contamination
of the samples. If applicable, hazardous shipping procedures must be followed.
Consult with an experienced hazardous goods shipper to determine appropriate
protocol. Suitable containers for bulk samples are glass with a polytetrafluoroethylene
(PTFE)-lined cap, e.g., 20-mL glass scintillation vials. It is important to consult with
the laboratory before collecting bulk samples to ensure use of proper sample size and
containers.
1.) Calibrate the personal sampling pump with a representative filter in line using a
bubble meter or equivalent flow measuring device.
2.) Assemble a filter or internal capsule in a cassette filter holder. Support the filter by a
cellulose backup pad or stainless steel screen. Close the filter holder to ensure that its
parts mate evenly and securely to prevent leakage [Frazee and Tironi 1987]. Seal the
filter holder with plastic tape or a shrinkable cellulose band.
3.) Remove the filter holder plugs and attach the filter holder to the personal sampling
pump with a piece of flexible tubing. Position the filter holder in the worker's personal
breathing zone, with the sampler inlet pointed downwards.
4.) Prepare the field blanks at about the same time as sampling is begun. These field
blanks should consist of unused filters (or internal capsules) and filter holders from the
same lot used for sample collection. Handle and ship the field blanks exactly as the
samples, but do not draw air through the field blanks. Three field blanks are required
for each batch of samples.
5.) Sample at the prescribed flow rate (usually 1 to 5 L/min) until the recommended
sample volume is reached. Set the flow rate as accurately as possible (e.g., within ± 5%)
using a calibrated flowmeter. Take three replicate samples (minimum) for quality
control for each set of field samples.
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter SA April 2016 Page SA-17 of SA-23
General Considerations for Sampling Airborne Contaminants
6.) Observe the sampler frequently and terminate sampling at the first evidence of
excessive filter loading or change in personal sampling pump flow rate. (It is possible
for a filter to become plugged by heavy particulate loading or by the presence of oil
mists or other liquids in the air.)
7.) Disconnect the filter holder after sampling. Cap the inlet and outlet of the filter holder
with plugs. Label the sample. Record pertinent sampling data, including times of
beginning and end of sampling, initial and final air temperatures, relative humidity
and atmospheric pressure. Record the type of personal sampling pump used and
location of the sampler.
8.) Ship the samples to the laboratory as soon as possible in a suitable container designed
to prevent damage in transit. Ship bulk material to the laboratory in a chemically inert
container. Never store, transport or mail bulk samples in the same container as the
samples or field blanks. In addition to the samples and field blanks, ship at least four
unused filters or filter capsules from the same lot for use as media blanks.
1.) Calibrate the pump to the rate specified by the cyclone, with a representative cyclone
sampler in line using a bubble meter (or a secondary flow measuring device which has
been calibrated against a bubble meter). The calibration of the personal sampling
pump should be done close to the same altitude where the sample will be taken.
2.) Assemble the pre-weighed filter in the cassette filter holder. Use a conductive or static-
dissipative cassette. Support the filter with a cellulose backup pad or stainless steel
screen. Close firmly to prevent sample leakage around the filter. Seal the filter holder
with plastic tape or a shrinkable cellulose band.
3.) Remove the cyclone's grit cap and vortex finder before use and inspect the cyclone
interior. If the inside is visibly scored, discard this cyclone since the dust separation
characteristics of the cyclone might be altered. Clean the interior of the cyclone to
prevent reentrainment of large particles.
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter SA April 2016 Page SA-18 of SA-23
General Considerations for Sampling Airborne Contaminants
4.) Assemble the two-piece filter holder, coupler, cyclone and sampling head. The
sampling head rigidly holds together the cyclone and filter holder. Check and adjust
the alignment of the filter holder and cyclone in the sampling head to prevent leakage.
Connect the outlet of the sampling head to the personal sampling pump by a 1-m piece
of 6-mm ID flexible tubing.
5.) Position the cyclone assembly in the worker's personal breathing zone and attach the
personal sampling pump to a belt or harness. Ensure that the cyclone hangs vertically
with the inlet pointed downwards. Explain to the worker that the cyclone must not be
inverted.
6.) Prepare the field blanks at about the same time as sampling is begun. These field
blanks should consist of unused filters and filter holders from the same lot used for
sample collection. Handle and ship the field blanks exactly as the samples, but do not
draw air through the field blanks. A minimum of three field blanks are required for
each batch of samples.
7.) Turn on the pump and begin sample collection. If necessary, reset the flow rate to the
pre-calibrated value, using the manufacturer's adjustment procedures. Since it is
possible for a filter to become plugged by heavy particulate loading or by the presence
of oil mists or other liquids in the air, observe the filter and personal sampling pump
frequently to keep the flow rate within ± 5% of the target flow rate. Sampling should
be terminated at the first evidence of a problem.
8.) Disconnect the filter after sampling. Cap the inlet and outlet of the filter holder with
plugs. Label the sample. Record pertinent sampling data, including times of beginning
and end of sampling, initial and final air temperatures and atmospheric pressure or
elevation above sea level. Record the type of personal sampling pump, filter, cyclone
used and the location of the sampler.
9.) Ship the samples and field blanks to the laboratory in a suitable container designed to
prevent damage in transit. Ship bulk samples in a separate package.
10.) Take a minimum of three replicate samples for every set of field samples to assure
quality of the sampling procedures. The set of replicate samples should be exposed to
the same dust environment, either in a laboratory dust chamber or in the field. The
quality control samples must be taken with the same equipment, procedures and
personnel used in the routine field samples. The relative standard deviation, sr,
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter SA April 2016 Page SA-19 of SA-23
General Considerations for Sampling Airborne Contaminants
calculated from these replicates, should be recorded on control charts and action taken
when the precision is out of control.
Disclaimer
Mention of any company or product does not constitute endorsement by NIOSH. In addition,
citations to websites external to NIOSH do not constitute NIOSH endorsement of the
sponsoring organizations or their programs or products. Furthermore, NIOSH is not
responsible for the content of these websites. All web addresses referenced in this document
were accessible as of the publication date.
11 References
ACGIH [2015]. Threshold Limit Values for Chemical Substances and Physical Agents and
Biological Exposure Indices. Cincinnati, OH: American Conference of Governmental
Industrial Hygienists.
Ashley K [2015]. Harmonization of NIOSH sampling and analytical methods with related
international voluntary consensus standards. J Occup Environ Hyg 12:D107-D115.
ASTM International [2014]. ASTM E1370, Standard guide for air sampling strategies for
worker and workplace protection. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International;
www.astm.org. Date accessed: March 23, 2016.
Baron PA [1998]. Personal aerosol sampler design – A review. Appl Occup Environ Hyg
13:313-320.
Breuer D [2012]. Flow resistance of samplers for personal monitoring in work areas and
requirements for sampling pump performance. J Occup Environ Hyg 9:D25-D32.
Cassinelli ME [1991]. Development of a solid sorbent monitoring method for chlorine and
bromine with determination by ion chromatography. Appl Occup Environ Hyg 6:215-226.
Chen CC, Baron PA [1996]. Aspiration efficiency and wall deposition in the fiber sampling
cassette. Am Ind Hyg Assoc J 52:142-152.
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter SA April 2016 Page SA-20 of SA-23
General Considerations for Sampling Airborne Contaminants
Eller PM [1986]. Operational limits of air analysis methods. Appl Ind Hyg 1(2):91- 94.
Foerst D [1979]. A sampling and analytical method for vinylidene chloride in air. Am Ind
Hyg Assoc J 40:888-893.
Frazee PR, Tironi G [1987]. A filter cassette assembly method for preventing bypass leakage.
Am Ind Hyg Assoc J 48:176-180.
García-Alonzo S, Pérez-Pastor R [1998]. Use of C18 and silica-gel coated Sep-Pak cartridges
for the determination of carbonyls in air by liquid chromatography. Anal Chim Acta 367:93-
99.
Hodgson AT, Binenboym J, German JR [1988]. A multisorbent sampler for volatile organic
compounds in indoor air. In: Advances in air sampling (American Conference of
Governmental Industrial Hygienists, ACGIH). Chelsea, MI: Lewis Publishers, pp. 143-157.
Jones FE [1994]. Toxic organic vapors in the workplace. Boca Raton, FL: Lewis Publishers.
Kennedy ER [1988]. Sampling reactive materials. In: Advances in air sampling, ACGIH.
Chelsea, MI: Lewis Publishers, pp. 175-188.
Kovein RJ, Hentz PA [1988]. A digital current capacity tester for rechargeable batteries. Appl
Ind Hyg 3(2):51-54.
Kulkarni PS, Baron PA, Willeke K, eds. [2011]. Aerosol measurement – principles,
techniques, and applications. 3rd ed. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Langhorst ML [1983]. A hollow fiber device for separating water vapor from organic vapors.
Am Ind Hyg Assoc J 44:592-599.
Lee KW, Ramamurthi M [1993]. Filter Collection. In: Willeke KW, Baron PA, eds. Aerosol
measurement. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter SA April 2016 Page SA-21 of SA-23
General Considerations for Sampling Airborne Contaminants
Leidel NA, Busch KA, Lynch JR [1977]. Occupational Exposure Sampling Strategy Manual.
Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Center for Disease
Control, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, DHEW (NIOSH) Publication
No. 77-173.
Lippmann M [1995]. Filters and filter holders. In: Cohen BS, Hering SV, eds. Air sampling
instruments. 8th ed.; Cincinnati, OH: ACGIH, pp. 247 - 278.
Melcher RG [1987]. Laboratory and field validation of solid sorbent samplers. In: Taylor JK,
ed. Sampling and calibration for atmospheric measurements (ASTM STP 957). Philadelphia
PA: American Society for Testing and Materials, pp. 149-165.
NIOSH [1994a]. Formaldehyde in dust: Method 5700. In: Eller PM, Cassinelli ME, eds.
NIOSH manual of analytical methods (NMAM). 4th ed. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute
for Occupational Safety and Health, DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 94-113
[www.cdc.gov/niosh/nmam/].
NIOSH [1994b]. Formaldehyde: Method 1206. In: Eller PM, Cassinelli ME, eds. NIOSH
manual of analytical methods (NMAM). 4th ed. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute for
Occupational Safety and Health, DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 94-113
[www.cdc.gov/niosh/nmam/].
NIOSH [1994c]. Vinyl Bromide: Method 1009. In: Eller PM, Cassinelli ME, eds. NIOSH
manual of analytical methods (NMAM). 4th ed. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute for
Occupational Safety and Health, DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 94-113
[www.cdc.gov/niosh/nmam/].
NIOSH [2013]. Vinyl Acetate: Method 1453. In: Ashley K, O’Connor PF, eds. NIOSH
manual of analytical methods (NMAM), 5th ed. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute for
Occupational Safety and Health, DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 2014-151
[www.cdc.gov/niosh/nmam/].
NIOSH [2014]. Non-Volatile Acids: Method 7908. In: Ashley K, O’Connor PF, eds. NIOSH
manual of analytical methods (NMAM), 5th ed. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute for
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter SA April 2016 Page SA-22 of SA-23
General Considerations for Sampling Airborne Contaminants
Occupational Safety and Health, DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 2014-151
[www.cdc.gov/niosh/nmam/].
Okladek J [1988]. An overview of flow metering devices. Am Lab 20:84-90.
Tejada SB [1986]. Evaluation of silica gel cartridges coated in situ with acidified
2, 4-dinitrophenylhydrazine for sampling aldehydes and ketones in air. Int J Environ Anal
Chem 26:167-185.
Todd LA [1997]. Direct-reading instruments for gases, vapors, and aerosols. In: DiNardi SR,
ed. The occupational environment – its evaluation and control. Fairfax, VA: American
Industrial Hygiene Association, pp. 177-208.
Woebkenberg ML, McCammon CS [1995]. Direct-reading gas and vapor Instruments. In:
Cohen BS, Hering SV, eds. Air sampling instruments. 8th ed. Cincinnati, OH: ACGIH,
pp 439-510.
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter SA April 2016 Page SA-23 of SA-23
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods (NMAM), 5th Edition
The NMAM team gratefully acknowledges Bon-Ki Ku, Kevin Ashley and Pramod Kulkarni
for insightful review of this chapter.
1 Introduction AE - 2
2 Inlet efficiency of the sampler AE - 8
3 Classifier accuracy AE - 11
4 Sampler assembly AE - 15
5 Electrostatic losses AE - 16
6 Sampler deposition uniformity AE - 18
7 Sampler wall losses AE - 19
8 Collection media and analytical issue AE - 20
9 Sampler field comparisons AE - 22
10 Conclusions AE - 24
11 References AE - 25
1 Introduction
The need for aerosol sampling is driven by research or regulatory needs to understand or
quantify the properties of airborne particles in the workplace or ambient environments. The
property of most common interest is the airborne concentration of particulate mass defined as
the aerosol mass per unit volume of air, usually expressed in units of micrograms or
milligrams per cubic meter. Alternatively, concentrations of other related properties such as
surface area or number, or particle size distributions are also of interest in certain cases,
especially where exposure to nanoparticles or ultrafine aerosols are involved. In many
applications, airborne concentration of a certain chemical or analyte, usually expressed in
terms of micrograms per cubic meter, is more important. Aerosol sampling is the process of
collecting a representative sample of airborne particles of interest from the air environment by
physically separating them from the sampled air of known volume. The degree to which the
physically separated sample represents the in situ aerosol depends on the design of the
physical separation device, often known as the aerosol sampler. Other factors that affect the
representativeness of the particulate sample include environmental conditions (e.g., wind,
temperature, humidity), particle characteristics (particularly if they are highly irregular or
nonspherical), and subsequent analytical methods used for particle analysis. This chapter
focuses mainly on the key characteristics of aerosol samplers that may influence the
representativeness of the sampled aerosol. Direct-reading aerosol samplers are not discussed
in this chapter.
Most samplers use size-selective inlets that conform to certain health-based conventions. The
American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) [Vincent 1999a;
ACGIH 2015], the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) [ISO 1995], and the
European Standardization Organization (Comité Europeén de Normalisation, CEN) [CEN
1993] have adopted identical particle size-selective sampling conventions for inhalable,
thoracic, and respirable aerosols (Figure 1). The purpose of these conventions is to provide a
scientific basis for a new generation of particle size-selective occupational exposure limits
(OELs) for aerosols. Such OELs can therefore be matched to the relevant sites of aerosol
deposition after inhalation into the respiratory tract, and in turn to the health effects of
interest in a given exposure assessment. These sampling conventions are used throughout this
manual unless otherwise specified.
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter AE April 2016 Page AE-2 of AE-35
Factors Affecting Aerosol Sampling
The criteria presented in this manual are used to determine the most appropriate aerosol
sampling equipment. The type of sampling to be performed determines which criteria are
important for estimating the adequacy of the sampler and determining aerosol concentration
levels. For example, “total dust” samplers generally do not have a size selective particle
classifier preceding the filter media and fall under the inhalable sampling convention.
Alternatively, sampling for regulatory or voluntary compliance with aerosol exposure
standards usually requires greater accuracy, increased efficiency, size-specific selectivity, and
good analytical precision. Furthermore, regulations may require the use of a specific sampler
and sampling conditions to standardize sampling results (eliminate bias) and reduce
uncertainty among laboratory reports. See the chapter on measurement uncertainty and
NIOSH method accuracy for further discussion on standardization and aerosol measurement
error.
Open-face filter cassettes do not use constricted opening or tubing and expose the filter
directly to the aerosol to minimize the losses. They provide relatively uniform particle
deposition on the filter. On the other hand, closed-face filter cassettes are often necessary to
connect to upstream tubing or size-selective inlets.
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter AE April 2016 Page AE-3 of AE-35
Factors Affecting Aerosol Sampling
Over the past decades, researchers have pointed out strengths and weaknesses with several
types of aerosol samplers (Figures 2A-J). Some of these samplers were adapted from existing
devices used for other purposes, e.g., the 10-mm nylon cyclone and the 37-mm cassette,
without the benefit of current testing technology and understanding of particle behavior.
Figure 2A. 37-mm (top) and 25-mm (bottom) filter cassettes. Open faced cassettes are
shown on left. Closed-faced cassettes include placement of clear piece (on right) over filter.
These are shown in acrylic copolymer (clear, non-conducting) material and are more
prone to electrostatic losses. Other construction materials are available, including
conducting plastic. Sampling flow rates range from 0.5 to 10 L/min.
Figure 2B. IOM inhalable sampler. This is the first sampler designed specifically to match
the inhalable sampling convention. The sampling cartridge is shown on the right with the
inlet, filter, and support grid. All dust entering the cartridge is collected and analyzed.
Sampler is made of conductive plastic and operates at 2 L/min.
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter AE April 2016 Page AE-4 of AE-35
Factors Affecting Aerosol Sampling
Figure 2C. Seven hole sampler used for inhalable dust sampling in the UK. Sampler is
made of conductive plastic and operates at 2 L/min.
Figure 2D. Button sampler. So-named because the inlet, a hemispherical screen with ~380
µm diameter holes, resembles a large button. It was developed as an inhalable sampler with
reduced wind direction response and improved filter deposit uniformity. The sampler uses
metal construction and operates at 4 L/min.
Figure 2E. Asbestos sampling cassette. The long (50 mm) inlet was designed to prevent
incidental contact with the filter surface and, when facing downward, acts to a certain extent
as an elutriator, preventing larger particles from reaching the filter surface. It is made of
conductive plastic and is operated at a flow rate between 0.5 L/min to 16 L/min.
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter AE April 2016 Page AE-5 of AE-35
Factors Affecting Aerosol Sampling
Figure 2F. Bell mouth cowl sampler. An alternative to the standard asbestos sampling
cassette. The inlet is flared to reduce the effect of external air motion on sample
uniformity. It is made of conductive plastic and is operated at a flow rate between
0.5 L/min to 16 L/min.
Figure 2G. Dorr-Oliver 10-mm nylon cyclone. It is used as a respirable sampler most
often at 1.7 L/min. A version of this sampler is used at 2 L/min in coal mines with a 1.38
correction factor applied to the resultant mass. The holder encases body of the cyclone so
that only the inlet section is visible just below the connection to the 37 mm cassette. The
coal mine dust sampler version uses a cassette with an aluminum cartridge encasing the
collection filter.
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter AE April 2016 Page AE-6 of AE-35
Factors Affecting Aerosol Sampling
Figure 2H. Higgins-Dewell cyclone. This sampler was developed and used primarily as a
respirable sampler in the UK. This version provides an interface directly to a 37-mm
cassette. Cyclone construction is steel and operates at 2.2 L/min.
Figure 2I. GK2.69 cyclone. This cyclone was designed to match the slope of the thoracic
and respirable conventions more closely than other sampling cyclones. Cyclone
construction is stainless steel and operates at 4.2 L/min as a respirable sampler and 1.6
L/min as a thoracic sampler. GK4.162 RASCAL Cyclone is also available for higher flow
rates of 8.5-9 L/min.
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter AE April 2016 Page AE-7 of AE-35
Factors Affecting Aerosol Sampling
Figure 2J. Personal cascade impactor sampler (model Marple 290, Thermo Fisher
Scientific). The sampler has five stages in the version shown and an additional three stages
are available to provide cutpoints from 0.4 µm to 21 µm. The flap over the inlet reduces
direct projection of large particles into the inlet. This sampler allows measurement of
aerosol size distribution and calculation of respirable and thoracic fractions. It is
constructed of aluminum and operates at 1.7 L/min.
More recently developed aerosol samplers were designed to either maximize the information
gained regarding aerosol concentration levels or to minimize any inherent losses associated
with the sampler design. Thus, each sampler design may have been based on some of the
following criteria: inlet or aspiration efficiency, classifier accuracy, cassette assembly (bypass
leakage), electrostatic losses, particle deposition uniformity, collection media stability, sampler
surface losses, and sampler field comparisons. These criteria are discussed in the following
sections of this chapter.
where CS is the concentration of particles passing directly through the plane of the sampling
orifice and C0 is the ambient concentration. This is true for aerosol samplers for which the
entire amount of aerosol that enters the plane of the sampling orifice is quantified, as is the
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter AE April 2016 Page AE-8 of AE-35
Factors Affecting Aerosol Sampling
case for the IOM sampler (SKC, Inc., Eighty Four, PA). However, it is important to note that
many commercially available aerosol samplers use only the aerosol collected on the filter that
is housed in the sampler, while any particles deposited on the inner surfaces upstream of the
filter are disregarded. Performance of this type of sampler is therefore best characterized by its
sampling efficiency, in which the aspiration efficiency is modified by the particle size-
dependent wall losses prior to the filter. The aspiration or sampling efficiency of a particular
aerosol sampler, whichever is the most relevant, expressed as a function of particle
aerodynamic diameter, is the primary index of sampler performance. The overall size-
dependent transmission efficiency of the sampler must match the appropriate health-based
criterion (e.g., the inhalability criterion) to allow its use for a health-based assessment of
personal aerosol exposure.
As an aerosol is being sampled, the large-particle trajectories are more affected by external
flow fields than those of small particles. Thus, the shape, orientation, and inlet flow field will
be most critical for inhalable aerosol sampler inlets; they will be less important for thoracic
samplers and unlikely to be important for respirable samplers, except at very high wind
velocities. The flow field near the inlet of a sampler is different when the sampler is mounted
on a person (or in laboratory simulations using a mannequin) than when it is freestanding.
Therefore, it has been recommended that measurement of inhalability be determined from
mannequins in wind tunnels [Vincent 1999a; Kennedy et al. 1995; Kennedy and Hinds 2002;
Aitken et al. 1999]. Flow field studies using mannequins in wind tunnels indicate that the air
is slowed down by the body, resulting in an enrichment of large particles in the upstream side
of the body [Rodes et al. 1995]. When intended for use at low wind speeds (less than about
1 m/s [200 ft/min] (representing most indoor workplaces), it may be possible to test the
samplers as freestanding devices if it can be shown there is no effect from the mannequin
body [CEN 1997]. However, if the sampler is to be used at higher windspeeds, which
frequently occur outdoors, personal aerosol samplers should be evaluated on a mannequin in
a wind tunnel [CEN 1997].
Respirable aerosol samplers generally do not have problems with inlet effects because the
particles being sampled have low enough inertia and settling velocity. However, Cecala et al.
[1983] found that the 10-mm nylon cyclone operated free-standing in a wind tunnel
oversampled at external air velocities greater than 4 m/s when the inlet faced the wind and
undersampled at 90° and 180° to the wind at velocities greater than 1 m/s. The maximum
sampling error of about 40% was observed at 10 m/s. It is expected that these errors would be
reduced if the sampler were located on a person, because the air velocity decreases near the
body surface. It should be noted that the Cecala et al. work was conducted in the context of
aerosol sampling in underground mining environments. Here, windspeeds of the magnitude
quoted are not uncommon. However, in industrial workplaces more generally, windspeeds are
much lower. Two surveys of a wide range of workplaces [Baldwin and Maynard 1998; Berry
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter AE April 2016 Page AE-9 of AE-35
Factors Affecting Aerosol Sampling
and Froude 1989] revealed that actual indoor windspeeds rarely exceeded 0.2 to 0.3 m/s and
more typically were less than 0.1 m/s.
The EPA PM10 standard for environmental sampling specifies a sampler that has a 50%
cutpoint at 10.6 µm particle diameter, approximately the same as that for the thoracic sampler
[Baron and John 1999]. Although the requirements for environmental PM10 samplers stipulate
wind tunnel testing, similar work on personal PM10 and thoracic samplers is yet to be
performed. It is expected that these samplers will be more susceptible to wind effects than
respirable samplers because larger particles are more susceptible to inertial and gravitational
effects.
The most extensive comparison of available inhalable aerosol samplers was that carried out
under the auspices of the European Commission (EC) [Kenny et al. 1997]. Eight samplers
were tested: CIP-10 (foam-based, French); 37-mm closed-face cassette (Spain and US) (Figure
2A); 37-mm open-face cassette (Sweden) (Figure 2A); PAS-6 (Netherlands); PERSPEC (Italy);
GSP (Germany, sold as CIS sampler in US; BGI, Inc. Waltham MA); IOM (United Kingdom;
(Figure 2B); and the Seven-Hole Sampler (United Kingdom; Casella CEL, Inc., UK) (Figure
2C). Conditions of the experiment included measurement of sampler collection efficiencies on
a mannequin for aerosol particles with diameters as large as 100 µm at a wind speed of
0.5m/s, 1.0 m/s, and 4 m/s. Samplers were positioned on a mannequin rotating within a wind
tunnel. The samplers were all conductive; the 37-mm cassette samplers were painted with an
external conductive coating. The aerosol was, however, not neutralized. The results of this
experiment indicated high inter-sampler variability, but permitted estimates of bias relative to
the inhalable convention. The EC study also indicated that most samplers work reasonably
well at low wind speeds (<1 m/s) for particle median diameters below 25 µm [Kenny 1995].
The study indicated that experiments of this type were difficult, expensive, and generally had
poor precision. Perhaps better understanding of the flow field near the body may lead the way
to improved and simplified sampler testing. Recent work suggests ways of making the wind
tunnel testing of inhalable samplers simpler and less expensive, e.g., by using a compact body
to simulate the chest of a mannequin [Witschger et al. 1997] and by using miniaturized
mannequins and samplers that are calculated to be aerodynamically equivalent
[Ramachandran et al. 1998].
The orientation and diameter of an inhalable sampler inlet may affect the collection of very
large particles (generally >100 µm), since these may be thrown into the inlet as projectiles. The
current definition of inhalable aerosol only covers particles up to100 µm aerodynamic
diameter.
In situations where large particles can be generated (e.g., abrasive blasting, wood working, and
grinding operations) excessive collection of particles up to the millimeter range is likely to
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter AE April 2016 Page AE-10 of AE-35
Factors Affecting Aerosol Sampling
occur. There have been some attempts to modify inlets with shields to provide a barrier
against the collection of large particles, but these modified inlets have not been demonstrated
to provide the same agreement with the inhalable convention as the unmodified ones.
Another potential problem with inhalable samplers is the collection of passively sampled
particles. Measurements when the sampler airflow is turned off indicate that IOM samplers,
which pointed outward from the body and had a large inlet diameter (15-mm), can collect
quite significant amounts of dust, with median values of 9 to 32 percent of the mass collected
during active sampling [Lidén et al. 2000b]. Open-faced cassettes had only 2 to 11 percent of
the mass passively collected. These samplers have a larger inlet (37-mm), but point downward,
reducing the likelihood of particle settling onto the collection surface. The mechanism of
collection is unclear, but the dust may be transported into the inlet by turbulence and
deposited by settling or turbulent diffusion. How this passively collected dust modifies the
amount collected during active sampling remains under investigation.
A comparison of measurements obtained with the 37-mm closed-face cassette (4-mm inlet
diameter) to the IOM sampler (15-mm inlet diameter) in several workplaces gave similar
results when the material on the interior walls of the 37-mm cassette were added to the analyte
deposited on the filter [Demange et al. 2002; Harper and Demange 2007]. This suggests that
the two samplers can have similar inlet efficiencies in spite of differences in inlet size and
orientation if the median particle size sampled is not too large. Therefore, if the total
aspiration (which includes the mass from filter and the wall deposits) of the IOM sampler
conforms with the ISO inhalable size-selection criterion, then so does the total aspiration of
the closed cassette filter. Several studies have now shown that in metals industries the total of
mass from particulate filter and the wall deposit are comparable for both the closed cassette
filter and the IOM samplers [Harper and Demange 2007].
3 Classifier accuracy
The theory of classifier separation is based on particle aerodynamic diameter, which is defined
as the diameter of a 1 g/cm3 density sphere having the same gravitational settling velocity as
the particle in question. If the particle is markedly nonspherical or irregularly shaped, the
aerodynamic diameter may depend on particle’s orientation and other factors, possibly
contributing to sizing errors. For example, fibers and plate-like particles settle slightly
differently depending on orientation [Kulkarni et al. 2011]. Thus, the sampling conventions,
based on aerodynamic diameter of particles reaching specified parts of the respiratory system,
become somewhat ambiguous for these types of particles. For such nonspherical particles,
further testing of classifiers to simulate particle behavior in the respiratory tract may be
necessary. For instance, Maynard [1996] found that plate-like particles may orient differently
in elutriators, impactors, and cyclones. This preferred orientation in a cyclone produced a
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter AE April 2016 Page AE-11 of AE-35
Factors Affecting Aerosol Sampling
collection efficiency 15% below that estimated to occur in the respiratory system. In addition,
Baron et al. [2008] showed that the overall enveloping physical size of airborne single-walled
carbon nanotube (SWCNT) agglomerates is much larger than their aerodynamic size, by a
factor of up to 10. Ku and Kulkarni [2015] measured both aerodynamic and mobility (or
diffusion) diameters of airborne carbon nanotubes (CNTs) and other nanomaterials to show
that aerodynamic diameter is smaller by a factor of 2 to 4 than mobility diameter for SWCNT
and multi-walled CNT particles. These studies indicate that relevant equivalent diameters
must be used to obtain reliable estimation of lung deposition fraction. Improved
understanding of fiber [Esmen and Erdal 1991], nanotube [Baron et al. 2008; Ku and
Kulkarni, 2015] and plate-like particle [Maynard 1996] behavior in the respiratory tract is
needed to aid in development of more accurate samplers for these types of particles. The
phase (i.e. liquid or solid) of the aerosol particles also influences sampling errors. Koehler et
al. [2012] examined the sampling efficiency as a function of particle phase of three personal
aerosol samplers, including the IOM and button sampler. They found that large liquid
droplets have low transmission efficiencies through the screened inlets and that the bounce of
solid particles significantly affects the aspiration efficiencies of screened inlets.
Various types of classifiers have been constructed to meet the ACGIH/ISO conventions. For
example, respirable samplers have used cyclones [Caplan et al. 1977], impactors [Marple 1978;
Kimura 1978; John 1994], elutriators [Lynch 1970], and porous foam [Brown 1980; Courbon
et al. 1988] to remove non-respirable particles from the aerosol prior to filter collection. The
technology for testing these samplers has improved in recent years through use of a real-time
aerodynamic sizing instrument and resulted in quicker and more precise measurements
[Baron 1993; Gudmundsson and Lidén 1998]; this technique has allowed the accuracy of these
samplers to be investigated more carefully [Bartley et al. 1994]. However, a round-robin
comparison of 50% cut-point measurements from six laboratories using an aerodynamic
sizing instrument to test the same cyclone agreed within a range of 11% [Lidén 2000a].
Further work on the testing protocol is needed to improve interlaboratory agreement. Many
current classifiers do not match the shape of the respirable convention exactly and produce
biases that depend on size distribution. Two comparisons of several respirable samplers have
been performed using the aerodynamic sizing technique [Chen et al. 1999b; Görner et al.
2001].
The introduction of the thoracic fraction in the ACGIH/ISO conventions has spurred interest
in thoracic classifiers for certain types of aerosols, e.g., cotton dust, asbestos and sulfuric acid
[Baron and John 1999]. The performance characteristics of the vertical elutriator (operated at
7.4 L/min) used for cotton dust approximately meets the thoracic definition [Robert 1979].
Laboratories in many countries perform asbestos fiber measurement using the technique of
counting only fibers with diameters of 3 µm or less; this size selection was shown to be
approximately equivalent to thoracic sampling [Baron 1996]. Further tests indicate that
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter AE April 2016 Page AE-12 of AE-35
Factors Affecting Aerosol Sampling
several thoracic samplers may be appropriate for asbestos sampling [Jones et al. 2001;
Maynard 1999]. Thoracic sampling is also recommended for sulfuric acid [Lippmann et al.
1987] and metal working fluids [NIOSH 1998].
Several samplers based on inertial, cyclone and foam separators have been specifically
developed to meet the thoracic definition [Fabriès et al. 1989; Fang and Lippmann 1995; Mark
et al. 1988; Kenny and Gussman 1997]. The CIP-10 sampler has been used for thoracic
sampling in Europe [Gorner et al. 1994], but is not applicable to aerosols with a significant
submicrometer fraction [Fabriès et al. 1989]. Several of these samplers have been tested to
compare with the thoracic convention [Jones et al. 2001; Maynard 1999]. The GK2.69 cyclone
(Figure 2I) has been used for metal working fluids [NIOSH 1998] and GK4.162 cyclone has
been used for measurement of crystalline silica [Qi et al., 2015]. Several developmental
samplers have also been developed. Koehler and Volckens [2013] have developed multistage
regional deposition sampler that allows estimation of regional deposition of aerosol in the
human respiratory system. This sampler is not suitable for gravimetric analysis but is well
suited for measurement using variety of chemical analyses. A personal nanoparticle
respiratory deposition sampler was developed by Cena et al. [2011] for particles smaller than
300 nm diameter, whose aspiration efficiency curves matches the fractional International
Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) deposition curve for human respiratory tract
below ~300 nm. Tsai et al. [2012] have developed a personal nanoparticle sampler which
simultaneously collects both respirable and nanoparticles fraction (<100 nm aerodynamic
diameter).
The PM10 standard for environmental sampling is very similar to the thoracic convention and
impactors with a 10 µm cutoff size have been used for personal PM-10 sampling [Buckley et
al. 1991]. A cascade impactor, e.g., the Andersen personal cascade impactor (Figure 2J), can be
used to calculate the thoracic fraction of an aerosol. Although a thoracic sampler is
commercially available (Figure 2I), further work is needed to determine its applicability for
specific types of aerosol. For example, a thoracic sampler for fibers must result in a uniform
deposit of the particles on the filter for accurate analysis results.
The overall accuracy of a classifier with respect to sampling in accordance with the one of the
sampling conventions can be estimated using a bias map (Figure 3). The bias map displays the
percent difference between the predicted mass collected by the sampler and the mass expected
according to the convention as a function of the parameters of a lognormal particle diameter
distribution for a range of likely workplace distributions. Such a bias map can be used for
selecting a sampler for a workplace having a certain range of particle sizes or for developing
samplers that agree more closely with the sampling conventions.
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter AE April 2016 Page AE-13 of AE-35
Factors Affecting Aerosol Sampling
Figure 3. Bias map for the 10-mm nylon cyclone (operated at 1.7L/min) compared with the
respirable convention [Courbon et al. 1988]. The contour lines represent percent bias for
specific lognormal size distributions. The calculation of this map is based on laboratory
measurement of cyclone penetration and can be used with field size distributions to
estimate sampling bias.
The bias map in Figure 3 was created by: (a) fitting the penetration curve for the 10-mm nylon
cyclone (Figure 2G) [Gudmundsson and Lidén 1998] at 1.7 L/min with a lognormal curve (a
logistic curve also can be used), (b) calculating the bias between the respirable convention and
the curve from the previous step for a range of lognormal size distributions, and (c) plotting
the bias contour lines as a function of the size distribution mass median aerodynamic
diameter (MMAD) and geometric standard deviation (GSD). The 10-mm nylon cyclone
shows significant negative biases, especially at large MMADs and small GSDs, because the
cyclone penetration curve drops off more rapidly with size than the curve for the respirable
convention. The “best” flow rate to use in a workplace when sampling according to one of the
conventions becomes a matter of judgment, depending on the size distribution typically
encountered in that workplace. A cyclone that fits the convention more exactly will exhibit
smaller biases throughout the entire size distribution range. Bias maps are available for several
respirable samplers [Chen et al. 1999b; Görner et al. 2001]. It should be mentioned that in
some cases, e.g., coal mine dust sampling, a single sampler is specified by regulation. This
sampler specification eliminates the question of bias for that type of measurement.
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter AE April 2016 Page AE-14 of AE-35
Factors Affecting Aerosol Sampling
[Lidén and Gudmundsson 1996]. Chen and coworkers developed a virtual cyclone that
appeared to give excellent compliance with the respirable curve [Chen et al. 1999a]. It is
possible to make samplers that have predicted biases less than 10% over the entire range of
likely workplace size distributions. While the behavior of certain samplers, such as impactors,
can be predicted theoretically, it is still important to measure penetration curves
experimentally to ensure correct application of the theory. Bias maps based on these data then
allow estimation of accuracy for a specific workplace application. As improved samplers are
tested and become commercially available, more accurate thoracic and respirable aerosol
measurement on a routine basis will be possible.
As mentioned above, several inhalable samplers were investigated in a wind tunnel to evaluate
their sampling efficiency compared to the inhalable convention [Kenny et al. 1997]. Based on
these data, sampler performance (maximum bias confidence limit) was ranked [Bartley 1998]
and the IOM, GSP, and CIP-10 samplers were rated the best.
As interest in the new particle size-selective conventions by standards setting bodies has
grown, efforts have been made to define protocols to guide the testing and validation process
for available samplers. One approach was developed by the CEN [Lidén 1994; CEN 1998]. In
the CEN model, for any given sampler to be tested, the first step is a critical review of the
sampling process for the instrument in question. This is intended to identify factors that may
influence the performance of the sampler, including particle size, windspeed, aerosol
composition, filter material, etc. This is essential in the process of sampler evaluation,
determining under what conditions the sampler will need to be tested. Three options are then
presented for the testing of samplers: (a) the laboratory testing of samplers to compare
performance with the sampling conventions, (b) the laboratory comparison of instruments,
and (c) the field of comparison of instruments. Research projects have been conducted in
recent years to define testing protocols (option a), funded both by the European Community
and by NIOSH, to consolidate the scientific basis for such protocols and to identify improved
and more cost-effective methods.
4 Sampler assembly
Some samplers are designed such that improper assembly can result in internal leakage, i.e.,
aerosol particles bypassing the filter. This bypass leakage has been noted in the 37-mm closed-
face cassette [Frazee and Tironi 1987; Van den Heever 1994]. Although at least one study
found no problem with hand assembly of these cassettes [Puskar et al. 1991], NIOSH and
others have occasionally observed, after sampling black or colored dusts, streaks of dust on the
filter’s compression seal region or an incomplete compression mark, indicating aerosol
leakage bypassing the filter. An airtight seal in these cassettes is achieved by compression of
two plastic parts that must be parallel and joined with the proper force. If this seal is not
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter AE April 2016 Page AE-15 of AE-35
Factors Affecting Aerosol Sampling
compressed with sufficient force, the vacuum behind the filter may pull the filter from the
seal, especially at high flow rates. Too high a compression force results in cracking the cassette
or cutting the filter, also producing leakage.
Prudence dictates that a check of cassette integrity and the seal area on each filter should be
made after sampling to ensure that the cassette was properly assembled; otherwise, the sample
may underestimate the actual exposure.
At least two approaches to eliminating the sealing problem with press-fitted cassettes have
been taken. One was to assemble the cassette using a press. Pressing the cassette together by
hand often produces misalignment of the cassette parts, resulting in bypass leakage. Frazee
and Tironi [1987] designed a mechanical press that held the two cassette pieces in proper
alignment, while applying just enough pressure to effect a seal, but not so much as to cause
cracking of the plastic. This press was designed to allow motion of the cassette pieces to
compress to a certain distance. A commercial pneumatic press (Accu-PressTM, Omega
Specialty, Chelmsford, MA) used a selected pressure to compress the cassette components.
For additional information on bypass leakage and bypass leak test procedures see [Baron
2002]. The second approach was to redesign the cassette to provide a more positive filter seal
[Van den Heever 1994]. In a well-designed sampler, opening the seal should not cause tearing
and loss of the filter or collection medium during removal from the sampler.
The 37-mm closed-face cassette is usually sealed with tape or shrink bands around the
outside. There is a common misconception that this seal prevents bypass leakage in the
cassette. These external seals primarily cover the joint between the cassette components to
prevent deposited particles on the external surface of the cassette from contaminating the
sample during filter removal. The tape or shrink band also aids in holding the cassette
together and preventing external air leakage. However, Puskar, et al. [1991] found that even
by using this precaution, a significant amount of dust was found downstream of the filter. The
authors hypothesized that this dust was deposited during filter removal.
Three other commercial samplers, the IOM (Figure 2B), the CIS, and the coal mine dust
sampler (MSA, Inc., Pittsburgh, PA) use a cartridge to hold the filter. For the first two
samplers, an external threaded cover applies pressure to the cartridge to ensure a good seal
around the filter. This prevents twisting at the filter surface while creating positive, even
contact around the filter edge.
5 Electrostatic losses
Most aerosol particles generated in workplaces have electrostatic charge levels considerably
higher than the steady-state or equilibrium charge level [Johnston et al. 1985]. The
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter AE April 2016 Page AE-16 of AE-35
Factors Affecting Aerosol Sampling
equilibrium charge (Boltzmann equilibrium) levels are usually achieved after particles are
suspended in the ambient atmosphere for approximately an hour in the presence of naturally
occurring atmospheric ions of positive and negative polarity. When freshly generated particles
are sampled in the presence of an electric field, as when a sampler walls are highly charged
[Baron and Deye 1990b], the particle trajectories can be modified to such an extent that the
particles are inefficiently sampled. No electrostatically induced particle motion occurs when
either the particle charge or electric field during sampling is zero. When both the sampler
walls and particles are both highly charged, external force on the particles from electrical field
is much greater than that caused by gravity, inertia, diffusion or other mechanisms.
Samplers can achieve a high charge level when they are electrically insulated from ground and
are triboelectrically charged (i.e., by contacting or rubbing against other surfaces); this
sampler charging, as well as particle charging, tends to occur more frequently at low (<20%
RH) humidity levels. Certain plastic materials, such as polycarbonate,
polytetrafluoroethylene, polyvinyl chloride (PVC), and polystyrene readily retain high charge
levels; others, such as Tygon® or conductive silicone rubber tubing retain relatively little
charge [Liu et al. 1985]. The PVC/polystyrene copolymer used in the 37-mm closed-face
cassette is an excellent electrical insulator and can retain high charge levels on its surface.
These charges can be incorporated in the bulk plastic during manufacture or accumulated on
the surface by handling or contact with other objects; the charge levels and polarity are highly
localized and variable. Such samplers can exhibit particle losses to the internal walls of the
cassette and negative sampling biases [Baron and Deye 1990a]. Non-conductive plastic
asbestos samplers were shown to produce large negative biases and variable results [Baron and
Deye 1990a,b; Baron et al. 1994].
Conductive samplers have demonstrably lower losses when sampling charged particles. Metal
samplers obviously have high conductivity. Samples collected using nylon cyclones were
shown to exhibit higher variability [Almich and Carson 1974; Briant and Moss 1984] and
negative biases [Briant and Moss 1984] when sampling charged dusts. However, the degree of
conductivity required is not high; as long as charges can move over the sampler surface and
reach equilibrium in seconds, the effect of charges transferred to the sampler is likely to be
minimized. Materials with this low level conductivity (surface resistivity <108 ohms/square)
are often termed “static-dissipative.” Graphite-loaded plastics were developed that have
adequate conductivity to distribute charges over the surface of the cassette (e.g., the 25-mm
asbestos sampler). A simple test to ensure adequate conductivity of these samplers can be
performed by attaching a good quality multimeter at any two points on the sampler surface.
Resistance readings in the range of tens of megohms or less indicate sufficient conductivity for
sampling purposes.
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter AE April 2016 Page AE-17 of AE-35
Factors Affecting Aerosol Sampling
Some metals are coated with a thin, non-conductive layer, e.g., anodized aluminum. These
coatings may retain a surface charge, but this charge will induce an opposite charge in the
conductive layer beneath the surface, effectively canceling out the field produced by the
surface charge. Recent measurements at NIOSH using a non-contacting electrostatic
voltmeter (Model 300, Trek Inc., Medina NY) indicated that no significant external field
(<50 volts) could be produced near an anodized surface by rubbing the surface with various
plastics or other materials. Plastic or cellulose-based materials rubbed in a similar manner
produced electrostatic potentials measured in the hundreds to thousands of volts. Thus,
metals with a thin, insulating surface layer are not likely to produce significant external fields
that would affect aerosol sampling.
A further electrostatic problem not specifically associated with the cassette is the use of filters
made of highly nonconductive materials, such as PVC, polytetrafluoroethylene, or
polycarbonate. In addition to having desirable chemical properties, these filters have the
advantage of not absorbing water from atmosphere, leading to improved weight stability
[Lowrey and Tillery 1979; Bowman et al. 1984; NIOSH 1994]. However, these filters can retain
a high electrostatic charge level, resulting in non-uniform particle deposition and even
repulsion of particles from the filter surface. Such filters are also more difficult to handle
during weighing because of charge effects. Even filters that are normally more conductive,
such as cellulose-based filters, can become non-conductive and exhibit non-uniform particle
deposition and particle losses at very low humidity levels (<10% RH) [Chen and Baron 1995].
A treatment was developed to make filters more conductive without significantly affecting
weighing accuracy or moisture absorption [Mark 1974]. In one study, it was found that
applying this treatment to the filter decreased particle losses from 14% to 2% [Blackford et al.
1985]. Anti-static sprays are available that leave a temporary static-dissipative coating on
surfaces.
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter AE April 2016 Page AE-18 of AE-35
Factors Affecting Aerosol Sampling
deposited in a small central area on the filter. Even sampling at high flow rates through more
open inlets can cause a non-uniform deposit [Feigley et al. 1992]. This results in particle
deposits that vary in uniformity as a function of particle size. Such deposition patterns are
visible when sampling colored particles [Sass-Kortsak et al. 1993]. Open-pore foam classifiers
may improve the uniformity of particle deposits on the filter, but have not been thoroughly
evaluated [Aitken et al. 1993; Vincent et al. 1993]. Careful design of classifiers to ensure
mixing of the aerosol prior to deposit on the filter may result in adequate uniformity [Fang
and Lippmann 1995]. Even inhalable samplers or samplers that have no classifier may be
prone to non-uniform deposits under certain conditions of sampler orientation relative to
gravitational settling, orientation relative to external winds, or when sampling charged
particles [Baron and Deye 1990b; Liu et al. 1985; Baron et al. 1994; Chen and Baron 1995].
Flaring the inlet of such a sampler, as in the commercial “bell-mouth cowl,” (Figure 2F,
Envirometrics, Charleston, SC), is one approach to improving sample uniformity under
anisokinetic conditions [Feigley et al. 1992]. In another study, a sampler having an inlet screen
(button sampler, Figure 2D, SKC, Inc. Eighty Four, PA) exhibited improved filter deposit
uniformity when compared to a closed-face cassette [Hauck et al. 1996].
The filters in some samplers require support to prevent tearing or distortion of the filter. The
support device may cause occlusion of parts of the filter surface, resulting in non-uniform
particle deposits [Hook et al. 1983].
On occasion, it was observed that poorly-sized tubing connectors protruded into the 37-mm
cassette and touched the filter surface. This caused all the airflow to pass through the filter
adjacent to the small area of the connector opening. When undetected, this caused low
sampling efficiency and pump failure because of the high pressure drop.
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter AE April 2016 Page AE-19 of AE-35
Factors Affecting Aerosol Sampling
Another solution to the problem of not capturing 100% of the sampled particles on the filter is
to use an internal capsule sealed to the filter. All the particles collected in the combined filter
capsule are analyzed. The air stream entering the cassette is surrounded by the cartridge and
any deposition on the walls of the capsule is retained for analysis. The IOM sampler for
inhalable dust uses this approach by having a cartridge form the inlet of the sampler (Figure
2B). This approach also has been used in the in-line cassette of the coal mine dust personal
sampling unit (MSA, Pittsburgh, PA) where an aluminum foil cover is crimped onto the filter.
A similar cartridge was designed for the 37-mm closed-face cassette in measurements of
pharmaceutical dust [Puskar et al. 1992]. Capsules made of “static dissipative” plastic for
gravimetric analysis and capsules composed of cellulosic media for elemental analysis are
commercially available (Accu-CapTM, Omega Specialty Instruments, Chelmsford, MA;
WoodchekTM, MSA Inc. Pittsburgh, PA). It is important that capsule material be compatible
with the analytical method. For instance, the plastic material used in the first version of the
IOM sampler cartridge (Figure 2B, SKC, Eighty Four, PA) was found to absorb milligrams of
water over periods of days, making the accuracy of gravimetric measurements problematic
[Smith et al. 1997; Li and Lundgren 1999; Lidén and Bergman 2001]. Demange et al. [2002]
more recently demonstrated significantly improved agreement between inhalable sampling
using the IOM sampler and the 37-mm cassette by including all deposits inside the cassette.
This suggests that the accuracy and precision of the 37-mm cassette can be improved by
including internal sampler deposits by wiping or washing, or by using an internal capsules
[Ashley and Harper 2013; Harper and Ashley 2013; Andrews et al. 2016].
The filter medium should be compatible with the analytical method. Some analytical methods
require specific filter media or properties. For instance, atomic absorption and inductively
coupled plasma analyses typically require complete ashing of the filter material; organic
compound analyses require that no reaction or adsorption of the compounds occur at the
filter surface. Several studies have dealt with gravimetric stability of different filter types and
recommended specific procedures [Lowrey and Tillery 1979; Bowman et al. 1984; NIOSH
1994; ASTM 2000; Chow 1995; Raynor et al. 2011]. Generally, plastic materials that do not
absorb water (polycarbonate, polyvinyl chloride, polytetrafluoroethylene) are more weight
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter AE April 2016 Page AE-20 of AE-35
Factors Affecting Aerosol Sampling
stable than natural cellulose-based materials; uncoated glass fiber filters also may absorb water
[Lowrey and Tillery 1979; Bowman et al. 1984; NIOSH 1994; ASTM 2000; Chow 1995].
Controlled environmental conditions in the weighing room, where temperature and humidity
are strictly controlled, are essential to reduce measurement bias in gravimetric analysis. In a
controlled study Tsai et al. [2012] have shown that the mass of MCE membrane filters was less
stable than that of the glass fiber filters in both controlled and uncontrolled environmental
conditions. Also, they found that under uncontrolled conditions (where humidity and
temperatures were not controlled), glass fiber filter mass was much less stable than that of
PTFE and PVC membrane filters. MCE and glass fiber filters demonstrated significantly
better stability under controlled conditions; whereas the PVC and especially the PTFE filters
were found to be extremely stable in both controlled and uncontrolled conditions [Raynor et
al., 2011]. Other non-aqueous vapors can also adsorb to the filter media or previously
collected particulate deposits. However, these artifacts are typically important only for semi-
volatile organic compounds.
It should be noted that weight stable materials also tend to be more highly charged, resulting
in more charged particle repulsion and deposit non-uniformity. When a plastic (Tyvek®)
backup pad is crimped into a cartridge together with a filter, the weight stability of the
cartridge may suffer [Kogut et al. 1999]. To improve the weight stability of coal mine dust
sampler cartridges, stainless steel backup pads have been used by MSHA. The IOM sampler
can be purchased with either a plastic or a stainless steel cartridge. The plastic cartridge has
been shown to exhibit poor weight stability and should not be used for gravimetric analysis
[Smith et al. 1997; Lidén and Bergmann 2001].
Lawless and Rodes investigated the use of modern electronic balances to determine factors
affecting the accuracy of gravimetric measurements and found that balance stability, balance
leveling, vibration and thermal drafts, electrostatic charge reduction, positioning of the filter
in the balance so that the filter did not hang over the edge of the pan, and temperature and
humidity control were all important in achieving accurate results [Lawless and Rodes 2001].
Although not strictly a problem with the collection medium, the sampler construction
material should not outgas vapors that can condense on the collection medium and affect the
analysis. Early (circa 1970) versions of the closed-face cassette were made of a plastic called
“tenite,” which resulted in weight gain of the filter over time. This currently does not appear
to be a problem.
Impactors have been used as samplers and, especially with cascade impactors, the deposits on
the impaction stages are measured. Particle bounce from the collection substrates on the
impaction plates can be severe, especially for large solid particles impacting onto a smooth
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter AE April 2016 Page AE-21 of AE-35
Factors Affecting Aerosol Sampling
metal plate [Marple and Olsen 2011]. Bounce can also be significant for highly nonspherical,
low density particles, as was shown recently for nanotubes agglomerates [Birch et al. 2011;
Maynard et al. 2004; Baron et al. 2008]. Several modifications to the collection substrate are
available to improve collection efficiency of each stage. These modifications should be
compatible with the analytical method. Oil can be placed on the collection substrate that wicks
up over collected particles and continually provides an oiled surface. To avoid the interference
or contamination of particles by oil, the following scheme has been used in recent studies: a
pair of cascade impactors was prepared for sampling at a given location. Oiled filters were
used on every other stage of each impactor. One of the impactors was loaded with oiled filters
on Stages A and C, while Stages B and D were uncoated and used to sample particles onto the
substrates. The second impactor contained oiled filters on Stages B and D, while Stages A and
C were used for particle sampling. This approach provided data for all four stages (plus after
filter) and minimized bounce to the adjacent lower stage [Baron et al. 2008; Birch et al. 2011].
A filter or sintered metal can be used to provide a reservoir for this oil. For gravimetric
analysis, this oil must have a low vapor pressure and not migrate off the collection substrate.
Alternatively, grease can be used, but after the surface is coated with collected particles,
additional particles are more likely to bounce. Filters have also been used as substrates and
provide a convenient substrate that is somewhat better than a smooth metal surface. Selection
and use of an impactor is a complex issue and has been described in reviews [Lodge and Chan
1986; Marple et al. 2001]. Accurate analysis of cascade impactor data can also be difficult and
simple regression analysis of the data may not provide the best answer [Marple et al. 2001;
Kandlikar and Ramachandran 1999; Cooper 2001].
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter AE April 2016 Page AE-22 of AE-35
Factors Affecting Aerosol Sampling
samplers in current use around the world, the IOM sampler appears to agree the best with
the inhalable dust sampling convention [Kenny et al. 1997; Bartley 1998]. Several studies
have shown that the IOM sampler collects anywhere from slightly more to 3.5 times more
dust than the closed-face cassette [Vaughan et al. 1990; Burdorf et al. 1994; Notø et al.
1996; Perrault et al. 1996; Wilsey et al. 1996]. However, Demange et al. showed that for
several work sites with relatively small MMAD (about 15 µm diameter), measurements
from 37-mm cassettes agreed well with the IOM results if the deposits on the internal
surfaces of the cassette were added to the filter analyte [Demange et al. 2002; Harper and
Demange 2007]. Measurements with the 37-mm cassette are not expected to agree as well
with the IOM when the particle sizes are much larger because of differences in aspiration
efficiency. However, by including all aspirated material, i.e., all material entering the
37-mm cassette inlet, in the analysis, agreement with the inhalable convention can be
improved.
In a field study of lead dust, it was found that the measurements from a closed-face 37-mm
cassette gave a coefficient of variation (CV) of 1.0 and 0.33 when sampling at 2 L/min and
10 L/min, respectively, while the button sampler gave a CV of 0.10 under the same
conditions [Hauck et al. 1996]. The button sampler has few internal surfaces for wall
deposition, suggesting that elimination of this type of loss would improve the precision of
the 37-mm cassette. Demange et al. [2002] found improved precision for the 37-mm
cassette data when the wall deposits were added to the analyte.
In spite of some of its drawbacks, the 37-mm cassette is likely to be used for some time. It
appears that from the standpoint of improving agreement with the inhalable convention
and improving precision, the inhalable sampler wall losses should be minimized through
sampler design (or through use of a cartridge such as the AccuCap or in the MSA coal
mine cassette) or the wall deposits should be included in the analysis.
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter AE April 2016 Page AE-23 of AE-35
Factors Affecting Aerosol Sampling
10 Conclusions
Clearly, when proper features are incorporated in the sampler design, significant
improvements in bias and precision can be achieved for some currently used aerosol samplers.
Several recommendations regarding the application of these samplers are listed:
The filter cassette and fittings should be air-tight and have no bypass leakage. A
pneumatic or mechanical press should be used to assemble the cassette and a leak test
should be used to establish appropriate pressure and proper assembly procedures. See
[Baron 2002].
Disclaimer
Mention of any company or product does not constitute endorsement by NIOSH. In addition,
citations to websites external to NIOSH do not constitute NIOSH endorsement of the
sponsoring organizations or their programs or products. Furthermore, NIOSH is not
responsible for the content of these websites. All web addresses referenced in this document
were accessible as of the publication date.
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter AE April 2016 Page AE-24 of AE-35
Factors Affecting Aerosol Sampling
11 References
ACGIH [2015]. Appendix C: Particle size-selective sampling criteria for airborne particulate
matter. In: 2015 TLVs® and BEIs®. Cincinnati, OH: American Conference of Governmental
Industrial Hygienists.
Aitken RJ, Vincent JH, Mark D [1993]. Application of porous foams as size selectors for
biologically relevant samplers. Appl Occup Environ Hyg 8:363-369.
Aitken RJ, Baldwin PEJ, Beaumont GC, Kenny LC, Maynard AD [1999]. Aerosol inhalability
in low air movement environments. J Aerosol Sci 30:613-626.
Almich BP, Carson GA [1974]. Some effects of charging on 10-mm nylon cyclone
performance. Am Ind Hyg Assoc J 34:603-612.
Andrews RN, Feng HA, Ashley K [2016]. Interlaboratory evaluation of cellulosic acid-soluble
internal air sampling capsules for multi-element analysis. J Occup Environ Hyg 13:40-47,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15459624.2015.1072635.
ASTM [2011]. Standard practice for controlling and characterizing errors in weighing
collected aerosols D6552-06(2011). West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International.
Baldwin PEJ and Maynard AD [1998]. A survey of windspeeds in indoor workplaces. Ann
Occup Hyg 20:303-313.
Baron PA [1983]. Sampler evaluation with an aerodynamic particle sizer. In: Marple VA, Liu
BYH, eds. Aerosols in the mining and industrial work environment. Vol. 3 Instrumentation.
Minneapolis, MN: Ann Arbor Press, pp. 861-877.
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter AE April 2016 Page AE-25 of AE-35
Factors Affecting Aerosol Sampling
Baron PA [1998]. Personal aerosol sampler design: A review. Appl Occup Environ Hyg
13:313-320.
Baron PA [2002]. Using a filter bypass leakage test for aerosol sampling cassettes. Appl Occup
Environ Hyg 17(9):593-597.
Baron PA, Deye GJ [1990b]. Electrostatic effects in asbestos sampling II: comparison of theory
and experiment. Am Ind Hyg Assoc J 51:63-69.
Baron PA, John W [1999]. Sampling for thoracic aerosol. In: Vincent JH, ed. Particle size-
selective sampling for particulate air contaminants. Cincinnati, OH: American Conference of
Governmental Industrial Hygienists, pp. 141-154.
Baron PA, Chen CC, Hemenway DR, O'Shaughnessy P [1994]. Non-uniform air flow in inlets:
the effect on filter deposits in the fiber sampling cassette. Am Ind Hyg Assoc J 55:722-732.
Baron PA, Deye GJ, Chen BT, Schwegler-Berry DE, Shvedova AA, Castranova V [2008].
Aerosolization of single-walled carbon nanotubes for an inhalation study. Inhal Toxicol
20:751-760.
Bartley DL, Chen C-C, Song R, Fischbach TJ [1994]. Respirable aerosol sampler performance
testing. Am Ind Hyg Assoc J 55:1036-1046.
Bartley DL [1998]. Inhalable aerosol samplers. Appl Occup Environ Hyg 13:274-278.
Berry RD, Froude S [1989]. An investigation of wind conditions in the workplace to assess
their effect on the quantity of dust inhaled, Internal Report IR/L/DS/89/3. Health and Safety
Executive, London.
Birch ME, Ku BK, Evans DE, Ruda-Eberenz TA [2011]. Exposure and emissions monitoring
during carbon nanofiber production-part I: Elemental carbon and iron-soot aerosols. Ann
Occup Hyg 55:1016-1036.
Blackford DB, Harris GW, Revell G [1985]. The reduction of dust losses within the cassette of
the SIMPEDS personal dust sampler. Ann Occup Hyg 29:169-180.
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter AE April 2016 Page AE-26 of AE-35
Factors Affecting Aerosol Sampling
Briant JK, Moss OR [1984]. The influence of electrostatic charges on the performance of 10-
mm nylon cyclones. Am Ind Hyg Assoc J 45:440-445.
Brown RC [1980]. Porous foam size selectors for respirable dust samplers. J Aerosol Sci
11:151-159.
Buckley TJ, Waldman JM, Freeman NCG, Lioy PJ, Marple VA, Turner WA [1991].
Calibration, intersampler comparison and field application of a new PM-10 personal air-
sampling impactor. Aerosol Sci Technol 14:380-387.
Cecala AB, Volkwein J, Timko RJ, Williams KL [1983]. U.S. Bureau of Mines Report of
Investigations RI-8764: Velocity and orientation effects on the 10-mm nylon Dorr-Oliver
cyclone. Avondale, MD: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Mines.
CEN [1993]. Workplace atmospheres – size fraction definitions for measurement of airborne
particles. CEN EN481:1993. Brussels, Belgium: European Standardization Committee.
Cena LG, Anthony TR, Peters TM [2011]. A personal nanoparticle respiratory deposition
(NRD) sampler. Environ Sci Technol 45(15):6483-6490.
Chen C-C, Baron PA [1995]. Vortices in anisoaxial sampling inlets. Aerosol Sci Technol
23:224-230.
Chen C-C, Baron PA [1996]. Aspiration efficiency and wall deposition in the fiber sampling
cassette. Am Ind Hyg Assoc J 52:142-152.
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter AE April 2016 Page AE-27 of AE-35
Factors Affecting Aerosol Sampling
Chen C-C, Huang S-H, Lin W-Y, Shih T-S, Jeng F-T [1999a]. The virtual cyclone as a personal
respirable sampler. Aerosol Sci Technol 31:422-432.
Chen C-C, Lai C-Y, Sheng T-S, Hwang J-S [1999b]. Laboratory performance comparison of
respirable samplers. Am Ind Hyg Assoc J 60:601-611.
Chow JC [1995]. Measurement methods to determine compliance with ambient air quality
standards for suspended particles. J Air Waste Manage Assoc 45:320-382.
Cooper DW [2001]. Methods of size distribution data analysis and presentation. In: Baron P,
Willeke K, eds. Aerosol measurement: principles, techniques and applications. New York, NY:
John Wiley & Sons, pp. 667-701.
Courbon P, Wrobel R, Fabriès J-F [1988]. A new individual respirable dust sampler: The CIP
10. Ann Occup Hyg 32:129-143.
Demange M, Görner P, Elcabache J-M, Wrobel R [2002]. Field comparison of 37-mm closed-
face cassettes and IOM samplers. Appl Occup Environ Hyg 17:200-208.
Esmen NA, Erdal S [1991]. The size of fibrous aerosols. Appl Occup Environ Hyg 6:764-772.
Fabriès JF, Gorner P, Wrobel R [1989]. A new air sampling instrument for the assessment of
the thoracic fraction of an aerosol. J Aerosol Sci 20:1589-1592.
Fairchild CI, Tillery MI, Smith JP, Valdez FO [1980]. Collection efficiency of field sampling
cassettes: Interagency Energy/Environment R & D Program Report. LA-8640-MS. Los Alamos
NM: Los Alamos National Laboratory.
Fang CP, Lippmann M [1995]. Development of thoracic inlets for asbestos fiber sampling.
Unpublished paper presented at American Industrial Hygiene Conference and Exposition,
Kansas City, MO, May 20-26.
Feigley CE, Maguire KE, Hussey JR [1992]. Asbestos fiber deposition patterns on various 25-
mm cassette filters at a high flow rate. Appl Occup Environ Hyg 7:749-757.
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter AE April 2016 Page AE-28 of AE-35
Factors Affecting Aerosol Sampling
Frazee PR, Tironi G [1987]. A filter cassette assembly method for preventing bypass leakage.
Am Ind Hyg Assoc J 48:176-180.
Görner P, Fabriès JF, Wrobel R [1994]. Thoracic fraction measurement of cotton dust.
J Aerosol Sci 25:S487-S488.
Görner P, Wrobel R, Micka V, Skoda V, Denis J, Fabriès J-F [2001]. Study of fifteen respirable
aerosol samplers used in occupational hygiene. Ann Occup Hyg 45:43-54.
Grinshpun S, Willeke K, Kalatoor S [1993]. A general equation for aerosol aspiration by thin-
walled sampling probes in calm and moving air. Atmos Environ 27A:1459-1470.
Hauck BC, Grinshpun SA, Reponen A, Reponen T, Willeke K, Bornschein RL [1996]. Field
testing of new aerosol sampling method with a porous curved surface as inlet. Am Ind Hyg
Assoc J 58:713-719.
Harper M, Ashley K [2013]. Acid-soluble internal capsules for closed-face cassette elemental
sampling and analysis in workplace air. J Occup Environ Hyg 10:297-306.
Harper M, Demange M [2007]. Concerning sampler wall desposits in the chemical analysis of
airborne metals. J Occup Environ Hyg 4(9):D81-D86.
Hook MB, Feigley CE, Ludwig DA [1983]. Interwedge variation in the membrane filter
method for airborne asbestos fibers. Am Ind Hyg Assoc J 44:542-546.
ISO [1995]. Air quality–particle size fraction definitions for health-related sampling. ISO
7708:1995(en). Geneva: International Organization Standardization.
John W [1994]. Universal impactor for particle collection within sampling criteria. Abstracts
13th Annual AAAR Conference (Los Angeles), p. 929. Los Angeles, CA: American
Association for Aerosol Research.
Johnston AM, Vincent JH, Jones AD [1985]. Measurements of electric charge for workplace
aerosols. Ann Occup Hyg 29:271-284.
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter AE April 2016 Page AE-29 of AE-35
Factors Affecting Aerosol Sampling
Jones AD, Aitken RJ, Armbruster L, Byrne P, Fabriès J-F, Kauffer E, Lidén G, Lumens M,
Maynard A, Riediger G, Sahle W [2001]. Thoracic sampling of fibres. 349/2001, Sheffield, UK,
Health and Safety Executive.
Kennedy NJ, Hinds WC [2002]. Inhalability of large solid particles. J Aerosol Sci 33:237- 256.
Kenny LC [1995]. Pilot study of CEN protocols for the performance testing of workplace
aerosol sampling instruments. EU project MAT1-CT92-0047, Sheffield, UK: Health and
Safety Laboratory.
Kenny LC, Gussman RA [1997]. Characterization and modelling of a family of cyclone aerosol
preseparators. J Aerosol Sci 28:677-688.
Kimura K [1978]. On the t-r (total and respirable) dust sampler. J Sci Labour (Japan)
54: 9-17.
Koehler KA, Anthony TR, Van Dyke M, Volckens J [2012]. Solid versus liquid particle
sampling efficiency of three personal aerosol samplers when facing the wind. Ann Occup Hyg
56(2):194-206.
Kogut J, Tomb TF, Gareis MB, Parobeck PS, Gero AJ [1999]. MSHA Internal Report:
Variability in weight gain of unexposed filter capsules within batches of filter capsules used in
MSHA's respirable coal mine dust enforcement program. Pittsburgh, PA: Mine Safety and
Health Administration.
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter AE April 2016 Page AE-30 of AE-35
Factors Affecting Aerosol Sampling
Kulkarni P, Baron PA, Sorensen CM, Harper M [2011]. Nonspherical particle measurement:
Shape factor, fractals, and fibers. In: Kulkarni P, Baron PA, Willeke K, eds. Aerosol
measurement: principles, techniques, and applications. 3rd ed. New York: John Wiley & Sons,
Inc., pp. 509-547.
Lawless PA, Rodes CE [2001]. Maximizing data quality in the gravimetric analysis of personal
exposure sample filters. J Air Waste Manage Assoc 49:1039-1049.
Li S-N, Lundgren DA [1999]. Weighing accuracy of samples collected by IOM and CIS
inhalable samplers. Am Ind Hyg Assoc J 60:235-236.
Lidén G [1994]. Performance parameters for assessing the acceptability of aerosol sampling
equipment. Analyst 119:27-33.
Lidén G [2000a]. Presentation of the results from round 1 of ASTEX. J Aerosol Sci 31: S270-
S271.
Lippmann M, Gearhart JM, Schlesinger RB [1987]. Basis for a particle size-selective TLV for
sulfuric acid aerosols. Appl Ind Hyg 2:188-199.
Liu BYH, Pui DYH, Rubow KL, Szymanski WW [1985]. Electrostatic effects in aerosol
sampling and filtration. Ann Occup Hyg 29:251-269.
Lodge JP, Chan TL, eds. [1986]. Cascade impactor sampling and data analysis. Akron OH:
American Industrial Hygiene Association.
Lowrey L, Tillery M [1979]. Filter weight stability evaluation. LA-8061-MS. Los Alamos, NM:
Los Alamos National Laboratory.
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter AE April 2016 Page AE-31 of AE-35
Factors Affecting Aerosol Sampling
Lynch JR [1970]. Evaluation of size-selective presamplers: I. Theoretical cyclone and elutriator
relationships. Am Ind Hyg Assoc J 31:548-551.
Mark D [1974]. Problems associated with the use of membrane filters for dust sampling when
compositional analysis is required. Ann Occup Hyg 17:35-40.
Mark D, Borzucki G, Lynch G, Vincent JH [1988]. The development of a personal sampler for
inspirable, thoracic and respirable aerosol. Unpublished paper presented at Annual
Conference of the Aerosol Society, Bournemouth, UK, March 22-24.
Marple VA, Olson B [2011]. Sampling and measurement using inertial, gravitational,
centrifugal, and thermal techniques. In: Kulkarni P, Baron P, Willeke K, eds. Aerosol
measurement: principles, techniques and applications. 3rd ed. New York: John Wiley & Sons,
Inc., pp. 129-151.
Maynard AD [1996]. Sampling errors associated with sampling plate-like particles using the
Higgins- and Dewell-type personal respirable cyclone. J Aerosol Sci 27:575-586.
Maynard AD, Baron PA, Foley M, Shvedova AA, Kisin ER, Castranova V [2004]. Exposure to
carbon nanotube material: Aerosol release during the handling of unrefined single-walled
carbon nanotube material. J Toxicol Environ Health, Part A 67:87-107.
NCASI [1992]. Comparison of personal sampling devices for the estimation of wood dust
exposure levels. Special Report No. 92-09. Cary, NC: National Council for Air and Stream
Improvement.
NIOSH [1984]. Accuracy criteria recommended for the certification of gravimetric coal mine
dust samplers. By Bowman JD, Bartley DL, Breuer GM, Doemeny LJ, Murdock DJ.
Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease
Control, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. Available from www.ntis.gov
as accession no. PB 85-222446.
NIOSH [1994]. Particulates not otherwise regulated: Method 0500. In: Eller PM, Cassinelli
ME, eds. NIOSH manual of analytical methods. 4th ed. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter AE April 2016 Page AE-32 of AE-35
Factors Affecting Aerosol Sampling
Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute
for Occupational Safety and Health, DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 94-113.
[www.cdc.gov/niosh/nmam/].
NIOSH [1995]. Guidelines for air sampling and analytical method development and
evaluation. By Kennedy ER, Fischbach TJ, Song R, Eller PM, Shulman SA. Cincinnati, OH:
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 95-
117.
Notø H, Halgard K, Daae HL, Bentsen RK, Eduard W [1996]. Comparative study of an
inhalable and a total dust sampler for personal sampling of dust and polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons in the gas and particulate phase. The Analyst 121:1191-1196.
Perrault G, Drolet D, Cloutier Y [1996]. Comparison of total and inhalable samplings of wood
dust. Unpublished paper presented at American Industrial Hygiene Conference and
Exposition, Washington, D.C., May 18-24.
Puskar MA, Harkins JM, Moomey JD, Hecker LH [1991]. Internal wall losses of
pharmaceutical dusts during closed-face, 37-mm polystyrene cassette sampling. Am Ind Hyg
Assoc J 52:280-286.
Puskar MA, Fergon SM, Harkins JM, Hecker LH [1992]. Gravimetric determination of
airborne dust by using a filter cartridge inside a closed-face, 37-mm polystyrene cassette. Am
Ind Hyg Assoc J 53:692-698.
Qi C, Echt A, Gressel MG [2016]. On the characterization of the generation rate and size-
dependent crystalline silica content of the dust from cutting fiber cement siding. Ann Occup
Hyg 60(2):220-230, http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/annhyg/mev066.
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter AE April 2016 Page AE-33 of AE-35
Factors Affecting Aerosol Sampling
Raynor PC, Leith D, Lee KW, Mukund R [2011]. Sampling and analysis using filters. In:
Kulkarni P, Baron PA, Willeke K, eds. Aerosol measurements: principles, applications, and
techniques. 3rd ed. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., pp.107-128.
Robert KQ [1979]. Cotton dust sampling efficiency of the vertical elutriator. Am Ind Hyg
Assoc J 40:535-542.
Rodes CE, Kamens RM, Wiener RW [1995]. An experimental design to study the dispersal of
contaminants released in close proximity to the body. Am Ind Hyg Assoc J 56:535-545.
Sass-Kortsak AM, O'Brien CR, Bozek PR, Purdham JT [1993]. Comparison of the 10-mm
nylon cyclone, horizontal elutriator, and aluminum cyclone for silica and wood dust
measurements. Appl Occup Environ Hyg 8:31-37.
Smith JP, Bartley DL, Kennedy ER [1997]. Laboratory investigation of the mass stability of
sampling cassettes from inhalable aerosol samples. Am Ind Hyg Assoc J 59:582-585.
Tsai CJ, Liu CN, Hung SM, Chen SC, Uang SN, Cheng YS, Zhou Y [2012]. Novel active
personal nanoparticle sampler for the exposure assessment of nanoparticles in workplaces.
Environ Sci Technol 46(8):4546-4552.
Van den Heever DJ [1994]. Quantification of bypass leakage in two different filter cassettes
during welding fume sampling. Am Ind Hyg Assoc J 55:966-969.
Vaughan NP, Chalmers CP, Botham RA [1990]. Field comparison of personal samplers for
inhalable dust. Ann Occup Hyg 34:553-573.
Vincent JH [1999a]. Sampling criteria for the inhalable fraction. In: Vincent JH, ed. Particle
size-selective sampling for particulate air contaminants. Cincinnati OH: American
Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists. pp. 51-72.
Vincent JH, ed. [1999b]. Particle size-selective sampling for particulate air contaminants.
Cincinnati, OH: American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists.
Vincent JH, Aitken RJ, Mark D [1993]. Porous plastic foam filtration media: penetration
characteristics and applications in particle size-selective sampling. J Aerosol Sci 24:929-944.
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter AE April 2016 Page AE-34 of AE-35
Factors Affecting Aerosol Sampling
Wilsey PW, Vincent JH, Bishop MJ, Brosseau LM, Greaves IA [1996]. Exposures to inhalable
and "total" oil mist aerosol by metal machining shop workers. Am Ind Hyg Assoc J 57:1149-
1153.
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter AE April 2016 Page AE-35 of AE-35
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods (NMAM), 5th Edition
1 Introduction BA-2
2 Principles of bioaerosol collection BA-5
3 Devices used for bioaerosol sampling BA-10
4 Considerations for bioaerosol sampling BA-28
5 Selection of bioaerosol samplers BA-36
6 Sample preparation for culturable bioaerosols BA-39
7 Identification of culturable bioaerosols BA-42
8 Enumeration of culturable bioaerosols BA-46
9 Sample analysis methods for non-viable and non-culturable bioaerosols BA-49
10 Limitations of bioaerosol sampling and characterization BA-62
11 Safety considerations BA-65
12 Resources BA-65
13 References BA-66
14 Appendix 1- List of manufacturers/distributors of common bioaerosol
samplers and related products BA-101
15 Appendix 2 – Commonly used bioaerosol samplers BA-104
1 Introduction
Bioaerosols are airborne particles that originate from biological sources including animals,
plants, fungi, bacteria, protozoa, and viruses. Examples of bioaerosols encountered in
occupational environments include plant pollen, algae, fungal spores, bacteria such as
actinomycetes, droplets produced during coughing and sneezing that may contain bacteria
and viruses, dust containing insect excreta, animal dander, and fragments derived from each
of these sources. Bioaerosols are ubiquitous and can be isolated from indoor, outdoor, and
occupational environments using a variety of methods that either enumerate viable or a
collection of viable and non-viable bioaerosols. Photomicrographs of example viral, bacterial,
fungal, and plant bioaerosols are presented in Figure 1.
Bioaerosol monitoring is a rapidly emerging area of industrial hygiene due to the improved
analysis methods such as polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and the impact that occupational
exposures may have on worker respiratory health, particularly in microbial contaminated
environments [Eduard et al. 2012; Environment Agency 2009; Haig et al. 2016; Hung et al.
2005; Macher 1999; Morey 2007; Nazaroff 2016]. Some human diseases encountered in
healthcare settings such as measles and tuberculosis can be spread by bioaerosols containing
infectious microorganisms [Ijaz et al. 2016; Jones and Brosseau 2015]. Soil saprophytic fungi
such as Coccidioides immitis can be aerosolized during occupational disturbance activities
and, if inhaled, can result in an acute pulmonary infection [Das et al. 2012; Wilken et al. 2014;
Wilken et al. 2015]. The measurement of these bioaerosols in industrial hygiene includes the
measurement of viable (culturable and non-culturable) and nonviable bioaerosols in indoor
settings (e.g., industrial, office, education, and residential buildings), industrial facilities (e.g.,
biotechnology, composting, waste disposal, manufacturing, textile, and food processing), and
outdoor environments (e.g., farms, feed lots, and general air quality). Monitoring for
bioaerosols in the occupational environment is one of the many tools the industrial hygienist
uses in the assessment of indoor air quality, infectious disease outbreaks, agricultural
exposures, and industrial health.
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter BA March 2017 Page BA-2 of BA-115
Sampling and Characterization of Bioaerosols
internal and external sources of bioaerosols; and other measures [Macher 1999]. In general, if
visible growth or contamination (microbial growth on floors, walls, or ceilings, or in the
HVAC system) is observed, this normally should be mitigated first before indoor bioaerosol
sampling is conducted. If personnel remain symptomatic after remediation, air sampling may
be appropriate, but the industrial hygienist should be aware that false negative results are
possible and should be interpreted with caution.
The industrial hygienist has a variety of tools and methodologies available to conduct an
environmental survey [ASTM 2014a; Flannigan et al. 2011; Hung et al. 2005]. However, many
of these approaches have lacked standardization and this has made the interpretation and
comparison between studies challenging [Flannigan et al. 2011]. In 2005, the American
Industrial Hygiene Association (AIHA) published the second edition of the Field Guide for
the Determination of Biological Contaminants in Environmental Samples [Hung et al. 2005].
This reference provides the industrial hygienist access to the most up to date methods to
detect and quantify bioaerosols in the environment, and covers methods of how to conduct a
survey, sample bioaerosols, and interpret the collected data [Hung et al. 2005]. Similarly, other
reference sources have been published by Flannigan et al. [2011] and the American
Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) [Macher 1999] that extensively
outline available methods to analyze collected bioaerosols as well as strategies to conduct an
environmental survey. ASTM International has issued a wide range of standards on indoor air
quality, including assessment of fungal growth and collection of bioaerosols and a guide to
developing an air sampling strategy [ASTM 2009; ASTM 2014a; ASTM 2014b; ASTM 2014d].
The European Committee for Standardization has also published standards on sampling for
bioaerosols and related topics [CEN 2000; CEN 2003; CEN 2004]. The sections presented
below provide a very broad overview of the viable and non-viable methods available to detect
bioaerosol sources that are described in the references listed above.
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter BA March 2017 Page BA-3 of BA-115
Sampling and Characterization of Bioaerosols
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter BA March 2017 Page BA-4 of BA-115
Sampling and Characterization of Bioaerosols
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter BA March 2017 Page BA-5 of BA-115
Sampling and Characterization of Bioaerosols
Figure 2: Aerodynamic diameter of an aerosol particle. In this case, the fungal fragment on
the left is said to have an aerodynamic diameter of 4 µm, since it falls at the same terminal
settling velocity as a 4 µm sphere with a unit density.
Aerodynamic diameter is used in aerosol science because particles with the same
aerodynamic diameter tend to move and be collected in the same ways. For example, two
particles with the same aerodynamic diameter will have the same likelihood of being
collected by an impaction aerosol sampler even if they have different physical and
morphological characteristics. For this reason, the performance of aerosol collection
devices is usually described by giving the aerodynamic diameter of the particles that will be
collected.
Most commonly-used aerosol filters have a high collection efficiency for particles of all
sizes [NIOSH 2016b]. However, impactors, cyclones and impingers use the inertia of
airborne particles to separate them from the air stream, and thus they have a high
collection efficiency for particles with larger aerodynamic diameters and a low collection
efficiency for smaller ones (Figure 3) [Hering 2001; Hinds 1999; Marple and Olson 2011].
These devices are said to have a “cut-off diameter”; that is, particles with an aerodynamic
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter BA March 2017 Page BA-6 of BA-115
Sampling and Characterization of Bioaerosols
diameter larger than the cut-off diameter are collected while particles with an aerodynamic
diameter less than the cut-off diameter are not collected and pass through the device. A
perfect collection device would have a 100% collection efficiency for particles larger than
the cut-off diameter and 0% for smaller particles. In practice, this is not the case: the
collection efficiency curve for an inertia-based sampler looks like the example curve shown
in Figure 3. The aerodynamic diameter at which the collection efficiency is 50% is defined
as the cut-off diameter (usually written as d50). A device with a more abrupt transition
from 100% to 0% collection efficiency (that is, closer to the ideal device) is said to have a
sharp cut-off.
For a given inertial collection device, the 50% cut-off diameter depends upon the air
flowrate through the device. Increasing the flowrate will decrease the d50 and shift the
collection efficiency curve to the left, while decreasing the flowrate will increase the d50 and
shift the collection efficiency curve to the right. For example, the first stage of the NIOSH
two-stage cyclone aerosol sampler has a d50 of 4.9 µm at 2 liters/minute of air flow, 4.1 µm
at 3.5 liters/minute, and 2.1 µm at 10 liters/minute [Blachere et al. 2009]. For this reason, it
is important to check the air flowrate before aerosol sampling and control it during
sampling so that the particles are correctly segregated by size.
Figure 3: Example collection efficiency curve for an inertia-based aerosol sampler. Note
that the collection efficiency is high for particles with large aerodynamic diameters and
low for small particles. In this example, the 50% cut-off diameter (d50) for this device is 1
µm.
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter BA March 2017 Page BA-7 of BA-115
Sampling and Characterization of Bioaerosols
Size-selective sampling is most commonly used to help understand the potential health
effects of bioaerosol particles, which often depend upon where the particles are deposited
in the respiratory tract. In general, larger bioaerosol particles tend to deposit higher in the
respiratory tract (that is, in the nasal or oral cavities or larger airways), while smaller
particles are able to travel deeper into the lungs to the smaller airways [Hinds 1999;
Vincent 2005]. Some pathogens such as Mycobacterium spp., Bacillus spp., and Aspergillus
spp. are thought to be more likely to cause a pulmonary infection if they reach the deeper
airways, and the response to bioaerosols containing immunogenic material such as
endotoxins or fungal antigens may also vary depending upon the site of deposition. For
this reason, size-selective sampling is often used in industrial hygiene to better understand
the potential risks that workplace bioaerosols present.
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter BA March 2017 Page BA-8 of BA-115
Sampling and Characterization of Bioaerosols
Figure 4: ACGIH/ISO sampling criteria for the inhalable, thoracic and respirable fractions
of aerosol particles. The inhalable fraction contains all of the particles that are inhalable,
which includes the particles in the thoracic and respirable fraction. Similarly, the thoracic
fraction includes the particles in the respirable fraction. The 50% cut-off diameters are 100
µm for the inhalable fraction, 10 µm for the thoracic fraction, and 4 µm for the respirable
fraction [ACGIH 2001; ISO 2012; Vincent 2005].
A sampler that collects the inhalable fraction accumulates the fraction of aerosol particles
of each size that would be expected to be drawn into the nose or mouth during normal
breathing. This includes larger particles that would be expected to be deposited in the
nasal or oral cavities as well as smaller particles that can be conveyed to the lower airways.
An aerosol sampler that conforms to the inhalable sampling criteria collects 50% of the
100 µm particles, 77% of the 10 µm particles, and 97% of the 1 µm particles in the ambient
aerosol. The inhalable fraction is lower for larger particles because the greater inertia of
these particles means they are less likely to be pulled into the body during inhalation.
The thoracic fraction includes aerosol particles that are likely to travel into the trachea and
bronchi. An aerosol sampler that conforms to the thoracic sampling criteria will collect
50% of the 10 µm particles and 97% of the 1 µm particles in the ambient aerosol. This
fraction includes fewer large particles because these particles tend to be removed from the
airstream by the head airways.
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter BA March 2017 Page BA-9 of BA-115
Sampling and Characterization of Bioaerosols
The respirable fraction includes aerosol particles that are able to reach the deepest airways,
which are the respiratory bronchioles and the alveoli. An aerosol sampler that conforms to
the respirable sampling criteria will collect 50% of the 4 µm particles, 97% of the 1 µm
particles, and 99% of the 0.3 µm particles in the ambient aerosol. The respiratory
bronchioles and the alveoli are of particular concern because these airways do not have
cilia. Non-soluble particles that land in the nasopharyngeal region or upper airways tend
to collect in the airway mucus and are removed from the respiratory tract by the cilia
relatively quickly. However, particles that deposit in the alveoli and respiratory
bronchioles can remain in the lungs for longer durations (in some cases, for life) unless
they can be broken down or removed by migrating pulmonary macrophages. This fraction
includes only the smallest particles because the larger particles are removed from the
airstream by the head and thoracic airways.
It should be noted that, even though larger bioaerosol particles will tend to deposit in the
upper airways and be cleared more quickly, they can still trigger an allergic/inflammatory
response in susceptible individuals. Particles containing viable pathogens also commonly
cause infections after being deposited in the upper airways.
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter BA March 2017 Page BA-10 of BA-115
Sampling and Characterization of Bioaerosols
2016], and some real-time bioaerosol monitoring systems are available that do not require
that the bioaerosol particles be isolated before analysis. Below are some specific types of
bioaerosol sampling devices employed by industrial hygienists.
a. Filters
Aerosol filters are commonly used to collect bioaerosol particles because of their simplicity
and low cost. Filter-based sampling is particularly useful for personal bioaerosol sampling
because filter-based collectors are small and lightweight and work well with personal
sampling pumps. Filters can be preceded by a size-selective inlet, such as a cyclone or
impactor, to remove larger particles and provide size-classification of the bioaerosol
particles. Most aerosol filter media can be classified as fibrous, membrane, or capillary
pore (also called straight-through pore) [Raynor et al. 2011]. Fibrous filters are usually
made of a deep mesh of glass fibers. Membrane filters are manufactured in a variety of
pore sizes from polymers such as cellulose ester, polyvinyl chloride, or
polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE). Capillary pore filters are made of polycarbonate. The
choice of a filter medium depends on the contaminant of interest and the requirements of
the analytical technique. For gravimetric analysis, non-hygroscopic materials such as glass
fibers, silver, or polyvinyl chloride membranes are selected because their masses are less
affected by changes in humidity. For analysis by microscopy, cellulose ester or
polycarbonate membranes are common choices because cellulose ester membranes can be
rendered transparent for easier visualization, while polycarbonate filters have a smooth
collection surface that works well with light or electron microscopy. Samples also can be
eluted from cellulose ester and polycarbonate filters, but in some cases the recovery
efficiency can be low [Eduard et al. 1990; Rule et al. 2007]. Samples to be cultured can be
collected on gelatin filters, and the filters can then be dissolved in water and spread on
culture plates, dissolved in growth media, or placed directly on culture plates and allowed
to melt. Gelatin filters are fragile and can crack or melt in use. For analysis using
immunological assays or polymerase chain reaction (PCR), PTFE filters are a common
choice because they do not interfere with the assays and because samples can be readily
eluted from them.
Filters are frequently described or specified using the term “pore size” or “equivalent pore
diameter”. It is important to note that the filter pore size does NOT indicate the minimum
particle size that will be collected by the filter; in fact, aerosol filters generally will collect
particles much smaller than the nominal pore size. The mechanisms by which aerosol
filters work and the role of pore size in selecting filters is described is more detail
elsewhere [NIOSH 2016b].
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter BA March 2017 Page BA-11 of BA-115
Sampling and Characterization of Bioaerosols
Aerosol filters are usually supplied as disks of 25, 37 or 47-mm diameter. Because the flow
resistance (often called the pressure drop) of a filter increases with the air velocity through
the filter, the use of a larger filter results in a lower flow resistance for a given volumetric
flow rate. On the other hand, the use of a smaller filter concentrates the deposit of the
contaminant onto a smaller total area, thus increasing the density of particles per unit area
of filter. This may be helpful for direct microscopic examination of low concentrations of
organisms, and reduces the amount of elution media needed for immunological or PCR-
based assays. In areas of high concentration, the microorganisms may have to be eluted,
diluted, and then refiltered for microscopic analysis. Breuer [2012] reported on the flow
resistance of common aerosol filters and its relationship to sampling pump selection. Soo
et al. [2016] measured the filtration characteristics and flow resistance of a variety of
commonly-used aerosol filters.
In the USA, the most common method of aerosol sampling with filters is to place the
filters in disposable two-piece or three-piece plastic filter cassettes with a support pad to
add rigidity. The three-piece cassette may be used either in open- or closed-face modes.
Open-face sampling is performed by removing the end plug and the plastic cover from the
three-piece cassette and is used when the particulate matter must be uniformly deposited
(i.e., for microscopic analysis). If a three-piece cassette is used in the open-face
arrangement, the plastic cover is retained to protect the filter after sampling is concluded.
It should be noted that the aspiration efficiencies of open-face and closed-face filter
cassettes are reported to be somewhat different [Beaulieu et al. 1980; Kenny et al. 1997].
In addition to collecting on the filter, aerosol particles (especially large particles) may
collect on the internal walls of the filter cassette. Depending upon the purpose of the
collection, wall-deposited material may need to be included in the analysis. This can be
done by using a filter with an attached capsule or by washing or wiping the internal
surfaces of the cassette [Ashley and Harper 2013].
It is important to verify that the filter cassette and fittings are air-tight and have no bypass
leakage around the filter. Cassettes should not be hand-assembled; they should be pressed
together with a mechanical or hydraulic press. All plastic cassettes should be securely
assembled and sealed with a cellulose shrink band or tape around the seams of the cassette
to prevent external air leakage. The cassettes should be made of conductive or static
dissipative materials to avoid losses due to electrostatic effects. More information on using
filter cassettes for aerosol sampling can be found elsewhere [NIOSH 2003a; NIOSH
2016a].
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter BA March 2017 Page BA-12 of BA-115
Sampling and Characterization of Bioaerosols
b. Impactors
An impactor consists of a series of nozzles (circular- or slot-shaped) and an impaction
surface [Hering 2001; Marple and Olson 2011; Marple and Willeke 1976]. Air is drawn
into the impactor using a vacuum pump, and the air stream flows through the nozzles and
toward the impaction surface, where particles are separated from the air stream by their
inertia (Figure 5). Larger particles collect on the impaction surface, while small particles
that do not impact follow the air stream. The impaction surface typically consists of a
greased plate or tape, filter material, or growth media (agar) contained in Petri dishes. In
some applications, impactors are not used as collection devices themselves, but rather to
remove particles above a certain size before collection or characterization of the
downstream aerosol.
Figure 5: Impaction. As the air stream exits the impactor nozzle, it quickly changes
direction as shown by the arrows. Smaller particles such as those on the left flow with the
air stream and are not collected. Larger particles cannot change direction as quickly due to
their higher inertia and collide with the collection surface, where they accumulate.
A cascade impactor consists of a stack of impaction stages: each stage consists of one or
more nozzles and a target or substrate. The nozzles may take the form of holes or slots.
Each succeeding stage has smaller nozzles and thus collects smaller particles (that is, each
succeeding stage has a smaller cut-off diameter). A filter may be used after the final
impaction stage to collect any particles smaller than the final cut-off diameter. If the
substrate is a greased plate or filter media, it may be weighed to determine the collected
mass, or it may be washed and the wash solution analyzed. If the substrate is growth media
in culture plates, they may be incubated and examined for microbial growth.
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter BA March 2017 Page BA-13 of BA-115
Sampling and Characterization of Bioaerosols
The most commonly used impactor for sampling airborne culturable bacteria and fungi is
the Andersen impactor, which uses from one to six impactor stages containing Petri plates
as seen in Figure 6 [Andersen 1958]. Since the bioaerosol particles impact directly onto the
growth media, the samplers can be directly transferred to an incubator and observed for
microbial growth. However, this method depends upon collecting viable microorganisms
that are capable of growth on the specific nutrient media.
Glass Petri plates are recommended for use with the Andersen impactor; plastic culture
plates are often used, but this can result in loss of aerosol material due to electrostatic
surface charges in the plastic [Andersen 1958; Kuo 2015]. NIOSH Method 0800 describes
how to collect culturable airborne fungi and bacteria in buildings using an Andersen
cascade impactor [NIOSH 2003b].
Figure 6: Schematic of a 6-stage Andersen cascade impactor [Andersen 1958]. Each stage
contains a Petri plate (green) filled with nutrient agar (brown). The stages have
progressively smaller nozzles, which create higher particle impaction velocities onto the
agar. The aerosol particles (red) flow from the top into the first stage, where particles with
aerodynamic diameters larger than 7 µm impact the agar. The remaining particles flow to
the second stage, where particles with aerodynamic diameters between 7 µm and 4.7 µm
are collected, and so on for the rest of the stages.
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter BA March 2017 Page BA-14 of BA-115
Sampling and Characterization of Bioaerosols
One significant advantage of the Andersen impactor is that samples can be collected
directly onto culture plates and transferred to an incubator, which simplifies handling and
eliminates some losses that can occur in processing. However, there are also several
limitations. In low concentration environments, sampling time is limited to approximately
20 minutes to avoid drying the agar. The high flow rate (28.3 liters/minute) makes the
sampler unsuitable for high concentration environments such as some agricultural sites
(i.e. animal facilities) where a 1 minute sample may overwhelm the plates.
When using the Andersen impactor, it is also necessary to correct for “coincidence error”
using a positive-hole correction factor. This occurs because it is possible for multiple
particles, each containing one or more organisms, to pass through a particular hole during
sampling and impact onto the growth medium, with one or more bacterial or fungal
colonies forming at the same impaction sites. The colonies formed by the multiple
particles can then be inaccurately counted as a single colony. As the number of organism-
containing particles deposited onto the growth medium increases, the probability that the
next organism-containing particle will impact an "occupied" hole increases. For example, if
75% of the holes have received at least one particle, the chance that the next particle will
impact a "clean" hole is one in four (25%). To account for this, a probability-based
coincidence correction factor needs to be applied to the results for each impactor stage.
The basic formula for the coincidence correction is as follows [Andersen 1958; Macher
1989]:
Where:
N = the total number of holes in the impactor stage
r = the number of colonies observed on the culture plate
Pr = the estimated culturable particle count
Andersen impactors have from one to 400 holes per stage. Macher [1989], Willeke and
Macher [1999] and Andersen [1958] provide tables of positive-hole correction factors.
Investigators often employ stationary cascade impactors either as the primary collection
mechanism, or as a preclassifier (for example, to remove nonrespirable particles from the
sampled air stream). Marple and Willeke [1976] have reported that high velocity, inlet
losses, interstage losses, and particle reentrainment affect the performance characteristics
of an impactor. Particles larger than the cut-off diameter may bounce after impacting the
collection surface and travel to subsequent impaction stages. This is particularly a problem
with dry solid collection surfaces; for this reason, solid collection surfaces are usually
greased or oiled [Hering 2001]. Fungal spores have been shown to be prone to de-
aggregation and bounce when collected with an impactor, which can cause the spores to be
collected on stages with smaller cut-off diameters. This can make the spore aggregates
appear to have smaller aerodynamic diameters than is actually the case [Trunov et al.
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter BA March 2017 Page BA-15 of BA-115
Sampling and Characterization of Bioaerosols
2001]. Although personal cascade impactors are available, these devices are not as widely
used in personal sampling for bioaerosols as are filters [Macher and Hansson 1987].
The slit-to-agar impactor is a type of impactor in which the aerosol particles are deposited
on a Petri plate that slowly rotates. The rotation of the plate means that particles which are
collected at different times deposit in different locations, and thus provides an indication
of changes in the bioaerosol concentration over time [Ho et al. 2005; Jensen et al. 1992;
Smid et al. 1989; USP 1997]. Examples of slit-to-agar samplers include the Dycor Slit
Sampler from Dycor and the Air Trace Environmental Slit-to-Agar Sampler from Particle
Measuring Systems.
The Hirst/Burkard spore trap has been widely used to collect outdoor aerospora. It was
first described by Hirst [1952] and consists of a unit that houses a vacuum pump and
rotating drum that is lined with polyester tape. The drum rotates at 2 mm per hour and is
continuously run for seven days. Bioaerosols pass through an orifice on the sampler and
particles impact on the tape. Following the seven-day sampling interval, the tape is
removed and cut in 48 mm intervals that correspond to individual sampling days.
Bioaerosols deposited on the tape are stained and then resolved, identified, and quantified
using bright field microscopy.
[Tovey et al. 2016] developed a personal aerosol sampler with a rotating surface that allows
time-resolved collection of aerosol particles onto an electret strip or an adhesive film. They
used the sampler to study personal exposures to dust mite allergens over time.
A novel example of an impaction-based personal bioaerosol sampler is the intranasal air
sampler fabricated by Graham et al. [2000], which fits within the intranasal cavity of the
subject. Bioaerosols enter the nasal cavity following inhalation and pass through slits
where particles are deposited by impaction on either an adhesive backed tape or collection
cup lined with silicon grease. This impaction sampler has been utilized in a number of
studies that have evaluated exposure to indoor and occupationally relevant aeroallergen
sources [Gore et al. 2002; Mitakakis et al. 2000; Renstrom et al. 2002].
Other impaction-based approaches have also been used in the assessment of outdoor
bioaerosols, including the Rotorod, Air-o-cell and Allergenco samplers [Frenz 1999; Lee et
al. 2004a; Pityn and Anderson 2013; Portnoy et al. 2000]. ASTM Standards D7391 and
D7788 discuss the collection and analysis of airborne fungal structures by inertial
impaction [ASTM 2009; ASTM 2014d].
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter BA March 2017 Page BA-16 of BA-115
Sampling and Characterization of Bioaerosols
c. Cyclones
A cyclone sampler consists of a circular chamber with the aerosol stream entering through
one or more tangential nozzles as shown in Figure 7 [Hering 2001]. Like an impactor, a
cyclone sampler depends upon the inertia of the particle to cause it to deposit on the
sampler wall as the air stream curves around inside the chamber. Also like an impactor, a
cyclone sampler has a collection efficiency curve like the one shown in Figure 3, and the
collection efficiency curve depends upon the flow rate. Cyclones are less prone to particle
bounce than impactors and can collect larger quantities of material. They also may provide
a more gentle collection than impactors, which can improve the recovery of viable
microorganisms. However, cyclones tend to have collection efficiency curves that are less
sharp than impactors, and it is simpler to design a compact cascade impactor compared to
a cascade of cyclone samplers.
In industrial hygiene, cyclone aerosol samplers are frequently used in conjunction with a
filter to conduct size-selective aerosol sampling [Hering 2001]. For example, in NIOSH
Method 0600, a cyclone is used to remove the non-respirable fraction from the aerosol
(following the ACGIH/ISO criteria described earlier), and a filter is then used to collect the
respirable fraction [NIOSH 2003c]. A sampler developed at NIOSH uses two cyclones
followed by a filter; the first cyclone collects the non-respirable fraction of the particles, the
second cyclone collects the respirable particles > 1 µm, and the filter collects particles < 1
µm [Blachere et al. 2009]. The NIOSH cyclone aerosol samplers have been used in
applications including measurements of airborne viruses in healthcare settings; airborne
fungi and fungal fragments in residences; airborne dimorphic fungal pathogens such as
Paracoccidioides brasiliensis in Brazil, and bioaerosols in agricultural operations [Arantes
et al. 2013; Blachere et al. 2009; Blais Lecours et al. 2012; Kettleson et al. 2013; Lee and Liao
2014; Lindsley et al. 2010a; Lindsley et al. 2010b; Martin et al. 2015; Seo et al. 2014; Singh
et al. 2011a; Singh et al. 2011b].
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter BA March 2017 Page BA-17 of BA-115
Sampling and Characterization of Bioaerosols
Figure 7: Cyclone aerosol collection. When the aerosol stream enters the body of the
cyclone through the inlet, the air flow follows the curved interior wall and flows in a spiral
pattern. If aerosol particles are larger than the cut-off diameter, then the inertia of the
particles causes them to collide with the wall of the cyclone and accumulate. After
spiraling downward, the air flow comes up through the center of the cyclone and exits
through the outlet (called a vortex finder) at the top. The illustration shows a tangential
inlet reversed-flow cyclone, which is the most common type of cyclone sampler.
d. Impingers
Many microorganisms can lose their viability if they are collected onto dry solid surfaces
or filters because of impact damage and desiccation [Cox 1987; Jensen et al. 1992; Macher
and First 1984; Verreault et al. 2008; Wang et al. 2001]. One way to avoid this is to collect
culturable bioaerosols in liquids using an impinger [Henningson and Ahlberg 1994;
Henningson et al. 1988; Lembke et al. 1981; Reponen et al. 2011b; Verreault et al. 2008]. A
typical impinger is shown in Figure 8. The body of the impinger is filled with a collection
liquid, and the aerosol stream flows down through a nozzle and enters the liquid at a high
velocity. The aerosol particles are collected when they collide with the bottom of the
collection vessel or disperse into the liquid. Impingers often have curved inlets to remove
larger particles from the air stream before collection. Because impingers are essentially
another type of inertial collection device, they have a collection efficiency curve and a cut-
off diameter like impactors and cyclones. However, the collection efficiency curves tend to
be less sharp. The high velocity air stream directed into the liquid also creates considerable
agitation and can produce foaming if the collection liquid contains surfactants. Additives
to the collection medium such as proteins, antifoam, or antifreeze aid in resuscitation of
bacterial cells, prevent foaming and loss of the collection fluid, and minimize injury to the
cells [Chang and Chou 2011; Cown et al. 1957; Dungan and Leytem 2015]. The presence
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter BA March 2017 Page BA-18 of BA-115
Sampling and Characterization of Bioaerosols
of proteins and other additives can also greatly influence the survival of airborne viruses
during collection by impingers [Ijaz et al. 1985b; Schaffer et al. 1976; Verreault et al. 2008].
Water loss over time reduces the liquid level in the impinger and increases the
concentration of the non-volatile components, which limits the available collection time
[Lin et al. 1997]. Sample losses due to re-aerosolization and particle deposition inside the
impinger can be significant [Grinshpun et al. 1997; Han and Mainelis 2012].
Figure 8: Impingement. Bioaerosol particles exit the nozzle of the impinger at high velocity
and impact the liquid or the bottom surface of the collection vessel. Some types of
impingers produce air bubbles in the collection media, which can enhance particle
collection, but can damage some types of microorganisms.
Two common impingers used for bioaerosol sampling are the Greenburg-Smith impinger
[Greenburg 1932] and the All-Glass Impinger with the nozzle 30 mm above the base of the
collection vessel, called the AGI-30 [May and Harper 1957]. The Greenberg-Smith and
AGI-30 samplers operate by drawing aerosols at nominal flow rates of 28.3 and 12.5
L/min, respectively, through an inlet tube [Macher et al. 1995]. The AGI-30 inlet tube is
curved to simulate particle collection in the nasal passage [Cox 1987]. Investigators have
reported problems with low sampling efficiencies and high losses due to particles in the
collection being re-aerosolized and lost [Grinshpun et al. 1997; Kesavan et al. 2010; Lin et
al. 1997].
When the AGI-30 is used to recover total airborne organisms from the environment, the
curved inlet tube is washed with a known amount of collecting fluid after sampling
because larger particles (i.e., over 15 µm) are collected on the tube wall by inertial force.
After sampling for the appropriate amount of time, 10 mL of the full-strength collection
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter BA March 2017 Page BA-19 of BA-115
Sampling and Characterization of Bioaerosols
fluid is filtered through a 0.45-µm pore size membrane filter. Serial dilutions of the
remaining collection fluid are handled similarly [Greenberg et al. 1992]. The membrane
filters are placed in sterile plastic petri plates filled with the appropriate medium and
incubated for later identification and enumeration.
The CIP10-M, a modified version of the CIP10 aerosol sampler, collects airborne
microorganisms in a liquid layer on the interior surface of a rapidly-rotating cup. As with
the BioSampler, the CIP10-M can be used with mineral oil as the collection fluid to avoid
fluid evaporation. It is reported to have collection efficiencies of >80% for particles >2.8
µm, 50% for 2.1 µm particles, and <10% for particles of <1 µm [Görner et al. 2006; Simon
et al. 2016].
May [1966] designed a three-stage sampler in which aerosol particles are collected by
impaction onto a wetted fritted surface in the first two stages and the third stage is a
swirling aerosol collector similar to the BioSampler. Both glass and stainless steel versions
are available. In his original report, May [1966] used particles with a density of 1.5 g/cm3
and reported cut-off sizes of 6 µm, 3.3 µm and 0.7 µm, which correspond to aerodynamic
diameters of about 7.3 µm, 4 µm, and 0.86 µm. The May sampler is reported to give
comparable results to the Andersen impactor [Zimmerman et al. 1987].
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter BA March 2017 Page BA-20 of BA-115
Sampling and Characterization of Bioaerosols
Several wetted-surface bioaerosol samplers recirculate the collection fluid and add
additional fluid as needed to replace evaporative losses. This extends the collection time
available and allows the concentration of the aerosol from a large volume of air at a high
flow rate into a relatively small volume of liquid, which is of great advantage when
searching for pathogens that may be present in very low concentrations. For this reason,
such systems are often used for bioterrorism and homeland security applications. The
Coriolis sampler [Carvalho et al. 2008], the OMNI-3000 [Zhao et al. 2014], the SASS 2000
[Ravva et al. 2012], and the SpinCon [Yooseph et al. 2013] use a wetted wall cyclone for
bioaerosol collection, while the BioCapture 650 [Ryan et al. 2009] collects particles onto a
wetted rotating impactor. Kesavan and Sagripanti [2015] reported the results of
performance tests for several of these types of bioaerosol samplers.
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter BA March 2017 Page BA-21 of BA-115
Sampling and Characterization of Bioaerosols
g. Electrostatic samplers
Electrostatic precipitation works by using a strong electric field to create a high
concentration of unipolar ions. The rapid motion of these ions causes them to collide with
and charge airborne particles, and the resulting charge on the particles causes them to be
attracted to the collection surface [Hinds 1999]. Electrostatic precipitation systems have
been used to collect bioaerosol particles such as allergens, bacteria and viruses [Artenstein
et al. 1968; Artenstein et al. 1967; Custis et al. 2003; Donaldson et al. 1982; Heitkamp et al.
2006; Lee et al. 2004b; Parvaneh et al. 2000; Roux et al. 2013]. Such devices offer simplicity
of design with few moving parts, and are generally effective at collecting small particles.
One electrostatic bioaerosol sampling device is available commercially from Inspirotec
[Gordon et al. 2015].
Some electrostatic bioaerosol samplers collect particles into liquid to concentrate the
particles and help preserve the viability of microorganisms. The Large Volume Air
Sampler (LVS) developed by Litton in the 1960’s washed the collection surface with
recirculating fluid; this sampler was successfully used to collect pathogenic respiratory
bacteria and viruses in a variety of settings [Artenstein et al. 1968; Artenstein et al. 1967;
Donaldson et al. 1982]. Pardon et al. [2015] developed a system that collects particles
directly on a microfluidic chip. The electrostatic aerosol collector devised by Han et al.
[2015] collects the deposited aerosol into rolling water droplets, which greatly
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter BA March 2017 Page BA-22 of BA-115
Sampling and Characterization of Bioaerosols
concentrates the particles. The Aerosol-to-Liquid Particle Extraction System (ALPES) uses
an electrostatic system to collect aerosol particles into recirculating liquid, which helps
preserve the viability of microorganisms [Heitkamp et al. 2006].
Electrostatically-charged cloths are used to collect airborne particles that settle onto them,
and also to wipe settled dust from surfaces. These are discussed in the next two sections.
Passive bioaerosol sampling can be limited by several variables including the air currents
around the device and airborne particle size. As discussed earlier, large particles settle
much more quickly than small particles. Thus, large particles are much more likely to be
collected by passive samplers [Haig et al. 2016; Reponen et al. 2011b]. As a result of these
limiting variables, results from passive bioaerosol sampling cannot be directly related to
the concentration of airborne particles and may not correlate well with results from active
sampling [Reponen et al. 2011b]. However, some authors have proposed that passive
sampling may be useful in evaluating the likelihood that bioaerosol particles will
contaminate surfaces such as open wounds in operating rooms, since they mimic the
contamination event more closely than does an active sampler [Friberg et al. 1999; Haig et
al. 2016; Pasquarella et al. 2000].
Passive bioaerosol collectors are often placed 1.5 to 2 meters above the ground to avoid
collection of large dust particles from sources other than airborne particles, such shoes,
clothing, skin and animals [Frankel et al. 2012; Lioy et al. 2002; Noss et al. 2008; Rintala et
al. 2012]. Grills, screens or shields may also be placed around or over the collection device
to screen out large debris [Brown et al. 1996; Wagner and Macher 2003; Whitehead and
Leith 2008; Wurtz et al. 2005].
Settle plates
Settle plates (also called settling plates or sedimentation plates) are culture plates
containing nutrient agar that are opened and placed collection-side up in a location of
interest. Airborne particles are allowed to settle onto the plates for a specified time,
and the plates are then closed, incubated and inspected for growth. Settle plates are
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter BA March 2017 Page BA-23 of BA-115
Sampling and Characterization of Bioaerosols
commonly used to assess airborne microbial contamination and are listed in methods
and standards from the ISO, the American Public Health Association (APHA) and the
United States Pharmacopeia (USP) [Dyer et al. 2004; ISO 2003; USP 1997]. However,
because the results from settle plates cannot be directly compared to the amount of
airborne microbes, they should only be used for qualitative, not quantitative,
evaluations. The CDC recommends the use of high-volume air samplers rather than
settle plates when investigating airborne fungal spore contamination in health care
facilities [CDC 2003].
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter BA March 2017 Page BA-24 of BA-115
Sampling and Characterization of Bioaerosols
Settled dust will vary within a building depending upon the location and collection surface
[Lioy et al. 2002; Rintala et al. 2012]. In addition to settling from the air, dust can be
produced by a variety of other mechanisms, making it difficult to distinguish the source.
Floor and carpet dust, for example, will include outside material brought in by shoes, skin
flakes, clothing fibers and animal dander. Sampling locations well above floor level are
often chosen to minimize the amount of dust that is not from settled airborne particles
[Frankel et al. 2012; Rintala et al. 2012].
Vacuums
The US Department of Housing and Urban Development has developed a protocol for
the vacuum collection of home dust samples to test for allergens [HUD 2008].
Vacuum collection of settled dust from floors and carpets has been used to determine
the Environmental Relative Moldiness Index (ERMI), which is a measure of mold
contamination in homes [Kettleson et al. 2015; Reponen et al. 2012; Reponen et al.
2011a; Taubel et al. 2016; Vesper et al. 2013; Vesper et al. 2007]. ERMI is discussed in
more detail later in this chapter. Note that vacuuming can increase the levels of
bioaerosols in a location. Thus, air sampling should be completed before collecting
surface samples by vacuuming [Hung et al. 2005; Hunter et al. 1988].
Swabs
Swabs are widely used to collect airborne material that has settled onto surfaces. Swabs
are also used to identify microbial contaminants that may be colonizing building
materials within the indoor environment. However, obtaining consistent and reliable
results from swab sampling is far more difficult than is often appreciated, and careful
attention is needed to the choice of swab material, elution media, and method of
swabbing. If swab samples are to be cultured, aseptic technique is needed to avoid
contamination. ASTM International has a standard for collecting fungal material by
swab [ASTM 2012]. The APHA has published a standard method for swab sampling of
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter BA March 2017 Page BA-25 of BA-115
Sampling and Characterization of Bioaerosols
food-contact surfaces [Dyer et al. 2004], while the USP and ISO have standards that
include swab sampling for microbiological contamination in clean rooms [ISO 2003;
USP 1997].
An example of a validated protocol for swab sampling is that provided by NIOSH for
surface sampling for Bacillus anthracis spores [Hodges et al. 2010; Hodges et al. 2006;
NIOSH 2012b]. In this procedure, a defined area is first outlined using a template or a
ruler and masking tape. A sterile macrofoam swab is then moistened using a buffer
solution that neutralizes disinfectants. The surface is swabbed using horizontal strokes,
followed by vertical strokes, and finally diagonal strokes, and the swab is then placed
in a sterile tube for transport and analysis. Aseptic technique is used throughout the
procedure.
The choice of swab material can have a significant impact on the collection of
microorganisms from a surface. Moore and Griffith [2007] studied the recovery of
Escherichia coli and Staphylococcus aureus from stainless steel squares using nylon-
flocked swabs and spatulas, cotton swabs and rayon swabs. They reported that nylon-
flocked and cotton swabs were equally effective at removing bacteria from dry
surfaces, but that cotton swabs removed bacteria more effectively from wet surfaces
than rayon or nylon-flocked swabs. However, nylon-flocked swabs and spatulas
released the bacteria into the elution media more readily than rayon swabs, which in
turn released more bacteria than cotton swabs. For viruses, polyester-tipped swabs
were found to be more effective than cotton swabs or antistatic wipes at recovering
MS2 bacteriophage from stainless steel and plastic [Julian et al. 2011], while
macrofoam swabs performed best when recovering wet or dried norovirus from
stainless steel surfaces, followed by cotton, rayon and polyester swabs [Park et al.
2015].
The elution media used to wet the swabs and recover the bacteria from the swabs also
can have a substantial effect on sampling. Moore and Griffith [2007] tested eleven
different swab wetting solutions containing various combinations of salts, surfactants
and nutrients. They found that the recovery efficiency varied widely depending upon
the species of bacteria, type of swab, and whether the surface was wet or dry. For MS2
bacteriophage, saline or Ringer’s solution (an isotonic salt solution) worked better
than viral transport media or pure water [Julian et al. 2011]. It is important to note
that the elution media must both remove the biological material from the surface and
subsequently elute it from the swab in order to be effective.
Although they may be overlooked, storage conditions play an important role in swab
sampling. After sample collection, room temperature storage of moist swabs may lead
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter BA March 2017 Page BA-26 of BA-115
Sampling and Characterization of Bioaerosols
to microbial growth if the elution media or swab contain nutrients, while the presence
of chemicals such as Tween 80 may reduce viability over time. These problems can be
alleviated by placing the swabs in cold storage as quickly as possible [Moore and
Griffith 2007].
Wipes
All of the considerations and limitations of swab sampling also apply to wipe
sampling. Swabs are typically more useful for small surfaces and hard-to-reach
locations, while wipes are more effective at collecting dust from large non-porous
surfaces [NIOSH 2012b]. Electrostatic wipes have been used to collect settled dust for
studies of mold and endotoxin [Bolaños-Rosero et al. 2013; Thorne et al. 2005].
However, Thorne et al. [2005] found that wipes and gloves themselves were frequently
contaminated with endotoxin and needed to be tested before use.
Adhesive tape
Adhesive tape can be used to collect dust samples from surfaces for microscopic
examination (this is called tape lift or cellotape sampling) [ASTM 2014c; Martyny et al.
1999; Morey 2007]. Typically, a section of adhesive tape is gently pressed onto a
surface of interest, removed with a slow steady force, and then attached to a glass slide
or placed in a vial. The samples are relatively simple to collect, but the results depend
upon the ability of the examiner to identify microorganisms and their fragments, and
do not provide a quantitative assessment of exposure.
Contact plates
Contact plates are typically round culture plates in which the agar is poured so that the
top of the agar forms a meniscus slightly above the top rim of the plate. A surface
sample is collected by inverting the plate and pressing the agar directly onto a flat
surface of interest. The plate is then removed, incubated and inspected for microbial
growth. This sampling method is often called the replicate organism direct agar
contact (RODAC) procedure, and it is commonly used for biocontamination
monitoring in the pharmaceutical and food industries [Dyer et al. 2004; ISO 2003; USP
1997]. Because many of the surfaces of interest in these industries are routinely
disinfected, contact plates are available with agars that contain neutralizers for
disinfectants. One report indicated that nitrocellulose membranes were slightly more
effective than RODAC plates at surface sampling, and are easier to use on curved
surfaces [Poletti et al. 1999].
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter BA March 2017 Page BA-27 of BA-115
Sampling and Characterization of Bioaerosols
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter BA March 2017 Page BA-28 of BA-115
Sampling and Characterization of Bioaerosols
bioaerosol sampling is almost always done in conjunction with the collection of other
types of data, such as worker health information, visual observations, air flow
measurements, surface sampling, and information about possible sources.
b. Sampling locations
The sampling locations should be selected to assist in evaluation of the working
hypotheses about possible exposures [ASTM 2014a]. If worker exposures are being
evaluated, then the samplers should be placed in areas occupied by the workers. If
contamination of a ventilation system is being examined, then sampling in the system and
at the ventilation louvers would be appropriate. Care must be exercised to ensure that
people do not tamper with the samplers and that microorganisms on surfaces or in duct
work are not inadvertently aerosolized.
Bioaerosol samples should be drawn directly into the sampler rather than being
transported to the sampler by tubing. If transport tubing must be used, it should be as
short and straight as possible. Abrupt flow constrictions and bends in the tubing should be
especially avoided, as considerable sample deposition can occur at these locations. The
tubing diameter should be large enough that the flow is not turbulent and that the d50 of
any bends is well above the size of the bioaerosol particles [Pui et al. 1987; Tsai and Pui
1990]. The tubing should be made of a material that does not lead to losses through
electrostatic deposition [Liu et al. 1985]. A review of the many issues surrounding the
transporting of aerosols through sampling lines is provided by Brockmann [2011].
Personal aerosol sampling provides a much better representation of worker and resident
exposure to aerosol particles than area (static) sampling [Cherrie et al. 2011; Kissell and
Sacks 2002; Rodes and Thornburg 2005]. However, most samplers for viable bioaerosols
do not lend themselves to personal sampling. Thus, a combination of personal and area
sampling may be necessary to fully characterize the exposure [Toivola et al. 2002].
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter BA March 2017 Page BA-29 of BA-115
Sampling and Characterization of Bioaerosols
The concentrations of bioaerosol particles vary widely depending upon the meteorological
parameters, the location of sources, the time of year and the amount of ventilation.
Shelton et al. [2002] studied 1,717 buildings in the United States. They found that outdoor
levels of airborne fungi are usually higher than indoor levels, and that fungal levels were
highest in the fall and summer and lowest in the winter and spring. Outdoor levels varied
from 1 to more than 8,200 colony-forming units (CFU)/m3 of air, with a median of 540
CFU/m3. Indoor levels ranged from 1 to over 10,000 CFU/m3, with a median of 82
CFU/m3. An examination of fungi in flood-damaged homes found fungal concentrations
of 1,100 to 8,400 spores/m3 outside and 500 to 101,100 spores/m3 inside [Reponen et al.
2007]. An investigation of 100 large office buildings by Tsai and Macher [2005] found that
airborne bacterial concentrations tend to be higher outdoors than indoor (except for
Gram-positive cocci). Outdoor concentrations tended to be higher in the winter (194 vs.
165 CFU/m3), while indoor concentrations were higher in the summer (116 vs. 87
CFU/m3). Forty-one percent of the bioaerosol samples were below the detection limit, and
>95% of the culturable bacteria were mesophilic (grow at moderate temperatures). In a
report on agricultural workers working in animal confinements, Lee et al. [2006] found
breathing zone culturable bioaerosol exposures of 300 to 36,000 CFU/m3 for fungi, 3000 to
3.3 x 108 CFU/m3 for bacteria, and up to 2,800 CFU/m3 for actinomycetes. During grain
harvesting, workers were exposed to culturable bioaerosol levels of 82,000 to 7.4 × 106
CFU/m3 for fungal spores, 40,000 to 1.4 × 106 CFU/m3 for bacteria, and up to 2.6 × 104
CFU/m3 for actinomycetes.
If one or more genera of fungi or bacteria are found indoors in concentrations greater than
outdoor concentrations, then the source of amplification may need to be found and
remediated. When conducting indoor bioaerosol sampling, it is advisable to sample
before, during, and after the sampling area is occupied, including times when the heating,
ventilating, and air conditioning system is activated and inactivated.
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter BA March 2017 Page BA-30 of BA-115
Sampling and Characterization of Bioaerosols
sample, probably because of its extremely low airborne concentrations and slow growth
rate [Nardell 2016]. Other bioaerosols such as Histoplasma capsulatum or Pneumocystis
carinii may take weeks to grow or may not even grow in culture at all [Dennis 1990; Ibach
et al. 1954]. As the name implies, viable bioaerosol sampling involves collecting a
bioaerosol and culturing the collected particles. Only culturable microorganisms are
enumerated and identified, thus leading to an underestimation of bioaerosol
concentration. Non-viable and viable but non-culturable microorganisms are often
studied by collecting them with a dry aerosol sampler or a membrane filter. The
microorganisms are then enumerated and identified using microscopy, classical
microbiology, molecular biology, or immunochemical techniques [Hung et al. 2005;
Macher 1999; Reponen et al. 2011b; Tortora et al. 2013].
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter BA March 2017 Page BA-31 of BA-115
Sampling and Characterization of Bioaerosols
particles with aerodynamic diameters of 0.5 to 9.9 µm [Schafer et al. 1998]. Air sampling
around indoor whirlpools in a public facility found airborne mycobacteria DNA in
particles with aerodynamic diameters of 0.5 to 9.9 µm [Schafer et al. 2003]. Actinomycete
spores tend to be smaller, with aerodynamic diameters of cultured spores ranging from 0.6
to 1.5 µm [Madelin and Johnson 1992; Reponen et al. 1998]. Fungal spores have physical
diameters of about 0.5 to 30 µm or larger, while the aerodynamic diameters of airborne
fungal spores and spore clusters are reported to be from 0.9 to 5 µm [Eduard 2009;
Hussein et al. 2013; Reponen et al. 2011b].
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter BA March 2017 Page BA-32 of BA-115
Sampling and Characterization of Bioaerosols
It is common to use an aerosol spectrometer in conjunction with bioaerosol sampling to
better understand the size distribution of the airborne particles. One consideration when
interpreting the data is, of course, that the large majority of these devices do not
distinguish between biological and non-biological aerosols. Another less-obvious factor is
that while a few aerosol spectrometers such as the TSI Aerodynamic Particle Sizer measure
the aerodynamic diameter of the airborne particles, many aerosol spectrometers measure
particles using light scattering and thus provide an approximate physical diameter instead
[Hinds 1999; Sorensen et al. 2011]. The difference between the aerodynamic and optical
diameters may be significant depending upon the shape and density of the particles.
Water evaporates rapidly from wet aerosol particles [Hinds 1999]. If an airborne particle is
initially an aqueous solution containing non-volatile substances such as salts and organic
material, and if the relative humidity is above the crystallization relative humidity (CRH,
also called the efflorescence relative humidity), then some of the water will evaporate and
the solution will become more concentrated, but the particle will remain liquid. If the
relative humidity is below the CRH, then all of the water will evaporate (that is, the particle
will desiccate) [Nicas et al. 2005]. Similarly, if an airborne particle is initially a dry
combination of salts and organic material, and if the relative humidity is below the
deliquescence relative humidity (DRH), then the particle will remain desiccated. However,
if the relative humidity is above the DRH, then the particle will absorb water until it
liquefies and becomes an aqueous solution. The DRH is always greater than the CRH
[Nicas et al. 2005]. A particle in an environment above its CRH (or DRH if it was initially
dry) will be larger and heavier and will settle faster than the same particle when the
humidity is below the CRH, which can affect the size and amount of bioaerosol particles
that are collected during sampling [Mikhailov et al. 2004]. This phenomenon was seen in a
study of particles in human exhaled breath, where the particles detected in low humidity
air were substantially smaller than those detected when the air was more humid
[Holmgren et al. 2011].
Bioaerosol particles may also undergo an increase in size when the humidity increases due
to water absorption and swelling of hygroscopic components. An increase in relative
humidity has been shown to increase the aerodynamic diameter of fungal spores [Madelin
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter BA March 2017 Page BA-33 of BA-115
Sampling and Characterization of Bioaerosols
and Johnson 1992; Reponen et al. 1996]. Similar results have been reported for
Actinomycetes spores [Madelin and Johnson 1992].
For airborne viruses, survival decreases as air temperature increases [Ijaz et al. 2016; Tang
2009]. Exposing most viruses to temperatures of 60°C or higher for 60 minutes will
inactivate them, although the viruses can be somewhat protected if they are encased in
organic material [Tang 2009]. For example, in one set of experiments, airborne particles
containing vaccinia virus, influenza virus, and Venezuelan equine encephalomyelitis virus
all showed higher survival rates at 7-12°C than at 21-24°C, and still lower survival at 32-
34°C [Harper 1961]. Aerosol transmission of influenza virus among Guinea pigs is
blocked at air temperatures of 30°C [Lowen et al. 2008]. The effect of humidity on virus
survival depends upon the virus; in general, viruses with lipid envelopes tend to survive
better at low humidity, while non-enveloped viruses survive better at high humidity [Ijaz
et al. 2016; Tang 2009]. For example, influenza viruses and coronaviruses have enveloped
capsids, and both survive better at low humidities compared to high [Ijaz et al. 1985a; Ijaz
et al. 2016; Noti et al. 2013; Schaffer et al. 1976]. On the other hand, rotaviruses and
rhinoviruses have non-enveloped capsids and survive better at high humidities compared
to low [Ijaz et al. 1985b; Ijaz et al. 2016; Karim et al. 1985].
The survival of airborne bacteria also decreases as air temperature increases; the survival of
virtually all airborne bacteria declines when temperatures are above 24°C [Ijaz et al. 2016;
Tang 2009]. However, as with viruses, the effects of humidity on bacterial survival are
much more complex, and depend not only upon species but also upon the methods of
culture and aerosolization [Cox 1989; Tang 2009]. In field experiments in a greenhouse,
survival of certain bacteria was 35- to 65-fold higher at 80% RH than at 40% [Walter et al.
1990]. In laboratory experiments, survival of certain bacteria was virtually complete at low
RH but was reduced at RH values above 80% [Cox 1968]. Higher humidities can also
significantly decrease the efficacy of ultraviolet germicidal irradiation (UVGI) for reducing
levels of viable airborne bacteria [Peccia et al. 2001]. Cox [1987] believes the potential for
the movement of the solvent water is an important environmental criterion in assessing
survivability of bacteria, viruses, and phages.
Fungi and fungal spores generally are better able to withstand environmental stresses
compared to vegetative bacteria and viruses [Ijaz et al. 2016; Tang 2009]. Warm
temperatures, wet substrates and humid air conditions favor the growth of fungi on
surfaces [Eduard 2009; Tang et al. 2015]. Temperature can induce morphological changes
in dimorphic fungi such as the pathogen Histoplasma capsulatum [Salvin 1949]. It is not
clear, however, how air temperature and humidity affect the viability of airborne fungi and
fungal spores [Tang 2009].
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter BA March 2017 Page BA-34 of BA-115
Sampling and Characterization of Bioaerosols
g. Electrostatic effects
Aerosol particles in the workplace can be highly charged, and the electrostatic charge can
vary considerably depending upon the aerosol generation mechanism and the particle
characteristics [Johnston et al. 1985]. Aerosol particles are especially prone to develop
electrostatic charges in low humidity environments [Baron and Deye 1990]. Like most
particles, freshly generated microbial aerosols are nearly always electrostatically charged
unless steps are taken to neutralize them. Lee et al. [2004b] found that airborne fungi and
bacteria carried a net negative charge in most of the laboratory and field environments
that they studied. Mainelis et al. [2002] found that a strong positive electrostatic charge
reduced the viability of Pseudomonas fluorescens bacteria but did not affect Bacillus subtilis
spores.
The effect of electrostatic charge on aerosol collection is often overlooked, resulting in the
possible bias of sampling results [NIOSH 2016a; Vincent 2007]. Aerosol samplers made of
non-conductive plastics can develop substantial electrostatic charges, which can degrade
their performance significantly [NIOSH 2016a; Baron and Deye 1990]. The use of
polyethylene or polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) tubing to transport air streams to a
sampler can remove a sizeable amount of aerosol particles by electrostatic deposition [Liu
et al. 1985]. As noted above, the use of plastic Petri dishes in an Andersen impactor can
result in bioaerosol particle losses [Andersen 1958; Kuo 2015]. Whenever possible, it is
better to use aerosol samplers made of conductive materials such as metals or specially-
treated plastics [NIOSH 2016a].
h. Flow calibration
Accurate airflow rates are very important in calculating the concentration of
microorganisms in the air. All samplers should be calibrated before and after sampling to
ensure that the flow rate is within the manufacturer's specifications and does not change
from the initial calibration. Calibration may be performed using a primary standard such
as a spirometer or bubble calibrator. Where it is not possible to calibrate using a primary
standard, a calibrated secondary standard such as a dry gas meter may be used. The
calibration of such a secondary standard should be traceable to a primary standard. A
detailed explanation of the calibration of airflow rates is given by McCammon Jr. and
Woebkenberg [NIOSH 2016c].
i. Blanks
Laboratory media blanks are unexposed, fresh samples of media, such as agar plates, filters
and impinger fluids. These samples are generally not taken into the field. Before using any
batch of media, incubate at least three culture plates under the same conditions as planned
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter BA March 2017 Page BA-35 of BA-115
Sampling and Characterization of Bioaerosols
for the field samples, in order to check for sterility of the media. Approximately five media
blanks should be included with each sample set. If the samples are to be analyzed by an
outside laboratory, consult the specific laboratory procedure for the number of blanks to
be submitted. Similarly, blank filters should be processed in the same manner as planned
for field samples in order to check for contamination.
Field blanks are simply unopened, fresh media samples that are handled in the same way
as field samples, including labeling, except that no air is drawn through the sampler. The
generally recommended practice for the number of field blanks is to provide at least two
field blanks for every 10 samples with a maximum of 10 field blanks for each sample set.
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter BA March 2017 Page BA-36 of BA-115
Sampling and Characterization of Bioaerosols
homes [Kettleson et al. 2015; Vesper et al. 2013]. The ERMI and other PCR-based assays
are discussed in greater detail later in this chapter.
If viability is to be studied, then the samples usually will need to be collected with an
impinger or in an Andersen impactor loaded with agar plates, because many
microorganisms will lose viability due to damage or desiccation if collected dry [Cox 1987;
Hung et al. 2005]. For example, a membrane filter sampler is not appropriate for sampling
culturable Escherichia coli because the cells desiccate and become either nonviable or
viable but not culturable under these conditions [Jensen et al. 1992]. Similar results have
been reported for other bacteria and fungi [Macher and First 1984; Wang et al. 2001].
Depending upon the target microorganism, impingers may be filled with distilled water or
a buffered isotonic solution, sometimes with antifoaming agents to reduce foaming and
proteins to enhance survival. Mineral oil has also been used in impingers instead of
aqueous solutions to avoid evaporation [Lin et al. 2000]. Impactors are loaded with agar
plates; the choice of agar depends upon the microorganisms of interest and the desired
selectivity (discussed in the next section).
As noted previously, depending upon the investigation that is being conducted, the
particle size distribution of the bioaerosol may be very important in the evaluation of the
data obtained. If particle size information is needed to, for example, determine how much
of the bioaerosol is in the respirable size fraction, then a size-selective sampler should be
used for at least some of the collections if possible. For example, if an SAS-Compact
sampler was the selected sampler for collection of culturable Escherichia coli, an Andersen
6-Stage sampler could be used to determine the particle size distribution at each location
sampled. The expected size of the bioaerosol particles is also an important factor in
choosing a sampler. For example, an impactor with a d50 of 4 µm should not be used to
collect Aspergillus niger spores (dae 1-3 µm) because most spores would remain entrained
in the air and pass through the instrument.
NIOSH Method 0800 discusses sampling for culturable airborne bacteria and fungi with
an Andersen cascade impactor [NIOSH 2003b]. Standard methods for the collection of
airborne fungi by inertial impaction are presented in ASTM Standards D7788 [ASTM
2009; ASTM 2014d]. ASTM Standard D7391 also discusses the aspects related to the
laboratory analysis.
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter BA March 2017 Page BA-37 of BA-115
Sampling and Characterization of Bioaerosols
reproduction [Tortora et al. 2013]. Bioaerosols of pathogenic viruses have been found in
many settings to be present in low concentrations that can be difficult to detect [Blachere
et al. 2009; Bonifait et al. 2015; Lindsley et al. 2010a; Tseng et al. 2010; Yang et al. 2011].
Viruses also are generally more susceptible to damage during aerosol collection than are
bacteria or fungi, although their sensitivity varies widely with the collection method and
species [Appert et al. 2012; Turgeon et al. 2014; Zuo et al. 2013]. Aerosol sampling
methods for viruses have been reviewed by Verreault et al. [2008].
Bacteriophages are viruses that infect bacteria rather than multicellular organisms. They
are used in laboratory aerosol studies as tracers for aerosol particles and as surrogates for
airborne viruses that infect humans [Fisher et al. 2012; Tseng and Li 2005; Turgeon et al.
2014]. Bacteriophages are not known to be hazardous to humans but are of interest to
industries that rely on bacteria such as cheese manufacturers [Verreault et al. 2011].
Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) based methods are often used to study viral bioaerosols.
PCR has the advantages of being very sensitive and very specific, and considerably easier
to perform than viral cultural assays. For this reason, most recent field studies of airborne
viruses have used PCR as the detection method. Examples include studies of viruses in
healthcare facilities [Blachere et al. 2009; Booth et al. 2005; Lindsley et al. 2010a;
Thompson et al. 2013; Tseng et al. 2010], influenza at poultry and pig farms [Corzo et al.
2013; Jonges et al. 2015], airborne viruses in a sewage treatment plant [Masclaux et al.
2014], and respiratory viruses in human coughs and exhaled breath [Gralton et al. 2013;
Lindsley et al. 2010b; Milton et al. 2013].
PCR has both the advantage and disadvantage of not requiring that the virus be viable in
order to be detected. This eliminates the need to preserve viability during and after
collection and allows the use of dry collection methods such as cyclone samplers, dry
impactors and filters, which are simpler and easier to carry out. On the other hand, this
also means that it is unclear whether the airborne virus is infectious or not, which makes
interpretation of data more difficult. This is a common criticism of PCR-based bioaerosol
studies.
If the virus in a bioaerosol sample is to be cultured, in most cases the sample will need to
be collected into an aqueous media using an impinger or wetted surface aerosol collector.
Fabian et al. [2009] showed that collecting airborne influenza virus in aqueous media
using an SKC BioSampler preserved infectivity much better than dry collection using
filters or an impactor. A less-common method is to collect viable viruses using an
Andersen impactor. Gustin et al. [2011] collected airborne influenza virus using an
Andersen impactor by placing a filter and a thin layer of gelatin on top of the agar in the
culture plates. After collection, the gelatin was removed and melted at 37°C to allow
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter BA March 2017 Page BA-38 of BA-115
Sampling and Characterization of Bioaerosols
subsequent culture of the virus. Note that the collection media must be compatible with
the cell culture system used to host the virus.
Growth media can be defined as either broad or selective [Macher 1999]. As the term
implies, broad nutrient media supports the growth of a diverse number of
microorganisms. In contrast, a selective growth medium, with appropriate energy sources,
nutrients, and pH, is used to enrich growth of the specific microorganism in question and
inhibit the growth of competitive organisms [Macher 1999]. A variety of broad and
selective nutrient media for bacteria and fungi are available to the industrial hygienist and
can be found in Hung et al. [2005] and Macher [1999].
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter BA March 2017 Page BA-39 of BA-115
Sampling and Characterization of Bioaerosols
Following sample collection, liquid or agar cultures are incubated at a suitable temperature
and atmosphere (facultative versus aerobic) for an appropriate time. Fast-growing bacteria
may develop microcolonies in hours, while fungi may take days to develop into a visible
colony and perhaps sporulate. Organisms such as Mycobacterium tuberculosis or the
dimorphic fungal pathogens, Histoplasma capsulatum or Blastomyces dermatitidis may
require weeks of incubation to produce visible colonies [ATS 1990; Babady et al. 2011].
For fungi, plates are typically incubated at room temperature (18°C-25°C) or, if it is a
clinically relevant isolate, at 35°C [ACGIH 1989; Baron and Finegold 1990; Hung et al.
2005; Macher 1999]. In contrast, environmental bacteria are grown between 18°C and
28°C, while thermophilic bacteria are grown between 50°C and 58°C [Hung et al. 2005;
Macher 1999].
After allowing for vegetative growth of all viable propagules on the selected nutrient
medium, the number of colonies is identified, quantified and presented as colony forming
units (CFUs) [Eduard et al. 2012]. Media blanks (laboratory and field) should be processed
using the same methods as samples to control for environmental or laboratory
contaminants. A collection of bioaerosol identification manuals is presented in both the
AIHA and ACGIH manuals [Hung et al. 2005; Macher 1999]. Color micrographs of
common fungal contaminants are also presented in Flannigan et al. [2011]. Along with the
quantification of viable microorganisms, taxonomic data and an interpretation of the
datasets are generally reported [Hung et al. 2005].
The interest in detecting and quantifying fungi has increased following consensus
documents that reported associations between fungi in damp indoor environments and
adverse respiratory health effects [IOM 2004; Mendell et al. 2011; WHO 2009]. Compared
to bacteria, additional variables need to be taken into consideration by the industrial
hygienist when evaluating viable fungal bioaerosols including water activity, colony
competition, and carbohydrate nutrient sources [Hung et al. 2005; Macher 1999]. Broad
viable culture approaches favor species belonging to the phylum Ascomycota, as well as
species that outcompete slower-growing species. Several different types of media and
physiological conditions (e.g. temperature) may also need to be employed to assess
complete fungal diversity using this approach. For fungi, selection of the nutrient media
may potentially bias the growth of specific viable fungal bioaerosols. Common nutrient
media include malt extract agar (MEA) supplemented with chloramphenicol or rose
bengal agar to suppress bacterial growth [Hung et al. 2005; Macher 1999]. Cellulose agar
can also be used for the selection of indoor fungal contaminants such as Stachybotrys
chartarum [Hung et al. 2005]. Dichloran glycerol (DG18) can be used to select for those
fungi that are xerotolerant [Flannigan et al. 2011; Hocking and Pitt 1980; Macher 1999].
Temperature and incubation time can also be used to select for specific fungal bioaerosols
such as Aspergillus fumigatus which are capable of growth within human hosts [Flannigan
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter BA March 2017 Page BA-40 of BA-115
Sampling and Characterization of Bioaerosols
et al. 2011; Hung et al. 2005]. A selection of nutrient media and growth conditions that can
be used for viable fungal culture can be found in Hung et al. [2005], Flannigan et al. [2011]
and Macher [1999].
Air sampling techniques also may cause damage to the virus and compromise analysis.
Before collecting viral aerosols, the hardiness of the target virus must be taken into
account. Currently, there are over 200 known respiratory viruses that fall under one family
of DNA viruses (Adenoviridae) and four families of RNA viruses (Orthomyxoviridae,
Paramyxoviridae, Picornaviridae and Coronaviridae) [Abed and Boivin 2006]. While all
viruses package their genome in a protective protein coat known as the capsid, some
viruses also possess a lipid bilayer envelope that, as the name implies, surrounds the viral
capsid. Once outside the host, the viral envelope is highly sensitive to desiccation,
temperature fluctuations and readily undergoes degradation. Variations in temperature
can greatly affect viral enzymatic activity and nucleic acid stability [Tang 2009]. As noted
earlier, viruses with lipid envelopes tend to survive better at low humidity, while non-
enveloped viruses survive better at high humidity [Tang 2009]. Also, RNA viruses are
inherently more unstable than DNA viruses due to the presence of the 2’-hydroxyl group
on the ribose sugar molecule of RNA that is susceptible to base-catalyzed hydrolysis and
degradation. Therefore it is critical that collection methods do not disrupt the lipid
membrane and/or compromise the integrity of nucleic acids. Impairment of either the
lipid envelope or nucleic acids can significantly impact detection of the viral aerosol and
lead to false negatives.
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter BA March 2017 Page BA-41 of BA-115
Sampling and Characterization of Bioaerosols
To optimize collection efficiency while maintaining infectiousness of the viral aerosol,
researchers must be discriminating when deciding on what type of aerosol sampler to use
and how long the sampling collection period should be. As discussed in Section 3, some
commercially available bioaerosol sampling devices exist, each of which possesses unique
collection properties. In a review by Verreault et al. [2008], liquid impingers were found to
be the most effective sampling devices for capturing small viral particles while maintaining
virion integrity and infectiousness [Verreault et al. 2008].
While liquid impingement preserves and maintains viral integrity (in comparison to dry
impaction), the type of collection medium must also be considered. With culture-based
identification methods, it is of utmost importance to maintain the stability of the collected
viruses while using cell-culture compatible media. The type of liquid medium, as well as
the volume used, are important variables to consider. Virus collection and transport media
are typically isotonic solutions with a buffer to control the pH, protein to protect the virus,
and antibiotics to prevent microbial growth. If used in an impinger, the viral collection
media may also include an antifoaming agent. Specimen handling, storage time and
storage temperature can significantly impact the integrity of sample analysis. Collection
and storage under suboptimal conditions can result in viral inactivation and degradation
of nucleic acids. Bioaerosol samples containing viruses should be processed as soon as
possible after collection. They should be refrigerated or frozen and transported as quickly
as possible. The stability and retention of viability depend upon the virus [Johnson 1990].
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter BA March 2017 Page BA-42 of BA-115
Sampling and Characterization of Bioaerosols
Growth characteristics include the appearance of the microorganisms in a liquid medium,
colony morphology on solid medium, pigmentation, and arrangement of reproductive
structures such as fungal sexual or asexual spores.
a. Bacteria
Bacteria are prokaryotes with distinguishing morphological characteristics that include the
cell shape, cell size, arrangement of cells, and the presence or absence of flagella, capsules,
or endospores. Simple and differential staining may be performed on bacteria to enhance
visualization and to aid in grouping and identification [Tortora et al. 2013]. In simple
staining, a single basic dye is used that highlights the cellular morphology. Stains such as
methylene blue, carbolfuchsin, crystal violet, or safranin may be used for bacteria.
b. Legionella
Bacteria that are placed in the genus Legionella, are the etiological agents of pulmonary
infections called Legionellosis [Fields 2002]. Legionella pneumophila (Figure 1B) is the
most widely known species that has been implicated in Legionnaires’ disease, which can
result in pneumonia. Milder illness with fever and body aches is referred to as Pontiac
fever. Bacteria placed in this genus consist of Gram negative rods and are associated with
freshwater in the environment [ASTM 2015; Macher 1999]. Exposure to warm
temperatures (25-42°C) can result in the growth and proliferation of the bacteria, a
problem that has emerged in water and air handling systems within the indoor built
environment [Hung et al. 2005]. Growth and persistence within Protista have also been
reported [Hung et al. 2005]. For health care facilities, ASHRAE Guideline 12–2000
recommends storing and distributing cold water at <20°C (68°F), whereas hot water
should be stored at >60°C (140°F) and circulated with a minimum return temperature of
51°C (124°F). In other settings, hot water should be stored at ≥40°C (≥120°F) [ASHRAE
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter BA March 2017 Page BA-43 of BA-115
Sampling and Characterization of Bioaerosols
2000]. Building air conditioning cooling towers, humidifiers, or structures used for
bathing such as hot tubs are particularly susceptible to Legionella amplification. Legionella
can be aerosolized within water droplets via abiotic disturbance mechanisms and
disseminated into the breathing zone of the subject. Airborne levels lower than 10
CFU/mL have been associated with Legionnaires’ disease [ASTM 2015; Demirjian et al.
2015; Hung et al. 2005].
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter BA March 2017 Page BA-44 of BA-115
Sampling and Characterization of Bioaerosols
Using an environmental microbiology laboratory with expertise in propagating Legionella
spp. is important when evaluating Legionella contamination of water systems within the
built environment. A number of laboratories participate in the CDC’s Environmental
Legionella Isolation Techniques Evaluation (ELITE) Program. Participation in the
program is voluntary and enables laboratories to test their proficiency in Legionella
isolation and identification techniques against standardized samples. A list of ELITE
member laboratories can be accessed at
https://wwwn.cdc.gov/elite/Public/MemberList.aspx.
c. Fungi
In general, culturable fungi are classified by colony features including the septation of
hyphae and colony morphological phenotypes, including pigmentation and the
presentation of asexual and sexual spores on hyphae. Stains such as Calberla’s solution,
lactophenol cotton blue, periodic acid-Schiff stain, Grocott’s methenamine silver stain,
and calcofluor white may be used in combination with potassium hydroxide (10% KOH)
to resolve these colony structures using microscopic-based approaches [Hung et al. 2005].
The identification and classification of fungal colonies should be performed by an
examiner that is skilled in microbiology and mycology. A number of commercial labs that
employ examiners skilled in the identification of microorganisms encountered in indoor
and occupational environments are accredited by the AIHA Environmental Microbiology
Laboratory Accreditation Program (EMLAP).
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter BA March 2017 Page BA-45 of BA-115
Sampling and Characterization of Bioaerosols
b. Enumeration of viruses
Before the advent and mainstreaming of molecular-based detection methodologies, cell
culture-based methods and serological assays were considered the gold standard for the
detection of viral pathogens. Typically, through the use of commercially available
immortal cell lines, researchers can screen collected bioaerosols by inoculating cells and
looking for common cytopathic effects (CPEs) such as rounding of infected cells, fusion
with adjacent cells and lysis of cells. Examples of well-known cell lines that are routinely
used in viral diagnostics include primary rhesus monkey kidney (RhMK) cells, primary
rabbit kidney cells, human lung fibroblasts (MRC-5), human epidermoid carcinoma cells
(HEp-2), human lung carcinoma cells (A549) and Madin Darby kidney cells (MDCK)
[Leland and Ginocchio 2007]. Selection of the appropriate cell line is based on the
specimen source and the suspected causal viral pathogen. Certain viral pathogens may
require several cell passages before CPEs can be observed. More information on
enumeration assays for viable viruses can be found in standard virology reference texts,
such Principles of Virology [Flint et al. 2009b] and Fields Virology [Fields et al. 2007].
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter BA March 2017 Page BA-46 of BA-115
Sampling and Characterization of Bioaerosols
Viral plaque assay
A widely used approach for detecting viral pathogens and quantifying viral titers is the
viral plaque assay (VPA) [Condit 2007]. Under biological safety controls, the
appropriate cell line is propagated and plated, usually in a 6-well format, at a
concentration at which cells form a monolayer. The cell monolayer is next treated for a
defined period (30-60 minutes) with a specific volume (0.1 mL to 1.5 mL) of the
collected bioaerosol and incubated at the specified temperature and CO2 levels for 24
to 72 hours. Throughout the incubation period, cells are routinely inspected and CPEs
are documented. Upon completion of the incubation period, cells are chemically fixed,
stained and plaques (zones of cellular clearing) are enumerated. The final
concentration of the collected viral aerosols is calculated based on the number of
plaques, dilution of the inoculum and volume plated, and is expressed in plaque
forming units per mL (PFU/mL]). While the VPA is a cost-effective method of
assessing sample viral loads, results can take anywhere from 3-5 days. Other
limitations such as the inability to detect low viral titers and inactivated
(noninfectious) virus and the failure of some viruses to form plaques, may
compromise detection and underestimate the viral loads in an aerosol sample.
Likewise, common indoor and outdoor contaminants (such as fungi and bacteria) can
impair the VPA by disrupting the cellular monolayer or outcompeting for nutrients in
the cell culture medium.
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter BA March 2017 Page BA-47 of BA-115
Sampling and Characterization of Bioaerosols
c. Interpretation of data
In industrial hygiene surveys that evaluate bioaerosols, indoor bioaerosol levels are usually
compared to outdoor levels or to a control area. In general, indoor bioaerosol levels are
lower than outdoor levels, and the taxa are similar [ACGIH 1989; Burge et al. 1977; Hung
et al. 2005; Macher 1999; Solomon et al. 1980]. However, elevated indoor bioaerosol levels
may be a sign of dampness, water infiltration, or microbial contamination [Hung et al.
2005]. In 2010, The ACGIH published a variety of occupational exposure limits for
aerosols that are derived from biological material in specific industries and include
subtilisins derived from Bacillus subtilis, as well as cotton, grain, flour, wood, and organic
dusts [ACGIH 2015; Eduard et al. 2012]. To date, no occupational exposure limits for
specific fungal bioaerosols exist and these typically fall under particulate matter not
otherwise regulated (10 mg/m3 for inhalable dust; [ACGIH 2015; Eduard et al. 2012].
Proposed limits developed in other regions of the world are provided in Eduard et al.
[2012].
Although the quantification of viable fungal propagules can provide helpful datasets to
evaluate differences between indoor and outdoor fungal diversity, the interpretation of
results should be evaluated closely. Total fungal exposure will be underestimated as non-
viable fungal bioaerosols are not captured in the analysis [Eduard et al. 2012]. Fungal
genera, including Cladosporium, Alternaria, and Epicoccum, and Basidiomycetes are
predominantly localized in outdoor environments and the presence of elevated
concentrations may be an indicator of indoor fungal contamination [Hung et al. 2005].
Similarly, the presence of certain hydrophilic species including Stachybotrys chartarum
and Aspergillus versicolor, and Chaetomium globosum may be signs of indoor fungal
contamination and may require immediate inspection [Flannigan et al. 2011; Hung et al.
2005].
Where local amplification and dissemination of bacteria have not occurred in an occupied,
indoor environment, Gram-positive cocci (e.g., Micrococcus and Staphylococcus) are
normally dominant [Morey et al. 1986]. Airborne human skin scales and respiratory
secretions may contain Gram-positive cocci [ACGIH 1989; Hung et al. 2005]. Detection of
high levels of these microorganisms may be an indication of over-crowding and
inadequate ventilation. Indoor air that tests high for Gram-negative bacteria indicates a
need to identify and eliminate the source of contamination. Concentrations ranging from
4,500-10,000 CFU/m3 have been suggested as the upper limit for ubiquitous bacterial
aerosols [ACGIH 1989; Nevalainen 1989]. These exposure limits, however, do not apply to
pathogenic microorganisms. Actinomycetes (mesophilic and thermophilic) are commonly
found in agricultural areas. Their presence in indoor environments is an indicator of
contamination [ACGIH 1989; Banaszak et al. 1970; Lacey and Crook 1988]. Thermophilic
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter BA March 2017 Page BA-48 of BA-115
Sampling and Characterization of Bioaerosols
Actinomycetes at concentrations above 70 CFU/m3 in an affected person's work area have
been regarded as the threshold for triggering remedial action [Otten et al. 1986].
Microscopy includes a variety of approaches that utilize bright-field, light, phase contrast,
fluorescence or even electron-based approaches [Eduard et al. 2012; Macher 1999]. These
methods enable the enumeration of both viable and nonviable microorganisms [Macher 1999]
as well as other non-culturable bioaerosols including cell wall fragments, plant pollen and
pteridophyte and bryophyte spores [Green et al. 2011; Rittenour et al. 2012]. These
approaches provide a platform to visualize particle morphology and to identify reproductive
fungal structures of individual genera that are based on a combination of propagule
phenotypes [Flannigan et al. 2011; Macher 1999]. However, these approaches can be
confounded by observer bias, especially when it comes to differentiating bioaerosols that
contain similar morphological phenotypes such as amerospores (e.g. Aspergillus conidia)
[Flannigan et al. 2011; Hung et al. 2005]. The ASTM has published a standard method for the
use of optical microscopy to categorize and quantify fungal structures in samples collected by
inertial impaction [ASTM 2009].
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter BA March 2017 Page BA-49 of BA-115
Sampling and Characterization of Bioaerosols
endotoxin or β-glucan) [Eduard et al. 2012]. Other chemical and proteomic methods
including HPLC, flow cytometry, and mass spectrometry-based approaches can also be used
to detect and quantify cell wall components such as microbial volatile organic compounds and
mycotoxins. These approaches have been reviewed more extensively by Flannigan et al.
[2011].
Several modifications of classical biochemical procedures have been used in recent years to
facilitate inoculation of media, decrease the incubation time, automate the procedure, and
systematize the determination of species based on reaction patterns. Historically, clinical
microbiological techniques have been used for analysis of environmental samples. However,
clinical strains and environmental isolates may differ, requiring modification of clinically-
based techniques.
a. Microscopy
Bright-field or light
In bright-field or light microscopy, an ordinary microscope is used for the
morphological observation and sizing of sampled bioaerosols. Visible light from an
incandescent source is used for illumination and the specimen appears against a bright
backfield. Objects smaller than 0.2 µm cannot be resolved. The image contrast
(visibility) decreases as the refractive index of the substance/microorganism under
observation and the mounting medium become similar. To maximize the contrast, the
mounting medium should have the same refractive index as glass or the immersion oil.
Membrane filters are often "cleared" by using the appropriate immersion oil or acetone
vapor/triacetin combination. This method is commonly used to observe various
stained specimens and to identify and count viable and non-viable bioaerosols. In
addition, pollen grains are often identified and enumerated in this manner [Eduard et
al. 1990].
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter BA March 2017 Page BA-50 of BA-115
Sampling and Characterization of Bioaerosols
Many other common environmental fungal bioaerosols share similar morphologies
which can make taxonomic placement challenging for the untrained or inexperienced
observer [Eduard et al. 2012]. Typical magnification used in the assessment of fungal
propagules ranges from 400-1000X. A standard operating procedure for the
assessment of microscopic non-viable samples is presented in Hung et al. [2005] and
by ASTM [2009].
Phase contrast
Phase-contrast microscopy is used when the microorganism under observation (e.g.,
Escherichia coli) is hyaline and an alternative mounting medium is not possible. As
light passes through the specimen, variations in the index of refraction of the
components cause phase shifts in the light. A phase-contrast microscope uses a special
condenser and diffraction plate that cause these phase shifts to appear as differences in
brightness and contrast. One cannot see an object exactly matching the refractive
index of the mounting liquid; however, very slight differences produce visible images.
This type of microscope is commonly used to provide detailed examination of the
internal structures of living specimens; no staining is required.
Fluorescence
Fluorescence microscopy uses an ultraviolet or near-ultraviolet source of illumination
that causes fluorescent compounds in a specimen to emit light. Fluorescence
microscopy for the direct count of microorganisms has been described in a number of
studies [Eduard et al. 2012]. Direct-count methods to enumerate microorganisms
(especially bacteria) have been developed using fluorescence microscopy and some
stains such as acridine orange, fluorescein isothiocyanate (FITC) and 4’,6-diamidino-
2-phenyl-indole (DAPI) [Macher 1999; Thermo Fisher Scientific 2014]. Utilization of
stains such as calcofluor white can resolve fungal spores and hyphal structures
[Haghani et al. 2013]. This stain binds to chitin; however, other plant-derived and
insect bioaerosol sources (e.g. dust mite, plant pollen) may also be resolved using this
stain. Viability stains also have been developed and are available commercially for the
detection of viable fungi and bacteria bioaerosols in collected air samples [Thermo
Fisher Scientific 2014].
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter BA March 2017 Page BA-51 of BA-115
Sampling and Characterization of Bioaerosols
Electron
Electron microscopy consists of a beam of electrons that enable structures smaller than
0.2 µm, such as viruses, to be resolved. Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and,
more recently, field emission scanning electron microscopy (FESEM), are approaches
used to study the surface features of prokaryote and eukaryote cells as well as viruses
(usually magnified 1,000-10,000X). These bioaerosols are immobilized onto a semi-
solid filter submicron membrane or in the form of a liquid suspension and a three-
dimensional image of the area is generated. Images from SEM can provide vital
information about the size, morphology and concentration of the collected bioaerosol
[Afanou et al. 2014; Eduard et al. 2012]. However, SEM does not provide information
on viability of the collected bioaerosol. FESEM has been recently used to resolve fungal
fragments that are produced from fungal colonies following abiotic disturbance
[Afanou et al. 2015; Afanou et al. 2014]. Transmission electron microscopy can also be
used to examine viruses or the internal ultrastructure in thin sections of cells (usually
magnified 10,000-100,000X), although the image produced is not three- dimensional.
Compared to other methods of assessment described in this chapter, SEM and
FESEM-based approaches require a highly trained technician to obtain images from
bioaerosols captured on filter membranes.
b. Endotoxin assays
The lipopolysaccharide endotoxin is a virulence factor possessed by all Enterobacteriaceae
(as well as other Gram-negative bacteria) that is found in the outer membrane of the cell
wall. Airborne endotoxin has been found in high concentrations in agricultural, industrial,
and office environments [Eduard et al. 2012; Milton et al. 1990; Rylander and Vesterlund
1982; Singh et al. 2011b]. Individuals may experience disseminated intravascular
coagulopathy, respiratory tract problems, cellular and tissue injury, fever, and other
debilitating problems. Endotoxin can be detected in air samples collected on glass filters
using the Limulus amebocyte lysate (LAL) assay [Eduard et al. 2012]. This assay uses
amebocytes from the blood-like circulating fluid of the Limulus polyphemus (horseshoe
crab). After exposure to the lysed amebocyte cells, the chromogenic version of the LAL
enables endotoxins to be quantified [Eduard et al. 2012]. Laboratories use this assay to test
for contamination by Gram-negative bacteria [Baron and Finegold 1990].
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter BA March 2017 Page BA-52 of BA-115
Sampling and Characterization of Bioaerosols
than the LAL method. Similarly, chemical-based approaches are available to detect
endotoxins including gas chromatography-mass spectrometry [Eduard et al. 2012].
d. Chemotaxonomic approaches
Cellular fatty acids (CFA) of bacteria are structural in nature, occurring in the cell
membrane or cell wall of all bacteria. When the bacteria are grown under standardized
growth conditions, the CFA profiles are reproducible within a genus, down to the
subspecies or strain level in some microorganisms. The Sherlock Microbial Identification
System (MIS), developed by MIDI (Newark, DE), provides a chromatographic technique
and software libraries capable of identifying various microorganisms based on their CFA
composition [Sasser 1990a; Sasser 1990b]. The chromatographic technique is also known
as gas chromatography fatty acid methyl ester analysis (GC-FAME). MIS has a database
containing the analysis libraries for culturable Gram-negative and Gram-positive bacteria,
and yeasts. In a comparison study [Amy et al. 1992], only 8 of 18 isolates, identified by
either API multitest or MIDI MIS, were identified accurately using BIOLOG multitest. A
prototype method for extracting and analyzing fungi is currently being distributed by
MIDI.
e. Chemical-based approaches
A variety of chemical-based approaches are available for the detection and quantification
of bacteria and fungi in environmental samples [Flannigan et al. 2011; Hung et al. 2005].
Common approaches include thermal desorption - gas chromatography - mass
spectrometry (TD-GC-MS), high performance liquid chromatography, gas
chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry, and matrix-assisted laser
desorption/ionization time of flight (MALDI-TOF) mass spectrometry [Flannigan et al.
2011]. These methods require the formation of a library of markers or spectral signatures
that are used to discriminate between various prokaryote and eukaryote species. Examples
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter BA March 2017 Page BA-53 of BA-115
Sampling and Characterization of Bioaerosols
of spectral signatures that have been used for the detection of fungi include microbial
volatile organic compounds (mVOCs), mycotoxins, ergosterol, 3-hydroxy fatty acids,
muramic acid as well as intracellular and extracellular proteins. NIOSH Method 2549 is a
TD-GC-MS based approach that allows for the detection of mVOCs in environmental
samples [NIOSH 2003d].
Mycotoxins
Fungal contamination is a concern in food production because it can modify the
nutritional content of feed and cereal grains and introduce potentially adverse
mycotoxins. Before the use of HPLC, methods of identifying fungal contamination
were time consuming or missed non-viable organisms which still contributed to the
biomass [Seitz et al. 1979]. HPLC can be used to detect ergosterol, which is a structural
sterol nearly universally present in fungi but not naturally present in grains [Pasanen
et al. 1999]. HPLC has also been used to detect ergosterol, mannitol and arabitol in
bioaerosols [Buiarelli et al. 2013].
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter BA March 2017 Page BA-54 of BA-115
Sampling and Characterization of Bioaerosols
the need for fungal culturing and can detect the presence of non-viable fungi. When
combined with other sterols this information can be used to help determine fungal
species [Schnurer 1993].
Mycotoxins can play a role in indoor air quality (IAQ), food safety and possibly
bioterrorism. The use of LC-MS as a screening tool to identify mycotoxins can reduce
the use of more intensive molecular techniques for identification and quantitation.
When using mass spectral analysis it is important to have a reliable and accurate
database for identification and a qualified analyst to correctly interpret data.
Other biomolecules
More recently, HPLC has been proposed as a forensic tool to identify and track
vertebrate species using keratin profiles. Like ergosterol in fungi, keratin is found
mainly in dander left by vertebrates [Plowman 2007]. If patterns can be established, it
may be possible to identify what species had been present in a specific dwelling and
possibly even track movements [Staton et al. 2013]. Bacterial contamination can also
be tracked using endotoxin analysis and bacterial peptidoglycan fingerprinting [Staton
et al. 2013].
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter BA March 2017 Page BA-55 of BA-115
Sampling and Characterization of Bioaerosols
filtration. Both methods will lessen the likelihood of clogging or damaging the system,
but neither offers target analyte enrichment.
Liquid-liquid extraction
In order to enrich analytes, samples can be concentrated, chemical interferences can be
removed, or a combination of both methods can be used. One of the oldest methods of
enrichment is a liquid-liquid extraction, which separates analytes based on relative
solubility in a given solvent [Koncsag and Barbulescu 2011]. In general, two
immiscible solvents are mixed, one solvent containing the whole extract (called the
“feed”) and one that ideally solubilizes the analyte of interest preferentially. Based on
solubility, the chemical constituents will either stay in the feed solvent or partition into
the other solvent. Once the solvents are allowed to phase-separate, the solvent
containing the enriched analyte (called the raffinate) is removed.
Solid-phase extraction
Another option that can help avoid these pitfalls is the use of solid-phase extraction
(SPE) [Sigma-Aldrich 1998]. SPE exploits the analyte affinity (or lack thereof) for a
solid material packed inside a column. Sample enrichment can occur by the column
retaining interfering compounds and the analyte of interest passing through, or by the
column retaining the analyte and the interfering chemicals passing through.
Concentration of the analyte of interest can be achieved by eluting the analyte in a
smaller volume of solvent, and filtration can be achieved simultaneously. SPE may
make it possible to achieve analyte concentration and avoid potential losses that could
arise from concentrating a large volume of solvent. Appropriate solvent selection is
also critical to successful SPE.
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter BA March 2017 Page BA-56 of BA-115
Sampling and Characterization of Bioaerosols
g. Immunoassays
The immunoassay is an analytical technique for measuring a targeted antigen, which is
also referred to as an analyte. A critical component of the immunoassay is the antibody or
ligand, which binds a specific antigen or binding site. The binding of the antibody or
ligand forms the basis for the immunoassay, and numerous formats have been devised
which permit visual or instrumental measurements of this reaction. Antibodies include
either monoclonal or polyclonal antibodies and these are commonly employed to detect
organisms by binding to antigens, usually proteins, polysaccharides or other cell wall
components [Hung et al. 2005; Macher 1999]. The analysis is usually performed following
extraction of the analytes to form a heterogeneous matrix. In most immunoassays, there is
little need for extensive sample cleanup. Following the development of
radioimmunoassays, many immunoassays that use monoclonal antibodies are now readily
available from commercial sources, permitting laboratories to use standardized
immunoassays or rapidly develop in-house immunochemical assays. In addition,
commercially available immunoassays or multiplex platforms are available to quantify a
variety of indoor or occupational bioaerosol sources [King et al. 2013]. Some of the more
widely used immunoassay formats are as follows:
The sandwich ELISA method is typically used for the detection for airborne viruses
and aeroallergens [Hung et al. 2005]. In this assay, a capture antibody is bound to a
solid surface, usually a 96-well plate. The bioaerosol extract is added to the plate
containing the capture antibody and incubated for a specified length of time, washed
with a phosphate buffer solution and probed with an enzyme-labeled antibody that
enables detection and quantification, either through colorimetric changes or
fluorescence emissions. The advantages to using a sandwich-based ELISA method are
that it is highly specific and can be used on complex samples such as aerosols. Some
disadvantages to using a sandwich-based ELISA are poor antibody recognition and/or
minimal detection due to low sample concentration. Lastly, it should be noted that
ELISA, like any protein-based assay, does not distinguish between viable and non-
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter BA March 2017 Page BA-57 of BA-115
Sampling and Characterization of Bioaerosols
viable viral aerosols. Multiplexed technologies that enable the detection and
quantification of multiple allergen sources in one sample are also available from a
variety of commercial sources [King et al. 2013].
EIA methods to assess fungal bioaerosols based on the detection of fungal cell wall
components, enzymes, antigens and allergens have become commercially available. β-
1,3-D glucan, extracellular polysaccharides, mycotoxins and a variety of fungal
antigens can now be quantified in air and dust samples using immunochemical,
enzymatic and chemical detection platforms [Chew et al. 2001; Douwes et al. 1997;
Eduard et al. 2012]. Although many of these biomarkers and methods serve as a proxy
measure for total fungal biomass, these approaches can be confounded by limitations
associated with component extraction biases. In addition, complex extraction,
washing, amplification or immunochemistry steps are required that may add hours or
even days before a dataset is finalized for analysis and interpretation.
To date, there are a number of commercial companies that have developed ready to
use EIA kits for the detection and quantification of a variety of indoor and
occupational biomarkers including dog, cat, dust mite, fungal and rodent allergens
[Filep et al. 2012]. These EIA approaches enable the collection and quantification of
these biomarkers in the work environment and provide a ready to use platform for the
industrial hygienist.
FIA can be used to detect viruses. An example of a direct FIA assay for the detection of
virus-laden aerosols is the Focus Forming Assay (FFA) [Flint et al. 2009a]. With the
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter BA March 2017 Page BA-58 of BA-115
Sampling and Characterization of Bioaerosols
FFA, fluorescent microscopy is used to visualize immunostained cells and viral titers
are quantified as focus forming units per milliliter, or FFU/mL. While the FFA is more
sensitive than culture-based methods alone, samples with low viral titers may weakly
fluoresce and possibly be considered undetectable. To overcome weak detection levels,
an indirect IFA assay may be more appropriate [Leland and Emanuel 1995; Madeley
and Peiris 2002]. With indirect IFA assays, a primary, unconjugated antibody is used
in combination with a fluorophore-conjugated, secondary antibody directed against
the primary antibody. Because the secondary antibody is able to bind to multiple
epitopes on the primary antibody, it increases fluorescence and enhances overall
detection. While IFA is a trusted method of viral detection and quantification, it is
fraught with limitations including excessive cost and the necessity of a skilled
technician experienced in the reading of immunofluorescence. Likewise, because
viruses are constantly undergoing antigenic drift and occasionally antigenic shift,
changes in viral antigens can affect the binding affinity of the primary antibody and
may result in false negatives.
Ligand-based assays
As an alternative to cell culture and immunofluorescent-based assays, there are several
protein-based methods of detection that can be used to quantify viral loads in an
aerosol sample. The hemagglutination (HA) assay is a non-fluorescence quantitative
assay that is based upon the ability of certain viral pathogens to agglutinate species-
specific erythrocytes [Condit 2007]. In a serial twofold dilution, viral samples are
mixed with a 1% solution of erythrocytes and incubated at room temperature for 30-
60 minutes. Viral samples which form an agglutinated lattice are able to prevent red
blood cells from precipitating out of solution by the binding of the hemagglutinin
protein (present on the surface of the viral pathogen) to the sialic acid receptors
(present on the surface of red blood cells). The titer of the sample is based on the well
with the last agglutinated appearance, immediately before the well in which the red
blood cells have settled out of solution. Hemagglutination units (HAUs) are typically
used to quantify the viral concentration.
One of the major limitations of the HA assay is that it does not distinguish between
infectious and non-infectious viral particles. Likewise, certain bacteria and fungi
possess hemolytic activity and when present in a collected bioaerosol, can alter the HA
assay and result in false positive readings. To circumvent this issue, a variation of the
HA assay, known as the Hemagglutination-Inhibition test, can be performed [Stewart
et al. 1967]. The HA inhibition test measures serum antibodies that are directed
against the viral pathogen. When present in sufficient concentration, the serum
antibodies are able to prevent agglutination of red blood cells thereby providing an
alternative means of quantifying viral loads.
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter BA March 2017 Page BA-59 of BA-115
Sampling and Characterization of Bioaerosols
Direct and indirect immunostaining
Direct and indirect immunostaining methods have been previously described for the
detection of bioaerosol sources. Popp et al. [1988] developed a staining technique to
enumerate bioaerosol samples directly captured on microscope slides. These
approaches have enabled the identification of specific bioaerosol sources, especially
those that do not contain morphological phenotypes that would be used by a trained
microbiologist to resolve and identify a specific microorganism [Popp et al. 1988].
Alternatives to this approach have been developed and utilized in a variety of indoor
and occupational environments. A press blotting approach that included immobilizing
proteins from collected bioaerosols captured on an adhesive tape provided insight into
the bioaerosols that contain allergen in the outdoor environment [Takahashi et al.
1993; Takahashi and Nilsson 1995]. An alternative method, called the Halogen
Immunoassay, enables the immunostaining of allergen and antigen around bioaerosols
captured on a protein binding membrane such as PVDF or mixed cellulose ester
[Green et al. 2006c; Tovey et al. 2000]. This immunoassay approach has been used in a
variety of indoor and occupational settings to evaluate allergen sources including, cat,
dog, latex, rodent, plant, and fungi [Green et al. 2006a; Green et al. 2003; Green et al.
2005a; Green et al. 2011; Green et al. 2005b; Green et al. 2005c; Green et al. 2006b;
Green et al. 2006c; Mitakakis et al. 2001; Poulos et al. 2002; Poulos et al. 1999;
Razmovski et al. 2000; Renstrom 2002; Tovey and Green 2004]. Recently these
approaches have been adapted to FESEM applications and have been used to detect
morphologically indiscernible fungal fragments [Afanou et al. 2015].
Biosensors
To overcome some of the technical challenges associated with traditional methods to
assess bioaerosol exposure, real-time sensor technologies are being developed for the
detection of bioaerosols [Fronczek and Yoon 2015; Hook-Barnard et al. 2014]. The
sensor technologies are based on a variety of signal detection strategies that include
optical, mechanical, electrical, or magnetic sensing approaches. These methods have
resulted in platforms that have enabled the rapid detection of microbial pathogens and
in an automated format. Using this technology requires little technological skill and
can be developed into an automated handheld device. These developments have
resulted in the fabrication of remote monitoring units in the agricultural sector that
can process data remotely and apply it to geographical information systems or
forecasting models.
Biosensors have been developed for a variety of applications including the detection of
microbial pathogens [Fronczek and Yoon 2015; Hook-Barnard et al. 2014]. Typically,
a biologically derived analyte (such as fungal spores, hyphae, antigens, peptides or
nucleotides) is collected and interacts with a selected bioreceptor immobilized on a
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter BA March 2017 Page BA-60 of BA-115
Sampling and Characterization of Bioaerosols
sensor surface. Examples of bioreceptors include oligonucleotides,
monoclonal/polyclonal antibodies, enzymes, cells, and even phages. The bioreceptor
system consists of a physiochemical transducer that produces a measurable signal.
Transducers can be optical and include surface plasmon resonance (SPR), which is a
method that measures changes in the refractive index during molecular binding events
[Unser et al. 2015; Usachev et al. 2014]. In contrast, electrochemical transducers
measure changes in current, potential, impedance, and conductance across an
electrode surface for detection events [Patolsky et al. 2006]. Examples of
electrochemical detection include the measurement of electrical conductance
produced by antibody-antigen binding events [Patolsky et al. 2004]. Both optical and
electrochemical transducers have been developed for the detection of a variety of
pathogens in the biosecurity, medical and agricultural sectors.
h. Gene-based assays
Cell culture, protein-based, and immunological-based assays are invaluable diagnostic
tools. However, the evolution of nucleic acid-based molecular diagnostics are rapidly
becoming the preferred method for detecting and quantifying bioaerosols [West et al.
2008]. Nucleic acid-based molecular diagnostics can be divided into two categories, (1)
Direct sample analysis and (2) Indirect sample analysis, such as the Viral Replication
Assay (VRA), which requires cultivation of the target microorganism prior to molecular
analysis [Blachere et al. 2011]. Regardless of which approach is taken, there are three steps
involved: extraction and purification of nucleic acids; amplification of the gene target; and
detection of the amplicon. For viral, bacterial, plant and fungal nucleic acid extraction and
purification, a number of kits are commercially available. Such kits generally rely upon
either silica adsorption (spin-column) or affinity purification (magnetic separation)
methodologies. Because bioaerosols are typically dilute in nature, investigators should
determine which method yields the greatest amount of nucleic acids while minimizing
sample handling, contamination and degradation. These are important variables to
consider and can vary depending on the selected approach.
With the advent of molecular assays such as the Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) and
Real-Time Quantitative PCR (RT-qPCR), which detect specific genetic sequences in the
sample DNA or RNA, it has been possible to provide standardized assays, reduce
turnaround time, and enhance assay sensitivity and detection specificity [Cella et al. 2013;
Life Technologies 2014; Mahony 2008]. Using gene-specific oligonucleotides coupled with
either an intercalating fluorescent dye (e.g. SYBR green) or a fluorogenically labeled gene
probe (e.g. VIC, 6FAM), industrial hygienists are able to monitor indoor and outdoor
bioaerosols for the presence of microorganisms. Likewise, multiplexing PCR and bead-
based multiplexing PCR, which couples PCR and flow-cytometry, can be used for high-
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter BA March 2017 Page BA-61 of BA-115
Sampling and Characterization of Bioaerosols
throughput screening of multiple respiratory viruses in a single reaction mixture. It should
be noted that poor assay design, primer and probe base-pair mismatches and degraded
template nucleic acids can lead to false negatives or reduced detection sensitivity.
Investigators should ensure optimal assay design, validate limits of detection, and run
valid PCR controls in parallel.
Within the last two decades, a variety of molecular technologies have been used to
quantify eukaryotic biomass including fungi and plant pollen in occupational, health,
residential, and industrial samples [Rittenour et al. 2012; Scott et al. 2011; Summerbell et
al. 2011]. Examples of these technologies include molecular based methods to evaluate
specific or conserved gene loci (internal transcribed spacer region of ribosomal RNA) such
as Sanger [Rittenour et al. 2014] or next generation sequencing [Kettleson et al. 2015],
denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis [Johansson et al. 2014] and quantitative PCR
[Eduard et al. 2012; Vesper et al. 2007]. The latter approach includes examples such as a
DNA-based mold specific quantitative PCR (msQPCR) method that enables the detection
and quantification of 36 indicator fungal species [Vesper et al. 2007]. This msQPCR
method has been used to develop an Environmental Relative Moldiness Index (ERMI) to
quantify the mold burden in homes. Originally developed by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) [Vesper et al. 2007], this approach has been licensed to a variety
of companies in the commercial sector and is widely used to evaluate indoor fungal
bioaerosol particles in settled dust during investigations of indoor air quality [Bolaños-
Rosero et al. 2013; Kettleson et al. 2015; Reponen et al. 2012; Reponen et al. 2011a; Taubel
et al. 2016; Vesper et al. 2013; Vesper et al. 2007]. The development of this methodology
has provided the first step towards a standardized approach to quantify fungal bioaerosol
sources within the indoor environment. Other metagenomic molecular methods including
Sanger, 454, and Illumina miSeq sequencing platforms have also provided new insights
into the complete diversity of bacterial and fungal bioaerosols in indoor, outdoor and
occupational environments.
The first and most important limitation is the lack of standards and guidelines for acceptable
bioaerosol exposure limits. NIOSH and other organizations have set recommended exposure
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter BA March 2017 Page BA-62 of BA-115
Sampling and Characterization of Bioaerosols
limits for several organic materials which may contain microorganisms and their fragments,
such as cotton dust, grain dust, starch and wood dust [NIOSH 2010]. Although numerous
studies have suggested a connection between exposure to various bioaerosols and respiratory
illnesses, exposure limits do not currently exist in the US for airborne pollen, fungi, protozoa,
bacteria, viruses, or their fragments. These limits have not been established largely because it
is not possible to definitively state that a particular bioaerosol concentration will or will not
lead to adverse health outcomes [Eduard et al. 2012; Heederik 2013; Morey 2007; Nevalainen
et al. 2015; NIOSH 2012a]. This is true for several reasons: bioaerosols are often a complex
mixture of microorganisms and organic materials; thousands of species of microorganisms
exist, and most have not been studied; microorganisms and their fragments can cause illnesses
in a variety of ways, including allergic reactions, infections and toxicity; the health effects of
biological materials can vary substantially from person to person; and sampling and analytical
procedures are not standardized, which makes it difficult to compare results [Eduard et al.
2012; Heederik 2013; Morey 2007; Nevalainen et al. 2015; Taubel et al. 2016]. Although
research is ongoing, no standards for acceptable levels of bioaerosols in the environment have
been established by the US government or organizations such as the ACGIH or the AIHA.
In addition to the lack of occupational exposure limits for bioaerosols, measuring and
interpreting bioaerosol concentrations are more complex than is often appreciated. Bioaerosol
concentrations can vary significantly from location to location within a building, especially if
the bioaerosol has one or a few localized sources. A study of bioaerosol exposure in a large
engine plant found that levels of airborne fungi, bacteria and endotoxin varied from location
to location within the plant [Thorne et al. 1996]. A study of airborne fungi in two residences
found significant differences between two rooms sampled at the same time [Hyvarinen et al.
2001]. In healthcare settings, patients with certain respiratory infections expel bioaerosol
particles containing infectious pathogens. Because of the dispersion of the aerosol and the
settling of larger droplets, the bioaerosol concentration decreases rapidly as the distance from
the patient increases [Jones and Brosseau 2015]. A study of airborne influenza in a healthcare
clinic found that the concentrations were much higher in examination rooms containing
patients with influenza than other locations, and that the airborne influenza concentration
also varied from location to location within the waiting room [Lindsley et al. 2010a].
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter BA March 2017 Page BA-63 of BA-115
Sampling and Characterization of Bioaerosols
influenza virus varied considerably depending upon the number of influenza patients present
[Lindsley et al. 2010a].
Other factors also influence bioaerosol concentrations. Building airflow patterns and the
operation of the HVAC system can affect bioaerosol levels, particularly if the HVAC system is
a source of bioaerosol particles [Macher 1999]. Areas occupied by people show increased
levels of bioaerosols compared to empty spaces, both because people themselves shed
bioaerosol particles and because human activities such as walking and sitting can re-suspend
dust from floors and furniture [Buttner and Stetzenbach 1993; Ferro et al. 2004; Hung et al.
2005; Qian et al. 2012]. Outdoor air is an important source of airborne fungi in many indoor
environments due to fresh air being drawn in by HVAC systems and infiltration through
cracks and openings [Eduard 2009].
Bioaerosol sampling can be beneficial when done in the appropriate context [Hung et al. 2005;
Macher 1999; Morey 2007]. It can be helpful to compare indoor and outdoor levels of
bioaerosols to identify possible indoor problem microorganisms. Sampling for specific
microorganisms of concern can be useful, especially if there is a known source, such as a
composting operation or an aeration tank in a sewage treatment facility [Environment Agency
2009; Masclaux et al. 2014]. Bioaerosol sampling is also a valuable research tool for better
understanding sources and exposures. On the other hand, sampling for bioaerosols will not be
helpful if there is not some basis for interpreting the resulting data. For example, because of
the lack of dose-response information and the variability associated with bioaerosol sampling,
NIOSH does not recommend routine air sampling when investigating possible respiratory
illness due to exposures in damp buildings. Instead, NIOSH recommends inspections of the
building and its HVAC systems to locate moisture and microbial growth problems, followed
by remediation [NIOSH 2012a].
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter BA March 2017 Page BA-64 of BA-115
Sampling and Characterization of Bioaerosols
11 Safety considerations
Investigators should use appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE) and practice good
personal hygiene when conducting indoor environmental quality, disease outbreaks, and
agricultural health investigations that have resulted in medically diagnosed symptoms. PPE
may include respiratory protection to prevent inhalation of microbes and microorganism-
resistant clothing to prevent transmission to investigators by bodily contact with
microorganisms. Good personal hygiene practices include washing exposed skin and clothing
thoroughly and refraining from eating, drinking, or smoking in a contaminated area. These
simple steps will help minimize the ingestion, inhalation, or uptake of microorganisms.
All samplers, culture plates, and other equipment should be handled aseptically to prevent
contamination of the samples and, more importantly, to prevent the spread of potential
human pathogens to the worker or the work environment. All surfaces, including washed
hands, may harbor microorganisms or spores unless they are specifically sterilized. Practically
speaking, however, not all objects can be sterilized. While disinfection with an oxidizing
chemical or alcohol destroys most vegetative cells, these agents do not destroy all spores.
Samplers should be disinfected or, if possible, sterilized after each sample collection. Special
care should be given to samplers with convoluted inlets or air pathways where
microorganisms may accumulate.
Information on the safe handling of biological specimens can be found in in the free online
manual “Biosafety in Microbiological and Biomedical Laboratories” from the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention at
(http://www.cdc.gov/biosafety/publications/bmbl5/index.htm) [CDC 2009]. Information on
the handling of some specific pathogens can also be found at the CDC website (www.cdc.gov).
12 Resources
The NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods has several chapters discussing other aspects of
aerosol sampling, including general considerations and factors affecting aerosol sampling, an
explanation of filter pore size, sampling airborne fibers, sampler wall losses, and avoiding
bypass leakage in filter cassettes [NIOSH 2003e]. NIOSH also maintains a web page on indoor
environmental quality with more information and links to additional resources at
http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/indoorenv/. The American Industrial Hygiene Association
(AIHA; https://www.aiha.org) has reference materials and resources on indoor air quality and
bioaerosols, as does the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists
(ACGIH; http://www.acgih.org). ASTM International (http://www.astm.org) publishes
numerous standards and guides on the evaluation of indoor air quality, including developing
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter BA March 2017 Page BA-65 of BA-115
Sampling and Characterization of Bioaerosols
an air sampling strategy and the collection and evaluation of bioaerosols [ASTM 2009; ASTM
2014a; ASTM 2014b; ASTM 2014d; ASTM 2014e]. The Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention has guidelines on environmental infection control in healthcare facilities that
include recommendations on environmental sampling [CDC 2003].
Disclaimer
Mention of any company or product does not constitute endorsement by NIOSH. In addition,
citations to websites external to NIOSH do not constitute NIOSH endorsement of the
sponsoring organizations or their programs or products. Furthermore, NIOSH is not
responsible for the content of these websites. All web addresses referenced in this document
were accessible as of the publication date.
13 References
Abed Y, Boivin G [2006]. Treatment of respiratory virus infections. Antiviral Res 70(2):1-16.
ACGIH [1989]. Guidelines for the assessment of bioaerosols in the indoor environment.
Cincinnati, OH: American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists.
ACGIH [2001]. Documentation of the Threshold Limit Values and Biological Exposure
Indices. Appendix C: Particle size-selective sampling criteria for airborne particulate matter.
Cincinnati, Ohio: American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists.
ACGIH [2015]. TLVs and BEIs based on the documentation of the Threshold Limit Values
for chemical substances and physical agents and Biological Exposure Indices. Cincinnati, OH:
American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists.
Adams RI, Tian Y, Taylor JW, Bruns TD, Hyvarinen A, Taubel M [2015]. Passive dust
collectors for assessing airborne microbial material. Microbiome 3:46.
Afanou KA, Straumfors A, Skogstad A, Nayak AP, Skaar I, Hjeljord L, Tronsmo A, Eduard W,
Green BJ [2015]. Indirect immunodetection of fungal fragments by field emission scanning
electron microscopy. Appl Environ Microbiol 81(17):5794-5803.
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter BA March 2017 Page BA-66 of BA-115
Sampling and Characterization of Bioaerosols
Afanou KA, Straumfors A, Skogstad A, Nilsen T, Synnes O, Skaar I, Hjeljord L, Tronsmo A,
Green BJ, Eduard W [2014]. Submicronic fungal bioaerosols: high-resolution microscopic
characterization and quantification. Appl Environ Microbiol 80(22):7122-7130.
Amy PS, Haldeman DL, Ringelberg D, Hall DH, Russell C [1992]. Comparison of
identification systems for classification of bacteria isolated from water and endolithic habitats
within the deep subsurface. Appl Environ Microbiol 58(10):3367-3373.
Andersen AA [1958]. New sampler for the collection, sizing, and enumeration of viable
airborne particles. J Bacteriol 76(5):471-484.
Appert J, Raynor PC, Abin M, Chander Y, Guarino H, Goyal SM, Zuo ZL, Ge S, Kuehn TH
[2012]. Influence of suspending liquid, impactor type, and substrate on size-selective sampling
of MS2 and adenovirus aerosols. Aerosol Sci Technol 46(3):249-257.
Arantes TD, Theodoro RC, Da Graca Macoris SA, Bagagli E [2013]. Detection of
Paracoccidioides spp. in environmental aerosol samples. Med Mycol 51(1):83-92.
Artenstein MS, Miller WS, Lamson TH, Brandt BL [1968]. Large-volume air sampling for
meningococci and adenoviruses. Am J Epidemiol 87(3):567-577.
Artenstein MS, Miller WS, Rust JH Jr., Lamson TH [1967]. Large-volume air sampling of
human respiratory disease pathogens. Am J Epidemiol 85(3):479-485.
ASHRAE [2009]. Indoor air quality guide: best practices for design, construction and
commissioning. Atlanta, GA: American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-
conditioning Engineers.
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter BA March 2017 Page BA-67 of BA-115
Sampling and Characterization of Bioaerosols
ASTM [2009]. D7391-09 Standard test method for categorization and quantification of
airborne fungal structures in an inertial impaction sample by optical microscopy. West
Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International.
ASTM [2012]. D7789-12 Standard practice for collection of fungal material from surfaces by
swab. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International.
ASTM [2014a]. E1370-14 Standard guide for air sampling strategies for worker and workplace
protection. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International.
ASTM [2014b]. D7338-14 Standard guide for assessment of fungal growth in buildings. West
Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International.
ASTM [2014c]. D7910-14 Standard practice for collection of fungal material from surfaces by
tape lift. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International.
ASTM [2014d]. D7788-14 Standard practice for collection of total airborne fungal structures
via inertial impaction methodology. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International.
ASTM [2014e]. D7297-14 Standard practice for evaluating residential indoor air quality
concerns. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International.
ASTM [2015]. ASTM D5952 - 08(2015) Standard guide for the inspection of water systems for
Legionella and the investigation of possible outbreaks of legionellosis (Legionnaires' Disease
or Pontiac Fever). West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International.
Axelsson BO, Saraf A, Larsson L [1995]. Determination of ergosterol in organic dust by gas
chromatography-mass spectrometry. J Chromatogr B Biomed Sci Appl 666(1):77-84.
Babady NE, Buckwalter SP, Hall L, Le Febre KM, Binnicker MJ, Wengenack NL [2011].
Detection of Blastomyces dermatitidis and Histoplasma capsulatum from culture isolates and
clinical specimens by use of real-time PCR. J Clin Microbiol 49(9):3204-3208.
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter BA March 2017 Page BA-68 of BA-115
Sampling and Characterization of Bioaerosols
Baron EJ, Finegold SM [1990]. Bailey & Scott's Diagnostic Microbiology, 8th edition. St. Louis:
Mosby.
Beaulieu HJ, Fidino AV, Arlington KL, Buchan RM [1980]. A comparison of aerosol sampling
techniques: "open" versus "closed-face" filter cassettes. Am Ind Hyg Assoc J 41(10):758-765.
Bhangar S, Adams RI, Pasut W, Huffman JA, Arens EA, Taylor JW, Bruns TD, Nazaroff WW
[2016]. Chamber bioaerosol study: human emissions of size-resolved fluorescent biological
aerosol particles. Indoor Air 26(2):193-206.
Blachere FM, Cao G, Lindsley WG, Noti JD, Beezhold DH [2011]. Enhanced detection of
infectious airborne influenza virus. J Virol Methods 176(1-2):120-124.
Blachere FM, Lindsley WG, Pearce TA, Anderson SE, Fisher M, Khakoo R, Meade BJ, Lander
O, Davis S, Thewlis RE, Celik I, Chen BT, Beezhold DH [2009]. Measurement of airborne
influenza virus in a hospital emergency department. Clin Infect Dis 48(4):438-440.
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter BA March 2017 Page BA-69 of BA-115
Sampling and Characterization of Bioaerosols
Brasel TL, Douglas DR, Wilson SC, Straus DC [2005]. Detection of airborne Stachybotrys
chartarum macrocyclic trichothecene mycotoxins on particulates smaller than conidia. Appl
Environ Microbiol 71(1):114-122.
Breuer D [2012]. Flow resistance of samplers for personal monitoring in work areas and
requirements for sampling pump performance. J Occup Environ Hyg 9(2):D25-32.
Brockmann JE [2011]. Aerosol transport in sampling lines and inlets. In: Kulkarni P, Baron
PA, Willeke K, eds. Aerosol measurement: principles, techniques, and applications. Hoboken,
NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Brown RC, Hemingway MA, Wake D, Thorpe A [1996]. Electret-based passive dust sampler:
sampling of organic dusts. Analyst 121(9):1241-1246.
Burge HP, Boise JR, Rutherford JA, Solomon WR [1977]. Comparative recoveries of airborne
fungus spores by viable and non-viable modes of volumetric collection. Mycopathologia
61(1):27-33.
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter BA March 2017 Page BA-70 of BA-115
Sampling and Characterization of Bioaerosols
CDC [2003]. Guidelines for environmental infection control in health-care facilities.
Recommendations of CDC and the Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory
Committee (HICPAC). Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention,
http://www.cdc.gov/hicpac/pdf/guidelines/eic_in_HCF_03.pdf.
CDC [2009]. Biosafety in microbiological and biomedical laboratories, 5th edition. Chosewood
LC, Wilson DE, eds. Washington DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institutes of Health, DHHS (CDC)
Publication No. 21-1112, http://www.cdc.gov/biosafety/publications/bmbl5/index.htm.
CDC [2015]. Sampling procedure and potential sampling sites. Protocol for collecting
environmental samples for Legionella culture during a cluster or outbreak investigation or
when cases of disease may be associated with a facility. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,
http://www.cdc.gov/legionella/downloads/cdc-sampling-procedure.pdf.
Cella LN, Blackstock D, Yates MA, Mulchandani A, Chen W [2013]. Detection of RNA
viruses: current technologies and future perspectives. Crit Rev Eukaryot Gene Expr 23(2):125-
137.
Chang C-W, Chou F-C [2011]. Assessment of bioaerosol sampling techniques for viable
Legionella pneumophila by ethidium monoazide quantitative PCR. Aerosol Sci Technol
45(3):343-351.
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter BA March 2017 Page BA-71 of BA-115
Sampling and Characterization of Bioaerosols
Chew GL, Douwes J, Doekes G, Higgins KM, van Strien R, Spithoven J, Brunekreef B [2001].
Fungal extracellular polysaccharides, beta (1 -> 3)-glucans and culturable fungi in repeated
sampling of house dust. Indoor Air 11(3):171-178.
Condit RC [2007]. Principles of virology. In: Knipe DM, Howley PM, eds. Fields virology.
Philadelphia: Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins.
Coons AH, Creech HJ, Jones RN [1941]. Immunological properties of an antigen containing a
fluorescent group. Proc Soc Exp Biol Med 47:200-202.
Coons AH, Creech HJ, Jones RN, Berliner E [1942]. The demonstration of pneumococcal
antigen in tissues by use of fluorescent antibody. J Immunol 45:159-170.
Corzo CA, Culhane M, Dee S, Morrison RB, Torremorell M [2013]. Airborne detection and
quantification of swine influenza a virus in air samples collected inside, outside and
downwind from swine barns. PLoS ONE 8(8):e71444.
Cown WB, Kethley TW, Fincher EL [1957]. The critical-orifice liquid impinger as a sampler
for bacterial aerosols. Appl Microbiol 5(2):119-124.
Cox CS [1968]. The aerosol survival of Escherichia coli B in nitrogen, argon and helium
atmospheres and the influence of relative humidity. J Gen Microbiol 50(1):139-147.
Cox CS [1989]. Airborne bacteria and viruses. Sci Prog 73(292 Pt 4):469-499.
Custis NJ, Woodfolk JA, Vaughan JW, Platts-Mills TA [2003]. Quantitative measurement of
airborne allergens from dust mites, dogs, and cats using an ion-charging device. Clin Exp
Allergy 33(7):986-991.
Davies A, Thomson G, Walker J, Bennett A [2009]. A review of the risks and disease
transmission associated with aerosol generating medical procedures. J Infect Prev 10(4):122-
126.
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter BA March 2017 Page BA-72 of BA-115
Sampling and Characterization of Bioaerosols
Demirjian A, Lucas CE, Garrison LE, Kozak-Muiznieks NA, States S, Brown EW, Wortham
JM, Beaudoin A, Casey ML, Marriott C, Ludwig AM, Sonel AF, Muder RR, Hicks LA [2015].
The importance of clinical surveillance in detecting Legionnaires' disease outbreaks: a large
outbreak in a hospital with a Legionella disinfection system-Pennsylvania, 2011-2012. Clin
Infect Dis 60(11):1596-1602.
Dennis PJL [1990]. An unnecessary risk: Legionnaires' disease. In: Morey PR, Feeley JC, Otten
JA, eds. Biological contaminants in indoor environments. Philadelphia: ASTM.
Donaldson AI, Ferris NP, Gloster J [1982]. Air sampling of pigs infected with foot-and-mouth
disease virus: comparison of Litton and cyclone samplers. Res Vet Sci 33(3):384-385.
Dungan RS, Leytem AB [2015]. Recovery of culturable Escherichia coli O157:H7 during
operation of a liquid-based bioaerosol sampler. Aerosol Sci Technol 50(1):71-75.
Dyer RL, Frank JF, Johnson B, Hickey P, Fitts J [2004]. Microbiological tests for equipment,
containers, water, and air. In: Wehr HM, Frank JF, eds. Standard methods for the examination
of dairy products. Washington, DC: American Public Health Association.
Eduard W [2009]. Fungal spores: a critical review of the toxicological and epidemiological
evidence as a basis for occupational exposure limit setting. Crit Rev Toxicol 39(10):799-864.
Fabian P, McDevitt JJ, Houseman EA, Milton DK [2009]. Airborne influenza virus detection
with four aerosol samplers using molecular and infectivity assays: considerations for a new
infectious virus aerosol sampler. Indoor Air 19(5):433-441.
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter BA March 2017 Page BA-73 of BA-115
Sampling and Characterization of Bioaerosols
Farnsworth JE, Goyal SM, Kim SW, Kuehn TH, Raynor PC, Ramakrishnan MA,
Anantharaman S, Tang W [2006]. Development of a method for bacteria and virus recovery
from heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) filters. J Environ Monit 8(10):1006-
1013.
Ferro AR, Kopperud RJ, Hildemann LM [2004]. Source strengths for indoor human activities
that resuspend particulate matter. Environ Sci Technol 38(6):1759-1764.
Fields BN, Knipe DM, Howley PM [2007]. Fields virology. Philadelphia: Lippincott, Williams
& Wilkins.
Fields BS [2002]. Legionellae and Legionnaires’ disease. In: Hurst CJ, Crawford RL,
McInerney MJ, Knudsen GR, Stetzenbach LD, eds. Manual of environmental microbiology.
Washington, DC: ASM Press.
Filep S, Tsay A, Vailes L, Gadermaier G, Ferreira F, Matsui E, King EM, Chapman MD [2012].
A multi-allergen standard for the calibration of immunoassays: CREATE principles applied to
eight purified allergens. Allergy 67(2):235-241.
Fisher EM, Richardson AW, Harpest SD, Hofacre KC, Shaffer RE [2012]. Reaerosolization of
MS2 bacteriophage from an N95 filtering facepiece respirator by simulated coughing. Ann
Occup Hyg 56(3):315-325.
Flannigan B, Samson RA, Miller JD [2011]. Microorganisms in home and indoor work
environments: diversity, health impacts, investigation and control, 2nd Edition. Boca Raton,
FL: CRC Press, Taylor and Francis Group.
Flint SJ, Enquist LW, Racaniello VR, Skalka AM [2009a]. Principles of virology, 3rd edition.
Washington, DC: American Society for Microbiology.
Flint JS, Enquist LW, Shalka AM [2009b]. Virological methods. In: Principles of virology, 3rd
edition. Washington, DC: American Society for Microbiology.
Frankel M, Timm M, Hansen EW, Madsen AM [2012]. Comparison of sampling methods for
the assessment of indoor microbial exposure. Indoor Air 22(5):405-414.
Frenz DA [1999]. Comparing pollen and spore counts collected with the Rotorod Sampler and
Burkard spore trap. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol 83(5):341-347; quiz 348-349.
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter BA March 2017 Page BA-74 of BA-115
Sampling and Characterization of Bioaerosols
Friberg B, Friberg S, Burman LG [1999]. Inconsistent correlation between aerobic bacterial
surface and air counts in operating rooms with ultra clean laminar air flows: proposal of a new
bacteriological standard for surface contamination. J Hosp Infect 42(4):287-293.
Fronczek CF, Yoon JY [2015]. Biosensors for monitoring airborne pathogens. J Lab Autom
20(4):390-410.
Garvey JS, Campbell DH, Cremer NE, Sussdorf DH [1977]. Methods in immunology: a
laboratory text for instruction and research. Reading, MA: W. A. Benjamin.
Gordon J, Gandhi P, Shekhawat G, Frazier A, Hampton-Marcell J, Gilbert JA [2015]. A simple
novel device for air sampling by electrokinetic capture. Microbiome 3:79.
Gore RB, Hadi EA, Craven M, Smillie FI, O'Meara TJ, Tovey ER, Woodcock A, Custovic A
[2002]. Personal exposure to house dust mite allergen in bed: nasal air sampling and reservoir
allergen levels. Clin Exp Allergy 32(6):856-859.
Gorny RL, Dutkiewicz J, Krysinska-Traczyk E [1999]. Size distribution of bacterial and fungal
bioaerosols in indoor air. Ann Agric Environ Med 6(2):105-113.
Goyal SM, Anantharaman S, Ramakrishnan MA, Sajja S, Kim SW, Stanley NJ, Farnsworth JE,
Kuehn TH, Raynor PC [2011]. Detection of viruses in used ventilation filters from two large
public buildings. Am J Infect Control 39(7):e30-38.
Graham JA, Pavlicek PK, Sercombe JK, Xavier ML, Tovey ER [2000]. The nasal air sampler: a
device for sampling inhaled aeroallergens. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol 84(6):599-604.
Gralton J, Tovey ER, McLaws ML, Rawlinson WD [2013]. Respiratory virus RNA is detectable
in airborne and droplet particles. J Med Virol 85(12):2151-2159.
Green BJ, Millechia L, Blachere FM, Tovey ER, Beezhold DH, Schmechel D [2006a]. Dual
fluorescent halogen immunoassay for bioaerosols using confocal microscopy. Anal Biochem
354(1):151-153.
Green BJ, Mitakakis TZ, Tovey ER [2003]. Allergen detection from 11 fungal species before
and after germination. J Allergy Clin Immunol 111(2):285-289.
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter BA March 2017 Page BA-75 of BA-115
Sampling and Characterization of Bioaerosols
Green BJ, Schmechel D, Sercombe JK, Tovey ER [2005a]. Enumeration and detection of
aerosolized Aspergillus fumigatus and Penicillium chrysogenum conidia and hyphae using a
novel double immunostaining technique. J Immunol Methods 307(1-2):127-134.
Green BJ, Schmechel D, Summerbell RC [2011]. Aerosolized fungal fragments. In: Adnan O,
Samson RA, eds. Fundamentals of mold growth in indoor environments and strategies for
healthy living. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Wageningen Academic Publishers.
Green BJ, Schmechel D, Tovey ER [2005b]. Detection of Alternaria alternata conidia and
hyphae using a novel double immunostaining technique. Clin Diagn Lab Immunol
12(9):1114-1116.
Green BJ, Sercombe JK, Tovey ER [2005c]. Fungal fragments and undocumented conidia
function as new aeroallergen sources. J Allergy Clin Immunol 115(5):1043-1048.
Green BJ, Tovey ER, Sercombe JK, Blachere FM, Beezhold DH, Schmechel D [2006b].
Airborne fungal fragments and allergenicity. Med Mycol 44:S245-S255.
Green BJ, Yli-Panula E, Tovey ER [2006c]. Halogen immunoassay, a new method for the
detection of sensitization to fungal allergens; comparisons with conventional techniques.
Allergol Int 55(2):131-139.
Greenberg AE, Clesceri LS, Eaton AD [1992]. Standard methods for the examination of water
and wastewater. Washington, DC: American Public Health Association.
Greenburg L [1932]. The Greenburg-Smith impinger sampling apparatus for dusts, fumes,
smoke, and gases. Am J Public Health 22(10):1077-1082.
Gustin KM, Belser JA, Wadford DA, Pearce MB, Katz JM, Tumpey TM, Maines TR [2011].
Influenza virus aerosol exposure and analytical system for ferrets. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA
108(20):8432-8437.
Haaland D, Siegel JA [2016]. Quantitative filter forensics for indoor particle sampling. Indoor
Air, DOI:10.1111/ina.12319.
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter BA March 2017 Page BA-76 of BA-115
Sampling and Characterization of Bioaerosols
Haghani I, Shokohi T, Hajheidari Z, Khalilian A, Aghili SR [2013]. Comparison of diagnostic
methods in the evaluation of onychomycosis. Mycopathologia 175(3-4):315-321.
Haig CW, Mackay WG, Walker JT, Williams C [2016]. Bioaerosol sampling: sampling
mechanisms, bioefficiency and field studies. J Hosp Infect 95:242-245
Han T, Mainelis G [2012]. Investigation of inherent and latent internal losses in liquid-based
bioaerosol samplers. J Aerosol Sci 45:58-68.
Harper GJ [1961]. Airborne micro-organisms: survival tests with four viruses. J Hyg (Lond)
59:479-486.
Hatch MT, Warren JC [1969]. Enhanced recovery of airborne T3 coliphage and Pasteurella
pestis bacteriophage by means of a presampling humidification technique. Appl Microbiol
17(5):685-689.
Heitkamp MA, McKinsey PC, Bagwell CE, Eakle R, Lindler LE, Fernandez-Prada C [2006].
Feasibility of the Aerosol-to-Liquid Particle Extraction System (ALPES) for collection of
viable Francisella sp. Savannah, GA: Savannah River National Laboratory,
http://sti.srs.gov/fulltext/2006/TR2006281.pdf.
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter BA March 2017 Page BA-77 of BA-115
Sampling and Characterization of Bioaerosols
Hering SV [2001]. Impactors, cyclones, and other particle collectors. In: Cohen BS,
McCammon CS Jr., eds. Air sampling instruments for evaluation of atmospheric
contaminants. Cincinnati, OH: American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists.
Hocking AD, Pitt JI [1980]. Dichloran-glycerol medium for enumeration of xerophilic fungi
from low-moisture foods. Appl Environ Microbiol 39(3):488-492.
Hodges LR, Rose LJ, O'Connell H, Arduino MJ [2010]. National validation study of a swab
protocol for the recovery of Bacillus anthracis spores from surfaces. J Microbiol Methods
81(2):141-146.
Hogan CJ Jr., Kettleson EM, Lee MH, Ramaswami B, Angenent LT, Biswas P [2005]. Sampling
methodologies and dosage assessment techniques for submicrometre and ultrafine virus
aerosol particles. J Appl Microbiol 99(6):1422-1434.
Holmgren H, Bake B, Olin AC, Ljungstrom E [2011]. Relation between humidity and size of
exhaled particles. J Aerosol Med Pulm Drug Deliv 24(5):253-260.
HUD [2008]. Vacuum dust sample collection protocol for allergens. Washington, DC:
Department of Housing and Urban Development,
http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/documents/huddoc?id=DOC_12539.pdf.
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter BA March 2017 Page BA-78 of BA-115
Sampling and Characterization of Bioaerosols
Hung LL, Miller JD, Dillon HK [2005]. Field guide for the determination of biological
contaminants in environmental samples. Fairfax, VA: American Industrial Hygiene
Association.
Hunter CA, Grant C, Flannigan B, Bravery AF [1988]. Mould in buildings: the air spora of
domestic dwellings. Int Biodeterior 24(2):81-101.
Hussein T, Norros V, Hakala J, Petaja T, Aalto PP, Rannik U, Vesala T, Ovaskainen O [2013].
Species traits and inertial deposition of fungal spores. J Aerosol Sci 61(0):81-98.
Ibach MJ, Larsh HW, Furcolow ML [1954]. Isolation of Histoplasma capsulatum from the air.
Science 119(3080):71.
Ijaz MK, Brunner AH, Sattar SA, Nair RC, Johnson-Lussenburg CM [1985a]. Survival
characteristics of airborne human coronavirus 229E. J Gen Virol 66(Pt 12):2743-2748.
Ijaz MK, Sattar SA, Johnson-Lussenburg CM, Springthorpe VS, Nair RC [1985b]. Effect of
relative humidity, atmospheric temperature, and suspending medium on the airborne survival
of human rotavirus. Can J Microbiol 31(8):681-685.
Ijaz MK, Zargar B, Wright KE, Rubino JR, Sattar SA [2016]. Generic aspects of the airborne
spread of human pathogens indoors and emerging air decontamination technologies. Am J
Infect Control 44(9 Suppl):S109-120.
IOM [2004]. Damp indoor spaces and health. Washington, DC: Institute of Medicine.
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter BA March 2017 Page BA-79 of BA-115
Sampling and Characterization of Bioaerosols
ISO [2012]. ISO 13138:2012 Air quality -- Sampling conventions for airborne particle
deposition in the human respiratory system. Geneva, Switzerland: International Organization
for Standardization.
Jacobs RR [1989]. Airborne endotoxins: an association with occupational lung disease. Appl
Ind Hyg 4(2):50-56.
Jensen PA, Todd WF, Davis GN, Scarpino PV [1992]. Evaluation of eight bioaerosol samplers
challenged with aerosols of free bacteria. Am Ind Hyg Assoc J 53(10):660-667.
Johnston AM, Vincent JH, Jones AD [1985]. Measurements of electric charge for workplace
aerosols. Ann Occup Hyg 29(2):271-284.
Jones RM, Brosseau LM [2015]. Aerosol transmission of infectious disease. J Occup Environ
Med 57(5):501-508.
Julian TR, Tamayo FJ, Leckie JO, Boehm AB [2011]. Comparison of surface sampling
methods for virus recovery from fomites. Appl Environ Microbiol 77(19):6918-6925.
Karim YG, Ijaz MK, Sattar SA, Johnson-Lussenburg CM [1985]. Effect of relative humidity on
the airborne survival of rhinovirus-14. Can J Microbiol 31(11):1058-1061.
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter BA March 2017 Page BA-80 of BA-115
Sampling and Characterization of Bioaerosols
Kendrick B [2000]. The fifth kingdom, 3rd Edition. Newburyport, MA: Focus Publishing, R.
Pullins Company.
Kesavan J, Sagripanti JL [2015]. Evaluation criteria for bioaerosol samplers. Environ Sci
Process Impacts 17(3):638-645.
Kilburg-Basnyat B, Peters TM, Perry SS, Thorne PS [2015]. Electrostatic dust collectors
compared to inhalable samplers for measuring endotoxin concentrations in farm homes.
Indoor Air 26(5):724-733.
King EM, Filep S, Smith B, Platts-Mills T, Hamilton RG, Schmechel D, Sordillo JE, Milton D,
van Ree R, Krop EJ, Heederik DJ, Metwali N, Thorne PS, Zeldin DC, Sever ML, Calatroni A,
Arbes SJ Jr., Mitchell HE, Chapman MD [2013]. A multi-center ring trial of allergen analysis
using fluorescent multiplex array technology. J Immunol Methods 387(1-2):89-95.
Kissell FN, Sacks HK [2002]. Inaccuracy of area sampling for measuring the dust exposure of
mining machine operators in coal mines. Mining Eng 54(2):33-39.
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter BA March 2017 Page BA-81 of BA-115
Sampling and Characterization of Bioaerosols
Koncsag CI, Barbulescu A [2011]. Liquid-liquid extraction with and without a chemical
reaction. In: El-Amin M, ed. Mass transfer in multiphase systems and its applications. Rijeka,
Croatia: InTech. DOI: 10.5772/594.
Kuo Y-M [2015]. Field evaluation of sampling bias with plastic petri dishes for size-
fractionated bioaerosol sampling. Aerosol Sci Technol 49(3):127-133.
Lacey J, Crook B [1988]. Fungal and actinomycete spores as pollutants of the workplace and
occupational allergens. Ann Occup Hyg 32(4):515-533.
LeBouf R, Yesse L, Rossner A [2008]. Seasonal and diurnal variability in airborne mold from
an indoor residential environment in Northern New York. J Air Waste Manag Assoc
58(5):684-692.
Lednicky J, Pan M, Loeb J, Hsieh H, Eiguren-Fernandez A, Hering S, Fan ZH, Wu C-Y [2016].
Highly efficient collection of infectious pandemic influenza H1N1 virus (2009) through
laminar-flow water based condensation. Aerosol Sci Technol 50(7):i-iv.
Lee KS, Bartlett KH, Brauer M, Stephens GM, Black WA, Teschke K [2004a]. A field
comparison of four samplers for enumerating fungal aerosols I. Sampling characteristics.
Indoor Air 14(5):360-366.
Lee SA, Adhikari A, Grinshpun SA, McKay R, Shukla R, Reponen T [2006]. Personal exposure
to airborne dust and microorganisms in agricultural environments. J Occup Environ Hyg
3(3):118-130.
Lee SA, Liao CH [2014]. Size-selective assessment of agricultural workers' personal exposure
to airborne fungi and fungal fragments. Sci Total Environ 466-467:725-732.
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter BA March 2017 Page BA-82 of BA-115
Sampling and Characterization of Bioaerosols
Leland DS, Emanuel D [1995]. Laboratory diagnosis of viral infections of the lung. Semin
Respir Infect 10(4):189-198.
Leland DS, Ginocchio CC [2007]. Role of cell culture for virus detection in the age of
technology. Clin Microbiol Rev 20(1):49-78.
Lembke LL, Kniseley RN, van Nostrand RC, Hale MD [1981]. Precision of the all-glass
impinger and the Andersen microbial impactor for air sampling in solid-waste handling
facilities. Appl Environ Microbiol 42(2):222-225.
Life Technologies [2014]. Real-time PCR handbook. Waltham, MA: Thermo Fisher Scientific,
http://www.thermofisher.com/us/en/home/life-science/pcr/real-time-pcr/qpcr-
education.html.
Lin X, Willeke K, Ulevicius V, Grinshpun SA [1997]. Effect of sampling time on the collection
efficiency of all-glass impingers. Am Ind Hyg Assoc J 58(7):480-488.
Lin XJ, Reponen T, Willeke K, Wang Z, Grinshpun SA, Trunov M [2000]. Survival of airborne
microorganisms during swirling aerosol collection. Aerosol Sci Technol 32(3):184-196.
Lindsley WG, Blachere FM, Davis KA, Pearce TA, Fisher MA, Khakoo R, Davis SM, Rogers
ME, Thewlis RE, Posada JA, Redrow JB, Celik IB, Chen BT, Beezhold DH [2010a].
Distribution of airborne influenza virus and respiratory syncytial virus in an urgent care
medical clinic. Clin Infect Dis 50(5):693-698.
Lindsley WG, Blachere FM, Thewlis RE, Vishnu A, Davis KA, Cao G, Palmer JE, Clark KE,
Fisher MA, Khakoo R, Beezhold DH [2010b]. Measurements of airborne influenza virus in
aerosol particles from human coughs. PLoS ONE 5(11):e15100.
Lioy PJ, Freeman NC, Millette JR [2002]. Dust: a metric for use in residential and building
exposure assessment and source characterization. Environ Health Perspect 110(10):969-983.
Liu BYH, Pui DYH, Rubow KL, Szymanski WW [1985]. Electrostatic effects in aerosol
sampling and filtration. Aerosol Sci Technol 4(3):249-268.
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter BA March 2017 Page BA-83 of BA-115
Sampling and Characterization of Bioaerosols
Lowen AC, Mubareka S, Steel J, Palese P [2007]. Influenza virus transmission is dependent on
relative humidity and temperature. PLoS Pathog 3(10):1470-1476.
Lowen AC, Steel J, Mubareka S, Palese P [2008]. High temperature (30 degrees C) blocks
aerosol but not contact transmission of influenza virus. J Virol 82(11):5650-5652.
Macher JM, Chatigny MA, Burge HA [1995]. Sampling airborne microorganisms and
aeroallergens. In: Cohen BS, Hering SV, eds. Air sampling instruments for evaluation of
atmospheric contaminants. Cincinnati, OH: American Conference of Governmental
Industrial Hygienists.
Macher JM, First MW [1984]. Personal air samplers for measuring occupational exposures to
biological hazards. Am Ind Hyg Assoc J 45(2):76-83.
Madelin TM, Johnson HE [1992]. Fungal and actinomycete spore aerosols measured at
different humidities with an aerodynamic particle sizer. J Appl Bacteriol 72(5):400-409.
Mahony JB [2008]. Detection of respiratory viruses by molecular methods. Clin Microbiol Rev
21(4):716-747.
Mainelis G, Gorny RL, Reponen T, Trunov M, Grinshpun SA, Baron P, Yadav J, Willeke K
[2002]. Effect of electrical charges and fields on injury and viability of airborne bacteria.
Biotechnol Bioeng 79(2):229-241.
Marple VA, Olson BA [2011]. Sampling and measurement using inertial, gravitational,
centrifugal, and thermal techniques. In: Kulkarni P, Baron PA, Willeke K, eds. Aerosol
measurement: principles, techniques, and applications. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter BA March 2017 Page BA-84 of BA-115
Sampling and Characterization of Bioaerosols
Marple VA, Willeke K [1976]. Inertial impactors: theory, design and use. In: Liu BYH, ed.
Fine particles: aerosol generation, measurement, sampling and analysis. New York: Academic
Press.
Martyny JW, Martinez KF, Morey PR [1999]. Source Sampling. In: Macher J, ed. Bioaerosols:
assessment and control. Cincinnati, OH: American Conference of Governmental Industrial
Hygienists.
May KR, Harper GJ [1957]. The efficiency of various liquid impinger samplers in bacterial
aerosols. Br J Ind Med 14(4):287-297.
McDevitt JJ, Koutrakis P, Ferguson ST, Wolfson JM, Fabian MP, Martins M, Pantelic J,
Milton DK [2013]. Development and performance evaluation of an exhaled-breath bioaerosol
collector for influenza virus. Aerosol Sci Technol 47(4):444-451.
Meadow JF, Altrichter AE, Bateman AC, Stenson J, Brown GZ, Green JL, Bohannan BJ [2015].
Humans differ in their personal microbial cloud. PeerJ 3:e1258.
Mendell MJ, Mirer AG, Cheung K, Tong M, Douwes J [2011]. Respiratory and allergic health
effects of dampness, mold, and dampness‑ related agents: a review of the epidemiologic
evidence. Environ Health Perspect 119:748-756.
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter BA March 2017 Page BA-85 of BA-115
Sampling and Characterization of Bioaerosols
Milton DK, Fabian MP, Cowling BJ, Grantham ML, McDevitt JJ [2013]. Influenza virus
aerosols in human exhaled breath: particle size, culturability, and effect of surgical masks.
PLoS Pathog 9(3):e1003205.
Milton DK, Gere RJ, Feldman HA, Greaves IA [1990]. Endotoxin measurement: aerosol
sampling and application of a new Limulus method. Am Ind Hyg Assoc J 51(6):331-337.
Mitakakis TZ, Barnes C, Tovey ER [2001]. Spore germination increases allergen release from
Alternaria. J Allergy Clin Immunol 107(2):388-390.
Mitakakis TZ, O'Meara TJ, Tovey ER [2003]. The effect of sunlight on allergen release from
spores of the fungus Alternaria. Grana 42(1):43-46.
Mitakakis TZ, Tovey ER, Xuan W, Marks GB [2000]. Personal exposure to allergenic pollen
and mould spores in inland New South Wales, Australia. Clin Exp Allergy 30(12):1733-1739.
Moore G, Griffith C [2007]. Problems associated with traditional hygiene swabbing: the need
for in-house standardization. J Appl Microbiol 103(4):1090-1103.
Morey P, Otten J, Burge H, Chatigny M, Feeley J, LaForce FM, Peterson K [1986]. Airborne
viable microorganisms in office environments: sampling protocol and analytical procedures.
Appl Ind Hyg 1:R19-R23.
Murray BK, Ohmine S, Tomer DP, Jensen KJ, Johnson FB, Kirsi JJ, Robison RA, O'Neill KL
[2008]. Virion disruption by ozone-mediated reactive oxygen species. J Virol Methods
153(1):74-77.
Nevalainen A [1989]. Bacterial aerosols in indoor air. Thesis. Helsinki, Finland: National
Public Health Institute.
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter BA March 2017 Page BA-86 of BA-115
Sampling and Characterization of Bioaerosols
Nevalainen A, Taubel M, Hyvarinen A [2015]. Indoor fungi: companions and contaminants.
Indoor Air 25(2):125-156.
Nicas M, Nazaroff WW, Hubbard A [2005]. Toward understanding the risk of secondary
airborne infection: emission of respirable pathogens. J Occup Environ Hyg 2(3):143-154.
NIOSH [2003a]. Aerosol sampling: minimizing particle loss from cassette bypass leakage. By
Baron PA. In: Schlecht PC, O’Connor PF, eds. NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods, 4th
edition. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, DHHS
(NIOSH) Publication No. 2003-154, http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/nmam.
NIOSH [2003b]. Method 0800 Bioaerosol sampling (indoor air). In: Schlecht PC, O’Connor
PF, eds. NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods, 4th edition. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department
of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National
Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 2003-154,
http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/nmam.
NIOSH [2003c]. Method 0600 Particulates not otherwise regulated, respirable. In: Schlecht
PC, O’Connor PF, eds. NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods, 4th edition. Cincinnati, OH:
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 2003-
154, http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/nmam.
NIOSH [2003d]. Method 2549 Volatile organic compounds (screening). In: Schlecht PC,
O’Connor PF, eds. NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods, 4th edition. Cincinnati, OH: U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 2003-
154, http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/nmam.
NIOSH [2003e]. NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods, 4th edition. Schlecht PC, O’Connor
PF, eds. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, DHHS
(NIOSH) Publication No. 2003-154, http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/nmam.
NIOSH [2010]. NIOSH Pocket Guide to Chemical Hazards. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department
of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National
Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/npg/.
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter BA March 2017 Page BA-87 of BA-115
Sampling and Characterization of Bioaerosols
NIOSH [2012a] Preventing occupational respiratory disease from exposures caused by
dampness in office buildings, schools, and other nonindustrial buildings. Morgantown, WV:
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 2013-
102, http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/2013-102/pdfs/2013-102.pdf.
NIOSH [2012b]. Surface sampling procedures for Bacillus anthracis spores from smooth,
non-porous surfaces. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety and
Health, http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/emres/surface-sampling-bacillus-anthracis.html.
NIOSH [2016a]. Factors affection aerosol sampling. By Baron PA. In: Ashley K, O’Connor PF,
eds. NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods, 5th edition. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute
for Occupational Safety and Health, DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 2014-151,
http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/nmam.
NIOSH [2016b]. Filter pore size and aerosol sample collection. By Lindsley WG. In: Ashley K,
O’Connor PF, eds. NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods, 5th edition. Cincinnati, OH: U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 2014-
151, http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/nmam.
Noris F, Siegel JA, Kinney KA [2011]. Evaluation of HVAC filters as a sampling mechanism
for indoor microbial communities. Atmos Environ 45(2):338-346.
Noss I, Doekes G, Sander I, Heederik DJ, Thorne PS, Wouters IM [2010]. Passive airborne
dust sampling with the electrostatic dustfall collector: optimization of storage and extraction
procedures for endotoxin and glucan measurement. Ann Occup Hyg 54(6):651-658.
Noss I, Wouters IM, Visser M, Heederik DJ, Thorne PS, Brunekreef B, Doekes G [2008].
Evaluation of a low-cost electrostatic dust fall collector for indoor air endotoxin exposure
assessment. Appl Environ Microbiol 74(18):5621-5627.
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter BA March 2017 Page BA-88 of BA-115
Sampling and Characterization of Bioaerosols
Noti JD, Blachere FM, McMillen CM, Lindsley WG, Kashon ML, Slaughter DR, Beezhold DH
[2013]. High humidity leads to loss of infectious influenza virus from simulated coughs. PLoS
ONE 8(2):e57485.
Olenchock SA [2002]. Airborne endotoxin. In: Hurst CJ, Crawford RL, McInerney MJ,
Knudsen GR, Stetzenbach LD, eds. Manual of environmental microbiology. Washington, DC:
ASM Press.
Olenchock SA, Mull JC, Jones WG [1983]. Endotoxins in cotton: washing effects and size
distribution. Am J Ind Med 4(4):515-521.
Otten JA, Morey PR, Burge HA, Chatigny MA, Feeley JC, Peterson K [1986]. Airborne viable
microorganisms in office environments: sampling protocol and analytical procedures.
Proceedings of the 1986 EPA/APCA Symposium on Measurement of Toxic Air Pollutants,
Raleigh, NC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Air Pollution Control Association.
Park GW, Lee D, Treffiletti A, Hrsak M, Shugart J, Vinje J [2015]. Evaluation of a new
environmental sampling protocol for detection of human norovirus on inanimate surfaces.
Appl Environ Microbiol 81(17):5987-5992.
Parvaneh S, Elfman L, Ahlf E, Nybom R, Elfman LH, van Hage-Hamsten M [2000]. A new
method for collecting airborne allergens. Allergy 55(12):1148-1154.
Pasquarella C, Pitzurra O, Savino A [2000]. The index of microbial air contamination. J Hosp
Infect 46(4):241-256.
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter BA March 2017 Page BA-89 of BA-115
Sampling and Characterization of Bioaerosols
Patolsky F, Zheng G, Hayden O, Lakadamyali M, Zhuang X, Lieber CM [2004]. Electrical
detection of single viruses. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 101(39):14017-14022.
Peccia J, Werth HM, Miller S, Hernandez M [2001]. Effects of relative humidity on the
ultraviolet induced inactivation of airborne bacteria. Aerosol Sci Technol 35(3):728-740.
Pityn PJ, Anderson J [2013]. Air sampling of mold spores by slit impactors: yield comparison.
J Environ Sci Health A Tox Hazard Subst Environ Eng 48(12):1485-1490.
Poulos LM, O'Meara TJ, Hamilton RG, Tovey ER [2002]. Inhaled latex allergen (Hev b 1). J
Allergy Clin Immunol 109(4):701-706.
Poulos LM, O'Meara TJ, Sporik R, Tovey ER [1999]. Detection of inhaled Der p 1. Clin Exp
Allergy 29(9):1232-1238.
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter BA March 2017 Page BA-90 of BA-115
Sampling and Characterization of Bioaerosols
Prussin AJ II, Marr LC, Bibby KJ [2014]. Challenges of studying viral aerosol metagenomics
and communities in comparison with bacterial and fungal aerosols. FEMS Microbiol Lett
357(1):1-9.
Pui DYH, Romay-Novas F, Liu BYH [1987]. Experimental study of particle deposition in
bends of circular cross section. Aerosol Sci Technol 7(3):301-315.
Ravva SV, Hernlem BJ, Sarreal CZ, Mandrell RE [2012]. Bacterial communities in urban
aerosols collected with wetted-wall cyclonic samplers and seasonal fluctuations of live and
culturable airborne bacteria. J Environ Monit 14(2):473-481.
Raynor PC, Leith D, Lee KW, Mukund R [2011]. Sampling and analysis using filters. In:
Kulkarni P, Baron PA, Willeke K, eds. Aerosol measurement: principles, techniques, and
applications. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Razmovski V, O'Meara TJ, Taylor DJM, Tovey ER [2000]. A new method for simultaneous
immunodetection and morphologic identification of individual sources of pollen allergens. J
Allergy Clin Immunol 105(4):725-731.
Reed LJ, Muench H [1938]. A simple method of estimating fifty per cent endpoints. Am J Hyg
27:493-497.
Reid TM, Schafer MP [1999]. Direct detection of Histoplasma capsulatum in soil suspensions
by two-stage PCR. Mol Cell Probes 13(4):269-273.
Renstrom A, Karlsson AS, Tovey E [2002]. Nasal air sampling used for the assessment of
occupational allergen exposure and the efficacy of respiratory protection. Clin Exp Allergy
32(12):1769-1775.
Reponen T, Lockey J, Bernstein DI, Vesper SJ, Levin L, Khurana Hershey GK, Zheng S, Ryan
P, Grinshpun SA, Villareal M, Lemasters G [2012]. Infant origins of childhood asthma
associated with specific molds. J Allergy Clin Immunol 130(3):639-644.e5.
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter BA March 2017 Page BA-91 of BA-115
Sampling and Characterization of Bioaerosols
Reponen T, Seo S-C, Grimsley F, Lee T, Crawford C, Grinshpun SA [2007]. Fungal fragments
in moldy houses: a field study in homes in New Orleans and Southern Ohio. Atmos Environ
41(37):8140-8149.
Reponen TA, Gazenko SV, Grinshpun SA, Willeke K, Cole EC [1998]. Characteristics of
airborne actinomycete spores. Appl Environ Microbiol 64(10):3807-3812.
Rintala H, Pitkaranta M, Taubel M [2012]. Microbial communities associated with house dust.
Adv Appl Microbiol 78:75-120.
Rittenour WR, Ciaccio CE, Barnes CS, Kashon ML, Lemons AR, Beezhold DH, Green BJ
[2014]. Internal transcribed spacer rRNA gene sequencing analysis of fungal diversity in
Kansas City indoor environments. Environ Sci Process Impacts 16(1):33-43.
Rodes CE, Thornburg JW [2005]. Breathing zone exposure assessment. In: Ruzer LS, Harley
NH, Ruzer LS, Harley NH, eds. Aerosols handbook: measurement, dosimetry, and health
effects. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter BA March 2017 Page BA-92 of BA-115
Sampling and Characterization of Bioaerosols
Rule AM, Chapin AR, McCarthy SA, Gibson KE, Schwab KJ, Buckley TJ [2005]. Assessment
of an aerosol treatment to improve air quality in a swine concentrated animal feeding
operation (CAFO). Environ Sci Technol 39(24):9649-9655.
Rule AM, Kesavan J, Schwab KJ, Buckley TJ [2007]. Application of flow cytometry for the
assessment of preservation and recovery efficiency of bioaerosol samplers spiked with Pantoea
agglomerans. Environ Sci Technol 41(7):2467-2472.
Rydjord B, Namork E, Nygaard UC, Wiker HG, Hetland G [2007]. Quantification and
characterisation of IgG binding to mould spores by flow cytometry and scanning electron
microscopy. J Immunol Methods 323:123-131.
Salvin SB [1949]. Cysteine and related compounds in the growth of the yeast like phase of
Histoplasma capsulatum. J Infect Dis 84(3):275-283.
Sasser M [1990b]. Identification of bacteria through fatty acid analysis. In: Klement Z,
Rudolph K, Sands DC, eds. Methods in phytobacteriology. Budapest, Hungary: Akadémiai
Kiadó.
Schafer MP, Fernback JE, Ernst MK [1999]. Detection and characterization of airborne
mycobacterium tuberculosis H37Ra particles, a surrogate for airborne pathogenic M.
tuberculosis. Aerosol Sci Technol 30(2):161-173.
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter BA March 2017 Page BA-93 of BA-115
Sampling and Characterization of Bioaerosols
Schafer MP, Fernback JE, Jensen PA [1998]. Sampling and analytical method development for
qualitative assessment of airborne mycobacterial species of the Mycobacterium tuberculosis
complex. Am Ind Hyg Assoc J 59(8):540-546.
Schafer MP, Martinez KF, Mathews ES [2003]. Rapid detection and determination of the
aerodynamic size range of airborne mycobacteria associated with whirlpools. Appl Occup
Environ Hyg 18(1):41-50.
Schaffer FL, Soergel ME, Straube DC [1976]. Survival of airborne influenza virus: effects of
propagating host, relative humidity, and composition of spray fluids. Arch Virol 51(4):263-
273.
Schnurer J [1993]. Comparison of methods for estimating the biomass of three food-borne
fungi with different growth patterns. Appl Environ Microbiol 59(2):552-555.
Scott JA, Summerbell RC, Green BJ [2011]. Detection of indoor fungi bioaerosols. In: Adnan
O, Samson RA, eds. Fundamentals of mold growth in indoor environments and strategies for
healthy living. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Wageningen Academic Publishers.
Seitz LM, Sauer DB, Burroughs R, Mohr HE, Hubbard JD [1979]. Ergosterol as a measure of
fungal growth. Phytopathology 69:1202-1203.
Seo S, Choung JT, Chen BT, Lindsley WG, Kim KY [2014]. The level of submicron fungal
fragments in homes with asthmatic children. Environ Res 131:71-76.
Shelton BG, Kirkland KH, Flanders WD, Morris GK [2002]. Profiles of airborne fungi in
buildings and outdoor environments in the United States. Appl Environ Microbiol
68(4):1743-1753.
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter BA March 2017 Page BA-94 of BA-115
Sampling and Characterization of Bioaerosols
Singh U, Reponen T, Cho KJ, Grinshpun SA, Adhikari A, Levin L, Indugula R, Green BJ
[2011b]. Airborne endotoxin and beta-D-glucan in PM1 in agricultural and home
environments. Aerosol Air Qual Res 11(4):376-386.
Solomon WR, Burge HA, Boise JR [1980]. Exclusion of particulate allergens by window air
conditioners. J Allergy Clin Immunol 65(4):305-308.
Soo JC, Monaghan K, Lee T, Kashon M, Harper M [2016]. Air sampling filtration media:
collection efficiency for respirable size-selective sampling. Aerosol Sci Technol 50(1):76-87.
Sorensen CM, Gebhart J, O'Hern TJ, Rader DJ [2011]. Optical measurement techniques:
fundamentals and applications. In: Kulkarni P, Baron PA, Willeke K, eds. Aerosol
measurement: principles, techniques, and applications. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Staton SJR, Castillo JA, Taylor TJ, Herckes P, Hayes MA [2013]. Identifying indoor
environmental patterns from bioaerosol material using HPLC. Anal Bioanal Chem
405(1):351-357.
Stewart GL, Parkman PD, Hopps HE, Douglas RD, Hamilton JP, Meyer HM, Jr. [1967].
Rubella-virus hemagglutination-inhibition test. N Engl J Med 276(10):554-557.
Summerbell RC, Green BJ, Corr D, Scott JA [2011]. Molecular methods for bioaerosol
characterization. In: Flannigan B, Samson RA, Miller JD, eds. Microorganisms in home and
indoor work environments: diversity, health impacts, investigation and control, 2nd Edition.
Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, Taylor and Francis Group.
Tang JW [2009]. The effect of environmental parameters on the survival of airborne infectious
agents. J R Soc Interface 6(Suppl 6):S737-S746.
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter BA March 2017 Page BA-95 of BA-115
Sampling and Characterization of Bioaerosols
Tang W, Kuehn TH, Simcik MF [2015]. Effects of temperature, humidity and air flow on
fungal growth rate on loaded ventilation filters. J Occup Environ Hyg 12(8):525-537.
Thermo Fisher Scientific [2014]. Molecular probes handbook—A guide to fluorescent probes
and labeling technologies, 11th Edition. Waltham, MA: ThermoFisher Scientific.
https://www.thermofisher.com/us/en/home/references/molecular-probes-the-
handbook.html.
Thompson KA, Pappachan JV, Bennett AM, Mittal H, Macken S, Dove BK, Nguyen-Van-
Tam JS, Copley VR, O'Brien S, Hoffman P, Parks S, Bentley A, Isalska B, Thomson G,
Consortium ES [2013]. Influenza aerosols in UK hospitals during the H1N1 (2009) pandemic-
-the risk of aerosol generation during medical procedures. PLoS ONE 8(2):e56278.
Thorne PS, Metwali N, Avol E, McConnell RS [2005]. Surface sampling for endotoxin
assessment using electrostatic wiping cloths. Ann Occup Hyg 49(5):401-406.
Toprak E, Schnaiter M [2013]. Fluorescent biological aerosol particles measured with the
Waveband Integrated Bioaerosol Sensor WIBS-4: laboratory tests combined with a one year
field study. Atmos Chem Phys 13(1):225-243.
Tortora GJ, Funke BR, Case CL [2013]. Microbiology - an introduction. Glenview, IL: Pearson
Education.
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter BA March 2017 Page BA-96 of BA-115
Sampling and Characterization of Bioaerosols
Tovey ER, Green BJ [2004]. Measuring environmental fungal exposure. Med Mycol 43(suppl
1):S67-S70.
Tovey ER, Liu-Brennan D, Garden FL, Oliver BG, Perzanowski MS, Marks GB [2016]. Time-
based measurement of personal mite allergen bioaerosol exposure over 24 hour periods. PLoS
ONE 11(5):e0153414.
Tsai CJ, Pui DYH [1990]. Numerical study of particle deposition in bends of a circular cross-
section laminar-flow regime. Aerosol Sci Technol 12(4):813-831.
Tsai FC, Macher JM [2005]. Concentrations of airborne culturable bacteria in 100 large US
office buildings from the BASE study. Indoor Air 15(Suppl 9):71-81.
Tseng C-C, Li C-S [2005]. Collection efficiencies of aerosol samplers for virus-containing
aerosols. J Aerosol Sci 36(5-6):593-607.
Tseng CC, Chang LY, Li CS [2010]. Detection of airborne viruses in a pediatrics department
measured using real-time qPCR coupled to an air-sampling filter method. J Environ Health
73(4):22-28.
Usachev EV, Usacheva OV, Agranovski IE [2014]. Surface plasmon resonance-based bacterial
aerosol detection. J Appl Microbiol 117(6):1655-1662.
USP [1997]. Microbiological evaluation of clean rooms and other controlled environments.
Pharmacopeial Forum 23(6):5269-5295.
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter BA March 2017 Page BA-97 of BA-115
Sampling and Characterization of Bioaerosols
Verreault D, Gendron L, Rousseau GM, Veillette M, Masse D, Lindsley WG, Moineau S,
Duchaine C [2011]. Detection of airborne lactococcal bacteriophages in cheese manufacturing
plants. Appl Environ Microbiol 77(2):491-497.
Vesper S, Barnes C, Ciaccio CE, Johanns A, Kennedy K, Murphy JS, Nunez-Alvarez A, Sandel
MT, Cox D, Dewalt G, Ashley PJ [2013]. Higher Environmental Relative Moldiness Index
(ERMI) values measured in homes of asthmatic children in Boston, Kansas City, and San
Diego. J Asthma 50(2):155-161.
Walls HJ, Ensor DS, Harvey LA, Kim JH, Chartier RT, Hering SV, Spielman SR, Lewis GS
[2016]. Generation and sampling of nanoscale infectious viral aerosols. Aerosol Sci Technol
50(8):802-811.
Walter MV, Marthi B, Fieland VP, Ganio LM [1990]. Effect of aerosolization on subsequent
bacterial survival. Appl Environ Microbiol 56(11):3468-3472.
Wang H, Reponen T, Lee SA, White E, Grinshpun SA [2007]. Size distribution of airborne
mist and endotoxin-containing particles in metalworking fluid environments. J Occup
Environ Hyg 4(3):157-165.
Wang Z, Reponen T, Grinshpun SA, Gorny RL, Willeke K [2001]. Effect of sampling time and
air humidity on the bioefficiency of filter samplers for bioaerosol collection. J Aerosol Sci
32(5):661-674.
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter BA March 2017 Page BA-98 of BA-115
Sampling and Characterization of Bioaerosols
Warren JC, Akers TG, Dubovi EJ [1969]. Effect of prehumidification on sampling of selected
airborne viruses. Appl Microbiol 18(5):893-896.
Weber TP, Stilianakis NI [2008]. Inactivation of influenza A viruses in the environment and
modes of transmission: a critical review. J Infect 57(5):361-373.
West JS, Atkins SD, Emberlin J, Fitt BD [2008]. PCR to predict risk of airborne disease.
Trends Microbiol 16(8):380-387.
Whitehead T, Leith D [2008]. Passive aerosol sampler for particle concentrations and size
distributions. J Environ Monit 10(3):331-335.
WHO [2009]. WHO guidelines for indoor air quality: dampness and mould. Geneva: World
Health Organization.
Willeke K, Macher JM [1999]. Air sampling. In: Macher JM, ed. Bioaerosols: assessment and
control. Cincinnati, OH: American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists.
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter BA March 2017 Page BA-99 of BA-115
Sampling and Characterization of Bioaerosols
Yooseph S, Andrews-Pfannkoch C, Tenney A, McQuaid J, Williamson S, Thiagarajan M,
Brami D, Zeigler-Allen L, Hoffman J, Goll JB, Fadrosh D, Glass J, Adams MD, Friedman R,
Venter JC [2013]. A metagenomic framework for the study of airborne microbial
communities. PLoS ONE 8(12):e81862.
Zhao Y, Aarnink AJ, Wang W, Fabri T, Groot Koerkamp PW, de Jong MC [2014]. Airborne
virus sampling: efficiencies of samplers and their detection limits for infectious bursal disease
virus (IBDV). Ann Agric Environ Med 21(3):464-471.
Zimmerman NJ, Reist PC, Turner AG [1987]. Comparison of two biological aerosol sampling
methods. Appl Environ Microbiol 53(1):99-104.
Zuo ZL, Kuehn TH, Verma H, Kumar S, Goyal SM, Appert J, Raynor PC, Ge S, Pui DYH
[2013]. Association of airborne virus infectivity and survivability with its carrier particle size.
Aerosol Sci Technol 47(4):373-382.
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter BA March 2017 Page BA-100 of BA-115
Sampling and Characterization of Bioaerosols
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter BA March 2017 Page BA-101 of BA-115
Sampling and Characterization of Bioaerosols
Manufacturers/Distributors of Common Bioaerosol Samplers and Related Products -
Continued
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter BA March 2017 Page BA-102 of BA-115
Sampling and Characterization of Bioaerosols
Manufacturers/Distributors of Common Bioaerosol Samplers and Related Products -
Continued
Tecora
211-215 Rue la Fontaine
94134 Fontenay sous Bois Cedex, France
Phone: Tel: +33 1 48 75 82 82
Fax: +33 1 48 75 82 96
http://www.tecora.com/en/
Thermo Scientific
27 Forge Parkway
Franklin, MA 02038 USA
Phone: (866) 282-0430
Phone: (508) 520-0430
Fax: (508) 520-1460
http://www.thermoscientific.com
TSI Incorporated
500 Cardigan Road
Shoreview, MN 55126 USA
Phone: (800) 874-2811
Phone: (651) 483-0900
Fax: (651) 490-3824
http://www.tsi.com
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter BA March 2017 Page BA-103 of BA-115
Sampling and Characterization of Bioaerosols
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter BA March 2017 Page BA-104 of BA-115
Sampling and Characterization of Bioaerosols
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter BA March 2017 Page BA-105 of BA-115
Sampling and Characterization of Bioaerosols
Table II A. Common Commercially-Available Single-stage Impactor Samplers for Bioaerosol Collection - Continued
Manufacturer/ Collection Flowrate d50
Sampler Name Application¥
Distributor Media (L/min) (µm)
EMD Millipore RCS® High Flow Touch Portable Air Sampler Agar 100 - C
Allergenco MK-III Slit-Impaction Sampler Slide 15 - M
Allergenco-D Disposable IAQ Air Monitoring Cassettes Slide 15 - M
Allergenco-D Posi-Track Full Slide, IAQ Impactor Cassette Slide 15 1.7 M
Environmental
BioSIS Slit Impaction Air Sampler Slide 5 – 50 - M
Monitoring
cyclex-d Cassettes Slide 20 < 1.0 M
Systems
E6 Single-Stage Bioaerosol Impaction Sampler Agar 28.3 - C
Micro5 MicroCell Cassettes Slide 5 < 1.0 M
Micro5 Posi-Track Full Slide, IAQ Impactor Cassette Slide 5 <1.0 M
MicroBio MB1 Air Sampler Agar 100 - C
F.W. Parrett
MicroBio MB2 Air Sampler Agar 100 - C
Particle Air Trace® Environmental Slit-to-Agar Sampler Agar 28.3 - C
Measuring BioCapt™ Impactor Active Microbial Air Sampling Atrium Agar 25 - C
Systems MiniCapt™ Portable Microbial Air Sampler Agar 50 or 100 - C
Sartorius AirPort MD8 Air Sampler Agar 125 - C
BioStage® Standard Single-Stage Viable Cascade Impactor Agar 28.3 - C
SKC BioStage® 200 Single-Stage Viable Cascade Impactor Agar 14.15 - C
VersaTrap® Spore Trap Cassette Slide 15 - M
IUL Basic Air Air Sampler Agar 60 – 100 - C
IUL Spin Air Air Sampler Agar 60 – 100 - C
Thermo Scientific IUL Spin Air Basic Air Sampler Agar 60 – 100 - C
N6 Single-Stage Viable Andersen Impactor Agar 28.3 0.65 C
Oxoid Air Sampler Agar 100 - C
Veltek SMA MicroPortable® Air Sampler Agar 1 or 5 - C
A-6 Bioaerosol Impactor Agar 28.3 0.65 C
Zefon
Air-O-Cell® Sampling Cassette Slide 15 2.6 M
International
Via-Cell® Bioaerosol Sampling Cassette Slide 15 1.56 C,M,O
d50 – aerodynamic diameter at which the collection efficiency is 50% and is defined as the cut off diameter
Application¥ -
C = culture-based analysis for viability
M = microscopic examination of collected bioaerosol
O = other laboratory analyses, such as immunoassays, bioassays, chemical assays, or molecular detection techniques
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter BA March 2017 Page BA-106 of BA-115
Sampling and Characterization of Bioaerosols
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter BA March 2017 Page BA-107 of BA-115
Sampling and Characterization of Bioaerosols
Table II B. Common Commercially-Available Multi-stage Impactor Samplers for Bioaerosol Collection - Continued
Manufacturer/ Collection Flowrate # of d50
Sampler Name Application¥
Distributor Media (L/min) Stages (µm)
0.056
0.10
0.18
0.32
0.56
Model 120 R (rotating) Moudi-II™ Impactor Filter 30 10 M,O
1.0
1.8
3.2
5.6
10
MSP
0.010
Corporation
0.018
continued
0.032
0.056
0.10
0.18
Model 122-NR/122-R Moudi-II™ and NanoMoudi-II™ Impactor Filter 30 13 0.32 M,O
0.56
1.0
1.8
3.2
5.6
10
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter BA March 2017 Page BA-108 of BA-115
Sampling and Characterization of Bioaerosols
Table II B. Common Commercially-Available Multi-stage Impactor Samplers for Bioaerosol Collection - Continued
Manufacturer/ Collection Flowrate # of d50
Sampler Name Application¥
Distributor Media (L/min) Stages (µm)
0.010
0.018
0.032
0.056
0.10
0.18
Model 125-NR/125-R Moudi-II™ and NanoMoudi-II™ Impactor Filter 10 13 0.32 M,O
0.56
1.0
1.8
3.2
5.6
MSP
10
Corporation
0.56
continued
1.0
1.8
Model 135-6 MiniMOUDI™ (Marple Personal II) Impactor Filter 2 6 M,O
3.2
5.6
10
0.18
0.32
0.56
1.0
Model 135-8 MiniMOUDI™ (Marple Personal II) Impactor Filter 2 8 M,O
1.8
3.2
5.6
10
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter BA March 2017 Page BA-109 of BA-115
Sampling and Characterization of Bioaerosols
Table II B. Common Commercially-Available Multi-stage Impactor Samplers for Bioaerosol Collection - Continued
Manufacturer/ Collection Flowrate # of d50
Sampler Name Application¥
Distributor Media (L/min) Stages (µm)
0.056
0.10
0.18
0.32
0.56
Model 135-10 MiniMOUDI™ Impactor Filter 2 10 M,O
1.0
1.8
3.2
5.6
10
MSP 0.010
Corporation 0.018
continued 0.032
0.056
0.10
0.18
Model 135-13 MiniMOUDI™ Impactor Filter 2 13 0.32 M,O
0.56
1.0
1.8
3.2
5.6
10
0.43
0.65
1.1
Thermo 2.1
Eight Stage Non-Viable Cascade Impactor Filter 28.3 8 M,O
Scientific 3.3
4.7
5.8
9.0
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter BA March 2017 Page BA-110 of BA-115
Sampling and Characterization of Bioaerosols
Table II B. Common Commercially-Available Multi-stage Impactor Samplers for Bioaerosol Collection - Continued
Manufacturer/ Collection Flowrate # of d50
Sampler Name Application¥
Distributor Media (L/min) Stages (µm)
3.5
9.8
Marple 294 Personal Cascade Impactor Filter 2 4 M,O
14.8
21.3
0.52
0.93
1.55
Marple 296 Personal Cascade Impactor Filter 2 6 M,O
3.5
6.0
9.8
0.52
0.93
Thermo
1.55
Scientific
3.5
continued Marple 298 Personal Cascade Impactor Filter 2 8 M,O
6.0
9.8
14.8
21.3
0.65
1.1
2.1
Six Stage Viable Andersen Cascade Impactor Agar 28.3 6 C
3.3
4.7
7.0
0.8
Two-Stage Viable Andersen Cascade Impactor Agar 28.3 2 C
8
d50 – aerodynamic diameter at which the collection efficiency is 50% and is defined as the cut off diameter
Application¥ -
C = culture-based analysis for viability
M = microscopic examination of collected bioaerosol
O = other laboratory analyses, such as immunoassays, bioassays, chemical assays, or molecular detection techniques
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter BA March 2017 Page BA-111 of BA-115
Sampling and Characterization of Bioaerosols
Table III. Common Commercially-Available Cyclones and Impinger Samplers for Bioaerosol Collection
Cyclones
Manufacturer/ Collection Flowrate # of d50
Sampler Name Application¥
Distributor Media (L/min) Stages (µm)
Cyclone Sampler for Airborne Particles Dry Vial 20 1 - C,M,O
Burkard
Cyclone Sampler for Field Operation Dry Vial 16.5 1 - C,M,O
Evogen Sceptor DryClone™ Dry Vial 400 1 - C,M,O
FLIR Systems C100 Modular Tactical Collector Dry Vial 150 1 - C,M,O
Impingers
AGI-30 Impinger Liquid 12.5 1 - C,M,O
Ace Glass Greenburg-Smith Impinger Liquid 28.3 1 - C,M,O
Midget Impinger Liquid 1 - C,M,O
4
Burkard Multistage Liquid Impinger Liquid 20 3 10 C,M,O
> 10
XMX/102 High Volume Bioaerosol Sampling System Serum Tube 530 1 - C,O
Dycor XMX/2L-MIL Bioaerosol Sampler – Military Liquid 530 1 - C,M,O
XMX-CV Microbial Air Sampler – Civilian Liquid 530 1 - C,M,O
d50 – aerodynamic diameter at which the collection efficiency is 50% and is defined as the cut off diameter
Application¥ -
C = culture-based analysis for viability
M = microscopic examination of collected bioaerosol
O = other laboratory analyses, such as immunoassays, bioassays, chemical assays, or molecular detection techniques
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter BA March 2017 Page BA-112 of BA-115
Sampling and Characterization of Bioaerosols
Table IV. Common Commercially-Available Wetted-Surface and Condensation-Based Samplers for Bioaerosol Collection
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter BA March 2017 Page BA-113 of BA-115
Sampling and Characterization of Bioaerosols
Table V. Common Commercially-Available Electrostatic, Passive Aerosol and Settled Dust Collection Samplers for Bioaerosol Collection
Electrostatic Samplers
RJ Lee Group UNC Passive Aerosol Sampler Various n/a n/a n/a M, O
substrates
Settled Dust Collection Devices
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter BA March 2017 Page BA-114 of BA-115
Sampling and Characterization of Bioaerosols
Table VI. Common Commercially-Available Real-Time Bioaerosol Monitors for Bioaerosol Collection
Manufacturer/ Flowrate
Sampler Name Detection Method Application¥
Distributor (L/min)
Bioscience
SAS-PCR Pathogenic Microorganisms Air Sampler PCR - R
International
Droplet
Measurement Wideband Integrated Bioaerosol Sensor (WIBS) Fluorescence 0.3 R
Technologies
Dycor C-FLAPS Biological Detection System Fluorescence 350 R
Environics ENVI BioScout™ Fluorescence 2 R
FLIR Systems Fido® B2 Instantaneous Biological Aerosol Detector Fluorescence 3.8 R
Particle
Measuring BioLaz™ Real-Time Microbial Monitor Fluorescence 3.6 R
Systems
Research BioHawk® 8-Channel Collector/Bioidentifier Fluorometric Bioassay 325 R
International TacBio™ Biological Aerosol Detector Fluorescence 1 R
BIOTRAK® Real-Time Viable Particle Counter 9510-BD Fluorescence 28.3 R
TSI
Fluorescence Aerosol Particle Sensor (FLAPS) 3317 (FLAPS III)™ Fluorescence 1 R
Application¥ -
R= Real-time or near-real time bioaerosol detection
PCR= Polymerase chain reaction
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter BA March 2017 Page BA-115 of BA-115
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods (NMAM), 5th Edition
1 Introduction FP-2
2 Physical structures of filters FP-2
3 Determination of equivalent pore diameter FP-3
4 How an aerosol filter collect particles FP-6
5 Aerosol filter efficiency and pore size FP-8
6 Significance of pore size FP-10
7 Filter selection FP-11
8 Conclusion FP-12
9 References FP-13
1 Introduction
Aerosol sampling filters are commonly used in industrial hygiene and environmental
monitoring to collect airborne particles for analysis. The filter characteristics provided by the
manufacturer frequently include the term “pore size” or “equivalent pore diameter,” and pore
size is also specified in many particle-sampling methods written by government agencies and
standards organizations. Unfortunately, the pore size of a filter is often misunderstood, which
can lead to the misinterpretation of test results and the selection of filters with much higher
flow resistances than are needed for a particular application. The purpose of this article is to
discuss how aerosol filters actually work and what the equivalent pore diameter really means,
and then to explain how this information should be used when selecting filters and
interpreting data. Much of the information and terminology presented here were drawn from
Hinds [1999], Brock [1983], Lippmann [2001] and Raynor et al. [2011]. All of these sources
provide a more in-depth discussion of filter theory and use and are highly recommended if
more information is desired.
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter FP April 2016 Page FP-2 of FP-14
Filter Pore Size and Aerosol Sample Collection
Figure 1: Scanning Electron Micrographs (SEM) of four filter types. The vertical tick
marks above “10.0 µm” in the lower right-hand corner of each SEM are 1 µm apart; the
entire scale is 10 µm in length.
A: Glass fiber filter with a 1-µm equivalent pore diameter.
B: Mixed-cellulose esters (MCE) filter with 0.8-µm equivalent pore diameter.
C: Polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) filter with 3-µm equivalent pore diameter.
D: Polycarbonate capillary pore filter with 1-µm pore size.
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter FP April 2016 Page FP-3 of FP-14
Filter Pore Size and Aerosol Sample Collection
a filter, they are giving the actual pore diameter for capillary pore filters and the equivalent
pore diameter for other types of filters.
The equivalent pore diameter is commonly measured by a “bubble-point test” [ASTM 2011].
This test is fairly simple, is non-destructive, and provides a good quality-control check for the
filter. A bubble-point test works like this: Imagine that you have an ideal capillary pore filter
with smooth holes that are of a uniform diameter, as shown in Figure 2. Now imagine that
there is air on one side of this filter and a liquid that wets the filter on the other side. If the air
pressure is low, the surface tension of the liquid will stop the air bubble from being pushed
through the filter. If you slowly increase the air pressure, at some point it will be high enough
to overcome the surface tension, and a visible stream of air bubbles will be produced. This
pressure is called the bubble point. The pore diameter can be calculated from the bubble-point
pressure with this formula [Brock 1983]:
4𝛾𝛾 cos 𝜃𝜃
𝐷𝐷 = 𝑃𝑃
× 106 (Equation 1)
Where:
D = pore diameter (micrometers)
P = bubble-point air pressure (Pa)
γ = surface tension of the liquid (N/m)
θ = contact angle between the liquid and the filter material
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter FP April 2016 Page FP-4 of FP-14
Filter Pore Size and Aerosol Sample Collection
Note that as the pore diameter gets smaller, more air pressure is required for air to bubble
through the ideal filter (Figure 3). Thus, you could take your actual filter and see how much
air pressure is needed to bubble air through it. You could then calculate the pore size of an
ideal filter that requires the same amount of air pressure to form bubbles as does your actual
filter using Equation 1. The pore size of an ideal filter with the same bubble point as your
actual filter is the “equivalent pore diameter” of your filter.
Figure 3: Pore diameter vs. air pressure for ideal filter in bubble-point test. The curve was
calculated with use of water (which has a surface tension of 72.8 mN/m) as the liquid. It is
assumed that the water completely wets the filter material, and thus the contact angle θ =
0°. Calculated using Equation 1.
Two things should be observed at this point. First, because less air pressure is required to push
bubbles through larger openings than through smaller ones, the bubble-point test indicates
the size of the largest pores in the filter, not the average pores. For this reason, the bubble-
point test is useful for quality control checks of filters, since it will indicate if defects or
excessively large pores are present. However, if the filter has a wide range of pore sizes, most
of the pores will be smaller than the equivalent pore diameter determined by this test.
Second, the equivalent pore diameter provides a convenient reference point for describing and
comparing filters of the same type, but not of different types. For example, the openings in a
porous membrane filter with a 5-µm equivalent pore diameter will be somewhat larger than
the openings in a porous membrane filter with a 1-µm equivalent pore diameter. However, the
pore sizes of different types of filters cannot be meaningfully compared; a capillary filter with
a 1-µm pore size bears little resemblance to a porous membrane filter with a 1-µm equivalent
pore diameter.
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter FP April 2016 Page FP-5 of FP-14
Filter Pore Size and Aerosol Sample Collection
When an airstream containing airborne particles passes through a filter, the particles are
collected by five mechanisms (Figure 4):
1) Interception: Interception occurs when a particle moving with the airstream contacts the
filter material. Intercepted particles include those that are bigger than the filter pores
(sieving), and also particles that are smaller than the pores but are carried close enough to
touch the surface of the filter as they follow the airstream. The closer the diameter of the
particle is to the diameter of the opening in the filter, the more likely interception is to
occur. Interception can be very important in the collection of fibers and other irregularly
shaped aerosol particles because an elongated particle is more likely to come in contact
with the filter, especially if it is sideways to the flow or if it is tumbling [Issacs et al. 2005].
2) Impaction: Impaction occurs when the airstream changes direction abruptly and the
inertia of a particle causes it to continue in its original direction and collide with the filter
material. Impaction is analogous to an insect hitting the windshield of a car driving on a
highway: the air molecules can quickly change direction and move up and over the car,
but the inertia of the insect causes it to change direction more slowly and impact the
windshield. The likelihood that a particle will deposit by impaction increases
proportionally with the density, velocity and diameter2 of the particle. Impaction usually
is most important for larger particles (around 1 µm and larger) because of their greater
inertia.
3) Diffusion: Brownian motion causes small aerosol particles to move randomly and disperse
within an airstream. If the particles collide with the filter material, they can deposit on it.
Diffusion is most important for particles of around 0.1 µm and smaller.
4) Electrostatic attraction: Aerosol sampling filters may carry an electrostatic charge, which
can attract charged airborne particles. Charged filter materials can also attract neutral
particles by inducing a dipole within the particle, and charged particles can be attracted to
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter FP April 2016 Page FP-6 of FP-14
Filter Pore Size and Aerosol Sample Collection
neutral filter materials by image forces (forces created when a charged particle induces an
opposite charge in the filter material). This mechanism is especially important for
electret-treated filters (filters treated to have permanent electrostatic charges).
5) Sedimentation: Sedimentation (or settling) occurs when particles fall onto filter materials
because of gravitational forces. Sedimentation is generally significant only for very large
particles, very slow flow velocities, or if the air is flowing downward into the filter.
Because of this, few particles are collected by sedimentation during most workplace
aerosol sampling.
Figure 4: Aerosol particle collection mechanisms. Different types of filters have different
structures but they all collect particles using the mechanisms shown here. The relative
importance of the various collection mechanisms depends upon the size, shape, density
and electrostatic charge of the aerosol particles and the velocity of the air flow through the
filter.
An example of the collection efficiencies due to each mechanism for different aerosol particle
sizes is shown in Figure 5. The effectiveness and relative importance of these mechanisms
depend upon many factors. For example, a higher flow velocity favors impaction by increasing
the momentum of the particles, whereas a lower velocity allows more time for particles to
diffuse to the filter surface. A highly charged filter and/or aerosol will encourage electrostatic
deposition. Fibers and particles with irregular shapes or branching structures are more likely
to be intercepted. The filter collection efficiency remains high for nanoparticles from 10 nm
down to at least 2 nm; it is thought that the collection efficiency for nanoparticles smaller than
2 nm may decrease due to thermal rebound, but this is still being investigated [Givehchi and
Tan 2014; Wang and Tronville 2014].
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter FP April 2016 Page FP-7 of FP-14
Filter Pore Size and Aerosol Sample Collection
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter FP April 2016 Page FP-8 of FP-14
Filter Pore Size and Aerosol Sample Collection
The effect of the structures of these filters and the aerosol particle collection mechanisms that
we have discussed can be seen in Figure 6. This plot shows how well particles of different sizes
are collected by porous membrane filters, which have tortuous flow paths with equivalent
pore diameters of 0.3 and 3 µm, and capillary pore filters with pore diameters of 1 and 3 µm.
Note that for all particle sizes, the collection efficiency was ≥99.7% for the 0.3-µm porous
membrane filter and ≥98.4% for the 3-µm porous membrane filter, even though the test
particles were much smaller than the equivalent pore diameters of the filters. The collection
efficiencies of the capillary pore filters were substantially lower, but these filters were also able
to collect particles much smaller than their pore sizes. This can also be seen in Figure 7, which
shows submicron NaCl aerosol particles collected using a 3-µm porous membrane filter.
These results clearly illustrate that the equivalent pore diameter of a filter does not indicate the
size of the airborne particles that the filter will collect and that the structure of the filter has a
much greater effect on the collection characteristics.
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter FP April 2016 Page FP-9 of FP-14
Filter Pore Size and Aerosol Sample Collection
Figure 7: NaCl aerosol particles collected using a PTFE porous membrane filter with a
3-µm equivalent pore diameter at a face velocity of 8.3 cm/s. As can be seen, particles much
smaller than 3 µm were captured by the filter.
It is also of interest to note that the collection efficiencies of the capillary pore filters decreased
as particle size decreased down to 0.047 and 0.063 µm, and then increased as the particle sizes
decreased further. This phenomenon is seen with other types of filters as well. As seen in
Figure 5, this occurs because impaction decreases as the particle size decreases, which causes
the overall collection efficiency curve to dip downward. However, as particles become even
smaller, diffusion becomes a more important collection mechanism, and the collection
efficiency increases. The particle size for which the collection efficiency is lowest is called the
“most penetrating particle size”, or MPPS. The MPPS for a given filter will vary depending
upon the air flow rate, the electrostatic charges of the particles and the filter, the amount of
particles that are deposited on the filter, and other factors [Lee and Liu 1980; Martin and
Moyer 2000].
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter FP April 2016 Page FP-10 of FP-14
Filter Pore Size and Aerosol Sample Collection
Second, it may be mistakenly thought that two filters with the same stated pore size have the
same particle collection characteristics. In fact this is not at all true for filters of different types,
as seen in Figure 6: the collection efficiency of a porous membrane filter with a given
equivalent pore diameter can be much higher than a capillary pore filter with the same stated
pore size.
Third, a filter with a smaller pore size usually has a higher resistance to flow (and therefore a
higher pressure drop across the filter) than does a filter of the same type with a larger pore size
[Breuer 2012]. Thus, an aerosol sampling pump has to create a stronger vacuum to pull air at
the same flow rate through a filter with a smaller pore size. If a filter with a very small pore
size is selected on the erroneous belief that the small pore size is needed to collect all of the
airborne particles, then the pump may not be able to reach the desired flow rate or may not be
able to maintain the desired flow rate as the filter becomes loaded with particles and the flow
resistance increases. This may cause the collected sample to be smaller than expected. If the
sampling pump is battery powered, its running time may be greatly reduced, and the pump
may even shut down prematurely.
7 Filter selection
Given all of this, what is the best way to select an aerosol filter for a particular application? The
first step is to consider the purpose of the sampling and how the samples will be processed.
For example, polycarbonate capillary pore filters are often used when samples are to be
examined using scanning electron microscopy (SEM). Fibers are typically collected using
mixed cellulose ester filters, which can be rendered transparent for counting by phase-contrast
microscopy. Alkaline dusts are collected using PTFE filters, which allow for analysis by
titration. For gravimetric analysis, filters that are not hygroscopic and that have stable weights,
such as PVC, are needed. The characteristics of the aerosol particles to be collected also
influence the choice of filter. Bioaerosols, for example, may lose viability due to damage or
desiccation when collected onto filters. Liquid aerosol droplets behave in much the same
manner as solid particles while airborne, but once they are collected the liquids can coat the
fibers and coalesce into larger droplets, which can reduce the collection efficiency of a filter
[Charvet et al. 2010; Contal et al. 2004]. In addition, oils can mask the charged regions of
electret-treated filters, which can greatly reduce the collection of particles by electrostatic
mechanisms [Barrett and Rousseau 1998].
The next step is to see if a recommended test method has been published for the aerosol
particles of interest. Organizations such as the National Institute for Occupational Safety and
Health (NIOSH), the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the American Conference of Governmental
Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH), and ASTM International (formerly known as the American
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter FP April 2016 Page FP-11 of FP-14
Filter Pore Size and Aerosol Sample Collection
Society for Testing and Materials) publish test methods for a variety of aerosols that include
the characteristics of the filters to be used. For example, in the NIOSH Manual of Analytical
Methods, Method 0600 for respirable particle sampling specifies the use of a size-selective
cyclone and a “5.0-μm pore size, polyvinyl chloride filter or equivalent hydrophobic
membrane filter supported by a cassette filter holder (preferably conductive.)” The NIOSH
Manual of Analytical Methods also has several chapters discussing different aspects of aerosol
sampling, including general considerations and factors affecting aerosol sampling, sampling
bioaerosols, sampling airborne fibers, sampler wall losses, and avoiding bypass leakage in filter
cassettes [NIOSH 2003; NIOSH 2014].
If a test method is not available, the collection characteristics of different types of filters can be
found in reference texts such as those by Lippmann [2001] and Raynor et al. [2011]. A search
of the scientific literature also can produce the results from the testing of various filters to
collect different kinds of airborne particles. For example, information on the flow resistance of
many types of filters and sampling tubes can be found in Breuer [2012], and Soo et al. [2016]
recently tested 29 commercially available aerosol filters and reported their flow resistances and
collection efficiencies. Filter manufacturers often provide data on the collection characteristics
of their filters and on recommended filters for various applications. Finally, it is important to
note that filter collection performance can vary with the flow rate and aerosol particle
characteristics as well as the filter type and manufacturer. Thus, care should be taken when
applying results from one sampling situation to a different set of conditions.
8 Conclusion
The equivalent pore diameter provides a helpful way to categorize filters and to test for
consistency in filter characteristics. However, it should not be construed as an indication of
the sizes of aerosol particles that will be collected by the filters. A better understanding of the
meaning of the term pore size, the structures of the different types of filters, and the
mechanisms by which aerosol particles are collected will help in selecting a filter for a
particular application and to correctly interpret the results of aerosol sampling.
Acknowledgements
The author thanks Giles Barton of GE Healthcare and Leonid Turkevich, Nancy Burton,
Stephen Martin and Seleen Collins of NIOSH for their advice and assistance. The filter images
were taken by Diane Schwegler-Berry of NIOSH.
Disclaimer
Mention of any company or product does not constitute endorsement by NIOSH. In addition,
citations to websites external to NIOSH do not constitute NIOSH endorsement of the
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter FP April 2016 Page FP-12 of FP-14
Filter Pore Size and Aerosol Sample Collection
sponsoring organizations or their programs or products. Furthermore, NIOSH is not
responsible for the content of these websites. All web addresses referenced in this document
were accessible as of the publication date.
9 References
ASTM [2011]. Standard test methods for pore size characteristics of membrane filters by
bubble point and mean flow pore test. ASTM F316 - 03(2011). West Conshohocken, PA:
ASTM.
Barrett LW, Rousseau AD [1998]. Aerosol loading performance of electret filter media. AIHA
J 59(8):532-539.
Breuer D [2012]. Flow resistance of samplers for personal monitoring in work areas and
requirements for sampling pump performance. J Occup Environ Hyg 9(2):D25–D32.
Brock TD [1983]. Membrane filtration: a user's guide and reference manual. Madison, WI:
Science Tech.
Burton NC, Grinshpun SA, Reponen T [2007]. Physical collection efficiency of filter materials
for bacteria and viruses. Ann Occup Hyg 51(2):143–151.
Contal P, Simao J, Thomas D, Frising T, Callé S, Appert-Collin JC, Bémer D [2004]. Clogging
of fibre filters by submicron droplets. Phenomena and influence of operating conditions. J
Aerosol Sci 35(2):263-278.
Isaacs KK, Rosati JA, Martonen TB [2005]. Mechanisms of particle deposition. In: Ruzer LS,
Harley NH, eds. Aerosols Handbook Measurement, Dosimetry, and Health Effects. Boca
Raton, FL: CRC Press, pp. 75-99.
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter FP April 2016 Page FP-13 of FP-14
Filter Pore Size and Aerosol Sample Collection
Lee KW, Liu BYH [1980]. On the minimum efficiency and the most penetrating particle size
for fibrous filters. Journal of the Air Pollution Control Association 30(4): 377-381.
Lippmann M [2001]. Filters and Filter Holders. In: Cohen BS, McCammon CS Jr., eds. Air
Sampling Instruments for Evaluation of Atmospheric Contaminants. Cincinnati, OH:
American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists, pp. 281-314.
Martin SB Jr., Moyer ES [2000]. Electrostatic respirator filter media: filter efficiency and most
penetrating particle size effects. Appl Occup Environ Hyg 15(8):609-617.
NIOSH [2003]. NIOSH manual of analytical methods (NMAM). 4th ed., 3rd supplement.
Schlecht PC, O’Connor PF, eds. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational
Safety and Health, DHHS (NIOSH) Publication 2003-154
[http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/2003-154/].
NIOSH [2014]. NIOSH manual of analytical methods (NMAM). 5th ed. Ashley K, O’Connor
PF, eds. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, DHHS
(NIOSH) Publication No. 2014-151 [http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/nmam/].
Raynor PC, Leith D, Lee KW, Mukund R [2011]. Sampling and analysis using filters. In:
Kulkarni P, Baron PA, Willeke K, eds. Aerosol measurement : principles, techniques, and
applications. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, pp. 107-128.
Soo J-C, Monaghan K, Lee T, Kashon M, Harper M [2016]. Air sampling filtration media:
Collection efficiency for respirable size-selective sampling. Aerosol Sci Technol 50(1):76-87.
Wang J, Tronville P [2014]. Toward standardized test methods to determine the effectiveness
of filtration media against airborne nanoparticles. Journal of Nanoparticle Research 16(6):1-
33.
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter FP April 2016 Page FP-14 of FP-14
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods (NMAM), 5th Edition
Measurement of Fibers
by Paul A. Baron, Ph.D., NIOSH
Adapted from Baron [2001]
The NMAM team gratefully acknowledges Chen Wang, Joe Fernback and Alan Dozier for
insightful review of this chapter.
1 Introduction FI-2
2 Fiber dimensions FI-5
3 Phase contrasting light microscope counting (PCM) FI-6
4 Polarizing light microscopy (PLM) of bulk materials FI-14
5 Electron microscopy FI-17
6 Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) FI-18
7 Transmission electron microscopy (TEM) FI-18
8 Optical detection (light scattering) FI-20
9 Fiber classification FI-21
10 Conclusions FI-22
11 References FI-23
1 Introduction
Fiber-related disease has provided much of the impetus for fiber research in recent years.
Asbestos has been the fiber type most commonly associated with disease. The name “asbestos”
is a commercial term applied to the fibrous forms of several minerals that have been used for
similar purposes and includes chrysotile, amosite, crocidolite, and the fibrous forms of
tremolite, anthophyllite, and actinolite. The three primary diseases associated with asbestos
exposure are asbestosis, the result of inflammation and collagen formation in lung tissue; lung
cancer; and mesothelioma, an otherwise rare form of cancer associated with the lining
surrounding the lungs. A current theory describing the toxicity of fibers indicates that fiber
dose, fiber dimension, and fiber durability in lung fluid are the three primary factors
determining fiber toxicity [Lippmann 1990].
The dose, or number of fibers deposited in the lungs, is clearly an important factor in
determining the likelihood of disease. Both fiber diameter and length are important in the
deposition of fibers in the lungs and how long they are likely to remain in the lungs. Figure 1
indicates some of the factors that determine fiber deposition and removal in the lungs. Fiber
length is thought to be important because the macrophages that normally remove particles
from the lungs cannot engulf fibers having lengths greater than the macrophage diameter.
Thus, longer fibers are more likely to remain in the lungs for an extended period of time. The
macrophages die in the process of trying to engulf the fibers and release inflammatory
cytokines and other chemicals into the lungs [Blake et al. 1997]. This and other cellular
interactions with the fibers appear to trigger the collagen buildup in the lungs known as
fibrosis or asbestosis and, over a longer period, produce cancer as well. Fiber diameter is also
important because fiber aerodynamic behavior indicates that only small diameter fibers are
likely to reach into and deposit in the airways of the lungs. The smaller the fiber diameter, the
greater its likelihood of reaching the gas exchange regions. Finally, fibers that dissolve in lung
fluid in a matter of weeks or months, such as certain glass fibers, appear to be somewhat less
toxic than more insoluble fibers. The surface properties of fibers are also thought to have an
effect on toxicity. Asbestos is one of the most widely studied toxic materials and there have
been many symposia dedicated to and reviews of its behavior in humans and animals [Selikoff
and Lee 1978; Rajhans and Sullivan 1981; WHO 1986; ATSDR 1990; Dement 1990].
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter FI April 2016 Page FI-2 of FI-31
Measurement of Fibers
Figure 1. Schematic of mechanisms that affect fiber deposition and retention in the lungs.
The deposition depends on all the indicated parameters in a complex fashion. However,
larger diameter particles are affected more by gravitational settling, impaction, and
interception, resulting in greater deposition further up in the respiratory tract. The saddle
points, or carinae, in the branching respiratory tree are often a focal point for deposition of
larger diameter fibers. Smaller diameter particles are affected more by diffusion and can
collect in the smaller airways and gas exchange region (alveoli). Particle removal from the
lungs is primarily effected by the cilia coating the non-gas exchange regions of the lungs; the
cilia push mucus produced in the lungs and any particles trapped in the mucus out of the
lung and into the gastrointestinal tract in a matter of hours or days. Some fibers are
sufficiently soluble in lung fluid that they can disappear in a matter of months. Finally, white
blood cells or macrophages roam the gas exchange regions and ingest particles deposited
there for removal through the lymph system. Human macrophages are approximately 17 µm
in diameter and can only ingest particles smaller than they are. Therefore, thin fibers are
likely to deposit in the gas exchange region and, of these, the long insoluble fibers can remain
in the lungs indefinitely.
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter FI April 2016 Page FI-3 of FI-31
Measurement of Fibers
Several techniques were used for asbestos measurement up until the late 1960s [Rajhans and
Sullivan 1981]. Earlier than this, it was not widely recognized that the fibrous nature of
asbestos was intimately related to its toxicity, so many techniques involved collection of
airborne particles and counting all large particles at low magnification by optical microscopy.
Thermal precipitators, impactors (konimeters), impingers, and electrostatic precipitators were
all used to sample asbestos. Perhaps the primary technique in the United States (US) and the
United Kingdom (UK) during this early period was the liquid impinger, in which particles of
dust larger than about 1-µm aerodynamic diameter were sampled at 2.7 L/min and impacted
into a liquid reservoir [Rajhans and Sullivan 1981]. After sampling, an aliquot of the liquid
was placed on a slide in a special cell, particles larger than 5-µm size were counted, and the
results were reported in millions of particles per cubic foot. Dissatisfaction with this approach
stemmed from lack of correlation between measured particle concentration and disease in the
workplace. Various indices of exposure have been developed that attempt to relate a portion
of the fiber size distribution to the toxic effects. The appropriate indices for each of the
asbestos related diseases as a function of fiber length and diameter (Figure 2) were suggested
by Lippmann [Lippmann 1988].
Figure 2. Comparison of proposed size ranges of asbestos fibers causing specific diseases
compared with the fiber sizes detected using TEM and PCM techniques. Lung cancer and
mesothelioma are more likely to occur at current occupational and environmental levels
than asbestosis. PCM can cover only a portion of the total fiber distribution; PCM is used
as an indicator of total exposure. TEM can cover the entire size range, but most methods
emphasize one size range over another through selection of magnification and counting
rules.
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter FI April 2016 Page FI-4 of FI-31
Measurement of Fibers
2 Fiber dimensions
Fibers are particles that have one dimension significantly larger than the other two. Fibers are
often characterized or selected according to their aspect ratio, i.e., the ratio of the large
dimension to one of the small dimensions. If no other criteria are used, then materials that
might not normally be considered fibrous may contain a fraction of particles that meet the
criteria for fibers. The distribution of fiber dimensions in a sample can usually be
characterized by assuming a cylindrical geometry (i.e., the two small dimensions are identical)
and measuring the length and diameter of individual fibers. The distribution of airborne fiber
sizes generated by grinding bulk material or by mechanically releasing particles into the air
often results in a two-dimensional (bivariate) lognormal distribution. Such a distribution is
characterized by five parameters: the geometric mean length, the geometric mean diameter,
the length and diameter geometric standard deviations, and a correlation term that relates
length to diameter [Schneider et al. 1983]. In addition, several other parameters that are a
function of length and diameter, such as aerodynamic diameter, can also be characterized by a
lognormal distribution [Cheng 1986].
Often the discussion of fibers assumes that fibers are straight objects that can be well defined
by several parameters as indicated above. However, many real-world particles are not so
simple to describe. In fact, the detailed features of many fibers can aid in their identification
[McCrone 1980]. Fibers are often curved, have splayed ends, or differ in other ways from a
cylindrical shape. Asbestos mineral is composed of fibrils (about 0.03-µm diameter) that are
packed together. This fibrillar structure is characteristic of asbestiform minerals. When the
mineral is broken apart mechanically, the material separates primarily between fibrils and the
resulting fibers are usually bundles of fibrils. The ends of the fibers can be broken apart, with
smaller bundles or individual fibrils spread apart, yet still be part of the fiber. Fibers can be
contaminated by attachment of other dust particles, creating a complex structure with
aerodynamic behavior not matching that of cylindrical fibers. The complexity of fiber shapes
affects all of the measurement and separation techniques described below and frequently
makes it difficult to compare one method to another.
In addition to asbestos fibers, there are many types of fibrous materials being produced for
commercial purposes. These include fibrous glass, mineral wool, refractory ceramic fibers,
wood and other plant fibers, and synthetic organic fibers. Most of these fibers tend to have
larger diameters than asbestos fibers. On the other hand, carbon nanotubes (CNTs)
(<0.005um diameter) have recently been produced in small-scale commercial quantities and
because of their high tensile strength, high conductivity, and other special properties, show
great promise as a commercial material [Liu et al. 1998]. Unlike asbestos fibers, which have
discrete lengths and diameters (i.e., aspect ratios), CNTs occur mainly as entangled particle
agglomerates and may contain varying amounts of amorphous carbon and residual catalyst
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter FI April 2016 Page FI-5 of FI-31
Measurement of Fibers
metal. The complexity and variety of structures makes CNT particle counting a challenge.
Measurement techniques must be tailored to the size distribution and physicochemical
properties of these materials.
This review primarily relates to measurement of fibers in air. There are several techniques that
address concentration of asbestos and other fibers in bulk material and measurement of mass
concentration of fibers [Beard and Rook 2001]. One of these bulk methods, polarizing light
microscopy, will be discussed below.
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter FI April 2016 Page FI-6 of FI-31
Measurement of Fibers
a. Microscope-related parameters
1.) Microscope magnification
The exact level of microscope magnification depends on microscope design, but most
current methods use 450X (±10%) total magnification. Pang and coworkers
investigated 1250X magnification to improve fiber detectability, but this has not been
adopted in any established methods [Pang et al. 1989]. Pang also investigated the effect
of using lower magnification (400X) and found that counts were lower for chrysotile
asbestos by 25%, but that amosite fiber counts were unaffected [Pang 2000].
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter FI April 2016 Page FI-7 of FI-31
Measurement of Fibers
smaller than 0.8 µm are only used with line-operated pumps because of limited suction
power available with personal sampling pumps.
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter FI April 2016 Page FI-8 of FI-31
Measurement of Fibers
fibrous particles in occupational settings. There has been a great deal of controversy
over these rules. The use of a longer fiber cutoff, e.g., 15-20 µm, has been suggested,
based on two separate arguments: first, that most asbestos fibers are relatively long and
thin (with high aspect ratio) and the longer fiber cutoff would discriminate better
toward fibers that were truly asbestos fibers according to mineralogical definitions
[Wylie 1979]; and second, that fibers that enter the lungs are removed readily by
macrophages if they are shorter than about 15 µm [Blake et al. 1997]. Longer fibers
cannot readily be engulfed by macrophages, thus staying in the lungs for a long period
and causing continuing fibrosis.
The aspect ratio criterion has also been questioned because many non-asbestiform
particles have shape distributions that include particles with aspect ratios greater than
3:1. Since asbestos and other minerals often contain single crystal particles not in the
asbestiform habit, it has been argued that these single crystals, or cleavage fragments,
should not be counted. However, the Occupational Health and Safety Administration
(OHSA) has supported the 3:1 minimum aspect ratio through legal precedent. The
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) has noted that because
of the great difficulty in differentiating whether individual high aspect ratio particles
are cleavage fragments or asbestiform fibers, all such particles should be counted.
These high aspect ratio particles may cause disease whether or not they are
asbestiform.
Other aspects of fiber counting have been investigated, including how to count non-
standard fiber shapes, overlapping fibers, overlapping compact particles on fibers, and
bundles of fibers. Each of these factors can have a noticeable effect on the final count.
Cowie and Crawford investigated the effect of some of these factors and estimated
most of them made a difference in the final count on the order of 20% [Cowie and
Crawford 1982]. Many of the methods currently in use have slight variations in their
interpretation of which fibers to count and thus can contribute to variation in results
between countries and organizations.
NIOSH Method 7400 contains two sets of counting rules, the A and the B rules. The A
rules are used for asbestos and are consistent with counting rules in previous NIOSH
methods. The A rules are required for asbestos counting by OSHA because of legal
precedent in regard to the 3:1 aspect ratio rule. The A rules do not have an upper
diameter limit for fibers to be counted. The B rules were introduced as an alternative
to the A rules when Cowie and Crawford found that these rules agreed best with
previous PCM counts, yet had improved precision [Cowie and Crawford 1982]. The B
rules have been informally adopted for use with fibers other than asbestos because
these rules include the upper diameter limit of 3 µm. This upper diameter limit
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter FI April 2016 Page FI-9 of FI-31
Measurement of Fibers
significantly reduces the counting of typically large-diameter fibers, e.g., glass and
cellulose, which are unlikely to deposit in the lungs [Breysse et al. 1999].
One of the difficulties in analyzing errors made by analysts during PCM counting is
that individual fields are difficult to relocate after the analyst has finished counting a
slide. Differences in counts between analysts have often been ascribed to local
variations in loading on the filter. Pang’s development of a slide coverslip that defines
counting areas on the sample solves this problem [Pang 2000]. Areas on the coverslip
are vacuum coated with a thin layer of gold and platinum using an electron
microscope grid as a mask. This leaves defined areas on the coverslip that can be
located by grid index marks. Thus, specific fields in a sample can be readily located.
Using this grid mapping approach, the location, orientation and shape of each fiber
can be noted and differences in counts can be reconciled on a fiber-by-fiber basis. The
coverslips have been used to study fiber counting accuracy by comparing routine
counting of specified fields to counts agreed upon by a group of competent counters. It
was found that the principal errors for chrysotile fiber samples were due to missing
fibers close to the visibility limit, while the principal errors for amosite fiber samples
were caused by incorrectly sizing fiber length near the 5-µm limit. The chrysotile
samples were therefore typically undercounted (negative bias), while the amosite
samples had increased variability with individual counters being biased either high or
low. Both these errors can be reduced by training counters with pre-counted reference
slides prepared using Pang’s coverslips [Pang 2000] (Omega Specialty Instrument Co.
Chelmsford MA). In addition, these reference slides can be used on a routine basis to
ensure consistency in counting. These coverslips or modified versions show great
promise for training analysts and perhaps for improving quality assurance schemes.
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter FI April 2016 Page FI-10 of FI-31
Measurement of Fibers
[Abell et al. 1989]. To fulfill Method 7400 requirements for an interlaboratory sample
exchange, Tombes and Calpin have described a simple approach using appropriate
statistical tests [Tombes and Calpin 2002].
Several PCM fiber counting methods have been published by national [NHMRC 1976;
HSE 1990] and international organizations [Asbestos International Association 1979;
WHO 1997]. Most countries have methods very similar to the ones referenced here.
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter FI April 2016 Page FI-11 of FI-31
Measurement of Fibers
The approach assumes that one wishes to select sampling parameters in order to have a
high degree of confidence that a target exposure standard (e.g. NIOSH REL, OSHA PEL,
EPA clearance standard) is met.
Several factors need to be established in order to perform this calculation if the target
exposure standard involves clearance monitoring. The U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) authorizes the use of PCM for some clearance monitoring applications and
specifies that a level of 0.01 fibers/mL be met. On the method synopsis page, Method 7400
indicates that the limit of detection (LOD) for PCM analysis is 5.5 fibers/100 fields. This is
based on intralaboratory variability. A major difference between Method 7400 and other
analytical methods in the NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods (NMAM) is that there is
no reference method for Method 7400. Therefore, the consensus mean is the “true” value
and the interlaboratory results effectively define the method accuracy. Under the heading
“Evaluation of Method, B. Interlaboratory comparability,” Method 7400 provides a means
of calculating the confidence limits on a single analysis result (Equations 3 and 4). From
Equation 3, the interlaboratory variability at the LOD is such that the upper 95%
confidence limit on a measured value is 300% greater than (or 4 times) the measured
value.
Using the upper confidence limit, the equation in Section 21 in Method 7400 can be used
to estimate the sampling volume.
Solving this equation for sampling volume gives 1080 L. This is the minimum volume that
will give a result allowing a single sample to indicate compliance with the 0.01 fiber/mL
limit with 95% confidence. It requires that the sample give a result less than or equal to the
LOD or 5.5 fibers per 100 fields. A higher fiber count may still indicate that the
concentration meets the target level, but not with the same level of confidence. This is
likely to be a conservative estimate of concentration and additionally ensure compliance
with the standard because the fiber concentration is low and, as indicated above, low fiber
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter FI April 2016 Page FI-12 of FI-31
Measurement of Fibers
loadings are usually overestimated. However, the background concentration of non-
fibrous dust on the filter also must be low to ensure that fibers are not obscured.
f. Other techniques
Since fiber counting by human analysts produces relatively high biases and variability,
several researchers have attempted to develop automated counting systems. With the
increases in computer power over the last 25 years, it has been tempting to assume that
fiber counting is a solvable problem and significant efforts have been made to develop
such a system. The most intensive effort to produce a fiber counting system was carried
out by Manchester University in collaboration with the Health and Safety Executive in the
UK [Kenny 1984]. The Manchester Asbestos Program (MAP) was able to give reasonably
good agreement with human counters for certain types of samples. It was used as a
reference analyst for the US and UK reference sample programs for several years.
Eventually, the MAP was dropped as the reference because it was not sufficiently
consistent for all types of samples.
The principle problems with image analysis of asbestos fibers include: the complexity of
many fiber shapes, including bundles, agglomerates, and split fibers; the fibers often go in
and out of the plane of focus; the background includes many particles and other non-
fibrous shapes; the phase contrast optics produces haloes around particles in the sample
that can be detected as fibers; and finally, and perhaps most importantly, the contrast
between the fibers and background is poor and many fibers are near the detection
threshold. An evaluation of the MAP program indicated that a significant fraction of the
fibers were misidentified as multiple fibers, not detected at all, and groups of compact
particles or edges of large particles were detected as fibers [Baron and Shulman 1987].
Inoue and coworkers have more recently developed image analysis software using a
microprocessor-based PC [Inoue et al. 1998]. Initial tests indicate that it works
approximately as well as human counters. Inoue also evaluated how well human counters
and the image analyzer did in detecting the same fibers in a sample and found that only
about 50% of the fibers were consistently counted by all counters, so the image analysis
system did approximately as well as the human counters [Inoue et al. 1999]. Further
testing of the image analysis system is needed.
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter FI April 2016 Page FI-13 of FI-31
Measurement of Fibers
Several PLM techniques are used for identifying fiber type as well as semi-quantifying the
percent fibrous material (usually asbestos) in a sample [McCrone et al. 1978; Middleton 1979;
Asbestos-containing materials, 1990; Perkins and Harvey 1993; NIOSH 1994a]. These
techniques depend on particle shape, the refractive index, and other optical properties of
individual particles. Many of these PLM techniques require visual observation of color in the
fiber and become less reliable for fibers thinner than about 1 µm [Vaughan et al. 1981].
a. Sampling
Several procedures have been suggested for obtaining representative bulk samples of ACM
in a fashion that prevents unnecessary exposure to asbestos aerosol [EPA 1985a,b;
Jankovic 1985]. Representative sampling of commercial ACM materials is often
problematic; these materials may vary significantly in asbestos concentration between
nearby locations and even at different depths at the same location. Sampling from
multiple locations and compositing samples helps improve the likelihood of obtaining a
representative sample.
The material should be wetted or sealed during sample removal. A small coring device,
such as a cork borer, can be used to obtain a sample from the full depth of the material. At
least three samples per 1000 ft2 of ACM should be taken [Asbestos-containing materials,
1987]. The sample should be placed in a well-sealed, rugged container. Finally, the
sampled area should be repaired or sealed to minimize further fiber release.
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter FI April 2016 Page FI-14 of FI-31
Measurement of Fibers
Surface sampling has been proposed by several groups, but there is no relationship
between airborne fibers and those found on surfaces [Chatfield 2000]. Therefore, surface
sampling for fibers is not recommended.
Some materials that interfere with accurate fiber identification either by their similarity or
by covering up the fibers can be removed by physical treatment of the sample. For
instance, organic materials, such as cellulose fibers or diesel soot can be removed by low
temperature, oxygen-plasma ashing [Baron and Platek 1990]. Leather fibers and chrysotile
have a similar appearance and refractive index. The leather can be removed by ashing at
400°C [Churchyard and Copeland 1988].
Fiber morphology, i.e. the structure and shape of the fiber, can be used to assist in its
identification. Morphology of fibers can give some indication of fiber type. For instance,
chrysotile fibers tend to be curly, while amphibole fibers are straight, especially when they
are shorter than 50 µm. Asbestos fibers often have frayed or split ends, while glass or
mineral wool fibers are typically straight or slightly curved with fractured or bulbous ends.
Many plant fibers are flattened and twisted, with diameters between 5-20 µm. Note that it
is not recommended to base identification solely on morphology.
Fiber refractive index and other crystalline properties can be used to identify fiber type
with reasonable certainty. Several techniques for determining these properties can be used
in a polarizing light microscope. When viewed in the microscope with crossed polarizing
filters, isotropic (isometric or amorphous) fibers appear consistently bright when rotated,
while anisotropic (uni- or biaxial crystal structure) fibers appear bright, but disappear
when rotated to their extinction angle, which is a function of crystal structure. Thus,
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter FI April 2016 Page FI-15 of FI-31
Measurement of Fibers
amorphous materials such as glass or mineral wool fibers can easily be discriminated from
asbestos.
During PLM analysis, fibers are immersed in a fluid selected to have a known refractive
index. When a fiber has a larger refractive index than the surrounding fluid medium, the
bright halo (Becke line) around that fiber appears to move into it as the microscope focus
is raised; when the fiber has a smaller refractive index, the Becke line moves out of it.
Placing the fibrous material into several different refractive index fluids allows the fiber
refractive index to be bracketed.
Dispersion, or refractive index change with wavelength, of a fiber can be used for
identification. When particles are placed in a liquid whose dispersion is different from that
of the particle, the particle may exhibit a color caused by the refraction of light. This
technique requires the use of special "dispersion staining" optics. By using several
refractive index liquids in series, the refractive index and the dispersion of the fiber can be
established and compared with those of standard materials or published data [McCrone
1980].
Once the sample has been uniformly dispersed on a slide in the appropriate refractive
index liquid, specific fiber types, e.g., asbestos, can be identified and the percent fibers
estimated. Two approaches are typically used: visual comparison with prepared reference
slides or pictures and point counting. When attempting to estimate whether a material is
ACM (i.e., > 1% asbestos), the visual comparison technique is adequate when more than
about 10% of the particles observed are asbestos. Point counting is used for lower
concentration samples to provide higher accuracy [EPA 1990a]. It involves observing 400
or more randomly selected "points" (identified with a reticle crosshair) in the sample. The
number of points containing asbestos is divided by the total number of points observed to
give the percent asbestos. A combination of these approaches balances the analysis time
and accuracy of the results [Webber et al. 1990].
PLM also can be used for qualitative analysis of air sample filters by collapsing the filter
and using low temperature plasma etching of the surface to expose the fibers. Various
refractive index liquids can then be placed on the etched surface to surround the fibers,
allowing techniques noted above to be used [Vaughan et al. 1981]. The smallest fibers that
can be identified by this method are about 1-µm diameter.
c. Accuracy
PLM analysis is primarily used for qualitative identification of fiber type. Accurate
identification of asbestos and other fibers requires proper training in the crystallographic
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter FI April 2016 Page FI-16 of FI-31
Measurement of Fibers
properties of particles as well as training and familiarization with the PLM. As with fiber
counting, a laboratory quality assurance program is necessary to ensure consistently
accurate results. The National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program (NVLAP)
operated by the National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST) inspects
laboratories for proper practice as well as providing unknown samples four times a year to
check their performance in fiber identification. Under a predecessor to this program,
approximately 350 laboratories correctly classified 98.5% of the samples as asbestos and
correctly identified the specific asbestos types in approximately 97% of the samples. A
blind test of 51 laboratories resulted in 97.5% correct classifications and 79.1% correct
identifications [EPA 1986]. The American Industrial Hygiene Association Proficiency
Analytical Testing Program provides similar PLM audit samples to laboratories. Some
common interferences for bulk analysis by PLM include sepiolite, vermiculite, and
cleavage fragments of non-asbestos amphiboles.
PLM has been cast in a quantitative measurement role by the EPA requirement of
determining whether a school building material meets the 1% asbestos level defining
ACM. Many variables including particle size, density and shape are not adequately
controlled or measured in the analysis and contribute to errors in the percent mass
estimate. Thus, PLM analysis is at best a semi-quantitative technique.
Chatfield indicated that the accuracy of PLM for low concentrations of asbestos was poor
and described a set of procedures that concentrated the asbestos into a weighable fraction
[Chatfield 2000]. An EPA report describes, in addition to the PLM and Chatfield’s
gravimetry methods, a TEM and an x-ray diffraction method for bulk analysis of asbestos
[Chatfield 2000]. NIOSH Method 9000 describes an x-ray diffraction method for
chrysotile [NIOSH 1994c].
5 Electron microscopy
Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) has not been the focus of as much method development
as either light microscopy or transmission electron microscopy (TEM). PCM found favor
because of the low equipment cost and lower training level required for analysis. TEM is
preferred for environmental and research studies because it offers the highest resolution and
the most positive identification capabilities. TEM allows visibility of all asbestos fibers down
to the individual fibrils, electron diffraction for crystal structure identification, and energy
dispersive x-ray analysis for elemental measurement. SEM has intermediate resolution, with
many instruments of this type not able to see all asbestos fibers. However, many modern
SEMs have the capability of detecting asbestos fibrils, though contrast with background may
be poor for some fiber types, especially if a high contrast substrate is not used. Energy
dispersive x-ray analysis is also available for many SEMs, providing some qualitative
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter FI April 2016 Page FI-17 of FI-31
Measurement of Fibers
information of fiber type. However, since electron diffraction typically cannot be performed
by SEM, this often leaves open the question of positive identification of fibers.
There have been some SEM methods developed for fiber counting [Asbestos International
Association 1984; WHO 1985; ASTM 1996; ISO 2002]. These methods are primarily used for
inorganic man-made fibers that have larger diameter fibers than can occur with asbestos.
Thus, all the fibers are potentially visible using the SEM.
Airborne fiber samples for TEM analysis are typically collected onto a filter, usually a
polycarbonate membrane or MCE membrane filter. For the latter filter type, the filter is
chemically collapsed to form a smooth upper surface on which collected fibers are trapped.
Sometimes the surface is etched using a low temperature asher to expose the fibers collected
on or near the surface of the original filter. The filter is coated with a carbon film that entraps
fibers exposed on the filter surface and the filter material is then dissolved away. The carbon
film is transferred to a TEM grid (usually 3-mm diameter) and the sample can be placed in the
TEM for analysis.
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter FI April 2016 Page FI-18 of FI-31
Measurement of Fibers
For Method 7402, the surface is not ashed because some fibers, e.g., cellulose, may be removed
and give an inaccurate total fiber count [Baron and Platek 1990]. Ashing can thus affect the
measurement of the asbestos fiber fraction.
The above approach to preparing MCE filters for TEM analysis is called the direct-transfer
approach, since fibers are transferred to the carbon film with minimum disturbance to the
way they were collected. An alternative technique is to dissolve the entire filter in liquid,
ultrasonicate the suspension to disperse the particles, and deposit an aliquot of the particle
suspension onto a polycarbonate filter for final transfer to the carbon film. This is called the
indirect-transfer technique. With the indirect technique, the optimum particle loading of the
TEM sample can be obtained and soluble particles can be removed from the sample. However,
the suspension process can change the apparent size distribution of the particles and fibers by
breaking apart agglomerates or even breaking apart asbestos fibers into smaller fibers or fibrils
[Sahle and Laszlo 1996]. The breakup problem can be especially severe for chrysotile, causing
a large increase in fiber count. Quality assurance is especially important with TEM analysis of
fibers. The NVLAP program provides quality assurance accreditation for laboratories
performing TEM analysis using the Environmental Protection Agency’s Asbestos Hazard
Emergency Response Act (AHERA) method. Note that data provided under the AHERA
method, because of significant differences in counting rules, the types of structures counted as
asbestos, and the size range of fibers, cannot be directly compared with counts by Methods
7400 or 7402.
The process of sample collection and preparation is a complex one that can introduce biases
into the final measurement. Since only small portions of the filter are measured during TEM
analysis, sampled fibers that deposit non-uniformly onto the filter due to inertial,
gravitational, and electrostatic effects will be measured inaccurately [Chen and Baron 1996].
Fibers that penetrate the filter surface and are not transferred to the carbon film will be lost. If
the filter is incompletely dissolved away from the carbon film, the sample will be difficult to
analyze.
Many of the sources of bias and variability noted in sampling and counting by PCM also apply
to TEM analysis. Fiber counting in a TEM can also introduce biases and variability in the final
result. There is a tendency to use the high magnification of the TEM to look for the smallest
fibers, while ignoring some of the larger ones. Even so, fibers shorter than 0.5 µm tend to be
missed because they are difficult to see in the background clutter of the sample [Steel and
Small 1985]. Taylor et al. found that TEM counting gave poorer precision than counting the
same sample by PCM and recommended that the fraction of asbestos fibers counted by TEM
be applied to the PCM count as indicated in Method 7402 [Taylor et al. 1984]. This combined
PCM/TEM approach gave better precision than counting by TEM alone.
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter FI April 2016 Page FI-19 of FI-31
Measurement of Fibers
In addition to recognizing fibrous shape and structure of the several asbestos minerals,
qualitative analysis of fibers by TEM primarily involves two techniques, energy dispersive x-
ray analysis and electron diffraction. X-ray analysis produces responses for each of the
elements (typically atomic number > 6, but is instrument dependent) present in a particle; the
responses occur as peaks in an energy spectrum. Specific asbestos minerals can be identified
using peak intensity ratios observed in standard samples and as specified in the method.
The crystal structure of individual fibers is evaluated using electron diffraction. Focusing the
TEM electron beam on a single fiber produces a diffraction pattern consisting of a number of
spots. The spot locations depend not only on the particle crystal structure, but also on the
geometry of the electron beam optics and other instrumental parameters. The diffraction spot
locations relative to one another give a very specific identification of crystal structure. For
easily recognized minerals, such as chrysotile, the visual identification of the diffraction
pattern is often sufficient. However, to identify fibers not fitting the x-ray analysis pattern for
standard asbestos minerals, careful measurement, or indexing, of the diffraction spots is
important.
The combination of x-ray analysis and electron diffraction gives a highly definitive
identification of specific minerals. However, as with any analytical methods, there are
exceptions that require greater expertise to recognize potential interferences. Some minerals
that are difficult to differentiate from regulated asbestos minerals include non-regulated
amphiboles and fibrous talcs. There are several established methods for analyzing fibers,
especially asbestos fibers, by TEM [Asbestos-containing materials, 1987; NIOSH 1994b; ISO
1995, 1999; ASTM 1998].
The fibrous aerosol monitor (Model FM-7400, MIE, Inc. Bedford MA) used an electrostatic
alignment technique by applying a field that aligns and rotates individual fibers in a laser
beam. The light scattered from the fibers uniquely identified the presence of individual fibers.
This allowed specific detection of fibers [Lilienfeld et al. 1979] and was even used to measure
fiber length [Marijnissen et al. 1996].
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter FI April 2016 Page FI-20 of FI-31
Measurement of Fibers
Several field tests have indicated that the fibrous aerosol monitor agrees reasonably well with
field measurements of fibers by phase contrast microscopy, though mostly at concentrations
above ambient levels. It has been used at abatement sites to provide rapid feedback and ensure
acceptable containment of airborne fibers during asbestos removal.
9 Fiber classification
Several devices have been used to measure or separate fibers by diameter. A spiral centrifuge
was used to separate fibers and reference spherical particles to estimate fiber aerodynamic
diameter [Stöber 1972]. It was found that the aerodynamic diameter was directly proportional
to physical diameter, proportional to the square root of the fiber density, and proportional to
fiber length to the 1/6th power. For mineral fibers having a density of about 3 g/cm3, the
aerodynamic diameter was approximately three to five times the physical diameter of the
fiber. Behavior of glass fibers in a cascade impactor was investigated by Burke and Esmen
[Burke and Esmen 1978]. A small correction to the aerodynamic diameter was developed to
take into account interception of longer fibers with the impaction surface. An inertial
spectrometer was used to measure fiber aerodynamic diameter and good diameter separation
was achieved [Morigi et al. 1999]. Baron and Deye developed a technique for separating fibers
by length using dielectrophoresis [Baron et al. 1994; Deye et al. 1999]. This technique was also
shown to be useful for measuring fiber length and diameter distributions [Baron et al. 2000].
As with most airborne dusts, fiber settling will reduce the number of larger diameter fibers in
a distribution as the distance from the source of the dust increases. Esmen et al. showed that
average fiber concentration in workplaces decreased exponentially with an increase of fiber
diameter, indicating that the larger diameter fibers settled out more quickly than smaller
diameter fibers [Esmen et al. 1979]. Cyclones, impactors and porous foam classifiers were
evaluated for efficiency of removing airborne fibers not likely to deposit in the lungs
[Maynard 1996].
The aerodynamic diameter of fibers is dependent primarily on fiber physical diameter and
fiber density, with a minor dependence on fiber length [Baron 1996]. The diseases caused by
asbestos fibers are lung diseases and so it makes sense to measure only fibers that can enter the
lungs, i.e., thoracic fibers. Identical conventions for thoracic samplers have been published by
ISO, ACGIH [ACGIH 2002], and CEN. Baron [Baron 1996] showed that sampling fibers with
a thoracic sampler was approximately equivalent to counting only mineral fibers with a
physical diameter smaller than 3 µm. Jones et al. [Jones et al. 2001] reported that there
appeared to be no impediment to using a thoracic sampler for fiber sampling; they found that
several samplers matched the thoracic convention, the sample collected by these samplers
could be analyzed by standard methods, and that field studies indicated equivalence to the
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter FI April 2016 Page FI-21 of FI-31
Measurement of Fibers
current method. Maynard [Maynard 1999] also found that there appeared to be no variation
in penetration through these samplers as a function of fiber length. The advantage to using a
thoracic sampler, apart from adhering to conventional sampling practice, is that it would
remove larger compact particles and fibers from the sample and result in a cleaner sample.
Although current US practice does not use an upper diameter limit for asbestos fibers, such a
limit is commonly used for man-made fibers. Except for the United States, all national and
international organization methods use an upper diameter limit of 3 µm for fiber counting of
asbestos fibers.
It is likely that thoracic sampling will eventually be in routine use for measurement of asbestos
and other fibers. This approach has several advantages. It places the fiber method in line with
other dust sampling conventions. It removes some of the larger particles in the sample,
resulting in a cleaner sample for the analyst. It removes the need for determining fiber
diameter during counting and it is consistent with previous practice of using an upper
diameter limit of 3 µm for fiber counting in some methods. Thoracic sampling has the
disadvantage of requiring the flow rate for a specific sampler to be fixed. This reduces the
flexibility to target the loading of the filter by adjusting the flow rate. However, several
classifiers can be designed to operate at selected flow rates to allow some flexibility in
sampling.
10 Conclusions
The capability for measurement of fiber size distributions is available through microscopy
and, to a much lesser extent, through direct-reading instrumentation. Because of differences
in counting rules, resolution capability, and ability to distinguish asbestos from interfering
particles or other fibers, PCM, PLM, SEM, and TEM methods often do not produce results
which are directly comparable. The traditional methods of microscopy are relatively
inaccurate when compared to chemical analysis methods for most other analytes because of
the many sources of error in the sampling and analysis procedure. To improve laboratory-to-
laboratory agreement, counter training and quality control, including the exchange of samples
among laboratories and proficiency testing, are important. Implementation of training
through the use of Pang’s coverslips allows investigation of counting errors and potential
improvement of PCM counting accuracy. Thoracic sampling could eliminate interfering
particles and thereby improve measurement methods in the future.
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter FI April 2016 Page FI-22 of FI-31
Measurement of Fibers
Disclaimer
Mention of any company or product does not constitute endorsement by NIOSH. In addition,
citations to websites external to NIOSH do not constitute NIOSH endorsement of the
sponsoring organizations or their programs or products. Furthermore, NIOSH is not
responsible for the content of these websites. All web addresses referenced in this document
were accessible as of the publication date.
11 References
Abell MT, Shulman SA, Baron PA [1989]. The quality of fiber count data. Appl Ind Hyg 4:273-
285.
ACGIH [2002]. Appendix D: particle size-selective sampling criteria for airborne particulate
matter. In: 2002 TLVs and BEIs based on the documentation of the Threshold Limit Values for
chemical substances and physical agents and Biological Exposure Indices. Cincinnati, OH:
American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists.
Arroyo MC, Rojo JM [1998]. National versus international asbestos fibre counting schemes:
comparison between the Spanish Interlaboratory Quality Control Program (PICC-FA) and the
Asbestos Fibre Regular Informal Counting Arrangement (AFRICA). Ann Occup Hyg 42:97-
104.
Asbestos International Association [1984]. Method for the determination of airborne asbestos
fibres and other inorganic fibres by scanning electron microscopy. Recommended technical
method 2 (RTM2). London: Asbestos Information Association.
ASTM [1996]. D6059-96 Standard test method for determining concentration of airborne
single-crystal ceramic whiskers in the workplace environment by scanning electron
microscopy. Philadelphia, PA: American Society for Testing and Materials.
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter FI April 2016 Page FI-23 of FI-31
Measurement of Fibers
ASTM [1998]. D6281-98 Standard test method for airborne asbestos concentration in ambient
and indoor atmospheres as determined by transmission electron microscopy direct transfer
(TEM). Philadelphia, PA: American Society for Testing and Materials.
ATSDR [1990]. Toxicological profile for asbestos. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Agency for Toxic Substances
and Disease Registry, TP-90-04.
Baron PA [1993]. Measurement of asbestos and other fibers. In: Willeke K, Baron PA, eds.
Aerosol measurement: principles, techniques, and applications. New York: Van Nostrand
Reinhold.
Baron PA, Pickford GC [1986]. An asbestos sample filter clearing procedure. Appl Ind Hyg
1:169-171.
Baron PA, Platek SF [1990]. NIOSH method 7402-asbestos fibers (revision #1)--low
temperature ashing of filter samples. Am Ind Hyg Assoc J 51:A730-A731.
Baron PA, Shulman SA [1987]. Evaluation of the Magiscan image analyzer for asbestos fiber
counting. Am Ind Hyg Assoc J 48:39-46.
Baron PA, Deye GJ, Fernback J [1994]. Length separation of fibers. Aerosol Sci Technol
21:179-192.
Baron PA, Deye GJ, Fernback JE, Jones WG [2000]. Direct-reading measurement of fiber
length/diameter distributions. In: Beard ME, Rook HL, eds. Advances in environmental
measurement methods for asbestos. Philadelphia, PA: American Society for Testing Materials.
Beard ME, Rook HL, eds. [2001]. Advances in environmental measurement methods for
asbestos. STP 1342. Philadelphia, PA: American Society for Testing Materials.
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter FI April 2016 Page FI-24 of FI-31
Measurement of Fibers
Breysse PN, Lees PSJ, Rooney BC [1999]. Comparison of NIOSH method 7400 A and B
counting rules for assessing synthetic vitreous fiber exposures. Am Ind Hyg Assoc J 60:526-532.
Burke WA, Esmen NA [1978]. The inertial behavior of fibers. Am Ind Hyg Assoc J 39:400-
405.
Chen C-C, Baron PA [1996]. Aspiration efficiency and wall deposition in the fiber sampling
cassette. Am Ind Hyg Assoc J 52:142-152.
Cheng Y-S [1986]. Bivariate lognormal distribution for characterizing asbestos fiber aerosols.
Aerosol Sci Technol 5:359-368.
Cherrie J, Jones AD, Johnston AM [1986]. The influence of fiber density on the assessment of
fiber concentration using the membrane filter method. Am Ind Hyg Assoc J 47:465-474.
Churchyard MP, Copeland GKE [1988]. Is it really chrysotile? Ann Occup Hyg 32:545-547.
Cowie AJ, Crawford NP [1982]. A comparison of the effects of different counting rules and
aspect ratios on the level and reproducibility of asbestos fibre counts: part II: effects on
reproducibility. TM/82/23. Edinburgh, Scotland: Institute of Occupational Medicine.
Crawford NP, Brown P, Cowie AJ [1992]. The RICE and AFRICA schemes for asbestos fibre
counting. Ann Occup Hyg 36:59-69.
Crawford NP, Thorpe HL, Alexander W [1982]. A comparison of the effects of different
counting rules and aspect ratios on the level and reproducibility of asbestos fibre counts: part I:
effects on level. TM/82/23. Edinburgh, Scotland: Institute of Occupational Medicine.
Dement JM [1990]. Overview: workshop on fiber toxicology research needs. Environ Health
Perspec 88:261-268.
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter FI April 2016 Page FI-25 of FI-31
Measurement of Fibers
Deye GJ, Gao P, Baron PA, Fernback JE [1999]. Performance evaluation of a fiber length
classifier. Aerosol Sci Technol 30:420-437.
EPA [1985a]. Asbestos in buildings: simplified sampling scheme for friable surfacing
materials. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA 560/5-85-030a.
EPA [1986]. Asbestos containing materials in school buildings: bulk sample analysis quality
assurance program. Bulk sample rounds 12, 13 and blind round III. Washington, DC: U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, EPA/600/4-86/028.
EPA [1990a]. 40 CFR Part 61. National emission standards for hazardous air pollutants;
asbestos. NESHAP revision, final rule. Nov. 20. Washington DC: U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, http://www.epa.gov.
EPA [1990b]. 40 CFR Part 61.141 Subpart M. National emission standard for asbestos.
Washington DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, http://www.epa.gov.
Fletcher RA, Small JA, Scott JHJ [2001]. Analysis of individual collected particles. In: Baron P,
Willeke K, eds. Aerosol measurement: principles, techniques and applications. New York:
John Wiley and Sons, Inc.
HSE [1990]. MDHS 39/3 Asbestos fibres in air. June (revised). London: Health and Safety
Executive.
Inoue Y, Kaga A, Yamaguchi K [1999]. Cross-check between automatic counting system and
visual counting facilities of asbestos fibers. J Aerosol Res Jpn 14:129-137.
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter FI April 2016 Page FI-26 of FI-31
Measurement of Fibers
ISO [1995]. ISO 10312 Ambient air-determination of asbestos fibres-direct transfer
transmission electron microscopy method. Geneva, Switzerland: International Organization
for Standardization.
ISO [1999]. ISO 13794 Ambient air-determination of asbestos fibres-indirect transfer
transmission electron microscopy method. Geneva, Switzerland: International Organization
for Standardization.
Jankovic JT [1985]. Asbestos bulk sampling procedure. Am Ind Hyg Assoc J 46:B8-B10.
Jones AD, Aitken RJ, Armbruster L, Byrne P, Fabries JF, Kauffer E, Liden G, Lumens M,
Maynard A, Riediger G, Sahle W [2001]. Thoracic sampling of fibres. Contact research report
349/2001. Norwich, UK: Health and Safety Executive.
Kauffer E [1989]. The French asbestos quality control scheme. In: Sixth International
Colloquium on Dust Measurement Technique and Strategy. Jersey, Channel Islands: Asbestos
International Association.
LeGuen JMM, Ogden TL, Shenton-Taylor T, Verrill JF [1984]. The HSE/NPL phase-contrast
test slide. Ann Occup Hyg 28:237-247.
Lippmann M [1990]. Effects of fiber characteristics on lung deposition, retention, and disease.
Environ Health Perspec 88:311-317.
Liu J, Rinzler AG, Dai H, Hafner JH, Bradley RK, Boul PJ, Lu A, Iverson T, Shelimov K,
Huffman CB, Rodriguez-Macias F, Shon Y-S, Lee TR, Colbert DT, Smalley RE [1998].
Fullerene pipes. Science 280:1253-1256.
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter FI April 2016 Page FI-27 of FI-31
Measurement of Fibers
Lundgren L, Lundström S, Laszlo I, Westling B [1995]. Modern fibre counting-a technique
with the phase-contrast microscope on-line to a Macintosh computer. Ann Occup Hyg
39:455-467.
Marijnissen J, Lilienfeld P, Zhou Y [1996]. A laser monitor for the fiber deposition in a lung
model. J Aerosol Sci 27:S523-S524.
Maynard AD [1996]. The development of samplers for size selective sampling of fibres: phase
2 report: selection and development of personal thoracic samplers. IR/A/96/11. Sheffield, UK:
Health and Safety Laboratory.
McCrone WC [1980]. The asbestos particle atlas. Ann Arbor, MI: Ann Arbor Science
Publishers, Inc.
McCrone W, McCrone L, Delly J [1978]. Polarized light microscopy. Ann Arbor, MI: Ann
Arbor Science Publishers, Inc.
Middleton AP [1979]. The identification of asbestos in solid materials. In: Michaels L, Chissick
SS, eds. Asbestos: properties applications and hazards. Chichester, UK: John Wiley and Sons,
Inc.
Morigi MP, Giacomelli GM, Prodi V [1999]. Mineral fibre sampling and size selection. Ann
Occup Hyg 43:117-124.
NHMRC [1976]. Membrane filter method for estimating airborne asbestos dust. Woden,
Australia: National Health and Medical Research Council.
NIOSH [1994a]. Asbestos (Bulk) by PLM: Method 9002. In: Eller PM, Cassinelli ME, eds.
NIOSH manual of analytical methods. 4th ed. Cincinnati OH: U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute for
Occupational Safety and Health, DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 94-113.
NIOSH [1994b]. Asbestos by TEM: Method 7402. In: Eller PM, Cassinelli ME, eds. NIOSH
manual of analytical methods. 4th ed. Cincinnati OH: U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational
Safety and Health, DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 94-113.
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter FI April 2016 Page FI-28 of FI-31
Measurement of Fibers
NIOSH [1994c]. Asbestos, chrysotile by XRD: Method 9000 In: Eller PM, Cassinelli ME, eds.
NIOSH manual of analytical methods. 4th ed. Cincinnati OH: U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute for
Occupational Safety and Health, DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No.94-113.
Ogden TL, Thomson DJ, Ellwood PA [1986]. Euparal and its use in measurement of asbestos.
Microscope 34:173-179.
OSHA [1994]. 29 CFR 1910.1001b Occupational safety and health standards: detailed
procedure for asbestos sampling and analysis - Non-Mandatory. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration.
Pang TWS [2000]. Precision and accuracy of asbestos fiber counting by phase contrast
microscopy. Am Ind Hyg Assoc J 61:529-538.
Pang TWS, Schonfeld-Starr FA, Patel K [1989]. An improved membrane filter technique for
evaluation of asbestos fibers. Am Ind Hyg Assoc J 50:174-180.
Perkins RL and Harvey BW [1993]. Method for the determination of asbestos in bulk building
materials. Washington, DC: Environmental Protection Agency, EPA/600/R- 93/116.
Rajhans GS, Sullivan JL [1981]. Asbestos sampling and analysis. Ann Arbor, MI: Ann Arbor
Science Publishers, Inc.
Rooker SJ, Vaughan NP, LeGuen JM [1982]. On the visibility of fibers by phase contrast
microscopy. Am Ind Hyg Assoc J 43:505-515.
Sahle W, Laszlo I [1996]. Airborne inorganic fibre level monitoring by transmission electron
microscope (TEM): comparison of direct and indirect sample transfer methods. Ann Occup
Hyg 40:29-44.
Schlecht PC, Shulman SA [1986]. Performance of asbestos fiber counting laboratories in the
NIOSH Proficiency Analytical Testing (PAT) Program. Am Ind Hyg Assoc J 47:259-269.
Schneider T, Holst E, Skotte J [1983]. Size distribution of airborne fibres generated from man-
made mineral fiber products. Ann Occup Hyg 27:157-171.
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter FI April 2016 Page FI-29 of FI-31
Measurement of Fibers
Selikoff IJ, Lee DHKE [1978]. Asbestos and disease. New York: Academic Press, Inc.
Steel EB, Small JA [1985]. Accuracy of transmission electron microscopy for the analysis of
asbestos in ambient environments. Anal Chem 57:209-213.
Stöber W [1972]. Dynamic shape factors of nonspherical aerosol particles. In: Mercer TT,
Morrow PE, Stöber W, eds. Assessment of airborne particles. Springfield, IL: Charles C.
Thomas.
Taylor DG, Baron PA, Shulman SA, Carter JW [1984]. Identification and counting of asbestos
fibers. Am Ind Hyg Assoc J 45:84-88.
Vaughan NP, Rooker SJ, LeGuen JM [1981]. In situ identification of asbestos fibres collected
on membrane filters for counting. Ann Occup Hyg 24:281-290.
Walton WH, Beckett ST [1977]. A microscope eyepiece graticule for the evaluation of fibrous
dusts. Ann Occup Hyg 20:19-23.
Webber JS, Janulis RJ, Carhart LJ, Gillespie MB [1990]. Quantitating asbestos content in
friable bulk sample: development of a stratified point-counting method. Am Ind Hyg Assoc J
51:447-452.
WHO [1985]. Reference methods for measuring airborne man-made mineral fibres (MMMF).
Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization.
WHO [1986]. Asbestos and other natural mineral fibres. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health
Organization.
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter FI April 2016 Page FI-30 of FI-31
Measurement of Fibers
Wylie AG [1979]. Fiber length and aspect ratio of some selected asbestos samples. In: Selikoff
IG, Hammond EC, eds. Health hazards of asbestos exposure. New York: Annals of the New
York Academy of Science.
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter FI April 2016 Page FI-31 of FI-31
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods (NMAM), 5th Edition
[Much of this chapter was adapted from Fairfax and Blotzer 1994; and Ashley 2001.]
1 Introduction SM-2
2 Soluble and insoluble metal compounds SM-2
3 Health effects SM-4
4 Sampling considerations SM-5
5 Analytical considerations SM-5
6 ISO procedure for soluble metals and metalloids SM-7
7 Summary SM-10
8 References SM-11
9 Appendix - Solubilities of selected metals and metal compounds SM-14
1 Introduction
Workplace exposure standards have been established for several soluble metals and metalloids
to take into account the increased bioavailability of some metal compounds. Exposure
standards for soluble compounds can be up to 500 times lower than the exposure standards
for less soluble compounds for the same metal. However, there is often confusion among
chemists, industrial hygienists, and laboratories over what is meant by “soluble” when the
metal species, extraction fluid, or solubility conditions are not specified in the exposure
standard nor in the supporting exposure standard documentation [Fairfax and Blotzer 1994].
In addition, the metals and metal compounds may interact chemically or physically with the
sampling media or with each other [Ashley 2001]. Such complications can affect the stability
and speciation of the metals and their compounds, and must be addressed in order to obtain
meaningful results. These issues are becoming more important in workplace airborne metals
exposure monitoring.
The solubility of a metal will depend on the chemical form of the metal, the fluid used to
extract the metal, and the conditions under which the extraction occurs (e.g., temperature,
volume, time). Unfortunately, the degree of method specificity needed to obtain
measurements that are reproducible among laboratories is generally either missing or is
subject to a variety of interpretations from exposure standards and supporting
documentation. The need for a better definition of what is meant by the term “soluble” in
relation to exposure standards was first raised in the 1990s, but as of the new millennium no
significant improvement had occurred within exposure standard-setting organizations in the
United States. Therefore, to meet the needs of analysts, laboratories, and laboratory clients for
better definition of the analyte of interest, and to improve measurement reproducibility
among laboratories, various organizations are working to achieve international consensus on
extraction of soluble metal compounds. Consensus guidelines have been promulgated in an
International Standard [ISO 2012a], and this will serve to fill the void and improve the
situation.
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter SM April 2016 Page SM-2 of SM-17
Sampling and Analysis of Soluble Metal Compounds
Table 1. Example metallic elements for which soluble compounds have been assigned
OELs [IFA 2014; ACGIH 2015]
Aluminum – Soluble compounds, as Al
Barium – Soluble compounds, as Ba
Chromium – Water-soluble Cr[VI] compounds
Iron – Soluble salts, as Fe
Molybdenum – Soluble compounds, as Mo
Nickel – Soluble compounds, as Ni
Platinum – Soluble salts, as Pt
Rhodium – Soluble compounds, as Rh
Silver – Soluble compounds, as Ag
Thallium – Soluble compounds, as Tl
Tungsten – Soluble compounds, as W
Uranium – Soluble compounds, as U
a. Solvent
The term “solubility,” as used by analytical chemists, ordinarily pertains to the dissolution
of a material in pure water [CRC 2015]. The subject of water solubility of metal
compounds is covered in several references [CRC 2015; ACGIH 2001; Beliles 1994;
O’Neil 2006]. According to Patty’s Industrial Hygiene and Toxicology [Beliles 1994] and
the individual ACGIH Threshold Limit Value® (TLV) documentation for these metals
[ACGIH 2001], the solubilities of metals and metal compounds are quite variable
depending upon the solvent. Other pertinent references sustain the notion that solubility,
regarding metals and their compounds, is generally identified in terms of their solubility in
water [ACGIH 2001; O’Neil 2006]. The solubility and insolubility of numerous inorganic
substances are presented in the Appendix. What is meant by “soluble” depends on the
operational definition employed for the extraction conditions desired by the investigator.
b. Temperature
Temperature is another variable that directly affects solubility. Most current analytical
methods specify deionized water, but not water temperature (some procedures call for hot
water (37 °C), but others use water at room temperature). Some important questions thus
arise:
1.) If using deionized water, should chemists assure that water temperature has been
heated to body temperature (i.e., 37 °C)? For occupational exposure assessment
purposes, should solubility be based upon body temperature?
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter SM April 2016 Page SM-3 of SM-17
Sampling and Analysis of Soluble Metal Compounds
2.) Should the OEL value documentation specify that analytical procedures use extraction
media heated to body temperature?
3 Health effects
From a health perspective, the solubility of a metal or metal compound is not the only
consideration of interest. Ultimately, the most important consideration is the extent to which
such soluble metals accumulate in body fluids or target organs, leading to toxic levels of the
metal ion. This is of more concern than solubility in water, acids, or alkalis per se. Further
complicating the solubility issue is the fact that the term “soluble” may have different
meanings among industrial hygienists and chemists. Chemists generally use the term
“soluble” as defined by the CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics [CRC 2015]. According
to the CRC Handbook, a material is considered soluble if a saturated solution in water (at
25 °C) contains more than 1% (m/v); any material in which 1 percent or less is dissolved is
considered insoluble. Unfortunately, a material listed as insoluble, using the CRC definition,
could still dissolve in body fluids and produce a significant tissue concentration which is
biologically detrimental. The point is that an OEL for an “insoluble” compound may not be
sufficient to protect exposed workers. When asked in an informal poll to choose a solvent in
which to measure the relative solubility of metals, industrial hygienists chose, in order of
preference, water, body fluids, and a petroleum solvent [Fairfax and Blotzer 1994].
a. Body fluids
When considering the biological effect of the solubility of a material, we should ideally
first consider body fluids. However, body fluids vary considerably in pH. For example, the
pH of the stomach is acidic, the pH in the intestine is alkaline, the pH of blood serum is
approximately neutral, some macrophages are highly acidic, and the pH of saliva is slightly
acidic. Furthermore, body fluids contain a variety of solutes, including salts and
polypeptides (proteins). Polypeptide molecules can bind to metal ions in solution and
often contain functional groups that can chelate metals. Polypeptides have strong
chelating ability in body fluids and will account for the considerable difference between
the solubility of a metal in body fluids versus that same metal in water. Metals, in turn, are
bound to different proteins, depending upon where in the body they are located at a given
time. In passing through the body, a metal ion is bound by different polypeptides. For
each of them, a different reaction may be involved. Some reactions may increase or
decrease the toxicity of the metal ion.
Because of the effect of proteins, pH, and other solutes in body fluids, the solubility of a
metal compound in body fluids will be quite different than the metal’s solubility in water
[ACGIH 1987].
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter SM April 2016 Page SM-4 of SM-17
Sampling and Analysis of Soluble Metal Compounds
4 Sampling considerations
a. Filter reactivity
The filter medium used must not react with the airborne particulate collected by the
sampler so as to change the chemical form of the captured sample. This can occur if a
soluble compound reacts with the filter material or a contaminant therein to produce an
insoluble or less soluble compound. An example of this problem has been observed with
silver, where a soluble silver compound, AgNO3, can react with chloride in some mixed
cellulose ester (MCE) or polyvinyl chloride (PVC) filters to form AgCl, which is much less
soluble in water. Thus, low recoveries of “soluble” silver will result unless an alternative
filter medium, such as polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE), is used. Another problem is
illustrated by soluble forms of Cr[VI], which can react with the filter medium to form
insoluble compounds and/or undergo reduction to Cr[III] and, therefore, be lost to Cr[VI]
analysis. Hence, chemical compatibility issues must be investigated before samples meant
for “soluble” extraction procedures are taken.
Membrane filters are appropriate for sampling aerosols for subsequent determination of
soluble metal compounds. Such filters are manufactured from a variety of polymeric
materials by a number of different processes. Choice of polymer material comprising the
filter (e.g., MCE, PTFE, PVC) will depend on chemical reactivity issues discussed in the
preceding paragraph. The metal content of the filters must be as low as possible, since it
can make a significant contribution to the blank value.
5 Analytical considerations
A number of analytical methods for soluble metal compounds in occupational hygiene
samples have been published by various organizations [NIOSH 1994; HSE 1998; BIA 1989;
INRS 2014]. Efforts to harmonize sample preparation approaches have led to the
promulgation of related consensus standards [Ashley 2015].
a. European standard
Guidance on sample preparation methods for soluble metals and metalloids in workplace
air has been promulgated recently in a European Standard [CEN 2009]. In these
published methods and guidelines [NIOSH 1994; HSE 1998; BIA 1989; INRS 2014], two
methodologies are generally favored for the extraction of “soluble” metal species:
(1) extraction in pure water, or (2) extraction in diluted (~0.1 M) hydrochloric acid (HCl).
In the European Standard [CEN 2009], both strategies are given as options for the
dissolution of “soluble” metals in workplace air samples. Extraction of metals and
metalloids in water is meant to reflect the chemical definition of “soluble” (as mentioned
above), while extraction in diluted HCl is designed to mimic the dissolution of “soluble”
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter SM April 2016 Page SM-5 of SM-17
Sampling and Analysis of Soluble Metal Compounds
metal compounds in stomach acid, which is highly acidic (pH 1). A temperature of 37 °C
is recommended since this is normal body temperature.
b. Extraction solvent
A researcher in Germany [Hahn 2000] argued for the establishment of 0.1 M HCl in an
operational definition for soluble metals in occupational hygiene samples and, also,
specified mechanical agitation at 37 °C for two hours prior to sample analysis. An
exception is made for thallium, which can form insoluble TlCl, in which case HCl is
replaced by diluted nitric acid (HNO3). (A similar problem would arise if HCl were used
as the extraction acid for soluble silver compounds.) The German extraction method for
several soluble metal species [BIA 1989] is consistent with the strategy outlined [Hahn
2000], which attempts to address bioavailability by choosing HCl as the extraction acid.
However, in standard methods promulgated by the United States [NIOSH 1994], the
United Kingdom [HSE 1998], and France [INRS 2014], deionized water is the solvent
chosen in the operational definition of “soluble” for numerous metallic elements in
workplace air samples. An exception to extraction in water is made for nickel [HSE 1998],
where an ammonium citrate solution is specified as the leachate for soluble compounds of
this element. Ammonium citrate provides buffering and chelating properties that are
desirable for leaching soluble nickel compounds [HSE 1998].
c. Operational definitions
Operational definitions of “soluble” metal species have been promulgated for consumer
products such as toys, paper products, paints and art materials [ASTM 2014; CEN 2013;
ISO 2011]. Standard procedures for the extraction of metal compounds from consumer
products are based on sample treatments in 0.07 - 0.14 M HCl (depending on the sample)
for an hour at a temperature of 37 °C [Hahn 2000] or at room temperature [CEN 2013].
An ASTM International procedure (formerly the American Society for Testing and
Materials) [ASTM 2014] is meant to provide an estimate of the bioavailability of several
metals in art materials, using ~0.1 M HCl and extraction at body temperature.
d. Quantity of solvent
Another uncontrolled variable is the quantity of solvent used in laboratory analytical
procedures for soluble metals at different laboratories. Different laboratories may (and
do) use different amounts of deionized water for extraction. For example, one laboratory
might use 10 mL of deionized water to extract the metal from a sample, while another lab
may use anywhere from 25 to 100 mL to extract the compound. Depending upon the
amount of material present in the sample, the procedure using 25 to 100 mL can dissolve a
larger mass of solute than that using 10 mL. A conservative analytical method for metals
used 15 mL of deionized water for extraction. This volume was chosen as a convenience
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter SM April 2016 Page SM-6 of SM-17
Sampling and Analysis of Soluble Metal Compounds
and may not bear any relationship to what the body might absorb. Thus, two identical
samples could produce two different results depending on the volume of solvent and other
analytical parameters. A further factor affecting solubility is the particle size distribution
of the sample: smaller particles are ordinarily more easily dissolved than larger ones. Thus
for two samples having the same mass, the sample comprised of small particles may be
more easily dissolved than a sample having large particles.
a. Bioavailability
In the 1990s, it was argued that the solubility in body fluids should be considered in the
development of a new definition for soluble TLVs [Fairfax and Blotzer 1994]. But since
different body fluids have different solubility characteristics (e.g., pH, salts, polypeptides),
such an operational and uniform definition for “bioavailable” cannot realistically be
decided. Indeed, the meaning of “bioavailability” has been debated nationally and
internationally for years, and it was not deemed practicable nor defensible to attempt to
operationally define solubility based on biochemical arguments. Hence, it was decided by
consensus within the ISO working group (ISO/TC 146/SC 2/WG 2) to describe procedures
for soluble metal compounds in terms of strictly chemical, and not biochemical, criteria
[Ashley 2001].
b. Laboratory consistency
With regard to analytical methods for the extraction of soluble metals and their
compounds, it was suggested that the extraction media, temperature, and extraction
volume should be consistent among all laboratories [Fairfax and Blotzer 1994]. For an
operational definition of “soluble” to be offered, delineation of these analytical parameters
is necessary in order to fully standardize the extraction procedure for soluble metal
species. Moreover, the apparatus used, as well as chemical compatibility issues, must be
amply described. Matters that are outside of laboratory control, notably sampling, cannot
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter SM April 2016 Page SM-7 of SM-17
Sampling and Analysis of Soluble Metal Compounds
Because of the various operational definitions for “soluble” metal compounds, a significant
challenge was presented to the ISO working group responsible for the development of an
international standard method to describe a procedure for extracting soluble metals and
metalloids for subsequent atomic spectrometric analysis. Two choices were available
based on the standard methods mentioned above: (1) extraction in pure water, or (2)
extraction in 0.1 M HCl. It was decided by consensus of ISO delegates present at the
earlier working group meetings to follow the former course, where solubility of metal
compounds in occupational hygiene samples is defined in chemical terms. This decision
was upheld during the later international voting process, which involved those countries
listed in Table 2. Nevertheless, text within the International Standard [ISO 2012a] states
that individual countries may specify alternative procedures for the measurement of
soluble metal species in workplace air samples. This, then, leaves open the option to use
other extraction media, such as 0.1 M HCl.
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter SM April 2016 Page SM-8 of SM-17
Sampling and Analysis of Soluble Metal Compounds
The ISO procedure for soluble metals and metalloids assumes that samples were collected
using the International Standard for the collection of workplace air samples for subsequent
multi-element analysis, ISO 15202-1 [ISO 2012b]. However, the choice of filter material
used for the collection of samples targeted for the “soluble” metals procedure is important.
Annex A of ISO 15202-1 [ISO 2012b] and Annex B of ISO 15202-2 [ISO 2012a] provide
useful guidance on this subject.
The “soluble” metals procedure described in ISO 15202-2 [ISO 2012a] lists all of the
elements in Table 1 except for Cr[VI] and Fe. Nevertheless, the sample preparation
protocol described in this International Standard is certainly applicable to these other two
metallic elements as well. The ISO “soluble” metals method [ISO 2012b] calls for
treatment of collected workplace filter samples in 5 mL of deionized water (or ammonium
citrate leach solution in the case of Ni) and mechanical agitation in a water bath at 37 ±
2 °C for 60 min. Undissolved material is thereafter separated from the sample solution
using a suction filtration apparatus or a syringe filter, and ensuring use of filtration
materials that are unreactive towards the soluble metal compounds of interest. After
filtration, the sample solution is acidified with nitric acid in order to stabilize the dissolved
metallic elements within the extracted sample. This test sample is then ready for analysis
by ICP-AES (or ICP-mass spectrometry [ICP-MS] if very low detection limits are
required). Of course other analytical techniques, e.g., atomic absorption spectrometry
[Wang et al. 2000; Draper et al. 1999] or electrochemical analysis [Ashley 1994; Draper et
al. 1999], can be used as analytically equivalent alternatives.
d. Method performance
The performance of soluble extraction methods has been evaluated for several soluble
metal species, e.g., those of nickel, silver and hexavalent chromium. Soluble extraction
and atomic spectrometric analysis of soluble nickel in cellulosic air filter samples and in
bulk reference samples, using 0.1 M ammonium citrate for extraction (as part of a
sequential extraction method), was ruggedized and validated both within a single
laboratory and via interlaboratory trials [Zatka et al. 1992]. This ammonium citrate
leaching procedure forms the basis of the ISO 15202-2 (Annex B) methodology
[ISO 2012a] for soluble nickel compounds. In other research, soluble silver compounds
on PTFE filters were subjected to leaching in deionized water [ISO 2012a] within opaque
sampling cassettes, with subsequent analysis by ICP-MS [Drake et al. 2006]. The use of
opaque samplers was necessary to prevent photoreduction of silver ions in solution, and
ICP-MS was required due to the need for lower method detection limits for the soluble
silver fraction in real samples. The soluble silver procedure was validated in-house by
using silver nitrate spikes on PTFE filters, demonstrating >90% recoveries. Field studies
were also carried out in silver refineries by using a multiport sampler, where it was found
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter SM April 2016 Page SM-9 of SM-17
Sampling and Analysis of Soluble Metal Compounds
that the soluble silver fraction was less than 2% of the mass of total silver in collected air
samples [Drake et al. 2006]. In further work, the use of deionized water for leaching of
soluble hexavalent chromium compounds was evaluated [Ashley et al. 2009] as part of a
study to validate a standardized sequential extraction procedure for Cr[VI] preceding ion
chromatographic analysis [ASTM 2013]. Laboratory experiments on soluble Cr[VI]
compounds spiked onto PVC filters resulted in quantitative recoveries, yet interference
from Fe[II] (if present in samples) was unavoidable. Water leaching of paint pigment
samples and welding fume samples was also evaluated as part of the investigation. It was
found that soluble Cr[VI] compounds were prevalent in welding fumes, but their contents
were variable in the different paint pigments that were tested [Ashley et al. 2009].
7 Summary
The exposure standards for some metals vary up to a factor of 500 to take into account the
increased solubility and bioavailability of some compounds. Even compounds generally
considered by chemists as being “insoluble” may have sufficient solubility in body fluids to be
of biological importance. Exposure standards for soluble metals such as ACGIH TLVs and
other OELs are not specific with regard to extraction fluid, fluid temperature, agitation and
other factors affecting solubility. Since these factors significantly affect solubility, some
standardization or adoption of an operational definition is necessary if there is to be
reproducibility among laboratories conducting soluble metal analyses. In some countries
(e.g., nations in the European Union), the national requirements provide this specificity. In
other instances, including exposure monitoring standards in the United States, formal
national guidelines are not available.
Laboratories cannot recover soluble metal data if inappropriate sample media are used.
Sample stability is a problem that must be addressed when sampling for silver (Ag),
chromium (Cr) and other soluble metal compounds. Although the ISO procedure has not
been validated for all soluble metal species, the standard recommends that method validation
be carried out using representative soluble metal compounds for target elements. ISO 15202
provides guidance on sample media selection for soluble metals that can be a useful guide for
industrial hygienists and other laboratory clients.
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter SM April 2016 Page SM-10 of SM-17
Sampling and Analysis of Soluble Metal Compounds
Disclaimer
Mention of any company or product does not constitute endorsement by NIOSH. In addition,
citations to websites external to NIOSH do not constitute NIOSH endorsement of the
sponsoring organizations or their programs or products. Furthermore, NIOSH is not
responsible for the content of these websites. All web addresses referenced in this document
were accessible as of the publication date.
8 References
ACGIH [1987]. American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH)
Committee Activities and Reports – TLVs for Chemical Substances. Appl Ind Hyg 2:R4-R5.
ACGIH [2001]. Documentation of the Threshold Limit Values and Biological Exposure
Indices, 7th ed. Cincinnati, OH, USA: American Conference of Governmental Industrial
Hygienists (ACGIH).
ACGIH [2015]. Threshold Limit Values for Chemical Substances and Physical Agents and
Biological Exposure Indices. Cincinnati, OH, USA: American Conference of Governmental
Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH).
Ashley K [2001]. International Standard Procedure for the Extraction of Metal Compounds
Having Soluble Threshold Limit Values. Appl Occup Environ Hyg 16:850- 853.
Ashley K [2015]. Harmonization of NIOSH Sampling and Analytical Methods with Related
International Voluntary Consensus Standards. J Occup Environ Hyg 12:D107-D115.
Ashley K, Applegate GT, Marcy AD, Drake PL, Pierce PA, Carabin N, Demange M [2009].
Evaluation of Sequential Extraction Procedures for Soluble and Insoluble Hexavalent
Chromium Compounds in Workplace Air Samples. J Environ Monit 11:318-325.
ASTM [2013]. ASTM D6832, Standard Test Method for the Determination of Hexavalent
Chromium in Workplace Air by Ion Chromatography ad Spectrophotometric Measurement
Using 1,5-Diphenylcarbazide. West Conshohocken, PA, USA: ASTM International;
[www.astm.org]. Date accessed: April 6, 2016.
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter SM April 2016 Page SM-11 of SM-17
Sampling and Analysis of Soluble Metal Compounds
ASTM [2014]. ASTM D5517, Standard Test Method for Determining Extractability of Metals
from Art Materials. West Conshohocken, PA, USA: ASTM International.
Beliles RP [1994]. The Metals. In: Patty’s Industrial Hygiene and Toxicology, 4th ed., Vol. 2c.
New York, NY, USA: Wiley, pp. 1879-2317.
CEN [2009]. EN 13890, Workplace Atmospheres - Procedures for Measuring Metals and
Metalloids in Airborne Particles – Requirements and Test Methods. Brussels, Belgium:
Comité Européen de Normalisation (CEN).
CEN [2013]. EN 71-3, Safety of Toys. Brussels, Belgium: Comité Européen de Normalisation
(CEN).
CRC [2015]. Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, 96th ed.; Lide, D. R., ed. CRC Press, Boca
Raton, FL, USA.
Drake PL, Marcy AD, Ashley K [2006]. Evaluation of a Standardized Method for
Determining Soluble Silver in Workplace Air Samples. J Environ Monit 8:134-139.
Draper WM, Ashley K, Glowacki CR, Michael PR [1999]. Industrial Hygiene Chemistry–
Keeping Pace with Rapid Change in the Workplace. Anal Chem 71:33R-60R.
Fairfax R, Blotzer M [1994]. TLVs – Soluble and Insoluble Metal Compounds. Appl Occup
Environ Hyg 9:683-686.
HSE [1998]. MDHS Method 42/2, Nickel and Inorganic Compounds of Nickel; and Method
46/2, Platinum Metal and Soluble Platinum Compounds. In: Methods for the Determination
of Hazardous Substances. London, United Kingdom: Health and Safety Executive (HSE).
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter SM April 2016 Page SM-12 of SM-17
Sampling and Analysis of Soluble Metal Compounds
IFA [2014]. GESTIS – Database on Hazardous Substances – International Limit Values for
Chemical Agents. Sankt Augustin, Germany: Institut für Arbeitsschutz der Deutschen
Gesetzlichen Unfallversicherung (IFA); [www.dguv.de/ifa/index.jsp]. Date accessed: April 6,
2016.
INRS [2014]. Fiche 003, Métaux – Métalloïdes. In: Métrologie des Polluants, Evaluation de
l’Exposition Professionnelle, Méthodes de Prélèvement et d’Analyse de l’Air. Paris, France:
Institut National de Recherche et de Sécurité (INRS); [www.inrs.fr]. Date accessed: April 6,
2016.
ISO [2011]. ISO 3856, Paints and Varnishes – Determination of “Soluble” Metal Content
(7 Parts). Geneva, Switzerland: International Organization for Standardization (ISO);
[www.iso.org]. Date accessed: April 6, 2016.
ISO [2012a]. 15202-2, Workplace Air - Determination of Metals and Metalloids in Airborne
Particulate Matter by Inductively Coupled Plasma Atomic Emission Spectrometry; Part 2,
Sample Preparation – Annex B: Sample Dissolution Method for Soluble Metal and Metalloid
Compounds. Geneva, Switzerland: International Organization for Standardization (ISO).
ISO [2012b]. ISO 15202-1, Workplace air – Determination of Metals and Metalloids in
Airborne Particulate Matter by Inductively Coupled Plasma Atomic Emission Spectrometry;
Part 1, Sampling. Geneva, Switzerland: International Organization for Standardization (ISO).
NIOSH [1994]. Barium, soluble compounds: Method 7056 and Tungsten (soluble and
insoluble): Method 7074. In: NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods, 4th ed.; Cassinelli, ME,
O’Connor, PF, eds. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health
DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 94-113 [www.cdc.gov/niosh/nmam/].
O’Neil MJ, ed. [2006]. Merck Index, 14th ed. Rahway, NJ: Merck & Co.
Wang J, Siegel PD, Lewis DM, Vo E, Wallace WE, Ashley K, Stettler LE [2000]. Spectroscopic
Techniques in Industrial Hygiene. In: Encyclopedia of Analytical Chemistry; Meyers RA, ed.
Chichester, United Kingdom: Wiley, pp. 4783-4824.
Zatka VJ, Warner JS, Meskery D [1992]. Chemical Speciation of Nickel in Airborne Dusts –
Analytical Method and Results of an Interlaboratory Test Program. Environ Sci Technol
26:138-144.
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter SM April 2016 Page SM-13 of SM-17
Sampling and Analysis of Soluble Metal Compounds
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter SM April 2016 Page SM-14 of SM-17
Sampling and Analysis of Soluble Metal Compounds
1.) Water-soluble hexavalent chromium compounds include chromic acid, its anhydride, and
the monochromates and dichromates of sodium, potassium, ammonium, lithium, cesium,
and rubidium.
2.) Water-insoluble hexavalent chromium compounds include zinc chromate, lead chromate,
barium chromate, and sintered chromium trioxide. NOTE: Depending on the reference
[CRC 2015, O’Neil 2006] both calcium chromate and strontium chromate are listed as
soluble and insoluble in water.
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter SM April 2016 Page SM-15 of SM-17
Sampling and Analysis of Soluble Metal Compounds
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter SM April 2016 Page SM-16 of SM-17
Sampling and Analysis of Soluble Metal Compounds
Tungstic acid — Insoluble in cold water and most acids; soluble in hot water, alkalies,
hydrofluoric acid, and ammonia.
Sodium tungstate — Soluble in hot and cold water; slightly soluble in ammonia; insoluble in
acids and alcohol.
Tungsten carbide — Insoluble in water; soluble in mixtures of hydrofluoric and nitric acid,
and in aqua regia.
Tungsten diboride — Insoluble in hot or cold water; soluble in aqua regia.
Tungsten hexachloride — Soluble in hot water.
Tungsten oxytetrachloride — Soluble in hot or cold water.
Tungsten hexafluoride — Soluble in hot or cold water and alkalies.
Tungsten disulfide — Insoluble in cold water and in alcohol; soluble in mixtures of
hydrofluoric and nitric acid.
Phosphotungstic acid — Soluble in cold water, alcohol, and ether.
Ammonium paratungstate — Soluble in water; insoluble in alcohol.
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter SM April 2016 Page SM-17 of SM-17
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods (NMAM), 5th Edition
1 Introduction DL-2
2 Analytical method DL-6
3 Interlaboratory comparisons DL-23
4 Occupational exposure criteria (U.S.) DL-27
5 Summary DL-28
6 References DL-30
1 Introduction
a. Health effects
Over a million U.S. workers (e.g., trucking, mining, railroad, construction, agriculture) are
occupationally exposed to diesel exhaust [NIOSH 1988]. The widespread use of diesel-
powered equipment is a recognized health concern. Exposure to diesel exhaust is
associated with an increased risk of lung cancer [Attfield et al. 2012; Garshick et al. 2004;
HEI 1995; IARC 2012; Silverman et al. 2012]. Diesel exhaust is pervasive, and
environmental exposure is a public health concern; but workplace exposures pose higher
risk because they are generally much higher than those encountered by the general
population.
In 1988, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) reported
diesel exhaust as a potential occupational carcinogen and recommended that employers
reduce workers’ exposures [NIOSH 1998]. This recommendation was based on five
independent animal studies, in which rats exposed to unfiltered exhaust showed an
increased incidence of benign and malignant lung tumors [IARC 1989]. Other
organizations, including the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) [IARC
1989], the World Health Organization (WHO) [WHO 1996], the California
Environmental Protection Agency [CalEPA 1998], the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) [EPA 2000a], and the National Toxicology Program [NTP 2000] reviewed
the animal and human evidence, and each classified diesel exhaust as a probable human
carcinogen or similar designation. In 2012, based on epidemiological studies, IARC
[IARC, WHO 2012] reclassified diesel exhaust as carcinogenic to humans (Group 1). In
particular, a major study of U.S. miners, conducted by NIOSH and the National Cancer
Institute (NCI), found increased risk of death from lung cancer in exposed workers
[Attfield et al. 2012; Silverman et al. 2012].
Noncancer health effects also are associated with diesel exhaust exposure, including
immunologic, respiratory, and cardiovascular effects. Diesel exhaust particles can act as
nonspecific airway irritants at relatively high exposures. At lower levels, they can trigger
release of mediators (cytokines, chemokines, immunoglobulins, and oxidants) of allergic
and inflammatory responses [Pandya et al. 2002]. Diesel particles may promote expression
of the immunologic response phenotype (Th2) associated with asthma and allergic disease
and may have greater immunologic effects in the presence of environmental allergens.
Internationally, the prevalence of asthma (and related hospitalizations and mortality)
continues to rise in adults and children. Children may be more vulnerable than adults
[Edwards et al. 1994; Weiland et al. 1994; Wjst et al. 1993; van Vlient et al. 1997]. Studies
indicate children living along major trucking thoroughfares are at increased risk for
asthmatic and allergic symptoms. In the United States, the number of individuals with
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter DL April 2016 Page DL-2 of DL-41
Monitoring Diesel Exhaust in the Workplace
self-reported asthma increased by 75% from 1980 to 1994 [Mannino et al. 1998]. The
immunologic evidence is consistent with results of epidemiologic studies that associate
traffic-related air pollution, especially diesel exhaust particles, with an increase in
respiratory diseases.
Studies have consistently found positive associations between particulate air pollution and
daily mortality [Brown et al. 2000; Dockery et al. 1993; EPA 1999, 2000b; Pope et al. 1995a;
Pope et al. 1995b; Pope et al. 2002; Samet 2000; Schwartz 1997; Schwartz et al. 1996]. The
traditional U.S. air quality standard for particulate matter is based on particles having
diameters ≤10 µm (PM10) [52 Fed. Reg. 24634 (1987)]. In 1997, EPA proposed a new
standard [62 Fed. Reg. 38652 (1997)] (see www.epa.gov/airlinks/airlinks4.html) based on
particles having diameters ≤2.5 µm (PM2.5). These smaller particles originate mainly from
combustion sources. The new standard was proposed because recent studies had found
higher correlation between fine particle pollution and adverse health effects. In an analysis
[Schwartz et al. 1996] of data from six U.S. cities, fine particles were consistently associated
with increased risk of death from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, pneumonia, and
ischemic heart disease. Positive associations between fine particle pollution and hospital
admissions due to respiratory and cardiovascular illness also have been found [Schwartz
1994; Burnett et al. 1995; Schwartz and Morris 1995]. Particles produced by combustion
sources were implicated in these findings. In addition to asthma, chronic inhalation of
diesel exhaust particles may play a role in these adverse health outcomes. Reviews on the
health effects of diesel exhaust have been published [CalEPA 1998; EPA 2000a; HEI 1995,
2002; IARC 1989; IARC (WHO) 2012; NIOSH 1988; NTP 2000; Solomon et al. 1998;
WHO 1996].
b. Composition
Diesel engine exhaust is a highly complex and variable mixture of gases, vapors, and fine
particles. The amount and composition of the exhaust vary greatly, depending on factors
such as fuel and engine type, maintenance schedule, tuning, workload, and exhaust gas
treatment. The gaseous constituents have included hydrocarbons and oxides of carbon,
sulfur, and nitrogen. Particulate components consisted of liquid droplets and soot particles
bearing organic compounds, sulfates, metals, and other trace elements. The organic
fraction (droplets and particle adsorbed) was mainly unburned fuel and oil, but thousands
of compounds (e.g., aldehydes, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons [PAH]) have been found
in the organic fraction—some of which are genotoxic [HEI 1995, 2002; IARC 1989;
NIOSH 1988; WHO 1996].
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter DL April 2016 Page DL-3 of DL-41
Monitoring Diesel Exhaust in the Workplace
Carbon is a logical exposure surrogate for traditional diesel engines because DPM is
predominantly (typically more than 80%) carbon [Japar et al. 1984; Lies 1989; Pierson et
al. 1983]. However, carbon in the organic fraction (i.e., organic carbon, or OC) of DPM is
not a selective measure because other sources of OC (e.g., cigarette smoke and other
combustion aerosols, asphalt fumes) are present in many workplaces. Elemental carbon
(i.e., carbon in the soot particle core, or EC) is a better surrogate [Birch and Cary 1996a] to
monitor because it is a more selective measure of particulate diesel exhaust and still
constitutes a sizable fraction (30%–90%) (see [HEI 2002], Part I, Section 1) of the
particulate mass. Fine EC particles are derived primarily from the combustion of fossil
fuels, and diesel engines have been major sources of these particles. Carbonaceous aerosols
such as cigarette and wood smokes contain little, if any, EC [Birch 1998a; Birch and Cary
1996a]. Gasoline engines emit far less EC than diesels, so the contribution of this source is
relatively small. Other sources such as coal combustion, incinerators, and tire debris can
contribute to the background (environmental) levels of EC, but diesel engines were the
primary emitters [Cass and Gray 1995; Sawyer and Johnson 1995]. In occupational
settings, where diesel equipment is used in relatively close proximity to workers, the
contribution of these remote sources is negligible, especially when EC levels are well above
background. Environmental EC concentrations are typically in the 1–3 μg/m3 range [Birch
and Cary 1996a], depending on the local air pollution, while in workplaces with diesel
equipment (operating), EC concentrations are generally much higher [e.g., Haney and
Fields 1996; NIOSH 1992; NIOSH 1993; NIOSH 1994c; Stanevich et al. 1997; Verma et al.
1999; Whittaker et al. 1999; Zaebst et al. 1991]. Higher environmental background (e.g., 3-
-5 μg/m3) has been reported for more polluted U.S. cities (e.g., Los Angeles), but the higher
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter DL April 2016 Page DL-4 of DL-41
Monitoring Diesel Exhaust in the Workplace
EC levels were attributed to nearby diesel vehicles [Cadle and Mulawa 1990; Gray et al.
1984] (see also [Cass and Gray 1995]). At one monitoring site (Glendora, CA),
examination of the data collected at 1-minute intervals revealed that emission plumes
from diesel vehicles located 50 meters from the site contributed contamination up to
5 μg/m3 above the background level [Hansen and Novakov 1990].
Carbonaceous dusts such as coal dust (EC content depends on coal rank), carbon blacks,
and carbon nanomaterials contain EC, but particles in powders (dispersed as particle
agglomerates) and mechanically generated dusts are much larger (generally >1 μm
diameter) than combustion-based particles. Therefore, these dusts can be effectively
excluded from the diesel sample on the basis of size. Only low levels of EC (≤15 μg/m3)
were found in electric-powered (i.e., nondieselized) coal mines when impactors with
submicrometer cutpoints were used for air sampling [Birch and Cary 1996b]. Guidance on
air sampling is discussed in a following section. In addition to selectivity, potential health
effects were considered when an EC surrogate was proposed [55 Fed. Reg. 110 (1990);
Birch 1991; Birch and Cary 1996a]. Diesel particles and other types of insoluble fine
particles are inhaled deeply into the lungs, where they can induce an inflammatory
response. Further, EC particles were shown to increase the long-term retention [Sun et al.
1982; Wolff et al. 1986] of adsorbed genotoxins and other chemical toxins because the
particles have a high affinity for them [Niessner and Wilbring 1989]. The adsorbed
organic fraction results from rapid cooling of the exhaust mixture, which causes
enrichment of some species on the particle surface [Natusch 1978; Thrane et al. 1985;
Yamasaki et al. 1982]. Enrichment by this mechanism is associated with compounds of
moderate to low volatility [Thrane et al. 1985; Yamasaki 1982]. For example, PAHs having
four or more aromatic rings are generally associated with particulate matter [Bjorseth and
Becher 1986]; this is important because these higher-ring condensates are expected to be
the most carcinogenic or mutagenic [Grimmer et al. 1983; Pott 1985]. In combination
with an inflammatory response induced by the particles, genotoxic agents may promote
tumorigenesis. Ultrafine particles (<0.10 μm) may pose an even greater health risk. Results
of toxicological studies on solid particles having aerodynamic diameters in this size range
indicate ultrafine particles are especially toxic, even those not having an organic fraction
and consisting of materials considered relatively nontoxic (e.g., carbon black, titanium
dioxide). In a study of rats [Donaldson et al. 2000], a 10-fold increase in inflammation was
seen with exposures to ultrafine particles, relative to the same mass of fine particles. This is
significant because, by mass, the majority of diesel particles are in the fine particle range,
and most are in the ultrafine range by number [Kittelson et al. 2002]. Given the physical
and chemical nature of EC particles emitted by diesel engines, monitoring and controlling
exposures to these particles is prudent.
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter DL April 2016 Page DL-5 of DL-41
Monitoring Diesel Exhaust in the Workplace
2 Analytical method
a. Background
A monitoring method for DPM was published as Method 5040 in the NIOSH Manual of
Analytical Methods (NMAM). The method is based on a thermal-optical analysis
technique for particulate carbon. Both OC and EC are determined, but EC is a better
exposure surrogate. Rationale for selection of an EC surrogate is summarized in the
previous section (Analyte Choice: Elemental Carbon). Method updates and an NMAM
Chapter (Q) have since been published [NIOSH 1994a (1998 supplement); NIOSH 1994b
(2003 supplement); NIOSH 2003] to include interlaboratory data (e.g., round robin
results) and other diesel-related information obtained since its initial publication (in
1996). This 5th edition chapter is not a review of relevant literature published since the 4th
edition. Its purpose is to update references and information on the following topics:
classification of diesel exhaust as a human carcinogen, a study of miners exposed to diesel
exhaust, results of a subsequent round robin by NIOSH investigators, and application of
the Method to carbon nanomaterials. NIOSH 5040 has been used in numerous industrial
hygiene surveys on diesel exhaust [e.g., Haney and Fields 1996; NIOSH 1992: NIOSH
1993; NIOSH 1994c; Stanevich et al. 1997; Verma et al. 1999; Whittaker et al. 1999; Zaebst
et al. 1991], and it was applied to an epidemiological study (NIOSH/NCI) of miners
[Attfield et al. 2012; Silverman et al. 2012]. Details on Method operation and performance
are provided in this chapter. Exposure criteria also are discussed.
b. Instrumentation
Of the possible approaches for OC-EC analysis, a thermal-optical technique was
investigated because it offered greater selectivity (pyrolysis correction for char) and
flexibility (automated analysis, programmable parameter files) than previously used
methods. Prior to its proposed use for monitoring occupational exposure to diesel exhaust,
thermal-optical analysis (or OC-EC methods in general) had not been applied to
occupational monitoring, but the technique had been routinely applied to environmental
monitoring of particulate carbon air pollution.
The thermal-optical analyzer (Figure 1) has been described previously [Birch and Cary
1996a; NIOSH 1994a (1998 supplement)]. Design changes (e.g., reflectance monitoring
added, software upgraded) have since been made, but the operation principle remains
unchanged. OC-EC quantification is accomplished through temperature and atmosphere
control. In addition, the analyzer is equipped with an optical feature that corrects for char
formed through sample pyrolysis (thermal breakdown in inert atmosphere). Some samples
contain components (e.g., cigarette and wood smokes) that carbonize (convert to char
carbon) when the sample is heated in helium during the first part of the analysis. Like the
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter DL April 2016 Page DL-6 of DL-41
Monitoring Diesel Exhaust in the Workplace
EC typical in fine particle pollution, char strongly absorbs light, particularly in the
red/infrared region, resulting in a decrease in the filter transmittance/reflectance. Both
volatile products and char are formed during the decomposition process, which may begin
near 300 °C and continue until the maximum temperature (860-880 °C) is reached.
Optical correction for char is made through use of a pulsed diode laser and photodetector
that continuously monitor the filter transmittance/reflectance.
In the thermal-optical analysis, a filter portion (punch) of known area (typically 1.5 cm2) is
placed in the sample oven, and the oven is tightly sealed. Quartz-fiber filters are required
because temperatures in excess of 850 °C are employed. The analysis proceeds in inert and
oxidizing atmospheres. In both, the evolved carbon is catalytically oxidized to carbon
dioxide (CO2). The CO2 is then reduced to methane (CH4), and CH4 is quantified with a
flame ionization detector (FID).
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter DL April 2016 Page DL-7 of DL-41
Monitoring Diesel Exhaust in the Workplace
organic, and that removed after the split is considered elemental. If no char is formed, the
split is assigned prior to removal of light-absorbing carbon. If the sample chars, the split is
not assigned until enough light-absorbing carbon is removed to increase the
transmittance/reflectance to its initial value. In general, char is more readily oxidized than
diesel-particle EC. The delay (i.e., the transit time from sample to FID) between the laser
and FID signals is considered in the split assignment. Ordinarily, the split is assigned in
the oxidative mode of the analysis.
Figure 2. Thermogram for filter sample containing organic carbon (OC), carbonate
(CC), and elemental carbon (EC). PC is pyrolytically generated carbon or “char.” Final
peak is methane calibration peak. Carbon sources: pulverized beet pulp, rock dust
(carbonate), and DPM.
EC and OC results are reported in micrograms per square centimeter (μg/cm2) of the
sample deposit. The total OC and EC on the filter are calculated by multiplying the
reported values by the deposit area. In this approach, a homogeneous deposit is assumed.
For triplicate analyses, the precision (relative standard deviation) is normally under 5%,
and it is typically 2% or better [NIOSH 1994b (2003 supplement)]. The total carbon (TC)
in the sample is the sum of OC and EC. If carbonate is present, the carbon in it is
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter DL April 2016 Page DL-8 of DL-41
Monitoring Diesel Exhaust in the Workplace
quantified as OC, unless a carbonate-subtracted value is requested. Additional details
about carbonates are given in a following section.
c. Accuracy
Reference materials are not available for determining the accuracy of OC-EC
measurements on filter samples of complex carbonaceous aerosols. For this reason, only
the accuracy of the method in the determination of TC could be examined. No discernable
differences in the responses of five different organic compounds were found. Linear
regression of the data (43 analyses total) for all five compounds gave a slope and
correlation coefficient (r) near unity [slope = 0.99 (±0.01), r2 = 0.999, n = 43]. In addition
to the OC standards, eight different carbonaceous materials were analyzed. Three different
methods (including the thermal-optical method) were used, and laboratories reported the
TC contents of the samples. The samples analyzed included DPM and other types of
carbonaceous matter (coals, urban dust, humic acid). Thermal-optical results agreed well
with those reported by the two other laboratories. The variability in TC results for the
three laboratories ranged from about 1%–7%. These findings [Birch and Cary 1996a;
NIOSH 1994a (1998 supplement)] indicate that TC is accurately quantified, irrespective of
sample type.
d. Limit of detection
To estimate the method’s limit of detection (LOD), a set of low-level calibration standards
(ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid [EDTA]) was analyzed [Birch and Cary 1996a; NIOSH
1994a (1998 supplement)]. The standards covered a loading range from 0.23 to 2.82 μg C
(or from 0.15 to 1.83 μg C per cm2 of filter). Results of linear regression of the low-level
calibration data were then used to calculate a LOD as 3 σy/m, where σy is the standard error
of the regression and m is the slope of the regression line. The LOD estimated through the
linear regression results was 0.24 μg C, or 0.15 μg/cm2. This value showed good agreement
with the LOD estimated as 3σblank (three times the standard deviation for blanks), which
gave a value of about 0.3 μg C. The mean (n = 40) instrumental blank was 0.03 ±0.1 μg C.
With a 960-L air sample collected on a 37-mm filter and use of a 1.5 cm2 sample portion,
this LOD translates to an air concentration of about 2 µg/m3. As with all sampling and
analytical methods, the LOD is a varying number that depends on the instrument,
sampling parameters, and means by which the LOD is calculated.
NIOSH Method 5040 was developed for monitoring workplace exposure to DPM,
especially in mines, where EC concentrations are relatively high (e.g., hundreds of µg/m3).
However, the thermal-optical technique on which 5040 is based has application to other
types of carbonaceous aerosols. Thermal-optical analysis also has been applied to studies
of U.S. workers exposed to carbon nanotubes and nanofibers (CNT and CNF) [Birch et al.
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter DL April 2016 Page DL-9 of DL-41
Monitoring Diesel Exhaust in the Workplace
2011; Dahm et al. 2012; Dahm et al. 2015; NIOSH 2013]. For these studies, a lower LOD
was needed because workplace concentrations of CNT/CNF are generally low. As
recommended in Method 5040, a smaller (25-mm) filter and a higher flow rate were used
to obtain a lower LOD (about 1 µg EC/m3 or lower). Manual assignment of the OC-EC
split also was made. Application of Method 5040 to carbon nanomaterials is discussed
below (see Carbon Nanomaterials).
e. Air sampling
In the initial evaluation of the thermal-optical method, a set of laboratory-generated air
samples was analyzed. A dilution tunnel equipped with a dynamometer was used for
generation of diesel particulate samples. Four EC concentrations, ranging from 23 to
240 μg/m3 (EC loadings from 2.7 to 27 μg/cm2), were generated. The analytical results
[NIOSH 1994b (1998 supplement)] indicated that the method met the NIOSH accuracy
criterion [Kennedy et al. 1995]. The variance was roughly proportional to the mean
concentration; therefore, the relative standard deviation (RSD) decreased with increasing
concentration. The accuracy was calculated accordingly. The accuracy was ±16.7% at the
lowest loading (2.7 μg/cm2), with an overall precision (RSD) of 8.5%. On the basis of a
method evaluation, the NIOSH accuracy criterion requires a confidence limit on the
accuracy less than 25% at the 95% confidence level. Restated, the criterion dictates that
greater than 95% of the measurements fall within ±25% of the true value at 95%
confidence in the method’s validation experiments. The method was considered unbiased
(i.e., considered the reference method), and the overall precision reflected method
accuracy. In this initial test, the sample generation and collection system was the main
source of variability, not the analysis.
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter DL April 2016 Page DL-10 of DL-41
Monitoring Diesel Exhaust in the Workplace
Similar performance was obtained from collected samples in an underground
molybdenum mine. Five different sampler types were used (closed-face 25-mm and 37-
mm cassettes; 298 cascade impactor [7 stages, 0.9-μm cutpoint]; cyclone with filter; in-
house impactor). The RSD for the EC results (mean EC = 297 μg/m3) was 7%. The EC
deposits obtained with all five sampler types were homogeneous, even when the ore
deposit was visually heavier in the center of the filter (e.g., with the closed-face 37-mm
cassette). Although the dust loading was higher in the center of the filter, portions taken
from the center gave equivalent EC results, indicating the ore contained no EC
component. The TC results for the center portions were only slightly higher, so this
particular ore was mostly inorganic. EC concentrations found with three different sampler
types (nylon cyclone, open-faced cassette, and impactor with submicrometer cut) also
were comparable in a study of railroad workers [Verma et al. 1999].
If high levels of other dusts are present, a size classifier (e.g., impactor and/or cyclone)
should be used to prevent filter overloading, particularly if the dust is carbonaceous. In the
latter case, a size classifier provides a more selective measure of the diesel-source OC. It
also provides a better measure of the diesel-source EC if the dust contains an EC
component, which is less common. A finely ground sample of the bulk material can be
analyzed to determine whether a specific dust poses potential interference [Birch and Cary
1996a]. Depending on the dust concentration, size distribution, and target analyte, an
impactor may be required.
For mines, the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) recommends a specialized
impactor to minimize collection of carbonates and other carbonaceous dusts [66 Fed. Reg.
5706 (2001)]. An impactor can greatly improve the selectivity of the TC measurement in
some cases, but it may exclude a small amount of the DPM. Then, too, some OC
interferences cannot be excluded on the basis of size (e.g., condensation aerosols, fumes,
wood and cigarette smokes). If present in the sampling environment, these materials can
positively bias the OC (TC) results to some degree, depending on their relative
concentrations and the sampling location. Although 37-mm or 25-mm cassettes are often
suitable for general industry, the required sampler depends on the sampling environment.
f. Carbonates
The presence of carbonate is indicated by a narrow peak during the fourth temperature
step in helium (Figure 2). Its presence is verified by exposing a second portion of the filter
to hydrogen chloride (HCl) vapor prior to analysis. When the acidified portion is
analyzed, a diminished (or absent) peak during the fourth temperature step is indicative of
carbonate in the original sample. (Note: Acid treatment may sometimes alter the
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter DL April 2016 Page DL-11 of DL-41
Monitoring Diesel Exhaust in the Workplace
appearance of the EC profile in the thermogram [output signal of thermal-optical
instrument], but the EC result itself should not be affected significantly.)
A desiccator containing concentrated HCl (added to the desiccator or a petri dish placed
at the bottom of it) can be used to acidify the sample portions. The desiccator, or
alternative vessel, should be used in a well-ventilated hood. The filter portions are placed
on the desiccator tray, and the tray is placed in the desiccator. A wetted pH indicator stick
can be used to check acidity. A wetted indicator stick inserted between the desiccator lid
and base should give a pH near 2. Portions should be exposed to the acid vapor for about
1 hour (large particles may require more time). After acidification, the tray is placed on a
clean, inert surface inside the hood. The residual acid on the portions should be allowed to
volatilize in the hood for at least an hour prior to analysis.
Environmental samples typically contain little (if any) carbonate, but levels in some
occupational samples can be quite high. For example, respirable dust samples collected in
limestone and trona mines can contain high levels of calcium carbonate and sodium
sesquicarbonate, respectively. In such cases, acidified samples give a better measure of the
diesel-source OC (TC). If the carbonate loading is relatively high (e.g., carbonate carbon
>10% of the TC), the difference between the TC results (before and after acidification)
gives an estimate of carbonate carbon (CC). Estimation of CC by difference assumes the
carbonate is evenly deposited on the filter, which may not always be the case. It also
assumes that OC loss through acidification is negligible. The latter assumption is generally
true for workplace samples, but depends on sample composition and loading.
The presence of a small “peak” during the fourth temperature step is not necessarily due to
carbonate. Other carbonaceous matter (e.g., char) is sometimes removed during the fourth
step. Unlike carbonates, which produce a relatively sharp peak, other materials typically
evolve as a small, broad peak. If determination of relatively low (e.g., CC <10% of TC)
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter DL April 2016 Page DL-12 of DL-41
Monitoring Diesel Exhaust in the Workplace
amounts of CC is desired, a second portion of the sample should be acidified and analyzed
to verify the presence of carbonate and reveal any underlying baseline features contributed
by other materials. A more accurate estimate of CC can then be obtained by integrating
the first (nonacidified) sample over the missing peak area (i.e., area removed through
acidification).
g. Carbon nanomaterials
NIOSH Method 5040 was developed for monitoring workplace exposure DPM, as EC, but
the thermal-optical analysis technique on which it is based has application to other types
of carbonaceous aerosols and materials. Method 5040 has been applied to field studies on
carbon nanomaterials, wherein EC was used as a measure of exposure to carbon
nanotubes and nanofibers (CNT and CNF) [Birch et al. 2011; Dahm et al. 2012; Dahm et
al. 2015; Fatkhutdinova et al. 2016; NIOSH 2013]. Because CNT/CNF are composed of
EC, EC is a quantitative measure of airborne CNT/CNF [Birch et al. 2011; NIOSH 2013].
In 2013, NIOSH set a recommended exposure limit (REL) for CNT/CNF: an 8-hr time
weighted average (TWA) of 1 μg/m3 as respirable EC [NIOSH 2013].
For application of NIOSH 5040 to CNT/CNF, a manual OC-EC split is assigned. The
larger size (μm versus nanoscale DPM) and agglomerate structure of CNT/CNF particles,
combined with low air concentrations (i.e., filter loadings), make the 5040 auto-split
unreliable [Dahm et al. 2015; NIOSH 2013]. Adjustments to the thermal program also may
be needed depending on the material, size fraction collected, and environmental
background [Birch et al. 2011; Dahm et al. 2015; Doudrick et al., 2012; NIOSH 2013].
Analysis of bulk and background samples is recommended [NIOSH 2013]. Determining
the thermal profiles of bulk materials produced/processed in a given workplace, and using
this information, along with results for background samples, assists manual assignment of
the OC-EC split and can provide more accurate CNT/CNF measurement.
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter DL April 2016 Page DL-13 of DL-41
Monitoring Diesel Exhaust in the Workplace
(MWCNT), some graphite products are difficult to oxidize. On the other hand, if a
material is completely oxidized at 875 °C, prolonged heating at 920 °C is unnecessary. In
some cases (e.g., early EC loss), a lower maximum temperature in the helium also may be
appropriate [NIOSH 2003]. These changes are minor adjustments that can be made to
optimize the thermal analysis.
In general, most CNT/CNF materials can be oxidized from the filter. However, there may
be instances where sample oxidation is incomplete, even with holding at 920 °C (or
higher) for an extended period (e.g., high loadings of graphite products or Mitsui-7). For
bulks analyses, only small amounts (e.g., about 10 µg or less) of material should be
analyzed, to better match the loadings of the field samples, for comparison with the bulk.
If residual material (CNT) remains (post analysis), incomplete oxidation is obvious as the
signal does not return to baseline and a filter deposit is visible.
Even with the aid of bulks and judicious choice of background samples, it may not be
possible to exclude EC background, posing an interference problem at low CNT/CNF
loadings. Also, amorphous carbon in the CNT/CNF materials may cause positive bias
[NIOSH 2013]. If the oxidation rates of the amorphous carbon and CNT/CNF are
sufficiently different, it may be possible to remove the amorphous material to a greater
extent, but the oxidation rates may be too similar for speciation.
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter DL April 2016 Page DL-14 of DL-41
Monitoring Diesel Exhaust in the Workplace
acknowledged when the thermal-optical method was proposed [55 Fed. Reg. 110
(1990); Birch 1991], but this issue was not investigated prior to publication of NIOSH
5040 because an EC surrogate was recommended. In view of the MSHA-proposed air
standard for TC (proposed after 5040 publication), and the fact that both OC and EC
are determined, the issue was later addressed.
2.) Adsorbed OC
Correction for adsorbed organic vapor through use of traditional blanks (media or
field) may not be accurate because the amount of vapor adsorbed by them is variable
[Birch et al. 1999a]. More importantly, traditional blanks collect vapor passively, while
the samples collect it actively (during sampling). A more representative correction for
adsorbed organic vapor can be made through use of two filters in tandem [Kirchstetter
et al. 2001; Turpin et al. 1994]. The air sample is collected with a sampler containing a
Teflon® or quartz upper filter and a bottom quartz filter. After sampling, the bottom
filter is used to correct for adsorbed vapor. The vapor adsorbed on the bottom filter
more closely represents that adsorbed on the sample filter (quartz) because both are
collected actively. Use of two quartz filters is preferable to Teflon and quartz because
the filter used to correct for adsorbed vapor is in the same sampler; however, the
second (bottom) quartz filter may underestimate the amount of adsorbed OC relative
to a quartz filter under Teflon [Kirchstetter et al. 2001; Turpin et al. 1994]. These
results have been attributed to depletion of the vapor concentration by the top quartz
filter, which presents a lower concentration to the bottom one. A shorter equilibration
time (for partitioning between gas phase and adsorbed state) is expected with Teflon
filters because they have less surface area and are more inert than quartz. Thus, less
adsorption is expected on Teflon relative to quartz. Because differences in the amount
of adsorbed OC have been reported for the two sampling configurations, both were
examined.
Six sets of air samples were collected. Two pre-cleaned quartz-fiber filters were loaded
into each of eight 37-mm cassettes. In four of these, a Teflon filter was then placed on
top. The bottom quartz filters in all eight cassettes, as well as the four directly under the
Teflon filters, provided measures of adsorbed OC. Filters in four additional cassettes
served as passive field blanks, meaning no air was pulled through them. The second
(bottom) quartz filters in the cassettes with the Teflon filters were compared to the
bottom quartz filters in those having only a quartz pair. If negligible adsorption occurs
on Teflon, the bottom quartz filters in the two different sampling configurations
should give equivalent results. To avoid possible variability due to lot-to-lot
differences, filters from the same lot were used to collect a given sample set.
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter DL April 2016 Page DL-15 of DL-41
Monitoring Diesel Exhaust in the Workplace
3.) Portable dust chamber
A portable dust chamber [Kogut et al. 1997] designed for sampling in mines was used
for sample collection. The chamber allowed simultaneous collection of up to eighteen
samples. Twelve cassettes were mounted inside the chamber in a symmetrical fashion.
Samples were collected on six different days, five days in a loading dock area and a
sixth near an outside smokers’ shelter. A diesel truck was operating in the loading
dock, over different periods, on three of the days. Personal air pumps were
programmed to run at 2 L/min over an 8-hour period. In one case, the pumps were
stopped after 23 minutes. The short sampling period provided a low loading of diesel
exhaust (a light deposit was visible) and was of interest with respect to the amount of
adsorbed carbon collected in the short time frame.
Results for the six sample sets are shown in Table1 and Figure 3. The QQ2 results
correspond to the bottom quartz filters in the four cassettes containing quartz pairs
only. The TQQ1 results are for the four filters directly beneath Teflon filters; TQQ2
results are for quartz filters beneath the TQQ1 filters (i.e., top Teflon, middle TQQ1,
bottom TQQ2). The mean carbon on the bottom quartz filters ranged from 1.35 to
3.44 µg/cm2, and the variability (RSD) ranged from about 4% to 12% on a given day.
The loading found on the two sets of bottom filters (QQ2 and TQQ2) was not
statistically different, so all bottom filters were pooled in the calculation of the mean.
The pooled means for the bottom quartz filters (BQ), the means for the quartz under
Teflon (TQQ1), and the corresponding OC and EC loadings are plotted in Figure 3.
Results for the TQQ1 filters were only slightly higher than those for the bottom quartz
filters, even with the 23-minute sampling period (set 4). Thus, using a separate cassette
that has a top Teflon filter appears unnecessary. Although differences between the
amount of carbon adsorbed on a quartz filter under another quartz and on one
beneath a Teflon filter reportedly can be significant [Kirchstetter et al. 2001; Turpin et
al. 1994], these studies concerned environmental monitoring at much higher flow
rates. The negligible differences reported here most likely relate to the lower flow rates
and filter face velocities used.
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter DL April 2016 Page DL-16 of DL-41
Monitoring Diesel Exhaust in the Workplace
Figure 3. Results for six sets of air samples collected in two outdoor locations. OC
and EC results are the means for the top quartz filters (QQ1) of quartz-filter pairs.
TQQ1 is the mean carbon (total) result for quartz filters placed directly beneath
Teflon. BQ is the mean carbon result for all bottom quartz filters (i.e., QQ2 and
TQQ2). See text for additional details.
Table 1. Results summary for total carbon (TC, µg/cm2) from six sets of air samples
collected in two outdoor locations (SD = standard deviation; RSD = relative
standard deviation). See text for details.
Set Location QQ1 QQ1 QQ1 TQQ1 TQQ1 TQQ1 Bottom Bottom Bottom Bottom Bottom Adsorbed
mean SD RSD mean SD RSD quartz quartz quartz quartz quartz fraction
(%) (%) mean, mean, mean, mean, mean, (%)
QQ2 TQQ2 pooled SD RSD (%)
1 shelter 4.81 0.47 9.77 3.66 0.43 11.8 3.46 3.41 3.44 0.30 8.80 76
2 dock 3.52 0.25 7.10 2.82 0.36 12.8 2.48 2.33 2.43 0.23 9.57 80
3 dock 3.61 0.05 1.39 2.89 0.04 1.38 2.41 2.42 2.41 0.18 7.45 80
4 dock 4.59 0.18 3.92 1.79 0.24 13.4 1.41 1.36 1.38 0.09 6.46 30
5 dock 8.43 0.33 3.91 1.84 0.35 19.0 1.35 1.36 1.35 0.16 12.0 22
6 dock 22.8 0.35 1.54 3.62 0.18 4.97 3.10 3.18 3.14 0.13 4.09 16
The mean carbon loading (Table 1) on the sample filters (QQ1) was about 4 µg/cm2 on
four different days (sample sets 1–4). A diesel truck was operating briefly on one of
these days (set 4). On two other days (sets 5 and 6), the truck was running for longer
periods, as evidenced by the higher EC loadings (Figure 3). The corresponding TC
loadings on these two days were about 8 µg/cm2 and 23 µg/cm2. Over the loading
range, the amount of adsorbed OC had no dependence on the TC loading, and the OC
results for the bottom quartz filters (1.35 to 3.44 µg/cm2) were higher than those for the
passive field blanks (0.17 to 0.74 µg/cm2). Two of the results (sets 4 and 5) were slightly
lower than the others. In one case (set 4), the sampling period (23 minutes) was
shorter, but the adsorbed OC results for the bottom filters in both sampling
configurations (i.e., QQ2 and TQQ2) were equivalent and comparable to the upper
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter DL April 2016 Page DL-17 of DL-41
Monitoring Diesel Exhaust in the Workplace
quartz filters (TQQ1), below the Teflon. This implied that partitioning [Turpin et al.
1994] (between gas and adsorbed states) on the sample filters (QQ1) had reached
equilibrium; thus, the lower result was not due to lack of equilibration. In large part,
the results for passive blanks provided a likely explanation for the lower value. The
mean blank (passive) for this set was 0.17 (±0.10) µg/cm2, which was the lowest value
obtained. Passive blank results for the other sets (excluding set 5) ranged from
0.25 (±0.07) to 0.74 (±0.14) µg/cm2. It is not known whether the same explanation
applied to set 5 because passive blanks for this set were accidentally contaminated
(results voided). As in sets 1–3 and 6, set 5 was collected for an 8-hour period, but it
was collected during the spring, while the other sets were collected during midsummer.
Changed weather conditions may explain the lower value.
Over three days, the adsorbed OC fraction (calculated as the TQQ1 TC mean divided
by QQ1 TC mean) constituted about 80% of the TC on the sample filters (QQ1). On
three other days (sets 4, 5, and 6), the adsorbed OC fraction was 39%, 22%, and 16% of
the total. A backup quartz filter provided a better correction for adsorbed carbon than
a traditional blank would have. Traditional blanks (media and field) underestimated
the adsorbed OC, causing overestimation of the true particulate OC (TC)
concentration. The need for this correction, and the number of backup filters analyzed,
depends on the sampling strategy and environment. The lower the OC loading, the
greater the influence of adsorbed vapor on the particulate OC measurement. If the EC
loading also is low, the same holds true for the TC result. Thus, when carbon loadings
are low, correction for adsorbed OC is important for accurate measurement of
particulate OC and TC concentrations. However, the correction addresses adsorbed
vapor only—not interference of less volatile materials (e.g., components in cigarette
and wood smokes, oils) collected primarily on the top filter. Depending on vapor
pressure, sampling conditions (temperature, flow rate, sampling period), and filter
loading, these materials also collect on the bottom filter to some extent. The bottom
filter cannot correct for this interference. If high OC loadings are found on the bottom
filter, less volatile OC interferences should be suspected.
i. EC oxidation in helium
In the NIOSH 5040 analysis, oxidation of original EC (as opposed to char) is sometimes
seen during the last temperature step in helium, but this is generally not common. If early
removal occurs, it is important to ensure that oxygen contamination is not responsible.
This check can be performed by analyzing a sucrose standard solution applied to a clean,
unused filter punch. Although char loss is sometimes observed with sucrose, the filter
transmittance normally does not reach its initial value until after oxygen is introduced. If
oxygen contamination can be ruled out, the early EC loss is most likely due to oxidants in
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter DL April 2016 Page DL-18 of DL-41
Monitoring Diesel Exhaust in the Workplace
the sample. In our laboratory, EC loss in helium has been observed with samples from a
few mines [Birch 1998b]. With these samples, the filter transmittance exceeded its baseline
(initial) value during the last temperature step in helium. No sample pyrolysis was
apparent, so the increase in transmittance was not caused by char loss. Moreover, analysis
of sucrose standards revealed only a minor increase in transmittance in helium, and no
increase was seen with samples from other mines. For these reasons, oxygen
contamination was ruled out. On average, about 10% of the EC was removed at 870 °C in
helium, but the carbon removed was included in the EC result because the OC-EC split
was assigned when the initial transmittance was reached (in helium). Reducing the
maximum temperature to 750 °C was recommended [NIOSH 1994a, 1994b] for these
types of samples (i.e., no sample charring and early splits in helium). Early EC loss was not
seen at this temperature. A lower (<750 °C) temperature may be required, depending on
the sample composition. Our analytical results and precision were not affected by the early
splits, but a reduced temperature was recommended in the interest of interlaboratory
precision, which might be adversely affected. Interlaboratory testing was not conducted to
determine if this is the case, and, if so, whether a lower temperature would improve
precision.
j. Reference materials
As mentioned, a suitable reference material for OC and EC is not available. A Certified
Value (17.68% g/g) for the TC mass fraction of an urban dust standard (SRM 1649a,
formerly SRM 1649) was reported by the National Institute of Standards and Technology
(NIST), but only Information (not Certified) Values were provided for the EC content.
The EC content (as EC:TC fractions) was determined by a variety of methods. As
expected, based on prior studies [Birch 1998a; Chow et al. 2001; Countess 1990; Norris et
al. 1999; Schmid et al. 2001], the results were quite variable. The EC:TC fractions found by
13 methods ranged from about 7% to 52%, and the data were distributed in three clusters.
Method bias was not evaluated. The reported range is too broad to use this material as an
analytical standard. According to the Certificate of Analysis (1649a), the reported values
may be useful for comparison with results obtained by similar methods, but this may not
be the case for methods with optical corrections because filter samples are not available.
Depending on its placement, bulk dust on a filter can present different optical properties,
which may increase variability. Sample composition is an important consideration in the
production of an analytical reference material. As is true with many standards, no single
OC-EC material can be representative of all samples because there are many sources of
particulate carbon and many different monitoring sites—both occupational and
environmental. Production of an OC-EC reference material is further complicated by the
variability between methods (SRM 1649a provides only Information Values for different
methods), and the need of a filter-based material for thermal-optical methods.
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter DL April 2016 Page DL-19 of DL-41
Monitoring Diesel Exhaust in the Workplace
Because sample components that char pose a potential interference in the determination
of EC, and interlaboratory variability is greater when samples contain them, analysis of
organic materials that char provides an important quality assurance check. Sucrose serves
as both an analytical standard and a check of the method’s char correction, but sucrose is a
simple carbohydrate (a disaccharide). Air samples can contain complex particulate matter,
such as wood and cigarette smokes, plant debris (cellulose), and products of biomass
burning. In some cases, biomass may contribute a sizable fraction of the sample carbon.
About 38% of the particulate carbon in SRM 1649a (an urban dust) is derived from
biomass (see Certificate of Analysis [NIST 2001] and related publication [Currie et al.
2002]). For these reasons, a material more representative of the plant-derived components
in air samples was sought.
Various plant-derived materials were examined to determine whether any would be useful
as laboratory control samples. A well-characterized, stable material that chars also would
be useful for proficiency testing, and it could potentially be used to produce a standard
reference material. After a preliminary screening of candidate materials (e.g., agarose,
alginic acid, starch, and cellulose), alginic acid was selected for further study. Alginic acid
is a polysaccharide derived from sea kelp [Morrison and Boyd 1973], it has adequate
solubility in water, and it forms a significant amount of char during the analysis.
To prepare a solution, about 150 mg of alginic acid (Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, MO) was
added to a test tube containing 10 mL of purified water (ultrafiltered, type I). The tube was
shaken vigorously and allowed to sit overnight at room temperature. The following day,
the tube was shaken again and then centrifuged to settle the suspended material. The clear
supernatant was removed and syringe filtered. Aliquots of the alginic acid solution were
applied to clean filter punches. The solution was analyzed over a seven-week period.
Results of these analyses are plotted in Figure 4. No evidence of solution degradation was
observed. A mean carbon loading of 13.98 µg/cm2 (RSD = 3.06%, n = 22) was obtained for
10-µL aliquots of the solution. This translates to a carbon concentration of 2.06 µg/µL.
About half of the carbon in alginic acid remained on the filter as char before oxygen was
introduced, but the mean EC result (0.04 ±0.06 µg/cm2) was not statistically different from
that for the media blanks (0.06 ±0.03). Therefore, the pyrolysis correction was accurate.
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter DL April 2016 Page DL-20 of DL-41
Monitoring Diesel Exhaust in the Workplace
Figure 4. Results for clean punches (blanks) spiked with 10-µL aliquots of alginic acid
solution. Analyses done over a 7-week period. The middle horizontal line is the mean
result (13.98 µg/cm2). The upper and lower dashed lines are ±5% of the mean.
Sets of diesel soot samples spiked with the alginic acid solution also were examined.
Multiple punches (1.5 cm2) were taken from a soot sample collected on an 8” x 10” filter.
The punches were then analyzed before and after spiking with a 10-µL aliquot of the
solution. Punches in a given set were taken from the same area of the filter to minimize
variability, and the solution was applied in a consistent manner (dispersed evenly on one
end of the punch where the laser penetrates it). Mean TC results for the unspiked and
spiked samples are provided in Table 2. Results for three sample sets (A, B, and C) are
reported. For each set, the difference between the mean results for the unspiked and
spiked samples is reported; this difference is the alginic acid carbon. Based on the mean
(13.98 µg/cm2) for 22 spiked blanks, recoveries of alginic acid carbon from the soot
samples were 96%, 101%, and 110% (sets A, B, and C, respectively). The pooled recovery
for all spiked samples was 97%.
Table 2. Recovery of alginic acid carbon (means and standard deviations, n=3; µg/cm2)
from unspiked diesel particulate samples and samples spiked with 10-µL alginic acid
solution.
Sample set Unspiked Spiked Difference Recovery* (%)
A 22.9 (1.49) 34.9 (0.66) 13.5 96
B 22.3 (0.28) 36.4 (0.65) 14.1 101
C 22.6 (0.33) 38.0 (0.80) 15.4 110
All 22.6 (0.84) 36.1 (1.32) 13.5 97
*Based on mean result (14.0 µg/cm2) for 22 analyses of spiked blank punches; analyses
carried out over a 7-week period.
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter DL April 2016 Page DL-21 of DL-41
Monitoring Diesel Exhaust in the Workplace
Table 3. Results for elemental carbon (EC; means and standard deviations, n=3;
µg/cm2) from spiked and unspiked diesel particulate samples.
Sample set Unspiked Spiked Difference
A 4.24 (0.20) 4.36 (0.42) 0.12 (0.47)
B 3.88 (0.01) 3.78 (0.12) -0.10 (0.12)
C 4.32 (0.14) 4.43 (0.12) 0.11 (0.18)
EC results for the three sample sets are listed in Table 3. Spiked sample results for two sets
(A and C) were slightly higher, while those for a third set (B) were slightly lower.
Differences between the mean EC loadings on the unspiked and spiked samples were not
statistically different. Thus, an accurate correction was again made for the char formed
through pyrolysis of alginic acid.
k. Quality assurance
1.) NIOSH
Quality assurance (QA) procedures followed at NIOSH and NIOSH contract
laboratories have included repeat analyses, analysis of OC standards, and analysis of
media and field blanks. Results for repeat analyses of over 200 filter samples at a
contract laboratory (DataChem Laboratories, Inc., Salt Lake City, UT) gave a pooled
RSD (95% confidence) of about 4% for EC and TC, and 5% for OC [Birch et al. 1999a].
The samples were collected in mines, and some contained other carbonaceous matter
such as limestone. In the analysis of OC standards, recovery was typically within 6% of
the expected value [Birch et al. 1999a]. For example, the mean recovery for more than
400 sucrose standards analyzed at DataChem over a one-year period was 99.97%
±6.07%. Nearly identical results (100.33% ±5.15%, n = 462) were obtained by Clayton
Laboratory Services (Novi, MI). Different sets of field blanks (41 at DataChem and 129
at Clayton) analyzed by the two laboratories also gave comparable results [Birch et al.
1999a]. Mean blank results (µg carbon per filter) were as follows: DataChem OC = 9.96
±7.05, Clayton OC = 12.80 ±5.76; DataChem EC = –0.54 ±1.89, Clayton EC = –0.08
±2.14; DataChem TC = 9.26 ±7.30, Clayton TC = 12.70 ±6.18.
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter DL April 2016 Page DL-22 of DL-41
Monitoring Diesel Exhaust in the Workplace
2.) EPA
The EPA conducted a special study [EPA 2001] as part of the QA oversight for the
PM2.5 Speciation Trends Network (STN). Samples collected as part of this network
were removed from refrigerated storage eight months after they were analyzed at
Research Triangle Institute (RTI, Research Triangle Park, NC). The samples were then
shipped to the EPA New England Regional Laboratory (NERL, Lexington, MA) for
reanalysis. Good interlaboratory agreement was reported. The acceptance criteria for
the archived samples were based on filter loading (µg/cm2). The three acceptance
criteria are the following: a difference ≤1 µg/cm2 for loadings less than 5 µg/cm2, a
relative percent difference (RPD) ≤20% for loadings from 5 to 10 µg/cm2, and an RPD
≤15% for loadings above 10 µg/cm2. The OC, EC, and TC data had 85%, 96%, and 93%
of the interlaboratory results, respectively, within the acceptance criteria. The lower
percentages for OC and TC are thought to reflect contamination of lightly loaded
samples from adsorbed vapors and handling. An OC blank (passive) correction was
applied but may not have been representative of the entire sample set. Additional
comparison results are discussed in the next section: Interlaboratory Comparisons.
3 Interlaboratory comparisons
a. NIOSH 5040
When results of the initial method evaluation were published [Birch and Cary 1996a], an
interlaboratory comparison was not possible because the thermal-optical instrument was
available in only one laboratory. Interlaboratory comparisons are especially important in
this type of analysis because variable results have been obtained by different OC-EC
methods [e.g., Birch 1998a; Chow et al. 2001; Countess 1990; Norris et al. 1999; Schmid et
al. 2001;], and a reference material is not available. After additional laboratories acquired
thermal-optical instruments, a round robin comparison [Birch 1998a] was conducted.
Matched sets of filter samples containing different types of complex carbonaceous aerosols
were distributed to eleven laboratories. Six of the eleven analyzed the samples according to
NIOSH 5040, while five used purely thermal (i.e., no char correction) methods. Good
interlaboratory agreement was obtained among the six laboratories that used NIOSH
5040. In the analysis of samples containing DPM, the variability (RSD) for the EC results
ranged from 6% to 9%. Only low EC fractions were found in wood and cigarette smokes.
Thus, these materials pose minimal interference in the analysis of diesel-source EC. In
addition, only minor amounts of EC were found in two OC standards that char: about 1%
and 0.1% for sucrose and the disodium salt of ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA),
respectively. Two aqueous solutions of OC standards were included in the comparison as a
check on the validity of the char correction and accuracy of the TC results. Variability
(RSD) of the TC results for the two standard solutions and five filter samples ranged from
3% to 6%.
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter DL April 2016 Page DL-23 of DL-41
Monitoring Diesel Exhaust in the Workplace
Note: In the round-robin study [Birch et al. 1996a] discussed above, the maximum
temperature in helium ranged from about 850 °C to 900 °C. Comparable results were
obtained because some differences in the thermal program do not affect the results
significantly (e.g., also see Chai et al. 2012). For the purpose of standardization, use of the
same maximum is recommended.
Results of other interlaboratory comparisons on NIOSH 5040 have been reported. In one
study [Schauer et al. 2001], seven environmental aerosol samples were analyzed in
duplicate by eight laboratories. Four samples were collected in U.S. cities, and three were
collected in Asia. Variability of the EC results ranged from 6% to 21% for six samples
having EC loadings from 0.7 to 8.4 μg/cm2. Four of the six had low EC loadings
(0.7 μg/cm2 to 1.4 μg/cm2). The variability of the OC results ranged from 4% to 13% (OC
loadings ranged from about 1 to 25 μg/cm2). Results for TC were not reported, but the
variability reported for the OC results should be representative of that for TC because the
samples were mostly OC (75% to 92%). For another comparison [Chai et al. 2012],
matched-filter sets with known OC–EC contents were generated and distributed to six
laboratories. In this study, the maximum temperature in helium varied from 650 °C to
850 °C, but good agreement between the participating laboratories was found. Results
indicated a uniform carbon distribution for the filter sets. Relative standard deviations for
mean TC, OC, and EC results for seven laboratories were less than 10%, 11%, and 12%
(respectively). Except for one EC result (RSD = 16%), RSDs reported by individual
laboratories, for TC, OC, and EC, were under 12%. The method of filter generation is
generally applicable and reproducible. Depending on the application, different filter
loadings and types of OC materials can be employed. Matched filter sets can be used for
determining the accuracy of OC–EC methods, which are operational.
b. Other methods
1.) Thermal methods
Different thermal methods have given consistent agreement for TC, but OC-EC results
have been quite variable [Birch 1998a; Chow et al. 2001; Countess 1990; Norris et al.
1999; Schmid et al. 2001]. The degree of variability depends on the sample type. In
general, there is greater disagreement among methods when samples contain materials
that char [Birch 1998a; Countess 1990; Schmid et al. 2001] (e.g., wood and cigarette
smokes). Methods that employ a lower maximum temperature and/or do not correct
for char obtain results that are positively biased relative to NIOSH 5040 [Birch 1998a].
When a lower temperature (typically 550 °C) is used, less thermal breakdown of
refractory organic components (and possibly carbonates) may occur. This, as well as
lack of char correction, can positively bias the EC results. In the round robin study
[Birch 1998a] discussed above, three laboratories employed four purely thermal
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter DL April 2016 Page DL-24 of DL-41
Monitoring Diesel Exhaust in the Workplace
methods that specified a maximum in nitrogen (not helium) of about 550 °C. Unlike
the NIOSH 5040 results, these laboratories reported high EC contents for the two OC
standards (about 52% for sucrose and 70% for EDTA). Similar findings (i.e., positive
bias) for thermal methods having no char correction were obtained in another
international round robin [Schmid et al. 2001].
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter DL April 2016 Page DL-25 of DL-41
Monitoring Diesel Exhaust in the Workplace
higher temperature is used to better remove refractory OC components and
carbonates. In the NIOSH 5040 analysis, the transmittance of some samples continues
to decrease as the temperature is stepped to 850 °C, indicating further carbonization
above 550 °C. Additional thermal breakdown and charring result in lower EC results
because char correction is larger, and volatile pyrolysis products are released to a
greater extent. Although environmental samples contain only small amounts (if any) of
carbonate, levels in some workplaces (e.g., mines, construction sites) can be relatively
high. Collection of carbonate can be prevented (or minimized) through use of an
impactor [66 Fed. Reg. 5706 (2001)].
Results of two other comparisons [Chow et al. 2001; Norris et al. 1999] between
NIOSH 5040 and the IMPROVE method have been reported. In one [Chow et al.
2001], the NIOSH 5040 EC was typically less than half the IMPROVE EC; however, a
Sunset Laboratory instrument was not used. Instead, samples were analyzed with a
DRI instrument, by running two different thermal programs [Chow et al. 2001].
Because differences in instrument design affect the OC-EC results to varying degrees,
depending on sample type, the results reported for NIOSH 5040 (emulated on a DRI
instrument) may not be representative of those obtained with a Sunset Laboratory
instrument. Adjustment of the temperature program, according to another method’s
specifications, does not necessarily produce the same results as that method. For
example, lower EC results [Birch 1998a] were obtained with a Sunset Laboratory
instrument when a sucrose standard was analyzed according to the temperature
program specified for a method used in Europe. No pyrolysis correction was made,
and the total analysis time was shorter, yet the EC result was much lower (about 3 µg
with the Sunset instrument and 11 µg with a different instrument).
When the NIOSH 5040 thermal program was used on a DRI instrument, the filter
transmittance reportedly exceeded its initial value before the addition of oxygen [Chow
et al. 2001]. In an audit by a CARB (California Air Resources Board) laboratory, the
same problem was seen with a DRI instrument, but not a Sunset Laboratory
instrument [EPA 2003]. Char loss was extensive when the NIOSH 5040 program was
used on a DRI instrument. Again, the filter transmittance exceeded its initial value in
helium, but the split point was not assigned until after oxygen was introduced. These
results contrast with those obtained by our laboratory and others, and such behavior
was not seen in another comparison [Norris et al. 1999]; however, that comparison
(and the CARB audit) was a direct comparison of the two methods (i.e., samples were
analyzed with both Sunset and DRI instruments). Only 2 of 52 samples analyzed by
Sunset Laboratory showed an increase in transmittance before the addition of oxygen,
and the OC-EC split was near the point where oxygen was added [Norris et al. 1999].
Both samples had low carbon loadings (OC = 4.0 µg/cm2, EC = 0.6 µg/cm2,
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter DL April 2016 Page DL-26 of DL-41
Monitoring Diesel Exhaust in the Workplace
OC = 3.3 µg/cm2, EC = 0.5 µg/cm2) and were thought to be wood-smoke dominated.
As pyrolysis was evident, the increase in filter transmittance was attributed to char loss.
Comparable EC results would have been obtained if the char had not been removed
until after oxygen was added, because char is assigned to the OC fraction. In the
NIOSH 5040 analysis of organic compounds (e.g., sucrose), partial char loss in helium
sometimes occurs. The varying degree of loss may relate to differences in filter purity.
An exposure limit for DPM has been promulgated for metal and nonmetal mines, but there
currently are no limits for other occupational settings (ACGIH withdrew a proposed limit
[ACGIH 2003] for DPM [as EC] from its Notice of Intended Changes [NIC] list in 2003 and
placed it under study). An EC (or TC) standard, rather than submicrometer particulate mass,
would simplify interpretation of the analytical results because the target analyte and exposure
standard would be the same. This would eliminate the problem of extrapolation (to
submicrometer mass), which is not straightforward and introduces unacceptable error. As
discussed previously, OC interferences are a problem with TC measurements; variable EC
content is a problem when measuring EC. If EC concentrations are high and samples are
relatively free of OC contaminates, the TC concentration is a reasonable measure of the diesel
particulate mass, and the EC:TC ratio is representative of the EC fraction of the mass.
However, this situation is uncommon outside of mines. In general industry, EC and OC levels
are normally much lower. And when EC levels are low, the EC:TC ratios are not reliable
estimates of the EC fraction of DPM because OC interferences can skew the ratios low and
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter DL April 2016 Page DL-27 of DL-41
Monitoring Diesel Exhaust in the Workplace
increase variability in the apparent ratio. In such cases, TC is an inaccurate measure of the
diesel particulate concentration.
Exposures in the mining industry are of particular concern because diesel particulate
concentrations in mines [63 Fed. Reg. 17491 (1998); 63 Fed. Reg. 58103 (1998); 66 Fed. Reg.
5706 (2001)] have sometimes exceeded 2 mg/m3, which is one thousand times higher than a
typical environmental level. In its final rule [66 Fed. Reg. 5706 (2001)] on metal and nonmetal
mines, MSHA proposed an interim exposure standard of 400 μg TC per cubic meter of air.
Five years after publication of the rule, a final standard of 150 µg TC per cubic meter was to
apply. In response to a legal challenge, MSHA initiated a limited new rulemaking [67 Fed.
Reg. 60199 (2002)] to revise certain provisions of the final rule. Among other amendments,
MSHA agreed to propose a change of exposure surrogate from TC to EC. Comments on
appropriate interim and final limits for EC were requested in the new rulemaking. MSHA
exposure standards consider health risks and technical and economic feasibility, based on
available engineering controls and their cost.
5 Summary
NIOSH 5040 is based on a thermal-optical analysis technique for particulate carbon. Its
intended application is assessment of workplace exposure to particulate diesel exhaust, but
thermal-optical analysis has been routinely applied to environmental carbonaceous aerosols.
Both OC and EC (and TC as OC + EC) are determined by the method. For reasons discussed
in this chapter, EC was selected as an exposure surrogate for diesel exhaust. Over 30
epidemiological studies are consistent in finding a positive association between exposure to
diesel exhaust and lung cancer, but many studies lack quantitative exposure data. Accurate
monitoring methods are necessary for quantifying the exposure risks.
The thermal-optical instrument incorporates an optical feature that corrects for the char
formed during the analysis of some materials. The EC results of purely thermal methods show
positive bias when samples contain such materials. Although minimal charring has been
observed with most diesel soot samples from mines, workplace (and environmental) air often
contains components that carbonize. Depending on the workplace and thermal protocol,
these components can be significant contributors to the measured EC. For this reason, an
analytical protocol that maximizes removal of OC components (and carbonates) and corrects
for the char formed through thermal decomposition is important. In the NIOSH 5040
analysis, the transmittance/reflectance of some samples continues to decrease as the
temperature is stepped to 850 °C (and higher) in helium, which indicates incomplete
carbonization at the lower temperatures used in some methods. Partial char loss may occur in
helium at higher temperature, but removal of original EC is less common. Good
interlaboratory agreement between OC-EC results has been obtained by laboratories using
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter DL April 2016 Page DL-28 of DL-41
Monitoring Diesel Exhaust in the Workplace
NIOSH 5040. Because a certified reference material is not currently available, confirmation of
results by a second laboratory using NIOSH 5040 is advised, particularly when samples char
during the analysis because interlaboratory results for these types of samples are typically
more variable. Organic materials that char are useful as quality control samples. Accurate
pyrolysis correction was obtained in the NIOSH 5040 analysis of an alginic acid solution
spiked onto blank filters and diesel soot samples. Sucrose has traditionally been used as a
check on the method’s char correction, but other materials are needed that are more
representative of the complex components in air samples.
Continued research is needed to better assess the potential health effects of diesel exhaust and
other types of fine/ultrafine particle pollution. Although the organic compounds associated
with DPM have potential health effects, those traditionally measured are not unique to diesel
exhaust. Nevertheless, characterization of this fraction may be useful in assessment of
exposure risks, particularly if compounds enriched in diesel relative to other particulate
emissions can be used as indicators of mutagenic potency (e.g., specific nitro-PAH). This
information also may identify engine types and operating conditions that produce higher
emission rates of genotoxic compounds.
As reasoned previously [Birch and Cary 1996a], regardless of whether the potential adverse
health effects of diesel particles are due to their tiny, carbonaceous cores, adsorbed
compounds, or a combination of both, monitoring and control of the particulate component
are necessary if the effects are particle related. In most workplaces, diesel engines are the
primary source of fine-particle EC. Other combustion sources may contribute to
environmental levels of EC. These sources may be relevant from an emission control
perspective, but if the potential toxicity of the particles is similar, their origin is not relevant
from a health perspective.
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter DL April 2016 Page DL-29 of DL-41
Monitoring Diesel Exhaust in the Workplace
Disclaimer
Mention of any company or product does not constitute endorsement by NIOSH. In addition,
citations to websites external to NIOSH do not constitute NIOSH endorsement of the
sponsoring organizations or their programs or products. Furthermore, NIOSH is not
responsible for the content of these websites. All web addresses referenced in this document
were accessible as of the publication date.
6 References
52 Fed. Reg. 24634 [1987]. Environmental Protection Agency: Revisions to the national
ambient air quality standards for particulate matter. Washington, DC: U.S. Government
Printing Office, Office of the Federal Register. (To be codified at 40 CFR 51 and 52.)
55 Fed. Reg. 110 [1990]. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), National
Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH): Sampling and analysis of airborne
diesel exhaust particulates; peer review meeting. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing
Office, Office of the Federal Register.
62 Fed. Reg. 38652 [1997]. Environmental Protection Agency: National ambient air quality
standards for particulate matter; final rule. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing
Office, Office of the Federal Register. (To be codified at 40 CFR 50.)
63 Fed. Reg. 17491 [1998]. Mine Safety and Health Administration: Diesel particulate matter
exposure of underground coal miners; proposed rule. Washington, DC: U.S. Government
Printing Office, Office of the Federal Register. (To be codified at 30 CFR 72 and 75.)
63 Fed. Reg. 58103 [1998]. Mine Safety and Health Administration: Diesel particulate matter
exposure of underground metal and nonmetal miners; proposed rule. Washington, DC: U.S.
Government Printing Office, Office of the Federal Register. (To be codified at 30 CFR 57.)
66 Fed. Reg. 5706 [2001]. Mine Safety and Health Administration: Diesel particulate matter
exposure of underground metal and nonmetal miners; final rule. Washington, DC: U.S.
Government Printing Office, Office of the Federal Register. (To be codified at 30 CFR 57.)
67 Fed. Reg. 60199 [2002]. Mine Safety and Health Administration: Diesel particulate matter
exposure of underground metal and nonmetal miners; advanced notice of proposed
rulemaking. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, Office of the Federal
Register. (To be codified at 30 CFR 57.)
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter DL April 2016 Page DL-30 of DL-41
Monitoring Diesel Exhaust in the Workplace
ACGIH [1995]. 1995-1996 Threshold Limit Values for chemical substances and physical
agents & Biological Exposure Indices. Cincinnati, OH: American Conference of
Governmental Industrial Hygienists.
ACGIH [1999]. 1998 annual reports of the committees on threshold limit values (TLVs) and
biological exposure indices (BEI), notice of intended changes for 1999. ACGIH Today 6(8):1-
2. Cincinnati, OH: American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists.
ACGIH [2001a]. 2000 annual reports of the committees on TLVs and BEIs, notice of intended
changes for 2001. ACGIH Today 9(1). Cincinnati, OH: American Conference of
Governmental Industrial Hygienists.
ACGIH [2001b]. Diesel exhaust (particulate and particulate adsorbed components), draft
TLV-TWA document. Cincinnati, OH: American Conference of Governmental Industrial
Hygienists.
ACGIH [2003]. Press release (January 27, 2003): ACGIH board ratifies 2003 TLVs and BEIs.
Cincinnati, OH: American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists.
Attfield MD, Schlieff PL, Lubin JH et al. [2012]. The Diesel exhaust in miners study: a cohort
mortality dtudy with emphasis on lung cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 104(11):869-883.
Birch ME [1991]. Research protocol: A sampling and analytical method for airborne diesel-
exhaust particles. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public
Health Service, Centers for Disease Control, National Institute for Occupational Safety and
Health. Unpublished.
Birch ME [1998b]. Elemental carbon loss in helium during NIOSH 5040 analysis of total and
respirable dust samples from potash mines. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services, Public Health Service, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National
Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. Unpublished.
Birch ME [2011]. Exposure and emissions monitoring during carbon nanofiber production.
Part II: polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. Ann Occup Hyg 55(9):1037–1047.
Birch ME, Cary RA [1996a]. Elemental carbon-based method for monitoring occupational
exposures to particulate diesel exhaust. Aerosol Sci Technol 25:221-241.
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter DL April 2016 Page DL-31 of DL-41
Monitoring Diesel Exhaust in the Workplace
Birch ME, Cary RA [1996b]. Elemental carbon-based method for occupational monitoring of
particulate diesel exhaust: Methodology and exposure issues. Analyst 121:1183-1190.
Birch ME, Schlecht PC, Epstein PS, Rentschler M [1999a]. NIOSH 5040--A rugged method
for measuring occupational exposures to diesel particulate matter. Unpublished paper
presented at the American Industrial Hygiene Conference and Exposition, Toronto, Canada,
June 5-11, 1999.
Birch ME, Dahmann D, Fricke H-H [1999b]. Comparison of two carbon analysis methods for
monitoring diesel particulate levels in mines. J Environ Monit 1:541-544.
Birch ME, Ku B-K, Evans DE, Ruda-Eberenz T [2011]. Exposure and emissions monitoring
during carbon nanofiber production. Part I: elemental carbon and iron-soot aerosols. Ann
Occup Hyg 55(9):1016–1036.
Bjorseth A, Becher G [1986]. Physical and chemical properties of PAH. In: PAH in work
atmospheres: Occurrence and determination. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
Brown LM, Collings N, Harrison RM, Maynard AD, Maynard RL, eds. [2000]. Discussion
meeting on ultrafine particles in the atmosphere. Philos Trans R Soc London A
358(1775):2561-2797.
Burnett RT, Dales R, Krewski D, Vincent R, Dann T, Brook JR [1995]. Associations between
ambient particulate sulfate and admissions to Ontario hospitals for cardiac and respiratory
diseases. Am J Epidemiol 142:15-22.
California EPA [1998]. Proposed identification of diesel exhaust as a toxic air contaminant--
part B: Health risk assessment for diesel exhaust. Sacramento, CA: California Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment.
Cass GR, Gray HA [1995]. Regional emissions and atmospheric concentrations of diesel
engine particulate matter: Los Angeles as a case study. In: Diesel exhaust: A critical analysis of
emissions, exposure, and health effects. Cambridge, MA: Health Effects Institute, pp. 125-137.
Chai M, Birch ME, Deye G [2012]. Organic and elemental carbon filter sets: Preparation
method and interlaboratory results. Ann Occup Hyg 56(8):959-967.
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter DL April 2016 Page DL-32 of DL-41
Monitoring Diesel Exhaust in the Workplace
Chow JC, Watson JG, Crow D, Lowenthal DH, Merrifield T [2001]. Comparison of
IMPROVE and NIOSH carbon measurements. Aerosol Sci Technol 34:23-34.
Chow JC, Watson JG, Pritchett LC, Pierson WR, Frazier CA, Purcel RG [1993]. The DRI
thermal/optical reflectance carbon analysis system--description, evaluation and applications
in U.S. air quality studies. Atmos Environ 27A(8):1185-1201.
Cui W, Eatough DJ, Eatough NL [1998]. Fine particulate organic material in the Los Angeles
basin--1: Assessment of the high-volume Brigham Young University Organic Sampling
System, BIG BOSS. J Air Waste Manag Assoc 48:1024-1037.
Currie LA, Benner BA, Jr., Kessler JD, Klinedinst DB, Klouda GA, Marolf JV, Slater JF, Wise
SA, Cachier H, Cary R, Chow JC, Watson J, Druffel ERM, Masiello CA, Eglinton TI, Pearson
A, Reddy CM, Gustafsson O, Hartmann PC, Quinn JG, Hedges JI, Prentice KM, Kirchstetter
TW, Novakov T, Puxbaum H, Schmid H [2002]. A critical evaluation of interlaboratory data
on total, elemental, and isotopic carbon in the carbonaceous particle reference material, NIST
SRM 1649a. J Res Natl Inst Stand Technol 107(3):279-298.
Dahm MM, Evans DE, Schubauer-Berigan MK, Birch ME, Fernback JE [2012]. Occupational
exposure assessment in carbon nanotube and nanofiber primary and secondary
manufacturers. Ann Occup Hyg 56(5):542-56.
Dahm MM, Schubauer-Berigan MK, Evans DE, Birch ME, Fernback JE, Deddens JA [2015].
Carbon nanotube and nanofiber exposure assessments: An analysis of 14 site visits. Ann
Occup Hyg 59(6):705-723.
Dahmann D, Bauer H-D [1997]. Diesel particulate matter (DPM) in workplaces in Germany.
Appl. Occup. Environ. Hyg. 12(12):1028-1031.
Dockery DW, Pope CA, III, Xu X, Spengler JD, Ware JH, Fay ME, Ferris BG, Jr., Speizer FE
[1993]. An association between air pollution and mortality in six U.S. cities. N Engl J Med
329:1753-1759.
Donaldson K, Stone V, Gilmour PS, Brown DM, MacNee W [2000]. Ultrafine particles:
Mechanisms of lung injury. Philos Trans R Soc London A 358(1775):2741-2749.
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter DL April 2016 Page DL-33 of DL-41
Monitoring Diesel Exhaust in the Workplace
Doudrick K, Herckes P, Westerhoff P [2012]. Detection of carbon nanotubes in
environmental matrices using programmed thermal analysis. Environ Sci Technol 46:12246-
12253.
EPA [1999]. Air quality criteria for particulate matter [external review draft]. Vol. 3.
Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and
Development, EPA/600/P-99/002C.
EPA [2000a]. Health assessment document for diesel emission [review draft]. Washington,
DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development,
EPA/600/8-90/057E.
EPA [2000b]. National air pollutant emission trends, 1900-1998. Research Triangle Park, NC:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, EPA-
454/R-00-002.
EPA [2001]. PM2.5 speciation trends network special study. Montgomery, AL: U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Radiation and Indoor Air, National Air and
Radiation Environmental Laboratory.
[www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/files/ambient/pm25/spec/sparchive.pdf] Date accessed: April 5, 2016.
EPA [2003]. CARB laboratory audit. Montgomery, AL: U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, National Air and Radiation Environmental Laboratory.
[www.epa.gov/ttnamti1/files/ambient/pm25/spec/carbrept.pdf] Date accessed: April 5, 2016.
Fatkhutdinova LM, Khaliullin TO, Vasil’yeva OL, Zalyalov RR, Mustafin IG, Kisin ER, Birch
ME, Yanamala N, Shvedova AA [2016]. Fibrosis Biomarkers in Workers Exposed to
MWCNT. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.taap.2016.02.016
Garshick E, Laden F, Hart JE, Rosner B, Smith TJ, Dockery DW, Spelzer FE [2004]. Lung
Cancer in Railroad Workers Exposed to Diesel Exhaust. Environ Health Perspect
112(15):1539-1543.
Gray HA, Cass GR, Huntzicker JJ, Heyerdahl KK, Rau JA [1984]. Elemental and organic
carbon particle concentrations: A long-term perspective. Sci Total Environ 36:17-25.
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter DL April 2016 Page DL-34 of DL-41
Monitoring Diesel Exhaust in the Workplace
Grimmer GH, Brune H, Deutsch-Wentzel R, Naujack KW, Misfeld J, Timm J [1983]. On the
contribution of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons to the carcinogen impact of automobile
exhaust condensate evaluated by local application onto mouse skin. Cancer Lett 21:105-113.
Haney RA, Fields KG [1996]. In-mine comparison of diesel particulate sampling methods.
Appl Occup Environ Hyg 11:717-720.
Hansen ADA, Novakov T [1990]. Real-time measurement of aerosol black carbon during the
carbonaceous species methods comparison study. Aerosol Sci Technol 12(1):194-199.
HEI [1995]. Diesel exhaust: A critical analysis of emissions, exposure, and health effects.
Cambridge, MA: Health Effects Institute.
HEI [2002]. Diesel Epidemiology Working Group. Research directions to improve estimates
of human exposure and risk from diesel exhaust. Boston, MA: Health Effects Institute.
IARC [1989]. Diesel and gasoline engine exhausts and some nitroarenes. In: IARC
monographs on the evaluation of carcinogenic risks to humans. Vol. 46. Lyon, France: World
Health Organization, International Agency for Research on Cancer.
IARC, WHO [2012]. Press Release No. 213, 12 June 2012, IARC: “Diesel Engine Exhaust
Carcinogenic” [http://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/pr/2012/pdfs/pr213_E.pdf]. Date
accessed: Feb. 16, 2014.
Japar SM, Szkarlat AC, Gorse RA, Jr., Heyerdahl EK, Johnson RL, Rau JA, Huntzicker JJ
[1984]. Comparison of solvent extraction and thermal-optical carbon analysis methods:
Application to diesel vehicle exhaust aerosol. Environ Sci Technol 18:231-234.
Kennedy ER, Fischbach TJ, Song R, Eller PM, Shulman SA [1995]. Guidelines for air sampling
and analytical method development and evaluation. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, DHHS (NIOSH)
Publication No. 95-117.
Kirchstetter TW, Corrigan CE, Novakov T [2001]. Laboratory and field investigation of the
adsorption of gaseous organic compounds onto quartz. Atmos Environ 35:1663-1671.
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter DL April 2016 Page DL-35 of DL-41
Monitoring Diesel Exhaust in the Workplace
Kittelson D, Watts W, Ramachandran G, Paulsen D, Kreager C [2002]. Measurement of diesel
aerosol exposure: A feasibility study. In: Research directions to improve estimates of human
exposure and risk from diesel exhaust. Boston, MA: Health Effects Institute, Diesel
Epidemiology Working Group, pp. 153-179.
Kogut J, Tomb TF, Parobeck PS, Gero AJ, Suppers KL [1997]. Measurement precision with
the coal mine dust personal sampler. Appl Occup Environ Hyg 12(12):999-1006.
Lies KH [1989]. Unregulated motor vehicle exhaust gas components. Wolfsburg, Germany:
Volkswagen AG, Research and Development (Physico-Chemical Metrology).
Mannino DM, Homa DM, Pertowski CA, Ashizawa A, Nixon LL, Johnson CA, Ball LB, Jack
E, Kang DS [1998]. Surveillance for asthma–United States, 1960-1995. MMWR CDC Surveill
Summ 47:1-27.
Mazzuckelli LF, Methner MM, Birch ME, Evans DE, Ku B-K, Crouch K, Hoover MD [2007].
Identification and characterization of potential sources of worker exposure to carbon
nanofibers during polymer composite laboratory operations. J Occup Environ Hyg 4:D125-
D130.
McDow SR, Huntzicker JJ [1990]. Vapor adsorption artifact in the sampling of organic
aerosol: Face velocity effects. Atmos Environ 24A:2563-2571.
Morrison RT, Boyd RN [1973]. Chapter 35. In: Organic chemistry. 3rd ed. Boston, MA: Allyn
and Bacon.
Niessner R, Wilbring P [1989]. Ultrafine particles as trace catchers for polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons: The photoelectric aerosol sensor as a tool for in situ sorption and desorption
studies. Anal Chem 61:708-714.
NIOSH [1988]. Current intelligence bulletin 50: Carcinogenic effects of exposure to diesel
exhaust. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health
Service, Centers for Disease Control, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health,
DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 88-116.
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter DL April 2016 Page DL-36 of DL-41
Monitoring Diesel Exhaust in the Workplace
NIOSH [1992]. Hazard evaluation and technical assistance report: Empire Distributors, Inc.,
Atlanta, GA. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health
Service, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational
Safety and Health, NIOSH HETA Report No. 92-226-2269, NTIS No. PB93-215085.
NIOSH [1993]. Hazard evaluation and technical assistance report: City of Lancaster, Division
of Fire, Lancaster, OH. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,
Public Health Service, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute for
Occupational Safety and Health, NIOSH HETA Report No. 92-0160-2360, NTIS No. PB94-
140142.
NIOSH [1994a]. Elemental carbon (diesel particulate): Method 5040 (supplement issued
1/15/98). In: NIOSH manual of analytical methods. 4th ed. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department
of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, DHHS (NIOSH)
Publication No. 94-113.
NIOSH [1994b]. Diesel particulate matter (as elemental carbon): Method 5040 (supplement
issued 3/15/03). In: NIOSH manual of analytical methods. 4th ed. Cincinnati, OH: U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, DHHS
(NIOSH) Publication No. 94-113.
NIOSH [1994c]. Hazard evaluation and technical assistance report, Southwest Airlines,
Houston Hobby Airport, Houston, TX. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services, Public Health Service, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National
Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, NIOSH HETA Report No. 93-0816-2371, NTIS
No. PB94-175155.
NIOSH [2003]. Chapter Q: Monitoring of diesel particulate exhaust in the workplace. In:
Schlecht PC, O’Connor PF, eds. NIOSH manual of analytical methods. 4th ed. Cincinnati,
OH: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, DHHS (NIOSH)
Publication No. 2003-154.
NIOSH [2013]. [2013]. Current intelligence bulletin 65: occupational exposure to carbon
nanotubes and nanofibers. By Zumwalde R, Kuempel E, Birch ME, Trout D, Castranova V.
Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, DHHS (NIOSH)
Publication No. 2013-145.
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter DL April 2016 Page DL-37 of DL-41
Monitoring Diesel Exhaust in the Workplace
NIST [2001]. Certificate of analysis: Standard reference material 1649a – Urban dust.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce, National Institute of Standards &
Technology.
Norris GA, Birch ME, Tolocka MP, Lewis CS, Solomon PA, Homolya JB [1999]. Analysis of
carbonaceous aerosols using the thermal optical transmittance and thermal optical reflectance
methods. In: Proceedings of the 92nd Annual Meeting of the Air & Waste Management
Association, St. Louis, MO, June 20-24, 1999. NTIS No. PB99-171597.
NTP [2000]. Report on carcinogens. 9th ed. Research Triangle Park, NC: U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, National Toxicology Program.
Pandya RJ, Solomon G, Kinner A, Balmes JR [2002]. Diesel exhaust and asthma: Hypotheses
and molecular mechanisms of action. Environ Health Perspect 110(Suppl 1):103-112.
Pierson WR, Brachaczek WW [1983]. Particulate matter associated with vehicles on the road,
II. Aerosol Sci Technol 2:1-40.
Pope CA, III, Dockery DW, Schwartz J [1995a]. Review of epidemiological evidence of health
effects of particulate air pollution. Inhal Toxicol 7(1):1-18.
Pope CA, III, Thun MJ, Namboodiri MM, Dockery DW, Evans JS, Speizer RE, Heath CW
[1995b]. Particulate air pollution as a predictor of mortality in a prospective study of U.S.
adults. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 151:669-674.
Pope CA, III, Burnett RT, Thun MJ, Calle EE, Krewski D, Ito K, Thurston GD [2002]. Lung
cancer, cardiopulmonary mortality, and long-term exposure to fine particulate air pollution. J
Am Med Assoc 287(9):1132-1141.
Samet JM [2000]. Fine particulate air pollution and mortality in 20 U.S. cities. N Engl J Med
343(24):1742-1749.
Sawyer RF, Johnson JJ [1995]. Diesel emissions and control technology. In: Diesel exhaust: A
critical analysis of emissions, exposure, and health effects. Cambridge, MA: Health Effects
Institute, pp. 65-81.
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter DL April 2016 Page DL-38 of DL-41
Monitoring Diesel Exhaust in the Workplace
Schauer JJ, Mader BT, DeMinter JT, Heidemann G, Bae MS, Seinfeld JH, Flagan RC, Cary RA,
Smith D, Huebert BJ, Bertram T, Howell S, Kline JT, Quinn P, Bates T, Turpin B, Lim HJ, Yu
JZ, Yang H, Keywood MD [2001]. ACE-Asia intercomparison of a thermal-optical method for
the determination of particle-phase organic and elemental carbon. Environ Sci Technol
37(5):993-1001.
Schuetzle D [1983]. Sampling of vehicle emissions for chemical analysis and biological testing.
Environ Health Perspect 47:65-80.
Schwartz J [1997]. Health effects of air pollution from traffic: Ozone and particulate matter.
In: Fletcher T, McMichael AJ, eds. Health at the crossroads: Transport policy and urban
health. Chichester, UK: Wiley.
Schwartz J, Dockery DW, Neas LM [1996]. Is daily mortality associated specifically with fine
particles? J Air Waste Manag Assoc 46:937-939.
Schwartz J [1994]. Air pollution and hospital admissions for the elderly in Birmingham, AL.
Am J Epidemiol 139:589-590.
Schwartz J, Morris R [1995]. Air pollution and hospital admissions for cardiovascular disease
in Detroit, Michigan. Am J Epidemiol 142:22-35.
Silverman, DT; Samanic, CM; Lubin, JH, et al. [2012]. The diesel exhaust in miners study: a
nested case-control study of lung cancer and diesel exhaust. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 104(11):855-
868.
Solomon GM, Campbell TR, Carmichael T, Feuer GR, Hathaway JS [1998]. Exhausted by
diesel: How America's dependence on diesel engines threatens our health. New York: Natural
Resources Defense Council.
Stanevich RS, Hintz P, Yareb D [1997]. Elemental carbon levels at a potash mine. Appl Occup
Environ Hyg 1:1009-1012.
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter DL April 2016 Page DL-39 of DL-41
Monitoring Diesel Exhaust in the Workplace
Sun J, Wolff R, Kanapilly G [1982]. Deposition, retention, and biological fate of inhaled
benzo(a)pyrene adsorbed onto ultrafine particles and as a pure aerosol. Toxicol Appl
Pharmacol 65:231-241.
Thrane KE, Mikalsen A, Stray H [1985]. Monitoring methods for airborne polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons. Int J Environ Anal Chem 23(1-2):111-134.
Turpin BJ, Huntzicker JJ, Hering SV [1994]. Investigation of organic aerosol sampling
artifacts in the Los Angeles basin. Atmos Environ 28(19):3061-3071.
van Vlient P, Knape M, de Hartog J, Janssen NAH, Harssems H, Brunekreef B [1997]. Air
pollution from road traffic and chronic respiratory symptoms in children living near
motorways. Environ Res 74:122-132.
Verma DK, Shaw L, Julian JA, Smolynec K, Wood C, Shaw D [1999]. A comparison of
sampling and analytical methods for assessing occupational exposure to diesel exhaust in a
railroad work environment. Appl Occup Environ Hyg 14:701-714.
Weiland SK, Mundt KA, Rückmann A, Keil U [1994]. Self-reported wheezing and allergic
rhinitis in children and traffic density on street of residence. Ann Epidemiol 4:243-247.
Whittaker LS, MacIntosh PL, Williams PL [1999]. Employee exposure to diesel exhaust in the
electric utility industry. Am Ind Hyg Assoc J 60:635-640.
Wjst M, Reitmeir P, Dold S [1993]. Road traffic and adverse health effects on respiratory
health in children. Br Med J 307:596-600.
Wolff RK, Henderson RF, Snipes MB, Sun JD, Bond JA, Mauderly JL, McClellan RO [1986].
Lung retention of diesel soot and associated organic compounds. In: Ishinishi N, Koizumi A,
McClellan RO, Stöber W, eds. Carcinogenic and mutagenic effects of diesel engine exhaust.
Amsterdam: Elsevier, pp. 199-211.
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter DL April 2016 Page DL-40 of DL-41
Monitoring Diesel Exhaust in the Workplace
Zaebst DD, Clapp DE, Blade LM, Marlow DA, Steenland K, Hornung RW, Schuetzle D, Butler
J [1991]. Quantitative determination of trucking industry workers’ exposures to diesel exhaust
particles. Am Ind Hyg Assoc J 52:529-541.
Zang X, McMurry PH [1992]. Evaporative losses of fine particulate nitrates during sampling.
Atmos Environ 26A:3305-3312.
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter DL April 2016 Page DL-41 of DL-41
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods (NMAM), 5th Edition
1 Introduction CN- 2
2 Sample Preparation CN- 2
3 TEM Analysis and Counting Method CN- 6
4 Conclusions CN-18
5 References CN-18
1 Introduction
A transmission electron microscopy (TEM) method for the analysis of filter samples of
carbon nanotubes and nanofibers (CNT and CNF) is described in this Chapter. The
approach is a modification to NIOSH NMAM 7402, asbestos by TEM [NIOSH 1994], and
was applied to personal breathing zone (PBZ) and area samples collected at CNT/CNF
survey sites [Birch et al. 2011; Dahm et al. 2015]. Procedures specific to asbestos fiber
identification and counting were eliminated from 7402. In contrast to asbestos, CNT
materials used commercially are typically in the form of complex agglomerates, with
highly entangled, curved tubes. This curvature can sometimes make even individual
fibers difficult to size. As such, a modified method that considers these structural
differences was needed for particle classification.
TEM provides visualization of airborne CNT and CNF particles, indicating their size,
shape, and agglomeration state [Birch et al. 2016]. These materials have distinct features
(e.g., graphene layers, cylindrical structures, and hollow cores) that distinguish them
from other types of particles. Given the considerable differences between CNT/CNF
particles and asbestos fibers, particle counting methods necessarily differ. In the case of
CNT/CNF, all particles, agglomerates as well as single fibers, are counted as a CNT/CNF
‘structure.’ Unlike Method 7402, no minimum size cutoffs have been used to date
because of a lack of knowledge on lung deposition and toxicological endpoints.
Based on the number of CNT/CNF structures counted, and the collected air volume, a
CNT/CNF concentration (i.e., structures/cm3) can be calculated. For samples collected at
the survey sites, a significant positive correlation between structure counts and
elemental carbon (EC) data was found, but there was considerable scatter in the data
[Dahm et al. 2013, Dahm et al. 2015]. Given the method limitations discussed herein, the
calculated values for structure counts are considered semi-quantitative indicators of air
concentration.
2 Sample preparation
For the field surveys on CNT/CNF, open-face, 25-mm, three-piece cassettes were used
for air sampling, approximating the inhalable fraction [Dahm et al. 2013, Dahm et al.
2015]. As specified in NMAM 7402, air samples were collected on mixed cellulose ester
(MCE) filters having a nominal pore size of 0.8 µm (7402 specifies 0.45 to 1.2 µm), with
sampling pumps operated at 5 L/min (0.5 to 16 L/min specified in 7402). Polycarbonate
(PC) membrane filters also may be acceptable, but this media was not used in the field
studies, and the filter preparation method differs from that described herein.
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter CN June 2017 Page CN-2 of CN-19
Analysis of Carbon Nanotubes and Nanofibers on MCE Filters by TEM
The sampling period depends on the air concentration, and it is important to avoid filter
overload. Some trial and error may be necessary. In general, if a filter deposit is clearly
visible, the sample is likely overloaded. An estimate of structure counts may still be
possible, but overloading results in particle deposition on previously deposited material
and may preclude an accurate structure count.
Three TEM grids per field sample, and one grid each for field and media blanks (when
provided), were prepared using procedures outlined in NMAM 7402, with the following
modifications:
A scalpel is used to remove a wedge-shaped portion from the filter. Do not use a cork
borer to remove filter sections.
Only one sample wedge should be placed on each slide. Do not affix the section to the
slide with any type or adhesive, as specified in 7402. (Note: After carbon coating the
wedge and removing small portions for transfer to TEM grids, the remaining portion
can be secured [e.g., with tape] to the slide for long term storage, if desired.)
The “hot block” technique [Baron and Pickford 1986] is used to clear (collapse) the
filter wedge. Other methods also may be suitable.
A description of the procedures used for sample and grid preparation is provided in the
following three sections.
a. Filter
Carefully open the sampling cassette with a cassette opener, with the particle
collection side facing upwards (Figure 1, step 1). Remove about one fourth of the 25-
mm MCE filter with a clean scalpel. Place the wedge, particle side up, on a frosted
glass microscope slide labelled with the sequence and sample numbers (Figure 1,
step 2). Include a media (filter) blank with each set of slides to be coated. Use the
“hot block” technique [Baron and Pickford 1986] to clear (collapse) the filter wedge
(Figure 1, step 3). After clearing the filter, place the slides in a carbon coater to apply
a thin carbon film (Figure 1, step 4); the filter surface should be evenly coated. After
coating the filter wedges, the samples are ready for transfer to TEM grids. A Jaffe
wick washer [Jaffe 1948] is used for final processing of the sample grids. Preparation
of the washer and transfer of the sample sections to grids therein, for final
processing, are described in the next two sections.
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter CN June 2017 Page CN-3 of CN-19
Analysis of Carbon Nanotubes and Nanofibers on MCE Filters by TEM
Figure 1. Filter preparation steps prior to loading sample portions on TEM grids: (1)
remove 25-mm MCE filter from air sampling cassette; (2) remove about one fourth of
the filter and place the filter wedge on a glass slide; (3) clear the MCE filter with
acetone vapor in a hot block; (4) apply carbon coating; (5) cut section from coated
filter and divide into three portions, one per grid. Each filter portion has particles
sandwiched between the carbon film and collapsed filter.
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter CN June 2017 Page CN-4 of CN-19
Analysis of Carbon Nanotubes and Nanofibers on MCE Filters by TEM
Figure 2. Sample transfer and final processing: place a piece of lens tissue (a) or a
stainless steel screen disk (b) on a stainless screen platform in a Jaffe wick washer
filled with dimethylformamide (DMF). Sides of the platform are bent to keep sample
grids above the solvent level. Depending on size, multiple disks can be used to hold
grids.
Use a pencil to label the lens tissue with the sample identifiers and place the tissue
on the 20-mesh screen platform (Figure 2, a). The samples placed on the tissue
should be the same set that was coated (together) in the carbon coater. Place the
petri dish in a fume hood and carefully add dimethylformamide (DMF) to the dish
until the lens tissue is saturated or screen disks are wetted, but ensure that no
puddles form on surfaces of the tissue or disk. A combination of DMF and acetone
also may be used for filter dissolution. (Note!: DMF [CAS 68-12-2] is flammable and
hazardous in case of skin contact, eye contact, ingestion, and inhalation. Ensure
adequate ventilation, proper personal protective equipment, and engineering
controls in handling and storage. Consult SDS prior to use.) In a row, place three TEM
grids per sample in the designated areas of the tissue or on a disk (Figure 2). If
screen disks are used, place three TEM grids per sample on each (Figure 2, b).
Depending on disk size, multiple disks can be used. Use one TEM grid each for the
blanks (field and media).
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter CN June 2017 Page CN-5 of CN-19
Analysis of Carbon Nanotubes and Nanofibers on MCE Filters by TEM
place the section from the center of the filter (Figure1, Step 5, A) on the leftmost grid,
the middle section (Figure1, Step 5, B) on the center grid, and the outermost section
(Figure1, Step 5, C) on the rightmost grid. The locations are labeled as shown in
Figure 1, step 5. When all filter sections have been transferred to the grids, slowly
add more solvent to raise the level as high as possible without disturbing the sample
preparations. Cover the petri dish, if lens tissue is used, and elevate one side of the
dish by placing a microscope slide under it (allowing drops of condensed solvent to
form near the edge of the cover rather than in the center, where they can drip on the
grid preparation). To dissolve the filter, the tissue method requires the grids to sit
overnight, while the screen disk method requires only about 30 minutes. If screen
disks are used, leave the petri dish uncovered, in a fume hood or other well
ventilated area. Once the residual MCE polymer is completely dissolved in the
solvent, only particles embedded in the carbon film remain on the grid, as illustrated
in Figure 3. Ensure that the processed grids are solvent free prior to the TEM
analysis.
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter CN June 2017 Page CN-6 of CN-19
Analysis of Carbon Nanotubes and Nanofibers on MCE Filters by TEM
If these criteria are met, randomly select at least four openings (with intact carbon
film) from four quadrants of the grid and estimate the number of particles per
opening to determine the distribution variability. If the particle loading is uneven or
heavy, the sample might not be useful. Discuss any uneven distributions or loading
issues with the requestor of the analysis.
Figure 4. Examples of CNT fiber structures with various lengths and widths.
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter CN June 2017 Page CN-7 of CN-19
Analysis of Carbon Nanotubes and Nanofibers on MCE Filters by TEM
Any particle agglomerate with associated CNT/CNF: There are many types of
structures that fit this criterion. Some structures, classified as matrix particles,
contain relatively few CNT/CNF, being mainly amorphous carbon or other
components. In contrast, structures that consist mainly of CNT/CNF are classified
as cluster particles.
In this chapter, ‘agglomerate’ refers to both cluster (Figure 5) and matrix (Figure 6)
particles. Although matrix particles have associated CNT, they are often observed as
fiber structures protruding from the particle edge. The structure of the CNT,
presumably within the matrix, cannot be determined in the TEM analysis. Another
classification problem occurs when agglomerates have cluster and matrix regions
(Figure 7) of similar size. Structure counts are discussed in the next section.
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter CN June 2017 Page CN-8 of CN-19
Analysis of Carbon Nanotubes and Nanofibers on MCE Filters by TEM
There are specific definitions of CNT and CNF; however, field samples have contained
complex mixtures of structures that often do not fit these narrow definitions. For
example, products described as CNT can contain CNF and vice versa, and a variety of
irregularly shaped, nanoscale carbon particles have been observed. In practice, if the
analytical request specifies a ‘CNT’ or ‘CNF’ facility, these terms are used in the
analytical report, along with the corresponding TEM images. In addition, images and
information on other types of particles are provided.
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter CN June 2017 Page CN-9 of CN-19
Analysis of Carbon Nanotubes and Nanofibers on MCE Filters by TEM
c. Structure counts
The counting method for individual fibrous structures generally follows that for
asbestos, as in NMAM 7402 and EPA’s AHERA (Asbestos Hazard Emergency
Response Act) method [40 CFR 763; NIOSH 1994]. That is, each fiber with an aspect
ratio > 3:1 is counted and the diameter and length are recorded. At a minimum, the
diameter and length ranges are recorded, and averages are determined, if
appropriate. This procedure is negotiable with the requestor.
As mentioned, in the field samples, isolated CNT fibers were rare relative to particle
agglomerates. The classification of CNT/CNF agglomerates is accomplished by
considering both particle size and structure. The size bin depends on the maximum
crosswise dimension. At least one dimension, the maximum crosswise length, is
recorded for each structure. Other characteristics also can be examined to meet
investigator needs. Some agglomerates, especially larger ones, may contain a non-
CNT/CNF component. In these instances, if the agglomerate looks to be mostly
CNT/CNF, it is classified as a cluster. If non-CNT/CNF components appear more
abundant, the matrix classification is used. However, as discussed, some
agglomerates may have roughly equal cluster and matrix portions. For these, a
matrix category is usually assigned but this classification is somewhat arbitrary.
Given the difficulties of particle classification, it is important to provide
representative images of all particles in the sample.
If the particle loading and distribution are acceptable, an initial particle count can be
performed at low magnification. Select the lowest magnification that shows the
majority of the particulate of interest: 5,000-15,000X is usually sufficient. Smaller
particles may not be visible at low magnification, but the purpose of this step is to
assess the number of grid openings likely to be counted. If the sample composition is
known (e.g., a laboratory generated CNT or CNF sample), an initial count can be
made to count larger (micrometer sized) CNT (CNF) particles, which dominate the
particle mass. After examination of the sample at low magnification, a switch to high
magnification (e.g., 40,000X) is made to image particles/features not observable at
low magnification. The magnification should be adjusted as required for counting
and confirming the presence of CNT.
As discussed, for the analysis, three 3-mm copper TEM grids are usually prepared
from each sample. A total of 40 openings (stop counting at 100 structures) are
examined at high magnification (13-15 openings for each grid). The number of grid
openings counted per grid should be approximately equal for the three grid
preparations, and the openings counted on each grid should be selected as randomly
as possible. Only grid openings that have the carbon film intact should be counted.
Any particles containing CNT/CNF are counted as CNT or CNF structures, which can
range from single fibers (Figure 4) to structures of varying size and composition
(Figs. 5-9). Counted CNT/CNF structures are categorized by size-bins based on the
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter CN June 2017 Page CN-10 of CN-19
Analysis of Carbon Nanotubes and Nanofibers on MCE Filters by TEM
maximum crosswise dimension. In our studies [Dahm et al. 2015; Birch et al. 2016],
most of the CNT agglomerates had a roughly spherical shape (i.e., the longest
dimension was no more than twice the length of the orthogonal dimension).
Therefore, the maximum crosswise dimension was used to categorize structure size.
The counted structures were placed into five discrete size-bins, based on health-
relevant size fractions and observations from field studies [Birch 2011; Dahm et al.
2013]. The structure categories also included a separate bin for single fibers. Size
bins for the CNT/CNF structures have the following maximum crosswise dimensions:
< 1 µm, 1-2 µm, 2-5 µm, 5-10 µm, and > 10 µm. This sizing scheme was used to
analyze CNT/CNF samples collected during field surveys [Dahm et al. 2015]. A
statistical analysis of the TEM counts for a subset of the field samples is provided in
the following section.
Figure 7. CNT particle with both matrix (right side) and cluster (left) features.
Structure categorized as a CNT matrix particle.
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter CN June 2017 Page CN-11 of CN-19
Analysis of Carbon Nanotubes and Nanofibers on MCE Filters by TEM
Figure 8. CNT particles in personal breathing zone samples collected from various
sites: (a) MWCNT fiber (polymer composite site), b) SWCNT agglomerate from
aerosolized, aqueous suspension (electronics site), c) MWCNT agglomerate
(composites/thermoplastics site), and d) MWCNT agglomerate (primary
manufacturer of CNT).
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter CN June 2017 Page CN-12 of CN-19
Analysis of Carbon Nanotubes and Nanofibers on MCE Filters by TEM
d. Statistics
A total of 3000 observations (structures/opening) from 75 field samples with light
loading (<5 structures per grid opening) were analyzed. The mean, standard
deviation, and confidence intervals (95% confidence level) were calculated. Factors
considered included grid (1-3), opening (1-14), and loading level (1-3). Grids were
counted in the order of grid 1, 2, and then 3, going from the center to the edge of the
filter (wedge portion). From Figure 10 and Table 1, the means and variabilities of
counts from different loading levels follow the same trend. The variability of grid 1
(from center area of filter) was slightly higher than the other 2 grids. The variability
becomes smaller when the loading level is increased. The box plot in Figure 11 shows
the statistics of counts by openings. The means and variabilities of counts from
opening 1 and 2 were slightly higher than counts from opening 12, 13 and 14.
Because opening 1 was the first opening counted, and 14 the last, it is possible that
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter CN June 2017 Page CN-13 of CN-19
Analysis of Carbon Nanotubes and Nanofibers on MCE Filters by TEM
the increased variability is due to higher analyst error during the initial and final
counts. The test of half data (including openings 1-7) shows similar behavior as that
for all data (Figure 12). Based on the results for this sample set, counts from one or
two grids, with 7 openings per grid, may be adequate if the deposit is even. Larger
data sets from samples with different loadings and collected from various sites are
required to develop a statistical model for further analysis.
Figure 10. Boxplot of CNT counts by categorized loading (1: mean ≤ 1, 2: 1 < mean ≤
2, and 3: mean > 2) from three grids. The trend of mean counts from grid 1 to 3 is
consistent for different loading levels. Mean count of grid 1 is slightly higher than
those of grid 2 and 3.
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter CN June 2017 Page CN-14 of CN-19
Analysis of Carbon Nanotubes and Nanofibers on MCE Filters by TEM
Table 1. Statistics of sample counts obtained from different grids and loading levels
(M=Mean, SD=Standard Deviation, CI=Confidence Intervals).
a Loading levels are defined by M, where Level 1 (M ≤ 1), Level 2 (1 < M ≤ 2) and Level 3 (M > 2).
b Grids collected from different locations on a filter wedge (center to edge).
Figure 11. Boxplot of CNT counts by openings (1-14). The variability in openings 1
and 2 significantly higher than that of openings 13 and 14. The means of openings 1, 2
and 3 were also higher than the means of openings 12, 13, and 14.
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter CN June 2017 Page CN-15 of CN-19
Analysis of Carbon Nanotubes and Nanofibers on MCE Filters by TEM
Figure 12. Boxplot of CNT counts by grids (1-3) from all data (counts from openings1-
14) and half data (counts from openings 1-7).
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter CN June 2017 Page CN-16 of CN-19
Analysis of Carbon Nanotubes and Nanofibers on MCE Filters by TEM
g. Limitations
The composition of CNT powders varies substantially, especially those produced or
used in workplaces. These materials contain varying amounts of amorphous carbon
and residual catalyst metals, and there are many types of structures, usually in
agglomerate form. As mentioned, in the case of composite dusts, CNT are embedded
in a polymer matrix, which complicates their measurement. This chapter concerns
the analysis of CNT powders.
In the case of ‘matrix’ particles, TEM images show mainly dark regions, with varying
amounts of CNT observed at the particle’s edge. The composition of material in the
dark regions is unknown. For example, it may be mainly CNT, amorphous carbon, or
a combination of both. Thus, based on overall envelope size, a particle consisting
mainly of amorphous carbon is counted in the same bin as an agglomerate composed
mainly of CNT. Both matrix and cluster (structures with mainly CNT) type particles
were common in field samples. A different counting method [Chen et al. 2012] was
applied to a specific type of MWCNT (Mitsui MWCNT-7) used in an animal inhalation
study but this particular product, having a more fibrous structure and more single
fibers, differs from the CNT materials manufactured/used by U.S. companies. Images
(Figs. 4-9) of the different particle types found in our field surveys make obvious the
difficulty in developing a standardized TEM structure count method for these
materials.
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter CN June 2017 Page CN-17 of CN-19
Analysis of Carbon Nanotubes and Nanofibers on MCE Filters by TEM
4. Conclusions
The complexity and variety of structures makes CNT/CNF particle counting a challenge.
Unlike elemental carbon or other less selective measures, TEM can confirm the presence
of CNT. However, with respect to quantification, it is important to recognize the
limitations of a counting method. Because of the heterogeneity of CNT powders,
particles in the same size bin can vary greatly in their properties. Complex structures of
varying mass, density, shape, and composition (e.g., amorphous carbon, residual
catalyst) can fall into the same size bin. And dissimilar particles (e.g., cluster and matrix)
in a given bin may have different toxicological effects. Thus, even for a given material,
particle envelope size alone may not be an adequate risk indicator. Given the
heterogeneity and variety of the CNT/CNF products to which workers are exposed, it is
important to apply several methods to assess worker exposure, through inhalation and
other routes.
Disclaimer
Mention of any company or product does not constitute endorsement by NIOSH. In addition,
citations to websites external to NIOSH do not constitute NIOSH endorsement of the
sponsoring organizations or their programs or products. Furthermore, NIOSH is not
responsible for the content of these websites. All web addresses referenced in this
document were accessible as of the publication date.
5. References
Baron PA, Pickford GC[1986]. An Asbestos Sample Filter Clearing Procedure. Appl Ind
Hyg 1 (4):169-171.
Birch ME, Ruda-Eberenz TA, Chai M, Andrews R, Hatfield RL [2013]. Properties that
Influence the Specific Surface Areas of Carbon Nanotubes and Nanofibers. Ann Occup
Hyg 57 (9):1148-1166.
Birch ME, Wang C, Fernback JE, Feng HA, Birch QT, Dozier AK [2016]. Workplace
Monitoring of Airborne Carbon Nanomaterials by HRTEM. Microsc Microanal 22(S3):
1910-1911.
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter CN June 2017 Page CN-18 of CN-19
Analysis of Carbon Nanotubes and Nanofibers on MCE Filters by TEM
Chen BT, Schwegler-Berry D, McKinney W, Stone S, Cumpston JL, Friend S, Porter DW,
Castranova V, Frazer DG [2012]. Multi-walled Carbon Nanotubes: Sampling Criteria and
Aerosol Characterization. Inhalation Toxicology 24 (12):798–820.
CFR. Code of Federal Regulations. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office,
Office of the Federal Register.
Dahm MM, Evans DE, Schubauer-Berigan MK, Birch ME, Fernback JE [2012].
Occupational Exposure Assessment in Carbon Nanotube and Nanofiber Primary and
Secondary Manufacturers. Ann Occup Hyg 56 (5):542-556.
Dahm MM, Evans DE, Schubauer-Berigan MK, Birch ME, Deddens JA [2013].
Occupational Exposure Assessment in Carbon Nanotube and Nanofiber Primary and
Secondary Manufacturers: Mobile Direct-Reading Sampling. Ann Occup Hyg
57 (3):328-344.
Dahm MM, Schubauer-Berigan MK, Evans DE, Birch ME, Fernback JE, Deddens JA
[2015]. Carbon Nanotube and Nanofiber Exposure Assessments: An Analysis of 14 Site
Visits. Ann Occup Hyg 59 (6):705-723.
Jaffe MS [1948]. Handling and washing of fragile replicas. J. Appl. Physics 19 :1189-1191.
NIOSH [1994]. Method 7402 asbestos by TEM. In: Eller PM, Cassinelli ME, eds. NIOSH
Manual of Analytical Methods. 4th ed. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute for
Occupational Safety and Health, DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 94-113
[www.cdc.gov/niosh/nmam/].
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter CN June 2017 Page CN-19 of CN-19
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods (NMAM), 5th Edition
Glossary of Abbreviations,
Definitions and Symbols
Compiled by Kevin Ashley, Ph.D., NIOSH
A GL-2
B GL-4
C GL-7
D GL-9
E GL-12
F GL-13
G GL-13
H GL-14
I GL-14
L GL-15
M GL-16
N GL-17
O GL-17
P GL-18
Q GL-20
R GL-20
S GL-21
T GL-23
U GL- 24
V GL-25
W GL- 26
X GL- 26
Absorption Barrier - Any exposure surface that may retard the rate of penetration of an
agent into a target. Examples of absorption barriers are the skin, respiratory tract lining,
and gastrointestinal tract wall (cf. exposure surface). [Source: Zartarian V, Bahadori T,
McKone T [2005]: Adoption of an official ISEA glossary. J Expo Anal Environ Epidemiol
15:1–5.]
Accuracy –
1. The degree of agreement between a measured value and the accepted reference value.
In this manual, accuracy is calculated from the absolute mean bias of the method plus
the overall precision, 𝑺𝑺�𝒓𝒓𝒓𝒓 at the 95% confidence level. For an individual measurement,
it includes the combination of precision and bias [Source: NIOSH [1977]:
Documentation of the NIOSH Validation Tests. DHEW (NIOSH) Publication No. 77-
185.]
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter GL April 2016 Page GL-2 of GL-25
Glossary of Abbreviations, Definitions and Symbols
evaluation. By Kennedy ER, Fischbach TJ, Song R, Eller PM, Shulman SA. DHHS
(NIOSH) Publication No. 95-117, http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/95-117/pdfs/95-
117.pdf.]
Acute Exposure - A contact between an agent and a target occurring over a short time,
generally less than a day. Note: Other terms, such as “short-term exposure” and “single dose,”
are also used. [Source: Zartarian V, Bahadori T, McKone T [2005]: Adoption of an official
ISEA glossary. J Expo Anal Environ Epidemiol 15:1–5.]
Aerosol –
1. Airborne particles and the gas (and vapor) mixture in which they are suspended.
Note: The airborne particles can be in or out of equilibrium with their own vapors.
[Source: CEN [2011]. EN 1540, Workplace atmospheres – terminology. Brussels:
European Standards Commission.]
Agent - A chemical, biological, or physical entity that contacts a target. [Source: Zartarian V,
Bahadori T, McKone T [2005]: Adoption of an official ISEA glossary. J Expo Anal Environ
Epidemiol 15:1–5.]
Analyte –
1. Substance or chemical constituent that is determined in an analytical method [Source:
CEN [2011]. EN 1540, Workplace atmospheres – terminology. Brussels: European
Standards Commission.]
2. A specific chemical moiety being measured, which can be intact drug, biomolecule or
its derivative, metabolite, and/or degradation product in a biologic matrix. [Source:
FDA [2001]. Guidance for industry - bioanalytical method validation,
http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/Guidances/ucm070107.pdf.]
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter GL April 2016 Page GL-3 of GL-25
Glossary of Abbreviations, Definitions and Symbols
Ashing - The decomposition, prior to analysis, of organic matrix constituents of the sample
and sampler. The most common ashing techniques are solvent, acid, or alkali dissolution;
alkaline fusion; and oxidation using either low-temperature oxygen plasma or muffle furnace.
[Source: NIOSH [1994]. NIOSH Manual of analytical methods (NMAM), 4th ed. DHHS
(NIOSH) Publication No. 94-113.]
Atmospheric Dispersion - The most general term for a system consisting of a constituent
suspended in air [Adapted from definition of ‘dispersion’: ASTM [2014]. D1356, Standard
terminology relating to sampling and analysis of atmospheres. West Conshohocken, PA:
ASTM International.]
AW - Atomic weight
B
B - Media blank result for a single-section sampler (e.g., sorbent tube.)
Background Level - The amount of an agent in a medium (e.g., water, soil) that is not
attributed to the source(s) under investigation in an exposure assessment. Background level(s)
can be naturally occurring or the result of human activities. (Note: Natural background is the
concentration of an agent in a medium that occurs naturally or is not the result of human
activities.) [Source: Zartarian V, Bahadori T, McKone T [2005]: Adoption of an official ISEA
glossary. J Expo Anal Environ Epidemiol 15:1–5.]
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter GL April 2016 Page GL-4 of GL-25
Glossary of Abbreviations, Definitions and Symbols
Bias –
1. A systematic (nonrandom) deviation of the method average value or the measured
value from an accepted value. [Source: ASTM [2014]. D1356, Standard terminology
relating to sampling and analysis of atmospheres. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM
International.]
2. Difference between the average measured mass or concentration and reference mass
or concentration expressed as a fraction of reference mass or concentration. [Source:
NIOSH [1994]. NIOSH Manual of analytical methods (NMAM), 4th ed. DHHS
(NIOSH) Publication No. 94-113.]
Bioaerosol - An aerosol consisting of (a) biological agent(s). Note: Airborne dusts of organic
origin, for example, cotton dust, flour dust and wood dust, are not considered to be
bioaerosols and are therefore not covered by this definition [Source: ISO [2015]. ISO 18158
Workplace air – terminology. Geneva: International Organization for Standardization.]
Bioavailability –
1. The rate and extent to which an agent can be absorbed by an organism and is
available for metabolism or interaction with biologically significant receptors.
Bioavailability involves both release from a medium (if present) and absorption by an
organism. [Source: Zartarian V, Bahadori T, McKone T [2005]: Adoption of an
official ISEA glossary. J Expo Anal Environ Epidemiol 15:1–5.]
2. The extent to which a chemical substance to which the body is exposed (by ingestion,
inhalation, injection, or skin contact) reaches the systemic circulation, and the rate at
which this occurs. It is recognized that the bioavailability (for gastrointestinal
absorption) of, for example, both essential and non-essential metals, depends on
various factors including the composition of the diet and the type of the chemical
compound and its state of dispersion. For instance, the absorption of lead and
cadmium is increased if the food is deficient in calcium or iron [Source: ILO/IPCS.
Glossary of terms on chemical safety (after WHO, 1979),
http://www.ilo.org/legacy/english/protection/safework/cis/products/safetytm/glossary
.htm]
Biological Agent - One of a number of agents such as bacteria, viruses, fungi and other
micro-organisms or parts of them and their associated toxins, including those which have
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter GL April 2016 Page GL-5 of GL-25
Glossary of Abbreviations, Definitions and Symbols
been genetically modified, cell cultures or endoparasites which are potentially hazardous to
human health. Note: Dusts of organic origin, for example, cotton dust, flour dust and wood
dust, are not considered to be biological agents and are therefore not covered by this
definition. [Source: ISO [2015]. ISO 18158 Workplace air – terminology. Geneva:
International Organization for Standardization.]
Biological Matrix - A discrete material of biological origin that can be sampled and processed
in a reproducible manner. Examples are blood, serum, plasma, urine, feces, saliva, sputum,
and various discrete tissues. [Source: FDA [2001]. Guidance for industry - bioanalytical
method validation, http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/Guidances/ucm070107.pdf.]
Biological Monitoring –
1. The measurements of the absorption of an environmental chemical in the worker by
analysis of a biological specimen for the chemical agent, its metabolites or some
specific effect on the worker. [Source: NIOSH [1994]. NIOSH Manual of analytical
methods (NMAM), 4th ed. DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 94-113.]
2. The periodic examination of biological specimens (in accordance with the definition
of monitoring). It is usually applied to exposure monitoring but can also apply to
effect monitoring. [Source: ILO/IPCS. Glossary of terms on chemical safety (after
WHO, 1979),
http://www.ilo.org/legacy/english/protection/safework/cis/products/safetytm/glossary
.htm]
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter GL April 2016 Page GL-6 of GL-25
Glossary of Abbreviations, Definitions and Symbols
a genetic factor, nutritional status, lifestyle, or life stage that affect susceptibility to a chemical
exposure. This kind of biomarker can be used to distinguish susceptible individuals or groups;
for example, a cytochrome phenotype. [Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
[2016]. Defining pesticide biomarkers, http://www.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-
pesticide-risks/defining-pesticide-biomarkers.]
Blank Sample - Unused collection substrate, taken from the same batch used for sampling,
processed so as to measure artifacts in the measurement (sampling and analysis) process.
[Source: CEN [2005]. EN 14902, Ambient air quality — Standard method for the measurement
of Pb, Cd, As and Ni in the PM10 fraction of suspended particulate matter. Brussels: European
Standards Commission.]
Breakthrough Volume - Volume of air that can be passed through a sampler before the gas
or vapor exceeds the capacity of the sampler. [Source: ISO [2015]. ISO 18158 Workplace air –
terminology. Geneva: International Organization for Standardization.]
Breathing Zone - The space around a worker’s face from where he or she takes his or her
breath. For technical purposes a more precise definition is as follows: A hemisphere of radius
0.3 m extending in front of the human face, centered on the midpoint of a line joining the
ears; the base of the hemisphere is a plane through this line, the top of the head and the larynx.
The definition is not applicable when respiratory protective equipment is used. [Source: CEN
[2011]. EN 1540, Workplace atmospheres – terminology. Brussels: European Standards
Commission.]
C
C–
1. Concentration of gaseous, liquid, or solid substance in air, mg/m3;
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter GL April 2016 Page GL-7 of GL-25
Glossary of Abbreviations, Definitions and Symbols
when applied to personal permissible exposure limits.
Calibration Graph - Plot of analytical response vs. known mass or concentration of analyte.
Chemical Agent - Chemical element or compound on its own or admixed as it occurs in the
natural state or as produced, used, or released, including release as waste, by any work activity,
whether or not produced intentionally and whether or not placed on the market. [Source: ISO
[2015]. ISO 18158 Workplace air – terminology. Geneva: International Organization for
Standardization.]
Concentration –
1. A general term referring to the quantity of a material or substance contained in unit
quantity of a given medium. [Source: ILO/IPCS. Glossary of terms on chemical safety
(after WHO, 1979),
http://www.ilo.org/legacy/english/protection/safework/cis/products/safetytm/glossary
.htm]
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter GL April 2016 Page GL-8 of GL-25
Glossary of Abbreviations, Definitions and Symbols
Cv - Concentration of gaseous substance in air, parts per million (V/V). In this manual, Cv is
referred to NTP such that Cv = (C x 24.46)/MW.
CV – See 𝑺𝑺𝒓𝒓 : Estimate of the relative standard deviation, equal to S (sample standard
deviation) divided by the mean of a series of measurements. A measure of precision;
previously referred to as CV (coefficient of variation). [Source: NIOSH [1994]. NIOSH
Manual of analytical methods (NMAM), 4th ed. DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 94-113.]
D
D - Density, g/cm3
DE - Desorption efficiency; fraction of known quantity of analyte recovered from spiked solid
sorbent media blank. DE may be a function of loading, and should be determined by the
chemist for each lot of solid sorbent used for sampling, in the concentration range of interest.
Plot (mass recovered minus average media blank)/ mass added vs. (mass recovered minus
average media blank). [Source: NIOSH [1994]. NIOSH Manual of analytical methods
(NMAM), 4th ed. DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 94-113.]
Detector - The part of the monitor that sees and/or measures and/or quantifies and/or
ascertains the dimensions, quantity, or concentration of the gas or vapor of interest. [Source:
NIOSH [1994]. NIOSH Manual of analytical methods (NMAM), 4th ed. DHHS (NIOSH)
Publication No. 94-113.]
Ds - Stokes diameter.
Detection Limit - See LOD; MDL. Lowest amount of an analyte that is detectable with a
given confidence level. Note: The detection limit can be calculated as three times the standard
deviation of blank measurements. This represents a probability of 50% that the analyte will
not be detected when it is present at the concentration of the detection limit. [Source: ISO
[2015]. ISO 18158 Workplace air – terminology. Geneva: International Organization for
Standardization.]
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter GL April 2016 Page GL-9 of GL-25
Glossary of Abbreviations, Definitions and Symbols
Diffusive Sampler –
1. Device which is capable of taking samples of gases or vapors from the atmosphere at a
rate controlled by a physical process such as gaseous diffusion through a static air
layer or permeation through a membrane, but which does not involve active
movement of air through the sampler. [Source: ASTM [2014]. D1356, Standard
terminology relating to sampling and analysis of atmospheres. West Conshohocken,
PA: ASTM International.]
2. Passive sampler that collects gases or vapors at a rate governed by diffusion through a
static air layer and/or permeation through a membrane. [Source: ISO [2015]. ISO
18158 Workplace air – terminology. Geneva: International Organization for
Standardization.]
Dose –
1. The amount of agent that enters a target after crossing an exposure surface. If the
exposure surface is an absorption barrier, the dose is an absorbed dose/uptake dose
(see uptake); otherwise it is an intake dose (see intake). [Source: Zartarian V,
Bahadori T, McKone T [2005] Adoption of an official ISEA glossary. J Expo Anal
Environ Epidemiol, 15:1-5.]
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter GL April 2016 Page GL-10 of GL-25
Glossary of Abbreviations, Definitions and Symbols
E
ECD - Electron capture detector
Est - Estimated
Exposure -
1. Contact between an agent and a target. Contact takes place at an exposure
surface over an exposure period. [Source: Zartarian V, Bahadori T, McKone T
[2005]. Adoption of an official ISEA glossary. Jour Expo Anal & Environ
Epidemiol, 15:1–5.]
2. The amount of an environmental agent that has reached the individual (external
dose) or has been absorbed into the individual (internal dose, absorbed dose).
[Source: ILO/IPCS. Glossary of terms on chemical safety (after WHO, 1979),
http://www.ilo.org/legacy/english/protection/safework/cis/products/safetytm/gl
ossary.htm]
Exposure Assessment -
1. The process of estimating or measuring the magnitude, frequency and duration of
exposure to an agent, along with the number and characteristics of the population
exposed. Ideally, it describes the sources, pathways, routes, and the uncertainties in the
assessment. [Source: Zartarian V, Bahadori T, McKone T Adoption of an official
ISEA glossary. J Expo Anal Environ Epidemiol, 15:1–5.]
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter GL April 2016 Page GL-11 of GL-25
Glossary of Abbreviations, Definitions and Symbols
Exposure Concentration - The exposure mass divided by the contact volume or the
exposure mass divided by the mass of contact volume depending on the medium.
[Source: Zartarian V, Bahadori T, McKone T [2005]: Adoption of an official ISEA
glossary. J Expo Anal Environ Epidemiol, 15:1–5.]
Exposure Route - The way an agent enters a target after contact (e.g., by ingestion,
inhalation, or dermal absorption). [Source: Zartarian V, Bahadori T, McKone T [2005]:
Adoption of an official ISEA glossary. J Expo Anal Environ Epidemiol, 15:1–5.]
F - Fiber(s)
Field Blank –
1. A sample (or sampler) handled exactly the same as the field samples, except no
air is drawn through it. Used to estimate contamination in preparation for
sampling, shipment and storage prior to measurement, but not actually
subtracted from sample readings (see media blank). [Source: NIOSH [1994].
NIOSH Manual of analytical methods (NMAM), 4th ed. DHHS (NIOSH)
Publication No. 94-113.]
2. Blank (sample) that is transported to the sampling site, but not used for sample
collection. Discussion: A field blank is loaded in the sampler, where applicable,
and returned to the laboratory in the same way as a sample. The results from the
analysis of field blanks are used to identify contamination of the sample arising
from handling in the field and during transport. [Source: ISO [2015]. ISO 18158
Workplace air – terminology. Geneva: International Organization for
Standardization.]
G
GC - Gas chromatography
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter GL April 2016 Page GL-12 of GL-25
Glossary of Abbreviations, Definitions and Symbols
GFAAS - Graphite furnace atomic absorption spectrometry
H
Hemolysis - Rupture of red blood cells. [Adapted from Webster’s English dictionary online,
http://www.merriam-webster.com/]. Discussion: hemolysis may occur due to improper
collection and handling of whole blood samples.
Hydrolysis - Chemical process of decomposition involving the splitting of a bond and the
addition of the hydrogen cation and the hydroxide anion of water [Source: Webster’s English
dictionary online, http://www.merriam-webster.com/]
I
IC - Ion chromatography; ion-exchange chromatography
ICP-AES - Inductively coupled plasma - atomic emission spectrometry, also called ICP.
Internal Capsule - Air sampler insert consisting of a plastic housing (with an air inlet)
attached to a membrane filter. Discussion: The internal capsule is fabricated so as to fit inside
the body of the sampling device (e.g., closed-face cassette sampler), enabling capture of
airborne particles within the housing / filter construct. [Adapted from: Harper M, Ashley K
[2013]: Acid-soluble internal capsules for closed-face cassette elemental sampling and analysis
of workplace air. J Occup Environ Hyg 10:297-306.]
Interferent - Constituent of the (air) sample or other aspect of the sampling or analytical
procedure having an adverse effect on the accuracy of the measurement. Note: Interferents
can include components of sampling or analysis equipment, reagents, etc. [Source: ISO
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter GL April 2016 Page GL-13 of GL-25
Glossary of Abbreviations, Definitions and Symbols
[2015]. ISO 18158 Workplace air – terminology. Geneva: International Organization for
Standardization.]
IR – Infrared
L
LAQL - Lowest analytically quantifiable level; see LOQ.
LC - Liquid chromatography
LOD –
1. Limit of detection (detection limit); smallest amount of analyte which can be
distinguished from background. A good estimate for unbiased analyses, with media
blanks not distinguishable from background, is three times the standard error of the
calibration graph for low concentrations, divided by the slope (instrument reading
per unit mass or per unit concentration of analyte). [Source: NIOSH [1994]. NIOSH
Manual of analytical methods (NMAM), 4th ed. DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 94-
113.]
2. The lowest concentration of an analyte that the bioanalytical procedure can reliably
differentiate from background noise. [Source: FDA [2001]. Guidance for industry -
bioanalytical method validation,
http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/Guidances/ucm070107.pdf.]
LOQ - Limit of quantitation; mass of analyte equal to 10 times the standard error of the
calibration graph divided by the slope; approximately the mass of analyte for which relative
standard deviation, 𝑺𝑺𝒓𝒓 , equals 0.10. [Source: NIOSH [1995]: Guidelines for air sampling and
analytical method development and evaluation. By Kennedy ER, Fischbach TJ, Song R, Eller
PM, Shulman SA. DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 95-117,
http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/95-117/pdfs/95-117.pdf.]
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter GL April 2016 Page GL-14 of GL-25
Glossary of Abbreviations, Definitions and Symbols
approximately the mass of analyte for which relative standard deviation, 𝑺𝑺𝒓𝒓 , equals 0.10.
[Source: NIOSH [1995]: Guidelines for air sampling and analytical method development and
evaluation. By Kennedy ER, Fischbach TJ, Song R, Eller PM, Shulman SA. DHHS (NIOSH)
Publication No. 95-117, http:/www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/95-117/pdfs/95-117.pdf.]
M
MCE; MCEF - Mixed cellulose ester; Mixed cellulose ester membrane filter
MDL - Method detection limit; mass of analyte equal to 3 times the standard error of the
calibration graph divided by the slope; approximately the mass of analyte for which standard
deviation, 𝑺𝑺𝒓𝒓 , equals 0.03. [Source: NIOSH [1995]: Guidelines for air sampling and analytical
method development and evaluation. By Kennedy ER, Fischbach TJ, Song R, Eller PM,
Shulman SA. DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 95-117, http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/95-
117/pdfs/95-117.pdf.]
Metabolite –
1. A substance produced directly by a biotransformation of a chemical. For example,
phenol in urine is a metabolite of benzene and is representative of benzene absorption
in the worker. [Source: NIOSH [1994]. NIOSH Manual of analytical methods
(NMAM), 4th ed. DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 94-113.]
Microbiome - The complete genetic content of all the microorganisms that typically inhabit a
particular environment, especially a site on or in the body, such as the skin or the
gastrointestinal tract. [Source: Medical Dictionary online, http://www.online-medical-
dictionary.org/]
Measurement Range - Range of substance, in mass per sample, from the LOQ (or from 10
times the LOD, if LOQ is not known) to an upper limit characteristic of the analytical method,
e.g., the limit of linearity or the mass at which precision of the method starts to become worse
than 𝑺𝑺𝒓𝒓 = 0.1. [Source: NIOSH [1995]: Guidelines for air sampling and analytical method
development and evaluation. By Kennedy ER, Fischbach TJ, Song R, Eller PM, Shulman SA.
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter GL April 2016 Page GL-15 of GL-25
Glossary of Abbreviations, Definitions and Symbols
DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 95-117, http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/95-117/pdfs/95-
117.pdf.]
Media Blank - An unexposed sampler, not taken or shipped to the field, used for background
correction of sample readings or for recovery studies. [Source: NIOSH [1994]. NIOSH
Manual of analytical methods (NMAM), 4th ed. DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 94-113.]
MP - Melting point, °C
MS - Mass spectrometry
MW - Molecular weight
N
Nanoparticle - Material with all three dimensions in the size range from approximately 1 nm
to 100 nm [Source: ISO [2015]. ISO 18158 Workplace air – terminology. Geneva:
International Organization for Standardization.]
NIOSH - National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention, Public Health Service, U. S. Department of Health and Human Services.
Normal Range (biological) - The range of values for an analyte of interest in biological
monitoring that would be expected in workers without exposure to the environmental
chemical agent in the workplace. Note: Normal ranges are often method-specific. [Adapted
from: NIOSH [1994]. NIOSH Manual of analytical methods (NMAM), 4th ed. DHHS
(NIOSH) Publication No. 94-113.]
NTP - Normal temperature and pressure, 25 °C (298 K) and 101.33 kPa (760 mm Hg), at
which the molar volume of an ideal gas is 24.46 L.
O
OSHA - Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U. S. Department of Labor.
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter GL April 2016 Page GL-16 of GL-25
Glossary of Abbreviations, Definitions and Symbols
P
P–
1. Peak (maximum permissible instantaneous) concentration;
2. Pressure, in kPa, at which sampling pump is calibrated or when air sample was taken.
PEL - OSHA PEL; OSHA permissible exposure limit, expressed as ppm or mg/m3 (of a
substance in air).
Personal Sampler - Sampling device, attached to a person that collects gases, vapors, or
airborne particles in the breathing zone for the purpose of measuring exposure to chemical
agents and/or biological agents. [Source: ISO [2015]. ISO 18158 Workplace air – terminology.
Geneva: International Organization for Standardization.]
Plasma, blood - The clear supernatant from whole blood collected with anticoagulants.
Discussion: Blood is collected, mixed with the anticoagulant and centrifuged to separate the
plasma from red blood cells. [Adapted from Medical Dictionary online, http://www.online-
medical-dictionary.org/.]
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter GL April 2016 Page GL-17 of GL-25
Glossary of Abbreviations, Definitions and Symbols
Pool (biological) - A combination of biological specimens (i.e., urine or serum) from many
workers that is used to prepare small aliquots to be run with each batch of analyses. NOTE:
The analyte must be stable in the biological matrix and under the storage conditions used.
Discussion: Aliquots of these pools are analyzed with each batch of samples and the data are
used to develop quality control charts. [Source: NIOSH [1994]. NIOSH Manual of analytical
methods (NMAM), 4th ed. DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 94-113.]
Precision –
1. The relative variability of measurements on replicate samples about the mean of the
population of measurements. Discussion: Precision is expressed by the relative
standard deviation of a series of measurements, and reflects the ability of a method to
replicate measurement results. [Source: NIOSH [1995]: Guidelines for air sampling
and analytical method development and evaluation. By Kennedy ER, Fischbach TJ,
Song R, Eller PM, Shulman SA. DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 95-117,
http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/95-117/pdfs/95-117.pdf.]
Proficiency Testing - Any interlaboratory testing program where stable specimens are sent
to participating laboratories for analysis. Discussion: Results from all participating
laboratories are compared, pooled, and tabulated by the testing program operator with the
purpose of improving laboratory performance. [Adapted from Medical Dictionary online,
http://www.online-medical-dictionary.org/.]
PTFE - Polytetrafluoroethylene
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter GL April 2016 Page GL-18 of GL-25
Glossary of Abbreviations, Definitions and Symbols
Q
Q - Sampling flow rate, L/min
R
Reagent Blank - All reagents used in sample preparation, in the same quantities used to
prepare blank and sample solutions. Note: The reagent blank is used to assess contamination
from the laboratory environment and to characterize background from the reagents used in
sample preparation. [Source: ISO [2015]. ISO 18158 Workplace air – terminology. Geneva:
International Organization for Standardization.]
Recovery, R -
1. Fraction recovered (see DE); previously associated with Analytical Method Recovery
(AMR), a term which is no longer preferred. [Source: NIOSH [1994]. NIOSH Manual
of analytical methods (NMAM), 4th ed. DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 94-113.]
Relative Standard Deviation (RSD) - Quotient of standard deviation over the mean; See 𝑺𝑺𝒓𝒓
and Precision.
Repeatability - The variation in measurements taken under the same conditions. [Adapted
from: ISO [2015]. ISO 18158 Workplace air – terminology. Geneva: International
Organization for Standardization.]
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter GL April 2016 Page GL-19 of GL-25
Glossary of Abbreviations, Definitions and Symbols
D1356, Standard terminology relating to sampling and analysis of atmospheres. West
Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International.]
Respirable Dust - Dust deposited in the non-ciliated portions of the lungs. Discussion:
Respirable dust is measured by using a respirable sampler when the respirable fraction of
airborne dust is of interest. [Adapted from ISO [1995]. ISO 7708 Air quality — particle size
fraction definitions for health-related sampling.’ Geneva: International Organization for
Standardization.]
𝑹𝑹𝒇𝒇 - In thin-layer chromatography, the ratio of distance travelled by the analyte from point of
application to that of the solvent front.
RF - Radio frequency
Rotameter - A device, based on the principle of Stoke’s Law, for measuring rate of fluid flow,
consisting of a tapered vertical tube having a circular cross section, and containing a float that
is free to move in a vertical path to a height dependent upon the rate of fluid flow upward
through the tube. [Source: ASTM [2014] D1356, Standard terminology relating to sampling
and analysis of atmospheres. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International.]
S
𝑺𝑺 –
1. Estimate of the standard deviation;
𝑺𝑺𝒓𝒓 - Estimate of the relative standard deviation, equal to S divided by the mean of a series of
measurements. A measure of precision. Equivalent to CV (coefficient of variation).
�
𝑺𝑺𝒓𝒓 - Pooled relative standard deviation
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter GL April 2016 Page GL-20 of GL-25
Glossary of Abbreviations, Definitions and Symbols
�
𝑺𝑺𝒓𝒓𝒓𝒓 - Estimate of overall precision including pump error
Selectivity -
1. The ability of a bioanalytical method to measure and differentiate the analytes in the
presence of interfering components that may be expected to be present. These could
include metabolites, impurities, degradants, or matrix components. [Adapted from
Medical Dictionary online, http://www.online-medical-dictionary.org/.]
Sensitivity –
1. The slope of the calibration curve. If the curve is in fact a ‘curve’, rather than a straight
line, then of course sensitivity will be a function of analyte concentration or amount.
If sensitivity is to be a unique performance characteristic, it must depend only on the
chemical measurement process, not upon scale factors. [Source: Currie LA [1995]
Nomenclature in evaluation of analytical methods including detection and
quantification capabilities. Pure & Appl Chem 67(10):1699-1723.]
2. The smallest change in the measured analyte concentration that will produce a
reproducible change in a monitor’s readout. [Source: NIOSH [2012]. NIOSH
Technical report: Components for evaluation of direct-reading monitors for gases and
vapors. DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 2012-162,
http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/2012-162/pdfs/2012-162.pdf.]
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter GL April 2016 Page GL-21 of GL-25
Glossary of Abbreviations, Definitions and Symbols
Serum - The clear supernatant from whole blood collected without anticoagulants,
allowed to clot (30 minutes) and centrifuged to separate serum from the clotted blood.
Serum does not contain clotting factors. [Adapted from Medical Dictionary online,
http://www.online-medical-dictionary.org/.]
Sorbent Tube - Sorbent or a support impregnated with reagent, through which sampled air
passes. Note: Some sorbent tubes are intended for use as active samplers and some as passive
samplers. [Source: ISO [2015]. ISO 18158 Workplace air – terminology. Geneva: International
Organization for Standardization.]
Spike - A known mass of analyte added to a sampler for the purpose of determining
recovery (analyst spikes), or for quality control (blind spikes). Also see DE. [Source: NIOSH
[1994]. NIOSH Manual of analytical methods (NMAM), 4th ed. DHHS (NIOSH) Publication
No. 94-113.]
Spot Sample (urine) - Urine sample collected at a specified time. [Source: NIOSH [1994].
NIOSH Manual of analytical methods (NMAM), 4th ed. DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 94-
113.]
T
T - Retention time, min
t–
1. Temperature, °C;
2. Time, min.
𝑻𝑻𝒄𝒄 - Temperature, degrees kelvin (K), at which sampling pump was calibrated
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter GL April 2016 Page GL-22 of GL-25
Glossary of Abbreviations, Definitions and Symbols
TLV - Threshold limit value, listed in TLVs® and BEIs®, Threshold Limit Values for
Chemical Substances and Physical Agents and Biological Indices (American
Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists, Cincinnati, OH, 2015; updated annually).
U
Ultrafine Particle - Particle with a nominal diameter (such as geometric,
aerodynamic, mobility, projected-area or otherwise) of 100 nm or less, produced as a
by-product of a process such as welding and combustion. [Source: ISO [2015]. ISO
18158 Workplace air – terminology. Geneva: International Organization for
Standardization.]
User Check - An evaluation of a written procedure for clarity and accuracy in which an
independent laboratory analyzes a small number of spiked samples following a draft
sample preparation and analysis exactly as written and reviews the draft method for
clarity. [Source: NIOSH [1994]. NIOSH Manual of analytical methods (NMAM), 4th ed.
DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 94-113.]
UV – Ultraviolet
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter GL April 2016 Page GL-23 of GL-25
Glossary of Abbreviations, Definitions and Symbols
V
V - Volume of air sample, in L, as taken at the sampling site, corrected if necessary for
rotameter calibration at a different temperature and pressure:
Validated Method - A Method which meets or exceeds certain sampling and measurement
performance criteria; see for example, the criteria given in Chapter ME [Source: NIOSH
[2016]. Development and evaluation of methods. In: NIOSH Manual of analytical methods,
5th ed. DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 2014-151, http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/nmam.]
Vapor –
1. The gaseous phase of matter that normally exists in a liquid or solid state [Source:
ASTM [2014]. D1356, Standard terminology relating to sampling and analysis of
atmospheres. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International.]
Vm - Volume of 1 mole of ideal gas at the specified temperature and pressure (e.g., 24.45 L at
25 °C and 1 atmosphere).
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter GL April 2016 Page GL-24 of GL-25
Glossary of Abbreviations, Definitions and Symbols
VP - Vapor pressure
W
W - Mass of analyte found on an exposed single-section sampler (e.g., membrane filter)
Working Range - Range of air concentrations, in ppm or mg/m3, at specified air sample
volume, extending from the LOQ to a maximum determined by sampler capacity or
measurement considerations. [Source: NIOSH [1994]. NIOSH Manual of analytical methods
(NMAM), 4th ed. DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 94-113.]
X
XRD - X-ray diffraction
Disclaimer
Mention of any company or product does not constitute endorsement by NIOSH. In addition,
citations to websites external to NIOSH do not constitute NIOSH endorsement of the
sponsoring organizations or their programs or products. Furthermore, NIOSH is not
responsible for the content of these websites. All web addresses referenced in this document
were accessible as of the publication date.
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods 5th Edition Chapter GL April 2016 Page GL-25 of GL-25
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods (NMAM), Fifth Edition
METHODS
PARTICULATES NOT OTHERWISE REGULATED, TOTAL 0501
OSHA: 15 mg/m3, total dust (inert or nuisance dust; particles PROPERTIES: Contains no asbestos and less than 1% quartz
not otherwise regulated) [1]
NIOSH: no REL
For other OELs and guidelines: See references [2,3]
SAMPLING MEASUREMENT
BLANKS: Minimum of 2 field blanks per batch ESTIMATED LOD: 0.075 mg per sample
OVERALL
PRECISION (ŜrT): 0.059 [4]
ACCURACY: ± 15.5%
APPLICABILITY: The working range is 2.5 to 50 mg/m3 for a 100-L air sample. This method is nonspecific and determines the
‘total’ dust concentration to which a worker is exposed.
INTERFERENCES: Moisture and static electricity can affect gravimetric measurements. Humidity control and minimization of
static effects are addressed in this procedure.
OTHER METHODS: The method is similar to Method 5100 for carbon black [5]. This method is preferred over 0500, Issue 2 [6].
OSHA method PV2121 describes a similar procedure (but for respirable sampling) using an alternative sampler design [7].
EQUIPMENT:
1. Sampler: Internal capsule, 37-mm polyvinyl chloride (PVC), 2- to 5-µm pore size membrane or
equivalent hydrophobic filter attached to PVC housing and supporting pad in 37-mm 2-piece
cassette filter holder
NOTE: The cassettes should be fabricated so as to ensure complete sealing of the internal capsule
after sample collection.
2. Personal sampling pump, 1 to 2 L/min, with flexible connecting tubing
3. Microbalance, capable of weighing to ±0.001 mg
4. Static neutralizer, e.g., 210Po; replace no more than nine months after the production date
5. Tool for handling internal capsules, e.g., forceps (preferably plastic)
6. Environmental chamber or room for balance (e.g., 20 °C ± 1 °C and 50% ± 5% RH)
1. Equilibrate the PVC filter capsules in an environmentally controlled weighing area or chamber for at
least 24 hours.
NOTE: An environmentally controlled chamber is desirable, but not required.
2. Place backup pads in filter cassette bottom sections.
3. Weigh the filter capsules in an environmentally controlled area or chamber. Record the internal
capsule tare weight, W1 (mg).
a. Zero the balance before each weighing.
b. Handle the filter capsule with forceps. Pass the internal capsule over an antistatic radiation source.
Repeat this step if the capsule does not release easily from the forceps or if it attracts the balance
pan. Static electricity can cause erroneous weight readings.
4. Assemble the filter capsules in the filter cassettes and close firmly so that leakage around the internal
capsule will not occur. Place a plug in each opening of the filter cassette. Place a cellulose shrink band
around the filter cassette, allow to dry and label the cassette with indelible ink.
SAMPLING:
SAMPLE PREPARATION:
7. Wipe dust from the external surface of the filter cassette with a moist paper towelette to minimize
contamination. Discard the paper towelette.
8. Remove the top and bottom plugs from the filter cassette. Equilibrate for at least 24 hours in the
balance room.
9. Using forceps, open the cassette and remove the internal capsule gently to avoid loss of dust or
damage to the capsule.
10. Zero the microbalance before all weighings. Use the same microbalance for weighing filter capsules
before and after sample collection. Calibrate the balance with National Institute of Standards and
Technology Class S-1.1 or ASTM Class 1 weights.
11. Process laboratory blanks, spiked QC samples and field blanks at a minimum frequency of 1 per 20
field samples. Internal capsules used for QC samples should come from the same lot. Spiked QC
samples, loaded with 0.25-4 mg of material per internal capsule, should be prepared using weight-
stable material such as Arizona Road Dust [8].
MEASUREMENT:
12. Weigh each capsule, including field blanks. Record the post-sampling weight, W2 (mg). Record
anything remarkable about a capsule (e.g., overload, leakage, wet, torn, etc.).
CALCULATIONS:
13. Calculate the concentration of total particulate matter, C (mg/m3), in the air volume sampled, V (L):
EVALUATION OF METHOD:
Lab testing was carried out using blank internal capsules and with capsules spiked with 0.1 – 4 mg of
NIST SRM 1648 (Urban Particulate Matter) and Arizona Road Dust (Air Cleaner Test Dust) [4]. Precision and
accuracy data are given on page 0501-1. Weight stability over 28 days was verified for both blanks and
spiked capsules [4]. Independent laboratory testing on blanks and field samples have verified long-term
weight stability as well as sampling and analysis uncertainty estimates [4,8].
REFERENCES:
[1] CFR. 29 CFR Part 1910.1000. Code of Federal Regulations. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing
Office, Office of the Federal Register.
[2] NIOSH [2005]. NIOSH pocket guide to chemical hazards. Barsan ME, ed. Cincinnati OH: U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National
Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. DHHS (NIOSH) Publication no. 2005-149.
[3] Institut fur Arbeitsschutz der Deutschen Gesetzlichen Unfallversicherung [2014]. GESTIS-Database
on hazardous substances. (German Social Accident Insurance). Sankt Augustin, Germany: IFA. [http://
www.dguv.de/ifa/gestis-stoffdatenbanken/index-2.jsp]. (Date accessed: February, 2015).
[4] NIOSH [2014]. Backup Data Report-NIOSH 0501 and 5100. By O’Connor SP, O’Connor PF, Feng HA,
Ashley K. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. [http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/
docs/2003-154/pdfs/bud/1453_bud.pdf ].
[5] NIOSH [2015]. Carbon black: Method 5100. In: Ashley KE, O’Connor PF, eds. NIOSH manual of
analytical methods. 5th ed. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, DHHS
(NIOSH) Publication No. 2014-151. [www.cdc.gov/niosh/nmam/].
[6] NIOSH [1994]. Particulates not otherwise regulated, total: Method 0500. In: Eller PM, Cassinelli ME,
eds. NIOSH manual of analytical methods. 4th ed. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational
Safety and Health, DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 94-113 [www.cdc.gov/niosh/nmam/].
[7] OSHA [2003]. Gravimetric determination: PV2121. In: Monitoring methods used by OSHA. Salt Lake
City, UT: U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration. [https://www.
osha.gov/dts/sltc/methods/partial/pv2121/pv2121.html] (Date accessed: February, 2015).
[8] O’Connor S, O’Connor PF, Feng HA, Ashley K [2014]. Gravimetric analysis of particulate matter using
air samplers housing internal filtration capsules. Gefahrsstoffe Reinh Luft 75: 403-410.
APPLICABILITY: The working range is 0.02 to 13.1 ppm (0.07 to 46 mg/m3) for a 24-L air sample. The method is sensitive enough
for ceiling measurements.
INTERFERENCES: Vinyl acetate that is not stabilized or has been depleted of inhibitor can polymerize. Any substance collected
with the vinyl acetate that is capable of reacting with it is a potential interference. Acids, bases, free radical initiators, etc., are
capable of reacting with vinyl acetate during and after air sampling.
OTHER METHODS: This method is an update for NMAM 1453 first issued on August 15, 1994 [4]. This method is adapted from
OSHA Method No. 51 [5] and NIOSH 1453 Issue 2 and replaces NIOSH method P&CAM 278 [6].
REAGENTS: EQUIPMENT:
1. Vinyl acetate*, 99% purity, inhibited with 1. Sampler: glass tube, 7 cm long, 6-mm OD, 4-
3 – 22 ppm hydroquinone. mm ID, flame-sealed ends with plastic caps,
2. Methanol*, distilled in glass. containing two sections of carbon molecular
3. Methylene chloride*, distilled in glass. sieve, (front = 160 mg, back = 80 mg)
4. Desorption solvent, 95%/5% (v/v) separated by a 2-mm urethane foam plug. A
methylene chloride/methanol. silylated glass wool plug precedes the front
5. Helium, purified. section and a 3-mm urethane foam plug
6. Hydrogen, prepurified. follows the back section. Pressure drop across
7. Air, filtered, compressed. the tube at 1 L/min airflow must be less than
8. Calibration stock solution, 74.7 mg/mL. Add 25 mm/Hg. Tubes are commercially available.
400 μL vinyl acetate into a 5-mL volumetric 2. Personal sampling pump, 0.1 to 0.2 L/min,
flask and dilute to volume with methanol. with flexible connecting tubing.
3. Gas chromatograph with flame ionization
*See SPECIAL PRECAUTIONS. detector (GC-FID), column (page 1453-1) and
data collector.
4. Vials, 2-mL, with PTFE-lined caps.
5. Syringe, 10-μL and other sizes as needed.
6. Volumetric flasks, 2- and 5-mL.
SPECIAL PRECAUTIONS: Methylene chloride is an irritant, can be absorbed through the skin, and is a
potential occupational carcinogen [7]. Vinyl acetate can irritate the eyes, nose, and throat. Vinyl Acetate is
flammable in air (percent by volume): lower, 2.6%; upper, 13.4% [8]. Vinyl acetate can become unstable if
the polymerization inhibitor decreases to unsafe levels [8]. Methanol is flammable and a dangerous fire
and explosion risk. It is moderately toxic by ingestion and inhalation. Wear appropriate protective clothing
and work with these compounds in a well ventilated hood.
SAMPLING:
SAMPLE PREPARATION:
5. Place the front sorbent section along with the glass wool plug in a separate vial from the back sorbent
section of the sampler. Discard the foam plugs.
6. Add 1.0 mL of 95:5% (v/v) methylene chloride/methanol to each vial. Cap each vial.
7. Allow to stand 30 min with occasional agitation.
MEASUREMENT:
11. Set gas chromatograph according to manufacturer’s recommendations and to conditions given on
page 1453-1. Inject sample aliquot manually using solvent flush technique or with autosampler.
NOTE: If peak area is above the linear range of the working standards, dilute an aliquot of the desorbed
liquid with desorption solvent, reanalyze, and apply the appropriate dilution factor in
calculations.
12. Measure the peak area of the vinyl acetate signal.
CALCULATIONS:
13. Determine the mass, μg (corrected for DE) of vinyl acetate found in the sample front (Wf) and back (Wb)
sorbent sections, and in the average media blank front (Bf) and back (Bb) sorbent sections.
NOTE: If Wb > Wf /10, report breakthrough and possible sample loss.
14. Calculate concentration, C, of vinyl acetate in the air volume sampled, V (L):
EVALUATION OF METHOD:
This method was validated originally by the Organic Methods Development Branch, OSHA Technical
Center, Salt Lake City, UT, over the range 187 to 710 μg per sample using Ambersorb® XE-347 as sorbent.
Breakthrough studies at 70% RH, sampling an atmosphere of 150 mg/m3 at 0.19 L/min, indicated a tube
capacity of approximately 9 mg of vinyl acetate [5].
This media is no longer available and is replaced with Carboxen® 564 carbon molecular sieve tubes
(OrboTM-92 or equivalent tubes). Using OrboTM-92 media, the average desorption efficiency for samples
in this range was 98.5%. Recoveries from samples stored for 30 days at 5 °C were 90 to 110% for samples
spiked at 187 and 747 μg per sample. The pooled coefficient of variation obtained from replicate
determinations of analytical standards in this range was 0.020 [3,9].
REFERENCES:
[1] SCOEL [2005]. Recommendation from the scientific committee on occupational exposure limits for
vinyl acetate. Brussel, Belgium: Scientific Committee on Occupational Exposure Limits.
[http://ec.europa.eu/social/BlobServlet?docId=3861&langId=en] October 2005.
[2] ACGIH [2014]. TLVs® and BEIs® based on the documentation of the Threshold Limit Values for
chemical substances and physical agents and biological exposure indices. Cincinnati, OH: American
Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists [http://www.acgih.org/].
[3] NIOSH [2013]. Backup data report for vinyl acetate. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational
Safety and Health (unpublished).
[4] NIOSH [1994]. Vinyl acetate: Method 1453. In: Eller PM, Cassinelli ME, eds. NIOSH manual of analytical
methods, 4th ed. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, DHHS (NIOSH)
Publication No. 94-113 [www.cdc.gov/niosh/nmam/].
[5] OSHA [1985]. Vinyl acetate: OSHA Method ORG-51. Salt Lake City, Utah: U.S. Department of Labor,
Occupational Safety and Health Administration. [http://www.osha.gov/dts/sltc/methods/organic/
org051/org051.html]. Date accessed October 2012.
[6] NIOSH [1978]. Vinyl acetate: P & CAM 278. In: Taylor DG, ed. NIOSH manual of analytical methods,
2nd ed., Vol 4. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Center for Disease
Control, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, DHEW (NIOSH) Publication No. 78-
175.
[7] NIOSH [2005]. NIOSH pocket guide to chemical hazards. Barsan ME, ed. Cincinnati OH: U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National
Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 2005-149.
[8] Gustin J-L [2005]. Understanding vinyl acetate polymerization accidents. Chem Health Saf
12(6):36-46.
[9] Yoon YH, Perkins JB [1998]. Vinyl acetate by GC-FID sample analysis backup data report. Salt Lake
City, UT: DataChem Laboratories. Developed under NIOSH contract CDC-200-2001-08000
(unpublished).
Disclaimer: Mention of any company or product does not constitute endorsement by NIOSH. In addition,
citations to websites external to NIOSH do not constitute NIOSH endorsement of the sponsoring
organizations or their programs or products. Furthermore, NIOSH is not responsible for the content of
these websites. All web addresses referenced in this document were accessible as of the publication date.
SAMPLING MEASUREMENT
SAMPLER: SOLID SORBENT TUBE (silica gel, 150 TECHNIQUE: GAS CHROMATOGRAPHY, FID
mg/75 mg)
ANALYTE: nitrobenzene, nitrotoluene isomers,
FLOW RATE: (1) and (3) 0.01 - 1 L/min; 4-chloronitrobenzene
(2) 0.01 to 0.02 L/min
DESORPTION: 1 mL methanol in ultrasonic bath for 30
(1) (2) (3) minutes mL acetonitrile
VOL-MIN: 10 L 1L 1L
-MAX: 150 L 30L 150L INJECTION
VOLUME: 1 μL
SHIPMENT: routine
TEMPERATURE
SAMPLE -INJECTION: 250 °C
STABILITY: 30 days @ 0 °C [1] -DETECTOR: 300 °C
-COLUMN: 80 °C, 1 min, 8 °C/min to 180 °C
BLANKS: 2 to 10 field blanks per set
CARRIER GAS: He, 2.5 to 3.0 mL/min
ACCURACY
COLUMN: capillary, 30 m x 0.53-mm ID; µm film
RANGE crossbonded 5% diphenyl 95%
STUDIED: Table 1 dimethylpolysiloxane
BIAS: Table 1 CALIBRATION: analytes in methanol
APPLICABILITY: The working ranges for a 30-L air samples are 0.396 to 1.92 ppm (1.98 to 9.60 mg/m3) for nitrobenzene; 0.346 to
1.73 ppm (1.97 to 9.86 mg/m3) for o-nitrotoluene; 0.344 to 1.72 ppm (1.96 to 9.81 mg/m3) for m-nitrotoluene; 0.303 to 1.52 ppm
1.73 to 8.67 mg/m3) for p-nitrotoluene; and 0.308 to 1.54 ppm (1.98 to 9.92 mg/m3) for 4-chloronitrobenzene [1,2].
INTERFERENCES: Any compounds with retention times similar to the analytes of interest will interfere. During sampling, high
humidity may greatly decrease breakthrough volume
OTHER METHODS: This method is an update of NMAM 2005, Nitrobenzenes, issued 15 August 1994, which combined and
replaced methods S217, S218, and S223 [2,3].
REAGENTS: EQUIPMENT:
1. Methanol, HPLC chromatographic grade. 1. Sampler: silica gel sampling tube; glass tube, 7
2. Nitrobenzene*, reagent grade. cm long, 6-mm OD, 4-mm ID, flame-sealed
3. o-,m-,p-nitrotoluene isomers,* reagent ends with plastic caps, containing two sections
grade. (front=150 mg; back=75 mg) of 20/40 mesh
4. 4-chloronitrobenzene*, reagent grade. silica gel separated by a 2-mm urethane foam
5. Calibration stock solution, 500 µg/mL. plug. A silylated glass wool plug precedes the
Prepare each analyte in methanol. front section and a 3-mm urethane foam plug
6. Helium, purified and filtered. follows the back section.
7. Hydrogen, purified and filtered. 2. Personal sampling pump, 0.01 to 1 L/min, with
8. Air, purified and filtered. flexible connecting tubing.
3. Gas chromatograph, FID, integrator and
*See SPECIAL PRECAUTIONS. column (page 2005-1).
4. Autosampler vials, glass, 2-mL, with PTFE-
lined crimp caps.
5. Volumetric flasks, 10-mL.
6. Pipets, 5-mL and 3-mL, with pipet bulb.
7. Syringes, 10-µL, 100-µL, and 1-mL.
8. Ultrasonic bath.
SPECIAL PRECAUTIONS: These analytes are severe poisons and irritants. Prevent contact with eyes,
skin, or clothing by wearing eye protection, chemically resistant gloves, and a lab coat. Avoid inhalation.
Nitrobenzene and m-nitrotoluene are absorbed through contact with skin and can cause
methemoglobinemia [5,6]. 4-Chloronitrobenzene is a carcinogen. Methanol is highly flammable.
SAMPLING:
SAMPLE PREPARATION:
5. Place the front (include the glass wool plug) and back sorbent sections of each sample tube in
separate vials. Discard the foam plugs.
6. Add 1.0 mL of methanol to each vial. Attach crimp cap securely to each vial.
7. Allow to desorb 30 min in an ultrasonic bath.
8. Calibrate daily with at least six working standards to cover the analytical range of the method. If
necessary, additional standards may be added to extend the calibration curve.
a. Add known amounts of calibration stock to methanol in 10-mL volumetric flasks and dilute to
the mark.
b. Analyze together with samples and blanks (steps 11 and 12).
c. Prepare calibration graph (peak area vs µg analyte).
9. Determine desorption efficiency (DE) at least once for each lot of silica gel used for sampling in the
calibration ranges (step 8).
a. Prepare three tubes at each of five levels plus three media blanks.
b. Inject a known amount of calibration stock solution directly onto the front sorbent section of
each silica gel tube with a microliter syringe.
c. Allow the tubes to air equilibrate for several minutes, then cap the ends of each tube and allow
to stand overnight.
d. Desorb (steps 5 through 7) and analyze together with standards and blanks (steps 11 and 12).
e. Prepare a graph of DE vs µg analyte recovered.
10. Analyze three quality control blind spikes and three analyst spikes to ensure that the calibration
graph and DE graph are in control.
MEASUREMENT:
11. Set gas chromatograph according to manufacturer’s recommendations and to conditions given on
page 2005-1. Inject a 1-µL sample aliquot manually using the solvent flush technique or with an
autosampler.
NOTE: If peak area is above the linear range of the working standards, dilute with methanol,
reanalyze and apply the appropriate dilution factor in the calculations.
12. Measure peak areas.
CALCULATIONS:
13. Determine the mass, µg (corrected for DE) of analyte found in the sample front (Wf) and back (Wb)
sorbent sections, and in the average media blank front (Bf) and back (Bb) sorbent sections.
NOTE: If Wb > Wf /10, report breakthrough and possible sample loss.
14. Calculate concentration, C, of analyte in the air volume sampled, V(L):
EVALUATION OF METHOD:
The 3rd issue update of this method included the use of capillary column chromatography (Rtx™-5 Amine)
that lowered the LOD/LOQ values, a lower 5-level desorption efficiency study, and a 30-day storage
stability study for each analyte [1]. The method evaluation data for these compounds are listed in Table 2.
Methods S217, Nitrobenzene, and S218, 4-nitrochlorobenzene, were initially issued on November 21, 1975
[4]. Method S223, o-nitrotoluene was issued on December 19, 1975 [4]. The analytes m-nitrotoluene and p-
nitrotoluene were added on May 15, 1984 [3]. In the original method development work, sample tube
capacity, or breakthrough, was determined as 5% of the generated atmosphere concentration as
measured in the effluent of the sample tubes. Capacity was measured at >2.8 mg/sample for
nitrobenzene; >2.5 mg/sample for nitrotoluene isomers; and >2.2 mg/sample for 4-chlorobenzene [2].
REFERENCES:
[1] Pendergrass SM [1997]. Backup data report for nitroaromatic compounds method development.
Cincinnati, OH: National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. Unpublished.
[2] NIOSH [1977]. Methods S217, S218, and S223. In: Documentation of the NIOSH validation tests.
Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Center of Disease Control and
Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, DHEW (NIOSH) Publication No.
77-185.
[3] NIOSH [1994]. m-Nitrotoluene and p-Nitrotoluene: Method 2005. In: Eller PM, Cassinelli ME, eds.
NIOSH manual of analytical methods, 4th ed. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational
Safety and Health, DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 94-113.
[4] NIOSH [1978]. Nitrobenzene: Method S217; p-Nitrochlorobenzene: Method S218; and
Nitrotoluene: Method S223. In: Taylor DG, ed. NIOSH manual of analytical methods. 2nd ed.
Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Center for Disease Control,
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, DHEW (NIOSH) Publication No. 77-157-C.
[5] NIOSH [1977]. Aromatic hydrocarbons and nitrobenzeme. In: Key MM, Henschel AF, Butler J, Ligo
RN, Tabershaw IR, Ede L, eds. Occupational diseases: A guide to their recognition. revised ed.
Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Center for Disease Control,
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, DHEW (NIOSH) Publication No. 77-181.
[6] NIOSH [1981]. Occupational health guidelines for chemical hazards, nitrobenzene,
nitrochlorobenzene and nitrotoluene, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for
Disease Control, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, DHHS (NIOSH) Publication
No. 81-123.
Nitrobenzene 1.98-9.60 0.0590 0.0186 12.3 2 to 598 0.6 0.12 98.7 100.2
o-Nitrotoluene 1.97-9.86 0.0142 -0.120 21.1 3 to 582 0.8 0.028 98.2 101.2
4-Chloro-
1.98-9.92 0.1034 0.0869 27.3c 8 to 595 2.5 0.063 100.3 97.6
nitrobenzene
a
30-L air sample
b
Not determined
c
Exceeds the NIOSH accuracy criterion of ± 25% at the 95% confidence level
Disclaimer: Mention of any company or product does not constitute endorsement by NIOSH. In addition,
citations to websites external to NIOSH do not constitute NIOSH endorsement of the sponsoring
organizations or their programs or products. Furthermore, NIOSH is not responsible for the content of
these websites. All web addresses referenced in this document were accessible as of the publication date.
SAMPLING MEASUREMENT
SAMPLER: SOLID SORBENT TUBE (silica gel, 100 TECHNIQUE: ION CHROMATOGRAPHY, CONDUCTIVITY
mg/50 mg) DETECTION
ACCURACY: ± 17.7%
APPLICABILITY: The working range is 0.09 to >85 ppm (0.3 to 30 mg/m3) for a 3-L air sample.
INTERFERENCES: Chloroacetyl chloride is a positive interferent since it is hydrolyzed to monochloroacetic acid by the
measurement procedure and is efficiently collected by silica gel [3]. Particulate salts of the acid are positive interferents. The
chromatographic conditions given will separate acetate, chloride, dichloroacetate, fluoride, glycolate, and trichloroacetate ions
from chloroacetate ion.
OTHER METHODS: This revises P&CAM 332 [2]. The columns used in P&CAM 332 are no longer available. The newer columns
indicated here show improvements in the analytical range and sensitivity.
REAGENTS: EQUIPMENT:
1. Water, filtered, deionized. Specific 1. Sampler: silica gel sorbent tube; glass tube, 7
conductance ≤10 µS/cm. cm long, 6-mm OD, 4-mm ID, with plastic
2. Sodium bicarbonate (NaHCO3), reagent caps, containing two sections of 20/40 mesh
grade. silica gel (front = 100 mg; back =50 mg)
3. Chloroacetic acid, ≥99%.* contained and separated by three silanized
4. Eluent: 1.5 mM NaHCO3. Dissolve 0.504 g glass wool plugs. Pressure drop across the
NaHCO3 in 4 L filtered, deionized water. tube at 0.2 L/min is ca. 0.6 kPa (2.6 in. H2O).
5. Calibration stock solution, 1000 µg/mL. Tubes are commercially available.
Dissolve 100 mg chloroacetic acid in 100 mL NOTE: Chloroacetic acid is irreversibly
filtered, deionized water. adsorbed on urethane plugs. Use
sorbent tubes with glass wool plugs.
*See SPECIAL PRECAUTIONS. 2. Personal sampling pump, 0.05 to 0.2 L/min,
with flexible connecting tubing.
3. Ion chromatograph (IC), anion separator (USP
L12) and compatible guard column, anion
suppressor (page 2008-1), conductivity
detector and integrator.
4. Ultrasonic bath.
5. Vials, 20-mL, glass, with aluminum-lined
plastic screw caps.
6. Syringes, 3-mL, polyethylene with luer tip.
7. Filter holder, luer tip, 13-mm, with
polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) filter, 5-µm
pore size, or PTFE syringe filter.
8. Pipets, 10-µL to 2-mL.
9. Flasks, volumetric, 10- and 100-mL.
SPECIAL PRECAUTIONS: Chloroacetic acid is irritating to skin and mucous membranes [4]. Work with
concentrated material only in a hood.
SAMPLING:
SAMPLE PREPARATION:
MEASUREMENT:
13. Set ion chromatograph according to manufacturer's recommendations and to conditions given on
page 2008-1.
14. Inject sample aliquot manually or use autosampler.
a. Flush sample loop with 0.5 mL sample extract, then inject 0.5 mL sample.
b. Rinse sample loop with 1 to 2 mL deionized water between determinations of separate samples.
NOTE: All samples, eluents, and water flowing through the IC must be filtered to avoid plugging
the system valves or columns.
15. Measure peak height.
NOTE: If sample peak height exceeds linear calibration range, dilute with deionized water, reanalyze,
and apply appropriate dilution factor.
CALCULATIONS:
16. Determine mass, µg (corrected for DE), of analyte found in the sample front (Wf) and back (Wb) sorbent
sections, and in the average media blank front (Bf) and back (Bb) sorbent sections.
17. Calculate concentration, C, of chloroacetic acid in the air volume sampled, V (L):
𝑊𝑊𝑓𝑓 + 𝑊𝑊𝑏𝑏 − 𝐵𝐵𝑓𝑓 − 𝐵𝐵𝑏𝑏
𝐶𝐶 = 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚⁄𝑚𝑚3
𝑉𝑉
EVALUATION OF METHOD:
This method was developed and evaluated by Southern Research Institute [1] using dynamically-
generated atmospheres of chloroacetic acid over the concentration range of 0.35 to 29 mg/m3 at 25 to 27
°C and at relative humidity (RH) ≥80%. Average recovery based on 18 samples, six at each of three levels,
was 98% representing a negligible bias. Precision at 0.35 mg/m3 was inhomogeneous with those of higher
levels; therefore, precisions were not pooled. Using this poorest precision (𝐒𝐒�𝐫𝐫 = 0.064), the overall precision
(S� rT ) was estimated to be ≤0.081.
The breakthrough volume of the 100-mg sorbent section was found to be >100 L at 0.2 L/min when
sampling chloroacetic acid concentrations of 60 mg/m3 at 42 °C and RH of 10 and 80% and 35 mg/m3 at 27
°C and 10 and 90% RH. Samples stored at ambient temperature for 7 days had a mean recovery of 91%
and a precision, 𝐒𝐒�𝐫𝐫 , of 0.047. Samples refrigerated after day 7, and stored for 32 days exhibited a mean
recovery of 100% with a precision, 𝐒𝐒�𝐫𝐫 , of 0.085 based on samples analyzed on day 1.
REFERENCES:
[1] Dillon HK, Mason DW, Boyd KW [1980]. Development of air sampling and analytical methods for
toxic chlorinated organic compounds: research report for monochloroacetic acid. Birmingham, AL:
Southern Research Institute. NIOSH contract no. 210-78-0012. Unpublished.
[2] NIOSH [1980]. Chlorine: Method P&CAM 322. In: Taylor DG, ed. NIOSH manual of analytical
methods. 2nd ed. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Center for
Disease Control, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, DHEW (NIOSH) Publication
No. 80-125.
[3] McCullough PR, Worley JW [1979]. Sampling of chloroacetyl chloride in air on solid support and
determination by ion chromatography. Anal Chem 51:1120-1122.
[4] Budavari S, ed. [1989]. Merck Index, 11th ed. Rahway, NJ: Merck and Co.
Disclaimer: Mention of any company or product does not constitute endorsement by NIOSH. In addition,
citations to websites external to NIOSH do not constitute NIOSH endorsement of the sponsoring
organizations or their programs or products. Furthermore, NIOSH is not responsible for the content of
these websites. All web addresses referenced in this document were accessible as of the publication date.
SAMPLING MEASUREMENT
SAMPLER: SORBENT TUBE (silica gel, 150 mg/75 mg) TECHNIQUE: HPLC/UV
APPLICABILITY: The working range is 0.15 to 53 ppm (0.8 to 280 mg/m3) for a 10-L air sample.
INTERFERENCES: None identified. The chromatographic conditions described will separate phenol; o-chlorophenol; 2,3-, 2,4-,
2,5-, 2,6-, 3,4-, and 3,5- dichlorophenol; o- and p-nitrophenol; 2,4-dimethylphenol; 2,4,5-trichlorophenol; 4-chloro-o-
methylphenol; 2,4-dinitrophenol; 4,6-dinitro-2-methylphenol; and pentachlorophenol.
OTHER METHODS: This method replaces P&CAM 337 [2]. The other columns for the analysis of p-chlorophenol have been
reported in the literature [3-5].
REAGENTS: EQUIPMENT:
1. p-Chlorophenol 99%.* 1. Sampler: borosilicate glass tubes, 7 cm long
2. Acetonitrile, distilled in glass. with a 6-mm OD and a 4-mm ID, flame sealed
3. Hexane, distilled in glass. at both ends. Each tube contains two sections
4. Water, HPLC quality distilled, deionized. of 20/40 mesh silica gel (a 150-mg sorbent
5. p-Chlorophenol stock solution, 20 mg/mL. section and a 75-mg backup section
Dissolve 500 mg p-chlorophenol in 30% (v/v) separated and held in place with glass wool
acetonitrile in water to make 25 mL solution. plugs). Tubes are commercially available.
Stable at least 3 months in airtight container. 2. Personal sampling pump, calibrated, capable
6. Desorption efficiency (DE) stock solution, of operating 8 hours at 0.05 to 0.2 L/min with
5 mg/mL. Dissolve 125 mg p-chlorophenol flexible connecting tubing.
in hexane to make 25 mL solution. 3. HPLC with UV detector (280 nm), C18 column,
injector, and electronic integrator.
*See SPECIAL PRECAUTIONS. 4. Microliter syringes, various sizes.
5. Volumetric flasks, various sizes.
6. Centrifuge tubes, 12-mL, glass with screw
caps.
7. Pipette, 1- and 2-mL, and convenient sizes for
making dilutions.
8. Vials, 1-mL, with caps containing PTFE-lined
silicone septa.
9. Ultrasonic bath.
SAMPLING:
SAMPLE PREPARATION:
10. Calibrate daily with at least six working standards in the range 2.5 to 64 µg per sample.
a. Dilute aliquots of p-chlorophenol stock solution with 30% (v/v) acetonitrile in water in volumetric
flasks to encompass the range of interest. Prepare fresh daily.
b. Analyze working standards with samples and blanks steps.
c. Prepare calibration graph (peak area or peak height vs. µg of p-chlorophenol per sample.
11. Determine desorption efficiency (DE) for each lot of silica gel used for sampling in the calibration
range. Prepare three tubes at each of five levels.
a. Remove backup section. Inject known amounts of DE stock solution (2 to 10 µL) onto the silica gel
with a microliter syringe.
b. Cap the tubes and allow to stand overnight.
c. Desorb (steps 7 through 9) and analyze together with standards and blanks (steps 13 and 14).
d. Prepare a graph DE vs. µg p-chlorophenol recovered.
12. Analyze three quality control spikes and three analyst spikes to ensure that the calibration graph and
DE graph are in control.
MEASUREMENT:
13. Set HPLC according to manufacturer's recommendations and to conditions on page 2014-1. Inject
sample aliquot manually or with autosampler.
NOTE: If peak is above the linear range of the working standards, dilute with 30% (v/v) acetonitrile in
water, reanalyze, and apply the appropriate dilution factor.
14. Measure peak area or peak height.
CALCULATIONS:
15. Determine the mass, µg (corrected for DE), of analyte found on the sample front (Wf) and back (Wb)
sorbent sections, and in the average media blank front (Bf) and back (Bb) sorbent sections.
16. Calculate concentration of p-chlorophenol in the air volume sampled, V (L):
The overall method was evaluated by collecting 3-L samples of test atmospheres containing p-
chlorophenol in the range of 0.91 - 23.4 mg/m3 at 29 °C and a relative humidity of greater than 80%. The
amounts collected ranged from 2.6 - 64 µg per 150-mg bed of silica gel. The breakthrough volume of the
sorbent tube was found to be approximately 60 L with a sampling rate of 0.2 L/min at a p-chlorophenol
concentration of about 70 mg/m3, a sampling temperature of 43 °C, and a relative humidity of greater than
80%. Samples of p-chlorophenol on silica gel were found to be stable at 25 °C for 7 days and for 29 days if
stored at 0 °C after the seventh day. Silica gel gave an average desorption efficiency of 96% with a 𝑆𝑆𝑟𝑟̅ 2.4%
for loadings of 2.54 - 48.0 µg of p-chlorophenol on 150-mg beds of sorbent material.
REFERENCES:
[1] Dillon HK, Emory MB [1980]. Development of air sampling and analytical methods for toxic
chlorinated organic compounds: Research report for p-chlorophenol. NIOSH contract no. 210-78-
0012. Birmingham, AL. Southern Research Institute.
[2] NIOSH [1981]. P-Chlorophenol: P&CAM 337. In: Taylor DG, ed. NIOSH manual of analytical
methods. 2nd ed. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Center for Disease
Control, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 82-100.
[4] Buisson RSK, Kirk PWW, Lester JN [1984]. Determination of chlorinated phenols in water, wastewater
and sludge by capillary GC/ECD. J Chromatogr Sci 22(8):399-42.
[5] Lee HB, Hong-You RL, Fowlie PJ [1989]. Chemical derivatization analysis of phenols. Part VI.
Determination of chlorinated phenolics in pulp and paper effluents. J Assoc Off Anal Chem
72(6):979-984.
Disclaimer: Mention of any company or product does not constitute endorsement by NIOSH. In
addition, citations to websites external to NIOSH do not constitute NIOSH endorsement of the
sponsoring organizations or their programs or products. Furthermore, NIOSH is not responsible for the
content of these websites. All web addresses referenced in this document were accessible as of the
publication date.
OSHA: 0.75 ppm; 2 ppm STEL PROPERTIES: Gas; BP -19.5 °C; specific gravity 1.067 (air = 1);
NIOSH: 0.016 ppm; C 0.1 ppm; carcinogen explosive range 7 to 73% (v/v) in air
(1 ppm = 1.23 mg/m3 @ NTP)
SAMPLING MEASUREMENT
SAMPLER: CARTRIDGE (Cartridge containing silica TECHNIQUE: HPLC, UV DETECTION
gel coated with 2,4-
dinitrophenylhydrazine) ANALYTE: 2,4-dinitrophenylhydrazone of
formaldehyde
FLOW RATE: 0.03 to 1.5 L/min
EXTRACTION: Elution with 10 mL of carbonyl-free
VOL-MIN: 1 L @ 0.25 mg/m3 acetonitrile
-MAX: 15 L @ 2.5 mg/m3
INJECTION
SHIPMENT: Place caps onto cartridge. Ship on ice. VOLUME: 20 µL
SAMPLE MOBILE
STABILITY: 34 days @ 5 °C [1] PHASE: 45% acetonitrile/55% water (v/v),
1.3 mL/min
BLANKS: 2 to 10 field blanks per set; 6 to 10 media
blanks per set COLUMN: 3.9 x 150-mm, stainless steel, packed
with 5-µm C18
ACCURACY
RANGE DETECTOR: UV @ 360 nm
STUDIED: 0.025 to 2.45 mg/m3 (22-L samples) [2]
CALIBRATION: Samplers fortified with standard
BIAS: +4.4% solutions of formaldehyde in water
APPLICABILITY: The working range is 0.015 to 2.5 mg/m3 (0.012 to 2.0 ppm) for a 15-L sample. This method can be used for the
determination of formaldehyde for both STEL and TWA exposures [1, 2].
INTERFERENCES: Ozone has been observed to consume the 2,4-dinitrophenylhydrazine (2,4-DNPH) reagent and to degrade the
formaldehyde derivative [3]. Ketones and other aldehydes can react with 2,4-DNPH; the derivatives produced, however, are
separated chromatographically from the formaldehyde derivative.
OTHER METHODS: NIOSH methods 2541 [4] and 3500 [5] and OSHA method 52 [6] are other methods for determination of
formaldehyde in air. NIOSH method 5700 employs 2,4-DNPH and HPLC for determination of formaldehyde on textile or wood
dust [7]. A journal method employs the same procedure for formaldehyde in automobile exhaust [8].
REAGENTS: EQUIPMENT:
SPECIAL PRECAUTIONS: Formaldehyde is a suspect carcinogen and a proven human sensitizer; it should
be handled in a fume hood [10-12]. Acetonitrile is toxic and is a fire hazard (flash point = 12.8 °C).
SAMPLING:
1. Calibrate each personal sampling pump with a representative sampler (and ozone scrubber, if used) in
line.
2. Open sampler packet and remove end caps.
3. Attach sampler to the sampling pump with flexible tubing. Bi-directional samplers can be connected
at either end.
NOTE: The sampler does not have a backup section for determination of breakthrough. If high
concentrations of aldehydes and ketones are anticipated, connect two samplers in series. The
back pressure of the sampling train will be higher and a lower flow rate may be required.
4. Sample 1 to 15 L of air at 0.03 to 1.5 L/min.
NOTE: To protect from intense light, such as bright sunlight, the sampler can be wrapped with
aluminum foil or electrical tape.
5. Place end caps onto the sampler and seal sampler in an envelope. Protect samples from heat.
6. Ship samples on ice (0 °C).
SAMPLE PREPARATION:
NOTE: Check acetonitrile for formaldehyde content by elution and analysis of a blank cartridge; the
formaldehyde level should be below the detection limit. Since background levels of
formaldehyde on the samplers may change during storage, compare samples with sampler
blanks from the same lot. Samples and blanks should be stored under the same conditions.
7. Elute the formaldehyde derivative from the cartridge samplers with 10-mL quantities of acetonitrile.
a. Collect effluent from each sampler in a 10-mL volumetric flask.
b. Add acetonitrile to the mark for each sampler.
NOTE: The silica gel bed of the sampler will retain approximately 0.5 mL of the original 10 mL.
8. Calibrate daily with at least six media working standards over the range of interest.
a. Prepare a series of aqueous formaldehyde solutions for the fortification of samplers. Suggested
concentrations include 1, 4, and 20 µg/mL. See APPENDIX A for standardization of formaldehyde in
water.
b. Connect the outlet of a cartridge sampler to a personal sampling pump with flexible tubing. Turn
on the pump and make sure there is a flow of air through the sampler.
c. Load a 100-µL syringe with a selected volume of aqueous formaldehyde solution in the range of 30
to 90 µL. Suggested quantities of formaldehyde for spiking include 0.04, 0.10, 0.20, 0.30, 0.40, 0.80,
1.0 and 2.0 µg/sample.
d. Place the tip of the syringe needle against the frit in the inlet of the sampler and eject the
formaldehyde solution.
e. Prepare the media working standard (steps 7a and 7b).
f. Prepare additional working standards (steps 8b through 8e).
g. Transfer 3-mL aliquots of working standards to 4-mL vials, and analyze (steps 10, 12 and 13).
h. Prepare calibration graph, peak area or peak height vs. µg formaldehyde per sample.
9. Fortify and analyze three quality control spikes and three analyst spikes to ensure that calibration
graph is in control.
MEASUREMENT:
10. Set liquid chromatograph according to manufacturer’s recommendations and to conditions given on
page 2016-1.
11. Transfer a 3-mL aliquot of the sample solution from step 7 to a 4-mL vial. Cap the vial.
12. Inject a 20-µL sample aliquot.
13. Measure peak area or peak height.
NOTE 1: If sample peak is larger than the largest standard peak, dilute an aliquot of the remaining
sample solution, reanalyze, and apply appropriate dilution factor in the calculations.
NOTE 2: To ensure validity of the samples, identify those samples which contain more than 37 µg of
formaldehyde. The capacity of the samplers before breakthrough may have been exceeded
for these samples, and collection of smaller samples would be warranted.
NOTE 3: The size of the 2,4-DNPH peak should be about 2.7 times the size of the formaldehyde-DNPH
peak or larger. Otherwise, breakthrough from the sampler may have occurred.
CALCULATIONS:
14. Determine mass, µg, of formaldehyde, W, found in the sample and the average media blank, B, from
the calibration graph.
𝑊𝑊 − 𝐵𝐵
𝐶𝐶 = , 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚/𝑚𝑚3
𝑉𝑉
NOTE: µg/L ≌ mg/m3
EVALUATION OF METHOD:
Issue 1
This method was originally evaluated with Waters Sep-Pak XPoSure Aldehyde samplers using data
produced at NIOSH and at Waters Corporation [2]. Test atmospheres of formaldehyde were generated at
Waters Corp. [2]. Overall measurement precision, ŜrT, was 0.057 based on NIOSH guidelines [13] including
a 5% pump error factor and estimated bias of +4.4%. Sample storage stability was evaluated over the range
of 0.5 to 55 µg formaldehyde/sample. Losses for Waters samplers were 4 to 8% when stored up to 14 days
at 4 °C. An additional study with Waters samplers found that losses were 5% or less after 4 days of storage
at ambient temperature. All calibration standards used at Waters Corporation were liquid standard
solutions of formaldehyde-DNPH derivative in acetonitrile [2, 14].
The capacity of DNPH-coated silica gel samplers was found to vary with relative humidity (RH) in addition
to concentration of formaldehyde. At a formaldehyde concentration of 1.2 m g/m3 and at 5%
breakthrough, the Waters sampler had a capacity at <10% RH of 55 µg, and at >85% RH a capacity of 77 µg.
At 2.4 mg/m3 and <10% RH, the 5% breakthrough capacity of the Waters sampler was 59 µg of
formaldehyde. At 2.6 mg/m3 and >85% RH, the 5% breakthrough capacity was 106 µg. Thus, the smallest
capacity at 5% breakthrough was 55 µg of formaldehyde; the upper limit of the range of the method is two
thirds of 55 µg, or 37 µg. Capacity information for the Waters sampler is applicable to the Supelco sampler
because (a) the Waters and Supelco samplers contain 0.9 and 1 mg of DNPH, respectively, and (b) each
sampler contains 350 mg of silica gel.
Issue 2
In subsequent work on this method, additional formaldehyde samplers were evaluated, Supelco S10
LpDNPH cartridges and SKC, Inc. Aldehyde samplers (DNPH-coated silica gel tubes No.226-119) [1]. The
sorbent beds of Supelco and Waters cartridges and front sections of SKC samplers were treated with
acetonitrile. Formaldehyde was not detected on any blank sampler (LOD = 0.01 µg/mL). The SKC sampler
for aldehydes may be used for formaldehyde with modifications of this method (See APPENDIX B).
However, evaluation of the SKC sampler at NIOSH has been limited.
Supelco samplers were fortified with known quantities of free formaldehyde in water, and calibration was
performed with media standards prepared from Supelco samplers fortified with known quantities of free
formaldehyde in water; average recoveries ranged from 96.3% to 99.3% for five levels at 1.00 to 20 µg of
formaldehyde per sampler (pooled S� r = 0.0316; n = 6 at each level).
In a storage study, six Supelco samplers were fortified with 4-µg quantities of free formaldehyde in water.
Samplers were stored 34 days at 5 °C in the dark; the average recovery based on media standards was 99%
(S� r = 0.014).
Eight media standards were prepared by fortification of Supelco samplers with solutions of free
formaldehyde in water. The solutions were drawn through the DNPH-coated silica gel beds with an air
pump. The resulting LOD and LOQ were 0.07 and 0.23 µg/sample, respectively, according to a least squares
calibration graph.
It is suggested that the reader see the Backup Data Report for a comparison of media standards with liquid
standards for calibration [1]. Air sampling for a 24-hour period can be performed with a single Supelco
sampler. Thus, background levels at <1 ppb can be determined.
REFERENCES:
[1] Tucker SP [2002]. Formaldehyde backup data report for method 2016 issue 2. Cincinnati, OH:
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. Unpublished.
[2] Iraneta PC, Collamati RA, Costello DN, Crowley RJ, Fernandes RL, Hopkins MR, Knowles CE, Martin DM
[1995]. A validation study of a new active sampler for the analysis of formaldehyde in workplace and
indoor air. Milford, MA: Waters Corp. Unpublished.
[3] Kleindienst TE, Corse EW, Blanchard FT [1998]. Evaluation of the performance of DNPH-coated silica
gel and C18 cartridges in the measurement of formaldehyde in the presence and absence of ozone.
Environ Sci Technol 32(1):124-130.
[4] NIOSH [1994]. Formaldehyde by GC: Method 2541. In: Eller PM, Cassinelli ME, eds. NIOSH manual of
analytical methods. 4th ed. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, DHHS
(NIOSH) Publication No. 94-113.
[5] NIOSH [1994]. Formaldehyde by VIS: Method 3500. In: Eller PM, Cassinelli ME, eds. NIOSH manual of
analytical methods. 4th ed. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, DHHS
(NIOSH) Publication No. 94-113.
[6] OSHA [1985]. Formaldehyde: Method 52. In: OSHA analytical methods manual. Salt Lake City, UT:
U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, OSHA Analytical
Laboratory.
[7] NIOSH [1994]. Formaldehyde on dust (textile or wood): Method 5700. In: Eller PM, Cassinelli ME, eds.
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods. 4th ed. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety and
Health, DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 94-113.
[8] Lipari F, Swarin S [1982]. Determination of formaldehyde and other aldehydes in automobile exhaust
with an improved 2,4-Dinitrophenylhydrazine method. J Chromatogr 247:297-306.
[9] Dollberg DD, Smith DL, Tharr DG [1986]. Lab/Field coordination. Appl Ind Hyg 1:F44-F46.
[10] ACGIH [2001]. 2001 Threshold limit values® and biological exposure indices. Cincinnati, OH.
American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists, Inc.
[11] ACGIH [1991]. Formaldehyde. In: Documentation of Threshold Limit Values and Biological Exposure
Indices, 6th ed. Cincinnati, OH: American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists, Inc.
[12] CFR. Code of Federal Regulations [1999]. Formaldhyde. In: Title 29, Part 1910.1048, 29 CFR Chapter
XVII (7-1-99 Edition), 354-378. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, Office of the
Federal Register.
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods (NMAM), Fifth Edition
FORMALDEHYDE: METHOD 2016, Issue 3, dated 25 February 2016 - Page 6 of 8
[13] Kennedy ER, Fischbach TJ, Song R, Eller PE, Shulman SA [1995]. Guidelines for air sampling and
analytical method development and evaluation. Cincinnati, OH: US Department of Health and
Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational
Safety and Health. DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 95-117.
[14] Waters Corp. [1994]. Waters Sep-Pak XPoSure aldehyde sampler care and use manual. Milford, MA.
[15] Walker JF [1964]. Formaldehyde. In: American chemical society monograph series. 3rd ed. Chapter
18. Reinhold Publishing Corporation, New York.
Method originally written by P Iraneta, Waters Corp., MJ Seymour and ER Kennedy, Ph.D., NIOSH.
Preparation. Dilute 2.7 mL 37% aqueous formalin solution to 1 L with distilled, deionized water. This
solution is stable for at least three months when stored at room temperature.
Standardization by pH Titration. Place 5.0 mL of freshly prepared 1.13 M sodium sulfite solution in a 50-
mL beaker and stir magnetically. Adjust pH to between 8.5 and 10 with base or acid. Record the pH. Add 3.0
to 12.0 mL formaldehyde stock solution. The pH should now be greater than 11. Titrate the solution back to
its original pH with 0.02 N sulfuric acid (1 mL acid = 0.600 mg formaldehyde; about 17 mL acid needed). If
the endpoint pH is overrun, back-titrate to the endpoint with 0.01 N sodium hydroxide. Calculate the
concentration, Cs (mg/mL), of the form aldehyde stock solution:
Standardization by Colorimetric Titration. Place 50 mL of freshly prepared 0.1 M sodium sulfite and 3
drops of 0.04% thymophthalein indicator (w/v) in 50:50 ethanol:water into a 250-mL Erlenmeyer flask.
Titrate the contents of the flask to a colorless endpoint with 0.1 N sulfuric acid (usually 1 or 2 drops is
sufficient). The indicator is blue at pH values above the endpoint and is colorless at pH values below the
endpoint. Transfer 3.0 to 12.0 mL of the formaldehyde solution to the same flask and titrate the mixture
with 0.1 N sulfuric acid to a colorless endpoint. Calculate the concentration, C (mg/mL), of formaldehyde in
solution.
30.0(𝑁𝑁𝑎𝑎 𝑉𝑉𝑎𝑎 )
𝐶𝐶 = , 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚/𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
𝑉𝑉𝑠𝑠
Where:
NOTE: Sulfuric acid (0.1 N) is substituted for 0.1 N hydrochloric acid, which is specified in OSHA Method 52,
in order to prevent possible formation of bis(chloromethyl)ether, a potent carcinogen, by reaction of
formaldehyde with hydrochloric acid [12 ].
This colorimetric titration was adapted from OSHA Method 52 [5], which was based on the procedure of
Walker [15].
DNPH-coated silica gel tubes may be used for sampling formaldehyde with modifications of this method.
These modifications include the following:
(a) The maximum recommended air volume should be less than 15 L at an air concentration of 2.5 mg/m3
(indicated on page 2016-1), because the upper limit of the method for the SKC sampler is probably less
than 37 µg.
(b) The procedure for recovery of analyte from the sorbent would be modified, i.e., placement of the
sorbent sections in vials, addition of solvent, and possible use of an ultrasonic bath.
(c) A volume of solvent much less than 10 mL can be used for recovery. However, the minimum volume
should be tested for adequate recovery.
(d) Consequences of using a much smaller volume of solvent for recovery include a lower LOD and LOQ,
the need for a different range of calibration standards, and the need for a different range of fortification
levels (step 8).
(e) The maximum volume of solution for fortification of the front sorbent bed must be less than 90 µL and
should be determined (step 8).
Disclaimer: Mention of any company or product does not constitute endorsement by NIOSH. In addition,
citations to websites external to NIOSH do not constitute NIOSH endorsement of the sponsoring
organizations or their programs or products. Furthermore, NIOSH is not responsible for the content of
these websites. All web addresses referenced in this document were accessible as of the publication date.
SAMPLING MEASUREMENT
SAMPLER: SOLID SORBENT TUBE (silica gel, 500 TECHNIQUE: gas chromatography, FID
mg/1000 mg); min. of 2 field blanks per set
ANALYTE: see Table 1
FLOW RATE: 0.05 – 0.1 l/min
DESORPTION: ternary mixture of
VOL-MIN: 2L CH2Cl2/methanol/water (65:33:2)
-MAX: 10 L
INJECTION
SHIPMENT: routine VOLUME: 1 µL
SAMPLE COLUMNS
STABILITY: Stable at least 28 days @ 20 °C [3,4] (IN PARALLEL): 60 m low-polarity fused silica, ID 0.25
mm and film thickness 0.25 µm; and
ACCURACY 60 m high-polarity polyethylene glycol,
ID 0.25 mm and film thickness 0.25 µm.
RANGE
STUDIED: Table 3 TEMPERATURE:
INJECTION: 250 °C
BIAS: Negligible DETECTOR: 250 °C
COLUMN: 50 °C (11 min) to 150 °C (4 °C/min)
OVERALL
�𝒓𝒓𝒓𝒓 ): Table 3
PRECISION (𝑺𝑺 CALIBRATION: solution of analytes in desorption
solvent
UNCERTAINTY: Table 3
RANGE: Table 3
INTERFERENCES: Organic compounds with similar retention times as the analytes of interest may interfere.
OTHER METHODS: NIOSH 2553 and 2555 [5] are partially validated methods for the determination of ketones using CS2 for
desorption. OSHA methods based on sorbent tube sampling, solvent desorption and GC/FID analysis have been promulgated for
several ketones [6].
REAGENTS: EQUIPMENT
1. Acetone, >99.8%, analytical grade. 1. Sampler: glass tube, length 125 mm, 7-mm
2. 2-Butanone, >99.8%, analytical grade. OD, 5-mm ID, flame sealed ends, containing
3. Cyclohexanone, >99.5%, analytical grade. two sections of silica gel (front 500 mg, back
4. Cyclopentanone, >99.0% purity. 1000 mg) separated by a 2-mm ceramic plug.
5. 2-Hexanone, >98 % purity. The ceramic plug is in front and a silylated
6. 4-Methyl -2-pentanone, >99.0%, analytical glass wool plug follows the back section.
grade. Tubes are commercially available.
7. 2,6-Dimethyl-4-heptanone, ≥99%, analytical 2. Personal sampling pump capable of
grade.* producing flow rates between 0.05 to 0.1
8. Methanol, >99.9 %, analytical grade. L/min, with flexible connecting tubing.
9. Dichloromethane, analytical grade. 3. Gas chromatograph, equipped with split
10. Water, ultrapure, >18.2 MΩ-cm resistivity. injector (capillary flow split), two separation
11. 2-Methylheptane, chromatographic quality. columns with separate FIDs, and data
12. n-Undecane, chromatographic quality. processing unit.
13. Air, prepurified and filtered. 4. Fused silica capillary columns (for parallel
14. Hydrogen, prepurified and filtered. separation): 60 m low-polarity fused silica,
15. Helium, prepurified and filtered. 0.25 mm ID and film thickness 0.25 µm. 60 m
16. Nitrogen, prepurified and filtered. high-polarity polyethylene glycol, 0.25 mm
17. Internal standard solution: Mix 500 µL of n- ID and film thickness 0.25 µm.
undecane and 500 µL 2-methylheptane. 5. Vessels, 15-mL, glass, with screw caps and
18. Ternary mixture: Mix 650 mL PTFE septum.
dichloromethane, 330 mL methanol and 20 6. Volumetric flasks, 5, 50 and 1000 mL.
mL water in a 1000-mL- volumetric flask. 7. Syringes, glass, 10 to 500 µL.
8. Pipettes, glass, 5 and 10 mL.
*NOTE: Each new bottle must be analyzed 9. Bottles, polyethylene, 100 mL.
immediately after opening to accurately 10. Syringes, polypropylene, 2 mL.
measure the concentration. 11. Syringe filter cartridges, with 0.45-µm pore
size polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE)
membrane filters.
12. Micro-syringes, 50 µL, with 60 mm x 0.6 mm
needles.
13. Auto-sampler vials, with PTFE septum, 1.5 mL
capacity.
SPECIAL PRECAUTIONS: Analytes should be handled in a fume hood. Wear protective clothing and
eyewear. Dichloromethane is a potential occupational carcinogen [12].
1. Calibrate each personal sampling pump with a representative sampler in the line.
2. Break the ends of the sampler immediately before sampling. Attach sampler to the personal
sampling pump with flexible tubing.
3. Sample at an accurate known flow rate between 0.05 and 0.1 L/min for a total sample size of not
more than 10 L.
4. Cap the samplers with plastic (not rubber) caps and pack securely for shipment.
5. Analyze samples within 28 days of receipt.
SAMPLE PREPARATION
11. Calibrate with at least six standards for each substance in the range given in Table 3.
a. Place the contents of a sorbent tube in a 15-mL screw-cap-vessel and add 5 mL ternary mixture
solvent.
b. Add known amount of analyte.
c. Store at room temperature for 18 hours and then add 2.5 µL of internal standard solution.
Note: Internal standards are used to aid in identification of retention times of unknowns.
d. Analyze and prepare a calibration graph for the two columns separately (peak areas of analyte
and internal standard (nonpolar column:2-methylheptane; polar column: n-undecane) vs
concentration).
12. Prepare each day at least three quality control solutions in the same manner and range and analyze
together with samples and blanks.
13. Determine desorption efficiency (DE) at least once for each batch of sorbent used for sampling in the
calibration range.
a. Prepare three tubes at each of five levels plus three media blanks.
b. Inject a known amount of analyte solution directly onto the front sorbent section while drawing
purified air through the tube.
c. Draw approximately 10 L air through the sorbent tube, then cap the ends of each tube and allow
to stand overnight.
d. Desorb (steps 6 to 9) and analyze together with quality control samples and blanks (steps 14 to
15).
14. Analyze a minimum of three quality control spikes and three analyst spikes to insure that the
calibration graph and the DE graph are in control.
MEASUREMENT
15. Set gas chromatograph parameters to manufacturer’s recommendations and to conditions give on
Page 1. Inject a 1-µL sample aliquot into the gas chromatograph.
NOTE: If the peak area exceeds the linear calibration range, dilute with desorption solvent, reanalyze
and apply the appropriate dilution factor in calculations.
16. Measure analyte peak areas at applicable retention times (Table 4).
CALCULATIONS:
17. Calculate the mass concentration of each analyte, C (mg/m³), in the air volume sampled, V (L):
(𝐶𝐶1 ∙ 𝑉𝑉1 ∙ 𝐹𝐹d ) − (𝐶𝐶0 ∙ 𝑉𝑉0 )
𝐶𝐶 =
𝑉𝑉 ∙ 𝜂𝜂
where:
η = desorption efficiency.
EVALUATION OF METHOD:
The method recovery, at levels from the LOQ to at least 2 times the REL, was determined for each analyte
by carrying out sampling and analytical experiments at a dynamic test gas facility [3,4]. Experiments were
conducted at four concentration levels of each analyte and for relative humidities of 20%, 50% and 80% at
20 °C. All analytes exhibited method recovery >95 % at the levels evaluated (see Table 3). At low relative
humidity (<30%) the recoveries of cyclohexanone, cyclopentanone and 2-hexanone were reduced
without water in the extraction solution. Use of a small content of water (2%) during extraction avoids
losses based on low humidity during sampling. Each analyte, at levels below and above the REL, was
evaluated for its storage stability [3,4]. The samples were prepared by sampling at a dynamic test gas
device at a relative humidity of 50% (20 °C). The samples were then stored at room temperature for four
weeks. All analytes demonstrated acceptable recoveries (>90%) after 28 days of storage [3]. The
performance of the method was separately verified in independent laboratories [4,13].
REFERENCES:
[1] American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH), Threshold Limit Values for
Chemical Substances and Physical Agents & Biological Exposure Indices. ACGIH: Cincinnati (2014);
updated annually.
[2] Institut für Arbeitsschutz der Deutschen Gesetzlichen Unfallversicherung (IFA), GESTIS – Database on
International Limit Values for Hazardous Substances (German Social Accident Insurances). IFA: Sankt
Augustin, Germany (2014); [http://www.dguv.de/ifa/gestis/gestis-internationale-grenzwerte-fuer-
chemische-substanzen-limit-values-for-chemical-agents/index-2.jsp].
[3] Breuer, D.: Ketones, IFA Working Folder, Sheet No. 7708; Institute for Occupational Safety and Health
of the German Social Accident Insurances. Erich Schmidt Verlag: Bielefeld, Germany (2005).
[4] Breuer, D, Eisenhardt, A. Solvent mixtures, Method No. 4 (Ketones); in Air Monitoring Methods, The
MAK Collection for Occupational Health and Safety. Wiley-VCH: Weinheim, Germany (2013).
[5] NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods, 4th ed., Method Nos. 2555 (Ketones I) and 2553 (Ketones II).
CDC/NIOSH: Cincinnati (2003).
[6] Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Sampling and Analytical Methods (Method
nos. 1, 16, 69, PV2031). OSHA Salt Lake Technical Center, Sandy, UT;
www.osha.gov/dts/sltc/methods/index.html (accessed May 2015).
[7] Institut für Arbeitsschutz der Deutschen Gesetzlichen Unfallversicherung (IFA), GESTIS – substance
database (German Social Accident Insurances). IFA: Sankt Augustin, Germany (2014);
[http://www.dguv.de/ifa/gestis/gestis-stoffdatenbank/index-2.jsp].
[8] Sigma-Aldrich [2011]. 2012-2014 Handbook of Fine Chemicals. St. Louis, MO: Sigma-Aldrich Co.
[9] NIOSH Pocket Guide to Chemical Hazards, DHHS (NIOSH), Cincinnati; www.cdc.gov/niosh/npg;
(accessed June 2015).
[10] EN 482: Workplace exposure – General requirements for the performance of procedures for the
measurement of chemical agents. CEN: Brussels (2012).
[11] EN 1076: Workplace exposure – Procedures for measuring gases and vapours using pumped
samplers – Requirements and test methods. CEN: Brussels (2009).
[12] NIOSH [1986]. Current intelligence bulletin 46: Methylene Chloride, U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational
Safety and Health, DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 86-114.
[13] Bureau Veritas North America [2016]. Ketones User Check Sequence 11762-CA (unpublished report).
BVNA: Novi, MI, 3 Feb. 2016.
Dietmar Breuer, Dr. rer. nat. and Anna Eisenhardt, Institute for Occupational Safety and Health of the
German Social Accident Insurances (IFA), Sankt Augustin, Germany.
Disclaimer: Mention of any company or product does not constitute endorsement by NIOSH. In addition,
citations to websites external to NIOSH do not constitute NIOSH endorsement of the sponsoring
organizations or their programs or products. Furthermore, NIOSH is not responsible for the content of
these websites. All web addresses referenced in this document were accessible as of the publication date.
2-Butanone 9.2 a)
OSHA: 0.5 mg/m3 (skin) PROPERTIES: o-isomer: liquid; d 1.092 g/mL @ 15 °C;
NIOSH: 0.5 mg/m3 (skin); BP 225 °C; MP 5 °C; VP 0.1 mm Hg @ 27 °C.
o-isomer suspect carcinogen p-isomer: solid; MP 57 °C; BP 246 °C
SAMPLING MEASUREMENT
SAMPLER: SOLID SORBENT TUBE TECHNIQUE: HPLC, UV DETECTION
(XAD-2, 150 mg/75 mg)
ANALYTE: o-anisidine and p-anisidine
FLOW RATE: 0.05 – 1.0 L/min
DESORPTION: 5 mL methanol; stand 15 min
VOL-MIN: 24 L
MAX: 320 L INJECTION
VOLUME: 10 µL
SHIPMENT: routine
MOBILE PHASE: 5% acetonitrile/65% water @ 1.2
SAMPLE mL/min; ambient temperature
STABILITY: at least 1 week @ 25 °C [1]
COLUMN: 50 cm x 2-mm ID stainless steel packed
BLANKS: 2 to 10 field blanks per set with C18
APPLICABILITY: The working range is 0.06 to 0.8 mg/m3 (0.012 to 0.16 ppm) for a 200-L air sample
INTERFERENCES: None identified
OTHER METHODS: This revises Method S163 [2]. This method replaces P&CAM 168 [3] because XAD-2 has a much greater
capacity than silica gel for o-anisidine at high humidity [1].
REAGENTS: EQUIPMENT:
1. p-Anisidine, reagent grade.* 1. Sampler: glass tube, 7-cm long, 8-mm OD,
2. o-Anisidine, reagent grade.* 6-mm ID, with plastic caps, containing two
3. Methanol, HPLC grade.* sections of 20/50 mesh XAD-2 (150 mg front
4. Acetonitrile, HPLC grade.* and 75 mg back) separated and held in place
5. Water, distilled, deionized. by plugs of silylated glass wool. Pressure
6. Methylene chloride. drop across the tube must be <3.4 kPa
7. Calibration stock solution, 15.0 mg/mL (2.5 cm Hg) at 1 L/min airflow.
p-anisidine and 15.3 mg/mL o-anisidine. 2. Personal sampling pump, 0.5 to 1 L/min,
Dissolve 750 mg p-anisidine and 700 µL with flexible connecting tubing.
o-anisidine in methanol to make 50 mL 3. HPLC with UV absorption detector at 254
solution. nm, integrator and column (page 2514-1).
8. HPLC mobile phase: 4. Vials, 20-mL, scintillation.
35% acetonitrile/65% water. Filter (5-µm 5. Pipet, 5-mL.
PTFE) and degas prior to use. 6. Syringes, 10-µL, readable to 0.1 µL.
7. Volumetric flasks, 5- and 50-mL.
*See SPECIAL PRECAUTIONS.
SPECIAL PRECAUTIONS: Anisidine can irritate the skin. Methanol and anisidine can be absorbed
through the skin. Avoid inhalation of vapors of these compounds and of acetonitrile [4].
SAMPLING:
SAMPLE PREPARATION:
5. Place the front and back sections of the sampler in separate vials. Discard the glass wool plugs.
6. Add 5.0 mL methanol to each vial. Cap each vial and swirl vigorously.
7. Allow to stand for 15 min. Analyze within one day.
8. Calibrate daily with at least six working standards over the range 0.4 to 360 µg anisidine per sample for
each isomer.
a. Add a known volume of calibration stock solution, or a dilution thereof in methanol, to a 5-mL
volumetric flask and dilute to the mark with methanol.
b. Analyze together with samples and blanks (steps 11 and 12).
c. Prepare calibration graph (peak area vs. µg analyte) for each isomer.
9. Determine desorption efficiency (DE) at least once for each lot of XAD-2 used for sampling in the
concentration range of interest. Prepare four tubes at each of five levels.
a. Remove and discard the back sorbent section of a media blank sampler.
b. Inject a known amount (e.g., 1 to 20 µL) of calibration stock solution, or a dilution thereof in
methanol, directly onto the front section with a microliter syringe.
c. Cap the tube. Allow to stand overnight.
d. Desorb (steps 5 through 7) and analyze with working standards (steps 11 and 12).
e. Prepare graphs of DE vs. µg isomer recovered.
10. Analyze three quality control blind spikes and three analyst spikes with each subsequent set from the
same lot to ensure that the calibration graph and DE graph are in control.
MEASUREMENT:
11. Set HPLC to conditions given on page 2514-1. Inject sample aliquot.
NOTE: Sensitivity is ca. 0.083 absorbance unit/mg of either isomer in a 10-mL injection volume with a
1-cm flow cell. Approximate retention times are 7.5 min for p-anisidine and 12 min for o-anisidine.
12. Measure peak area.
CALCULATIONS:
13. Determine the quantities (sum of quantities of the o-and the p-isomers corrected for DE), mg of
analytes found in the sample front (Wf) and back (Wb) sorbent sections, and in the average media blank
front (Bf) and back (Bb) sorbent sections.
NOTE: If Wb > Wf /10, report breakthrough and possible sample loss.
14. Calculate the sum of the concentrations, C, of the isomers in the air volume sampled, V (L):
Method S163 was issued on February 16, 1979 [2], and was validated over the range 0.13 to 0.58 mg/m3 for
the o-isomer and 0.12 to 0.58 mg/m3 for the p-isomer using 225-L air samples [1, 5]. The generation system
was constructed so that samples were generated for both isomers at the same time. Concentrations were
verified by an independent method using bubblers containing methanol and HPLC analysis [1]. The overall
precision, 𝑆𝑆̂𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 , for the combined sampling and measurement of both isomers was 0.068 with an average
recovery of 100.7% for the o-isomer and 99.7% for the p-isomer [1], which represent non-significant biases
for the isomers. A separate breakthrough test was conducted for each isomer with XAD-2. Samples were
taken at ca. 1.0 L/min. o-Anisidine was generated at 1.03 mg/m3 with a relative humidity of 81% at 21 °C.
Breakthrough (3%) from 150 mg XAD-2 occurred after 236 min, but did not increase above this amount up
to 479 min. p-Anisidine was generated at 1.04 mg/m3 with a relative humidity of 82% at 20 °C.
Breakthrough did not occur during the 361-min test. Samples containing both isomers were stored for one
week at room temperature and found to be stable. Desorption efficiencies averaged 0.95 and 0.91 for o-
and p-anisidine, respectively, in the range 30 to 240 µg per sample.
REFERENCES:
[2] NIOSH [1979]. Anisidine, o & p isomers: Method S163. In: Taylor DG, ed. NIOSH Manual of analytical
methods. 2nd ed (vol. 5). Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Center
for Disease Control, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, DHEW (NIOSH) Publication
No. 79-141.
[3] NIOSH [1977]. Aromatic amines in air: Method P&CAM168. In: Taylor DG, ed. NIOSH Manual of
analytical methods. 2nd ed (vol. 1). Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health, Education, and
Welfare, Center for Disease Control, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, DHEW
(NIOSH) Publication No. 77-157-A.
[4] NIOSH [1981]. NIOSH/OSHA Occupational health guidelines for occupational hazards. Cincinnati, OH:
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control, National Institute for
Occupational Safety and Health, DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 81-12.
[5] NIOSH [1980]. NIOSH research report - development and validation of methods for sampling and
analysis of workplace toxic substances. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services, Centers for Disease Control, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, DHHS
(NIOSH) Publication No. 80-133.
Edward Slick, NIOSH; S163 originally validated under NIOSH Contract 210-76-0123.
Disclaimer: Mention of any company or product does not constitute endorsement by NIOSH. In addition,
citations to websites external to NIOSH do not constitute NIOSH endorsement of the sponsoring
organizations or their programs or products. Furthermore, NIOSH is not responsible for the content of
these websites. All web addresses referenced in this document were accessible as of the publication date.
OSHA: C 20 ppm (skin) PROPERTIES: Gas; d 1.73 g/mL @ 0 °C; BP 4 °C; VP 189.34
NIOSH: Lowest feasible; carcinogen kPa (1420 mmHg) @ 20 °C
(1 ppm = 3.95 mg/m³ @ NTP)
SAMPLING MEASUREMENT
RANGE STUDIED: 0.84 ppm to 32.0 ppm (5 L samples) COLUMN: US Pharmacopeia (USP) G2 capillary,
30 m × 0.32 mm ID, 1.0 µm film thickness;
BIAS: −5.2% 1 m × 0.53 mm deactivated fused silica
pre-column
OVERALL
PRECISION ( ): 0.089 CALIBRATION: Brominated compounds in methylene
chloride
ACCURACY: ±19.4%
RANGE: 33.0 µg to 2687 µg bromine per sample
APPLICABILITY: The working range is 0.84 ppm to 32.0 ppm (3.3 mg/m³ to 126 mg/m³) for a 5 L sample. Ceiling
measurement samples may require dilution when analyzed.
INTERFERENCES: Water vapor interferes with collection at relative humidities (RH) >50%. To eliminate the interference,
precede the sampling train with a drying tube, and limit the sample volume to 5 L. If drying tubes are not available, limit the
sample volume to 1 L under humid conditions.
OTHER METHODS: This is NIOSH method 2520 [2] revised to account for humidity effects, as well as instability of standards
and samples. Other researchers [3] have prepared methyl bromide standards gravimetrically and used GC-ECD for
analysis. The gravimetric calibration procedure did not give consistent results when compared with the procedure used
in this revision of NIOSH method 2520. GC-ECD with a US Pharmacopeia (USP) S3 capillary column may be an alternative
technique to GC-AED if other bromine standards are used to confirm the concentration of methyl bromide standards.
REAGENTS: EQUIPMENT:
SAMPLING:
SAMPLE PREPARATION:
5. Place the sorbent sections from each sampling tube in separate vials. Discard the glass wool plugs.
6. Add 3.0 mL chilled eluant (methylene chloride) to each 400 mg section, and 2.0 mL chilled eluant to
each 200 mg section. Immediately cap each vial.
7. Allow to stand at least 30 min at room temperature with occasional agitation. Rechill before
transferring to autosampler vials or diluting.
NOTE: Because of the volatility of the analyte, it is suggested that any dilutions be prepared at the
time of transfer to autosampler vials. Dilutions can be stored in the freezer until determined
that they are needed.
8. Calibrate daily with at least six working standards over the range 0.14 µg to 272 µg methyl bromide
per sample from calibration stock solution.
NOTE: 0.085 µmol/µL bromine is equivalent to a methyl bromide concentration of 8.07 µg/µL.
a. Add known aliquots (2.0 µL, 20 µL, 45 µL, and 120 µL) of calibration stock solution to methylene
chloride in 10 mL vials with PTFE-lined caps. Take 1 mL of lowest standard and dilute to 10 mL
with methylene chloride. Transfer standards to autosampler vials and immediately cap each vial.
b. Analyze together with samples and blanks (steps 11 and 12).
c. Prepare calibration graph (peak area vs. concentration).
9. Determine desorption efficiency (DE) at least once for each lot of charcoal used for sampling in the
calibration range (step 8). Prepare three tubes at each of five levels plus three media blanks.
a. Inject a known amount (1 µL to 10 µL) of methyl bromide desorption stock solution
(concentration determined against other brominated compounds), or a serial dilution thereof,
directly onto media blank samplers with a microliter syringe.
b. Cap the tubes. Allow to stand overnight at 0 °C.
c. Desorb (steps 5, 6, and 7) and analyze together with working standards (steps 11 and 12).
d. Prepare a graph of DE vs. µg bromine recovered.
10. Analyze three quality control blind spikes and three analyst spikes to ensure that the calibration
graph and DE graph are in control.
MEASUREMENT:
CALCULATIONS:
13. Determine the mass, µg (corrected for DE) of methyl bromide found in the 400 mg sample tube ( )
and 200 mg sample tube ( ), and in the average media blanks for the 400 mg ( ) and 200 mg ( )
sorbent tubes.
NOTE: If , report breakthrough and possible sample loss.
14. Calculate concentration, , of methyl bromide in the air volume sampled, (L):
, µg/L or mg/m³.
EVALUATION OF METHOD:
NIOSH method 2520 for methyl bromide, issued in May 1985 [2], was based on NIOSH method S372
[5]. Issue 2 (dated 5/15/96) of NIOSH method 2520 was further revised to account for the effect of
humidity and to address the instability of standards and samples [1]. The addition of a drying tube to
the sampling train helped reduce the effects of >50% RH. The analytical technique was changed to GC
with atomic emission detection (GC-AED). The atomic emission detector monitors individual elements,
in this case bromine, independent of the source compound. Calibration can be done with brominated
compounds that are liquid at room temperature, thereby eliminating the need for methyl bromide
standards. Methylene chloride replaced carbon disulfide as desorption solvent.
The revised NIOSH method 2520 (issued 5/15/96) for methyl bromide was evaluated at 7.8 mg/m³,
20.0 mg/m³, and 125.0 mg/m³ (2 ppm, 5 ppm, and 32 ppm, respectively) [1]. Test atmospheres were
generated by delivering methyl bromide gas from two diffusion tubes kept at −12 °C into an airstream
flowing at 12 L/min. Humidity was added downstream when needed, and airflow passed through
two mixing chambers before reaching a sampling manifold. The concentration was monitored with
a total hydrocarbon analyzer and confirmed by calibrating against other brominated standards
by GC-AED. Three compounds used as calibration standards (dibromomethane, 1-bromopropane,
and 1-bromobutane) were chosen as closest in chemical structure to methyl bromide, although a
compound-independent response was assumed [6]. A three-compound calibration was used during the
development of the GC-AED analytical procedure. Since there was good agreement between the three
compounds, the method was written with only one brominated standard, dibromomethane.
When challenged with methyl bromide at a calculated concentration of 27 ppm, the capacity of the
sampler (a 400 mg petroleum charcoal tube plus a 200 mg petroleum charcoal tube) at 40% RH and
20 °C was 1386.5 µg regardless of flow rate (10.5 mL/min, 40 mL/min, or 100 mL/min). However, at 100%
RH and 39 °C, the average capacity fell to 298.6 µg. With a 9 g sodium sulfate drying tube in line, the
capacity was increased to 651.8 µg; concentration averaged 130 mg/m³ (33 ppm). Even with a drying
tube in line, severe breakthrough occurred at the 10 L sample volume (50% was found on the back
tube). Without the use of a drying tube, a 1 L sample volume is recommended, based on a 170.6 µg
capacity (1.6 L) found at the 40 mL/min rate multiplied by a 0.67 caution factor.
Recovery fell below 70% for sample loadings less than 58 µg when carbon disulfide was used for
desorption (Figure 1). This would not allow accurate sampling at 7.8 mg/m³ (2 ppm), the exposure level
most frequently encountered. Therefore, alternate desorption solvents were tested. Desorption with
methylene chloride improved recovery at the 15 µg level to 76.7%. However, sample stability still fell
below 70% after storage for six days at −10 °C regardless of sample level. This stability limitation remains
a concern and rapid sample analysis is required.
REFERENCES:
[1] NIOSH [1995]. Research into problems with NIOSH method 2520 for methyl bromide. By Gagnon YT,
Ringenburg VL, Fajen JM. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, available
as accession No. PB95-179842 from NTIS [www.ntis.gov]. Unpublished.
[2] NIOSH [1984]. Methyl bromide: Method 2520 (supplement issued 5/15/85). In: Eller PM, ed. NIOSH
manual of analytical methods. 3rd ed. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services, Centers for Disease Control, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, DHHS
(NIOSH) Publication No. 84-100, available as accession No. PB86-116266 from NTIS [www.ntis.gov].
[3] Woodrow JE, McChesney MM, Sieber JN [1988]. Determination of methyl bromide in air samples by
headspace gas chromatography. Anal Chem 60:509–512.
[4] NIOSH [1984]. Current intelligence bulletin 43—monohalomethanes: methyl chloride, methyl
bromide, methyl iodide. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for
Disease Control, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, DHHS (NIOSH) Publication
No. 84-117, available as accession No. PB85-178549 from NTIS [www.ntis.gov].
[5] NIOSH [1977]. Methyl bromide: Method S372. In: Taylor DG, ed. NIOSH manual of analytical
methods. 2nd ed. Vol. 3. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare,
Center for Disease Control, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, DHEW (NIOSH)
Publication No. 77-157-C, available as accession No. PB276838 from NTIS [www.ntis.gov].
[6] Weile Y, Yieru H, Qingyu O [1992]. Quantitative characteristics of gas chromatography with
microwave-induced plasma detection. In: Uden PC, ed. Element-specific chromatographic
detection by atomic emission spectroscopy. Washington DC: American Chemical Society, ACS
Symposium Series No. 479, pp. 44–61.
DISCLAIMER: Mention of any company or product does not constitute endorsement by NIOSH. In addition, citations to
websites external to NIOSH do not constitute NIOSH endorsement of the sponsoring organizations or their programs or
products. Furthermore, NIOSH is not responsible for the content of these websites. All web addresses referenced in this
document were accessible as of the publication date.
SAMPLING MEASUREMENT
FLOW RATE: 0.01 L/min to 0.08 L/min, or 0.2 L/min for 20 DESORPTION: 2 mL toluene; 60 min ultrasonic
min
INJECTION: 1 µL splitless; split vent time 30 s
VOL-MIN: 4 L @ 0.2 ppm
-MAX: 39 L TEMPERATURE-INJECTOR: 250 °C
-DETECTOR: 280 °C
SHIPMENT: Routine -COLUMN: 1 min @ 70 °C; 20 °C/min; hold 2
min @ 290 °C
SAMPLE
STABILITY: At least 5 weeks @ 25 °C [1] CARRIER GAS: Helium, 0.5 mL/min; makeup 2.9 mL/min
ACCURACY: ±17.4%
APPLICABILITY: The working range is 0.03 ppm to 2 ppm (0.14 mg/m³ to 8 mg/m³) for a 22 L air sample; the method is
sensitive enough for ceiling determinations. The method is suitable for the simultaneous determination of furfural and
glutaraldehyde.
OTHER METHODS: This is a new method. A wide-bore 10 m capillary column is an alternate chromatographic column.
REAGENTS: EQUIPMENT:
SPECIAL PRECAUTIONS: Glutaraldehyde can irritate the mucous membranes and act on the central
nervous system [3]. Toluene is flammable. Sulfuric acid is highly corrosive and sodium hydroxide is
caustic. All work with these compounds should be performed in a well-ventilated hood. Use proper
protective clothing including gloves, safety glasses, and laboratory coat. Users must be familiar with
the proper use of flammable and nonflammable gases, cylinders, and regulators.
SAMPLING:
SAMPLE PREPARATION:
4. Score each sampler with a file in back of the back sorbent section.
5. Break sampler at score line. Remove and place back glass wool plug and back sorbent section in a
vial.
6. Transfer front section with remaining glass wool plugs to a second vial.
7. Add 2.0 mL toluene to each vial. Screw cap tightly onto each vial.
8. Agitate vials in an ultrasonic bath for 60 min.
NOTE: Desorption efficiency is affected by the amount of time that the vials are allowed to spend in
the ultrasonic bath. A minimum of 60 min residence time in the ultrasonic bath is required to
ensure adequate desorption.
MEASUREMENT:
12. Set gas chromatograph to manufacturer’s recommendations and to conditions given on page
2531-1. Inject 1 µL sample aliquot.
NOTE: If the amount of oxazolidine in the aliquot exceeds the capacity of the column, dilute the
sample with toluene and apply the appropriate dilution factor in calculations.
13. Measure total peak area of the two analyte peaks.
NOTE: On the recommended column, the oxazolidine derivative gives two peaks, since the
diastereoisomers are resolved; for the glutaraldehyde derivative = 9.4 min and 9.7 min; for
2-(hydroxymethyl)piperidine = 2.6 min for these conditions.
CALCULATIONS:
14. Determine the mass, µg, of glutaraldehyde found in the sample front ( ) and back ( ) sorbent
sections.
NOTE: If , report breakthrough and possible sample loss.
15. Calculate concentration, , of glutaraldehyde in the air volume sampled, (L):
, µg/L or mg/m³.
EVALUATION OF METHOD:
REFERENCES:
[1] Kennedy ER, Gagnon YT, Okenfuss JR, Teass AW [1988]. The determination in air of selected low-
molecular weight aldehydes as their oxazolidines by capillary gas chromatography. Appl Ind Hyg
3(10):274–279.
[2] NIOSH [1987, 1989]. Analytical reports: sequence No. 5827 (November 13, 1987); sequence No.
6565-J (February 27, 1989). Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers
for Disease Control, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Division of Physical
Sciences and Engineering. Unpublished.
[3] Windholz M, Budavari S, Blumetti RF, Otterbein ES, eds. [1983]. The Merck index: an encyclopedia of
chemicals, drugs, and biologicals. 10th ed. Rahway, NJ: Merck & Co., Inc.
[4] Kennedy ER, Hill RH [1982]. Determination of formaldehyde in air as an oxazolidine derivative by
capillary gas chromatography. Anal Chem 54(11):1739–1741.
[5] Lipari F, Swarin SJ [1982]. Determination of formaldehyde and other aldehydes in automobile
exhaust with an improved 2,4-dinitrophenylhydrazine method. J Chromatogr 247:297–306.
[6] NIOSH [1989]. User check, NIOSH sequence No. 6565-M. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control, National Institute for Occupational Safety and
Health, Division of Physical Sciences and Engineering. Unpublished.
APPENDIX
Dilute 1 mL of 250 g/L aqueous glutaraldehyde to 25 mL with distilled, deionized water to make
the glutaraldehyde stock solution. Put 10.0 mL of 1.13 mol/L sodium sulfite solution in a beaker and
stir magnetically. Adjust pH to between 8.5 and 10 with base or acid. Record the pH. Add 1.0 mL
glutaraldehyde stock solution. The pH should be about 12. Titrate the solution back to its original pH
with 0.01 mol/L sulfuric acid. If the endpoint pH is overrun, back-titrate to the endpoint with 0.01 mol/L
sodium hydroxide. Calculate the concentration, , of the glutaraldehyde stock solution:
, µg/µL,
Extract XAD-2 sorbent 4 h in a Soxhlet extractor with a mixture of equal volumes of acetone and
methylene chloride. Replace with fresh solvent and repeat. Vacuum dry overnight. Add 1 g purified
2-(hydroxymethyl)piperidine in 50 mL toluene for each 9 g extracted XAD-2 sorbent. Allow this mixture
to stand 1 h with occasional swirling. Remove the solvent by rotary evaporation at 37 °C and dry at 0.13
kPa (1 mmHg) at ambient temperature for approximately 1 h. To determine the amount of background
for each batch, extract several 120 mg portions of the coated sorbent with toluene and analyze (steps 7,
8, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13). No blank peak is expected for glutaraldehyde.
D. Desorption Efficiency
The determination of desorption efficiency (DE) is not necessary when using the calibration procedure
in step 10. If desired, the following procedure can be used to determine DE:
1. Prepare and analyze a set of glutaraldehyde oxazolidine standard solutions (step 9.a) and a set of
working standards (step 10), including media blanks.
2. Treating the working standards as unknowns, read the mass (µg) of oxazolidine found in each
working standard ( ), and in the average media blank ( ).
3. Using the mass of glutaraldehyde, µg, spiked onto the working standard ( ) and the stoichiometric
conversion factor between glutaraldehyde and glutaraldehyde oxazolidine (2.94), calculate the
desorption efficiency .
4. Prepare a graph of DE vs. µg glutaraldehyde recovered per sample .
OSHA: none PROPERTIES: liquid; d 0.810 g/mL @ 20 °C; BP 103 °C; VP 6.7
NIOSH: 50 ppm kPa (50 mm Hg) @ 25 °C; vapor density (air = 1)
3.0; flash point = 12.2 °C
SAMPLING MEASUREMENT
SAMPLER: SOLID SORBENT TUBE (10% 2- TECHNIQUE: GAS CHROMATOGRAPHY, FID
(hydroxymethyl)piperidine on XAD-2, (120
mg/60 mg) ANALYTE: valeraldehyde oxazolidine (9-butyl-1-
aza-8-oxabicyclo[4.3.0]nonane)
FLOW RATE: 0.01 - 0.04 L/min
DESORPTION: 2 mL toluene, 60 min ultrasonic
VOL-MIN: 0.5 L @ 50 ppm
-MAX: 10 L INJECTION
VOLUME: 1 µL splitless
SHIPMENT: routine
TEMPERATURE
SAMPLE INJECTION: 250 °C
STABILITY: at least 4 weeds @ 25 °C [1] - DETCTOR: 280 °C
-COLUMN: 0.5 min @ 70°C; 50 °C/min to 120°C, hold
FIELD BLANKS: 2 to 10 field blanks per set 4 min; 20°C/min to 170°C, hold 7 min
MEDIA BLANKS: 18 per set CARRIER GAS: He, 27 cm/sec linear velocity
makeup flow 29 mL/min
ACCURACY
COLUMN: capillary, 15 m x 0.32-mm, 5% phenyl,
RANGE 95% methyl polysiloxane, 1-µm film (US
STUDIED: 9 to 374 mg/m3 [1] (12-L samples) Pharmacopeia (USP) G-27)
APPLICABILITY: The working range is 0.11 to 110 ppm (0.4 to 390 mg/m3) for a 10-L air sample. The method is also suitable for
determination of furfural and glutaraldehyde in a mixture [2].
INTERFERENCES: None have been observed; an alternate capillary column, 15 m x 0.32-mm cyanopropylphenyl
dimethylpolysiloxane 1-µm film (USP G43) can be used.
OTHER METHODS: The method of Lipari and Swarin [3] uses 2,4-dinitrophenylhydrazine for the collection of valeraldehyde.
REAGENTS: EQUIPMENT:
SPECIAL PRECAUTIONS: Valeraldehyde can irritate the mucous membranes [4]. It is flammable, a
dangerous fire risk. Toluene is extremely flammable. All work should be performed in a well-ventilated
fume hood.
SAMPLING:
SAMPLE PREPARATION:
4. Score each sampler with a file or tube scorer in back of the back sorbent section.
5. Break sampler at score line. Remove and place back glass wool plug and back sorbent section in a
vial.
6. Transfer front section with remaining glass wool plugs to a second vial.
7. Add 2.0 mL toluene to each vial. Screw cap tightly onto each vial.
8. Agitate in an ultrasonic bath for 60 min.
MEASUREMENT:
12. Set gas chromatograph to manufacturer's recommendations and to conditions given on page
2536-1. Inject 1-µL sample aliquot.
NOTE: If the amount of valeraldehyde oxazolidine in the aliquot exceeds the capacity of the
column, dilute with toluene, reanalyze and apply the appropriate dilution factor in
calculations. The upper limit for the column on (page 2536-1) is equivalent to ca. 260 µg
valeraldehyde per sample.
13. Measure total peak area of the two analyte peaks.
NOTE: Valeraldehyde oxazolidine gives two peaks, since the diastereoisomers are resolved with
retention times 5.4 and 6.3 min. Retention time for 2-(hydroxymethyl) piperidine is 2.2 min
for these conditions.
CALCULATIONS:
14. Determine the mass, µg, of valeraldehyde found in the sample front (Wf) and back (Wb) sorbent
sections.
NOTE: If Wb > Wf /10, report breakthrough and possible sample loss.
15. Calculate concentration, C, of valeraldehyde in the air volume sampled, V (L):
𝑊𝑊𝑓𝑓 + 𝑊𝑊𝑏𝑏
𝐶𝐶 = , 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚/𝑚𝑚3
𝑉𝑉
EVALUATION OF METHOD:
Atmospheres were generated by injection of valeraldehyde with a syringe pump into a heated block
injector and flash vaporizer into a stream of air at 80% ± 5% RH flowing at a fixed rate. The generator and
sampling manifold system have been described previously [5]. Concentration of valeraldehyde vapor was
independently verified by the 2,4-dinitrophenylhydrazine procedure of Lipari and Swarin [3] or by
monitoring with an AID Model 590 organic vapor monitor. Breakthrough studies of valeraldehyde at 100
ppm, conducted at 75 and 50 mL/min flow rates, gave 5% breakthrough at 170 min and 280 min,
respectively.
The method was evaluated over the range of 9 to 374 mg/m3 using 12-L samples. Desorption efficiencies
from statically-spiked samples average 102.5% (89.2-126.6%) for the range 2 to 508 µg/sample. No bias
with dynamically-generated samples was observed with the method when samples were collected at
40 mL/min and below. When samples were collected at ca. 60 mL/min, a negative bias of approximately
20-30% was observed. Samples were found to be stable for at least 4 weeks when stored at room
temperature.
REFERENCES:
[1] Kennedy ER, Gagnon YT, Okenfuss JR, Teass AW [1988]. The determination in air of selected low-
molecular weight aldehydes as their oxazolidines by capillary gas chromatography. Appl Ind Hyg
3(10): 274-279.
[2] NIOSH [1984]. Glutaraldhyde: Method 2531. In: Eller PM, Cassinelli ME, eds. NIOSH manual of
analytical methods. 3rd. ed. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers
for Disease Control, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, DHHS (NIOSH) Publication
No. 84-100.
[3] Lipari F, Swarin SJ [1982]. Determination of formaldehyde and other aldehydes in automobile
exhaust with an improved 2,4-dinitrophenylhydrazine method. J Chromatog 247:297-306.
[4] Budavari S, ed. [1989]. The Merck Index. 11th ed. Rahway, NJ: Merck & Co., Inc.
[5] Kennedy ER Hill RH, Jr. [1982]. Determination of formaldehyde in air as an oxazolidine derivative by
capillary gas chromatography. Anal Chem 54:1739-1741.
Mass spectral data for 9-butyl-1-aza-8-oxabicyclo[4.3.0]nonane: m/e with relative intensities in parenthesis,
182 (7.0%), 152 (4.6%), 126 (100%), 110 (11.3%), 98 (37%). IR data (Vapor phase @ 280 °C) for this
compound in cm-1 with relative intensity in parenthesis are: 2945 (s), 2874 (m), 2781 (m), 1455 (w), 1383
(w), 1339 (w), 1265 (w), 1203 (w), 1133 (m), 1075 (w), 1028 (m).
Add 1 g purified 2-(hydroxymethyl)piperidine in 50 mL toluene for each 9 g extracted XAD-2 sorbent. Allow
this mixture to stand 1 h with occasional swirling. Remove the solvent by rotary evaporation at 37°C. Dry
at 130 Pa (1 mm Hg) at ambient temperature for approximately 1 h. To determine the amount of
background for each batch, desorb several 120-mg portions of the coated sorbent with toluene and
analyze (steps 7 through 13). No blank peak is expected for valeraldehyde.
The determination of desorption efficiency (DE) is not necessary when using the calibration procedure in
step 10, although the DE should be determined once for each lot of sorbent used, using the following
procedure:
a. Prepare and analyze a set of valeraldehyde oxazolidine standard solutions (step 9.a) and a set of
working standards (step 10), including media blanks.
b. Treating the working standards as unknowns, read the mass (µg) of valeraldehyde oxazolidine found
in each working standard (W), and in the average media blank (B).
c. Using the mass of valeraldehyde, µg, spiked onto the working standard (Wo) and the stoichiometric
conversion factor of 2.13 between valeraldehyde and valeraldehyde oxazolidine, calculate the
desorption efficiency:
𝑊𝑊 − 𝐵𝐵
𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷 =
𝑊𝑊𝑜𝑜 ∙ 2.13
d. Prepare a graph of DE vs. µg valeraldehyde recovered per sample, (W - B)/2.13.
Disclaimer: Mention of any company or product does not constitute endorsement by NIOSH. In
addition, citations to websites external to NIOSH do not constitute NIOSH endorsement of the
sponsoring organizations or their programs or products. Furthermore, NIOSH is not responsible for the
content of these websites. All web addresses referenced in this document were accessible as of the
publication date.
SAMPLING MEASUREMENT
FLOW RATE: ~0.1 L/min to ~20 L/min ANALYTE: See Table 1 (additional compounds
(system-dependent) may be identified/quantified according
to data quality objectives and QA/QC
VOL-MIN: Instrument dependent requirements)
-MAX: None
ANALYTICAL
PRESSURE: Extracted gases between 96.6 kPa and 103 FREQUENCIES: See Table 2 for example compounds
kPa (725 mmHg and 795 mmHg) absolute
CALIBRATION: Calibration gas standards
TEMPERATURE: Extracted gases between 10 °C and 30 °C
IDENTIFICATION: Infrared spectra interpretation and
BLANKS: Nitrogen gas, or zero air computerized reference library searches
APPLICABILITY: The usefulness of FTIR techniques has been demonstrated in ambient air and combustion gas mixtures
[1,2]. With the participation of an experienced analyst (see APPENDIX A), the method can be used for the characterization of
workspace air containing mixtures of volatile organic and inorganic compounds. See Table 1 for examples.
INTERFERENCES: Overlap of infrared absorption features may affect the quantification of each compound. By appropriate
use of multivariable least squares analyses, the analyst may be able to obtain accurate compound concentrations for
overlapping compounds.
OTHER METHODS: This method is based on portions of EPA method 320 and its addendum [3], which describe the
determination of gaseous compound concentrations by extractive FTIR spectrometry. Several compatible ASTM standards
describing infrared techniques and terminology are also available [4,5,6,7].
REAGENTS: EQUIPMENT:
1. Nitrogen gas or zero air, high purity or better. 1. FTIR spectrometer system (source,
2. Calibration transfer standard (CTS) gas, 2% interferometer, sample absorption cell,
accuracy or better. The proper concentration and detector) configured for absorption. A
depends on both the compound used and the minimum instrumental linewidth (MIL) of 2
system absorption path length. For ethylene in or lower is recommended.
nitrogen, a standard concentration leading to NOTE: A lower or higher MIL may be required
a concentration-path length product (CPP) of or suitable for specific gas matrices.
100 ppm · m to 400 ppm · m is recommended. Choose internal absorption cell
(For example, a standard of 10 ppm to 40 ppm materials to minimize surface/analyte
ethylene in nitrogen is recommended for a interactions.
10 m absorption cell). 2. Computer system with hardware, software,
3. Liquid nitrogen* for cooling the infrared and required reference spectra for acquisition,
detector, if required. storage, and analysis of sample spectra. (A data
backup system is recommended.)
*See SPECIAL PRECAUTIONS. 3. Sampling pump, 0.1 to 10 L/min, with
appropriate particulate filters.
4. Non-reactive gas regulators and sample
tubing.
5. Rotameters or other devices, 5% precision or
better, for measuring flow rates of sample and
calibration gases.
6. Temperature measurement and/or control
equipment for all sampling system elements
and IR absorption cell.
NOTE: Temperature control equipment
required if ambient temperature <10 °C
or >30 °C.
7. Pressure gauge for measuring absolute gas
pressure in absorption cell, 5% accuracy
at 101.3 kPa (1 atm, 760 mmHg) absolute
pressure.
8. For system tests (but not for normal operation):
Vacuum pump and gauge capable of 13.3 kPa
(100 mmHg) absolute pressure; mid-infrared
attenuating filters (50% and 25%); impinger.
SPECIAL PRECAUTIONS: This method requires the use of compressed gases and/or cryogenic liquids
and/or toxic chemicals. These materials are dangerous and should be handled only by experienced
personnel and according to relevant safety standards. This method does not address all of the safety
concerns associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user to establish appropriate safety and
health practices and to determine the applicability of regulatory limitations.
NOTE: Please refer to the appendices for explanations of the terminology used in this document
(APPENDIX A) and several FTIR system tests, which must be completed before any testing is performed
(APPENDIX B). Appendices C, D, and E provide (respectively) a general description of FTIR spectrometry,
considerations for preparing reference libraries, and examples of calculations required for performance
of this method.
PRETEST PROCEDURES:
The following procedures (steps 1 and 2) may be performed only by an experienced “analyst” (see
APPENDIX A).
1. Verify that the FTIR system has been tested for wavenumber reproducibility, MIL, absorption path
length, system response time, residual squared area (RSA), and detector linearity as described in
APPENDIX B. If the system is new and/or has been recently assembled and/or has been recently
serviced, perform and document results of the tests described in APPENDIX B before proceeding.
2. Prepare a test plan. The plan must include the following:
a. The proposed system configuration, including the absorption path length and integration time
for sample spectra.
b. The data quality objectives, analytical regions, and expected LOD values for each analyte. See
Table 2 and APPENDIX E for example values and calculations.
c. The names of all “operators” and “analysts” to be involved in the test. Analysts must be
experienced in all aspects of the test procedures listed below and may perform any or all of the
test procedures. Operators must be experienced in the performance of steps 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10,
11, 12, and 13 listed below and may perform only those portions of the test procedures.
d. Verification that the system configuration, existing RSA values, and related LOD values are
consistent with the test’s data quality objectives. (See APPENDIX E.)
The following procedures (steps 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13) may be performed by an
experienced operator or analyst.
3. Activate the FTIR system according to the manufacturer’s instructions. Allow sufficient time for the
infrared source, the infrared detector, and (if required) the temperature control systems to stabilize.
4. Verify that the computer system is programmed to store interferograms; if the available data storage
capacity is insufficient for storage of all interferograms, store single-beam spectra instead. Verify
adequacy and performance of the (recommended) data backup system.
5. Bypassing the sampling system, flow nitrogen or zero air directly into the infrared absorption cell
until a stable infrared response and moisture levels are reached. Record a background spectrum
using an integration time equal to or greater than that planned for subsequent sample spectra.
6. Use the entire FTIR system (including all sampling components) to record an absorbance spectrum
of a sample stream of nitrogen or zero air. Use the integration time planned for subsequent sample
spectra. Verify that the sample flow rate meets or exceeds that specified in the system response
time documentation. Examine the resulting “system zero” (SZ) spectrum and verify the absence of
contaminants in the sampling system and infrared absorption cell. If contaminants are detected,
clean or replace the appropriate sampling system components and/or infrared absorption cell and
record a new SZ spectrum. If contaminants cannot be eliminated, the test results and LOD values
may require revision/correction during the quality control procedures (see steps 14, 15, 16, and 17).
CALIBRATION:
7. Using the entire sampling system, acquire two or more pretest CTS spectra and use them to
calculate the system absorption path length (see APPENDIX B, section B1). Use the integration
time planned for subsequent sample spectra. Verify that is within 5% of the value quoted in the
test plan. Verify that the sample temperature and pressure are within 10 °C to 30 °C and 96.6 kPa to
103 kPa (725 mmHg to 795 mmHg), respectively.
8. When possible, perform the following system checks before sampling. If necessary, they may be
delayed until performance of the (post-testing) quality control procedures (see steps 14, 15, 16,
and 17). If performed after sampling, the results of these procedures may require revision of the test
results and LODs.
a. LOD check. Using one of the SZ spectra, calculate the RSA values (see APPENDIX B, section
B2) and LOD values (see Appendix E, section E1) in the analytical regions pertaining to the test
analytes. Verify that the system path length (see APPENDIX B, section B1), current RSA values, and
current LODs are consistent with the test’s data quality objectives (see Appendix E, section E1).
b. Wavenumber reproducibility check. Record a preliminary workspace air sample spectrum and
perform the calculations described in Appendix B, section B4.
SAMPLING:
9. Using the integration time specified in the test plan, obtain samples and record infrared spectra
of the desired workplace gases using the entire sampling system. The sampling location may be
changed as desired. For tests of duration greater than 2 h, or if the FTIR system is moved during
sampling, monitor the system’s single-beam response level. If changes greater than 5% in non-
absorbing regions of the single-beam spectrum occur, suspend sampling and record a new
background spectrum (see step 5). Sample spectra must be acquired at each sampling location for a
time period no less than the system response time (see the system test documentation).
10. Repeat step 6; acquire at least one posttest SZ spectrum of nitrogen or zero air; confirm the absence
of sampling system contaminates.
11. Record at least one posttest CTS spectrum (see step 7); confirm that the system configuration and
the system absorption path length (to within 5%) match those of the test plan.
12. (Optional.) Acquire a posttest background spectrum (see step 5).
SAMPLE ANALYSIS:
13. Using the analytical regions specified in the test plan, employ an appropriate mathematical analysis
(see APPENDIX E) to determine preliminary analyte concentrations and their 3σ uncertainties from
the sample spectra, reference spectra, absorption path length, and gas pressure.
NOTE: Reference spectra for all analytes must meet or exceed the QA/QC requirements of
APPENDIX D. The reference library must include at least one wavenumber standard spectrum
and at least one CTS spectrum. The sample absorption due to any analyte may not exceed the
maximum CPP represented in the reference library for that compound.
QUALITY CONTROL:
The following procedures (steps 14, 15, 16, 17, and 18) may be performed only by an experienced
analyst.
14. Using one of the SZ spectra, calculate the RSA and LOD values (see APPENDIX E) in the analytical
regions pertaining to the test analytes. Verify that the system path length, current RSA values, and
current LODs are consistent with the test’s data quality objectives. Using a suitable workspace air
spectrum, perform the wavenumber reproducibility and resolution tests described in APPENDIX B,
sections B3 and B4. If either the wavenumber reproducibility or resolution results fail to meet the
specifications, corrective actions are necessary (see step 17).
15. Perform qualitative and/or quantitative analyses of the pretest and posttest SZ spectra and confirm
the absence of sampling system contaminants. If contaminants are found that possess significant
absorbance in any analytical region, corrective actions may be necessary (see step 17). Perform
qualitative and/or quantitative analyses of the pretest and posttest CTS spectra and confirm that the
system absorption path length is within 5% of the value quoted in the test plan.
16. Verify that the reference spectra and results meet the data quality objectives of the test plan (see
APPENDIX D). If they do not, corrective actions may be necessary (see step 17). Examine the results
of the quantitative sample analysis (step 13) and verify some subset of them (including those with
relatively high and relatively low concentrations) manually to ensure proper operation of analytical
program. (Techniques for generating spectra representing the analytes at the concentration
indicated by the analysis — “scaled spectra,” as defined in APPENDIX A — are described in
APPENDIX E. The analyst should generate such spectra and compare them, either visually or
mathematically, to the indicated sample spectra.)
17. Corrective actions: If the results of steps 14, 15, and 16 indicate that the data quality objectives of
the test plan have not been achieved, the analyst may perform one or more of the following actions:
• Averaging of sequential sample spectra to reduce the RSA.
• Inclusion of contaminant reference spectra in the mathematical analysis.
• Development of more accurate analyte or interferant reference spectra.
• Inclusion of reference spectra for additional compounds in the mathematical analysis.
• Exclusion from the mathematical analysis of analyte and/or interferant compounds that are
clearly absent in the samples.
• Deresolution or wavenumber adjustment of the reference spectral library to match that of the
sample spectra (or vice versa).
• Revision of the original data quality objectives (those included in the test plan) to levels
supported by the test data.
NOTE: After performing any such corrective actions, the analyst must repeat steps 13, 14, 15, and 16
and reevaluate the LOD value for each analyte compound.
REPORTING:
18. Reporting requirements include the analyte and interferant concentrations, the concentration
uncertainties, the FTIR spectrometer configuration, the sampling locations and conditions, the
source(s) of the reference spectra, the CTS spectral analysis results, the results of QA/QC procedures,
and certificates of analysis for all standard gases. Any variations of the test procedures and original
data quality objectives from those included in the test plan should also be documented and
reported. (Several of the terms used here are defined in APPENDIX A and described in the following
appendices. In particular, see Table D1 for a description of the FTIR spectrometer configuration
parameters.)
EVALUATION OF METHOD:
Field evaluations of extractive FTIR methods have been performed for many compounds (see, for
example, references 1 and 2) according to EPA method 301 [8].
REFERENCES:
[1] EPA [1993]. Fourier transform infared (FTIR) method validation at a coal fired boiler [www3.epa.gov/
ttnemc01/ftir/reports/r03.html].
[2] Reagen WK, Wright BD, Krueger DJ, Plummer GM [1999]. Fourier transform infrared method
validation at a carbon bed solvent recovery unit for four gaseous hydrocarbons. Environ Sci Technol
33(10):1752–1759.
[3] EPA [2014]. Method 320 — Measurement of vapor phase organic and inorganic emissions by
extractive FTIR spectroscopy [www3.epa.gov/ttn/emc/methods/method320.html].
[4] ASTM [2012]. D6348-12e1: Standard test method for determination of gaseous compounds by
extractive direct interface fourier transform infrared (FTIR) spectroscopy. West Conshohocken, PA:
ASTM International [www.astm.org].
[5] ASTM [2015]. D1356-15b: Standard terminology relating to sampling and analysis of atmospheres.
West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International [www.astm.org].
[6] ASTM [2006]. E168-06: Standard practices for general techniques of infrared quantitative analysis
(withdrawn 2015). West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International [www.astm.org].
[7] ASTM [2013]. E1252-98(2013)e1: Standard practice for general techniques for obtaining infrared
spectra for qualitative analysis. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International [www.astm.org].
[8] EPA [2014]. Method 301 — Field validation of pollutant measurement methods from various waste
media [www3.epa.gov/ttn/emc/methods/method301.html].
[9] EPA [1993]. EPA reference absorbance spectra; EPA reference spectra interferograms [www3.epa.
gov/ttn/emc/ftir/data.html].
[10] NIST [2016]. Quantitative infrared database [webbook.nist.gov/chemistry/quant-ir/].
[11] EPA [2016]. Software tools and viewers [www3.epa.gov/ttn/emc/ftir/tools.html].
[12] Griffiths PR, De Haseth JA [1986]. Fourier transform infrared spectrometry. New York: Wiley.
[13] Hamilton WC [1964]. Method of least squares and theory of linear hypotheses. In: Statistics in
physical science; estimation, hypothesis testing, and least squares. New York: Ronald Press Co., pp.
124–145.
[14] Plummer GM, Reagen WK [1996]. An examination of a least squares fit FTIR spectral analysis
method. Unpublished paper (No. 96-WA65.03) presented at the 89th Annual Meeting of the Air and
Waste Management Association, Nashville, TN, June 23–28.
[15] EPA [2012]. EPA traceability protocol for assay and certification of gaseous calibration standards.
Research Triangle Park, NC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and
Development, National Risk Management Research Laboratory, EPA/600/R-12/531 [cfpub.epa.gov/
si/si_public_record_report.cfm?dirEntryId=245292].
Grant M. Plummer, Ph.D. (Rho Squared), William K. Reagen, Ph.D. (3M), and Perry W. Logan (3M).
DISCLAIMER: Mention of any company or product does not constitute endorsement by NIOSH. In addition, citations to
websites external to NIOSH do not constitute NIOSH endorsement of the sponsoring organizations or their programs or
products. Furthermore, NIOSH is not responsible for the content of these websites. All web addresses referenced in this
document were accessible as of the publication date.
ORGANIC & INORGANIC GASES by Extractive FTIR Spectrometry: METHOD 3800, Issue 2, dated 13 January 2016 - Page 7 of 44
VP at Exposure Limits (OELs)*
BP 20 °C
Name Synonyms* Formula MW† CAS No. RTECS No. (°C)† (kPa)† NIOSH OSHA
Acetone Dimethyl ketone, 58.1 67-64-1 AL3150000 56 24 TWA 250 ppm (590 TWA 1000 ppm
Ketone propane, mg/m³) (2400 mg/m³)
2-Propanone
Ammonia Anhydrous ammonia, 17.0 7664-41-7 BO0875000 −33 1.01 TWA 25 ppm (18 TWA 50 ppm (35
Aqua ammonia, × 10³ mg/m³) ST 35 ppm mg/m³)
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods (NMAM), Fifth Edition
ORGANIC & INORGANIC GASES by Extractive FTIR Spectrometry: METHOD 3800, Issue 2, dated 13 January 2016 - Page 8 of 44
VP at Exposure Limits (OELs)*
BP 20 °C
Name Synonyms* Formula MW† CAS No. RTECS No. (°C)† (kPa)† NIOSH OSHA
Methanol Carbinol, Columbian 32.0 67-56-1 PC1400000 65 12.3 TWA 200 ppm (260 TWA 200 ppm (260
spirits, Methanol, mg/m³) ST 250 ppm mg/m³)
Pyroligneous spirit, (325 mg/m³) [skin]
Wood alcohol, Wood
naphtha, Wood spirit
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods (NMAM), Fifth Edition
Methylene chloride Dichloromethane, 84.9 75-09-2 PA8050000 40 47.4 Ca TWA 25 ppm ST 125
Methylene dichloride ppm
Nitrous oxide Dinitrogen monoxide, 44.0 10024-97-2 QX1350000 −88.5 5.06 TWA 25 ppm (46
Hyponitrous acid × 10³ mg/m³) (TWA over
anhydride, Laughing the time exposed)
gas [Note: REL for
exposure to waste
anesthetic gas.]
Styrene Ethenyl benzene, 104.1‡ 100-42-5 WL3675000 145 0.67 TWA 50 ppm (215 TWA 100 ppm C 200
Phenylethylene, mg/m³) ST 100 ppm ppm 600 ppm (5 min
Styrene monomer, (425 mg/m³) maximum peak in
Styrol, Vinyl benzene any 3 h)
Sulfur dioxide Sulfurous acid 64.1 7446-09-5 WS4550000 −10 330 TWA 2 ppm (5 TWA 5 ppm (13
anhydride, Sulfurous mg/m³) ST 5 ppm (13 mg/m³)
oxide, Sulfur oxide mg/m³)
Tetrafluoroethylene Tetrafluoroethene; 100.0‡ 116-14-3 KX4000000 −75.9§ 3.27
Perfluoroethylene; ×10³‡
Perfluoroethene; TFE‡ (24500
mmHg,
25 °C)
Tetrahydrofuran Diethylene oxide; 72.1 109-99-9 LU5950000 66 19.3 TWA 200 ppm (590 TWA 200 ppm (590
1,4-Epoxybutane; mg/m³) ST 250 ppm mg/m³)
Tetramethylene oxide; (735 mg/m³)
THF
See footnotes at end of table. (Continued)
Table 1 (Continued). Representative volatile compounds and chemical data
ORGANIC & INORGANIC GASES by Extractive FTIR Spectrometry: METHOD 3800, Issue 2, dated 13 January 2016 - Page 9 of 44
VP at Exposure Limits (OELs)*
BP 20 °C
Name Synonyms* Formula MW† CAS No. RTECS No. (°C)† (kPa)† NIOSH OSHA
Toluene Methyl benzene, 92.1 108-88-3 XS5250000 111 3.8 TWA 100 ppm (375 TWA 200 ppm C 300
Methyl benzol, Phenyl (25 °C) mg/m³) ST 150 ppm ppm 500 ppm (10
methane, Toluol (560 mg/m³) min maximum peak)
Trichloroethylene Ethylene trichloride, 131.4 79-01-6 KX4550000 87 7.8 Ca TWA 100 ppm C 200
TCE, Trichloroethene, ppm 300 ppm (5 min
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods (NMAM), Fifth Edition
Maximum
Analytical Reference LOD at concentration Maximum Reference
Region Spectrum 10 m† at 10 m‡ RSA§ Spectrum
Compound ( ) Filename* (ppm) (ppm) ( ) Source
Acetone 1163 to 1265 192mav01.spc 0.95 148 0.0211 EPA**
Ammonia 998 to 1131 nh3mav01.spc 0.77 470 0.0363 3M††
Benzene 3000 to 3150 015mav01.spc 0.32 149 0.036 EPA**
2-Butanone 1127 to 1235 mekmav01.spc 0.27 463 0.0233 3M††
Carbon disulfide 2109 to 2200 028mav01.spc 0.13 151 0.0123 EPA**
Ethylene oxide 3059 to 3070 084mav01.spc 0.11 138 0.0025 EPA**
Formaldehyde 2727 to 2844 087bb.spt 0.4 1125 0.0267 EPA** ‡‡
n-Hexane 2778 to 3051 095mav01.spc 0.1 150 0.0639 EPA**
Hydrogen fluoride 4034 to 4206 21hfrav 0.93 15.8 0.15 3M††
Methanol 941 to 1100 104mav01.spc 0.28 151 0.0447 EPA**
Methylene chloride 701 to 789 117mav01.spc 0.31 150 0.062 EPA**
Nitrous oxide 1226 to 1333 n2omav01.spc 0.36 904 0.0301 3M††
Styrene 738 to 944 147mav01.spc 1.84 150 0.0363 EPA**
§§
Sulfur dioxide 1290 to 1410 so2.spc 0.35 ~200 0.1394 NIST§§
Tetrafluoroethylene 1080 to 1215 tfemav05.spc 0.17 25.7 0.093 3M††
Tetrahydrofuran 2750 to 3085 thf405.spc 0.18 41 0.0782 3M††
Toluene 701 to 768 tolmav01.spc 1.16 463 0.0499 EPA**
Trichloroethylene 762 to 966 tcemav01.spc 0.43 464 0.1071 3M††
Vinylidene fluoride 1080 to 1215 dfemav05.spc 0.21 25.7 0.093 3M††
m-Xylene 782 to 805 172mav01.spc 1.36 146 0.0377 EPA**
o-Xylene 709 to 781 171mav01.spc 0.65 150 0.0444 EPA**
p-Xylene 749 to 840 173mav01.spc 1.17 151 0.0561 EPA**
*Used in LOD calculations; averaged spectra from the quoted libraries; data available from the authors.
†
Approximate LOD for a 10 m absorption path length. Typical values of the RSA, quoted analytical regions, and
quoted reference spectral data were used to calculate the LOD as described in Equation E1. Note: The LOD
may vary from laboratory to laboratory, analyst to analyst, instrument to instrument, and day to day. Therefore,
any determination of this value should be performed under the same conditions used for sample analysis and
reported only with those analyses. It is stressed that the values below are only conservative estimates of the
expected performance of this method.
‡
The maximum ppm · m value available for the compound in the quoted reference spectrum source.
§
Maximum RSA in the specified analytical regions consistent with the quoted LOD values. See APPENDIX E,
section E1.
**See reference 9. Average absorbance and accepted standard concentration values for the low-concentration
pairs of spectra were used. Interferograms were truncated to 0.5 resolution and triangular apodization
was employed.
††
Data available from the authors.
‡‡
From EPA reference spectra recorded at 100 °C [9].
§§
NIST quantitative infrared database [10]. The quoted maximum concentration for sulfur dioxide is based on
linearity studies of 0.5 resolution spectra with triangular apodization. Nonlinear absorbance leads to
errors of less than 10% at 1000 ppm · m.
APPENDIX A. TERMINOLOGY
absorbance — in terms of the incident intensity and transmitted intensity , the absorbance is given
by . From a pair of FTIR single-beam spectra B (the background spectrum) and S (the
sample spectrum), the sample absorbance for each wavenumber value (with index i) in the spectra is
approximated by .
absorbance linearity — a characteristic of (ideal) absorbance spectrum; for such a spectrum, the
measured absorbance is described by Beer’s law (Equation C1).
absorption band — a contiguous wavenumber region of a spectrum (equivalently, a contiguous set of
absorbance spectrum data points) in which the absorbance passes through a maximum or a series of
maxima.
absorption cell — a structure that contains a fluid sample, but allows light to pass through a sample at
known temperature, pressure, and absorption path length.
absorption path length — the distance, measured in the direction of propagation of the beam of
radiant energy, between the surface of the specimen on which the radiant energy is incident and the
surface of the specimen from which it is emergent.
absorptivity — a measure of the fraction of the incident infrared radiation that is absorbed by a
particular compound per molecule and per absorption path length; see Equation C1.
analyst — a person familiar with and experienced in performance of all aspects of this FTIR-based
method. Analysts may perform any portion(s) of the method and must perform certain portions of
the method (see also “operator”).
analyte — a compound whose concentrations in a sample is of interest and is to be accurately
quantified (see also “interferant”).
analytical region — a contiguous wavenumber region (equivalently, a contiguous set of absorbance
spectrum data points) used in the quantitative analysis for one or more analytes.
NOTE: The quantitative result for a single analyte may be based on data from more than one
analytical region.
aperture — an optical device that physically restricts the diameter of the optical beam.
apodization — modification of the interferogram through its multiplication by a weighing function
whose magnitude varies with the position of the interferometer’s moving element.
background spectrum — the single-beam spectrum obtained with all system components and without
sample present (or in the presence of a non-absorbing gas replacing the sample).
baseline — any line (or smooth function of wavenumber) drawn on an absorption spectrum to establish
a reference point that represents a function of the radiant power incident on a sample at a given
wavelength.
Beer’s law — the direct proportionality of the absorbance of a compound in a homogeneous sample to
its concentration. See Equation C1, which also describes the more general case of gas mixtures.
calibration transfer standard (CTS) gas — a gas standard of a compound used to measure the sample
absorption path length; see step 7, step 11, APPENDIX B (section B1), and APPENDIX D (section D5).
— see “wavenumber.”
compound — a substance possessing a distinct, unique molecular structure.
concentration — the quantity of a compound contained in a unit quantity of sample. The unit “ppm”
(number, or mole, basis) is recommended and is equivalent to the volume basis for ideal gases.
concentration-path length product (CPP) — the mathematical product of concentration of the species
and the absorption path length. For reference spectra, this is a known quantity; for sample spectra,
it is the quantity directly determined from Beer’s law. The unit “parts per million · meters” (ppm · m) is
recommended.
data quality objectives — parameters pertaining to a certain application of this method, including the
estimated LOD values for each compound.
deresolve — to form spectra of lower resolution (higher full-width-at-half-maximum) from spectra of
higher resolution (lower full-width-at-half-maximum); see reference 11 for a deresolution program.
detector linearity — a characteristic of an (ideal) IR detector; for such a detector, the measured detector
output voltage, when plotted against the total IR in a broadband IR signal incident on the detector,
would form a straight line.
double-beam spectrum — a transmittance or absorbance spectrum derived by dividing the sample
single-beam spectrum by the background spectrum.
NOTE: The term “double-beam” is used elsewhere to denote a spectrum in which the sample
and background interferograms are collected simultaneously along physically distinct
absorption paths. Here, the term denotes a spectrum in which the sample and background
interferograms are collected at different times along the same absorption path.
extractive — the type of spectroscopy that includes extracting and transporting a sample stream from
gases at a certain location to an absorption cell and isolating the sample in the absorption cell for
analysis. Other types of spectroscopy in which the sample is not isolated in an absorption cell include
“remote”, “open path”, and “local open path” techniques.
FFT (fast Fourier transform) — a discrete (digital) approximation to an FT (Fourier transform; see below)
involving the factoring of the original data into sparse matrices containing mostly zeros.
filter — (1) A device, made of inert materials, that physically removes solid and liquid phase particles
from a gas stream. (2) An optical device that transmits some fraction of the radiation incident on
it; “neutral density” and “mesh” filters transmit an approximately constant fraction of the incident
radiation at all wavelengths over a specified wavelength range.
frequency, ν — the number of cycles per unit time; for light, , where c is the speed of light
and λ is the light’s wavelength. Unlike the speed and wavelength, which are medium-dependent,
the frequency of light is independent of the medium through which the light travels. The term
“frequency” is often used to denote the wavenumber (w, ) in FTIR spectroscopy because (in a
given medium) the wavenumber is proportional to the frequency. (See APPENDIX C, section C4, and
“wavenumber” in this appendix.)
FT (Fourier transform) — the mathematical process for converting an analytical (non-discrete)
amplitude-time function to an amplitude-frequency function, or vice versa.
FTIR (Fourier transform infrared) spectrometer — an analytical system that employs a source of mid-
infrared radiation, an interferometer, an enclosed sample cell of known absorption path length,
an infrared detector, optical elements that transfer infrared radiation between components, and
a computer system. The time-domain detector response (interferogram) is processed by a Fourier
transform to yield a representation of the infrared power vs. infrared frequency. See Figures C1 and
C2.
FTIR spectrometry — use of an FTIR system to perform quantitative measurements.
FTIR system — the combination of an FTIR spectrometer and a sample interface.
FTIR system configuration — the set of parameters required to reproduce, as closely as possible,
results from a particular FTIR system at a later time. This set includes (at least) the nominal MIL, the
absorption path length, the apodization function, the gas temperature, the gas pressure, the zero
filling factor, the measured wavenumbers of specific water absorption bands, the sources of the
reference library spectra, the integration time, the detector type and serial number, the detector gain
(including hardware and software settings).
FTIR system response time — the minimum time required for the output of an FTIR system to accurately
reflect a sudden change in the sample gas composition; see APPENDIX B, section B5.
full-width-at-half-maximum (FWHM) — for a single, symmetric absorption band, the full width of the
band in wavenumbers ( ) between its 50% relative maximum absorption levels.
impinger — a sample collection device, constructed of inert materials, that passes a gas stream through
a liquid phase.
infrared detector — a device that (ideally) produces a voltage proportional to the total infrared power
incident on it. Examples are 1) the mercury-cadmium-telluride (MCT) detector, which requires
cooling (and is often cooled to liquid nitrogen temperature) and 2) the deuterated triglycine sulfate
(DTGS) detector, often operated at ambient temperature.
infrared source — a device that emits a pattern, stable in intensity and wavelength profile, of infrared
radiation over a wide range of infrared wavelengths. High temperature filaments or ceramic
elements, in conjunction with appropriate focusing optics, are often employed.
integration time — the total time over which the interferometric results of single scans are averaged
to produce an interferogram (and its subsequent single- and double-beam spectra). Most software
packages allow selection of the number of scans rather than the integration time. The integration
time is approximately equal to (but is always less than) the time interval over which the selected
number of scans is actually executed.
interferant — a compound whose presence in a sample spectrum must be taken into account to
accurately determine one or more analyte concentrations, but whose concentration need not be
accurately determined.
interferogram — record of the IR detector’s response to the modulated component of the interference
signal measured as a function of retardation.
interferometer — device that divides a beam of radiant energy into two or more paths, generates an
optical path difference between the beams, and recombines them in order to produce repetitive
interference maxima and minima as the optical retardation is varied.
least squares fitting (LSF) algorithm — a calculation whereby one or more compound concentrations
are estimated from a sample spectrum by minimizing the squared error in Beer’s law within a defined
analytical region (see Equations C1, C2, C3, C4, C5, and C6).
limit of detection (LOD, ppm) — for a defined FTIR system configuration and sample matrix, an estimate
of the lowest detectable concentration of a specific analyte based on the FTIR system’s RSA and the
analyte’s integrated absorbance for a selected analytical region.
line — see “absorption band.”
linewidth — see “full-width-at-half-maximum” and “minimum instrumental linewidth.”
metering valve — a gas valve allowing reproducible adjustments of a gas stream flow rate on the order
of 2% of the valves full flow rate.
mid-infrared — the region of the electromagnetic spectrum from approximately 400 to 5000 .
minimum instrumental linewidth (MIL) — for a given FTIR spectrometer and FTIR system configuration,
the minimum measured FWHM for any absorption band. In wavenumbers, the MIL is often estimated
as the reciprocal of the retardation expressed in cm. The MIL depends on the choice of apodization
function and is often larger than the MIL estimated from the retardation.
multi-pass cell — an absorption cell that uses mirrors to pass the infrared radiation through the gas
sample more than once; this leads to an absorption path length larger than the physical length of the
cell (see also “White cell”).
operator — a person familiar with and experienced in performance of only some aspects of this FTIR-
based method. Operators may perform many portions of this method, but specific portions of the
method must be performed by an “analyst.”
peak — see “absorption band.”
qualitative analysis — examination of sample spectra to determine the presence or absence of
particular compounds in a sample.
quantitative analysis — estimation of the actual concentrations of a specific set of compounds using a
specific set of analytical regions.
reference spectra — absorption spectra of gases with known chemical compositions, recorded at a
known absorption path length, which are used in the quantitative analysis of gas samples.
residual squared area (RSA) — a measure of the noise (random and systematic) and/or spectral
artifacts for an absorbance spectrum in some analytical region; see APPENDIX B, section B2 for a
mathematical definition. The RSA can be used to estimate the LOD for a given compound measured
with a given FTIR system configuration.
retardation — optical path difference between two beams in an interferometer; also known as “optical
path difference” or “optical retardation.” In the case of a standard Michelson interferometer, the
retardation is simply twice the distance moved by a mirror in the interferometer during a scan.
rotameter — a device indicating the volumetric flow rate of a gas by the vertical displacement of an
object suspended by the gas stream.
sample interface — that part of the FTIR system that comes in contact with the sample and/or
calibration gases. It includes the sample probe, sample filter, sample line, sample pump, gas valves,
internal surfaces of the absorption cell, pressure gauge, sample rotameter, the vent lines, and the
calibration components (gas cylinders, regulators, and rotameters).
sampling location — the point in space at which sample gases enter the sample interface.
scaling — application of a multiplicative factor to the absorbance values in a spectrum.
scan — digital representation of the detector output obtained during one complete motion of the
interferometer’s moving assembly or assemblies.
single-beam spectrum — Fourier-transformed interferogram, representing the relative detector
response vs. wavenumber.
NOTE: The term “single-beam” is used elsewhere to denote any spectrum in which the sample and
background interferograms are recorded on the same physical absorption path; such usage
differentiates such spectra from those generated using interferograms recorded along two
physically distinct absorption paths (see “double-beam spectrum” above). Here, the term
applies (for example) to the two spectra used directly in the calculation of transmittance and
absorbance spectra of a sample.
system zero (SZ) spectrum — the absorbance spectrum of a non-absorbing gas (nitrogen or zero air)
acquired using those portions of the sampling interface used to acquire actual sample gases.
transmittance, — the ratio of radiant power transmitted by the sample to the radiant power incident
on the sample. Estimated in FTIR spectroscopy by forming the ratio of the single-beam sample and
background spectra; often presented as % (100 × ) in spectral representations.
uncertainty — a mathematical quantity determined in an LSF procedure, used to estimate the likely
error in the determination of the sample concentration in a procedure; see Equations C1, C2, C3, C4,
C5, and C6.
wavelength λ, — the physical distance between successive maxima in the electromagnetic waves that
comprise light. The wavelength and speed of light depend on the medium through which the light
travels.
wavenumber, w — the reciprocal of the wavelength, also the number of wavelengths of light per unit
length, usually expressed in the units . As is true of both the speed and wavelength of light, the
wavenumber is dependent on the medium through which the light travels. (See APPENDIX C, section
C4 and “frequency” in this appendix.)
wavenumber adjustment — reassignment of the values associated with single- and/or double-
beam spectra. Adjustments may be made locally by shifting or stretching the wavenumber scale, or
globally stretched by changing the laser wavenumber during the FFT.
White cell — alternate name for a multi-pass absorption cell (see “multi-pass” above) indicating its
inventor.
zero filling — the addition of zero-valued points to the end of a measured interferogram. In most
computer programs, specification of a zero filling “factor” of results in an interferogram with
times as many points as the original interferogram.
These procedures must be conducted at least once on new or significantly altered (by replacement of
components, dis- and reassembly, etc.) systems. The tests described in sections B2 and B4 must also be
repeated during either the pretest preparations or quality assurance procedures. In all cases, activate
the FTIR system and allow sufficient time for the infrared source, the infrared detector, and (if required)
the temperature control systems to stabilize before proceeding.
Obtain one or more absorbance spectra of a CTS gas (ethylene at 200 ppm · m to 300 ppm · m
is recommended) at the gas temperature and pressure of a reference CTS spectrum of the same
compound. For each spectrum, calculate the indicated absorption path length as
, (Equation B1)
NOTE: If the following calculations are performed during testing or as part of the QC procedures
(steps 14, 15, 16, and 17), perform them using a workspace air spectrum instead of the “water vapor
(absorbance) spectrum” described in the two paragraphs below.
Use the integration time selected for field testing in recording the spectra described below. Record a
background spectrum of dry nitrogen gas or zero air. Using a suitable impinger, humidify the nitrogen
or zero air stream and record a single-beam spectrum at an absolute pressure between 96.6 kPa and
103 kPa (725 mmHg and 795 mmHg). Form the absorbance spectrum of this water vapor sample
from the single-beam spectra. Assign the spectrum a unique filename and save it for the calculations
described below.
From this water vapor spectrum, subtract a scaled spectrum (see APPENDIX A) formed from the
water vapor reference spectrum to be used in subsequent quantitative analyses. The scaling factor may
be varied to minimize the absorbance in the resulting difference spectrum in the various analytical
regions to be used in the analyses. Subtract a constant offset, a linear function, or a quadratic function
from the difference spectrum in each analytical region to form a residual spectrum R for each region.
For each residual spectrum R with discrete absorbance value for wavenumber i = p to q, in the
wavenumber range to , the RSA, , is defined as:
. (Equation B2)
The RSA has the dimensions ( ) and serves as a measure of the integrated absorbance of spectral
noise and water subtraction artifacts over the analytical region. The RSA is compared to the total
absorbance of a compound in the same region to estimate the LOD for the compound in that region
(see APPENDIX D, section D9 and APPENDIX E, section E1).
The calculation described above assumes that water is the only significant infrared absorber
in the samples besides the analytes and that only one analyte absorbs in any analytical region. If
other analytes or interferants are present, a more conservative RSA may be estimated by adding the
absorbance of the additional compounds to the difference spectrum using a set of suitable reference
spectra, then subtracting their absorbance using a different set of reference spectra.
Evacuate the absorption cell to a pressure below 13.3 kPa (100 mmHg) and record a background
spectrum. Obtain a workspace air sample at an absolute pressure of approximately 40 kPa (300 mmHg).
Record the absorbance spectrum of this low-pressure sample. Measure at the FWHM linewidth, in ,
of at least two isolated water vapor lines (for example, the lines near 1918 and 2779 ). The MIL
is the mean of these FWHM measurements.
NOTE: If this calculation is performed during testing or as part of the QC procedures (see steps 6
and 10), perform these determinations using a workspace air spectrum instead of the water vapor
absorbance spectrum described in section B2.
Using a water vapor spectrum recorded as described in section B2, determine the center
wavenumber values and of two isolated water vapor absorption features; the peaks near
1918 and 2779 are suggested, though any other pair of isolated lines separated by 500
or more is suitable. Compare these results to those center wavenumber values and and for the
same absorbance features in the water vapor wavenumber standard associated with the reference
library to be used in quantitative analyses as follows: Calculate the wavenumber reproducibility, , in
for each of the two absorption bands as
, (Equation B3)
for i = 1, 2.
Compare the maximum of these two values to the MIL for the FTIR system (see section B3). If the
wavenumber reproducibility to MIL ratio exceeds 2%, adjustment of the wavenumber scale for the
sample spectra may be required.
Mathematical wavenumber adjustments may be made locally by shifting or stretching the
wavenumber scale, or globally stretched by changing the laser wavenumber during the FFT. However,
large shifts (on the order of 5% or more of the MIL) indicate that the system requires physical
adjustments, such as realignment of the laser system responsible for control of the interferometer’s
moving element. In addition, mathematical wavenumber adjustments require some sort of
interpolation procedure in conjunction with the quantitative spectral analysis, and those procedures
may result in spectral mismatches whose effects on the accuracy of the analysis are not easily
quantified.
The necessity of such wavenumber adjustments depends, in part, on the widths of the absorption
peaks of the compounds involved in the spectral analysis. Because many of the absorption bands of
water — a nearly ubiquitous interferant in workspace air IR analysis — are very narrow, an accurate
analysis usually requires the relatively stringent limits placed above on the wavenumber reproducibility
to MIL ratio. However, it is possible to obtain accurate results when this ratio exceeds the recommended
limit, especially when only broad absorbance features are actually employed. The analyst may choose to
approve analytical results obtained when this ratio exceeds the recommended limit.
Direct nitrogen or zero air through the entire sample interface and record spectra at approximately
30 s intervals. Abruptly replace the nitrogen or zero air gas flow with CTS gas and continue to record
spectra. The system response time is the subsequent time required for the FTIR system to generate an
absorbance spectrum in which the CTS compound’s calculated concentration reaches 95% of the final
(stable) concentration value indicated in later spectra.
For the chosen optical configuration, attenuate the power incident on the detector by either 1)
modifying the aperture setting or 2) placing filters (neutral density or mesh) in the infrared beam path
(see Figure C1). At approximately 100%, 50%, and 25% of the system full IR power level, collect pairs of
background and CTS spectra. Compare the areas of the CTS bands for the three spectra and verify that
they are equal to within 5% of their mean value. If they are not, apply software linearization corrections
to the interferometric data according to the manufacturer’s instructions. If this option is unavailable, it
is necessary to either 1) characterize the system non-linearity and/or apply appropriate concentration
corrections or 2) operate the system with attenuation sufficient to ensure linear detector response.
Figure C1 illustrates the basic FTIR spectrometer configuration required for gas phase analyses. The
infrared radiation emitted by the infrared (IR) source contains energy at all wavelengths between 2.0 µm
and 20 µm; this is the portion of the electromagnetic spectrum usually referred to as the “mid-infrared.”
In the units typically employed in FTIR spectroscopy (wavenumbers, or ), this is the wavenumber
range 5000 to 500 . The IR radiation passes through an interferometer, where the motion of an
optical element, usually a mirror, optically modulates the infrared beam. The modulated IR beam then
enters an absorption cell through a window (typically made of potassium bromide or zinc selenide)
and interacts with the gases of interest. The physical length over which this interaction takes place is
the “absorption path length.” In “multi-pass” (or “White”) absorption cells, mirrors within the cell direct
the IR beam through the sample gas many times; in such cells, the absorption path length can be from
4 to 50 (or more) times the cell’s physical length. (A larger absorption path length generally leads to
greater sensitivity.) The IR beam then exits the sample cell via a second window and is refocused onto
an IR detector. Because this extractive technique requires the transport of gas samples through the
FTIR absorption cell, the design and integrity of the sampling system is of great importance. It is also
important that the sampling system allow the operator to perform all the necessary calibration and
sampling procedures without compromising the speed and flexibility of the analytical system.
Figure C2 illustrates a sampling system configuration that meets these requirements, though other
configurations are possible. A computer controls the actions of the interferometer and records the
voltage output of the IR detector throughout the motion of the interferometer’s optical element. Ideally,
the detector voltage is proportional to the total power in the IR beam. The computer must accurately
record the detector voltage as a function of the position of the moving element in the interferometer,
so a secondary, laser-based optical system is usually used to measure the moving element’s position
very precisely. In most circumstances, the motion of the mirror or other optical element is repeated
many times and the resulting individual “scans” are “co-added” (averaged) to reduce the system’s RSA.
Every data point in the interferogram contains intensity information about every infrared wavelength
transmitted from the source to the detector. It is possible to recover the intensity information as a
function of wavelength through application of an FFT, from which the FTIR technique’s name is derived.
This digital transformation of the interferogram can be thought of as the mathematical inverse of the
optical modulation applied to the infrared beam as it passes through the interferometer. Its function
is similar to that of the human brain and ear, which provide intensity information (loudness) versus
wavelength (pitch) for complex signals (sound waves) incident on the eardrum. (Note that, as for an
interferogram, each point in a complex sound wave contains intensity information about every pitch
contained in the wave. Yet the ear and brain allow a symphony audience to immediately perceive, for
instance, that the piccolo is playing very loudly while the tuba is playing very quietly.) Reference 12
(chapter 3) provides a complete mathematical description of the FFT.
Most software packages supplied with FTIR systems provide several options associated with the
collection of data and application of the FFT. These typically include - at least - the nominal “instrument
resolution” (specified in ) and the “apodization function” (e.g., “boxcar” and “triangular”). These
parameters are very important in quantitative spectroscopy and are addressed in turn below.
The instrument resolution is the most fundamental and important instrument parameter. It specifies
the nominal minimum FWHM, in , of any spectral “peak” (or “line”) in the final instrument output.
Every FTIR instrument has a minimum FWHM determined by the maximum distance traversed by the
interferometer’s moving element during a single scan. (For the basic Michelson interferometer, the
FWHM in is equal to , where d is the distance in cm traversed by a moving mirror during a
scan.) Clearly, instruments with low FWHM provide more spectral information than instruments with
higher FWHM capability. However, this additional information comes at high costs associated with the
design, construction, size, mechanical stability, portability, speed, and RSA of the instruments.
It is important to recognize the two uses of the word “resolution” in the nomenclature used to
describe FTIR spectrometers: Instruments of high resolving power, or “high resolution,” provide
spectral features of low FWHM; when the nominal resolution is specified in units of , a lower
specification corresponds to higher resolving power, or “higher resolution”. Most commercially available
FTIR spectrometers suitable for field use provide FWHM values greater than or equal to 0.5 , that is,
.
they are systems whose nominal spectral resolution is specified as a number higher than 0.5 Most
of the instruments capable of higher resolution (lower FWHM) are suitable for use only in very stable
laboratory environments.
Standard FTIR operating software always provides options for recording spectra with FWHM values
higher than the instrument’s actual lower FWHM limit. These options simply move the mirror (or other
optical element) through only some fraction of its maximum possible travel. Operating the instrument
in this manner results in larger FWHM values (“lower” resolution, and shorter interferograms) than the
instrument is mechanically capable of providing. Spectra of lower resolution (higher FWHM) provide
less information, but can be generated more quickly and, in most cases, with lower RSA than spectra of
higher resolution.
The instrument operator can also choose the apodization function to be used in the generation
of FTIR spectra. Apodization is a mathematical alteration of the interferogram that can be performed
before application of the FFT. Several standard alteration functions have been devised and each affects
the final absorption spectrum of the sample gas in a different way. As with the selection of instrument
resolution, each choice has its advantages and drawbacks. The simplest choice, known as the “boxcar
apodization” function, results in the lowest FWHM but also in relatively low signal to noise (S/N) ratio.
(Spectra generated with the boxcar function are often referred to as “unapodized” spectra.) Other
choices (triangular, Norton-Beer, and several other apodization functions) provide higher S/N ratio
at the cost of higher FWHM values and other trade-offs in quantitative spectroscopy. Reference 12
provides a more thorough description of the characteristics of various apodization functions.
For a given instrument configuration — which includes the nominal spectral resolution and the
choice of apodization function — every FTIR system is capable of generating absorption bands with
an MIL. Unlike the actual spectral resolution (which has several accepted physical definitions — see
reference 12, chapter 1, section IV) and nominal spectral resolution parameters, the MIL is a parameter
that is readily measured to the accuracy required for practical applications of FTIR spectrometry. It can
be measured using the water absorption bands present in low-pressure workspace air samples (see
APPENDIX B, section B3).
The mathematical result of the FFT (applied to an apodized IR interferogram) is a called a single-
beam spectrum. Single-beam spectra represent the infrared power transmitted through the FTIR
spectrometer as a function of the infrared “wavenumber” w, which is usually expressed in the units of
reciprocal centimeters ( ). The wavenumber is actually a measure of the frequency, rather than the
wavelength, of the infrared radiation. In a vacuum, the wavelength and frequency are related through
the equation , where λ is the wavelength (cm), ν is the frequency ( , or Hz), and c (cm/s) is the
speed of light, equal to 2.99792954 × in a vacuum. In these units, the wavenumber in is given
by the equation . Figure C4 presents the single-beam spectra for two samples consisting
mainly of nitrogen gas (≥99%) but with different concentrations (≤1%) of water vapor. The vertical
scales of the two spectra are nearly identical, but they have been offset for clarity. The detected infrared
power in certain wavenumber regions is clearly lower in the high moisture sample, indicating both the
qualitative nature and strength of water’s absorption of infrared radiation.
Combinations of pairs of single-beam, such as the pair of spectra S and B shown in Figure C4, are
referred to as double-beam spectra; they provide the quantitative basis for FTIR spectroscopy. One type
of double-beam spectrum is the transmittance. The percent transmittance of a sample gas possessing
the single-beam spectrum S — with respect to the background single-beam spectrum B — is defined
as (%), where and are the respective transmitted intensities; a transmittance value is
defined for each wavenumber value of the two spectra. If the background spectrum B closely represents
the response of the FTIR system to a transparent sample, then the percent transmittance closely
approximates the percentage of the infrared radiation transmitted by the sample (represented by the
spectrum S). Because water is the only absorbing compound present in the single-beam spectrum B,
the spectrum transmittance (shown in Figure C5) closely approximates the percent transmittance
spectrum of water.
The same pair of spectra define the (double-beam) absorbance of the sample through the
equation . The absorbance spectrum of water, as approximated by the two single-beam
spectra S and B, is shown in Figure C6. The absorbance is the desired quantity because it appears in the
general linear absorption model known as Beer’s law (see below).
The absorbance spectrum of a sample gas is determined from single-beam spectra of an infrared-
transparent gas (the background spectrum) and the sample gas (see section C5). The fundamental
relationship connecting the absorbance spectrum of a sample gas to the concentrations of the
compounds comprising the sample is referred to as Beer’s law. This relationship can be written as
, (Equation C1)
where: i = an index labeling the frequencies of the observed absorbance values in the sample’s
absorbance spectrum,
= the observed absorbance of a sample at the ith wavenumber,
= the sample absorption path length (m),
j = an index labeling the absorbing compounds comprising the sample,
= the absorptivity of the jth compound at the ith wavenumber (ppm/m),
= the volumetric concentration of the jth compound (ppm), and
= the number of absorbing compounds in the sample.
The procedures described in this method are all related to the parameters that comprise Beer’s law.
The following list describes these procedures and relationships in a general context:
1. Record a reference absorbance spectrum for each interesting compound of a nitrogen-diluted
sample of the pure compound, at a known concentration and path length, then divide the
absorbance at each point in that spectrum by the CPP. This process yields the absorptivity spectrum
( ), or reference spectrum, for each compound.
2. Measure the absorbance for the mixture of compounds (see steps 5 and 9 above).
3. Determine the path length for the current measurement of (see steps 5 and 7 above).
4. Select the analytical region — that is a set of frequencies, corresponding to the possible values
of the index i — that are to be used to determine the concentration of each compound, and then
mathematically invert Equation C1 to determine the desired concentrations . (APPENDIX E
addresses the topic of spectral analysis in detail.)
NOTE: The true absorptivity for a single gaseous compound is a characteristic only of the compound’s
structure. However, details of the FTIR system performance and operation affect the observed
absorptivity and its accuracy. Similarly, FTIR measurements provide only an approximation of the true
absorbance spectrum of a mixture of gaseous compounds, though it is, under many circumstances, a
sufficiently accurate approximation. It is the responsibility of the analyst to verify and ensure that the
reference and sample spectra provide a sufficiently accurate quantitative analysis according to Beer’s
law. The following sections of this appendix describe the mathematics of such an analysis. APPENDIX D
addresses the topics of developing and using reference spectral libraries. APPENDIX E provides an
illustrative example of the design and evaluation of the quantitative analytical process.
When a sample gas contains only one absorbing compound, Equation C1 simplifies to
. (Equation C2)
This means that in any analytical region where only one gas absorbs, any one (of the usually many)
absorbance spectrum values can be used to yield the concentration .
The absorbance area for a single-component spectrum in an analytical region (from i = p to i = q)
can be written as
, (Equation C3)
where is the area in the reference spectrum for that compound in the same analytical region. (This is
the basis of the absorption path length calculation described in step 7 and APPENDIX B, section B1.)
Because calculation of the absorbance area involves many points in the sample spectrum, Equation C3
leads to much more accurate results than the single-point calculation represented by Equation C2.
However, when many absorbing compounds are present in a sample, the absorption patterns of the
various compounds often overlap. In this case, there is usually not an isolated analytical region for each
compound in which only that compound absorbs infrared radiation; no single absorbance point and no
simple absorbance area is suitable for determining any of the component concentrations. In this case,
the simplest method for determining concentrations is to use an LSF algorithm.
LSF algorithms use the fact that there is some set of estimated concentrations that minimizes
the “squared error” in Beer’s law for any given analytical region, for any set of compounds. The only
requirement on the chosen analytical region is that it must contain a sufficient number of data points;
since each FTIR spectrum contains many thousands of absorbance values, this requirement is nearly
always fulfilled.
If we use the estimated concentrations (rather that the true concentrations ) in Beer’s law, they
will lead to some estimated error at each value of i (that is, at each point in the analytical region we
choose). Equation C1 becomes:
. (Equation C4)
The estimated squared error (or “variance”) in Beer’s law using the estimated concentrations is:
, (Equation C5)
where represents the number of absorbance values in the analytical region. Reference 13
demonstrates that 1) for > there is a unique set of estimated concentrations that minimizes the
estimated squared error; 2) this set of values is calculable from the known quantities in Equations C1,
C2, C3, C4, and C5; and 3) estimates of the uncertainties in the quantities are also calculable from
the same quantities. The value is generally accepted as a conservative estimate of the statistical
uncertainty in the related estimated LSF concentration (see reference 4).
The estimated LSF error at each point in the analytical region,
, (Equation C6)
is usually stored following the analysis as a “residual spectrum,” which can provide an estimate of the
LODs for other compounds. In addition, the residual spectrum and the concentration uncertainties
can allow the analyst to detect and identify compounds that are actually present in the sample gas but
which were not included in the mathematical analysis. APPENDIX E provides an example illustrative of
these procedures.
The above description illustrates a simple and easily interpreted LSF analysis. More sophisticated
LSF analytical techniques, possibly more accurate for particular types of samples, are described in the
literature (see, for example, reference 14 and references therein).
Equations C1, C2, C3, C4, C5, and C6 demonstrate the importance of quantities (the absorption path
length) and (the absorptivity) in FTIR spectrometry. Accurate determinations of these quantities allow
the use of reference libraries for quantitiative analyses without the necessity of compound-specific
field calibrations. The system tests described in the procedures and in APPENDIX B are intended to
ensure suitability of the system configuration for such calibration transfers, as are the requirements
of obtaining CTS spectra in field. APPENDIX D describes procedures for recording and processing
reference library spectra.
Beer’s law is based on fundamental, well-established physical principles. It holds absolutely for gas
samples that are at thermal equilibrium and dominated by induced (rather than spontaneous) emission
and absorption processes. (See Note below.) However, this is not to say that the absorbance, as measured
by an FTIR spectrometer, follows Beer’s law under all conditions. Deviations from Beer’s law in FTIR spectra
are often observed; however, they indicate inaccuracies in the FTIR spectra, not “violations” of Beer’s law.
For example, deviation from Beer’s law is commonly exhibited by sets of single-component reference
spectra recorded over a range of absorbance levels. At large enough values of the absorbance, the
points of stronger absorption bands of such spectra no longer increase linearly with the CPP ;
this is why Table 2 specifies a maximum ppm · m value for the listed reference spectra. If the assumption
of detector linearity does not hold (see APPENDIX B), similar effects are often present in reference and
sample spectra; this is the basis for the system test described in APPENDIX B, section B6.
Mathematical correction of the concentration estimates derived from Beer’s law can often reduce
the error in sample analyses when either type of non-linear effect occurs. Figure C7 provides an
example of such a correction. The actual and calculated ppm · m values for a set of reference spectra
are plotted against each other, a “piece-wise linear” approximation to the pattern is shown by the
solid line, and the dashed line indicates the ideal linear behavior based on the spectrum of lowest
absorbance. At any ppm · m value indicated in a Beer’s law sample analysis (that is, for any y-axis value
up to approximately 900 ppm · m in the example), reasonably accurate values are available from the
corresponding x-axis position of the solid line. If the analyst employs such corrections, he or she should
also calculate the residual (Equation C6) using the reference spectrum that minimizes the squared error
(Equation C5). FTIR analysts and manufacturers have devised other correction procedures to improve
the sample analysis accuracy in such circumstances, and these are included in some commercially
available software packages.
NOTE: Intense infrared radiation, such as that produced by some lasers, can induce non-equilibrium
populations of a molecule’s rotation-vibration energy states. However, the thermal infrared sources
used in commercially available FTIR spectrometers are much weaker than such lasers. In gases at
atmospheric pressure, the commercially available thermal sources induce transition rates between
quantum energy states that are small, compared to those of the competing collisional relaxation
processes, and cannot induce non-equilibrium energy state populations. In addition, the induced
transition rates related to absorption and emission at mid-infrared frequencies are much larger than
the corresponding spontaneous (natural) emission rate. As a result, all accurate FTIR measurements at
mid-infrared frequencies obey Beer’s law to within the uncertainty related only to the S/N ratio of the
measured spectra.
FTIR analyses rely on the availability of libraries of spectral information on the compounds of interest.
For gases, the measured absorbance of a single component is often completely independent of the
concentrations of other gases comprising the sample, and single-component reference spectra are
usually employed. (For condensed phases, there are often strong interactions between components,
and reference spectral libraries of mixtures are usually required.) Reference libraries may be used for
quantitative measurements of analyte concentrations, for the mathematical removal of spectral features
of interferants in a mixture, or simply for the identification of compounds in a mixture. Clearly, the
required level of quantitative accuracy of the library is different for these three tasks; the highest quality
is required for analyte concentration determinations, while no quantitative information is required for
interferant removal and compound identification.
A useful characteristic of extractive FTIR spectrometry is that it provides accurate field measurements
for many compounds, but requires field calibration procedures involving only two compounds. The
water vapor available in every ambient air sample serves to calibrate the wavenumber (x) axes of FTIR
absorbance spectra; a single CTS gas serves to calibrate their concentration-related (y) axes. When these
two field calibrations are combined with an appropriate reference spectral library describing additional
compounds, the measurement capability of the technique is practically limited only by the quality
and scope of the reference library. If the reference library is carefully prepared and properly employed,
this characteristic can lead to greatly lowered field test costs, since the calibration materials need be
handled only once and only in the laboratory.
In the ideal case, the reference library can be prepared on the field instrument, but this is often
impractical; the reference library is usually prepared on specific laboratory systems and employed in
measurements made with many field systems. Reference libraries recorded on a specific instrument
provide accurate quantitative analyses for spectra recorded on other instruments only when the
configurations of the various systems are compatible. Table D1 lists compatibility considerations for the
reference system configuration parameters.
Except in extremely dry conditions, the IR absorption by water vapor in workspace air is detectable at
even very short absorption path lengths. The wavenumber positions of water vapor indicated by the
reference system allow the analyst to confirm the wavenumber accuracy of sample spectra recorded on
a different FTIR system in the field. Reference spectra used for this purpose are referred to here as the
wavenumber standard spectra.
Every spectrum in a reference library should be associated with a wavenumber standard spectrum
collected under the identical system configuration; even when the reference FTIR system is in a stable
environment, it is recommended that a wavenumber standard spectrum be recorded daily with the
system.
Before recording reference spectra, the analyst should check the most recent wavenumber standard
spectrum against previous wavenumber standard spectra in the library; see APPENDIX B, section B4
for recommended calculations. If the wavenumber reproducibility of the system is poor, the resulting
reference spectra may not be suitable for quantitative use on other field systems.
The accuracy of any FTIR quantitative analysis is limited by the accuracy of the concentrations of the
gas standards used in preparing the reference library. It is therefore important to use gas standards of
the highest available quality. NIST-traceable gravimetric standards are available from many commercial
sources and are quoted to 2% accuracy in many circumstances; EPA has also published guidance on
the preparation of “EPA Protocol Gases” (see reference 15), though these are available for only a limited
number of compounds. Users should obtain documentation from the gas vendors regarding the
analytical techniques applied and the stability limits (concentration and time) of the compounds in the
cylinders. When possible, an alternative analytical method should be used to verify the quoted cylinder
concentrations, especially for compounds that are reactive, corrosive, or have relatively high boiling
points.
If cylinder standards are not available for a compound, the analyst may prepare reference gases
based on gravimetric, barometric, or dynamic methods. In any case, the related mass, pressure, and flow
measurements should be made with NIST-traceable equipment whenever possible. In general, methods
that provide a stream of standard gas (dynamic methods) provide more reliable results than static
methods, since the concentrations of static gases are more prone to change when reactions between
the standards and the sampling system or absorption cell surface can occur.
The accuracy of any FTIR quantitative analysis is limited by the accuracy to which the path length of
the absorption cell used in preparing the reference library is known. For single-pass absorption cells
through which a collimated IR beam is passed, the path length can be physically measured to high
accuracy. For multi-pass cells, the nominal path length can be estimated from the base path length
and the number of passes. However, because focused beams and curved mirrors are required in multi-
pass cells, the path length estimated in this fashion can differ significantly from the actual path length.
Because of this, combinations of physical and spectroscopic measurements with multiple CTS gas
standards (see below) and single-pass absorption cells should be employed to determine the actual
path length of multi-pass absorption cells.
The CTS gas is used to characterize the absorption path lengths of the reference and field FTIR
systems. Ethylene in nitrogen, at concentrations leading to between 100 ppm · m and 300 ppm · m
CPP values for the systems, is recommended; for ethylene, spectra with ppm · m values greater than
300 begin to exhibit non-linear absorbance and must be carefully analyzed (see sections D8 and
D9 below). Standards of this gas with 2% accuracy are readily available and both the EPA and NIST
libraries contain ethylene spectra that can be used to link those libraries to measurements performed
with field instruments. However, almost any other stable compound with appropriate IR absorption
characteristics can be used in developing an independent reference library and for accurate field
measurements.
In the field, CTS spectra must be recorded both before and after sample spectra are acquired using
the same system configuration employed in recording the sample spectra (see steps 7 and 11 above).
When developing reference spectra, the analyst must record CTS spectra at least daily; each reference
spectrum should be associated with at least one CTS spectrum. The analyst must use the same system
configuration employed in recording the reference spectra, with one exception: The integration time
used for the CTS spectra may be less than that used for the reference spectra, if the quality of the
resulting CTS spectra is still sufficient for an accurate determination of the absorption path length. It
is highly recommended that the analyst store all the interferograms from which the CTS absorbance
spectra are generated, including all background interferograms. The interferometric data provide the
most direct method of verifying the FFT calculations and/or adding reference absorbance spectra for
other apodization function choices.
Before recording reference spectra, verify that the requirements specified for system checks, system
configuration parameters, gas standards, absorbance path length determinations, and CTS spectra
described in the pertinent sections of this appendix and Appendix B have been met. Additional checks
of the sample gas pressure and temperature should also be made periodically as the spectra are
recorded.
It is highly recommended that the analyst store all the interferograms from which the reference
absorbance spectra are generated, including all background interferograms. The interferometric data
provide the most direct method of verifying the FFT calculations and/or adding reference absorbance
spectra for other apodization function choices.
Beer’s law (Equation C1) describes the fundamental linearity of the infrared absorbance versus
concentration. However, the resolution (and other) limitations of instruments typically used to generate
field FTIR spectra often lead to non-linear behavior for many compounds, even at low absorbance
levels. The expected accuracy of FTIR-based measurements results for a particular compound can be
achieved only when 1) the reference absorbance is characterized at a sufficient number of CPP values,
up to some maximum value and 2) the sample absorbance associated with any compound represents
a value lower than that of the maximum CCP value represented in the reference library for that
compound.
For each analyte, the analyst should record two reference spectra at each of two concentration values
(that is, at least four spectra) at a single absorption path length; the two concentrations should be
separated by no more than a factor of 10, and a maximum factor of 5 is recommended. After recording
these spectra, the analyst must 1) permanently record the system parameters and the maximum
measured CPP and 2) characterize the linearity of the absorbance across the measured CPP range (see
section D8). It may be necessary to record additional reference spectra for the analyte if either the
absorbance linearity or maximum CPP value proves unsuitable for later field measurements.
The performance of linearity checks on a set of reference spectra is an important aspect of FTIR
spectrometry and is best illustrated by a practical example. The following example is based on a series
of reference measurements performed on the compound tetrafluoroethylene, hereafter referred to as
TFE.
Five absorbance spectra for TFE are shown in Figure D1. These spectra were recorded over the
entire mid-IR wavenumber range, but only that portion of the spectra showing the most intense TFE
absorption bands is included in the figure. Each of the spectra was calculated by mathematically
averaging a number of TFE absorbance spectra recorded with the system configuration parameters
given in Table D2, and a linear baseline correction was applied to each of these spectra over the range
illustrated in Figure D1.
Table D2. System configuration parameters for TFE reference spectra (see Figure D1)
The reference gas samples were generated by diluting with nitrogen the output of a single standard
gas cylinder of TFE. The TFE concentration of the standard cylinder was determined (by the gas vendor)
according to NIST-traceable gravimetric measurements and the flow rates of the cylinder gas were
measured with a NIST-traceable volumetric device.
One technique to check for the linearity of this set is to form a normalized average of these five
spectra and then use it in a linear analysis of the five original spectra. The normalization consists of
dividing each spectrum by its CPP; these values, based on the CTS-derived path length of 10.23 m, are
given with the actual gas concentrations and new spectral filenames in Table D3. Figure D2 illustrates
the normalized spectra, all of which represent spectra of CPP values 1.00 ppm · m. These spectra are
nearly equal to one another, as predicted by Beer’s law. Only the spectrum tfe01n.spc, based on the
original 25.53 ppm spectrum, is easily discernible from the other spectra in the figure.
Concentration-
Concentration Path Length Product Normalized
Original Spectrum (ppm) (ppm · m) Spectrum
tfe01.spc 2.50 25.5 tfe01n.spc
tfe02.spc 6.63 67.8 tfe02n.spc
tfe03.spc 13.3 133 tfe03n.spc
tfe04.spc 20.4 208 tfe04n.spc
tfe05.spc 25.1 257 tfe05n.spc
Table D4 shows the results of a linear least-squares analysis using the average normalized spectrum
as a single reference spectrum (with CPP 1.00 ppm · m) over the analytical range 1050 to 1400 .
The bias in the linear method is clearly evident in the fourth column of the table, which indicates that
the analysis yields concentrations that are slightly too high at the lowest concentration and slightly
too low at the highest concentration. The average of the last column in the table, which represents
the absolute percent difference between the actual and calculated concentrations, the “fractional
calibration uncertainty” (FCU; see reference 3), is 3.2%. This value represents the average error over
the concentration range for these reference spectra to be expected from the linear analysis up to the
maximum CPP value used in the analysis (257 ppm · m). If additional accuracy is required, non-linear
analyses or corrections such as those discussed above (Appendix B, section B6) can be employed.
Table D4. Results of linear least squares analysis for TFE reference spectra
Actual −
Calculated Actual Calculated Absolute
TFE Reference Concentration Concentration Concentration Percent
Spectrum (ppm) (ppm) (ppm) Difference
tfe01.spc 2.69 2.50 0.19 7.7
tfe02.spc 6.64 6.63 0.01 0.2
tfe03.spc 12.8 13.0 −0.2 1.4
tfe04.spc 19.8 20.4 −0.6 2.9
tfe05.spc 24.2 25.1 −0.9 3.7
The estimated LODs are the concentrations — for the given system configuration, reference spectra,
and analytical region — at which each compound’s absorbance area is equal to the RSA. For a specified
system configuration and analytical region, an estimate of the LOD ( ) for a compound can be made
from the absorbance area of a reference spectrum in that region ( , ), the reference spectrum CPP
( , ppm · m), the sample absorption path length ( , m), and the RSA values ( , ) as
. (Equation D1)
A simple trapezoidal approximation of over the analytical region of interest, including baseline
corrections when necessary, is suitable for the LOD estimate. The RSA is formed from the product of the
FTIR system’s typical root-mean-square noise level in absorbance and the width of the analytical region
in (see APPENDIX B, section B2); the RSA estimate should reflect the error incurred in subtracting
known spectral interferences. APPENDIX E, section E1 presents detailed examples of RSA and LOD
calculations.
The analyst may use any of the publicly available reference libraries for quantitative analyses, but it is
strongly recommended that quantitative results for analytes be based only on spectra from libraries
that meet the requirements discussed in this appendix. If the reference library consists of spectra
recorded at a spectral resolution different from that of the field system, the analyst must 1) deresolve
the spectra mathematically to that of the field data and 2) ensure that the library data are suitably linear
over the desired measurement range at the spectral resolution of the field system.
This appendix uses an analysis of TFE and 1,1-difluoroethylene (DFE) in workplace air to illustrate the
calculations of RSA and LODs. The topics of designing, applying and verifying, and correcting a spectral
analysis are also addressed below.
The FTIR system configuration assumed for this set of calculations is given below. These parameters
are consistent with the LOD values presented in Table 2.
The analysis is to be carried out in workspace air, so the only potential spectral interferences are due to
water and carbon dioxide. Figure E1 illustrates example reference spectra of TFE, DFE, and water. (The
water spectrum shown is typical of workspace air samples; carbon dioxide does not absorb in any of the
spectrum. As a result, the limited spectral region shown in Figure E2 is actually of the greatest interest
for an analysis of DFE and TFE in workspace air.
Shown in greater detail in Figure E2 are the three reference spectra and two possible analytical
regions. Analytical region 1, from 1370 to 1295 , includes water bands that interfere with the
TFE absorbance in the sample spectra. Analytical Region 2 (1215 to 1100 ) may be the best
choice for analyzing samples for both TFE and DFE (though the weaker features near 3000 remain
an option for DFE); it avoids the TFE interference with water, but necessarily includes some spectral
overlap between the two analytes. Until the relative TFE, DFE, and water concentrations in the samples
are known, it is unclear which of the two regions will provide better concentration estimates for TFE, so
calculations for both regions are described below.
Estimation of the LODs for TFE and DFE requires a calculation of the RSA in the actual sample spectra
over the selected analytical regions. The RSA represents an estimate, based on the assumed sample
matrix and available reference spectra, of the residual absorbance (see Equation C6) that will be used to
calculate the concentration uncertainties from the actual sample spectra.
The reader should note that the RSA and derived LOD are only estimates. If the actual sample
matrix differs substantially from that of the sample matrix assumed in the performance of these
estimates, the actual concentration uncertainties and LODs may differ substantially from the RSA and
LOD values obtained in the calculations described below. For workplace air samples, water is the only
interfering compound that is certain to appear in any of the analytical regions considered below. A
realistic estimate of the RSA is therefore available by forming the mathematical difference of two water
spectra — of substantially different water concentrations — recorded using the same FTIR system
configuration. For each analyte, this estimate assumes that only water and that analyte will absorb
substantially in the actual sample spectra. Later analyses based on the actual sample matrix could lead
to either lower or higher concentration, uncertainty, and LOD estimates; examples of such analyses are
detailed below.
Figures E3 and E4 illustrate two absorbance spectra recorded using the system configuration
described above. They represent spectra of workspace air at approximately 20% and 40% relative
humidity. The upper trace in each figure is slightly offset for clarity.
Figure E5 shows two residual spectra formed by subtracting scaled versions of the lower-absorbance
spectrum from the higher-absorbance spectrum. The scaling factors were determined in independent
LSF analyses over the two analytical regions. Linear baseline corrections (offset and slope) were
also determined during the analyses, so the mean value of each residual spectrum is zero. (These
calculations were performed by using the ANOVA data analysis tool in Microsoft Excel 97). The RSA
values for the residual spectra are defined in Equation C2 and the related calculations are presented in
Table E1. (The calculations also were performed in the program Excel by applying the function STDEV to
the regression residuals.)
Scaling
Analytical Calculated Factor Residual RMS RSA;
Region Scaling Uncertainty Standard Deviation Equation B2
( ) Factor (1σ) (Absorbance) ( )
1370 to 1295 1.636 0.003 0.00575 0.431
1215 to 1080 1.870 0.008 0.00069 0.093
An estimate of the LODs ( , ppm) for the two compounds — for the specified system configuration
— can be made from the absorbance areas of the reference spectra over these analytical ranges ( ,
), the reference spectra CPPs ( , ppm · m), the sample absorption path length (m), and the RSA
values ( , ) derived above.
The absorbance areas were determined using a standard trapezoidal approximation without baseline
correction. (For these spectra, baseline corrections lead to values that differ from those quoted by less
than 3% and have been neglected below.) Figure E6 shows the spectral features of TFE and DFE used
to calculate the for the reference spectra tfeav05.spc (CPP = 256.7 ppm · m) and dfeav05.spc (CPP =
197.8 ppm · m).
The estimated LODs are the concentrations — for the given system configuration, reference
spectra, and analytical region — at which each compound’s absorbance area is equal to the RSA.
Mathematically, the LOD estimates are given by
. (Equation E1)
Table E2 lists the pertinent quantities and resulting LODs for DFE and TFE in the two analytical
regions considered. The results indicate that the analytical region from 1215 to 1080 is likely to
provide the most reliable TFE concentrations.
Figure E6. TFE and DFE spectra for absorbance area calculations.
Table E2. LODs for TFE and DFE from RSA analysis of water reference spectra
Presented in this section is a description of an LSF analysis for the two compounds TFE and DFE in
ambient air samples. As is always the case before actual measurements are taken, no actual sample data
for mixtures of the compounds in the assumed matrix (ambient air) were available as these analyses
were performed. Accordingly, the following description is based on synthetic spectra generated from
available reference spectra for TFE, DFE, and water.
In order to not overestimate the effectiveness of the FTIR technique, the noise levels in the synthetic
sample spectra were artificially raised and the reference spectra used are not those most likely to
provide an optimal analysis. This is the most prudent course available to an analyst attempting to
predict the performance of the FTIR method under essentially unknown conditions and it is the course
recommended by the authors to analysts who find themselves in this common situation.
Estimates of the LOD for this sample matrix (see section E1) indicate that the analytical region from
1215 to 1080 will likely provide the most reliable TFE and DFE concentrations. The system
configuration parameters used in those estimates are assumed to hold in the following description.
E2A. Generation and Analysis of Synthetic Sample Spectra of TFE and DFE
Table E3 describes the mathematical generation of synthetic samples for the following LSF analysis
description. Each sample spectrum consists of the sum of scaled reference spectra for TFE (tfe4.spc, CPP
= 208.3 ppm · m), DFE (dfeav05.spc, CPP = 197.8 ppm · m) and water (wat02bl.spc). The scaling factors
indicated in Table E3 were used to generate synthetic sample spectra at the listed concentrations and
the assumed absorption path length of 10.0 m.
A spectrum representing random absorbance noise was added to each synthetic spectrum. The
noise spectrum was generated using the function RANDOM within the program GRAMS/32 V4.11
(Galactic, Inc.; see the Array Basic User’s Guide, V4.1, page 316); similar functions are also available in
other spreadsheet software programs. For the noise spectrum R, with discrete absorbance values
for wavenumbers i = p to q, the root mean square (RMS) absorbance noise (see also Equation B2,
which defines the RSA), calculated over the appropriate analytical region(s) according to
, (Equation E2)
was 0.00034 in the region 1438 to 1282 ; this is very close to the value obtained from actual
absorbance spectra (provided by MIDAC Corporation) recorded with the quoted system configuration
in the region 1005 to 932 . The synthetic spectra represent four different mixtures of TFE and
DFE (including one “mixture” that contains neither compound), each at two different moisture levels.
Table E4 lists the results of a LSF analysis (program 4FTIMD V15, Rho Squared; see reference 14) for
TFE, DFE, and water in the analytical region 1215 to 1080 using the reference spectral files
TFE3.spc (CPP = 133.2 ppm · m), dfeav04.spc (CPP = 133.3 ppm · m), and wat01bl.spc. Note that these
are not the same reference spectra that were used in the generation of the synthetic sample spectra
and that the results for water are in arbitrary units. The analysis included the determination of two
baseline correction parameters along with the compound concentrations.
Table E4. Original LSF results for original synthetic sample spectra containing TFE, DFE, and water
*For TFE, excluding samples S001 and S002, the average difference between the synthetic concentration and the LSF result
was 2.24%. The average 3σ uncertainty was 0.31%.
†
For DFE, excluding samples S001 and S002, the average difference between the synthetic concentration and the LSF result
was 2.34%. The average 3σ uncertainty was 0.61%.
‡
For water, excluding samples S001 and S002, the average 3σ uncertainty was 6.38%.
The LSF results for the non-zero TFE and DFE spectra are consistently good, being different from the
synthetic concentrations less than 3% in every case. The concentration uncertainties listed in Table E4
are the statistically determined 3σ values from the LSF analyses. These percent uncertainty parameters
and the visual appearance of the LSF residual spectra are important indicators of the quality of the least
squares analysis and are discussed further in the following section.
The TFE and DFE results for the two synthetic spectra that contain no absorption features of TFE and
DFE (S001 and S002) are of interest and importance. The LSF concentration results are small. (Their
maximum is 0.14 ppm). They are smaller in each case than the LOD estimates of Table E2 and their
corresponding 3σ uncertainties from this LSF analysis are smaller still. Unfortunately, no consensus
exists on the exact mathematical relationship between the LODs calculated as described in this
document and the 3σ concentration uncertainties. This statement is supported by the contents of
section A2 in reference 4 — a consensus document — that prescribes three different methods for
calculating LODs (or, in the terminology of reference 4, “minimum detectable concentrations”). These
three prescriptions include one similar to the LOD method prescribed in this document and one that is
based on the concentration uncertainties derived from spectra similar to S001 and S002. In this limited
example, two of the three prescriptions included in reference 4 provide very different results and they
indicate that the LOD calculation described in this document provides the most conservative estimate
— that is, the highest estimate — of the three LOD prescriptions of reference 4.
Every compound-specific quantitative analytical technique, including FTIR spectrometry, can fail
to provide accurate results when interfering compounds appear in a sample. However, the results
of a mathematical FTIR spectral analysis designed for a particular set of compounds provides clues
to its failure in the presence of interferants. An experienced analyst can often adjust the analysis to
accommodate the interferants and provide accurate results.
To illustrate this important aspect of FTIR spectrometry, a synthetic interference was introduced to
the spectra described in Table E3. Scaled versions of a reference spectrum (hfpav06.spc, 256.6 ppm · m)
of the compound hexafluoropropylene (HFP), representing the compound at two concentrations (5.00
and 10.0 ppm), were added to the original synthetic spectra. The resulting final synthetic sample spectra
are described in Table E5 below. The least squares analysis described above for TFE and DFE only, when
applied to these spectra containing spectral features of HFP, gives the results shown in Table E6 below.
Table E6. Original LSF results for final synthetic sample spectra containing TFE, DFE, water, and HFP
*For TFE, excluding samples S001 and S002, the average 3σ uncertainty was 4.56%.
†
For DFE, excluding samples S001 and S002, the average 3σ uncertainty was 13.1%.
‡
For water, excluding samples S001 and S002, the average 3σ uncertainty was 40.3%.
The average 3σ uncertainties shown in Table E4 (those of the original LSF analysis without HFP
interference) and Table E6 (those of the original LSF analysis with HFP interference) are clearly quite
different. Averaged over the six synthetic spectra containing TFE and DFE in each case, the (absolute)
percent concentration uncertainties for TFE, DFE, and water are greater for the spectra with HFP
interference. For TFE and DFE, the average percent uncertainties of Table E6 are over ten times greater
than those of Table E4. This exercise shows that:
• For sample spectra containing substantial TFE and DFE concentrations, the HFP interference
causes large increases in the TFE and DFE relative absolute concentration uncertainties.
• For sample spectra containing low or zero concentrations TFE and DFE, the relative absolute
uncertainties are NOT a reliable indicator of the HFP interference. However, for such spectra, the
concentration results themselves are often clearly unreliable; note that the DFE concentration
results are negative and large compared to the LOD estimate for this compound. (Note also that
negative concentration results that are small compared to the LOD are statistically valid and do
not necessarily indicate a failure of the analysis.)
If the concentration results show anomalies such as those noted above, the residual spectra from
the analyses will also exhibit anomalous behavior. This is illustrated in Figure E7, which shows the
residual spectra for four analyses. Compared to the residual spectra resulting from analyses of spectra
without the HFP interference, those with HFP interference show large absorbance features that cannot
be modeled by the three reference spectra employed. The analyst needs to identify the interfering
compound before proceeding. This can often be done by visually comparing the suspect residual
spectra to reference spectra of a number of likely interferants, as illustrated in Figure E8.
Figure E8 shows that the positions of three major relative maxima in the residual spectrum (top
trace) correspond well to only one of the nine candidate reference spectra in the lower traces of the
figure. (The nine spectra shown are all of light, partially or fully fluorinated hydrocarbons.) An additional
absorbance band from this single reference spectrum also corresponds to a large peak in both of the
sample spectra (second and third traces from top of the figure).
A closer examination of this reference spectrum — that of HFP, of course — is illustrated in Figure E9.
It clearly shows a close relationship between the shape of the residual spectrum and the absorption
features of HFP. The relationship is not exact because the sample spectrum has had incorrect amounts
of the compounds TFE and DFE subtracted and this distorts the residual spectrum.
Though this identification is tentative, it can be tested by including HFP in the LSF analysis. Table E7
shows the TFE, DFE, and water concentrations resulting from an analysis identical to those described
above except for the addition of HFP as a fourth compound. (As usual, an HFP reference spectrum
different from the one used to add the synthetic interference was employed in the analysis.) To facilitate
comparisons with the preceding tables, the HFP results have been excluded from Table E7; they were in
all cases similar in quality to those obtained for the other compounds.
Table E7. Final LSF results for final synthetic sample spectra containing TFE, DFE, water, and HFP
The results show that inclusion of HFP in the analysis yields results of the original (high) quality
shown in Table E3 for TFE, DFE, and water. The percent relative uncertainties are slightly higher in the
final analysis than in the original analysis; this is to be expected because the same amount of spectral
information is being used to determine an additional parameter in the final analysis. The quality of the
analysis could probably be further improved by extending the analytical region to include the entire
HFP absorbance band shown in Figure E9.
SAMPLING MEASUREMENT
SAMPLER: FILTER (0.8-µm cellulose ester membrane)
TECHNIQUE: HPLC, UV DETECTION
FLOW RATE: 1 - 4 L/min
ANALYTE: hydroquinone
VOL-MIN: 30 L @ 2 mg/m3
-MAX: 180 L EXTRACTION: 1% acetic acid, 10 mL
FIELD INJECTION
TREATMENT: transfer filter immediately to jar with VOLUME: 100 µL
10 mL 1% acetic acid
MOBILE
SHIPMENT: ship sample solutions PHASE: 1% acetic acid in H2O; 1 mL/min
ACCURACY: ± 15.0%
APPLICABILITY: The working range is 0.7 to 8 mg/m3 for a 90-L air sample or 2 to 25 mg/m3 for a 30-L air sample. This method can
be used when significant concentrations of hydroquinone vapor are not present.
INTERFERENCES: None known. Hydroquinone is unstable on the collection media and must be stabilized immediately after
collection by dissolution in 1% acetic acid.
OTHER METHODS: This is Method S57 [2] in a revised format. The method also appears in a NIOSH recommended standard [4].
REAGENTS: EQUIPMENT:
SAMPLING:
SAMPLE PREPARATION:
5. Transfer the sample solution from the ointment jar to a 25-mL volumetric flask.
6. Rinse the ointment jar twice with 5 mL 1% acetic acid. Add the washings to the volumetric flask. Make
up to volume with 1% acetic acid.
7. Calibrate daily with at least six working standards over the range 0.01 to 0.8 mg hydroquinone per
sample.
a. Add known amounts of calibration stock solution to 1% acetic acid in 25-mL volumetric flasks and
dilute to the mark.
b. Analyze together with samples and blanks (steps 9 and 10).
c. Prepare calibration graph (peak area vs. mg hydroquinone).
d. Prepare recovery graph (recovery vs. mg hydroquinone).
8. Check recovery with at least three spiked media blanks per sample set.
a. Add aliquot of calibration stock solution with a microliter syringe directly to a representative filter.
Transfer filter to 60-mL ointment jar, add 10 mL 1% acetic acid, and allow to stand overnight.
b. Prepare and analyze together with working standards (steps 5, 6, 9 and 10).
c. Calculate recovery [(mg recovered - mg blank)/mg added)].
MEASUREMENT:
9. Set HPLC to conditions given on page 5004-1. Inject 100-mL sample aliquot.
10. Measure peak area. Retention time is ca. 5.2 min under these conditions.
CALCULATIONS:
11. Determine the mass, mg (corrected for recovery) of hydroquinone, found in the sample (W) and in the
average media blank (B).
12. Calculate concentration of hydroquinone, C, in the air volume sampled, V (L):
(𝑊𝑊 − 𝐵𝐵)𝑥𝑥103
𝐶𝐶 = , 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚⁄𝑚𝑚3
𝑉𝑉
EVALUATION OF METHOD:
Method S57 [2] was issued on November 26, 1976, and validated over the range 0.8 to 4 mg/m3 at 20 °C
and 762 mm Hg using 90-L air samples [1,5]. Overall precision, 𝐒𝐒�𝐫𝐫𝐫𝐫 , was 0.061 with average recovery 105%,
representing a non-significant bias. The atmospheres were generated by atomization of an aqueous
solution of hydroquinone into dry air; aerosol concentrations were independently verified by direct UV
spectrophotometry on filter samples. Average collection efficiency was 100% at 4 mg/m3. No loss of
hydroquinone was seen from filters spiked with 720 µg hydroquinone, and then used to sample 180 L
clean air, indicating the hydroquinone vapor pressure is not significant at these conditions. At elevated
temperature, however, contribution from vapor may be significant. Storage studies were conducted by
storing exposed filters in 1% acetic acid at ambient temperature for seven days. No change in
hydroquinone concentration was seen.
REFERENCES:
[1] NIOSH [1976]. Backup data report No. S57. In: Ten NIOSH analytical methods, set 2. Unpublished.
Available as Order No. PB 271-464, from NTIS, Springfield, VA.
[2] NIOSH [1977]. Hydroquinone: Method S57. In: Taylor DG, ed. NIOSH manual of analytical methods.
2nd ed. (vol 2) Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Center for Disease
Control, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, DHEW (NIOSH) Publication No. 77-
157-B.
[3] A.D. Little, Inc. [1983]. User check. NIOSH Sequence #4121Q. Unpublished.
[5] NIOSH [1980]. NIOSH research report-development and validation of methods for sampling and
analysis of workplace toxic substances. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services, Centers for Disease Control, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, DHHS
(NIOSH) Publication No. 80-133.
Jerome Smith, Ph.D., NIOSH; S57 originally validated under NIOSH Contract 210-76-0123.
Disclaimer: Mention of any company or product does not constitute endorsement by NIOSH. In addition,
citations to websites external to NIOSH do not constitute NIOSH endorsement of the sponsoring
organizations or their programs or products. Furthermore, NIOSH is not responsible for the content of
these websites. All web addresses referenced in this document were accessible as of the publication date.
SAMPLING MEASUREMENT
SAMPLER: FILTER (1-µm PTFE membrane) TECHNIQUE: HPLC, UV DETECTION
BLANKS: 2 to 10 field blanks per set COLUMN: C18 (30 cm x 3.9-mm-ID stainless steel);
ambient temperature
BULK SAMPLES: desirable; 1 to 5g
DETECTOR: UV @ 254 nm, 1-cm cell
ACCURACY
CALIBRATION: standard solutions of Thiram in acetonitrile
RANGE
STUDIED: 3 to 12 mg/m3 [1] (240-L samples) RANGE: 0.1 to 3 mg per sample [1]
ACCURACY: ± 10.67%
APPLICABILITY: The working range is 0.5 to 15 mg/m3 for a 200-L air sample. NIOSH researchers have used this method at
facilities that use Thiram as an insecticide.
OTHER METHODS: This is Method S256 [2] in a revised format. An earlier spectrophotometric method, P&CAM 228 [3], has not
been revised because of excessive analytical variability [4].
REAGENTS: EQUIPMENT:
SPECIAL PRECAUTIONS: Acetonitrile is toxic and flammable; work with it only in a hood. Thiram is an
irritant of skin and mucous membranes, a skin sensitizer, and suspected teratogen [5].
SAMPLING:
SAMPLE PREPARATION:
4. Remove filter from cassette with tweezers and place in 20-mL vial.
5. Add 10 mL acetonitrile. Cap the vial.
6. Rinse the inside top of cassette with 10 mL acetonitrile into a 20-mL vial. Cap the vial.
7. Agitate samples during the 30-min desorption period.
8. Calibrate daily with at least six working standards over the range 0.005 to 3 mg Thiram per sample.
a. Add known amounts of calibration stock solution to acetonitrile in 10-mL volumetric flasks and
dilute to the mark.
b. Analyze together with samples and blanks (steps 9 and 10).
c. Prepare calibration graph (peak area vs. mg Thiram).
MEASUREMENT:
9. Set liquid chromatograph to conditions on page 5005-1. Inject 10-µL sample aliquot. Rinse and dry
syringe between injections.
10. Measure peak area.
CALCULATIONS:
11. Read the mass, mg, of Thiram found in the sample filter (Wf) and top rinse (Wt) and in the average
media blank (B) from calibration graph.
12. Calculate the concentration of Thiram, C (mg/m3), in the air volume sampled, V (L):
Method S256 was issued on June 8, 1979 [2], and validated by collecting 18 samples (six each at 0.5, 1 and
2 times the OSHA standard) from dynamically-generated test atmospheres using Thiram 65 (65% Thiram;
Mayer Chemical Co.), as well as a set of six samples which was stored at room temperature for seven days
to establish stability [1,4]. The stored sample results were within 2.1% of samples analyzed after one day,
indicating adequate storage stability for seven days. Eighteen more samples were spiked directly (six each
at 0.5, 1 and 2 times the OSHA standard). The pooled relative standard deviation for these three sets of
samples was found to be 0.012. The average recovery for all three levels was 99.8%; therefore, there is no
bias for this method. The pooled relative standard deviation for the three sets of samples collected from
test atmospheres was 0.022. Test atmospheres at 12 mg/m3 Thiram were sampled with PTFE filters
followed by bubblers containing acetonitrile; no detectable Thiram (LOD = 0.005 mg) was found in the
bubblers indicating that vapor pressure of Thiram was insignificant.
REFERENCES:
[1] Stanford Research Institute [1979]. Backup Data Report: Method S256. Menlo Park, CA: Stanford
Research Institute. NIOSH contract 210-76-0123. Available as order no. PB-81-244634 from NTIS.
[2] NIOSH [1979]. Thiram in air: Method S256. In: Taylor DG, ed. NIOSH manual of analytical methods.
2nd. ed. (Vol 5). Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Center for
Disease Control, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, DHEW (NIOSH) 79-141.
[3] NIOSH [1976]. Thiram in air: Method P&CAM 228. In: Taylor DG, ed. NIOSH manual of analytical
methods. 2nd ed. (Vol 1). Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Center
for Disease Control, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, DHEW (NIOSH) Publication
No. 77-157-A.
[4] IIT Research Institute [1976]. Failure Report: Method S256. Chicago, IL: IIT Research Institute. NIOSH
contract no. 99-74-45. Unpublished.
[5] NIOSH [1978] NIOSH criteria for a recommended standard: occupational exposure during
manufacture and formulation of pesticides, Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health, Education,
and Welfare, Center for Disease Control, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health,
DHEW (NIOSH) Publication No. 78-174.
[6] NIOSH [1980]. NIOSH research report – development and validation of methods for sampling and
analysis of workplace toxic substances. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services, Centers for Disease Control, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, DHHS
(NIOSH) Publication No. 80-133.
Yvonne T. Gagnon, NIOSH; S256 originally validated under NIOSH Contract 210-76-0123.
Disclaimer: Mention of any company or product does not constitute endorsement by NIOSH. In addition,
citations to websites external to NIOSH do not constitute NIOSH endorsement of the sponsoring
organizations or their programs or products. Furthermore, NIOSH is not responsible for the content of
these websites. All web addresses referenced in this document were accessible as of the publication date.
SAMPLING MEASUREMENT
SAMPLER: FILTER (1-mm PTFE membrane) TECHNIQUE: HPLC; UV DETECTION
SAMPLE MOBILE
STABILITY: at least 7 days @ 25 °C in dark PHASE: 60% methanol/40% water, 2 mL/min
BLANKS: 2 to 10 field blanks per set DETECTOR: UV @ 290 nm; 0.1A full-scale; 1-cm cell
ACCURACY: ± 13.5%
APPLICABILITY: The working range is 0.4 to 10 mg/m3 for a 100-L air sample and the method is applicable to commercial
formulations.
INTERFERENCES: None known. Rotenone, a naturally occurring insecticide, is adequately separated by HPLC from other
compounds (e.g., sumatrol, α-toxicarol, deguelin, elliptone, malaccol, and tephrosin [3]) present in commercial cube root
extracts [4]. Rotenone is sensitive to photodecomposition.
REAGENTS: EQUIPMENT:
SAMPLING:
SAMPLE PREPARATION:
7. Prepare at least six working standards daily in the range 0.01 to 1 mg Rotenone per sample.
a. Add known amounts of calibration stock solution to acetonitrile in 10-mL volumetric flasks and
dilute to the mark.
b. Analyze together with samples and blanks (steps 9 and 10).
c. Prepare calibration graph (peak area vs. mg Rotenone).
8. Check recovery (R) with at least three spiked media blanks per sample set in the calibration range
(step 7).
a. Add aliquots of recovery stock solution to blank filters with a microliter syringe. Air dry.
b. Analyze together with working standards (steps 4 through 6, 9 and 10).
c. Calculate recovery [(mg recovered - mg blank)/mg added].
d. Prepare recovery graph (R vs. mg Rotenone).
MEASUREMENT:
9. Set HPLC system according to manufacturer's recommendations and to conditions given on page
5007-1. Inject 10-µL sample.
NOTE: If peak area is above linear range of calibration graph, dilute, reanalyze, and apply
appropriate dilution factor in calculations.
10. Measure peak area.
CALCULATIONS:
11. Read the mass, mg (corrected for recovery) of Rotenone found on the filter (W) and average media
blank (B) from the calibration graph.
12. Calculate the concentration, C (mg/m3), of Rotenone in the air volume sampled, V (L):
(𝑊𝑊 − 𝐵𝐵)𝑥𝑥103
𝐶𝐶 = , 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚⁄𝑚𝑚3
𝑉𝑉
EVALUATION OF METHOD:
Method S300 [2] was issued on May 11, 1979, and validated over the range 1.16 to 11.1 mg/m3 at 25°C and
760 mm, using 100-L samples [1, 5]. Overall precision, ŜrT, was 0.079 with average recovery 100.4%,
representing a non-significant bias. The concentration of Rotenone (generated by Wright dust feeder
using Ortho Rotenone Dust [1%; Chevron Chemical Co.] enriched to 10% Rotenone with analytical grade
Rotenone [Aldrich Chemical Co.]) was independently verified by collection in dioxane and HPLC analysis.
Recovery was 0.98 in the range 250 to 1000 µg Rotenone per sample. Collection efficiency of the PTFE filter
was found to be greater than 99% and no detectable Rotenone (LOD = 4 µg) was found on Chromosorb
102 tubes placed behind the PTFE filters at 11.8 mg/m3. No loss was seen from spiked filters stored in the
dark at room temperature for seven days.
REFERENCES:
[1] NIOSH. Backup data report. Unpublished. Available as Order No. PB 82-114729 from NTIS,
Springfield, VA.
[2] NIOSH [1979]. Rotenone: Method S300. In: Taylor DG, ed. NIOSH manual of analytical methods. 2nd
ed. (Vol 5). Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Center for Disease
Control, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, DHEW (NIOSH) Publication No. 79-
141.
[3] Gunther FA, Blinn RG [1975]. Analysis of insecticides and acaricides. NY: Interscience, pp 419-420.
[4] Bushway RJ, Engdahl BS, Colvin BM, Hanks AR [1975]. Separation of rotenoids and the determination
of rotenone in pesticide formulations by high-performance liquid chromatography. J Assoc Off Anal
Chem 58(5):965-970.
[5] NIOSH [1980]. NIOSH research report-development and validation of methods for sampling and
analysis of workplace toxic substances. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services, Centers for Disease Control, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, DHHS
(NIOSH) Publication No. 80-133.
Jerome Smith, Ph.D., NIOSH; S300 originally validated under NIOSH Contract 210-76-0123.
Disclaimer: Mention of any company or product does not constitute endorsement by NIOSH. In addition,
citations to websites external to NIOSH do not constitute NIOSH endorsement of the sponsoring
organizations or their programs or products. Furthermore, NIOSH is not responsible for the content of
these websites. All web addresses referenced in this document were accessible as of the publication date.
SYNONYMS: Active constituents include pyrethrin I and II, jasmolin I and II, and cinerin I and II.
SAMPLING MEASUREMENT
SAMPLER: FILTER (glass fiber, 37 mm) TECHNIQUE: HPLC, UV DETECTION
BLANKS: 2 to 10 field blanks per set MOBILE PHASE: 85% acetonitrile/15% water, isocratic,
1.0 mL/min, room temperature, 2000
ACCURACY kPa (400 psi)
RANGE
STUDIED: 1.4 to 8.5 mg/m3 [1] (132-L samples) DETECTOR: UV absorption @ 225 nm
APPLICABILITY: The working range is 0.5 to 10 mg/m3 for a 200-L air sample.
INTERFERENCES: Specific interferences have not been studied. Mass spectrometry or gas-liquid chromatography with electron-
capture detection may be needed for confirmation [1].
OTHER METHODS: This method is S298 [2] in a revised format. For bulk samples, gas-liquid chromatography with electron-capture
detection has been recommended [3]. A modified HPLC method (C8 column, programmed methanol/water or acetonitrile,
isocratic) has been used [4].
REAGENTS: EQUIPMENT:
1. Pyrethrum*, analytical standard solution 1. Sampler: 37-mm glass fiber filter and
(commercially available). cellulose backup pad in filter holder held
NOTE: Store away from direct light. Active together with tape or shrinkable band.
constituents of pyrethrum oxidize in air and 2. Personal sampling pump, 1 to 4 L/min, with
photo- decompose. flexible connecting tubing.
2. Acetonitrile, HPLC grade.* 3. High pressure liquid chromatograph with
3. Water, HPLC grade. UV absorption detector at 225 nm,
4. Isopropanol. integrator and column (page 5008-1).
5. Calibration stock solution,* 60 mg/mL, in 4. Ointment jars, 2-oz, squat form, with
isopropanol. polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE)-lined screw
caps.
*See SPECIAL PRECAUTIONS. 5. Tweezers.
6. Pipet, TD, 10-mL, with pipet bulb.
7. Volumetric flasks, 10-mL.
8. Syringe, 10-mL, with syringe filter.
9. Syringes or pipets, 5- to 100-µL.
SAMPLING:
SAMPLE PREPARATION:
6. Calibrate daily with at least six working standards over the range 0.01 to 1.8 mg pyrethrum per sample.
a. Add known amounts of calibration stock solution, or a dilution thereof, to acetonitrile in 10-mL
volumetric flasks and dilute to the mark.
b. Analyze together with the samples and blanks (steps 9, 10 through 11).
c. Prepare calibration graph (peak area vs. mg pyrethrum/10 mL).
7. Determine recovery (R) at least once for each batch of filters used for sampling in the range of the
samples. Prepare three filters at each of five levels plus three media blanks.
a. Deposit a known amount of calibration stock solution, or a dilution thereof, onto the filters. Allow
filters to air-dry.
b. Store samples overnight in ointment jars.
c. Prepare (steps 4 and 5) and analyze together with working standards (steps 9 through 11).
d. Prepare a graph of R vs. mg pyrethrum recovered.
8. Analyze three quality control blind spikes and three analyst spikes to ensure that the calibration graph
and R graph are in control.
MEASUREMENT:
9. Set HPLC system according to manufacturer's recommendations and to conditions on page 5008-1.
10. Inject sample aliquot using syringe, fixed volume sample loop, or autosampler.
11. Measure peak area.
NOTE: Pyrethrum is a mixture of at least six components which elute in two major peaks
(tr = 5 to 7 min under these conditions). The minor peaks have been shown by mass spectrometry not
to be pyrethrums. The components may be separated by gas chromatography [1,4].
CALCULATIONS:
12. Determine the mass, mg (corrected for R) of pyrethrum found in the sample (W) and in the average
media blank (B) from the calibration graph.
13. Calculate concentration, C, of pyrethrum in the air volume sampled, V (L):
(𝑊𝑊 − 𝐵𝐵)𝑥𝑥103
𝐶𝐶 = , 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚/𝑚𝑚3
𝑉𝑉
EVALUATION OF METHOD:
Method S298 [2] was issued on August 3, 1979, and validated over the range 1.4 to 8.5 mg/m3 using
atmospheres generated from Premium Pyrocide 175 (McLaughlin Gormley King Co.) [1]. Standards and
collected filter samples were analyzed by GC/MS. Lab testing was done with spiked filters and
atmospheres dynamically generated by atomization of a hydrocarbon solution; verified by PTFE
filter/isooctane bubbler analyzed by gas chromatography with electron capture detector (absence of
pyrethrum in the bubbler was established by mass spectrometry). Samples containing 0.7 mg pyrethrum
collected from a test atmosphere were stable for seven days at ambient conditions (average recovery =
98.2%). Collection efficiency equal 99.7% for 120-L samples collected at 1 L/min at 9 mg/m3. Precision and
accuracy are given on page 5008-1.
REFERENCES:
[2] NIOSH [1980]. Pyrethrum: Method S298. In: Taylor DG, ed. NIOSH manual of analytical methods. 2nd
ed. (Vol 6) Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease
Control, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 80-125.
[3] Association of Official Analytical Chemists (AOAC) [1982]. Changes in official methods of analysis. J
Assoc Off Anal Chem 65: 455-456.
[4] Hultquist A, Izumi RM [1982]. NIOSH sequence reports 3481-J and 4151-J. Salt Lake City, UT: Utah
Biomedical Test Laboratory. Unpublished.
[5] NIOSH [1981]. Occupational health guidelines for chemical hazards. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department
of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control, National Institute for Occupational Safety
and Health, DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 81-123.
Disclaimer: Mention of any company or product does not constitute endorsement by NIOSH. In
addition, citations to websites external to NIOSH do not constitute NIOSH endorsement of the
sponsoring organizations or their programs or products. Furthermore, NIOSH is not responsible for the
content of these websites. All web addresses referenced in this document were accessible as of the
publication date.
OSHA: 5 mg/m3 PROPERTIES: solid; MP 103 °C; d 1.334 g/mL @ 25 °C; VP not
NIOSH: 5 mg/m3 significant; auto ignition temperature 80 °C
SAMPLING MEASUREMENT
SAMPLER: FILTER (0.8-μm cellulose ester membrane) TECHNIQUE: HPLC, UV DETECTION
OTHER METHODS: This is Method S253 [3] in a revised format. A non-specific gravimetric method and a non-specific colorimetric
method appear in the criteria document [4].
REAGENTS: EQUIPMENT:
1. Benzoyl peroxide, 99% pure.* 1. Sampler: cellulose ester membrane filter, 0.8-
2. Ethyl ether, purified, without stabilizer.* µm pore size, 37-mm diameter, with backup
3. Methanol, distilled in glass. pad in cassette filter holder.
4. Water, deionized and distilled. 2. Personal sampling pump, 1 to 3 L/min, with
5. Calibration stock solution, 10 mg/mL. flexible connecting tubing.
Dissolve 250 mg benzoyl peroxide in ethyl 3. Refrigerant, water solution, sealed, refreezable,
ether and dilute to 25 mL. Stable at least one reusable.
week at 4 °C. 4. Vials, 20-mL, polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE)-
lined caps.
*See SPECIAL PRECAUTIONS. 5. High performance liquid chromatograph, 254-
nm UV detector, sample injection valve with a
20-µL external sample loop, syringe filter,
integrator and column (page 5009-1) or
autosampler.
6. Tweezers.
7. Microliter syringes, 10- and 100-µL.
8. Volumetric flasks, 10- and 25-mL, assorted
sizes.
9. Pipet, 10-mL, with pipet bulb.
SPECIAL PRECAUTIONS: Benzoyl peroxide is a flammable solid and may explode when heated; it will
attack some plastics, rubber, and coatings [4]. Ethyl ether is highly flammable and forms explosive
peroxides on exposure to air.
SAMPLING:
SAMPLE PREPARATION:
7. Calibrate daily with at least six working standards covering the range 0.01 to 1.7 mg per sample.
a. Add calibration stock solution with a microliter syringe to ethyl ether in a 10-mL volumetric flask
and dilute to the mark.
b. Analyze together with samples, blanks and control samples (steps 10 through 12).
c. Prepare calibration graph of peak area vs. mass (mg) of benzoyl peroxide per sample.
8. Determine recovery of benzoyl peroxide from filters at least once for each lot of samplers in the
calibration range (step 7). Prepare three filters at each of five levels plus media blanks.
a. Add aliquot of calibration stock solution with a microliter syringe directly onto a media blank filter
in a vial.
b. Prepare and analyze together with working standards (steps 5, 6 and 10 through 12).
c. Prepare a graph of recovery vs. mg benzoyl peroxide recovered.
9. Analyze three quality control blind spikes and three analyst spikes to ensure that the calibration
graph and recovery graph are in control.
MEASUREMENT:
10. Set high performance liquid chromatograph according to manufacturer's recommendations and to
conditions given on page 5009-1.
11. Flush sample loop thoroughly with sample (0.1 mL) and inject sample or autosampler.
12. Measure peak area.
CALCULATIONS:
13. Read mass, mg (corrected for recovery), of benzoyl peroxide found on sample filters, W (mg), and on
average blank filters, B (mg), from calibration graph.
14. Calculate concentration, C (mg/m3), of benzoyl peroxide in the air volume sampled, V (L):
(𝑊𝑊 − 𝐵𝐵)𝑥𝑥103
𝐶𝐶 = , 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚⁄𝑚𝑚3
𝑉𝑉
EVALUATION OF METHOD
Method S253 was issued on January 21, 1977 [3], and validated over the range 3.1 to 19.1 mg/m3 at 26 °C
and 764 mm Hg, using 90-L samples [1, 5]. The collection efficiency of the filter was determined to be 1.00,
since no benzoyl peroxide was detected on a backup filter mounted directly behind the front filter.
Storage stability studies on the filters held in the filter cassettes indicated a 9.3% decrease in the amount of
benzoyl peroxide recovered after one week. Benzoyl peroxide was stable in ethyl ether at room
temperature for at least one week. Overall precision, � 𝑺𝑺𝒓𝒓𝒓𝒓 , was 0.060. Recovery was 0.97 in the range 0.225
to 0.900 mg per sample for 18 spiked samples.
REFERENCES:
[1] NIOSH [1976]. Backup data report: S253 for Benzoyl Peroxide. In: Ten NIOSH analytical methods (Set
2). Available as order No. PB 271-464 from NTIS. Unpublished.
[2] Wade R [1980]. Memorandum: UBTL analytical laboratory report for benzoyl peroxide, Sequence
#2182-J. Salt Lake City, UT: Utah Biomedical Test Laboratory. Unpublished.
[3] NIOSH [1978]. Benzoyl peroxide: Method S253. In: NIOSH manual of analytical methods. 2nd ed. (Vol
4). Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Center for Disease Control,
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, DHEW (NIOSH) Publication No. 78-175.
[4] NIOSH [1977]. NIOSH criteria for a recommended standard: occupational exposure to benzoyl
peroxide. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Center for Disease
Control, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, DHEW (NIOSH) Publication No. 77-
166.
[5] Gunderson EC, Anderson CC [1980]. Development and validation of methods for sampling and
analysis of workplace toxic substances. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services, Centers for Disease Control, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, DHHS
(NIOSH) Publication No. 80-133.
Disclaimer: Mention of any company or product does not constitute endorsement by NIOSH. In
addition, citations to websites external to NIOSH do not constitute NIOSH endorsement of the
sponsoring organizations or their programs or products. Furthermore, NIOSH is not responsible for the
content of these websites. All web addresses referenced in this document were accessible as of the
publication date.
SYNONYMS: strychnidin-10-one
SAMPLING MEASUREMENT
SAMPLER: FILTER (glass fiber, 37-mm) TECHNIQUE: HPLC, UV DETECTION
APPLICABILITY: The working range is 0.05 to 10 mg/m3 for a 200-L air sample.
REAGENTS: EQUIPMENT:
SPECIAL PRECAUTIONS: Strychnine is a potent convulsant. Use impervious clothing, gloves and face
shields when handling it [3,4]. Avoid skin contact with acetic acid as it may cause severe burns.
SAMPLING:
SAMPLE PREPARATION:
6. Calibrate daily with at least six working standards over the range 1 to 70 µg strychnine per sample
(0.2 to 14 µg/mL).
a. Add known amounts of calibration stock solution to mobile phase in 10-mL volumetric flasks and
dilute to the mark.
b. Analyze together with the samples and blanks (steps 9, 10, and 11).
c. Prepare calibration graph (peak area vs. µg strychnine).
7. Determine recovery (R) at least once for each lot of filters used for sampling in the calibration range.
Prepare three filters at each of five levels plus three media blanks.
a. Deposit a known amount of calibration stock solution onto the filter. Allow filters to air dry.
b. Store samples overnight in ointment jars.
c. Prepare for analysis (steps 3 through 5) and analyze together with working standards (steps 9
through 11).
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods (NMAM), Fifth Edition
STRYCHNINE: METHOD 5016, Issue 3, dated 26 February 2016 - Page 3 of 4
MEASUREMENT:
9. Set HPLC system according to manufacturer's recommendations and to the conditions given on page
5016-1.
10. Inject sample aliquot using syringe, fixed volume sample loop or autosampler.
11. Measure peak area.
CALCULATIONS:
12. Determine the mass, µg (corrected for R) of strychnine found in the sample (W) and in the average
media blank (B) from the calibration graph.
13. Calculate concentration, C, of strychnine in the air volume sampled, V (L):
𝑊𝑊 − 𝐵𝐵
𝐶𝐶 = , 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚⁄𝑚𝑚3
𝑉𝑉
EVALUATION OF METHOD:
Method S302 was issued on February 17, 1978 [2], and evaluated over the range 0.073 to 0.34 mg/m3 using
�𝒓𝒓𝒓𝒓 , was 0.059 with an average recovery of 100.9%, representing a
a 180-L sample [1,5]. Overall precision, 𝑺𝑺
non-significant bias. The concentration of strychnine was independently verified by analysis of filter
samples with a UV spectrophotometer at 254 nm. Recovery was 0.98 in the range of 13.5 to 54.1 µg per
sample. Collection efficiency was determined to be at least 98.8% for 180-L sample at a concentration to
be 0.15 µg/mL. Average recovery for one-day old samples was 105% vs. 98.8% for seven-day old samples
stored at room temperature. Since the filter samples for the recovery and stability studies were prepared
with strychnine acetate rather than the free base, the recovery of the free base and the stability of such
samples is unknown.
REFERENCES:
[1] NIOSH [1976]. Back-up data report for Strychnine. In: Ten NIOSH analytical methods. Available as
order No. PB288-629 from NTIS. Unpublished.
[2] NIOSH [1979] Strychnine: Method S302. In: Taylor, DG ed. 2nd ed. (Vol 5). NIOSH manual of
analytical methods. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Center for
Disease Control, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, DHEW (NIOSH) Publication
No. 79-141.
[3] NIOSH [1978]. NOSH criteria for a recommended standard: occupational exposure during the
manufacture and formulation of pesticides. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health, Education,
and Welfare, Center for Disease Control, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health,
DHEW (NIOSH) Publication No. 78-174. Available as order No. PB81-227001 from NTIS.
[4] NIOSH [1981]. Occupational health guidelines for chemical hazards. Cincinnati, OH: U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control, National Institute for
Occupational Safety and Health, DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 81-123.
[5] NIOSH [1980]. Development and validation of methods for sampling and analysis of workplace and
toxic substances. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for
Disease Control, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, DHHS (NIOSH) Publication
No. 80-133.
Disclaimer: Mention of any company or product does not constitute endorsement by NIOSH. In addition,
citations to websites external to NIOSH do not constitute NIOSH endorsement of the sponsoring
organizations or their programs or products. Furthermore, NIOSH is not responsible for the content of
these websites. All web addresses referenced in this document were accessible as of the publication date.
SYNONYMS: (1) Methylarsonic acid: methanearsonic acid. (2) Dimethylarsinic acid: cacodylic acid; hydroxydimethyl arsine
oxide. (3) p-Aminophenyl arsonic acid: p-arsanilic acid; atoxylic acid.
SAMPLING MEASUREMENT
TECHNIQUE: ION CHROMATOGRAPHY/HYDRIDE
SAMPLER: FILTER
ATOMIC ABSORPTION
(1-µm PTFE)
ANALYTE: anions (IC); AsH3 (AAS)
FLOW RATE: 1 - 3 L/min
EXTRACTION: borate-carbonate buffer, 25 mL
VOL-MIN: 50 L @ 0.1 mg/m3
-MAX: 1000 L
ION CHROMATOGRAPHY:
INJECTION
SHIPMENT: routine
LOOP VOLUME: 0.8 mL
SAMPLE
COLUMNS: two, 3 x 150-mm anion
STABILITY: stable
ELUENT: borate-carbonate buffer; 2.5
BLANKS: 2 to 10 field blanks per set
mL/min; 3450 kPa (500 psi);
ambient temperature
AAS:
ACCURACY
QUARTZ
RANGE FURNANCE: 800 °C
STUDIED: 0.005 to 0.2 mg/m3 [1,2]
WAVELENGTH: 193.7 nm (no D2)
BIAS: none significant
CALIBRATION: organoarsenicals in water
OVERALL
�𝒓𝒓𝒓𝒓 ): 0.047 @ 0.02 mg/m3 [1];
PRECISION (𝑺𝑺 RANGE: 0.5 to 2 µg As per sample
0.14 @ 0.005 mg/m3 [1]
ESTIMATED LOD: 0.2 µg As per sample [1]
ACCURACY: ± 20% @ 0.02 mg/m3
�𝒓𝒓 ):
PRECISION (𝑺𝑺 Table 1
APPLICABILITY: The working range is 0.005 to 10 mg/m3 (as As) for a 100-L air sample. The method is designed to quantitate
particulate organo-arsenic compounds.
INTERFERENCES: Inorganic arsenic (III) co-elutes with dimethylarsenic acid using Eluent A but the two may be separated with
Eluent B. Other ions at high concentrations in the sample can interfere with the chromatographic separation of the arsenicals.
As2O3 is not efficiently sampled by this sampler; for quantitation of that compound see Method 7901.
OTHER METHODS: This is P&CAM 320 in revised format [2]. Method 7200 measures total As by hydride/AAS. Method 7901
measures As2O3, which can exist as a vapor and aerosol.
REAGENTS: EQUIPMENT:
*See SPECIAL PRECAUTIONS. **Soak all glassware in mild detergent, rinse with
deionized water, 10% HNO3, and deionized water.
SPECIAL PRECAUTIONS: Wear gloves, lab coat, and safety glasses while handling chemicals. All work
should be performed in a fume hood. Potassium persulfate is a powerful oxidizing agent. Arsine gas is
extremely toxic and can be fatal. The arsenic compounds used in the stock standards are poisonous [3].
SAMPLING:
SAMPLE PREPARATION:
7. Calibrate daily with at least six working standards over the range 0.2 to 2 µg As per sample (0.008 to 0.08
µg As/mL).
a. Add known amounts of calibration stock solution to Eluent A in 10-mL volumetric flasks and dilute
to the mark.
b. Analyze together with the samples and blanks (steps 8 through 12).
c. Prepare calibration graph for each arsenic species (peak area or height vs. µg As).
MEASUREMENT:
8. Set the ion chromatograph to the conditions given on page 5022-1. Allow the columns to equilibrate
with eluent >1 h before connecting effluent to the arsine generator.
NOTE: Eluent A allows the separation of methylarsonic acid (retention time (tr) = 2 min),
p-aminophenylarsonic acid (tr = 4 min), and As(V) (tr = 7.5 min); As(III) and dimethylarsenic acid
(tr = 1 min) are not resolved. If a signal is obtained at the approximate retention time of the
latter two compounds, or if both compounds are known to be present in the sample, perform a
second analysis using Eluent B (lower ionic strength). If either of the two compounds is known
not to be present, Eluent A will effectively determine the remaining compounds. With Eluent B
the other species have very long retention times and will accumulate on the column, tying up
active resin sites. Therefore, flush the column with Eluent A after each 10 to 15 samples and
reequilibrate with Eluent B before further analysis.
9. Connect the IC effluent to the arsine generator into which the following flow:
Saturated K2S2O8 solution: 0.8 mL/min
NaBH4 solution: 2.0 mL/min
Ar carrier gas: 300 mL/min
NOTE: The gaseous arsines formed in the arsine generator are first separated from liquid solution using
the gas-liquid separator (Figure 2) and then transferred by argon carrier gas through PTFE
tubing to the heated quartz furnace.
10. Set the AAS according to manufacturer's recommendations and to the conditions given on page
5022-1. Align the quartz cell in the optical path. Heat the quartz cell gradually to 800 °C using a
variable transformer and thermocouple.
11. Using a syringe, inject a sample aliquot (ca. 2 to 3 mL) into the chromatograph, flushing the injection
loop to avoid contamination from the previous injection. Rinse the syringe with deionized water and
dry it between samples, or use disposable syringes.
12. Identify the component peaks. Measure peak height or area.
Calculations
13. From the calibration graphs, calculate the amount (µg) of arsenic for each species in the sample (W)
and in the average media blank (B).
14. Calculate the arsenic concentrations, C, (mg/m3) in the air volume sampled, V (L):
𝑊𝑊 − 𝐵𝐵
𝐶𝐶 = , 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚/𝑚𝑚3
𝑉𝑉
EVALUATION OF METHOD:
The measurement precision obtained under the conditions recommended in this procedure is presented in
Table 1 [1]. The overall precision of the method was tested using filters loaded in a dynamic aerosol
generation/sampling system with particulates of the three organoarsenical compounds. The
concentration levels tested for each species were 5, 10, and 20 µg As/m3 of air. Depending on the
concentration and species, the relative standard deviation ranged from 14.4% at the lowest level to 4.7% at
the highest level.
The collection efficiency of the method for organoarsenicals in the range of 5 to 20 µg/m3 using a 300-L
sample was found to be >99%. The collection efficiency of the method for inorganic arsenic was not
determined.
The accuracy of the overall method was determined by analyzing additional aerosol samples from each set
using Neutron Activation (NAA) and X-ray Fluorescence (XRF) analyses. Since NAA and XRF techniques
provide only the total elemental arsenic, the total arsenic obtained from the IC-AAS analysis was used for
comparison. The accuracy ranged from 90 to 120% of the values obtained by NAA and XRF.
REFERENCES:
[1] Colovos G, Hester N, Ricci GR, Shepard, LS. [1980]. Development of a method for the determination of
organoarsenicals in air. NIOSH Contract #210-77-0134, NTIS No. PB83-180794.
[2] NIOSH [1980]. Particulate arsenicals: Method P&CAM 320. In: Taylor, DG, ed. NIOSH manual of
analytical methods, 2nd ed. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers
for Disease Control, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, DHHS (NIOSH) Publication
No. 80-125.
[3] Budavari S, [1989]. Merck Index. 11th ed. Rahway, NJ: Merck & Co., Inc.
TABLE 1. Sensitivity, detection limit and working range data for analysis of particulate
arsenicals [1].
Detection limit Detection Range* for Range* Measurement
Sensitivity
(as As) for 300 L limit (as As) 300 L sample for precision
Arsenical (ng/mL/
sample volume for solution volume solution
1% Abs) �r)
(% 𝑺𝑺
(µg/m3) (ng/mL) (µg/m3) (ng/mL)
Dimethylarsenic
1.3 0.62 7 1.7-6.7 20-80 11.2
acid
Arsenic (III) 2.1 0.71 8 1.7-6.7 20-80 11.2
Methylarsonic acid 2.1 0.72 9 1.7-6.7 20-80 8.1
p-
Aminophenylarsonic 6.3 0.64 8 1.7-6.7 20-80 6.0
acid
Arsenic (V) 13.0 0.46 6 1.7-6.7 20-80 10.8
*The upper limit of the range can be increased by using higher concentration standards which are
injected via loops of smaller volume. Although not tested with air samples, the useful range can be
extended from 5 µg/m3 down to 1.7 µg/m3 based upon the measurement range.
Disclaimer: Mention of any company or product does not constitute endorsement by NIOSH. In addition,
citations to websites external to NIOSH do not constitute NIOSH endorsement of the sponsoring
organizations or their programs or products. Furthermore, NIOSH is not responsible for the content of
these websites. All web addresses referenced in this document were accessible as of the publication date.
OSHA: 6 mg/m3 (skin) PROPERTIES: yellow crystals; MP 146 °C; BP 332 °C; VP 0.02
NIOSH: 3 mg/m3 (skin) Pa (1.5 x 10 -4 mm Hg) @ 20 °C
SAMPLING MEASUREMENT
SAMPLER: FILTER (0.8 µm mixed cellulose ester TECHNIQUE: HPLC, UV DETECTION
membrane)
ANALYTE: p-nitroaniline
FLOW RATE: 1 - 3 L/min
EXTRACTION: 5 mL isopropanol
VOL-MIN: 16 L @ 6 mg/m3
-MAX: 350 L MOBILE PHASE: 40% isopropanol/60% hexane isocratic,
1 mL/min
SHIPMENT: routine
COLUMN: silica (25-cm x 4.6-mm x 6.4- mm
SAMPLE stainless steel, US pharmacopeia (USP)
STABILITY: 7 days @ 25 °C L18)
ACCURACY: ± 11%
APPLICABILITY: The working range is 1.1 to 22 mg/m3 for a 90-L air sample. This method is applicable to p-nitroaniline aerosol but
not for environments where vapor may be present.
REAGENTS: EQUIPMENT:
SAMPLING:
SAMPLE PREPARATION:
6. Open the filter holder and using tweezers, transfer each mixed cellulose ester filter to an ointment jar.
7. Add 5 mL isopropanol, cap, and swirl the jar to ensure that the filter is thoroughly wetted.
10. Analyze three quality control blind spikes and three analyst spikes to ensure that the calibration
graph and recovery graph are in control.
MEASUREMENT:
11. Set HPLC according to manufacturer's recommendations and to conditions on page 5033-1.
12. Separation is achieved on a silica column using a mobile phase of 40% isopropanol/60% hexane at
1 mL/min. Inject 20-µL sample aliquot.
NOTE: If peak area is above the linear range of the working standards, dilute with isopropanol and
apply the appropriate dilution factor in calculations.
13. Measure peak areas.
CALCULATIONS:
14. Determine the mass of p-nitroaniline, µg (corrected for recovery), for the sample (W) and average
media blank (B).
15. Calculate the concentration of p-nitroaniline, C (mg/m3), in the air volume sampled, V (L):
𝑊𝑊 − 𝐵𝐵
𝐶𝐶 = , 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚⁄𝑚𝑚3
𝑉𝑉
EVALUATION OF METHOD:
The method is not applicable to environments where p-nitroaniline vapor is present. However,
experiments indicate that less than 0.04 mg/m3 of p-nitroaniline would exist as a vapor at 40 °C [1].
Extraction efficiencies of spiked filters containing 0.278, 0.556, or 1.112 mg of p-nitroaniline were 96.6%,
94.7%, and 94.6%, respectively [1]. Samples generated to measure the filter's collection efficiency at
1.5 L/min for concentration of 3.9, 6.75, and 12.88 mg/m3 showed recoveries of 95.9%, 98.8%, and 100.9%
respectively [1]. The average recovery for 7-day-old samples was 98.6% [1].
REFERENCES:
[1] NIOSH [1977]. Back-up data report for p-Nitroaniline: Method S7. Unpublished.
[2] NIOSH [1977]. p-Nitroaniline: Method S7. In: Taylor DG, ed. NIOSH manual of analytical methods.
2nd ed. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Center for Disease
Control, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, DHEW (NIOSH) Publication No. 77-
157-B.
[3] NIOSH [1981]. Occupational health guidelines for chemical hazards. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department
of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control, National Institute for Occupational Safety
and Health, DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 81-123. Available as #PB 83-154609 from NTIS.
Disclaimer: Mention of any company or product does not constitute endorsement by NIOSH. In addition,
citations to websites external to NIOSH do not constitute NIOSH endorsement of the sponsoring
organizations or their programs or products. Furthermore, NIOSH is not responsible for the content of
these websites. All web addresses referenced in this document were accessible as of the publication date.
SYNONYMS: diesel particulate matter, diesel exhaust, diesel soot, diesel emissions
SAMPLING MEASUREMENT
SAMPLER: FILTER: quartz-fiber, 37-mm or 25-mm; TECHNIQUE: Thermal-optical analysis; flame ionization
size-selective sampler may be required [1] detector (FID)
FLOW RATE: 2 to 4 L/min (typical) ANALYTE: Elemental carbon (EC). Total carbon is
determined, but an EC exposure marker
VOL-MIN: 142 L @ 40 µg/m3 was proposed. See [1] for details.
-MAX: 19 m3 (for filter load of ~ 90 µg/cm2)
FILTER
SHIPMENT: Routine. PUNCH SIZE: 1.5 cm2 (or other [1])
BLANKS: 2 to 10 field blanks per set ESTIMATED LOD: 0.3 µg per filter portion
RANGE
STUDIED: 23 to 240 µg/m3 (See also ref. [1].)
OVERALL
PRECISION (𝐒𝐒�𝐫𝐫𝐫𝐫 ): 0.07
APPLICABILITY: The working range is approximately 6 to 630 µg/m3, with an LOD of ~ 2 µg/m3 for a 960-L air sample collected on
a 37-mm filter with a 1.5 cm2 punch from the sample filter. If a lower LOD is desired, a larger sample volume and/or 25-mm filter
may be used (e.g., a 1920-L sample on 25-mm filter gives an LOD of 0.4 µg/m3). The split between organic carbon (OC) and EC may
be inaccurate if the sample transmittance is too low. The EC loading at which this occurs depends on laser intensity. In general, the
OC-EC split may be inaccurate when EC loadings are above 20 µg/cm2. High loadings can give low (and variable) EC results because
the transmittance remains low and relatively constant until some of the EC is oxidized. The split should be reassigned (prior to EC
peak) in such cases [2]. An upper EC limit of 800 µg/m3 (90 µg/cm2) can be determined. Low EC loadings (e.g., near the LOD) also
may require a manual split to improve accuracy [1].
INTERFERENCES: Total carbon (as OC and EC) is determined by the method, but EC was recommended as a measure of workplace
exposure because OC interferences may be present [1,2]. Cigarette smoke and carbonates ordinarily do not interfere in the EC
determination. Less than 1% of the carbon in cigarette smoke is elemental. If heavy loadings of carbonate or organic dusts are
anticipated, a size-selective sampler (impactor and/or cyclone) should be used [1]. For measurement of diesel-source EC in coal
mines, a cyclone and impactor with a submicrometer cutpoint are required to minimize collection of coal dust. A cyclone and/or
impactor may be necessary in other workplaces if EC-containing dusts are present.
OTHER METHODS: Other methods for determination of EC and OC have been employed, but these are not equivalent to the
method described herein. Information on other methods is summarized elsewhere [1]. The method procedures are unchanged
from the 4th edition supplement to NMAM, but the corresponding diesel guidance chapter was updated for the 5th edition.
REAGENTS: EQUIPMENT:
1. Aqueous solutions of reagent grade (99+%) 1. Sampler: Quartz-fiber filter, precleaned (in low
sucrose, 0.1 to 3 mg C per mL solution. Ensure temperature asher 2 to 3 h, or muffle furnace for 1
filter spike loading range brackets that of to 2 h at ~ 800 °C), 37-mm, in a 3-piece cassette
samples. with filter support (stainless steel screen, cellulose
2. Ultrapure H20, Type I, or equivalent. pad, or a second quartz filter). Alternative samplers
3. UHP helium (99.999%), scrubber also required for may be required in dusty environments. See ref. [1]
removal of oxygen. for details.
4. Hydrogen, purified (99.995%), cylinder or NOTE 1: High purity, high efficiency, binder- free
hydrogen generator source. quartz-fiber filters must be used (e.g., Pall
5. Ultra Zero air (low hydrocarbon). Gelman Sciences Pallflex Tissuequartz
6. 10% oxygen in helium balance, both gases UHP, 2500QAT-UP. Precleaned filters are
certified mix. available from several laboratories. Filters
7. 5% methane in helium balance, both gases UHP, also can be purchased and cleaned in-
certified mix. house. Filters should be cleaned in a
muffle furnace operated at 800-900 °C for
1- 2 hours. Check (analyze) filters to
ensure removal of OC contaminants. A
shorter cleaning period may be effective.
OC results immediately after cleaning
should be below 0.1 µg/cm2. OC vapors
readily adsorb on to clean filters. Even
when stored in closed containers, OC
loadings may range from 0.5 µg/cm2 after
several weeks.
NOTE 2: Cellulose supports give higher OC blanks
than screens and quartz filters. Bottom
quartz filters can be used to correct for
adsorbed vapor; see ref. [1].
2. Personal sampling pump with flexible tubing.
3. Thermal-optical analyzer; see ref. [1].
4. Metal punch for removal of 1.5 cm2 rectangular
portion of filter.
NOTE: A smaller portion (e.g., taken with cork
borer) may be used, but the area must be
large enough to accommodate the entire
laser beam (i.e., beam should pass through
the sample, not around it). The area of the
portion must be accurately known, and the
sample must be carefully positioned (the
filter transmittance will decrease
dramatically when the sample is properly
aligned). A filter portion ≥ 0.5 cm2 with
diameter or width ≤ 1 cm is recommended.
5. Syringe, 10-µL.
6. Aluminum foil.
7. Needle (for lifting filter punch portion).
8. Forceps
9. Volumetric flasks, Class A.
10. Analytical balance.
SPECIAL PRECAUTIONS: Hydrogen is a flammable gas. Users must be familiar with the proper use of
flammable and nonflammable gases, cylinders, and regulators. According to the instrument manufacturer,
the instrument is a Class I Laser Product. This designation means there is no laser radiation exposure
during normal operation. Weakly scattered laser light is visible during operation, but does not pose a
hazard to the user. The internal laser source is a Class IIIb product, which poses a possible hazard to the
eye if viewed directly or from a mirror-like surface (i.e., specular reflections). Class IIIb lasers normally do
not produce a hazardous diffuse reflection. Repairs to the optical system, and other repairs requiring
removal of the instrument housing, should be performed only by a qualified service technician.
SAMPLING:
SAMPLE PREPARATION:
5. Place sample filter on a freshly cleaned aluminum foil surface. Isopropyl alcohol or acetone can be
used to clean the foil. Allow residual solvent to vaporize from the surface prior to use. Punch out a
representative portion of the filter. Take care not to disturb deposited material and avoid hand contact
with sample. A needle inserted at an angle is useful for removal of the filter portion from the punch
body. Newer instruments have an externally mounted bracket to support the quartz sample holder
while the previous sample is removed and a new one is loaded. Through a hole in the side of the
standard punch, a needle can be used to push the filter portion from the punch onto the sample
holder. Alternative approaches also can be used, depending on the user’s preference, as long as
contamination is avoided.
6. Analyze at least one replicate sample. For sets of up to 50 samples, replicate 10 % of the samples. For
sets over 50 samples, replicate 5 % of the samples. If a filter deposit appears uneven (this should not
be the case if the cassette is sealed properly), take a second portion (step 5) for analysis to check
evenness of deposition.
NOTE: Precision of replicate analyses of a filter is usually better than 5% (1 to 3% is typical).
7. Analyze three quality control blind spikes and three analyst spikes to ensure that instrument
calibration is in control. Prepare spike as follows:
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods (NMAM), Fifth Edition
DIESEL PARTICULATE MATTER (as Elemental Carbon) METHOD 5040, Issue 4, dated 10 March 2016 - Page 4 of 5
a. With 10-µL (or other) syringe, apply an aliquot of OC standard solution directly to filter portion
taken (step 5) from a precleaned filter. For best results, the precleaned filter punch should be
cleaned again in the sample oven prior to application of the aliquot.
NOTE: With small aliquots (e.g., ≤ 10 µL), disperse standard solution over one end of filter portion
to ensure standard is in laser beam. To prevent possible solution loss to surface, hold the
portion off the surface. Larger volumes can easily penetrate to the underside of the filter
portion.
b. Allow water to evaporate and analyze spikes with samples and blanks (steps 9 and 10).
NOTE: A pronounced decrease in filter transmittance during the first temperature step of the
analysis indicates water loss. Allow portions to dry longer if this occurs. Spiked punches also
can be dried in the oven, if desired. For quick drying, the ‘clean oven’ command on the
menu can be selected and canceled after about 4 seconds. The time allowed may depend
on instrument, but oven temperatures should be below 100 °C to avoid boiling the
solution. This approach is convenient and prevents potential adsorption of organic vapors
in laboratory air. Some software versions may not have this feature.
8. Determine instrument blank (results of analysis with freshly cleaned filter portion) for each sample set.
MEASUREMENT:
CALCULATIONS
11. Multiply the reported (or area-corrected) EC result (µg/cm2) by filter deposit area, cm2, (typically 8.5 cm2
for a 37-mm filter) to calculate total mass, µg, of EC on each filter sample (WEC). Do the same for the
blanks and calculate the mass found in the average field blank (Wb). The mass of OC is calculated
similarly, but the mean OC field blank may underestimate the amount of OC contributed by adsorbed
vapor. A quartz filter placed beneath the sample filter can provide a better estimate of the adsorbed
OC [1].
12. Calculate the EC concentration (CEC) in the air volume sampled, V (L):
𝑊𝑊𝐸𝐸𝐶𝐶 − 𝑊𝑊𝑏𝑏
𝐶𝐶𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 = , 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚/𝑚𝑚3
𝑉𝑉
EVALUATION OF METHOD:
Details on the evaluation of this method are provided in an NMAM guidance chapter on diesel [1]. The
chapter includes a summary of interlaboratory comparison work conducted since the initial publication of
the method. Background information and guidance on method use, including sampling requirements, also
are provided. In general industry, 37-mm or 25-mm cassettes are normally suitable for air sampling, but
there are exceptions. A cyclone in series with an impactor having a submicrometer cutpoint must be used
in coal mines, and the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) has recommended use of a cyclone-
impactor sampler in metal and nonmetal mines [3]. The impactor is commercially available through SKC,
Inc. A size-selective sampler (either impactor and/or cyclone) also may be required in other dusty
environments [1], particularly if the dust is carbonaceous. If a sample contains carbonate, the carbonate
carbon (CC) will be quantified as OC. A carbonate-subtracted result can be obtained through acidification
of the sample portion or through separate integration of the carbonate peak [1] (Note: Trona and other
compounds containing sodium can etch the quartz oven wall during the analysis. Avoid spillage in the
sample oven and frequent analysis of these materials.) These procedures are described in a Chapter of this
Manual [1]. The thermal-optical method is applicable to nonvolatile carbon species (i.e., particulate OC, CC
and EC). The method is not appropriate for volatile or semivolatiles, which require sorbents for efficient
collection.
REFERENCES:
[1] NIOSH [2016]. Chapter DE: Monitoring of diesel particulate exhaust in the workplace. In: O’Connor
PF, Ashley K, eds. NIOSH manual of analytical methods. 5th ed. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute for
Occupational Safety and Health, DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 2014-151.
[2] Birch ME, Cary RA [1996]. Elemental carbon-based method for monitoring occupational exposures to
particulate diesel exhaust. Aerosol Sci Tech 25:221-241.
[3] 66 Fed. Reg. 13 [2001]. Department of Labor, Mine Safety and Health Administration: Diesel
particulate matter exposure of underground metal and nonmetal miners; final rule. (To be codified
at 30 CFR Part 57).
Disclaimer: Mention of any company or product does not constitute endorsement by NIOSH. In addition,
citations to websites external to NIOSH do not constitute NIOSH endorsement of the sponsoring
organizations or their programs or products. Furthermore, NIOSH is not responsible for the content of
these websites. All web addresses referenced in this document were accessible as of the publication date.
OSHA: 3.5 mg/m3[1] PROPERTIES: Solid; may contain polynuclear aromatic hydro-
NIOSH: 3.5 mg/m3 (in presence of PAHs: carcinogen/PAHs to carbons (PAHs)
0.1 mg/m3, cyclohexane extractable fraction) [2]
For other OELs
and guidelines: See references [3,4]
SAMPLING MEASUREMENT
SAMPLER: INTERNAL CAPSULE, (tared 37-mm, 2- to 5-µm TECHNIQUE: GRAVIMETRIC (INTERNAL CAPSULE WEIGHT)
PVC filter melded to PVC housing) in 37-mm
2-piece cassette ANALYTE: Carbon black
OVERALL
PRECISION (ŜrT): 0.059 [5]
ACCURACY: ± 15.5%
APPLICABILITY: The working range is 1.5 to 25 mg/m3 for a 200-L air sample. This method is not applicable for the determina-
tion of “cyclohexane-solubles” [3]. The method is nonspecific; information on any other particulate materials that may be present
should be assessed.
INTERFERENCES: Moisture and static electricity can affect gravimetric measurements. Humidity control and minimization of
static effects are addressed in this procedure. The presence of co-sampled airborne particulate material is a positive interference
since this is a gravimetric method.
OTHER METHODS: This method is preferred over Method 5000, Issue 2 [6], and is similar to Method 0501 for particulates not
otherwise regulated [8]. OSHA method PV2121 describes a similar procedure (but for respirable sampling) using an alternative
sampler design [9].
EQUIPMENT:
1. Sampler: Internal capsule, 37-mm PVC, 2- to 5-µm pore size membrane or equivalent hydrophobic
filter attached to PVC housing and supporting pad in 37-mm 2-piece cassette filter holder
NOTE: The cassettes should be fabricated so as to ensure complete sealing of the internal capsule
after sample collection.
2. Personal sampling pump, 1 to 2 L/min, with flexible connecting tubing
3. Microbalance capable of weighing to ±0.001 mg
4. Static neutralizer; e.g. 210Po; replace no more than nine months after production date
5. Tool for handling internal capsules, e.g., forceps (preferably plastic)
6. Environmental chamber or room for balance (e.g. 20 ± 1 °C and 50 ± 5% RH)
1. Equilibrate the PVC filter capsules in an environmentally controlled weighing area or chamber for at
least 24 h.
NOTE: An environmentally controlled chamber is desirable, but not required.
2. Place backup pads in filter cassette bottom sections.
3. Weigh the filter capsules in an environmentally controlled area or chamber. Record the capsule tare
weight, W1 (mg).
a. Zero the balance before each weighing.
b. Handle the filter capsule with forceps. Pass the capsule over an antistatic radiation source. Repeat
this step if the capsule does not release easily from the forceps or if it attracts balance pan. Static
electricity can cause erroneous weight readings.
4. Assemble the filter capsules in the filter cassettes and close firmly so that leakage around the internal
capsule will not occur. Place a plug in each opening of the filter cassette. Place a cellulose shrink band
around the filter cassette, allow to dry, and label the cassette with indelible ink.
SAMPLING:
SAMPLE PREPARATION:
7. Wipe dust from the external surface of the filter cassette with a moist paper towelette to minimize
contamination. Discard the towelette.
8. Remove the top and bottom plugs from the filter cassette. Equilibrate for at least 24 h in the balance
room.
9. Using forceps, open the cassette and remove the internal capsule gently to avoid loss of dust or
damage to the capsule.
10. Zero the microbalance before all weighings. Use the same microbalance for weighing filter
capsules before and after sample collection. Calibrate the balance with National Institute of
Standards and Technology Class S-1.1 or ASTM Class 1 weights.
11. Process laboratory blanks, spiked QC samples and field blanks at a minimum frequency of 1 per
20 field samples. Internal capsules used for QC samples should come from the same lot. Spiked
QC samples, loaded with 0.25 to 4 mg of material per internal capsule, should be prepared using
weight-stable material such as Arizona Road Dust [10].
MEASUREMENT:
12. Weigh each capsule, including field blanks. Record the post-sampling weight, W2 (mg). Record
anything remarkable about a capsule (e.g., overloading, leakage, wet, torn, etc.).
CALCULATIONS:
13. Calculate the concentration, C (mg/m3), of carbon black in the air volume sampled, V (L):
EVALUATION OF METHOD:
Lab testing was carried out using blank internal capsules and with capsules spiked with 0.1 – 4 mg of
NIST SRM 1648 (Urban Particulate Matter) and Arizona Road Dust (Air Cleaner Test Dust) [5]. Precision
and accuracy data are given on page 5100-1. Weight stability over 28 days was verified for both blanks
and spiked capsules [5]. Independent laboratory testing on blanks and field samples have verified
long-term weight stability as well as sampling and analysis uncertainty estimates [5].
REFERENCES:
[1] CFR. 29 CFR Part 1910.1000. Code of Federal Regulations. Washington, DC: U.S. Government
Printing Office, Office of the Federal Register.
[2] NIOSH [2005]. NIOSH pocket guide to chemical hazards. Barsan ME, ed. Cincinnati OH: U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National
Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. DHHS (NIOSH) Publication no. 2005-149.
[3] ACGIH [2013]. TLVs and BEIs based on the documentation of the Threshold Limit Values for
chemical substances and physical agents and Biological Exposure Indices. Cincinnati, Ohio:
American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists. [www.acgih.org]. [Date accessed:
February, 2015.]
[4] Institut fur Arbeitsschutz der Deutschen Gesetzlichen Unfallversicherung [2014]. GESTIS-
Database on hazardous substances. (German Social Accident Insurance). Sankt Augustin,
Germany: IFA. [http://www.dguv.de/ifa/gestis/gestis-stoffdatenbank/index-2.jsp]. [Date
accessed: February, 2015.]
[5] NIOSH [2014]. Backup Data Report-NIOSH 0501 and 5100. By O’Connor SP, O’Connor PF, Feng HA,
Ashley K. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. [http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/
docs/2003-154/pdfs/bud/1453_bud.pdf ].
[6] NIOSH [1994]. Carbon black: Method 5000. In: Eller PM, Cassinelli ME, eds. NIOSH manual of analytical
methods. 4th ed. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, DHHS (NIOSH)
Publication No. 94-113 [www.cdc.gov/niosh/nmam/].
[7] NIOSH [1994]. Particulates not otherwise regulated, total: Method 0500. In: Eller PM, Cassinelli ME, eds.
NIOSH manual of analytical methods. 4th ed. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety and
Health, DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 94-113 [www.cdc.gov/niosh/nmam/].
[8] NIOSH [2015]. Particulates not otherwise regulated, total: Method 0501. In: Ashley KE, O’Connor PF,
eds. NIOSH manual of analytical methods. 5th ed. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational
Safety and Health, DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 2014-151. [www.cdc.gov/niosh/nmam/].
[9] OSHA [2003]. Gravimetric determination: PV2121. In: Monitoring methods used by OSHA. Salt Lake
City, UT: U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration. [https://www.
osha.gov/dts/sltc/methods/partial/pv2121/pv2121.html] (Date accessed: February, 2015).
[10] O’Connor S, O’Connor PF, Feng HA, Ashley K [2014]. Gravimetric analysis of particulate matter using air
samplers housing internal filtration capsules. Gefahrsstoffe Reinh Luft 75: 403-410.
Disclaimer: Mention of any company or product does not constitute endorsement by NIOSH. In
addition, citations to websites external to NIOSH do not constitute NIOSH endorsement of the
sponsoring organizations or their programs or products. Furthermore, NIOSH is not responsible for
the content of these websites. All web addresses referenced in this document were accessible as of the
publication date.
SYNONYMS: Table 1
SAMPLING MEASUREMENT
SAMPLER: FILTER + SORBENT TECHNIQUE: HPLC/ATOMIC ABSORPTION, GRAPHITE
(glass fiber + XAD-2, 80 mg/40 mg) FURNACE
SHIPMENT: ship assembled sampler in dry ice SEPARATION: HPLC (C18 or cation exchange column)
SAMPLE GRAPHITE
STABILITY: stable 7 days @ 0 °C [1] FURNACE: dry 30 sec @ 80 °C; atomize 5 sec @
2750 °C (gas interrupt mode)
FIELD
BLANKS: 2 to 10 field blanks per set INJECTION
VOLUME: 20 µL
MEDIA
BLANKS: 12 per sample set WAVELENGTH: 286.3 nm, with background correction
APPLICABILITY: The working range is 0.015 to 1 mg/m3 (as Sn) for a 300-L air sample. The method was validated using TeBT, TBTC,
TCHH, and BuIOMA as surrogates for the most important classes of organotin compounds [1]. If speciation of organotin
compounds is not required and if inorganic tin compounds are absent, the HPLC separation may be deleted. Use special care to
avoid losses of TeBT and other volatile tetra-substituted organotin compounds
INTERFERENCES: Organotin compounds not separated chromatographically will mutually interfere. Other compounds with
similar retention times will not interfere unless they contain tin.
OTHER METHODS: This replaces the colorimetric criteria document method [2].
REAGENTS: EQUIPMENT:
1. Zirconium acetate oxide, reagent grade. 1. Sampler: glass fiber filter, 37-mm
2. Ammonium acetate, reagent grade. (commercially available) in cassette filter
3. Diammonium citrate, reagent grade. holder followed by XAD-2 sorbent tube, 80
4. Acetonitrile, chromatographic grade. mg front section/40 mg back section
5. Deionized water. separated and retained by silanized glass
6. Acetic acid, glacial, reagent grade. wool (commercially available).
7. Methanol, chromatographic grade. 2. Personal sampling pump, 1 to 1.5 L/min, with
8. Acetic acid, 0.1% (v/v) in acetonitrile. flexible connecting tubing.
9. Acetate buffer solution (v/v) 70% methanol, 3. Shipping container, refrigerated, with dry ice.
27% deionized water, 3% aqueous 1 M 4. High performance liquid chromatograph
ammonium acetate. (HPLC), interfaced with autoinjection system
10. Citrate buffer solution (v/v) 70% methanol, (Fig. 1), with binary solvent capability, solvent
26.8% deionized water, 3% aqueous 1 M gradient capability and columns:
diammonium citrate in 0.2% (v/v) glacial a. non-tetraorganotin species: cation
acetic acid. exchange column.
11. Organotin standard solutions, 1000 µg/mL b. tetraorganotin compounds: C18 column
(as Sn), prepared from pure organotin 5. Atomic absorption spectrophotometer (AAS)
compounds in 0.1% (v/v) acetic acid in having recorder output proportional to
acetonitrile. absorbance units, graphite furnace accessory
12. Calibration stock solution, 10 µg/mL (as Sn). (pyrolytic with Zr coating, coated L'vov
Prepare a standard mixture of the organotin platform may be required; see APPENDIX),
compounds of interest. Pipet 0.1 mL of each sample autoinjection system with moving
organotin standard solution into a 10-mL sample tube rack or carrousel (Fig. 1),
volumetric flask. Dilute to the mark with automatic micropipettor for accurately
0.1% (v/v) acetic acid in acetonitrile. Prepare injecting 20-µL sample aliquots into graphite
fresh daily. furnace, background correction (e.g., D2 or H2
lamp) capability, and tin electrodeless
discharge lamp or hollow cathode lamp.
6. Bath, ultrasonic.
7. Volumetric flasks, 10-mL.
8. Syringe, 20-µL, readable to 0.5 µL.
9. Beakers, Phillips, 125-mL.
10. Pipets, 5- and 10-mL; 10- and 100-µL.
11. Oven or muffle furnace, 200 ̊C.
12. Plastic film.
SAMPLING:
SAMPLE PREPARATION:
5. Open the cassette filter holder. With tweezers, carefully transfer the filter to a 125-mL beaker.
6. Place the front sorbent section and front glass wool plug into a second beaker. Place the back sorbent
section and remaining glass wool plugs into a third beaker.
7. Pipet 10.0 mL acetonitrile and 10 µL acetic acid into each beaker. Cover with plastic film.
8. Agitate beakers in ultrasonic bath for 30 min.
MEASUREMENT:
12. Set the AAS and graphite furnace according to manufacturer's recommendations and to conditions on
page 5504-1. Adjust the sample injection/dry/atomize cycle so that it occurs exactly once every 60 sec.
13. Operate the HPLC according to manufacturer's recommendations and the following conditions:
a. For non-tetraorganotin compounds:
(1) Column: strong cation exchange (EQUIPMENT, 4a).
(2) Flush column with 50 to 60 mL acetate buffer prior to sample injection.
(3) Eluent: flowrate = 2 mL/min
(4) Eluent Gradient:
CALCULATIONS:
16. Read the mass, µg Sn (corrected for R), for each organotin compound found on the filter (W) and front
sorbent (Wf) and back sorbent (Wb) sections, and on the average media blanks [filter (B) and front
sorbent (Bf) and back sorbent (Bb) sections] from the calibration graphs.
17. Calculate concentration, C (mg/m3), for each organotin compound as Sn in air as the sum of the
particulate concentration and the vapor concentration in the air volume sampled, V (L):
𝑊𝑊 − 𝐵𝐵 + 𝑊𝑊𝑓𝑓 + 𝑊𝑊𝑏𝑏 − 𝐵𝐵𝑓𝑓 − 𝐵𝐵𝑏𝑏
𝐶𝐶 = , 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚⁄𝑚𝑚3
𝑉𝑉
NOTE: Wf and Wb will include any analyte originally collected on the filter as particulate, then
volatilized during sampling or storage.
EVALUATION OF METHOD:
The method was validated with tetrabutyltin (TeBT), tributyltin chloride (TBTC), tricyclohexyltin hydroxide
(TCHH), and dibutyltin bis(isooctylmercaptoacetate) (BuIOMA) [1]. The working ranges, validation ranges,
and estimated linear working ranges (as tin) for 300-L air samples of these organotin species at an
atmospheric temperature and pressure of 20 °C and 756 mm Hg, respectively, appear below:
The methods were developed using a Partisil-10 strong cation exchange column and a Solvecon
precolumn kit (Whatman, Inc.) for the analysis of the non-tetraorganotin compounds. For the
tetraorganotin compounds, a LiChrosorb RP-18 HPLC column (Whatman, Inc.) was used.
REFERENCES:
[1] Gutknecht WF, Grohse PM, Homzak CA, Tronzo C, Ranade MH, and Damle A [1982]. Development of
a method for the sampling and analysis of organotin compounds. Research Triangle Park, NC:
Research Triangle Institute. NIOSH contract no. 210-80-0066. Available as order no. PB83-180737
from NTIS.
[2] NIOSH [1976]. NIOSH criteria for a recommended standard: occupational exposure to organotin
compounds. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Center for Disease
Control, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, DHEW (NIOSH) Publication No. 77-
115.
1. Zirconium coating: soak pyrolytic graphite tubes and platforms overnight in 4.5% (w/v) zirconium
acetate oxide solution; then dry in a muffle furnace for 2h at 200 °C.
2. Pyrolytic zirconium-coated graphite furnace tubes are acceptable for measurements of all organotin
compounds. However, a pyrolytic zirconium-coated graphite platform (e.g., L'vov platform) is
recommended for better precision at low levels and improved atomization response for volatile species
such as TeBT. Platforms may be purchased commercially or prepared from pyrolytic graphite tubes, as
shown in Fig. 2. Special care must be exercised during placement of the platform in the tube (Fig. 3)
and in optical alignment
Disclaimer: Mention of any company or product does not constitute endorsement by NIOSH. In addition,
citations to websites external to NIOSH do not constitute NIOSH endorsement of the sponsoring
organizations or their programs or products. Furthermore, NIOSH is not responsible for the content of
these websites. All web addresses referenced in this document were accessible as of the publication date.
SAMPLING MEASUREMENT
SAMPLER: FILTER (13-mm glass fiber) TECHNIQUE: HPLC, UV DETECTION
APPLICABILITY: The working range for benzidine or 3,3'-dichlorobenzidine is 4 to 200 µg/m3 for a 50-L air sample. Benzidinium
sulfate and 3,3'-dichlorobenzidine dihydrochloride will be collected and converted to benzidine and 3,3'-dichlorobenzidine,
respectively, during sample preparation.
INTERFERENCES: Aniline interferes in the determination of benzidine but may be resolved [2]. 4,4'-Methylenebis(2-chloroaniline)
interferes in the determination of 3,3'-dichlorobenzidine [1]. A number of compounds were shown not to interfere [1, 2] (see step
12, NOTE 2).
OTHER METHODS: This combines and replaces P&CAM 243 and P&CAM 246 [3].
REAGENTS: EQUIPMENT:
1. Methanol, HPLC grade. 1. Sampler: 13-mm, Type AE, glass fiber filter in
2. Acetonitrile, HPLC grade. a 13-mm filter holder.
3. Triethylamine. 2. Personal sampling pump, 0.2 L/min, with
4. Water, distilled, deionized. flexible connecting tubing.
5. Benzidine.* 3. High-performance liquid chromatograph, UV
6. 3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine.* detector, integrator and column (page 5509-1).
7. Eluent: 0.17% (v/v) triethylamine in methanol. 4. Test tubes, 1-mL, with polyethylene stoppers.
Dilute 170 µL triethylamine to 100 mL with 5. Syringes, glass, 10- and 25-µL, readable to
methanol. 0.1 µL.
8. Calibration stock solution, 0.5 µg/µL. Dissolve 50 6. Pipets, delivery, 0.5- and 5-mL, graduated in
mg analyte in 100 mL eluent. 0.1 mL.
9. Recovery (R) stock solution, 0.5 µg/µL. Dissolve 50 7. Flasks, volumetric, 10- and 100-mL.
mg analyte in 100 mL methanol. 8. Centrifuge.
9. Test tube shaker, vortex type.
*See SPECIAL PRECAUTIONS.
SPECIAL PRECAUTIONS: Benzidine is a recognized human carcinogen and can be absorbed through the
skin [4,5,6]. 3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine is a carcinogen [4,6]. Take appropriate precautions to avoid personal and
area contamination.
SAMPLING:
SAMPLE PREPARATION:
9. Calibrate daily with at least six working standards over the range 0.05 to 7 µg analyte per sample.
a. Deliver aliquots of calibration stock solution with microliter syringe to eluent in 10-mL volumetric
flasks and dilute to the mark.
b. Analyze together with the samples and blanks (steps 12 through 14).
c. Prepare calibration graph (peak area vs. µg analyte).
10. Determine recovery (R) at least once per year for each lot of filters. Prepare four filters at each of five
levels, plus three media blank filters.
a. Place sample filters into separate test tubes.
b. Inject an aliquot of R stock solution, or a dilution thereof in methanol, directly onto the filter.
c. Cap the test tubes. Allow to stand overnight.
d. Prepare (steps 5 through 8) and analyze (steps 12 through 14) with working standards.
e. Prepare a graph of R for each filter vs. µg analyte recovered.
11. Analyze three quality control blind spikes and three analyst spikes to ensure that the calibration and R
graphs are in control.
MEASUREMENT:
12. Set the liquid chromatograph to conditions given on page 5509-1 for analyte of interest.
NOTE 1: If aniline is present, use a C18 column and follow the procedures found in reference [2].
NOTE 2: The following compounds were found not to interfere with the determination of either
compound: o-, p- and m-chloroaniline; 4,4'-methylenedianiline and ß-naphthylamine. 2-
Chloro-4-methylaniline; 3,3'-dichlorobenzidine; 4,4'-methylenebis(2-chloroaniline);
hydrazobenzene; and 1,2- and 1,4-naphthoquinone do not interfere in the determination of
benzidine. Benzidine, aniline, N-methylaniline, 2-toluidine and 3,3'-dimethylbenzidine will
not interfere in the determination of 3,3'-dichlorobenzidine [1].
13. Inject an aliquot (see page 5509-1 for appropriate size).
14. Measure peak area.
CALCULATIONS:
15. Read the mass, µg (corrected for R), of analyte found on the sample filter (W) and on the media blank
filter (B) from the calibration graph.
16. Calculate concentration, C, of analyte in the air volume sampled, V (L):
𝑊𝑊 − 𝐵𝐵
𝐶𝐶 = , 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚⁄𝑚𝑚3
𝑉𝑉
EVALUATION OF METHOD:
This method was evaluated over the range 21 to 63 µg/m3 for benzidine and the range 20 to 130 µg/m3 for
3,3'-dichlorobenzidine. The generated atmospheres for both compounds were at 30 °C and 80% relative
humidity. The sampling rate was 0.8 L/min. The pooled overall precision (𝑆𝑆̂𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 ) was 0.07 for 29 benzidine
samples and 0.07 for 28 3,3'-dichlorobenzidine samples. The sampling methods were evaluated for effects of
temperature (25, 30, and 35 °C) and relative humidity (20 and 80%). No detectable quantities of either
benzidine or 3,3'-dichlorobenzidine were found on backup silica gel tubes [1]. At 180 °C, vapors of these
carried by a stream of dry nitrogen at 0.3 L/min did not break through the backup silica gel in 3 h [1].
The average recovery of benzidine from filters was determined to be 97% over the range 0.2 to 2.0 µg when
stored at -15 °C for 11 days. Recoveries dropped to 89% and 75% after 15 days and 21 days, respectively.
Recoveries of benzidine and benzidinium sulfate from filters and silica gel indicated that the compounds
were unstable in these matrices at ambient temperature. Recoveries over the range of 0.5 to 5 µg 3,3'-
dichlorobenzidine and its dihydrochloride were 96% after 21 days from both filters and silica gel stored at
-15 °C and at ambient temperature [1].
REFERENCES:
[1] Morales R, Rappaport SM, Weeks, Jr. RW, Campbell EE, Ettinger HJ [1977]. Development of sampling and
analytical methods for carcinogens, January 1 - September 30, 1976, Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory,
Los Alamos, NM. Available as LA-7058-PR, from NTIS. Unpublished.
[2] Kennedy ER, Seymour MJ [1981]. Development of an analytical method for benzidine-based dyes. In:
Chemical hazards in the Workplace, ACS symposium series: Vol. 149. Washington, DC: American
Chemical Society, pp 21-35.
[3] NIOSH [1977] P&CAM 243 and P&CAM 246. In: Taylor DG, ed. NIOSH manual of analytical methods, 2nd
ed. (Vol. 1) Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Centers for Disease
Control, National institute for Occupational Safety and Health, DHEW (NIOSH) Publication No. 77-157-B.
[4] NIOSH [1980]. NIOSH technical report: carcinogenicity and metabolism of azo dyes, especially those
derived from benzidine. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for
Disease Control, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health.
[5] NIOSH/NCI [1978]. Current intelligence bulletin 24: Direct Blue 6, Direct Black 38, and Direct Brown 95
benzidine-derived dyes. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Center for
Disease Control, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, DHEW (NIOSH) Publication No.
78-148.
[6] NIOSH [1981]. Occupational health guidelines for chemical hazards. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control, National Institute for Occupational Safety and
Health, DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 81-123.
M. J. Seymour, NIOSH.
Disclaimer: Mention of any company or product does not constitute endorsement by NIOSH. In addition,
citations to websites external to NIOSH do not constitute NIOSH endorsement of the sponsoring
organizations or their programs or products. Furthermore, NIOSH is not responsible for the content of these
websites. All web addresses referenced in this document were accessible as of the publication date.
SYNONYMS: Metalworking fluids (MWF), metal removal fluids, machining fluids, mineral oils, straight fluids, soluble fluids,
synthetic fluids and semi-synthetic fluids
SAMPLING MEASUREMENT
OVERALL
PRECISION (ŜrT): Total weight- 0.06
Extracted weight - 0.07
APPLICABILITY: The method is applicable to all metalworking fluids-straight, soluble, synthetic and semi-synthetic as
long as they are soluble in the extraction solvent regimen [4,5]. Only one MWF (Glacier, Solutia Inc.) has thus far been found
to be insoluble in the ternary extraction solvent; however, that MWF is soluble in the binary blend and tests have shown
that the binary solvent in combination with the ternary solvent is effective in extracting this fluid [6]. Thoracic samplers
meeting the International Standard ISO 7708 thoracic convention within the performance specifications of the European
Standard EN13205, parts 1 through 6 [2] may be considered for this method if they have been validated for the collection of
MWF. Depending on the type of thoracic sampler used, the recommended flow rate may differ from that specified above.
Sampling at flow rates exceeding those recommended here may result in increased evaporative loss of sample. Welding
fume may significantly interfere with proper operation of certain impactor-style samplers.
INTERFERENCES: None identified. However, any material that is collected on the filter and is soluble in
the extraction solvents may interfere (positively) with the analysis.
OTHER METHODS: This method is similar to NMAM Method 0500 for Particulates Not Otherwise
Regulated [7] and replaces NMAM Method 5026 as a general technique for analysis of MWF. NMAM
Method 5026, which employs infrared analysis, may be used solely for the analysis of (straight) MWF
that produce mineral oil mists; that method is not recommended for use with water-based fluids [8].
ASTM D7049 is another method that may be used to analyze metalworking fluids [9].
REAGENTS: EQUIPMENT:
1. Dichloromethane, distilled-in-glass (DIG) (See 1. Sampler: 37-mm PTFE, 2-µm pore size
Note)‡ membrane filter (see Appendix 1 for PTFE filter
2. Methanol, distilled-in-glass (See Note)‡ cleanup procedure) and PTFE supporting pad
3. Toluene, distilled-in-glass (See Note)‡ in 37-mm cassette filter holder. Use a 2-piece
4. Water, filtered, double deionized (18 MΩ∙cm (closed face) cassette for sampling ‘total’
resistivity) aerosol. For sampling the thoracic fraction, use
5. Calcium sulfate, desiccant a 3-piece cassette with thoracic cyclone that
6. Ternary solvent blend‡: Mix equal volumes of samples at 1.6 L/min at the thoracic cutpoint.
dichloromethane, methanol and toluene in a See Evaluation of Method. Also, see page
clean dust-free container. Use a bottle with a 5524-1 for discussion of alternative thoracic
screw cap (e.g., a clean, empty solvent bottle): sampling.
Mix the solvents by gentle swirling, not by 2. Personal sampling pump, 1.6 to 2 L/min, with
violent shaking. flexible connecting tubing
7. Binary solvent blend‡: Mix equal volumes 3. Cassette shrink bands, cellulose, 37-mm size
of methanol and water in a clean dust-free 4. Microbalance, capable of weighing to 0.001mg
container. Use a bottle with a screw cap (e.g., a 5. Static neutralizer: e.g., 210Po; replace nine
clean, empty solvent bottle): Mix the solvents months after the production date
by gentle swirling, not by violent shaking. 6. Forceps (preferably nylon or chrome-plated
steel)
NOTE: Lower grade solvents have not been 7. Extraction funnel, See Figure 1 for
evaluated for this method. If it is desired specifications p. 5524-10
to use ACS or liquid chromatographic 8. Desiccator
grade solvents, in the interest of 9. Wash Bottle, PTFE
economy, the user must demonstrate 10. Vials, 20-mL and 10-mL, glass, with leak-proof
that these solvents perform equally to PTFE-lined caps
the DIG grade ( blanks < those obtained 11. Syringe, gas-tight with large bore needle, e.g.,
with the DIG grade). 16-gauge needle
12. Graduated cylinder, glass, 20 mL
‡
See SPECIAL PRECAUTIONS 13. Paper towels
14. Metal screen for drying filters following
extraction, approximately 550 cm2 or other
convenient size. Grid size approximately 12 to
18 mm. Pre-wash screen with ternary blend
solvent and allow to dry.
1. Zero the microbalance before all weighings. Use the same microbalance for weighing filters before
and after sample collection. Maintain and calibrate the balance with National Institute of Standards
and Technology Class S-1.1 or ASTM Class 1 weights.
2. Process at least three tared media blanks through the measurement process for ‘total’ aerosol and
the extractable materials.
3. Number the backup pads with indelible ink and place them, numbered side down, in the filter
cassette bottom sections.
4. Pre-weigh the filters by the weighing procedure given in step 5. Record the mean tare weight of
sample filters, W1 and field blanks, B1 (mg).
5. Weighing procedure:
a. Equilibrate the filters in an environmentally controlled weighing area or chamber for 1 hour
(minimum.)
b. Zero the balance before each weighing. Using forceps, pass each filter over a static neutralizer.
Repeat this step if the filter does not release easily from the forceps or attracts the balance pan.
(Static electricity can cause erroneous weight readings.)
c. Weigh each filter until a constant weight is obtained (i.e., two successive weighings within 10 µg.)
d. Record the mean of the last two weights to the nearest microgram.
6. Assemble the filter in the 2- or 3-piece filter cassettes and close firmly so that leakage around the
filter will not occur. Place a plug in each opening of the filter cassette. Place a cellulose shrink band
around the filter cassette and allow to dry. Alternatively, use heavy duty elastic tape instead of the
shrink band. Mark with the same number as the backup pad.
SAMPLING:
Bulks: For solubility testing, obtain liquid samples of pure uncut bulk metal-working fluids (MWF)
that are expected to be sampled in worker breathing zone. Place these samples in small (e.g.,
10 mL) leak-proof glass container(s) that are sealed with a leak-proof PTFE-lined screwcap.
Then place them inside of a resealable plastic bag and ship these samples to the laboratory
along with the sample filter cassettes.
Air: For collection of a thoracic sample, insert the cyclone into the inlet of a 3-piece cassette. For
collection of a “total” sample, do not use the cyclone.
7. Calibrate each personal sampling pump with a representative sampler in line.
8. For thoracic measurements, sample at 1.6 L/min for 8 hours. For ‘total’ aerosol measurements, sample
at 2 L/min for 8 hours. Do not exceed a total filter loading of approximately 2 mg.
9. Submit at least 5 blank filter samples as field blanks and 3 filters for media blanks for each set of
samples collected per day. Handle the field blanks in the same way as the field samples; i.e., open
each in a non-contaminated environment, then close the sampler and ship it to the lab along with
the remaining samples. Media blanks are not opened.
10. Refrigerate all samples that are to be stored overnight (or longer) prior to shipment to the
laboratory. Ship all samples in refrigerated containers to the laboratory via overnight express
delivery service.
11. Refrigerate the samples immediately upon receipt at the lab until ready for analysis.
12. Analyze the samples within two weeks of receipt at the laboratory.
EXTRACTION:
19. Perform all extractions in an exhaust hood. General guidelines (see NOTE below):
NOTE: Samples weighing less than 0.4 to 0.5 mg (for a 1 m3 sample) may be extracted as desired.
The reason that the cutoffs of 0.4 and 0.5 mg (per 1000 L sample) have been specified is to
assure compliance with the occupational exposure limit (OEL). If the gross sample weight
indicates that the OEL has not been exceeded, there may be no reason to extract the sample.
Otherwise, the usefulness of any extraction data obtained at levels less than 0.4 to 0.5 mg per
sample is guided by the limit of quantitation (LOQ) of the extraction procedure. Extraction
data obtained at levels between the limit of detection (LOD) and the LOQ of the extraction
procedure should be used with appropriate caution due to the imprecision associated with
such data.
20. Do not presume that a fluid that is soluble only in the binary-blend should be extracted using only
the binary blend. The possibility of mixed exposures always dictates that the extraction procedure
with both the binary and ternary solvent blends should be followed. If the weights of samples
exceed the amount expected to be collected at the REL, e.g., 0.4 mg (thoracic fraction) or 0.5 mg
(‘total’ aerosol) for a 1 m3 air sample, then extract the samples and blanks as follows:
a. Place each filter (membrane side up) in the filter funnel assembly connected to the vacuum
source.
b. Pour one 10-mL aliquot of the ternary solvent down the inside wall of the funnel over the filter.
Allow the solvent to contact the filter for no more than 5 to 10 minutes. Remove the solvent
under slight vacuum.
c. Pour one 10-mL aliquot of the binary solvent down the inside of the funnel over the filter. Allow
the solvent to contact the filter for no more than 5 to 10 minutes. Remove the solvent under
slight vacuum.
d. Pour a second 10-mL aliquot of the ternary solvent down the inside of the funnel over the filter.
Allow at least 30 seconds of contact time. Remove the solvent under slight vacuum. Wash the
inner wall of the filter funnel with 1 to 2 mL of the ternary blend contained in a PTFE wash bottle.
Remove the solvent under slight vacuum.
CALCULATIONS:
22. Calculate the concentration of ‘total’ aerosol or thoracic fraction, C (mg/m3), in the air volume
sampled, V (L):
(W2 − W1 ) − ( B2 − B1 ) * 103 L / m3
C= ,( mg / m3 )
V
EVALUATION OF METHOD:
The ‘total’ weight procedure permits an estimate of the ‘total’ collected particulate aerosol, including
nuisance dust, airborne metal particulate and metal working fluid. If the extraction procedure is used,
the technique permits an estimate of the ‘total’ collected metalworking fluid to which the worker is
exposed. The development of the ternary solvent used in this method is described in reference 3.
This method was initially tested with representative samples of straight, soluble, semi-synthetic, and
synthetic metalworking fluids (MWFs). Samples were spiked onto tared polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE)
membrane filters, stored overnight, and analyzed the following day. The samples were weighed, then
the MWF was extracted from the filter with a 1:1:1 blend of dichloromethane:methanol:toluene. The
fractions extracted (FE or mass recovered/mass spiked) exceeded 94% for all fluids extracted from the
filters over the range from 200 µg to 815 µg for the straight fluid, from 223 µg to 878 µg for the soluble
fluid, from 51 µg to 189 µg for the semi-synthetic fluid, and from 102 µg to 420 µg for the synthetic
fluid. For those weights of all four fluids spiked at levels ≥ 200 µg, the relative standard deviation was
estimated to be 4% for the total weight procedure and 5% for the extraction procedure. If the sampling
imprecision of 5% is included, these estimates become 6% and 7% respectively for the total weight
and extraction procedures. Limits of quantitation, estimated from blanks carried through the entire
analytical procedure, were 30 µg for the weighing technique and 60 µg for the extraction technique. No
estimate of the bias was available [4]. The filters are desiccated to remove excess water from water-based
MWF samples.
In a more rigorous test of this method for a 79-plant survey [2], the average limits of quantitation were
estimated to be 0.1 mg for both the total and extracted weight procedures. However, there was high
variability in these estimates for the sites sampled. The upper 95% confidence limit for the LOQs for both
the total weight and extracted weight measurements was 0.3 mg. In order to assess the effectiveness of
the extraction step, a secondary extraction of the most heavily-loaded filters obtained in this survey was
conducted; on average, less than 5% of the sample weight was removed during the second extraction,
indicating that the majority of extractable material had been removed during the first extraction.
Samples were refrigerated upon receipt at the laboratory [2,10].
During the 79-plant survey, all thoracic sampling was conducted with a BGI Mdl 2.69 Thoracic sampler.
This sampler has a thoracic cut point of 10 µm at 1.6 L/min. The stability of quality assurance (QA)
samples, spiked separately with a straight, a soluble, a semi-synthetic, and a synthetic fluid, indicated
that the QA samples all lost weight according to simple linear decay equations. This loss in weight was
likely due to evaporation of the spiking solvent and water (for soluble, semi-synthetic and synthetic
MW fluids.) These decay equations were used to estimate the amounts expected to be reported for QA
filters by the performing laboratory. For storage periods ranging from 17 to 26 days, the total weight
of samples recovered for all QA samples were greater than or equal to 80% of those expected from the
decay equations. For these QA samples, the fractions extracted of all four fluid types were greater than
or equal to 90%.
The binary solvent extraction step has been added to assure complete extraction of MWF components
that may be incompletely removed by the ternary blend. In addition, the binary solvent extends the
procedure to samples that contain ternary blend-soluble fluids co-mingled with ternary blend-insoluble
fluids, e.g., Glacier (Solutia Inc.) Tests of the extraction of five MWF (including Glacier) showed that
extraction efficiencies using the ternary blend in combination with the binary blend were comparable
to those reported in reference 1 using the ternary blend alone (FE greater than 90 %; CV less than 0.10).
The binary solvent extractant liquor obtained from the Glacier samples generally contained potassium
and phosphorous at levels approximately expected for the mass spiked onto the filters. The binary
solvent extracts of the four other test fluids were analyzed for sodium, potassium or boron marker
elements. Sodium was present in the extract of the soluble fluid at greater than background levels. The
boron marker was not detected in the extract from the semi-synthetic fluid. The potassium marker was
not detected in the extract from the synthetic fluid [5].
This method was further evaluated in a six-laboratory round robin study using synthetically generated
atmospheres of an aerosol of a soluble MWF at the 0.5 mg/sample level. The data were evaluated
according to ASTM standard E691-99. Pooled estimates of the total coefficients of variation were 0.13 for
both the total and extracted weight samples. Overall there was no significant bias in the results. LOQs
were comparable to those reported above [11].
REFERENCES:
[1] Health and Safety Executive (HSE), United Kingdom [2003]. MDHS 95/2, Measurement of personal
exposure of metalworking machine operators to airborne water-mix metalworking fluid. [http://
www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/mdhs/pdfs/mdhs95-2.pdf ] Website accessed March 25, 2013.
[2] BSI (British Standards Institute) [2014]. BS EN 13205:2014. Workplace exposure. Assessment of
sampler performance for measurement of airborne particle concentrations. Parts 1 through 6.
Brussels, Belgium: European Committee for Standardization.
[3] Glaser RA, Shulman S, Kurimo R, Piacitelli G [2002]. Data supporting a provisional American Society
for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Method for metalworking fluids, Part 3: evaluation of a provisional
ASTM Method for metalworking fluids in a survey of metalworking facilities. Journal of Testing and
Evaluation 20(5): 439-451.
[4] Glaser RA, Shulman S, Klinger P [1999]. Data supporting a provisional American Society for Testing
and Materials (ASTM) Method for metalworking fluids, Part 2: preliminary report of evaluation of
a ternary extraction solvent in a provisional ASTM Test Method for metalworking fluids (PS-42-97).
Journal of Testing and Evaluation 17(3):131-136.
[5] Glaser RA [1999]. Data supporting a provisional American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM)
Method for metalworking fluids, Part 1: a solvent blend with wide-ranging ability to dissolve
metalworking fluids. Journal of Testing and Evaluation 17(3):171-174.
[6] Glaser RA, Kurimo R, Neumeister C, Shulman S [2005]. Data supporting ASTM Method D7049-04 for
determination of metalworking fluids, ASTM Journal of Testing and Evaluation, 33(5):323-330.
[7] NIOSH [1994]. Particulates not otherwise regulated: Method 0500. In: Eller PM, Cassinelli ME, eds.
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods, 4th ed. Cincinnati OH: U. S. Department of Health and Human
Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety and
Health, DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 94-113. [www.cdc.gov/niosh/nmam/].
[8] NIOSH [1994]. Oil Mist, Mineral: Method 5026. In: Eller PM, Cassinelli ME, eds. NIOSH Manual of
Analytical Methods, 4th ed. Cincinnati OH: U. S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, DHHS
(NIOSH) Publication No. 94-113. [www.cdc.gov/niosh/nmam/].
[9] ASTM D7049 [2010]. Standard Test Method for Metal Removal Fluid Aerosol in Workplace
Atmospheres. ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA.
[10] Piacitelli G, Hughes R, Catalano J, Sieber W, Glaser RA, Kent M [1997]. Exposures to Metalworking
fluids in small size machine shops. Presented at The Industrial Metalworking Environment:
Assessment and Control of Metal Removal Fluids Symposium, Detroit, Michigan, September 1997.
[11] Glaser RA, Kurimo R, Shulman S [2007]. Performance testing of NIOSH Method 5524/ASTM method
D-7049-04 for determination of metalworking fluids. J Occup Environ Hyg, 4:583-595.
Disclaimer: Mention of any company or product does not constitute endorsement by NIOSH. In
addition, citations to websites external to NIOSH do not constitute NIOSH endorsement of the
sponsoring organizations or their programs or products. Furthermore, NIOSH is not responsible for
the content of these websites. All web addresses referenced in this document were accessible as of
the publication date.
* NOTE: Because exposure limits and guidelines may change over time, NIOSH recommends referring to
the following sources for updated limits and guidelines. [1,2]
PROCEDURE
This cleanup procedure has been incorporated into NMAM Method 5524 in order to deal with reported
spurious weight gains and losses before and after analysis of the PTFE filters used with this method.
It is believed that trace levels of dust or extractable material are entrained in these filters during the
manufacturing process. This cleanup procedure has been evaluated using 60 filters from three different
batches of PTFE filters (20 filters/batch) [1]. Prior to cleaning, the filters were weighed (untreated
filters), then washed with the ternary blend according to the procedure in Appendix 1, dried, and then
reweighed (treated filters).
Results: The differences in each of the 3 batches were compared by subtracting the treated filter
weights from their untreated weights. For all 60 samples, the overall mean difference in weights (+/-the
standard error of the mean) was 0.2 µg (± 1.4 µg). For each of the 3 batches, the differences in weight
were reported as mean (+/-standard error): 5 µg (± 2.5 µg) , -2 µg (± 2.0 µg), and -3 µg(± 2.7 µg) for
batches 1, 2 and 3, respectively. The weight differences were not statistically significant from zero overall
or by batch using a paired t-test (p = 0.05), and allowing for multiple comparisons.
To determine if the washing procedure affected the filter’s performance for analysis of metalworking
fluids, each of the filters was analyzed according to the procedure of NMAM Method 5524, which
includes extraction with the binary and ternary solvent blends. The following differences were
computed: post-analysis weights of the filters minus their treated or untreated weights. The average
difference in the weights of the 60 untreated filters and their post-analysis weights reported as mean
(± standard error of the mean) was 34 µg (± 1.9 µg). For each of the 3 batches, the differences in the
untreated and post-analysis weights were: 30 µg (± 3.9 µg), 38 µg (± 2.0 µg) and 34 µg (± 3.3 µg) for
batches 1, 2 and 3, respectively. These differences are statistically significantly different from zero, both
overall and individually by batch, using a paired t-test (p = 0.05), and allowing for multiple comparisons.
The average differences in the weights of the 60 treated filters and their post-analysis weights were:
34 µg (± 1.4 µg). Again the differences in weight are reported as mean (± standard error). For each of
the 3 batches, the differences, (post-analysis minus treated) weights, were: 35 µg (± 3.4 µg), 36 µg
(± 2.0 µg), and 31 µg (± 1.8 µg) for batches 1, 2 and 3, respectively. These differences are statistically
significantly different from zero, both overall and individually by batch, using a paired t-test (p = 0.05),
and allowing for multiple comparisons.
In summary, the weight differences were statistically different from zero by batch and overall using a
paired t-test for both the post-analysis minus treated weights and for the post analysis-untreated
weights (p = 0.05). However, the untreated/treated differences were not statistically different using the
same tests.
These experiments indicate that cleaning the filters lowered the overall LOQ of the analytical method.
The LOQ determined from the differences in weights between the untreated and analyzed filters was
140 µg and was greater than the LOQ of 110 µg determined from the differences in weights between
the treated and analyzed filters. The extraction procedure produced a more consistent blank and
therefore a lower average standard deviation from which lower LOD s and LOQs were determined.
[1] NIOSH [2014]. CEMB Analytical Services Report: Sequence 11600-CA. Novi, MI: Bureau Veritas North
America, unpublished.
Figure 1. Schematic diagram of funnel. May be ordered from Case Custom Environmental Equipment,
Erlanger, Kentucky (859-250-8558); www.casecustomenvironmentalequipment.com) or
equivalent source. Dimensions are given in inches.
SAMPLING MEASUREMENT
APPLICABILITY: This method was developed for air monitoring of methyltin chlorides [2].
OTHER METHODS: NIOSH method 5504 is another method for the measurement of organotin compounds using a filter
with a sorbent tube for collection and HPLC/AA for analysis [3].
REAGENTS: EQUIPMENT:
SAMPLING:
SAMPLE PREPARATION:
5. Remove the retaining ring from the sorbent tube and discard. Transfer the glass fiber filter and the
main resin bed to a 10 mL sample vial.
6. Remove and discard the foam plug that separates the two resin sections in the sorbent tube.
Transfer the backup resin bed to a second 10 mL sample vial.
7. Into each vial, add 2 mL of 0.17 mol/L acetic acid in acetonitrile to desorb the methyltin chlorides.
Put the vials on a mechanical shaker for 30 min.
8. Into each vial, add 2 mL of pH 4 buffer and 1 mL of derivatizing solution. Place the vials on the
mechanical shaker for 15 min.
9. Extract the solution with three 1 mL portions of hexane. Combine the hexane fractions in a 5 mL
volumetric flask and dilute to volume with hexane.
10. Calibrate daily with at least six working standards over the range of interest.
a. Accurately pipette 10 µL of the calibration stock solution into a vial that contains 5 mL of 0.17
mol/L acetic acid in acetonitrile. Derivatize like a sample following steps 7, 8, and 9.
b. Serially dilute this standard derivatized solution with hexane to produce solutions over the range
of 0.2 µg/mL to 0.02 µg/mL (as tin) of each methyltin chloride.
c. Transfer to autosampler vials with PTFE-lined caps.
d. Analyze together with samples and blanks (steps 13, 14, and 15).
e. Prepare calibration graph (peak areas vs. µg tin for each methyltin chloride).
11. Determine desorption efficiency (DE) at least once for each lot of OVS tubes used for sampling in the
calibration range (step 10). Prepare three samplers at each of six levels plus three media blanks.
a. Transfer the front sorbent section of the OVS sampler to a 4 mL vial.
b. Inject a known volume of calibration stock solution, or serial dilution, directly onto the front
sorbent bed of each OVS tube.
c. Cap vial and allow spiked sorbent bed to stand overnight.
d. Desorb (steps 7, 8, and 9) and analyze together with standards and blanks (steps 13, 14, and 15).
e. Prepare a graph of DE vs. µg for each methyltin chloride recovered.
12. Analyze three quality control blind spikes and three analyst spikes to ensure that the calibration
graph and DE graphs are in control.
MEASUREMENT:
13. Set gas chromatograph according to manufacturer’s recommendations and to conditions given on
page 5526-1.
14. Inject a 1 µL sample aliquot manually using solvent flush technique or with an autosampler.
NOTE: If peak area is above the linear range of the working standards, dilute with hexane, reanalyze,
and apply the appropriate dilution factor in the calculations.
15. Measure the areas of the peaks of the methyltin chlorides. A sample chromatogram is shown in
Figure 1.
CALCULATIONS:
16. Determine the mass, µg (corrected for DE), for each methyltin chloride found in the sample front
( ) and back ( ) sorbent sections, and in the average media blank front ( ) and back ( )sorbent
sections.
NOTE: If , report breakthrough and possible sample loss.
17. Calculate concentration, , of each methyltin chloride in the air volume sampled, (L):
, µg/L or mg/m³.
EVALUATION OF METHOD:
This method, developed to collect air samples and analyze the methyltin chlorides, was adapted
from existing methodology for measuring organotin compounds in air [3,4]. Reference 2 details
the validation of this method for sampling and quantifying of trimethyltin chloride, dimethyltin
dichloride, and methyltin trichloride in air. The validated method was needed to provide air monitoring
capabilities during methyltin chloride and stabilizer production. Table 2 lists the results of the validation
experiments, which followed the guidelines established by NIOSH [5]. However, fewer replicates and
concentration levels were used than recommended. This method met the NIOSH criteria for accuracy,
bias, and sample stability. The recommended sampling conditions are 250 mL/min for 5.5 h maximum
for time-weighted average (TWA) sampling and 1000 mL/min for 20 min maximum for short-term
exposure limit (STEL) sampling.
REFERENCES:
[1] Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) [2005]. Chemical and physical
information. In: Toxicological profile for tin and tin compounds. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services, Public Health Service [www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp55-c4.pdf ].
[2] Yoder RE [2000]. Validation of a method for the collection and quantification of methyltin chlorides
in the air. Philadelphia, PA: Atofina Chemicals. Unpublished.
[3] NIOSH [1994]. Organotin compounds (as ): Method 5504 (supplement issued 3/15/2003). In:
Schlecht PC, O’Connor PF, eds. NIOSH manual of analytical methods. 4th ed. Cincinnati, OH: U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National
Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 94-113 [www.cdc.gov/
niosh/nmam/].
[4] Shangwei H [1997]. Development of a method for the sampling and analysis of dimethyltin
dichloride and trimethyltin chloride. New Orleans, LA: Tulane University, Department of
Environmental Sciences, School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine. Unpublished.
[5] NIOSH [1995]. Guidelines for air sampling and analytical method development and evaluation.
By Kennedy ER, Fischbach TJ, Song R, Eller PM, Shulman SA. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute for
Occupational Safety and Health, DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 95-117 [www.cdc.gov/niosh/
docs/95-117/pdfs/95-117.pdf ].
DISCLAIMER: Mention of any company or product does not constitute endorsement by NIOSH. In addition, citations to
websites external to NIOSH do not constitute NIOSH endorsement of the sponsoring organizations or their programs or
products. Furthermore, NIOSH is not responsible for the content of these websites. All web addresses referenced in this
document were accessible as of the publication date.
OSHA NIOSH
PEL* REL*
Analyte Formula MW CAS No. RTECS No. Properties (mg/m³) (mg/m³)
Methyltin 240.08 993-16-8 WH8585500 Colorless crystals; 0.1 0.1
trichloride MP 43 °C; BP 171 °C
Dimethyltin 219.67 753-73-1 WH7245000 Colorless crystals; 0.1 0.1
dichloride MP 90 °C (107 °C);
BP 185 °C to 190 °C
Trimethyltin 199.26 1066-45-1 WH6850000 Colorless crystals; 0.1 0.1
chloride MP 37.5 °C;
BP 154 °C to 156 °C
*Measured as the amount of tin for organotin compounds in air.
SAMPLING MEASUREMENT
SAMPLER: FILTER + SOLID SORBENT TUBE TECHNIQUE: GC, flame photometric detection (FPD)
(OVS-2 tube: 13-mm quartz filter; XAD-2,
270 mg/140 mg) ANALYTE: Organophosphorus pesticides, Table 1
VOL-MIN: 12 L INJECTION
-MAX: 480 L; 60 L (Malathion, Ronnel) VOLUME: 1 to 2 μL
ACCURACY: Table 5
APPLICABILITY: The working ranges are listed in Table 5. They cover a range of 1/10 to 2 times the OSHA PELs. This method also is
applicable to STEL measurements using 12-L samples. This method may be applicable to the determination of other
organophosphorous compounds after evaluation for desorption efficiency, sample capacity, sample stability, and precision and
accuracy.
INTERFERENCES: Several organophosphates may co-elute with either target analyte or internal standard causing integration
errors. These include other pesticides (see Table 7), and the following: tributyl phosphate (a plasticizer), tris-(2-butoxy ethyl)
phosphate (a plasticizer used in some rubber stoppers), tricresyl phosphate (a petroleum oil additive, hydraulic fluid, plasticizer,
flame-retardant, and solvent), and triphenyl phosphate (platicizer and flame-retardant in plastics, laquers, and roofing paper).
OTHER METHODS: This method may be used to replace previous organophosphorous pesticide methods. See Table 11 for partial
listing. The sampler recommended here is similar in concept to the device of Hill and Arnold [11], but offers greater convenience
and lower flow resistance.
REAGENTS: EQUIPMENT:
SPECIAL PRECAUTIONS: Organophosphorous compounds are highly toxic. Special care must be taken
to avoid inhalation or skin contact through the wearing of gloves and suitable clothing when handling
pure material [13,14,15,16,17]. Toluene is flammable and toxic. Acetone is highly flammable. Prepare all
samples in a well ventilated hood.
SAMPLING:
SAMPLE PREPARATION:
5. Remove cap from large end and remove PTFE retainer ring; transfer filter and front XAD-2 section to a
4-mL vial. Transfer the short polyurethane foam plug with back-up XAD-2 section to a second 4-mL
vial.
6. Add 2-mL of desorbing solvent with internal standard to each vial using a 5-mL syringe or 2-mL
pipette. Cap each vial.
7. Allow to stand 30 minutes, immerse vials approximately 1/2 inch in an ultrasonic bath for 30 minutes.
Alternatively, place the vials in a shaker or tumbler for 1 hour.
8. Transfer 1 to 1.5 mL from each 4-mL vial to a clean 2-mL GC vial, cap and label.
9. Calibrate daily with at least six working standards covering the analytical range of the method for
individual analytes. See Table 12 for recommended preparation of spiking solutions.
a. Add known amounts of calibration spiking solution (SS-1 or SS-0.1 according to schedule
in Table 12) to desorbing solution in 2-mL volumetric flasks and dilute to the mark.
NOTE: If an internal standard is included in the desorbing solution, then exactly 2 mL of
desorbing solution in a volumetric flask must be concentrated slightly under a
gentle stream of nitrogen in order to accommodate the specified volume of the
spiking solutions. After adding the spiking solutions to the slightly concentrated
desorbing solution, dilute to the 2-mL mark with toluene or 90/10
toluene/acetone.
b. Include a calibration blank of unspiked desorption solution.
c. Analyze together with field samples, field (trip) blanks, and laboratory control samples (step
12 and 13).
d. Prepare calibration graph (peak area vs. μg analyte), or if internal standard (IS) is used
(peak area of analyte/peak area of IS vs. μg analyte).
10. Prepare Laboratory Control Samples (LCS) with each sample set, in duplicate.
a. Remove cap from large end of sampler tube, apply 30 µL of spiking solution SS-1 (refer to
Table 13) to face of quartz fiber filter. Cap and allow to stand for a minimum of 1 hour. Preferably,
these should be prepared as soon as samples arrive and should be stored with the field samples
until analyzed.
b. Include an unspiked sampler as a media (method) blank.
c. Analyze along with field samples and blanks, and liquid calibration standards (steps 12 through 16).
11. When extending application of this method to other organophosphorous compounds, the following
minimal desorption efficiency (DE) test may be performed as follows:
a. Determine the NIOSH REL or OSHA PEL, in mg/m3.
b. Prepare spiking solution SS-1 (refer to Table 12); or use the following formulae, which are
specific for the calculation of the weight of analyte to add to 10 mL 90/10 toluene/acetone).
For REL > 1 mg/m3 (assuming 12-L collection vol.), let W = REL x 4 m3
For REL ≤ 1 mg/m3 (assuming 120-L collection vol.), let W = REL x 40 m3
Where W = weight (mg) of analyte to dissolve into 10 mL of desorbing solvent.
Let [SS-1] = W/10 mL where [SS-1] = concentration of spiking solution SS-1 in mg/mL.
c. Prepare spiking solution SS-0.1 by diluting 1 mL of SS-1 to 10 mL in a volumetric flask. Let [SS-
0.1] = [SS-1] x 0.1 where [SS-0.1] = concentration of spiking solution SS-0.1.
d. Prepare three tubes at each of five levels plus three media blanks. Concentration at each level
may be calculated using formulae in last entry of Table 12.
i. Remove plastic cap from large end of sampler, apply appropriate volume of spiking solution to
face of quartz fiber filter following schedule in Table 13.
ii. Cap and allow sampler to stand overnight.
e. Prepare tubes for analysis (steps 5 through 8).
f. Analyze with liquid standards (steps 12 and 13).
g. Prepare a graph of desorption efficiency (DE) vs. μg of analyte.
h. Acceptable desorption criteria for 6 replicates is >75% average recovery with a standard deviation
of < ±9%.
MEASUREMENT:
12. Set gas chromatograph according to manufacturer’s recommendations and to conditions listed in
Table 6 and on page 5600-1. Inject sample aliquot manually using solvent flush technique or with
autosampler. See Table 7 for retention times of selected analytes.
NOTE: If peak area is greater than the linear range of the working standards, dilute with desorbing
solution containing internal standard and reanalyze. Apply the appropriate dilution factor in
calculations.
13. Measure peak area of analyte and of internal standard.
CALCULATIONS:
14. Determine the mass in μg (corrected for DE) of respective analyte found in the sample front (Wf) and
back (Wb) sorbent sections, and in the media blank front (Bf) and back (Bb) sorbent sections.
NOTE: The filter is combined with front section. If Wb > Wf/10 report breakthrough and possible
sample loss.
15. Calculate concentration, C, of analyte in the air volume sampled, V (L):
16. Whenever an analyte is detected, and its identity is uncertain, confirmation may be achieved by
analysis on a second column of different polarity. If primary analysis was performed using a non-polar
or weakly polar column (DB-1 or DB-5), confirmation should be accomplished by reanalysis on a polar
column (DB-1701 or DB-210). See Table 7 for approximate retention times for each column type. Fewer
analytes co-elute on DB-210 than on DB-1701. Relative retention times are more convenient for the
identification of unknown analytes. If triphenyl phosphate is not used as the retention time reference
compound, then another related compound such as tributyl phosphate, Ronnel, or Parathion may be
substituted.
EVALUATION OF METHOD:
This method was evaluated over the ranges specified in Table 5 at 25 °C using 240-L air samples. Sampler
tubes were tested at 15% and 80% relative humidity and at 10 °C and 30 °C. In these tests, test
atmospheres were not generated; instead, analytes were fortified on the face of the sampler filters. This
was followed by pulling conditioned air at 1 L/min for 4 hours. No difference in sampler performance was
noted at any of these temperature/humidity combinations. Evaluations of sampler precision and stability
were conducted at 30 °C and 15% relative humidity. Overall sampling and measurement precisions, bias,
accuracy, and average percent recovery after long-term storage are presented in Table 5. No breakthrough
was detected after 12 hours of sampling at 1 L/min with a sampler fortified with the equivalent of 4x the
NIOSH REL. Malathion and Ronnel were tested at 1/40 x REL, Sulprofos at 1/20 x REL (See Table 5, note 4).
All criteria [9] were met.
REFERENCES:
[1] NIOSH [1987]. Registry of toxic effects of chemical substances. Sweet DV, ed. Cincinnati, OH: U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control, National Institute for
Occupational Safety and Health, DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 87-114.
[2] Budavari, S. ed. [1989]. Merck Index. 11th ed. Rahway, NJ: Merck and Company.
[3] Sine C, ed. [1991]. Farm chemicals handbook. Willoughby, OH: Meister Publishing Co.
[4] OSHA [1987]. Methods: PV2015, PV2027, PV2037, PV2045, PV2071, PV2087, PV2099, PV2105,
PV2112, and PV2134. In: OSHA Sampling and analytical methods. Salt Lake City, UT: U.S. Department
of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration.
[5] NIOSH [1992]. Recommendations for occupational safety and health. Cincinnati, OH: U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National
Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 92-100.
[6] NIOSH [2016]. NIOSH Pocket guide to chemical hazards. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational
Safety and Health, DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 2010-168c, http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/npg/.
[7] NIOSH [1977]. Methods: P & CAM 158, 295, 336; S208, S209, S210, S280, S285, S295, S296, S299, and
S370. In: Taylor DG, ed. NIOSH manual of analytical methods. 2nd ed. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department
of Health, Education, and Welfare, Center for Disease Control, National Institute for Occupational
Safety and Health, DHEW (NIOSH) Publication No. 77-157-C.
[8] NIOSH [1984]. Methods 2503, 2504, 5012, and 5514. In: Eller PM, Cassinelli ME, eds. NIOSH manual of
analytical methods. 3rd ed. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease
Control, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 84-100.
[9] Kennedy ER, Abell MT, Reynolds J, Wickman D [1993]. A sampling and analytical method for the
simultaneous determination of multiple organophosphorus pesticides in air. Am Ind Hyg Assoc J
55(12):1172-1177.
[10] J & W Scientific [1991]. J & W Scientific catalog of high resolution chromatography products. Folsom,
CA: J & W Scientific.
[11] Hill RH Jr., Arnold JE [1979]. A personal air sampler for pesticides. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol
8:621-628.
[12] OSHA [1986]. Method 62. In: OSHA Sampling and analytical methods. Salt Lake City, UT: U.S.
Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration.
[13] NIOSH [1976]. NIOSH criteria for a recommended standard: occupational exposure to malathion.
Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Center for Disease Control,
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, DHEW (NIOSH) Publication No. 76-205.
[14] NIOSH [1976]. NIOSH criteria for a recommended standard: occupational exposure to parathion.
Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Center for Disease Control,
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, DHEW (NIOSH) Publication No. 76-190.
[15] NIOSH [1976]. NIOSH criteria for a recommended standard: occupational exposure to methyl
parathion. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Center for Disease
Control, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, DHEW (NIOSH) Publication No. 77-
106.
[16] NIOSH [1978]. NIOSH criteria for a recommended standard: occupational exposure during the
manufacture and formulation of pesticides. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health, Education,
and Welfare, Center for Disease Control, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, DHEW
(NIOSH) Publication No. 78-174.
[17] Federal Working Group on Pest Management [1974]. Occupational exposure to pesticides: report to
the federal working group on pest management from the task group on occupational exposure to
pesticides. Washington, D.C.: Federal Working Group on Pest Management. Available as from
www.ntis.gov as accession no. PB244259
Disclaimer: Mention of any company or product does not constitute endorsement by NIOSH. In addition,
citations to websites external to NIOSH do not constitute NIOSH endorsement of the sponsoring
organizations or their programs or products. Furthermore, NIOSH is not responsible for the content of
these websites. All web addresses referenced in this document were accessible as of the publication date.
Compound MW(1)
Empirical Formula CAS No.(2,3,4) RTECS(2)
(alphabetically) (Daltons)
(1) Rat-oral; from Merck Index, unless otherwise noted, f = female, m = male. [2]
(2) Farm Chemicals Handbook [3]
(3) OSHA Final Rule, 1989 (unenforceable, 1992); only Malathion and Parathion had previous PELs
(4) NIOSH Recommendations for Occupational Safety and Health [5]
Disulfoton 1.144 oil >180 °C flash pt. 0.0267 0.0002 0.003% (22.7 °C)
>150
Ethion 1.220 -12 to -13 0.0002 1.5x10-6 0.0001%
(decomposes)
Ethoprop 1.094 oil 86-91 0.047 3.5x10-4 0.075%
TABLE 4. Synonyms
Compound(1)
Other name(2) CAS name(3,4)
(alphabetically)
Azinphos Methyl Guthion* O,O-dimethyl S-[(4-oxo-1,2,3-benzotriazin-3(4H)-yl)methyl] phosphorodithioate
Methyl Parathion Parathion Methyl (1) Phosphorothioic acid, O,O-dimethyl 0-[4-nitrophenyl] ester
Column: DB-1 fused silica capillary column, 30 meters x 0.32 mm I.D. x 0.25 µm film thickness
Temperature program: 80 to 275 °C at 3.0 °C per minute.
Concentration of analytes: 0.6 x NIOSH REL, except Sulprofos (0.06x REL), and Malathion and Ronnel (both at 0.006x)
1.8 µg/mL Parathion and Phorate
3.6 µg/mL All other compounds
7.2 µg/mL Azinphos methyl, Chlorpyrifos, Methamidophos, and Methyl parathion
9.0 µg/mL Dicrotophos and Monocrotophos
14 µg/mL Triphenyl phosphate
14.4 µg/mL Ethion
SAMPLING MEASUREMENT
SAMPLER: FILTER/SOLID SORBENT TUBE TECHNIQUE: HPLC, UV DETECTION
(OVS-2 Tube: 13-mm quartz fiber filter;
XAD-2, 270 mg/140 mg) ANALYTE: organonitrogen pesticides (Table 1)
FLOW RATE: 0.1 - 1 L/min [1] EXTRACTION: 2 mL extraction solution (0.2% V/V 0.1 M
aqueous triethylamine phosphate buffer
VOL-MIN: variable (see Table 2) in acetonitrile, pH 6.9 to 7.1)
-MAX: 480 L
INJECTION
SHIPMENT: routine VOLUME: 5 µL
RANGE: Table 2
APPLICABILITY: The working ranges (Table 2) for aldicarb, carbofuran, and oxamyl range from 0.5 to 10 times the OSHA PEL.
Others cover 0.1 to 2 times the OSHA PELs with appropriate dilutions [1].This method may be applicable to the determination of
other organonitrogen compounds after evaluation, and to a broad range of pesticides having UV chromophores, e.g., acetanilides,
acid herbicides, organophosphates, phenols, pyrethroids, sulfonyl ureas, sulfonamides, triazines, and uracil pesticides.
INTERFERENCES: Because of the broad response of the UV detector at shorter wavelengths, there are many potential
interferences. Those tested include solvents (chloroform and toluene), antioxidants (BHT), plasticizers (dialkylphthalates), nitrogen
compounds (nicotine and caffeine), impurities in HPLC reagents (e.g., in triethylamine), other pesticides (2,4-D, atrazine, parathion,
etc.), and pesticide hydrolysis products (1-naphthol). Retention times are given in Table 4. Confirmation techniques are
recommended when analyte identity is uncertain.
OTHER METHODS: This method may be used to replace previous related pesticide methods: S273 Carbaryl [2]; 5006 Carbaryl [3];
OSHA 63 Carbaryl and 74 Aldicarb [4]; OSHA Stopgap methods for several pesticides [5]; and EPA TO-10 for Captan, Folpet, and
Mexacarbate [6]. The OVS-2 Tube is similar in concept to the device of Hill and Arnold [7], but offers convenience and lower flow
resistance.
REAGENTS: EQUIPMENT
1. Carbamate, urea, and sulfenimide analytes 1. Sampler: OSHA Versatile Sampler (OVS-2
listed in Table 1; internal standards tube), resin filled sampling tube; glass tube,
acetanilide and acetophenone, analytical 11-mm i.d. x 13-mm o.d. x 50-mm long, with
grade.* the outlet end drawn to a 6-mm o.d. x 25-
2. Acetonitrile, UV grade.* mm long tube. The enlarged part of the tube
3. Methanol, HPLC grade.* contains a 270-mg front section of 20/60
4. Deionized water, ASTM Type II. mesh XAD-2 sorbent held in place by a 9-10-
5. 1-Propanol, UV grade.* mm o.d. quartz fiber filter and
6. n-Butyl isocyanate.* polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) retaining ring.
7. Triethylamine (TEA), HPLC grade.* Keep The front section is separated from the back
refrigerated (0 to 4 °C) and store under section of 140 mg XAD-2 sorbent with a
nitrogen for longer shelf life [1, 8]. short plug of polyurethane foam. The back
8. Ortho-phosphoric acid, >85% by weight, section is held in place by a long plug of
ACS grade or better.* polyurethane foam. The tube is available
9. Extraction solution. Prepare separate commercially. OVS-2 tubes with glass fiber
trimethylamine phosphate (TEA-PO4) filters have equivalent desorption efficiencies
preservative and internal standard and are commercially available.
solutions. 2. Personal sampling pump: 0.1 to 1 L/min with
a. TEA-PO4 preservative, 0.1 M. Dissolve1.4 flexible and inert connecting tubing.
mL of TEA in 90 mL of deionized water. 3. High Performance Liquid Chromatograph
Add phosphoric acid to lower pH to 7.0 capable of mixing two mobile phases in a
(± 0.1) as indicated by a calibrated pH linear gradient. Must be capable of pumping
meter. Bring volume to 100 mL. Keep up to 4000 psi, to accommodate 300 mm
tightly capped and refrigerated. long columns.
NOTE: Do not use chloroacetic acid as a 4. Autosampler, low dead-volume, capable of
preservative [9]. Formetanate, at 5-µL injections. Preservative (TEA-PO4) in the
least, is unstable with chloroacetic desorbing solution may be eliminated if a
acid. refrigerated autosampler tray is available**
b. Internal standard stock solution, 5. Analytical columns.
5 mg/mL. Add 100 mg of each internal a. Primary column: Base-deactivated
standard of choice for each 20 mL of octadecylsilyl (C18) column, 3.9-mm ID X
solution required. Dissolve in 300 mm, 5-µm particle size.
acetonitrile. Store capped at –12 ± 1 °C. b. Secondary column: Cyanopropyl silica
c. Final extraction solution. Add 1 mL of the column, 4.6 X 250-mm, 5-µm particle size.
TEA-PO4 solution and 12 mL of the 6. Guard column, low dead-volume, containing
internal standard stock solution to a 500- analytical column packing material**
mL volumetric flask. Dilute to volume 7. Ultraviolet detector, low dead-volume, with
with acetonitrile. Concentration of TEA = 1-cm path length cell capable of monitoring
0.2 mM, water = 0.2%, and internal two wavelengths (200- and 225-nm)
standards = 120 µg/mL. Stable up to 30 simultaneously.
days at 0 to 4 °C. 8. Vials: 4-mL with PTFE-lined caps; 2-mL HPLC
10. Individual analyte stock solutions, 5 autosampler vials with PTFE- or
mg/mL. Add each analyte to acetonitrile in polyethylene-lined snap caps.
separate volumetric flasks. Use methylene 9. Syringes: 0.01-, 0.05-, 0.1-, 1.0- and 2.5-mL;
chloride for benomyl and carbendazim. Use luer lock style, 1- or 2.5-mL for sample
50/50 v/v methanol/acetonitrile or formetanate. filtering.
Store at –12 ± 1 °C. (Solutions are stable up to 30 10. Volumetric flasks: 2-, 5-, 10-, 25-, 50-, 100-,
days.) 500-, and 1000-mL.
11. PTFE syringe filter: 0.45-µm.
*See SPECIAL PRECAUTIONS. **Low dead volumes will give lower dwell
volumes [13, 14] and better resolution [15]
SPECIAL PRECAUTIONS: Pesticides: Avoid inhaling vapors or dust; avoid skin contact. Wear gloves and
suitable clothing when handling pure material. Solvents: Avoid skin contact and open flame. Use in a
hood. Phosphoric acid: Avoid skin contact. n-Butyl isocyanate may act as a sensitizer. Avoid skin contact.
SAMPLING:
5. Remove cap from large end. Transfer filter, PTFE retainer ring, and front resin section to a 4-mL vial.
Transfer the polyurethane foam divider plug along with the back-up resin bed to a second 4-mL vial.
6. Add 2.0 mL of desorbing solvent with internal standards to each vial using a 2.5- or 5-mL syringe or
2-mL pipette; cap each vial.
9. Determine retention times for the analytes of interest using the column and chromatographic
conditions of choice for the analysis.
10. Calibrate daily with at least six working standards covering the analytical range for individual analytes.
a. Prepare working standards by diluting aliquots of the high-level calibration standard with
desorbing solution containing internal standard in a volumetric flask. Include an unspiked
desorption solution calibration blank.
b. Filter aliquots of standards and blanks for analysis (See Step 8).
c. Analyze together with samples, blanks, and laboratory control samples (Steps 12 through 14).
d. Prepare a calibration graph (ratio of peak area of analyte over peak area of internal standard vs. µg
analyte).
NOTE: Use of an internal standard is recommended [1, 6], but optional if the precision of the
injection device and HPLC system are known to be adequate.
11. Prepare desorption efficiency (DE) samples and Laboratory Control Samples (LCS) with each sample
set at a rate of 10% of samples.
a. Remove cap and the PTFE retainer ring from large end of sampler tube (to prevent wicking behind
the ring). Apply known volume of calibration solution to face of quartz fiber filter.
NOTE: Spike no more than 15 to 30 µL at a time. If more needs to be applied, connect the sampler
to a vacuum pump with a flow ≤1 L/min, then apply spiking solution in 15- to 30-µL
aliquots. Allow several minutes for the solvent to evaporate between each aliquot, to
prevent wicking along the sides of the tube into the back-up section (5% or more may
deposit on the walls of the tube).
b. Cap and allow to stand a minimum of one hour.
NOTE: Prepare LCS when samples arrive and store with field samples until analyzed.
c. Include an unspiked sampler as a media (method) blank.
d. Analyze with the field samples, blanks, and the liquid standards (Steps 12 through 14).
MEASUREMENT:
12. Set liquid chromatograph according to manufacturer’s recommendations and to conditions listed in
Table 3. Select two wavelengths for detection with 200 and 225 nm for general-purpose screens. For
selected analytes, chose a more specific wavelength UV spectra where available.
13. Inject sample aliquot with autosampler. See Table 4 for approximate retention times of selected
analytes.
NOTE: If peak area is greater than the area of the highest standard, dilute with desorbing solution
containing internal standards and reanalyze. Apply the appropriate dilution factor in
calculations.
14. Measure peak area of analyte(s) and internal standard(s). Divide peak area of analyte by peak area of
internal standard on same chromatogram.
CALCULATIONS:
15. Determine the mass, µg, (corrected for DE) of analyte found in the sample filter and front sorbent
section (Wf), back sorbent section (Wb), and the media blank front (Bf ) and back (Bb) sorbent sections
from a standard curve.
16. Calculate concentration, C (mg/m3), of each analyte in the air volume sampled, V (L)
𝑊𝑊𝑓𝑓 + 𝑊𝑊𝑏𝑏 − 𝐵𝐵𝑓𝑓 − 𝐵𝐵𝑏𝑏
𝐶𝐶 = , 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚⁄𝑚𝑚3
𝑉𝑉
NOTE: μg/mL ≅ mg/m3
CONFIRMATION:
Retention Times with Alternate Conditions. Whenever the identity of an analyte is uncertain,
confirmation may be achieved by analysis on an alternate column. If primary analysis was performed on a
base-deactivated octadecylsilyl (C18) column, identity may confirmed by reanalysis on a cyanopropyl silica
column, or by changing to a water/methanol mobile phase (see Table 9 for recommended alternative
conditions). See Table 4 for approximate retention times for each column type and condition. Relative
retention times (retention indices for a particular set of conditions) are more convenient for the
identification of unknown analytes.
UV or Mass Spectra. Confirmation may be achieved through comparison of unknown spectra with
reference spectra where available. Relative response ratios will give a moderate level of confirmation.
Some analytes (O-aryl carbamates especially) can be confirmed by GC/MS using highly deactivated
injection ports and analytical GC columns, or by HPLC/MS.
EVALUATION OF METHOD:
This method was evaluated over the ranges specified in Table 2 at 25 °C with 240-L air samples. Samplers
were tested at 15 and 80% relative humidity and 10 and 30 °C. In these experiments, test atmospheres
were not generated; instead, analytes were fortified on the face of the sampler filters. The conditioned air
was pulled through the samplers at 1 L/min for four hours. No significant difference in sampler
performance was noted at any of these temperature/humidity combinations. Evaluation of sampler
precision and stability was conducted at ambient conditions of temperature and relative humidity. Overall
sampling and measurement precision, bias, accuracy, and average percent recovery after long-term
storage are presented in Table 2. No breakthrough was detected with samplers fortified with 480 µg per
analyte per tube after sampling eight hours at 1 L/min. For the estimation of LOD/LOQ, a series of media-
spiked standards were prepared in triplicate, analyzed, and responses fitted to a quadratic curve. The Limit
of Detection (LOD) and Limit of Quantitation (LOQ), given in Table 2, were estimated according to NIOSH
SOP 018 [1,17]. Criteria established by NIOSH were met [1].
REFERENCES:
[1] NIOSH [1995]. Back-up data report: carbamate, urea, and sulfenimide pesticides. Unpublished.
[2] NIOSH [1977]. Carbaryl: Method S273. In: Taylor DG, ed. NIOSH manual of analytical methods. 2nd
ed. (Vol 3) Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Center for Disease
Control, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, DHEW (NIOSH), Publication No. 77-
157-C.
[3] NIOSH [1994]. Method 5006. In: Eller PM, Cassinelli ME, eds. NIOSH manual of analytical methods. 4th
ed. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 94-
113.
[4] OSHA [1985]. OSHA Methods 63 and 74. In: OSHA analytical methods manual. Salt Lake City, UT:
Carcinogen and Pesticide Branch, OSHA Analytical Laboratory.
[5] OSHA. OSHA Stopgap methods for individual pesticides. Salt Lake City, UT: Carcinogen and Pesticide
Branch, OSHA Analytical Laboratory.
[6] EPA [1986]. EPA compendium of methods for the determination of toxic organic compounds in
ambient air. US EPA, Publication No. EPA/600/4-87/006.
[7] Hill RH Jr., Arnold JE [1979]. A personal air sampler for pesticides. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol
8:621-628.
[9] EPA [1988]. EPA Method 531.1 (Rev. 3.0). In: Methods for the determination of organic compounds
in drinking water. US EPA. Publication No. EPA 600 4-88 039.
[10] Chibia, Mikio, Doornbos F [1974]. Instability of benomyl in various conditions. Bulletin Environ
Contami Toxicol 11(3):273-274.
[11] Calmon JP, Sayag DR [1976]. Kinetics and mechanism of conversion of methyl 1-(butylcarbamoyl)-2-
benzimidazolecarbamate(benomyl) to methyl 2-benzimidazolecarbamate (MBC). J Agric Food Chem
24(2):311-314.
[17] NIOSH [1995]. Guidelines for air sampling and analytical method development and evaluation. By
Kennedy ER, Fischbach TJ, Song R, Eller PM, Schulman SA. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational
Safety and Health, DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 95-117.
[18] NIOSH [1987]. Registry of toxic effects of chemical substances. U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services, Centers for Disease Control, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health,
DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 87-114.
[19] Budavari S, ed. [1989]. Merck Index. 11th ed. Rahway, NJ: Merck & Co., Inc.
[20] Meister [1995]. Farm Chemicals Handbook. Willoughby, OH: Meister Publishing Co.
[21] Wise SA, May WE [1983]. Effect of C18 surface coverage on selectivity in reversed-phase liquid
chromatography of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. Anal Chem 55(9):1479-1485.
[22] Cole LA, Dorsey JG [1992]. Temperature dependence of retention in reversed-phase liquid
chromatography. 1. Stationary-phase considerations. Anal Chem 64(13):1317-1323.
[24] Cole LA, Dorsey JG [1990]. Reduction of reequilibration time following gradient elution reversed-
phase liquid chromatography. Anal Chem 62(1):16-21.
[25] Foley JP, May WE [1987]. Optimization of secondary chemical equilibria in liquid chromatography:
variables influencing the self-selectivity, retention, and efficiency in acid-base systems. Anal Chem
59(1):110-115.
[27] Roos RW, Lau-Cam CA [1986]. General reversed-phase high-performance liquid chromatographic
method for the separation of drugs using triethylamine as a competing base. J Chrom 370:403-418.
[28] Kirkland JJ, Boyes BE, DeStefano JJ [1994]. Changing band spacing in reversed-phase HPLC. Am Lab
Sept:36-42.
[32] Evans CE, Victoria L, McGuffin [1991]. Direct examination of the injection process in liquid
chromatographic separations. Anal Chem 63(14):1393-1402.
[33] Steffeck RJ, Woo SL, Weigand RJ, Anderson JM [1995]. A comparison of silica-based C18 and C8 HPLC
columns to aid column selection. LC-GC 13(9):720-726Body Text.
Jun-Jie Lin, MSPH, and John M. Reynolds, DataChem Laboratories, Salt Lake City, UT.
Disclaimer: Mention of any company or product does not constitute endorsement by NIOSH. In addition,
citations to websites external to NIOSH do not constitute NIOSH endorsement of the sponsoring
organizations or their programs or products. Furthermore, NIOSH is not responsible for the content of
these websites. All web addresses referenced in this document were accessible as of the publication date.
B
Carbendazim 6 0.6 +0.006 0.061 ± 0.121 92.1 89.3
A
Results calculated as carbendazim, the primary breakdown product of benomyl.
B
See range for benomyl, a precursor for carbendazim.
Column temperature (°C) Ambient (~24) Ambient (~24) Ambient (~24) Ambient (~24)
A
Ligand density (micromole/m2) is a better description of surface coverage than % carbon loading [22, 23].
B
Choice of alcohol modifier is not critical. Percentages may be varied to adjust retention times and peak shapes for
early eluting analytes. Reequilibration time may be shorter with 1-propanol [24-26].
C
Buffer is very essential for basic analytes such as Formetanate, Carbendazim, and Benomyl [12,27,28]. Formentate is
cationic at about pH 7, and its actual elution time is sensitive to small changes in pH and ionic strength of the buffer
in mobile phase A.
D
Acetonitrile is the better choice when monitoring compounds at UV absorptions below 210 nm [20,29].
TABLE 4. Approximate retention times and indices for organonitrogen pesticides and potentially
interfering compounds
C18 Column
C18 Column Cyano column Cyano column
A C18 Column (MeCN Cyano Column
Compound (MeOH solvent) (MeCN solvent) (MeOH solvent)
Retention solvent) retention
(by retention time) retention time retention time retention time
indexB retention time index
(min) (min) (min)
(min)
Solvent void 0.000 2.3 1.4 0.000 3.0 3.2
volume
Asulam 0.004 2.3
Imazapyr 0.372 3.2
Acetaminophen/IS 1.000 4.7 1.000
Oxamyl 1.269 6.1 9.9 1.865 7.0 6.4
Caffeine 1.397 6.8
Methomyl 1.445 7.0 10.7 1.915 7.4 6.6
Formetanate 1.573 7.7 c 2.574 12.8 11.3
Sulfometuron 1.868 9.3
methyl
Acetanilide/IS 2.000 9.9 2.00 8.1 7.7
Fenuron 2.053 10.2
2,4-D acid 2.064 10.2
Nicotine 2.179 10.8
Carbendazim 2.192 10.8 c 4.274 13.6 12.9
Chlorimuron ethyl 2.422 11.9
Aldicarb 2.755 13.5 19.9 3.00 10.5 10.1
Tebuthiuron 2.817 13.8 23.9
m-Cresol 2.866 14.0
Bromacil 2.902 14.2
Hexazinone 2.921 14.3
Dinoseb 2.928 14.3
Simazine 2.938 14.3
Monuron 2.981 14.5
Acetophenone/IS 3.00 14.6 3.00 10.5 9.9
Cyanazine 3.003 14.6
Metribuzin 3.115 15.0
Thiodicarb 3.247 15.5
Aminocarb 3.301 15.7
Propoxur 3.317 15.8 22.9 3.675 13.1 11.9
Bendiocarb 3.376 16.0 23.3
Carbofuran 3.399 16.1 23.2 4.018 14.4 14.1
Fluometuron 3.551 16.6 25.2
Chloroform 3.601 16.8
Carbaryl 3.654 17.0 24.5 5.236 19.1 18.2
Atrazine 3.668 17.1
Metalaxyl 3.837 17.6
Diuron 3.843 17.6 27.0 5.751 21.1 19.9
DEET 3.851 17.7
Alpha-Naphthol 3.893 17.8
Propiophenone/IS 4.000 18.2 4.00 14.4
Propachlor 4.241 18.8
Thiophanate 4.241 18.8 27.6
Propham 4.267 18.9 25.9 5.092 17.7 17.3
Diethyl phthalate 4.367 19.2
Clomazone 4.459 19.4
Siduron 4.615 19.9
Desmedipham 4.696 20.1
Phenmedipham 4.700 20.1 >33
Methiocarb 4.744 20.2 29.3 6.680 22.5 21.8
TABLE 4. Continued
C18 Column
C18 Column Cyano column Cyano column
A C18 Column (MeCN Cyano Column
Compound (MeOH solvent) (MeCN solvent) (MeOH solvent)
Retention solvent) retention
(by retention time) retention time retention time retention time
indexB retention time index
(min) (min) (min)
(min)
Linuron 4.848 20.5 28.9
BDMC/IS 4.904 20.6
SWEP 4.919 20.7
Captan 4.926 20.7 27.7 6.172 20.9 21.6
Promecarb 4.981 20.8 20.4
Butyrophenone/IS 5.000 20.9 5.000 17.4
Mexacarbate 5.186 21.3
Toluene 5.269 21.5
Chlorpropham 5.504 22.1 30.1 6.700 23.4 23.3
Folpet 5.537 22.2 >33
Barban 5.566 22.3 >33
Malathion 5.731 22.7
Fenitrothion 5.802 22.8
Benomyl 5.822 22.9 c 7.391 25.8 23.9
Oryzalin 5.860 23.0
Metolachlor 5.876 23.0
Alachlor 5.979 23.3
Acetochlor 5.983 23.3
Valerophenone/IS 6.000 23.3 6.000 20.9
Captafol 6.018 23.4 30.1
Neburon 6.045 23.4
Parathion 6.640 24.7
Hexanophenone/IS 7.000 25.5 7.000 24.0
Thiobencarb 7.148 25.8 33.4 7.916 26.2 26.8
Heptanophenone/IS 8.000 27.6 8.000 26.4
Di-n-butyl 8.016 27.6
phthalate
Chlorpyrifos 8.701 28.9
Pendimethalin 8.724 28.9
2,4-D butoxyethyl 8.892 29.2
ester
Octanophenone/IS 9.000 29.4 9.000 29.0
BHT 9.488 30.2
Amitraz 9.886 30.9
Nonanophenone/IS 10.000 31.1
2,4-D ethylhexyl 10.545 31.9
ester
Decanophenone/IS 11.000 32.5
A
Organonitrogen pesticides are in bold letters.
B
Estimated (~) retention times are extrapolated from shorter columns using relative retention times.
C
Without TEA-PO4 buffer, basic compounds had irregular peak shapes and retention times, or were not
detected. Abbreviations: MeCN=acetonitrile; MeOH=methanol; IS=internal standard.
APPENDIX A. NOTES ON HPLC ANALYS IS OF CARBAMATE, UREA, AND SULFEN IMIDE PESTICIDES
A. ANALYTES
1. Aldicarb
a. UV response for aldicarb passes through a minimum at approximately 225 nm. If only two
wavelength channels are used (225 nm and 200 nm), the response for aldicarb at 200 nm
should be monitored. At 205 nm the signal will be smaller, but the signal-to- noise ratio may
be better on particular instruments. An alternative but lesser maximum is at approximately
245 to 246 nm. This latter maximum, though small, may have less background noise and
interferences from coelutants.
b. Aldicarb is a highly toxic pesticide. Care should be exercised in handling pure stock material.
2. Benomyl (see also Carbendazim)
a. Benomyl breaks down rapidly by either hydrolysis in protic solvents (e.g., water or methanol)
or solvolysis in nonproticsolvents (e.g., methylene chloride or acetonitrile) to carbendazim.
The breakdown of benomyl can be so rapid that no benomyl will be detected at all after
approximately 4 to 24 hours at room temperature.The rate of solvolysis is slower in the less
polar methylene chloride andvery rapid in acetonitrile, even exceeding the rate of hydrolysis
[10-12]. Benomyl standards in these nonprotic solvents can be stabilized with the addition of
1% n-butyl isocyanate [30]. The preservative effect is lost as soon as the solution is diluted in
solvents that contain or consist of protic solvents, since protic solvents also react with the
isocyanates. It is generally unnecessary to add any preservative to the benomyl standard
solution (it breaks down anyway). The carbendazim produced can precipitate out, if the
solutions are too concentrated. In such an event, the addition of 1% n-butyl isocyanate is
essential.
b. Since benomyl breaks down to carbendazim, do not include both benomyl and carbendazim
in the same standard mixture.
c. When analyzing for benomyl, both benomyl and carbendazim must be determined. The
results can be reported as either benomyl or carbendazim by converting the response of one
to the equivalent response for the other at any particular wavelength. The relative response
of benomyl to carbendazim at 225 nm has been determined to be approximately 1.0738,
(adsorption-benomyl/ adsorption-carbendazim). This ratio should be determined for
individual instruments with equimolar solutions analyzed separately, and with the benomyl
injection solution being preserved with 1% n-butyl isocyanate. To convert carbendazim
response to the equivalent benomyl response so that the values can be summed, multiply the
carbendazim response by 1.0738 and add this to the benomyl response. Report results as
benomyl. Alternately, to report results as carbendazim, divide benomyl response by 1.0738
and then add this to the carbendazim response. Report as total carbendazim.
d. See notes for carbendazim.
3. Captan
a. Captan is not stable in methanol or in aqueous mixtures of methanol or acetonitrile at
temperatures greater than –12 °C. Therefore, do not dilute desorbing solutions with water or
methanol to weaken the injection solvent. Instead, use small injection volumes of acetonitrile
solutions.
b. Use methylene chloride for making stock standard solutions. See Note 16 of this Appendix.
c. Captan has low absorption at 225 nm (see UV spectrum for captan). If only two wavelength
channels are used (225 and 200 nm), the response for captan at 200 nm should be monitored.
Although a lesser response may be obtained at approximately 205 or 210 nm, this can be
accompanied by a proportionately better signal-to-noise response and may be an optional
choice of wavelength if it is compatible with other analytical objectives.
4. Carbaryl (see also Diuron): Carbaryl tends to break down to 1-naphthol. Chloroacetic acid in
methanol will inhibit this reaction [9], but this reagent is deleterious to other analytes. Carbaryl is
stabilized in acetonitrile desorbing solutions containing the TEA- PO4 preservative for at least 24
hours at room temperature, long enough to permit HPLC analysis. Any 1-naphthol that is
detected may represent breakdown of carbaryl prior to desorption or may come from another
source. Carbaryl has been stabilized with the TEA-PO4 buffer/preservative for up to three weeks at
room temperature.
5. Carbendazim
a. See notes for benomyl.
b. Carbendazimcan break down to 4-aminobenzimidazole and other compounds. In acetonitrile
containing TEA-PO4 preservative, this breakdown appears to be inhibited for up to 24 hours at
room temperature, long enough to permit analysis of desorbates.
c. Carbendazim is itself used as a pesticide. There are also other analytes such as thiophanate
methyl that can break down to carbendazim. Therefore, any carbendazim should not
automatically be assumed to represent benomyl.
6. Carbofuran
a. In most instances carbofuran and bendiocarb coeluted under all conditions tested. Their UV
spectra are so nearly alike as to be practically indistinguishable. Any positive identification for
carbofuran must be tempered by this knowledge and would require an alternate confirmation
such as by mass spectrometry or a knowledge of the history of the sample.
b. Propoxur and carbofuran elute very close together. The separation of the two compounds
with nearly baseline resolution is a good test of resolving power of the HPLC system for neutral
compounds on a C18 HPLC column. If they cannot be resolved, there may be problems with
large dead volumes in the system, analytical column quality, or injection quality.
7. Chlorpropham: No serious problems are expected to be encountered.
8. Diuron: The breakdown product of carbaryl, 1-naphthol, elutes immediately after diuron under the
conditions given. On certain columns, it may coelute with diuron, giving false positive responses.
The retention time of 1-naphthol relative to diuron must be determined for any particular column
if carbaryl is anticipated to have been present in the sample.
9. Formetanate
a. At analytical concentrations formetanate is not stable either in methanol or in aqueous
mixtures of methanol or acetonitrile with or without chloroacetic acid. Therefore, do not dilute
desorbing solutions with methanol or water to weaken the injection solvent. Do not use
chloroacetic acid as a preservative. Use only small injection volumes of acetonitrile solutions.
b. The breakdown of formetanate in analytical solutions is inhibited in acetonitrile containing
TEA-PO4 preservative at room temperature for up to 24 hours, long enough to permit analysis.
c. At stock standard concentrations, formetanate dissolves better in 50:50 mixtures of methanol:
acetonitrile and is stable if kept in freezer at –12 ± 1 °C.
d. Formetanate is basic and possesses a single positive charge in solution at neutral pH (6.9 – 7.1).
The use of TEA-PO4 buffer and/or base-deactivated HPLC columns is essential for the analysis
for this compound.
e. The exact retention time of formetanate is more affected by exact pH and ionic strength of the
buffer (or any other electrolytes) than are the noncharged analytes. Day-to-day inconsistencies
in the preparation of mobile phases will cause differences in retention time. If the analyte is
eluting too close to methomyl (which just precedes it under the specified conditions), its
retention time may be delayed by either raising the pH slightly (by 0.1 to 0.2 units), or by
lowering the ionic strength of mobile phase A.
10. Methiocarb: Methiocarb has the same problems as carbaryl, only to a lesser extent. As methiocarb
breaksdown, there are several other peaks that arise. These have been shown to be
alkylthiophenol and/or oxidation products.
11. Methomyl: Attention should be placed on the problem of methomyl as it relates to its early elution
time. Refer to Notes B1a and B4 of this Appendix.
12. Oxamyl: Attention should be placed on the problem of oxamyl as it relates to its early elution time.
Refer to Notes B1a and B4 of this Appendix.
13. Propham: No problems are expected with propham.
14. Propoxur
a. With prolonged standing in desorbing solutions at room temperature without preservative,
propoxur has been observed to break down to some degree, although much less than
carbaryl.
b. Propoxur elutes very close to carbofuran. See comments under carbofuran.
15. Thiobencarb: Thiobencarb is relatively nonpolar and has lower (but acceptable) recoveries from
the XAD-2 resin than the other analytes.
16. Solvent for Analyte Standard Solutions: Most of the analytes (Table 1) are soluble in acetonitrile at
stock standard concentrations. The exceptions are benomyl captan and formetanate. Appropriate
solvents are described under headings for these compounds. In each of the solvents mentioned,
analytes are stable at –12 ± 1 °C for at least 30 days.
17. Desorption Solvent and Preservative for Analytes: All analytes (except benomyl) were stable in
acetonitrile at –12 °C for at least 48 hours. If refrigerated HPLC autosampler trays are available and
all desorbing and tumbling operations are carried out in subambient conditions, no preservative
should be needed. At room temperature, several analytes (e.g., carbaryl, methiocarb, and oxamyl
especially) degraded unpredictably over 24 to 48 hours. The addition of as little as 0.2% v/v of
aqueous 0.1 M triethylamine phosphate (TEA-PO4) buffer, pH 6.9 to 7.1, to the acetonitrile
desorptionsolvent stabilizes all analytes (except benomyl) from hydrolysis or solvolysis for at least
48 hours at room temperature. Methanol, isopropanol, aqueous methanol, and acetonitrile
containing any of these alcohols promote degradation of several analytes (especially captan and
formetanate) and poor desorption efficiencies. The use of chloroacetic acid, as is required for
aqueous samples in EPA Method 531.1 [9], is destructive to at least formetanate. Since the
desorption solvent is also the HPLC injection solvent, refer to note on Injection Solvent (B1) for
additional comments.
B. HPLC CONDITIONS
1. Injection Solvent
a. Normally a solvent producing equal or lower capacity factors than the mobile phase is
desirable as an injection solvent in order to produce sharp peaks for early eluting analytes
(e.g., oxamyl and methomyl) [31,32]. Since the initial mobile phase mixture of this method is
mostly water, the only way to achieve this would be to dilute the samples with water. Water,
however, is deleterious to several of the analytes specified in this method (see note A17
above). Therefore, an acceptable alternative is to inject very small volumes, not greater than
5 µL [31], of the desorption solvent (acetonitrile in this method) on a high-resolution HPLC
column. If it is known that only analytes that are stable in aqueous solutions are to be
determined (e.g., oxamyl and methomyl, but not formetanate or captan), the desorbates may
be diluted with water and larger volumes injected. By diluting with water, sharper peaks may
be obtained for early eluting compounds with accelerated elution conditions such as the use
of shorter HPLC columns, higher percentages of organic modifier, or higher percentages of
mobile phase B in the initial conditions.
b. All sample extracts must be filtered through individual 0.45-micron PTFE filters in order to
prolong guard column lifetimes and to protect the injection system valving.
c. The accidental or intentional inclusion of significant amounts of solvents less polar than
acetonitrile in the injection solvent, such as tetrahydrofuran or acetone, may shorten retention
times and adversely affect the peak shapes of early eluites (e.g., oxamyl and methomyl) [31].
2. Guard Columns: Guard columns are essential to the long life and reproducibility of results on the
main analytical column. There are several on the market. Those giving the lowest possible dead
volume preserve good peak shapes and resolution of quality analytical columns and are preferred.
3. Analytical Columns
a. General: The main analytical column specified in this method is a C18 reverse-phase column.
Other columns known to perform well also may be used, following manufacturer
recommendations. There are many good columns available [28, 33].
b. Base Deactivation: The basic compounds (benomyl, carbendazim, and formetanate) present
special challenges that are easily overcome with highly inert or base-deactivated columns [26].
The addition of TEA-PO4 buffer to mobile phase A also greatly improves performance for these
compounds [16, 26, 27].
c. Dimensions: A longer column (300 mm) was used in this method in order to improve
resolution for a large number of analytes and interferences, expected and unexpected. Long
columns have higher operating pressures; therefore, necessary steps should be taken to
provide for them, such as thicker-walled (narrower-bore) transfer lines (if polymer tubing is
used, etc.) Shorter columns may work well if a limited number of analytes or interferences are
expected. The diameter (3.9-mm) is not necessarily critical and should be governed by user
preference and equipment, adjusting flow rates and other parameters as necessary. Diameters
from 2.0 to 4.6 mm should be expected to perform similarly, as long as the columns are stable
and rugged.
d. Packing Density: Packing (or ligand) density is a better parameter than carbon loading for
comparing columns [21,22]. A column with a ligand density near that of the one used in this
method should be expected to perform similarly.
4. Mobile Phase Composition
a. Modifier: Because of the high percentage of water in the initial mobile phase, a condition
referred to as hydrophobic collapse of the C18 phase occurs [23,24], which results in poor
reequilibration and irreproducible retention times and peak shapes for early eluting analytes
such as oxamyl and methomyl. The addition of a constant amount of an alcohol to both
mobile phases A and B has been reported and found to improve column performance under
these conditions. The method specifies 2% 1-propanol to be added to both mobile phases A
and B. A concentration of 1-propanol between 3% and 4% has been reported as optimum [24,
25]; 2% is a compromise made in order to generate retention (capacity) factors for the earliest
eluites, oxamyl and methomyl, of greater than 5,as suggested in the literature [26]. Also, 1-
propanol has been reported (and found) to reduce the time required for reequilibration at the
end of the run [24]. Other alcohols may be used at higher concentrations (except for
reducing reequilibration times) [1]. These are isopropanol (at 3% to 5%) and methanol (at 5%
to 10%). If early-eluting analytes are to be determined, or if a column is found that gives
sufficiently long retention times for the earliest expected eluite with an initial mobile phase
composition as high as 5% to 10% acetonitrile in water, the alcohol could be eliminated (from
both phases). Table 4 would not apply if such changes are made.
b. Mobile Phase B: Pure methanol as mobile phase B results in a steep rise in the baseline UV
response, making automatic integrations difficult and UV scanning for confirmation spectra
nearly impossible. For this reason acetonitrile has been chosen [28, 29]. Methanol is acceptable
if these conditions are tolerable and is recommended as an alternate solvent system on a C18
column for confirmation (Section F3); however, precision and LOD values reported in Table 2
would not be applicable.
c. Solvent Programming: One of the most serious concerns that may be encountered in trying to
make adaptations of this method is an attempt to shorten retention times by using higher
concentrations of organic modifier in mobile phase A, higher percentages of mobile phase B in
the initial solvent program condition, or faster solvent programming. In any case, these
changes will seriously affect the peak shape, sensitivity, and retention time reproducibility of
early eluting analytes. There is also a greater possibility of false positives from potential
interferences because of poor resolution in the early region of the chromatogram. Retention
times for the earliest eluting analyte should be kept at 3 to 6 times the retention time of the
solvent from an unretained analyte, which is equivalent to a capacity factor of 2 to 5 [5]. The
retention or capacity factor for any analyte can be calculated as follows:
therefore, could be added to the extraction fluid. It was also found to be relatively stable and not
to interfere with the retention times of other analytes. A second compound, acetophenone, may
be added as a back-up internal standard. It is also unretained by all media except XAD-2, on which
it has about a 95% recovery. It may be used whenever the acetanilide is interfered with by
coeluting analytes or contaminants. It alsoserves to indicate, by monitoring relative response
between the two internal standards, when the first internal standard has a coeluting interference.
2. Alternate Calibration Internal Standards: It may be wise, especially under isocratic conditions, to
select other internal standards having capacity factors closer to particular analytes of interest.
There is a wide range of alkyl phenones available for late-eluting analytes, and 4-hydroxy-
acetanilide (acetaminophen) for earlier eluting analytes. Their retention times are listed in Table 4.
Since these longer alkyl chain phenones have increasingly lower recoveries from the XAD-2 resin,
they should not be added to the extraction solutions until after the resin is removed.
3. Retention Index Reference Standards: These are optional standards and are used to establish
relative retention times for qualitative purposes. These are highlighted in Table 4 and include a
homologous series of alkyl phenones and acetanilides. Establishing retention times between two
nearest-eluting reference standards gives a more consistent retention value than retention time
alone or relative retention time using a single internal standard alone. This value, the Retention
Index, varies according to column and analytical conditions, but should be relatively consistent for
any one set of conditions and more reliable as a qualitative tool over a long period of time. This
value is calculated as follow:
In order to avoid confusion in the chromatograms, the retention index reference standards are
analyzed periodically as external standards and not added to the analytical samples themselves.
The use of these reference standards is optional but is suggested where application of this method
is expected to encounter consistently a broad range of unknown analytes and to augment other
confirmatory techniques.
D. INTERFERENCES:
The UV detector responds to many compounds. Retention times of some common potential
interferences are provided in Table 4. Interfering compounds that may be encountered are
discussed below.
1. DF Impurities in Mobile Phases and Additives: Only HPLC-grade solvents should be used.
Triethylamine (TEA) was found to develop unidentified impurities over time which contributed to
significant irregularities in the baseline. This degradation was reduced or eliminated by storing the
TEA under nitrogen in a small desiccator at 0 to 4 °C [8].
2. Organic Solvents or Fuels
a. Chloroform showed a response that nearly coelutes with carbaryl (Table 4). Benomyl and
captan, therefore, are made up in methylene chloride, which is more UV transparent than
chloroform.
b. Toluene (Table 4).
c. Blends of solvents having ketones, ester, or any of the above compounds, such as lacquer
solvents, gasoline, paint stripper, and cleaning solvents, are to be avoided or documented
during sample collection and handling.
3. Industrial Chemicals (Plastic and Rubber Additives)
a. Several plasticizers might elute in the window of interest depending upon the selection of
column and conditions. These include diethyl and dibutyl phthalates. Dibutyl phthalate is
typically found in polyvinyl gloves, flexible tubing, and in coatings on bottles and tool handles.
Contact with these materials should be avoided or documented. Other plasticizers, such as
dioctyl phthalate and bis-ethylhexyl adipate, have late elution times and will elute after about
30 minutes under the conditions specified. However, if the run times are shortened, these may
be carried over on-column to subsequent analyses, causing interferences.
b. Common antioxidants such as BHT (2,6-di-tert-butyl-4-methyl phenol) also elute late and may
be carried over on-column, creating interferences in subsequent analyses.
4. Other Pesticides: Spray mixtures very often contain a mixture of pesticides. It is not uncommon to
find chlorpyrifos, an organophosphate, or a pyrethroid pesticide in combination with propoxur, for
example. Both of these noncarbamate pesticides can be detected under the conditions of the
method. The retention time and spectra of chlorpyrifos is included for qualitative purposes. Most
pyrethroids elute later than most of the carbamates; if present, they may elute in a subsequent run
if run times are too short. It is also not uncommon to mix herbicides of different classes such as
diuron with bromacil, atrazine, or 2,4-D. Because of this possibility, retention times and spectra of
other common herbicides are also provided in Table 4 for qualitative purposes.
5. Miscellaneous Chemicals: There are a number of chemicals which elute in the retention time
window of interest for carbamates and urea pesticides and may, with particular columns or
conditions, interfere with analytes of interest. The presence or the known use of these compounds
or their sources should be documented as part of the sample history. Table 4 lists a few of the
compounds, which include the following.
a. The common insect repellent, DEET (N,N-diethyl-meta-toluamide). Since DEET may be heavily
used by outdoor workers, its presence on exposed areas of the skin or clothing may contribute
to sampler contamination either through direct contact with the face of the sampler or
through collection of vapors if the sampler is in close proximity to areas of application or is
exposed to overspray during application from a spray can or bottle.
b. Inadvertent collection of tobacco side-stream smoke may introduce potentially interfering
compounds, one of which is nicotine.
c. Compounds in beverages used during work periods, which include at least caffeine.
E. SAMPLER
1. The OVS-2 Sampler. The OVS-2 (OSHA Versatile Sampler with XAD-2) combines both filter and
XAD-2 sorbent in one unit. The filter is necessary to trap submicron aerosols that would pass
through the XAD-2 bed. Substitutions should not be made.
2. Quartz Fiber and Glass Fiber Filters (GFF). The OVS-2 tubes are available with either glass or quartz
fiber filters. OSHA Methods specify GFF. This method specifies a quartz fiber filter. For analytes
being desorbed with acetonitrile, no difference in desorption efficiency was observed between
glass fiber and quartz fiber filters. Therefore, the tubes may be interchanged for the analytes
specified in this method.
3. Flow Rates. The OVS-2 sampler is designed for a flow rate of 1 L/min. At slower flow rates, 0.1 to 0.2
L/min, there may not be enough capture velocity for aerosols.
4. Applying Liquid Spikes. The Teflon® retainer ring should be removed when spiking the face of the
OVS-2 tubes with more than approximately 10 µL, in order to prevent wicking of the carrier solvent
behind the ring and consequent loss of standard. Volumes of spiking fluid greater than 15 to 30 µL
will flood the XAD-2 section and possibly wick into the back-up section. Whenever more than 15
to 30 µL is to be applied to the tubes, air must be drawn through the tubes at approximately 1
L/min during the spiking procedure and the solvent added in 15- to 30-µL increments with a few
minutes between each addition allowed for drying of the solvent. SD
F. CONFIRMATION
1. By Relative Retention Times (Retention Index).The Retention Index (RI) may vary considerably from
column to column and from one set of conditions to another. But it will be reasonably consistent
once a set of conditions has been chosen and will be much more reliable for day-to-day
comparisons than will absolute retention times. Actual RIs need to be established for each set of
conditions. Compounds that are ionic under elution conditions or that interact strongly with polar
sites on the column will have the most variable retention times and retention indices.
2. By Second Column. The cyanopropyl stationary phase strongly induces some exchanges in elution
orders and alters relative spacings between adjacent analytes in the chromatogram that may be
useful in confirmations.
3. By Alternate Solvent. As mentioned earlier (Section B1), methanol as the mobile phase B solvent
on a C18 column can be used just as effectively to establish confirmations because methanol
interacts differently with the stationary phase than acetonitrile, and so different molecular forces
come into play. Significant alterations in retention order are thus obtained; for some analytes this
is more dramatic than with a cyanopropyl column.
4. By Ratio of Two UV Absorption Bands. As long as the UV absorption channels are not saturated,
there should be a consistent ratio between the background-corrected absorption bands that is
characteristic of each analyte and should reflect the ratio of relative heights of the absorption
spectra at their respective UV bands in the UV spectra. This ratio is dependent, however, on the
bandwidth of the adsorption bands employed, and consistent bandwidths must be used. The
consistency of the ratio of absorption across the HPLC peak is also indicative of the purity of the
peak. A constantly changing ratio indicates that the peak may have multiple components.
5. By Matching to Reference UV Spectra. Unknown spectra should not be oversaturated in any
portion. They need to be background-corrected properly. If the baseline is rising, a background
selected from the backside of the peak may induce losses of absorption in the region below 210
nm. Conversely, one selected from in front of the unknown HPLC peak may add to this region of
the spectra. It is better to get an averaged background first. Spectra maxima should match within a
few nanometers. Relative absorbance at each maxima may vary even after background
subtraction, depending upon the concentration of the analytes and the characteristics of different
scanning UV detectors.
OSHA: 0.75 ppm; 2 ppm STEL PROPERTIES: gas; BP -19.5 °C; vapor density 1.067 (air = 1);
NIOSH: 0.016 ppm; C 0.1 ppm (15 min); carcinogen explosive range 7 to 73 % in air
SAMPLING MEASUREMENT
SAMPLER: Institute of Occupational Medicine (IOM) TECHNIQUE: HPLC, UV DETECTION
inhalable dust sampler or equivalent
containing a 25-mm PVC filter, 5 µm pore ANALYTE: 2,4-dinitrophenylhydrazone derivative of
size formaldehyde
REAGENTS: EQUIPMENT:
SPECIAL PRECAUTIONS: Perchloric acid is a strong oxidizing agent, toxic by ingestion and inhalation
and is a strong irritant. Use only in a well-ventilated fume hood. Formaldehyde is a suspect carcinogen
[1,6] and should be handled in a hood.
SAMPLING:
6. Collect a bulk sample (ca. 1 g) of the dust/fiber in a glass vial and ship separately.
SAMPLE PREPARATION:
7. If gravimetric weighing is done, post-weigh the entire cassette (see NIOSH method 0500 [7]) then
return the cassette to the screw-cap bottle.
8. Transfer 8-mL distilled water to the LDPE screw-cap bottle containing the cassette. Use tweezers (two)
to disassemble cassette which is immersed in water, remove all cassette pieces (shake off excess water)
leaving the filter and dust in the bottle. Transfer the resulting solution to a 20-mL scintillation vial and
rinse the screw-cap bottle with an additional 2 mL of distilled water. Replace the cap on the vial and
then place the vial in a 37 °C water bath for four hours. Remove from the bath and allow to cool 1/2
hour. Filter through a 0.45 µm pore size filter into another bottle.
9. Prepare a calibration stock solution by dilution of 1-mL of 1 mg/mL formaldehyde stock solution to
100 mL with distilled water.
10. Pipet aliquots of calibration stock solution (e.g., 40, 200, 750, 2000, 5000, and 10000 µL) into 10-mL
volumetric flasks to prepare working standards. Higher level standards, if needed, can be prepared by
using different dilutions of the formaldehyde stock solution.
11. Add distilled water to bring the volume of each working standard to 10 mL.
12. Analyze working standards together with samples and blanks (steps 14 through 17).
13. Prepare calibration graph of area vs. amount (µg) of formaldehyde per sample (10-mL total volume).
MEASUREMENT:
14. Transfer a 1-mL aliquot of the solution from step 8 (or step 11) to a 5-mL vial containing 3-mL of an 2,4-
dinitrophenylhydrazine/acetonitrile solution (1.3 mg/mL). Add one drop 1 N perchloric acid (to
catalyze the reaction to form the corresponding hydrazone), cap the vial and shake it gently for several
seconds.
15. Set liquid chromatograph to conditions given on page 5700-1.
16. Inject 15-µL sample aliquot.
17. Measure peak area.
NOTE 1: If peak area is greater than the highest standard, take a smaller aliquot of the
remaining unreacted sample solution, dilute to 1 mL with distilled water and analyze (steps
14 through 17) and apply appropriate dilution factor in the calculations.
NOTE 2: For optimum results, all samples containing over 400 µg/mL should be diluted and
reanalyzed, since the maximum amount of formaldehyde that can react with 3.9 mg of 2,4-
dinitrophenylhydrazine is 590 µg.
CALCULATIONS:
18. Determine mass, µg, of formaldehyde (W) found in the sample and the average media blank (B) from
the calibration graph. Use the appropriate aliquot factor (e. g., 1 mL aliquot/original volume from step
14) and the total sample volume (10-mL) unless corrected for in calibration plot (step 13).
NOTE: Include dilution factor for any sample which exceeded the highest calibration standard.
19. Calculate concentration, C, of formaldehyde from dust in the air volume, V (L).
𝑊𝑊 − 𝐵𝐵
𝐶𝐶 = 𝑉𝑉
, 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚⁄𝑚𝑚3
EVALUATION OF METHOD:
This method was evaluated over the range of 7 to 174 µg/sample at 24 °C and pressure of 761 mm Hg [1]
using the chromotropic analysis procedure. Overall measurement precision, ŜrT, was 0.093 including a 5%
pump error factor. Similar precision was observed with the 2,4-dinitrophenylhydrazine analysis procedure.
Sample stability during storage was evaluated at 7 µg formaldehyde/2 mg of wood dust treated with a
urea/formaldehyde resin. Samples showed 101% recovery after 21 days of storage at ambient conditions
compared to one-day old samples. However, studies with a different matrix (urea- formaldehyde treated
wood fibers) indicated that samples may be unstable when stored at room temperature.
Comparison of results from 2,4-DNP analyses with those from acetylacetone analyses [4] indicated that
there was a significant difference between the two methods. The acetylacetone analyses used much
milder conditions and appears to be reacting only with released formaldehyde, whereas the 2,4-DNP
analysis required the addition of perchloric acid and may be breaking up oligomeric pieces of the partially
hydrolyzed resin in the sample. By analyzing samples with the two methods, a further characterization of
the sample matrix and potential exposure may be obtained. In matrices where materials that can form
complexes with formaldehyde are present, such as sulfites, the acetylacetone analysis may be biased low,
since it is unable to break up these complexes [8].
Two comparisons of the IOM samplers with closed-face cassette samplers were conducted in field
situations [1]. The IOM samplers, on average, collected more dust/fibers measured gravimetrically than the
closed-face cassette samplers in both studies. Formaldehyde levels in the dust/fibers on a µg/mg basis
measured with the extraction procedure used in this method were comparable for both the IOM and
closed-face cassette samplers. On the average, the IOM sampler tended to collect more dust than the
closed-face cassette sampler.
REFERENCES:
[1] Kennedy ER, Gagnon YT, Teass AW, Seitz T [1992]. Development and evaluation of a sampling and
analytical method for the determination of formaldehyde content of dust. Appl Occ Environ Hyg 7(4):
231-240.
[2] NIOSH [1994]. Formaldehyde: Method 3500. In: Eller PM, Cassinelli ME, eds. NIOSH manual of analytical
methods. 4th ed. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, DHHS (NIOSH)
Publication No. 94-113 [www.cdc.gov/niosh/nmam/].
[3] Lipari F, Swarin S. [1982]. Determination of formaldehyde and other aldehydes in automobile exhaust
with an improved 2,4-dinitrophenylhydrazine method. J Chromatogr 247: 297-306.
[4] Elia VJ, Messmer RA [1992]. Evaluation of method for estimating formaldehyde released from resin-
containing paper and wood product dusts. Am Ind Hyg Assoc J 53: 632-638.
[5] ACGIH [1985]. Particle Size Selective Sampling in the Workplace: Report of the ACGIH technical
committee on air sampling procedures. Cincinnati, OH. American Conference of Governmental
Hygienists.
[6] NIOSH [1981]. NIOSH/OSHA occupational health guidelines for occupational hazards. Cincinnati, OH:
U. S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control, National Institute for
Occupational Safety and Health, DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 81-123.
[7] NIOSH [1994]. Particulate not otherwise regulated, total: Method 0500. In: Eller PM, Cassinelli ME, eds.
NIOSH manual of analytical methods. 4th ed. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety and
Health, DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 94-113 [www.cdc.gov/niosh/nmam/].
[8] Nash T [1953]. The colorimetric estimation of formaldehyde by means of the Hantzsch reaction.
Biochem J 55:416.
Dilute 2.7 mL 37% aqueous formalin solution to 1 L with distilled, deionized water. This solution is stable
for at least three months. Standardize by placing 5.0 mL of freshly prepared 1.13 M sodium sulfite solution
in a 50-mL beaker and stir magnetically. Adjust pH to between 8.5 and 10 with base or acid. Record the
pH. Add 10.0 mL formaldehyde stock solution. The pH should now be greater than 11. Titrate the solution
back to its original pH with 0.02 N sulfuric acid (1 mL acid = 0.600 mg formaldehyde; about 17 mL acid
needed). If the endpoint pH is overrun, back-titrate to the endpoint with 0.01 N sodium hydroxide.
Calculate the concentration, Cs (mg/mL), of the formaldehyde stock solution:
Alternate Analysis Procedure for the Determination of Formaldehyde Liberated from Dust/Fiber
Samples
NOTE: This analysis procedure should only be used where interferences to the chromotropic acid analysis
are not present. These interferences include phenol, oxidizable organic material, other aldehydes and
alcohols.
For formaldehyde determination by the chromotropic acid method, a 4-mL aliquot of the solution resulting
from the desorption and incubation of the filter (step 8.) was analyzed by the procedure described in
NIOSH Method 3500 [2]. The amount of chromotropic acid added to the sample could react with a
maximum of 42 µg of formaldehyde per sample aliquot. (Whenever the amount of formaldehyde
approached 30 µg per aliquot, the sample was diluted and reanalyzed.) The absorbance of samples at 580
nm was then compared to a calibration curve constructed from results obtained from analysis of
calibration standards containing known amounts of formaldehyde. The amount of formaldehyde present
in each sample was determined based on the calibration curve.
Calibration standards were prepared by dilution of a standard solution of formalin in distilled water
(1 mg/mL) and analyzed in the same manner as the samples. The calibration range usually covered 1 to 25
µg of formaldehyde/4-mL aliquot. A limit of detection of 0.44 µg formaldehyde/filter sampler was
determined in laboratory evaluation of this analysis procedure.
Disclaimer: Mention of any company or product does not constitute endorsement by NIOSH. In addition,
citations to websites external to NIOSH do not constitute NIOSH endorsement of the sponsoring
organizations or their programs or products. Furthermore, NIOSH is not responsible for the content of
these websites. All web addresses referenced in this document were accessible as of the publication date.
OSHA: 0.05 ppm (0.2 mg/m³) PROPERTIES: Gas; d 3.484 g/L @ 20 °C; BP −62.5 °C; MP
NIOSH: C 0.002 mg/m³ (15 min); carcinogen −116.3 °C
SAMPLING MEASUREMENT
VOL-MIN: 0.1 L @ 0.05 ppm DESORPTION: 1 mL 0.01 mol/L nitric acid; 30 min in
-MAX: 10 L ultrasonic bath
BIAS: −6.13% at 0.01 L/min to 0.2 L/min flow CALIBRATION: Arsenic in 0.01 mol/L nitric acid with 100
rates [1]; −11% @ 0.876 L/min [2] mg charcoal present
APPLICABILITY: The working range is 0.0003 ppm to 0.06 ppm (0.001 mg/m³ to 0.2 mg/m³) for a 10 L air sample. This is an
elemental analysis and is not compound-specific.
INTERFERENCES: Use background correction to control molecular absorption. Other arsenic compounds (gases or
aerosols) may be collected on the sampler and would be erroneously reported as arsine. A cellulose ester filter in front of
the charcoal tube may be used to remove aerosols [3,4]. The effect of relative humidity on the capacity of charcoal for arsine
has not been studied.
OTHER METHODS: This method combines and replaces NIOSH methods P&CAM 265 [5] and S229 [6] for arsine.
REAGENTS: EQUIPMENT:
SPECIAL PRECAUTIONS: Arsenic is a human carcinogen [7]. Wear gloves, lab coat, and safety glasses
while handling acids. Perform all concentrated acid handling in a fume hood. Arsine is extremely
poisonous by inhalation. Handle in well-ventilated hood and wear appropriate protective clothing
and gloves. Users must be familiar with the proper use of flammable and nonflammable gases,
cylinders, and regulators.
SAMPLING:
SAMPLE PREPARATION:
5. Place the front and back sorbent sections of the sampler tube in separate centrifuge tubes. Discard
the glass wool and foam plugs.
6. Add 1.0 mL of 0.01 mol/L nitric acid to each tube. Cap each tube.
9. Calibrate daily with at least six working standards over the range 0.004 µg to 0.3 µg arsenic per
sample.
a. Add known amounts of calibration stock solution and 0.01 mol/L nitric acid for a 1.0 mL final
solution volume to centrifuge tubes containing 100 mg activated charcoal from a media blank
sampler.
b. Analyze standards together with samples and blanks (steps 12 and 13). Analyze a working
standard for every five samples to check for instrument drift.
c. Prepare a calibration graph (absorbance vs. µg arsenic).
10. Determine desorption efficiency (DE) at least once for each batch of charcoal used for sampling in
the range 0.004 µg to 2 µg arsenic per sample. Prepare three tubes at each of five levels plus three
media blanks.
a. Remove and discard back sorbent section of a media blank sampler.
b. Inject a known amount of pure arsine gas (or a certified gas mixture containing arsine) directly
onto front sorbent section with a microliter syringe.
c. Cap the tube. Allow to stand overnight.
d. Desorb (steps 5, 6, 7, and 8) and analyze together with working standards (steps 12 and 13).
e. Prepare a graph of DE vs. µg arsenic recovered.
11. Analyze three quality control spikes to ensure that the calibration graph is in control.
MEASUREMENT:
12. Set the spectrophotometer and furnace to manufacturer’s recommendations and to conditions
given on page 6001-1.
13. Inject a 50 µL aliquot of sample or standard followed by a 50 µL aliquot of nickel nitrate solution
prior to initiating the analysis program. Measure peak area.
NOTE 1: If sample absorbance is above the linear range of the standards, dilute with 0.01 mol/L nitric
acid, reanalyze and apply the appropriate dilution factor in calculations.
NOTE 2: Monitor the reproducibility of peak area for a working standard throughout the
measurements. If erratic results occur, reoptimize instrumental parameters and replace the
graphite tube.
CALCULATIONS:
14. Determine the mass, µg, of arsine found in the sample front ( ) and back ( ) sorbent sections,
and in the average media blank front ( ) and back ( ) sorbent sections by multiplying the mass of
arsenic found for each of these sections by 1.040 (MW of arsine/MW of arsenic).
NOTE: If , report breakthrough and possible sample loss.
15. Calculate concentration, , of arsine in the air volume sampled, (L):
, µg/L or mg/m³.
EVALUATION OF METHOD:
NIOSH method S229 [6] was evaluated over the range 0.094 mg/m³ to 0.404 mg/m³ using 10 L air
samples collected on SKC Lot 105 activated coconut charcoal [1]. Breakthrough (onto the backup
section) did not occur after 240 min of sampling at 0.227 L/min from an arsine concentration of 0.405
mg/m³ (0.022 mg loading). The recovery was found to be 93.7%. Desorption efficiency was 0.90 at 1 µg
arsine per sample and 1.00 at 2 µg and 4 µg arsine per sample.
NIOSH method P&CAM 265 [5] was evaluated over the range 0.001 mg/m³ to 0.01 mg/m³ using 15 L
air samples [2]. These samples were collected on SKC Lot 106 activated coconut charcoal at a sampling
flow rate of 0.875 L/min for 15 min. At this flow rate, a collection efficiency of 89.1% was found [3]. The
effect of high humidity on the sampler capacity was not studied. Desorption efficiency was 0.90 in the
range 0.015 µg to 0.2 µg arsine per sample.
REFERENCES:
[1] NIOSH [1977]. Backup data report: arsine, No. S229. By Taylor DG, Kupel RE, Bryant JM. In:
Documentation of the NIOSH validation tests. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health, Education,
and Welfare, Center for Disease Control, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health,
DHEW (NIOSH) Publication No. 77-185, available as accession No. PB274248 from NTIS [www.ntis.
gov].
[2] NIOSH [1977]. Evaluation and refinement of a personal sampling method for arsine. Cincinnati, OH:
U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Center for Disease Control, National Institute for
Occupational Safety and Health, NIOSH research report, prepared under NIOSH Contract No. 210-
76-0142. Unpublished.
[3] Costello RJ, Eller PM, Hull RD [1983]. Measurement of multiple inorganic arsenic species. Am Ind
Hyg Assoc J 44(1):21–28.
[4] NIOSH [1994]. Arsenic and compounds, as (except and ): Method 7900; Arsenic
trioxide, as : Method 7901. In: Eller PM, Cassinelli ME, eds. NIOSH manual of analytical methods.
4th ed. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, DHHS (NIOSH) Publication
No. 94-113 [www.cdc.gov/niosh/nmam/].
[5] NIOSH [1978]. Arsine in air: P&CAM 265. In: Taylor DG, ed. NIOSH manual of analytical methods. 2nd
ed. Vol. 4. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Center for Disease
Control, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, DHEW (NIOSH) Publication No. 78-
175, available as accession No. PB83-105437 from NTIS [www.ntis.gov].
[6] NIOSH [1977]. Arsine: Method S229. In: Taylor DG, ed. NIOSH manual of analytical methods. 2nd ed.
Vol. 3. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Center for Disease Control,
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, DHEW (NIOSH) Publication No. 77-157-C,
available as accession No. PB276838 from NTIS [www.ntis.gov].
[7] NIOSH [1975]. Criteria for a recommended standard: occupational exposure to inorganic arsenic
(new criteria - 1975). Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Center for
Disease Control, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, DHEW (NIOSH) Publication
No. 75-149 [www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/1970/75-149.html].
DISCLAIMER: Mention of any company or product does not constitute endorsement by NIOSH. In addition, citations to
websites external to NIOSH do not constitute NIOSH endorsement of the sponsoring organizations or their programs or
products. Furthermore, NIOSH is not responsible for the content of these websites. All web addresses referenced in this
document were accessible as of the publication date.
OSHA: 0.3 ppm (0.4 mg/m³) PROPERTIES: Gas, BP 87.8 °C; vapor density 1.17 (air
NIOSH: 0.3 ppm (0.4 mg/m³); 1 ppm (1 mg/m³) STEL = 1); spontaneously flammable in air if
diphosphane is present
SAMPLING MEASUREMENT
FLOW RATE: 0.01 L/min to 0.2 L/min EXTRACTION: 10 mL hot (65 °C to 70 °C) acidic
permanganate reagent solution
VOL-MIN: 1 L @ 0.3 ppm
-MAX: 16 L DETECTOR: UV @ 625 nm
BLANKS: 2 to 10 field blanks per set RANGE: 0.3 µg to 10 µg per sample [2]
RANGE STUDIED: 0.195 mg/m³ to 0.877 mg/m³ [1] (16 L PRECISION ( ): 0.074 @ 2.6 µg to 17.4 µg per sample [2]
samples)
BIAS: 0.4%
OVERALL
PRECISION ( ): 0.091 @ 2.64 µg to 17.41 µg per sample
[2]
ACCURACY: ±17.6%
APPLICABILITY: The working range is 0.013 ppm to 0.6 ppm (0.02 mg/m³ to 0.9 mg/m³) for a 16 L air sample.
INTERFERENCES: The colorimetric determination of phosphate is subject to interference by any species that also forms a
molybdate complex under these conditions; possible interfering species include phosphorus trichloride and phosphorus
pentachloride vapors and organic phosphorus compounds.
OTHER METHODS: This revises NIOSH method S332 [2]. OSHA method 1003, “Phosphine” [3], employing a mercuric
chloride-treated polyester filter used to capture phosphine and ICP-AES to analyze for the total phosphorus, may be used as
an alternative method.
REAGENTS: EQUIPMENT:
1. Potassium dihydrogen phosphate, anhydrous, 1. Sampler: Sorbent tube, silica gel (mercuric
ACS reagent grade. cyanide), 300 mg/150 mg sorbent, 40/60 mesh;
2. Sulfuric acid,* concentrated, ACS reagent or, glass tube 12 cm long, 6 mm O.D., 4 mm I.D.,
grade. flame-sealed ends with plastic caps, with two
3. Ammonium molybdate tetrahydrate. sections of mercuric cyanide-treated silica gel
4. Ferrous ammonium sulfate, anhydrous. (45/60 mesh), (front = 300 mg, back = 150 mg),
5. Potassium permanganate.* separated and retained by silylated glass wool
6. Stannous chloride. plugs. (See APPENDIX.)
7. Glycerol. 2. Personal sampling pump, 0.01 L/min to 0.2
8. Toluene.* L/min, with flexible polyethylene or PTFE
9. Isobutanol.* tubing.
10. Methanol.* 3. Spectrometer capable of measuring
11. Water, deionized or distilled. absorbance or transmittance at 625 nm.
12. Mercuric cyanide.* 4. Two matched 5 cm absorbance cells, silica,
13. Standard phosphate solution. Dissolve 200 mg with tight fitting caps.
anhydrous potassium dihydrogen phosphate 5. Separatory funnel, 125 mL.
in distilled water and dilute to 1 L (1.00 mL 6. Beakers, 50 mL.
contains phosphorus equivalent to 49.94 µg of 7. Pipets, 0.2 mL, 10 mL, and 25 mL, and other
phosphine). convenient sizes to make standard dilutions.
14. Molybdate solution. Dissolve 49.4 g of 8. Volumetric flasks, 10 mL, 25 mL, 100 mL, and
ammonium molybdate tetrahydrate and 1000 mL.
112 mL concentrated sulfuric acid in distilled 9. Water bath (maintained at 65 °C to 70 °C).
water and dilute to 1 L. 10. Graduated cylinders, glass, 10 mL.
15. Alcoholic sulfuric acid solution. Add 50 mL of 11. Syringes, 0.5 mL and 1.0 mL.
concentrated sulfuric acid to 950 mL methanol. 12. Balance.
16. Toluene-isobutanol solvent. Mix equal volumes 13. Thermometer.
of toluene and isobutanol. 14. Stopwatch.
17. Ferrous solution. Dissolve 7.9 g anhydrous 15. Barometer.
ferrous ammonium sulfate and 1 mL
concentrated sulfuric acid in distilled water
and dilute to 100 mL.
18. Stannous chloride solution. Dissolve 0.4 g
stannous chloride in 50 mL glycerol (heat to
dissolve).
19. Acidic permanganate solution. Dissolve
0.316 g potassium permanganate and 6 mL
concentrated sulfuric acid in distilled water
and dilute to 1 L.
20. Mercuric cyanide solution.* Dissolve 2 g
mercuric cyanide in 100 mL water.
SPECIAL PRECAUTIONS: Caution should be exercised when preparing the sampling media because
mercuric cyanide is toxic by inhalation, ingestion, and skin contact. Contact of mercuric cyanide with
acid will produce hydrogen cyanide gas. Concentrated sulfuric acid is highly corrosive. All work with
these compounds should be performed in a hood. Use proper protective clothing including gloves,
safety glasses, and laboratory coat. Potassium permanganate is a strong oxidizer with risk of fire and
explosion upon contact with combustible substances and reducing agents. Toluene, isobutanol, and
methanol are flammable.
SAMPLING:
SAMPLE PREPARATION:
14. Analyze three quality control blind spikes and three analyst spikes to ensure that the calibration
graph and DE graph are in control.
MEASUREMENTS
15. Turn on the spectrophotometer and allow sufficient time for warmup. Adjust the wavelength to 625
nm and set the zero and 100% transmittance scale using 5 cm cells filled with distilled water. Check
these settings prior to making any measurement to check on instrument drift.
NOTE: Steps 16, 17, and 18 must be performed within 1 min.
16. Add 0.5 mL (25 drops) of stannous chloride reagent and dilute to volume using alcoholic sulfuric
acid solution. Mix thoroughly.
17. Transfer the sample into a 5 cm cell and stopper immediately.
18. Measure the absorbance or transmittance using water as a blank.
CALCULATIONS:
19. Determine mass, µg (corrected for DE), of phosphine found in the sample front ( ) and back ( )
sorbent sections, and in the average media blank front ( ) and back ( ) sorbent sections.
NOTE: If , report breakthrough and possible sample loss.
20. Calculate concentration, , of phosphine in the air volume sampled, (L).
, µg/L or mg/m³.
EVALUATION OF METHOD:
This method was validated over the range 0.195 mg/m³ to 0.877 mg/m³ at 19 °C and 102.0 kPa (765.3
mmHg) using 16 L samples [1]. Desorption efficiency must be determined over the range used. The
upper range of the method depends on the adsorptive capacity of the mercuric cyanide-treated gel.
This capacity may vary with the concentration of phosphine and other substances in the air. When an
atmosphere at 90% relative humidity containing 0.957 mg/m³ of phosphine was sampled at a flow rate
of 0.2 L/min, breakthrough was determined to occur at a sample volume of 20.75 liter (capacity = 19.86
µg phosphine).
REFERENCES:
[1] NIOSH [1979]. Backup data report: phosphine, No. S332. In: Ten NIOSH analytical methods, set 7.
Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Center for Disease Control,
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, available as accession No. PB84-243534 from
NTIS [www.ntis.gov]. Unpublished.
[2] NIOSH [1979]. Phosphine: Method S332. In: Taylor DG, ed. NIOSH manual of analytical methods.
2nd ed. Vol. 5. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Center for Disease
Control, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, DHEW (NIOSH) Publication No.
79-141, available as accession No. PB83-105445 from NTIS [www.ntis.gov].
[3] OSHA [2000]. Phosphine: OSHA Method 1003 [www.osha.gov/dts/sltc/methods/mdt/
mdt1003/1003.html]. Date accessed: October 2015.
DISCLAIMER: Mention of any company or product does not constitute endorsement by NIOSH. In addition, citations to
websites external to NIOSH do not constitute NIOSH endorsement of the sponsoring organizations or their programs or
products. Furthermore, NIOSH is not responsible for the content of these websites. All web addresses referenced in this
document were accessible as of the publication date.
7. Place a plug of silylated glass wool at the end of a glass tube (6 mm OD and 4 mm ID) about 12 cm
long. Pour 300 mg of the treated silica gel into the tube. Place another plug of silylated glass wool
behind this front section. Add another 150 mg of the treated silica gel into the tube. Place a final
plug of silylated glass wool behind this backup section.
8. Check the pressure drop of a representative sampler. The pressure drop across the tube must be less
than 6.7 kPa (50 mmHg) at a flow rate of 0.2 L/min.
9. Flame seal both ends of the sampling tubes.
OSHA: 10 ppm (11 mg/m3) (skin) PROPERTIES: gas; BP 26 oC, vapor density 0.93 (air = 1.00);
NIOSH: STEL 4.7 ppm (5 mg/m3) (skin) d(liq) 0.69 g/mL @ 20 oC, VP 82.7 kPa (620 mm Hg @ 20 oC);
IDLH: 50 ppm [1] explosive range 5 to 40% v/v in air
OTHER OELs: Refs. [2, 3]
SAMPLING MEASUREMENT
SAMPLER: SOLID SORBENT TUBE (soda lime, 600 TECHNIQUE: SPECTROPHOTOMETRY, visible absorption
mg/200 mg), with glass fiber pre-filter
ANALYTE: cyanide ion complex
FLOW RATE: 0.025 to 0.05 L/min
DESORPTION: 10 mL deionized water; stand 60 min
VOL-MIN: 2 L @ 5 ppm
-MAX: 90 L COLOR
DEVELOPMENT: N-chlorosuccinimide/succinimide
SHIPMENT: routine oxidizing agent and barbituric
acid/pyridine coupling agent; absorption
SAMPLE @ 580 nm in 1-cm cuvette
STABILITY: at least two weeks at 25 oC [4]
BLANKS: 3 field blanks min. per set CALIBRATION: standard solutions of KCN in 1 M NaOH
OVERALL
PRECISION (𝐒𝐒�𝐫𝐫𝐫𝐫 ): 0.076 [4]
ACCURACY: ±15%
APPLICABILITY: The method is applicable to STEL measurements of HCN gas. The working range is 0.3 to 235 ppm (3 to 260
mg/m3) for a 3-L air sample. Particulate cyanides are trapped by an initial glass fiber filter (pre-filter) that precedes the sorbent tube.
This method is more sensitive and subject to fewer interferences than NIOSH Method 7904 [5], which uses ion specific electrode
analysis. The method has been used to measure HCN in firefighting environments [6].
INTERFERENCES: A high concentration of hydrogen sulfide (H2S) can cause a negative interference by reaction with cyanide to
form thiocyanate.
OTHER METHODS: The procedure is based on the method of Lambert et al. [7]. NIOSH Method 7904 relies on the use of ion
selective electrodes for measurement of CN- [5]. A related method, which employs diffusive sampling onto soda lime sorbent,
followed by desorption and ion chromatography with electrochemical detection, has been promulgated by OSHA [8].
REAGENTS: EQUIPMENT:
1. Potassium cyanide,* reagent grade. 1. Sampler: glass tube, length 9 cm, 7-mm
2. Succinimide, reagent grade. OD/5-mm ID, with plastic caps, containing
3. N-Chlorosuccinimide, reagent grade. two sorbent sections of granular soda lime
4. Barbituric acid, reagent grade. 10/35 mesh (front = 600 mg; back = 200 mg),
5. Pyridine, spectroscopic quality. separated by and contained within silanized
6. Phenolphthalein, 1% (w/v) in ethanol or glass wool plugs. A 5-mm dia. glass fiber filter
methanol, reagent grade. is placed before the inlet.
7. Hydrochloric acid, conc., reagent grade. NOTE: Tubes are commercially available.
8. Sodium hydroxide, reagent grade. 2. Spectrophotometer, Visible (580 nm), with 1-
9. Soda lime (CaO + 5-20% NaOH), reagent cm light path cuvettes.
grade. Crush and sieve to 10/35 mesh; store 3. Personal sampling pump, 0.025-0.05 L/min,
in a sealed container. with flexible connecting tubing.
10. Water, deionized (18 MΩ-cm). 4. Pipets, volumetric, 0.1-, 0.5-, 1.0-, 2.0-, 10.0-
11. NaOH solution, 0.1 M. mL.
12. Calibration stock solution, 1 mg/mL CN-: 5. Vials, glass or plastic, 15-mL, with
Dissolve 0.125 g KCN in ≈40 mL 0.1 M NaOH polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE)-lined caps.
in a 50-mL volumetric flask. Dilute to the 6. Flasks, volumetric, 25-, 50-, 100-, and 1000-
mark with 0.1 M NaOH. Standardize by mL, with stoppers.
titration with AgNO3 (see APPENDIX). 7. Pipets, transfer, disposable.
13. HCl solution, 0.15 M. 8. Laboratory wipes.
14. N-Chlorosuccinimide/succinimide oxidizing 9. Syringes, 10-mL, polyethylene with Luer tip
reagent: Dissolve 10.0 g succinimide in ≈200 readable to 0.1 µL.
mL deionized (DI) water. Add 1.00 g N- 10. Flask, Erlenmeyer, 100-mL.
chlorosuccinimide; agitate to dissolve. 11. Luer-lock PTFE membrane filters, 13-mm dia.,
Adjust volume to 1 L with DI H2O. Solution is 0.45-µm pore size, to fit onto 10-mL syringes.
stable for 6 months when kept at ≈4 oC.
15. Barbituric acid/pyridine reagent: Add ≈30
mL DI H2O to 6.0 g barbituric acid in a 100-
mL Erlenmeyer flask. Slowly add 30 mL
pyridine with stirring. Adjust volume to 100
mL with DI H2O. Solution is stable for 2
months when kept at ≈4 oC.
SPECIAL PRECAUTIONS: HCN gas and cyanide are highly toxic and may be fatal if swallowed, inhaled or
absorbed through skin [1]. Soda lime and NaOH are very caustic [1]. Wear appropriate personal
protection during sampling activities and analysis. It is essential that suitable gloves, eye protection,
laboratory coat, etc., be used when working with these chemicals. Perform sample preparation and
analysis in a clean, well-ventilated area that is well removed from any possible contamination.
SAMPLING:
1. Calibrate each personal sampling pump with a representative sampler in the line.
2. Break both ends of the sampling tube immediately prior to sampling. Attach the glass fiber filter to
the inlet of the sorbent tube. Attach sampler to personal sampling pump with flexible tubing.
3. Sample at an accurately known flow rate between 0.025 and 0.05 L/min (e.g., 0.033 L/min) for a total
sample size of 0.6 to 90 L.
4. Remove the sorbent tube from the sampling apparatus, cap both ends and pack securely for shipment
to the laboratory. Discard the pre-filter.
SAMPLE PREPARATION:
5. Score each sample tube with a file and break sampler at the score line.
6. Transfer front and back sorbent sections to separate 15-mL vials. Discard glass wool plugs.
7. Add 10.0 mL DI H2O to each vial containing a sorbent section. Seal each vial.
8. Allow to stand 60 min. with occasional agitation. Transfer to a 10-mL plastic syringe fitted with a 0.45-
µm PTFE filter, and collect the filtrate in a clean vial.
9. Calibrate daily with at least six working standard solutions over the range 1 to 300 µg CN- per sample.
a. Prepare a working standard solution, 1.00 µg/mL CN-, by diluting 100 µL of calibration stock
solution to 100 mL with 0.1 M NaOH.
b. Pipet 0.50, 1.00, 1.50, 2.00, and 2.50 mL of the working standard solution into 25-mL volumetric
flasks to make up 0.50-, 1.00-, 1.50-, 2.00-, and 2.50-µg CN- standards.
c. Analyze together with field samples and blanks (steps 12 through 19).
d. Prepare calibration graph (absorbance vs. µg CN-).
10. Determine desorption efficiency (DE) at least once for each lot of soda lime used for sampling. Prepare
at least three tubes at each of five levels plus three media blanks.
a. Remove and discard back sorbent section of an unused (blank) sampler.
b. Inject a known amount of calibration stock solution directly onto the soda lime with a microliter
syringe.
c. Cap and allow to stand overnight.
d. Desorb (steps 5 through 8) and analyze together with working standards and blanks (steps 12
through 18).
e. Prepare a graph of DE vs. µg CN- recovered.
11. Analyze at least three quality control blind spikes and at least three analyst spikes to ensure that the
calibration graph and DE graph are in control.
MEASUREMENT:
18. Adjust sample volume to 25 mL with DI H2O and allow to stand for at least 12 min (but no longer than
30 min.) for color development.
19. Using the spectrophotometer, read the absorbance at 580 nm using a 1-cm light path cuvette. If
sample absorbance is outside the range of the calibration standards, remove an aliquot, dilute and
reanalyze. Apply appropriate dilution factor in calculations.
CALCULATIONS:
20. From the absorbance readings, calculate the mass of CN- (µg) in each aliquot analyzed. Apply the
appropriate dilution factor to calculate the mass of CN- (µg) in the original 10-mL solution.
21. Determine the mass of CN- (µg), corrected for desorption efficiency (DE), found in the front (Wf) and
back (Wb) sections of the sorbent tube. Also determine the average background mass of media blank
front (Bf) and back (Bb) sorbent sections. If Wb > Wf/10, report breakthrough and possible sample loss.
22. Calculate the concentration, C, of HCN in the air volume sampled, V(L):
EVALUATION OF METHOD:
The method was initially evaluated by sampling test atmospheres of HCN generated from a compressed
gas mixture of HCN in nitrogen [4]. The range of HCN concentrations was equivalent to 2 to 15 mg/m3 for a
3-L air sample. For 22 samples, an overall precision S� rT of 0.076 was obtained with nearly 100% recovery.
Breakthrough was observed to occur at [HCN] ≈150 mg/m3 for sample volumes ≈10 L. Sample tubes
spiked with KCN standard solutions (n=22) in the range of 10 to 50 µg per sample indicated recoveries of
nearly 100% with a pooled precision S� r of 0.041. Sample tubes similarly spiked with KCN solutions were
analyzed after storage and demonstrated that the samples were stable for at least two weeks. Sample
collection of [HCN] in nitrogen of 130 mg/m3 at 50 mL/min for 7.3 minutes (0.36 L sample volume) resulted
in quantitative recoveries [9]. Further evaluation of the method was carried out in test atmospheres of
HCN generated in air of low (20%) and high (80%) relative humidity [9]. It was found that a sampling rate
of 50 mL/min resulted in quantitative recoveries for HCN concentrations at 0.1 – 2× the OSHA PEL, while
sampling at 200 mL/min gave recoveries <90% in this concentration range; similar results were obtained
for both low and high humidity conditions. In consideration of these observations, the maximum
sampling flow rate recommended for the method is 0.05 L/min.
REFERENCES:
[1] NIOSH [2016]. NIOSH Pocket guide to chemical hazards. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational
Safety and Health, DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 2010-168c, http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/npg/.
[2] ACGIH [2017] TLVs and BEIs based on the documentation of the Threshold Limit Values for chemical
substances and physical agents and Biological Exposure Indices. Cincinnati, OH: American
Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists.
[3] Institute for Occupational Safety and Health of the German Social Accident Insurance (IFA) [2017].
GESTIS international limit values, http://limitvalue.ifa.dguv.de/.
[4] Williamson G [1988]. Method development protocol and backup data report on hydrogen cyanide,
internal report. Cincinnati, OH: NIOSH. Unpublished.
[5] NIOSH [1994]. Method 7904 – Cyanide, aerosol and gas. In: Schlecht PC, O’Connor PF, eds. NIOSH
manual of analytical methods. 4th ed. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health,
DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 94-113.
[6] Williamson G [1988]. Analysis of air samples on project 166 (Fire smoke) on HCN, sequence report
6366-A. Cincinnati, OH: NIOSH. Unpublished.
[7] Lambert JL, Ramasamy J, Paukstelis JV [1975]. Stable reagents for the colorimetric determination of
cyanide by modified König reactions. Anal Chem 47:916-918.
[8] OSHA [2010]. Method no. 1015 (HCN). In: OSHA sampling and analytical methods manual. Sandy, UT:
U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration,
http://www.osha.gov/dts/sltc/methods.
[9] Simmons M [2010]. Use of active sorbent soda lime tube for the collection of hydrogen cyanide,
internal report. Sandy, UT: Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration.
Unpublished.
REVISED BY:
Disclaimer: Mention of any company or product does not constitute endorsement by NIOSH. In addition,
citations to websites external to NIOSH do not constitute NIOSH endorsement of the sponsoring
organizations or their programs or products. Furthermore, NIOSH is not responsible for the content of
these websites. All web addresses referenced in this document were accessible as of the publication date.
Titrate an aliquot of the cyanide standard stock solution (KCN in NaOH) with standard silver nitrite (AgNO3)
solution. The end point is the first formation of a white precipitate, Ag[Ag(CN)2]. Calculate the cyanide
concentration by using the following equation:
𝑀𝑀𝑎𝑎
𝑀𝑀𝑐𝑐 = 52.04 ∗ 𝑉𝑉𝑎𝑎 ∗ � �
𝑉𝑉𝑐𝑐
OSHA: 5 ppm PROPERTIES: Gas; BP −55 °C; vapor density (air = 1) 3.5;
NIOSH: 5 ppm; STEL 10 ppm VP 1.7 × 10³ kPa; nonflammable, colorless,
(1 ppm = 4.17 mg/m³ @ NTP) odorless [1]
SAMPLING MEASUREMENT
BLANKS: 2 to 10 field blanks per set COLUMN: US Pharmacopeia (USP) L12 separator
column, manufacturer’s compatible anion
ACCURACY guard column, and micromembrane
suppressor as recommended by the
RANGE STUDIED: 20 mg/m³ to 420 mg/m³ (0.2 L to 6 L manufacturer. See OTHER METHODS.
samples)
DETECTOR: Conductivity, 30 µS full scale
BIAS: −3.0%
CALIBRATION: Standard solutions of fluoride ion spiked
OVERALL onto sample media
PRECISION ( ): 0.070 [2]
RANGE: 10 µg to 80 µg fluoride per sample [3]
ACCURACY: ±16.7%
ESTIMATED LOD: 7 µg sulfuryl fluoride per sample [3]
APPLICABILITY: The working range is 2.2 ppm to 17 ppm (9 mg/m³ to 75 mg/m³) for a 3 L air sample. This method is
applicable to STEL measurements using a 1.5 L sample. The method has been used to sample for sulfuryl fluoride at
dwelling fumigation sites [3,4].
OTHER METHODS: This method is based on the method of Bouyoucos, et al. [5]. NIOSH method S245 uses gas bag samples,
gas chromatography-flame photometric detector (GC-FPD) [6].
REAGENTS: EQUIPMENT:
1. Sodium hydroxide,* ACS reagent grade. 1. Sampler: Activated coconut shell charcoal
2. Sulfuric acid,* concentrated, ACS reagent sampling tube; glass tube, 11 cm long, 10 mm
grade. OD, 7 mm ID, flame-sealed ends, containing
3. Water, high-purity. two sections of activated (600 °C) coconut
4. Desorbing/extracting solution and eluent: shell charcoal (front = 800 mg, back = 200
40 mmol/L sodium hydroxide. Dissolve 3.2 g mg), separated by a 2 mm urethane foam
sodium hydroxide in 2 L of degassed high- plug. A silylated glass wool plug precedes the
purity water. front section and a 3 mm urethane foam plug
5. Suppressor regenerant, 12.5 mmol/L sulfuric follows the back section. Pressure drop across
acid. Add 0.70 mL concentrated sulfuric acid to the tube at 1 L/min airflow must be less than
1 L of high-purity water. 3.4 kPa.
6. Calibration stock solution, 1 mg/mL fluoride 2. Personal sampling pump, 0.05 L/min to 0.10
anion. Dissolve 0.2210 g sodium fluoride in L/min, with flexible polyethylene or PTFE
high-purity water and dilute to the mark in a tubing.
100 mL volumetric flask. 3. Refrigerant, water solution, sealed, refreezable,
7. Sulfuryl fluoride* calibration gas standard(s) reusable.
(optional). 4. Filter, membrane, 0.45 µm pore size, 13 mm,
with Luer fitting.
*See SPECIAL PRECAUTIONS. 5. Ion chromatograph, with a conductivity
detector, chart recorder, integrator, and
columns (page 6012-1).
6. Vials, glass, 20 mL, with plastic caps.
7. Vials, polyethylene, 20 mL, with plastic caps.
8. Micropipettes, with disposable plastic tips.
9. Volumetric flasks, 100 mL.
10. Pipet, 10 mL, graduated in 0.1 mL intervals.
11. Pipet, volumetric, 20 mL.
12. Syringes, 10 mL, plastic, with Luer tip.
13. Sonicator.
14. Analytical balance, to ±0.0001 g.
SPECIAL PRECAUTIONS: Sulfuryl fluoride is a restricted use pesticide owing to its inhalation toxicity.
It is extremely hazardous as vapor or liquid. Inhalation of vapors may be fatal. Read and follow all
label precautions [7]. Sulfuric acid and sodium hydroxide are corrosive to skin, eyes, and mucous
membranes. Use proper protective clothing including gloves, safety glasses, and laboratory coat.
Handle all hazardous chemicals in a fume hood.
SAMPLING:
SAMPLE PREPARATION:
5. Place the front and back sorbent sections of the sampler tube in separate 20 mL plastic vials. Discard
the glass wool and foam plugs.
6. Add 20 mL 40 mmol/L sodium hydroxide eluent to each plastic vial. Cap. Sonicate for 60 min.
7. Transfer a 5 mL to 7 mL aliquot to a tare weighted 20 mL glass vial using a plastic syringe fitted with
a 0.45 µm membrane filter.
8. Reweigh each glass vial and contents so that the net weight of the aliquot can be calculated.
9. Take each sample to complete dryness in an uncapped glass vial on a hot plate. Cool, then
reconstitute to the original net weight with high-purity water.
MEASUREMENT:
CALCULATIONS:
15. Determine mass (µg) of fluoride found on the front ( ) and back ( ) sections, and in the average
media blank front ( ) and back ( ) sorbent section.
NOTE: If , report breakthrough and possible sample loss.
16. Calculate concentration, , of sulfuryl fluoride in the actual air volume, (L), applying the
conversion factor 2.686 (molecular weight of sulfuryl fluoride divided by the atomic weight of 2
fluoride anions; the reaction is ):
, µg/L or mg/m³.
EVALUATION OF METHOD:
This method was evaluated over the range 20 mg/m³ to 420 mg/m³. Overall sampling and
measurement precision, , was 0.070 [2]. The average recovery of sulfuryl fluoride from charcoal
was 99% when sampling atmospheres prepared in aluminized gas bags (Calibrated Instruments, Inc.,
Hawthorne, NY 10532). Recovery of fluoride from sampling media was 97% in the range 10 µg to 160 µg
fluoride per sample. Sample stability during storage was evaluated at an air concentration of 417 mg/m³
sulfuryl fluoride. Samples showed 101% recovery after 12 d of storage at 0 °C to 5 °C compared to one-
day-old samples.
REFERENCES:
[1] CDPR [2006]. Exposure assessment document for pesticide products containing sulfuryl fluoride. By
Cochran R, DiPaolo D. Sacramento, CA: California Environmental Protection Agency, Department of
Pesticide Regulation [www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/emon/pubs/tac/tacpdfs/sulfluor/final_rcd_vol2.pdf ].
Date accessed: January 2016.
[2] NIOSH [1991]. Backup data report for sulfuryl fluoride. By Williamson GY. Cincinnati, OH: U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control, National Institute for
Occupational Safety and Health, Division of Physical Sciences and Engineering, Methods Research
Support Branch. Unpublished.
[3] NIOSH [1991]. Analytical report: sequence No. 7161-A. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control, National Institute for Occupational Safety and
Health. Unpublished.
[4] NIOSH [1993]. Analytical report: sequence No. 7691-D. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute for
Occupational Safety and Health. Unpublished.
[5] Bouyoucos SA, Melcher RG, Vaccaro JR [1983]. Collection and determination of sulfuryl fluoride in
air by ion chromatography. Am Ind Hyg Assoc J 44(1):57–61.
[6] NIOSH [1980]. Sulfuryl fluoride: Method S245. In: Taylor DG, ed. NIOSH manual of analytical
methods. 2nd ed. Vol. 6. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for
Disease Control, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, DHHS (NIOSH) Publication
No. 80-125, available as accession No. PB82-157728 from NTIS [www.ntis.gov].
[7] NIOSH/OSHA [1981]. Occupational health guideline for sulfuryl fluoride. In: NIOSH/OSHA
Occupational health guidelines for chemical hazards. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services, Centers for Disease Control, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health,
DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 81-123 [www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/81-123/].
DISCLAIMER: Mention of any company or product does not constitute endorsement by NIOSH. In addition, citations to
websites external to NIOSH do not constitute NIOSH endorsement of the sponsoring organizations or their programs or
products. Furthermore, NIOSH is not responsible for the content of these websites. All web addresses referenced in this
document were accessible as of the publication date.
SYNONYMS: none
SAMPLING MEASUREMENT
SAMPLER: SOLID SORBENT TUBE (sulfuric acid- TECHNIQUE: ION CHROMATOGRAPHY,
treated silica gel); CONDUCTIVITY DETECTION
a 0.8-µm MCE prefilter may be used to
remove particulate interferences. ANALYTE: ammonium ion (NH4+)
BLANKS: 2 to 10 field blanks per set COLUMNS: cation separator; cation guard; cation
micromembrane suppressor
ACCURACY
CONDUCTIVITY
RANGE SETTING: 30 μS full scale
STUDIED: 17 to 68 mg/m3 [1] (30-L samples)
CALIBRATION: standard solutions of NH4+ in deionized
BIAS: -2.4% water
APPLICABILITY: The working range is 24 to 98 ppm (17 to 68 mg/m3) for a 30-L sample [1]. This method is applicable to STEL
measurements when sampled at 0.2 L/min.
INTERFERENCES: Ethanolamines (monoethanolamine, isopropanolamine, and propanolamine) have retention times similar to
NH4+. The use of the alternate (weak) eluent will aid in separating these peaks.
OTHER METHODS: This method combines the sampling procedure of methods S347 [4] and 6015 [5] with an ion
chromatographic analytical procedure similar to Method 6701 [6] and OSHA Method ID-188 [3].
REAGENTS: EQUIPMENT:
SPECIAL PRECAUTIONS: Concentrated acids are corrosive to skin. Handle acid in a fume hood. Wear
protective gloves.
SAMPLING:
SAMPLE PREPARATION:
5. Remove caps from sampling tubes. Transfer the front and back sections of sulfuric acid-treated silica
gel to separate 15-mL graduated centrifuge tubes.
NOTE: Firm tapping of the tube may be necessary to effect complete transfer of the sulfuric
acid-treated silica gel.
6. Add 10 mL of deionized water to each centrifuge tube. Cap and shake vigorously. Allow to stand 45
minutes with occasional shaking. (Desorption is complete in 45 minutes.)
NOTE: Analyses should be completed within one day after the ammonia is desorbed.
7. Transfer samples to 10-mL syringes fitted with inline syringe filters for manual injection or transfer to
autosampler vials.
8. Calibrate daily with at least six working standards over the range of 1 to 110 µg NH3 per sample
(about 0.11 to 12 µg/mL NH4+).
9. Add known aliquots of ammonia stock solution to 0.01 N H2SO4 in 10-mL volumetric flasks.
NOTE: Prepare standards just before use.
10. Analyze working standards together with samples and blanks (steps 9 through 11).
11. Prepare calibration graph (peak height vs. µg NH3).
MEASUREMENT:
12. Set ion chromatograph to conditions given on page 6016-1, according to manufacturer’s instructions.
13. Inject 50-µL sample aliquot manually or with autosampler. For manual operation, inject 2 to 3 mL of
sample from filter/syringe to ensure complete rinse of sample loop.
14. Measure peak height.
NOTE: If peak height exceeds linear calibration range, dilute with 0.01 N H2SO4, reanalyze and
apply the appropriate dilution factor in calculations.
CALCULATIONS:
15. Determine the mass, µg, of ammonia found in the sample front (Wf) and back (Wb) sorbent sections,
and in the average media blank front (Bf) and back (Bb) sorbent sections.
16. Calculate concentration, C, of NH3 in the air volume sampled, V (L):
𝑊𝑊𝑓𝑓 + 𝑊𝑊𝑏𝑏 − 𝐵𝐵𝑓𝑓 − 𝐵𝐵𝑏𝑏
𝐶𝐶 = , 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚/𝑚𝑚3
𝑉𝑉
EVALUATION OF METHOD:
This method combines the sampling procedure of NIOSH Methods S347 [4] and 6015 [5] with the ion
chromatographic analytical procedure of NIOSH Method 6701 [6] and OSHA Method ID-188 [3]. This
method used HPIC-CS3 cation separator, HPIC-CG3 cation guard and CMMS-1 cation micromembrane
suppressor. This method will serve as an alternate analytical procedure to the automated
spectrophotometric procedure of NIOSH Method 6015 [5]. Although the methods from which this method
is derived are fully evaluated methods, the combination of the sulfuric acid-treated silica gel sampler and IC
analysis has not received a full evaluation, as such. During the development of the passive monitor method
for ammonia (6701), sulfuric acid-treated silica gel tubes were used as one of the reference methods [6].
The silica gel samples with IC analysis showed good agreement with the other reference methods, bubbler
collection with colorimetric analysis using Nessler’s Reagent, and bubbler collection with IC analysis.
A storage stability study compared the sulfuric acid-treated silica gel tube and sulfuric acid-treated carbon
beads used in OSHA Method ID-188 [3]. When stored at room temperature for five days and then
refrigerated for 21 days, silica gel samples had a mean recovery of 102 ± 3.8% (n = 8), while carbon beads
had a mean recovery of 95 ± 1.6% (n = 8). The samples stored on carbon beads for 35 days showed
significantly lower (although still acceptable) recovery compared to samples stored for 14 days: 103 ± 3.8%
for silica gel (n = 12), and 108 ± 7.0% for carbon beads (n = 12) [2].
REFERENCES:
[1] NIOSH [1977]. Ammonia: Backup data report No. S347. Ten NIOSH analytical methods, set 6. SRI
International Contract No. 210-76-0123. (NTIS PB-288629)
[2] Copenhafer RB, Dearden PA [1995]. User check of method 6015 for ammonia. Sequence 8321-J, K, L,
M. Salt Lake City, UT: DataChem Labaratories. Unpublished.
[3] OSHA [1991]. Ammonia in workplace atmospheres - solid sorbent: Method ID-188. In: OSHA analytical
methods manual, 2nd ed., Part 2, Inorganic substances. Salt Lake City, UT: U.S. Department of Labor,
Occupational Safety and Health Administration.
[4] NIOSH [1979]. Ammonia: Method S347. In: Taylor DG, ed. NIOSH manual of analytical methods, 2nd
ed., volume 5. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Center for Disease
Control, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, DHEW (NIOSH) Publication No. 79-141.
[5] NIOSH [1994]. Ammonia: Method 6015. In: Eller PM, Cassinelli ME, eds. NIOSH manual of analytical
methods, 4th ed. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, DHHS(NIOSH)
Publication No. 94-113 [www.cdc.gov/niosh/nmam].
[6] NIOSH [1984]. Ammonia: Method 6701. In: Eller PM, Cassinelli ME, eds. NIOSH manual of analytical
methods, 3rd ed. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease
Control, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 84-100.
Disclaimer: Mention of any company or product does not constitute endorsement by NIOSH. In addition,
citations to websites external to NIOSH do not constitute NIOSH endorsement of the sponsoring
organizations or their programs or products. Furthermore, NIOSH is not responsible for the content of
these websites. All web addresses referenced in this document were accessible as of the publication date.
SAMPLING MEASUREMENT
SAMPLER: PORTABLE ELECTROCHEMICAL DIRECT- TECHNIQUE: ELECTROCHEMICAL SENSOR
READING CO MONITOR
ANALYTE: carbon monoxide (CO)
FLOW RATE: instrument dependent
CALIBRATION
VOL-MIN: 10 L -ZERO: CO-free air
-MAX: none -SPAN: standard cylinders of span gas in the
desired range
SHIPMENT: routine shipment of instrumentation
RANGE: 0 to 200 ppm
SAMPLE
STABILITY: at least 7 days @ 25 °C [1] ESTIMATED LOD: 1 ppm
(aluminized air bags)
PRECISION (𝐒𝐒�𝐫𝐫 ): 0.035 @ 20 ppm
BLANKS: fresh air or compressed CO-free air from 0.012 @ 50 ppm
cylinder 0.008 @ 100 ppm [2]
ACCURACY
RANGE
STUDIED: 0 to 200 ppm
OVERALL
PRECISION (𝐒𝐒�𝐫𝐫𝐫𝐫 ): 0.022 [2]
ACCURACY: ± 6.0%
APPLICABILITY: Portable, direct-reading carbon monoxide monitors are applicable to any work environment for personal or area
monitoring.
INTERFERENCES: Several gaseous pollutants (e.g., NO2, SO2) may cause an interference at levels over 5 ppm. If these or other
pollutants are known or suspected to be present, use a monitor with a chemical interference scrubber over the sensor. Unknown
pollutants may require further experimentation to determine their effect on the sensor. As tested, SO2 (5 ppm), CO2 (5000 ppm),
methylene chloride (500 ppm), diesel fuel (6 µL/L, about 0.3 ppm benzene), and gasoline vapor (1 µL/L, about 1 ppm benzene) had
no impact on most monitor readings [2]. Some monitors are equipped with a chemical interference scrubber while others offer
this as an option.
OTHER METHODS: OSHA methods ID 209 (CO by direct-reading monitor) [3] and ID 210 (CO by gas bag sampling) [4] are similar
techniques.
REAGENTS: EQUIPMENT:
SPECIAL PRECAUTIONS: Carbon monoxide is a highly flammable, dangerous fire and explosive risk, and
is toxic by inhalation. Shipments of compressed calibration gases must comply with 49 CFR 1992
regulations.
SAMPLING:
1. Zero monitor with CO-free air at the same temperature and relative humidity as the work
environment, if possible.
NOTE 1: Monitors are more sensitive to temperature variations than to humidity variations. Most
monitors have temperature compensating circuitry.
NOTE 2: If applicable, bag samples may be collected in aluminized bags (2-L or larger) and analyzed
later by placing the calibration cap over the sensor and pumping the sample across the
sensor at a nominal rate of 0.250 L/min with a personal sampling pump.
2. For personal monitoring, locate the monitor as near the worker’s breathing zone as possible.
3. For area monitoring, locate monitor in an area with good air circulation about 60 to 70 inches above
the floor.
NOTE: Make sure the sensor is not obstructed in either application.
4. Calibrate with a standard calibration mixture of CO in air (e.g., in gas bag samples of known
concentrations) from a pressurized cylinder at the CO level recommended by the monitor
manufacturer (normally, 20 to 50 ppm CO). The monitor should be calibrated at the temperature and
relative humidity as near as possible to that of the work environment in which it will be used.
5. Check the calibration daily and recalibrate whenever the monitor reading varies from the span gas by
5% or more, or as the manufacturer recommends.
MEASUREMENT:
the operator to manually record the data. All monitor models are equipped with alarms that will warn
the user (audibly, visually or both) whenever the concentration of CO exceeds the preset level of the
alarm. Many are equipped with two-level alarms [5].
EVALUATION OF METHOD:
The performance of six direct-reading carbon monoxide monitors was evaluated over a period of 12
months at CO concentrations up to 200 ppm and a range of ambient temperatures and relative
humidity. Most of the tests were conducted at or near the PEL. For mean recovery studies, six different
monitors were used and readings were taken approximately 1 h apart. Recovery at 20 ppm was 105% (n
= 42); at 50 ppm, 99.6% (n = 36); and at 100 ppm, 99.9% (n = 30). Thus, the overall mean bias was
calculated at -1.7%. The precision (S� r ) at 20 ppm was 0.035 (35 readings from 5 monitors over a 7-h
period). At 50 ppm, S� r was 0.012 (30 readings from 5 monitors over a 6-h period), and at 100 ppm,
S� r was 0.008 (36 readings from 6 monitors over a 6-h period). Tests also were conducted to determine
response time, zero and span drift, alarm decibel level, battery life, life of the sensors, as well as the
effects of selected interferences (gases, vapors, and RF) and the effects of handling and transporting to
remote sites. See [6] for preliminary work on carbon monoxide monitoring.
REFERENCES:
[1] Stanford Research Institute [1977]. Backup Data Report: Method S340. Menlo Park, CA: Stanford
Research Institute. NIOSH contract no. 210-76-0123.
[2] Woodfin WJ, Woebkenberg ML [1985]. Evaluation of portable direct-reading carbon monoxide
monitors. Unpublished.
[3] OSHA [1993]. Method ID 209, Carbon monoxide in workplace atmospheres (Direct-reading
monitor); In: Sampling and analytical methods. Salt Lake City, UT: U.S. Department of Labor,
Occupational Safety and Health Association.
[4] OSHA [1991]. Method ID 210, Carbon monoxide in workplace atmospheres (Gas bag sampling); In:
Sampling and analytical methods. Salt Lake City, UT: U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety
and Health Association.
[6] Woebkenberg ML [1983]. Monitoring methodology for gaseous hazards – Passive monitors and
portable instruments. Scand J Work Environ Health 9:223-229.
Disclaimer: Mention of any company or product does not constitute endorsement by NIOSH. In addition,
citations to websites external to NIOSH do not constitute NIOSH endorsement of the sponsoring
organizations or their programs or products. Furthermore, NIOSH is not responsible for the content of
these websites. All web addresses referenced in this document were accessible as of the publication date.
SAMPLING MEASUREMENT
SAMPLER: FILTER (0.8-µm cellulose ester membrane) TECHNIQUE: ATOMIC ABSORPTION
or INTERNAL CAPSULE, cellulose acetate SPECTROPHOTOMETER, FLAME
dome with inlet opening attached to filter
ANALYTE: lead
FLOW RATE: 1 to 4 L/min
ASHING: conc. HNO3, 6 mL + 30% H2O2, 1 mL; 140°C
VOL-MIN: 200 L @ 0.05 mg/m3
-MAX: 1500 L FINAL
SOLUTION: 10% HNO3, 10 mL
SHIPMENT: routine
FLAME: air-acetylene, oxidizing
SAMPLE
STABILITY: stable at least 7 weeks [4] WAVELENGTH: 283.3 nm
ACCURACY: ±17.6%
APPLICABILITY: The working range is 0.05 to >1 mg/m3 for a 200-L air sample. The method is applicable to elemental lead,
including Pb fume, and all other aerosols containing lead. This is an elemental analysis, not compound specific. Aliquots of the
samples can be analyzed separately for additional elements. This method has been updated to include internal capsule samplers.
INTERFERENCES: Use D2 or H2 continuum or Zeeman background correction to control flame or molecular absorption. High
concentrations of calcium, sulfate, carbonate, phosphate, iodide, fluoride, or acetate can be corrected for.
OTHER METHODS: This method combines and replaces P&CAM 173 [7] and S341 [8] for lead. NIOSH Methods 7300 (ICP-AES),
7701 (ASV) and 7105 (GFAAS) are alternative analytical methods. NIOSH Method 7505 is specific for lead sulfide. A consensus
standard method, ASTM D6785, has been published [9].
REAGENTS: EQUIPMENT:
1. Nitric acid, conc., trace metal grade* 1. Sampler: Cellulose ester filter or cellulose
2. Nitric acid, 10% (v/v). Add 100 mL conc. acetate internal capsule attached to mixed
HNO3 to 500 mL water; dilute to 1 L cellulose ester membrane filter, 0.8-µm pore
3. Hydrogen peroxide, 30% H2O2 (w/w), size, 37-mm diameter, in 2-piece cassette
reagent grade.* filter holder.
4. Calibration stock solution, 1000 µg/mL Pb. 2. Personal sampling pump, 1 to 4 L/min, with
Commercial standard or dissolve 1.00 g Pb flexible connecting tubing.
metal in minimum volume of (1+1) HCl and 3. Atomic absorption spectrophotometer with
dilute to 1 L with 1% (v/v) HCl. Store in a an air-acetylene burner head and
polyethylene bottle. Stable > one year. background correction.
5. Air, compressed, filtered. 4. Lead hollow cathode lamp or electrode
6. Acetylene dischargeless lamp.
7. Distilled or deionized water 5. Regulators, two-stage, for air and acetylene.
6. Beakers, Phillips, 125-mL, or Griffin, 50-mL
*See SPECIAL PRECAUTIONS. with watch glass covers.**
7. Volumetric flasks, 10- and 100-mL.**
8. Assorted volumetric pipets, as needed.**
9. Hotplate, surface temperature 140 °C.
10. Bottles, polyethylene, 100-mL.
SPECIAL PRECAUTIONS: Wear appropriate personal protection during sampling activities and analysis. It
is essential that suitable gloves, eye protection, laboratory coat, etc., be used when working with the
chemicals. Concentrated nitric acid is an irritant and may burn skin. Perform all acid digestions in a fume
hood. Hydrogen peroxide is a strong oxidizing agent, a strong irritant, and corrosive to the skin. Wear
gloves and eye protection.
SAMPLING:
SAMPLE PREPARATION:
3. Open the cassette filter holders and transfer the samples and blanks to clean beakers.
NOTE: If internal capsules are not used, wipe the internal cassette surfaces with a polyvinyl alcohol
wipe or cellulosic wipe wetted with deionized water, and add the wipe to the digestion vessel
(to transfer non-filter aerosol deposits into the digestion vessels) [10].
NOTE: The following sample preparation gave quantitative recovery (see EVALUATION OF METHOD)
[8]. Steps 4 through 9 of Method 7300 or other quantitative ashing techniques may be
substituted, especially if several metals are to be determined on a single filter.
NOTE: The Appendix gives a microwave digestion procedure, which may be necessary for complete
recovery of lead from some matrices, especially epoxy-based paint.
4. Add 3 mL conc. HNO3, and 1 mL 30% H2O2 and cover with a watch glass. Start reagent blanks at this
step.
NOTE: If PbO2 is not present in the sample, the 30% H2O2 need not be added [6,8].
5. Heat on 140 °C hotplate until volume is reduced to about 0.5 mL.
6. Repeat two more times using 2 mL conc. HNO3 and 1 mL 30% H2O2 each time.
7. Heat on 140 °C hotplate until ca. 0.5 mL liquid remains.
8. When sample is dry, rinse the watch glass and walls of the beaker with 3 to 5 mL 10% HNO3. Allow the
solution to evaporate to dryness.
9. Cool each beaker and dissolve the residues in 1 mL conc. HNO3.
10. Transfer the solution quantitatively to a 10-mL volumetric flask and dilute to volume with distilled
water.
NOTE: If the concentration (M) of any of the following is expected to exceed the lead concentration (M)
by 10-fold or more, add 1 mL 1 M Na2EDTA to each flask before dilution to volume: CO32-, PO43-,
I-, F-, CH3COO- [8]. If Ca2+ or SO42- are present in 10-fold or greater excess, make all standards and
samples with 1% (w/w) La2+ [7].
11. Prepare a series of working standards covering the range 0.25 to 20 µg/mL Pb (2.5 to 200 µg Pb per
sample).
a. Add aliquots of calibration stock solution to 100-mL volumetric flasks. Dilute to volume with 10%
HNO3. Store the working standards in polyethylene bottles and prepare fresh weekly.
b. Analyze the working standards together with the blanks and samples (steps 14 and 15).
c. Prepare a calibration graph of absorbance vs. solution concentration (µg/mL)
12. Aspirate a standard for every 10 samples to check for instrument drift.
13. Check recoveries with at least one spiked media blank per 10 samples. Use method of standard
additions occasionally to check for interferences.
MEASUREMENT:
14. Set spectrophotometer as specified by the manufacturer and to conditions on page 7082-1.
NOTE: An alternate wavelength is 217.0 nm [11]. Analyses at 217.0 nm have slightly greater sensitivity,
but poorer signal-to-noise ratio compared to 283.3 nm. Also, non-atomic absorption is
significantly greater at 217.0 nm, making the use of D2 or H2 continuum, or Zeeman background
correction mandatory at that wavelength.
15. Aspirate standards, samples, and blanks. Record absorbance readings.
NOTE: If the absorbance values for the samples are above the linear range of the standards, dilute with
10% HNO3, reanalyze, and apply the appropriate dilution factor in the calculations.
CALCULATIONS:
16. Using the measured absorbances, calculate the corresponding concentrations (µg/mL) of lead in the
sample, Cs, and average media blank, Cb, from the calibration graph.
17. Using the solution volumes (mL) of the sample, Vs, and media blanks, Vb, calculate the concentration,
C (mg/m3), of lead in the air volume sampled, V (L):
𝐶𝐶𝑠𝑠 𝑉𝑉𝑠𝑠 − 𝐶𝐶𝑏𝑏 𝑉𝑉𝑏𝑏 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
𝐶𝐶 = , 3
𝑉𝑉 𝑚𝑚
NOTE: µg/mL ≈ mg/m3.
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods (NMAM), Fifth Edition
LEAD by Flame AAS: METHOD 7082, Issue 3, dated 12 July 2017 - Page 4 of 7
EVALUATION OF METHOD:
The predecessor to NIOSH 7082, Method S341 [8], was issued on October 24, 1975, and validated over the
range 0.13 to 0.4 mg/m3 for a 180-L air sample, using generated atmospheres of lead nitrate [5]. Recovery
in the range 18 to 72 µg Pb per sample was 98%, and collection efficiency of 0.8-µm mixed cellulose ester
filters (Millipore Type AA) was 100% for the aerosols at the detection limit of 0.013 mg/m3. Subsequent
studies on analytical recovery of 200 µg Pb per sample gave the following results [6,8]:
Additional collection efficiency studies were also done using Gelman GN-4 metrical cellulose acetate
membrane filters for the collection of Pb fume, which had geometric mean diameter of 0.1 µm [5]. Mean
collection efficiency for 24 sampling runs at flow rates between 0.15 and 4.0 L/min was >97 ± 2%. Overall
precision, SrT, was 0.072 for lead nitrate aerosol [5,8] and 0.068 for Pb fume [6,8].
Evaluation information on internal capsule samplers may be found in NIOSH 7306 [12].
REFERENCES:
[1] ACGIH [2016]. TLVs® and BEIs® based on the documentation of the Threshold Limit Values for
chemical substances and physical agents and Biological Exposure Indices. Cincinnati, Ohio: American
Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists.
[2] Permanent Senate Commission for the Investigation of Health Hazards of Chemical Compounds in
the Work Area [2016]. List of MAK and BAT values 2016; Maximum Concentrations and Biological
Tolerance Values at the Workplace. Weinheim, Germany: Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co., http://
dx.doi.org/10.1002/9783527805983.
[3] Institute for Occupational Safety and Health of the German Social Accident Insurance (IFA) [no date].
GESTIS international limit values, http://limitvalue.ifa.dguv.de/. Date accessed: July 12, 2017.
[4] Marks GE, Knutsen EO [1975]. Complete testing of the NIOSH method for the determination of trace
metals by atomic absorption spectrophotometry. Chicago, IL: IIT Research Institute, NIOSH contract
no. CDC-99-74-48.
[5] Taylor DG, Kupel RE, Bryant JM. [1977]. Documentation of the NIOSH validation tests. Cincinnati, OH:
U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Center for Disease Control, National Institute for
Occupational Safety and Health, DHEW (NIOSH) Publication No. 77-185. Available from www.ntis.gov
as accession no. PB274248
[6] Gutknecht WF, Ranade MH, Grohse PM, Damle A, O’Neal D [1981]. Heavy metal aerosols: Collection
and dissolution efficiencies. Research Triangle Park, NC: Research Triangle Institute, Contract 210-79-
0058, Available from www.ntis.gov as accession no. PB83-106740.
[7] NIOSH [1979]. Method P&CAM 173. In: Taylor DG, ed. NIOSH manual of analytical methods. 2nd ed.
Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Center for Disease Control,
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, DHEW (NIOSH) Publication No. 77-157-A.
[8] NIOSH [1982]. Method S341. In: Taylor DG, ed. NIOSH manual of analytical methods. 2nd ed.
Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Center for Disease Control, National
Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, DHEW (NIOSH) Publication No. 82-100.
[9] ASTM International [2013]. ASTM D6785, Standard test method for determination of lead in
workplace air using flame or graphite furnace atomic absorption spectrometry. West Conshohocken,
PA: ASTM International.
[10] Ashley K, Harper M [2013]. Closed-face filter cassette (CFC) sampling - Guidance of procedures for
inclusion of material adhering to internal sampler surfaces. J Occup Environ Hyg 10:D29-D33.
[11] Perkin-Elmer Corporation [1976]. Analytical methods for atomic absorption spectrophotometry.
Norwalk, CT: Perkin-Elmer Corporation.
[12] NIOSH [2015]. Method 7306. In: Ashley K, O’Connor PF, eds. NIOSH manual of analytical methods. 5th
ed. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 14-
151.
[13] DataChem Laboratories [no date]. In-house procedure for microwave sample digestion. Salt Lake
City, UT: DataChem Laboratories. Unpublished.
[14] EPA [1986]. SW-846: Test methods for evaluating solid waste, Physical and chemical methods, 3rd ed.
Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
[15] Kingston HM, Jassie LB, eds. [1988]. Safety guidelines for microwave systems in the analytical
laboratory. In: Introduction to microwave acid decomposition: Theory and practice. Washington, DC:
American Chemical Society.
[16] ASTM International [2011]. ASTM D1193, Standard specification for reagent water. West
Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International.
[17] Kingston HM, Jassie LB, eds. [1988]. Introduction to microwave acid decomposition: Theory and
practice. Washington, DC: American Chemical Society.
[19] Binstock DA, Yeager WM, Grohse PM, Gaskill A [1989]. Validation of a method for determining
elements in solid waste by microwave digestion, Draft technical report for RTI Project number 321U-
3579-24. Research Triangle Park, NC: Research Triangle Institute.
Mark Millson, R. DeLon Hull, PhD, and Ronnee N. Andrews, PhD, NIOSH. S341 originally validated under
NIOSH contract CDC-94-74-45; additional studies under NIOSH contract 210-79-0058.
James B. Perkins, David L. Wheeler, and Keith Nicholson, Ph.D., DataChem Laboratories, Salt Lake City, UT,
prepared the microwave digestion procedure described in the Appendix.
Disclaimer: Mention of any company or product does not constitute endorsement by NIOSH. In addition,
citations to websites external to NIOSH do not constitute NIOSH endorsement of the sponsoring
organizations or their programs or products. Furthermore, NIOSH is not responsible for the content of
these websites. All web addresses referenced in this document were accessible as of the publication date.
APPENDIX: MICROWAVE DIGESTION FOR LEAD IN PAINT CHIPS (AND OTHER MATRICES)
This procedure is an alternative to the procedure presented in the Sample Preparation section of this
method. It provides a rapid, complete acid digestion prior to analysis by flame atomic absorption (FAA),
heated graphite furnace atomic absorption (HGFAA), and inductively coupled plasma spectroscopy (ICP)
[13].
1. Microwave unit, to provide programmable power with a minimum of 574 W and programmable to
within ± 10 W of the required power.
2. The microwave unit cavity shall be corrosion resistant as well as ventilated. All electronics are
protected against corrosion for safe operation.
3. The system requires microwave transparent and reagent resistant vessels, such as perfluoroalkoxy
alkane (PFA) digestion vessels (120-mL capacity), capable of withstanding pressures up to 7.5 ± 0.7 atm
(760 ± 70 kPa). Vessels shall also be capable of controlled pressure relief at pressures exceeding 7.5 ±
0.7 atm (760 ± 70 kPa). Other, equivalent types of vessels designed to operate at temperatures and
pressures required and recommended by manufacturer can be used.
4. A rotating turntable is employed to ensure homogeneous distribution of microwave radiation within
the unit. The speed of the turntable should be a minimum of 3 rpm.
5. A safety concern relates to the use of sealed containers without pressure relief valves in the unit.
Temperature is the important variable controlling the reaction. Pressure is needed to attain elevated
temperatures but must be safely contained [15].
6. Polymeric volumetric ware in plastic (PTFE or polyethylene), 50- or 100-mL capacity.
7. Disposable polypropylene filter funnel.
8. Analytical balance, 300-g capacity, and minimum ± 0.001 g.
Reagents
Procedure
c. Add 5.0 ± 0.1 mL concentrated nitric acid to the sample vessel in a fume hood. If a vigorous
reaction occurs, allow the reaction to stop before capping the vessel. Cap the vessel and torque
the cap to 16 N-m according to the manufacturer's directions. The sample vessel may be
connected to an overflow vessel using PFA connecting tubes. Place the vessels in the microwave
carrousel. Connect the overflow vessels to the center well of the unit.
d. Place the vessels evenly distributed in the turntable of the microwave unit. Any vessels containing
5 mL of nitric acid for reagent blank purposes are counted as sample vessels. When fewer than the
recommended number of samples are to be digested, i.e., three samples plus one blank, the
remaining vessels should be filled with 5 mL of nitric acid to achieve the full complement of
vessels. This provides an energy balance since the microwave power absorbed is proportional to
the total mass in the cavity [17]. Irradiate each group of samples to achieve a temperature of 180
°C. Temperature ramp times should be appropriate for the vessels used. A sample digestion
program for 12 samples is presented in Table A1. Adjust power values depending upon the
number of samples included in the microwave at one time.
TABLE A1. PROGRAM VARIABLES FOR PAINT CHIPS SAMPLE DIGESTION WITH NITRIC ACIDA
e. At the end of the microwave program, allow the vessels to cool to a temperature below the boiling
point of concentrated nitric acid (or that of the acid mixture used) before removing them from the
microwave unit. If sample loss is detected (e.g., material in overflow collection vessel, liquid
outside liner), determine the reason for the loss (e.g., loss of vessel seal integrity, use of a digestion
time longer than 30 minutes, too large a sample, or improper heating conditions). Once the source
of the loss has been corrected, prepare a new sample beginning at step 2. If insufficient material is
available for reanalysis, dilute remaining digestate and note that some sample loss may have
occurred.
f. Uncap and vent each vessel in a fume hood. Transfer the sample to an acid-cleaned polyethylene
bottle. Dilute to 25 mL using reagent water. If the digested sample contains particulates which
may clog nebulizers or interfere with injection of the sample into the instrument, allow the
sample to settle or filter it:
Settling: Allow the sample to stand until the supernatant is clear (usually overnight is sufficient). If
it does not filter the sample.
Filtering: Filter using disposable syringe filters, filter apparatus, etc. The filtering apparatus must be
thoroughly precleaned and rinsed with dilute nitric acid. Filter the sample through
quantitative filter paper into a second acid-cleaned container.
The digestate is now ready for analysis for elements of interest using the appropriate method.
4. Calculations: Report the concentrations based on the actual weight of the original sample.
SAMPLING MEASUREMENT
SAMPLER: FILTER (mixed cellulose ester membrane (MCE), TECHNIQUE: INDUCTIVELY COUPLED ARGON PLASMA,
37-mm diameter, 0.8-µm pore size) ATOMIC EMISSION SPECTROSCOPY
(ICP-AES)
FLOW RATE: 1 to 4 L/min
ANALYTE: Elements listed above
VOL-MIN:
-MAX: Table 1 REAGENTS: 10.0 mL of 1:1 nitric (HNO3) and ASTM Type II
water
SHIPMENT: Routine
FINAL
SAMPLE SOLUTION: 20% HNO3, 25 mL
STABILITY: Stable
WAVELENGTH: Depends upon element (see Table 3)
BLANKS: 2 to 10 field blanks per set
BACKGROUND
ACCURACY CORRECTION: Spectral wavelength shift
APPLICABILITY: This method is for the analysis of metal and nonmetal dust collected on MCE filters in the workplace. The
working range varies from element to element. The method entails simultaneous elemental analysis using a microwave diges-
tion approach to simplify and expedite the analysis.
INTERFERENCES: Spectral interferences are the primary interferences encountered in ICP-AES analysis. These are minimized
by judicious wavelength selection, inter-element correction factors and background correction [3].
OTHER METHODS: This method complements NIOSH hotplate digestion methods 7300 and 7301 for trace elements. Flame
atomic absorption spectroscopy (e.g., Methods 7013 through 7082) is an alternative analytical technique for many of these
elements [4]. Graphite furnace AAS (e.g., 7102 for Be, 7105 for Pb) is usually more sensitive [4]. NMAM 7301 and 7303 contain
alternative extraction procedures.
REAGENTS: EQUIPMENT:
1. Nitric acid, conc., trace metal grade* 1. Sampler: mixed cellulose ester membrane (MCE)
2. Calibration stock solutions, 1000 µg/mL filter, 0.8-µm pore size, 37-mm diameter; in
and 10,000 µg/mL commercially available, 2-piece cassette filter holder
or prepared per instrument manufacturer’s 2. Personal sampling pump, 1 to 4 L/min, with
recommendation (see step10) flexible connecting tubing
3. Digestion acid*. 1:1 water, ASTM type II, and 3. Inductively coupled plasma-atomic emission
nitric acid*, trace metal grade spectrometer, equipped as specified by the
4. Argon, liquid manufacturer for analysis of elements of interest
5. De-ionized Water, ASTM Type ll [5] 4. Regulator, two-stage for argon
6. Dilution acid*, 20% nitric acid in ASTM Type II 5. Microwave, programmable power, active
water temperature control, minimum of 574 W,
corrosion resistant ventilated oven and
* See Special Precautions turntable
6. Microwave digestion vessels, high pressure,
closed PTFE, 100-mL capacity
7. Volumetric flasks, 25 mL**
8. Assorted volumetric pipettes as needed**
** Acid wash all glassware and vessels before using.
SPECIAL PRECAUTIONS: Wear gloves, lab coat, and safety glasses while handling all chemicals.
All work should be performed with adequate ventilation to personnel and equipment. Because this
method involves the use of capped digestion containers, avoid the use of other acids such as perchloric
acid in combination with nitric acid that could cause a violent reaction [6,7]. In the preparation of the
digestion and dilution acids, it is imperative that acid be added to water in order to avoid a violent
exothermic reaction.
SAMPLING
1. Calibrate each personal sampling pump with a representative sampler connected to the pump (in
line).
2. Sample at an accurately known flow rate between 1 and 4 L/min. For estimated sampling volumes see
Table 1. For TWA measurements see Table 2. Do not exceed a filter loading of approximately 2 mg total
dust.
NOTE: Filter overloading can be assessed by periodic visual checks. See NMAM guidance chapters for
discussion on sampling.
SAMPLE PREPARATION
NOTE: If total weights are desired, weighing should be done at this step. Follow NIOSH method 0500
for gravimetric analysis [11].
3. Open the cassette filter holders and transfer the samples, blanks, and Quality Control (QC) filters to
clean PTFE digestion vessels. Wipe the internal cassette surfaces with a 37-mm MCE filter, polyvinyl
alcohol wipe or cellulosic wipe wetted with deionized water, and add to the digestion vessel to transfer
non-filter aerosol deposits into the digestion vessels.
4. Add digestion acid up to 10 mL, and cap the vessels.
NOTE: In order to avoid a violent exothermic reaction, do not add water to concentrated nitric acid.
Acid should be added after the water has been placed in the vessel.
5. Place digestion vessels in microwave, and run the preprogrammed digestion procedure for 12- vessel
digestion: 1200 W power, ramp to 150 °C over 20 min, hold for 10 min at 215 °C followed by at least a 5
min cool down (power will be adjusted lower for fewer vessels).
6. Allow the samples to cool to room temperature.
7. Remove vessel lids and rinse contents into 25-ml volumetric flasks with ASTM Type ll water.
8. Dilute to the mark with ASTM Type ll water and mix.
9. Submit extracted and diluted samples for analysis.
MEASUREMENT
CALCULATIONS
15. Obtain the solution concentrations for the sample, Cs (µg/mL), and the average media blank, Cb (µg/
mL), from the instrument.
16. Using the solution volume of sample, Vs (mL), and media blank, Vb (mL), calculate the concentration for
the sample, C (mg/m3), of each element in the air volume sampled, V (L), as follows:
(Cs Vs )-(Cb Vb )
C= , mg/m3
V
NOTE: µg/Liter is essentially equal to mg/m3.
EVALUATION OF METHOD
Method 7302 was evaluated using multi-element filter spikes at six spiking levels, based on the estimated
LOQ for each element [8]. Using microwave digestion is less time consuming and more convenient than
using the traditional mixed acid hot plate approach. The elimination of perchloric acid in the sample
digestion procedure helps to improve the safety of the method. [7]
Summary data are presented in Table 3 for levels 3X LOQ (lower level in Table 3) and 300X LOQ (higher
level in Table 3) and for the ranges of loadings given in Table 4. Samples were subjected to microwave
digestion using a CEM MDS-2100 device according to the conditions specified in the “sample preparation”
section above (see Note of step #5). The values in Tables 3 and 4 were determined using several different
ICP-AES instruments which were operated according to manufacturer’s instructions.The precision and
recovery data, instrumental detection limits, sensitivity, and analytical wavelengths are listed in Table 3
and Table 4. All of the precision data were evaluated for homogeneity for all six concentration levels tested
using the Bartlett’s test and the results are listed in the method backup data report [8] and summarized
in Tables 3 and 4. A statistical analysis found that the data were poolable and all elements had calculated
method precision accuracies of less than 25%. This overall precision (ŜrT ) and accuracy as given in Table 4
is an upper limit predictor of precision. Accuracy data (Table 4) demonstrate the utility of the method for
all of the elements listed.
A discussion of metals and metalloid analysis by ICP-AES is presented in an international voluntary
consensus standard [3] and the microwave digestion procedure has been evaluated against other
digestion procedures through an interlaboratory trial [10].
REFERENCES
[1] ACGIH [2013]. TLVs and BEIs based on the documentation of the Threshold Limit Values for chemical
substances and physical agents and Biological Exposure Indices. Cincinnati, Ohio: American
Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists. [www.acgih.org]. [Data accessed April 2014.]
[2] Institut fur Arbeitsschutz der Deutschen Gesetzlichen Unfallversicherung [2013]. GESTIS database on
hazardous substances (German Social Accident Insurance). Sankt Augustin, FRG: [http://www.dguv.
de/ifa/GESTIS]. [Data accessed April 2014.]
[3] ASTM [2010]. ASTM D7035-10, Standard test method for the determination of metals and metalloids
in airborne particulate matter by inductively coupled plasma atomic emission spectrometry. West
Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International [www.astm.org].
[4] NIOSH [1994] NIOSH Manual of analytical methods (NMAM). 4th ed. Schlecht PC, O’Connor PF, eds.
Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No.
94-113 [www.cdc.gov/niosh/nmam/].
[5] ASTM International [2011]. ASTM D1193-77, Standard specification for reagent water. West
Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International [www.astm.org].
[6] NIOSH [2005]. NIOSH Pocket guide to chemical hazards. Barsan ME, ed. Cincinnati, OH: US
Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National
Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 2005-149.
[7] Furr AK, ed. [1995]. CRC Handbook of laboratory safety, 4th ed. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
[8] Stone LC, Perkins JB, Rogers DM [2003]. Elements by ICP using microwave digestion, NMAM 7302,
Issue 1, Backup data report. Cincinnati OH: Datachem Laboratory developed under contract CDC-200-
2001-08000. Unpublished.
[9] Lide DR, ed. [1994] Handbook of chemistry and physics. 74th ed. Baca Raton, FL.: CRC Press.
[10] Butler OT, Howe AM [1999]. Development of an international standard for the determination of
metals and metalloids in workplace air using ICP-AES: Evaluation of sample dissolution procedures
through an interlaboratory trial. J. Environ. Monit. 1: 23-32.
[11] Code of Federal Regulations, 29 CFR Part 1910.1000 (Table Z-1) [https://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/
owadisp.show_document?p_table=STANDARDS&p_id=9992]. Website accessed on December 13,
2013.
David M. Rogers, Lee C. Stone, James B. Perkins, DataChem Laboratories, Salt Lake City, Utah.; Yvonne
Gagnon, Ronnee Andrews, Ph.D., NIOSH/DART.
Disclaimer: Mention of any company or product does not constitute endorsement by NIOSH.
In addition, citations to websites external to NIOSH do not constitute NIOSH endorsement of the
sponsoring organizations or their programs or products. Furthermore, NIOSH is not responsible for the
content of these websites. All web addresses referenced in this document were accessible as of the
publication date.
Silver (Ag) 7440-22-4 VW3500000 0.01 (dust, fume, metal) 0.01 (dust, fume, metal)
Sodium (Na) 7440-23-5 VY0686000
Strontium (Sr) 7440-24-6 WK7700000
Tellurium (Te) 13494-80-9 WY2625000 0.1 0.1
Tin (Sn) 7440-31-5 XP7320000 2 2
Titanium (Ti) 7440-32-6 XR1700000 15 (as TiO2) lowest feasible(1)
Thallium (Tl) 7440-28-0 XG3425000 0.1 (soluble) skin 0.1 (soluble) skin
Vanadium (V) 7440-62-2 YW1355000 C 0.5 (respirable) as V2O5 C 0.05 as V2O5
C 0.1 (fume) as V2O5
Yttrium (Y) 7440-65-5 ZG2980000 1 1
Zinc (Zn) 7440-66-6 ZG8600000 5 (ZnO fume) 5; STEL 10 (ZnO fume)
15 (ZnO dust) 5; C 15 (ZnO dust)
5 (ZnO respirable)
Zirconium (Zr) 7440-67-7 ZH7070000 5 5, STEL 10
(1) Carcinogen
SAMPLING MEASUREMENT
SAMPLER: FILTER, (polyvinyl chloride (PVC), 37-mm TECHNIQUE: INDUCTIVELY COUPLED ARGON
diameter, 5.0 µm pore size) PLASMA, ATOMIC EMISSION
SPECTROSCOPY (ICP-AES)
FLOW RATE: 1 to 4 L/min
ANALYTE: Elements listed above
VOL-MIN:
-MAX: Table 1 REAGENTS: 12 mL of 5:1 concentrated nitric acid and
ASTM Type ll water
SHIPMENT: Routine
FINAL SOLUTION: 20% HNO3, 50 mL
SAMPLE
STABILITY: Stable
WAVELENGTH: Depends upon element; Table 3
BLANKS: 2 to 10 field blanks per set
BACKGROUND
ACCURACY CORRECTION: Spectral wavelength shift
APPLICABILITY: The working range of this method varies from element to element. This method is for the analysis of
metal and nonmetal dust collected on PVC filters that are also used for gravimetric analysis. This is a simultaneous elemen-
tal analysis using a microwave digestion approach to simplify and expedite the analysis. Some elements such as antimony,
silver, and tin do not form stable solutions in nitric acid when chloride from the PVC filters is present. In such cases a mixed
cellulose ester (MCE) filter is necessary (See NMAM 7302). A different acid medium also helps but this technique is not
described in this method.
INTERFERENCES: Spectral interferences are the primary interferences encountered in ICP-AES analysis. These are mini-
mized by judicious wavelength selection, inter-element correction factors and background correction. [3,4,5,6]
OTHER METHODS: This method complements NIOSH hotplate digestion methods 7300 and 7301 for trace elements.
Flame atomic absorption spectroscopy (e.g., Methods 70XX) is an alternative analytical technique for many of these ele-
ments. [7] Graphite furnace AAS (e.g., 7102 for Be, 7105 for Pb) is usually more sensitive. [7] NMAM 7301 and 7303 contain
alternative extraction procedures.
ELEMENTS by ICP Microwave Digestion: METHOD 7304, Issue 1, dated 25 May 2014 - Page 2 of 11
REAGENTS EQUIPMENT
1. Nitric acid, conc., trace metal grade* 1. Sampler: Polyvinyl chloride filter, 5.0-µm pore
2. Calibration stock solutions, 1000 ug/mL size, 37-mm diameter; in 2-piece cassette filter
and 10,000 ug/mL commercially available, holder
or prepared per instrument manufacturer 2. Personal sampling pump, 1 to 4 L/min, with
recommendation (see step 10) flexible connecting tubing
3. Argon, liquid 3. Inductively coupled plasma-atomic emission
4. De-ionized W ater, ASTM Type ll [8] spectrometer, equipped as specified by the
5. Dilution acid: 20% nitric acid in ASTM Type ll manufacturer for analysis of elements of
water* interest
4. Regulator, two-stage for argon
* See SPECIAL PRECAUTIONS 5. Microwave, programmable power, active
temperature control, minimum of 574 W,
corrosion resistant ventilated oven and
turntable
6. Microwave digestion vessels, high pressure,
closed PTFE, 100-mL capacity
7. Volumetric flasks, 50 mL**
8. Assorted volumetric pipettes as needed**
** Acid wash all glassware and vessels before using.
SPECIAL PRECAUTIONS: Wear gloves, lab coat, and safety glasses while handling all chemicals. All
work should be performed with adequate ventilation to personnel and equipment. Because this
method involves the use of capped digestion containers, avoid the use of other acids such as perchloric
acid in combination with nitric acid that could cause a violent reaction [1,9]. In the preparation of
the digestion and dilution acid, it is imperative that acid be added to water in order to avoid a violent
exothermic reaction.
SAMPLING:
1. Calibrate each personal sampling pump with a representative sampler connected to the pump
(in line.)
2. Sample at an accurately known flow rate between 1 and 4 L/min. For estimated sampling volumes
see Table 1. For TWA measurements see Table 2. Do not exceed a filter loading of approximately
2 mg total dust.
NOTE: Filter overloading can be assessed by periodic visual checks. See NMAM guidance chapters
for additional discussion on filter capacity.
SAMPLE PREPARATION:
NOTE: If total weights are desired, it should be done at this step. Follow NIOSH method 0500 for
gravimetric analysis [12].
3. Open the cassette filter holders and transfer the samples, blanks, and Quality Control (QC) filters to
clean PTFE digestion digestion vessels. Wipe the internal cassette surfaces with a 37 mm PVC filter
wetted with deionized water and add to the digestion vessel to transfer non-filter aerosol deposits
into the digestion vessels.
4. Add 2 mL of ASTM Type ll water followed by adding (slowly) 10 mL concentrated nitric acid, then
cap each vessel.
NOTE: In order to avoid a violent exothermic reaction, do not add water to concentrated nitric acid.
Acid should be added after the water has been placed in the vessel.
5. Place digestion vessels in microwave and run preprogrammed PVC digestion procedure. Example
microwave conditions for 12-vessel digestion: 1200 W power, ramp to 215 °C over 20 min, hold for
10 min at 215 °C followed by at least a 5 min cool down (power will be adjusted lower for fewer
vessels).
6. Allow the samples to cool to room temperature.
7. Remove vessel lids and rinse contents into 50-mL volumetric flasks with ASTM Type ll water.
8. Dilute to the mark with ASTM Type ll water and mix.
9. Submit samples for analysis.
NOTE: A residual solid may be present after digestion. Filter/centrifuge the samples before analysis,
as appropriate.
MEASUREMENT:
CALCULATIONS:
15. Obtain the solution concentrations for the sample, Cs (µg/mL), and the average media blank, Cb
(µg/mL), from the instrument.
16. Using the solution volume of sample, Vs (mL), and media blank, Vb (mL), calculate the concentration
for the sample, C (mg/m3), of each element in the air volume sampled, V (L), as follows:
EVALUATION OF METHOD:
This method is less time consuming and more convenient than using the acid hotplate approach. The
elimination of perchloric acid in the sample digestion procedure helps to improve the safety of the
method. [9] Use of the PVC filters allows for the acquisition of total mass per filter in addition to total
metals concentration.
The evaluation of this method, 7304, for PVC filters was determined at six concentration levels based on
the LOQ for each element listed on page 1 [13]. All of the precision data was evaluated for homogeneity for
all concentration levels tested using the Bartlett’s test and the results are listed in the method backup data
report [12] and summarized in Tables 3 and 4. In many cases the highest concentration level (300 times
the LOQ) was not poolable due in every case to the precision being so small relative to the other values,
usually less than CV = 0.001 (<0.1%). Therefore, the overall precision (ŜrT) and accuracy as given in Table 4 is
an upper limit predictor of precision; precision at concentration levels greater than 300 times the LOQ (see
Table 3) will probably be much smaller.
For many of the metals, precision at the 3 times and/or 1 times the LOQ levels was reasonable (CV less than
10%) but were not poolable due to the precisions at the higher concentration levels being so much smaller.
In one case (strontium) the lowest level was not poolable because its CV was an inlier (less than 1%), being
much smaller than those at the higher concentration levels. In most cases the precision appeared to be a
function of concentration. This is observable in Table 3 where the CVs for the 10 times the LOQ (lower level)
and 300 times the LOQ (higher) levels are compared.
Three elements, antimony, silver, and tin, had poor recoveries. It is believed that the chloride ions
produced in the digestion of the PVC filters is causing the formation of precipitates. These metals are
preferably sampled on MCE filters. The values in Tables 3 and 4 were determined using several different
ICP-AES instruments and also several different microwave ovens. All were operated according to the
manufacturer’s instructions.
REFERENCES:
[1] ACGIH [2013]. TLVs and BEIs based on the documentation of the Threshold Limit Values for chemical
substances and physical agents and Biological Exposure Indices. Cincinnati, Ohio: American
Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists. [www.acgih.org]. [Data accessed April 2014.]
[2] Institut fur Arbeitsschutz der Deutschen Gesetzlichen Unfallversicherung [2013]. GESTIS database on
hazardous substances (German Social Accident Insurance). Sankt Augustin, FRG:
[http://www.dguv.de/ifa/gestis/gestis-stoffdatenbank/index-2.jsp]. [Data accessed April 2014.]
[3] Hull, RD [1981]. Multi-element analysis of industrial hygiene samples, NIOSH internal report presented
at the American Industrial Hygiene Conference, Portland, Oregon, May.
[4] NIOSH [1994]. Elements: Method 7300 (Supplement Issued 3/15/2003). In: Schlecht PC, O’Connor
PF, eds. NIOSH Manual of analytical methods, 4th ed. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational
Safety and Health, DHHS Publication No. 94-113 [www.cdc.gov/niosh/nmam/].
[5] Harrison, GR [1969]. Massachusetts Institute of Technology wavelength tables, 2nd ed. West Hanover,
MA: Halliday Lithograph, Volume 1.
[6] ASTM International [2010]. ASTM D7035, Standard test method for the determination of metals
and metalloids in airborne particulate matter by inductively coupled plasma atomic emission
spectrometry. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International [www.astm.org].
[7] NIOSH [1994]. NIOSH manual of analytical methods (NMAM®). 4th ed. Schlecht PC, O’Connor PF, eds.
Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No.
94-113 [www.cdc.gov/niosh/nmam/].
[8] ASTM [1983]. ASTM D1193-77, Standard specification for reagent water. West Conshohocken, PA:
ASTM International [www.astm.org].
ELEMENTS by ICP Microwave Digestion: METHOD 7304, Issue 1, dated 25 May 2014 - Page 5 of 11
[9] Furr KA [1995]. CRC Handbook of Laboratory Safety, 4th ed. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
[10] NIOSH [1973]. The industrial environment - its evaluation & control. 3rd ed. U.S. Department of
Health Education and Welfare, Center for Disease Control, National Institute for Occupational
Safety and Health. DHEW (NIOSH) Publication No. 74-117.
[11] NIOSH [1994]. Particulates not otherwise regulated: Method 0500. In: Eller PM, Cassinelli ME,
eds. NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods, 4th ed. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational
Safety and Health. DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 94-113.
[12] Stone LC, Perkins JB, Rogers DM [2003]. Backup data report NMAM 7304: Elements by ICP on
PVC filters using microwave digestion. Cincinnati OH: DataChem Laboratories, Inc. under NIOSH
contract CDC-200-2001-08000. Unpublished.
[13] Lide DR [1993]. Handbook of chemistry and physics. 74th ed. Boca Raton FL: CRC PRess.
[14] NIOSH pocket guide to chemical hazards. Barsan ME, ed. Cincinnati, OH: US Department of
Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute for
Occupational Safety and Health, DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 2005-149. [www.cdc.gov/niosh/
npg].
[15] Code of Federal Regulations, 29 CFR Part 1910.1000, Table Z-1[2013]. Limits for air standards.
National occupational safety and health standards. [https://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/
owadisp.show_document?p_table=STANDARDS&p_id=9992] Website accessed on December 13,
2013.
David M. Rogers, Lee C. Stone, John M. Reynolds, James B. Perkins, DataChem Laboratories, Salt Lake
City, Utah; Yvonne Gagnon, Ronnee Andrews, Ph.D., DART/CEMB.
Disclaimer: Mention of any company or product does not constitute endorsement by NIOSH. In addition, citations to
websites external to NIOSH do not constitute NIOSH endorsement of the sponsoring organizations or their
programs or products. Furthermore, NIOSH is not responsible for the content of these websites. All web addresses
referenced in this document were accessible as of the publication date.
ELEMENTS by ICP Microwave Digestion: METHOD 7304, Issue 1, dated 25 May 2014 - Page 6 of 11
SAMPLING MEASUREMENT
APPLICABILITY: The working range of this method is 4 x 10-5 mg/m3 to 10 mg/m3 for each element in a 500-L air sample.
This is simultaneous elemental analysis, not compound specific. Verify that the types of compounds in the samples are
soluble with the dissolution procedure selected. Some compounds of these elements require special sample treatment.
INTERFERNCES: Spectral interferences are the primary interferences encountered in ICP-AES analysis. These are minimized
by judicious wavelength selection, interelement correction factors and background correction [3,4].
OTHER METHODS: The internal capsule sampler used in this method is a recommended alternative to filter-only sam-
pling [5] of NIOSH methods 7300 [6], 7301 [7], 7302 [8] and 7303 [9]. Use of an internal capsule sampler is an efficient means
to account for sampler wall deposits that would otherwise be excluded by filter-only sampling. Unless other means are used
to account for non-filter deposits inside the cassettes (e.g. within-cassette extraction, rinsing or wiping), internal capsule
samplers should be used. OSHA method ID-125G [10] describes ICP-AES multielement analysis after hotplate digestion
using nitric acid, sulfuric acid and hydrogen peroxide. ASTM D7035 [11] and ISO 15202 [12] are related voluntary consensus
standard ICP-AES methods for multielement sampling and analysis of workplace atmospheres.
REAGENTS: EQUIPMENT:
1. Nitric acid (HNO3)*, concentrated, Trace metal 1. Sampler: cellulose acetate internal capsule
grade attached to mixed cellulose ester membrane
2. Hydrochloric acid (HCl)*, conc., Trace metal filter, 0.8-μm pore size; 37-mm diameter, in
grade (only required if hydrochloric acid 2-piece, closed-face cassette filter holder
digestion is to be carried out) 2. Personal sampling pump, 1 to 4 L/min,
3. Perchloric acid (HClO4)*, conc., optima (only with flexible connecting tubing, capable of
required if perchloric acid digestion is to be maintaining constant flow
carried out) 3. Inductively coupled plasma-atomic emission
4. Calibration stock solutions, 1000 μg/L: spectrometer, equipped as specified by the
Commercially available; or prepared per manufacturer for analysis of elements of
instrument manufacturer’s recommendation interest
5. Dilution acid: 20% nitric acid* (7302); 4. Regulator, two-stage, for argon
4% nitric acid:1% perchloric acid* (7300); 5. Beakers, Phillips, 125-mL, or Griffin, 50-mL,
5% aqua regia (7301)*; or 5% nitric acid: with watch glass covers**
5% hydrochloric acid* (7303) [dilution acid 6. Volumetric flasks, 10-, 25-, 100-mL, and 1-L**
is dependent upon sample preparation 7. Assorted volumetric pipets, as needed**
method used] 8. Forceps, plastic or plastic-tipped
6. Argon, as specified by ICP-AES manufacturer 9. Hotplate (NIOSH 7300 or 7301), microwave
7. Deionized water, ASTM Type II [13] or oven (NIOSH 7302) or hot block (NIOSH
equivalent 7303) [6-9].
10. Centrifuge tubes, 50-mL or sized
* See SPECIAL PRECAUTIONS appropriately for hot block apparatus.
SPECIAL PRECAUTIONS: All perchloric acid digestions must be carried out in a perchloric acid fume
hood. When working with concentrated acids, wear protective clothing, safety goggles and gloves. All
work should be performed with adequate ventilation for personnel and equipment. It is imperative
that acid be added to water in order to avoid a violent exothermic reaction.
SAMPLING:
SAMPLE PREPARATION:
3. Open the cassette filter holders and, using nonmetal forceps, transfer the samples and blanks to
clean digestion vessels.
NOTE: Samples may not easily fit into the digestion vessels. Care must be taken to ensure no
sample is lost during the placement of the samples in the digestion vessels.
4. Carry out sample dissolution in accordance with one of the sample preparation procedures described
in NIOSH 7300, 7301, 7302, or 7303 [6-9].
NOTE: The dissolution acid level within the vessel should cover the internal capsule.
5. After allowing to cool to room temperature, transfer the solutions quantitatively to 25-mL volumetric
flasks.
6. Dilute to volume.
NOTE: If greater sensitivity is required, the final sample volume may be held to 10 mL.
MEASUREMENT:
CALCULATIONS:
12. Obtain the solution concentrations for the sample, Cs (μg/mL), and the average media blank ,
Cb (μg/mL), from the instrument.
13. Using the solution volumes of sample, Vs (mL), and media blank, Vb (mL), calculate the concentration,
C mg/m3), of each element in the air volume sampled, V (L):
EVALUATION OF METHOD:
A previous interlaboratory investigation of aerosol-loaded cellulosic capsules (provided by SKC, Inc., Eighty-
Four, PA) provided the background information for the development of this method [14]. That investigation
yielded data for Cd, Cr, Co, Cu, Fe, Mn, Ni and Pb [14]. Recoveries for these elements were quantitative and
values of overall relative standard deviation were <0.20 [14], which compare favorably with the variability
typically observed in interlaboratory multielement analysis of air samples [15,16].
To obtain performance data for additional elements, interlaboratory performance data were obtained using
37-mm diameter cellulose acetate internal capsules attached to mixed-cellulose ester filters (Solu-sert™ from
Zefon International, Ocala, FL). Solu-sert™ capsules were dosed with 33 elements at three different
spiking levels (spike levels certified by High-Purity Standards, North Charleston, SC), listed in Table 3.
Sets of the spiked samples were conveyed to participating volunteer laboratories and analyzed by
ICP-AES after sample dissolution. A variety of sample preparation procedures were used by the labs
including NIOSH 7300, 7301, 7302, 7303, hot plate digestion utilizing nitric acid, sulfuric acid and
hydrogen peroxide (modified NIOSH 7300), and microwave assisted digestion using nitric acid and
hydrogen peroxide (modified NIOSH 7302). Results were received from 9 laboratories; however, not
every spiked element was reported by each laboratory. Individual sample results may be found in the
backup data report [17]. Statistical calculations were performed using SAS Software (version 9.2, SAS
Institute Inc., Cary, NC). For each data subset, Grubbs’ test at 1% confidence level was used to identify
outliers, which if identified, were removed prior to further statistical calculations. No statistically
significant differences were found between the laboratory results for the spiked samples; therefore, all
reported data (regardless of the sample preparation method) are included in Tables 3 & 4. Recoveries
were quantitative (as defined in Kennedy, et al. [18]) and interlaboratory variability was <0.20 for most
elements and loading levels (Table 3). Mean overall recoveries below 90% were found only for Cr, K,
and W at low loadings and for Ag at medium and high spike levels and for In at the high spike level.
RSD values > 0.20 were found only for Sn at the low spike level, Ag at medium and high spike levels,
and In and K at all loadings. Results for precision, bias and accuracy are summarized in Table 4.
With the domed top, the internal capsule can be difficult to fit into standard sample digestion
vessels. One way to achieve this is to place the samplers into the vessels by bending them slightly
inward (using coated forceps) and to push them into the bottom of the vessel to ensure they are
covered with the digestion acids. Care must be taken to ensure that sample is not lost in this process.
Additional guidance is available from the internal capsule manufacturer [19].
While no statistically significant differences were found based upon the sample preparation, it is
important to note that interlaboratory variation is included in those calculations. Some differences in
the sample preparation methods may have been statistically significant without that variability. Of
particular importance are the less than quantitative recoveries for Sb, Sn, and Ti using NIOSH 7300.
This sample preparation (as written) may not be amenable to the analysis of those elements. While this
method lists several options for sample preparation, it is imperative that the suitability of the particular
sample preparation method for the analytes of interest be considered.
Appreciable (>0.5 µg) media background levels were reported by Certified Reference Material (CRM)
provider and/or the participating laboratories for several elements, notably Al, Ca, Cr, Fe, In, K, Mg, P,
Sb, Se, and Tl. Trace media background levels of a few other elements, i.e., Ba, Cu and Zn, were also
obtained. This background was effectively corrected for, as evidenced by the quantitative recoveries
obtained for the vast majority of the elements and loading levels. Where the background levels may
pose a greater influence is in the calculation of the method LOD. Method LODs (calculated using the
standard deviation of blank responses) for internal capsule samples were greater than those calculated
for MCE filters alone for many of the elements [17]. Care should be taken in choosing the appropriate
media in concert with the expected sample concentrations.
REFERENCES:
[1] ACGIH [2014]. TLVs and BEIs based on the documentation of the Threshold Limit Values for
chemical substances and physical agents and biological exposure indices. Cincinnati, Ohio:
American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists [www.acgih.org]. Date accessed
May 2015.
[2] Institut fur Arbeitsschutz der Deutschen Gesetzlichen Unfallversicherung [2013]. GESTIS
database on hazardous substances (German Social Accident Insurance). Sankt Augustin,
FRG: [http://www.dguv.de/ifa/GESTIS]. Date accessed May 2015.
[3] Dean JA [1995]. Atomic spectroscopy. In: Analytical Chemistry Handbook; Section 7. New York,
NY: McGraw-Hill.
[4] Montaser A, Golightly DW, eds. [1992]. Inductively coupled plasmas in analytical atomic
spectrometry. 2nd ed. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
[5] Ashley K, Harper M [2013]. Closed-face filter cassette (CFC) sampling – Guidance on procedures
for inclusion of material adhering to internal sampler surfaces. J Occup Environ Hyg 10:D29-D33.
[6] NIOSH [1994]. Elements by ICP (Nitric/Perchloric Acid Ashing): Method 7300. In: Schlecht PC,
O’Connor PF, eds. NIOSH manual of analytical methods. 4th ed. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department
of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute
for Occupational Safety and Health, DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 94-113 [www.cdc.gov/niosh/
nmam/].
[7] NIOSH [1994]. Elements by ICP: Method 7301. In: Schlecht PC, O’Connor PF, eds. NIOSH manual
of analytical methods. 4th ed. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety and
Health, DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 94-113 [www.cdc.gov/niosh/nmam/].
[8] NIOSH [2014]. Elements by ICP (Microwave Digestion): Method 7302. In: Ashley K, O’Connor PF,
eds. NIOSH manual of analytical methods. 5th ed. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational
Safety and Health, DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 2014-151 [www.cdc.gov/niosh/nmam/].
[9] NIOSH [1994]. Elements by ICP (Hot Block/HCl/HNO3 Digestion): Method 7303. In: Schlecht PC,
O’Connor PF, eds. NIOSH manual of analytical methods. 4th ed. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department
of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute
for Occupational Safety and Health, DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 94-113 [www.cdc.gov/niosh/
nmam/].
[10] OSHA [2002]. Metal and metalloid particulates in workplace atmospheres (ICP analysis).
In: OSHA Sampling and Analytical Methods. Sandy, UT: Occupational Safety and Health
Administration.
[11] ASTM International [2010]. ASTM D7035, Standard test method for the determination of metals
and metalloids in workplace air by inductively coupled plasma atomic emission spectrometry.
West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International.
[12] ISO [2011]. ISO 15202, Workplace air – Determination of metals and metalloids in airborne
particulate matter by inductively coupled plasma atomic emission spectrometry (3 parts).
Geneva, Switzerland: International Organization for Standardization.
[13] ASTM [2011]. ASTM D1193, Standard specification for reagent water. West Conshohocken, PA:
ASTM International.
[14] Harper M, Ashley K [2013]. Acid-soluble internal capsules for closed-face cassette elemental
sampling and analysis of workplace air. J Occup Environ Hyg 10:297-306.
[15] Ashley K, Shulman SA, Brisson MJ, Howe AM [2012]. Interlaboratory evaluation of trace element
determination in workplace air samples by inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry. J
Environ Monit 14:360-367.
[16] Stacey P, Butler OT [2008]. Performance of laboratories analysing welding fume on filter samples
– Results from the WASP Proficiency Testing Scheme. Ann Occup Hyg 52:287-295.
[17] Ashley K, Andrews RN, Feng HA [2014]. Elements by cellulosic internal sampler and ICP-AES,
NIOSH 7306, Backup Data Report. Cincinnati, OH, Unpublished.
[18] NIOSH [1995]. Guidelines for air sampling and analytical method development and evaluation.
By Kennedy ER, Fischbach TJ, Song R, Eller PM, Shulman SA. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute for
Occupational Safety and Health, DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 95–117.
[19] Zefon International. Operating instructions Solu-Sert™ soluble filter capsule. Ocala, FL: Zefon
International. [http://www.zefon.com/analytical/download/Solu-Sert_IFU.pdf ] Date accessed:
May 2015.
[20] NIOSH [1994]. Measurement uncertainty and NIOSH method accuracy: Chapter P. In: Schlecht
PC, O’Connor PF, eds. NIOSH manual of analytical methods. 4th ed. Cincinnati, OH: U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National
Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 94-113 [www.cdc.
gov/niosh/nmam/].
[21] Lide DR [2014]. Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, 94th ed. Boca Raton: FL, CRC Press
[22] NIOSH [2005]. NIOSH pocket guide to chemical hazards. Barsan ME, ed. Cincinnati, OH: US
Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National
Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 2005-149. [www.cdc.
gov/niosh/npg].
Disclaimer: Mention of any company or product does not constitute endorsement by NIOSH. In addition,
citations to websites external to NIOSH do not constitute NIOSH endorsement of the sponsoring
organizations or their programs or products. Furthermore, NIOSH is not responsible for the content of
these websites. All web addresses referenced in this document were accessible as of the publication date.
TABLE 3. MEASUREMENT WAVELENGTHS (λ), DETECTION LIMITS (LOD) AND RECOVERY DATA FROM INTERLABORATORY RESULTS
WavelengthH LODI Low Level % Recovery Medium % Recovery High Level % Recovery
Element (λ), nm (ug/sample) (ug/sample) (%RSD; NJ) level (%RSD; NJ) (ug/ sample) (%RSD; NJ)
(ug/ sample)
Ag 328.068 0.020 5.0 93.2 (17; 7) 10.1 83.5 (26; 7) 20.1 68.2 (52; 7)
Al 396.152 0.38 10.6 95.7 (6.1; 7) 30.9 95.7 (3.1; 7) 60.8 96.2 (2.4; 7)
As 189.042 0.099 5.0 99.4 (7.3; 7) 20.2 103 (5.3; 8) 40.1 102 (5.8; 8)
Ba 455.404 0.55 2.21 97.0 (8.4; 8) 7.3 96.9 (2.5; 7K) 15.2 99.9 (5.0; 8)
Be 313.042 0.0064 2.01 101 (4.4; 9) 7.0 101 (6.8; 9) 14.9 100 (5.1; 9)
Ca 315.887 3.9 114 95.8 (16; 8) 165 97.4 (15; 8) 215 95.8 (13; 8)
Cd 226.502 0.0052 2.01 101 (3.6; 9) 7.0 101 (4.0; 9) 14.9 102 (1.9; 8)
Co 228.616 0.0090 2.01 103 (6.8; 9) 7.0 102 (5.7; 9) 14.9 102 (5.8; 9)
Cr 267.716 0.28 2.91 80.2 (16; 8) 7.9 96.3 (7.2; 9) 15.8 97.2 (3.5; 9)
Cu 324.754 0.15 3.16 100 (4.5; 8K) 15.1 101 (4.0; 9) 29.9 100 (3.2; 9)
Fe 259.941 5.3 21.3 107 (15; 9) 41.0 104 (5.5; 9) 80.5 103 (5.4; 9)
In 230.606 0.26 5.0 92.1 (33; 5) 14.9 90.8 (27; 5K) 39.7 86.2 (32; 5)
K 766.491 0.70 10.6 89.0 (36; 5) 15.7 98.0 (24; 6) 20.7 106 (20; 6)
La 408.672 0.026 3.01 101 (8.1; 4) 10.1 102 (7.2; 4) 20.1 99.9 (7.9; 4)
Li 670.780 0.010 2.01 93.0 (8.5; 7) 7.0 94.9 (7.0; 7) 14.9 98.6 (5.2; 7)
Mg 279.079 1.1 12.7 93.9 (16; 7) 27.9 98.7 (9.1; 7) 103 101 (7.2; 7)
Mn 294.921 0.031 2.01 99.8 (7.6; 9) 7.0 100 (6.1; 9) 14.9 100 (5.7; 9)
Mo 202.095 0.021 2.01 101 (6.2; 9) 7.1 102 (4.8; 9) 15.0 102 (5.2; 9)
Ni 231.604 0.56 2.01 108 (9.6; 9) 7.0 104 (7.4; 9) 14.9 103 (7.0; 9)
P 178.287 0.27 10.1 104 (9.0; 5) 24.9 103 (8.9; 6) 99 102 (1.7; 5K)
Pb 220.353 0.062 10.0 101 (6.2; 9) 25.2 100 (5.3; 9) 100 100 (7.3; 9)
H
Commonly used wavelength; choose wavelength appropriate for your instrument settings [3,4]
I
LOD values calculated using the responses of 7 media blanks, prepared following the microwave sample preparation in NIOSH 7302
J
Mean recovery & relative standard deviation for N = number of laboratories reporting results for each element
K
Excludes outlier(s) (Grubbs’ test)
TABLE 3. MEASUREMENT WAVELENGTHS (λ), DETECTION LIMITS (LOD) AND RECOVERY DATA FROM INTERLABORATORY RESULTS
WavelengthH LODI Low Level % Recovery Medium % Recovery High Level % Recovery
Element (λ), nm (ug/sample) (ug/sample) (%RSD; NJ) level (%RSD; NJ) (ug/ sample) (%RSD; NJ)
(ug/ sample)
Sb 206.833 0.11 5.0 99.1 (6.7; 8) 25.1 99.0 (5.7; 9) 40.2 100 (3.6; 8K)
Se 196.090 0.14 3.0 112 (15; 6) 15.1 109 (8.7; 8) 30.1 104 (10; 8)
Sn 189.991 0.065 2.01 98.7 (26; 4) 7.0 96.9 (18; 6) 14.9 103 (5.0; 5K)
Sr 407.771 0.014 2.01 100 (1.9; 6K) 7.1 102 (7.5; 7) 15.0 101 (6.1; 7)
Te 214.281 0.22 3.0 104 (18; 5) 12.6 103 (7.7; 5) 20.1 101 (12; 5)
Ti 334.941 0.042 2.01 105 (5.7; 7) 7.0 101 (10; 7) 14.9 103 (3.4; 6K)
Tl 190.864 0.046 3.0 102 (7.1; 6) 10.1 99.6 (5.8; 7) 20.1 98.3 (7.5; 7)
V 311.071 0.0091 3.02 101 (5.7; 9) 7.0 102 (6.2; 9) 14.9 102 (5.8; 9)
W 207.911 0.055 10.1 83.0 (12; 5) 25.1 97.6 (12; 5) 40.2 96.4 (16; 5)
Y 371.030 0.0039 2.01 101 (3.8; 5) 7.1 102 (5.9; 5) 15.0 101 (4.8; 5)
Zn 213.856 0.69 5.2 101 (6.0; 9) 25.1 101 (4.9; 9) 59.7 101 (4.8; 9)
Zr 339.198 0.0099 2.01 101 (6.2; 5) 7.0 99.5 (9.2; 6) 14.9 93.1 (19; 6)
H
Commonly used wavelength; choose wavelength appropriate for your instrument settings [3,4]
I
LOD values calculated using the responses of 7 media blanks, prepared following the microwave sample preparation in NIOSH 7302
J
Mean recovery & relative standard deviation for N = number of laboratories reporting results for each element
K
Excludes outlier(s) (Grubbs’ test)
TABLE 4. RANGE, BIAS, PRECISION ( Sr and ŜrT) AND ACCURACY DATA FROM
INTERLABORATORY RESULTS
Element nL Range, ug/sample Bias SrM ŜrTN Accuracy (%)
Ag 21 5.0 to 20.1 -0.184 0.041 0.065 29.0
Al 21 10.6 to 60.8 -0.0414 0.006 0.050 12.4
As 23 5.0 to 40.1 0.0141 0.016 0.052 10.7
Ba 23 2.21 to 15.2 -0.0206 0.036 0.062 12.8
Be 27 2.01 to 14.9 0.00536 0.025 0.056 11.0
Ca 24 114 to 215 -0.0367 0.001 0.050 11.9
Cd 26 2.01 to 14.9 0.0133 0.022 0.055 11.1
Co 27 2.01 to 14.9 0.0238 0.036 0.062 12.9
Cr 26 2.91 to 15.8 -0.0281 0.046 0.068 14.4
Cu 26 3.16 to 29.9 0.00347 0.017 0.053 10.4
Fe 27 21.3 to 80.5 0.0476 0.011 0.051 13.2
In 15 5.0 to 39.7 -0.103 0.056 0.075 22.6
K 17 10.6 to 20.7 -0.0239 0.029 0.058 12.3
La 12 3.01 to 20.1 0.0119 0.025 0.056 11.2
Li 21 2.01 to 14.9 -0.0447 0.039 0.064 14.9
Mg 21 12.7 to 103 -0.0219 0.012 0.051 10.9
Mn 27 2.01 to 14.9 0.00127 0.039 0.063 12.4
Mo 27 2.01 to 15.0 0.0169 0.032 0.060 12.1
Ni 27 2.01 to 14.9 0.0498 0.055 0.074 17.2
P 16 10.1 to 99 0.0310 0.010 0.051 11.5
Pb 27 10.0 to 100 0.00439 0.006 0.050 9.9
Sb 25 5.0 to 40.2 -0.00631 0.013 0.052 10.2
Se 22 3.0 to 30.1 0.0864 0.055 0.075 20.9
Sn 15 2.01 to 14.9 -0.00541 0.117 0.128 25.0
Sr 20 2.01 to 15.0 0.00930 0.011 0.051 10.2
Te 15 3.0 to 20.1 0.0256 0.063 0.081 16.6
Ti 20 2.01 to 14.9 0.0305 0.032 0.059 13.1
Tl 20 3.0 to 20.1 0.00128 0.030 0.058 11.4
V 27 3.02 to 14.9 0.0143 0.020 0.054 10.9
W 15 10.1 to 40.2 -0.0240 0.010 0.051 11.0
Y 15 2.01 to 15.0 0.00971 0.020 0.054 10.7
Zn 27 5.2 to 59.7 0.00873 0.013 0.052 10.3
Zr 17 2.01 to 14.9 -0.0206 0.033 0.060 12.4
L
n = total number of results reported for each element by up to 9 participating laboratories minus outliers
(Grubbs’ test, 1% confidence level)
M
Sr = precision [17]
2
N
ŜrT = overall precision = S r +(0.05)2 ; same as total precision as defined in [18,20]
OSHA: 5 mg/m³ (fume, resp dust); 15 mg/m³ (total dust) PROPERTIES: Solid; d 5.61 g/cm³ @ 25 °C; MP 1975 °C
NIOSH: 5 mg/m³, C 15 mg/m³ (15 min) (dust); 5 mg/m³, STEL
10 mg/m³ (fume)
SAMPLING MEASUREMENT
OVERALL
PRECISION ( ): 0.09 [2]
ACCURACY: ±21.6%
APPLICABILITY: The working range is 0.25 mg/m³ to 10 mg/m³ for a 200 L air sample. The method does not distinguish zinc
oxide fume from zinc oxide dust.
OTHER METHODS: This method combines and replaces NIOSH methods P&CAM 222 [1] and S316 [5]. The criteria
document contains an elemental analysis for zinc [6].
REAGENTS: EQUIPMENT:
1. Zinc oxide, ACS reagent grade. Average 1. Sampler: polyvinyl chloride (PVC) or PVC-
particle size between 0.5 µm and 10 µm. acrylonitrile membrane filters, 25 mm
2. 2-Propanol.* diameter, 0.8 µm pore size; three-piece filter
3. Desiccant. cassette.
4. Glue or tape for securing filters to XRD holders. NOTE: An extension cowl on the filter cassette
is desirable to produce a more uniform
*See SPECIAL PRECAUTIONS. deposit and to prevent contamination
of the open-face filter during sampling.
2. Personal sampling pump, 1 L/min to 3 L/min,
with flexible connecting tubing.
3. High-volume sampling pump, 10 L/min.
4. X-ray powder diffractometer equipped with
copper target X-ray tube and scintillation
detector.
5. Reference specimen (mica, Arkansas stone or
other stable standard) for data normalization.
6. Filtration apparatus and side arm vacuum flask
with 25 mm filter holders.
7. Analytical balance (0.01 mg), magnetic
stirrer, ultrasonic bath or probe, volumetric
pipettes and flasks, desiccator, reagent bottles
with ground glass stoppers, drying oven,
polyethylene wash bottle.
SAMPLING:
SAMPLE PREPARATION:
4. Mount field samples and blanks on XRD sample holders using appropriate methods for securing the
sample to the XRD holder.
5. Prepare two suspensions of zinc oxide in 2-propanol by weighing 10 mg and 50 mg of the dry
powder to the nearest 0.01 mg. Quantitatively transfer to a 1 L glass-stoppered bottle using 1 L
2-propanol.
6. Suspend the powder in 2-propanol by using an ultrasonic probe or bath for 20 min. Immediately
move the flask to a magnetic stirrer with thermally-insulated top and add a stirring bar to the
suspension. Cool the solution to room temperature before withdrawing aliquots.
7. Prepare a series of standard filters using the 10 mg/L and 50 mg/L suspensions. Using appropriate
pipets, prepare a sufficient number of standards in triplicate to cover the analytical range (or sample
range if known). Standards at 20 µg, 30 µg, 50 µg, 100 µg, 200 µg, and 500 µg are usually sufficient.
8. Mount a filter on the filtration apparatus. Place several mL 2-propanol on the filter surface. Turn off
the stirrer and shake vigorously by hand. Within a few seconds of setting the bottle down, remove
the lid and withdraw an aliquot from the center of the suspension. Do not adjust the volume in the
pipet by expelling part of the suspension. If more than the desired aliquot is withdrawn, return all of
the suspension to the bottle, rinse and dry the pipet. Transfer the aliquot from the pipet to the filter
funnel, keeping the tip of the pipet near the surface of the liquid but not submerged.
9. Rinse the pipet with several mL of 2-propanol, draining the rinse into the funnel. Repeat the rinse
several more times.
10. Apply vacuum and rapidly filter the suspension. Leave vacuum on until filter is dry. Do not wash
down the sides of the funnel after the deposit is in place to avoid disturbing it. Transfer the filter to
the XRD sample mount.
11. Perform step scans on the standards using the same diffraction peaks and instrumental conditions
as for samples (step 16). The resulting intensities for standards, , are normalized in the following
procedure.
12. Determine the net count, , of the reference specimen before or after each unknown, standard,
or blank is scanned. Use a diffraction peak of high intensity that can be measured rapidly
but reproducibly (less than 1% ). Select a convenient normalization scale factor, , which is
approximately equivalent to the net count for the reference specimen peak. This factor never
changes and should be used for all measurements made on a particular diffractometer. Calculate
and record the normalized intensity, , for the analyte or silver peaks on each sample, field blank,
media blank, and standard:
NOTE: Normalizing to the reference specimen intensity compensates for long-term drift in X-ray
tube intensity. If intensity measurements are stable, the reference specimen may be run less
frequently. In this case, the net intensities of the analyte, , should be normalized to the most
recently measured reference intensity.
13. Prepare a calibration graph ( vs. µg of analyte).
NOTE: Poor reproducibility at any given level indicates problems in the sample preparation
technique and new standards should be made. The data should lie along a straight line. A
weighted least squares ( weighting) is preferable. Curvature can be eliminated with
absorption corrections based on the mass absorption coefficient of the analyte [7,8,9].
14. Determine the initial slope, m, of the linear portion of the calibration graph in counts per microgram.
The intercept, b, of the line with the axis should be approximately zero.
NOTE: A large negative intercept indicates an error in determining the background. This may arise
from incorrectly measuring the baseline or from interference by another phase at the angle
of background measurement. A large positive intercept indicates an error in determining the
baseline or that an impurity is included in the measured peak.
MEASUREMENT:
15. Obtain a qualitative X-ray diffraction scan (broad 2-theta range) of the high-volume respirable
sample to determine the presence of zinc oxide and any matrix interference. The expected
diffraction peaks are as follows:
Zinc Oxide Peak (2-Theta Degrees)
Primary Secondary Tertiary
36.26 31.75 34.44
16. Analyze the sample filters by step-scanning the most intense interference-free diffraction peak of
zinc oxide and determine the integrated intensity. Measure the background on each side of the peak
for one half the time used for peak scanning and add the counts from each side for a total (average)
background. Determine the 2-theta position of the background for each sample. The net count or
intensity, , is the difference between the peak integrated count and the total background count.
The net intensity is normalized as in step 12 to obtain .
17. Scan each field blank over the same 2-theta range used for the analyte. These analyses serve only to
verify that contamination of the filters has not occurred. The analyte peak should be absent.
CALCULATIONS:
, µg/L or mg/m³,
In heavily-loaded samples, particularly those rich in heavy elements, X-ray absorption may
cause reduced intensities and underestimation of zinc oxide. If this is suspected, an absorption
correction can be made [8]. The collection filters and blanks are mounted on a smooth metal plate
(substrate) for XRD quantitation. The substrate should have a non-interfering diffraction peak which
is measured at the same time as the zinc oxide peak. By measuring the substrate peak on both
samples and blanks, an absorption correction like that in the silica method (NIOSH method 7500)
can be made. The absorption correction factor must be calculated for each sample from the formula
in NIOSH method 7500, which takes into account the diffraction angles for the particular substrate
chosen. Altree-Williams used a silver filter under the collection filter [7].
EVALUATION OF METHOD:
In a comparison of this method with atomic absorption spectrophotometry [3,4], zinc was determined
on 15 Gelman DM-800 filters containing added zinc oxide in the range 250 µg to 1000 µg. The average
percent difference for the 15 pairs was 2.7%. NIOSH method S316 was validated with generated
samples in the range of 2.4 mg/m³ to 9.9 mg/m³ [2,5,10]. A pooled of 0.088 was found for 18 samples
of 180 L collected from the aerosol.
REFERENCES:
[1] NIOSH [1977]. Zinc oxide in air: P&CAM 222. In: Taylor DG, ed. NIOSH manual of analytical methods.
2nd ed. Vol. 1. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Center for Disease
Control, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, DHEW (NIOSH) Publication No. 77-
157-A, available as accession No. PB274845 from NTIS [www.ntis.gov].
[2] NIOSH [1977]. Backup data report: zinc oxide fume, No. S316. In: Ten NIOSH analytical methods,
set 3. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Center for Disease Control,
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, available as accession No. PB275834 from
NTIS [www.ntis.gov]. Unpublished.
[3] Haartz JC, Bolyard ML, Abell MT [1975]. Quantitation of zinc chloride and zinc oxide in airborne
samples. Unpublished paper presented at the American Industrial Hygiene Conference,
Minneapolis, MN, June 1–6.
[4] Dollberg DD, Abell MT, Lange BA [1980]. Occupational health analytical chemistry: quantitation
using x-ray powder diffraction. In: Dollberg DD, Verstuyft AW, eds. Analytical techniques in
occupational health chemistry. Washington, DC: American Chemical Society, ACS Symposium Series
No. 120, pp. 43–65.
[5] NIOSH [1978]. Zinc oxide fume: Method S316. In: Taylor DG, ed. NIOSH manual of analytical
methods. 2nd ed. Vol. 4. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare,
Center for Disease Control, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, DHEW (NIOSH)
Publication No. 78-175, available as accession No. PB83-105437 from NTIS [www.ntis.gov].
[6] NIOSH [1975]. Criteria for a recommended standard: occupational exposure to zinc oxide.
Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Center for Disease Control,
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, DHEW (NIOSH) Publication No. 76-104 [www.
cdc.gov/niosh/docs/1970/76-104.html].
[7] Altree-Williams S, Lee J, Mezin NV [1977]. Quantitative x-ray diffractometry on respirable dust
collected on Nuclepore filters. Ann Occup Hyg 20(2):109–126.
[8] Leroux J, Powers CA [1970]. Direct x-ray diffraction quantitative analysis of quartz in industrial dust
films deposited on silver membrane filters. Occup Health Rev 21(1):26–34.
[9] Williams PP [1959]. Direct quantitative diffractometric analysis. Anal Chem 31(11):1842–1844.
[10] NIOSH [1980]. Development and validation of methods for sampling and analysis of workplace
toxic substances. By Gunderson EC, Anderson CC, Smith RH, Doemeny LJ. Cincinnati, OH: U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control, National Institute for
Occupational Safety and Health, DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 80-133, available as accession No.
PB89-182042 from NTIS [www.ntis.gov].
DISCLAIMER: Mention of any company or product does not constitute endorsement by NIOSH. In addition, citations to
websites external to NIOSH do not constitute NIOSH endorsement of the sponsoring organizations or their programs or
products. Furthermore, NIOSH is not responsible for the content of these websites. All web addresses referenced in this
document were accessible as of the publication date.
SAMPLING MEASUREMENT
RANGE STUDIED: 0.05 mg/m³ to 0.2 mg/m³ [2] (22 L ESTIMATED LOD: 0.05 µg per sample
samples)
PRECISION ( ): 0.029 @ 0.3 µg to 1.2 µg per sample [3]
BIAS: −5.48%
OVERALL
PRECISION ( ): 0.084 [2]
ACCURACY: ±18.6%
APPLICABILITY: The working range is 0.00042 mg/m³ to 3.6 mg/m³ for a 400 L air sample. This method may be used for the
determination of soluble hexavalent chromium (using the acidic extraction solution) or insoluble hexavalent chromium
(using the basic extraction solution) [3].
INTERFERENCES: Possible interferences are iron, copper, nickel, and vanadium; 10 μg of any of these causes an absorbance
equivalent to about 0.02 μg hexavalent chromium due to formation of colored complexes. Interference due to reducing
agents (e.g., elemental iron, divalent iron) is minimized by alkaline extraction (step 5).
OTHER METHODS: This method combines and replaces NIOSH methods P&CAM 169 [1], S317 [2], and P&CAM 319 [3]; the
hexavalent chromium criteria document [4] contains a summary of more recent methods for air analysis, wipe analysis, and
biological monitoring.
REAGENTS: EQUIPMENT:
1. Sulfuric acid,* concentrated (98% mass 1. Sampler: Polyvinyl chloride (PVC) filter, 5.0 µm
fraction), reagent grade. pore size, 37 mm diameter in polystyrene
2. Sulfuric acid, 3 mol/L. Add 167 mL cassette filter holder.
concentrated sulfuric acid to water in a 1 L NOTE: Some PVC filters promote reduction
flask; dilute to the mark. of hexavalent chromium. Check each
3. Acidic extraction solution, sulfuric acid, lot of filters for recovery of hexavalent
0.25 mol/L. Add 14.0 mL concentrated sulfuric chromium standard.
acid to water in a 1 L flask; dilute to the mark. 2. Personal sampling pump, 1 L/min to 4 L/min,
4. Sodium carbonate, anhydrous, reagent grade. with flexible connecting tubing.
5. Sodium hydroxide,* reagent grade. 3. Vials, scintillation, 20 mL glass, PTFE-lined
6. Potassium chromate,* reagent grade. screw cap.†
7. Diphenylcarbazide solution. Dissolve 500 mg 4. Forceps, plastic.
sym-diphenylcarbazide in 100 mL acetone and 5. Spectrophotometer, UV-visible (540 nm), with
100 mL water. cuvettes, 5 cm path length.
8. Hexavalent chromium standard,* 1000 6. Filtration apparatus, vacuum.†
µg/mL. Dissolve 3.735 g potassium chromate 7. Beakers, borosilicate, 50 mL.†
in deionized water to make 1 L, or use 8. Watch glass.†
commercially available solution. 9. Volumetric flasks, 25 mL, 100 mL, and 1000
9. Calibration stock solution,* 10 µg/mL. Dilute mL.†
1000 µg/mL hexavalent chromium standard 10. Hotplate, 120 °C to 400 °C.
1:100 with deionized water. 11. Micropipettes, 10 µL to 1 mL.
10. Basic extraction solution. Dissolve 20 g sodium 12. Centrifuge tubes, 40 mL, graduated, with
hydroxide and 30 g sodium carbonate in plastic stoppers.†
deionized water to make 1 L of solution. 13. Büchner funnel.†
11. Glassware cleaning solution.* Add a volume of 14. Pipettes, TD, 5 mL.†
concentrated nitric acid to an equal volume of
†
deionized water. Clean all glassware with the glassware
12. Nitrogen, purified. cleaning solution and rinse thoroughly before
use.
*See SPECIAL PRECAUTIONS.
SAMPLING:
SAMPLE PREPARATION:
NOTE: There are two sample preparation techniques outlined below. For soluble chromates or
chromic acid, follow step 4; for insoluble chromate or hexavalent chromium in the presence
of iron, divalent iron, or other reducing agents, follow step 5.
6. Calibrate daily with at least six working standards. Transfer 6 mL to 7 mL of acidic extraction
solution to each of a series of 25 mL volumetric flasks. Pipet 0 mL to 0.7 mL of 10 µg/mL calibration
stock solution into the volumetric flasks. Add 0.5 mL diphenylcarbazide solution to each flask and
sufficient acidic extraction solution to bring the volume to 25 mL. These working standards contain
0 µg to 7 µg hexavalent chromium.
7. Analyze the working standards together with blanks and samples (steps 9, 10, and 11).
MEASUREMENT:
CALCULATIONS:
12. From the calibration graph, determine the mass of hexavalent chromium in each sample, (µg),
and in the average blank, (µg).
13. Calculate the concentration, (mg/m³), of hexavalent chromium in the air volume sampled, (L).
, µg/L or mg/m³.
EVALUATION OF METHOD:
P&CAM 169 and S317 are essentially the same method and are suitable for soluble chromate and
chromic acid. Method S317 was validated with generated samples of chromic acid mist [2,5], and
P&CAM 169 was tested with field samples [1,6]. P&CAM 319 was developed because a method was
needed to analyze for insoluble chromates [3]. This method was tested with insoluble chromates in
matrices such as paints, primer, and ceramic powders [3].
Precision, analytical range, recovery data, etc., for the three methods pooled are as follows:
Total : 0.084
Measurement [1,2,3]: 0.02 to 0.04
Range [3]: 0.5 µg/m³ to 10 µg/m³
Collection efficiency [5]: 94.5%
Sampling rate [1,3]: 1.5 L/min to 2.5 L/min
Stability (two weeks) [1]: 96% recovery
REFERENCES:
[1] NIOSH [1977]. Chromic acid mist in air: P&CAM 169. In: Taylor DG, ed. NIOSH manual of analytical
methods. 2nd ed. Vol. 1. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare,
Center for Disease Control, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, DHEW (NIOSH)
Publication No. 77-157-A, available as accession No. PB274845 from NTIS [www.ntis.gov].
[2] NIOSH [1977]. Chromic acid and chromates: Method S317. In: Taylor DG, ed. NIOSH manual of
analytical methods. 2nd ed. Vol. 3. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health, Education, and
Welfare, Center for Disease Control, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, DHEW
(NIOSH) Publication No. 77-157-C, available as accession No. PB276838 from NTIS [www.ntis.gov].
[3] NIOSH [1980]. Hexavalent chromium: P&CAM 319. In: Taylor DG, ed. NIOSH manual of analytical
methods. 2nd ed. Vol. 6. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for
Disease Control, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health,, DHHS (NIOSH) Publication
No. 80-125, available as accession No. PB82-157728 from NTIS [www.ntis.gov].
[4] NIOSH [2013]. Criteria for a recommended standard: occupational exposure to hexavalent
chromium. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, DHHS (NIOSH)
Publication No. 2013-128 [www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/2013-128/].
[5] NIOSH [1977]. Backup data report: chromic acid and chromates, No. S317. By Taylor DG, Kupel
RE, Bryant JM. In: Documentation of the NIOSH validation tests. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department
of Health, Education, and Welfare, Center for Disease Control, National Institute for Occupational
Safety and Health, DHEW (NIOSH) Publication No. 77-185, available as accession No. PB274248 from
NTIS [www.ntis.gov].
[6] Abell MT, Carlberg JR [1974]. A simple reliable method for the determination of airborne hexavalent
chromium. Am Ind Hyg Assoc J 35(4):229–233.
Martin T. Abell, NIOSH/DPSE; NIOSH method S317 validated under NIOSH Contract CDC-99-74-45.
DISCLAIMER: Mention of any company or product does not constitute endorsement by NIOSH. In addition, citations to
websites external to NIOSH do not constitute NIOSH endorsement of the sponsoring organizations or their programs or
products. Furthermore, NIOSH is not responsible for the content of these websites. All web addresses referenced in this
document were accessible as of the publication date.
SAMPLING MEASUREMENT
SAMPLER: CYCLONE + PRE-WEIGHED FILTER (PVC),
TECHNIQUE: INFRARED SPECTROMETRY
with conductive filter holder
ANALYTE: Quartz / Cristobalite
FLOW RATE: ~2 to ~4 L/min, specific for the cyclone
used
ASHING: Muffle furnace or RF plasma asher
VOL-MIN: 400 L
PELLET: Mix residue with KBr; press 13-mm pellet
-MAX: 1000 L (total dust < 4 mg)
IR DETECTION: Scan absorbance between 400 cm-1 and
SHIPMENT: Routine 1000 cm -1
SAMPLE
CALIBRATION: Certified reference material (CRM)
STABILITY: Stable respirable crystalline silica (RCS) quartz &
cristobalite; e.g., NIST SRM 1878b quartz,
BLANKS: 3 field blanks minimum per sample set
NIST 1879a cristobalite, and/or other RCS
CRMs; diluted in KBr and pressed into 13-
ACCURACY
mm pellet
RANGE
STUDIED: 5 to >160 µg RANGE: 10 to >160 µg
BIAS: Varies depending on matrix effects ESTIMATED LOD: 5 µg
OVERALL
PRECISION (𝐒𝐒�𝐫𝐫 ): < 0.15 @ 30 µg per sample
PRECISION (𝐒𝐒�𝐫𝐫𝐫𝐫 ): 0.18 [3]
APPLICABILITY: The working range is 0.025 to 0.4 mg/m3 for a 400-L air sample or 0.02 to 0.25 mg/m3 for a 1000-L air sample.
Quartz and cristobalite have a major IR absorbance band at ≈800 cm-1 and can be measured together if present in samples;
tridymite can also be measured by IR, but its presence is rare in workplaces [5-9].
INTERFERENCES: Amorphous silica, kaolinite, muscovite, talc, albite, vermiculite and other minerals that absorb IR radiation in
the 800 cm-1 region are potential interferences to RCS measurement [5,10] [Table 1]. Potentially interfering silicates can be
removed using a phosphoric acid cleanup procedure [11]. Calcite at >20% dust loading can negatively interfere by reacting with
quartz during muffle ashing [11, 12]. The sample preparation procedures described in this method enable minimization of
interferences.
OTHER METHODS: NIOSH Method 7603 describes IR measurement of respirable crystalline silica (RCS) after redeposition onto a
filter for analysis (vs. use of a KBr pellet) [13]. X-ray diffraction (e.g., NIOSH Method 7500 [13]) is a complementary method for RCS
measurement. An international voluntary consensus standard describing the measurement of RCS by IR spectrometry, ASTM
D7439, has been promulgated [14].
REAGENTS: EQUIPMENT:
SPECIAL PRECAUTIONS: Wear appropriate personal protection during sampling activities, sample
preparation and analysis. It is essential that suitable gloves, eye protection, laboratory coat, etc., be used,
especially when working with concentrated acids. Note that KBr is incompatible with strong acids. Ethanol
and 2-propanol are flammable. Avoid exposure by inhalation of silica dust or acid fumes. Perform sample
preparation and analysis in a clean, well-ventilated area that is well removed from any possible
contamination. Any skin affected by exposure to acids must be immediately washed with plenty of water.
SAMPLING:
1. Calibrate each personal sampling pump with a representative sampler in line. Use a conductive filter
holder.
2. Sample at ≈2 L/min [16] or ≈4 L/min [17] using a pump set at a specific flow rate for the selected
cyclone, designed to collect the respirable aerosol fraction (in accordance with ISO 7708[18]), for a
total sample size of 400 to 1000 L. Take care not to overload the filter.
NOTE 1: Do not allow the sampler assembly to be inverted at any time when using a cyclone. Turning
the cyclone to anything more than a horizontal orientation may deposit oversized material
from the cyclone body onto the filter.
NOTE 2: Higher sampling flow rates may be suitable for certain sampler designs [19].
3. After collection of samples, remove the filter holders from the cyclones. Seal the filter holders
(cassettes) and transport them to the laboratory in a container designed to prevent damage in transit.
SAMPLE PREPARATION:
6. Prepare at least 5 working standard KBr pellets. Calibration standards shall be prepared from primary
RCS CRMs.
NOTE: Suitable RCS standards include primary reference materials such as NIST SRMs 1878b (quartz)
and 1879a (cristobalite) [15]; the use of secondary reference materials as calibration standards is
not appropriate for IR measurements [12, 20].
a. Weigh, to the nearest 0.001 mg, portions of primary CRMs containing 10 to 200 µg RCS of material.
b. Add an accurately weighed (to the nearest 0.001 mg) 300 mg portion of KBr. Prepare KBr pellet
samples as in Step 5. Compute the ratio of the weight of finished pellet / weight of solids added.
c. Measure the absorbance at 800 cm-1 for each KBr pellet calibration standard following the
analytical procedure below (Step 9). Plot the absorbance vs. mass of SiO2 (µg).
7. If samples were low-temperature ashed (Step 4.a.) and kaolinite is known to be present in the matrix of
the collected samples, prepare at least five different KBr pellets containing 100 to 600 µg of kaolinite.
Measure the absorbance at 800 cm-1 (RCS) and at 915 cm-1 (kaolinite). Use the relationship between
the RCS and kaolinite peak to correct the absorbance value at 800 cm-1 samples containing kaolinite
[21].
8. Carry media blanks and filters spiked with known amounts of RCS (e.g., quartz) through the sample
preparation procedures (Steps 4 and 5) to monitor for contamination and losses.
NOTE: Knowledge of and training in geochemistry and mineralogy is strongly recommended for users
of this method. Although many analytical chemists are familiar with IR spectroscopy (e.g., as
applied to organic analysis), mineralogical samples such as those containing RCS require
additional knowledge of geochemistry and mineralogy to correctly interpret IR spectra and
account for matrix interferences and mineral transformations.
MEASUREMENT:
9. Set the infrared spectrometer to absorbance mode and to the appropriate settings for quantitative
analysis. For each IR scan, place a KBr pellet in the sample holder and obtain a spectrum at 4 cm-1
resolution or better from 400 cm-1 to 1000 cm-1. Rotate the KBr pellet 45˚ and scan again. Repeat twice
more until 4 scans have been obtained. Draw an appropriate baseline under the absorbance band at
800 cm-1 from approximately 820 to 670 cm-1. Measure the absorbance from the 800 cm-1 peak
maximum to baseline in absorbance units. Average the four absorbance values for each KBr pellet
sample.
NOTE: If the peak at 800 cm-1 is small, expand the ordinate to enhance the peak height.
10. If the sample was ashed at low temperature (Step 4.a.), the presence of kaolinite will be indicated by an
absorption band with maximum at 915 cm-1. Draw an appropriate baseline under the absorbance
band at 915 cm-1 from approximately 960 to 860 cm-1. Measure the absorbance from the 915 cm-1 peak
maximum to baseline.
CALCULATIONS:
11. To correct for the presence of kaolinite (if necessary), use the measured absorbance at 915 cm-1 (Step
10) and refer to the kaolinite curve (Step 6) to establish the corrected absorbance for RCS at 800 cm-1.
Use this corrected RCS absorbance value in Step 13.
12. If correction for kaolinite is not required, use the measured (uncorrected) absorbance at 800 cm-1 to
determine the weight (Ws, µg) of RCS (e.g., quartz) from the calibration graph.
13. From the weight of RCS (Ws, µg), calculate its concentration, C (mg/m3), in the volume of air sampled, V
(L):
C = [Ws / V], mg/m3
14. If percent RCS (%Q) is of interest, divide the weight of RCS, Ws (µg), by the total sample weight, Wt (µg):
EVALUATION OF METHOD:
From various experimental studies, analytical figures of merit for the KBr pellet IR method for RCS have
been summarized in Ref. [14]. Filter collection was carried out using respirable cyclone samplers with flow
rate ≈2 L/min, with sampling volumes ranging from 300 to 1000 L. Following sample ashing with a plasma
asher or muffle furnace, the remaining material was homogenized with KBr and pressed into a KBr pellet.
IR spectrometric measurements were then carried out on the as-prepared KBr discs. By comparison of
sample IR response to the signal from similarly-prepared CRM quartz standards, and with interference
correction [21], the RCS content was measured. Applicable analytical ranges were from 3 to 900 µg per
sample, with estimated method detection limits (MDLs) of 5 µg or less. Reported precision estimates, in
terms of relative standard deviation, were 0.15 or below at RCS mass per sample of 30 µg. To further
optimize the method, matching CRM particle size distribution to that of RCS samples [20] has been applied
to minimize the effect of particle size on the IR response. The KBr pellet IR method has been used to
measure the crystalline silica content of respirable dusts collected at various workplaces, including coal
mines [7,8,22], construction sites [23], granite quarries [9] and gold mines [24]. Laboratories using the KBr
disc method have performed successfully in interlaboratory proficiency analytical testing programs
[3,25,26].
REFERENCES:
[1] ACGIH [2017] TLVs and BEIs based on the documentation of the Threshold Limit Values for chemical
substances and physical agents and Biological Exposure Indices. Cincinnati, OH: American
Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists.
[2] Institute for Occupational Safety and Health of the German Social Accident Insurance (IFA) [2017].
GESTIS international limit values, http://limitvalue.ifa.dguv.de/.
[3] Harper M, Sarkisian K, Andrew M [2014]. Assessment of respirable crystalline silica using Proficiency
Analytical Testing results from 2003-2013. J Occup Environ Hyg 11:D157-D163.
[4] NIOSH [2016]. Development and evaluation of methods (Chapter ME). By Kennedy ER, Fischbach TJ,
Song R, Eller PM, Hull RD. In: NIOSH manual of analytical methods, 5th ed.; Ashley K, O’Connor PF, eds.
Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control, National
Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 2014-151.
[5] Ojima J [2003]. Determining crystalline silica in respirable samples by infrared spectrophotometry in
the presence of interferences. J Occup Health 45:94-103.
[6] NIOSH [1977]. Method P&CAM 100 - Quartz in coal dust by infrared spectroscopy. In: Taylor DG, ed.
NIOSH manual of analytical methods, 2nd ed. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health, Education
and Welfare, Center for Disease Control, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health,
DHEW (NIOSH) Publication No. 77-157.
[7] Larsen DJ, von Loenhoff LJ, Crable JV [1972]. The quantitative determination of quartz in coal dust
by infrared spectroscopy. Am Ind Hyg Assoc J 33:367-372.
[8] Dodgson J, Whittaker W [1973]. The determination of quartz in respirable dust samples by infrared
spectrophotometry – 1: The potassium bromide disc method. Ann Occup Hyg 16:373-387.
[9] Cares JW, Goldin AS, Lynch JJ, Burgess WA [1973]. The determination of quartz in airborne respirable
granite dust by infrared spectrophotometry. Am Ind Hyg Assoc J 34:298-305.
[10] Taylor DG, Nenadic CM, Crable JV [1970]. Infrared spectra for mineral identification. Am Ind Hyg
Assoc J 31:100-108.
[11] Talvitie NA [1951]. Determination of quartz in the presence of silicates using phosphoric acid. Anal
Chem 23:623-626.
[12] NIOSH [2003]. Determination of airborne respirable silica (Chapter R). By Key-Schwartz RJ, Baron PA,
Bartley DL, Rice FL, Schlecht PC. In: NIOSH manual of analytical methods, 4th ed.; Schlecht PC,
O’Connor PF, eds. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for
Disease Control, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, DHHS (NIOSH) Publication
No. 94-113.
[13] NIOSH [2003]. Methods 7603 and 7500. In: NIOSH manual of analytical methods, 4th ed.; Schlecht PC,
O’Connor PF, eds. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for
Disease Control, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, DHHS (NIOSH) Publication
No. 94-113.
[14] ASTM International [2014]. ASTM D7948, Standard test method for measurement of respirable
crystalline silica in workplace air by infrared spectrometry. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM
International.
[15] NIST [no date]. Standard reference materials (SRMs). Gaithersburg, MD: U.S. Department of
Commerce, National Institute of Standards and Technology, https://www.nist.gov. Date accessed:
July 25, 2017. Technology (NIST), Standard Reference Materials (SRMs); www.nist.gov (Accessed
August 2016).
[17] Lee T, Lee EG, Kim SW, Chisholm W, Kashon M, Harper M [2012]. Quartz measurement in coal dust
with high-flow rate samplers – Laboratory study. Ann Occup Hyg 56:413-425.
[18] ISO [1995]. Air quality – Particle size fraction definitions for health-related sampling. Geneva,
Switzerland: International Organization for Standardization.
[19] Verpaele S, Jouret J [2013]. A comparison of the performance of samplers for respirable dust in
workplaces and laboratory analysis for respirable quartz. Ann Occup Hyg 57:54–62.
[20] Stacey P, Kauffer EM, Moulut J-C, Dion C, Beauparlant M, Fernandez P, Key-Schwartz RJ, Friede B,
Wake D [2009]. An international comparison of the crystallinity of calibration materials for the
analysis of respirable α-quartz using x-ray diffraction and a comparison with results from the infrared
KBr disc method. Ann Occup Hyg 53:639-649.
[21] Lee T, Chisholm WP, Kashon M, Key-Schwartz RJ, Harper M [2013]. Consideration of kaolinite
interference correction for quartz measurements in coal mine dust. J Occup Environ Hyg 10:425-434.
[22] Bandyopadhyay AK [2010]. Determination of quartz content for Indian coals using an FTIR
technique. Int J Coal Geol 81:73-87.
[23] Virji MV, Bello D, Woskie SR, Liu XM, Kalil AJ [2002]. Analysis of quartz by FTIR in air samples of
construction Appl Occup Environ Hyg 17:165-175.
[24] Verma DK, Sebestyen A, Julian JA, Muir DCF [1992]. A comparison of two methods of sampling and
analysis for free crystalline silica α-quartz. Appl Occup Environ Hyg 7:758-763.
[25] Shulman SA, Groff JH, Abell MT [1992]. Performance of laboratories measuring silica in the
Proficiency Analytical Testing program. Am Ind Hyg Assoc J 53:49-56.
[26] Stacey P, Tylee B, Bard D, Atkinson R [2003]. The performance of laboratories analyzing α-quartz in
the Workplace Analysis Scheme for Proficiency. Ann Occup Hyg 47:269-277.
Kevin Ashley, Ph.D., Rosa J. Key-Schwartz, Ph.D., and Martin Harper, Ph.D., CIH, CDC/NIOSH.
Disclaimer: Mention of any company or product does not constitute endorsement by NIOSH. In addition,
citations to websites external to NIOSH do not constitute NIOSH endorsement of the sponsoring
organizations or their programs or products. Furthermore, NIOSH is not responsible for the content of
these websites. All web addresses referenced in this document were accessible as of the publication date.
Table 1. Minerals potentially encountered and their characteristic IR bands (450-1000 cm-1)
SAMPLING MEASUREMENT
SAMPLER: CYCLONE + PREWEIGHED FILTER (PVC), TECHNIQUE: INFRARED SPECTROMETRY
with conductive filter holder
ANALYTE: Quartz
FLOW RATE: ~2 to ~4 L/min, specific for the cyclone
used ASHING: Muffle furnace or RF plasma asher
VOL-MIN: 300 L @ 0.1 mg/m3 REDEPOSIT: Polypropylene filter (47 mm, 0.45 µm pore
-MAX: 1000 L (total dust < 4 mg) size) [3]
INTERFERENCES: Amorphous silica, kaolinite, muscovite, talc, albite, vermiculite and other minerals that absorb IR radiation in
the 800 cm-1 region are potential interferences to RCS measurement [11,12] [Table 1]. Potentially interfering silicates can be
removed using a phosphoric acid cleanup procedure [13]. Calcite at >20% dust loading can negatively interfere by reacting with
quartz during muffle ashing [10,14]. The sample preparation procedures described in this method enable minimization of
potential interferences.
OTHER METHODS: NIOSH Method 7602 describes sample preparation and IR measurement of respirable crystalline silica (RCS) by
means of a KBr pellet [15]. X-ray diffraction (e.g., NIOSH Method 7500 [15]) is a complementary method for quartz measurement by
IR. MSHA Method P-7 [6] is an equivalent IR method for respirable quartz. An international voluntary consensus standard
describing the measurement of RCS by IR spectrometry, ASTM D7439, has been promulgated [16].
REAGENTS: EQUIPMENT:
SPECIAL PRECAUTIONS: Wear appropriate personal protection during sampling activities, sample
preparation and analysis. It is essential that suitable gloves, eye protection, laboratory coat, etc., be used,
especially when working with concentrated acids. Ethanol and 2-propanol are flammable. Avoid exposure
by inhalation of silica dust or acid fumes. Perform sample preparation and analysis in a clean, well-
ventilated area that is well removed from any possible contamination. Any skin affected by exposure to
acids must be immediately washed with plenty of water.
SAMPLING:
1. Calibrate each personal sampling pump with a representative sampler in line. Use conductive filter
holders.
2. Pre-weigh each filter to the nearest 0.01 mg.
3. Sample at ≈2 L/min [18] or ≈4 L/min [5] using a pump set at a specific flow rate for a selected cyclone,
designed to collect the respirable aerosol fraction (in accordance with ISO 7708[19]), for a total sample
size of 400 to 1000 L. Take care not to overload the filter.
NOTE 1: Do not allow the sampler assembly to be inverted at any time when using a cyclone. Turning
the cyclone to anything more than a horizontal orientation may deposit oversized material
from the cyclone body onto the filter.
NOTE 2: Higher sampling flow rates may be suitable for certain sampler designs [20].
4. After collection of samples, remove the filter holders from the cyclones. Seal the filter holders
(cassettes) and transport them to the laboratory in a container designed to prevent damage in transit.
SAMPLE PREPARATION:
5. Remove the filters from filter holders and, after preconditioning to ambient conditions, re-weigh the
filters to the nearest 0.01 mg; the difference is the sample weight, Ws (µg).
6. Use one of the following methods to prepare samples and blanks:
a. Low-temperature (RF plasma) asher: Transfer the weighed filters to clean 50-mL beakers. Place the
beakers in the low-temperature asher so that sample exposure to the plasma is optimized. Ash the
samples for 2 h at 300 W RF power and oxygen flow rate of 75 mL/min, according to manufacturer’s
instructions. Carefully bring the asher to atmospheric pressure, remove the beakers, and add 15 mL
2-propanol to each beaker.
b. Muffle furnace: For samples expected to contain a significant amount of calcite (>20% of the total
dust loading), wash filters with 25% v/v HCl using the filtration apparatus with the 1.6-cm i.d. glass
funnel. For other samples, proceed to step 6.b.ii.
i. Place a 25-mm glass fiber filter over the frit area of the filtration funnel, then place a 0.45-µm
pore size, 37-mm dia. PP filter atop the glass fiber filter. Clamp the funnel over the frit and
ensure that there is no leakage. Using tweezers and gloved hands, take the weighed sample
filter and fold it in half with the collection surface inside, then fold again into quarters, and place
the folded filter into the funnel. Add 10 mL of 25% HCl (v/v), then 5 mL of 2-propanol; allow to
stand for 5 min. Apply vacuum and slowly aspirate the acid and alcohol in the funnel. Press the
folded sample filter onto the surface of the collection filter if necessary to remove all liquid.
Release vacuum, remove both filters and place in a porcelain crucible. Allow to air-dry.
ii. Place filter samples and blanks in porcelain crucibles, loosely cover, and ash in muffle furnace for
2 h at 600 ˚C (800 ˚C if graphite present). Allow to cool to room temperature.
iii. Add ~3 mL 2-propanol to the ash within each crucible, scrape the crucible to loosen all particles,
and quantitatively transfer to contents to a 50-mL beaker. Wash the crucible several times with
2-propanol and add the wash to the beaker. Add 2-propanol to the beaker to bring the volume
to ~15 mL.
7. Redeposit the sample residue as follows, using the filtration apparatus with the 1.0 cm dia. funnel.
With a slight vacuum applied, place a 25-mm glass fiber filter on the fritted base. Cut a 47-mm
0.45-µm PP filter in half. Superimpose one half over the other, glossy sides down, and place on the
glass fiber filter. (The lower half of the PP filter serves as a blank for use in the reference beam of the IR
spectrometer.) Position the filter funnel, apply clamp, turn off vacuum and ensure that there is no
leakage. Place sample beakers from step 6.b.iii into ultrasonic bath for at least 30 sec to ensure
homogeneous dispersion. Remove each beaker, wipe off excess water from the outside of the beaker,
and transfer the slurry to the filtration funnel. Reapply vacuum and, during filtration, rinse the beaker
twice with 2-propanol to ensure quantitative transfer of entire contents to the funnel. Control the
filtration rate to keep the liquid near the top of the funnel during rinsing to avoid disturbing the
deposit. When the depth of liquid in the funnel reaches about 4 cm above the filter, gently rinse the
inside of the funnel with 2-propanol and complete filtration. Remove clamp and funnel, taking care
not to disturb the deposit. Release the vacuum. Define the deposit area by marking around the
circumference using a pencil or scriber. (This is especially important for standards or light-colored
samples.) Place the PP filter halves in Petri dishes and allow to air dry.
8. Prepare at least 5 working standard quartz filters. Calibration standards shall be prepared from
primary CRMs of known purity, particle size range and homogeneity.
NOTE: Suitable quartz standards include primary reference materials such as NIST SRM 1878b or 2950;
the use of secondary reference materials as calibration standards is not appropriate for IR
measurement [14].
a. Place the flask containing the calibration stock solution in an ultrasonic bath for 30-45 min.
b. Move the flask to a magnetic stirrer and stir slowly while the flask cools to room temperature.
Continue slow stirring while preparing calibration standards.
c. Mount a PP filter in the filtration apparatus in the same manner used to redeposit the samples. Add
5 mL of 2-propanol to the funnel. Withdraw an aliquot of the quartz suspension from the center of
the flask. Draw liquid to the mark but do not attempt to adjust volume by draining pipet. Carefully
wipe the outside of the pipet, then drain the suspension into the filter funnel. Rinse down the
inside wall of the pipet with a few mL of 2-propanol, draining the washings into the funnel. Apply
vacuum to complete the filtration. Prepare quartz standards in this manner to cover the range 10
to 250 µg per filter.
d. Carry an additional set of these calibration standards and media blanks through steps 6 and 7 to
monitor for contamination and losses.
NOTE: Accuracy depends on obtaining uniform deposition of samples and calibration standards
across the filter surface and obtaining reproducible aliquots from the quartz suspension.
This requires skill and practice. The quartz calibration curve should be prepared before
analyzing samples as a check on the analyst’s ability to prepare uniform deposits.
Repeatability should be <10% on replicate calibration standards with >40 µg of quartz.
9. Perform IR scans for each standard filter using the other half of the filter in the reference beam (see
Measurement section). Construct a calibration graph of absorbance at 800 cm-1 vs. µg of quartz per
filter. The plot should be linear and pass through the origin.
10. If samples were low-temperature ashed and kaolinite is known to be present in the matrix of the
collected samples, prepare at least five different loadings of PP filters containing 100 to 600 µg of
kaolinite. Measure the IR absorbance of kaolinite standards from 1000 cm-1 to 650 cm-1. Prepare a
graph with absorbance at 915 cm-1 as ordinate vs. absorbance at 800 cm-1 as abscissa. Use the
relationship between the quartz and kaolinite peak to correct the absorbance value at 800 cm-1
samples containing kaolinite [20].
11. Carry media blanks and filters spiked with known amounts of quartz through the sample preparation
procedures to monitor for contamination and losses.
NOTE: Knowledge of and training in geochemistry and mineralogy is strongly recommended for users
of this method. Although many analytical chemists are familiar with IR spectroscopy (e.g., as
applied to organic analysis), mineralogical samples such as those containing RCS require
MEASUREMENT:
12. Set the infrared spectrometer to double-beam absorbance mode and to the appropriate settings for
quantitative analysis. For each IR scan, place a PP sample filter half in the sample beam and a PP blank
filter half in the reference beam, and obtain a spectrum at 4 cm-1 resolution or better from 450 cm-1 to
1000 cm-1. For each PP filter sample, center the IR beam on filter deposit.
13. Draw an appropriate baseline under the absorbance band at 800 cm-1 from approximately 820 to 670
cm-1. Measure the absorbance from the 800 cm-1 peak maximum to baseline in absorbance units.
NOTE: If the peak at 800 cm-1 is small, expand the ordinate to enhance the peak height.
14. If the sample was ashed at low temperature, the presence of kaolinite will be indicated by an
absorption band with maximum at 915 cm-1. Draw an appropriate baseline under the absorbance
band at 915 cm-1 from approximately 960 to 860 cm-1. Measure the absorbance from the 915 cm-1 peak
maximum to baseline.
15. Analyze blanks and, if necessary, correct baseline.
CALCULATIONS:
16. To correct for the presence of kaolinite (if necessary), use the measured absorbance at 915 cm-1 and
refer to the kaolinite curve to establish the corrected absorbance for quartz at 800 cm-1 [21]. Use this
corrected absorbance value at 800 cm-1 in calculating the airborne quartz concentration.
17. If correction for kaolinite is not required, use the measured (uncorrected) absorbance at 800 cm-1 to
determine the weight (Ws, µg) quartz from the calibration graph.
18. From the weight of quartz (Ws, µg), calculate its concentration, C (mg/m3), in the volume of air
sampled, V (L):
19. If percent quartz (%Q) is of interest, divide the weight of quartz, Ws (µg), by the total sample weight, Wt
(µg):
EVALUATION OF METHOD:
The method is based on MSHA method P-7, which was collaboratively tested [4] and optimized [6].
Interlaboratory evaluation included a ruggedization step to test the effects of the use of muffle furnace or
plasma asher, amount of calcite or kaolinite in the sample, ashing time, pH of solvent used to remove
calcite, shipment of samples, and other factors. None of these contributions was found to have a
statistically significant effect. Filter collection has been carried out using respirable cyclone samplers with
flow rate ≈2 L/min [4] and ≈4 L/min [5], with sampling volumes ranging from 300 to 1000 L; analysis was
subsequently carried out using the redeposition method. Applicable analytical ranges were from 3 µg [5]
to 500 µg quartz [4,6] per sample, with estimated method detection limits (MDLs) of 1-5 µg or even less [3].
Reported precision estimates, in terms of relative standard deviation, were 0.10 or below at quartz mass
per sample of 20-400 µg [3-6]. The IR redeposition method has been used extensively to measure the
quartz content of respirable dusts collected in coal mines [3,8-10,21,22]. Laboratories using the IR
redeposition method have performed successfully in interlaboratory proficiency analytical testing
programs [7, 23, 24].
REFERENCES:
[1] ACGIH [2017] TLVs and BEIs based on the documentation of the Threshold Limit Values for chemical
substances and physical agents and Biological Exposure Indices. Cincinnati, OH: American
Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists.
[2] Institute for Occupational Safety and Health of the German Social Accident Insurance (IFA) [2017].
GESTIS international limit values, http://limitvalue.ifa.dguv.de/.
[3] Farcas D, Lee T, Chisholm WP, Soo J-C, Harper M [2016]. Replacement of filters for respirable quartz
measurement in coal mine dust by infrared spectroscopy. J Occup Environ Hyg 13:D17-D22.
[4] Anderson CC [1983]. Collaborative test of two methods for determining free silica in airborne dust.
Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control, National
Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 83-124.
[5] Lee T, Lee EG, Kim SW, Chisholm WP, Kashon M, Harper M [2012]. Quartz measurement in coal dust
with high flow rate samplers – Laboratory study. Ann Occup Hyg 56:413-425.
[6] Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) [2013]. Infrared determination of quartz in respirable
coal mine dust; Method No. P-7. Pittsburgh, PA: MSHA.
[7] Harper M, Sarkisian K, Andrew M [2014]. Assessment of respirable crystalline silica using Proficiency
Analytical Testing results from 2003-2013. J Occup Environ Hyg 11:D157-D163.
[8] Larsen DJ, von Loenhoff LJ, Crable JV [1972]. The quantitative determination of quartz in coal dust
by infrared spectroscopy. Am Ind Hyg Assoc J 33:367-372.
[9] Freedman RW, Toma SZ, Lang HW [1974]. On-filter analysis of quartz in respiratory coal dust by
infrared absorption and x-ray diffraction. Am Ind Hyg Assoc J 35:411-418.
[10] NIOSH [1977]. Method P&CAM 100 - Quartz in coal dust by infrared spectroscopy. In: Taylor DG, ed.
NIOSH manual of analytical methods, 2nd ed. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health, Education
and Welfare, Center for Disease Control, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health,
DHEW (NIOSH) Publication No. 77-157.
[11] Taylor DG, Nenadic CM, Crable JV [1970]. Infrared spectra for mineral identification. Am Ind Hyg
Assoc J 31:100-108.
[12] Ojima J [2003]. Determining crystalline silica in respirable samples by infrared spectrophotometry in
the presence of interferences. J Occup Health 45:94-103.
[13] Talvitie NA [1951]. Determination of quartz in the presence of silicates using phosphoric acid. Anal
Chem 23:623-626.
[14] NIOSH [2003]. Determination of airborne respirable silica (Chapter R). By Key-Schwartz RJ, Baron PA,
Bartley DL, Rice FL, Schlecht PC. In: NIOSH manual of analytical methods, 4th ed.; Schlecht PC,
O’Connor PF, eds. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for
Disease Control, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, DHHS (NIOSH) Publication
No. 94-113.
[15] NIOSH [2003]. Methods 7603 and 7500. In: NIOSH manual of analytical methods, 4th ed.; Schlecht PC,
O’Connor PF, eds. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for
Disease Control, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, DHHS (NIOSH) Publication
No. 94-113.
[16] ASTM International [2014]. ASTM D7948, Standard test method for measurement of respirable
crystalline silica in workplace air by infrared spectrometry. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM
International.
[17] NIST [no date]. Standard reference materials (SRMs). Gaithersburg, MD: U.S. Department of
Commerce, National Institute of Standards and Technology, https://www.nist.gov. Date accessed:
July 25, 2017.
[19] ISO [1995]. Air quality – Particle size fraction definitions for health-related sampling. Geneva,
Switzerland: International Organization for Standardization.
[20] Verpaele S, Jouret J [2013]. A comparison of the performance of samplers for respirable dust in
workplaces and laboratory analysis for respirable quartz. Ann Occup Hyg 57:54–62.
[21] Lee T, Chisholm WP, Kashon M, Key-Schwartz RJ, Harper M [2013]. Consideration of kaolinite
interference correction for quartz measurements in coal mine dust. J Occup Environ Hyg 10:425-434.
[22] Ainsworth, SM [2005]. Infrared analysis of respirable coal mine dust for quartz: Thirty five years. J
ASTM Int 2(4):1-13, DOI: 10.1520/JAI12231.
[23] Shulman SA, Groff JH, Abell MT [1992]. Performance of laboratories measuring silica in the
Proficiency Analytical Testing program. Am Ind Hyg Assoc J 53:49-56.
[24] Stacey P, Tylee B, Bard D, Atkinson R [2003]. The performance of laboratories analyzing α-quartz in
the Workplace Analysis Scheme for Proficiency. Ann Occup Hyg 47:269-277.
Kevin Ashley, Ph.D., Rosa J. Key-Schwartz, Ph.D., and Martin Harper, Ph.D., CIH, CDC/NIOSH.
Disclaimer: Mention of any company or product does not constitute endorsement by NIOSH. In addition,
citations to websites external to NIOSH do not constitute NIOSH endorsement of the sponsoring
organizations or their programs or products. Furthermore, NIOSH is not responsible for the content of
these websites. All web addresses referenced in this document were accessible as of the publication date.
Table 1. Minerals potentially encountered and their characteristic IR bands (450-1000 cm-1)
SYNONYMS: Vary depending upon the compound; chromate commonly used; “chrome six.”
SAMPLING MEASUREMENT
SAMPLER: FILTER (5.0-µm PVC membrane) TECHNIQUE: Ion chromatography with post-column
derivatization and UV detection.
FLOW RATE: 1 to 4 L/min
ANALYTE: CrO42--diphenylcarbazide (DPC) complex
VOL-MIN: 1 L @ 0.05 mg/m3
-MAX: 400 L EXTRACTION: 5 mL 2% NaOH- 3% Na2 CO3 . Dilute to
25 mL after heating.
SHIPMENT: Routine. Can be shipped cold when
deemed necessary INJECTION
VOLUME: 100 µL
SAMPLE
STABILITY: Stable for 2 weeks at room temperature. COLUMN: Dionex NG1 Guard, HPIC- AS7 Separator or
Stable for 4 weeks if stored in refrigerator. equivalent
REAGENTS: EQUIPMENT:
1. Sulfuric acid, conc. (98 % w/w).* 1. Sampler: polyvinyl chloride (PVC) filter, 5.0-
2. Ammonium hydroxide, conc. (28 %).* µm pore size, 37 µmm diameter in
3. Ammonium sulfate monohydrate, reagent polystyrene cassette filter holder.
grade. NOTE: Some PVC filters promote reduction of
4. Sodium carbonate, anhydrous. Cr(VI). Check each lot of filters for
5. Sodium hydroxide, reagent grade.* recovery of Cr(VI) standard.
6. Methanol, HPLC grade.* 2. Personal sampling pump, 1 to 4 L/min, with
7. 1,5-Diphenylcarbazide, reagent grade. flexible connecting tubing.
8. Potassium dichromate or potassium 3. Vials, scintillation, 20-mL glass,
chromate.* Dry at 100 °C and store in a polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE)-lined screw
desiccator. cap.**
9. Post-Column Derivatizing Reagent: 4. Forceps, nonmetallic.
Diphenylcarbazide solution. Dissolve 500 mg 5. Gloves, polypropylene or latex.
1,5-diphenylcarbazide in 100 mL HPLC- 6. Liquid chromatography apparatus consisting
grade methanol. While stirring, add 500 mL of autosampler; pump; columns ; post-
water containing 28 mL of conc. sulfuric column reagent delivery system with 2.2-m
acid. Dilute to a final volume of one liter with high pressure tubing mixing/reaction loop
water. This reagent is stable for 4 - 5 days. with 1 min a water bath at 32 °C ± 3 °C; and
Prepare in one-liter quantities, as needed. UV detector.
10. Cr(VI) standard, 1000 µg/mL. Dissolve 2.829 7. Columns: NG1 (Dionex Corp.) or equivalent
g potassium dichromate in deionized water guard column; HPIC-AS7, 4 x 250-mm (Dionex
to make one liter, or use commercially Corp.) separator column (or equivalent);
available solution. 8. Filtration apparatus, PTFE luer lock style filter
NOTE: 3.731 g K2CrO4 can also be used. syringe.
11. Calibration stock solution, 1.0 µg/mL. Dilute 9. Beakers, borosilicate, 50 -mL.**
1000 µg/mL Cr(VI) standard 1 :1000 with 10. Watch glass.**
deionized water. 11. Volumetric flasks, 25-, 100-, and 1000-mL.**
12. Filter extraction solution, 2% NaOH-3% 12. Oven at 107°C, not to exceed 115°C.
Na2CO3. Dissolve 20 g NaOH and 30 g Na2CO3 NOTE: Hot plate or ultrasonic bath can be
in deionized water to make one liter of used.
solution. 13. Micropipettes, 10-µL to 0.5-mL.
13. Eluent (mobile phase); 250 mM ammonium 14. Pipettes, TD 5-mL.**
sulfate/200 mM ammonium hydroxide. 15. Bagged refrigerant.
Dissolve 33 g ammonium sulfate in
approximately 500 mL distilled water and **Clean all glassware with 1:1 HNO3:H2O and
add 6.5 mL conc. ammonium hydroxide. rinse thoroughly before use
Dilute to one liter with distilled water and
mix.
14. Nitrogen, pre-purified.
SPECIAL PRECAUTIONS: Many chromate compounds are suspected human carcinogens [8]. All sample
preparation should be performed in a hood. Concentrated acids and bases are toxic and corrosive. When
working with concentrated acids and bases, wear protective clothing. Ammonium hydroxide is a
respiratory irritant. Methanol is flammable and toxic.
SAMPLING:
SAMPLE PREPARATION:
4. Don a clean pair of disposable plastic gloves (to prevent sample contamination). Using forceps,
transfer the PVC filter to a 50-mL beaker, and add 5.0 mL filter extraction solution, 2% NaOH/3%
Na2CO3. Start media blanks at this point.
NOTE 1: If significant amounts of Cr[III] are expected to be present in the samples, either (a) degas the
sodium hydroxide/sodium carbonate extraction solution by bubbling nitrogen through it for
5 min. before proceeding, or ( b) use a precipitation reagent [1].
NOTE 2: If only soluble chromates are of interest, use ammonium sulfate buffer in place of carbonate
extraction solution [9,10].
5. Cover the beaker with a watchglass and heat it to near the boiling point (100°C to 115°C) in an oven
with occasional swirling for 45 min. Do not boil the solution. Longer heating times (up to 90 minutes)
may be necessary for some samples (e.g., paint spray). Do not allow the solution to evaporate to
dryness because hexavalent chromium may be lost due to reaction with the PVC filter and/or co-
collected aerosol constituents. An indication that hexavalent chromium has been lost in this manner is
a brown-colored PVC filter.
NOTE: A hot plate, heater block, or ultrasonic bath can also be used for this step [9,11].
a. Cool the solution and transfer it quantitatively with distilled water rinses to a 25-mL volumetric
flask. Bring to volume with distilled water.
NOTE: If the solution is cloudy, filter an aliquot through a PTFE luer lock style filter attached to a
syringe.
b. Transfer an aliquot of the solution to the appropriate vial for the chromatograph’s autosampler and
analyze (steps 9 through 13).
6. Calibrate daily with at least six working standards. Transfer 5 mL of extraction solution to each of a
series of 25-mL volumetric flasks. Pipet known volumes (0 to 5 mL) of calibration stock solution (1.0
µg/mL) into the volumetric flasks. For higher standards, pipet 10 - 20 µL of the 1000 µg/mL
concentrated stock and bring the volume to 25 mL with distilled water. These working standards
contain 0 to 20 µg Cr(VI) per sample.
7. Analyze the working standards together with blanks and samples (steps 9 through 13).
8. Prepare a calibration graph [instrument response vs. µg Cr(VI)].
MEASUREMENT:
NOTE: If the instrument response for the samples is higher than the standards, dilute using a 1:5
dilution of extraction solution:water to maintain a constant ionic strength; repeat the analysis;
and multiply the measured concentration by the appropriate dilution factor. Alternatively,
inject a smaller volume and multiply by the appropriate factor.
11. After the analysis is complete, flush the entire system with ASTM Type II water for at least one hour at
1.0 mL/min. with all columns on line. Remove the columns and continue flushing for an additional two
hours. Flush the autosampler with several injections of water. Leaving the columns in line while the
system is idle is not recommended.
CALCULATIONS
12. From the calibration graph, determine the mass of Cr(VI) in each sample, W (µg), and in the average
blank, B (µg).
13. Calculate concentration, C (mg/m3), of Cr(VI) in the air volume sampled, V (L):
𝑊𝑊 − 𝐵𝐵
𝐶𝐶 = , 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚/𝑚𝑚3
𝑉𝑉
NOTE: µg/L ≅ mg/m3
EVALUATION OF METHOD:
This method was evaluated in the laboratory with spiked filters and a certified reference material
containing a known loading of Cr(VI). This certified reference material (CRM) is European Commission,
Institute for Reference Materials and Measurements (EC/IRMM) CRM 545, Cr(VI) and Cr(total) in welding
dust loaded on a glass fiber filter [12]. This method was evaluated for extraction efficiency over the
concentration range of 0.15 - 5 µg/sample testing two brands of filters, SILICAL® and GLA-5000™ [3]. In
these experiments, test atmospheres were not generated; instead, Cr(VI) as the dichromate was fortified on
the face of the sample filters, then 240 L of air with 35% relative humidity was pulled through at 1 L/min. A
30-day storage study using both types of filters was conducted at 1.5 µg/sample (30x LOQ) at ambient
room temperature and 4 °C. The average recovery of the stored samples was 94.8%. The estimation of the
limit of detection and limit of quantitation (LOD/LOQ) were determined analyzing a series of liquid
standards. The LOD and LOQ, 0.02 µg/sample and 0.07 µg/sample, respectively were calculated by Burkart's
method [13].
To fully evaluate this method, a field study was conducted in which side- by-side samples were taken to
measure exposures to Cr(VI) during spray-painting and electroplating operations. These samples were
analyzed subsequently by 4 different methods (NIOSH Method 7605, 7703, 7300 and OSHA ID-215) [1].
NIOSH method 7300 was used to measure total chromium. The results from the other 3 methods correlated
very well showing no statistical difference among the 3 methods. Recoveries of 98.4 (±3.4) % were
obtained for CRM 545 (n = 6) [2].
REFERENCES:
[1] Boiano JM, Wallace ME, Sieber W K, Groff JH, Wang J, Ashley K [2000]. Comparison of three sampling
and analytical methods for the determination of airborne hexavalent chromium. J Environ Monit
2:329-333.
[2] Ashley K, Andrews RN, Cavazos L, Demange M [2001]. Ultrasonic extraction as a sample preparation
technique for elemental analysis by atomic spectrometry. J Anal At Spectrom 16:1147-1153.
[3] Foote P, Wickman DC, Perkins JB [2002]. Back-up data report for determination of hexavalent
chromium by ion chromatography with post-column derivatization, prepared under NIOSH Contract
2000-95-2955. Unpublished.
[4] Eide ME [2000]. Hexavalent Chromium, Method No. W 4001. Salt Lake City, Utah: U.S. Department of
Labor (USDO L), Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Salt Lake Technical Center.
[5] Ku JC, Eide M [1998]. Hexavalent chromium in the workplace atmosphere, OSHA ID-215. Salt Lake
City, Utah: US Department of Labor (USDOL), Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA),
Salt Lake Technical Center.
[6] ISO [2005; reapproved 2010]. ISO 16740 Workplace air – Determination of hexavalent chromium in
airborne particulate matter – Method by ion chromatography and spectrophotometric
measurement using diphenyl carbazide. Geneva, Switzerland: International Organization for
Standardization (ISO).
[7] Arar EJ, Pfaff JD, Martin TD [1994]. Method 218.6, Revision 3.3. Cincinnati, Ohio: Environmental
Monitoring Systems Laboratory, Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency.
[8] NIOSH [1975]. Criteria for a recommended standard: occupational exposure to chromium (VI).
Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Center for Disease Control,
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, DHEW (NIOSH) Publication No. 76-129.
[9] Wang J, Ashley K, Kennedy ER, Neumeister C [1997]. Determination of hexavalent chromium in
industrial hygiene samples using ultrasonic extraction and flow injection analysis. Analyst 122:1307-
1312.
[10] Ndung’u K, Djane N-K, Malcus F, Mathiasson L [1999]. Ultrasonic extraction of hexavalent chromium
in solid samples followed by automated analysis using a combination of supported liquid membrane
extraction and uv detection in a flow system. Analyst 124:1367-1372.
[11] Wang J, Ashley K, Marlow D, England EC, Carlton G [1999]. Field method for the determination of
hexavalent chromium by ultrasonic and strong anion exchange solid phase extraction. Anal Chem
71:1027-1032.
[12] EC/IRMM [1997]. Certificate of analysis, CRM 545: Cr(VI) and total leacheable Cr in welding dust
loaded on a filter. Brussels: Commission of the European Communities, Institute for Reference
Materials and Measurements.
[13] Burkart JA [1986]. General procedures for limit of detection calculations in industrial hygiene
chemistry laboratory. Appl Ind Hyg, 1(3):153 -155.
Disclaimer: Mention of any company or product does not constitute endorsement by NIOSH. In addition,
citations to websites external to NIOSH do not constitute NIOSH endorsement of the sponsoring
organizations or their programs or products. Furthermore, NIOSH is not responsible for the content of
these websites. All web addresses referenced in this document were accessible as of the publication date.
SAMPLING MEASUREMENT
SAMPLER: FILTER (37-mm, 0.8-µm pore, mixed TECHNIQUE: PORTABLE ANODIC STRIPPING
cellulose ester membrane) VOLTAMMETRY
SAMPLE DEPOSITION
STABILITY: Stable POTENTIAL: -0.8 V to -1.0 V vs. Ag/AgCl
BLANKS: Minimum of 2 field blanks per set ANODIC SWEEP: Deposition potential to 0.0 V vs.
Ag/AgCl sweep rate variable [1,2]
ACCURACY
REFERENCE
RANGE ELECTRODE: Ag/AgCl or calomel
STUDIED: 0.025 to 0.150 mg/m3 (as Pb)
(based on Pb mass loadings) [4] WORKING
ELECTRODE: Mercury film on glassy carbon or screen
BIAS: None identified in laboratory studies [3-5] printed
<10% in field study [6]
SUPPORTING
OVERALL ELECTROLYTE: Mixture of NaCl/NaOH or KCl/KOH,
�𝒓𝒓𝒓𝒓 ): 0.087 (screen-printed electrodes);
PRECISION (𝑺𝑺 L-ascorbic acid
0.094 (Hg film on glassy carbon
electrodes) [4] CALIBRATION: Pb2+ in 5% HNO3
APPLICABILITY: The working range is (at least) 0.20 to 5.00 mg/m3 (as Pb) for a 120-L air sample. Lead determination by ultrasonic
extraction/ASV method is applicable to the on-site, field-based determination of lead in air filter samples, and also may be used for
laboratory-based air filter sample preparation and analysis.
INTERFERENCES: Thallium is a known interference, but its presence is unlikely in the vast majority of samples. Extremely high
concentrations of copper may cause a positive bias. Surfactants can poison electrode surfaces, so if the presence of surfactants is
suspected they must be eliminated during sample preparation [7,8].
OTHER METHODS: Laboratory-based methods include atomic spectrometric methods following concentrated acid hotplate
digestion: NIOSH methods 7082 (flame AAS), 7105 (graphite furnace AAS), and 7300-series methods (ICP-AES) [9]. ASTM
standards based on NIOSH methods for sample collection, preparation and analysis have been published [10].
REAGENTS: EQUIPMENT:
1. Nitric acid,* 10% (v/v) (Prepared from concentrated 1. Sampler: Mixed cellulose ester filter, 0.8 µm
nitric acid, reagent grade; spectroscopic grade if pore size, 37-mm diameter, in cassette filter
trace analysis). holder or cellulosic internal capsule.
2. Distilled or deionized water (ASTM Type I or better 2. Personal sampling pump, 1 to 4 L/min, with
[11]). flexible connecting tubing.
3. Calibration stock solution, 1000 µg/mL Pb. 3. Field-portable anodic stripping voltammeter.
Commercial standard, or dissolve 1.00 g Pb metal in 4. Disposable or renewable voltammetry
minimum of 10 mL of 50% HCl and dilute to 1 L electrodes.
with 1% (v/v) HCl. Store in a polyethylene bottle. 5. Ultrasonic bath, 50 watts minimum power.
Stable for at least one year. 6. Power source for ultrasonic bath.
4. Supporting electrolyte: Aqueous inert salt mixture 7. Plastic centrifuge tubes, 50-mL, with screw
such as 2.5 M NaCl and 0.25 M NaOH * (reagent caps.
grade or equivalent) [3,4]. 8. Test tube rack (size to fit in ultrasonic bath).
5. Dissolved oxygen scavenger such as 0.25 M L- 9. Plastic sample cell container.
ascorbic acid (tissue culture grade or equivalent) 10. Mechanical pipets (class A equivalent), 0.1-mL
[3,4]. to 10-mL, as needed.
6. Mercuric nitrate (reagent grade), if required (for Hg 11. Pipet tips for mechanical pipets.
film electrodes). 12. Forceps.
7. Certified Reference Materials (CRMs) for lead. 13. Bottles, polyethylene, 100- to 1000-mL.
14. Volumetric flasks, 100-mL (for preparatory lab
*See SPECIAL PRECAUTIONS. work).
15. Plastic rods.
16. Wipes (ASTM E1792 [12])
NOTE: Clean all glassware and reusable
plasticware with diluted nitric acid and
rinse thoroughly with distilled or
deionized water before use.
SPECIAL PRECAUTIONS: Nitric acid and sodium hydroxide are irritants and may burn skin. Perform
extractions in a well-ventilated area. Wear gloves and eye protection.
SAMPLING:
1. Calibrate each personal sampling pump with a representative sampler in the line.
2. Sample at an accurately known flow rate between 1 and 4 L/min for up to 8 h for a total sample size of
20 to 1500 L for TWA measurements. Do not exceed a filter loading of ca. 5 mg total dust.
NOTE: Filter overloading can be assessed by periodic visual checks. See NMAM guidance chapters for
additional discussion on filter capacity.
SAMPLE PREPARATION:
3. Open the cassette filter holders and, with forceps, transfer the samples and blanks to separate 50-mL
centrifuge tubes. Use internal cellulosic capsules or wipe the internal cassette surfaces with a 37 mm
MCE filter or cellulosic wipe wetted with deionized water and add to the centrifuge tube to transfer
non-filter aerosol deposits into the tube. See [13] for additional information. Push the filters to the
bottom of the tubes with plastic rods.
NOTE: An alternative means to include non-filter aerosol deposits is to carry out extraction directly
within the cassette.
4. Add 10 mL of 10% HNO3 and cap the centrifuge tubes.
5. Place centrifuge tubes in ultrasonic bath, and agitate at room temperature for at least 30 min.
NOTE 1: The water level in the bath should be above the level of liquid within the centrifuge tubes.
NOTE 2: Proper performance of the ultrasonic bath should be demonstrated before use. This can be
accomplished by checking recoveries of lead from performance evaluation materials.
6. Shake tubes for 5 to 10 sec, and allow to settle.
7. Prior to field work, prepare a series of working standards covering the range 0.25 to 20 µg/mL Pb.
a. Add aliquots of calibration stock solution to 100-mL volumetric flasks, and dilute to volume
with 10% HNO3. Store and transport the working standards in polyethylene bottles, and
prepare fresh weekly.
b. Analyze the working standards together with the blanks and samples (steps 11 through 14).
c. Prepare a calibration graph of instrumental response vs. lead concentration (µg/mL Pb).
NOTE: Some portable instruments read concentration directly. Calibrate according to
manufacturer’s directions.
8. Analyze at least one standard for every 20 samples to check for instrument drift (steps 11 through 14).
9. Check recoveries with at least one spiked media blank per 20 samples (one per batch minimum). Use
certified reference materials to substantiate recoveries. Use method of standard additions to check for
matrix effects or interferences.
10. Check for lead contamination by analyzing at least one reagent and one media blank per 20 samples
(minimum of one per batch) (steps 11 through 14).
MEASUREMENT:
11. Set instrument parameters as specified by the manufacturer, or use conditions specified on page
7701-1.
NOTE: If renewable electrodes are used, clean the glassy carbon electrode and deposit a fresh mercury
film prior to conducting analyses.
12. Transfer sample aliquot (1 to 5 mL) to analytical cell, and dilute with 10% HNO3, if necessary.
NOTE: High concentrations of lead may require analysis of diluted analyte solutions.
13. Add supporting electrolyte and oxygen scavenger to sample cell. Ensure final volume of the cell is 5 mL
(disposable electrodes) or 10 mL (renewable electrodes) by diluting with distilled or deionized water.
14. Measure lead content of the sample aliquot (µg/sample or µg/mL), and record the result.
NOTE 1: For renewable electrodes, rinse and drain electrochemical sample cell at least three times with
distilled or deionized water between sample runs. For disposable electrodes, use a fresh
plastic sample cell container for each sample analyzed.
NOTE 2: If the measured value is above the linear range of the standards, dilute with 10% HNO3,
reanalyze, and apply the appropriate dilution factor in the calculations.
CALCULATIONS:
15. Using measured lead contents, calculate the corresponding concentrations (µg/mL) of lead in the
original extracted sample, Cs, and average media blank, Cb, from the calibration graph.
NOTE: Be sure to account for dilution factors.
16. Using solution volumes (mL) of the samples, Vs, and media blanks, Vb, calculate the concentration, C
(mg/m3), of lead in the air volume sampled, V (L):
EVALUATION OF METHOD:
This method was evaluated with lead aerosol samples generated in the laboratory (40 to 80 µg Pb per filter)
[3], and with air particulate samples collected from workplaces where abrasive blasting of leaded paint on
highway bridges was being conducted [4]. For the latter, lead loadings cover the range from below the
detection limit of 0.09 µg Pb per filter to loadings in excess of 1500 µg Pb per filter [4]. The method also has
been evaluated with performance evaluation materials and by interlaboratory testing [3-5]. Lead recoveries
from Certified Reference Materials (CRMs) were found to be quantitative (≥90%) and equivalent to recoveries
obtained using confirmatory analytical methods (NIOSH 7082, 7105, and 7300 [9]).
REFERENCES:
[2] Wang J [1996 ]. Electrochemical preconcentration. In: Kissinger PT, Heineman WR, eds. Laboratory
techniques in electroanalytical chemistry. 2nd ed. New York: Marcel Dekker, pp. 719-737.
[3] Ashley K [1995]. Ultrasonic extraction and field-portable anodic stripping voltammetry of lead from
environmental samples. Electroanalysis 7:1189-1192.
[4] Ashley K, Mapp KJ, Millson M [1998]. Ultrasonic extraction and field-portable anodic stripping
voltammetry for the determination of lead in workplace air samples. Am Ind Hyg Assoc J 59:671-679.
[5] Ashley K, Song R, Esche CA, Schlecht PC, Baron PC, Wise TJ [1999]. Ultrasonic extraction and portable
anodic stripping voltammetric measurement of lead in paint, dust wipes, soil, and air: An
interlaboratory evaluation. J Environ Monit 1:459-464.
[6] Sussell A, Ashley K [2002]. Field measurement of lead in workplace air and paint chip samples by
ultrasonic extraction and portable anodic stripping. J Environ Monit 4:156-161.
[8] Ashley K, Wise TJ, Mercado W , Parry DB [2001]. Ultrasonic extraction and portable anodic stripping
voltammetric measurement of lead in dust wipe samples. J Hazard Mater 83:41-50.
[9] NIOSH [1994]. Lead: Method 7082, Lead by GFAAS: Method 7105, Elements: Method 7300. In: Eller PM,
Cassinelli ME, eds. NIOSH manual of analytical methods. 4th ed. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute for
Occupational Safety and Health, DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 94-113 [www.cdc.gov/niosh/nmam/].
[10] ASTM [2003]. Standard Nos. E1613, E1741, E1775, E1979, E2051. In: Annual Book of ASTM Standards,
Vol. 04.11. W. Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International.
[11] ASTM [2003]. Standard No. D1193: Specification for reagent water. In: Annual Book of ASTM Standards,
Vol. 11.01. W. Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International.
[12] ASTM [2011]. Standard No. E1792: Standard specification for wipe sampling materials for lead in
surface dust. In: Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Vol. 04.11. W. Conshohocken, PA: ASTM
International.
[13] Ashley K, Harper M [2013]. Closed-face filter cassette (CFC) sampling-guidance on procedures for
inclusion of material adhering to internal sampler surfaces. J Occup Environ Hyg 10:D29-D33.
Disclaimer: Mention of any company or product does not constitute endorsement by NIOSH. In addition,
citations to websites external to NIOSH do not constitute NIOSH endorsement of the sponsoring
organizations or their programs or products. Furthermore, NIOSH is not responsible for the content of these
websites. All web addresses referenced in this document were accessible as of the publication date.
SAMPLING MEASUREMENT
APPLICABILITY: The working range is 0.22 µg/m³ to 333 µg/m³ for a 1200 L air sample. This method may be used for the
determination of soluble forms of hexavalent chromium. Insoluble hexavalent chromium requires modification of the
method using ultrasonic extraction with carbonate buffer.
INTERFERENCES: Interferences from reducing agents such as divalent iron are minimized to the extent possible by the
alkaline ultrasonic and solid phase extraction procedures. Interferences from other metal cations are eliminated by solid
phase extraction [5]. Some reduction can occur on the filter during sampling, and is usually due to the presence of divalent
iron, organic material, and/or acidic conditions [6]. Reduction of hexavalent chromium can occur over time on any filter
type, and is especially problematic on MCE filters [7]. However, the use of MCE and PTFE filters has been found to be accept-
able for field use, where performance has been found to be equivalent to that of PVC filters [3]. During ultrasonic extraction,
oxidation of trivalent chromium in solution to hexavalent chromium is prevented by the use of an ammonium buffer [8].
OTHER METHODS: This method is designed to be used in the field, but can also be utilized in the fixed-site laboratory. It
is an alternative to laboratory methods such as NIOSH method 7605 or OSHA method ID-215 (hot plate digestion and ion
chromatography). NIOSH method 7600 is a similar procedure, but no separation step is used. A field method not involving
hexavalent chromium isolation, MDHS method 61, has been promulgated by the British Health and Safety Executive [9].
REAGENTS: EQUIPMENT:
compounds and solutions. All sample preparation should be carried out in a well-ventilated area
(vacuum hood preferable); forced ventilation should be used if no hood is available. Methanol and
acetonitrile solutions are flammable and must be handled carefully, i.e., wearing of impermeable
gloves and avoidance of vapors. To the extent possible, solutions should be prepared in the
laboratory before taking them to the field. Concentrated hydrochloric acid is highly corrosive
and ammonium hydroxide is a respiratory irritant. All work with these compounds should be
performed in a hood. Use proper protective clothing including gloves, safety glasses, and laboratory
coat. Potassium chromate is a strong oxidizer with risk of fire and explosion upon contact with
combustible substances and reducing agents.
SAMPLING:
SAMPLE PREPARATION:
5. Add 10 mL of extraction solution (weak buffer) to each 15 mL centrifuge tube containing the filter
sample. Ensure that the filter is covered by the extraction solution. If necessary, push the filter down
with a clean glass or plastic rod to immerse the entire filter. Cap and label the tubes.
6. Place sample tubes in the ultrasonic bath (sonicator). The water level in the bath should be higher
than the liquid level in the centrifuge tube. Sonicate for 30 min.
NOTE: Numerous centrifuge tubes containing sample filters can be subjected to sonication at one
time, depending upon the size of the ultrasonic bath. Ensure that the bath is warm (but
< 40 °C).
7. Set up the solid phase extraction manifold.
a. Place disposable solid phase extraction (SPE) cartridges in each port, and place scintillation vials
beneath the cartridges. Label the cartridges.
b. Attach the vacuum pump to the SPE manifold.
c. To condition SPE cartridges, pipet 3 mL of methanol into each cartridge, and evacuate. Then
pipet 3 mL of extraction solution into each cartridge, and evacuate. Repeat.
8. Extract hexavalent chromium from sample solution.
a. Pipet 3 mL to 5 mL of each ultrasonicated sample solution from the centrifuge tubes into the
disposable SPE cartridge. Dispose of the pipet tip.
b. Adjust the vacuum to obtain an extraction rate of about one drop per second (approximately
27 kPa or 203 mmHg; no more than 34 kPa or 254 mmHg). Manually tighten cartridges by
twisting, if necessary, to slow down the rate of liquid dripping.
NOTE 1: For samples in which the expected hexavalent chromium concentration is high,
smaller aliquots (1 mL to 2 mL) should be dispensed into the SPE cartridges to prevent
breakthrough. High concentration of hexavalent chromium can be assessed visually by
its orange color.
NOTE 2: For samples having low hexavalent chromium concentration, additional 3 mL to 5 mL
aliquots of ultrasonicated sample solution can be loaded onto SPE cartridges (step 8.a).
In this manner, the cartridge can be used to preconcentrate hexavalent chromium.
c. When it appears the solution has passed through all the cartridges, increase the vacuum to
ensure that all solution passes through the cartridges. This step selectively binds hexavalent
chromium to the stationary phase of each cartridge.
d. To remove residue of trivalent chromium and other potential interferences, reduce the vacuum
to 0. Add 1 mL distilled or deionized water to each cartridge, adjust vacuum to obtain 1 drop per
second (about 27 kPa or 203 mmHg), then reduce vacuum to 0 when completed.
e. Remove the scintillation vials beneath the cartridges and discard.
NOTE: This solution contains unwanted fractions that should contain no hexavalent chromium.
9. Place clean, labeled scintillation vials beneath correct cartridges in the SPE manifold.
a. Add 9 mL of the elution solution (elution buffer) to each cartridge to elute hexavalent chromium,
and repeat steps 8.b, 8.c, and 8.d.
b. Remove the scintillation vials, and cap them. Dispose of the used SPE cartridges.
NOTE: The scintillation vials now contain extracted and isolated hexavalent chromium, which is
ready for subsequent analysis.
10. Uncap each scintillation vial containing extracted and isolated hexavalent chromium, and add
100 µL hydrochloric acid.
11. Add 2 mL DPC complexation solution, recap vials, and mix thoroughly. Allow to stand for at least 5
min for complete color development.
12. Calibrate daily with at least 6 working standards over the range of 0 µg/mL to 2 µg/mL of hexavalent
chromium per standard.
a. To 10 mL volumetric flasks containing about 5 mL of elution solution (strong buffer), pipet known
volumes (10 µL to 200 µL) of hexavalent chromium calibration stock solution (100 µg/mL) to
produce concentrations of 0.1 µg/mL, 0.2 µg/mL, 0.5 µg/mL, 1.0 µg/mL, and 2.0 µg/mL. Add
100 µL of hydrochloric acid and 2 mL of DPC complexation solution to each. Dilute to the mark
with elution solution and mix thoroughly.
NOTE: A minimum of two of the concentration levels (e.g., 0.1 µg/mL and 1.0 µg/mL) should be
run at least in triplicate.
b. Prepare a blank by pipetting 100 µL of hydrochloric acid and 2 mL of DPC complexation solution
into 10 mL volumetric flask containing about 5 mL of the elution solution (elution buffer); dilute
to the mark with elution solution and mix thoroughly.
c. Analyze the calibration solutions and the blank (steps 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, and 20).
13. Analyze at least two field blanks, one field blank per twenty samples (steps 10, 11, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19,
and 20). Also analyze at least three of the calibration solutions in triplicate.
14. Prepare a calibration graph of absorbance vs, hexavalent chromium concentration.
NOTE: As an alternative to steps 12, 13, and 14, the standard addition approach can be used [11].
MEASUREMENT:
15. Turn on the spectrophotometer, and allow for an appropriate warm-up period.
16. Set the spectrophotometer to 540 nm. Set portable spectrophotometer parameters according to the
manufacturer’s instructions and the conditions on page 7703-1.
17. Rinse the quartz cuvette three times with distilled or deionized water, then rinse with blank solution.
18. Measure the blank. Adjust the spectrometer to zero absorbance.
19. Uncap the scintillation vial containing the sample solution to be analyzed.
a. Condition the cuvette by filling with the solution to be analyzed, and discard the solution.
b. Refill the cuvette with the sample solution to be analyzed.
c. Place the cuvette in the spectrophotometer.
NOTE: Wipe any extra moisture or liquid off the sides of the cuvette with a dry laboratory wipe,
and take care to handle the cuvette only by the frosted sides.
20. Analyze samples, standards, and blanks. Record the absorbance.
NOTE: If the absorbance value is greater than 2 absorbance units, dilute the solution to be analyzed
with elution solution (strong buffer) and reanalyze.
CALCULATIONS:
21. From the calibration graph, determine the mass of hexavalent chromium in each sample, (µg),
and in the average field blank, (µg).
NOTE: If standard addition method was used, make appropriate adjustments from the calibration
graph obtained [11].
22. Calculate the concentration, , of hexavalent chromium in the air volume sampled, (L):
, µg/L or mg/m³.
NOTE 1: If samples were diluted during sample preparation, be sure to account for the dilution
factor in the calculation.
NOTE 2: If the hexavalent chromium concentration is to be reported as chromic acid ( ), multiply
by 1.92 (MW of chromic acid divided by AW of chromium).
EVALUATION OF METHOD:
This method was evaluated in the laboratory with spiked filters [3,4,5] and a certified reference
material containing a known loading of hexavalent chromium [4]. This certified reference material
(CRM) is European Commission, Institute for Reference Materials and Measurements (EC/IRMM) CRM
545, hexavalent chromium and total chromium in welding dust loaded on a glass fiber filter [12]. The
method has also been evaluated in the field, where samples collected during aircraft maintenance
operations were analyzed on-site [3,4]. The accuracy was estimated using the protocol summarized in a
NIOSH technical report [13].
Alternative filter types can also be used, e.g., PTFE, binder-free glass fiber filters, or quartz fiber
filters. Filter materials should be tested before use to ensure hexavalent chromium stability. Filters can
be pretreated with base to minimize hexavalent chromium reduction during sampling in high-iron or
acidic environments [6].
REFERENCES:
[1] NIOSH [1994]. Chromium, hexavalent: Method 7600. In: Eller PM, Cassinelli ME, eds. NIOSH manual
of analytical methods. 4th ed. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health,
DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 94-113 [www.cdc.gov/niosh/nmam/].
[2] ASTM [2013]. Standard test method for the determination of hexavalent chromium in workplace
air by ion chromatography and spectrophotometric measurement using 1,5-diphenylcarbazide:
method D6832-13. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International. DOI: 10.1520/D6832-13.
[3] Marlow D, Wang J, Wise TJ, Ashley K [2000]. Field test of a portable method for the determination of
hexavalent chromium in workplace air. Am Lab 32(15):26–28.
[4] Wang J, Ashley K, Marlow D, England EC, Carlton G [1999]. Field method for the determination of
hexavalent chromium by ultrasonication and strong anion-exchange solid-phase extraction. Anal
Chem 71(5):1027–1032.
[5] Wang J, Ashley K, Kennedy ER, Neumeister C [1997]. Determination of hexavalent chromium
in industrial hygiene samples using ultrasonic extraction and flow injection analysis. Analyst
122(11):1307–1312.
[6] Foster RD, Howe AM, Cottrell SJ, Northage C [1996]. An investigation of the exposure of workers to
hexavalent chromium in the air of plating works. Sheffield, UK: Health and Safety Executive, Health
and Safety Laboratory, HSL Report IR/L/95/15.
[7] Molina D, Abell MT [1987]. An ion chromatographic method for insoluble chromates in paint
aerosol. Am Ind Hyg Assoc J 48(10):830–835.
[8] Ndung’u K, Djane N-K, Malcus F, Mathiasson L [1999]. Ultrasonic extraction of hexavalent chromium
in solid samples followed by automated analysis using a combination of supported liquid
membrane extraction and UV detection in a flow system. Analyst 124(9):1367–1372.
[9] Health and Safety Executive [1988]. Total hexavalent chromium compounds in air—colorimetric
laboratory method using 1,5-diphenylcarbazide: MDHS 61. In: Methods for the determination of
hazardous substances. London: Health and Safety Executive.
[10] NIOSH [2013]. Criteria for a recommended standard: occupational exposure to hexavalent
chromium. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, DHHS (NIOSH)
Publication No. 2013-128 [www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/2013-128/].
[11] Skoog DA, West DM, Holler FJ [1988]. Fundamentals of analytical chemistry. New York: W.B.
Saunders.
[12] EC/IRMM [1997]. Certificate of analysis, CRM 545: and total leachable in welding dust
loaded on a filter. Brussels: Commission of the European Communities, Institute for Reference
Materials and Measurements.
[13] NIOSH [1995]. Guidelines for air sampling and analytical method development and evaluation.
By Kennedy ER, Fischbach TJ, Song R, Eller PM, Shulman SA. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute for
Occupational Safety and Health, DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 95-117 [www.cdc.gov/niosh/
docs/95-117/pdfs/95-117.pdf ].
Kevin Ashley, Ph.D., NIOSH/DART; Jin Wang, Ph.D., NIOSH/HELD; David Marlow, NIOSH/DART; James
Boiano, CIH, NIOSH/DSHEFS.
DISCLAIMER: Mention of any company or product does not constitute endorsement by NIOSH. In addition, citations to
websites external to NIOSH do not constitute NIOSH endorsement of the sponsoring organizations or their programs or
products. Furthermore, NIOSH is not responsible for the content of these websites. All web addresses referenced in this
document were accessible as of the publication date.
OSHA: 2 μg/m3, ceiling 5 μg/m3, peak 25 μg/m3 PROPERTIES: solid, d 1.85 g/mL, MP 1,278 °C, VP 0 kPa
MSHA: 2 μg/m3 (0 mm Hg) @ 25 °C
DOE: 2 μg/m3 (action level 0.2 μg/m3)
NIOSH REL: 0.5 μg/m3
OTHER OELs: see Table 5
SAMPLING MEASUREMENT
SAMPLER: FILTER (mixed cellulose ester or nylon TECHNIQUE: UV/VIS FLUOROMETRY
membrane, 0.8 μm pore size, 25- or 37-
mm diameter) ANALYTE: complex of hydroxybenzoquinoline
sulfonate (HBQS) with beryllium
FLOW RATE: (1 to 4) L/min
DISSOLUTION: ammonium bifluoride (aqueous), 10 g/L
VOL-MIN: 240 L
-MAX: 2,000 L DETECTION
SOLUTION: contains 63.4 μmol/L HBQS, 2.5 mmol/L
SHIPMENT: routine EDTA, and 50.8 mmol/L lysine
monohydrochloride (optional); pH
SAMPLE adjusted to 12.85 with 10 mol/L NaOH,
STABILITY: stable as necessary
BLANKS: 3 field blanks min. DETECTOR: excitation, 360 nm to 390 nm; emission,
integrated between 470 and 480 nm
ACCURACY (λmax ≈ 475 nm)
RANGE
STUDIED: 0.0001 to 6 μg per filter [1,2] CALIBRATION: beryllium standard solutions
APPLICABILITY: The working range of the method is 0.0005 μg/m3 to 0.6 μg/m3 for an air sample of 1,000 L. The analysis is for
total beryllium and is not compound specific.
INTERFERENCES: Minor interference from iron can result if iron concentrations are high. Samples high in iron demonstrate a
yellow or gold coloration. This interference can be minimized by allowing the solution to sit for at least two hours, during which
time the solution clears, and then filtering the sample extract before use. An alternative method is to filter the solution after 30
minutes of standing through a hydrophilic filter of pore size of 0.2 µm or smaller.
OTHER METHODS: Method 7300 (hot plate digestion and inductively coupled plasma atomic emission spectrometry) is an
alternative procedure for the determination of elemental beryllium [3], but with higher detection limits. ASTM method D7202 is a
similar procedure to detect elemental beryllium by fluorescence [4].
REAGENTS: EQUIPMENT:
SPECIAL PRECAUTIONS: Wear appropriate personal protection during sampling activities and analysis. It
is essential that suitable gloves, eye protection, laboratory coat, etc., be used when working with the
chemicals. Perform sample preparation and analysis in a clean, well-ventilated area that is well removed
from any possible beryllium contamination. Any area of skin affected by the dissolution or detection
solutions must be immediately washed with plenty of water. Ammonium bifluoride will etch glass, so it is
essential that all ammonium bifluoride solutions be contained in plastic labware. Avoid exposure by
contact with skin or eyes, or by inhalation of vapor.
SAMPLING:
SAMPLE PREPARATION:
4. Add 5 mL of the dissolution solution (ammonium bifluoride, 10 g/L) to each 15 mL centrifuge tube
containing an air filter sample, and cap each tube.
5. Place each tube into a mechanical rotator, and rotate for at least 30 min.
NOTE: Rotator may also be substituted by a shaker or an agitator as long as the dissolution solution
wets the filter well. Sonication has also been shown to be effective. For dissolution of refractory
materials such as high-fired beryllium oxide, agitation of the dissolution solution with the media
must be replaced by heating to 85 °C for 60 minutes or more. Any standard dissolution process
is particle-size dependent [6]. The two sources of BeO used to validate the method are
described in the backup data report [7].
6. Filter each solution with a hydrophilic polypropylene syringe filter into a clean tube.
NOTE: This tube should be able to accept a cap so that the solution may be saved and used later for
reanalysis if required.
7. Pipet 0.1 mL of each sample filtrate into cuvettes containing 1.9 mL of the detection solution. Cap and
mix briefly.
NOTE: The above procedure is typically used to analyze a range of 0.05 μg to 6 μg of beryllium on the
sampling media. Alternative ratios of dissolution solution and detection solution may be used
for analyzing alternative ranges of beryllium concentration. To test a range of 0.005 μg to 0.4 μg
of beryllium on the sampling media, 0.4 mL of the sample filtrate is added to 1.6 mL of the
detection solution in the cuvettes. The lysine-free dye solution may also be used for obtaining
even lower detection limits at a dilution ratio of 3×, where 1.33 ml of the dye solution is mixed
with 0.67 ml of the filtered solution extracts (Table 3) and beryllium in the range of 0.0005 μg to
0.4 μg may be determined.
NOTE: If high iron or titanium concentration is suspected or is evident (owing to the appearance of
suspended precipitate), allow the solution to settle and filter the solution using a hygroscopic
syringe filter (e.g., polyethersulfone, or hydrophilic polypropylene).
NOTE: The stability of the detection and the dissolution solution is more than six months and of the
mixed measurement solution comprising both is greater than 30 days. The solutions must be
kept in sealed containers, and the detection and mixed solutions must be stored away from
light.
NOTE: If the samples are suspected of having a contaminant that fluoresces and has excitation and
emission spectra that overlap with that of the signal produced by the fluorescent dye bound to
beryllium, then this contaminant needs to be removed. The presence of such a contaminant can
be verified by subjecting the filtered sample to fluorescence excitation after the extraction step
(without adding the fluorescent dye). If a fluorescence signal is detected, then that signal is
ascribed to the presence of a fluorescent contaminant. To remove the contaminant, high-purity
activated charcoal is added to the beryllium extraction solution (~10 mg/ml) and the extraction
procedure is carried out at elevated temperature (80 to 90 °C for at least 45 minutes). If the
beryllium extraction procedure has already been performed, then after the addition of activated
charcoal, the extraction process is repeated at the elevated temperature. The solution is filtered
to remove the activated charcoal before adding this to the detection solution to make the
measurement solution. Details of this process have been published [8].
8. Calibrate the fluorometer with beryllium stock standard solutions. Prepare a calibration graph of
fluorescence intensity vs. beryllium concentration (ng/mL) in the stock standard.
NOTE: To test a range of 0.05 μg to 6 μg of beryllium on the sampling media, beryllium stock standard
solutions are made up using beryllium spectrometric standards diluted with the ammonium
bifluoride dissolution solution. A recommended series of stock standard solutions is (800, 200,
40, 10, and 0) ng/mL. As with the samples, the stock standards are prepared for analysis by
adding 0.1 mL of beryllium stock standard into 1.9 mL of detection solution (20-fold dilution).
Please see Table 1. Either of the two detection solutions may be used.
NOTE: To test a range of 0.005 μg to 0.4 μg of beryllium on the sampling media, a recommended series
of stock standard solutions is (80, 20, 4, 1, and 0) ng/mL. These standards with lower beryllium
concentration can be prepared by 10-fold dilution of the stock standards mentioned in the note
above. As with the samples, these stock standards are prepared for analysis by adding 0.4 mL of
beryllium stock standard into 1.6 mL of detection solution (5-fold dilution). Please see Table 2.
Either of the two detection solutions may be used.
NOTE: When using the lysine-free dye solution ONLY, To test a range can be tested of 0.0005 to 0.4 μg
of beryllium on the media using a recommended series of stock solutions is (0, 0.15, 0.3, 0.6 and
2.4) ng/ml. These standards with lower beryllium concentration can be prepared by dilution of
the stock standards mentioned in the note above. The standards are prepared for analysis by
adding 0.67 mL of beryllium stock standard into 1.33 mL of detection solution (3-fold dilution).
This dilution will result in 0, 0.05, 0.1, 0.2 and 0.8 ppb of beryllium in these standards. Please see
Table 3. MCE air filters and cellulosic capsules with MCE filters were spiked with a solution of
beryllium acetate and analyzed in triplicate after extracting beryllium in 5ml of 1% ABF solution
at 85oC for 60 minutes and then mixed with lysine-free dye solution in a 3-fold dilution. The
results are shown in Table 4. The difference in the average fluorescent signals from blanks and
the 0 ppb standard were subtracted from the fluorescent readings of the spiked filters.
NOTE: If alternative ratios of dissolution solution and detection solution are used for sample
preparation, then a similar ratio for calibration solutions is required.
9. Analyze a stock standard, a reagent blank, and a media blank at least once every 20 samples. Ensure
that the concentration range of the stock standards spans the beryllium levels found in the samples.
10. Analyze one media spike and one quality control blind spike per 20 samples (minimum of three each
per sample set) to insure that percent recovery is in control (e.g., 100 ± 15). Correct sample results for
the average recovery if it differs significantly from 100 %.
NOTE: If it is suspected that beryllium oxide may be present, then it is recommended to use beryllium
oxide for media and blind spikes.
MEASUREMENT:
11. For each sample, obtain the fluorescence intensity at λmax or with optical filter for appropriate wave-
length.
12. If the fluorescence response for any of the samples is above the range of responses for the stock
standards, dilute the sample filtrate with dissolution solution, reanalyze, and apply the appropriate
dilution factor (D) in subsequent calculations.
CALCULATIONS:
13. Obtain the solution concentration for each sample filtrate, Cs (ng/mL), and the average media blank, Cb
(ng/mL) from the calibration graph.
14. Using the dissolution volumes (normally 5 mL) of sample, Vs (mL), and media blank, Vb (mL), calculate
the concentration, C (μg/m3), of Be in the air volume sampled, V (L), while accounting for the dilution
factor (D).
NOTE: Tables 1, 2 and 3 can be used for correlating the amount of beryllium in the sampling media
with the concentrations of beryllium in solution. Table 1 is for testing media with 0.2 μg to 4 μg
of beryllium at 20-fold dilution; Table 2 is for testing media with 0.02 μg to 0.4 μg of beryllium at
5-fold dilution; and Table 3 is for testing media with 0.0005 μg to 0.012 μg of beryllium at 3-fold
dilution. Lysine-free dye solution may be used for any of these dilutions, but for 3x dilution,
lysine-free dye solution must be used.
Table 1. Correlation of amount of Be in sampling media with Be concentration in stock standard and
Be concentration as analyzed, assuming 0.1 mL of sample or stock standard is added to 1.9 mL of
detection solution (20-fold dilution).
Be concentration in stock Be concentration as analyzed Amount of Be in the media*
standard (ng/mL) (ng/mL) (ng)
0 0 0
10 0.5 50
40 2 200
200 10 1000
800 40 4000
*Equals stock standard Be concentration (ng/mL) × volume (5 mL) of dissolution solution used to extract
media.
Table 2. Correlation of amount of Be in sampling media with Be concentration in stock standard and
Be concentration as analyzed, assuming 0.4 mL of sample or stock standard is added to 1.6 mL of
detection solution (5-fold dilution).
Be concentration in stock Be concentration as Amount of Be in the media*
standard (ng/mL) analyzed (ng/mL) (ng)
0 0 0
1 0.2 5
4 1 25
20 4 100
80 16 400
*Equals stock standard Be concentration (ng/mL) × volume (5 mL) of dissolution solution used to extract
media.
Table 3. Correlation of amount of Be in sampling media with Be concentration in stock standard and
Be concentration as analyzed, assuming 0.67 mL of sample or stock standard is added to 1.33 mL of
lysine-free dye solution (3-fold dilution).
Be concentration in stock Be concentration as Amount of Be in the media*
standard (ng/mL) analyzed (ng/mL) (ng)
0 0 0
0.15 0.05 0. 75
0.3 0.1 1.5
0.6 0.2 3
2.4 0.8 12
*Equals stock standard Be concentration (ng/mL) × volume (5 mL) of dissolution solution used to extract
media.
Table 4: Analysis of beryllium spiked MCE filters and cellulosic filter capsule inserts using 3-fold
dilution of the extraction solution with lysine-free dye solution. Beryllium concentration of standard
solutions after mixing with the dye solutions were 0, 0.05, 0.1, 0.2 and 0.8ng/ml. Samples analyzed
in triplicate, averages and standard deviations shown.
Nominal Be concentration Be concentration as analyzed Be concentration as analyzed
on the spiked filter, µg on the spiked MCE filter (µg) on the spiked cellulosic
internal capsule insert (µg)
0 0.0000±1.2E-5 -0.0001±3.7E-5
0.0005 0.00044±1.9E-5 0.0005±3.6E-5
0.001 0.0009±2.4E-5 0.0009±2.6E-5
0.002 0.0018±4.0E-5 0.0020±1.1E-4
0.005 0.0043±1.3E-5 0.0045±6.4E-4
0.05 0.045±5.5E-4 0.046±1.0E-3
0.48 0.42±3.5E-3 0.45±4.0E-3
EVALUATION OF METHOD:
The method was evaluated [1,2,7] in accordance with published guidelines [9]. Experiments were
conducted using an Ocean Optics® portable fluorescence device with the following components:
USB 200 spectrometer with spectral grating #2 (UV/Vis 600), LS-1 lamp (380 nm) in LS-450 housing,
UV-2 casting, OFLV linear filter 200-850, L2 collection lens and slit-200.
Tests were carried out in relative irradiance mode using 2- or 5-second integration times.
The method was evaluated using beryllium oxide spiked onto mixed cellulose ester (MCE) filters at levels of
(0, 0.02, 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4, 1.5, 3.0, and 6.0) μg (five samples at each level) [2,6].
Long-term stability of samples was verified from spikes (number [n] = 30) of 0.1 μg Be on MCE filters. Sam-
ples were analyzed at day one (n = 12) and then one week (n = 6), ten days (n = 3), two weeks (n = 3), three
weeks (n = 3), and one month (n = 3) after spiking. No diminution of fluorescence signal was observed from
samples prepared and analyzed after having been stored for up to thirty days.
Interference tests were carried out using solutions of 0 nmol/L, 100 nmol/L, and 1.0 μmol/L Be in the pres-
ence of 0.4 mmol/L Al, Ca, Co, Cu, Fe, Ti, Li, Ni, Pb, Sn, U, V, W, or Zn (separate experiments were carried out
for each potential interferant). Interlaboratory evaluations of the method were also performed [10, 11].
The method using the lysine-free detection solution on MCE filters and SOLU-SERT™ internal capsules was
compared and tested (with the detection solution containing lysine for comparison) in Table 4 and this was
carried out on a Glomax™ spectrometer (From Turner Biosystems, Sunnyvale, CA) with an emission filter of
475 ± 5 nm and the excitation was at 360 nm.
REFERENCES:
[1] Agrawal A, Cronin J, Tonazzi J, McCleskey TM, Ehler DS, Minogue EM, Whitney G, Brink C, Burrell AK,
Warner B, Goldcamp MJ, Schlecht PC, Sonthalia P, Ashley K [2006]. Validation of a standardized por-
table fluoresence method for determining trace beryllium in workplace air and wipe samples. J
Environ Monit 8: 619- 624.
[2] Ashley K, Agrawal A, Cronin J, Tonazzi J, McCleskey TM, Burrell AK, Ehler DS [2007]. Ultra-trace deter-
mination pf beryllium in occupational hygiene samples by ammonium bifluoride extraction and
fluorescence detection using hydroxybenzoquinoline sulfonate. Anal Chim Acta 584: 281-286.
[3] NIOSH [1994]. Elements by ICP (nitric/perchloric acid ashing): Method 7300 (supplement issued
3/15/03). In: NIOSH manual of analytical methods. 4th ed. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services, Public Health Service, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National
Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 94–113.
[4] ASTM [2015]. D7202 – Standard test method for determination of beryllium in the workplace using
field-based extraction and fluorescence detection. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International.
[6] Goldcamp MJ, Goldcamp DM, Ashley K, Fernback JE, Agrawal A, Millson M, Marlow D, Harrison K
[2009]. Extraction of beryllium from refractory beryllium oxide with dilute ammonium bifluoride and
determination by fluorescence – A multi-parameter performance evaluation. J Occup Environ Hyg 6:
735-744.
[7] McCleskey TM, Agrawal A, Ashley K [2007]. Backup data—method nos. 7704 and 9110 / beryllium,
Issue 1. NIOSH Docket Office, Cincinnati, Ohio, e-mail: NIOSHDocket@cdc.gov.
[8] Agrawal A, Adams LL, Agrawal A, Cronin JP, Tonazzi JCL, Duran BL [2011]. Beryllium measurement by
optical fluorescence in samples contaminated by fluorescent impurities. J ASTM Int 8(8), 14 pp. [JAI
103411].
[9] Kennedy ER, Fischbach TJ, Song R, Eller PM, Shulman SA [1995]. Guidelines for air sampling and ana-
lytical method development and evaluation. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services, Public Health Service, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute for
Occupational Safety and Health, DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 95–117.
[10] Ashley K, McCleskey TM, Brisson MJ, Goodyear G, Cronin J, Agrawal A [2005]. Interlaboratory
evaluation of a portable fluorescence method for the measurement of trace beryllium in the
workplace. J ASTM Int 2(9), 8 pp., Paper ID JAI13156.
[11] Oatts TJ, Hicks CE, Adams AR, Brisson MJ, Youmans-McDonald LD, Hoover MD, Ashley K [2012].
Preparation, certification and interlaboratory analysis of workplace air filters spiked with high-fired
beryllium oxide. J Environ Monit 14: 391-401.
T. Mark McCleskey, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM; Kevin Ashley, CDC/NIOSH, Division of
Applied Research and Technology; Anoop Agrawal, Berylliant Inc., Tucson, AZ.
Disclaimer: Mention of any company or product does not constitute endorsement by NIOSH. In addition,
citations to websites external to NIOSH do not constitute NIOSH endorsement of the sponsoring
organizations or their programs or products. Furthermore, NIOSH is not responsible for the content of
these websites. All web addresses referenced in this document were accessible as of the publication date.
U. S. OELs
OSHA : 2.5 mg/m3 (fluorides); 3 ppm (HF)
NIOSH: 2.5 mg/m3 (fluorides);
3 ppm (HF), STEL (HF): 6 ppm
Other OELs: [1,2]
SAMPLING MEASUREMENT
SAMPLER: PRE-FILTER, cellulose nitrate, 0.8 µm pore size, TECHNIQUE: ION CHROMATOGRAPHY (IC) with
37-mm diameter, + TREATED FILTER, cellulose conductivity detection
nitrate impregnated with Na2CO3, 0.8 µm
pore size, 37-mm diameter, separated by a ANALYTE: Fluoride ion (F-)
chemically inert spacer
EXTRACTION: Aqueous solution of sodium carbonate /
FLOW RATE: 1 to 2 L/min sodium hydrogen carbonate
VOL-MIN: 15 L INJECTION
-MAX: 1000 L VOLUME: 50 µL
OVERALL
PRECISION*( ŜrT ): Fluorides, 0.074; HF, 0.125 [5,6]
EXPANDED
UNCERTAINTY*: less than 20% for F-;
less than 22% for HF [4,5]
*Accuracy calculations were determined using reference 4
rather than the traditional NIOSH accuracy criterion.
APPLICABILITY: The working range is (at least) 0.1 to 8 mg/sample for a 250 Liter air sample.
INTERFERENCES: Co-sampled formate and acetate compounds in the work environment can cause a positive interference;
thus detection by ion selective electrodes is a suitable alternative if airborne formate and acetate are expected. Cations that
form insoluble fluorides, such as Ca2+, Fe3+, and Al3+ can cause negative interferences. Recovery of gaseous HF is reduced at high
humidity.
OTHER METHODS: This method updates NIOSH 7906 [7] by providing full method accuracy information,
and specifies the use of an impregnated filter instead of a treated cellulose pad. The procedure, which
is consistent with ISO 21438-3 [6], replaces NIOSH 7903 [8] for the determination of particulate fluorides
and gaseous HF in workplace air samples. The advantages of this method are that it can allow for the
collection of the inhalable fraction of particulate fluorides by means of the pre-filter (housed within an
optional inhalable sampler) and it can provide for lower limits of detection and quantitation for gaseous
HF due to higher sampling flow rates. NIOSH 7902 [9] and ASTM D4765 [10] are alternative methods that
are recommended for insoluble fluorides, which rely on detection of F- by ion-selective electrode.
REAGENTS: EQUIPMENT:
1. Water, deionized (DI), ≥18 MΩ-cm resistivity 1. Sampler: 37-mm diameter cellulose
2. Sodium carbonate (Na2CO3), anhydrous, nitrate pre-filter, 0.8 µm pore size, 37-mm
American Chemical Society (ACS) analytical impregnated cellulose nitrate filter. The
grade untreated filter collects particulate fluorides,
3. Sodium hydrogen carbonate (NaHCO3), ACS while the impregnated filter collects HF
analytical grade vapor. Arrange the filters serially (with the
4. Filter impregnation solution (0.75 M Na2CO3); pre-filter upstream of the impregnated filter)
Dissolve 7.95 g Na2CO3 in deionized water in a 37-mm diameter 3-piece chemically inert
and swirl to mix. Then bring to 100 mL in a cassette filter holder.
volumetric flask, stopper and mix thoroughly. 2. Personal sampling pump, 1 to 2 L/min, with
5. Eluent stock solution: 0.8 M Na2CO3 / 0.1 M flexible connecting tubing
NaHCO3; Dissolve 16.96 g Na2CO3 and 1.68 g 3. Ion chromatograph (IC), with pre-column (50
NaHCO3 in deionized water and swirl to mix. mm by 4.0 mm), anion-exchange column (200
Then bring to 200 mL in a volumetric flask, mm by 4.0 mm), suppressor column (4 mm)
stopper and mix thoroughly. and conductivity detector; and connected to
6. Eluent solution: 8 mM Na2CO3 / 1 mM NaHCO3; data processing unit
Transfer 10 mL of 0.8 M Na2CO3 / 0.1 M 4. Ultrasonic bath
NaHCO3stock solution to a 1 Liter volumetric 5. Vessels, 10-mL, inert plastic, with screw caps
flask, dilute to the mark with deionized water, 6. Volumetric flasks, 25- to 1000 mL
stopper and mix thoroughly. Prepare fresh 7. Pipets, 50- to 10000 µL
eluent solution weekly. 8. Beakers, 25- to 100 mL
7. Fluoride (F-) standard solution, 1000 mg/L 9. Filtration apparatus, with filter funnel
8. Calibration stock solution, 100 mg/mL (as 10. Disposable filters, cellulosic, 0.45 µm pore size
the anion): Place a 10 mL aliquot of fluoride 11. Styrene-based sulfonic acid resin cartridges
standard solution into a 100 mL volumetric 12. Water purification system, to prepare greater
flask, dilute to the mark and mix thoroughly. than or equal to 18 MΩ-cm resistivity
The solution is stable for at least 4 weeks at deionized water
room temperature. 13. Bottles, polyethylene, 100 mL
9. To prepare the impregnated filter, evenly 14. Syringes, plastic, 5 mL and/or 10 mL
distribute 120 µL 0.75 M Na2CO3 over the 15. Syringe filter cartridges, with 0.8-µm pore size
surface of the filter and allow to dry at room polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) membrane
temperature for several hours. filters
16. Micro-syringes, 50 µL, with 60 mm x 0.6 mm
*See Special Precautions needles
17. Auto-sampler vials, polypropylene, 0.75 mL
capacity.
SPECIAL PRECAUTIONS: Acids, particularly HF, are extremely corrosive to skin, eyes, and mucous
membranes. HF will attack glass. Plastic labware is recommended. Wear gloves, lab coat, and safety
glasses while handling acids. All work should be performed with adequate ventilation for personnel
and equipment. It is imperative that acid be added to water in order to avoid a violent exothermic
reaction [11,12].
1. Prior to sampling, load each clean sampler, first with a sampling (impregnated) filter, then with a pre-
filter, separating the filters with a spacer. Ensure that the configuration in which the filters are loaded
leads to the sampled air passing first through the pre-filter and then through the sampling filter.
2. Calibrate each personal sampling pump with a representative sampler in the line.
3. Sample at an accurately known flow rate between 1 to 2 mL/min for a total sample size of 15 to
1000 L. Avoid sampler overloading.
4. After sampling, remove the filters from the cassette and place them in screw-cap plastic vessels. For
the pre-filter portion: With approximately 2 mL eluent(extraction) solution, rinse material from the
inside surfaces of the pre-filter portion of the cassette into the vessel. Add eluent solution into the
vessels until a final volume of 10 mL is reached.
5. Submit at least three blank untreated filters and three blank impregnated filters as field blanks for
each set of samples collected per day. Handle these in the same way as the field samples; i.e., place
each filter into a vessel, add 10 mL of eluent solution and ship it to the lab along with the remaining
samples.
6. Refrigerate all samples that are to be stored overnight (or longer) prior to shipment to the
laboratory. Ship all samples to the laboratory in accordance with established chain-of-custody
procedures [13].
7. Refrigerate the samples immediately upon receipt at the lab until ready for analysis.
8. Analyze samples within 2 weeks of receipt. The samples can be stored at room temperature for one
week; for longer storage, refrigerate the samples (4 °C).
9. Remove sample vessels from storage and bring them to room temperature.
10. Sonicate the samples in an ultrasonic bath for at least 15 minutes and allow to cool for at least 30
minutes.
11. Using 5- or 10-mL syringes, filter each sample extract solution through a PTFE filter and a styrene-
based sulfonic acid resin cartridge (follow the manufacturer’s instructions), discard the first two
milliliters and place the remaining solution in clean plastic vessels.
12. With dilution of the calibration stock solution in eluent solution, prepare calibration working
standard solutions covering the range of approximately 0.4 to 8 µg/mL of fluoride. Store working
standards in tightly sealed polyethylene bottles. Prepare fresh working standards biweekly.
13. Calibrate the ion chromatograph with at least six working standards covering the range of (at least)
0.4 to 8 µg/mL of fluoride per sample by preparing a calibration graph of anion peak height (mm or
µS) vs. concentration (µg/mL).
14. Analyze working standards together with samples, reagent blanks and field blanks at a frequency of
at least 1 per 20 samples (3 minimum of each). Cellulose nitrate filters demonstrate variable batch-
dependent blank values, thus media blank correction is essential.
MEASUREMENT
15. Set the ion chromatograph to recommended eluent flow rate, (e.g. 1.0 mL/min or approximately
13 MPa pressure), and other conditions as specified by the instrument manufacturer.
16. Inject a sample aliquot (e.g. 50 µL) into the chromatograph and measure the peak height of the
fluoride peak. If the peak height exceeds the linear calibration range, dilute with eluent, reanalyze
and apply the appropriate dilution factor in calculations.
CALCULATIONS:
17. Calculate the mass concentration of fluoride, C (mg/m3), in the air volume sampled, V (L):
(C1*V1*Fd)-(C0*V0)
C={ }*Fc
V* h
where:
C0 = mean concentration, in µg/mL, of fluoride in the field blank test solutions;
C1 = concentration, in µg/mL, of fluoride in the sample test solution;
V = volume, in liters, of the air sample;
V0 = volume, in mL, of the field blank test solutions;
V1 = volume, in mL, of the sample test solutions;
Fd = dilution factor for each sample test solution;
Fc = 1.053 = conversion factor to convert from fluoride to HF concentration (if applicable);
η = recovery.
EVALUATION OF METHOD:
This updates Issue 1, NIOSH 7906 [7], by providing full method accuracy information, and specifies
the use of an impregnated filter instead of a treated cellulose pad. The procedure described in
issue 2 of NIOSH 7906, which is consistent with ISO 21438-3 [6], also replaces NIOSH 7903 [8] for the
determination of particulate fluorides and gaseous HF in workplace air samples.
Recovery of 100% ± 2% was found after sample collection for both F- and HF [3,5,6], and no
breakthrough of HF was observed from impregnated filters for up to 5 mg fluoride [6,14]. The
component of the coefficient of variation of the method that arises from analytical variability,
determined from the analysis of spiked filters, was 2.4% to 5.6% for HF and 1.7% to 3.3% for fluorides
[3,6]. Laboratory testing with test atmospheres of HF (0.5 to 5 mg/m3) demonstrated quantitative
sampling efficiencies (greater than 95%) at relative humidity (RH) of 20% to 60%, but recovery was
around 60% at relative humidity of 80%.
The recovery of HF as an effect of relative humidity (RH) greater than 60 percent can be calculated as
follows (see also Figure 1):
[226.5-(2.0914 * RH)]
h=
100
No effect of humidity (RH from 20% to 80%) was observed on recovery of particulate fluoride over the
concentration range of 0.3 to 5 mg/m3. Results for repeatability and reproducibility of the method for
test atmospheres of hydrogen fluoride and fluoride aerosol (Relative humidity was approximately 50%)
are shown in Table I. The method has been successfully applied in independent investigations [14] and
has been promulgated as an International Standard [6]. The back-up data and user check reports are
references 3 and 14 respectively.
REFERENCES:
[1] ACGIH [2013]. TLVs and BEIs based on the documentation of the Threshold Limit Values for
chemical substances and physical agents and Biological Exposure Indices. Cincinnati, Ohio:
American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists. [www.acgih.org]. Data accessed April
2014.
[2] Institut fur Arbeitsschutz der Deutschen Gesetzlichen Unfallversicherung [2013]. GESTIS database
on international limit values for hazardous substances (German Social Accident Insurance). Sankt
Augustin, FRG: [http://www.dguv.de/ifa/GESTIS]. Data accessed April 2014.
[3] Breuer D, Gusbeth K [2005]. Hydrogen fluoride and fluorides. In: The MAK-Collection Part III: Air
monitoring methods. (Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft) Vol. 9. Weinheim, FRG: Wiley-VCH. pp.
105-118.
[4] ISO (International Organization for Standardization) [1995]. ISO Guide 98: Guide to the expression
of uncertainty in measurement. Geneva, Switzerland: ISO).
[5] Breuer D [2006]. Fluoride und fluorwasserstoff (Fluorides and hydrogen fluoride), in BGIA Working
Folder, Sheet No. 7512. Berlin, FRG: Erich-Schmidt Verlag. ISBN 3-503-020853.
[6] ISO (International Organization for Standardization) [2010]. ISO 21438-3, Workplace air —
Determination of inorganic acids by ion chromatography — Part 3: Hydrofluoric acid and
particulate fluorides. Geneva, Switzerland: International Organization for Standardization (ISO).
[7] NIOSH [1994]. Fluorides, aerosol and gas, by IC: Method 7906. In: Eller PM, Cassinelli ME, eds. NIOSH
Manual of analytical methods, 4th ed., Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety
and Health, DHHS (NIOSH). Publication No. 94-113. [www.cdc.gov/niosh/nmam].
[8] NIOSH [1994]. Acids, inorganic: Method 7903. In: Eller PM, Cassinelli ME, eds. NIOSH Manual of
analytical methods, 4th ed., Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, DHHS
(NIOSH). Publication No. 94-113. [www.cdc.gov/niosh/nmam].
[9] NIOSH [1994]. Fluorides, aerosol and gas, by ISE: Method 7902. In: Eller PM, Cassinelli ME, eds.
NIOSH Manual of analytical methods, 4th ed., Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety and
Health, DHHS (NIOSH). Publication No. 94-113. [www.cdc.gov/niosh/nmam].
[10] ASTM International [2008]. ASTM D4765, Standard test method for fluorides in workplace
atmospheres by ion-selective electrodes. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International.[11]
NIOSH [2005]. NIOSH Pocket guide to chemical hazards. Barsan ME, ed. Cincinnati, OH: US
Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National
Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 2005-149.
[12] Furr AK, ed. [1995] CRC Handbook of laboratory safety, 4th ed. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
[13] ASTM International [2010]. ASTM D4840, Standard Guide for Sampling Chain of Custody
Procedures. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International.
[14] Demange M, Oury V, Rousset D [2011]. Evaluation of sampling methods for measuring exposure
to volatile inorganic acids in workplace air. Part 2 – sampling capacity and breakthrough tests for
sodium carbonate-impregnated filters. J Occup Environ Hyg. 8:642-651.
[15] Comité Européen de Normalisation (CEN) [2012]. EN 482, Workplace exposure — General
requirements for the performance of procedures for the measurement of chemical agents. Brussels,
Belgium: Comité Européen de Normalisation (CEN).
Dietmar Breuer, Dr. rer. nat., and Petra Heckmann, Institute for Occupational Safety and Health of the
German Social Accident Insurances, Sankt Augustin, Germany; and Kevin Ashley, Ph.D., NIOSH/DART
Disclaimer: Mention of any company or product does not constitute endorsement by NIOSH. In
addition, citations to websites external to NIOSH do not constitute NIOSH endorsement of the
sponsoring organizations or their programs or products. Furthermore, NIOSH is not responsible for
the content of these websites. All web addresses referenced in this document were accessible as of
the publication date.
TABLE 1. Performance evaluation for HF and F- ion measurements from test atmospheres [5]
Concentration
Analyte Sr1 (n = 6) RSD2(%) U3
(mg/m3)
HF 0.25 0.007 3.1 0.22
HF 1.2 0.044 2.8 0.21
HF 2.3 0.026 1.1 0.20
HF 5.0 0.099 2.0 0.11
Fluoride 0.04 0.002 3.8 0.19
Fluoride 0.52 0.006 1.3 0.12
Fluoride 2.95 0.009 0.3 0.11
Fluoride 5.9 0.065 1.1 0.11
1 Standard deviation for 6 test samples
2 Relative standard deviation
3 Expanded measurement uncertainty; k = 2 (calculated in accordance with EN 482 [15])
Formulae: 1. HCl;
2. HBr; MW: Table 1 CAS: Table 1 RTECS: Table 1
3. HNO3
OSHA : Table 2
PROPERTIES: Table 3
NIOSH: Table 2
Other OELs: [1,2]
SYNONYMS: 1) HCl: Hydrochloric acid, salt acid, muriatic acid; 2) HBr: Hydrobromic acid; 3) HNO3: azotic acid
SAMPLING MEASUREMENT
SAMPLER: Two (2) FILTERS in series separated with a TECHNIQUE: ION CHROMATOGRAPHY (IC) with
chemically inert spacer: (1) pre-filter: 37-mm conductivity detection
diameter quartz fiber filter; (2) sampling filter:
37-mm diameter quartz fiber filter impregnated ANALYTES: Chloride (Cl-), bromide (Br -) and nitrate
with 500 µl Na2CO3 solution (1 M) (NO3-) ion
BIAS*: Negligible [4] PRECISION ( Sr ): 0.01 for all three acids [3]
OVERALL
PRECISION ( SˆrT )*: HCl, 0.06; HBr, 0.06;
HNO3, 0.07 [4]
EXPANDED
UNCERTAINTY*: Less than 12% for HCl and HBr; less
than 14 % for HNO3 [3,5]
APPLICABILITY: The working range is (at least) 0.01 to 2.0 mg/sample for a 240 Liter air sample [3,4].
INTERFERENCES: Inorganic acids can react with co-sampled particulate matter on the pre-filter, leading to low results. One
such example is in the galvanizing industry, where the presence of zinc oxide can be a major confounding factor in the mea-
surement of HCl. Potentially interfering particulate chlorides and nitrates removed by the pre-filter can react with the sampled
acids and liberate HCl and HNO3 that is subsequently collected on the sampling filter, leading to high results [6].
VOLATILE ACIDS by Ion Chromatography: METHOD 7907, Issue 1, dated 20 May 2014 - Page 2 of 6
OTHER METHODS: This procedure, which is consistent with ISO 21438-2 [4], replaces NIOSH 7903 [7]
for the determination of HCl, HBr and HNO3 in workplace air samples by IC. The main advantage of this
method is that it provides for lower limits of detection and quantitation for volatile acids due to higher
sampling flow rates.
REAGENTS: EQUIPMENT:
1. Water, deionized (DI), ≥18 MΩ-cm resistivity 1. Sampler: filter, 37-mm diameter quartz fiber
2. Sodium carbonate (Na2CO3), anhydrous, impregnated with 500 µl 1 M Na2CO3; and
American Chemical Society (ACS) analytical pre-filter, 37-mm diameter quartz fiber filter
grade separated by a spacer in a chemically inert
3. Sodium hydrogen carbonate (NaHCO3), ACS cassette filter holder
analytical grade 2. Spacers, of 37-mm diameter suitable for use
4. Extraction & eluent stock solution: 0.62 M with the samplers, manufactured from a
Na2CO3 / 0.069 M NaHCO3; Dissolve 13.14 g chemically inert material, e.g. polypropylene
Na2CO3 and 1.15 g NaHCO3 in 50 mL of sleeves
deionized water and swirl to mix. Then bring 3. Personal sampling pump, 1 to 5 L/min, with
to 200 mL in a volumetric flask, stopper and flexible connecting tubing
mix thoroughly. 4. Ion chromatograph (IC), with pre-column
5. Extraction and eluent solution; 0.0031 M (50 mm by 4.0 mm), anion-exchange column
Na2CO3/ 0.00035 M NaHCO3: transfer 10 mL (200 mm by 4.0 mm), suppressor column
0.62 M Na2CO3 / 0.069 M NaHCO3 stock (4 mm) and conductivity detector; and
solution to a 2 liter volumetric flask, dilute to connected to data processing unit
the mark with deionized water, stopper and 5. Ultrasonic bath
mix thoroughly. 6. Vessels, 15-mL, plastic, with screw caps
6. Chloride (Cl-), bromide (Br -) and nitrate (NO3-) 7. Volumetric flasks, 10- to 2000 mL
standard solutions, 1000 mg/L. 8. Pipets, 10 to 5000 µL
7. Calibration stock solution, 100 µg/mL (as the 9. Beakers, 25 to 100 mL
anion): Transfer 10 mL aliquots of chloride, 10. Water purification system, to prepare ≥18
bromide and nitrate standard solution into MΩ-cm resistivity deionized water
a 100 mL volumetric flask, dilute to the 11. Bottles, polyethylene, 100 mL
mark with deionized water, stopper and mix 12. Syringes, plastic, 5 mL
thoroughly. 13. Syringe filter cartridges, with 0.45-µm pore
8. Sodium carbonate solution, for impregnation size polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) membrane
of 37 mm diameter quartz fiber filters, filters
1 mol/L: dissolve 10.6 g Na2CO3 in deionized 14. Micro-syringes, 50 µL, with 60 mm x 0.6 mm
water, quantitatively transfer the solution needles
into a 100 ml volumetric flask, dilute to the 15. Auto-sampler vials, with slotted septum, 2 mL
mark with deionized water, stopper and mix capacity
thoroughly. 16. Analytical balance, with capability of weighing
9. Preparation of the sampling filter: Apply to nearest 0.01 mg
500 µL of the sodium carbonate solution,
1 mol/L, evenly on the 37 mm quartz
fiber filter and allow to dry for 6 hours in a
desiccator. (See NOTE 1, Step 1, p 7907-3.)
Good for 14 days.
SPECIAL PRECAUTIONS: Wear gloves, lab coat, and safety glasses while handling acids. All work
should be performed with adequate ventilation for personnel and equipment. It is imperative that
acid be added to water in order to avoid a violent exothermic reaction. Avoid direct contact since
acids are both corrosive and irritants to eyes, skin, and the respiratory system [8,9].
1. Prior to sampling, load each clean sampler, first with a sampling (impregnated) filter, then with a pre-
filter, separating the filters with a spacer. Ensure that the configuration in which the filters are loaded
leads to the sampled air passing first through the pre-filter and then through the sampling filter.
Note 1: Three-piece polystyrene cassettes are appropriate, with the middle ring section of the cassette
acting as the spacer. Impregnated filters that are stored in a desiccator can be prepared up to
14 days prior to their use for sampling.
Note 2: Silica gel sorbent tubes [7] can be used in lieu of impregnated filters, but each sorbent tube
must be preceded by a pre-filter.
2. Calibrate each personal sampling pump with a representative sampler in the line.
3. Sample accurately at 2 L/min for a total sample size of 30 to 500 L. Avoid sampler overloading [6].
4. Transport the samples to the laboratory in a manner that prevents contamination or damage to the
filters.
5. Submit at least three blank impregnated filters as field blanks for each set of samples collected per day.
Handle these in the same way as the field samples.
6. Ship all samples to the laboratory in accordance with established chain-of-custody procedures [10].
7. The samples can be stored at room temperature for one week; for longer storage, refrigerate the
samples (4 °C).
8. Analyze samples between 4 days and 4 weeks of sample collection.
SAMPLE PREPARATION:
9. Prior to carrying out sample dissolution, store the sampling filter for at least four days (to avoid nitric
acid losses).
10. Remove sample cassettes from storage and bring them to room temperature. Discard the pre-filters.
NOTE: If desired, the pre-filters can be analyzed for determination of particulate chlorides, bromides
and nitrates. If this analysis is carried out, it is recommended to rinse the inside surfaces of the
sampler with a few mL of DI water so as to include wall deposits along with material collected
on the prefilter.
11. Place the sampling filters (i.e., impregnated filter samples) in 15-mL plastic screw-cap vessels and add
10 mL of extraction solution or deionzied water to each sample. Securely cap the vessels.
12. Sonicate the samples in an ultrasonic bath for at least 15 minutes, and allow to cool for approx. 30
minutes.
13. Using 5-mL syringes, filter 5-mL aliquots of each sample extract solution through a PTFE filter into
clean auto-sampler vials.
14. With dilution of the calibration stock solution in eluent solution, prepare calibration working standard
solutions covering the range of approximately 0.4 to 4 mg/L of chloride, bromide and nitrate. Store
working standards in tightly sealed polyethylene bottles. Prepare fresh working standards weekly.
15. Calibrate the ion chromatograph with at least six working standards covering the range of 0.4 to
4 mg/L of chloride, bromide and nitrate per sample by preparing a calibration graph of anion peak
height (mm or µS [micro-siemens]) vs. concentration (mg/L).
16. Analyze working standards together with samples, reagent blanks and field blanks at a frequency of at
least 1 per 20 samples (3 minimum of each).
MEASUREMENT:
17. Set the ion chromatograph to recommended eluent flow rate (e.g., 1.5 mL/min) and recommended
pressure ( e.g., 1.1 x 105 kPa), and other conditions as specified by the instrument manufacturer.
18. Inject a sample aliquot, e.g., 25-µL, into the chromatograph, and measure the peak heights of
the chloride, bromide and nitrate peaks (at retention times of approx. 5 min, 9 min and 12 min,
respectively). If the peak height exceeds the linear calibration range, dilute with eluent, reanalyze and
apply the appropriate dilution factor in calculations.
CALCULATIONS:
19. Calculate the mass concentration of each anion, C (mg/m3), in the air volume sampled, V (L):
(C 1*V 1 * Fd ) − (C 0*V 0 )
C ={ } * Fc
V
where:
C0 = mean concentration, in mg/L, of anion in the field blank test solutions;
C1 = concentration, in mg/L, of anion in the sample test solution;
V = volume, in liters, of the air sample;
V0 = volume, in mL, of the field blank test solutions;
V1 = volume, in mL, of the sample test solutions
Fd = dilution factor for each sample test solution
Fc = conversion factor to convert from anion to acid concentration (Fc = 1.0284 for chloride,
1.0126 for bromide, and 1.0163 for nitrate)
EVALUATION OF METHOD:
On impregnated quartz fiber filters, greater than 95 % recovery of hydrochloric and nitric acid was found
four weeks after sample collection, and no breakthrough was observed at sample loadings of up to 2.5
mg HCl or 5 mg HNO3 [3,4,11]. Mean analytical recovery determined from the analysis of spiked filters
has been found to be in the range of 97 to 100% for HBr, HCl and HNO3 [3,11]. The component of the
coefficient of variation of the method that arises from analytical variability, determined from the analysis
of filters sampled at a dynamic test gas apparatus, was 0.8% to 1.3% for hydrogen chloride and 1.1% to
8.8% for nitric acid; and as determined from the analyses of spiked samples of hydrogen bromide, this
value was 0.8% to 1.4% [3]. The method has been independently verified for all three acids, in accordance
with applicable performance criteria [11,12]. An interlaboratory study with 5 participants found negligible
biases and good agreement for hydrogen chloride and nitric acid at concentrations between 0.6 and 8
mg/m3 for HCl and 0.8 and 10 mg/m3 for HNO3 [6]. The back-up data and user check reports are references
6 and 11, respectively.
REFERENCES:
[1] ACGIH [2013]. TLVs and BEIs based on the documentation of the Threshold Limit Values for chemical
substances and physical agents and Biological Exposure Indices. Cincinnati, Ohio: American
Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists. [www.acgih.org]. [Data accessed April 2014.]
[2] Institut fur Arbeitsschutz der Deutschen Gesetzlichen Unfallversicherung [2013]. GESTIS database
on international limit values for hazardous substances (German Social Accident Insurance). Sankt
Dietmar Breuer, Dr. rer. nat., and Petra Heckmann, Institute for Occupational Safety and Health of the
German Social Accident Insurances, Sankt Augustin, Germany; and Kevin Ashley, Ph.D., NIOSH/DART.
Disclaimer: Mention of any company or product does not constitute endorsement by NIOSH. In
addition, citations to websites external to NIOSH do not constitute NIOSH endorsement of the
sponsoring organizations or their programs or products. Furthermore, NIOSH is not responsible for the
content of these websites. All web addresses referenced in this document were accessible as of the
publication date.
VOLATILE ACIDS by Ion Chromatography: METHOD 7907, Issue 1, dated 20 May 2014 - Page 6 of 6
a Ceiling Limit
b Time-Weighted Average
c Up to 10 hr TWA in a 40 hr work week
d Short Term Exposure Limit
TABLE 3. Properties
Acid Physical State MP (°C) BP (°C) Vapor Pressure (VP)
HCl gas -114 -84.9 (38%) 28.3 kPa
liquid -- 110 (azeotropic, 20.2%)
HBr gas -86.9 -66.8 2026.4 kPa
HNO3 liquid -42 -- (68% Nitric) 101.3 kPa
NON-VOLATILE ACIDS (Sulfuric Acid and Phosphoric Acid) 7908
Formulae: H2SO4 MW: 98.08 CAS: 7664-93-9 RTECS: WS5600000
H3PO4 MW: 98.0 CAS: 7664-38-2 RTECS: TB6300000
SAMPLING MEASUREMENT
SAMPLER: FILTER, 37-mm diameter quartz fiber; or TECHNIQUE: ION CHROMATOGRAPHY (IC) with
polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE), 0.45 µm pore conductivity detection
size
ANALYTES: Sulfate (SO42-) ion, phosphate (PO43-) ion
FLOW RATE: 1 to 5 L/min
EXTRACTION: Aqueous solution of sodium carbonate /
VOL-MIN: 15 L sodium hydrogen carbonate
-MAX: 2000 L
INJECTION
SHIPMENT: 4 °C
VOLUME: 50 µL
SAMPLE
ELUENT: 2.7 mM Na2CO3/0.3 mM NaHCO3, flow rate
STABILITY: Stable for 1 week at about 20 °C and at 4 °C
1.5 mL/min
thereafter to 28 days [3]
BLANKS: 3 field blanks minimum per set COLUMNS: Pre-column, anion-exchange column and
suppressor column
ACCURACY*
CALIBRATION
RANGE STUDIED: 0.005 to 2.0 mg/sample RANGE: H2SO4; 0.2 mg/L to 8 mg/L;
H3PO4; 0.8 mg/L to 8 mg/L [6]
BIAS*: Negligible [3]
ESTIMATED LOD: H2SO4 = 0.002 mg/m3;
OVERALL H3PO4 = 0.003 mg/m3 (1 m3 air volume)[6]
PRECISION ( ŜrT )*: H2SO4 = 0.086; H3PO4 = 0.106
PRECISION ( S ): H2SO4 = 0.043;
r
EXPANDED H3PO4 = 0.032 [3,7]
UNCERTAINTY*: less than 23% for both H2SO4 and
H3PO4 [6]
APPLICABILITY: The working range for H2SO4 is (at least) 0.002 to 1.0 mg/sample, for H3PO4 is 0.004 to 1.0 mg/sample for
a 420 Liter air sample [3,6].
OTHER METHODS: This procedure, which is consistent with ISO 21438-1 [6], replaces NIOSH 7903 [8] for the determina-
tion of sulfuric and phosphoric acid in workplace air samples by IC. The main advantage of NIOSH method 7908 is that it can
allow for the collection of the inhalable fraction of sulfuric and phosphoric acid aerosols by means of the pre-filter (housed
within an optional inhalable sampler.)
REAGENTS: EQUIPMENT:
1. Water, deionized (DI), ≥18 MΩ-cm resistivity 1. Sampler: filter, 37-mm diameter quartz fiber; or
2. Sodium carbonate (Na2CO3), anhydrous, polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE), 0.45 µm pore
American Chemical Society (ACS) analytical size, in cassette filter holder manufactured
grade from acid-resistant (chemically inert) material
3. Sodium hydrogen carbonate (NaHCO3), ACS NOTE: Quartz fiber filters should be binderless
analytical grade and heat-treated.
4. Extraction & eluent stock solution: 0.27 M 2. Personal sampling pump, 1 to 5 L/min, with
Na2CO3 / 0.03 M NaHCO3; dissolve 2.86 g flexible connecting tubing
Na2CO3 and 0.25 g NaHCO3 in 25 mL of 3. Ion chromatograph, with pre-column (50 mm
deionized water and swirl to mix. Then bring to by 4.0 mm), anion-exchange column (200 mm
100 mL in a volumetric flask, stopper and mix by 4.0 mm), suppressor column (4 mm) and
thoroughly. conductivity detector; and connected to data
5. Extraction & eluent solution: 0.0027 M Na2CO3 / processing unit
0.0003 M NaHCO3; transfer 10 mL of 0.27 M 4. Ultrasonic bath
Na2CO3 / 0.03 M NaHCO3 stock solution to a 5. Vessels, 10-mL, plastic (e.g., polypropylene),
1 L volumetric flask, dilute to the mark with with screw caps
deionized water, stopper and mix thoroughly. 6. Volumetric flasks, 25- to 1000 mL
6. Sulfate (SO42-) ion and phosphate (PO43-) ion 7. Pipets, 50 to 10000 µL
standard solutions, each 1000 mg/L 8. Beakers, 25 to 100 mL
7. Calibration stock solution, 100 mg/L (as the 9. Water purification system, to prepare greater
anion): Place 10 mL aliquots of sulfate and than or equal to18 MΩ-cm resistivity deionized
phosphate standard solution into a 100 mL water
volumetric flask, dilute to the mark and mix 10. Bottles, polyethylene, 100 mL
thoroughly. 11. Syringes, plastic, 5 mL
12. Syringe filter cartridges, with 0.8-µm pore size
*See Special Precautions polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) membrane
filters
13. Micro-syringes, 50 µL, with 60 mm x 0.6 mm
needles
14. Tweezers, PTFE-coated
15. Auto-sampler vials, 2 mL capacity
16. Analytical balance, with capability of weighing
to nearest 0.01 mg
SPECIAL PRECAUTIONS: Wear gloves, lab coat, and safety glasses while handling acids. All work
should be performed with adequate ventilation for personnel and equipment. It is imperative that acid
be added to water in order to avoid a violent exothermic reaction. There is risk of fire and explosion
when phosphoric acid has contact with bases, combustible substances, oxidizing agents, reducing
agents or water. Avoid physical contact since both sulfuric and phosphoric acid are both corrosive and
irritants to eyes, skin, and the respiratory system. These are caustic materials and can react with metals
to form flammable hydrogen gas. Do NOT mix with solutions containing bleach or ammonia [9,10].
cassette into the vessel. Add additional extraction solution into the vessel until a final volume of 5
mL is reached.
4. Submit at least three field blanks for each set of samples collected per day. Handle these in the same
way as the field samples; i.e., place each filter into a vessel, add 5 mL of eluent solution and ship it to
the lab along with the remaining samples.
5. Refrigerate all samples that are to be stored overnight (or longer) prior to shipment to the
laboratory. Ship all samples to the laboratory in accordance with established chain-of-custody
procedures [11].
6. Refrigerate the samples (4 °C) immediately upon receipt at the lab until ready for analysis.
7. Analyze samples within 4 weeks of receipt.
SAMPLE PREPARATION:
8. Remove sample vessels from storage and bring them to room temperature.
9. Sonicate the samples in an ultrasonic bath for at least 15 minutes and allow to cool for at least 30
minutes.
10. Using 5-mL syringes, filter each sample extract solution through a PTFE filter into clean plastic
vessels or into autosampler vials (if autosampler used).
11. Through dilution of the calibration stock solution in eluent solution, prepare calibration working
standard solutions covering the range of approximately 0.2 to 8 mg/L of sulfate and phosphate.
Store working standards in tightly sealed polyethylene bottles. Prepare fresh working standards
weekly.
12. Calibrate the ion chromatograph with at least six working standards covering the range of 0.2 to 8
mg/L of sulfate and phosphate ion per sample by preparing a calibration graph of anion peak height
(mm or µS [micro siemens]) vs. concentration (mg/L).
13. Analyze working standards together with samples, reagent blanks and field blanks at a frequency of
at least 1 per 20 samples (3 minimum of each).
MEASUREMENT:
14. Set the ion chromatograph to desired eluent flow rate, e.g.,1.5 mL/min, and column pressure, e.g.,
1.1 x 105 kPa, and other conditions as specified by the instrument manufacturer.
15. Inject a sample aliquot, e.g., 50-µL, into the chromatograph, and measure the peak heights of the
phosphate and sulfate peaks (at retention times of about 9 min and 11.6 min, respectively). If
the peak height exceeds the linear calibration range, dilute with eluent, reanalyze and apply the
appropriate dilution factor in calculations.
CALCULATIONS:
16. Calculate the mass concentration of each anion, C (mg/m3), in the air volume sampled, V (L):
(C 1*V 1 * Fd ) − (C 0*V 0 )
C ={ } * Fc
V
where:
C = mean concentration, in mg/L, of anion in the field blank test solutions;
0
C = concentration, in mg/L, of anion in the sample test solution;
1
V = volume, in liters, of the air sample;
V = volume, in mL, of the field blank test solutions;
0
EVALUATION OF METHOD:
Laboratory testing with generated atmospheres of sulfuric acid mist yielded a collection efficiency of
greater than 95% over the range 0.5 to 10 mg/m3 of H2SO4 on 0.45 µm pore size PTFE filters [4]. Greater
than 95% recovery of sulfuric acid and phosphoric acid was found four weeks after sample collection.
On quartz fiber filters, 97 to 100% recovery of sulfuric acid was found four weeks after sample collection,
and no breakthrough was observed at sample loadings of up to 1 mg [3]. Mean analytical recovery
determined from the analysis of spiked quartz fiber filters has been found to be in the range of 97 to
100% for both acids [3,4]. The component of the coefficient of variation of the method that arises from
analytical variability, determined from the analysis of spiked quartz fiber filters, was 0.7% to 3.2% for
phosphoric acid and 0.5% to 2.6% for sulfuric acid [3]. An interlaboratory study with 26 participants
found negligible biases and interlaboratory relative standard deviations of 12 to 15% for sulfuric acid
and phosphoric acid concentrations between 0.05 and 1 mg/m3 [12]. The method has also been field
tested for sulfuric acid measurements at sample volumes of up to nearly 2,000 Liters [13]. The analytical
figures of merit for the method satisfy performance criteria specified in an applicable consensus
standard [14]. The back-up data and user check reports are references 4 and 12 respectively.
REFERENCES:
[1] ACGIH [2013]. TLVs and BEIs based on the documentation of the Threshold Limit Values for
chemical substances and physical agents and Biological Exposure Indices. Cincinnati, Ohio:
American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists. [www.acgih.org]. [Data accessed April
2014.]
[2] Institut fur Arbeitsschutz der Deutschen Gesetzlichen Unfallversicherung [2013]. GESTIS database
on international limit values for hazardous substances (German Social Accident Insurance). Sankt
Augustin, FRG: [http://www.dguv.de/ifa/gestis/gestis-stoffdatenbank/index-2.jsp]. [Data accessed
April 2014.]
[3] Breuer D [2002]. Inorganic acid mists (H2SO4, H3PO4). In: Kettrup A, Greim H, eds. Analyses of
hazardous substances in air (Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft). Vol. 6. Weinheim, FRG: Wiley-VCH.
pp. 67-78.
[4] Breuer D [1999]. Measurement of vapor-aerosol mixtures. J Environ Monit. 1:299-305.
[5] ISO (International Organization for Standardization) [1995]. ISO Guide 98: Guide to the expression
of uncertainty in measurement. Geneva, Switzerland: ISO.
[6] ISO [2007]. ISO 21438-1: Workplace atmospheres – Determination of inorganic ions by ion
chromatography – Part 1: Non-volatile acids (sulfuric acid and phosphoric acid). Geneva,
Switzerland: International Organization for Standardization (ISO).
[7] Breuer D [2013]. Anorganische säuren, partikulär: phosphorsäure, schwefelsäure (Inorganic acid
mists: phosphoric acid, sulfuric acid), in IFA Working Folder, Sheet No. 6173. Berlin, FRG: Erich-
Schmidt Verlag. ISBN 978-3-503-13084-9.
[8] NIOSH [1994]. Acids, inorganic: Method 7903. In: Eller PM, Cassinelli ME, eds. NIOSH Manual of
analytical methods, 4th ed., Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Center
for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, DHHS
(NIOSH). Publication No. 94-113. [www.cdc.gov/niosh/nmam.]
[9] NIOSH [2005]. NIOSH Pocket guide to chemical hazards. Barsan ME, ed. Cincinnati, OH: US
Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National
Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 2005-149.
[10] Furr AK, ed. [1995] CRC Handbook of laboratory safety, 4th ed. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
[11] ASTM International [2010]. ASTM D4840: Standard guide for sampling chain of custody procedures.
West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International.
[12] Breuer D, Howe A [2006]. Performance of methods for measurement of exposure to inorganic acids
in workplace air. J Environ Monit. 8:120-126.
[13] Breuer D, Heckmann P, Gusbeth K, Schwab G, Blaskowitz M, Moritz A [2012]. Sulfuric acid at
workplaces – applicability of the new indicative occupational exposure limit value (IOELV) to
thoracic particles. J Environ Monit. 14:440-445.
[14] Comité Européen de Normalisation (CEN) [2012]. EN 482, Workplace exposure — General
requirements for the performance of procedures for the measurement of chemical agents. Brussels,
Belgium: Comité Européen de Normalisation (CEN).
Dietmar Breuer, Dr. rer. nat., Institute for Occupational Safety and Health of the German Social Accident
Insurances, Sankt Augustin, Germany; and Kevin Ashley, Ph.D., NIOSH/DART
Disclaimer: Mention of any company or product does not constitute endorsement by NIOSH. In
addition, citations to websites external to NIOSH do not constitute NIOSH endorsement of the
sponsoring organizations or their programs or products. Furthermore, NIOSH is not responsible for
the content of these websites. All web addresses referenced in this document were accessible as of
the publication date.
SAMPLING MEASUREMENT
SPECIMEN: Blood (collected within 12 hours of last TECHNIQUE: HEADSPACE/GAS CHROMATOGRAPHY, FID
exposure)
ANALYTE: Toluene
VOLUME: Fill a 10-mL vacuum specimen tube as HEADSPACE
completely as possible (to reduce the amount of CONDITIONS: Transfer Temp,129 °C; Withdrawal, 0.80 min;
airspace) Thermostat Time, 30 min; Needle, 120 °C;
GC Cycle Time, 34 min; Sample Temp: 99 °C;
PRESERVATIVE: Sodium citrate (light blue top) Pressurize, 4.0 min; Inject, 0.40 min
APPLICABILITY: Can be used in monitoring the exposure of workers and drug abusers for toluene.
INTERFERENCES: None identified. The chromatographic separation conditions may be adjusted to correct separation
problems.
OTHER METHODS: NIOSH Method 8002 is a partially-evaluated, packed-column GC/FID method with lower accuracy and a
higher detection limit. [4] The National Center for Environmental Health (NCEH)/CDC has a method for 31 volatile organic
compounds in blood that includes toluene. This NCEH method is somewhat more complicated, comparable in accuracy, and
~1,000 times more sensitive. [5]
REAGENTS: EQUIPMENT:
1. Gas chromatograph, with FID, column, and data
1. Whole blood*, citrate treated collector (page 8007-1)
2. Toluene* (reagent grade, >99.5%) 2. Headspace sampler, holds up to 40 vials and
3. Isobutanol internal standard (IS) as a 20 mg/L can thermostat up to 12 vials simultaneously for
solution in water* automated headspace analysis (Any instrument
4. Water, ASTM Type II that can achieve the headspace settings specified
5. Helium, UHP or higher on p. 8007-1 is acceptable)
6. Hydrogen, UHP or higher 3. Bagged refrigerant, and refrigerator
7. Air, UHP or higher 4. Adjustable pipette, 10-mL, tips 10-mL, plastic or
8. Toluene calibration standards* serological
9. Ethylene glycol* 5. Headspace vials, 20-mL, with caps and septa
6. Micro-liter syringes, 10-µL , 25-µL, 100-µL, 1-mL
* See SPECIAL PRECAUTIONS 7. Volumetric flasks, 10-mL, 25-mL, 1-L
8. Syringes, twist-on fitting (luer lock style or
equivalent), 5-mL, and 20 gauge needles
9. Tubes, vacuum blood collection, 10-mL, citrate
coated (light blue top)
SPECIAL PRECAUTIONS: Wear gloves, lab coat, and safety glasses while handling all chemicals and blood
products. Disposable plastic, glass, and paper (pipet tips, gloves, etc.) that contact blood should be placed
in a biohazard container. Contact with biological samples can have serious health consequences through
exposure to hepatitis, HIV, and other diseases. All personnel collecting, handling, or analyzing samples
should follow universal precautions [6] and comply with the OSHA bloodborne pathogens standard
[7] which includes immunization for hepatitis B. Toluene is extremely flammable. All work should be
performed in a fume hood.
SAMPLING:
1. Collect the blood by filling a 10-mL vacuum blood collection tube (light blue top, citrate) as completely
as possible in order to keep the air space to a minimum. Be certain to invert the blood tube several (5-10)
times to mix the anticoagulant.
NOTE: If desired, duplicate blood tubes could be drawn to allow for estimation of measurement
precision, especially if collecting from numerous participants.
2. Immediately transfer the sample to a refrigerator or cooler (≤ 4 °C.)
3. Ship the sample vial in a well-insulated container equipped with blue ice or other cooling material.
SAMPLE PREPARATION:
4. Allow the blood sample to reach room temperature, then mix gently so as to not produce a froth by
inverting the tubes 4 to 5 times.
5. Add 1.5 mL of the IS solution to a 20-mL headspace vial.
6. Extract 1.5 mL of sample from the vacuum vial using a 5-mL syringe with a twist-on fitting (luer lock style
or equivalent) or micropipette and transfer the blood to a headspace vial.
7. Cap both sample and headspace vials immediately.
8. Mix the contents of each headspace vial thoroughly.
9. Prepare a primary stock standard solution by diluting 20 µL of toluene to 50 mL with ethylene glycol (20
µL/50 mL = 345.7 µg/mL.) Store in a tightly capped glass container having little or no head space.
NOTE: Aliquots of toluene should be introduced below the ethylene glycol to prevent loss of toluene.
10. Prepare stock standards by diluting aliquots of the primary standards with ethylene glycol. Suggested
levels: 34.6 µg/mL, 3.46 µg/mL, 0.346 µg/mL.
11. Calibrate with at least five working standards in duplicate covering the concentration range of the
samples.
a. Prepare each working standard by adding 1.5 mL of IS solution and 1.5 mL of blank blood to a
headspace vial and cap the vial. Spike the mixture in the vial (through the septum using a micro-
syringe) with a stock standard solution to the desired concentration of toluene and mix by shaking.
b. Prepare at least two blanks by repeating step a. but omitting the toluene spike.
c. Measure the peak areas of toluene and isobutanol in the chromatograms. Subtract the average
toluene peak area of the blank from the toluene peak areas of the standards (see NOTE 1.) Divide
the peak area of the blank-corrected toluene by the peak area from the isobutanol peak. Prepare a
calibration curve of the peak area Std/area IS versus the toluene concentration of the standards.
NOTE 1: A trace amount of toluene may be present in the blood of some donors. These levels
will vary depending upon environmental exposures. If the blanks show the presence
of toluene the standards need to be blank corrected, or else the sample results
will be biased low. Geometric means for the U.S. population as determined from the
National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey may be useful for comparison. [8]
NOTE 2: It is also highly recommended that a reagent blank or blanks be included in the analysis.
Atmospheric toluene in the lab may contribute errors to the measured values. A
reagent blank using water, a blank headspace vial, or both of these options will
show if the laboratory conditions are free from a quantifiable amount of toluene.
12. Prepare two levels of quality control (QC) samples by spiking toluene into whole blood. These levels
could be at ~10 X LOQ and 200 X LOQ, but could be adjusted to better suit the anticipated levels of
the sample set. Unspiked samples of the blood used to prepare the QC samples should be analyzed to
determine the blank level and the true target level. QC samples should be analyzed with every batch
such that they constitute 10% of the sample batch.
13. QC values should be within +/- 20% of the spiked values. If not, the batch is considered out of control,
the batch data discarded, and corrective actions should be taken before more samples are analyzed.
Alternatively, if the method has a long history in the lab allowing enough data for control charts to be
constructed, the control charts could serve as the in or out of control decision guide, which could be
looser or stricter than the recommended 20%.
MEASUREMENT:
14. Set the gas chromatograph according to manufacturer’s recommendations and to conditions given on
page 8007-1.
15. Set the headspace sampler according to manufacturer’s recommendations and to conditions given on
page 8007-1.
16. Inject and analyze samples, standards, QC samples, and blanks.
17. Measure the peak area of both toluene and isobutanol in the chromatograms (do not subtract the blank
from the samples). Divide the peak area of the toluene peak by the area from the isobutanol peak.
CALCULATIONS:
18. Determine the concentration (µg/mL) of the toluene in each sample of blood using the calibration curve
obtained in step 11c.
EVALUATION OF METHOD:
This method was evaluated over the range specified on page 8007-1. These ranges, 0.0208 to
5.76 µg/mL, represent from 1 x LOQ to 300 x LOQ. Six replicates were analyzed at each level. The average
recoveries at the various levels ranged from 97% to 106% for toluene. The LOD and LOQ were determined
by preparing a series of duplicate standards. Each series was made up and analyzed on a different day. The
resulting data was then fitted to a quadratic curve. The LOD and LOQ were estimated according to Burkart’s
Method. [9] A long-term storage study was carried out at the 10 x LOQ level. Citrated whole blood samples
that were spiked with toluene were stored at 24 °C and 4 °C for 1, 4, and 7 days and for 7,10, 21, and 30
days (respectively,) and then analyzed. Average recoveries were 96% at room temperature and 99% at 4 °C.
Room temperature storage is not advised because if the sample clots before it is analyzed, the results will be
compromised.
LIMITATION OF METHOD:
Concerning the use of isobutanol as an internal standard: While the boiling points of toluene and
isobutanol are similar, their Henry’s Law constants and thus their partitioning coefficients are quite different.
This could lead to biases if there are differences in polarity in the samples or between the samples and the
standards. This is one reason the calibration standards in this method are prepared using blood and not
just solvent. An alternative approach could entail the use of an internal standard that partitions similarly
to toluene, such as fully-deuterated toluene (toluene-d8). This would cause an increase in the cost of the
method per sample (and would need to be validated by the end user), but is mentioned here as an option.
REFERENCES:
[1] ACGIH [2014]. TLVs and BEIs based on the documentation of the Threshold Limit Values for chemical
substances and physical agents and Biological Exposure Indices. Cincinnati, Ohio: American Conference
of Governmental Industrial Hygienists. [www.acgih.org]. Date accessed: May 2014.
[2] Commission for the Investigation of Health Hazards of Chemical Compounds in the Work Area
[2014]. List of MAK and BAT values 2014; Maximum concentrations and biological tolerance
values at the workplace. DFG: Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, [http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/
book/10.1002/9783527682027]. Date accessed: January 2015.
[3] Stone LC, Perkins JB [2003]. Backup data report for toluene in blood. DataChem Laboratories, Inc. under
NIOSH contract CDC-200-2001-08000 (unpublished.)
[4] NIOSH [1994]. Methyl ethyl ketone, ethanol and toluene in blood: Method 8002. In Eller PM, Cassinelli
ME, eds. NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods, 4th ed. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety
and Health, DHHS(NIOSH) Publication no. 94-113.
[5] Blount BC, Kobelski RJ, McElprang DO, Ashley DL, Morrow JC, Chambers DM, and Cardinali FL [2006].
Quantification of 31 volatile organic compounds in whole blood using solid-phase microextractions
and gas chromatography-mass spectrometry. J Chrom B 832(2): 292-301.
[6] NIOSH [2011]. Bloodborne infectious diseases: HIV/AIDS, Hepatitis B, Hepatitis C; universal precautions
for preventing transmission of bloodborne infections [2011]. [www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/bbp/
universal.html]. Accessed September 2012.
[7] OSHA [2012]. Bloodborne pathogens and needlestick prevention. [www.osha.gov/SLTC/
bloodbornepathogens/index.html]. Accessed September 2012.
[8] CDC [2012]. Fourth national report on human exposure to environmental chemicals, updated tables,
September 2012. [www.cdc.gov/exposurereport/pdf/FourthReport_UpdatedTables_Sep2012.pdf ].
Accessed October 2012.
[9] Burkart JA [1986]. General procedures for limit of detection calculations in the industrial hygiene
chemistry laboratory. Appl. Ind. Hyg. 1(3):153-155.
L. C. Stone and J. B. Perkins, DataChem Laboratories, Inc., Salt Lake City, Utah under NIOSH Contract CDC-200-
2001-08000. Final editing by D. A. Shoemaker, NIOSH/DART.
Disclaimer: Mention of any company or product does not constitute endorsement by NIOSH. In addition,
citations to websites external to NIOSH do not constitute NIOSH endorsement of the sponsoring
organizations or their programs or products. Furthermore, NIOSH is not responsible for the content of
these websites. All web addresses referenced in this document were accessible as of the publication date.
SYNONYMS: None
SAMPLING MEASUREMENT
SPECIMEN: urine, pre- and post-shift TECHNIQUE: ION SELECTIVE ELECTRODE (ISE)
CONTROLS: collect 3 sets of specimens from ESTIMATED LOD: 0.1 mg/L urine
unexposed workers (pre- and post-shift)
RECOVERY: 0.95 [3]
ACCURACY
PRECISION (𝐒𝐒�𝐫𝐫 ): 0.04
RANGE
STUDIED: not studied
OVERALL
�𝒓𝒓𝒓𝒓 ): not determined
PRECISION (𝑺𝑺
ACCURACY: ± 23.6%
APPLICABILITY: Any fluorine-containing substances that can be metabolized to fluoride (F-) can be monitored using this
procedure. Inorganic compounds of fluoride can be absorbed by the body resulting in the excretion of fluoride ions as sodium
fluoride. Dietary and domestic water sources of fluoride must be considered, as well as dental treatments.
INTERFERENCES: Hydroxide, the only positive interference, is eliminated by use of the buffer. Negative interferences from
complexation of fluoride by cations, such as calcium, are minimized by EDTA preservative and the high ionic strength buffer.
OTHER METHODS: This method is P&CAM 114 [4] in a revised format. Other methods that have been used are those described in
the NIOSH criteria documents on inorganic fluorides [1] and hydrogen fluoride [2].
REAGENTS: EQUIPMENT:
SPECIAL PRECAUTIONS: Wear gloves, lab coat, and safety glasses while handling all chemicals and
human urine products. Disposable plastic, glass, and paper (pipet tips, gloves, etc.) that contact urine
should be placed in a biohazard container. Standard precautions should always be used when handling
bodily fluids and/or extracts of bodily fluids [5]. Handle urine samples and urine extracts using proper
gloves. Glacial acetic acid is flammable and corrosive and should be handled in a fume hood.
SAMPLING:
1. Collect pre- and post-shift spot urine samples in polyethylene bottles containing 0.2 g EDTA.
2. Ship samples in insulated container at about 4 °C using bagged refrigerant.
SAMPLE PREPARATION:
4. Prepare at least five working standards in the range 0.1 to 100 µg F- /mL by appropriate dilutions of
the calibration stock solution with distilled water.
5. Analyze a set of working standards together with the samples and blanks (steps 9 through 12)
starting with the lowest concentration.
NOTE: Working standards, samples, and blanks must be analyzed under the same conditions,
including temperature, for accurate results.
6. Prepare a semi-log calibration curve plotting millivolts on the linear scale (y-axis) and fluoride
concentration, µg/mL, on the log scale (x-axis).
7. Maintain standardization by running a standard with every 10 specimens.
8. Run a spiked urine control specimen with every 10 specimens to maintain quality assurance.
NOTE: Urine used for spiked controls must be analyzed before use to determine background
fluoride concentration.
MEASUREMENT:
CALCULATIONS:
13. Convert the millivolt readings to fluoride concentration using the calibration curve from step 6.
14. Express fluoride concentration as mg F-/g urinary creatinine.
GUIDES TO INTERPRETATION:
Urine concentrations of fluorides in normal non-occupationally exposed workers have been reported to
range from 0.2 to 3.2 mg/L depending on dietary intake [7]. Pre-shift levels of less than 4 mg/g creatinine
and post-shift levels of less than 7 mg/g creatinine appears to protect workers against bony fluorosis [8].
NIOSH has recommended that post-shift urine specimens should not exceed 7 mg/L (corrected to a specific
gravity of 1.024) and pre-shift specimens should not exceed 4 mg/L (corrected to a specific gravity of 1.024)
[1,2].
The Biological Exposure Indices (BEI) for fluoride (as of the date of this method’s publication) are 2 mg/L
prior to shift and 3 mg/L at end of shift [9]. This BEI changed in 2011.
EVALUATION OF METHOD
No formal method evaluation has been reported; however, Tusl [3] reported recoveries of added fluoride
from 94 to 100%. Precision based on analysis of 25 specimens in triplicate is estimated to be better than
𝑆𝑆𝑟𝑟̅ = 0.04. This method employs standard methodology that has been shown to provide adequate
performance data for decades. Additional evaluation data may be found in, but is not limited to, the
following references [10-13].
REFERENCES:
[1] NIOSH [1976]. NIOSH criteria for a recommended standard: occupational exposure to inorganic
fluorides. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Center for Disease
Control, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, DHEW (NIOSH) Publication No. 76-
103.
[2] NIOSH [1976]. NIOSH criteria for a recommended standard: occupational exposure to hydrogen
fluoride. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Center for Disease
Control, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, DHEW (NIOSH) Publication No. 76-
143.
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods (NMAM), Fifth Edition
FLUORIDE in URINE: METHOD 8308, Issue 3, dated 14 March 2016 - Page 4 of 4
[3] Tusl J [1970]. Direct determination of fluoride in human urine using fluoride electrode. Clin Chim
Acta 27:216-218.
[4] NIOSH [1977]. Fluoride in urine: P&CAM 114. In: Taylor DG, ed. NIOSH manual of analytical methods.
2nd ed., Vol 1. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Center for Disease
Control, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, DHEW (NIOSH) Publication No. 77-
157A.
[5] CDC [2007]. 2007 Guidelines for isolation precautions: preventing transmission of infectious agents
in healthcare settings [http://www.cdc.gov/hicpac/2007IP/2007isolationprecautions.html]. Date
accessed: March 2016.
[6] Tietz NW [1976]. Fundamentals of clinical chemistry. 2nd ed. Philadelphia, PA: W. B. Saunders Co., pp.
994-999.
[7] Baselt RC [1980]. Biological monitoring methods for industrial chemicals. Davis, CA: Biomedical
Publications, pp. 140-143.
[8] Lauwreys RR [1983]. Industrial chemical exposure: guidelines for biological monitoring. Davis, CA:
Biomedical Publications, pp. 26-27, 134.
[9] ACGIH [2014]. TLVs and BEIs based on the documentation of the Threshold Limit Values for chemical
substances and physical agents and Biological Exposure Indices. Cincinnati, Ohio: American
Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists [www.acgih.org]. Date accessed: May 2014.
[10] Singer L, Armstrong WD [1973]. Determination of fluoride in ultrafiltrates of sera. Biochem Med
8:415-422.
[11] Chiba K, Tsunoda K, Haraguchi H, Fuwa K [1980]. Determination of fluoride in urine and blood serum
by aluminum monofluoride molecular absorption spectrometry and with a fluoride ion selective
electrode. Anal Chem 52:1582-1585.
[12] Milde D, Nováková K, Čermáková I [2004]. Fluoride determination in urine with fluoride ion selective
electrode: within laboratory method and sample storage optimization. Acta Univ Palacki Olomu, Fac
Rerum Nat, Chem 43:104-109.
[13] Singh B, Gaur S, Garg VK [2007]. Fluoride in drinking water and human urine in Southern Haryana,
India. J Hazard Mater 144:147-151.
Disclaimer: Mention of any company or product does not constitute endorsement by NIOSH. In addition,
citations to websites external to NIOSH do not constitute NIOSH endorsement of the sponsoring
organizations or their programs or products. Furthermore, NIOSH is not responsible for the content of
these websites. All web addresses referenced in this document were accessible as of the publication date.
NIOSH and OSHA: N/A PROPERTIES: Clear liquid; MP -5.5 °C; BP 191 °C;
Because data on exposure limits and guidelines may d25 0.973 g/mL; VP 0.43 mm Hg at 20 °C [4]
change over time, NIOSH recommends referring to the
following sources for updated limits and guidelines BIOLOGICAL
concerning 2,5-hexanedione, as well as, its use as a marker INDICATOR OF: Exposure to n-hexane and methyl
for other compounds [1-3]. n-butyl ketone
SAMPLE TEMPERATURE
STABILITY: Stable 7 days @ 24 °C and at least 30 days
-INJECTION: 200 °C
@ 4 °C [5]
-DETECTOR: 250 °C
CONTROLS: Collect and pool urine from matched
population of unexposed workers if -COLUMN: 45 °C (2 min hold); 45 to 60 °C @ 5 °C/min;
possible then refrigerate immediately 60 to 140 °C @ 10 °C/min; 140 to 220 °C @
50 °C/min; 220 °C (5 min. hold); final hold
ACCURACY time may be extended, if necessary.
RANGE
STUDIED: 2.1 - 212 mg/L [5] CARRIER GAS: Helium, at 15 psi head pressure
APPLICABILITY: This method can be used in monitoring the exposure of workers to n-hexane or methyl n-butyl ketone. This
method measures “total” amount of 2,5-HD, not the “free” amount. See further discussion in Other Methods section.
INTERFERENCES: Other compounds besides n-hexane (e.g. methyl n-butyl ketone) can be metabolized into 2,5-HD. Acid
hydrolysis can convert other metabolites (e.g. 4,5-dihydroxy-2-hexanone) into 2,5-HD, giving values higher than non-hydrolysis
methods [6-8]. Coexposure to toluene and methyl ethyl ketone has been shown to inhibit n-hexane metabolism [9]. General
population background levels of 2,5-HD vary by age and gender but average 0.4 mg/L [10].
OTHER METHODS: This method is based on the acid hydrolysis method of Iwata et al. [9], and Fedtke and Bolt [8] as described by
Kawai et al. [11]. As discussed in greater detail in the Backup Data Report [5], this method uses an acid hydrolysis step to convert
some of the intermediate metabolites to 2,5-HD, a measure of “total” 2,5-HD. A non-hydrolysis method, which measures the “free”
2,5-HD, was not investigated in this work. The “free” amount is associated with the Biological Exposure Index [1]. Other exposure
values are more associated with the “total” amount found [2,3] and still others give the option of either approach [12]. Users should
recognize the advantages and limitations of each approach when selecting a methodology. More on this can be found in the
Evaluation of Method section and the backup data report [5].
REAGENTS: EQUIPMENT:
1. Control urine, collected and pooled from 1. Bottles, polyethylene screw-top, 125-mL
unexposed workers* 2. Gas chromatograph, with flame ionization
2. 2,5-hexanedione stock solutions: Prepare detector, data system, and column (page
by diluting the appropriate amounts of the 8318-1)
pure analyte in methanol. Prepare working 3. Vials, autosampler, glass, 2-mL, PTFE-lined
standards by diluting aliquots of the stock crimp caps
solution with pooled urine.* 4. Bagged refrigerant or dry ice
3. Extraction Solution: Dissolve 5 mg of the 5. Pipettes, 5-, 2-, and 1-mL, plastic or
internal standard (2-methyl-3-heptanone) serological
into dichloromethane; bring to 1.0 L total 6. Heated water bath
volume* 7. Centrifuge
4. Hydrochloric acid (HCl), concentrated* 8. Culture tubes, glass, 13 x 100 mm with PTFE-
(Trace metal grade or higher) lined screw caps
5. Methanol* (HPLC grade or higher) 9. Syringes, 10-, 100-mL
6. Dichloromethane* (ACS reagent grade or 10. Pipets, glass
higher) 11. pH meter
7. Helium, purified 12. Magnetic stirrer
8. Hydrogen, prepurified 13. Volumetric flasks, glass, 1-L, 10-mL
9. Air, filtered
SPECIAL PRECAUTIONS: Standard precautions should always be used when handling bodily fluids and/or
extracts of bodily fluids [13]. Handle urine specimens and urine extracts using powder-free latex or nitrile
gloves. All work should be performed in a fume hood since all chemicals are respiratory irritants and some
may cause narcotic effects. Inhalation of large amounts of methanol or dichloromethane can cause
unconsciousness and even death. 2,5-HD is a neurotoxin at high exposure levels. Methanol is a fire hazard
and causes blindness or death if ingested. Hydrochloric acid is an extremely corrosive chemical capable of
severe tissue damage.
SAMPLING:
1. Collect a complete void of urine in a 125-mL polyethylene bottle. Collect two urine specimens from
each worker: one specimen at the beginning of the work week and one specimen at end of shift late in
the work week.
2. Collect and pool urine from unexposed workers to be used for controls.
3. Tightly cap each bottle and ship refrigerated or frozen in a well-insulated container.
NOTE: Commercial shippers have special labeling requirements for packages containing biological
samples and dry ice.
SAMPLE PREPARATION:
6. Utilizing a magnetic stirrer, add concentrated HCl until the pH of the urine is within the desired range
(0.5 to 1.0).
NOTE: An exact control of the sample’s pH is critical for consistent and reproducible results [11].
7. Cap tube and heat in a water bath at 100 °C for 30 min.
8. Remove from water bath and allow to cool completely before proceeding.
9. Pipet 2 mL of the extraction solution, containing the internal standard, into the tube.
10. Cap and shake vigorously for 1 min. Allow the phases to separate. A centrifuge is recommended to aid
in separation.
11. Remove a portion of the extraction solution (bottom layer) using a glass pipet and transfer it to a 2-mL
glass GC autosampler vial. Cap and analyze.
12. Calibrate daily with at least six working standards covering the concentration range of the specimens.
13. Prepare each working standard by diluting a known amount of 2,5-HD stock solution into enough
pooled urine to make a total of 5.0 mL.
14. Prepare at least one pooled urine blank by transferring 5.0 mL of pooled urine (the same pooled urine
used for creating the working standards) into a culture tube.
15. Prepare at least two levels of quality control (QC) spikes of 2,5-HD in pooled urine to be analyzed with
each analysis batch. These levels should be at approximately 10 times the limit of quantitation (LOQ)
and 200 times the LOQ, but can be adjusted to better suit the anticipated levels of the specimens. QC
samples should be analyzed with every batch such that they constitute 10% of the specimen batch.
16. Process the 5 mL of each working standard and each pooled urine blank using the same procedure as
for the specimens (steps 5 through 11).
17. Analyze the working standards, the pooled urine blanks, the QC samples, and the samples together.
18. QC values should normally be within ±20% of the spiked values. If not, the batch is considered out of
control, the batch data discarded, and corrective actions taken before more specimens are analyzed.
MEASUREMENT:
19. Set gas chromatograph according to manufacturer’s recommendations and to conditions given on
page 8318-1. Typical retention times for the two compounds under these conditions are 4.7 min for
the internal standard and 10.5 min for 2,5-HD.
20. Inject each of the standards, QC samples, samples, and blanks.
21. Measure peak area. Normalize analyte response by dividing the peak area of the analyte by the peak
area of the internal standard on the same chromatogram.
22. Prepare a calibration graph by plotting, for each working standard, the normalized analyte response
(peak area of analyte divided by the peak area of the internal standard on the same chromatogram) on
the y-axis vs. mg of analyte/L of urine on the x-axis. The simplest model that adequately describes the
data should be used but either a linear (mostly likely 1/x weighted because of the range of the
calibration curve) or a quadratic model may be utilized in processing the analytical data. The standard
curve should have a coefficient of determination (r2) of equal to or greater than 0.98 to be acceptable
for use. Furthermore, when each standard is plugged back into the calibration equation, the value
should be within ±20% of the expected. Acid hydrolysis can create detectable amounts of 2,5-HD in
pooled urine blanks. Before plotting the calibration graph, subtract the normalized analyte response of
the pooled urine blank from the normalized analyte response of each working standard.
CALCULATIONS:
23. Determine the 2,5-HD concentration, Cs (mg/L) in the urine specimen from the calibration graph
created in step 16.
24. If desired, calculate the concentration of 2,5-HD in milligrams per gram of creatinine C (mg/g) in the
urine specimen by dividing by the creatinine value Cr (g creatinine/L urine) obtained from the aliquot
removed in step 4. Compare the results from before and after exposure. Also compare the results of
the “exposed” group to that of the control group.
𝐶𝐶𝑠𝑠
𝐶𝐶 =
𝐶𝐶𝑟𝑟
EVALUATION OF METHOD
This method was evaluated over the ranges specified on page 8318-1. These ranges represent from 3 times
the LOQ to 300 times the LOQ. Seven replicates were analyzed at each level. The average recoveries at the
various levels ranged from 97% to 103%. The limit of detection (LOD) and Limit of Quantification (LOQ)
were determined by preparing in duplicate and analyzing a series of standards with the data fitted to a
quadratic curve. The LOD and LOQ were estimated according to Burkart’s Method [14]. A long-term storage
study was carried out at the 10 x LOQ level. Pooled urine samples spiked with the analyte were stored at
4 °C for 1, 4, 7, 10, 21, or 32 days and then analyzed. All recoveries were nearly 100%. Spiked pooled urine
samples were stable after 7 days at room temperature.
The issue of measuring “total” (the 2,5-HD determined after a hydrolysis step) versus “free” (the 2,5-HD
determined without a hydrolysis step) is a contentious one among world bodies that develop
biomonitoring guidelines. As previously stated, this method uses a hydrolysis step and was not evaluated
without it. Therefore, it measures the “total” amount. NIOSH does not desire to step into the debate over
which may be better, but just to offer this method as one way to assess exposure. Some brief summaries of
the two approaches: “total” produces a larger number, requiring less sensitivity from the analytical
methodology but is subject to higher variability resulting primarily from two sources: variability in
hydrolysis procedure [11] and production of 2,5-HD from other metabolites in human urine that vary in
concentration. The “free” approach gives a smaller number but tends to be more specific for n-hexane and
methyl n-butyl ketone exposure as the other metabolites in urine do not interfere, so more sensitivity is
required but background levels are greatly reduced.
REFERENCES:
[1] AIHA [2016]. TLVs® and BEIs® based on the documentation of the Threshold Limit Values for chemical
substances and physical agents and Biological Exposure Indices. Cincinnati, Ohio: American
Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists, www.acgih.org.
[2] Permanent Senate Commission for the Investigation of Health Hazards of Chemical Compounds in
the Work Area [2016]. List of MAK and BAT values 2016; Maximum Concentrations and Biological
Tolerance Values at the Workplace. Weinheim, Germany: Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co., http://
dx.doi.org/10.1002/9783527805983.
[3] Institute for Occupational Safety and Health of the German Social Accident Insurance (IFA) [no date].
GESTIS international limit values, http://limitvalue.ifa.dguv.de/. Date accessed: December 8, 2017.
[5] Downs CC, Perkins JB [2002]. Back-up data report for 2,5-hexanedione method development.
DataChem Laboratories, Inc. under NIOSH contracts CDC-200-95-2955 and CDC-200-2001-08000.
[6] Fedtke N, Bolt HM [1986]. Detection of 2,5-hexanedione in the urine of persons not exposed to n-
hexane. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 57:143-148.
[7] Fedtke N, Bolt HM [1987]. 4,5-Dihydroxy-2-hexanone: a new metabolite of n-hexane and of 2,5-
hexanedione in rat urine. Biomed Environ Mass Spectrom 14:563-572.
[8] Fedtke N, Bolt HM [1987]. The relevance of 4,5-dihydroxy-2-hexanone in the excretion kinetics of n-
hexane metabolites in rat and man. Arch Toxicol 61:131-137.
[9] Iwata M, Takeuchi Y, Hisanaga N, Ono Y [1983]. A study on biological monitoring of n-hexane
exposure. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 51:253-260.
[10] Tondel M, Murgia N, Persson B, Lindh J, Vrethem M, Fredrikson M [2011]. 2,5-Hexandione in the
general population: environmental exposure or endogenous production? Epidemiology 22(1):S34-
S35.
[11] Kawai T, Mizunuma K, Yasugi T, Uchida Y, Ikeda M [1990]. The method of choice for the
determination of 2,5-hexanedione as an indicator of occupational exposure to n-hexane. Int Arch
Occup Environ Health 62:403-408.
[12] JSOH [2016]. Recommendation of occupational exposure limits (2016-2017). The Japan Society for
Occupational Safety and Health (JSOH). Journal of Occupational Health 58(5):489-518.
[13] CDC [2007]. 2007 Guidelines for isolation precautions: preventing transmission of infectious agents
in healthcare settings, http://www.cdc.gov/hicpac/2007IP/2007isolationprecautions.html.
[14] Burkart JA [1986]. General procedures for limit of detection calculations in the industrial hygiene
chemistry laboratory. Appl Ind Hyg 1(3):153-155.
Corey C. Downs and James B. Perkins, DataChem Laboratories, Inc., Salt Lake City, Utah under NIOSH
Contracts CDC-200-95-2955 and CDC-200-2001-08000. Final editing by Dale A. Shoemaker, Ph.D., NIOSH.
Disclaimer: Mention of any company or product does not constitute endorsement by NIOSH. In addition,
citations to websites external to NIOSH do not constitute NIOSH endorsement of the sponsoring
organizations or their programs or products. Furthermore, NIOSH is not responsible for the content of
these websites. All web addresses referenced in this document were accessible as of the publication date.
OSHA & NIOSH: N/A PROPERTIES: (1) bp 56.2 °C; d20 0.789 g/mL
Because data on exposure limits and guidelines may (2) bp 79.6 °C; d20 0.805 g/mL
change over time, NIOSH recommends referring BIOLOGICAL INDICATOR OF:
to the following sources for updated limits and Exposure to (1) acetone
guidelines [1-4]. (2) methyl ethyl ketone
SYNONYMS: (1) dimethyl ketone; 2-propanone; ketone propane; dimethyl formaldehyde; pyroacetic ether
(2) 2-butanone; MEK; butanone; methyl acetone; butan-2-one; oxobutane
SAMPLING MEASUREMENT
SPECIMEN: Two urine samples (before and after exposure) TECHNIQUE: GAS CHROMATOGRAPHY, FLAME
IONIZATION DETECTOR, HEADSPACE
VOLUME: Fill a 20-mL amber VOA vial leaving minimal
headspace ANALYTES: Acetone and methyl ethyl ketone
APPLICABILITY: This method can be used in the analysis of acetone and methyl ethyl ketone in urine specimens. These com-
pounds may be found in the urine of individuals exposed to acetone and methyl ethyl ketone [6,7].
INTERFERENCES: Acetone is a metabolite of 2-propanol; MEK is a metabolite of 2-butanol. Exposure to 2-propanol or 2-butanol
may result in increased acetone or MEK excretion, respectively [8,9]. Diabetes and fasting also produce elevated urinary ace-
tone levels [10]. Ethanol reduces MEK metabolism and thus increases the MEK concentration in urine [11]. Gender differences
and use of hormonal contraceptives have been shown to affect the metabolism and excretion of MEK [12].
OTHER METHODS: There are several commercially-available, direct-reading, dipstick-type tests that are non-specific for
ketones in urine. These are often used in hospitals or by diabetic patients. The Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, Ger-
man Research Foundation) has published a headspace method for a variety of alcohols and ketones in urine and blood [13].
REAGENTS: EQUIPMENT:
1. Pooled control urine collected from unexposed 1. Bottles, polyethylene screw-top, 125-mL
workers* 2. Volatile organic analysis (VOA) vials, 20-mL,
2. Acetone (≥99%) and MEK (≥99%) stock amber, polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) caps
solution: Prepare by diluting the appropriate 3. Gas chromatograph, with flame ionization
amounts of the pure analyte in water.* 750 µL detector (FID), data system and column
in 10 mL gives ~60 mg/mL of each. Be certain (p. 8319-1)
to use the densities and purity factors when 4. Headspace autosampler
calculating the exact concentrations. [5] 5. Bagged refrigerant
3. Internal standard solution: Dilute 80 mg of 6. Pipette, 10-mL, plastic or serological
2-pentanone (≥99%) in enough water to make 7. Headspace vials, 20-mL, PTFE/Butyl septa,
1.0 L (80 mg/L).* Alternatively, 100 µL can be aluminum crimp cap
added to 1 L which gives roughly the same 8. Microliter syringes, 10-µL, 100-µL, 1-mL
concentration. 9. Volumetric flask, 10-mL
4. Water, ASTM Type II [14]
5. Helium, purified
6. Hydrogen, prepurified
7. Air, filtered, prepurified
SPECIAL PRECAUTIONS: Wear gloves, lab coat, and safety glasses while handling all chemicals and
human urine products. Disposable plastic, glass, and paper (pipet tips, gloves, etc.) that contact
urine should be placed in a biohazard container. Standard precautions should always be used when
handling bodily fluids and/or extracts of bodily fluids [15]. Handle urine samples and urine extracts
using proper gloves. Acetone and MEK are highly flammable liquids. All work should be performed
in a fume hood since both chemicals are respiratory irritants and may depress the central nervous
system at high exposure levels.
SAMPLING:
1. Collect urine in a 125-mL polyethylene bottle or other suitable container. Collect at least two urine
samples from each worker. Collect one sample before exposure and one sample after exposure.
NOTE: It is important to avoid contamination of the urine samples by making sure that samples are
collected in a clean area away from the source(s) of exposure and under hygienic conditions
(after washing hands.)
2. For each sample, immediately transfer from the 125-mL polyethylene bottle enough urine to fill a
20-mL amber VOA vial such that a minimal headspace is left. Cap the containers tightly. When the
VOA vial is inverted no air bubbles should be present. Refrigerate after collection.
3. Collect and pool urine from unexposed workers to be used for controls. Refrigerate after collection.
4. Ship the VOA vials and pooled control urine in a refrigerated, well-insulated container. Store
refrigerated upon receipt.
SAMPLE PREPARATION:
9. Calibrate daily with at least six working standards covering the concentration range of the method
(2 to 600 mg/L).
NOTE: If the range of concentrations of the samples is known (or expected), the calibration curve
range can be adjusted accordingly.
a. Prepare a diluted stock solution by pipetting 1 mL of the concentrated stock solution into a
10-mL volumetric flask and filling to the mark with pooled urine.
b. Prepare each working standard by diluting a known amount of the diluted stock solution
prepared in Step 9a into enough pooled urine to make a total of 10 mL.
NOTE: A second, more dilute stock solution in urine can be prepared, if desired, so that the lowest
calibration standards are made using more easily-measured spiking volumes.
c. Prepare at least one pooled urine blank by transferring 10 mL of pooled urine (the same pooled
urine used for creating the working standards) into a vial.
d. Process the 10 mL of each working standard and each pooled urine blank using the same
procedure as for the samples (steps 5 through 8).
e. Analyze the working standards, the pooled urine blanks, and the samples together. FIGURES 1
and 2 show representative chromatograms of blank and fortified urines.
f. Prepare a calibration graph by plotting, for each working standard, the normalized analyte
response (peak area of analyte divided by the peak area of the internal standard on the same
chromatogram) on the y-axis vs. µg of analyte/mL of urine on the x-axis. The simplest model
that adequately describes the data should be used but either a linear (mostly likely 1/x weighted
because of the range of the calibration curve) or a quadratic model may be utilized in processing
the analytical data. Because humans can endogenously produce both acetone and methyl
ethyl ketone, the compounds may be detected in the pooled urine blanks. Before plotting the
calibration graph, subtract the normalized analyte response of the pooled urine blank from
the normalized analyte response of each working standard. The standard curve should have
a coefficient of determination (r2) of equal to or greater than 0.98 to be acceptable for use.
Furthermore, when each standard is substituted back into the calibration equation, the value
should be within ±20% of the expected.
10. Prepare at least two levels of quality control (QC) samples by spiking both analytes in urine. These
levels should be at approximately 10-fold the limit of quantitation (LOQ) and 200-fold the LOQ, but
can be adjusted to better suit the anticipated levels of the sample set. Unspiked samples of the
urine used to prepare the QC samples should be analyzed to determine the blank level and the true
target level. QC samples should be analyzed with every batch such that they constitute 10% of the
sample batch.
11. QC values should normally be within ±20% of the spiked values. If not, the batch is considered out
of control, the batch data discarded, and corrective actions should be taken before more samples
are analyzed.
MEASUREMENT:
12. Set gas chromatograph according to manufacturer’s recommendations and to conditions given on
p. 8319-1.
13. Set headspace autosampler according to manufacturer’s recommendations and to the following
conditions: (NOTE: different types of headspace samplers may require alternative conditions and
some of these might not apply.)
14. Measure peak area. Normalize the analyte response by dividing the peak area of the analyte by the
peak area of the internal standard on the same chromatogram for each working standard, sample,
and pooled urine blank.
CALCULATIONS:
15. Determine both the acetone and MEK concentrations (mg/L) in the urine sample from the
calibration graph prepared in Step 9f.
EVALUATION OF METHOD:
This method was evaluated over the ranges of the two analytes specified on p. 8319-1. These ranges
represent from 1 x LOQ to 300 x LOQ. Six to seven replicates were analyzed at each level. The average
recoveries at the various levels ranged from 94% to 106% for acetone and 85% to 98% for MEK. The
LOD and LOQ were determined by preparing and analyzing a series of standards in duplicate with the
data fitted to a quadratic curve. The LOD and LOQ were estimated according to Burkart’s Method [16].
A long-term storage study was carried out at the 10 x LOQ level. Pooled urine samples spiked with the
analytes were stored at 4 °C for 1, 4, 7, 10, 21, or 30 days and then analyzed. All recoveries were nearly
100%. When stored at room temperature, a significant reduction in analyte recovery was observed after
7 days [5].
REFERENCES:
[1] ACGIH [2013]. TLVs® and BEIs® based on the documentation of the Threshold Limit Values for
chemical substances and physical agents and Biological Exposure Indices. Cincinnati, Ohio:
American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists. www.acgih.org [Date accessed:
August 2014.]
[2] Commission for the Investigation of Health Hazards of Chemical Compounds in the Work Area
[2013]. List of MAK and BAT values 2013; Maximum concentrations and biological tolerance values
at the workplace. DFG: Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. www.dfg.
de/en/dfg_profile/publications/senate_commissions/index.html#micro7535782 [Date accessed:
August 2014.]
[3] SUVA (Swiss National Accident Insurance Fund) [2013]. Protection de la santé au poste de travail.
Valeurs limites d’exposition aux postes de travail. www.suva.ch/english/startseite-en-suva/
praevention-en-suva/publications-en-suva.htm [Date accessed: August 2014.]
[4] Institut für Arbeitsschutz der Deutschen Gesetzlichen Unfallversicherung (IFA). www.dguv.de/
ifa/Gefahrstoffdatenbanken/GESTIS-Internationale-Grenzwerte-für-chemische-Substanzen-limit-
values-for-chemical-agents/index-2.jsp [Date accessed: August 2014.]
[5] Downs CC, Perkins JB [2002]. Back-up data report for acetone and methyl ethyl ketone method
development. DataChem Laboratories, Inc. under NIOSH contracts CDC-200-95-2955 and
CDC-200-2001-08000.
[6] Pezzagno G, Imbriani M, Ghittori S, Capodaglio E, Huang J [1986]. Urinary elimination of acetone in
experimental and occupational exposure. Scand J Work Environ Health 12:603-608.
[7] Perbellini L, Brugnone F, Mozzo P, Cocheo V, Caretta D [1984]. Methyl ethyl ketone exposure in
industrial workers. Uptake and kinetics. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 54:73-81.
[8] Kawai T, Yasugi T, Horiguchi S, Uchida Y, Iwami O, Iguchi H, Inoue O, Watanabe T, Nakatsuka H, Ikeda
M [1990]. Biological monitoring of occupational exposure to isopropyl alcohol vapor by urinalysis
for acetone. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 62:409-413.
[9] Williams RT [1950]. Detoxication mechanisms: the metabolism and detoxication of drugs, toxic
substances and other organic compounds. Chapman & Hall Ltd., London p. 66.
[10] Bales JR, Bell JD, Nicholson JK, Sadler PJ [1986]. HNMR Studies of urine during fasting: excretion of
ketone bodies and acetylcamitine. Magn Reson Med 3:849-856.
[11] Liira J, Riihimaki V, Engstrom K [1990]. Effects of ethanol on the kinetics of inhaled methyl ethyl
ketone in man. Br J Ind Med 47:325-330.
[12] Tomicic C, Berode M, Oppliger A, Castella V, Leyvraz F, Praz-Christinaz S-M, Danuser B [2011]. Sex
differences in urinary levels of several biological indicators of exposure: A human volunteer study.
Toxicol Lett 202:218-225.
[13] Angerer J, Gündel J [2012]. Alcohols and Ketones [Biomonitoring Methods, 1996]. The MAK
Collection for Occupational Health and Safety. pp. 1-33.
[14] ASTM [2011]. ASTM Standard D1193, Standard specification for reagent water. ASTM International,
West Conshohocken, PA. DOI 10.1520/D1193-06R11.
[15] CDC [2007]. 2007 Guidelines for isolation precautions: Preventing transmission of infectious agents
in healthcare settings. http://www.cdc.gov/hicpac/2007IP/2007isolationprecautions.html. [Date
accessed: April 2013.]
[16] Burkart JA [1986]. General procedures for limit of detection calculations in the industrial hygiene
chemistry laboratory. Appl Ind Hyg 1(3):153-155.
Disclaimer: Mention of any company or product does not constitute endorsement by NIOSH. In addition, citations to
websites external to NIOSH do not constitute NIOSH endorsement of the sponsoring organizations or their
programs or products. Furthermore, NIOSH is not responsible for the content of these websites. All web addresses
referenced in this document were accessible as of the publication date.
FIGURE 1. Representative overlaid chromatograms from a high and low urine standard and urine blanks with
and without internal standard (IS), full-scale
FIGURE 2. Representative overlaid chromatograms from a high and low urine standard and urine blanks with
and without internal standard (IS), reduced-scale
SAMPLING MEASUREMENT
RECOVERY: 92 –112 % [6] MS PARAMETERS: SIM (ions m/z 108, 107, 77 and 123)
Quantifying ions: o-cresol: 108,
nitrobenzene: 123. Confirmation ions: o-
cresol: 107, nitrobenzene: 77
APPLICABILITY: This method can be used for the determination of total o-cresol in urine specimens. Cresols are excreted in urine
primarily as conjugates. This method uses an acid hydrolysis step to convert the conjugates to free o-cresol. (See Evaluation of
Method Section.) Exposure to o-cresol will cause elevated urinary levels; however, o-cresol is a metabolite produced from toluene
exposure. Not only would toluene exposure interfere with determining o-cresol exposure, but measuring o-cresol in urine is one of
the recommended methods for determining toluene exposure. Recommended levels for using o-cresol to measure toluene
exposure (at the time of publication of this method) include: ACGIH-TLV, 0.3 mg/g creatinine [1]; DFG-BAT, 1.5 mg/L [2]; and SUVA-
VBT, 0.5 mg/L [3].
INTERFERENCES: None noted in the analytical method, but background levels of 0.032 – 0.070 µg/mL o-cresol have been
observed [7-9]. These values are near and slightly above the limit of quantitation. Exposure to toluene will cause higher levels of
urinary o-cresol as discussed above. p-Cresol is a normal component of human urine [10] and may, along with m-cresol, also be a
co-exposure [11-12]. These two compounds have similar mass spectra to o-cresol but are chromatographically resolved under the
conditions of this method [6].
OTHER METHODS: There are numerous literature methods for the determination of o-cresol in urine [10], but standardized
methods from governmental agencies or consensus standards organizations are not currently available. NIOSH 8305 is a similar but
only partially-validated method for phenol and p-cresol [11]. An older validated method using steam distillation and HPLC-UV
detection for ~30 related compounds that includes o-cresol can be found in the German MAK collection [12].
REAGENTS: EQUIPMENT:
1. o-Cresol* (≥99% purity) primary stock 1. GC-MS capable of selected ion monitoring
solution (PSS) about 10,000 µg/mL (0.100 g with data system, autosampler, and column
of o-cresol in 10 mL of methanol). Store at - (page 8321-1)
10 °C ± 2 °C 2. Flasks, glass, volumetric: 5, 10 and 250 mL
2. o-Cresol intermediate solutions of 1,000 and 3. Syringes, glass: 10, 50, 100, 500 and 2,500 µL
100 µg/mL (0.5 and 0.05 mL of PSS diluted 4. Tubes, centrifuge, 15-mL graduated
to 5.0 mL with methanol). Store at -10 °C ± polypropylene, with caps
2 °C 5. Pipetter 1-10 mL, with disposable tips
3. Human urine* provided by non-exposed 6. Pasteur pipettes, glass
individuals, store at < 6 °C** 7. Water bath, 95 °C
4. Methanol*, GC grade or better 8. Wash bottle
5. Hydrochloric acid*, concentrated, 33-38%, 9. Vials, autosampler, amber glass
ACS reagent grade or better 10. Cold storage for -10 °C and 4 °C
6. Nitrobenzene (≥99% purity) internal 11. Bottles, 125 mL polyethylene
standard (IS) solution of 500 µg/mL (0.125 g 12. Analytical balance, to ±0.0001 g.
of nitrobenzene in 250 mL of methanol).
Store at 10 °C ± 2 °C
7. Water, ASTM Type II [13]
8. Methyl tert-butyl ether* (MTBE), HPLC grade
or better
9. Sodium sulfate, granular, anhydrous, ≥99%
purity.
10. Helium, UHP or Grade 5
SPECIAL PRECAUTIONS: Wear gloves, lab coat, and safety glasses while handling all chemicals and human
urine products. Disposable plastic, glass, and paper (pipet tips, gloves, etc.) that contact urine should be
placed in a biohazard container. Standard precautions should always be used when handling bodily fluids
and/or extracts of bodily fluids [14]. Handle urine samples and urine extracts using proper gloves. All work
should be performed in a fume hood. Methanol and MTBE are both flammable. Hydrochloric acid is an
extremely corrosive chemical capable of severe tissue damage.
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods (NMAM), Fifth Edition
o-CRESOL in URINE: METHOD 8321, Issue 4, dated 18 March 2016 - Page 3 of 6
SAMPLING:
1. Collect 50-100 mL urine in a 125 mL polyethylene bottle. Collect 2 urine specimens for each worker:
one specimen before exposure and one specimen after.
2. Collect and pool urine specimens from unexposed workers to be used for controls.
3. Tightly cap each bottle and ship refrigerated or frozen in an insulated container to maintain the
temperature at 6 °C or below.
SAMPLE PREPARATION:
17. Calibrate daily with nine working standards containing o-cresol at approximately the following
concentrations: 0.04, 0.1, 0.2, 1, 2, 10, 20, 40 and 60 µg/mL.
a. Prepare the standards by adding measured amounts of o-cresol intermediate stock solutions to
centrifuge tubes containing 5 mL of control urine.
b. Process the standards following the same procedure used for the samples (steps 4-16).
c. Prepare at least one method blank for every 20 samples by taking an aliquot of 5 mL control
urine and processing it in the same manner as the samples (steps 4-16).
d. Prepare at least two levels of quality control (QC) samples using a separate source of o-cresol and
prepare in the same manner as the calibration standards within the analytical range. These levels
should be at roughly 10 times the limit of quantitation (LOQ) and 100 X LOQ. Analyze at least
two QC samples of different concentration for every 20 samples.
18. Prepare a calibration graph by plotting, for each working standard, the normalized analyte response
(peak area of analyte divided by the peak area of the internal standard on the same chromatogram)
on the y-axis vs. µg of analyte/mL of urine on the x-axis. The simplest model that adequately
describes the data should be used, but either a linear (most likely 1/X weighted because of the range
of the calibration curve) or a quadratic model may be utilized in processing the analytical data.
Because there may be detectable levels of o-cresol in the pooled urine blanks, before plotting the
calibration graph, subtract the normalized analyte response of the pooled urine blank from the
normalized analyte response of each working standard. The standard curve should have a coefficient
of determination (r2) of equal to or greater than 0.98 to be acceptable for use. Furthermore, when
each standard is substituted back into the calibration equation, the value should be within ±20% of
the expected value.
19. QC values should be within ±20% of the spiked values. If not, the batch is considered out of control,
the batch data discarded, and corrective actions taken before more samples are analyzed.
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods (NMAM), Fifth Edition
o-CRESOL in URINE: METHOD 8321, Issue 4, dated 18 March 2016 - Page 4 of 6
20. Set gas chromatograph according to manufacturer’s recommendations and to conditions given on
page 8321-1.
21. Set the mass spectrometer according to manufacturer’s recommendations, to conditions given on
page 8321-1, and to SIM for ions m/z 77, 107, 108, and 123.
22. Inject 2 µL of each sample, blank and QC sample.
23. Measure peak areas for o-cresol and nitrobenzene in the chromatograms. Divide the peak area of o-
cresol by the peak area of nitrobenzene in the same chromatogram.
CALCULATIONS:
24. Determine concentration of o-cresol from the calibration curve produced in step 18.
EVALUATION OF METHOD:
This method was evaluated at five concentration levels over the range 0.0214 – 2.14 μg/mL. This range
represents from 1 x LOQ to 100 x LOQ. Six replicates were analyzed at each level. The average recoveries at
the various levels ranged from 86.8 to 118.4%. The limit of detection (LOD) and LOQ study was performed
by analyzing a series of standards ranging from 0.0107 to 64.1 μg/mL, fitting the data to a quadratic curve,
and estimating the values using “Burkart’s Method” [15]. The value obtained for the LOD by this method
(0.009 μg/mL) was lower than the lowest standard in the determination (0.0107 μg/mL), so the LOD used
for the method was the value of the lowest standard, 0.01 μg/mL. A long-term storage study was carried
out at the 30 x LOQ level: pooled urine specimens spiked with o-cresol at 0.854 μg/mL were stored at 4 °C
for 1, 7, 10, 14, 21 and 30 days and then analyzed. The recoveries across the entire study (1-30 days) were
between 92-112%. Another set of specimens stored at room temperature were analyzed after 1 and 7
days, producing recoveries ranging from 90-102% [6]. The analytical range of the method was extended
during a secondary laboratory validation step. Two concentration levels were evaluated (5.06 and 30.30
μg/mL) by analyzing five replicates at each level. These levels showed recoveries of 100.2 and 92.8% with
relative standard deviations of 0.63 and 1.40% respectively [6].
In order to minimize confusion among users of NIOSH Method 8321, the authors would like to re-
emphasize that p-cresol is an endogenous human metabolite produced from protein breakdown and will
always be found in human urine [10]. The mass spectrum of p-cresol is quite similar to that of o-cresol and
so there is some possibility of peak misidentification. Fortunately, while the peaks are near each other in
the chromatogram under the method conditions, the p-cresol peak elutes later, is adequately resolved,
and thus will not interfere with o-cresol analyses [6].
Discussion concerning acid hydrolysis step: The efficiency of the acid hydrolysis step in this procedure was
not evaluated. A common method of converting these conjugates (glucuronides and sulfates) back to the
parent compounds is heating the sample with a mineral acid. Several literature examples that employ
hydrochloric acid under very similar conditions can be found [8,9,12,16-18]. A common thread among
these methods is that none of them appear to investigate the efficiency of the acid hydrolysis step.
Fustinoni et al. did investigate the hydrolysis step both in terms of amount of acid used and reaction time
required [19]. They found that 50 µL of concentrated HCl per 300 µL of urine and reacting for 60 min at
100 °C gave yields of greater than 97%. NIOSH Method 8321 uses 1 mL concentrated HCl per 5 mL urine,
heating at 95 °C for 1.5 h, which are nearly identical conditions. These similar conditions should assure
adequate efficiency of the acid hydrolysis step and have proven to not be detrimental to the o-cresol [6].
REFERENCES:
[1] ACGIH [2014]. TLVs and BEIs based on the documentation of the Threshold Limit Values for
chemical substances and physical agents and Biological Exposure Indices. Cincinnati, Ohio:
American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists. [www.acgih.org]. Date accessed: May
2014.
[2] Commission for the Investigation of Health Hazards of Chemical Compounds in the Work Area
[2014]. List of MAK and BAT values 2014; Maximum concentrations and biological tolerance values
at the workplace. DFG: Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft,
[http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/book/10.1002/9783527682027]. Date accessed: January 2015.
[3] SUVA (Swiss National Accident Insurance Fund) [2013]. Protection de la santé au poste de travail.
Valeurs limites d’exposition aux postes de travail. 3rd Ed. [http://www.suva.ch/english/startseite-en-
suva/praevention-en-suva/publications-en-suva.htm]. Date accessed: May 2014.
[5] CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics [2013]. 94th Edition, CRC Press, Taylor and Francis Group,
Boca Raton, FL.
[6] Siso MC, Perkins JB [2005]. Backup data report for o-cresol in urine method development.
DataChem Laboratories, Inc., under NIOSH contract CDC-200-2001-08000.
[7] Bieniek G [1997]. Urinary excretion of phenols as an indicator of occupational exposure in the
coke-plant industry. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 70(5):334-340.
[8] Inoue O, Kanno E, Kasai K, Ukai H, Okamoto S, Ikeda M [2004]. Benzylmercapturic acid is superior to
hippuric acid and o-cresol as a urinary marker of occupational exposure to toluene. Toxicol Lett
147(2):177-186.
[9] Bahrami A, Jonidi-Jafari A, Folladi B, Mahjub H, Sadri Q, Zadeh MM [2005]. Comparison of urinary o-
cresol and hippuric acid in drivers, gasoline station workers and painters exposed to toluene in
west of Iran. Pak J Biol Sci 8(7):1001-1005.
[11] NIOSH [1994]. Phenol and p-cresol in urine: Method 8305. In Eller PM, Cassinelli ME, eds. NIOSH
manual of analytical methods, 4th ed. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety
and Health, DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 94-113.
[12] Lewalter J, Schucht T [2012]. Benzene derivatives, suitable for steam distillation (phenol; m-/p-
cresol; o-cresol; o-chlorophenol; o-nitrophenol; p-chlorophenol; nitrobenzene; 1,2-dinitrobenzene;
2-chloro-5-methylphenol; 2,5-dichlorophenol; 3,4-dichlorophenol; 2,3-dinitrotoluene)
[Biomonitoring Methods, 1985]. The MAK Collection for Occupational Health and Safety, pp 31–56.
[13] ASTM [2011]. ASTM D1193-06(2011), Standard specification for reagent water, ASTM International,
West Conshohocken, PA, 2011, www.astm.org.
[14] CDC [2007]. 2007 Guidelines for isolation precautions: preventing transmission of infectious agents
in healthcare settings. [http://www.cdc.gov/hicpac/2007IP/2007isolationprecautions.html]. Date
accessed: April 2013.
[15] Burkart JA [1986]. General procedures for limit of detection calculations in the industrial hygiene
chemistry laboratory, Appl Ind Hyg 1(3):153-155.
[16] Hasegawa K, Shiojima S, Koizmui A, Ikeda M [1983]. Hippuric acid and o-cresol in the workers of
urine exposed to toluene. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 52(3):197-208.
[17] Truchon G, Tardif R, Brodeur J [1999]. o-Cresol: A good indicator of exposure to low levels of
toluene. Appl Occup Environ Hyg 14(10):677-681.
[18] de Paiva MJN, Martins I, de Siqueira MEPB [2007]. Analysis of ortho-cresol in urine by solid phase
microextraction-capillary gas chromatography. J Braz Chem Soc 18(5):1034-1039.
[19] Fustinoni S, Mercadante R, Campo L, Scibetta L, Valla C, Foà V [2005]. Determination of urinary
ortho- and meta-cresol in humans by headspace SPME gas chromatography/mass spectrometry. J
Chromatogr B 817:309-317.
María Carolina Siso and James B. Perkins, DataChem Laboratories, Inc., Salt Lake City, Utah under
NIOSH Contract CDC-200-2001-08000. Final editing by Dale A. Shoemaker, Ph.D., NIOSH.
Disclaimer: Mention of any company or product does not constitute endorsement by NIOSH. In addition,
citations to websites external to NIOSH do not constitute NIOSH endorsement of the sponsoring
organizations or their programs or products. Furthermore, NIOSH is not responsible for the content of
these websites. All web addresses referenced in this document were accessible as of the publication date.
SAMPLING MEASUREMENT
SHIPMENT: Freeze urine; ship in dry ice in an insulated PROCEDURE: Methylation of an aliquot with BF3·methanol
container. to form the methyl ester followed by
extraction into toluene
SAMPLE
INJECTION: 1 µL, splitless for 0.5 min
STABILITY: Stable at least 30 days at -17 ºC [6]
TEMPERATURES
CONTROLS: Urine specimens from matched population of -INJECTION: 250 ºC
non-exposed persons -DETECTOR: 300 ºC
-OVEN: 80 ºC (hold for 0.5 min), 80 to 180 ºC at 20 ºC/
ACCURACY min, hold for 7 min
RANGE STUDIED: 0.9 to 100 µg/mL (as trichloroacetic acid) CARRIER GAS: Helium, ~3.5 mL/min
APPLICABILITY: This method can be used for the determination of trichloroacetic acid (TCAA) in urine specimens. TCAA is one of
several metabolites detected after exposure to a variety of chlorinated compounds (representative compounds listed above) or
from contaminated drinking water [7-11].
INTERFERENCES: None observed in the analytical method apart from some carryover issues (see Evaluation of Method section.)
TCAA is a non-specific metabolite of several compounds. Urinary TCAA levels reflect exposure to any and all of these precursors.
Background TCAA was detected in 76% of urine samples in a US general population sample, with a median concentration of 3.3
µg/L, approximately 300 times lower than the range of this method [12].
OTHER METHODS: There are numerous literature methods for the determination of TCAA in urine [13]. The National Center for
Environmental Health/Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (NCEH/CDC) has a method that is more expensive but also sig-
nificantly more sensitive [11]. This method is based on the procedure used by O’Donnell [7] with some modifications.
REAGENTS: EQUIPMENT:
SPECIAL PRECAUTIONS: Standard precautions should always be used when handling bodily fluids and/or
extracts of bodily fluids [15]. Handle urine specimens and urine extracts using powder-free latex or nitrile
gloves. Acetic acid, acetone, toluene, and methanol are flammable; handle with care and use in a chemical
fume hood. Handle all chemicals using the required safety precautions. Reagents with manufacturer
expiration dates should be observed. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has designated TCAA as a
known mouse carcinogen and a possible human carcinogen [16].
SAMPLING:
SAMPLE PREPARATION:
11. Prepare a stock solution by accurately weighing a known quantity of sodium trichloroacetate into a
volumetric flask. Add a known volume of deionized water and mix. Convert the weight of the sodium
trichloroacetate to TCAA by multiplying by 0.8814 (MW TCAA divided by MW sodium trichloroacetate
= 0.8814). As an example, 34 mg of sodium trichloroacetate into a 10-mL flask makes a 3 mg/mL stock
solution to be used in preparing the calibration standards.
NOTE: Sodium trichloroacetate was used instead of trichloroacetic acid for all phases of this method
development as well as in the preparation of standards. Trichloroacetic acid is very hygroscopic; the
salt is much less so.
12. Prepare working (calibration) standards by serial dilution to cover the analytical range. A suggested
working standard concentration range is 0.08 to 300 µg/mL. Withdraw 200 µL of each calibration standard
and follow steps 4 through 10.
13. Determine the retention time for the analyte of interest.
14. Prepare at least one blank urine specimen without an analyte spike to verify whether the source (of blank
urine) contained no detectable quantity of TCAA.
15. Prepare at least two levels of quality control spikes of TCAA, sodium salt to be analyzed with each analysis
batch. These levels should be at ~10 X the limit of quantitation (LOQ) and 200 X LOQ, but can be adjusted
to better suit the anticipated levels of the set of specimens. QC samples must be analyzed with every
batch such that they constitute 10% of the sample batch.
16. QC values must be within ±20% of the spiked values. If not, the batch is considered out of control, the
batch data discarded, and corrective actions taken before more samples are analyzed.
17. Calibrate daily with at least six liquid working standards covering the expected concentration range of the
samples.
MEASUREMENT:
PRECAUTION: SYRINGE-RINSE SOLUTIONS: Toluene will extract material from some urine
specimens that may eventually clog the syringe and cause injection errors unless the syringe is
rinsed with the following solutions following each injection.
First rinse solution: 1:3 glacial acetic acid:deionized water
Second rinse solution: 1:1 acetone:methanol
18. Set the gas chromatograph according to manufacturer’s recommendations and to conditions given on
page 8322-1. With the chromatographic conditions listed, the retention time of the methyl ester of TCAA
was 8.87 min [6].
19. Inject each of the samples, standards, blanks, and quality control samples.
20. Measure peak area or peak height; peak area is recommended.
NOTE: If the sample peak area or height is greater than that of the highest calibration standard, dilute with
toluene and reanalyze. Apply the appropriate dilution factor in the calculations.
21. Prepare a calibration curve by plotting instrument responses (usually peak area) for the standards vs.
concentration. The simplest model that adequately describes the data should be used, but either a linear
(mostly likely 1/x weighted because of the range of the calibration curve) or a quadratic model may be
utilized in processing the analytical results. The standard curve must have a coefficient of determination
(r2) of equal to or greater than 0.98 to be acceptable for use. Furthermore, when each standard is plugged
back into the calibration equation, the measured value must be within ±20% of the expected value.
22. Determine the concentration of TCAA in µg/mL (mg/L) using the response of each sample and the
calibration curve prepared in step 21. Apply any dilution factor if applicable.
NOTE: If the creatinine value is available, the concentration may be reported as µg/g creatinine if desired.
TRICHLOROACETIC ACID IN URINE: METHOD 8322, Issue 1, dated 17 April 2015 - Page 4 of 5
EVALUATION OF METHOD:
This method was evaluated over a range of 0.9-30 µg/mL. This range covers 3x, 10x, 30x, and 100x of
the estimated LOQ. Six replicates were prepared and analyzed at each concentration level. The average
recoveries for each of the concentration levels were 94.8% (3 x LOQ), 102.3% (10 x LOQ), 110.4% (30 x LOQ),
and 97.1% (100 x LOQ). Recoveries were determined by comparison against spiked and derivatized liquid
standards (standards prepared in deionized water). The upper concentration range was extended to 100
µg/mL during testing by an independent laboratory. Five samples were analyzed at this concentration and
the average recovery was 105.0%. Overall accuracy was calculated to be 7.5%; bias was 0.0113, and overall
precision was 0.0366 [6]. The limit of detection (LOD) and LOQ were determined by analyzing a series of
derivatized spiked standards, with the data fitted to a quadratic curve, then estimated according to the
Burkart method [17]. A long-term storage stability study was carried out at the 10x, 30x, and 100x LOQ levels.
Urine samples were spiked with trichloroacetate and stored at -17 ºC for 7, 14, 21, 30, and 46 days and then
analyzed. Recoveries at 30 and 46 days were all greater than 90% [6].
During the testing performed by the independent laboratory (“User Check”), broad, interfering carryover
peaks from the urine matrix were noticed. The lab found that raising the final temperature of the GC program
to 240 ºC (instead of 180 ºC) and adding a longer hold time 10 min (instead of 7 min) reduced the carryover
problem, allowing more precise and accurate measurement of the peak of interest. This adjusted GC program
would now be: 80 ºC for 0.5 min, heat to 240 ºC at 20 ºC/min, and hold for 10 min. Either set of conditions
may be used.
NOTE: While the overall accuracy and precision for the User-Check samples were within acceptable
limits [6], there were spurious results in 10% of the samples (2 out of 20.) No reason is known
for these outliers, nor were the samples able to be re-injected, re-extracted, or re-analyzed. To
improve user confidence in the results obtained by this method, it is suggested to randomly run
duplicate analyses of 10-20% of the samples and to randomly re-inject 10-20% of the samples. If
the method is used in an on-going manner and no problems or spurious results are noted, this
recommendation could be lowered or eliminated.
REFERENCES:
[1] ACGIH [2014]. TLVs and BEIs based on the documentation of the Threshold Limit Values for chemical
substances and physical agents and Biological Exposure Indices. Cincinnati, Ohio: American Conference
of Governmental Industrial Hygienists. [www.acgih.org] Date accessed May 2014.
[2] Commission for the Investigation of Health Hazards of Chemical Compounds in the Work Area
[2014]. List of MAK and BAT values 2014; Maximum concentrations and biological tolerance
values at the workplace. DFG: Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft. [http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/
book/10.1002/9783527682027] Date accessed January 2015.
[3] SUVA (Swiss National Accident Insurance Fund) [2013]. Protection de la santé au poste de travail. Valeurs
limites d’exposition aux postes de travail. 3rd Ed. [http://www.suva.ch/english/startseite-en-suva/
praevention-en-suva/publications-en-suva.htm] Date accessed May 2014.
[4] Institut für Arbeitsschutz der Deutschen Gesetzlichen Unfallversicherung [IFA) http://www.dguv.de/ifa/
GESTIS] Date accessed January 2015.
[5] CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics [2013]. 94th Edition, CRC Press, Taylor and Francis Group, Boca
Raton, FL.
[6] Wickman DC, Perkins JB, Reynolds JM [2012]. Backup data report for trichloroacetic acid in urine, ALS
Environmental (formerly DataChem Laboratories Inc.) under NIOSH contract CDC-200-2001-08000.
TRICHLOROACETIC ACID IN URINE: METHOD 8322, Issue 1, dated 17 April 2015 - Page 5 of 5
[7] O’Donnell GE, Juska A, Geyer R, Faiz M, Stalder S [1995]. Analysis of trichloroacetic acid in the urine of
workers occupationally exposed to trichloroethylene by capillary gas chromatography. J Chromatogr A
709:313-317.
[8] Bernauer U, Birner G, Dekant W, Henschler D [1996]. Biotransformation of trichloroethylene: Dose-
dependent excretion of 2,2,2-trichloro-metabolites and mercapturic acids in rats and humans after
inhalation. Arch Toxicol 70:338-346.
[9] Raaschou-Nielsen O, Hansen J, Christensen JM, Blot WJ, McLaughlin JK, Olsen JH [2001]. Urinary
concentrations of trichloroacetic acid in Danish workers exposed to trichloroethylene, 1947-1985. Am J
Ind Med. 39:320-327.
[10] Vartiainen T, Pukkala E, Rienoja T, Strandman T, Kaksonen K [1993]. Population exposure to tri-
and tetrachloroethylene and cancer risk: Two cases of drinking water pollution. Chemosphere,
27(7):1171-1181.
[11] Kuklenyik Z, Ashley DL, Calafat AM [2002]. Quantitative detection of trichloroacetic acid in human urine
using isotope dilution high-performance liquid chromatography-electrospray ionization tandem mass
spectrometry. Anal Chem 74(9):2058-2063.
[12] Calafat AM, Kuklenyik Z, Caudill SP, Ashley DL [2003]. Urinary levels of trichloroacetic acid, a disinfection
by-product in chlorinated drinking water, in a human reference population. Environ Health Perspect
111:151-154.
[13] Delinksy AD, Bruckner JV, Bartlett MG [2005]. A review of analytical methods for the determination of
trichloroethylene and its major metabolites chloral hydrate, trichloroacetic acid and dichloroacetic acid.
Biomed Chromatogr 19:617-639.
[14] ASTM [2011]. ASTM D1193, Standard specification for reagent water. ASTM International, West
Conshohocken, PA. [www.astm.org] Date accessed: April 2013. DOI 10.1520/D1193-06R11.
[15] CDC [2007]. 2007 Guidelines for isolation precautions: Preventing transmission of infectious agents in
healthcare settings. [http://www.cdc.gov/hicpac/2007IP/2007isolationprecautions.html] Date accessed:
April 2013.
[16] US EPA [2011]. Trichloroacetic acid (CASRN 76-03-9). United States Environmental Protection Agency.
[www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0655.htm] date accessed April 7, 2014.
[17] Burkart JA [1986]. General procedures for limit of detection calculations in the industrial hygiene
chemistry laboratory. Appl Ind Hyg 1(3):153-155.
METHOD EDITED BY: John M. Reynolds, ALS Environmental (formerly DataChem Laboratories, Inc.), Salt
Lake City, Utah and Dale A. Shoemaker, Ph.D., NIOSH/DART/CEMB.
Disclaimer: Mention of any company or product does not constitute endorsement by NIOSH. In addition,
citations to websites external to NIOSH do not constitute NIOSH endorsement of the sponsoring
organizations or their programs or products. Furthermore, NIOSH is not responsible for the content of
these websites. All web addresses referenced in this document were accessible as of the publication date.
3-BROMOPROPIONIC ACID in URINE 8324
metabolite of 1-bromopropane
FORMULA: C3H5BrO2 MW: 152.97 CAS: 590-92-1 RTECS: UE7875000
METHOD: 8324, Issue 1 EVALUATION: FULL Issue 1: 12 September 2014
Exposure limits and guidelines: PROPERTIES: Solid; d 1.48 g/mL at 25 oC; MP 58-62 oC
OSHA: None
NIOSH: None BIOLOGICAL
Other OELs: Because data on exposure limits and guidelines INDICATOR OF: Exposure to 1-bromopropane
may change over time, NIOSH recommends referring
to the following sources for updated limits [1 - 4].
SAMPLING MEASUREMENT
CONTROLS: Urine specimens obtained from non-exposed - COLUMN: 60 oC initial, 4 oC/min to 180 oC,15 oC/min to
individuals 255 oC, post-run at 270 oC for 5 min
APPLICABILITY: 3-Bromopropionic acid (3-BPA) has been reported to be a rat metabolite [7] and is a potential human biomarker
for exposure to 1-bromopropane. This method measures the quantity of free 3-BPA in urine. 1-Bromopropane is used as an indus-
trial solvent. In one limited study, 3-BPA was not detected in individuals exposed to low levels of 1-bromopropane [8].
OTHER METHODS: This method is from the one described by B’Hymer and Cheever [9] and further investigated by Mathias, et al.
[8].
REAGENTS: EQUIPMENT:
1. 3-Bromopropionic acid (3-BPA) reference standard 1. Gas chromatograph with mass spectrometric
as a 1.0 mg/mL stock solution in deionized water. detector, column, autosampler, and data collector
Store in a refrigerator. (page 8324-1)
2. 3-Chloropropionic acid (3-CPA) reference 2. Bottles, polypropylene, 125-mL with caps
standard, 20 μg/mL in deionized water, internal 3. Analytical balance, to ±0.0001 g
standard solution. Store in a refrigerator. 4. Analytical evaporator with nitrogen gas sweep
3. Ethyl acetate, HPLC grade or better* 5. Test-tube vortex mixer
4. N-Methyl-N-(tert-butyldimethylsilyl) 6. Heating block or oven
trifluoroacetamide (MTBSTFA) with 1% tert- 7. Automatic pipettor with disposable tips
butyldimethylchlorosilane (TBDMCS) 8. Repeating pipet dispenser, 1 Liter
5. Magnesium sulfate, anhydrous, powdered, ACS 9. Tubes, disposable screw-top culture (16 X 100 mm
reagent grade and 16 X 150 mm), with polytetrafluoroethylene
6. Hydrochloric acid, concentrated, ACS reagent (PFTE)-lined caps
grade 10. Metal spatula
7. Water, deionized (ASTM type II) 11. Flasks, volumetric; 10, 50 and 100-mL
8. Nitrogen, prepurified grade or better 12. Autosampler vials, 2 mL, silanized, with caps and
9. Urine, non-exposed* septa
13. Glass funnels
* See SPECIAL PRECAUTIONS 14. Glass wool, silanized
15. Disposable glass pipets
16. Dry ice or bagged refrigerant
SPECIAL PRECAUTIONS: Standard precautions should always be used when handling bodily fluids and/
or extracts of bodily fluids [10]. Handle urine samples and urine extracts using powder-free latex or nitrile
gloves. Ethyl acetate and MTBSTFA are flammable; handle with care and use in a chemical fume hood.
Handle all chemicals using the required safety precautions. Manufacturer expiration dates for reagents
should be observed.
SAMPLING:
1. Collect at least 15 mL urine in an appropriate polypropylene tube or bottle and cap. Refrigerate or freeze
immediately after collection. Collect at least two urine specimens for each worker: one before the work
shift and one after.
2. Ship the specimens stored in either wet or dry ice in an insulated container. Store frozen upon arrival
at the laboratory. A reminder: commercial shippers have special labeling requirements for packages
containing dry ice.
SAMPLE PREPARATION:
11. Repeat the extraction (steps 9 and 10) three more times. Collect and combine all ethyl acetate
extracts using a glass pipet into a 16 X 150 mm culture tube.
12. Dry the ethyl acetate extract by adding approximately 100 to 200 mg of anhydrous magnesium
sulfate and swirl for about 15 seconds.
13. Transfer the extract solution into a 16 X 150 mm culture tube by means of a glass funnel with
silanized glass wool patch to remove the wet magnesium sulfate. The glass wool patch must be
packed tightly enough to prevent particles of magnesium sulfate from passing through.
14. Rinse the tube and the funnel with ethyl acetate to ensure complete transfer.
15. Concentrate the combined ethyl acetate extract for each sample to 1 mL using a nitrogen sweep at
room temperature and transfer the solution to a 2-mL GC autosampler vial.
16. tert-Butyldimethylsilane derivatization: Add 50 μL of MTBSTFA with 1% TBDMCS silanizing reagent
to each autosampler vial and cap immediately.
17. Heat the solution for 1.5 hours at 70 oC in a heating block or oven.
18. 3-Bromopropionic acid (3-BPA) standards are prepared in blank, non-exposed urine. The 1 mg/mL
stock 3-BPA solution is diluted in deionized water to make 0.4, 1, 2, 4, 8, 20, 80, 200, 400, 600, and
800 μg/mL 3-BPA solutions for spiking.
19. Transfer 2.0 mL of non-exposed urine into a 16 X 100 mm (or larger) screw-capped culture tube.
20. Acidify by adding 40 μL of concentrated hydrochloric acid.
21. Add 0.5 mL of the 20 μg/mL 3-CPA internal standard solution.
22. Add 0.5 mL of the appropriate 3-BPA spiking solution described in step 18 to make urine samples
equivalent to 0.1, 0.25, 0.5, 1, 2, 5, 20, 50,100, 150 and 200 μg/mL of 3-BPA in the original 2.0 mL
volume of urine.
23. Prepare at least one blank urine without a 3-BPA spike to verify the source of blank urine contains no
detectable quantity of 3-BPA.
24. Prepare at least two levels of quality control (QC) standard of 3-BPA fortified urine using a separately
weighed and prepared 3-BPA stock solution. One level should be within the lower 25% of the
calibration curve and one level within the upper 25% of the calibration curve. More than two QC
levels can be used. QC samples should be analyzed with every batch such that they constitute at
least 5% of the sample batch.
25. QC values should be within ±20% of the spiked values. If not, the batch is considered out of control,
the batch data discarded, and corrective actions should be taken before more samples are analyzed.
26. Ethyl acetate extraction: Prepare the spiked standard urine samples, the blank urine sample(s), and
the QC standards the same as described in the preceding Sample Preparation section using Steps 9
through 17.
MEASUREMENT:
27. Set the gas chromatograph according to the manufacturer’s recommendations and to the
conditions listed on page 8324-1.
28. Set the mass selective detector to selected ion monitoring mode for ions m/z 211 (derivative of
3-BPA) and 165 (derivative of 3-CPA).
NOTE: The use/non-use of qualifier ions for this method is discussed in the literature [9].
29. Inject 0.5 μL of each sample, standard, blank, and QC standard extract from Steps 17 and 26.
30. Measure the peak areas of the tert-butyldimethylsilane derivatives of 3-BPA and 3-CPA in the
chromatograms of the standards.
31. Divide the peak area of the derivative of 3-BPA by the peak area from the derivative of 3-CPA in the
same chromatogram.
32. Prepare a linear calibration curve of the peak Area Std./Area Int. Std. versus the concentration of the
standard for 3-BPA.
33. Measure the peak areas of the derivatives of 3-BPA and 3-CPA in the remainder of the
chromatograms.
34. Divide the peak area of the derivative of 3-BPA by the peak area from the derivative of 3-CPA in the
same chromatogram.
CALCULATIONS:
35. Determine the concentration of 3-BPA in the extracts from the original urine (2.0 mL specimen) from
the curve obtained in step 32. The results are expressed as μg/mL of 3-BPA in urine.
EVALUATION OF METHOD:
This method was evaluated and described by B’Hymer [6] and in detail by B’Hymer and Cheever [9]. A
general summary of this published information is given below:
Accuracy and Precision: Two recovery studies using multiple GC columns over several days
demonstrated the accuracy and precision of this test method. The first recovery study was performed
over three separate experimental batch runs, and these data are presented in Table 1A. Average
recovery was between 93 and 98% for the three 3-BPA spiked level urine samples investigated. For each
batch run, the experimental trial consisted of three samples at three different concentration levels. The
recovery for each level (n=9 samples) is displayed in Table 1A. The second recovery study (data shown
in Table 1B) used spiked urine samples from 20 non-exposed volunteers and demonstrated that the
procedure was accurate (95% average recovery) and precise (2.5% relative standard deviation.) No
interferences were detected in the unspiked urine from the 20 volunteer specimens. Both recovery
studies generated a total of 47 spiked urine samples at 2, 10, 20 and 50 μg/mL 3-BPA levels. Precision
expressed as percent relative deviation (% RSD) was as high as 5.7% on the 2 μg/mL recovery samples
(n = 9). Overall recovery was 95% and overall RSD was 3.1% (n = 47).
Linearity: All calibration curves used during the development of this method were linear and had
correlation coefficients of 0.98 and greater. The concentration range was 0.1 to 200 μg/mL 3-BPA in
urine with 2.0 mL urine sample size. Calibration curves were run at the beginning and end of all sample
batch runs; calibration curve slope drift was found to be acceptable.
Specificity: The optimized chromatographic conditions developed for this procedure proved to be
specific and have no major interferences. The mass spectrometric detector was useful in adding
additional specificity to the method. The ion m/z 211 was chosen for monitoring the calibration curve
used in the calculations because of its greater abundance, and it was a characteristic fragment for
the tert-butyldimethylsilane (TBDMS) derivative of 3-BPA. This is the molecular ion less the tert-butyl
group, m/z 57 (Figure 1). Ion m/z 165 was used to monitor the TBDMS derivative of 3-CPA, the internal
standard, for the same reasons. Full-scan mass spectra of the TBDMS derivatives are presented in
Figure 2. An example chromatogram for blank urine and urine spiked with 3-BPA and 3-CPA is shown in
Figure 3.
Robustness: Multiple HP-1 (100% dimethylpolysiloxane) columns of different manufacturing lots were
used during the recovery studies. Accuracy and precision did not appear to be affected; therefore,
the method appears to be reproducible with any normal functioning HP-1 capillary column. Recovery
results from individual urine samples spiked with 3-BPA indicate that the method is accurate and not
significantly affected by individual urine sample matrix differences during analyte extraction.
Stability: While sample stability was not exhaustively evaluated, an aqueous stock standard solution of
3-BPA stored for two weeks at 4 oC gave full recovery assay values when compared to a freshly prepared
3-BPA standard. The 3-BPA in the urine specimens appears to be stable in frozen urine for a much
longer time frame of two months or more. Derivatized sample extracts appeared to be stable during a
one week time frame.
Range: This method should be considered accurate for the estimation of 3-BPA in human urine within
the 2.0 to 100 μg/mL method validation range.
REFERENCES:
[1] ACGIH [2013]. TLVs and BEIs based on the documentation of the Threshold Limit Values for
chemical substances and physical agents and Biological Exposure Indices. Cincinnati, Ohio:
American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists. [www.acgih.org] Date accessed: April
2014.
[2] Commission for the Investigation of Health Hazards of Chemical Compounds in the Work Area
[2013]. List of MAK and BAT values 2013; Maximum Concentrations and Biological Tolerance Values
at the Workplace. DFG: Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. [http://
www.dfg.de/en/dfg_profile/publications/senate_commissions/index.html#micro7535782]. Date
accessed April 2014.
[3] SUVA (Swiss National Accident Insurance Fund) [2013]. Protection de la santé au poste de travail.
Valeurs limtes d’exposition aux postes de travail. [http://www.suva.ch/english/startseite-en-suva/
praevention-en-suva/publications-en-suva.htm]. Date accessed: April 2014.
[4] Institut für Arbeitsschutz der Deutschen Gesetzlichen Unfallversicherung (IFA) [http://www.dguv.
de/ifa/GESTIS]. Date accessed: April 2014.
[5] US FDA [2001]. Guidance for industry: Bioanalytical method validation. U.S. Food and Drug
Administration, Washington, DC. [http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/Guidances/ucm070107.
pdf ]. Date accessed April 2014.
[6] B’Hymer C [2004]. 3-Bromopropionic acid in urine, Method 8324. Backup data report.
[7] Jones AR, Walsh DA [1979]. The oxidative metabolism of 1-bromopropane in the rat. Xenobiotica
9(12): 763-772.
[8] Mathias PI, Cheever KL, Hanley KW, Marlow KL, Johnson BC, B’Hymer C [2012]. Comparison
and evaluation of urinary biomarkers for occupational exposure to spray adhesives containing
1-bromopropane. Toxicol Mech Methods 22(7): 526-532.
[9] B’Hymer C, Cheever KL [2004]. Development of a gas chromatographic test for the quantification of
the biomarker 3-bromopropionic acid in human urine. J Chromatogr B 802: 361-366.
[10] CDC [2007]. 2007 Guidelines for isolation precautions: preventing transmission of infectious agents
in healthcare settings. [http://www.cdc.gov/hicpac/2007IP/2007isolationprecautions.html]. Date
accessed: April 2013.
Clayton B’Hymer, PhD, NIOSH/DART/BHAB. Final editing performed by Dale A. Shoemaker, PhD, NIOSH/
DART/CEMB.
Disclaimer: Mention of any company or product does not constitute endorsement by NIOSH. In addition, citations to
websites external to NIOSH do not constitute NIOSH endorsement of the sponsoring organizations or their programs
or products. Furthermore, NIOSH is not responsible for the content of these websites. All web addresses referenced
in this document were accessible as of the publication date.
Figure 1. The major ions monitored for the tert-butyldimethylsilane derivatives were the molecular
ions less the tert-butyl group (m/z = 57). The ions used for quantitation are m/z (mass to charge) 165
for the internal standard derivative and m/z 211 for the 3-bromopropionic acid derivative.
Figure 2a.
Figure 2b.
Figure 3. A total ion chromatogram of a (A) blank non-exposed volunteer urine specimen and (B)
20 µg/mL spiked 3-BPA urine solution with 5 µg/mL equivalent 3-CPA as the internal standard. No
interfering peaks were evident in any of the group of 20 non-exposed volunteer specimens.
Published limits and guidelines using these compounds as markers: PROPERTIES: 1. Solid; density =1.246 g/cm3; mp 162-163 °C
1. Toluene: OSHA and NIOSH: None 2. Solid; density = 1.28 g/cm3; mp 155 °C
2. Benzene: OSHA and NIOSH: None
BIOLOGICAL
Other OELs: Because data on exposure limits and guidelines may change INDICATOR OF: Exposure to 1. toluene and
over time, NIOSH recommends referring to the following sources for 2. benzene
updated limits and guidelines concerning the use of these compounds as
markers for toluene and benzene [1- 4].
SAMPLING MEASUREMENT
SHIPMENT: Ship cold or frozen with ice or dry ice. Freeze upon COLUMN: C18 [dimethyloctadecylsilane solid phase type, 3.5
µm particle size] (150 mm by 3 mm)
receipt at the laboratory.
MOBILE
SAMPLE PHASES: A = 5/95/0.1% (v/v/v) acetonitrile/water/acetic acid
STABILITY: Stable in frozen urine for periods of a month or more B = 75/25/0.1% (v/v/v) acetonitrile/water/acetic acid
and for several freeze/thaw cycles [5,6]. FLOW RATE: 0.3 mL/min (0.4 mL/min post run)
CONTROLS: Urine specimens obtained from non-exposed or low GRADIENT: Time (min) vs. Mobile Phase Composition
level exposed individuals. 0 to 10 0 to 40% B
10 to 18 40 to 100% B
ACCURACY* 18 to 20 100% B
20 to 21 100% B Flow increased to 0.4 mL/min
21 to 28 100% B (0.4 mL/min flow)
RANGE
28 to 30 100 to 0% B (re-equilibration, 0.3 mL/min)
STUDIED: See Table 2 30 to 37 0% B (re-equilibration)
APPLICABILITY: BMA and PMA are metabolites of toluene and benzene, respectively. PMA is a very specific bio-
marker for benzene. BMA can form from exposure to other sources, such as benzyl acetate or benzyl alcohol which
can be found in personal care products [8]. Both toluene and benzene are common solvents with multiple occupa-
tional uses; furthermore exposure to toluene and benzene (less commonly) can occur from environmental and other
sources. This method measures the quantity of the two target metabolite analytes in urine.
OTHER METHODS: This method is based on the research of B’Hymer [9,10]. There are numerous literature methods for
these two compounds, but standardized methods from governmental agencies or consensus standards organizations
are not currently available, though there is also a recent method developed at CDC/National Center for Environmental
Health for these analytes and others [11].
REAGENTS: EQUIPMENT:
SAMPLING:
1. Collect at least 8 mL of urine in an appropriate polypropylene tube or bottle and cap. Refrigerate
at 4 °C or freeze after collection. Collect at least two urine specimens for each worker, one before
the work shift and one after.
2. Ship the specimen stored in either wet or dry ice in an insulated container. Freeze specimens
upon arrival at the laboratory and store frozen. A reminder: commercial shippers have special
labeling requirements for packages containing dry ice.
SAMPLE PREPARATION:
NOTE: BMA and PMA are somewhat light sensitive (see Evaluation of Method section). Perform
the sample preparation steps in a low light environment. Extreme measures are not
required.
3. Thaw the urine specimen to room temperature.
4. Mix urine specimen thoroughly to ensure homogeneity.
5. Transfer 4.0 mL of urine into a 16 X 150 mm (or larger) screw-capped culture tube.
6. Add 0.5 mL of deionized water to aid in the dissolution of solids.
7. Add 0.5 mL of the 30 ng/mL deuterated BMA/PMA internal standard solution.
8. Solid-phase extraction
NOTE: All SPE steps are performed using the vacuum manifold apparatus. The flow rate should
not exceed 1 mL/min. The SPE cartridges should not be allowed to go to dryness until
the end of Step 8d. Refer to manufacturers’ recommendations for use of specific SPE
cartridges.
a. Pre-wash the C18 SPE cartridge with 2 mL of acetone.
b. Equilibrate the SPE cartridge with 2 mL of HPLC grade water.
c. Load the 5-mL urine mixture and draw the sample through the cartridge.
d. Wash the cartridge with 1 mL of HPLC grade water. Discard any liquid collected up to this
point.
e. Apply (or increase) the vacuum to pull most of the water from the cartridge.
f. Elute the analytes with 3 mL of acetone three times, collecting all of the acetone washes into a
15-mL plastic screw-capped tube.
9. Evaporate the 9 mL of acetone from the extracts to dryness by means of a vacuum rotary
concentrator or by using a nitrogen sweep.
10. Cap the plastic tubes containing the dry extract and store in a refrigerator/freezer until ready for
chromatographic analysis.
11. Prior to chromatographic analysis, dissolve the extract in 1 mL of HPLC mobile phase A and
transfer the sample into an amber HPLC autosampler vial.
12. Prepare a BMA/PMA standard mixture by combining 2.0 mL of each stock solution and diluting to
100 mL with deionized water to make an approximately 4 µg/mL solution concentration for each.
13. BMA/PMA standard solutions: The 4 µg/mL BMA/PMA solution is diluted in water to make 4, 8, 16,
40, 80, 320 and 400 ng/mL BMA/PMA solutions.
14. Accurately transfer 0.500 mL of each BMA/PMA solution from step 13 into a separate HPLC
autosampler vial. [This delivers 2, 4, 8, 20, 40, 160 and 200 ng of each analyte to each autosampler
vial.]
15. Add 0.5 mL of the deuterated internal standard spiking solution [30 ng/mL] to each vial. [This
delivers 15 ng of the internal standards to each autosampler vial.]
16. Add 0.1 mL of the chromatographic matrix adjustment solution to each standard vial.
NOTE: These standard samples are equivalent to 0.5 to 50 ng/mL BMA/PMA urine samples [based on
the original 4.0 mL urine volume extracted and placed in each autosampler vial.]
17. Prepare one blank urine sample without analyte spikes; alternatively, prepare one blank using a
urine substitute by following steps 14-16 using 0.5 mL of the unspiked urine or substitute in step 14.
18. Prepare at least one quality control (QC) standard of urine or urine substitute fortified with PMA/
BMA using separately prepared stock solutions. A 10 ng/mL equivalent spike level is suggested and
more than one level can be used if desired.
MEASUREMENT:
19. Set the high-performance liquid chromatograph according to the manufacturer’s recommendations
and to the conditions listed on page 8326-1. A needle rinse with 50/50% (v/v) acetonitrile/water is
required to eliminate sample carry-over by the autosampler.
20. Set the mass spectrometric detector to multiple reaction mode (MRM) according to the
manufacturer’s recommendations and the conditions listed on page 8326-1. Example conditions
are summarized below:
21. Inject 8 μL of each sample extract, standard, QC standard, and blank. Sample chromatograms for
each compound are illustrated in Figure 1.
22. Measure the peak areas of the two analytes (BMA and PMA) and those for the deuterated internal
standards (d5-BMA and d5-PMA) in the chromatograms. Divide the peak area of the analytes by the
peak area from the matching deuterated internal standard.
23. Prepare calibration curves of the peak Area Std./Area Internal Std. (ratio calculated in step 22) versus
the urine equivalent concentration of the standards for the two analytes.
CALCULATIONS:
24. Determine the concentration of the two analytes in the extracts from the original urine (4.0 mL
specimen) from the curves obtained in step 23. The results can be expressed as ng/mL of each
analyte in urine.
EVALUATION OF METHOD:
This method was evaluated and described in detail by B’Hymer [9,10]. A general summary of this
published information is given below:
Accuracy and Precision. Three recovery studies using multiple columns over several days
demonstrated the accuracy and precision of this test method. The first recovery study was performed
using fortified urine samples over three separate experimental batch runs, and these data are presented
in Table 2. Average recoveries were between 102 and 106% for the two analytes over the four spiked
concentration levels investigated. For each batch run, the experimental trial consisted of three samples
at four different concentration levels. The recovery and precision for each level (n = 9 samples) are
displayed in Table 2. The relative standard deviations (RSD) observed ranged from 2.0 to 5.0%. These
accuracy and precision numbers fall well within parameters established for bioanalytical methods [7].
The second recovery study was performed using a urine substitute, fortified over three separate
experimental batch runs, and these data are presented in Table 3. Average recoveries were between
99 and 109% for the two analytes over the four spiked concentration levels investigated. For each
batch run, the experimental trial consisted of three samples at four different concentration levels.
The recovery for each level (n = 9 samples) is displayed in Table 3. As seen in the RSD column of
Table 3, precision was much worse for the urine substitute recovery study. This is due to a higher level
of ion suppression in the electrospray source. This was especially pronounced at the lower spiked
concentration levels (1 and 2 ng/mL). The highest result for the RSD of the 9 samples fortified at 1 ng/L
BMA was 29%. While the accuracy numbers meet standard criteria, the precision values at the lower
concentrations do not [7]. The use of a urine substitute for QC samples is not recommended for this
method.
The third recovery study used urine specimens from twelve non-exposed volunteers; six were smokers
and six were non-smokers. Most participants’ specimens had base levels for both BMA and PMA as
are shown in Table 4. Again, reasonable accuracy and precision were demonstrated for a 6 ng/mL
equivalent level spike; individual recoveries ranged from 95 to 109% for BMA and 101 to 123% for PMA
(Table 4). No interferences were detected in the unspiked urine from the 12 volunteer specimens. This
study illustrates two important points: 1. Levels of both metabolites can be found in the urine of non-
exposed individuals, which is why aqueous standards are used in this method, and 2. It is important to
ascertain smoking status and other non-occupational exposures that may cause elevated levels of these
metabolites.
Linearity. All calibration curves used during the development of this method were linear and had
correlation coefficients of 0.99 and greater. The concentration range was equivalent to 0.5 to 50 ng/mL
BMA and PMA for the extraction of 4.0 mL urine. Calibration curves were run at the beginning and end
of all sample batch runs; calibration curve slope drift was found to be minimal.
Specificity. The optimized chromatographic conditions developed for this method, along with the
tandem mass spectrometric detector, proved to be specific and showed no major interferences. The
mass transition ions of BMA and PMA chosen in this method had the greatest response and were the
predominant daughter ions.
Robustness. Two C18 HPLC columns (Zorbax Rx-C18, Agilent Technologies, Santa Clara, CA, USA) from
the same manufacturer but from different manufacturing lots were used during the recovery studies.
Accuracy and precision were not affected; therefore, the method was found to be reproducible with
any normal functioning C18 HPLC column. Recovery results from individual volunteer urine specimens
spiked with the analytes indicate that the method is accurate and not significantly affected by
individual urine specimen matrix differences during analyte extraction. The urine substitute was found
to cause problems with precision, especially at lower levels; this was attributed to an increase in ion
suppression over human urine within the electrospray source.
Stability. Sample stability was evaluated, whereby a six-day stability study was conducted on the final
chromatographic sample solution. BMA and PMA were stable at 8 °C (the autosampler temperature)
and at room temperature in the absence of light. A light stability experiment was carried out by storing
this solution in a clear glass vial at room temperature on the window sill, thus creating a worst-case
scenario. After 1 day of storage in light under these conditions, BMA and PMA had mean assay values of
75 and 72% (n = 3), respectively, when compared to solutions of freshly prepared reference standards.
After three days of light exposure, extensive degradation was noticed; BMA mean assay values had
fallen to 9% (n = 3) of the original level and PMA had fallen to 16% (n = 3). After six days of exposure to
light, both analytes were nearly completely degraded. Although both analytes benefit from the use of
individual deuterated internal standards, the use of amber glass autosampler vials or other means of
reducing light exposure is recommended to ensure sample stability during extended chromatographic
batch runs.
Range. This method should be considered accurate for the estimation of BMA and PMA in human urine
within the 0.5 to 50 ng/mL standard curve range. Field samples at higher levels can be diluted to a
concentration within that range for analysis.
REFERENCES:
[1] ACGIH [2013]. TLVs and BEIs based on the documentation of the Threshold Limit Values for
chemical substances and physical agents and Biological Exposure Indices. Cincinnati, Ohio:
American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists. [www.acgih.org]. Date accessed:
April 2014.
[2] Commission for the Investigation of Health Hazards of Chemical Compounds in the Work Area
[2013]. List of MAK and BAT values 2013; Maximum Concentrations and Biological Tolerance Values
at the Workplace. DFG: Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. [http://
www.dfg.de/en/dfg_profile/publications/senate_commissions/index.html#micro7535782]. Date
accessed April 2014.
[3] SUVA (Swiss National Accident Insurance Fund) [2013]. Protection de la santé au poste de travail.
Valeurs limtes d’exposition aux postes de travail. [http://www.suva.ch/english/startseite-en-suva/
praevention-en-suva/publications-en-suva.htm]. Date accessed: April 2014.
[4] Institut für Arbeitsschutz der Deutschen Gesetzlichen Unfallversicherung (IFA) [http://www.dguv.
de/ifa/GESTIS]. Date accessed: April 2014.
[5] Boogaard PJ, Van Sittert NJ [1995]. Biological monitoring of exposure to benzene: A comparison
between S-phenylmercapturic acid, trans, trans-muconic acid and phenol. Occup Environ Med
52:611-620.
[6] Schettgen T, Musiol A, Kraus T [2008]. Fast determination of urinary S-phenylmercapturic acid
and S-benzylmercapturic acid by column-switching liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry. J
Chromatogr B 863:283-292.
[7] FDA [2001]. Guidance for industry: Bioanalytical method validation, U.S. Food and Drug
Administration, Rockville, MD. [http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/Guidances/ucm070107.pdf ].
Date accessed April 2014.
[8] Lovreglio P, Barbieri A, Carrieri M, Sabatini L, Fracasso ME, Doria D, Drago I, Basso A, D’Errico MN,
Bartolucci GB, Violante FS, Soleo L [2010]. Validity of new biomarkers of internal dose for use in
the biological monitoring of occupational and environmental exposure to low concentrations of
benzene and toluene. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 83:341-356.
[9] B’Hymer C [2011]. Backup data report for method no. 8326: S-benzylmercapturic acid and
S-phenylmercapturic acid in urine.
[10] B’Hymer C [2011]. Validation of an HPLC-MS/MS method for the determination of urinary
S-benzylmercapturic acid and S-phenylmercapturic acid. J Chromatogr Sci 49:547-553.
[11] Alwis KU, Blount BC, Britt AS, Patel D, Ashley DL [2012]. Simultaneous analysis of 28 urinary VOC
metabolites using ultra high performance liquid chromatography coupled with electrospray
ionization tandem mass spectrometry (UPLC-ESI/MS-MS). Anal Chim Acta 750:152-160.
[12] CDC [2007]. 2007 Guidelines for isolation precautions: Preventing transmission of infectious agents
in healthcare settings. [http://www.cdc.gov/hicpac/2007IP/2007isolationprecautions.html]. Date
accessed: April 2014.
Clayton B’Hymer, Ph.D., NIOSH/DART/BHAB. Final editing performed by Dale A. Shoemaker, Ph.D.,
NIOSH/DART/CEMB.
Disclaimer: Mention of any company or product does not constitute endorsement by NIOSH.
In addition, citations to websites external to NIOSH do not constitute NIOSH endorsement of the
sponsoring organizations or their programs or products. Furthermore, NIOSH is not responsible for the
content of these websites. All web addresses referenced in this document were accessible as of the
publication date.
Figure 1. Chromatograms obtained using the described procedure: (A) fortified urine containing 1
ng/mL S-PMA, 7.2 ng/mL S-BMA, and 3.8 ng/mL of each of the deuterated internal standards (IS) and
(B) non-fortified urine from above containing only the background level of 6.2 ng/mL S-BMA
Table 2. Multiple level recovery experiment of BMA and PMA from urine
Mean
background
Analyte Mean corrected Standard
added concentration concentration Average deviation
Analyte (ng/mL) (ng/mL, n = 9) (ng/mL, n = 9) recovery (%) (ng/mL) %RSD1
BMA2 1 7.43 7.18 103 0.37 5.0
BMA2 2 8.44 8.18 103 0.19 2.3
BMA 2
8 14.6 14.2 103 0.32 2.2
BMA 2
30 38.2 36.2 106 0.94 2.4
PMA 1 1.02 1.00 102 0.05 4.9
PMA 2 2.10 2.00 105 0.09 4.3
PMA 8 8.23 8.00 103 0.27 3.3
PMA 30 31.9 30.0 106 0.65 2.0
Notes: 1. %RSD = percent relative standard deviation
2. The non-fortified reference urine had a background level of 6.2 ng/mL BMA and no
detectable level of PMA.
Three different spiked samples were prepared at each level and analyzed during three
separate experimental trial runs (a total of nine samples at each spike level were analyzed).
The same C18 column was used for experimental batch trials 1 and 2; a second C18 column
was used on trial run 3.
Table 3. Multiple level recovery experiment of BMA and PMA from a urine substitute
Analyte Mean Average Standard
added concentration recovery deviation
Analyte (ng/mL) (ng/mL, n = 9) (%) (ng/mL) %RSD1
BMA 1 1.07 107 0.31 29
BMA 2 2.13 106 0.34 16
BMA 8 8.31 104 0.53 6.4
BMA 30 30.7 102 0.76 2.5
PMA 1 1.09 109 0.27 25
PMA 2 1.98 99 0.16 7.9
PMA 8 7.96 100 0.48 6.0
PMA 30 31.1 104 0.91 2.9
Notes: 1. %RSD = percent relative standard deviation.
Three different spiked samples were prepared at each level and analyzed during
three separate experimental trial runs (a total of nine samples at each spike level
were analyzed).
Notes: The instrumental limit of detection (LOD) was estimated to be approximately 0.2 ng/mL
for both analytes. The lowest standard value was 0.5 ng/mL for both analytes. [Values
near the LOD were reported to one significant figure.]
nd = none detected (< 0.2 ng/mL)
EPA Standard (Bulk): 1% by weight PROPERTIES: Solid, fibrous mineral; conversion to forsterite
at 580 °C; attacked by acids; loses water
above 300 °C
SYNONYMS: Chrysotile
SAMPLING MEASUREMENT
BIAS: Negligible if standards and samples are CALIBRATION: Suspensions of asbestos in 2-propanol
matched in particle size [1]
RANGE: 1% to 100% asbestos
OVERALL
PRECISION ( ): Unknown; depends on matrix and ESTIMATED LOD: 0.2% asbestos in talc and calcite; 0.4%
concentration asbestos in heavy X-ray absorbers such as
ferric oxide
ACCURACY: ±14% to ±25%
PRECISION ( ): 0.07 (5% to 100% asbestos); 0.10 (@ 3%
asbestos); 0.125 (@ 1% asbestos)
INTERFERENCES: Antigorite (massive serpentine), chlorite, kaolinite, bementite, and brushite interfere. X-ray
fluorescence and absorption is a problem with some elements; fluorescence can be circumvented with a diffracted beam
monochromator, and absorption is corrected for in this method.
OTHER METHODS: This is NIOSH method P&CAM 309 [2] applied to bulk samples only, since the sensitivity is not adequate
for personal air samples. An EPA test method for the determination of asbestos in bulk insulation samples is similar to this
one [3]. NIOSH method 7400 is an optical counting procedure for airborne fibers in personal samples. NIOSH methods
7402 (Asbestos by Transmission Electron Microscopy) and 9002 (Asbestos by Polarized Light Microscopy) are also useful for
positive identification of asbestos.
REAGENTS: EQUIPMENT:
SAMPLING:
1. Place several grams of the dust to be analyzed in a plastic vial, seal the vial securely, and ship in a
padded carton.
SAMPLE PREPARATION:
2. Place about 0.5 g of sample dust in a grinding vial and grind in a liquid nitrogen-cooled mill for 2
min to 10 min.
3. Wet sieve the ground dust using a 10 µm sieve and 2-propanol. Place the dust on the sieve and
place the sieve directly in an ultrasonic bath or in a wide dish in the bath. Use enough 2-propanol
to cover the dust (put water in the bath if a dish is used to contain the 2-propanol). Apply ultrasonic
power to sieve the dust.
NOTE: It may take some time to obtain several mg of dust. Heating of the 2-propanol is likely and
cooling periods may be required.
4. Recover the sieved sample dust from the 2-propanol by filtering the suspension through a non-
fibrous filter (polycarbonate) or by driving off the 2-propanol on a hot plate. Dry the sieved sample
in 110 °C oven for 4 h or more.
5. Weigh out about 5 mg of the sieved material onto a small square of tared weighing paper. Record
the actual sample weight, , to the nearest 0.01 mg. Transfer the dust to a 50 mL beaker, washing
the weighing paper with several mL of 2-propanol. Add 10 mL to 15 mL 2-propanol to the beaker.
6. Cover the beaker with a watch glass. Agitate in an ultrasonic bath at least 3 min until all
agglomerated particles are dispersed. Wash the underside of the watch glass with 2-propanol,
collecting the washings in the beaker.
7. Place a silver filter in the filtration apparatus. Attach the funnel securely over the entire filter
circumference. With no vacuum, pour 2 mL to 3 mL 2-propanol onto the filter. Pour the sample
suspension from the beaker into the funnel and apply vacuum. During filtration, rinse the beaker
several times and add rinsings to the funnel.
NOTE: Control the filtration rate to keep the liquid level in the funnel near the top during rinsing. Do
not wash the walls or add 2-propanol to the funnel when the liquid level is lower than 4 cm
above the filter. Leave the vacuum on after filtration for sufficient time to produce a dry filter.
8. Remove the filter with forceps and attach it to the sample holder for XRD analysis.
MEASUREMENT:
11. Obtain a qualitative X-ray diffraction scan (e.g., 10 degrees to 80 degrees 2-theta) of the sample
to determine the presence of chrysotile and interferences. The expected diffraction peaks are as
follows:
Peak (2-Theta Degrees)
Mineral Primary Secondary
Chrysotile 12.08 24.38
Silver 38.12 44.28
12. Mount the filter (sample, standard, or blank) in the XRD instrument and:
a. Determine the net intensity, , of the reference specimen before each filter is scanned. Select a
convenient normalization scale factor, , which is approximately equivalent to the net count for
the reference specimen peak, and use this value of for all analyses.
b. Measure the diffraction peak area of a chrysotile peak that is free of interference. Scan times
should be long, e.g., 15 min.
c. Measure the background on each side of the peak for one-half the time used for peak scanning.
The sum of these two counts is the average background. Determine the position of the
background for each sample.
d. Calculate the net intensity, (the difference between the peak integrated count and the total
background count).
e. Calculate and record the normalized intensity, , for the sample peak on each sample and
standard:
.
NOTE: Normalizing to the reference specimen intensity compensates for long-term drift in X-ray
tube intensity. If intensity measurements are stable, the reference specimen may be
run less frequently; net intensities should be normalized to the most recently measured
reference intensity.
f. Determine the net count, , of an interference-free silver peak on the sample filter following
the same procedure. Use a short scan time for the silver peak (for example, 5% of scan time for
analyte peaks) throughout the method. Normalize (step 12.e) to obtain .
g. Scan each field blank over the same 2-theta range used for the analyte and silver peaks. These
analyses serve only to verify that contamination of the filters has not occurred. The analyte peak
should be absent. The normalized intensity of the silver peak should match that of the media
blanks.
CALCULATIONS:
, %,
= ,
= = transmittance of sample,
= normalized silver peak intensity from sample,
= average normalized silver peak intensity from media blanks (average of six values), and
= mass, µg, of deposited sample.
NOTE: For a more detailed discussion of the absorption correction procedure, see references 5, 6, 7,
and 8.
EVALUATION OF METHOD:
This method is based on the work of B.A. Lange in developing P&CAM 309 [1,2]. Samples in the range
of 1% to 100% chrysotile in talc were studied to establish the feasibility of an XRD method for airborne
asbestos. Analytical precision was as follows:
This work also showed that bias of results after absorption corrections are made is negligible.
REFERENCES:
[1] Lange BA, Haartz JC [1979]. Determination of microgram quantities of asbestos by x-ray diffraction:
chrysotile in thin dust layers of matrix material. Anal Chem 51(4):520–525.
[2] NIOSH [1979]. Chrysotile asbestos (bulk): P&CAM 309. In: Taylor DG, ed. NIOSH manual of analytical
methods. 2nd ed. Vol. 5. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare,
Center for Disease Control, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, DHEW (NIOSH)
Publication No. 79-141, available as accession No. PB83-105445 from NTIS [www.ntis.gov].
[3] Perkins RL, Harvey BW [1993]. Test method: method for the determination of asbestos in bulk
building material. Washington, DC: US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and
Development, EPA/600/R-93-116 [www.nist.gov/nvlap/upload/EPA-600-R-93-116.pdf ].
[4] NIOSH [1976]. Revised recommended asbestos standard. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health,
Education, and Welfare, Center for Disease Control, National Institute for Occupational Safety and
Health, DHEW (NIOSH) Publication No. 77-169 [www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/77-169/].
[5] Leroux J, Powers CA [1970]. Direct x-ray diffraction quantitative analysis of quartz in industrial dust
films deposited on silver membrane filters. Occup Health Rev 21(1):26–34.
[6] Williams PP [1959]. Direct quantitative diffractometric analysis. Anal Chem 31(11):1842–1844.
[7] Abell MT, Dollberg DD, Lange BA, Hornung RW, Haartz JC [1981]. Absorption corrections in x-ray
diffraction dust analyses: procedures employing silver filters. In: Russell PA, ed. Electron microscopy
and x-ray applications to environmental and occupational health analysis. Vol. 2. Ann Arbor, MI: Ann
Arbor Science Publishers, Inc., pp. 115–118.
[8] Dollberg DD, Abell MT, Lange BA [1980]. Occupational health analytical chemistry: quantitation
using x-ray powder diffraction. In: Dollberg DD, Verstuyft AW, eds. Analytical techniques in
occupational health chemistry. Washington, DC: American Chemical Society, ACS Symposium Series
No. 120, pp. 43–65.
M. T. Abell, NIOSH/DPSE.
DISCLAIMER: Mention of any company or product does not constitute endorsement by NIOSH. In addition, citations to
websites external to NIOSH do not constitute NIOSH endorsement of the sponsoring organizations or their programs or
products. Furthermore, NIOSH is not responsible for the content of these websites. All web addresses referenced in this
document were accessible as of the publication date.
Table 1a. Absorption correction factor as Table 1b. Absorption correction factor as
a function of transmittance (1.00 to 0.70) a function of transmittance (0.69 to 0.39)
for chrysotile primary and secondary peak for chrysotile primary and secondary peak
combinations with silver primary peak combinations with silver primary peak
SYNONYMS: Table 3
SAMPLING MEASUREMENT
APPLICABILITY: For methamphetamine, the range is 0.05 to 60 μg/sample (sample = 100 cm2 or 1000 cm2). This method was
developed for the analysis of selected drugs and precursors on surfaces in clandestine drug labs. [4, 5] Sampling methodol-
ogy was tested using wipes on smooth, non-porous surfaces. The APPENDIX contains sampling information for other types of
surfaces.
INTERFERENCES: No chromatographic interferences detected. Water, surfactants and polyols inhibit derivatization.
OTHER WIPE METHODS: NIOSH 9109 uses solid-phase extraction and gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (GC/MS) to
measure multiple drugs [6]. NIOSH 9111 uses liquid chromatography/mass spectrometry (LC/MS) to measure methamphet-
amine [7].
REAGENTS: EQUIPMENT:
NOTE: See APPENDIX A for special instructions on reagents. NOTE: See APPENDIX B for special instructions on equipment.
1. Analytes listed in Table 1.* 1. Wipe, (7.6 cm × 7.6 cm) 12-ply or equivalent.
2. Internal standards from those listed in Table 8. 2. Sample storage and shipping container: 50-mL polypropylene
3. Solvents, residue free analytical grades: centrifuge tubes with PTFE-lined caps.
a. Hexane * 3. Extraction tubes and vials:
b. Isopropanol (IPA)* a. Glass test tubes, 25-mL (20 × 120 mm), with PTFE-lined caps;
c. Methanol * b. Glass test tubes, 14-mL (16 × 100 mm), with PTFE- lined caps,
d. Methylene chloride (CH2Cl2) * (ASTM Specification E982 [5], or equivalent, suitable for repeated
e. Toluene * autoclaving);
f. Acetone* c. Amber GC autosampler vials (2-mL) and caps.
4. Concentrated sulfuric and hydrochloric acids (AR or trace metals 4. Gas chromatograph/mass spectrometer detector, with column and
analysis grades).* integrator, see p. 9106-1.
5. Sodium hydroxide, A.C.S. grade.* 5. Liquid Transfer:
6. Anhydrous granular sodium sulfate, AR grade. a. Syringes: 10-, 25-, 100-, and 500-μL sizes.
7. Anhydrous granular potassium carbonate, AR grade. b. Mechanical pipette with disposable tips or repeating dispenser:
8. Bromothymol Blue, ≥95%, A.C.S., phenolphthalein, A.C.S.; crystal 0.5-, 2.5-, and 10-mL sizes.
violet (Gentian Violet), ≥95%, A.C.S. c. Repeating dispenser: 1- to 5-mL.
9. Purified gases: helium for carrier gas, nitrogen for drying. d. Three repeating dispensers: 10 to 20-mL each.
10. Chlorodifluoroacetic anhydride, 98%* derivatizing agent. Moisture 6. Volumetric flasks: 10-, 100-, and 250-mL.
sensitive! 7. Forceps.
11. 4,4’-Dibromooctafluorobiphenyl, 99%, instrument internal standard 8. Gloves, latex or nitrile. Avoid vinyl gloves (see 9106-3, Sampling
(IIS). step 1, NOTE 2).
12. Deionized water (ASTM type II). 9. Scoop for solid reagents.
10. Empty drying columns: 1 cm i.d. × 12-15 cm length polypropylene
SOLUTIONS: plastic columns having a fritted polyethylene disc or equivalent (e.g.
10-mL pipette tip with small wad of silanized glass wool packed into
NOTE: See APPENDIX A for special instructions on solutions. the tip).
1. Prepare solutions of analytes of interest. Calculate concentrations as 11. Nitrogen blow-down apparatus with water bath capable of
the free base. Keep refrigerated (<6 °C). Protect solutions from light. maintaining 35 ºC.
a. Stock solutions are prepared at about 1-2 mg/mL in methanol. 12. Vortex mixer.
b. Analyte spiking solutions are prepared by diluting the stock 13. Rotating mixer capable of 10-30 rpm.
solutions to about 200 μg/mL each in methanol. 14. Aspirator flask: 1-L, with aspirator tubing and a 12.5 cm long 16
2. Prepare internal standard spiking solution in methanol at about gauge needle.
200 μg/mL. (Note: Add about 2 milligrams of crystal violet per 20 mL 15. Centrifuge: capable of up to 4000 x g and of holding 25-mL glass test
of internal standard spiking solution to help indicate which samples tubes.
have been spiked.) 16. Oven capable of 70 to 90 ºC ± 2 ºC.
3. Desorption solution: 0.1 M H2SO4 (sulfuric acid.) Add 22 mL conc. 17. Test tube racks, heat resistant to 90 ºC.
sulfuric acid to 4 L deionized water. 18. Pasteur pipettes.
4. Bromothymol blue and phenolphthalein pH indicator solution: 1 mg/ 19. pH paper.
mL each in 4:1 isopropanol: deionized water. 20. Template: 10 cm × 10 cm or 31.7 cm × 31.7 cm opening, made of
5. Sodium hydroxide*, 10 M: Dissolve 40 grams sodium hydroxide in relatively rigid disposable cardstock or sheet of PTFE.
enough deionized water to make 100 mL. Do not store in glass- 21. Ice or other cold media for shipping.
stoppered bottle.
6. Hydrochloric acid, 0.3 M, in methanol: Dilute 2.5 mL conc. hydrochloric
acid in about 80 mL methanol; dilute to 100 mL with methanol.
7. Crystal violet indicator: 2-3 mg/mL in isopropanol.
8. Reconstitution solvent: 10% acetone in toluene with 4 μg/mL of
4,4’-dibromooctafluorobiphenyl (optional).*
SPECIAL PRECAUTIONS: The solvents are flammable and have adverse health effects.
Phenethylamines target the nervous system at very low concentrations and are easily absorbed
through the skin. Avoid breathing vapors. Avoid skin contact. Work should be performed in a hood
with adequate ventilation. Analysts must wear proper eye and hand protection (e.g. latex gloves)
to prevent absorption of even small amounts through the skin. Dissolving sodium hydroxide and
concentrated hydrochloric or sulfuric acid in water is highly exothermic. Goggles must be worn. The
derivatization reagents react violently with water.
Caution must also be exercised in the collecting, handling, and analysis of samples. Clandestine
drug labs may produce unknown and seriously toxic by-products. For example, in the manufacture
of designer drugs (e.g., MPPP, a homolog of Alphaprodine), at least one very neurotoxic by-product,
1-methyl-4-phenyl-1,2,5,6-tetrahydropyridine (MPTP), has been identified that specifically and
irreversibly causes Parkinson’s disease [8,9].
SAMPLING:
See APPENDIX C for special instructions on sampling.
1. Using a new pair of gloves, remove a gauze wipe from its protective package. Moisten the wipe
with approximately 3 to 4 mL of methanol (or isopropanol).
NOTE 1: Apply no more solvent than that needed to moisten approximately the central 80% of
the area of the gauze wipe. Excess solvent may cause sample loss due to dripping from
the wipe.
NOTE 2: Do not use vinyl gloves due to the potential for leaching of phthalate plasticizers and
contamination of the samples.
2. Place the template over the area to be sampled (may tape in place along outside edge of
template). Wipe the surface to be sampled with firm pressure, using vertical S-strokes. Fold the
exposed side of the pad in and wipe the area with horizontal S-strokes. Fold the pad once more
and wipe the area again with vertical S strokes.
3. Fold the pad, exposed side in, and place in shipping container and seal with cap.
NOTE: Keep samples refrigerated (<6 ºC). While methamphetamine and several related amines
are stable on the recommended wipe media for at least 7 days at room
temperature, refrigeration is recommended as soon as possible (see Table 4).
4. Either clean the template before use for the next sample or use a new disposable template.
5. Label each sample clearly with a unique sample identifier.
6. Prepare a minimum of two field blanks with one field blank for every ten samples.
NOTE: In addition, include at least 3 media blanks for the analytical laboratory to use for their
purposes. The wipes used for the media blanks should be from the same lot as the field
samples.
SAMPLE PREPARATION:
See APPENDIX D for special instructions on sample preparation.
7. Desorption from media:
a. Remove cap from shipping container.
NOTE: Sample wipe should fit loosely in the container. If not, transfer sample to a larger
container.
b. Spike 60 μL of internal standard spiking solution onto each wipe sample.
c. Add 30 mL desorption solution (0.1 M sulfuric acid).
NOTE: If the samples were transferred to a larger container, rinse the original shipping
container with the desorption solution, shake, and decant the rinsate into the larger
container.
d. Cap securely and mix contents by inverting the tubes end over end on a rotary mixer or
equivalent at 10-30 rpm for at least one hour.
e. Check the pH which should be about ≤ 4. Adjust the pH with diluted (2.5 to 3 M) sulfuric acid
drop-wise, mixing the contents by shaking or inversion a few times after each addition of acid
before checking the pH.
f. After mixing, transfer 10 mL of supernatant to a 25-mL glass centrifuge tube.
NOTE: If cleanup is to be performed on a subsequent day, store samples in a refrigerator.
Analytes are stable in the desorption solution for at least one week refrigerated.
8. Cleanup: Potential contamination from oils, triglycerides, plasticizers and other hydrocarbons are
reduced through a hexane back-extraction step.
a. To each 10-mL aliquot of acid desorbate, add 10 mL of hexane, cap and mix on a rotary mixer
for one hour. Allow to stand for 15-30 minutes for the phases to separate. If an emulsion forms,
centrifuge the tubes at 1500-2000 rpm for a few minutes. If the emulsion persists, add about 0.5
mL of acetonitrile to the surface of the emulsion and gently mix the layers at the interface of the
emulsion. Centrifuge again if necessary.
b. Aspirate the (upper) organic layer to waste. Exercise care to not remove any of the aqueous layer.
9. Extraction of analytes into methylene chloride:
a. Add 1-2 drops (20-50 μL) of the mixed pH indicator (phenolphthalein + bromothymol blue)
solution to each sample. The color of the samples should be yellow, which indicates that the
samples are sufficiently acidic for desorption of the analytes from the wipe samples.
b. Add 0.5 mL of 10 M sodium hydroxide to each sample. The color of the samples should turn
brilliant purple or magenta, confirming that the pH is greater than 9-9.5 (necessary for the
extraction of the amines into methylene chloride). If the color remains yellow, or only turns green
or light blue, check the pH with pH paper to confirm that it is greater than 9.5. If it is not, add
another 0.5 mL of 10 M sodium hydroxide, mix, and check the pH again.
NOTE: The color of the solution will gradually fade from purple to deep blue within about 20-30
minutes. This is due to the known tendency of phenolphthalein to fade at high pH.
c. Add 10 mL of methylene chloride to each sample. Cap and mix on a rotary mixer for one hour.
Allow to stand for 15 to 30 minutes. If an emulsion forms, centrifuge as described above (step 8a).
d. Aspirate the aqueous (upper) layer to waste as described above, being careful to not remove any
of the lower methylene chloride layer.
10. Removal of water from the methylene chloride extract:
a. Prepare potassium carbonate-sodium sulfate drying columns.
Note: See APPENDIX E for preparation of drying columns.
b. Rinse the packed columns with about 6 mL of methylene chloride. Dry columns afterwards by
forcing dry nitrogen or clean air through the top for 10-20 seconds.
c. Arrange 14-mL collection tubes (16 × 100 mm test tube) in test tube racks. Add 6 μL of crystal
violet solution and 100 μL of 0.3 M hydrochloric acid in methanol to each collection tube.
NOTE: Crystal violet is not critical but helps later on as a visualizing aid for monitoring the
progress of drying. Hydrochloric acid is critical to prevent loss of the amphetamines
during evaporative concentration.
d. Position the drying columns over the collection tubes.
e. Transfer (decant) the methylene chloride layer into the drying column reservoir. After the last
of the sample passes into the bed of the column, rinse the drying column twice with 1 mL of
methylene chloride each time and combine with sample eluate.
11. Derivatization:
See APPENDIX F for special instructions on derivitization.
a. Evaporate the methylene chloride eluates in a nitrogen blow-down apparatus with the water
bath set at 35 °C. Rinse the tips of the evaporation needles thoroughly with methanol or acetone
between samples to prevent cross-contamination. When the samples are dry, remove and cap the
tubes immediately.
NOTE: The dark color of the crystal violet helps make the residue more visible when it is dried.
If at least 0.1 mL of isopropanol was present in the eluates, the crystal violet will also go
through a series of color changes that helps in monitoring the drying process.
b. To each dried sample, add 100 μL of chlorodifluoroacetic anhydride and recap tubes. Mix the
contents by vortexing briefly.
NOTE 1: It is recommended that the tubes be kept capped and to only uncap about 5 at a time
for the addition of the derivatizing reagent. Do not leave the acid anhydride bottle open
between taking aliquots since the reagent is moisture sensitive.
NOTE 2: If incomplete derivatization is routinely experienced, increase volume of reagent to
150 or 200 μL. The color of the crystal violet will turn yellow or yellow-green with the
addition of chlorodifluoroacetic anhydride.
c. Heat in an oven at 70-75 °C for 20-30 minutes.
d. After heating, allow the tubes to cool to room temperature. Remove caps and evaporate
the contents to dryness under a stream of nitrogen at room temperature. As the solution
concentrates it turns from a yellow or yellowish-green solution to a bluish-green just before
going to dryness. At the point of dryness the color of the residue normally turns rapidly to blue
or violet, depending upon the amount of coextractants (the more co-extractants, the more blue
the color and the less likely a violet color will develop). Remove the tubes just as soon as the blue
or violet color becomes apparent. Losses have been experienced if blowing is continued for more
than 2 minutes beyond the blue or violet color stage.
NOTE: If an oil-like residue or film persists, then the sample may have too many contaminants
that were not removed at the cleanup step or were introduced subsequent to cleanup. In
such a case, return to step 7f and perform the clean-up (step 8) on another 10-mL aliquot
of the sample desorbate using methylene chloride as the cleanup solvent instead of
hexane. Discard the (lower) organic layer to waste before proceeding to steps 9 through
11.
e. Reconstitute the dried residue with 1 mL of the reconstitution solvent. The reconstituted solution
normally will become deep blue in color. Mix by vortexing briefly a couple of times. Transfer the
solutions to 2-mL amber-colored GC vials containing 200 to 250 mg anhydrous sodium sulfate.
Cap vials, label, and analyze by GC/MS (See MEASUREMENT, steps 15-17).
NOTE: Derivatives of phenylpropanolamine (norephedrine) break down significantly over several
days at room temperature. GC vials containing derivatives should be kept refrigerated
until analysis.
d. Spike a known volume of analyte spiking solution into each calibration standard by spiking
directly onto the media or into solution. Use the spiking volumes suggested in Table 6 to cover
the desired range.
e. Process each of these through steps 7 through 11 (same as the field samples.)
f. Analyze these along with the field samples. (See MEASUREMENT, steps 15-17.)
14. Prepare matrix-spiked (QC) and matrix-spiked duplicate (QD) quality control samples [12].
a. Cotton gauze from the same lot used for taking samples in the field should be provided to the
analytical laboratory to prepare these matrix-spiked quality control samples.
b. The quality control samples (QC and QD) must be prepared independently at concentrations
within the analytical range. (See Table 6 for applicable concentration ranges.)
c. One quality control media blank (QB) must be included with each QC and QD pair.
i. Transfer clean gauze wipes to new shipping containers.
ii. Add 3 mL of isopropanol (or methanol, if methanol was used in wiping) to each gauze wipe.
iii. Spike QC and QD with a known amount of analyte as suggested in Table 6.
d. Process each of these through steps 7 through 11 (same as the field samples).
e. Analyze these along with the field samples. (See MEASUREMENT, steps 15-17.)
MEASUREMENT:
See APPENDIX G for special instructions on measurement.
15. Analyze the calibration standards, quality control samples, blanks, and samples by GC/MS.
a. Set gas chromatograph according to manufacturer’s recommendations and to conditions listed
on page 9106-1.
b. Set mass spectrometer conditions to manufacturer’s specifications and those given on page
9106-1 for the scan mode or those in Table 5 for the SIM mode.
c. Inject sample aliquot with autosampler or manually.
NOTE: After the derivatives are prepared and just before analyzing any samples or standards,
inject the highest concentrated standard several times in order to prime or deactivate
the GC column and injection port. This will help minimize any drift in the instrument’s
response to target analytes relative to their internal standards.
d. After analysis, the vials should be recapped promptly and refrigerated if further analysis is
anticipated.
16. Using extracted ion current profiles for the primary (quantification) ions specific to each analyte,
measure GC peak areas of analyte(s) and internal standard(s) and compute relative peak areas
by dividing the peak area of the analyte by the area of the appropriate internal standard.
Recommended primary (quantification) ions and internal standards are given in Tables 5, 7, and 8.
Prepare calibration graph (relative peak area vs. μg analyte per sample).
17. Samples from initial investigations of clandestine laboratories are likely to include highly
contaminated samples. If sample results exceed the upper range of the calibration curve, the sample
in the GC vial may be diluted and reanalyzed or a smaller aliquot of the initial acid desorbate diluted,
re-extracted, derivatized, and analyzed. Refer to APPENDIX H for instructions and limitations on
making dilutions.
CALCULATIONS:
18. Determine the mass (in μg/sample) of respective analyte found in the wipe samples, and in the
media blank from the calibration graph.
19. Calculate final concentration, C, of analyte in μg/sample:
V1 V3 V
=C c −b 5
V2 V4 V2
Where: c = concentration in sample (in μg/sample determined from the calibration curve).
V1
= volume correction factor (needed only when the volume of internal standard
V2 spiking solution used for spiking the samples – such as for composite samples
requiring larger desorption solution volumes – is different from that used for
spiking the calibration standards). (See Table 6, footnote 4.)
V3
= dilution factor, if applicable
V4
V3 = 10 mL (volume of desorbate taken for cleanup in step 8).
V4 = volume in mL of desorbate actually taken for cleanup and diluted to 10 mL with
blank desorbing solution containing internal standard.
b = concentration in media blank (in μg/sample determined from the calibration
curve).
V5
= volume correction factor for the media blank (needed only if the volume of
V2 internal standard spiking solution used for spiking the media blank is different
from that used for spiking the calibration standards.)
V5 = volume in μL of internal standard spiking solution used to spike media blank.
20. Report concentration, C’, in μg per total area wiped (in cm2) as follows:
C
C’=
A
Where: C = μg/sample (step 19).
A = Total area wiped in cm2 per sample.
NOTE: For example, if the sample was a composite sample and the area was 400 cm2, report
results as μg/400 cm2 and not averaged to μg/100 cm2. In general, if the area wiped
was greater than or less than 100 cm2, do not convert value to μg/100 cm2. To avoid
confusion, report separately both μg/sample (C) and the total area wiped in cm2 per
sample (A) for both discrete and composite samples.
EVALUATION OF METHOD:
This method was evaluated for those analytes listed in Tables 7a and 7b over a range of approximately
0.1 μg/sample to 30 μg/sample. These concentration levels represent approximately the 1 through 300
times the limit of quantitation (LOQ) level for most of the analytes [9]. Results are reported in the Backup
Data Report for NIOSH 9106 [4].
The limits of detection (LOD and LOQ) were determined by preparing a series of liquid standards in
desorption solution, processing them through the liquid-liquid extraction procedure of NIOSH 9106,
and analyzing in both the scan and SIM modes. The LODs were estimated using the procedure of
Burkart [12]. An LOD of 0.05 μg/sample for methamphetamine on wipes was achieved in either scan
or SIM mode. The LOD was set at 0.05 μg/sample because that was the level of the lowest calibration
standard for the LOD study. Lower LODs (e.g. 0.02 μg/sample) have been achieved in practice by
including calibration standards at lower concentration levels. The cleanliness and performance of the
mass spectrometer must be maintained such that at 0.1 μg/sample, a signal of at least 5 to 10 times the
baseline noise is achievable. This is more easily accomplished in the SIM mode with the mass spectrometer.
Six different wipe media were evaluated. These were 3”×3” 12-ply cotton gauze, 4”×4” AlphaWipes®
(TX® 1004), 4”×4” 4-ply NU GAUZE®, 4”×4” 4-ply MIRASORB®, 4”×4” 6-ply SOF-WICK®, and 4”×4” 4-ply
TOPPER® sponges. Results are given in the Backup Data Report [1]. No synthetic media performed
better than cotton gauze. Some media (TOPPER® and SOF-WICK®) did not perform well, possibly due to
co-extracted nonionic (polyethoxyethylene type) surfactants that are not removed using hexane and
incompletely removed using methylene chloride in the cleanup step.
Precision and accuracy were determined by analyzing 6 replicates at each of 6 concentration levels
(nominally 0.1, 0.3, 1, 3, 10, and 30 μg/sample). Results are presented in Tables 7a and 7b for cotton
gauze. The best precision and accuracies were dependent upon the use of carefully chosen internal
standards, especially where there is steric hindrance of the amine (e.g. having N-ethyl and N-propyl
groups).
Long term sample storage stability was determined for periods up to 30 days under refrigeration
(4 °C ± 2 °C) and for up to 7 days at room temperature (22-24 °C). Results are given in Table 4.
The precision and accuracy and long term storage stability evaluations were conducted using
isopropanol as the wetting solvent. A second precision and accuracy study using methanol confirmed
that methanol is an acceptable substitute for isopropanol.
Recovery of amphetamines from six different types of surfaces using cotton gauze was evaluated (see
Tables 10a and 10b). The practice of serial wiping (wiping the same surface area a second time with
a second gauze wipe and combining both wipes as a single sample) was evaluated. Four solvents for
wetting the gauze were tested (distilled water, 5% distilled white vinegar, isopropanol, and methanol).
Six replicate samples were made on a latex painted wall. Recoveries and precisions are given in Table
10a. The recoveries with 5% distilled white vinegar were better than for distilled water, but not as
good as for isopropanol. Methanol is superior to isopropanol. Recoveries with isopropanol are greatly
improved with a repeat (serial) wipe (11% improvement compared to only about 6% improvement
with methanol). The study and results are reported in the Backup Data Report for NIOSH 9109 [13].
Additional research on surface sample recovery and solvent effectiveness has been reported by
Serrano et al. [15] and VanDyke et al. [16].
REFERENCES:
[1] ACGIH [2013]. TLVs and BEIs based on the documentation of the Threshold Limit Values for
chemical substances and physical agents and Biological Exposure Indices. Cincinnati, Ohio:
American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists. [www.acgih.org]. Data accessed April
2014.
[2] Institut fur Arbeitsschutz der Deutschen Gesetzlichen Unfallversicherung [2013]. GESTIS database
on hazardous substances (German Social Accident Insurance). Sankt Augustin, FRG: [http://www.
dguv.de/ifa/GESTIS ]. Data accessed April 2014.
[3] EPA [2013]. Voluntary guidelines for methamphetamine laboratory cleanup. [https://www.epa.gov/
sites/production/files/documents/meth_lab_guidelines.pdf ]. Date accessed March 2016.
[4] Reynolds JM, Siso MC, Perkins JB [2004]. Backup data report for NIOSH 9106, Methamphetamine
and illicit drugs, precursors, and adulterants on wipes by liquid-liquid extraction, Abridged,
prepared under NIOSH Contract 200-2001-0800, Unpublished.
[5] Martyny JW, Arbuckle SL, McCammon CS Jr., Esswein EJ, Erb N [2003]. Chemical exposures
associated with clandestine methamphetamine laboratories. [https://www.env.nm.gov/cdli/docs/
Chemical_Exposures.pdf ].
[6] NIOSH [2011]. Methamphetamine and illicit drugs, precursors, and adulterants on wipes by solid
phase extraction: Method 9109. In: Ashley KA, O’Connor PF, eds. NIOSH manual of analytical
methods. 5th ed. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, [www.cdc.
gov/niosh/nmam/].
[7] NIOSH [2011]. Methamphetamine on Wipes by Liquid Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry:
Method 9111. In: Ashley KA, O’Connor PF, eds. NIOSH manual of analytical methods. 5th ed.
Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, [www.cdc.gov/niosh/nmam/].
[8] ASTM International [2015]. ASTM-E982-94(2015), Standard specification for laboratory glass test
tubes. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International.
[9] Baum RM [1985]. New variety of street drugs poses growing problem. Chemical and Engineering
News, 63(63):7-16.
[10] Buchanan JF, Brown CR [1988]. Designer drugs, a problem in clinical toxicology. Medical Toxicology
3:1-17.
[11] NIOSH [1994]. Chapter C: Quality Assurance. In: Eller PM, Cassinelli ME, eds. NIOSH Manual of
Analytical Methods, 4th ed. Cincinnati, OH: Department of Health and Human Services, Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, DHHS
(NIOSH) Publication No. 94-113. [www.cdc.gov/niosh/nmam/].
[12] Burkart JA [1986]. General procedures for limit of detection calculations in the industrial hygiene
chemistry laboratory. Appl Ind Hygiene 1(3):153-155.
[13] Reynolds JM, Siso MC, Perkins JB [2004]. Backup data report for NIOSH 9109, Methamphetamine
and illicit drugs, precursors, and adulterants on wipes by solid phase extraction. Unpublished.
Prepared under NIOSH Contract 200-2001-0800.
[14] Budavari S, ed. [1989]. Merck Index, 11th ed. Rahway, NJ: Merck and Co., Inc.
[15] Serrano KA, Martyny JW, Kofford S, Contreras JR, Van Dyke MV [2012]. Decontamination of clothing
and building materials associated with the clandestine production of methamphetamine. J Occup
Environ Hyg 9(3):185-197.
[16] Van Dyke MV, Serrano KA, Kofford S, Contreras J, Martyny JW [2011]. Variability and specificity
associated with environmental methamphetamine sampling and analysis. J Occup Environ Hyg
8(11):636-41.
[17] Sweet DV, ed. [1997]. Registry of toxic effects of chemical substances. DHHS (NIOSH) Publ. No.
97-119. http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/pdf/97-119.pdf.
[18] Sigma-Aldrich MSDS sheets, http://www.sigma-aldrich.com [May 10, 2004].
[19] Cerilliant Analytical Reference Materials. 811 Paloma Drive, Suite A, Round Rock, Texas 78664 (www.
cerilliant.com).
[20] The National Alliance for Model State Drug Laws (NAMSDL) [2007]. State Controlled Substance(s)
Environmental Issues Bill – Status Update [http://www.namsdl.org/]. Date accessed: March 11, 2008.
[21] Howard PH, Meylan WM [1997]. Handbook of physical properties of organic chemicals. Boca Raton,
Florida: CRC/Lewis Publishers. See also Syracuse Research Corporation’s website http://www.srcinc.
com/ (May 10, 2004) for demos and updates.
[22] Zhang JS, Tian Z, Lou ZC [1989]. Quality evaluation of twelve species of chinese ephedra (Ma
Huang). Acta Pharmaceutic Sinica 24(11):865-871.
[23] Cui JF, Zhou TH, Zhang JS, and Lou ZC. [1991]. Analysis of alkaloids in chinese ephedra species by
gas chromatographic methods. Phytochemical Analysis 2:116-119.
[24] Andrews KM [1995]. Ephedra’s role as a precursor in the clandestine manufacture of
methamphetamine. Journal of Forensic Sciences 40(4):551-560.
[25] OSHA [2001]. Evaluation guidelines for surface sampling methods. Industrial Hygiene Chemistry
Division, OSHA Salt Lake Technical Center, Salt Lake City, Utah. [http://www.osha.gov/dts/sltc/
methods/surfacesampling/surfacesampling.pdf ] Date accessed: May 2011.
John M. Reynolds, Maria Carolina Siso, and James B. Perkins, DataChem Laboratories, Inc., Salt Lake City,
Utah under NIOSH Contract CDC 200-2001-0800.
Disclaimer: Mention of any company or product does not constitute endorsement by NIOSH. In
addition, citations to websites external to NIOSH do not constitute NIOSH endorsement of the
sponsoring organizations or their programs or products. Furthermore, NIOSH is not responsible for
the content of these websites. All web addresses referenced in this document were accessible as of
the publication date.
(1) Molecular weights are calculated from the empirical formula using the 1987 IUPAC Atomic Weights of the Elements, Merck Index [9]. The molecular
weight of the hemisulfate is ½ the weight of the 2:1 sulfate salt (2 moles amine + 1 mole H2SO4).
(2) CAS from various sources: Merck Index [14], NIOSH RTECS [17], MSDS sheets from Sigma/Aldrich [18], Cerilliant [19], and other sources [21].
(3) Free base form.
(4) Hydrochloride salt.
(5) 2:1 Sulfate salt (2 moles amine + 1 mole H2SO4.
(6) RTECS = NIOSH Registry of Toxic Effects of Chemical Substances [17].
(7) More active isomer.
(8) Naturally occurring isomer.
(9) The D form of pseudoephedrine is a decongestant.
(10) The L form of pseudoephedrine is a bronchodilator. Dehydroxylation forms the less active L-methamphetamine.
Table 4. Limit of detection (LOD), method detection limit (MDL), and sample storage stability on cotton
gauze. (1)
Estimated LOD(3) Estimated MDL(4) Storage Stability(5)
Scan Mode SIM Mode Scan Mode SIM Mode
Int. std.(2) 30 days 4 °C 7 days 22 °C
Compound (µg/sample) (µg/sample) (µg/sample) (µg/sample)
D11-Amp 0.07 0.05 0.04 0.02 100.5 94.5
(D)-Amphetamine
D14-Met 0.06 0.06 0.03 0.03 99.7 87.9
Table 5. Example of mass spectrometer operation parameters for selected ion monitoring mode.(1)
Chlorodifluoroacetyl derivatives Scan window(2) Acquisition ions (m/z) per group(3)
Acquisition Group 1 10.5 to 13.0 104 118 128 156 160 170 172 177
Acquisition Group 2 13.0 to 15.2 104 156 158 170 172 198 296
Acquisition Group 3 15.2 to 18.0 109 135 162 170 184 194 200 242
GC Peak Retention Time Primary Ion (m/z)
(6) (7)
Secondary ion and approximate relative abundance(8)
No. (4)
Target Analytes and Internal Standards: (5)
(min) (Quantification Ion) (relative to the Primary Ion)
Acquisition Group 1
2 Amphetamine-D11 (I$)(9) 11.07 160 128 85%
3 Amphetamine 11.15 156 118 85%
5 Phentermine 11.34 170 172 33%
8 n-Methyl phenethylamine (I$)(9) 12.20 156 104 95%
9 Methamphetamine-D14 (I$)(9) 12.51 177 128 32%
10 Methamphetamine 12.61 170 118 32%
Acquisition Group 2:
18 Phenylpropanolamine 13.27 156 246 25%
20 Dibromooctafluorobiphenyl(10) 13.63 296 456 115%
21 N-n-Propylamphetamine (I$)(9) 13.8 198 156 75%
25 Ephedrine 14.27 170 172 33%
28 Pseudoephedrine 14.74 170 172 33%
Acquisition Group 3:
32 Caffeine 15.66 194 109 50%
40 Phencyclidine 16.41 200 242 35%
41 MDMA 16.48 170 162 95%
43 MDEA 16.87 184 162 75%
(1) In this example, 10 analytes and 5 internal standards are grouped into 3 acquisition groups having no more than 8 primary and secondary ions per acquisition
group. For 6 analytes and internal standards or less, one acquisition group may be sufficient.
(2) Scan window is in minutes. Actual times are dependant upon GC column and instrument conditions.
(3) Ions (m/z) in bold numbers are suggested primary (quantification) ions. For best signal to noise ratio, do not exceed 10 ions per acquisition group. Dwell times per
ion (m/z) is 50 milliseconds.
(4) GC peak numbers are those in Figure 1 and Table 9.
(5) The list of analytes and internal standards shown is an example. Analyte(s) and internal standard(s) must be selected according to analytical objectives.
(6) Retention times are dependant upon GC column and instrument conditions.
(7) The better ions for quantification are usually the base peak or those with masses >100 m/z and relative abundances >50% of the base peak. These minimize
interference from co-eluting hydrocarbons. The suggested primary ions are not necessarily the base peaks in the mass spectra of the analytes, especially if the
base peaks are ions common to aromatics (e.g. m/z 91) and paraffinic or olefinic hydrocarbons (e.g. m/z 42, 57, and 58). Suggested ions for other analytes and
internal standards are given in Tables 8 and 9.
(8) Secondary ions may be used for quantification if the primary ion encounters interference. Secondary ions improve qualitative identification for SIM analyses. The
relative abundances given are approximate (±10 to 20%) and depend upon specific instrument tuning and conditions. They are relative to the primary ion and
not necessarily to the base peak in the mass spectrum of each analyte. The relative abundance of secondary ions for each analyte needs to be determined from a
mass spectrum acquired on the instrument to be used.
(9) (I$) = internal standard. Internal standards must be paired with the appropriate analytes. Tables 7a and 7b give precision and accuracy data for various pairings.
Other potentially useful internal standards are given in Table 8. Highly deuterated analogs of the target analytes are preferred, where available.
(10) Dibromooctafluorobiphenyl is an optional secondary internal standard useful for monitoring autosampler performance and instrument tuning. A shift in the mass
axes or the relative abundance of m/z 296 to that of m/z 456 throughout an analytical sequence will help signal degraded tuning.
Table 6. Suggested spiking schedule for calibration standards and quality control samples
Add the following to clean shipping containers
(e.g. 50-mL polypropylene centrifuge tubes) in the following order.
Volume(2) Volume
of Internal of Target Resulting
Number Volume(2) of Standard Analyte Volume of Volume(2) of µg/sample
of Isopropanol Spiking Spiking Spiking Solution Desorption as Free
Calibration Standards(10) Wipes(1,2) or Methanol(3) Solution(4,5) Solution(5,6) diluted 1/20(5,7) Solution(8) Base(9)
CS0 0 3 mL 60 µL 0.0 µL 30 mL 0.00
CS1 0 3 mL 60 µL 2 µL 30 mL 0.02
CS2 0 3 mL 60 µL 5 µL 30 mL 0.05
CS3 0 3 mL 60 µL 10 µL 30 mL 0.1
CS4 0 3 mL 60 µL 20 µL 30 mL 0.2
CS5 0 3 mL 60 µL 60 µL 30 mL 0.6
CS6 0 3 mL 60 µL 10 µL 30 mL 2.0
CS7 0 3 mL 60 µL 30 µL 30 mL 6.0
CS8 0 3 mL 60 µL 100 µL 30 mL 20
CS9 0 3 mL 60 µL 300 µL 30 mL 60
CS10 0 3 mL 60 µL 1000 µL 30 mL 200
Quality Control Samples(11)
QB (media blank) 1 3 mL 60 µL 0.0 µL 30 mL 0.0
QC (matrix spike) 1 3 mL 60 µL 3-300 µL or 20-60 µL 30 mL 0.2-60
QD (matrix spike duplicate) 1 3 mL 60 µL 3-300 µL or 20-60 µL 30 mL 0.2-60
(1) Gauze wipes may be added to the calibration standards but are not necessary if cotton gauze is used. Blank gauze wipes must always be added to the
quality control samples, QB, QC, and QD.
(2) a.) If a sample consists of 2 gauze wipes, the volume of desorption solution must be increased to 40 mL to accommodate the second wipe. The shipping
container should be a 50-mL polypropylene centrifuge tube or equivalent to accommodate the extra volume of desorption solution for 2 wipes. It is not
critical to know the exact volume of desorption solution and wetting alcohol used per sample. It only needs to be enough to cover the samples and to
permit free percolation through the samples. See step 7.
b.) If a set of samples consists predominantly of 2 gauze wipes, the QB, QC, and QD should also consist of 2 wipes and treated as per the samples. The
volume of isopropanol (or methanol) added to the QC samples should be increased to 4 mL for two gauze wipes to simulate samples containing two
gauze wipes.
(3) If methanol was used for wipe sampling, it should also be used in the calibration standards, blanks, and QCs instead of isopropanol.
(4) Concentration of internal standards in the internal standard spiking solution is approximately 200 µg/mL as the free base. It is critical to know the exact
volume of internal standard spiking solution that is added to the calibration standards, samples, blanks, and quality control samples. The volume spiked
into the samples may vary with sample size but the volume spiked into each of the calibration standards must not vary. See step 7b.
(5) For quality control samples, spike onto wipe media within the shipping container. For liquid calibration standards (in lieu of media calibration standards),
spike into the isopropanol (or methanol).
(6) Concentration of analytes in the target analyte spiking solution is approximately 200 µg/mL as the free base.
(7) Concentration of analytes in the diluted spiking solution for this table is approximately 10.0 µg/mL as the free base and can be prepared by diluting
100 µL of the target analyte spiking solution to 2 mL in methanol.
(8) Desorption solution is 0.1 M sulfuric acid in deionized water.
(9) This is µg per total sample irrespective of the total desorption solution volume or the area wiped.
(10) Select 6 calibration standards from the list to cover the analytical range plus the blank.
(11) Prepare one set of quality control samples for every 20 samples or less.
Table 10a. Recovery from latex-painted wall with various solvents; one gauze wipe compared with the
sum of two gauze wipes(1,2)
Test Compound(5) Percent %RSD Percent Percent %RSD Percent Percent %RSD Percent
Amphetamine 51 14 56 67 6.0 78 90 4.0 96
Cocaine 36 22 36 69 22 80 89 9.1 94
Ephedrine 48 23 52 76 7.4 85 91 4.4 96
MDMA 40 20 44 61 9.0 70 88 5.3 94
MDEA 45 22 50 69 12 80 90 11 97
Methamphetamine 46 16 50 64 7.4 75 87 3.5 94
Phencyclidine 27 26 30 64 9.6 73 86 5.2 91
Phentermine 53 9.2 58 78 6.6 91 95 2.9 101
Phenylpropanolamine 58 21 62 80 9.3 95 85 5.0 94
Pseudoephedrine 49 20 53 73 7.0 85 95 3.3 101
(1) Backup Data Report for NIOSH 9109 [13]. Area of each sample was 100 cm . 2
(2) Wall was an existing standard gypsum board wall painted with a latex based paint. Painted surface was at least one year old. There were six replicates for each
solvent tested.
(3) Water was deionized water (ASTM type II). Note low recovery and high %RSD.
(4) For the serial wipe study, each 100-cm2 area was wiped again with a fresh pre-wetted gauze wipe and the amount recovered was determined separately. In
practice, a second (serial) wipe is included with the first gauze wipe; both gauze wipes constitute a single sample. The percent recoveries shown in the column
represent the sum of the amounts recovered in both the first and second wipes.
(5) Each pre-measured area was spiked with 3 µg of each analyte in methanol and the methanol allowed to dry for several minutes prior to wipe sampling.
Table 10b. Recovery from various surfaces with various solvents; one gauze wipe compared with the
sum of two gauze wipes(1)
Isopropanol Methanol
First Gauze Wipe Plus Second Wipe(2)
First Gauze Wipe Plus Second Wipe(2)
Surface Material(3) Replicates Percent %RSD Percent Percent %RSD Percent
Enamel (lid of washing machine) 4(3) 58 5.7 68 81 2.4 87
Vinyl veneer on particle board 4(4) 60 5.2 68 81 4.8 89
Latex painted wall 6(3) 64 7.4 75 87 3.5 94
Refrigerator door 2(4) 65 2.9 76 91 4.0 92
Varnished hardwood panel 2(5) 72 5.4 76 82 3.7 86
Formica® countertop 4(4) 75 4.9 82 87 3.8 91
(1) Backup Data Report for NIOSH 9109 [13]. Area of each sample was 100 cm2.
(2) For the serial wipe study, each 100-cm2 area was wiped again with a fresh pre-wetted gauze wipe and the amount recovered was determined separately. In
practice, a second (serial) wipe is included with the first gauze wipe; both gauze wipes constitute a single sample. The percent recoveries shown in the column
represent the sum of the amounts recovered in both the first and second wipes.
(3) The Refrigerator door and the washing machine lid were from used appliances. The vinyl-veneered particle board (a book shelf), the Formica® countertop, and
the varnished hardwood paneling were all purchased new. All surfaces of used and new materials were pre-cleaned with multiple rinses of methanol prior to
spiking. Each pre-measured 100-cm2 square was spiked with 3 µg methamphetamine.
(4) Samples were taken using the side-to-side and then top-to-bottom wiping technique.
(5) Half of the samples were wiped using the side-to-side wiping technique and half were wiped using the concentric squares wiping technique. There were no
significant differences in recoveries. Percent recoveries and %RSDs are for both techniques combined.
(6) Samples were taken each time using only top-to-bottom wiping with the grain of the wood in an “N” pattern.
APPENDIX
B. EQUIPMENT:
1. Wipe media: Besides cotton gauze, 4”×4” (10 cm x 10 cm) 4-ply MIRASORB® (Johnson and Johnson),
and 4”×4” (10 cm x 10 cm) AlphaWipe® (TX® 1004, Texwipe Corp.) were acceptable wipe media and
can be used in the absence of cotton gauze. MIRASORB®, a non-woven cotton/polyester blend, is
discontinued but counterparts exist that claim to be of identical construction and fiber composition.
AlphaWipe® is a hydrophilic, highly adsorbent, tightly knitted continuous filament polyester wipe.
Precision and accuracy data for MIRASORB® and AlphaWipe® are given in the Backup Data Report [4].
2. Shipping containers: The 50-mL polypropylene centrifuge tubes with caps are preferred for one
or two gauze wipes and are not as breakable as glass 40-mL VOA vials. The 40-mL VOA vials are
acceptable for single gauze wipes. Larger containers (glass with a PTFE lined cap) should be used
for combining more than two gauze wipes into a single sample. The size of the container for two or
more wipes should be approximately 25 mL per gauze wipe (e.g. a minimum size of 100-mL for up
to four gauze wipe samples). There needs to be enough extra headspace in the shipping container
to allow the desorption solution to cover the gauze wipes and to percolate freely through the wipe
sample(s) during mixing.
3. Each regulatory agency having legal jurisdiction over the contaminated site may require different
but specific off-site preparation and on-site sampling procedures. It is important to consult local
regulatory agencies or departments of health having legal jurisdiction over contaminated sites to
determine specific sampling, quality control, analyses, and reporting requirements.
C. SAMPLING:
1. Follow specific requirements of surface area to be wiped (usually 100 cm2 or 1000 cm2) and action
threshold (or maximum allowable residual level) set by the state or specified by the client. Uptake
rates depend upon the wipe sampling method used, so the specific wipe technique used must be
specified, and any deviations from the required wipe sampling requirements noted.
NOTE: To ensure that samples have not been tampered with, the use of custody seals and a chain-
of-custody form is strongly recommended.
2. Prepare a rigid template from disposable cardstock or a sheet of PTFE having either a 10 cm × 10 cm
or 32 cm × 32 cm square-cut hole. The template must be able to retain its shape during wiping to
ensure that the areas wiped were either 100 cm2 or 1000 cm2. Secure the template(s) to the area(s)
to be wiped (e.g. with tape along outside edge of template). If a single-use disposable template
is not used, clean the template between samples to avoid cross-contamination, and provide the
laboratory with a blank wipe of the cleaned template between samples to determine that no cross-
contamination has occurred.
3. A template might not always be applicable, as in curved or odd-shaped areas such as around burners
on stove tops or a fan blade. In such cases sample an area as close to either 100 cm2 or 1000 cm2 as
feasible and provide the measurement to the regulatory agency and to the analytical laboratory for
proper reporting. Tape can be used to delineate the sampling area.
4. It is recommended to provide extra wipe media from the same lot for required media blanks, field
equipment blanks, samples, and quality-control samples.
5. Gauze in sterile packaging is recommended to minimize the chance for cross-contamination, which
can more easily occur with open bulk packaged cotton gauze.
6. To prevent contamination in the field, another alternative is to pre-wet and insert the gauze
wipes into the sample containers off-site. This avoids any possibility of the bottle of methanol or
isopropanol becoming contaminated on-site with methamphetamine (or other analytes). If the wipes
were prepared off-site, then remove pre-wetted gauze wipe from sample container, opening only
one sample container at a time. In either case, squeeze out and discard any excess solvent from the
gauze wipe. Use fresh latex or nitrile gloves for each separate sample and blank. Do not use vinyl
gloves due to the potential for leaching of phthalate plasticizers and contamination of the samples.
7. Wipe techniques
a. Concentric Squares Wiping Technique (particularly suitable for smooth and non-porous surfaces):
Fold the pre-wetted gauze in half and then fold in half again. Using firm pressure wipe the area
within the template. Start at one of the inside corners of the template and wipe in concentric
squares, progressing toward the center. End with a scooping motion. Without allowing the gauze
to touch any other surface, reverse the last fold so that the exposed side of the gauze is facing
inward and using a fresh surface of the gauze, wipe the same area in the same manner as before.
Roll or fold the gauze again and insert into the shipping container.
Note: Wiping in concentric squares is described by OSHA [25]. It is especially suitable for large
(e.g. 1000 cm2) areas.
b. Side-to-side Wiping (or Blotting) Technique (particularly suitable for rough, porous, and/or soiled
surfaces): Fold the pre-wetted gauze in half and then fold in half again. Using firm pressure wipe or
blot the area within the template with at least five overlapping side-to-side horizontal passes (see
NOTE) beginning at the top and progressing to the bottom in a “Z” pattern. End with a scooping
motion. If blotting, blot at least five times on each horizontal pass (see NOTE). Without allowing
the gauze to touch any other surface, reverse the last fold so that the exposed side of the gauze
is facing inward. Using a fresh surface of the gauze, wipe or blot the area again with at least five
overlapping top-to-bottom vertical passes beginning at the left side and progressing to the right
in an “N” pattern. If blotting, blot at least five times on each vertical pass. Roll or fold the gauze
again and insert into the shipping container. Blotting is suggested in areas so soiled or rough that
the threads of the gauze media are continually snagged.
NOTE: On areas larger than 100 cm2, more than five passes and blots will be needed.
c. Repeat or Serial Wiping: If isopropanol is used for wiping, a serial or repeat wipe sample of the
same area with a fresh gauze wipe will improve sampling efficiency. (See recoveries for second
wipe in Tables 10a and 10b.) For serial wiping, repeat the wiping procedure described above
(APPENDIX steps 7a or 7b) with a fresh gauze wipe. Place the second gauze wipe into the same
shipping container as the first gauze. The 50-mL polypropylene centrifuge tubes are large enough
to contain up to two gauze wipes.
NOTE: If the area to be wiped remains substantially wet from the first gauze, the second gauze
wipe might be used in the dry state to soak up the residual solvent from the first gauze
wipe.
8. Composite sampling: Composite samples are allowed by some regulatory agencies. Their use for
quantitative purposes may be subject to the permission and guidance of regulatory agencies. Refer
to guidelines of regulatory agency for directions on composite sampling. A basic default guideline
for composite sampling is as follows: Do not mix inconsistent samples; that is, areas wiped must
be equal in area, sampled areas must have the same high or low probability of contamination, and
sampled areas must relate to a specific target appliance or site and not to several appliances or
incongruous sites combined.
NOTE: Composite samples cannot meet specific action-threshold requirements for discrete sampling
locations. Nor do composite samples consisting of four wipes, for example, improve the
sensitivity by decreasing the LOD four fold; instead it raises the LOD by a factor related
to the extra volume of desorption solution that is required to desorb a larger number of
wipes. The following example illustrates these two points. Assume that the action level was
0.1 μg/100 cm2. If the analysis gave an LOD of 0.06 μg/sample for a single wipe or discrete
sample covering an area of 100 cm2, then the LOD for the analysis could be expressed as 0.06
μg/100 cm2, which is low enough to be able to determine whether any discrete sample is at
or exceeds the action level. Now if a composite of four wipes was taken, each with an area
of 100 cm2 for a total area wiped of 400 cm2, the LOD for that composite sample is not 0.06
μg/400 cm2 nor is it 0.015 μg/100 cm2; it is actually several times larger than 0.06 μg/400 cm2.
First of all it increases relative to the ratio of the volume of desorption solution used to desorb
the sample compared to that used for the calibration standards. Secondly it has nothing to
do with the area that was wiped, because the LOD for the calibration curve is determined
in terms of μg per sample, independent of the area. To explain the first point, assume
approximately 90 mL was used (for ease in calculation) to desorb the four wipes and 30 mL
(the normal amount for a single wipe) was used to desorb each calibration standard. The
calculation of the LOD for the four composited samples would be μg/sample × (desorption
volume for 4 wipes) ∕ (desorption volume for the calibration standards), or 0.06 μg/sample
× (90 mL/30 mL), or 0.18 μg/sample for the composited sample. Since the area wiped for
the composite sample was 400 cm2, the LOD for that sample could be expressed as 0.18
μg/400 cm2. Regarding the second point, this value, 0.18 μg/400 cm2, cannot be construed
or mathematically reduced to 0.045 μg/100 cm2 because it cannot be known whether three
of the four wipes were blank and the fourth wipe just under the value of 0.18 μg. Hence, the
effective LOD per individual wipe has to be regarded not only as 0.18 μg/400 cm2 but also
as 0.18 μg/100 cm2 because any value determined for entire 400 cm2 might have come from
just one of those 100 cm2 areas. Thus, for composite samples, the LOD must be expressed in
terms of the entire area wiped and not extrapolated to some portion thereof. In this example,
an LOD of 0.18 μg/100 cm2 is above the action threshold of 0.1 μg/100 cm2, meaning that this
composite sample cannot satisfy the requirement that residual levels be below 0.1 μg/100
cm2. It remains for the regulatory agency and not the laboratory to determine how to apply
results for composite samples to the established action levels. The same consideration that is
given above for the LOD applies to results that are greater than the LOD. To avoid confusion
in reporting concentrations for composite samples, it is recommended that the sample
concentration (in μg/sample, whatever the sample size) and the total area wiped (in cm2) be
reported separately. For example, a result of 0.4 μg/sample for a sample consisting of four
separate wipes of 100 cm2 each (for a total area wiped of 400 cm2), is to be reported as 0.4
μg/400 cm2 and not averaged to 0.1 μg/100 cm2. This manner of reporting may be required
by some regulatory agencies.
9. For quality assurance purposes, regulatory agencies may require duplicate samples to be taken in
the field. If such is the case, an area contiguous with and adjacent to the first area, if possible, should
be wiped as described under SAMPLING. Do not re-wipe the previously wiped area. This sample
is a blind sample and should not be identifiable by the analytical laboratory as a duplicate of any
other sample. These are distinct from the laboratory duplicates of a single sample described in step
14 of the method. Field duplicates are useful for evaluating the consistency of sampling technique,
assuming uniformity of contamination on adjacent sampling sites. Laboratory duplicates are useful
for evaluating consistency of sample preparation and instrumental analysis.
With either strategy, if two gauze wipes were included in the samples, then use 40 mL of
desorption solution. If four gauze wipes were included in the samples, then use 80 mL of
desorption solution.
a. In strategy A, the volume of internal standard spiking solution is kept at a constant ratio of 2
μL per mL of desorption solution added. This enables larger samples to be desorbed without
diminishing the area of the GC peak for the internal standard. However, a volume correction
factor (V1/V2) is needed in the final calculations in step 19. Therefore, the exact volume of internal
standard added to each of the samples relative to that added to the calibration standards must
be known.
b. In strategy B, the volume of internal standard spiking solution is kept constant for all samples
and calibration standards, but need not be exactly 60 μL. This enables the final calculations to
be made in step 19 without a volume correction factor. However, the area of the GC peak for the
internal standard will vary with sample desorption volume and the internal standard must be
concentrated enough to be measurable where larger volumes of desorption solution are used.
E. DRYING COLUMN PREPARATION
Using 1 cm i.d. × 12-15 cm long polypropylene columns having a fritted polyethylene disc or
equivalent (see EQUIPMENT), add 1 gram (~0.8 cc) of anhydrous potassium carbonate (the bed
dimension will be about 1.0 cm dia. × 1 cm long). Add 1 gram (~0.8 cc) anhydrous sodium sulfate
on top of the potassium carbonate. Remove any particles clinging electrostatically to the outside
surfaces.
NOTE: Particles of the drying salts must not get into the collection tube, either through the frits or
glass wool plugs, or from particles clinging electrostatically to the outside of the columns.
Salts appear to inhibit derivatization efficiency.
F. DERIVATIZATION:
If isopropanol was used as the wetting solvent for the wipes, some of it will be co-extracted into the
methylene chloride. In the presence of trace isopropanol, the crystal violet will go through a series
of color changes as the extracts are evaporated to dryness. However, if methanol was used as the
wetting solvent, the color of the crystal violet will remain blue to blue-violet at all stages of drying. Yet
even with methanol, the same color changes can be afforded by adding 0.1 mL of isopropanol to the
extracts prior to evaporation. Recoveries of analyte will not be affected in the absence of isopropanol,
however, as long as the residues are dry before proceeding to step 11b.
With the presence of a small amount of added or co-extracted isopropanol, as each sample
concentrates, the color of the solution will go from a blue or violet color rapidly through green to
a yellow color as the residue approaches dryness, which is indicative of increasing hydrogen ion
concentration in the residual alcohol. Upon continued blowing with nitrogen, the color of the residue
turns back to a green or blue hue just at the point of dryness, which is indicative of the loss of excess
hydrogen chloride and/or alcohol. At this stage the samples are dry and may be removed. Continued
blowing beyond this point may turn the dried residue to a deep blue-violet or violet color. Losses of
analyte have not been experienced even after blowing for five additional minutes beyond the violet
stage as long as the hydrochloric acid had been added. Color changes will not be as dramatic or will
not develop if too much crystal violet is used.
As the samples become concentrated, the tubes may be raised up in the water bath so that only the
very bottoms of the tubes touch the surface of the water. This makes it easier to observe the color
changes. The tubes may be raised out of the water bath, but blow-down times are lengthened.
Prolonged heating at high temperatures during derivatization with the acidic conditions of the acid
anhydride derivatizing agents promotes mutual isomerization between the ephedrine diastereomers
(ephedrine and pseudoephedrine). Dehydration of the ephedrine compounds (ephedrine,
norephedrine, and pseudoephedrine) also occurs to some extent to yield β-amino-β-methyl styrenes.
Heating during derivatization for longer than one hour is especially not recommended. Thirty
minutes is sufficient.
NOTE: The color of the solution will gradually fade from purple to deep blue within about 20-30
minutes. This is due to the known tendency of phenolphthalein to fade at high pH. It has also
been observed that in certain bulk samples, unknown constituents will cause the color of
phenolphthalein to fade rapidly so that a purple color cannot be obtained at a pH >9, leaving
only the blue color of the bromothymol blue. A quick check with pH paper can confirm that
the pH is 9 or greater.
G. MEASUREMENT:
Recoveries for the laboratory control matrix spike samples (QC and QD) must meet the guidelines of
the specific regulatory agency involved, if applicable (80-120% is a reasonable target in the absence
of specific guidance).
NOTE: The QC samples (QC and QD) in this method may be referred to in some guidance documents
as matrix spike and matrix spike duplicate samples (MS/MSD), but serve the same purpose.
Analyze and report field-equipment blanks as samples. Do not subtract their values from any
other sample.
Recoveries of Continuing Calibration Verification (CCV) standards must meet guidelines of
regulatory agency (80-120% is a reasonable target in the absence of specific guidance). The CCV
standards may be referred to in some guidance documents as “QC samples,” but such “QCs” are
equivalent to liquid standards (not matrix spiked samples) and serve the same purpose of the CCVs
in this method.
With the GC/MS it is possible to achieve the lower limit of 0.05 μg or less per sample for
methamphetamine in either the scan mode or SIM mode. The scan mode is essential where the
identification of unknowns is an analytical objective. If lower limits of detection are desired or
difficult to obtain in the scan mode, or for routine target compound only analyses, the instrument
may be operated in the SIM mode.
H. MAKING DILUTIONS:
If the samples exceed the upper calibration range for the analysis, one of the following procedures
may be used to estimate the high level concentrations.
1. Dilution Procedure A (dilution of the derivatized sample by reconstitution solvent):
This option may be used only if the analytes in the sample were completely derivatized (see NOTE
below). If derivatization was complete, transfer an aliquot of the sample from the GC vial (e.g. 0.2
mL for a 1:5 dilution) to a clean GC vial and dilute with reconstitution solvent (e.g. 0.8 mL for a 1:5
dilution), cap vial, mix, and reanalyze. However, dilution also dilutes the internal standard, and this
procedure is useful only if the GC peak area for the internal standard is sufficiently measurable
and the calibration curve is reasonably linear. Dilutions probably should not exceed a factor of 10.
If this approach is used it is not necessary to enter a dilution factor in step 19 (V3/ V4) since both
internal standard and analyte are diluted equally. The accuracy of this dilution procedure depends
upon the linearity of the calibration curve in the extrapolated region beyond the upper end of the
calibration curve.
NOTE: Determination of Incomplete Derivatization: Incomplete derivatization can be caused
by water, glycols, a large excess of analyte, or other contaminants that interfere with or
compete for the derivatization reagent. If any one of the following symptoms appears, use
Dilution Procedure B described below.
a. An “oily” film (i.e., apparently viscous liquid) or unusual residue (e.g. grit) remains after being
blown-down under nitrogen after derivatization (step 11d). This may be due to the presence
of water, glycols, detergents, salts, or other contaminants. Incomplete derivatization has been
observed with such residues.
b. A very large (off scale) GC peak for any one of the derivatives (e.g. pseudoephedrine, a precursor
for methamphetamine) indicates the possibility of incomplete derivatization for other analytes
(e.g. methamphetamine) due to competition for the derivatization reagent.
c. A smaller than usual GC peak area for the internal standard (<50% of the average) in undiluted
samples suggests that something was competing for or inhibiting the derivatizing reagent. Such
inhibition or competition for the internal standard will be experienced by the target analyte as
well.
d. Incomplete derivatization can be confirmed by the obvious presence of a GC peak for an
underivatized target analyte. Underivatized analytes are not always detectable. Ephedrines
usually do not show up on DB-5 capillary columns in this method, but GC peaks for underivatized
secondary amines (e.g. methamphetamine) and for high levels of underivatized primary amines
(e.g. amphetamine) can be detected, usually as irregularly shaped GC peaks, depending upon GC
column conditions.
e. The problem of incomplete derivatization can be minimized by the use of an isotopic (e.g.
deuterated) analog for each of the target analytes as the internal standard for that compound.
This allows quantification in spite of incomplete derivatization.
2. Dilution Procedure B (dilution of a smaller aliquot of the original desorbate): If the sample was not
completely derivatized or if large dilutions are needed (e.g. greater than about 1:5), the following
procedure can be used. See NOTE in part 1 above. The procedure may also be used if derivatization
was determined to be complete.
a. Dilute an aliquot of the original aqueous acid desorbate of the wipe sample to 10 mL with
desorption solution from a simulated sample blank, and re-extract. Add both the aliquot to
be diluted and the diluting solution from the simulated blank directly to a clean 25-mL glass
centrifuge tube (step 7f ) and proceed to step 8. For example, to make a 1:10 dilution, transfer 1
mL of original desorbate to the 25-mL tube and dilute with 9 mL from a simulated sample blank.
b. The simulated sample blank should be prepared identically to the sample being diluted, using
the same volumes of internal standard spiking solution and desorption solution that were used
with the sample in the original desorption. For example, if the original sample was desorbed with
40 mL desorption solution with 80 μL of added internal standard spiking solution, then prepare
the simulated blank in the same way. The volume of wetting alcohol is estimated (e.g. about 3
mL per 3”×3” (7.5 cm x 7.5 cm) 12-ply cotton gauze wipe). Include a dilution factor (V3/ V4) in the
calculations in step 19 (e.g. V3/ V4 = 10 mL divided by the volume in mL of original desorbate
diluted to 10 mL with solution from the simulated blank). The dilution factor in the above
example is 10 mL/ 1 mL or 10.
c. Correct for differences in internal standard spiking solution volumes in step 19 (if applicable)
using for V1 the volume of internal standard spiking solution which was added to the original
undiluted sample.
NOTE: This dilution procedure gives quantitative results only if the residual volume of
methanol (or isopropanol) used for wetting the sample wipes was exactly the same as
the volume used in preparing the calibration standards (normally about 3 mL, see Table
6). Deviations of a few milliliters in residual wetting alcohol will not affect the results for
undiluted samples, but will amount to an error of a few percent in the final results of
samples that are diluted.
d. The potential error due to differences in residual wetting solvent can be estimated for specific
volumes of desorption solution and wetting alcohol. Assume the sample wipes and calibration
standards are both desorbed in 30 mL of desorption solution and 3 mL of alcohol is added
to the calibration standards. The potential error in volume (and final results) in the samples is
approximately ±3 % (inversely proportional) per mL difference in the residual alcohol in the
samples (i.e., ±1 mL difference in 33 mL). For 40 mL of desorption solution and 4 mL of alcohol
added to the calibration standards, the error is ±2 % for every mL difference (i.e., ±1 mL difference
in 44 mL). However, since the volume of residual wetting alcohol is not known and cannot be
determined once the sample wipe has been desorbed, the actual error cannot be determined.
However, the maximum possible error can be calculated. Since the maximum amount of alcohol
that a recommended wipe can hold is about 6 mL when saturated (dripping wet), there can only
be a deviation of plus or minus 3 mL from the 3 mL alcohol added to the calibration standards.
Therefore, the maximum error in a result due to differences in the volume of residual alcohol in
a cotton gauze sample compared to the standards can only be three times the error for a 1 mL
difference in volume. Since the error for ±1 mL is ±3.03%, the maximum error for ±3 mL is three
times larger, or ±9.1%. In practice, the error will be less than this because it is unlikely that the
gauze samples will be completely dry or completely saturated after squeezing out the excess
alcohol and wiping a surface. The practical amount of alcohol that remains in the wipes when the
excess is squeezed out is between 1 and 2 mL. This translates into an error that is between +3%
and +6% in the final results for diluted samples. Undiluted samples will not be affected. This error
is within the overall accuracy for the method for methamphetamine.
3. Dilution Procedure C (dilution of desorbates from dried samples):
Dilution errors for over-range samples may be corrected by knowing the exact amount of residual
alcohol in the samples. The volume (or weight) of residual solvent in each gauze wipe might be
determined by the difference between a wet weight and dry weight. Better yet, the error might be
eliminated for diluted samples by adding, after the samples are dried (without taking any weight),
the same known volume of wetting alcohol that is added to the calibration standards (i.e., 3 mL).
Thereafter, if any samples need dilution, there will be no dilution errors due to differences in residual
alcohol, because all samples and standards will have the same volume of alcohol and total volume
of desorption solution.
However, air drying of the samples is not recommended because of the possible loss of
methamphetamine due to its volatility when it is not in the salt form, which form cannot be
assured in field samples. Also, manipulating the samples for weighing and drying might introduce
contamination. Drying is not recommended as a procedure for analytes having a vapor pressure
high enough to be lost in the process, or that tend to form azeotropes with alcohols; this is especially
important when the critical action levels for remedial cleanup are at the lower end of the method
calibration range. Drying is not an option if the samples have already been desorbed.
SYNONYMS: Table 3
SAMPLING MEASUREMENT
APPLICABILITY: For methamphetamine the range is 0.05 to 60 μg/sample (sample = 100 cm2 or 1000 cm2). This method was
developed for the analysis of selected drugs and precursors on surfaces in clandestine drug labs [5]. Sampling methodology
was tested using wipes on smooth, non-porous surfaces. The APPENDIX contains sampling information for other types of
surfaces.
INTERFERENCES: No chromatographic interferences detected. Water, surfactants and polyols inhibit derivatization.
OTHER WIPE METHODS: NIOSH 9106 uses liquid-liquid extraction and gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (GC/MS)
to measure multiple drugs [6]. NIOSH 9111 uses liquid chromatography/mass spectrometry (LC/MS) to measure
methamphet-amine [7].
REAGENTS: EQUIPMENT:
NOTE: See APPENDIX A for special instructions on reagents. NOTE: See APPENDIX B for special instructions on equipment.
1. Analytes listed in Table 1* 1. Wipe, cotton gauze, (7.6 cm × 7.6 cm) 12-ply or equivalent.
2. Internal standards from those listed in Table 8a 2. Sample storage and shipping container: 50-mL polypropylene
3. Solvents, residue free analytical grades centrifuge tubes with polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE)-lined caps or
a. Isopropanol (IPA)* equivalent.
b. Methanol* 3. Gas chromatograph/mass spectrometer detector, with column and
c. Methylene chloride (CH2Cl2)* integrator, See p. 9109-1.
d. Acetonitrile* 4. Solid phase extraction (SPE) mixed phase cation exchange
4. Concentrated sulfuric and hydrochloric acids (Analytical Reagent [AR] hydrophilic extraction columns (See Appendix E)
or trace metals analysis grades)* 5. Collection tubes and GC vials:
5. Ammonium hydroxide (NH4OH), 28-30%, A.C.S. grade* a. Glass test tubes (13 mm x 100 mm) with PTFE-lined caps
6. Bromothymol blue, ≥95%, A.C.S.; crystal violet (Gentian Violet), b. GC autosampler vials, 2-mL Limited-volume, 300-500 μL (amber
≥95%, A.C.S. vials recommended), and caps.
7. Purified gases: helium for carrier gas, nitrogen for drying 6. Volumetric flasks: 10-, 100-, and 250-mL.
8. MSTFA (N-methyl-N-trimethylsilyl-trifluoro-acetamide) derivatizing 7. Reagent bottle, 4-L .
agent* 8. Liquid Transfer:
9. MBHFBA (N-methyl-N,N-bisheptafluorobutyramide) derivatizing a. Syringes: 10-, 25-, and 100-μL.
agent* b. Mechanical pipette with disposable tips, 5-mL.
10. 4,4’-Dibromooctafluorobiphenyl, 99% c. Repeating dispensers: 1 to 5-mL.
11. Deionized water (ASTM type II) d. Syringe or repeating dispenser: 100-μL.
e. Syringes: 250-μL.
SOLUTIONS: 9. Forceps.
10. Gloves: latex or nitrile. Avoid vinyl gloves (see 9109-3, Sampling,
NOTE: See APPENDIX A for special instructions on solutions. step 1, NOTE 2).
1. Prepare solutions of analytes of interest (Table 1). Calculate 11. Rotating mixer capable of 10-30 rpm.
concentrations as the free base. Keep solutions refrigerated (<6 °C). 12. Vacuum manifold box with 12 to 36 vacuum ports, and adjustable
Protect solutions from light. flow rates.
a. Stock solutions are prepared at about 1-2 mg/mL in methanol. 13. Nitrogen blow-down apparatus with water bath capable of
b. Analyte spiking solutions are prepared by diluting the stock maintaining 35 ºC.
solutions to about 200 μg/mL each in methanol. 14. Vortex mixer.
2. Prepare internal standard spiking solution in methanol at about 200 15. Pasteur pipettes.
μg/mL. 16. pH paper.
NOTE: Add about 2 mg of crystal violet per 20 mL of internal 17. Template: 10 cm x 10 cm (or 1 foot x 1 foot) opening made of
standard spiking solution to help indicate which relatively rigid disposable cardstock or sheet of PTFE.
samples have been spiked. 18. Ice or other cold media for shipping.
3. Desorption solution: 0.1 M sulfuric acid. Add 22 mL conc. sulfuric acid
to 4 liters deionized water.
4. Bromothymol blue pH indicator solution: 1 mg/mL in 4:1
isopropanol:deionized water.
5. Crystal violet indicator: 2-3 mg/mL in isopropanol.
6. Solid phase extraction (SPE) wash solution: Aqueous 0.1 M
hydrochloric acid: Dilute 8.3 mL concentrated hydrochloric acid in
about 800 mL water, dilute to 1 liter with ASTM Type II water.
7. SPE elution solution: 80:20:2 CH2Cl2:IPA:NH4OH v/v. Prepare fresh
daily.
8. 0.3 M hydrochloric acid in methanol: Dilute 2.5 mL conc. hydrochloric
acid in about 80 mL methanol; dilute to 100 mL with methanol.
9. Derivatization diluent solvent: acetonitrile containing 4 μg/mL of
4,4’-dibromo-octafluorobiphenyl (optional).
* See SPECIAL PRECAUTIONS
SPECIAL PRECAUTIONS: The solvents are flammable and have associated adverse health effects.
Phenethylamines target the nervous system at very low concentrations and are easily absorbed
through the skin. Avoid breathing vapors. Avoid skin contact. Work should be performed in a hood with
adequate ventilation. Analysts must wear proper eye and hand protection (e.g., latex gloves) to prevent
absorption of even small amounts of amines through the skin as well as for protection from the solvents
and other reagents. Dissolving concentrated hydrochloric or sulfuric acid in water is highly exothermic.
Goggles must be worn. The derivatization reagents react violently with water.
Caution must also be exercised in the handling and analysis of samples. Clandestine drug labs may
produce unknown and seriously toxic by-products. For example, in the manufacture of designer
drugs (e.g., MPPP, a homolog of Alphaprodine), at least one very neurotoxic by-product, 1-methyl-4-
phenyl-1,2,5,6-tetrahydropyridine (MPTP), has been identified that specifically and irreversibly causes
Parkinson’s disease [8,9].
SAMPLING:
See APPENDIX C for special instructions on sampling.
1. Using a new pair of gloves, remove a gauze wipe from its protective package. Moisten the wipe with
approximately 3 to 4 mL of methanol (or isopropanol).
NOTE 1: Apply no more solvent than that needed to moisten approximately the central 80% of the
area of the gauze wipe. Excess solvent may cause sample loss due to dripping from the
wipe.
NOTE 2: Do not use vinyl gloves due to the potential for leaching of phthalate plasticizers and
contamination of the samples.
2. Place the template over the area to be sampled (may tape in place along outside edge of template).
Wipe the surface to be sampled with firm pressure, using vertical S-strokes. Fold the exposed side of
the pad in and wipe the area with horizontal S-strokes. Fold the pad once more and wipe the area
again with vertical S-strokes.
3. Fold the pad, exposed side in, and place in shipping container and seal with cap.
NOTE: Keep samples refrigerated (<6 ºC). While methamphetamine and several related amines
are stable on the recommended wipe media for at least 7 days at room temperature,
refrigeration is recommended as soon as possible (see Table 4).
4. Either clean the template before use for the next sample or use a new disposable template.
5. Label each sample clearly with a unique sample identifier.
6. Prepare a minimum of two field blanks with one field blank for every ten samples.
NOTE: In addition, include at least 3 media blanks for the analytical laboratory to use for their
purposes. The wipes used for the media blanks should be from the same lot as the field
samples.
SAMPLE PREPARATION:
See APPENDIX D for special instructions on sample preparation.
7. Desorption from media:
a. Remove cap from shipping container.
NOTE: Sample wipe should fit loosely in the container. If not, transfer sample to a larger
container.
b. Spike 60 μL of internal standard spiking solution onto each wipe sample.
c. Add 30 mL desorption solution (0.1 M sulfuric acid).
NOTE: If the samples were transferred to a larger container, rinse the original shipping container
with the desorption solution, shake, and decant the rinsate into the larger container.
Cap securely and mix contents by inverting the tubes end over end on a rotary mixer or
equivalent at 10-30 rpm for at least one hour.
d. Check the pH which should be about ≤ 4. If needed, adjust the pH with diluted (2.5 to 3 M) sulfuric
acid drop-wise, mixing the contents by shaking or inversion a few times after each addition of acid
before checking the pH.
e. After mixing, transfer 10 mL of supernatant to a 25-mL glass centrifuge tube.
NOTE: If extraction is to be performed on a subsequent day, store samples in a refrigerator. Analytes
are stable in the desorption solution for at least one week refrigerated.
8. Solid phase extraction procedure:
a. Column selection: Select one of the SPE columns listed in Appendix E. Each brand of column has a
slightly different conditioning procedure and resistance to flow. Other brands of SPE columns may
also work. Elution profiles of drugs to be analyzed need to be determined before use of columns
other than those specified.
b. Setting up columns: Attach SPE columns to vacuum ports on the manifold. Attach vacuum line to
vacuum pump capable of 25-30 psi vacuum.
c. Conditioning: Condition each column with 1 column volume (3 mL) of methanol followed by 1
column volume of Type II deionized water. For some brands the conditioning volume is 1/3 column
volume. Check product literature.
d. Loading: Load each SPE column with 5 mL of the sample acid desorbate solution. Adjust vacuum so
that the flow rate is about 1-2 mL/minute. The vacuum required to obtain that flow rate varies with
brand of SPE column.
e. First wash: Wash each column with 1 column volume (3 mL) of 0.1 M aqueous hydrochloric acid. For
some brands this volume may be decreased to 1 or 2 mL. Check product literature.
f. Second wash: Wash each column with 1 column volume of methanol. Add the methanol in 2 or 3
separate aliquots to ensure that the aqueous acid is flushed through. Discard all effluents.
g. Drying: Remove last traces of water in the SPE columns by pulling air through the columns under
increased vacuum (e.g., 25 psi) for 5 minutes. Silica-based SPE columns or columns with high
resistance to flow may require a longer time to reach dryness.
h. Elution: Position 13 x 100 mm collection tubes under each column. Elute analytes with 3 mL of
elution solution (80:20:2 methylene chloride:isopropanol:concentrated ammonium hydroxide v/v,
freshly prepared). Adjust vacuum so that the flow rate is 1 mL/minute or less. For some brands this
flow rate may occur without applied vacuum. Most of the analytes (e.g., amphetamine, ephedrine,
methamphetamine, etc.) are eluted in the first milliliter.
9. Evaporation: To each collection tube containing eluate, add about 5 μL crystal violet solution and
100 μL of 0.3 M hydrochloric acid in methanol. The samples are evaporated to dryness under gently
blowing nitrogen at 25-35 °C. The samples should be removed from the evaporation bath within a few
minutes after dryness. A mixed whitish and purple residue will remain. The purple color of the crystal
violet helps to make the residue more visible when dried. The color of the crystal violet remains a
constant blue to blue-violet during concentration and drying.
10. Derivatization: (Perform under the hood.) Add 100 μL of acetonitrile containing the optional
dibromooctafluorobiphenyl secondary internal standard. Add 25 μL MSTFA and 25 μL MBHFBA in that
order. Cap tubes between additions to prevent atmospheric humidity from affecting the reagents. (See
note below. Have no more than 5 or 6 tubes uncapped at a time.) Vortex each tube about 4-5 seconds.
Using Pasteur pipettes, transfer each mixture to low-volume (300-500 μL) amber autosampler vials and
cap vials.
NOTE 1: Some derivatization takes place at room temperature, especially trimethylsilylation.
Derivatization is completed on-column after injection. No prior heating is required or
recommended.
NOTE 2: The color of the reconstituted solution should be deep blue to violet. If the color turns light
blue or turquoise upon standing, moisture may be present (the vials may not have been
capped tightly enough). Such samples need to be reprocessed beginning at step 8 since the
derivatives are not stable in the presence of moisture. If the vials are securely capped, the
solutions will be stable for several days at room temperature and at least a week refrigerated.
Protect vials from light (amber vials recommended.)
11. Analyze samples, standards, blanks, and QCs by GC-MS. (See MEASUREMENT, steps 15-17 and
p. 9109-1.)
MEASUREMENT:
See APPENDIX G for special instructions on measurement.
15. Analyze the calibration standards, quality control samples, blanks, a continuing calibration verification
(CCV) standard consisting of one of the initial calibration standards, and samples by GC/MS.
Set gas chromatograph according to manufacturer’s recommendations and to conditions listed on page
9109-1.
a. Set mass spectrometer conditions to manufacturer’s specifications and those given on page 9109-1
for the scan mode or those in Table 5 for the SIM mode.
b. Inject sample volume with autosampler or manually.
NOTE: After the derivatives are prepared and just before analyzing any samples or standards, inject
the highest concentrated standard several times in order to prime or deactivate the GC
column and injection port. This will help minimize any drift in the instrument’s response to
target analytes relative to their internal standards.
c. After analysis, the vials should be recapped promptly and refrigerated if further analysis is anticipated.
16. Using extracted ion current profiles for the primary (quantification) ions specific to each analyte,
measure GC peak areas of analyte(s) and internal standard(s) and compute relative peak areas by
dividing the peak area of the analyte by the area of the appropriate internal standard. Recommended
primary (quantification) ions and internal standards are given in Tables 5, 7 and 8. Prepare calibration
graph (relative peak area vs. μg analyte per sample).
17. Samples from initial investigations of clandestine laboratories are likely to include highly contaminated
samples. If sample results exceed the upper range of the calibration curve, the sample in the GC vial
may be diluted and reanalyzed or a smaller aliquot of the initial acid desorbate diluted, re-extracted,
derivatized, and analyzed. Refer to APPENDIX H for instructions and limitations on making dilutions.
CALCULATIONS:
18. Determine the mass in µg/sample of respective analyte found in the wipe samples, and in the media
blank from the calibration graph.
19. Calculate final concentration, C, of analyte in µg/sample:
V1
= volume correction factor (needed only when the volume of internal standard spiking
V2 solution used for spiking the samples - such as for composite samples requiring larger
desorption solution volumes - is different from that used for spiking the calibration
standards). (See Table 6, footnote 4).
V1 = volume in µL of internal standard spiking solution used to spike samples.
V2 = volume in µL of internal standard spiking solution used to spike the standards.
V3
= dilution factor, if applicable.
V4
V3 = 5 mL (volume of desorbate normally taken for extraction in step 8d).
V4 = volume in mL of desorbate actually taken for extraction and diluted to 5 mL with blank
desorbing solution containing internal standard.
b = concentration in media blank (in µg/sample determined from the calibration curve).
V5
= volume correction factor for the media blank (needed only if the volume of internal
V2 standard spiking solution used for spiking the media blank is different from that used for
spiking the calibration standards).
20. Report concentration, C’, in µg per total area wiped (in cm2) as follows:
C
C’=
A
EVALUATION OF METHOD:
This method was developed according to the NIOSH sampling and analytical method development
guidelines [11]. This method was evaluated for those analytes listed in Tables 7a and 7b over a range of
approximately 0.1 μg/sample to 30 μg/sample for several types of sampling media. These concentration
levels represent approximately the 1 through 300 times the limit of quantitation (LOQ) level for most of
the analytes. Results are reported in the Backup Data Report [4].
The limits of detection (LOD and LOQ) were determined by preparing a series of liquid standards in
desorption solution, processing by the SPE of NIOSH 9109, and analyzing in the scan mode. The LODs
were estimated using the procedure of Burkart [12]. An LOD of 0.1 μg/sample for methamphetamine
on wipes was achieved in the scan mode. The LOD was set at 0.1 μg/sample because that was the level
of the lowest calibration standard in the LOD/LOQ study. Lower LODs (e.g., 0.02 μg/sample) have been
achieved in practice by including calibration standards at lower concentration levels. The cleanliness and
performance of the mass spectrometer must be maintained such that at 0.1 μg/sample a signal of at least
5 to 10 times the baseline noise is achievable. This is more easily accomplished in the SIM mode.
Six different wipe media were evaluated. These were 3”x3” (7.5 cm x 7.5 cm) 12-ply cotton gauze, 4”x4” (10
cm x 10 cm) AlphaWipe® (TX 1004), 4”x4” (10 cm x 10 cm) 4-ply NU GAUZE®, 4”x4” (10 cm x 10 cm) 4-ply
MIRASORB®, 4”x4” (10 cm x 10 cm) 6-ply SOF-WICK®, and 4”x4” (10 cm x 10 cm) 4-ply TOPPER® sponges.
Results are given in the Backup Data Report [4]. No synthetic media performed better than cotton gauze.
Some media (NU GAUZE® and SOF-WICK®) gave inconsistent results.
Precision and accuracy were determined by analyzing 6 replicates at each of 6 concentration levels
(nominally 0.1, 0.3, 1, 3, 10, and 30 μg/sample). Results are presented in Table 7a for cotton gauze and
7b for AlphaWipe®. The best precision and accuracies were dependent upon the use of carefully chosen
internal standards, especially with steric hindrance of the amine (e.g., having N-ethyl and N-propyl
groups). Long term sample storage stability was determined for periods up to 30 days under refrigeration
(<6 °C) and for up to 7 days at room temperature (22-24 °C). Results are given in Table 4.
Chlorodifluoroacetic anhydride (CDFAA) and pentafluoro propionic anhydride (PFPA) were evaluated
as derivatizing agents for the SPE eluates. These were not effective, probably due to the high level of
ammonium chloride residues in the SPE column eluates. They were most effective with the liquid-
liquid extraction procedure of NIOSH 9106 [6].
For SPE, the mixed silanization-acylation reagent, MSTFA and MBHFBA [13-15], proved very effective.
The derivatization mixture is transferred directly to amber mini-GC vials and direct-injected without
prior heating.
Recovery of amphetamines from six different types of surfaces using cotton gauze was evaluated (see
Table 9a and 9b). The practice of serial wiping (wiping the same surface area a second time with a second
gauze wipe and combining both wipes as a single sample) was evaluated. Four solvents for wetting the
gauze were tested (distilled water, 5% distilled white vinegar, isopropanol, and methanol). Six replicates
samples were taken on a latex painted wall. Recoveries and precisions are given in Table 9a and 9b. The
recoveries with 5% distilled white vinegar were better than for distilled water, but not as good as for
isopropanol. Methanol is superior to isopropanol. Recoveries with isopropanol are greatly improved with
a repeat (serial) wipe (11% improvement compared to only about 6% improvement with methanol).
The study and results are reported in the Backup Data Report for NIOSH 9109 [4]. Additional research on
surface sample recovery and solvent effectiveness has been reported by Van Dyke et al [13] and Serrano
et al. [16].
REFERENCES:
[1] ACGIH [2013]. TLVs and BEIs based on the documentation of the Threshold Limit Values for chemical
substances and physical agents and Biological Exposure Indices. Cincinnati, Ohio: American Conference
of Governmental Industrial Hygienists. [www.acgih.org]. Data accessed April 2014.
[2] Institut fur Arbeitsschutz der Deutschen Gesetzlichen Unfallversicherung [2013]. GESTIS database on
hazardous substances (German Social Accident Insurance). Sankt Augustin, FRG: [http://www.dguv.de/
ifa/GESTIS ]. Data accessed April 2014.
[3] EPA [2013]. Voluntary guidelines for methamphetamine laboratory cleanup. [https://www.epa.gov/
sites/production/files/documents/meth_lab_guidelines.pdf ]. Date accessed March 2016.
[4] Reynolds JM, Siso MC, Perkins JB [2004]. Backup Data Report for NIOSH 9109, Methamphetamine and
illicit drugs, precursors, and adulterants on wipes by solid phase extraction, Abridged. Unpublished.
Prepared under NIOSH Contract 200-2001-0800.
[5] Martyny JW, Arbuckle SL, McCammon CS Jr., Esswein EJ, Erb N [2003]. Chemical exposures associated
with clandestine methamphetamine laboratories [https://www.env.nm.gov/cdli/docs/
Chemical_Exposures.pdf]. Date accessed April 2014.
[6] NIOSH [2011]. Methamphetamine and illicit drugs, precursors, and adulterants on wipes by liquid-liquid
extraction: Method 9106. In: Ashley KA, O’Connor PF, eds. NIOSH manual of analytical methods. 5th ed.
Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, [www.cdc.gov/niosh/nmam/].
[7] NIOSH [2011]. Methamphetamine on wipes by liquid chromatography/mass spectrometry: Method
9111. In: Ashley KA, O’Connor PF, eds. NIOSH manual of analytical methods. 5th ed. Cincinnati, OH:
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National
Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, [www.cdc.gov/niosh/nmam/].
[8] Baum RM [1985]. New variety of street drugs poses growing problem. Chemical and Engineering News,
63(63):7-16.
[9] Buchanan JF, Brown CR [1988]. Designer drugs, a problem in clinical toxicology. Medical Toxicology
3:1-17.
[10] NIOSH [1994]. Chapter C: Quality Assurance. In: Eller PM, Cassinelli ME, eds. NIOSH manual of analytical
methods, 4th ed. Cincinnati, OH: Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, DHHS (NIOSH)
Publication No. 94-113. [www.cdc.gov/niosh/nmam/].
[11] NIOSH [1995]. NIOSH Technical Report: Guidelines for air sampling and analytical method development
and evaluation. By Kennedy ER, Fischbach TJ, Song R, Eller PM, Shulman SA.
Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service,
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety and
Health, DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 95-117.
[12] Burkart JA [1986]. General procedures for limit of detection calculations in the industrial hygiene
chemistry laboratory. Applied Industrial Hygiene 1(3):153-155.
[13] Van Dyke MV, Serrano KA, Kofford S, Contreras J, Martyny JW [2011]. Variability and specificity
associated with environmental methamphetamine sampling and analysis. J Occup Environ Hyg
8(11):636-4. Date accessed May, 2011.
[14] Little JL [1999]. Artifacts in trimethylsilyl derivatization reactions and ways to avoid them. Journal of
Chromatography. A, 844:1-22.
[15] Crockett DK, Frank EL, and Roberts WL [2002]. Rapid analysis of metanephrine and normetanephrine
in urine by gas chromatography-mass spectrometry. Clinical Chemistry 48: 332-337.
[16] Serrano KA, Martyny JW, Kofford S, Contreras JR, Van Dyke MV [2012]. Decontamination of clothing
and building materials associated with the clandestine production of methamphetamine. J Occup
Environ Hyg 9(3):185-197.
[17] Budavari S, ed. [1989]. Merck Index, 11th ed. Rahway, New Jersey: Merck and Co.
[18] Sweet DV, ed. [1997]. Registry of toxic effects of chemical substances. DHHS (NIOSH) Publication
No. 97-119. [http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/pdf/97-119.pdf].
[19] Sigma-Aldrich MSDS sheets [http://www.sigma-aldrich.com]. Date accessed: May 10, 2004.
[20] Cerilliant Analytical Reference Materials. 811 Paloma Drive, Suite A, Round Rock, Texas 78664 [www.
cerilliant.com].
[21] Howard PH, Meylan WM [1997]. Handbook of physical properties of organic chemicals. Boca Raton,
Florida: CRC/Lewis Publishers. See also Syracuse Research Corporation’s website [http://www.srcinc.
com for demos and updates. Date accessed May 10, 2004.
[22] Zhang JS, Tian Z, Lou ZC [1989]. Quality evaluation of twelve species of chinese ephedra (Ma
Huang). Acta Pharmaceutic Sinica 24(11):865-871.
[23] Cui JF, Zhou TH, Zhang JS, and Lou ZC [1991]. Analysis of alkaloids in chinese ephedra species by gas
chromatographic methods. Phytochemical Analysis 2:116-119.
[24] Andrews KM [1995]. Ephedra’s role as a precursor in the clandestine manufacture of
methamphetamine. Journal of Forensic Sciences 40(4):551-560.
[25] OSHA [2001]. Evaluation guidelines for surface sampling methods. Industrial Hygiene Chemistry
Division, OSHA Salt Lake Technical Center, Salt Lake City, Utah. [http://www.osha.gov/dts/sltc/
methods/surfacesampling/surfacesampling.pdf ]. Date accessed May 2011.
134-71-4(4)
(L)-Ephedrine(8) 165.24 201.70 214.28 C6H5·CH(OH)·CH(CH3)NH·CH3 299-42-3(3) KB0700000
50-98-6(4) KB1750000
134-72-5(5) KB2625000
(D)-Ephedrine 165.24 201.70 214.28 C6H5·CH(OH)·CH(CH3)NH·CH3 321-98-2(3) KB0600000
24221-86-1(4) KB1925000
(±)-MDEA 207.27 243.73 CH2O2C6H3·CH2·CH(CH3)NH·C2H5 82801-81-8(3)
116261-63-2(4)
(±)-MDMA 193.24 229.71 CH2O2C6H3·CH2·CH(CH3)·NH·CH3 42542-10-9(3) SH5700000
92279-84-0(4)
(+)-MDMA(7) 193.24 229.71 CH2O2C6H3·CH2·CH(CH3)·NH·CH3 64057-70-1(4) SH5700000
(DL)-Methamphetamine 149.24 185.70 198.28 C6H5·CH2·CH(CH3)·NH·CH3 4846-07-5(3)
Table 4. Limit of detection (LOD), method detection limit (MDL), and sample storage stability(1)
Estimated LOD(3) Estimated MDL(4) Storage Stability(5)
µg/sample µg/sample µg/sample µg/sample
Compound Int. std.(2) liq. stds(6) liq. stds(7) cotton gauze Synthetic Wipe 30 days 4 ºC 7 days 22 ºC
(D)-Amphetamine D11-Amp 0.1 0.1 0.02 100.5 94.5
D14-Met 0.1 0.05 0.02 0.02 99.7 87.9
NMPhen 0.1 0.04 - -
Cocaine D11-Amp 0.6 0.2 (9)
99.3 98.8
D14-Met 0.4 0.1 (9)
0.1 (9)
98.5 91.9
NMPhen 0.4 0.1 (9) - -
(L)-Ephedrine D11-Amp 0.2 0.2 0.02 95.6 97.2
D14-Met 0.1 0.1 0.02 0.02 94.8 90.5
NMPhen 0.1 0.02 - -
MDEA N-PAmp 0.1 0.06 0.1 98.9 102.1
MDMA D11-Amp 0.1 0.02 99.7 111.1
D14-Met 0.1 0.02 0.04 98.9 103.2
NMPhen 0.1 0.03 - -
(D)-Methamphetamine D11-Amp 0.2 0.07 0.02 98.7 100.6
D14-Met 0.1 0.05 0.02 0.02 98.0 93.5
NMPhen 0.1 0.02 - -
Phencyclidine D11-Amp 0.6 0.1 (9)
103.7 105.2
D14-Met 0.4 0.1 (9)
0.5 (9)
102.9 97.7
NMPhen 0.4 0.1 (9)
- -
Phentermine D11-Amp 0.2 0.03 102.0 101.5
D14-Met 0.1 0.03 0.03 101.1 94.3
NMPhen 0.1 0.04 - -
(±)-Norephedrine (8)
D11-Amp 0.1 0.05 0.03 94.3 92.7
D14-Met 0.1 0.05 0.03 0.03 93.6 86.2
NMPhen 0.1 0.03 - -
Pseudoephedrine D11-Amp 0.2 0.2 0.02 100.4 97.9
D14-Met 0.1 0.1 0.02 0.02 99.6 91.1
NMPhen 0.1 0.02 - -
(1) Backup Data Report [4].
(2) Internal standards: D11-Amp = Amphetamine-D11, D14-Met = Methamphetamine-D14, NMPhen = N-Methyl phenethylamine, N-PAmp = N-Propyl amphetamine.
(3) LODs vary according to individual GC columns, instrument conditions and cleanliness, media interferences, and internal standards used. LODs were calculated on liquid standards using
the procedure of Burkart (LODs for linear calibration curves are calculated as 3 times the standard error of the lowest three standards analyzed in replicate divided by the slope of the
calibration curve) [12].
(4) MDLs are provided to satisfy regulatory agencies requiring this expression of sensitivity. These MDLs are calculated as the standard deviation of six replicates on spiked media analyzed at
the 0.1 µg/sample level (except as noted) times the Student’s t value for 6 replicates (3.365). (Normally 7 replicates are required.)
(5) Cotton gauze samples were spiked at 3 µg/sample per analyte. Six samples were analyzed immediately after preparation. Six samples were stored at room temperature (about 22 ºC) for
7 days and then analyzed. Eighteen samples were stored at >6 ºC. Of the 18 samples stored at >6 ºC, six each were analyzed at 7 and 21 days and three each were analyzed at 14 and 30
days (Backup Data Report [4].) Apparent recoveries vary according to internal standard used.
(6) These LODs are conservative since the lowest calibration standard for these determinations was 0.1 µg/sample. Lower LODs are achievable with lower concentration calibration standards
and operation of the mass spectrometer in the SIM mode.
(7) Typical LODs for a five point calibration curve with single standards at each concentration level. The lowest calibration standard for these determinations was 0.05 µg/sample.
(8) (±)-Norephedrine = (±)-phenylpropanolamine.
(9) MDLs for cocaine and phencyclidine were determined from the 0.3 µg/sample level because the GC peaks for the 0.1 µg/sample level were un-measurable. Precisions at the 0.3 µg/
sample level were such that the MDLs calculated to 0.1 µg/sample anyway. This value may be realistic since the 0.1 µg/sample level samples had been stored for one month prior to
analysis which may have affected stability.
Table 5. Example of mass spectrometer operation parameters for selected ion monitoring mode(1)
Heptafluorobutyryl-
trimethyl-silyl derivatives Scan window(2) Acquisition ions (m/z) per group(3)
Acquisition Group 1 8.20 to 10.20 104 118 128 132 210 213 240 244 254 261
Acquisition Group 2 10.20 to 13.20 179 240 254 282 296 456
Acquisition Group 3 13.20 to 19.00 82 162 182 200 242 254 268
GC Secondary ion and approximate relative
Peak Target Analytes and Internal Retention Primary Ion (m/z)(7) abundance(8)(relative to the Primary
No.(4) Standards Time(6)(min) (Quantification Ion) Ion)
Acquisition Group 1:
13 Amphetamine-D11 (I$)(9) 8.46 244 128 70%
5 Amphetamine 8.54 240 118 70%
92 Phentermine 8.72 254 132 12%
81 N-Methyl phenethylamine (I$)(9) 8.54 240 104 100%
68 Methamphetamine-D14 (I$)(9) 9.86 261 213 30%
64 Methamphetamine 9.94 254 210 35%
Acquisition Group 2:
95 Phenylpropanolamine 10.49 179 240 18%
97 N-Propylamphetamine (I$)(9) 11.05 282 240 85%
36 Ephedrine 11.40 179 254 17%
98 Pseudoephedrine 11.68 179 254 15%
32 Dibromooctafluorobiphenyl(10) 12.82 296 456 100%
Acquisition Group 3:
59 MDMA 13.81 254 162 80%
57 MDEA 14.19 268 162 60%
86 Phencyclidine 15.62 200 242 35%
27 Cocaine 18.65 182 82 110%
(1) In this example, 10 analytes and 5 internal standards are grouped into 3 acquisition groups having no more than 10 primary and
secondary ions per acquisition group. For 6 analytes and internal standards or less, one acquisition group may be sufficient.
(2) Scan window is in minutes. Actual times are dependent upon GC column and instrument conditions.
(3) Ions (m/z) in bold numbers are suggested primary (quantification) ions. For best signal to noise ratio, do not exceed 10 ions per
acquisition group. Dwell time per ion (m/z) is 50 milliseconds.
(4) GC peak numbers are those in Figures 1 and 2 and Table 10.
(5) The list of analytes and internal standards shown is an example. Analyte(s) and internal standard(s) must be selected according to
analytical objectives.
(6) Retention times are dependent upon GC column and instrument conditions.
(7) The better ions for quantification are usually the base peak or those with masses >100 m/z and relative abundances >50% of the
base peak. These minimize interference from co-eluting hydrocarbons. The suggested primary ions are not necessarily the base peaks
in the mass spectra of the analytes, especially if the base peaks are ions common to aromatics (e.g., m/z 91) and paraffinic or olefinic
hydrocarbons (e.g., m/z 42, 57, and 58). Suggested ions for other analytes and internal standards are given in Table 10.
(8) Secondary ions may be used for quantification if the primary ion encounters interference. Secondary ions improve qualitative
identification for SIM analyses. The relative abundances given are approximate (±10 to 20%) and depend upon specific instrument
tuning and conditions. They are relative to the primary ion and not necessarily to the base peak in the mass spectrum of each analyte. The
relative abundance of secondary ions for each analyte needs to be determined from a mass spectrum acquired on the instrument to be
used.
(9) (I$) = internal standard. Internal standards must be paired with the appropriate analytes. Tables 7a and 7b give precision and accuracy
data for various pairings. Other potentially useful internal standards are given in Tables 8a, 8b, and 10. Highly deuterated analogs of the
target analytes are preferred, where available.
(10) Dibromooctafluorobiphenyl is an optional secondary internal standard useful for monitoring autosampler performance and instrument
tuning. A shift in the mass axes or the relative abundance of m/z 296 to that of m/z 456 throughout an analytical sequence will help signal
degraded tuning.
Table 6. Suggested spiking schedule for calibration standards and quality control samples
Add the following to clean shipping containers (e.g., 50-mL polypropylene centrifuge
tubes) in the following order.
Volume(2) Volume Volume
Volume(2) of of Internal of Target of Spiking Resulting
Number Isopropanol Standard Analyte Solution Volume(2) of µg/sample
of or Spiking Spiking diluted Desorption as Free
Name Wipes(1,2) Methanol(3) Solution(4,5) Solution(5,6) 1/20(5,7) Solution(8) Base(9)
Calibration Standards(10)
CS0 0 3 mL 60 µL 0.0 µL 30 mL 0.00
CS1 0 3 mL 60 µL 2 µL 30 mL 0.02
CS2 0 3 mL 60 µL 5 µL 30 mL 0.05
CS3 0 3 mL 60 µL 10 µL 30 mL 0.1
CS4 0 3 mL 60 µL 20 µL 30 mL 0.2
CS5 0 3 mL 60 µL 60 µL 30 mL 0.6
CS6 0 3 mL 60 µL 10 µL 30 mL 2.0
CS7 0 3 mL 60 µL 30 µL 30 mL 6.0
CS8 0 3 mL 60 µL 100 µL 30 mL 20
CS9 0 3 mL 60 µL 300 µL 30 mL 60
CS10 0 3 mL 60 µL 1000 µL 30 mL 200
Quality Control Samples (11)
Table 7a. Precision and accuracy in scan mode for cotton gauze(1)
Internal Range(3)
Overall Bias
Compound Standard(2) µg/sample Accuracy Precision Average Range
(D)-Amphetamine D11-Amp 0.1-30 8.1 0.0412 -0.0054 -0.0386 to +0.0428
D14-Met 0.1-30 10.3 0.0472 -0.0227 -0.0844 to +0.0199
NMPhen 0.1-30 13.2 0.0662 -0.0120 -0.0931 to +0.0290
Cocaine D11-Amp 1.0-30 15.8 0.0469 +0.0810 +0.0416 to +0.1375
D14-Met 3-30 13.3 0.0422 +0.0631 +0.0003 to +0.1294
NMPhen 0.3-30 20.2 0.0729 +0.0823 -0.0092 to +0.1359
(L)-Ephedrine D11-Amp 0.1-30 9.8 0.0499 -0.0052 -0.0608 to +0.0262
D14-Met 0.1-30 9.2 0.0397 -0.0266 -0.0463 to +0.0221
NMPhen 0.1-30 11.2 0.0493 -0.0284 -0.0775 to +0.0302
MDEA N-PAmp 0.3-29 12.4 0.0618 +0.0127 -0.0475 to +0.0869
MDMA D11-Amp 0.1-27 14.3 0.0568 +0.0497 +0.0104 to +0.1197
D14-Met 0.1-27 13.1 0.0558 +0.0389 -0.0189 to +0.0978
NMPhen 0.3-27 11.9 0.0605 +0.0007 -0.0570 to +0.0360
(D)-Methamphetamine D11-Amp 0.1-10 9.2 0.0395 +0.0270 -0.0289 to +0.0923
D14-Met 0.1-30 5.9 0.0302 +0.0015 -0.0440 to +0.0592
NMPhen 0.3-30 6.9 0.0334 +0.0113 -0.0534 to +0.0448
Phencyclidine D11-Amp 0.3-30 17.2 0.0639 +0.0670 +0.0059 to +0.1222
D14-Met 0.3-30 15.9 0.0648 +0.0521 -0.0386 to +0.1039
NMPhen 0.3-30 16.0 0.0638 +0.0547 -0.0474 to +0.0886
Phentermine D11-Amp 0.1-30 10.1 0.0444 +0.0261 -0.0067 to +0.0912
D14-Met 0.1-30 10.4 0.0527 +0.0041 -0.0600 to +0.0674
NMPhen 1.0-30 8.2 0.0400 +0.0121 -0.0378 to +0.0407
(±)-Norephedrine (4)
D11-Amp 0.1-30 12.2 0.0571 +0.0241 +0.0500 to +0.0610
D14-Met 0.1-30 12.5 0.0638 -0.0005 -0.0674 to +0.0708
NMPhen 0.1-30 13.3 0.0675 +0.0036 -0.0533 to +0.0476
Pseudoephedrine D11-Amp 0.1-30 10.0 0.0507 -0.0059 -0.0530 to +0.0441
D14-Met 0.1-30 12.3 0.0507 -0.0392 -0.0737 to +0.0301
NMPhen 1.0-30 15.6 0.0716 -0.0350 -0.0813 to +0.0617
(1) Backup Data Report [4]. Values are for the heptafluorobutyryl and mixed heptafluorobutyryl-trimethylsilyl derivatives and analysis by GC-MS in scan mode.
Each sample consisted of a pair of 3” x 3” 12-ply cotton gauze pads. There were 6 replicate samples per concentration level and six concentration levels
evaluated from approximately 0.1 to 30 µg/sample.
(2) Internal Standards Deuterated: Non-deuterated:
D11-Amp = Amphetamine-D11 NMPhen = N-Methyl phenethylamine
D14-Met = Methamphetamine-D14 N-PAmp = N-Propyl amphetamine
(3) Range used for calculation of precision, accuracy, and bias. The entire range studied for all analytes was approximately 0.1 to 30 µg/sample (1xLOQ to
300xLOQ).
(4) (±)-Norephedrine = (±)-phenylpropanolamine.
Table 7b. Precision and accuracy in scan mode for synthetic wipe(1)
Internal Range(3) µg/ Bias
Compound Standard(2) sample Accuracy Overall Precision Average Range
(D)-Amphetamine D14-Met 0.1-30 17.2 0.0611 -0.0712 -0.1066 to -0.0468
Cocaine D14-Met 0.3-30 17.7 0.0901 -0.0014 -0.0246 to +0.0252
(L)-Ephedrine D14-Met 0.1-30 10.7 0.0432 -0.0362 -0.0638 to -0.0039
MDEA N-PAmp 0.3-29 9.6 0.0425 -0.0240 -0.0453 to +0.0416
MDMA D14-Met 0.3-27 11.4 0.0498 -0.0297 -0.0612 to +0.0095
(D)-Methamphetamine D14-Met 0.1-30 8.7 0.0430 -0.0114 -0.0483 to +0.0625
Phencyclidine D14-Met 0.3-30 13.0 0.0391 +0.0658 +0.0216 to +0.1418
Phentermine D14-Met 0.3-30 10.4 0.0295 -0.0560 -0.0917 to -0.0266
(±)-Norephedrine(4) D14-Met 0.1-30 12.6 0.0577 +0.0282 -0.0220 to +0.0937
Pseudoephedrine D14-Met 0.1-30 13.5 0.0592 -0.0352 -0.1001 to -0.0020
(1) Backup Data Report [4]. Values are for the heptafluorobutyryl and mixed heptafluorobutyryl-trimethylsilyl and analysis by GC-MS in scan mode (see p 9109-1
for GC and MS conditions). Each sample consisted of a pair of 3” x 3” 12-ply cotton gauze pads. There were 6 replicate samples per concentration level and six
concentration levels evaluated from approximately 0.1 to 30 µg/sample.
(2) Internal Standards: D14-Met = Methamphetamine-D14, N-PAmp = N-Propyl amphetamine.
(3) Range used for calculation of precision, accuracy, and bias. The entire range studied for all analytes was approximately 0.1 to 30 µg/sample (1xLOQ to 300xLOQ).
(4) (±)-Norephedrine = (±)-phenylpropanolamine.
Table 9a. Recovery from wall (latex painted) with various solvents; one wipe compared with the sum of
two wipes(1,2)
Water(3) Isopropanol Methanol
Plus Plus Plus
Second Second Second
First Wipe Wipe(4) First Wipe Wipe(4) First Wipe Wipe(4)
Test Compounds(5) Percent %RSD Percent Percent %RSD Percent Percent %RSD Percent
Amphetamine 51 14 56 67 6.0 78 90 4.0 96
Cocaine 36 22 36 69 22 80 89 9.1 94
Ephedrine 48 23 52 76 7.4 85 91 4.4 96
MDMA 40 20 44 61 9.0 70 88 5.3 94
MDEA 45 22 50 69 12 80 90 11 97
Methamphetamine 46 16 50 64 7.4 75 87 3.5 94
Phencyclidine 27 26 30 64 9.6 73 86 5.2 91
Phentermine 53 9.2 58 78 6.6 91 95 2.9 101
Phenylpropanolamine 58 21 62 80 9.3 95 85 5.0 94
Pseudoephedrine 49 20 53 73 7.0 85 95 3.3 101
(1) Backup Data Report for NIOSH 9109 [4]. Area of each sample was 100 cm².
(2) Wall was an existing standard gypsum board wall painted with a latex based paint. Painted surface was at least one year old. There were six replicates for each
solvent tested.
(3) Water was deionized water (ASTM type II). Note low recovery and high %RSD.
(4) For the serial wipe study, each 100-cm² area was wiped again with a fresh pre-wetted gauze wipe and the amount recovered was determined separately. In
practice, a second (serial) wipe is included with the first gauze wipe; both gauze wipes constitute a single sample. The percent recoveries shown in the column
represent the sum of the amounts recovered in both the first and second wipes.
(5) Each pre-measured area was spiked with 3 µg of each analyte in methanol and the methanol allowed to dry for several minutes prior to wipe sampling.
Table 9b. Recovery of methamphetamine from various surfaces with various solvents; one wipe
compared with the sum of two wipes(1)
Isopropanol Methanol
Plus Second Plus Second
First Wipe Wipe(2) First Wipe Wipe(2)
Surface Material(3) Replicates Percent %RSD Percent Percent %RSD Percent
Enamel (lid of 4 (4)
58 5.7 68 81 2.4 87
washing machine)
Vinyl veneer on 4 (5) 60 5.2 68 81 4.8 89
particle board
Latex painted wall 6(4) 64 7.4 75 87 3.5 94
Refrigerator door 2 (5)
65 2.9 76 91 4.0 92
Varnished 2 (6)
72 5.4 76 82 3.7 86
hardwood panel
Formica® 4(5) 75 4.9 82 87 3.8 91
countertop
(1) Backup Data Report for NIOSH 9109 [4]. Area of each sample was 100 cm².
(2) For the serial wipe study, each 100-cm² area was wiped again with a fresh pre-wetted gauze wipe and the amount recovered was determined separately. In
practice, a second (serial) wipe is included with the first gauze wipe; both gauze wipes constitute a single sample. The percent recoveries shown in the column
represent the sum of the amounts recovered in both the first and second wipes.
(3) The refrigerator door and the washing machine lid were from used appliances. The vinyl-veneered particle board (a book shelf), the Formica® countertop, and
the varnished hardwood paneling were all purchased new. All surfaces of used and new materials were pre-cleaned with multiple rinses of methanol prior to
spiking. Each pre-measured 100-cm² square was spiked with 3 µg methamphetamine.
(4) Samples were taken using the side-to-side and then top-to-bottom wiping technique.
(5) Half of the samples were wiped using the side-to-side wiping technique and half were wiped using the concentric squares wiping technique. There were no
significant differences in recoveries. Percent recoveries and %RSDs are for both techniques combined.
(6) Samples were taken each time using only top-to-bottom wiping with the grain of the wood in an “N” pattern.
TABLE 10. Gas chromatographic retention times for heptafluorobutyryl and trimethylsilyl derivatives of
selected drugs of abuse, precursors, and potential adulterants(1)
GC Retention Relative Retention Time Ions (Significant m/z)(7)
Peak Time
No. Compound Derivative Form(2) Notes(3) Minutes(4) (5) (6) 1’ 2’(7) 3’(7)
1 Acetaminophen(8) N,N’- bis-TMS- Pri.deriv. 12.30 0.9594 1.2374 206 280 [90] 295 [70]
2 Acetaminophen (8)
N-HFB-N’-TMS- Minor peak 10.37 0.8089 1.0433 330 404 [80] 419 [30]
3 Aminorex N,N’- bis-HFB- Major peak 14.12 1.1014 1.4205 385 342 [30] 169 [40]
4 Aminorex N-HFB-N’-TMS- Major peak 16.59 1.2941 1.6690 261 146 [48] 128 [45]
5 Amphetamine N-HFB- Pri.deriv. 8.54 0.6661 0.8592 240 118 [70] 169 [20]
6 Amphetamine N-HFB-N-TMS- OS artifact 9.21 0.7184 0.9266 312 91 [50] 313 [10]
7 Amphetamine-D5, ring labeled (I$)(9) N-HFB- Pri.deriv. 8.47 0.6607 0.8521 240 123 [85] 96 [55]
8 Amphetamine-D5,ring labeled (I$) (9)
N-HFB-N-TMS- OS artifact 9.17 0.7153 0.9225 312 96 [45] 73 [95]
9 Amphetamine-D6 (I$)(9) N-HFB- Pri.deriv. 8.45 0.6591 0.8501 244 123 [70] 93 [45]
10 Amphetamine-D6 (I$) (9)
N-HFB-N-TMS- OS artifact 9.14 0.7129 0.9195 316 93 [40] 73 [75]
11 Amphetamine-D8 (I$) (9)
N-HFB- Pri.deriv. 8.46 0.6599 0.8511 243 126 [75] 96 [40]
12 Amphetamine-D8 (I$)(9) N-HFB-N-TMS- OS artifact 9.16 0.7145 0.9215 315 96 [25] 73 [55]
13 Amphetamine-D11 (I$)(9) N-HFB- Pri.deriv. 8.46 0.6599 0.8511 244 128 [70] 98 [45]
14 Amphetamine-D11 (I$) (9)
N-HFB-N-TMS- OS artifact 9.14 0.7129 0.9195 316 98 [60] 73 [70]
15 Atropine(8) O-TMS- Pri.deriv. 18.86 1.4711 1.8974 124 361 [9] 82 [17]
16 BDB N-HFB- Pri.deriv. 13.35 1.0413 1.3431 135 176 [50] 254 [12]
17 BDB N-HFB-N-TMS- OS artifact 13.65 1.0647 1.3732 326 135 [60] 73 [90]
18 Benzoyl ecgonine O-TMS- 19.18 1.4961 1.9296 82 240 [45] 361 [25]
19 Benzyl piperazine(10) (“Legal XTC”) N-HFB- Pri.deriv. 13.73 1.0710 1.3813 91 372 [30] 281 [30]
20 4-Bromo-2,5-DMPEA (Nexus) (11)
N-HFB- Pri.deriv. 15.79 1.2317 1.5885 242 244 [98] 229 [75]
21 4-Bromo-2,5-DMPEA (Nexus) (11)
N-HFB-N-TMS- OS artifact 16.22 1.2652 1.6318 229 231 [98] 298 [85]
22 Bupropion (Wellbutrin®, Zyban®) parent 12.15 0.9477 1.2223 44 100 [45] 111 [20]
23 Caffeine(8) parent 14.89 1.1615 1.4980 194 109 [45] 67 [45]
24 S-(-)-Cathinone (from Khat plant) N-HFB- Pri.deriv. 10.21 0.7964 1.0272 105 77 [45] 240 [15]
25 S-(-)-Cathinone (from Khat plant) N-HFB-N-TMS- OS artifact 10.89 0.8495 1.0956 105 312 [68] 77 [55]
26 Chlorpheniramine(8) parent 16.74 1.3058 1.6841 203 205 [32] 167 [22]
27 Cocaine parent 18.65 1.4548 1.8763 82 182 [90] 303 [20]
28 Codeine O-HFB- Minor peak 19.59 1.5281 1.9708 282 283 [20]
29 Codeine O-TMS- Pri.deriv. 20.72 1.6162 2.0845 371 343 [25] 234 [55]
30 Dextromethorphan (8)
parent 18.10 1.4119 1.8209 271 270 [62] 214 [40]
31 Diazepam (Valium® etc.) parent 20.80 1.6225 2.0926 256 283 [90] 284 [75]
32 Dibromooctafluorobiphenyl (I$)(9) parent 12.82 1.0000 1.2897 296 456 [100] 454 [50]
33 N,N-Dimethyltryptamine (DMT) N-HFB- Pri.deriv. 13.00 1.0140 1.3078 58 129 [15] 42 [15]
34 N,N-Dimethyltryptamine (DMT) N-TMS- Minor peak 15.02 1.1716 1.5111 58 73 [12] 202 [10]
35 Ecgonine, methyl ester O-TMS- 11.72 0.9142 1.1791 82 96 [75] 83 [75]
36 Ephedrine N-HFB-O-TMS- Pri.deriv. 11.40 0.8892 1.1469 179 254 [17] 327 [10]
37 1S,2R(+)-Ephedrine-D3 (I$) (9)
N-HFB-O-TMS- Pri.deriv. 11.36 0.8861 1.1429 179 257 [20] 330 [10]
38 N-Ethyl amphetamine N-HFB- Pri.deriv. 10.33 0.8058 1.0392 268 240 [35] 118 [15]
39 Fenfluramine(8) N-HFB- Pri.deriv. 10.12 0.7894 1.0181 268 240 [35] 159 [22]
40 Fenfluramine-D10 (I$) (9)
N-HFB- Pri.deriv. 10.01 0.7808 1.0070 277 245 [35] 160 [15]
Table 10 continued
TABLE 10 (continued). Gas chromatographic retention times for heptafluorobutyryl and trimethylsilyl
derivatives of selected drugs of abuse, precursors, and potential adulterants(1)
GC Retention Relative Retention Time Ions (Significant m/z) (7)
Peak Derivative Time
No. Compound Form(2) Notes (3) Minutes (4) (5) (6) 1’ 2’ (7) 3’ (7)
41 Fentanyl (Sublimaze® etc.) parent 22.97 1.7917 2.3109 245 146 [60] 189 [33]
42 Flunitrazepam (Rohypnol®, roofies) (10)
parent 22.20 1.7317 2.2334 312 285 [95] 286 [90]
43 Hydrocodone (Lortab® etc.) HFB- Minor peak 19.47 1.5187 1.9588 495 438 [50] 298 [40]
44 Hydrocodone (Lortab® etc.) TMS- Minor peak 20.82 1.6240 2.0946 371 356 [50] 234 [55]
45 Hydrocodone (Lortab® etc.) parent Pri.deriv. 20.93 1.6326 2.1056 299 242 [50] 243 [35]
46 Hydromorphone (Dilaudid®) O-HFB-O’-TMS- Minor peak 19.85 1.5484 1.9970 308 267 [92] 358 [75]
47 Hydromorphone (Dilaudid®) O,O’-bis-TMS- Minor peak 20.98 1.6365 2.1107 414 429 [100] 234 [75]
48 Hydromorphone (Dilaudid®) O-TMS- Pri.deriv. 21.21 1.6544 2.1338 357 300 [55] 342 [28]
49 Ketamine (“special K”)(8)(10) parent Major peak 15.24 1.1888 1.5332 180 182 [32] 209 [22]
50 Lidocaine (8)
N-TMS- Major peak 13.69 1.0679 1.3773 86 220 [75] 73 [45]
51 Lidocaine (8)
parent Major peak 15.28 1.1919 1.5372 86 58 [10] 91 [5]
52 LSD (MW-519, scanned only to 470) HFB- Pri.deriv. 24.61 1.9197 2.4759 417 221 [95] 418 [45]
53 MBDB N-TMS- Minor peak 14.30 1.1154 1.4386 144 73 [50] 135 [15]
54 MBDB N-HFB- Pri.deriv. 14.44 1.1264 1.4527 268 176 [75] 210 [50]
55 MDA N-HFB- Pri.deriv. 12.54 0.9782 1.2616 135 162 [55] 240 [12]
56 MDA N-HFB-N-TMS- OS artifact 12.88 1.0047 1.2958 312 73 [58] 135 [48]
57 MDEA (10)
N-HFB- Pri.deriv. 14.19 1.1069 1.4276 268 162 [60] 240 [50]
58 MDEA-D6 (I$) (9)
N-HFB- Pri.deriv. 14.13 1.1022 1.4215 274 165 [46] 244 [35]
59 MDMA(10) N-HFB- Pri.deriv. 13.81 1.0772 1.3893 254 162 [80] 135 [45]
60 Meperidine (Demerol® etc.) parent 13.97 1.0897 1.4054 247 246 [55] 218 [50]
61 Mephentermine N-HFB- Pri.deriv. 10.38 0.8097 1.0443 268 210 [95]
62 Mescaline N-HFB- Pri.deriv. 14.68 1.1451 1.4769 181 194 [45] 179 [30]
63 Mescaline N-HFB-N-TMS- OS artifact 15.26 1.1903 1.5352 181 73 [35]
64 Methamphetamine N-HFB- Pri.deriv. 9.94 0.7754 1.0000 254 210 [35] 118 [22]
65 Methamphetamine-D5 (I$)(9) N-HFB- Pri.deriv. 9.86 0.7691 0.9920 258 213 [30] 92 [20]
66 Methamphetamine-D9 (I$) (9)
N-HFB- Pri.deriv. 9.84 0.7676 0.9899 261 213 [30] 123 [18]
67 Methamphetamine-D11 (I$) (9)
N-HFB- Pri.deriv. 9.84 0.7676 0.9899 260 213 [25] 126 [20]
68 Methamphetamine-D14 (I$)(9) N-HFB- Pri.deriv. 9.86 0.7691 0.9920 261 213 [30] 128 [20]
69 Methaqualone parent 18.31 1.4282 1.8421 235 250 [30] 233 [28]
70 S-(-)-Methcathinone (“Cat”) N-HFB- Pri.deriv. 10.55 0.8229 1.0614 254 210 [35] 105 [100]
71 4-Methoxyamphetamine N-HFB- Pri.deriv. 11.40 0.8892 1.1469 121 148 [40] 240 [10]
72 4-Methoxyamphetamine N-HFB-N-TMS- OS artifact 11.87 0.9259 1.1942 312 121 [100] 73 [100]
73 cis-(±)-4-Methylaminorex (“U4Euh”) N,N’-bis-HFB- Minor peak 13.78 1.0749 1.3863 399 169 [70] 160 [75]
74 cis-(±)-4-Methylaminorex (“U4Euh”) N-HFB-N’-TMS- Pri.deriv. 16.78 1.3089 1.6881 275 160 [60] 117 [30]
75 (-)-N-Methylephedrine(11) O-TMS- Pri.deriv. 9.66 0.7535 0.9718 72 73 [13] 163 [5]
76 (+)-N-Methylephedrine (11)
O-TMS- Pri.deriv. 9.71 0.7574 0.9769 72 73 [13] 163 [5]
77 N-Methylphenethylamine (I$) (9)
N-HFB- Pri.deriv. 9.54 0.7441 0.9598 240 104 [100] 169 [40]
78 Methylphenidate (Ritalin®) N-HFB- Pri.deriv. 15.38 1.1997 1.5473 280 281 [10]
Table 10 continued
TABLE 10 (continued). Gas chromatographic retention times for heptafluorobutyryl and trimethylsilyl
derivatives of selected drugs of abuse, precursors, and potential adulterants(1)
Relative Retention
GC Retention Time Ions (Significant m/z)(7)
Peak Time
No. Compound Derivative Form(2) Notes(3) Minutes(4) (5) (6) 1’ 2’ (7) 3’ (7)
79 N-Methyl pseudoephedrine (12)
O-TMS- Pri.deriv. 9.66 0.7535 0.9718 72 73 [13] 163 [5]
80 Morphine O-HFB-O’-TMS- Minor peak 19.97 1.5577 2.0091 340 324 [28] 341 [25]
81 Morphine O,O’-bis-TMS- Pri.deriv. 21.08 1.6443 2.1207 429 414 [50] 401 [35]
82 Nicotine parent 8.86 0.6911 0.8913 84 133 [35] 162 [18]
83 Norpseudoephedrine (Cathine) N-HFB-O-TMS- Pri.deriv. 10.39 0.8105 1.0453 179 180 [18] 240 [18]
84 Norpseudoephedrine (Cathine) N-HFB-N,O-bis-TMS- OS artifact 11.26 0.8783 1.1328 179 180 [18] 312 [10]
85 Oxycodone (OxyContin®) TMS- Pri.deriv. 21.66 1.6895 2.1791 387 388 [30] 372 [30]
86 Phencyclidine (PCP) parent Major peak 15.62 1.2184 1.5714 200 242 [35] 243 [25]
87 Phencyclidine (PCP) N-HFB-dehydro- Artifact 19.85 1.5484 1.9970 91 159 [60] 280 [10]
88 Phencyclidine-D5 (I$)(9) parent Major peak 15.59 1.2161 1.5684 205 96 [42] 246 [25]
89 Phencyclidine-D5 (I$) (9)
N-HFB-dehydro- Artifact 19.83 1.5468 1.9950 96 164 [65] 280 [10]
90 Phenethylamine (8)
N-HFB- Pri.deriv. 8.58 0.6693 0.8632 104 91 [60] 169 [15]
91 Phenethylamine(8) N-HFB-N-TMS- Pri.deriv. 9.51 0.7418 0.9567 298 105 [40] 220 [10]
92 Phentermine (8)
N-HFB- Pri.deriv. 8.72 0.6802 0.8773 254 132 [12] 214 [8]
93 4-Phenyl-1-butylamine (I$) (9)
N-HFB- Pri.deriv. 11.47 0.8947 1.1539 91 104 [25] 176 [22]
94 Phenylephrine (8)
N-HFB-O,O’-bis-TMS- Pri.deriv. 13.94 1.0874 1.4024 267 268 [25] 240 [12]
95 Phenylpropanolamine N-HFB-O-TMS- Pri.deriv. 10.49 0.8183 1.0553 179 180 [18] 240 [18]
96 Phenylpropanolamine N-HFB-N,O-bis-TMS- OS artifact 11.01 0.8588 1.1076 179 180 [18] 312 [10]
97 N-Propyl amphetamine (I$) (9)
N-HFB- Pri.deriv. 11.05 0.8619 1.1117 282 240 [85] 118 [20]
98 Pseudoephedrine N-HFB-O-TMS- Pri.deriv. 11.68 0.9111 1.1751 179 254 [15] 73 [75]
99 Theophylline (8) parent Major peak 15.50 1.2090 1.5594 237 252 [57] 223 [14]
100 Trifluoromethylphenyl piperazine (10)
N-HFB- Pri.deriv. 13.76 1.0733 1.3843 200 229 [70] 172 [73]
(1) Actual retention times may vary depending on individual GC column and GC conditions. Gas chromatographic and mass spectrometer conditions used as on p. 9109-1.
(2) Derivative form. HFB = heptafluorobutyryl derivative. TMS = trimethylsilyl derivative. N- = attachment to nitrogen atom. O- = attachment to oxygen atom. Not all forms are presented.
Trifluoroacetyl derivatives are not presented. Underivatized compounds are identified as a “parent” compound. Parent compounds that have poor chromatographic peak shapes under the
conditions used are not presented. Spectra for the derivatives are given in the Backup Data Report (Appendix-II) [4].
(3) Major and minor peaks are identified where two or more forms are possible. In some cases two major peaks may exist. Pri.deriv. = Primary derivative, a major peak. The major peak
or the primary derivative should be used for quantitation. OS artifact = Oversilylation artifact [14]. Oversilylation artifacts occur where a primary amine is substituted with both a
heptafluorobutyryl and a trimethylsilyl group. Under the specified conditions of extraction and derivatization these remain as minor components and are of little concern.
(4) Retention times are not the same as in Table 10 or Figures 1 and 2 in this method since these data were obtained on a different instrument. Relative retention times should be
approximately the same.
(5) Retention time relative to 4,4’-dibromooctafluorobiphenyl.
(6) Retention time relative to the heptafluorobutyryl derivative of methamphetamine.
(7) Significant ions that can be used for quantification and qualitative identification are given. The base peaks are not necessarily included, especially if they are low mass (<100 AMU).
Numbers in brackets indicate the approximate relative abundance of the secondary (2’) and tertiary (3’) ions relative to the primary (1’) ion and not necessarily to the base peak of each
mass spectrum. Relative abundance varies with different tuning criteria and cleanliness of the mass spectrometer source. The 1’ or 2’ ions are recommended for quantification. All ions are
selected as much as possible above m/z 100 to avoid interference from low mass co-eluting interferences. The 2’ and 3’ ions are selected as much as possible for nearness to the primary
ion to minimize false negatives from skewing of spectra as the mass spectrometer source becomes contaminated with use. Ubiquitous ions (e.g., m/z 73, 91, and 169) are avoided as
much as possible.
(8) Intentional or unintentional adulterants. For example, phentermine may be added to MDMA and caffeine added to methamphetamine intentionally. Chlorpheniramine is an
unintentional adulterant when pseudoephedrine containing chlorpheniramine is used as a methamphetamine precursor.
(9) (I$) = Internal standard. The best results are obtained using internal standards that are deuterated analogs of the target analyte, or those that are chemically and structurally similar to
the target analytes.
(10) Typical “club drugs” (piperazine analogs as ecstasy substitutes, ketamine and flunitrazepan as predatory drugs).
(11) 4-Bromo-2,5-DMPEA = 4-Bromo-2,5-dimethoxyphenethylamine (Nexus).
(12) Presence of (+)-norephedrine, N-methylpseudoephedrine and/or N-methylephedrine in pseudoephedrine or ephedrine indicates extracts of Ephedra spp. as source of methamphetamine
precursor. Presence of amphetamine and N,N-dimethylamphetamine in methamphetamine final product also suggests the same source [22, 23, 24].
Figure 2. Typical extracted ion chromatograms (EIC) of mixed heptafluorobutyryl and trimethylsilyl
derivatives by GC-MS in scan mode (time in minutes)
GC Peak Identification: See Table 10 for identification of numbered GC peaks. (But note that retention times in
Table 10 do not correspond to those in Figure 1 because a different U.S. Pharmacopeia (USP) G27 column and
instrument was used.)
APPENDIX:
5. Gauze in sterile packaging is recommended to minimize the chance for cross-contamination, which
can more easily occur with open bulk packaged cotton gauze.
6. To prevent contamination in the field, another alternative is to pre-wet and insert the gauze
wipes into the sample containers off-site. This avoids any possibility of the bottle of methanol or
isopropanol becoming contaminated on-site with methamphetamine (or other analytes). If the wipes
were prepared off-site, then remove pre-wetted gauze wipe from sample container, opening only one
sample container at a time. In either case, squeeze out and discard any excess solvent from the gauze
wipe. Use fresh latex or nitrile gloves for each separate sample and blank. Do not use vinyl gloves due
to the potential for leaching of phthalate plasticizers and contamination of the samples.
7. Wipe techniques
a. Concentric Squares Wiping Technique (particularly suitable for smooth and non-porous surfaces
and described by OSHA [25]): Fold the pre-wetted gauze in half and then fold in half again. Using
firm pressure wipe the area within the template. Start at one of the inside corners of the template
and wipe in concentric squares, progressing toward the center. End with a scooping motion.
Without allowing the gauze to touch any other surface, reverse the last fold so that the exposed
side of the gauze is facing inward and using a fresh surface of the gauze, wipe the same area in the
same manner as before. Roll or fold the gauze again and insert into the shipping container.
b. Side-to-side Wiping (or Blotting) Technique (particularly suitable for rough, porous, and/or soiled
surfaces): Fold the pre-wetted gauze in half and then fold in half again. Using firm pressure wipe or
blot the area within the template with at least five overlapping side-to-side horizontal passes (see
NOTE) beginning at the top and progressing to the bottom in a “Z” pattern. End with a scooping
motion. If blotting, blot at least five times on each horizontal pass (see NOTE). Without allowing
the gauze to touch any other surface, reverse the last fold so that the exposed side of the gauze
is facing inward. Using a fresh surface of the gauze, wipe or blot the area again with at least five
overlapping top-to-bottom vertical passes beginning at the left side and progressing to the right
in an “N” pattern. If blotting, blot at least five times on each vertical pass. Roll or fold the gauze
again and insert into the shipping container. Blotting is suggested in areas so soiled or rough that
the threads of the gauze media are continually snagged.
NOTE: On areas larger than 100 cm², more than five passes and blots will be needed.
c. Repeat or Serial Wiping: If isopropanol is used for wiping, a serial or repeat wipe sample of the
same area with a fresh gauze wipe will improve sampling efficiency. (See recoveries for second
wipe in Tables 9a and 9b.) For serial wiping, repeat the wiping procedure described above
(APPENDIX 6a or 6b) with a fresh gauze wipe. Place the second gauze wipe into the same shipping
container as the first gauze. The 50-mL polypropylene centrifuge tubes are large enough to
contain up to two gauze wipes.
NOTE: If the area to be wiped remains substantially wet from the first gauze, the second gauze
wipe might be used in the dry state to soak up the residual solvent from the first gauze
wipe.
8. Composite sampling: Composite samples are allowed by some regulatory agencies. Their use for
quantitative purposes may be subject to the permission and guidance of regulatory agencies. Refer
to guidelines of regulatory agency for directions on composite sampling. A basic default guideline for
composite sampling is as follows: Do not mix inconsistent samples, that is, areas wiped must be equal
in area, sampled areas must have the same high or low probability of contamination, and sampled
areas must relate to a specific target appliance or site and not to several appliances or incongruous
sites combined.
NOTE: Composite samples cannot meet specific action-threshold requirements for discrete sampling
locations. Nor do composite samples consisting of four wipes, for example, improve the
sensitivity by decreasing the LOD four fold; instead it raises the LOD by a factor related to
the extra volume of desorption solution that is required to desorb a larger number of wipes.
The following example illustrates these two points. Assume that the action level was 0.1
μg/100 cm². If the analysis gave an LOD of 0.06 μg/sample for a single wipe or discrete sample
covering an area of 100 cm², then the LOD for the analysis could be expressed as 0.06 μg/100
cm², which is low enough to be able to determine whether any discrete sample is at or exceeds
the action level. Now if a composite of four wipes was taken, each with an area of 100 cm²
for a total area wiped of 400 cm², the LOD for that composite sample is not 0.06 μg/400 cm²
nor is it 0.015 μg/100 cm²; it is actually several times larger than 0.06 μg/400 cm². First of all it
increases relative to the ratio of the volume of desorption solution used to desorb the sample
compared to that used for the calibration standards. Secondly it has nothing to do with the
AREA that was wiped, because the LOD for the calibration curve is determined in terms of μg
per sample, independent of the area. To explain the first point, assume approximately 90 mL
was used (for ease in calculation) to desorb the four wipes and 30 mL (the normal amount for
a single wipe) was used to desorb each calibration standard. The calculation of the LOD for the
four composited samples would be μg/sample x (desorption volume for 4 wipes) ∕ (desorption
volume for the calibration standards), or 0.06 μg/sample x (90 mL/30 mL), or 0.18 μg/sample for
the composited sample. Since the area wiped for the composite sample was 400 cm², the LOD
for that sample could be expressed as 0.18 μg/400 cm². Regarding the second point, this value,
0.18 μg/400 cm², cannot be construed or mathematically reduced to 0.045 μg/100 cm² because
it cannot be known whether three of the four wipes were blank and the fourth wipe just under
the value of 0.18 μg. Hence, the effective LOD per individual wipe has to be regarded not only
as 0.18 μg/400 cm² but also as 0.18 μg/100 cm² because any value determined for entire 400
cm² might have come from just one of those 100 cm² areas. Thus, for composite samples, the
LOD must be expressed in terms of the entire area wiped and not extrapolated to some portion
thereof. In this example, an LOD of 0.18 μg/100 cm² is above the action threshold of 0.1 μg/100
cm², meaning that this composite sample cannot satisfy the requirement that residual levels be
below 0.1 μg/100 cm². It remains for the regulatory agency and not the laboratory to determine
how to apply results for composite samples to the established action levels. The same
consideration that is given above for the LOD applies to results that are greater than the LOD.
To avoid confusion in reporting concentrations for composite samples, it is recommended that
the sample concentration (in μg/sample, whatever the sample size) and the total area wiped (in
cm²) be reported separately. For example, a result of 0.4 μg/sample for a sample consisting of
four separate wipes of 100 cm² each (for a total area wiped of 400 cm²), is to be reported as 0.4
μg/400 cm² and not averaged to 0.1 μg/100 cm². This manner of reporting may be required by
some regulatory agencies.
9. For quality assurance purposes, regulatory agencies may require duplicate samples to be taken in
the field. If such is the case, an area contiguous with and adjacent to the first area, if possible, should
be wiped as described under SAMPLING. Do not re-wipe the previously wiped area. This sample
is a blind sample and should not be identifiable by the analytical laboratory as a duplicate of any
other sample. These are distinct from the laboratory duplicates of a single sample described in step
14 of the method. Field duplicates are useful for evaluating the consistency of sampling technique,
assuming uniformity of contamination on adjacent sampling sites. Laboratory duplicates are useful for
evaluating consistency of sample preparation and instrumental analysis.
D. DESORPTION FROM MEDIA:
1. An internal standard spiking solution volume of 60 μL was selected for ease in scaling from 60 μL
per 30 mL to 80 μL per 40 mL of desorption solution. In either case the rate of 2 μL internal standard
spiking solution per mL desorption solution was used. However, any convenient volume of internal
standard spiking solution (e.g., 50 μL) that can be delivered reproducibly is acceptable. Whatever
volume is chosen, there must be no variation in the volume of the internal standard spiking solution
used in preparing each of the calibration standards. If spiking strategy A is used (see step D3 of
APPENDIX), it is critical to know the exact volume of internal standard spiking solution that is applied
to each sample (V1), the media blanks (V5), and the calibration standards (V2), since these volumes are
used for internal standard spiking solution volume corrections in step 19.
2. It is not necessary to know the exact volume of desorption solution added to each sample or the
volume of residual wetting alcohol because differences in the volumes are normalized through the use
of internal standards added prior to desorption.
3. Alternate strategy for spiking internal standards (spiking strategy B below): By using the exact same
volume of internal standard spiking solution in all samples, blanks, QC samples, and calibration
standards, regardless of the volume of desorption solution added or residual wetting alcohol, the
volume corrections in step 19 (V1/V2 and V5/V2) drop out of the equation. However, the internal
standard GC peak areas must still be measurable in samples where larger volumes of desorption
solution are used (such as for composite samples). Because of the increased dilution of the internal
standard in larger samples, this approach should be limited to desorption solution volumes of about
120 mL or less.
NOTE: There are two separate strategies for handling larger samples requiring larger volumes of
desorption solvent. These are outlined below as strategies A and B.
Volume of Internal Standard
Spiking Solution (μL) Volume of Desorption
Number of Size of Solution (mL)
Wipes Shipping Strategy A Strategy B (Strategies A and B)
Container
(mL)
1 40 to 50 60 60 30
2 50 80 60 40
4 (e.g., 100 to 120 160 60 80
composite)
Apply volume Do not apply
correction volume correction
factors at step factors at step 19.
19.
With either strategy, if two gauze wipes were included in the samples, then use 40 mL of
desorption solution. If four gauze wipes were included in the samples, then use 80 mL of
desorption solution.
a. In strategy A, the volume of internal standard spiking solution is kept at a constant ratio of 2 μL per
mL of desorption solution added. This enables larger samples to be desorbed without diminishing
the area of the GC peak for the internal standard. However, a volume correction factor (V1/V2 ) is
needed in the final calculations in step 19. Therefore, the exact volume of internal standard added
to each of the samples relative to that added to the calibration standards must be known.
b. In strategy B, the volume of internal standard spiking solution is kept constant for all samples and
calibration standards, but need not be exactly 60 μL. This enables the final calculations to be made
in step 19 without a volume correction factor. However, the area of the GC peak for the internal
standard will vary with sample desorption volume and the internal standard must be concentrated
enough to be measurable where larger volumes of desorption solution are used.
E. SOLID PHASE EXTRACTION PROCEDURE:
The following SPE columns were investigated and found to work adequately for this method: BOND
ELUT-CERTIFY® (200 mg/3mL); Clean Screen® (300 mg/3 mL) ; Oasis® MCX (60 mg/3 cc); or Speedisk®
H2O-Philic SC-DVB. Two columns (Clean Screen® and BOND ELUT-CERTIFY®) are based upon a silica
support. The other two (Oasis® and Speedisk®) are based upon an organic polymer support. The
precision and accuracy data in Tables 7a and 7b were generated using the Waters Oasis® MCX 3cc/60
mg column.
F. DERIVATIZATION:
There are unique advantages and disadvantages in using the mixed MSTFA + MBHFBA reagent. The
disadvantages with some possible remedies are listed as follows.
1. A few percent of trifluoroacetyl derivatives of secondary amines are formed (presumably from MSTFA)
in competition to the intended heptafluorobutyryl derivatives.
a. Remedy #1: This artifact is eliminated by replacing MSTFA with MSHFBA (N-methyl-N-trimethylsilyl
heptafluorobutyramide, Alltech Associates, Deerfield, IL). However, precision and accuracy were not
evaluated for NIOSH 9109 using MSHFBA instead of MSTFA.
b. Remedy #2: If ephedrine compounds or compounds containing free hydroxyl groups are not to be
analyzed, MSTFA might be omitted and MBHFBA used alone.
2. Use of the mixed reagent often results in over-silylation, the production of unintended silylation
artifacts [14], particularly of amides. The primary over-silylation artifact with primary amines is the N-
trimethylsilyl derivative of the N-acyl derivative. The GC peak area for this artifact can be significant;
under certain circumstances it is nearly equal to that of the intended N-acyl derivative.
a. Remedy #1: The presence of ammonium chloride from the SPE eluates seems to prevent or greatly
reduce over-silylation of amides. These artifacts can be ignored when using the SPE columns with
the 80:20:2 methylene chloride:isopropanol:ammonium hydroxide eluent.
b. Remedy #2: If ephedrine compounds or compounds containing free hydroxyl groups are not to be
analyzed, silylating reagents (MSTFA or its alternate, MSHFBA) might be omitted and MBHFBA used
alone.
3. The mass spectrometer may need more frequent cleaning to maintain sensitivity. This is offset by the
shorter sample preparation time, especially for large numbers of samples.
4. When the fused silica capillary columns become exposed to the mixed silanization-acylation reagents,
the column may become unsuitable for other types of samples.
5. The chromatograms are cluttered with silylation by-products making it difficult to detect low levels of
unknown (non-target) compounds if a drug screen for unknown compounds is an objective. For this
objective, the liquid-liquid extraction procedure of NIOSH 9106 [6] provides cleaner chromatograms
with less interference from reagent by-products.
6. The advantages of the mixed MSTFA+ MBHFBA reagent, when used with SPE, are as follows:
a. Faster preparation time (no heating in an oven, no cool-down time, no evaporation or neutralization
of the reagents, and no reconstitution with solvent thereafter).
b. No heat or acid induced isomerization or dehydroxylation of the ephedrine or other hydroxyl
containing compounds (e.g., ephedrine, norephedrine, pseudoephedrine, phenylephrine, etc.).
c. The method can be extended to easily hydrolyzed phenolic and polyhydroxy compounds of
aryl-alkyl-amines (e.g., Albuterol, epinephrine and metabolites [15], metabolites of MDMA, and
phenylephrine) because of the thermal stability of the trimethylsilyl ether groups on phenols and
trimethylsilyl ester groups.
d. Hindered amines such as MDEA are derivatized more completely but still require an internal
standard with structural similarity.
G. MEASUREMENT:
Recoveries for the laboratory control matrix spike samples (QC and QD) must meet the guidelines
of the specific regulatory agency involved (80-120% is a reasonable target in the absence of specific
guidance).
NOTE 1: The QC samples (QC and QD) in this method may be referred to in some guidance documents
as matrix spike and matrix spike duplicate samples (MS/MSD) but serve the same purpose.
Analyze and report field-equipment blanks as samples. Do not subtract their values from any
other sample.
Recoveries of CCV standards must meet guidelines of regulatory agency (80-120% is a reasonable
target in the absence of specific guidance). The CCV standards may be referred to in some guidance
documents as ‘QC samples’ but such QCs are equivalent to liquid standards (not matrix spiked samples)
and serve the same purpose of the CCVs in this method.
NOTE 2: With the GC/MS it is possible to achieve the lower limit of 0.05 μg or less per sample for
methamphetamine in either the scan mode or SIM mode. The scan mode is essential where
the identification of unknowns is an analytical objective. If lower limits of detection are
desired or difficult to obtain in the scan mode, or for routine target compound only analyses,
the instrument may be operated in the SIM mode.
H. MAKING DILUTIONS:
If the samples exceed the upper calibration range for the analysis, one of the following procedures
may be used to estimate the high level concentrations.
1. Dilution procedure A (dilution of the derivatization mixture within a GC vial): Transfer an aliquot of
the derivatization sample mixture from the GC vial to a clean low-volume GC vial and add acetonitrile,
MSTFA, and MBHFBA. For example, for a 10:1 dilution transfer 20 μL of sample to a clean vial and
add 120 μL of acetonitrile and 30 μL each of MSTFA and MBHFBA, for a total volume of 200 μL. For a
4:1 dilution, transfer 50 μL of sample to a clean vial and add 100 μL of acetonitrile and 25 μL each of
MSTFA and MBHFBA, for a total volume of 200 μL. Cap the GC vial, mix by inversion a few times, and
analyze diluted sample. Do not include the dilution factor in step 19 since the internal standard will be
diluted along with the target analyte.
NOTE: For dilutions greater than 10, the internal standard may become too diluted to quantify. In such
a case, use the following procedure B.
2. Dilution procedure B (dilution of the original sample desorbate): In this procedure, an aliquot of the
original sample desorbate is diluted with a simulated blank solution and then transferred to a SPE
column in step 8d. For example, for a 10:1 dilution, dilute 0.5 mL of sample desorbate solution from
step 7f in a clean test tube containing 4.5 mL of a simulated blank solution, mix, and then transfer the
entire contents to a pre-conditioned SPE column. For a 50:1 dilution, dilute 0.1 mL of sample desorbate
solution from step 7f in a clean test tube containing 4.9 mL of a simulated blank solution, mix, and
then transfer the entire contents to a pre-conditioned SPE column. Proceed thereafter to step 8d as
normal. The simulated sample blank should be prepared identically to the sample needing dilution,
using the same volumes of internal standard spiking solution and desorption solution that were used
with the sample in the original desorption. For example, if the original sample was desorbed with
40 mL desorption solution with 80 μL of added internal standard spiking solution, then prepare the
simulated blank in the same way. The volume of wetting alcohol is estimated (e.g., about 3 mL per
3”x3” 12-ply cotton gauze wipe). Include a dilution factor (V3/V4) in the calculations in step 19
(e.g., V3/V4 = 5 mL divided by the volume in mL of original desorbate diluted to 5 mL with solution
from the simulated blank). The dilution factor in the above examples are 5 mL/0.5 mL or 10 for a 10:1
dilution and 5 mL/0.1 mL or 50 for a 50:1 dilution. Correct for differences in internal standard spiking
solution volumes in step 19 (if applicable) using for V1 the volume of internal standard spiking solution
which was added to the original undiluted sample.
Caution: This dilution procedure gives quantitative results only if the residual volume of methanol (or
isopropanol) used for wetting the sample wipes was exactly the same as the volume used in
preparing the calibration standards (normally about 3 mL, see Table 6). Deviations of a few
milliliters in residual wetting alcohol will not affect the results for undiluted samples but will
amount to an error of a few percent in the final results of samples that are diluted.
The potential error due to differences in residual wetting solvent can be estimated for
specific volumes of desorption solution and wetting alcohol. Assume the sample wipes and
calibration standards are both desorbed in 30 mL of desorption solution and 3 mL of alcohol
is added to the calibration standards. The potential error in volume (and final results) in the
samples is approximately ±3.03% (inversely proportional) per mL difference in the residual
alcohol in the samples (i.e. ±1 mL difference in 33 mL). For 40 mL of desorption solution
and 4 mL of alcohol added to the calibration standards, the error is ±2.27% for every mL
difference (i.e. ±1 mL difference in 44 mL). However, since the volume of residual wetting
alcohol is not known and cannot be determined once the sample wipe has been desorbed,
the actual error cannot be determined.
However, the maximum possible error can be calculated. Since the maximum amount
of alcohol that a 3”x3” 12-ply (or 4”x4” 8-ply) cotton gauze can hold is about 6 mL when
saturated (dripping wet), there can only be a deviation of plus or minus 3 mL from the 3
mL alcohol added to the calibration standards. Therefore, the maximum error in a result
due to differences in the volume of residual alcohol in a cotton gauze sample compared to
the standards can only be three times the error for a 1 mL difference in volume. Since the
error for ±1 mL is ±3.03%, the maximum error for ±3 mL is three times larger, or ±9.1%. In
practice, the error will be less than this because it is unlikely that the gauze samples will be
completely dry or completely saturated after squeezing out the excess alcohol and wiping
a surface. The practical amount of alcohol that remains in the 3”x3” 12-ply (or 4”x4” 8-ply)
cotton gauze wipes when the excess is squeezed out is between 1 and 2 mL. This translates
into an error that is between +3% and +6% in the final results for diluted samples. Undiluted
samples will not be affected. This error is within the overall accuracy for the method for
methamphetamine.
3. Dilution procedure C (dilution of desorbates from dried samples): Dilution errors for over-range
samples may be corrected by knowing the exact amount of residual alcohol in the samples. The
volume (or weight) of residual solvent in each gauze wipe might be determined by the difference
between a wet weight and dry weight. Better yet, the error might be eliminated for diluted samples
by adding, after the samples are dried (without taking any weight), the same known volume of
wetting alcohol that is added to the calibration standards (i.e. 3 mL). Thereafter, if any samples need
dilution, there will be no dilution errors due to differences in residual alcohol, because all samples and
standards will have the same volume of alcohol and total volume of desorption solution.
However, air drying of the samples is not recommended because of the possible loss of
methamphetamine due to its volatility when it is not in the salt form, which form cannot be
assured in field samples. Also, manipulating the samples for weighing and drying might introduce
contamination. Drying is not recommended as a procedure for analytes having a vapor pressure high
enough to be lost in the process, or that tend to form azeotropes with alcohols, especially when the
critical action levels for remedial cleanup are at the lower end of the method calibration range. Drying
is not an option if the samples have already been desorbed.
OSHA: none for surfaces PROPERTIES: solid, d 1.85 g/mL, MP 1,278 °C, VP 0 kPa
MSHA: none for surfaces (0 mm Hg) @ 25 °C
DOE: 3 μg per 100 cm2 (housekeeping), 0.2 μg per
100 cm2 (equipment release) [1]
OTHER OELs: [2]
SAMPLING MEASUREMENT
SAMPLER: WIPE (cellulosic or polyvinyl alcohol) TECHNIQUE: UV/VIS FLUOROMETRY
APPLICABILITY: The working range of the method is 0.0005 μg to 6 μg for surface wipe samples. The analysis is for total beryllium
and is not compound specific.
INTERFERENCES: Minor interference from iron can result if iron concentrations are high. Samples high in iron demonstrate a
yellow or gold coloration. This interference can be minimized by allowing the solution to sit for at least two hours, during which
time the solution clears, and then filtering the sample extract before use. An alternative method is to filter the solution (after 30
minutes of standing) through a hydrophilic filter of pore size of 0.2 µm or smaller.
OTHER METHODS: Method 7300 (hot plate digestion and inductively coupled plasma atomic emission spectrometry) is an
alternative procedure for the determination of elemental beryllium [5], but with higher detection limits. ASTM method D7202 is a
similar procedure to detect elemental beryllium by fluorescence [6].
REAGENTS: EQUIPMENT:
SPECIAL PRECAUTIONS: Wear appropriate personal protection during sampling activities and analysis. It
is essential that suitable gloves, eye protection, laboratory coat, etc., be used when working with the
chemicals. Perform sample preparation and analysis in a clean, well-ventilated area that is well removed
from any possible beryllium contamination. Any area of skin affected by the dissolution or detection
solutions must be immediately washed with plenty of water. Ammonium bifluoride will etch glass, so it is
essential that all ammonium bifluoride solutions be contained in plastic labware. Avoid exposure by
contact with skin or eyes, or by inhalation of vapor.
SAMPLING [8,9]:
SAMPLE PREPARATION:
5. Add 5 mL of the dissolution solution (ammonium bifluoride, 10 g/L) to each 15 mL centrifuge tube
containing a wipe sample, and cap each tube.
6. Place each tube into a mechanical rotator, and rotate for at least 30 min.
NOTE: Rotator may also be substituted by a shaker or an agitator as long as the dissolution solution
wets the wipe well. Sonication has also been shown to be effective. For dissolution of refractory
materials such as high-fired beryllium oxide, agitation of the dissolution solution with the
media must be replaced by heating to 85 °C for 60 minutes or more. Any standard dissolution
process is particle-size dependent [10]. The two sources of BeO used to validate the method are
described in the backup data report [11].
7. Filter each solution with a hydrophilic polypropylene syringe filter into a clean tube.
NOTE: This tube should be able to accept a cap so that the solution may be saved and used later for
reanalysis if required.
8. Pipet 0.1 mL of each sample filtrate into cuvettes containing 1.9 mL of the detection solution. Cap and
mix briefly.
NOTE: The above procedure is typically used to analyze a range of 0.05 μg to 6 μg of beryllium on the
sampling media. Alternative ratios of dissolution solution and detection solution may be used
for analyzing alternative ranges of beryllium concentration. To test a range of 0.005 μg to 0.4 μg
of beryllium on the sampling media, 0.4 mL of the sample filtrate is added to 1.6 mL of the
detection solution in the cuvettes. The lysine-free dye solution may also be used for obtaining
even lower detection limits at a dilution ratio of 3x, where 1.33 mL of the dye solution is mixed
with 0.67 mL of the filtered solution extracts (Table 3), and beryllium in the range of 0.0005 μg
to 0.4 μg may be determined.
NOTE: If high iron or titanium concentration is suspected or is evident (owing to the appearance of
suspended precipitate), allow the solution to settle and filter the solution using a hygroscopic
syringe filter (e.g., polyethersulfone, or hydrophilic polypropylene).
NOTE: The stability of the detection and the dissolution solution is more than six months and of the
mixed measurement solution comprising both is greater than 30 days. The solutions must be
kept in sealed containers, and the detection and mixed solutions must be stored away from
light.
NOTE: If the samples are suspected of having a contaminant that fluoresces and has excitation and
emission spectra that overlap with that of the signal produced by the fluorescent dye bound to
beryllium, then this contaminant needs to be removed. The presence of such a contaminant
can be verified by subjecting the filtered sample to fluorescence excitation after the extraction
step (without adding the fluorescent dye). If a fluorescence signal is detected, then that signal is
ascribed to the presence of a fluorescent contaminant. To remove the contaminant, high-purity
activated charcoal is added to the beryllium extraction solution (~10mg/mL) and the extraction
procedure is carried out at elevated temperature (80 to 90 °C for at least 45 minutes). If the
beryllium extraction procedure has already been performed, then after the addition of
activated charcoal, the extraction process is repeated at the elevated temperature. The solution
is filtered to remove the activated charcoal before adding this to the detection solution to make
the measurement solution. Details of this process have been published [12,13].
9. Calibrate the fluorometer with beryllium stock standard solutions. Prepare a calibration graph of fluo-
rescence intensity vs. beryllium concentration (ng/mL) in the stock standard.
NOTE: To test a range of 0.05 μg to 6 μg of beryllium on the sampling media, beryllium stock standard
solutions are made up using beryllium spectrometric standards diluted with the ammonium
bifluoride dissolution solution. A recommended series of stock standard solutions is (800, 200,
40, 10, and 0) ng/mL. As with the samples, the stock standards are prepared for analysis by
adding 0.1 mL of beryllium stock standard into 1.9 mL of detection solution (20-fold dilution).
Please see Table 1. Either of the two detection solutions may be used.
NOTE: To test a range of 0.005 μg to 0.4 μg of beryllium on the sampling media, a recommended series
of stock standard solutions is (80, 20, 4, 1, and 0) ng/mL. These standards with lower beryllium
concentration can be prepared by 10-fold dilution of the stock standards mentioned in the note
above. As with the samples, these stock standards are prepared for analysis by adding 0.4 mL of
beryllium stock standard into 1.6 mL of detection solution (5-fold dilution). Please see Table 2.
Either of the two detection solutions may be used.
NOTE: When using the lysine-free dye solution ONLY, a range can be tested of 0.0005 to 0.4 μg of
beryllium on the media using a recommended series of stock solutions is (0, 0.15, 0.3, 0.6 and
2.4) ng/mL. These standards with lower beryllium concentration can be prepared by dilution of
the stock standards mentioned in the note above. The standards are prepared for analysis by
adding 0.67 mL of beryllium stock standard into 1.33 mL of detection solution (3-fold dilution).
This dilution will result in 0, 0.05, 0.1, 0.2 and 0.8 ppb of beryllium in these standards; see
Table 3. Cellulosic filters (47 mm in diameter) were spiked with a solution of beryllium acetate
and analyzed in triplicate after extracting beryllium in 5 ml of 1% ABF solution at 85oC for 60
minutes and then mixed with lysine-free dye solution in a 3-fold dilution; these results are
shown in Table 4. The difference in the average fluorescent signals from blanks and the 0 ppb
standard were subtracted from the fluorescent readings of the spiked filters.
NOTE: If alternative ratios of dissolution solution and detection solution are used for sample prepara-
tion, then a similar ratio for calibration solutions is required.
10. Analyze a stock standard, a reagent blank, and a media blank at least once every 20 samples. Ensure
that the concentration range of the stock standards spans the beryllium levels found in the samples.
11. Analyze one media spike and one quality control blind spike per 20 samples (minimum of three each
per sample set) to insure that percent recovery is in control (e.g., 100 ± 15). Correct sample results for
the average recovery if it differs significantly from 100%.
NOTE: If it is suspected that beryllium oxide may be present, then it is recommended to use beryllium
oxide for media and blind spikes.
MEASUREMENT:
12. For each sample, obtain the fluorescence intensity at λmax or with optical filter for appropriate wave-
length.
13. If the fluorescence response for any of the samples is above the range of responses for the stock
standards, dilute the sample filtrate with dissolution solution, reanalyze, and apply the appropriate
dilution factor (D) in subsequent calculations.
CALCULATIONS:
14. Obtain the solution concentration for each sample filtrate, Cs (ng/mL), and the average media blank, Cb
(ng/mL) from the calibration graph.
15. Using the dissolution volumes (normally 5 mL) of sample, Vs (mL), and media blank, Vb (mL), calculate
the concentration, C (μg/m2), of Be in the surface area sampled, A (cm2), while accounting for the
dilution factor (D).
NOTE: Tables 1, 2 and 3 can be used for correlating the amount of beryllium in the sampling media
with the concentrations of beryllium in solution. Table 1 is for testing media with 0.05 μg to 6 μg
of beryllium at 20-fold dilution; Table 2 is for testing media with 0.005 μg to 0.4 μg of beryllium
at 5-fold dilution; and Table 3 is for testing media with 0.0005 μg to 0.012 μg of beryllium at 3-
fold dilution. Lysine-free dye solution may be used for any of these dilutions, but for 3x dilution,
lysine-free dye solution must be used.
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods (NMAM), Fifth Edition
BERYLLIUM in Surface Wipes by Fluorometry: METHOD 9110, Issue 2, 12 December 2015- Page 5 of 8
Table 1. Correlation of amount of Be in sampling media with Be concentration in stock standard and
Be concentration as analyzed, assuming 0.1 mL of sample or stock standard is added to 1.9 mL of
detection solution (20-fold dilution).
Be concentration in stock Be concentration as analyzed Amount of Be in the media*
standard (ng/mL) (ng/mL) (ng)
0 0 0
10 0.5 50
40 2 200
200 10 1000
800 40 4000
*Equals stock standard Be concentration (ng/mL) × volume (5 mL) of dissolution solution used to extract
media.
Table 2. Correlation of amount of Be in sampling media with Be concentration in stock standard and
Be concentration as analyzed, assuming 0.4 mL of sample or stock standard is added to 1.6 mL of
detection solution (5-fold dilution).
Be concentration in stock Be concentration as Amount of Be in the media*
standard (ng/mL) analyzed (ng/mL) (ng)
0 0 0
1 0.2 5
4 1 25
20 4 100
80 16 400
*Equals stock standard Be concentration (ng/mL) × volume (5 mL) of dissolution solution used to extract
media.
Table 3. Correlation of amount of Be in sampling media with Be concentration in stock standard and
Be concentration as analyzed, assuming 0.67 mL of sample or stock standard is added to 1.33 mL of
lysine-free dye solution (3-fold dilution).
Be concentration in stock Be concentration as Amount of Be in the media*
standard (ng/mL) analyzed (ng/mL) (ng)
0 0 0
0.15 0.05 0. 75
0.3 0.1 1.5
0.6 0.2 3
2.4 0.8 12
*Equals stock standard Be concentration (ng/mL) × volume (5 mL) of dissolution solution used to extract
media.
Table 4: Analysis of beryllium spiked cellulosic filters (47mm in diameter) using 3-fold dilution of the
extraction solution with lysine-free dye solution. Beryllium concentration of calibration solutions
after mixing with the dye solutions were 0, 0.05, 0.1, 0.2 and 0.8 ng/ml. Samples analyzed in
triplicate, Averages and standard deviations are shown both in ppb in the solution and as µg on the
filter.
Nominal Be concentration Be concentration measured in Be concentration measured
on the spiked filter, µg the mixture of dye and sample on the wipes, µg ± Std Dev
solution, ppb ± Std Dev
0 0.0003±0.0057 0.0000±8.5E-5
0.0005 0.0375±0.0073 0.00056±11.0E-5
0.001 0.0735±0.0058 0.0011±8.7E-4
0.002 0.1262±0.0047 0.0019±7.11E-4
0.005 0.3396±0.0093 0.0051±1.39E-4
0.05 3.275 ±0.051 0.049±7.58E-4
0.48 32.29±0.293 0.484±4.40E-3
EVALUATION OF METHOD:
The method was evaluated [3,4,11,14] in accordance with published guidelines [15]. Experiments were
conducted [11] using an Ocean Optics® portable fluorescence device with the following components:
USB 200 spectrometer with spectral grating #2 (UV/Vis 600), LS-1 lamp (380 nm) in LS-450 housing,
UV-2 casting, OFLV linear filter 200-850, L2 collection lens and slit-200.
Tests were carried out in relative irradiance mode using 2- or 5-second integration times.
The method was evaluated using beryllium oxide spiked onto mixed cellulose ester (MCE) filters at levels of
(0, 0.02, 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4, 1.5, 3.0, and 6.0) μg (five samples at each level) [12]. The procedure was also
evaluated on polyvinyl alcohol (PVA) wipes in an interlaboratory trial with media spiked with BeO at 0.030,
0.16, 0.32, 1.8, 2.8 and 5.6 μg [7].
Long-term stability of samples was verified from spikes (number [n] = 30) of 0.1 μg Be on MCE filters [9].
Samples were analyzed at day one (n = 12) and then one week (n = 6), ten days (n = 3), two weeks (n = 3),
three weeks (n = 3), and one month (n = 3) after spiking. No diminution of fluorescence signal was
observed from samples prepared and analyzed after having been stored for up to thirty days.
Interference tests were carried out using solutions of 0 nmol/L, 100 nmol/L, and 1.0 μmol/L Be in the pres-
ence of 0.4 mmol/L Al, Ca, Co, Cu, Fe, Ti, Li, Ni, Pb, Sn, U, V, W, or Zn (separate experiments were carried out
for each potential interferant) [13]. Interlaboratory evaluations of the method were also performed [4,7,14].
The method using the lysine-free detection solution was compared and tested (with the detection solution
with lysine for comparison) (Table 4) and this was carried out on a Glomax™ spectrometer (Turner
Biosystems, Sunnyvale, CA) with an emission filter of 475 ± 5 nm and the excitation was at 360 nm
REFERENCES:
[1] US Department of Energy [1999]. 10 CFR 850, Chronic Beryllium Disease Prevention Program.
Washington: Code of Federal Regulations.
[2] Dion C, Perrault G [2005]. Summary of good cleanup and decontamination practices for workplaces
with beryllium-containing dust (Publ. no. R-409). Montreal, Canada: IRSST.
[3] Agrawal A, Cronin J, Tonazzi J, McCleskey TM, Ehler DS, Minogue EM, Whitney G, Brink C, Burrell AK,
Warner B, Goldcamp MJ, Schlecht PC, Sonthalia P, Ashley K [2006]. Validation of a standardized
portable fluoresence method for determining trace beryllium in workplace air and wipe samples. J
Environ Monit 8: 619- 624.
[4] Ashley K, Agrawal A, Cronin J, Tonazzi J, McCleskey TM, Burrell AK, Ehler DS [2007]. Ultra-trace deter-
mination pf beryllium in occupational hygiene samples by ammonium bifluoride extraction and
fluorescence detection using hydroxybenzoquinoline sulfonate. Anal Chim Acta 584: 281-286.
[5] NIOSH [1994]. Elements by ICP (nitric/perchloric acid ashing): Method 7300 (supplement issued
3/15/03). In: NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods. 4th ed. Cincinnati, OH: National Institute for
Occupational Safety and Health, DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 94–113.
[6] ASTM International [2015]. D7202 – Standard test method for determination of beryllium in the
workplace using field-based extraction and fluorescence detection. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM
International.
[7] Ashley K, Wise TJ, Marlow D, Agrawal A, Cronin JP, Adams L, Ashley E, Lee PA [2011]. Trace beryllium
determination in polyvinyl alcohol wipes by extraction and fluorescence detection – Interlaboratory
analysis. Anal Methods 3: 1906-1901.
[8] ASTM International [2013]. D6966 - Standard practice for wipe sampling of surfaces for subsequent
determination of metals. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International.
[9] ASTM International [2011]. D7707 - Standard Specification for Wipe Sampling Materials for Beryllium
in Surface Dust. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International.
[10] Goldcamp MJ, Goldcamp DM, Ashley K, Fernback JE, Agrawal A, Millson M, Marlow D,Harrison K
[2009]. Extraction of beryllium from refractory beryllium oxide with dilute ammonium bifluoride and
determination by fluorescence – A multi-parameter performance evaluation. J Occup Environ Hyg 6:
735-744.
[11] McCleskey TM, Agrawal A, Ashley K [2007]. Backup data—method nos. 7704 and 9110 / beryllium,
Issue 1. NIOSH Docket Office, Cincinnati, Ohio 45226; e-mail: NIOSHDocket@cdc.gov.
[12] Youmans-McDonald L, Brisson MJ, Bernard M, Agrawal A, Cronin J, Adams, L [2011]. Determining
beryllium by optical fluorescence using pre-wetted wipes. J ASTM Int 8(3) [JAI 103489].
[13] Agrawal A, Adams LL, Agrawal A, Cronin JP, Tonazzi JCL, Duran BL [2011]. Beryllium measurement by
optical fluorescence in samples contaminated by fluorescent impurities, J ASTM Int 8(8) [JAI 103411].
[14] Ashley K, McCleskey TM, Brisson MJ, Goodyear G, Cronin J, Agrawal A [2005]. Interlaboratory evalu-
ation of a portable fluorescence method for the measurement of trace beryllium in the workplace. J
ASTM Int 2(9) [JAI13156].
[15] Kennedy ER, Fischbach TJ, Song R, Eller PM, Shulman SA [1995]. Guidelines for air sampling and ana-
lytical method development and evaluation. Cincinnati, OH: National Institute for Occupational
Safety and Health; DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 95–117
T. Mark McCleskey, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM; Kevin Ashley, CDC/NIOSH, Division of
Applied Research and Technology; Anoop Agrawal, Berylliant Inc., Tucson, AZ.
Disclaimer: Mention of any company or product does not constitute endorsement by NIOSH. In addition,
citations to websites external to NIOSH do not constitute NIOSH endorsement of the sponsoring
organizations or their programs or products. Furthermore, NIOSH is not responsible for the content of
these websites. All web addresses referenced in this document were accessible as of the publication date.
OSHA: None for surfaces PROPERTIES: White solid, MP 171 - 175 °C; VP 0.163 mm Hg
NIOSH: None for surfaces @ 25 °C; pKa = 9.87 @ 25 °C; Water Sol. (1.33
Other OELs and guidelines: [1, 2, 3] g/100 mL @ 25 °C). Log P = 2.07 (octanol-
water partition coefficient).
SYNONYMS: ( S) - N, α- D i m e t hy l b e n ze n e e t h a n a m i n e ; ( S) - ( + ) - N, α- D i m e t hy l p h e n e t hy l a m i n e : d- 1 - Ph e ny l - 2 -
methylaminopropane. Methedrine; Desoxyn; chalk; crank; crystal; glass; ice; meth, speed; upper.
SAMPLING MEASUREMENT
APPLICABILITY: For methamphetamine the range is approximately 0.1 to 100 µg/sample (sample = 100 cm²).
OTHER WIPE METHODS: NIOSH 9106 uses liquid-liquid extraction and gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (GC/MS) to
measure multiple drugs [5]. NIOSH 9109 uses solid-phase extraction and GC/MS to measure multiple drugs [6].
REAGENTS: EQUIPMENT:
SPECIAL PRECAUTIONS: The solvents are flammable and have associated adverse health effects. Avoid
breathing vapors. Avoid skin contact. Work should be performed in an adequate hood. Analysts must wear
proper eye and hand protection (e.g. latex gloves) to prevent absorption of even small amounts of amines
through the skin as well as for protection from the solvents and other reagents. Dissolving concentrated
sulfuric acid in water is highly exothermic. Goggles must be worn.
Caution must also be exercised in the handling and analysis of samples. Clandestine drug labs may
produce unknown and seriously toxic by-products.
SAMPLING:
NOTE 2: Do not use vinyl gloves due to the potential for leaching of phthalate plasticizers and
contamination of the samples.
2. Place the template over the area to be sampled (may tape in place along outside edge of template). Wipe
the surface to be sampled with firm pressure, using vertical S-strokes. Fold the exposed side of the pad in
and wipe the area with horizontal S-strokes. Fold the pad once more and wipe the area again with vertical
S-strokes.
3. Fold the pad, exposed side in, and place in shipping container and seal with cap.
NOTE: Keep samples refrigerated (<6 ºC). While methamphetamine and several related amines are
stable on the recommended wipe media for at least 7 days at room temperature, refrigeration is
recommended as soon as possible.
4. Clean the template before use for the next sample or use a new disposable template.
5. Label each sample clearly with a unique sample identifier.
6. Prepare a minimum of two field blanks with one field blank for every ten samples.
NOTE: In addition, include at least 3 media blanks for the analytical laboratory to use for their purposes.
The wipes used for the media blanks should be from the same lot as the field samples.
SAMPLE PREPARATION:
10. Determine retention time using the column and chromatographic conditions specified on page 9111-1.
11. Calibrate daily with at least six media spiked calibration standards and a blank.
a. Prepare the target analyte spiking solutions. (See SOLUTIONS, 9111-2)
b. Prepare calibration standards and media blanks in clean shipping containers (e.g. 50-mL
polypropylene centrifuge tubes.)
c. Spike a known volume of target analyte spiking solution into each calibration standard by spiking
directly onto the media. Use the spiking volumes suggested in Table 2 to cover the desired range.
d. Analyze these along with the field samples. (See MEASUREMENT, steps 13-15.)
12. Prepare matrix-spiked and matrix-spiked duplicate quality control samples (QC and QD).
a. Cotton gauze from the same lot used for taking samples in the field should be provided to the
analytical laboratory to prepare these matrix-spiked QC samples.
b. The quality control samples (QC and QD) must be prepared independently at concentrations within the
analytical range. (See Table 2 for applicable concentration ranges.)
c. One quality control media blank (QB) must be included with each QC and QD pair.
d. The quality control samples must be prepared at the rate of one set (QB, QC, and QD) per 20 samples or
less.
e. Transfer clean gauze wipes to new shipping containers.
NOTE: If two gauze wipes were used for the majority of samples in an analytical set, use two clean
gauze wipes for each QB, QC, and QD.
f. Spike QC and QD with a known amount of target analyte as suggested in Table 2.
g. Process quality control samples along with the calibration standards, blanks, and field samples through
steps 7 and 8.
h. Analyze these along with the calibration standards, blanks, and field samples. (See MEASUREMENT,
steps 13-15.)
MEASUREMENT:
13. Analyze the calibration standards, quality control samples, blanks, and samples by LC-MS.
a. Use the following suggested analytical sequence.
i. Calibration standards.
ii. Matrix spiked quality control samples (QC and QD), one set for every 20 samples or less.
iii. A media blank (QB), one for every 20 samples or less.
iv. Samples (up to 10) including one sample duplicate.
v. A continuing calibration verification (CCV) standard consisting of one of the initial calibration
standards.
vi. A media blank.
b. Set liquid chromatograph according to manufacturer’s recommendations and to conditions listed
previously.
c. Set mass spectrometer to scan for ions 119, 150, and 164 in SIM mode. Further suggestions for MS
conditions are listed in Table 1 but will vary for particular instruments and conditions. See Note 2 in
Table 1.
d. Inject 50 µL of the sample aliquot into liquid chromatograph.
e. After analysis, the vials should be promptly recapped and refrigerated if further analysis is anticipated.
Samples are stable refrigerated for at least seven days.
14. Using extracted ion current profiles for the primary (quantification) ions specific to methamphetamine
and the internal standard, measure the LC peak area of each respective peak and compute relative peak
areas by dividing the peak area of the analyte by the area of the internal standard. Recommended primary
(quantification) ions and internal standard ions are given in Table 1. Prepare a calibration graph (relative
peak area vs. µg analyte per sample).
15. Samples from initial investigations of clandestine laboratories are likely to include highly contaminated
samples. If sample results exceed the upper range of the calibration curve, the sample in the LC vial may
be diluted with the sulfuric acid desorption solution and reanalyzed.
CALCULATIONS:
16. Determine the mass in µg/sample of methamphetamine found in the wipe samples and in the media
blank from the calibration graph.
V1
C =c -b
V2
Where:
c = concentration in sample (in µg/sample determined from the calibration curve)
V1
= dilution factor, if applicable
V2
C
C’=
A
Where:
C = µg/sample (step 17).
A = Total area wiped in cm² per sample.
NOTE: For example, if the sample was a composite sample and the area was 400 cm², report results as
µg/400 cm2. In general, if the area wiped was greater than or less than 100 cm2, do not convert
value to µg/100 cm². To avoid confusion, report separately both µg/sample (C) and the total area
wiped in cm2 per sample (A) for both discrete and composite samples.
EVALUATION OF METHOD:
This method was evaluated for methamphetamine over a range of approximately 0.4 µg/sample to 17.8 µg/
sample on cotton gauze. These concentration levels represent approximately 3 through 100 times the limit of
quantitation (LOQ) level. Results are reported in the Backup Data Report for 9111s[4].
The limit of detection (LOD) and LOQ were determined by preparing a series of media spiked standards,
desorbing in the sulfuric acid desorption solution and analyzing in the SIM mode. The LODs were estimated
using the procedure of Burkart [7]. An LOD of less than 0.02 µg/sample for methamphetamine on wipes was
achieved in the SIM mode. The LOD was set at 0.05 µg/sample and the LOQ at 0.15 µg/sample for method
development purposes. Lower LODs can be achieved in practice by including calibration standards at lower
concentration levels and with proper instrument maintenance. The cleanliness and performance of the mass
spectrometer must be maintained such that at a minimum of 0.1 µg/sample a signal of at least 5 to 10 times
the baseline noise is achievable.
Precision and accuracy were determined by analyzing 6 replicates at each of 4 concentration levels
(nominally 0.44, 1.8, 4.4, and 18 µg/sample). Accuracy was calculated using equations and methodology
found in the NIOSH Technical Report “Guidelines for Air Sampling and Analytical Method Development and
Evaluation” [8]. Using all data, method precision ( ) was 0.06663. Accuracy was 20.7% and mean bias was
-0.09753.
Long term sample storage stability was determined for periods up to 30 days under refrigeration (4 °C ± 2 °C)
and for up to 7 days at room temperature (22-24 °C). Since long term storage measures only the viability of
analytes on a particular media over time, this determination was not repeated for this particular method; the
reader is directed to NIOSH 9106 [5] for more detail. All recoveries were found to be 93.5% or better.
Recovery of amphetamines from six different types of surfaces using cotton gauze was evaluated. The study
and results are reported in NIOSH 9109 [6]. The practice of serial wiping (wiping the same surface area a
second time with a second gauze wipe and combining both wipes as a single sample) was evaluated. Four
solvents for wetting the gauze were tested (distilled water, 5% distilled white vinegar, isopropanol, and
methanol). Six replicate samples were taken on a latex painted wall. Recovery and precision results are
presented in the previously mentioned Backup Data Report. In summary, the effectiveness of the various
solvents using a single wipe on a latex painted wall were as follows: water, 46% recovery; 5% distilled white
vinegar, 55% recovery; isopropanol, 64% recovery and methanol, 87% recovery. Average recoveries with
isopropanol from all the surfaces tested were greatly improved with a repeat (serial) wipe (11% improvement
compared to only about 6% improvement with methanol). The serial wipe is added to the first wipe and
constitutes a single sample.
REFERENCES:
[1] ACGIH [2013]. TLVs and BEIs based on the documentation of the Threshold Limit Values for chemical
substances and physical agents and Biological Exposure Indices. Cincinnati, Ohio: American Conference
of Governmental Industrial Hygienists. [www.acgih.org]. Data accessed April 2014.
[2] Institut fur Arbeitsschutz der Deutschen Gesetzlichen Unfallversicherung [2013]. GESTIS database on
hazardous substances (German Social Accident Insurance). Sankt Augustin, FRG: [http://www.dguv.de/
ifa/GESTIS ]. Data accessed April 2014.
[3] EPA [2013]. Voluntary guidelines for methamphetamine laboratory cleanup. [https://www.epa.gov/sites/
production/files/documents/meth_lab_guidelines.pdf ]. Date accessed March 2016.
[4] Siso MC, McKay TT, Reynolds JM, Wickman DC [2005]. Backup data report for NIOSH 9111,
Methamphetamine on wipes by liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry. Unpublished. Prepared
under NIOSH Contract 200-2001-0800.
[5] NIOSH [2011]. Methamphetamine and illicit drugs, precursors, and adulterants on wipes by liquid-liquid
extraction: Method 9106. In: Ashley KA, O’Connor PF, eds. NIOSH manual of analytical methods. 5th
ed. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, [www.cdc.gov/niosh/nmam/].
[6] NIOSH [2011]. Methamphetamine and illicit drugs, precursors, and adulterants on wipes by solid phase
extraction: Method 9109. In: Ashley KA, O’Connor PF, eds. NIOSH manual of analytical methods. 5th
ed. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, [www.cdc.gov/niosh/nmam/].
[7] Burkart JA [1986]. General procedures for limit of detection calculations in the industrial hygiene
chemistry laboratory. Appl Ind Hyg 1(3):153-155.
[8] NIOSH [1995]. NIOSH Technical Report: Guidelines for air sampling and analytical method development
and evaluation. By Kennedy ER, Fischbach TJ, Song R, Eller PM, Shulman SA. Cincinnati, OH: U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Services, Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 95-117.
[9] Serrano KA, Martyny JW, Kofford S, Contreras JR, Van Dyke MV [2012]. Decontamination of clothing and
building materials associated with the clandestine production of methamphetamine. J Occup Environ
Hyg 9(3):185-197.
[10] Van Dyke MV, Serrano KA, Kofford S, Contreras J, Martyny JW [2011]. Variability and specificity associated
with environemental methamphetamine sampling and analysis. J Occup Environ Hyg 8(11):636-41.
Maria Carolina Siso, Thomas T. McKay, John M. Reynolds, and Don C. Wickman, DataChem Laboratories, Inc.,
Salt Lake City, Utah under NIOSH Contract CDC 200-2001-0800.
Disclaimer: Mention of any company or product does not constitute endorsement by NIOSH. In
addition, citations to websites external to NIOSH do not constitute NIOSH endorsement of the
sponsoring organizations or their programs or products. Furthermore, NIOSH is not responsible for
the content of these websites. All web addresses referenced in this document were accessible as of
the publication date.
Figure 1. LC-MS total ion chromatogram of methamphetamine (m/z 119, 150, 164).
APPENDIX:
SAMPLING
NOTE: For further information and data on the effects of surface composition and porosity as well as the
use of different solvents on the efficacy of wipe sampling, please see reports by Serrano et al [9]
and Van Dyke et al [10].
1. Follow specific requirements of surface area to be wiped (usually 100 cm2) and action threshold (or
maximum allowable residual level) set by the agency having legal jurisdiction or specified by the client.
Uptake rates depend upon the wipe sampling method used so the specific wipe technique used must be
specified and any deviations from the required wipe sampling requirements noted.
2. The following steps only summarize the overall sampling procedure and are not intended to be used as a
shortcut or wipe sampling procedures that may be specified by the legal jurisdiction or the client.
3. Prepare a rigid template from disposable cardstock or a sheet of PTFE having either a 10 cm x 10 cm or
1 ft x 1 ft (1000 cm²) square hole cut according to the dimensions required by the regulatory agency.
The template must be able to retain its shape during wiping to ensure that the areas wiped were 100
cm² or 1 ft². Single-use disposable cardstock is preferred because it eliminates the possibility for cross-
contamination and the necessity to take a blank wipe between samples in step 3.
4. Provide enough wipe media from the same lot to cover all required laboratory media blanks, field-
equipment blanks, samples and sample duplicates, and quality control samples. Use gauze in sterile
packaging to minimize the chance for cross-contamination which might more easily occur with open
bulk packaged cotton gauze. The gauze wipes needed for the laboratory media blanks and QC samples
are to be sent to the laboratory in their unopened sterile packages.
5. Secure the template(s) to the area(s) to be wiped (e.g. with tape along outside edge of template). If
a single-use disposable template is not used, clean the template between samples to avoid cross-
contamination and provide laboratory with a blank wipe of the cleaned template between samples to
ensure that no cross-contamination has occurred.
6. With freshly gloved hand, take one gauze and wet it with isopropanol or methanol (about 3-4 mL
for either the 3” x 3” (7.5 cm x 7.5 cm) 12-ply or the 4” x 4” (10 cm x 10 cm) 8-ply cotton gauze wipes).
Alternatively, pre-wet and insert the gauze wipes into the sample containers off-site. This avoids
any possibility of the bottle of methanol or isopropanol becoming contaminated on-site with
methamphetamine. If the wipes were prepared off-site, then remove pre-wetted gauze wipe from sample
container, opening only one sample container at a time. In either case, squeeze out and discard any
excess solvent from the gauze wipe. Use fresh latex or nitrile gloves for each separate sample and blank.
Do not use vinyl gloves due to the potential for leaching of phthalate plasticizers and contamination of
the samples.
7. Wipe Techniques
a. Concentric Squares Wiping Technique (particularly suitable for smooth and non-porous surfaces):
Fold the pre-wetted gauze in half and then fold in half again. Using firm pressure wipe the area
within the template. Start at one of the inside corners of the template and wipe in concentric squares,
progressing toward the center. End with a scooping motion. Without allowing the gauze to touch any
other surface, reverse the last fold so that the exposed side of the gauze is facing inward and using a
fresh surface of the gauze, wipe the same area in the same manner as before. Roll or fold the gauze
again and insert into the shipping container.
b. Side-to-side Wiping (or Blotting) Technique (particularly suitable for rough, porous, and/or soiled
surfaces): Fold the pre-wetted gauze in half and then fold in half again. Using firm pressure wipe or
blot the area within the template with at least five overlapping side-to-side horizontal passes (see
NOTE) beginning at the top and progressing to the bottom in a “Z” pattern. End with a scooping
motion. If blotting, blot at least five times on each horizontal pass (see NOTE). Without allowing the
gauze to touch any other surface, reverse the last fold so that the exposed side of the gauze is facing
inward. Using a fresh surface of the gauze, wipe or blot the area again with at least five overlapping
top-to-bottom vertical passes beginning at the left side and progressing to the right in an “N” pattern.
If blotting, blot at least five times on each vertical pass. Roll or fold the gauze again and insert into
the shipping container. Blotting is suggested in areas so soiled or rough that the threads of the gauze
media are continually snagged.
NOTE: On areas larger than 100 cm², more than five passes and blots will be needed.
c. Repeat or Serial Wiping: If isopropanol is used for wiping, a serial or repeat wipe sample of the same
area with a fresh gauze wipe will improve sampling efficiency. For serial wiping, repeat the wiping
procedure described above (APPENDIX 7a or 7b) with a fresh gauze wipe. Place the second gauze wipe
into the same shipping container as the first gauze. The 50-mL polypropylene centrifuge tubes are
large enough to contain up to two gauze wipes of either the 3” x 3” 12-ply or 4” x 4” 8-ply sizes.
NOTE: If the area to be wiped remains substantially wet from the first gauze, the second gauze wipe
might be used in the dry state to soak up the residual solvent from the first gauze wipe.
8. Cap shipping containers securely and keep refrigerated (<6 °C). Make sure caps are not cross-threaded.
Containers must have no chips, fractures, or other irregularities on the sealing edge. Do not use
polyethylene plastic bags. While methamphetamine and several related amines are stable on the
recommended wipe media for at least 7 days at room temperature, refrigeration is recommended as soon
as possible.
9. Label each sample clearly with a unique sample identification number or name, and the date, time,
location, and initials or identification number of the individual taking the sample. The above information
and a description of the sample and the area wiped should also be recorded in a logbook for later
correlation with the analytical results.
SAMPLE PREPARATION
Samples requiring pH adjustment: If there is reason to believe that the samples may be alkaline enough to
overcome the acidity of the desorption solution (e.g. wipes of unpainted concrete or stucco surfaces), then
the pH must be adjusted to about ≤ 4. The pH may be checked with pH paper or monitored with the addition
of about 2 drops of the mixed pH indicator solution of bromothymol blue and phenolphthalein. (The color
should be yellow and not green or blue.) The preparation of this indicator solution can be found in NIOSH
9106 or NIOSH 9109 [5, 6]. If the pH needs to be adjusted, a solution of dilute (2.5 to 3 M) sulfuric acid is used
and added dropwise. Mix the contents by shaking or inversion a few times by hand after each addition of acid
before checking the pH.