Document 5b6rkM74Lwa29167BOzoxNrvz
.
6-.a5
P. 1 _ --
f} g--,-y~6 --37/'6
3M ENVIRONMENT.4L LABORATORY REPORT NO . EOB-0302
Final Report
Analysis of PFOA and PFOS in Aqueous Samples from 3M Cordova Wells 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and Drinking Water
Distribution
Laboratory Request Number. E06-0302
Method Requirement : 3M Method ETS-8-154.1 (modified)
Report Date - 08l16106
Testing Laboratory 3M EHS Operations 3M Environmental Laboratory
Building 2-3E-09 935 Bush Avenue St. Paul, MN 55106
Requester
Gary Hohenstein 3M Building 42-02-E-27
PO Box 3331 Saint Paul, MN 55133-3331
Phone: (651) 778-5150 Fax: (651) 778-7203
ACCREDI~
The testing reported herein meet the requiremente of ISCVIEC 17025-1999 "Genenl Requirements for the Competence of Testing and Celibradon Laborrtories", In accordance with the A2LA CertlNcate #2062-01 . TesBng that complies with We International Standard also operabe In accordance with ISO 9001/IS0 9002 (1994).
Certificate #2052-01
PAGE 1 OF 14
3M ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY REPORT NO . E06-0302
3M Environmental Laboratory
3M Environmental Labor4cxy Technical Mariager. William K. Reagen, Ph .D . 3M Principal Analytical Investigator Susan Wolf Report Author. Susan Wclf
,Qnalytical.Repol E-05-0302
Report Date: August 16, 2006
The 3M Environmental Laboratory prepared and analyzed water samples collected by Weston Solutions personnel on August 2, 2006, from Ccnrdova wells '1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and Drinking Water Distribution . Samples were returned to the 3M Environmental Laboratory for analysis of perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooc,~tane sulfodiate !PFCS) under laboratory project number E06-0302. Analysis was completed following 3M Environmental Laboratory method ETS-8-154.1 "Determination of Perfluorinated Acids, Alcohols, Amides, and Sulfonates in Water by Solid Phase Extraction and High Performance Liquid Chromatography/Mass Spectrometfy" .
The 3M Environmental Laboratory prepared sets of sample containers for six sampling locations. Each sample set consisted of a field sample, field sample dur.~ILcate, low field spike, mid field spike, and high field spike. Well 3 had an additional mid-high field matrix spike prepared . Each empty cz;nrainer was marked with a "fill to here" line that corresponded to a final volume of 450 mL. Containers reserred for field matrix spikes were fortified with an appropfiate matrix spike solution containing all analytes prior to being sent to the field for sample collection.
Samples were prepared on August 3, 2006 and analyzed on August 3 and 4, 2006.
Table 1 lists the sampling locations and corresponding tpiell ID # that will referenced throughout the report Table 2 summarizes the sample results using the analytical method identified above. All results for quality control samples prepared and analyzed with the samples will be reported and discussed elsewhere in this reporL
Table 1 . Sampling Locations
Sa
Loca6fon
Buildin g 11 ; Well 1
Buildin g 12 ; Well 2 Build 13 ; Well 3
Build' 24 ; Well 4 Build' 37 ; Well 5 Bldg 1 ; DW Distribution (1) See field sanpBng raw data file.
Reld SarRplfnV Code m
CIL OW PW11 CIL OW PW12 CIL GW PW13 CIL GW PW24 CIL OW PW37 ---~ CIL P1111 PWL1
ACCREO T~O
Certificate #2052-01
The tesnng reported herein rneet the requiremmis of ISO/IEC 17025-1999 "General Requirernerds for the Competence M Testing and CaNbraticm Laboratories', in ae^ordanoe with the .??A Certificate #2052-01 . Testing that oompues with this International Standard also operate In acoordanoe with ISO 9001 ASO 9002 (1994) .
PAGE 2OF 14
3M ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY REPORT NO. E06-0302
Table 2. Sample Results Summary (')
3M UMS 1D
E06-32084E06-0302-068
E06-0302-069
E06-0302-073 E06-0302-074
E06-0302-078 E06-0302-079
06-0302-083
Sarnplo DesefpLfon
PFOS
Pr-M '. . .
'
CanoenhaHoq .. GOr~Cenhafiort
n
eA 1 ; Sample 060802
0 .386
0 .181 ;i
eA 1 ; S
' te 060802
: A
XRPD
e Du Well
eB 2 ; Sample 060802
ell 2 ; Sample Duplicate 060802
Average Well
0 .462 7?42418(') _ ~ .72 3 .10 2 .91
0 .250 A0 .218
324'' 0 .692 -,0 .777,11, 1- 1 '1 0 .735
X_ RPD Sam , ldSarp le, Du ,We l ., ,
1 ;- .
, 3, Sample ,0-160002 ,
-+''- ~, .. .{, . , . 11 r7, ;
.eG3,S IeDu
060800~ j,~-*": :~ ,T ,
11 .9 " ;-,
9GROD'
Diip" We11'
- ea 4 ; $"le 0608d2
Well 4 ; Sample Duplicate 0668b01;
' - 1r.8 1 .73'
. ." 1.1 . , , .. " ,,4 .88t- ,(., 'lv ~`:f ~' . , .'Cx 4:e4"" ` : , . 1 :9" ' " '
~ .~;,1 ft
. 0 .3~8
.~1 .72, , .
a417;-.t
r+ -
r'%RPDSarrePleSarrlple Dup WaIL ' "1 .0 s :. ., f~9 .1+~'_
E06-0302-088~ ;, e9 5; Sampb 0608M -
E064302-089 - eA 5; Sempb DupfxAate 060802 ' . . .,
' Averaye Well
E06-0302-093
KRPD SamplsrSample Dup Well 1 - Distribution; Sample 060802
E06-0302-094 DWV D; istribution Sample Du icate 060802
,' .
.
Average DWDIsWbuEi
0.1527 ' '> 0:166~'
6A 89 8.8 3 .10 - , , 3 .13 3 .11
~0.6U1 : ' 0162 'a : . "' " ' 0:. 69..1 r - . "3.3 -" ~ . . 1 .30.,
1 .29 1 :30
' f 'XRPDSai~ple DupDW Dladlbd0
1 .1
1 .1
:) ~ 11 ~. 11 ,
u
WA = Not Applicable
(1) The anaytical method unoertaintfes areas blows: PFOA is 100%117%, PFOS is 100% t 24%. fordada aoceptance criteria and diswssfon.
(2) The Relative Percent Dilference between the SampIedSample DupAcate exoeeds 15r6.
, Refer to Sections 3 and 4
21 Methods
Analysis was completed following 3M Environmental Laboratory method ETS-8-154.1,;Determination
of Perfluorinated Acids, Alcohols, Amides, and S4lfonates in Water by Solid-Phase Extraction and High
Performance Liquid Chromatography/Mass SpectromeW.
'
2.2 Sample Collection
Samples were collected in NalgeneT"" (low-density polyethylene) bottles prepared at the 3M; ~ ' Environmental Laboratory. . Prior to-sample collection, bottles designated for field matrix spikes were spiked in the laboratory with a known volume of an appropriate matrix-spiking solution containing the' analytes of interest Collected sarrlple bottles *&e returned to the laboratory at ambient conditions on August 3, 2006.
PAGE 3 OF 14
3M ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY REPORT NO. E06-0302
2.3 Sample Preparation
All samples, calibration standards, and associated quality control samples were extracted using a modified procedure of ETS-8-154.1 . Briefly, 40 ml- of sample were loaded onto a pre-aonditioned Waters C18 solid phase extraction (SPE) cartridge (Sep-Pak,1 .0 g, 6 cc) using a vacuum manif:ld . The loaded SIDE cartridges were then eluted with 5 ml- of methanol. This extraction procedure concentrates the samples by a factor nf eight (Initial volume = 40 ml-,,final volume = 5 mL) . Lab control spikes extracted in ft same manner cross-valida#e ail the method modifications/deviations from ETS-8-154 .1 . See Section 3.6 for additional information :
Modifications from ETS-8-154.1 that were used for this analy*s: " Samples were not extracted in duplicate as samples were collected in duplicate in the field . " Extraction columns were not rinsed with 40% methanol after sample loading . " After loading the sample onto the colurimn, and just prior to eluting the column virith methanol, vacuum was applied for approximately 5 minutes to remove as much sample as possible.
2.4 Analysis
All samples and quality control samples were analyzed for PFOA and PFOS using high performance liquid chromatography/ tandem mass spectrometry (HPLC/MSIMS) . Pertinent instrument parameters, the liquid chromatography gradient program, and the specific mass transitions analyzed are descaibed in the tables below .
Table 3. Instrument Parameters.
Instrument Name
Ana cal Metlhod Mowed
Id Chrom ra
Guard column
Anal
colurnn
In on Volurtw
Mass S
ton Source Eleetrode
Pola
-----
Software
ETSGI
ETS-8-154.1
lent 1100
Prism RP 2 mm X 50 mm 5
Betasil C18 2.1 rrmm X 100 mm 5
5 bed ' tema API 5000
Tuft Spray
Z ra
-
a4ive
Ana" 1 .4.1
PAGE 4 OF 14
3M ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY REPORT NO. E06-0302
Table 4.LJquid Chromatography Gradient Program .
. .{ 7 . r
ETS Ginger
Stop Number --- 0
1
2
3 4 5 ^ . .,
TotalTlme ~ (min)
0 .
1 .0
11 .0
RowRadb .- ; :- r ., :- .'Pencent'k"
'niAfjnimonlum
' ''
to
.,r , . . ~ , . , ~, . .0
300
300
10.0
__13.5
~r 300 ,
10.0
14.0 _, -
300
80.0
17.0, : ~ ~ 300 .t . ~ ., : . . . . . t_ . 80:0 .
,. .
... ,4po .. ~40.0
. :~,.n " g0 f . 140.0 ., ; 40.0., ; ;,- .;,-
-4.~^ .n 4.~.
Table 5. Mass Transitions
elr~alyl~ : . MA PFOS
, Mias'TianalElon qvC?3 ' 4131369 413r119 413HB9 49s99 49980 499H30
Dw~rN Time (ms~ec) ? F ~' E7`~SGI
- . 1S0 150 - _130 150 160 150
Y-1 .~1. . ,
" ;
" 'i' Yf`~t4,' ..t^ .
3.1 Calibration
Calibration standards were prepared by spiking known amounts of stock solutions containing the , analytes of interest into 40 mL of ASTM type I water. Each spiked water standard was then extracted in the same manner as the collected samples . A total of twelve spiked standards ranging from 0.025 ng/mL to 25 ng/mL (nominal) were prepared . A quadratic, 1/x weighted, ,calibration curve,was used to fit the data for each analyte . The data were not forced through zero during the fitting process . Calculating the standard concentration using the peak area counts and the resultant calibration curve confirmed accuracy of each curve point.
Each curve point was quantitated using the overall calibration curve and reviewed for accuracy . Method calibration accuracy requirements of 100t25% (100t30% for the lowest curve point) were met. The correlation coefficients (r) were greater than 0.998 for each analyte .
3.2 Limit of Quantitation (LOQ) The LOQ for this analysis, as defined in method ETS-8-154.1, is the lowest non-zero calibration standard in the curve that meets linearity and accuracy requirements and which the area counts are at least twice those of the appropriate blanks. The nominal LOQ for PFOA, and PFOS was 0.025ng/mL .
3.3 System Suitability
The 1 .0 ng/mL extracted-calibration standard was analyzed five times at the beginning and end of the analytical sequence to demonstrate overall system suitability. All compounds met the acceptance
PAGE 5 OF 14
3M ENVIRONMENTAL LABORA TORY REPORT NO. E06-0302
criteria of less than 5% relative standard deviation (RSD) for peak area and less than 2rb RSD for retention time for the opening and closing system suitability injections.
3.4 Continuing CaUbratiort
During the course of the analytical sequence, several continuing calibration verification samples (CCVs) were analyzed to confirm that the instrument response and the initial calibration curve were still in control. All CCVs met method criteria.
3.5 Blanks
Three types of blanks ware prepared and ana"yzed with the samples : method blanks, solvent blanks, and field/trip blanks . Each blank result is reviewed and used to evaluate method performance to determine the LOO for each analyte. The trip blank (E06-0302-098) contained trace.amounts of both PFOA and PFOS. However, the amounts detected were at feast a factor of 3x less than the sample w;th thE lowest repo:table value for either PFOA or PFOS. Samples have not been corrected for Oe :rip blank concentration-
3.6 Lab Control Spikes (LCSs)
Low and high lab contro! spikes were prepared and anaiyzed in t,iplicate . LCSs were prflpared by spiking known amounts of the analytes into 40 mL of ASTM Type I water to produce the desired ~ concentration . The spiked water samples were then extracted and analyzed in the same nanner as the samples. Analysis of triplicate LCSs at the two specified levels cross-validates the analytical method as used here for any modifications/deviations from ETS 8-154.1 . Additionally, LCS results are used to determine overall method uncertainty (see Section 3.7). Eight LCS at three different levels were prepared with the samples. LCS-060803-1 prepared at a concentration of 0.203 ng/mL, had a recovery of 173% for PFOA. This sample results was determined to be a statistical outlier. The other two LES prepared at the same level met method cri~eria and demonstrate the analysis was in control . The following calculations were used to generate data in Table 6 . LCS Percent Recovery = Calculated Concentration ' 100%
Spike Concentration LCSkRSD = standard deviation LCS replicates ,1 00%
average LCS recovery
PAGE 6 OF 14
~ 0 OUj
Q 0
!
"
2" L
;
.' . :,
, 1
o`G Q '
U
'
C N C7
" ~. ., : ~x, ~ O' ~
M N, N 'q N ~ C G C . M
C OC
,, ~ . .
'
! ,
N N ~ O O O ~ ~' O C C NN N
.
~ T q OI .
(((~~~
N
pCp ~V ~p p
pp ~
N ~ N `! T 01 R CO OD
c O Cf O N
OOO s
O O O '' C G O O fV N N 7
d ~C
c.
N
0
U U U ~ ~ G7 ~
c
3
0 C)
t tt tt tt ~t ~ ~ ~ a
N N N, O O O O O O
O O O f~I fV N
J
O
N C7
b
m
0 ~
c
'R i a w
~F
o
C .
'
L
.E
,` ::r'??1'' .. . _t . ..
3M ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY REPORT NO. E08-0302
3.7 Analytical Method Uncertainty
Analytical uncertainty is based on historical QC data that is control charted and used to evaluate
method accuracy and precision. The mmeetthod uncertainty is calculated following ETS-12-012.2 . The
standard deviation is calculated for th~e set of accuracy results (in %) obtained for the QC samples . The expanded uncertainty is calculated by multiplying the standard deviation by factor o: 2, v,,hich
correspond with a confidence level of 95%.
.
Table 7. Analytical Method Uncertainty
Anal PFOA PFOS
Number of dafa polnts used for determining uncertai nty 203 189
Standard Dftrladon
8 .604 11 .89
Metlhod Uncertai 100%+/-17% 100% +/- 24%
3.8 Field Matrix Spikes (FMS) Low, mid, and high field matrix spikes were collected at each sampling pcint to verify that. the analytical method is applicable to the collected matrix. Field matrix spikes are generated by adding a measured volume of field sample to a container spiked by the laboratory with the target analytes prior to shipping sample containers for sample collection. Fiekt inatrix spike rMoveries within method acceptance criteria of 100t30% confirm that "unknown" components in the sample matrix do not significantly interfere with the extraction and analysis of the analytes of interest . Field matrix spikes are presented in the section 4 of this report.
FMSRecovery = (Sample Concentration of FMS-Average Concentration : Field Sample & Field Sample Dip.) .100% Spike Concentraton
3M ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY REPORT NO. E0B-0302
Table 8. Field Matrix Spike Concentrations
~_FIna1 SpIke ConcenOniCitin" jngYrnL) , " ",
Location
O
PF08 " ,
Low Field Maft S
0.203
;+0.2d ' '^''
Wei 1
Wid Field Nlabix Spike
0.508
0.503
High Field MeObcSpike
1 .02
i .81W''- .
Low Field M9bix Spice
- 0.508
0 .503
.
2
Md Fiek1 MOWSpike:
-.
.,. .._..
High Field Mat* Spike ,_
5.09
-
-
5.03 - . -
Low Fleld Maft Splke _-
2.48
2.46,
bid Field Matrix Spike
5.08
Well 3
Md-Hlgh Field Maft Spike
10 .2
5.03
ro :1 " Y ; ,>
' Hgh Fi%Id Ma6ifi Spic9-`
T5 .2!1~ ; .
i:
I!rnWAelh Witrnc Spike
;.> . , : a:2o3' 1 " "
6.201 " . ; . , ..
vvw . r. . 0..508 '. . .+ ~- . .. '' ' 0.503
" , High _ FieAd Matrix spike-, - 2.03 _
' 2. .1 . .
Lav Fioid Matrix Spike
- 0203
.
0.201
WON S
Mid Field Maft Spike
0.508
0.503 . -
High Field Maft Spike
2.03
2.01
~low Field Melliix Spike
i '
1 .02
' 1.01
pw Distribulbn
Mid Field Matrix Spike
2.03
2.01
High Field Matruc Spike
5.08
5.03
rip Blank
LowField MabixSpike Lid Field Mebix Spike KVII Field Mebix Spike
0 .203 2 .03 10.2
0.201 2.01 10.1
This was the third sampling round for these locations. The first sampling set collected on 5/18/06 was not reported due to QC requirements. The second sampling set collected on 7/27/O6 was not reported due to sampling errors. Additional information on these two sampling events can be found in the raw data file.
Tables 9 -15 summarize the sample results and field matrix spike recoveries for the seven locations as well as the Trip Blank. Each table provides the average concentration and the relative percent difference (RPD) of the sample and sample duplicate. Results and average values are rounded to three significant figures according to EPA rounding rules. Percent relative difference (%RPD) values are rounded to two significant figures. Because of rounding, values may vary slightly from those listed in the raw data .
Well 1
For Well 1, the RPD for both PFOA. and PFOS did not meet method criteria of <15% . Additional samples from this location would need to be collected to determine if the variability is statistically relevant.
PAGE 9 OF 14
3M ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY REPORT NO. E06-0302
Table 9. Well 1 Results
PFoa
PFOS
3M UMS ID
Desrri'
Oerscar ~LalJon
n
X R
Concentra0on
n
~iR~o
E06-0302-068 e11 ; Sampla 060802
' ` 0.191
NA
0 .386
' NA
E36-0302-069 eA 1 ; Sample Duplicate 360802
" 0.250
NA
0 .462
NA
I
EJ6-0302-070 e11 ; Field Matriuc Sp~ce Law 060802
' 0.475
1 28
0 .656 '
NR
E06-0302-071 e11 ; Field Matrix Spike Mid 060602
0.705 '
96 .3
0 .847
84 :1
E06-0302-072 ""e11 ; Fieid Matrix Spike High 060802 I ` 1 .22
98 .5
1 .23_
80.1 I
Average t:oncentYadon
t SLRPD
0.216
t 32W
~ 0.424 n L t 18Xm
NA = Not Applicable
NR = Not Reported = Endogenous concentration of anayte exceeded 2x the spiked level and theretore an acaur3te re=4ery
cannot be cskula~.ed .
.
.
(1) RPD exceeded method acceptance criteria of <15%. Additional samples from this location would need to be =41.6cled to
determine If the variability is statistically relevant. Field rnat;ix spike roorweries wee datert!mdned using the average
conoentnation detected In the sample and sample duplicate.
Table 10. Well 2 Results
--
3M LIMS !D
Dsscri
E06-0302-073 e12; Sample 060802 .
E06-0302-074 e12 ; Sample Duplicate OW= ;
E0&0302-075 eM 2 ; Field Matrix Spice Low 060802
E06-0302-076 all 2 ; Field Matrix Spice Mid 060802
E06-0302-077 ep 2 ; Field Matrix Spice H h 080802
Average ConcenbaNon (nghnl,) t SLRPD
PMA
~
aF OS
ceneenbatlon SLR
0.6,92 0.777
NA . NA
1 .17
86 .3
2 .05
85 .9
5 .06
85 .2
0.733 nghnL t 11%
CWceonsflon
:
'
n
SGReco .
2 .72
NA
3 .10 3 .26
4 .24 6 .95
I
NA
NR
1i17.5
80.3
291 nL t 13%
NA z Not Applicable NR = Not Reported = Endogenous oonoentnation of anayte exceeded 2x the spiked level and therefore an accurate recovery
cannot be calculated.
PAGE 10 OF 14
3M ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY REPORT N0. E06-0302
Table 11 . Well 3 Results
,
PFOA
..
PFOS
3M OMS ID
. , Descd tlo+r a
; . . , .ConcenbaSon . . ;~ . s,
Y.Raco
ConcentraBon
F .. n
StRecoverv.
E96-0302-678 Well 3,Sample 060802
. 4 .19
11 .7
I
NA .
ED6-0302-079 Well 3;,Sampb Duplicate 060802
n ; r 4 .68
.,):*A i:.r
11 .9
NA
E06-0302-080 Well 3', Field Matrix Spice Low 060802
6 .e6 ~t' . . .$1 .5
,13 .5
NR
E06-0302=081 Well 3; Field Matrix Spike Mid 060802 y ; t 9 .44
96 .,5, : :, ,a.d -18 .7
NR
E06-0302r082 Well 3; Red Matrix Spike Mid High ~ w , NC
E06-0302-102 Well 3: Field Matrix Spice Hig h 0608n2 : .
N
~ , 2Q.9 ;
90 .1
NA
, 23L7
78 .5
Average Concentratton n
t'KRPD
4.B4 nqIWL t 1.9%
11.8 n L 31.6%
NA =Not'ApjA`cable ~ .x. ., . .
. .. .
n t~ , , .
,
NR = Not Reported = Endogenous concentration of analyte exceeded 2x the spaced level and therefore an acxsurabe !-eoovery
CanIR/l YV~-ca14AlIROY .':I , . _
;t "L
""
'
. ~
!
.. ,
. ,
r
NC = Not Calcuiated = Sample concentration was aulaide of the, ar.ge of calibration :
Table 12. Well 4 Results
I
L.3M UMS !D
don
E06-0302-083 Well 4; Sample 060802
Efl60302-084 Well 4; Sample Dupiipte (160802 -
E06-0302-085 eq 4; Field Matrix Spike Low 060802
E06-0302-086 Well 4; Field Matrix Spike Mid 060802
E06-0302-U87 e14; Field Matrix Spice Hig h 060802
Avera ge Conca~nbaBon ir
t 44RPD
PFOA
Concenaaaon
n
'KReco
0 .436
NA
0 .398
NA
0 .604
NR
0 .887
92 .5
2 .18
86 .8
,
0.417 nghnC 11%
` .. . ` . . PFOS
Conoa+,aratton
n
XR
1 .71
NA
I
1 .73
I
1 .89
~ r 2 .04
'NA ' . . NR NR
3 .35
80 .8 '
i ' 9.72 r L t 1.0% '
NA = Not Applicable NR = Not Reported = Endogenous concentration of analyte exceeded 2x the spiked level and therefore an accurate recovery
cannot be c. alculated
PAGE 11 OF 14
3M ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY REPORT NO. E06-0302
Table 13. Well 5 Results
PFOA
PF.0S
. 3U L1MS 1D E06~0302-088 E06-0302-089 E06-0302-090
l~scrl
Well 5; Sample 060802~ ' .
eq 5; Sam ple apIcat6oso6o2
ell 5; Field Maft Sp" Low 060802
ConcenEraBon 0.601 . . . ~ =
%Reoo . NA
ConcenfraElon .
n
%
. .0 .152, I
NA
I
0.582
NA
`6 . q 66,
NA
0 .797
' NR '
0 .357
98 .6
E06-0302-091 ell 5; Fold Matrix Spice M (d 060802
1 .05
90.9'
0 .576
82 .9
E06-0302-09Y e15;' Fiekl Matrix Spike h 060802 ~ 2 :16
'7~ .2
' 1 .94
98 .3
A
ConcenbsSorr ftfnQ t %RPD
0.391 L 13.3%
0.1Q9 nwmL t 8.8%
NA = Not Applicable NR = Not Reported = Endogenous concentration of analyte exceeded 2x the spiked level and therefore an accurate recovery cannot be calculated .
Table 14. Drinking Water (DW) Distribution Results
3M LIMS ID E06-0302-09;i E06-0302-094 E06-0302-095
E06-0302-096
E06-0302-097
A
Pr-OA
Descri
DUV Distribution ; Sample 060802 DW DisiribuGon; Samoa Suplicate 060802 DW D; istribution Field Matrix Spike Low 060802 DW Dlstribut3on; Field Matrix Spike Mid 060802 DW Dfstribution; Field Matrix Spike High 060802 Concenbalbn fttnQ t %RPD
ConcanSaMon n 1 .30 1 .29
2 .10
%Reco NA NA
79 .0
3 .04
86 .0
5 .69 1.30
86 .6 L t 1.1%
pFOS
Concentradon n
3 .10 3 .13
%Reco NA NA
3 .82
NR
4 .83
85.4
7 .44 3.11 n
86 .0 L t 1.1%
NIA= NotApplicable NR = Not Reported = Endogenous concentration of anayte exceeded 2x the spiked level and therefore an accurate recovery
cannot be calculated.
PAGE 12 OF 14
3M ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY REPORT NO. E06-0302
Table 15. Trip Blank Results (')
Pr-OA
PFOS
3M UMS ID
E08-0302-098 E06-0302-099 E08-0302-,100 E06-0302-101
. ~
, , ~7escri~~ __
Trip Blank 080802
Trip Blank Spike Low 08Q802 Trip Blank Spike Mid 08087I,
Trip Blank Spike High 060802
~
Goncentraflon J _
fo ncentratlon
n )nL ... %' (6000 .
%Reco
0 .0615
NA
0.0498 ,
NA
0 .<"48
32 .0 ' ' () .231
90 .2
1 .98
' 94 .3_
.1 .92 , ~. 92 .9
i C .2
~ - 99 .0
9.85 ,.:
97 .1
NIA = Not Applicable `
'
(1) The trip blank amounts detected were at least a factor oi 3x lass than the sample with the lowest reportable value for either
PFOA or PFOS . Trip blank spikes recoveries were corrected for trip blank c. oncentration
PAGE 13 OF 14
3M ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY REPORT NO. E06-0302
Laboratory control spikes are used to determine the analytical method accuracy and precision for both analytes and are used to determine the method uncertainty for each analyte. Field matrix spike recoveries demonstrated that the analytical method was appropriate for the given sample matrix. Analysis was successfully completed following 3M Environmental Laboratory method ETS-B-154 .1 "Determination of Perfluorinated Acids, Alcohols, Amides, and Sutfonates in Water by Solid Phase Extraction and High Performance Liquid Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry" . Analytical results are reported in Table 2 of this report.
' `~aK ;' ;. All remaining sample and associated project data (hardc*y and electronic) will be archived according to 3M Environmental Laboratory standard operating procedures.
Susan T. Wolf, 3M Senior Ch&rhist
Date
6? -Ijeo-- -D
William K Reagen, Ph.D ., 3M Environmental Laboratory Technical Manager
Date
The 3M Environmental Laboratory's Quality Assurance Unit has audited the data and report for this project.
PAGE 14 OF 14