Document 91NEyNaq90ovy5VwKNVLRVMeV

AR226-2668 RECYCLED AR226-2668 Particle Size Distribution of PFOA in Ambient Air Data Summary and Analysis May 2004 Prepared for DuPont Fluoroproducts Washington Works 8480 Dupont Road Washington, WV 26181 Prepared By DuET - Reaction Engineering DuET - Environmental Engineering SUMMARY A sampling program was conducted to evaluate the particle size distribution (PSD) of PFOA in ambient air at the Washington Works site. PSD information is a critical input for air deposition modeling. In addition to providing a measure of the PSD, the sampling program also was used to calculate 72-hour average ambient air concentrations at 4 fence-line locations. Results from the sampling program are summarized below. An average PSD was calculated using data collected during a 72-hour sampling event at four fence line locations. The average PSD is shown in the following table. Particle Diameter, microns 4.0 1.7 0.8 0.5 0.3 0.28 Mass Fraction 0.056 0.129 0.092 0.072 0.053 0.598 Cumulative % Less Than Particle Size 94.4% 81.5% 72.3% 65.1% 59.8% These results compare favorably with previous PSD measurements for PFOA collected at the Washington Works site (circa 1995), shown in the table below. Particle Diameter, microns 4.0 2.0 0.75 0.4 0.2 Mass Fraction 0.033 0.127 0.035 0.267 0.538 Cumulative % Less Than Particle Size 96.7% 84.0% 80.5% 53.8% The overall mass concentration of PFOA for the 3-day test period is as follows: Station 1: 0.0099ug/m3 Station 2: 0.1099ug/m3 Station 3: 0.1030 ug/m3 Station 4: 0.0034ug/m3 Concentrations compare favorably to previous 24-hour sampling collected using OSHA Versatile Sampling (OVS) tubes, where the majority of monitored data was below a quantitation limit of approximately 0.14 ug/m3. In addition, sample results from this study show co-located samples at Stations 2 and 3 differ by less than 6%, showing acceptable precision in the sampling methodology. Also, the concentrations above are consistent with predicted model results and with previous .OVS tube sampling which show the location of Station 4 as the predominant upwind location and Stations 2 and 3 as the predominant downwind location. 2 INTRODUCTION The intent o f this report is to describe the sampling technique used to determine the particle size distribution (PSD) o f PFOA in the ambient air around the Washington Works Plant. This report will further present and discuss the results from a field test to measure the particle size distribution. SAMPLING STRATEGY The particle size program was conducted during a 72-hour period at four locations, shown in Figure 1. Locations were selected to represent areas o f the predicted maximum ambient air concentrations, according to air dispersion modeling. Two samplers were co-located (at Stations 2 and 3) to provide information about sampling precision. One background sampler was located to collect predicted upstream concentrations, assuming wind patterns follow predominant directions in the valley. SAMPLING METHODOLOGY AND DATA COLLECTION The PSD measurement was accomplished by means of a cascade impactor, an inertial classification device. An impactor operates under the principle that if a stream of particle-laden air is directed at a surface, particles o f sufficient inertia will impact upon the surface and the smaller particles will follow the air streamlines and will not be collected. Thus, an impactor consists simply of a nozzle or jet stage, either round or rectangular in shape, and an impaction plate or substrate. At each location, sampling equipment consisted of a Tisch Model 235 High Volume Cascade Impactor rented from RAMCON Environmental in Kingston Springs, Tennessee. The complete sampler consisted o f the 5-stage impactor head attached to a high volume sampling pump. (See Figure 2.) RAMCON also provided on-site support to mobilize and operate sampling equipment. Each sampler was operated for a nominal 72-hr period in order to maximize the potential for collecting sufficient mass of the target analyte. The impactors were calibrated in accordance with Reference Method for the Determination o f Suspended Particulate Matter in the Atmosphere (High- Volume, Method), CFR 40 Part 50.11, Appendix B, July 1, 1976 (Reference 1) and operated in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions (Reference 2). One exception to routine procedure was made, in order to accommodate the objective o f the program. Normally, the substrates (cellulose targets and filter) are dried in a desiccator and pre-weighed and the process is repeated post-test to obtain the mass collected. However, this gravimetric protocol was not followed, in order to distinguish only the mass o f PFOA collected in the sampler from other compounds and dusts that may have been collected. Instead, material from each o f the collection stages was analyzed separately, specifically to determine the mass o f the target analyte at each stage, or cut size. In order to ensure the material was adequately retained on filters during the sampling period, preliminary laboratory testing was performed. Results from lab testing showed that acceptable analytical recovery was demonstrated. Details are included in Appendix 1. At each o f the four locations, flow rates and run time were recorded and calibrations were performed to determine cut sizes and actual airflow during the sampling period. Calibration tables are included in Appendix 2. 3 ANALYTICAL METHODS Cellulose filters were extracted and analyzed for PFOA by Exygen Research, State College, PA. Exygen extracted the sample with water using methods that are currently being validated. Following extraction, the samples were analyzed using methodology described in documentation submitted to the public docket under OPPT-2003-0012-0040. That methodology uses a methanol extraction with liquid chromatograph/mass spectrometer/mass spectrometer (LC/MS/MS). Exygen's complete report (entitled Particle Size Distribution Study 3/04) is included in the public docket as OPPT-2003-0012-0659. RESULTS For each o f the four sampling locations, a mass o f PFOA was determined for separate cut sizes. This information was used to calculate the PSD both as a weight fraction and as a cumulative distribution. Sampling data for each station is included in Appendix 3. Because im pactor gas flow rate effects the calculated cut size, slight differences in cut sizes were apparent (a maximum o f 6%). These data were averaged to provide a single representative PSD for PFOA in ambient air. Table 1 summarizes particle size data from each o f the station. Table 2 shows the final representative PSD, based on averaging from four sampling locations. In addition to determining the PSD, sampling data were also used to determine concentrations of PFOA at each sampling location. The overall mass concentration of PFOA for the 3-day test period is as follows: Station 1 Station 2 Station 3 Station 4 0.0099 ug/m3 0.1099 ug/nT 0.1030 ug/m3 0.0034 ug/m3 Concentrations compare favorably to previous 24-hour sampling collected using OSHA Versatile Sampling (OVS) tubes, where the majority of monitored data was below a quantitation limit of approximately 0.14 ug/m3. In addition, sample results from this study show co-located samples at Stations 2 and 3 differ by less than 6%, showing acceptable precision in the sampling methodology. Also, the concentrations above are consistent with predicted model results and with previous OVS tube sampling which show the location o f Station 4 as the predominant upwind location and Stations 2 and 3 as the predominant downwind location. 4 Table 1 NORMALIZED PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION DATA SUMMARY Station 1 Station 2 Particle Size Um Particle Size um 4.1 1.71 0.86 0.55 0.28 4.19 1.75 0.87 0.55 0.29 Station 3 Particle Size um 3.96 1.66 0.83 0.53 0.27 Station 5 Particle Size um 3.93 1.65 0.83 0.53 0.27 <0.28 <0.29 <0.27 <0.27 Avg. PSD Particle Size um 4.0 1.7 0.8 . 0.5 0.3 Station 1 Cum % < % 92.1% 74.2% 64.1% 54.6% 47.6% <0.28 Station 2 Cum % < % 95.9% 82.5% 73.9% 68.5% 67.9% Station 3 Cum % < % 96.6% 85.1% 74.6% 68.1% 61.8% Station 4 Cum % < % 93.2% 84.3% 76.7% 69.3% 61.9% Table 2. Representative PSD for PFOA at Washington Works Site Particle Diameter, microns 4.0 1.7 0.8 0.5 0.3 0.28 Mass Fraction 0.056 0.129 0.092 0.072 0.053 0.598 Cumulative % Less Than Particle Size 94.4% 81.5% 72.3% 65.1% 59.8% 5 Figure 2: High Volume Sampler with Cascade Imoactor Size selective particulate high volume sampler Multi-stage cascade impactor 6 REFERENCE DOCUMENTS 1. Reference M ethod for the Determination o f Suspended Particulate Matter in the Atmosphere (High-Volume Method), CFR 40 Part 50.11, Appendix B, July 1, 1976 2. Series 230 High Volume Cascade Impactor Operation Manual, Tisch Environmental, Clevis, OH 45002, March, 2004 7 APPENDIX 1 Laboratory Test Report for Determination o f Filter Paper Retention Efficiency PFOA Filter Retention Study Laboratory Apparatus Apparatus: 3 Cole Parmer rotameters, cat. # A-32461-58 6 filter cartridges 2 Air pumps, MICRO-MAX 1, Micro-Trap, Inc. Stainless steel manifold w/vacuum gauge 14" Tygon tubing W hatman 41 filter paper, cat. # 1441 866 Pentadecafluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), Oakwood Products 20 mL scintillation vials w/screw caps o 2 H ii 1/4" Tubing Xd zr Manifold Assembly Vacuum Pressure Gauge EC Filter Holder Figure 1: Experimental Apparatus for Filter Retention Study Laboratory Procedure To determine the retention efficiency of the filter paper used for the high-volume cascade impactor, a 1-pg spike (lOjiL of 100.7|ig/mL in acetone) of PFOA was applied to five 47-mm circles of filter paper cut from the larger paper used in the impactor. The circles were contained in a standard filter cassette (cat. # 225-4702 SKC, Inc., Eighty Four, PA, USA). The spiked cassettes were allowed to air dry and then placed in series with air first passing through an unspiked filter paper cassette then the spiked cassette. The flowrate used for this lab test was 10.5 liters per minute, to simulate the airflow used during high-volume sampling. Specific procedures are described below. 1. Assemble the experimental apparatus as depicted in Figure 1. Cut out eight circular filter disks having a diameter o f 4.5 cm. Use gloves to prevent contamination. Soak eight vials/caps in deionized water and air-dry two times. 2. Load a filter disk into each filter cartridge. Turn on the air pumps and calibrate the airflow through each rotometer with a bubble flow meter (10.5 L/min.). 3. Put one filter disk into a vial, secure and label as Experiment Blank. Apply 10 pL o f the 100.7 ppm PFOA stock solution (in HR-GC acetone) to a filter disk. Put this disk into a vial, secure and label as 1 pg Spike. 4. Turn off the air pumps. Remove each o f the three sample filters from the cartridges. Apply 10 pL o f the PFOA stock solution to each sample filter. Reinsert each sample filter into its cartridge. 5. Turn on the air pumps. Record the time. 6. Turn off pumps when 24 hours have elapsed. Remove the blank filter paper (closest to the rotometer), insert and secure into a vial and label as 24 hr. blank. Remove the sample filter paper (closest to the manifold), insert and secure into a vial and label as 24 hr. sample. Cap o ff the manifold line with a %" tubing cap. Turn on air pumps. 7. Turn off pumps when 48 hours have elapsed. Repeat step 6 with the exception o f labeling the filter papers as 48 hr. blank and 48 hr. sample. 8. Turn o f pumps when 72 hours have elapsed. Repeat step 6 with the exception o f labeling the filter papers as 72 hr. blank and 72 hr. sample. 9. Ship all vials to Exygen for LC/MS/MS analysis. 10 Analytical Methodology Filter paper samples were placed in a 50-mL propylene centrifuge tubes and fortified and air-dried, if needed. Forty mL of water was added, then the tube capped and shaken overnight (12-24 hours) on a wrist-action shaker. The tubes were removed from the shaker and centrifuged at approximately 5000 rpm for approximately 10 minutes. The supemate was decanted into another 50-mL polypropylene centrifuge tube. Qg solid-phase extraction cartridges (Waters, Milford, MA, USA) were preconditioned by passing 10-mL of methanol then 5-mL of water through each. The sample was then loaded onto the cartridge and the eluate discarded. The column was then washed with 40% methanol in water and the eluate discarded. The cartridge was then eluted with approximately 5-mL of 100% methanol. Five mL of the eluate was collected in a 15-mL polypropylene centrifuge and transported for LC/MS/MS analysis. The analysis was performed on a HP 1100 series electrospray mass spectrometer (Agilent, Little Falls, DE, USA) with a 2mM ammonium acetate (A) and methanol (B) gradient (0 time, 70% A; 6.0 min., 10%A; 12 minutes stop; post time 4 minutes) at 0.3 mL/minute. A 5-pL aliquot was injected onto a Betasil Cis column (2 mm x 30 mm, 3 pm) (Thermo Hypersil-Keystone, San Jose, CA, USA) at 35 C. Ions 369 (m/z) (PFOA) and 469 (m/z)(surrogate) were monitored. A six-point (nonzero) linear calibration curve was used for quantitation. The standards were measured both at the beginning of the run sequence and were interspersed throughout the run. For the initial run (6 points) and the combined initial and interspersed set (12 points), the correlation coefficient (R) was >.0.992 (coefficient of determination, R2>0.985). A matrix control sample fortified with PFOA was included with a blank with each set of samples. Fortification and surrogate recoveries falling within 75 to 125% were considered acceptable. Samples in which no peaks were detected (i.e., signal: noise ratio < 3 : 1) at the corresponding retention times were reported as ND (not detected). Samples in which peaks are detected at the corresponding analyte retention time but less than the lowest concentration of the calibration standards (50 ng/mL) were reported as NQ (not quantifiable). The limit of quantitation for this method was 50ng/mL (or 50 ng per fraction). Method blanks did not contain analyte at levels greater than the LOQ. Analytical Results Table A summarizes results from this experiment. Table A. Retention of PFOA on Whatman #41 Filter Paper at 10.5 L/min tim e (hour) 0 0 24 24 volume (m3) 0 0 15 15 Mass detected (pg) 0.02 0.82 0.02 0.75 % retention NA NA NA 91 11 APPENDIX 2 Calibration Tables Table A Ramcon Environmental TE-5100-D MFC Sampler Calibration (Dickson recorder) Location-> Sampler-> Dupont WW #1 TE-5000 SITE Date-> Tech-> 23-Mar-04 Dale Sawyer Sampler Elevation (feet) Sea Level Pressure (in Hg) Temperature (deg F) Seasonal SL Press, (in Hg) Seasonal Temp, (deg F) CONDITIONS 0 30.00 Corrected Pressure (mm Hg) 40 Temperature (deg K) 30.00 Corrected Seasonal (mm Hg) 40 Seasonal Temp, (deg K) 762 277 762 277 Serial#-> Make-> Tisch-Env Model-> TE-5025 CALIBRATION ORIFICE Qstd Qstd Intercepts Date Certified-> Slope-> 2.03415 -0.02843 Plate or Test# CALIBRATION H 20 Qstd (in) (m3/min) I IC (chart) (corrected) LINEAR REGRESSION 18 13 10 7 5 10.80 9.40 6.20 4.26 2.32 1.691 1.578 1.284 1.067 0.791 54.0 45.0 38.0 20.0 10.0 56.04 46.70 39.43 20.75 10.38 Slope = Intercept = Coir. coefF.= 50.2351 -29.7495 0.9856 Calculations Qstd = l/m[Sqrt(H20(Pa/Pstd)(Tstd/Ta))-b] IC = I[Sqrt(Pa/Pstd)(Tstd/Ta)] Qstd = standard flow rate IC = corrected chart response I = actual chart response m = calibrator Qstd slope b = calibrator Qstd intercept Ta = actual temperature during calibration (deg K) Pa = actual pressure during calibration (mm Hg) Tstd = 298 deg K Pstd = 760 mm Hg For subsequent calculation of sampler flow: l/m((I)[Sqrt(298/Tav)(Pav/760)]-b) Qstd (ft3/min) 59.700867 55.730214 45.353563 37.678602 27.935039 Chart 45.0 40.0 33.0 24.0 10.0 Chart setting for 40 CFM std 24.825491 First 24 hours 7:50 Chart Reading 30 CFM std 44.91 Average CFM std 43.36 7:46 18 33.78 Second 24 hours 8:00 Chart Reading 32 CFM std 46.76 8:16 30 44.91 Third 24 hours 9:42 Chart Reading 32 CFM std 46.76 9:38 28 43.05 13 Table B Ramcon Environmental TE-5100-D MFC Sampler Calibration (Dickson recorder) Location-> Sampler-> Dupont WW #2 TE-5000 SITE Date-> Tech-> 23-Mar-04 Dale Sawyer Sampler Elevation (feet) Sea Level Pressure (in Hg) Temperature (deg F) Seasonal SL Press, (in Hg) Seasonal Temp, (deg F) CONDITIONS 0 30.00 Corrected Pressure (mm Hg) 40 Temperature (deg K) 30.00 Corrected Seasonal (mm Hg) 40 Seasonal Temp, (deg K) 762 277 762 277 Serial#-> Make-> Tisch-Env Model-> TE-5025 CALIBRATION ORIFICE Qstd Qstd Intercepts Date Certified-> Slope-> 2.03415 -0.02843 Plate or Test# CALIBRATION H20 Qstd I IC (in) (m3/min) (chart) (corrected) LINEAR REGRESSION 18 11.00 1.706 47.0 48.77 Slope = 36.3187 13 9.00 1.544 41.0 42.55 Intercept = -13.1594 10 7.00 1.364 35.0 36.32 Corr. coeff.= ON1' 7 4.00 1.034 25.0 25.94 5 2.50 0.821 15.0 15.57 Calculations Qstd = l/m[Sqrt(H20(Pa/Pstd)(Tstd/Ta))-b] IC = I[Sqrt(Pa/Pstd)(Tstd/Ta)] Qstd = standard flow rate IC = corrected chart response I = actual chart response m = calibrator Qstd slope b = calibrator Qstd intercept Ta = actual temperature during calibration (deg K) Pa = actual pressure during calibration (mm Hg) Tstd = 298 deg K Pstd = 760 mm Hg For subsequent calculation of sampler flow: l/m((I)[Sqrt(298/Tav)(Pav/760)]-b) First 24 hours Second 24 hours 8:00 8:14 8:00 7:44 Chart Reading Chart Reading 30 27 24 18 CFM std CFM std 45.33 42.58 39.84 34.35 Average CFM std 41.06 Third 24 hours 9:30 Chart Reading 29 CFM std 44.41 Qstd (ft3/min) 60.246568 54.54219. 48.159973 36.525984 28.979694 Chart 45.0 40.0 33.0 24.0 10.0 Chart setting for 40 CFM std 24.330345 9:32 24 39.84 14 Table C Ramcon Environmental TE-5100-D MFC Sampler Calibration (Dickson recorder) Loeation-> Sampler-> Dupont WW #3 TE-5000 SITE Date-> Tech-> 23-Mar-04 Dale Sawyer Sampler Elevation (feet) Sea Level Pressure (in Hg) Temperature (deg F) Seasonal SL Press, (in Hg) Seasonal Temp, (deg F) CONDITIONS 0 30.00 Corrected Pressure (mm Hg) 40 Temperature (deg K) 30.00 Corrected Seasonal (mm Hg) 40 Seasonal Temp, (deg K) 762 277 762 277 Serial#-> Make-> Tisch-Env Model-> TE-5025 CALIBRATION ORIFICE Qstd Qstd Intercepts Date Certified-> Slopes 2.03415 -0.02843 Plate or Test# CALIBRATION H20 Qstd I IC (in) (m3/min) (chart) (corrected) LINEAR REGRESSION 18 10.00 1.627 49.0 50.85 Slope = 32.8629 13 8.00 1.457 39.0 40.47 Intercept = -4.8618 10 6.00 1.264 34.0 35.28 Corr. coeff.= 0.9811 7 4.00 1.034 30.0 31.13 5 2.50 0.821 21.0 21.79 Calculations Qstd = l/m[Sqrt(H20(Pa/Pstd)(Tstd/Ta))-b] IC = I[Sqrt(Pa/Pstd)(Tstd/Ta)] Qstd = standard flow rate IC = corrected chart response I = actual chart response m = calibrator Qstd slope b = calibrator Qstd intercept Ta = actual temperature during calibration (deg K) Pa = actual pressure during calibration (mm Hg) Tstd = 298 deg K Pstd = 760 mm Hg For subsequent calculation of sampler flow: l/m((I)[Sqrt(298/Tav)(Pav/760)]-b) First 24 hours Second 24 hours 8:00 8:14 7:50 7:42 Chart Reading Chart Reading 38 34 34 28 CFM std CFM std 49.97 46.73 46.73 41.86 Average CFM std 47.54 Third 24 hours 9:30 Chart Reading 40 CFM std 51.60 Qstd (ft3/min) 57.465818 51.451098. 44.624084 36.525984 28.979694 Chart 45.0 40.0 33.0 24.0 10.0 Chart setting for 40 CFM std 25.815782 9:34 36 48.35 15 Table D Ramcon Environmental TE-5100-D MFC Sampler Calibration (Dickson recorder) Location-> Sampler-> Dupont WW #5 TE-5000 SITE Date-> Tech-> 23-Mar-04 Dale Sawyer Sampler Elevation (feet) Sea Level Pressure (in Hg) Temperature (deg F) Seasonal SL Press, (in Hg) Seasonal Temp, (deg F) CONDITIONS 0 30.00 Corrected Pressure (mm Hg) 40 Temperature (deg K) 30.00 Corrected Seasonal (mm Hg) 40 Seasonal Temp, (deg K) 762 277 762 277 Serial#-> Make-> Tisch-Env Model-> TE-5025 CALIBRATION ORIFICE Qstd Qstd Intercepts Date Certified-> Slope-> 2.03415 -0.02843 Plate or Test# CALIBRATION H20 Qstd I IC (in) (m3/min) (chart) (corrected) LINEAR REGRESSION 18 11.00 1.706 45.0 13 10.00 1.627 40.0 10 8.00 1.457 33.0 7 . 7.00 1.364 24.0 5 3.00 0.898 10.0 46.70 41.51 34.25 24.91 10.38 Slope = Intercept = Corr. coeff.= 44.6357 -31.4024 0 O'-' ' Calculations Qstd = 1/m[Sqrt(H20(Pa/Pstd)(Tstd/Ta))-b] IC = I[Sqrt(Pa/Pstd)(Tstd/Ta)] Qstd = standard flow rate IC = corrected chart response I = actual chart response m = calibrator Qstd slope b = calibrator Qstd intercept Ta = actual temperature during calibration (deg K) Pa = actual pressure during calibration (mm Hg) Tstd = 298 deg K Pstd = 760 mm Hg For subsequent calculation o f sampler flow: l/m((I)[Sqrt(298/Tav)(Pav/760)]-b) First 24 hours Second 24 hours 8:50 8:00 8:00 Chart Reading Chart Reading 38 28 28 CFM std CFM std 55.83 47.90 47.90 Average CFM std 48.30 " 8:42 18 39.97 Third 24 hours 8:42 Chart Reading 34 CFM std 52.66 Qstd (ft3/min) 60.246568 57.465818. 51.451098 48.159973 31.698556 Chart 45.0 40.0 33.0 24.0 10.0 Chart setting for 40 CFM std 18.458542 8:33 25 45.52 IP 16 APPENDIX 3 Sampling Data for Stations 1 - 4 Analysis Number: Client: Contract Number: Event 1____________ Washington Works Table 1 EVENT 1- STATION 1 DATA SUMMARY Sampling Site Sampling Date Station 1 3/23/2004 Stage # 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 "x 10" Filter # E1-S1-1 E1-S1-2 E1-S1-3 E1-S1-4 E1-S1-5 n/a E1-S1-6A E1-S1-6B Flow Flow Avg. Flow Run T im e Analyte @ Start @ End 3/23/04 8:00 3/26/04 8:33 AM AM scfm 43.36 43.36 43.36 43.36 43.36 hrs 72.55 72.55 72.55 72.55 72.55 ug 4.28 9.64 5.44 5.12 3.76 43.36 72.55 25.7 Total : 53.94 Comments: Total Mass Emission : 0.0099 ug/mA3 W eight Particle Size ug/m A3 0.000801 urn 4.1 W eight % Cum % < % 7.9% 92.1% 0.001804 0.001018 0.000958 0.000704 1.71 0.86 0.55 0.28 17.9% 10.1% 9.5% 7.0% 74.2% 64.1% 54.6% 47.6% 0.004810 <0.28 47.6% 100.0% Analysis Number: Client: Contract Number: Event 1 Washington Works Table 2 EVENT 1- STATION 2 DATA SUMMARY Sampling Site Sampling Date Station 2 3/23/2004 Stage # Filter# 1 E1-S2-1 2 E1-S2-2 3 E1-S2-3 4 E1-S2-4 5 E1-S2-5 6 n/a 8 "x 10" E1-S2- 6A E1-S2- 6B Flow @ Start 3/23/04 9:05 AM Flow @ End 3/26/04 9:33 AM Avg. Run Time Analyte Flow scfm hrs ug 41.06 72.47 23.1 41.06 41.06 41.06 41.06 72.47 72.47 72.47 72.47 76.0 48.8 30.3 3.4 Weight ug/mA3 0.004570 0.015037 0.009655 0.005995 0.000673 Particle Size urn 4.19 1.75 0.87 0.55 0.29 Weight % % 4.1% Cum % < 95.9% 13.4% 8.6% 5.4% 0.6% 82.5% 73.9% 68.5% 67.9% 41.06 72.47 384.0 0.075977 <0.29 67.9% Total : 565.6 100.0% Comments: Total Mass Emission : 0.1099 ug/mA3 19 Table 3 EVENT 1- STATION 3 DATA SUMMARY Analysis Number: Event 1______ Client: Washington Works Contract Number: Sampling Site Sampling Date Station 3 3/23/2004 00 X --X o Stage # Filter# 1 E1-S3-1 2 E1-S3-2 3 E1-S3-3 4 E1-S3-4 5 E1-S3-5 6 n/a E1-S36A E1-S36B Flow (5) Start 3/23/04 9:05 AM Flow m End 3/26/04 9:34 AM Avg. Run Time Analyte Flow scfm hrs . ug 43.36 72.48 18.8 43.36 43.36 43.36 43.36 72.48 72.48 72.48 72.48 64.8 58.8 36.2 35.2 Weight ug/mA3 0.003522 0.012138 0.011014 0.006781 0.006594 Particle Size urn 3.96 1.66 0.83 0.53 0.27 43.36 72.48 346.0 0.064812 <0.27 Total : 559.8 Comments: Total Mass Emission : 0.1030 ug/mA3 Weight % % 3.4% Cum % < 96.6% 11.6% 10.5% 6.5% 6.3% 61.8% 85.1% 74.6% 68.1% 61.8% ' 100.0% I Table 4 EVENT 1- STATION 5 DATA SUMMARY Analysis Number: Client: Contract Number: Event 1 _________ __ Washington Works__________ Sampling Site Sampling Date Station 5 3/23/2004 Stage # Filter# 1 E1-S5-1 2 E1-S5-2 3 E1-S5-3 4 E1-S5-4 5 E1-S5-5 6 n/a 8 "x 10" E1-S5-6A E1-S5-6B Flow @ Start 3/23/04 8:50 AM Flow @ End 3/26/04 8:33 AM Avg. Run Time Analyte Flow scfm hrs ug 43.36 71.72 1.3 43.36 43.36 43.36 43.36 71.72 71.72 71.72 71.72 1.7 1.4 1.4 1.4 Weight ug/mA3 0.000239 0.000312 0.000267 0.000259 0.000259 Particle Size urn 3.93 1.65 0.83 0.53 0.27 . 43.36 71.72 11.5 0.002173 <0.27 Total : 18.54 Weight % % 6.8% Cum % < 93.2% 8.9% 7.6% 7.4% 7.4% 84.3% 76.7% 69.3% 61.9% 61.9% 100.0% Comments: Total Mass Emission : 0.0034 ug/mA3 21