Document O3zrxrEayQQ47Z7dye5r91djK

COMPARISON OF DIFFUSIONAL ORGANIC VAPOR MONITORS WITH CHARCOAL TUBES FOR SAMPLING LABORATORY CHALLENGES TO CONTAMINANT MIXTURES, Anders, L.W. and Mullins, H. E., Occupational Health & Safety Products Division, 3M Company, St. Paul, Minnesota 55144 ABSTRACT Because most industrial environments contain numerous contaminants, a laboratory evaluation compared performance of diffusional organic vapor monitors to charcoal tubes when sampling mixtures of known concentrations. The challenges consisted of a binary mixture of toluene and methyl ethyl ketone and a tertiary mixture of benzene, toluene and xylene. Unleaded gasoline and unleaded gasoline containing various alcohols, e.g. ethanol, methanol and t-butyl alcohol were the complex mixtures used in the evaluation. The results of each sampling technique are correlated with the challenges of known concentrations. 3H 008980 w 2- COMPARISON OF DIFFUSIONAL ORGANIC VAPOR MONITORS WITH CHARCOAL TUBES FOR SAMPLING LABORATORY CHALLENGES TO CONTAMINANT MIXTURES. Anders, L.W. and Mullins, H.E. OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH & SAFETY PRODUCTS DIVISION, 3M COMPANY, SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA 55144 INTRODUCTION Diffusional sampling devices such as the 3M Organic Vapor Monitor (OVM) offer many advantages for measuring concentration levels of industrial contaminants because they are lightweight, require no power, pump or tubing and are not likely to impede the work activity of the user. Because these sampling devices could replace the conventional pump and charcoal tubes for sampling the industrial environment, this evaluation compared the precision and accuracy of the charcoal tubes to the 3M-0rganic Vapor Monitors. A selected set of simple and complex mixtures were used to generate air concentrations normally found in the industrial environment. This evaluation consisted entirely of sampling laboratory generated air concentrations of the contaminant mixtures. Evaluating the precision and accuracy of these two sampling techniques is in keeping with the NIOSH Standards Completion Program where the precision and accuracy of the charcoal tubes were validated by sampling known air concentrations of organic vapor contaminant from a laboratory generation system.' 3M 008981 -3- PROCEDURE To evaluate and compare the sampling performance of charcoal tubes to the 3m Organic Vapor Monitors, known air concentrations were generated for simple and complex mixture in a laboratory generatordilution system. This system as illustrated in Figure 1, consists of a calibrated dry air gas meter, a syringe device mechanism to deliver the liquid contaminant mixture to a heated manifold, and a device to hold eighteen (18) charcoal tubes or monitors. The air concentration can be determined by measuring the initial and final weight of the syringe containing the liquid contaminant and measuring the total air volume during a sampling period of known time. The evaluation consisted of two parts; Part I - Comparison of Charcoal Tubes to 3m - Organic Vapor Monitor (OVM) when Sampling Contaminant Mixtures at Constant Concentrations, and Part II - Comparison of Charcoal Tubes to 3M - Organic Vapor Monitor (OVM) when Sampling Contaminant Mixtures at Variable Concentrations. In Part i, mixtures and desired concentrations used for the comparison are tabulated in Table I. In this part of the evaluation, three (3) charcoal tubes and three (3) 3m - Organic Vapor Monitors samples were collected at intervals of one (1), two (2), three (3), five (5), six (6) and seven (7) hours. For each mixture, the thirty six (36) samples (18 charcoal tubes and 18 - 3M Organic Vapor monitors) were collected during an eight hour sampling period. The time-weighted-average 3H 008982 -4- concentration during the eight hour period was determined by measuring the total air volume and the weight of the liquid contaminant mixture delivered to the heated air manifold measuring the syringe/liquid contaminant weight at the beginning and at the end of the sampling period. Eighteen (18) samples could be collected simultaneously, therefore, the following sampling profile allowed the thirty six (36) samples to be collected in an eight hour period. The one hour samples were followed by the seven hour samples, the two hour samples followed by the six hour samples, and the three hour samples followed by the five hour samples. In order to compare the results with the known time-weighted-average concentration for the eight hour period as determined by mass balance of the air flow and liquid contaminant flow to the heated manifild, the results of the following data sets must be combined. The results of one hour samples combined with the seven hour samples, the two hour samples combined with the six hour samples and the three hour samples combined with the five hour samples. Although the results of the above sample sets had to be combined to compare them to the time-weighted-average concentration determined by mass balance of the laboratory generation system, a comparison of the charcoal tube results can be compared to the 3M-0rganic Vapor Monitor results for each of sampling intervals. In Part II, the mixtures and desired concentrations sampled for the evaluation are tabulated in Table II. The evaluations in Part II are divided into exposure profile A where a contaminant mixture is sampled for one hour followed by sampling air with a zero concentration of the contaminant mixture for one hour. 3M 008983 -5- This sequence was repeated four times. In exposure profile B, a contaminant mixture is sampled for one hour, then air with a zero concentration of the contaminant mixture is sampled for three hours. This sequence was repeated. In both profiles, the total sampling period was eight hours with the difference being in profile A, where the contaminant mixture concentration is sampled for four hours while in profile B, the contaminant mixture concentration is sampled for only two hours. In this part of the evaluation, the variable concentrations were sampled to evaluate if any sample loss occurs during the sampling period when the contaminant mixture concentration was zero. ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES After sample collection, the 3M-0rganic Vapor Monitor and the charcoal tubes were capped and stored at ambient temperatures. The recovery coefficients were determined for the 3M-0rganic Vapor Monitor according to the recommended procedure. The recovery coefficient for the charcoal tubes were also determined by spiking the liquid mixture on a filter paper and allowing the charcoal to collect the organic vapors. After desorbing the samples with carbon disulfide, the analysis was performed using a Hewlett Packard (5840A) gas chromatograph equipped with a flame ionization detector. For the gasoline samples, the total integrated area was used to determine the sample weight. 3H 008984 -6- For the charcoal tubes, the sampling rates were determined bycalibration of critical orifices which ranged from 30-45 cubic centimeters per minute. For the 3M-Organic Vapor Monitor, the sampling rates for gasoline and naphtha were determined in separate experiments by measuring the weight collection rate from a challenge of known concentration. The sampling rates and recovery coefficients are tabulated in Table III. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Part I - COMPARISON OF CHARCOAL TUBES TO 3M - ORGANIC VAPOR MONITOR (OVH) WHEN SAMPLING CONTAMINANT MIXTURES AT CONSTANT CONCENTRATIONS. The results of sampling a toluene/methyl ethyl ketone mixture are summarized and tabulated in Table IV. For toluene, there is excellent correlation of the results of charcoal tube samples and the 3M Organic Vapor Monitor samples for each of the sampling intervals. The time-weighted-average concentrations as determined by the combined results of each sample set (18 samples) was 186 mg/m^ measured by the 3M - Organic Vapor Monitor and 176 mg/m measured by the charcoal tubes. When compared to the concentration as determined by the mass balance of the generation system, these results are 97% and 92% of the concentration for 3M - Organic Vapor Monitor and charcoal tubes respectively. For methyl ethyl ketone, the results of the charcoal tubes are very low and compare poorly with those of the 3M - Organic Vapor monitor. For the 3M -- Organic Vapor Monitor, the time--weighted-average 3M 008985 -7- concentration determined by the combined sample set (18) was 144 mg/m3. This is 104% of the concentration determined,by mass balance of the generation system. For the charcoal tubes, the timeweighted-average concentration determined by the combined sample set (18) was 50 mg/m3 or 36% of the concentration determined by mass balance of the generation system. These charcoal tubes were not overloaded, in fact, no methyl ethyl ketone was found in the back section of the charcoal tubes. In Table V, the results of sampling a benzene/toluene/xylene mixture are summarized and tabulated. For each of the contaminants in the mixture, there is excellent correlation of the charcoal tube with, the 3M-Organic Vapor Monitor at all sampling intervals. The total time-weighted-average concentration determined by combining the eighteen (18) samples collected by each technique enables an assess ment of the accuracy by comparison with the concentration determined by mass balance of generation system. For benzene, the results are 91% and 97% for the 3M - Organic Vapor Monitor and charcoal tubes respectively when comparing to the mass balance concentration. For toluene, the results are 90% and 95% and for xylene the results are 87% and 91% for the 3M - Organic Vapor Monitor and charcoal tubes respectively for each data set. In Table VI, the results of sampling a complex mixture, VM & P Naphtha, are summarized and tablulated. There is excellent correlation of the charcoal tubes with the 3M -- Organic Vapor Monitor at each of the sampling intervals. The accuracy is also excellent as determined by 3H 008986 -8- comparing the time-weighted-average concentration determined by the mass balance of the generation system. When combining all eighteen (18) samples collected by one technique, the accuracy is 95% and 97% for the 3m - Organic Vapor Monitor and charcoal tubes respectively. Unleaded gasoline was sampled at two concentrations, 42 mg/m 3 and 96 mg/m^. These results are summarized and tabulated in Tables VII and VIII. Again, the correlation of the two sampling techniques is excellent. The accuracy as determined by comparing the timeweighted -aver age of the eighteen (18) samples collected by each technique and the concentration as determined by the mass balance of the generation system was at, the low concentration (42 mg/m ), 91% and 95% and, at the high concentration (96 mg/m^), 97% and 101% for the 3M - Organic Vapor Monitor and the charcoal tubes respectively in each of the evaluations. Unleaded gasoline blended with ethanol and unleaded gasoline blended with methanol and tert-butyl alcohol were also sampled as complex mixtures. The results are summarized and tabulated in Tables IX and X. Again, the correlation of the two sampling techniques is excellent. In gasoline/ethanol, the accuracy was 101% and 103% for the 3m - Organic Vapor monitor and the charcoal tubes. For the gasoline/methanol/TBA, the accuracy was 96% and 103% for the 3M - Organic Vapor Monitor and the charcoal tubes. The accuracy of each sampling technique is again compared to the concentration determined by the mass balance of the generation system. 3H 008987 -9- Part II - COMPARISON OF CHARCOAL TUBES TO 3M - ORGANIC VAPOR MONITOR (OVH) WHEN SAMPLING CONTAMINANT MIXTURES AT VARIABLE CONCENTRATIONS. For this part of the evaluation, the variable concentrations were generated in two ways. The results are summarized and tablulated in Table XI for samples collected when sampling a high concentration of the contaminant mixture on .one hour followed by sampling a zero concentration for three hours. This sequence was repeated so that the samples collected the high concentration for a two hour period. For the six simple and complex mixtures listed in Table II, it can be observed that the sample collected with the charcoal tubes have excellent correlation with those collected with the 3M - Organic Vapor Monitor with the exception of methyl ethyl ketone in the toluene/methyl ketone mixture. It can be noted that the charcoal tubes greatly underestimates the methyl ethyl ketone concentration. Besides the excellent correlation between the two sampling techniques, both techniques also have acceptable accuracy when comparing the concentration measured by the 3M - Organic Vapor Monitor and the charcoal tubes to the concentration determined from the mass balance of the generation system. In Table XII, the results are summarized and tabulated for samples collected when sampling a high concentration for one hour followed by sampling zero concentration for one hour and a repeat of this sequence four times. With the exception of the charcoal tube estimation of the methyl ethyl ketone concentration in the toluene/ methyl ethyl ketone mixture, all the results tabulated in Table XII indicate again the excellent correlation of the charcoal tubes 3M 008988 -10results with the 3M - Organic Vapor monitor results of measuring the concentration of the six simple and ccmplex mixtures.' Both techniques also have acceptable accuracy as determined by comparing the concentrations measured by the 3M - Organic Vapor Monitor and the charcoal tubes with the concentration determined by the mass balance of the generation system. Conclusions From these laboratory evaluations, the 3M - Organic Vapor Monitor was able to sample and determine the concentration of a representative set of simple and ccmplex mixtures with excellent precision and accuracy. The charcoal tubes also measured the same mixtures with excellent precision and accuracy with the exception of methyl ethyl ketone in the toluene/methyl ethyl ketone mixture. 3M 00S9S9 TADUi I - Simple and Complex Mixtures fie no rated /'or Part f of the evaluation. JUxLuro Concentrations __ -- (mrt/m3.) 1-1 Toluene/Methyl Ethyl Ketone T-2 Bonzono/Tolueno/Xylene 1- 1 Naphtha (VH S 1') 1-4 Gasoline (unloaded) 1-5 Gasoline (unleaded) 1-6 Gasollne/Etiianol 1-7 Gasolinc/Hethanol/TBA 147/1^7 3/15/22 20'1 49 123 123 123 (iH)lll). 50/50 1/5/5 5U 10 25 25 25 TABLE IX - Simple and Complex Mixtures Generated for Part II of the Evaluation, Mixture CoucenlralVon (ma/mi) XI-1 11-2 II-3 II-4 11-5 11-6 Toluene/Methyl Ethyl Kotone Borizone/Toluenu/Xyluno Naphtha (VM A P) Gasoline (unleaded) Gasollno (Ethanol) Gnsolinc/Mcthanol/TDA 147/147 30/150/220 204 1230 1230 1230 (Dom) 50/50 10/50/50 50 250 250 250 TABLE III - Sample Hates and Hocovcry Coeficlents Compound Sampling Rate 3M-0VM (no/mln.) U nzene Xylene Toluene Methyl Ethyl Ketone Naphtha Gasoline 35.5 .6 27.3 x .5 31.4 x *6 36.3 .9 33.2 x -7 31.0 .6 Ho.oovery Coefftolent 3M-OVM Chareoal Tube 1.02 1.07 1.05 1.00 1.04 1.05 1.02 .99 1.01 .86 .99 .99 3H 008990 T\BLE IV - Toiuene/Methyl Ethyl Ketone Length of :'/-.i.iplinE Per Led .......JL!,!lnJ,, ........ .. .. 60 (0-60) 500 (60-560) 1ime-Weighted Average Concentration Suiuplo Typo and Number f>c_(ia!!lRla2_. 3M-0VH (3) CT (3) 3H-0VM (3) CT (3) 3M-0VM (6) CT (6) 120 i0-120) 3M-OVM (3) CT (3) 440 (120-560) 3M-QVM (3) CT (3) Time-Weighted- 3M-0VM (6) Average Concentration CT (6) - - *- * * * m+m . i - - vrt--*--i_ ..... ,, *, .. 180 (0-180) 3M-0VH (3) CT (3) 380 (190-560) 3M-0VH (3) CT (3) T l:ne-We lghtedAverage Concentration 3H-0VM (6) CT (6) . Total Time-WeightedAverage Concentration Concentration from Maas Balance or Generation System 3M-QVM (10) CT (10) Measured Concentration _____(ilUt/lll3.) Methyl Ethyl Ketone------- 190 x & 1(12 x 6 186 x 4 176 x 5 137 ' 34 x M 153 x 6 6l 4 107 (90$) 177 (92$) 151 (109$) 50 (42$) 202 6 162 x I1* 182 x 2 102 x 5 140 x 6 30 x 3 140 x 4 53 4 106 (97$) 170 (93$) 140 (101$) 40 (35$) 109 2 160 x 13 132 x 4 37 x 3 103 x 2 176 4 147 x 9 49 x 6 104 (96$) 173 (90$) 142 (102$) 45 (32$) 106 ( 9750 176 (92$) 192 (51/ppm) 144 (10450 50 (36$) 139 (47 ppm) 3M 008991 TAUUi V - liirii/.<riu:/Tolnc-n;/Xy lent; Length '>!' Sampling Per Led ..... ..muLui---------- ou (0-60) `13 5 (6u-495) Sample Type and rfUMtwur -yj_ JM-OVM (3) CT (3) 3M-0VH (3) 3H-OVH (3) Time-Weighted Average Concentration SM-OVH (6) CT (6) 125 >-125) 370 (125-495) Time-WeightodAverage Concentration 3M-OVM (3) CT (3) 3H-0VM (3) CT (6) 3H-OVH (6) CT (6) 1U0 ' (0-180) 315 (100--490) 3H-OVM (3) CT (3) 3M-OVM (3) CT (3) Time-WeightodAverage Concentration Total Time-WeightedAverage Concentration Concentration from Ma33 Balance oT noration System 3M-0VM (6) CT (6) 3M-0VM (18) CT (18) 1 Muuuured Concuntrat Uju ___ Onp'./fii^___________ .-(/VJUfVH g.,, , -- - - -ilLiilV -- -ft.J./wU 12 +. 1 12 1 53 jt 1 63 A 11 53 * 1 62 10 5.0 jfc . 2 5.4 * 1 23 *1 25 * 2 25 .1. 1 26 * 2 5.9 (96#) 6,2 (102#) 27 (93#) 30 (103#) 20 (93#) 30 (100#) 7.3 X *2 9.1 X 2 37 * 1 42 * 0 34 .1 1 42 * U *1.6 .3 '1.7 a 1 22 * 2 21 2 22 + 2 21+2 5.3 (87#) 5.0 (95#) 26 (90#) 25 (90#) 25 (03#) 26 (07#) 6.7 .1 7.2 * 1 A.6 + .2 '1.9 1 31 * 1 33 * 5 22+1 23 * 2 31 1 32 * 5 22 + 1 23 * 2 5.4 (09#) 5,7 (93#) 25 (06#) 37 (93^) Vs'ToY#)' 20 (91#) 5.5 (91#) 5.9 (97#) 6.1 (1.9ppra) 26 (90#) 20 (95#) 29 (7.7 ppm) 26 (07#) 27 (91#) 30 (0.9 ppm) 3H 008992 TA111.E VI Naphtha (VM & P) 236 ($0 ppiu) Length of .Sampling Period (min.) 60 {>)-60) Sample Type and _ _ HmubPE-pf sawplw----------- 3M-0VM (3) CT ( J) 420 (60-400) 3M-0VH (3) CT (3) Time-Weighted Average Concentration 3M-0VM (6) CT (6) Measurod Concentration Lbr/ukI -------------------------------------------------- . NftDhttlfl ,(YH-,&. Pi............... . 219 A 2 191 a 33 247 4 251 5 243 (10355) 243 (1032) .i?U (0-120) 160 (120-400) 3M-0VM (3) CT (3) 3M-OVH (3) a* (3) 284 a 10 289 a 20 101 5 190 5 Tliue-WelghtodAverage Concentration 3M-0VM (6) CT (6) 207 (0055) 214 (912) 1(10 (0- 1 ao) 100 ( l (10-/(110) Time-Weighted.`verago Concentration 3M-0VM (3) CT (3) 3M-0VM (3) CT (3) 3M-OVM (6) CT (6) Tota 1 Time-WeightedAverage Concentration Concentration from Mass Balance of Generation System 3M-0VM (18) CT (10) 291 a 3 289 A 12 109 a 7 190 a 10 225 (952) 244 (1032) 225 (952) 220 (972) 236 (50 ppm) 3M 008993 TAUi.li VII - Gasoline (Unloaded) f42 uig/w3) Length of Sample typo Measured Concentration .Sampling peri ml and _______________ (jhk/hA)---------- ----- . ,-Cyi.iii..)fln.MoUnn flln-l ___ 60 (0-60) 3H-0VH (3) CT (3) 52 2 5*1+9 3 75 (60-435) Time-Weighted Average Concentration 3M-0VH (3) CT (3) 3M-0VH (6) CT (6) 37 2 39 1 39 m%) 41 (90#) 120 (o-1 ;iu) VI`3 'O-.A j',) 3M-0VH (3) CT (3) 3M-0VH (3) CT (j) 44 1 47 10 37 * 1 30 2 Time-WeightedAverage Concentration 3M-0VM (6) CT (6) 100 (0-100) 255 (100-1135) Time-WeightedAverage Concentration 3M-0VM (3) CT (3) 3H-0VM (3) CT (3) 3M-0VM (6) CT (6) To tel Tima-WeightedAvnrugo Concentration Concentration from Mass Oalanoe of Joneration System 3M-0VM (10) CT (10) 30 (91#) 30 (93#) 42 i 1 44 +. 1 36 1 30 1 30 (91# 40 (95#) 30 (91#) 40 (95#) j,3 (0.5r ppm). 3M 008994 TABUS VIII - Gasoline (Unleaded) (96 ra/H3) Length of Sampling Period . (liiu),,.-. ... r-, - -- 60 (0-60) *120 (60-680) Time-Weighted Average Concentration Sample Type Measured Concentration and ImZeh)------- . NuwUvi:..y.l! J&uw.Uii.... .............. ....... -OiluuLirw._(.U1114. .... 3H-0VM (3) CT (3) 93 x 7 07 i 3 ---------.................... 3M-0VM (3) CT (3) 92 3 95 A 5 3M-0VM (6) CT (6) 92 (96*) 96 (90?) 1?0 (0-1 .-*0) 3M-0VM (3) CT (3) 93 x 3 90 7 360 ( 120-680) 3M-0VM (3) CT (3) 91 6 96 6 Time-WeightedAverage Concentration 3M-0VM (6) CT (6) 91 (95*) 96 (100*) 175 (0-175) J05 175-680) Tlmc-WeightodAvorago Concentration 3M-0VM (3) CT (3) 3M-0VM (3) CT (3) 3M-0VM (6) CT (6) 'otai Time-WeightedAverage Concentration Concentration from Mass Balance of eneration System 3M-0VM (18) CT (18) 93 x 1 99 3 96 x 5 103 x 3 92 (96* 102 (106*) 93 (97$) 97 (joi*) 96 (19.5 ppm) 3M 008995 TALSl.K tX - U.'iMU Line (litlmuol) ( I'S.'j wg/m^) Length of Sampling Period (min.) ... _ 60 (0-60) 420 (60-400) Time-Weighted Average Concentration Suujplu Type and Number of SnmnJ.uii----------- 3H-0VM (3) CT (3) 3H-0VM (3) CT* (3) 3M-0VM (6) CT (6) 120 (0-120) 360 (120-400) 3M-QVM (3) CT (3) 3H-0VH (3) CT (3) Time-WeighLedAverage Concentration 3M-0VM (6) CT (6) 1U0 (0-180) 300 (100-400) 3M-QVM (3) CT (3) 3M-0VM (3) CT (3) Time-WeightedAverage Concentration 3M-0VM (6) CT (6) Total Time-WeightedAverage Concentration Concentration Trow Maes Balance of leration System 3M-0VM (10) CT (10) Measured CoueuulrnL Ion (inn/m3.) ... ___ Gnso.li.no (EtlwitoiL. 106 x 5 114 15 130 4 133 x 0 . 127 (102?) T3t (105?) _ 113 X 3' 114 5 129 X Y 129 16 125 (100?) 125 (100?) 113 5 116 2 134 x 3 139 5 126 (101?) 130 (104?) 126 (101?) 129 (103?) 125 (25.4 ppm) 3H 008996 TAULE X - Gasoline (Hethanol/TUA) Length Of Sample Type Sampling Period and ........ Caiiin ------------------ -- -.. Uuiiilwiljj.(.'.JjimuLv.a. 60 (0-60) 3M-0VH (3) CT (3) U20 (60-480) 3H-0VM (3) CT (3) Time-Weighted Average Concentration 3M-QVM (6) CT (6) 120 to-120) 360 ( 1,'0-AOo) 3H-0VH (3) CT (3) 3M-0VM (3) CT (3) Time-WeightedAvcrago Conoontration 3H-0VH (6) CT (6) 180 (0-180) 300 (120-480) Timo-WeightedAverage Concentration 3M-0VH (3) CT (3) 3M-0VM (3) CT (3) 3M-0VM (6) CT (6) Total Time-WeightedAverage Concentration Concentration from Musa Balance of Generation System 3M-0VM (18) CT (18) Measured Concentration _________ ______(mfl/m3:)---- ------------------- ... -- Utiu.^Jjiii_(ilu.tliiuii!i Z.T8/U. 94 1 86 x 10 112 2 124 x 4 110 (97%) 119 <1055t) 102 x 3 101 x 2 108 x 5 119 x 1 107 (95%) 115 (1022) 102 i 4 103 x 6 116 2 122 4 111 (90%) 115 (102$) 109 (98$) 116 (103$) 11 1 7j (22.9 ppm) 3H OOS997 J.u XI - Variable Challerigo Concentrations According to Profile A M1 xtui'u Sampled Length of Gamp Ling Period (min.) Concentration from Mass Balance of Generation System (mg/m3)' Sample Type and Number of Samples IiUiPium. II-1 Toluene/ 120 228 3M-0VM (4) Methyl Ethyl CT (4) Ketone 178 Methyl Kthvl Kotono 3M-0VM (11) CT (4) 11-2 Benssono/ Toluene/ Xy 1 one 120 11-3 Naphtha 155 11-4 Gasoline (unleaded) 120 iJ-'j Gasoline/ Ethanol 120 il-6 Gasoline/ Methanol/ TBA 120 117 222 227 212 1,000 1,011 1,011 Dgoagiis 3M-0VM (4) . CT (4) TpJjmiw. 3M-0VM (4) CT (4) XyLoiic 3M-0VM (4) CT (4) 3M-0VM (9) CT (9) 3M-0VM (4) CT (9) 3M-0VM (4) CT (4) 3M-0VM (4) CT (4) Measured ConeenLrailon (mg/m3) 231 x 3 ( 1011) 217 + 10 (95*) 144 + 11 (01%) 48 x 1 (27*) 45 1 (96*) 44 y 1 (94*) 207 6 (93*) 217 + 4 (90*) 222 x 7 (90*) 224 4 (99*) 214 5 ( 101%) 220 + 1 1 ( 100*) 957 + 30 (96*) 979 + 14 (90*) 1065 61 (105*) 1197 x 38 (110*) 901 x 48 (97*) 902 x 53 (97*) 3H 008998 idle XII - Variable Challenge Concentrations According to Profile 8 llxtui'u .amp led Length of Samp Ling Period (min.) Concentration from Mass Balance of Generation System (mg/m3) Sample Type and Number of Samples Xuliiumi 1-1 Toluene/ 2 <10 206 3M-0VM (4) Methyl Cthyl CT (4) Ketone l6t *1g.thYl Bthvl Kotong 3M-0VM (4) CT (4) 1-2 Benzene/ Toluene/ Xylene 240 1-3 Naphtha 240 -4 Gasoline (unleaded) 240 .-5 Gasoline/ Uthanol 240 -6 Gasoline/ Methanol/ TOA 240 flmgqg. 47 3M-0VM (4) CT (4) 223 Toluene 3M-0VM (4) CT (4) 228 XYlgflg 3M-0VM (4) CT (4) , 176 3H-0VM (4) CT (4) 906 3M-0VM (4) CT (4) 897 3M-0VM (4) CT (4) 888 3M-0VM (4) CT (4) Measured CoiiueulraL lou (mg/iu3) 226 + 3 ( 1 10%) 226 ^ 6 (1101) 155 10 (961) 67 i 3 (421) 46 3 (971) 43 2 (921) 211 15 (951) 203 x 8 (961) 227 jr 30(K ) 209 x 9 (921) 176 + 4 (1001) 183 a 1 3( 103D 807 x 32 (891) 890 a 30 (981) 933 x 32(1041) 1003 70 (1121) 830 41 (931) 772 x 73 (871) 3H 008999 TOLUENE UJ O O O Measured Concentration (m g/m ^) Measured Concentration (mg'/mS) METHYL ETHYL KETONE Test Number Measured Concentration (mg/rn^) BENZENE Q SM Organic Vapor Monitor o o \o a a PO Measured Concentration (mg/m^ ) TOLUENE 3M Organic Vapor Monitor co Test Number CO Measured Concentration (mg/m^) XYLENE 3M Organic Vapor Monitor co Test Number KD aCO, bo 6 0 HO -P c5 u -p s o o ao o o u t&n cs o 03 o o UD o o U1 NAPHTHA (VM & P) 3M Organic Vapor Monitor A Charcoal Tubes T 25% Accuracy Measured Concentration (mg/m^) GASOLINE (UNLEADED) * 42 mg/m^ 3M Organic Vapor Monitor to Test Number to o o CT> Measured Concentration (ing/m# ) GASOLINE ( UNLEADED ) - 96 mg/m3 3M Organic Vapor Monitor to o 10 Test Number GASOLINE (METHANOL/TBA) Measured Concentration (mg/m3) KD O o 00 Test Number Measured Concentration (mg/m^) GASOLINE (ETHANOL) - 125 mg/m? 3M Organic Vapor Monitor CO o o so RESPONSE TO VARIABLE CONCENTRATION 1099-r- 942-- 785-L 628-L a o a* 471-a 3M OrEiaic Vapor Mor.itor Charco*! Tubes -- Known CoBceairation 25** Accuracy Limits Samples Profile: H FI P fl i Li U LI L 1--(t boars-----1 3M 009010 Mixture Sampled C oncentration (mff/m^) RESPONSE TO VARIABLE CONCENTRATION Mixture Sampled