Document YGyVR64pVjJx06MXxMag1Ej8n

G L P 1 0 -0 1 -0 2 ; In te r im R e p o r t 2 7 - A n a ly s is o f P F B S , P F H S , a n d P F O S in G r o u n d w a t e r S a m p l e s C o l l e c t e d f r o m D e c a t u r , A L , 1 st Q u a r t e r 2 0 1 2 Study Title Analysis of Perfluorooctane Sulfonate (PFOS), Perfluorohexane Sulfonate (PFHS) and Perfluorobutane Sulfonate (PFBS) in Groundwater, Soil and Sedim ent for the 3M Decatur Phase 3 Site-Related Monitoring Program Data Requirement EPA TSC A Good Laboratory Practice Standards 40 CFR Part 792 Study Director Jaisim ha Kesari P.E., DEE W eston S olutions, Inc. 1400 W eston W ay W est Chester, PA 19380 Phone: 610-701-3761 A u th o r Susan W olf 3M Environm ental Laboratory Interim Report Completion Date Date of signing Performing Laboratory 3M Environmental Health and Safety Operations Environmental Laboratory 3M Center, Bldg 260-05-N-17 St. Paul, MN 55144 Project Identification G LP 1 0-01 -02 -27 Total Number of Pages 114 The testing reported herein meet the requirements of ANSI/ ISO/IEC 17025:2005 "General Requirements for the Competence of Testing and Calibration Laboratories", in accordance with the A2LA Testing Certificate # 2052.01. Testing that complies with this International Standard also meets principles of ISO 9001:2000. Testing Cert #2052.01 GLP10-01-02; Interim Report 27 Analysis of PFBS, PFHS, and PFOS in Groundwater Decatur, AL - 1st Quarter 2012 Sampling This page has been reserved for specific country requirements. Page 2 of 114 GLP10-01-02; Interim Report 27 Analysis of PFBS, PFHS, and PFOS in Groundwater Decatur, AL - 1st Quarter 2012 Sampling GLP Compliance Statement Report Title: GLP10-01-02; Interim Report 27 - Analysis of PFBS, PFHS, and PFOS in Groundwater Samples Collected from Decatur, AL, 1s Quarter 2012 Study: Analysis of Perfiuorooctane Sulfonate (PFOS), Perfluorohexane Sulfonate (PFHS) and Perfluorobutane Sulfonate (PFBS) in Groundwater, Soil and Sediment for the 3M Decatur Phase 3 Site-Related Monitoring Program. This analytical phase was conducted in compliance with Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Good Laboratory Practice (GLP) Standards, 40 CFR 792, with the exceptions listed below: These are environmental samples where there is no specific test substance, no specific test system and no dosing of a test system. The reference substances have not been characterized under the GLPs and the stability under storage conditions at the test site have not been determined under GLPs. Page 3 of 114 GLP10-01-02; Interim Report 27 Analysis of PFBS, PFHS, and PFOS in Groundwater Decatur, AL - 1st Quarter 2012 Sampling Quality Assurance Statement Report Title: GLP10-01-02; Interim Report 27 - Analysis of PFBS, PFHS, and PFOS in Groundwater Samples Collected from Decatur, AL, 1 Quarter 2012 Study: Analysis of Perfluorooctane Sulfonate (PFOS), Perfluorohexane Sulfonate (PFHS) and Perfluorobutane Sulfonate (PFBS) in Groundwater, Soil and Sediment for the 3M Decatur Phase 3 Site-Related Monitoring Program. This analytical phase was audited by the 3M Environmental Laboratory Quality Assurance Unit (QAU), as indicated in the following table. The findings were reported to the principal investigator (P.I.), laboratory management and study director. Inspection Dates 5/7/12 Phase D ata / Interim R eport Date Re ported to Testing Facility Management Study Director 5/9/12 5/9/12 Page 4 of 114 GLP10-01-02; Interim Report 27 Analysis of PFBS, PFHS, and PFOS in Groundwater Decatur, AL - 1st Quarter 2012 Sampling Table of Contents GLP Compliance Statement.......................................................................................................................3 Quality Assurance Statement.....................................................................................................................4 Table of Contents........................................................................................................................................5 List of T a b le s...............................................................................................................................................6 1 Study Information.................................................................................................................................8 2 Sum m ary..............................................................................................................................................9 3 Introduction......................................................................................................................................... 11 4 Test & Control Substances...............................................................................................................11 5 Reference Substances......................................................................................................................12 6 Test S ystem ....................................................................................................................................... 13 7 Method S um m ary..............................................................................................................................14 7.1 M ethods.............................................................................................................................14 7.2 Sample Collection..............................................................................................................14 7.3 Sample Preparation...........................................................................................................14 7.4 Analysis..............................................................................................................................14 8 Analytical Results............................................................................................................................... 16 8.1 Calibration ..........................................................................................................................16 8.2 System Suitability ..............................................................................................................16 8.3 Limit of Quantitation (LO Q )...............................................................................................16 8.4 Continuing Calibration.......................................................................................................17 8.5 Blanks................................................................................................................................. 17 8.6 Lab Control Spikes (LC Ss)...............................................................................................17 8.7 Analytical Method Uncertainty..........................................................................................19 8.8 Field Matrix Spikes (FMS).................................................................................................19 Page 5 of 114 GLP10-01-02; Interim Report 27 Analysis of PFBS, PFHS, and PFOS in Groundwater Decatur, AL - 1st Quarter 2012 Sampling 9 Data Summary and Discussion....................................................................................................... 20 10 Conclusion..........................................................................................................................................32 11 Data/Sample Retention.....................................................................................................................32 12 Attachm ents.......................................................................................................................................32 13 Signatures..........................................................................................................................................33 List of Tables Table 1. Summarized PFBS, PFHS, and PFOS Results (Decatur Groundwater - Q1 2012). .10 Table 2. Sample Description Key Code........................................................................................ 13 Table 3. Instrument Parameters.................................................................................................... 15 Table 4. Liquid Chromatography Conditions................................................................................ 15 Table 5. Mass Transitions.............................................................................................................. 15 Table 6. Limit of Quantitation (LOQ)............................................................................................. 17 Table 7. Laboratory Control Spike Recovery................................................................................18 Table 8. Analytical Uncertainty...................................................................................................... 19 Table 9. Field Matrix Spikes.......................................................................................................... 20 Table 10. DAL GW 203L 120327................................................................................................. 22 Table 11. DAL GW 220R 120323................................................................................................ 22 Table 12. DAL GW 220L 120323................................................................................................. 23 Table 13. DAL GW 222R 120327................................................................................................. 23 Table 14. DAL GW 227R 120316................................................................................................ 24 Table 15. DAL GW 227L 120316................................................................................................. 24 Table 16. DAL GW 310R 120320................................................................................................ 25 Table 17. DAL GW RW312R 120328........................................................................................... 25 Table 18. DAL GW 317L 120320.................................................................................................. 26 Table 19. DAL GW 324L 120314.................................................................................................. 26 Table 20. DAL GW RW327R 120323........................................................................................... 27 Page 6 of 114 GLP10-01-02; Interim Report 27 Analysis of PFBS, PFHS, and PFOS in Groundwater Decatur, AL - 1st Quarter 2012 Sampling Table 21. DAL GW 328R 120314................................................................................................. 27 Table 22. DAL GW 328L 120314.................................................................................................. 28 Table 23. DAL GW 330R 120314................................................................................................. 28 Table 24. DAL GW 330L 120314.................................................................................................. 29 Table 25. DAL GW RW331S 120328...........................................................................................29 Table 26. DAL GW 335R 120322.................................................................................................30 Table 27. DAL GW GRS04 120328..............................................................................................30 Table 28. Trip Blank 1 ....................................................................................................................31 Table 29. Equipment Rinseate Blank............................................................................................31 Page 7 of 114 GLP10-01-02; Interim Report 27 Analysis of PFBS, PFHS, and PFOS in Groundwater Decatur, AL - 1st Quarter 2012 Sampling 1 Study Information Sponsor 3M Company Sponsor Representative Gary Hohenstein 3M EHS Operations 3M Building 224-5W-03 Saint Paul, MN 55144-1000 Phone: (651) 737-3570 Study Director Jaisimha Kesari, P.E., DEE Weston Solutions, Inc. West Chester, PA 19380 Phone: (610) 701-3761 Fax: (610) 701-7401 j.kesari@westonsolutions.com Study Location Testing Facility 3M EHS Operations 3M Environmental Laboratory Building 260-5N-17 St. Paul, MN 55144 Study Personnel William K. Reagen, Ph.D., 3M Laboratory Manager Cleston Lange, Ph.D., Principal Analytical Investigator, (clange@mmm.com) ; phone (651)-733-9860 Susan Wolf, 3M Analyst Chelsie Grochow; analyst Kelly Ukes; analyst Study Dates Study Initiation: March 8, 2010 Interim 27 Experimental Termination: May 2, 2012 Interim Report Completion: Date of Interim Report Signing Location of Archives All original raw data and the analytical report have been archived at the 3M Environmental Laboratory according to 40 CFR Part 792. The test substance and analytical reference standard reserve samples are archived at the 3M Environmental Laboratory according to 40 CFR Part 792 Page 8 of 114 GLP10-01-02; Interim Report 27 Analysis of PFBS, PFHS, and PFOS in Groundwater Decatur, AL - 1st Quarter 2012 Sampling 2 Summary The 3M Environmental Laboratory received groundwater samples from wells located in Decatur, AL, representing eighteen (18) different sampling locations collected March 14-28, 2012. A total of seventy-seven sample bottles were received at the 3M Environmental Laboratory for perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS), perfluorohexane sulfonate (PFHS) and perfluorobutane sulfonate (PFBS). For each sampling location, four sample bottles were collected; sample, sample duplicate, low field matrix spike, and high field matrix spike. One trip blank containing Milli-QTM water and appropriate trip blank spikes were analyzed with the groundwater samples. In addition, one equipment rinseate blank sample was collected. The equipment rinseate blank did not have FMS samples prepared for determination of PFBS, PFHS, or PFOS recovery. The reference standard used to prepare the FMS samples consisted of both linear and branched isomers of PFOS. All groundwater samples for this project were logged under GLP10-01-02-27. The groundwater samples, trip and equipment rinseate blanks for GLP10-01-02-27 were received from Weston personnel on April 4, 2012. All of the samples were prepared and analyzed for PFBS, PFHS, and PFOS following 3M Environmental Laboratory Method ETS-8-044.1. Many of the groundwater samples required dilution to obtain PFBS, PFHS, and/or PFOS concentrations within the range of the curve, in some instances up to a 500-fold dilution were required. The average measured PFBS, PFHS, and PFOS concentrations are summarized in Table 1. Equipment rinseate and the trip blanks were below the lower limit of quantitation (LLOQ), indicating adequate control of sample contamination during shipping and sample collections. The PFBS concentration results for all groundwater locations ranged from <0.0250 ng/mL to 2300 ng/mL. The PFHS concentration results for all groundwater locations ranged from 0.0877 ng/mL to 8280 ng/mL. The PFOS concentration results for the reported groundwater locations ranged from 0.230 ng/mL to 3600 ng/mL. The analytical uncertainties associated with the reported results using external standard calibration are as follows: PFBS 21%, PFHS 17%, and PFOS 34%. For several sampling locations, improved FMS recoveries were seen for PFOS using internal standard calibration. The internal standard was added to the sample or sample dilution prior to analysis. Samples analyzed using internal calibration for PFOS have an analytical method uncertainty of 17%. Page 9 of 114 GLP10-01-02; Interim Report 27 Analysis of PFBS, PFHS, and PFOS in Groundwater Decatur, AL - 1st Quarter 2012 Sampling Table 1. Summarized PFBS, PFHS, and PFOS Results (Decatur Groundwater - Q1 2012). Sampling Location DAL GW 203L 120327 DAL GW 220R 120323 DAL GW 220L 120323 DAL GW 222R 120327 DAL GW 227R 120316 DAL GW 227L 120316 DAL GW 310R 120320 DAL GW RW312R 120328 DAL GW 317L 120320 DAL GW 324L 120314 DAL GW RW327R 120323 DAL GW 328R 120314 DAL GW 328L 120314 DAL GW 330R 120314 DAL GW 330L 120314 DAL GW RW331S 120328 DAL GW 335R 120322 DAL GW GRS04 120328 Trip Blank (Milli-QTM W ater) Rinseate Blank PFBS (1) Avg. Conc. (ng/mL) %RPD 30.8 1.9% 6.90 6.8% 8.52 4.9% 64.5 5.1% 14.8 6.8% 220 3.6% 986 0.71% 740 0.14% <0.0250 82.1 2.3% 62.1 3.5% 31.0 1.3% 47.9 3.3% 2120 0.47% 397 4.3% 997 2.6% 864 1.0% 2300 2.2% <0.0250 <0.0250 PFHS (1) Avg. Conc. (ng/mL) %RPD 202 3.0% 29.8 1.3% 41.4 0.24% 407 2.2% 86.3 1.4% 40.1 0.25% 328 4.9% 494 0.61% 0.0877 2.7% 88.4 1.0% 146 4.1% 57.0 5.1% 18.7 4.3% 185 2.2% 359 2.5% 473 1.9% 1600 2.5% 8280 1.7% <0.0250 <0.0250 PFOS (1) Avg. Conc. (ng/mL) %RPD 666 11% (2) 33.0 26% (3)4 49.5 12% 351 25% (3) 616 8.4% (2) 220 2.3% (2) 671 7.9% (2,4) 992 7.7% (2) 0.230 4.3% (2) 194 0.52% (2) 345 4.6% 144 6.9% (2) 1.14 2.6% (2) 462 1.5% 146 14% 850 4.2% (2,4) 3600 6.7% NR (5) <0.0232 <0.0232 (1) All samples reported using external standard calibration unless noted otherwise. The analytical method uncertainties associated with the reported results using external calibration are: PFBS 21%, PFHS 17%, and PFOS 34%. (2) Sam ple results reported using internal standard calibration. The analytical method uncertainty associated with the reported results using internal calibration is 17% for PFOS. (3) The sample/sample duplicate RPD did not meet method acceptance criteria of <20%. (4) The FMS recovery did not meet acceptance criteria. The analytical uncertainty has been adjusted for PFOS to 32% for DAL GW 310R and to 36% for DAL GW RW331S. (5) NR = Not Reportable; Sampling location not reportable due to the FMS recovery being below 50%. Page 10 of 114 GLP10-01-02; Interim Report 27 Analysis of PFBS, PFHS, and PFOS in Groundwater Decatur, AL - 1st Quarter 2012 Sampling 3 Introduction This analytical study was conducted as part of the Phase 3 Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program for the 3M facility located in Decatur, Alabama. The objective of the overall program is to gain information regarding concentrations of perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS), perfluorohexane sulfonate (PFHS) and perfluorobutane sulfonate (PFBS), in various environmental media such as groundwater, soils and sediments that are associated with and near the Decatur facility. This analytical study was conducted to analyze ground water samples collected from various wells located in Decatur, AL for PFBS, PFHS, and PFOS in an effort to characterize on-site groundwater conditions. The 3M Environmental Laboratory prepared sample containers (250 mL high-density polyethylene bottles) which were shipped to Decatur, AL Weston personnel prior to field sampling. Sample containers for each sampling location included a field sample, field sample duplicate, and field spike samples. Each empty container was marked with a "fill to here" line to produce a final sample volume of 200 mL. Containers designated for field matrix samples were fortified with an appropriate matrix spike solution containing PFBS (linear), PFHS (linear), and PFOS (linear and branched) prior to being sent to the field for sample collection. See section 8.8 of the report for field matrix spike levels. Samples were prepared and analyzed according to the procedure defined in 3M Environmental Laboratory method ETS-8-044.1 "Method of Analysis for the Determination of Perfluorinated Compounds in W ater by LC/MS/MS; Direct Injection Analysis". For several sampling locations, improved FMS recoveries were seen for POFS using internal standard calibration. The internal standard was added to the sample or sample dilution prior to analysis. Samples analyzed using internal standard calibration for PFOS included: DAL G W 203L, DAL GW 227R, DAL GW 227L, DAL GW 310R, DAL GW RW312R, DAL GW 317L, DAL GW 324L, DAL GW 328R, DAL GW 328L, DAL GW RW331S, DAL GW GRS04, and the Trip Blank. Results for PFOS for sampling location DAL GW GRS04 are not reported due to the FMS recovery being below <50%. Table 1 summarizes the average PFBS, PFHS, and PFOS concentrations for the duplicate samples collected, trip blanks and equipment rinseate samples. Tables 10-29 summarize the individual sample results and the associated FMS recoveries. All results for the quality control samples prepared and analyzed with the samples are reported and discussed elsewhere in this report 4 Test & Control Substances There was not a test substance or control substances in the classic sense of a GLP study. This study was purely analytical in nature. Page 11 of 114 GLP10-01-02; Interim Report 27 Analysis of PFBS, PFHS, and PFOS in Groundwater Decatur, AL - 1st Quarter 2012 Sampling 5 Reference Substances R eferen ce Substance Chemical Name Chemical Formula Identifier Use Source Expiration Date Storage Conditions Chemical Lot Number TCR Number Physical Description Purity PFBS (p red o m in an tly lin ea r) Perfluorobutane sulfonate C 4FgS O 3-K+ NA Target Analyte Reference Standard 3M 1/10/2017 Frozen 41-2600-8442-5 TCR-121 White Powder 96.7% PFHS (lin e a r) Perfluorohexane sulfonate CaF13SO 3 Na L-PFHXS Target Analyte Reference Standard W elling to n 3/25/2018 Frozen LPFHxSAM08 TCR08-0018 Crystalline 100% R eferen ce Substance Chemical Name Chemical Formula Identifier Use Source Expiration Date Storage Conditions Chemical Lot Number TCR Number Physical Description Purity PFOS (lin e a r + branched) Perfluorooctane sulfonate C 8F 17S O 3- K+ CAS # 2795-39-3 FMS Reference Standard Sigma Aldrich 2/4/2014 Room Temperature 1424328V TCR11-0028 White Powder 99.7% PFOS (lin e a r + branched) Perfluorooctane sulfonate C 8F 17S O 3- K+ Br-PFOSK Target Analyte Reference Standard W elling to n 3/17/2014; 12/01/2014 Frozen brPFOSK0708; brPFOSK1111 TCR11-0010; TCR11-0041 Liquid 99.9% Page 12 of 114 GLP10-01-02; Interim Report 27 Analysis of PFBS, PFHS, and PFOS in Groundwater Decatur, AL - 1st Quarter 2012 Sampling R eferen ce S ubstance Chemical Name Chemical Formula Identifier Use Source Expiration Date Storage Conditions Chemical Lot Number TCR Number Physical Description Purity 13C 8-P F O S (lin ea r) Sodium Perfluorooctanesulfonate 13C 8F i7 S O 3-N a + MPFC-C-0112 Internal Standard W ellington 01/24/2015 Frozen 012312 TCR12-0004 Liquid 5 pg/mL (1) (1) Custom mixture of seven mass-labeled (13C) perfluoroalkylcarboxylic acids, two mass-labeled (13C ) perfluoroalkylsulfonates and one mass-labeled (13C) perfluoro-1-octanesulfonamide. 6 Test System The test system for this study are ground water samples collected from wells located in Decatur, AL by Weston Solutions, Inc. personnel. Samples for this study are "real world" samples, not dosed with a specific lot of test substance. Table 2. Sample Description Key Code. Example DAL GW 203L DB 120327 String Number String Descriptor 1 Sampling Location 2 Sample Type 3 Well Identifier 4 Well Level 5 Sample Type 6 Sampling Date Example DAL = Decatur, Alabama GW= Ground water Example: 203L R = Residuum shallow water-bearing zone L = Bedrock water-bearing zone S = Epikarst middle water-bearing zone 0=primary sample DB=duplicate sample LS = low spike HS = high spike 120327 = March 27,2012 Page 13 of 114 GLP10-01-02; Interim Report 27 Analysis of PFBS, PFHS, and PFOS in Groundwater Decatur, AL - 1st Quarter 2012 Sampling 7 Method Summary 7.1 Methods Analysis for all analytes was completed following 3M Environmental Laboratory method ETS-8-044.1 "Method of Analysis for the Determination of Perfluorinated Compounds in W ater by LC/MS/MS; Direct Injection Analysis". 7.2 Sample Collection Samples were collected in 250 mL NalgeneTM (high-density polyethylene) bottles prepared at the 3M Environmental Laboratory. Sample bottles were returned to the laboratory at ambient conditions on April 4, 2012. Samples were stored refrigerated at the laboratory after receipt. A set of laboratory prepared Trip Blank and Trip Blank field matrix spikes were sent with the sample collection bottles. 7.3 Sample Preparation Samples were prepared by removing an aliquot of the well mixed sample and placing it in an autovial for analysis. Samples that required dilution were prepared as follows: 1:10 dilutions were prepared by diluting 1mL sample with 9 mL of Milli Q water, and 1:100 dilutions were prepared by diluting 0.1mL sample with 9.9mL of Milli Q water. Samples may also have been diluted further by varying the injection volume during analysis. The following sampling locations were reanalyzed for PFOS using internal calibration by preparing as follows: A 5 mL aliquot of either a sample dilution or undiluted sample was fortified with an aliquot of a separate internal standard spiking solution containing 13C8-PFOS at a nominal concentration of 1 ng/mL: DAL GW 203L, DAL GW 227R, DAL GW 227L, DAL GW 310R, DAL GW RW312R, DAL GW 317L, DAL GW 324L, DAL GW 328R, DAL GW 328L, DAL GW RW331S, DAL GW GRS04, and Trip Blank. 7.4 Analysis All study samples and quality control samples were analyzed for PFBS, PFHS, and PFOS using high performance liquid chromatography/ tandem mass spectrometry (HPLC/MS/MS). Detailed instrument parameters, the liquid chromatography gradient program, and the specific mass transitions analyzed are described in the raw data hard copies placed in the final data packet, and are briefly described below in Table 3, Table 4 and Table 5. Page 14 of 114 GLP10-01-02; Interim Report 27 Analysis of PFBS, PFHS, and PFOS in Groundwater Decatur, AL - 1st Quarter 2012 Sampling Table 3. Instrument Parameters. Instrument Name Analytical Method Followed Analysis Date Liquid Chromatograph Guard column Analytical column Injection Volume Mass Spectrometer Ion Source Electrode Polarity Software ETS Buster ETS-8-044.1 4/11/12 Agilent 1100 Betasil C18 (4.6 mm X 100 mm), 5u Betasil C18 (4.6 mm X 100 mm), 5u 2 or 10 uL Applied Biosystems API 4000 Turbo Spray Turbo ion electrode Negative Analyst 1.4.2 Table 4. Liquid Chromatography Conditions. ETS Buster ETS-8-044.1 4/30/12 Agilent 1100 Betasil C18 (4.6 mm X 100 mm), 5u Betasil C18 (4.6 mm X 100 mm), 5u 25 uL Applied Biosystems API 4000 Turbo Spray Turbo ion electrode Negative Analyst 1.4.2 S te p N um ber Total Tim e (m in) 00 1 2.0 2 14.5 3 15.5 4 16.5 5 20.0 F lo w Rate (L/m in) Percent A (2 m M am m onium acetate) ETS-8-044.1 Analysis 750 97.0 750 97.0 750 5.0 750 5.0 750 97.0 750 97.0 Table 5. Mass Transitions. Percent B (M ethanol) 3.0 3.0 95.0 95.0 3.0 3.0 A n a ly te R e fe re n c e M aterial Structure M ass Transition Q 1 /Q 3 Internal Standard M ass Transition Q 1 /Q 3 PFBS L in e a r 299/80 299/99 NA NA PFHS L in e a r 399/80 399/99 NA NA PFOS Linear + B ran ch ed 499/80 499/99 499/130 [ 13C s]P F O S (1) 507/80 Dwell time was 75 msec (4/11 /12 analysis) or 50 msec (4/30/12 analysis) for each transition. The individual transitions were summed to produce a "total ion chromatogram" (TIC), which was used for quantitation. NA = Not Applicable (1) Internal standard was only used for the analysis of locations DAL GW 203L, DAL GW 227R, DAL GW 227L, DAL GW 310R, DAL GW RW312R, DAL GW 317L, DAL GW 324L, DAL GW 328R, DAL GW 328L, DAL GW RW331S, DAL GW GRS04, and Trip Blank for PFOS. Page 15 of 114 GLP10-01-02; Interim Report 27 Analysis of PFBS, PFHS, and PFOS in Groundwater Decatur, AL - 1st Quarter 2012 Sampling 8 Analytical Results 8.1 Calibration 8.1.1 External Standard Calibration - 4/11/12 analysis: Samples were analyzed against an external standard calibration curve. Calibration standards were prepared by spiking known amounts of the stock solution containing the target analytes into Milli Q water. A total of fifteen spiked standards ranging from 0.025 ng/mL to 100 ng/mL (nominal) were prepared. A quadratic, 1/x weighted, calibration curve of the peak area counts was used to fit the data for each analyte. The data were not forced through zero during the fitting process. Calculating the standard concentrations using the peak area 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 10025% (10030% for the lowest curve point) were met for all analytes. The correlation coefficient (r) was greater than 0.995 for PFBS, PFHS, and PFOS. 8.1.2 Internal Standard Calibration - 4/30/12 analysis: Several sampling locations were re-analyzed for PFOS against a matrix-matched stable isotope internal standard calibration curve. Calibration standards were prepared by spiking known amounts of the stock solution containing the target analytes into a laboratory-prepared synthetic groundwater containing calcium and magnesium. The calibration standards contained an internal standard mix containing 13C8PFOS at a nominal concentration of 1 ng/mL. A total of sixteen spiked standards ranging from 0.025 ng/mL to 100 ng/mL were analyzed for PFOS. The PFOS reference standard used for the preparation of the calibration standards contained both linear and branched isomers. A quadratic, 1/x weighted, calibration curve of the ratio of the standard peak area counts over the internal standard peak area counts was used to fit the data for each analyte. The data were not forced through zero during the fitting process. Each curve point was quantitated using the overall calibration curve and reviewed for accuracy. Method calibration accuracy requirements of 10025% (10030% for the lowest curve point) were met for all analytes. The correlation coefficient (r) was greater than 0.995 for PFOS. 8.2 System Suitability A calibration standard was analyzed four times at the beginning of the analytical sequence to demonstrate overall system suitability. The acceptance criteria of less than or equal to 5% relative standard deviation (RSD) for peak area and retention time criteria of less than or equal to 2% RSD was met for PFBS, PFHS, and PFOS for each analytical batch. 8.3 Limit of Quantitation (LOQ) The LOQ for this analysis is the lowest non-zero calibration standard in the curve that meets linearity and accuracy requirements and for which the area counts are at least twice those of the appropriate blanks. The LOQs associated with the sample analysis are listed in the table below in Table 6. Page 16 of 114 GLP10-01-02; Interim Report 27 Analysis of PFBS, PFHS, and PFOS in Groundwater Decatur, AL - 1st Quarter 2012 Sampling Table 6. Limit of Quantitation (LOQ). A n a ly s is D a te 4/11/12 4/30/12 D ilu tio n 1 10 100 500 1 10 100 PFBS LOQ, ng/m L 0.0250 0.250 2.50 12.5 NA NA NA PFHS LOQ, ng/m L 0.0250 0.250 2.50 12.5 NA NA NA PFOS LOQ, ng/m L 0.0232 0.232 2.32 11.6 0.0278 0.278 2.78 NA = Not Applicable; analyte was not included in the analytical run. 8.4 Continuing Calibration During the course of each analytical sequence, 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 of 100% 25% for PFBS, PFHS, and PFOS. 8.5 Blanks Three types of blanks were prepared and analyzed with the samples: solvent blanks, trip blanks, and equipment rinseate blanks. Solvent blank results were reviewed and used to evaluate method performance to determine the LOQ for PFBS, PFHS, and PFOS. Trip blanks reflect the shipping and sample collection conditons the sample bottles and samples experience. Equipment rinseate blanks are aqueous samples that reflect the efficiency of equipment cleaning in the field between different sample collections and are proof of no cross contamination of samples from the equipment. 8.6 Lab Control Spikes (LCSs) Three lab control spike levels were prepared and analyzed in triplicate with each preparation set. LCSs were prepared by spiking known amounts of the analyte into 10 mL of Milli Q water or synthetic groundwater to produce the desired concentration. The spiked water samples were then analyzed in the same manner as the samples. The method acceptance criteria, average of LCS at each level should be within 100% 20% with an RSD <20%, were met for all LCS samples. The following calculations were used to generate data in Table 7 for laboratory control spikes. LCS Percent Recovery Calculated Concentration ------------------------------------ **1__0_0_%_ Spike Concentration LCS% RSD = standard deviation LCS replicates M0Q% average LCS recovery Page 17 of 114 GLP10-01-02; Interim Report 27 Analysis of PFBS, PFHS, and PFOS in Groundwater Decatur, AL - 1st Quarter 2012 Sampling Table 7. Laboratory Control Spike Recovery. ETS-8-044.1 Analyzed 4/11/12 External Standard Calibration Lab ID S p ik e d C o n c e n tra tio n (ng/m L) PFBS C a lc u la te d C o n c e n tra tio n (ng/m L) % Recovery S p ik e d C o n c e n tra tio n (ng/m L) PFHS C alculated C o n c e n tra tio n (ng/m L) LCS-120405-1 LCS-120405-2 LCS-120405-3 Average %RSD LCS-120405-4 LCS-120405-5 LCS-120405-6 Average %RSD 0.498 0.498 0.498 4.98 4.98 4.98 0.494 0.471 0.475 96.4% 2.6% 5.00 4.99 4.98 100% 0.0% 99.2 94.6 95.3 100 100 100 0.497 0.497 0.497 4.97 4.97 4.97 0.476 0.478 0.498 97.3% 2.4% 5.00 4.92 4.88 99.4% 1.5% LCS-120405-7 LCS-120405-8 LCS-120405-9 Average %RSD 29.9 29.9 29.9 29.7 29.2 29.7 98.7% 1.0% 99.4 97.6 99.2 29.9 29.9 29.9 28.4 27.6 28.9 94.6% 2.4% % Recovery 95.7 96.2 100 101 98.9 98.2 94.8 92.2 96.7 ETS-8-044.1 Analyzed 4/11/12 External Standard Calibration Lab ID PFO S (Linear + Branched) S p ik e d C o n c e n tra tio n (ng/m L) C a lc u la te d C o n c e n tra tio n (ng/m L) % Recovery LCS-120405-1 LCS-120405-2 LCS-120405-3 Average %RSD 0.462 0.462 0.462 0.386 0.390 0.367 82.5% 3.1% 83.6 84.3 79.5 LCS-120405-4 LCS-120405-5 LCS-120405-6 Average %RSD 4.62 4.62 4.62 4.55 4.48 4.49 97.5% 0.80% 98.4 97.0 97.1 LCS-120405-7 LCS-120405-8 LCS-120405-9 Average %RSD 27.8 27.8 27.8 26.0 26.4 27.0 95.2% 1.8% 93.6 95.0 97.0 Page 18 of 114 GLP10-01-02; Interim Report 27 Analysis of PFBS, PFHS, and PFOS in Groundwater Decatur, AL - 1st Quarter 2012 Sampling Table 7 continued. Laboratory Control Spike Recovery. ETS-8-044.1 Analyzed 4/30/12 Internal Standard Calibration PFO S (Linear + Branched) Lab ID S p ik e d C o n c e n tra tio n (ng/m L) C a lc u la te d C o n c e n tra tio n (ng/m L) % Recovery LCS-120425-1 LCS-120425-2 LCS-120425-3 0.184 0.184 0.184 0.194 0.187 0.179 105 102 97.4 Average %RSD LCS-120425-4 LCS-120425-5 LCS-120425-6 101% 3.8% 1.84 1.85 1.84 1.86 1.84 1.82 100 101 98.8 Average %RSD 99.9% 1.1% LCS-120425-7 LCS-120425-8 LCS-120425-9 18.4 18.4 18.4 18.2 17.2 17.8 99.0 93.5 96.5 Average %RSD 96.3% 2.9% 8.7 Analytical Method Uncertainty Analytical uncertainty is based on historical LCS data that is control charted and used to evaluate method accuracy and precision. The method uncertainty is calculated following ETS-12-012.2. The standard deviation is calculated for the set of accuracy results (in %) obtained for the LCS samples. The expanded uncertainty is calculated by multiplying the standard deviation by a factor of 2, which corresponds to a confidence level of 95%. The most recent 50 data points were used to generate the method uncertainty values. Table 8. Analytical Uncertainty. Analyte PFBS PFHS PFOS PFOS Calibration External External External Internal Standard Deviation 10.7 8.69 17.2 8.33 Method Uncertainty 21% 17% 34% 17% 8.8 Field Matrix Spikes (FMS) Field matrix spikes were collected at each sampling point to verify that the analytical method is applicable to the collected matrix. Field matrix spikes were generated by adding a measured volume of field sample to a container spiked by the laboratory with PFBS (linear), PFHS (linear), and PFOS (linear and branched) prior to shipping sample containers for sample collection. Field matrix spike recoveries within method acceptance criteria of 10030% confirm that "unknown" components in the sample matrix do not significantly interfere with the extraction and analysis of the analytes of interest. Field matrix spike concentrations must be 50% of the sample concentration to be considered an appropriate field spike. Field matrix spikes are presented in section 9 of this report. Page 19 of 114 GLP10-01-02; Interim Report 27 Analysis of PFBS, PFHS, and PFOS in Groundwater Decatur, AL - 1st Quarter 2012 Sampling Table 9. Field Matrix Spikes. Sam pling Location 317L 220R, 220L, 328L 203L, 222R, 227L, 227R, 324L, 330L, RW327R, 328R 310R, 330R, RW331S GRS04, RW312R, 335R Trip Blank 1 Spike Level Low FMS High FMS Low FMS High FMS Low FMS High FMS Low FMS High FMS Low FMS High FMS Low FMS Mid FMS High FMS PFBS (ng/m L) 1.00 10.0 10.0 100 100 500 500 1000 1000 5000 10.0 100 1000 PFHS (n g/m L ) 0.998 9.98 9.98 99.8 99.8 499 499 998 998 4990 9.98 99.8 998 PFOS (n g/m L ) 0.998 9.98 9.98 99.8 99.8 499 499 998 998 4990 9.98 99.8 998 FMS R (Sample Concentration of FMS - Average Concentration :Field Sample & Field Sample Dup.) Spike Concentraton 9 Data Summary and Discussion The tables below summarize the sample results and field matrix spike recoveries for the sampling locations as well as the Trip Blanks and rinseate blank. Results and average values are rounded to three significant figures according to EPA rounding rules. Because of rounding, values may vary slightly from those listed in the raw data. Field matrix spike recoveries meeting the method acceptance criteria of 30%, demonstrate that the method was appropriate for the given matrix and their respective quantitative ranges. DAL GW 220R - The sample/sample duplicate RPD was 26% for PFOS. DAL GW 222R - The sample/sample duplicate RPD was 25% for PFOS. DAL GW 310R - The recovery of the LS for PFOS was 68.0% and 72.1% for the HS. Since both FMS spike levels were appropriate as compared to the sample concentration, the analytical uncertainty has been adjusted for PFOS to 32%. DAL GW 330R - The recovery of the LS for PFOS was 78.3% and 66.0% for the HS. Both FMS spike levels were appropriate as compared to the sample concentration; however, no adjustment was made to the analytical uncertainty since the recovery was within the analytical method uncertainty of 34% for PFOS by external standard calibration. Sampling location did not contain and appropriate FMS level for PFBS to access recovery. DAL GW 330L - The recovery of the LS for PFOS was 85.7% and 66.6% for the HS. Both FMS spike levels were appropriate as compared to the sample concentration; however, no adjustment was made to the analytical uncertainty since the recovery was within the analytical method uncertainty of 34% for PFOS by external standard calibration. Page 20 of 114 GLP10-01-02; Interim Report 27 Analysis of PFBS, PFHS, and PFOS in Groundwater Decatur, AL - 1st Quarter 2012 Sampling DAL GW RW331S - The recovery of the LS and HS for PFOS was 64.1% and 69.1%, respectively. Since both FMS samples were appropriate as compared to the sample concentration, the analytical uncertainty has been adjusted for PFOS 36%. DAL GW GRS04- The recovery of the HS for PFOS was 45.9%. Since this was the only appropriate spike level, the sampling location was not reported due to the FMS recovery being below 50%. Page 21 of 114 GLP10-01-02; Interim Report 27 Analysis of PFBS, PFHS, and PFOS in Groundwater Decatur, AL - 1st Quarter 2012 Sampling Table 10. DAL GW 203L 120327 3 M LIM S ID D e s c rip tio n GLP10-01 -02-27-001 GLP10-01 -02-27-002 D AL-G W -203L-0-120327 D AL-G W -203L-D B-120327 GLP10-01 -02-27-003 GLP10-01 -02-27-004 DAL-G W -203L-LS -120327 D AL-G W -203L-H S-120327 A verag e Concentration (ng/m L) % R PD PFBS PFHS PFOS C o n c e n tra tio n (ng/m L) % Recovery 31.1 30.5 NA NA 124 93.2 507 95.2 30.8 n g/m L 1.9% C o n c e n tra tio n (ng/m L) % Recovery 199 NA 205 NA 291 89.2 656 91.0 202 ng/m L 3.0% C o n c e n tra tio n (ng/m L) % Recovery 702 NA 630 NA NA (1) 1050 NA (1) 77.0 666 ng/m L 11% NA = Not Applicable All samples were diluted 100x. PFBS and PFHS were analyzed on 4/11/12 by external standard calibration and PFOS was analyzed on 4/30/12 by internal standard calibration. (1) Sample not analyzed due to inappropriate field matrix spike level. Table 11. DAL GW 220R 120323 PFBS PFHS PFOS 3 M LIM S ID D e s c rip tio n GLP10-01 -02-27-005 DAL-GW-220R-0-120323 GLP10-01 -02-27-006 DAL-GW-220R-DB-120323 GLP10-01 -02-27-007 GLP10-01 -02-27-008 D A L-G W -220R -LS -120323 D A L-G W -220R -H S -120323 A verag e Concentration (ng/m L) % R PD C o n c e n tra tio n (ng/m L) 6.66 % Recovery NA 7.13 NA 15.6 87.1 96.2 89.3 6.90 ng/m L 6.8% C o n c e n tra tio n (ng/m L) % Recovery 30.0 NA 29.6 NA 41.0 119 NC 89.4 29.8 n g/m L 1.3% C o n c e n tra tio n (ng/m L) % Recovery 37.3 NA 28.6 NA 52.5 NC 122 89.2 33.0 ng/m L 2 6 % 1 NA = Not Applicable NC = Not Calculated; Endogenous sample concentration greater than 2x spike level. All samples were diluted 10x and analyzed on 4/11/12 by external standard calibration. (1) Sample/sample duplicate RPD did not meet acceptance criteria of <20%. Page 22 of 114 GLP10-01-02; Interim Report 27 Analysis of PFBS, PFHS, and PFOS in Groundwater Decatur, AL - 1st Quarter 2012 Sampling Table 12. DAL GW 220L 120323 3 M LIM S ID D e s c rip tio n GLP10-01 -02-27-009 GLP10-01-02-27-010 D AL-G W -220L-0-120323 D AL-G W -220L-D B-120323 GLP10-01-02-27-011 GLP10-01 -02-27-012 DAL-G W -220L-LS -120323 D AL-G W -220L-H S-120323 A verag e Concentration (ng/m L) % R PD PFBS PFHS PFOS C o n c e n tra tio n (ng/m L) % Recovery 8.73 8.31 NA NA 17.6 103 90.8 94.5 8.52 ng/m L 4.9% C o n c e n tra tio n (ng/m L) % Recovery 41.4 41.3 NA NA 51.0 134 NC 92.8 41.4 ng/m L 0.24% C o n c e n tra tio n (ng/m L) % Recovery 52.5 46.4 NA NA 56.7 119 NC 69.7 49.5 ng/m L 12% NA = Not Applicable NC = Not Calculated; Endogenous sample concentration greater than 2x spike level. All samples were diluted 10x and analyzed on 4/11/12 by external standard calibration. Table 13. DAL GW 222R 120327 PFBS PFHS PFOS 3 M LIM S ID D e s c rip tio n GLP10-01-02-27-013 DAL-GW-222R-0-120327 GLP10-01 -02-27-014 GLP10-01-02-27-015 GLP10-01 -02-27-016 D A L-G W -222R -D B -120327 D A L-G W -222R -LS -120327 D A L-G W -222R -H S -120327 A verag e Concentration (ng/m L) % R PD C o n c e n tra tio n (ng/m L) % Recovery 62.8 NA 66.1 NA 152 87.6 526 92.3 64.5 ng/m L 5.1% C o n c e n tra tio n (ng/m L) % Recovery 402 NA 411 NA 517 NC 862 91.3 40 7 ng/m L 2.2% C o n c e n tra tio n (ng/m L) % Recovery 395 NA 306 NA 444 NC 701 70.2 3 5 1 n g /m L 2 5 % (1) NA = Not Applicable NC = Not Calculated; Endogenous sample concentration greater than 2x spike level. All samples were diluted 100x and analyzed on 4/11/12 by external standard calibration. (1) Sample/sample duplicate RPD did not meet acceptance criteria of <20%. Page 23 of 114 GLP10-01-02; Interim Report 27 Analysis of PFBS, PFHS, and PFOS in Groundwater Decatur, AL - 1st Quarter 2012 Sampling Table 14. DAL GW 227R 120316 PFBS PFHS PFOS 3 M LIM S ID D e s c rip tio n GLP10-01-02-27-017 GLP10-01-02-27-018 GLP10-01-02-27-019 GLP10-01 -02-27-020 D A L-G W -227R -0-120316 D A L-G W -227R -D B -120316 D A L-G W -227R -LS -120316 D A L-G W -227R -H S -120316 A verag e Concentration (ng/m L) % R PD C o n c e n tra tio n (ng/m L) % Recovery 14.3 NA 15.3 NA 111 96.2 486 94.2 14.8 ng/m L 6.8% C o n c e n tra tio n C o n c e n tra tio n (ng/m L) % Recovery (ng/m L) % Recovery 85.7 86.9 179 546 NA NA 92.9 92.1 642 590 NA (1) 991 NA NA NA (1) 75.2 86.3 n g/m L 1.4% 616 ng/m L 8.4% NA = Not Applicable All samples were diluted 100x. PFBS and PFHS were analyzed on 4/11/12 by external standard calibration and PFOS was analyzed on 4/30/12 by internal standard calibration. (1) Sample not analyzed due to inappropriate field matrix spike level. Table 15. DAL GW 227L 120316 3 M LIM S ID D e s c rip tio n GLP10-01 -02-27-021 GLP10-01 -02-27-022 GLP10-01 -02-27-023 D AL-G W -227L-0-120316 D AL-G W -227L-D B-120316 DAL-G W -227L-LS -120316 GLP10-01 -02-27-024 DAL-GW-227L-HS-120316 A verag e Concentration (ng/m L) % R PD PFBS PFHS PFOS C o n c e n tra tio n (ng/m L) % Recovery 224 NA 216 NA 310 NC 658 87.6 220 ng/m L 3.6% C o n c e n tra tio n (ng/m L) % Recovery 40.0 40.1 134 NA NA 94.1 487 89.6 40.1 n g/m L 0.25% C o n c e n tra tio n (ng/m L) 222 % Recovery NA 217 NA 301 NC 595 75.3 220 ng/m L 2.3% NA = Not Applicable NC = Not Calculated; Endogenous sample concentration greater than 2x spike level. All samples were diluted 100x. PFBS and PFHS were analyzed on 4/11/12 by external standard calibration and PFOS was analyzed on 4/30/12 by internal standard calibration. Page 24 of 114 GLP10-01-02; Interim Report 27 Analysis of PFBS, PFHS, and PFOS in Groundwater Decatur, AL - 1st Quarter 2012 Sampling Table 16. DAL GW 310R 120320 PFBS PFHS PFOS 3 M L IM S ID D e s c rip tio n GLP10-01 -02-27-025 GLP10-01 -02-27-026 D A L-G W -310R -0-120320 D AL-G W -310R -D B -120320 GLP10-01 -02-27-027 GLP10-01 -02-27-028 D A L-G W -310R -LS -120320 D AL-G W -310R -H S -120320 A verag e Concentration (ng/m L) % R PD C o n c e n tra tio n (ng/m L) % Recovery 989 NA 982 NA 1360 1840 74.9 85.5 986 ng/m L 0.71% C o n c e n tra tio n (ng/m L) % Recovery 336 320 760 1180 NA NA 86.6 85.4 328 ng/m L 4.9% C o n c e n tra tio n (ng/m L) % Recovery 697 644 1010 1390 NA NA 68.0 (1) 72.1 67 1 n g /m L 7 .9 % (2) NA = Not Applicable All samples were diluted 100x. PFBS and PFHS were analyzed on 4/11/12 by external standard calibration and PFOS was analyzed on 4/30/12 by internal standard calibration. (1) FMS did not meet acceptance criteria of 100 30%. (2) PFOS method uncertainty is adjusted to 32%. Table 17. DAL GW RW312R 120328 PFBS PFHS PFOS 3 M LIM S ID D e s c rip tio n C o n c e n tra tio n (ng/m L) % Recovery GLP10-01 -02-27-029 DAL-GW-RW312R-0-120328 739 NA GLP10-01 -02-27-030 DAL-GW -RW 312R-DB-120328 GLP10-01 -02-27-031 DAL-GW -RW 312R-LS-120328 740 1620 NA 88.1 GLP10-01 -02-27-032 DAL-GW -RW 312R-HS-120328 5260 90.4 A verag e Concentration (ng/m L) % R PD 740 ng/m L 0.14% C o n c e n tra tio n (ng/m L) % Recovery 495 NA 492 1370 NA 87.8 5100 92.3 494 ng/m L 0.61% C o n c e n tra tio n (ng/m L) % Recovery 1030 NA 954 1740 NA 74.9 4930 78.9 992 n g/m L 7.7% NA = Not Applicable The sample, sample duplicate, and LS were diluted 100x. The HS was diluted 500x PFBS and PFHS were analyzed on 4/11/12 by external standard calibration and PFOS was analyzed on 4/30/12 by internal standard calibration. Page 25 of 114 GLP10-01-02; Interim Report 27 Analysis of PFBS, PFHS, and PFOS in Groundwater Decatur, AL - 1st Quarter 2012 Sampling Table 18. DAL GW 317L 120320 3 M LIM S ID D e s c rip tio n GLP10-01 -02-27-033 GLP10-01 -02-27-034 D AL-G W -317L-0-120320 D AL-G W -317L-D B-120320 GLP10-01 -02-27-035 GLP10-01 -02-27-036 DAL-G W -317L-LS -120320 D AL-G W -317L-H S-120320 A verag e Concentration (ng/m L) % R PD PFBS PFHS PFOS C o n c e n tra tio n (ng/m L) % Recovery <0.0250 <0.0250 NA NA 0.936 9.67 93.6 96.7 <0.0250 ng/m L C o n c e n tra tio n (ng/m L) % Recovery 0.0865 0.0889 NA NA 0.957 8.79 87.1 87.2 0.0877 ng/m L 2.7% C o n c e n tra tio n (ng/m L) % Recovery 0.235 0.225 NA NA 1.06 NR (1) 83.2 NR (1) 0.230 ng/m L 4.3% NA = Not Applicable PFBS and PFHS were analyzed on 4/11/12 by external standard calibration and PFOS was analyzed on 4/30/12 by internal standard calibration. (1) NR = Not Reportable; Incorrect sample was analyzed. Table 19. DAL GW 324L 120314 3 M LIM S ID D e s c rip tio n GLP10-01 -02-27-037 GLP10-01 -02-27-038 GLP10-01 -02-27-039 GLP10-01 -02-27-040 D AL-G W -324L-0-120314 D AL-G W -324L-D B-120314 DAL-G W -324L-LS -120314 D AL-G W -324L-H S-120314 A verag e Concentration (ng/m L) % R PD PFBS PFHS PFOS C o n c e n tra tio n (ng/m L) % Recovery 81.1 83.0 176 512 NA NA 94.0 86.0 82.1 n g/m L 2.3% C o n c e n tra tio n (ng/m L) % Recovery 87.9 88.8 181 497 NA NA 92.8 81.9 88.4 n g/m L 1.0% C o n c e n tra tio n (ng/m L) % Recovery 193 NA 194 NA 303 110 613 84.1 194 ng/m L 0.52% NA = Not Applicable All samples were diluted 100x. PFBS and PFHS were analyzed on 4/11/12 by external standard calibration and PFOS was analyzed on 4/30/12 by internal standard calibration. Page 26 of 114 GLP10-01-02; Interim Report 27 Analysis of PFBS, PFHS, and PFOS in Groundwater Decatur, AL - 1st Quarter 2012 Sampling Table 20. DAL GW RW327R 120323 PFBS PFHS PFOS 3 M LIM S ID D e s c rip tio n C o n c e n tra tio n (ng/m L) % Recovery GLP10-01 -02-27-041 DAL-GW -RW 327R-0-120323 GLP10-01 -02-27-042 DAL-GW -RW 327R-DB-120323 63.2 61.0 NA NA GLP10-01 -02-27-043 DAL-GW-RW327R-LS-120323 GLP10-01 -02-27-044 DAL-GW -RW 327R-HS-120323 157 517 94.9 91.0 A verag e Concentration (ng/m L) % R PD 62.1 n g/m L 3.5% C o n c e n tra tio n (ng/m L) % Recovery 149 NA 143 NA 234 88.2 605 92.0 146 ng/m L 4.1% C o n c e n tra tio n (ng/m L) % Recovery 337 NA 353 NA 407 NC 721 75.4 34 5 ng/m L 4.6% NA = Not Applicable NC = Not Calculated; Endogenous sample concentration greater than 2x spike level. All samples were diluted 100x and analyzed on 4/11/12 by external standard calibration. Table 21. DAL GW 328R 120314 PFBS PFHS PFOS 3 M L IM S ID D e s c rip tio n GLP10-01 -02-27-045 DAL-GW-328R-0-120314 GLP10-01 -02-27-046 GLP10-01 -02-27-047 D A L-G W -328R -D B -120314 D A L-G W -328R -LS -120314 GLP10-01 -02-27-048 DAL-GW-328R-HS-120314 A verag e Concentration (ng/m L) % R PD C o n c e n tra tio n (ng/m L) % Recovery 30.8 NA 31.2 NA 123 92.0 475 88.8 31.0 n g/m L 1.3% C o n c e n tra tio n (ng/m L) % Recovery 55.5 NA 58.4 NA 154 97.2 497 88.2 57.0 ng/m L 5.1% C o n c e n tra tio n (ng/m L) % Recovery 139 NA 149 NA 242 98.2 529 77.2 144 ng/m L 6.9% NA = Not Applicable All samples were diluted 100x. PFBS and PFHS were analyzed on 4/11/12 by external standard calibration and PFOS was analyzed on 4/30/12 by internal standard calibration. Page 27 of 114 GLP10-01-02; Interim Report 27 Analysis of PFBS, PFHS, and PFOS in Groundwater Decatur, AL - 1st Quarter 2012 Sampling Table 22. DAL GW 328L 120314 3 M L IM S ID D e s c rip tio n GLP10-01 -02-27-049 GLP10-01 -02-27-050 D AL-G W -328L-0-120314 D AL-G W -328L-D B-120314 GLP10-01 -02-27-051 GLP10-01 -02-27-052 DAL-G W -328L-LS -120314 D AL-G W -328L-H S-120314 A verag e Concentration (ng/m L) % R P D PFBS1 P F H S (1) P F O S (2) C o n c e n tra tio n (ng/m L) % Recovery 47.1 48.7 NA NA 59.5 140 NC 92.1 47.9 ng/m L 3.3% C o n c e n tra tio n (ng/m L) % Recovery 19.1 18.3 NA NA 27.7 90.2 112 93.5 1 8 .7 ng/m L 4.3% C o n c e n tra tio n (ng/m L) 1.12 % Recovery NA 1.15 NA 9.16 80.4 77.5 76.5 1.14 ng/m L 2.6% NA = Not Applicable NC = Not Calculated; Endogenous sample concentration greater than 2x spike level. (1) All samples were diluted 10x and analyzed on 4/11/12 by external standard calibration. (2) The sample, sample duplicate, and LS were not diluted while the HS was diluted 10x. Samples were analyzed on 4/30/12 by internal standard calibration. Table 23. DAL GW 330R 120314 PFBS PFHS PFOS 3 M L IM S ID D e s c rip tio n GLP10-01 -02-27-053 DAL-GW-330R-0-120314 GLP10-01 -02-27-054 GLP10-01 -02-27-055 D A L-G W -330R -D B -120314 D A L-G W -330R -LS -120314 GLP10-01 -02-27-056 DAL-GW-330R-HS-120314 A verag e Concentration (ng/m L) % R PD C o n c e n tra tio n (ng/m L) 2120 2110 % Recovery NA NA 2430 NC 2940 NC 2120 ng/m L 0 .4 7 % 1 C o n c e n tra tio n (ng/m L) % Recovery 187 NA 183 NA 606 84.4 1070 88.7 185 ng/m L 2.2% C o n c e n tra tio n (ng/m L) % Recovery 458 NA 465 852 1120 NA 78.3 66.0 (2) 4 6 2 n g/m L 1.5% NA = Not Applicable NC = Not Calculated; Endogenous sample concentration greater than 2x spike level. All samples were diluted 100x and analyzed on 4/11/12 by external standard calibration. (1) Sampling location did not have an appropriate FMS spike level for PFBS to access accuracy. (2) FMS did not meet acceptance criteria of 100 30%. No adjustment was made to the analytical uncertainty since the recovery was within the analytical method uncertainty of 34% for PFOS by external standard calibration. Page 28 of 114 GLP10-01-02; Interim Report 27 Analysis of PFBS, PFHS, and PFOS in Groundwater Decatur, AL - 1st Quarter 2012 Sampling Table 24. DAL GW 330L 120314 3 M L IM S ID D e s c rip tio n GLP10-01 -02-27-057 GLP10-01 -02-27-058 GLP10-01 -02-27-059 GLP10-01 -02-27-060 D AL-G W -330L-0-120314 D AL-G W -330L-D B-120314 DAL-G W -330L-LS -120314 D AL-G W -330L-H S-120314 A verag e Concentration (ng/m L) % R PD PFBS PFHS PFOS C o n c e n tra tio n (ng/m L) % R ecovey 388 NA 405 NA 484 NC 851 90.9 3 9 7 ng/m L 4.3% C o n c e n tra tio n (ng/m L) % Recovey 354 NA 363 NA 438 NC 810 90.5 359 ng/m L 2.5% C o n c e n tra tio n (ng/m L) % Recovey 135 NA 156 NA 231 85.7 478 66.6 (1) 146 ng/m L 14% NA = Not Applicable NC = Not Calculated; Endogenous sample concentration greater than 2x spike level. All samples were diluted 100x and analyzed on 4/11/12 by external standard calibration. (1) FMS did not meet acceptance criteria of 100 30%. No adjustment was made to the analytical uncertainty since the recovery was within the analytical method uncertainty of 34% for PFOS by external standard calibration. Table 25. DAL GW RW331S 120328 PFBS PFHS PFOS 3 M L IM S ID D e s c rip tio n GLP10-01 -02-27-061 DAL-GW -RW 331S-0-120328 C o n c e n tra tio n (ng/m L) 1010 % Recovery NA GLP10-01 -02-27-062 DAL-GW -RW 331S-DB-120328 GLP10-01 -02-27-063 DAL-GW -RW 331S-LS-120328 984 1440 NA 88.6 GLP10-01 -02-27-064 DAL-GW -RW 331S-HS-120328 1790 79.3 A verag e Concentration (ng/m L) % R PD 997 ng/m L 2.6% C o n c e n tra tio n (ng/m L) % Recovery 477 NA 468 NA 939 1260 93.5 78.9 4 7 3 n g/m L 1.9% C o n c e n tra tio n (ng/m L) % Recovery 832 NA 868 NA 1170 1540 64.1 (1) 69.1 (1) 8 5 0 n g /m L 4 . 2 % (2) NA = Not Applicable All samples were diluted 100x. PFBS and PFHS were analyzed on 4/11/12 by external standard calibration and PFOS was analyzed on 4/30/12 by internal standard calibration. (1) FMS did not meet acceptance criteria of 100 30%. (2) PFOS method uncertainty is adjusted to 36%. Page 29 of 114 GLP10-01-02; Interim Report 27 Analysis of PFBS, PFHS, and PFOS in Groundwater Decatur, AL - 1st Quarter 2012 Sampling Table 26. DAL GW 335R 120322 PFBS PFHS PFOS 3 M L IM S ID D e s c rip tio n GLP10-01 -02-27-065 GLP10-01 -02-27-066 GLP10-01 -02-27-067 GLP10-01 -02-27-068 D A L-G W -335R -0-120322 D A L-G W -335R -D B -120322 D A L-G W -335R -LS -120322 D A L-G W -335R -H S -120322 A verag e Concentration (ng/m L) % R PD C o n c e n tra tio n (ng/m L) % Recovery 859 868 1770 5410 NA NA 90.7 90.9 864 n g/m L 1.0% C o n c e n tra tio n C o n c e n tra tio n (ng/m L) % Recovery (ng/m L) % Recovery 1620 1580 2610 6000 NA NA NC 88.2 3480 3720 4520 7750 NA NA NC 83.2 1600 ng/m L 2.5% 36 00 n g/m L 6.7% NA = Not Applicable NC = Not Calculated; Endogenous sample concentration greater than 2x spike level. The sample, sample duplicate, and LS were diluted 100x. The HS was diluted 500x All samples were analyzed on 4/11/12 by external standard calibration. Table 27. DAL GW GRS04 120328 PFBS PFHS PFOS 3 M L IM S ID D e s c rip tio n C o n c e n tra tio n (ng/m L) % Recovery GLP10-01 -02-27-069 GLP10-01 -02-27-070 GLP10-01 -02-27-071 D AL-G W -G R S04-0-120328 D AL-G W -G R S04-D B-120328 D AL-G W -G R S04-LS-120328 2320 2270 3180 NA NA 88.5 GLP10-01 -02-27-072 DAL-GW-GRS04-HS-120328 6730 88.7 A verag e Concentration (ng/m L) % R PD 2300 ng/m L 2.2% C o n c e n tra tio n (ng/m L) % Recovery 8350 8210 9220 12000 NA NA NC 74.5 8280 n g/m L 1.7% C o n c e n tra tio n (ng/m L) % Recovery Not Reportable N R (1) NA = Not Applicable NC = Not Calculated; Endogenous sample concentration greater than 2x spike level. The sample, sample duplicate, and LS were diluted 100x. The HS was diluted 500x PFBS and PFHS were analyzed on 4/11/12 by external standard calibration and PFOS was analyzed on 4/30/12 by internal standard calibration. (1) NR = Not Reportable; Sampling location not reportable due to the FMS recovery being below 50%. Page 30 of 114 GLP10-01-02; Interim Report 27 Analysis of PFBS, PFHS, and PFOS in Groundwater Decatur, AL - 1st Quarter 2012 Sampling Table 28. Trip Blank 1 3 M L IM S ID GLP10-01-02-27-074 GLP10-01 -02-27-075 GLP10-01-02-27-076 GLP10-01 -02-27-077 GLP10-01-02-27-074 GLP10-01 -02-27-075 GLP10-01-02-27-076 GLP10-01 -02-27-077 D e s c rip tio n DAL-G W -TRIP01-0- (1) DAL-GW -TRIP01 -LS- (1) DAL-GW -TRIP01 -M S- (1) DAL-GW -TRIP01 -H S- (1) DAL-GW -TR IP01-0- (2) DAL-GW -TR IP01 -LS- (2) DAL-GW -TRIP01 -M S- (2) DAL-GW -TRIP01 -H S- (2) PFBS PFHS PFOS C o n c e n tra tio n (ng/m L) <0.0250 9.82 92.7 982 NA NA NA NA % Recovery NA 98.2 92.7 98.2 NA NA NA NA C o n c e n tra tio n (ng/m L) <0.0250 9.46 91.6 952 NA NA NA NA % Recovery NA 94.8 91.8 95.4 NA NA NA NA C o n c e n tra tio n (ng/m L) <0.0232 8.49 78.9 826 <0.0278 8.38 71.8 804 % Recovery NA 85.1 79.1 82.8 NA 84.0 71.9 80.6 NA = Not Applicable (1) Sample and LS undiluted, MS diluted 10x, HS diluted 100x and analyzed on 4/11/12 by external standard calibration. (2) Sample and LS undiluted, MS diluted 10x, HS diluted 100x and analyzed on 4/30/12 by internal standard calibration. Table 29. Equipment Rinseate Blank 3 M L IM S ID GLP10-01-02-27-073 D e s c rip tio n D AL-G W -203L-R B-120327 PFBS PFHS PFOS C o n c e n tra tio n (ng/m L) <0.0250 C o n c e n tra tio n (ng/m L) <0.0250 C o n c e n tra tio n (ng/m L) <0.0232 The sample was analyzed undiluted on 4/11/12 by external standard calibration. Page 31 of 114 GLP10-01-02; Interim Report 27 Analysis of PFBS, PFHS, and PFOS in Groundwater Decatur, AL - 1st Quarter 2012 Sampling 10 Conclusion Laboratory control spikes and field matrix spikes were used to determine the analytical method accuracy and precision for PFBS, PFHS, and PFOS. Analysis was successfully completed following 3M Environmental Laboratory method ETS-8-044.1 described herein. 11 Data/Sample Retention All remaining samples and associated project data (hardcopy and electronic) will be archived according to 3M Environmental Laboratory standard operating procedures. 12 Attachments Attachment A: Protocol Amendment 27 (General Project Outline) Attachment B: Representative Chromatograms and Calibration Curves Attachment C: Analytical Method Attachment D: Method Deviation Page 32 of 114 GLP10-01-02; Interim Report 27 Analysis of PFBS, PFHS, and PFOS in Groundwater Decatur, AL - 1st Quarter 2012 Sampling 13 Signatures Cleston Lange, Ph.D., 3M Principal Analytical Investigator Date William K. Reagen, Ph.D., 3M Environmental Laboratory Department Manager Date Page 33 of 114 GLP10-01-02; Interim Report 27 Analysis of PFBS, PFHS, and PFOS in Groundwater Decatur, AL - 1st Quarter 2012 Sampling Attachment A: Protocol A mendm ent Page 34 of 114 GLP10-01-02; Interim Report 27 Analysis of PFBS, PFHS, and PFOS in Groundwater Decatur, AL - 1st Quarter 2012 Sampling Analytical Protocol: GLP10-01-02 Amendment 27 Study Title Analysis of Perfluorooctane Sulfonate (PFOS), Perfiuorohexane Sulfonate (PFHS) and Perfluorobutane sulfonate (PFBS) in Groundwater, Soil and Sediment for the 3M Decatur Phase 3 Site-Related Monitoring Program PROTOCOL AMENDMENT NO, 27 Amendment Date: March 8, 2012 Performing Laboratory 3M Environmental, Health, and Safety Operations 3M Environmental Laboratory Building 260-5N-17 Maplewood, MN 55144-1000 Laboratory Project Identification GLP10-01-02 Sampling Event Decatur 1st Quarter 2012 Groundwater Sampling Page 1 of 6 Page 35 of 114 GLP10-01-02; Interim Report 27 Analysis of PFBS, PFHS, and PFOS in Groundwater Decatur, AL - 1st Quarter 2012 Sampling Analytical Protocol: GLP 10-01 -02 Amendment 27 This amendment modifies the following portion of protocol: "Analysts of PFOS, PFHS and PFBS in Groundwater, Soil and Sediment for the 3M Decatur Phase 3 Site-Related Monitoring Program" Protocol reads: N o ch a n g e s to the w o rd in g o f th e p ro to co l are re q u ire d Amend to read: N o ch a n g e s to th e w o rd in g o f the p ro to co l a re re q u ire d T h is a m e n d m e n t o n ly a d d re s s e s and d o cu m e n ts the a d d itio n o f th e G e n e ra l P ro je ct O u tlin e (G P O ) fo r th e co lle ctio n an d a n a ly s is o f g ro u n d w a te r sa m p le s from D ecatur, A L, and co n d u cte d as p a rt o f the 3M D e ca tu r P hase 3 P rog ram fo r P F O S , P F H S and P F B S (G L P 1 0-Q 1-02 ). T h e a n tic ip a te d s a m p le c o lle c tio n w ill o c c u r a ro u n d th e tim e fra m e o f th e w e e k o f M a rch 12, 2 0 1 2 . T h e g ro u n d w a te r s a m p le s fo r th is sa m p lin g e v e n t w ill be e n te re d in to th e 3M E n viro n m e n ta l L a b o ra to ry LIM S a s p ro je ct G L P 1 0 -0 1 -0 1 -2 8 and re p o rte d as in te rim re p o rt G L P 1 0 -0 1 -0 2 -2 7 , (re fle ctin g study G LP 1Q -01-02 and am e n d m e n t -27). Reason: T h e re a so n fo r th is a m e n d m e n t is to d o c u m e n t th e G e n e ra l P ro je ct O u tlin e (G P O ) w h ich d e scrib e s the a n tic ip a te g ro u n d w a te r sa m p le co lle ctio n e v e n t to be co n d u c te d fo r th e 3M D e ca tu r, A L facility. T h e G P O is th re e p a g e s in le n g th a n d in clu d e d a s a tta c h e d to th is a m e n d m e n t fo rm . Page 2 of 6 Page 36 of 114 GLP10-01-02; Interim Report 27 Analysis of PFBS, PFHS, and PFOS in Groundwater Decatur, AL - 1st Quarter 2012 Sampling Analytical Protocol: GLP10-01-02 Amendment 27 Amendment Approval Page 3 of 6 Page 37 of 114 GLP10-01-02; Interim Report 27 Analysis of PFBS, PFHS, and PFOS in Groundwater Decatur, AL - 1st Quarter 2012 Sampling Analytical Protocol: GLP10-01-02 Amendment 27 Environmental Health & Safety Operations, Environmental Laboratory General Project Outline To: From: cc: Date: S ub je ct: G a ry H ohenstein, 3M E H S & O p ns S usa n W olf, 3M E H S & O pns; E nvironm ental Lab W illiam R eagan, 3M E H S & O pns; E nvironm ental Lab C leston Lange, 3M E H S & O pns; E nvironm ental Lab Jai Kesari, W e sto n S olution s C harles Y oung, W e sto n S olutions M arch 8, 2012 A n a lysis o f P e rflu o ro o cta n e S ulfo na te (P F O S ), P e rflu o ro h e xa n e S u lfo n a te (P F H S ) and P e rflu o ro b u ta n e s u lfo n a te (P F B S ) in G ro u n d w a te r, S o il a n d S e d im e n t fo r th e 3 M D e c a tu r P h a s e 3 S ite - R e la te d M o n ito r in g P ro g ra m ; G L P In te r im R e p o r t 2 7 - D e c a t u r 1 st Q u a r t e r 2 0 1 2 G ro u n d w a te r S am p lin g 1 General Project Information C o n ta c ts Lab Request Number S ix D igit D ep artm ent N um ber P roject S chedu le/Test Dates 3M S po nso r R epresentative Gary Hohenstein 3WI EHS Operations 3M Building 224-5W-03 Saint Paul, MN 55144-1000 Phone:(651)737-3570 aahohensteini3irninm.com 3M Environm ental Laboratory M anagem ent William K. Reagen 3M EHS Op ns, Environmental Laboratory 260-5N-17 651 733-9739 w kre a a e n iS im m m .co m Principal A nalytical Investigator Cleston Lange 3M EHS Opns, Environmental Laboratory 260-5N-17 651 733-9860 cclanoeSSmmm.ccinn S am pling C oordinator Timothy Frinak Weston Solutions Timothv.fnnak.westonsolutions.com Phone: (334)-332-9123 G LP10-01-02-27 Dept #530711, Project #0022674449 Sampling scheduled for the week of March 12, 2012 All verbal and written correspondence will be directed to Gary Hohenstein. Page 4 of 6 Page 38 of 114 GLP10-01-02; Interim Report 27 Analysis of PFBS, PFHS, and PFOS in Groundwater Decatur, AL - 1st Quarter 2012 Sampling Analytical Protocol: GLP10-01-02 Amendment 27 2 Background Information and Project Objective(s) T h e 3M E H S O p e ra tio n s L a b o ra to ry (3M E n viro n m e n ta l Lab) w ill re ce ive and a n a ly z e g ro u n d w a te r sa m p le s co lle cte d fro m e ig h te e n g ro u n d w a te r w e lls fo r P e rfiu o ro b u ta n e s u lfo n a te (P F B S ), P e rflu o ro h e x a n e s u lfo n a te (P F H S ), a n d P e rflu o ro o c ta n e s u lfo n a ie (P F O S ). A n a ly s e s w ill b e co n d u cte d u n d e r th e G L P re q u ire m e n ts o f E P A T S C A G o o d L a b o ra to ry P ra ctice S ta n d a rd s 4 0 C F R 792. G ro u n d w a te r s a m p le s fro m th e c h e m ic a l p la n t / c lo s e d fo rm e r la n d fill a re a in D e c a tu r, A L w ill b e c o lle c te d by W e s to n S o lu tio n s p e rs o n n e l th e w e e k o f M a rch 12, 2 0 1 2 T h e 3M E n v iro n m e n ta l L a b o ra to ry w ill p re p a re the sa m p le b o ttle s w ith all re q uire d sp ik e s to e n s u re th a t re su lts fo r P F B S , P F H S , a n d P F O S are o f a kn o w n p re cisio n an d a ccu ra cy. T he final re p o rt w ill be su b m itte d to G a ry H o h e n s te in and Jai K esari upon co m p le tio n u n d e r in te rim re p o rt G L P 1 0 -0 1 -0 2 -2 7 . 3 Project Schedule S a m p le collectio n b o ttle s will be p re p a re d b y th e 3M E n viro n m e n ta l L a bo ratory. S a m p le b o ttle s w ill b e sh ip p e d in c o o le rs o v e rn ig h t to 3IVI D e c a tu r fo r a rriv a l b y F rid a y , M a rc h 9 , 2 0 1 2 . S a m p le b o ttle s s h o u ld b e s to re d refrigerated on-site until sa m p le collection. M artin S m ith \ W e s to n T ra ile r 3M D e ca tu r P la nt 1400 S tate D o cks R oad D ecatur, A la b a m a 35601 4 Test Parameters T h e ta rg e te d lim it o f q u a n tita tio n w ill b e 0,025 ng/mL (p p b ) f o r P F B S , P F H S , a n d P F O S . A total o f e ighte en sa m p lin g lo cation s h a ve been specified. F o r e a ch sa m p lin g lo cation , fo u r sa m p le bottles will b e c o lle c te d (s a m p le , s a m p le d u p lic a te , lo w field m a trix s p ik e , a n d high fie ld m a trix spike). T h e "fill to h e re " line on each 25 0 m L N a lg e n e bottle w ill be 2 0 0 m L. A s e t o f trip bla n k sp ike s co n sistin g o f re a g e n t-g ra d e w a te r, as w e ll as an a d ditional bottle to be used fo r the p re pa ration o f e q u ip m e n t rin seate blank, will be prepa red at the 3M E nvironm ental Laboratory and sen t to the sam pling location w ith the oth er bottles. R esults from G LP 10-0102-02, G L P 1 0-01-02-09, G LP 10-Q 1-02-17, and G L P 1 0-0 1-0 2-22 w e re used to d e te rm in e th e field m atrix spike le v e ls fo r G L P 1 0 -0 1 -0 1 -2 7 liste d in T a b le 1. Table 1. Sam pling Locations and Field M atrix Spike levels. W e ll No. 3171 220R, 220L, 328L 203L, 222R, 227L, 227R , 324L, 328R, 330L, and RW 327R 31 OR, 3 3 0 R , a n d R W 3 3 1 S G RS04, RW 312R, and 335R T rip B la n k 1 Sample Level Low H igh Low H igh Low H igh Low H igh Low H igh Low M id H igh Spike Cone. (ng/mL) 1 10 10 100 100 500 500 1000 1000 5000 10 100 1000 Page 5 of 6 Page 39 of 114 GLP10-01-02; Interim Report 27 Analysis of PFBS, PFHS, and PFOS in Groundwater Decatur, AL - 1st Quarter 2012 Sampling Analytical Protocol: GLP10-01-02 Amendment 27 5 Test Methods S a m p le s w ill b e p re p a re d a n d a n a ly z e d b y L C /M S /M S fo llo w in g E T S -8 -0 4 4 .1 '` M e th o d o f A n a ly s is fo r th e D e te rm in a tio n o f P e rflu o rin a te d C o m p o u n d s In W a te r by H igh P e rfo rm a n c e L iquid C h ro m a to g ra p h y /M a s s S pe ctrom etry D irect Injection Analysis", A lternately, sam ples m ay be a n alyze d b y E T S 8-1 54 ,3 " D eterm ination o f P e rflu o rin a te d A c id s , A lc o h o ls , A m id e s , a n d S u lfo n a te s In W a te r B y S o lid P h a s e E x tra c tio n a n d H ig h P erform ance Liquid C h rom ato grap hy/M ass S pectrom etry. Laboratory control sam p les prepared w ith the sam p les m ust have an average recovery w ithin 100+20% and a R S D < 20% . T h e d a ta q u a lity o b je c tiv e fo r this s tu d y is q u a n tita tiv e re s u lts fo r th e ta rg e t a n a ly te s w ith a n an alytica l a c c u ra c y o f 1Q 030% . Field m atrix sp ike s not yie ldin g re co ve rie s w ith in 1 0 0 3 0 % w ill b e a d d re sse d in th e re p o rt an d th e fin a l a c c u ra c y s ta te m e n t m a y b e a d ju s te d a c c o rd in g ly . 6 Reporting Requirements F o r ea ch sa m p lin g location, th e re p o rt w ill co n ta in th e results fo r th e sam p le, s a m p le d u plicate, an d th e tw o field m atrix spikes. T rip b la n k a n d trip b la n k sp ik e s will be re p o rte d fo r the sa m p lin g e ve nt. L a b o ra to ry co n tro l spikes of rea ge nt w a te r pre p a re d a t the tim e o f sa m p le extraction will also be re p o rte d an d use d to eva lu a te the o ve ra ll m e th o d a c c u ra c y a n d pre cisio n. M e th o d b la n k s w ill be used to d e te rm in e th e m e th o d d e te ctio n lim it. A n y la b o ra to ry m a trix s p ik e s th a t m a y b e p re p a re d w ill a ls o b e in clu d e d in th e fin a l rep ort. Page 6 of 6 Page 40 of 114 GLP10-01-02; Interim Report 27 Analysis of PFBS, PFHS, and PFOS in Groundwater Decatur, AL - 1st Quarter 2012 Sampling Attachment B: Representative Sa m ple Chrom atograms and Calibration Curve(s) Page 41 of 114 Workstation: ETSBUSTER GLP10-01-02; Interim Report 27 Analysis of PFBS, PFHS, and PFOS in Groundwater Decatur, AL - 1st Quarter 2012 Sampling Batch Name: b120411a.dab Printing Time: 10:01:44 AM Printing Date: Tuesday, April 17, 2012 Page 42 of 114 Workstation: ETSBUSTER GLP10-01-02; Interim Report 27 Analysis of PFBS, PFHS, and PFOS in Groundwater Decatur, AL - 1st Quarter 2012 Sampling Batch Name: b120411a.dab Printing Time: 9:59:28 AM Printing Date: Tuesday, April 17, 2012 Page 43 of 114 Workstation: ETSBUSTER GLP10-01-02; Interim Report 27 Analysis of PFBS, PFHS, and PFOS in Groundwater Decatur, AL - 1st Quarter 2012 Sampling Batch Name: b120411a.dab Printing Time: 10:01:26 AM Printing Date: Tuesday, April 17, 2012 Page 44 of 114 *** Buster J2930203 GLP10-01-02; Interim Report 27 Analysis of PFBS, PFHS, and PFOS in Groundwater Decatur, AL - 1st Quarter 2012 Sampling Printing Time: 2:28:03 PM Printing Date: Friday, May 11, 2012 Page 1 of 23 Page 45 of 114 *** Buster J2930203 GLP10-01-02; Interim Report 27 Analysis of PFBS, PFHS, and PFOS in Groundwater Decatur, AL - 1st Quarter 2012 Sampling Printing Time: 2:28:03 PM Printing Date: Friday, May 11, 2012 Page 2 of 23 Page 46 of 114 *** Buster J2930203 GLP10-01-02; Interim Report 27 Analysis of PFBS, PFHS, and PFOS in Groundwater Decatur, AL - 1st Quarter 2012 Sampling Printing Time: 2:28:03 PM Printing Date: Friday, May 11, 2012 Page 3 of 23 Page 47 of 114 *** Buster J2930203 GLP10-01-02; Interim Report 27 Analysis of PFBS, PFHS, and PFOS in Groundwater Decatur, AL - 1st Quarter 2012 Sampling Printing Time: 2:28:03 PM Printing Date: Friday, May 11, 2012 Page 4 of 23 Page 48 of 114 *** Buster J2930203 GLP10-01-02; Interim Report 27 Analysis of PFBS, PFHS, and PFOS in Groundwater Decatur, AL - 1st Quarter 2012 Sampling Printing Time: 2:28:04 PM Printing Date: Friday, May 11, 2012 Page 5 of 23 Page 49 of 114 *** Buster J2930203 GLP10-01-02; Interim Report 27 Analysis of PFBS, PFHS, and PFOS in Groundwater Decatur, AL - 1st Quarter 2012 Sampling Printing Time: 2:28:04 PM Printing Date: Friday, May 11, 2012 Page 6 of 23 Page 50 of 114 *** Buster J2930203 GLP10-01-02; Interim Report 27 Analysis of PFBS, PFHS, and PFOS in Groundwater Decatur, AL - 1st Quarter 2012 Sampling Printing Time: 2:28:04 PM Printing Date: Friday, May 11, 2012 Page 7 of 23 Page 51 of 114 *** Buster J2930203 GLP10-01-02; Interim Report 27 Analysis of PFBS, PFHS, and PFOS in Groundwater Decatur, AL - 1st Quarter 2012 Sampling Printing Time: 2:28:04 PM Printing Date: Friday, May 11, 2012 Page 8 of 23 Page 52 of 114 *** Buster J2930203 GLP10-01-02; Interim Report 27 Analysis of PFBS, PFHS, and PFOS in Groundwater Decatur, AL - 1st Quarter 2012 Sampling Printing Time: 2:28:04 PM Printing Date: Friday, May 11, 2012 Page 9 of 23 Page 53 of 114 *** Buster J2930203 GLP10-01-02; Interim Report 27 Analysis of PFBS, PFHS, and PFOS in Groundwater Decatur, AL - 1st Quarter 2012 Sampling Printing Time: 2:28:04 PM Printing Date: Friday, May 11, 2012 Page 10 of 23 Page 54 of 114 *** Buster J2930203 GLP10-01-02; Interim Report 27 Analysis of PFBS, PFHS, and PFOS in Groundwater Decatur, AL - 1st Quarter 2012 Sampling Printing Time: 2:28:04 PM Printing Date: Friday, May 11, 2012 Page 11 of 23 Page 55 of 114 *** Buster J2930203 GLP10-01-02; Interim Report 27 Analysis of PFBS, PFHS, and PFOS in Groundwater Decatur, AL - 1st Quarter 2012 Sampling Printing Time: 2:28:04 PM Printing Date: Friday, May 11, 2012 Page 12 of 23 Page 56 of 114 *** Buster J2930203 GLP10-01-02; Interim Report 27 Analysis of PFBS, PFHS, and PFOS in Groundwater Decatur, AL - 1st Quarter 2012 Sampling Printing Time: 2:28:04 PM Printing Date: Friday, May 11, 2012 Page 13 of 23 Page 57 of 114 *** Buster J2930203 GLP10-01-02; Interim Report 27 Analysis of PFBS, PFHS, and PFOS in Groundwater Decatur, AL - 1st Quarter 2012 Sampling Printing Time: 2:28:04 PM Printing Date: Friday, May 11, 2012 Page 14 of 23 Page 58 of 114 *** Buster J2930203 GLP10-01-02; Interim Report 27 Analysis of PFBS, PFHS, and PFOS in Groundwater Decatur, AL - 1st Quarter 2012 Sampling Printing Time: 2:28:04 PM Printing Date: Friday, May 11, 2012 Page 15 of 23 Page 59 of 114 *** Buster J2930203 GLP10-01-02; Interim Report 27 Analysis of PFBS, PFHS, and PFOS in Groundwater Decatur, AL - 1st Quarter 2012 Sampling Printing Time: 2:28:04 PM Printing Date: Friday, May 11, 2012 Page 16 of 23 Page 60 of 114 *** Buster J2930203 GLP10-01-02; Interim Report 27 Analysis of PFBS, PFHS, and PFOS in Groundwater Decatur, AL - 1st Quarter 2012 Sampling Printing Time: 2:28:04 PM Printing Date: Friday, May 11, 2012 Page 17 of 23 Page 61 of 114 *** Buster J2930203 GLP10-01-02; Interim Report 27 Analysis of PFBS, PFHS, and PFOS in Groundwater Decatur, AL - 1st Quarter 2012 Sampling Printing Time: 2:28:04 PM Printing Date: Friday, May 11, 2012 Page 18 of 23 Page 62 of 114 *** Buster J2930203 GLP10-01-02; Interim Report 27 Analysis of PFBS, PFHS, and PFOS in Groundwater Decatur, AL - 1st Quarter 2012 Sampling Printing Time: 2:28:04 PM Printing Date: Friday, May 11, 2012 Page 19 of 23 Page 63 of 114 *** Buster J2930203 GLP10-01-02; Interim Report 27 Analysis of PFBS, PFHS, and PFOS in Groundwater Decatur, AL - 1st Quarter 2012 Sampling Printing Time: 2:28:04 PM Printing Date: Friday, May 11, 2012 Page 20 of 23 Page 64 of 114 *** Buster J2930203 GLP10-01-02; Interim Report 27 Analysis of PFBS, PFHS, and PFOS in Groundwater Decatur, AL - 1st Quarter 2012 Sampling Printing Time: 2:28:04 PM Printing Date: Friday, May 11, 2012 Page 21 of 23 Page 65 of 114 *** Buster J2930203 GLP10-01-02; Interim Report 27 Analysis of PFBS, PFHS, and PFOS in Groundwater Decatur, AL - 1st Quarter 2012 Sampling Printing Time: 2:28:04 PM Printing Date: Friday, May 11, 2012 Page 22 of 23 Page 66 of 114 *** Buster J2930203 GLP10-01-02; Interim Report 27 Analysis of PFBS, PFHS, and PFOS in Groundwater Decatur, AL - 1st Quarter 2012 Sampling Printing Time: 2:28:04 PM Printing Date: Friday, May 11, 2012 Page 23 of 23 Page 67 of 114 *** Buster J2930203 GLP10-01-02; Interim Report 27 Analysis of PFBS, PFHS, and PFOS in Groundwater Decatur, AL - 1st Quarter 2012 Sampling Printing Time: 2:31:41 PM Printing Date: Friday, May 11, 2012 Page 1 of 6 Page 68 of 114 *** Buster J2930203 GLP10-01-02; Interim Report 27 Analysis of PFBS, PFHS, and PFOS in Groundwater Decatur, AL - 1st Quarter 2012 Sampling Printing Time: 2:31:41 PM Printing Date: Friday, May 11, 2012 Page 2 of 6 Page 69 of 114 Buster J2930203 I Sample Name: "b120411a152" Sample ID: "GLP10-01-02-27-012" File: ''b120411a.wiff" Peak Name: "PFOS" Mass(es): "499.0/130.0 amu,499.0/99.0 amu,499.0/80.0 amu" Comment: "DAL-GW-220L-HS-" Annotation: Sample Index: 152 Sample Type: Unknown Concentration: N/A Calculated Conc: 119. ng/mL Acq. Date 5:53:34 PM Type 30.0 sec 16.1 min RT: No Manual ie: 16.0 min 6574899 counts 1.05e+006 cps 15.5 min 16.2 min 14.0 14.5 15.0 I Sample Name: "b120411a156" Sample ID: "GLP10-01-02-27-016" File: "b120411a.wlfr' Peak Name: "PFOS" Mass(es): "499.0/130.0 amu,499.0/99.0 amu,499.0/80.0 amu" Comment: "DAL-GW-22 2R-HS-" Annotation: "" Sample Index: 156 Sample Type : Unknown Concent rat ion N/A Calculated Co 701 . r Acq. Date: 4/13/2012 7:17:53 PM Yes 30.0 16.1 No s m 6.0e5 Type 5.5e5 5.0e5 4.5e5 4.0e5 3.5e5 3.0e5 2.5e5 2.0e5 1.5e5 1.0e5 5.0e4 Printing Time: 2:31:41 PM Printing Date: Friday, May 11, 2012 14.5 15.0 15.5 16.0 Time, min 16.5 15.5 16.0 Time, min 16.5 17.5 18.0 GLP10-01-02; Interim Report 27 Analysis of PFBS, PFHS, and PFOS in Groundwater Decatur, AL - 1st Quarter 2012 Sampling Sample Name: "b120411a153" Sample ID: "GLP10-01-02-27-013" File: "b120411a.wlff" Peak Name: "PFOS" Mass(es): "499.0/130.0 amu,499.0/99.0 amu,499.0/80.0 amu" Comment: "DAL-GW-222R-0-" Annotation: "" Sample Index: 153 Sample Type: Concentration: N/A 4.0e5- Calculated Con 395. 1 Acq. Date: Acq. Time: /13/2012 :14:42 PM 3.8e5- Modified: 3.6e5- 3.4e5- 3.2e5- Area: Height : Start Tii 22514 4.0 3.0e52.8e52.6e5- 2.4e5- 2.2e5- 2.0e5- 1.8e51.6e5- 1.4e5- 1.2e5- 1.0e5- 8.0e4- 6.0e4- 4.0e4- 2.0e4- 0.0-14.0 14.5 I Sample Name: "b120411a193" Sample ID: "GLP10-01-02-27-041" File: "b120411a.wilT' Peak Name: "PFOS" Mass(es): "499.0/130.0 amu,499.0/99.0 amu,499.0/80.0 amu" Comment: "DAL-GW-RW327R-0-" Annotation: "" Sample Index: 193 Sample Type: Unknown Concentration: N/A Calculated Conc: 337. ng/mL Acq. Date: 4/14/2012 21e5~ Acq. Time: 8:19:04 AM 2.0e5- Modified: RT Window: Expected RT: Use Relative RT: Yes 30.0 16.1 No sec min 19e518e5- I n t . Type: Manual Retention Time: 16.0 min Area: 926840 counts Height: Start Ti 2.21e+005 cps 15.6 min 1 6 .1 min 17e5 16e5 15e51.4e5- 1.3e5- q. 1.2e5- 1.1e5- 1.0e5- 9.0e4- 8.0e4- 7.0e4- 6.0e4- 5.0e4- 4.0e4- 5.98 15.83 15.5 16.0 16.5 Time, min 17.0 5.98 15.83 18.5 17.5 18.0 14.0 14.5 15.0 15.5 16.0 16.5 17.0 17.5 18.0 18.5 Time, min Page 3 of 6 Page 70 of 114 *** Buster J2930203 GLP10-01-02; Interim Report 27 Analysis of PFBS, PFHS, and PFOS in Groundwater Decatur, AL - 1st Quarter 2012 Sampling Printing Time: 2:31:41 PM Printing Date: Friday, May 11, 2012 Page 4 of 6 Page 71 of 114 *** Buster J2930203 GLP10-01-02; Interim Report 27 Analysis of PFBS, PFHS, and PFOS in Groundwater Decatur, AL - 1st Quarter 2012 Sampling Printing Time: 2:31:41 PM Printing Date: Friday, May 11, 2012 Page 5 of 6 Page 72 of 114 *** Buster J2930203 GLP10-01-02; Interim Report 27 Analysis of PFBS, PFHS, and PFOS in Groundwater Decatur, AL - 1st Quarter 2012 Sampling Printing Time: 2:31:41 PM Printing Date: Friday, May 11, 2012 Page 6 of 6 Page 73 of 114 Workstation: ETSBUSTER GLP10-01-02; Interim Report 27 Analysis of PFBS, PFHS, and PFOS in Groundwater Decatur, AL - 1st Quarter 2012 Sampling Batch Name: b120430a.dab Printing Time: 1:09:05 PM Printing Date: Wednesday, May 02, 2012 Page 74 of 114 *** Buster J2930203 GLP10-01-02; Interim Report 27 Analysis of PFBS, PFHS, and PFOS in Groundwater Decatur, AL - 1st Quarter 2012 Sampling Printing Time: 2:34:56 PM Printing Date: Friday, May 11, 2012 Page 1 of 15 Page 75 of 114 *** Buster J2930203 GLP10-01-02; Interim Report 27 Analysis of PFBS, PFHS, and PFOS in Groundwater Decatur, AL - 1st Quarter 2012 Sampling Printing Time: 2:34:56 PM Printing Date: Friday, May 11, 2012 Page 2 of 15 Page 76 of 114 *** Buster J2930203 GLP10-01-02; Interim Report 27 Analysis of PFBS, PFHS, and PFOS in Groundwater Decatur, AL - 1st Quarter 2012 Sampling Printing Time: 2:34:56 PM Printing Date: Friday, May 11, 2012 Page 3 of 15 Page 77 of 114 *** Buster J2930203 GLP10-01-02; Interim Report 27 Analysis of PFBS, PFHS, and PFOS in Groundwater Decatur, AL - 1st Quarter 2012 Sampling Printing Time: 2:34:57 PM Printing Date: Friday, May 11, 2012 Page 4 of 15 Page 78 of 114 *** Buster J2930203 GLP10-01-02; Interim Report 27 Analysis of PFBS, PFHS, and PFOS in Groundwater Decatur, AL - 1st Quarter 2012 Sampling Printing Time: 2:34:57 PM Printing Date: Friday, May 11, 2012 Page 5 of 15 Page 79 of 114 *** Buster J2930203 GLP10-01-02; Interim Report 27 Analysis of PFBS, PFHS, and PFOS in Groundwater Decatur, AL - 1st Quarter 2012 Sampling Printing Time: 2:34:57 PM Printing Date: Friday, May 11, 2012 Page 6 of 15 Page 80 of 114 *** Buster J2930203 GLP10-01-02; Interim Report 27 Analysis of PFBS, PFHS, and PFOS in Groundwater Decatur, AL - 1st Quarter 2012 Sampling Printing Time: 2:34:57 PM Printing Date: Friday, May 11, 2012 Page 7 of 15 Page 81 of 114 *** Buster J2930203 GLP10-01-02; Interim Report 27 Analysis of PFBS, PFHS, and PFOS in Groundwater Decatur, AL - 1st Quarter 2012 Sampling Printing Time: 2:34:57 PM Printing Date: Friday, May 11, 2012 Page 8 of 15 Page 82 of 114 *** Buster J2930203 GLP10-01-02; Interim Report 27 Analysis of PFBS, PFHS, and PFOS in Groundwater Decatur, AL - 1st Quarter 2012 Sampling Printing Time: 2:34:57 PM Printing Date: Friday, May 11, 2012 Page 9 of 15 Page 83 of 114 *** Buster J2930203 GLP10-01-02; Interim Report 27 Analysis of PFBS, PFHS, and PFOS in Groundwater Decatur, AL - 1st Quarter 2012 Sampling Printing Time: 2:34:57 PM Printing Date: Friday, May 11, 2012 Page 10 of 15 Page 84 of 114 GLP10-01-02; Interim Report 27 Analysis of PFBS, PFHS, and PFOS in Groundwater Decatur, AL - 1st Quarter 2012 Sampling Printing Time: 2:34:57 PM Printing Date: Friday, May 11, 2012 Page 11 of 15 Page 85 of 114 GLP10-01-02; Interim Report 27 Analysis of PFBS, PFHS, and PFOS in Groundwater Decatur, AL - 1st Quarter 2012 Sampling Printing Time: 2:34:57 PM Printing Date: Friday, May 11, 2012 Page 12 of 15 Page 86 of 114 *** Buster J2930203 GLP10-01-02; Interim Report 27 Analysis of PFBS, PFHS, and PFOS in Groundwater Decatur, AL - 1st Quarter 2012 Sampling Printing Time: 2:34:57 PM Printing Date: Friday, May 11, 2012 Page 13 of 15 Page 87 of 114 *** Buster J2930203 GLP10-01-02; Interim Report 27 Analysis of PFBS, PFHS, and PFOS in Groundwater Decatur, AL - 1st Quarter 2012 Sampling Printing Time: 2:34:57 PM Printing Date: Friday, May 11, 2012 Page 14 of 15 Page 88 of 114 *** Buster J2930203 GLP10-01-02; Interim Report 27 Analysis of PFBS, PFHS, and PFOS in Groundwater Decatur, AL - 1st Quarter 2012 Sampling Printing Time: 2:34:57 PM Printing Date: Friday, May 11, 2012 Page 15 of 15 Page 89 of 114 GLP10-01-02; Interim Report 27 Analysis of PFBS, PFHS, and PFOS in Groundwater Decatur, AL - 1st Quarter 2012 Sampling Attachment C: A nalytical Meth o d (s) Page 90 of 114 GLP10-01-02; Interim Report 27 Analysis of PFBS, PFHS, and PFOS in Groundwater Decatur, AL - 1st Quarter 2012 Sampling 3M Environmental Laboratory Method Method of Analysis for the Determination of Perfluorinated Compounds in Water by LC/MS/MS; Direct Injection Analysis Method Number: ETS-8-044.1 Adoption Date: 4/12/07 Effective Date: I j 7 / K Approved By: William K. Reagen, Technical Director, Environmental Laboratory J / J Q i/ // Date * ETS-8-044.1 Page 1 of 22 Method of Analysis for the Determination of Perfluorinated Compounds in Water by LC/MS/MS; Direct Injection Analysis Page 91 of 114 GLP10-01-02; Interim Report 27 Analysis of PFBS, PFHS, and PFOS in Groundwater Decatur, AL - 1st Quarter 2012 Sampling 1 Scope and Application This method describes the direct injection analysis of perfluorinated compounds (PFCs) from water matrices using high-performance liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry (HPLC/MS/MS). The method is generally applicable but not limited to the measurement of perfluoroalkyl sulfonamides and perfluorinated alkyl acids (PFAAs) such as perfluorosulfonic acids (PFSAs) and perfluorocarboxylic acids (PFCAs) (Table 1). Water samples containing heavy particulate may require preparation by an alternate method such as ETS-8-154 "Determination of Perfluorinated Acids, Alcohols, Amides, and Sulfonates In Water By Solid Phase Extraction and High Performance Liquid Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry". The method is applicable to both external standard and internal standard calibration1. Table 1. Representative Target Analytes Acronym PFBA (C4 Acid) PFPeA (C5 Acid) PFHxA (C6 Acid) PFHpA (C7 Acid) PFOA (C8 Acid) PFNA (C9 Acid) PFDA (C10 Acid) PFUnA (C11 Acid) PFDoA (C12 Acid) PFTrDA (C13 Acid) PFBS (C4 Sulfonate) PFHS (C6 Sulfonate) PFOS (C8 Sulfonate) FBSA (C4 Sulfonamide FOSA (C8 Sulfonamide) Analyte Perfluorobutanoic acid Perfluoropentanoic acid Perfluorohexanoic acid Perfluoroheptanoic acid Perfluorooctanoic acid Perfluorononanoic acid Perfluorodecanoic acid Perfluoroundecanoic acid Perfluorododecanoic acid Perfluorotridecanoic acid Perfluorobutanesulfonic acid Perfluorohexanesulfonic acid Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid Perfluorobutanesulfonamide Pefluorooctanesulfonamide Chemical Abstract Services Registry Num ber (CASRN) 375-22-4 2706-90-3 307-24-4 375-85-9 335-67-1 375-95-1 335-76-2 2058-94-8 307-55-1 72629-94-8 375-73-5 355-46-4 1763-23-1 30334-69-1 754-91-6 The Minimum Reporting Level (MRL) is the Limit of Quantitation (LOQ) that meets Data Quality Objectives (DQOs) that are developed based on the intended use of this method. Method Flexibility - This is a performance-based method and may be generally applied to the determination of perfluorinated compounds in water matrices when analysis batch quality control (QC) criteria are met2. Each set of samples are prepared in an analysis batch with calibration standards, LCSs, blanks, and continuing calibration check standards analyzed on the same instrument during a time period that begins and ends with the analysis of the appropriate continuing calibration check standards. The laboratory is permitted to modify the LC column, mobile phase composition, LC conditions, and MS/MS conditions. Method modifications should be considered to improve method performance or to meet data quality objectives for the study. In all cases where method modifications are implemented, the batch 1The m ethod is supported by validation w ith internal standard calibration for C4-C13 PFCAs, C4, C6, and C8 PFSAs, and C8 perfluoroalkane sulfonamide in laboratory control samples under 3M m ethod validation E11-0667. 2Guidance for establishing m ethod QC Criteria based on a.) FDA M ay 2001, "Guidance for Industry, Bioanalytical M ethod V alidation", b.) EPA M ethod 537, and c.) European Commission: G uidance for G enerating and Reporting M ethods o f A nalysis in Support o f Pre-registration D ata R equirem ents for A nnex II (Part A, section 4) and A nnex III (Part A ,section 5) o f D irective 91/414, SA NCO/3029/99 rev. 4 (11/07/00). ETS-8-044.1 Page 2 of 22 Method of Analysis for the Determination of Perfluorinated Compounds in Water by LC/MS/MS; Direct Injection Analysis Page 92 of 114 GLP10-01-02; Interim Report 27 Analysis of PFBS, PFHS, and PFOS in Groundwater Decatur, AL - 1st Quarter 2012 Sampling analytical QCs (section 9) must be completed and pass QC acceptance criteria (section 13) if the data from the analytical batch are to be reported. 2 Method Summary Water samples are analyzed as neat aqueous sample or as solvent diluted aqueous samples by direct injection using LC/MS/MS. Samples containing heavy particulate may not be suitable for analysis by this method. Samples containing suspended particulate should be centrifuged or filtered prior to removing a sample aliquot or diluting with solvent. The water sample is mixed well prior to removing an aliquot or diluting, if necessary, with ASTM Type I water, HPLC water, other suitable water, or solvent (methanol). Quantitation is by stable isotope internal standard calibration in laboratory reagent water. All perfluorinated compounds (PFCs) target analyte concentrations of perfluorosulfonic acids (PFSAs) and perfluorocarboxylic acids (PFCAs) are reported as anions and corrected for their salt or free acid forms. Alternatively, quantitation may be performed by external standard calibration. This is a performance-based method. Method uncertainty for each target analyte is determined for each analytical batch using multiple laboratory control spikes at multiple concentrations. This method also requires that the precision and accuracy for each sample be determined using field matrix spikes to verify that the method is applicable to each sample matrix. Calibration standards for PFUnA, PFDoA, PFTrDA, and FOSA have been found to be unstable for more than 2 days in 100% water. Samples requiring analysis for these compounds by this method should be diluted 1:1 with methanol and analyzed against a calibration curve prepared in 1:1 synthetic groundwater:MeOH. 3 Definitions 3.1 Analysis Batch A set of study samples that are prepared with calibration standards, laboratory control samples, and procedural blanks, and analyzed on the same instrument during a time period that begins and ends with the analysis of the appropriate continuing calibration check standards. 3.2 Analytical Sample A portion of a laboratory sample prepared for analysis. 3.3 Calibration Standard A solution prepared by spiking a known volume of the Working Standard (WS) into a predetermined amount of ASTM Type I, HPLC grade water, or other suitable water (i.e. matrix water), and analyzed according to this method. Calibration standards are used to calibrate the instrument response with respect to analyte concentration. 3.4 Laboratory Duplicate Sample (LDS, or Lab Dup) A laboratory duplicate sample is a separate aliquot of a sample taken in the analytical laboratory that is analyzed separately with identical procedures. Analysis of LDSs compared to that of the first aliquot give a measure of the precision associated with laboratory procedures, but not with sample collection, preservation, or storage procedures. ETS-8-044.1 Page 3 of 22 Method of Analysis for the Determination of Perfluorinated Compounds in Water by LC/MS/MS; Direct Injection Analysis Page 93 of 114 GLP10-01-02; Interim Report 27 Analysis of PFBS, PFHS, and PFOS in Groundwater Decatur, AL - 1st Quarter 2012 Sampling 3.5 Field Blank (FB)/Trip Blank (TB) ASTM Type I, HPLC grade water, or other suitable water, placed in a sample container in the laboratory and treated as a sample in all respects, including exposure to sampling site conditions, storage, preservation and all analytical procedures. The purpose of the TB is to determine if test substances or other interferences are present in the field environment. This sample is also referred to as a Trip Blank. 3.6 Field Duplicate Sample (FDS, Field Dup) A sample collected in duplicate at the same time from the same location as the sample. The FDS is handled under identical circumstances and treated exactly the same throughout field and laboratory procedures. Analysis of the FDS compared to that of the first sample gives a measure of the precision associated with sample collection, preservation and storage, as well as with laboratory procedures. 3.7 Field Matrix Spike (FMS) A sample to which known quantities of the target analytes, ISs and SRSs are added to the sample bottle in the laboratory before the bottles are sent to the field for collection of aqueous samples. A known, specific volume of sample must be added to the sample container without rinsing. This may be accomplished by making a "fill to this level" line on the outside of the sample container. The FMS is analyzed to ascertain if any matrix effects, interferences, or stability issues may complicate the interpretation of the sample analysis. 3.8 Trip Blank Matrix Spike (TBMS) An aliquot of ASTM Type I, HPLC grade water, or other suitable water, to which known quantities of the target analytes, ISs and SRSs are added in the laboratory prior to the shipment of the collection bottles. The TBMS is analyzed exactly like a study sample to help determine if the method is in control and whether a loss of analyte or analytical bias could be attributed to sample holding time, sample storage and/or shipment issues. A low and high TBMS are appropriate when expected sample concentrations are not known or may vary. 3.9 Internal Standard (IS) A compound added to each study sample, calibration standard, laboratory control samples, and procedural blanks at a consistent level (typically around 1 ng/mL). The internal standard(s) are stable isotope labeled versions of the target analytes. The area count ratio of the target analyte to the internal standard is used for calibration. Surrogate ISs are applied when stable isotope ISs of target analytes are unavailable. A surrogate IS is not necessarily a stable isotope labeled version of the target analyte, but is treated as an internal standard for quantitation. 3.10 Laboratory Control Sample (LCS) An aliquot of control matrix to which known quantities of the target analytes, ISs and SRSs (when applicable) are added in the laboratory at the time when samples are aliquotted. At least three levels (two levels for SRSs) in triplicate are included, one generally at the low end of the calibration curve and one near the mid range and the upper end of the curve. The LCSs are analyzed exactly like a laboratory sample to determine whether the stability of the standards. LCSs should be prepared each day samples are aliquoted. 3.11 Laboratory Matrix Spike (LMS) A laboratory matrix spike is an aliquot of a sample to which known quantities of target analytes, ISs and SRSs (when applicable) are added in the laboratory. The LMS is analyzed exactly like a laboratory sample to determine whether the sample matrix contributes bias to the analytical results. The endogenous concentrations of the analytes in the sample matrix must be determined in a separate aliquot and the measured values in the LMS corrected for these concentrations. LMSs are optional for analysis of aqueous samples. ETS-8-044.1 Page 4 of 22 Method of Analysis for the Determination of Perfluorinated Compounds in Water by LC/MS/MS; Direct Injection Analysis Page 94 of 114 GLP10-01-02; Interim Report 27 Analysis of PFBS, PFHS, and PFOS in Groundwater Decatur, AL - 1st Quarter 2012 Sampling 3.12 Laboratory Sample A portion or aliquot of a sample received from the field for testing. 3.13 Limit of Quantitation (LOQ) The lower limit of quantitation (LLOQ) for an analytical batch is the lowest concentration that can be reliably quantitated within the specified limits of precision and accuracy. The LLOQ is generally selected as the lowest non-zero standard in the calibration curve that meets method acceptance criteria. The LLOQ for each target analyte is established for each analysis batch as the lowest calibration standard with area counts at least twice that of the average area counts of the procedural blanks. The upper limit of quantitation (ULOQ) for an analytical batch is the highest concentration that can be reliably quantitated within the specified limits of precision and accuracy. The highest standard in the calibration curve that meets method acceptance criteria is defined as the ULOQ. 3.14 Method/Procedural Blank An aliquot of control matrix that is treated exactly like a laboratory sample including exposure to all glassware, equipment, solvents, and reagents that are used with other laboratory samples. The method blank is used to determine if test substances or other interferences are present in the laboratory environment, the reagents, or the apparatus. 3.15 Sample A sample is an aliquot removed from a larger quantity of material intended to represent the original source material. 3.16 Stock Standard Solution (SSS) A concentrated solution of a single-analyte prepared in the laboratory with an assayed reference compound. 3.17 Surrogate Internal Standard An IS that is not necessarily a stable isotopically labeled target analyte, but is treated as an internal standard for quantitation. Surrogate ISs are used when isotopically labeled counterparts of the target analyte are not commercially or readily available. 3.18 Surrogate Recovery Standard (SRS) An isotopically labeled standard, not used as an internal standard, that is added to each sample and appropriate QC sample as a means to evaluate the method performance for a chemical class of compounds (e.g., PFSAs, PFCAs). 3.19 Working Standard (WS) A solution of several analytes prepared in the laboratory from SSSs and diluted as needed to prepare calibration standards and other required analyte solutions. 4 Warnings and Cautions 4.1 Health and Safety The acute and chronic toxicity of the standards for this method have not been precisely determined; however, each should be treated as a potential health hazard. The analyst should wear gloves, a lab coat, and safety glasses to prevent exposure to chemicals that might be present. ETS-8-044.1 Page 5 of 22 Method of Analysis for the Determination of Perfluorinated Compounds in Water by LC/MS/MS; Direct Injection Analysis Page 95 of 114 GLP10-01-02; Interim Report 27 Analysis of PFBS, PFHS, and PFOS in Groundwater Decatur, AL - 1st Quarter 2012 Sampling The laboratory is responsible for maintaining a safe work environment and a current awareness of local regulations regarding the handling of the chemicals used in this method. A reference file of material safety data sheets (MSDS) should be available to all personnel involved in these analyses. 4.2 Cautions The analyst must be familiar with the laboratory equipment and potential hazards including, but not limited to, the use of solvents, pressurized gas and solvent lines, high voltage, and vacuum systems. Refer to the appropriate equipment procedure or operator manual for additional information and cautions. 5 Interferences During sample preparation and analysis, major potential contaminant sources are reagents and glassware. All materials used in the analyses shall be demonstrated to be free from interferences under conditions of analysis by running method blanks. Parts and supplies that contain Teflon should be avoided or minimized due to the possibility of interference and/or contamination. These may include, but are not limited to: wash bottles, Teflon lined caps, autovial caps, HPLC parts, etc. The use of disposable micropipettes or pipettes to aliquot standard solutions is recommended to make calibration standards and matrix spikes. 6 Instrumentation, Supplies, and Materials 6.1 Instrumentation Analytical balance capable of reading to 0.0001g HPLC/MS/MS or HPLC/MS system, as described in Section 10. 6.2 Supplies and Materials Sample collection bottles-- HDPE (e.g., NalgeneTM) wide-mouth bottles with screw cap. Note: Do not use fluorinated or Teflon bottles or lined caps. Coolers or boxes for sample shipment. 15-mL and 50-mL disposable polypropylene centrifuge tubes. Class A pipettes and volumetric flasks, various. 2 mL HPLC autovials Disposable pipettes, polypropylene or glass as appropriate Centrifuge capable of spinning 15-mL and 50-mL polypropylene tubes at 3000 rpm. 7 Reagents and Standards Note: Suppliers and catalog numbers are for illustrative purposes only. Equivalent performance may be achieved using chemicals obtained from other suppliers. Do not use a lesser grade of chemical than those listed. 7.1 Chemicals Water - Milli-Q, HPLC grade, or other suitably appropriate sources Calcium Acetate - A.C.S. Reagent Grade ETS-8-044.1 Page 6 of 22 Method of Analysis for the Determination of Perfluorinated Compounds in Water by LC/MS/MS; Direct Injection Analysis Page 96 of 114 GLP10-01-02; Interim Report 27 Analysis of PFBS, PFHS, and PFOS in Groundwater Decatur, AL - 1st Quarter 2012 Sampling Magnesium Acetate - A.C.S. Reagent Grade Methanol - HPLC grade Ammonium Acetate - A.C.S. Reagent Grade 7.2 Representative Target Analytes, ISs, and SRSs PFBA, Heptafluorobutyric Acid, (C4 Perfluorinated Acid) PFPeA, Nonafluoropentanoic Acid (C5 Perfluorinated Acid) PFHxA, Perfluorohexanoic Acid (C6 Perfluorinated Acid) PFHpA, Tridecafluoroheptanoic Acid, (C7 Perfluorinated Acid) PFOA, Ammonium perfluorooctanoate, (C8 Perfluorinated Acid) PFNA, Heptadecafluorononanoic Acid, (C9 Perfluorinated Acid) PFDA, Nonadecafluorodecanoic Acid (C10 Perfluorinated Acid) PFUnA, Perfluoroundecanoic Acid, (C^ Perfluorinated Acid) PFDoA, Perfluorododecanoic Acid, (C12 Perfluorinated Acid) PFTrDA, Perfluorotridecanoic Acid, (C13 Perfluorinated Acid) FBSA, Perfluorobutanesulfonamide FOSA, Perfluorooctanesulfonylamide PFBS, Potassium Perfluorobutanesulfonate PFHS, Perfluorohexanesulfonate PFOS, Potassium perfluorooctanesulfonate PFOA [1,2, 3, 4-13C], 13C4-isotopically labeled perfluorooctanoic acid (SRS) PFOS [1,2, 3, 4-13C], 13C4-isotopically labeled Perfluorooctanesulfonate (SRS) PFUnA [1,2-13C], 13C2-isotopically labeled Perfluoroundecanoic acid (SRS) A custom mix of ISs in a methanolic solution containing ([1,2,3,4- C4]PFBA, [1,2 13C2 ]PFHxA, [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8-13C8]PFOA, [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9-13C9]PFNA, [1,2 -13C2 ]PFDA, [1,2,3,4,5,6,7 -13C7]PFUnA, [1,2 -13C2]PFDoA, [1,2,3 -13C3]PFHS, [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8-13C8]PFOS, and [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8-13C8]PFOSA (Wellington Laboratories, Guelph, ON) in combination with added ([1,2,3,4,5-13C5]PFPeA, ([1,2,3,4-C4]PFHpA, and [18O2]PFBS can be used to prepare a stock IS solution. Alternatively, individual stable isotope ISs can be used to prepare a stock IS mixture. Other ISs can be applied. 7.3 Reagent Preparation 2 mM Ammonium acetate solution (Analysis)--Weigh 0.3 g of Ammonium acetate and dissolve in 2.0 L of reagent water. Synthetic Groundwater (containing 25 ppm Ca and Mg) - Weigh 0.61 g of Calcium Acetate and 0.92 g of Magnesium Acetate and dissolve in 6.0 L of reagent water. Note: Alternative volumes may be prepared as long as the ratios of the solvent to solute ratios are maintained. ETS-8-044.1 Page 7 of 22 Method of Analysis for the Determination of Perfluorinated Compounds in Water by LC/MS/MS; Direct Injection Analysis Page 97 of 114 GLP10-01-02; Interim Report 27 Analysis of PFBS, PFHS, and PFOS in Groundwater Decatur, AL - 1st Quarter 2012 Sampling 7.4 Stock Standard Solution (SSS) and Working Standard Solution Preparation The following standard preparation procedure serves as an example. Weighed amounts and final volumes may be changed to suit the needs of a particular study. For example, pL volumes may be spiked into volumetric flasks when diluting stock solutions to appropriate levels. 100 pg/mL target analyte SSSs--Weigh out 10 mg of analytical standard (c o rre c te d fo r p e rc e n t salt, a c id [E T S -4 -0 3 1 ] a n d p u rity) and dilute to 100 mL with methanol or other suitable solvent, in a 100 mL volumetric flask. T ransfer to a 125 mL LDPE bottle or other suitable container. Prepare a separate solution for each analyte. Expiration dates and storage conditions of stock solutions should be assigned in accordance with laboratory standard operating procedure. An example of purity and salt correction is given below for PFOS. lx x. , x molecular weight of anion salt correction factor = ---------------------- ---------------- moclecular weight of salt 499 PFOS (K +)salt correction factor = -- = 0.9275 538 10 mg C8F17S03"K+with purity 90% = 8.35 mg C8F17S03- (10 mg*0.90*0.9275=8.35 mg) 10 pg/mL (10,000 ng/mL) mixed working standard--Add 5.0 mL each of the 100 pg/mL SSSs to a 50 mL volumetric flask and bring up to volume with solvent. 1 pg/mL (1,000 ng/mL) mixed working standard--Add 0.5 mL of the 100 pg/mL SSSs to a 50 mL volumetric flask and bring up to volume with solvent. 0.1 pg/mL (100 ng/mL) mixed standard--Add 0.05 mL of the 100 pg/mL SSSs to a 50 mL volumetric flask and bring up to volume with solvent. Storage Conditions-- Store all SSSs and working standards in accordance with laboratory standard operating procedure or in a refrigerator at 42C for a maximum period of 6 months from the date of preparation. 7.5 Calibration Standards Calibration can be performed by IS or external calibration. Using the working standards described above, prepare calibration solutions in ASTM Type I water, HPLC water, other suitable water, or a mixture of solvent and water using the information in Table 2 as a guideline. Note: Volumes of water or water/solvent mixtures and working standards may be adjusted to meet the data quality objectives addressed in the general project outline. Calibration levels other than those listed below can be prepared as needed. For the quantitation of PFOA and PFOS, reference materials of certified mixed linear and branched isomer are preferred. Alternately, reference materials of primarily linear isomers of PFOA and/or PFOS may be used, however, when quantitating with predominantly linear reference standards, additional LCS samples containing both linear and branched isomers of PFOA and PFOS are required3. 7.5.1 Internal Standard (IS) and Surrogate Recovery Standard (SRS) For IS calibration, stable isotope internal standards of each target analyte or appropriate surrogate ISs should be spiked at the same level in all calibration standards. Once the calibration standards have been prepared as stated above in Section 7.5, all calibration standards are spiked with a separate internal standard spiking solution. Typically the 3 A report summarizing an assessment o f the use o f reference standards containing certified linear and branched isomers of PFOA/PFOS can be found in 3M report E 11-0560. ETS-8-044.1 Page 8 of 22 Method of Analysis for the Determination of Perfluorinated Compounds in Water by LC/MS/MS; Direct Injection Analysis Page 98 of 114 GLP10-01-02; Interim Report 27 Analysis of PFBS, PFHS, and PFOS in Groundwater Decatur, AL - 1st Quarter 2012 Sampling concentration of the internal standard is consistent with the internal standard concentration expected in the samples being prepared, usually 1 ng/mL. The concentration of the internal standard spiking solution is typically 2 pg/mL. A separate zero point or method blank is typically prepared at the same time as the calibration standards, using the same solution used to prepare the standards (ASTM Type I water, HPLC water, other suitable water, or a solvent/water mixture), and is spiked with the internal standard at the same concentration as the calibration curve, typically at 1 ng/mL. If the samples being analzyed were pre-spiked with SRSs, the calibration curve prepared in Section 7.5 is spiked with a separate SRS spiking solution. Typically, the sample bottles are spiked with a SRS at 0.1 ng/mL. The final calibration curve must consist of at least six calibration points after analysis. The following table provides an example of spike concentrations and volumes used to achieve a multi-point extracted calibration curve with internal standard and surrogate standard. Table 1 lists recommended stable isotope internal standards for several PFSA and PFCA target compounds. A custom mix of isotopically labeled target analytes in a methanolic solution containing ([1,2,3,4-13C4]PFBA, [1,2 -13C2]PFHxA, [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8-13C8]PFOA, [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9- C q]PFNA, [1,2,3,4,5,6 -13C6]PFDA, [1,2,3,4,5,6,7 -13C7]PFUnA, [1,2 13C2 ]PFDoA, [1,2,3-13C3]PFHS, [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8-13C8]PFOS, and [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8-13C8]FOSA (Wellington Laboratories, Guelph, ON) in combination with added ([1,2,3,4,5-13C5]PFPeA, ([1,2,3,4-13C4]PFHpA, and [18O2]PFBS can be used to prepare a stock IS solution. Alternative sources of certified stable isotope labeled target analytes are applicable. Alternatively, individual stable isotope ISs can be used to prepare a stock IS mixture. The table below lists the recommended stable isotope ISs and SRSs applied in the method. Other stable isotope ISs and SRSs of target analytes not listed in the table may be used if supported by validation and/or analysis batch QCs meeting method acceptance criteria (e.g., [13C2]-PFOA). The same internal standard should be used for a given analyte throughout the entire project/study. Note: some of the compounds listed below are appropriate to use as surrogate ISs when a stable isotope IS of a target analyte is not available. Generally, surrogate isotopically labeled PFCAs are used for PFCAs, and surrogate isotopically labeled PFSAs are used for PFSAs. Table 2 provides examples of spike concentrations and volumes used to achieve a multi-point calibration curve with ISs and SRSs. ETS-8-044.1 Page 9 of 22 Method of Analysis for the Determination of Perfluorinated Compounds in Water by LC/MS/MS; Direct Injection Analysis Page 99 of 114 GLP10-01-02; Interim Report 27 Analysis of PFBS, PFHS, and PFOS in Groundwater Decatur, AL - 1st Quarter 2012 Sampling Table 1. Stable Isotope PFCAs and PFSAs used for ISs and SRSs Coimpound Nam e Synonym o r Acronym 13C4 -Perfluorobutanoic acid [1,2,3,4-13C4]PFBA 13C4-Perfluoropentanoic acid [1,2,3,4,5-13C5]PFPeA 13C2-Perfluorohexanoic acid [1,2 -13C2]PFHxA 13C4-Perfluoroheptanoic acid [1,2,3,4-13C4]PFHpA 13C8-Perfluorooctanoic acid [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8-13C8]PFOA 13C9-Perfluorononanoic acid [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9-13C9]PFNA 13C6-Perfluorodecanoic acid [1,2,3,4,5,6 -13C6]PFDA 13C7-Perfluoroundecanoic acid [1,2,3,4,5,6,7 -13C7]PFUnA 13C2 -Perfluorododecanoic acid [1,2 -13C2]PFDoA 18O2-Ammonium Perfluorobutane sulfonate [18O2]PFBS 13C3 -Ammonium Perfluorohexane sulfonate [1,2,3-13C3]PFHS 13C8-Sodium Perfluorooctane sulfonate [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8-13C8]PFOS 13C8-Perfluorooctanesulfonamide 13C4-Perfluorooctanoic acid [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8-13C8]FOSA [1,2,3,4-13C4]PFOA A nalytical Purpose IS for PFBA IS for PFPeA IS for PFHxA IS for PFHpA IS for PFOA and [1,2,3,4 13C4]PFOA IS for PFNA IS for PFDA IS for PFUnA IS for PFDoA, *PFTA IS for PFBS IS for PFHS IS for PFOS and PFOS[1,2,3,4 13C4], IS for FOSA SRS for all PFCAs: C4-C8 R eference S tandard Source Wellington Labs (Mix or Individual) Wellington Labs (Mix or Individual) Wellington Labs (Mix or Individual) Wellington Labs (Mix or Individual) Wellington Labs (Mix or Individual) Wellington Labs (Mix or Individual) Wellington Labs (Mix or Individual) Wellington Labs (Mix or Individual) Wellington Labs (Mix or Individual) RTI International (Individual) Wellington Labs (Mix or Individual) Wellington Labs (Mix or Individual) Wellington Labs (mix) RTI International (Individual) Wellington 13C2 -Perfluoroundecanoic acid 13C8-Perfluorooctane sulfonate [1,2 -13C2]PFUnA [1,2,3,4-13C4]PFOS SRS for all PFCAs C9-C13 Wellington SRS for all PFSAs: C4, C6, and C8 Wellington ETS-8-044.1 Page 10 of 22 Method of Analysis for the Determination of Perfluorinated Compounds in Water by LC/MS/MS; Direct Injection Analysis Page 100 of 114 GLP10-01-02; Interim Report 27 Analysis of PFBS, PFHS, and PFOS in Groundwater Decatur, AL - 1st Quarter 2012 Sampling Table 2. Example Preparation of Calibration Curve with ISs and SRSs Sam ple Description 0.025 ng/mL curve point 0.030 ng/mL curve point 0.04 ng/mL curve point 0.05 ng/mL curve point 0.1 ng/mL curve point 0.25 ng/mL curve point 0.5 ng/mL curve point 1 ng/mL curve point 2.5 ng/mL curve point 5.0 ng/mL curve point 10.0 ng/mL curve point 25.0 ng/mL curve point 50.0 ng/mL curve point 75.0 ng/mL curve point 100 ng/mL curve point Concentration o f WS, pg/mL 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 1.0 1.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 Volume of WS, pL 25 30 40 50 100 250 50 100 25 50 100 250 500 750 1000 Volume o f IS (2 pg/mL), pL 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 Concentration o f Surrogate, pg/mL 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 Volume of Surrogate, pL 12.5 15 20 25 50 125 250 500 25 50 100 NA NA NA NA Volume o f A S TM Type I Water, or o ther su itable s o lv e n t(1>, m L 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 N/A - Not Applicable (1) Samples requiring analysis for PFUnA, PFDoA, PFTrDA, and FOSA should be analyzed against a calibration curve prepared in 1:1 synthetic groundwater:MeOH. ETS-8-044.1 Page 11 of 22 Method of Analysis for the Determination of Perfluorinated Compounds in W ater by LC/MS/MS; Direct Injection Analysis Page 101 of 114 GLP10-01-02; Interim Report 27 Analysis of PFBS, PFHS, and PFOS in Groundwater Decatur, AL - 1st Quarter 2012 Sampling 8 Sample Collection and Bottle Preparation Sample collection bottles are prepared by 3M Environmental Laboratory (or subcontract supplier) personnel for shipment at ambient temperature to the collection site. Typically, four separate collection bottles are associated with a single collection site: sample, field duplicate sample, low field matrix spike, and high field matrix spike. Alternatively, the sample and field duplicate sample may contain SRSs in lieu of additional target analyte low field matrix spike and target analyte high field matrix spike samples. Depending on the scope of the project, additional replicates of the field sample and field matrix spikes may be added. Also, it is not uncommon for additional mid-level field matrix spikes to be collected if the expected sample concentrations are truly unknown or could span a large concentration range. High-density polyethylene (HDPE) wide-mouth Nalgene bottles are used for the sample collection containers. (Volumes of the bottles may vary depending on how much sample is required to meet data quality objectives.) Sample collection volumes are project specific and based on data quality objectives. The Nalgene bottles do not require any pretreatment prior to use. Typically, placement of a sample bottle volumetric "fill to here" line is done by using a sample bottle marker template. Alternatively, bottles may be weighed prior to bottle preparation and weighed again after samples have been collected. All bottles should be clearly labeled to indicate its intended use as a sample, field sample duplicate, low field matrix spike, high field matrix spike, sample/SRS field matrix spike, field duplicate sample/SRS field matrix spike, trip blank, or trip blank matrix spike. If each location has different designated spike levels, the label should also clearly indicate the sample location designation. Generally, a set of bottles for a given collection site are prepared then grouped together in plastic bags for organizational purposes. For each sample collection event, at least one set of trip blank and trip blank matrix spikes are prepared. Bottle preparation should be documented in a Note to File or on a sample preparation worksheet and should include the following information: date prepared, total number of bottles prepared, number of sample sites, the standard identification numbers and spike volumes used to prepare spiked bottles, the "fill to here" volume, and any other pertinent information needed for reconstructibility of the data. The Note to File will be included in the final data package for the project. Samples are collected in the field and shipped to the laboratory at ambient temperature. 8.1 Field Matrix Spike Sample (FMS) Field matrix spike samples are a requirement of the method. A FMS sample is defined as a QC sample to which known quantities of appropriate target analytes are added to the sample bottle in the field or in the laboratory before the bottles are sent to the field. The sample and field duplicate sample may contain appropriate SRSs in lieu of target analyte FMS samples. Sample quantities are determined volumetrically or gravimetrically. A known, specific volume or weight of sample is added to the sample container without rinsing. Volumetric sample measurements may be acquired by a laboratory applied "fill to this level" line on the outside of the sample container. Target analyte FMS samples should be spiked at approximately 0.5-10 times the expected analyte concentration in the sample. If the expected range of analyte concentrations is unknown, multiple spikes at varying levels may be prepared to increase the likelihood that a spike at an appropriate level is made. Typically a low and a high target analyte spike are prepared for each sampling location. In those instances where SRSs are to be used in lieu of target analyte FMS samples, the sample and field duplicate sample are spiked at approximately 2-5 times the target LOQ. The FMS is analyzed to ascertain if matrix effects or sample holding time contributes bias to the analytical results. For the sample bottles designated for matrix spikes, an appropriate volume of matrix spiking solution is added to the empty bottle prior to sampling. The volume of spike solution added should produce the desired final concentration of target analytes once the bottle is filled with sample to the "fill to here line". The matrix spiking solution(s) should be prepared in a suitable solvent and contain all of the appropriate target analytes, ISs, and SRSs. The target analyte matrix spiking solution is often the same as the working standards used to create the calibration standards. An example of a bottle spike is given below. "Fill to here" volume = 200 mL (A 250 mL Nalgene bottle is used) Desired Field Spike Concentration = 0.25 ng/mL ETS-8-044.1 Page 12 of 22 Method of Analysis for the Determination of Perfluorinated Compounds in Water by LC/MS/MS; Direct Injection Analysis Page 102 of 114 GLP10-01-02; Interim Report 27 Analysis of PFBS, PFHS, and PFOS in Groundwater Decatur, AL - 1st Quarter 2012 Sampling 500 pL of a 0.1 pg/mL spiking solution (containing the target analytes) is added to the bottle and the bottle cap promptly sealed. 8.2 Internal Standard and Surrogate Recovery Standard If analysis of a surrogate recovery standard (SRS) is included in the project objectives, an appropriate volume of a surrogate standard solution is added to all the bottles prior to sampling and SPE. Typically sample bottles are spiked with surrogate recovery standards at a final desired spike concentration of 0.1 ng/mL. If quantitation by internal standard (IS) is included in the project objective, an appropriate volume of internal standard solution is added to all the bottles prior to sampling and SPE. Typically sample bottles are spiked with internal standard at a final desired spike concentration of 1 ng/mL. For the trip blank, the SRS spike and IS spike is added to the bottle and then ASTM Type I water (HPLC grade reagent water or other suitable water may used) is added to the "fill to here" line. The bottle is capped and sealing tape may be placed around the outer edge of the cap. Trip blank matrix spikes are prepared by adding the appropriate volume of target analyte spiking solution, IS, and SRS spiking solutions and filling the bottle to the desired volume with the appropriate water and capping and sealing the cap. 9 Quality Control and Data Quality Objectives 9.1 Data Quality Objectives This method and required quality control samples is designed to generate data accurate to 30% with a targeted LOQ of 0.025 ng/mL. Any deviations from the quality control measures spelled out below will be documented in the raw data and footnoted in the final report. 9.2 Method/Procedural Blanks The method/procedural blank is zero point calibration standard (which includes ISs) analyzed in a regular basis with each analysis batch. At a minimum, method blanks are analyzed prior to instrument calibration, prior to the analysis of CCV samples, after every 10 sample injections, and at the end of the analytical run. The mean area count or area ratios when using internal standard calibration, for each analyte in the method blanks must be less than 50% of the area count counts or area ratios when using internal standard calibration, of the LOQ standard. The standard deviation of the area counts, or area ratios when using internal standard calibration, of these method blanks should be calculated. A specific %RSD acceptance criteria is not specified but is assessed on an analytical batch basis. If the mean area counts or area ratios when using internal standard calibration, of the method blanks exceed 50% of the LOQ standard, then the LOQ must be raised to the first standard level in the curve that meets criteria. Method blanks may be eliminated if technical justification can be provided (e.g. the procedural blank was analyzed after an unexpectedly high level sample). If any procedural blanks are removed from the LOQ determination, document in the raw data and report as appropriate. Laboratory Sample Replicates / Field Duplicate Sample Typically, samples are collected in duplicates in the field. The relative percent difference (RPD) of duplicate samples should be <20% for the precision of sample preparation and analysis to be considered in control. Replicate samples not meeting the <20% RPD criteria are flagged and reported as outside of QC acceptance criteria. 9.3 Laboratory Matrix Spikes (LMSs) LMSs may be performed in lieu of FMSs if FMSs have previously been performed for the sample matrix. Additionally, LMSs may be performed in lieu of FMSs for a sample matrix if the FMS levels were not appropriate for determining spike recoveries relative to endogenous levels of target analytes and appropriate SRSs. Generally, each sample location represents a different sample and sample matrix. LMSs are prepared for each sample and analyzed to determine the matrix effect on spike recovery efficiency of each target analyte and appropriate SRSs. LMSs should be prepared at a minimum of one level and in duplicate. LMS concentrations should be prepared at approximately 0.5-10 times the endogenous concentration or approximately 4-10 times the LOQ concentration of each target analyte. ETS-8-044.1 Page 13 of 22 Method of Analysis for the Determination of Perfluorinated Compounds in Water by LC/MS/MS; Direct Injection Analysis Page 103 of 114 GLP10-01-02; Interim Report 27 Analysis of PFBS, PFHS, and PFOS in Groundwater Decatur, AL - 1st Quarter 2012 Sampling Lab matrix spike recoveries should fall within 30% of expected values. Sample data with LMS recovery outside of 30% but within 50% of the expected value are flagged and reported as outside of QC acceptance criteria. Data with LMS recovery outside of 50% of the expected value are reported as NR, where NR is defined as "Not Reportable" data outside of QC acceptance criteria. 9.4 Lab Control Sample Lab control spikes are prepared for each analysis batch to determine method accuracy and precision. LCSs should be prepared at three levels in triplicate for each target analyte and at a minimum of two levels in triplicate for appropriate SRSs. Low lab control spikes should be prepared at a concentration in the range of approximately four to ten times higher than the targeted lower LOQ, the mid lab control spikes should be prepared at a concentration near the mid-point of the calibration curve and the high lab control spikes at approximately 80% of the upper LOQ. For each target analyte and SRSs, the percent relative standard deviation (method precision) for each control spike level must be less than or equal to 20% and the average recovery (method accuracy) for each control spike level must be 80-120%. Sample data for target analytes outside of the laboratory control spike acceptance criteria will be handled as follows: If the average recovery of a spiking level falls outside method acceptance, but at least 67% (6 out of 9) of LCS samples are within 20% of their respective nominal value (33% of the QC samples, not all replicates at the same concentration, may be outside 20% of nominal value), the average recovery will be flagged as outside method acceptance criteria. All LCS samples will be control charted as per ETS-4-026. If the average recovery of one of the spiking levels exceeded the analytical method uncertainty as determined by ETS-12012, that analytical batch uncertainty will be expanded for that particular study. If more than 67% of the LCS samples fail to meet method acceptance criteria, the data will not be reported. Calibration standards consisting of mixed branched and linear isomer PFOS/PFOA are preferred. However, for PFOS/PFOA target analytes, if the calibration standards are comprised of predominantly linear isomers only, at least one level of triplicate LCSs should be prepared using PFOS/PFOA which contains a mix of linear and branched isomers. These LCSs will be used to demonstrate quantitative equivalency (or quantitative bias) of the isomeric mix when using a predominantly linear standard for calibration. The mixed linear and branched isomer PFOS/PFOA LCSs recoveries should fall within 30% of expected values. Alternatively, in lieu of mixed branched and linear isomer PFOS/PFOA LCSs, mixed branched and linear isomer PFOS/PFOA TBMSs may be applied to demonstrate method accuracy and precision. 9.5 Field Matrix Spikes (FMSs) / Surrogate Recovery Standards (SRSs) FMSs are prepared for each sampling location and analyzed to determine the matrix effect and sample holding time on the spike recovery of each target analyte and/or appropriate SRS. Generally, each sample location represents a different sample and sample matrix. FMSs are QC samples to which known quantities of appropriate target analytes are added to the sample bottle in the laboratory before the bottles are sent to the field. Typically a low and a high target analyte FMS are prepared for each sampling location. The sample and field duplicate sample may contain appropriate SRSs in lieu of target analyte low field matrix spike and target analyte high field matrix spike samples. Field matrix spike method acceptance criteria are recoveries within 30% of the expected value. If FMS recovery (target analyte or SRS spike) is outside of 30% of the expected value or could not be assessed because the FMS (target analyte) was spiked at an inappropriate level, the sample result is reported as follows: 1. ) If target analyte FMS recovery could not be assessed because the FMS's were at an inappropriate level, then Laboratory Matrix Spikes (LMS) may be substituted. If LMS recoveries are within 30% the data are reportable and flagged to indicate that the FMS spikes levels were inappropriate. 2. ) If multiple target analyte FMS's were prepared on a sample and the closest FMS level to the reported sample meets the 30% acceptance criteria but additional FMS's are outside the 30% acceptance range, the data are reportable and flagged to indicate that while there were failing FMS's, the uncertainty will not be expanded since the most appropriate spike level passed. ETS-8-044.1 Page 14 of 22 Method of Analysis for the Determination of Perfluorinated Compounds in Water by LC/MS/MS; Direct Injection Analysis Page 104 of 114 GLP10-01-02; Interim Report 27 Analysis of PFBS, PFHS, and PFOS in Groundwater Decatur, AL - 1st Quarter 2012 Sampling 3. ) If the target analyte FMS recoveries are outside of the 30% acceptance range but at least 30 acceptable historical reportable FMS sample results are available, the data may be reported but flagged with an expanded uncertainty and as not meeting FMS criteria. 4. ) Sample data with FMS recovery outside of 30% but within 50% of the expected value are flagged and reported as outside of QC acceptance criteria with an expanded uncertainty. 5. ) If FMS recovery is outside of 50%, the sample result is reported as NR, where NR is defined as "Not Reportable" due to noncompliant QC results. The targeted fortification levels should be at least 50% of the endogenous level and less than 10 times the endogenous level to be used without justification to determine the statement of accuracy for analytical results. Note: It is possible for bottles utilized for Field Matrix Spike samples to be under-filled or over-filled during sample collection. Since this scenario will effect the actual concentration of the FMS sample (surrogate and internal standard concentrations will also be effected, if used), it is important that any obvious under-filling or over-filling of sample bottles be documented in the data package and taken into account in the FMS, ISs, or SRSs recovery calculations. Samples over-filled or under-filled by more than 10% will be require recalculation of the FMS, ISs, and SRS true values. The average of the sample and the field duplicate should be used to calculate the recovery. 10 Procedures 10.1 Water Sample Preparation This method is applicable to water samples. Samples containing heavy particulate may not be suitable for analysis by this method. Samples containing suspended particulate should be centrifuge prior to removing a sample aliquot, or filtered. Thoroughly mix sample before removing an aliquot and placing in a labeled autovial. Dilute sample, if necessary, with ASTM Type I water, HPLC water, other suitable water, or solvent (methanol). Lab control spikes are prepared for each analysis batch to determine method accuracy and precision. LCSs should be prepared at three levels in triplicate for each target analyte and at a minimum of two levels in triplicate for appropriate SRSs. Low lab control spikes should be prepared at a concentration in the range of approximately four to ten times higher than the targeted lower LOQ, the mid lab control spikes should be prepared at a concentration near the mid-point of the calibration curve and the high lab control spikes at approximately 80% of the upper LOQ. For IS quantitation, stable isotope internal standards of each target analyte or appropriate surrogate ISs should be spiked at the same level as the samples being analyzed, in all LCSs. If LCSs are being prepared using synthetic groundwater, allow the LCSs samples to equilibrate for a minimum of 4 hours before aliquoting for analysis or diluting with solvent (methanol). 11 Sample Analysis - LC/MS/MS 11.1 Instrument Setup Note: In this example, an Applied Biosystems Sciex API 4000 (API 5000 or API 5500) Tandem Mass Spectrometer (LC/MS/MS) is used. Other brands/models of LC/MS/MS instruments as well as single quadrupole mass spectrometers (LC/MS) may be used as long as the method acceptance criteria are met. Brand names, suppliers, part numbers, and models are for illustrative purposes only. Equivalent performance may be achieved using apparatus and materials other than those specified here, but demonstration of equivalent performance that meets the requirements of this method is the responsibility of the laboratory. The operator must optimize and document the equipment and settings used. ETS-8-044.1 Page 15 of 22 Method of Analysis for the Determination of Perfluorinated Compounds in Water by LC/MS/MS; Direct Injection Analysis Page 105 of 114 GLP10-01-02; Interim Report 27 Analysis of PFBS, PFHS, and PFOS in Groundwater Decatur, AL - 1st Quarter 2012 Sampling Establish the LC/MS/MS system and operating conditions equivalent to the following: Mass Spec: Applied Biosystems API 4000, API 5000, or API 5500 Ion Source: Turbo Ion Spray (ABS) Mode: Electrospray Negative Scan Type: MRM (Multiple Reaction Monitoring) Computer: Dell DHM Software: Windows 2000 or Windows XP, Analyst 1.4.2 or higher versions HPLC: Agilent Series 1100,1200, or 1290 Agilent Quaternary Pump Agilent Vacuum Degasser Agilent Autosampler Agilent Column Oven Note: One or more C18 HPLC analytical columns (2.1 mm x 100 mm, 5p.m or 2.1 mm x 50 mm, 5p.m) may be attached on-line after the purge valve and before the sample injection port to retard and separate any residue contaminants that may be in the mobile phase and/or HPLC system. HPLC Column: Betasil C18, 4.6mm x 100mm, 5p.m (ThermoElectron Corporation) Column Temperature: 35C Injection Volume: 5pL Mobile Phase (A): 2mM Ammonium Acetate in ASTM Type I water (See 7.3) Mobile Phase (B): Methanol Table 3. Liquid Chromatography Gradient Program. Step Number 0 1 2 3 4 5 Total Time (m in ) 0 2.0 14.5 15.5 16.5 20.0 Flow Rate (pL/min) 750 750 750 750 750 750 Percent A (2 m M ammonium acetate) 97.0 97.0 5.0 5.0 97.0 97.0 Percent B (M eth an o l) 3.0 3.0 95.0 95.0 3.0 3.0 Note: Other HPLC gradients may be used as long as the method criteria and project data quality objectives are met. It may be necessary to adjust the HPLC gradient in order to optimize instrument performance. Columns with different dimensions (e.g. 2.1 mm x 30mm) and columns from different manufacturers (Keystone Betasil C18 etc.) may be used. ETS-8-044.1 Page 16 of 22 Method of Analysis for the Determination of Perfluorinated Compounds in Water by LC/MS/MS; Direct Injection Analysis Page 106 of 114 GLP10-01-02; Interim Report 27 Analysis of PFBS, PFHS, and PFOS in Groundwater Decatur, AL - 1st Quarter 2012 Sampling Table 4 Suggested MRM Transitions for Target Analytes, Surrogates, and Internal Standards A nalyte PFBA (C4 Acid) PFPeA (C5 Acid) PFHxA (C6 Acid) PFHpA (C7 Acid) PFOA (C8 Acid) PFNA (C9 Acid) PFDA (C10 Acid) PFUnA (C11 Acid) PFDoA (C12 Acid) PFTA (C13 Acid) FBSA (C4 Sulfonamide) FOSA (C8 Sulfonamide) PFBS (C4 Sulfonate) PFHS (C6 Sulfonate) PFOS (C8 Sulfonate) [1,2,3,4 -13C4]PFBA [1,2,3,4,5 -13C5]PFPeA H,2 -13C2lPFHxA [1,2,3,4- 13C4lPFHpA [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8-13C8lPFOA H,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9-13C9lPFNA r1,2,3,4,5,6 -13C6lPFDA r1,2,3,4,5,6,7 -13C7lPFUnA [1,2 -13C2lPFDoA [18O2lPFBS [1,2,3-13C3lPFHS [1,2,3,4- 13C4lPFOS [ 1 ,2,3,4,5,6,7,8-13C8lFOSA [1,2,3,4-13C4lPFOA [1,2,3,4- ^lP F O S [1,2 -13C2lPFUnA A nalyte D escription Target Target Target Target Target Target Target Target Target Target Target Target Target Target Target IS for PFBA IS for PFPeA IS for PFHxA IS for PFHpA IS for PFOA IS for PFNA IS for PFDA IS for PFUnA IS for PFDoA and PFTA IS for PFBS IS for PFHS IS for PFOS IS for FOSA Surrogate (C4-C8 Acids) Surrogate(Sulfonates, FOSA) Surrogate (C9-C13 Acids) M ass T ransition Q1 (am u) 213 263 313 363 413 463 513 563 613 663 298 498 299 399 499 217 268 315 367 421 472 519 570 615 303 402 503 507 417 503 565 M ass T ransition Q3 (am u) 169 219 269, 119 319, 169 369, 219, 169 419, 169, 219 469, 269, 219 519, 269, 219 569, 169, 319 619, 369, 319 78 78 99, 80 99, 80 80, 99, 130 172 223 270 322 376 427 474 525 570 84 80 80 80 372 80 520 Multiple transitions for monitoring the analytes is an option. The use of one daughter ion is acceptable if data sensitivity and selectivity is achieved and provided that retention time criteria are met to assure adequate specificity. While the daughter ions may be chosen at the discretion of the analyst, mass transition 99 is suggested for PFOS. Quantitation may be performed using the total ion chromatogram (TIC, or summed MRMs) for a given analyte. For example, the PFOA TIC would sum all three of the monitored transitions. Use of the suggested primary ion is recommended. Retention times may vary slightly, on a day-to-day basis, depending on the batch of mobile phase and the gradient, column, guard column(s) used etc. Drift in retention times is acceptable within an analytical run, as long as the drift continues through the entire analysis and the standards are interspersed throughout the analytical run. 11.2 Calibration Curve Quantitation is by internal standard or external standard calibration. Calibration standards may be prepared in ASTM Type I, HPLC water, other suitable water, or a solvent/water mixture. If internal standard calibration does not meet calibration acceptance criteria, external calibration can be applied. See Table 1 for ETS-8-044.1 Page 17 of 22 Method of Analysis for the Determination of Perfluorinated Compounds in Water by LC/MS/MS; Direct Injection Analysis Page 107 of 114 GLP10-01-02; Interim Report 27 Analysis of PFBS, PFHS, and PFOS in Groundwater Decatur, AL - 1st Quarter 2012 Sampling recommended application of available internal standards. Quantitation of PFOA and PFOS is by summed analyte-specific mass transitions. Analyze the standard curve prior to each set of samples. If internal standards were added to the calibration standards area ratios are used to generate the calibration curve. The standard curve may be plotted using a linear regression (y = mx + b), weighted 1/x or unweighted, or by quadratic fit (y = ax2 + bx + c), weighted 1/x or unweighted, using suitable software. The mathematical method used to calculate the calibration curve should be applied consistently throughout a study. Any change should be thoroughly documented in the raw data. High and/or low points may be excluded from the calibration curves to provide a better fit over the range appropriate to the data or because they did not meet the pre-determined acceptance criteria. Low-level curve points should also be excluded if their area counts (or area ratio if quantitating by IS) are not at least twice that of the average area counts (or area ratio if quantitating by IS) of method and/or solvent blanks. The coefficient of determination (r2) value for the calibration curve must be greater than or equal to 0.990 (or a correlation coefficient (r) of 0.995). Each point in the curve must be within 25% of the theoretical concentration with the exception of the LLOQ, which may be within 30%. Justification for exclusion of calibration curve points will be noted in the raw data. A minimum of 6 points will be used to construct the calibration curve. If the calibration curve does not meet acceptance criteria, perform routine maintenance or prepare a new standard curve (if necessary) and reanalyze. 11.3 Continuing Calibration Verification (CCV) Continuing calibration verifications (CCV) are analyzed to verify the accuracy of the calibration curve. Analyze a mid-range calibration standard, one of the same standards used to construct the calibration curve, at a minimum after every tenth sample, not including solvent blanks, with a minimum of one per sample set. Calibration verification injections must be within 25% to be considered acceptable. The calibration curve and the last passing CCV will then bracket acceptable samples. Multiple CCV levels may be used. Samples must be bracketed by passing CCVs or the calibration curve and a passing CCV to be reportable. 11.4 System Suitability A minimum of three system suitability samples should be injected at the beginning of each analytical run, prior to the analysis of the calibration curve. Typically these samples are at a concentration near the mid-level of the calibration curve and are repeated injections from one autosampler vial. It is suggested that the system suitability injections have area counts or area ratios when using internal standard calibration, with a target RSD of <5% and a target retention time RSD of <2%. There is no defined acceptability limit on these results as the %RSD value is dependent on the number of MRM transitions being monitored in the LC/MS/MS run or time period. Ultimately, any effects on these parameters for the System Suitability samples will also be evident on all standards and QC samples analyzed as part of the analysis batch. Any effect of system suitability is incorporated within QC acceptance criteria.4 11.5 Sample Analysis and QCs For each analysis batch, the instrument analysis run sequence should include an initial calibration curve, samples, FDSs, interspersed blanks, interspersed CCVs, appropriate QCs (i.e., LCSs, LMSs, FMSs, TBMSs, and TBs), and a final CCV or calibration curve bracketing samples and appropriate QCs Inject the same volume (between 5 - 100pL) of each standard, analytical sample and blank into the instrument (unless an on-instrument sample dilution is desired). Samples containing analytes that are quantitated above the concentration of the highest standard in the curve should be further diluted and reanalyzed. 4 3M Environmental Laboratory study E08-0096 evaluated the effect on these results as a function o f the number of MRMs being monitored. ETS-8-044.1 Page 18 of 22 Method of Analysis for the Determination of Perfluorinated Compounds in Water by LC/MS/MS; Direct Injection Analysis Page 108 of 114 GLP10-01-02; Interim Report 27 Analysis of PFBS, PFHS, and PFOS in Groundwater Decatur, AL - 1st Quarter 2012 Sampling 12 Data Analysis and Calculations The chromatography analysis software will typically calculate the amount of target analyte in the sample extracts using the established calibration curve. Calculate the percent recovery of the LCS using the following equation: LCS Concentration (-5^-) LCS% recovery = ------------------------------ mL * 100% ng Spike Concentration (--^-) mL Calculate the percent recovery of the LMS using the following equation: LMS % recovery ng ng LMS Concentration (----) - Concentration of Sample (----) mL mL ng Spike Concentration (----) mL 100% For samples fortified with known amounts of analyte prior to extraction, use the following equation to calculate the percent recovery. Recovery = Total analyte found (ng/mL) - Average analyte found in sample (ng/mL) ^ 1 0 0 Analyte added (ng/mL) 13 Analysis Batch Method Performance Criteria Any method performance parameters that are not achieved must be considered in the evaluation of the data. Nonconformance to any specified parameters must be described and discussed in the final report if the Technical Manager (non-GLP study) or Study Director (GLP study) chooses to report the data. If criteria listed in this method performance section are not met, maintenance may be performed on the system and samples reanalyzed, or other actions taken as appropriate. Document all actions in the raw data. If data are to be reported when performance criteria have not been met, the data must be footnoted on tables and discussed in the text of the report. 13.1 System Suitability - Analysis Batch A minimum of three system suitability samples should be injected at the beginning of each analytical run. These samples are run prior to the calibration curve. It is suggested that the system suitability injections have area counts with a target RSD of <5% and a target retention time RSD of <2%. There is no defined acceptability limit on these results as the %RSDs are dependent on the number of MRM transitions being monitored in the LC/MS/MS run or time period. Any effect of system suitability is incorporated in the QC acceptance criteria. 13.2 Calibration and Limit of Quantitation (LOQ) - Analysis Batch Calibration Curve: The coefficient of determination (r2) value for the calibration curve must be greater than or equal to 0.990 corresponding to a correlation coefficient (r) = 0.995. Each point in the curve must be within 25% of the theoretical concentration with the exception of the LLOQ, which may be within 30%. CCV Performance: The calibration standards that are interspersed throughout the analytical sequence are evaluated as continuing calibration verifications in addition to being part of the calibration curve. The accuracy ETS-8-044.1 Page 19 of 22 Method of Analysis for the Determination of Perfluorinated Compounds in Water by LC/MS/MS; Direct Injection Analysis Page 109 of 114 GLP10-01-02; Interim Report 27 Analysis of PFBS, PFHS, and PFOS in Groundwater Decatur, AL - 1st Quarter 2012 Sampling of each curve point must be within 25% of the theoretical value (within 30% for lowest curve point). Samples that are bracketed by CCVs not meeting these criteria must be reanalyzed. Limits of Quantitation (LOQ): The lower LOQ (LLOQ) is the lowest non-zero active standard in the calibration curve; the peak area of the LLOQ must be at least 2X that of the average area counts for all prepared procedural blank(s). By definition, the measured value of the LLOQ must be within 30% of the theoretical value. Demonstration of Specificity: Specificity is demonstrated by chromatographic retention time (within 4% of standard) and the mass spectral response of unique ions. 13.3 Blanks - Method/Procedural Blanks and Trip Method/Procedural Blanks: Multiple procedural blanks should be interspersed throughout the analysis batch and the analytical sequence. At a minimum, method blanks are analyzed prior to instrument calibration, prior to the analysis of CCV samples, after every 10 sample injections, and at the end of the analytical run. The mean area counts (or area ratios when using IS calibration) for each analyte must be less than 50% of the area count of the LOQ standard. If the area counts of the procedural blanks exceed 50% of the LOQ standard, then the LOQ must be raised to the first standard level that meets criteria. Trip Blank: A trip blank of ASTM Type I water (or lab equivalent) is prepared in a sample container in the laboratory and treated as a sample, including exposure to shipping, sampling site conditions, storage, preservation and all analytical procedures. The trip blanks results for each analyte are included with the reported sample results. 13.4 Data Accuracy and Precision - Analysis Batch Lab Control Spikes: The average recovery at each LCS level for each target analyte and appropriate SRS should be within 80-120% and the percent relative standard deviation of the recoveries must be less than or equal to 20%. If the average recovery of a spiking level falls outside method acceptance, but at least 67% (6 out of 9) of LCS samples are within 20% of their respective nominal value (33% of the QC samples, not all replicates at the same concentration, may be outside 20% of nominal value), the average recovery will be flagged as outside method acceptance criteria. All LCS samples will be control charted as per ETS-12-012. If the average recovery of one of the spiking levels exceeded the analytical method uncertainty as determined by ETS-12-012, that analytical batch uncertainty will be expanded for that particular study. The average recovery at each LCS level for mixed branched/linear isomer PFOA and PFOS should be within 70-130% and the percent relative standard deviation of the recoveries must be less than or equal to 20%. Field Duplicates: The relative percent difference (RPD) of duplicate samples should be less than 20% for the precision of sample preparation and analysis to be considered in control. Replicate samples not meeting the 20% RPD criteria are flagged and reported as outside of QC acceptance criteria. Field Matrix Spikes: FMS acceptance criteria are recoveries within 30% of the expected value for each target analyte and appropriate SRS. Sample data with FMS recovery outside of 30% but within 50% of the expected value are flagged and reported as outside of QC acceptance criteria. Data with FMS recovery outside of 50% of the expected value are reported as NR, where NR is defined as "Not Reportable" data outside of QC acceptance criteria. If FMS recovery could not be assessed because FMSs were at an inappropriate level, then Laboratory Matrix Spikes (LMSs) may be substituted. If LMS recoveries are within 30% for each target analyte and SRSs the data are reportable but flagged as not meeting the FMS method acceptance criteria. 13.5 Analytical Method Uncertainty Analytical method uncertainty for each target analyte and SRS is determined with control charted historical analysis batch LCS data for the method and reported with each analysis batch.5 Uncertainty determinations 5 M ethod uncertainty based on INTERNATIONAL ANS/ISO/IED STANDARD 17025 reference (GUM , G uide to the Expression o f U ncertainty in M easurement). M ethod application dem onstrated in ETS-12-012, citing references: a.) EURA CH EM /CITA C Guide, "Q uantifying U ncertainty in A nalytical M easurem ent," Second E dition; Editors: S.L.R. Ellison, M. R osslein, and A. W illiams. b.)Georgian, Thomas, "Estim ation o f Laboratory A nalytical Uncertainty U sing Laboratory Control Samples," Environm ental Testing & ETS-8-044.1 Page 20 of 22 Method of Analysis for the Determination of Perfluorinated Compounds in Water by LC/MS/MS; Direct Injection Analysis Page 110 of 114 GLP10-01-02; Interim Report 27 Analysis of PFBS, PFHS, and PFOS in Groundwater Decatur, AL - 1st Quarter 2012 Sampling are based on INTERNATIONAL ANS/ISO/IED STANDARD 17025 reference (GUM, Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement) and described in ETS-12-012. At least thirty data points are required for determining analytical method uncertainty. The method uncertainty is defined as 2x the standard deviation of the percent recoveries of the pooled lab control spikes. While all LCS data points are control charted, only the most recent fifty data points are used for determining the method uncertainty. When less than thirty LCS data points have been generated for a given analyte, the analysis batch LCSs are used to determine the data uncertainty. If FMSs meet the 30% recovery criteria at a level appropriate to the endogenous level, and the LCS meet the 20% recovery criteria, then the uncertainty of the data is determined as within 10020%. Analysis batch sample data with FMS recovery outside of 30% but within 50% of the expected value are flagged and reported as outside of QC acceptance criteria with expanded uncertainties. Data with FMS recovery outside of 50% of the expected value are reported as NR, where NR is defined as "Not Reportable" data outside of QC acceptance criteria. If FMS recovery could not be assessed because FMSs were at an inappropriate level, then Laboratory Matrix Spikes (LMSs) may be substituted. If LMS recoveries are within 30% for each target analyte and appropriate SRSs the data are reportable but flagged as not meeting the FMS method acceptance criteria with uncertainties of 30%. If FMS do not meet the 30% recovery criteria, and historical FMS data does not exist, the analytical uncertainty is evaluated on a sample-by-sample basis, the data may be reported with expanded uncertainty and are flagged. 13.6 Quantitation of PFOA/PFOS - Analysis Batch Calibration standards consisting of mixed branched and linear isomer PFOS/PFOA are preferred. Quantitation is performed by integrating the linear and branched isomers together. Alternately, the linear and branched isomers can be integrated separately, applying the appropriate true value to each calibration curve point for each isomer. The LCS and samples are then quantitated by integrating the linear and branched isomers separately (requires separate analytical results files) and quantitating the resulting peak against the linear or branched calibration curve. The results from both integrations are then summed to produce the final result. Integrating the linear and branched isomers separately may be helpful for those samples where the linear/branched ratios do not closely match those of the reference standards. However, for PFOS/PFOA target analytes, if the calibration standards are comprised of predominantly linear isomers only the method requires the addition of LCSs of mixed branched/linear isomer PFOS/PFOA. The purpose of including these LCSs is to demonstrate quantitative equivalency (or quantitative bias) of the isomeric mix when using a predominantly linear PFOS or PFOA standard for calibration. Alternatively, in lieu of mixed branched and linear isomer PFOS/PFOA LCSs, mixed branched and linear isomer PFOS/PFOA TBMSs may be applied to demonstrate method accuracy and precision. An alternate method of quantitation can be performed whereby only the linear isomer of PFOS/PFOA is integrated and used for generating the calibration curve. The LCS and samples are then quantitated by integrating the linear and branched isomers separately (requires separate analytical results files) and quantitating the resulting peak against the linear calibration curve. The results from both integrations are then summed to produce the final result. Integrating the linear and branched isomers separately reduces the oncolumn concentration for those samples that contain both linear and branched isomers of PFOA/PFOS. This ensures that the concentration detected is within the a range of the calibration curve that is comparable regardless of whether the calibration curve was generated using predominantly linear isomers of PFOS/PFOA or linear plus branched isomers of PFOS/PFOA. 14 Pollution Prevention and Waste Management Waste generated when performing this method will be disposed of appropriately. The original samples will be archived at the 3M Environmental Laboratory in accordance with internal procedures. A nalysis, N ovem ber/D ecem ber 2000. c.)Taylor, B.N. and CE. Kuyatt, N IST Technical N ote 1297, 1994 Edition: "Guidelines for Evaluating and Expressing the U ncertainty o f N IST M easurem ent R esults."d.)A dam s, T.M ., "A 2LA G uide for the Estim ation o f M easurem ent Uncertainty in Testing", July 2002. ETS-8-044.1 Page 21 of 22 Method of Analysis for the Determination of Perfluorinated Compounds in Water by LC/MS/MS; Direct Injection Analysis Page 111 of 114 GLP10-01-02; Interim Report 27 Analysis of PFBS, PFHS, and PFOS in Groundwater Decatur, AL - 1st Quarter 2012 Sampling 15 Records Each data package generated for a study must include all supporting information for reconstruction of the data. Information for the data package must include, but is not limited to the following items: study or project number, sample and standard prep sheets/records, instrument run log (instrument batch records, instrument acquisition method, summary pages), instrument results files, chromatograms, calibration curves, and data calculations. 16 Affected Documents None. 17 Revisions Revision Number 1 Summary of Changes Section 1. Included the use of internal standard calibration by this method. Section 2. Included the use of internal standard calibration by this method. Included the use of a solvent/water mixture when analyzing for PFUnA, PFDoA, PFTrDA, and FOSA. Section 3. Added definitions for internal standard, surrogate internal standard, and surrogate recovery standard. Section 6.Removed the details regarding the instrument parameters to section 10 of the method. Section 7. Updated reference standards to include internal standards and surrogates. Changed concentration levels for working standards and included the use of internal standards and surrogates. Section 8. Inserted a new section on sample bottle preparation. Section 9 Quality Control. This section was previously section 10 in ETS-8-044.0. Updated QC criteria to be consistent with method ETS-8-154.4. Section 10 Procedures. This section was previously section 8 (Sample Handling) in ETS-8044.0. Added detail regarding the preparation of LCSs. Included the use of methanol as a dilution solvent. Section 11 Sample Analysis. This section was previously section 10 in ETS-8-044.0. Included the details regarding the instrument parameters. Section 12 Data Analysis and Calculations. This section was previously section 11 in ETS8-044.0. Removed the equation for calculating the analytes concentration, indicating that this is done by the instrument software. Section 13 Method Performance. This section was previously section 12 in ETS-8-044.0. Updated QC criteria to be consistent with ETS-8-154.4. Added information on the determination of analytical method uncertainty and quantitation of PFOA/PFOS. Section 14 Pollution Prevention. This section was previously section 13 in ETS-8-044.0. Section 15 Records. This section was previously section 14 in ETS-8-044.0. Section 16 Affected Documents. This section was previously section 15 in ETS-8-044.0. Section 17 Revisions. This section was previously section 16 in ETS-8-044.0. ETS-8-044.1 Page 22 of 22 Method of Analysis for the Determination of Perfluorinated Compounds in Water by LC/MS/MS; Direct Injection Analysis Page 112 of 114 Attachment D: Deviation(s) GLP10-01-02; Interim Report 27 Analysis of PFBS, PFHS, and PFOS in Groundwater Decatur, AL - 1st Quarter 2012 Sampling Page 113 of 114 GLP10-01-02; Interim Report 27 Analysis of PFBS, PFHS, and PFOS in Groundwater Decatur, AL - 1st Quarter 2012 Sampling __________ Re c o r d o f De v ia t io n /No n c o n f o r m a n c e __________ ____________________________ I. Identification___________________________ Study / Project No. Date(s) of Occurrence: Document Number: GLP10-01-02-27 4/11/12, 4/30/12 ETS-8-044.1 Deviation type SOP Equipment Procedure 0 Method (Check one) Protocol________ GPO________________ Other:_______________________ __________________II. Description (attach extra pages as needed)______________________ Method Requirements: 1. FM S reco very w ith in 3 0% (sectio n 13.4). 2. RPD values <20% (section 13.4). Actual procedure/process: 1. T he fo llow ing sam p le s had reco verie s th a t did not m eet a cce p ta n ce criteria fo r PFOS: D AL G W 310R LS (68.0%), DAL G W 330R HS (66.0%), DAL G W 330L HS (66.6%), DAL G W RW 331S LS (64.1% ) and HS (69.1% ), and DAL G W G RS04 HS (45.9%). 2. The sam pling location DAL G W 220R had a sam ple/sam ple duplicate RPD o f 26% fo r PFOS and DAL G W 222R had a RPD of 25% for PFOS. III. Actions Taken ________________________ (such as amendment issued, SOP revision, etc.)______________________ Corrective Action ( Yes 0 No) Reference: Acceptability of the nonconforming work: 1. T he sam p lin g lo catio ns w ith FM S reco verie s o u tside m ethod a cce p ta n ce criteria w ill be flag ge d in the report. The analytical uncertainty for sam pling locations DAL G W 310R and DAL G W R W 331S will be expanded for PFOS based on the % bias of the m ost appropriate spike level. Since the % bias for sam pling locations DAL G W 330R and DAL G W 330L w ere within the analytical m ethod uncertainty for PFOS by external standard calibration ( 34%), no adjustm ent will be m ade to the sam pling location analytical uncertainty. Sam pling location DAL G W G RS04 will not be reported for PFOS due to the only appropriate spike level having a recovery below 50%. 2. T he n o n -co m p lia n t R P D s w ill be flag ge d in the final report. Actions: Halting of W ork Client Notification W ork Recall 0 Other: D e viatio ns w ill be noted in final report. Withholding of Report Project Lead/PAI Approval: Date: Study Director (if GLP): Sponsor Approval (for GLP protocol deviations): NA Technical Reviewer (optional): NA Laboratory Department Manager Approval: Date: Date: NA Date: NA Date: IV. Authorization to Resume Work ____ Where halting of work occurred, resumption of work must first be approved by Laboratory Management Laboratory Department Manager Approval: NA Date: NA Deviation N o .______________ (assigned by Study Director or Team Leader at the end of study or project) ETS-4-008.7 Page 1 of 1 Documentation of Deviations and Control of Nonconforming Testing Page 114 of 114