Document aBdzz0d1ZEL9o3KB1QMxRRDJy
AR226-2668
58
AR226-2668
Particle Size Distribution ofPFOA in Ambient Air
Data Summary and Analysis
May 2004
Prepared for DuPont Fluoroproducts
Washington Works 8480 Dupont Road
Washington, WV 26181
Prepared By DuET - Reaction Engineering DuET - Environmental Engineerim
SUMMARY
A sampling program was conducted to evaluate the particle size distribution (PSD) ofPFOA in ambient air at the Washington Works site. PSD information is a critical input for air deposition modeling. In addition to providing a measure of the PSD, the sampling program also was used to calculate 72-hour
average ambient air concentrations at 4 fence-line locations.
Results from the sampling program are summarized below.
An average PSD was calculated using data collected during a 72-hour sampling event at four fenceline locations. The average PSD is shown in the following table.
Particle Diameter, microns 4.0
1.7
0.8 0.5 0.3 0.28
Mass Fraction
0.056 0.129 0.092 0.072 0.053 0.598
Cumulative % Less Than Particle Size
94.4% 81.5% 72.3% 65.1% 59.8%
These results compare favorably with previous PSD measurements for PFOA collected at the Washington Works site (circa 1995), shown in the table below.
Particle Diameter, microns 4.0 2.0 0.75 0.4 0.2
Mass Fraction
0.033 0.127 0.035 0.267 0.538
Cumulative % Less Than Particle Size
96.7% 84.0% 80.5% 53.8%
The overall mass concentration of PFOA for the 3-day test period is as follows:
Station 1:
0.0099 ug/m3
Station 2:
0.1099 ug/m3
Station 3:
0.1030 ug/m3
Station 4:
0.0034 ug/m3
Concentrations compare favorably to previous 24-hour sampling collected using OSHA Versatile Sampling (OVS) tubes, where the majority of monitored data was below a quantitation limit of approximately 0.14 ug/m3. m addition, sample results from this study show co-located samples at Stations 2 and 3 differ by less than 6%, showing acceptable precision in the sampling methodology. Also, the concentrations above are consistent with predicted model results and with previous .OVS tube sampling which show the location of Station 4 as the predominant upwind location and Stations 2 and 3
as the predominant downwind location.
INTRODUCTION The intent of this report is to describe the sampling technique used to determine the particle size distribution (PSD) ofPFOA in the ambient air around the Washington Works Plant. This report
will farther present and discuss the results from a field test to measure the particle size
distribution.
SAMPLING STRATEGY
The particle size program was conducted during a 72-hour period at four locations, shown in Figure 1. Locations were selected to represent areas of the predicted maximum ambient air concentrations, according to air dispersion modeling. Two samplers were co-located (at Stations 2 and 3) to provide information about sampling precision. One background sampler was located to collect predicted upstream concentrations, assuming wind patterns follow predominant directions in the valley.
SAMPLING METHODOLOGY AND DATA COLLECTION
The PSD measurement was accomplished by means of a cascade impactor, an inertial
classification device. An impactor operates under the principle that if a stream of particle-laden
air is directed at a surface, particles of sufficient inertia will impact upon the surface and the smaller particles will follow the air streamlines and will not be collected. Thus, an impactor consists simply of a nozzle or jet stage, either round or rectangular in shape, and an impaction
plate or substrate.
At each location, sampling equipment consisted ofaTisch Model 235 High Volume Cascade Impactor rented from RAMCON Environmental in Kingston Springs, Tennessee. The complete sampler consisted of the 5-stage impactor head attached to a high volume sampling pump. (See Figure 2.) RAMCON also provided on-site support to mobilize and operate sampling equipment. Each sampler was operated for a nominal 72-hr period in order to maximize the potential for collecting sufficient mass of the target analyte.
The impactors were calibrated in accordance with Reference Method for the Determination of Suspended Paniculate Matter in the Atmosphere (Hish-Volume Method), CFR 40 Part 50.11, Appendix B, July I, 1976 (Reference 1) and operated in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions (Reference 2). One exception to routine procedure was made, in order to accommodate the objective of the program. Normally, the substrates (cellulose targets and filter) are dried in a desiccator and pre-weighed and the process is repeated post-test to obtain the mass collected. However, this gravimetric protocol was not followed, in order to distinguish only the mass ofPFOA collected in the sampler from other compounds and dusts that may have been collected. Instead, material from each of the collection stages was analyzed separately, specifically to determine the mass of the target analyte at each stage, or cut size.
In order to ensure the material was adequately retained on filters during the sampling period, preliminary laboratory testing was performed. Results from lab testing showed that acceptable analytical recovery was demonstrated. Details are included in Appendix 1.
At each of the four locations, flow rates and run time were recorded and calibrations were
performed to determine cut sizes and actual airflow during the sampling period. Calibration tables are included in Appendix 2.
ANALYTICAL METHODS
Cellulose filters were extracted and analyzed for PFOA by Exygen Research, State College, PA. Exygen extracted the sample with water using methods that are currently being validated. Following extraction, the samples were analyzed using methodology described in documentation submitted to the public docket under OPPT-2003-0012-0040. That methodology uses a methanol extraction with liquid chromatograph/mass spectrometer/mass spectrometer (LC/MS/MS). Exygen's complete report (entitled Particle Size Distribution Study 3/04) is included in the public docket as OPPT-2003-0012-0659.
RESULTS
For each of the four sampling locations, a mass of PFOA was determined for separate cut sizes. This information was used to calculate the PSD both as a weight fraction and as a cumulative
distribution. Sampling data for each station is included in Appendix 3. Because impactor gas flow rate effects the calculated cut size, slight differences in cut sizes were apparent (a maximum of 6%). These data were averaged to provide a single representative PSD for PFOA in ambient air. Table 1 summarizes particle size data from each of the station. Table 2 shows the final representative PSD, based on averaging from four sampling locations.
In addition to determining the PSD, sampling data were also used to determine concentrations of PFOA at each sampling location. The overall mass concentration of PFOA for the 3-day test period is
as follows:
Station 1: Station 2: Stations: Station 4:
0.0099 ug/m3 0.1099 ug/m3 0.1030 ug/m3 0.0034 ug/m3
Concentrations compare favorably to previous 24-hour sampling collected using OSHA Versatile Sampling (OVS) tubes, where the majority of monitored data was below a quantitation limit of approximately 0.14 ug/m3. In addition, sample results from this study show co-located samples at Stations 2 and 3 differ by less than 6%, showing acceptable precision in the sampling methodology. Also, the concentrations above are consistent with predicted model results and with previous OVS tube sampling which show the location of Station 4 as the predominant upwind location and Stations 2 and 3 ' as the predominant downwind location.
Table 1
NORMALIZED PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION DATA SUMMARY
Station 1
Particle Size Urn
4.1 1.71 0.86 0.55 0.28
Station 2
Particle Size um
4.19 1.75 0.87 0.55 0.29
Station 3
Particle Size um
3.96 1.66 0.83 0.53 0.27
Station 5
Particle Size um
3.93 1.65 0.83 0.53 0.27
<0.28
<0.29
0.27
0.27
Avg. PSD Particle
Size um
4.0
1.7
0.8
.
0.5
0.3
0.28
Station 1 Cum % <
%
92.1% 74.2% 64.1% 54.6% 47.6%
Station 2 Cum % <
%
95.9% 82.5% 73.9% 68.5% 67.9%
Station 3 Cum % <
%
96.6% 85.1% 74.6% 68.1% 61.8%
Station 4 Cum % <
%
93.2% 84.3% 76.7% 69.3% 61.9%
Table 2. Representative PSD for PFOA at Washington Works Site
Particle Diameter, microns 4.0
1.7 0.8 0.5 0.3 0.28
Mass Fraction
0.056 0.129 0.092 0.072 0.053 0.598
Cumulative % Less Than Particle Size
94.4% 81.5% 72.3% 65.1% 59.8%
Figure 2: High Volume Sampler with Cascade Imoactor
Size selective particulate high volume sampler
Multi-stage cascade impactor
REFERENCE DOCUMENTS
1. Reference Method for the Determination of Suspended Particulate Matter in the Atmosphere (High-Volume Method), CFR 40 Part 50.11, Appendix B, July 1, 1976
2. Series 230 High Volume Cascade Impactor Operation Manual, Tisch Environmental, Clevis, OH 45002, March, 2004
APPENDIX 1 Laboratory Test Report for Determination of Filter Paper Retention Efficiency
PFOA Filter Retention Study
Apparatus:
Laboratory Apparatus
3 Cole Parmer rotometers, cat. # A-32461-58 6 filter cartridges 2 Air pumps, MICRO-MAX 1, Micro-Trap, Inc. Stainless steel manifold w/vacuum gauge '/4" Tygon tubing Whatman 41 filter paper, cat. #1441 866 Pentadecafluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), Oakwood Products 20 mL scintillation vials w/screw caps
Rotameter
- Vacuum Pressure Gauge
Figure 1: Experimental Apparatus for Filter Retention Study
Laboratory Procedure
To determine the retention efficiency of the filter paper used for the high-volume cascade impactor, a 1-u.g spike (10uL of 100.7p.g/mL in acetone) ofPFOA was applied to five 47-mm circles of filter paper cut from the larger paper used in the impactor. The circles were contained in a standard filter cassette (cat. # 225-4702 SKC, Inc., Eighty Four, PA, USA). The spiked cassettes were allowed to air dry and then placed in series with air first passing through an unspiked filter paper cassette then the spiked
cassette. The flowrate used for this lab test was 10.5 liters per minute, to simulate the airflow used during high-volume sampling. Specific procedures are described below.
1. Assemble the experimental apparatus as depicted in Figure 1. Cut out eight circular filter
disks having a diameter of 4.5 cm. Use gloves to prevent contamination. Soak eight
vials/caps in deionized water and air-dry two times.
2. Load a filter disk into each filter cartridge. Turn on the air pumps and calibrate the airflow through each rotometer with a bubble flow meter (10.5 L/min.).
3. Put one filter disk into a vial, secure and label as Experiment Blank. Apply 10 uL of the 100.7 ppm PFOA stock solution (in HR-GC acetone) to a filter disk. Put this disk into a vial,
secure and label as 1 u,g Spike.
4. Turn off the air pumps. Remove each of the three sample filters from the cartridges. Apply 10 pL of the PFOA stock solution to each sample filter. Reinsert each sample filter into its
cartridge.
5. Turn OE the air pumps. Record the time.
6. Turn off pumps when 24 hours have elapsed. Remove the blank filter paper (closest to the rotometer), insert and secure into a vial and label as 24 hr. blank. Remove the sample filter
paper (closest to the manifold), insert and secure into a vial and label as 24 hr. sample. Cap off the manifold line with a 'A" tubing cap. Turn on air pumps.
7. Turn off pumps when 48 hours have elapsed. Repeat step 6 with the exception of labeling the filter papers as 48 hr. blank and 48 hr. sample.
8. Turn of pumps when 72 hours have elapsed. Repeat step 6 with the exception of labeling the
filter papers as 72 hr. blank and 72 hr. sample.
9. Ship all vials to Exygen for LC/MS/MS analysis.
10
Analytical Methodology Filter paper samples were placed in a 50-mL propylene centrifuge tubes and fortified and air-dried, if needed. Forty mL of water was added, then the tube capped and shaken overnight (12-24 hours) on a
wrist-action shaker. The tubes were removed from the shaker and centrifuged at approximately 5000 rpm for approximately 10 minutes. The supemate was decanted into another 50-mL polypropylene centrifuge
tube. Cig solid-phase extraction cartridges (Waters, Milford, MA, USA) were preconditioned by passing 10-mL ofmethanol then 5-mL of water through each. The sample was then loaded onto the cartridge and the eluate discarded. The column was then washed with 40% methanol in water and the eluate discarded. The cartridge was then eluted with approximately 5-mL of 100% methanol. Five mL of the eluate was collected in a 15-mL polypropylene centrifuge and transported for LC/MS/MS analysis.
The analysis was performed on a HP 1100 series electrospray mass spectrometer (Agilent, Little Falls, DE, USA) with a 2mM ammonium acetate (A) and methanol (B) gradient (0 time, 70% A; 6.0 min., 10%A; 12 minutes stop; post time 4 minutes) at 0.3 mL/minute. A 5-u.L aliquot was injected onto a Betasil Cig column (2 mm x 30 mm, 3 (xm) (Thermo Hypersil-Keystone, San Jose, CA, USA) at 35 C. Ions 369 (m/z) (PFOA) and 469 (m/z)(surrogate) were monitored. A six-point (nonzero) linear calibration curve was used for quantitation. The standards were measured both at the beginning of the run sequence and were interspersed throughout the run. For the initial run (6 points) and the combined initial and interspersed set (12 points), the correlation coefficient (R) was ^.0.992 (coefficient of determination, R^O.985). A matrix control sample fortified with PFOA was included with a blank with each set of samples. Fortification and surrogate recoveries falling within 75 to 125% were considered acceptable. Samples in which no peaks were detected (i.e., signal: noise ratio < 3: 1) at the corresponding retention times were reported as ND (not detected). Samples in which peaks are detected at the corresponding analyte retention time but less than the lowest concentration of the calibration standards (50 ng/mL) were reported as NQ (not quantifiable). The limit of quantitation for this method was 50ng/mL (or 50 ng per fraction). Method blanks did not contain analyte at levels greater than the LOQ.
Analytical Results Table A summarizes results from this experiment.
Table A. Retention of PFOA on Whatman #41 Filter Paper at 10.5 L/min
time (hour)
0 0
24 24
volume
(m3)
0 0 15 15
Mass detected (|jg)
0.02 0.82 0.02 0.75
% retention
NA NA NA
91
11
APPENDIX 2
Calibration Tables
Table A
Ramcon Environmental
TE-5100-D MFC Sampler Calibration
(Dickson recorder)
Location-> Sampler->
Dupont WW #1 TE-5000
SITE
Date-> Tech->
23-Mar-04 Dale Sawyer
CONDITIONS
Sampler Elevation (feet)
0
Sea Level Pressure (in Hg)
30.00 Corrected Pressure (mm Hg)
762
Temperature (deg F)
40
Temperature (deg K)
277
Seasonal SL Press, (in Hg)
30.00 Corrected Seasonal (mm Hg)
762
Seasonal Temp. (deg F)
40 Seasonal Temp. (deg KL)
277
Serial#->
Make-> Tisch-Env Model-> TE-5025
CALIBRATION ORIFICE
Qstd Qstd Intercept-> Date Certified->
Slope->
2.03415 -0.02843
Plate or
Test#
H20
(in)
CALIBRATION
Qstd (m3/min)
(chart)
1C (corrected)
LINEAR REGRESSION
18
10.80
1.691
54.0
56.04
Slope =
50.2351
13
9.40
1.578
45.0
46.70
Intercept =
-29.7495
10
6.20
1.284
38.0
39.43 Corr. coeff.=
0.9856
7
4.26
1.067
20.0
20.75
S
2.32
0.791
10.0
10.38
Calculations
Qstd = l/m[Sqrt(H20(Pa/Pstd)(Tstd/Ta))-b] 1C = I[Sqrt(Pa/Pstd)(Tstd/Ta)]
Qstd = standard flow rate 1C = corrected chart response I = actual chart response m = calibrator Qstd slope b = calibrator Qstd intercept Ta = actual temperature during calibration (deg K) Pa = actual pressure during calibration (mm Hg) Tstd = 298 deg K Pstd = 760 mm Hg For subsequent calculation of sampler flow: l/m((I)[Sqrt(298/Tav)(Pav/760)]-b)
Qstd (ft3/min)
59.700867 55.730214 45.353563 37.678602 27.935039
Chart
45.0 40.0 33.0 24.0 10.0
Chart setting for
40 CFM std
24.825491
First 24 hours 7:50
Chart Reading 30
CFM std
44.91
Average CFM
std
43.36
7:46 18
33.78
Second 24 hours 8:00
Chart Reading 32
CFM std 46.76
8:16 30 44.91
Third 24 hours 9:42
Chart Reading 32
CFM std 46.76
9:38 28 43.05
13
Table B
Ramcon Environmental TE-5100-D MFC Sampler Calibration
(Dickson recorder)
Location-> Sampler->
Dupont WW #2 TE-5000
SITE
Date-> Tech->
23-Mar-04 Dale Sawyer
CONDITIONS
Sampler Elevation (feet)
0
Sea Level Pressure (in Hg)
30.00 Corrected Pressure (mm Hg)
762
Temperature (deg F)
40
Temperature (deg K)
277
Seasonal SL Press, (in Hg)
30.00 Corrected Seasonal (mm Hg)
762
Seasonal Temp. (deg F)
40 Seasonal Temp. (deg K)
277
Serial#->
Make-> Model->
Tisch-Env TE-5025
CALIBRATION ORIFICE
Qstd Qstd Intercepts Date Certified->
Slope->
2.03415 -0.02843
Plate or
Test#
H20
(in)
CALIBRATION
Qstd (m3/min)
I (chart)
1C (corrected)
LINEAR REGRESSION
18
11.00
1.706
47.0
48.77
Slope =
36.3187
13
9.00
1.544
41.0
42.55
Intercept =
-13.1594
10
7.00
1.364
35.0
36.32 Con". coeff.=
7
4.00
1.034
25.0
25.94
5
2.50
0.821
15.0
15.57
Calculations
Qstd = l/m[Sqrt(H20(Pa/Pstd)(Tstd/Ta))-b] 1C = I[Sqrt(Pa/Pstd)(Tstd/Ta)]
Qstd = standard flow rate 1C = corrected chart response I = actual chart response m = calibrator Qstd slope b == calibrator Qstd intercept Ta = actual temperature during calibration (deg K) Pa = actual pressure during calibration (mm Hg)
Tstd=298degK
Pstd = 760 mm Hg For subsequent calculation of sampler flow: l/m((I)[Sqrt(298/Tav)(Pav/760)]-b)
First 24 hours
Second 24
hours
8:00
8:14
8:00
Chart Reading
Chart Reading
30
27
24
CFM std
CFM std
45.33 Average CFM std
42.58
39.84
41.06
18 34.35
Third 24 hours
9:30 Chart Reading
29 CFM std
44.41
Qstd (ft3/min)
60.246568 54.54219.
48.159973 36.525984 28.979694
Chart
45.0 40.0 33.0 24.0 10.0
Chart setting for
40 CFM std 24.330345
9:32 24 39.84
14
Table C
Ramcon Environmental
TE-5100-D MFC Sampler Calibration
(Dickson recorder)
Location-> Sampler->
Dupont WW #3 TE-5000
SITE
Date-> Tech->
23-Mar-04 Dale Sawyer
Sampler Elevation (feet) Sea Level Pressure (in Hg)
Temperature (deg F) Seasonal SL Press, (in Hg)
Seasonal Temp. (deg F)
CONDITIONS
0
30.00 40
30.00 40
Corrected Pressure (mm Hg)
Temperature (deg K)
Corrected Seasonal (mm Hg) Seasonal Temp. (deg K.)
Serial#->
Make-> Model->
Tisch-Env TE-5025
CALIBRATION ORIFICE
Qstd
Qstd Intercept^ Date Certified->
Slope->
2.03415 -0.02843
Plate or
Test#
H20
(in)
CALIBRATION
Qstd (m3/min)
I (chart)
1C (corrected)
LINEAR REGRESSION
18
10.00
1.627
49.0
50.85
Slope =
13
8.00
1.457
39.0
40.47
Intercept =
10
6.00
1.264
34.0
35.28 Corr. coeff.=
7
4.00
1.034
30.0
31.13
5
2.50
0.821
21.0
21.79
Calculations
Qstd = l/m[Sqrt(H20(Pa/Pstd)(Tstd/Ta))-b] 1C = I[Sqrt(PayPstd)(Tstd7Ta)]
Qstd = standard flow rate 1C = corrected chart response I = actual chart response m = calibrator Qstd slope b = calibrator Qstd intercept
Ta = actual temperature during calibration (deg K) Pa = actual pressure during calibration (mm Hg)
Tstd = 298 deg K
Pstd = 760 mm Hg For subsequent calculation of sampler flow: l/m((I)[Sqrt(298/Tav)(Pav/760)]-b)
First 24 hours
Second 24
8:00
8:14
hours 7:50
Chart Reading
Chart Reading
38
34
34
CFM std
CFM std
49.97 Average CFM std
46.73
46.73
47.54
7:42 28 41.86
Third 24 hours
9:30 Chart Reading
40 CFM std
51.60
Qstd (ft3/min)
57.465818 51.451098. 44.624084 36.525984 28.979694
Chart
Chart setting for
40 CFM std 25.815782
9:34 36 48.35
15
Table D
Ramcon Environmental
TE-5100-D MFC Sampler Calibration (Dickson recorder)
Location-> Sampler->
Sampler Elevation (feet) Sea Level Pressure (in Hg)
Temperature (deg F) Seasonal SL Press, (in Hg)
Seasonal Temp. (deg F)
Serial#->
Make-> Model->
Plate or Test #
H20
(in)
Dupont WW #5 TE-5000
SITE
Date-> Tech->
CONDITIONS
0
30.00 40
30.00 40
Corrected Pressure (mm Hg) Temperature (deg K)
Corrected Seasonal (mm Hg) Seasonal Temp. (deg K)
Tisch-Env TE-5025
CALIBRATION ORIFICE Qstd
Qstd Intercepts Date Certified->
Slope->
CALIBRATION
Qstd (m3/min)
I
(chart)
1C (corrected)
23-Mar-04 Dale Sawyer
762 277 762 277
2.03415 -0.02843
LINEAR REGRESSION
18
13
10
1.11^
7
5
11.00 10.00
8.00 7.00 3.00
1.706 1.627 1.457 1.364 0.898
45.0 40.0 33.0 24.0 10.0
46.70 41.51 34.25 24.91 10.38
Slope = Intercept == Corr. coefF.=
Calculations
Qstd = l/m[Sqrt(H20(Pa/Pstd)(Tstd/Ta))-b] 1C = I[Sqrt(Pa/Pstd)(Tstd/Ta)]
Qstd = standard flow rate 1C = corrected chart response I == actual chart response m = calibrator Qstd slope b = calibrator Qstd intercept Ta = actual temperature during calibration (deg K-) Pa = actual pressure during calibration (mm Hg) Tstd = 298 deg K
Pstd = 760 mm Hg
For subsequent calculation of sampler flow:
l/m((I)[Sqrt(298/Tav)(Pav/760)]-b)
First 24 hours
Second 24
hours
8:50
8:00
8:00
Chart Reading
Chart Reading
38
28
28
CFM std
CFM std
55.83
Average CFM std
47.90
47.90
48.30
8:42 18
39.97
Third 24 hours
8:42 Chart Reading
34
CFM std
52.66
Qstd (ft3/min)
60.246568 57.465818. 51.451098 48.159973 31.698556
Chart
45.0 40.0 33.0 24.0 10.0
Chart setting for
40 CFM std 18.458542
8:33 25 45.52
16
APPENDIX 3
Sampling Data for Stations 1-4
Analysis Number: Client: Contract Number:
Event 1 Washington Works
Table 1
EVENT 1- STATION 1 DATA SUMMARY
Sampling Site Sampling Date
Station 1 3/23/2004
Stage #
1
2 3 4 5 6
8"x10"
Filter #
E1-S1-1
E1-S1-2 E1-S1-3 E1-S1-4 E1-S1-5
n/a E1-S1-6A E1-S1-6B
Flow
Flow
Avg. Flow
Start
3/23/04 8:00 AM
@ End
3/26/04 8:33 AM
scfm 43.36
43.36 43.36 43.36 43.36
Run Time
Analyte
hrs
72.55
ug
4.28
72.55 72.55 72.55 72.55
9.64 5.44 5.12 3.76
43.36 72.55
25.7
Total :
53.94
Comments: Total Mass Emission :
0.0099 ug/m^
Weight
Particle Size
ug/m^
um
0.000801 4.1
0.001804 0.001018 0.000958 0.000704
1.71 0.86
0.55 0.28
0.004810 0.28
Weight % Cum %
% 7.9%
17.9% 10.1% 9.5% 7.0%
47.6%
92.1%
74.2% 64.1% 54.6% 47.6%
100.0%
Analysis Number: Client:
Contract Number:
Event 1 Washington Works
Table 2
EVENT 1- STATION 2 DATA SUMMARY
Sampling Site Sampling Date
Station 2 3/23/2004
Stage # Filter #
1
E1-S2-1
2 3 4 5 6
8"x10"
E1-S2-2 E1-S2-3 E1-S2-4 E1-S2-5
n/a
E1-S26A
E1-S26B
Flow
@ Start 3/23/04 9:05
AM
Comments: Total Mass Emission :
Flow
@ End 3/26/04 9:33
AM
Avg. Flow scfm
41.06
Run Time
hrs
72.47
Analyte
ug 23.1
41.06 41.06 41.06 41.06
72.47 72.47 72.47 72.47
76.0 48.8 30.3
3.4
Weight
ug/m^ 0.004570
0.015037 0.009655 0.005995 0.000673
Particle Size um 4.19
1.75 0.87 0.55 0.29
41.06
72.47 384.0 0.075977 0.29
Total : 0.1099ug/mA3
565.6
Table 3
EVENT 1- STATION 3 DATA SUMMARY
Analysis Number: Client: Contract Number:
Event 1 Washington Works
Sampling Site Sampling Date
Station 3 3/23/2004
Stage # Filter #
1
E1-S3-1
2 3 4 5 6
8"x10"
E1-S3-2 E1-S3-3 E1-S3-4 E1-S3-5
n/a E1-S3-
6A
E1-S36B
Flow
@ Start 3/23/04 9:05
AM
Flow
@End
3/26/04 9:34 AM
Avg. Flow scfm
43.36
Run Time
hrs
72.48
Analyte
. ug
18.8
43.36 43.36 43.36 43.36
72.48 72.48 72.48 72.48
64.8 58.8 36.2 35.2
43.36
72.48 346.0
Weight
ug/m^ 0.003522
0.012138 0.011014 0.006781 0.006594
0.064812
Particle Size um 3.96
1.66 0.83 0.53 0.27
0.27
Total :
559.8
Comments: Total Mass Emission :
O.^Oug/m^
Analysis Number: Client: Contract Number:
Table 4
EVENT 1- STATION 5 DATA SUMMARY
Event
Washingto1n _W_o_rk_s ______
Sampling Site Sampling Date
Station 5 3/23/2004
Stage # Filter #
1
E1-S5-1
2 3 4 5 6
8"x10"
E1-S5-2 E1-S5-3 E1-S5-4 E1-S5-5
n/a
E1-S5-6A E1-S5-6B
Flow
@ Start 3/23/04 8:50
AM
Flow
@ End 3/26/04 8:33
AM
Avg. Flow scfm
43.36
Run Time
hrs
71.72
Analyte
ug 1.3
43.36
71.72
1.7
43.36
71.72
1.4
43.36
71.72
1.4
43.36
71.72
1.4
Weight
ug/m^
0.000239
0.000312 0.000267 0.000259 0.000259
Particle Size um 3.93
1.65 0.83 0.53 0.27
. 43.36
71.72
11.5 0.002173 <0.27
Total:
18.54
Comments; Total Mass Emission :
0.0034 ug/m^