2,2-DICHLOROPROPIONIC ACID TRICHLOROACETIC ACID
Method number: |
PV2017 |
|
Matrix: |
Air |
|
|
Target concentration: |
The OSHA PEL for 2,2-dichloropropionic acid is 1
ppm (6 mg/m3). The OSHA PEL for
trichloroacetic acid is 1 ppm (7
mg/m3). |
|
Procedure: |
Samples are collected by drawing a known volume of
air through a silica gel tube. Samples are desorbed with 1 mL
deionized water and analyzed by high pressure liquid chromatography
with an ultraviolet detector (HPLC-UV). |
|
Air volume and sampling rate studied: |
10 liters at 0.2 Lpm |
|
Status of method: |
Stopgap method. This method has been only partially
evaluated and is presented for information and trial use.
|
Date: March, 1990 |
Chemist: Mary E.
Eide |
SOLVENTS BRANCH OSHA ANALYTICAL LABORATORY SALT LAKE
CITY, UTAH
1. General Discussion
1.1. Background
1.1.1. History of procedure
The OSHA PEL for 2,2-dichloropropionic acid (DCPA) is 1 ppm (6
mg/m3). The OSHA PEL for trichloroacetic
acid (TCA) is 1 ppm (7 mg/m3). Analysis by
gas chromatography with an electron capture detector was attempted
first, but abandoned when it was discovered that the DCPA and TCA
were thermally labile. An ultraviolet scan showed a UV maximum for
DCPA at 238 nm and for TCA at 236 nm. A wavelength of 229 nm was
used for this study. These compounds can also be analyzed by ion
chromatography. Desorption studies using charcoal tubes with various
desorbing solvents were attempted, but the desorption efficiencies
were less than 30%. Desorption studies using silica gel tubes were
tried next and the desorption using deionized water was 100%.
Retention studies showed little or no DCPA or TCA on the back-up
portions. The storage at room temperature showed a decrease in
recovery with time, averaging 90.0% for DCPA and 87.1% for TCA on
day 12.
1.1.2. Potential workplace exposure (Ref. 5.1. and 5.2.)
Workers are exposed to DCPA and TCA in the pure form or sodium
salt form in the agriculture industry where it is used as a
herbicide. TCA is also used in medicine, pharmacy, and as a reagent
for albumin detection.
1.1.3. Toxic Effects (This section is for information purposes
and should not be taken as the basis for OSHA policy.)(Ref. 5.1. and
5.2.)
DCPA and TCA are corrosive acids, and can cause permanent eye
damage. Rats exposed to a saturated atmosphere of DCPA for 7 hours
showed no ill effects. Human exposure to DCPA had medical reports of
injury following exposure shows mild to moderate skin, eye,
respiratory, and gastrointestinal responses. Minimal respiratory
irritation was found in exposures between 2 and 7 ppm DCPA. TCA
showed mild to moderate skin and eye burns in medical reports of
human exposure. TCA is not readily absorbed through the skin.
1.1.4. Physical properties
1.1.4.1. DCPA (Ref. 5.3.)
Compound: |
|
Synonyms: |
α-dichloropropionic acid;
basfapon; dalapon; basinex; crisapon; ded-weed; devipon;
dowpon; proprop; radapon; revenge; unipon |
Molecular weight: |
142.97 |
Density: |
1.4014 |
Boiling point: |
99°C |
Color: |
clear liquid |
Molecular formula: |
C3H4Cl2O |
CAS: |
75-99-0 |
IMIS: |
D176 |
RTECS: |
67784 (UF0690000) |
DOT: |
NA 1760 |
1.1.4.2. TCA (Ref. 5.4.)
Compound: |
Synonyms: |
AMCHEM; konesta; TCA;
aceto-caustin; varitox; trichloroorazijnzuur |
Molecular weight: |
163.38 |
Melting point: |
57°C |
Boiling point: |
196°C |
Color: |
clear liquid |
Molecular formula: |
C2HCl3O2) |
CAS: |
76-03-9 |
IMIS: |
T337 |
RTECS: |
2814 (AJ7875000) |
DOT: |
UN 1839 (solid); UN 2564
(liquid) |
1.2. Limit defining parameters
1.2.1. The detection limit of the analytical procedure is 1 µg
DCPA and 1 µg TCA. This is the smallest amount that could be
detected under the operating conditions used in this study.
1.2.2. The overall detection limit is 0.017 ppm DCPA and 0.015
ppm TCA based on a 10 liter air volume. (All ppm amounts in this
study are based on a 10 liter air volume.)
1.3. Advantages
1.3.1. The sampling procedure is convenient.
1.3.2. The analytical method is reproducible and sensitive.
1.3.3. Reanalysis of samples is possible.
1.3.4. It may be possible to analyze other compounds at the same
time.
1.3.5. Interferences may be avoided by proper selection of column
and LC parameters.
1.4. Disadvantages
Samples should be analyzed as soon as possible after sampling. They
should be stored under refrigeration, due to the deterioration with
time, as indicated in the storage study.
2. Sampling procedure
2.1. Apparatus
2.1.1. A calibrated personal sampling pump, the flow of which can
be determined within + 5% at the recommended flow.
2.1.2. Silica gel tubes (20/40 mesh) containing a 150 mg
adsorbing section with a 75 mg backup section separated by a 2 mm
portion of urethane foam, with a silanized glass wool plug before
the adsorbing section and a 3 mm plug of urethane foam at the back
of the backup section. The ends are flame sealed and the glass tube
containing the adsorbent is 7 cm long, with a 6 mm O.D. and 4 mm
I.D., SKC tubes or equivalent.
2.2. Sampling technique
2.2.1. The ends of the silica gel tube are opened immediately
before sampling.
2.2.2. Connect the silica gel tube to the sampling pump with
flexible tubing.
2.2.3. Tubes should be placed in a vertical position to minimize
channeling, with the smaller section towards the pump.
2.2.4. Air being sampled should not pass through any hose or
tubing before entering the silica gel tube.
2.2.5. Seal the silica gel tube with plastic caps immediately
after sampling. Seal each sample lengthwise with OSHA Form-21
sealing tape.
2.2.6. With each batch of samples, submit at least one blank tube
from the same lot used for samples. This tube should be subjected to
exactly the same handling as the samples (break ends, seal, &
transport) except that no air is drawn through it.
2.2.7. Transport the samples (and corresponding paperwork) to the
lab for analysis.
2.2.8. Bulks submitted for analysis must be shipped in a separate
container from the air samples.
2.3. Desorption efficiency
2.3.1. Six silica gel tubes were liquid spiked at each loading of
6.92 µg (0.118 ppm), 34.6 µg (0.592 ppm), and 69.2 µg (1.18 ppm)
DCPA. They were allowed to equilibrate overnight at room
temperature. They were opened, each section placed into a separate 2
mL vial, desorbed with 1 mL of water, desorbed for 30 minutes with
occasional shaking, and were analyzed by HPLC-UV. The overall
average was 101% recovered (Table 1).
Table 1 DCPA Desorption Efficiency
|
|
Tube |
|
% Recovered |
# |
6.92 µg |
34.6 µg |
69.2 µg |
|
1 |
102 |
100 |
105 |
2 |
97.3 |
101 |
100 |
3 |
103 |
99.0 |
100 |
4 |
105 |
102 |
101 |
5 |
100 |
104 |
102 |
6 |
lost |
98.8 |
99.7 |
average |
101 |
100 |
101 |
overall average |
101 |
standard deviation |
± 2.18 |
|
2.3.2. Six silica gel tubes were liquid spiked at each loading of
7.09 µg (0.106 ppm), 35.4 µg (0.530 ppm), and 70.9 µg (1.06 ppm)
TCA. They were allowed to equilibrate overnight at room temperature.
They were opened, each section placed into a separate 2 mL vial,
desorbed with 1 mL of water, desorbed for 30 minutes with occasional
shaking, and were analyzed by HPLC-UV. The overall average was 100%
recovered (Table 2).
Table 2 TCA Desorption Efficiency
|
Tube |
|
% Recovered |
# |
7.09 µg |
35.4 µg |
70.9 µg |
|
1 |
100 |
101 |
101 |
2 |
102 |
100 |
97.4 |
3 |
97.7 |
99.1 |
99.6 |
4 |
101 |
101 |
99.8 |
5 |
101 |
102 |
100 |
6 |
lost |
97.8 |
102 |
average |
100 |
100 |
100 |
overall average |
100 |
standard deviation |
± 1.43 |
|
2.4. Retention efficiency
2.4.1. Six silica gel tubes were spiked with 69.2 µg (1.18 ppm)
DCPA allowed to equilibrate overnight, and had 10 liters humid air
(93% RH) pulled through them at 0.2 Lpm. They were opened, desorbed
and analyzed by HPLC-UV. There was no DCPA found on the backup
portions of the tubes (Table 3). The retention efficiency averaged
101%.
Table 3 DCPA Retention Efficiency
|
Tube # |
% Recovered |
% Recovered |
Total |
|
'A' |
'B' |
|
1 |
100 |
0.0 |
100 |
2 |
100 |
0.0 |
100 |
3 |
103 |
0.0 |
103 |
4 |
100 |
G.0 |
100 |
5 |
103 |
0.0 |
103 |
6 |
100 |
0.0 |
100 |
average |
|
|
101 |
|
2.4.2. Six silica gel tubes were spiked with 70.9 µg (1.06 ppm)
TCA, allowed to equilibrate overnight, and had 10 liters humid air
(93% RH) pulled through them. They were opened, desorbed and
analyzed by HPLC-UV. There was little or no TCA found on the backup
portions of the tubes (Table 4). The retention efficiency averaged
99.5%.
Table 4 TCA Retention Efficiency
|
Tube # |
% Recovered |
% Recovered |
Total |
|
'A' |
'B' |
|
1 |
93.5 |
3.0 |
96.5 |
2 |
100 |
0.0 |
100 |
3 |
100 |
0.0 |
100 |
4 |
98.5 |
0.0 |
98.5 |
5 |
100 |
0.0 |
100 |
6 |
102 |
0.0 |
102 |
average |
|
|
99.5 |
|
2.5. Storage
2.5.1.Silica gel tubes were spiked with 69.2 µg (1.18 ppm) DCPA
and stored at room temperature until opened and analyzed. The
recoveries decreased with time, averaging 93.5% for 6 days and 90.0%
for 12 days stored (Table 5).
Table 5 DCPA Storage Study
|
Day |
% Recovered |
|
6 |
93.3 |
6 |
93.8 |
6 |
93.5 |
average |
93.5 |
|
12 |
89.6 |
12 |
90.4 |
12 |
89.9 |
average |
90.0 |
|
2.5.2.Silica gel tubes were spiked with 70.9 µg (1.06 ppm) TCA
and stored at room temperature until opened and analyzed. The
recoveries decreased with time averaging 94.9% for 6 days and 87.3%
for 12 days stored (Table 6).
Table 6 TCA Storage Study
|
Day |
% Recovered |
|
6 |
97.0 |
6 |
92.5 |
6 |
95.2 |
average |
94.9 |
|
12 |
88.1 |
12 |
86.2 |
12 |
87.6 |
average |
87.3 |
|
2.6. Precision
2.6.1. The precision was calculated using the area counts from
six injections of each standard at concentrations of 7.52, 37.6, and
75.2 µg/mL DCPA in water. The pooled coefficient of variation was
0.0127 (Table 7). The precision for TCA was measured from six
injections of standards at 7.88, 39.4, and 78.8 ug/mL TCA in water.
The pooled coefficient of variation was 0.00433 (Table 8).
Table 7 DCPA Precision Study
|
Injection |
7.52 |
37.6 |
7.52 |
Number |
µg/mL |
µg/mL |
µg/mL |
|
1 |
10486 |
60714 |
122900 |
2 |
10420 |
60177 |
124897 |
3 |
10429 |
61024 |
122916 |
4 |
10759 |
60175 |
122160 |
5 |
10336 |
60803 |
122844 |
6 |
10808 |
61280 |
124765 |
Average |
10540 |
60696 |
123414 |
Standard |
Deviation |
± 195 |
± 447 |
± 1134 |
|
CV |
0.0185 |
0.00736 |
0.00919 |
|
Pooled CV |
0.0127 |
Table 8 TCA Precision Study
|
Injection |
7.88 |
39.4 |
78.8 |
Number |
µg/mL |
µg/mL |
µg/mL |
|
1 |
17607 |
92509 |
188391 |
2 |
17456 |
92062 |
188076 |
3 |
17533 |
92654 |
188166 |
4 |
17723 |
92455 |
189342 |
5 |
17456 |
92060 |
188074 |
6 |
17453 |
92662 |
189064 |
|
Average |
17538 |
92400 |
188519 |
Standard |
Deviation |
± 109 |
± 275 |
± 549 |
|
CV |
0.00623 |
0.00298 |
0.00291 |
|
Pooled CV |
0.00433 |
where:
A(1), A(2),A(3),A(4) = # of injections at each
level CVl, CV2, CV3, CV4 = Coefficients at each level
2.7. Air volume and sampling rate studied
2.7.1. The air volume studied is 10 liters.
2.7.2. The sampling rate studied is 0.20 liters per minute.
2.8. Interferences
Suspected interferences should be listed on sample data sheets.
2.9. Safety precautions
2.9.1. Sampling equipment should be placed on an employee in a
manner that does not interfere with work performance or safety.
2.9.2. Safety glasses should be worn at all times.
2.9.3. Follow all safety practices that apply to the workplace
being sampled.
3. Analytical method
3.1. Apparatus
3.1.1. High pressure liquid chromatograph equipped with an
ultraviolet detector. The response is most sensitive at 236 nm. For
this study a Waters M-6000A pump was used with a Waters 440
Absorbance Detector with an Extended Wavelength Module at 229 nm.
3.1.2. LC column capable of separating the analytes from any
interferences. The column used in this study was 8 cm × 6.2 mm
Golden series Zorbax ODS.
3.1.3. An electronic integrator or some other suitable method of
measuring peak areas.
3.1.4. Four milliliter vials with Teflon-lined caps. One
milliliter inserts for the four milliliter vials were used for the
samples.
3.1.5. A 100 µL syringe or other convenient size for sample
injection. A WISP 710 liquid autosampler was used in this study.
3.1.6. 1 mL pipets for dispensing the desorbing solution.
3.1.7. Volumetric flasks - 5, 10 mL and other convenient sizes
for preparing standards.
3.1.8. Pipets- 1, 2 mL and other convenient sizes for preparing
standards.
3.2 Reagents
3.2.1. Trichloroacetic acid, Reagent grade
3.2.2. 2,2-Dichloropropionic acid, 90% w/w
3.2.3. Deionized water
3.2.4. Methanol, HPLC grade
3.2.5. Phosphoric acid, Reagent grade
3.3. Sample preparation
3.3.1. Sample tubes are opened and the front and back section of
each tube are placed in separate 1 mL insets in 4 mL vials.
3.3.2. Each section is desorbed with 1 mL of deionized water.
3.3.3. The vials are sealed immediately and allowed to desorb for
30 minutes with occasional shaking.
3.4. Standard preparation
3.4.1. Stock standards are prepared by diluting a known quantity
of DCPA and TCA with water.
3.4.2. At least two separate stock standards should be made.
3.4.3. Dilutions of the stock standards are made to cover the
range of the samples. For this study a concentration range of 1 to
85 µg/mL DCPA and 0.7 to 90 µg/mL TCA in water was used.
3.5. Analysis
3.5.1. Liquid chromatograph conditions.
Column: |
8 cm × 6.2 mm Golden
series Zorbax ODS |
Mobile Phase: |
Water:methanol:phosphoric
acid 75:25:0.1 at 1 mL/min |
Injection size: |
40 µL |
Detector: |
UV at 229 nm |
Chromatogram: |
(See Figure
1) |
3.5.2. Peak areas are measured by an integrator or other suitable
means.
3.6. Interferences (analytical)
3.6.1. Any compound having the general retention time of the
analytes is an interference. Possible interferences should be listed
on the sample data sheet. LC parameters should be adjusted if
necessary so these interferences will pose no problems.
3.6.2. Retention time data on a single column is not considered
proof of chemical identity. Samples over the target concentration
should be confirmed by GC/Mass Spec or other suitable means.
3.7. Calculations
3.7.1. A curve with area counts versus concentration is
calculated from the calibration standards.
3.7.2. The area counts for the samples are plotted with the
calibration curve to obtain the concentration of DCPA and TCA in
solution.
3.7.3. To calculate the concentration of analyte in the air
sample the following formulas are used:
(µg/m) (desorption volume)
(desorption efficiency) |
= mass of analyte in
sample |
(mass of analyte in sample)
molecular weight |
= number of moles of
analyte |
(number of moles of
analyte) |
(molar volume at 25°C &
760mm) |
= |
volume the analyte
will occupy at 25°C & 760mm |
(volume analyte occupies)
(106)*
(air volume) |
= ppm |
* All units must cancel.
3.7.4. The above equations can be consolidated to form the
following formula. To calculate the ppm of analyte in the sample
based on a 10 liter air sample:
(µg/mL)(DV)(24.45)(106)
(10 L)(DE)(MW) |
× |
(g)
(1000 mg) |
× |
(mg)
(1000 µg) |
= ppm |
µg/mL |
= |
concentration of analyte in sample or standard |
24.45 |
= |
Molar volume (liters/mole) at 25° and 760 mm Hg. |
MW |
= |
Molecular weight (g/mole) |
DV |
= |
Desorption volume |
10 L |
= |
10 liter air sample |
DE |
= |
Desorption efficiency |
3.7.5. This calculation is done for each section of the sampling
tube and the results added together.
3.8. Safety precautions
3.8.1. All handling of solvents should be done in a hood.
3.8.2. Avoid skin contact with all solvents.
3.8.3. Wear safety glasses at all times.
4. Recommendations for further study
A storage study under refrigeration should be performed. The storage
study indicates a problem at ambient temperatures. Other sampling media
may need to be explored to solve this problem.
Figure 1. A standard of 75.2 µg/mL 2,2-dichloropropionic acid and
78.8 µg/mL trichloroacetic acid in water.
5. References
5.1. "Documentation of the Threshold Limit Values and Biological
Exposure Indices", Fifth Edition, American Conference of Governmental
Industrial Hygienists Inc., Cincinnati, OH, 1986, p. 190.
5.2. "Documentation of the Threshold Limit Values and Biological
Exposure Indices", Fifth Edition, American Conference of Governmental
Industrial Hygienists Inc., Cincinnati, OH, 1986, p. 592.
5.3. Windholz, M., "The Merck Index", Tenth Edition, Merck &
Co., Rahway N.J., 1983, p. 450.
5.4. Windholz, M., "The Merck Index", Tenth Edition, Merck &
Co., Rahway N.J., 1983, p. 1376.
|