DIMETHYL ADIPATE
Method number: |
PV2019 |
|
Matrix: |
Air |
|
Target concentration: |
1.5 ppm (10 mg/m3) |
|
Procedure: |
Samples are collected by drawing a known volume of
air through a charcoal tube. Samples are desorbed with 1 mL of 1:99
dimethyl formamide:carbon disulfide
(DMF:CS2 ) for 30 minutes with shaking and
analyzed by gas chromatography using a flame ionization detector
(GC-FID). |
|
Recommended air volume and sampling rate: |
20 L at 0.2 L/min |
|
Reliable quantitation limit: |
0.012 ppm (0.084 mg/m3) |
|
Status of method: |
Partially Evaluated Method. This method has been
subjected to established evaluation procedures, and is presented for
information and trial use. |
|
Date: September, 1995 |
Chemist: Mary E.
Eide |
Organic Service Branch I OSHA Salt Lake Technical
Center Salt Lake City, UT 84165-0200
1. General Discussion
1.1 Background
1.1.1 History
Samples collected on charcoal tubes were received by SLTC
requesting the analysis for dimethyl adipate (DMAD). A desorption
study using carbon disulfide showed non-linear desorption, with the
recoveries dependent on the concentration spiked, 55% for 21.3
µg DMAD, and 83% for 213 µg DMAD. A solution of 1:99
dimethyl formamide:carbon disulfide was explored next and found to
give good recoveries, averaging 95.1%. The retention and storage
studies were performed next, and found to give good recoveries.
1.1.2 Toxic effects (This section is for information only and
should not be taken as the basis of OSHA policy.) (Ref.5.1)
DMAD is a human skin, eye, and mucous membrane irritant. Worker
exposure by inhalation or through skin contact has been observed to
cause blurred vision. There is no PEL or TLV for DMG, but DuPont
recommends an AEL (Acceptable Exposure Limit) of 1.5 ppm or 10
mg/m3 for an 8 hour TWA. Animal toxicology studies with a
mixture of dimethyl glutarate, dimethyl adipate, and dimethyl
succinate indicates that the mixture is a mild to severe skin
irritant, depending on the animal tested. The mixture is an eye and
mucous membrane irritant in rats and rabbits. Rats exposed to 60 ppm
for 4 hours had transient corneal opacity and transient increases in
the distance from the cornea to the anterior surface of the lens of
the eye, which probably caused blurred vision. The
LD50 in rats for intraperitoneal exposure
was 1809 µL/kg.
1.1.3 Workplace exposure (Ref. 5.1 and 5.2)
DMAD is used in paints, lacquers, varnishes, in plasticizers for
cellulose type resins, and in paint strippers.
1.1.4 Physical properties and other descriptive information (Ref.
5.1, 5.2, and 5.3)
Synonyms: |
Adipic acid, dimethyl ester;
Dimethyl hexanedioate; Hexanedioic acid, dimethyl ester;
Methyl adipate |
CAS number: |
627-93-0 |
IMIS: |
D649 |
RTECS: |
AV1645000 |
Molecular weight: |
174.22 |
Flash point: |
107°C (225 °F)(cc) |
Boiling point: |
115°C |
Melting point: |
10.3°C |
Odor: |
sweet |
Color: |
clear liquid |
Autoignition temperature: |
360°C (680 °F) |
Density: |
1.060
(d204) |
Molecular formula: |
C8H14O4 |
Structural formula: |
|
The analyte air concentrations throughout this method are based on
the recommended sampling and analytical parameters. Air concentrations
listed in ppm are referenced to 25°C and 101.3 kPa (760 mmHg).
1.2 Limit defining parameters
1.2.1 Detection limit of the overall procedure (DLOP)
The detection limit of the overall procedure is 0.501 µg
per sample (0.0035 ppm or 0.0251 mg/m3). This is the
amount of analyte spiked on the sampler that will give a response
that is significantly different from the background response of a
sampler blank.
The DLOP is defined as the concentration of analyte that gives a
response (YDLOP) that is significantly
different (three standard deviations
(SDBR)) from the background response
(YBR).
YDLOP -
YBR =
3(SDBR)
The direct measurement of YBR and
SDBR in chromatographic methods is
typically inconvenient, and difficult because
YBR is usually extremely low.
inconvenient, and difficult because YBR is
usually extremely low. Estimates of these parameters can be made
with data obtained from the analysis of a series of samples whose
responses are in the vicinity of the background response. The
regression curve obtained for a plot of instrument response versus
concentration of analyte will usually be linear. Assuming
SDBR and the precision of data about the
curve are similar, the standard error of estimate (SEE) for the
regression curve can be substituted for
SDBR in the above equation. The following
calculations derive a formula for the DLOP:
Yobs |
= |
observed response |
Yest |
= |
estimated response from regression
curve |
n |
= |
total no. of data points |
k |
= |
2 for a linear regression
curve |
At point YDLOP on the regression curve
YDLOP
= A(DLOP) + YBR |
A = analytical
sensitivity (slope) |
therefore
Substituting 3(SEE) + YBR for
YDLOP gives
The DLOP is measured as mass per sample and expressed as
equivalent air concentrations, based on the recommended sampling
parameters. Ten samplers were spiked with equal descending
increments of analyte, such that the lowest sampler loading was 1.06
µg/sample. This is the amount, when spiked on a sampler, that
would produce a peak approximately 10 times the background response
for the sample blank. These spiked samplers, and the sample blank
were analyzed with the recommended analytical parameters, and the
data obtained used to calculate the required parameters (A and SEE)
for the calculation of the DLOP. Values of 132.5 and 22.10 were
obtained for A and SEE respectively. DLOP was calculated to be 0.501
µg/sample (0.0035 ppm or 0.0251 mg/m3).
Table 1.2.1 Detection Limit of the Overall
Procedure
|
mass per sample |
area counts |
(µg) |
(µV-s) |
|
0 |
0 |
1.06 |
137 |
2.13 |
279 |
3.19 |
451 |
4.25 |
592 |
5.32 |
721 |
6.38 |
863 |
7.44 |
1019 |
8.50 |
1124 |
9.57 |
1238 |
10.6 |
1437 |
|
Figure 1.2.1. Plot of data to determine the DLOP/RQL.
1.2.2 Reliable quantitation limit (RQL)
The reliable quantitation limit is 1.67 µg per sample
(0.012 ppm). This is the amount of analyte spiked on a sampler that
will give a signal that is considered the lower limit for precise
quantitative measurements.
The RQL is considered the lower limit for precise quantitative
measurements. It is determined from the regression line data
obtained for the calculation of the DLOP (Section 1.2.1), providing
at least 75% of the analyte is recovered. The RQL is defined as the
concentration of analyte that gives a response
(YRQL) such that
YRQL -
YBR =
10(SDBR)
therefore
RQL = 1.67µg per sample (0.011 ppm)
Figure 1.2.2. Plot of data to determine the RQL.
Table 1.2.2 Reliable Quantitation Limit
|
mass per sample |
mass recovered |
recovery |
(µg) |
(µg) |
(%) |
|
1.06 |
0.977 |
92.2 |
2.13 |
1.97 |
92.5 |
3.19 |
3.06 |
95.9 |
4.25 |
4.01 |
94.4 |
5.32 |
4.93 |
92.7 |
6.38 |
5.95 |
93.3 |
7.44 |
7.19 |
96.6 |
8.50 |
7.89 |
92.8 |
9.57 |
8.99 |
93.9 |
10.6 |
10.1 |
95.3 |
|
Figure 1.2.3. Chromatogram of the RQL.
2. Sampling Procedure
2.1 Apparatus
2.1.1 Samples are collected using a personal sampling pump
calibrated, with the sampling device attached, to within ±5% of the
recommended flow rate.
2.1.2 Samples are collected with tubes 7 cm x 4 mm i.d. x 6 mm
o.d. glass sampling tubes packed with two sections of charcoal, lot
120. The front section contains 100 mg and the back section contains
50 mg of charcoal, lot 120. The sections are held in place with
glass wool plugs and are separated by a urethane foam plug. For this
evaluation, commercially prepared sampling tubes were purchased from
SKC Inc., (Eighty Four PA) catalog No. 226-01, Lot 120.
2.2 Technique
2.2.1 Immediately before sampling, break off the ends of the
sampling tube. All tubes should be from the same lot.
2.2.2 Attach the sampling tube to the pump with flexible tubing.
It is desirable to utilize sampling tube holders which have a
protective cover to shield the employee from the sharp, jagged end
of the sampling tube. Position the tube so that sampled air passes
through the front section of the tube first.
2.2.3 Air being sampled should not pass through any hose or
tubing before entering the sampling tube.
2.2.4 Attach the sampler vertically with the front section
pointing downward, in the worker's breathing zone, and positioned so
it does not impede work performance or safety.
2.2.5 After sampling for the appropriate time, remove the sample
and seal the tube with plastic end caps. Wrap each sample end-to-end
with a Form OSHA-21 seal.
2.2.6 Submit at least one blank sample with each set of samples.
Handle the blank sample in the same manner as the other samples
except draw no air through it.
2.2.7 Record sample volumes (in liters of air) for each sample,
along with any potential interferences.
2.2.8 Ship any bulk samples separate from the air samples.
2.2.9 Submit the samples to the laboratory for analysis as soon
as possible after sampling. If delay is unavoidable, store the
samples in a refrigerator.
2.3 Desorption efficiency
The desorption efficiencies of DMAD were determined by
liquid-spiking the charcoal tubes with the analytes at 0.1 to 2 times
the target concentration. The loadings on the tubes were 21.2, 106,
212, and 424 µg of DMAD. These samples were stored overnight at
ambient temperature and then desorbed with 1 mL of 1:99
DMF:CS2 with 0.25 µL/mL
p-cymene internal standard, and analyzed by GC-FID. The average
desorption efficiency over the studied range was 95.1%.
Table 2.3 Desorption Efficiency of DMAD
|
|
% Recovered |
|
|
0.1 X |
0.5 X |
1.0 X |
2.0 X |
Tube # |
21.2µg |
106µg |
212µg |
424µg |
|
1 |
94.7 |
96.6 |
96.2 |
93.3 |
2 |
93.3 |
94.1 |
93.9 |
94.0 |
3 |
95.1 |
94.2 |
95.7 |
96.5 |
4 |
93.6 |
95.4 |
96.9 |
95.4 |
5 |
93.9 |
95.0 |
96.2 |
95.6 |
6 |
94.3 |
95.8 |
97.2 |
96.5 |
average |
94.2 |
95.2 |
96.0 |
95.2 |
overall average |
95.1 |
|
standard |
±1.20 |
|
deviation |
|
|
2.4 Retention efficiency
The glass wool in front of the front section was pulled towards the
newly opened end, so that it was not in contact with the charcoal in
the tube. The glass wool was spiked with 424 µg (3.0 ppm) DMAD,
to check the ability of DMAD to volatilize and to be collected onto
the charcoal tube. After spiking the glass wool, the tubes had 20 L
humid air (80% RH at 21°C) pulled through them at 0.2 L/min. They were
opened, each section placed into a separate vial, desorbed, and
analyzed by GC-FID. The retention efficiency averaged 95.5%. There was
no DMAD found on the back sections of the tubes. There was little or
no DMAD found on the glass wool, indicating most or all of it was
vaporized, and the total recovered indicates most of the vaporized
DMAD was collected by the charcoal. The recoveries in the table are
not corrected for desorption efficiency.
Table 2.4 Retention Efficiency of DMAD
|
Tube # |
|
% Recovered |
|
|
Glass |
Front |
Back |
Total |
|
wool |
section |
section |
|
|
1 |
0.0 |
93.7 |
0 |
93.7 |
2 |
0.0 |
97.2 |
0 |
97.2 |
3 |
0.0 |
96.6 |
0 |
96.6 |
4 |
0.0 |
96.8 |
0 |
96.8 |
5 |
0.0 |
96.3 |
0 |
96.3 |
6 |
2.1 |
92.3 |
0 |
94.4 |
|
average |
95.8 |
|
2.5 Sample storage
The front sections of twelve sampling tubes were each spiked with
424 µg (3 ppm) of DMAD, then six tubes were stored in the
refrigerator (-10°C), and the other six tubes were stored at room
temperature 23°C. Twelve more tubes were spiked with 424 µg (3
ppm) of DMAD, and then had 20 liters of humid air (80% RH at 21°C)
drawn through them, then six tubes were stored in the refrigerator
(-10°C), and the other six tubes were stored at room temperature 23°C.
Three of each type of samples were analyzed after 7 days and the
remaining three samples of each type after 14 days. The average
recovery over the 14 day storage study was 94.6%.
Table 2.5 Storage Test for DMAD
|
Time (days) |
%Recovery Humid Ambient |
%Recovery Humid Refrigerated |
%Recovery Dry Ambient |
%Recovery Dry Refrigerated |
|
7 |
94.9 |
90.3 |
95.5 |
98.4 |
7 |
93.0 |
93.6 |
95.7 |
95.9 |
7 |
90.2 |
95.6 |
94.6 |
94.4 |
14 |
93.3 |
94.7 |
94.2 |
98.2 |
14 |
92.5 |
90.6 |
95.8 |
96.2 |
14 |
95.3 |
94.2 |
96.2 |
94.2 |
Overall average |
94.6 |
|
|
2.6 Recommended air volume and sampling rate.
Based on the data collected in this evaluation, 20 L air samples
should be collected at a sampling rate of 0.2 L/min.
2.7 Interferences (sampling)
2.7.1 It is not known if any compounds will severely interfere
with the collection of DMAD on the sampling tubes. In general, the
presence of other contaminant vapors in the air will reduce the
capacity of the charcoal tube to collect DMAD.
2.7.2 Suspected interferences should be reported to the
laboratory with submitted samples.
2.8 Safety precautions (sampling)
2.8.1 Attach the sampling equipment to the worker in such a
manner that it will not interfere with work performance or safety.
2.8.2 Follow all safety practices that apply to the work area
being sampled.
2.8.3 Wear eye protection when breaking the ends of the glass
sampling tubes.
3. Analytical Procedure
3.1 Apparatus
3.1.1 The instrument used in this study was a gas chromatograph
equipped with a flame ionization detector, specifically a Hewlett
Packard model 5890.
3.1.2 A GC column capable of separating the analyte from any
interferences. The column used in this study was a 60 meter
capillary column with a 0.5 µ coating of DB-WAX, with an I.D.
of 0.32 mm.
3.1.3 An electronic integrator or some suitable method of
measuring peak areas.
3.1.4 Two milliliter vials with TeflonTM-lined caps.
3.1.5 A 10µL syringe or other convenient size for sample
injection.
3.1.6 Pipets for dispensing the desorbing solution. A Repipet®
dispenser was used in this study.
3.1.7 Volumetric flasks - 5 or 10 mL and other convenient sizes
for preparing standards.
3.2 Reagents
3.2.1 GC grade nitrogen, hydrogen, and air.
3.2.2 Dimethyl adipate, Reagent grade
3.2.3 Carbon disulfide, Reagent grade
3.2.4 Dimethyl formamide, Reagent grade
3.2.5 p-Cymene, Reagent grade (internal standard)
3.2.6 Desorbing solution was 1:99 DMF:carbon disulfide with 0.25
µL/mL p-cymene internal standard.
3.3 Standard preparation
3.3.1 At least two separate stock standards are prepared by
diluting a known quantity of DMAD with the desorbing solution of
1:99 DMF:carbon disulfide with 0.25 µL/mL p-cymene
internal standard. The concentration of these stock standards was
0.2 µL/mL or 212 µg/mL.
3.3.2 A third standard at a higher concentration was prepared to
check the linearity of the calibration. For this study, two
analytical standards were prepared at a concentration of 0.2
µL/mL (212 µg/mL), and one at 1 µL/mL (1060
µg/mL) DMAD in the desorbing solution.
3.4 Sample preparation
3.4.1 Sample tubes are opened and the front and back section of
each tube are placed in separate 2 mL vials.
3.4.2 Each section is desorbed with 1 mL of the desorbing
solution of 1:99 DMF:carbon disulfide with 0.25 µL/mL
p-cymene internal standard.
3.4.3 The vials are sealed immediately and allowed to desorb for
30 minutes with constant shaking.
3.5 Analysis
3.5.1 Gas chromatograph conditions.
Injection size: |
1 µL |
|
|
Flow rates (mL/min) |
|
|
Nitrogen (make-up): |
30 |
|
Hydrogen(carrier): |
2 |
|
Hydrogen(detector): |
40 |
|
Air: |
420 |
|
|
Temperatures (°C) |
|
|
Injector: |
200 |
|
Detector: |
220 |
|
Column: |
50° for 2 min then 10°/min to 170°
for 12 min |
Figure 3.5.1 Chromatogram of an analytical standard at the target
concentration. Peak identification: (1) carbon disulfide, (2)
p-cymene, (3) DMF, and (4) DMAD.
3.5.2 Peak areas are measured by an integrator or other suitable
means.
3.6 Interferences (analytical)
3.6.1 Any compound that produces a response and has a similar
retention time as the analyte is a potential interference. If any
potential interferences were reported, they should be considered
before samples are desorbed. Generally, chromatographic conditions
can be altered to separate an interference from the analyte.
Figure 3.6.1 A mass spectra of dimethyl adipate
(DMAD).
3.6.2 When necessary, the identity or purity of an analyte peak
may be confirmed by GC-mass spectrometer or by another analytical
procedure.
3.7 Calculations
3.7.1 The instrument was calibrated with a standard of 212
µg/mL DMAD in the desorbing solution. The linearity of the
calibration was checked with a standard of 1060 µg/mL.
3.7.2 If the calibration is non-linear, two or more standard at
different concentrations must be analyzed, bracketing the samples,
so a calibration curve can be plotted and sample values obtained.
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 the following
formula.
(µg/mL)(DV)(24.46)(106)(g)(mg)
(20 L)(DE)(MW)(1000mg)(1000µg) |
= ppm |
µg/mL |
= |
concentration of analyte in sample or standard |
24.46 |
= |
Molar volume (liters/mole) at 25° and 760 mm Hg. |
MW |
= |
Molecular weight (g/mole) |
DV |
= |
Desorption volume |
20 L |
= |
20 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 (analytical)
3.8.1 Avoid skin contact and inhalation of all chemicals.
3.8.2 Wear safety glasses, gloves, and a lab coat at all times
while in the laboratory areas.
4. Recommendations for Further Study
Collection studies need to be performed from a dynamically generated
test atmosphere.
5. References
5.1 Trade names Database on CCINFO CD-ROM Disc 95-2, Canadian
Centre for Occupational Health and Safety, Hamilton, Ontario.
5.2 Lide, D.R., "Handbook of Chemistry and Physics", 73rd Edition,
CRC Press Inc., Boca Raton FL, 1992, p. 3-29.
5.3 Windholz, M., "The Merck Index", Eleventh Edition, Merck &
Co., Rahway NJ, 1989, p. 154.
|