ETHYLENE OXIDE
Method no.: |
49 |
|
Matrix: |
Air |
|
Target concentration: |
1 ppm (1.8 mg/m3) |
|
Procedure: |
Samples are collected by exposing 3M Ethylene Oxide
Monitors #3551 for a measured period of time. Samples are desorbed
with tetrahydrofuran. An aliquot of the desorbed sample is
derivatized with heptafluorobutyric acid anhydride. The derivative
is analyzed by gas chromatography using electron capture
detection. |
|
Sampling rate of monitor: (3M specification) |
49.3 mL/min at 760 mm Hg and 25°C |
|
Minimum air velocity: (3M specification) |
15 ft/min for area samples |
|
Reliable quantitation limit: (Section
1.2.3.) (based on an 8-h exposure at 760 mm Hg and 25°C) |
0.7 ppb (1.3 µg/m3) |
|
Standard error of estimate at the target
concentration: (Section 4.4.) |
6.4%
|
|
Special requirement: |
It is recommended samples be refrigerated upon
receipt by the laboratory until analyzed. |
|
Status of method: |
Evaluated method. This method has been subjected to
the established evaluation procedures of the Organic Methods
Evaluation Branch. |
|
Date: November 1984 |
Chemist: Carl J.
Elskamp |
Organic Methods Evaluation Branch OSHA Analytical
Laboratory Salt Lake City, Utah
1. General Discussion
1.1. Background
1.1.1. History
The 3M Ethylene Oxide Monitor was evaluated at a target
concentration of 1 ppm. The monitor is a badge containing a
chemically treated charcoal disk which converts adsorbed ethylene
oxide to 2-bromoethanol (Ref. 5.1.). (It is presumed the charcoal is
impregnated with hydrogen bromide, but the exact coating procedure
is proprietary information.) Ethylene oxide is collected by
diffusion, thus no sampling pumps are needed, but a minimum air
velocity must exist during sampling to assure that badge starvation
does not occur. The 2-bromoethanol formed on the sampler is less
likely to migrate than ethylene oxide. The migration of ethylene
oxide can be a major disadvantage in other methods that utilize
untreated charcoal for collection (Refs. 5.2 and 5.3.) when samples
have to be shipped to a laboratory for analysis. Also it is possible
to sample for 8 h with one badge instead of using numerous samplers
for the same period required for untreated charcoal tube methods.
The original analytical procedure for the monitors was developed
by 3M when the time-weighted PEL was 50 ppm. This
procedure involves analysis by gas chromatography using flame
ionization detection with a detection limit of about 0.25 ppm for an
8-h exposure (Ref. 5.1.). Effective August 21, 1984 the new
time-weighted average PEL is 1 ppm (Ref. 5.4.). In order to achieve
a lower detection limit to accommodate this lower standard, an
alternate analytical scheme was investigated.
An electron capture detector was considered for use in the
analysis since it is much more sensitive than the flame ionization
detector for 2-bromoethanol. The 3M method specifies the use of 10%
(v/v) methylene chloride in methanol for the desorption solvent.
Since methylene chloride is not compatible with an electron capture
detector, other solvents were tested. Among those tried were
acetone, isopropyl alcohol, tetrahydrofuran (THF), benzene, and
mixtures of carbon disulfide in isopropyl alcohol. Several of these
solvents appeared to desorb the 2-bromoethanol well, notably THF and
acetone, but after repeated injections of desorbed samples,
chromatography problems developed. These problems included drastic
changes in detector response, loss of resolution, and loss of peak
symmetry. These difficulties may have been due to unreacted hydrogen
bromide which could also have been desorbed from the samplers.
Attempts were made to destroy the excess hydrogen bromide by adding
sodium carbonate, sodium bicarbonate, or ammonium acetate to the
desorbed samples, but no improvement was made. At this point an
attempt to form a derivative of 2-bromoethanol was considered.
The stable and volatile fluoroacyl derivative of 2-bromoethanol
formed from heptafluorobutyric acid anhydride (HFAA) or
heptafluorobutyrylimidazole (HFBI) which is analyzed in a
concurrently evaluated ethylene oxide method utilizing a solid
sorbent tube proved to be an excellent candidate for analysis by
electron capture chromatography (Ref. 5.5.). Since the derivative is
so heavily halogenated to give a high response, only a small aliquot
of the desorbed sample is used, thus interferences are greatly
diluted. Also the derivatized aliquot is washed with water to
extract any water soluble material such as hydrogen bromide.
Tetrahydrofuran gives consistently high desorption efficiencies. The
only minor inconvenience is that a side reaction of THF with HBr
occurs during the desorption process to form 4-bromobutanol. This is
similarly derivatized as the 2-bromoethanol during the
derivatization step and upon analysis elutes about 10 min after the
2-bromoethanol derivative. N,N-Dimethylformamide appears to be a
good desorption solvent but chromatographic interferences are
extracted from blank samplers which are significant at lower sample
concentrations.
Thus, the 3M badges were successfully validated at a target
concentration equivalent to 1 ppm (for an 8 h exposure) by desorbing
the samplers with THF, derivatizing an aliquot of the sample with
HFAA, and analyzing by gas chromatography with electron capture
detection.
1.1.2. Toxic effects (This section is for information only and
should not be taken as the basis of OSHA policy.)
It has long been recognized that exposure to high levels of
ethylene oxide can cause a variety of toxic effects including
respiratory tract, eye, and skin irritations, nausea, vomiting,
central nervous system depression and even death. Intermittent high
exposures are also reported to cause neurological effects such as
sensory motor neuropathies and seizures (Ref. 5.6.).
Recently major concern has focused on the mutagenic and
carcinogenic properties exhibited by ethylene oxide. Quoting the
June 22, 1984 publication of the new ethylene oxide standard from
the Federal Register:
The evidence suggests that EtO may cause cancer of the blood
(leukemia) as well as other organs in humans. In addition, EtO
exposure causes mutations, increases in the rate of chromosomal
aberration and sister-chromatid exchange, and causes
other undesirable changes in the DNA of mammalian cells... EtO
exposure has also been associated with an increased risk of
spontaneous abortions among pregnant women and is capable of
causing other adverse reproductive effects in both men and women.
These conclusions are supported by a number of animal experiments
involving exposure to ethylene oxide by a variety of different
routes including: inhalation, subcutaneous injection, dermal
exposure and intragastric administration. Additional data is cited
in the publication of the standard to indicate that "virtually every
mutagenicity test system applied to EtO has shown the chemical to be
mutagenic." Several epidemiological studies indicate that excess
cancers may be occurring in the workplace due to ethylene oxide
exposure. Additional studies involving groups of workers exposed to
varying levels of ethylene oxide indicate an ethylene oxide
dose-dependent increase in sister-chromatid exchange
rates as well as increased chromosomal breaks and aberrations. Based
on this increasing body of evidence, OSHA has acted to reduce the
permissible exposure limit (PEL) to 1 ppm for an 8-h TWA (Ref.
5.4.).
1.1.3. Potential workplace exposure
Ethylene oxide is a major industrial chemical with production
volume ranking in the top 25 among all chemicals produced in the
United States. Approximately 6.7 billion pounds were produced
domestically by the most recent estimate (Ref. 5.4.). Over 99% of
the total produced in the United States is used in the manufacture
of other products. Approximately 70% of the total is used to produce
ethylene glycol. Ethylene oxide is also used to produce non-ionic
surface-active agents used in household detergents, ethanolamines,
glycol ethers, di-, tri-, tetra-, and polyethylene glycols and crown
ethers (Ref. 5.6.).
Although less than 1% of the total ethylene oxide produced in the
United States is used as a sterilizing agent, this small sector
represents the greatest number of potential work exposures. It is
estimated that some 62,370 employees in 6237 hospitals in the United
States are potentially exposed to ethylene oxide. Another 5000
workers are estimated to be potentially exposed to ethylene oxide in
its use as a sterilizing agent in the medical products manufacturing
industry (Ref. 5.4.).
A small number of workers in other industries are also
potentially exposed to ethylene oxide during its use as a fumigant
and a sterilizing agent. Spice manufacturing, libraries, museums,
dairy packing and fur treatment are some of the industries and work
settings in which ethylene oxide exposure can occur (Ref. 5.6.).
1.1.4. Physical properties (Ref. 5.7. unless otherwise noted)
CAS no.: |
75-21-8 |
molecular weight: |
44.05 |
boiling point: |
10.4°C at 760 mm Hg |
color: |
colorless gas |
density: |
0.8697 g/mL at 20°C |
structural formula: |
|
vapor pressure: |
1094 mm Hg at 20°C |
flash point (tag open cup): |
<-18°C |
odor (Ref. 5.3.): |
ether-like |
explosive limits air: |
lower, 3% by volume upper, 100% by
volume |
synonyms (Ref. 5.4.): |
dihydrooxirene, dimethylene oxide, EO, EtO,
ETO, oxane, oxiran, oxirane, oxidoethane, oxacyclopropane,
alpha/betaoxidoethane,
1,2-epoxyethane |
1.2. Limit Defining Parameters (The analyte air concentrations
listed throughout this method are based on an exposure time of 8 h (at
760 mm Hg & 25°C), a desorption volume of 1.5 mL THF, and the
derivatization of 25 µL of desorbed sample with 20 µL of HFAA
contained in 1.0 mL of isooctane. The amounts are expressed as
ethylene oxide, although the derivative is analyzed.)
1.2.1. Detection limit of the analytical procedure
The detection limit of the analytical procedure is 0.2 pg per
injection. This is the amount of analyte which will give a
measurable response with the amounts of interferences present in a
standard. (Section 4.1.)
1.2.2. Detection limit of the overall procedure
The detection limit of the overall procedure is 0.03 µg per
sample (0.7 ppb or 1.3 µg/m3). This is the
amount of analyte spiked on the sampling device which allows
recovery approximately equivalent to the detection limit of the
analytical procedure. (Section 4.2.)
1.2.3. Reliable quantitation limit
The reliable quantitation limit is 0.03 µg per sample (0.7 ppb or
1.3 µg/m3). This is the smallest amount of
analyte which can be quantitated within the requirements of a
recovery of at least 75% and a precision (±1.96 SD) of ±25% or
better. (Section 4.3.)
The reliable quantitation limit and detection limits reported in
the method are based upon optimization of the instrument for the
smallest possible amount of analyte. When the target concentration of
an analyte is exceptionally higher than these limits, they may not be
attainable at the routine operating parameters.
1.2.4. Sensitivity
The sensitivity of the analytical procedure over the
concentration range representing 0.5 to 2 times the target
concentration based on the recommended exposure time is
approximately 60,000 area units per µg/sample. This is determined by
the slope of the calibration curve. (Section 4.3.) The sensitivity
will vary with the particular instrument used in the analysis.
1.2.5. Recovery
The recoveries of ethylene oxide from samples used in a 15-day
storage test remained above 78% when the samples were stored at
ambient temperatures (20-26°C) in a closed drawer. (Section 4.4.)
The recovery of analyte from the collection medium during storage
must be 75% or greater.
1.2.6. Precision
The pooled coefficient of variation obtained from replicate
determinations of analytical standards at 0.5, 1, and 2 times the
target concentration is 0.009. (Section 4.3.)
1.2.7. Precision (overall procedure)
The precision at the 95% confidence level for the 15-day storage
test is ±12.4%. (Section 4.4.) This includes an additional ±5% for
sampling error. The overall procedure must provide results that are
±25% or better at the 95% confidence level.
1.2.8. Reproducibility
Six samples collected from a controlled test atmosphere and a
draft copy of this procedure were given to a chemist unassociated
with this evaluation. The samples were analyzed after 15 days of
storage at 0°C. The average recovery was 99.0% with a standard
deviation of 3.1%. (Section 4.5.)
1.3. Advantages
1.3.1. The badge provides a convenient method for sampling since
no sampling pumps are required.
1.3.2. Sampler exposure times can be longer for the badge than
the recommended maximum sampling times for untreated charcoal tubes,
thus fewer samples are required.
1.4. Disadvantages
1.4.1. A minimum face velocity is required for reliable
sampling. This may not be obtainable in all field situations.
1.4.2. The analysis involves the formation of a derivative of
2-bromoethanol which is more time-consuming than direct analysis.
2. Sampling Procedure
2.1. Apparatus
Samples are collected on 3M Ethylene Oxide Monitors #3551.
2.2. Reagents
None required
2.3. Technique
2.3.1. The monitor and closure cap are removed from the
resealable bag. The cap remains with the bag.
2.3.2. The monitor is removed from its sealed package.
2.3.3. The exposure start time is recorded on the back of the
monitor.
2.3.4. The monitor is attached to the worker near the breathing
zone. The white film (wind screen) and ring must not be removed
until the sampling period is terminated.
2.3.5. After sampling, the monitor is removed from the worker.
The white film and its retaining ring should be immediately removed
from the monitor with a coin or other suitable device.
2.3.6. The closure cap is snapped onto the monitor and the ports
firmly closed.
2.3.7. The time at the end of the sampling period is recorded on
the back of the monitor.
2.3.8. The sampling information is entered on the original bag.
This information should include atmospheric station pressure or
elevation of the sampling site. The capped monitor is placed in the
bag and the bag is sealed with OSHA Form 21. The white films and
retaining rings are discarded.
2.3.9. At least one blank monitor is submitted with each sample
set.
2.4. Capacity
The sampling capacity of the monitor is 3200 µg of ethylene oxide
as reported by 3M. This is equivalent to sampling a 75-ppm atmosphere
for 8 h.
2.5. Desorption efficiency
2.5.1. The average desorption efficiency of ethylene oxide from
spiked monitors is 96.9% over the range of 0.5 to 2 times the target
concentration. (Section 4.6.)
2.5.2. The time required for desorption must be determined for
each lot of monitors. It was found that for newer lots, the
desorption took about 24 h before the efficiency leveled off.
2.6. Sampling rate and minimum air velocity required (from 3M)
2.6.1. The sampling rate at 760 mm Hg and 25°C is 49.3 mL/min.
2.6.2. The minimum air velocity required for area samples is 15
ft/min.
2.7. Interferences (sampling)
2.7.1. It is not known if any compound(s) will severely
interfere with the collection of ethylene oxide.
2.7.2. Suspected interferences should be reported to the
laboratory with submitted samples.
2.8. Safety precautions
2.8.1. Attach the sampling equipment to the employee so that it
will not interfere with work performance or safety.
2.8.2. Follow all safety procedures that apply to the work area
being sampled.
3. Analytical Procedure
3.1. Apparatus: The following are required for analysis:
3.1.1. A GC equipped with an electron capture detector. For this
evaluation, a Hewlett-Packard 5840A GC was used with a
7671A Automatic Sampler.
3.1.2. A GC column capable of separating the HFAA derivative of
2-bromoethanol from isooctane and any interferences. A 10-ft ×
1/8-in. stainless steel column packed with 10% SP-1000 coated on
80/100 Supelcoport was used in this evaluation.
3.1.3. An electronic integrator or some other suitable method of
measuring peak areas or heights.
3.1.4. Small vials with Teflon-lined caps capable of holding 4
mL. WISP vials were used in this evaluation.
3.1.5. Small vials with Teflon-lined caps capable of holding 2
mL. Hewlett-Packard autosampler vials were used.
3.1.6. A dispenser capable of delivering 1.5 mL THF into the
monitors for desorption and into vials for preparation of standards.
A 2.5-mL Gas-Tight Hamilton syringe was used in this evaluation.
3.1.7. Dispensers, one capable of delivering 20 µL and another
capable of delivering 25.0 µL. SMI digital adjust Micro/ Pettors
were used in this evaluation.
3.1.8. Syringes for preparation of standards and for injection of
samples and standards into a GC. A 10-µL syringe was used for
standard preparation and a 1-µL syringe was used for the injections
in this evaluation.
3.1.9. Volumetric flasks and pipets to dilute the 2-bromoethanol.
3.1.10. Disposable dropping pipets.
3.2. Reagents
3.2.1. Tetrahydrofuran, isooctane and water; reagent grade.
3.2.2. 2-Bromoethanol, reagent grade. Kodak lot A10B was used.
3.2.3. Heptafluorobutyric acid anhydride (HFAA). HFAA from Pierce
Chemical Company was used.
3.2.4. Magnesium sulfate, reagent grade.
3.3. Standard preparation
3.3.1. Stock standards are prepared by diluting 1.0 mL of
2-bromoethanol to 100 mL with THF.
3.3.2. Analytical standards are prepared by injecting microliter
amounts of stock standards into WISP vials containing 1.5 mL of THF.
A 25-µL aliquot of this solution is then added to another WISP vial
containing 1.0 mL of isooctane. To this vial, 20 µL of HFAA is added
and the vial is capped and shaken for a few seconds. After 10 min, 1
mL of water is added and the vial is shaken for 10 s. The isooctane
layer is transferred with a disposable pipet to an autosampler vial
containing approximately 50 mg of magnesium sulfate. The vial is
capped and shaken for a few seconds. This solution is injected into
a GC.
3.3.3. Analytical standard concentrations should bracket sample
concentrations. Thus, if samples fall out of the range of prepared
standards, additional standards must be prepared to ascertain
detector response.
3.4. Sample preparation
3.4.1. Add 1.5 mL of THF through one of the ports in the monitor
using the same dispenser as used for preparing standards.
3.4.2. The port is immediately plugged. The monitors are desorbed
for a period of time as determined in Section 2.5.
3.4.3. The desorption solution is transferred to a WISP vial and
a 25-µL aliquot is derivatized as in 3.3.2.
3.5. Analysis
3.5.1. GC conditions
zone temperatures (°C): |
100 (column) 200 (injector) 300
(detector) |
gas flow (mL/min): |
25 (argon/methane(95/5)) |
injection volume: |
0.4 µL |
column: |
10-ft × 1/8-in. SS, 10% SP-1000 on 80/100
Supelcoport |
retention times (min): |
6.2 (2-bromoethanol deriv.) 16.5
(4-bromobutanol deriv.) |
chromatogram: |
Section 4.7. |
3.5.2. Peak areas (or heights) are measured by an integrator or
other suitable means.
3.5.3. A calibration curve is constructed by plotting peak areas
(or heights) of standard injections versus µg ethylene oxide per
sample. Sample concentrations must be bracketed by standards.
3.6. Interferences (analytical)
3.6.1. Any compound that responds on an electron capture
detector and has the same general retention time as the HFAA
derivative of 2-bromoethanol is a potential interference. Possible
interferences should be reported to the laboratory with submitted
samples by the industrial hygienist. These interferences should be
considered before samples are desorbed.
3.6.2. GC parameters (i.e. column and column temperature) may be
changed to possibly circumvent interferences.
3.6.3. Retention time on a single column is not considered proof
of chemical identity. Samples should be confirmed by GC/MS if
possible.
3.7. Calculations
The analyte concentration for samples is obtained from the
appropriate calibration curve in terms of micrograms per sample,
uncorrected for desorption efficiency. The air concentrations are
calculated using the following formulae. The amount of analyte found
on the samples is corrected by subtracting the amount (if any) found
on the blank.
mg/m3 = |
(micrograms per sample)
(liters of air sampled) (desorption
efficiency) |
Liters of air sampled is found by the following:
liters
sampled |
= |
(T)(0.0493)((K/298)^1.5)(760/P) |
|
where T |
= |
Exposure time (minutes) |
|
K |
= |
Sampling site temp (EK) |
|
P |
= |
Sampling site pressure (mm Hg) |
|
0.0493 |
= |
sampling rate in L/min at 760 mm Hg and
25°C |
ppm = (mg/m3)(24.46/44.01) =
(mg/m3)(0.5553)
3.8. Safety precautions (analytical)
3.8.1. Avoid skin contact and inhalation of all chemicals.
3.8.2. Restrict the use of all chemicals to a fume hood if
possible.
3.8.3. Wear safety glasses and a lab coat at all times while in
the lab area.
4. Backup Data
4.1. Detection limit data
The injection size listed in the analytical procedure (0.4 µL) was
used in the determination of the detection limit of the analytical
procedure. The detection limit of 0.2 pg of ethylene oxide was
determined by analyzing a dilute standard equivalent to 0.03 µg of
ethylene oxide per sample. Shown in Figure 4.1. is a chromatogram of
this analysis made on a Hewlett-Packard 5840A GC equipped
with an electron capture detector set at an attenuation of 16. The
chart speed was set at 0.2 cm/min.
4.2. Detection limit of the overall procedure and reliable
quantitation limit data
Six samples were prepared by injecting 0.03 µg of ethylene oxide
into six monitors. The samples were then later desorbed and analyzed
to determine the amount recovered. Since recovery was high and
approximately equal to the detection limit of the analytical
procedure, the detection limit of the overall procedure and the
reliable quantitation limit are taken to be 0.03 µg per sample (0.7
ppb or 1.3 µg/m3). The results of this study
are given in Table 4.2.
Table 4.2. Detection Limit Data
|
% recovery |
statistics |
|
96.3 98.7 91.7 93.0 96.0 91.7 |
SD 1.96 SD
|
= = =
|
94.6 2.9 5.7
|
|
4.3. Sensitivity and Precision (analytical method only)
The sensitivity and precision of the analytical procedure were
determined from multiple injections of analytical standards. These
data are given in Table 4.3. and Figure 4.3.
Table 4.3. Sensitivity and Precision Data
|
× target conc. µg/sample ppm |
0.5× 21.3 0.50 |
1× 42.6 1.00 |
2× 85.2 2.00 |
|
area counts
SD CV
= 0.009 |
1311000 1289000 1313000 1339000 1314000 1324000
1315000 16500 0.0125 |
2506000 2528000 2538000 2546000 2497000 2555000
2528000 22800 0.009 |
4714000 4716000 4765000 4727000 4730000 4716000
4728000 19300 0.004 |
|
4.4. Recovery data (storage)
Storage samples were generated from test atmospheres (air at
approximately 80% relative humidity) containing ethylene oxide at
approximately 8 ppm. The samples were generated at ambient
temperatures (20-25°C) and pressures (660-665 mm Hg) by exposing the
badges for 1 h. The amount of ethylene oxide thus collected was
equivalent to exposing the badges to a 1 ppm atmosphere for 8 h. Six
samples were analyzed immediately after generation, 15 were stored in
a refrigerator at 2°C, and 15 were stored in a closed drawer at
ambient temperature. The results of recovery versus storage time under
both conditions are given in Table 4.4. and shown graphically in
Figure 4.4.
Table 4.4. Storage Tests
|
storage time |
% recovery |
(days) |
(refrigerated) |
|
(ambient) |
|
0 0 3 6 9 12 15 |
99.0 93.9 89.1 83.4 83.4 85.1 82.7 |
99.6 96.5 88.2 83.6 83.7 80.0 74.8 |
91.5 96.6 87.9 83.1 81.1 80.5 83.9 |
|
99.0 93.9 81.8 81.7 89.2 75.0 76.3 |
99.6 96.5 88.7 82.0 82.4 76.1 72.2 |
91.5 96.6 88.2 77.6 78.8 78.5 70.8 |
|
4.5. Reproducibility
Six samples were collected by exposing the monitors for 1 h to a
controlled test atmosphere (80% R.H., 23.3°C, 651 mm Hg) containing
7.4 ppm ethylene oxide. The samples were analyzed by a chemist
unassociated with this evaluation. The results are given in Table 4.5.
Table 4.5. Reproducibility
|
sample no. |
found µg/L |
expected µg/L |
% recovery |
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 |
13.82 13.10 13.49 13.25 13.02 13.00 |
13.35 13.35 13.35 13.35 13.35 13.35
| 103.5 98.1 101.0 99.3 97.5 94.4 |
|
|
SD |
= = |
99.0 3.1 | |
|
4.6. Desorption efficiency
The desorption efficiency was determined by injecting known amounts
of ethylene oxide standards (in THF) into the monitors. The samples
were analyzed the next day after storing at room temperature in a
closed drawer.
Table 4.6. Desorption Efficiency Data
|
× target conc. µg/sample ppm |
0.5× 21.3 0.50 |
1× 42.6 1.00 |
2× 85.2 2.00 |
|
desorption efficiency, %
SD
= 96.9 |
96.6 99.0 98.6 97.0 95.7 94.9
97.0 1.6 |
95.1 95.5 95.5 97.3 95.1 95.1
95.6 0.86 |
97.4 99.5 97.7 98.0 98.6 98.2
98.2 0.74 |
|
4.7. Chromatogram
A chromatogram is shown in Figure 4.7. The chromatogram represents
a 0.4-µL injection of a standard equivalent to 42.6 µg of ethylene
oxide per sample. This concentration is equal to 1.0 ppm for an 8-h
exposure of a monitor.
Figure 4.1. Detection limit
chromatogram.
Figure 4.3. Sensitivity.
Figure 4.4. Storage samples.
Figure 4.7. Chromatogram of a 42.6 µg/mL standard.
5. References
5.1. 3M/Occupational Health and Safety Products Division
"Diffusional Monitoring For Ethylene Oxide", 3M Center, St. Paul, MN
55144
5.2. Qazi, A.H,; Ketcham, N.H. Am. Ind. Hyg. Assoc. J.
(1977), (38), 635-647.
5.3. Potter, Wayne "OSHA Method No. 30, Ethylene Oxide", August
1981, OSHA Analytical Laboratory, Salt Lake City, Utah 84165.
5.4. "Occupational Exposure to Ethylene Oxide", "Federal Register,
June 22, 1984, (49), 25734-809.
5.5. Cummins, K.J. "OSHA Method No. 50, Ethylene Oxide", September
1984, OSHA Analytical Laboratory, Salt Lake City, Utah 84165.
5.6. "Current Intelligence Bulletin No. 25, Ethylene Oxide", May
22, 1981, U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services, Public Health
Service, Center for Disease and Control, NIOSH.
5.7. J.N. Cawse in "Kirk-Othmer Encyclopedia of Chemical
Technology", Vol. 9, pp. 432-471, 3rd ed., John Wiley and Sons, N.Y.
1980.
|