|This information is provided free of charge by the Department of Industrial Relations from its web site at www.dir.ca.gov. These regulations are for the convenience of the user and no representation or warranty is made that the information is current or accurate. See full disclaimer at http://www.dir.ca.gov/od_pub/disclaimer.html.|
| Return to index
Sampling Strategy and Analytical Methods for Formaldehyde
To protect the health of employees, exposure measurements must be unbiased and representative of employee exposure. The proper measurement of employee exposure requires more than a token commitment on the part of the employer. OSHA's mandatory requirements establish a baseline; under the best of circumstances all questions regarding employee exposure will be answered. Many employers, however, will wish to conduct more extensive monitoring before undertaking expensive commitments, such as engineering controls, to assure that the modifications are truly necessary. The following sampling strategy, which was developed at NIOSH by Nelson A. Leidel, Kenneth A. Busch, and Jeremiah R. Lynch and described in NIOSH publication No. 77-173 (Occupational Exposure Sampling Strategy Manual) will assist the employer in developing a strategy for determining the exposure of his or her employees.
There is no one correct way to determine employee exposure. Obviously, measuring the exposure of every employee exposed to formaldehyde will provide the most information on any given day. Where few employees are exposed, this may be a practical solution. For most employers, however, use of the following strategy will give just as much information at less cost.
Exposure data collected on a single day will not automatically guarantee the employer that his or her workplace is always in compliance with the formaldehyde standard. This does not imply, however, that it is impossible for an employer to be sure that his or her worksite is in compliance with the standard. Indeed, a property designed sampling strategy showing that all employees are exposed below the PELs, at least with a 95 percent certainty, is compelling evidence that the exposure limits are being achieved provided that measurements are conducted using valid sampling strategy and approved analytical methods.
There are two PELs, the TWA concentration and the STEL. Most employers will find that one of these two limits is more critical in the control of their operations, and OSHA expects that the employer will concentrate monitoring efforts on the critical component. If the more difficult exposure is controlled, this information, along with calculations to support the assumptions, should be adequate to show that the other exposure limit is also being achieved.
Determination of the Need for Exposure Measurements
The employer must determine whether employees may be exposed to concentrations in excess of the action level. This determination becomes the first step in an employee exposure monitoring program that minimizes employer sampling burdens while providing adequate employee protection. If employees may be exposed above the action level, the employer must measure exposure. Otherwise, an objection determination that employee exposure is low provides adequate evidence that exposure potential has been examined.
The employer should examine all available relevant information, e.g., insurance company and trade association data and information from suppliers or exposure data collected from similar operations. The employer may also use previously-conducted sampling including area monitoring. The employer must make a determination relevant to each operation although this need not be on a separate piece of paper. If the employer can demonstrate conclusively that no employee is exposed above the action level or the STEL, through the use of objective data, the employer need proceed no further on employee exposure monitoring until such time that conditions have changed and the determination is no longer valid.
If the employer cannot determine that employee exposure is less than the action level and the STEL, employee exposure monitoring will have to be conducted.
Workplace Material Survey
The primary purpose of a survey of raw material is to determine if formaldehyde is being used in the work environment and if so, the conditions under which formaldehyde is being used.
The first step is to tabulate all situations where formaldehyde is used in a manner such that it may be released into the workplace atmosphere or contaminate the skin. This information should be available through analysis of company records and information on the MSDSs available through provisions of this standard and the Hazard Communication standard.
If there is an indication from materials handling records and accompanying MSDSs that formaldehyde is being used in the following types of processes or work operations, there may be a potential for releasing formaldehyde into the workplace atmosphere:
(1) Any operation that involves grinding, sanding, sawing, cutting, crushing, screening, sieving, or any other manipulation of material that generates formaldehyde-bearing dust;
(2) Any processes where there have been employee complaints or symptoms indicative of exposure to formaldehyde;
(3) Any liquid or spray process involving formaldehyde;
(4) Any process that uses formaldehyde in preserved tissue; and
(5) Any process that involves the heating of a formaldehyde-bearing resin. Processes and work operations that use formaldehyde in these manners will probably require further investigation at the worksite to determine the extent of employee monitoring that should be conducted. Workplace Observations
To this point, the only intention has been to provide an indication as to the existence of potentially exposed employees. With this information, a visit to the workplace is needed to observe work operations, to identify potential health hazards, and to determine whether any employees may be exposed to hazardous concentrations of formaldehyde.
In many circumstances, sources of formaldehyde can be identified through the sense of smell. However, this method of detection should be used with caution because of olfactory fatigue.
Employee location in relation to source of formaldehyde is important in determining if an employee may be significantly exposed to formaldehyde. In most instances, the closer a worker is to the source, the higher the probability that a significant exposure will occur.
Other characteristics should be considered. Certain high temperature operations give rise to higher evaporation rates. Locations of open doors and windows provide natural ventilation that tend to dilute formaldehyde emissions. General room ventilation also provides a measure of control.
Calculation of Potential Exposure Concentrations
By knowing the ventilation rate in a workplace and the quantity of formaldehyde generated, the employer may be able to determine by calculation if the PELs might be exceeded. To account for poor mixing of formaldehyde into the entire room, locations of fans and proximity of employees to the work operation, the employer must include a safety factor. If an employee is relatively close to a source, particularly if he or she is located downwind, a safety factor of 100 may be necessary. For other situations, a factor of 10 may be acceptable. If the employer can demonstrate through such calculations that employee exposure does not exceed the action level or the STEL, the employer may use this information as objective data to demonstrate compliance with the standard.
Once the employer determines that there is a possibility of substantial employee exposure to formaldehyde, the employer is obligated to measure employee exposure.
The next step is selection of a maximum risk employee. When there are different processes where employees may be exposed to formaldehyde, a maximum risk employee should be selected for each work operation.
Selection of the maximum risk employee requires professional judgment. The best procedure for selecting the maximum risk employee is to observe employees and select the person closest to the source of formaldehyde. Employee mobility may affect this selection; e.g., if the closest employee is mobile in his tasks, he may not be the maximum risk employee. Air movement patterns and differences in work habits will also affect selection of the maximum risk employee.
When many employees perform essentially the same task, a maximum risk employee cannot be selected. In this circumstance, it is necessary to resort to random sampling of the group of workers. The objective is to select a subgroup of adequate size so that there is a high probability that the random sample will contain at least one worker with high exposure if one exists. The number of persons in the group influences the number that need to be sampled to ensure that at least one individual from the highest 10 percent exposure group is contained in the sample. For example, to have 90 percent confidence in the results, if the group size is 10, nine should be sampled; for 50, only 18 need to be sampled.
If measurement shows exposure to formaldehyde at or above the action level or the STEL, the employer needs to identify all other employees who may be exposed at or above the action level or STEL and measure or otherwise accurately characterize the exposure of these employees.
Whether representative monitoring or random sampling are conducted, the purpose remains the same--to determine if the exposure of any employee is above the action level. If the exposure of the most exposed employee is less than the action level and the STEL, regardless of how the employee is identified, then it is reasonable to assume that measurements of exposure of the other employees in that operation would be below the action level and the STEL.
There is no "best" measurement strategy for all situations. Some elements to consider in developing a strategy are:
(1) Availability and cost of sampling equipment,
(2) Availability and cost of analytic facilities,
(3) Availability and cost of personnel to take samples,
(4) Location of employees and work operations,
(5) Intraday and interday variations in the process,
(6) Precision and accuracy of sampling and analytic methods, and
(7) Number of samples needed.
Samples taken for determining compliance with STEL differ from those that measure the TWA concentration in important ways. STEL samples are best taken in a non-random fashion using all available knowledge relating to the area, the individual, and the process to obtain samples during periods of maximum expected concentrations. At least three measurements on a shift are generally needed to spot gross errors or mistakes; however, only the highest value represents the STEL.
If an operation remains constant throughout the workshift, a much greater number of samples would need to be taken over the 32 discrete non-overlapping periods in an 8-hour workshift to verify compliance with a STEL. If employee exposure is truly uniform throughout the workshift, an employer in compliance with the 1 ppm TWA would be in compliance with the 2 ppm STEL, and this determination can probably be made using objective data.
Need to Repeat the Monitoring Strategy
Interday and intraday fluctuations in employee exposure are mostly influenced by the physical processes that generate formaldehyde and the work habits of the employee. Hence, implant process variations influence the employer's determination of whether or not additional controls need to be imposed. Measurements that employee exposure is low on a day that is not representative of worst conditions may not provide sufficient information to determine whether or not additional engineering controls should be installed to achieve the PELs.
The person responsible for conducting sampling must be aware of systematic changes which will negate the validity of the sampling results. Systematic changes in formaldehyde exposure concentration for an employee can occur due to:
(1) The employee changing patterns of movement in the workplace,
(2) Closing of plant doors and windows,
(3) Changes in ventilation from season to season,
(4) Decreases in ventilation efficiency or abrupt failure of engineering control equipment, and
(5) Changes in the production process or work habits of the employee. Any of these changes, if they may result in additional exposure that reaches the next level of action (i.e., 0.5 or 1.0 ppm as an 8-hr average or 2 ppm over 15 minutes) require the employer to perform additional monitoring to reassess employee exposure.
A number of methods are suitable for measuring employee exposure to formaldehyde or for characterizing emissions within the worksite. The preamble to this standard describes some methods that have been widely used or subjected to validation testing. A detailed analytical procedure derived from the OSHA Method 52 for acrolein and formaldehyde is presented below for informational purposes.
Inclusion of OSHA's method in this appendix in no way implies that it is the only acceptable way to measure employee exposure to formaldehyde. Other methods that are free from significant interferences and that can determine formaldehyde at the permissible exposure limits within z 25 percent of the "true" value at the 95 percent confidence level are also acceptable. Where applicable, the method should also be capable of measuring formaldehyde at the action level to z 35 percent of the "true" value with a 95 percent confidence level. OSHA encourages employers to choose methods that will be best for their individual needs. The employer must exercise caution, however, in choosing an appropriate method since some techniques suffer from interferences that are likely to be present in workplaces of certain industry sectors where formaldehyde is used.
OSHA's Analytical Laboratory Method
Method: No. 52
Target Concentration: 1 ppm (1.2 mg/m3)
Procedures: Air samples are collected by drawing known volumes of air through sampling tubes containing XAD-2 adsorbent which have been coated with 2-(hydroxymethyl) piperidine. The samples are desorbed with toluene and then analyzed by gas chromatography using a nitrogen selective detector.
Recommended Sampling Rate and Air Volumes: 0.1L/min and 24 L
Reliable Quantitation Limit: 16 ppb (20ug/m3)
Standard Error of Estimate of the Target Concentration: 7.3%
Status of the Method: A sampling and analytical method that has been subjected to the established evaluation procedures of the Organic Methods of Evaluation Branch.
Date: March 1985
1. General Discussion
1.1 Background: The current OSHA method for collecting acrolein vapor recommends the use of activated 13X molecular sieves. The samples must be stored in an ice bath during and after sampling and also they must be analyzed within 48 hours of collection. The current OSHA method for collecting formaldehyde vapor recommends the use of bubblers containing 10% methanol in water as the trapping solution.
This work was undertaken to resolve the sample stability problems associated with acrolein and also to eliminate the need to use bubblers to sample formaldehyde. A goal of this work was to develop and/or to evaluate a common sampling and analytical procedure for acrolein and formaldehyde.
NIOSH has developed independent methodologies for acrolein and formaldehyde which recommend the use of reagent-coated adsorbent tubes to collect the aldehydes as stable derivatives. The formaldehyde sampling tubes contain Chromosorb 102 adsorbent coated with N-benzylethanolamine (BEA) which reacts with formaldehyde vapor to form a stable oxazolidine compound. The acrolein sampling tubes contain XAD-2 adsorbent coated with 2-(hydroxymethyl) piperidine (2-HMP) which reacts with acrolein vapor to form a different, stable oxazolidine derivative. Acrolein does not appear to react with BEA to give a suitable reaction product. Therefore, the formaldehyde procedure cannot provide a common method for both aldehydes. However, formaldehyde does react with 2-HMP to form a very suitable reaction product. It is the quantitative reaction of acrolein and formaldehyde with 2-HMP that provides the basis for this evaluation.
This sampling and analytical procedure is very similar to the method recommended by NIOSH for acrolein. Some changes in the NIOSH methodology were necessary to permit the simultaneous determination of both aldehydes and also to accommodate OSHA laboratory equipment and analytical techniques.
1.2 Limit-defining parameters: The analyte air concentrations reported in this method are based on the recommended air volume for each analyte collected separately and a desorption volume of 1 mL. The amounts are presented as acrolein and/or formaldehyde, even though the derivatives are the actual species analyzed.
1.2.1 Detection limits of the analytical procedure: The detection limit of the analytical procedure was 386 pg per injection for formaldehyde. This was the amount of analyte which gave a peak whose height was about five times the height of the peak given by the residual formaldehyde derivative in a typical blank front section of the recommended sampling tube.
1.2.2 Detection limits of the overall procedure: The detection limits of the overall procedure were 482 ng per sample (16 ppb or 20 ug/m3 for formaldehyde). This was the amount of analyte spiked on the sampling device which allowed recoveries approximately equal to the detection limit of the analytical procedure.
1.2.3 Reliable quantitation limits: The reliable quantitation limit was 482 ng per sample (16 ppb or 20 ug/m3) for formaldehyde. These were the smallest amounts of analyte which could be quantitated within the limits of a recovery of at least 75% and a precision (+ 1.96 SD)of + 25% or better.
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 concentration ranges representing 0.4 to 2 times the target concentration, based on the recommended air volumes, was 7,589 area units per ug/mL for formaldehyde. This value was determined from the slope of the calibration curve. The sensitivity may vary with the particular instrument used in the analysis.
1.2.5 Recovery: The recovery of formaldehyde from samples used in an 18-day storage test remained above 92% when the samples were stored at ambient temperature. These values were determined from regression lines which were calculated from the storage data. The recovery of the analyte from the collection device must be at least 75% following storage.
1.2.6 Precision (analytical method only): The pooled coefficient of variation obtained from replicate determinations of analytical standards over the range of 0.4 to 2 times the target concentration was 0.0052 for formaldehyde (section 4.3).
1.2.7 Precision (overall procedure): The precision at the 95% confidence level for the ambient temperature storage tests was + 14.3% for formaldehyde. These values each include an additional + 5% for sampling error. The overall procedure must provide results at the target concentrations that are + 25% at the 95% confidence level.
1.2.8 Reproducibility: Samples collected from controlled test atmospheres and a draft copy of this procedure were given to a chemist unassociated with this evaluation. The formaldehyde samples were analyzed following 15 days storage. The average recovery was 96.3% and the standard deviation was 1.7%.
1.3.1 The sampling and analytical procedures permit the simultaneous determination of acrolein and formaldehyde.
1.3.2 Samples are stable following storage at ambient temperature for at least 18 days.
1.4 Disadvantages: None.
2. Sampling Procedure
2.1.1 Samples are collected by use of a personal sampling pump that can be calibrated to within + 5% of the recommended 0.1L/min sampling rate with the sampling tube in line.
2.1.2 Samples are collected with laboratory prepared sampling tubes. The sampling tube is constructed of silane treated glass and is about 8-cm long. The ID is 4 mm and the OD is 6 mm. One end of the tube is tapered so that a glass wool end plug will hold the contents of the tube in place during sampling. The other end of the sampling tube is open to its full 4-mm ID to facilitate packing of the tube. Both ends of the tube are firepolished for safety. The tube is packed with a 75-mg backup section, located nearest the tapered end and a 150-mg sampling section of pretreated XAD-2 adsorbent which has been coated with 2-HMP. The two sections of coated adsorbent are separated and retained with small plugs of silanized glass wool. Following packing, the sampling tubes are sealed with two 7/32 inch OD plastic end caps. Instructions for the pretreatment and the coating of XAD-2 adsorbent are presented in section 4 of this method.
2.1.3 Sampling tubes, similar to those recommended in this method, are marketed by Supelco, Inc. These tubes were not available when this work was initiated, therefore, they were not evaluated.
2.2 Reagents: None required.
2.3.1 Properly label the sampling tube before sampling and then remove the plastic end caps.
2.3.2 Attach the sampling tube to the pump using a section of flexible plastic tubing such that the large, front section of the sampling tube is exposed directly to the atmosphere. Do not place any tubing ahead of the sampling tube. The sampling tube should be attached in the worker's breathing zone in a vertical manner such that it does not impede work performance.
2.3.3 After sampling for the appropriate time, remove the sampling tube from the pump and then seal the tube with plastic end caps.
2.3.4 Include at least one blank for each sampling set. The blank should be handled in the same manner as the samples with the exception that air is not drawn through it.
2.3.5 List any potential interferences on the sample data sheet.
2.4.1 Breakthrough was defined as the relative amount of analyte found on a backup sample in relation to the total amount of analyte collected on the sampling train.
2.4.2 For formaldehyde collected from test atmospheres containing 6 times the PEL, the average 5% breakthrough air volume was 41 L. The sampling rate was 0.1L/min and the average mass of formaldehyde collected was 250 ug.
2.5 Desorption Efficiency: No desorption efficiency corrections are necessary to compute air sample results because analytical standards are prepared using coated adsorbent. Desorption efficiencies were determined, however, to investigate the recoveries of the analytes from the sampling device. The average recovery over the range of 0.4 to 2 times the target concentration, based on the recommended air volumes, was 96.2% for formaldehyde. Desorption efficiencies were essentially constant over the ranges studied.
2.6 Recommended Air Volume and Sampling Rate:
2.6.1 The recommended air volume for formaldehyde is 24 L.
2.6.2 The recommended sampling rate is 0.1L/min.
2.7.1 Any collected substance that is capable of reacting 2-HMP and thereby depleting the derivatizing agent is a potential interference. Chemicals which contain a carbonyl group, such as acetone, may be capable of reacting with 2-HMP.
2.7.2 There are no other known interferences to the sampling method.
2.8 Safety Precautions:
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.
3. Analytical Procedure
3.1.1 A gas chromatograph (GC), equipped with a nitrogen selective detector. A Hewlett-Packard Model 5840A GC fitted with a nitrogen-phosphorus flame ionization detector (NPD) was used for this evaluation. Injections were performed using a Hewlett-Packard Model 7671A automatic sampler.
3.1.2 A GC column capable of resolving the analytes from any interference. A 6 ft x 1/4 in OD (2mm ID) glass GC column containing 10% UCON 50-HB-5100 + 2% KOH on 80/100 mesh Chromosorb W-AW was used for the evaluation. Injections were performed on-column.
3.1.3 Vials, glass 2-mL with Teflon-lined caps.
3.1.4 Volumetric flasks, pipets, and syringes for preparing standards, making dilutions, and performing injections.
3.2.1 Toluene and dimethylformamide. Burdick and Jackson solvents were used in this evaluation.
3.2.2 Helium, hydrogen, and air, GC grade.
3.2.3 Formaldehyde, 37% by weight, in water. Aldrich Chemical, ACS Reagent Grade formaldehyde was used in this evaluation.
3.2.4 Amberlite XAD-2 adsorbent coated with 2-(hydrosymethyl-piperidine (2-HMP), 10% by weight (section 4).
3.2.5 Desorbing solution with internal standard. This solution was prepared by adding 20 uL of dimethylformamide to 100 mL of toluene.
3.3 Standards preparation:
3.3.1 Formaldehyde: Prepare stock standards by diluting known volumes of 37% formaldehyde solution with methanol. A procedure to determine the formaldehyde content of these standards is presented in section 4. A standard containing 7.7 mg/mL formaldehyde was prepared by diluting 1 mL of the 37% reagent to 50 mL with methanol.
3.3.2 It is recommended that analytical standards be prepared about 16 hours before the air samples are to be analyzed in order to ensure the complete reaction of the analytes with 2-HMP. However, rate studies have shown the reaction to be greater than 95% complete after 4 hours. Therefore, one or two standards can be analyzed after this reduced time if sample results are outside the concentration range of the prepared standards.
3.3.3 Place 150-mg portions of coated XAD-2 adsorbent, from the same lot number as used to collect the air samples, into each of several glass 2-mL vials. Seal each vial with a Teflon-lined cap.
3.3.4 Prepare fresh analytical standards each day by injecting appropriate amounts of the diluted analyte directly onto 150-mg portions of coated adsorbent. It is permissible to inject both acrolein and formaldehyde on the same adsorbent portion. Allow the standards to stand at room temperature. A standard, approximately the target levels, was prepared by injecting 11 uL of the acrolein and 12 uL of the formaldehyde stock standards onto a single coated XAD-2 adsorbent portion.
3.3.5 Prepare a sufficient number of standards to generate the calibration curves. Analytical standard concentrations should bracket sample concentrations. Thus, if samples are not in the concentration range of the prepared standards, additional standards must be prepared to determine detector response.
3.3.7 Desorb the standards in the same manner as the samples following the 16-hour reaction time.
3.4 Sample preparation:
3.4.1 Transfer the 150-mg section of the sampling tube to a 2-mL vial. Place the 75-mg section in a separate vial. If the glass wool plugs contain a significant number of adsorbent beads, place them with the appropriate sampling tube section. Discard the glass wool plugs if they do not contain a significant number of adsorbent beads.
3.4.2 Add 1 mL of desorbing solution to each vial.
3.4.3 Seal the vials with Teflon-lined caps and then allow them to desorb for one hour. Shake the vials by hand with vigorous force several times during the desorption time.
3.4.4 Save the used sampling tubes to be cleaned and recycled.
3.5.1 GC Conditions Column Temperature:
Bi-level temperature program-First level: 100 to 1405°C at 45°C/min following completion of the first level.
Second level: 140 to 180°C at 20°C/min following completion of the first level.
Isothermal period: Hold column at 180°C until the recorder pen returns to baseline (usually about 25 min after injection).
Injector temperature: 180°C
Helium flow rate: 30 mL/min (detector response will be reduced if nitrogen is substituted for helium carrier gas).
Injection volume: 0.8 uL GC column: Six-ft x 1/4-in OD (2 mm ID) glass
GC column containing 10% UCON 50-HB-5100-2% KOH on 80/100 Chromosorb W-AW.
Hydrogen flow rate: 3 mL/min
Air flow rate: 50 mL/min
Detector temperature: 275°C
3.5.2 Chromatogram: For an example of a typical chromatogram, see Figure 4.11 in OSHA Method 52.
3.5.3 Use a suitable method, such as electronic integration, to measure detector response.
3.5.4 Use an internal standard method to prepare the calibration curve with several standard solutions of different concentrations. Prepare the calibration curve daily. Program the integrator to report results in ug/mL.
3.5.5 Bracket sample concentrations with standards.
3.6 Interferences (Analytical).
3.6.1 Any compound with the same general retention time as the analytes and which also gives a detector response is a potential interference. Possible interferences should be reported to the laboratory with submitted samples by the industrial hygienist.
3.6.2 GC parameters (temperature, column, etc.) may be changed to circumvent interferences.
3.6.3 A useful means of structure designation is GC/MS. It is recommended this procedure be used to confirm samples whenever possible.
3.6.4 The coated adsorbent usually contains a very small amount of residual formaldehyde derivative (section 4.8).
3.7.1 Results are obtained by use of calibration curves. Calibration curves are prepared by plotting detector response against concentration for each standard. The best line through the data points is determined by curve fitting.
3.7.2 The concentration in ug/mL for a particular sample is determined by comparing its detector response to the calibration curve. If either of the analytes is found on the backup section, it is added to the amount found on the front section. Blank corrections should be performed before adding the results together.
3.7.3 The acrolein and/or formaldehyde air concentration can be expressed using the following equation:
mg/m3 = (A) (B)/C
where A = ug/mL from 3.7.2, B = desorption volume, and C = L of air sampled.
No desorption efficiency corrections are required.
3.7.4 The following equation can be used to convert result in mg/m3 to ppm. ppm = (mg/m3) (24.45)/MW
where mg/m3 = result from 3.7.3, 24.45 = molar volume of an ideal gas at 760 mm Hg and 25°C, MW = molecular weight (30.0).
4. Backup Data
4.1 Backup data on detection limits, reliable quantitation limits, sensitivity and precision of the analytical method, breakthrough, desorption efficiency, storage, reproducibility, and generation of test atmospheres are available in OSHA Method 52, developed by the Organics Methods Evaluation Branch, OSHA Analytical Laboratory, Salt Lake City, Utah.
4.2 Procedure to Coat XAD-2 Adsorbent with 2-HMP:
4.2.1 Apparatus: Soxhlet extraction apparatus, rotary evaporation apparatus, vacuum desiccator, 1-L vacuum flask, 1-L round-bottomed evaporative flask, 1-L Erlenmeyer flask, 250-mL Buchner funnel with a coarse fritted disc, etc.
188.8.131.52 Methanol, isooctane, and toluene.
184.108.40.206 Amberlite XAD-2 non-ionic polymeric adsorbent, 20 to 60 mesh, Aldrich Chemical XAD-2 was used in this evaluation.
4.2.3 Procedure: Weigh 125 g of crude XAD-2 adsorbent into a 1-L Erlenmeyer flask. Add about 200 mL of water to the flask and then swirl the mixture to wash the adsorbent. Discard any adsorbent that floats to the top of the water and then filter the mixture using a fritted Buchner funnel. Air dry the adsorbent for 2 minutes. Transfer the adsorbent back to the Erlenmeyer flask and then add about 200 mL of methanol to the flask. Swirl and then filter the mixture as before. Transfer the washed adsorbent to a 1-L round-bottomed evaporative flask, add 13 g of 2-HMP and then 200 mL of methanol, swirl the mixture and then allow it to stand for one hour. Remove the methanol at about 405C and reduced pressure using a rotary evaporation apparatus. Transfer the coated adsorbent to a suitable container and store it in a vacuum desiccator at room temperature overnight. Transfer the coated adsorbent to a Soxhlet extractor and then extract the material with toluene for about 24 hours. Discard the contaminated toluene, add methanol in its place, and then continue the Soxhlet extraction for an additional 4 hours. Transfer the adsorbent to a weighted 1-L round-bottom evaporative flask and remove the methanol using the rotary evaporation apparatus. Determine the weight of the adsorbent and then add an amount of 2-HMP, which is 10% by weight of the adsorbent. Add 200 mL of methanol and then swirl the mixture. Allow the mixture to stand for one hour. Remove the methanol by rotary evaporation. Transfer the coated adsorbent to a suitable container and store it in a vacuum desiccator until all traces of solvents are gone. Typically, this will take 2-3 days. The coated adsorbent should be protected from contamination. XAD-2 adsorbent treated in this manner will probably not contain residual acrolein derivative. However, this adsorbent will often contain residual formaldehyde derivative levels of about 0.1 ug per 150 mg of adsorbent. If the blank values for a batch of coated adsorbent are too high, then the batch should be returned to the Soxhlet extractor, extracted with toluene again, and then recoated. This process can be repeated until the desired blank levels are attained.
The coated adsorbent is now ready to be packed into sampling tubes. The sampling tubes should be stored in a sealed container to prevent contamination. Sampling tubes should be stored in the dark at room temperature. The sampling tubes should be segregated by coated adsorbent lot number. A sufficient amount of each lot number of coated adsorbent should be retained to prepare analytical standards for use with air samples from that lot number.
4.3 A Procedure to Determine Formaldehyde by Acid Titration: Standardize the 0.1 N HC1 solution using sodium carbonate and methyl orange indicator.
Place 50 mL of 0.1 M sodium sulfite and three drops of thymophthalein indicator into a 250-mL Erlenmeyer flask. Titrate the contents of the flask to a colorless endpoint with 0.1 N HC1 (usually one or two drops is sufficient). Transfer 10 mL of the formaldehyde/methanol solution (prepared in 3.3.1) into the same flask and titrate the mixture with 0.1 N HC1. again, to a colorless endpoint. The formaldehyde concentration of the standard may be calculated by the following equation:
Formal- acid titer x acid
dehyde, = normality x 30.0
mg/mL mL of sample
This method is based on the quantitative liberation of sodium hydroxide when formaldehyde reacts with sodium sulfite to form the formaldehyde-bisulfite addition product. The volume of sample may be varied depending on the formaldehyde content but the solution to be titrated must contain excess sodium sulfite. Formaldehyde solutions containing substantial amounts of acid or base must be neutralized before analysis.
Go Back to Article 110 Table of Contents