|
,52ECGC NORV11 AMERICA VOLUME 21 NUMBER I IANUARY 2003 ` NWV w Chromatographyonrinexom
<br /> quality goals by using their best available • The 25-mL purge volume required by tion program, and they remain valid
<br /> purge-and-trap method without additional Method 524.2 could be slightly less options for the analysis of MTBE,tert-butyl
<br /> optimization for oxygenated compounds. preferable because of the low calibration alcohol, and related oxygenated volatile
<br /> Specified requirements of 25% precision response and more-erratic results for organic compounds.
<br /> and 75-125% recovery for demonstration some of the target analytes.
<br /> samples appear to be achievable. The 40 °C purge temperature used by References
<br /> The method performance was similar laboratory Y appeared to provide no (1) Tesr Meebodr for E-Ausung Solid warns:SW-
<br /> between
<br /> Wbetween the laboratories, and the overall advantage. 846(U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
<br /> differences in results were slight. Compar- Based upon the data provided, however, Washington,D.C.,1998).
<br /> (2) B. ik,LCGC18(10), Verstu056(2000).
<br /> icons between the laboratories and methods the differences in method performance were (3) I.A.L.IA.L. Rhodes and A.W. Verstuyft,Environ.
<br /> lead to the following condusions: slight enough that we could not ascribe Ten.Anal 10(2),24(2001).
<br /> • Relative to the other laboratories, labora- dear advantages or disadvantages to specific (4) R.U. Halden,A.M.Happel,and S.R.Schoen,
<br /> tory X's method exhibited slightly better equipment or method operating parame- Environ.Ss'. TrrbnoL 35, 1469-1474(2001).
<br /> sensitivity and performance relative to tern,as opposed to other factors that might (5) EPA Guidance on Dam Quality Indrrams.EPA
<br /> QAIG5I,draft(U.S.Environmennl Protection
<br /> program data quality goals.The precision have affected laboratory performance. Agency,Washington,D.C.,2001).
<br /> and stability of this method could relate Other factors might include the level of ana- (6) C.D.Church,LM.Isabelle,J.F.Pankow,D.L.
<br /> to the autosampler, which used a single lyst experience and care, as well as the Rte.and P.G.Tnvlyck,Environ.Sri. Terbnol
<br /> purge port.By comparison,the autoss m- equipment condition and maintenance at 31,3723-3726(1997).
<br /> plers of the other laboratories had as the time of cam le anal u. (7) Canoas Lobnrmnry Program (CLP)Smremenr
<br /> P of work(SOW)far Organics Analysis,Mala-
<br /> many as 16 purging vessels (one for each A more clear delineation of factors affect- Me,6a1Ma1fi-Concentration(U.S.Environroen-
<br /> sample injected during a given run),each ing method performance for oxygenates tal Protection Agency,Washington,D.C.,doc-
<br /> of which might have had a slightly dif- requires more-detailed, comprehensive ument number OLM04.2,May 1999).
<br /> ferent age, condition, or performance method development and validation pro- (8) C.D.Church,J.F.Pankow,and P.G.Tramyck,
<br /> Environ. ToxiroL Cbem. 18(12), 2789-2796
<br /> characteristics. The Archon autosampler grams that were beyond the scope of this (1999).0
<br /> therefore could have produced more- method applicability study.This being said,
<br /> uniform purging efficiencies between the however, the results of the present study are
<br /> different sample analyses. The Archon consistent in demonstrating that purge-
<br /> autosampler also required less sample and-trap GC-MS methods were appropri-
<br /> handling before instrument analysis. ate for their intended we in our demonstra-
<br />
|