Determination of Selected Volatile Organic Priority Pollutants in Water by Computerized Gas Chromatography‐Quadrupole Mass Spectrometry

Pereira, Wilfred E.; Hughes, Barbara A.

doi:10.1002/j.1551-8833.1980.tb04500.x

Cited by 14 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, there is no overall statistically significant difference between the data reported by the two laboratories for the simulated water samples. Analytical recoveries in Table I are consistent with recoveries reported elsewhere (15,19) worse than that previously reported.…”

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 88%

Recovery of several volatile organic compounds from simulated water samples: effect of transport and storage

Friedman¹,

Schroder²,

Brooks³

1986

Environ. Sci. Technol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

W Solutions containing volatile organic compounds were prepared in organic-free water and 2% methanol and submitted to two US. Geological Survey laboratories. Data from the determination of volatile compounds in these samples were compared to analytical data for the same volatile compounds that had been kept in solutions 100 times more concentrated until immediately before analysis; there was no statistically significant difference in the analytical recoveries. Addition of 2% methanol to the storage containers hindered the recovery of bromomethane and vinyl chloride. Methanol addition did not enhance sample stability. Further, there was no statistically significant difference in results from the two laboratories, and the recovery efficiency was more than 80% in more than half of the determinations made. In a subsequent study, six of eight volatile compounds showed no significant loss of recovery after 34 days.

show abstract

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 88%

Recovery of several volatile organic compounds from simulated water samples: effect of transport and storage

Friedman¹,

Schroder²,

Brooks³

1986

Environ. Sci. Technol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Methods used by the USGS laboratories are described in Max Nestler (1974) for methylene chloride extractables by GC/FID, American Public Health Association 1976) for methane, Pereira and Hughes (1980) for volatile compounds by GC/MS, Pereira and others (1982) for PD/MS and analysis of coal-tar bases by GC/MS, and White and others (1982) for methylene-chloride extractables by HELG Methods used by the MDH for analysis of cyclohexane extractables by HPLC and GC/FID are available from the Minnesota Department of Health.…”

Section: Methods Of Chemical Analvsismentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessment of ground-water contamination by coal-tar derivatives, St. Louis Park area, Minnesota

Hult¹

1984

Open-File Report

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Operation of a coal-tar distillation and wood-preserving facility in St. Louis Park, Minnesota, during 1918-72 contaminated ground water with coal-tar derivatives and inorganic chemicals. Coal-tar derivatives entered the groundwater system through three major paths: (1) Spills and drippings that percolated to the water table, (2) surface runoff and plant process water that was discharged to wetlands south of the former plant site, and (3) movement of coal tar directly into bedrock aquifers through a multiaquifer well on the site. * Methods suggested by the USEPA (method 602, purgeables by GC/MS; method 624, purge and trap by GC/MS; method 610, methylene chloride extractables using HPLC; method 625, methylene chloride extractables by GC/MS) are described by USEPA (1979b, 1979c) and method detection limits (MDL) have been evaluated statistically (Glaser and others, 1981). Modification to these methods used by MRI are described in Conrad and others (1981).

show abstract

“…Trapped compounds were thermally desorbed and flushed onto the head of a Carbowax 20M column for GC~S analysis as described by Pereira and Hughes, 1980. Semivolatile compounds from one-liter samples were solvent extracted with methylene chloride first at pH 12 to isolate base-neutral semivolatile compounds, followed by a second extraction at pH-2 to isolate acid compounds. Methyl esters of organic acids were prepared by derivatization with diazomethane.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Organic solutes in ground water at the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory

Leenheer¹,

Bagby²

1982

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Determination of Selected Volatile Organic Priority Pollutants in Water by Computerized Gas Chromatography‐Quadrupole Mass Spectrometry

Abstract: The method presented here is recommended for the semiquantitative determination of nineteen volatile priority pollutants in raw and treated surface water, groundwater, and industrial effluents.

Cited by 14 publications

References 10 publications

Recovery of several volatile organic compounds from simulated water samples: effect of transport and storage

Recovery of several volatile organic compounds from simulated water samples: effect of transport and storage

Assessment of ground-water contamination by coal-tar derivatives, St. Louis Park area, Minnesota

Organic solutes in ground water at the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About