able." Method B-extractable material (total BIAS), composed of surfactant BIAS and polyglycol BIAS, persists longer and results from the slower degradation of free polyglycol material which may be recovered in the CHCI3 extract of method C. This method may be useful for biodegradability testing and other laboratory tests and may, after some additional work, be useful for determination of nonionic surfactants and their degradation products in environmental samples.

No abstract

The performances of four formaldehyde monitoring devices were compared in a series of laboratory and field experiments. The devices evaluated included the DuPont C-60 formaldehyde badge, the SKC impregnated charcoal tube, an impinger/polarographic method and the MDA Lion formaldemeter. The major evaluation parameters included: concentration range, effects of humidity, sample storage, air velocity, accuracy, precision, interferences from methanol, styrene, 1,3-butadiene, sulfur dioxide and dimethylamine. Based on favorable performances in the laboratory and field, each device was useful for monitoring formaldehyde in the industrial work environment; however, these devices were not evaluated for residential exposure assessment. The impinger/polarographic method had a sensitivity of 0.06 ppm, based on a 20-liter air sample volume, and accurately determined the short-term excursion limit (STEL). It was useful for area monitoring but was not very practical for time-weighted average (TWA) personal monitoring measurements. The DuPont badge had a sensitivity of 2.8 ppm-hr and accurately and simply determined TWA exposures. It was not sensitive enough to measure STEL exposures, however, and positive interferences resulted if 1,3-butadiene was present. The SKC impregnated charcoal tube measured both TWA and STEL concentrations and had a sensitivity of 0.06 ppm based on a 25-liter air sample volume. Lightweight and simple to use, the MDA Lion formaldemeter had a sensitivity of 0.2 ppm. It had the advantage of giving an instantaneous reading in the field; however, it must be used with caution because it responded to many interferences. The method of choice depended on the type of sampling required, field conditions encountered during sampling and an understanding of the limitations of each monitoring device.

No abstract

No abstract