Air quality program needs uniform tests With increasing emphasis on establishing and policing air quality regulations throughout the U.S., experts see a real need for standard, professional-approved laboratory methods
T
he accelerating pace of air pollution control activities has intensified the need to examine critically the methods of measurement. Methods of air analyses are the basic tools for studying air pollution processes and effects, for monitoring the present degrees of pollution, for setting air quality standards. and for evaluating control efforts. Collaborative testing of proposed procedures is the essential final step before the procedures can be accepted as standard methods. This article outlines the objectives of the standardization program. the present activities. and plans for future work. Many expert? have reviewed the unfilled needs in the field of air pollution measurements. And many states and organizations have established criteria and standards. For example. California has recognized standardization of methods as a principal aim for many vears. The First Conference on Methods in Air Pollution Studies was held in 1958 under the sponsorship of the California State Department of Public Health. The purpose of the conference was to exchange information on methods and techniques, to discuss critically their practicality and the limitations on interpretation of results, and to standardize methods. In the keynote address for the seventh of these conferences. which was held in 1-0s Angeles in January 1965. Mr. Clifton J. Seymour, Air Pollution Control Officer for Riverside County, emphasized that standard methods were needed for state air quality standards:
22
Environmental Science and Tefhdogy
“Have we come up with recornmended procedures for methods and techniques used in calibration of automatic atmosphere analyzers and analytical methods used for pollutants, has any extensive research been done on practicality of the various methods and instruments for laboratory or field use, has any definite limitation been set on interpretation of results from sampling of the common air pollutants? It is very unfortunate. but the answer is an emphatic ‘no’.” The World Health Organization’s “Methods for Measuring Air Pollutants-A Draft Report” recognized the same problem. The report was prepared in 1965 with the assistance of Dr. Morris Katz and \\ill be issued soon. The report notes: “Where it is possible or expedient to employ several methods for the characterization of a qxcific or nonspecific air pollutant. the rrla!ion between these methods in terms o€ appropriate conversion factors must be known. Only by such means can the results o f work in different countries be compared.” Enforcement experience
Much can be learned from rxperience in other enforcement activities. The Food and Drug Administration, after early defeats in the courts, decided to allocate substantial portions of its funds for testing of laboratory methods and for promuigation of standard methods. FDA recognized belatedly that calling a method a stan-
dard method was not sti tficien t; t hc actual supporting evidence was required in court. A similar experience befell the I’ublic Health Service’s Division of Water Supply and Pollution Control in prosecution of a case involving fish kill in the lower Mississippi River. One clefense of the Velsicol Chemical Corp., which PHS accused as being a major polluter, consisted of an attack on the validity of the analytical work done by PHS. Large organizations can probably litigate ;I few cases through the courts without benefit of standard laboratory methods. provided that recognized erperts are available to testify and that a cubktantial amount of supporting laboratory data is prepared. When thc number of cases expands to tens and hundreds, however, and when some of these cases also involve smaller industries and state and local agencies, the only practical approach is to use standard laboratory methods approved by a recognized professional organization. Past experience has shown that the courts accept this practice, especially if certified laboratories and chemists conduct the tests. The possibility of 50 sets of regulations emphasizes the need for national standard lahoratory test methods. M a n y organizations
A variety of organization5 engage in activities directly or indirectly related to methodology for air pollution measurements. The American Society fo-
FEATURE
Bernard E. Saltzman Department of Environmental Health, University of Cincinnati, and retired deputy chief of the Chemical Research and Development Section, Division of Air Pollution, PHS, Cincinnati, Ohio
Testing ,md Materials, Committee D-22. presented 14 methods in the manual “ASTM Standards on Methods of Atmospheric Sampling and Analysis“ (second edition, 1962). This committee consists of about 75 representatives of governmental, institutional, and industrial organizations. ASTM has developed a well established procedure for approval of methods by letter-ballot and for their publication. Its s t a n d a r d methods for materials have heen tested and have received wide recognition i n certain industrial fields. However. there has been only limited I:ihor:itory testing of its air pollution procedures. The Aiiiericiin Conference of Govcrnmental Industrial Hygienists has maintained a Committee on Recominsnded Analytical Methods since 1941. This committee has issued a manLial descrihing 1 8 procedures, all collahorati\ ely tested; the first of these here approved i n 1949. Most are for concentriiticms encountered in industrial hygiene work, levels that may be 100 times or more higher than those of air pollution interest. The committee’s nctib ity has heen retarded by the .volunteer nature of the work and by the lac!, of adequate funding and recognition b y participating groups. Other organizations have also collected analytical methods. Among them: American Industrial Hygiene ,\.;aociation. .4merican Petroleum Institute. Manufacturing Chemists Association. Air Pollution Control Associa-
Table 1 Classification of responding laboratories.
Location
Number responding University, testing laboratory, or ~Governmental ._ research Federal State Local organization
Alabama California Colorado Connecticut District of Columbia Florida Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Kentucky Maryland Masssch usetts Michigan Missouri New Jersey New York Nevada North Carolina Ohio Oklahoma Pennsylvania South Carolina Tennessee Texas Utah Virginia Washington Wisconsin Foreign Totals a
1
1 1
1 4
1 1 1 1
Industrial
Total
3
3 8
1
2 2
1
2 2
1
1 1
1
1
1 5 1
1
6 2 2 1 2 4 1
1
5
1 1 1
1
1 1
2 1
1
6
1
1
1
2
2
2
3 5
1 1
1
3
7
1
1
2
1
1 1
1
1 1 2 1 3
-1
1 5 -
1 7
1 1 1
1 2
14
1 18
15
.- 1 9
22
ia
Reports received before April 25, 1967.
Volume 2, Number 1, January 1968 23
tion (through its technical manuals), Los Angeles County Air Pollution Control District, California State Department of Public Health, Organization for Economic Cooperation and Develrya’wnt (Paris), and World Health Orgimization (Geneva). Relevant publications of the PHS Gational Center for Air Pollution Conrroi arc “Air Pollution Control Field Operations Manual” prepared in 1962 t w tht Los 4ngeles County Air Pollution Control District (Weisburd, 1962), “Methods of Measuring and Monitoring Atmospheric Sulfur Dioxide” (Hachheiser, 1964), and “Selected Methods for the Meawrement of Air Pollutants” (Interbranch Chemical Advisory Committee, 1965). All these collections were made in an informal manner, with no claim of formal collaborative laboratory testing. Comparisons indicate a variety of overlapping and differing procedures. Intersociety C o m m i t t e e
In April 1960, representatives of several national societies unanimously adopted the following resolution: “There is need for compilation of recommended methods of air sampling and analysis over and beyond current activities in the field and for coordinating a more rapid action on evaluation of methods.” As a result of this resolution and subsequent deliberations, the American Public Health Association, on behalf of six societies. applied for and received a grant in 1963 from PHS for development of a Manual of Methods for Ambient Air Sampling and Analysis. A seventh society later joined the group. The Intersociety Committee comprises the following: Air Pollution Control Association (Dr. E. R. Hendrickson, chairman and principal investigator). American Conference of Govern-
24 Environmental Science and Technology
mental Industrial Hygienists (Mr. R. G. Keenan). American Industrial Hygiene Association (Dr. Allen D. Brandt) . American Public Health Association (Dr. Leonard Greenburg). American Society for Testing and Materials (Mr. Paul Giever). American Society of Mechanical Engineers (Mr. Arthur C. Stern). Association of Official Analytical Chemists (Dr. Bernard E. Saltzman). Co-principal investigator (Dr. George J. Kupchik of APHA) and editor (Dr. Moyer D. Thomas). Eight substance subcommittees were organized in 1966 to cover the various categories of pollutants; each subcommittee consists of representatives from the seven societies. These subcommittees will recommend methods of analyses to be reviewed by the editor and approved by the Intersociety Committee. After approval a procedure will be published as a tentative method. At this stage the procedure will be referred to the collaborative testing coordinating organization set up in July 1966 by the PHS Division of Air Pollution (now the National Center for Air Pollution Control). The testing group, known as the Analytical Methods Evaluation Service, seeks the following: Development of technology for the collaborative testing of methods of air sampling and analysis. Application of identical sampling and analytical methodology by a group of collaborating laboratories. The groups use identical methods of gaseous or aerosol sample preparation to establish the reproducibility of a published method in the hands of different chemists in different laboratories. Optimization of these sampling and analytical methods before or after their collaborative testing, including the minimizing of the effects of interfering substances. The Analytical Methods Evaluation
Service will work in close cooperation with the Intersociety Committee on Manual of Methods for Ambient Air Sampling and Analysis, and will give first priority to testing the committee’s methods. Results of the collaborative tests will be forwarded to the committee and also will be published. National survey
As a first step the Analytical Methods Evaluation Service published a questionnaire inviting laboratories to submit information on the methods and instruments currently in use and to indicate their interest in participating in collaborative testing. Tables 1 through 9 summarize the responses. They indicate a pattern of present usage of methods that suggests an order of priority in importance. Almost all laboratories indicated their willingness to participate in collaborative testing. Table 1 shows that close to 80 laboratories responded from 26 states and three foreign countries. In 1966 V. G . Mackenzie of the National Center for Air Pollution Control told a Congressional committee that 33 states had air pollution programs, although many programs were nominal. In 19 states the agencies had abatement responsibilities. but only a half dozen engaged in more than nominal abatement activity. Thus, the 17 state agencies responding to our survey represent a large portion of this group. Mackenzie also indicated that there were 130 local air pollution programs, 62 of which were five or more years old. We received 15 responses from local governmental agencies. It is difficult to estimate the number of active laboratories in the nongovernmental categories. However, the responses are a significant, although not necessarily representative, sample of what is being done. Tables 2 through 7 summarize continuous monitoring instruments in use
Table 2 Continuous monitoring instruments in use for sulfur dioxide in ambient air.
Type
h'umber of tabs possessing instrument
Number of instruments
Remarks by laboratories on performanceS
Conductometric: (2,1,1,1) no comment; (10,2)good; (1) satisfactory; (2)adequctt; (16) fair, not good at d.1 p.p.m.; (1) heavy maintenance: (1) erratic, trouble with bubbles (lc,l,l,l,l) no comment; (1) excellent; (1) good; (1) Mode 11-7010,no comment; (5) Model 11-7010,good, question low
11
38
Davis Emergency Equipment Co.
9
13
Beckman Instruments, Inc.
4
12
(3,l) no comment; (6) good; (2) slow response to change in
Instrument Development Co.
6
8c
(lc,l,l) no comment; (1) good; (3) OK, bad features include no temperature compensation and 30-minute integrated sample; (1) questionable (2) no comment; (1) excellent in operation, ease of calibration, portability, and reagent requirements (3) fair
Leeds & Northrup Co. (Thomas Autometer)
values concentration
Scientific Instrument Co.
2
3
Industrial Scientific Research Corp. Scientific Industries, Inc. Homemade or unspecified
1 1
3
3
1 10
Precision Scientific Development Co.
3
4
(2) no comment; (1) solution pump very poor; (1) excessive
Technicon Controls, Inc. Kimoto Electric Co. (Japan) Wilkens-Anderson Co.
1 1 1
1 1 1
(1) no comment (1) no comment (1) excellent (by manufacturer)
2 2
4 2
(3,l) no comment (1) no cornmefit, (1) hard to maintain
1
1
(1) specific (by manufacturer)
1
1
(1) satisfactory
39;
104;
14 16 6
28
(1) good (6,3) no comment: (1) not accurate below 0.5 p.p.m.
Colorimetric: maintenance required
Coulometric: Beckman Instruments, Inc. Bell and Howell Co. (CEC-Titrilog)
Miscellaneous: Barringer Research, Ltd. (spectrophotometric) Gas Chromatography (S. Africa) Model 65-8
Any type Method of standardization: HSO, SOz gas H,SO,iSO, SO2permeation tube NaHS03, Na,SO, Calibrated optical filters Electronic
26c
28
3
4=
4 1 1
5 1 1
Reports received before Apri125. 1967. Number of instruments of this t y p e possessed b y t h e laboratory m a k i n g this comment IS iiidicated in ( ). T h u s (10 3) denotes t h a t this remark was made b y t w o laboratories, having 10 n n d 3 instruments, respedtively. Validity of t h e comments was n o t investigated. ' Number m a y b e greater: only one Instrument of each t y p e was credited t o some taboratories not indicatin number. This num%er is less t h a n t h e s u m of t h e preceding items because some laboratories have more than one t y p e of instrument. "
Volume 2. Number 1, January 1968 25
Table 3 Continuous monitoring instruments in use for oxidant (including ozone) in ambient air. Number of labs Number possessing of instrument instruments
Type
Remarks by laboratories on performance"
Couio metr ic: 16
Mast Development Co.
Wr?!lshach Corp. Beckman Instruments,
37
1 2
2 4
7
26
(2,1,1,1,1,1,) no comment; (5) excellent; (8) good; (5) good but some problems; (2) fair to good; (1) fairly satisfactory: (1) satisfactory; (1) requires very careful preconditioning; (1) three breakdowns in six months; (5) variable, inconsis. tent: (1) marginal (2) fair
(3.1) no comment
In-. Colorimetric: Beckman instruments, In;.
Harold Kruger Instruments' 3
Homemade
Any tY Pe
8c
1 -
1 -
26,'
78
