|
THE CONFIRMATION OF THE UREA DERIVATIVES OF
MDI AND TDI BY THERMAL ENERGY ANALYSIS
| Method no.: |
33 |
|
|
|
|
Recommended minimum sample concentration for
confirmation: |
1 µg/sample MDI or TDI |
|
|
|
|
| Procedure: |
Air samples are collected and analyzed as recommended
in OSHA Organic Division Method No. 18 - Diisocyanates: 2,4-TDI and
MDI (Ref. 4.1.). Following routine analysis, samples which exceed the
OSHA PEL are submitted in a graduated evaporative concentrator for
confirmation. The sample is evaporated to dryness and rediluted
with chloroform. Excess nitro reagent is removed by extraction
and the sample is subjected to normal-phase HPLC separation where
the diisocyanate derivative peaks are collected. The isolated
components are concentrated by evaporating the HPLC mobile phase
to dryness. The sample is diluted with toluene and analyzed by
GC/TEA. |
|
|
|
|
Minimum sample concentration required for detection: |
0.13 µg/sample for TDI |
|
0.15 µg/sample for MDI |
|
|
|
|
| Status of method: |
A confirmatory procedure which has been developed
and reviewed by the Organic Methods Evaluation Branch. |
|
|
|
|
| Date: November 1981 |
Chemist: Warren Hendricks |
Organic Methods Evaluation Branch
OSHA Analytical Laboratory
Salt Lake City, Utah
1. General Discussion
1.1. Introduction
The OSHA air sampling procedure for toluene-2,4-diisocyanate (TDI)
and methylene bisphenyl isocyanate (MDI) recommends the use of a
bubbler containing 15 mL of 0.0002M p-nitrobenzyl-N-n-propyl-amine
(nitro reagent) in toluene. Both MDI and TDI readily react
with nitro reagent to form urea derivatives (Ref. 4.1.).
The OSHA procedure for the routine analysis of the nitro reagent
derivatives of MDI and TDI (MDIU and TDIU) recommends using
reversed-phase high pressure liquid chromatography (HPLC) with
ultraviolet (UV) detection at 254 nm (Ref. 4.1.). This procedure
is fast, precise, reliable, and convenient.
Mass spectrometric (MS) confirmation of air samples which exceed
the OSHA PEL is often difficult because the MS method has a
relatively high detection limit and the mass spectra are usually
complicated. Because the MS procedure uses the direct insertion
probe (DIP) method to introduce the sample, the analyst must
isolate and concentrate the analytes by repetitive HPLC separation
and peak collection. This process is time consuming and usually
inconvenient.
The highly selective Thermal Energy Analyzer (TEA) has been in use
to determine N-nitrosamines for several years and its operation
has been described (Ref. 4.2.). Recently, a TEA retrofit
modification which also permits the detection of analytes containing one
or more nitro groups has been made commercially available. The
main components of the retrofit package are pyrolyzers which can
attain higher temperatures than those of the unmodified TEA. The
principle of operation is similar for both detectors - the
chromatographed analyte passes through a pyrolyzer where the appropriate
moieties (-NNO or -ONO) decompose to liberate NO. The NO enters a
reaction chamber where it undergoes a chemiluminescent reaction
with ozone and is detected. Since MDIU and TDIU both contain
nitro groups, this method which utilizes a modified TEA was developed
to confirm samples which exceed the OSHA PEL.
When the analytes were subjected to separation by gas
chromatography (GC) nitro reagent, MDIU and TDIU all gave a single sharp
peak at the same retention time on a 3-ft glass SP-1000 GC column.
It became apparent that MDIU and TDIU decomposed at normal GC
temperatures. Melting point determinations, performed on solid
MDIU and TDIU, gave visible evidence of decomposition. Both
diisocyanate derivatives melted at about 120°C and changed to a
black, tar-like material at about 200°C. A subsequent GC/MS study
has shown a thermal decomposition product of TDIU to be nitro
reagent and this is the likely source of the TEA response.
Therefore, GC techniques cannot be used for the separation of MDIU and
TDIU but GC/TEA can provide a means to detect the isolated analyte.
The effects of increasing the GC pyrolyzer temperature on detector
response were studied. It was found that maximum detector
response for the analytes occurred at 875°C (Table 3.4.). The
response at 875°C is approximately 14 times that observed at 750°C.
No TEA response was observed at 600°C.
The maximum temperature that the HPLC pyrolyzer can attain is
800°C. The intact analytes can be separated by HPLC but the
detector response is poor at reduced pyrolyzer temperatures.
Therefore, HPLC/TEA does not seem to be a viable technique for samples
containing low levels of MDIU or TDIU.
Because, at this time, it does not seem possible to separate and
then simultaneously confirm the analyte at sufficiently low
levels, a compromise method is recommended. More than 99% of the
excess nitro reagent in air samples can be removed by a simple
acid extraction. Following nitro reagent removal, the sample is
separated into its components by normal-phase HPLC. The
individual analytes are collected after they pass through a UV detector.
The analytes are concentrated by evaporating the mobile phase to
dryness. The sample is diluted with toluene and analyzed by
GC/TEA. Even though the recommended method is not direct, the
need for repetitive separation and collection is eliminated
because the GC/TEA method has a lower detection limit than the
MS/DIP procedure.
It is unlikely that an interference will have the same retention
time on both reversed and normal-phase HPLC columns and also the
same GC retention time as the decomposed analyte. It is possible
that a UV interference will elicit a TEA response but it is
unlikely that the degree of response will be the same for both
detectors.
Data have been collected on MDI and TDI samples subjected to
reversed-phase HPLC/UV, normal-phase HPLC/UV and GC/TEA analysis.
The data are presented in Table 3.5.
This alternative method is not intended for routine analytical
use. It was developed to confirm high results obtained by the
routine reversed-phase HPLC/UV method. The new method has a
sufficiently low detection limit to confirm results well below the
OSHA PEL when the recommended air sampling method is followed.
1.2. Detection limit of the analytical procedure (GC/TEA)
The detection limit of the GC/TEA analytical procedure is 81 pg
for TDI and 92 pg for MDI per GC/TEA injection. This is the
amount of analyte which will give a peak whose height is about five
times the height of the baseline noise (Section 3.1.).
1.3. Minimum sample concentration required for detection
The minimum sample concentration required for detection is 0.13 µg
per TDI sample and 0.15 µg per MDI sample. This is equivalent to
7 µg/m3 for TDI and 8 µg/m3 for MDI based on the recommended air
volume of 20 L.
1.4. Advantages
1.4.1. This method has a lower detection limit than the MS/DIP
procedure.
1.4.2. This procedure is less tedious than the MS/DIP method
because it eliminates the need for multiple HPLC runs to
isolate and concentrate the analyte.
1.4.3. The cost of the recommended instrumentation is less for
this method than for the MS/DIP procedure.
1.4.4. It is possible to quantitate results obtained by use of
this method.
1.5. Disadvantages
1.5.1. The analytes can not be simultaneously separated and
confirmed by use of this method.
1.5.2. Unlike the MS/DIP procedure, the molecular structure of
the compound in question is not obtained through use of
this method.
2. Analytical Method
2.1. Apparatus
2.1.1. HPLC apparatus equipped with UV detector, sample injector
and chart recorder. The UV detector used in this work was
a Waters Associates Model 440 Absorbance Detector. The
detector was equipped with a 50-cm length of 0.23-mm i.d.
stainless steel tubing attached to the outlet of the
sample cell for peak collection.
2.1.2. HPLC analytical column capable of separating MDIU and
TDIU. The column used in this work was a 25-cm × 4.6-mm
Dupont Zorbax CN column.
2.1.3. Electronic integrator or other suitable means to determine
peak areas.
2.1.4. Graduated evaporative concentrators, 10 mL, Kontes or
equivalent.
2.1.5. Temperature controlled water bath equipped with nitrogen
stream evaporative needles.
2.1.6. Vortex mixer, Scientific Products Deluxe Mixer S8220 or
equivalent.
2.1.7. Laboratory centrifuge, IEC HN-SII Centrifuge, or equivalent.
2.1.8. Vials, 2-mL with Teflon-lined caps.
2.1.9. Gas chromatograph.
2.1.10. Thermal Energy Analyzer equipped with an Explosives Analysis
Package, Thermo Electron Corp., Waltham, Mass.
2.1.11. GC column capable of resolving the analyte decomposition
product from potential interferences. The column used in
this work was 3 ft × 1/4-in. o.d. (2-mm i.d.) glass,
on-column injection, with 10% SP-1000 on 80/100 Supelcoport.
The glass column was modified to conform to the
GC-TEA interface.
2.1.12. Dewar flasks, for liquid nitrogen.
2.1.13. Pipets, disposable Pasteur type.
2.1.14. Assorted miscellaneous laboratory equipment.
2.1.15. Stopwatch.
2.2. Reagents
2.2.1. Analytical standards, see Section 3.3. of OSHA Organic
Division, Method No. 18, Diisocyanates: 2,4-TDI and MDI
(Ref. 4.1.).
2.2.2. Methanol, isopropanol, isooctane, toluene, acetonitrile,
chloroform, and n-propanol, HPLC grade.
2.2.3. Phosphoric acid, 1% in deionized water by volume, reagent
grade.
2.2.4. Liquid nitrogen.
2.2.5. Helium and nitrogen, GC grade.
2.2.6. Oxygen, medical grade.
2.3. Standard preparation
2.3.1. Prepare MDIU and TDIU standards, diluted with acetonitrile,
as described in Section 3.3. of OSHA Organic Division,
Method No. 18 Diisocyanates: 2,4-TDI and MDI (Ref.
4.1.).
2.3.2. Place 1.00 mL of each standard from the working range into
a 10-mL concentrator tube. Evaporate the standard to
dryness using a heated water bath (55°C) and a gentle
nitrogen gas stream. Do not allow the standard to stand in the
water bath for an extended time following solvent evaporation.
2.3.3. Allow the concentrator tube to return to room temperature
and then add 1.00 mL of chloroform.
2.3.4. Add 5 mL of 1% v/v phosphoric acid to the concentrator
tube and then mix the contents of the tube using a vortex
mixer for 30 seconds. The phosphoric acid serves to
extract nitro reagent from the organic to the aqueous phase.
2.3.5. Separate the aqueous and organic phases by centrifuging
the concentrator tube.
2.3.6. Remove and discard the aqueous (upper) phase with a
disposable pipet. Using a clean pipet, transfer the organic
(lower) phase to a small vial and then tightly seal the
vial with a Teflon-lined cap. Be careful not to transfer
aqueous with the organic phase. The standard is now ready
for HPLC/UV analysis and component isolation.
2.4. Sample preparation
About 0.5 mL of each sample to be confirmed should be submitted in
a graduated evaporative concentrator. The sample should contain
at least 1 µg of analyte. The person requesting the confirmation
should provide the suspected concentration and identity of the
analyte in question. The sample should be stored in a freezer
until analysis.
2.4.1. Record the volume of the sample in the graduated
concentrator to two decimal places. Evaporate the sample to
dryness using a heated (55°C) water bath and a gentle
nitrogen gas stream. Do not allow the sample to stand in
the water bath for an extended time following solvent
evaporation.
2.4.2. Allow the concentrator tube to return to room temperature
and then add 1.00 mL of chloroform. If the sample to be
confirmed contains low levels of the analyte, 0.50 mL of
chloroform may be substituted to give a more concentrated
solution.
2.4.3. Add 5 mL of 1% v/v phosphoric acid to the concentrator
tube and then mix the contents of the tube using a vortex
mixer for 30 s. The phosphoric acid serves to extract
nitro reagent from the organic to the aqueous phase.
2.4.4. Separate the aqueous and organic phases by centrifuging
the concentrator tube.
2.4.5. Remove and discard the aqueous (upper) phase with a
disposable pipet. Using a clean pipet, transfer the organic
(lower) phase to a small vial and then tightly seal the
vial with a Teflon-lined cap. Be careful not to transfer
aqueous with the organic phase. The sample is now ready
for HPLC/UV analysis and component isolation.
2.5. HPLC/UV analysis
2.5.1. normal-phase HPLC conditions
| column: |
Dupont Zorbax CN (25 cm × 4.6 mm) or equivalent |
| mobile phase: |
75/15/10 (v/v/v) isooctane/isopropanol/methanol |
| flow rate: |
1 mL/min |
| UV detector: |
254 nm (fixed wavelength) |
| injection volume: |
25 µL |
| chromatogram: |
Figure 3.2. |
2.5.2. HPLC separation and peak collection
2.5.2.1. Determine the retention time for each analyte
using standards of similar concentration as
those suspected in the samples.
2.5.2.2. Isolate each analyte by collection of the HPLC
column effluent at the appropriate time using a
10-mL graduated concentrator tube. The use of
excessive tubing and/or valves to collect the
analyte is not recommended. The 50-cm length of
tubing described in Section 2.1.1. has a dead
volume of 21 µL and the transfer time from the
sample cell to the collection point is 1 s.
Therefore, the transfer time from the sample
cell to the collection point is insignificant
when the recommended apparatus is used.
2.5.2.3. Evaporate the collected analyte to dryness using
a heated (55°C) water bath and a gentle nitrogen
gas stream. Do not allow samples to stand in
the water bath for an extended period of time
following solvent evaporation.
2.5.2.4. Allow the concentrator tubes to return to room
temperature and then add 0.20 mL toluene to each
tube. Mix the contents of each tube using a
vortex mixer.
2.5.2.5. Reinject each collected standard and sample to
insure that proper peak collection technique has
been used. When using Zorbax CN analytical
column, toluene will not present a
chromatographic interference.
2.6. GC/TEA analysis
2.6.1. GC conditions
| column: |
3 ft × 1/4-in. o.d. (2-mm i.d.) glass, on-column
injection, 10% SP-1000 on 80/100 Supelcoport. |
| injector temperature: |
250°C |
| column temperature: |
240°C |
| GC/TEA interface temperature: |
250°C |
| helium (carrier gas) flow rate: |
30 mL/min |
| injection volume: |
5 µL |
2.6.2. TEA conditions
| GC pyrolyzer temp.: |
875°C |
| oxygen flow rate: |
0.5 mL/min |
| pressure: |
0.5 mm Hg |
| cold trap temp.: |
-130°C (n-propanol and liquid N2) |
| chromatogram: |
Figure 3.3. |
2.7. Analysis notes
Results of this method are quantitative. Confirmation of
suspected MDIU and TDIU in air samples depends on the comparison of
results obtained by the reversed-phase HPLC/UV method, the
normal-phase HPLC/UV method and the GC/TEA method (Section 3.5.).
2.7.1. Measure UV and TEA detector response with an electronic
integrator or other suitable means.
2.7.2. Compare samples to standards of similar concentration.
This is easy to do because the suspected concentration of
samples is known prior to confirmation.
2.7.3. Use an external standard procedure to prepare a calibration
curve using at least three standard solutions of
different concentrations. Prepare the calibration curve daily.
Calibrate the integrator to report results in µg/mL.
2.8. Interferences
2.8.1. Nitro reagent is an interference in the GC/TEA analysis of
TDIU and MDIU. Excess nitro reagent is removed by
phosphoric acid extraction prior to HPLC/UV analysis. The
potential interference of nitro reagent is further reduced
by HPLC separation of the analytes prior to peak collection.
The analysis of blank samples will confirm the
absence of nitro reagent.
2.8.2. Any compound having the same retention time as the
analytes and giving a TEA response is a potential interference.
Generally, HPLC or GC parameters can be changed to
circumvent an interference. An interference can often
manifest itself by causing a difference in expected
results. If the reversed-phase HPLC/UV, the normal-phase
HPLC/UV and GC/TEA results do not compare within
experimental error, then a chromatographic interference is possible.
2.9. Calculations
The following section applies to both HPLC/UV and GC/TEA results.
2.9.1. Use the integrator value, in µg/mL, for reference only.
More reliable results are obtained by use of a calibration
curve. The detector response, for each standard, compared
to its equivalent concentration in µg/mL and the best
straight line through the data points is determined by
linear regression.
2.9.2. Determine the concentration, in µg/mL, for a particular
sample by comparing its detector response to the calibration
curve.
2.9.3. HPLC/UV
Corrected µg/mL diisocyanate =
| µg/mL from Section 2.9.2. × |
volume from Section 2.4.2. volume from section 2.4.1. |
2.9.4. GC/TEA
Corrected µg/mL diisocyanate =
| µg/mL from Section 2.9.2. × |
volume from Section 2.4.2. volume from section 2.4.1. |
2.9.5. Discussion
If the reversed-phase HPLC/UV, normal-phase HPLC/UV and
GC/TEA results all agree, within experimental limits, then
the sample results are confirmed. If the results do not
agree, within limits, then the sample results are not
confirmed. If no peak, with the same retention time as
the analyte, is observed upon normal-phase HPLC/UV
analysis, the sample results are not confirmed. If the
appropriate normal-phase HPLC/UV results are obtained but no
GC/TEA peak with the proper retention time is observed,
then the sample results are not confirmed.
2.10. Safety precautions
2.10.1. Sample and standard preparations should be done in a fume
hood. Avoid exposure to diisocyanates.
2.10.2. Avoid skin contact with liquid nitrogen and the solvents.
2.10.3. Avoid exposure to solvent vapors.
2.10.4. Wear safety glasses in all laboratory areas.
2.10.5. Check to be sure that the TEA exhaust is connected to a
fume hood.
3. Backup Data
The chromatograms in this section were generated by the analysis of MDIU
and TDIU, however, all calculated results and amounts were presented as
free MDI and TDI.
3.1. Detection limit of the analytical procedure (GC/TEA)
The GC/TEA chromatogram shown in Figure 3.1. represents the detection
limit for TDIU and MDIU. Twenty-five microliters of an acid
extracted standard containing 0.13 µg/mL TDI in chloroform was
subjected to normal-phase HPLC/UV analysis and the TDIU peak was
collected. The HPLC mobile phase was evaporated and the residue
was diluted with 0.20 mL of toluene. The GC/TEA chromatogram was
generated by the injection of 5 µL of the toluene solution.
25 µL × 0.13 µg/mL TDI = 3.25 ng TDI
3.25 ng/0.20 mL = 16.25 ng/mL TDI
5 µL × 16.25 ng/µL TDI = 81 µg TDI
Therefore, the GC/TEA detection limit for TDI is 81 µg per injection.
Because the TEA response is molar, the detection limit for MDIU
may be calculated.
638 (MW for MDIU) 562 (MW for TDIU) |
× 81 pg TDI = 92 pg MDI |
The detection limit for MDIU is 92 µg per injection.
The detection limit is that amount of analyte which will give a
peak whose height is about 5 times the height of the baseline
noise.
3.2. Minimum sample concentration required for detection
The following sample concentrations will provide the necessary
quantities for GC/TEA detection and the concentrations are more
than adequate for HPLC/UV detection.
The minimum sample concentration required for detection is 0.13
µg/sample for TDI and 0.15 µg/sample for MDI. This is equivalent
to 7 µg/m3 for TDI and 8 µg/m3 for MDI based on the recommended
air volume.
The volumes recommended in Section 3.1. were used to determine the
minimum concentration required for detection.
3.3. GC/TEA chromatogram
Twenty-five microliters of an acid extracted standard containing
2.5 µg/mL TDI in chloroform was subjected to normal-phase HPLC/UV
analysis and the TDIU peak was collected. The HPLC mobile phase
was evaporated and then the residue was diluted with 0.20 mL
toluene. The chromatogram shown in Figure 3.3. was generated by the
injection of 5 µL of the toluene solution.
3.4. The data in Table 3.4. were generated by the GC/TEA analysis of
the same sample using different GC pyrolyzer temperatures. The
TEA response at 750°C was assigned a value of 1.0 and the response
at other temperatures was calculated relative it.
Table 3.4. The Effects of GC Pyrolyzer Temperature on TEA Detector Response
|
| pyrolyzer |
TEA |
| temperature, °C |
response |
|
| 600 |
0.0 |
| 700 |
0.23 |
| 750 |
1.0 |
| 800 |
3.1 |
| 850 |
9.4 |
| 875 |
14 |
| 900 |
12 |
|
3.5. The data in Table 3.5 were obtained from the reversed-phase
HPLC/UV, normal-phase HPLC/UV and GC/TEA analysis of different MDI
and TDI samples.
Table 3.5. Comparison of Diisocyanate Results (µg/mL)
|
| sample |
analyte |
reversed-phase |
normal-phase |
GC/TEA |
|
| QC |
MDIU |
4.0 |
4.4 |
6.91 |
| QC |
MDIU |
6.2 |
6.4 |
7.11 |
| QC |
MDIU |
8.1 |
8.8 |
10.61 |
| air |
TDIU |
5.2 |
3.3 |
3.81 |
| air |
TDIU |
3.8 |
2.6 |
2.91 |
| air |
TDIU |
0.77 |
0.4 |
0.6 |
| standard |
MDIU |
13.5 |
13.3 |
12.6 |
| standard |
MDIU |
10.8 |
11.4 |
10.9 |
| standard |
MDIU |
8.1 |
9.4 |
8.0 |
| standard |
MDIU |
5.4 |
4.9 |
5.0 |
| standard |
MDIU |
2.7 |
2.5 |
3.2 |
| standard |
TDIU |
0.26 |
0.28 |
0.49 |
| standard |
TDIU |
0.79 |
0.95 |
0.67 |
| standard |
TDIU |
1.3 |
1.1 |
1.1 |
| standard |
TDIU |
2.5 |
2.5 |
2.6 |
| standard |
TDIU |
6.6 |
6.6 |
6.6 |
| QC |
MDIU |
5.8 |
6.7 |
6.8 |
| QC |
MDIU |
3.8 |
3.5 |
4.5 |
| air |
MDIU |
16 |
15 |
15 |
| air |
MDIU |
26 |
27 |
26 |
| air |
MDIU |
3.0 |
3.0 |
3.4 |
| air |
TDIU |
4.0 |
6.8 |
5.6 |
|
| 1The solvent used for the final dilution was changed from chloroform
to toluene because of the volatility of chloroform. |
The reverse-phase result was divided by the normal-phase result,
the reversed-phase HPLC/UV result was divided by the GC/TEA
result, and the normal-phase HPLC/UV result was divided by the
GC/TEA result. These calculations were performed for each set of
data and the average for each calculation is shown below.
| average |
reversed-phase HPLC/UV normal-phase HPLC/UV |
= 1.06 |
|
| average |
reversed-phase HPLC/UV GC/TEA |
= 0.972 |
|
| average |
normal-phase HPLC/UV GC/TEA |
= 0.941 |
When the above calculations were performed on individual samples
which contained more than 1 µg of analyte and were diluted with
toluene, 40 of 42 individual results were within the range of 0.75
to 1.25 (±25%). These data indicate that results from
HPLC/UV, normal-phase HPLC/UV and GC/TEA analysis of the
same sample should be within ±25% of each other if the samples
contain at least 1 µg of analyte and the recommended analytical
procedures are followed. Therefore, samples should be reported as
confirmed only when the results of the recommended analytical
procedures are within ±25% of each other. The ±25% figure is
presented without rigorous statistical argument.
Figure 3.1. GC/TEA detection limit for the decomposition product of the nitro reagent derivatives of MDI and TDI.
Figure 3.2. normal-phase HPLC/UV chromatogram for MDIU and TDIU.
Figure 3.3. GC/TEA chromatogram for the decomposition product of the nitro
reagent derivatives of MDI and TDI.
4. References
4.1. Cummins, K. Diisocyanates - 2,4-TDI and MDI (Method 18, Organic
Methods Evaluation Branch, OSHA Analytical Laboratory, Salt Lake
City, Utah). Unpublished (2-80).
4.2. Hendricks, W. Volatile Nitrosamine Mixture I (Method 27, Organic
Methods Evaluations Branch, OSHA Analytical Laboratory, Salt Lake
City, Utah). Unpublished (2-81).
|