1. ACRYLONITRILE Measurements in Ambient Air, Concerns and Sampling Issues

2. ACRYLONITRILE CHEMICAL FORMULA 1.May polymerize spontaneously and violently in the presence of sunlight 2.Has a half-life of about 50 hrs in air 3.Reacts readily with oxygen and hydroxyl radicals to form formaldehyde, formic acid, and formyl cyanide 4.No natural sources

3. OUTLINE Monitoring and Data Review Relative Risk and Possible Sources Results of ARB and SCAQMD Parallel Monitoring Issues and Steps Taken in an Attempt to Reconcile Sampler Differences Conclusions and Next Steps

4. MONITORING Started in July, 2003, MLD SOP066 Samples in canisters collected over 24 hrs 1-in-12 days in regular TAC network using regular samplers in place (not cleaned) Analyzed by preconcentration GC/MS NIST calibration standard used Lab results confirmed independently by Dr. Rasmussen

5. DATA ANALYSIS Maximum concentrations found in the summer Maximum concentrations found during the periods of highest temperature No correlation with auto exhaust pollutants Concentrations in 12 other states found to be greater than in California Up to 47 ppb found in homes in 1998

8. NATTS Data Review by STI Called CA ACN data “questionable” Only looked at annual averages Used benzene data as the only analysis tool, but admitted that benzene might not be appropriate in this case Didn’t know we had a NIST standard Admitted that data from Arizona NATTS site look high, as well

9. RISK FROM ACRYLONITRILE 2004 statewide annual average was 0.48 ppb, a risk of 300 in a million 2004 South Coast annual average was 0.52 ppb, a risk of 320 in a million Risk from diesel pm is estimated at 300 – 650 in a million Risk from benzene and butadiene together is 83 in a million

11. SOURCES? Emission inventory contains little information on emissions No acrylonitrile manufacturing use in California Acrylonitrile used in a wide variety of polymers, paints, adhesives, and fibers Landfills? Polymer extruding operations?

12. GRAB SAMPLING Grab samples taken in three Sacramento homes: <0.3, 0.6, <0.3 ppb Grab sample taken in cab of truck on car lot: 6 ppb Grab sample taken in private garage: 11 ppb

13. FLUX CHAMBER EMISSIONS ABS Polymer 4.4 ug/gm ABS Pipe 11 ug/gm ABS Plate 5 ug/gm Acrylic glue 47 ug/gm Latex Paint 0.4 ug/gm Enamel Paint 1.2 ug/gm N Gloves 1.5 ug/gm Carpet 0.3 ug/gm Sheet Vinyl 0.3 ug/gm Ceramic Glue 0.2 ug/gm Fingernail Polish 12 ug/gm

14. OTHER PUBLISHED WORK Sampling and Analysis of Volatile Organic Compounds Evolved During Thermal Processing of ABS Composite Resins Contos, et al. JAWMA, 45, 686-694 Acrylonitrile, ug/gm Auto Parts: 5.74 Pipe: 9.75 Refrigeration: 10.4

15. PARALLEL MONITORING ARB and SCAQMD at LA N Main in Fall of 2006 Samples collected by ARB contained detectable concentrations of acrylonitrile Samples collected by SCAAQMD contained no detectable acrylonitrile Possibilities: ARB sampler creating acrylonitrile or SC sampler destroying it

16. ARB SAMPLER CHECKS Bakersfield collocated sampler removed to lab and challenged with humidified zero air, no acrylonitrile detected Used sampler challenged with zero air, no acrylonitrile detected ARB sampler in place at Fremont challenged with zero air by BAAQMD, no acrylonitrile detected

17. THROUGH-THE PROBE (TTP) PERFORMANCE AUDIT LA N Main

18. How is a TTP done? Audit gases are mixed in the van using a gas calibrator to dilute the high pressure gases of high concentrations with zero air Diluted gas mixture is introduced into van’s probe line, where it is drawn in from the probe inlet of ambient air monitoring stations Bypass ensures no dilution to audit gases Sample introduced over 24 hr period

19. TTP History In use since 1988 Used for both criteria pollutants and Toxics Peer reviewed with 4 papers and presentations For VOC determinations, +/-20% agreement considered acceptable. This includes dilution and analytical precision

20. TTP AUDIT CONFIGURATION

21. 2002 TTP RESULTS CmpoundAve. Difference % St. Dev %Max Diff % Benzene-4.95.9-15.4 Toluene-6.85.9-14.4 m/p Xylene 13.816.226.1 o Xylene-5.64.6-15.7

22. TTP SAMPLING PROTOCOL Week 1, ARB Sampler Days 1, 3, 5: humidified zero air challenge Days 2, 4: diluted standard air challenge Week 2, SCAAQMD sampler Days 1, 3: humidified zero air challenge Days 2, 4: diluted standard air challenge

23. ANALYSIS PROTOCOL ARB sampler samples sent to ARB lab for analysis ARB samples sent to SCAQMD lab for analysis ARB samples returned to ARB lab for re- analysis SCAQMD samples analyzed by SCAQMD lab, sent to ARB for analysis, and returned

24. ARB LAB RESULTS SampleDate Collected Result 1, ppb Result 2, ppb Percent Difference “True Value”, ppb ARB, Can #3059 3/20/071.59 (3/29) 1.45 (4/24) -9.11.75 ARB, Can #24856 3/22/072.0 (3/29)1.94 (4/24) +14.01.75 SC Can #E3387 3/27/071.13 (4/9)-35.41.75 SC Can #E3759 3/29/071.23 (4/9)-29.71.75

25. SCAQMD LAB RESULTS SampleDate Collected Result 1, ppb Date Analyzed Percent Difference “True Value”, ppb ARB, Can #3059 3/20/071.24/4/07-31.41.75 ARB, Can #24856 3/22/071.44/4/07-20.01.75 SC Can #E3387 3/27/071.14/4/07-37.11.75 SC Can #E3759 3/29/071.44/4/07-20.01.75

26. RESULTS COMPARISON SampleARB Results, ppb SCAQMD Results, ppb Results Ratio Date Analyzed, ARB Date Analyzed, SCAQMD ARB, Can #3059 1.51.20.83/294/4 ARB, Can #24856 2.01.40.73/294/4 SC Can #E3387 1.1 1.04/9, rc’d 4/5 4/4 SC Can #E3759 1.21.41.24/9, rc’d 4/5 4/4

27. Results for all humidified zero air challenges were <0.3 ppb (ARB), <0.2 ppb (SCAQMD)

28. CHICO SAMPLING SCAQMD sampler and sampling line installed in parallel with existing Chico ARB sampler 8/20/07 Samples collected in parallel and analyzed by ARB lab Although differences in acrylonitrile recoveries, all other pollutants agreed well in ambient sampling

29. CHICO LAB RESULTS Date Collected ARB Sampler ppb SC Sampler ppb ARB Percent Difference SC Percent Difference “True Value”, ppb 8/220.660.25N/A Ambient 8/30 – temp.: 107 F 1.260.1N/A Ambient 9/111.060.58+6.0-421.0 (TTP) 9/121.450.48+45-521.0 (TTP)

30. SAMPLER TESTING IN SACRAMENTO Both the ARB and SCAQMD samplers were removed from the Chico site and sent to the Sacramento facility for inspection and testing without sampling lines. It was agreed, due to the coming of winter, that further ambient testing was not likely to produce useful data.

31. SAMPLER INSPECTIONS The interior and pumps for both samplers were inspected by instrument techs without repair or cleaning The techs concluded that the samplers were identical, except that the pump head on the ARB sampler was dirty, whereas the pump head for the SCAQMD was clean. The ARB sampler had been in the field for over 15 years.

32. ARB Pump The deposition pattern of the brown residue on the piston head indicates that liquid may have been in pump Black powdery residue on the Teflon diaphragm

33. SCAQMD Pump Piston head and Teflon diaphragm are both clean

34. SACRAMENTO LAB RESULTS Date Collected ARB Sampler ppb SC Sampler ppb ARB Percent Difference SC Percent Difference “True Value”, ppb 10/260.480.33-4-340.5 10/291.030.85+3-151.0 11/22.382.15+19+7.52.0

35. CONCLUSIONS New and/or cleaned samplers collect acrylonitrile at active sites in the equipment causing loss of sample The mechanism of this loss is still unknown All new samplers must be challenged with acrylonitrile until the active sites are passivated

36. FOLLOWUP WORK New samplers are to be challenged with acrylonitrile to determine the extent of passivation required The acrylonitrile working group should be re-activated and efforts to determine sources of acrylonitrile be continued Other groups nationally (NATTS) should be advised