Abstract
In this study, limits of detection (LOD), accuracy and precision of four sampling/ analytical methods were evaluated and compared for the determination of airborne hexavalent chromium, Cr (VI). The methods include : (1) a combination of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) Method 7600/U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Method 218.6 (NIOSH/EPA Method) proposed by Shin and Paik, 2) two impinger methods using 2% NaOH/3% Na$_2$CO$_3$. (3) same as (2) but with 0.02 N NaHCO$_3$absorbing solution, and (4) the Occupational Safety and Health (OSHA) Method ID-215. An ion chromatograph/visible absorbance detector was used for the analysis of Cr (VI) in sample solution. Limit of detection (LOD) , analytical accuracy, and precision were also tested using Cr (VI) spike samples. Recoveries (as index of accuracy) and coefficient of variation (CV) (as a index of precision) were determined. Two-way ANOVA and Turkey's test were performed to test the significance in differences among recoveries and CVs of the methods. In all the methods, the peaks of Cr (VI) were separated sharply on chromatograms and exhibited a strong linearity with Cr (VI) concentrations in solution. The correlation coefficients of calibration curves typically ranged from 0.9997 to 0.9999, and the analytical LODs from 0.025 to 0.1$\mu\textrm{g}$/sample. All the method had good sensitivities and linearities between Cr (VI) levels and peak areas. The accuracies (% mean recoveries) of the methods ranged from 80.1 to 104.2%, while the precisions (pooled coefficient of variation) ranged from 3.16 to 4.43%. The impinger methods showed higher recoveries ( > 95%) than those of the PVC filter methods (the OSHA Method and the NIOSH/EPA Method). It was assumed that Cr (VI) on PVC filter was exposed to air and reduced to trivalent chromium, Cr (III), whereas it was stabilized in alkali solution contained in impinger. Thus, a special treatment of Cr (VI) samples collected on PVC filters may be required.
