Laserfiche WebLink
I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br /> ' <br /> <br />M~. Frank Perugini <br />April 13, 1984 <br /> <br />Page 2 <br /> <br />Although the ug/ml value of the standards did not vary significantly <br />based on weight, they varied up to a factor of 100 after injection <br />into the Purge and Trap apparatus. <br /> <br />Of all the volatile organic compounds analyzed at Waste Management <br />during the six month period, gas standards are prepared in this way <br />for only the six compounds shown in Table III. <br /> <br />Based on the difficulties described in tl above, the Minnesota Health <br />Department has. adopted a "present or not detected" reporting method <br />when dealing with all of the compounds shown in Table III except <br />trichlorofluoromethane. No quantification attempt is made. <br /> <br /> Although SERCO does not intend to report analytical results as "present <br />or not detected", we do intend to base all our reported analytical values for <br />these six compounds based on average standard response in future runs. New <br />standards will continue to be prepared for each sample but the response will <br />be calculated into the average from past standards. <br /> <br /> In summation, due to the extreme volatility of the six compounds in Table <br />III and the volatility of their corresponding standards, quantification of these <br />compounds is difficult. By averaging standard responses in future analysis, one <br />analytical intangible will be kept to a minimum. SERCO intends to calculate the <br />results of the compounds in Table III by this method in all cases where a large <br />gas standard data base is available. <br /> <br /> If you have any questions or comments concerning this letter, please feel free <br />to contact me. <br /> <br />· JOG/bis <br /> CC. Terry Miller <br /> <br /> <br />