Time-weighted average sampling of airborne propylene glycol ethers by a solid-phase microextraction device.

A solid-phase microextraction (SPME) device was used as a diffusive sampler for airborne propylene glycol ethers (PGEs), including propylene glycol monomethyl ether (PGME), propylene glycol monomethyl ether acetate (PGMEA), and dipropylene glycol monomethyl ether (DPGME). Carboxen-polydimethylsiloxane (CAR/PDMS) SPME fiber was selected for this study. A polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) tubing was used as the holder, and the SPME fiber assembly was inserted into the tubing as a diffusive sampler. The diffusion path length and area of the sampler were 0.3 cm and 0.00086 cm(2), respectively. The theoretical sampling constants at 30°C and 1 atm for PGME, PGMEA, and DPGME were 1.50 × 10(-2), 1.23 × 10(-2) and 1.14 × 10(-2) cm(3) min(-1), respectively. For evaluations, known concentrations of PGEs around the threshold limit values/time-weighted average with specific relative humidities (10% and 80%) were generated both by the air bag method and the dynamic generation system, while 15, 30, 60, 120, and 240 min were selected as the time periods for vapor exposures. Comparisons of the SPME diffusive sampling method to Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) organic Method 99 were performed side-by-side in an exposure chamber at 30°C for PGME. A gas chromatography/flame ionization detector (GC/FID) was used for sample analysis. The experimental sampling constants of the sampler at 30°C were (6.93 ± 0.12) × 10(-1), (4.72 ± 0.03) × 10(-1), and (3.29 ± 0.20) × 10(-1) cm(3) min(-1) for PGME, PGMEA, and DPGME, respectively. The adsorption of chemicals on the stainless steel needle of the SPME fiber was suspected to be one of the reasons why significant differences between theoretical and experimental sampling rates were observed. Correlations between the results for PGME from both SPME device and OSHA organic Method 99 were linear (r = 0.9984) and consistent (slope = 0.97 ± 0.03). Face velocity (0-0.18 m/s) also proved to have no effects on the sampler. However, the effects of temperature and humidity have been observed. Therefore, adjustments of experimental sampling constants at different environmental conditions will be necessary.