Grantee Research Project Results
Comparison of polyurethane foam and XAD-2 sampling matrices to measure airborne organophosphorus pesticides and their oxygen analogs in an agricultural community.
Citation:
Armstrong JL, Fenske RA, Yost MG, Tchong-French M, Yu J. Comparison of polyurethane foam and XAD-2 sampling matrices to measure airborne organophosphorus pesticides and their oxygen analogs in an agricultural community. Chemosphere 2013:92(4):451-457.
Abstract:
Side-by-side active air sampling for the organophosphorus (OP) pesticide, chlorpyrifos (CPF) and its oxygen analog, chlorpyrifos-oxon (CPF-O) was conducted with two recommended air sampling matrices: OSHA Versatile Sampling (OVS) tubes with XAD-2 resin, polyurethane foam (PUF) tubes, and passive PUF deposition disks. The study compared the proportion of artificially transformed CPF-O in the laboratory and in the field during a tree fruit application in Washington State. Lab results demonstrated that the NIOSH-recommended OVS tubes artificially transformed up to 32% of CPF to CPF-O during the sampling process, whereas PUF tubes had little to no artificial transformation (≤ 0.1%). In the field, the proportion of CPF-O in the sample was significantly higher on OVS tubes than on PUF tubes (p < 0.001), confirming that OVS tubes were converting a significant portion of CPF to CPF-O. In addition, PUF tubes reported measurable levels CPF-O in the field even when no artificial transformation was expected. We conclude that the PUF matrix is the superior sampling medium for OP oxygen analogs when compared to XAD-two resin. Community-located PUF tube samples 24h post-application had considerably higher levels CPF-O (16-21 ng/m3) than near field samples during application (2-14 ng/m3), suggesting that the oxygen analog is volatile and formed during atmospheric transport. It is recommended that worker and community risk assessments begin to take into consideration the presence of the more toxic oxygen analogs when measuring for OP pesticide mixtures.The perspectives, information and conclusions conveyed in research project abstracts, progress reports, final reports, journal abstracts and journal publications convey the viewpoints of the principal investigator and may not represent the views and policies of ORD and EPA. Conclusions drawn by the principal investigators have not been reviewed by the Agency.