National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health

“ Extraction efficiency for $-Estra dio l ra nged from 94 to 103% ; for E strone, 95 to 104% ; for Progesterone; 97 to 102% ; for $-Estradiol 3-Benzoate, 95 to 101%. An additional recovery study using W ash 'n Dri® wipes gave extraction efficiencies of 97 to 100%. The sta bility of the analytes on the filter m edia (s tatic efficiency) was evaluated by drawing air through spiked filters. Reco veries ranged from 94 to 102% for $-Estradiol; for Estrone, from 96 to 101%; for Progesterone, from 99 to 102% ; and for $-Estra dio l 3-B enzoate, from 92 to 101% . ”

“ Table 3 PRECISION (S r ) :
$-Estradiol 0.040 Estrone 0.039 Progesterone 0.030 $-Estradiol 3-Benzoate 0.032 @ 0.5 - 64 :g/sample [1]
APPLICABILITY: This method has not been used to evaluate field air samples. The method is based on a preliminary investigation analyzing field wipe samples collected during a health hazard evaluation at a facility producing birth control pills [1] . Appendix 1 contains information on recovery of analytes from wipe samples. INTERFERENCES: Any compound that elutes at the same HPLC retention times may interfere. OTHER METHODS: No validated methods were found. ”

“ CALCULATIONS: 17. Determine the mass in :g of analytes found on the sample filter, W , and on the average blank filter, B. 18. Calculate conce ntration, C, of analytes in the air volum e sam pled, V (L) :
NO TE : :g/L / m g/m 3
EVALUATION OF METHOD: This method has been used to analyze field-generated wipe samples [2] . It wa s not evaluated with laborato rygenerated air samples. LOD/LOQ, extraction efficiency, sam pling stability and storage s tability studies were performed with laboratory-spiked filters. LOD/LOQ values (in :g/filter) for $-Estradiol were 0.8/2.5 ”