OSHA Analytical Laboratory Salt Lake City, Utah
1. General Discussion
The purpose of this work was to extend previously developed volatile
Volatile
The commercially available ThermoSorb/N air sampling system is reported to be free of the many problems associated with sampling air for
Previous analytical methods for
Gas and liquid chromatographic analytical techniques have greater application to trace level analysis of
The Thermal Energy Analyzer (TEA) is a highly selective detector for This method uses a GC/TEA procedure for the analysis of the component analytes. A HPLC/TEA procedure is also presented for use as a confirmatory technique. 1.1.2. Toxic effects (This section is for information and should not be taken as the basis of OSHA policy). The effects of acute exposure to each of the analytes were similar. The administration of a lethal dose to rats led to a progressively weakened and emaciated condition frequently with the appearance of jaundice. Death usually occurred within seven days. The autopsy revealed severe centrilobular liver damage with hemorrhaging into the lungs in most cases. The response to a lethal dose was the same for male and female rats (Ref. 5.8.).
Each of the analytes evaluated in this method has a carcinogenic effect on the rat. There is no evidence that exposure to the analytes has led to cancer in humans and extrapolation of animal data to humans is controversial, but experience with similar A high correlation between carcinogenicity and mutagenicity has been reported (Ref. 5.10.). NDAmA, NMBA, and NPBA were found to be mutagenic on Salmonella typhimurium when incubated with a rat liver activating system (Ref. 5.11.). No information regarding the mutagenicity of NMEA, NDiPA, and NEBA was obtained through a literature search.
A generally accepted theory of
The metabolic activation of a Detailed information regarding chronic exposure to the analytes is presented in Section 4.9. 1.1.3. Potential workplace exposure A literature search resulted in no citations regarding occupational exposure to any of the analytes.
Occupational exposure to the analytes is probably the result of the formation of the agent from precursor amines and suitable nitrosating species. The amino group can be primary, secondary or tertiary (Ref. 5.25.). The amine can be free or a portion of a more complex molecule such as a drug or a herbicide. Amines can be nitrosated in air (Ref. 5.41.) or in solution under acidic, neutral or alkaline conditions (Refs. 5.23. and 5.25.). The nitrosation reaction is catalyzed by thiocyanate, halide ions, metal ions, formaldehyde and ozone (Refs. 5.23., 5.25., and 5.31.). Suitable nitrosating species include nitrogen oxides (NO, NO2, N2O4, N2O3), nitrite and nitrous acid (Refs. 5.23. and 5.25.).
Nitrosation can occur as a result of transnitrosation. This is a chemical reaction in which a
Exposure to the analytes includes the endogenous formation of the agents in the human gastrointestinal tract. Precursor amines have been shown to react with nitrite to form the corresponding The size of the work population that is exposed is unknown. Since amines and suitable nitrosating species are ubiquitous, the number of potential exposures could be large (Refs. 5.3. and 5.25.). 1.1.4. Physical properties The following data were taken from Refs. 5.8. and 5.26.
synonyms (Ref. 5.26.)
ethylamine,
diisopropylamine, N-nitrosomethyl-n-butylamine
butylamine, N-nitrosoethyl-n-butylamine
N-nitroso-n-propyl-n-butylamine
dipentylamine, structure and molecular formula (Ref. 5.26.).
1.2. Limit defining parameters (All air concentrations presented are based on a 75 L air sample volume and a
The detection limit of the analytical procedure is the mass of analyte per injection which will result in a peak whose height is about five times the amplitude of the baseline noise. (Section 4.1.)
Analytical Procedure (pg/injection)
1.2.2. Detection limits of the overall procedure The detection limit of the overall procedure is the amount of analyte spiked on the sampling device which allows recovery of an amount of analyte equivalent to the detection limit of the analytical procedure. (Section 4.2.)
1.2.3. Reliable quantitation limits The reliable quantitation limit is the smallest amount of analyte which can be quantitated within the requirements of at least 75% recovery and a precision (±1.96 SD) of ±25% or better, based on six samples. The reliable quantitation limits were the same as the detection limits of the overall procedure since the desorption efficiencies were above 75% and the precisions were better than ±25%. (Section 4.2.)
The reliable quantitation limit and detection limits reported in the method are based upon optimization of the instrument for the smallest possible amount of analyte. When the target concentration of an analyte is exceptionally higher than these limits, they may not be attainable at the routine operating parameters.
The sensitivity of the analytical procedure is determined by the slope of the calibration curve over a concentration range from 0.5 to 2 times the target concentration. The sensitivity will vary somewhat with the particular instrument used in the analysis. (Section 4.4.)
(area units per µg/mL)
1.2.5. Recovery The recovery of analyte from the collection medium during storage must be 75% or greater. The minimum recoveries which are presented below were determined from the regression line of the plotted ambient temperature storage data. (Section 4.7.)
1.2.6. Precision (analytical method only) The pooled coefficients of variation obtained from replicate determinations of analytical standards at 0.5, 1 and 2 times the target concentrations are presented below. (Section 4.3.)
1.2.7. Precision (overall procedure)
The overall procedure must provide results at the target concentrations that are ±25% or better at the 95% confidence level. The precisions at the 95% confidence level for the
1.2.8. Reproducibility
Six
1.3. Advantages
1.3.2. The sampling and analytical procedures are precise, reliable, safe and convenient. 1.3.3. The sampling procedure is artifact free under the tested conditions. The capacity of the sampling device to prevent artifacts is probably limited.
1.3.4. The air sampling device is commercially available and is constructed of opaque plastic to prevent 1.3.5. The samples are stable when stored at ambient temperatures for at least 16 days. 1.4. Disadvantages
1.4.2. The ability of the sampling device to collect and retain the analytes is limited. 2. Sampling Procedure
2.1.2. ThermoSorb/N air sampling cartridges, available from Thermo Electron Corporation, Waltham, Mass. 2.1.3. Equipment to calibrate the air flow rate through the sampling device. 2.2. Reagents None required 2.3. Technique
2.3.2. Prior to sampling, remove the red end caps from the inlet and outlet ports. Store the caps on the air sampler in the places that are provided for this use.
2.3.3. Label the air sampler and attach the device to the air sampling pump with flexible tubing. Adjust the pump to obtain the proper air flow rate. The recommended rate is 1 L/min but flow rates of from 0.2 to 2 L/min may be used. If air volumes larger than the recommended 75 L are required or if large amounts of 2.3.4. Attach the sampling device in the breathing zone of the employee to be monitored. The molded clip is convenient for this purpose. 2.3.5. After sampling for the appropriate time, remove the device and replace the red end caps on the inlet and outlet ports of sampler. 2.3.6. Wrap each sample end to end with official OSHA seals (Form 21). Place the sealed air sampler inside the foil container from Section 2.3.1. 2.3.7. With each set of samples, submit at least one blank sample. The blank should be subjected to the same handling as the sample except that no air is drawn through it. 2.3.8. Place the samples in a freezer if they are to be stored before shipping to the laboratory. 2.3.9. List possible interferences on the sample data sheet. 2.4. Breakthrough Breakthrough studies were conducted by connecting two samplers in series. The first sampler was vapor spiked at twice the target concentrations with a mixture of the analytes and then air at about 80% relative humidity and 22°C was drawn through the sampling train. The rear sampler was removed and analyzed after an appropriate air volume had been sampled. The rear sampler was replaced with a new cartridge and sampling was continued. The first tube was also analyzed when the study was terminated. NMEA was the only component of the mixture to be lost from the first sampling device. Two breakthrough studies were conducted and the average 5% breakthrough air volume was 169 L (Section 4.5.). The 5% breakthrough air volume was defined as the air volume at which 5% of the amount of the component vapor spiked on the first tube was found on the second tube. None of the other analytes moved from the front tube after 365 L of air was drawn through the sampling train.
In the interests of a general 2.5. Desorption efficiency The average desorption efficiency for each of the analytes vapor spiked at 0.5, 1 and 2 times the target concentration on ThermoSorb/N air samplers is presented below (Section 4.6.).
2.6. Recommended air volume and sampling rate
2.6.2. The recommended air sampling rate is 1 L/min. Studies indicate that flow rates of from 0.2 to 2 L/min may be used if required. 2.7. Interferences (sampling)
The process by which the ThermoSorb/N tubes prevent artifact formation is proprietary. The manufacturer states that the device has an amine trap that removes incoming amines and holds them unavailable for nitrosation. The sampled air, after passing through the amine trap, enters a solid sorbent bed where the The resistance of the ThermoSorb/N air sampler to artifact formation was verified using morpholine (a precursor amine for NMOR) and nitrogen dioxide. Morpholine was selected as the test amine because it has been shown to be easily nitrosated. Nitrogen dioxide in a gas bag, mixed with humid air, has been shown to be an effective nitrosating species. A Teflon gas bag was prepared containing 33 µg/L morpholine in nitrogen and another containing 4.8 ppm v/v NO2 in air at about 75% relative humidity. The morpholine bag was sampled for 50 min at 1 L/min and then the nitrogen dioxide bag was sampled for 50 min at 1 L/min. The total morpholine loaded on the tube was 1650 µg. There was no NMOR formed on the ThermoSorb/N cartridge. The experiment was repeated using a standard Florisil tube. The result showed that 7 µg of NMOR could be formed, as an artifact on the tube, after sampling each bag for 7 min.
2.7.2. It is unknown if there are other interferences with the collection of 2.8. Safety precautions (sampling)
2.8.2. Follow all safety practices that apply to the work area to be monitored. 3. Analytical Procedure
3.1.2. A high performance liquid chromatographic (HPLC) pump. 3.1.3. A HPLC sample injector. 3.1.4. A Thermal Energy Analyzer (TEA), Thermo Electron Corporation, Waltham, Mass.
3.1.5. A GC column capable of resolving the analytes from each other and potential interferences. The column used in this work was 3.1.6. A HPLC analytical column capable of resolving the analytes from each other and potential interferences. The column used in this work was a DuPont Zorbax CN (4.6 mm × 25-cm). 3.1.7. The necessary hardware to interface the TEA to the GC and the HPLC apparatus.
3.1.8. An electronic integrator or other suitable means to measure peak area and record chromatograms. A
3.1.9. Vials, 3.1.10. Syringes, of convenient sizes for sample and standard preparations and injections. 3.1.11. Hypodermic needles, 23 gauge × 1 in., Luer hub.
3.1.12. Volumetric flasks, 3.1.13. Dewar flasks, of convenient sizes for liquid nitrogen. 3.1.14. Microanalytical balance. 3.2. Reagents
3.2.2. Dichloromethane and methanol, HPLC grade. The sample desorption solution is composed of 75% dichloromethane and 25% methanol by volume.
3.2.3. Isopropanol and 3.2.4. n-Propanol, technical grade. 3.2.5. Nitrogen, liquid. 3.2.6. Helium, GC grade. 3.2.7. Oxygen and air, medical grade. 3.3. Standard preparation
3.3.2. Prepare individual stock standards of by diluting known quantities of each component with isopropanol.
3.3.3. Prepare an intermediate standard mixture using known volumes of each stock standard and diluting the mixture with
3.3.4. Prepare fresh working range standards daily by diluting the standard mixture with desorbing solution. Standards at the target concentration were obtained by diluting the above standard mixture 1 to 50 with desorbing solution. 3.3.5. Additional standards at other than the target concentration should be prepared in order to generate the calibration curve.
3.3.6. Store the standards in a freezer using 3.4. Sample preparation
3.4.2. The sample should be received in a foil container. Remove the sample from the container. 3.4.3. Insure that the official OSHA seal (Form 21) is intact and complete. 3.4.4. Check the laboratory sample number against the field identification number to be sure that the sample has been properly identified. 3.4.5. Prepare the desorption solution described in Section 3.2.2. Store the solution in a well sealed, dark bottle.
3.4.6. Label two 3.4.7. Remove the OSHA seal and the red end caps from the sample. 3.4.8. Attach a syringe needle to the male Luer fitting at the inlet port of the air sampler. 3.4.9. Fill a syringe with about 4 mL of the desorbing solution. Attach the syringe to the female Luer fitting located at the outlet end of the air sampler.
3.4.10. Elute the sample by gently forcing the desorption solvent through the air sampler at approximately 0.5 mL/min. Collect the first
3.4.11. Because light will decompose
3.4.12. If the eluted samples are not to be analyzed immediately, transfer the contents of each flask to a separate vial which can be sealed with a 3.5. Analysis
The recommended GC column is 3.5.1.2. TEA Conditions
The following conditions apply to the Model
3.5.2. Chromatogram Section 4.8. 3.5.3. Detector response is measured with an electronic integrator or other suitable means. 3.5.4. An external standard procedure is used to prepare a calibration curve using at least 3 standard solutions of different concentrations. The calibration curve is prepared daily. The integrator is calibrated to report results in µg/mL. 3.5.5. Bracket the samples with analytical standards. 3.6. Interferences (analytical)
3.6.2. Because the TEA has been shown to respond to compounds other than
The TEA conditions are the same as for the GC/TEA analysis except that the HPLC pyrolyzer is used at 550°C and the cold trap is maintained at -80°C with a mixture of water, 3.6.2.2. Chromatogram Figure 4.8.4. 3.6.3. GC and HPLC parameters may be changed to circumvent interferences. Possible interferences are listed on the sample data sheets. 3.6.4. The only unequivocal means of structure designation is by gas chromatography/mass spectrometry with continuous peak matching. It is recommended this procedure be used to confirm samples whenever possible. 3.7. Calculations
3.7.2. The concentration, in µg/mL, for a particular determination is obtained by comparing its detector response to the calibration curve. 3.7.3. The result obtained from the analysis of each vial or flask is corrected by the appropriate desorption efficiency, and then the corrected results from the "A" and "B" determinations that compose a particular air sample are added together. 3.7.4. The analyte air concentrations for a sample are calculated by the following equation: concentration in µg/m3 = (C)(D)(1000)/E
3.7.5. To convert the results from Section 3.7.4. to parts per billion (at 760 mm and 25°C) the following relationship is used: concentration in ppb = (µg/m3)(24.46)/MW
3.8. Safety precautions (analytical)
3.8.2. Avoid skin contact with liquid nitrogen and the solvents. 3.8.3. Confine the use of solvents to a fume hood. 3.8.4. Wear safety glasses in all laboratory areas. 3.8.5. Check to be sure that the TEA exhaust is connected to a fume hood. 4. Backup Data
Figure 4.1. is a chromatogram obtained from a
Each ThermoSorb/N tube was vapor spiked with the analytes by first injecting a liquid mixture of the analytes on Polar Partition resin. The spiked resin tube was then placed in front of the ThermoSorb/N cartridge and 50 L (1 L/min) of air, at about 80% relative humidity and 22°C, were drawn through the sampling train. The analytes were vaporized from the resin and collected on the ThermoSorb/N tube. The vaporization process was determined to be complete after 25 L of air had passed through the resin.
4.2. The detection limit of the overall procedure and the reliable quantitation limit The following data were obtained by vapor spiking the analytes on air samplers. The injection size recommended in the analytical procedure (5-µL) was used to determine the detection limit of the overall procedure and the reliable quantitation limit.
Desorption Efficiency at the Detection Limit
Since the desorption efficiencies were near 100% and also the precisions were better than ±25%, the detection limits of the overall procedure and the reliable quantitation limits were the same. 4.3. Precision data The following data were obtained from multiple injections of analytical standards:
Precision at 0.5× Target Concentration
Precision at 1× Target Concentration
Precision at 2× Target Concentration
The Pooled Coefficients of Variation
4.4. Sensitivity The data in Tables 4.3.1. - 4.3.3. are presented graphically in Figures 4.4.1. - 4.4.6. The sensitivity of the analytical procedure is determined by the slope of the calibration curve over a concentration range of from 0.5 to 2 times the target concentrations. 4.5. Breakthrough Two breakthrough studies were conducted at about 80% relative humidity and 22°C. Two ThermoSorb/N tubes were connected in series and the front tube was vapor spiked at 2 times the target concentration with a mixture of the analytes. The rear tube was removed and replaced at intervals and analyzed. NMEA was the only analyte to move from the front to the rear tube. The data is presented in Tables 4.5.1. and 4.5.2. and also in Figures 4.5.1. and 4.5.2.
Breakthrough Study One
Breakthrough Study Two
4.6. Desorption efficiency The following data represent the analysis of ThermoSorb/N tubes vapor spiked with the analytes at 0.5, 1, and 2 times the target concentrations.
Desorption Efficiency at 0.5× the Target Concentration
Desorption Efficiency at 1× the Target Concentration
Desorption Efficiency at 2× the Target Concentration
Average Desorption Efficiency at 0.5, 1, and 2 Times the Target Concentration
4.7. Storage data The data in Tables 4.7.1. and 4.7.2. represent the effects of storage at ambient (21 to 26°C) and reduced (-20°C) temperatures on vapor spiked ThermoSorb/N cartridges. The tubes were vapor spiked at the following levels. The results are not corrected for desorption efficiency. The data are also presented graphically in Figures 4.7.1. to 4.7.12.
Ambient Temperature Storage, % Recovery
Reduced Temperature Storage, % Recovery
4.8. Chromatograms
Figure 4.8.1. is a typical GC/TEA chromatogram obtained by the injection of a standard mixture containing the analytes. The column was 1/8-in. × 4.8.2. GC/TEA Chromatogram
Figure 4.8.2. is a GC/TEA chromatogram obtained from the analysis of a mixture of
4.8.3. GC/TEA Chromatogram
Figure 4.8.3. is a GC/TEA chromatogram obtained by the analysis of the same 4.8.4. HPLC/TEA Chromatogram
Figure 4.8.4. is a HPLC/TEA chromatogram obtained by the injection of the same standard mixture used in 4.8.2. The column was 4.6-mm i.d. × 4.9. Toxic effects (This data is for information only and should not be taken as the basis of OSHA policy.)
NDiPA: The LD50 for NDiPA was 850 mg/kg following oral administration to the rat. In a chronic effects study, 25 and 50 mg/kg of NDiPA were administered to 2 groups of rats daily in the drinking water. The experiment was discontinued after a total dose of 11 and 14 g/kg had been administered. These rather large doses produced liver cancer in only 9 of a total of 20 test animals. The mean induction periods were 770 and 430 days for each group respectively. The weak carcinogenic effect of NDiPA was attributed to steric hindrance of the enzymatic hydroxylation of the NMBA: The LD50 for NMBA is 130 mg/kg following oral administration to the rat. The lowest dose which resulted in liver tumors for 50% of the test rats was 600 mg/kg NMBA. The substance was administered by intraperitoneal injection. (Ref. 5.37.). Inhalation of NMBA has been reported to result in incidences of 100% for esophageal tumors and 23% for nasal tumors in rats (Ref. 5.38. and 5.39.).
NEBA: The LD50 for NEBA was 380 mg/kg, following oral administration to the rat. In a chronic effects study, five rats received 10 mg/kg and 25 rats 5 mg/kg NEBA daily in the drinking water. All of the test animals died between the 175th and the 290th day with extensive cancer of the esophagus. Three animals also had liver cancer and one a pulmonary cancer. The mean carcinogenic doses were 1.6 and 0.97 g/kg and the mean induction periods were 200 and 240 days respectively. In another experiment, 15 rats received 25 mg/kg once per week by intravenous injections. Five animals developed papillomas and nine cancer of the esophagus. Six rats had liver tumors, one cancer of the ethmoturbinalia and another cancer of the pancreas. Seven animals had tumors in multiple organs. The mean carcinogenic dose was 1.04 g/kg and mean induction period was 363 days. Bladder cancer which is often the result of exposure to NPBA: The daily oral administration of 415 mg NPBA per animal, in the drinking water, for 16 to 19 weeks led to a 100% incidence of liver cancer in the rat. Six of 10 rats also developed esophageal papillomas (Ref. 5.40.). NDAmA: The LD50 for NDAmA was 3000 mg/kg following subcutaneous administration to the rat. The oral administration of 100 mg/kg NDAmA, daily, in the diet led to liver cancer in 17 of 18 animals; in 5 animals the liver tumors were accompanied by pulmonary metastases. One animal also had lung cancer. The carcinogenic mean dose was 48 g/kg and the mean induction period was 360 days. In another chronic experiment, 500 mg/kg of undiluted NDAmA were administered to rats once per week by subcutaneous injection. Only one animal developed liver cancer but six of ten rats died with lung cancer. The mean carcinogenic dose was 12 g/kg and the mean induction period was 340 days. This experiment was seen as fundamentally important because it demonstrated that pulmonary cancer is not only produced by locally acting inhaled agents but also that it can result from absorbed carcinogens. These experiments also show that the affected organs are not only a function of the chemical and physical properties of the substance but also by the size of the dose and mode of administration (Ref. 5.8.). Molecular Structure and carcinogenicity: A few generalities regarding the carcinogenic properties of nitrosodialkylamines have been made. Branching of the alkyl group at the alpha carbon tends to decrease carcinogenicity. Increasing molecular weight and polarity seems also to reduce carcinogenic activity. The carcinogenicity of unsymmetrical nitrosamines is often selective toward the esophagus (Ref. 5.9.). 4.10. Reproducibility Six vapor spiked ThermoSorb/N tubes and a draft copy of this procedure were given to a chemist unassociated with this evaluation. The samples were analyzed after one day of storage at ambient temperature. The recoveries and standard deviations are presented in Table 4.10. The samples were spiked at the target concentrations.
Reproducibility Study
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
Figure 4.8.1. GC/TRA chromatogram of the analytes with the Carbowax 20M column. The column temperature was programmed from 150 to 220°C at 4°C/min. The injector was set at 150°C and the carrier gas flow rate was 30 mL/min.
![]()
Figure 4.8.2. GC/TEA chromatogram of a mixture of ![]()
Figure 4.8.3. GG/TEA chromatogram of a mixture of ![]()
Figure 4.8.4. HPLC/TEA chromatogram of a mixture of 5. References
5.2. Fine, D.H.; Rounbehler, D.P.; Sawicki, E. and Krost, K. Environ. Science Technol., 11,
5.3. Fine, D.H. Oncology, 37,
5.4. Rounbehler, D.P.; Reisch, J.W.; Coombs, J.R. and Fine, D.H. Anal. Chem., 52,
5.5. Fisher, R.L.; Rieser, R.W., and Lasoski, B.A. Anal. Chem., 49,
5.6. Sen, N.P. "Environmental Carcinogens Selected Methods of Analysis, Volume
5.7. Instruction Manual - Thermal Energy Analyzer, Model 502/LC, Thermal Electron Corporation, Waltham, Mass. 02145,
5.8. Druckrey, D.; Preussmann, R.; Ivankovic, S. and Schmahl, D. Z. Krebsforsch, 69,
5.9. Edelman, A.S.; Kraft, P.L.; Rand, W.M., and Wishnok, J.S. Chem. Biol. Interactions, 31,
5.10. McCann, J.; Choi, E.; Yamasaki, E., and Ames, B.N. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA, 72,
5.11. Yahagi, T.; Nagao, M.; Seino, Y.; Matsushima, T.; Sugimura, T., and Okada, M. Mutation Res., 48,
5.12. Ember, L.R. Chem. Eng. News, 58,
5.13. Rounbehler, D.P.; Krull, I.S.; Goff, E.U.; Mills, K.M.; Edwards, G.S.; Fine, D.H.; Rheinhold, V.; Morrison, J.; Fagen, J.M. and Carson, G.A. Fd. Cosmet. Toxicol. 17,
5.14. Fajen, J.M.; Carson, G.A.; Rounbehler, D.P.; Fan, T.Y.; Vita, R.; Goff, V.E.; Wolf, M.H.; Edwards, G.S.; Fine, D.H.; Reinhold, V. and Biemann, K. Science, 205, 5.15. Chem. Eng. News, 57, 6, (1979). 5.16. Chem. Eng. News, 57, 18, (1979).
5.17. Brunnemann, K.D.; Yu, L. and Hoffmann, D. Cancer Research, 37,
5.18. Day, E.W.; West, S.D.; Koenig, D.K. and Powers, F.L. J. Agric. Food Chem., 27,
5.19. Fiddler, W.; Pensabene, J.W.; Doerr, R.C. and Dooley, C.J. Fd. Cosmet. Toxicol., 15,
5.20. Spiegelhalder, B.; Eisenbrand, G. and Preussmann, R. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. Engl., 17,
5.21. Archer, M.C. and Wishnok, J.S., J. Environ. Sci. Health, 10 & 11,
5.22. Goff, E.U.; Coombs, J.R. and Fine, D.H. Anal. Chem., 52,
5.23. Challis, B.C.; Edwards, A.; Hunna, R.R.; Kyrtopoulos, S.A. and Outram, J.P. "Environmental Aspects of
5.24. March, J. "Advanced Organic Chemistry: Reactions, Mechanisms and Structure",
5.25. Fine, D.H. "Monitoring Toxic Substances", Schuetzle, D. Ed., American Chemical Society Symposium, Series 94: Washington, D.C., 5.26. Registry of Toxic Effects of Chemical Substances, 1979 Edition. (Lewis, R.J. and Tatken, R.L., Eds.) U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Public Health Service, Center for Disease Control, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. (1980). 5.27. "CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics", CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL (1979).
5.28. "IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of the Carcinogenic Risk of Chemicals to Humans, Some
5.29. Wishnok, J.S. and Tannenbaum, S.R. Anal. Chem., 49,
5.30. Lijinsky, W. and Epstein, 5.5. Nature, 225,
5.31. Sander, J.; Schweinsberg, F.; La Bar, J. and Burkle, G. "GANN Monograph on Cancer Research 17",
5.32. Iqbal, Z.M.; Dahl, K. and Epstein, 5.5. Science, 207,
5.33. Wang, T.; Kakizoe, T.; Dion, P.; Furrer, R.; Varghese, A.J. and Bruce, W.R. Nature, 276,
5.34. Kakizoe, T.; Wang, T.; Eng, V.W.S.; Furrer, R.; Dion, P. and Bruce, W.R. Cancer Research, 39,
5.35. "ThermoSorb/N Air
5.36. Lijinsky, W. and Taylor, W. J. Natl. Cancer Inst., 62,
5.37. Heath, D.F. and Magee, P.N. Brit. J. Indur. Med., 19,
5.38. Druckrey, H.; Landschutz, C. and Preussmann, R. Z. Krebsforsch, 75,
5.39. Druckrey, H. and Landschutz, C. Z. Krebsforsch, 75,
5.40. Okada, M.; Suzuki, E. and Hashimoto, Y. Gann, 67,
5.41. Pitts, J.N.; Grosjean, D.; Cauwenberghe, K.V.; Schmid, J.P. and Fitz, D.R. Environ. Science Technol., 12,
|