A laboratory comparison of analytical methods used for isocyanates

• Published in: Analytical methods 2011-11, Vol.3 (11), p.2478-2487
• Main Authors: Ceballos, Diana M., Whittaker, Stephen G., Yost, Michael G., Dills, Russell L., Bello, Dhimiter, Thomasen, Jennifer M., Nylander-French, Leena A., Reeb-Whitaker, Carolyn K., Peters, Phillip M., Weiland, Elisa C., Suydam, Wallace W.
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Coatings
• ISSN: 1759-9660; 1759-9679
• DOI: 10.1039/c1ay05225j

Monomeric and oligomeric 1,6-hexamethylene diisocyanate (HDI) and isophorone diisocyanate (IPDI) are components of catalyst hardeners in two-part polyurethane coating systems. Exposure to these isocyanates in the collision repair industry has been associated with increased risk for work-related asthma; however their quantitation remains a challenging task. Four analytical methods were compared: modified version of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health Method 5525 (NIOSH); liquid chromatography and mass spectrometry (LC/MS) using 1-(2-methoxyphenyl)piperazine (MPP) as the derivatizing reagent; modified version of the Occupational Health and Safety Administration Method 42/PV2034 (OSHA); and modified version of the Omega ISO-CHEK[registered sign] Method (WA-DOSH). Five levels of a widely used clear coat hardener were spiked onto sampling media. A reference value was calculated by using a hardener NCO titration and manufacturer composition data. Intra- and inter-method variability was determined. All methods measuring NCO-HDI monomer, NCO-IPDI monomer, NCO-IPDI oligomers, and total NCO mass (except OSHA method) compared well against the reference values (slopes [greater-than-or-equal] 0.816, R2 0.90). The NCO-HDI oligomer results for the NIOSH method compared well with the reference values (slope = 1.161, standard error = 0.046 and R2 = 0.98, p 0.001) while WA-DOSH were above (slope = 2.293, standard error = 0.055 and R2 = 0.99, p 0.001) and LC/MS were below (slope = 0.264, standard error = 0.011 and R2 = 0.98, p 0.001) the reference values. The principal challenges associated with comparing methods were: 1) the reporting metrics were not always directly comparable and 2) not all methods reported all isocyanate species of interest. Although this present study provided valuable information, a more extensive investigation is required in order to critically evaluate these methodological differences.