TABLE 16. 
INTERLABORATORY 
SPLIT SAMPLES* 
COMPARISON OF DEHP 
MEASUREMENTS OF 
Samples 
Method 
This Laboratory 
DEHP (ppm) see 
note d 
EPA-Cincinnati 
DFHP (ppm) (n) 
Chester River, "R" 
GCMS 
0.097+0.03 (5) 
58 
see 
note 
a. 
0.3 
see 
note 
b. 
0.4 
see 
note 
c. 
Spiked Attapulgite 
GC 
200+10 (5) 
121 
(dry) 
GCMS 
Tenneco Pond West 
GC 
1200+100 (5) 
1700 
(dry) 
Notes: 
a. Initial determination. This errant result necessitated 
the subsequent repeating the entire analysis using 
freshly split samples. 
b. Dried by this Laboratory. 
c. Dried by EPA-Cincinnati. 
d. Reagent blanks measured DEP 0.0005 ppm, DBP 0.001 ppm, 
DEHP C.003 ppm. 
* 
Further details are given in Appendix B. 
Tenneco Pond and Chester River Sediments 
Sediment analyses for DBP and DEHP were measured using the 
GC (Tenneco Pond) and GCMS (Chester River) techniques. The 
results are presented in Table 17. The samples in all cases were 
surficial—top 10 cm—that were thoroughly homogenized prior to 
drying and subsampling. The results are persented along with 
percentage of organic carbon [HC1 (0.1M) treatment was used to 
remove carbonate] and percentage of water. All results are pre¬ 
sented on a dry-weight basis. 
Two samples were taken from Tenneco Pond which is roughly 
oval in shape. These separate samples were obtained near the 
center axis of the pond about one third of the distance from 
either end: these are labeled East and West. 
It is clear that the pond sediment is quite substantially 
polluted with 0.15 percent DEHP. The previously cited LC re¬ 
sults which seem to be much better for the larger alkyl phtha- 
lates show similar amounts of other compounds: 0.14 percent DIDP 
71 
