Abstract

Haloethanoic (haloacetic) acids are formed during chlorination of drinking water and are regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). These compounds are normally quantified by gas chromatography with electron capture detection (GC-ECD) as the methyl esters. EPA Method 552 uses diazomethane (CH₂N₂) for this purpose, but has only been validated by EPA for HAA6: chloro-, dichloro-, bromo-, dibromo-, bromochloro- and trichloroacetic acids. EPA Method 552.2 was developed and validated for all nine analytes (HAA9 = HAA6 + dibromochloro-, bromodichloro- and tribromoethanoic acids). Since the promulgation of Method 552.2, which uses acidic methanol, a debate has ensued over discrepancies observed by various laboratories when using diazomethane instead. In an effort to identify and eliminate potential sources for these discrepancies, a comparative study was undertaken for HAA9. Better accuracy and precision were observed for all HAA9 species by Method 552.2; recoveries were satisfactory in de-ionized and tap water. Method 552 remains satisfactory for HAA6. Systematic differences in instrumental response are observed for the two methods, but these are precise and may be accounted for using similarly treated standards and analyte-fortified (spiked) samples. That notwithstanding, Method 552 (CH₂N₂) was shown to be unsuitable for dibromochloro-, bromodichloro- and tribromoethanoic acids (HAA9–6). The primary problem appears to be a photoactivated reaction between diazomethane and the HAA9–6 analytes; however, side reactions were found to occur even in the dark. Analyte loss is most pronounced under typical laboratory lighting (white F40 fluorescent lamps + sunlight), but it is also observed under Philips gold F40 lamps (λ ≥ 520 nm), and in the dark.