GERAGHTY
&
MILLER
Screening
and
Selection
of
Coatings
for
Reducing
Dislodgeable
Arsenic
from
CCA
Treated
Wood
Quality
Assurance
Project
Plan
Category
III/
Sampling
and
Analysis
Draft
 
Revision
1.2
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
Air
Pollution
Prevention
and
Control
Division
March
2003
Contract
No.
68­
C99­
201
Work
Assignment
No.
4­
38
Project
No.
RN992014.0038
Prepared
for:

U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
Air
Pollution
Prevention
and
Control
Division
Research
Triangle
Park,
NC
27711
P.
O.
Box
13109
Research
Triangle
Park
North
Carolina
27709
QAPP
DRAFT
 
Revision
1.2
March
27,
2003
Screening
and
Selection
of
Coatings
for
Reducing
Dislodgeable
Arsenic
from
CCA
Treated
Wood
Quality
Assurance
Project
Plan
Category
III/
Sampling
and
Analysis
Draft
 
Revision
1.2
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
Air
Pollution
Prevention
and
Control
Division
March
2003
Contract
No.
68­
C99­
201
Work
Assignment
No.
4­
38
Project
No.
RN992014.0038
Prepared
for:

U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
Air
Pollution
Prevention
and
Control
Division
Research
Triangle
Park,
NC
27711
EPA
Work
Assignment
Manager
__________________________
_______
Mark
Mason
Date
ARCADIS
Geraghty
&
Miller
Work
Assignment
Leader
__________________________
_______
Victor
D'Amato
Date
EPA
QA
Representative
__________________________
_______
Paul
Groff
Date
ARCADIS
Geraghty
&
Miller
QA
Officer
__________________________
_______
Laura
Beach
Nessley
Date
i
CONTENTS
Section­
Page
1
Project
Description
and
Organization
1­
1
1.1
Project
Scope
1­
1
1.2
Background
1­
1
1.3
Data
Quality
Objectives
1­
2
1.4
Project
Organization
and
Responsibilities
1­
2
2
Sampling
Approach
2­
1
2.1
Preparation
and
Characterization
of
Wood
Specimens
2­
1
2.2
Selection
of
Coatings
for
Screening
2­
4
2.3
Coating
Application
2­
7
2.4
Sample
Schedule
2­
10
2.5
Test
Conditions
2­
12
2.6
Sampling
2­
12
2.6.1
Wipe
Sampling
2­
12
2.6.2
Wood
Sampling
2­
13
3
Testing
and
Measurement
Protocols
3­
1
3.1
Wipe
Sampling
3­
1
3.2
Sample
Preparation
(
Extraction/
Digestion)
3­
1
3.3
Analysis
by
ICP­
MS
3­
2
3.4
Preparation
and
Analysis
of
Miscellaneous
Samples
3­
2
3.5
Analysis
of
Wood
Samples
3­
2
3.6
Archiving
of
ICP­
MS
Samples
3­
2
3.7
Moisture
Analysis
of
Wood
Specimens
3­
3
4
QA/
QC
Checks
4­
1
5
Data
Reductions
and
Reporting
5­
1
5.1
Data
Reduction
5­
1
5.1.1
Calculation
of
DA
from
Extraction/
Digestion
Fluid
Concentrations
5­
1
5.1.2
Calculation
of
Percent
Reduction
of
DA
5­
1
5.1.3
Assessing
DQI
Goals
5­
2
5.2
Data
Validation
5­
3
5.3
Data
Reporting
5­
3
ii
List
of
Figures
Section­
Page
Figure
1­
1.
Organization
Chart
for
Sampling/
Analytical
Qualification
Testing
1­
3
Figure
2­
1.
Wood
Board/
Specimen
Nomenclature
2­
1
Figure
2­
2:
Example
specimen
identification
scheme
2­
3
List
of
Tables
Section­
Page
Table
1­
1.
Data
Quality
Indicator
Goals
for
Critical
Measurements
1­
2
Table
1­
2.
Contact
Information
for
Key
Project
Staff
1­
4
Table
2­
1.
Selected
Products
for
Screening
Study
2­
6
Table
2­
2.
Summary
of
Coating
Application
Measurements
2­
10
Table
2­
3.
Schedule
of
Specimens
2­
10
Table
2­
4.
Miscellaneous
Samples
to
be
Collected
during
Screening
Study
2­
12
iii
List
of
Acronyms
ACW
Applied
coating
weight
ANOVA
Analysis
of
variance
CCA
Chromated
copper
arsenate
CPSC
Consumer
Product
Safety
Commission
DA
Dislodgeable
arsenic
DCSW
Dry
coated
specimen
weight
DCW
Dry
coating
weight
DQI
Data
quality
indicator
ECW
Ending
coating
weight
FPL
Forest
Products
Lab
HEPA
High
efficiency
particulate
air
IPN
Interpolymer
network
coating
MS/
MSD
Matrix
spikes
and
matrix
spike
duplicates
NCDC
National
Climate
Data
Center
NOAA
National
Oceanic
and
Atmospheric
Administration
PEA
Performance
evaluation
audit
PFA
Perfluoroalkoxy
(
resin)

QAPP
Quality
Assurance
Project
Plan
RSD
Relative
standard
deviation
SCW
Starting
coating
weight
TFE
Polytetrafluoroethylene
USDA
United
States
Department
of
Agriculture
USW
Uncoated
specimen
weight
WCSW
Wet
coated
specimen
weight
WCW
Wet
coating
weight
WFT
Wet
film
thickness
iv
This
page
intentionally
left
blank.
(
Section­
Page)
1­
1
of
4
Draft
­
Revision
1.2
March
2003
1
Project
Description
and
Organization
1.1
Project
Scope
The
objective
of
this
series
of
tests
is
to
screen
a
variety
of
commercially­
available
wood
coatings
for
their
efficacy
in
reducing
dislodgeable
arsenic
(
DA)
from
new
and
aged
chromated
copper
arsenate
(
CCA)
treated
wood
in
a
relatively
simple,
short­
duration
test.
The
results
of
this
screening
evaluation
will
be
used
to
help
select
coating
products
to
be
more
thoroughly
tested
via
a
larger
pilot
study
to
determine
the
efficacy
of
coatings
to
reduce
DA
from
the
surfaces
of
new
and
aged
CCA
treated
wood
subjected
to
both
accelerated,
indoor,
artificial,
and
outdoor,
natural
weathering
conditions.
This
Quality
Assurance
Project
Plan
(
QAPP)/
Test
Plan
describes
the
procedures
and
criteria
to
be
used
to
screen
and
select
potential
wood
coating
products
to
be
further
tested
per
the
overall
project.
The
overall
project
entitled
"
Evaluation
of
the
Effectiveness
of
Coatings
in
Reducing
Dislodgeable
Arsenic
from
CCA
Treated
Wood"
will
be
fully
described
in
a
project­
specific
QAPP/
Test
Plan.

In
the
screening
study
described
herein,
selected
coatings
will
be
applied
to
new
CCA­
treated
southern
yellow
pine.
After
allowing
the
coatings
to
dry,
the
coated
lumber
will
be
wipe
sampled
to
measure
DA,
which,
for
the
purposes
of
this
study,
is
defined
as
the
amount
of
arsenic
(
µ
g/
cm2)
removed
from
the
surface
of
the
coated
wood
specimens
by
the
dermal
wipe
procedure
developed
and
demonstrated
by
the
Consumer
Product
Safety
Commission
(
CPSC),
who
are
collaborators
on
this
project
via
an
interagency
agreement
(
CPSC­
I­
03­
1235)
between
EPA
and
CPSC.
The
ability
of
the
coatings
to
reduce
initial
apparent
DA
will
be
evaluated
by
comparing
the
DA
of
coated
wood
specimens
with
their
initial
pre­
coat
baseline
DA
(
as
determined
per
wipe
sampling
of
adjacent
uncoated
specimens).

Coatings
will
be
ranked
based
upon
initial
DA
reduction
and
10
high­
ranking
coatings
will
be
selected
for
weathering
testing.
The
screening
test
specimens
for
the
selected
coatings
will
be
retained
for
continued
monthly
DA
measurement
during
the
weathering
tests,
as
non­
weathered
controls.
These
samples
will
allow
for
the
monitoring
of
DA
changes
resulting
from
abrasion
(
from
wipe
sampling)
without
the
potentially
confounding
effects
of
weathering.

1.2
Background
Existing
published
and
unpublished
data
regarding
the
efficacy
of
coatings
in
preventing
leaching
of
arsenic
and/
or
reducing
DA
from
CCA
treated
wood
is
generally
inconclusive.
Recent
unpublished
data
suggest
that
existing
commercially­
available
coatings
may
not
reduce
DA
from
CCA
treated
wood
to
levels
necessary
to
adequately
protect
consumers,
based
on
a
10­
5
risk
criterion.
It
is
additionally
of
note
that
certain
products
clearly
outperform
others
and
that
even
products
within
the
same
basic
coating
classification
can
vary
greatly
in
performance
depending
on
specific
formulation,
application,
and
surface
preparation
details.

Logistical
and
budgetary
constraints
on
the
number
of
coatings
that
can
be
more
fully
tested
under
the
"
Evaluation
of
the
Effectiveness
of
Coatings
in
Reducing
Dislodgeable
Arsenic
from
CCA
Treated
Wood"
(
Section­
Page)
1­
2
of
4
Draft
­
Revision
1.2
March
2003
test
plan
require
the
selection
of
ten
(
10)
coatings
for
further
testing.
Given
the
uncertainty
with
respect
to
the
efficacy
of
available
coatings,
basic
screening
tests
will
be
conducted
on
a
wide
range
of
available
coatings.
Top
ranking
coatings
will
be
selected
for
further
testing
under
the
"
Evaluation
of
the
Effectiveness
of
Coatings
in
Reducing
Dislodgeable
Arsenic
from
CCA
Treated
Wood"
test
plan.

1.3
Data
Quality
Objectives
Screening­
tested
coatings
will
be
ranked
according
to
their
efficacy
based
on
percentage
reduction
of
DA
from
new
CCA
treated
wood,
wipe­
sampled
after
coating
application
and
drying.
Post­
coating
DA
will
be
compared
with
baseline
DA.
Individual
baseline
values
of
DA
will
be
determined
for
each
specimen
to
be
coated
and
tested.
The
baseline
DA
of
a
specimen
will
be
determined
by
averaging
the
DA
from
two
adjacent
specimens.
The
adjacent
specimens
will
be
archived
uncoated
after
sampling
(
and
thus
not
used
in
any
further
testing).
This
step
will
avoid
any
data
analysis
and
coating
efficacy
complications
that
may
arise
from
coating
pre­
rubbed
specimens.
Ten
coatings
(
10)
will
be
selected
for
weathering
testing
per
the
following
criteria:

 
Overall
ranking
in
terms
of
DA
reduction
 
Subjective
factors,
including:

 
Ensuring
that
the
final
list
of
selected
coatings
is
representative
of
the
range
of
potentially
effective
products
on
the
market.

 
Other
factors
which
may
be
identified
as
important
during
screening
tests.

The
critical
measurement
for
this
series
of
tests
is
total
arsenic
concentration.
Data
quality
indicator
goals
for
arsenic
concentration
in
terms
of
accuracy,
precision,
and
completeness
are
shown
in
Table
1­
1.

Table
1­
1.
Data
Quality
Indicator
Goals
for
Critical
Measurements
Analyte
Method
Accuracy
(%
Recovery)
Precision
(%
RSD/
RPD)
Completeness
(%)

Arsenic
(
total)
SW­
846
Method
6020
(
modified)
90­
110
10
90
1.4
Project
Organization
and
Responsibilities
The
EPA
Work
Assignment
Manager
for
this
project
is
Mark
Mason,
who
will
coordinate
involvement
other
EPA
staff
and
CPSC
via
an
interagency
agreement
(
CPSC­
I­
03­
1235)
between
EPA
and
CPSC,
as
appropriate.
Key
CPSC
staff
include
Jacque
Ferrante
and
Warren
Porter.
ARCADIS'
Work
Assignment
Leader
is
Victor
D'Amato,
PE.
Libby
Nessley,
with
ARCADIS,
serves
EPA
by
providing
QA/
QC
management
services,
while
Todd
Thornton
and
Jerry
Revis,
both
with
ARCADIS,
serve
EPA
by
providing
Health
and
Safety
management
services.
Kevin
Bruce,
ARCADIS,
is
the
overall
OLS
Project
Manager.
He
will
support
this
project
by
coordinating
the
wood
preparation,
coating,
sampling,
and
analytical
tasks.
Matt
(
Section­
Page)
1­
3
of
4
Draft
­
Revision
1.2
March
2003
Clayton,
ARCADIS,
will
prepare
and
coat
wood
samples.
Peter
Kariher,
ARCADIS,
will
take
samples,
prepare
samples
via
digestion
protocol,
and
ship
digested
wipe
and
control
samples
to
the
subcontract
analytical
laboratory,
STL­
Savannah
(
Angie
Weimerskirk,
Project
Manager).
An
organizational
chart
is
provided
as
Figure
1­
1.
Table
1­
2
provides
contact
information
for
proposed
staff.

Figure
1­
1.
Organizational
Chart
for
Sampling/
Analytical
Qualification
Testing
(
Section­
Page)
1­
4
of
4
Draft
­
Revision
1.2
March
2003
Table
1­
2.
Contact
Information
for
Key
Project
Staff
Staff
Contact
Organization
Responsibility
Phone
Number
E­
mail
Address
Mark
Mason
US
EPA
WA
Manager
(
919)
541­
4835
Mason.
Mark.@
epa.
gov
Victor
D'Amato
ARCADIS
WA
Leader
(
919)
544­
4535
vd'amato@
arcadis­
us.
com
Libby
Nessley
ARCADIS
QA
Manager
(
919)
544­
4535
lnessley@
arcadis­
us.
com
Todd
Thornton
ARCADIS
H&
S
Manager
(
919)
544­
4535
tthornton@
arcadis­
us.
com
Jerry
Revis
ARCADIS
H&
S
Manager
(
919)
544­
4535
jrevis@
arcadis­
us.
com
Kevin
Bruce
ARCADIS
PM,
Advisor
(
919)
544­
4535
kbruce@
arcadis­
us.
com
Peter
Kariher
ARCADIS
Lab
Scientist
(
919)
544­
4535
pkariher@
arcadis­
us.
com
Matt
Clayton
ARCADIS
Lab
Scientist
(
919)
541­
7909
mclayton@
arcadis­
us.
com
Angie
Weimerskirk
STL­
Savannah
Analytical
Manager
(
912)
354­
7858
aweimerskirk@
stl­
inc.
com
(
Section­
Page)
2­
1
of
14
Draft
­
Revision
1.2
March
2003
2
Sampling
Approach
The
overall
objective
of
this
testing
is
to
develop
estimates
of
percent
reduction
in
DA
per
the
use
of
a
variety
of
coatings.
About
30
coatings
will
be
applied
to
46
cm
(
18")
new
CCA­
treated
wood
specimens
in
triplicate.
Wipe
sampling
will
be
conducted
at
7
days
after
coating
application.
Post­
coating
DA
will
be
compared
with
baseline
DA,
as
determined
via
wipe
sampling
of
adjacent
uncoated
specimens,
to
determine
percent
reductions.

The
following
subsections
describe
the
selection
of
materials
for
testing,
application
of
selected
coatings
to
the
CCA
treated
substrates,
test
conditions,
and
sampling
procedures.
A
project­
specific
health
and
safety
plan
(
HSP)
is
under
development
and
will
be
appended
to
this
QAPP
after
the
HSP
is
finalized
and
approved.

2.1
Preparation
and
Characterization
of
Wood
Specimens
Wood
specimens
will
be
prepared
using
new
southern
yellow
pine
that
has
been
CCA
treated
to
0.4
pounds
per
cubic
foot,
in
nominal
5/
4"
x
6"
cross­
sectional
dimensions.
New
southern
yellow
pine
that
has
not
been
CCA
treated
will
used
for
blank
control
specimens.
Non­
treated
controls
will
most
likely
be
of
either
1"
x
6"
or
2"
x
6"
nominal
dimensions
since
non­
treated
5/
4"
x
6"
decking
wood
is
not
typically
available,
though
it
may
be
possible
to
easily
obtain
untreated
5/
4"
x
6"
southern
yellow
pine
locally
from
a
lumber
treating
company.
New
CCA
treated
wood
will
be
purchased
from
a
retail
store
and
will
be
labeled
"
CCA­
C
Ground
Contact",
indicating
that
the
product
has
been
treated
with
the
"
C"
formulation
of
CCA
preservative,
which
is
most
commonly
available.
Care
will
be
taken
to
minimize
handling
of
the
primary
(
i.
e.,
6"
width)
faces
of
the
board,
with
the
short
edges
of
the
board
preferentially
held
during
transport
and
cutting.
Additionally,
care
will
be
taken
to
minimize
contact
and
especially
rubbing
of
the
primary
faces
of
the
board
with
any
other
surfaces.
Storage
of
the
board/
specimens
shall
be
on
its
cut
ends
or
uncut
edges
(
i.
e.,
short
faces).
Wood
board/
specimen
nomenclature
used
in
this
test
plan
is
defined
in
Figure
2­
1.
Note
that
a
"
board"
is
defined
as
the
unit
of
wood
purchased
or
removed
from
an
existing
structure,
while
"
specimen"
refers
to
the
pieces
of
each
board
cut
for
this
project
(
note
that
"
specimens"
are
sometimes
called
"
coupons"
in
accelerated
weathering
testing).

Figure
2­
1.
Wood
Board/
Specimen
Nomenclature
(
Section­
Page)
2­
2
of
14
Draft
­
Revision
1.2
March
2003
Boards
will
be
cut
using
a
circular
table
saw
(
or
other
similar
cutting
device)
into
approximately
equal
46­
cm
(
18­
inch)
lengths
to
serve
as
test
specimens.
The
saw
will
be
decontaminated
between
cutting
the
different
types
of
wood
utilized
(
new
CCA,
untreated)
and
the
non­
CCA
wood
will
be
cut
only
after
installation
of
a
new
blade
to
prevent
cross­
contamination
of
samples.
Decontamination
will
follow
a
similar
protocol
to
that
used
to
clean
the
wipe
sampling
device
between
samples.
Fifteen
cm
(
6")
of
each
end
of
each
board
will
be
removed
and
archived
and
10­
cm
(
4")
segments
between
each
46­
cm
test
specimen
will
be
removed
and
archived;
some
of
these
will
be
used
to
characterize
the
source
wood
via
moisture
content
and
total
arsenic
analyses.
Forty­
seven­
cm
wood
specimens
will
be
visually
inspected
and
those
exhibiting
excessive
amounts
of
deformities,
presence
of
heartwood,
knots,
resin
pockets,
and
other
defects
will
be
disqualified
for
use
in
the
screening
testing
(
it
will
be
allowable
to
avoid
defective
segments
of
wood
during
cutting
and/
or
using
wood
unacceptable
for
the
46­
cm
specimens
as
10­
or
15­
cm
end
and
interior
segments
for
archiving,
so
as
to
not
waste
or
require
an
excessive
amount
of
wood).
Each
segment
will
be
identified
with
a
unique
alphanumeric
code
as
follows:

 
New
board
codes
will
be
prefixed
by
the
letter
"
N"

 
Aged
board
codes
will
be
prefixed
by
the
letter
"
A"

 
Each
new
and
aged
board
will
be
identified
with
a
letter
(
A,
B,
C,
etc.)

 
Each
18"
test
specimen
from
new
and
aged
boards
will
be
identified
with
a
number
(
1,
2,
3,
etc.)

 
Each
end
piece
will
be
identified
with
the
number
of
the
specimen
adjacent
to
it,
followed
by
the
letter
"
E"

 
Each
4"
interior
segment
will
be
identified
with
the
numbers
of
the
specimens
adjacent
to
it
separated
by
a
forward
slash
("/")

 
Defective
segments
will
be
suffixed
with
the
letter
"
D"

For
example,
assuming
that
a
16'
length
of
new
CCA
treated
wood
is
used,
samples
from
the
first
board
would
be
identified
from
end­
to­
end,
as
follows:
N­
A­
1E,
N­
A­
1,
N­
A­
1/
2,
N­
A­
2,
N­
A­
2/
3,
N­
A­
3,
N­
A­
3/
4,
N­
A­
4,
N­
A­
4/
5,
N­
A­
5,
N­
A­
5/
6,
N­
A­
6,
N­
A­
6/
7,
N­
A­
7,
N­
A­
7/
8,
N­
A­
8,
N­
A­
8E.
In
this
example,
N­
A­
1,
N­
A­
2,
N­
A­
3,
N­
A­
4,
N­
A­
5,
N­
A­
6,
N­
A­
7,
and
N­
A­
8
would
be
the
46­
cm
specimens
that
would
be
used
for
coating,
testing,
and
baseline
DA
measurement,
with
the
remainder
being
end
pieces
or
10­
cm
interior
segments
to
be
archived
for
possible
future
testing.
If,
for
example,
a
segment
of
wood
between
N­
A­
3
and
N­
A­
4
was
deemed
to
be
defective,
it
would
be
labeled
as
N­
A­
3/
4­
D.
The
specimen
identification
example
presented
above
is
shown
in
Figure
2­
2.
Specimen
IDs
will
be
cross­
referenced
with
coated
specimens
as
described
in
subsequent
subsections.
(
Section­
Page)
2­
3
of
14
Draft
­
Revision
1.2
March
2003
Figure
2­
2.
Example
Specimen
Identification
Scheme
All
samples
will
be
identified
on
one
cut
end
or
uncut
edge
with
its
identification
code,
as
well
as
with
its
"
top"
side
(
which
shall
be
consistent
for
all
samples
taken
from
a
given
board),
both
using
permanent
marker.
Alternatively,
the
identification
code
may
be
correlated
to
a
bar
code
affixed
to
one
cut
end
of
a
specimen.
Documentation
will
be
kept
identifying
all
numbered
specimens
taken
from
each
original
length
of
CCA
treated
wood.

After
cutting
and
identification
marking,
both
sides
of
each
specimen
will
be
rinsed
with
tap
water
using
a
light
setting
of
a
pressure
washer.
Rinsate
water
generated
by
each
source
(
new,
untreated)
will
be
collected,
preserved
using
nitric
acid,
and
stored
in
TFE
or
PFA
vessels
in
case
needed
for
future
subsampling
and
analysis.
Additionally,
a
sample
of
the
unused
tap
water
used
to
rinse
the
boards
will
be
collected,
preserved,
and
archived
similarly.
The
specimens
will
then
be
stored
in
an
indoor,
temperature­,
and
humidity­
monitored
and
controlled
space
prior
to
coating
and
testing.
The
same
space
shall
also
be
fitted
with
custom­
built
racks
to
hold
coated
specimens
for
coating
curing/
drying.
Temperature
will
be
controlled
to
be
between
15
and
25
º
C
(~
60­
80
º
F).
Relative
humidity
will
be
controlled
to
be
between
25
and
75%.
Temperature
and
relative
humidity
will
be
measured
and
recorded
at
least
twice
per
day.

Within
the
temperature
and
humidity­
controlled
room,
46­
cm
specimens
will
be
allowed
to
dry,
housed
under
a
larger
frame
supporting
a
cover
consisting
of
a
continuous
length
of
plastic
sheeting
or
cloth
to
prevent
deposition
onto
the
specimens.
One
end
of
the
covered
drying
assembly
will
be
outfitted
with
a
forced
air
high
efficiency
particulate
air
(
HEPA)
filter
to
improve
circulation
of
clean
air
through
the
drying
rack
assembly
(
to
be
used
to
cure
coated
samples)
and
specimens.
The
other
end
of
the
covered
drying
rack
assembly
will
contain
an
opening
(
door)
to
allow
filtered
air
to
exit
the
covered
drying
area.
The
assembly
cover
will
be
constructed
of
untreated
wood
framing
and
plastic
sheeting
and
the
assembly
shall
be
built
within
adequately
vented
EPA
high­
bay
space.
The
floor
under
the
cover
shall
be
thoroughly
cleaned
after
construction
of
the
area
to
prevent
resuspension
of
dust
or
construction
debris
during
testing.
The
drying
rack
assembly
and
housing
shall
allow
for:

 
At
least
18
inches
of
separation
between
the
floor
and
specimen
and
specimen
and
cover.

 
At
least
18
inches
of
separation
between
ends
and
edges
of
specimens
and
cover.

 
At
least
1
inch
of
separation
between
specimens
on
the
rack
(
Section­
Page)
2­
4
of
14
Draft
­
Revision
1.2
March
2003
 
Only
one
level
of
specimens
(
i.
e.,
no
stacking)

 
Adequate
access
by
laboratory
staff
Specimens
will
be
allowed
to
equilibrate
with
storage
conditions
for:

 
at
least
7
days,
and
 
until
moisture
content
is
less
than
20%
(
wet
weight
basis),
or
after
21
days,
whichever
occurs
first
Moisture
content
will
be
measured
on
at
least
one
10­
cm
interior
specimen
per
board,
as
often
as
necessary
to
ensure
that
the
above
criteria
have
been
achieved.
Additionally,
moisture
content
will
be
measured
on
the
same
10­
cm
specimens
after
the
7­
day
testing/
curing
period
to
control
for
changes
in
moisture
over
the
course
of
the
test.
These
10­
cm
interior
specimens
used
for
testing
shall
be
stored
within
the
enclosure
described
above
similarly
to
the
46­
cm
specimens.
Care
must
be
taken
to
ensure
that
samples
for
measuring
moisture
content
are
taken
from
similar
areas
on
the
10­
cm
specimens
(
using,
for
example,
a
coring
drill
bit),
so
that
moisture
content
over
time
can
be
compared.
Moisture
content
will
be
measured
as
described
in
section
3.0.

Each
specimen
to
be
tested
will
have
two,
2­
inch,
6d
or
8d
finishing
nails
or
small
screws
driven
approximately
¾
inch
into
each
cut
end,
placed
with
at
least
1
inch
separating
each
nail
from
the
edges
of
the
specimen,
½
inch
separating
each
nail
from
the
top
and
bottom
faces
of
the
specimen,
and
2
inches
separating
each
nail
from
the
other.
Screws
or
nails
should
not
contain
appreciable
levels
of
arsenic
and/
or
chromium
(
as
chromium
analyses
may
be
conducted
depending
on
available
project
resources).
As
such,
two
samples
of
the
screws
or
nails
proposed
for
use
will
first
be
extracted,
and
then
analyzed
in
accordance
with
the
methods
specified
for
the
wipe
samples
in
Section
3.0.

Three
specimens
will
be
used
for
each
selected
coating,
for
a
total
of
90
specimens.
The
three
specimens
for
each
coating
shall
be
taken
at
random
locations
from
separate
boards.
Three
untreated
wood
specimens
will
be
used,
left
uncoated,
as
controls.

Individual
baseline
values
of
DA
will
be
determined
for
each
specimen
to
be
coated
and
tested.
The
baseline
DA
of
a
specimen
will
be
determined
by
averaging
the
DAs
from
the
two
adjacent
46­
cm
specimens
on
either
side
of
the
test
specimen.
The
adjacent
specimens
will
be
archived
uncoated
after
sampling
(
and
thus
not
used
in
any
further
testing).
This
step
will
avoid
any
data
analysis
and
coating
efficacy
complications
that
may
arise
from
coating
the
pre­
rubbed
specimens.

2.2
Selection
of
Coatings
for
Screening
The
selection
of
coatings
to
be
tested
for
efficacy
is
obviously
critical
and
because
of
the
number
and
variety
of
potentially­
applicable
coatings
on
the
market
and
the
budgetary
constraints
of
testing
programs,
this
is
likely
to
be
a
weakness
of
any
such
evaluation
study
to
be
conducted.
The
original
plan
for
this
project
did
not
explicitly
include
a
screening
phase
for
coatings
but
the
project
team
identified
the
screening
test
to
be
a
(
Section­
Page)
2­
5
of
14
Draft
­
Revision
1.2
March
2003
needed
addition
despite
its
limitations.
To
put
the
task
into
perspective,
the
goal
of
selecting
coatings
is
to
distill
a
universe
of
hundreds
or
even
thousands
of
potentially
applicable
coatings
to
approximately
ten
to
be
fully
tested
via
the
weathering
testing
protocol.
While
well
beyond
the
scope
of
this
project,
a
thorough
review
of
available
coatings
and
their
formulations
and
application
techniques
is
needed
to
more
completely
understand
the
characteristics
that
impact
surface
concentrations
of
CCA­
treated
wood
analytes
(
this
could
include
more
focused
involvement
by
the
wood
coating
industry).
For
this
project
however,
the
approach
is
to
gather
basic
formulation
and,
to
a
lesser
extent,
application
information,
on
a
number
of
products
with
reasonable
availability
to
the
project
team
in
North
Carolina
(
project
site).
This
survey
of
available
products
was
primarily
conducted
using
internet
searches
and
visits
to
local
retail
hardware
and
home
improvement
stores.
These
searches
allowed
for
the
development
of
a
"
master
list"
of
specific
products.
This
master
list
of
potential
products
includes
approximately
125
entries,
including
some
that
are
broadly
intended
for
outdoor
wood
use,
as
well
as
some
products
that
are
not
necessarily
intended
for
such
uses,
but
that
were
identified
by
the
project
team
as
promising.

The
list
is
in
spreadsheet
format
and
includes
fields
for
manufacturer,
product
name,
product
type,
cover,
base,
and
main
ingredient.
It
must
be
noted
that
there
are
various
levels
of
classifications
for
coatings
and
that
no
single
categorization
standard
can
be
applied
to
adequately
categorize
each
and
every
product
identified.
Additionally,
many
products
overlap
categories.
Nevertheless,
in
order
to
communicate
effectively
about
the
products
tested,
and
maintain
the
confidentiality
of
product
names,
an
attempt
has
been
made
to
classify
the
products
considered.
As
such,
several
main
descriptors
of
coatings
were
used.
These
include:
base
(
oil
vs.
water),
cover
(
clear,
semi­
transparent,
opaque),
and
product
type,
which
for
this
exercise,
has
been
broken
out
into
the
following:
paints,
primers,
sealants,
stains,
and
other.
The
"
other"
category
embodies
a
vast
variety
of
products,
including,
but
not
limited
to:
varnishes,
epoxies,
lead
encapsulation
products,
rubber
coatings,
fiberglass
coatings,
elastic
vinyl
coatings,
preservatives,
and
other
plastic
coatings.
Additional
classification
descriptors
include:
ingredients
and
surface
(
penetrating
vs.
film­
forming).

The
master
list
of
about
125
products
includes
roughly
25
paints,
5
primers,
20
wood
sealants,
50
stains,
and
25
"
other"
products.
Out
of
the
paints,
approximately
2/
3
are
water­
based
with
the
balance
oil­
based.
Likewise,
for
the
primers,
2
are
oil­
based
while
3
are
water­
based.
For
the
wood
sealants
and
stains,
most
products
are
oil­
based
with
a
handful
water­
based.
The
cover
for
each
of
these
product
types
is
quite
variable,
and
in
fact,
one
"
type"
of
coating
may
be
available
in
a
range
of
covers
from
clear
to
opaque
(
note
that
existing
research
on
coating
efficacy
suggests
that
opaque
coatings
may
be
more
effective).
Likewise,
the
surface
for
each
of
the
listed
product
types
may
also
be
variable,
depending
on
the
product
(
note
that
existing
research
on
coating
efficacy
suggests
that
film­
forming
coatings
may
be
more
effective,
though
they
may
also
be
more
subject
to
deterioration
via
abrasion).
Paints
and
primers
will
almost
invariably
be
considered
filmforming
products,
while
sealants,
stains,
and
certainly
"
other"
products
may
be
penetrating
or
film­
forming
depending
on
their
specific
formulation.

From
the
master
list,
35
distinct
products
have
been
selected
based
on
the
following
criteria:

 
Products
that
are
commonly
used
for
outdoor
wood
treatment,
with
preference
given
to
those
that
either
(
Section­
Page)
2­
6
of
14
Draft
­
Revision
1.2
March
2003
have
been
tested
and/
or
identified
as
promising
by
other
researchers
and
to
those
that
have
performed
well
in
durability
testing
by
Consumer
Reports
magazine.

 
Products
that
are
typically
not
used
for
outdoor
wood/
deck
treatment,
but
that
have
been
identified
as
having
the
potential
to
meet
efficacy
objectives.

 
Products
that
are
relatively
straightforward
for
consumers
to
apply
(
i.
e.,
products
that
require
professional
application
have
been
disqualified).
Additionally,
multiple
product
systems
have
generally
not
been
considered,
although
it
is
recognized
that
some
common
products
(
e.
g.,
paints)
may
require
the
application
of
another
product
as
a
primer.
These
situations
will
be
considered
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis
as
also
indicated
in
section
2.3.

Table
2­
1
generically
(
to
preserve
required
product
confidentiality)
lists
and
characterizes
35
products
selected
for
consideration
for
the
screening
study.
Since
it
is
likely
that
several
products
may
be
unavailable
or
require
unusual
or
difficult
coating
methods
not
known
at
this
time,
it
is
anticipated
that
only
30
products
will
be
screening
tested.

Table
2­
1.
Selected
Products
for
Screening
Study
#
Product
Type
Base
Cover
Comments
1
Paint
Oil
Opaque
Silicone,
alkyd.
Very
durable
marine
finish.

2
Paint
Oil
Opaque
Silicone,
alkyd.
Very
durable
marine
finish.

3
Paint
Water
Opaque
Acrylic
latex.
Designed
for
porches
and
floors.

4
Paint
Water
Opaque
Acrylic
latex.
Exterior.

5
Paint
Water
Opaque
Acrylic
latex.
Exterior.

6
Paint
Oil
Opaque
Alkyd
polyurethane.
Designed
for
porches
and
floors.

7
Paint
Oil
Opaque
Alkyd
polyurethane.
Designed
for
porches
and
floors.

8
Paint
Oil
Opaque
Alkyd
exterior
paint
product
9
Primer
Water
Opaque
Common
latex
primer.

10
Sealant
Oil
Semi
Common
deck
product.

11
Sealant
Oil
Clear
Common
deck
product.

12
Sealant
Oil
Clear
Common
deck
product.

13
Sealant
Oil
Clear
Acrylic/
alkyd/
urethane,
for
decks.

14
Sealant
Water
Clear
Common
deck
product.

15
Sealant
Oil/
Water
Semi
Water,
linseed
oil,
tung
oil.

16
Stain
Oil
Opaque
Gilsonite.
Tar
product.

17
Stain
Opaque
Teflon
acrylic.

18
Stain
Water
Semi
Acrylic
latex.

19
Stain
Water
Semi
Common
deck
product.
Acrylic.
(
Section­
Page)
2­
7
of
14
Draft
­
Revision
1.2
March
2003
#
Product
Type
Base
Cover
Comments
20
Stain
Oil
Semi
Common
oil
alkyd
deck
product.

21
Stain
Oil
Clear
Common
oil
alkyd
deck
product.

22
Stain
Oil
Semi
Contains
UV
absorber.

23
Stain
Oil
Semi
Common
oil
alkyd
resin
deck
product
with
linseed
oil.

24
Stain
Oil
Semi
Oil
alkyd/
acrylic
for
deck,
fence,
and
siding.

25
Stain
Oil
Semi
Oil
alkyd/
acrylic
for
decks.

26
Stain
Oil
Semi
Oil
acrylic.

27
Stain
Oil
Semi
Oil
resin
for
external
wood
products.

28
Stain
Oil
Opaque
Acrylic
color
deck
stain.

29
Stain
Water
Opaque
Common
acrylic
latex
deck
product.

30
Other
Spar
varnish.

31
Other
Interpolymer
network
coating
(
IPN).

32
Other
Urethane.
May
require
professional
application.

33
Other
Elastic
vinyl.
Designed
for
CCA
encapsulation.

34
Other
Polymer.
Designed
for
CCA
encapsulation.

35
Other
Acrylic
mastic.
Designed
for
lead
encapsulation.

2.3
Coating
Application
Coatings
shall
be
applied
to
fully
cover
the
top
faces
of
CCA
treated
wood
specimens
in
accordance
with
manufacturers'
recommendations
with
appropriate
adaptations
to
the
laboratory
environment
and
this
test
plan.
In
cases
where
a
choice
of
application
method
(
e.
g.,
spray
or
brush)
is
offered,
brush
application
will
be
employed.
Care
shall
be
taken
to
not
apply
coatings
to
bottom
faces
of
specimens,
as
the
bottom
faces
of
some
specimens
may
be
used
to
measure
DA
if
questions
arise
as
to
the
accuracy
of
baseline
DA
values
measured
as
previously
described.
Coating
application
will
take
place
either
directly
on
the
drying
rack
or
individually
under
a
fume
hood,
on
a
laboratory
bench
top,
or
other
appropriate
location.
Care
shall
be
taken
to
ensure
that
top
and
bottom
faces
of
the
specimen
are
not
allowed
to
contact
other
surfaces
(
i.
e.,
all
handling
shall
be
done
using
end
nails
and
application
must
take
place
while
supporting
specimen
by
the
end
nails
on
the
drying
rack
or
other
smaller
rack).
By
preserving
the
bottom
faces
of
specimens,
DA
may
be
measured
via
wipe
sampling
of
the
bottom
faces
if
necessary.

It
is
possible
that
the
application
recommendations
for
certain
products
(
paints
for
example)
will
include
some
surface
preparation,
which
may
include
the
use
of
another
product
(
e.
g.,
a
primer).
In
such
cases,
the
applicability
of
such
a
product
for
use
on
commonly
contacted
outdoor
CCA­
treated
wood
structures
will
be
reconsidered.
If
it
is
determined
that
the
product
is
not
applicable,
it
will
be
removed
from
consideration
in
the
study.
If
the
product
continues
to
be
considered
applicable
(
again
the
primer­
paint
system
is
a
good
(
Section­
Page)
2­
8
of
14
Draft
­
Revision
1.2
March
2003
example),
the
project
team
will
consider
modified
application
techniques
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis
while
also
making
an
effort
to
equalize
the
application
conditions
for
similar
products.

The
cut
ends
of
each
specimen
shall
be
coated
with
the
coating
being
tested.
However,
the
cut
ends
shall
only
be
coated
after
the
top
surface
is
fully
coated,
for
the
following
reasons:

 
the
cut
(
cross­
grain)
ends
of
CCA
wood
specimens
are
expected
to
contain
higher
DA
concentrations
than
the
faces
and
edges
and
brushing
them
may
redistribute
relatively
large
amounts
of
analytes
to
faces
to
be
wipe
sampled,
and
 
in
general,
the
cut
ends
are
not
going
to
be
explicitly
coated
by
consumers
in
everyday
practice
(
in
this
testing,
the
percentage
of
end
cuts
to
faces
is
much
greater
than
in
the
construction
of
typical
outdoor
CCA
wood
structures).

Consideration
was
given
to
coating
ends
with
a
common
product
(
e.
g.,
a
Liquid
Nails
coating
which
has
been
used
in
previous
leaching
studies
on
CCA­
treated
wood).
However,
it
was
decided
that
use
of
a
single
coating
for
both
the
top
face
and
ends
was
preferable.
As
implied,
it
is
possible
that
the
method
of
applying
coatings
may
contribute
to
DA
levels.
For
example,
applying
coating
using
a
brush
may
cause
physical
displacement
of
dislodged
analytes
and
subsequent
mixing
with
the
applied
coating
and/
or
displacement
of
the
analyte
to
the
finished
coated
surface.
As
such,
a
pre­
qualification
study
to
evaluate
coating
application
techniques
was
considered
for
inclusion
as
part
of
this
test
plan,
but
later
determined
to
be
outside
of
the
scope
and
resource
allocation
available
for
this
project.

Coated
specimens
will
be
allowed
to
dry/
cure
on
the
drying
racks,
onto
which
specimens
can
be
supported
on
either
end
by
allowing
the
two
nails
in
each
end
to
rest
on
parallel
rails,
such
that
the
specimen
is
oriented
horizontally,
with
the
"
top"
face
pointed
upwards.
An
unaltered
aliquot
of
each
coating
will
be
retained
under
refrigeration
for
future
analyses
if/
as
needed,
as
will
separate
composite
samples
of
each
leftover
coating
used
to
coat
the
new
and
aged
specimens
(
comparison
of
the
results
of
these
samples
can
provide
some
insight
as
to
the
potential
of
brush
application
technique
to
redistribute
analytes,
identified
as
a
concern
above).

Individual/
dedicated
brushes
will
be
used
for
each
coating/
wood
type
combination.
Brushes
will
be
prepared
for
initial
coating
application
by
cleaning
in
accordance
with
brush
manufacturer's
recommendations.
Additional
preparations
will
be
conducted
only
in
accordance
with
coating
manufacturer's
recommendations.
Between
specimens
and
after
all
coatings
have
been
applied
to
a
given
group
of
specimens,
brushes
will
again
be
cleaned
in
accordance
with
the
brush/
coating
manufacturers'
recommendations.
Used
brushes
will
be
cleaned
and
then
archived
by
storing
in
accordance
with
brush
manufacturer's
recommendations.
Fresh
cleaning
solution
will
used
for
each
coating.
Prior
to
procurement
of
all
of
the
brushes
required
for
this
study,
two
samples
of
deionized
water
used
to
wash
two
separate
brushes
(
after
following
brush
manufacturer's
specified
cleaning/
preparation
methods,
if
any)
will
be
sampled
and
analyzed
for
total
arsenic.
Bristles
from
a
clean,
unused
brush
and
an
aliquot
of
the
cleaner
used
on
the
brushes
will
be
archived
under
refrigeration
for
possible
future
total
arsenic
analyses.
(
Section­
Page)
2­
9
of
14
Draft
­
Revision
1.2
March
2003
Separate
aliquots
of
coating
liquid
will
be
used
for
each
specimen
to
be
coated
with
a
given
coating,
in
order
to
prevent
cross­
contamination
of
coating
liquid
by
re­
dipping
the
brush
applicator.
Separate
aliquots
of
coating
liquid
will
be
poured
into
disposable
plastic
trays,
which
will
be
discarded
after
application
of
that
coating
to
each
given
specimen.
Coating
remaining
in
the
trays
will
be
composited
so
that
one
sample
is
retained
for
each
coating/
wood
type.
These
samples
will
be
archived
for
possible
future
analyses.

Spray
coating
will
be
used
only
if
explicitly
recommended
over
brushing
by
the
manufacturer.
Spraying,
if
employed,
will
be
conducted
by
pouring
coating
into
a
manual
sprayer.
A
new
sprayer
will
be
dedicated
to
each
coating.
Coating
remaining
in
the
sprayer
will
be
collected
into
one
sample
for
each
coating.
These
samples
will
be
archived
for
possible
future
analyses.
Coatings
having
recommended
application
methods
that
have
not
been
discussed
here
will
be
similarly
managed
on
a
coating­
by­
coating
basis.

Application
procedures
and
any
notable
observations
will
be
documented
for
each
coating.
Furthermore,
coatings
will
be
retained/
archived
(
stored
under
manufacturer­
recommended
conditions)
for
future
analysis
if
necessary.
Staff
performing
coating
and
monthly
wipe
sampling
will
not
be
aware
of
the
specific
coating
being
applied
or
sampled
in
order
to
prevent
real
or
perceived
bias.

Coating
application
will
be
assessed
in
two
ways:
gravimetrically,
and
via
measurement
of
wet
film
thickness.
Gravimetric
assessment
will
involve
measuring
the
applied
mass
of
coating
on
each
specimen.
Applied
mass
will
be
measured
gravimetrically
in
two
ways:
1)
calculated
as
the
difference
in
specimen
mass
before
and
after
coating
and
2)
calculated
as
the
difference
between
the
starting
coating
aliquot
and
brush
and
the
postcoating
aliquot
and
brush
weights.
Neither
method
is
ideal,
as
some
loss
of
coating
mass
due
to
volatilization
is
expected
even
on
the
relatively
short
times
necessary
to
apply
a
coating.
Additionally,
all
specimens
will
be
weighed
at
the
end
of
the
7­
day
curing
at
the
time
of
final
wipe
sampling
(
for
determination
of
dry
coating
weight)
in
addition
to
pre­
and
post­
application.
Corrections
for
moisture
content
instability
can
be
made
using
the
results
of
moisture
analyses
previously
described,
if
necessary.
Wet
film
thickness
will
be
measured
on
film­
forming
coatings
using
handheld
wet
film
thickness
gauges,
as
manufactured
by
Paul
N.
Gardner
Co.,
Inc.
or
equal.
The
gauges
are
disposable
and
will
be
discarded
after
each
measurement,
after
which
a
new
gauge
will
be
used
on
the
next
coated
specimen.
A
summary
of
the
proposed
parameters
to
be
measured
either
directly
or
by
calculation
is
provided
in
Table
2­
2.
(
Section­
Page)
2­
10
of
14
Draft
­
Revision
1.2
March
2003
Table
2­
2.
Summary
of
Coating
Application
Measurements
Description
Acronym
Measurement
or
Calculation
Uncoated
specimen
weight
USW
Weigh
specimen
prior
to
coating
Wet
coated
specimen
weight
WCSW
Weigh
specimen
immediately
post­
coating
Dry
coated
specimen
weight
DCSW
Weigh
specimen
7
days
after
coating
Starting
coating
weight
SCW
Weigh
coating
aliquot
and
brush
prior
to
coating
Ending
coating
weight
ECW
Weigh
coating
aliquot
and
brush
after
coating
Wet
coating
weight
WCW
WCW
=
WCSW
 
USW
Dry
coating
weight
DCW
DCW
=
DCSW
 
USW
Applied
coating
weight
ACW
ACW
=
ECW
 
SCW
Wet
Film
Thickness
WFM
Measured
directly
using
disposable
gauge
(
only
for
film­
formers)

Costs
of
coatings
applied
and
approximate
level
of
effort
expended
to
apply
coatings
will
be
recorded
for
each.

2.4
Sample
Schedule
In
accordance
with
the
discussion
presented
in
preceding
sections,
a
schedule
of
test
specimens
is
provided
as
Table
2­
3,
where
coatings
are
numbered
1
to
30
and
numbers
indicted
in
subsequent
columns
are
equal
to
the
number
of
specimens
to
be
tested.
Note
that
specific
coatings
are
not
identified
in
part
to
retain
confidentiality.

Table
2­
3.
Schedule
of
Specimens
Coating
ID
Non­
CCA
New
CCA
wood
Remarks
UC
(
a)
3
As
needed
to
establish
baseline
Uncoated
wood
1
0
3
2
0
3
3
0
3
4
0
3
5
0
3
6
0
3
7
0
3
8
0
3
9
0
3
Refer
to
Table
2­
1
for
coating
info.
(
Section­
Page)
2­
11
of
14
Draft
­
Revision
1.2
March
2003
Coating
ID
Non­
CCA
New
CCA
wood
Remarks
10
0
3
11
0
3
12
0
3
13
0
3
14
0
3
15
0
3
16
0
3
17
0
3
18
0
3
19
0
3
20
0
3
21
0
3
22
0
3
23
0
3
24
0
3
25
0
3
26
0
3
27
0
3
28
0
3
29
0
3
30
0
3
(
a)
UC
=
Uncoated
A
table
to
match
specimen
identification
code
with
coating/
sample
ID
will
be
prepared
after
randomized
selection
of
specimens
is
conducted.

Other
miscellaneous
samples
to
be
archived
and/
or
analyzed
are
listed
in
Table
2­
4.

Unless
otherwise
stated,
all
samples
indicated
in
Table
2­
4
to
be
archived
shall
be
held
at
least
until
the
report
of
results
for
the
screening
study
has
been
finalized.
Longer
archiving
times
for
certain
samples
may
be
warranted
upon
further
consideration.
Liquid
samples
shall
be
preserved
using
nitric
acid
prior
to
archiving.
(
Section­
Page)
2­
12
of
14
Draft
­
Revision
1.2
March
2003
Table
2­
4.
Miscellaneous
Samples
to
be
Collected
during
Screening
Study
Sample
Description
#
Samples
to
be
Analyzed
#
Samples
to
be
Archived
Tap
water
used
to
wash
wood
N/
A
1
Rinsate
water
from
wood
washing
N/
A
1
for
each
wood
type
Finishing
nails
2
(
extracted
in
nitric)
Retain
nail
samples
Brush
bristles
N/
A
Retain
one
unused
brush
Brush
wash
water
2
N/
A
Brush
cleaning
solution
N/
A
Retain
aliquot
of
cleaner
Unaltered
coating
N/
A
1
for
each
coating
Leftover
brush­
applied
coating
N/
A
1
for
each
coating/
wood
type
Wood
2
per
board
Leftover
wood
to
be
stored
2.5
Test
Conditions
All
coated
specimens
shall
be
allowed
to
dry/
cure
within/
on
the
specimen
drying
rack
assembly,
and
under
the
same
process
conditions,
as
previously
described.
Drying/
curing/
holding
shall
take
place
for
at
least
7
days,
after
which
wipe
sampling
will
be
conducted
on
each
coated
surface
and
on
control
surfaces,
as
has
been
described.

2.6
Sampling
2.6.1
Wipe
Sampling
Wipe
sampling
shall
be
conducted
and
samples
prepared
and
analyzed
in
accordance
with
the
methods
established
in
section
3.0.
Wipe
samples
shall
be
taken
from
the
top
faces
of
each
specimen
after
7
days
of
holding,
as
described
above.
The
length
of
wipe
shall
be
consistent
between
specimens
at
43
cm
(
17").
The
back
end
of
the
wipe
backstroke
and
the
front
end
of
the
wipe
frontstroke
shall
be
identified
to
define
the
area
wiped.
The
location
of
the
wipe
stroke
shall
then
be
identified
on
the
specimen
by
marking
its
forward
and
backward
range
on
both
edges
of
the
specimen
using
permanent
marker.

During
sampling,
again,
it
must
be
ensured
that
the
faces
of
the
specimen
are
not
allowed
to
contact
any
other
surfaces:
handling
and
holding
must
be
via
the
end
nails
in
the
cut
ends
of
each
specimen.
A
"
wipe
sampling
rack"
may
need
to
be
constructed
to
hold
the
wood
specimens
in
place
during
wipe
sampling.
After
sampling,
specimens
shall
be
returned
to
the
drying
rack
top
face
up.
Specimens
shall
be
subsequently
held
in
this
manner
until
the
results
of
the
screening
study
have
been
received,
validated,
and
analyzed,
with
selections
for
weathering
testing
made.

Coatings
will
be
ranked
based
upon
initial
DA
reduction
and
ten
high­
ranking
coatings
will
be
selected
for
weathering
testing.
The
screening
test
specimens
for
the
selected
coatings
will
be
retained
for
continued
(
Section­
Page)
2­
13
of
14
Draft
­
Revision
1.2
March
2003
monthly
DA
measurement
during
the
weathering
tests,
as
non­
weathered
controls.
These
samples
will
allow
for
the
monitoring
of
DA
changes
resulting
from
abrasion
(
from
wipe
sampling)
without
the
potentially
confounding
effects
of
weathering.

2.6.2
Wood
Sampling
Two,
10­
cm,
interior
wood
specimens
from
each
board
shall
be
sampled,
digested,
and
analyzed
for
total
arsenic
in
accordance
with
the
procedures
described
in
section
3.0.
(
Section­
Page)
2­
14
of
14
Draft
­
Revision
1.2
March
2003
This
page
intentionally
left
blank.
(
Section­
Page)
3­
1
of
4
Draft
­
Revision
1.2
March
2003
3
Testing
and
Measurement
Protocols
Note
that
this
section
may
be
modified
as
results
of
on­
going
prequalification
testing
of
the
sampling
techniques
and
laboratory
analytical
methods
are
processed.

3.1
Wipe
Sampling
Wipe
sampling
will
be
conducted
in
general
accordance
with
the
method
developed
and
documented
by
CPSC,
using
the
wipe
sampling
device
constructed
by
CPSC.

Wipe
samples
will
be
directly
transferred
to
extraction
or
digestion
vessels
with
no
intermediate
sample
containers
employed.

3.2
Sample
Preparation
(
Extraction/
Digestion)

Wipe
samples
will
be
prepared
for
analysis
using
techniques
similar
top
those
employed
by
other
researchers,
including
CPSC
and
Stilwell,
et
al.,
adapted
for
use
with
laboratory
equipment
available
for
this
project.
As
such,
a
microwave­
assisted
extraction
procedure
comparable
to
that
used
in
prior
studies,
and
similar
to
SW­
846
Methods
3051
and
3052
shall
be
employed.
Steps
involved
in
the
extraction
procedure
are
outlined
following:

 
All
digestion
vessels
and
volumetric
glassware
will
be
prepared
by
acid
cleaning.
Vessels
will
be
cleaned
by
leaching
with
hot
1:
1
nitric
acid
for
a
minimum
of
two
hours,
then
rinsed
with
deionized
water
and
dried
in
a
clean
environment.

 
The
wipe
sample
will
be
introduced
to
the
digestion
vessel
and
40
±
0.1
mL
10%
nitric
acid
added
slowly
to
the
open
vessel
to
allow
for
pre­
extraction.
Once
any
initial
reaction
has
ceased,
the
sample
will
be
capped
and
introduced
into
the
microwave
system.
Using
the
CEM
Corp.
microwave
system,
11
samples
may
be
digested
in
a
single
batch,
with
the
twelfth
vessel
filled
with
only
the
acid
solution
to
be
used
as
a
temperature/
pressure
control.

 
Using
temperature/
pressure
curves
developed
under
other
research
programs
for
APPCD
as
a
guide,
the
samples
will
be
reacted
at
60
±
5
º
C
for
a
minimum
of
1
hour.

 
After
microwave
extraction,
sample
vessels
will
be
allowed
to
cool
for
a
minimum
of
5
min.
prior
to
removing
them
from
the
system.
After
being
allowed
to
cool
to
room
temperature,
each
vessel
will
be
checked
to
ensure
that
they
have
retained
a
seal
(
samples
that
show
signs
of
pressure
relief
will
be
discarded).

 
Cooled
samples
will
be
carefully
uncapped,
the
contents
transferred
quantitatively
to
a
clean
125
mL
volumetric
flask,
using
a
clean
glass
stir
rod
to
aid
in
squeezing
liquid
from
the
wipe.

 
Steps
2­
5
will
be
repeated
twice
more,
transferring
the
successive
extraction
liquid
aliquots
to
the
same
volumetric
flask.
After
the
third
iteration,
the
flask
will
be
filled
to
the
mark
with
deionized
water.
Approximately
half
the
final
liquid
volume
will
be
transferred
to
a
PTFE
container,
sealed
and
prepared
(
Section­
Page)
3­
2
of
4
Draft
­
Revision
1.2
March
2003
for
shipment
to
the
contract
laboratory.
The
remainder
will
be
transferred
to
a
PTFE
container,
sealed
and
archived.

 
Per
the
specified
analytical
method,
the
hold
time
for
all
metals
other
than
mercury
is
6
months,
and
samples
shall
be
stored
at
4
degrees
C
until
analysis.
Sample
containers
shall
be
of
TFE
or
PFA
in
accordance
with
the
Method
specified
in
Section
3.3.

3.3
Analysis
by
ICP­
MS
Analysis
for
total
arsenic
shall
be
conducted
by
STL
in
Savannah,
GA
using
a
modification
of
SW­
846
Method
6020
(
ICP­
MS).
STL
utilizes
ICP­
MS
for
arsenic
analysis,
modifying
the
technique
to
utilize
hydrogen
plasma,
rather
than
argon
as
traditionally
performed.
This
modification
eliminates
concerns
over
the
formation
of
Ar40Cl35,
which
can
create
a
positive
bias
when
measuring
As.
STL
is
an
accredited
laboratory,
participating
in
the
CLP
program,
as
well
as
numerous
state
programs.
In
addition
to
obtaining
specific
information
on
laboratory
qualifications,
each
sample
set
submitted
will
include
blind
blanks
and
spiked
samples,
allowing
for
continued
monitoring
of
laboratory
performance.

3.4
Preparation
and
Analysis
of
Miscellaneous
Samples
The
miscellaneous
samples
to
be
analyzed,
listed
in
Table
2­
4,
including
finishing
nails,
and
brush
wash
water
(
which
may
contain
some
oil­
phase
brush
cleaning
solution)
shall
all
be
prepared
and
analyzed
in
accordance
with
the
procedures
specified
for
the
wipe
samples
in
Sections
3.2
and
3.3,
or
appropriate
standard
methods
and/
or
applicable
modifications.
Samples
will
be
digested
until
they
are
visually
homogeneous,
except
for
the
finishing
nail
samples,
which
will
only
be
digested
(
actually,
extracted)
for
the
time
used
to
digest
these
other
samples.
Remaining
solids
(
nails)
will
be
removed
from
the
samples
prior
to
shipping
to
the
analytical
laboratory.

3.5
Analysis
of
Wood
Samples
Wood
samples
will
be
analyzed
for
arsenic
and
chromium
content
using
ICP­
MS.
Wood
borings
and/
or
ground
wood
of
known
weight
will
be
digested
using
the
same
protocol
defined
earlier
for
the
wipe
samples.
This
procedure
is
consistent
with
American
Wood
Preservers
Association
(
AWPA)
Standard
A7­
93
(
microwave
assisted
nitric
acid
digestion).
Digestates
will
be
analyzed
by
ICP­
MS
in
a
manner
identical
to
that
described
for
the
wipe
samples
(
SW­
846
Method
6020),
consistent
with
AWPA
Standard
A21­
00.

3.6
Archiving
of
ICP­
MS
Samples
Analysis
of
the
samples
by
ICP­
MS
will
consume
only
a
fraction
of
the
submitted
sample.
Remaining
sample
volume
will
be
archived
by
the
contract
laboratory
until
results
are
confirmed,
then
subsequently
returned
to
ARCADIS
for
archiving
until
the
completion
of
the
project.
Samples
will
be
archived
by
storing
them
in
their
original
sample
containers,
as
shipped
to
the
contract
laboratory.
Alternately,
samples
may
be
archived
by
splitting
samples
to
be
sent
to
the
contract
analytical
laboratory
before
shipment.
Because
nitric
acid
is
used
(
Section­
Page)
3­
3
of
4
Draft
­
Revision
1.2
March
2003
in
the
extraction/
digestion
steps,
the
addition
of
an
additional
preservative
is
not
required
to
archive
these
samples.
Water
samples
(
not
extracts
or
digestates)
will
require
the
addition
of
nitric
acid
as
a
preservative
prior
to
archiving.

3.7
Moisture
Analysis
of
Wood
Specimens
The
moisture
content
of
wood
samples
will
be
determined
by
ASTM
Method
D4442
(
Primary
Oven
Drying).
A
small
representative
sample
will
be
weighed
prior
to
drying
overnight
at
103
°
C
in
a
forced
air
oven.
After
24
hours,
the
sample
will
be
cooled
in
a
dessicator,
weighed,
then
returned
to
the
oven.
The
process
will
be
repeated
until
weight
changes
between
weighings
is
±
5%.
Moisture
content
may
also
be
screened
using
a
hand­
held
meter,
but
only
after
the
technique
has
been
qualified
and
calibrated
via
side­
by­
side
testing
with
the
drying
oven
technique,
ASTM
D4442.
(
Section­
Page)
3­
4
of
4
Draft
­
Revision
1.2
March
2003
This
page
intentionally
left
blank.
(
Section­
Page)
4­
1
of
2
Draft
­
Revision
1.2
March
2003
4
QA/
QC
Checks
Two
adjacent
uncoated
control
specimens
will
be
tested
alongside
coated
faces
for
each
specimen
used.
This
will
yield
over
90
samples
for
controls
to
be
used
to
establish
baseline
DA.
The
results
of
the
wipe
samples
from
these
specimens
will
be
used
to
establish
baseline
(
i.
e.,
uncoated)
DA
for
each
specimen,
as
well
as
to
establish
statistical
information
about
the
variability
in
the
complete
set
of
specimens
used.
Additionally,
three
non­
coated,
non­
CCA
wood
specimens
will
be
handled
in
the
same
way
(
with
efforts
to
avoid
crosscontamination
with
CCA
wood
specimens,
of
course)
as
the
treated
samples
in
order
to
generate
blank
control
wipe
samples
and
assess
the
extent
of
study
design/
method
interferences,
etc.
Furthermore,
a
variety
of
control
samples
are
proposed,
as
previously
indicated
in
Table
2­
4.

Each
set
of
digested
wipe
samples
submitted
to
the
subcontract
analytical
laboratory
will
include
an
additional
blind
blanks,
one
set
of
three­
concentration
spiked
samples,
and
5%
duplicates
to
assess
laboratory
performance.
So,
for
example,
assuming
that
a
total
of
200
wipe
samples
will
be
taken
for
this
study,
shipped
to
the
subcontract
laboratory
in
a
single
batch,
the
following
additional
samples
will
be
included:

 
one
(
1)
blank
sample
consisting
of
digestion
fluid
only
 
one
(
1)
digestion
fluid
sample
spiked
to
1.0
µ
g/
l
(
0.015
µ
g
in
15
ml
digestion
fluid)
with
As
 
one
(
1)
digestion
fluid
samples
spiked
to
50
µ
g/
l
(
0.75
µ
g
in
15
ml
digestion
fluid)
with
As
 
one
(
1)
digestion
fluid
samples
spiked
to
1000
µ
g/
l
(
15
µ
g
in
15
ml
digestion
fluid)
with
As
 
ten
(
10)
duplicates
(
selected
split
samples
of
digested
wipes
from
actual
samples
generated)

Furthermore,
the
subcontract
analytical
laboratory
will
conduct
analyses
on
project­
specific
matrix
spikes
and
matrix
spike
duplicates
(
MS/
MSD)
for
each
analyte,
in
addition
to
equipment
blanks
run
on
each
batch
of
samples
analyzed
for
this
project.
The
laboratory
will
also
have
chromium
and
copper
analytical
results
available
for
all
samples
(
provided
QC
checks
are
acceptable)
if
these
results
are
ever
desired
and
the
project
budget
allows
their
procurement.
Section
4
Draft
­
Revision
1.2
March
2003
Page
4­
2
of
2
This
page
intentionally
left
blank.
(
Section­
Page)
5­
1
of
4
Draft
­
Revision
1.2
March
2003
5
Data
Reductions
and
Reporting
5.1
Data
Reduction
5.1.1
Calculation
of
DA
from
Extraction/
Digestion
Fluid
Concentrations
Raw
data
from
the
subcontract
analytical
laboratory
will
be
reported
in
units
of
µ
g/
l
and
will
represent
the
mass
of
analyte
per
unit
volume
of
digestion/
extraction
solution
sent
to
the
laboratory.
For
standard
wipe
sample
results,
data
will
be
reduced
in
order
to
characterize
the
mass
of
analyte
per
unit
surface
area
wipe
sampled,
in
units
of
µ
g/
cm2,
using
the
following
equation:

A
V
C
C
DF
DA
1000
×
=
(
Equation
5.1)

Where:
CDA
=
DA
of
a
sample
(
µ
g/
cm2)

CDF
=
Concentration
of
As
in
digestion
fluid
(
µ
g/
l)

V
=
Volume
of
digestion
fluid
sample
submitted
for
analysis
(
ml)

A
=
Area
of
wiped
surface
(
cm2)

5.1.2
Calculation
of
Percent
Reduction
of
DA
Raw
data
from
the
subcontract
analytical
laboratory
will
be
reported
in
units
of
µ
g/
l
and
will
be
converted
to
DA,
in
units
of
µ
g/
cm2,
per
the
calculation
described
in
section
5.1.1.
Percent
reduction
will
be
calculated
for
each
sample
using
the
following
equation:

100
×
 
=

initial
final
initial
DA
C
C
C
R
(
Equation
5.2)

Where:
RDA
=
Reduction
in
DA
(%)

Cinitial
=
Average
background
DA
(
µ
g/
cm2)

Cfinal
=
Final
DA
(
µ
g/
cm2)
(
Section­
Page)
5­
2
of
4
Draft
­
Revision
1.2
March
2003
5.1.3
Assessing
DQI
Goals
In
general,
data
quality
indicator
goals
are
based
on
either
(
1)
published
specifications,
(
2)
related
quantities
(
e.
g.,
drift
for
precision),
or
(
3)
engineering
judgment
based
on
previous
experience
with
similar
systems.

Precision
In
order
to
evaluate
the
precision
of
a
measurement,
it
is
necessary
to
make
replicate
measurements
of
a
relatively
unchanging
parameter.
Precision
can
then
be
expressed
as
the
relative
standard
deviation
(
RSD)
of
the
replicated
measurement.
RSD
is
calculated
using
Equation
5.4
and
is
typically
expressed
in
percent.
Precision
will
be
calculated
using
the
results
of
duplicates
specified
as
control
samples.

RSD
=
(
Y
­
Y
)

n
­
1
Y
i=
1
n
2
i

(
Equation
5.4)

Accuracy/
Bias
The
accuracy
of
a
measurement
is
expressed
in
terms
of
percent
bias,
or,
in
some
cases
recommended
by
the
EPA
standard
methods,
in
terms
of
absolute
difference.
Percent
bias
is
defined
as:

Percent
Bias
=
R
­
C
C
x
100
(
Equation
5.5)

Where:
R
=
instrument
response
or
reading
C
=
calibration
standard
or
audit
sample
value
Accuracy
can
take
on
the
units
of
the
measurement,
it
can
be
expressed
as
a
percentage
of
the
average
measurement,
or
it
can
be
expressed
as
a
percentage
of
the
measurement
range.
Accuracy
will
be
calculated
using
the
results
of
matrix
spike
sample
analyses
as
described
for
QA/
QC.

Completeness
The
ratio
of
the
number
of
valid
data
points
taken
to
the
total
number
of
data
points
planned
is
defined
as
data
completeness.
All
measured
data
are
recorded
electronically
or
on
data
sheets
or
project
notebooks.
(
Section­
Page)
5­
3
of
4
Draft
­
Revision
1.2
March
2003
5.2
Data
Validation
The
subcontract
laboratory
will
be
required
to
submit
calibration
and
QC
data
along
with
each
data
package.
ARCADIS
QA
Officer,
Libby
Nessley
will
validate
at
least
10
percent
of
reported
data
by
reviewing
raw
data
and
data
calculations.
In
addition,
at
least
one
spiked
performance
evaluation
audit
(
PEA)
sample
for
arsenic
will
be
submitted
blind
to
the
laboratory
with
each
sample
set.
Reported
results
for
this
PEA
sample
must
agree
within
10
percent
with
the
known
value.
Failure
to
agree
will
result
in
the
entire
data
set
being
flagged
for
re­
evaluation
up
to
and
including
repeat
analysis.

5.3
Data
Reporting
For
each
series
of
tests,
raw
and
reduced
data
shall
be
reported,
as
applicable.
Coating
efficacy
results
will
be
expressed
in
terms
of
DA
(
µ
g/
cm2)
and
percent
reduction.

All
data
validation
criteria
will
be
reported
along
with
the
associated
data.
In
addition
to
reporting
the
data,
results
will
be
discussed
and
recommendations
for
coatings
to
be
tested
in
the
weathering
study
offered
via
narrative
text
in
a
test
report.
This
report
will
be
used
to
support
the
development
of
and
append
the
test
plan/
QAPPs
for
future
phases
of
this
project
including
the
"
Weathering
Study"
(
i.
e.,
the
overall
test
plan/
QAPP).
(
Section­
Page)
5­
4
of
4
Draft
­
Revision
1.2
March
2003
This
page
intentionally
left
blank.
