Determination of Lead in Dust Wipes using Field Analytical Technology 1 Determination of Lead in Dust Wipes using Field Analytical Technology Presented by U.S. Environmental Protection

1

Determination of Lead in Dust Wipes using Field Analytical Technology

Presented by

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Office of SuperfundRemediation and Technology Innovation (OSRTI) and

Office of Research and Development (ORD)

and the Department of Energy’s (DOE) Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL)

Determination of Lead in Dust Wipes using Field Analytical Technology

Presented by

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation (OSRTI) and

Office of Research and Development (ORD)

and the Department of Energy’s (DOE) Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL)

1

1

2

Background Environmental Technology

Verification Program

¾ Early 1990s - Need for environmental technology verification identified� Slow rate of innovation; poor U.S. markets� Lack of credibility of new technologies� Inertia of system, risk aversion of purchasers and

permitters� Burgeoning international market

¾ EPA initiates ETV in October, 1995

Background Environmental Technology

Verification Program

¾ Early 1990s - Need for environmental technology verification identified � Slow rate of innovation; poor U.S. markets � Lack of credibility of new technologies � Inertia of system, risk aversion of purchasers and

permitters

� Burgeoning international market¾ EPA initiates ETV in October, 1995

2

2

3

ETV Objectives¾ Provide credible performance data for

commercial en a e ologiesto aid � vendors in selling innovative technologies,� purchasers in making decisions to

� regulators in making permitting decisions

ETV Objectives¾ Provide credible performance data for

commercial e vironment l t chvironment l t chnologiesa e to aid � vendors in selling innovative technologies, � purchasers in making decisions to

purchase innovative technologies, andpurchase innovative technologies, and� regulators in making permitting decisions

regarding environmental technologies.regarding environmental technologies.

3

3

4

ETV Successes� 240 Verifications, 78 protocols

ETV Successes� 240 Verifications, 78 protocols to date � Vendor demand continues – over 100 technologies

in testing/evaluation, over 100 applications pending � Increasing funding from vendors and others � 805 Stakeholders in 21 groups � Commendations from EPA science and policy

advisory boards � Supports regulatory and voluntary Agency, other

Federal and state programs � Growing international interest � New role in homeland security verifications

4

4

5

ETV Verifies only

¾ Definition: Verify is to determine performanceunder test� No winners or losers� No approvals � No certification� No pass or fail � No guarantees

¾ Responsibility rests with the technology user toy

ETV Verifies only

¾ Definition: Verify is to determine performanceunder test plan defined conditionsplan defined conditions � No winners or losers � No approvals � No certification � No pass or fail � No guarantees

¾ Responsibility rests with the technology user to correctlcorrectly choose and apply technologieschoose and apply technologies

5

5

6

Stakeholder Roles

¾ Help set verification priorities¾ Review protocols and operating

procedures¾ Review other important documents¾ Assist in designing and conducting

outreach activities¾ Serve as information conduits to

their constituencies

Stakeholder Roles

¾ Help set verification priorities ¾ Review protocols and operating

procedures ¾ Review other important documents ¾ Assist in designing and conducting

outreach activities ¾ Serve as information conduits to

their constituencies

6

6

7

ETV Centers¾ ETV Air Pollution Control Technology Center

� Research Triangle Institute¾ ETV Drinking Water Systems Center

� NSF International¾ ETV Greenhouse Gas Technology Center

� Southern Research Institute¾ ETV Advanced Monitoring Systems Center

� Battelle¾ ETV Water Quality Protection Center

� NSF International¾ ETV- Building Decontamination Center

� Battelle¾ ETV P2 Coatings and Coating Equipment Pilot

� Concurrent Technologies Corporation

ETV Centers¾ ETV Air Pollution Control Technology Center

� Research Triangle Institute ¾ ETV Drinking Water Systems Center

� NSF International ¾ ETV Greenhouse Gas Technology Center

� Southern Research Institute ¾ ETV Advanced Monitoring Systems Center

� Battelle ¾ ETV Water Quality Protection Center

� NSF International ¾ ETV- Building Decontamination Center

� Battelle ¾ ETV P2 Coatings and Coating Equipment Pilot

� Concurrent Technologies Corporation

7

7

8

46 Verifications in 2003¾AMS: 5 Arsenic Detection; 5 Mercury CEMs; 1 Onboard Mobile

Emission Monitor; 1 Gas Emission Monitor;2 Multi-Parameter Water Probes; 6 Cyanide Detection Kits

¾SCMT: 1 Lead in Dust; 2 Groundwater Sampling Devices ¾APCT: 3 Mobile Source Devices¾GHG: 1 Fuel Cell; 2 Micro-turbine CHP; 1 Vehicle Axle

Lubricant; 1 Natural Gas Dehydration ¾DWS: 2 Filtration Technologies¾WQP: 5 Residential Nutrient Reduction Systems; 1 Animal Waste

Treatment (Solids Separator infection¾CCEP: 1 Liquid Paint; 1 UV Curable Coating; 1 High Transfer

ency Paint Spray Gun¾P2-MF: 1 Sludge Reduction

46 Verifications in 2003 ¾AMS: 5 Arsenic Detection; 5 Mercury CEMs; 1 Onboard Mobile

Portable Multle Multi--Gas Emission Monitor;Emission Monitor; 1 Portab 2 Multi-Parameter Water Probes; 6 Cyanide Detection Kits

¾SCMT: 1 Lead in Dust; 2 Groundwater Sampling Devices ¾APCT: 3 Mobile Source Devices ¾GHG: 1 Fuel Cell; 2 Micro-turbine CHP; 1 Vehicle Axle

Lubricant; 1 Natural Gas Dehydration ¾DWS: 2 Filtration Technologies ¾WQP: 5 Residential Nutrient Reduction Systems; 1 Animal Waste

Treatment (Solids Separato ); 3 UV Di); 3 UV Disinfection ¾CCEP: 1 Liquid Paint; 1 UV Curable Coating; 1 High Transfer

EfficiEfficiency Paint Spray Gun ¾P2-MF: 1 Sludge Reduction

8

8

9

Projections for 2004

¾ Over 80 verifications� half in base ETV � half in homeland security technologies

Projections for 2004

¾ Over 80 verifications � half in base ETV � half in homeland security technologies

9

9

10

ETV is partnering with ..¾ US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

� Multi-parameter water probes¾ US Coast Guard

� Ballast water treatment¾ US Dept of Energy, State of Massachusetts

� Continuous emission mercury monitors¾ US Dept of Defense

� Monitors for explosives; PCBs in soils; dust suppressants¾ States of Alaska, Pennsylvania

� Drinking water arsenic treatment ¾ States/counties in Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan

� Storm water treatment¾ States of New York, Colorado

� Waste to energy¾ USDA

� Ambient ammonia monitors

ETV is partnering with .. ¾ US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

� Multi-parameter water probes ¾ US Coast Guard

� Ballast water treatment ¾ US Dept of Energy, State of Massachusetts

� Continuous emission mercury monitors ¾ US Dept of Defense

� Monitors for explosives; PCBs in soils; dust suppressants ¾ States of Alaska, Pennsylvania

� Drinking water arsenic treatment ¾ States/counties in Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan

� Storm water treatment ¾ States of New York, Colorado

� Waste to energy ¾ USDA

� Ambient ammonia monitors

10

10

11

www.epa.gov/etv

11

www.epa.gov/etv

( ) ( ) ( )

Hits

/

( ) ( )( )

0 1st 1st 1st 1st 1st

Note: There were 76,588 total hits and 7,075 international hits in September 2003.

International Hits Total Hits

1999 2000 2001

Qua

rter

2002 20031998

40,000

80,000

120,000

160,000

200,000

3rd 3rd 3rd 1st 3rd 3rd 3rd

11

12

Getting to ETV OutcomesMeasuring outputs to outcomes

¾ Number of protocols and verifications¾ Value placed on ETV by vendors in

¾ Value to potential purchasers;

¾ Use of better technologies; reduced

¾ Reduced exposure; reduced risk because of ETV

¾ Improved health/environmental quality because of ETV

Getting to ETV Outcomes Measuring outputs to outcomes

Outputs ¾ Number of protocols and verifications ¾ Value placed on ETV by vendors in

selling and innovating technologyselling and innovating technology¾ Value to potential purchasers;

influence of ETV on purchaseinfluence of ETV on purchasedecisionsdecisions

¾ Use of better technologies; reducedemissions because of ETVemissions because of ETV

¾ Reduced exposure; reduced riskbecause of ETV

Outcomes ¾ Improved health/environmental qualitybecause of ETV

12

12

13

Technology developers analyze randomized samples under field

conditions.

Overview of Environmental Technology Verification Process

13

l

Experimental Plan

Process

Technology developers ana yze randomized samples under field

conditions.

Samples are collected, homogenized, labeled, and assembled for distribution.

Product is report and verification statement.

Statisticians

Chemists

Project Officers

Stakeholders

Overview of Environmental Technology Verification

Developers

13

14

Lead in Dust:Rationale for Performance Verification

“Childhood lead poisoning remains a a

- Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

“Children are most frequently lead poisoned y

- Massachusetts Dept of Public Health

Lead in Dust:Rationale for Performance Verification

“Childhood lead poisoning remains a amajor prevent ble environmental healthmajor prevent ble environmental health

problem in the United States.”problem in the United States.”- Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

“Children are most frequently lead poisonedbby household lead paint dust.”household lead paint dust.”

- Massachusetts Dept of Public Health

14

14

15

Selection of the Most Appropriate Material to Test

Technical panel prioritized current industry needs for evaluation of field technologies

for detection of lead as:

z DUSTz PAINTz SOIL

Selection of the Most Appropriate Material to Test

Technical panel prioritized current industry needs for evaluation of field technologies

for detection of lead as: Greatest need

z DUST z PAINT z SOIL

15

15

16

Fundamental Issue:Can Field Analytical Technology be Used to

Facilitate Home Reuse Following Remediation?

Fundamental Issue: Can Field Analytical Technology be Used to

Facilitate Home Reuse Following Remediation?

16

16

17

Why “dust wipes” versus “bulk dust”?

¾ Wipe sampling estimates surface lead loadingz µg of lead per unit area

¾ Risk-based dust-lead loading standards established based on dust wipe sampling

¾ Testing under the NLLAP is restricted to dust wipes.

¾ Readily available ELPAT samples with certified concentrationsz “Real-world” samples of

known content17

Why “dust wipes” versus “bulk dust”?

¾ Wipe sampling estimatessurface lead loading z µg of lead per unit area

¾ standards established based on dust wipe sampling

¾ Testing under the NLLAP isrestricted to dust wipes.

¾ Readily available ELPATsamples with certifiedconcentrations z

known content

Risk-based dust-lead loading

“Real-world” samples of

17

18

What were the regulatory drivers for this dust wipe testing?

¾ ETV tests provide information on potential applicability of field technologies for clearance testing.

¾ Relevancy to clearance levels†

z 40 :g/ft2 floorsz 250 :g/ft2 window sillsz 400 :g/ft2 window troughs

¾ Applicationsz Clearance testingz Risk assessment

What were the regulatory drivers for this dust wipe testing?

¾ ETV tests provide information on potential applicability of field technologies for clearancetesting.

¾ Relevancy to clearance levels†

z 40 :g/ft2 floors z 250 :g/ft2 window sills z 400 :g/ft2 window troughs

¾ Applicationsz Clearance testingz Risk assessment

on of dangerous levels of l ad, Fi , 1/5/01, 40 C R 745.65† Identificati e nal Rule F

18

18

19

How did we arrive at this experimental design?

How did we arrive at this experimental design?

AIHA EPA HUD

NIST NIOSH

Technical Panel

ORNLMassachusetts

RTI

VENDORS

19

19

20

How did we arrive at 160 samples?

¾ Looked at all of the archived ELPAT samples; selections based on concentration and number of samples available

¾ Requested newly-prepared samples to focus on particular clearances levels (40, 250, 400 µg)

¾ Implemented statistically-balanced design of four replicates

20

How did we arrive at 160 samples?

¾ Looked at all of the archived ELPAT samples; selections based on concentration and number of samples available

¾

to focus on particular clearances levels (40, 250, 400 µg)

¾

design of four replicates

Requested newly-prepared samples

Implemented statistically-balanced

20

21

Determining the Number of Blank Samples to Evaluate False Positive

Error Rate

21

Determining the Number of Blank

Error Rate

0 4 8 0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

false positive error

Samples to Evaluate False Positive

Number of Blank Samples

12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40

Upp

er 9

5% C

onfid

ence

Inte

rval

Positive Error = 0 Positive Error = 1 Positive Error = 2

Confidence in the estimate of the

rate increases as more blank samples are evaluated.

21

22

Attention to Clearance LevelsAttention to Clearance Levels

0 50

100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500

0 5 10 15 20 25

l (ip

e)

Sample Number

Tes

t Lev

eug

per

wClearance levels

Four replicate samples analyzed for each test level.

22

22

23

Testing Venues Focused on Where the Interest Lies

23

Testing Venues Focused on Where the Interest Lies

23

24

Two Very Different Analytical Techniques Verified

¾ Portable X-ray fluorescence¾ Portable anodic stripping voltammetry

Two Very Different Analytical Techniques Verified

¾ Portable X-ray fluorescence ¾ Portable anodic stripping voltammetry

24

24

25

Vendors That Participated in the Lead in Dust ETV Tests

¾ Niton Corporation (3 XRF systems)¾ Monitoring Technologies International (ASV)¾ Palintest (ASV)¾ Key Master Technologies/EDAX (XRF)

Vendors That Participated in the Lead in Dust ETV Tests

¾ Niton Corporation (3 XRF systems)¾ Monitoring Technologies International (ASV)¾ Palintest (ASV)¾ Key Master Technologies/EDAX (XRF)

25

25

26

Anodic Stripping Voltammetry for Determination of Lead

Anodic stripping voltammograms for thesample a o standa s of 50

Deposition potential = -600 = 1 n.; quiet time =

ec. frequency = Hz; steppot a

S.W. amplitude = 25 mV26

Anodic Stripping Voltammetry for Determination of Lead

Anodic stripping voltammograms for the nd tw rd additionsample and two standard additions of 50

ppbppb Pb(IIPb(II).). Deposition potential = -600 mV; deposition time mimV; deposition time = 1 min.; quiet time =

10 s S.W. 1510 sec. S.W. frequency = 15 Hz; stepenti l = 4 mV;potential = 4 mV;

S.W. amplitude = 25 mV

Pb(II) is reduced to Pb(0) by holding potential at cathodic value for brief period; Pb quantified with anodic potential sweep, measuring current for oxidizing Pb(0) to Pb(II) and stripping it from solid electrode.

Electrochemical cell uses a working (W), reference (R), and auxillary (A) electrodes in cylindrical tube with teflon cap.

26

27

Anodic Stripping Voltammetry

¾ Advantagesz Low capital costz Disposable materialz Very high sample throughput

¾Disadvantagesz Generates small amounts of chemical waste

Anodic Stripping Voltammetry

¾ Advantages z Low capital cost z Disposable material z Very high sample throughput

¾ Disadvantages z Generates small amounts of chemical waste

27

27

28

X-Ray Fluorescence

28

X-Ray Fluorescence Exposing metallic materials to high energy x-rays stimulates ejection of electrons the energies of which provide information concerning the identity of the metal in

question.

28

29

X-Ray Fluorescence

¾ Advantagesz Non-destructive analysisz Produces no chemical wastez Good sample throughput

¾Disadvantagesz High capital costz May need radiation source license

X-Ray Fluorescence

¾ Advantages z Non-destructive analysis z Produces no chemical waste z Good sample throughput

¾ Disadvantages z High capital cost z May need radiation source license

29

29

30

NITON XL300

30

NITON XL300

0

5

10

15

20

25

l

Precision

75

80

85

90

95

Accuracy

l

ELP A T Sam ples UC Samp es

N IT ON 300 R ef Lab

100

105

110

115

120

125

ELP A T Samples UC Samples

N IT ON 300 R ef Lab

Less is better

Idea

30

31

NITON XL300

303346400

213224250

423940

ELPATSamples,µg/wipe

UC Samples,µg/wipe

ClearanceLevel

µg/wipe

31

NITON XL300

303346400

213224250

423940

ELPAT Samples,

ipe

UC Samples,

ipeipe

30 40 45

(

µg/wµg/w

Clearance Level

µg/w

Reported Concentrations at Clearance Levels

True Pb Concentration (ug/wipe) 35 50

PrR

epor

t < 4

0 gi

ven

True

Pb)

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

DataChem Niton XL-300

Probabilities of False Negatives

31

32

NITON XL300NITON XL300

Comparability: R = 0.999 (ELPAT samples); R = 0.999 (UC samples)

False positive results (relative to clearance levels): 0% (0 of 12 ELPATSamples); 0% (0 of 30 UC samples)

False negative results (relative to clearance levels): 54% (15 of 38 ELPAT); 70% (21 of 30 UC samples) [25% and 77% for Reference Laboratory]

Reporting limit: 15 µg/wipe

Throughput (1 analysts): 40 samples/12 hr day

Statistically significant negative bias (“penalty” for high precision) but within acceptable bias range.

32

32

33

NITON XL700

33

NITON XL700

75

80

85

90

95

110

115

0

5

10

15

20

25

Accuracy

Precision

l

100

105

120

125

ELP A T Sam ples UC Sam ples

N IT ON X L700 R ef Lab

ELP A T S amples UC Sam ples

N IT ON XL 700 R ef Lab

Less is better

Idea

33

34

NITON XL700

372431400

272276250

494240


UC Samples,µg/wipe

ClearanceLevel

µg/wipe

34

NITON XL700

372431400

272276250

494240

ELPAT Samples,

ipe

UC Samples,

ipeipe

) 35 40 45

)

µg/wµg/w

Clearance Level

µg/w

True Pb Concentration (ug/wipe30 50

Pr(R

epor

t < 4

0 gi

ven

True

Pb

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

DataChem Niton XL-700



34

35

NITON XL700

35

NITON XL700

Comparability: R

: ;

7]

Reporting limit

Throughput (1 analyst):

= 0.999 (ELPAT samples); R = 0.999 (UC samples)

False positive results (relative to clearance levels) 50% (6 of 12 ELPAT Samples) 62% (21 of 34 UC samples)

False negative results (relative to clearance levels): % ( 2 of 28 ELPAT); 8% (2 of 26 UC samples) [25% and 77% for Reference Laboratory

: 15 µg/wipe

30 - 60 samples/12 hr day

Statistically significant positive bias (“penalty” for high precision) but within acceptable bias range.

35

36

NITON XLt 700

36

75

80

85

90

95

110

115

0

5

10

15

20

25

Accuracy Precision

l

NITON XLt 700

100

105

120

125


N IT ON X L700 R ef Lab


N IT ON XL 700 R ef Lab

Less is better Idea

36

37

NITON XLt 700

37

Comparability: R

: ;

29]

Reporting limit

Throughput (2 analysts):

NITON XLt 700

= 0.999 (ELPAT samples); R = 0.999 (UC samples)


False negative results (relative to clearance levels): % ( 8 of 28 ELPAT); 43% (10 of 23 UC samples) [25% and 77% for Reference Laboratory

: 10 µg/wipe

45 - 50 samples/10 hr day

Statistically significant negative bias (“penalty” for high precision) but within acceptable bias range.

37

38

NITON XLt 700

361371400

234232250

424240


UC Samples,µg/wipe

ClearanceLevel

µg/wipe

NITON XLt 700


Clearance Level

µg/wipe

UC Samples, µg/wipe

ELPAT Samples, µg/wipe

40 42 42

250 232 234

400 371 361

38

/ ) 10 15 20 25 30 40 45 55

(i

)

True Pb Concentration (ug wipe35 50

PrR

epor

t < 4

0 g

ven

True

Pb

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

NITON XLt 700

DataChem


38

39

Keymaster Pb-Test XRF

39

75

95

ug/

0

5

10

15

20

25

Accuracy Precision

l

Keymaster Pb-Test XRF

115

135

155

175

195

ELP A T Samples

UC Samples

Keym aster P b T est R ef Lab

Keym aster >200 wipe


Keym aster P b T est R ef Lab

Less is better Idea

39

40

Keymaster Pb Test XRF

248365400

254275250

9911840


UC Samples,µg/wipe

ClearanceLevel

µg/wipe

40

) 35 40 45 50

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

248365400

254275250

9911840

ELPAT Samples,

ipe

UC Samples,

ipeipe

l l

/wi

True Pb Concentration (ug/wipe

Pr(R

epor

t < 4

0 gi

ven

True

Pb)

DataChem

Pb-Test


µg/wµg/w

Clearance Level

µg/w



Due to the positive bias at low ead evels, there was no chance of a false negative Response at the 40 µg pe level

40

41


41

Comparability: R ≤ ; ;

: ;

29% ( ]

Reporting limit

≤ µg/wi


= 0.967 (for samples 200 µg/wipe) R = 0.989 (for samples > 200 µg/wipe)


False negative results (relative to clearance levels): 8 of 28 ELPAT); 32% (7 of 22 UC samples) [25% and 77% for Reference Laboratory

: None provided

Throughput (2 analysts and 2 instruments): 80 samples/10 hr day

Statistically significant positive bias for samples 200 µg/wipe; unbiased for samples above 200 pe; acceptable precision.

41

42

MTI PDV 5000

42

MTI PDV 5000

75

80

85

90

95

110

115

0

5

10

15

20

25

Accuracy Precision

l

100

105

120

125


P D V 5000 R ef Lab


P D V 5000 R ef Lab

Less is better Idea

42

43

MTI PDV 5000

258375400

213240250

442940


UC Samples,µg/wipe

ClearanceLevel

µg/wipe

43

25 50

)

MTI PDV 5000

258375400

213240250

442940

ELPAT Samples,

ipe

UC Samples,

ipeipe

True Pb Concentration (ug/wipe) 75 100 125 150 175 200

Pr(R

epor

t < 4

0 gi

ven

True

Pb

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

DataChem

MTI PDV 5000

µg/wµg/w

Clearance Level

µg/w



43

44

MTI PDV 5000

44

MTI PDV 5000

Comparability: R

: ;

]

Reporting limit /

i

= 0.999 (for UC samples ); R = 0.988 (for ELPAT samples);


False negative results (relative to clearance levels): 43% ( 12 of 28 ELPAT); 59% (17 of 29 UC samples) [25% and 77% for Reference Laboratory

: < 20 µg wipe

Throughput (2 analysts and 1 instrument): 80 samples/10 hr day

Statistically significant negative bias; less precise than typically acceptable levels; strong linear relat onship between PDV 5000 response and that of comparable lab method.

44

45

PalintestScanning Analyzer SA-5000

45

Palintest Scanning Analyzer

75

80

85

90

95

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Accuracy Precision

l

SA-5000

100

105

110


SA -5000 R ef Lab


SA -5000 R ef Lab

Less is better Idea

45

46


372308400

221189250

363540


UC Samples,µg/wipe

ClearanceLevel

µg/wipe

46

) 45 50 55

()

Palintest Scanning Analyzer

372308400

221189250

363540

ELPAT Samples,

ipe

UC Samples,

ipeipe

True Pb Concentration (ug/wipe35 40 60

Pr R

epor

t < 4

0 gi

ven

True

Pb

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

DataChem Palintest

SA-5000

µg/wµg/w

Clearance Level

µg/w



46

47


Palintest Scanning Analyzer SA-5000

Comparability: R = 1.00 (for UC samples ); R = 0.995 (for ELPAT samples);

False positive results (relative to clearance levels): 0% (0 of 12 ELPATSamples); 0% (0 of 38 UC samples)

False negative results (relative to clearance levels): 61% ( 17 of 28 ELPAT); 100% (22 of 22 UC samples) [25% and 77% for Reference Laboratory]

Reporting limit: < 25 µg/wipe

Throughput (1 analyst and 1 instrument): 80 samples/10 hr day

Statistically significant negative bias; very precise; strong linear relationship between SA-5000 response and that of comparable lab method; no false positives, high number of false negatives.

47

47

48

ETV Program does NOT make Head to Head comparisons of

technologies, because there are needs for a variety of tools in the environmental technology toolbox

ETV Program does NOT make Head to Head comparisons of

technologies, because there are needs for a variety of tools in the environmental technology toolbox

48

48

49

Asking: “What is the Best Technology?” is Like Asking “What is the Best Vehicle to Purchase?”

It depends on what you need!

49

Asking: “What is the Best Technology?” is Like Asking “What is the Best Vehicle to Purchase?”

It depends on what you need!

Sports car vs. MiniVan

PS: Your mileage may vary

49

50

Upcoming Technology Verifications by the Advance Monitoring Systems

Center¾ More rounds of arsenic test kits for water¾ Multi-parameter water monitors¾ Ambient ammonia monitors for animal feed

operations¾ Ammonia continuous emission monitors¾ Immunoassay kits for anthrax, botulinum toxin,

& ricin¾ PCR kits for anthrax, plague, Tularemia,

Brucellosis

Upcoming Technology Verifications by the Advance Monitoring Systems

Center

¾ More rounds of arsenic test kits for water ¾ Multi-parameter water monitors ¾ Ambient ammonia monitors for animal feed

operations ¾ Ammonia continuous emission monitors ¾ Immunoassay kits for anthrax, botulinum toxin,

& ricin ¾ PCR kits for anthrax, plague, Tularemia,

Brucellosis

50

50

51

Thank You

51

Thank You

complete our online feedback form.

Thank You

Links to Additional Resources

After viewing the links to additional resources, please

51

Determination of Lead in Dust Wipes using Field Analytical Technology 1 Determination of Lead in Dust Wipes using Field Analytical Technology Presented by U.S. Environmental Protection

Documents