Potentially Reduce ‘False Positive’ data; Potentially reduce costs, In some cases reduce Reporting Limit
You are invited to a discussion with clients and staff of Caltest Analytical Laboratory regarding new analytical options for providing monitoring program data needs. There have been advances in analytical instrumentation that have given us additional choices in how to provide analyses of waters. We want to tell you about them, and get your feedback.
Discussions will include the technological advances we have explored, and the advantages they offer, and how each of these options fit with the regulatory criteria for various monitoring programs. It will be informative for you. We will discuss both pros and cons, and hows and whys. If analyses of waters for regulatory purposes matters to you, this should be relevant and time well spent.
Topics will include:
- What is now Available:
- Chlorinated Pesticides and PCBs by GC/MS EPA Method 625 meeting EPA Method 608 GC/ECD reporting limits with the superior confirmation of analyte identification by mass spectrometer. Virtually eliminate false positives. Meet current reporting criteria with approved method. Save costs.
- What we did with low level GC/MS already (February 2007)
- Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons by GC/MS EPA Method 625 meeting EPA Method 610 HPLC low level reporting limits with the superior confirmation of analyte identification by mass spectrometer. How, why, and how has it worked so far.
- What other low level GC/MS application is Possible, Explore why or why not?
- Organophosphorus Pesticides (Diazinon and Chlorpyrifos) by GC/MS EPA Method 625 meeting EPA Method 614 GC/NPD reporting limits with the confirmation of analyte identification by mass spectrometer. Some analytical and cost advantages, some regulatory limitations.
- What we Performance Tested in 2006- Our Findings:
- Solid Phase Extraction with Liquid-Liquid Extraction equivalency of performance in wastewater using a commercial auto-extractor. How it worked, pros and cons, what we found, why we have not converted to this process at this time.
- What we are Developing Right Now:
- Methyl Mercury by automated system with lower reporting limits by draft Method 1630 modified (Florida Dept. of Environmental Protection Method). Where does a lower reporting limit for Methyl Mercury matter? What samples are appropriate or not? How could this affect data sets?