Upload
others
View
2
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
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
ELPATSamples,µg/wipe
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
Reported Concentrations at Clearance Levels
Probabilities of False Negatives
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
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
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 positive results (relative to clearance levels) 8% (1 of 12 ELPAT Samples) 22% (8 of 37 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
ELPATSamples,µg/wipe
UC Samples,µg/wipe
ClearanceLevel
µg/wipe
NITON XLt 700
Reported Concentrations at Clearance Levels
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
Probabilities of False Negatives
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
ELP A T S amples UC Sam ples
Keym aster P b T est R ef Lab
Less is better Idea
39
40
Keymaster Pb Test XRF
248365400
254275250
9911840
ELPATSamples,µg/wipe
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
Keymaster Pb Test XRF
µg/wµg/w
Clearance Level
µg/w
Reported Concentrations at Clearance Levels
Probabilities of False Negatives
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
Keymaster Pb Test XRF
41
Comparability: R ≤ ; ;
: ;
29% ( ]
Reporting limit
≤ µg/wi
Keymaster Pb Test XRF
= 0.967 (for samples 200 µg/wipe) R = 0.989 (for samples > 200 µg/wipe)
False positive results (relative to clearance levels) 50% (6 of 12 ELPAT Samples) 53% (20 of 38 UC samples)
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
ELP A T Sam ples UC Sam ples
P D V 5000 R ef Lab
ELP A T Samples UC Samples
P D V 5000 R ef Lab
Less is better Idea
42
43
MTI PDV 5000
258375400
213240250
442940
ELPATSamples,µg/wipe
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
Reported Concentrations at Clearance Levels
Probabilities of False Negatives
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 positive results (relative to clearance levels) 25% (3 of 12 ELPAT Samples) 14% (4 of 29 UC 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
ELP A T Samples UC Samples
SA -5000 R ef Lab
ELP A T Sam ples UC Sam ples
SA -5000 R ef Lab
Less is better Idea
45
46
PalintestScanning Analyzer SA-5000
372308400
221189250
363540
ELPATSamples,µg/wipe
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
Reported Concentrations at Clearance Levels
Probabilities of False Negatives
46
47
PalintestScanning Analyzer SA-5000
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