16
Matrix Spike Recoveries Carrie Miller Cryptosporidium Lab Approval Program Technical Support Center Standards and Risk Management Division Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water November 15, 2012 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1

Matrix Spike Recoveries - US EPASummary Matrix spike recoveries with Method 1623.1 should be more accurate than recoveries with Method 1623 in challenging source waters. November 15,

  • Upload
    others

  • View
    5

  • Download
    0

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: Matrix Spike Recoveries - US EPASummary Matrix spike recoveries with Method 1623.1 should be more accurate than recoveries with Method 1623 in challenging source waters. November 15,

Matrix Spike Recoveries

Carrie Miller Cryptosporidium Lab Approval Program

Technical Support Center Standards and Risk Management Division Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water

November 15, 2012 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1

Page 2: Matrix Spike Recoveries - US EPASummary Matrix spike recoveries with Method 1623.1 should be more accurate than recoveries with Method 1623 in challenging source waters. November 15,

Matrix Spike vs Field Samples

• Procedure and limitations • Improved accuracy with Method 1623.1

in challenging water matrices • Observed matrix spike recovery with

Method 1623.1, n = 165

November 15, 2012 2 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Page 3: Matrix Spike Recoveries - US EPASummary Matrix spike recoveries with Method 1623.1 should be more accurate than recoveries with Method 1623 in challenging source waters. November 15,

Matrix Spike Procedure

• Mix sample continuously • Spike with pre-determined number of

Cryptosporidium oocysts • Perform Method 1623 or 1623.1 • Compare number detected with quantity added • Typically two matrix spikes for each source

November 15, 2012 3 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Page 4: Matrix Spike Recoveries - US EPASummary Matrix spike recoveries with Method 1623.1 should be more accurate than recoveries with Method 1623 in challenging source waters. November 15,

Matrix Spike Limitations

• Method variability • Matrix interference • Assumption

– spiked sample recovery = field sample recovery

November 15, 2012 4 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Page 5: Matrix Spike Recoveries - US EPASummary Matrix spike recoveries with Method 1623.1 should be more accurate than recoveries with Method 1623 in challenging source waters. November 15,

Method 1623 Variable in Reagent Water

November 15, 2012 5 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Page 6: Matrix Spike Recoveries - US EPASummary Matrix spike recoveries with Method 1623.1 should be more accurate than recoveries with Method 1623 in challenging source waters. November 15,

Blind Spike Average, Method 1623 ~50 Laboratories

Tennessee River Sediment Diatomaceous Earth

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency November 15, 2012 6

Page 7: Matrix Spike Recoveries - US EPASummary Matrix spike recoveries with Method 1623.1 should be more accurate than recoveries with Method 1623 in challenging source waters. November 15,

7

MS Recoveries Round 1 Method 1623 n=3,335

November 15, 2012 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Page 8: Matrix Spike Recoveries - US EPASummary Matrix spike recoveries with Method 1623.1 should be more accurate than recoveries with Method 1623 in challenging source waters. November 15,

8 November 15, 2012 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Page 9: Matrix Spike Recoveries - US EPASummary Matrix spike recoveries with Method 1623.1 should be more accurate than recoveries with Method 1623 in challenging source waters. November 15,

Method 1623.1 Variable in Reagent Water

9 November 15, 2012 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Page 10: Matrix Spike Recoveries - US EPASummary Matrix spike recoveries with Method 1623.1 should be more accurate than recoveries with Method 1623 in challenging source waters. November 15,

Improved Accuracy in River Matrix

10 November 15, 2012 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Page 11: Matrix Spike Recoveries - US EPASummary Matrix spike recoveries with Method 1623.1 should be more accurate than recoveries with Method 1623 in challenging source waters. November 15,

November 15, 2012 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 11

Matrix Spike Results in Method Validations

Page 12: Matrix Spike Recoveries - US EPASummary Matrix spike recoveries with Method 1623.1 should be more accurate than recoveries with Method 1623 in challenging source waters. November 15,

Improved Recovery in Challenging Matrices

November 15, 2012 12 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Page 13: Matrix Spike Recoveries - US EPASummary Matrix spike recoveries with Method 1623.1 should be more accurate than recoveries with Method 1623 in challenging source waters. November 15,

Multi-Laboratory Improvement with Challenging Matrix

November 15, 2012 13 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Page 14: Matrix Spike Recoveries - US EPASummary Matrix spike recoveries with Method 1623.1 should be more accurate than recoveries with Method 1623 in challenging source waters. November 15,

14

Observed Matrix Spike Recovery With Method 1623.1 n=165

November 15, 2012 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Page 15: Matrix Spike Recoveries - US EPASummary Matrix spike recoveries with Method 1623.1 should be more accurate than recoveries with Method 1623 in challenging source waters. November 15,

Summary

Matrix spike recoveries with Method 1623.1 should be more accurate than recoveries with Method

1623 in challenging source waters.

November 15, 2012 15 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Page 16: Matrix Spike Recoveries - US EPASummary Matrix spike recoveries with Method 1623.1 should be more accurate than recoveries with Method 1623 in challenging source waters. November 15,

[email protected]

November 15, 2012 16 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency