Rock J. Vitale, CEAC, David A. Gratson, CEAC

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Instrumental Analysis
Advertisements

Assessing Laboratory Quality – Systematic Bias Robert O. Miller Colorado State University Fort Collins, CO.
Errors in Chemical Analyses: Assessing the Quality of Results
Use and Maintenance of Micro-pipettes
CHEMISTRY ANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY Fall
Result validation. Exercise 1 You’ve done an analysis to the best of your ability using the correct procedure. Is your answer correct? possibly, hopefully.
Laboratory Techniques I: Dilution Go to browse and set to full screen.
Preparing Solutions of Precise Concentration It is often necessary to prepare solutions of precisely known concentration of a substance If the substance.
Propagation of Error Ch En 475 Unit Operations. Quantifying variables (i.e. answering a question with a number) 1. Directly measure the variable. - referred.
World Health Organization
Monroe L. Weber-Shirk S chool of Civil and Environmental Engineering Partitioning of Volatile Organic Carbon Compoundss.
Partitioning of VOCs: Why do we care? ä Determines how best to treat a site ä vapor extraction ä pump and treat ä remove contaminated soil ä Determines.
Verifying the Use of Specific Conductance as a Surrogate for Chloride in Seawater Matrices Rob Mooney Technical Marketing Manager In-Situ ® Inc.
Chemometrics Method comparison
Validation of Analytical Method
© 2010 Cerilliant Corporation | 811 Paloma Drive | Round Rock, TX Uncertainty in the micro-ROI measurement was estimated following the guidelines.
Presentation of Findings - Dissolved Methane Method Study Shale Network Workshop May 7-8, 2015 State College, PA Presented by Rock J. Vitale, CEAC Environmental.
Solutions and their Behavior Chapter Identify factors that determine the rate at which a solute dissolves 2. Identify factors that affect the solubility.
CHEMISTRY 2000 Topic #3: Thermochemistry and Electrochemistry – What Makes Reactions Go? Spring 2008 Dr. Susan Lait.
ASTM WK Standard Test Method for Dissolved Gases Anne Jurek – Applications Chemist.
Preparation & Administration of Ipilimumab
Fundamentals of Data Analysis Lecture 10 Management of data sets and improving the precision of measurement pt. 2.
Quality Assurance How do you know your results are correct? How confident are you?
CALIBRATION METHODS. For many analytical techniques, we need to evaluate the response of the unknown sample against the responses of a set of standards.
Propagation of Error Ch En 475 Unit Operations. Quantifying variables (i.e. answering a question with a number) 1. Directly measure the variable. - referred.
Data Analysis: Quantitative Statements about Instrument and Method Performance.
Rachel Martin Displacement and Density. Introduction Animals are dosed by being given a specific volume of a test item (or control) formulation.
Validation Defination Establishing documentary evidence which provides a high degree of assurance that specification process will consistently produce.
Unit 4 : Solutions 8.4 – Dilution and Solution Preparation.
Solution Equilibrium and Factors Affecting Solubility
Statistics Presentation Ch En 475 Unit Operations.
Providing comprehensive scientific resources to environmental clients worldwide. Dissolved Gas Analysis: A Review and Comparison.
LECTURE 13 QUALITY ASSURANCE METHOD VALIDATION
 Routine viral diagnostics: indirect and direct detection of viruses. ◦ Indirect detection: serological tests; ◦ Direct detection:  Viral antigens;
Uncertainty and error in measurement
Chapter 1: The Nature of Analytical Chemistry
EQUIPMENT and METHOD VALIDATION
WVONGA Annual Fall Meeting Wheeling, West Virginia September 11, 2013 Gerald L. Kirkpatrick, P.G. Bryce E. Stearns The Dirty Dozen 12 Ways Your Environmental.
Chapter 13 Titrations in Analytical Chemistry. Titration methods are based on determining the quantity of a reagent of known concentration that is required.
Fundamentals of Analytical Chemistry Eighth Edition.
Martin-Luther University Halle-Wittenberg, Germany
Topic 11 Measurement and data processing
One-Stage Quantitative
Determination of TKN by Subtraction using ASTM D and ASTM D
James Byrd, Marta Kozak 28 Apr 2011
Serpil KILIÇ, Murat KILIÇ
EPA Method Equivalency
Update on Improvements to Dissolved Hydrocarbon Gases in Water Analysis Mark Bruce Ph. D. August 10, 2017.
iCAP OES Analysis of Trace Elements in Hair
Improved Accuracy of Dissolved Hydrocarbon Gas Analysis in Water
Use and Maintenance of Micro-pipettes
524.3 Purge Flow Study Anne Jurek – Sr. Applications Chemist
Statistics Presentation
Chapter 3 – Volumetric Analysis
EPA Method Equivalency
What it Means, Why it Works, and How to Comply
Statistics Review ChE 477 Winter 2018 Dr. Harding.
Analytical Method Validation
Chapter 5 Quality Assurance and Calibration Methods
CCE and CVD results The usual PVT measurements on gas condensates are
Why Use Them? By: Marcy Bolek – Alloway
Experiment 4-4: Determination of Glucose in Blood Serum
Warm-Up What is a solution? Very small particles Evenly distributed
CCE and CVD results The usual PVT measurements on gas condensates are
To understand the process of dissolving
Solutions & Molarity What is a solution?
Quality Control Lecture 3
Quality Assessment The goal of laboratory analysis is to provide the accurate, reliable and timeliness result Quality assurance The overall program that.
Saturated: Unsaturated: Supersaturated:
Preparing Solutions by Dilution
Presentation transcript:

Dissolved Methane Round Robin Case Study – Regulations Without a Robust Analytical Method Rock J. Vitale, CEAC, David A. Gratson, CEAC Work sponsored by the MSC Dissolved Methane Method Work Group

Phases 1 and 2 Phase 1: Analysis of two groundwater wells, concentrations at saturation Well 1 – 7,400 to 34,600 µg/L. Well 1 Average Temperature 10.6°C Well 2 – 8,300 to 44,000 µg/L . Well 2 Average Temperature 9.4°C. Phase 2 Blind Reference Standards 270 µg/L; 1,080 µg/L; 2,700 µg/L; 7,015 µg/L

Calibration Approaches Phase 2: 4 Laboratories perform via direct gas injection, Henry’s Constant calculation 2 Laboratories prepared a saturated solution 10 Laboratories prepared via injection of concentrated standards into vial with headspace above aqueous phase

Phase 2: Inter-laboratory Results ~50% failure rate (>20%D), ~40% failure rate (>30%D)

Phase 3 Study Participants Select members of the Marcellus Shale Coalition Dissolved Methane Method Work Group Environmental Standards, Inc., Valley Forge, Pennsylvania Environmental Services Laboratory (ESL), Indiana, Pennsylvania. Reference Standard provider Eight Non-Reference Laboratories Three Reference Laboratories (selected from prior phases)

Phase 3 Design Send laboratories known concentration standards. ESL Prepared approximately 70 vials in two batches, all at a single final concentration. Assess results sequentially and review against known concentration. Make revisions to preparation, handling, calibration, analysis and technique as needed. Include three Reference Laboratories for comparison, analyze samples over the course of ~14 days. Goal was acceptable analyses with self diagnosis of 70-130% of reference concentration (~7000µg/L).

As-made Concentration ESL Reported Concentration (µg/L) Reference Laboratory 1 (µg/L) Reference Laboratory 2 Reference Laboratory 3 8490 6600 7560 7880 8640 7000 7190 7440 8570 6500 6490 7490 8750 7100 7465 6820 8460   8150 Average 8510 6800 7176 7408 Standard Deviation 205 294 484 438 %RSD 2.4% 4.3% 6.7% 5.9% Duplicate Analysis RPD 8.8% 14% 0.7% Average of Reference Laboratories 7130 Standard Deviation of Reference Laboratories 456 %RSD of Reference Laboratories 6.4% Noted difference between ESL and 3 reference laboratories. All with good precision Bold are replicate analyses. ESL analyzed overnight. Reference Laboratories analyzed over ~14 days.

All Laboratories: Methane Concentration by Vial Number Good precision with Reference and PT provider across vial numbers

Reference Laboratories vs Standard Provider Possible Reasons Normal analytical uncertainty Calibration gas source differences Initial loss of methane within 48 hours, static thereafter

Non-Reference Laboratories (1, 2, 3, and 6) in Order of Analysis Acceptance Range: 4990-9270 2 Green line is average of reference laboratories, red lines are 70-130% boundary from the average 6 1

Non-Reference Laboratories (4, 5, 7, and 8) in Order of Analysis

Dissolved Methane Results (µg/L) Non-Reference Laboratories Vial Order Laboratory ID Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Vial 1 5700 6940 6920 5690 1574 5660 3320 6060 Vial 2 5000 6800 7820 2733 5740 4600 6470 Vial 3 6000 7410 6780 5070 4387 5790 4240 6520 Vial 4 6400 6500 7160 8402 7510 6210 6430 4350 Vial 5 7100 8446 7474 6990 4380 Vial 6 6200 5880 7070 8705 6987 5720 5870 3890 Lower recovery limit: 4990, upper recovery limit: 9270. Limits are based upon the average concentration from the three Reference Laboratories and the acceptance limits of 70-130% recovery established in Work Plan. Values outside these limits are highlighted in bold.

Self Diagnosis: Calibration Observation/Original Approach Adjustments Made Impact of Adjustments Original calibration entailed direct gas injection. Prepared saturated solution standards following procedure in PA DEP 3686. A 60% increase was observed by using saturated solution standards for the initial calibration. This combined with extended sample warm up (2 hours) to reach equilibrium, resulted in a total increase of 260%. Prepared standards using vials with headspace, allowing equilibrium (time) conditions. Extended equilibrium conditions for laboratory control samples (LCSs). Combined changes resulted in approximately 150% increase in reported concentration. The results then were within the recovery limits.

Self Diagnosis: Dilution Observation Adjustments Made Impact of Adjustments Poor recovery for 10-fold dilution performed via removal of liquid phase into volumetric flask. Sample and volumetric flask with reagent water placed in ice bath to cool prior to removal of aqueous phase for dilution. Approximately 75% increase in concentration with change, provided improved accuracy, relative to Reference Laboratories. Comparing impact on concentration when range of 10 µL - 200 µL gas volume is removed from 4 mL of headspace. Varying volume of headspace removed. No impact on results.

Self Diagnosis: Sample Pressure Observation Adjustments Made Impact of Adjustments Adjusting helium volume during preparation steps affected headspace pressure. Attempted to optimize volume of helium added so that headspace was at nominal atmospheric pressure, or above, after sample was removed. Volume injected varied with sample concentration. Measured actual headspace pressure. All improved accuracy. Headspace pressure measurement was determined to be critical, directly proportional to improved accuracy. A 10% increase was observed by incorporating the measured headspace pressure versus assuming it was at ambient.

Self Diagnosis: Sample Pressure

Self Diagnosis: Temperature and Equilibrium Observation Adjustments Made Impact of Adjustments Low bias in prior studies. Vortex time, once headspace was created, increased from 2 minutes to 5 minutes. Time and mixing adjusted. The two techniques combined, results in approximately 35% increase in reported concentration. These were sufficient to eliminate the low bias and meet the acceptance limits of the study. Shaking table time was extended to 5 minutes. Time and mixing adjusted. A 20-30% increase in reported value was achieved by extending the time for shaking the samples. This eliminated the low bias and met the acceptance limits of the study.

Self Diagnosis: Sample Transfer Observation Adjustments Made Impact of Adjustments Noted small gas bubbles at times when removing aqueous phase sample from original vial for dilution or transfer to autosampler vial. Reduced the speed of plunger withdrawal to prevent vacuum and bubble formation. When bubbles formed, approximately 30% of methane was lost.

Self Diagnosis: Other Observation Adjustments Made Impact of Adjustments Leaking noted with multiple piercing of Septum. Operation included addition of helium to create headspace pressure. Minimized piercing as much as possible. Noted source of leaking and low bias. Approximate 25% increase in reported value was achieved by eliminating leakage via septa. Time needles left in septum increased potential for leaks. Punctured septum immediately prior to analysis. Reduced leakage, and less bias observed. Approximate 25% increase in reported value was achieved by eliminating leakage via septa. Use of average response factor (RF) resulted in large residuals at high concentration range of calibration. Linear regression calibration reduced residuals in model. No significant change for this study.

Statistical Summary: All Phases Results by Phase  N Mean (µg/L) % RSD Phase 1, Well 1 53 21070 33% Phase 1, Well 2 50 23565 36% Phase 2, Standard 1 (lowest concentration) 45 212 Phase 2, Standard 2 43 861 32% Phase 2, Standard 3 40 2121 Phase 2, Standard 4 (highest concentration) 35 4900 30% Phase 3 All/Accepted Values 39 6050/6590 24%/13% RSD = relative standard deviation, N = number of samples Phase 2: Standard 1 @ 270 µg/L, Standard 2 @ 1081 µg/L, Standard 3 @ 2,700 µg/L, Standard 4 @ 7,015 µg/L

Phase 3 Results Success with all participating laboratories achieving multiple recoveries within 80-120% of Reference Laboratories average value (exceeded goal) Techniques causing bias identified Reduced variance Difference between Standard provider and Reference Laboratories not confirmed

Phase 3 Results Next Steps Develop SOP/Work Instruction based on procedures, activities, and techniques learned from Phases 3 study. SOP to guide final inter-laboratory study to validate procedure. Develop a Test Method that includes three calibration approaches, but controls sample and standard handling to minimize the potential for spread and bias.

Thank You Headquarters 1140 Valley Forge Road | PO Box 810 | Valley Forge, PA 19482 | 610.935.5577 Virginia 1412 Sachem Place, Suite 100 | Charlottesville, VA 22901 | 434.293.4039 Tennessee 8331 East Walker Springs Lane, Suite 402 | Knoxville, TN 37923 | 865.376.7590 New Mexico PO Box 29432 | Santa Fe, NM 87592 | 505.660.8521 Illinois PO Box 335 | Geneva, IL 60134 | 630.262.3979 South Carolina PO Box 14315 | Charleston, SC 29422 | 843.469.5867 New Jersey 1175 Marlkress Rd. #4222 | Cherry Hill, NJ 08034 | 304.552.1442 West Virginia 2501 Chapline St. PO Box 6562 | Wheeling, WV 26003 | 304.312.7830 Web www.envstd.com | E-mail solutions@envstd.com