Assessment of the efficacy of six field cleaning protocols for hydrocarbon quantification

The defensibility of field sampling data collected in support of natural resource damage assessments and other environmental investigations depends on rigorous quality assurance and control both in the field and laboratory. One important step in field procedures is the cleaning of sampling equipment...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Environmental science and pollution research international 2021-07, Vol.28 (25), p.32310-32320
Hauptverfasser: Pisarski, Emily C., Wirth, Edward F., Pennington, Paul L., Hartwell, Ian, Shaddrix, Brian S., Whitall, David R., Apeti, Dennis A., Baker, Gregory
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 32320
container_issue 25
container_start_page 32310
container_title Environmental science and pollution research international
container_volume 28
creator Pisarski, Emily C.
Wirth, Edward F.
Pennington, Paul L.
Hartwell, Ian
Shaddrix, Brian S.
Whitall, David R.
Apeti, Dennis A.
Baker, Gregory
description The defensibility of field sampling data collected in support of natural resource damage assessments and other environmental investigations depends on rigorous quality assurance and control both in the field and laboratory. One important step in field procedures is the cleaning of sampling equipment between samples to minimize the carryover of contaminants. Large-scale sampling efforts during the Deepwater Horizon oil spill event have highlighted the importance of understanding how multiple equipment cleaning protocols affect interstation cross-contamination and the resulting chemical data quality. In this study, six field cleaning techniques were tested on metal sampling equipment using two different sediment types spiked with crude oil in order to understand their relative and absolute effectiveness in reducing chemical carryover. The complexity of the cleaning protocols ranged from a simple water and scrub brush application to protocols that included soap and/or solvent. In this study, percent residual hydrocarbon transfer, relative to total loading in sediments, never exceeded 0.032%. The least labor-intensive protocol, water and scrub brush application, had the highest potential for hydrocarbon transfer (0.011–0.032%). Statistical differences were observed among treatments, and it was found that protocols containing a solvent step were more effective than protocols without solvents. Depending on the data quality objectives, the differences may not be meaningful, and choosing a cleaning technique should be governed by health, safety, and environmental factors. The residual hydrocarbons measured after equipment cleanings for all techniques in this study were negligible when compared with other variables that occur during routine sampling and laboratory activities.
doi_str_mv 10.1007/s11356-021-12896-9
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2546402755</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2546402755</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c326t-e0e7af672f340c36e24f9530ec935ebd178808a27cf323237f9377bd407d8bdc3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kE1LAzEQhoMotlb_gAcJeI7ma5PNsRS_oOBFD55CNpu0W9pNm-yC_fembtWbzGEY5n3fGR4Argm-IxjL-0QIKwTClCBCSyWQOgFjIghHkit1CsZYcY4I43wELlJaYUyxovIcjBgTlFMux-BjmpJLaePaDgYPu6WDzvvGGrs_zKn5hL5x6xratTNt0y7gNoYu2LBO0IcIl_s6BmtiFVq4603bNQdz14T2Epx5s07u6tgn4P3x4W32jOavTy-z6RxZRkWHHHbSeCGpZxxbJhzlXhUMO6tY4aqayLLEpaHSekZzSa-YlFXNsazLqrZsAm6H3PzYrnep06vQxzaf1LTggmMqiyKr6KCyMaQUndfb2GxM3GuC9YGmHmjqTFN_09Qqm26O0X21cfWv5QdfFrBBkPKqXbj4d_uf2C8xboBe</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2546402755</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Assessment of the efficacy of six field cleaning protocols for hydrocarbon quantification</title><source>SpringerLink Journals - AutoHoldings</source><creator>Pisarski, Emily C. ; Wirth, Edward F. ; Pennington, Paul L. ; Hartwell, Ian ; Shaddrix, Brian S. ; Whitall, David R. ; Apeti, Dennis A. ; Baker, Gregory</creator><creatorcontrib>Pisarski, Emily C. ; Wirth, Edward F. ; Pennington, Paul L. ; Hartwell, Ian ; Shaddrix, Brian S. ; Whitall, David R. ; Apeti, Dennis A. ; Baker, Gregory</creatorcontrib><description>The defensibility of field sampling data collected in support of natural resource damage assessments and other environmental investigations depends on rigorous quality assurance and control both in the field and laboratory. One important step in field procedures is the cleaning of sampling equipment between samples to minimize the carryover of contaminants. Large-scale sampling efforts during the Deepwater Horizon oil spill event have highlighted the importance of understanding how multiple equipment cleaning protocols affect interstation cross-contamination and the resulting chemical data quality. In this study, six field cleaning techniques were tested on metal sampling equipment using two different sediment types spiked with crude oil in order to understand their relative and absolute effectiveness in reducing chemical carryover. The complexity of the cleaning protocols ranged from a simple water and scrub brush application to protocols that included soap and/or solvent. In this study, percent residual hydrocarbon transfer, relative to total loading in sediments, never exceeded 0.032%. The least labor-intensive protocol, water and scrub brush application, had the highest potential for hydrocarbon transfer (0.011–0.032%). Statistical differences were observed among treatments, and it was found that protocols containing a solvent step were more effective than protocols without solvents. Depending on the data quality objectives, the differences may not be meaningful, and choosing a cleaning technique should be governed by health, safety, and environmental factors. The residual hydrocarbons measured after equipment cleanings for all techniques in this study were negligible when compared with other variables that occur during routine sampling and laboratory activities.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0944-1344</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1614-7499</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s11356-021-12896-9</identifier><identifier>PMID: 33624247</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg</publisher><subject>Aquatic Pollution ; Atmospheric Protection/Air Quality Control/Air Pollution ; Cleaning ; Contaminants ; Contamination ; Crude oil ; Damage assessment ; Earth and Environmental Science ; Ecotoxicology ; Environment ; Environmental Chemistry ; Environmental factors ; Environmental Health ; Environmental science ; Hydrocarbons ; Laboratories ; Natural resources ; Oil spills ; Quality assurance ; Research Article ; Sampling ; Scrub ; Sediments ; Solvents ; Statistical methods ; Waste Water Technology ; Water Management ; Water Pollution Control</subject><ispartof>Environmental science and pollution research international, 2021-07, Vol.28 (25), p.32310-32320</ispartof><rights>This is a U.S. government work and not under copyright protection in the U.S.; foreign copyright protection may apply 2021</rights><rights>This is a U.S. government work and not under copyright protection in the U.S.; foreign copyright protection may apply 2021.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c326t-e0e7af672f340c36e24f9530ec935ebd178808a27cf323237f9377bd407d8bdc3</cites><orcidid>0000-0003-2727-0505</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s11356-021-12896-9$$EPDF$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11356-021-12896-9$$EHTML$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925,41488,42557,51319</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33624247$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Pisarski, Emily C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wirth, Edward F.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pennington, Paul L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hartwell, Ian</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Shaddrix, Brian S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Whitall, David R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Apeti, Dennis A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Baker, Gregory</creatorcontrib><title>Assessment of the efficacy of six field cleaning protocols for hydrocarbon quantification</title><title>Environmental science and pollution research international</title><addtitle>Environ Sci Pollut Res</addtitle><addtitle>Environ Sci Pollut Res Int</addtitle><description>The defensibility of field sampling data collected in support of natural resource damage assessments and other environmental investigations depends on rigorous quality assurance and control both in the field and laboratory. One important step in field procedures is the cleaning of sampling equipment between samples to minimize the carryover of contaminants. Large-scale sampling efforts during the Deepwater Horizon oil spill event have highlighted the importance of understanding how multiple equipment cleaning protocols affect interstation cross-contamination and the resulting chemical data quality. In this study, six field cleaning techniques were tested on metal sampling equipment using two different sediment types spiked with crude oil in order to understand their relative and absolute effectiveness in reducing chemical carryover. The complexity of the cleaning protocols ranged from a simple water and scrub brush application to protocols that included soap and/or solvent. In this study, percent residual hydrocarbon transfer, relative to total loading in sediments, never exceeded 0.032%. The least labor-intensive protocol, water and scrub brush application, had the highest potential for hydrocarbon transfer (0.011–0.032%). Statistical differences were observed among treatments, and it was found that protocols containing a solvent step were more effective than protocols without solvents. Depending on the data quality objectives, the differences may not be meaningful, and choosing a cleaning technique should be governed by health, safety, and environmental factors. The residual hydrocarbons measured after equipment cleanings for all techniques in this study were negligible when compared with other variables that occur during routine sampling and laboratory activities.</description><subject>Aquatic Pollution</subject><subject>Atmospheric Protection/Air Quality Control/Air Pollution</subject><subject>Cleaning</subject><subject>Contaminants</subject><subject>Contamination</subject><subject>Crude oil</subject><subject>Damage assessment</subject><subject>Earth and Environmental Science</subject><subject>Ecotoxicology</subject><subject>Environment</subject><subject>Environmental Chemistry</subject><subject>Environmental factors</subject><subject>Environmental Health</subject><subject>Environmental science</subject><subject>Hydrocarbons</subject><subject>Laboratories</subject><subject>Natural resources</subject><subject>Oil spills</subject><subject>Quality assurance</subject><subject>Research Article</subject><subject>Sampling</subject><subject>Scrub</subject><subject>Sediments</subject><subject>Solvents</subject><subject>Statistical methods</subject><subject>Waste Water Technology</subject><subject>Water Management</subject><subject>Water Pollution Control</subject><issn>0944-1344</issn><issn>1614-7499</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2021</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kE1LAzEQhoMotlb_gAcJeI7ma5PNsRS_oOBFD55CNpu0W9pNm-yC_fembtWbzGEY5n3fGR4Argm-IxjL-0QIKwTClCBCSyWQOgFjIghHkit1CsZYcY4I43wELlJaYUyxovIcjBgTlFMux-BjmpJLaePaDgYPu6WDzvvGGrs_zKn5hL5x6xratTNt0y7gNoYu2LBO0IcIl_s6BmtiFVq4603bNQdz14T2Epx5s07u6tgn4P3x4W32jOavTy-z6RxZRkWHHHbSeCGpZxxbJhzlXhUMO6tY4aqayLLEpaHSekZzSa-YlFXNsazLqrZsAm6H3PzYrnep06vQxzaf1LTggmMqiyKr6KCyMaQUndfb2GxM3GuC9YGmHmjqTFN_09Qqm26O0X21cfWv5QdfFrBBkPKqXbj4d_uf2C8xboBe</recordid><startdate>20210701</startdate><enddate>20210701</enddate><creator>Pisarski, Emily C.</creator><creator>Wirth, Edward F.</creator><creator>Pennington, Paul L.</creator><creator>Hartwell, Ian</creator><creator>Shaddrix, Brian S.</creator><creator>Whitall, David R.</creator><creator>Apeti, Dennis A.</creator><creator>Baker, Gregory</creator><general>Springer Berlin Heidelberg</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QL</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>7T7</scope><scope>7TV</scope><scope>7U7</scope><scope>7WY</scope><scope>7WZ</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>87Z</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>88I</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8FL</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BEZIV</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>FRNLG</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>F~G</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K60</scope><scope>K6~</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>L.-</scope><scope>M0C</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M2P</scope><scope>M7N</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PATMY</scope><scope>PQBIZ</scope><scope>PQBZA</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PYCSY</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2727-0505</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20210701</creationdate><title>Assessment of the efficacy of six field cleaning protocols for hydrocarbon quantification</title><author>Pisarski, Emily C. ; Wirth, Edward F. ; Pennington, Paul L. ; Hartwell, Ian ; Shaddrix, Brian S. ; Whitall, David R. ; Apeti, Dennis A. ; Baker, Gregory</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c326t-e0e7af672f340c36e24f9530ec935ebd178808a27cf323237f9377bd407d8bdc3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2021</creationdate><topic>Aquatic Pollution</topic><topic>Atmospheric Protection/Air Quality Control/Air Pollution</topic><topic>Cleaning</topic><topic>Contaminants</topic><topic>Contamination</topic><topic>Crude oil</topic><topic>Damage assessment</topic><topic>Earth and Environmental Science</topic><topic>Ecotoxicology</topic><topic>Environment</topic><topic>Environmental Chemistry</topic><topic>Environmental factors</topic><topic>Environmental Health</topic><topic>Environmental science</topic><topic>Hydrocarbons</topic><topic>Laboratories</topic><topic>Natural resources</topic><topic>Oil spills</topic><topic>Quality assurance</topic><topic>Research Article</topic><topic>Sampling</topic><topic>Scrub</topic><topic>Sediments</topic><topic>Solvents</topic><topic>Statistical methods</topic><topic>Waste Water Technology</topic><topic>Water Management</topic><topic>Water Pollution Control</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Pisarski, Emily C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wirth, Edward F.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pennington, Paul L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hartwell, Ian</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Shaddrix, Brian S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Whitall, David R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Apeti, Dennis A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Baker, Gregory</creatorcontrib><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Bacteriology Abstracts (Microbiology B)</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Industrial and Applied Microbiology Abstracts (Microbiology A)</collection><collection>Pollution Abstracts</collection><collection>Toxicology Abstracts</collection><collection>Access via ABI/INFORM (ProQuest)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (PDF only)</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Public Health Database</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Agricultural &amp; Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (Corporate)</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Professional Advanced</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Science Database</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Environmental Science Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Business</collection><collection>ProQuest One Business (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><jtitle>Environmental science and pollution research international</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Pisarski, Emily C.</au><au>Wirth, Edward F.</au><au>Pennington, Paul L.</au><au>Hartwell, Ian</au><au>Shaddrix, Brian S.</au><au>Whitall, David R.</au><au>Apeti, Dennis A.</au><au>Baker, Gregory</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Assessment of the efficacy of six field cleaning protocols for hydrocarbon quantification</atitle><jtitle>Environmental science and pollution research international</jtitle><stitle>Environ Sci Pollut Res</stitle><addtitle>Environ Sci Pollut Res Int</addtitle><date>2021-07-01</date><risdate>2021</risdate><volume>28</volume><issue>25</issue><spage>32310</spage><epage>32320</epage><pages>32310-32320</pages><issn>0944-1344</issn><eissn>1614-7499</eissn><abstract>The defensibility of field sampling data collected in support of natural resource damage assessments and other environmental investigations depends on rigorous quality assurance and control both in the field and laboratory. One important step in field procedures is the cleaning of sampling equipment between samples to minimize the carryover of contaminants. Large-scale sampling efforts during the Deepwater Horizon oil spill event have highlighted the importance of understanding how multiple equipment cleaning protocols affect interstation cross-contamination and the resulting chemical data quality. In this study, six field cleaning techniques were tested on metal sampling equipment using two different sediment types spiked with crude oil in order to understand their relative and absolute effectiveness in reducing chemical carryover. The complexity of the cleaning protocols ranged from a simple water and scrub brush application to protocols that included soap and/or solvent. In this study, percent residual hydrocarbon transfer, relative to total loading in sediments, never exceeded 0.032%. The least labor-intensive protocol, water and scrub brush application, had the highest potential for hydrocarbon transfer (0.011–0.032%). Statistical differences were observed among treatments, and it was found that protocols containing a solvent step were more effective than protocols without solvents. Depending on the data quality objectives, the differences may not be meaningful, and choosing a cleaning technique should be governed by health, safety, and environmental factors. The residual hydrocarbons measured after equipment cleanings for all techniques in this study were negligible when compared with other variables that occur during routine sampling and laboratory activities.</abstract><cop>Berlin/Heidelberg</cop><pub>Springer Berlin Heidelberg</pub><pmid>33624247</pmid><doi>10.1007/s11356-021-12896-9</doi><tpages>11</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2727-0505</orcidid></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0944-1344
ispartof Environmental science and pollution research international, 2021-07, Vol.28 (25), p.32310-32320
issn 0944-1344
1614-7499
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_journals_2546402755
source SpringerLink Journals - AutoHoldings
subjects Aquatic Pollution
Atmospheric Protection/Air Quality Control/Air Pollution
Cleaning
Contaminants
Contamination
Crude oil
Damage assessment
Earth and Environmental Science
Ecotoxicology
Environment
Environmental Chemistry
Environmental factors
Environmental Health
Environmental science
Hydrocarbons
Laboratories
Natural resources
Oil spills
Quality assurance
Research Article
Sampling
Scrub
Sediments
Solvents
Statistical methods
Waste Water Technology
Water Management
Water Pollution Control
title Assessment of the efficacy of six field cleaning protocols for hydrocarbon quantification
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-21T08%3A13%3A42IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Assessment%20of%20the%20efficacy%20of%20six%20field%20cleaning%20protocols%20for%20hydrocarbon%20quantification&rft.jtitle=Environmental%20science%20and%20pollution%20research%20international&rft.au=Pisarski,%20Emily%20C.&rft.date=2021-07-01&rft.volume=28&rft.issue=25&rft.spage=32310&rft.epage=32320&rft.pages=32310-32320&rft.issn=0944-1344&rft.eissn=1614-7499&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s11356-021-12896-9&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2546402755%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2546402755&rft_id=info:pmid/33624247&rfr_iscdi=true