Environmental Technology Verification Program (ETV)

Table 4. Comparison between GC-TID field and GC-ECD laboratory (method 8095) results for explosives in solvent extracts of soil and sediment samples collected at the Umatilla Chemical Depot

Environmental Technology Verification Program (ETV) - continued - TR-01-90018

TR-01-9
Page Navigation
14

Table 5. ETV program GC-TID and reference laboratory accuracy

(% recovery) based on spiked soil samples (n = 20).

Reference laboratory*

*Reference laboratory used Method 8330.

trast, only two GC-TID values were outside of the ac-

cates (Table 7). This evaluation shows that the GC-TID

ceptance criteria range (Table 6). Therefore, the refer-

tended to be more precise. However, the ranges of the

ence laboratory showed a tendency to report individual

%RSDs were comparable.

values that were biased high even though their mean

Twenty blank soil samples were analyzed during the

recovery was approximately 100%. To assess precision,

ETV verification test. Five false positives (25%) were

the relative standard deviations were tabulated for all

obtained by the GC-TID for TNT, while the reference

of the sample quadruplicates (environmental and refer-

laboratory reported only two (10%) false positives for

ence samples) that had values reported above the de-

TNT (Table 8). Not taking into consideration the ap-

tection limit (0.5 mg/kg or above) for each of the repli-

parently aberrant value (Appendix A, Blank 2-Repli-

Table 6. Number of GC-TID and reference laboratory

spiked soil results within acceptance range set by Envi-

ronmental Resources Associates (ERA, Arvada, CO.).

Number of results within range*

laboratory†

Number of results within range

*Total number of samples spiked at each concentration n = 4.

†Reference Laboratory used Method 8330.

Western Governors University

Privacy Statement
Press Release
Contact

Integrated Publishing, Inc. - A (SDVOSB) Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business