determination of lead in dust wipes using field analytical technology
DESCRIPTION
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) - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
11
Determination of Lead in Determination of Lead in Dust Wipes using Field Dust Wipes using Field Analytical TechnologyAnalytical Technology
Presented byPresented by
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Office of Superfund U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation (OSRTI) and Remediation and Technology Innovation (OSRTI) and
Office of Research and Development (ORD) Office of Research and Development (ORD)
and the Department of Energy’s (DOE) and the Department of Energy’s (DOE) Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL)Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL)
22
Background Background Environmental Technology Environmental Technology
Verification ProgramVerification Program
Early 1990s - Need for environmental technology Early 1990s - Need for environmental technology verification identifiedverification identified Slow rate of innovation; poor U.S. marketsSlow rate of innovation; poor U.S. markets Lack of credibility of new technologiesLack of credibility of new technologies Inertia of system, risk aversion of purchasers and Inertia of system, risk aversion of purchasers and
permitterspermitters Burgeoning international marketBurgeoning international market
EPA initiates ETV in October, 1995 EPA initiates ETV in October, 1995
33
ETV ObjectivesETV Objectives Provide credible Provide credible performance dataperformance data for for
commercial environmental technologiescommercial environmental technologiesto aid to aid vendorsvendors in selling innovative technologies, in selling innovative technologies, purchaserspurchasers in making decisions to purchase in making decisions to purchase
innovative technologies, andinnovative technologies, and regulatorsregulators in making permitting decisions in making permitting decisions
regarding environmental technologies.regarding environmental technologies.
44
ETV SuccessesETV Successes 240 Verifications, 78 protocols240 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
55
ETVETV VerifiesVerifies onlyonly
Definition:Definition: Verify Verify is to determine performance is to determine performance under test plan defined conditions under test plan defined conditions NoNo winners or losers winners or losers NoNo approvals approvals NoNo certification certification NoNo pass or fail pass or fail NoNo guarantees guarantees
Responsibility rests with the technology user to Responsibility rests with the technology user to correctly choose and apply technologiescorrectly choose and apply technologies
66
Stakeholder RolesStakeholder Roles
Help set verification prioritiesHelp set verification priorities Review protocols and operating Review protocols and operating
proceduresprocedures Review other important documentsReview other important documents Assist in designing and conducting Assist in designing and conducting
outreach activitiesoutreach activities Serve as information conduits to Serve as information conduits to
their constituenciestheir constituencies
77
ETV CentersETV CentersETV ETV Air Pollution ControlAir Pollution Control Technology Center Technology Center
Research Triangle InstituteResearch Triangle InstituteETV ETV Drinking WaterDrinking Water Systems Center Systems Center
NSF InternationalNSF International ETV ETV Greenhouse GasGreenhouse Gas Technology Center Technology Center
Southern Research InstituteSouthern Research InstituteETV ETV Advanced MonitoringAdvanced Monitoring Systems Center Systems Center
BattelleBattelleETV ETV Water Quality ProtectionWater Quality Protection Center Center
NSF InternationalNSF InternationalETV- ETV- Building DecontaminationBuilding Decontamination Center Center
BattelleBattelleETV ETV P2 Coatings and Coating EquipmentP2 Coatings and Coating Equipment PilotPilot
Concurrent Technologies CorporationConcurrent Technologies Corporation
88
46 Verifications in 200346 Verifications in 2003AMS:AMS: 5 Arsenic Detection; 5 Mercury CEMs; 1 Onboard 5 Arsenic Detection; 5 Mercury CEMs; 1 Onboard Mobile Mobile Emission Emission Monitor; 1 Portable Multi-Gas Emission Monitor; 1 Portable Multi-Gas Emission Monitor; Monitor; 2 Multi-Parameter Water 2 Multi-Parameter Water Probes; 6 Cyanide Detection KitsProbes; 6 Cyanide Detection KitsSCMT:SCMT: 1 Lead in Dust; 2 Groundwater Sampling Devices 1 Lead in Dust; 2 Groundwater Sampling Devices APCT:APCT: 3 Mobile Source Devices3 Mobile Source DevicesGHG:GHG: 1 Fuel Cell; 2 Micro-turbine CHP; 1 Vehicle Axle 1 Fuel Cell; 2 Micro-turbine CHP; 1 Vehicle Axle Lubricant; 1 Natural Gas Dehydration Lubricant; 1 Natural Gas Dehydration DWS:DWS: 2 Filtration Technologies2 Filtration TechnologiesWQP:WQP: 5 Residential Nutrient Reduction Systems; 1 Animal Waste 5 Residential Nutrient Reduction Systems; 1 Animal Waste Treatment (Solids Separator); 3 UV DisinfectionTreatment (Solids Separator); 3 UV DisinfectionCCEP:CCEP: 1 Liquid Paint; 1 UV Curable Coating; 1 High Transfer 1 Liquid Paint; 1 UV Curable Coating; 1 High Transfer Efficiency Paint Efficiency Paint Spray GunSpray GunP2-MF:P2-MF: 1 Sludge Reduction 1 Sludge Reduction
99
Projections for 2004Projections for 2004
Over 80 verificationsOver 80 verifications half in base ETV half in base ETV half in homeland security technologieshalf in homeland security technologies
1010
ETV is partnering with ..ETV is partnering with .. US National Oceanic and Atmospheric AdministrationUS National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Multi-parameter water probesMulti-parameter water probes US Coast GuardUS Coast Guard
Ballast water treatmentBallast water treatment US Dept of Energy, State of MassachusettsUS Dept of Energy, State of Massachusetts
Continuous emission mercury monitorsContinuous emission mercury monitors US Dept of DefenseUS Dept of Defense
Monitors for explosives; PCBs in soils; dust suppressantsMonitors for explosives; PCBs in soils; dust suppressants States of Alaska, PennsylvaniaStates of Alaska, Pennsylvania
Drinking water arsenic treatment Drinking water arsenic treatment States/counties in Georgia, Kentucky, MichiganStates/counties in Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan
Storm water treatmentStorm water treatment States of New York, ColoradoStates of New York, Colorado
Waste to energyWaste to energy USDA USDA
Ambient ammonia monitorsAmbient ammonia monitors
1111
www.epa.gov/etvwww.epa.gov/etv
Note: There were 76,588 total hits and 7,075 international hits in September 2003.
International HitsTotal Hits
(1999) (2000) (2001)
Hit
s/Q
uar
ter
(2002) (2003)(1998)
0
40,000
80,000
120,000
160,000
200,000
1st 3rd 1st 3rd 1st 3rd 1st 3rd 1st 3rd 1st 3rd
1212
Getting to ETV OutcomesGetting to ETV OutcomesMeasuring outputs to outcomesMeasuring outputs to outcomes
Number of protocols and verificationsNumber of protocols and verifications Value placed on ETV by vendors in Value placed on ETV by vendors in
selling and innovating technologyselling and innovating technology Value to potential purchasers; Value to potential purchasers;
influence of ETV on purchase influence of ETV on purchase decisionsdecisions
Use of better technologies; reduced Use of better technologies; reduced emissions because of ETVemissions because of ETV
Reduced exposure; reduced risk Reduced exposure; reduced risk because of ETVbecause of ETV
Improved health/environmental quality Improved health/environmental quality because of ETVbecause of ETV
Outputs
Outcomes
1313
Technology developers analyze Technology developers analyze randomized samples under field randomized samples under field
conditions.conditions.
Samples are collected, homogenized, labeled, and assembled for distribution.
Product is report and verification statement.
Experimental Plan
Statisticians
Chemists
Project Officers
Stakeholders
Overview of Environmental Technology Verification Overview of Environmental Technology Verification ProcessProcess
Developers
1414
Lead in Dust:Lead in Dust:Rationale for Performance VerificationRationale for Performance Verification
““Childhood lead poisoning remains a major Childhood lead poisoning remains a major preventable environmental health problem in the preventable environmental health problem in the United States.”United States.”
- Centers for Disease Control and Prevention- Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
““Children are most frequently lead poisoned by Children are most frequently lead poisoned by household lead paint dust.”household lead paint dust.”
- - Massachusetts Dept of Public HealthMassachusetts Dept of Public Health
1515
Selection of the Most Appropriate Selection of the Most Appropriate Material to TestMaterial to Test
Technical panel prioritized current industry Technical panel prioritized current industry needs for evaluation of field technologies needs for evaluation of field technologies
for detection of lead as:for detection of lead as:
DUSTDUST PAINTPAINT SOILSOIL
Greatest need
1616
Fundamental Issue:Fundamental Issue:Can Field Analytical Technology be Used to Can Field Analytical Technology be Used to
Facilitate Home Reuse Following Facilitate Home Reuse Following Remediation?Remediation?
1717
Why “dust wipes” versus “bulk Why “dust wipes” versus “bulk dust”?dust”?
Wipe sampling estimates Wipe sampling estimates surface lead loadingsurface lead loading g of lead per unit areag of lead per unit area
Risk-based dust-lead loading Risk-based dust-lead loading standards established based on standards established based on dust wipe samplingdust wipe sampling
Testing under the NLLAP is Testing under the NLLAP is restricted to dust wipes.restricted to dust wipes.
Readily available ELPAT Readily available ELPAT samples with certified samples with certified concentrationsconcentrations ““Real-world” samples of Real-world” samples of
known contentknown content
1818
What were the regulatory drivers What were the regulatory drivers for this dust wipe testing?for this dust wipe testing?
ETV tests provide information on potential ETV tests provide information on potential applicability of field technologies for clearance applicability of field technologies for clearance testing.testing.
Relevancy to clearance levelsRelevancy to clearance levels††
40 40 g/ftg/ft22 floors floors 250 250 g/ftg/ft22 window sills window sills 400 400 g/ftg/ft22 window troughs window troughs
ApplicationsApplications Clearance testingClearance testing Risk assessmentRisk assessment
† Identification of dangerous levels of lead, Final Rule, 1/5/01, 40 CFR 745.65
1919
How did we arrive at this How did we arrive at this experimental design?experimental design?
Technical Panel
EPA HUDAIHA
Massachusetts
NISTNIOSH
RTI
VENDORS
ORNL
2020
How did we arrive at How did we arrive at 160 samples?160 samples?
Looked at all of the archived ELPAT Looked at all of the archived ELPAT samples; selections based on samples; selections based on concentration and number of concentration and number of samples availablesamples available
Requested newly-prepared samples Requested newly-prepared samples to focus on particular clearances to focus on particular clearances levels (40, 250, 400 levels (40, 250, 400 g)g)
Implemented statistically-balanced Implemented statistically-balanced design of four replicatesdesign of four replicates
2121
Determining the Number of Blank Determining the Number of Blank Samples to Evaluate False Positive Samples to Evaluate False Positive
Error RateError Rate
Number of Blank Samples
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40
Up
pe
r 9
5%
Co
nfi
de
nc
e I
nte
rva
l
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
Positive Error = 0 Positive Error = 1Positive Error = 2
Confidence in the estimate of the
false positive error rate increases as
more blank samples are evaluated.
2222
050
100150200250300350400450500
0 5 10 15 20 25
Sample Number
Tes
t Lev
el (u
g pe
r w
ipe)
Attention to Clearance LevelsAttention to Clearance Levels
Clearance levels
Four replicate samples analyzed for each test level.
2323
Testing Venues Focused on Where Testing Venues Focused on Where the Interest Liesthe Interest Lies
2424
Two Very Different Analytical Two Very Different Analytical Techniques VerifiedTechniques Verified
Portable X-ray fluorescencePortable X-ray fluorescence Portable anodic stripping voltammetryPortable anodic stripping voltammetry
2525
Vendors That Participated in the Vendors That Participated in the Lead in Dust ETV TestsLead in Dust ETV Tests
Niton Corporation (3 XRF systems)Niton Corporation (3 XRF systems) Monitoring Technologies International (ASV)Monitoring Technologies International (ASV) Palintest (ASV)Palintest (ASV) Key Master Technologies/EDAX (XRF) Key Master Technologies/EDAX (XRF)
2626
Anodic Stripping Voltammetry for Anodic Stripping Voltammetry for Determination of LeadDetermination of Lead
Anodic stripping voltammograms for the Anodic stripping voltammograms for the sample and two standard additions of 50 sample and two standard additions of 50 ppb Pb(II). Deposition potential = -600 ppb Pb(II). Deposition potential = -600
mV; deposition time = 1 min.; quiet time = mV; deposition time = 1 min.; quiet time = 10 sec. S.W. frequency = 15 Hz; step 10 sec. S.W. frequency = 15 Hz; step
potential = 4 mV; potential = 4 mV;
S.W. amplitude = 25 mVS.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.
2727
Anodic Stripping VoltammetryAnodic Stripping Voltammetry
AdvantagesAdvantages Low capital costLow capital cost Disposable materialDisposable material Very high sample throughputVery high sample throughput
DisadvantagesDisadvantages Generates small amounts of chemical wasteGenerates small amounts of chemical waste
2828
X-Ray FluorescenceX-Ray FluorescenceExposing metallic materials to high energy x-rays stimulates ejection of electronsthe energies of which provide information concerning the identity of the metal in
question.
2929
X-Ray FluorescenceX-Ray Fluorescence
AdvantagesAdvantages Non-destructive analysisNon-destructive analysis Produces no chemical wasteProduces no chemical waste Good sample throughputGood sample throughput
DisadvantagesDisadvantages High capital costHigh capital cost May need radiation source licenseMay need radiation source license
3030
NITON XL300NITON XL300
0
5
10
15
20
25
ELP AT Samples UC Samples
NITON 300
Ref Lab
Precision
75
80
85
90
95
100
105
110
115
120
125
ELP AT Samples UC Samples
NITON 300
Ref Lab
Accuracy
Less is better
Ideal
3131
NITON XL300NITON XL300
Clearance Clearance LevelLevel
µg/wipeµg/wipe
UC UC Samples,Samples,
µg/wipeµg/wipe
ELPAT ELPAT Samples,Samples,
µg/wipeµg/wipe
4040 3939 4242
250250 224224 213213
400400 346346 303303
Reported Concentrations at Clearance Levels
True Pb Concentration (ug/wipe)
30 35 40 45 50P
r(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
DataChemNiton XL-300
Probabilities of False Negatives
3232
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 ELPAT Samples); 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.
3333
NITON XL700NITON XL700
75
80
85
90
95
100
105
110
115
120
125
ELP AT Samples UC Samples
NITON XL700
Ref Lab
0
5
10
15
20
25
ELP AT Samples UC Samples
NITON XL 700
Ref Lab
Accuracy
Precision
Less is better
Ideal
3434
NITON XL700NITON XL700
Clearance Clearance LevelLevel
µg/wipeµg/wipe
UC UC Samples,Samples,
µg/wipeµg/wipe
ELPAT ELPAT Samples,Samples,
µg/wipeµg/wipe
4040 4242 4949
250250 276276 272272
400400 431431 372372True Pb Concentration (ug/wipe)
30 35 40 45 50
Pr(
Rep
ort
< 4
0 g
iven
Tru
e P
b)
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
3535
NITON XL700NITON XL700
Comparability: R = 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): 7% ( 2 of 28 ELPAT); 8% (2 of 26 UC samples) [25% and 77% for Reference Laboratory]
Reporting limit: 15 µg/wipe
Throughput (1 analyst): 30 - 60 samples/12 hr day
Statistically significant positive bias (“penalty” for high precision) but within acceptable bias range.
3636
NITON XLt 700NITON XLt 700
75
80
85
90
95
100
105
110
115
120
125
ELP AT Samples UC Samples
NITON XL700
Ref Lab
0
5
10
15
20
25
ELP AT Samples UC Samples
NITON XL 700
Ref Lab
AccuracyPrecision
Less is betterIdeal
3737
NITON XLt 700NITON XLt 700
Comparability: R = 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): 29% ( 8 of 28 ELPAT); 43% (10 of 23 UC samples) [25% and 77% for Reference Laboratory]
Reporting limit: 10 µg/wipe
Throughput (2 analysts): 45 - 50 samples/10 hr day
Statistically significant negative bias (“penalty” for high precision) but within acceptable bias range.
3838
True Pb Concentration (ug/wipe)
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55P
r(R
epo
rt <
40
giv
en T
rue
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
NITON XLt 700NITON XLt 700
Clearance Clearance LevelLevel
µg/wipeµg/wipe
UC UC Samples,Samples,
µg/wipeµg/wipe
ELPAT ELPAT Samples,Samples,
µg/wipeµg/wipe
4040 4242 4242
250250 232232 234234
400400 371371 361361
Reported Concentrations at Clearance Levels
Probabilities of False Negatives
3939
Keymaster Pb-Test XRFKeymaster Pb-Test XRF
75
95
115
135
155
175
195
ELP ATSamples
UC Samples
Keymaster P bTest
Ref Lab
Keymaster >200ug/wipe
0
5
10
15
20
25
ELP AT Samples UC Samples
Keymaster P bTest
Ref Lab
Accuracy Precision
Less is betterIdeal
4040
True Pb Concentration (ug/wipe)
35 40 45 50P
r(R
epo
rt <
40
giv
en T
rue
Pb
)0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
DataChem
Pb-Test
Keymaster Pb Test XRFKeymaster Pb Test XRF
Clearance Clearance LevelLevel
µg/wipeµg/wipe
UC UC Samples,Samples,
µg/wipeµg/wipe
ELPAT ELPAT Samples,Samples,
µg/wipeµg/wipe
4040 118118 9999
250250 275275 254254
400400 365365 248248
Reported Concentrations at Clearance Levels
Probabilities of False Negatives
Due to the positive biasat low lead levels, there was nochance of a false negative Response at the 40 µg/wipe level
4141
Keymaster Pb Test XRFKeymaster Pb Test XRF
Comparability: R = 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): 29% ( 8 of 28 ELPAT); 32% (7 of 22 UC samples) [25% and 77% for Reference Laboratory]
Reporting limit: 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 µg/wipe; acceptable precision.
4242
MTI PDV 5000MTI PDV 5000
75
80
85
90
95
100
105
110
115
120
125
ELP AT Samples UC Samples
P DV 5000
Ref Lab
0
5
10
15
20
25
ELP AT Samples UC Samples
P DV 5000
Ref Lab
AccuracyPrecision
Less is betterIdeal
4343
True Pb Concentration (ug/wipe)
25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200P
r(R
epo
rt <
40
giv
en T
rue
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
MTI PDV 5000MTI PDV 5000
Clearance Clearance LevelLevel
µg/wipeµg/wipe
UC UC Samples,Samples,
µg/wipeµg/wipe
ELPAT ELPAT Samples,Samples,
µg/wipeµg/wipe
4040 2929 4444
250250 240240 213213
400400 375375 258258
Reported Concentrations at Clearance Levels
Probabilities of False Negatives
4444
MTI PDV 5000MTI PDV 5000
Comparability: R = 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]
Reporting limit: < 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 relationship between PDV 5000 response and that of comparable lab method.
4545
PalintestPalintestScanning Analyzer Scanning Analyzer SA-5000 SA-5000
75
80
85
90
95
100
105
110
ELP AT Samples UC Samples
SA-5000
Ref Lab
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
ELP AT Samples UC Samples
SA-5000
Ref Lab
AccuracyPrecision
Less is better
Ideal
4646
True Pb Concentration (ug/wipe)
35 40 45 50 55 60P
r( R
epo
rt <
40
giv
en T
rue
Pb
)0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
DataChemPalintest
PalintestPalintestScanning Analyzer SA-5000 Scanning Analyzer SA-5000
Clearance Clearance LevelLevel
µg/wipeµg/wipe
UC UC Samples,Samples,
µg/wipeµg/wipe
ELPAT ELPAT Samples,Samples,
µg/wipeµg/wipe
4040 3535 3636
250250 189189 221221
400400 308308 372372
Reported Concentrations at Clearance Levels
Probabilities of False Negatives
4747
PalintestPalintestScanning Analyzer SA-5000 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 ELPAT Samples); 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.
4848
ETV Program does NOT make ETV Program does NOT make Head to Head comparisons of Head to Head comparisons of
technologies, because there are technologies, because there are needs for a variety of tools in the needs for a variety of tools in the environmental technology toolboxenvironmental technology toolbox
4949
Asking: “What is the Best Asking: “What is the Best Technology?” is Like Asking “What Technology?” is Like Asking “What is the Best Vehicle to Purchase?”is the Best Vehicle to Purchase?”
It depends on what you need!It depends on what you need!
Sports car vs. MiniVan
PS: Your mileage may vary
5050
Upcoming Technology Verifications Upcoming Technology Verifications by the Advance Monitoring Systems by the Advance Monitoring Systems
CenterCenter
More rounds of arsenic test kits for waterMore rounds of arsenic test kits for water Multi-parameter water monitorsMulti-parameter water monitors Ambient ammonia monitors for animal feed Ambient ammonia monitors for animal feed
operationsoperations Ammonia continuous emission monitorsAmmonia continuous emission monitors Immunoassay kits for anthrax, botulinum toxin, Immunoassay kits for anthrax, botulinum toxin,
& ricin& ricin PCR kits for anthrax, plague, Tularemia, PCR kits for anthrax, plague, Tularemia,
BrucellosisBrucellosis
5151
Thank YouThank You
After viewing the links to additional resources, please complete our online feedback form.
Thank You
Links to Additional ResourcesLinks to Additional Resources