TestAmerica Introduces TotalAccess 4.0 with Enhanced Reporting and Search Capabilities Built for Speed

TestAmerica announces the launch of TotalAccess 4.0, the most powerful online data management solution in the industry. With enhancement to reporting and search capabilities, and a new architecture design to provide faster data access, TotalAccess 4.0 is an essential tool for all analytical data projects.

TotalAccess 4.0 delivers key improvements to its end-users, surpassing performance requirements and leading-edge technology in the market. The developments in this release include: a dashboard homepage offering access to all documents from one location, enhanced reporting and filtering tools, enabling one click filtering and multi-project consolidated reporting.

Additional enhancements include:

• Quicklinks auto-fill search lookups make locating data records a snap,
• Multi-project reporting capabilities available with the trending tools, and
• Expanded regulatory limits comparison function to enable easy clone and customization of individual lists to fit the user’s project.

The TotalAccess tool is available to all TestAmerica clients, providing them with secure, 24/7 access to all of their project-related data information. Clients may request a live demonstration by contacting an Account Executive or Project Manager, or can sign up for TotalAccess online.

About TestAmerica
TestAmerica is the leading environmental testing firm in the United States, with over 90 locations providing innovative technical expertise and comprehensive analytical testing services. Specialty analyses include source, ambient and indoor air, water quality and aquatic toxicity, compliance, desalination, shale gas, specialty organics, emergency response, industrial hygiene, dioxins, drinking water, sediments and tissues, PPCPs and emerging contaminants, explosives, Federal/DoD, and radiochemistry and mixed waste testing.

TestAmerica affiliate companies include EMLab P&K, the leader in analytical microscopy and indoor air quality; QED Environmental Systems, Inc., the leading supplier of groundwater sampling equipment and remediation pumping systems; and TestAmerica Air Emissions Corp. (METCO Environmental), specializing in air emissions testing. TestAmerica currently employs nearly 2,800 professionals dedicated to exceptional service and solutions for our clients’ environmental testing needs.

Ask The Expert: Heterotrophic Plate Count Analysis

Ask the Expert Question:
What is the purpose of the Heterotrophic Plate Count (HPC) analysis and is it a replacement for Total Coliform analysis? What are the action limits for the HPC analysis?

TestAmerica Expert: Alex Spears


Expert's Response:
The purpose of the HPC (heterotrophic plate count) test is to determine the total heterotrophic (environmental) bacteria load present in the water sample, and is not used in lieu of the total coliform test, as the total (and fecal) coliform tests are used in determining the possible presence of pathogens in the water. The EPA action limit for potable (drinking) water is 500 cfu/mL. More information about the EPA guidelines and action limits can be found at http://water.epa.gov/drink/contaminants/index.cfm#3.

View Alex Spears's expert profile

TestAmerica Indianapolis is the Latest Addition to Midwest Facilities

TestAmerica Laboratories, Inc. announces the opening of a new location, TestAmerica Indianapolis, which will facilitate organizing on-time sample delivery and local access to TestAmerica’s regional laboratories in Valparaiso, IN, Chicago, IL, Dayton, OH, as well as its nationwide network of laboratories for specialty analyses including air, dioxins, sediments and a vast array of analytical capabilities.

TestAmerica Indianapolis offers clients support for sample bottle pick-up and delivery in the Metro Indianapolis area. The staff will coordinate the shipping of samples within TestAmerica’s network of specialty laboratories to meet any client’s analytical needs.

Ms. Melissa Hamer-Bailey has assumed the role as the TestAmerica Indianapolis Manager. Ms. Hamer-Bailey has extensive experience in the environmental testing industry, serving as a professional environmental consultant, Board Member to the Indiana Alliance of Hazardous Materials Professionals, and Senior Environmental Manager at the Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM), in her previous roles. Ms. Hamer-Bailey has developed applied expertise in the areas of quality assurance, sampling and analysis plan development, risk assessment and management.

“TestAmerica is excited to expand our service and support to the Indianapolis area to provide both new and existing clients more convenient access to our network of analytical offerings. We are also pleased to have Ms. Hamer-Bailey join our team. She brings to TestAmerica her expertise in both the regulatory and consulting aspects of our industry to assist our clients in their project needs,” states TestAmerica’s General Manager of Midwest Operations, Rusty Vicinie.

For additional information on the services available, please contact TestAmerica Indianapolis at (317) 264-9686.

About TestAmerica
TestAmerica is the leading environmental testing firm in the United States, with over 90 locations providing innovative technical expertise and comprehensive analytical testing services. Specialty analyses include source, ambient and indoor air, water quality and aquatic toxicity, compliance, desalination, shale gas, specialty organics, emergency response, industrial hygiene, dioxins, drinking water, sediments and tissues, PPCPs and emerging contaminants, explosives, Federal/DoD, and radiochemistry and mixed waste testing.

TestAmerica affiliate companies include EMLab P&K, the leader in analytical microscopy and indoor air quality; QED Environmental Systems, Inc., the leading supplier of groundwater sampling equipment and remediation pumping systems; and TestAmerica Air Emissions Corp. (METCO Environmental), specializing in air emissions testing. TestAmerica currently employs nearly 2,800 professionals dedicated to exceptional service and solutions for our clients’ environmental testing needs.

Visit TestAmerica at the NEBC's 15th Annual Business & the Environment Conference

November 8-9, 2011
Portland, Oregon
www.businessandenvironment.org

TestAmerica is the leading environmental testing firm, providing comprehensive analytical testing, including analyses for sediments, drinking water, PCB, and dioxin/furan. TestAmerica companies provide services in indoor air, air emissions, and remediation products.

Stop by Booth # 45 to learn more about:

TestAmerica's DoD ELAP Accreditation

Northwest and Alaska TPH methods (VPH and EPH)

Sediment testing and supported programs

Specialty analytical techniques for the Pacific Northwest Region

Call for more information on TestAmerica's technical expertise and capabilities:
Portland Laboratory
(503) 906-9200

Seattle Laboratory
(253) 922-2310

Spokane Laboratory
(509) 924-9200

Ask The Expert: Indoor Mold Issues

Ask the Expert Question (1 of 3):
Does a wall area of 2'x2' of Stachybotrys or Aspergillus need to be contained?

TestAmerica Expert: Ariunaa Jalsrai


Expert's Response:
Indoor growth of Aspergillus, Stachybotrys, and other indicator fungi of water damaged environments warrants a risk assessment, which usually requires future investigation. Mold exposure does not always present a health problem indoors. However, some people are sensitive to molds. These people may experience symptoms such as nasal congestion, eye irritation, wheezing, or skin irritation when exposed to molds. Severe reactions may include fever and shortness of breath. Immunocompromised persons and persons with chronic lung diseases are at increased risk for opportunistic infections and may develop fungal infections in their lungs.

I am not an industrial hygienist; however, I would recommend removing the mold growth from the wall.

Question # 2 of 3:
The indoor air has 5 times more mold (Aspergillus) than the outdoors. Is this normal or anything to worry about?

Expert's Response:

Molds are very common in buildings and homes and will grow anywhere indoors where there is moisture. The most common indoor molds are Cladosporium, Penicillium and Aspergillus. In the indoor environment, Aspergillus can be found in household dust, building materials, ornamental plants, flower arrangements, tobacco, food and water. Some Aspergillus species can cause adverse health effects.

Approximately 20 species of Aspergillus have been reported as causative agents of opportunistic infections in humans. Aspergillus fumigatus is the most important opportunist and is commonly encountered in hospitals as well as other environments. Other species, such as A. flavus, A. terreus, A. niger, and A. nidulans, can also cause human infections. I would recommend performing speciation of Aspergillus.

Question # 3 of 3:
Should we mix the bleach a little stronger, say 1 part bleach to 5 parts of water or would the standard of 1 part bleach to 10 parts water be OK?

Expert's Response:
I am not a professional hygienist, so I could not answer this question, but The CDC provides excellent on-line resources: http://www.cdc.gov/mold/stachy.htm.

For example, mold growth can be removed from hard surfaces with commercial products, soap and water, or a bleach solution of no more than 1 cup of bleach in 1 gallon of water.

View Dr. Ariunaa Jalsrai's expert profile

Thermite Reaction from a Plane Crash

Ask the Expert Question:
Could the friction from a plane crash generate enough energy to start a thermite reaction?

TestAmerica Expert: Larry Penfold


Expert's Response:
Thermite reactions are chemical reactions between a zero valence metal and a metal oxide. The one I remember from my school days involved iron oxide (rust) and powdered aluminum, which requires an ignition source with a temperature of something like 2,500 to 3,000 degrees Centigrade. The reaction generates a lot of heat quickly and, unlike a paper fire, doesn’t need any air to keep it going. The oxygen that sustains the burning is coming from the iron oxide. It’s a chemistry experiment that requires extra fire precautions - I can remember a demonstration given by one of my university chemistry professors that was much more exciting than he expected.

In regards to a plane crash, the total energy of an airplane crash is certainly more than enough to start a thermite reaction. A little Fourth of July sparkler is enough if all of the ingredients are carefully prepared in the right proportions, and it is the question about the right proportions that is the key to the answer to your question.

I would guess that the aluminum skin in the nose of the crashing airplane could simply melt and burn in the atmosphere without any metal oxide being present. In other words, a spray of high temperature aluminum combining rapidly with the oxygen in the air is a likely reaction. Spontaneous combustion of materials in air is sometimes called a pyrophoric reaction, not quite the same as a thermite reaction. If there were some iron rust present where the aluminum from the nose of the plane is burning, then it could add its oxygen to the burning and there would be a little bit of a thermite reaction going on. But unless there almost as much rust as aluminum, I wouldn’t think that would be the main effect because the ratio of the ingredients, the stoichiometry, is not right.

View Larry Penfold's expert profile

EPA Releases Final Health Assessment for TCE

WASHINGTON – The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) today released the final health assessment for trichloroethylene (TCE) to the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) database.  IRIS is a human health assessment program that evaluates the latest science on chemicals in our environment. The final assessment characterizes the chemical as carcinogenic to humans and as a human noncancer health hazard. This assessment will also allow for a better understanding of the risks posed to communities from exposure to TCE in soil, water and air. It will provide federal, state, local and other policy makers with the latest scientific information to make decisions about cleanup and other actions to protect people's health. 

"This assessment is an important first step, providing valuable information to the state, local and federal agencies responsible for protecting the health of the American people," said Paul Anastas, assistant administrator for the EPA's Office of Research and Development. "It underscores the importance of EPA's science and, in particular, the critical value of the IRIS database for ensuring that government officials and the American people have the information they need to protect their health and the health of their children."

TCE is one of the most common man-made chemicals found in the environment. It is a volatile chemical and a widely used chlorinated solvent. Frequently found at Superfund sites across the country, TCE’s movement from contaminated ground water and soil, into the indoor air of overlying buildings, is of serious concern. EPA already has drinking water standards for TCE and standards for cleaning up TCE at Superfund sites throughout the country.

TCE toxicity values as reported in the assessment will be considered in:

·         Establishing cleanup methods at the 761 Superfund sites where TCE has been identified as a contaminant

·         Understanding the risk from vapor intrusion as TCE vapors move from contaminated groundwater and soil into the indoor air of overlying buildings

·         Revising EPA’s Maximum Contaminant Level for TCE as part of the carcinogenic volatile organic compounds group in drinking water, as described in the agency’s drinking water strategy

·         Developing appropriate regulatory standards limiting the atmospheric emissions of TCE – a hazardous air pollutant under the Clean Air Act

This assessment has undergone several levels of peer review including, agency review, interagency review, public comment, external peer review by EPA’s Science Advisory Board in January 2011, and a scientific consultation review in 2006 by the National Academy of Sciences. Comments from all reviewers are addressed in the final assessment.

EPA continues to strengthen IRIS as part of an ongoing effort to ensure concrete research and science are used to protect human health and the environment. In May 2009, EPA restructured the IRIS program to reinforce independent review and ensure the timely publication of assessments. In July 2011, EPA announced further changes to strengthen the IRIS program in response to recommendations from the National Academy of Sciences. EPA’s peer review process is designed to elicit the strongest possible critique to ensure that each final IRIS assessment reflects sound, rigorous science.

More information on IRIS: http://www.epa.gov/IRIS

Exposure Assessment Planning

Ask the Expert Webinar Series
September 15, 2011
1:30 P.M. EST

Exposure assessments are conducted for a variety of reasons. The design of the strategy should be consistent with the underlying purpose of the assessment and how the resulting data will be used. Collecting samples without fully understanding how the results will be utilized and communicated can result in obtaining information that maybe misinterpreted or misleading. Prior to collecting field samples, it is necessary to clearly understand the purpose and objectives of sampling projects.

The purpose of the data collection, in conjunction with the availability and cost of field and laboratory analytic techniques, as well as the time sensitivity of the results, will determine the overall sampling strategy. This presentation provides a basic overview of the planning elements that are important to conducting a productive, cost effective and successful exposure assessment.

Register Now for the presentation



Visit TestAmerica at the 2011 SAME Missouri River/ TEXOMA Regional Conference

August 23-25, 2011

Downtown Marriott

Kansas City, MO

TestAmerica has more than 20 years of technical and industry experience with the analysis of trace explosives and compounds unique to the military, supporting hundreds of special projects under various programs domestically and internationally.

TestAmerica provides analytical testing to assist with clean-up activities for a variety of clients, regulatory officials, and stakeholders from every segment of the Department of Defense, and is the nation’s:

• Only network with 13 DoD QSM Compliant laboratories
• First laboratory to receive USACE approval for Method 8330B in support of MRP
• First laboratory to be DoD ELAP accredited
• Leader in developing applications of Incremental Sampling Methodology (ISM) to an expanding range of chemicals of interest to the DoD.

Stop by Booth # 105 to learn more about TestAmerica’s:

• DoD ELAP accredited laboratories
• ISM expertise and capabilities - 8330B and beyond
• Methods for conventional explosives and the new insensitive munitions constituents

Sign up now for our free webinar on Insensitive Munitions Constituents on Thursday, August 25th at 1:30 P.M. EST.

Pharmaceutical and Personal Care Products Challenges in Non-Conventional Matrices

Ask the Expert Webinar Series
August 18, 2011
1:30 P.M. EST


Pharmaceuticals and personal care products (PPCPs) represent a large subset of contaminants of emerging concern labeled as endocrine disruptors. The endocrine system is a balanced network of glands and hormones that regulates developmental activities such as growth, behavior, metabolism, intelligence, sexual development, and the ability to reproduce as well as many other functions. To date, many studies have characterized the PPCP contamination in rivers and lakes across the country, and as the effects of these contaminates are unfolding, researchers are looking beyond water ways for these chemicals.

TestAmerica continues to partner with public and private researchers looking for PPCPs as they pass from non-point sources into sensitive ecosystems. Our method development has expanded our PPCP testing capabilities into sediment and tissue samples to find these contaminants where endocrine disruption is occurring. Making the leap from testing water to more complex matrices requires solutions for increased matrix related interferences and extraction enhancements that effectively remove the target compounds from the sample. Our success with complex matrices is helping answer difficult questions where PPCP contamination may be lurking.

Register Now for the presentation

NORM Issues in Oil and Gas Exploration

Ask the Experts Webinar Series
August 4th, 2011
1:30pm EST

With radiation in space and beneath the surface of the earth, we live our lives in peace and harmony with our environment while surrounded by radiation. However, what risks do we take when we drill into the earth's surface for precious natural resources such as shale oil and gas?

Naturally Occurring Radioactive Material (NORM) as well as a variety of radioactive elements are present within the earth's crust at a relatively shallow depth. When drilling and mining exploration activities take place, these radioactive elements enter our waste streams and present challenges for the operators and regulators alike.

Register Now for the presentation

Calculation of a Metals Oxide Compound using a Metals Analysis

Ask the Expert Question:
Can an Oxide of a metal (i.e. Barium Oxide) be determined by running a metals analysis for barium and then using a calculation to get barium oxide?

Experts Response:
The calculation is pretty straightforward, but it does involve some assumptions.

We will start with the example you cited with barium. Barium has an atomic weight of 137.34, and it normally has an oxidation state of +2. It is one of the alkaline earth metals in the second column of the periodic table, and all of these metals tend to have an oxidation state of +2. In minerals oxygen always has an oxidation state of -2. As a result, one barium atom will combine with one oxygen atom to create barium oxide, BaO. Barium oxide has a molecular weight of 137.34 + 16 (for the oxygen) which equals 153.34. If we assume that all the barium is in the oxide form, then the barium oxide concentration is as follows.

Ba concentration x (153.34/137.34) = BaO concentration

This case is pretty straightforward. With iron, however, you also end up making an assumption about the oxidation state of the metal. You could have Fe in either the +2 or +3 state. The resulting oxides would either be FeO (is Fe is in the +2 state) or Fe2O3 (if Fe is in the +3 state.). If you are calculating these as oxides, I think it is reasonable to assume that the metals are fully oxidized, so we will use the +3 state.

For iron, we will calculate the ratio of the molecular weight of Fe2O3 over the amount of iron in each molecule (2 atoms). Iron has an atomic weight of 55.847.

Molecular weight of Fe2O3 = (2 x 55.847) + (3 x 16) = 150.694

Weight of iron = 2 x 55.847 = 111.694

So, like the barium example above, here is the calculation to determine the amount of Fe2O3 based on the measured Fe concentration.

Fe concentration x (150.694 / 111.694) = Fe2O3 concentration

NOTE: These calculations would present the maximum possible concentration of barium oxide – for example if the sample contained barium sulfate or barium carbonate (or any other form of barium) then the concentration of barium oxide would be overstated.

View Dr. Charlie Carter's expert profile
View Dr. Richard Burrow's expert profile

Analysis of Flue Gas Desulfurization wastewaters b y Agilent 7700x ICP-MS

Application Note

Authors:
Richard Burrows – TestAmerica Laboratories Inc. USA
Steve Wilbur – Agilent Technologies Inc. USA

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) is in the process of revising effluent guidelines for the steam electric power generating industry, due to increases in wastewater discharges as a result of Phase 2 of the Clean Air Act amendments. These regulations require SO2 scrubbing for most coal-fired plants resulting in “Flue Gas Desulfurization” (FGD) wastewaters. The revised effluent guidelines will apply to plants “primarily engaged in the generation of electricity for distribution and sale which results primarily from a process utilizing fossil-type fuel (coal, oil or gas) or nuclear fuel in conjunction with a thermal cycle employing the steam water system as a thermodynamic medium. “ [1]. This includes most large scale power plants in the United States. Effluents from these plants, especially coal-fired plants, can contain several hundred to several thousand ppm of calcium, magnesium, manganese, sodium, boron, chloride, nitrate and sulfate. Measurement of low ppb levels of toxic metals (including As, Cd, Cr, Cu, Pb Se, Tl, V and Zn) in this matrix presents a challenge for ICP-MS, due to the very high dissolved solids levels and potential interferences from matrix-based polyatomic ions. Furthermore, FGD wastewater can vary significantly from plant to plant depending on the type and capacity of the boiler and scrubber, the type of FGD process used, and the composition of the coal, limestone and make-up water used. As a result, FGD wastewater represents the most challenging of samples for ICP-MS; it is very high in elements known to cause matrix interferences, and also highly variable. To address this difficult analytical challenge, in 2009 the EPA commissioned the development of a new ICP-MS method specifically for FGD wastewaters. This method was developed and validated at TestAmerica Laboratories Inc. using an Agilent 7700x ICP-MS equipped with an Agilent ISIS-DS discrete sampling system.

Review the White Paper on this new method here >>>>

Petroleum Biomarker Analysis to Support Forensic and Risk Investigations

Ask the Expert Webinar Series
July 21, 2011
1:30pm EST

This presentation provides an introduction into the analytical methodologies used to detect petroleum biomarkers and a review of their utilization in supporting petroleum release forensics.

Nothing sparks concerns about contaminates in the environment quite like a petroleum release. Unfortunately, the events of 2010 served to heighten the awareness and need to have the capability to monitor and characterize the extent and breadth of the impact of these events.

Using Petroleum Biomarker analysis it is possible to accurately identify the source of contaminates back to the specific origin, as well as determining the absolute concentrations of priority pollutant PAHs. Both of these capabilities are important in assessing the human health risk and potential liability.

TestAmerica Laboratories has developed a suite of analytical methods to support petroleum release evaluations and the experience to analyze for petroleum biomarkers in all applicable matrices (water, soil/sediment, and bulk oils/waste).

Register Now for the presentation

What curve types are permitted by the EPA to generate calibration curves?

Ask the Expert Question:
We run several instruments like IC, ICP, GCMS, etc, for water analysis. What curve types are permitted (by EPA) to generate calibration curves. For example, EPA 300.1 ask for linear least squares fit. Can weighted models be use along with this?

Experts Response:
Tthe EPA method 300.1 does not allow any other calibration method other than linear regression. However, the EPA has been known to grant Alternative Test Protocol (ATP) status to use quadratic fit calibration models, but that is only granted on a case by case basis. You would need to apply for an ATP approval from EPA in order to use anything other than linear regression for method 300.1.

ICP, GCMS allow for linear regression models, as well as other calibration models. For GCMS it is most common to use Relative Percent Difference (RPD), weighted linear regression, and quadratic curves. I suggest that you read SW846 method 8000c for an explanation of the various calibration models acceptable for organic analysis.

View Ray Frderici's Expert profile here

Will pink coloration cause interference with analysis of wastewater when testing for Phenol?

Ask the Expert Question:
An industrial permittee has a wastewater that has a slight pink coloration after the pretreatment process. The samples need to be analyzed for Phenol in accordance with 40 CFR 403 and 40 CFR 136. Will the pink coloration cause interference with the analysis?

Experts Response:
The pink color will probably be removed in the distillation, but one way of being sure would be to conduct the test without the addition of the 4-aminoantipyrene color reagent. This should give a result of close to zero if there is no interference. If there is interference, the phenolics result could be approximated by subtracting the value obtained without adding the reagent to the value obtained with adding the reagent.

View Dr. Richard Burrows expert profile

Detection, Quantification and Calibration: Impacts on Data Quality in Environmental Chemistry

Ask the Expert Webinar Series
June 23, 2011
1:30pm EST


Over the last 20-30 years there have been tremendous advances in analytical instrumentation - enabling faster analysis with better precision and accuracy than ever before. We are also responding to needs for ever lower reporting limits. Adoption of The NELAC Institute (TNI) standards has also helped to improve and standardize quality control procedures across the board.

However, when we look at the fundamental techniques that we use to translate instrument response into data of "known and documented quality" - calibration, detection and quantification - nothing much has changed. This webinar will examine the current state of the art for establishing these critical method properties, and will propose some possible avenues for improvement.

The presenter is Chair of the TNI Environmental Monitoring Methods Expert Committee, currently tasked with developing new standards pertaining to detection, quantification and calibration techniques.

Register Now for the presentation

Collecting and Reporting Quality Data for Vapor Intrusion

TestAmerica Ask the Expert Webinar Series
June 16, 2011
1:30pm EST

The process of systematically evaluating the indoor inhalation risk from sub-surface vapors began with the EPA's publishing of "OSWER Draft Guidance for Evaluating the Vapor Intrusion to Indoor Air Pathway from Groundwater and Soils (Subsurface Vapor Intrusion Guidance)" in 2002. That document served as the genesis for the multitude of regulations, programs and methods that are being employed in this arena today.

As these regulations and programs have developed and matured, the clarity to the overall process of collecting and reporting quality data has become a difficult highway to navigate. This presentation will focus on clearing the landscape to facilitate navigation through the sample collection and data reporting process in support of these regulations and programs.

The presentation will be given from the perspective of an environmental testing laboratory and our 10 years of experience supporting Vapor Intrusion investigations.

Register Now for the presentation

TestAmerica has a new Air, Vapor and Gas Resources Page

TestAmerica Laboratories, Inc., with over 25 years of specialized experience in air analysis, is one of the nation's largest providers of analytical support services dedicated to air, vapor and gas testing.

TestAmerica routinely shares our knowledge base of information on our broad range of method capabilities, regulatory requirements, sample collection and handling procedures, achieving defensible data and data management practices with our clients. Supported by one of the largest inventories of sampling media in the nation, TestAmerica is ready to support you with your next sampling project.

The information provided in the Air, Vapor and Gas section will assist you in your initial navigation of the complex arena of air, vapor and gas analysis.

Contact a TestAmerica Air Expert, for additional assistance with your projects, please visit TestAmerica's Air, Vapor and Gas Resource Page

When can you exclude calibration points?

Ask the Expert Question:
When is it permissible to exclude calibration points?

Expert Response:
Removal or replacement of calibration points (point(s)) from the middle of a calibration curve (i.e., points other than the highest or lowest) is not permitted unless an injection or instrument problem confined to that point was directly observed and can be clearly documented. In this case, the failed standard must be re-run within 24 hours and before any samples and inserted into the initial calibration. If that new point is not useful, recalibration is required.

Removal of points for individual analytes from levels other than the highest and lowest is not permitted in any event.

Formula for Calculating Conductivity Dilution in Water

Ask the Expert Question:

Can you advise me of the correct formula for diluting the salinity in water?

We have groundwater ingress in a tunnel at a reading of 4630 us/cm it is seeping into the tunnel at 5L/sec.  We need to reduce the salinity to at least 600us/cm using potable water.  The potable water has around 720us/cm content and will be available at 10L/sec.

Expert Response:

The formula for figuring out the dilution would be as follows.

(Ca  x  Qa) + (Cb  x Qb)

--------------------------------

          (Qa + Qb)

Where:

Ca = conductivity of liquid A

Qa = flow rate of liquid A

Cb = conductivity of liquid B

Qb = flow rate of liquid B

In this specific case, however, you will not be able to dilute the saline water to less than 600 us/cm.  The dilution water you are using has a salinity greater than 600 us/cm.  Any combination of a water with 4630 us/cm and a water with 720 us/cm will have a conductivity between those two extremes.  In order to dilute the saline water to 600 us/cm you would need dilution water that has a conductivity lower than 600 us/cm.

View Dr. Charlie Carter's expert profile

TestAmerica's New Methods and Capabilities

EPA Method 8260B SIM

Honolulu Laboratory

Method Application:

The method is used for a select group of analytes that drastically improves low level detection limits. The 82060B SIM method is ideal when running methanol preserved samples collected by incremental sampling methodology (ISM) for VOC analysis. The Honolulu laboratory can report Trichloroethylene (TCE) at 0.2ug/Kg.

Market Application:

The method is designed for those entities that perform incremental sub sampling for certain volatile chemicals of potential concern (COPC).

Hawaii's Department of Health (DOH) performed a characterization study with TestAmerica, on a U.S. Air Force base for subsurface contamination. The study focused on groundwater and soil gas data used in determining environmental risk hazards. In the investigation, core increment soil samples were extracted from contaminant locations and Single Ion Monitoring (SIM) analysis was applied, reducing the reported MDLs.

Advantages:

When performing an incremental sub sampling VOC process, field samples are preserved in methanol. This generally forces a dilution factor of 50, raising the reporting limits. The SIM approach allows the client to obtain reporting limits closer to the standard 8260 limits they expect, while performing the incremental sampling methodology.

Click here for more New Methods and Capabilities from TestAmerica

TPH Analysis GC Chromatogram Interpretation

Ask the Expert Question: 
Is there a way to distinguish whether TPH hits in a sample are from diesel, gasoline or mineral oil?

Expert Response:
The product causing the positive TPH results can generally be identified from the pattern of contamination present in the chromatogram provided the TPH was analyzed by method SW846 8015B or a similar Gas Chromatograph (GC) analysis.

Each of the petroleum products will show analytes in a generally well defined Carbon Number range (for example, gasoline is primarily from C4-C12, Diesel Fuel from C10 to C28, etc), and each of these products also have a very distinct distribution pattern within that carbon range. Identification is then based on both the carbon range and the actual distribution within that carbon range (there can be some overlap of the carbon number range for the various products). Our petroleum chemists are very experienced in evaluating these patterns and establishing the petroleum product present, and can evaluate the GC chromatograms from the analysis for identification.

It is also possible that the results are due to something other than petroleum products. The GC TPH methods are not necessarily specific for only petroleum products, but will include any compounds that elute within a defined Carbon Number range. Again, an evaluation of the chromatographs by a trained chemist can usually identify the cause of the positive results.

View Johnny Mitchell's expert profile

TestAmerica's New Methods and Capabilities

SW 8015B/ Iowa OA-2 Analyte Addition - Crude Oil
Cedar Falls Laboratory

Method Application:

This method is used to determine the total extractable hydrocarbons as Crude Oil present in a sample.

Market Application:

At the request of the Nebraska Department of Environmental Health, the laboratory validated this analyte using the IA-OA2 method. This request was made for the potential release of crude oil from a new oil pipeline being constructed in the state.

The Legislature recently introduced a bill that would require oil companies that own, operate, or manage a pipeline in Nebraska, to file an extensive application process with the state's Public Service Commission. This would require the submission of a pre-filed testimony, application framework, in addition to providing evidence of any environmental and economic studies of the proposed pipelines.

Advantages:

This method/analyte would use area of the entire chromatogram and compare it against a crude oil standard versus the traditional OA-2 comparing the chromatogram to individual regions of refined gasoline, diesel, and waste oil standards.

Click here for more New Methods and Capabilities from TestAmerica

Methane Analysis in Waters

Ask the Expert Question:

Water samples were collected from wells that were believed to be impacted by methane due to hydraulic fracturing and analyzed by two different laboratories. Two different analytical methods were run, RSK-175 and EPA Method 18. The results from the same sample source were about an order of magnitude different. Both methods used the analysis of headspace. Do you know why such a large difference would occur?

Experts Response:

In response to your question about large differences in results from two methods - RSK-175 and EPA method 18, I suspect that the differences relate to differing approaches in purging methane from each sample. RSK-175 is intended to measure dissolved gases, such as methane, in water samples, whereas EPA method 18 is designed for analyzing volatiles in air samples. The results for EPA 18 will depend on the how the laboratory created the headspace vapor sample, as that step is not defined in the method.

I suggest you evaluate how the methane in the water sample was converted to a gaseous sample, and also evaluate how standardization was performed for EPA 18. Another contributing factor is how the integrity of the water sample was maintained from collection to time of analysis. Unless the samples remained tightly sealed until analysis was performed, some methane could have been lost prior to analysis.

In summary, both methods should provide accurate methane analysis, so the main issues to investigate are the sample preservation and handling prior to analysis, and particularly how the EPA 18 headspace was created.

View Dr. Jack Tuschall's expert profile

Question on Incremental Sampling Methodologies

Ask the Expert Question:
One of the main tenants of the Incremental Sampling Methodologies approach is the analysis of a larger analytical subsample. For organic analysis, this doesn't seem to be a problem, but it is for metals. The digestion blocks that are the norm in environmental labs basically fix the analytical sample at 1 or maybe 2 grams. In fact, the official digestion methods are only validated for these small sample sizes. Is pulverization the only way to really get around the limitation on the analytical subsample size?

Experts Response:
You are correct that using large subsamples is a common part of Incremental Sampling Methodology (ISM). For organics using 10-30 g is already the norm so this isn't really a change for organic extractions. As you point out most metals digestion methods are optimized for 1-2 g aliquots. There are two common ways to address this limitation.

What do you know about the next wave of contaminants of emerging concern from the EPA?

TestAmerica is hosting its second webinar, Measurement of Pharmaceutical and Personal Care Products in Complex Matrices on April 14 at 1:30PM EST. Dave Herbert, Business Development Manager at TestAmerica will be presenting on the impact of Pharmaceuticals and Personal Care Products (PPCP’s) in our nations waterways.

Join us for the presentation and learn how TestAmerica's efforts in this emerging market go beyond the routine analysis of water by developing method capabilities to detect PPCPs in more complex matrices including waste water and sediments. Unlike typical water analyses, wastewater and sediments matrices contain high levels of organic materials and suspended solids, and require a more rigorous extraction process to identify and measure trace level PPCPs.

Click here to learn more about the presentation and register, space is limited.

Sampling Protocols for Collecting a Tap Water Sample for Lead Analysis

Ask the Expert Question:
What are the sampling protocols for collecting a tap water sample to analyze for lead?
Expert Response:
There are 2 guidelines for collecting a sample for the testing for lead.

According to EPA's lead and copper rule for drinking water, it is recommended that you collect a first-draw sample from a tap where the sample has stood in the pipes for at least 6 hours (e.g., no flushing, showering, etc.). First draw samples collected at single-family residences should be drawn from the cold-water kitchen tap or bathroom tap. Collect the sample into a 1-liter poly container. The laboratory can acidify the sample upon receipt for preservation.

For water quality monitoring, the sampling guideline indicates that the water source should be fully flushed for 10 minutes. Then collect the sample into a 500ml (or 250ml) poly bottle preserved with nitric acid.

View Cam Pham's expert profile

Is Limit of Detection (LOD) the same as Minimum Detection Limit (MDL)?

Ask the Expert Question:Under the Department of Defense (DOD) Quality Systems Manual 4, the language has changed from Minimum Detection Limit (MDL) to Limit of Detection (LOD) (and Limit of Quantitation (LOQ)). Is the LOD the same thing as MDL? What is TestAmerica's plan on becoming consistent with this new language?

Expert Response:The DOD is using all of these designations at this time.

The MDL definition has not changed and is essentially the lowest level at which a result can be reliably distinguished from a blank.

The LOD is higher than the MDL, and is supposed to be the level at which a true concentration in the sample will reliably give a result that is greater than the MDL.

LOQ definition has not changed and is the lowest quantitative level for the sample.

When reporting data, the LOD is used as the Non-Detect (ND) value, for example, NDs will be reported as < LOD.

Detects, however, are reported down to the MDL, with J flags if below the LOQ.

TestAmerica is reporting data for DOD projects using these conventions. We are not reporting this way to non DOD projects to be consistent with non DOD quality programs.

View Dr. Richard Burrows expert profile

Follow up to Benefits and Alternatives of the Various Methods for Metals Speciation for Chromium in Soils

Ask the Expert Question:
How do you overcome the redox interferences of 7196A/3060A?

Expert Response:
When using Methods 3060A/7196A it is common to also test for several other general chemistry parameters that relate to the reduction / oxidation conditions present in site soil samples. These auxiliary results are then used to help interpret the Cr(VI) results. Including client specified matrix spike samples is also an excellent way to assess matrix interferences.

In reducing soil conditions Cr(VI) is converted to Cr(III). This is a common remediation process. However, in some instances the reducing agent is not evenly distributed and unreacted pockets of Cr(VI) remain. When the sample is brought to the lab and run through the 3060A alkaline leaching process, both the reducing agent and the Cr(VI) are solubilized and complete the reaction. It makes it look as if there was no Cr(VI) in the sample, even though there really was. Matrix spike recoveries usually alert the data user when this situation has occurred. Using the method of standard additions (MSA) with Methods 3060A/7196A to calculate the Cr(VI) concentration can compensate for moderate reduction/oxidation interferences. Both the auxiliary general chemistry tests and MSA options are available at TestAmerica.

Colorimetric interferences are also possible in 7196A. When these occur, the ion chromatographic Method 7199 is the best and most cost effective way to minimize these interferences. This is about 2-4X more expensive than method 7196A. Method 7199 doesn’t resolve the reduction / oxidation interferences described above.

Method 6800 is capable of resolving most reduction / oxidation interferences as well as the colorimetric interferences that Method 7196A experiences. Method 6800 testing is about 10X more expensive than Method 7199. It is usually quoted by project.

View Dr. Mark Bruce's expert profile

Benefits and Alternatives of the Various Methods for Metals Speciation for Chromium in Soils

Ask the Expert Question:Can you summarize the benefits and alternatives of the various methods for metals speciation for chromium in soils?

Expert Repsonse:
Method 3060A is the primary sample preparation method used to extract the hexavalent chromium (Cr(VI)) from a soil matrix. This sample preparation method must then be followed with an analysis method to determine the Cr(VI) concentration. There are three analytical technique options.

The most common is colorimetry as described in Method 7196A. This test is widely available and low cost. It can suffer from color based and reduction / oxidation chemistry (redox) matrix interferences.

Ion chromatography with colorimetric detection is used in Method 7199. Method 7199 is available from many labs, though it is less common than 7196A and is a bit more expensive. This method resists the color based interferences, but is still affected by the redox chemistry of the soil matrix.

The most sophisticated technique uses ion chromatography coupled with ICP/MS detection and uses isotopically labeled chromium species. This is described in Method 6800. There are only a few labs in the United States with this capability, TestAmerica being one of them. It is much more expensive than either 7196A or 7199. This method compensates for both color based and redox interferences in most samples.

All of the Cr(VI) analysis options are available from TestAmerica. For additional information on these methods, please submit at question at this link: http://www.testamericainc.com/contactus/contactform.aspx.

View Dr. Mark Bruce's expert profile

Ask the Expert Webinar Series launched!

TestAmerica is pleased to announce the Ask the Expert Webinar Series. This series of webinars is designed with you, the client, in mind to provide an in depth learning experience regarding important topics in the environmental laboratory processes.

The first webinar is March 24th and will feature Dr. Mark Bruce, Technical Director at the TestAmerica North Canton Laboratory, presenting on Incremental Sampling Methodologies (ISM). Future webinar topics will include endocrine disruptors, chemical issues related to natural gas fracking, and speciated metals, among others.

“TestAmerica has a long tradition of being the technical leaders within the environmental laboratory industry. We are very excited to expand our Ask the Experts program by sharing their expertise with the environmental community. The webinar series will mark a new chapter for TestAmerica as the LEADER in Environmental Testing,” added Rachel Brydon Jannetta, President and CEO.

Go to TestAmerica’s website to learn more about the upcoming webinars and register.

Sulfur in Oil Concentration

Ask the Expert Question:
We have had a need to analyze diesel fuel samples for sulfur and heat content analysis utilizing SW-846 Method 5050 and 9056 as the analytical procedure used to determine sulfate percent. Some of the samples may be analyzed for air permit compliance. The permits require us to have the sulfur content analyzed by ASTM D4294 or equivalent method.

I have read through the documentation on ASTM D4294, SW-846 Method 5050, and SW-846 Method 9056. It appears to me that the methods get to the same end point - sulfur content. However, I would like a second opinion from one of your content experts that confirms what I have concluded.

Experts Response:
The ASTM D4294 (energy dispersive X ray fluorescence technique) is widely used for measurement of sulfur in oils.

The EPA Methods 5050 and 9056 (determination of sulfate ion concentration) is a complete oxidation using a bomb calorimeter followed by analysis of the resulting sulfate. This technique is used for sulfur in oil and waste products and has been used for decades. This is a highly reliable method for determination of sulfur in oils.

Both techniques should give similar results.

View Dr. Charlie Carter's Experts profile

Source Types for Benzene Concentration Without Similar Elevated TEX Concentrations

Ask the Expert Question:
At a remediation site we are working on, there is a monitoring well that had soil samples taken during the drilling process and analyzed for BTEX. All concentrations were below 1 part per million. However, the groundwater analysis is presenting an extremely elevated level of benzene with comparable levels of the TEX components. Other wells in the area are either non-detect or have low concentrations for benzene. The data has been verified and is accurate.

We do not understand the elevated Benzene constituent. What type of source would yield such a high Benzene concentration without similar elevated TEX concentrations?

Experts Response:
When benzene is present in environmental samples it is typically an indication of contamination by gasoline or some type of hydrocarbon based fuel. In those cases, however, other aromatics such as toluene, ethyl benzene, and xylenes are present along with numerous alkanes and alkenes. In this sample, the volatiles analysis did not indicate the presence of the other gasoline constituents that we would normally expect.

Benzene was used in various commercial products up until the late 1970’s. These included Liquid Wrench, model cement, paint strippers, rubber cements, and degreasers. It was available commercially in hardware stores for various applications, much like mineral spirits and turpentine are today. Given the presence of benzene in this sample and the absence of other gasoline related constituents, it seems likely that the contamination resulted from a relatively pure source of benzene used for one of these applications.

View Dr. Charlie Carter's Experts profile

Volatile versus a Semi-Volatile Compounds

Ask the Expert Question:
What makes a compound a volatile versus a semi-volatile?

Expert Response:
There is no hard and fast rule to determine what is called a volatile compound and what is called semi-volatile. There are a variety of chemical characteristics that influence volatility, but for the most part the definitions that are used in environmental analysis are operational definitions.

The operational definition is whether a compound will purge from aqueous solution in a purge and trap device. If a compound will do so at a high enough rate to be detected and quantified, then it is considered to be volatile. If an analyte is only found in a semi-volatile analysis and is not present in the volatiles analysis, then almost by definition it is not volatile.

There are also, however, some physical chemical characteristics of volatile compounds. The key characteristics are (1) vapor pressure or boiling point, and (2) aqueous solubility. As the vapor pressure increases, a compound’s volatility increases. As its aqueous solubility decreases, it also becomes more volatile from an aqueous solution.

For example, 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene is about the highest boiling compound routinely included in a volatiles analysis. Its boiling point is listed as 214.4 degrees Celsius, and it is quite water insoluble. Nitrobenzene’s boiling point is 210.9 degrees Celsius, but it is more soluble in water due to the polar nature of the nitro group. It does not purge with sufficient efficiency, so it is not considered a volatile.

View Dr. Charlie Carter Experts profile

Dust Sampling Methods and Equipment

Ask the Expert Question:
There are abandoned mine land sites in our area that are often used for recreational activities. These activities generate a great deal of dust. The sediments and mine wastes in these areas are potentially contaminated with heavy metals and could put people using these public areas at risk. Can you provide any information on methods to sample the dust? Also, where can I obtain the equipment to do the sampling?

Experts Response:
There are several considerations for deciding upon how to approach monitoring the dust.

The first consideration is: what will you compare your data to with regard to health standards or risk criteria? The answer will help to define how you will collect the samples. For example, it may make sense to compare your results to the National Air Quality Standard for the particular heavy metals contamination present, and/or the PM10 standard for Total Particulate. Some counties in the US even have their own ambient air quality criteria.

Your choice of criteria will dictate how the samples should be collected; the detection levels required and for what time period the samples must be collected. As an example, the National Air Quality Standard for Lead requires that a sample be collected for a 24 hour period.

A second consideration is: do you have a source of electrical power, or will it be necessary to use sampling equipment that is battery powered? Battery powered equipment may pose a problem if your sampling period must cover 24 hours.

TestAmerica does have air sampling pumps available for clients depending upon your sampling criteria. Click here to contact our expert, Mike McGee to inquire about the equipment and methods available.

View Mike McGee's Experts profile

Sampling time for Method TO-9a

Ask the Expert Question:

We have procured several PUF sample trains from TestAmerica to test for dioxins and furans using EPA Method TO-9a. The method specifies a usual sampling time of 24 hours to obtain a sample air volume of between 325 to 400 m^3. We will probably run our sampler no longer than 60 minutes with a total sample volume collected of about 20 m^3. The 60 minute sample time bounds the time frame of the emissions we are trying to measure. Any additional time could introduce the potential for confounding sources to be captured in the sampler. Is this a concern of running the sampler less than the "usual" 24 hours from a MDC perspective or is the 24 hours just a convention specified in the method?

                 

Experts Response:

The time recommendations cited in the Method are for relative reference purposes only, and are called out to show the volumes collected over that period of time as examples. There should be no deleterious effects to smaller sample volumes aside from higher reporting limits. If reporting limits are an important issue to your project, and they cannot be obtained by your 60 minute duty cycle, then you should consider more sampling during operational times when correct conditions are regained. That’s how incinerators are tested after a malfunction. Nothing should logically prevent multiple-sampling cycles of your test conditions when they occur. Your custom sampling implementation could take into consideration startup and shutdown, as needed.

Please also note that we often prepare a different apparatus of sampling media for much smaller air volumes than collected on a standard Hi-Volume sampler. The ORBO (click here to see attached picture) is prepared for battery operated pumps, and could be put much closer to your sources. They are very easy to handle.

View Dr. William Anderson's Experts profile

What is the difference between total metals vs. dissolved metals analysis and what form the metal is being analyzed

Ask the Expert Question: 

Can you explain the difference between total metals versus dissolved metals analysis and what form of the metal is being analyzed?

Expert Repsonse: 

Total metals analysis for water samples include the metals content both dissolved in the water and present in the particulates in the water. Typically a dissolved metals analysis of a water sample is performed by removing the particulates with a filter, then analyzing the filtered water for metals. The most common filters used for this purpose have a 0.45 um pore size.

Total metals analysis results should always be greater than or equal to dissolved metals analysis results, because dissolved metals is a subset of total metals. Dissolved metals are generally considered more mobile and biologically available. Thus, the dissolved metals results are useful for risk assessment and fate & transport studies.

The specific metal species (or form) present in the dissolved fraction is highly dependent on the metal of interest. Most of the dissolved species are solvated metal cations such as Na(I) or Cr(VI). Some metals species are present as oxy anions such as arsenite.  

Water solubility of the elemental metals (i.e. neutral valence state) is generally quite low. For example this website states elemental mercury [Hg(0)] has a water solubility limit of 56 ug/L at 25C (http://www.inchem.org/documents/cicads/cicads/cicad50.htm#2.1).

Most regulations use total metals results because it is often considered more conservative and protective, however, depending on the purpose of the regulation it might be based on dissolved or total metal concentrations.

View Dr. Mark Bruce's Experts profile.

What are the differances and applications of HRGC/HRMS and GC-MS/MS instruments

Ask the Expert Question:

What is the difference between the HRGC/HRMS and GC-MS/MS instruments?
What are its major applications?

Experts Response:

By definition HRGC/HRMS stands for “High Resolution Gas Chromatography/High Resolution Mass Spectrometry” and GC-MS/MS stands for “Gas Chromatography/Tandem Mass Spectrometry”.

Starting with the GC-MS/MS, this equipment is fitted with what can be described as a dual mass spectrometry and are generally triple quads (or 3 quadrupoles).  Using a triple quad versus a standard GCMS give greater sensitivity (i.e. allows for lower detection limits from sub part per billion to sub part per trillion) and give greater resolution than a standard GCMS.  For example a standard GCMS can resolve masses 1 atomic mass unit apart.  A triple quad can resolve masses ~1000 atomic mass units apart.  Using GC-MS/MS resolution increase allows for much greater selectivity than standard GCMS.  Another feature of the GC-MS/MS is the dynamic range is much greater than a normal GCMS. 

HRGC/HRMS is a completely different type of instrument for very specific applications.  This instrument is fitted with a huge magnet and has electric sectors, lens and a 6 to 8 foot flight tube.  Using this type of configuration jumps the resolution to 10,000 atomic mass resolutions.  You can separate molecules that may have the same retention time but different masses 0.0001 amu apart.  Also the HRGM/HRMS allows for sensitivity to sub parts per quadrillion level and below and you can easily see 0.5fg on column of 2,3,7,8-TCDD (which is difficult to impossible for a standard GCMS or GC-MS/MS to see).  The dynamic range for the HRGC/HRMS is greater than 2000 times the low point so there is a lot of room to see the low end and the high end without saturating the detector.

There are many methods written for both types of instruments and you can use them for specific needs.  If you are looking for gross contamination then a GCMS is the way to go for general screening and for analytes with little public health risk.  GC-MS/MS is perfect for confirmation of low level GCMS results.  If you are looking to confirm low level results of analytes with high public heath risk then the HRGC/HRMS may be a better option.

EPA Issues National Guidance to Address Proper Maintenance, Removal, and Disposal of PCB-Containing Fluorescent Lights

Release date: 12/29/2010

Contact Information: Tisha Petteway, petteway.latisha@epa.gov, 202-564-3191, 202-564-4355 Dale Kemery, kemery.dale@epa.gov, 202-564-7839, 202-564-4355

WASHINGTON – The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) today released guidance recommending that schools take steps to reduce potential exposures to PCBs from older fluorescent lighting fixtures. The guidance, part of EPA’s ongoing efforts to address potential PCB exposures in schools, is based on evidence that the older ballasts contain PCBs that can leak when the ballasts fail, leading to elevated levels of PCBs in the air of schools that should not represent an immediate threat but could pose health concerns if they persist over time.

The guidance document is available online at http://www.epa.gov/pcb.

Polychlorinated biphenyls, or PCBs, are man-made chemicals that persist in the environment and were widely used in construction materials and electrical products prior to 1978. PCBs can affect the immune system, reproductive system, nervous system and endocrine system and are potentially cancer causing if they build up in the body over long periods of time.

“As we continue to learn more about the potential risks of PCBs in older buildings, EPA will work closely with schools and local officials to ensure the safety of students and teachers,” said EPA Assistant Administrator for Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention Steve Owens. “This guidance on safely addressing the risks from PCB-containing light fixtures is part of EPA’s ongoing efforts to protect the health of our children and provide them with safe, healthy learning environments.”

Until the late 1970s, PCBs were commonly used as insulators in electrical equipment because they have a high tolerance for heat, do not easily burn, and are non-explosive. EPA banned the processing and distribution in commerce of PCBs in 1979 pursuant to the Toxic Substances Control Act due to their toxic effects. However, uses of older PCB-containing ballasts were allowed to continue, provided that the ballasts had not failed and the PCBs were not leaking.

EPA believes many schools built in the U.S. before 1979 have light ballasts containing PCBs. A recent pilot study of three schools in New York City found that many light ballasts in the schools contained PCBs and had also failed, causing the PCBs to leak and contributing to increased levels in the air that school children breathe. EPA regional offices have also worked with school officials to address leaking PCBs in light ballasts in schools in Oregon, North Dakota, and Massachusetts.

Given their widespread use before they were banned, if a school was built before 1979 or has not had a complete lighting retrofit since 1979, the fluorescent light ballasts probably contain PCBs. Although intact, functioning ballasts do not pose a health threat, these lighting ballasts will all fail in time. For that reason, EPA recommends older PCB-containing lighting ballasts should be removed, whether as part of a previously scheduled lighting retrofit program or a stand-alone project.

Schools that have older ballasts should examine them to see if they have failed or if PCB leaks are present. If a light ballast is leaking PCBs, federal law requires the immediate removal and disposal of the PCB-containing ballasts and disposal of any PCB-contaminated materials at an EPA approved facility.

To prevent exposure if leaking ballasts are discovered, school personnel should wear protective clothing, including chemically resistant gloves, boots, and disposable overalls while surveying the ballasts. Replacement of leaking ballasts should be performed in a well-ventilated area, or supplemental ventilation or respiratory protection should be provided to reduce the potential for breathing in fumes.

While replacing lighting ballasts requires an upfront investment, there are state, federal and private funding programs available to potentially provide funding. In addition, replacing older ballasts with newer lighting fixtures will result in energy savings that will increase energy efficiency in schools and likely pay for itself in less than seven years, depending upon hours of operation and local energy costs.

EPA has also developed information on how to properly handle and dispose of PCB-containing fluorescent light ballasts and properly retrofit lighting fixtures to remove potential PCB hazards.

In September 2009, EPA issued guidance to communities about potential PCB contamination in the caulk of pre-1978 buildings. EPA also announced additional research into the potential for PCBs in caulk to get into the air. Research on that and other issues related to PCB exposures is ongoing.

School districts, building owners and others desiring technical guidance should contact EPA at 1-888-835-5372.
Parents who are concerned their children may be attending a school with PCB-containing ballasts should ask their schools whether they have a plan to address PCBs in their schools.

More information on PCBs: http://www.epa.gov/pcb

Information on handling and disposing of PCB-containing light ballasts: http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/hazard/tsd/pcbs/pubs/waste.htm

PCBs hotline: 1-888-835-5372

Source: U.s. Environmental Protection Agency (2010, December). EPA Issues National Guidance to Address Proper Maintenance, Removal, and Disposal of PCB-Containing Fluorescent Lights. Retrieved January 3, 2011 from http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/0/6C03FDEC1E63274C8525780800693D7D