You are here:
Comparison of Wipe Materials and Wetting Agents for Pesticide Residue Collection from Hard Surfaces
Citation:
Deziel, N. C., S. M. Viet, J. W. Rogers, D. E. Camann, D. A. Marker, M. S. Heikkinen, A. Y. Yau, D. M. STOUT, AND M. DELLARCO. Comparison of Wipe Materials and Wetting Agents for Pesticide Residue Collection from Hard Surfaces. SCIENCE OF THE TOTAL ENVIRONMENT. Elsevier Science Ltd, New York, NY, 409(20):4442-4448, (2011).
Impact/Purpose:
The National Exposure Research Laboratory′s (NERL) Human Exposure and Atmospheric Sciences Division (HEASD) conducts research in support of EPA′s mission to protect human health and the environment. HEASD′s research program supports Goal 1 (Clean Air) and Goal 4 (Healthy People) of EPA′s strategic plan. More specifically, our division conducts research to characterize the movement of pollutants from the source to contact with humans. Our multidisciplinary research program produces Methods, Measurements, and Models to identify relationships between and characterize processes that link source emissions, environmental concentrations, human exposures, and target-tissue dose. The impact of these tools is improved regulatory programs and policies for EPA.
Description:
Different wipe materials and wetting agents have been used to collect pesticide residues from surfaces, but little is known about their comparability. To inform the selection of a wipe for the National Children's Study, the analytical feasibility, collection efficiency, and precision of Twillwipes wetted with isopropanol (TI), Ghost Wipes (GW), and Twillwipes wetted with water (TW), were evaluated. Wipe samples were collected from stainless steel surfaces spiked with high and low concentrations of 27 insecticides, including organochlorines, organophosphates, and pyrethroids. Samples were analyzed by GC/MS/SIM. No analytical interferences were observed for any of the wipes. The mean percent collection efficiencies across all pesticides for the TI, GW, and TW were 69.3%, 31.1%, and 10.3% at the high concentration, respectively, and 55.6%, 22.5%, and 6.9% at the low concentration, respectively. The collection efficiencies of the TI were significantly greater than that of GW or TW (p<0.0001). Collection efficiency also differed significantly by pesticide (p<0.0001) and spike concentration (p<0.0001). The pooled coefficients of variation (CVs) of the collection efficiencies for the TI, GW, and TW at high concentration were 0.08, 0.17, and 0.24, respectively. The pooled CV of the collection efficiencies for the TI, GW, and TW at low concentration were 0.15, 0.19, and 0.36, respectively. The TI had significantly lower CVs than either of the other two wipes (p=0.0008). Though the TI was superior in terms of both accuracy and precision, it requires multiple preparation steps, which could lead to operational challenges in a large-scale study.
URLs/Downloads:
Comparison of Wipe Materials and Wetting Agents for Pesticide Residue Collection from Hard Surfaces (PDF, NA pp, 5443 KB, about PDF)Science of the Total Environment
