You are here:
ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY VERIFICATION REPORT - ENVIROGARD PCB TEST KIT - STRATEGIC DIAGNOSTICS INC
Citation:
Dindal, A. B., C. K. Bayne, AND R. A. Jenkins. ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY VERIFICATION REPORT - ENVIROGARD PCB TEST KIT - STRATEGIC DIAGNOSTICS INC. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-98/113 (NTIS PB2001-100491), 2000.
Description:
In July 1997, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) conducted a demonstration of Polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) field analytical techniques. The purpose of this demonstration was to evaluate field analytical technologies capable of detecting and quantifying PCBs in soils and solvent extracts. The fundamental objectives of this demonstration were (1) to obtain technology performance information using environmental and quality control samples. (2) to determine how comparable the developer field analytical results were with conventional reference laboratory results, and (3) to report on the logistical operation of the technology. The demonstration design was subjected to extensive review and comment by EPA's National Exposure Research Laboratory (NERL) Environmental Sciences Division in Las Vegas, Nevada; Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL); EPA Regional Offices; the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE); and the technology developers.
The demonstration found that the EnviroGard Kit was simple to operate in the field, requiring about an hour for initial set-up and preparation for sample analysis. Once the kit was operational, the sample throughput of the EnviroGard kit was 18 samples/hour under outdoor conditions and 9 to 10 samples/ hour under chamber conditions. Three operators analyzed samples during the demonstration, but the technology can be run by a single, trained operator. Minimal training (2 to 4 h) is required to operate the EnviroGard kit, provided the user has a fundamental understanding of basic chemical and field analytical techniques. The overall performance of the EnviroGard PCB test kit was characterized as biased and imprecise about 50% of the time; however, the kit generated no false positive or false negative results for soil samples. It should be noted that there was an increased likelihood that results would be biased high as a result of the conservatism that the manufacturer has incorporated into the calculation of results.