You are here:
Alternative Approaches for Screening Contaminated Sediments and Soils for PCDD/PCDF
Citation:
Schrock, M., A. Dindal, N. Iroz-Elardo, AND S. BILLETS. Alternative Approaches for Screening Contaminated Sediments and Soils for PCDD/PCDF. CHEMOSPHERE. Elsevier Science Ltd, New York, NY, 90(2):1289-1295, (2008).
Impact/Purpose:
Journal will be published in Chemosphere
Description:
Generating analytical data for polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins and polychlorinated dibenzofurans (PCDD/PCDF) using the traditional high resolution mass spectrometry (HRMS) analysis method, EPA Method 1613B, is time-consuming and expensive. Consequently, alternative methods to determine PCDD/PCDF are of great interest to regulatory agencies. This work compares results generated using several different approaches for screening sediment and soil samples for dioxin toxicity equivalents (TEQD/F) to results using traditional EPA Method 1613B on samples obtained for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation Monitoring and Measurement Technologies Program. Screening approaches evaluated included EPA Method 1613B modified with respect to extraction technique, secondcolumn confirmation of 2,3,7,8-tetrchlorodibenzofuran, sample size, and dilution of highlevel samples into the calibration range in order to reduce the cost of analysis (referred to as “modified 1613B”); low resolution mass spectrometry analysis (LRMS) of extracts which had been prepared for HRMS analysis; and total organic carbon (TOC) determination using EPA Method 9060A. TOC is a relatively inexpensive analytical technique which has been proposed as a possible indicator of PCDD/PCDF concentration due to the affinity of PCDD/PCDF to bind to organic carbon. TEQD/F values generated from the modified 1613B and LRMS analyses had a strong linear correlation to the TEQD/F values generated using EPA Method 1613B (R2 values = 0.99) making these approaches viable candidates for screening for TEQDF concentrations. Log transformed data for TOC had significantly weaker correlation to TEQD/F (R2 = 0.30) indicating that TOC would not be a reliable indicator of TEQD/F concentrations.
