JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for CONTAMINATED-LAND-STRATEGIES Archives


CONTAMINATED-LAND-STRATEGIES Archives

CONTAMINATED-LAND-STRATEGIES Archives


CONTAMINATED-LAND-STRATEGIES@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

CONTAMINATED-LAND-STRATEGIES Home

CONTAMINATED-LAND-STRATEGIES Home

CONTAMINATED-LAND-STRATEGIES  July 2018

CONTAMINATED-LAND-STRATEGIES July 2018

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

OFFICIAL: RE: Cost of on site analysis - Triad approach

From:

"Willcox, Ruth" <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Willcox, Ruth

Date:

Mon, 9 Jul 2018 09:31:19 +0000

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (1 lines)

Yes, technology is taking over.  How are these NASA instruments calibrated? 
 
I ask as in other fields such as geotechnics, on site survey and analysis is still usually backed up by lab testing, with good reason.  Ground truthing is used to verify results and demonstrate that field instruments have been calibrated properly. 
 
Does/should the same principle apply? 
 
Kind regards 
 
Ruth 
 
Ruth Willcox 
Planning Officer 
Strategic Planning and Infrastructure 
 
T +441752304154 
E [log in to unmask] 
www.plymouth.gov.uk 
 
 
 
-----Original Message----- 
From: Contaminated Land Management Discussion List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Colin Green 
Sent: 06 July 2018 18:59 
To: [log in to unmask] 
Subject: Cost of on site analysis - Triad approach 
 
Hi James 
I do not want to be seen selling products, so I will try to be generic in giving the current costs of using on site analysers 
 
On site analysis has come a long way since the fiddly, semi-quantitative test kits of earlier times. I have to confess to being partly responsible for that because I was involved in some way in the development/commercialisation of most of them, but especially the immunoassay and turbidity based kits. Mea Culpa. 
 
The newer systems are really miniaturised full chemical analysers, capable of producing very accurate and reproducible data that matches the best accredited laboratories. NASA and the other space agencies use these on their space probes. In fact XRF was taken to the moon in 1975 on the Apollo mission. The Mars rover uses several instrumental X ray and spectroscopy techniques in its search for water and potential life forms. UV fluorescence will be used on other Mars missions. A good indicator of even simple carbon based life forms are specific UV fluorescence fingerprints. Crude oil, the residue from decayed plant matter several million years old is fluorescent. It is reasonable to believe similar metabolic and geochemical processes will have occurred on planets within our solar system, so hunting for the same compounds found in petroleum hydrocarbons would be a sensible option. They naturally escape to the surface and can be found in minute quantities in the atmosphere. NASA would not consider using these technologies if they were not certain high quality data can be produced. 
 
Several terrestrial on site analysers available use UV fluorescence as their methodology, some such as the QED, use the same micro spectrometers as used by the Mars and the Rosetta/Philae missions. These solid state spectrometers are very robust, having to withstand the extremes of temperature, shock of rocket launch and subsequent landing while retaining their initial calibration set up and accuracy. They run on artificial intelligence software systems that provides all the required QA/QC needed to give reliable results. Adapting these systems for TPH and PAH analysis for terrestrial applications means you get easy to use yet reliable and accurate analysis for 99% of the hydrocarbon parameters needed for site investigation or remediation projects. 
 
The analysers themselves are in the same price range as XRF at around £21,000 - £25,000. The reagents are however low cost. Compared to a test kit that would typically cost between £20 and £50 per sample, the instrumental on site analysers use reagents/consumables that can cost less than £4 per sample. Test kits also had a "hidden" cost, Exceeding or being lower than the calibration range meant repeating the entire test at another £20 - £50. The user also needed to know what the hydrocarbon type was in the sample to get the right calibration. This caused a lot of inaccuracy because the response factors for even fresh diesel and degraded diesel could be as much as x5 different. If kerosene fuels or highly degraded fuels or coal tars were present, but the test kit was calibrated with a diesel calibrator, the concentration reported could be as much as x20 too high or too low. Another "gotcha" cost was where the user made a mistake during the analysis. This required running the entire sample analysis again at the £20 - £50 cost. As test kits were often run in batches, a single mistake could get quite costly and because they were time consuming, cause another hour or so of your life to be wasted. 
 
The latest on site hydrocarbon analysers identify the hydrocarbon type first and then apply the correct calibration automatically. This makes sure the reported concentration is accurate. The QED hydrocarbon analyser holds as many as 18 different hydrocarbon types in its calibration library, including most fuel types, oil types and coal tars, creosotes and bitumen based road binders, so should be able to find a match. If a mistake is made or the sample is over or under the calibration range, the AI system in the analyser tells the user to repeat the analysis and provides the correct dilution to use to get within range. A repeat only costs a few pence in reagent. A typical analysis takes about 3 minutes from sample collection, through extraction and final analysis. A repeat analysis is less than a minute. 
 
Calibration is very simple for fluorescence based systems. Fluorescence is a quantum effect. This means for a given range of concentrations for a specific atom (such as arsenic) or a given hydrocarbon molecule (phenanthrene, a PAH) they always give the same ratio of input to output energy at specified wavelengths under defined conditions. Ensure the conditions meet the requirements, measure the input energy and you can predict the output energy. That's how both XRF and UV Fluorescence calibration is set up. The instrument manufacturer works out the energy input/output ratios for all the heavy metals or hydrocarbon types for a given input energy. In the field, the input energy is measured and so the factory calibration curves can be re created. In the case of XRF, certain wavelengths are measured during analysis to measure the X Ray energy input. For the hydrocarbons analysis a single fluorescent compound in solution is used to measure the input energy before samples are analysed. This makes on site calibration very simple and robust and removes the need for expensive and time consuming field calibration.  The stability of the sensors in the analysers ensures the factory calibrations remain very stable, showing less than 5% drift over 12 months. The annual service ensures this stability is retained over many years. 
 
These features actually bring the cost of on site analysis down to significantly lower than conventional lab costs. The capital cost of the analyser can be amortised over 5 years (yes, they easily last that long if looked after. Just look at how long the sensors in the Mars rover have lasted under extreme conditions), which means most of the sample cost is the reagent/sample prep. 
 
The AI in the analysers allows anybody to use them and still get valid results. Internal QA/QC in both the XRF and hydrocarbon analysers is very good at spotting user error and flagging it up. 
 
I hope that answers your questions and I hope I have not been too blatantly commercial. All I can say is that these latest generation analysers makes TRIAD a very sensible and cost effective way of doing things. I wonder when it will be adopted. 
 
Finally, a cautionary note. The cost of laboratory analysis has come down significantly, but this may be at the expense of overall quality. There comes a price point where it just cannot be possible to make money and provide high quality analysis and service the high overhead costs of the staff, equipment, accreditation and buildings. The oil industry laboratories cannot run even simple TPH analysis for less than £70/sample. Maybe this is why so many of our environmental labs are closing or merging. We as an industry need good quality high resolution chemical analysis for risk assessment data. Reporting of alkyl PAH, not just parent PAH is a very powerful diagnostic tool. Effective and demonstrable removal of interfering background organics from TPH analysis should be routine, not a requested (or barely mentioned) option. Knowing the oxidation states of metals is again very useful (actually essential) for proper, scientifically defendable risk assessment. Perhaps we should be prepared to pay more for this type of analysis to keep our laboratories alive and let on site analysis provide the routine TPH, hydrocarbon identification, simple PAH and total heavy metals analysis 
 
Regards 
 
Colin 
 
######################################################################## 
 
To unsubscribe from the CONTAMINATED-LAND-STRATEGIES list, click the following link: 
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=CONTAMINATED-LAND-STRATEGIES&A=1 

********************************************************************************************************************************************
IMPORTANT: This e-mail (including any attachments to it) is strictly confidential and intended solely for the person or organisation to whom it is addressed.  It may contain privileged, confidential or sensitive information.  If you are not the intended recipient, you must not copy or distribute it to any other person or take any action in reliance.  If you have received it in error, please notify your system manager and the sender as soon as possible and then delete it from your system.
 
 
######################################################################## 
 
To unsubscribe from the CONTAMINATED-LAND-STRATEGIES list, click the following link: 
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=CONTAMINATED-LAND-STRATEGIES&A=1 

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001
April 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
June 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
November 1999
July 1999


JiscMail is a Jisc service.

View our service policies at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ and Jisc's privacy policy at https://www.jisc.ac.uk/website/privacy-notice

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager