-------
Table 3-4. Water Quality Parameters
Dechlorinated
Dechlorinated Columbus, St. Petersburg, Florida,
Ohio, Tap Water (disinfected Tap Water (disinfected by
Parameter
Method
by chlorination)
chloramination)
Turbidity
EPA 180.1(7)
0.1 NTU(a)
0.3 NTU
Organic carbon
SM 5310(8)
2.5 mg/L
2.9 mg/L
Specific conductivity
SM 2510(S)
364 |imho
460 |imho
Alkalinity
SM 2320(S)
42 mg/L
97 mg/L
pH
EPA 150.1(9)
7.65
7.95
Hardness
EPA 130.2(9)
112 mg/L
160 mg/L
Total organic halides
SM 5320B(8)
190 |ig/L
83 |ig/L
Total trihalomethanes
EPA 524.2(10)
52.8 |ig/L
2.4 |ig/L
Total haloacetic acids
EPA 552.2(11)
75.7 |ig/L
13.5 |ig/L
(a) NTU = nephelometric turbidity unit.
11
-------
Chapter 4
Quality Assurance/Quality Control
QA/QC procedures were performed in accordance with the quality management plan (QMP) for
the AMS Center(12) and the test/QA plan for this verification test.(1)
4.1 Quality Control of Stock Solution Confirmation Methods
The stock solutions for aldicarb, cyanide, dicrotophos, and thallium sulfate were analyzed using
a standard reference method at ATEL. As part of ATEL's standard operating procedures (SOPs)
various QC samples were analyzed with each sample set. These included matrix spike,
laboratory control spike, and method blank samples. According to the standard methods used for
the analyses, recoveries of the QC spike samples analyzed with samples from this verification
test were within acceptable limits of 75% to 125%, and the method blank samples were below
the detectable levels for each analyte. For VX and soman, the confirmation analyses were
performed at Battelle using a Battelle SOP. Calibration standard recoveries of VX and soman
were always between 69% and 130%, and most of the time were between 90% and 100%.
Standard analytical methods for colchicine, ricin, and botulinum toxin were not available and,
therefore, not performed. QA audits and balance calibrations assured that solutions for these
compounds were accurately prepared.
4.2 Quality Control of Drinking Water Samples
A method blank sample consisting of ASTM Type IIDI water was analyzed once by Deltatox®
for approximately every 20 drinking water samples that were analyzed. According to the
Deltatox® procedure, the first sample of each analysis set was treated as the zero control sample
to correct the response of the instrument with respect to a clean water sample. For the majority
of this verification test, this sample was the method blank. When the method blank sample
(ASTM Type n DI water) was added to the bacteria and the five-minute reaction period had
ended, the operators placed the cuvette into the Deltatox®; but, according to its protocol,
Deltatox® did not report a measurement of luminescence and prompted the insertion of the first
sample cuvette. After testing, it was ascertained that, to obtain inhibition data about the method
blank samples, ASTM Type II DI water should have been analyzed as a sample in some position
other than the first in the analysis set. This was not done. Therefore, the Deltatox® data set is
lacking method blank data. However, a negative control sample (unspiked DDW) was analyzed
with approximately every four samples. The absolute inhibitions of the negative controls were
12
-------
small, indicating that they caused inhibition similar to the ASTM Type IIDI water, which was
used as the zero control sample (i.e., set to zero inhibition). Results from samples fortified with
contaminants were compared with the results from the negative control to determine if inhibition
was caused by the contaminant. A positive control sample also was analyzed once for approxi-
mately every 20 drinking water samples. While performance limits were not placed on the
results of the positive control sample, the vendor informed Battelle that, if the positive control
samples did not cause greater than approximately 50% inhibition, it would indicate to the
operator that Deltatox® was operating incorrectly. More than 50% inhibition was observed in
each analysis of the positive control sample, indicating the proper functioning of Deltatox®. For
10 positive control samples of phenol, inhibitions of 73% ± 5% were measured. For 14 samples
of zinc sulfate, inhibitions of 94% ±5% were measured.
4.3 Audits
4.3.1 Performance Evaluation Audit
The concentration of the standards used to prepare the contaminant and potential interferences
was confirmed by analyzing solutions of each analyte prepared in ASTM Type II DI water from
two separate commercial vendors using the confirmation methods. The standards from one
source were used to prepare the stock solutions during the verification test, while the standards
from a second source were used exclusively to confirm the accuracy of the measured concentra-
tion of the first source. The percent difference (%D) between the measured concentration of the
performance evaluation (PE) sample and the prepared concentration of that sample was
calculated using the following equation:
M
%D = — x 100%
A (1)
where M is the absolute value of the difference between the measured and the prepared concen-
tration and A is the prepared concentration. The %D between the measured concentration of the
PE standard and the prepared concentration had to be less than 25 for the measurements to be
considered acceptable. Table 4-1 shows the results of the PE audit for each compound. All %D
values were less than 25.
Given the lack of confirmation methodology for some of the contaminants in this verification
test, PE audits were not performed for all of the contaminants. PE audits were performed when
more than one source of the contaminant or potential interference was commercially available
and when methods were available to perform the confirmation. To assure the purity of the other
standards, documentation, such as certificates of analysis, was obtained for colchicine,
botulinum toxin, and ricin. In the case of VX and soman, which were obtained from the U.S.
Army, the reputation of the source, combined with the confirmation analysis data, provided
assurance of the concentration analyzed.
13
-------
Table 4-1. Summary of Performance Evaluation Audit
Average Measured
Concentration ±
Standard Deviation
Actual Concentration
Percent
(mg/L)
(mg/L)
Difference
Aldicarb
0.00448 ± 0.000320
0.00500
11
Cyanide
0.207 ± 0.026
0.200
4
Contaminant
Dicrotophos
0.00728 ± 0.000699
0.00748
3
Thallium
0.090 ± 0.004
0.100
10
sulfate
Aluminum
0.512 ±0.013
0.500
2
Copper
0.106 ±0.002
0.100
6
Potential
interference
Iron
0.399 ± 0.004
0.400
0.30
Manganese
0.079 ± 0.003
0.100
21
Zinc
0.106 ±0.016
0.100
6
4.3.2 Technical Systems Audit
The Battelle Quality Manager conducted a technical systems audit (TSA) to ensure that the
verification test was performed in accordance with the test/QA plan(1) and the AMS Center
QMP.(12) As part of the audit, the Battelle Quality Manager reviewed the contaminant standard
and stock solution confirmation methods, compared actual test procedures with those specified
in the test/QA plan, and reviewed data acquisition and handling procedures. Observations and
findings from this audit were documented and submitted to the Battelle verification test
coordinator for response. No findings were documented that required any significant action. The
records concerning the TSA are permanently stored with the Battelle Quality Manager.
The EPA Quality Manager also conducted a TSA to ensure that the verification test was
performed in accordance with the test/QA plan(1) and the AMS Center QMP.(12) As part of the
audit, the EPA Quality Manager compared actual test procedures with those specified in the
test/QA plan and reviewed data acquisition and sample preparation records and procedures. No
significant findings were observed during the EPA TSA. The records concerning the TSA are
permanently stored with the EPA Quality Manager.
4.3.3 Audit of Data Quality
At least 10% of the data acquired during the verification test were audited. Battelle's Quality
Manager traced the data from the initial acquisition, through reduction and statistical analysis,
to final reporting, to ensure the integrity of the reported results. All calculations performed on
the data undergoing the audit were checked.
14
-------
4.4 QA/QC Reporting
Each internal assessment and audit was documented in accordance with Sections 3.3.4 and 3.3.5
of the QMP for the ETV AMS Center.(12) Once the assessment report was prepared, the Battelle
verification test coordinator ensured that a response was provided for each adverse finding or
potential problem and implemented any necessary follow-up corrective action. The Battelle
Quality Manager ensured that follow-up corrective action was taken. The results of the TSA
were sent to the EPA.
4.5 Data Review
Records generated in the verification test were reviewed before these records were used to
calculate, evaluate, or report verification results. Table 4-2 summarizes the types of data
recorded. The review was performed by a technical staff member involved in the verification
test, but not the staff member who originally generated the record. The person performing the
review added his/her initials and the date to a hard copy of the record being reviewed.
Table 4-2. Summary of Data Recording Process
Data to be
Recorded
Responsible
Party
Where
Recorded
How Often
Recorded
Disposition of Data(a)
Dates, times of test
events
Battelle
Laboratory
record books
Start/end of test, and
at each change of a
test parameter
Used to organize/check
test results; manually
incorporated in data
spreadsheets as
necessary
Sample preparation
(dates, procedures,
concentrations)
Battelle
Laboratory
record books
When each sample
was prepared
Used to confirm the
concentration and
integrity of the samples
analyzed, procedures
entered into laboratory
record books
Test parameters
(contaminant
concentrations,
location, etc.)
Battelle
Laboratory
record books
When set or
changed
Used to organize/check
test results, manually
incorporated in data
spreadsheets as
necessary
Stock solution
confirmation
analysis, sample
analysis, chain of
custody, and
results
Battelle or
contracted
laboratory
Laboratory
record books,
data sheets, or
data acquisition
system, as
appropriate
Throughout sample
handling and
analysis process
Transferred to
spreadsheets/agreed
upon report
(a) All activities subsequent to data recording were carried out by Battelle.
15
-------
Chapter 5
Statistical Methods and Reported Parameters
The statistical methods presented in this chapter were used to verify the performance parameters
listed in Section 3.1.
5.1 Endpoints and Precision
Deltatox® reports the percent inhibition for each sample analyzed. Each DDW sample containing
contaminants was compared with a negative control sample that, for this verification test, was
unspiked DDW. This comparison was made by subtracting the percent inhibition of the negative
control within a sample set from the inhibition produced by each sample in the sample set.
Therefore, the percent inhibition of the negative control sample within each sample set was zero
percent.
For contaminants that induced inhibition of greater that 50%, the concentration of contaminant
that affects 50% of the bacteria in the Deltatox® reagent (EC50) was estimated from the linear
regression of the log of each concentration level of the contaminant versus the percent
inhibition. For contaminants that did not induce inhibition of greater than 50%, this calculation
was not appropriate.
The standard deviation (S) of the results for the replicate samples was calculated, as follows, and
used as a measure of technology precision at each concentration.
5 =
In, -s 2 ~>1'2
—j Z '» -I)
: —1 k=r '
(2)
where n is the number of replicate samples, Ik is the percent inhibition measured for the kth
sample, and I is the average percent inhibition of the replicate samples. Because the average
inhibitions were frequently near zero for this data set, relative standard deviations often would
have greatly exceeded 100%, making the results difficult to interpret. Therefore, the precision
results were left in the form of standard deviations so the reader could easily view the
uncertainty around the average for results that were both near zero and significantly larger than
zero.
16
-------
5.2 Toxicity Threshold
The toxicity threshold was defined as the lowest concentration of contaminant to exhibit a
percent inhibition significantly greater than the negative control. Also, the inhibition of the
toxicity threshold had to be significantly different than the inhibition of the other concentrations
analyzed. Since the inhibition of the test samples was calculated with respect to the inhibition of
each negative control sample, the percent inhibition of the negative control was always zero. An
inhibition was significantly greater than the negative control if the average inhibition plus or
minus the standard deviation did not include zero.
5.3 False Positive/Negative Responses
A response would be considered false positive if an unspiked drinking water sample produced
an inhibition significantly greater than zero when determined with respect to ASTM Type IIDI
water. Depending on the degree of inhibition in the sample, toxicity due to subsequent
contamination of that sample may not be detectable or could be exaggerated as a result of the
baseline inhibition. To test for this possibility, the percent inhibition of the unspiked drinking
water was determined with respect to ASTM Type II DI water. Drinking water samples collected
from water systems using chlorination and chloramination as the disinfecting process were
analyzed in this manner. An inhibition was considered significantly different from zero if the
average inhibition, plus or minus the standard deviation, did not include zero.
A response was considered false negative when Deltatox® was subjected to a lethal concentra-
tion of some contaminant in the DDW and did not indicate inhibition significantly greater than
the negative control (zero inhibition) and the other concentration levels analyzed. Requiring the
inhibition of the lethal dose sample to be significantly greater than zero and the other concentra-
tion levels more thoroughly incorporated the uncertainty of all the measurements made by
Deltatox® in determining a false negative result. A difference was considered significant if the
average inhibition plus or minus the standard deviation did not encompass the value or range of
values that were being compared.
5.4 Field Portability
The results obtained from the measurements made on drinking water samples in the laboratory
and field setting were compiled independently and compared to assess the performance of the
Deltatox® under different analysis conditions. Means and standard deviations of the endpoints
generated in both locations were used to make the comparison. Also, qualitative observations of
Deltatox® in a non-laboratory setting were made by the verification test coordinator and
operators. Factors such as the ease of transport and set-up, demand for electrical power, and
space requirement were documented.
17
-------
5.5 Other Performance Factors
Ease of use (including clarity of the instruction manual, user-friendliness of software, and
overall convenience) was qualitatively assessed throughout the verification test through
observations of the operators and verification test coordinator. Sample throughput was evaluated
quantitatively based on the number of samples that could be analyzed per hour.
18
-------
Chapter 6
Test Results
6.1 Endpoints and Precision
Tables 6-la-i present the percent inhibition data for nine contaminants, and Table 6-2 presents
data for five potential interferences and the drinking water samples disinfected by both
chlorination and chloramination. Given in each table are the concentrations analyzed, the
percent inhibition results for each replicate at each concentration, and the average and standard
deviation of the inhibition of the four replicates at each concentration. EC50 values also are given
when applicable. Samples that produced negative percent inhibition values indicated an increase
in light production by the bacteria relative to the negative control.
6.1.1 Contaminants
The contaminants that were analyzed by Deltatox® during this verification test produced one of
two trends apparent from Tables 6-la-i. Contaminants caused percent inhibitions that, starting
from the lowest concentration that produced inhibitions near zero, either increased in proportion
to the concentration in the sample, resulting in the two highest concentration levels exhibiting
higher inhibitions than the other concentration levels, or did not change considerably regardless
of what concentration was analyzed. Aldicarb, dicrotophos, and thallium sulfate fall into the
former category, while colchicine, botulinum toxin, ricin, VX, and soman fall into the latter
category. The one exception was cyanide, for which the inhibitions of all four concentration
levels were significantly different from one another and the inhibitions increased with
concentration.
6.1.2 Potential Interferences
Table 6-2 presents the results from the samples that were analyzed to test the effect of potential
interferences on Deltatox®. Aluminum, iron, and manganese exhibited percent inhibitions near
zero, indicating little or no response to these compounds, while copper and zinc exhibited higher
inhibitions of 38% and 22%, respectively, indicating a slightly elevated response.
19
-------
Table 6-la. Aldicarb Percent Inhibition Results
Concentration Inhibition Average Standard Deviation EC50
(mg/L) (%) (%) (%) (mg/L)
-3
0.28 J -1 2
-2
70.5
14
2.8 ^ 6 5
6
24
28 H 26 1
26
73
28° 74
(Lethal Dose) 74
66
Table 6-lb. Colchicine Percent Inhibition Results
Concentration Inhibition Average Standard Deviation EC50
(mg/L) (%) (%) (%) (mg/L)
0
0.24 ^ 2 2
4
0
4
2.4 ^ 3 2
4
2
24 "4 0 4
0
JNAV 7
9
24° 5
(Lethal Dose) 25
8
(a) NA = Not applicable.
20
-------
Table 6-lc. Cyanide Percent Inhibition Results
Concentration Inhibition Average Standard Deviation EC50
(mg/L) (%) (%) (%) (mg/L)
4
5 5 1
0.25 4
5
7.6
15
12
2.5 14 2
16
14
85
25 I6. 81 4
O 1
80
106
250 101
(Lethal Dose) 104
102
28
2.5 35
(Field Location) 32
29
NA(a)
(a) NA = Not applicable.
Table 6-Id. Dicrotophos Percent Inhibition Results
Concentration Inhibition Average Standard Deviation EC50
(mg/L) (%) (%) (%) (mg/L)
-3
1.4 -2 2
1
540
7
14 2 5
3
42
140 25 12
24
68
1,400 54 65 8
(Lethal Dose) 65
73
21
-------
Table 6-le. Thallium Sulfate Percent Inhibition Results
Concentration Inhibition Average Standard Deviation EC50
(mg/L) (%) (%) (%) (mg/L)
5
2,4 4 5 1
5
NA(a)
4
24 3 2 3
4
13
1 O
240 14 4
17
24
2,400 24
(Lethal Dose) 23
27
(a) NA = Not applicable.
Table 6-If. Botulinum Toxin Percent Inhibition Results
Concentration Inhibition Average Standard Deviation EC50
(mg/L) (%) (%) (%) (mg/L)
-8
0.00030 -4 3
-4
NA(a)
-3
0.003 4 -5 1
-6
-4
0.030 -3 2
-5
-6
0.30 0
(Lethal Dose) 1
-1
(a) NA = Not applicable.
22
-------
Table 6-lg. Ricin Percent Inhibition Results
Concentration Inhibition Average Standard Deviation EC50
(mg/L) (%) (%) (%) (mg/L)
1
0.015 J 3 2
2
NA(a)
1
0.15 * 3 1
4
1.5 -9
1
-2
7
15 ° 2 4
(Lethal Dose) 2
-2
(a) NA = Not applicable.
Table 6-lh. Soman Percent Inhibition Results
Concentration Inhibition Average Standard Deviation EC50
(mg/L) (%) (%) (%) (mg/L)
1
0
0.00018 -4 1 5
8
NA(a)
5
0.0018 10 8 3
10
-10
0.018 ~2 -6 3
-6
4
0.18® 0
(Lethal Dose) 4
0
(a) NA = Not applicable.
(b) Due to the degradation of soman in water, the stock solution confirmation analysis confirmed that the
concentration of the lethal dose was 61% of the expected concentration of 0.30 mg/L.
23
-------
Table 6-li. VX Percent Inhibition Results
Concentration
Inhibition
Average
Standard Deviation
EC-50
(mg/L)
(%)
(%)
(%)
(mg/L)
-6
0.00022
-3
0
3
-2
4
0
0.0022
-6
-1
1
6
9
NA(a)
2
0.022
2
2
3
2
1
0.22
6
8
f.
(Lethal Dose)
5
3
0
z
(a) NA = Not applicable.
All of the contaminant and potential interference samples were prepared in the DDW and
compared with unspiked DDW. Therefore, any background inhibition in the DDW was
corrected by subtracting the inhibition caused by the negative control sample. To investigate
whether Deltatox® is sensitive to by-products of disinfecting processes, dechlorinated drinking
water samples from water systems that use chlorination and chloramination were analyzed and
compared with ASTM Type IIDI water as the control sample. This determination is crucial
because the ability of Deltatox® to detect toxicity is dependent on the bacteria's background
light production in a clean drinking water matrix. If clean drinking water produces 100%
inhibition of light, inhibition caused by contaminants could not be detected. On average, the
chlorinated sample exhibited no detectable inhibition, indicating no toxicity, while the
chloraminated sample exhibited nearly complete inhibition (average 88% inhibition). This
suggests that samples that have been disinfected by using a chloramination process are likely to
produce false positive results because the background water sample would completely inhibit the
Deltatox® reagent. For aldicarb, cyanide, and dicrotophos, whose inhibitions increased with
concentration and spanned the range from approximately no inhibition to greater than 50%
inhibition, EC50 values were calculated and reported in Tables 6-la, 6-lc, and 6-Id. Because
inhibitions did not reach 50% for the other contaminants, EC50 values could not be calculated.
6.1.3 Precision
Across all the contaminants and potential interferences, the standard deviation was measured
and reported for each set of four replicates to evaluate the Deltatox® precision. The standard
deviation of the four replicate measurements was greater than 10% for only one sample and, in
most cases, it was less than 5%.
24
-------
Table 6-2. Potential Interferences Results
Potential
Concentration
Inhibition
Average
Interferences
(mg/L)
(%)
(%)
Standard Deviation (%)
-2
Aluminum
0.36
7
6
2
3
4
36
Copper
0.65
40
42
34
38
4
-10
Iron
0.069
1
3
-5
-3
6
6
Manganese
0.26
-6
-1
-6
-2
6
24
Zinc
3.5
26
23
13
22
6
Chlorination
by-products
NA(a)
(b)
-4
9
89
Chloramination
NA
87
1
by-products
OO 00
00 00
66
(a) NA = Not applicable.
(b) Chlorination by-product data averaged over negative control data compared to ASTM Type IIDI water.
6.2 Toxicity Threshold
Table 6-3 gives the toxicity thresholds, as described in Section 5.2, for each contaminant. The
lowest toxicity threshold concentration was for cyanide at 0.25 mg/L, indicating that Deltatox®
was most sensitive to cyanide. For colchicine, botulinum toxin, ricin, soman, and VX, no
inhibition greater than the negative control was detected, regardless of the concentration level,
indicating that the technology was not highly responsive to these contaminants.
25
-------
Table 6-3. Toxicity Thresholds
Contaminant Concentration (mg/L)
Aldicarb 28
Colchicine ND(a)
Cyanide 0.25
Dicrotophos 140
Thallium sulfate 240
Botulinum toxin ND
Ricin ND
Soman ND
VX ND
(a) ND = Significant inhibition was not detected.
6.3 False Positive/Negative Responses
False positive responses were observed for unspiked chloraminated tap water. As described in
Section 6.1.2, for a clean tap water sample that had been disinfected using a chloramination
process, Deltatox® reported almost complete inhibition (-88%). By-products of this chloramina-
tion process apparently inhibited the Deltatox® reagent. The water sample treated by chlorination
and then subsequently dechlorinated caused no detectable inhibition. A false negative response is
when a lethal dose of contaminant is present in the water sample and the inhibition is not sig-
nificantly different from either the negative control or the other lower concentration levels.
Table 6-4 gives these results. The inhibition induced by lethal doses of aldicarb, cyanide,
dicrotophos, and thallium sulfate was detectable by Deltatox®, while colchicine, botulinum toxin,
ricin, soman, and VX did not indicate inhibition greater than the negative control, indicating false
negative responses.
6.4 Field Portability
A single concentration of cyanide was prepared and analyzed in replicate at a field location to
examine its ability to be used in a non-laboratory setting. Deltatox® and necessary accessories
were conveniently transported to the field in the hard plastic carrying case provided by the
vendor. Fully loaded, the case weighed about 15 pounds. At the field location, Deltatox® was
operated with five "C" batteries on a small table in the basement of a house. Table 6-lc shows
the results of the cyanide samples analyzed in the field, along with the results of the cyanide
samples analyzed in the laboratory. The concentration of the solution analyzed in the field was
2.5 mg/L. The inhibition produced in the field was 31% ± 3%, and the inhibition produced in the
laboratory at the same concentration was 14% ± 2%. While these inhibitions are not the same,
the field measurements were made on freshly prepared solutions with a newly reconstituted batch
of bacteria. The precision of the results and the fact that the absolute percent inhibition was
26
-------
Table 6-4. False Negative Responses
Contaminant
Lethal Dose
Concentration
(mg/L)
False Negative
Response
Aldicarb
280
no
Colchicine
240
yes
Cyanide
250
no
Dicrotophos
1,400
no
Thallium sulfate
2,400
no
Botulinum toxin
0.30
yes
Ricin
15
yes
Soman
0.18(a)
yes
VX
0.22
yes
(a) Due to the degradation of soman in water, the stock solution confirmation
analysis confirmed that the concentration of the lethal dose was 61% of the
expected concentration of 0.30 mg/L.
within 20% of that in the laboratory indicate that Deltatox® functioned properly at the field
location. In addition, the positive control samples analyzed at the field location produced
inhibitions of 86% and 73% for phenol and zinc sulfate, respectively. These inhibitions are very
similar to the overall average inhibitions for those controls, as shown in Table 4-1.
The Deltatox® reagent must be kept at approximately -20°C prior to reconstitution and, once
reconstituted, needs to be consumed within two hours. These factors could be problematic in a
long-term field deployment.
6.5 Other Performance Factors
The step-by-step pictorial instruction manual for Deltatox® was easy to understand, which
enabled operators to become quickly adept at analyzing multiple sample sets. Deltatox® was very
straightforward to operate. The operators analyzed 20 samples per hour. Although the operators
had scientific backgrounds, based on observations of the verification test coordinator, an operator
with little technical training would probably be able to follow the manual instructions to analyze
samples successfully.
27
-------
Chapter 7
Performance Summary
Parameter
Compound
Lethal
Dose (LD)
Cone.
Average Inhibitions at Concentrations
Relative to the LD Concentration (%)
Range of
Standard
Deviations (%)
Toxicity
Thresh.
(mg/L/'"
LD
LD/10
LD/100
LD/1,000
Contaminants in
DDW
Aldicarb
280
72
26
6
-1
1-5
28
Colchicine
240
12
0
3
2
2-9
ND(b)
Cyanide
250
103
81
14
5
1^
0.25
Dicrotophos
1,400
65
25
2
-2
2-12
140
Thallium
sulfate
2,400
25
14
2
5
1^
240
Botulinum
toxin(c)
0.30
-2
-3
-5
-4
1-3
ND
Ricin(d)
15.0
2
-4
3
3
1-5
ND
Soman
0.18
-------
Chapter 8
References
1. Test/QA Plan for Verification of Rapid Toxicity Technologies, Battelle, Columbus, Ohio,
June 2003.
2. United States Environmental Protection Agency, National Secondary Drinking Water
Regulations: Guidance for Nuisance Chemicals, EPA/810/K-92/001, July 1992.
3. U.S. EPA Method 531.1, "Measurement of n-Methylcarbamoyloximes and
n-Methylcarbamates in Water by Direct Aqueous Injection HPLC with Post Column
Derivatization," in Methods for the Determination of Organic Compounds in Drinking
Water—Supplement 111, EPA/600/R-95/131, 1995.
4. U.S. EPA Method 335.1, "Cyanides, Amenable to Chlorination," in Methods for the
Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes, EPA/600/4-79/020, March 1983.
5. SW846 Method 8141 A, "Organophosphorous Compounds by Gas Chromatography:
Capillary Column Technique," Revision 1, September 1994.
6. U.S. EPA Method 200.8, "Determination of Trace Elements in Waters and Wastes by
Inductively-Coupled Plasma Mass Spectrometry," in Methods for the Determination of
Organic Compounds in Drinking Water, Supplement I, EPA/600/R-94/111, 1994.
7. U.S. EPA Method 180.1, "Turbidity (Nephelometric)," Methods for the Determination of
Inorganic Substances in Environmental Samples, EPA/600/R-93/100, 1993.
8. American Public Health Association, et al. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water
and Wastewater. 19th Edition, 1997. Washington, DC.
9. U.S. EPA, Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes, EPA/600/4-79/020.
10. U.S. EPA Method 524.2, "Purgeable Organic Compounds by Capillary Column GC/Mass
Spectrometry," Methods for the Determination of Organic Compounds in Drinking
Water—Supplement 111, EPA/600/R-95/131.
11. U.S. EPA Method 552.2, "Haloacetic Acids and Dalapon by Liquid-Liquid Extraction,
Derivatization and GC with Electron Capture Detector," Methods for the Determination of
Organic Compounds in Drinking Water—Supplement III, EPA/600/R-95/131.
29
-------
12. Quality Management Plan (QMP)for the ETV Advanced Monitoring Systems Center,
Version 4.0, U.S. EPA Environmental Technology Verification Program, Battelle,
Columbus, Ohio, December 2002.
30
-------