Comparison of Commercial Colorimetric and Enzyme Immunoassay Field Screening Methods for TNT in Soil. Installation Restoration Research Program

A study comparing two commercially available methods of field screening for TNT in soil, utilized 99 soil samples from the Naval Surface Warfare Center, Crane, Indiana. All soil samples were analyzed using a commercial colorimetric method (EnSys) and a commercial enzyme immunoassay method (D ThCH),...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Myers, Karen F, McCormick, Erika F, Strong, Ann B, Thorne, Philip G, Jenkins, Thomas F
Format: Report
Language:English
Subjects:
AGREEMENTS
Ammunition and Explosives
COLORIMETRY
COMMERCE
CONCENTRATION(COMPOSITION)
CONTAMINATION
DETECTION
ENZYMES
Explosions
EXPLOSIVES
Geology, Geochemistry and Mineralogy
IMMUNOASSAY
INDIANA
INSTALLATION RESTORATION
LABORATORIES
LIMITATIONS
NUMERICAL ANALYSIS
PHOTOGRAPHIC NEGATIVES
SAMPLING
SOILS
TNT
Online Access:Request full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:A study comparing two commercially available methods of field screening for TNT in soil, utilized 99 soil samples from the Naval Surface Warfare Center, Crane, Indiana. All soil samples were analyzed using a commercial colorimetric method (EnSys) and a commercial enzyme immunoassay method (D ThCH), and the results were compared with those from the standard reversed-phase high performance liquid chromatography (RP-HPLC) laboratory method (SW846 Method 8330). Comparisons were made relative to numerical agreement of screening results with laboratory analysis by RP-HPLC and usage in two distinct scenarios. Of the 99 soil samples analyzed by the laboratory method, 25 had TNT (2,4,6-trinitrotoluene) concentrations greater than the RP-HPLC detection limit of 0.3 ug/g. Of these 25, 11 had concentrations in the range 0.3- 1.0 ug/g and 14 had concentrations greater than 1.0 ug/g (the operating field screening detection limit for this study). Results were positive from both field screening methods for all 14 soils with TNT concentrations greater than 1.0 ug/g by RP-HPLC. Thus, no false negatives were observed by either method for samples above the field screening detection limit. Of the 11 samples with TNT concentrations in the range 0.3 - 1.0 ug/g, D ThCH failed to detect 3 samples and EnSys failed to detect 2 samples.