‘green’ solventless infrared oil and grease...

27
1 ‘Green’ Solventless Infrared Oil and Grease Method Orono Spectral Solutions Tyler Martin, Ph. D. Dean Smith Senior Research Engineer VP for Engineering Tom Schwarz Eric Roy, Ph. D. Research Technician Research Scientist Presentation at ASTM – D19.06 June 2009 Email: [email protected] Website: www.ossmaine.com ACS Green Chemistry – June 2009

Upload: phamkhuong

Post on 30-May-2018

223 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

1

‘Green’ Solventless InfraredOil and Grease Method

Orono Spectral Solutions

Tyler Martin, Ph. D. Dean SmithSenior Research Engineer VP for Engineering

Tom Schwarz Eric Roy, Ph. D.Research Technician Research Scientist

Presentation at ASTM – D19.06June 2009

Email: [email protected]: www.ossmaine.com

ACS Green Chemistry – June 2009

2

Oil and Grease Method Evolution

EPA 413.2 (Freon Extraction - Infrared)

‘dirty’ water

Freon extract

Extract in

Cuvette

Cuvette in Spectrometer

0

.1

.2

.3

.4

.5

.6

.7

3050 3000 2950 2900 2850 2800 2750

Abso

rban

ce (a

.u.)

Wavenumber (cm-1)

Peak height corresponds to hydrocarbon concentration

LLE

3

Oil and Grease Method Evolution

EPA 1664

‘dirty’ water

Hexane extract

Extract in

drying pan

Evaporate Hexane

Mass corresponds to

concentration of extractables

LLE

n-Hexane use introduces four issues:

1. Flammable solvent (flammables hood required)

2. Known neurotoxin

3. Analytical time increased significantly

4. Large amount of solvent for disposal to atmosphere or hazardous waste

Total Hexane Usage:~ 1+ Million Liters/year

4

Oil and Grease Method Evolution

EPA 1664A

‘dirty’ water

Hexane extract

Extract in

drying pan

Evaporate Hexane

Mass corresponds to

concentration of extractables

LLE SPE

Extract in

drying pan

1. Sample run through SPE disk

2. Disk Extracted with Hexane

Evaporate Hexane

5

Oil and Grease Method Evolution

New OSS Method: ASTM WK 23240 – Standard Test Method for Solvent-Free Membrane Recoverable Oil and Grease by Infrared Determination

0

.1

.2

.3

.4

.5

.6

.7

3050 3000 2950 2900 2850 2800 2750

Abso

rban

ce (a

.u.)

Wavenumber (cm-1)

Peak height corresponds to

hydrocarbon concentration

Sample run throughnew IR-amenable

oil and grease Extractor

created by OSS

Extractor placed in spectrometer

6

Method

Real Sample-acidified-cooled

Shake Vigorously,may use

mechanical shake(1-20 minutes)

Fill Sterile Disposable Syringe

7

Method (con’t)

Attach OSS Device to Syringe

Use Syringe Pump to Force Sample through Device

(3 minutes)

Use Air Pump to Aid Drying

(2-45 minutes)

8

Method (con’t)

Examine with IR Spectrometer(1 minute)

Process Spectrum with Software…

(instantaneous - 1 minute)

…To Determine Oil and Grease Content = 101 mg/L

0

.1

.2

.3

.4

.5

.6

.7

3050 3000 2950 2900 2850 2800 2750

Abso

rban

ce (a

.u.)

Wavenumber (cm-1)

9

Calibration of InstrumentCalibration of infrared instrumentation performed with ‘Standard Devices’, which contain a known amount of material

10

MatricesTested During Development

Set 1 Set 2 Set 3 Set 4Gulf A Stormwater Runoff Cleaning Co. POTW

Gulf B Food Processor A Bakery DairyFood Processor Food Processor B Prison Fish Processor

Prison Food Processor C Hospital A Auto SalvagePOTW - Primary

EffluentPOTW - Primary

Effluent Hospital B Auto Garage

Paper Mill Prison Hospital C Machinist

Paper Mill Hospital D Gunsmith

Hospital E

GunsmithStormwater Runoff

(Tested by OSS, compared to 1664A, LLE and/or SPE)

11

Comparison to 1664A

Line represents the 1:1 correlation line between the two methods; Not a best fit line

(OSS method tested by OSS, 1664A tested at independent lab)

12

New Method Detection Limit (IR)OSS

Operator 1OSS

Operator 2Independent Lab

Operator 1Independent Lab

Operator 2

Recovery 101% 97% 89% 110%

MDL 1.4 mg/L 1.4 mg/L 1.6 mg/L 1.3 mg/L

ML5 mg/L

(4.6 mg/L)5 mg/L

(4.4 mg/L)6 mg/L

(5.1 mg/L)5 mg/L

(4.1 mg/L)

Testing performed on oil and grease in reagent water(50% hexadecane, 50% stearic acid)

13

Single Lab Validation• Recently Completed Single Lab Validation• Performed at independent lab• Two key purposes

– Method Comparability– Single Lab QC Parameters

• Compared Results of New Method to 1664• Balloting soon for an ASTM Single-Lab

Validated Method

14

Single Lab Validation -Preliminary Data

Measured Result in mg/L for Real-World Matrices

Replicate # Publicly Owned Treatment Works Gunsmith

1 31.3 76.12 29.2 73.33 24.7 75.34 30.7 78.35 34.1 74.56 29.7 91.27 27.4 89.4

Average Recovery (mg/L) 29.6 79.7Average Recovery by EPA 1664 (mg/L) 32.2 78.9

Average Recovery as % of EPA 1664 92% 101%Standard Deviation (mg/L) 3.0 7.4Relative Standard Deviation as % 10% 9.3%Matrix Spike Recovery % 102% 69%

15

Single Lab Validation -Preliminary Data

* Below recommended reporting limit** Below MDL

Measured Result mg/L as Oil and Grease

Replicate # Auto Garage Dairy Machine

ShopAuto Salvage

YardFish

Processor1 21.0 89.5 74.0 5.8 50.52 19.9 91.4 69.9 4.8* 54.13 18.4 103.8 98.4 5.8 50.9

Average Recovery (mg/L) 19.8 94.9 80.8 5.5 51.8

Average Recovery by EPA 1664 (mg/L) 21.1 108.8 89.4 6.6 54

Average Recovery as % of EPA 1664 94% 87% 90% 84% 96%Standard Deviation (mg/L) 1.3 7.8 15.4 0.6 2.0

Relative Standard Deviation as % 6.7% 8.2% 19% 10% 3.8%

Matrix Spike Recovery % 101% ** 96% 94% 94%

16

Single Lab Validation -Preliminary Data

Seven samples of one matrix: POTWMeasured Result mg/L as Oil and Grease

Replicate # Day 1 Day 2 Day 3 Day 4 Day 5 Day 6 Day 71 22.6 25.6 21.7 23.2 19.6 28.8 1.1**2 19.5 29.9 14.8 20.8 19.5 25.7 1.3*3 23.7 28.6 21.2 25.1 25.9 22.6 0.9**

Average Recovery (mg/L) 21.9 28.0 19.3 23.0 21.7 25.7 1.1**Average Recovery by EPA 1664 (mg/L) 17.0 28.9 20.9 22.9 30.0 29.8 1.2**

Average Recovery as % of EPA 1664 129% 97% 92% 101% 72% 86% N/A***

Standard Deviation (mg/L) 2.2 2.2 3.8 2.1 3.7 3.1 N/A***

Relative Standard Deviation, % 10% 8% 20% 9% 17% 12% N/A***

Matrix Spike Recovery % 96% 96% 88% **** **** **** 110%* Below recommended reporting limit** Below MDL*** These recoveries and precision are not calculated b/c of data below the recommended reporting limit.

17

Multi-Lab Validation• Multi-Lab Validation planned; pending

laboratory selection

• Designed according to ASTM D2777

• Youden Pair analyses of three matrices– Youden pairs created through dilution (not

spiking)– POTW ~ 10 mg/L– Bilge Water ~ 40 mg/L– Food Processor ~ 110 mg/L

18

Method Contrast

•Danger of serious health damage•Irritating to skin, eyes, lungs•Risk of impaired fertility•Toxic to aquatic organisms

Hexane Issues:

Hazardous Materials Transport / Disposal:

OSS METHOD:

NO SOLVENTS

NO TOXIC SUBSTANCES

DISPOSABLE

FAST, EASY PROCESS

CURRENT EPA 1664 METHOD:

Millions of Liters/Year of Hexane evaporated

into atmosphere

Pollution:

19

Summary• New Method for Determining Oil and Grease

– Solventless – eliminates all the issues with n-Hexane– Infrared-Based– Fast– Precise– Disposable– Non-Hazardous Materials– No Clean-up Required

• Single lab validation complete– Balloting Soon for ASTM ~ July

• Multi-lab validation planned soon

20

Questions?

Tyler MartinOrono Spectral Solutions (OSS)

Email: [email protected]: 857-277-7843

21

Backup Slides

22

Holding Time Data

• Some concerns raised re: Holding Time– Does recovery decrease with holding time?– For limited matrices tested so far: No

Initial After Holding ChangeMatrix↓ Units→ mg/L mg/L %

POTW 22.7 24.4 +7.6%Gunsmith 85.2 85.2 0%

Fish Processor 51 55 +7.8%

23

Spectral AnalysisInfrared spectral analysis may provide the ability to get more useful information if desired

For Example: Potential for ‘Grease’ quantification w/o extra sample prep

24

Example Spectra

-.5

0

.5

1

1.5

2

3000 2800 2600 2400 2200 2000 1800 1600 1400

Food Processor – 96 ppm

Paper Mill – 12 ppm

Prison Waste Water – 49 ppm

POTW / Primary Eff. – 17 ppm

Abs

orba

nce

(a.u

.)

Wavenumber (cm-1)

25

0

.05

.1

2980 2960 2940 2920 2900 2880 2860 2840 2820

Example of Spiked Sample RepeatabilityA

bsor

banc

e (a

.u.)

Wavenumber (cm-1)

16 ppmHexadecane/Stearic Acid in

Distilled Water11% RSD

26

Drying

.5

1

1.5

3200 3000 2800 2600 2400 2200 2000 1800 1600

• Sample must be dried of water to do IR measurement

• Drying time varies with sample, drying method (manual or compressed air/inert gas)

• Once dried of water, extra drying does notreduce hydrocarbon measurement

Abs

orba

nce

(a.u

.)

Wavenumber (cm-1)

0 min

12 min

In this example, the sample was dry after ~ 6 minutes on a compressed air line, but drying for an extra 6 min. had no affect on the hydrocarbon measurement

4 min

6 min

Prison Wastewater, 49 ppm

27

983 Stillwater Avenue ~ Old Town ME 04468

Tel: 866-269-8007 Fax: 866-660-4759 Email: [email protected] Web: www.ossmaine.com

• Incorporated 2004

• Spun out of University of Maine

• DoD Contractor (CBD‐Army) for Chem/Bio Detection

• Actively Pursuing Commercial Opportunities