Follow NEMC
 |
 |
 |
The Evolution of Instrumentation for Environmental Monitoring
Oral Presentation
Prepared by D. Kennedy
Phenomenex, Inc., 1583 Redford Drive, Palm Springs, CA, 92264
Contact Information: davidk@phenomenex.com; 760-992-0655
ABSTRACT
2013 marks the 43rd anniversary of the founding of the US Environmental Protection Agency. From the beginning, EPA’s primary weapon in the war against pollution has been environmental monitoring, i.e. the identification and measurement of the concentration of contaminants in our air, water and soil. Legal limits are set as to the type and level of contaminants allowed in the environment and environmental monitoring is then performed to determine compliance. Obviously, analytical instruments are the primary enabling tools of environmental monitoring.
Instrumentation has evolved over the years to become ever more precise and accurate, permitting the measurement of many more environmental contaminants at lower levels of detection. However, it is important to view environmental monitoring as a dynamic process, not a static one. Two factors have driven this development:
1. Concerns about new environmental dangers (dioxins, for example) highlight the need for better monitoring solutions. This drives the development of new analytical instrumentation by creating a market.
2. Correspondingly, advances in analytical technology reveal new environmental problems, such as previously unknown pollutants or known contaminants at lower levels. This, in turn, drives the need for new and/or more stringent regulations.
The essence of this process is a self-reinforcing cycle of development for both monitoring technology and regulatory requirements. Depending upon one’s perspective, this process can be viewed either as a virtuous cycle or a rat race.
For example, “back in the day”, organic pollutants were first monitored using vintage gas chromatographs. This required a large battery of GC methods to cover all the compounds of concern. Moreover, the packed column technology of the time gave poor resolution and detection levels were often inadequate for regulatory purpose. This unsatisfactory monitoring solution drove the development and acceptance of GCMS as the primary monitoring tool for organic pollutants. In turn, the widespread use of GCMS monitoring then identified new areas of regulatory concern, causing additional compounds to be monitored, and at lower levels of detection. As time went by, people came to understand that many organic pollutants of concern might be too hydrophilic or thermally labile to be analyzed by gas chromatography. This realization lead to the use of HPLC as a monitoring tool for certain contaminants, such as explosives and propellants. More recently, LCMSMS revealed the presence of previously unsuspected, anthropogenic pollutants of concern in water supplies and wastewater discharges. This discovery will presumably drive the use of LCMSMS as a necessary environmental monitoring tool as UCMR3 plays out its course.
So, where does this cycle end? The answer is obvious: it won’t end. It can’t. New environmental problems are always going to emerge that will require ever more advanced monitoring techniques. A contemporary example may be the rapid growth of hydrofracturing to enhance oil and natural gas production. There are concerns that hydrofracturing will introduce new, unknown contaminants into the water and air. Obviously, these activities must be regulated - but they can’t be regulated if they can’t be monitored. Are existing environmental monitoring techniques completely adequate for the job or will new ones have to be developed? Given the history of environmental monitoring, you would be a fool to bet against the latter.
In this session we will review critical developments in the history of environmental, analytical instrumentation. However, since there is such an abundance of material, only the highpoints will be covered. Rather, the primary purpose of this talk is to create a perspective on the past that will enable us to gaze - however dimly - into the future. If it is indeed true that “what is past is prologue”, then the most exciting developments in instrumentation most certainly lie ahead of us.
Oral Presentation
Prepared by D. Kennedy
Phenomenex, Inc., 1583 Redford Drive, Palm Springs, CA, 92264
Contact Information: davidk@phenomenex.com; 760-992-0655
ABSTRACT
2013 marks the 43rd anniversary of the founding of the US Environmental Protection Agency. From the beginning, EPA’s primary weapon in the war against pollution has been environmental monitoring, i.e. the identification and measurement of the concentration of contaminants in our air, water and soil. Legal limits are set as to the type and level of contaminants allowed in the environment and environmental monitoring is then performed to determine compliance. Obviously, analytical instruments are the primary enabling tools of environmental monitoring.
Instrumentation has evolved over the years to become ever more precise and accurate, permitting the measurement of many more environmental contaminants at lower levels of detection. However, it is important to view environmental monitoring as a dynamic process, not a static one. Two factors have driven this development:
1. Concerns about new environmental dangers (dioxins, for example) highlight the need for better monitoring solutions. This drives the development of new analytical instrumentation by creating a market.
2. Correspondingly, advances in analytical technology reveal new environmental problems, such as previously unknown pollutants or known contaminants at lower levels. This, in turn, drives the need for new and/or more stringent regulations.
The essence of this process is a self-reinforcing cycle of development for both monitoring technology and regulatory requirements. Depending upon one’s perspective, this process can be viewed either as a virtuous cycle or a rat race.
For example, “back in the day”, organic pollutants were first monitored using vintage gas chromatographs. This required a large battery of GC methods to cover all the compounds of concern. Moreover, the packed column technology of the time gave poor resolution and detection levels were often inadequate for regulatory purpose. This unsatisfactory monitoring solution drove the development and acceptance of GCMS as the primary monitoring tool for organic pollutants. In turn, the widespread use of GCMS monitoring then identified new areas of regulatory concern, causing additional compounds to be monitored, and at lower levels of detection. As time went by, people came to understand that many organic pollutants of concern might be too hydrophilic or thermally labile to be analyzed by gas chromatography. This realization lead to the use of HPLC as a monitoring tool for certain contaminants, such as explosives and propellants. More recently, LCMSMS revealed the presence of previously unsuspected, anthropogenic pollutants of concern in water supplies and wastewater discharges. This discovery will presumably drive the use of LCMSMS as a necessary environmental monitoring tool as UCMR3 plays out its course.
So, where does this cycle end? The answer is obvious: it won’t end. It can’t. New environmental problems are always going to emerge that will require ever more advanced monitoring techniques. A contemporary example may be the rapid growth of hydrofracturing to enhance oil and natural gas production. There are concerns that hydrofracturing will introduce new, unknown contaminants into the water and air. Obviously, these activities must be regulated - but they can’t be regulated if they can’t be monitored. Are existing environmental monitoring techniques completely adequate for the job or will new ones have to be developed? Given the history of environmental monitoring, you would be a fool to bet against the latter.
In this session we will review critical developments in the history of environmental, analytical instrumentation. However, since there is such an abundance of material, only the highpoints will be covered. Rather, the primary purpose of this talk is to create a perspective on the past that will enable us to gaze - however dimly - into the future. If it is indeed true that “what is past is prologue”, then the most exciting developments in instrumentation most certainly lie ahead of us.