Aroclors, Homologs and Congeners - An Evaluation of the Options Available for PCB Analysis and a Comparison of the Interpretive Value
Oral Presentation
Prepared by C. Neslund
Eurofins Lancaster Laboratories Environmental, LLC, 2425 New Holland Pike, Lancaster, PA, 17601, United States
Contact Information: charlesneslund@eurofinsus.com; 717-556-7231
ABSTRACT
For many years, when we have referred to PCB analysis, almost everyone thinks of SW-846, Method 8082 for the analysis of Aroclors. Inexpensive and relatively reliable, 8082 was often the choice of PCB investigations. The use of a more detailed and expensive method, such as EPA Method 1668, was reserved for more involved investigations because it was more expensive, not as available and suffered early on from a lack of consistency of results amongst the labs performing the analysis. Also, somewhere in the process, birth was given to EPA Method 680, which has it's own unique set of challenges and outcomes.
This presentation will contrast the differences between these three applications, the advantages of each as well as the shortcomings inherent in the application of each method. We will also detail our experiences with running these methods and how each can best be used to characterize samples and therefore uniquely characterize impacted sites.
Oral Presentation
Prepared by C. Neslund
Eurofins Lancaster Laboratories Environmental, LLC, 2425 New Holland Pike, Lancaster, PA, 17601, United States
Contact Information: charlesneslund@eurofinsus.com; 717-556-7231
ABSTRACT
For many years, when we have referred to PCB analysis, almost everyone thinks of SW-846, Method 8082 for the analysis of Aroclors. Inexpensive and relatively reliable, 8082 was often the choice of PCB investigations. The use of a more detailed and expensive method, such as EPA Method 1668, was reserved for more involved investigations because it was more expensive, not as available and suffered early on from a lack of consistency of results amongst the labs performing the analysis. Also, somewhere in the process, birth was given to EPA Method 680, which has it's own unique set of challenges and outcomes.
This presentation will contrast the differences between these three applications, the advantages of each as well as the shortcomings inherent in the application of each method. We will also detail our experiences with running these methods and how each can best be used to characterize samples and therefore uniquely characterize impacted sites.
