Anyone familiar with EPH methods such as those developed by the Massachusetts or New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection is familiar with the long and gruelling process of fractionation. For those unfamiliar, with EPH or Extractable Petroleum Hydrocarbons it is an extraction that essentially occurs in two distinct parts: the initial extraction & concentration and then the fractionation of that initial extract into the aromatic and aliphatic fractions followed by concentration again. EPH is a method that replaces the TPH (Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons) or 8015 methods and allows for the calculation of specified carbon ranges giving you a more accurate assessment of potential health risks.
Do you ever tire of using sodium sulfate to dry your extracts? I know I do. That is why, whenever I get the chance to avoid using it, I do. The worst experience when using sodium sulfate is when you do not use enough of it, and the sodium sulfate reaches its maximum capacity leading to water breakthrough into your ‘what was supposed to be a dried extract.’ Then, you must dry the extract again with more sodium sulfate. When you are a high throughput lab, redoing steps is not ideal. Unfortunately, EPA Methods 525.2 and 525.3 require sodium sulfate drying as the drying technique, to name a couple, but not all EPA methods require sodium sulfate for drying. That is why when there is an alternative technique available and you are permitted to use it, why not use it?!
Liquid-liquid extraction (LLE), supported liquid extraction (SLE), and solid-phase extraction (SPE) have existed for decades and if you’re doing organic sample preparation, you’re probably quite familiar with at least one of these techniques. But are you familiar with all of them? How are they similar? How are they different? Let’s review! Continue reading SLE, SPE and LLE – How are Those Different?
“Oh my! This is crystal clear!” – said nobody who has ever read through an EPA Method.
For anyone who processes samples in an EPA-regulated laboratory, you know that these methods can be very specific in some spots, and incredibly vague in others. The complexity worsens if you’re following one method for sample cleanup and another method for sample preparation and data collection. Consult this handy infographic to make sure you’re following the right methods for sample cleanup, processing and analysis.
“There is a child in every one of us who is still a trick-or-treater looking for a brightly-lit front porch.” – Robert Brault
It’s Halloween! I assume you’ve carefully assembled your favorite movie character, comic book superhero or animal costume for a night of spooky fun. If you’re me, this is the day you get to wear your superhero cape out in public. As an applications chemist, I consider myself to be a bit of a superhero – but a humble one, as I wear my cape underneath my t-shirt and lab coat. I consider myself to be a superhero when I’m able to use my background and my experiences to think quickly on my feet and help troubleshoot challenges that chemists face all the time. It’s one of the best parts of my job and I’m thrilled each time I get to wear my cape – metaphorically speaking.
“Water in my extracts again?!?!”
How many of you have been in that position? You’ve worked hard to extract your samples, you’ve dried your extracts to remove the last droplets of water from your organic solvent – only to add that water back in during your evaporation step! There are fewer frustrating situations than losing a set of extracts in this manner.
If you’re like me, you work hard, follow all the precautionary step-by-step procedures to carefully produce extracts in a timely fashion. It’s frustrating to think that a whole day’s work can be ruined with just a few milliliters of water. When you see the water, you make an attempt to remove it and save your extracts, but there’s no guarantee that it’ll work. Is there any way to avoid this?
If you’re reading this blog and hoping for a sneak peek at the list of contaminants that will be on the next UCMR list, you’ll want to keep reading…
If you’re familiar with methylene chloride (which I’m sure you are since it’s one of the most widely used laboratory solvents), you know that it’s developed a reputation for being one of the “bad boys” of the solvent world. The bad press has certainly been earned. It’s been attributed to over 60 deaths in the last 4 decades. It’s also pretty aggressive – exposure to just a few ounces for a few minutes can be enough to cause severe damage or death. And since it’s a colorless liquid, an innocent-looking spill could be a severely harmful hazard.