Total cyanide analysis by distillation is used most commonly to assess cyanide content of water samples. This manual method is robust but slow and provides no information about cyanide speciation, a significant limitation in that cyanide species have substantially different toxicity characteristics. Seven alternative methods for the analysis of cyanide species or groups of species were evaluated in reagent water and five different contaminated water matrices, including five species-specific methods--weak acid dissociable (WAD) cyanide, free cyanide by microdiffusion, available cyanide, automated WAD cyanide by thin film distillation, metal cyanides by ion chromatography--and two automated techniques for total cyanide--total cyanide bythin film distillation and total cyanide by low-power UV digestion. The species-specific cyanide analytical techniques achieved low, ppb-level detection limits and exhibited satisfactory accuracy and precision for most contaminated waters. Analysis of low concentrations of cyanide species in raw wastewater was problematical for the available cyanide and ion chromatography methods, which experienced significant interference problems and/or low recoveries. There was recovery of significant diffusible cyanide in microdiffusion tests with nickel-cyanide-spiked samples, reflecting dissociation of this weak metal-cyanide complex during the test and demonstrating that the test can recover some fraction of WAD cyanide in addition to free cyanide. The automated total cyanide methods, which involve UV digestion, achieved low detection limits for most waters but exhibited low recoveries for some waters.

No abstract

In this report we describe the results of a study conducted to determine the rates of bacterial aerosol emission from the surfaces of the aeration tanks of the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago John E. Egan Water Reclamation Plant. This study was accomplished by conducting test runs in which Andersen six-stage viable samplers were used to collect bacterial aerosol samples inside a walled tower positioned above an aeration tank liquid surface at the John E. Egan Water Reclamation Plant. The samples were analyzed for standard plate counts (SPC), total coliforms (TC), fecal coliforms, and fecal streptococci. Two methods of calculation were used to estimate the bacterial emission rate. The first method was a conventional stack emission rate calculation method in which the measured air concentration of bacteria was multiplied by the air flow rate emanating from the aeration tanks. The second method was a more empirical method in which an attempt was made to measure all of the bacteria emanating from an isolated area (0.37 m2) of the aeration tank surface over time. The data from six test runs were used to determine bacterial emission rates by both calculation methods. As determined by the conventional calculation method, the average SPC emission rate was 1.61 SPC/m2/s (range, 0.66 to 2.65 SPC/m2/s). As determined by the empirical calculation method, the average SPC emission rate was 2.18 SPC/m2/s (range, 1.25 to 2.66 SPC/m2/s). For TC, the average emission rate was 0.20 TC/m2/s (range, 0.02 to 0.40 TC/m2/s) when the conventional calculation method was used and 0.27 TC/m2/s (range, 0.04 to 0.53 TC/m2/s) when the empirical calculation method was used.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

The feasibility of using the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (U.S. EPA's) contract laboratory protocol method for analyzing semivolatile compounds in industrial wastewater pretreatment program samples was investigated because of time and labor savings involved. Various laboratory evaluation studies were conducted to determine whether this alternate one‐step acidic extraction method would give comparable results to U.S. EPA Method 625. These studies consisted of comparisons of method detection limits, spike recoveries in reagent water and actual field samples, and the precision between Method 625 and the alternate one‐step acidic extraction.
More than 60 base‐neutral and acid extractables (55 target compounds and 6 surrogates) were used in the comparative study of method detection limits and spike recoveries of the two procedures. Using reagent water, one‐step acidic extraction gave consistently better recoveries than two‐step basic and acidic extraction. Similar results were obtained with representative field sample matrices.
Based on results of this investigation, the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago, Illinois, submitted an application to U.S. EPA to have one‐step acidic extraction accepted as a site‐specific alternate test procedure for analyzing industrial wastewater samples. After thorough review, U.S. EPA Region V approved the use of this alternate one‐step acidic extraction method. It is recommended that other municipal analytical laboratories apply to U.S. EPA for similar approval.

No abstract