A New Approach to Drinking-Water-Quality Data: Lowest-Concentration Minimum Reporting Level

Martin, John J.; Winslow, Stephen D.; Munch, David J.

doi:10.1021/es072456n

Cited by 19 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Where one pharmaceutical was determined by more than one method, the method with the lower Lowest Concentration Minimum Reporting Limit (LCMRL; [J. J. Martin et al, 2007]) was preferentially used. From this assessment 118 individual pharmaceutical and method pairs were identified as preferred results and are listed in Table 2.…”

Section: Phase IImentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Nationwide reconnaissance of contaminants of emerging concern in source and treated drinking waters of the United States: Pharmaceuticals

Furlong

Batt

Glassmeyer

et al. 2017

Science of The Total Environment

132

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Mobile and persistent chemicals that are present in urban wastewater, such as pharmaceuticals, may survive on-site or municipal wastewater treatment and post-discharge environmental processes. These pharmaceuticals have the potential to reach surface and groundwaters, essential drinking-water sources. A joint, two-phase U.S. Geological Survey-U.S. Environmental Protection Agency study examined source and treated waters from 25 drinking-water treatment plants from across the United States. Treatment plants that had probable wastewater inputs to their source waters were selected to assess the prevalence of pharmaceuticals in such source waters, and to identify which pharmaceuticals persist through drinking-water treatment. All samples were analyzed for 24 pharmaceuticals in Phase I and for 118 in Phase II. In Phase I, 11 pharmaceuticals were detected in all source-water samples, with a maximum of nine pharmaceuticals detected in any one sample. The median number of pharmaceuticals for all 25 samples was five. Quantifiable pharmaceutical detections were fewer, with a maximum of five pharmaceuticals in any one sample and a median for all samples of two. In Phase II, 47 different pharmaceuticals were detected in all source-water samples, with a maximum of 41 pharmaceuticals detected in any one sample. The median number of pharmaceuticals for all 25 samples was eight. For 37 quantifiable pharmaceuticals in Phase II, median concentrations in source water were below 113ng/L. For both Phase I and Phase II campaigns, substantially fewer pharmaceuticals were detected in treated water samples than in corresponding source-water samples. Seven different pharmaceuticals were detected in all Phase I treated water samples, with a maximum of four detections in any one sample and a median of two pharmaceuticals for all samples. In Phase II a total of 26 different pharmaceuticals were detected in all treated water samples, with a maximum of 20 pharmaceuticals detected in any one sample and a median of 2 pharmaceuticals detected for all 25 samples. Source-water type influences the presence of pharmaceuticals in source and treated water. Treatment processes appear effective in reducing concentrations of most pharmaceuticals. Pharmaceuticals more consistently persisting through treatment include carbamazepine, bupropion, cotinine, metoprolol, and lithium. Pharmaceutical concentrations and compositions from this study provide an important base data set for further sublethal, long-term exposure assessments, and for understanding potential effects of these and other contaminants of emerging concern upon human and ecosystem health.

show abstract

Section: Phase IImentioning

confidence: 99%

“…minimum reporting level(Martin et al 2007), in nanograms per liter.c.Units for all pharmaceuticals are in nanograms per liter, except lithium, which are in micrograms per liter.d. Not applicable.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Nationwide reconnaissance of contaminants of emerging concern in source and treated drinking waters of the United States: Pharmaceuticals

Furlong

Batt

Glassmeyer

et al. 2017

Science of The Total Environment

132

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“… increased emphasis on quality control in methods, including the use of laboratory fortified blanks and reporting‐level check standards to verify accuracy and sensitivity; changes in methods of determining reporting levels, from the initial MDL as a statistical measure to practical quantitation levels established from proficiency‐testing studies to the most recent, i.e., the lowest concentration minimum reporting level (LCMRL) determination (Martin et al, 2007), which is based on either single or multiple laboratory assessments of a statistical certainty for achieving a given accuracy and precision; changes in preservation techniques for VOCs as additional information has become available; and more flexibility in selection of traps, purging conditions, and desorbtion conditions. …”

Section: History Of the Analytical Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The state of the science of analytical methods for cVOCs

et al. 2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As part of its drinking water strategy, the US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) attempts to streamline the cost of compliance by regulating contaminants as groups with similar health effects, co‐occurrence, common analytical method(s), and common treatment or control processes. When the announcement to regulate up to 16 carcinogenic volatile organic compounds (cVOCs) as a group included compounds not currently listed in the USEPA analytical methods most commonly used for VOC analysis (methods 524.2 and 524.3), a review of the state of the science of analytical methods was performed. Findings indicated that USEPA method 524.3 can support lower‐level detection of currently regulated VOCs as well as some additional VOCs included in the cVOC group, but a modified sample preservation protocol for (method 524.3) and additional methods (liquid chromatography/mass spectrometry and method 526) will be needed to detect all compounds in the proposed cVOC group at meaningful levels. The number of analytical methods required for the cVOC group will significantly affect the feasibility and analytical cost of compliance monitoring for the cVOC rule if the list remains as proposed.

show abstract

“…The LCMRL is defined as the lowest spiking concentration such that the probability of spike recovery in the 50% -150% range is at least 99% 40,41 , and is determined by analyzing sets of spiked replicates at different concentrations in reagent water with a set of reagent blanks. An online calculator provided regression-based modeling analysis (available at http://water.epa.gov/scitech/drinkingwater/labcert/analyticalmethods_ogwdw.cfm).…”

Section: Quality Control Designmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Iteratively reweighted least squares regression, with weights derived using Tukey's biweight formula, was used to robustly model the relationship between signal and spike concentration, as well as the relationship between signal variance and spike concentration. These functional relationships were then used to estimate probability of obtaining signal values corresponding to the targeted recovery percentage range at different, potential spike-in concentrations 40,41 . For the 10 ICAs in which an LCMRL could not be determined, a method detection limit (MDL) was used.…”

Section: Quality Control Designmentioning

confidence: 99%

The importance of quality control in validating concentrations of contaminants of emerging concern in source and treated drinking water samples

Batt

Furlong

Mash

et al. 2017

Science of The Total Environment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A national-scale survey of 247 contaminants of emerging concern (CECs), including organic and inorganic chemical compounds, and microbial contaminants, was conducted in source and treated drinking water samples from 25 treatment plants across the United States. Multiple methods were used to determine these CECs, including six analytical methods to measure 174 pharmaceuticals, personal care products, and pesticides. A three-component quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) program was designed for the subset of 174 CECs which allowed us to assess and compare performances of the methods used. The three components included: 1) a common field QA/QC protocol and sample design, 2) individual investigator-developed method-specific QA/QC protocols, and 3) a suite of 46 method comparison analytes that were determined in two or more analytical methods. Overall method performance for the 174 organic chemical CECs was assessed by comparing spiked recoveries in reagent, source, and treated water over a two-year period. In addition to the 247 CECs reported in the larger drinking water study, another 48 pharmaceutical compounds measured did not consistently meet predetermined quality standards. Methodologies that did not seem suitable for these analytes are overviewed. The need to exclude analytes based on method performance demonstrates the importance of additional QA/QC protocols.

show abstract

A New Approach to Drinking-Water-Quality Data: Lowest-Concentration Minimum Reporting Level

Cited by 19 publications

References 10 publications

Nationwide reconnaissance of contaminants of emerging concern in source and treated drinking waters of the United States: Pharmaceuticals

Nationwide reconnaissance of contaminants of emerging concern in source and treated drinking waters of the United States: Pharmaceuticals

The state of the science of analytical methods for cVOCs

The importance of quality control in validating concentrations of contaminants of emerging concern in source and treated drinking water samples

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About