Warning: foreach() argument must be of type array|object, bool given in /var/www/html/web/app/themes/studypress-core-theme/template-parts/header/mobile-offcanvas.php on line 20

The county landfill in the diagram was monitored to verify that toxic compounds were not leaching into the local water supply. Wells drilled at 21 locations were monitored over a year and pollutants were observed only at sites\(8,11,12\), and 13 . Monitoring all 21 sites each month is very expensive. Suggest a strategy to use composite samples (Box 0-1) made from more than one well at a time to reduce the cost of routine monitoring. How will your scheme affect the minimum detectable level for pollutants at a particular site?

Short Answer

Expert verified

How the scheme affects the minimum detectable level for pollutants at a particular site is explained clearly.

Step by step solution

01

Defining composite samples.

A collection of individual samples (grab samples) taken over a specific time period (e.g., 24 hours for a daily composite). The water characteristics in a composite sample represent the conditions in the sampled flow during that time period. Subsamples can be collected at regular intervals to produce time-weighted composites, or their volume and timing can be varied to produce flowweighted composites.

02

Analzing the scheme.

In this task we will suggest a strategy to use composite samples (Box 0-1) made from more than one well at a time in order to reduce the cost of routine monitoring. Also, explain how would our scheme affect the minimum detectable level for pollutants at a particular site.

One of the possible schemes would be to monitor the wells \(8,11,12\) and 13 individually, but we would pool from other sites samples

A composite sample can be made with same volumes from wells\((1,2,3,4)\), whereas other composite samples could be made from \((5,6,7);(9,10);(14,15,16,17);(18,19,20,21)\)

(1) If there is no warning level of analyte found in composites, we could say that each well in those composites contains no analyte.

(2) If we find that analyte is present in composites, then we would separately analyze each contributor to the composite sample.

The main disadvantage of pooling samples from different \(n\) wells is that the sensitivity of analysis in each well would be reduced by \(1/n\).

How the scheme affects the minimum detectable level for pollutants at a particular site is explained above clearly.

Unlock Step-by-Step Solutions & Ace Your Exams!

  • Full Textbook Solutions

    Get detailed explanations and key concepts

  • Unlimited Al creation

    Al flashcards, explanations, exams and more...

  • Ads-free access

    To over 500 millions flashcards

  • Money-back guarantee

    We refund you if you fail your exam.

Over 30 million students worldwide already upgrade their learning with Vaia!

One App. One Place for Learning.

All the tools & learning materials you need for study success - in one app.

Get started for free

Most popular questions from this chapter

In analyzing a lot with random sample variation, you find a sampling standard deviation of \({\bf{65}}\% .\)Assuming negligible error in the analytical procedure, how many samples must be analyzed to give \(9{\bf{5}}\% \)confidence that the error in the mean is within\(64\% \)of the true value? Answer the same question for a confidence level of \(90\% \).

EXAMPLE- Particles designated \(50/00\)mesh pass through a 50 mesh sieve bou are retained by a lo0 mesh sieve. Their size is in the range 0.150-0.300 mm.

does not pass is retained for your sample. This procedure gives particles whose diameters are in the range \(0.85 - 1.18\;{\rm{mm}}.\) We refer to the size range as \(16/20{\rm{mesh}}.\)

Suppose that much finer particles of \(80/120\)mesh size (average diameter \( = 152\mu {\rm{m}},\) average volume\( = 1.84\;{\rm{nL}}\)) were used instead. Now the mass containing \({10^4}\) particles is reduced from \(11.0to0.0388\;{\rm{g}}.\) We could analyze a larger sample to reduce the sampling uncertainty for chloride.

The following wet-ashing procedure was used to measure arsenic in organic soil samples by atomic absorption spectroscopy: A 0.1- to \({\bf{0}}.{\bf{5}} - \)g sample was heated in a \({\bf{150}} - {\bf{mL}}\) Teflon bomb in a microwave oven for \(2.5\;{\rm{min}}\) with \(3.5\;{\rm{mL}}\)of\(70\% \,\,\,{\rm{HN}}{{\rm{O}}_3}\). After the sample cooled, a mixture containing \(3.5\;{\rm{mL}}\)of \(70\% \,\,\,{\rm{HN}}{{\rm{O}}_3},1.5\;{\rm{mL}}\) of\(70\% \,\,{\rm{HCl}}{{\rm{O}}_4}\), and \(1.0\;{\rm{mL}}\) of \({{\rm{H}}_2}{\rm{S}}{{\rm{O}}_4}\)was added and the sample was reheated for three \({\bf{2}}.{\bf{5}} - {\bf{min}}\) intervals with 2 -min unheated periods in between. The final solution was diluted with \(0.2{\rm{M}}\,\,\,{\rm{HCl}}\)for analysis. Why was \({\rm{HCl}}{{\rm{O}}_4}\) not introduced until the second heating?

In 2002, workers at the Swedish National Food Administration discovered that heated, carbohydrate-rich foods, such as french fries, potato chips, and bread, contain alarming levels \((0.1to4\mu {\rm{g}}/{\rm{g}})\) of acrylamide, a known carcinogen\(36\).

After the discovery, simplified methods were developed to measure ppm levels of acrylamide in food. In one procedure,\(10\;{\rm{g}}\) of pulverized, frozen french fries were mixed for \(20\;{\rm{min}}\)with\(50\;{\rm{mL}}\) of \({{\rm{H}}_2}{\rm{O}}\)to extract acrylamide, which is very soluble in water \((216\;{\rm{g}}/100\;{\rm{mL}}).\)The liquid was decanted and centrifuged to remove suspended matter. The internal standard \(^2{{\rm{H}}_3}\)-acrylamide was added to\(1\;{\rm{mL}}\) of extract. A solid-phase extraction column containing \(100{\rm{mg}}\)of cation-exchange polymer with protonated sulfonic acid groups\(\left( { - {\rm{S}}{{\rm{O}}_3}{\rm{H}}} \right.)\) was washed twice with 1 -mL portions of methanol and twice with \(1 - {\rm{mL}}\)portions of water. The aqueous food extract \((1{\rm{mL}})\)was then passed through the column to bind protonated acrylamide \(\left( { - {\rm{NH}}_3^ + } \right)\)to sulfonate \(\left( { - {\rm{SO}}_3^ - } \right)on\)the column. The column was dried for\(30\;{\rm{s }}at\)\(0.3\)bar and then acrylamide was eluted with\(1\;{\rm{mL}}\) of \({{\rm{H}}_2}{\rm{O}}.\)Eluate was analyzed by liquid chromatography with a polar bonded phase. The chromatograms show the results moni- tored by ultraviolet absorbance or by mass spectrometry. The retention time of acrylamide is different on the two columns because they have different dimensions and different flow rates.

(a) What is the purpose of solid-phase extraction prior to chromatography? How does the ion-exchange sorbent retain acrylamide?

(b) Why are there many peaks when chromatography is monitored by ultraviolet absorbance?

(c) Mass spectral detection used selected reaction monitoring (Figure 22-33) with the \(m/z72 \to 55\)transition for acrylamide and \(75 \to 58fo{r^2}{{\rm{H}}_3}\)-acrylamide. Explain how this detection method works and suggest structures for the ions with \({\rm{m}}/{\rm{z}}72\)and 55 from acrylamide.

(d) Why does mass spectral detection give just one major peak?

(e) How is the internal standard used for quantitation with mass spectral detection?

(f) Where does \(^2{{\rm{H}}_3}\)-acrylamide appear with ultraviolet absorbance? With mass spectral selected reaction monitoring?

(g) Why does the mass spectral method give quantitative results even though retention of acrylamide by the ion-exchange sorbent is not quantitative and elution of acrylamide from the sorbent by \(1\;{\rm{mL}}\) of water might not be quantitative?

Chromatograms of acrylamide extract after passage through solid-phase extraction column. Left: Phenomenex Synergi Polar-RP 4- \(\mu {\rm{m}}\)column eluted with 96:4 \((vol/vol){{\rm{H}}_2}{\rm{O}}:{\rm{C}}{{\rm{H}}_3}{\rm{CN}}.\)Right: Phenomenex Synergi Hydro-RP 4- \(\mu {\rm{m}}\)column eluted with \(96:4:0.1(vol/vol/vol){{\rm{H}}_2}{\rm{O}}:{\rm{C}}{{\rm{H}}_3}{\rm{OH}}:{\rm{HC}}{{\rm{O}}_2}{\rm{H}}.\) (Data from L. Peng. T. Farkas, L. Loo, \({\rm{J}}.\)Teuscher, and \({\rm{K}}.\)Kallury, "Rapid and Reproducible Extraction of Acrylamide in French Fries Using a Single Solid-Phase Sorbent," Am. Lab. News Ed, October 2003, p. 10.)

Why is it advantageous to use large particles \(\left( {{\bf{50}}{\rm{ }}\mu {\bf{m}}} \right)\) for solid phase extraction, but small particles \(\left( {{\bf{5}}{\rm{ }}\mu {\bf{m}}} \right)\) for chromatography?

See all solutions

Recommended explanations on Chemistry Textbooks

View all explanations

What do you think about this solution?

We value your feedback to improve our textbook solutions.

Study anywhere. Anytime. Across all devices.

Sign-up for free