An Interlaboratory Comparison for Total Mercury and Methylmercury in Water at Environmentally Relevant Concentrations

Water, Air, and Soil Pollution

Volumn 226, Issue 5, 2015, Pages

  Creswell, J E ^a   Carter, A ^b   Engel, V L ^a   Metz, J A ^a   Davies, C A ^a  

^a Brooks Rand Ltd   (United States)

^b Brooks Rand Labs   (United States)

Author keywords

Interlaboratory comparison; Mercury; Method evaluation; Methylmercury; Quality assurance

Indexed keywords

DIGITAL STORAGE; DISTILLATION; MERCURY (METAL); METALS; QUALITY ASSURANCE;

ANALYTICAL METHOD; COASTAL SEAWATER; COEFFICIENTS OF VARIATIONS; ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCHES; INTERLABORATORY COMPARISON; INTERLABORATORY COMPARISON STUDIES; METHOD EVALUATION; METHYL MERCURY;

QUALITY CONTROL;

MERCURY; METHYLMERCURY; SEA WATER;

CONCENTRATION (COMPOSITION); DISTILLATION; FRESHWATER; MERCURY (ELEMENT); METHYLMERCURY; SEAWATER; WATER CHEMISTRY; WATER QUALITY;

ANALYTIC METHOD; ARTICLE; COASTAL WATERS; CONCENTRATION (PARAMETERS); CONTROLLED STUDY; INTERLABORATORY COMPARISON; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; LABORATORY; QUALITY CONTROL; WATER SAMPLING;

EID: 84927766948     PISSN: 00496979     EISSN: 15732932     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11270-015-2313-x     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. Bloom, N. S., Horvat, M., & Watras, C. J. (1995). Results of the international aqueous mercury speciation intercomparison exercise. Water, Air, & Soil Pollution, 80(1), 1257-1268. Accessed 28 February 2013.
2. Chandrasekhar, T. M. (2003). Evaluation of Fluorinated Polyethylene Bottles for Sample Storage (p. 22). Tallahassee: Florida Department of Environmental Protection.
3. Chiasson-Gould, S. A., Blais, J. M., & Poulain, A. J. (2014). Dissolved organic matter kinetically controls mercury bioavailability to bacteria. Environmental Science & Technology, 48(6), 3153-3161. doi: 10.1021/es4038484.
4. Cook, R. D., & Weisberg, S. (1980). Characterizations of an empirical influence function for detecting influential cases in regression. Technometrics, 495-508.
5. Cossa, D., & Courau, P. (1990). An international intercomparison exercise for total mercury in seawater. Applied Organometallic Chemistry, 4(1), 49-54. doi: 10.1002/aoc.590040109.
6. Creswell, J., Carter, A., & Davies, C. (2011). 2011 Brooks rand labs interlaboratory comparison study for total mercury and methylmercury (Intercomp 2011) (p. 44). Seattle, WA USA: Brooks Rand Labs. http://www.brooksrandinc.com/InstrumentManufacturingHome/2011%20Brooks%20Rand%20Labs%20Interlaboratroy%20Comparision%20Sutdy.pdf. Accessed 29 December 2014
7. Creswell, J., Engel, V., Carter, A., & Davies, C. (2012). 2012 Brooks rand labs interlaboratory comparison study for total mercury and methylmercury (Intercomp 2012) (p. 52). Seattle, WA USA: Brooks Rand Labs. http://www.brooksrandinc.com/InstrumentManufacturingHome/2012%20Brooks%20Rand%20Labs%20Interlaboratory%20Comparison%20Study.pdf. Accessed 29 December 2014
8. Creswell, J., Engel, V., Carter, A., & Davies, C. (2013). 2013 brooks rand instruments interlaboratory comparison study for total mercury and methylmercury (Intercomp 2013) (p. 51). Seattle, WA USA: Brooks Rand Instruments. http://www.brooksrandinc.com/InstrumentManufacturingHome/ILC2013%20Report.pdf. Accessed 15 May 2014
9. Creswell, J., Metz, J., Carter, A., & Davies, C. (2014). 2014 Brooks Rand Instruments Interlaboratory Comparison Study for Total Mercury and Methylmercury (Intercomp 2014) (p. 54). Seattle, WA USA: Brooks Rand Instruments. http://www.brooksrandinc.com/InstrumentManufacturingHome/ILC2014%20Report.pdf. Accessed 15 May 2014
10. Fadini, P. S., & Jardim, W. F. (2000). Storage of natural water samples for total and reactive mercury analysis in PET bottles. Analyst, 125(3), 549-551. doi: 10.1039/A909623J.
11. Filliben, J. J. (2012). Chapter 1. Exploratory data analysis. In C. Croarkin& P. Tobias (Eds.), NIST/SEMATECH e-Handbook of Statistical Methods. http://www.itl.nist.gov/div898/handbook/. Accessed 8 May 2012
12. Fitzgerald, W. F., & Gill, G. A. (1979). Subnanogram determination of mercury by two-stage gold amalgamation and gas phase detection applied to atmospheric analysis. Analytical Chemistry, 51(11), 1714-1720. Accessed 1 April 2013.
13. Hall, G. E. M., Pelchat, J. C., Pelchat, P., & Vaive, J. E. (2002). Sample collection, filtration and preservation protocols for the determination of "total dissolved" mercury in waters. Analyst, 127(5), 674-680. doi: 10.1039/B110491H.
14. Hammerschmidt, C. R., Bowman, K. L., Tabatchnick, M. D., & Lamborg, C. H. (2011). Storage bottle material and cleaning for determination of total mercury in seawater. Limnology and Oceanography: Methods, 9, 426-431. doi: 10.4319/lom.2011.9.426.
15. Harris, R. C., Rudd, J. W. M., Amyot, M., Babiarz, C. L., Beaty, K. G., Blanchfield, P. J., et al. (2007). Whole-ecosystem study shows rapid fish-mercury response to changes in mercury deposition. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 104(42), 16586-16591. Accessed 17 December 2012.
16. Helsel, D. R. (2006). Fabricating data: how substituting values for nondetects can ruin results, and what can be done about it. Chemosphere, 65(11), 2434-2439. doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2006.04.051.
17. Helsel, D. R. (2010). Summing nondetects: incorporating low-level contaminants in risk assessment. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management, 6(3), 361-366. doi: 10.1002/ieam.31.
18. Horvat, M., Liang, L., & Bloom, N. S. (1993). Comparison of distillation with other current isolation methods for the determination of methyl mercury compounds in low level environmental samples: Part II. Water. Anal Chim Acta, 282(1), 153-168. Accessed 26 June 2014.
19. Lamborg, C. H., Hammerschmidt, C. R., Gill, G. A., Mason, R. P., & Gichuki, S. (2012). An intercomparison of procedures for the determination of total mercury in seawater and recommendations regarding mercury speciation during GEOTRACES cruises. Limnology and Oceanography: Methods, 10, 90-100. doi: 10.4319/lom.2012.10.90.
20. Lepine, L., & Chamberland, A. (1995). Field sampling and analytical intercomparison for mercury and methylmercury determination in natural-water. Water, Air, and Soil Pollution, 80(1-4), 1247-1256. doi: 10.1007/BF01189788.
21. Lin, P. E., & Niu, X. F. (1998). Statistical analysis of environmental laboratory data (Technical Report No. LAB012) (p. 41). Tallahassee: Florida Department of Environmental Protection.
22. Lin, P. E., & Niu, X.-F. (2002). Statistical Analysis and Summary of Mercury data, Inter-laboratory Comparison Program. Technical Report submitted to the Florida Department of Environmental Protection.(Contract LAB018).
23. Morel, F. M. M., Kraepiel, A. M. L., & Amyot, M. (1998). The chemical cycle and bioaccumulation of mercury. Annual review of ecology and systematics, 543-566. Accessed 20 June 2012.
24. Niu, X.-F., & Miller, D. (2009). Statistical analysis and summary of the HgRR9 mercury round robin data (Technical Report No. LAB027) (p. 32). Tallahassee, FL: Florida Department of Environmental Protection. http://publicfiles.dep.state.fl.us/dear/sas/roundrobin/hg/hgrr9.pdf
25. Niu, X.-F., & Tintle, A. (2003). Statistical Analysis and Summary of the HgRR3 Mercury Round Robin Data (Technical Report No. LAB020) (p. 30). Tallahassee: Florida Department of Environmental Protection. http://publicfiles.dep.state.fl.us/dear/sas/roundrobin/hg/hg3report.pdf
26. Niu, X.-F., & Tintle, A. (2004a). Statistical Analysis and Summary of the HgRR4 Mercury Round Robin Data (p. 29). Florida Department of Environmental Protection. http://publicfiles.dep.state.fl.us/dear/sas/roundrobin/hg/hgrr4.pdf. Accessed 15 May 2014
27. Niu, X.-F., & Tintle, A. (2004b). Statistical Analysis and Summary of the HgRR5 Mercury Round Robin Data (p. 29). Tallahassee, FL: Florida Department of Environmental Protection. http://publicfiles.dep.state.fl.us/dear/sas/roundrobin/hg/hgrr5.pdf. Accessed 15 May 2014
28. Niu, X.-F., & Tintle, A. (2005). Statistical Analysis and Summary of the HgRR6 Mercury Round Robin Data (p. 29). Tallahassee, FL: Florida Department of Environmental Protection. http://publicfiles.dep.state.fl.us/dear/sas/roundrobin/hg/hgrr6.pdf. Accessed 15 May 2014
29. Niu, X.-F., & Tintle, A. (2006). Statistical Analysis and Summary of the HgRR7 Mercury Round Robin Data (p. 29). Tallahassee, FL: Florida Department of Environmental Protection. http://publicfiles.dep.state.fl.us/dear/sas/roundrobin/hg/hgrr7.pdf. Accessed 15 May 2014
30. Niu, X.-F., & Tintle, A. (2008). Statistical Analysis and Summary of the HgRR8 Mercury Round Robin Data (Technical Report No. LAB027) (p. 30). Tallahassee, FL: Florida Department of Environmental Protection. http://publicfiles.dep.state.fl.us/dear/sas/roundrobin/hg/hgrr8.pdf
31. Olafsson, J. (1978). Report on the ices international intercalibration of mercury in seawater. Marine Chemistry, 6(1), 87-95. doi: 10.1016/0304-4203(78)90009-9.
32. Olafsson, J. (1982). An international intercalibration for mercury in seawater. Marine Chemistry, 11(2), 129-142. doi: 10.1016/0304-4203(82)90037-8.
33. Olson, M. L., Cleckner, L. B., Hurley, J. P., Krabbenhoft, D. P., & Heelan, T. W. (1997). Resolution of matrix effects on analysis of total and methyl mercury in aqueous samples from the Florida Everglades. Fresenius' Journal of Analytical Chemistry, 358(3), 392-396. doi: 10.1007/s002160050435.
34. Quevauviller, P., Kramer, K. J. M., vander Vlies, E. M., Dorten, W., & Griepink, B. (1996). Interlaboratory studies to improve the quality of mercury determination in seawater. Fresenius' Journal of Analytical Chemistry, 356(7), 411-415.
35. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. (2014). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria. http://www.R-project.org/
36. Schiel, D., & Rienitz, O. (2010). EURAMET Project 924 part 3: Determination of Hg, Cd, Ni, and Pb in natural water at concentration levels required by the European Water Framework Directive (No. EURAMET Project 924 part 3). Braunschweig, Germany: Physikalisch-TechnischeBundesanstalt. http://www.euramet.org/fileadmin/docs/projects/924-METCHEM-Part-3-Final-Report.pdf. Accessed 29 December 2014
37. Schiel, D., & Rienitz, O. (2011). CCQM-K70: Determination of Hg in natural water at a concentration level required by the European environmental quality standard (EQS). Braunschweig, Germany: Physikalisch-TechnischeBundesanstalt. doi: 10.1088/0026-1394/48/1A/08011
38. Selin, N. E. (2009). Global biogeochemical cycling of mercury: A review. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 34, 43-63. doi: 10.1146/annurev.environ.051308.084314.
39. Sugawara, K. (1978). Interlaboratory comparison of the determination of mercury and cadmium in sea and fresh waters. Deep Sea Research, 25(3), 323-332.
40. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1998). Method 1630: Methyl Mercury in Water by Distillation, Aqueous Ethylation, Purge and Trap, and Cold Vapor Atomic Fluorescence Spectrometry (Analytical Method). Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. http://water.epa.gov/scitech/methods/cwa/metals/mercury/upload/2007-07-10-methods-method-mercury-1630.pdf. Accessed 29 December 2014
41. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2002). Method 1631, Revision E: Mercury in Water by Oxidation, Purge and Trap, and Cold Vapor Atomic Fluorescence Spectrometry (Analytical Method No. EPA-821-R-02-019). Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. http://water.epa.gov/scitech/methods/cwa/metals/mercury/upload/2007-07-10-methods-method-mercury-1631.pdf. Accessed 29 December 2014
42. Yu, L.-P., & Yan, X.-P. (2003). Factors affecting the stability of inorganic and methylmercury during sample storage. TrAC, Trends in Analytical Chemistry, 22(4), 245-253. doi: 10.1016/S0165-9936(03)00407-2.