TECHNOLOGIES FORM MONITORING AND MEASUREMENT OF DIOXIN AND DIOXIN-LIKE COMPOUNDS IN SOIL AND SEDIMENT. WAKO PURE CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES, LTD. DIOXIN ELISA KIT
A demonstration of technologies for determining the presence of dioxin and dioxin-like compounds in soil and sediment was conducted under EPA's Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation Program in Saginaw, Michigan in April 2004. This report describes the evaluation of Wako Pure Chemical Industries's Dioxin ELISA Kit. The kit is an immunoassay technique that reports toxicity equivalents (TEQ) of dioxin/furans. The sample units are in pg/g 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) equivalents (EQ). The technology results were compared to high resolution mass spectrometry (HRMS) TEQ results generated using EPA Method 1613B.
The Wako results were biased both positively and negatively relative to HRMS results. The technologys estimated method detection limit was 83-201 pg/g 2,3,7,8-TCDD EQ, but this should be considered a rough estimate. Results from this demonstration suggest that the Wako kit could be an effective screening tool for determining sample results above and below 20 pg/g TEQ, and even more effective as a screen for samples above and below 50 pg/g TEQ, particularly considering the cost to analyze the 209 demonstration samples was significantly less than that of the reference laboratory ($150,294 vs. $213,580), and all samples were analyzed on-site in 9 days (in comparison to the reference laboratory which took 8 months).
The Wako results were biased both positively and negatively relative to HRMS results. The technologys estimated method detection limit was 83-201 pg/g 2,3,7,8-TCDD EQ, but this should be considered a rough estimate. Results from this demonstration suggest that the Wako kit could be an effective screening tool for determining sample results above and below 20 pg/g TEQ, and even more effective as a screen for samples above and below 50 pg/g TEQ, particularly considering the cost to analyze the 209 demonstration samples was significantly less than that of the reference laboratory ($150,294 vs. $213,580), and all samples were analyzed on-site in 9 days (in comparison to the reference laboratory which took 8 months).