Sample preparation water testing

Sample preparation for tests in solutions 60pgmL water solution of moxifloxacin hydrochloride were measured off on quartz dishes of 4 cm diameter with the addition of water or of the appropriate water salt solution (CUSO4 5H2O, ZnS04-71120, Fe2(S04)3 -H20, Al2(S04)3 I8H2O). The dishes were sealed with a quartz lid. 

Sample preparation for tests in solid phase Samples were prepared by measuring off 60- J,g mL" methanol solution of moxifloxacin hydrochloride with the addition of water or the appropriate salt aqueous solution on Petri dishes of 5 cm diameter. Samples were mixed and evaporated in a water bath until dry matter was obtained. After irradiation, the content of individual dishes was dissolved in methanol. 

A8.8.1 No statement is made concerning either the precision or bias of Annex A8 for mass-percent water because the test method is used primarily for sample preparation for Test Method D 2892. 

In the last several years, on-line extraction systems have become a popular way to deal with the analysis of large numbers of water samples. Vacuum manifolds and computerized SPE stations were all considered to be off-line systems, i.e., the tubes had to be placed in the system rack and the sample eluate collected in a test-tube or other appropriate vessel. Then, the eluted sample had to be collected and the extract concentrated and eventually transferred to an autosampler vial for instrumental analyses. Robotics systems were designed to aid in these steps of sample preparation, but some manual sample manipulation was still required. Operation and programming of the robotic system could be cumbersome and time consuming when changing methods. 

Isolation of the products from complex matrixes (e.g. polymer and water, air, or soil) is often a demanding task. In the process of stability testing (10 days at 40 °C, 1 h at reflux temperature) of selected plastic additives (DEHA, DEHP and Irganox 1076) in EU aqueous simulants, the additive samples after exposure were simply extracted from the aqueous simulants with hexane [63]. A sonication step was necessary to ensure maximum extraction of control samples. Albertsson et al. developed several sample preparation techniques using headspace-GC-MS [64], LLE [65] and SPE [66-68]. A practical guide to LLE is available [3]. 

Sample Preparation. Liquid crystalline phases, i.e. cubic and lamellar phases, were prepared by weighing the components in stoppered test tubes or into glass ampoules (which were flame-sealed). Water soluble substances were added to the system as water solutions. The hydrophobic substances were dissolved in ethanol together with MO, and the ethanol was then removed under reduced pressure. The mixing of water and MO solutions were made at about 40 C, by adding the MO solution dropwise. The samples for the in vivo study were made under aseptic conditions. The tubes and ampoules were allowed to equilibrate for typically five days in the dark at room temperature. The phases formed were examined by visual inspection using crossed polarizers. The compositions for all the samples used in this work are given in Tables II and III. 

Recovery — Recovery control (RC) solutions were prepared in 10/90 v/v ACN/water. Recovery evaluation (RE) samples were prepared in human plasma. Aliquot of RC solutions into assay plates followed sample preparation procedure steps 1 and 2. Instead of adding 50 pL of diluent, wells containing RC solutions were dried down under a steady stream of room temperature N2. The dried wells were then reconstituted with 250 pL of diluent. Reconstituted RC solutions were directly injected onto an HPLC analytical column, bypassing the extraction column. RE samples were aliquoted into an assay plate following normal sample preparation. RE samples were analyzed using the full extraction procedure (with extraction column). The analyte was tested at three concentration levels and the internal standard was tested at one. Mean extraction recovery for fenofibric acid varied from 93.2 to 111.1%, and mean extraction recovery for the Pestanal internal standard was 105.2%. 

When round robin tests were performed to test the reproducibility of these standard procedures, large coefficients of variation between laboratories were obtained for tin-free paints (78-80% and 24-32% for the ISO and ASTM methods respectively Haslbeck and Holm, 2005). These discrepancies have multiple sources such as the analytical method (Haslbeck and Holm (2005) report 4-54% deviations when different laboratories measuring samples of known concentration), the sea water conditions both in the holding tank and the measuring tank (Haslbeck and Holm, 2005), the sample preparation for analysis... 

Water may be found in the crude either in an emulsified form or in large droplets. The quantity is generally limited by pipeline companies and by refiners, and steps are normally taken at the wellhead to reduce the water content as low as possible. However, after a spill, water can be introduced by climatic conditions, and the relevant tests (ASTM D96, D954, D1796 IP, 2004) are regarded as important in crude oil analyses. Prior to analyses, it is often necessary to separate the water from a crude oil sample, and this is usually carried out by one of the procedures described in the preliminary distillation of crude petroleum (IP 24). Overall, there are several methods that can be employed for organic semivolatile sample preparation and cleanup procedures (Table 6.4). 

Soil Column Tests. In the sand penetration test, a minimal amount of water was used. No consideration was given to the hydrostatic pressure which would occur in nature from a body of surface water. A new soil infiltration test was developed to take this into consideration. This test used a maximum amount of water (200 mL) on a minimum amount of treated soil (10 g) and was restricted only by the dimensions of the laboratory equipment. Our aim was to prepare an hydrophobe for soil which would support water over an extended period of time. Whereas water passed through soil treated with hydrophilic compounds within 8 hr, 2 weeks or more were required for penetration through an hydrophobe-treated soil. In the latter case the water level dropped 6 mm or less each day, showing that the cationic surfactant greatly hindered, but did not completely restrict the passage of water. The tests were usually terminated after 2 weeks, due to the large number of samples to be tested. 

Light precipitates indicates that the relative supersaturation between sample and reagent is too high. Prepare new tests with a decreased RNA and/or precipitant concentration or dilute the droplet by vapour diffusion by adding water into the reservoir. 

The panel meeting was organized and conducted to facilitate development of sample preparation protocols for mutagenicity testing of six media air, drinking water, nonaqueous liquid wastes, soils and sediments, waste solids, and waste water. The meeting objectives were established by the sponsors and were as follows ... 

Prepare samples and determine water content 1. For each sample to be tested, prepare three to five replicates weighing 6 to 12 mg each and place in a mortar. 

---