Leaking NTN Bottlesnadp.slh.wisc.edu/conf/2010/posters/attig.pdf · Thanks to Phyllis Ballard for...
Transcript of Leaking NTN Bottlesnadp.slh.wisc.edu/conf/2010/posters/attig.pdf · Thanks to Phyllis Ballard for...
![Page 1: Leaking NTN Bottlesnadp.slh.wisc.edu/conf/2010/posters/attig.pdf · Thanks to Phyllis Ballard for her help in shipping the bottles. Thanks also to Pam Bedient for poster formatting](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022012008/61267950c9eeb225093f90af/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
NTN Bottles Leakage StudyKim Attig and Mark Rhodes
National Atmospheric Deposition Program
Central Analytical Laboratory (CAL)
Illinois State Water Survey
Institute of Natural Resource Sustainability
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Champaign, IL 61820; [email protected]
Abstract
Weekly NTN samples are decanted into 1 liter bottles and are shipped to the
Central Analytical Laboratory (CAL) for analysis. In 2009, the number of NTN
samples that leaked during shipment increased to 40%. Prior to 2009, that number
averaged 30%. Associated with bottle leaks are the potential for sample
contamination, and the potential loss of sample volume for analysis and archiving.
Additionally, samples may be lost or destroyed as the shipping container is
compromised due to water damage.
To address these concerns, the NADP is taking action to reduce and eliminate leaks
from NTN bottles during shipping. In 2010, several options were tested to address
the bottle leak problem. These options include the use of parafilm, rubber bands,
and additional packing material.
The NADP a is National Research Support Project-3: A Long-Term Monitoring Program in Support of Research on the Effects of Atmospheric Chemical Deposition. More than 240
sponsors support the NADP, including State Agricultural Experiment Stations; universities; private companies and other non-governmental organizations; Canadian government agencies;
state, local, and tribal government organizations; and federal agencies, including the U.S. Department of Agriculture-Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service (under
agreement no. 2008-39134-19508). Any findings or conclusions in this poster do not reflect the views of the U.S. Department of Agriculture or other NADP sponsors. The Illinois State
Water Survey is a division of the Institute of Natural Resource Sustainability at the University of Illinois.
Thanks to Greg Wetherbee, Kieth Halbrook, Melissa Rury, and Jason Karlstrom for their help in testing. Thanks to Phyllis Ballard for her help in shipping the bottles. Thanks also to Pam
Bedient for poster formatting and review.
Year
NTN
# Leaks %
Leaks
2000 3633 29.9
2001 3496 27.8
2002 3258 24.3
2003 3760 27.5
2004 4328 31.2
2005 5040 36.4
2006 4550 32.9
2007 4109 29.4
2008 4681 33.8
2009 5148 40.2
Tests with Parafilm
200 mL of faux rain water was added to four 1L NTN sample bottles. Two
bottles had parafilm wrapped around the sealed bottle cap, the other two did not.
The four bottles were sonicated for one hour. Leakage was measured to be 10 –
20 mL per bottle. Two NTN 1L NTN bottles, half full of deionized water, were
sent to four participants. One bottle was the “control” as it was treated as NTN
sample bottles are normally shipped, and the second bottle was “experimental”
as it had parafilm wrapped around the neck of the closed bottle.
Two 1L NTN sample bottles were partially filled with water, and parafilm was
used to cover the bottle mouth. The lid was then screwed on over the parafilm.
The bottle was placed in the back of a pickup truck and the truck was driven 200
miles, to mimic shipment of a sample bottle. Leakage from the bottle was
measured to be more than 100 mL.
One 1L NTN sample bottle was partially filled with water, and parafilm was
wrapped around the threads on the neck of the bottle. The bottle was placed in
the back of a pickup truck and the truck was driven 200 miles, to mimic
shipment of a sample bottle. Leakage from the bottle was measured to be less
than 10 mL. The procedure for shipping to the four participants was repeated
with parafilm wrapped around the threads on the neck of the bottles.
Tests with Rubber Bands
200 mL of deionized water was added to three 1L NTN bottles. A rubber band was put around
each bottle and they were sonicated for three hours. One bottle leaked 10-20 mL of water, but the
other two bottles did not leak.
Four 1L NTN bottles were partially filled with water and wrapped with rubber bands. The bottles
were placed in the back of a pickup truck and the truck was driven 200 miles, to mimic shipment
of a sample bottle. Leakage from each bottle was measured to be less than or equal to 10 mL.
Two 1L NTN bottles, half full of deionized water, were sent to four participants. One bottle was
the “control” as it was treated as NTN sample bottles are normally shipped, and the second bottle
was “experimental” as it rubber band stretched from top to bottom of the bottle. This procedure
was then repeated using two rubber bands stretched from top to bottom of the bottom,
perpendicular to each other.
Locations of Individuals participating in the study:
Gainesville FL Seattle WA
Washington DC Denver CO
Parafilm Results
As indicated in the chart below, parafilm did not prevent or reduce bottle leaks. On
the positive side, the use of parafilm did not cause contamination of the samples.
Rubber Band Results
As indicated by the chart below, rubber bands did not prevent or reduce bottle leaks. When
samples were analyzed upon their return to the CAL, there was apparent contamination of
calcium and sulfate in the samples from the bottles that were rubber banded bottles. This
indicates cross contamination between the sample, the rubber bands and the sample bag.
Conclusions
Even though the number of samples for each test was small, no definite improvement
resulted from any of the tests. Neither parafilm nor rubber bands were shown to
eliminate or reduce leaks in a reliable, reproducible manner. Additionally, there was
apparent contamination in the water samples from the bottles wrapped with rubber
bands. Further testing is needed to determine whether cross contamination of leaking
samples is a concern. Transit of the sample bottles from the sites to the CAL may have
an effect on sample leaks. Elevation, and the associated pressure changes may impact
bottle leaks. The age and condition of the bottles may also impact bottle leakage.
Additional testing will be performed to assess cross contamination, different packing
methods, and pressure changes during transit on NTN sample bottles.
Analytical results of the DI water shipped in the bottles
Analytical results of the DI water shipped in the bottles
Rubber Band Around Bottle
Location Bottle, No Rubber Band Bottle, with Rubber Band
Shipped Received Shipped Received
Gainesville, FL N N A A
Seattle, WA B B B B
Washington, D.C. A A A A
Denver, CO B A B A
Two Rubber Bands Around Bottle
Location Bottle, No Rubber Band
Bottle, with 2 Rubber
Bands
Shipped Received Shipped Received
Gainesville, FL B B B A
Seattle, WA B A B N
Washington, D.C. A A B A
Denver, CO B A A A
Parafilm Wrapped Around Bottle and Lid
Location Bottle, No Parafilm Bottle, with Parafilm
Shipped Received Shipped Received
Gainesville, FL A N A B
Seattle, WA B A C C
Washington, D.C. N N N A
Denver, CO B N A N
Parafilm Wrapped Around Bottle Threads
Location Bottle, No Parafilm Bottle, with Parafilm
Shipped Received Shipped Received
Gainesville, FL B A A A
Seattle, WA N/A C N/A C
Washington, D.C. B B N N
Denver, CO C N C A
Leak Categories:
C is > 100mL
B is 10 to 100mL
A is ≤ 10mL
none
Number Description pH Cond Ca K Mg Na Cl NO3 SO4 NH4 PO4
RD100033 DI from no rubber band bottle from Gainsville FL 5.54 1.4 0.007 0.003 0.003 0.004 0.022 0 0 -0.003 0.001
RD100034 DI from rubber banded bottle from Gainsville FL 5.56 1.2 0.024 0.001 0.001 0.001 0 0 0.014 -0.002 0.001
RD100035 DI from no rubber band bottle from Washington DC 5.58 1.2 0 0 0.001 0 0 0 0 0 0.001
RD100036 DI from rubber banded bottle from Washington DC 5.73 1.2 0.045 0.01 0.003 0.006 0.01 0 0.027 -0.004 0.002
RD100037 DI from no rubber band bottle from Denver CO 5.61 1.2 0.003 0.003 0.002 0.003 0.013 0 0 0.003 0.004
RD100038 DI from rubber banded bottle from Denver CO 5.59 1.3 0 0 0.001 0 0 0 0 0.002 -0.002
RD100039 DI from no rubber band bottle from Seattle WA 5.67 1.4 0.013 0.004 0.003 0.043 0.033 0 0.018 0.004 0.003
RD100040 DI from rubber banded bottle from Seattle WA 5.61 1.4 0.007 0.002 0.001 0.001 0 0 0 -0.001 0.004
Number Description pH Cond Ca K Mg Na Cl NO3 SO4 NH4 PO4
RD100013 DI from untaped bottle from Denver CO 5.62 1.2 0 0.001 0 0 0 0 0 0.002 0.002
RD100014 DI from taped bottle from Denver CO 5.62 1.3 0 0.001 0 0.001 0 0 0 0.004 -0.001
RD100015 DI from untaped bottle from Seattle WA 5.69 1.3 0.001 0.002 0 0.002 0.004 0 0 0.004 0.002
RD100016 DI from taped bottle from Seattle WA 5.74 1.4 0.001 0.005 0 0.005 0.007 0 0 0.005 0.003
RD100017 DI from untaped bottle from Washington DC 5.64 1.3 0 0.001 0 0 0.003 0 0 0 -0.002
RD100018 DI from taped bottle from Washington DC 5.62 1.2 0 0.002 0 0.001 0.003 0 0 0.005 -0.002
RD100019 DI from untaped bottle from Gainesville FL 5.63 1.4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.001 0.002
RD100020 DI from taped bottle from Gainesville FL 5.63 1.4 0 0.004 0 0.003 0.008 0 0 0 0.001
RD100021 DI from untaped bottle from Gainesville FL 5.6 1.2 0 0 0.001 0 0 0 0 -0.001 0.004
RD100022 DI from taped bottle from Gainesville FL 5.6 1.3 0 0 0.001 0 0 0 0 0 0.002
RD100023 DI from untaped bottle from Washington DC 5.66 1.2 0 0.001 0 0.001 0 0 0 0 0.002
RD100024 DI from taped bottle from Washington DC 5.66 1.2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.001 0.002
RD100025 DI from untaped bottle from Denver CO 5.68 1.3 0 0.003 0 0.002 0.005 0.017 0 -0.001 0.002
RD100026 DI from taped bottle from Denver CO 5.66 1.3 0 0.003 0 0.002 0.004 0 0 0 0.003
RD100027 DI from untaped bottle returned from UPS 5.72 1.5 0.01 0.077 0.003 0.057 0.079 0.01 0 0.049 -0.001
RD100028 DI from taped bottle returned from UPS 5.75 1.4 0.006 0.045 0.002 0.036 0.046 0.009 0.009 0.039 0.001
Bottle in the sonicator
Bottles in the back of a pickup truck
Percentage of Leak Size for all Samples from each NTN Site