Water Monitoring Equipment Assessment

CBRTA
CBRTA
Chemical, Biological,
and Radiological
Technology Alliance
Appendix A
Members
3M
Becton Dickinson Biosciences
Black & Veatch
Calspan/University of Buffalo
Research Center
Appendix B
Water Monitoring
Equipment for
Toxic Contaminants Technology
Assessment
Cargill
General Dynamics
OCTOBER 2004
Honeywell International
Johns Hopkins
University/Applied Physics
Laboratory
Lucent Technologies
Motorola
Submitted by:
Black & Veatch
General Dynamics
Calspan/University of Buffalo Research Center
RAE
Syracuse Research Corporation
(This page intentionally left blank.)
The National Technology

Alliance is a U.S.
Government Program.
Executive Agent: NGA.
The NTA leverages
commercial investment in
technology to meet U.S.
security and defense needs.
CBRTA
OCT 2004
Water Monitoring Equipment for Toxic

Contaminants Technology Assessment
Notice
This document has been reviewed by CBRTA for technical accuracy. Mention of trade names or
commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
Chemical, Biological, and Radiological Technology Alliance
Page i of i
CBRTA
OCT 2004

Contents
Section
Page
List of Figures ................................................................................................................................. ii

List of Tables .................................................................................................................................. ii
Acronyms and Abbreviations ......................................................................................................... ii
Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................ ii
1 Introduction...................................................................................................................................2
1.1 Threats..................................................................................................................................2
1.2 Contaminants .......................................................................................................................2
1.3 Targets..................................................................................................................................2
1.4 Detection of Contaminants ..................................................................................................2
2 Chemical and Physical Properties.................................................................................................2
2.1 Introduction..........................................................................................................................2
2.2 Botulinum Toxin..................................................................................................................2
2.3 Ricin.....................................................................................................................................2
2.4 Cyanide ................................................................................................................................2
2.5 Chlorinated Pesticides (Chlordane) .....................................................................................2
2.6 VX Nerve Agent ..................................................................................................................2
2.7 Sarin Nerve Agent................................................................................................................2
2.8 Radionuclides (Cesium-137) ...............................................................................................2
2.9 Target Detection Limit for Monitoring Technologies .........................................................2
3 Utility-Familiar Detection Technologies ......................................................................................2
3.1 Introduction..........................................................................................................................2
3.1.1 Summary of Utility-Familiar Detection Technologies ............................................2
3.2 Chlorine (combined, free, and total) ....................................................................................2
3.2.1 Amperometric Chlorine Analyzer............................................................................2
3.2.2 DPD Chlorine Analyzer...........................................................................................2
3.2.3 Monochloramine Analyzer ......................................................................................2
3.3 Color ....................................................................................................................................2
3.4 Conductivity.........................................................................................................................2
3.5 Ion Selective Probes.............................................................................................................2
3.5.1 Cyanide Probes ........................................................................................................2
3.5.2 Hydrogen Ion Probe (pH) ........................................................................................2
3.6 Particle Counter ...................................................................................................................2
3.7 Reduction Oxidation Potential (redox) ................................................................................2
3.8 Temperature .........................................................................................................................2
3.9 Turbidity ..............................................................................................................................2
3.10
Multi-parameter Probes ...............................................................................................2
3.10.1 Dascore Six-Cense ...................................................................................................2
3.10.2 HACH PipeSonde ....................................................................................................2
3.10.3 HACH Water Distribution Monitoring Panel ..........................................................2
4 Existing Detection Technologies ..................................................................................................2
4.1 Introduction..........................................................................................................................2
4.1.1 Summary of Existing Detection Technologies ........................................................2
Page ii of ii
CBRTA
OCT 2004

4.2 Atomic Absorption Spectroscopy ........................................................................................2

4.3 Biological Sensors ...............................................................................................................2
4.3.1 Algae Toximeter ......................................................................................................2
4.3.2 Daphnia Toximeter ..................................................................................................2
4.3.3 Fish Bio-Sensor........................................................................................................2
4.3.4 Mussel Monitor........................................................................................................2
4.4 Gas Chromatography ...........................................................................................................2
4.5 Ion Chromatography ............................................................................................................2
4.6 Mass Spectroscopy...............................................................................................................2
4.7 Organic Carbon Analyzers...................................................................................................2
4.7.1 High Temperature Oxidation Method......................................................................2
4.7.2 Low Temperature UV Persulfate Method................................................................2
4.7.3 Ultraviolet Absorption 254 nm ................................................................................2
5 Emerging Detection Technologies................................................................................................2
5.1 Introduction..........................................................................................................................2
5.1.1 Summary of Emerging Detection Technologies......................................................2
5.2 Electro-chemical Sensors.....................................................................................................2
5.2.1 Electronic Nose or Tongue Ion Selective Electrode Array (ALPHA M.O.S) .........2
5.2.2 Polyphenol Oxidase/Clay Biosensors (UJF, France)...............................................2
5.2.3 Segmented FIA, UV Digestion and Amperometric Detection (UNC) ....................2
5.2.4 Electrophoresis Microchip with Contactless Conductivity Detection (NMSU)......2
5.2.5 Acetylcholinesterase-doped Electrode Sensor (HRL) .............................................2
5.2.6 In-situ Chemiresistor (SNL) ....................................................................................2
5.3 Optical Sensors ....................................................................................................................2
5.3.1 Lanthanide Luminescent Sensors (JHU/APL).........................................................2
5.3.2 Infotote Portable Raman Probe with SERS (Infotonics) .........................................2
5.4 Mass Differentiation Methods .............................................................................................2
5.4.1 Tiny-TOF Mass Spectrometer (JHU/APL)..............................................................2
5.4.2 Quartz Crystal Microbalance (Nomadics) ...............................................................2
5.5 Spectroscopic and Chromatographic Methods ....................................................................2
5.5.1 EMV-II (Femtoscan)................................................................................................2
5.5.2 zNOSE (GC/SAW) Electronic Sensor (ESTCAL) ..................................................2
5.5.3 Sandia -Chem Lab (SNL) ......................................................................................2
5.5.4 Handheld GC (Advanced Field Systems) ................................................................2
5.6 Radiation Detectors..............................................................................................................2
5.6.1 Mercuric Iodide Photodetector (Constellation Technologies).................................2
5.6.2 CZT Detectors (EV Products)..................................................................................2
5.6.3 Cerium-doped Lanthanum Halide Detector (Bicron) ..............................................2
5.6.4 High Pressure Proportional Counter (Constellation) ...............................................2
6 Portable Detection Technologies ..................................................................................................2
6.1 Introduction..........................................................................................................................2
6.1.1 Summary of Portable Detection Technologies ........................................................2
6.2 Cyanide ................................................................................................................................2
6.2.1 Colorimetric Cyanide Determination.......................................................................2
6.2.2 Cyanide Electrode....................................................................................................2
6.3 General Toxicity ..................................................................................................................2
6.3.1 Bioluminescence ......................................................................................................2
Page iii of iii
CBRTA
OCT 2004

6.3.2 Chemiluminescence .................................................................................................2

6.3.3 Daphnia Metabolism................................................................................................2
6.3.4 Colorimetric Toxicity Determination ......................................................................2
6.3.5 Dissolved Oxygen....................................................................................................2
6.4 Immunoassays......................................................................................................................2
6.5 Radiation ..............................................................................................................................2
6.6 Multi-parameter Field Units ................................................................................................2
6.6.1 Sensicore ..................................................................................................................2
7 Technology Evaluation and Recommendations............................................................................2
7.1 Introduction..........................................................................................................................2
7.2 Evaluation of Monitoring Technologies ..............................................................................2
7.3 Cost-Benefit Analysis ..........................................................................................................2
7.4 Gaps in Monitoring Technology..........................................................................................2
7.4.1 Near-Term Actions ..................................................................................................2
7.4.2 Long-Term Actions..................................................................................................2
7.5 Recommendations................................................................................................................2
7.5.1 Near-Term Recommendations .................................................................................2
7.5.2 Long-Term Recommendations ................................................................................2
References........................................................................................................................................2
Appendix A - Utility, Existing, and Portable Technology Evaluation Tables................................B
Appendix B - Emerging Technology Evaluation Tables................................................................B
Appendix C - Vendor Contact Information ....................................................................................B
Page iv of iv
CBRTA
OCT 2004

List of Figures
Figure 3-1. Amperimetric Chlorine Probe and Transmitter (Courtesy ProMinent) ....................... 2
Figure 3-2. HACH CL17 DPD Chlorine Analyzer (Courtesy HACH)........................................... 2
Figure 3-3. Combined Chlorine Analyzer (Courtesy HACH) ........................................................ 2
Figure 3-4. Ion Selective Probes (Courtesy Thermo) ..................................................................... 2
Figure 3-5. HACH Particle Counter (Courtesy HACH) ................................................................. 2
Figure 3-6. ChemTrac Particle Counter (Courtesy ChemTrac)...................................................... 2
Figure 3-7. Turbidimeter and Transmitter (Courtesy HACH) ........................................................ 2
Figure 3-8. Six-Cense Mulitparameter Probe and Transmitter (Courtesy Dascore) ...................... 2
Figure 3-9. PipeSonde Probe (Courtesy HACH) ............................................................................ 2
Figure 3-10. Water Distribution Monitoring Panel (Courtesy HACH)........................................... 2
Figure 4-1. Algae Toximeter (Courtesy bbe Moldaenke)............................................................... 2
Figure 4-2. Daphnia Toximeter (Courtesy bbe Moldaenke)........................................................... 2
Figure 4-3. Bio-Sensor Fish Toximeter (Courtesy Biological Monitoring Inc) ............................. 2
Figure 4-4. MOSSELMONITOR (Courtesy Delta Consult Inc.)................................................... 2
Figure 4-5. Mussel with Sensor (Courtesy Delta Consult Inc.)...................................................... 2
Figure 4-6. High-Temperature TOC Analyzer (Courtesy ISCO Inc.) ............................................ 2
Figure 4-7. High Temperature TOC Analyzer Schematic (Courtesy ISCO Inc.)........................... 2
Figure 4-8. 1950plus TOC Analyzer (Courtesy HACH) ................................................................ 2
Figure 4-9. EZ TOC Analyzer (Courtesy ISCO Inc.) ..................................................................... 2
Figure 4-10. 900 TOC Analyzer (Courtesy Ionics Instruments) .................................................... 2
Figure 4-11. UV254 Transmitter (Courtesy HACH) ........................................................................ 2
Figure 6-1. DeltaTox Luminometer (Courtesy Strategic Diagnostic)............................................ 2
Figure 6-2. MicroTox Luminometer (Courtesy Strategic Diagnostic)........................................... 2
Figure 6-3. Eclox Kit (Courtesy Severn Trent Services) ................................................................ 2
Figure 6-4. ToxTrack Kit (Courtesy HACH).................................................................................. 2
Figure 6-5. RAPTOR Immunoassay System (Courtesy Research International).......................... 2
Figure 6-6. Sensicore Multi-parameter Water Monitor (Courtesy Sensicore) ............................... 2
Page v of v
CBRTA
OCT 2004

List of Tables
Table 2-1. Safety Guidelines / Toxicity Values.............................................................................. 2
Table 2-2. Toxicity Values for Agents of Concern......................................................................... 2
Table 2-3. Contaminant Physical Properties................................................................................... 2
Table 3-1. Utility-Familiar Detection Technologies....................................................................... 2
Table 3-2. Amperimetric Chlorine Electrode Evaluation ............................................................... 2
Table 3-3. DPD Chlorine Analyzer Evaluation .............................................................................. 2
Table 3-4. Monochloramine Analyzer Evaluation.......................................................................... 2
Table 3-5. Color Monitor Evaluation.............................................................................................. 2
Table 3-6. Conductivity Monitor Evaluation.................................................................................. 2
Table 3-7. Ion Selective Probes (Thermo, 2004)............................................................................ 2
Table 3-8. Free Cyanide Probe and Ion Selective Meter Evaluation.............................................. 2
Table 3-9. Hydrogen Ion Probe Evaluation .................................................................................... 2
Table 3-10. Particle Counter Evaluation......................................................................................... 2
Table 3-11. Reduction Oxidation Potential Probe Evaluation........................................................ 2
Table 3-12. Temperature Probe Evaluation .................................................................................... 2
Table 3-13. Turbidity Monitor Evaluation...................................................................................... 2
Table 3-14. Dascore Six-Cense Probe Evaluation.......................................................................... 2
Table 3-15. HACH Pipesonde Evaluation ...................................................................................... 2
Table 3-16. HACH Water Distribution Monitoring Panel Evaluation ........................................... 2
Table 4-1. Atomic Absorption Spectroscopy Evaluation ............................................................... 2
Table 4-2. Algae Toximeter Evaluation.......................................................................................... 2
Table 4-3. Daphnia Toximeter Evaluation...................................................................................... 2
Table 4-4. Fish Bio-Sensor Evaluation........................................................................................... 2
Table 4-5. MOSSELMONITOR Evaluation .................................................................................. 2
Table 4-6. ORSANCO Gas Chromatography Evaluation .............................................................. 2
Table 4-7. Ion Chromatography Evaluation ................................................................................... 2
Table 4-8. Definitions of Carbon Fractions Measured by Organic Carbon Analyzers (AwwaRF,
2002) ....................................................................................................................................... 2
Table 4-9. High Temperature TOC Analyzer Evaluation............................................................... 2
Table 4-10. Low Temperature UV Persulfate TOC Analyzer with Inorganic Gas Purge
Evaluation ............................................................................................................................... 2
Table 4-11. Online Low Temperature UV Persulfate TOC Analyzer with ICR Evaluation.......... 2
Table 4-12. Ultraviolet Absorption 254 nm Monitor Evaluation ................................................... 2
Table 5-1. ALPHA M.O.S. Product Line ....................................................................................... 2
Table 5-2. Table 6.2 ALPHA M.O.S. ASTREE Evaluation........................................................... 2
Table 5-3. Polyphenol Oxidase/Clay Biosensor Evaluation........................................................... 2
Table 5-4 Segmented Flow Injection Analysis, UV Digestion and Amperometric Detection
Evaluation ............................................................................................................................... 2
Table 5-5. Electrophoresis Microchip with Contactless Conductivity Detection Evaluation ........ 2
Table 5-6. Acetylcholinesterase-doped Electrode Sensor Evaluation ............................................ 2
Table 5-7. In-situ Chemiresistor Evaluation................................................................................... 2
Table 5-8. Lanthanide Luminescent Sensor Evaluation ................................................................. 2
Table 5-9. InPhotote Portable Raman Probe with SERS Evaluation.............................................. 2
Page vi of vi
CBRTA
OCT 2004

Table 5-10. Tiny-TOF Mass Spectrometer Evaluation................................................................... 2

Table 5-11. Quartz Crystal Microbalance Evaluation .................................................................... 2
Table 5-12. Femtoscan EMV-II Evaluation.................................................................................... 2
Table 5-13. zNOSE Evaluation....................................................................................................... 2
Table 5-14. -Chem Lab Evaluation .............................................................................................. 2
Table 5-15. Handheld GC (HHGC) Evaluation.............................................................................. 2
Table 5-16. Mercuric Iodide Photodetector Evaluation.................................................................. 2
Table 5-17. Cadmium Zinc Telluride (CZT) Detector Evaluation ................................................. 2
Table 5-18. Cerium-doped Lanthanum Halide Detector Evaluation .............................................. 2
Table 5-19. High Pressure Xenon Proportional Counter Evaluation.............................................. 2
Table 6-1. Colorimetric Cyanide Monitor Evaluation.................................................................... 2
Table 6-2. BioTox Rapid Toxicity Testing System Evaluation...................................................... 2
Table 6-3. Deltatox Rapid Toxicity Testing System Evaluation .................................................... 2
Table 6-4. Microtox Rapid Toxicity Testing System Evaluation ................................................... 2
Table 6-5. ToxScreen II Rapid Toxicity Testing System Evaluation............................................. 2
Table 6-6. Eclox Rapid Toxicity Testing System Evaluation......................................................... 2
Table 6-7. IQ Toxicity Test Rapid Toxicity Testing System Evaluation ....................................... 2
Table 6-8. HACH ToxTrack Rapid Toxicity Testing System Evaluation...................................... 2
Table 6-9. POLYTOX Rapid Toxicity Testing System Evaluation ............................................... 2
Table 6-10. RAPTOR Four Channel Fluorometric Assay Evaluation ........................................... 2
Table 6-11. Radiation Monitor Evaluation ..................................................................................... 2
Table 6-12. Sensicore Multi-parameter Field Unit Evaluation....................................................... 2
Table 7-1. Utility-Familiar Detection Technologies Cost-Benefit Analysis .................................. 2
Table 7-2. Existing Detection Technologies Cost-Benefit Analysis .............................................. 2
Table 7-3. Portable Detection Technologies Cost-Benefit Analysis .............................................. 2
Page vii of vii
CBRTA
OCT 2004

Acronyms and Abbreviations
AA
ADI
APHA
ASTDR
ASTM
ATP
AWWA
AwwaRF
Conductivity constant
Atomic absorption
Acceptable daily intake
American Public Health Association
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
American Society for Testing and Materials
Adenosine triphosphate
American Water Works Association
American Water Works Association Research Foundation
BOD
Bq/L
Biological oxygen demand

Radiation measurement, bequerel per liter
C
CASRN
CDC
CdZnTe
CNCNCl
Cs
CsI
Degrees Celsius
Chemical Abstracts Service Registry Number
Center for Disease Control and Prevention
Cadmium zinc telluride
Cyanide ion
Cyanogen chloride
Cesium
Cesium iodine
DO
DOC
DPD
DWEL
Dissolved oxygen
Dissolved organic carbon
N, N-diethyl-p-phenylenediamine
Drinking water equivalent level
EPA
ETV
Environmental Protection Agency

Environmental Technology Verification
FBI
FDWS
FIA
FMS
Federal Bureau of Investigation

Field drinking water standard
Flow injection analysis
Fingerprint mass spectrometry
GABA
GB
GC
GDD
gph
GPS
Gamma-aminobutyric acid
Sarin
Gas chromatography
Glow discharge detector
Flow rate, gallons per hour
Global positioning system
HA
HCN
Health advisory
Hydrogen cyanide
Page viii of viii
CBRTA
OCT 2004

Acronyms and Abbreviations (continued)

HHGC
HPGe
HPXe
HRP
Hz
Hand held gas chromatograph

High purity germanium
High pressure xenon
Horseradish peroxidase
Hertz
IC
ICP
ICR
IMP
IMS
in Hg
IP
Ion chromatography
Inductively coupled plasma
Inorganic carbon remover
Isopropyl methylphosphonate
Ion mobility spectrometer
Partial pressure (expressed as inches of mercury)
Ingress protection
kDa
keV
Kow
Kilodalton
kiloelectron volt
Octanol/water partitioning coefficient
LD50
LDH
LED
L/min
LOD
LSI
Lethal dose 50 (dose causing death in 50 percent of the exposed population)

Layered double hydroxides
Light-emitting diode
Flow rate, liters per minute
Limit of detection
Langelier stability index
mA
MALDI
MCL
MCLG
g/L
mg/L
MHz
mho/cm
MODBUS
mR/h
MRL
MS
mS/m
mSv
m/z
Electrical current, milliamp

Matrix assisted laser desorption ionization
Maximum contaminant level
Maximum contaminant level goal
Concentration (microgram per liter, equivalent to parts per billion in water)
Concentration (milligram per liter, equivalent to parts per million in water)
Megahertz
Conductivity measurement, microomhos per centimeter
Communications protocol
Milliroentgen per hour
Minimum risk level
Mass spectrometry
Conductivity measurement, millisiemens per meter
Radiation measurement, millisievert
Mass-to-charge ratio
NaI
NATO
ND
NDIR
Sodium iodine
North American Treaty Organization
Not detected
Nondispersive infrared analyzer
Page ix of ix
CBRTA
OCT 2004


Nema
NHSRC
nm
NOAEL
NOM
NPOC
NTU
National Electrical Manufacturers Association

National Homeland Security Research Center
Nanometers
No-observed-adverse-effect-level
Natural organic matter
Nonpurgeable organic carbon
Nephelometric turbidity units
ORP
ORSANCO
Oxidation reduction potential

Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission
pH
pKa
PMP
PMT
ppm
PPO
PPRTV
PRG
psi
Pt-Co
Hydrogen ion concentration

Equilibrium constant for an acid
Pinacolyl methylphosphonate
Photomultiplier tubes
Concentration (parts per million, equivalent in water to mg/L)
Polyphenol oxidase
Provisional peer reviewed toxicity value
Preliminary remediation goals
Pressure, pounds per square inch
Color measurement, platinum-cobalt unit
QCM
Quartz crystal microbalances
RfD
RRS
Reference doses
Resonance raman scattering
SAW
SCADA
SERS
Si
Surface acoustic wave

Supervisory control and data acquisition
Surface enhanced raman spectroscopy
Silica
TC
tcu
TDS
TIC
TOC
TOF
Total carbon
True color units
Total dissolved solids
Total inorganic carbon
Total organic carbon
Time-of-flight
UV
UV254
Ultraviolet
Ultraviolet light at wavelength 254 nm
VAC
VOC
VX
Volt alternating current

Volatile organic carbon
Type of nerve gas
Page x of x
CBRTA
OCT 2004


WPCF
WHO
WMD
Water Pollution Control Federation

World Health Organization
Weapons of mass destruction
Page xi of xi
CBRTA
OCT 2004

Executive Summary
Given the current need for heightened security, water monitoring systems capable of continuous,
accurate, and reliable detection of contaminants will be necessary to ensure safe drinking water.
For widespread implementation, the monitoring systems must be affordable and easy to operate
and maintain. As part of this project, a technology assessment was conducted to evaluate existing
and near-term water monitoring capabilities and to identify critical shortfalls.
The objectives of this project were as follows:
Identify the state of the art in water monitoring technologies.
Assess emerging water monitoring technologies with the potential for practical
application within five years.
Identify the critical shortfalls that are not addressed by the existing and emerging
water monitoring technologies.
Background
The goal of contamination monitoring should not be to detect individual contaminants but to
detect compounds that are not normally present in water. The chemical and physical properties
of the potential contaminants investigated in this study are critical to determining whether a
given monitoring technology will detect the contaminant. The contaminants evaluated were
identified by the Environmental Protection Agency National Homeland Security Research Center
and include two biological toxins that are toxic at extremely low concentrations (botulinum toxin
and ricin), an industrial chemical (cyanide), a chlorinated pesticide (chlordane), chemical warfare
agents (VX nerve agent and sarin), and a radionuclide (cesium-137). Because the number of
possible water contaminants is large, the evaluation was limited to the contaminants identified by
Environmental Protection Agency National Homeland Security Research Center, which cover
the major types of contaminants available and are likely threats to potable water. A desired
detection limit was established for each contaminant based on the contaminants human health
affects. This concentration was based on long term exposure guidelines set by the United States
Environmental Protection Agency, World Health Organization, and the United States military.
A second concentration was evaluated that was 100 times the desired detection limit as this
would to be closer to levels required for acute affects in humans.
The objective of this project is to establish guidance on the monitoring technology that is
currently available or that will become available in the next five years. The project does not
directly address the questions of what contaminants to monitor for or where monitors should be
installed. Four categories of monitoring technologies were investigated for this project: (1)
utility-familiar monitors, (2) existing technologies, (3) emerging detection methods, and (4)
portable detection kits. The utility-familiar monitors, which include instrumentation that may
already be in place at a water treatment plant, such as pH, temperature, and chlorine residual.
These monitors may be capable of detecting some contaminants. The existing detection
technology includes laboratory analyses and some on-line detectors that are specific to one or
more contaminants. The emerging detection methods include a broad range of technologies and
methods, some of which will eventually become available for laboratory analyses or on-line
Page xii of xii
CBRTA
OCT 2004

detection. The available portable detection kits were also investigated as a means of rapidly
determining if water is toxic.
Evaluation of Monitoring Technologies
The technologies evaluated included those that are used frequently in the potable water industry,
those used in advanced water treatment laboratories, those that may be available in the next five
years, and the portable technologies capable of detecting the contaminants of interest.
Limited information is available on the ability to detect botulinum, ricin, cyanide, chlordane,
chlorinated pesticides, VX, sarin, and cesium-137 with utility-familiar technologies. Testing
with several of these contaminants using traditional water monitoring technologies either has not
been performed, or if performed, the results of such testing are not available. The contaminant
properties and their desired detection limits were used in the study to provide an indication of the
detectability of the contaminant. Because the desired detection limit for all the contaminants
evaluated was less than 1 mg/L, traditional monitoring technologies were unable to detect any of
them. The monitors might have been able to detect some of the contaminants had they been
present at a concentration 100 times the desired detection limit, based on understanding of the
capabilities of the monitor and the physical and chemical properties of the contaminant. The
monitors were evaluated in this way when conclusive data was not available.
Many of the utility-familiar technologies should be able to detect cyanide because it has a
desired detection limit of 0.2 mg/L, there is published information on the properties of cyanide in
water, and cyanide reacts with disinfectant residuals. Likewise, because botulinum toxin is
oxidized by chlorine at concentrations commonly found in the distribution system, the presence
of chlorine in water indicates that botulinum toxin is either oxidized or is not present. The
traditional monitoring technologies are believed to be unable to detect any of the other
contaminants because their concentrations, even when evaluated at 100 times the desired
detection limit, are approximately 1 mg/L or less. Traditional monitoring technologies are not
well suited to detecting dissolved toxic organic contaminants at concentration less than 1 mg/L,
which applies to six of the eight contaminants evaluated. The traditional technologies are also
not likely to detect radionuclides.
The existing detection technologies include instruments often associated with advanced
laboratories and biological sensors. The laboratory instruments are typically very sophisticated
and expensive, and they often require a knowledgeable operator with extensive training on the
use and maintenance of the equipment. The sensitivity of these instruments limits the types of
contaminants that they can detect, although the concentration at which they can be detected is
lower. The existing detection technologies were much more likely to detect the contaminants
than were the utility-familiar technologies, as the sensitivity of the instruments is much
improved.
The biological sensors exploit the one common characteristic of all the contaminants evaluated:
all of them are toxic. The biological sensors can provide an indication of water toxicity to the
installed species, but the species may not accurately represent the contaminants toxicity to
humans. Disinfectant residual must be removed for any of the biological sensors to operate
properly, although chlorine is not toxic to humans at the concentrations maintained in the
Page xiii of xiii
CBRTA
OCT 2004

distribution system. Biological sensors have been installed at fewer than 10 locations with
disinfectant residual throughout the world.
Many emerging monitoring technologies may be available in the next five years, but like the
existing monitoring equipment, many of them are highly specific for one group of contaminants.
This group of monitors, like the previously described groups, had not been tested with the
contaminants evaluated in this report. Although it is likely that these monitors can detect several
of the contaminants evaluated, there are no test results to confirm this.
The portable field monitors vary considerably and before selecting any rapid toxicity monitor,
the utility manager must determine whether the monitor has a large percent inhibition with the
neutralized disinfectant. The rapid toxicity monitors have been evaluated by EPA-ETV against
several of the contaminants discussed in this report. The field test kits provide an indication
about the toxicity of the water, but interpretation of the results can be difficult, as false readings,
both positives and negatives occur frequently. Additionally, the annual operating cost of the
rapid toxicity monitors can be very high, as the test organism has a limited shelf life, needs
regular maintenance, or requires several hours for resuspension.
Cost-Benefit Analysis
To assist utility managers with selection of monitoring technologies, a cost-benefit analysis was
performed. The capital and operating costs for each of the commercially available instruments
were provided by the vendor and were used to develop a present worth cost assuming a 4 percent
effective interest rate and a period of 10 years. The present worth cost was divided by the
number of the detectable contaminants. It was assumed that each of the contaminants was
equally likely to be used by a terrorist.
The utility-familiar technologies have been proven to be able to detect only botulinum toxin and
cyanide. The monitoring devices with the lowest cost-benefit value were free chlorine analyzers.
Since botulinum toxin has not been confirmed to react with combined chlorine, systems that use
combined chlorine may not be able to detect botulinum toxin. Those systems can therefore
detect only cyanide, and the most cost-effective methods for detection of cyanide are pH or ORP.
Of the two, ORP is the better method as a greater change is expected to occur in ORP than with
conductivity. The multiparameter monitoring probes and stations evaluated were more expensive
because they include additional monitoring technologies that were not capable of detecting the
contaminants evaluated in this report.
The most cost-effective monitoring technology was found to be the low-temperature TOC
analyzer that included an ICR, monitored both the inorganic and organic carbon concentrations
to measure both volatile and nonvolatile organic carbon, and used conductivity as the method to
determine carbon concentration. Seven of the eight contaminants evaluated were carbon-based,
which made analysis of TOC highly effective for their detection, assuming that they were present
in a high enough concentration.
Of the biological sensors, the daphnia toximeter has been the most extensively tested and had the
highest number of detectable contaminants. Additional testing should be performed using other
Page xiv of xiv
CBRTA
OCT 2004

monitoring technologies to determine whether they are more or less sensitive to contaminants.
The capital cost was similar for all four of the biological sensors evaluated.
The rapid toxicity monitors with the lowest cost-benefit value were the Eclox and ToxTrack.
The Eclox unit is capable of monitoring botulinum toxin through chlorine measurement and has
immunoassays for atrazine and for a classified number of war gases believed to include VX and
sarin. The annual operating cost of the rapid toxicity monitoring technologies was important, as
in some cases it exceeded the capital cost of the equipment.
The most cost-effective method for the detection of botulinum toxin or cyanide is to measure
free chlorine residual. The most cost effective monitoring technology for detection of ricin, VX,
and sarin is the rapid toxicity monitor, Eclox. The low temperature TOC analyzer is the most
cost-effective continuous monitor for ricin, chlordane, and other chlorinated pesticides. Cesium137 is most cost-effectively monitored using a personal radiation monitor.
Gaps in Monitoring Technology
The existing monitoring technology is limited in its ability to detect intentional contamination.
detect compounds that are not normally present in water. The gaps in monitoring technology
that should be evaluated in both the near- and long-term are identified in the following sections.
Near-Term Actions
The following technology gaps should be addressed in the near-term.
Development of technology to measure total volatile organic carbon. Because volatile

carbon compounds commonly occur in water only at concentrations of a few g/L, slight
changes in their concentration may indicate the addition of a pesticide or herbicide, war gas,
or other contaminant that includes an organic carrier. Two emerging technologies were
evaluated that with refinements may be able to measure total Volatile Organic Compounds:
zNose and fingerprinting mass spectrometry.
Development of an inexpensive, continuous gamma radiation monitoring instrument for

detection of gamma emitting radionuclides in water. The reason that such continuous
monitoring technology does not exist is that there has been no market for such technology.
Evaluation and testing of data management and analysis software packages. One vendor
claims that by monitoring the signals from multiple water quality monitors, a greater number
of contaminants can be detected than the sum of the contaminants that can be detected by the
individual meters. The United States military is developing network signal interpretation
software.
Continued refinement of the detection limits for existing monitoring technologies.
Page xv of xv
CBRTA
OCT 2004

LongTerm Actions
The following technology gaps were identified to be addressed in the long-term.
Development and/or application of monitoring instruments suitable for installation in the

distribution system for detection of a greater number of contaminants. Many of the existing
monitors are not suitable for the conditions in distribution systems.
Development of technology to measure a wider range of contaminants using a single

monitor.
Recommendations
Recommendations based on the information provided in this report are presented below. The
near-term recommendations apply to areas where additional research could greatly facilitate the
evaluation process; the long-term recommendations apply to areas where additional research is
needed for development of promising monitoring technologies.
Near-Term Recommendations
The following recommendations were developed for the near term.
Research should be conducted using all of the monitoring technologies evaluated to

determine the detection limit of the contaminants listed in this report.
Utility managers interested in immediately purchasing equipment to monitor for intentional

contamination should consider the purchase of online chlorine analyzers, low temperature
Total Organic Carbon analyzers, and a rapid toxicity kit appropriate for the type of
disinfectant residual in their system.
Long-Term Recommendations
The following recommendations were developed for the long-term.
Research should be conducted to determine the fate of the evaluated contaminants in systems
that use free chlorine and those in systems that use combined chlorine.
Research should be conducted to determine the effect of the evaluated contaminants on

distribution system biofilm.
Testing of existing biological monitoring should be initiated to evaluate their application and
use in the distribution system.
Page xvi of xvi
CBRTA
OCT 2004

1 Introduction
Given the current need for heightened security, water monitoring systems capable of continuous,
accurate, and reliable contaminant detection will be necessary to ensure safe drinking water. For
widespread implementation, these systems also must be affordable and easy to operate and
maintain. As part of this project, a technology assessment was conducted to evaluate existing and
near-term water monitoring capabilities and to identify critical shortfalls.
The objectives of this project were as follows:
Identify the state of the art in water monitoring technologies.
Assess emerging water monitoring technologies with potential for practical
application within five years.
Identify the critical shortfalls that are not addressed by the existing and emerging
water monitoring technologies.
The following section presents a brief overview of contamination and water security issues. It
addresses the threats, contaminants, targets, and methods of detection of the contaminants. A
more complete review of contamination and water security issues is presented in Security
Analysis and Response for Water Utilities published as an addendum to AWWA M19.
1.1 Threats
The threat to potable water systems is primarily a function of resources and knowledge base of
the terrorists; by controlling these variables reduces the likelihood of success and the severity of
the threat. Groups that possess significant resources and critical knowledge of the water system
pose the greatest threat. Potential terrorists have been classifieds into five groups: vandals,
individuals, insiders, domestic extremist groups, and state supported terrorist organizations.
State-supported terrorist groups have the greatest resources, whereas insiders have the most
extensive knowledge of the water treatment plant and the associated distribution system. The
FBI and many observes consider physical disruption of water service a more likely threat than
contamination of water supplies because the means and materials to cause physical damage to
the water system infrastructure are more readily available and less sophisticated, and their use is
much simpler than development and deployment of contaminants.
1.2 Contaminants
Materials that can be used to contaminate a drinking water system can be divided into five
categories: biological toxins; microbial agents; industrial chemicals; nerve, blood, choking, and
blistering agents; and radiological agents. The following list of potential contaminants, which
was identified for evaluation by EPA National Homeland Security Research Center (NHSRC)
was used for this project:
Biological toxins botulinum toxin and ricin.

Industrial chemicals cyanide.
Organic chemicals chlordane and similar chlorinated pesticides
Page 1 of 1
CBRTA
OCT 2004

Chemical warfare agents VX and Sarin.

Radionuclides Cesium-137.
1.3 Targets
According to a Presidential report on critical infrastructure, three attributes are crucial to water
supply users:
Adequate quantities of water must be available on demand.

Water must be delivered at sufficient pressure.
Water must be safe to use.
Actions that affect any of these factors can be debilitating for the utility. The first two attributes
are directly influenced by physical damage. The quality of water can also be degraded by
physical threats to the system, but the introduction of microorganisms, toxins, chemicals, or
radioactive materials represents a more serious threat.
The most vulnerable targets for physical terrorism aimed at potable water treatment and supply
facilities are the disinfection system; the water supplies and distribution system components such
as reservoirs, pumping stations, and distribution mains; components of the water treatment plant
itself; power sources, telecommunications and supervisory control and data acquisition
(SCADA) systems, storage facilities for liquid chlorine and other treatment chemicals such as
coagulant, acid, or caustic. Probably the most vulnerable target is the distribution system.
Contamination would most likely involve injection of a contaminant into a reservoir, a fire
hydrant, or an individual connection.
1.4 Detection of Contaminants

The design of an early warning monitoring system should include assessments and ranking of
threats in terms of their severity and probability of occurrence, the number and locations of
monitoring stations, contaminants to be monitored for sensitivity and frequency of monitoring,
dissemination of the results, and forecasting of contaminant travel times. Hospitals and other
medical facilities should also as sources of monitoring information: if the contaminating agent is
odorless and colorless, consumers may be the first to be affected by it and seek medical help;
therefore hospitals and clinics must immediately notify the water utility. A utilitys vulnerability
assessment should provide some of the information discussed above.
The objective of this project is to establish guidance on the monitoring technology that is
currently available or that will become available in the next five years. It is not meant to provide
guidance on what to monitor and where. The four categories of monitoring investigated for this
project include utility-familiar monitors, existing technology, emerging detection methods, and
portable detection kits. The utility-familiar monitors, which include parameters that may already
be in place, such as pH, temperature, and chlorine residual, can be used as indicators for some
contaminants. The existing detection technology includes laboratory analysis and some on-line
detectors that are specific to one or more contaminants. The emerging detection methods include
a broad range of technologies and methods, some of which will eventually become available for
Page 2 of 2
CBRTA
OCT 2004

laboratory analysis or on-line detection. The available portable detection kits were also
investigated for use in rapid toxicity testing in the distribution system.
Page 3 of 3
CBRTA
OCT 2004

2 Chemical and Physical Properties

2.1 Introduction
The chemical and physical properties of the agents investigated in this study are key to
determining whether a given monitoring technology will detect the agent. The chemical and
physical properties of the agents investigated including the toxicity of each to estimate a target
detection limit for the monitoring technologies are discussed below.
The contaminants evaluated were identified by the EPA NHSRC. The contaminants include two
biological toxins that are toxic at extremely low concentrations (botulinum toxin and ricin), an
industrial chemical (cyanide), a chlorinated pesticide (chlordane), chemical warfare agents (VX
and sarin), and a radionuclides (cesium-137). Because the number of possible water
contaminants is large, the evaluation was limited to those contaminants identified by EPA
NHSRC. These contaminants cover the major types of contaminants available and are likely
threats to potable water.
2.2 Botulinum Toxin

Botulinum toxins, produced by the anaerobic bacterium Clostridium botulinum, are the most
toxic known mammalian poison (Crosby 1998), are easily mass-produced, and have been
developed into weapons. Botulinum is one of the most deadly substances known, with an LD50
of 0.006 ug/kg in mice, and is stable in water. It inhibits presynaptic release of the
neurotransmitter acetylcholine (Crosby 1998). When motor neurons are affected, skeletal
muscle paralysis results (Klaassen 1996). Symptoms (progressive paralysis from head to toe)
typically occur within 24 to 36 hours, followed by death from respiratory failure. Botulinum
toxin is a threat to water systems if the chlorine disinfection process is compromised. It is
reported to be 99.7 percent inactivated in 20 minutes with free available chlorine at a
concentration of 3 ppm (Burrows 1999).
2.3 Ricin
Ricin has long been used as a mean of assassination. Ricin is produced from castor beans, which
contain nearly 3 percent ricin by weight. It is easily obtainable and can be produced in large
quantities; however, with an LD50 of 3,000 ug/kg, it would also have to be used in large
quantities. Ricin is stable in water and causes gastrointestinal hemorrhage and organ necrosis. It
is resistant to chlorine at concentrations up to 10 ppm, and cannot be removed by chemical
coagulation and filtration. However, both carbon adsorption and reverse osmosis were found to
be effective in removing ricin.
2.4 Cyanide
Cyanide is naturally present in the environment, sources of cyanide and cyanogenic compounds
include many food plants such as cassava, fruit pits, almonds, sweet potatoes, corn, bamboo
shoots, and lima beans, among many others (Eisler 2000). Other sources include cigarette
Page 4 of 4
CBRTA
OCT 2004

smoke, synthetic and industrial processes, fumigation and agricultural uses, some therapeutic
applications, effluents from iron and steel processing plants, petroleum refineries, and metalplating plants (Eisler 2000).
Cyanide compounds are responsible for more human deaths than any other chemicals through
their use in suicides, murders, executions, and chemical warfare (Eisler 2000). There are no
reported cases of human illness or death caused by cyanide in water supplies (Eisler, citing U.S.
EPA 1980). It is a general respiratory poison that can produce reactions in seconds and death
within minutes (Eisler 2000). Cyanide (including hydrogen cyanide liquid or gas) is readily
absorbed through inhalation, ingestion, or dermal absorption (Eisler 2000; HDR Engineering,
Inc. 2001). Cyanide ion is readily absorbed through the gastrointestinal tract and rapidly
converted to thiocyanate in the body (WHO 1996); it is not accumulated or stored in any
mammal studied to date (Eisler 2000). Although chronic toxicity can be a concern, repeated
sublethal doses seldom result in cumulative adverse effects and substantial sublethal doses can
be tolerated by many species for long periods of time (Eisler 2000). The mechanism of toxic
action is inhibition of cytochrome oxidase, the terminal oxidative enzyme of the mitochondrial
electron transport chain, which blocks aerobic ATP synthesis (Eisler 2000).
Hydrogen cyanide (HCN) and cyanogen chloride (CNCl) are the two cyanide-containing
compounds that have historically received the greatest interest as chemical warfare agents
(Whelton et al. 2003a). Cyanogen chloride is a disinfection byproduct formed in water during
chlorination (to a lesser extent) or chloramination (to a greater extent) by a reaction between
formaldehyde and monochloramine (WHO 1996) and has been found to occur in drinking water
at concentrations up to 12 g/L (Whelton et al. 2003a, citing Krasner et al. 1991). The 1970
EPA Community Water Supply Survey of 969 systems reported average concentrations of 0.09
g/L and maximum concentrations of 8 g/L (HDR Engineering, Inc. 2001). Cyanogen chloride
is very soluble in water and is rapidly metabolized to cyanide in the body (WHO 1996). Because
there are few data on the oral toxicity of cyanogen chloride, WHO (1996) recommends a
guideline of 70 ug/L for cyanide as total cyanogenic compounds, including cyanogen chloride.
Cyanide can exist in many forms in the environment (free cyanide, cyanide ion, simple or
complex cyanides, nitriles, cyanogens), but free cyanide (the sum of molecular HCN and cyanide
ion CN-) is the primary toxic agent in the aquatic environment (Eisler 2000). The proportion of
cyanide ion in aqueous solution increases with increasing pH (Eisler 2000). Approximately 90%
of finished drinking waters have pH 7-9 (Kim et al. 2001), and the majority of free cyanide in
aqueous solutions at pH 9.2 or less is present as molecular HCN (Eisler 2000). Cyanide has low
persistence in surface water under normal conditions but can persist in groundwater (Eisler 2000,
citing Way 1981).
Chlorination of water supplies can convert cyanide to cyanate (CNO-) (Eisler 2000, citing U.S.
EPA 1980). Alkaline pH favors oxidation by chlorine, while acidic pH favors volatilization of
HCN (Eisler 2000, citing U.S. EPA 1980). Both chlorine and combined chlorine will react with
the free cyanide ion.
Consumers of contaminated potable water may be exposed to volatile cyanides during
showering, bathing, and cooking (Kim et al. 2001). The exact mass of cyanide in potable water
Page 5 of 5
CBRTA
OCT 2004

supplies that will result in toxicity by inhalation, dermal absorption, or ingestion is not known
(Whelton et al. 2003a). However, exposure to cyanide by dermal absorption is not considered to
be a significant human health risk, since it would require absorption of large quantities of
cyanide to produce toxic effects (Whelton et al. 2003a), and it is likely that HCN and CNCl in
water would volatilize before significant dermal exposure could occur (Whelton et al. 2003a).
Ingestion is the most significant and potentially hazardous route of exposure (Whelton et al.
2003a), but exposure via inhalation also might be cause for concern (Kim et al. 2001).
2.5 Chlorinated Pesticides (Chlordane)

Chlordane is a cyclodiene organochlorine insecticide that has been in use since 1947 (Eisler
2000). In the United States, its use for any purpose other than control of underground termites
has been prohibited since 1983 (Eisler 2000). The cyclodiene insecticides include dieldrin,
endrin, chlordane, and heptachlor (Crosby 1998). Technical chlordane is a mixture of at least 14
components, including the chlorinated hydrocarbons cis-chlordane, trans-chlordane, heptachlor,
cis-nonachlor, trans-nonachlor, chlordene isomers, and other constituents, all of which are
insecticidal and act at the picrotoxinin binding site on the GABA receptor (Crosby 1998, Eisler
2000). Oxychlordane and heptachlor epoxide are toxicologically significant degradation
products (Eisler 2000).
Chlordane is rarely found in drinking water in the US, and then only at concentrations less than
0.1 g/L, but has been reported at concentrations exceeding its solubility in groundwater and
drinking water (WHO 1996).
Chemical analysis of technical chlordane is complicated by analytical interferences from other
organochlorine compounds, lack of standard analytical techniques, variations in numbers and
relative amounts of constituents of weathered chlordane, and lack of knowledge regarding
structures and properties of several constituents (Eisler 2000).
Chlordane has low solubility in water (0.1 mg/L at 25C [WHO 1996]) and relatively low vapor
pressure (Eisler 2000). Both cis-chlordane and trans-chlordane have vapor pressure 0.00001 mm
Hg at 25 C, water solubility 9 g/L at 25 C, and log KOW 5.16 (Eisler 2000). Log KOW for pure
chlordane is 5.5 (WHO 1996). Vapor pressure is 61 10-3 Pa at 25 C and 1.3 10-3 Pa at 25 C
for technical and refined chlordane, respectively (WHO 1996). The half-life of cis-chlordane in
water is 1.1 to 17.5 hours (Eisler 2000, citing Feroz and Khan 1979). Chlordane is readily
absorbed by warm-blooded vertebrates through dermal, inhalational, or dietary exposure (Eisler
2000). It is highly resistant to chemical and biological degradation and when in water, it is not
removed by photodegradation, hydrolysis, or biodegradation but can dissipate by volatilization
or sorption to particulates (WHO 1996). Technical chlordane is stable under UV light, though
some constituents will form photoisomers under high-intensity UV light in the presence of
sensitizers such as ketones (Eisler 2000).
Cyclodiene insecticides block the inhibitory GABA receptors in the neurons of the central
nervous system, causing neuronal excitation. High doses of chlordane may cause tremors and
convulsions (Crosby 1998, Klaassen 1996), pancytopenia (Klaassen 1996), liver hypertrophy,
Page 6 of 6
CBRTA
OCT 2004

and death (Eisler 2000). Chlordane has moderate acute toxicity with symptoms including ataxia,
convulsions, respiratory failure, and cyanosis (WHO 1996).
There are insufficient data available to establish chlordane criteria for protection of mammals,
but a criterion proposed for human health protection is daily intake not to exceed 0.001 mg
chlordane per kg body weight [probably a chronic exposure value] (Eisler 2000).
2.6 VX Nerve Agent

VX is a human-made chemical warfare agent classified as a nerve agent. VX was developed in
the United Kingdom in the early 1950s and was used in the Iran-Iraq War in the 1980s (ATSDR
2004b). VX is a colorless (some sources indicate that VX may have an amber color) and
odorless liquid that has a high boiling point, does not mix well with water, but is highly soluble,
and is the least volatile of the nerve agents (ASTDR 2004b). VX has a solubility of 30,000 mg/L
(ATSDR 2004b), therefore can be present in water at concentrations that are toxic. VX is
persistent in the environment and has an aging half-life of about 48 hours making it the slowest
aging nerve agent (CDC 2004f). The primarily routes of exposure are through absorption of VX
liquid through the skin and inhalation of the mist. Symptoms following exposure include runny
nose, watery eyes, coughing, rapid breathing, diarrhea, weakness, headache, nausea, vomiting,
change in heart rate, loss of consciousness, convulsions, paralysis, and eventually respiratory
failure.
VX is the most potent of all nerve agents, particularly when absorbed through the skin. Unless
washed off immediately, any visible liquid contact on the skin would be lethal. VX breaks down
slowly in the body and symptoms will appear within a few seconds after exposure to vapor and
within minutes to up to 18 hours after liquid exposure (CDC 2004f).
VX hydrolyzes in water slowly and the hydrolysis products at pH 7 to 10 are nearly as toxic as
VX (CDC 2004f). These VX hydrolysis products can be further hydrolyzed, but do so at a rate
1,000 times slower (CDC 2004f). VX hydrolyzes in water with a half-life of 350 days at pH 7
and 100 days at pH 2-3 (CBWinfo 2004). Basic conditions accelerate hydrolysis as the half-life
is 16 minutes at pH 13 (CBWinfo 2004).
2.7 Sarin Nerve Agent

Sarin, also know as GB, is a human-made chemical warfare agent classified as a nerve agent.
Sarin was developed in 1938 as a pesticide and was used in the Iran-Iraq War in the 1980s and in
two terrorist attacks in Japan in 1994 and 1995 (CDC 2004b). Sarin is a clear, colorless, tasteless
liquid that has no odor. Sarin is highly volatile and quickly decomposes in as little as 5 hours
(CDC 2004d).
Exposure to sarin may result in runny nose, difficulty in breathing, sweating, loss of
consciousness, convulsions, paralysis, coma and eventually respiratory paralysis. Sarin can be
absorbed through skin, by inhalation, and through ingestion. Inhalation and ingestion are the
most toxic routes of exposure and incapacitation effects or even death can occur within 10
minutes of exposure.
Page 7 of 7
CBRTA
OCT 2004

Sarin when dissolved in water undergoes hydrolysis by acidic, neutral, and basic mechanisms, all
of which give fluoride and isopropyl methylphosphonate. Sarin will hydrolyze to hydrofluoric
acid under acidic conditions and isopropyl alcohol and polymers under basic conditions (CDC
2004d). Hydrolysis can occur very quickly as sarin will decrease by 50 percent in 30 seconds at
a pH of 11 (CDC 2004d).
2.8 Radionuclides (Cesium-137)

Cesium is a metal that may be stable or radioactive. The most common form of radioactive
cesium is cesium-137. Cesium-137 is produced when uranium and plutonium absorb neutrons
and undergo fission. This process occurs in nuclear reactors and nuclear weapons. Cesium is a
soft, malleable, silvery white metal that is a liquid at 83 oF. The half-life of cesium-137 is 30
years and it decays by emission of beta particles and gamma rays to barium-137 (US EPA
2004a). Cesium-137 exposure results in increased risk for cancer and acute radiation poisoning.
If exposures are very high, serious burns, and even death can result.
Beta particles are subatomic particles ejected from the nucleus of radioactive atoms and are
equivalent to electrons. The energy stored in the particles can break chemical bonds and form
ions when they strike human tissue. Beta particles have less energy than gamma particles and can
only travel a few feet through air, a few inches in water, and are easily stopped by solid materials
(US EPA 2002a). Beta particles can cause cancer, but this is generally associated with long term
exposure.
A gamma ray is a packet of electromagnetic energy and is the most energetic photon in the
electromagnetic spectrum. Gamma radiation is a very high-energy ionizing radiation that travels
at the speed of light and can travel miles through air before the energy is reduced. Gamma
radiation can also penetrate several centimeters of human tissue but not dense material such as
lead that is often used to encase cesium-137. Because gamma rays can penetrate the body they
are considered the most damaging form of radiation as they have enough energy to expose all
organs (US EPA 2002b).
Radionuclides are measured in units related to gamma and beta exposure rather than a weight by
volume concentration expressed in mg/L. The amount of radiation emitted by a radioactive
material is measured in units of curie (Ci) or bequerel (Bq) whereas the energy absorbed by a
person is measured in units of rad or gray (Gy). The biological risk of exposure to radiation is
measure using the unit rem or sievert (Sv) (CDC 2004e).
Cesium-137 is one of the most used radioisotopes. It is used in radiation therapy to treat cancer,
moisture-density gauges, level gauges to detect liquid flow in pipes or water level, measure metal
thickness, and used in the well drilling industry to characterize rock strata.
Ingestion of cesium-137 results in fairly uniform distribution throughout the body, but may be
found in slightly higher concentration in muscle and less in bone and fat (EPA 2004a). Cesium137 remains in the body less than other radionuclides and is eliminated through urine (EPA
2004a).
Page 8 of 8
CBRTA
OCT 2004

Cesium-137 is regulated by both EPA and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The Nuclear
Regulatory Commission licenses its use and EPA regulates cesium-137 release from nuclear
power plants and maximum contaminant level (MCL) in water.
2.9 Target Detection Limit for Monitoring Technologies

To estimate the target detection limit for monitoring technologies, the toxicity of the agents must
be evaluated. Considerations that may affect toxicity of agents introduced into water include the
stability of the chemical in water, toxicity of any degradation products, and impacts of treatment
processes. If the chemical is likely to be rapidly degraded in water (e.g., hydrolysis) or
converted to another chemical by treatment processes or residual disinfectant, the toxicity of
degradation products or treatment by-products might be more relevant than the toxicity of the
parent compound. In the case of intentional introduction of toxic agents into potable water
supplies as an act of terrorism, it is assumed that exposure of the public to the introduced agents
prior to detection would be short, possibly 1 to 7 days. Ingestion (oral exposure) is considered to
be the primary route of exposure of the public in the case of intentional contamination of
drinking water. The likelihood of significant exposure through dermal and inhalation routes
during showering and bathing also should be considered.
The U.S. EPA considers the inhalation route for residential exposure to chemicals that volatilize
from water in the development of Superfund risk-based preliminary remediation goals (PRGs).
Even when an inhalation reference dose (RfD) can be calculated or when an inhalation slope
factor is available, the risk from indoor inhalation of volatiles is considered to be relevant only
for chemicals that volatilize easily. The criteria employed to identify chemicals that generally
should be considered for the inhalation pathway of exposure for developing risk-based PRGs
include a Henrys Law constant greater than 110-5 atm-m3/mole and a molecular weight less
than 200 g/mole. However, chemicals that do not meet these criteria might still pose significant
risks through inhalation. (US EPA 2004f).
While detection limits based on chronic toxicity values such as RfD, acceptable daily intakes
(ADI), or U.S. EPA maximum contaminant levels (MCL) in drinking water would provide for
the greatest level of protection, these values are intended as limits for daily exposure over a
lifetime. An act of terrorism is more likely to result in a short-term exposure that might result in
higher acceptable exposure because of the short exposure time. Because the cost of analyzers for
toxic agents is expected to increase substantially with lower detection limits and because the
duration of exposure is expected to be limited, it is reasonable to consider the use of exposure
limits protective for acute or subchronic exposures in determining suitable detection limits for
monitoring systems designed for drinking water.
Page 9 of 9
CBRTA

OCT 2004
Table 2-1. Safety Guidelines / Toxicity Values.
Agent
Botulinum toxin
Ricin
Cyanide
Chlordane
VX
GB or Sarin
Cesium-137
U.S. EPA
HA
ATSDR
MRL
(mg/L)
(mg/kg/day)
NA
NA
0.21,2
0.061,3
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.057
0.0016
NA
NA
4 mSv5
U.S. EPA
PPRTV
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
U.S. EPA
MCLG
WHO
Guideline
(mg/L)
(mg/L)
NA
NA
0.22
zero3
NA
NA
zero4
NA
NA
0.0002 mg/L8
0.07 mg/L9
NA
NA
1 Bq/L10
EPA HA: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Health Advisory (U.S. EPA 2004c,g)
ATSDR MRL: Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry Minimum Risk Level for Hazardous
Substances (ATSDR 2004)
EPA PPRTV: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Provisional Peer Reviewed Toxicity Value for
Superfund (U.S. EPA 2004e)
EPA MCL: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Maximum Contaminant Level (U.S. EPA 2004c,g)
WHO Guideline: World Health Organization Guideline for Drinking-water Quality (WHO 1993)
NA: Not Available
1
One-day or ten-day HA for a 10-kg child.

Cyanide, CASRN 143-33-9.
3
Chlordane, CASRN 57-74-9.
4
There are no safety guidelines in the Drinking Water Standards and Health Advisories specific
to cesium-137; guidelines are provided for beta particle and photon activity (formerly manmade radionuclides) (U.S. EPA 2004b).
5
Acute value (1-14 d) based on development as an end point. The chronic value (365 d or
longer) is 1 mSv/yr.
6
Oral acute value (1-14 d), based on development as an endpoint (ATSDR 2004).
7
Oral intermediate value (>14-365 d) for sodium cyanide, based on effects on reproduction.
No other MRL values are available for cyanide or cyanide salts. The MRL is presented as the
concentration of CN- (personal communication, Taylor, 2004).
8
Guideline is based on a No Observed Adverse Effect Level (NOAEL) derived from a longterm dietary study in rats (WHO 1993).
9
Guideline value is considered to be protective for acute and long-term exposure (WHO 1993).
10
The recommended reference level of committed effective dose is 0.1 milliSieverts (mSv)
from 1 years consumption of drinking water. Below this reference level of dose, the drinking
water is acceptable for human consumption. For practical purposes, the recommended
guideline activity concentration is 1 Bq/L for gross beta activity; this screening value is derived
for gross beta activity and is not specific to cesium-137. If the screening value is exceeded,
more detailed radionuclide analysis is necessary. Higher values do not necessarily imply that
the water is unsuitable for human consumption (WHO 1993).
2
Page 10 of 10
CBRTA
OCT 2004

Chlordane (CASRN Number 57-74-9): MCL is 0.002 mg/L, DWEL is 0.02 mg/L, and 10-4
cancer risk is 0.01 mg/L (U.S. EPA 2004c). There is sufficient evidence for carcinogenicity in
animals and inadequate or no evidence in humans (U.S. EPA 2004c,f).
Cesium-137: Guidelines are provided for beta particle and photon activity (formerly man-made
radionuclides). MCL is 4 mrem/yr, 10-4 cancer risk is 4 mrem/yr, and cancer group is A (human
carcinogen) (U.S. EPA 2004c).
Cyanide (sodium cyanide, CASRN Number 143-33-9): MCL is 0.2 mg/L, DWEL is 0.8 mg/L,
life-time HA is 0.2 mg/L, and cancer group is D (not classifiable as to human carcinogenicity)
(U.S. EPA 2004c).
Table 2-2. Toxicity Values for Agents of Concern
Agent
Toxicity Value
Reference
Botulinum toxin
Ricin
VX
GB or Sarin
NOAEL, 2 L/day: 0.0004 ug/L1

NOAEL, 2 L/day: 15 ug/L1
FDWS: 5-15 ug/L2
FDWS: 9.3-28 ug/L2
Burrows and Renner 1999

Burrows and Renner 1999
USACHPPM 2003
USACHPPM 2003
Estimated as 7.5 times the NOAEL calculated for consumption of 15 L/day.

Field Drinking Water Standard (FDWS) developed to protect soldiers. The lesser value is protective
of soldiers in dry climates (assuming consumption of 15 L water per day) and the higher number is
protective of soldiers in normal or humid climates (assuming consumption of 5 L water per day).
Although these guidelines were developed to protect healthy, young adults, they are somewhat
conservative because they use an assumption of 5-15 L of water consumed per day rather than the 2 L
per day typically assumed for the general population.
Based on the toxicity data presented above, the estimated detection limit for the monitoring
technology was developed for each of the agents. Table 2-3 lists the CASRN, vapor pressures,
molecular weight, and estimate target detection limit.
Page 11 of 11
CBRTA
OCT 2004

Table 2-3. Contaminant Physical Properties
Agent
CASRN2
Botulinum toxin1
Botulin A: 93384-43-1
Botulin B: 93384-44-2
Botulin C: 93384-45-3
Botulin D: 93384-46-4
Botulin E: 93384-47-5
Botulin F: 107231-15-2
Botulin G:
Ricin
9009-86-3
Cyanide
Cyanide: 57-12-5
Sodium cyanide: 143-33-9
Chlordane and
similar chlorinated
pesticides
Chlordane: 57-74-9
Tech. grade: 12789-03-6
Cis-isomer: 5103-71-9
Trans-isomer: 5103-74-2
VX
50782-69-9
GB or Sarin
107-44-8
Cesium-137
10045-97-3
Vapor Pressure
and Relative
Measure of
Volatility
(mm Hg)
Molecular
Weight
Estimated
Target
Detection
Limit
(g/mole)
(ppb)
proteinnonvolatile from
water
proteinnonvolatile from
water
HCN: 619 mm
Hg at 20 oC4
0.0004
66 kD
15
26.02 g/mole
200
409.8 g/mole
60
267.4 g/mole
5 -15
140.1 g/mole
9.3 28
137.0 g/mole
1 Bq/L
CNCl: 1230 mm
Hg at 25 oC5
Technical grade
0.00002 mm Hg
no temperature
given6
0.0007 mm Hg at
20 oC7
2.1 mm Hg at 20
o 7
C
nonvolatile
Or botulin toxin.
Chemical Abstracts Service Registry Number (CASRN).
3
http://www.portfolio.mvm.ed.ac.uk/studentwebs/session2/group12/ricin.htm.
4
CDC 2004_
5
CDC 2004_
6
ATSDR 2004_
7
ATSDR 2004
2
Page 12 of 12
CBRTA
OCT 2004

3 Utility-Familiar Detection Technologies

3.1 Introduction
The water industry has technology with which they are familiar as they are commonly used at the
water treatment plant. These sensors have often been installed to assist in determination of
source water quality, treatment plant operations and effectiveness, and disinfection. All of these
sensors are used to monitor the removal of particulate and chemical contaminants for which a
water treatment plant is designed. Although they do not directly monitor for the contaminants
evaluated in Section 2.0, understanding of the contaminant properties as well as the detection
method are important in determining if the monitor will detect intentional contaminants. The
utility-familiar instruments evaluated are provided in Table 3-1 and described in the following
sections.
Table 3-1. Utility-Familiar Detection Technologies
Water Quality Parameter
Monitored
Water Treatment Plant Application
Chlorine
Monitor disinfection process
Color
Source water quality

Treatment efficacy
Conductivity

Source water blending control
Ion selective probes (e.g. pH)
Particle Counter
Monitor source water

Treatment efficacy
Reduction Oxidation Potential

Treatment plant control
Temperature

Disinfection secondary parameter
Turbidity

Treatment efficacy

Treatment plant control
Disinfection secondary parameter
Distribution system corrosion control
Page 13 of 13
CBRTA
OCT 2004

Sensors are listed with a table providing their detection characteristics against the chemical,
biological toxin and radio-nuclear agents covered earlier in this report. Tabulated pros and cons
of each technology are listed in a table section as well. A synopsis of these results can also be
found in the appendices of this report. In several cases evaluated technologies did not have
detection limit data for the agents evaluated in this report. This was either due to lack of
development for the technique or because the technology was currently being used to address a
different market. In those cases the assumption was noted and the published limits of detection
were compared to the analyte of interest. In these cases, testing and verification to prove this
assumption would be required.
3.1.1 Summary of Utility-Familiar Detection Technologies

While the water utilities have commonly used technologies for monitoring their treatment
processes, they have been found not to be effective for detecting seven of the eight contaminants
of concern at the desired detection limit, with the exception of cyanide. A free chlorine monitor
may detect botulinum toxin and cyanide, and a combined chlorine monitor may detect cyanide
because these toxins will react with free chlorine and combined chlorine, respectively.
Reduction oxidation potential will behave in a manner similar to a chlorine monitor and will
therefore detect cyanide. There is little information on a color monitors ability to detect
contaminants, but it is unlikely that contaminants present at the desired detection limit would
change the absorbance monitored by the meter to a detectable degree. A conductivity monitor
may detect cyanide; however, that the cyanide may have to be present at a concentration equal to
one hundred times the concentration the desired detection limit. A particle counter or a
turbidimeter would not directly detect any of the evaluated contaminants, however, if the
contaminant was toxic to biofilm, the biofilm may slough off pipe walls and be detected by
either technology. A temperature monitor would not detect any of the contaminants. Ion
selective probes are available that measure cyanide; however, are meant for industrial
applications and are not suitable to the drinking water industry. A pH monitor may be able to
detect cyanide as the disassociation of cyanide will change the water pH, the amount of which is
affected by the waters initial pH and alkalinity.
Some vendors have created multi-parameter probes or have packaged several monitors into one
panel, so that a greater number of contaminants can be detected than the sum of those detected
by the individual monitors. Because these multi-parameter probes and packaged systems use
utility familiar technologies, they may only detect botulinum toxin and cyanide. More applied
research is necessary to determine which contaminants and at what concentration these
monitoring systems can be used to detect intentional contamination.
3.2 Chlorine (combined, free, and total)

Chlorine is used by nearly all utilities to maintain disinfectant residual in the distribution system.
There are two forms of chlorine, free chlorine that consists of hypochlorous acid and the
hypochlorite ion and combined chlorine also known as chloramines. Total chlorine is the sum of
free and combined chlorine species. Hypochlorous acid and the hypochlorite ion are in
equilibrium and the relative ratio of the two is determined by solution pH. Free chlorine is a
strong oxidizer of some organics and reduced metals, but will not react with all organics or
Page 14 of 14
CBRTA
OCT 2004

metals. Any contaminant that it does react with will result in a decrease in chlorine residual
which would therefore be detected by a chlorine analyzer. Botulinum toxin and cyanide react
with free chlorine at neutral to alkaline pH and would therefore exert a chlorine demand.
Combined chlorine is a weaker oxidant and will react with cyanide but the reaction with
botulinum toxin has not been published.
There are four methods through which chlorine concentration can be determined. The
amperometric, N,N-diethyl-p-phenylenediamine (DPD) colorimetric, the iodometric (total only),
and polarographic membrane methods. The amperometric and DPD methods are the two online
methods for total and free chlorine determination and are discussed in the following sections.
3.2.1 Amperometric Chlorine Analyzer

The amperometric electrode method for determination of free or total chlorine consists of a
platinum and silver electrode from which a current develops proportional to the chlorine residual.
The chlorine sensor has a semipermeable membrane through which hypochlorite and
hypochlorous acid can pass. The current is affected by secondary measurement of pH and
temperature, therefore the measurement is compensated for those factors. Sensors that do not
compensate for pH and temperature result is measurement drift (AwwaRF 2002).
The advantage of the amperometric method is that chemicals may not be required and calibration
is infrequent. There are variations in sensor types, as some buffer pH and dont measure pH,
whereas three electrode amperometric sensors measure pH and therefore do not require
chemicals. The two sensor amperometic sensor requires a buffer, typically acetic acid (Vinegar),
and requires monthly maintenance and calibration. The three electrode amperometric sensor
includes a reference electrode that eliminates the need for zero calibration, improves the
sensitivity and accuracy of the instrument, reduces required maintenance, increases calibration
frequency to once per year, and eliminates fouling (White, 1992). With all sensors that have a
semipermeable membrane, there is the potential for fouling and the membrane will need to be
replaced periodically, the frequency of which varies considerably between vendors from
quarterly to biannually. The method is EPA approved and the transmitter can be setup to send
chlorine, pH, and temperature signals.
There are several vendors that market amperometric chlorine sensors and each differ in regard to
detectable range, accuracy, and required maintenance. The major tradeoff between manufactures
is in capital investment and annual maintenance cost. The sensors require a 10 gph side stream as
they cannot be placed directly into a distribution pipeline. Amperometric sensors cost in the
range of $3,600 for two electrode models to $5,000 for three electrode models. Annual
maintenance is approximately $330 for three electrode models to $600 for two electrode models.
Maintenance is primarily associated with the labor required to calibrate the sensor each month
and replacement of the pH probe and chlorine sensor membrane on an annual basis.
Page 15 of 15
CBRTA
OCT 2004

Figure 3-1. Amperimetric Chlorine Probe and Transmitter (Courtesy ProMinent)
Page 16 of 16
CBRTA

OCT 2004
Table 3-2. Amperimetric Chlorine Electrode Evaluation

Detectable at
Detectable at
Desired
Desired
100 times
Detection Limit
Detection
Desired
Detection Limit
(mg/L)
Limit
Detection Limit
(mg/L)
Agents Detected
Botulinum Toxin
0.000 000 4
1,2
Yes
Yes
1,2
Ricin
0.015
Cyanide
0.200
No3
Yes3
Chlordane
0.060
Chlorinated Pesticides
0.010
VX
0.005
GB or Sarin
0.009
Cesium-137 (Bq/L)
Advantages
Disadvantages
Measurement of pH and temperature also
Continuous monitoring process
Nema 4x enclosure
No self diagnostic alarms
4-20 mA outputs available
10 gph Side stream required
Minimal required maintenance
Have three key passcode
Marketed for last 5 years. Unproven

usable life.
Botulinum toxin reacts with free chlorine (Burrows and Renner, 1999). Presence of chlorine indicates that
botulinum toxin is not present in solution.
Reaction with combined chlorine has not been published.
Reaction with free cyanide to cyanate or cyanogen chloride.
- No available information
Page 17 of 17
CBRTA
OCT 2004

3.2.2 DPD Chlorine Analyzer

The N,N-diethyl-p-phenylenediamine method for determination of free or total chlorine is
colorimetric and consists of the addition of DPD which reacts with chlorine to form two
byproducts. The intensity of the color is proportional to the free or total chlorine concentration.
A colorimeter or spectrophotometer is used to measure the color (AwwaRF 2002). The test is
based on the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Standard method 408.E and is
EPA approved. This is the most widely used method for determination of chlorine concentration
on a continuous basis.
The DPD method for determination of free and total chlorine occurs on a semi-continuous basis.
The process is completely automated as the reagents are added to the sample and then analysis
for color does not occur for approximately 2 minutes during which time the free or total chlorine
reacts with the DPD reagents. The reaction is pH dependant, so a buffer is required in addition to
the DPD and indicator reagents. The buffer and reagents are replaced monthly when the
instrument is calibrated.
One vendor that manufactures DPD chlorine analyzers states that at least one contaminant that
they have tested will produce a detectable response with the DPD analyzer whereas no response
was recorded with a two electrode amperometric chlorine analyzer. The vendor commented on
that the DPD chemistry was affected by the contaminant although the chlorine concentration was
unchanged.
DPD chlorine analyzers cost in the range of $2,900 and annual maintenance is approximately
$820 per year which is primarily associated with the labor required to calibrate the sensor each
month and replacement of reagents.
Figure 3-2. HACH CL17 DPD Chlorine Analyzer (Courtesy HACH)
Page 18 of 18
CBRTA

OCT 2004
Table 3-3. DPD Chlorine Analyzer Evaluation

Detectable at
Detectable at
Desired
Desired
100 times
Detection Limit
Detection
Desired
Detection Limit
(mg/L)
Limit
Detection Limit
(mg/L)
Agents Detected
Botulinum Toxin
0.000 000 4
1,2
Yes
Yes
1,2
Ricin
0.015
Cyanide
0.200
No3
Yes3
Chlordane
0.060
0.010
VX
0.005
GB or Sarin
0.009
Cesium-137 (Bq/L)
Advantages
Disadvantages
Most familiar type of chlorine analyzer
IP62 enclosure
4-20 mA signal outputs
Monthly calibration and maintenance
No passcode or lock on cabinet
Requires side stream
Time required to analyze sample is 2.5

minutes
Botulinum toxin reacts with free chlorine (Burrows and Renner, 1999). Presence of chlorine indicates that
botulinum toxin is not present in solution.
Reaction with combined chlorine has not been published.
Page 19 of 19
CBRTA
OCT 2004

3.2.3 Monochloramine Analyzer

Monochloramine is monitored infrequently as combined chlorine is rarely important to primary
disinfection and total chlorine concentration is adequate for measurement of plant effluent or
distribution system residual. Monochloramine is measured by determination of both chlorine
and ammonia concentrations. The stoichiometric ratio between chlorine and ammonia is required
for the production of monochloramine. Dichloramine and trichloramine have disagreeable tastes
and odors and production are avoided by monitoring the chlorine and ammonia concentrations.
Monochloramine analyzers are more expensive than free or total chlorine analyzers and cost
$9,800 and annual maintenance is approximately $3,200 per year which is primarily associated
with quarterly maintenance and reagents.
Figure 3-3. Combined Chlorine Analyzer (Courtesy HACH)
Page 20 of 20
CBRTA

OCT 2004
Table 3-4. Monochloramine Analyzer Evaluation

Detectable at
Detectable at
Desired
Desired
100 times
Detection Limit
Detection
Desired
Detection Limit
(mg/L)
Limit
Detection Limit
(mg/L)
0.000 000 4
Ricin
0.015
Cyanide
0.200
Yes1
Yes1
Chlordane
0.060
0.010
VX
0.005
GB or Sarin
0.009
Agents Detected
Botulinum Toxin
Cesium-137 (Bq/L)
Advantages
Disadvantages
Nema 4x enclosure rating
4-20 mA signal outputs
Expected usable life 7 years
Monthly calibration and maintenance
Rarely installed remotely to water
Passcode protected
treatment plant
Page 21 of 21
CBRTA
OCT 2004

3.3 Color
Color in water is caused by the absorption of visible light by dissolved or colloidal substances
and the scattering of light by suspended particles. Both inorganic compounds such as iron,
copper, and manganese and natural organic matter can be responsible for color in water. The unit
for color is true color unit (tcu) or platinum-cobalt unit (Pt-Co). Color is reported as apparent
color for samples that include suspended matter and true color for samples that do not include
suspended matter. A true color of 15 tcu is detectable in a glass of water, whereas 5 tcu may be
detectable in large volumes of water such as in a swimming pool or bathtub.
Color is measured by spectrophotometric method at wavelengths between 410 to 420 nm and
450 to 465 nm because this is the range in which natural organic matter and the Pt-Co standard
absorbs light. Online colorimeters consist of a lamp, a cell, and photodetector. Like other
photometric methods, light passes through the water within the cell and the photodetector
determines the amount of light absorbed or scattered by the water. Important parameters in
selecting an instrument include the wavelength and cell path length. For waters with little color,
the sensitivity is improved with increased path length.
No work has been published on the absorbance of the evaluated contaminants at 410 to 420 nm
or 450 to 465 nm. Contaminants that absorb light at those wavelengths could be effectively
detected at concentration less than 1.0 mg/L.
The cost for an online dual-beam colorimeter is $5,000. Annual maintenance is approximately
$540 and is the result of calibration check every three months and annual cleaning, replacement
of the lamp, and o-rings.
Page 22 of 22
CBRTA

OCT 2004
Table 3-5. Color Monitor Evaluation

Detectable at
Detectable at
Desired
Desired
100 times
Detection Limit
Detection
Desired
Detection Limit
(mg/L)
Limit
Detection Limit
(mg/L)
Agents Detected
Botulinum Toxin
0.000 000 4
No
No
Ricin
0.015
No1
Cyanide
0.200
Chlordane
0.060
No1
0.010
No1
0.005
No
0.009
No
No1
VX
GB or Sarin
Cesium-137 (Bq/L)
Advantages
Response time less than one minute
Nema 4 and IP 65 enclosure ratings
4-20 mA, digital, and self diagnostic signal
Disadvantages
outputs
Usable life is 6 to 10 years based on

maintenance
Maintenance required every three months
Passcode protected
Unlikely that absorption will be affected at concentrations less than 0.10 mg/L
Page 23 of 23
CBRTA
OCT 2004

3.4 Conductivity
Many compounds are dissolved in water and play an important role in the taste of water, scaling,
and corrosion. The principal species in most natural waters include calcium, magnesium,
potassium, carbonate, bicarbonate, chloride, sulfate, and nitrate. The sum of all dissolved
compounds in water is known as total dissolved solids (TDS). These dissolved compounds, if
present as ions, tend to increase the electrical conductivity of water. Conductivity is often used
as a surrogate to monitor TDS. Solutions high in inorganic compounds are relatively good
conductors, conversely, organic compounds that do not dissociate in water conduct current
poorly.
Conductance of a solution is calculated by measuring the electrical resistance between two
chemically inert electrodes. The units of conductivity may be reported as millisiemens per meter
(mS/m) or micromhos per centimeter (mho/cm).
There are many vendors that market conductivity probes. Two types of probes are available, the
simple two-electrode conductivity probe and the electrodeless sensors. The two-electrode
sensors are subject to errors resulting from polarization and deposition on the electrodes. The
electrodeless sensors use an alternating current and do not have the same problems that may exist
with two-electrode sensors. Conductivity is temperature dependant, therefore meters are usually
measure temperature as well and are automatically temperature compensated.
Conductivity is a simple parameter to measure and the instrument requires very little
maintenance. Unfortunately, the conductivity of water can range from 100 to 1,000 mhos/cm
and can change suddenly due to source water conditions. Conductivity and TDS are directly
proportional to one another by the equation:
Conductivity = TDS x
The value of the constant, , is specific to the water source, but generally ranges between 1.2 and
1.8 for freshwaters (AwwaRF 2002). Because of the concentration of total dissolved compounds
in water can range from 100 to 500 mg/L, several milligrams of a contaminant that completely
ionizes would be necessary to produce a noticeable change in conductivity.
The cost of a conductivity meter is $1,200 and the only maintenance required is infrequent
cleaning as necessary and calibration as needed. Estimated annual maintenance is $100 or less.
Page 24 of 24
CBRTA

OCT 2004
Table 3-6. Conductivity Monitor Evaluation

Detectable at
Detectable at
Desired
Desired
100 times
Detection Limit
Detection
Desired
Detection Limit
(mg/L)
Limit
Detection Limit
(mg/L)
Agents Detected
Botulinum Toxin
0.000 000 4
No
No
Ricin
0.015
No1
No1
Cyanide
0.200
No1
Yes2
Chlordane
0.060
No1
No1
0.010
No1
No1
0.005
No
No
0.009
No
No
No1
No1
VX
GB or Sarin
Cesium-137 (Bq/L)
Advantages
Response time is less than one minute
Nema 4x enclose available
4-20mA and other outputs
Monthly calibration check
Probe life several years
Passcode protected
Disadvantages
Does not include self diagnostic features
Several milligrams per liter are required for detection.
Cyanide ionizes to cyanic acid and cyanide ion. It is estimated that the addition of 20 mg/L of cyanide would
produce a noticeable increase in conductivity for most waters.
Page 25 of 25
CBRTA
OCT 2004

3.5 Ion Selective Probes

Ion selective probes exist for a wide range of inorganic ions. A short list of some of the
commercially available ion selective probes is provided in Table 3-7. All ion selective probes
function on the development of a potential across a membrane which is directly proportional to
the concentration of the target ion in the sample. This potential is compared to the potential
across a reference electrode that is not affected by the concentration of the target ion. Ion
selective probes can only measure free ions and not ions that have formed complexes with metals
or organic matter also present in water.
Table 3-7. Ion Selective Probes (Thermo, 2004).
Metals
Cadmium, copper, silver, and
lead
Inorganics
Ammonia, ammonium,
bromide, calcium, chloride,
chlorine, cyanide, fluoride,
fluoroborate, iodide, nitrate,
nitrite, nitrogen oxide,
perchlorate, potassium,
sodium, sulfide, and
thiocyanate
Other
Carbon dioxide, dissolved
oxygen, water hardness,
hydrogen ion concentration
(pH), redox/ORP, surfactants,
and temperature
Figure 3-4. Ion Selective Probes (Courtesy Thermo)
3.5.1 Cyanide Probes

The determination of free cyanide concentration refers to the measurement of the cyanide ion
(CN-). All cyanide probes measure free cyanide and not metal-cyanide complexes that may also
be present. The majority of the cyanide probes commercially available were designed for plating
Page 26 of 26
CBRTA
OCT 2004

and mineral processing industries with high cyanide concentrations. No online monitor suitable
for low concentration detection and continuous use was identified at the time this report was
published (October 2004). Thermo Orion and others market cyanide probes intended for
laboratory benchtop setting, but these probes require special attention not normally provided
online instruments. The evaluation presented in Table 3-8 was developed using the Thermo
Orion Model 9606 cyanide electrode.
The reaction of cyanide with distribution system residuals makes measurement of free cyanide
inappropriate as free cyanide is nearly completely converted to cyanate within 15 minutes to
cyanogen chloride and finally mineralized to carbon dioxide and oxygen in a few hours. The
opportunity to detect free cyanide is very small unless all of the disinfectant residual is consumed
and pH is greater than 8.5.
The cost of the Thermo Orion Model 9606 cyanide electrode is $600 and should be replaced
biannually. Benchtop and portable ion selective meters are available and range in price from
$750 to $2,000 (EPA ETV, 2003). Because the instrument evaluated is not online, an annual
operating cost was not calculated.
Page 27 of 27
CBRTA

OCT 2004
Table 3-8. Free Cyanide Probe and Ion Selective Meter Evaluation
Detectable at
Detectable at
Desired
Desired
100 times
Detection Limit
Detection
Desired
Detection Limit
(mg/L)
Limit
Detection Limit
(mg/L)
Agents Detected
Botulinum Toxin
0.000 000 4
No
No
Ricin
0.015
No1
No1
Cyanide
0.200
No2
Yes2
2.72
Chlordane
0.060
No1
No1
0.010
No1
No1
0.005
No
No
0.009
No
No
No1
No1
VX
GB or Sarin
Cesium-137 (Bq/L)
Advantages
Nema 6 enclosure available
RS 232 output available
Disadvantages
Probe included in this evaluation has not

been used on a continuous basis for online
monitoring
Probe life is 1 to 2 years
Electrode requires polishing and shining

prior to each use (daily)
Unconfirmed evaluation: ion selective probe should not detect other ions, organic compounds, or metals.
Free cyanide will react with disinfectant residual. Assumed residual is 1.0 mg/L requiring 2.7 mg/L of free cyanide
before free cyanide would be detected by ion selective probe.
Page 28 of 28
CBRTA
OCT 2004

3.5.2 Hydrogen Ion Probe (pH)

Hydrogen ion concentration is commonly referred to as pH. pH is monitored within the water
treatment plant as coagulation and disinfection are both affected by changes in pH. Additionally,
for corrosion control, pH is often adjusted to 7.5 to 10.0. Distribution system pH is typically
controlled to a setpoint that has been found to limit the formation of scale, yet minimize the
leaching of copper and lead.
pH monitoring has changed very little in the last 50 years as the sensing devices typically consist
of a pH-sensing electrode, a signal amplifier, and a reference electrode. pH sensors are readily
available from many vendors. pH is affected by temperature, and most sensors include
automatic temperature compensation.
Changes in pH are caused by the addition of chemical that ionize and release positively charged
hydrogen ions (acids) or those that form stable complexes with the hydrogen ions (bases). Water
is buffered in the pH range of 7.0 to 10.2 by bicarbonate. Water resists changes in pH because of
the bicarbonate buffering present in water. The buffering capacity varies between waters, but
generally several milligrams of a strong acid or base is required to significantly change the pH of
water.
Of the contaminants evaluated, only cyanide will impact pH because it will ionize to form
cyanide or cyanic acid based on distribution system pH and is the only contaminant evaluated at
a concentration greater than 10 mg/L. Cyanide acts as a weak acid with a pKa of 9.2 (APHA,
AWWA, WPCF, 2004). pKa is the pH as which the molar ratio between cyanic acid and the
cyanide ion is equal to one. At pH lower than 9.2, cyanic acid is the predominant form of
cyanide. Cyanide could be added to the distribution system in one of two ways, as a salt that
ionizes when dissolved, or as a liquid, which would likely be at pH greater than 10. Cyanide
solutions at pH less than 9.2 are volatile and present a larger health hazard to the individual
adding the contaminant. The pH may or may not be affected by the addition of cyanide salts or
as a solution based on the pH of the distribution system and the buffering capacity. If a cyanide
were added to water, the pH would rise under most conditions because the pKa of cyanide is at
the upper range for many water utility distribution systems. The addition of 20 mg/L of a weak
acid would cause a noticeable change in pH, and in low alkalinity waters could be greater than
one pH unit. It is therefore possible that cyanide be detected due to changes in pH, but the
amount of the pH change would be controlled by initial pH and water alkalinity. None of the
other contaminants evaluated are expected to cause a noticeable change in pH.
The cost for a pH sensor and transmitter is $1,450 and the annual operating cost is estimated at
$425. The majority of maintenance is associated with monthly checks and calibration as
necessary.
Page 29 of 29
CBRTA

OCT 2004
Table 3-9. Hydrogen Ion Probe Evaluation

Detectable at
Detectable at
Desired
Desired
100 times
Detection Limit
Detection
Desired
Detection Limit
(mg/L)
Limit
Detection Limit
(mg/L)
Agents Detected
Botulinum Toxin
0.000 000 4
No
No
Ricin
0.015
No1
No1
Cyanide
0.200
No1
Yes2
Chlordane
0.060
No1
No1
0.010
No1
No1
0.005
No
No
0.009
No
No
No1
No1
VX
GB or Sarin
Cesium-137 (Bq/L)
Advantages
Response time is one second
Nema 4x enclosure rating available
4-20 mA signal output standard
Does not require side stream
Sensors for 100 psi available
Calibration required monthly
Three key passcode available
Disadvantages
No self diagnostic signals
Concentration too low to influence pH even if the contaminant did ionize and release hydrogen ions.
The addition of 20 mg/L of a cyanide salt may result in a noticeable increase in pH.
Page 30 of 30
CBRTA
OCT 2004

3.6 Particle Counter

A particle counter measures the number and quantifies the size of particles present in water. A
side stream of water is sampled at a constant flow rate through a narrow cell, 0.4 to 1.0 mm
wide. A beam of light is passed through the cell and the light is detected by a photodiode. There
are two principals of detection, light scatter and light obstruction (AwwaRF 2002).
Particle counters are often described as more sensitive than turbidimeters although that
understanding can easily misinterpreted. Particle counters can detect changes in water quality at
turbidity readings less than 0.10 NTU, however, particle counters are limited to the minimum
particle detection size limit, often 2.0 m diameter. In sufficient quantities, turbidimeters will
generate a signal with particles as small as 0.01 m diameter (AwwaRF 2002).
All of the contaminants evaluated in this report are assumed to be dissolved and would not be
detected by a particle counter. Within the distribution system is biological growth, commonly
called biofilm that forms a lining on pipewalls. Utilities that use combined chlorine as a
secondary disinfectant in the distribution system commonly practice chlorine burns. During
chlorine burns, the disinfectant residual is switched from combined chlorine which is a weak
disinfectant and oxidant to chlorine which is a stronger disinfectant and oxidant. The burns are
performed to reduce biofilm, specifically nitrifiers, and reduce heterotrophic plate counts. The
burns results in biofilm sloughing off pipe walls. The biofilm in the pipes can be used as a
biological indicator of water toxicity and the detector is a particle counter. At the time of report
publishing (October 2004), no work has been published on the usefulness of biofilm and particle
counters as an indicator for intention contamination. Biofilm sloughing due to toxic
contamination may occur suddenly resulting in plugging of the particle counter cell and because
commercially available particle counters do not include flow meters, the particle counter may not
generate a signal indicating particle sloughing. The next generation of particles counters may
include flow sensors eliminating this source of error.
The use of particle counters in the water industry has increased substantially over the last decade
following the Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule and lower filter effluent and
combined filter effluent turbidity requirements. It was estimated that in 2002, there were over
500 utilities using particle counters (AwwaRF 2002). The cost for a particle counter is $4,700
and annual maintenance consists of sending the unit if for calibration and periodic replacement
of the photodiode, laser, and tubing. The annual maintenance cost is estimated at $1,200.
Page 31 of 31
CBRTA
OCT 2004

Figure 3-5. HACH Particle Counter (Courtesy HACH)
Figure 3-6. ChemTrac Particle Counter (Courtesy ChemTrac)
Page 32 of 32
CBRTA

OCT 2004
Table 3-10. Particle Counter Evaluation

Detectable at
Detectable at
Desired
Desired
100 times
Detection Limit
Detection
Desired
Detection Limit
(mg/L)
Limit
Detection Limit
(mg/L)
0.000 000 4
-1
-1
Ricin
0.015
-1
-1
Cyanide
0.200
-1
-1
Chlordane
0.060
0.010
-1
-1
VX
0.005
-1
-1
GB or Sarin
0.009
-1
-1
-1
-1
Agents Detected
Botulinum Toxin
Cesium-137 (Bq/L)
Advantages
May act as detector for online rapid
Disadvantages
toxicity tests using native biofilm as

indicator organism
4-20 mA, RS 485, and other signal outputs
Nema 4 enclosure available
Expected usable life is greater than 10
Unproven technology for the detection of

toxic contamination events
Monitors secondary parameter and not

contaminant directly
Sensors not commonly installed in remote

locations
years
No self diagnostic signal or alarm
Cleaning required periodically based on
Instrument flow is not monitored
application
Side stream flow required
Annual sensor maintenance
Sensor does not include security features

such as passcode protection or a lock
Although not directly detected by particle counter, biofilm sloughing may occur if the water is intentionally
contaminated. Biofilm would be detected by the particle counter.

Page 33 of 33
CBRTA
OCT 2004

3.7 Reduction Oxidation Potential (redox)

Reactions in water often involve the transfer of electrons from one chemical species to another.
Disinfection with chlorine, iron and manganese removal, and corrosion reactions involve
electron transfer. The transfer of electrons involves electrical energy, which can be measured as
oxidation/reduction potential (ORP). ORP sensors can be used to determine the relative presence
of oxidizing and reducing species present in water. ORP is not specific to a single chemical
species, so the addition of any chemical that affects the oxidant activity will result in changes to
ORP.
ORP is an electrochemical property of a solution. The method uses a galvanic cell consisting of
a reference electrode and a indicating electrode to measure the electrical potential of the solution.
ORP readings are commonly displayed in millivolts. ORP analyzers are very similar to pH
probes and many manufactures offer probes that measure either pH or ORP.
If chlorine or dissolved oxygen concentration were to decrease, ORP would also decrease. A
chlorine monitor will only provide indication that zero chlorine is present if it were consumed by
a reducing agent, however, ORP readings will continue to fall as more reducing agent is added.
ORP is highly sensitive, and small changes in chlorine or dissolved oxygen concentration may
affect ORP readings.
The cost for an ORP probe and transmitter are $1,450. The annual maintenance cost is estimated
at $435 per year which is the result of monthly cleaning and calibration checks.
Page 34 of 34
CBRTA

OCT 2004
Table 3-11. Reduction Oxidation Potential Probe Evaluation

Detectable at
Detectable at
Desired
Desired
100 times
Detection Limit
Detection
Desired
Detection Limit
(mg/L)
Limit
Detection Limit
(mg/L)
Agents Detected
Botulinum Toxin
0.000 000 4
No
No
Ricin
0.015
No1
No1
Cyanide
0.200
No1
Yes2
Chlordane
0.060
No1
No1
0.010
No1
No1
0.005
No
No
0.009
No
No
No1
No1
VX
GB or Sarin
Cesium-137 (Bq/L)
Advantages
Response time is one second
Nema 4x enclosure rating available
4-20 mA signal output standard
Does not require side stream
Sensors for 100 psi available
Calibration check monthly
Disadvantages
No self diagnostic signals or alarms
Concentration is unlikely to produce noticeable change in ORP.
Cyanide reacts with chlorine and combined chlorine, thereby reducing ORP.
Page 35 of 35
CBRTA
OCT 2004

3.8 Temperature
Temperature is often monitored at the water treatment plant as chemical reactions and
disinfection may be influenced by water temperature. Temperature can be measured by
resistance temperature devices or thermocouples. Both technologies determine temperature by
detecting changes in electric characteristics of metals.
Temperature is perhaps one of the worst available monitors to detect intentional contamination
though because a large amount of energy is required to change water temperature. Chemical
reactions with water that produce heat or the addition of a very large volume of contaminant
whose temperature is significantly different from the temperature of the water are the only two
ways in which temperature would be affected.
Temperature is measured by pH, conductivity, and ORP sensors as the readings are influenced.
Some probes and transmitters will provide a second output for temperature, therefore a separate
temperature sensor may not be necessary. If a standalone sensor is desired, the cost would be
approximately $1,000 and perhaps one hour of maintenance is required per year.
Page 36 of 36
CBRTA

OCT 2004
Table 3-12. Temperature Probe Evaluation

Detectable at
Detectable at
Desired
Desired
100 times
Detection Limit
Detection
Desired
Detection Limit
(mg/L)
Limit
Detection Limit
(mg/L)
Agents Detected
Botulinum Toxin
0.000 000 4
No
No
Ricin
0.015
No1
No1
Cyanide
0.200
No1
No1
Chlordane
0.060
No1
No1
0.010
No1
No1
0.005
No
No
0.009
No
No
No1
No1
VX
GB or Sarin
Cesium-137 (Bq/L)
Advantages
Quick response time
Nema 4x enclosure available
Expected usable life of 10 years or more
Highly reliable and virtually no required
Disadvantages
Not sensitive to the addition of

contaminants
No self-diagnostic signal or alarm
maintenance
Threaded connection of direct insertion

available
Pressure resistant to 725 psi

Quantity of contaminant added to water too low to produce noticeable change in temperature
Page 37 of 37
CBRTA
OCT 2004

3.9 Turbidity
Turbidity is the relative clarity of a solution and can be technically defined as the optical
property that causes light to be scattered and absorbed by suspended particulate matter rather
than transmitted in straight lines (AwwaRF 2002). The amount of light scatter is proportional to
the amount of suspended matter in water. A turbidimeter consists of a light source, a sample cell
and a photodetector. Within the drinking water industry, turbidity is commonly referred to in
nephelometric turbidity units (NTU).
Methods for determination of turbidity vary based on detection range. The normal operational
range of water in the distribution system is similar to water leaving the plant which is 0.3 to 0.05
NTU. The best detector technologies for this range of turbidity is single beam tungsten or LED
or modulated 4-beam turbidimeter designs. The operational range for these instruments is 0 to
100 NTU although frequent cleaning may be required for waters with turbidity greater than 10
NTU. One vendors product, the ultra low range laser nephelometer, has a lower range, 1.0 to
0.00 NTU and improved resolution.
All of the contaminants evaluated in this report are assumed to be dissolved and would not be
detected by a turbidimeter. Within the distribution system is biological growth, commonly
called biofilm that forms a lining on pipewalls. Utilities that use combined chlorine as a
secondary disinfectant in the distribution system commonly practice chlorine burns. During
chlorine burns, the disinfectant residual is switched from combined chlorine which is a weak
disinfectant and oxidant to chlorine which is a stronger disinfectant and oxidant. The burns are
performed to reduce biofilm, specifically nitrifiers, and reduce heterotrophic plate counts. The
burns results in biofilm sloughing off pipe walls. The biofilm in the pipes can be used as a
biological indicator of water toxicity and the detector is a particle counter. Biofilm sloughing
due to toxic contamination may occur suddenly and result in large changes in turbidity.
Other common distribution system activities can also result in sudden increases in turbidity.
Typical changes in flow due to daily demand, operation of lift station pumps, actuation of valves,
and distribution system flushing can all results in substantial increases in turbidity that may also
be observed as biomass sloughing or resuspended sediment. Because normal operational
activities will give the same response as biomass sloughing, the usefulness of particulate
monitoring is not well established. At the time this report was released (October 2004), no work
had been published on the usefulness of biofilm and turbidimeters as an indicator for intention
contamination in the distribution system. Normal distribution system operation may create
sufficient noise making turbidity a poor monitoring parameter.
Turbidimeters cost approximately $1,800 and annual maintenance cost is approximately $360
which is associated with bimonthly calibration and cleaning.
Page 38 of 38
CBRTA
OCT 2004

Figure 3-7. Turbidimeter and Transmitter (Courtesy HACH)
Page 39 of 39
CBRTA

OCT 2004
Table 3-13. Turbidity Monitor Evaluation

Detectable at
Detectable at
Desired
Desired
100 times
Detection Limit
Detection
Desired
Detection Limit
(mg/L)
Limit
Agents Detected
Detection Limit
(mg/L)
0.000 000 4
No
Ricin
0.015
No1
Cyanide
0.200
No1
Chlordane
0.060
No1
0.010
No1
0.005
No
0.009
No
No1
Botulinum Toxin
VX
GB or Sarin
Cesium-137 (Bq/L)
Advantages
Disadvantages
Detection time within one minute2
Nema 4x enclosure rating
4-20 mA outputs with alarms
No self diagnostic alarm
Expected usable life greater than 10 years
No security features such as passcode or
Monthly calibration and cleaning
Monitors biofilm sloughing rather than

contaminant directly
lock
Requires bypass stream
Detection is unlikely as long-term exposure limit unlikely to cause widespread biofilm sloughing.
Time required before sampled water enters cell in which turbidity is measured may be longer in some models.
Some models include a bubble trap thus increasing the detection time.
Page 40 of 40
CBRTA
OCT 2004

3.10 Multi-parameter Probes

New scientific developments have been made in recent years that allow the analysis of multiple
water quality parameters on the surface of a dime. Other vendors continue to use popular
monitoring technologies to accurately monitor water and have packaged the entire system on one
panel. The advantage of installing equipment that can monitor multiple water quality parameters
at one location is apparent as no one technology will detect all potential contaminants. Each of
the multiple monitoring systems are discussed in the following sections. Because each of the
technologies installed on the probes or on the panel mounted systems have already been
discussed, their usefulness in detecting contaminants is not discussed.
One vendor has performed substantial testing and claims that by monitoring the signals of
multiple water quality monitors, a greater number of contaminants can be detected than the sum
of its parts. For example, not only will contaminants detected with a chlorine and pH monitor be
detected, but others will as well. This work is highly encouraging and may greatly improve the
detection limit and number of contaminants that are detectable, but has not yet been published at
the time of this report (October, 2004). The vendor claims that intentional contamination can be
detected with four or five monitors using an algorithm which results in a monitoring system with
very few false positives and no false negatives. The algorithm almost always results in a signal
that is statistically significant indicating that something is present in water that has not been
observed in the past. The vendor also claims that as few as three to four weeks of water quality
data will provide enough background information for the algorithm and seasonal changes in
water quality do not affect the algorithm.
3.10.1
Dascore Six-Cense
Dascore markets the Six-Cense, a six in one multiparameter in line sensor that can measure free,
combined chlorine or dissolved oxygen, pH, conductivity, ORP and temperature. All of the
technology required to monitor these parameters is available on a ceramic chip. The sensor is
designed to be inserted into a pressurized water main 2 to 72 inches in diameter and the unit can
be installed through any 1.5 inch or 2 inch corporation stop. The unit requires 28 inches of
clearance from the pipe. The transmitter provides 4-20 mA signals for each of the monitored
parameters and is in a Nema 4x and IP 66 rated enclosure. The detection limits and sensitivity is
similar to conventional online units, except for pH, which accuracy is 0.5 pH units. One point
calibration is performed as required. The probe includes a sample tap through which a sample
can be drawn to confirm monitor readings. The recommended replacement frequency is every 6
months, but utilities have found that the chips may last 8 to 10 months. The chip is self cleaning
as protons are shed from the surface of the chip every two minutes.
The Six-Cense is approximately $10,000 which includes the power supply, transmitter, probe
and ceramic chip. The chips that need to be replaced every 6 to 10 months cost $700. The
annual maintenance cost for the unit is estimated to be $1,350 which is mostly the result of chip
replacement.
Page 41 of 41
CBRTA
OCT 2004

Figure 3-8. Six-Cense Mulitparameter Probe and Transmitter (Courtesy Dascore)
Page 42 of 42
CBRTA

OCT 2004
Table 3-14. Dascore Six-Cense Probe Evaluation

Detectable at
Detectable at
Desired
Desired
100 times
Detection Limit
Detection
Desired
Detection Limit
(mg/L)
Limit
Detection Limit
(mg/L)
Agents Detected
Botulinum Toxin
0.000 000 4
Yes
Yes
Ricin
0.015
No1
Cyanide
0.200
No2
Yes3
2.72
Chlordane
0.060
No1
0.010
No1
0.005
No
0.009
No
No1
VX
GB or Sarin
Cesium-137 (Bq/L)
Advantages
Disadvantages
Multiple parameters on one probe
Response time is two minutes
Nema 4x and IP 66 enclosure rating
Monthly maintenance required
Can be directly inserted into pipe and
Single point calibration
withstand 230 psi
Water quality monitoring is not by EPA
Self cleaning sensor
Passcode protected
Many installed nationally
Expected usable life of the transmitter is

seven years
Sensor must be replaced every 6 to 10

months
approved methods
Not likely detected because concentration less than 0.10 mg/L
Detected through amperimetric chlorine
Detected through amperimetric chlorine, pH, and ORP monitoring
Page 43 of 43
CBRTA
3.10.2
OCT 2004

HACH PipeSonde
The PipeSonde can be installed in a distribution system pipe through a standard two inch
corporation stop. The pipe diameter must be greater than 8 inches and the probe is warranted to
300 psi. The PipeSonde includes technology to continuously monitor pH, conductivity,
turbidity, temperature, ORP, free chlorine, dissolved oxygen, and line pressure. The accuracy of
all of the readings is comparable to stand alone sensors with the exception of turbidity which is
0.1 NTU or more and pH which is 0.2 pH units. The signal output for the PipeSonde is digital
via MODBUS, RS 232 or SDI-12 connection. The probe includes an adapter that facilitates
inserting against line pressure without other tools and includes a redundant safety mechanism
that allows the secure pipe insertion and removal. The probe includes a sample line to check the
accuracy of the probe in the field. HACH recommends monthly maintenance to determine if
calibration is necessary.
The cost for the PipeSonde is $8,000 and annual operating cost is $800. The cost is associated
with chemicals required for calibration, replacement of the sensor on a biannual basis, and
monthly checks.
Figure 3-9. PipeSonde Probe (Courtesy HACH)
Page 44 of 44
CBRTA

OCT 2004
Table 3-15. HACH Pipesonde Evaluation

Detectable at
Detectable at
Desired
Desired
100 times
Detection Limit
Detection
Desired
Detection Limit
(mg/L)
Limit
Detection Limit
(mg/L)
Agents Detected
Botulinum Toxin
0.000 000 4
Yes
Yes
Ricin
0.015
No1
Cyanide
0.200
No2
Yes3
2.72
Chlordane
0.060
No1
0.010
No1
0.005
No
0.009
No
No1
VX
GB or Sarin
Cesium-137 (Bq/L)
Advantages
Disadvantages
Multiple parameters on one probe
Expected usable life of the probe is 5 years
Response time is one minutes
Single point calibration
Stainless steel body
Water quality monitoring is not by EPA
Monthly maintenance required
Can be directly inserted into pipe and
No security features
withstand 300 psi
approved methods
Many installed nationally
Detected through amperimetric chlorine
Detected through amperimetric chlorine, pH, and ORP monitoring
Page 45 of 45
CBRTA
3.10.3
OCT 2004

HACH Water Distribution Monitoring Panel
The HACH Water Distribution Monitoring Panel is comprised of some of the most widely used
water monitoring products. The panel includes the HACH CL17 chlorine analyzer (free or total
chlorine), HACH 1720D turbidimeter, HACH/GLI online pH monitor, and HACH/GLI
conductivity monitor. Another option is to install a TOC analyzer, but the price for the panel
more than doubles when the TOC analyzer is included. The sensitivity and the number of
contaminants capable of being detected is greatly improved by measuring TOC. TOC analyzers
are discussed in detail in Section 4.7.
The panel has a single sample inlet and outlet. The system also includes some self diagnostic
features that include a pressure sensor that indicates when pressure of sample is lost. Each of the
sensors send an analog or digital signal output that can be tied into the water treatment plant
SCADA system or program that processes the data and looks for variations in water quality
information. The panel does not include the data analysis program but a system will be available
through HACH in Fall of 2004.
The cost of the Water Distribution Monitoring Panel without a TOC analyzer is $13,500. The
annual maintenance cost is estimated to be $660. The annual maintenance is one hour per month
and $30 per month for chemicals.
Figure 3-10. Water Distribution Monitoring Panel (Courtesy HACH)
Page 46 of 46
CBRTA

OCT 2004
Table 3-16. HACH Water Distribution Monitoring Panel Evaluation

Detectable at
Detectable at
Desired
Desired
100 times
Detection Limit
Detection
Desired
Detection Limit
(mg/L)
Limit
Detection Limit
(mg/L)
Agents Detected
Botulinum Toxin
0.000 000 4
Yes
Yes
Ricin
0.015
No1
Cyanide
0.200
No2
Yes3
2.72
Chlordane
0.060
No1
0.010
No1
0.005
No
0.009
No
No1
VX
GB or Sarin
Cesium-137 (Bq/L)
Advantages
All analyses performed by EPA approved
Disadvantages
Requires side steam
methods
Response time is less than 5 minutes for all

analyses
Nema 4 enclosure rating
4-20 mA and digital signals available
Self diagnostic signal and alarm
Monthly maintenance and calibration

required
Security can be provided by optional

cabinet and lock
Detected through DPD chlorine
Detected through DPD chlorine and pH monitoring
Page 47 of 47
CBRTA
OCT 2004

4 Existing Detection Technologies

4.1 Introduction
As the threat of purposeful contamination and the number of accidental contaminant releases,
particularly on the Ohio River, has driven the development of advanced, completely automated
monitoring systems. This chapter discusses the applicability of advanced monitoring
technologies and their use as fully automated remote monitoring systems.
4.1.1 Summary of Existing Detection Technologies

The existing detection technologies were reviewed and evaluated for remote, continuous
drinking water distribution system monitoring. While most of these technologies can detect
contaminants at very low concentrations, they are often specific to one contaminant or a group of
contaminants. Because the physical and chemical properties of potential contaminants can vary
greatly, instruments that measure one contaminant or a small subset of possible contaminants is
of little use because that contaminant may not be the one used. Gas chromatography can detect
volatile organic compounds such as some chlorinated pesticides, VX nerve agent, and sarin, but
it is unable to detect nonvolatile contaminants. A continuous atomic absorption
spectrophotometer is currently not available, and would only be able to detect metals. Ion
chromatography can only be used to detect cyanide. Because all of the contaminants evaluated,
except cesium-137, contained carbon, a total organic carbon analyzer can detected all of the
contaminants evaluated with the exception of cesium-137. For several of the contaminants
though, the detection limit of a total organic analyzer is greater than one hundred times the
desired detection limit.
All of the contaminants evaluated shared one common property, which was that they were toxic
to humans. Biological sensors monitor toxic contaminants; however in a distribution system, the
disinfectant residual would be toxic and must be removed. The use of algae does not appear
promising because of the frequent incidence of both false positives and negatives. Continuous
biological monitoring with daphnia can detect six of the eight contaminants evaluated in this
study. Monitors that use fish or mussels can detect cyanide and chlorinated pesticides, but not at
the desired detection limit. Most of the biological monitors had limited distribution system
operating experience and were not tested against the contaminants evaluated in this report.
Page 48 of 48
CBRTA
OCT 2004

4.2 Atomic Absorption Spectroscopy

A continuous atomic absorption (AA) spectrophotometer is not currently available. AA is used
to determine metallic elements at concentration of parts per million. The sample is incinerated
and light of the correct frequency is shined through the flame and the transmitted light is
measured (Harris, 1996). Each element requires a separate lamp with light whose frequency is
absorbed by the atoms of the metallic element being analyzed.
AA is only useful for determining the concentration of specific elements and is not practical to
screen water for multiple types of contaminants. Additionally, only metals would be detected by
AA. Cesium can be detected using Flame Atomic Absorption at a wavelength of 852.1 nm using
air and acetylene. None of the other contaminants would be detected by AA as they are not
metals.
Another more sensitive method of metal detection is inductively coupled plasma (ICP). The
instrument can quickly identify up to 25 elements in 30 seconds, but cesium is not one of the
elements that can be detected. ICP is limited to only the most advanced laboratories in the
country as it is much more advanced instrument than AA and can cost upwards of $160,000. No
online units are available at this time.
The cost of an atomic absorption spectrophotometer is 30,000. The annual operating and
maintenance cost is comprised mostly of replacement of lamps, cleaning maintenance on the
burner, and replacement of gasses. Analysis is not automated and requires continual oversight.
Page 49 of 49
CBRTA

OCT 2004
Table 4-1. Atomic Absorption Spectroscopy Evaluation

Detectable at
Detectable at
Desired
Desired
100 times
Detection Limit
Detection
Desired
Detection Limit
(mg/L)
Limit
Detection Limit
(mg/L)
Agents Detected
Botulinum Toxin
No1
0.000 000 4
No
No
Ricin
0.015
No1
No1
No1
Cyanide
0.200
No1
No1
-1
Chlordane
0.060
No1
No1
No1
0.010
No1
No1
No1
VX
0.005
No1
No1
No1
GB or Sarin
0.009
No1
No1
No1
0.0132
Cesium-137 (Bq/L)
Advantages
Disadvantages
Self diagnostic signal and alarm
No online instruments
Computer passcode available
Different lamp required for each metal
Detects metals only
Laboratory setting only
Requires frequent maintenance and

monitoring
Does not include automated sample

preparation
AA measures metals only
Shimadzu, 2004
Page 50 of 50
CBRTA
OCT 2004

4.3 Biological Sensors

There is only one characteristic of all toxic contaminants that allows them to be monitored as a
group. All contaminants used to intentionally cause harm to humans are toxic. The only way to
monitor for toxic properties in humans are to use humans as monitors. This is an unacceptable
practice, but methods have been developed to monitor and detect harmful contaminants with
other organisms. Algae, daphnia, fish, and mussels have all been used to monitor for acutely
toxic water conditions.
Canaries are perhaps one of the best know biological sensors and were used to detect carbon
monoxide in mines. Canaries were more sensitive to the colorless, odorless gas than people, so
the were an effective monitor. One important property of a biological monitor is sensitivity to
contaminants that are toxic to humans. Evaluations have not included the sensitivity of
biological monitors and the concentration necessary to protect human health so an evaluation of
whether one organism is a better sensor than another cannot be determined. Additionally, it is
likely that one organism is more sensitive to certain types of contaminants, such as algae may be
more sensitive to heavy metals and herbicides but unaffected by certain pesticides. The US EPA
has recognized this and requires whole effluent toxicity tests of wastewater discharges use two to
three indicator species: algae, daphnia, and fish (AwwaRF, 2002). Disinfectant residuals are
toxic to all biological monitors, therefore monitoring in the distribution system requires
additional treatment to remove chlorine or combined chlorine residual.
Four biological sensors were evaluated. There has not been a strong market for online biological
sensors in the past and only a few sensors are available. Only one sensor was evaluated in each
of the following sections, therefore the manufacturer of the sensor is specifically named within
the section.
4.3.1 Algae Toximeter

bbe Moldaenke has developed an algae chlorophyll fluorescence monitor that has been used in
Europe on the Rhine River. The chemical interaction of toxins with the photosynthesis of green
algae results in lack of oxygen production and is related to chlorophyll fluorescence. Suspended
growth algae are continuously grown in an integrated fermenter. A water sample is continuously
added to the algae and the fluorescence is monitored. The monitors are highly sensitive to
herbicides and heavy metals (bbe Moldaenke, 2004).
When the installation is to monitor finished drinking water and not source water, the algae
toximeters have a greater incidence of false positives and false negatives. The reason for the
false positives is that the instrument measures only one parameter, algal fluorescence and the
reason for the false negatives is that the test organism is algae and not an animal (Alexander,
2004). The unit works well for source water monitoring, particularly to detect industrial
discharges in a river, but other toximeters use animal based indicator organisms and monitor
multiple parameters to reduce the incidence of false positives and negatives.
The cost for a algae toximeter is $45,000. Annual operating cost is $1,400 and is based on
nutrients for the algal fermenter and cleaning of the mixing chamber.
Page 51 of 51
CBRTA
OCT 2004

Figure 4-1. Algae Toximeter (Courtesy bbe Moldaenke)
Page 52 of 52
CBRTA

OCT 2004
Table 4-2. Algae Toximeter Evaluation

Detectable at
Detectable at
Desired
Desired
100 times
Detection Limit
Detection
Desired
Detection Limit
(mg/L)
Limit
Detection Limit
(mg/L)
0.000 000 4
Ricin
0.015
Cyanide
0.200
Chlordane
0.060
0.010
VX
0.005
GB or Sarin
0.009
Agents Detected
Botulinum Toxin
Cesium-137 (Bq/L)
Advantages
IP 54 enclosure rating
4-20 mA, RS 232, ethernet, and alarm

outputs
Disadvantages
Response time may be as much as 30

minutes based on toxin concentration
Higher number of false positives and

negatives in comparison to daphnia
Self cleaning
toximeter
Maintenance required every 7 to 10 days
Has not been installed to monitor water

with a disinfectant residual
Page 53 of 53
CBRTA
OCT 2004

4.3.2 Daphnia Toximeter

Continuous biological monitoring with daphnia has been performed for years to evaluate water
toxicity. The Extended Dynamic Daphnia Test is a proven method used widely in the United
States and Europe by wastewater treatment plants to monitor whole effluent toxicity. These tests
involve the introduction of potential contaminant and monitor the mortality rate of daphnia over
a 24 hour period. These tests lack the real time monitoring required for detection of intention
contamination.
bbe Moldaenke has developed a passive daphnia monitor that can continuously monitor waters
with chlorine or combined chlorine. The passive monitoring system does not rely solely on
daphnia mortality for the presence of toxic conditions. The passive biological monitoring system
monitors the behavioral patters of the daphnia and complex mathematical calculations are used
to evaluate water toxicity. The parameters monitored include average speed, speed distribution,
speed class index, average swimming height, average distance, average size, number of active
daphnia, fractal dimension and fractal dimension box-counting (used to rate degree of path
curvature), and path recognition rate (similar to percent recovery of daphnia position readings).
The calculations require at least two parameter to be outside of their acceptable range before the
system alarms. By monitoring behavioral patters, the minimum detection limit for contaminants
is greatly improved over daphnia mortality tests (Yates, 2002).
The bbe Moldaenke daphnia toximeter include live cameras that record the location of daphnia
every 0.25 seconds and an integrated personal computer to analyze the location and calculate the
monitored parameters. The computer also provides a graphical representation of the location of
the daphnia and swimming path. Daphnia are provided nutrients by an algae fermenter that
operates continuously. Periodically, the algal nutrients need to be replenished and the daphnia
chamber must be cleaned and new daphnia installed. The unit also includes a cross flow filter
and an inline heater to maintain a constant temperature. A few units have been installed outside
the United States that include a pump to add thiosulfate for the removal of chlorine. A unit has
not been installed on a system with combined chlorine. The affect of ammonia residual following
dechloramination has not been tested with the online unit.
The cost for a daphnia toximeter is $45,000. Annual operating cost is $1,600 and is based on
nutrients for the algal fermenter, cleaning of the daphnia chamber, and replacement of daphnia.
Page 54 of 54
CBRTA
OCT 2004

Figure 4-2. Daphnia Toximeter (Courtesy bbe Moldaenke)
Page 55 of 55
CBRTA

OCT 2004
Table 4-3. Daphnia Toximeter Evaluation

Detectable at
Detectable at
Desired
Desired
100 times
Detection Limit
Detection
Desired
Detection Limit
(mg/L)
Limit
Detection Limit
(mg/L)
Agents Detected
Botulinum Toxin
0.000 3001
0.000 000 4
No
No
Ricin
0.015
Yes1
Yes1
0.0151
Cyanide
0.200
No1
Yes1
0.2501
Chlordane
0.060
0.010
No1,2
Yes1,2
0.3122
VX
0.005
No1
Yes1
0.009 51
GB or Sarin
0.009
Yes3
Cesium-137 (Bq/L)
Advantages
IP 54 enclosure rating
4-20 mA, RS 232, Ethernet, and alarm
Disadvantages
Only a couple systems installed to monitor

chlorinated water
signals
Limited number of installations
Separate compartments house wet
Response time is typically 30 minutes
equipment and electronics
Requires weekly maintenance
Based on results from acute toxicity daphnia testing (EPA-ETV IQ Toxicity, 2003)
Parathion (IQ Tox Website, 2004)
Based on information from German Army (Alexander, 2004)
Page 56 of 56
CBRTA
OCT 2004

4.3.3 Fish Bio-Sensor

Fish have been used as biological monitors at water treatment plants throughout the United
States for decades. The monitors were generally setup using plant raw water as the source, a
commercially available fish tank with holes bore through the side, and ornamental goldfish or
another species. If the fish all perished suddenly, this would indicate something toxic to the fish
was present in the water. The limitations of this system include the lack of continuous
monitoring and alarms and monitoring of chlorinated or chloraminated water was impossible
without additional chemical feed and control systems.
Biological Monitoring Inc. has developed the Bio-Sensor which is automated and provides realtime monitoring of water quality. The bioelectric signals produced by all living organisms are
monitored by two non-intrusive electrodes and monitor ventilatory frequency and amplitude and
locomotor activity data. Conductivity, dissolved oxygen, pH, and temperature are also
monitored by the Bio-Sensor. When the computer assesses a significant number of fish as
behaving abnormally, or a water quality parameter outside of the set range, an alarm routine is
initiated. Upon initiation of an alarm, a sample will be automatically taken for more advanced
analysis. The system is designed for inlet pressures of 30 to 180 psi and electrical connection of
110 or 220 VAC and 50 or 60 Hz. The Bio-Sensor is not an inline system and requires a side
stream of 0.6 to 1.0 L/min.
Fish can be native or species available at local fish stores and the food can also be purchased
locally. The only maintenance required is change out of fish quarterly to annually and cleaning
the chambers for aesthetic reasons. Thirteen sensors have been sold throughout the world and
four are monitoring dechlorinated water. Extensive testing with the Bio-Sensor has been
performed at Fort Detrick and detection limits have been determined for 54 contaminants and the
detection is typically 0.1 mg/L or less.
The 8 chamber sensor is approximately $40,000 and includes a computer for analysis and water
quality monitoring probes and remote communications software. The annual maintenance cost is
$1,055 which is mostly cleaning and maintenance of the equipment.
Page 57 of 57
CBRTA
OCT 2004

Figure 4-3. Bio-Sensor Fish Toximeter (Courtesy Biological Monitoring Inc)
Page 58 of 58
CBRTA

OCT 2004
Table 4-4. Fish Bio-Sensor Evaluation

Detectable at
Detectable at
Desired
Desired
100 times
Detection Limit
Detection
Desired
Detection Limit
(mg/L)
Limit
Detection Limit
(mg/L)
0.000 000 4
Ricin
0.015
Cyanide
0.200
Yes1
-1
Chlordane
0.060
0.010
Yes1
-1
VX
0.005
GB or Sarin
0.009
Agents Detected
Botulinum Toxin
Cesium-137 (Bq/L)
Advantages
Used on dechlorinated water to
Disadvantages
continuously monitor for contamination
Provides both chronic and acute toxicity

indication
Low maintenance
Fish and food available at local pet store
Limited data on contaminants of interest to

this study
Chlorine and chloramines are toxic to fish

and require treatment prior to Bio-Sensor
Discussion with Dave Gruber of Biological Monitoring Inc, August, 2004
- No information available
Page 59 of 59
CBRTA
OCT 2004

4.3.4 Mussel Monitor

The MOSSELMONITOR is a biological continuous monitoring system for toxic contamination.
The monitor uses eight mussels and electronic sensors mounted to the shell. The sensors
measure distance as an indication of how far the shell is open. When a contaminant is present
the mussel will close their shell until the contaminant has passed. If the mussel dies, the shell is
completely open. The shells of the mussels will periodically close, but the monitor will not alarm
unless five of the eight mussels have closed shells. The sensitivity of the instrument can be
adjusted within the software as necessary to minimize false positives. Variations between
mussels is eliminated as software uses individual mussel behavior over the previous hour as the
control. Software is provided with the monitor to analyzer and interpret the signals.
The MOSSELMONITOR can operate unattended for weeks. The monitor is most commonly
installed on raw water, but the monitor has been installed to monitor chlorinated drinking water.
The monitor has not been installed on systems that use combined chlorine. Finished drinking
water installations require an automated food device that supplies a continuous suspension of
algae and the addition of chemicals to remove disinfectant residual.
The cost for the MOSSELMONITOR is $40,000 and includes the ex-situ monitor, eight mussels,
software, and computer. An annual operating cost for the monitoring system is estimated to be
$950. This includes chemicals for the continuous growth of unicellular algae, replacement of
mussels every three months, dechlorinating chemical, and checking the system biweekly.
Figure 4-4. MOSSELMONITOR (Courtesy

Delta Consult Inc.)
Figure 4-5. Mussel with Sensor (Courtesy

Delta Consult Inc.)
Page 60 of 60
CBRTA

OCT 2004
Table 4-5. MOSSELMONITOR Evaluation

Detectable at
Detectable at
Desired
Desired
100 times
Detection Limit
Detection
Desired
Detection Limit
(mg/L)
Limit
Detection Limit
(mg/L)
0.000 000 4
Ricin
0.015
Cyanide
0.200
No1
Yes1
0.401
Chlordane
0.060
0.010
No2
Yes2
0.52
VX
0.005
GB or Sarin
0.009
Agents Detected
Botulinum Toxin
Cesium-137 (Bq/L)
Advantages
Used on dechlorinated water to
Disadvantages
continuously monitor for contamination
Limited data on contaminants of interest to

this study
RS 232 or RS 485 connections and self
Biweekly maintenance required
diagnostic signals available
Only two installed in the United States at
Computer passcode protected
research facilities
Only four installed internationally on

chlorinated systems
MOSSELMONITOR, 2004
Atrazine (MOSSELMONITOR, 2004)
Page 61 of 61
CBRTA
OCT 2004

4.4 Gas Chromatography

In gas chromatography (GC), a gas (helium, nitrogen, argon, or hydrogen) transports a volatile
organic contaminant through a long, thin column containing materials that separate the organic
contaminants based on their physical and chemical properties. A liquid is also added
automatically, but the correct liquid and column must be selected to provide accurate organic
compound separation and detection. The sample size is typically very small, 0.1 L to 1.0 mL
based on if preparative columns are installed.
Volatile organic compounds can be detected by GC using purge and trap methods, and the
concentration can be accurately determined to concentrations as low as 20 ng/L. Gas
chromatographic retention time for organochlorine pesticides is 8 to 25 minutes and chlordane
peaks after 15 minutes (EPAa, 2004). There have not been published methods for the detection
of war gasses, VX and GB, although they can be detectable by GC.
The Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission (ORSANCO) has installed 15 GC in the
Ohio, Allegheny, Monongahela, and Kanawha Rivers (ORSANCO, 2004) although the systems
are not remote and in laboratories. The systems are used to monitor for industrial spills.
Portable, continuously operated GCs are available. The monitors can automatically perform
sample preparation steps as well and uses purge and trap to concentrate the contaminant prior
analysis. The monitors can be setup to monitor disinfection byproducts (trihalomethanes),
methanol, chloroform, TCE, PCE, TCA, PCSA, DCE, DCE, BTEXX, IPA, THF, or MIBK. One
model is limited to compounds with boiling points of less than 225 oC and is not capable of
monitoring for pesticides as the temperature required to volatilize pesticides is greater than 225
o
C. In some cases, a specific pesticide may not be detectable, but other volatile solvents in the
commercial solution can be detected.
The cost for the portable continuously operated unit is $25,000. The annual maintenance cost is
$1,900 for replacement of carrier gas and weekly checks. The instruments are sensitive to
changes in temperature and humidity.
Page 62 of 62
CBRTA

OCT 2004
Table 4-6. ORSANCO Gas Chromatography Evaluation

Detectable at
Detectable at
Desired
Desired
100 times
Detection Limit
Detection
Desired
Detection Limit
(mg/L)
Limit
Detection Limit
(mg/L)
0.000 000 4
Ricin
0.015
Cyanide
0.200
Chlordane
0.060
Yes1
Yes1
0.000 11
0.010
Yes1
Yes1
0.000 11
VX
0.005
Yes2
0.009
Yes
No3
No3
Agents Detected
Botulinum Toxin
GB or Sarin
Cesium-137 (Bq/L)
Advantages
Determine the concentration of specific
Disadvantages
contaminants
Portable unit available
Has self diagnostic features and connects to
No3
Must know contaminant and modify

instrument to detect
Time required for chlordane detection 15

minutes
computer
Lack suitable enclosure rating
Passcode protected
High maintenance requirements
Requires skilled operator and maintenance

technician
Detection limit for Atrazine and Chlordane (EHL 2003)
Inficon, 2004
Metals not detected by GC
Requires sidestream
Page 63 of 63
CBRTA
OCT 2004

4.5 Ion Chromatography

Ion chromatography (IC) is used to detect ions in solution, although used mostly for the analysis
of anions. Cations are often replaced with hydrogen ions and anions that are present in
concentrations usually much greater than the ion of interest, are removed by an anion
suppression column. The separation of anions occurs based on the elluent used to carry the
contaminant through an exchange column. Contaminant properties determine how long before
the contaminant is detected by the conductivity meter. The contaminant concentration is
determined by a change in conductivity and the contaminant is determined by how long before
the change in conductivity was observed. IC require specific columns, sample loop lengths,
carrier gas, and elluents. These are specific to the ion charge and size.
One company markets an online IC process analyzer, but the unit is designed for industrial
applications and not remote field locations. The unit can use multiple columns for the detection
of more contaminants. Only contaminants that form ions can be detected. Of the contaminants
evaluated, only cyanide ionizes in water. Organic compounds and metals are not detected by ion
chromatography.
The cost of an ion chromatograph with two columns is $30,000. The annual maintenance cost is
$2,900 and includes gas, replacement of columns on a bi annual basis, replacement of the ion
suppression column on a semiannual basis, all chemical elluents, and weekly maintenance.
Page 64 of 64
CBRTA

OCT 2004
Table 4-7. Ion Chromatography Evaluation

Detectable at
Detectable at
Desired
Desired
100 times
Detection Limit
Detection
Desired
Detection Limit
(mg/L)
Limit
Detection Limit
(mg/L)
Agents Detected
Botulinum Toxin
0.000 000 4
No
No
Ricin
0.015
No1
No1
Cyanide
0.200
Yes2
Yes2
0.012
Chlordane
0.060
No1
No1
0.010
No1
No1
0.005
No
No
0.009
No
No
No1
No1
VX
GB or Sarin
Cesium-137 (Bq/L)
Advantages
Determine the concentration of specific
Disadvantages
Must know contaminant and modify
contaminants
instrument to detect
Has self diagnostic features and connects to
Time required for detection is 10 minutes
computer
or more
Passcode protected
Lack suitable enclosure rating
High maintenance requirements
Requires skilled operator and maintenance

technician
IC does not detect organic compounds or metals.
(Dionex, 2004)
Requires sidestream
Page 65 of 65
CBRTA
OCT 2004

4.6 Mass Spectroscopy

A mass spectrometer is a device that ionizes molecules in the gas phase, accelerates the ions and
separates them according to their mass/charge ratio. The outputs shows the relative abundance
of each charged species versus mass number. The mass spectrometer is a highly advanced
instrument and is not available as an online unit. Mass spectroscopy is generally used in
associated with ion chromatography, gas chromatography, or ICP to make a positive
determination that the peak observed does have the correct mass spectrum and is not another
compound that came out at the same time. Because of the limitations of GC, IC, and ICP mass
spectroscopy assists the user in confirming the contaminant, but does not assist in detecting more
contaminants.
Mass spectroscopy was not evaluated as it is an added feature to IC, GC, and ICP and not a stand
alone contaminant monitor.
4.7 Organic Carbon Analyzers

Total organic carbon (TOC) monitors measure the carbon content present in water, but the
monitors provide limited information on the type of carbon present. TOC analysis can be an
effective surrogate for detecting contamination from organic compounds such as cyanide,
pesticides, petrochemicals, and solvents. A definition of carbon types is presented in Table 4-8.
Standard guidelines for the analysis of TOC have been developed and are available in Standard
Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater. There are various methods through
which total organic carbon can be measured, but they include removal of inorganic carbon, an
acid digestion that mineralizes the carbon molecules to carbon dioxide and then finally
determination of carbon dioxide concentration. The carbon dioxide may be measured directly by
nondispersive infrared analyzer (NDIR), reduced to methane and measured with a flame
ionization detector, may be titrated chemically, or dissolved into distilled water and detected
through conductivity. Most commercially available TOC analyzers determine the nonpurgeable
organic carbon (NPOC) fraction as the purgable fraction would be removed at the same time as
the inorganic fraction. Variations in type of digestion and carbon dioxide detector exist between
manufactures. These variations impact the capital and operating cost of the systems.
Page 66 of 66
CBRTA
OCT 2004

Table 4-8. Definitions of Carbon Fractions Measured by Organic Carbon

Analyzers (AwwaRF, 2002)
Carbon Fraction
Total Carbon
Total Inorganic Carbon
Total Organic Carbon

Dissolved Organic
Carbon
Nonpurgeable Organic
Carbon
Volatile Organic Carbon
Abbreviation
Definition
TC
The sum of organically bound and inorganically
bound carbon present in water, including elemental
carbon
TIC
The sum of inorganic carbon in the water, consisting
of elemental carbon, total carbon dioxide, carbon
monoxide, cyanide, thiocyanate, carbonic acid, and
salts (carbonate and bicarbonates)
TOC
The sum of organic carbon present in the water,
bounded to dissolved or suspended matter smaller
than 100 m (TOC = TC TIC)
DOC
The sum of organic carbon present in the water,
originating from compounds that will pass through a
membrane filter of pore size 0.45 m.
NPOC
The sum of organic carbon present in the water after it
has been scrubbed to eliminate the inorganic carbon
and organic substances volatile at the scrubbing
temperature and conditions.
VOC
The fraction of TOC removed from sample by gas
stripping under specified conditions.
The majority of commercially available online TOC analyzers include a filter to removal large
particles so that internal fouling is minimized. Because particle smaller than 100 m, but larger
than 0.45 m may be filtered, the analyzer is neither giving a true TOC nor DOC reading. If the
monitor is to be used for regulatory compliance the effective size of the filter is important. For
chemical contamination monitoring, the size of the filter is unimportant. Digestion can occur
through one of two methods: low temperature oxidation with ultraviolet light and sodium
persulfate or high temperature combustion at 680 to 900 oC. Three online TOC analyzers were
evaluated; one using high temperature digestion and two using low temperature oxidation and
different sample preparation methods and carbon dioxide analyzers. The results of these
evaluations are provided in the following sections.
4.7.1 High Temperature Oxidation Method

High temperature combustion TOC analyzers inject a sample into a furnace where it evaporates
and carbon dioxide is measured. The process often requires a catalyst to increase the efficiency
and completion of the combustion process. High temperature combustion analyzers include a
filter to remove particles that may foul the instrument, acidifies and purges inorganic and volatile
organic carbon, and then measures carbon dioxide following high temperature combustion. The
analyzer detects nonpurgable organic carbon and would not detect increases in volatile organic
carbon compounds.
Page 67 of 67
CBRTA
OCT 2004

High temperature TOC analyzers have a higher detection limit, 1.0 mg/L whereas the low
temperature oxidation analyzer have detection limits of 0.2 mg/L or less (EPA TOC Analyzer,
2004). The sample volume injected is usually small because of the energy required to heat water
to 600 oC or greater. Units that inject larger volumes are available and detection limit is
improved to 0.4 mg/L (AwwaRF, 2002).
Water TOC can range from between 1.0 mg/l to greater than 20 mg/L, therefore a change in
TOC of approximately 0.5 mg/l or more may be required to alert an operator. Alternatively,
groundwater TOC may remain constant throughout the year at approximately 1.0 mg/L and a
change of 0.2 mg/L may be alarming. For the purposes of this evaluation, the minimum
detection limit for a contaminant was determined to be the contaminant concentration required to
increase the TOC concentration by 0.5 mg/L.
High temperature TOC analyzers require periodical cleaning associated with removal of
precipitated salt buildup and replacement of catalyst. Some advances have been made to include
two furnaces to limit instrument downtime. When one furnace is being cleaned, the second can
be operating. Another instrument manufacturer has a salt trap which is a ceramic pipe located
within the furnace. The trap collects the precipitated salts and solids. The salt trap can be
removed and replaced even at high temperatures so cooling and warming periods are not
required. The unit evaluated included automatic calibration.
The cost for a high temperature combustion TOC analyzer is $37,500. Annual operating cost is
approximately $2,000, and consists of replacement of catalyst, oxidation chemicals, carbon
dioxide free gas, and cleaning of the salt trap.
Figure 4-6. High-Temperature TOC

Analyzer (Courtesy ISCO Inc.)
Figure 4-7. High Temperature TOC

Analyzer Schematic (Courtesy ISCO Inc.)
Page 68 of 68
CBRTA

OCT 2004
Table 4-9. High Temperature TOC Analyzer Evaluation

Detectable at
Detectable at
Desired
Desired
100 times
Detection Limit
Detection
Desired
Detection Limit
(mg/L)
Limit
Detection Limit
(mg/L)
0.000 000 4
No1
No1
> 0.52
Ricin
0.015
No1
-2
> 0.52
Cyanide
0.200
No3
No3
No3
Chlordane
0.060
No1
Yes4
1.74
0.010
No1
-2
-2
VX
0.005
No3
No3
1.03
GB or Sarin
0.009
No3
No3
No3
No5
No5
No5
Agents Detected
Botulinum Toxin
Cesium-137 (Bq/L)
Advantages
Disadvantages
Nema 4x enclosure
Response time 3 to 15 minutes
4-20 mA, RS 232, and alarms
Some self diagnostic signals and alarms
Very few currently installed at remote
Expected usable life 8 to 10 years
Consumables replaced on a monthly basis
Passcode protected
Daily calibration occurs automatically
locations
Requires weekly checks
Concentration less than the detection limit
Chemical formula not available
Volatile compounds will be removed at the same time as inorganic carbon
Detection limit determine through calculation using chemical formula and change in TOC of 0.5 mg/L
Cesium does not contain carbon and would not be detected
Page 69 of 69
CBRTA
OCT 2004

4.7.2 Low Temperature UV Persulfate Method

There are multiple manufacturers that market online TOC analyzers. Two analyzers were
evaluated although more exist and were selected because of market leadership and different
methods for carbon dioxide determination. One unit uses a nondispersive infrared detector
which is the most common method for carbon dioxide analysis and the second model uses an
aqueous conductivity method. In the NDIR unit, the carbon dioxide produced during the
digestion is carried into the NDIR detector by a stream of high purity, carbon dioxide free gas.
The detector requires a zero gas calibration at least monthly. The humid gas may also cause
corrosion or deposit material on the cell windows. The windows will require cleaning at least
every three months.
The second online TOC analyzer uses a conductivity meter to determine TOC concentration.
The aqueous conductivity meter is less complex and more stable resulting in reduced
maintenance. The manufacture recommends monthly standards be ran, but the unit requires
calibration annually. Conductivity probes are simple monitoring instruments and highly
sensitive making them ideal for detection at low TOC concentrations commonly present in
drinking water.
Although both instruments are marketed as online TOC analyzers, the units measure different
TOC types. The NDIR model include a pretreatment step that acidifies and purge inorganic and
volatile organic carbon and then measures the carbon removed following digestion. The models
that gas purge inorganic carbon detect nonpurgable organic carbon (NPOC) and do not detect
increases in volatile organic carbon compounds. The TOC analyzer that uses conductivity to
determine carbon dioxide concentration requires an inorganic carbon remover (ICR) as waters
high in alkalinity will result in reduced sensitivity. The ICR reduces the sample pH to less than
2.0 and than uses a vacuum to remove inorganic carbon, thus eliminating the need for carbon
dioxide free gas and gas cylinders. The unit measures both the total carbon (TC) concentration
and the inorganic carbon (TIC) concentration. The difference between the two readings is a
filtered organic carbon concentration and includes volatile organics carbon compounds.
Because sample processing and measurement are different, the analyzers will not detect the same
compounds. Cyanide would be removed during the inorganic carbon removal step as cyanic acid
is highly volatile which would be the predominant species at pH less than 9.2. Cyanide would be
detected by the unit with the ICR but not by the unit that gas purges carbon dioxide. Chlordane
and chlorinated pesticides are often dissolved in solvents that are semivolatile and either TOC
analyzer would be expected to detect them although percent recovery would vary depending on
the Henrys constant of the solvent. The war gas sarin is volatile and the unit that measures
NPOC may not detect it although the unit with the ICR would. VX war gas is only slightly
volatile and would be detected by either unit. Neither type of unit would detect cesium as it is not
an organic compound.
Although some compounds may be detected by one unit better than the other, the total change in
TOC must still be greater than the variability of the water source. Surface water TOC can range
from between 2.0 mg/l to greater than 20 mg/L and a change in TOC of approximately 0.5 mg/l
or more may be required to alert an operator. Alternatively, groundwater TOC may remain
Page 70 of 70
CBRTA
OCT 2004

constant throughout the year at approximately 1.0 mg/L and a change of 0.2 mg/L may be
considered sufficient to justify an alarm. For the purposes of this evaluation, the minimum
detection limit for a contaminant was determined to be the contaminant concentration required to
increase the TOC concentration by 0.5 mg/L. TOC measures the carbon content of a compound,
therefore only a fraction of the compound is measured and more than 0.5 mg/L of the compound
will be required to produce a change of 0.5 mg/L of TOC.
The cost for TOC analyzers ranges from $21,000 to $25,000 and annual maintenance is from
$1,800 to $3,100. The increase in cost is for more advanced systems that include automatic
calibration and those that analyze the inorganic and organic fractions. The analyzer that
measures conductivity is also more expensive. The more expensive units have lower annual
operating cost that can quickly offset the increased capital cost. The majority of the maintenance
required with these units is associated with checks of the instrument and replacement of
consumables: UV lamp, carbon dioxide free air (if applicable), and persulfate and acid reagents.
Figure 4-8. 1950plus TOC Analyzer

(Courtesy HACH)
Figure 4-9. EZ TOC Analyzer (Courtesy

ISCO Inc.)
Page 71 of 71
CBRTA
OCT 2004

Figure 4-10. 900 TOC Analyzer (Courtesy Ionics Instruments)
Page 72 of 72
CBRTA

OCT 2004
Table 4-10. Low Temperature UV Persulfate TOC Analyzer with Inorganic Gas
Purge Evaluation
Detectable at
Detectable at
Desired
Desired
100 times
Detection Limit
Detection
Desired
Detection Limit
(mg/L)
Limit
Detection Limit
(mg/L)
0.000 000 4
No1
No1
> 0.52
Ricin
0.015
No1
-2
> 0.52
Cyanide
0.200
No3
No3
No3
Chlordane
0.060
No1
Yes4
1.74
0.010
No1
-2
-2
VX
0.005
No4
No4
1.04
GB or Sarin
0.009
No3
No3
No3
No5
No5
No5
Agents Detected
Botulinum Toxin
Cesium-137 (Bq/L)
Advantages
Disadvantages
Nema 4x enclosure
Response time approximately 8 minutes
Some features are passcode protected
Requires calibration annually
locations
Requires weekly checks
Volatile compounds will be removed with inorganic carbon
Page 73 of 73
CBRTA

OCT 2004
Table 4-11. Online Low Temperature UV Persulfate TOC Analyzer with ICR Evaluation
Detectable at
Detectable at
Desired
Desired
100 times
Detection Limit
Detection
Desired
Detection Limit
(mg/L)
Limit
Detection Limit
(mg/L)
Agents Detected
0.000 000 4
No
No
Ricin
0.015
No1
-2
> 0.52
Cyanide
0.200
No1
Yes3
1.13
Chlordane
0.060
No1
Yes3
1.73
0.010
No1
-2
-2
VX
0.005
No3
No3
1.03
GB or Sarin
0.009
No3
No3
1.53
No4
No4
No4
Botulinum Toxin
Cesium-137 (Bq/L)
Advantages
> 0.52
Disadvantages
Nema 4x enclosure
Response time approximately 8 minutes
Some features are passcode protected
Requires calibration annually
locations
4.7.3 Ultraviolet Absorption 254 nm

Humic substances, various aromatic compounds, and many other organics absorb UV radiation
and their concentration can be qualitatively measured by ultraviolet absorption at 254 nm
(UV254). Studies have shown that at some locations, a strong quantitative correlation can exist
Page 74 of 74
CBRTA
OCT 2004

between dissolved organic carbon and UV254. UV absorption measurement is a well-defined and
commonly used method for the qualitative total organic carbon measurement in water and a
standard method has been developed for the measurement of UV254, Standard Method 5910 B.
The monitor consists of a quartz cell with a fixed width, a lamp capable of producing light at 254
nm, an optical filter to allow only 254 nm light to pass, a detector, signal amplifier, and
transmitter. Single and dual dual-beam sensors are available. Single-beam sensors give variable
results and require frequent calibration. Light source fluctuations are reduced in dual beam
sensors which have a mirror that splits the light into two beams, the second of which acts as a
reference. By measuring the ratio between the two beams, reading variations due to fluctuations
in light source are eliminated. The same photodetector is used to read both beams.
Interferences with UV absorption measurements occur from colloidal particles, ferrous iron,
nitrate, and nitrite, and oxidants such as ozone, chlorate, and chlorite. The only maintenance
required with a UV254 monitor is replacement of the lamp semiannually and cleaning as
determined necessary. Some instruments come with self cleaning wipers that are advantageous
for remote installations. The lamp, cell, and photodetector are mounted within a probe head that
is not pressure resistant and must be installed on a bypass stream.
One major vendor estimates that they have less than 50 online UV245 monitors installed in the
United States. The cost for a UV254 monitor that includes a self cleaning wiper is approximately
$14,000. The annual maintenance is estimated to be $600.
Figure 4-11. UV254 Transmitter (Courtesy HACH)
Page 75 of 75
CBRTA

OCT 2004
Table 4-12. Ultraviolet Absorption 254 nm Monitor Evaluation

Detectable at
Detectable at
Desired
Desired
100 times
Detection Limit
Detection
Desired
Detection Limit
(mg/L)
Limit
Detection Limit
(mg/L)
Agents Detected
Botulinum Toxin
0.000 000 4
No
No
Ricin
0.015
No1
Cyanide
0.200
No1
Chlordane
0.060
No1
0.010
No1
0.005
No
0.009
No
VX
GB or Sarin
Cesium-137 (Bq/L)
Advantages
Disadvantages
Surrogate measurement for DOC
IP 67 enclosure rating available
Few installed in the United States
4-20 mA outputs available
No self-diagnostic signal output
No security features such as passcode or
panel lock
Concentration is too low for noticeable change in absorbance in comparison to normal distribution system DOC
concentrations.
Page 76 of 76
CBRTA
OCT 2004

5 Emerging Detection Technologies

5.1 Introduction
Technologies which can be considered emerging are those which have not yet achieved
mainstream use for monitoring water quality. The technologies covered in this section cover a
wide gamut from new technology ideas being developed in academic laboratories to technologies
that have recently been made commercially available. For the laboratory based technologies, we
kept the study confined to those which the authors felt could realistically be made commercially
available in 2-5 years with sufficient funding. Technologies were also eliminated from this study
if they were considered similar to currently existing technologies (i.e. improvements to existing
water monitoring equipment).
The findings are divided into 5 sections with 4 chemical / biological sensor sections and a
radiological sensors section. The chemical and biological toxins sensors are divided into electrochemical, optical, mass differentiation and finally spectroscopic and chromatographic-based
sensors.
5.1.1 Summary of Emerging Detection Technologies

existing monitoring equipment, many of them are highly specific for one group or a specific
contaminant. This group of monitors has not been extensively tested with the contaminants
evaluated in this report. The most common operational problems with these monitors are that
TOC may interfere with the sensor, the sensor may need to be cleaned on a regular basis, or the
sensor may be oxidized by chlorine. Some have also had difficulty with development because
the water industry is not required to use the monitors and the market is primarily limited to the
military.
Technologies that are becoming available in the next five years vary greatly to those designed to
detect war gases to those designed to be non-selective. Potentiometric methods have been
developed that measure Volatile Organic Compounds, such as the electronic nose or the
electronic-tongue that can characterize a sample. These technologies may be able to detect a
wide range of toxic contaminants as many contaminants are volatile or are commercially
available with a volatile solvent. Optical probes are being used to detect war gases and their
Page 77 of 77
CBRTA
OCT 2004

hydrolysis products and another optical method, Raman Spectroscopy, can be used to quickly
detect and identify many organic contaminants. Mass spectroscopy equipment has also been
miniaturized that would detect compounds based on their mass-to-charge ratio. The cost and
maintenance of such equipment in comparison to the existing technology may not be highly
advantageous. Hand held gas chromatographs with various detectors are being developed but
will only be capable of detecting volatile organic compounds. The evaluated radiation detectors
are smaller, more rugged, and environmentally stable than those currently available. They are
using different materials and no longer relying on photomultiplier tubes.
5.2 Electro-chemical Sensors

Electro-chemical sensors utilize potentiometric (voltage), amperometric (current) or
conductometric (conductance) measurements to determine solution properties or changes in
properties indicative of a contaminant. The most common sensor contained in this group for
water monitoring is a potentiometric pH sensor probe.
5.2.1 Electronic Nose or Tongue Ion Selective Electrode Array (ALPHA

M.O.S)
ALPHA M.O.S. is a company that produces electronic tongues and noses which create electronic
fingerprints from the smell or taste of a product. (Alpha M.O.S., 2004a) Their product line
consists of 5 instrument packages shown below in Table 5-1.
Page 78 of 78
CBRTA
OCT 2004

Table 5-1. ALPHA M.O.S. Product Line

Product
Detection Mode
Description
FOX
Nose
A hybrid array system composed of up to 24 proprietary

sensors which characterize a sample based on electrical
resistance or frequency changes.
KRONOS
Nose
A quadrupole mass spectrometry-based fingerprinting

system.
PROMETHIUS
Nose
A KRONOS and FOX composite system
GEMINI
Nose
A sensor array instrument designed to be tuned into single

sample characteristics for quality control applications.
ASTREE
Tongue
A sensor array with 7 unspecified elements which

measures a potentiometric difference between a reference
and the tongue array electrodes.
Of the 5 devices, the ASTREE Electronic-Tongue would have the most applicability to
monitoring a water source as it would not require additional measures for sample introduction to
the probe array in the case of the Electronic-Noses which require a vapor sample. The
ASTREE technology utilizes potentiometric differences between a sensor array which is
composed of chemical-sensitive proprietary coatings on silicon transducers. The sensors react to
sample composition and can be trained to recognize components of interest. The FOX operates
using similar techniques applied to headspace detection for vaporized samples.
The KRONOS Electronic-Nose utilizes Fingerprint Mass Spectrometry (FMS) for olfactory
identification of headspace gasses. In this process, volatile molecules are not separated prior to
analysis as they typically are in GC/MS characterizations. Instead, they are introduced to the
quadrupole module without separation, just as they are to a human nose. The resulting
fingerprint is then obtained from the entire sample and analyzed for fragmentation information.
Interpretation of the data is accomplished by comparing the output to data banks which were
previously used to train the system. A schematic representation is available at:
http://www.alpha-mos.com/tecfinger.php.
A typical E-Tongue or Nose system is composed of a liquid autosampler which supports the
sensor array module, an array of sensors with electronic data acquisition and pattern recognition
software. Samples are processed in an unattended manner with a sample analyzed every 2-3
minutes. These sensors react to a broad range of chemicals at ppm or ppb levels of sensitivity.
(Alpha M.O.S., 2004b) The ASTREE system is available at: http://www.alphamos.com/proast.php.
Page 79 of 79
CBRTA

OCT 2004
Table 5-2. Table 6.2 ALPHA M.O.S. ASTREE Evaluation

Detectable at
Detectable at
Desired
Desired
100 times
Detection Limit
Detection
Desired
Detection Limit
(mg/L)
Limit
Detection Limit
(mg/L)
0.000 000 4
Ricin
0.015
Cyanide
0.200
Chlordane
0.060
0.010
VX
0.005
GB or Sarin
0.009
Agents Detected
Botulinum Toxin
Cesium-137 (Bq/L)
Advantages
Disadvantages
Commercially available
Lack of test results for WMD agents
Systems are automated and have been
Maintenance required to operate vs. WMD
tested for extended sampling times in

industry
Inexpensive, disposable components
Qualitative and quantitative results with
undefined
Performance in the presence of interferants

unknown
ability to run several analyses

simultaneously
Fast 3-5 minute analysis times
- No available information. Typical LOD for food an pharmaceutical trace chemical analysis are 0.001-1 mg/L
(Alpha M.O.S. 2004b).
5.2.2 Polyphenol Oxidase/Clay Biosensors (UJF, France)

This technology is based on a simple amperometric biosensor containing immobilized
polyphenol oxidase (PPO) in Zn-Al layered double hydroxides (LDH), otherwise known as
anionic clays. (Shan, Mousty, and Cosnier, 2004) Cyanide is an ideal anion to permeate and
electrostatically interact with this highly specific and selective LDH membrane and the
Page 80 of 80
CBRTA

OCT 2004
microenvironment of enzymes resulting in the low detection limits observed for this system.
This research is in its initial stages and regeneration and susceptibility to interfering ions or
gasses still needs to be completed prior to serious consideration of these electrodes for water
monitoring. Cyanide detection has been demonstrated on a laboratory prototype system.
Table 5-3. Polyphenol Oxidase/Clay Biosensor Evaluation

Detectable at
Detectable at
Desired
Desired
100 times
Detection Limit
Detection
Desired
Detection Limit
(mg/L)
Limit
Detection Limit
(mg/L)
0.000 000 4
0.015
Agents Detected
Botulinum Toxin
Ricin
0.31
Cyanide
0.200
No
Yes
Chlordane
0.060
0.010
VX
0.005
GB or Sarin
0.009
Cesium-137 (Bq/L)
Advantages
Simple measurement procedure with short
Disadvantages
response times and high selectivity and

specificity
Membranes are sensitive and may degrade

over time
Possibility of poor interactions in the

presence of interfering gasses such as
Nanomolar detection limits
hydrogen
System is at early stages of development
(Shan, Mousty and Cosnier, 2004)
- No information available. Due to specificity of test, no detection expected.
Page 81 of 81
CBRTA
OCT 2004

5.2.3 Segmented FIA, UV Digestion and Amperometric Detection (UNC)

Another method for cyanide monitoring, the system being developed by Howard Weinberg at
University of North Carolina uses segmented Flow Injection Analysis (FIA) to process a
chlorinated wastewater sample with UV irradiation, a hydrophobic membrane in a gas diffuser,
an acceptor solution to separate the cyanide and ultimately a silver electrode optimized for
maximum cyanide efficiency. (Weinberg and Cook, 2002)
Specifically, the UV wavelength used is optimized to release the cyanide from any metal
complexes that have been formed. At this point, the cyanide will be in acidified form as HCN.
The fraction then passes through a hydrophobic membrane in a gas diffuser and is absorbed into
a basic solution. This diffusion separates the cyanide from other components contained in the
sample. The cyanide then passes through a low dead volume cell where it is read for content
amperomerically by a silver working electrode.
The method has been shown to provide accurate and reproducible results from a variety of water
sources including chlorinated wastewaters from municipal wastewater treatment plants. With the
use of sodium m-arsenite as a chlorine quenching agent and precipitation/filtration of sulfide, this
technology offers many improvements over traditional methods for total cyanide analysis.
Page 82 of 82
CBRTA

OCT 2004
Table 5-4 Segmented Flow Injection Analysis, UV Digestion and Amperometric

Detection Evaluation
Detectable at
Detectable at
Desired
Desired
100 times
Detection Limit
Detection
Desired
Detection Limit
(mg/L)
Limit
Detection Limit
(mg/L)
0.000 000 4
Ricin
0.015
Cyanide
0.200
No1
Yes1
0.41
Chlordane
0.060
0.010
VX
0.005
GB or Sarin
0.009
Agents Detected
Botulinum Toxin
Cesium-137 (Bq/L)
Advantages
Rapid turn-around on analysis
System is automated
Total analysis takes 4 minutes
Disadvantages
Reliability and operations and maintenance

procedures undefined
Requires a skilled operator
Requires dangerous chemicals during

processing
(Weinberg and Cook, 2002)
- No information available. Due to specificity of test, no detection expected.
Page 83 of 83
CBRTA
OCT 2004

5.2.4 Electrophoresis Microchip with Contactless Conductivity Detection

(NMSU)
Development work is underway at New Mexico State University to produce a field-deployable
microanalyzer for organophosphate nerve agents and their degradation products. (Wang, Pumera,
Collins and Mulchandani, 2002) The system utilizes a single-channel microsystem which relies
on capillary electrophoretic separations followed by contactless conductivity detection to
determine the presence of organophosphate nerve agents. Amperometric detection is used to
monitor the separation. The value of contactless conductivity measurements is the elimination of
surface fouling and bubble formation on electrodes, isolation of the sample from high voltages,
and simplified detector design. A detection unit prepared using the micro-CE cards would also
have the further advantage of being disposable in addition to the other pros common to miniature
devices. In a side-note, a similar NMSU technology has been recently used to rapidly detect
micromolar concentrations of thiol-containing degradation products of nerve agents (Russian
versions of VX) in untreated tap and river water samples. (Wang, Zima, Lawrence, Chatrathi,
Mulchandani and Collins, 2004)
.
Page 84 of 84
CBRTA

OCT 2004
Table 5-5. Electrophoresis Microchip with Contactless Conductivity Detection Evaluation

Detectable at
Detectable at
Desired
Desired
100 times
Detection Limit
Detection
Desired
Detection Limit
(mg/L)
Limit
Detection Limit
(mg/L)
0.000 000 4
Ricin
0.015
Cyanide
0.200
Chlordane
0.060
0.010
Agents Detected
Botulinum Toxin
0.061
VX
0.005
No
GB or Sarin
0.009
No1
Yes1
0.061
Cesium-137 (Bq/L)
Yes
Advantages
Disadvantages
Lab-on-a-chip device provides detection
Requires operator with training
speed, small size, and low cost
Optimal fingerprints are buffer pH

dependent
Design allows for rapid screening (360

samples/h) or individual measurements
Automation has not been shown
(30/h)
Environmental demonstrations have been

done
(Wang, Pumera, Collins, and Mulchandani, 2002)
No available information.
Page 85 of 85
CBRTA

OCT 2004
5.2.5 Acetylcholinesterase-doped Electrode Sensor (HRL)

HRL Laboratories, LLC have patented a water monitoring device which uses interdigitated
(interlaced comb-like) metal electrodes deposited onto a dielectric substrate. (Yamagishi,
Stanford and Van Ast, 2004) A thin film, composed of a conductive polymer/sol-gel derived
material, is subsequently applied to the electrode surface. The sol-gel material encapsulates an
indicator biomolecule specific to the target pathogen. Although this system would seem similar
to an immunoassay device, instead of antibodies as the biologically active molecules,
acetylcholinesterase is used as an indicator for organophosphorus compounds such as nerve
agents. Changes in electrical current flowing through the electrode due to morphological
changes in the conductive coating when a binding event occurs indicate the presence of the
agent.
Table 5-6. Acetylcholinesterase-doped Electrode Sensor Evaluation
Detectable at
Detectable at
Desired
Desired
100 times
Detection Limit
Detection
Desired
Detection Limit
(mg/L)
Limit
Detection Limit
(mg/L)
0.000 000 4
Ricin
0.015
Cyanide
0.200
Chlordane
0.060
0.010
Agents Detected
Botulinum Toxin
11
VX
0.005
No
GB or Sarin
0.009
No1
No1
11
Cesium-137 (Bq/L)
No
Advantages
Disadvantages
The encapsulated enzyme is very specific,
Lack of durability
even in the presence of interfering
Membrane degradation over time
pollutants and pathogens
Unknown reliability, operation
Communication capabilities for unattended
maintenance, cost
monitoring are possible

1
(Yamagishi, Stanford and Van Ast, 2004)
- No available information. Due to specificity of test, no detection expected.
Page 86 of 86
CBRTA
OCT 2004

5.2.6 In-situ Chemiresistor (SNL)

Sandia National Laboratories (SNL) personnel have been working to improve sensors known as
chemiresistors, which are chemically sensitive polymers that have been deposited onto an
electrode and provide a change in electrode resistance when they come in contact with organic
vapors. (Ho, Itamura, Kelley and Hughes, 2001) The system comprises 4 different chemiresistor
sensors with a temperature sensor and heating element for measuring and controlling the
temperature. The sensors are housed in a selectively permeable membrane, which allows vapors,
but not water, into the sensing chamber. The primary improvements SNL is pursuing include
developing arrays of electrodes with different polymers in order to better capture signatures of
the environment they are sensing. They are also adding a preconcentrator to improve sensitivity.
There are several companies currently working on similar improvements, including but not
limited to Smiths, Petrovend and Veeder. Different electrode geometries and proprietary
polymers are used to optimize the ability to detect analytes of interest in the presence of
environmental interferents and control temperature fluctuations, which result in sensor instability
due to humidity in the sensing chamber.
Page 87 of 87
CBRTA

OCT 2004
Table 5-7. In-situ Chemiresistor Evaluation

Detectable at
Detectable at
Desired
Desired
100 times
Detection Limit
Detection
Desired
Detection Limit
(mg/L)
Limit
Detection Limit
(mg/L)
0.000 000 4
Ricin
0.015
Cyanide
0.200
Chlordane
0.060
0.010
VX
0.005
GB or Sarin
0.009
Agents Detected
Botulinum Toxin
Cesium-137 (Bq/L)
Advantages
Small devices with low power
Disadvantages
requirements, no moving parts and good

sensitivity
presence of unknown chemicals
Requires programming for each analyte of

interest
Ability to operate for 4 months with a solar

power device has been demonstrated
May have difficulty detecting in the
Swelling of polymers is reversible, but
Low cost per unit
hysteresis may occur in high
Quick response times
concentrations requiring baseline

corrections
Lack of a commercial partner to help bring

technology to market
Equilibration of hours is required if the

probe depth is changed or the probe is
moved to a new sampling location
(Ho, Itamura, Kelley and Hughes, 2001) cite the use of these sensors for petroleum in ground water detection with
typical LOD values of 1 mg/L.

Page 88 of 88
CBRTA
OCT 2004

5.3 Optical Sensors

5.3.1 Lanthanide Luminescent Sensors (JHU/APL)
Molecular imprinting, combined with a luminescent europium complex, is used to prepare a fiber
optic probe sensor that selectively measures the hydrolysis products of the nerve agents Soman
or Sarin in water. (Jenkins, Uy and Murray, 1999) The sensor which is prepared by partially
polymerizing a pinacolyl methylphosphonate (PMP)- or isopropyl methylphosphonate (IMP)(PMP and IMP are the hydrolysis products of Soman or Sarin, respectively) ligated europium
complex in polystyrene. The incomplete polymerization process is taken to completion
following application to the end of a fiber optic probe. The resulting probe is polished and the
PMP ligand is removed by a salvation process. The resulting probe has the ability to detect ppt
quantities of PMP based on changes to the luminescent spectra obtained when PMP rebinds to
the molecularly imprinted site in the polymer.
Page 89 of 89
CBRTA

OCT 2004
Table 5-8. Lanthanide Luminescent Sensor Evaluation

Detectable at
Detectable at
Desired
Desired
100 times
Detection Limit
Detection
Desired
Detection Limit
(mg/L)
Limit
Detection Limit
(mg/L)
0.000 000 4
Ricin
0.015
Cyanide
0.200
Chlordane
0.060
0.010
VX
0.005
Agents Detected
Botulinum Toxin
GB or Sarin
Cesium-137 (Bq/L)
0.009
Yes
Advantages
Templated polymers virtually eliminate
0.0000071
Lack of reliability, operational

requirements, or cost data
Other complexes for templating might be
Long response times (8 Min)
possible
Requires Argon Laser which has a
Very low detection limits
Measures hydrolysis products
Yes
Disadvantages
false positives
relatively large footprint
Durability expected to be low
(Jenkins, Uy and Murray, 1999) cites hydrolysis products of Sarin being measured.
- No available information. Due to the specificity of test, no detection expected.
Page 90 of 90
CBRTA
OCT 2004

5.3.2 Infotote Portable Raman Probe with SERS (Infotonics)

Trace level detections of CW agents, explosives and other dangerous chemicals in vapor phase
as well as aqueous solution have been demonstrated in the laboratory using Surface Enhanced
Raman Spectroscopy (SERS). (Kawai and Spencer, 2004) Although currently, Raman
Spectroscopy can be used for bulk identification of these hazards, similar techniques applied to
samples in contact with rough noble metal surfaces like gold and silver results in signal intensity
enhancements of 1012 1014 and allow detection down to a single molecule in some instances.
Raman techniques entail irradiation of a sample with a monochromatic light source, typically a
laser. The resulting scattered light is spectroscopically analyzed and spectral results that
correspond to analyte vibrational frequencies are obtained for comparison with reference
libraries. Raman studies work well in water due to weak scattering by this medium.
In the SERS technique, the laser frequency is selected to be in resonance with the rough metal
surface absorption band or surface plasmon. The analyte that adsorbs on the surface disturbs the
resonance and leads to enhanced spectral results. The exact nature of this phenomenon is still
unknown and is under investigation.
A closely related technique Resonance Raman Scattering (RRS) involves matching the laser
excitation wavelength to the UV absorption of the analyte. The results for this technique
compared to exciting the analyte at longer wavelengths avoids interfering fluorescent
backgrounds and makes this technique suitable for probing biological compounds which often
are plagued by these fluorescence problems. A picture of the device is available at:
http://www.inphotonics.com/spectrometers2.htm.
Page 91 of 91
CBRTA

OCT 2004
Table 5-9. InPhotote Portable Raman Probe with SERS Evaluation

Detectable at
Detectable at
Desired
Desired
100 times
Detection Limit
Detection
Desired
Detection Limit
(mg/L)
Limit
Detection Limit
(mg/L)
0.000 000 4
Ricin
0.015
Cyanide
0.200
Chlordane
0.060
0.010
VX
0.005
GB or Sarin
0.009
Agents Detected
Botulinum Toxin
Cesium-137 (Bq/L)
Advantages
SERS is a direct measure of an analytes
Disadvantages
bonding structure, therefore false positives

are minimized
intervals due to fouling
Instrumentation is expensive (.$50K for a

portable Raman Spectrometer)
Sensor surface operates equally well in

water or air
Metal surfaces require cleaning on regular
Sensitivity and reproducibility depend
Background is not susceptible to
critically on rigorous quality control in the
temperature changes
preparation of the micro-roughened noble
Spectral acquisition is rapid (30 s)
metal coatings
No sample pretreatment is required

although it is advised-see metal surface
comment on the right
Fiber optic probes allow remote operation
- No information available. (Kawai and Spencer, 2004) cites typical chemical detection limits of 12 mg/L.
Page 92 of 92
CBRTA
OCT 2004

5.4 Mass Differentiation Methods

5.4.1 Tiny-TOF Mass Spectrometer (JHU/APL)
Mass spectrometry is a method which measures the masses and fragmentation patterns of
substances to deduce the composition of a sample. (Siuzdak, 1996) Soft ionization techniques
are used to keep the original molecule from fragmenting too severely providing a more reliable
determination of the molecular weight of each sample constituent. This is important for
relatively large biological molecules and toxins with masses greater than 50kDa. Matrix
Assisted Laser Desorption Ionization (MALDI) is one such method that provides the soft
ionization of such molecules. The MALDI process involves ionizing a biological sample with a
laser in the presence of a solid matrix molecule, which is a relatively small molecule that has the
ability to absorb UV light, degrade it to heat to promote the sample vaporization and facilitate
the ionization process. The exact nature of this process is unknown. The charged molecules are
then directed electrostatically from the ionization source to the mass analyzer where they are
separated by time-of-flight (TOF) according to their mass-to-charge ratio (m/z).
Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Laboratories (JHU-APL) has been working on eliminating the
size, weight and power requirements typically found in bench top MALDI mass spectrometers.
(Ecelberger, Cornish, Collins, Lewis and Bryden, 2003) They have also been engineering
solutions that will allow their miniature time-of-flight (TOF) or Tiny-TOF instrument to operate
autonomously. The size of the current unit is approximately that of a large briefcase. A picture
of the instrument is available at: http://www.jhuapl.edu/programs/rtdc/files/CP_Ecelberger.pdf.
Page 93 of 93
CBRTA

OCT 2004
Table 5-10. Tiny-TOF Mass Spectrometer Evaluation

Detectable at
Detectable at
Desired
Desired
100 times
Detection Limit
Detection
Desired
Detection Limit
(mg/L)
Limit
Detection Limit
(mg/L)
0.000 000 4
No1
No1
0.51
Ricin
0.015
No1
Yes1
0.51
Cyanide
0.200
Chlordane
0.060
0.010
VX
0.005
GB or Sarin
0.009
Agents Detected
Botulinum Toxin
Cesium-137 (Bq/L)
Advantages
Near real-time analysis times
Very low detection limits
Disadvantages
Maintenance to keep a high vacuum system

operating efficiently is required
Minimally trained personnel required at

this point as automation is not optimized
Ability to operate remotely is not complete
Cost per unit expected to be high
(Ecelberger, Cornish, Collins, Lewis and Bryden, 2003) demonstrate detection of compounds similar in molecular
weight to these in addition to unspecified reagents used at Aberdeen Proving Ground tests.
- No available information. Due to low compound molecular weight, detection not expected.
Page 94 of 94
CBRTA
OCT 2004

5.4.2 Quartz Crystal Microbalance (Nomadics)

Arrays of quartz crystal microbalances (QCMs) coated with a variety of polymers that
selectively absorb contaminants operate in a fashion similar to chemiresistors (see 6.2.6).
(GeoTrans, 2003) As contaminants are absorbed the mass of the polymer attached to the QCM
changes and resulting changes in the crystal resonant frequency can be determined electronically.
The sensors are isolated from the water by a selectively permeable membrane that allows only
volatile contaminants, not water, to enter.
Table 5-11. Quartz Crystal Microbalance Evaluation
Detectable at
Detectable at
Desired
Desired
100 times
Detection Limit
Detection
Desired
Detection Limit
(mg/L)
Limit
Detection Limit
(mg/L)
0.000 000 4
Ricin
0.015
Cyanide
0.200
Chlordane
0.060
0.010
No1
Yes1
0.051
VX
0.005
GB or Sarin
0.009
Agents Detected
Botulinum Toxin
Cesium-137 (Bq/L)
Advantages
Quick response times and very low
Disadvantages
detection limits
Probe is currently designed to absorb
contaminants
Probe re-equilibration, which takes hours, is
chlorinated compounds (this could also
required when the probe environment is
be seen as a disadvantage)
changed
Development status is relatively mature
Low costs predicted for the probes
Sensor requires calibration for specific
(GeoTrans, 2003) cites chlorinated compound detection for compounds like trichloroethylene (TCE).
Page 95 of 95
CBRTA
OCT 2004

5.5 Spectroscopic and Chromatographic Methods

5.5.1 EMV-II (Femtoscan)
Femtoscan has developed the EVM II, a hand portable gas chromatograph/ion mobility
spectrometer (GC/IMS) which allows sensitive detection of vapor analytes at near real-time
speeds. (Femtoscan, 1999) The instrument is operated by a 24 volt-battery pack and is readily
mobile. No carrier gas is required for this instrument. The dual approach this instrument uses
provides rapid and accurate characterization of analytes including GB, VX, and pesticides.
Gas chromatography utilizes a column packed or coated with a medium that facilitates separation
of analytes by molecular weight and attraction/repulsive forces between the analyte and the
column packing material. Columns are typically narrow diameter (<0.25 inches) and are packed
with diatomaceous earth or cross-linked silicates as a thin coating on the wall of the column.
Column length aids in the separation capabilities of the packing and, provided temperature
profiles and gas flow rates remain constant (in cases where carrier gasses are used to move the
analytes), elution times of compounds can be characterized with accuracy. A variety of detectors
are used to quantify and identify analytes as they elute from the column.
Ion mobility spectrometry (IMS) uses a radioactive foil to ionize contaminants in the vapor
phase, which are then separated by being propelled electrostatically through a drift tube towards
a collector. The time it takes an ion to travel the length of the drift tube is dependent on the mass
and shape of the ion.
Page 96 of 96
CBRTA
OCT 2004

Table 5-12. Femtoscan EMV-II Evaluation

Detectable at
Detectable at
Desired
Desired
100 times
Detection Limit
Detection
Desired
Detection Limit
(mg/L)
Limit
Detection Limit
(mg/L)
0.000 000 4
Ricin
0.015
Cyanide
0.200
Chlordane
0.060
0.010
VX
0.005
GB or Sarin
0.009
Agents Detected
Botulinum Toxin
Cesium-137 (Bq/L)
Advantages
Hand portable
Immunity to water vapor
Real-time response
Disadvantages
Requires a vapor challenge- not amenable to insitu monitoring
Remote operating capability is available only

for vapor detection
Cost expected to be high
- No available information. (Femtoscan, 1999) cites detection capability for the following relevant chemical classes
provided compound is volatile: Alkanes, cycloalkanes, organo phosphonates, pesticides. LOD is listed as 0.001
mg/L.
Page 97 of 97
CBRTA
OCT 2004

5.5.2 zNOSE (GC/SAW) Electronic Sensor (ESTCAL)

The zNOSE combines gas chromatography (see 6.5.1) with a surface acoustic wave sensor to
provide trace analysis of impurities in samples. (Staples, 2001) This device is quite different
from the ALPHA MOS unit listed in 6.2.1. in that it uses a different means of both separation of
the analyte mixture as well as a different type of detection. Again, target analytes can be
characterized and included in the instrumental algorithms to provide monitoring analysis
capabilities. These devices can be put in place to analyze headspaces for contaminants.
Surface acoustic wave (SAW) devices consist of an input transducer, an adsorbent polymer film
and an output transducer, all on a piezoelectric substrate. The input transducer initiates an
acoustic wave, typically at a high frequency (100 MHz), which travels through the polymer film
and is detected by the output transducer. The wave is affected by the elasticity and mass of the
polymeric film, and changes due to adsorbed chemicals are readily detected. Different films are
often combined to give a fingerprint for various different chemicals.
The zNOSE Model 4200 preconcentrates vapor samples using a Tenax filled vapor trap.
Following preconcentration, the vapors are introduced into a high-speed chromatography column
for separation. Detection is provided by means of a 0.1 x 0.1 inch SAW detector chip which is
electronically controlled by a Peltier thermoelectric element. The detector has the capability to
directly measure mass as the compounds are adsorbed on the crystal surface causing a change in
its fundamental acoustic frequency. Plotting of the sensor frequency change versus column
elution time provides a olfactory image which can be used for signature identification. A picture
of the instrument is available at: http://www.znose.com/index2.htm.
Page 98 of 98
CBRTA

OCT 2004
Table 5-13. zNOSE Evaluation

Detectable at
Detectable at
Desired
Desired
100 times
Detection Limit
Detection
Desired
Detection Limit
(mg/L)
Limit
Detection Limit
(mg/L)
0.000 000 4
Ricin
0.015
Cyanide
0.200
Chlordane
0.060
0.010
VX
0.005
GB or Sarin
0.009
Agents Detected
Botulinum Toxin
Cesium-137 (Bq/L)
Advantages
Devices are small, use little power and
Disadvantages
require little maintenance
Good sensitivity and low detection limits.
Ability to be remotely operated
Some SAW polymers are known to react

strongly to water
Durability questions
- No available information. Typical LOD for consumer products trace chemical analysis are 0.01 mg/L (Staples,
2001).
Page 99 of 99
CBRTA

OCT 2004
5.5.3 Sandia -Chem Lab (SNL)

Sandia has developed a microfabricated gas chromatography column coupled with a SAW
detector and has prepared a prototype that can fit in an area less than that of a U.S. dime. (Sandia
National Laboratories, 2000) Miniature systems are possible with components this small and
multitasking of these systems is also possible. (See 6.5.1, and 6.5.2 for GC and SAW
descriptions) A picture of the unit is available at:
http://www.sandia.gov/media/NewsRel/NR2000/labchip.htm.
Table 5-14. -Chem Lab Evaluation
Detectable at
Detectable at
Desired
Desired
100 times
Detection Limit
Detection
Desired
Detection Limit
(mg/L)
Limit
Detection Limit
(mg/L)
0.000 000 4
Ricin
0.015
Cyanide
0.200
Chlordane
0.060
0.010
VX
0.005
GB or Sarin
0.009
Agents Detected
Botulinum Toxin
Cesium-137 (Bq/L)
Advantages
Low heat capacity of GC column allows

rapid heating and cooling improving
Disadvantages
Unknown reliability, operations and

maintenance requirements
throughput
Small size
Cost is expected to be low
- No available information. Typical LODs cited are 0.005 mg/L (Sandia National Laboratories, 2000).
Page 100 of 100
CBRTA

OCT 2004
5.5.4 Handheld GC (Advanced Field Systems)

This small scale GC weighs 8 lbs and is the size of a childs lunchbox. It has the ability to
analyze gas and liquid samples, and like the -Chem Lab (6.5.3) is made using a micromachined
GC column. (AFSI, 2004) The column length is longer than Sandias version in order to provide
extra separation capability prior to detection by a glow discharge detector (GDD). This very
sensitive detector utilizes an electrical measurement of a high voltage field that ionizes the
analytes as they exit from the column. The detector is capable of ppb detection levels of
hydrocarbons and ppt detection of chlorinated compounds. A supplemental unit is required to
analyze liquid samples. A picture of the unit is available at:
http://www.handheldgc.com/HHGC%20website/specs.htm.
Table 5-15. Handheld GC (HHGC) Evaluation
Detectable at
Detectable at
Desired
Desired
100 times
Detection Limit
Detection
Desired
Detection Limit
(mg/L)
Limit
Detection Limit
(mg/L)
0.000 000 4
Ricin
0.015
Cyanide
0.200
Chlordane
0.060
0.010
VX
0.005
GB or Sarin
0.009
Agents Detected
Botulinum Toxin
Cesium-137 (Bq/L)
Advantages
Disadvantages
Small size
High cost
Low detection limits
Requires a trained operator
Multi agent applicability
Instrument durability
- No available information. (AFSI, 2004) cites 0.001- 1.0 mg/L detection limits and cites detection of chemical and
biological weapons as potential uses.
Page 101 of 101
CBRTA
OCT 2004

5.6 Radiation Detectors

5.6.1 Mercuric Iodide Photodetector (Constellation Technologies)
Constellation is developing a mercuric iodide photodetector with dramatically improved
detection performance that will provide a viable alternative or upgrade for portable radiation
detectors. (Constellation Technology, 2004) Mercuric iodide provides a wide dynamic range,
good absorption vs. energy, high photoelectric effect vs. total absorption, low leakage current,
and resistance to radiation damage. With this, detectors can be made that are smaller, more
rugged, and environmentally stable than currently available technology.
Constellation technologies have shown the ability to routinely fabricate individual detectors as
large as 900 mm2 x 5 mm thick (30 mm x 30 mm). Typical designs have a nominal operating
range of 30 - 1300 keV with a spectral resolution of 3% or better at 662 keV. Detectors based on
mercuric iodide operate satisfactorily over a temperature range of 20 to 60 degrees Celsius and
provide stable performance over long time scales (> 6 months). These attributes make them
ideally suited for unattended monitoring systems either as radiation counters or spectrometers.
Recent work in spectral peak fitting has shown that mercuric iodide detectors can be used for
quantitative measurements.
The detectors are packaged together with a preamplifier in a small, lightweight and rugged "
Mercury ModuleTM " that can be used individually or can be incorporated into a larger
monitoring system. Shielding can be added to the sides and back of the module to convert it to a
forward-looking unit with only the front face of the detector exposed to the radiation. A picture
of the unit is available at: http://www.contech.com/Mercuric_Iodide_Detectors.htm. A picture of
a mercuric iodide crystal is available at:
http://www.contech.com/Mercuric_Iodide_Detectors.htm.
Page 102 of 102
CBRTA

OCT 2004
Table 5-16. Mercuric Iodide Photodetector Evaluation

Detectable at
Detectable at
Desired
Desired
100 times
Detection Limit
Detection
Desired
Detection Limit
(mg/L)
Limit
Detection Limit
(mg/L)
0.000 000 4
Ricin
0.015
Cyanide
0.200
Chlordane
0.060
0.010
VX
0.005
GB or Sarin
0.009
Yes1
Yes1
0.11
Agents Detected
Botulinum Toxin
Cesium-137 (Bq/L)
Advantages
Disadvantages
Little or no maintenance required
Cost of the crystal is high
Requires only monthly calibration
Available only in limited amounts
Commercially manufactured
Useable lifespan unknown; may be short
Identification and detection capability
(Constellation Technology, 2004)
- No information Available. Due to specificity of test, no detection expected.
Page 103 of 103
CBRTA
OCT 2004

5.6.2 CZT Detectors (EV Products)

Cadmium Zinc Telluride (CdZnTe) is a semiconductor radiation detector and directly converts
ionizing radiation, such as X-rays, Gamma rays, and Beta particles, into electrical signals.
(Prettyman, Browne, Ianakiev, Moss and Soldner, 2000) The advantages of this direct
conversion are the elimination of the need for bulky photomultiplier tubes (PMTs) required for
scintillation light detection such as is found on NaI and CsI-type detectors. CdZnTe also
operates at room temperature and therefore does not require the cooling typically needed by
other semiconductor radiation detectors such as Si and HPGe. A figure of a typical large volume
multielement detector is available at:
http://www.evproducts.com/whitepapers/T.%20Pretyman%20CPG%20paper.pdf .
The company website provides the following explanation for how the CdZnTe detectors operate.
CdZnTe detectors are fabricated with very thin metalized electrode geometries deposited on the
detector surfaces. These electrodes are electrically biased creating a difference in electrical
potential within the detector volume. When ionizing radiation interacts with the crystal, electron
hole pairs are created relative to the energy from the incoming radiation. The negatively charged
electrons and positively charged holes then migrate to the oppositely charged electrodes where
they are collected. The resulting charge pulse is then detected by the preamplifier, which
produces a voltage pulse whose height is proportional to the incident energy of the incoming
photon. The signal from the preamplifier is then fed into a shaping amplifier that converts the
signal into a Gaussian pulse and amplifies it. The signal can then be fed into a standard counting
system or Multi Channel Analyzer (MCA) to generate the characteristic spectrum for the
incoming photons.
Page 104 of 104
CBRTA
OCT 2004

Table 5-17. Cadmium Zinc Telluride (CZT) Detector Evaluation

Detectable at
Detectable at
Desired
Desired
100 times
Detection Limit
Detection
Desired
Detection Limit
(mg/L)
Limit
Detection Limit
(mg/L)
0.000 000 4
Ricin
0.015
Cyanide
0.200
Chlordane
0.060
0.010
VX
0.005
GB or Sarin
0.009
Yes1
Yes1
0.21
Agents Detected
Botulinum Toxin
Cesium-137 (Bq/L)
Advantages
Identification and detection capability.
Fast response time (4s at 8 mR/h).
Disadvantages
(Prettyman, Browne, Ianakiev, Moss and Soldner, 2000)
Page 105 of 105
CBRTA

OCT 2004
5.6.3 Cerium-doped Lanthanum Halide Detector (Bicron)

Bicron manufactures two lanthanum halide-based detectors (a chloride and a bromide version)
doped with cerium for detection and identification of cesium-137. (Saint-Gobain, 2003) Each of
these detectors is a scintillator-based technology wherein the crystal structure provides energy
bands between which electrons can jump. When excited by an ionizing radiation source,
electrons make a jump to a higher energy level and then subsequently emit visible photons as
they return to the lower energy level. This light emitting process, known as scintillation, is then
measured spectroscopically to determine the composition and amount of the radiation. The
cerium-doped lanthanum halide crystals produced by Bicron are high density, high-Z elements
that enhance the photoelectric interaction thus allowing for lower detection limits based on the
interaction efficiency.
Table 5-18. Cerium-doped Lanthanum Halide Detector Evaluation
Detectable at
Detectable at
Desired
Desired
100 times
Detection Limit
Detection
Desired
Detection Limit
(mg/L)
Limit
Detection Limit
(mg/L)
0.000 000 4
Ricin
0.015
Cyanide
0.200
Chlordane
0.060
0.010
VX
0.005
GB or Sarin
0.009
Yes1
Yes1
(Br) 0.11
Agents Detected
Botulinum Toxin
Cesium-137 (Bq/L)
(Cl) 0.21
Advantages
Disadvantages
Not yet commercially available.
Useable lifespan is questionable.
Cost
(Saint-Gobain, 2003)
Page 106 of 106
CBRTA
OCT 2004

5.6.4 High Pressure Proportional Counter (Constellation)

Constellation has developed a series of high-pressure xenon ionization chambers (HPXe).
(Bolozdynya, Arodzero and DeVito, 2004) These detectors take advantage of recent
developments in the purification of xenon, which is a gas that effectively absorbs gamma rays, is
mechanically and chemically stable, and can be used in extremely harmful conditions. These
properties of xenon have been shown to provide good energy resolution which approximates the
output values for room temperature semiconductor-based detectors. This allows these products
to fill an energy resolution niche between semiconductor detectors like germanium and
scintillation detectors. The HPXe detectors are simple in design, robust, and can be made to fit a
variety of configurations.
The HPXe-100 detection system is constructed from a simple two electrode ionization chamber
made entirely from stainless steel and ceramics. A specially designed preamplifier is used to
generate a signal with efficiency close to that of solid state detectors. This detector system is
designed to operate in harsh conditions like those that might be found in a nuclear waste tank.
The HPXe-500 is a portable spectrometry system consisting of the detector and a readout system
based on a laptop computer. This unit has a gridded cylindrical ionization chamber,
preamplifier, and high voltage supply which allows operation in modes which drastically reduce
electronic noise and improves system resolution. The HPXe-1000 is constructed as a complete
mobile spectrometer system constructed with a vibro-insulating housing and is designed to
operate in noisy industrial facilities and in the vicinity of roads with heavy traffic without
appreciable loss of resolution. A schematic drawing of a typical detector design is available at:
http://www.contech.com/Xenon_Detectors.htm.
Page 107 of 107
CBRTA

OCT 2004
Table 5-19. High Pressure Xenon Proportional Counter Evaluation

Detectable at
Detectable at
Desired
Desired
100 times
Detection Limit
Detection
Desired
Detection Limit
(mg/L)
Limit
Detection Limit
(mg/L)
0.000 000 4
Ricin
0.015
Cyanide
0.200
Chlordane
0.060
0.010
VX
0.005
GB or Sarin
0.009
Yes1
Yes1
0.11
Agents Detected
Botulinum Toxin
Cesium-137 (Bq/L)
Advantages
Disadvantages
Cost of the crystal.
Available only in limited amounts.
Useable lifespan may be short.
(Bolozdynya, Arodzero and DeVito, 2004)
Page 108 of 108
CBRTA
OCT 2004

6 Portable Detection Technologies

6.1 Introduction
Online monitors located at strategic points within the distribution system are important to detect
contamination, but if contamination is detected, they cannot provide information on the extent
the distribution system is contaminated. Portable detection technologies can rapidly confirm the
water quality at the online monitoring station and assist in determining the boundary of the
effected area. The following sections discuss available portable technologies that may detect the
6.1.1 Summary of Portable Detection Technologies

Because the list of contaminants evaluated includes biological warfare agents, biological toxins,
an inorganic compound, and a radionuclide, measurement of general toxicity may be the best
way to determine if any of these compounds is present in water. The bioluminescence method
uses organisms that naturally luminescence during metabolic activity. Several monitors are
available and have been tested by the Environmental Protection Agency Environmental
Technology Verification; most of these detect cyanide, some detect botulinum toxin, ricin, and
cesium, but very few can detect these contaminants even at one hundred times the desired
detection limit. The chemiluminescence method generates light by releasing energy from
chemical reactions. This method can detect ricin, cyanide, and VX nerve agent, but not to the
desired detection limit. One method uses daphnia as the indicator organisms and can detect five
of the eight contaminants of concern, but can detected only ricin at the desired detection limit.
The colorimetric method uses resazurin dye chemistry and can detect ricin, cyanide, and VX
nerve agent, but only ricin at the desired detection limit. One method involves the use of
dissolved oxygen, similar to a biochemical oxygen demand test, to detect ricin and cyanide, but
not at the desired detection limit.
Other portable detection technologies include cyanide specific technologies using colorimetric
and ion-specific probes. Immunoassay technology is highly sensitive to single compounds and
can detect ricin and botulinum toxin, but only ricin to the desired detection limit. Radiation
technologies are small and portable and can detect cesium to the desired detection limit. Any
Page 109 of 109
CBRTA
OCT 2004

multi-parameter field kit that includes a method to measure chlorine can determine if botulinum
toxin or ricin are present.
6.2 Cyanide
There are two methods for the determination of total cyanide concentration in water. Both
methods involve performing a digestions to convert the metal-cyanide complexes ultimately to
free cyanide. This is performed by first acidifying the sample then performing the digestion at
90 oC. Following digestion, the solution pH is increased to 9.0 and chlorine is added to form
cyanogens chloride. Barbituric acid and pyridine or chlorine-T and ios-nicotinic acid are added
to form colored azo compounds.
Because digestions and handling volatile chemicals are difficult to perform in the field and
require time, free cyanide and not total cyanide is measured. The reaction with chlorine and
chloramines results in the formation of cyanogen chloride at typical distribution system pH. The
various cyanide species and cyanide reaction with chlorine is discussed in Section 2.4.
6.2.1 Colorimetric Cyanide Determination

Colorimetric field measurement of free cyanide requires the adjustment of pH prior to testing and
the neutralization of chlorine. The pH buffer and chlorine reducing reagents are added prior to
addition of the color forming reagents. The color forming reagents can be added manually, or
are available in prepackaged ampoules that are under vacuum. When the tip of the ampoule is
broken, a known volume of sample is drawn and mixed with the color forming reagents. The
reaction period is typically 15 minutes although color formation occurs nearly immediately
giving the operator an indication to the presence of free cyanide.
The colorimetric field kits will not measure cyanide-metal complexes, but they will measure
cyanic acid and cyanide ions with pH adjustment. The color can be measured by color wheel or
by colorimeters. Colorimeters can be purchased that can also analyze other common water
quality parameters. Colorimeters range in cost from $300 to $1,000 and vacuum ampoules are
$32 for 30. The test requires 20 minutes to perform although the analysis for toxic contamination
does not require a colorimeter and can be performed in seconds.
Page 110 of 110
CBRTA

OCT 2004
Table 6-1. Colorimetric Cyanide Monitor Evaluation

Detectable at
Detectable at
Desired
Desired
100 times
Detection Limit
Detection
Desired
Detection Limit
(mg/L)
Limit
Detection Limit
(mg/L)
0.000 000 4
Ricin
0.015
Cyanide
0.200
No1
Yes1
2.71
Chlordane
0.060
0.010
VX
0.005
GB or Sarin
0.009
Agents Detected
Botulinum Toxin
Cesium-137 (Bq/L)
Advantages
Disadvantages
Test for acute toxicity requires only
Measures only free cyanide species
reagents
Test for chronic toxicity requires 20 minute

reaction period
Colorimeters available with IP 67

enclosure ratings
No online colorimetric monitor identified
Colorimeters available with passcode
Colorimetric reaction negatively affected at
Vacuum ampoules available
temperatures less than 6 oC
Free cyanide will react with disinfectant residual. Assumed residual is 1.0 mg/L requiring 2.7 mg/L of free cyanide
before free cyanide would be detected by ion selective probe.
6.2.2 Cyanide Electrode

The potentiometric method for determination of free cyanide concentration can be used for field
applications and was reviewed in Section 3.5.1 Cyanide Probes. Please refer to that section for
more information on free cyanide probes.
Page 111 of 111
CBRTA
OCT 2004

6.3 General Toxicity

Because the list of contaminants evaluated included biological warfare agents, biological toxins,
an inorganic compound, and a radionuclide, measurement of general toxicity may be the best
way to determine if these compounds are present in water. Late 2003, EPA-ETV evaluated rapid
toxicity test kits and the following sections discuss those test results.
6.3.1 Bioluminescence
One method used to determine general toxicity is bioluminescence. Bioluminescence is use of
organisms that naturally luminescence during metabolic activities. The rate of metabolism is
inversely proportional to the toxicity in the sample. If conditions are unfavorable for growth,
metabolism is slowed or inhibited and so too is the light output. Light output is monitored by a
luminometer. The following sections describe various tests developed that use a biological
organism and a luminometer to detect contamination in water.
Some compounds commonly found in water such as chlorine, combined chlorine, iron,
manganese, and copper may cause inhibition. The inhibition decreases the light output from the
standard which is typically distilled water. If the inhibition of the matrix water is large or has a
large standard deviation, detection of compounds toxic to humans may be difficult. For all
general toxicity tests, chlorine and combined chlorine must first be neutralized and then the
water can be tested. In the following sections, EPA ETV tested dechlorinated and
dechloraminated water and waters with copper and iron were tested to determine if the water
matrix affects the light output. For each of the test kits reviewed by
6.3.1.1 BioTox
The BioTox consists of a luminometer and luminescent bacteria, Vibrio fischeri that produce
luciferase as part of their metabolic pathway. Substances that affect any part of the bacterias
metabolic pathway affect the amount of light that they emit. The bacteria naturally emit light
and the presence of contaminants will increase or decrease the amount of light emitted. BioTox
is marketed from Finland and few are in use in the United States although 750 kits are used
internationally with the majority of the users being military (NATO forces) and industrial
laboratories for chemical contamination control.
Testing was performed by the EPA-ETV program in 2003 and results indicated that
dechlorinated water was inhibitory at 49 percent 33 percent and copper was 96 percent
inhibitory at 0.65 mg/L. Dechloraminated water was only slightly inhibitory at 13 percent. The
analyzer also includes a liquid scintillation counter that can detect cesium-137. The detection
limit for the analyzer is a function of time but is as low as 1.8 Bq/L at 60 minutes.
The rapid toxicity tests take approximately 30 minutes to run. The cost for the BioTox kit is
$128 for 144 measurements, the injector costs $1,950, and the luminometer with liquid
scintillation counter costs $6,950. Less expensive luminometers are available, but do not include
a liquid scintillation counter.
Page 112 of 112
CBRTA

OCT 2004
Table 6-2. BioTox Rapid Toxicity Testing System Evaluation

Detectable at
Detectable at
Desired
Desired
100 times
Detection Limit
Detection
Desired
Detection Limit
(mg/L)
Limit
Detection Limit
(mg/L)
Agents Detected
Botulinum Toxin
ND1
0.000 000 4
No
No
Ricin
0.015
No1
No1
ND1
Cyanide
0.200
No1
No1
251
Chlordane
0.060
0.010
No2
No2
ND2
VX
0.005
No1
No1
ND1
GB or Sarin
0.009
No3
Yes3
6.33
Cesium-137 (Bq/L)
Advantages
Used internationally be military and
Disadvantages
laboratories
Dechlorinated water is 49 percent

inhibitory
No required calibration or instrument
Limited use in the water industry
maintenance
Copper at 0.65 mg/L is 96 percent

inhibitory
US EPA-ETV 2003b
Testing with Aldicarb
Interview with Risto Juvonen of Hidex on 7/25/04.
Unit is not designed for field use
Page 113 of 113
CBRTA
OCT 2004

6.3.1.2 DeltaTox
DeltaTox is a rapid acute toxicity system that uses bioluminescent bacteria to detect toxins.
DeltaTox uses the same technology as the MicroTox test system but allows for determination of
acute toxicity in the field. The test uses Vibrio fischeri that are non-pathogenic, marine,
luminescent bacteria. The amount of luminescence is related to the cellular respiration of these
bacteria. Any contaminant that affects the respiration of these bacteria will be detected by a
reduction in luminescence. The Vibrio fischeri are freeze-dried and resuspended in a brine
solution.
Testing was performed by the EPA-ETV program in 2003. The equipment was found to be
somewhat difficult to operate as some specialized training was required. The luminescent
bacteria were found to be inhibited by 0.65 mg/L of copper and waters that were
dechloraminated. Dechloraminated samples had inhibition of 88 percent, but dechlorinated
samples were found to be non-inhibitory.
The DeltaTox instrument can also determine total viable biomass using adenosine triphosphate
(ATP) analysis. The DeltaTox ATP assay uses luciferin / luciferase the enzyme system present
in firefly tails to produce light. One molecule of ATP will react with the enzyme to produce one
photon of light. This method can rapidly estimate the microbial concentration to a level of 100
cfu/mL.
The photometer detects light at 490 nm, the wavelength emitted by the bacteria, operates on
batteries or an universal power adapter, and can store up to 200 data points. The cost for the
photometer, pipettes, and reagents is $5,900 and consumables are $330 for 100 tests. The
reagents can be purchased in two quantities, the MicroTox SOLO is packaged individually to
provide sufficient reagent for one sample and one control and in larger quantities, enough for 20
tests, when multiple samples will be ran in a short period of time.
Figure 6-1. DeltaTox Luminometer (Courtesy Strategic Diagnostic)
Page 114 of 114
CBRTA

OCT 2004
Table 6-3. Deltatox Rapid Toxicity Testing System Evaluation

Detectable at
Detectable at
Desired
Desired
100 times
Detection Limit
Detection
Desired
Detection Limit
(mg/L)
Limit
Detection Limit
(mg/L)
Agents Detected
Botulinum Toxin
ND1
0.000 000 4
No
No
Ricin
0.015
No1
No1
ND1
Cyanide
0.200
No1
Yes1
0.250
Chlordane
0.060
0.010
No1,2
No1,2
ND1,2
VX
0.005
No1
No1
ND1
GB or Sarin
0.009
Cesium-137 (Bq/L)
Advantages
Disadvantages
Used in water and food processing industry
Quick response time
Units have been in operation for more than
pH adjustment required to 6 to 8 units
10 years
Resuspended bacteria must be used
Minimal maintenance and long storage
Inhibition occurs with dechloraminated

waters
immediately
time
1
US EPA-ETV 2003c
Aldicarb detectable at 28 mg/L
Page 115 of 115
CBRTA
OCT 2004

6.3.1.3 MicroTox
MicroTox is a toxicity system that uses bioluminescent bacteria to detect toxins. The field
portable version of the MicroTox system is the DeltaTox, which uses the same method as
MicroTox to evaluate acute toxicity. In addition to performing acute toxicity measurements,
MicroTox is also capable of performing chronic toxicity tests. The test uses Vibrio fischeri that
are non-pathogenic, marine, luminescent bacteria. The amount of luminescence is related to the
cellular respiration of these bacteria. Any contaminant that affects the respiration of these
bacteria will be detected by a reduction in luminescence. The Vibrio fischeri are freeze-dried
and resuspended in a brine solution.
The MicroTox test was developed in 1979 and has been used extensively by wastewater
treatment facilities to measure whole effluent toxicity. Detection limits for over 1,200 chemicals
are available through the vendor. Unlike the DeltaTox system, the MicroTox system cannot
determine total viable biomass with ATP analysis.
The photometer detects light at 490 nm, the wavelength emitted by the bacteria, maintains the
sample temperature at 15 oC, operates on a universal power adapter, and can be connected to a
computer through RS 232 connection. The unit is not meant for field locations but allows for
multiple samples to be tested in less time than the DeltaTox. The cost for the photometer,
pipettes, and reagents is $18,000 and consumables are $360 for 200 tests. The setup does not
include a personal computer which is required for data retrieval.
Figure 6-2. MicroTox Luminometer (Courtesy Strategic Diagnostic)
Page 116 of 116
CBRTA

OCT 2004
Table 6-4. Microtox Rapid Toxicity Testing System Evaluation

Detectable at
Detectable at
Desired
Desired
100 times
Detection Limit
Detection
Desired
Detection Limit
(mg/L)
Limit
Detection Limit
(mg/L)
Agents Detected
Botulinum Toxin
ND1
0.000 000 4
No
No
Ricin
0.015
No1
No1
ND1
Cyanide
0.200
No1
Yes1
0.250
Chlordane
0.060
0.010
No1,2
No1,2
ND1,2
VX
0.005
No1
No1
ND1
GB or Sarin
0.009
Cesium-137 (Bq/L)
Advantages
Disadvantages
Used in water and food processing industry
Quick response time
Units have been in operation for more than
pH adjustment required to 6 to 8 units
10 years
Resuspended bacteria must be used
Inhibition occurs with dechloraminated

waters
immediately
time
1
US EPA-ETV 2003f
Aldicarb detectable at 28 mg/L
Page 117 of 117
CBRTA
OCT 2004

6.3.1.4 ToxScreen II
The ToxScreen II consists of a luminometer, luminescent bacteria, Photobacterium leiognathi,
and two assay buffers: one for detecting organic pollutants and the other for detecting heavy
metals. The bacteria naturally emit light and the presence of contaminants will increase or
decrease the amount of light emitted. The test system was developed in Israel for the Israeli
Military and approximately 40 are in use in the United States.
Testing was performed by EPA-ETV program in 2003 and results indicated that considerable
inhibition occurred in samples that were dechlorinated, 66 percent 34 percent, or
dechloraminated, 78 percent 11 percent. The temperature of the test is also to be performed at
18 to 35 oC which would require heating of many samples to room temperature prior analysis.
The bacteria are freeze dried and can be resuspeded and ready for use in 5 minutes and are viable
for 7 days when maintained at 4 oC. The cost for the luminometer is $2,900 and cost of the
ToxScreen II test kit is $300 for 1,000 single tests. The kit does not include dechlorination or
dechloramination chemicals or pipettes.
Page 118 of 118
CBRTA

OCT 2004
Table 6-5. ToxScreen II Rapid Toxicity Testing System Evaluation

Detectable at
Detectable at
Desired
Desired
100 times
Detection Limit
Detection
Desired
Detection Limit
(mg/L)
Limit
Detection Limit
(mg/L)
Agents Detected
Botulinum Toxin
0.0301
0.000 000 4
No
No
Ricin
0.015
No1
No1
151
Cyanide
0.200
No1
Yes1
0.2501
Chlordane
0.060
0.010
ND1,2
VX
0.005
No
GB or Sarin
0.009
Cesium-137 (Bq/L)
Advantages
Have been in use for over 10 years
No maintenance required
Disadvantages
Large inhibition with dechlorinated and

dechloraminated samples
59 percent inhibition with 0.65 mg/L

copper
Splash proof enclosure
Temperature needs to be 18 to 35 oC
Dechlorination chemicals are not provided

in kit
US EPA-ETV 2003h
Not Detectable at 0.220 mg/L (US EPA-ETV 2003h)
Page 119 of 119
CBRTA
OCT 2004

6.3.2 Chemiluminescence
Chemiluminescence is the generation of light by the release of energy from a chemical reaction.
While the light can, in principle, be emitted in the ultraviolet, visible or infrared region, those
emitting visible light are the most common. The following sections describe rapid toxicity test
kits that use chemiluminescence.
6.3.2.1 Eclox
Eclox was developed for the British military to identify non contaminated water sources for
service personnel in the field. Unlike all the other rapid toxicity monitors, the Eclox kit includes
instrumentation to determine other useful water quality data. The kit also includes tests to
determine pH, conductivity, color, chlorine, pesticides, and arsenic. Immunoassays for a
classified number of war gasses is also available as another option but are sensitive to heat and
moisture. Nearly 100 units are in use in the United States.
The rapid toxicity test uses broadband chemiluminescence test that qualitatively assess a water
sample. The test has been used extensively in the medical field and is based upon the reaction of
luminal and an oxidant in the presence of a catalyst enzyme horseradish peroxidase (HRP). A
luminometer measures the light output. Free radical scavengers such as antioxidants, phenols,
amines, heavy metals and other compounds that interact with the enzyme reduce the light output.
As with all rapid toxicity tests, the sampled water is compared to a control which is distilled
water. The test performed well with samples that were dechlorinated or dechloraminated, but
manganese at 0.20 mg/L (higher than the secondary standard for manganese) was 68 percent
inhibitory.
The cost for the kit is $7,900 and consumables must be replaced every one to two years and are
$600 for 50 rapid toxicity tests.
Figure 6-3. Eclox Kit (Courtesy Severn Trent Services)
Page 120 of 120
CBRTA

OCT 2004
Table 6-6. Eclox Rapid Toxicity Testing System Evaluation

Detectable at
Detectable at
Desired
Desired
100 times
Detection Limit
Detection
Desired
Detection Limit
(mg/L)
Limit
Detection Limit
(mg/L)
Agents Detected
Botulinum Toxin
ND2
0.000 000 4
No
No
Ricin
0.015
No1
Yes1
151
Cyanide
0.200
No1
Yes1
0.251
Chlordane
0.060
-3
-3
-3
0.010
-3
-3
-3
VX
0.005
No1
No1
0.491,3
GB or Sarin
0.009
-3
-3
-3
Cesium-137 (Bq/L)
Advantages
Works with dechlorinated and
Disadvantages
Four hours of training may be required
dechloraminated samples
Enclosure not formally rated, but explosion

proof
Luminometer may be connected to

computer
Has been in use for more than 10 years
Lock can be attached to enclosure
Field deployable
Includes other tests for chlorine, pH,

conductivity, color, arsenic, pesticides, and
war gasses
EPA-ETV 2003d
Not detectable at 0.30 mg/L (EPA-ETV 2003d)
Testing not performed using additional testing equipment available to detect pesticides and war gasses.
Page 121 of 121
CBRTA
OCT 2004

6.3.3 Daphnia Metabolism

The IQ Toxicity Test uses Daphnia magna as an indicator organism for the presence of toxic
conditions. Six daphnia and a fluorogenically tagged sugar are added to the sample. Under
nontoxic conditions, the daphnia metabolize the tagged sugar and when exposed to a black light
(longwave ultraviolet light) emit a bright bluish-white light, indicating that they are healthy. The
intensity of the light is related to the rate of tagged sugar metabolism. The test takes 1 hour 15
minutes to perform.
The IQ Toxicity Test Kit includes six exposure chambers each 10 mL, fluorogenically tagged
sugar, pipettes, longwave UV light, sonicator, fluorescent light box, 45 L carboy, and a 30 day
supply of food for the daphnia, culture dishes, and equipment to initiate ongoing Daphnia magna
production. The test requires continuous culturing of daphnia to ensure that test organisms are
immediately available.
The IQ Toxicity Test was the only rapid toxicity testing system that detected all nine
contaminants evaluated. There was however problems with reproducibility and the relative
standard deviation was often greater than 20 percent. The test had numerous false positives, but
no false negative responses occurred. The daphnia are highly sensitive to metals and the
presence of 0.36 mg/L of aluminum resulted in 90 percent inhibition; 0.65 mg/L copper, 100
percent inhibition; and 0.069 mg/L iron, 90 percent inhibition. Adverse affects were detected in
all dechloraminated samples and may resulted in false positives. The same problem did not
occur with dechlorinated samples.
The Threat Detection Starter Kit costs $2,400 which includes all of the materials necessary to
culture and analyze samples. The Threat Detection Maintenance Kit costs $400 and includes
supplies needed to conduct 30 toxicity tests and maintain the Daphnia magna culture an
additional 30 days. The time required to feed and maintain the daphnia culture is estimated by
the vendor to be 10 minutes per day. The annual cost for maintenance kits and time required to
maintain the daphnia population is estimated at $6,600.
Page 122 of 122
CBRTA

OCT 2004
Table 6-7. IQ Toxicity Test Rapid Toxicity Testing System Evaluation

Detectable at
Detectable at
Desired
Desired
100 times
Detection Limit
Detection
Desired
Detection Limit
(mg/L)
Limit
Detection Limit
(mg/L)
Agents Detected
Botulinum Toxin
0.000 3001
0.000 000 4
No
No
Ricin
0.015
Yes1
Yes1
0.0151
Cyanide
0.200
No1
Yes1
0.2501
Chlordane
0.060
0.010
No2
Yes1
0.3161
VX
0.005
No1
Yes1
0.009 5
GB or Sarin
0.009
Cesium-137 (Bq/L)
Advantages
Extremely sensitive, low number of false
Disadvantages
negatives
Must maintain daphnia population

continually
Does not require sophisticated detection
High number of false positives
equipment
Test takes longer than one hour
US EPA-ETV 2003b
6.3.4 Colorimetric Toxicity Determination

The ToxTrack system is a colorimetric test based on resazurin dye chemistry. The dye is a redox
active dye that changes color from blue to pink when reduced. The color is measured at 603 nm.
The change in oxidation is caused by bacteria that consume sucrose which are both added to the
sample. Substances that are toxic to the bacteria will inhibit their metabolism of sucrose and
resazurin reduction. Various strains of bacteria are available, Gram positive, Gram negative, and
mixed cultures. The bacteria are dried and must be cultured using lauryl tryptose broth. The
bacteria must be kept refrigerated and must be prepared 10 to 72 hours prior testing.
Testing was performed by the EPA-ETV program in 2003 and results indicated that
dechlorinated water was inhibitory at 45 percent 14 percent and iron was 36 percent inhibitory
at 0.069 mg/L. Dechloraminated water was only slightly inhibitory at 11 percent.
Page 123 of 123
CBRTA
OCT 2004

The ToxTrack kit costs $280, a colorimeter can range in cost from $300 to $1,000, and the
reagent sets cost $100 for 50 samples.
Figure 6-4. ToxTrack Kit (Courtesy HACH)
Page 124 of 124
CBRTA

OCT 2004
Table 6-8. HACH ToxTrack Rapid Toxicity Testing System Evaluation

Detectable at
Detectable at
Desired
Desired
100 times
Detection Limit
Detection
Desired
Detection Limit
(mg/L)
Limit
Detection Limit
(mg/L)
Agents Detected
Botulinum Toxin
ND1
0.000 000 4
No
No
Ricin
0.015
Yes2
Yes2
0.0152
Cyanide
0.200
No2
No2
252
Chlordane
0.060
0.010
No
0.222
VX
0.005
No
GB or Sarin
0.009
Cesium-137 (Bq/L)
Advantages
Detection within five minutes
Verified response against at least forty
Disadvantages
Bacteria must be cultured 10 to 72 hours

prior use
contaminants
Dechlorinated samples are inhibitory
Waterproof, dustproof, chemical resists
colorimeter
Designed for use in the field
Colorimeter does not require maintenance
Not detectable at 0.30 mg/L (US EPA-ETV, 2003i)
US EPA-ETV, 2003i
Page 125 of 125
CBRTA
OCT 2004

6.3.5 Dissolved Oxygen
6.3.5.1 POLYTOX
POLYTOX is similar to a biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) test. It uses the respiration of
microorganism to indicate the toxicity of water. The respiration rate is monitored with a
standard dissolved oxygen probe and the rate of oxygen respired by the bacterial cultures is
expressed as milligrams of oxygen consumed per liter per minute (mg O2/(L-min)). The
dissolved oxygen concentration is measured 19 and 21 minutes following the addition of the
POLYTOX microbial mixture to a 300 mL sample.
Testing was performed by the EPA-ETV program in 2003 and results indicated that inhibition
had to be at least 18 percent to be considered detectable. The test must be performed under
certain conditions for pH, temperature, and dissolved oxygen. During testing, dechlorinated
water was 10 percent 15 percent inhibitory, dechloraminated water was 27 percent 4 percent
inhibitory.
The cost of the dissolved oxygen probe and meter is $1,600 and the POLYTOX culture is $147
for 20 tests. The kit requires, but does not include 300 mL standard BOD bottles, aerating
equipment, pH adjustment solutions and pipettes.
Page 126 of 126
CBRTA

OCT 2004
Table 6-9. POLYTOX Rapid Toxicity Testing System Evaluation

Detectable at
Detectable at
Desired
Desired
100 times
Detection Limit
Detection
Desired
Detection Limit
(mg/L)
Limit
Detection Limit
(mg/L)
Agents Detected
Botulinum Toxin
ND1
0.000 000 4
No
No
Ricin
0.015
No2
No2
152
Cyanide
0.200
No2
Yes2
0.252
Chlordane
0.060
0.010
ND3
VX
0.005
No
GB or Sarin
0.009
Cesium-137 (Bq/L)
Advantages
Test built on easy to understand and
Disadvantages
comprehend BOD test
Test requires greater than 20 minutes to

perform
Splash resistant monitor
Test requires significant sample handling
Designed for use in a laboratory
Bacteria must be cultured 10 to 72 hours

prior use
Dechloraminated samples are inhibitory
Dissolved oxygen membrane must be

replaced periodically
Not detectable at 0.30 mg/L (U. EPA-ETV 2003g)
US EPA-ETV 2003g
DO probe requires daily calibration
3 Not detectable at 0.088 mg/L (US EPA-ETV 2003g)

Page 127 of 127
CBRTA
OCT 2004

6.4 Immunoassays
Immunoassays are a method to measure the amount of a target protein or molecule. Assays are
highly sensitive to a single compound for which they are designed to detect, however knowing
which contaminant to analyze for is critically important. Assays have been used successfully in
medical fields to determine the presence of pathogens through the detection of specific pathogen
antibodies. Application of the technology for contamination of drinking water is limited to the
purity of the proteins applied to the assay and cost. The detection limit is a function of protein
purification and to reduce the detection limit the cost of the protein will increase. A second
alternative is to process the sample and concentrate the contaminant, but without knowing what
the contaminant is, this becomes challenging. Assays are available for pesticides, herbicides,
chemical warfare agents, some biotoxins, and pathogens although the detection limit for
pathogens is often 105 colony forming units/mL or higher.
Research International developed a rapid automatic fluorometric assay system, RAPTOR, for use
by the United States military. Assay preparation is determined by a barcode located on the assay
and performed automatically by the RAPTOR system. The coupon is inserted into the RAPTOR
system and the reagents necessary for detection of the contaminant are automatically added to
the surface of the coupon. The test takes 2 to 12 minutes. Assays are available for 17
contaminants that include biological toxins and pathogens. One coupon has four assay sites
which will detect two selected contaminants. The coupon can be reused up to 30 times following
the initial use, assuming all previous tests did not detect the contaminant, but all tests must be
preformed within 24 hours after the first test. The coupons can be stored for several months
prior to use. Extreme pH, natural organic matter (NOM), and the presence of metals can affect
the test results. The occurrence of a false positive is approximately 1 percent although false
negatives are higher. The cost of the RAPTOR system is $50,000 and the coupon costs $200
each.
Figure 6-5. RAPTOR Immunoassay System (Courtesy Research International)
Page 128 of 128
CBRTA

OCT 2004
Table 6-10. RAPTOR Four Channel Fluorometric Assay Evaluation

Detectable at
Detectable at
Desired
Desired
100 times
Detection Limit
Detection
Desired
Detection Limit
(mg/L)
Limit
Detection Limit
(mg/L)
Agents Detected
Botulinum Toxin
0.000 51
0.000 000 4
No
No
Ricin
0.015
Yes1
Yes1
0.000 051
Cyanide
0.200
No1
No1
ND1
Chlordane
0.060
No1
No1
ND1
0.010
No1
No1
ND1
VX
0.005
No1
No1
ND1
GB or Sarin
0.009
No1
No1
ND1
No1
No1
ND1
Cesium-137 (Bq/L)
Advantages
Disadvantages
Quick response time
Not used in the water industry
Highly sensitive to contaminants included
Will detect only chemicals that are
on the assay
Only two chemicals are present on coupon
time
Commercially available for less than 5
Minimal required training or operator
Quick response time
included on the assay
years
Research International 2004
Page 129 of 129
CBRTA
OCT 2004

6.5 Radiation
There are three forms of radiation, alpha, beta, and gamma. Many types of monitors are
available to detect these forms of radiation and their use is widespread in the medical industry
and in those industries that work with radiological materials even on an infrequent basis.
Radiation monitors can be very small and are most often used to monitor personal radiation
exposure.
Cesium-137 is a beta and gamma emitter. Beta particles do not travel far in water and travel
only a few feet in air, therefore detection of beta particles is difficult. Gamma radiation can
travel several miles in air and can penetrate fluids and even solids to some degree. Gamma rays
also contain the most energy, so they are easier to detect.
The most popular method to detect radiation is by using a Geiger-Meuller (GM) tube. The
detector consists of a vacuum tube that is enclosed within the instrument. One end of the tube
commonly has a thin mica window that allows alpha particles, beta particles, and gamma rays to
pass. The monitors also come with an internal calibration standard, often cesium-137, that is
encased in lead to shield the operator from radiation emitted by the internal standard.
A portable monitor should be capable of detecting beta particles and gamma rays, but detection
will require human exposure unless the monitor includes a probe. It is likely though if water was
contaminated with cesium-137, and an operator tried to detect the contaminant at a surface
reservoir, opening a hatch even slightly would result in an increase in counts.
Some handheld units come complete with data loggers or RS 232 connections and nearly all
come with audible alarms. The units commonly chirp for each count, and in this way, increases
in radiation exposure can be easily detected.
Monitors vary greatly in price depending on application, required sensitivity, and expected
usable life. The GM tube can be mounted on a probe external to the body of the monitor or
within the body of the monitor. Personal radiation monitors are available for as little as $200 and
require only 9 volt batteries or can be connected to a DC power supply. More sensitive units are
larger, heavier, and have higher costs. The evaluation in Table 6-11 is for a personal radiation
monitor with an internal GM tube, a cesium-137 internal standard, audible chirp, and RS 232
connection.
Page 130 of 130
CBRTA

OCT 2004
Table 6-11. Radiation Monitor Evaluation

Detectable at
Detectable at
Desired
Desired
100 times
Detection Limit
Detection
Desired
Detection Limit
(mg/L)
Limit
Detection Limit
(mg/L)
Agents Detected
Botulinum Toxin
ND
0.000 000 4
No
No
Ricin
0.015
No1
No1
ND
Cyanide
0.200
No1
No1
ND
Chlordane
0.060
No1
No1
ND
0.010
No1
No1
ND
0.005
No
No
ND
0.009
No
No
ND
Yes2
VX
GB or Sarin
Cesium-137 (Bq/L)
Advantages
Yes2
Varies3
Disadvantages
Very rugged enclosures but lack enclosure
May requires operator exposure
rating
Detection limit a function of exposure time
Long expected usable life
Internal cesium-137 standard
Easy to operate with minimal training
Monitor includes user identification
and detector sensitivity
Not widely used in the water industry
Contaminant does not emit alpha, beta, or gamma forms of radiation.
Evaluation performed using personal radiation monitor dependant on exposure time and rate of radiation emission.
Detection limit is a function of instrument sensitivity and time.
ND Not detected
Page 131 of 131
CBRTA
OCT 2004

6.6 Multi-parameter Field Units

6.6.1 Sensicore
The Sensicore WP855 uses a patented lab-on-chip technology to simultaneously test for nine
water quality parameters and calculate another five. Free chlorine, monochloramine, pH, ORP,
conductivity, temperature, carbon dioxide, calcium, and ammonia are all measured by the unit
and total chlorine, TDS, alkalinity, calcium hardness, and Langelier stability index (LSI) are
calculated. The field instrument performs the analysis in 4 minutes with accuracy similar to
units commonly found in laboratories. The unit is field deployable and can be linked to GPS
with a distribution system map overlay to pinpoint water quality changes. The chip must be
calibrated daily and replaced every 30 samples.
Although the unit does not directly monitor any of the evaluated contaminants directly, the
presence of chlorine residual is an indication that botulinum toxin is not present as the toxin will
degrade in the presence of free chlorine. No information is available on the degradation of
butulinum toxin in chloraminated waters or the toxicity of the degradation byproducts. Cyanide
reacts with chlorine and chloramines at pH greater than 8.0 and chlorine residual can indicate the
presence of this contaminant as well.
The cost of the unit is $2,000 and the chip is $300. Although the consumable chip is $300, the
savings in time associated with measurement of nine water quality parameters is substantial. The
cost for the analysis is approximately $10 per sample and time savings is estimated at
approximately 1 hour. At the time of review, the Sensicore WP855 was undergoing beta testing
and was expected to be commercially available in Fall of 2004.
Figure 6-6. Sensicore Multi-parameter Water Monitor (Courtesy Sensicore)
Page 132 of 132
CBRTA

OCT 2004
Table 6-12. Sensicore Multi-parameter Field Unit Evaluation

Detectable at
Detectable at
Desired
Desired
100 times
Detection Limit
Detection
Desired
Detection Limit
(mg/L)
Limit
Detection Limit
(mg/L)
Agents Detected
Botulinum Toxin
0.000 000 4
Yes
Yes
Ricin
0.015
Cyanide
0.200
Yes1
Yes1
Chlordane
0.060
0.010
VX
0.005
GB or Sarin
0.009
No
No
Cesium-137 (Bq/L)
Advantages
Disadvantages
Determination of 14 common water quality
Sensor must be calibrated daily
parameters in 4 minutes
Sensor must be replaced every 30 samples
Approximately $10 per test
New technology available Fall 2004
Can be linked to GPS with a distribution

system map overlay to pinpoint water
quality changes
Nema 13 and IP 65 Enclosure
No special training required
Security pass code
Chips are labeled and unit records

calibration records
Probable based on reaction with chlorine.
Page 133 of 133
CBRTA
OCT 2004

7 Technology Evaluation and Recommendations

7.1 Introduction
This report presents an assessment of existing and near-term water monitoring equipment
capabilities and identifies critical shortfalls. It is believed that intentional contamination would
occur in the distribution system rather than in the source water or at the water treatment plant.
Currently, the water industry does not typically monitor the distribution system continuously,
except for pressure. Grab samples are periodically taken in response to customer complaints and
to maintain compliance with State agency and EPA regulations. Monitoring to detect intentional
contamination must be continuous monitoring and will involve multiple monitoring stations, as
the point of contaminant addition will be unknown. Field test kits will have to be used to confirm
the online readings and to determine the extent of contamination.
Utilities are evaluating and preparing to install remote monitoring stations while looking for
guidance on what instrumentation to install, how many monitoring stations to establish, and how
to analyze and handle the data generated through these monitoring stations. This report will help
to identify the strengths and weaknesses of monitoring technologies that may be installed.
7.2 Evaluation of Monitoring Technologies

The technologies evaluated included those that are used frequently in the potable water industry,
those used in advanced water treatment laboratories, those that may be available in the next five
years, and the portable technologies capable of detecting the contaminants of interest.
Limited information is available on the ability to detect botulinum, ricin, cyanide, chlordane,
chlorinated pesticides, VX, sarin, and cesium-137 using utility-familiar technologies. Testing
with several of these contaminants using traditional water monitoring technologies either has not
been performed, or if performed, the results of such testing are not available. The contaminant
properties and their desired detection limits were used in the study to provide an indication of the
detectability of the contaminant. Because the desired detection limit for all the contaminants
evaluated was less than 1 mg/L, traditional monitoring technologies were unable to detect any of
them. The monitors might have been able to detect some of the contaminants had they been
present at a concentration 100 times the desired detection limit, based on understanding of the
capabilities of the monitor and the physical and chemical properties of the contaminant. The
monitors were evaluated in this way when conclusive data was not available.
Many of the utility-familiar technologies should be able to detect cyanide because it has a
desired detection limit of 0.2 mg/L, there is published information on the properties of cyanide in
water, and cyanide reacts with disinfectant residuals. Likewise, because botulinum toxin is
oxidized by chlorine at concentrations commonly found in the distribution system, the presence
of chlorine in water indicates that botulinum toxin is either oxidized or is not present. The
traditional monitoring technologies are believed to be unable to detect any of the other
contaminants because their concentrations, even when evaluated at 100 times the desired
detection limit, are approximately 1 mg/L or less. Traditional monitoring technologies are not
Page 134 of 134
CBRTA
OCT 2004

well suited to detecting dissolved toxic organic contaminants at concentration less than 1 mg/L,
which applies to six of the eight contaminants evaluated. The traditional technologies are also
not likely to detect radionuclides.
The existing detection technologies include instruments often associated with advanced
laboratories and biological sensors. The laboratory instruments are typically very sophisticated
and expensive, and they often require a knowledgeable operator with extensive training on the
use and maintenance of the equipment. The sensitivity of these instruments limits the types of
contaminants that they can detect, although the concentration at which they can be detected is
lower. The existing detection technologies were much more likely to detect the contaminants
than were the utility-familiar technologies, as the sensitivity of the instruments is much
improved.
The biological sensors exploit the one common characteristic of all the contaminants evaluated:
all of them are toxic. The biological sensors can provide an indication of water toxicity to the
installed species, but the species may not accurately represent the contaminants toxicity to
humans. Disinfectant residual must be removed for any of the biological sensors to operate
properly, although chlorine is not toxic to humans at the concentrations maintained in the
distribution system. Biological sensors have been installed at fewer than 10 locations with
disinfectant residual throughout the world.
existing monitoring equipment, many of them are highly specific for one group of contaminants.
This group of monitors, like the previously described groups, had not been tested with the
contaminants evaluated in this report. Although it is likely that these monitors can detect several
of the contaminants evaluated, there are no test results to confirm this.
The portable field monitors vary considerably and before selecting any rapid toxicity monitor,
the utility manager must determine whether the monitor has a large percent inhibition with the
neutralized disinfectant. The rapid toxicity monitors have been evaluated by EPA-ETV against
several of the contaminants discussed in this report. The field test kits provide an indication
about the toxicity of the water, but interpretation of the results can be difficult, as false readings,
both positives and negatives occur frequently. Additionally, the annual operating cost of the
rapid toxicity monitors can be very high, as the test organism has a limited shelf life, needs
regular maintenance, or requires several hours for resuspension.
7.3 Cost-Benefit Analysis

To assist utility managers with selection of monitoring technologies, a first order cost-benefit
analysis was performed. The capital and operating costs for each of the commercially available
instruments were provided by the vendor and were used to develop a present worth cost
assuming a 4 percent effective interest rate and a period of 10 years. The present worth cost was
divided by the number of the detectable contaminants. It was assumed that each of the
contaminants was equally likely to be used by a terrorist. The results of the analysis are
presented in Tables 7-1 through 7-3.
Page 135 of 135
CBRTA
OCT 2004

The utility-familiar technologies have been proven to be able to detect only botulinum toxin and
cyanide. The monitoring devices with the lowest cost-benefit value were free chlorine analyzers.
Since botulinum toxin has not been confirmed to react with combined chlorine, systems that use
combined chlorine may not be able to detect botulinum toxin. Those systems can therefore
detect only cyanide, and the most cost-effective methods for detection of cyanide are pH or ORP.
Of the two, ORP is the better method as a greater change is expected to occur in ORP than with
conductivity. The multiparameter monitoring probes and stations evaluated were more expensive
because they include additional monitoring technologies that were not capable of detecting the
The most cost-effective monitoring technology was found to be the low-temperature TOC
analyzer that included an ICR, monitored both the inorganic and organic carbon concentrations
to measure both volatile and nonvolatile organic carbon, and used conductivity as the method to
determine carbon concentration. Seven of the eight contaminants evaluated were carbon-based,
which made analysis of TOC highly effective for their detection, assuming that they were present
in a high enough concentration.
Of the biological sensors, the daphnia toximeter has been the most extensively tested and had the
highest number of detectable contaminants. Additional testing should be performed using other
monitoring technologies to determine whether they are more or less sensitive to contaminants.
The capital cost was similar for all four of the biological sensors evaluated.
The rapid toxicity monitors with the lowest cost-benefit value were the Eclox and ToxTrack.
The Eclox unit is capable of monitoring botulinum toxin through chlorine measurement and has
immunoassays for atrazine and for a classified number of war gases believed to include VX and
sarin. The annual operating cost of the rapid toxicity monitoring technologies was important, as
in some cases it exceeded the capital cost of the equipment.
The most cost-effective method for the detection of botulinum toxin or cyanide is to measure
free chlorine residual. The most cost effective monitoring technology for detection of ricin, VX,
and sarin is the rapid toxicity monitor, Eclox. The low temperature TOC analyzer is the most
cost-effective continuous monitor for ricin, chlordane, and other chlorinated pesticides. Cesium137 is most cost-effectively monitored using a personal radiation monitor.
Page 136 of 136
CBRTA

OCT 2004
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Ceisum-137
Sarin War Gas
VX War Gas
Chlordane
Cyanide
Ricin
Instrument
Two Electrode Amperometric Chlorine Analyzer
Three Electrode Amperometric Chlorine Analyzer
DPD Chlorine Analyzer
Monochloramine Analyzer
Color
Conductivity
Ion Selective Cyanide Electrode
Ion Selective pH Probe
Particle Counter
Reduction Oxidation Potential (redox)
Temperature
Turbidimeter
Dascore Six-Cense
HACH PipeSonde
HACH Water Distribution System Monitoring Panel
Botulinum Toxin
Table 7-1. Utility-Familiar Detection Technologies Cost-Benefit Analysis
Benefit
(Number
Contaminants
Detected)
2
2
2
1
0
1
1
1
0
1
0
0
2
2
2
Capital
Cost
Annual
Operational
and
Maintenance
Cost
Annual
Consumable
Cost
Total
Annual
Cost
Present
Worth
Cost1
Cost
Benefit
Value
3,600
5,000
2,900
9,800
5,000
1,200
1,400
1,450
4,700
1,450
0
1,800
10,000
8,000
13,500
300
300
300
300
100
50
300
300
300
0
300
300
300
300
300
30
520
2,900
450
50
135
800
135
0
60
1,050
500
360
600
330
820
3,200
540
100
425
1,200
435
0
360
1,350
800
660
$8,466
$7,676
$9,550
$35,752
$9,379
$2,011
$4,897
$14,432
$4,978
$0
$4,720
$20,949
$14,488
$18,853
$4,233
$3,838
$4,775
$35,752
$2,011
$4,897
$4,978
$10,474
$7,244
$9,426
Effective Interest Rate of 4 percent
Page 137 of 137
CBRTA

OCT 2004
Sarin War Gas
VX War Gas
Chlordane
X
X
X
X
X
Benefit
(Number
Contaminants
Detected)
2
1
Capital
Cost
Annual
Operational
and
Maintenance
Cost
Annual
Consumable
Cost
Total
Annual
Cost
Present
Worth
Cost1
Cost
Benefit
Value
30,000
160,000
45,000
45,000
40,000
40,000
25,000
30,000
37,500
1,300
1,300
650
650
1,300
1,300
1,300
100
300
405
300
600
1,600
700
1,400
1,600
1,055
950
1,900
2,900
2,000
$56,354
$57,976
$48,556
$47,705
$40,409
$53,519
$53,720
$11,595
$24,278
$23,852
$10,102
$17,907
X
X
X
X
5
2
2
4
1
3
21,000
1,300
1,800
3,100
$46,141
$15,380
4
0
25,000
14,000
650
300
1,150
300
1,800
600
$39,598
$18,866
$9,900
-
Ceisum-137
Atomic Adsorption
Inductively Coupled Plasma
Algae Toximeter
Daphnia Toximeter
X
Fish Bio-Sensor
Mussel Monitor
Gas Chromatography
Ion Chromatography
TOC Analyzer - High Temperature
X
TOC Analyzer - Low Temperature
(Measures Nonpurgable Organic Carbon Fraction)
X
TOC Analyzer - Low Temperature
(Measures Total Inorganic and Organic Carbon)
X
Ultraviolet Absorption at 254 nm
1
Effective interest rate of 4 percent and period of 10 years
Cyanide
Ricin
Instrument
Botulinum Toxin
Table 7-2. Existing Detection Technologies Cost-Benefit Analysis
Page 138 of 138
CBRTA

OCT 2004
Colorimetric Cyanide Determination

Ion Selective Cyanide Electrode
BioTox
DeltaTox
MicroTox
ToxScreen II
Eclox
X X
IQ Toxicity
X
ToxTrack
X
PolyTox
Immunoassays
X
Radiation
Sensicore
X
1
Effective interest rate of 4 percent and period of 10 years
Ceisum-137
Sarin
VX
Pesticides
Chlordane
Cyanide
Ricin
Instrument
Botox
Table 7-3. Portable Detection Technologies Cost-Benefit Analysis
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Benefit
(Number
Contaminants
Detected)
1
1
1
1
1
1
6
4
1
1
1
1
2
Capital
Cost
Annual
Operational
and
Maintenance
Cost
Annual
Consumable
Cost
Total
Annual
Cost
Present
Worth
1
Cost
Cost
Benefit
Value
750
750
8,900
5,900
18,000
2,900
7,900
2,400
1,300
2,000
50,000
500
2,000
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
1,820
300
500
300
0
300
60
300
130
330
360
100
700
4,800
120
450
2,400
0
3,600
360
600
430
630
660
400
1,000
6,620
420
950
2,700
0
3,900
$3,670
$5,616
$12,387
$11,009
$23,353
$6,144
$16,010
$56,088
$4,706
$9,705
$71,897
$500
$33,629
$3,670
$5,616
$12,387
$11,009
$23,353
$6,144
$2,668
$14,022
$4,706
$9,705
$71,897
$500
$16,815
Page 139 of 139
CBRTA
OCT 2004

7.4 Gaps in Monitoring Technology

The existing monitoring technology is limited in its ability to detect intentional contamination.
detect compounds that are not normally present in water. The gaps in monitoring technology
that should be evaluated in both the near- and long-term are identified in the following sections.
7.4.1 Near-Term Actions

The following technology gaps should be addressed in the near-term.
Development of technology to measure total volatile organic carbon. Because volatile

carbon compounds commonly occur in water only at concentrations of a few g/L, slight
changes in their concentration may indicate the addition of a pesticide or herbicide, war gas,
or other contaminant that includes an organic carrier. Two emerging technologies were
evaluated that with refinements may be able to measure total Volatile Organic Compounds:
zNose and fingerprinting mass spectrometry.
Development of an inexpensive, continuous gamma radiation monitoring instrument for

detection of gamma emitting radionuclides in water. The reason that such continuous
monitoring technology does not exist is that there has been no market for such technology.
Evaluation and testing of data management and analysis software packages. One vendor
claims that by monitoring the signals from multiple water quality monitors, a greater number
of contaminants can be detected than the sum of the contaminants that can be detected by the
individual meters. The United States military is developing network signal interpretation
software.
Continued refinement of the detection limits for existing monitoring technologies.
7.4.2 Long-Term Actions

The following technology gaps were identified to be addressed in the long-term.
Development and/or application of monitoring instruments suitable for installation in the

distribution system for detection of a greater number of contaminants. Many of the existing
monitors are not suitable for the conditions in distribution systems.
Development of technology to measure a wider range of contaminants using a single

monitor.
Page 140 of 140
CBRTA
OCT 2004

7.5 Recommendations
Recommendations based on the information provided in this report are presented below. The
goal of contamination monitoring should not be to detect individual contaminants but to detect
compounds that are not normally present in water. The near-term recommendations apply to
areas where additional research could greatly facilitate the evaluation process; the long-term
recommendations apply to areas where additional research is needed for development of
promising monitoring technologies.
7.5.1 Near-Term Recommendations

The following recommendations were developed for the near term.
Research should be conducted using all of the monitoring technologies evaluated to

determine the detection limit of the contaminants listed in this report.
Utility managers interested in immediately purchasing equipment to monitor for intentional

contamination should consider the purchase of online chlorine analyzers, low temperature
Total Organic Carbon analyzers, and a rapid toxicity kit appropriate for the type of
disinfectant residual in their system.
7.5.2 Long-Term Recommendations

The following recommendations were developed for the long-term.
Research should be conducted to determine the fate of the evaluated contaminants in systems
that use free chlorine and those in systems that use combined chlorine.
Research should be conducted to determine the effect of the evaluated contaminants on

distribution system biofilm.
Testing of existing biological monitoring should be initiated to evaluate their application and
use in the distribution system.
Page 141 of 141
CBRTA
OCT 2004

References
AFSI, 2004. Prototype Specifications. 16 September 2004. <http://www.handheldgc.com>.
Alexander, David, 2004. Phone interview. 23August 2004.
Alpha M.O.S. 2004a. Alpha M.O.S. Technology and Alpha M.O.S Product Line. 16
September 2004. <http://www.alpha-mos.com>.
Alpha M.O.S. 2004b. How to Obtain a VOC or DOC Fingerprint 16 September 2004.
<http://www.alpha-mos.com/tecfinger.php>.
APHA, AWWA, WPCF, 2004. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and
Wastewater. APHA, Washington, D.C.
ASTDR, 2004a. Chlordane Chemical and Physical Information. Agency for Toxic Substances
and Disease Registry (ATSDR). 11 October 2004.
<http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp31-c3.pdf>.
ASTDR, 2004b. Medical Management Guidelines (MMGs) for Nerve Agents: Tabun (GA);
Sarin (GB); Soman (GD) and VX. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
(ATSDR). 10 October 2004. <http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/MHMI/mmg166.html>.
ATSDR, 2004c. Minimal Risk Levels (MRLs) for Hazardous Substances. Agency for Toxic
Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). 15 June 2004.
<http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/mrls.html>.
AwwaRF, 2002. Online Monitoring for Drinking Water Utilities. Denver, CO.
bbe Moldaenke, 2004. 16 September 2004. <http://www.bbe-moldaenke.de/>.
Bolozdynya, A., Arodzero, A., and DeVito, R. 2004. High-Pressure Xenon Detectors for
Applications in Portal Safeguard Systems and for Monitoring Nuclear Waste. 16
September 2004.
<http://www.contech.com/Articles/Radiation/200206_INMM_HPXe_Port_Mon.pdf>.
Burrows, W. Dickinson; Renner, Sara E., 1999. Biological Warfare Agents as Threats to
Potable Water. Environmental Health Perspectives, 107(12): 975-984.
CBWinfo, 2004. Nerve Agent: VX. 15 October 2004.
<http://cbwinfo.com/Chemical/Nerve/VX.html>.
CDC, 2004a. Cyanogen Chloride NIOSH Emergency Response Card, Accessed October 2004.
http://www.bt.cdc.gov/agent/cyanide/erc506-77-4pr.asp.
Page 142 of 142
CBRTA
OCT 2004

CDC, 2004b. Facts About Sarin. 15 Septemeber 2004.

<http://www.bt.cdc.gov/agent/sarin/basics/facts.asp>.
CDC, 2004c. Hydrogen Cyanide NIOSH Emergency Response Card, 15 October 2004.
<http://www.bt.cdc.gov/agent/cyanide/erc74-90-8pr.asp>.
CDC, 2004d. Sarin NIOSH Emergency Response Card, 15 October 2004.
<http://www.bt.cdc.gov/agent/sarin/erc107-44-8pr.asp>.
CDC, 2004e. Radiation Emergencies Fact Sheet. 10 October 2004.
<http://www.bt.cdc.gov/radiation>.
CDC, 2004f. VX NIOSH Emergency Response Card, Accessed October 2004.
<http://www.bt.ded.gov/agent/vx/erc50782-69-9pr.asp>.
Constellation Technology, 2004. Mercuric Iodide Detectors. 16 September 2004
<http://www.contech.com/Mercuric_Iodide_Detectors.htm>.
Crosby, Donald G., 1998. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry. Oxford University Press.
New York, NY, USA. p. 336.
Dionex, 2004. Direct Determination of Cyanide in Strongly Alkaline Solutions. 15 September
2004. <http://www1.dionex.com/enus/webdocs/application/industry/chempetro/au107.pdf>.
Ecelberger, S. A., Cornish, T. J. Collins, B. F., Lewis, D. L., and Bryden, W. A., 2003. Suitcase
TOF: A Man-Portable Time-of-Flight Mass Spectrometer. Johns Hopkins APL
Technical Digest, 24(4):1-6.
EHL, 2003. Environmental Health Laboratories Schedule of Services. South Bend, IN.
Eisler, Ronald, 2000. Handbook of Chemical Risk Assessment: Health Hazards to Humans,
Plants, and Animals. Volume 2. Organics. Lewis Publishers. New York, NY, USA. 1500
p.
El Ghawabi SH, Gaafar MA, El-Saharti AA. 1975. Chronic Cyanide Exposure: a Clinical,
Radioisotope, and Laboratory Study. British Journal of Industrial Medicine, 32: 215219.
Femtoscan, 1999. Environmental Vapor Monitor. 16 September 2004.
<http://www.femtoscan.com>.
Feroz M, Khan MAQ, 1979. Metabolism, Tissue Distribution, and Elimination of cis-[14C]
Chlordane in the Tropical Freshwater Fish Cichlasoma sp. Journal of Agricultural and
Food Chemistry, 27: 1190-1197.
Page 143 of 143
CBRTA
OCT 2004

Gettler AO, Baine JO. 1938. The Toxicology of Cyanide, American Journal of the Medical
Science,s 195: 182-198
Gosselin RE, Smith RP, Hodge HC, 1984. Clinical Toxicology of Commercial Products. 5th
Edition. Williams and Wilkins. Baltimore, MD, USA.
GeoTrans, Inc., 2003. A Review of Emerging Sensor Technologies for Facilitating Long-Term
Ground Water Monitoring of Volatile Organic Compounds. E.P.A. 542-R-03-007,
August 2003:12.
Harris, Daniel, 1996. Exploring Chemical Analysis. W. H. Freeman and Company, New York.
HDR Engineering, Inc. 2001. Handbook of Public Water Systems, Second Edition. John Wiley &
Sons, Inc. New York, NY, USA. p. 1136.
Health Canada, 1991. Guidelines for Canadian drinking water quality- supporting documents.
Water Quality and Health Bureau of the Safe Environments Programme, Health Canada.
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. 4 p. 16 September 2004. <http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hecssesc/water/pdf/dwg/cyanide.pdf>.
Ho, C. K., Itamura, M. T., Kelley, M. and Hughes, R. C., 2001. Review of Chemical Sensors
for In-Situ Monitoring of Volatile Contaminants, Sandia Report SAND2001-0643
Unlimited Release. Sandia National laboratories, Albuquerque, NM. March 2001:12-13.
Howard J.W., Hanzel R.F., 1955. Chronic Toxicity for Rats of Food Treated With Hydrogen
Cyanide, Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 3: 325-329.
IRIS. 1997. Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Research and Development, National Center for Environmental Assessment.
Cincinnati, OH, USA.
IARC. 1979. Chlordane. International Agency for Research in Cancer (IARC). IARC
Monographs on the Evaluation of the Carcinogenic Risk of Chemicals to Humans 20: 4565.
Jenkins, A. L., Uy, O. M., Murray, G. M., 1999. Polymer-Based Lanthanide Luminescent
Sensor for Detection of the Hydrolysis Product of the Nerve Agent Soman in Water.
Anal. Chem., 71:373-378.
Karalliedde L, Wheeler H, Maclehose R, Murray V., 2000. Review Article: Possible Immediate
and Long-term Health Effects Following Exposure to Chemical Warfare Agents, Public
Health, 114: 238-248.
Kawai, N. T. and Spencer, K. M., 2004. Raman Spectroscopy for Homeland Defense
Applications, Raman Technology for Todays Spectroscopists, June 2004:55-58.
Page 144 of 144
CBRTA
OCT 2004

Kim, E.; Little, J.C.; Chiu, N.; Chiu, A., 2001. Inhalation Exposure to Volatile Chemicals in
Drinking Water, Journal of Environmental Science and Health, Part CEnvironmental
Carcinogenesis & Ecotoxicology Reviews, 19(2): 387-413.
Klaassen, Curtis D. (Editor), 1996. Casarett & Doulls Toxicology: The Basic Science of
Poisons. Fifth Edition. McGraw-Hill. New York, NY, USA. p. 1111.
Krasner S.W., Hwang C.J., Liew T.K., West M.J., 1991. Development of a Bench-scale Method
to Investigate the Factors that Impact Cyanogen Chloride Production in Chloraminated
Waters, Proceedings of the 1991 American Water Works Association Water Quality
Technology Conference, Part II, Sessions EB Through ST6. Orlando, FL, USA.
November 10-14. pp. 1207-1213.
ORSANCO, 2004. Organics Detection System. 16 September 2004.
<http://www.orsanco.org/watqual/drink/ods.htm>.
Philbrick D.J., Hopkins J.B., Hill D.C., Alexander J.C., Thomson R.G., 1979. Effects of
Prolonged Cyanide and Thiocyanate Feeding in Rats, Journal of Toxicology and
Environmental Health, 5: 579-592.
Prettyman, T. H., Browne, M. C., Ianakiev, K. D., Moss, C. E., and Soldner, S. A., 2000.
Characterization of a Large-volume, Multi-element CdZnTe Detector. 16 September
2004.
<http://www.evproducts.com/whitepapers/T.%20Pretyman%20CPG%20paper.pdf>.
Research International, 2004. Raptor. 15 October 2004.
<http://www.nbcindustrygroup.com/reseinte.htm>.
Saint-Gobain Crystals & Detectors, 2003. Product Comparisons. 16 September 2004.
<http://www.detectors.saintgobain.com/Media/Documents/S0000000000000000003/product%20comparisons.pdf>.
Sandia National Laboratories, 2000. Sandia National Laboratories Presents Fully Integrated
Lab-on-a-chip Development. 16 September 2004.
<http://www.sandia.gov/media/NewsRel/NR2000/labchip.htm>.
Sax N.I,. 1984. Dangerous Properties of Industrial Materials. 6th Edition. Van Nostrand
Reinhold. New York, NY, USA. p. 2421.
Shan, D., Mousty, C., and Cosnier, S., 2004. Subnanomolar Cyanide Detection at Polyphenol
Oxidase/Clay Biosensors. Anal. Chem., 76:178-183.
Shimadzu, 2003. Characteristic Concentration versus Detection Limit for Atomic Absorption
Spectrometry. Shimadzu Price Estimate Reference: MWR 40377.
Siuzdak, G., 1996. Mass Spectroscopy for Biotechnology. New York: Academic Press.
Page 145 of 145
CBRTA
OCT 2004

Staples, E. J., 2001. The zNoseTM: A New Electronic Nose Technology for Analytical Quality
Control Applications. 16 September 2004. < http://www.znose.com/>.
Taylor, Jessilynn Butler, 2004. Personal Communication. Division of Toxicology,
ATSDR/NCEH/CDC. 2 July 2004.
Thermo, 2004. Ion Selective Electrodes. 16 September 2004.
<http://www.thermo.com/com/CDA/Category/CategoryFrames/1,,248,00.html>.
USACHPPM, 2003. Chemical warfare agents (CWA) and associated health guidelines, United
States Army Center for Health Promotion and Preventive Medicine (USACHPPM). 18
June 2004. <http://www.chppm-www.apgea.army.mil/chemicalagent/>.
US EPA, 1980. Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Cyanides. Office of Drinking Water.
Washington, D.C., USA. EPA 440/5-80-037. 72 p.
US EPA, 1985. Health Effects Criteria Document for Cyanide. Office of Drinking Water.
Washington, D.C., USA.
US EPA, 1986. Project Summary. Health Effects Assessment Documents. US EPA,
Environmental Criteria and Assessment Office. Cincinnati, Ohio. March 1986.
EPA/540/S1-86/059. p. 4.
US EPA, 1987. Drinking Water Criteria Document for Cyanide. Office of Health and
Environmental Assessment, Environmental Criteria and Assessment Office, Cincinnati,
OH, for the Office of Drinking Water, Washington D.C., USA. External review draft.
US EPA, 2002a. Beta Particles. 9 September 2004.
<http://www.epa.gov/radiation/understand/beta.htm>.
US EPA, 2002b. Gamma Rays. 9 September 2004.
<http://www.epa.gov/radiation/understand/gamma.htm>.
US EPA, 2004a. Cesium. 10 October 2004.
<http://epa.gov/radiation/radionuclides/cesium.htm>.
US EPA, 2004b. Chemical Sensor Total Organic Carbon Analyzer. 16 September 2004.
<http://www.epa.gov/watersecurity/guide/chemicalsensortotalorganiccarbonanalyzer.htm
l>.
US EPA, 2004c. 2004 Edition of the Drinking Water Standards and Health Advisories. Office of
Water. Washington, D.C. Winter 2004. EPA 822-R-04-005. p. 20.
US EPA, 2004d. Organochlorine Pesticides by Gas Chromatorgraphy. 16 September 2004.
<http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/test/pdfs/8081a.pdf>.
Page 146 of 146
CBRTA
OCT 2004

US EPA, 2004e. Superfund Risk Assessment. Provisional Peer Reviewed Toxicity Values for
Superfund (PPRTV). Provisional Peer Reviewed Toxicity Values (PPRTVs) Database.
Office of Remediation and Technology Innovation. Washington, D.C. 17 June 2004.
<http://www.hhpprtv.ornl.gov/>.
US EPA. 2004f. Toxicity Metadata. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund: Volume 1
Human Health Evaluation Manual (RAGS). 1 July 2004.
<http://risk.lsd.ornl.gov/tox/metadata.shtml>.
US EPA. 2004g. Water Quality Criteria. Drinking Water Standards and Health Advisories. 11
June 2004. <http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/drinking/index.html>.
US EPA-ETV, 2003a. Thermo Orion Model 9606 Cyanide Electrode with Model 290 A+ Ion
Selective Electrode Meter. 16 September 2004.
<http://www.epa.gov/etv/pdfs/vrvs/01_vr_96_06.pdf>.
US EPA-ETV, 2003b. Detecting Toxicity in Drinking Water - BioTox. 16 September 2004.
<http://www.epa.gov/etv/pdfs/vrvs/01_vs_biotox.pdf>.
US EPA-ETV, 2003c. Detecting Toxicity in Drinking Water - Deltatox. 16 September 2004.
<http://www.epa.gov/etv/pdfs/vrvs/01_vs_deltatox.pdf>.
US EPA-ETV, 2003d. Detecting Toxicity in Drinking Water Eclox. 16 September 2004.
<http://www.epa.gov/etv/pdfs/vrvs/01_vs_eclox.pdf>.
US EPA-ETV, 2003e. Detecting Toxicity in Drinking Water IQ Toxicity Test. 16
September 2004. <http://www.detect-water-terrorism.com/Fact%20sheet%20IQ-Toxrev-022303.pdf>.
US EPA-ETV, 2003f. Detecting Toxicity in Drinking Water - Microtox. 16 September 2004.
<http://www.epa.gov/etv/pdfs/vrvs/01_vs_microtox.pdf>.
US EPA-ETV, 2003g. Detecting Toxicity in Drinking Water - PolyTox. 16 September 2004.
<http://www.epa.gov/etv/pdfs/vrvs/01_vs_polytox.pdf>.
US EPA-ETV, 2003h. Detecting Toxicity in Drinking Water - ToxScreen. 16 September
2004. <http://www.epa.gov/etv/pdfs/vrvs/01_vs_toxscreen.pdf>.
US EPA-ETV, 2003i. Detecting Toxicity in Drinking Water - ToxTrack. 16 September 2004.
<http://www.epa.gov/etv/pdfs/vrvs/01_vs_toxtrak.pdf>.
Wang, J., Pumera, M., Collins, G. E., and Mulchandani, A., 2002. Measurements of Chemical
Warfare Agent Degradation Products Using an Electrophoresis Microchip with
Contactless Conductivity Detector, Anal. Chem., 74:6121-6125.
Page 147 of 147
CBRTA
OCT 2004

Wang, J., Zima, J., Lawrence, N. S., Chatrathi, M. P., Mulchandani, A., and Collins, G. E., 2004.
Microchip Capillary Electrophoresis with Electrochemical Detection of ThiolContaining Degradation Products of V-Type Nerve Agents, Anal. Chem., 76:4721-4726.
Way J.L., 1982 (1981). Pharmacologic Aspects of Cyanide and its Antagonism. Pages 29-40,
In: B Vennesland, EE Conn, CJ Knowles, J Westley, F Wissing (Editors), Cyanide in
Biology. Academic Press. New York, NY, USA.
Weinberg, H. S., and Cook, S. J., 2002. Segmented Flow Injection, UV Digestion, and
Amperometric Detection for the Determination of Total Cyanide in Wastewater
Treatment Plant Effluents, Anal. Chem., 74:6055-6063.
Whelton, Andrew J.; Jensen, Janet L.; Richards, Todd E. Valdivia, Richard M., 2003a. The
Cyanic Threat to Potable Water, American Water Works Association (AWWA) Annual
Conference and Exposition Proceedings. June 15-19. Anaheim, CA, USA. 16 September
2004. <http://chppmwww.apgea.army.mil/dehe/pgm31/2003%20AWWA%20Cyanide%20Proceedings%20W
helton.pdf>.
White, G. C., 1992. Handbook for Chlorination and Alternative Disinfectants. Third Ed., Van
Nostrand Reinhold, New York.
WHO, 1984. Chlordane. Environmental Health Criteria 34. World Health Organization (WHO).
Geneva, Switzerland.
WHO, 1993. Guidelines for Drinking-water Quality. Volume 1: Recommendations. Second
Edition. World Health Organization (WHO). Geneva, Switzerland. 16 September 2004.
<http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/dwq/gdwq2vl/en/print.html>.
WHO, 1996. Guidelines for drinking-water quality - Second edition - Volume 2 - Health criteria
and other supporting information. World Health Organization (WHO). Geneva,
Switzerland. 16 September 2004.
<http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/dwq/gdwq2vl/en/print.html>.
Yamagishi, F. G., Stanford, Jr., T. B., and Van Ast, C. I., 2004. Sensor for Chemical and
Biological Materials. U.S. Patent 6,730,212.
Yates, D. G, et al., 2002. Implementing Advanced Early Warning Systems To Safe Guard
Public Drinking Water, American Water Works Association Annual Conference
Exposition Proceedings.
Page 148 of 148
CBRTA
OCT 2004

Appendix A - Utility, Existing, and Portable Technology Evaluation

Tables
Page A0
Utility, Existing, and Portable Technology Evaluation

ID
15
Model
Colorimetric Cyanide Detection
Constituent
Detection Limit
0.02
Detection Limit Score

Response Time
17
Response Time Score
Enclosure Rating
IP67
Encolsure Rating Score
Remote Operation and Output Signals Field unit - none

Remote Operation Score
Expected Usable Life
Expected Usable Life Score
Reliability
Preclaibrated, Vaccume Cuvetts
Reliability Score
Operations and Maintenance
No calibration required
OM Score
Affordability
1000
Affordability Score
Security
none
Security Score
Implementation
Filed Test/Need to adjust pH
Implementation Score
Page 1 of 48

ID
16
Model
Eclox
Constituent
Detection Limit
0.25

Response Time
Response Time Score
Enclosure Rating
Field Carrying Case
Remote Operation and Output Signals Field - RS 232 Connection

10
Reliability
Built for British Military
Reliability Score
No required calibration, some mainentance
OM Score
Affordability
7900
Affordability Score
Security
Lock on carrying case
Security Score
Implementation
Field Test/does many conventional parameters
Page 2 of 48

ID
17
Model
Eclox
Constituent
Detection Limit
0.15

Response Time
Response Time Score
Enclosure Rating
Field Carrying Case

10
Reliability
Reliability Score
OM Score
Affordability
7900
Affordability Score
Security
Security Score
Implementation
Page 3 of 48

ID
18
Model
Eclox
Constituent
Detection Limit
0.49

Response Time
Response Time Score
Enclosure Rating
Field Carrying Case

10
Reliability
Reliability Score
OM Score
Affordability
7900
Affordability Score
Security
Security Score
Implementation
Page 4 of 48

ID
19
Model
Eclox
Constituent
Detection Limit
Response Time
Response Time Score
Enclosure Rating
Field Carrying Case

10
Reliability
Reliability Score
OM Score
Affordability
7900
Affordability Score
Security
Security Score
Implementation
Page 5 of 48

ID
20
Model
Temperature
Constituent
Detection Limit
Response Time
Response Time Score
Enclosure Rating
Nema 4x
Remote Operation and Output Signals 4-20 mA output; no self diagnositcs

10

Reliability
No consumables; and long period before failure
Reliability Score
calibration not required; no self diagnostics
OM Score
Affordability
Affordability Score
Security
3 key passcode
Security Score
Implementation
Online - good to 725 psi
Page 6 of 48

ID
21
Model
Eclox
Constituent
Detection Limit
Response Time
Response Time Score
Enclosure Rating
Field Carrying Case

10
Reliability
Reliability Score
OM Score
Affordability
7900
Affordability Score
Security
Security Score
Implementation
Page 7 of 48

ID
22
Model
Multiparameter Probe (side stream)
Constituent
Detection Limit
Response Time
Response Time Score
Enclosure Rating
submerable
Remote Operation and Output Signals Requires ancillary equipment to connect to SCADA
Reliability
2 month service interval
Reliability Score
no self diagnostics
OM Score
Affordability
12500
Affordability Score
Security
tamper proof enclosure
Security Score
Implementation
good to 350 psi; requires bypass and flow cell
Page 8 of 48

ID
23
Model
Distribution Monitoring Panal
Constituent
Detection Limit
Response Time
Response Time Score
Enclosure Rating
Nema 12x
Remote Operation and Output Signals 4-20 mA output each; RS 485; no self diagnostics
10
Reliability
replace consumable monthly
Reliability Score
no self diagnostics; check & calibrate monthly
OM Score
Affordability
13500
Affordability Score
Security
lock on cabinet; some include passcode
Security Score
Implementation
requires sidestream; becoming widely implimented
Page 9 of 48

ID
24
Model
DPD Free Chlorine Analyzer
Constituent
Detection Limit
Response Time
Response Time Score
Enclosure Rating
IP62
Remote Operation and Output Signals 4-20 mA; 2 alarms; no self diagnostics
10
Reliability
replace consumable every 30 days
Reliability Score
montly calibration/check; no self diagnostics
OM Score
Affordability
2900
Affordability Score
Security
no passcode; no lock
Security Score
Implementation
widely installed; requires bypass stream
Page 10 of 48

ID
25
Model
DPD Total Chlorine Analyzer
Constituent
Detection Limit
Response Time
Response Time Score
Enclosure Rating
IP62
Remote Operation and Output Signals 4-20 mA; 2 alarms; no self diagnostics
10
Reliability
replace consumable every 30 days
Reliability Score
montly calibration/check; no self diagnostics
OM Score
Affordability
2900
Affordability Score
Security
Security Score
Implementation
widely installed; requires bypass stream
Page 11 of 48

ID
26
Model
Monochloramine Analyzer
Constituent
Detection Limit
Response Time
Response Time Score
Enclosure Rating
Nema 4x/IP66
Remote Operation and Output Signals 4-20 mA; 2 alarm relays; no self diagnostics
Reliability
monthly maintenance
Reliability Score
monthly calibration/ no self diagnostics
OM Score
Affordability
9900
Affordability Score
Security
passcode
Security Score
Implementation
installed remotely; requires a side stream
Page 12 of 48

ID
27
Model
Amperimetric Free Chlorine Analyzer
Constituent
Detection Limit
Response Time
Response Time Score
Enclosure Rating
Nema 4x
Remote Operation and Output Signals 4-20 mA; no self diagnositics

Reliability
2 years before replace membrane; no chems
Reliability Score
minimal required maintenance; no self diagnostics
OM Score
Affordability
4000
Affordability Score
Security
security code; no lock
Security Score
Implementation
87 psi max/10.5 gph side stream
Page 13 of 48

ID
28
Model
Amperimetric Total Chlorine Analyzer
Constituent
Detection Limit
Response Time
Response Time Score
Enclosure Rating
Nema 4x
Remote Operation and Output Signals 4-20 mA; no self diagnositics

Reliability
1 years before replace membrane; no chems
Reliability Score
minimal required maintenance; no self diagnostics
OM Score
Affordability
4000
Affordability Score
Security
security code; no lock
Security Score
Implementation
87 psi max/10.5 gph side stream
Page 14 of 48

ID
29
Model
PipeSonde
Constituent
Detection Limit
Response Time
Response Time Score
Enclosure Rating
Stainless Steel Casing
Remote Operation and Output Signals SCADA connection; no self diagnostics

Reliability
1 year warrenty on sensor chip
Reliability Score
Monthly sensor maintenance/cleaning; no self diag.
OM Score
Affordability
8000
Affordability Score
Security
none
Security Score
Implementation
300 psi max; no side stream; has operations exper.
Page 15 of 48

ID
30
Model
Turbidity
Constituent
Detection Limit
Response Time
Response Time Score
Enclosure Rating
Nema 4x
Remote Operation and Output Signals 4-20mA; 2 alarms; no self diagnostics

10
Reliability
2 yr. warranty; lamp only consumable
Reliability Score
monthly calibration/cleaning; no self diagnostics
OM Score
Affordability
1100
Affordability Score
Security
none
Security Score
Implementation
widely used; requires side stream
Page 16 of 48

ID
31
Model
Particle Counter
Constituent
Detection Limit
Response Time
Response Time Score
Enclosure Rating
Nema 4
Remote Operation and Output Signals 4-20 mA and other; digital output; RS485; no diag.
10
Reliability
laser life 3 years
Reliability Score
cleaning required periodically; annual calibration
OM Score
Affordability
4700
Affordability Score
Security
none
Security Score
Implementation
side stream necessary; cleaning freq. variable
Page 17 of 48

ID
32
Model
1950 Plus TOC Analyzer
Constituent
Detection Limit
Response Time
Response Time Score
Enclosure Rating
Nema 4x
Remote Operation and Output Signals 4-20 mA; RS 232; self diagnostics
10
Reliability
replace consumables monthly; maintenace 6 months
Reliability Score
consumables - gas, TOC std., pursulfate, acid
OM Score
Affordability
21000
Affordability Score
Security
some features passcode protected
Security Score
Implementation
gaining popularity; few in dist. system; side str.
Page 18 of 48

ID
33
Model
Sievers 900 TOC Analyzer
Constituent
Detection Limit
Response Time
Response Time Score
Enclosure Rating
IP 45
Remote Operation and Output Signals 4-20 mA; RS 485; alarms; self diagnostic
Reliability
replace persulfate monthly; UV lamp/6 months
Reliability Score
Approximately 20 hours/year maintanence
OM Score
Affordability
25000
Affordability Score
Security
passcode lockout
Security Score
Implementation
250 psi; 30-300 mL side stream; no gas required
Page 19 of 48

ID
34
Model
Six-Cense
Constituent
Detection Limit
Response Time
Response Time Score
Enclosure Rating
Nema 4x; IP 66
Remote Operation and Output Signals 4-20 mA; no self diagnostics

Reliability
6 months for probe
Reliability Score
self cleaning sensor
OM Score
Affordability
10000
Affordability Score
Security
passcode protected & lock
Security Score
Implementation
230 psi; installed in distribution systems
Page 20 of 48

ID
35
Model
Ultraviolet 254 nm Detector
Constituent
Detection Limit
Response Time
Response Time Score
Enclosure Rating
IP 67
Remote Operation and Output Signals 4-20 mA; no alarms; no self diagnostics
10
Reliability
replace lamp every 6 months
Reliability Score
no reagents; self cleaning wiper
OM Score
Affordability
14000
Affordability Score
Security
Security Score
Implementation
limited installation; requires side stream
Page 21 of 48

ID
36
Model
MOSSELMONITOR
Constituent
Detection Limit
Response Time
20
Response Time Score
Enclosure Rating
side stream wet/computer not
Remote Operation and Output Signals RS 232; RS 485; self diagnostic

10
Reliability
2 false positives/yr; adjustable sensitivity
Reliability Score
38 hours maint./yr; replace mussel every 3 months
OM Score
Affordability
40000
Affordability Score
Security
passcode; no lock
Security Score
Implementation
limited installation in chlorinated dist.; bypass
Page 22 of 48

ID
37
Model
ToxTrack
Constituent
Detection Limit
Response Time
Response Time Score
Enclosure Rating
water/dust proof; chem. Resistant
Remote Operation and Output Signals none - field kit only

10
Reliability
equipment is rugged
Reliability Score
minimal; no cal. as preprogrammed; no self diag.
OM Score
Affordability
1000
Affordability Score
Security
none
Security Score
Implementation
field kit; problems with dechlorinated samples
Page 23 of 48

ID
38
Model
POLYTOX
Constituent
Detection Limit
Response Time
20
Response Time Score
Enclosure Rating
splash resistant
Remote Operation and Output Signals not online; has RS 232; store 100 tests
10
Reliability
2 yr. warranty; replace DO membrane
Reliability Score
DO probe requires daily calibration
OM Score
Affordability
1800
Affordability Score
Security
none
Security Score
Implementation
strict pH, temp, and DO requirement; Lab use
Page 24 of 48

ID
39
Model
IQ Toxicity Test
Constituent
Detection Limit
Response Time
75
Response Time Score
Enclosure Rating
No electronics
Remote Operation and Output Signals Not online

10
Reliability
raise daphania on daily basis
Reliability Score
test complex; higher level of false positives
OM Score
Affordability
2400
Affordability Score
Security
none
Security Score
Implementation
daph. farmer; not online; most sensitive tox test
Page 25 of 48

ID
40
Model
Biological Monitoring
Constituent
Detection Limit
Response Time
60
Response Time Score
Enclosure Rating
Not rated
Remote Operation and Output Signals Alarm outputs; self diagnostic

10
Reliability
food replaced monthly; fish less often
Reliability Score
minimal - get fish from local fish store
OM Score
Affordability
40000
Affordability Score
Security
computer password
Security Score
Implementation
limited chlorindated dist. system experience.
Page 26 of 48

ID
41
Model
RAPTOR
Constituent
Detection Limit
Response Time
10
Response Time Score
Enclosure Rating
splash proof
Remote Operation and Output Signals not online; remote telemetry; RS 232
Reliability
Developed for Military
Reliability Score
no self diagnostics;
OM Score
Affordability
50000
Affordability Score
Security
lock on box
Security Score
Implementation
field kit; Only used by military at this time
Page 27 of 48

ID
42
Model
Deltatox
Constituent
Detection Limit
Response Time
Response Time Score
Enclosure Rating
splash proof
Remote Operation and Output Signals not online; RS 232; stores data
10
Reliability
lamp is long lasting
Reliability Score
no chem/reagent prep, long storage time
OM Score
Affordability
7000
Affordability Score
Security
can put lock on case
Security Score
Implementation
Widely used; use immediately
Page 28 of 48

ID
43
Model
Microtox
Constituent
Detection Limit
Response Time
15
Response Time Score
Enclosure Rating
lab insturment only
Remote Operation and Output Signals not online; RS 232

10
Reliability
lamp is long lasting
Reliability Score
no chem/reagent prep; long storage
OM Score
Affordability
18000
Affordability Score
Security
password on computer
Security Score
Implementation
lab only; widely used
Page 29 of 48

ID
44
Model
BioTox
Constituent
Detection Limit
Response Time
30
Response Time Score
Enclosure Rating
Lab setting
Remote Operation and Output Signals Not online; meant for lab; RS 232
Reliability
no calibration; no maintenance
Reliability Score
poor manual;
OM Score
Affordability
9000
Affordability Score
Security
has access code
Security Score
Implementation
not well accepted in water industry
Page 30 of 48

ID
45
Model
Dissolved Oxygen
Constituent
Detection Limit
Response Time
Response Time Score
Enclosure Rating
Nema 4x
Remote Operation and Output Signals 4-20 mA; no self diagnostic


Reliability
Reliability Score
replace membrane; calibrate weekly
OM Score
Affordability
Affordability Score
Security
passcode
Security Score
Implementation
some have air blast cleaning capability; side str.
Page 31 of 48

ID
46
Model
Temperature
Constituent
Detection Limit
Response Time
Response Time Score
Enclosure Rating
Nema 4x

10
Reliability
no consumables
Reliability Score
no self diagnostics
OM Score
Affordability
Affordability Score
Security
passcode
Security Score
Implementation
available through pH, conductivity, and others
Page 32 of 48

ID
47
Model
ORP
Constituent
Detection Limit
Response Time
Response Time Score
Enclosure Rating
Nema 4x

10
Reliability
1 yr warranty; 3 year before replace probe
Reliability Score
monthly calibration; no self diagnostics
OM Score
Affordability
Affordability Score
Security
passcode protected
Security Score
Implementation
used extensively; no side stream required
Page 33 of 48

ID
48
Model
pH
Constituent
Detection Limit
Response Time
Response Time Score
Enclosure Rating
Nema 4x

10
Reliability
1 year warranty; probe last several years
Reliability Score
calibration monthly; buffers inexpensive
OM Score
Affordability
Affordability Score
Security
passcode protected
Security Score
Implementation
used extensively, no side stream required
Page 34 of 48

ID
49
Model
Conductivity
Constituent
Detection Limit
Response Time
Response Time Score
Enclosure Rating
Nema 4x

10
Reliability
no consumables
Reliability Score
monthly calibration; no self diagnostics
OM Score
Affordability
Affordability Score
Security
Passcode protected
Security Score
Implementation
200 psi; no side stream required
Page 35 of 48

ID
50
Model
Sensicore WPE 55
Constituent
Detection Limit
Response Time
Response Time Score
Enclosure Rating
Nema 13; IP 65
Remote Operation and Output Signals Not online; RS 232


Reliability
replace sensor after 30 measurements
Reliability Score
calibrate every day.
OM Score
Affordability
2000
Affordability Score
Security
passcode and each sensor chip has code
Security Score
Implementation
Multiparameter analyzer; Available in Fall 04
Page 36 of 48

ID
51
Model
ToxScreen II
Constituent
Detection Limit
Response Time
30
Response Time Score
Enclosure Rating
Splash proof
Remote Operation and Output Signals Not online; RS 232

10
Reliability
No required maintenance
Reliability Score
No required maintenance
OM Score
Affordability
2900
Affordability Score
Security
passcode
Security Score
Implementation
Few in U.S.; problems with Cl2 & chloramines
Page 37 of 48

ID
52
Model
Algae Toximeter
Constituent
Detection Limit
Response Time
30
Response Time Score
Enclosure Rating
IP54
Remote Operation and Output Signals 4-20 mA; RS 232; self diagnostics

Reliability
single parameter test; higher false positives
Reliability Score
weekly maintenance required
OM Score
Affordability
Affordability Score
Security
Security Score
Implementation
In Europe for source monitoring/sidestream
Page 38 of 48

ID
53
Model
Daphnia Toximeter
Constituent
Detection Limit
Response Time
30
Response Time Score
Enclosure Rating
IP 54
Remote Operation and Output Signals 4-20 mA; RS 232; Ethernet


Reliability
adjustable level of sensitivity
Reliability Score
Weekly maintanence required
OM Score
Affordability
Affordability Score
Security
Security Score
Implementation
Few in dist. system; side stream
Page 39 of 48

ID
54
Model
Ion Chromatograph
Constituent
Detection Limit
Response Time
Response Time Score

Enclosure Rating
Laboratory Setting
Remote Operation and Output Signals Signal to computer; self diagnostic


Reliability
required frequent maintenance/monitoring
Reliability Score
high level of skill; carrier gas, eluent, etc.
OM Score
Affordability
Affordability Score
Security
connect to computer passocde
Security Score
Implementation
no online insturment avail. in U.S.; sidestream
Page 40 of 48

ID
55
Model
Gas Chromatography
Constituent
Detection Limit
Response Time
30
Response Time Score
Enclosure Rating
laboratory setting
Remote Operation and Output Signals singal to computer; some diagnostics


Reliability
required frequent monitoring/main; sample prep
Reliability Score
carrier gasses/skilled operator; maintenance
OM Score
Affordability
Affordability Score
Security
passcode on computer
Security Score
Implementation
online available; limited usage, mostly at WTP
Page 41 of 48

ID
56
Model
Atomic Adsorption
Constituent
Detection Limit
Response Time
Response Time Score

Enclosure Rating
laboratory setting
Remote Operation and Output Signals signal to computer; some diagnostics


Reliability
required frequent maint./monitoring; sample prep
Reliability Score
high level of skill; carrier gas; vent requried
OM Score
Affordability
Affordability Score
Security
connect to computer passcode
Security Score
Implementation
measure for individual metals - highly specific
Page 42 of 48

ID
58
Model
High Pressure Liquid Chromatography
Constituent
Detection Limit
Response Time
Response Time Score

Enclosure Rating
laboratory setting
Remote Operation and Output Signals signal to computer; some self diagnostics

Reliability
Reliability Score
skilled operators/maint./strict gas/elec require.
OM Score
Affordability
100000
Affordability Score
Security
computer passcode
Security Score
Implementation
few installed interantionally-many organics meas.
Page 44 of 48

ID
57
Model
Inductively Coupled Plasma
Constituent
Detection Limit
Response Time
Response Time Score
Enclosure Rating
Laboratory Setting
Remote Operation and Output Signals signal to coputer, some diagnositics


Reliability
Reliability Score
high level skill; Argon gas; vent required
OM Score
Affordability
200000
Affordability Score
Security
connected to coputer passcode
Security Score
Implementation
no online insturment - metals only
Page 43 of 48

ID
59
Model
Colorimeter
Constituent
Detection Limit
Response Time
Response Time Score
Enclosure Rating
Nema 4 and IP 65
Remote Operation and Output Signals 4-20 mA; digital, system diagnositics
Reliability
simple operation, annual lamp and o-ring replace.
Reliability Score
Self diagnostics; maintenance every three months
OM Score
Affordability
5000
Affordability Score
Security
Passcode protected, no lock
Security Score
Implementation
3/4" sidestream, uncommon online meas. for WTPs
Page 45 of 48

ID
60
Model
High Temp TOC Analyzer
Constituent
Detection Limit
Response Time
Response Time Score
Enclosure Rating
IP54
Remote Operation and Output Signals 4-20 mA, RS 232; self diagnositics

Reliability
Very robust; great sample handling
Reliability Score
Very low maintenance, self diagnositics
OM Score
Affordability
25000
Affordability Score
Security
passcode protected
Security Score
Implementation
230 V, 140 lbs, requires side stream
Page 46 of 48

ID
61
Model
EZ TOC - UV-pesulfate method
Constituent
Detection Limit
Response Time
Response Time Score
Enclosure Rating
Nema 4 and IP 65
Remote Operation and Output Signals 4-20 mA; RS 232, 2 alarms, and self diagnositic

Reliability
Very robust, great sample handling
Reliability Score
Automated calibration, self diagnostic
OM Score
Affordability
25000
Affordability Score
Security
passcode protected
Security Score
Implementation
110 or 220 V, requires TIC scrubber, NDIR detector
Page 47 of 48

ID
14
Model
Ion Selective Electrode - Cyanide
Constituent
Detection Limit
0.04

Response Time
Response Time Score
Enclosure Rating
splash proof/general water resistance
Remote Operation and Output Signals none - benchtop or field unit

Reliability
Probe replaced every other year
Reliability Score
Calib./polishing of probe required every use
OM Score
Affordability
1500
Affordability Score
Security
none
Security Score
Implementation
Field - not online/ISE common tech/pH adjust req.
Page 48 of 48
CBRTA
OCT 2004

Appendix B - Emerging Technology Evaluation Tables
Page B0
Emerging Technology Evaluation

ID
Model
PPO/Clay Amperometric Biosensor
Constituent
Cyanide
Detection Limit
0.3 mg/L
Response Time
7 s (20 nM conc)
Response Time Score
State of Comercial Readiness
laboratory testing only
State of Com Readiness Score
Remote Operation and Output Signals unknown, expected to have remote capability
unknown
Reliability
9% RSD on results
Reliability Score
unknown, maintanance reqd of electrode expected
OM Score
Affordability
unknown
Affordability Score
Level of Testing
Level of Testing Score
Implementation
assumed available within 5 yrs
Page 1 of 21

ID
Model
Flow Injection Analysis System
Constituent
Cyanide
Detection Limit
400 ppb
Response Time
150 s
Response Time Score
lab testing on environmental samples
Remote Operation and Output Signals demonstrated for 5 months

unknown
Reliability
>0.99 correlation coefficient on data
Reliability Score
gas diffusion needs frequent replacement
OM Score
Affordability
unknown
Affordability Score
Level of Testing
Implementation
assumed avail within 2 years
Page 2 of 21

ID
Model
Segmented Flow Injection-Amperometric Detection
Constituent
Cyanide
Detection Limit
0.5 ppb
Response Time
<4 min
Response Time Score
5 environmental samples done in lab
Remote Operation and Output Signals not defined yet

not defined yet
Reliability
linear regresion coeff 0.989 on data
Reliability Score
none defined yet
OM Score
Affordability
unknown
Affordability Score
Level of Testing
5, lab testing on environmental samples
Implementation
Page 3 of 21

ID
Model
Single Channel Chip-based Microsystem
Constituent
VX
Detection Limit
60 ppb

Response Time
10 s (screening) 2 min (individual measurement)
Response Time Score
lab prototype
Remote Operation and Output Signals unknown

unknown
Reliability
RSD 1.65%,
Reliability Score
high voltage power supply hazard, unk maint.
OM Score
Affordability
unknown
Affordability Score
Level of Testing
4, lab tests only without interferents
Implementation
Page 4 of 21

ID
Model
Electraphoresis Microchip with Conductivity Detect
Constituent
VX
Detection Limit
48 ug/l

Response Time
50 s
Response Time Score
lab prototypes

unknown
Reliability
RSD 3.8-5%
Reliability Score
high voltage required
OM Score
Affordability
unknown
Affordability Score
Level of Testing
5, environmental samples in a lab
Implementation
assumed <2 yrs
Page 5 of 21

ID
Model
Mercuric Iodide Room Temperature Detector
Constituent
Cesium 137
Detection Limit
0.1 mR/Hr
Response Time
60 s
Response Time Score
being manufactured
Remote Operation and Output Signals expected to be able to operate remotely

>5 yrs
Reliability
no routine maintenance, no change in time
Reliability Score
self diagnositics and calibration can be implement
OM Score
Affordability
$1.75K-$35.6K for 25x25mm xtl depending on thickne
Affordability Score
Level of Testing
Implementation
commercially available, limited production
Page 6 of 21

ID
Model
CZT Solid State Gamma Ray Detector
Constituent
Cesium 137
Detection Limit
0.2 mR/hr
Response Time
60 s
Response Time Score
manufactured commercially
Remote Operation and Output Signals dependent on device see www.xrfcorp.com

>10 yrs
Reliability
no maintenance, extremely high
Reliability Score
self diagnostics and self calibration available
OM Score
Affordability
<$10K
Affordability Score
Level of Testing
Implementation
xrf corp produces and sells analyzers with CZT
Page 7 of 21

ID
10
Model
Lanthanum Chloride doped with Cerium
Constituent
Cesium 137
Detection Limit
0.2 mR/hr
Response Time
60 s
Response Time Score
commercially available
Remote Operation and Output Signals yes

warrantee for 1 yr, expect >5 yr
Reliability
no maintenance required
Reliability Score
self diagnostics and calibration available
OM Score
Affordability
$3.3K as a complete detector
Affordability Score
Level of Testing
Implementation
commercially available
Page 8 of 21

ID
11
Model
Lanthanum Bromide doped with Cerium
Constituent
Cesium 137
Detection Limit
0.1 mR/h
Response Time
60 s
Response Time Score
available in 2 years

warrantee for 1 year, expect > 5 yr
Reliability
Reliability Score
self diagnostics and self calibration available
OM Score
Affordability
<$5K
Affordability Score
Level of Testing
Implementation
Page 9 of 21

ID
12
Model
High Pressure Xenon Proportional Counter
Constituent
Cesium 137
Detection Limit
0.2 uR/h
Response Time
8s
Response Time Score
available as prototype

>5 yrs
Reliability
no maintenance required
Reliability Score
self diagnostics and calibration available
OM Score
Affordability
$40K
Affordability Score
Level of Testing
Implementation
commercial production within 2 years
Page 10 of 21

ID
13
Model
aAstree Electronic Tongue
Constituent
Cyanide
Detection Limit
ppm - ppb
Response Time
3 min
Response Time Score
Remote Operation and Output Signals automated system/unattended operation

not defined
Reliability
routine maintenance to clean required
Reliability Score
not defined
OM Score
Affordability
Affordability Score
Level of Testing
Implementation
commercial product
Page 11 of 21

ID
14
Model
Ion Mobility Spectrometer - EVM II
Constituent
Chlordane
Detection Limit
ppb sensitivity (vapor)
Response Time
real-time
Response Time Score
Remote Operation and Output Signals remote monitoring capability

not defined
Reliability
low maintenance
Reliability Score
self diagnostics and calibration - 15 min warm up
OM Score
Affordability
Affordability Score
Level of Testing
Implementation
commercial product
Page 12 of 21

ID
15
Model
Chip-based chemical analysis, hand-held GC/LC/SAW
Constituent
Chlordane
Detection Limit
ppb sensitivity (gas & liquid phase sample)
Response Time
2 minutes
Response Time Score
prototype demonstration in controlled environment
Remote Operation and Output Signals automated, field portable, no remote signal
not defined
Reliability
not defined
Reliability Score
none defined
OM Score
Affordability
$5K
Affordability Score
Level of Testing
Implementation
Page 13 of 21

ID
16
Model
GC/SAW Electronic Nose CAM
Constituent
Chlordane
Detection Limit
ppb for VOCs, ppt for semi-VOC
Response Time
10 sec
Response Time Score
Remote Operation and Output Signals able to operate remotely w/ GPS

solid state, long-life
Reliability
STDEV<2%, 30-day stability
Reliability Score
hand-held or benchtop, low maintenance
OM Score
Affordability
$21K - $26K price range
Affordability Score
Level of Testing
Implementation
commercial product
Page 14 of 21

ID
17
Model
Polymer-based (MIP) Lanthanide Luminescent Sensor
Constituent
Sarin
Detection Limit
7 ppt in sol., linear range from 10 ppt to 10 ppm
Response Time
80% response < 8 min.
Response Time Score
breadboard validation in lab

unknown
Reliability
unknown
Reliability Score
unknown
OM Score
Affordability
unknown
Affordability Score
Level of Testing
Implementation
<5 years
Page 15 of 21

ID
18
Model
In-Situ Chemiresistor Sensor
Constituent
Chlordane
Detection Limit
0.1% saturated vapor pressure
Response Time
3 min
Response Time Score
still in developmnt
Remote Operation and Output Signals sample chamber requires equilibrate time (hours)
4 months
Reliability
sensor requires agent specific calibration
Reliability Score
sensor polymers degrade and require regular changi
OM Score
Affordability
<$100 per unit
Affordability Score
Level of Testing
Implementation
<5 years depending on attaining commercial partner
Page 16 of 21

ID
19
Model
Quartz Crystal Microbalance
Constituent
Chlordane
Detection Limit
50 ug/L
Response Time
multiple measurements in a 24 hr period
Response Time Score
under development
Remote Operation and Output Signals remote probe with unspecified output
> 1 year
Reliability
requires several hours to reequilibrate if relocat
Reliability Score
biannual maintenance required
OM Score
Affordability
$7500 per probe
Affordability Score
Level of Testing
Implementation
<2 years
Page 17 of 21

ID
20
Model
Handheld GC
Constituent
Chlordane
Detection Limit
ppb
Response Time
3 minutes
Response Time Score
at prototype stage
Remote Operation and Output Signals requires an operator with minimal lab experience
>10 years
Reliability
not specified
Reliability Score
typical GC maintenance
OM Score
Affordability
$30,000
Affordability Score
Level of Testing
Implementation
<2 years
Page 18 of 21

ID
21
Model
Tiny-TOF Mass Spectrometer
Constituent
Ricin
Detection Limit
10 pmol
Response Time
<1 s- several seconds dependent on sample quality
Response Time Score
prototypes in testing
Remote Operation and Output Signals currently lap top/LabView and oscilloscope outputs
>10 years
Reliability
unknown, dependent on current spectral library
Reliability Score
requires high vacuum system and laser maintenance
OM Score
Affordability
unknown
Affordability Score
Level of Testing
Implementation
<5 years
Page 19 of 21

ID
22
Model
Portable Raman Chemical ID System
Constituent
VX
Detection Limit
12 mg/L (1 ug/L for CN)
Response Time
30 s
Response Time Score
in production
Remote Operation and Output Signals output to computer available

>10 yrs
Reliability
no specifications listed
Reliability Score
Low maintenance, no moving parts
OM Score
Affordability
$50K
Affordability Score
Level of Testing
Implementation
available now
Page 20 of 21

ID
23
Model
Acetylcholinesterase-doped Electrode Coating
Constituent
VX
Detection Limit
<1 mg/L
Response Time
real time
Response Time Score
under development
Remote Operation and Output Signals unknown, but anticipated

unknown
Reliability
unknown
Reliability Score
unknown
OM Score
Affordability
unknown
Affordability Score
Level of Testing
Implementation
<5 years
Page 21 of 21
CBRTA
OCT 2004

Appendix C - Vendor Contact Information
Page C0
Monitoring Technology Contact Information

ID
27
Model
Multiparameter Field Kit
Trade Name
Sensicore WPE 55
Company
Sensicore Inc
Address
745 Phoenix Dr
City
Ann Arbor
State
MI
Zip
48108
Contact Name
Uwe Michalak
Phone
734-528-6300
Fax
734-528-6301
Email
sales@sensicore.com
Website
www.sensicore.com
Investigator
Nick Burns
Inv Company
Black & Veatch
Ref
Page 1 of 59

ID
28
Model
Multianalyte Bioassay System
Trade Name
RAPTOR
Company
Research International
Address
18706-142nd Ave N. E.
City
Woodinville
State
WA
Zip
98072
Contact Name
Chuck Jung
Phone
800-927-7831
Fax
425-485-9137
Email
info@resrchintl.com
Website
www.resrchintl.com/raptor.html
Investigator
Nick Burns
Inv Company
Black & Veatch
Ref
Page 2 of 59

ID
29
Model
Online Chlorine (Free or Total) Monitor
Trade Name
Dulcotest Chloirne Sensor - Amperimetric
Company
ProMinent Fluid Controls
Address
136 Industry Dr.
City
Pittsburgh
State
PA
Zip
15275
Contact Name
Phone
412-787-2517
Fax
412-787-0704
Email
sales@prominent.cc
Website
www.prominent.cc
Investigator
Nick Burns
Inv Company
Black & Veatch
Ref
Page 3 of 59

ID
30
Model
Trade Name
GLI AccuChlor2 - 2 probe amperimetric
Company
Hach Company
Address
P.O. Box 389
City
Loveland
State
CO
Zip
80539
Contact Name
Terry Engelhardt
Phone
800-227-4224 ext. 2327
Fax
Email
tengelhardt@hach.com
Website
www.hach.com
Investigator
Nick Burns
Inv Company
Black & Veatch
Ref
Page 4 of 59

ID
31
Model
Online pH Monitor
Trade Name
GLI pHD
Company
Hach Company
Address
P.O. Box 389
City
Loveland
State
CO
Zip
80539
Contact Name
Terry Engelhardt
Phone
800-227-4224 ext. 2327
Fax
Email
Website
www.hach.com
Investigator
Nick Burns
Inv Company
Black & Veatch
Ref
Page 5 of 59

ID
32
Model
Online Oxidation/Reduction Potential (ORP) Monitor
Trade Name
GLI ORP
Company
Hach Company
Address
P.O. Box 389
City
Loveland
State
CO
Zip
80539
Contact Name
Terry Engelhardt
Phone
800-227-4224 ext. 2327
Fax
Email
Website
www.hach.com
Investigator
Nick Burns
Inv Company
Black & Veatch
Ref
Page 6 of 59

ID
33
Model
Online Conductivity Meter
Trade Name
GLI 3700E
Company
Hach Company
Address
P.O. Box 389
City
Loveland
State
CO
Zip
80539
Contact Name
Terry Engelhardt
Phone
800-227-4224 ext. 2327
Fax
Email
Website
www.hach.com
Investigator
Nick Burns
Inv Company
Black & Veatch
Ref
Page 7 of 59

ID
34
Model
Online Multiparameter Monitoring System
Trade Name
WDM PipeSonde
Company
Hach Company
Address
P.O. Box 389
City
Loveland
State
CO
Zip
80539
Contact Name
Terry Engelhardt
Phone
800-227-4224 ext. 2327
Fax
Email
Website
www.hach.com
Investigator
Nick Burns
Inv Company
Black & Veatch
Ref
Page 8 of 59

ID
35
Model
Trade Name
Water Distribution Monitoring Panel
Company
Hach Company
Address
P.O. Box 389
City
Loveland
State
CO
Zip
80539
Contact Name
Terry Engelhardt
Phone
800-227-4224 ext. 2327
Fax
Email
Website
www.hach.com
Investigator
Nick Burns
Inv Company
Black & Veatch
Ref
Page 9 of 59

ID
36
Model
Rapid Toxicity Testing System
Trade Name
ToxTrak
Company
Hach Company
Address
P.O. Box 389
City
Loveland
State
CO
Zip
80539
Contact Name
Terry Engelhardt
Phone
800-227-4224 ext. 2327
Fax
Email
Website
www.hach.com
Investigator
Nick Burns
Inv Company
Black & Veatch
Ref
Page 10 of 59

ID
37
Model
Online TOC Monitor
Trade Name
1950 Plus TOC
Company
Hach Company
Address
P.O. Box 389
City
Loveland
State
CO
Zip
80539
Contact Name
Terry Engelhardt
Phone
800-227-4224 ext. 2327
Fax
Email
Website
www.hach.com
Investigator
Nick Burns
Inv Company
Black & Veatch
Ref
Page 11 of 59

ID
38
Model
Online UV254 Monitor
Trade Name
SAC UV254
Company
Hach Company
Address
P.O. Box 389
City
Loveland
State
CO
Zip
80539
Contact Name
Terry Engelhardt
Phone
800-227-4224 ext. 2327
Fax
Email
Website
www.hach.com
Investigator
Nick Burns
Inv Company
Black & Veatch
Ref
Page 12 of 59

ID
39
Model
Trade Name
CL 17 - DPD Method
Company
Hach Company
Address
P.O. Box 389
City
Loveland
State
CO
Zip
80539
Contact Name
Terry Engelhardt
Phone
800-227-4224 ext. 2327
Fax
Email
Website
www.hach.com
Investigator
Nick Burns
Inv Company
Black & Veatch
Ref
Page 13 of 59

ID
40
Model
Online Chloramine and Ammonia Monitor
Trade Name
APA 6000
Company
Hach Company
Address
P.O. Box 389
City
Loveland
State
CO
Zip
80539
Contact Name
Terry Engelhardt
Phone
800-227-4224 ext. 2327
Fax
Email
Website
www.hach.com
Investigator
Nick Burns
Inv Company
Black & Veatch
Ref
Page 14 of 59

ID
41
Model
Online Turbidity Monitor
Trade Name
1720E
Company
Hach Company
Address
P.O. Box 389
City
Loveland
State
CO
Zip
80539
Contact Name
Terry Engelhardt
Phone
800-227-4224 ext. 2327
Fax
Email
Website
www.hach.com
Investigator
Nick Burns
Inv Company
Black & Veatch
Ref
Page 15 of 59

ID
42
Model
Online Particle Count Monitor
Trade Name
2200 PCX Particle Counter
Company
Hach Company
Address
P.O. Box 389
City
Loveland
State
CO
Zip
80539
Contact Name
Terry Engelhardt
Phone
800-227-4224 ext. 2327
Fax
Email
Website
www.hach.com
Investigator
Nick Burns
Inv Company
Black & Veatch
Ref
Page 16 of 59

ID
43
Model
Trade Name
Six-Cense
Company
Dascore
Address
11715 Rox Rd. Suite 400
City
Indianapolis
State
IN
Zip
46236
Contact Name
Matt Huffine
Phone
866-321-3804
Fax
317-823-8320
Email
matt.huffine@dascore.com
Website
www.dascore.com
Investigator
Nick Burns
Inv Company
Black & Veatch
Ref
Page 17 of 59

ID
44
Model
Trade Name
Troll 9000
Company
In-Situ Inc.
Address
210 South Third St.
City
Laramine
State
WY
Zip
82070
Contact Name
David Wardwell
Phone
800-446-7488
Fax
307-721-7598
Email
dwardwell@in-situ.com
Website
www.enviroquip.com
Investigator
Nick Burns
Inv Company
Black & Veatch
Ref
Page 18 of 59

ID
45
Model
Trade Name
DataSonde 4a
Company
HYDROLAB
Address
12921 Burnet Rd.
City
Austin
State
TX
Zip
78727
Contact Name
Phone
800-949-3766
Fax
512-255-3106
Email
sales@hydrolab.com
Website
www.hydrolab.com
Investigator
Nick Burns
Inv Company
Black & Veatch
Ref
Page 19 of 59

ID
46
Model
Online Temperature Sensor
Trade Name
Omnigrad T TST 414
Company
Endress + Hauser Holding
Address
Kagen Str. 7
City
Reinach/ BL
State
Switzerland
Zip
4153
Contact Name
Phone
+41 61 715 77 00
Fax
+41 61 715 77 01
Email
info@holding.endress.com
Website
www.endress.com
Investigator
Nick Burns
Inv Company
Black & Veatch
Ref
Page 20 of 59

ID
47
Model
Ion Specific Electrod - Cyanide
Trade Name
Company
WTW Measurement Systems
Address
3170 Metro Parkway
City
Ft. Myers
State
FL
Zip
33916
Contact Name
Phone
239-337-7122
Fax
239-337-2045
Email
info@wtw-inc.com
Website
http://wtw-inc.com
Investigator
Nick Burns
Inv Company
Black & Veatch
Ref
CN 501 and Ion Pocket Meter 340i
Page 21 of 59

ID
48
Model
Trade Name
VVR V-1000 Multi-analyte Photometer
Company
CHEMetrics, Inc.
Address
4295 Catlett Rd
City
Calverton
State
VA
Zip
20138
Contact Name
Phone
800-356-3072
Fax
540-788-4856
Email
technical@chemetrics.com
Website
www.chemetrics.com
Investigator
Nick Burns
Inv Company
Black & Veatch
Ref
Page 22 of 59

ID
49
Model
Trade Name
1919 SMART2 Colorimeter
Company
LaMotte Company
Address
802 Washington Ave.
City
Chesterton
State
MD
Zip
21620
Contact Name
Phone
800-344-3100
Fax
410-778-6394
Email
jwe@lamotte.com
Website
www.lamotte.com
Investigator
Nick Burns
Inv Company
Black & Veatch
Ref
Page 23 of 59

ID
50
Model
Trade Name
Mini-Analyst Model 942-032
Company
Orbeco-Hellige
Address
185 marine ST
City
Farmingdale
State
NY
Zip
11735
Contact Name
Phone
800-922-5242
Fax
631-293-8258
Email
jesposito@orbeco.com
Website
www.orbeco.com
Investigator
Nick Burns
Inv Company
Black & Veatch
Ref
Page 24 of 59

ID
52
Model
Ion Selective Electrode - Cyanide
Trade Name
Model 9606 Probe with Model 290 A+ Meter
Company
Thermo Orion
Address
50 Cummings Ctr.
City
Beverly
State
MA
Zip
1915
Contact Name
Cory Taylor
Phone
800-636-6162
Fax
Email
corytaylor@thermo.com
Website
www.thermo.com
Investigator
Nick Burns
Inv Company
Black & Veatch
Ref
Page 25 of 59

ID
53
Model
Online Toxicity Monitor
Trade Name
MOSSELMONITOR
Company
Delta Consult
Address
P. O. Box 71
City
Kapell AC
State
Netherlands
Zip
4420
Contact Name
Jan de Maat
Phone
+31 113 34 35 10
Fax
+31 113 34 20 62
Email
Jan.de.maat@deltaconsult.nl
Website
www.mosselmonitor.com
Investigator
Nick Burns
Inv Company
Black & Veatch
Ref
Page 26 of 59

ID
54
Model
Trade Name
Daphnia Toximeter
Company
bbe Moldaenke
Address
10979 Reed Hartman Highway, Suite 301
City
Cincinnati
State
OH
Zip
25242
Contact Name
David Alexander
Phone
800-326-4981
Fax
800-326-4981
Email
david.alexander@bbe.us
Website
www.bbe-moldaenke.com
Investigator
Nick Burns
Inv Company
Black & Veatch
Ref
Page 27 of 59

ID
55
Model
Trade Name
Algae Toximeter
Company
bbe Moldaenke
Address
10979 Reed Hartman Highway, Suite 301
City
Cincinnati
State
OH
Zip
25242
Contact Name
David Alexander
Phone
800-326-4981
Fax
800-326-4981
Email
david.alexander@bbe.us
Website
www.bbe-moldaenke.com
Investigator
Nick Burns
Inv Company
Black & Veatch
Ref
Page 28 of 59

ID
56
Model
Trade Name
Bio-Sensor
Company
Biological Monitoring Inc.
Address
1800 Kraft Dr. Suilte 101
City
Blacksburg
State
VA
Zip
24060
Contact Name
Dave Gruber
Phone
540-953-2821
Fax
540-951-1481
Email
bmi@biomon.com
Website
www.bionom.com
Investigator
Nick Burns
Inv Company
Black & Veatch
Ref
Page 29 of 59

ID
57
Model
Rapid Tocicity Testing System
Trade Name
Polytox
Company
Interlab Supply
Address
9200 Neew Trails Dr.
City
The Woodlands
State
TX
Zip
77381
Contact Name
Phone
888-876-2844
Fax
281-298-9411
Email
pete@interlabsupply.com
Website
www.interlabsupply.com
Investigator
Nick Burns
Inv Company
Black & Veatch
Ref
Page 30 of 59

ID
11
Model
Lanthanum Bromide doped with Cerium
Trade Name
Company
Saint-Gobain (Bicron)
Address
City
Paris
State
France
Zip
Contact Name
E. V. D. van Loef
Phone
1-800-877-7780
Fax
Email
Website
Investigator
Inv Company
Ref
IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science 2003,50,1.
Page 31 of 59

ID
12
Model
High Pressure Xenon Proportional Counter
Trade Name
HPXe-1001
Company
Constellation Technologies+
Address
7887 Bryan Dairy Road
City
Largo
State
FL
Zip
33777
Contact Name
John Hintenach
Phone
727-547-0600 x 6151
Fax
727-545-6150
Email
hintenach@contech.com
Website
www.contech.com
Investigator
Bob Shipmann
Inv Company
GD-AIS
Ref
manufactured commercially by Constellation Tech.
Page 32 of 59

ID
13
Model
aAstree Electronic Tongue
Trade Name
aASTREE
Company
Alpha M.O.S. Multi Organoleptic Systems
Address
33 North River Street
City
Hillsborough
State
NJ
Zip
8844
Contact Name
Dr. Sandrine Isz, Program Manager
Phone
908-359-9396
Fax
908-359-9398
Email
isz@alpha-mos.com
Website
http://www.alpha-mos.com
Investigator
jcd
Inv Company
gdais
Ref
manufactured commercially by Alpha MOS
Page 33 of 59

ID
14
Model
Ion Mobility Spectrometer - EVM II
Trade Name
EVM II - Environmental Vapor Monitor
Company
FemtoScan Corporation
Address
747 East South Temple, Suite 101
City
Salt Lake City
State
UT
Zip
84102
Contact Name
unavailable
Phone
801-322-1180
Fax
801-322-1160
Email
sales@femtoscan.com
Website
www.femtoscan.com
Investigator
jcd
Inv Company
gdais
Ref
manufactured commercially by FemtoScan
Page 34 of 59

ID
15
Model
Chip-based chemical analysis, hand-held GC/LC/SAW
Trade Name
Sandia Chem Lab on a Chip
Company
Sandia National Laboratories, New Mexico
Address
PO Box 5800
City
Albuquerque
State
NM
Zip
87185
Contact Name
Duane Lindner
Phone
(925) 294-3306
Fax
Email
dllindn@sandia.gov
Website
www.sandia.gov
Investigator
jcd
Inv Company
gdais
Ref
Sandia News Release
Page 35 of 59

ID
16
Model
GC/SAW Electronic Nose CAM
Trade Name
zNose
Company
Electronic Sensor Technology
Address
1077 Business Center Circle
City
Newbury Park
State
CA
Zip
91320
Contact Name
Dr. Edward J. Staples, Managing Director
Phone
(805) 480-1994
Fax
(805) 480-1984
Email
staples@estcal.com
Website
http://www.znose.com
Investigator
jcd
Inv Company
gdais
Ref
Symposia Presentation, US patents 5,289,715
Page 36 of 59

ID
17
Model
Polymer-based (MIP) Lanthanide Luminescent Sensor
Trade Name
none
Company
Johns Hopkins Univ. Appl. Physics Lab
Address
11100 Johns Hopkins Road
City
Laurel
State
MD
Zip
20723
Contact Name
George M. Murray
Phone
443-778-3882
Fax
Email
george.murray@jhuapl.edu
Website
www.apl.jhu.edu
Investigator
jcd
Inv Company
gdais
Ref
Anal. Chem. 1999, V 71, pp 373-378.
Page 37 of 59

ID
18
Model
Trade Name
Company
Sandia National Laboratories
Address
PO Box 5800
City
Albuquerque
State
NM
Zip
87185
Contact Name
Clifford K. Ho
Phone
505-844-2384
Fax
Email
ckho@sandia.gov
Website
www.sandia.gov/sensor
Investigator
Eric Black
Inv Company
GD-AIS
Ref
EPA Website Review Article
Page 38 of 59

ID
19
Model
Quartz Crystal Microbalance
Trade Name
Quartz Crystal Microbalance Sensor
Company
Nomadics, Inc
Address
1024 S. Innovation Way
City
Stillwater
State
OK
Zip
74074
Contact Name
Joel Roark
Phone
405-372-9535
Fax
Email
jroark@nomadics.com
Website
www.nomadics.com
Investigator
Eric Black
Inv Company
GD-AIS
Ref
EPA Website Review Article
Page 39 of 59

ID
20
Model
Handheld GC
Trade Name
Handheld GC
Company
Advanced Field Systems, Inc.
Address
City
Oakley
State
CA
Zip
94551
Contact Name
Terrence Cullen
Phone
530-521-9270
Fax
415-334-5925
Email
terrencecullen@handheldgc.com
Website
www.handheldgc.com
Investigator
Eric Black
Inv Company
GD-AIS
Ref
EPA Website Review document
Page 40 of 59

ID
21
Model
Tiny-TOF Mass Spectrometer
Trade Name
Tiny_TOF
Company
Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Laboratories
Address
11000 Johns Hopkins Road
City
Laurel
State
MD
Zip
20723
Contact Name
Tim Cornish
Phone
443-778-5000
Fax
Email
tim.cornish@jhapl.edu
Website
www.jhuapl.edu
Investigator
Eric Black
Inv Company
GD-AIS
Ref
Johns Hopkins APL Technical Digest V24 2003, pp1-6
Page 41 of 59

ID
22
Model
Portable Raman Chemical ID System
Trade Name
InPhotote
Company
InPhotonics, Inc.
Address
111 Downey St.
City
Norwood
State
MA
Zip
2062
Contact Name
none given
Phone
781-440-0202
Fax
781-551-0283
Email
info@infotonics.com
Website
www.infotonics.com
Investigator
Eric Black
Inv Company
GD-AIS
Ref
Website
Page 42 of 59

ID
23
Model
Acetylcholinesterase-doped Electrode Coating
Trade Name
none given
Company
HRL Laboratories
Address
3011 Malibu Canyon Road
City
Malibu
State
CA
Zip
90265
Contact Name
Frederick Yamagishi
Phone
310-317-5000
Fax
none listed
Email
webmaster@hrl.com
Website
www.hrl.com
Investigator
Eric Black
Inv Company
GD-AIS
Ref
US Patent 6,730,212
Page 43 of 59

ID
26
Model
Online TOC Analyzer
Trade Name
Sievers 900 TOC Analyzer
Company
Ionics Instruments
Address
6060 Sprine Rd.
City
Boulder
State
CO
Zip
80301
Contact Name
Rick Dunn
Phone
303-444-4491 ext. 251
Fax
303-444-9453
Email
marketing@ionicsinstruments.com
Website
www.ionicsinstruments.com
Investigator
Nick Burns
Inv Company
Black & Veatch
Ref
Page 44 of 59

ID
58
Model
Trade Name
Eclox
Company
Severn Trent Services
Address
3000 Advance Lane
City
Colmar
State
PA
Zip
18915
Contact Name
Frank Kaiser
Phone
215-997-4025
Fax
215-997-4062
Email
fkaiser@sts.com
Website
www.severntrentservices.com
Investigator
Nick Burns
Inv Company
Black & Veatch
Ref
Page 45 of 59

ID
59
Model
Trade Name
ToxScreen II
Company
CheckLight, Ltd.
Address
P.O. Box 72
City
Qiryat Tivon
State
Isreal
Zip
36000
Contact Name
Phone
972-4-99-305-30
Fax
972-4-95-331-76
Email
info@checklight.co.il
Website
www.checklight.co.il
Investigator
Nick Burns
Inv Company
Black & Veatch
Ref
Page 46 of 59

ID
60
Model
Trade Name
Microtox
Company
Strategic Diagnostics, Inc
Address
111 Pencader Dr.
City
Newark
State
DE
Zip
19702
Contact Name
David Deardorff
Phone
800-544-8881
Fax
610-688-6157
Email
ddeardorff@sdix.com
Website
www.sdix.com
Investigator
Nick Burns
Inv Company
Black & Veatch
Ref
Page 47 of 59

ID
61
Model
Trade Name
IQ Toxidity Test
Company
AquaSurvey, Inc.
Address
499 Point Breeze Rd
City
Flemington
State
NJ
Zip
8822
Contact Name
Phone
908-788-8700
Fax
908-788-9165
Email
mail@aquasurvey.com
Website
www.aquasurvey.com/index.html
Investigator
Nick Burns
Inv Company
Black & Veatch
Ref
Page 48 of 59

ID
62
Model
Trade Name
BioTox
Company
Hidex Oy
Address
Mustionkatu 2
City
Turku
State
Finland
Zip
20750
Contact Name
Phone
+358 2 275 0557
Fax
+358 2 241 0075
Email
risto.juvonen@hidex.com
Website
www.hidex.com
Investigator
Nick Burns
Inv Company
Black & Veatch
Ref
Page 49 of 59

ID
63
Model
Colorimeter
Trade Name
Wedgewood 980 and AF21 Sensor
Company
Wedgewood Technology
Address
300 Industryial Rd
City
San Carlos
State
CA
Zip
94070
Contact Name
Phone
800-241-8404
Fax
650-593-0235
Email
wedgewood@wedgewoodtech.com
Website
www.wedgewoodtech.com
Investigator
Nick Burns
Inv Company
Black & Veatch
Ref
Page 50 of 59

ID
64
Model
High Temp and UV-persulftate TOC analyzers
Trade Name
STIP TOC and EZ TOC
Company
Isco Inc.
Address
4700 Superior St
City
Lincoln
State
NE
Zip
68504
Contact Name
Phone
800-228-4250
Fax
402-465-3022
Email
info@isco.com
Website
www.isco.com
Investigator
Inv Company
Ref
Page 51 of 59

ID
Model
PPO/Clay Amperometric Biosensor
Trade Name
none
Company
Universite Joseph Fourier
Address
City
Grenoble
State
France
Zip
Contact Name
Serge Cosnier
Phone
Fax
0033476514267
Email
serge.cosnier@ujf-grenoble.fr
Website
Investigator
Eric Black
Inv Company
GD-AIS
Ref
Anal. Chem. 2004, V 76, pp 178-183
Page 52 of 59

ID
Model
Flow Injection Analysis System
Trade Name
none
Company
Research Center for Advanced Science and Technolog
Address
University of Tokyo
City
Tokyo
State
Japan
Zip
Contact Name
Isao Karube
Phone
81-3-5452-5220
Fax
81-3-5452-5227
Email
karube@bio.rcast.u-tokyo.ac.jp
Website
Investigator
Eric Black
Inv Company
GD-AIS
Ref
Environ. Sci. Technol. 2000, V 34, pp 2618-2622
Page 53 of 59

ID
Model
Segmented Flow Injection-Amperometric Detection
Trade Name
none
Company
Dept. Environmental Sciences
Address
University North Carolina
City
Chapel Hill
State
NC
Zip
27599
Contact Name
Howard Weinberg
Phone
919-966-3859
Fax
919-966-7911
Email
howard_weinberg@unc.edu
Website
Investigator
Eric Black
Inv Company
GD-AIS
Ref
Anal. Chem. 2002, V 74, pp 6055-6063
Page 54 of 59

ID
Model
Single Channel Chip-based Microsystem
Trade Name
none
Company
Department of Chemistry
Address
New Mexico State University
City
Las Cruces
State
NM
Zip
88003
Contact Name
Joseph Wang
Phone
Fax
Email
joewang@nmsu.edu
Website
Investigator
Eric Black
Inv Company
GD-AIS
Ref
Anal. Chem. 2002, V 74, pp 1187-1191.
Page 55 of 59

ID
Model
Electraphoresis Microchip with Conductivity Detect
Trade Name
none
Company
Department of Chemistry
Address
New Mexico State University
City
Las Cruces
State
NM
Zip
88003
Contact Name
Joseph Wang
Phone
Fax
Email
joewang@nmsu.edu
Website
Investigator
Eric Black
Inv Company
GD-AIS
Ref
Anal. Chem. 2002, V 74, pp 6121-6125.
Page 56 of 59

ID
Model
Mercuric Iodide Room Temperature Detector
Trade Name
Mercury Module
Company
Constellation Technologies
Address
7887 Bryan Dairy Road
City
Largo
State
FL
Zip
33377
Contact Name
Phone
727.547.0600 ext. 6151
Fax
727.545.6150
Email
hintenach@contech.com
Website
www.contech.com
Investigator
Bob Shipmann
Inv Company
GD-AIS
Ref
personal contact/website
Page 57 of 59

ID
Model
CZT Solid State Gamma Ray Detector
Trade Name
Company
EVProducts
Address
373 Saxonburg Blvd
City
Saxonburg
State
PA
Zip
16056
Contact Name
Phone
877-527-9782
Fax
724-352-4435
Email
Website
www.evproducts.com
Investigator
Bob Shipmann
Inv Company
GD-AIS
Ref
manufactured by evproducts
Page 58 of 59

ID
10
Model
Lanthanum Chloride doped with Cerium
Trade Name
Company
Saint-Gobain (Bicron)
Address
City
Paris
State
France
Zip
Contact Name
E. V. D. van Loef
Phone
1-800-877-7780
Fax
Email
Website
Investigator
Bob Shipmann
Inv Company
GD-AIS
Ref
IEEE transactions on Nuclear Science 2003, V 50
Page 59 of 59

Water Monitoring Equipment Assessment

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Water Monitoring Equipment Assessment

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CBRTA

(This page intentionally left blank.)

The National Technology

Water Monitoring Equipment for Toxic

Chemical, Biological, and Radiological Technology Alliance

Water Monitoring Equipment for Toxic

List of Figures ................................................................................................................................. ii

Water Monitoring Equipment for Toxic

4.2 Atomic Absorption Spectroscopy ........................................................................................2

Page iii of iii

Water Monitoring Equipment for Toxic

6.3.2 Chemiluminescence .................................................................................................2

Chemical, Biological, and Radiological Technology Alliance

Water Monitoring Equipment for Toxic

Chemical, Biological, and Radiological Technology Alliance

Water Monitoring Equipment for Toxic

Water Monitoring Equipment for Toxic

Table 5-10. Tiny-TOF Mass Spectrometer Evaluation................................................................... 2

Chemical, Biological, and Radiological Technology Alliance

Page vii of vii

Water Monitoring Equipment for Toxic

Acronyms and Abbreviations

Biological oxygen demand

Environmental Protection Agency

Federal Bureau of Investigation

Chemical, Biological, and Radiological Technology Alliance

Page viii of viii

Water Monitoring Equipment for Toxic

Acronyms and Abbreviations (continued)

Hand held gas chromatograph

Lethal dose 50 (dose causing death in 50 percent of the exposed population)

Electrical current, milliamp

Chemical, Biological, and Radiological Technology Alliance

Water Monitoring Equipment for Toxic

Acronyms and Abbreviations (continued)

National Electrical Manufacturers Association

Oxidation reduction potential

Hydrogen ion concentration

Quartz crystal microbalances

Surface acoustic wave

Volt alternating current

Chemical, Biological, and Radiological Technology Alliance

Water Monitoring Equipment for Toxic

Acronyms and Abbreviations (continued)

Water Pollution Control Federation

Chemical, Biological, and Radiological Technology Alliance

Water Monitoring Equipment for Toxic

Page xii of xii

Water Monitoring Equipment for Toxic

Page xiii of xiii

Water Monitoring Equipment for Toxic

Chemical, Biological, and Radiological Technology Alliance

Page xiv of xiv

Water Monitoring Equipment for Toxic

Development of technology to measure total volatile organic carbon. Because volatile

Development of an inexpensive, continuous gamma radiation monitoring instrument for

Continued refinement of the detection limits for existing monitoring technologies.

Chemical, Biological, and Radiological Technology Alliance

Water Monitoring Equipment for Toxic

Development and/or application of monitoring instruments suitable for installation in the

Development of technology to measure a wider range of contaminants using a single

Research should be conducted using all of the monitoring technologies evaluated to