Immunoassay Monitoring of PCBs Research Articles

eggs, which bioaccumulate greater concentrations of PCBs. However, the extraction should be optimized and the kit calibrated for each new tissue or species tested.

This study addressed a limited set of extraction conditions and immunoassay protocol variables. Many conditions not examined in this study could improve assay performance. The choice of solvent is important to the performance of the assay. Sensitivity could be improved by increasing the volume of sample per tube, if the solvent used did not extract in- terferences and was fully compatible with the aqueous an- tibody system. More rigorous extractions, concentration of samples by volume reduction, and clean up procedures to remove interferences would all improve sensitivity. However, any procedure involving sophisticated lab equipment would limit the utility of the kit under field conditions.

4 Conclusions

The EnviroGard T M ELISA kit is a useful screening tool for detecting concentrations of PCBs in environmental samples in the low mg/kg range, and when a resolution of more than 0.83 mg/kg in sediments or 1.6 mg/kg in fish is acceptable. DMSO extractions of dried sediment provide acceptable recoveries and are compatible with the ELISA. The LOD of the DMSO system is 0.9 mg/kg PCBs in dried sediment. Isopropanol extraction of homogenates of fish muscle dried with sodium sulfate also provides high recovery and is com- patible with the ELISA, with an LOD of 0.6 mg/kg. The ELISA has insufficient resolution to be useful as a screening tool for PCBs in fish muscle at the concentrations currently found in the Great Lakes, but does have sufficient sensitivity and resolution for use in screening sediments during dredg- ing operations and remedial action planning.

Acknowledgements

This work was sponsored by the Great Lakes Protection Fund. Support for C. RaCHTER was provided by an NtEHS training grant. EnviroGard T M

ELISA kits were provided by Joe PETERS, Millipore Corporation. We thank Dave VERBRUGGE, Bob CWWFORD, and Lisa WILLIAMS for in- dispensable technical assistance.

5 Literature

[1] R.J. ALLAN; A.J. BALL; V.W. CAIRNS; G.A. Fox; A.P. GILMAN; D. B. PEAKALL; D. A. PIEKARZ; J. C. VAN OOSDAM;

D. C. VILLENEUVE; D. T. WILLIAMS: Toxic Chemicals in the Great Lakes and Associated Effects. Environmem Canada, Depart- ment of Fisheries & Oceans, Health & Welfare Canada, 1991, 758 p.

[2] J. FITCHKO: Literature Review of the Effects of Persistent Toxic Substances on Great Lakes Biota: Report of the Health of Aquatic Communities Task Force to the Great Lakes Science Advisory Board of the International Joint Commision, 1986, 255 p.

[3] S. TANABE; N. KANNAN; A. SUBRAMANIAN; S. WATANABE; R. TAT- SUKAWA: Environ. Pollut. 47, 147 (1987)

[4] M. VANDERLAAN; B. E. WATKINS; L. STANKER: Environ. Sci. Technol. 22, 247 (1988)

[5] D. MONROE: Anal. Chem. 56, 920 A (1984) [6] P. D. JONES; J. P. GIESY; J. L. NEWSTED; D. A. VERBRUGGE;

D. L. BEAVER; G. T. ANKLEY; D. E. TILLITT; K. B. LODGE; G. J. NIEMI: Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 24, 345 (1993)

[7] D.E. TILLrrT; G. T. ANKLEY; J. P. GIESY; J. P. LUDWIG; H. KURITA-MATSUBA; D. V. WESELOH; P. S. ROSS; C. BISHOP; L. S~o; K. L. STROMBERG; J. LARSON; T. J. KUBIAK: Environ. Toxi- col. Chem. 11, 1281 (1992)

[8] L. L. WILLIAMS; J. P. GIESY; N. DE GALAN; D. A. VERBRUGGE; D.E. TILLITT; G.T. ANKLEY; R.L. WELCH: Environ. Sci. Technol. 26, 1151 (1992)

[9] R. O. HARRISON; M. A. CHAMERLIK-CoOPER; R. E. CARLSON: Determination of PCB's by Enzyme Immunoassay, Proceedings from EPRI PCB Symposium, October 1991, Baltimore, Maryland

[10] R. E. CARLSON; R. O. HARRISON: Determination of PCB's by En- zyme Immunoassay, Poster presented at the AOAC 105th Annual Meeting, September 1991, Phoenix, Arizona

[11] M. A. RIBICK; G. R. DUBAY; J. D. PETTY; D. C. STALLING; C. J. SCHMITT: Environ. Sci. Technol. 16, 310 (1982)

[12] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, SW846, RECRA Solid Waste Analytical Methods, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, 3rd ed, Washington, D.C. 1986

[13] D. A. VERBRUGGE; R. A. OTHOUDT; K. R. GRZYB; R. A. HOKE; J. B. DRAKE; J. P. GIESY; D. ANDERSON: Chemosphere 22, 809 (1991)

[14] J. K. TAYLOR: Quality Assurance of Chemical Measurements, Lewis Publishers, Inc., USA 1987, 328 p.

[15] B. LARSEN; R. TKIO; S. K~ILA: Chemosphere 23, 1077 (1991) [16] L. L. HUELLMANTEL; M. TRACY; V. E. SMITH: Measuring Total

PCBs in Sediment by Enzyme Immunoassay. Poster presented at the Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC). Regional Great Lakes Chapter Meeting, September 1992, East Lansing, Michigan

[17] R. O. HARRISON; L. L. HUELLMANTEL; R. E. CARLSON; A. J. WEZSS: Analysis of PCB's in soil, sediments, and other matrices by enzyme immunoassay. Presented at the EPA's 3rd Field Screen- ing Methods Symposium, February 1993, Las Vegas, Nevada

Received: December 21, 1993 Accepted: April 15, 1994

Forthcoming article

Determination of Atrazine in Rainfall and Surface Water by Enzyme Immunoassay

A. Dankwardt, S. Wrist, W. Elling, M. Thurman, B. Hock

Rainwater and surface water from 4 sites in Germany were analysed for atrazine by enzyme immunoassay from June 1990 until October 1992. About 60 % of the samples contained measurable amounts of atrazine. Seasonal trends were observed, with the highest concentra- tion in the summer months of 4/ag/L for rainwater and 15/ag/L for surface water. The highest concentrations were found in agricultural areas. In the investigated national parks up to 0.56/ag/L could be

detected. This indicates long-range atmospheric transport from agri- cultural areas to pristine national parks. Samples from forest areas usually showed higher atrazin e concentrations than samples from open fields. Deposition values ranged from 10 - 50 mg/m 2. yr for the national parks and from 10-180 mg/mZ-yr for the agricultural sites. Comparison of the results obtained by enzyme immunoassay and GC/MS showed a good correlation, r = 0.95.

74 ESPR-Environ. Sci. & Pollut. Res. 1 (2) 1994