DIY Oil Testing Questions
Questions, Motivations, & Best Practices
Public Lab’s Oil Testing Kit program has set out to develop a **low-cost, Do-It-Yourself kit for differentiating oil pollution, building on the DIY spectrometry kit Public Lab has designed and distributed since 2011.
There are many different questions which such a kit might attempt to answer, and it's important to address them individually. Asking questions is how we started Public Lab, and questions are at the heart of Public Lab's process of research and development. We've collected many common questions here -- many, but not all of which, we can now answer. Here, we have tried to order each group of questions with increasing difficulty or complexity.
Finding pollution
[image of tarball (scott’s post)]
Imagine you find (as many of us did) what looks like tar on the beach after an oil spill:
How do I tell if it's oil or something else, like a piece of a tire or asphalt, or mud?
The technique we’re using, called steady-state ultraviolet fluorescence spectroscopy, has been shown to be able to distinguish between different weights of oil -- such as crude oil versus motor oil or diesel -- in a laboratory under certain conditions (see Literature section). The kit we’re developing also attempts to differentiate categories of oil, without laboratory facilities and instrumentation. To do this, there are many unknowns remaining; including:
- the effects of weathering
- false positives (read on)
There are also other materials which fluoresce, such as various types of organic matter. Fluorescence alone cannot be used as evidence of petroleum: rotting vegetation or even olive oil or beer will fluoresce, but because the spectrum of each will be different, the theory is that a spectrometer will help you tell plant matter apart from a petroleum sample. However, as of January 2016 this has yet to be clearly demonstrated in our community, and we hope that the refinement of the testing kit itself will make such tests easier to perform.
It’s important to note that, while different kinds of oils have been distinguished by a given user using their specific instrument, not every user has been able to do so, and the results have not always been consistent among different spectrometers. Thus, we are still working to improve the reproducibility of our method, which is fundamental to being able to distinguish grades of oils, or oils from non-oil fluorescing materials (see “Testing Our Hypothesis” in Workshop 1).
How do I tell if it's oil from the spill in question?
Matching an individual source of oil, such as crude specifically from the Deepwater Horizon spill, is known as “spectral fingerprinting,” and according to the scientific literature, the technique we are using (“steady state ultraviolet fluorescence spectroscopy”) does not produce spectra that are unique and specific enough to distinguish samples from one source from another if they are very similar.
However, if there is only one source of crude oil in an area, and you wish to collect evidence that a sample is from that source, as opposed to being motor oil or diesel, or some other pollutant, then this is the test we are attempting to reproduce with a DIY kit. (See previous question.)
[picture of surfrider knees? permission]
What does oil pollution mean for my health?
This is a complex question. Oil pollution can have a variety of impacts on a person’s health, or the health of an ecosystem. In addition to birds and other wildlife getting covered by an oil slick which can result in hypothermia or suffocation, oil is comprised of several toxic compounds that can have severe consequences. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in oils can impair reproduction, physiological and neurological development in marine organisms, and some PAHs are likely to be carcinogenic in humans (CITE). Other volatile components of oil may induce headaches, nausea, and respiratory difficulty during even short exposures (CITE). For more information about studies investigation human health effects of exposure to oil, please see: http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/oilspillresponse/studies.html .
Also see the Hazards section of the Oil Testing Kit page: https://publiclab.org/wiki/oil-testing-kit#Hazards
What do I do if I see oil?
Before handling any oil, make sure that you are equipped to do so safely. Oils contain toxic and carcinogenic components, and several volatile organic compounds, so be sure to wear gloves and stay in well-ventilated areas. See health effects, above.
Contact local response agencies
When you see spilled oil or tar balls, the first people to contact will be the environmental response team for the county, parish, or municipality where you observe the oil. In many counties, the response team will be part of the Environmental Engineering Department or Ecology Department. If you are unsure who to call, often a detailed Internet search (e.g. “King County Washington report oil leak) can lead you to the proper website and phone number. If an Internet search does not yield the necessary information, calling the county government main office will help you find the appropriate department to contact. When you do get in touch with the environmental response team, if possible, you will want to provide the following information:
- location
- what types of environment are or might be impacted (e.g. crop land, river, ocean, etc)
- what does it look and smell like?
- take a picture
- can you see the source of the oil?
- does it appear as though more is spilling or leaking?
- can you estimate how much oil is spilled?
- is there a particular activity occurring that is causing the spill or impacting it?
- are there other hazardous materials there?
- risk of fire?
- include: photographer name, date, time, site location, site description, number the photo, and record this in a logbook or other place that could be referenced
If there is any safety risk, such as potential for a fire, contact the local fire department and police department immediately.
If the oil you observe is in marine waters, call the US Coast Guard National Response Center (http://www.nrc.uscg.mil/).
Collect a sample for laboratory analysis
In addition to calling and reporting the oil you observe to a local or national agency, if it is possible to do so safely, you could collect a sample of the oil. If you are interested in having the oil tested to determine the type (and potential source of the oil) by a laboratory, decide which laboratory you will send the sample to before collecting that sample. To find an analytical laboratory, you can either call the county government environmental department and ask their recommendations (as they often need to out-source their lab work), or do a series of Internet searches to find an appropriate accredited lab in your area.
When you find a laboratory to use, it will be important to learn the collection techniques that are required for the method they are planning to use, and since most methods require very specific bottle preparation (generally including a final step of baking glassware to 450 Celsius), ask to see if they will send you an appropriate collection container. Different methods may require specific sample collection techniques, but here we include some general sample collection principles to help you prepare.
For samples that you want to analyze for organic compounds, such as oils, you generally want to use amber glass vials -- note that you do NOT want to use plastic bottles as those will contaminate the sample, and it is best to use a UV filtering glass such as most amber glass vials because several compounds in oils are sensitive to UV. If you are collecting straight oil or oily solids (e.g. sand, soil), the collection container should be large enough for a minimum of 5 grams of sample plus 10 mL water, which will likely be a 40 mL vial, or larger. The analytical method the laboratory will use will indicate whether a PTFE-lined solid cap is sufficient or if you need a cap with a septa (used when the sample vial cannot be opened, and is directly pierced by the analytical instrument).
When collecting solid oil or oily solids samples, you want to avoid using any plastic scoops, and rather, use a stainless steel scoop or spatula that you have rinsed with water and wiped with isopropyl alcohol. When collecting water samples with an oil sheen or emulsion, you want to collect the sample upstream from any disturbance you have caused, with the bottle open to the current in a river, and fill the sample container completely such that there is no headspace.
Samples should be stored cold, on ice, attempting to reach 4 Celsius (39 Fahrenheit), or colder if the analytical methods requires it. For samples that must be stored colder than 4 Celsius, you can purchase dry ice. If you purchase dry ice, be careful when handling it, as it can burn bare skin and be a respiratory irritant. Samples should be transported from the field in a cooler and transferred into a refrigerator or freezer of the appropriate temperature as soon as possible.
When collecting a sample for third-party laboratory analysis, to submit to a local government agency, or to analyze yourself, it is important to establish a Chain of Custody of the sample to ensure there is a responsible party for it. Information to include in the Chain of Custody are:
- Name and contact information of sample collector
- Sample code (if applicable)
- Date and time of collection
- Location of collection
- Type of media (e.g. soil, sediment, water)
- Analyses requested,
- Type of preservation (if applicable)
Analyze your own sample
In addition to collecting oil samples to provide to local agencies or independent laboratories, you could collect samples and scan using your Public Lab spectrometer and oil testing kit it to see if your samples resemble known types of oil. To do this, please follow instructions in Workshops 2, 3, and 4 (PROVIDE LINKS). Discerning your samples are oil, and potentially what kind of oil they are can be useful for a variety of reasons (please see Section X), one of which is to help local government officials to respond to the oil pollution through action channels more quickly, and potentially contain or mitigate some of the environmental impacts of the spill or leak.
There are questions about different types of tests related to oil concentration or identification:
What tests exist, and what are available to me?
UV-vis -- excitation-emissions matrices GC/FID and GC/MS for PAHs, alkanes, and biomarkers like steranes and triterpanes IR --
Dr. Ed Overton of LSU states in his article on Characterization of Chronic sources and Impacts of Tar Along the Louisiana Coast:
"Source-fingerprinting by manual comparison of the available GC/MS data was effective in identifying 66 different sources from a sample population of 118. Cluster plot analyses are effective in screening a large population of GC/MS data to determine which samples may be related. The possible matches would then require conformation by a qualitative comparison of all chromatographic data. Mathematical, or statistical, techniques were limited by the lack of replication and range in index values. The use of statistical principal component analyses may provide a higher degree of separation of suspected sources. More work is required to fully develop a statistical approach to source-fingerprinting." According to Scott Eustis of Gulf Restoration Network “the Coast Guard uses some version of Gas Chromatography [for oil testing]... but the Overton Lab's analysis via GC/MS is considered the local gold standard. Dr Ed Overton is the expert of experts, and is an expert witness.”
Henry, C B, P O Roberts, and E B Overton. 1993. Characterization of Chronic sources and Impacts of Tar Along the Louisiana Coast. US Dept of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Regional Office, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 93-0046, 64pp. http://www.data.boem.gov/PI/PDFImages/ESPIS/3/3606.pdf
How much do different tests cost?
According to the Surfrider group, who sent many oil samples to labs over the course of the BP oil spill response “When we were doing our oil study, we ran batches of ten samples using the 8272 modified solids GCMS method @ $295/sample so, $2995 a set. This was with the understanding that we would be running a lot of samples, so may not reflect the usual pricing.”
Costs for oil testing vary widely to as much as $2000 a sample for dispersant testing (according to Surfrider) and as as much as $10,000 for testing with PACE labs (according to Scott Eustis of GRN).
What can each test tell me?
brief discuss biomarkers… CEN diagnostic ratios hyperspectral -- useful for oil spill detection, but not differentiating kinds of oils IR can be useful for thickness, which can be useful for remediation strategies also talk about timeliness -- if need rapid info, GC/MS not practical
According to Scott Eustis of the Gulf Restoration Network “the GC/MS test shows the distribution of the different components of the crude oil. This is referred to as a ‘fingerprint.’ There are magnitudes of the different components, and then some version of component analysis is done to group fingerprints as more or less similar, with some statistical logic applied to separate samples.”
What can Public Lab's tests tell me, and with what confidence?
As of January 2016, Public Lab’s Oil Testing Kit is a prototype undergoing further development; we are working to assess data it produces and both improve the kit and methods, as well as evaluate their present utility for analyzing samples.
The tests currently being conducted are with known samples of motor and crude oil, as well as diesel. We asked members of the Oil Testing Kit Beta Program (https://publiclab.org/wiki/oil-testing-kit-beta) to scan five known, labeled samples of different types of oils, and one unlabeled sample which contains the same kind of oil as one of the five knowns. This was, in effect, a test of the test in multiple dimensions -- to see if people could assemble the kit, use the software, differentiate spectra of the known samples, and successfully identify the unlabeled sample. The data quality of spectra differed among users, likely due to construction, optical alignment, and incident light intensity differences. Likely due to these factors, the spectra of known samples were substantially different among users, such that inter-user comparisons are currently not sufficient for categorizing an unknown oil sample.
We are improving the hardware design to make inter-user results more consistent, but our primary goal is to pilot testing against references on a single instrument. Spectra obtained by individual users on a single spectrometer could be quite reproducible, and the spectra of at least three grades of oil, from crude to diesel, were distinguishable. Many users were able to successfully match their unlabeled samples with the known oil types provided. Thus, we have confirmed the potential of this method with DIY techniques, but have work to do before fully realizing that potential.
User tests have demonstrated a substantial effect of oil concentration on their fluorescence spectra, larger than would be expected based on published literature. The observed differences between different concentrations of the same oil (diluted in mineral oil) are actually larger than the observed differences between different types of undiluted oils, and thus it is very important to know the concentration of oil in the sample if you want to discern what type of oil it is. This may be difficult with field-collected oil samples that may be mixed with substrates such as sand or soil, and is an area of active research in the Public Lab community. As of January 2016, we are exploring the possibility of equalizing opacity of samples in order to correct for concentration. For more on the effects of dilution, see https://publiclab.org/tag/dilution.
As of winter 2016, fluorescence tests of unknown samples have begun as well. With the understanding that sample concentration will have an impact on fluorescence spectra, the current “unknown” tests are simply for presence or absence of fluorescent signal. Unknown samples that do fluoresce will be compared with a series of known oil samples diluted to approximately the same concentration as the unknown sample. Since the unknown sample is likely to have sand or soil agglomerated with it, simple sample weight to solution volume ratios will not be sufficient to accurately calculate true sample concentration, so these comparisons to known samples of approximatey the same concentration are not very robust, but are a useful step toward classification of an unknown sample.
For the most recent information on this work, see https://publiclab.org/tag/oil-testing-kit
What kind of oil testing data is useful in talking to regulators? To lawyers?
GC/FID and GC/MS for biomarkers; hyperspectral remote sensing Most reporting still visual, photographic or video, often from air craft (CITE-- chapter 14 in oil spill forensics) but visual techniques only appropriate for documentation since nothing specific about them and really high false-positives rate; even UV (not fluorescence though) lots of false-positives from wind slicks and biogenic material like seaweed Coast Guard response website info -- I think that is hyperspectral But having fluorescence data, of any resolution, can be important to prompt further investigation by regulation enforcement agencies, and can be supportive evidence.
“The Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA), as amended in 1972, tasks the Coast Guard with development of “procedures and techniques to be employed in identifying…. oil and hazardous substances….” In carrying out this portion of the service's environmental mandate, the Coast Guard Research and Development Center has developed first generation laboratory and field systems for the forensic identification and classification of oil spills. The laboratory system utilizes four independent analytical techniques (infrared and fluorescence spectroscopy, gas and thin-layer chromatography) to match spill samples with suspected sources, while the field system utilizes two analytical techniques (fluorescence spectroscopy and thin-layer chromatography). The field system is designed to give each Captain of the Port or Marine Safety Office the capability to rapidly identify the source of the majority of oil spills, or in more difficult cases to provide sufficient information to justify the collection of additional samples for more detailed analysis by the laboratory system.”Lt. James C. Clow (1977) THE COAST GUARD'S FORENSIC OIL IDENTIFICATION SYSTEM. International Oil Spill Conference Proceedings: March 1977, Vol. 1977, No. 1, pp. 189-191. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.7901/2169-3358-1977-1-189 According to Scott Eustis of GRN, in the court of law, the data that is deemed creditable has to be entered into evidence from someone accepted as an expert for analysis for that jurisdiction. But the analysis usually states, "based on evidence from the field and in the lab, this oil is so similar to the responsible party reference that it's highly unlikely to have come from another source..But usually, the arguments come down to showing that the oil is from that source and none other… Any and all evidence can come into play… If the government ends up in court, the arguments relevant to scientific testing will likely be over whether the oil in the ditch came from the oil washing operation or other nearby sources, such as the oil pans of residents' cars. I think it would be useful, therefore, to have a test that could say, with some accuracy, whether the sheen came from crude source or a refined and commercial source. Regulators will investigate a report of sheen on water in the ditch, based on a phone call. A photograph helps if conditions change between phone call and response, since response can be slow. If a resident could file a report, not only with a photograph, or with an Oil Test that showed the oil is not from a residential source, it would motivate regulators to act, subject largely only to politics, and make industry lawyers work harder.With regulators, a picture of oil sheen on water is good enough to start, but if you want them to pay attention, the more evidence the better. If you want fines, you usually have to sue the company yourself under CWA.”
Has such data has been used to effect change? How, when, and where?
Biomarkers investigation after Exxon Valdez grounding; oil in river found to be oil from building that had caught on fire -- pg 121 oil spill forensics, Wang 1999b actual ref; several others Biomarker matching between spill and suspected source can be indicative of a correlation but do not provide definitive proof -- need multiple types of analyses and matches (pg 128 oil spill forensics) Isotope ratios, ASTM D3328 -- qualitative GC/FID -- match, probable match, indeterminate, non match -- but drawbacks, especially weathering; ASTM D5739 qualitative GC/MS Hyperspectral can show extent of known oil spill, but mostly useful on land (Ch. 14 oil spill forensics citing Bianchi et al 1995) Check out Coast Guard website for reporting/documenting oil spills at sea Hebei Spirit Oil Spill -- used several methods, but used portable fluorimeter for rapid analysis of oil in pore water to monitor oil concentrations in spill area over several months (CITE -- Yim et al ES&T 2012)
Can results from the Public Lab Oil Testing Kit be used as evidence?
Spectra obtained using your DIY spectrometer can be informative, but may not be persuasive to your intended audience. For example, regulators will probably not recognize data as diagnostic from a DIY kit or other un-approved method. However, these low-cost methods can provide useful, if not diagnostic, information. With the Public Lab Oil Testing Kit, observing fluorescence is a probable indicator of petroleum compounds, and can be useful for motivating communities speaking out against oil pollution, informing neighbors about potential hazards in their environment, or prompting further investigation by enforcement or remediation agencies.
Efforts to prompt further official investigation can be greatly enhanced if you can demonstrate a correlation between your results and results of officially recognized tests. If official tests are conducted, try to collect samples at the same time and from the same location, and compare your data with the official results. If you can speak with the local or state agency who is responding to the spill, they may be willing to collect a (co-located) split sample for you, especially since they will already be going out to collect samples. If any real-time data is collected in the field by officials, try to collect data simultaneously for a co-located comparison test. Read about co-located tests below. Results from these sorts of comparison tests can (1) better inform you and the Public Lab community about the capabilities and limitations of the Oil Testing Kit, and (2) positive results can facilitate greater impact and recognition of your unofficial tests.
What are the advantages of co-locating tests?
By conducting tests on samples collected at the same place (and, as near as possible, time) as officially recognized tests, it’s possible to evaluate if a relationship exists between your tests and those which carry much stronger legal and regulatory weight. Of course, if your own tests do not agree with the official tests, it may be difficult to establish credibility for your own testing -- but if they do, this correlation can provide added credibility for your testing.
If a correlation is present between official results and your unofficial results, it may be possible to improve the spatial coverage of testing. That is, if the official tests only cover 10 spots over a 10 mile-long riverbank, but those ten tests have high agreement with a lower-cost, less-recognized test, it may be possible to use the latter test on 100 spots over the same riverbank, and “fill in” data between the official tests, for a more detailed look at pollutant distribution. This style of filling in data gaps is part of the plan for US Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Next Generation monitoring programs (CITE).
It is important to note that the usefulness of data from co-location tests, as with any data, will depend on how persuasive the data is to the intended audience. Any interpretation of data must be rooted from the data quality -- the accuracy, precision, resolution, and reproducibility of the tests (see “Testing Your Hypothesis” in Workshop 1). Beyond that, effective communication of those results is important. For technical audiences, communicating the data quality on a mathematical basis and demonstrating proper statistical analyses will be useful to create a platform for transparent and earnest discussions. For audiences with less technical backgrounds, while data interpretations will, of course, still be rooted in data quality, communication of results may be more effective with more visual demonstration and outlining of analogous situations. For all audiences, very direct communication of data limitations is as important as assertions of data capabilities. This can often be a difficult balance to achieve, but if you start by clearly explaining the objectives of the test (e.g. to distinguish between different classes of oils rather than an explicit identification of an oil spill source), then explaining the scope of your results follows suit.
There are questions about how to collect and store the samples:
How much do I need to collect? Solid vs. liquid?
As of January 2016, there is work being done by Public Lab Fellow Matej Vakula to collect useable sample volumes from sources such as sheens on the surface of water (see sheens), and oils soaked into absorbent plastic pads. These techniques aside, we currently recommend 2-10 drops of pure oil diluted in a 2.5 milliliter sample container filled with pure mineral oil (which does not fluoresce). If the samples are very transparent, dilution may not be necessary.
For solid samples, it depends on the concentration; dissolving the solid samples in a small amount of mineral oil and allowing dirt and sand to settle out can result in a slightly yellow solution which can be tested; see dilution below.
Can I touch it, and with what?
Do not touch suspected pollutants with bare hands; use gloves and other protective gear, and do not leave them unsealed except in well-ventilated areas. Oil pollutants contain volatile components which can be harmful to breathe, and carcinogenic substances which are dangerous to touch.
What does oil pollution look like?
This depends on where and in what state you find it.
[provide images] - https://www.flickr.com/photos/labucketbrigade/albums/72157624376865038
Can it be mixed with sand, dirt, vegetation, etc?
Samples collected in the field can often be mixed with grit, sand, vegetation, etc. If you’re dissolving a solid sample, like a piece of tar, in mineral oil or another solvent, these may settle out over a few minutes or hours, and so it can be helpful to dissolve in one container, then eyedrop the clear solution off the top into another container for scanning.
Vegetation or plant or organic matter (like peaty soils) will fluoresce, and so it should be kept out of oil samples.
What happens if I dilute my sample or don’t know my sample concentration?
As of January 2016, there is ongoing research in our community on whether and by how much dilution affects the color of fluorescence (and specifically the position of the highest point in the spectral graph), which would potentially affect the results of the Oil Testing Kit. If dilution proves problematic, we may be able to correct for this effect using absorption spectroscopy to equalize the opacity of samples.
Dilution may be necessary, however, to get a spectrum from some very dark samples, like concentrated crude oil. See quenching, below.
Quenching
During fluorescence spectroscopy, we illuminate a sample with ultraviolet light. If a sample is too dark, it blocks light which may be fluorescing from a sample, or filters out some of the wavelengths -- for example, if the sample is yellowish, it may selectively filter out non-yellow wavelengths, disrupting our attempt to record a true spectrum of the colors being emitted.
To reduce quenching, samples can be diluted with a non-fluorescing solvent, like mineral oil. See dilution, above.
chain-reaction fluorescence (what is the name of this?) molecular shielding
False positives
Although various polluting oils fluoresce, one reason we can’t rely on fluorescence in itself as an indication of oil pollution is that several organic compounds fluoresce in the UV-Visible spectrum. Generally, most compounds with carbon ring structures can be excited by UV light and fluoresce in the visible spectrum. Common materials that fluoresce, and may fluoresce with a similar fluorescence peak shape and energy include, but are not limited to:
- Other oil types
- Vegetation - humic acid
- Organic matter - beer
- Amino acids, bodily fluids like urine -- crime scene
- Vitamin E in mineral oil
- Containers - gel capsules, for instance
Cuvettes
Spectrometers (including our DIY Oil Testing Kit) are usually set up to scan samples placed in small containers called cuvettes, which can be made of different types of plastic or glass, or even quartz, depending on what you want to store in them, and what kind of light you want to shine through them.
[cuvette image]
In the lab, cuvettes are considered temporary, and often disposable, especially if plastic. See storage, below, for how to keep samples long-term. Some problems we’ve encountered with cuvettes are that some plastic (polystyrene, a common cuvette material) will melt if used to store more corrosive samples like diesel, and that cuvettes with square lids will leak if not kept constantly upright.
A good sample container has flat sides, so you can shine light (or a laser) through it without lots of reflections, which could go into your spectrometer and affect your data. It's also good to have the light travel through a consistent amount of the sample -- many cuvettes (traditional spectrometry sample containers) are 1cm x 1cm, so the light always goes through 1cm of the sample. Some cuvettes are designed for smaller amounts of liquid, such as “micro” or “ultra micro” cuvettes -- these taper towards the bottom, so you don’t need as much sample material to scan. This also means you can shine light through less sample material; it’s thinner. For fluorescence tests, like in the Oil Testing Kit, quenching (see above) can happen when sample material is dark, as that can block or filter the light emitted by the sample. So in that case, a thinner sample container can be good because it minimizes the amount of darker liquid the light has to travel through.
The different plastics cuvettes are made of are often designed to be super transparent in the intended type of light, as well as to be resistant to corrosion or dissolving from the contents of the sample. This email thread discusses materials a bit, and links to the chart below by Brand (http://www.brandtech.com/cuvette_comp.asp) which shows what types of cuvettes are best for which types of samples, as well as which types of light.
Some cuvettes also have surface treatments like a textured or slightly opaque “diffuser” surface, or a fluted surface, on some sides to affect how light enters or exits the cuvette. For the Oil Testing Kit, we’ve found that if you’re using a laser, you should shine it through the completely clear sides, but that diffusers on the surface facing the spectrometer may have fluting or diffusers; as long as enough light enters the spectrometer, it’s OK.
How should I store it?
- before extraction
- after extraction
- not in cuvettes (what to do with cuvettes, too)
According to Scott Eustis of GRN, light-blocking sample bottles are the best for strate. Sometimes it is also important to keep the sample cold and free of organic material. The EPA brown glass prevents photo oxidation. However, Wilma Subra has suggested that Ball (Canning) Jars are an ok substitute for some analyses if the jar is kept at stable temperature and in the dark.
During 2010, Jonathan Henderson and Matt Rota of GRN were tasked with sampling fish and soil and mailing it to different labs. The process included labelling everything, but put simply:
- Oiled fish in the field were wrap in foil, place in plastic bag, place in cooler and overnight mailed in cooler with dry ice.
- Soil was grabbed with EPA brown glass jar, placed in plastic bag, placed in cooler and overnight mailed in the cooler with or without dry ice.
How long will it keep?
ongoing discussion… weathering impacts, but different from storage impacts… volatile components will escape and could impact fluorescence spectra
How do I prove where and when I collected it?
In environmental data collection, the “chain of custody” refers to the
See “What do I do if I see oil?“ below for details on collecting samples, chain of custody, and whom to contact.
location, data, time, person collecting, environmental conditions, collection method used, how it is stored. photo -- time stamp and activate GPS if using phone -- also can take supplemental photos featuring distinguishable landmarks.
There are questions about the specific site you're concerned with:
How could data I collect relate to existing data?
There are other similar situations where some kind of oil testing would be helpful, and we think it's important to address these independently:
Can I test sheens from the surface of water?
Sheens form from the distribution of oil across the surface of water -- oil being lighter than water, it tends to spread out and can appear brown or orange, or even black if thick. But if it’s very spread out, it often forms a rainbow colored, iridescent sheen, which can be so thin that scooping up a small amount can yield only extremely small amounts of oil.
As a result, Public Lab fellow Matej Vakula (@matej) has been investigating Do-It-Yourself techniques for collecting, concentrating, and analyzing surface sheens over the winter of 2015-16. You can read about his work here: https://publiclab.org/tag/sheen; as of January 2016, he has been exploring the use of plastic that preferentially absorbs oil, as well as the freezing of oil/water mixtures, in an attempt to separate water and oil, and to recover enough to be scanned in an Oil Testing Kit.
Can I tell how old oil is?
Weathering affects compounds, especially as many are UV-active or volatile, so are likely to affect fluorescence spectra, and definitely impact other features like PAHs and biomarkers -- why CEN now uses ratios instead of concentration for alkanes etc
Conclusion
In general, we've attempted to answer the easier questions first, but many of the above questions remain unanswered at the time of writing. Many are answered unsatisfactorily. We hope to improve this list as time goes on, and if you feel you can contribute, please feel free to improve this document and reach out on the Public Lab discussion lists.