Edward T. Urbansky

J. Environ. Monit., 2000, 2, 285 (DOI: 10.1039/b002977g). Amendment published on 6th September 2000

Research on the development of EPA's Method 552.2 demonstrated that sulfite was not an acceptable dechlorinating agent, consistent with previous research on the effect of sulfurous reductants on chlorination byproducts. It was incorrectly reported that sample holding time studies had validated the use of sulfite/hydrogen sulfite. In fact, preliminary tests showed such poor results that sulfite and hydrogen sulfite were abandoned entirely for the holding time studies. Holding time studies were conducted without any sulfurous reductants. Furthermore, J.W. Hodgeson was incorrectly included as an author of Method 552.2; the other authors are correct.

A clarification on Method 552.1 is in order. As written, the method relies on an anion exchange resin to capture the analytes as the carboxylates. In my mind, such a process is not consistent with how the term "solid phase extraction" is generally used in the literature today; nevertheless, the resin is technically a solid phase. In addition, Method 552.1 does contain a note allowing that solid phase extraction disks or other adsorbents might be permissible so long as the quality control requirements of the method are met. Therefore, the statement that solid phase extraction has not been incorporated into any EPA-approved method is not strictly accurate.

The Royal Society of Chemistry apologises for these errors and any consequent inconvenience to authors and readers.

Full Article