Development and Comparison of Purgeable Mercury Values in SRR Samples Measured by SRNL and Eurofins FGS
Savannah River Remediation (SRR) requested the development of mercury speciation capabilities at the Savannah River National Laboratory (SRNL) to support the Liquid Waste Operations at SRS. As part of that method development, SRR requested that SRNL Analytical Development (AD) compare their results with those obtained from their outside contract laboratory, Eurofins Frontier Global Sciences (FGS). This document reports on this method development work performed at SRNL as well as the comparative analyses conducted between the two laboratories. Development, optimization, and validation were undertaken at SRNL to produce a method for the species-specific analysis of dissolved gaseous mercury (DGM) in samples from SRR. It was determined that DGM present in SRR samples represented a combination of various soluble and volatile mercury species- and is thus referred to in this document as purgeable mercury. A method has been developed and analytically validated for the analysis of purgeable mercury in caustic nuclear waste. Using multivariate optimization, an efficient and sensitive method was produced. Total recovery of spiked purgeable mercury from deionized water was 99.4 ±10.6% and 91.6 ±14.9% from spiked high-activity tank waste samples. Calibration, by external calibration and standard addition calibration, maintained a mean accuracy of 101 ±5% and 99.9 ±1.7%, respectively. An interlaboratory comparison was performed between SRNL and Eurofins FGS in the co-analysis of three quarterly SRR Tank 50 samples. The statistical evaluations presented in this document support the following conclusions: for internal validation data, the two laboratories demonstrate biases of -4.3% for SRNL and 4.4% for Eurofins FGS, though neither are statistically significant at the 5% level. While the percent relative standard deviation for each of the laboratories is rather large (21.5% for SRNL and 18.4% for Eurofins FGS), there is no indication of a statistically significant difference between the two laboratories in the precision of these results. For the three sets of SRR quarterly Tank 50 samples, there is no indication of a statistically significant bias between the two laboratories at the 5% significance level. These results indicate that SRNL may provide data to the customer of statistically similar quality to Eurofins FGS.