Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
imagination at work
Table 2 Comparison of Different Cleaning Protocols for Test Tube Cleaning An analogous situation exists in the micro bio-
914-80005 914-80007 914-80016 914-80002 914-80015 logical community where bacterial contamina-
Chromic wash Alconox wash Furnace Sulfuric wash CIP-100 Detergent tion is an issue. Here, the concept of aseptic
11.6 ppb 68.8 ppb 15.8 ppb 36.6 ppb 18.8 ppb technique was developed to address cross-
11.1 78.8 14.1 20.9 14.6 contamination issues that are encountered
19.7 41.0 14.0 13.6 15.1 with microbial work.
24.7 45.7 15.7 21.4 16.8
15.6 99.8 15.3 16.2 18.3
18.1 95.2 22.2 23.6 21.9 This concept can, in part, be applied to the
22.5 90.6 24.0 25.8 24.6 preparation of carbon samples. For example,
------ ------ ------ ------ ------ aseptic concepts that are applicable to carbon
17.6 74.3 17.3 22.6 18.59average, ppb
sample preparation are:
±5.2 ±23.6 ±4.06 ±7.5 ±3.6 std dev, ppb
1) To avoid directly handling septa, pipettes,
Table 3 New Tubes Table 4 Pre-Cleaned Tubes Filled the auto sampler needle, and other equipment
Rinsed and Tested and Tested that comes into direct contact with the sample,
15 rinses before filling I-Chem Series 300 Eagle Picher 2) To avoid breathing on the samples as they
VWR Cat #60826-202 VWR Cat #IRT336-0040 Eagle Picher Cat #140 are prepared,
17.8 ppb 18.9 ppb 24.9 ppb 3) To avoid collecting the first few milliliters of a
15.8 18.5 18.4 sample stream, wait until several volumes pass
24.7 20.5 27.6
through and purge the line before collecting a
32.9 24.5 19.9
33.5 17.2 22.7 sample, and
42.2 19.2 19.7 4) To avoid touching the capped septum of test
27.8 average, ppb 19.8 ave, ppb 22.2 ave, ppb tubes when loading the test tubes into an
±10.2 std dev, ppb ±2.5 std dev, ppb ±3.5 std dev, ppb autosampler.
and also labor-intensive because these new test tubes For example, the septa stored in a plastic bag can be
require a 15 rinse preparation step. The TOC values contaminated by fingerprint oils left by a hand reaching
obtained with this method are listed in Table 3. Yet inside. Table 5 shows elevated TOC levels with septa that
another option is to purchase test tubes pre-cleaned by are deliberately contaminated by fingerprints. The right
the manufacturer. The tubes listed here, however, were column shows septa that are handled on both the top
not directly tested by the supplier for TOC, rather they and the bottom surfaces during sample preparation. The
were tested for volatile organic compounds. Thus, there amount of carbon contamination is reflective of the
is not a guarantee maximum level of TOC. These pre- degree of contact with dirty hands or surfaces during
cleaned test tubes were filled with Sievers low organic sample preparation.
deionized water and analyzed on the instrument. The
results are listed in Table 4. Summary
Three areas of sample preparation have been addressed
Table 5 Aseptic Versus Non- The third step in reducing for their potential contribution of background carbon. To
Aseptic Handling of the Septa background carbon con- obtain consistent TOC results with low carbon background
During Sample Preparation tamination is to observe contamination, the water, the test tubes and the sample
Aseptic Non-Aseptic strict sample preparation preparation technique must be carefully monitored.
10.6 ppb 104.4 ppb technique. Handling the
13.8 52.1 reagents and equipment
19.2 66.9 that come into contact
16.4 82.4
with the samples in a spe-
12.6 85.0
17.4 128.7 cial challenge because
15.0/±3.2 ave, 86.6/±27.2 ave, carbon contamination is
std dev, ppb std dev, ppb essentially everywhere.
USA Europe
GE Analytical Instruments Unit 3 Mercury Way
6060 Spine Road Urmston, Manchester, M41 7LY
Boulder, CO 80301-3687 USA United Kingdom
T +1 800 255 6964 T +44 (0) 161 866 9337
T +1 303 444 2009 F +44 (0) 161 866 9630
F +1 303 444 9543 generaluk.instruments@ge.com
geai@ge.com
www.geinstruments.com
300 00014 Rev A
©2005, General Electric Company. All rights reserved. MC05-241