Sample Storage

Page No. Source Quotes from Decision Documents
350 5 Agency App. C “Loss of 1080 from soil stored at -20 oCwas identified in a Landcare report..(2003)..the Agency sought clarification from Landcare Research..their response highlights the uncertainty around the loss of 1080 from stored samples and suggests that concentrations of 1080 in such samples may have been under-reported”
350 6 Agency App. C “since the issue [of 1080 loss from samples stored at -20°C] was identified..samples are now stored at -80°C” (not in current Landcare guidelines (20oCis still used) and most studies don’t report storage details, -80oCis unlikely to occur sampling in the field)
350 7 Agency App. C “The accuracy of results from other laboratories may be similarly uncertain, with details of sample collection and storage similarly absent from the published literature”
356 2 Agency App. C “Samples taken for 1080 analysis stored at -20°C”
358 2 Agency App. C “frozen at -18°C for later analysis [Suren & Lambert 2004, Suren 2006]”
374 3 Agency App. C “[details not reported] storage of samples prior to analysis [in a study of adsorption of 1080 in soil]”
375 3 Agency App. C “the remainder [of the 1080] may have degraded within the soil after the end of the test and before analysis of the soil [in a study of leaching]”
381 1 Agency App. C “soil samples taken..and frozen at -20°C for later analysis”
381 4 Agency App. C “storage [of wet baits] at – 10oC prior to analysis..Thomas et al., 2004”
383 5 Agency App. C “[plant samples] Frozen at -20°C for later analysis”
384 5 Agency App. C “there were significant issues with the analysis of the test concentrations in the the test with garden snails..attributed to degradation of 1080 in the samples in storage”
387 1 Agency App. C “[concentrations of 1080 in garden snails were measured] after 8 months’ 20°C”
387 4 Agency App. C “[soil samples] stored frozen at -80 oC..(O’Halloran et al., 2005)”
423 4 Agency App. C “Dead ants frozen at -20°C for later analysis [1999]”
457 1 Ag. App. C: Sample storage “no further work has been undertaken to more fully investigate factors potentially affecting degradation of 1080 in soil during frozen sample storage [at -20°C] e.g. Soil type, water content, microbial population, and from there identify the most valid procedures for storage and processing the light of the findings by O’Halloran & Jones (2003) [1080] present in some samples..may have been degraded during storage at -20°C to present undetectable concentrations at analysis.”
467 1 Agency App. E “The timing of sampling [of environmental media] relative to an operation and the storage of samples before analysis is critical to interpretation of the results of monitoring.”
470 3 Agency App. E “[water] samples frozen within 5 hours of collection”
472 1 Agency App. E “A recent [water] sampling protocol..(2001)..[states that] ‘Samples should be taken immediately after poisoning and continue daily until after the first significant rainfall’..few of the monitoring programmes reported such frequent initial sampling, possibly because there was no regulatory requirement to do so..or because of the cost of sample analysis”
472 2 Agency App. E “Bulking of [water] samples, while expedient, may mask samples that do contain measureable amounts of 1080”
472 3 Agency App. E “In relation to environmental monitoring, the Agency notes the concerns about storage [e.g.] Eason..refers to water samples being frozen “within 5 hours” of collection, which seems a..long period before appropriate storage”
473 1 Agency App. E “the reason for so many non-detects in water monitoring..may be partly due to..rapid..dilution or loss of 1080 from, and disintegration of..baits within the first 12 hours of deposition..the author [Suren, 2006] recommends sampling within 4-8 hours..frequently resource consents require monitoring one day or more after..the operation”
474 1 Agency App. E “Due to costs of analysis, not all water samples were analysed. Sequential samples were aggregated in groups of 3 before analysis.”
693 1 Agency App. M “There may be some uncertainty associated with the [drinking water testing] results, when sample storage information is taken into account..Eason..refers to water samples being frozen ‘within 5 hours’ of collection..this seems a relatively long time before appropriate storage of the..sample was carried out, but it reflects the reality of sampling remote water sources and traversing the..area on foot”
694 2 Agency App. M “Only rarely has analysis of the surface water resulted in the finding of..1080, after aerial dropping..even though inspection has shown that baits are not infrequently visible in streams”
695 1 Agency App. M “39 samples from drinking water supplies at the time of this report (Eason et al., 1999) were negative” (no consideration given to sample storage)
700 1 Agency App. M “The Agency compared both the acute and chronic exposures that could occur from aerial 1080 operations, based on the water sampling data that have been reported”
66 1 Applicants’ references “The Landcare Research Toxicology Laboratory maintains a database of water samples..these samples have been taken predominantly from within or adjacent to baited areas” (Fisher et al., 2003)
16 1 Submitter 9143 “Hilton et al (1969) state ‘the high degree of adsorption of monofluoroacetate to leaf and root tissue, as well as to other cellulosics such as filter paper, was entirely unexpected’.” (Meads report, indicates water sample analysis using filter paper may remove 1080)
59 3 Committee Decision “water samples rarely contain measurable 1080 residues”
70 1 Committee Decision “testing of samples of surface water sources and public supplies has not found concentrations of 1080 above the Ministry of Health’s PMAV”
71 2 Committee Decision “[the applicants] stated that the important thing was that 1080 residue levels in surface water are usually too small to be detected”