1

ASTM D7575

 ̳Green‘ Solventless Infrared

Oil and Grease Method 

Orono Spectral Solutions

Carl Tripp, Ph. D.

President, OSS; Prof. Chem., UM

Luke Doucette Dean Smith

Vice President VP for Engineering

Tom Schwarz Eric Roy, Ph. D.

Research Technician Research Scientist

Email: carl.tripp@ossmaine.com

Website: www.ossmaine.com

USEPA Visit to OSS 2/23/11
2

OIL AND GREASE MEASURMENT 

SUMMARY
3

OIL AND GREASE MEASUREMENT

OIL AND GREASE MEASUREMENT:

• One of the five conventional pollutants covered by the 1974 Clean Water Act 

• Second most-enforced-against parameter, second only to pH.

• Measurement included in all: NPDES permits, pre-treatment permits, Industrial Effluent Guidelines. 

• Millions of oil and grease analyses each year in the US alone. 

MEASUREMENT HISTORY: 

• Montreal Protocol in 1989

• EPA moved from a Freon extraction method (EPA 413) to a n-Hexane extraction mass-based 

determination method (EPA 1664 in ‘95 / EPA 1664a in ’99 allowing LLE and SPE =CURRENT 

METHOD)

• ISSUES: 

• personal exposure, handling, and transportation of a hazardous, flammable liquid is required, 

• n-Hexane is a known neurotoxin, 

• analytical time is significantly increased, and 

• millions of liters/year of n-Hexane (not to mention other method solvents) for disposal. 

• methodology inconsistent with the intent of the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act that considers 

n-Hexane a hazardous pollutant. 

•ASTM D7575 ‘solid phase infrared amenable extractor’ technology will remedy the issues listed 

above by eliminating solvents from oil and grease analysis – all while providing a more 

economical and accurate solution.
4

Oil and Grease Method 

Evolution

EPA 413.2 (Freon Extraction - Infrared)

 ̳dirty‘ water

Freon extract

Extract 

in 

Cuvette

Cuvette in Spectrometer

0

.1

.2

.3

.4

.5

.6

.7

 3050 3000 2950 2900 2850 2800 2750 

Absorbance / Wav enumber (cm-1) Paged X-Zoom CURSOR

File # 1 : BASELINE 11/5/2007 6:47 PM Res=8

disk 1 background after 10 ml ~30ppm oil in water

Absorbance (a.u.)

Wavenumber (cm-1)

Peak height corresponds to 

hydrocarbon concentration

Time for analysis ~ minutes

LLE
5

Oil and Grease Method 

Evolution

EPA 1664

 ̳dirty‘ water

Hexane extract

Extract 

in 

drying 

pan

Evaporate Hexane

Mass 

corresponds to 

concentration of 

extractables

Time ~ 3 - 4 

hours

LLE

n-Hexane use introduces four issues:

1. Flammable solvent

2. Known neurotoxin

3. Analytical time increased significantly

4. Large amount of solvent for disposal 

to atmosphere or hazardous waste

Total Hexane Usage:

Millions of Liters/year
6

Oil and Grease Method 

Evolution

EPA 1664A

 ̳dirty‘ water

Hexane extract

Extract 

in 

drying 

pan

Evaporate Hexane

Mass 

corresponds to 

concentration of 

extractables

Time ~ 3-4 hours

LLE SPE

Extract 

in 

drying 

pan

1. Sample run 

through SPE 

disk

2. Disk Eluted 

with Hexane

Evaporate Hexane
7

Federal Register /Vol. 64, No. 93 / Friday, May 14, 1999 /Rules and Regulations 26317

C. Use of Solid-Phase Extraction (SPE)

...A detailed description of the

SPE technique was provided at proposal

(61 FR 1730). Even prior to proposal of

Method 1664, vendors of SPE devices

had requested that SPE be an allowed

technique in the Method. Proposed

Method 1664 allowed use of SPE, but

required a demonstration that SPE

produced results equivalent to results

produced by the separatory funnel

liquid-liquid extraction technique (LLE)

written in Method 1664. Vendors and

other commenters objected to this

requirement, claiming that SPE

provided sufficient advantages in

solvent reduction, reduced analysis

time, reduced emulsion formation, and

other advantages so that its use should

be allowed without prior demonstration

of equivalency. EPA discussed the issue

extensively at proposal and in public

workshops and meetings, and

specifically solicited data demonstrating

equivalency of results produced by SPE

and LLE. Data received were mixed,

with some data demonstrating that

results produced are equivalent and

other data demonstrating that results

produced are significantly different.

EPA reopened the comment period (61

FR 26149) to allow submission of

further data, and EPA provided a notice

of availability (62 FR 51621) of these

and other data so that EPA could

consider these data for today’s final

rule.

Discussions of the detailed issues on

SPE are summarized in Section VI of

this preamble and given in the detailed

comments and responses included in

the Docket. Based on comments

received and supporting data, EPA is

allowing the use of SPE in the version

of Method 1664 being approved today

without a prior demonstration of

equivalency. However, EPA has added a

note at the beginning of the extraction

procedure (Section 11.3) in Method

1664 to indicate that it is the discharger/

generator’s responsibility to assure that

the results produced are equivalent. If

there is doubt about this equivalency,

liquid/liquid extraction is definitive for

the measurement.

EPA also acknowledges that if a

Region, State, or other permitting

authority has concerns about the

difference in results produced by SPE

and LLE, that authority may specify in

the permit the use of one of the two

techniques

EPA allows SPE Option for 1664 without prior demonstration of equivalency! 

(Because of advantages in solvent reduction, etc.)
8

Oil and Grease Method 

Evolution

New OSS Method: ASTM D7575 – Standard Test Method 

for Solvent-Free Membrane Recoverable Oil and Grease 

by Infrared Determination

0

.1

.2

.3

.4

.5

.6

.7

 3050 3000 2950 2900 2850 2800 2750 

Absorbance (a.u.)

Wavenumber (cm-1)

Peak height 

corresponds to 

hydrocarbon 

concentration

Time ~ minutes

Sample run through

new IR-amenable 

oil and grease 

Extractor

created by OSS

Extractor placed in 

spectrometer
9

ASTM D7575 VALIDATION
10

ASTM D7575 DEVELOPMENT MILESTONES

•Initial ASTM D19 committee presentation of technology Denver, CO (June 2008)

•Updated presentation of technology Cocoa Beach, FL (January 2009)

•USEPA presentation to Dick Reding, Lem Walker, Marion Kelly, Richard Englert, Richard Engler (Green 

Chemistry)

o When Dick was asked specifically about his thoughts on the OSS method and data he commented: 

 Anything that gets rid of use of separatory funnels is a winner 

Pluses: no solvent/co-solvent issues, good for environment, good environmental argument to move the method forward, ASTM approval 

will be a bonus. 

Difficulties that we may be up against – no one wanting to change, issues with current method, another method defined parameter 

Pull from the Green Chemistry office could be a key to helping this move forward – with a key point of a new method being solventless. 

o When asked about potential inclusion in the update rule Dick commented: 

He would be comfortable putting this method out for comment 

Finishing the single-lab validation study will be a good starting point 

Completion of a multi-lab would not be required in order to get into the update rule – however – a multi-lab plan would be helpful 

o There was general agreement around the table that the matrices we have tested or are planning to test encompassed a sufficiently broad 

range of matrices. 

•ASTM single lab validation study – technology gives same results as current EPA 1664 method with 95% 

confidence across spectrum of wastewater matrices (June 2009)

•Present single lab results at ASTM D19 Meeting in Las Vegas (June 2009)

•single lab results approved 

•Multilab study plan approved by EPA (Reding, Walker) and ASTM D19.06 members 

•ASTM multilaboratory validation study – 12 independent labs (August 2009)

•ASTM D7575 method assignment (December 2009) 

•ASTM D7575-10 Final Approval (January 2010)
11

ASTM D7575 Validation

• New technology and method validated 

through ASTM process per direction of 

Dick Reding (ret., Dir. EAD-OST-OW-EPA 

at the time)

• Two step process:

– Single lab validation to show preliminary 

precision as well as comparability to 1664

– Multi-lab validation to show precision across 

laboratories and establish QC limits
12

ASTM D7575 Development 

Exceeds EPA Tier III Requirements
13

Comparison to EPA 1664

Line represents the 1:1 

correlation line between the two 

methods; Not a best fit line

(OSS method tested by OSS, 1664A tested at independent lab) ASTM D7575 Concentration (mg/L)
14

Matrices

Tested During Development

Set 1 Set 2 Set 3 Set 4

Gulf A Stormwater Runoff Cleaning Co. POTW

Gulf B Food Processor A Bakery Dairy

Food Processor Food Processor B Prison Fish Processor

Prison Food Processor C Hospital A Auto Salvage

POTW - Primary

Effluent

POTW - Primary

Effluent Hospital B Auto Garage

Paper Mill Prison Hospital C Machinist

Paper Mill Hospital D Gunsmith

Hospital E

Gunsmith

Stormwater Runoff

(Tested by OSS, compared to 1664A, LLE and/or SPE)
15

Single Lab Validation

• Completed Single Lab Validation – (June  ̳09)

• Performed at independent lab

• Key purpose:

– Method Comparability

• Compared Results to EPA 1664

• Balloted ASTM Single-Lab Validated 

Method
16

Measured Result in mg/L for Real-World Matrices

Replicate # Publicly Owned 

Treatment Works Gunsmith

1 31.3 76.1

2 29.2 73.3

3 24.7 75.3

4 30.7 78.3

5 34.1 74.5

6 29.7 91.2

7 27.4 89.4

Average Recovery (mg/L) 29.6 79.7

Average Recovery by EPA 1664 (mg/L) 32.2 78.9

Average Recovery as % of EPA 1664 92% 101%

Standard Deviation (mg/L) 3.0 7.4

Relative Standard Deviation as % 10% 9.3%

Single Lab Validation Data

(2 Matrices, 7 Replicates)
** Not tested 17

Measured Result mg/L as Oil and Grease

Replicate # Auto 

Garage Dairy Machine Shop

Auto Salvage 

Yard

Fish 

Processor

1 21.0 89.5 74.0 5.8 50.5

2 19.9 91.4 69.9 4.8 54.1

3 18.4 103.8 98.4 5.8 50.9

Average Recovery 

(mg/L) 19.8 94.9 80.8 5.5 51.8

Average Recovery 

by EPA 1664 (mg/L) 21.1 108.8 89.4 6.6 54

Average Recovery as 

% of EPA 1664 94% 87% 90% 84% 96%

Standard Deviation 

(mg/L) 1.3 7.8 15.4 0.6 2.0

Relative Standard 

Deviation as % 6.7% 8.2% 19% 10% 3.8%

Matrix Spike 

Recovery % 101% ** 96% 94% 94%

Single Lab Validation Data (cont.)

(5 Matrices, 3 Replicates)
18

Seven samples of one matrix over 1 month period: POTW

Measured Result mg/L as Oil and Grease

Replicate # Day 1 Day 2 Day 3 Day 4 Day 5 Day 6 Day 7

1 22.6 25.6 21.7 23.2 19.6 28.8 1.1*

2 19.5 29.9 14.8 20.8 19.5 25.7 1.3*

3 23.7 28.6 21.2 25.1 25.9 22.6 0.9*

Average Recovery (mg/L) 21.9 28.0 19.3 23.0 21.7 25.7 1.1*

Average Recovery by 

EPA 1664 (mg/L) 17.0 28.9 20.9 22.9 30.0 29.8 1.2*

Average Recovery as % 

of EPA 1664 129% 97% 92% 101% 72% 86% N/A**

Standard Deviation 

(mg/L) 2.2 2.2 3.8 2.1 3.7 3.1 N/A**

Relative Standard 

Deviation, % 10% 8% 20% 9% 17% 12% N/A**

Matrix Spike Recovery % 96% 96% 88% *** *** *** 110%

* Below recommended reporting limit

** Not calculated – date below recommended reporting limit

*** Not performed

Single Lab Validation Data (cont.)

(ASTM D7575 vs. EPA 1664 Average Recovery = 96.2%)
19

• EPA Method Comparability Statistics

– NO DIFFERENCE IN RESULTS at 95% 

CONFIDENCE!

* ASTM E178 Outliers Removed

Single Lab Validation Summary
20

SINGLE LAB METHOD 

COMPARABILITY RESULTS
21
22
23
24
25

Conclusion

The analysis presented here shows that the ASTM D7575 Solventless Oil and Grease method is 

statistically equivalent to EPA Method 1664A when considered in light of previous well-known 

precision data reported for EPA Method 1664A.

In my interest as a concerned citizen I would hope that that, given equivalence, EPA can provide users a 

solventless / greener alternative to the use of environmentally unfriendly and hazardous n-hexane as 

specified in Method 1664. Especially since the current solid-phase extraction version of EPA 1664 was 

adopted WITHOUT ANY comparability data because of the positive attributes it would provide (time 

savings, solvent use) over the liquid – liquid extraction procedure of EPA 1664.

Supplemental Data and Statistical Analysis in Support of Method 

Equivalence of ASTM D7575 Solventless Oil and Grease and 

EPA Method 1664A

Barrett P. Eynon

Statistician

Introduction

I am a professional statistician with over 30 years of experience in applying statistics to the environmental 

and biotechnology fields. In the early 1990s. I was a statistical consultant to the US EPA Office of Water and 

provided statistical and data analyses of laboratory measurement data for Oil and Grease in the EPA 

Freon Replacement studies, including the Phase 1(US EPA, 1993), Phase 2(US EPA, 1995) and Validation (US 

EPA, 1995) studies that led to EPA Method 1664A (US EPA, 2000), in work done through SRI International and 

Dyncorp/VIAR (EPA Sample Control Center).
26

MULTI-LAB TESTING
27

Multi-Lab Validation of ASTM D7575

• Key Purpose – Method Precision and Bias

• Completed – 12 Independent Labs (Aug./Sep.  ̳09)

• Designed according to ASTM D2777

– approved by ASTM D19.06 committee / EPA Office of Water personnel 

(Reding, Walker)

• Youden Pair analyses of three matrices - POTW (10ppm), DAIRY 

(60ppm), BILGE WATER (100ppm)
28
29

Results\Matrix POTW 1 POTW 2 Dairy 1 Dairy 2 Bilge 1 Bilge 2

True Value (mg/L) 10.8 9.3 58.8 51.6 91.8 86.6

# Sample Results 11 11 12 11 12 10

Average Recovery (mg/L) 11.0 9.1 60.0 53.1 94.8 84.3

Minimum Recovery (mg/L) 8.3 6.6 47.9 43.1 76.5 67.3

Maximum Recovery (mg/L) 13.6 12.4 68.7 62.8 107.1 95.3

Relative Overall Standard 

Deviation,% 16.8% 19.6% 11.6% 10.5% 10.2% 10.2%

Relative Single Operator Standard 

Deviation, % 16.5% 7.3% 5.2%

# Matrix Spike Results 10 10 9 10 11 9

Average Matrix Spike Recovery % 109% 117% 91% 108% 87% 87%

Round-Robin Results

(AVERAGE RECOVERIES = TRUE VALUES)
30

Results\Matrix POTW 1 POTW 2 Dairy 1 Dairy 2 Bilge 1 Bilge 2

True Value (mg/L) 10.8 9.3 58.8 51.6 91.8 86.6

# Sample Results 11 11 12 11 12 10

Average Recovery (mg/L) 11.0 9.1 60.0 53.1 94.8 84.3

Minimum Recovery (mg/L) 8.3 6.6 47.9 43.1 76.5 67.3

Maximum Recovery (mg/L) 13.6 12.4 68.7 62.8 107.1 95.3

Relative Overall Standard 

Deviation,% 16.8% 19.6% 11.6% 10.5% 10.2% 10.2%

Relative Single Operator Standard 

Deviation, % 16.5% 7.3% 5.2%

# Matrix Spike Results 10 10 9 10 11 9

Average Matrix Spike Recovery % 109% 117% 91% 108% 87% 87%

Round-Robin Results

(AVERAGE OVERALL RELATIVE STANDARD DEVIATION = 13.1%)

(WATER SAMPLE EXPERIENCED LABS = 9.2%)
31

Results\Matrix POTW 1 POTW 2 Dairy 1 Dairy 2 Bilge 1 Bilge 2

True Value (mg/L) 10.8 9.3 58.8 51.6 91.8 86.6

# Sample Results 11 11 12 11 12 10

Average Recovery (mg/L) 11.0 9.1 60.0 53.1 94.8 84.3

Minimum Recovery (mg/L) 8.3 6.6 47.9 43.1 76.5 67.3

Maximum Recovery (mg/L) 13.6 12.4 68.7 62.8 107.1 95.3

Relative Overall Standard 

Deviation,% 16.8% 19.6% 11.6% 10.5% 10.2% 10.2%

Relative Single Operator Standard 

Deviation, % 16.5% 7.3% 5.2%

# Matrix Spike Results 10 10 9 10 11 9

Average Matrix Spike Recovery % 109% 117% 91% 108% 87% 87%

Round-Robin Results

(AVERAGE SINGLE OPERATOR RELATIVE STANDARD DEVIATION = 9.7%)

(WATER SAMPLE EXPERIENCED LABS = 7.5%)
32

Results\Matrix POTW 1 POTW 2 Dairy 1 Dairy 2 Bilge 1 Bilge 2

True Value (mg/L) 10.8 9.3 58.8 51.6 91.8 86.6

# Sample Results 11 11 12 11 12 10

Average Recovery (mg/L) 11.0 9.1 60.0 53.1 94.8 84.3

Minimum Recovery (mg/L) 8.3 6.6 47.9 43.1 76.5 67.3

Maximum Recovery (mg/L) 13.6 12.4 68.7 62.8 107.1 95.3

Relative Overall Standard 

Deviation,% 16.8% 19.6% 11.6% 10.5% 10.2% 10.2%

Relative Single Operator Standard 

Deviation, % 16.5% 7.3% 5.2%

# Matrix Spike Results 10 10 9 10 11 9

Average Matrix Spike Recovery % 109% 117% 91% 108% 87% 87%

Round-Robin Results

(AVERAGE SPIKE RECOVERY = 99.8%)
33

Range / QC Acceptance Limits

All labs were able to meet QC performance spec. within 1 (most) or 2 attempts

Analyte MDL (mg/L) Reporting Range (mg/L)

Oil and Grease 1.0 5-200

Method Detection Limit and Reporting Range

Analyte

Initial Precision and Recovery Lab Control 

Sample Matrix Spike

Test 

Concentration 

(mg/L)

Recovery (%) Precision Recovery (%) Recovery (%)

Lower 

limit

Upper 

limit

Maximum 

RSD (%)

Lower 

limit

Upper 

limit

Lower 

limit

Upper 

limit

Oil and 

Grease 40 88 105 10.5 79 113 69 127

QC Acceptance Criteria
34

YOUDEN PAIR STATISTICS:

• Overall relative standard deviation (RSD) 13.1% (across all 

labs, samples, operators)

– Water sample EXPERIENCED labs overall RSD 9.2%

• Within-lab Operator RSD 9.7% (across all samples)

– Water sample EXPERIENCED labs within-lab RSD 7.5%

Round-Robin Results 
35

Parameter MDL

Amount Spiked (mg/L) 4

# Results 12

Pooled MDL (mg/L) 1.0

Standard Deviation of 

MDL (mg/L) 0.26

Pooled Method Limit 

(mg/L) 3.181*

* NOTE: EPA 1664 Method Limit = 5 mg/L

Round-Robin Results (MDL,ML)

(Method Detection Limit = 1.003 ppm)

(Method Limit = 3.181 ppm)

All labs were able to meet MDL performance spec. within 1 (most) or 2 attempts
36

Parameter IPR

Mean 

Recovery Precision

Amount Spiked (mg/L) 40 40

# Results 12 12

Average Recovery% 96%

Standard Deviation of 

Recovery 5.07%

Average RSD 7.53%

Standard Deviation of RSD 2.24%

Round-Robin Results (IPR)

(Average Recovery = 96%)

(95% Confidence Recovery Range Limits = 84% - 107%)

All labs were able to meet IPR performance spec. within 1 (most) or 2 attempts
37

Parameter LCS

Amount Spiked (mg/L) 40

# Results 12

Average % 100%

Standard Deviation of 

LCS (mg/L) 8.0%

Round-Robin Results (LCS)

(Average Recovery = 100%)

(95% Confidence Recovery Range Limits = 81% - 118%)

All labs were able to meet LCS performance spec. within 1 (most) or 2 attempts
38

ASTM D7575

Published January 2010 and available for purchase at ASTM website
39

ASTM D7575 METHOD PROCESS
40

ASTM Method D7575 Video
41

Calibration Standard Devices

Calibration of infrared instrumentation performed with  ̳Standard Devices‘, which 

contain a known amount of material

SOLID STATE DEVICES – Nothing to make up!

Calibration Verification also performed daily using 

one of the Standard Devices
42

ASTM D7575 Method

Real Sample

-acidified

-cooled

1) Homogenize

(e.g. sonicate, mechanical 

shake, or hand shake)

(1-20 minutes)

2) Fill Sterile 

Disposable Syringe
43

Method (con‘t)

Attach OSS 

Device to 

Syringe

Use Syringe Pump to 

Force Sample 

through Device

(3 minutes)

Use Air Pump 

to Aid Drying

(2-45 minutes)
44

Method (con‘t)

Examine with IR Spectrometer

(1 minute)

Process Spectrum with 

Software...

( < 1 minute)

...To Determine Oil and Grease Content = 101 mg/L

0

.1

.2

.3

.4

.5

.6

.7

 3050 3000 2950 2900 2850 2800 2750 

Absorbance / Wav enumber (cm-1) Paged X-Zoom CURSOR

File # 1 : BASELINE 11/5/2007 6:47 PM Res=8

disk 1 background after 10 ml ~30ppm oil in water

Absorbance (a.u.)

Wavenumber (cm-1)
45

OSS Extractor Part #1018SPE
46

FTIR

Syringe Pump

Drying Manifold

Ultrasonic Bath

Small Air 

Compressor

(in back)

OSS 

Extractors

OSS CSDs

10cc Syringes

ASTM D7575 Oil and Grease System

Cart

36x32x24
47

ASTM D7575 vs. EPA 1664 

METHOD COMPARISON
48

EPA 1664 METHOD STEPS
49

6.1 Sampling equipment.

6.1.1 Sample collection bottles—Glass, approximately 1-L, with PTFE-lined screw cap.

NOTE: In those instances necessitating collection of a sample known

or suspected to contain >500 mg/L of HEM (Section 8.1.2), a smaller

sample container may be used.

6.1.2 Cleaning.

6.1.2.1 Bottles—Detergent water wash, tap water rinse, cap with aluminum foil, and

bake at 200–250EC for 1 h minimum prior to use. Solvent rinse may be used

in place of baking.

6.1.2.2 Liners for screw caps—Detergent water wash, tap water and solvent rinse,

and bake at 110–200EC for 1 h minimum prior to use.

Method 1664

4 February 1999

6.1.3 Bottles and liners must be lot-certified to be free of artifacts by running laboratory

blanks according to this method (per Section 9.4). If blanks from bottles and/or liners

without cleaning or with fewer cleaning steps than required above show no detectable

materials, the bottle and liner cleaning steps that do not eliminate these artifacts may

be omitted.

6.2 Equipment for glassware cleaning.

6.2.1 Laboratory sink with overhead fume hood.

6.2.2 Oven—Capable of maintaining a temperature within ± 2EC in the range of 70–250EC.

6.3 Equipment for calibration.

6.3.1 Analytical Balance—Capable of weighing 0.1 mg.

6.3.2 Volumetric flask—Glass, 100-mL.

6.3.3 Vials—Assorted sizes, with PTFE-lined screw caps.

6.3.4 Volumetric pipette—Glass, 5-mL.

6.2 Equipment for sample extraction.

6.4.1 Balance (optional)—Top loading, capable of weighing 500–2000 g within ± 1%

6.4.2 Glass stirring rod.

6.4.3 Separatory funnel—Glass, 2000-mL, with PTFE stopcock.

6.4.4 Funnel—Large, glass, for pouring sample into separatory funnel.

6.4.5 Centrifuge (optional)—EXPLOSION PROOF, capable of spinning at least four 100-mL

glass centrifuge tubes at 2400 rpm minimum.

6.4.6 Centrifuge tubes (optional)—100-mL glass.

6.5 Equipment for removal of water, sodium sulfate, and silica gel fines.

6.5.1 Funnel—Analytical, glass.

6.5.2 Filter paper—Whatman No. 40 (or equivalent), to fit funnel.

6.6 Equipment for solvent distillation.

6.6.1 Water bath or Steam bath—EXPLOSION-PROOF, capable of maintaining a temperature

of at least 85EC.

6.6.2 Flask—Boiling, 125-mL (Corning No. 4100 or equivalent).

EPA 1664 EQUIPMENT LIST (page 1 of 3) ASTM D7575 EQUIPMENT 
50

6.6.3 Distilling head—Claisen (VWR Scientific No. 26339-005, or equivalent), includes

Claisen-type connecting tube and condenser.

6.6.4 Distilling adaptor (attached to the distilling head and to the distillate collection flask

for recovery of solvent).

6.6.5 Distillate collection flask (attached to the distilling adaptor for collection of the

distilled solvent).

6.6.6 Ice bath or recirculating chiller (to aid in the condensation and collection of the

distilled solvent).

6.6.7 Vacuum—Vacuum pump or other source of vacuum.

6.6.8 Tongs, for handling the boiling flask (Baxter Scientific Products No. T5007-2, or

equivalent).

6.6.9 Desiccator—Cabinet- or jar-type, capable of keeping the boiling flask (Section 6.6.2)

dry during cooling.

6.6.10 Hood-EXPLOSION-PROOF, capable of accommodating the equipment used for solvent

distillation (Section 6.6.1-6.6.5).

6.7 Equipment for removal of adsorbable materials.

Method 1664

February 1999 5

6.7.1 Magnetic stirrer.

6.7.2 PTFE-coated magnetic stirring bars.

6.7.3 Graduated cylinder—500-mL, capable of measuring ± 5 mL.

6.7.4 Pipettes—Assorted sizes, calibrated to within ± 0.5 percent.

7.0 Reagents and Standards

7.1 Reagent water—Water in which HEM is not detected at or above the minimum level (ML)

of this method. Bottled distilled water or water prepared by passage of tap water through

activated carbon have been shown to be acceptable sources of reagent water.

7.2 Hydrochloric acid or sulfuric acid—ACS. Mix equal volumes of concentrated HCl and

reagent water or 1 part H2SO4 and 3 parts reagent water to produce an approximately 6N

solution.

7.3 n-Hexane—85% minimum purity, 99.0% min. saturated C6 isomers, residue less than 1 mg/L.

7.4 Acetone—ACS, residue less than 1 mg/L.

7.5 Sodium sulfate—ACS, granular anhydrous. Dry at 200-250 EC for 24 h minimum and store

in a tightly sealed container until use.

NOTE: Powdered sodium sulfate should not be used because traces of

water may cause it to solidify.

7.6 Boiling chips—Silicon carbide or fluoropolymer.

7.7 Silica gel—Anhydrous, 75 - 150 micrometers, Davisil Grade 923 (Supelco 21447-7A, or

equivalent). Dry at 200–250EC for 24 h minimum and store in a desiccator or tightly sealed

container. Determine the n-hexane soluble material content of the silica gel by extracting 30

g of silica gel with n-hexane and distilling the n-hexane to dryness. The silica gel must contain

less than 5 mg of n-hexane soluble material per 30 g (< 0.17 mg/g).

EPA 1664 EQUIPMENT LIST (page 2 of 3)
51

7.8 Hexadecane—98% minimum purity.

7.9 Stearic acid—98% minimum purity.

7.10 Hexadecane/stearic acid (1:1) spiking solution—Prepare in acetone 

at a concentration of 2

mg/mL each.

7.10.1 Place 200 ± 2 mg stearic acid and 200 ± 2 mg hexadecane in a 100-

mL volumetric

flask and fill to the mark with acetone.

NOTE: The solution may require warming for complete dissolution of

stearic acid.

7.10.2 After the hexadecane and stearic acid have dissolved, transfer the 

solution to a

100–150 mL vial with fluoropolymer-lined cap. Mark the solution level on the 

vial

and store in the dark at room temperature.

7.10.3 Immediately prior to use, verify the level on the vial and bring to 

volume with

acetone, if required. Warm to redissolve all visible precipitate.

NOTE: If there is doubt of the concentration, remove 10.0 ± 0.1 mL with

a volumetric pipet, place in a tared weighing pan, and evaporate to

dryness in a fume hood. The weight must be 40 ± 1 mg. If not, prepare

a fresh solution (Section 7.10.1).

Method 1664

6 February 1999

7.11 Precision and recovery (PAR) standard—Using a pipet, spike 10.0 ±

0.1 mL of the

hexadecane/stearic acid spiking solution (Section 7.10) into 950–1050 mL of 

reagent water

to produce concentrations of approximately 20 mg/L each of hexadecane and 

stearic acid.

The PAR standard is used for the determination of initial (Section 9.2.2) and 

ongoing

(Section 9.6) precision and recovery.

7.12 The spiking solutions should be checked frequently for signs of 

degradation or evaporation

using the test noted in Section 7.10.3, and must be replaced after six months, 

or sooner if

degradation has occurred.

EPA 1664 EQUIPMENT LIST (page 3 of 3)
52
53

GREEN ASPECT OF ASTM D7575

(Toxic Issues with EPA 1664)
54

EPA’s 12 Principles of 

Green Chemistry

OSS

Extractor

Note

1) Prevention YES No waste to treat/clean

2) Atom economy N/A

3) Less hazardous chem. synthesis N/A

4) Designing safer chemicals YES Non-toxic extractor design

5) Safer solvents and auxiliaries YES Solventless!!

6) Design for energy efficiency YES Minimal energy use, no fume hoods, no 

evaporators, no large quantities of hazmat 

materials to transport

7) Use renewable feedstock YES Uses small amount of plastic and metal material 

that can be reused/recycled

8) Reduce derivatives N/A

9) Catalysis N/A

10) Design for degradation N/A Uses small amounts of plastic and metal 

materials that may be reused / recycled.

11) Analyze in real time to prevent 

pollution

YES Analysis can be performed on-site and in realtime, portable technology

12)Inherently safer chemistry for 

accident prevention

YES No solvents or hazardous materials, safe analysis 

process minimal potential of chemical accident

ASTM D7575 – Green!
55
56

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; 

EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC) Water Docket 

MC 28221T

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20460

Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2010-0192

The letter presents three key points: 

1) n-Hexane is a well-documented occupational health hazard;

2) Health effects from exposure to n-hexane can occur at exposure levels several orders of 

magnitude below the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s Permissible 

Exposure Limit of 1,800 mg/m3 (500 ppm); 

3) Reducing the commercial circulation of n-hexane by allowing methods that use solventfree technologies would help mitigate worker exposures to n-hexane throughout its life 

cycle; this approach is consistent with EPA’s commitment to the principles of green 

chemistry. 
57

Hexane Mentioned 38 times!!!

Cases of direct health issues

Cases of explosions

Air-reactive substances - These substances may cause fires or explosions, and 

may generate toxic gases, or vapors.

Flammable air-reactives - include hydrocarbon solvents (such as 

hexane, toluene, naphtha) and fuels (such as gasoline).
58
59

OIL IN WATER TECHNOLOGIES MATRIX
60

Infrared Based

OSS TECHNOLOGY FEATURES
61

HEXANE EXPLODES

OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY

LABORATORY
62

•Danger of serious health damage

•Irritating to skin, eyes, lungs

•Risk of impaired fertility

•Toxic to aquatic organisms 

Hexane Issues:

Hazardous Materials Transport / Disposal:

OSS METHOD:

NO SOLVENTS

NO TOXIC SUBSTANCES

DISPOSABLE

FAST, EASY PROCESS

MEETS OR EXCEEDS EPA

1664 PERFORMANCE

CURRENT EPA 1664 METHOD:

Millions of Liters/Year 

of Hexane evaporated 

into atmosphere

Pollution:

Summary
63

SUPPORT FOR ASTM D7575 

INCLUSION IN METHOD UPDATE 

RULE 
64

Here are some points for you all to keep in mind:

1) A comparison study between 1664 and D7575 was carried out in accordance with the 

procedures in EPA's Phase II Freon Replacement Study.

2) On page 5 of the EPA Freon Replacement Study, the Agency states that infrared 

techniques/methods would be evaluated in the Phase III Replacement Study. Obviously, 

infrared was under consideration by the Agency.

3) For D7575, a side-by-side comparison was carried out, in triplicate, by a single, 

independent laboratory. And this was also the case with the EPA Phase II Study. Again, 

in D7575, thirty samples are covered in the ASTM Report. Also three (or four) additional 

samples were analyzed, and the results sent to the Agency--separately.

4) The EPA Phase II Freon Replacement Study analyzed 34 samples. The ASTM D7575 

Study analyzed 33 samples. We did not sample a more diverse collection of industries 

because we did not have 308 Authority—the device EPA employed for its collection 

efforts. Note that the volunteer industries that we employed for the D7575 ASTM Study 

were approved by EPA (Dick Reding).

Bill Telliard Points of Note re. ASTM D7575 

Development
65

ASTM Formal Request to EPA to Include D7575 in Rule
66

―I was thoroughly impressed with the ease of use and the speed of this method. 

Even with minimal training, I felt comfortable and confident when asked to use the 

method without assistance. It only took a couple hours to process an MDL and 

several samples. With our current system, this could take as much as a full day 

to run. As the Health and Safety Officer, I was very glad to see that this is a 

solvent-free method. Any way to reduce hazardous materials in the lab is great. 

It‘s safer and helps save money. Another of my responsibilities is disposal of 

hazardous waste. We currently collect 2 X 1 liter ambers for Oil and Grease 

Analysis. It seems more than likely, that with this method, as long as it doesn‘t 

affect reporting limits; a smaller volume could be collected. ―

MULTILAB STUDY – USER SURVEY EXAMPLES:

―One large cost- and health-saving advantage of this method is that it does not 

use any solvent. It can also be a space-saving advantage, since it does not 

need to be performed in a fume hood, allowing other analyses to be performed in 

the hood while the Oil and Grease analysis is also being performed. ―
67

1) Comment attachment submitted by Andrea Rex, Massachusetts Water Resources Authority 

Comments Due Dec 22, 2010 11:59 PM ET Public Submission Massachusetts Water Resources Authority EPA-HQ-OW-2010-0192-0091.1 11/22/2010

―For oil and grease, this section explicitly DOESN‘T propose for approval ASTM method D7575-10, which is based on solid phase extraction using a 

membrane and quantitation by infrared absorption of the membrane. We had occasion to try this method out with the method developer (OSS) and 

found it to be simple yet elegant. It worked well on method detection limit and precision and accuracy samples,..‖

2) Comment attachment submitted by Willie R. Taylor, Director, Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance, U.S. Department of the Interior 

Comments Due Dec 22, 2010 11:59 PM ET Public Submission EPA-HQ-OW-2010-0192-0108.1 12/01/2010

Proposed Revisions to Method Modification Provisions at 40 CFR 136 ―We are in agreement that regulatory authorities should allow analysts the 

flexibility to modify CW A methods without prior approval provided the user has documented equivalent or better performance of the method in that 

particular matrix type. In instrumental analyses. analysts may need to modify approved methods in order to combat matrix interferences and these 

modifications should not require extensive review. The Department agrees that acceptable reasons for these modifications should include lower 

detection limits, improved precision, less spectral interference, lower laboratory cost and the reduction of laboratory waste. ―

3) Comment submitted by Andre Brousseau, President, Maine Wastewater Control Association (MWWCA)

Comments Due Dec 22, 2010 11:59 PM ET Public Submission Maine Wastewater Control Association (MWWCA) EPA-HQ-OW-2010-0192-0109 

―Method 1664 for Oil& Grease: Hexane

In the Federal Register of September 23, 2010, EPA seeks to approve new technologies for other test parameters as part of its changes to 40 CFR 136, 

yet falls short of being able to accept new methods that include new technologies for Oil & Grease. NfWWCA finds that the EPA's reasoning for 

not approving alternative test methods for Oil & Grease is contradictory to the Agency's "Summary" statement that these regulations will "provide 

increased flexibility to the regulated community and laboratories in their selection of analytical methods (test procedures) for use in Clean Water Act 

programs." Further, approving the new methods would be more consistent with the EPA's mission and purpose to "ensure that all Americans are 

protected from significant risks to human health and the environment where they live learn and work. ― EPA has previously approved hexane 

extractable methods for Oil & Grease, then reversed that decision because hexane was a hazardous solvent and required use of Freonextractable methods for Oil & Grease. Then EPA reversed that decision and went back to hexane, because Freon was considered more harmful to 

human health and the environment than hexane. However, hexane remains a dangerous solvent. n-Hexane has a flashpoint of -22 degrees Celsius, 

so most n-hexane waste is considered a RCRA hazardous waste by characteristic. According to the u.s. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and 

Health Administration (OSHA) Guideline for n-Hexane (2008) discussion on toxicology to animals, "n-Hexane is a neurotoxin, a narcotic, and an irritant 

of the eyes, skin, and mucous membranes [Hathaway et al. 199 I]. n-Hexane also causes (re)productive and embryo toxic effects and is cytotoxic in 

mammalian and human test systems [NIOSH 1991]." OSHA also found that n-Hexane is toxic to humans, and recommends extensive medical 

surveillance for persons working with n-Hexane. EPA must consider the goals of the Clean Water Act when approving test procedures for Clean Water 

Act permittees in 40 CFR 136. NJWWCA believes that the fats, oils and greases that may be toxic to aquatic organisms, or interfere with sewer 

collection systems and wastewater treatment, are primarily petroleum, animal or vegetable in origin. These fats, oils and greases are not 

exclusively "hexane extractable" compounds. In fact, other technologies and methods may be better at measuring these compounds, and 

may be used to better quantify how much fat, oil or grease is toxic to aquatic life or interferes with wastewater treatment.

EPA should not specifically and uniquely endorse a solvent specific method for "Oil & Grease." The NJWWCA requests that EPA reverse its 

decision that only n-hexane extractable Oil & Grease methods are acceptable. We understand that, to further that reversal, EPA must re-write its 

current definition of oil and grease so that new technologies and test methods can be approved.

CURRENT METHOD UPDATE RULE (EPA-HQ-OW-0192)

9 INDEPENDENT ASTM D7575 PUBLIC COMMENT EXAMPLES

*** Note these are comments even though ASTM D7575 was NOT PROPOSED
68

4) Comment submitted by David N. Speis, Chair, Environmental Laboratory Advisory Board (ELAB) 

Comments Due Dec 22, 2010 11:59 PM ET Public Submission Environmental Laboratory Advisory Board (ELAB) EPA-HQ-OW-2010-0192-0120 

12/20/2010

―Comment: Flexibility in the Use of Methods for Different Analytes. 

There is a need for flexibility in adding analytes to EPA-approved methods as long as the supporting quality assurance (QA) and QC based 

on data quality objectives (DQOs) demonstrates acceptable data quality. As water quality criteria are adopted for new analytes, this type of method 

flexibility would facilitate more defensible and reliable monitoring of these analytes. Where feasible for a given technology, EPA should allow current EPA

approved methods to be used to analyze compounds/analytes in addition to those listed in the methods as long as QA/QC demonstrates acceptable data 

quality. The development of DQOs for individual programs would facilitate this flexibility and reduce the need for new methods. ELAB recommends that 

EPA consider providing this flexibility in the final rule.

Comment: Method Validation and Approval Process. 

EPA has proposed numerous changes to the methods in the MUR simply by approving different editions of Standard Methods for use. This is significant 

because the method approval process for Standard Methods is not the same as that for EPA or other standards-setting organizations. Additionally, 

changes are being made by vendors to methods previously deemed to be equivalent to 40 CFR Part 136 methods (e.g., Lachat Methods for total kjeldahl

nitrogen ammonia); the acceptability or approval of these changes or updates is not clear. Based on these observations, it appears that many changes 

to the methods approved for use in this rule, given the information provided by EPA, are occurring without a systematic review, validation, 

and approval process.

5) Comment submitted by Ellen R Campbell, Nitrate Elmination Co Inc

Comments Due Dec 22, 2010 11:59 PM ET Public Submission Nitrate Elmination Co Inc EPA-HQ-OW-2010-0192-0121 12/20/2010

―General Comment

The methods approval process at the EPA under the Clean Water and Safe Drinking Water Acts is geared toward old, established analytical methods in 

use before 1960. The EPA seems willing to accept new methods that require high-cost equipment. This mindset is detrimental to innovative companies 

here in the US. It is time for the EPA to start considering and approving new methods based on reduction of hazardous or toxic reagents AND 

on methods that are proven to work,. Advances in biotechnology and materials science may simplify and reduce costs for many analytes of interest to 

the EPA. This How can a new mindset at the EPA toward green and cost-effective methods be established?‖

6) Anonymous public comment

Comments Due Dec 22, 2010 11:59 PM ET Public Submission University of Maine EPA-HQ-OW-2010-0192-0129 12/21/2010

General Comment

As an individual who has performed both the previous Freon method as well as the n-hexane method I have been exposed to these 

dangerous fumes. I read your documentation for why this specific method ASTM D7575 was not chosen as a viable alternative to EPA 1664 

based on the fact that all oil and grease sampling techniques require an organic solvent. This breakthrough in the measurement of oil and 

grease should be adopted and the rationale that the method doesn't include a solvent is not in the best interest of science or the 

environment. 

CURRENT METHOD UPDATE RULE (EPA-HQ-OW-0192)

9 INDEPENDENT ASTM D7575 PUBLIC COMMENT EXAMPLES (continued)
69

7) Comment attachment submitted by Paul Wiegand, Vice President, Water Quality, National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc. (NCASI) 

Comments Due Dec 22, 2010 11:59 PM ET Public Submission EPA-HQ-OW-2010-0192-0166.1 12/27/2010

― As detailed in the attachment, NCASI’s primary concern is that EPA is proposing adoption of many methods despite the absence of validation 

data, both in general and specifically using real-world matrices. The absence of appropriate method validation data in the docket is of concern 

because without such data not only is it impossible to verify the performance of methods proposed as part of this rule, but it also suggests that EPA is 

proposing methods absent the data to bootstrap even basic quality control (see Comment #2 in the attachment). 

Similarly, EPA proposes addition of several EPA methods (e.g., 1614A, 614.1, 632, 1664 Rev. B, 622.1, and 619) but has not provided any 

validation data demonstrating the capabilities of the methods to meet the testing requirements for the NPDES program, nor has it conducted a peer 

review and made the result available for public comment.‖

8) Comment attachment submitted by Joe Boyd, Environmental Express 

Comments Due Dec 22, 2010 11:59 PM ET Public Submission EPA-HQ-OW-2010-0192-0181.112/27/2010

―The EPA has decided not to include ASTM method D7575-10 in Table IB mainly due to the fact that this method does not use the solvent n-hexane in 

the determination of oil & grease. Methods that are currently listed in Table IB (EPA 1664B, SM 5520B-2001, and SM 5520F-2001) do indeed list nhexane as the solvent to use for extraction. However, all three of these methods reference ―oil & grease‖ as a method defined parameter based on the 

use of hexane as the extraction solvent. This makes the analytes of interest ―hexane extractable material‖, or HEM rather than ―oil & grease‖. While both 

―HEM‖ and ―oil & grease‖ can be construed as method defined analytes, HEM is much more specific in that the name itself implies that the analytes of 

interest must be extractable using hexane. ―Oil & grease‖, however, is a broader term and does not limit itself to any specific type of extraction. One must 

understand that no matter what extraction procedure is employed, the analytes of interest will always be a method defined parameter as the term ―oil & 

grease‖ is truly indefinable. The continued use of the term ―oil & grease‖ in Table IB for Parameter 41, however, leads to some confusion and brings into 

question the reasoning behind the EPA‘s decision to limit the measurement of this parameter to hexane extractable material.

The EPA‘s decision to abandon methods 413.1 and 418.1 to eliminate the use of the fluorochlorohydrocarbon Freon® has been widely accepted as a 

step in the positive direction to reduce the amount of pollution generated by the laboratory. While n-hexane is an improvement over Freon®, it is still 

a highly flammable solvent and has the potential to be highly toxic to the user.

Environmental Express, Inc. does not specifically endorse the product created by Orono Spectral Solutions Inc. (OSS) used in ASTM method 

D7575-10, however we would ask that the EPA continue to look at products that can make various analyses ―greener‖. The supporting data 

provided by OSS does seem to indicate an equivalent option for the determination of the parameter ―oil & grease‖ and eliminates the risks 

created by the use of n-hexane. While ASTM method D7575-10 does not lead to the analyte of interest as HEM, it does provide an alternative 

extraction technique to determine ―oil & grease‖. The EPA has already demonstrated that it is willing to alter the definition of the end analyte of interest 

for the parameter of ―oil & grease‖ by moving from Freon® to nhexane, creating HEM. The EPA should keep the spirit of this philosophy alive in the

move to greener methodologies and reconsider it’s stance on ASTM D7575-10.‖

CURRENT METHOD UPDATE RULE (EPA-HQ-OW-0192)

9 INDEPENDENT ASTM D7575 PUBLIC COMMENT EXAMPLES (continued)
70

9) Comment submitted by Peter Halpin, Caltest Analytical Laboratory

Public Submission Caltest Analytical Laboratory EPA-HQ-OW-2010-0192-0187 12/30/2010

―In the spirit of the March 207 Method Update Rule that applied to Clean Water Act analyses and sampling procedures we are requesting that you 

include flexibility to reduce costs where feasible and where the changes do not result in a reduction of data quality. Specifically in allowing

alternate extraction procedures, addition of an analyte, and the use of mass spectrometer detectors for all semivolatile analytes where the mass 

spectrometer is capable of providing sufficiently sensitive detection limits for the purpose of the analysis.

For example, where extractable organics can be demonstrated to be adequately extracted from the target water by solid phase extraction, we 

advocate allowing the solid phase extraction. This would result in much less use of the toxic methylene chloride solvent, and generate less waste.

Some methods explicitly allow solid phase extraction, some are too old to make reference to the technique. In addition to solid phase extraction, 

other green chemistry approaches that minimize solvent waste, hazard, and analyst time include stir bar sorptive extraction, and solid phase

microextraction. When these approaches can be shown to meet the monitoring objective it would be helpful to be able to use them for 

compliance purposes...‖

CURRENT METHOD UPDATE RULE (EPA-HQ-OW-0192)

9 INDEPENDENT ASTM D7575 PUBLIC COMMENT EXAMPLES (continued)
71

• Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-119 (1998)

– Encourages federal agencies to benefit from the expertise of the private sector

– Promotes agency participation in standards development activities

– Seeks to reduce reliance on government unique standards

– Section 6 of the OMB Circular requires head of agencies to provide an explanation 

of the reason(s) for using government-unique standards in lieu of voluntary 

consensus standards

– Annual report prepared by NIST for OMB on government use of standards and 

participation in standards activities

• National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) of 1995

– Directs federal agencies to use ―technical standards developed or adopted by the 

voluntary consensus standards bodies‖ as a means to carry out policy objectives or 

activities determined by the agencies or departments
72

ASTM D7575 FIELD EXPERIENCE
73

Tom

Schwarz

Dean

Smith

Blog at http://www.ossmaine.com/

OSS GULF OIL DISASTER FIELD TESTING

JUNE 2010
74

GULF FIELD TESTING HIGHLIGHTS:

•Set up equipment and train personnel at Alpha Test Site 

(Petroleum Laboratories, Lafayette, LA) on ASTM METHOD 

D7575

•Perform side-by-side comparisons against EPA 1664a

•Perform field sampling around Louisiana coast: 

•Unaffected areas in the west

•Hard-hit areas in Grand Isle

•Surface, subsurface, and sediment samples

•100+ samples taken and processed

•Perform real-time field analysis of ASTM D757 using only a 

generator for power.
75

Alpha Test Site: Petroleum Laboratories Lafayette, LA

Thousands of samples/year

Support of offshore industry
76

Field Sampling Areas
77

Field Sampling: Grand Isle (surface grab)
78

Real-Time, Portable, Field Analysis
79

Analysis of Ocean Floor

SAMPLE

HOMOGENIZE

PROCESS
80

Identify oil/dispersants

DISPERSANT COREXIT 9527 on ZnSe

OTHER OIL AND GREASE MATRICES

•STATISTICAL SIGNAL PROCESSING 

TO CHARACTERIZE / QUANTIFY 

DISPERSANTS IN OIL AND GREASE 

MATRICES??

•CURRENTLY WORKING ON THIS.
81
82

AP Article 2/19/11
83

OSS ASTM D7575 Technology: USM Gulf Study

Objective: To study long-term effects of 

Deepwater Horizon disaster on marine 

mammals

Cruise #1: July 17-November 8

Cruise #2 (pending): Spring/summer 

2011

OSS High Sensitivity Extractor

– Range: 0.2-40 ppm

– ML (As defined by EPA)= 200 ppb

~75 Samples collected and processed through high-sensitivity 

OSS extractor

– Current results between non-detect and 0.6 ppm
84

OSS visit to NAVSEA Ship Systems Engineering Facility

OSS sucessfully demonstrated the potential of ASTM Method D7575 for shipboard

bilgewater applications at the NAVSEA facility in Philadelphia, PA.
85

On-going Field Testing / Tier I Study: Cleveland Ohio
86

MISCELLANEOUS
87

HOMOGENIZATION EXAMPLE

(motor oil in water - sonication)

T = 0 min T = 10 min

T = 20 min
88

OIL IN WATER CLUB

Dr. Ming Yang

TUVNEL

OSS OIL IN WATER INTERACTIONS

ASTM 

INTERNATIONAL

D19 SUBCOMMITTEE

PRODUCED WATER 

SOCIETY

Dr. Colin Tyrie

Dr. Dan Caudle

PITTCON

WEFTEC

MAINE 

PRETREATMENT

Tom Wiley

NEW ENGLAND

ITLA

ACS / GREEN 

CHEMISTRY 

CONFERENCE 

INVITED PAPERS

2009, 20110

AMERICAN 

PETROLEUM 

INSTITUTE

Roger Claff

EPA INDUSTRIAL 

STAKEHOLDERS 

GROUP

NAVSEA

Ray Morales

PETROLEUM 

LABORATORIES

Charlie Voinche

CLEVELAND 

SANITARY DISTRICT

NEW ENGLAND

PRETREATMENT 

CONFERENCE

EPA Justin Pimpare

TEST AMERICA 

Dr. Mark Bruce

MISC. 

ORGANIZATIONS / 

CONFERENCES

NELAC

PETROBRAS
89

983 Stillwater Avenue ~ Old Town ME 04468

Tel: 866-269-8007 Fax: 866-660-4759 Email: info@ossmaine.com Web: www.ossmaine.com

• Incorporated 2004

• Spun out of University of Maine

• DoD Contractor (CBD-Army) for Chem/Bio Detection

• Actively Pursuing Commercial Opportunities