The Cost Benefits of Direct Mercury Analysis
How do you know the bottom line?

Let’s take a more detailed look at the cost of analysis comparison between a dedicated mercury analyzer and one using Direct Mercury Analysis. It’s also worth noting that there are three approved methods using this approach - EPA Method 7473 for solid samples and liquids, ASTM method D-7623-10 for total mercury in crude oil using combustion gold amalgamation and cold vapor atomic absorption method and ASTM 6722-01 for coal combustion products. The EPA method states that total mercury can be determined in either the laboratory or a fi eld setting without sample chemical pretreatment in less than 5 minutes. You know that over the next 12 months you’ll be getting a high workload of samples, so it sounds ideally suited for what you want to do. However, you are unsure if the cost savings can justify the investment for a new Direct Mercury Analysis instrument. This is the exact scenario that many labs are faced with when the demand for mercury analysis increases significantly. To stay with traditional dedicated mercury techniques such as CV-AAS/ AFS or perhaps move some of the samples over to the ICP mass spectrometer (ICP-MS), which is predominantly used for drinking water and wastewater analysis, or to invest in the direct mercury technique. So, let’s take a closer look at the comparison in running costs between the Milestone DMA-80 evo and CV-AAS/AFS, and also how they stack up against ICP-MS, to see if the investment can be justified. Note: For this exercise, we’ll make the comparison using similar sample types that require some type of sample pretreatment or preparation (e.g., solids or liquids that require digestion).