At the request of others .....The report by PeterIMA on cyanide use in the Philippines during the ninties may be the single most often refered study in our industry........I ask this question. How many of the people on this board feel the study Peter conducted with regard to the amount of fish with cyanide present during 1996 through 2000 was accurate and that his methods were proper? I will not debate the study in this post. I am looking for responses that explain why you feel this study is sound or is not ...........We shall assume non responses as non supporters of the notion of accuracy...... :wink: HOW MANY OF YOU SUPPORT THE BASIS FOR HIS CONCLUSIONS?
Peter Rubic and the study?
- Thread starter Kalkbreath
- Start date
Aren't you contradicting yourself here?
Anyway:
Rubec et al. (2002)
. Yes, I believe these results and the methodology, in spite of not having a degree in marine ecology, nor having published peer-reviewed work in marine ecology. Why? The paper is peer-reviewed, among other reasons, and the math and numbers presented in that paper does match up. The test method used follows a published protocol (ASTM D2036-91). While ASTM methods are not state-of-the-art, they are considered reliable. I have great familiarity with 2 ASTM methods that are far from state-of-the-art, yet, provide good results. Furthermore, the authors' suggestions of using HPLC has merits. I wonder if a more sensitive detection method (such as GC/Mass Spec) might not be even better than HPLC as a specific cyanide ion detector.
Other onlookers may choose not to post. Why don't you make this a poll? Phrase the question in this fashion: "Are the results published by Rubec et al. (IMA powerpoint presentation at xxxx; also in "Marine Ornamental Species: Collection, Culture, and Conservation" ed. Cato and Brown, Blackwell Publishing, 2003) accurate, and is the test method used proper?" Then, folks are more likely to respond.
Regards,
Hy
Sixty seven veiws and only one person has climbed aboard? Could it be that some of you simply wish the data to be true .......You will stand behind it .....but not next to it?Mary ,Steve, Horge? If you dont have this study to stand behind .....what do you base the need for reeform on?
Tran, If you look at the methods for detecting cyanide described in "Standard Methods For The Examination Of Water And Wastewater" 20th Edition you will see that other methods exist for determination of the presence of cyanide ion and thyiocyanate ion. I did not see a method using a Mass Spectograph. I am not sure there is one using a Gas Chromatograph (gc), definitely not Mass Spec. I don't think the Philippine governent can afford such "state of the art" methods. The method applied using the ISE is practical and relatively inexpensive. All of the methods for measuring cyanide ion, first require that tissues be dissolved to get cyanide ion into solution. So the reflux distillation (described by APHA and ASTM and used by IMA/BFAR) is necessary prior to using any of the methods to measure the cyanide concentration.
So far, the MAC and Merck have not announced they have anything better. BFAR is still using the APHA/ASTM procedure that was previously used by IMA.
Peter Rubec
So far, the MAC and Merck have not announced they have anything better. BFAR is still using the APHA/ASTM procedure that was previously used by IMA.
Peter Rubec
Kalkbreath":16sw8hlo said:
Only one person hard-headed enough to stand up against your foolishness.
The rest of the people have dismissed you as a flake a long time ago.
I cannot for a simple reason that a newbie that reads your views, without seeing them contested, might not have enough knowledge to understand them for what they are.
PeterIMA":1ks56vkr said:
Peter,
My family name is Tran & personal name is Hy; if you're going to address me by family name, please stick a title on it 8)
Anyway, the last time I did analytical chemistry seriously was over 20 years ago, when GC/MS was considered state-of-the-art for detection of organics. Recently, I've been involved with flow cytometry, which does not require great sensitivity (basically, fluorescence detection). I was speculating about GC/MS. I'm not a biologist anymore; haven't been for a long time. I'm just an engineer now. That said, I asked a number of questions on the other thread because the originator posted some doubts, but upon further query, the originator on the other thread was unable to prove his assertions. (More strongly: The originator disproved his own assertions). But back to my out-of-date analytical chemistry: I can see why a water/wastewater manual might not use mass spec. It's a very high end instrument ($$$$, not just $$), and you would be paying for excess sensitivity. Let me finish by reiterating that ASTM published methods are perfectly acceptable. As a peer/volunteer professional group, the standards published are of good quality, though sometimes out of date (e.g. D2240 durometer hardness, while a good field test, does not yield as much information, as microindentation. Of course, a durometer is $500, and a microindenter is $50,000; in order to get an extra decimal point...).
Regards,
Hy
Hy, My apologies to you, Dr. Tran. First names are more personal. I appreciate your comments in support of the existing CDT and your explanations concerning different analytical approaches. Perhaps, you should explain to the readers your academic qualifications etc.
No offense was intended by using your last name (I did not even realize that I had, but should have). The fact that you are an engineer rather than a marine ecologist, should make you more qualified to comment on analytical chemistry than myself.
Peter Rubec, Ph.D.
Fisheries Biologist
No offense was intended by using your last name (I did not even realize that I had, but should have). The fact that you are an engineer rather than a marine ecologist, should make you more qualified to comment on analytical chemistry than myself.
Peter Rubec, Ph.D.
Fisheries Biologist
Sponsor Reefs
We're a FREE website, and we exist because of hobbyists like YOU who help us run this community.
Click here to sponsor $10:
