Critically assessing the utility of portable lead analyzers for wildlife conservation
ABSTRACT Lead (Pb) exposure in wildlife is a widespread management and conservation concern. Quantitative determination of Pb concentrations in wildlife tissues is the foundation for estimating exposure and risk. Development of low‐cost, portable instruments has improved access and cost‐effectivenes...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Wiley
2018-06-01
|
| Series: | Wildlife Society Bulletin |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.1002/wsb.892 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1850255502733213696 |
|---|---|
| author | Garth Herring Collin A. Eagles‐Smith Bryan Bedrosian Derek Craighead Robert Domenech Heiko W. Langner Chris N. Parish Adam Shreading Alacia Welch Rachel Wolstenholme |
| author_facet | Garth Herring Collin A. Eagles‐Smith Bryan Bedrosian Derek Craighead Robert Domenech Heiko W. Langner Chris N. Parish Adam Shreading Alacia Welch Rachel Wolstenholme |
| author_sort | Garth Herring |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | ABSTRACT Lead (Pb) exposure in wildlife is a widespread management and conservation concern. Quantitative determination of Pb concentrations in wildlife tissues is the foundation for estimating exposure and risk. Development of low‐cost, portable instruments has improved access and cost‐effectiveness of determining Pb concentrations in blood samples, while also facilitating the ability for wildlife researchers to conduct near real‐time Pb testing. However, these instruments, which use anodic stripping voltammetry (ASV) methodology, may produce an analytical bias in wildlife‐blood Pb concentrations. Additionally, their simplicity invites use without appropriate quality‐assurance–quality‐control measures. Together, these factors can reduce data quality and hamper the ability to evaluate it, raising concerns about use of these instruments to inform important conservation issues. We document the extent to which this bias is addressed in the wildlife toxicology literature, develop quantitative approaches for correcting the bias, and provide recommendations to ensure robust data quality when using these instruments. Of the 25 studies we reviewed that referenced ASV use for determining Pb exposure in wildlife, only 32% acknowledged the existence of bias from the instrument. Importantly, another 20% of the studies actually reported ASV and spectroscopic‐based results together without acknowledging their lack of equivalence. Using a multispecies data set of avian blood Pb concentrations, we found that ASV‐based estimates of paired blood Pb concentrations were 30–38% lower than those from standard spectrometric‐based methods. We provide regression equations based on this analysis of 453 blood samples to allow users of ASV instruments to adjust Pb concentrations to spectrometric‐equivalent values, and propose a series of guidelines to follow when using these instruments to improve data validity. Published 2018. This article is a U.S. Government work and is in the public domain in the USA. |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-0af415938cc24f0e88a6c0effefcdb61 |
| institution | OA Journals |
| issn | 2328-5540 |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2018-06-01 |
| publisher | Wiley |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Wildlife Society Bulletin |
| spelling | doaj-art-0af415938cc24f0e88a6c0effefcdb612025-08-20T01:56:52ZengWileyWildlife Society Bulletin2328-55402018-06-0142228429410.1002/wsb.892Critically assessing the utility of portable lead analyzers for wildlife conservationGarth Herring0Collin A. Eagles‐Smith1Bryan Bedrosian2Derek Craighead3Robert Domenech4Heiko W. Langner5Chris N. Parish6Adam Shreading7Alacia Welch8Rachel Wolstenholme9U.S. Geological SurveyForest and Rangeland Ecosystem Science CenterCorvallisOR97331USAU.S. Geological SurveyForest and Rangeland Ecosystem Science CenterCorvallisOR97331USATeton Raptor CenterWilsonWY83014USACraighead Beringia SouthKellyWY83011USARaptor View Research InstituteMissoulaMT59806USAKing Abdullah University of Science and TechnologyThuwal23955‐6900Saudi ArabiaThe Peregrine FundBoiseID83709USARaptor View Research InstituteMissoulaMT59806USAPinnacles National ParkPaicinesCA95043USAPinnacles National ParkPaicinesCA95043USAABSTRACT Lead (Pb) exposure in wildlife is a widespread management and conservation concern. Quantitative determination of Pb concentrations in wildlife tissues is the foundation for estimating exposure and risk. Development of low‐cost, portable instruments has improved access and cost‐effectiveness of determining Pb concentrations in blood samples, while also facilitating the ability for wildlife researchers to conduct near real‐time Pb testing. However, these instruments, which use anodic stripping voltammetry (ASV) methodology, may produce an analytical bias in wildlife‐blood Pb concentrations. Additionally, their simplicity invites use without appropriate quality‐assurance–quality‐control measures. Together, these factors can reduce data quality and hamper the ability to evaluate it, raising concerns about use of these instruments to inform important conservation issues. We document the extent to which this bias is addressed in the wildlife toxicology literature, develop quantitative approaches for correcting the bias, and provide recommendations to ensure robust data quality when using these instruments. Of the 25 studies we reviewed that referenced ASV use for determining Pb exposure in wildlife, only 32% acknowledged the existence of bias from the instrument. Importantly, another 20% of the studies actually reported ASV and spectroscopic‐based results together without acknowledging their lack of equivalence. Using a multispecies data set of avian blood Pb concentrations, we found that ASV‐based estimates of paired blood Pb concentrations were 30–38% lower than those from standard spectrometric‐based methods. We provide regression equations based on this analysis of 453 blood samples to allow users of ASV instruments to adjust Pb concentrations to spectrometric‐equivalent values, and propose a series of guidelines to follow when using these instruments to improve data validity. Published 2018. This article is a U.S. Government work and is in the public domain in the USA.https://doi.org/10.1002/wsb.892anodic stripping voltammetryblood leadgraphite‐furnace atomic absorption spectrometryinductively‐coupled mass spectrometryLeadCare®portable lead analyzer |
| spellingShingle | Garth Herring Collin A. Eagles‐Smith Bryan Bedrosian Derek Craighead Robert Domenech Heiko W. Langner Chris N. Parish Adam Shreading Alacia Welch Rachel Wolstenholme Critically assessing the utility of portable lead analyzers for wildlife conservation Wildlife Society Bulletin anodic stripping voltammetry blood lead graphite‐furnace atomic absorption spectrometry inductively‐coupled mass spectrometry LeadCare® portable lead analyzer |
| title | Critically assessing the utility of portable lead analyzers for wildlife conservation |
| title_full | Critically assessing the utility of portable lead analyzers for wildlife conservation |
| title_fullStr | Critically assessing the utility of portable lead analyzers for wildlife conservation |
| title_full_unstemmed | Critically assessing the utility of portable lead analyzers for wildlife conservation |
| title_short | Critically assessing the utility of portable lead analyzers for wildlife conservation |
| title_sort | critically assessing the utility of portable lead analyzers for wildlife conservation |
| topic | anodic stripping voltammetry blood lead graphite‐furnace atomic absorption spectrometry inductively‐coupled mass spectrometry LeadCare® portable lead analyzer |
| url | https://doi.org/10.1002/wsb.892 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT garthherring criticallyassessingtheutilityofportableleadanalyzersforwildlifeconservation AT collinaeaglessmith criticallyassessingtheutilityofportableleadanalyzersforwildlifeconservation AT bryanbedrosian criticallyassessingtheutilityofportableleadanalyzersforwildlifeconservation AT derekcraighead criticallyassessingtheutilityofportableleadanalyzersforwildlifeconservation AT robertdomenech criticallyassessingtheutilityofportableleadanalyzersforwildlifeconservation AT heikowlangner criticallyassessingtheutilityofportableleadanalyzersforwildlifeconservation AT chrisnparish criticallyassessingtheutilityofportableleadanalyzersforwildlifeconservation AT adamshreading criticallyassessingtheutilityofportableleadanalyzersforwildlifeconservation AT alaciawelch criticallyassessingtheutilityofportableleadanalyzersforwildlifeconservation AT rachelwolstenholme criticallyassessingtheutilityofportableleadanalyzersforwildlifeconservation |