Basic HTML Version
in situ
metal speciation data sets, and couple these with computational toxicology tools to
help describe metal bioactivity.
7. Development of particulate phase, total, and pore water detection capabilities also should
be continued.
8. Robust and consistent data processing (including QA/QC) algorithm development needs
to continue, and would enhance marketability of all
in situ
sensor packages.
9. Work with regulators to accept developing standards for metal detection.
Participants discussed how programs, including ACT, could best support future efforts towards
continued development and refinement of existing trace metal sensor technologies. It was
suggested that they:
1. Provide a forum to increase awareness of metal issues in environment.
2. Help develop a database of metal related "smoking guns" or compelling scientific
evidence of metal effects to leverage funding agency and investment support. This could
be hosted on the ACT TMS Discussion Website Forum.
3. Support an assessment of science (time / space scales / speciation / targets) and
management needs (source /sink tracking, sampling frequency, regulatory metrics) for
metal monitoring capabilities. Help identify research and educational opportunities at the
environmental chemistry / oceanographic interface.
4. Facilitate continued discussions among management, industry, & scientists to develop
sensor requirements and performance specifications and deployment limitations (e.g.
LODs and WQ criteria for freshwater and saltwater).
5. Assess user needs for on site metal analysis (expand user survey formate derived from
Nutrient sensor model).
6. Maintain a list of sensor developers and source suppliers.
7. Develop and maintain a list of funding opportunities targeting sensor development.
P
OTENTIAL
E
FFORTS FOR
P
ROGRAMS
, I
NCLUDING
ACT
TO
C
ONSIDER
ACT Workshop on Trace Metal Sensors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16