47 
Oil Spill identification - Round Robin 20045 
4.Conclusions 
Table 4 gives a summary of the results of all labs. Because the source 
of the spill samples is known, it can be concluded, that almost all labs 
have drawn the right conclusion. Cedre and LASEM have both 
mentioned problems in detecting the biomarkers and a higher 
variability of the ratios. Petrobas joins the round robin for the first time 
and reports good analyses. But interpretation seems to be focused on 
similarities instead of differences. 
Participants 
Methods 
Results 
FID 
MS 
S I- E I 
S I - E II 
S II - E I 
S II - E II 
BMM 
X 
X 
+ 
+ 
-- 
-- 
Cedre 
X 
-- 
-- 
-- 
-- 
LASEM 
X 
-- 
-- 
-- 
-- 
LVA 
X 
X 
+ + 
+ + 
-- 
-- 
NBI 
X 
X 
+ + 
+ 
-- 
-- 
NERI 
X 
X 
+ + 
+ 
-- 
-- 
NFI 
X 
+ + 
+ + 
-- 
-- 
Petrobas 
X 
X 
+ + 
+ + 
+ + 
+ + 
RIZA 
X 
X 
+ + 
+ + 
-- 
-- 
Sintef 
X 
X 
+ + 
+ + 
-- 
-- 
SKL 
X 
X 
+ + 
+ 
-- 
-- 
WRD 
X 
+ + 
+ + 
- 
- 
-- 
Significant differences between the samples have been found. 
+ + 
No significant differences between the samples have been found. 
- and + 
Conclusions are Indicated to be less certain. 
Table 4 
Summary of the results of the 
participants. 
The table does not show the large differences found in the reports how 
to analyze and assess the results. It would be good to come to a more 
common approach in dealing with oil spill samples. 
On the CD versions of Part I (Sampling) and Part II (analytic and 
interpretation), as send to CEN for comments, are available for the 
participants. The guidelines are the result of several years of discussion 
how to handle oil spill samples. Hopefully this effort will lead a more 
common method for all labs.