JLW conducted analytical chemistry analyses, hydrogeology descriptions, geospatial analyses, statistical analyses, and performed quality checks and verification of all data collected; BEF, JMM, ZLH, DDC, and JLW analyzed data and provided conclusions for statistical analyses and geospatial relationships; TB and HR analyzed UOG drilling localities and common industrial practices; AFK, CPS, PH, TB, HR, CER and JLW provided comments, conclusions, and corrections on earlier versions of the manuscript; ZLH, BEF, DDC, JMM, PH and KAS wrote the paper.

Trillions of liters of wastewater from oil and gas extraction are generated annually in the US. The contribution from unconventional drilling operations (UDO), such as hydraulic fracturing, to this volume will likely continue to increase in the foreseeable future. The chemical content of wastewater from UDO varies with region, operator, and elapsed time after production begins. Detailed chemical analyses may be used to determine its content, select appropriate treatment options, and identify its source in cases of environmental contamination. In this study, one wastewater sample each from direct effluent, a disposal well, and a waste pit, all in West Texas, were analyzed by gas chromatography-mass spectrometry, inductively coupled plasma-optical emission spectroscopy, high performance liquid chromatography-high resolution mass spectrometry, high performance ion chromatography, total organic carbon/total nitrogen analysis, and pH and conductivity analysis. Several compounds known to compose hydraulic fracturing fluid were detected among two of the wastewater samples including 2-butoxyethanol, alkyl amines, and cocamide OPEN ACCESSWater 2015, 7 1569 diethanolamines, toluene, and o-xylene. Due both to its quantity and quality, proper management of wastewater from UDO will be essential.

No abstract

The analysis of proteins in biological samples is highly desirable, given their connection to myriad biological functions and disease states, as well as the growing interest in the development of protein‐based pharmaceuticals. The introduction and maturation of “soft” ionization methods, such as electrospray ionization and matrix‐assisted laser desorption/ionization, have made mass spectrometry an indispensable tool for the analysis of proteins. Despite the availability of powerful instrumentation, sample preparation and fractionation remain among the most challenging aspects of protein analysis. This review summarizes these challenges and provides an overview of the state‐of‐the‐art in sample preparation and fractionation of proteins for mass spectrometric analysis, with an emphasis on those used for top‐down proteomic approaches. Biological fluids, particularly important for clinical and pharmaceutical applications and their characteristics are also discussed. While immunoaffinity‐based methods are addressed, more attention is given to non‐immunoaffinity‐based methods, such as precipitation, coacervation, size exclusion, dialysis, solid‐phase extraction, and electrophoresis. These techniques are presented in the context of a significant number of studies where they have been developed and utilized.

No abstract