>> The biggest problem you have is contamination 
>> of equipment resulting in bad data.  

Isn't this an assumption of gross incompetency on the part of the lab as a
whole?
Why is this even relevant?  Wouldn't such a problem invalidate all
measurements of all substances in all research?

> I was researching this a bit last night and 
> found no good information. (for roundup)

I said this before, maybe it was overlooked:

For $99, These guys sell a kit with a Limit of detection (LoD) of 0.007 ppb
for glyphosate in water, so the state of the art is likely much more
sensitive.

http://hrilabs.org/glyphosate-testing/water/

As a general rule of thumb, a detection that is twice the LoD is a
conservative way to avoid error, and even the smallest of these detections
(in the paper at issue) was seven times the LoD of the commercial test kit.


Since the original question was "can we really detect at that level with any
confidence?", with the levels quantified ranging from 0.05 ppb to 1.74 ppb,
there seems no need for further research on the LoD and LoQ for glyphosate.

So, to summarize, it seems to be everywhere at low levels, even in things
like dairy products.  The clear implication here is that it is a heck of a
lot more persistent than even the wildest accusations made at the juice bar
of the local health food store (which is certain  to be unwittingly serving
juice also contaminated with traces of glyphosate....)

             ***********************************************
The BEE-L mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software.  For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html