Collection 
Forum 
ALCOHOL RECYCLING AT THE SMITHSONIAN 
INSTITUTION, NATIONAL MUSEUM OF NATURAL 
HISTORY (NMNH) 
WILLIAM G. KEEL, 1 WILLIAM MOSER,i JE:"I:"IIFER GIACCAI,2 ANDREA ORMOS,3 
JACKSON TANNER,4 AND LEE A. WEIGT 3 
ISm1tllsolliall I IISlilllfiol/, National M use/ III / of Natural History ( N M N H) , Department of i lll'crtebrafe 
Zoology, Suitland, Maryland 20746. USA 
25mirltsonian Instillllion. M useum ConscrI'atiofl Jflstit ll le, Suitland, M aryland 20746, USA 
35m/fllsonian Institulioll. N M N H. Laboratory of Al/alY/leal Biology. Slii/Iand, M aryland 20746. USA 
4SII1 /I1150Ili(l/l /mli/lIlion, N M N H Collecliol1s Support Services. Suitlalld. Maryland 20746, USA 
Society for the Prese rvation 
of Natural History Collections 
ALCOHOL RECYCLING AT THE SMITHSONIAN 
INSTJTUTION, NATIONAL MUSEUM OF NATURAL 
HISTORY (NMNH) 
WILLIAM G. KEEL,l WILLlAI\". MOSER,I JENNIFER GIACCAI,2 ANDREA OR1'''IOS,3 
JACKSON TANNER,4 AND LEE A. WEIGT3 
lSmithsonian Instilulion. Natiollal Museum of Nalurai History ( NMNflJ, Department of Invertebrate 
Zoology, SlIil/and, Maryland 20746. USA 
2Sm itltsonian Instilutioll, All/sewn COl1sel"l'atiofl Institute, Suitland, Alary/and 20716, USA 
35mifllsonian !nsfillllioll. NMNH. Laboralory of AnalYlica/ Biology, SlIilland. Maryland 20746. USA 
4Smithsoniall IIISlilllliol/, NMNH, Col/ectiolls Support Services, Suitland, Maryland 20746, USA 
Abstract.- In an attempt to reduce the volume of hazardous waste generated by specimen processing 
and curation activities, the Smithsonian Institution, National Museum of Natural History evaluated a 
solventlformalin recycler. The purpose of the evaluation was to produce a contaminant-free recycled 
alcohol product for reuse in specimcn curation . Over 40 test samples of used alcohol (isopropanol and 
ethanol) from various fluid-preserved zoological specimens were tested. The distillation of each 13-17 L 
used alcohol sample required 5-9 hours to complete, yielding recycled alcohol at 89-95% concentration. 
A significant odor, probably derived from amines, not specifically identifiable through chromatography 
or other methods, could be detected in the recycled ethanol. Molecular analysis of a spiked alcohol 
samplc both before and after distillation showed that DNA docs not survive the distillation process. Pre-
and postdistillation samples were analyzed by gas chromatography-mass spcr:trometry (GC-MS). The 
GC-MS results for ethanol routincly identified the presence of ethyl ethers, ethyl esters, and aldehydes, 
all in very small concentrations. These compounds were present both before and after distillation, with 
little change in concentration. Arene compounds, including toluene and xylencs, also were routinc1y 
identified in the isopropanol solutions both before and after distillation. 
INTRODUCTION 
Chemical recycling regularly occurs in medical histological laboratories and 
manufacturing plants (Pinizzotto and Baker 2000; Hampton 2007). It is not used widely 
in natural history museums, but could be a tremendous cost saver by reducing the 
amount of new alcohol purchased and hazardous waste generated. In general specimen 
curation and processing activities, the Smithsonian Institution, National Museum of 
Natural History (NMNH) consumes 11,945 L of ethanol and isopropanol a year at an 
an11ual cost of $12,661.64. The NMNH also generates 4,789 L of hazardous waste alcohol 
a year at an annual total cost of $4,070.65 to process. 
The NMNH evaluated a solvent/formalin recycler as part ofa study to reduce the volume 
of new alcohol consumed and hazardous waste generated by specimen processing and 
curation activities. The recycler was assessed to determine its effectiveness and feasibility for 
general museum use by producing a cost-effective, contaminant-free, recycled alcohol for 
reuse in general specimen curation. The recycled alcohol needs to be chemically and 
molecularly pure enough to be reused without contaminating any specimens that it contacts. 
The goal was to take any alcohol sample, even those with high levels of contaminants, and 
provide an end product that was as clear and odorless as a purchased product. 
MATERIALS AND METHODS 
Recycler 
Fluid samples from collections of the NMNH were gathered to test a commercially 
available 19-L capacity SLV-99U(L) model fractional dist illation Formalin/Solvent 
Colleerion FOrl/m 2011; 25(1):\0-21 
Recycler. Due to the small quantity of formalin-archived collections and resultant waste
produced annually by our departments, it was decided to only test the solvent (alcohol)
component. The test samples included almost all of the major phyla that comprise the
fluid collections at NMNH, covering a wide spectrum of contaminants derived from the
fixing/preservation of these taxa as well as the chemicals derived from the reaction of the
specimens with the preservative fluid. The unit was programmed with heat settings
designed for use with isopropanol and ethanol. One program temperature (85uC) was set
up for the recycling of high-concentration fluids (.65% alcohol) with a second program
using a higher temperature (90uC) to derive the same results for starting solutions with a
concentration of ,65% alcohol. These settings provided us with a clear product between
89% and 95% concentration and a waste product that was approximately 30% alcohol.
Pre- and postdistillation 2-oz (59.2 ml) samples were taken and the volume and alcohol
percentage were recorded. Any special characteristics of the predistillation samples or end
product were also recorded, generally to remark on the odors that survived the
distillation process.
One alcohol pretreatment test was performed prior to distillation. The alcohol was
acidified with concentrated sulfuric acid to a pH of 5 before recycling. To allow complete
reaction of any amines in the alcohol with the sulfate ion, forming insoluble salts, the
pretreatment sample sat for 24 hours and then was distilled in the recycler.
A number of alcohol posttreatment tests were performed. Large quantities of activated
charcoal were poured into containers of recycled ethanol, agitated, and allowed to sit for
12 hours. The product poured off was clouded by precipitate from the charcoal but the
odor was noticeably lessened. The fluid then was poured through a funnel lined with
coffee filters to remove the charcoal dust and recycled a second time. Additionally, two
activated charcoal filtration columns were designed for posttreatment of the recycled
alcohol. The columns were constructed from 4 ft (1.2 m) tall, 4 in. (10 cm) diameter PVC
pipe with a finely perforated cap, lined with four paper coffee filters, packed tightly with
granular activated charcoal, and set up with an unused glass catch. A 19-L carboy of
recycled ethanol and isopropanol was then placed over each dedicated charcoal column,
respectively, and set to a slow drip. The slow drip allowed the fluid a maximum amount
of time in contact with the charcoal and prevented fine charcoal particulate in the catch.
GC–MS Analysis
Alcohol samples were run using an Agilent 6890 gas chromatograph with 5975
quadrupole mass spectrometer and an Agilent 7694E headspace analyzer (GC–MS). A
number of sample pretreatments were tried, including adding sodium chloride to the
alcohol solutions and extracting with chloroform or diethyl ether; however, no
pretreatments showed improved volatilization of any compounds in the GC–MS
chromatograms. Aliquots of the alcohols collected both pre- and postdistillation were
placed in headspace vials, filling half of the vial. Samples were run on two different GC
columns. An Agilent J&W DB-WAX, 30 m 3 0.25 mm 3 0.50 mm column maximized
identification of the reactive aldehydes and amines. However, because the large volumes
of ethanol and isopropanol present in the samples coeluted on the DB-WAX column,
samples were also run on the Agilent J&W HP-5MS, 30 m 3 0.25 mm 3 0.50 mm column
to provide information on the relative amounts of ethanol and isopropanol in each
sample.
Prior to headspace extraction, vials were held at 50uC for 5 minutes. The sample loop
was filled for 0.2 minutes at 55uC and the transfer line to the GC was held at 60uC.
2011 KEEL ET AL.—ALCOHOL RECYCLING AT NMNH 11
Helium carrier gas was used at a constant flow rate of 0.8 ml/min. A split/splitless inlet
was used in split mode at a temperature of 70uC with a 20 : 1 split. The column was held
at 25uC for 5 minutes, then heated at 10uC/min to 150uC and held for 5 minutes. The
transfer line to the MS was at a temperature of 200uC. The mass spectrometer used
electronic ionization, with the ion source at 230uC and the quadrupole at 150uC,
measuring masses from 20 to 300 m/z (mass-to-change ratio).
The peaks in the chromatogram were deconvoluted and identified using both retention
time (RT) and the mass spectrum by the AMDIS software program, the NIST MS Search
program and the NIST05 library produced by the National Institute of Standards and
Technology, Gaithersburg, Maryland. Quantification of any of the compounds was not
attempted—too many unknown variables made this difficult—and analysis of the data
only established approximate amounts of the compounds.
Molecular Analysis
Because amplifiable DNA is known to leach into alcohol storage solutions (Shokralla
et al. 2010) and would contaminate subsequent nondestructive sampling of preservative if
not eliminated, we tested for survival of DNA posttreatment. Positive control fish DNA
was extracted from a commercially obtained fresh fillet of yellowfin tuna (Thunnus
albacore) using a phenol-chloroform protocol on the Autogenprep 965 automated DNA
extractor (Autogen, Holliston Massachusetts). The concentration of the DNA extract
was 39 ng/ml with a spectrophotometer 260/280 absorbance ratio of 1.78. After adding
1 mg of tuna DNA to the 2.75 gal (10.4 L) of clear 96% ethanol, a 50 ml pretreatment
sample was taken. The ethanol recycler ran on the 85uC program and an additional 50 ml
posttreatment sample was taken after the run was completed.
Pre- and posttreatment samples were prepared for polymerase chain reactions (PCR)
to amplify DNA. To test for starting template quantity variation, 10 ml, 100 ml, 1.5 ml,
3 ml, and 9 ml ethanol was evaporated, eluted in 10 ml molecular-grade water, and 1 ml of
this was used as template in the PCR reactions. Then, 1.35 ml ethanol was precipitated
with 150 ml, 3 M ice-cold sodium acetate (NaOAc), and 7.5 ml 2 M magnesium chloride
(MgCl2). The pellet was eluted in 10 ml molecular grade water, and 1 ml was used as
template in the PCR amplification to detect DNA.
The PCR was one cycle of 30 seconds at 95uC, followed by 35 cycles of 30 seconds at
95uC, 30 seconds at 52uC, 45 seconds at 72uC, and a final extension of 300 seconds at
72uC. The procedure was performed on an Applied Biosystem 2720 Thermal Cycler (an
exception to this protocol was an annealing temperature of 48uC for the primer pair of
dgLCO1490/ dgHCO2198).
The 10 ml reaction volume contained 1 ml template DNA, 1.0 ml 103 PCR Buffer, 0.4 ml
50 mM MgCl2, 0.5 ml 10 mM dNTPs, 0.3 ml 10 mM each of forward and reverse primers,
and 0.5 U Taq DNA polymerase (reagents: BioLine USA Inc., Taunton, Massachusetts).
Negative and positive controls were included with each reaction.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Recycler
A total of 35 ethanol and 10 isopropanol samples were run through the recycler.
Regardless of initial concentration of alcohol, the recycler yielded recycled alcohol at 89–
95% concentration by volume. The distillation time and return volume was proportional
to the starting fluid concentration (Figs. 1, 2). The waste product created by the recycler
was approximately 30% alcohol, a level considered to be hazardous waste.
12 COLLECTION FORUM Vol. 25(1)
The initial samples tested were discolored, clouded with precipitates, and extremely
odiferous. The goal was to produce a final product that would be up to archival
collections standards. Despite the high levels of dyes, precipitates, and other
contaminants, the recycler was able to produce an end product that was as clear as
commercially available chemical grade ethanol or isopropanol (Fig. 3). However, the
odors in the recycled fluid were equal to the original product or, in some cases, more
concentrated. The odors were very strong for the ethanol batches but were perceived to
be weaker after distillation of the isopropanol samples. This was not considered
significant due to the sharp odor of pure isopropanol and the likelihood that this masked
any perception of the odors.
The odors were thought to be amines; a variety of methods were attempted to solve this
problem. The recycler was reprogrammed with different temperatures and modes
designed to leave the odor-causing compounds behind in the waste product, but none of
the new temperature settings were able to achieve this result.
Figure 1. Graph of distillation times and concentration return from isopropanol samples.
Figure 2. Graph of pre- and postrecycling concentration results for isopropanol.
2011 KEEL ET AL.—ALCOHOL RECYCLING AT NMNH 13
The average pH of the alcohol samples was 7. Lowering the pH to 5 with sulfuric acid
could result in the odor-causing amines and other impurities precipitating out of solution.
A fine precipitate did result from these tests, but the odors still remained after distillation.
One source of contamination was the recycler itself. Some contaminants were surviving
the distillation process, remaining inside the unit, and contaminating each subsequent
test. To provide the most accurate posttreatment samples, the unit was cleaned after each
sample run by running a batch of 95% pure ethanol through a complete distillation. Even
after two cleaning runs of 95% ethanol, the end product still retained the odors imparted
by previous contaminated samples.
Activated charcoal commonly is used to remove odors and other contaminants. Several
methods were attempted to maximize the effect and the time of contact between the fluids
and the charcoal. Simply mixing activated charcoal with recycled alcohol and allowing the
mixture to sit for 12 hours produced a good but not perfect result; residual odors remained.
When the activated charcoal was used in the PVC filtration column, it resulted in a clear
and odorless alcohol product. Each column worked well for 50 L of fluid before any odor
could be noticed. The lifespan of the columns was longer if the charcoal was tightly packed
and the flow from the source carboy was kept to a slow drip. Any attempt to speed up the
process created preferential flow channels in the charcoal and shortened the contact time
between the fluid and the charcoal, which allowed contaminants to remain in the alcohol.
GC–MS Analysis
Known samples.—The samples of pure ethanol and isopropanol each contained a
small amount of other alcohols. The isopropanol contains approximately 0.02–0.08% 1-
Figure 3. Comparison of pre- (left) and post- (right) distillation alcohol.
14 COLLECTION FORUM Vol. 25(1)
propanol; the ethanol contains approximately 0.1–0.4% isopropanol and approximately
20–80 ppm of methanol.
When a solution of 10% formalin (3.7% formaldehyde in ethanol and water) was run
on the GC–MS, a number of compounds were identified. Formaldehyde and methanol
both were present in the chromatogram, along with dimethoxymethane, diethoxy-
methane, two unknown ethers at retention time (RT) 6.59 and RT 10.84, and an
unknown compound at RT 2.4 (Fig. 4).
However, when a more dilute sample of formalin was prepared, the formaldehyde was
below the limit of detection for the GC, approximately 0.5%.
Ethanol samples.—Twenty-three ethanol sets (pre- and postdistillation samples) were
evaluated with GC–MS.
Five of these sets were pure alcohol run through the distiller to check for
contamination of the recycler that might carry across alcohol sets. Of the eighteen
storage ethanol sample sets, more than half contained ethyl acetate, acetal, acetone, 1,1-
diethoxyethane, methanol, ethyl formate, and diethoxymethane (Table 1). A number of
compounds were found more rarely: other ethyl esters, ethyl ethers, and aldehydes
(Table 1). Two ethanol samples, ALC0048 (fish source) and ALC0068 (exhibit crab
source), showed trimethyl amine, a notoriously fishy smelling amine. All of the
contaminants identified in the ethanol samples were present in small amounts. In one of
the most contaminated sample sets, ALC0009 and ALC0010, the total of all
contaminants identified was 0.39% of the alcohol peak before distillation (approximately
0.20% of the overall starting solution). The total of all contaminants detected by GC
Figure 4. Chromatogram of 1% formaldehyde solution on DB-WAX column.
2011 KEEL ET AL.—ALCOHOL RECYCLING AT NMNH 15
increased to 0.95% of the alcohol peak after distillation, with the largest individual
contaminant, acetal, being 0.36% of the alcohol peak (Figs. 5, 6).
Isopropanol samples.—Six isopropanol storage samples were analyzed. Acetone and
1-propanol are present in all the samples, with 2-butanone, ethanol, toluene, ethylben-
zene, xylenes, acetaldehyde, 2-methylpropyl acetate, and methyl 2-methyl-2-propenoate
found in half or more of the samples (Table 2).
Pure alcohol samples.—The five pure ethanol samples were very clear. Small amounts
of methanol and isopropanol were present in all samples. After the samples were run
through the distiller they typically remained quite clear. However, looking specifically for
isopropanol and its common aromatic contaminants, xylenes and ethyl benzene, in
ALC0038 small amounts of isopropanol (shown by ion 59) and xylenes (shown by ion
106) from the previous run remained in the distiller and contaminated the next batch of
ethanol run through the distiller (Fig. 7).
Specially treated alcohol samples.—One batch of ethanol, ALC0075, was acidified
with sulfuric acid to a pH of 5, ALC0076, and subsequently distilled, ALC0077. The fish
odor was slightly reduced but not eliminated, and GC–MS analysis showed that the
Table 1. Compounds identified in ethanol storage samples: 3/4, 9/10, 13/14, 39/40, 43/44, 47/48, 51/52, 55/56,
59/60, 67/68, 71/72, 73/74, 75–77, 78/79, 80/81, 82/83, 84/85, 86–91. *Identified with HP-5MS column, not used
for samples 80–91; { RT 5 Retention Time.
Name
Compound
class
Total
sets
Found before and
after distillation
Only after
distillation
Only before
distillation
Acetal (acetaldehyde) Aldehyde 18 18 — —
1,1-Diethoxyethane Ether 17 15 1 1
Acetone Ketone 16 10 6 —
Ethyl acetate Ester 15 10 5 —
Ethyl formate Ester 14 6 4 4
Methanol Alcohol 13 11 2 —
Diethoxymethane Ether 12 11 1 —
Isopropanol* Alcohol 12 12 — —
Unknown (RT 6.59){ Ether 8 6 2 —
1,1-Diethoxypropane Ether 8 4 2 2
Ethyl butanoate Ester 5 3 1 1
Toluene Arene 4 3 — 1
2-Butanol Alcohol 4 — — 4
Propanal Aldehyde 4 2 2 —
m-Xylene Arene 3 3 — —
1-Propanol Alcohol 2 1 — 1
2-Butanone Ketone 2 2 — —
Ethylbenzene Arene 2 — — 2
Methyl 2-methyl-2-
propenoate Ester 2 1 1 —
Ethyl 2-methylbutanoate Ester 2 2 — —
Hexanal Aldehyde 2 1 — 1
Unknown (RT 10.86){ Ether 2 2 — —
Trimethyl amine? Amine 2 — 2 —
p-Xylene Arene 1 1 — —
3-Methylbutanal Aldehyde 1 — — 1
Ethyl hexanoate Ester 1 1 — —
Ethyl 2-methyl-2-
propanoate Ester 1 1 — —
Unknown (RT 2.4){ Unknown 1 — 1 —
16 COLLECTION FORUM Vol. 25(1)
majority of compounds identified in the starting solution also remained after acidification
and distillation.
Two sets of alcohol, one ethanol (ALC0086-91) and one isopropanol (ALC0092-94)
were further purified after distillation by running the distilled alcohol through a packed
column of activated charcoal. The charcoal initially was effective at completely reducing
the fishy odor. After 50 L of isopropanol were run through the packed charcoal column
the column became ineffective and the fishy odor was no longer removed from the
isopropanol, ALC0094. When the samples were analyzed with GC–MS the first
Figure 5. Chromatograms from ALC0009 (shaded) and ALC0010 (black) on DB-WAX column.
Figure 6. Chromatograms from ALC0009 (shaded) and ALC0010 (black), Figure 5, magnified. Note that
many compounds actually increased in the postdistillation sample, ALC0010.
2011 KEEL ET AL.—ALCOHOL RECYCLING AT NMNH 17
isopropanol run through the column (ALC0092) still showed the presence of acetone and
methanol, although the isopropanol looked and smelled cleaned. GC–MS analysis of
ALC0094 showed a larger amount of acetone and methanol than was present in the first
sample passed through the charcoal column.
Molecular Analysis
Molecular analysis of a spiked alcohol sample, both pre- and postdistillation, showed
that no detectable DNA survived the distillation process and no DNA from the spiked
DNA sample was detectable by amplification (Fig. 8).
CONCLUSIONS
Alcohol recycling, on principle, is a valid method to reduce the amount of purchased
alcohol and the waste product generated. The unit, however, failed to produce a recycled
product that met collections archival standards for reuse in multiple disciplines without
having potential cross contamination or inherent contaminants from the used fluid
source. The cost effectiveness for a museum becomes irrelevant if the end product is
unusable for general specimen curation. The Smithsonian rarely produces a large scale,
single source recycling event. A proposed use of the recycled fluid is in soaking out
formalin in recently fixed specimens as they transfer to the standard preservation fluids of
50% isopropanol and 70% ethanol. This still leaves the disposal cost for that volume of
fluid after the process for each batch of specimens, because the waste produced is at a
concentration level that is still considered to be hazardous waste.
Table 2. Compounds identified in isopropanol storage samples: 17/18, 19/20, 23/24, 27/28, 69/70, 92–94.
*Identified with HP-5MS column, not used for samples 92–94.
Name
Compound
class
Total
sets
Found before and
after distillation
Only after
distillation
Only before
distillation
Acetone Ketone 6 6 — —
1-Propanol Alcohol 6 6 — —
2-Butanone Ketone 5 5 — —
Ethanol* Alcohol 5 5 — —
2-Methylpropyl acetate Ester 4 1 3 —
Acetaldehyde (acetal) Aldehyde 3 1 2 —
Toluene Arene 3 1 2 —
m-Xylene Arene 3 2 1 —
Ethylbenzene Arene 3 2 1 —
Methyl 2-methyl-2-
propenoate Ester 3 3 — —
o-Xylene Arene 3 1 2 —
p-Xylene Arene 3 1 2 —
Ethyl acetate Ester 2 1 1 —
Benzene* Arene 2 2 — —
Ethyl formate Ester 1 1 — —
2-Methyl-1-propanol Alcohol 1 1 — —
2-Methyl-3-pentanone Ketone 1 1 — —
Diisopropyl ether
(isopropyl
isopropane) Ether 1 1 — —
Formaldehyde Aldehyde 1 — — 1
4-Methyl-2-pentanone Ketone 1 1 — —
n-Pentanol Alcohol 1 1 — —
18 COLLECTION FORUM Vol. 25(1)
Alcohol recycling is effective in producing a visually clear fluid that is free of
contamination from DNA. However, GC–MS shows the samples still retain a number of
chemical contaminants, including cross-contamination between batches of alcohol. This
might be acceptable if the sample being recycled is being reused in the original container
and is not derived from multiple sources of used alcohol. If the material to be recycled is
from multiple sources and multiple phyla, then the final product will be a cumulative
solution of all of those chemicals. Introducing this product back into a specimen jar
might be detrimental to those specimens.
The unit tested did not provide an odor-free product. An odor-free product was only
achieved by constructing a custom filtration column of activated charcoal, which was
costly and doubled the total distillation time. Although the odor was reduced, some
chemical contaminants remained in the alcohol after charcoal filtration. After a
maximum of 50 L, the charcoal in the column would need to be replaced, a significant
expense in cost and time with the only result being that the final product does not have a
residual smell.
As museum research moves from being libraries of morphologically variant specimens
to being repositories of material for DNA, proteomic, or other types of biochemical
analysis, formalin and other sample cross-contamination is of paramount importance.
Formalin is not completely removed by any of the processes explored in this article. Just
as cross-contamination is possible between batches of isopropanol and ethanol, cross-
contamination by formalin from batch to batch also could be possible.
Figure 7. Chromatogram (TIC) and extracted ion chromatograms for isopropanol (59) and xylenes (106) for
clear ethanol samples ALC0037 (dashed) and ALC0038 (solid). Note that both isopropanol and the xylenes only
are present after distillation, ALC0038.
2011 KEEL ET AL.—ALCOHOL RECYCLING AT NMNH 19
Storage in alcohol over many years results in reaction between the specimens and the
alcohol that produces contaminants with a similar enough volatility to the alcohol that
temperature distillation, even combined with charcoal filtration, was unable to produce a
satisfactory recycled alcohol end product. Testing of the solvent/formalin recycler has
shown that the final product cannot be considered for use in specimen preservation
because it does not satisfy many of the requirements in producing a pure chemical-grade
product. The solutions produced and the concentration of contaminants is highly
variable. Pure ethanol and isopropanol could not be produced, even when the starting
solution was fresh from an unused drum of 95% ethanol or 99% isopropanol. Because the
final product is unreliable for general curation and the cost of the unit to process the fluid
is so high, it is not feasible to purchase a solvent recycler for use in museum collections.
The only reliable source of alcohol is still the chemical distributor.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Cheryl Bright, Collections Manager, Department of Invertebrate Zoology, NMNH; Liz Dietrich, MSC
Management Officer, NMNH; Amy Putnam, MSC Program Assistant, NMNH; Amy Driskell, Biologist,
Laboratory of Analytical Biology, NMNH; Dr. Steve Cairns, Department Chair and Research Zoologist,
Department of Invertebrate Zoology, NMNH; Carol Butler, Chief of Collections, Research and Collections,
NMNH.
Figure 8. Comparison of PCR amplification of pre- and posttreatment samples with positive controls, negative
controls, and DNA size marker. The different template quantity variations and loci with primer sets used
are shown.
20 COLLECTION FORUM Vol. 25(1)
LITERATURE CITED
Hampton, T. 2007. Hospitals and clinics go green for health of patients and environment. Journal of the
American Medical Association 298(114):1625–1629.
Pinizzotto, N. and S.J. Baker. 2000. Chemical waste disposal and recycling in an academic medical center.
Chemical Health and Safety March/April 2000:22–25.
Shokralla, S., G.A.C. Singer, and M. Hajibabaei. 2010. Direct PCR amplifications and sequencing of specimens’
DNA from preservative ethanol. BioTechniques 48(3):305–306.
2011 KEEL ET AL.—ALCOHOL RECYCLING AT NMNH 21