Hussman32 is right, proper methodology is critical, but its important to remember that the same criticisms apply to ALL field data. That is why we are running our beta test as a verification/replication trial. we want to know how accurate non-expert volunteer data will be, in the aggregate. Between now and next summer we'll hopefully find out.

We can't get as accurate as API grades, and aren't tring to because that would be too involved for quick field assessments by people without chemistry training. try searching for the keywords "Laser induced Fluorescence" or LIF, and look for older stuff. all the new research is on fluorescence decay, which we can't meaasure with a consumer camera. a lot of the research we're building on is paywalled but look at this, it gives a good history of our method too: http://mobile.www.eproceedings...

Nice job throwing up a googled link to spit FUD when you don't know what you're talking about, tacokill. Spectrasensors.com sell laser absorbance spectroscopy systems operating in the mid-IR range, and don't sell UV fluorescence gear. I see somone before you left a comment detailing our real research [LIDAR, above], which you didn't look at, or you'd notice that we're building on 40 years research into laser fluorescence for field identification of oil. What we're doing was cutting-edge in the early '80's. now it isn't. We aren't trying to do anything new, except use cheap equipment. http://publiclab.org/notes/mat...

After the Deepwater Horizon disaster, the ERMA SCAT database--the official database-- was built by QUALITATIVE assessements of oil thickness on a 1-4 scale. A civic response with quantitative data collection tools could do better than "well, I think that looks like a 4." So yes. The responsible agencies are rarely capable of deploying enough trained people to actually cover the whole area with the types of expert methods people are mentioning in this thread, so more often than not they rely on estimates and other less-than-quantitative methodologies.

We'll release it public domain and use our existing relationships with universities, state DEQs and the EPA to assist in accurately mapping the disaster and recovery. The data would be really useful for figuring out where to deploy more expensive equipment, or to pre-scan for which sites to go back and sample.

Public lab staff here- Its not a joke. We're replicating a well-researched and straightforward methodology for grading oil based on the relative "blueness" or "redness" of the spectrum. Its very simple to perform. During an oil spill there is a lot of public interest in identifying oils. People collect samples and send them to researchers, and they never get tested. Because testing has a low return--he sample could be anything, and the experts dont have the time. There are tons of coastal oil slicks, many of them naturally occuring from decaying organic matter. Why would it be bad to help people figure out if they're looking at petroleum or not?