You are here:
TO PURGE OR NOT TO PURGE? VOC CONCENTRATION CHANGES DURING LINE VOLUME PURGING
Citation:
Zimmerman, J. H. AND B A. Schumacher. TO PURGE OR NOT TO PURGE? VOC CONCENTRATION CHANGES DURING LINE VOLUME PURGING. Presented at National Environmental Monitoring Conference, Washington, DC, July 19-22, 2004.
Impact/Purpose:
The overall objective of this task is to provide the Agency with improved state-of-the-science guidance, strategies, and techniques to more accurately and effectively collect environmental samples. Under this umbrella objective, research is being conducted to: (a) reduce/minimize the loss of VOCs during sample collection, handling, and preservation, (b) collect undisturbed surface sediments so that the effects of recent depositional events (e.g., flooding or dredging) can clearly be delineated as to their influence on the contamination concentrations present downstream (or where the sediments are deposited), and (c) to determine an effective method to effectively and efficiently separate asbestos in soils from the rest of the soil matrix while maintaining the integrity (i.e, no fiber size reduction) of the asbestos fibers.
Description:
Soil vapor surveys are commonly used as a screening technique to delineate volatile organic compound (VOC) contaminant plumes and provide information for soil sampling plans. Traditionally, three purge volumes of vapor are removed before a sample is collected. One facet of this study was to evaluate the VOC concentrations lost during purging and explore the potential implications of those losses. The vapor data was compared to collocated soil data to determine if any correlation existed between the VOC concentrations.
Two different methods for soil vapor collection were compared: 1) active/micro-volume; and 2) active/macro-volume. The active/micro-volume vapor sample had total line purge volume of 1.25 mL and the active/macro-volume vapor sample had a total line purge volume of 15 mL. Six line purge volumes were collected for each vapor sampling technique, with the fourth purge volume representing the traditional sample used for site screening data. Each sample was collected by gas tight syringe and transferred to a thermal de sorption tube for sorption, transport, and analysis. Following the removal of the soil vapor samples, collocated soil samples were taken.
For both active vapor sampling techniques, the VOC concentrations in the first three purge volumes exceeded the VOC concentrations in the last three purge volumes. This implies that the general rule of removal of three purge volumes prior to taking a sample for analysis could lead to underestimating the level of VOC contamination present. At one of the sampling locations, the data show a general increase in concentration of VOCs as line volume purges were collected. The data did not show a correlation between the concentration of VOCs determined by either vapor sampling technique when compared to that of the collocated soil sample.