Premium
Membrane Interface Probe Protocol for Contaminants in Low‐Permeability Zones
Author(s) -
Adamson David T.,
Chapman Steven,
Mahler Nicholas,
Newell Charles,
Parker Beth,
Pitkin Seth,
Rossi Michael,
Singletary Mike
Publication year - 2013
Publication title -
groundwater
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.84
H-Index - 94
eISSN - 1745-6584
pISSN - 0017-467X
DOI - 10.1111/gwat.12085
Subject(s) - contamination , hydraulic conductivity , soil science , environmental science , linear regression , soil water , statistics , mathematics , ecology , biology
Accurate characterization of contaminant mass in zones of low hydraulic conductivity (low k) is essential for site management because this difficult‐to‐treat mass can be a long‐term secondary source. This study developed a protocol for the membrane interface probe ( MIP ) as a low‐cost, rapid data‐acquisition tool for qualitatively evaluating the location and relative distribution of mass in low‐k zones. MIP operating parameters were varied systematically at high and low concentration locations at a contaminated site to evaluate the impact of the parameters on data quality relative to a detailed adjacent profile of soil concentrations. Evaluation of the relative location of maximum concentrations and the shape of the MIP vs. soil profiles led to a standard operating procedure ( SOP ) for the MIP to delineate contamination in low‐k zones. This includes recommendations for: (1) preferred detector ( ECD for low concentration zones, PID or ECD for higher concentration zones); (2) combining downlogged and uplogged data to reduce carryover; and (3) higher carrier gas flow rate in high concentration zones. Linear regression indicated scatter in all MIP ‐to‐soil comparisons, including R 2 values using the SOP of 0.32 in the low concentration boring and 0.49 in the high concentration boring. In contrast, a control dataset with soil‐to‐soil correlations from borings 1‐m apart exhibited an R 2 of ≥0.88, highlighting the uncertainty in predicting soil concentrations using MIP data. This study demonstrates that the MIP provides lower‐precision contaminant distribution and heterogeneity data compared to more intensive high‐resolution characterization methods. This is consistent with its use as a complementary screening tool.