Soil sampling and analysis for volatile organic compounds

Concerns over data quality have raised many questions related to sampling soils for volatile organic compounds (VOCs). This paper was prepared in response to some of these questions and concerns expressed by Remedial Project Managers (RPMs) and On-Scene Coordinators (OSCs). The following questions are frequently asked:

1. Is there a specific device suggested for sampling soils for VOCs?
2. Are there significant losses of VOCs when transferring a soil sample from a sampling device (e.g., split spoon) into the sample container?
3. What is the best method for getting the sample from the split spoon (or other device) into the sample container?
4. Are there smaller devices such as subcore samplers available for collecting aliquots from the larger core and efficiently transferring the sample into the sample container?
5. Are certain containers better than others for shipping and storing soil samples for VOC analysis?
6. Are there any reliable preservation procedures for reducing VOC losses from soil samples and for extending holding times?

Guidance is provided for selecting the most effective sampling device for collecting samples from soil matrices. The techniques for sample collection, sample handling, containerizing, shipment, and storage described in this paper reduce VOC losses and generally provide more representative samples for volatile organic analyses (VOA) than techniques in current use. For a discussion on the proper use of sampling equipment the reader should refer to other sources (Acker, 1974; U.S. EPA, 1983; U.S. EPA, 1986a). Soil, as referred to in this report, encompasses the mass (surface and subsurface) of unconsolidated mantle of weathered rock and loose material lying above solid rock. Further, a distinction must be made as to what fraction of the unconsolidated material is soil and what fraction is not. The soil component here is defined as all mineral and naturally occurring organic material that is 2 mm or less in size. This is the size normally used to differentiate between soils (consisting of sands, silts, and clays) and gravels. Although numerous sampling situations may be encountered, this paper focuses on three broad categories of sites that might be sampled for VOCs:

1. Open test pit or trench.
2. Surface soils (<5 ft in depth).
3. Subsurface soils (>5 ft in depth).

     

Classification of local- and landscape-scale ecological types in the southern Appalachian Mountains

Five local ecological types based on vegetative communities and two landscape types based on groups of communities, were identified by integrating landform, soil, and vegetation components using multivariate techniques. Elevation and several topographic and soil variables were highly correlated with types of both scales. Landscape ecological types based only on landform and soil variables without vegetation did not correspond with types developed using vegetation. Models developed from these relationships could allow classification and mapping of extensive areas using geographic information systems.     

Characterization and removal of odors from refuse material

Odorous gases emitted from refuse wastes were scrubbed through activated carbon columns until odor breakthrough occured. Refuse air samples were collected at the influent and effluent ports of the columns for analysis on a gas chromatograph-mass spectrometric system and for odor determination by dynamic olfactometry. Chromatographic profiles of the gases emitted from refuse material were obtained and volatiles identified included carboxylic acids and some sulphur compounds. Organoleptic tests with a dynamic olfactometer revealed that the odor concentration of refuse air averaged about 50 sou m^–3. The adsorption capacities of four commercial grades of activated carbon for refuse odor were evaluated and compared. Results indicated that chemically impregnated activated carbons that are commonly used for odor control at sewerage facilities were less cost effective than non-chemically impregnated carbons.     

Naphthalene and its biomarkers as measures of occupational exposure to polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons

Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) include compounds with two or more fused benzene rings, many of which are carcinogens. Industrial sources produce hundreds of PAH, notably in the coke- and aluminium-producing industries. Because PAH are distributed at varying levels between gaseous and particulate phases, exposure assessment has been problematic. Here, we recommend that occupational exposures to naphthalene be considered as a potential surrogate for occupational PAH exposure for three reasons. Naphthalene is usually the most abundant PAH in a given workplace; naphthalene is present almost entirely in the gaseous phase and is, therefore, easily measured; and naphthalene offers several useful biomarkers, including the urinary metabolites 1- and 2-hydroxynaphthalene. These biomarkers can be used to evaluate total-body exposure to PAH, in much the same way that 1-hydroxypyrene has been applied. Using data from published sources, we show that log-transformed airborne levels of naphthalene are highly correlated with those of total PAH (minus naphthalene) in several industries (creosote impregnation: Pearson r= 0.815, coke production: r= 0.917, iron foundry: r= 0.854, aluminium production: r= 0.933). Furthermore, the slopes of the log-log regressions are close to one indicating that naphthalene levels are proportional to those of total PAH in those industries. We also demonstrate that log-transformed urinary levels of the hydroxynaphthalenes are highly correlated with those of 1-hydroxypyrene among coke oven workers and controls (r= 0.857 and 0.876), again with slopes of log-log regressions close to one. These results support the conjecture that naphthalene is a useful metric for occupational PAH exposure. Since naphthalene has also been shown to be a respiratory carcinogen in several animal studies, it is also argued that naphthalene exposures should be monitored per se in industries with high levels of PAH.     

EPA's monitoring program at Love Canal 1980

Summary As stated at the beginning of this paper conclusions reached thus far cannot be discussed in this paper. However, a great deal of information is available for examination.EPA displayed its ability to coordinate widely separated laboratories, both Federal and private, into a smooth working team in a very short period of time. A very comprehensive study plan was also developed and implemented quickly. EPA was fortunate to have already had GCA under contract when the emergency arose. In no small part the success of the field effort was due to the managerial and technical abilities of the GCA team.Within a period of 6 weeks a plan was developed, a prime contractor retained, subcontractors hired, and field activities begun. Within a period of 3 months in excess of 8600 field samples were collected and over 12,000 field and QC samples were analyzed. During this same period 2 major data systems were developed, debugged, and placed into operation.In short this EPA project was probably the most comprehensive multimedia field project ever attempted by EPA and certainly the data is being subjected to the most strenuous quality control measures ever imposed by this Agency. The entire program is presently under peer review and the results are being prepared for publication by EPA Headquarters.Note. Originally intended to be published as part of the special issue on Exposure Monitoring: An International Workshop (Las Vegas, Nevada, October 19–22, 1981).     

Monitoring atmospheric metal pollution: a review of the use of mosses as indicators

This article reviews the literatureon the use of mosses for monitoring atmospheric metalpollution. It discusses the nature of mosses, themechanisms for moss uptake of metals from the air andwet precipitation, the various forms in which mossesare used for this purpose, and cases in which mosseshave been used for monitoring local hot spots ofpollution, and regional patterns of metal pollution.Also highlighted are the questions of uptake of metalsfrom the substrates, interspecies differences, and acomparison of the effectiveness of mosses with otherindicator materials, among other issues.