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.     

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).     

The extraction of aged polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) residues from a clay soil using sonication and a Soxhlet procedure: a comparative study

A sonication method was compared with Soxhlet extraction for recovering polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) from a clay soil that had been contaminated with tar materials for several decades. Using sonication over an 8 h extraction period, maximum extraction of the 16 US EPA priority PAH was obtained with dichloromethane (DCM)-acetone (1 + 1). The same procedure using hexane-acetone (1 + 1) recovered 86% of that obtained using DCM-acetone (1 + 1). PAH recovery was dependent on time of extraction up to a period of 8 h. The sonication procedure showed that individual PAH are extracted at differing rates depending on the number of fused rings in the molecule. Soxhlet extraction [with DCM-acetone (1 + 1)] over an 8 h period recovered 95% of the PAH removed by the sonication procedure using DCM-acetone (1 + 1), indicating that rigorous sonication can achieve PAH recoveries similar to those obtained by Soxhlet extraction. The lower recovery with the Soxhlet extraction was explained by the observed losses of the volatile PAH components after 1-4 h of extraction. The type of solvent used, the length of time of extraction and extraction method influenced the quantification of PAH in the soil. Therefore, the study has implications for PAH analyses in soils and sediments, and particularly for contaminated site assessments where the data from commercial laboratories are being used. The study emphasizes the importance of establishing (and being consistent in the application of) a vigorous extraction, particularly for commercial laboratories that handle samples of soil in batches (at different times) from a single site investigation or remediation process. The strong binding of PAH to soil, forming aged residues, has significant implications for extraction efficiency. This paper illustrates the problem of the underestimation of PAH using the US EPA method 3550, specifically where a surrogate spike is routinely employed and the efficiency of the extraction procedure for aged residues is unknown. The implications of this study for environmental monitoring, particularly where numerous batches of samples from a single site assessment or remediation program are submitted to commercial laboratories, is that it would be advisable for these laboratories to check their existing method's extraction efficiencies by conducting a time course sonication extraction on their particular soil to determine the optimum extraction time.