首页 | 本学科首页   官方微博 | 高级检索  
     

挥发性有机物污染土壤样品采样方法比较
引用本文:姜林,钟茂生,姚珏君,夏天翔,蔡月华. 挥发性有机物污染土壤样品采样方法比较[J]. 中国环境监测, 2014, 30(1): 109-114
作者姓名:姜林  钟茂生  姚珏君  夏天翔  蔡月华
作者单位:北京市环境保护科学研究院, 北京 100037;国家城市环境污染控制工程技术研究中心, 北京 100037;污染场地风险模拟与修复北京市重点实验室, 北京 100037;北京市环境保护科学研究院, 北京 100037;国家城市环境污染控制工程技术研究中心, 北京 100037;污染场地风险模拟与修复北京市重点实验室, 北京 100037;北京市环境保护科学研究院, 北京 100037;国家城市环境污染控制工程技术研究中心, 北京 100037;污染场地风险模拟与修复北京市重点实验室, 北京 100037;北京市环境保护科学研究院, 北京 100037;国家城市环境污染控制工程技术研究中心, 北京 100037;污染场地风险模拟与修复北京市重点实验室, 北京 100037;北京市环境保护科学研究院, 北京 100037;国家城市环境污染控制工程技术研究中心, 北京 100037;污染场地风险模拟与修复北京市重点实验室, 北京 100037
基金项目:环保公益性行业科研专项(201009032);北京市科委重大项目(D08040900360804)
摘    要:以苯系物污染土壤样品的采集为例,比较了4种不同采样方法导致样品检测结果的差异。其中,方法 1将样品装填至广口瓶内并压实密封,方法2采用非扰动采样器采集10 g样品后转移至加有10 mL甲醇保护剂的Vial瓶中密封,方法 3用非扰动采样器采集10 g样品后直接将其密封于采样器内,方法 4用Encore采样器采样后将其密封于采样器内。结果表明,方法 2采集样品的检出率最高,其余3种方法的差异不明显,方法 2采集样品的检出结果 71%以上都大于其余3种方法。而且,对于挥发性较强的苯与甲苯,以方法 2采集的样品91%以上都大于其余3种方法,最大及平均检出浓度高出2~3个数量级。5种不同土质样品检测结果表明,对于有机质含量较低的细砂,方法2的最高及平均检出浓度均高于其余3种方法 1~3个数量级,差异随土壤有机质含量的升高而降低。可见,对于苯系物及挥发性强于苯系物的其他挥发性有机物污染土壤样品的采集,方法 2效果最优,可指定为VOCs污染场地土壤样品的采样方法。

关 键 词:挥发性有机污染物  土壤样品  采集方法  效果比较
收稿时间:2012-10-17
修稿时间:2012-12-11

Comparison of Different Sampling Methods for Soil Contaminated by VOCs
JIANG Lin,ZHONG Mao-sheng,YAO Jue-jun,XIA Tian-xiang and CAI Yue-hua. Comparison of Different Sampling Methods for Soil Contaminated by VOCs[J]. Environmental Monitoring in China, 2014, 30(1): 109-114
Authors:JIANG Lin  ZHONG Mao-sheng  YAO Jue-jun  XIA Tian-xiang  CAI Yue-hua
Affiliation:Beijing Municipal Research Institute of Environmental Protection, Beijing 100037, China;National Engineering Research Centre for Urban Environmental Pollution Control, Beijing 100037, China;Beijing Key Laboratory for Risk Modeling and Remediation of Contaminated Sites, Beijing 100037, China;Beijing Municipal Research Institute of Environmental Protection, Beijing 100037, China;National Engineering Research Centre for Urban Environmental Pollution Control, Beijing 100037, China;Beijing Key Laboratory for Risk Modeling and Remediation of Contaminated Sites, Beijing 100037, China;Beijing Municipal Research Institute of Environmental Protection, Beijing 100037, China;National Engineering Research Centre for Urban Environmental Pollution Control, Beijing 100037, China;Beijing Key Laboratory for Risk Modeling and Remediation of Contaminated Sites, Beijing 100037, China;Beijing Municipal Research Institute of Environmental Protection, Beijing 100037, China;National Engineering Research Centre for Urban Environmental Pollution Control, Beijing 100037, China;Beijing Key Laboratory for Risk Modeling and Remediation of Contaminated Sites, Beijing 100037, China;Beijing Municipal Research Institute of Environmental Protection, Beijing 100037, China;National Engineering Research Centre for Urban Environmental Pollution Control, Beijing 100037, China;Beijing Key Laboratory for Risk Modeling and Remediation of Contaminated Sites, Beijing 100037, China
Abstract:Taken soil contaminated by BTEX as an example, the difference among analysis results brought out by 4 different sampling methods were compared. For method 1, contaminated soil was filled into jar manually and compacted until the jar was full and then sealed. For method 2, about 10 g soil was collected with a common core sampler without any disturbance to the soil sample and then transferred and sealed into a Vial where 10 mL methanol was added in advance. For method 3, the soil sample was sealed in the sampler used in method 2 immediately after it was collected. And for method 4, a specific sampler named Encore was used to collect the sample without any disturbance and the sample was also sealed in the sampler immediately. The analysis results reveal that the detection rate for method 2 is the highest, while there is no obvious difference among the other three. More than 71% percent of samples collected using method 2 is higher than the samples collected using the other three methods in analysis results. Furthermore, for benzene and toluene, which are much more volatile, more than 91% percent of samples collected using method 2 are higher in analysis results than the samples collected by the other threes methods. And, the highest and average concentration analyzed for the two contaminants are higher by 2-3 orders. For the 5 different soil textures investigated in the paper, the highest and average concentration detected in samples collected by method 2 are higher by 1-3 order in sandy soil, and the difference will become less obvious as the organic carbon content in soil increase. Therefore, it can be concluded that method 2 is the most appropriate sampling method for BETX and some other more volatile organic contaminants, and can be recommended as the designated method used to sample soil polluted by VOCs during contaminated site investigation.
Keywords:volatile organic contaminant  soil samples  sampling methods  effect comparison
本文献已被 CNKI 等数据库收录!
点击此处可从《中国环境监测》浏览原始摘要信息
点击此处可从《中国环境监测》下载全文
设为首页 | 免责声明 | 关于勤云 | 加入收藏

Copyright©北京勤云科技发展有限公司  京ICP备09084417号