Incremental Sampling Methodology with Petroleum Hydrocarbon - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

▶
incremental sampling methodology with
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

Incremental Sampling Methodology with Petroleum Hydrocarbon - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Feb 28, 2024 39 likes •294 views

Comparing Discrete Sampling and Incremental Sampling Methodology with Petroleum Hydrocarbon Contaminated Soils in Canada Kathlyne Hyde, Lisa Moelhman, Terry Obal, Steven Mamet, Trevor Carlson, Steven D. Siciliano Presenting Members Integrity

slide-1
SLIDE 1

Integrity  Excellence  Responsibility

Presenting Members

Comparing Discrete Sampling and Incremental Sampling Methodology with Petroleum Hydrocarbon Contaminated Soils in Canada

Kathlyne Hyde, Lisa Moelhman, Terry Obal, Steven Mamet, Trevor Carlson, Steven D. Siciliano

slide-2
SLIDE 2

The Interstate Technology & Regulatory Council defines incremental sampling methodology (ISM) as a structured composite sampling and processing protocol.

Finalized guidelines released February 2012.

Advantages

  • Estimates of the mean concentration of soil contamination
  • Representative samples for a specific decision unit (DU)
  • Reduced data variability

Background

slide-3
SLIDE 3
  • 1. Develop a protocol for performing incremental

sampling from push cores to analyze BTEX & F1-F4 hydrocarbons.

  • 2. Compare ISM hydrocarbon results to the typical

Phase II results used in site assessments.

  • 3. Evaluate ISM protocol for the use of remediation

plans.

Objectives

slide-4
SLIDE 4

1) Choose decision units (DU) 2) Choose sampling points within DU 3) Drill push cores to 6 meters depth 4) Phase II assessment 5) Incremental sampling methodology

Methods

slide-5
SLIDE 5

Site 1: Saskatoon, Saskatchewan

slide-6
SLIDE 6

Site 2: Raymore, Saskatchewan

DU1: Estimated impacted area DU2 DU4 DU3

slide-7
SLIDE 7

1) Choose decision units (DU) 2) Choose sampling points within DU 3) Drill push cores to 6 meters depth and collect for storage until laboratory sampling can be done 4) Phase II assessment 5) Incremental sampling methodology

Methods

slide-8
SLIDE 8

Drilling and collecting cores

slide-9
SLIDE 9

Storage at -20 ͦͦ C

slide-10
SLIDE 10

1) Choose decision units (DU) 2) Choose sampling points within DU 3) Drill push cores to 6 meters depth and collect for storage until laboratory sampling can be done 4) Phase II assessment 5) Incremental sampling methodology

Methods

slide-11
SLIDE 11

In field:

  • Core drilled
  • Length of core scanned with photoionization detector
  • Area with highest reading is sampled into methanol and jars for

laboratory analysis of BTEX & F1-F4

  • Samples taken at increments of 0.5 m or 0.75 m
  • Visual ID of contamination and subsequent sampling
  • Details of soil profile are recorded

Phase II assessment

slide-12
SLIDE 12

1) Choose decision units (DU) 2) Choose sampling points within DU 3) Drill push cores to 6 meters depth and collect for storage until laboratory sampling can be done 4) Phase II assessment 5) Incremental sampling methodology

Methods

slide-13
SLIDE 13

Vertical DU’s

  • Deciding what vertical soil portions to combine

Laboratory sampling

  • Plug
  • Every 5 cm for 1.5 m DU and every 10 cm for 3.0m DU
  • Large for 2-D slabcake
  • Small into methanol
  • Wedge
  • Along entire core
  • Every 10 cm, a portion into methanol, 20 cm for 3.0 m DU
  • Remainder of soil into 2-D slabcake
  • Discrete
  • Hotspot
  • Terra-core into methanol
  • Soil sample unhomogenized into jar

ISM Protocol

0 m 1.5 m 4.5 m 6.0 m Capillary Contaminated Deep All samples analyzed by

slide-14
SLIDE 14

ISM Protocol: Preparing the core

slide-15
SLIDE 15

ISM Protocol: Sampling

Wedge sampling Plug sampling

slide-16
SLIDE 16

ISM Protocol: Homogenizing

slide-17
SLIDE 17

ISM Protocol: Volatile extractions

slide-18
SLIDE 18

Soil mass: Phase II vs. ISM

Plug Wedge Discrete Phase II Methanol 54 g 13 g 5 g 5 g Slabcake 220 g 120 g

  • Sample Jar

20 g 20 g Packed Packed

Fundamental error is due to compositional heterogeneity. Fundamental error is unavoidable due to our inability to randomly select soil particles to represent the DU, however, collecting sufficient mass can significantly reduce the error.

slide-19
SLIDE 19

Phase II False Negatives – What did Phase II miss that ISM captured? Benzene F1-BTEX Rate of false negatives (%)

10 20 30 40 50 60

Plug Wedge Discrete

1) Our discrete sample detected contamination that Phase II did not 2) Wedge sampling protocol needs modification

slide-20
SLIDE 20

CCME F1 Hydrocarbon Concentration

Plug Wedge Discrete Phase II Concentration (ug/g)

500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000

Approximately 2000 ppm difference in concentration between plug and discrete sample Approximately 1200 ppm difference in concentration between plug and Phase II sample

slide-21
SLIDE 21

How much soil is contaminated?

slide-22
SLIDE 22

Plume example: Saskatoon, SK

ISM Plug Protocol Phase II Protocol Courtesy of Steve Mamet

slide-23
SLIDE 23

The ISM plug protocol is much more effective than the wedge protocol. Phase II will provide worst-case scenario data and is suitable for identifying risk and making further site management decisions. ISM is useful for implementing in-situ remediation techniques to efficiently target contamination.

Conclusions

slide-24
SLIDE 24
  • Not useful for ex-situ remediation

When should you use ISM?

  • Useful for in-situ remediation
  • Replace a second Phase II assessment
  • Plug protocol in the field
  • Samples sent in for analysis do not increase
  • Carefully place biostimulation/bioaugmentation delivery systems
  • Fertilize according to soil mass contaminated for optimal C:N:P ratios
slide-25
SLIDE 25

Integrity  Excellence  Responsibility

Supervisor: Steven Siciliano Maxxam Director of Scientific Services & Development: Terry Obal Environmental Soil Toxicology Lab Group + the undergrads

Special thanks to Richard Nhan, who without, this might have not been possible.