探头结构和采样方法对采集地下土壤气体代表性的影响

IF 1.8 4区 环境科学与生态学 Q3 WATER RESOURCES Ground Water Monitoring and Remediation Pub Date : 2024-06-08 DOI:10.1111/gwmr.12663
John H. Zimmerman, Alan Williams, Brian Schumacher, Chris Lutes, Laurent Levy, Gwen Buckley, Victoria Boyd, Chase Holton, Todd McAlary, Robert Truesdale
{"title":"探头结构和采样方法对采集地下土壤气体代表性的影响","authors":"John H. Zimmerman,&nbsp;Alan Williams,&nbsp;Brian Schumacher,&nbsp;Chris Lutes,&nbsp;Laurent Levy,&nbsp;Gwen Buckley,&nbsp;Victoria Boyd,&nbsp;Chase Holton,&nbsp;Todd McAlary,&nbsp;Robert Truesdale","doi":"10.1111/gwmr.12663","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Subslab soil gas (SSSG) samples were collected as part of an investigation to evaluate vapor intrusion (VI) into a building. The June 2015 Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER) VI Guide (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [U.S. EPA] 2015) does not provide specific, detailed recommendations regarding how to collect SSSG samples. The data collected in this study will be used to provide input into future OSWER VI Guidance documents on SSSG sample collection. To this end, three different types of subslab sampling ports were constructed with various sampling techniques within a hexagon-shaped grid in near proximity to each other. Conventional-, Vapor Pin-, and California-style ports were established in duplicate for continual analysis by onsite gas chromatography-electron capture detection (GC-ECD). Triplicate ports were established to evaluate active and passive long-term sampling methods to determine short range temporal differences. Active sampling methods included evacuated stainless-steel canisters fitted with capillary flow controllers (Modified U.S. EPA Method TO-15 [U.S. EPA 1999a]) and sorbent tubes collected using a syringe (Modified EPA TO-17 [U.S. EPA 1999b]). The Passive sampling method used was sorbent tube samples collected following the EPA TO-17 sampling method (Modified). This study did not identify any systematic differences in sample results between conventional, Vapor Pin, and CA-style probes for used in SSSG sampling. The decisions for site management would probably be the same for data from any subslab port style, active or passive sampling techniques over durations less than 2 weeks.</p>","PeriodicalId":55081,"journal":{"name":"Ground Water Monitoring and Remediation","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Representativeness of Subslab Soil Gas Collection as Effected by Probe Construction and Sampling Methods\",\"authors\":\"John H. Zimmerman,&nbsp;Alan Williams,&nbsp;Brian Schumacher,&nbsp;Chris Lutes,&nbsp;Laurent Levy,&nbsp;Gwen Buckley,&nbsp;Victoria Boyd,&nbsp;Chase Holton,&nbsp;Todd McAlary,&nbsp;Robert Truesdale\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/gwmr.12663\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Subslab soil gas (SSSG) samples were collected as part of an investigation to evaluate vapor intrusion (VI) into a building. The June 2015 Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER) VI Guide (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [U.S. EPA] 2015) does not provide specific, detailed recommendations regarding how to collect SSSG samples. The data collected in this study will be used to provide input into future OSWER VI Guidance documents on SSSG sample collection. To this end, three different types of subslab sampling ports were constructed with various sampling techniques within a hexagon-shaped grid in near proximity to each other. Conventional-, Vapor Pin-, and California-style ports were established in duplicate for continual analysis by onsite gas chromatography-electron capture detection (GC-ECD). Triplicate ports were established to evaluate active and passive long-term sampling methods to determine short range temporal differences. Active sampling methods included evacuated stainless-steel canisters fitted with capillary flow controllers (Modified U.S. EPA Method TO-15 [U.S. EPA 1999a]) and sorbent tubes collected using a syringe (Modified EPA TO-17 [U.S. EPA 1999b]). The Passive sampling method used was sorbent tube samples collected following the EPA TO-17 sampling method (Modified). This study did not identify any systematic differences in sample results between conventional, Vapor Pin, and CA-style probes for used in SSSG sampling. The decisions for site management would probably be the same for data from any subslab port style, active or passive sampling techniques over durations less than 2 weeks.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":55081,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Ground Water Monitoring and Remediation\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Ground Water Monitoring and Remediation\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"93\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/gwmr.12663\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"环境科学与生态学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"WATER RESOURCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ground Water Monitoring and Remediation","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/gwmr.12663","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"WATER RESOURCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

采集底层土壤气体 (SSSG) 样本是评估建筑物蒸汽入侵 (VI) 调查的一部分。2015 年 6 月发布的《固体废物和应急响应办公室 (OSWER) VI 指南》(美国环境保护署 [U.S. EPA] 2015 年)并未就如何采集 SSSG 样品提供具体、详细的建议。本研究收集的数据将用于为未来有关 SSSG 样品收集的 OSWER VI 指南文件提供参考。为此,在相邻的六边形网格内,采用各种取样技术建造了三种不同类型的底层取样口。常规取样口、蒸汽针式取样口和加利福尼亚式取样口一式两份,用于现场气相色谱-电子捕获检测(GC-ECD)的持续分析。为评估主动和被动的长期取样方法,以确定短距离的时间差,还建立了三重端口。主动采样方法包括装有毛细管流量控制器的抽真空不锈钢罐(经修改的美国 EPA TO-15 方法 [U.S. EPA 1999a])和使用注射器收集的吸附剂管(经修改的 EPA TO-17 方法 [U.S. EPA 1999b])。使用的被动采样方法是按照 EPA TO-17 采样方法(修改版)采集的吸附剂管样本。本研究没有发现用于 SSSG 采样的传统探针、Vapor Pin 和 CA 型探针在采样结果上存在任何系统性差异。对于在 2 周以下的时间内从任何底层端口方式、主动或被动采样技术中获得的数据,现场管理决策可能是相同的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
The Representativeness of Subslab Soil Gas Collection as Effected by Probe Construction and Sampling Methods

Subslab soil gas (SSSG) samples were collected as part of an investigation to evaluate vapor intrusion (VI) into a building. The June 2015 Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER) VI Guide (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [U.S. EPA] 2015) does not provide specific, detailed recommendations regarding how to collect SSSG samples. The data collected in this study will be used to provide input into future OSWER VI Guidance documents on SSSG sample collection. To this end, three different types of subslab sampling ports were constructed with various sampling techniques within a hexagon-shaped grid in near proximity to each other. Conventional-, Vapor Pin-, and California-style ports were established in duplicate for continual analysis by onsite gas chromatography-electron capture detection (GC-ECD). Triplicate ports were established to evaluate active and passive long-term sampling methods to determine short range temporal differences. Active sampling methods included evacuated stainless-steel canisters fitted with capillary flow controllers (Modified U.S. EPA Method TO-15 [U.S. EPA 1999a]) and sorbent tubes collected using a syringe (Modified EPA TO-17 [U.S. EPA 1999b]). The Passive sampling method used was sorbent tube samples collected following the EPA TO-17 sampling method (Modified). This study did not identify any systematic differences in sample results between conventional, Vapor Pin, and CA-style probes for used in SSSG sampling. The decisions for site management would probably be the same for data from any subslab port style, active or passive sampling techniques over durations less than 2 weeks.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.30
自引率
10.50%
发文量
60
审稿时长
>36 weeks
期刊介绍: Since its inception in 1981, Groundwater Monitoring & Remediation® has been a resource for researchers and practitioners in the field. It is a quarterly journal that offers the best in application oriented, peer-reviewed papers together with insightful articles from the practitioner''s perspective. Each issue features papers containing cutting-edge information on treatment technology, columns by industry experts, news briefs, and equipment news. GWMR plays a unique role in advancing the practice of the groundwater monitoring and remediation field by providing forward-thinking research with practical solutions.
期刊最新文献
Issue Information - TOC Issue Information - ISSN page Complementary Field and Laboratory Batch Studies to Quantify Generation Rates of Perfluoroalkyl Acids in a Contaminated Agricultural Topsoil with Unknown Precursors Featured Products Highlight
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1