Search Result
THE REPRESENTATIVENESS OF SUBSLAB SOIL GAS COLLECTION AS EFFECTED BY PROBE CONSTRUCTION AND SAMPLING METHODS
Zimmerman, J.H., A. Williams, B. Schumacher, C. Lutes, L. Levy, G. Buckley, V. Boyd, C. Holton, T. McAlary, and R. Truesdale.
Groundwater Monitoring & Remediation 44(3): 106-121(2024)
Filed Under: Demonstrations
Filed Under: Demonstrations
Subslab soil gas (SSSG) samples were collected as part of an investigation to evaluate vapor intrusion (VI) into a building and will be used to provide input into future OSWER VI Guidance documents on SSSG sample collection, as the June 2015 OSWER VI Guide does not provide specific, detailed recommendations regarding how to collect SSSG samples. Three different subslab sampling port types were constructed with various sampling techniques within a hexagon-shaped grid near each other. Conventional-, Vapor Pin-, and California-style ports were established in duplicate for continual analysis by onsite gas chromatography-electron capture detection. 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 and sorbent tubes collected using a syringe. Samples were analyzed using EPA TO-17 (Modified) using sorbent tube samplers as the passive sampling method. No systematic differences in sample results between conventional, Vapor Pin, and CA-style probes used in SSSG sampling were identified. Site management decisions would likely be the same for data from any subslab port style, active or passive sampling techniques over durations less than 2 weeks.
Groundwater Monitoring & Remediation 44(3): 106-121(2024)
Filed Under: Demonstrations
Filed Under: Demonstrations
Subslab soil gas (SSSG) samples were collected as part of an investigation to evaluate vapor intrusion (VI) into a building and will be used to provide input into future OSWER VI Guidance documents on SSSG sample collection, as the June 2015 OSWER VI Guide does not provide specific, detailed recommendations regarding how to collect SSSG samples. Three different subslab sampling port types were constructed with various sampling techniques within a hexagon-shaped grid near each other. Conventional-, Vapor Pin-, and California-style ports were established in duplicate for continual analysis by onsite gas chromatography-electron capture detection. 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 and sorbent tubes collected using a syringe. Samples were analyzed using EPA TO-17 (Modified) using sorbent tube samplers as the passive sampling method. No systematic differences in sample results between conventional, Vapor Pin, and CA-style probes used in SSSG sampling were identified. Site management decisions would likely be the same for data from any subslab port style, active or passive sampling techniques over durations less than 2 weeks.
The Technology Innovation News Survey welcomes your comments and
suggestions, as well as information about errors for correction. Please
contact Michael Adam of the U.S. EPA Office of Superfund Remediation
and Technology Innovation at adam.michael@epa.gov or (703) 603-9915
with any comments, suggestions, or corrections.
Mention of non-EPA documents, presentations, or papers does not constitute a U.S. EPA endorsement of their contents, only an acknowledgment that they exist and may be relevant to the Technology Innovation News Survey audience.