Field Comparison of Micropurging vs. Traditional Ground Water Sampling |
| |
| Authors: | Peter M Kearl Nic E Korte Mike Stites Joe Baker |
| |
| Institution: | Peter M. Kearl;, CGWP, received a B.S. in geology from Mesa State College in Grand Junction, Colorado, and an M.S. in hydrology/hydrogeology from the University of Nevada, Reno. Currently he is a research scientist at Oak Ridge National Laboratory (Environmental Sciences Division, Grand Junction Office, Grand Junction, CO 81502). Kearl's primary research interest is the accurate quantification of ground water velocity measurements. Nic Korte;, CGWP, received a B.S. in chemistry from the University of Illinois in Champaign-Urbana and an M.S. in analytical chemistry from the University of Arizona, Tucson. Currently he is chemical projects manager at Oak Ridge National Laboratory (Environmental Sciences Division, Grand Junction Office, Grand Junction, CO 81502). Korte's primary research interest is studying the fate and effect of trace species in the environment. Mike Stites;received a B. G. S. degree in environmental studies from the University of Kansas and is currently an environmental protection specialist with AlliedSignal Inc. (Kansas City Division, Kansas City, MO 64141). Areas of responsibility include RFI project management and ground water treatment system compliance activities. Areas of interest include innovative sampling and contaminant characterization technologies. Joe Baker;received B.S. and M.S. degrees in geology from Iowa State University in Ames, Iowa. He is currently an environmental protection specialist with AlliedSignal Inc. (Kansas City Division, Kansas City, MO 64141). Areas of responsibility include RFI project management and ground water monitoring system implementation and maintenance. Areas of interest include DNAPL assessment and remediation and regulatory compliance issues. |
| |
| Abstract: | Micropurge sampling of ground water wells has been suggested as a possible replacement to traditional purge and sample methods. To compare methods, duplicate ground water samples were collected at two field sites using iraditional and micropurge methods. Samples were analyzed for selected organic and inorganic constituents, and the results were compared statistically. Analysis of the data using the nonparametric sign test indicates that within a 95 percent confidence interval, there was no significant difference between the two methods for the site contaminants and the majority of analytes. These analytical results were supported by visual observations with the colloidal borescope, which demonstrated impacts on the flow system in the well when using traditional sampling methods. Under selected circumstances, the results suggest replacing traditional sampling with micropurging based on reliability, cost, and waste minimization. |
| |
| Keywords: | |
|
|
