You are on page 1of 1

2010 W. L.

Gore & Associates


Diffusion
II. Soil Gas Concentration Results fromMeasured Mass Values
Abbreviated Abstract: Passive samplers, for air, soil gas and sub-slab soil gas sampling, have gained interest in the environmental community as a quantitative tool for use in Vapor Intrusion investigations.
Several studies compare the results fromthe GOREModule to results of traditional active soil gas sampling techniques. As the amount of comparative data increases so do understandings of critical
parameters. Background on the use of the passive sampler, comparative data, and refined correlations filtering for various parameters are presented below.
For more information:
jwhetzel@wlgore.com, 410-506-4779
jhodny@wlgore.com, 410-506-4774
handerso@wlgore.com, 410-506-4852
htrethew@wlgore.com, 410-506-4717
Membrane based passive sampler
Step 1. Measure sampling rate in air
Direct measurement of the sampling rate in air satisfies the D(A/ L) termin Ficks Law
Concentration is a function of Sampling rate (S), mass, and exposure time.
0
Concentration at adsorbent surface =0at t=0
S
AdsorptionFollows
Ficks Law
S =samplingrate
m=mass
t =time
(

|
.
|

\
|
c
c
|
.
|

\
|
=
t
m
S
C
X
1
( )
0
C C
L
A
D
t
m
X
|
.
|

\
|
=
c
c
D=diffusioncoefficient
(A/ L) =geometricparameter
describingshapeof sampler
Cx=concentrationat timex
C0 =concentraitonat time0
Known Chemical
Concentration
I. GOREModule
Membrane based passive sampler
Installation with hand tools
Any depth
3 to 5 day exposure
Step 2. Adjust S for diffusion through soil
Sampling rate is adjusted for openness of soil
III. Comparative Studies
5 Sites
Midwestern and western US
Sampled between 2006 and 2009
W inter 06, 07
Summer 06, 08, 09
Fall 07
Compared against 4 methods:
Summa Canisters
Tedlar Bags
Gas Tight Syringes
Adsorbent Tubes
All non-zero study dataincluded
83%arewithinoneorder of magnitude
Step 3. Calculate soil Gas concentration
Soil Gas Conc. =mass x time / (S / Eff Diff)
Determine effective
diffusion using total porosity
and water filled porosity
Use values as inputs into
Millington Quirk 1961
Modeling Equation.
IV. Data Evaluation
Results fromregulatory recognized active soil
gas sampling techniques were plotted v. GORE
Module results.
Factors suspected of influencing the correlation
were examined.
Used a benchmark of one order of magnitude
difference as established level of acceptance*.
Passivev. ActiveSoil Gas Log Log Plot
Removed LowLevel &Non-linear uptakesamples
1
10
100
1000
10000
100000
1 10 100 1000 10000 100000
GORE(R) Module, ug/m3
A
c
tiv
e
V
ap
o
r S
a
m
p
lin
g
, u
g
/m
3
Non-linear uptakepoint removed highmasses
andmasses <5x inst. detection limit.
Minimal improvement.
Passivev. ActiveSoil Gas Log Log Plot
Summa, Tedlar Bag, Syringe, Taga
cis-1,2-DCE, 1,1,1-TCA, 1,1-DCA, TCE, PCE, BTEX
Removed LowLevel &Non-linear uptakesamples
RemovedSuspect Comparisons When MultipleTechniques Used
10
100
1000
10000
100000
10 100 1000 10000 100000
GORE(R) Module, ug/m3
A
c
tiv
e
V
a
p
o
r S
a
m
p
lin
g
, u
g
/m
3
Suspect activeresults removed only when
multipletechniques usedonsite.
Minimal improvement.
Points plottedby compound
Nospecificcompounds foundtobeoutliers
Points plottedby site
Sites factors dont appear to haveeffect.
Passivev. ActiveSoil Gas By Site
cis-1,2-DCE, 1,1,1-TCA, 1,1-DCA, TCE, PCE, BTEX
Tedlar Bag, Summa, Sorbent Tube, Syringe, TagaUnit
10
100
1000
10000
100000
10 100 1000 10000 100000
GORE(R) Module, ug/m3
A
c
tiv
e
V
ap
o
r S
a
m
p
lin
g
, u
g
/m
3
SiteOne
SiteTwo
SiteThree
SiteFour
SiteFive
Passivev. ActiveSoil Gas LogLogPlot
Summa, Tedlar Bag, Syringe, Taga
cis-1,2-DCE, 1,1,1-TCA, 1,1-DCA, TCE, PCE, BTEX
Removed all with total mass > 200ug
10
100
1000
10000
100000
10 100 1000 10000 100000
GORE(R) Module, ug/m3
A
c
tiv
e
V
a
p
o
r S
a
m
p
lin
g
, u
g
/m
3
Points withtotal passivemass >200ug
removed
Slight improvement to86%withinoneorder
of magnitude.
Passivev. ActiveSoil Gas Log LogPlot
1
10
100
1000
10000
100000
1000000
1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000
GORE(R) Module, ug/m3
A
c
tiv
e
V
a
p
o
r S
a
m
p
lin
g
, u
g
/m
3
Passivev. ActiveSoil Gas By Compound
Summa, Tedlar Bag, Syringe, Taga
10
100
1000
10000
100000
10 100 1000 10000 100000
GORE(R) Module, ug/m3
A
ctive
V
ap
or S
am
p
lin
g
, u
g/m
3
PCE
TCE
1,1,1-TCA
C-1,2-DCE
BTEX
1,1-DCA
V. Conclusions
Comparison appears independent of site conditions and
compounds studied.
Parameters with some effect on comparability:
Individual compounds near MDL and mass values outside
of linear uptake range
Total adsorbed masses greater than 200ug
Comparing GOREModule against 4 recognized techniques
for soil gas sampling on 5 different sites over 4 years.
83% of points within one order of magnitude with no
filtering for low and high mass values.
86% of points within one order of magnitude after
filtering for mass values.
100% within two orders of magnitude
Data demonstrate GOREModule produces similar soil gas
results to established and recognized sampling techniques
*Benchmark study- MSRAS Soil Gas Sampling Study 2006
Comparison of four activesampling techniques
Oneorder of magnitudevariation on onesite, for one
compound
Evaluation of the GOREModule for Quantitative Passive Soil Gas and Air Sampling in VI Investigations
JimWhetzel, Jay Hodny, Ph.D., Harry Anderson, & Hilary Trethewey - W. L. Gore and Associates, Inc.

You might also like