Bedoukian   RussellIPM   RussellIPM   Piezoelectric Micro-Sprayer


Home
Animal Taxa
Plant Taxa
Semiochemicals
Floral Compounds
Semiochemical Detail
Semiochemicals & Taxa
Synthesis
Control
Invasive spp.
References

Abstract

Guide

Alphascents
Pherobio
InsectScience
E-Econex
Counterpart-Semiochemicals
Print
Email to a Friend
Kindly Donate for The Pherobase

« Previous AbstractAge-dependent variations in the sexual preference of male rats    Next AbstractIntegration of advanced oxidation processes at mild conditions in wet scrubbers for odourous sulphur compounds treatment »

Environ Sci Technol


Title:Comparison of two field sampling procedures (En Core and field methanol extraction) for volatile organic compounds
Author(s):Vega AM; Lancaster VA; Roulier MH;
Address:"U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Land Remediation and Pollution Control Division, 26 West Martin Luther King Drive, Cincinnati, Ohio 45268, USA. vega.ann@epa.gov"
Journal Title:Environ Sci Technol
Year:2004
Volume:38
Issue:24
Page Number:6790 - 6794
DOI: 10.1021/es049276n
ISSN/ISBN:0013-936X (Print) 0013-936X (Linking)
Abstract:"In-situ Lasagna technology was recently evaluated at a contaminated site at Offutt Air Force Base. The site was contaminated with low levels (<30 mg/kg) of volatile organic compounds (VOCs). Originally, researchers planned to use field methanol extraction for both pre- and post-treatment sampling to evaluate the effectiveness of the technology on contaminant reduction. Precharacterization sampling, however, indicated that concentrations of some contaminants of concern were much lower than expected. Because use of methanol increases the detection limit, it was probable that post-treatment concentrations of these target contaminants would be nondetectable if methanol extraction was used. Project management, therefore, decided to use En Core samplers in addition to field methanol extraction during the pretreatment sampling event. The En Core sampling approach, while yielding a lower detection limit, uses discreet samples along the length of a core, whereas the methanol extraction approach samples the entire length of the core. The concern was that discreet samples may bias results if any 'hot spots' were present. The two field sampling procedures, En Core and field methanol extraction, were performed side-by-side during the pretreatment phase of the technology evaluation in order to determine if the concern was valid for this site. Results were compared for four contaminants of concern: trichloroethylene, vinyl chloride, cis-1,2-dichloroethene, and trans-1,2-dichloroethene. The two procedures produced similar results with respect to both the concentration means and the variances, and no bias was evident. This finding supports project management's decision to use only En Core samplers post-treatment due to low concentrations of target contaminants"
Keywords:Environmental Monitoring Methanol/chemistry Organic Chemicals/*analysis Soil Pollutants/*analysis Solvents/chemistry Volatilization;
Notes:"MedlineVega, Ann M Lancaster, Vicki A Roulier, Michael H eng Comparative Study Evaluation Study Research Support, U.S. Gov't, Non-P.H.S. 2005/01/27 Environ Sci Technol. 2004 Dec 15; 38(24):6790-4. doi: 10.1021/es049276n"

 
Back to top
 
Citation: El-Sayed AM 2024. The Pherobase: Database of Pheromones and Semiochemicals. <http://www.pherobase.com>.
© 2003-2024 The Pherobase - Extensive Database of Pheromones and Semiochemicals. Ashraf M. El-Sayed.
Page created on 27-12-2024