54 Measurement and Testing
Will Your Oil in Water Analysis Method Match the Regulatory Method?
Sandra Rintoul, President, Wilks Enterprise, Inc. Tel: 831-338-7439 • Email:
SRintoul@WilksIR.com
Te analysis of oil in water is a worldwide problem that crosses many industries, analytical methods and regulatory agencies. For those in the petroleum industry, the offshore platform oil and grease limits for produced water can be quite different from the effluent coming out of the refinery. For the expanding hydraulic fracturing industry, oil in water limits are driven by whether the frac or produced water will be treated for reuse, disposed of down an inactive well, or sent off-site for treatment.
Those individuals tasked with having to determine the amount of oil in water know it can be a challenging measurement. It is complicated by the fact that oil comes in many forms and is not a unique chemical entity. Added to the chemical non-uniformity is a number of different analytical methods that could be used, ie: solvent extraction/gravimetric, gas chromatography, solvent extraction/infrared, and solvent extraction/UV to name a few.
The measurement is, therefore, defined by the particular regulatory method used to measure it. When EPA 1664 is the regulatory method, the “oil” is anything that is extracted into hexane and remains after the hexane has been evaporated and shows up as weight. In regions where infrared analysis is the defining method, the “oil” is whatever is extracted into the solvent and has carbon-hydrogen bonds that absorb infrared light at a specific frequency. Each method is looking at different properties of oil and can potentially give different results.
The answer to the commonly asked question of how one type of oil in water measurement compares with different regulatory methods is not always simple and straightforward. Listed below are four factors that need to be considered:
1. Precision and bias for each method
There are acceptable errors for each method typically expressed in the precision and bias statement for the method. For example, EPA Method 1664 states in their "Ongoing precision & recovery" (section 17.0) that for a 100 ppm sample the acceptable range is 78 -114 ppm. If the test includes the silica gel treatment (SGT) to remove the polar organics, the acceptable range is 64 – 132 ppm. Therefore, if the result from a laboratory for a silica gel treated sample is 65 ppm and the alternate method result is 130 ppm, they are within the acceptable range.
2. Operator errors
As suggested previously, even the same method can give significantly different results. With any method where there is sample preparation, the human factor is added in. If a solvent/sample mix is only shaken for one minute rather than the required two minutes, the amount of oil extracted into the solvent will be significantly less. In some cases, it has been half the reading. The chart below shows a comparison of a five way sample split that was analysed on two InfraCal TOG/TPH Analysers (see photo) using infrared analysis and at three laboratories using the EPA 1664 hexane/gravimetric method. The results disprove the common misconception that the lab is always right.
Wilks InfraCal 51 62 71
63 3
Customer InfraCal
49 61 --
53 1
Lab 1 67 74 76
66 14
Lab 2 23 43 70
55 7
Lab 51 47 49
40 <5
3. Sampling
Sample collection and handling can cause differences for comparative testing. In order to have an objective comparison, the samples should be identical. If there is variability in the waste stream, this can be a difficult task. The old adage that oil and water do not mix holds true for wastewater as well.
Oil also likes to stick to surfaces. If sample collection containers are being reused, they should get a final solvent rinse after cleaning to remove any residual oil. For sample analysis, the solvent should either be blended in the sample container or if the sample is to be transferred to another container, the sample container should be rinsed with a portion of the solvent that will be used for the extraction. If not, any oil on the container surface will be excluded from the reading.
4. Sample Disparities
Not all oil in water samples are alike which makes it difficult when comparing analytical methods that look at different properties of the oil in order to make the measurement. Oil is a mix of chemical components that changes from one location to another--it can even change at the same location.
For example, samples often contain a mix of aromatic and aliphatic hydrocarbons. UV fluorescence only detects aromatic hydrocarbons while infrared will detect both aromatic and aliphatic hydrocarbons. The two analytical methods could give different results if the aromatic/aliphatic ratio changes.
Samples that contain volatile hydrocarbons could also show different results between EPA 1664
Annual Buyers’ Guide 2013 •
www.petro-online.com
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104
