SPECTROSCOPY
Soil that has been contaminated with oil
MEASURING OIL CONTAMINATION
Paul Vanden Branden compares field-based and lab-based analytical technologies for petroleum hydrocarbon determination in soil samples
D
etermination of petroleum hydrocarbons in soil continues to be an area of interest for scientists as they are the most common
contaminants that are toxic to human and environmental receptors. Tese contaminants include various molecules that are grouped into aliphatic and aromatic hydrocarbons. Generally, initial field-based soil analysis is non-specific and, while useful, the results are normally supplemented with those of more accurate and precise lab-based techniques. Te article discusses the performance of field- based non-dispersive infra-red spectroscopy (NDIRS) technology for petroleum
30
www.scientistlive.com
hydrocarbon determination compared with traditional lab-based methods. Typically, the analysis of oil- contaminated soils during site investigation and remediation involves a range of non-specific field-based screening techniques and specific lab-based fingerprint techniques completed off-site by commercial laboratories using certified analytical methods. Typical non-specific field-based techniques include NDIRS, portable gas chromatography coupled with mass spectroscopy (GC-MS), ultra-violet fluorescence spectroscopy (UVFS), visible- near infrared (vis-NIR) spectroscopy,
Fourier-transform infrared (FTIR) spectroscopy and photo-ionisation detection (PID). Tese are used to screen total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH), quantify aliphatic and aromatic hydrocarbons during site investigation, identify potential hydrocarbon concentration hotspots and compare TPH concentrations in the environmental. Generally, the lab-based fingerprint techniques used are either GC-MS or high-performance liquid chromatography coupled to mass spectrometry (HPLC- MS). Tese provide in-depth data into aliphatic and aromatic hydrocarbon speciation, qualitative and quantitative hydrocarbon degradation due to weathering or engineered remediation, and have high sensitivity and accuracy for risk indicator compounds, which is required to meet regulatory requirements.
Although the lab-based fingerprint techniques offer high accuracy and precision, the procedures involved are often time-consuming and expensive. Terefore, they are not seen as cost-effective methods for decision making needed during site investigation, remediation monitoring and validation.
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
