Quick
Search: 
 
advanced search
 GSW Home    GeoRef Home    My GSW Alerts    Contact GSW    About GSW    Journals List    Help 
  Environmental and Engineering Geoscience   Email Content Delivery
JOURNAL HOME HELP CONTACT PUBLISHER SUBSCRIBE ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS

Environmental and Engineering Geoscience; February 2003; v. 9; no. 1; p. 19-23; DOI: 10.2113/9.1.19
© 2003 Association of Engineering Geologists
This Article
Right arrow Figures Only
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (3)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by FEENSTRA, S.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
GeoRef
Right arrow GeoRef Citation

Spatial Variability of Non-Aqueous Phase Liquid Chemicals in Soil—Implications for Source Zone Mass Estimates

STANLEY FEENSTRA1

1 Applied Groundwater Research Ltd., Mississauga, Ontario, Canada L5M 2H7

Small-scale spatial variability of chemical concentrations in soil samples can introduce substantial uncertainty in the calculation of average concentrations and chemical mass in non-aqueous phase liquid (NAPL) source zones. Centimeter-scale sampling and analysis of a 2.5-m-long soil core from an experimental release of dense NAPL into a sandy aquifer at Canadian Forces Base Borden, Ontario, Canada, yielded chemical concentrations that varied by a factor of 1,000 times over a vertical distance of less than 0.5 m. Simulations to assess the effect of meter-scale sampling more typical of routine site investigations illustrated that there will be substantial uncertainty in average chemical concentrations calculated from less frequent sampling. For soil sampling at a 0.5-m interval, there would be only a 55 percent likelihood that the calculated average perchloroethylene (PCE) concentration would be within ±50 percent of the average calculated by detailed sampling. For sampling at a 1.25-m interval, there would be only a 30 percent likelihood that the calculated average PCE concentration would be within ±50 percent of the average calculated by detailed sampling. This degree of uncertainty is substantial in the context of designing an in situ treatment remedy or evaluating the performance of a mass removal remedy. Based on these results and the spatial variability in chemical concentrations anticipated in most NAPL source zones, the soil sampling and analysis performed for most routine site investigations will be of limited value in making useful estimates of contaminant mass.

Key Words: Pollution • Remediation • Site Investigations • Soil Sampling • Non-Aqueous Phase Liquids (NAPL) • Hazardous Waste







JOURNAL HOME HELP CONTACT PUBLISHER SUBSCRIBE ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2008 by Association of Engineering Geologists