探头结构和采样方法对采集地下土壤气体代表性的影响

IF 16.4 1区 化学 Q1 CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
John H. Zimmerman, Alan Williams, Brian Schumacher, Chris Lutes, Laurent Levy, Gwen Buckley, Victoria Boyd, Chase Holton, Todd McAlary, Robert Truesdale
{"title":"探头结构和采样方法对采集地下土壤气体代表性的影响","authors":"John H. Zimmerman,&nbsp;Alan Williams,&nbsp;Brian Schumacher,&nbsp;Chris Lutes,&nbsp;Laurent Levy,&nbsp;Gwen Buckley,&nbsp;Victoria Boyd,&nbsp;Chase Holton,&nbsp;Todd McAlary,&nbsp;Robert Truesdale","doi":"10.1111/gwmr.12663","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Subslab soil gas (SSSG) samples were collected as part of an investigation to evaluate vapor intrusion (VI) into a building. The June 2015 Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER) VI Guide (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [U.S. EPA] 2015) does not provide specific, detailed recommendations regarding how to collect SSSG samples. The data collected in this study will be used to provide input into future OSWER VI Guidance documents on SSSG sample collection. To this end, three different types of subslab sampling ports were constructed with various sampling techniques within a hexagon-shaped grid in near proximity to each other. Conventional-, Vapor Pin-, and California-style ports were established in duplicate for continual analysis by onsite gas chromatography-electron capture detection (GC-ECD). Triplicate ports were established to evaluate active and passive long-term sampling methods to determine short range temporal differences. Active sampling methods included evacuated stainless-steel canisters fitted with capillary flow controllers (Modified U.S. EPA Method TO-15 [U.S. EPA 1999a]) and sorbent tubes collected using a syringe (Modified EPA TO-17 [U.S. EPA 1999b]). The Passive sampling method used was sorbent tube samples collected following the EPA TO-17 sampling method (Modified). This study did not identify any systematic differences in sample results between conventional, Vapor Pin, and CA-style probes for used in SSSG sampling. The decisions for site management would probably be the same for data from any subslab port style, active or passive sampling techniques over durations less than 2 weeks.</p>","PeriodicalId":1,"journal":{"name":"Accounts of Chemical Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":16.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Representativeness of Subslab Soil Gas Collection as Effected by Probe Construction and Sampling Methods\",\"authors\":\"John H. Zimmerman,&nbsp;Alan Williams,&nbsp;Brian Schumacher,&nbsp;Chris Lutes,&nbsp;Laurent Levy,&nbsp;Gwen Buckley,&nbsp;Victoria Boyd,&nbsp;Chase Holton,&nbsp;Todd McAlary,&nbsp;Robert Truesdale\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/gwmr.12663\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Subslab soil gas (SSSG) samples were collected as part of an investigation to evaluate vapor intrusion (VI) into a building. The June 2015 Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER) VI Guide (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [U.S. EPA] 2015) does not provide specific, detailed recommendations regarding how to collect SSSG samples. The data collected in this study will be used to provide input into future OSWER VI Guidance documents on SSSG sample collection. To this end, three different types of subslab sampling ports were constructed with various sampling techniques within a hexagon-shaped grid in near proximity to each other. Conventional-, Vapor Pin-, and California-style ports were established in duplicate for continual analysis by onsite gas chromatography-electron capture detection (GC-ECD). Triplicate ports were established to evaluate active and passive long-term sampling methods to determine short range temporal differences. Active sampling methods included evacuated stainless-steel canisters fitted with capillary flow controllers (Modified U.S. EPA Method TO-15 [U.S. EPA 1999a]) and sorbent tubes collected using a syringe (Modified EPA TO-17 [U.S. EPA 1999b]). The Passive sampling method used was sorbent tube samples collected following the EPA TO-17 sampling method (Modified). This study did not identify any systematic differences in sample results between conventional, Vapor Pin, and CA-style probes for used in SSSG sampling. The decisions for site management would probably be the same for data from any subslab port style, active or passive sampling techniques over durations less than 2 weeks.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":1,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Accounts of Chemical Research\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":16.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Accounts of Chemical Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"93\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/gwmr.12663\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"化学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Accounts of Chemical Research","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/gwmr.12663","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"化学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

采集底层土壤气体 (SSSG) 样本是评估建筑物蒸汽入侵 (VI) 调查的一部分。2015 年 6 月发布的《固体废物和应急响应办公室 (OSWER) VI 指南》(美国环境保护署 [U.S. EPA] 2015 年)并未就如何采集 SSSG 样品提供具体、详细的建议。本研究收集的数据将用于为未来有关 SSSG 样品收集的 OSWER VI 指南文件提供参考。为此,在相邻的六边形网格内,采用各种取样技术建造了三种不同类型的底层取样口。常规取样口、蒸汽针式取样口和加利福尼亚式取样口一式两份,用于现场气相色谱-电子捕获检测(GC-ECD)的持续分析。为评估主动和被动的长期取样方法,以确定短距离的时间差,还建立了三重端口。主动采样方法包括装有毛细管流量控制器的抽真空不锈钢罐(经修改的美国 EPA TO-15 方法 [U.S. EPA 1999a])和使用注射器收集的吸附剂管(经修改的 EPA TO-17 方法 [U.S. EPA 1999b])。使用的被动采样方法是按照 EPA TO-17 采样方法(修改版)采集的吸附剂管样本。本研究没有发现用于 SSSG 采样的传统探针、Vapor Pin 和 CA 型探针在采样结果上存在任何系统性差异。对于在 2 周以下的时间内从任何底层端口方式、主动或被动采样技术中获得的数据,现场管理决策可能是相同的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

The Representativeness of Subslab Soil Gas Collection as Effected by Probe Construction and Sampling Methods

The Representativeness of Subslab Soil Gas Collection as Effected by Probe Construction and Sampling Methods

Subslab soil gas (SSSG) samples were collected as part of an investigation to evaluate vapor intrusion (VI) into a building. The June 2015 Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER) VI Guide (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [U.S. EPA] 2015) does not provide specific, detailed recommendations regarding how to collect SSSG samples. The data collected in this study will be used to provide input into future OSWER VI Guidance documents on SSSG sample collection. To this end, three different types of subslab sampling ports were constructed with various sampling techniques within a hexagon-shaped grid in near proximity to each other. Conventional-, Vapor Pin-, and California-style ports were established in duplicate for continual analysis by onsite gas chromatography-electron capture detection (GC-ECD). Triplicate ports were established to evaluate active and passive long-term sampling methods to determine short range temporal differences. Active sampling methods included evacuated stainless-steel canisters fitted with capillary flow controllers (Modified U.S. EPA Method TO-15 [U.S. EPA 1999a]) and sorbent tubes collected using a syringe (Modified EPA TO-17 [U.S. EPA 1999b]). The Passive sampling method used was sorbent tube samples collected following the EPA TO-17 sampling method (Modified). This study did not identify any systematic differences in sample results between conventional, Vapor Pin, and CA-style probes for used in SSSG sampling. The decisions for site management would probably be the same for data from any subslab port style, active or passive sampling techniques over durations less than 2 weeks.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Accounts of Chemical Research
Accounts of Chemical Research 化学-化学综合
CiteScore
31.40
自引率
1.10%
发文量
312
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: Accounts of Chemical Research presents short, concise and critical articles offering easy-to-read overviews of basic research and applications in all areas of chemistry and biochemistry. These short reviews focus on research from the author’s own laboratory and are designed to teach the reader about a research project. In addition, Accounts of Chemical Research publishes commentaries that give an informed opinion on a current research problem. Special Issues online are devoted to a single topic of unusual activity and significance. Accounts of Chemical Research replaces the traditional article abstract with an article "Conspectus." These entries synopsize the research affording the reader a closer look at the content and significance of an article. Through this provision of a more detailed description of the article contents, the Conspectus enhances the article's discoverability by search engines and the exposure for the research.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信