Difference between revisions of "User:Debra Tabron/sandbox"

From Enviro Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
 
(186 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
Composting is an ''ex situ'' technology for treatment of excavated soils impacted by recalcitrant contaminants, including nitroaromatic and nitramine explosives. The process involves mixing contaminated soil with bulking agents (wood chips, straw, hay or alfalfa), and organic amendments (cattle and/or chicken manure, other vegetative wastes). Ingredient selection depends on the contaminants to be treated, soil characteristics, and availability of low-cost organic amendments. Advantages of windrow composting include more rapid degradation of explosive compounds, end-product reuse, applicability to a wide range of soils, self-heating treatment process, and year round operation without external heating. Cost drivers include land requirements, treatment batch size, venting requirements, soil characteristics, nutrient and bulking agent addition, and turnover frequency.  
+
The heterogeneous distribution of munitions constituents, released as particles from munitions firing and detonations on military training ranges, presents challenges for representative soil sample collection and for defensible decision making. Military range characterization studies and the development of the incremental sampling methodology (ISM) have enabled the development of recommended methods for soil sampling that produce representative and reproducible concentration data for munitions constituents. This article provides a broad overview of recommended soil sampling and processing practices for analysis of munitions constituents on military ranges.  
 +
<div style="float:right;margin:0 0 2em 2em;">__TOC__</div>
 +
 
 +
'''Related Article(s)''':
 +
 
 +
 
 +
'''CONTRIBUTOR(S):'''  [[Dr. Samuel Beal]]
  
<div style="float:right;margin:0 0 2em 2em;">__TOC__</div>
 
  
'''Related Article(s):'''
+
'''Key Resource(s)''':
*[[Munitions Constituents]]
+
*[[media:Taylor-2011 ERDC-CRREL TR-11-15.pdf| Guidance for Soil Sampling of Energetics and Metals]]<ref name= "Taylor2011">Taylor, S., Jenkins, T.F., Bigl, S., Hewitt, A.D., Walsh, M.E. and Walsh, M.R., 2011. Guidance for Soil Sampling for Energetics and Metals (No. ERDC/CRREL-TR-11-15). [[media:Taylor-2011 ERDC-CRREL TR-11-15.pdf| Report.pdf]]</ref>
*[[Munitions Constituents - Alkaline Degradation]]
+
*[[Media:Hewitt-2009 ERDC-CRREL TR-09-6.pdf| Report.pdf | Validation of Sampling Protocol and the Promulgation of Method Modifications for the Characterization of Energetic Residues on Military Testing and Training Ranges]]<ref name= "Hewitt2009">Hewitt, A.D., Jenkins, T.F., Walsh, M.E., Bigl, S.R. and Brochu, S., 2009. Validation of sampling protocol and the promulgation of method modifications for the characterization of energetic residues on military testing and training ranges (No. ERDC/CRREL-TR-09-6). Engineer Research and Development Center / Cold Regions Research and Engineering Lab (ERDC/CRREL) TR-09-6, Hanover, NH, USA. [[Media:Hewitt-2009 ERDC-CRREL TR-09-6.pdf | Report.pdf]]</ref>
 +
*[[media:Epa-2006-method-8330b.pdf| U.S. EPA SW-846 Method 8330B: Nitroaromatics, Nitramines, and Nitrate Esters by High Performance Liquid Chromatography (HPLC)]]<ref name= "USEPA2006M">U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 2006. Method 8330B (SW-846): Nitroaromatics, Nitramines, and Nitrate Esters by High Performance Liquid Chromatography (HPLC), Rev. 2. Washington, D.C. [[media:Epa-2006-method-8330b.pdf | Report.pdf]]</ref>
 +
*[[media:Epa-2007-method-8095.pdf | U.S. EPA SW-846 Method 8095: Explosives by Gas Chromatography.]]<ref name= "USEPA2007M">U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA), 2007. Method 8095 (SW-846): Explosives by Gas Chromatography. Washington, D.C. [[media:Epa-2007-method-8095.pdf| Report.pdf]]</ref>
  
'''CONTRIBUTOR(S):''' [[Harry Craig]]
+
==Introduction==
 +
[[File:Beal1w2 Fig1.png|thumb|200 px|left|Figure 1: Downrange distance of visible propellant plume on snow from the firing of different munitions. Note deposition behind firing line for the 84-mm rocket. Data from: Walsh et al.<ref>Walsh, M.R., Walsh, M.E., Ampleman, G., Thiboutot, S., Brochu, S. and Jenkins, T.F., 2012. Munitions propellants residue deposition rates on military training ranges. Propellants, Explosives, Pyrotechnics, 37(4), pp.393-406. [http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/prep.201100105 doi: 10.1002/prep.201100105]</ref><ref>Walsh, M.R., Walsh, M.E., Hewitt, A.D., Collins, C.M., Bigl, S.R., Gagnon, K., Ampleman, G., Thiboutot, S., Poulin, I. and Brochu, S., 2010. Characterization and Fate of Gun and Rocket Propellant Residues on Testing and Training Ranges: Interim Report 2. (ERDC/CRREL TR-10-13.  Also: ESTCP Project ER-1481) [[media:Walsh-2010 ERDC-CRREL TR-11-15 ESTCP ER-1481.pdf| Report]]</ref>]]
 +
[[File:Beal1w2 Fig2.png|thumb|left|200 px|Figure 2: A low-order detonation mortar round (top) with surrounding discrete soil samples produced concentrations spanning six orders of magnitude within a 10m by 10m area (bottom). (Photo and data: A.D. Hewitt)]]
  
 +
Munitions constituents are released on military testing and training ranges through several common mechanisms. Some are locally dispersed as solid particles from incomplete combustion during firing and detonation. Also, small residual particles containing propellant compounds (e.g., [[Wikipedia: Nitroglycerin | nitroglycerin [NG]]] and [[Wikipedia: 2,4-Dinitrotoluene | 2,4-dinitrotoluene [2,4-DNT]]]) are distributed in front of and surrounding target practice firing lines (Figure 1). At impact areas and demolition areas, high order detonations typically yield very small amounts (<1 to 10 mg/round) of residual high explosive compounds (e.g., [[Wikipedia: TNT | TNT ]], [[Wikipedia: RDX | RDX ]] and [[Wikipedia: HMX | HMX ]]) that are distributed up to and sometimes greater than) 24 m from the site of detonation<ref name= "Walsh2017">Walsh, M.R., Temple, T., Bigl, M.F., Tshabalala, S.F., Mai, N. and Ladyman, M., 2017. Investigation of Energetic Particle Distribution from High‐Order Detonations of Munitions. Propellants, Explosives, Pyrotechnics, 42(8), pp.932-941. [https://doi.org/10.1002/prep.201700089 doi: 10.1002/prep.201700089] [[media: Walsh-2017-High-Order-Detonation-Residues-Particle-Distribution-PEP.pdf| Report.pdf]]</ref>.
  
'''Key Resource(s)''':
+
Low-order detonations and duds are thought to be the primary source of munitions constituents on ranges<ref>Hewitt, A.D., Jenkins, T.F., Walsh, M.E., Walsh, M.R. and Taylor, S., 2005. RDX and TNT residues from live-fire and blow-in-place detonations. Chemosphere, 61(6), pp.888-894. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2005.04.058 doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2005.04.058]</ref><ref>Walsh, M.R., Walsh, M.E., Poulin, I., Taylor, S. and Douglas, T.A., 2011. Energetic residues from the detonation of common US ordnance. International Journal of Energetic Materials and Chemical Propulsion, 10(2). [https://doi.org/10.1615/intjenergeticmaterialschemprop.2012004956 doi: 10.1615/IntJEnergeticMaterialsChemProp.2012004956] [[media:Walsh-2011-Energetic-Residues-Common-US-Ordnance.pdf| Report.pdf]]</ref>. Duds are initially intact but may become perforated or fragmented into micrometer to centimeter;o0i0k-sized particles by nearby detonations<ref>Walsh, M.R., Thiboutot, S., Walsh, M.E., Ampleman, G., Martel, R., Poulin, I. and Taylor, S., 2011. Characterization and fate of gun and rocket propellant residues on testing and training ranges (No. ERDC/CRREL-TR-11-13). Engineer Research and Development Center / Cold Regions Research and Engineering Lab (ERDC/CRREL) TR-11-13, Hanover, NH, USA. [[media:Epa-2006-method-8330b.pdf| Report.pdf]]</ref>. Low-order detonations can scatter micrometer to centimeter-sized particles up to 20 m from the site of detonation<ref name= "Taylor2004">Taylor, S., Hewitt, A., Lever, J., Hayes, C., Perovich, L., Thorne, P. and Daghlian, C., 2004. TNT particle size distributions from detonated 155-mm howitzer rounds. Chemosphere, 55(3), pp.357-367.[[media:Taylor-2004 TNT PSDs.pdf| Report.pdf]]</ref>
*[[media:2011-ACOE-pwtb_200_1_95.pdf| ACOE (2011) Soil Composting for Explosives Remediation: Case Studies and Lessons Learned.]]<ref name= "ACOE2011">ACOE, 2011. Soil Composting for Explosives Remediation: Case Studies and Lessons Learned, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Public Works Technical Bulletin 200-1-95. [[media:2011-ACOE-pwtb_200_1_95.pdf| Report.pdf]]</ref>  
 
  
==Overview==
+
The particulate nature of munitions constituents in the environment presents a distinct challenge to representative soil sampling. Figure 2 shows an array of discrete soil samples collected around the site of a low-order detonation – resultant soil concentrations vary by orders of magnitude within centimeters of each other. The inadequacy of discrete sampling is apparent in characterization studies from actual ranges which show wide-ranging concentrations and poor precision (Table 1).
Composting is an ''ex situ'' technology designed to treat excavated soils impacted by a range of recalcitrant contaminants, including nitroaromatic and nitramine explosive compounds. The process involves mixing contaminated soil with bulking agents such as wood chips, straw, hay or alfalfa, and organic amendments such as cattle and/or chicken manure, or other vegetative wastes.  
 
  
The selection of specific compost ingredients depends on the contaminants to be treated, the physical/chemical characteristics of the soil, and the availability of low-cost organic amendments. The goal is to achieve the desired bulk density, porosity, and organic amendments that can provide the proper balance of carbon and nitrogen (C/N ratio) to promote biological activity in the compost. For most composting applications, it is necessary to provide amendments that will support mesophilic ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesophile Mesophile]) or thermophilic ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermophile Thermophile]) microbial activity<ref name= "USEPA2002APC">U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 2002. Application, performance, and costs of biotreatment technologies for contaminated soils. EPA/600/R-03/037 (NTIS PB2003-104482). [[media:2002-EPA-Application%2C_Performance%2C_and_Costs_for_Biotreatment_Tech_for_Cont_Soils.pdf| Report.pdf]]</ref>.  
+
In comparison to discrete sampling, incremental sampling tends to yield reproducible concentrations (low relative standard deviation [RSD]) that statistically better represent an area of interest<ref name= "Hewitt2009"/>.
  
==Principle of Operation==
+
{| class="wikitable" style="float: right; text-align: center; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"
Composting is a biological remediation technology that exploits the activity of a diverse range of microorganisms to degrade target contaminants. The biological activity is enhanced through the addition of readily degradable amendments to provide a sufficient supply of nutrients. As biological activity increases, compost temperatures reach mesophilic (<45°C) and potentially thermophilic (45° to 80°C) conditions, the latter of which experiences the greatest degradation<ref name= "Bruns2000">Bruns-Nagel, D., Steinbach, K., Gemsa, D. and von Löw, E., 2000. Composting (humification) of nitroaromatic compounds. Biodegradation of nitroaromatic compounds and explosives. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, Fla, pp.357-393. [https://doi.org/10.1201/9781420032673 doi: 10.1201/9781420032673]</ref>.
+
|+ Table 1. Soil Sample Concentrations and Precision from Military Ranges Using Discrete and Incremental Sampling. (Data from Taylor et al. <ref name= "Taylor2011"/> and references therein.)
 +
|-
 +
! Military Range Type !! Analyte !! Range<br/>(mg/kg) !! Median<br/>(mg/kg) !! RSD<br/>(%)
 +
|-
 +
| colspan="5" style="text-align: left;" | '''Discrete Samples'''
 +
|-
 +
| Artillery FP || 2,4-DNT || <0.04 – 6.4 || 0.65 || 110
 +
|-
 +
| Antitank Rocket || HMX || 5.8 – 1,200 || 200 || 99
 +
|-
 +
| Bombing || TNT || 0.15 – 780 || 6.4 || 274
 +
|-
 +
| Mortar || RDX || <0.04 – 2,400 || 1.7 || 441
 +
|-
 +
| Artillery || RDX || <0.04 – 170 || <0.04 || 454
 +
|-
 +
| colspan="5" style="text-align: left;" | '''Incremental Samples*'''
 +
|-
 +
| Artillery FP || 2,4-DNT || 0.60 – 1.4 || 0.92 || 26
 +
|-
 +
| Bombing || TNT || 13 – 17 || 14 || 17
 +
|-
 +
| Artillery/Bombing || RDX || 3.9 – 9.4 || 4.8 || 38
 +
|-
 +
| Thermal Treatment || HMX || 3.96 – 4.26 || 4.16 || 4
 +
|-
 +
| colspan="5" style="text-align: left; background-color: white;" | * For incremental samples, 30-100 increments and 3-10 replicate samples were collected.
 +
|}
  
Turning, mixing, and/or aeration of the compost provides oxygen for extracellular hydrolysis and aerobic catabolic reactions to take place. However, a high level of microbial activity can deplete oxygen between turning or aeration sequences, creating anoxic conditions in portions of the compost material that allow anaerobic catabolic reactions to occur.
+
==Incremental Sampling Approach==
 +
ISM is a requisite for representative and reproducible sampling of training ranges, but it is an involved process that is detailed thoroughly elsewhere<ref name= "Hewitt2009"/><ref name= "Taylor2011"/><ref name= "USEPA2006M"/>. In short, ISM involves the collection of many (30 to >100) increments in a systematic pattern within a decision unit (DU). The DU may cover an area where releases are thought to have occurred or may represent an area relevant to ecological receptors (e.g., sensitive species). Figure 3 shows the ISM sampling pattern in a simplified (5x5 square) DU. Increments are collected at a random starting point with systematic distances between increments. Replicate samples can be collected by starting at a different random starting point, often at a different corner of the DU. Practically, this grid pattern can often be followed with flagging or lathe marking DU boundaries and/or sampling lanes and with individual pacing keeping systematic distances between increments. As an example, an artillery firing point might include a 100x100 m DU with 81 increments.
 +
[[File:Beal1w2 Fig3.png|thumb|200 px|left|Figure 3. Example ISM sampling pattern on a square decision unit. Replicates are collected in a systematic pattern from a random starting point at a corner of the DU. Typically more than the 25 increments shown are collected]]
  
Formation of anoxic zones in the compost can be beneficial for promoting degradation of contaminants such as explosives that are recalcitrant or only partially degrade under strict oxic conditions. For contaminants that are readily mineralized under oxic conditions, the development of anoxic conditions is not desired, and turning, mixing, and/or aeration frequencies are adjusted to minimize oxygen depletion.  
+
DUs can vary in shape (Figure 4), size, number of increments, and number of replicates according to a project’s data quality objectives.
  
[[File:Craig1w2 Fig1.png|thumb|400 px|Figure 1. Compound reductions for different composting techniques using soils from contaminated ammunition production sites. Error bars are ± 1 standard deviation. IVSP = in-vessel static pile; MAIV = mechanically agitated in-vessel. Data compiled by Bruns-Nagel et al. (2000)<ref name= "Bruns2000"/>.]]
+
[[File:Beal1w2 Fig4.png|thumb|right|250 px|Figure 4: Incremental sampling of a circular DU on snow shows sampling lanes with a two-person team in process of collecting the second replicate in a perpendicular path to the first replicate. (Photo: Matthew Bigl)]]
==Early Development and Demonstration==
 
  
The initial proof of concept and scale up from laboratory to pilot scale tests for composting explosives contaminated soils and lagoon sediments began in the 1980s. Early data had promising degradation results (92% to 97%) for a range of explosives including TNT, RDX, HMX, and tetryl, but soil loading rates were low, generally 10% or less in the compost mixtures<ref>Isbister, J.D., Doyle, R.C. and Kitchens, J.F., 1982. Engineering and development support of general decon technology for the US Army's Installation Restoration Program. Task 2. Composting of Explosives. Atlantic Research Corp, Alexandria, Va. [[media:1982-Isbister-Engineering_and_development_Support_of_general_Decon_Tech.pdf| Report.pdf]]</ref><ref>Doyle, R.C., Isbister, J.D., Anspach, G.L. and Kitchens, J.F., 1986. Composting explosives/organics contaminated soils. Atlantic Research Corporation. [[media:1986-Doyle-Composting_Explosives_Organics_Contaminated_Soils.pdf| Report.pdf]]</ref>.  
+
==Sampling Tools==
 +
In many cases, energetic compounds are expected to reside within the soil surface. Figure 5 shows soil depth profiles on some studied impact areas and firing points. Overall, the energetic compound concentrations below 5-cm soil depth are negligible relative to overlying soil concentrations. For conventional munitions, this is to be expected as the energetic particles are relatively insoluble, and any dissolved compounds readily adsorb to most soils<ref>Pennington, J.C., Jenkins, T.F., Ampleman, G., Thiboutot, S., Brannon, J.M., Hewitt, A.D., Lewis, J., Brochu, S., 2006. Distribution and fate of energetics on DoD test and training ranges: Final Report. ERDC TR-06-13, Vicksburg, MS, USA. Also: SERDP/ESTCP Project ER-1155. [[media:Pennington-2006_ERDC-TR-06-13_ESTCP-ER-1155-FR.pdf| Report.pdf]]</ref>. Physical disturbance, as on hand grenade ranges, may require deeper sampling either with a soil profile or a corer/auger.
  
Subsequent pilot scale treatability studies were conducted to evaluate mesophilic vs. thermophilic conditions<ref>Williams, R.T., Ziegenfuss, P.S. and Sisk, W.E., 1992. Composting of explosives and propellant contaminated soils under thermophilic and mesophilic conditions. Journal of Industrial Microbiology, 9(2), pp.137-144. [https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01569746 doi: 10.1007/BF01569746]</ref><ref>Garg, R., Grasso, D. and Hoag G., 1991. Treatment of explosives contaminated lagoon sludge. Hazardous Waste and Hazardous Materials, 8(4), pp.319-340. [https://doi.org/10.1089/hwm.1991.8.319 doi: 10.1089/hwm.1991.8.319]</ref>. A range of materials handling approaches including static piles, mechanically agitated in-vessel reactors (MAIV), and mixed aerated and nonaerated windrows<ref>Weston, R.F. , 1988. Field demonstration - composting explosives-contaminated sediments at the Louisiana Army Ammunition Plant (LAAP). [[media:1988-Weston-field_Demonstration_-_Composting_Explosives_at_LAAP.pdf| Report.pdf]]</ref><ref>Weston, R. F., 1991. Optimization of composting explosives contaminated soils at Umatilla, U.S. Army Toxic and Hazardous Materials Agency, Report No. CETHA-TS-CR-91053. [[media:1991-Weston-Optimization_of_Composting_Explosives_Contaminated_soils.pdf| Report.pdf]]</ref> <ref name= "Weston1993">Weston, R. F., 1993. Windrow composting demonstration for explosives-contaminated soils at the Umatilla Depot Activity Hermiston, Oregon. U.S. Army Environmental Center Report No. CETHA-TS-CR-93043.  [[media:1993-Weston-Windrow_Composting_Demo_for_Explosives.pdf| Report.pdf]]</ref> were tested at Louisiana AAP (LAAP) and Umatilla Army Depot (UMDA) (see Figure 1).  TNT degradation was similar in aerated and nonaerated windrows, but RDX and HMX degradation were greater in mixed unaerated windrows at 30% soil loading rates<ref name= "Weston1993"/><ref>Craig, H.D., Sisk, W.E., Nelson, M.D. and Dana, W.H., 1995. Bioremediation of explosives-contaminated soils: A status review. In Proceedings of the 10th Annual Conference on Hazardous Waste Research (pp. 164-179). Manhattan, NY, USA: Kansas State University. [[media:1995-Craig-Bioremediation_of_explosives-Contaminated_Soils.pdf| Report.pdf]]</ref>.
+
[[File:Beal1w2 Fig5.png|thumb|left|200 px|Figure 5. Depth profiles of high explosive compounds at impact areas (bottom) and of propellant compounds at firing points (top). Data from: Hewitt et al. <ref>Hewitt, A.D., Jenkins, T.F., Ramsey, C.A., Bjella, K.L., Ranney, T.A. and Perron, N.M., 2005. Estimating energetic residue loading on military artillery ranges: Large decision units (No. ERDC/CRREL-TR-05-7). [[media:Hewitt-2005 ERDC-CRREL TR-05-7.pdf| Report.pdf]]</ref> and Jenkins et al. <ref>Jenkins, T.F., Ampleman, G., Thiboutot, S., Bigl, S.R., Taylor, S., Walsh, M.R., Faucher, D., Mantel, R., Poulin, I., Dontsova, K.M. and Walsh, M.E., 2008. Characterization and fate of gun and rocket propellant residues on testing and training ranges (No. ERDC-TR-08-1). [[media:Jenkins-2008 ERDC TR-08-1.pdf| Report.pdf]]</ref>]]
  
==Windrow Composting==
+
Soil sampling with the Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory (CRREL) Multi-Increment Sampling Tool (CMIST) or similar device is an easy way to collect ISM samples rapidly and reproducibly. This tool has an adjustable diameter size corer and adjustable depth to collect surface soil plugs (Figure 6). The CMIST can be used at almost a walking pace (Figure 7) using a two-person sampling team, with one person operating the CMIST and the other carrying the sample container and recording the number of increments collected. The CMIST with a small diameter tip works best in soils with low cohesion, otherwise conventional scoops may be used. Maintaining consistent soil increment dimensions is critical.
Based on the results of these treatability studies, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windrow windrow] composting was selected as the preferred technology for treatment of 15,000 tons of explosives contaminated soils from a washout lagoon at Umatilla Army Depot, in lieu of incineration (Figure 2<ref name= "Emery1997">Emery, D.D. and Faessler, P.C., 1997. First production‐level bioremediation of explosives‐contaminated soil in the United States. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 829(1), pp.326-340. [https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-6632.1997.tb48586.x doi: 10.1111/j.1749-6632.1997.tb48586.x]</ref>). Composting has been used to treat explosives contaminated soils at 10 additional Army Ammunition Plants (AAPs), Army Depots, and Naval Ammunition Depots (NADs) in the U.S. for soil quantities ranging from 1,000 cubic yards to greater than 200,000 cubic yards<ref name= "Jerger2000">Jerger, D.E. and Woodhull, P., 2000. Applications and costs for biological treatment of explosives-contaminated soils in the US. Biodegradation of nitroaromatic compounds and explosives. Lewis Publishers, BocaRaton, Fla, pp.395-423. [https://doi.org/10.1201/9781420032673 doi: 10.1201/9781420032673]</ref>.  Fifteen additional sites have soil explosives contamination quantities ranging from 1,000 cubic yards to 55,000 cubic yards<ref name= "Jerger2000"/>.
 
  
[[File:Craig1w2 Fig2.png|thumb|400 px|Figure 2. Key steps of windrow composting process at UMDA including: excavation of contaminated soil to 15 feet below ground surface (left), loading windrow machine with soil and amendments (middle), and periodically turning the windrows (right).]]
+
The sampling tool should be cleaned between replicates and between DUs to minimize potential for cross-contamination<ref>Walsh, M.R., 2009. User’s manual for the CRREL Multi-Increment Sampling Tool. Engineer Research and Development Center / Cold Regions Research and Engineering Lab (ERDC/CRREL) SR-09-1, Hanover, NH, USA.  [[media:Walsh-2009 ERDC-CRREL SR-09-1.pdf | Report.pdf]]</ref>.
  
[[File:Craig1w2 Fig3.png|thumb|400 px|Figure 3. Windrow Turner at Plum Brook Ordinance Works<ref name= "ACOE2011"/>.]]
+
==Sample Processing==
 +
While only 10 g of soil is typically used for chemical analysis, incremental sampling generates a sample weighing on the order of 1 kg. Splitting of a sample, either in the field or laboratory, seems like an easy way to reduce sample mass; however this approach has been found to produce high uncertainty for explosives and propellants, with a median RSD of 43.1%<ref name= "Hewitt2009"/>. Even greater error is associated with removing a discrete sub-sample from an unground sample. Appendix A in [https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-07/documents/epa-8330b.pdf U.S. EPA Method 8330B]<ref name= "USEPA2006M"/> provides details on recommended ISM sample processing procedures.
  
Implementation issues include amendment selection to promote thermophilic conditions, moisture control in the windrows to maintain optimal moisture levels, and frequency of windrow turning to optimize solid phase mixing, oxygen levels, temperature control, and explosives degradation kinetics  (see Figure 4)<ref>AEC, 1993. Technology applications analysis: Windrow composting of explosives contaminated soils at Umatilla Army Depot Activity. [[media:1993-AEC_Technology_Applicatons_Analysis.pdf| Report.pdf]]</ref><ref name= "Emery1997"/><ref name= "ACOE2011"/>.  
+
Incremental soil samples are typically air dried over the course of a few days. Oven drying thermally degrades some energetic compounds and should be avoided<ref>Cragin, J.H., Leggett, D.C., Foley, B.T., and Schumacher, P.W., 1985. TNT, RDX and HMX explosives in soils and sediments: Analysis techniques and drying losses. (CRREL Report 85-15) Hanover, NH, USA. [[media:Cragin-1985 CRREL 85-15.pdf| Report.pdf]]</ref>. Once dry, the samples are sieved with a 2-mm screen, with only the less than 2-mm fraction processed further. This size fraction represents the USDA definition of soil. Aggregate soil particles should be broken up and vegetation shredded to pass through the sieve. Samples from impact or demolition areas may contain explosive particles from low order detonations that are greater than 2 mm and should be identified, given appropriate caution, and potentially weighed.
  
[[File:Craig1w2 Fig4.png|thumb|400 px|Figure 4. Degradation kinetics of three munitions contaminants in two UMDA windrows (modified from: Weston, 1993<ref name= "Weston1993"/>). ]]
+
The <2-mm soil fraction is typically still ≥1 kg and impractical to extract in full for analysis. However, subsampling at this stage is not possible due to compositional heterogeneity, with the energetic compounds generally present as <0.5 mm particles<ref name= "Walsh2017"/><ref name= "Taylor2004"/>. Particle size reduction is required to achieve a representative and precise measure of the sample concentration. Grinding in a puck mill to a soil particle size <75 µm has been found to be required for representative/reproducible sub-sampling (Figure 8). For samples thought to contain propellant particles, a prolonged milling time is required to break down these polymerized particles and achieve acceptable precision (Figure 9). Due to the multi-use nature of some ranges, a 5-minute puck milling period can be used for all soils. Cooling periods between 1-minute milling intervals are recommended to avoid thermal degradation. Similar to field sampling, sub-sampling is done incrementally by spreading the sample out to a thin layer and collecting systematic random increments of consistent volume to a total mass for extraction of 10 g (Figure 10).
  
Composting consumes approximately 1 gallon of water per cubic yard per day during the active treatment phase, and water must be added throughout the treatment process to maintain optimal moisture levels. The median degradation for explosives composting at 10 sites was 99.7% and unit cost for composting treatment was $281 per cubic yard<ref name= "USEPA2002APC"/>, which was approximately 50% lower than the estimated costs for on-site incineration treatment.
+
<li style="display: inline-block;">[[File:Beal1w2 Fig6.png|thumb|200 px|Figure 6: CMIST soil sampling tool (top) and with ejected increment core using a large diameter tip (bottom).]]</li>
 +
<li style="display: inline-block;">[[File:Beal1w2 Fig7.png|thumb|200 px|Figure 7: Two person sampling team using CMIST, bag-lined bucket, and increment counter. (Photos: Matthew Bigl)]]</li>
 +
<li style="display: inline-block;">[[File:Beal1w2 Fig8.png|thumb|200 px|Figure 8: Effect of machine grinding on RDX and TNT concentration and precision in soil from a hand grenade range. Data from Walsh et al.<ref>Walsh, M.E., Ramsey, C.A. and Jenkins, T.F., 2002. The effect of particle size reduction by grinding on subsampling variance for explosives residues in soil. Chemosphere, 49(10), pp.1267-1273. [https://doi.org/10.1016/S0045-6535(02)00528-3 doi: 10.1016/S0045-6535(02)00528-3]</ref> ]]</li>
 +
<li style="display: inline-block;">[[File:Beal1w2 Fig9.png|thumb|200 px|Figure 9: Effect of puck milling time on 2,4-DNT concentration and precision in soil from a firing point. Data from Walsh et al.<ref>Walsh, M.E., Ramsey, C.A., Collins, C.M., Hewitt, A.D., Walsh, M.R., Bjella, K.L., Lambert, D.J. and Perron, N.M., 2005. Collection methods and laboratory processing of samples from Donnelly Training Area Firing Points, Alaska, 2003 (No. ERDC/CRREL-TR-05-6). [[media:Walsh-2005 ERDC-CRREL TR-05-6.pdf| Report.pdf]]</ref>.]]</li>
 +
<li style="display: inline-block;">[[File:Beal1w2 Fig10.png|thumb|200 px|center|Figure 10: Incremental sub-sampling of a milled soil sample spread out on aluminum foil.]]</li>
  
==Advantages and Limitations==  
+
==Analysis==
The primary advantages associated with windrow composting include:  
+
Soil sub-samples are extracted and analyzed following [[Media: epa-2006-method-8330b.pdf | EPA Method 8330B]]<ref name= "USEPA2006M"/> and [[Media:epa-2007-method-8095.pdf | Method 8095]]<ref name= "USEPA2007M"/> using [[Wikipedia: High-performance liquid chromatography | High Performance Liquid Chromatography (HPLC)]] and [[Wikipedia: Gas chromatography | Gas Chromatography (GC)]], respectively. Common estimated reporting limits for these analysis methods are listed in Table 2.
*Degradation of explosive compounds is more rapid and efficient than that achieved with static piles or slurry phase biotreatment,
 
*End product can be humus-rich compost appropriate for reuse and re-vegetation,
 
*A wide range of soil types can be treated through addition and mixing of compost bulking agents and amendments, and
 
*The treatment process is self-heating, therefore can operate year round without external heating.
 
The primary limitations associated with composting include:  
 
*Space requirements can be moderate based on soil staging and treatment building footprints,
 
*Volume of final material can increase due to addition of amendments and bulking agents,
 
*Process may be susceptible to heavy metal concentrations, and
 
*The contaminated soil in the compost mix is limited to approximately 30% by volume to achieve self-heating thermophilic conditions<ref name= "USEPA2002APC"/>.
 
  
==Technology Cost Drivers==
+
{| class="wikitable" style="float: center; text-align: center; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"
Factors that drive the cost of composting include:  
+
|+ Table 2. Typical Method Reporting Limits for Energetic Compounds in Soil. (Data from Hewitt et al.<ref>Hewitt, A., Bigl, S., Walsh, M., Brochu, S., Bjella, K. and Lambert, D., 2007. Processing of training range soils for the analysis of energetic compounds (No. ERDC/CRREL-TR-07-15). Hanover, NH, USA. [[media:Hewitt-2007 ERDC-CRREL TR-07-15.pdf| Report.pdf]]</ref>)
*Composting is less land intensive than land treatment, but still requires a moderate treatment footprint.
+
|-
*Batch treatment size will impact the number of batches required - windrow widths and heights are limited by the size of the turning machinery and windrow lengths by the size of the buildings used.
+
! rowspan="2" | Compound
*Volatile emissions, primarily ammonia, may require venting.
+
! colspan="2" | Soil Reporting Limit (mg/kg)
*Soils with low porosity may require bulking agents to increase the airflow through the compost pile.
+
|-
*Soil screening may be required to remove large rocks, debris, or other oversize materials.  
+
! HPLC (8330)
*Composting may require nutrient amendments to optimize C/N ratios and water, in addition to bulking agents.  
+
! GC (8095)
*O&M considerations include turnover frequency, moisture levels, nutrient levels, and use of bulking agents, such as wood chips or sawdust, to maintain optimum conditions for degradation.
+
|-
*The need for containment structures also affects treatment costs. Windrow composting has typically been conducted using open windrows in arid climates (see Figure 3), but enclosed structures in temperate and northern climates.
+
| HMX || 0.04 || 0.01
 +
|-
 +
| RDX || 0.04 || 0.006
 +
|-
 +
| [[Wikipedia: 1,3,5-Trinitrobenzene | TNB]] || 0.04 || 0.003
 +
|-
 +
| TNT || 0.04 || 0.002
 +
|-
 +
| [[Wikipedia: 2,6-Dinitrotoluene | 2,6-DNT]] || 0.08 || 0.002
 +
|-
 +
| 2,4-DNT || 0.04 || 0.002
 +
|-
 +
| 2-ADNT || 0.08 || 0.002
 +
|-
 +
| 4-ADNT || 0.08 || 0.002
 +
|-
 +
| NG || 0.1 || 0.01
 +
|-
 +
| [[Wikipedia: Dinitrobenzene | DNB ]] || 0.04 || 0.002
 +
|-
 +
| [[Wikipedia: Tetryl | Tetryl ]]  || 0.04 || 0.01
 +
|-
 +
| [[Wikipedia: Pentaerythritol tetranitrate | PETN ]] || 0.2 || 0.016
 +
|}
  
 
==References==
 
==References==
<references />
+
<references/>
  
 
==See Also==
 
==See Also==
*[[media: 2018-UFGS_for_Bioremediation_of_Soils_using_Windrow_Composting.pdf| Unified Facilities Guide Specifications for Bioremediation of Soils using Windrow Composting]]
+
*[https://itrcweb.org/ Interstate Technology and Regulatory Council]
 +
*[http://www.hawaiidoh.org/tgm.aspx Hawaii Department of Health]
 +
*[http://envirostat.org/ Envirostat]

Latest revision as of 18:58, 29 April 2020

The heterogeneous distribution of munitions constituents, released as particles from munitions firing and detonations on military training ranges, presents challenges for representative soil sample collection and for defensible decision making. Military range characterization studies and the development of the incremental sampling methodology (ISM) have enabled the development of recommended methods for soil sampling that produce representative and reproducible concentration data for munitions constituents. This article provides a broad overview of recommended soil sampling and processing practices for analysis of munitions constituents on military ranges.

Related Article(s):


CONTRIBUTOR(S): Dr. Samuel Beal


Key Resource(s):

Introduction

Figure 1: Downrange distance of visible propellant plume on snow from the firing of different munitions. Note deposition behind firing line for the 84-mm rocket. Data from: Walsh et al.[5][6]
Figure 2: A low-order detonation mortar round (top) with surrounding discrete soil samples produced concentrations spanning six orders of magnitude within a 10m by 10m area (bottom). (Photo and data: A.D. Hewitt)

Munitions constituents are released on military testing and training ranges through several common mechanisms. Some are locally dispersed as solid particles from incomplete combustion during firing and detonation. Also, small residual particles containing propellant compounds (e.g., nitroglycerin [NG] and 2,4-dinitrotoluene [2,4-DNT]) are distributed in front of and surrounding target practice firing lines (Figure 1). At impact areas and demolition areas, high order detonations typically yield very small amounts (<1 to 10 mg/round) of residual high explosive compounds (e.g., TNT , RDX and HMX ) that are distributed up to and sometimes greater than) 24 m from the site of detonation[7].

Low-order detonations and duds are thought to be the primary source of munitions constituents on ranges[8][9]. Duds are initially intact but may become perforated or fragmented into micrometer to centimeter;o0i0k-sized particles by nearby detonations[10]. Low-order detonations can scatter micrometer to centimeter-sized particles up to 20 m from the site of detonation[11]

The particulate nature of munitions constituents in the environment presents a distinct challenge to representative soil sampling. Figure 2 shows an array of discrete soil samples collected around the site of a low-order detonation – resultant soil concentrations vary by orders of magnitude within centimeters of each other. The inadequacy of discrete sampling is apparent in characterization studies from actual ranges which show wide-ranging concentrations and poor precision (Table 1).

In comparison to discrete sampling, incremental sampling tends to yield reproducible concentrations (low relative standard deviation [RSD]) that statistically better represent an area of interest[2].

Table 1. Soil Sample Concentrations and Precision from Military Ranges Using Discrete and Incremental Sampling. (Data from Taylor et al. [1] and references therein.)
Military Range Type Analyte Range
(mg/kg)
Median
(mg/kg)
RSD
(%)
Discrete Samples
Artillery FP 2,4-DNT <0.04 – 6.4 0.65 110
Antitank Rocket HMX 5.8 – 1,200 200 99
Bombing TNT 0.15 – 780 6.4 274
Mortar RDX <0.04 – 2,400 1.7 441
Artillery RDX <0.04 – 170 <0.04 454
Incremental Samples*
Artillery FP 2,4-DNT 0.60 – 1.4 0.92 26
Bombing TNT 13 – 17 14 17
Artillery/Bombing RDX 3.9 – 9.4 4.8 38
Thermal Treatment HMX 3.96 – 4.26 4.16 4
* For incremental samples, 30-100 increments and 3-10 replicate samples were collected.

Incremental Sampling Approach

ISM is a requisite for representative and reproducible sampling of training ranges, but it is an involved process that is detailed thoroughly elsewhere[2][1][3]. In short, ISM involves the collection of many (30 to >100) increments in a systematic pattern within a decision unit (DU). The DU may cover an area where releases are thought to have occurred or may represent an area relevant to ecological receptors (e.g., sensitive species). Figure 3 shows the ISM sampling pattern in a simplified (5x5 square) DU. Increments are collected at a random starting point with systematic distances between increments. Replicate samples can be collected by starting at a different random starting point, often at a different corner of the DU. Practically, this grid pattern can often be followed with flagging or lathe marking DU boundaries and/or sampling lanes and with individual pacing keeping systematic distances between increments. As an example, an artillery firing point might include a 100x100 m DU with 81 increments.

Figure 3. Example ISM sampling pattern on a square decision unit. Replicates are collected in a systematic pattern from a random starting point at a corner of the DU. Typically more than the 25 increments shown are collected

DUs can vary in shape (Figure 4), size, number of increments, and number of replicates according to a project’s data quality objectives.

Figure 4: Incremental sampling of a circular DU on snow shows sampling lanes with a two-person team in process of collecting the second replicate in a perpendicular path to the first replicate. (Photo: Matthew Bigl)

Sampling Tools

In many cases, energetic compounds are expected to reside within the soil surface. Figure 5 shows soil depth profiles on some studied impact areas and firing points. Overall, the energetic compound concentrations below 5-cm soil depth are negligible relative to overlying soil concentrations. For conventional munitions, this is to be expected as the energetic particles are relatively insoluble, and any dissolved compounds readily adsorb to most soils[12]. Physical disturbance, as on hand grenade ranges, may require deeper sampling either with a soil profile or a corer/auger.

Figure 5. Depth profiles of high explosive compounds at impact areas (bottom) and of propellant compounds at firing points (top). Data from: Hewitt et al. [13] and Jenkins et al. [14]

Soil sampling with the Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory (CRREL) Multi-Increment Sampling Tool (CMIST) or similar device is an easy way to collect ISM samples rapidly and reproducibly. This tool has an adjustable diameter size corer and adjustable depth to collect surface soil plugs (Figure 6). The CMIST can be used at almost a walking pace (Figure 7) using a two-person sampling team, with one person operating the CMIST and the other carrying the sample container and recording the number of increments collected. The CMIST with a small diameter tip works best in soils with low cohesion, otherwise conventional scoops may be used. Maintaining consistent soil increment dimensions is critical.

The sampling tool should be cleaned between replicates and between DUs to minimize potential for cross-contamination[15].

Sample Processing

While only 10 g of soil is typically used for chemical analysis, incremental sampling generates a sample weighing on the order of 1 kg. Splitting of a sample, either in the field or laboratory, seems like an easy way to reduce sample mass; however this approach has been found to produce high uncertainty for explosives and propellants, with a median RSD of 43.1%[2]. Even greater error is associated with removing a discrete sub-sample from an unground sample. Appendix A in U.S. EPA Method 8330B[3] provides details on recommended ISM sample processing procedures.

Incremental soil samples are typically air dried over the course of a few days. Oven drying thermally degrades some energetic compounds and should be avoided[16]. Once dry, the samples are sieved with a 2-mm screen, with only the less than 2-mm fraction processed further. This size fraction represents the USDA definition of soil. Aggregate soil particles should be broken up and vegetation shredded to pass through the sieve. Samples from impact or demolition areas may contain explosive particles from low order detonations that are greater than 2 mm and should be identified, given appropriate caution, and potentially weighed.

The <2-mm soil fraction is typically still ≥1 kg and impractical to extract in full for analysis. However, subsampling at this stage is not possible due to compositional heterogeneity, with the energetic compounds generally present as <0.5 mm particles[7][11]. Particle size reduction is required to achieve a representative and precise measure of the sample concentration. Grinding in a puck mill to a soil particle size <75 µm has been found to be required for representative/reproducible sub-sampling (Figure 8). For samples thought to contain propellant particles, a prolonged milling time is required to break down these polymerized particles and achieve acceptable precision (Figure 9). Due to the multi-use nature of some ranges, a 5-minute puck milling period can be used for all soils. Cooling periods between 1-minute milling intervals are recommended to avoid thermal degradation. Similar to field sampling, sub-sampling is done incrementally by spreading the sample out to a thin layer and collecting systematic random increments of consistent volume to a total mass for extraction of 10 g (Figure 10).

  • Figure 6: CMIST soil sampling tool (top) and with ejected increment core using a large diameter tip (bottom).
  • Figure 7: Two person sampling team using CMIST, bag-lined bucket, and increment counter. (Photos: Matthew Bigl)
  • Figure 8: Effect of machine grinding on RDX and TNT concentration and precision in soil from a hand grenade range. Data from Walsh et al.[17]
  • Figure 9: Effect of puck milling time on 2,4-DNT concentration and precision in soil from a firing point. Data from Walsh et al.[18].
  • Figure 10: Incremental sub-sampling of a milled soil sample spread out on aluminum foil.
  • Analysis

    Soil sub-samples are extracted and analyzed following EPA Method 8330B[3] and Method 8095[4] using High Performance Liquid Chromatography (HPLC) and Gas Chromatography (GC), respectively. Common estimated reporting limits for these analysis methods are listed in Table 2.

    Table 2. Typical Method Reporting Limits for Energetic Compounds in Soil. (Data from Hewitt et al.[19])
    Compound Soil Reporting Limit (mg/kg)
    HPLC (8330) GC (8095)
    HMX 0.04 0.01
    RDX 0.04 0.006
    TNB 0.04 0.003
    TNT 0.04 0.002
    2,6-DNT 0.08 0.002
    2,4-DNT 0.04 0.002
    2-ADNT 0.08 0.002
    4-ADNT 0.08 0.002
    NG 0.1 0.01
    DNB 0.04 0.002
    Tetryl 0.04 0.01
    PETN 0.2 0.016

    References

    1. ^ 1.0 1.1 1.2 Taylor, S., Jenkins, T.F., Bigl, S., Hewitt, A.D., Walsh, M.E. and Walsh, M.R., 2011. Guidance for Soil Sampling for Energetics and Metals (No. ERDC/CRREL-TR-11-15). Report.pdf
    2. ^ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 Hewitt, A.D., Jenkins, T.F., Walsh, M.E., Bigl, S.R. and Brochu, S., 2009. Validation of sampling protocol and the promulgation of method modifications for the characterization of energetic residues on military testing and training ranges (No. ERDC/CRREL-TR-09-6). Engineer Research and Development Center / Cold Regions Research and Engineering Lab (ERDC/CRREL) TR-09-6, Hanover, NH, USA. Report.pdf
    3. ^ 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 2006. Method 8330B (SW-846): Nitroaromatics, Nitramines, and Nitrate Esters by High Performance Liquid Chromatography (HPLC), Rev. 2. Washington, D.C. Report.pdf
    4. ^ 4.0 4.1 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA), 2007. Method 8095 (SW-846): Explosives by Gas Chromatography. Washington, D.C. Report.pdf
    5. ^ Walsh, M.R., Walsh, M.E., Ampleman, G., Thiboutot, S., Brochu, S. and Jenkins, T.F., 2012. Munitions propellants residue deposition rates on military training ranges. Propellants, Explosives, Pyrotechnics, 37(4), pp.393-406. doi: 10.1002/prep.201100105
    6. ^ Walsh, M.R., Walsh, M.E., Hewitt, A.D., Collins, C.M., Bigl, S.R., Gagnon, K., Ampleman, G., Thiboutot, S., Poulin, I. and Brochu, S., 2010. Characterization and Fate of Gun and Rocket Propellant Residues on Testing and Training Ranges: Interim Report 2. (ERDC/CRREL TR-10-13. Also: ESTCP Project ER-1481) Report
    7. ^ 7.0 7.1 Walsh, M.R., Temple, T., Bigl, M.F., Tshabalala, S.F., Mai, N. and Ladyman, M., 2017. Investigation of Energetic Particle Distribution from High‐Order Detonations of Munitions. Propellants, Explosives, Pyrotechnics, 42(8), pp.932-941. doi: 10.1002/prep.201700089 Report.pdf
    8. ^ Hewitt, A.D., Jenkins, T.F., Walsh, M.E., Walsh, M.R. and Taylor, S., 2005. RDX and TNT residues from live-fire and blow-in-place detonations. Chemosphere, 61(6), pp.888-894. doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2005.04.058
    9. ^ Walsh, M.R., Walsh, M.E., Poulin, I., Taylor, S. and Douglas, T.A., 2011. Energetic residues from the detonation of common US ordnance. International Journal of Energetic Materials and Chemical Propulsion, 10(2). doi: 10.1615/IntJEnergeticMaterialsChemProp.2012004956 Report.pdf
    10. ^ Walsh, M.R., Thiboutot, S., Walsh, M.E., Ampleman, G., Martel, R., Poulin, I. and Taylor, S., 2011. Characterization and fate of gun and rocket propellant residues on testing and training ranges (No. ERDC/CRREL-TR-11-13). Engineer Research and Development Center / Cold Regions Research and Engineering Lab (ERDC/CRREL) TR-11-13, Hanover, NH, USA. Report.pdf
    11. ^ 11.0 11.1 Taylor, S., Hewitt, A., Lever, J., Hayes, C., Perovich, L., Thorne, P. and Daghlian, C., 2004. TNT particle size distributions from detonated 155-mm howitzer rounds. Chemosphere, 55(3), pp.357-367. Report.pdf
    12. ^ Pennington, J.C., Jenkins, T.F., Ampleman, G., Thiboutot, S., Brannon, J.M., Hewitt, A.D., Lewis, J., Brochu, S., 2006. Distribution and fate of energetics on DoD test and training ranges: Final Report. ERDC TR-06-13, Vicksburg, MS, USA. Also: SERDP/ESTCP Project ER-1155. Report.pdf
    13. ^ Hewitt, A.D., Jenkins, T.F., Ramsey, C.A., Bjella, K.L., Ranney, T.A. and Perron, N.M., 2005. Estimating energetic residue loading on military artillery ranges: Large decision units (No. ERDC/CRREL-TR-05-7). Report.pdf
    14. ^ Jenkins, T.F., Ampleman, G., Thiboutot, S., Bigl, S.R., Taylor, S., Walsh, M.R., Faucher, D., Mantel, R., Poulin, I., Dontsova, K.M. and Walsh, M.E., 2008. Characterization and fate of gun and rocket propellant residues on testing and training ranges (No. ERDC-TR-08-1). Report.pdf
    15. ^ Walsh, M.R., 2009. User’s manual for the CRREL Multi-Increment Sampling Tool. Engineer Research and Development Center / Cold Regions Research and Engineering Lab (ERDC/CRREL) SR-09-1, Hanover, NH, USA. Report.pdf
    16. ^ Cragin, J.H., Leggett, D.C., Foley, B.T., and Schumacher, P.W., 1985. TNT, RDX and HMX explosives in soils and sediments: Analysis techniques and drying losses. (CRREL Report 85-15) Hanover, NH, USA. Report.pdf
    17. ^ Walsh, M.E., Ramsey, C.A. and Jenkins, T.F., 2002. The effect of particle size reduction by grinding on subsampling variance for explosives residues in soil. Chemosphere, 49(10), pp.1267-1273. doi: 10.1016/S0045-6535(02)00528-3
    18. ^ Walsh, M.E., Ramsey, C.A., Collins, C.M., Hewitt, A.D., Walsh, M.R., Bjella, K.L., Lambert, D.J. and Perron, N.M., 2005. Collection methods and laboratory processing of samples from Donnelly Training Area Firing Points, Alaska, 2003 (No. ERDC/CRREL-TR-05-6). Report.pdf
    19. ^ Hewitt, A., Bigl, S., Walsh, M., Brochu, S., Bjella, K. and Lambert, D., 2007. Processing of training range soils for the analysis of energetic compounds (No. ERDC/CRREL-TR-07-15). Hanover, NH, USA. Report.pdf

    See Also