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

From Enviro Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
 
(15 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
Petroleum hydrocarbon (PHC) contamination is one of the most common environmental issues encountered by environmental professionals. Environmental pollution caused by releases of petroleum to land, surface water, or the subsurface is of concern because chemicals in PHCs can present a risk to human and environmental receptors if concentrations in environmental media are high enough. A variety of remediation technologies have been developed over the years to reduce the concentrations of petroleum hydrocarbon contaminants in soil and groundwater. However, the complete restoration of sites with petroleum contamination in soils and groundwater is challenging because 1) PHCs in the form of light non-aqueous phase liquids (LNAPLs) can become trapped in soil pores as an immobile, residual phase; and 2) some of the chemical compounds in LNAPL can transfer out of the residual LNAPL and migrate along potential exposure pathways in groundwater, soil, sediment, and air. Fortunately, most PHC constituents can biodegrade either in aerobic or anaerobic environments, making PHC contaminated sites somewhat easier to remediate than typical chlorinated solvents or metals contaminated sites.
+
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>
 
<div style="float:right;margin:0 0 2em 2em;">__TOC__</div>
  
 
'''Related Article(s)''':  
 
'''Related Article(s)''':  
*[[Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs)]]
 
*[[Monitored Natural Attenuation (MNA) of Fuels]]
 
*[[Sorption of Organic Contaminants]]
 
*[[Natural Source Zone Depletion (NSZD)]]
 
*LNAPL Remediation Technologies (Coming soon)
 
*[[NAPL Mobility]]
 
*LNAPL Conceptual Site Model (Coming soon)
 
*[[Natural Attenuation in Source Zone and Groundwater Plume - Bemidji Crude Oil Spill]]
 
  
  
'''CONTRIBUTOR(S):'''  [[Dr. Bilgen Yuncu, P.E.| Dr. Bilgen Yuncu]]
+
'''CONTRIBUTOR(S):'''  [[Dr. Samuel Beal]]
  
  
 
'''Key Resource(s)''':  
 
'''Key Resource(s)''':  
*[[media:Newell-1998-chararacterization_of_dissolved_Pet._Hydro_Plumes.pdf | Characteristics of Dissolved Petroleum Hydrocarbon Plumes]]<ref name= "Newell1998">Newell, C.J. and Connor, J.A., 1998. Characteristics of dissolved petroleum hydrocarbon plumes, results from four studies. Rapport technique, American Petroleum Institute, Washington DC. [[Media: Newell-1998-chararacterization_of_dissolved_Pet._Hydro_Plumes.pdf| Report.pdf]]</ref>  
+
*[[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>
*[[media:ITRC-2009a_Evaluating_LNAPL_Rem_Tech.pdf| Evaluating LNAPL Remedial Technologies for Achieving Project Goals]]<ref name= "ITRC2009a">Interstate Technology and Regulatory Council (ITRC), 2009a. Evaluating LNAPL remedial technologies for achieving project goals. Interstate Technology and Regulatory Council, LNAPLs Team, Washington, DC. [[media:ITRC-2009a_Evaluating_LNAPL_Rem_Tech.pdf| Report.pdf]]</ref>
+
*[[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>  
*[https://lnapl-3.itrcweb.org LNAPL-3: LNAPL Site Management: LCSM Evolution, Decision Process, and Remedial Technologies]<ref name= "ITRC2018">ITRC, 2018. LNAPL Site Management: LCSM evolution, decision process, and remedial technologies (LNAPL-3). Interstate Technical and Regulatory Council (lnapl-3.itrcweb.org)</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:NAVFAC-2017 New Developments In LNAPL Site Management.pdf| New Developments in LNAPL Site Management]]<ref name="NAVFAC 2017"> NAVFAC (Naval Facilities Engineering Command), 2017. Environmental Restoration - New Developments in LNAPL Site Management. ESAT N62583-11-D-0515.[[Media: NAVFAC-2017_New_Developments_In_LNAPL_Site_Management.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>
*[[media:Sale-2018 LNAPL FAQs 2nd ed.pdf| Managing Risk at LNAPL Sites]]<ref>Sale, T., Hopkins, H. and Kirkman, A., 2018. Managing Risk at LNAPL Sites - Frequently Asked Questions. American Petroleum Institute Tech Bulletin, 18. 72p. [[media:Sale-2018 LNAPL FAQs 2nd ed.pdf| Report.pdf]]</ref>
 
  
 
==Introduction==
 
==Introduction==
[[File:Yuncu1w2Fig1.png|thumb|left|200 px|Figure 1. Gasoline]]
+
[[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:Yuncu1w2Fig2.png|thumb|left|200 px|Figure 2. Diesel Fuel]]
+
[[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)]]
  
Petroleum hydrocarbons (PHCs) are the primary constituents in crude oil, gasoline (Figure 1), diesel (Figure 2), and a variety of solvents and penetrating oils. Crude Oil consists of hydrocarbon molecules extracted from the ground and transformed in petroleum (oil) refineries into petroleum products, such as gasoline, diesel fuel, asphalt base, heating oil, kerosene, and liquefied petroleum gas. [[Wikipedia: Fractional distillation | Fractional distillation]] is used to separate the various compounds of crude oil based on the boiling points of each fraction (Figure 3). The fractions at the bottom of the [[Wikipedia: Fractionating column | fractionating column]] have higher boiling points than at the top. The fractions with higher boiling points are darker in color, more viscous and have less branched [[Wikipedia: Alkane | alkanes]] with more carbon atoms and higher molecular weights.
+
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>.
  
The main classes of PHCs of environmental concern are [[Wikipedia: Aromatic hydrocarbon | aromatic hydrocarbons]] (i.e., [[Wikipedia: Benzene | benzene]], [[Wikipedia: Ethylbenzene | ethylbenzene]], [[Wikipedia: Toluene | toluene]], and [[Wikipedia: Xylenes | xylenes]]), [[Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) | polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons]] (PAHs; e.g. [[Wikipedia: Anthracene | anthracene]], [[Wikipedia: Phenanthrene | phenanthrene]] and [[Wikipedia: Benzo(a)pyrene | benzo[a]pyrene]]), gasoline additives (e.g., [[Wikipedia: Methyl tert-butyl ether | Methyl ''tert''-butyl ether (MTBE)]], [[Wikipedia: tert-Butyl alcohol | ''tert''-Butyl alcohol (tBA)]]), and combustion emissions from fuels (e.g., [[Wikipedia: Carbon monoxide | carbon monoxide]], [[Wikipedia: Acetaldehyde | acetaldehyde]], [[Wikipedia: Formaldehyde | formaldehyde]], and [[Wikipedia: Diesel exhaust | diesel particulates]]).
+
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>
  
[[File:Yuncu1w2Fig3.png|thumb|Figure 3. Fractional Distillation of Crude Oil in Fractionating Column]]
+
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).
  
===Aromatic Hydrocarbons ===
+
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"/>.
Aromatic hydrocarbons contain one or more benzene rings. The name of this class comes from the fact that many of them have strong, pungent aromas. Key aromatic hydrocarbons of environmental interest are benzene, ethylbenzene, toluene, and xylenes (BTEX). BTEX compounds are the most common aromatic compounds in petroleum<ref name= "Williams2006">Williams, S.D., Ladd, D.E., and Farmer, J.J., 2006. Fate and transport of petroleum hydrocarbons in soil and ground water at Big South Fork National River and Recreation Area, Tennessee and Kentucky, 2002-2003. U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2005-5104, 29p. [[media:Williams-2006 Fate and transport of PHCs.pdf| Report.pdf]]</ref>. They are extracted from complex mixtures obtained by the refining of oil or by distillation of coal tar and are used to produce a range of important chemicals, polymers, and consumer products such as paints and lacquers, thinners, rubber products, adhesives, inks, cosmetics and pharmaceutical products. Since BTEX compounds are found naturally in crude oil, coal, and gas deposits, they can be present naturally in groundwater near these deposits.  
 
  
Benzene is a known human carcinogen and therefore included in risk Group 1 of the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). Long-term exposure to benzene can cause cancer in blood forming organs (i.e. leukemia)<ref>International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), 1982. IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans, Some Industrial Chemicals and Dyestuffs, Volume 29. World Health Organization, Lyon, France. ISBN: 978-92-832-1229-4 [[media:IARC-1982 Monographs Volume 29.pdf| Report.pdf]]</ref>. Ethylbenzene is included in risk Group 2B which consists of chemicals considered possibly carcinogenic to humans<ref>International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), 2000. IARC monographs on the evaluation of carcinogenic risks to humans. Volume 77. [[media:IARC-2000_Monographs_Volume_77.pdf| Report.pdf]]</ref>. Toluene and xylenes are categorized as not classifiable as to human carcinogenicity (Group 3) by both the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency<ref>US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 2003. Toxicological Review of Xylenes, In Support of Summary Information on the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS), EPA 635/R-03/001. [[media:USEPA-2003 Toxicological Review of Xylenes.pdf| Report.pdf]]</ref><ref>US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 2005. Toxicological Review of Toluene, In Support of Summary Information on the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, September [[media:USEPA-2005 Toxicological Review of Toluene.pdf| Report.pdf]]</ref> and IARC<ref>International Agency for Research on Cancer, 1999. IARC monographs on the evaluation of carcinogenic risks to humans. Re-evaluation of some organic chemicals, hydrazine and hydrogen peroxide, 71. [[media:IARC-1999_Monographs_Volume_71.pdf| Report.pdf]]</ref>, reflecting the lack of evidence for the carcinogenicity of these two chemicals.
+
{| class="wikitable" style="float: right; text-align: center; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"
 
+
|+ 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.)
Acute (short-term) exposure to BTEX has been associated with skin and sensory irritation, central nervous system problems (tiredness, dizziness, headache, loss of coordination), and effects on the respiratory system (eye and nose irritation). Prolonged (chronic) exposure to BTEX compounds can affect the kidney, liver, and blood systems. Surface water concentrations of BTEX compounds above 1 mg/L can produce acute toxic effects in organisms such as algae and fish.
 
 
 
===Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons ===
 
Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) are a group of more than 100 different chemicals that are released from burning coal, oil, gasoline, trash, tobacco, wood, or other organic substances such as charcoal-broiled meat. While PAHs occur naturally in crude oil, and smoke and ash from forest fires, they are most often found as products of incomplete combustion, especially from incinerators. PAHs are often found at facilities formerly involved in creosote, coking, and wood preservative production, as well as at former manufactured gas plants that used coal as a feedstock. Most regulations, analyses, and data reporting focus on only a limited number of PAHs, typically between 14 and 20 individual PAH compounds such as: [[Wikipedia: Acenaphthene | acenaphthene]], [[Wikipedia: Acenaphthylene | acenaphthylene]], [[Wikipedia: Anthracene | anthracene]], [[Wikipedia: Benz(a)anthracene | benz[a]anthracene]], [[Wikipedia: Benzo(a)pyrene | benzo[a]pyrene]], [[Wikipedia: Benzo(e)pyrene | benzo[e]pyrene]], [[Wikipedia: Benzo(b)fluoranthene | benzo[b]fluoranthene]], [[Wikipedia: Benzo(ghi)perylene | benzo[g,h,i]perylene]], [[Wikipedia: Benzo(j)fluoranthene | benzo[j]fluoranthene]], [[Wikipedia: Benzo(k)fluoranthene | benzo[k]fluoranthene]], [[Wikipedia: Chrysene | chrysene]], [[Wikipedia: Dibenz(a,h)anthracene | dibenz[a,h]anthracene]], [[Wikipedia: Fluoranthene | fluoranthene]], [[Wikipedia: Fluorene | fluorene]], indeno[1,2,3-c,d]pyrene, [[Wikipedia: Naphthalene | naphthalene]], [[Wikipedia: Phenanthrene | phenanthrene]] and [[Wikipedia: Pyrene | pyrene]]<ref>Agency for Toxic Substance and Disease Registry (ATSDR), 1995. Public Health Statement for Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs). US Department of Health and Human Services. [[media:ATSDR-1995_Public_Health_Statement_for_PAHs.pdf | Report.pdf]]</ref>.
 
 
 
Of the more than 100 forms of PAHs, 15 are listed as "reasonably anticipated to be human carcinogens" in the 14th Report on Carcinogens<ref>National Toxicology Program (NTP), 2016. Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons: 15 Listings, Fourteenth Report on Carcinogens. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Research Triangle Park, NC [[media: NTP2016_15_carcinogenic_PAHs.pdf| Report.pdf]]</ref> since exposure to these PAHs is linked to lung, liver, and skin cancers.  Workers who have been exposed to large amounts of naphthalene from skin contact with the liquid form and from breathing naphthalene vapor have developed blood and liver abnormalities. PAHs are often important contaminants of concern because of their chemical and toxicological properties. Composed of multiple aromatic rings, PAHs tend to be more immobile and more persistent in the environment than the BTEX compounds, with relatively higher bioaccumulation rates.  Usually, the two most important PAH compounds at PHC contamination sites are naphthalene, an IARC Group 2B possible carcinogen which is more mobile than other PAHs and typically occurs at higher concentrations, and benzo[a]pyrene, a Group 1 known carcinogen, due to its low threshold of risk to human receptors.
 
 
 
==Gasoline (Fuel) Additives==
 
Methyl ''tert''-butyl ether (MTBE) is a gasoline additive used as an oxygenate (raises the oxygen content) to improve combustion of the gasoline and reduce emissions. Although MTBE was effective in reducing emissions from automobile engines, it became a problem when accidently released from leaking underground tanks to groundwater or emitted from two-cycle boat engines to surface water.  Key concerns with MTBE releases include the potential to leave an unpleasant taste and odor in water containing MTBE if at high enough concentrations, and potential health risks associated with exposure to MTBE above certain concentration thresholds. MTBE has been identified as a potential human carcinogen by USEPA at high doses<ref name= "USEPA2016">US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 2016. Fuels and Fuel Additives: Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (MTBE). [https://archive.epa.gov/mtbe/web/html/faq.html Overview]</ref>. Human exposure to high levels of MTBE in air can also cause irritation of the eyes and respiratory tract, and effects on the central nervous system. Since 2005, the use of MTBE in gasoline has been phased out in the United States. However, groundwater in some areas of the country might still contain MTBE, and it is still being used as a gasoline additive in other parts of the world<ref name= "USEPA2016"/>. ''Tert''-Butyl alcohol (tBA) is another fuel oxygenate, but it is also used in perfumes, as a solvent for pharmaceuticals, and as a paint remover. While MTBE may contain a small percentage of tBA, tBA is also a well‐established biodegradation by-product of MTBE and often found as a groundwater co-contaminant at gasoline-impacted sites<ref>Schmidt, T.C., Schirmer, M., Weiß, H. and Haderlein, S.B., 2004. Microbial degradation of methyl tert-butyl ether and tert-butyl alcohol in the subsurface. Journal of contaminant hydrology, 70(3-4), pp.173-203. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jconhyd.2003.09.001 doi: 10.1016/j.jconhyd.2003.09.001]</ref>. Like MTBE, inhalation of high concentrations of tBA for prolonged exposures may produce transient effects on the central nervous system, as well as eye and mucous membrane irritation<ref name= "ITRC2005Overview">Interstate Technology and Regulatory Council, 2005. Overview of groundwater remediation technologies for MTBE and TBA. MTBE-1. Interstate Technology & Regulatory Council, MTBE and Other Fuel Oxygenates Team, Washington, DC. [[media:ITRC-2005_Overview_of_GW_Remed_for_MTBE_and_TBA.pdf| Report.pdf]]</ref>.
 
 
 
===Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons===
 
[[File:Yuncu1w2Fig4.png|thumb|Figure 4. TPH Fractions of TCEQ Method 1006.  Adapted from Rhodes (2006) (2006) <ref>Rhodes, 2006.  TPH in the Texas Risk Reduction Program (TRRP). Shell Global Solutions[https://www.neiwpcc.org/tanks06/pdfs_tanks06/speaker_pdfs/rhodes_ileana06.pdf Presentation]</ref>
 
Total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) is a term used to describe any mixture of hydrocarbons that are found in crude oil. There are several hundreds of these compounds, but not all occur in any one sample. Because there are so many different chemicals in crude oil and in other petroleum products, it is not practical to measure each one separately. However, it is useful to measure the total amount of petroleum hydrocarbons at a site. TPH can be evaluated in several ways:
 
*TPH for gasoline range organics (GRO) includes hydrocarbons with 6 to 10 carbon atoms (C6-C10),
 
*TPH for diesel range organics (DRO) includes hydrocarbons with 10 to 28 carbons (C10-C28), and
 
*TPH for oil or residual range organics (ORO, RRO) includes hydrocarbons with 28 to 36 carbons (C28-C36).
 
*Volatile petroleum hydrocarbons (VPH) include C5-C12 aliphatics, BTEX, MTBE, naphthalene, and C9-C10 aromatics.
 
*Extractable petroleum hydrocarbons (EPH) include C9-C36 aliphatics and C11-C22 aromatics<ref name= "Williams2006"/>.
 
 
Because TPH represents a mixture of a large number of chemical compounds, it indicates the amount of petroleum that may be present in a sample but does not provide a direct indication of risk to human health or the environment<ref>Agency for Toxic Substance and Disease Registry (ATSDR),  1999. Toxicological Profile for Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH). US Department of Health and Human Services. [[media:ATSDR-1999-Tox profile for TPH.pdf| Report.pdf]]</ref><ref>American Petroleum Institute (API), 2001. Risk-Based Methodologies for Evaluating Petroleum Hydrocarbon Impacts at Oil and Natural Gas E&P Sites. API Publication Number 4709.</ref>.  For example, two soil samples impacted by equal concentrations of either baby oil or gasoline would have virtually identical TPH values, but very different toxicities.  The TPH Criteria Working Group (TPHCWG) developed the TPH Fraction Method to calculate risk associated with petroleum hydrocarbon mixtures. The Naval Facilities Engineering Command<ref name="NAVFAC 2017"/> described the method for applying risk to TPH measurements this way:
 
 
 
<blockquote>''With TPHCWG method, TPH is measured using an analytical method that provides somewhat more detail than total TPH concerning the composition of the petroleum mixture. These analytical methods include TCEQ1006 (based on the TPHCWG) or Massachusetts EPH/VPH.  These methods provide concentration results for six (Massachusetts EPH/VPH) or 13 (TCEQ1006) different TPH fractions separated into different classes by compound type (aliphatics vs. aromatics, Figure 4) and by carbon number.  These fraction results can be used in risk assessments by assigning conservative toxicity values and fate and transport characteristics to each different fraction.  The toxicity and fate and transport values can be obtained from guidance documents that describe the application of the TPH fraction approach for risk assessment<ref>Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP), M., 2002. Characterizing Risks Posed by Petroleum Contaminated Sites: Implementation of the MADEP VPH/EPH Approach. Final Policy# WSC-02-411. Commonwealth of Massachusetts Executive Office of Environmental Affairs. [[media:MassDEP-2002_VPH-EPH.pdf| Report.pdf]]</ref><ref name= "Weisman1998">Weisman, W., 1998. Analysis of Petroleum Hydrocarbons in Environmental Media, Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon Criteria Working Group Series, v.1. Amherst Scientific Publishers, Amherst, Mass. [[Media: Weisman-1998_TPH Criteria Working Group Series Vol1.pdf | Report.pdf]]</ref>.  While typically used to demonstrate that soils containing petroleum hydrocarbons have heaver, low-risk fractions, the method can also be applied to groundwater samples.''</blockquote><ref name="NAVFAC 2017"/>
 
 
 
==Physical and Chemical Properties==
 
PHCs are generally divided into two groups: [[wikipedia: Aliphatic compound | aliphatics]] and [[Wikipedia: Aromaticity | aromatics]]. Aliphatics include: a) alkanes that contain single bonds between carbon atoms and have formulas of CnH2n+2, b) alkenes, which contain one or more double bonds between carbon atoms and have formulas of CnH2n, and c) cycloalkanes, which contain single-bonded carbon atoms in cyclic structures. Aromatics have one or more benzene rings as part of their structure. Monoaromatics have one benzene ring as part of their structure while polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) contain two or more bonded benzene rings. Table 1 summarizes the physical and chemical properties of selected PHCs and fuel additives.
 
 
 
{| class="wikitable mw-collapsible" style="text-align:center;"
 
|+ Table 1. Nomenclature, Structure, Chemical and Physical Properties of Selected Petroleum Hydrocarbons and Fuel Additives.
 
|-
 
! IUPAC Name
 
! Common Name</br>(Acronym)
 
! Molecular Formula
 
! Chemical Structure
 
! Formula Weight</br><small>(g/mol)</small>
 
! Density</br><small>(g/mL)</small>
 
! Solubility</br><small>(mg/L at 20° to 25°C)</small>
 
! Vapor Pressure</br><small>(mmHg)</small>
 
! Henry’s Law Constant</br><small>(Dimensionless)</small>
 
! Log&nbsp;''K<sub>ow</sub>''<ref name="ATSDR 2019"> Agency for Toxic Substance and Disease Registry (ATSDR),  2019. Priority List of Hazardous Substances. US Department of Health and Human Services. https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/spl  Searchable Toxic Substances Portal:  https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/substances/index.asp </ref>
 
! MCL<ref name="USEPA 2020"> US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 2020. National Primary Drinking Water Regulations  https://www.epa.gov/ground-water-and-drinking-water/national-primary-drinking-water-regulations </ref></br><small>(mg/L)</small>
 
|-
 
| colspan="11" style="background-color:white;" | '''Aromatic Hydrocarbons'''
 
|-
 
| style="text-align:left;" | Benzene || Benzene || C<sub>6</sub>H<sub>6</sub> || [[File:Yuncu1w2Benzene.png | 70px]] || 7.81 || 0.88 || 1,750<ref name="USEPA 1996"> US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 1996. Soil screening guidance: User’s guide. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Washington, D.C. Publication 9355.4-23. https://rais.ornl.gov/documents/SSG_nonrad_user.pdf</ref> || 76<ref name="Howard 1989"> Howard, P.H., 1989. Handbook of Environmental Fate and Exposure Data for Organic Chemicals, Vol. 1 - Large Production and Priority Pollutants. Lewis Publishers, Inc. Chelsea, Michigan.</ref> || 0.228<ref name="USEPA 1996"/> || 2.13 || 0.005
 
|-
 
| style="text-align:left;" | Ethylbenzene|| Ethylbenzene || C<sub>8</sub>H<sub>10</sub> || [[File:Yuncu1w2Ethylbenzene.png | 70px]] || 106.2 || 0.87 || 169<ref name="USEPA 1996"/> || 7<ref name="Howard 1989" /> || 0.323<ref name="USEPA 1996"/> || 4.34 || 0.7
 
|-
 
| style="text-align:left;" | Methylbenzene  || Toluene || C<sub>7</sub>H<sub>8</sub> || [[File:Yuncu1w2Methylbenzene.png | 40px]] || 92.1 || 0.87 || 526<ref name="USEPA 1996"/>|| 22<ref name="Howard 1989" /> || 0.272<ref name="USEPA 1996"/> || 2.73 || 1
 
|-
 
| style="text-align:left;" | Total xylenes* || -- || -- || -- || -- || -- || -- || -- || -- || -- || 10
 
|-
 
| style="text-align:right;" | 1,3-Dimethylbenzene || m-Xylene || C<sub>8</sub>H<sub>10</sub> || [[File:Yuncu1w2_13Dimethylbenzene.png | 70px]] || 106.2 || 0.86 || 161<ref name="USEPA 1996"/> || 6<ref name="Howard 1989" /> || 0.301<ref name="USEPA 1996"/> || 3.20 || --
 
|-
 
| style="text-align:right;" | 1,2-Dimethylbenzene || o-Xylene || C<sub>8</sub>H<sub>10</sub> || [[File:Yuncu1w2_12Dimethylbenzene.png | 70px]] || 106.2 || 0.88 || 178<ref name="USEPA 1996"/> || 5<ref name="Howard 1989"/> || 0.213<ref name="USEPA 1996"/> || 3.12 || --
 
|-
 
| style="text-align:right;" | 1,4-Dimethylbenzene || p-Xylene || C<sub>8</sub>H<sub>10</sub> || [[File:Yuncu1w2_14Dimethylbenzene.png | 90px]] || 106.2 || 0.86 || 185<ref name="USEPA 1996"/>|| 6.5<ref name="Howard 1989"/> || 0.314<ref name="USEPA 1996"/> || 3.15 || --
 
|-
 
| colspan="11" style="background-color:white;" | '''Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons'''
 
|-
 
| style="text-align:left;" | 1,2-Dihydroacenaphthylene || Acenaphthene || C<sub>12</sub>H<sub>10</sub> || [[File:Yuncu1w2_12Dihydroacenaphthylene.png | 70px]] || 154.2 || 1.22 || 4.24<ref name="USEPA 1996"/>|| 4.47x10<sup>-3</sup><ref name="ATSDR 2019"/> || 6.36x10<sup>-3</sup><ref name="USEPA 1996"/> || 3.98 || --
 
|-
 
| style="text-align:left;" | Acenaphthylene || Acenaphthylene || C<sub>12</sub>H<sub>8</sub> || [[File:Yuncu1w2Acenaphthylene.png | 70px]] || 152.2 || 0.90 || 3.93<ref name="ATSDR 2019"/>|| 0.029<ref name="ATSDR 2019"/> || 0.0593<ref name="ATSDR 2019"/> || 4.07 || --
 
|-
 
| style="text-align:left;" | Anthracene || Anthracene  || C<sub>14</sub>H<sub>10</sub> || [[File:Yuncu1w2Anthracene.png | 70px]] || 178.2 || 1.28 || 0.0434<ref name="USEPA 1996"/> || 1.7x10<sup>-5</sup><ref name="ATSDR 2019"/> || 2.67x10<sup>-3</sup><ref name="USEPA 1996"/> || 4.45 || --
 
|-
 
| style="text-align:left;" | Benz[a]anthracene || Benz[a]anthracene || C<sub>18</sub>H<sub>12</sub> || [[File:Yuncu1w2BenzAanthracene.png | 70px]] || 228.3 || 1.27 || 9.4x10<sup>-3</sup><ref name="USEPA 1996"/>|| 2.2x10<sup>-8</sup><ref name="ATSDR 2019"/> || 1.4x10<sup>-4</sup><ref name="USEPA 1996"/> || 5.61 || --
 
|-
 
| style="text-align:left;" | Benzo[a]pyrene || Benzo[a]pyrene || C<sub>20</sub>H<sub>12</sub> || [[File:Yuncu1w2BenzoApyrene.png | 70px]] || 252.3 || 1.35 || 1.6x10<sup>-3</sup><ref name="USEPA 1996" /> || 5.6x10<sup>-9</sup><ref name="ATSDR 2019"/> || 4.63x10<sup>-5</sup><ref name="USEPA 1996"/> || 6.06 || 2x10<sup>-4</sup>
 
|-
 
| style="text-align:left;" | Benzo[b]fluoranthene || Benzo[b]fluoranthene || C<sub>20</sub>H<sub>12</sub> || [[File:Yuncu1w2BenzoBfluoranthene.png | 70px]] || 252.3 || 1.29 || 1.5x10<sup>-3</sup><ref name="USEPA 1996" /> || 5.0x10<sup>-7</sup><ref name="ATSDR 2019"/> || 4.55x10<sup>-3</sup><ref name="USEPA 1996"/> || 6.04 || --
 
|-
 
| style="text-align:left;" | Benzo[g,h,i]perylene || Benzo[g,h,i]perylene || C<sub>22</sub>H<sub>12</sub> || [[File:Yuncu1w2BenzoGHIperylene.png | 70px]] || 276.3 || 1.38 || 2.6x10<sup>-4</sup><ref name="ATSDR 2019"/> || 1.0x10<sup>-10</sup><ref name="ATSDR 2019"/> ||  5.89x10<sup>-6</sup><ref name="ATSDR 2019"/> || 6.50 || --
 
 
|-
 
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | Benzo[k]fluoranthene || Benzo[k]fluoranthene || C<sub>20</sub>H<sub>12</sub> || [[File:Yuncu1w2BenzoKfluoranthene.png | 70px]] || 252.3 || 1.29 || 8x10<sup>-4</sup><ref name="USEPA 1996"/> || 9.6x10<sup>-11</sup><ref name="ATSDR 2019"/> ||  3.4x10<sup>-5</sup><ref name="USEPA 1996"/> || 6.06 || --
+
! Military Range Type !! Analyte !! Range<br/>(mg/kg) !! Median<br/>(mg/kg) !! RSD<br/>(%)
 
|-
 
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | Chrysene || Chrysene || C<sub>18</sub>H<sub>12</sub> || [[File:Yuncu1w2Chrysene.png | 70px]] || 228.3 || 1.27 || 1.6x10<sup>-3</sup><ref name="USEPA 1996"/> || 6.3x10<sup>-7</sup><ref name="ATSDR 2019"/> ||  3.88x10<sup>-3</sup><ref name="USEPA 1996"/> || 5.16 || --
+
| colspan="5" style="text-align: left;" | '''Discrete Samples'''
 
|-
 
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | Fluoranthene || Fluoranthene || C<sub>16</sub>H<sub>10</sub> || [[File:Yuncu1w2Fluoranthene.png | 70px]] || 202.3 || 1.25 || 0.206<ref name="USEPA 1996"/>|| 5.0x10<sup>-6</sup><ref name="ATSDR 2019"/> ||  6.6x10<sup>-4</sup><ref name="USEPA 1996"/> || 4.90 || --
+
| Artillery FP || 2,4-DNT || <0.04 – 6.4 || 0.65 || 110
 
|-
 
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | 9''H''-Fluorene || Fluorene || C<sub>13</sub>H<sub>10</sub> || [[File:Yuncu1w2_9hFluorene.png | 70px]] || 166.2 || 1.20 || 1.98<ref name="USEPA 1996"/> || 3.2x10<sup>-4</sup><ref name="ATSDR 2019"/>||  2.61x10<sup>-3</sup><ref name="USEPA 1996"/> || 4.18 || --
+
| Antitank Rocket || HMX || 5.8 – 1,200 || 200 || 99
 
|-
 
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | Indeno[1,2,3-c,d]pyrene || Indeno[1,2,3-c,d]pyrene || C<sub>22</sub>H<sub>12</sub> || [[File:Yuncu1w2Indeno123CDpyrene.png | 70px]] || 276.4 || 1.40 || 2.2x10<sup>-5</sup><ref name="USEPA 1996"/> || ~10<sup>-11</sup>to 10<sup>-6</sup><ref name="ATSDR 2019"/> ||  7.0x10<sup>-5</sup><ref name="USEPA 1996"/> || 6.58 || --
+
| Bombing || TNT || 0.15 – 780 || 6.4 || 274
 
|-
 
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | Naphthalene || Naphthalene || C<sub>10</sub>H<sub>8</sub> || [[File:Yuncu1w2Naphthalene.png | 70px]] || 128.2 || 1.16 || 31<ref name="USEPA 1996"/>|| 0.087<ref name="ATSDR 2019"/> ||  0.0198<ref name="USEPA 1996"/>|| 3.29 || --
+
| Mortar || RDX || <0.04 – 2,400 || 1.7 || 441
 
|-
 
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | Phenanthrene || Phenanthrene || C<sub>14</sub>H<sub>10</sub> || [[File:Yuncu1w2Phenanthrene.png | 70px]] || 178.2 || 1.18 || 1.20<ref name="ATSDR 2019"/> || 6.8x10<sup>-4</sup><ref name="ATSDR 2019"/> || 1.05x10<sup>-3</sup><ref name="ATSDR 2019"/> || 4.45 || --
+
| Artillery || RDX || <0.04 – 170 || <0.04 || 454
 
|-
 
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | Pyrene || Pyrene || C<sub>16</sub>H<sub>10</sub> || [[File:Yuncu1w2Pyrene.png | 70px]] || 202.3 || 1.27 || 0.135<ref name="USEPA 1996"/>|| 2.5x10<sup>-6</sup><ref name="ATSDR 2019" />|| 4.5x10<sup>-4</sup><ref name="USEPA 1996"/>|| 4.88 || --
+
| colspan="5" style="text-align: left;" | '''Incremental Samples*'''
 
|-
 
|-
| colspan="11" style="background-color:white;" | '''Fuel Additives'''
+
| Artillery FP || 2,4-DNT || 0.60 – 1.4 || 0.92 || 26
 
|-
 
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | 2-Methoxy-2-methylpropane || Methyl ''tert''-butyl ether (MTBE) || C<sub>5</sub>H<sub>12</sub>O || [[File:Yuncu1w2MTBE.png | 70px]] || 88.2 || 0.74 || 51,000<ref>National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI), 2020. PubChem Database. Methyl tert-butyl ether, CID=15413. https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/Methyl-tert-butyl-ether</ref> || 245 to 256<ref name="NSTC 1997"> National Science and Technology Council (NSTC), 1997. Interagency Assessment of Oxygenated Fuels. Committee on Environment and Natural Resources. [[media:NSTC-1997_Interagency_Assessment_of_Oxygenated_Fuels.pdf | Report.pdf]]</ref> ||  0.123 to 0.024<ref name="NSTC 1997"/> || 1.20<ref name="NSTC 1997"/> || --
+
| Bombing || TNT || 13 – 17 || 14 || 17
 
|-
 
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | 2-Methylpropan-2-ol || ''tert''-Butyl alcohol (TBA) || C<sub>4</sub>H<sub>10</sub>O || [[File:Yuncu1w2TBA.png | 70px]] || 74.12 || 0.78 || Infinite<ref name="NSTC 1997"/>|| 40 to 42<ref name="NSTC 1997"/> || 4.3x10<sup>-4</sup> to 5.9x10<sup>-4</sup><ref name="NSTC 1997"/>|| 0.35<ref name="NSTC 1997"/> || --
+
| Artillery/Bombing || RDX || 3.9 – 9.4 || 4.8 || 38
 +
|-
 +
| Thermal Treatment || HMX || 3.96 – 4.26 || 4.16 || 4
 
|-
 
|-
| colspan="11" style="text-align:left; background-color:white;" | Notes:</br>''K<sub>ow</sub>'' is the Octanol/Water partition coefficient (dimensionless).</br>MCL is the Maximum Contaminant Level.</br>* Total xylenes consist of three different chemical isomers (meta-xylene, ortho-xylene and para-xylene) but are typically regulated as total xylenes.
+
| colspan="5" style="text-align: left; background-color: white;" | * For incremental samples, 30-100 increments and 3-10 replicate samples were collected.
 
|}
 
|}
  
==Environmental Concern==
+
==Incremental Sampling Approach==
Because of the widespread use of petroleum fuels, a large number of the cleanup sites in the United States include PHC contamination. The nature of PHC contamination is highly variable since PHCs themselves are diverse mixtures of chemical components. Several aromatic hydrocarbons such as benzene, naphthalene, and chrysene are known or probable/possible human carcinogens and are classified as priority pollutants by the USEPA<ref>US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 2014. Priority Pollutant List. [[media:USEPA-2014 Priority Pollutant List.pdf| Report.pdf]]</ref>. Benzene and PAHs are ranked sixth and ninth, respectively, on the [[Wikipedia:Superfund | Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA)]] [https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/spl/#2019spl Substance Priority List]. This list is a prioritization of substances based on their frequency, toxicity, and potential for human exposure at sites on the National Priorities List (NPL)<ref name="ATSDR 2019"/>. Benzene is often the main groundwater contaminant of concern at petroleum release sites because of its higher toxicity and mobility compared to other petroleum hydrocarbons.
+
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]]
  
===Fate and Transport===
+
DUs can vary in shape (Figure 4), size, number of increments, and number of replicates according to a project’s data quality objectives.
When petroleum mixtures are released into the environment, the compounds undergo physical, chemical, and biological changes such as volatilization, biodegradation, adsorption onto soil particles, dissolution in water, oxidation, and photodegradation. These processes are collectively referred to as weathering. Fuels are released into the subsurface as undissolved oily-phase liquids that are less dense than water and are therefore commonly referred to as [[Wikipedia: Light non-aqueous phase liquid | light nonaqueous-phase liquids (LNAPLs)]]. Weathering processes change the distribution of components in the LNAPL. The degree to which various types of petroleum hydrocarbons degrade under these processes depends on the physical and chemical properties of the hydrocarbons and the hydrogeologic and geochemical conditions at the site<ref name= "Weisman1998"/>. A mass balance/modeling study of a 1979 crude oil release<ref>Ng, G.H.C., Bekins, B.A., Cozzarelli, I.M., Baedecker, M.J., Bennett, P.C., Amos, R.T. and Herkelrath, W.N., 2015. Reactive transport modeling of geochemical controls on secondary water quality impacts at a crude oil spill site near Bemidji, MN. Water Resources Research, 51(6), pp.4156-4183. [[media: Ng_2015-Reactive_Transport_Modeling.pdf| Report.pdf]]</ref> provides a detailed look at how long-term weathering processes affected BTEX compounds, short-chained alkanes, long-chained alkanes, and other TPH classes.  The model was based in part on a detailed analysis by <ref>Baedecker, M.J., Eganhouse, R.P., Bekins, B.A. and Delin, G.N., 2011. Loss of volatile hydrocarbons from an LNAPL oil source. Journal of Contaminant Hydrology, 126(3-4), pp.140-152. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jconhyd.2011.06.006  doi: 10.1016/j.jconhyd.2011.06.006 ]</ref> and was able to replicate the long-term field data that showed toluene, o-xylene, and straight chained alkanes were the compounds that were most depleted over time (see [[Natural Attenuation in Source Zone and Groundwater Plume - Bemidji Crude Oil Spill]]).
 
  
[[File:Yuncu1w2Fig5.png|thumb|Figure 5. Free Product Collecting in the Basin of an Underground Storage Tank ]]
+
[[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)]]
  
In general, LNAPLs migrate vertically downward through the soil in the unsaturated zone, and if the release is large enough, that migration may continue until the water table is encountered. The LNAPL will then spread out horizontally along that interface (see [[NAPL Mobility]]) with some of the LNAPL above and some below the water table. At some point a continuous LNAPL body will form “residual LNAPL” which can be conceptualized as individual LNAPL blobs in individual pores.  As groundwater moves through the mobile and/or residual LNAPL source areas, soluble components partition into the moving groundwater to generate a plume of dissolved contamination. Once further releases stop, these LNAPL source areas tend to slowly weather away as the soluble components, such as BTEX, are depleted<ref name= "Wiedemeier1999">Wiedemeier, T.H., Wilson, J.T., Kampbell, D.H., Miller, R.N., and Hansen, J.E., 1999. Technical protocol for implement¬ing intrinsic remediation with long-term monitoring for natural attenuation of fuel contamination dissolved in groundwater, v.1. Air Force Center for Environmental Excellence, Technology Transfer Division, Brooks Air Force Base, San Antonio, Texas [[media:Wiedemeier-1999-technical Protocol for implementing Intrinsic remediation.pdf| Report.pdf]]</ref><ref>Parsons Engineering Science, Inc, 1999. Final, Methyl tert-Butyl Ether (MTBE), Its Movement and Fate in the Environment and Potential for Natural Attenuation, Technical Summary Report. [[media:Parsons-1999 Methyl tert-Butyl Ether (MTBE) movement-and-fate.pdf| Report.pdf]]</ref>. A relatively new remediation approach, [[Natural Source Zone Depletion (NSZD)]], is based on measuring the rate that the LNAPL in the PHC source zone attenuates.  While [[Monitored Natural Attenuation (MNA)]] is typically focused on plumes, NSZD focuses on source zones.
+
==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.
  
The most common sources of fuel components and petroleum hydrocarbons in groundwater are releases of fuels from leaking underground storage tanks (USTs, Figure 5). If gasoline was released from a leaking UST, then the BTEX compounds are often found in soils and in shallow groundwater. BTEX compounds tend to be the most water-soluble fraction of the petroleum compounds and have the lowest [[Sorption of Organic Contaminants | soil organic carbon sorption coefficients (''K<sub>oc</sub>'']], a measure of the tendency of a chemical to bind to soils). Benzene  is the most water soluble of the BTEX compounds (10 times more soluble than ethylbenzene or xylenes). BTEX compounds are also the most volatile of the aromatic compounds and are considered to be volatile organic compounds (VOCs) <ref name= "Weisman1998"/>.
+
[[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>]]
  
The BTEX compounds are typically the focus of groundwater cleanups at UST sites. However, because they readily biodegrade under a variety of conditions, BTEX compounds attenuate relatively quickly once they leave the PHC source area, and plumes are relatively short compared to chlorinated solvent plumes. A 1999 meta-analysis of four separate multiple-site studies that analyzed 604 PHC sites found a median PHC plume length of only 132 feet (Figure 6).  Two studies evaluated the temporal trends in plume length and found that expanding PHC plumes were rare (less than 8% of plumes) and that most plumes were either stable or shrinking in size.
+
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.
  
[[File:Yuncu1w2Fig6.png|thumb|left|Figure 6.  Limit of Migration of Dissolved Hydrocarbon Plumes<ref name=  "Newell1998"/> (Newell and Connor 1998).]]
+
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>.
Near the source of gasoline releases that occurred when MTBE was used as a fuel additive, MTBE and tBA are often found commingled with BTEX. Although MTBE and tBA are also classified as VOCs, they tend to have much lower volatility than benzene. Due to their high aqueous solubilities and relatively low retardation factors (i.e. [[Sorption of Organic Contaminants |  low adsorption to soil particles, low ''K<sub>oc</sub>'']]) compared to other fuel components, they were originally expected to form more extensive plumes than BTEX compounds. However, recent studies have shown the opposite to be true due to the fact that MTBE readily degrades under both aerobic and anaerobic conditions in groundwater<ref>Kamath, R., Connor, J.A., McHugh, T.E., Nemir, A., Le, M.P. and Ryan, A.J., 2012. Use of long-term monitoring data to evaluate benzene, MTBE, and TBA plume behavior in groundwater at retail gasoline sites. Journal of Environmental Engineering, 138(4), pp.458-469. [https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)ee.1943-7870.0000488  doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)EE.1943-7870.0000488]</ref><ref>Adamson, D. and Newell, C., 2014. Frequently Asked Questions about Monitored Natural Attenuation in Groundwater. Environmental Security Technology Certification Program (ESTCP), Project ER-201211, Alexandria, VA. [[media:Adamson_and_Newell_2014_ER-201211.pdf| Report.pdf]]</ref>.
 
  
Components of heavier fuel oils such as complex PAHs like anthracene, phenanthrene, and benzo[a]pyrene more often occur at releases from aboveground storage tanks (ASTs) and oil terminal operations. Most PAHs, because of their low volatility, are classified as semi-volatile organic compounds and are far less soluble in water than other PHC constituents. Since PAHs are generally insoluble in water and have high [[Sorption of Organic Contaminants |  ''K<sub>oc</sub>'']] values, they typically adsorb to sediments and soil and do not form extensive plumes<ref name= "Williams2006"/>.
+
==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.
  
Recently there has been interest in the presence and behavior of some petroleum metabolites called “polars” because they are polar molecules with a geometric arrangement with one end carrying a net positive charge and the other end a negative charge. This is an emerging field, and researchers are evaluating the toxicity of the metabolites<ref>Zemo, D.A., O'Reilly, K.T., Mohler, R.E., Tiwary, A.K., Magaw, R.I., Synowiec, K.A., 2013. Nature and Estimated Human Toxicity of Polar Metabolite Mixtures in Groundwater Quantified as TPHd/DRO at Biodegrading Fuel Release Sites. Groundwater Monitoring & Remediation, 33(4), pp. 44-56. [https://doi.org/10.1111/gwmr.12030  doi: 10.1111/gwmr.12030 ]</ref> and the characteristic length of the metabolite plumes<ref>Bekins, B.A., Cozzarelli, I.M., Erickson, M.L., Steenson, R.A. and Thorn, K.A., 2016. Crude oil metabolites in groundwater at two spill sites. Groundwater, 54(5), pp.681-691. [https://doi.org/10.1111/gwat.12419 doi: 10.1111/gwat.12419]</ref>.
+
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.
  
Biodegradation is an important weathering and natural attenuation process for petroleum hydrocarbons. The rate of biodegradation depends on the hydrocarbon type, the microbial population present, and the geochemical and hydrological conditions in the subsurface. Because some hydrocarbons are naturally occurring in the environment, populations of bacteria and other organisms capable of degrading petroleum hydrocarbons to a certain extent are ubiquitous in soils and sediments<ref>Kennedy, L., Everett, J. and Gonzales, J., 2000. Aqueous and mineral intrinsic bioremediation assessment (AMIBA) protocol: Brooks Air Force Base. Tex., Air Force Center for Environmental Excellence, Technology Transfer Division, 286. [[media:Kennedy-2000_AMIBA protocol.pdf| Report.pdf]]</ref><ref>Potter, T.L., and Simmons, K.E., 1998. Composition of petroleum mixtures, Total petroleum hydrocarbon criteria working group series, v.2. Amherst Scientific Publishers, Amherst, Mass. [https://www.scribd.com/fullscreen/42789364?access_key=key-29jwkkdylyk663co8v6w ISBN 1-884-940-19-6]</ref><ref>US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 1999. Use of monitored natural attenuation at superfund, RCRA corrective action, and underground storage tank sites. [[media:USEPA-1999 Use of MNA at Superfund, RCRA and UST sites.pdf| Report.pdf]]</ref><ref name= "Wiedemeier1999"/>. Generally, petroleum hydrocarbons are good food sources (electron donors) for microorganisms because they contain high-energy electrons with abundant carbon-hydrogen bonds. Biodegradation of PHCs and fuel additives can occur under both aerobic and anaerobic conditions<ref name= "Wiedemeier1999"/><ref name= "ITRC2005Overview"/>.
+
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).
  
==Applicable Remediation Technologies==
+
<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>
In cases where mobile LNAPL (free product) removal is feasible, most regulatory agencies require site owners or responsible parties to remove the product (e.g. by pumping or skimming the LNAPL). However, at many sites complete LNAPL removal is not feasible with available technology because residual LNAPL is trapped in soil by strong capillary forces making it difficult to pump out all of the potentially mobile LNAPL. LNAPL removal to the “maximum extent practicable” will, in most cases (except for complete removal by excavation), leave some residual LNAPL behind in the subsurface.  
+
<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>
  
===Recent Developments===
+
==Analysis==
Because of an increased understanding of the behavior of LNAPL, there has been a movement away from the traditional use of LNAPL thickness in monitoring wells as a metric for assessing the feasibility of LNAPL removal by pumping, favoring instead the use LNAPL transmissivity measurements or estimates to decide whether LNAPL recovery is practicable<ref name= "ITRC2009a/> (see [[NAPL Mobility]] for more on LNAPL transmissivity). In addition, there have been significant developments in the use of [[Natural Source Zone Depletion (NSZD)]]<ref>ITRC, 2009b. Evaluating natural source zone depletion at sites with LNAPL. LNAPL-1. Interstate Technology and Regulatory Council, LNAPLs Team, Washington, DC. [[media:ITRC-2009b_Evaluating_NSDZ_at_Sites_with_LNAPL.pdf| Report.pdf]]</ref> for managing LNAPL source zones that compliments the historic use of [[Monitored Natural Attenuation (MNA) of Fuels | monitored natural attenuation (MNA) of PHC plumes]].
+
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.
  
===PHC Cleanup Technologies===
+
{| class="wikitable" style="float: center; text-align: center; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"
The ITRC<ref name= "ITRC2009a/> has prepared a [https://www.itrcweb.org/GuidanceDocuments/LNAPL-2.pdf guidance document] that provides a framework for selecting [[LNAPL Remediation Technologies]]. Seventeen LNAPL remedial technologies are considered in that guidance document. In 2018 the ITRC updated the guidance to consider a total of 21 remedial technologies<ref name= "ITRC2018"/>.
+
|+ 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>)
 
+
|-
Several common ''ex situ'' and ''in situ'' remedial technologies used at petroleum-contaminated sites are listed in Table 2<ref name= "Wiedemeier1999"/><ref name= "ITRC2009a/><ref>Los Angeles LNAPL Workgroup, 2015. Final report for the LA Basin LNAPL recoverability study. Western States Petroleum Association, Torrance, CA [[media:LALNAPL-2015_FinalReportb.pdf| Report.pdf]]</ref>.
+
! rowspan="2" | Compound
 
+
! colspan="2" | Soil Reporting Limit (mg/kg)
{| class="wikitable" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; border: none;"
+
|-
|+ Table 2. Treatment Technologies for Remediating PHCs in Soil and Groundwater
+
! HPLC (8330)
 +
! GC (8095)
 +
|-
 +
| 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
 
|-
 
|-
! !! Soil (Source Zone) !! Groundwater (Plume)
+
| [[Wikipedia: Dinitrobenzene | DNB ]] || 0.04 || 0.002
 
|-
 
|-
| ''Ex Situ''
+
| [[Wikipedia: Tetryl | Tetryl ]]  || 0.04 || 0.01
|
 
*  Excavation & off-site disposal
 
*  Soil washing
 
*  Thermal desorption
 
[[Landfarming | Land treatment]]
 
* Slurry biodegradation
 
|
 
*  Aggressive fluid vapor recovery (AFVR)
 
*  Pump & treat (P&T) with air stripping and/or carbon adsorption or advanced oxidation
 
 
|-
 
|-
| ''In Situ''
+
| [[Wikipedia: Pentaerythritol tetranitrate | PETN ]] || 0.2 || 0.016
|
 
[[Soil Vapor Extraction (SVE) | Soil vapor extraction (SVE)]]
 
*  [[Thermal Remediation - Electrical Resistance Heating | Electrical resistance heating (ERH)]] / Electromagnetic heating
 
*  ''In situ'' soil mixing (ISSM)
 
*  Soil Flushing
 
*  Bioventing
 
*  [[Natural Source Zone Depletion (NSZD) | Natural source zone depletion (NSZD)]]
 
|
 
*  Air sparging
 
*  [[Chemical Oxidation (In Situ - ISCO) | ''In situ'' chemical oxidation (ISCO)]]
 
*  [[Monitored Natural Attenuation (MNA) of Fuels | Monitored natural attenuation (MNA)]]
 
*  ''In situ'' bioremediation
 
 
|}
 
|}
 
 
===Ex Situ (Above Ground) Treatment Technologies for Soil===
 
<u>Physical Approaches</u>
 
<blockquote>- Excavation and off-site disposal: Applicable primarily to unsaturated soils. Requires vertical and lateral access to the contaminated material so that excavation is possible. While often required by regulators where gross contamination has been detected, excavating and treating large amounts of soil is expensive.</blockquote>
 
<blockquote>- Soil washing (Solvent extraction): Involves the blending of an extraction solution (surfactants, leaching/chelating agents or solvents) with the contaminated soil to extract contaminants from the soil. The solution produced by the washing process is separated from the soil and may be recycled if possible.  This technology is rarely used due to high costs associated with disposal of the contaminated wash water. </blockquote>
 
 
<u>Thermal Approaches</u>
 
<blockquote>- [[Thermal Remediation - Desorption | Thermal desorption]]: Applies heat to the excavated contaminated soil to volatilize VOCs and semivolatile organic compounds (SVOCs) and separate them from the soil matrix. As the contaminants vaporize, they can be collected and treated in an off-gas treatment unit. </blockquote> 
 
 
<u>Biological Approaches</u>
 
<blockquote>- [[Landfarming | Land treatment (Land farming)]]: Excavated contaminated soils are placed over a lined treatment area to prevent leaching, or in a biotreatment cell. Volatilization and natural biodegradation are enhanced by tilling (aerating), watering or adding amendments or microorganisms to the soil.</blockquote>
 
<blockquote>- Slurry biodegradation: Excavated contaminated soil is treated in a slurry solution within a bioreactor vessel that supplies nutrients and microorganisms for biodegradation.  The large space and energy requirements for the bioreactors have limited the applicability of this innovative technology. </blockquote>
 
 
===''In Situ'' Treatment Technologies for Soil/Source Zones===
 
<u>Physical Approaches</u>
 
<blockquote>-[[Soil Vapor Extraction (SVE)]]: Applicable to unsaturated soils with moderate to high permeability, SVE relies on a compound’s ability to partition from its adsorbed phase into soil gases which can be vacuum extracted and treated or discharged. The heaver LNAPL constituents may not be volatile enough to be extracted as vapor. SVE provides additional LNAPL removal by increasing subsurface O<sub>2</sub> levels and thereby enhancing biodegradation.  SVE is one of most frequently used PHC remediation technologies but does not treat LNAPL below the water table. </blockquote>
 
 
<u>Thermal Approaches</u>
 
<blockquote>- [[Thermal Remediation - Electrical Resistance Heating | Electrical resistance heating (ERH)]] or Electromagnetic heating: Heating up the soil by inserting electrodes into the soil and passing an alternating current between electrodes (ERH) or by emitting electromagnetic waves at different frequencies (electromagnetic heating) to increase the volatilization of VOCs and SVOCs. Like SVE, volatilized contaminants are then treated at the surface.  These methods work best in low permeability soils and can be effective above or below the water table. Because of the large amount of energy required for these methods, they are rarely used at PHC sites.</blockquote>
 
 
<u>Chemical Approaches</u>
 
<blockquote>- In situ soil mixing (ISSM): Involves mixing a chemical treatment agent (e.g. [[Wikipedia: Sodium persulfate | sodium persulfate]], [[Wikipedia: Calcium peroxide | calcium peroxide]]) into the soil by using an auger or tiller system in order to promote chemical oxidation of the contaminant. The capabilities of the mixing equipment may limit the depth of soil to which this method can be applied. This approach may not be practicable in very rocky or consolidated soils. </blockquote>
 
<blockquote>- Soil Flushing: Involves flushing surfactants or leaching agents through the contaminated area to extract contaminants from the soil. The extraction fluid is then recovered and treated or recycled, if possible.  This method can only be applied where the contaminated soil is fairly porous and homogeneous. Because costs associated with treating or disposing large volumes of contaminated extraction fluid can be quite high, this method is rarely used. </blockquote>
 
 
<u>Biological Approaches</u>
 
<blockquote>- Bioventing: Delivering oxygen into the subsurface to stimulate ''in situ'' biological activity and aerobic biodegradation of contaminants while minimizing volatilization. If necessary, the activity of indigenous microorganisms is also enhanced by adding nutrients.</blockquote>
 
<blockquote>- [[Natural Source Zone Depletion (NSZD)]]:  Measuring the degradation rate of an LNAPL body by measuring carbon efflux, thermal heat generation, or other indicators to determine the rate of natural attenuation of source materials.  Results are typically reported in gallons per acre per year.</blockquote>
 
 
===''Ex Situ'' Treatment Technologies for Groundwater===
 
<u>Physical Approaches</u>
 
<blockquote>- Aggressive fluid vapor recovery (AFVR): Applying dual phase vacuum extraction by using a mobile vacuum truck for quickly removing contaminated groundwater and soil vapors, simultaneously. Contaminated groundwater and soil vapors are treated or disposed offsite.</blockquote>
 
<blockquote>- Pump and treat (P&T) with discharge, air stripping (AS), carbon adsorption (CA) or advanced oxidation (AO):  Applied where hydraulic control of contaminant migration is desirable along with contaminant removal. Discharging contaminated water or treated water to a receiving feature (e.g., stream, wastewater treatment plant) may require a permit. Air stripping may require off-gas treatment. Carbon adsorption cells must be monitored for breakthrough and replacement.  Infrequently used due to rapid natural attenuation of dissolved hydrocarbon groundwater plumes.</blockquote>
 
 
===In Situ Treatment Technologies for Groundwater===
 
<u>Physical Approaches</u>
 
<blockquote>- Air sparging/oxygen biosparging: Involves inserting sparge wells into the aquifer and pumping pressurized air into groundwater to dissociate the contaminant from aqueous to gas phase. As the contaminated vapor migrates upward into the overlying unsaturated soil, it is then captured by SVE for removal.  This is a commonly used technology. </blockquote>
 
 
<u>Chemical Approaches</u>
 
<blockquote>- [[Chemical_Oxidation_(In_Situ_-_ISCO) | In situ chemical oxidation (ISCO)]]: involves adding strong chemical oxidants (e.g., sodium persulfate, hydrogen peroxide and Fenton’s reagent, or ozone) to destroy the contaminants in place. </blockquote>
 
 
<u>Biological Approaches</u>
 
<blockquote>- [[Monitored Natural Attenuation (MNA) of Fuels | Monitored Natural Attenuation (MNA)]]: relies on naturally occurring microorganisms to degrade the contaminants, leaving behind harmless by-products without outside stimulus.  This is the most common approach for managing stable dissolved hydrocarbon plumes.</blockquote>
 
<blockquote>- ''In situ'' bioremediation: Stimulates microbial activity and thus biodegradation by injecting an electron acceptor (e.g., oxygen, nitrate or sulfate).  Not commonly used because MNA processes provide sufficient control of many PHC plumes.</blockquote>
 
  
 
==References==
 
==References==
Line 249: Line 127:
  
 
==See Also==
 
==See Also==
 +
*[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