|
|
.
|
|
.
|
.
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
These case studies illustrate
the performance using Sitelab’s UVF-3100 analyzer testing gasoline range
organic (GRO) hydrocarbons, also called volatile petroleum hydrocarbons (VPH).
The analyzer has optical filters sensitive and selective to
hydrocarbons in the C6-C10 carbon range, including benzene, xylene
and other BTEX compounds abundant in
gasoline, jet fuels, diesel and other light fuel oils.
This test correlates well to EPA Method 8015-GRO and
other, similar regulatory methods using GC instrumentation. |
 |
|
|
Environmental
Site Assessment:
A customer performed an evaluation study comparing the accuracy of
Sitelab's UVF-3100 results to split samples sent to a certified
laboratory who performed EPA Method 8015-GRO and the
Massachusetts DEP's method for Volatile Petroleum Hydrocarbons.
VPH is similar to 8015 by GC/FID, but reports the C5-C8
aliphatics, C9-C12 aliphatics, C9-C10 aromatics and target BTEX
compounds separately. Sitelab correlated well to both methods,
testing samples collected from a former tank farm once used to
store gasoline and fuel oils.
|
|
 |
 |
|
During this two day site investigation, Sitelab's mobile lab
tested 113 soils for GRO, DRO and PAHs on-site. |
|
Still using a
PID to Screen Soils?
"Jar
Headspace" using photo ionization detectors is common practice
for field screening soils on sites contaminated with petroleum
hydrocarbons. PIDs detect air vapors in soil for volatile
organic compounds, unlike Sitelab's UVF method, which measures a
soil extracted in solvent.
Despite their popularity, however, PIDs will often over or under
estimate the sample's contamination, making them less reliable
compared to Sitelab's UVF-3100. Data shown here compares
Sitelab GRO to PID jar headspace concentrations testing soil
borings collected by a drill rig on a site contaminated by
weathered gasoline. Not surprisingly, results did not correlate
very well.
|
|
 |
 |
|
Grab samples were collected from borings in 1 to 2 foot intervals and then screened using a PID and UVF to
delineate the vertical subsurface extent of contamination.
|
|
|
Accuracy Testing GRO in Water:
Sitelab's
UVF-3100 performed well testing blind, NELAC certified, spiked water samples
provided by Environmental Resource Associates (Arvada, CO). Results
were compared to the GRO in water concentrations reported by 83
participating laboratories using gas chromatography.
Examples of laboratory GRO methods used in this study included U.S. EPA 8015, 8015B,
8015M, 8020, 8260B, California LUFT, Maine 4.2.17, NWTPH-Gx and IDNR OA-1. |
|
 |
 |
|
»GRO
in Water Performance Study |
|
»Other
Water Performance Studies |
|
|
U.S. EPA GRO Spike Recovery
Performance:
During the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency's TPH in Soil Evaluation Study, a group of soils were
spiked in triplicate with weathered gasoline having variable
concentrations. Weathered gasoline contains BTEX and
other volatile petroleum hydrocarbons, which make up the GRO
fraction found in total petroleum hydrocarbons.
Results were compared to a certified laboratory who
performed SW-846 Method 8015B.
EPA evaluated Sitelab's UVF-3100A and six other
manufacturers during the program.
Both Sitelab and the laboratory GC method have the
ability to measure GRO and DRO separately in TPH.
Sitelab was the only participant who's field device is
capable of performing these two tests. |
|
 |
|
|
Innovative
Technology Verification Report No. EPA/600/R-01/080 |
|
U.S. EPA Soils from Air Force Base Site:
Soils from Kelly Air Force Base
in San Antonio, Texas, were analyzed for GRO as part of the
EPA’s TPH in Soil Evaluation Study.
Samples were collected from an active underground
storage tank (UST) farm, that serves as the government vehicle
refueling station at the base. Soils tested consisted
of sandy clays with silty sand and gravel.
EPA reported that for GRO measurement bias "seven of the
eight UVF-3100A results were within 50 percent of the
reference method result," page 66.
Samples collected from other environmental sites located in
Indiana and California were included during the study (87
samples in total). TPH was reported by adding the GRO
and DRO concentrations together. |
|
 |
 |
|
Sitelab technician tests
samples with EPA’s contractor, Tetra Tech, observing during the final
demonstration at the Port Hueneme Navy Base in southern California |
|
»Download
Sitelab's EPA Evaluation Report |
»See this
plus more EPA performance studies highlighting Sitelab's success |
|
|
|
|
GRO Fingerprinting Applications: for Soils
Test GRO, DRO and PAHs
with our UVF-3100D analyzer to identify your site's
contamination! |
|
for NAPL forensics:
|
or for Octane at the pump:
 |
|
|
