.

.

.

 GRO Applications» 

 

 Home Page»

 What's New?»

 Products & Services»

 UVF Technology»

 Applications»

 EPA Performance» 

 Test Procedures»

 Contact Us»

 

  Other Case Studies:

  » GRO in Water

  » DRO in Soil

  » DRO in Water

  » TPH in Soil

  » TPH in Water

  » PAHs in Soil

  » EPH in Soil

  » See all case studies

 

 
 

Learn more about Sitelab's calibration kit for GRO applications used in these case studies:

 
 

 

 

 

   

 

     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. 
  Sitelab technician testing soils from truck

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. 

  Soil borings are split open and grab samples are collected...
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.

 

VOA vial containing GRO water sample...Click here for procedure

    »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.

 

Photo of Sitelab and other developers during final demonstration...

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 soils on-site using Sitelab's hydrocarbon fingerprinting method...

Test GRO, DRO and PAHs with our UVF-3100D analyzer to identify your site's contamination!

  for NAPL forensics:

Click here to learn how oil samples are prepared and tested...

              

or for Octane at the pump:

Visit our News Page for more details...

 

   Welcome to site-lab.com...          HOME   I   WHAT'S NEW   I   PRODUCTS & SERVICES   I  CASE STUDIES   UV FLUORESCENCE   I  TEST PROCEDURES   I  CONTACT US

© 2009  Sitelab Corporation   USA   All Rights Reserved