The Use of a Standpipe to Evaluate Ground Water Samplers |
| |
| Authors: | Doreen Y Tai Kenneth S Turner Lisa A Garcia |
| |
| Institution: | Doreen Y. Tai is a senior chemical engineer with the Hydrologic Instrumentation Facility, U.S. Geological Survey (Building 2101, Stennis Space Center, MS 39529). She received a B.S. in chemical engineering from Cheng-Kung University, Taiwan, Republic of China, and an M.A. in physical chemistry from Mount Holyoke College. Her current work includes developing water-sampling techniques and testing water-quality monitoring equipment.;Kenneth S. Turner received a B.S. in chemical engineering from Syracuse University. An environmental engineer with the U.S. Geological Survey (810 Bear Tavern Rd., Ste. 206, West Trenton, NJ 08628), he is developing ground water-sampling methods. Previously, he was involved in testing and evaluating field water-quality instrumentation.;Lisa A. Garcia is a staff assistant in the water- quality laboratory of the U.S. Geological Survey's Hydrologic Instrumentation Facility (Building 2101, Stennis Space Center, MS 39529). She tests water-quality and hazardous-waste monitoring equipment. |
| |
| Abstract: | A standpipe system was developed for testing the reliability of ground water samplers. The unit consists of a stainless steel pipe 5 inches (13 centimeters) in diameter and 100 feet (30.5 meters) in height. It has 14 sampling ports from which control samples can be withdrawn at the same time and position as the samples are collected by a sampler lowered to that position. Test solutions were made in two mixing tanks, totaling 260 gallons (980 liters), by diluting the concentrate of five volatile chlorohydrocarbons in water at two levels of concentration: 10-to-30 and 100-to-200 parts per billion (micrograms per liter).
A gas chromatograph interfaced with a purge-and-trap system was used to perform the analyses. Comparisons of the control samples with the sampler-collected samples have indicated that the three non-pumping samplers had recoveries in the range of 92.4 to 103.5 percent and the three pumping samplers had recoveries ranging from 97.7 to 101.5 percent. |
| |
| Keywords: | |
|
|
