USGS ScienceSearch

Geology topics

M. E. Rosen

Publications and source records attributed to M. E. Rosen.

2 recordsLinked to original sources

Comparison of downhole and surface sampling for the determination of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in ground water

The relative precision and accuracy of sampling and analysis methods for the determination of trace concentrations of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in ground water were compared. Samples were collected from a well containing nanogram‐per‐liter (ng/L) to microgram‐per‐liter (μg/L) levels of VOCs. A Keck helical rotor submersible pump was used to collect samples at the surface for analysis by purge and trap (P&T) and for analysis by adsorption/thermal desorption (ATD). Downhole samples were collected by passing water through an ATD cartridge. Although slight spontaneous bubble outgassing occurred when the water was brought to the surface, the relative precisions and comparabilities of the surface and downhole methods were generally found to be equivalent from a statistical point of view. A main conclusion of this study is that bringing sample water to the surface for placement in VOC vials (and subsequent analysis by P&T) can be done reliably under many circumstances. However, care must still be taken to prevent adsorption losses and cross contamination. Samples subject to strong bubble outgassing will need to be handled in a special fashion (e.g., by downhole ATD) to minimize volatilization losses. Additionally, the higher sensitivity of the ATD method allows lower detection limits than are possible with P&T. For example, several compounds present at the ng/L level could be determined with confidence by ATD, but not by P&T.

New Jersey

Effects of sample isolation and handling on the recovery of purgeable organic compounds

This report compares the recovery of purgeable organic compounds (POCs) obtained by using a downhole isobaric sampler developed by the U.S. Geological Survey, a helical-rotor submersible pump, and a point source bailer to collect and isolate samples of ground water from three wells in Now York and New Jersey: the samples contained a total of 13 PCX's delectable at concentrations ranging from 0.5 μg/L to about 400 μg/L. This report also compares the effects of sample handling, specifically the differences in PCX concentration recovery when an isobaric sample container is filled at land surface vs. when it is filled downhole. and when samples art taken using a bailer with and without a bottom-emptying device. These case studies are used to quantify the possible effects of different sample-isolation find sample-handling techniques on POC recovery. The relative effectiveness of the three devices varied by site and by compound. Overall, the POC recoveries achieved by using the helical-rotor submersible pump and the downlink isobaric sampler were not significantly different at the 95 percent confidence, level. POC recovery obtained by using the point source bailer was 11 percent lower overall. The downhole isobaric sampler results exhibited smaller coefficients of variation than did the helical-rotor submersible pump or the point-source bailer results. However, the differences between the coefficients of variation of the downhole isobaric sampler and those of the helical-rotor submersible pump were not significant at the 95 percent confidence level. The nonsignificant smaller coefficient of variation of the downhole isobaric sampler apparently resulted from two fewer sample handling steps that exposed the sample water to ambient air. An independent experiment performed with a different downhole sampler at one of the wells used in this investigation produced a similar statistical result. Also, the POC recovery obtained by pouring sample water out the lop of a point source bailer into 40-mL vials was S percent lower than that obtained by filling vials from a bailer with a bottom-emptying device.

Ground Water Monitoring and Remediation