Use of on-site high performance liquid chromatography to evaluate the magnitude and extent of organic contaminants in aquifers

D.F. Goerlitz; B.J. Franks

doi:10.1111/j.1745-6592.1989.tb01146.x

Home/Archive/USGS

USGS · 70015539

Use of on-site high performance liquid chromatography to evaluate the magnitude and extent of organic contaminants in aquifers

D.F. Goerlitz·B.J. Franks

View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Appraisal of ground water contaminated by organic substances raises problems of difficult sample collection and timely chemical analysis. High-performance liquid chromatography was evaluated for on-site determination of specific organic contaminants in ground water samples and was used at three study sites. Organic solutes were determined directly in water samples, with little or no preparation, and usually in less than an hour after collection. This information improved sampling efficiency and was useful in screening for subsequent laboratory analysis. On two occasions, on-site analysis revealed that samples were undergoing rapid change, with major solutes being upgraded and alteration products being formed. In addition to sample stability, this technique proved valuable for monitoring other sampling factors such as compositional changes with respect to pumping, filtration, and cross contamination. -Authors

Explore related subjects

Ground Water Monitoring Review Article

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeX RIS

D.F. Goerlitz, B.J. Franks. 2007-02-22. Use of on-site high performance liquid chromatography to evaluate the magnitude and extent of organic contaminants in aquifers. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6592.1989.tb01146.x

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

USGS2007

Screening of ground water samples for volatile organic compounds using a portable gas chromatograph

A portable gas chromatograph was used to screen 32 ground water samples for volatile organic compounds. Seven screened samples were positive; four of the seven samples had volatile organic substances identified by second-column confirmation. Four of the seven positive, screened samples also tested positive in laboratory analyses of duplicate samples. No volatile organic compounds were detected in laboratory analyses of samples that headspace screening indicated to be negative. Samples that contained volatile organic compounds, as identified by laboratory analysis, and that contained a volatile organic compound present in a standard of selected compounds were correctly identified by using the portable gas chromatograph. Comparisons of screened-sample data with laboratory data indicate the ability to detect selected volatile organic compounds at concentrations of about 1 microgram per liter in the headspace of water samples by use of a portable gas chromatograph.

Ground Water Monitoring Review↗

USGS2007

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↗