Optimization of Field and Laboratory Sample Processing for Characterization of Metallic Residues at Military Training Ranges

  • J. L. Clausen
  • T. Georgian
  • K. H. Gardner
  • T. A. Douglas
Article

Abstract

Military ranges are unlike many waste sites because the contaminants, both energetics and metals, are heterogeneously distributed in soil during explosive detonation or ballistic impact and cannot be readily characterized using conventional grab sampling. The Incremental Sampling Methodology (ISM) has been successful for characterization of energetic contamination in soils, but no published ISM processing studies for soils with small arms range metals such as Pb, Cu, Sb, and Zn exists. This study evaluated several ISM sample-processing steps: (1) field splitting to reduce the sample mass shipped to the analytical laboratory, (2) necessity of milling, and (3) processing a larger subsample mass for digestion in lieu of milling. Cone-and-quartering and rotary sectorial splitting techniques yielded poor precision and positively skewed distributions. Hence, an increase in digestion mass from 2 to 10 g was evaluated with milled and unmilled samples. Unmilled samples yielded results with the largest variability regardless of aliquot mass.

Keywords

Incremental sampling Heterogeneity Metals Small-arms range Soil 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge the Department of Defense, Environmental Science and Technology Certification Program (ESTCP), which provided financial support through the ESTCP ER-0918 project, Demonstration of the Attributes of Multi-Increment Sampling and Proper Sample Processing Protocols for the Characterization of Metals on DoD Facilities, for Dr. Clausen to conduct the initial research. ESTCP provided a review of the study design and the final report. ESTCP had no involvement in the analysis, interpretation, writing, or decision to submit this paper for publication. The research presented in this paper is from a thesis submitted to the Graduate School at the University of New Hampshire as part of the requirements for completion of a doctoral degree.

References

  1. Alaska (2009) Draft guidance on multi increment soil sampling. Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, Division of Spill Preventions and Response, Contaminated Sites Program, Juneau. https://dec.alaska.gov/spar/csp/guidance/multi_increment.pdf
  2. Clausen JL (2015) Sampling of soils with metallic residues collected from military small-arms ranges. Dissertation, University of New Hampshire, Durham. https://search.proquest.com/docview/1697333143?pq-origsite=gscholar
  3. Clausen J, Korte K (2009) The distribution of metals in soils and pore water at three U.S. military training facilities. Soil Sedim Contam 18(5):546–563CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Clausen J, Georgian T, Richardson J, Bednar A, Perron N, Penfold L, Anderson D, Gooch G, Hall T, Butterfield E (2012a) Evaluation of sampling and sample preparation modifications for soil containing metal residues. ERDC TR–12-1. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Engineer Research and Development Center, Hanover. http://acwc.sdp.sirsi.net/client/search/asset:asset?t:ac=$N/1006020
  5. Clausen JL, Richardson J, Korte N, Gooch G, Hall T, Perron N, Butterfield E, Walsh ME, Taylor S (2012b) Metal residue deposition from military pyrotechnic devices and field sampling guidance. ADA565449. Prepared for U.S. Army Environmental Command, Fort Sam Houston, TX by U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Engineer Research and Development Center, Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory, Hanover. http://www.dtic.mil/get-tr-doc/pdf?AD=ADA565449
  6. Clausen JL, Georgian T, Bednar A, Perron N, Bray A, Tuminello P, Gooch G, Mulherin N, Gelvin A, Beede M, Saari S, Jones W, Tazik S (2013) Demonstration of incremental sampling methodology for soil containing metallic residues. ERDC/CRREL TR-13-9. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Engineer Research and Development Center, Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory, Hanover. http://acwc.sdp.sirsi.net/client/search/asset/1030080
  7. Florida (2013) Draft incremental sampling methodology (ISM) guidance. Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Waste Cleanup, TallahasseeGoogle Scholar
  8. Gerlach RW, Nocerino JM (2003) Guidance for obtaining representative laboratory analytical subsamples from particle laboratory samples. EPA 600/R-03/027. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  9. Gerlach R, Cobb DE, Robb GA, Nocerino JM (2002) Gy sampling theory in environmental studies. 1. Assessing soil-splitting protocols. J Chemomet 16:321–328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gy PM (1992) Sampling of heterogeneous and dynamic material systems. Elsevier, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  11. Hawaii (2016) Technical guidance manual. Hawaii Department of Health, Office of Hazard Evaluation and Emergency Response. http://www.hawaiidoh.org/
  12. Hewitt A, Jenkins T, Ramsey C, Bjella K, Ranney T, Perron N (2005) Estimating energetic residue loading on military artillery ranges: large decision units. ERDC/CRREL TR-05-7. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Engineer Research and Development Center, Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory, Hanover. http://www.dtic.mil/get-tr-doc/pdf?AD=ADA434241
  13. Hewitt AD, Jenkins TF, Walsh ME, Walsh MR, Bigl SR, Ramsey CA (2007) Protocols for collection of surface soil samples at military training and testing ranges for the characterization of energetic munition constituents. ERDC/CRREL TR-07-10. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Engineer Research and Development Center, Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory, Hanover. http://www.dtic.mil/get-tr-doc/pdf?AD=ADA471045
  14. Hewitt AD, Jenkins TF, Walsh ME, Bigl SR, Brochu S (2009) Validation of sampling protocol and the promulgation of method modifications for the characterization of energetic residues on military testing and training ranges. ERDC/CRREL TR-09-6. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Engineer Research and Development Center, Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory, Hanover. http://www.dtic.mil/get-tr-doc/pdf?AD=ADA517341
  15. Hewitt AD, Jenkins TF, Big SR, Clausen JL, Craig H, Walsh ME, Martel R, Nieman K, Taylor S, Walsh MR (2012) Site characterization for munitions constituents. EPA-505-S-11-01. US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. http://www.USEPA.gov/fedfac/pdf/site_characterization_for_munitions_constituents.pdf
  16. ITRC (2012) Technical and regulatory guidance: incremental sampling methodology. ISM-1. Interstate Technology and Regulatory Council, Incremental Sampling Methodology Team, Washington, DC. http://www.itrcweb.org/ISM-1/
  17. Jenkins T, Hewitt A, Walsh M, Ranney T, Ramsey C, Grant C, Bjella K (2005a) Representative sampling for energetic compounds at military training ranges. Environ Forensics 6:45–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Jenkins T, Thiboutot S, Ampleman G, Hewitt A, Walsh ME, Ranney T, Ramsey C, Grant C, Collins C, Brochu S, Bigl, S Pennington J (2005b) Identity and distribution of residues of energetic compounds at military live-fire training ranges. ERDC-TR-05-10. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Engineer Research and Development Center, Hanover. http://www.dtic.mil/get-tr-doc/pdf?AD=ADA441160
  19. USACE (2009) Implementation of incremental sampling (IS) of soil for the military munitions response program, Interim Guidance Document (IGD) 09–02. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, HuntsvilleGoogle Scholar
  20. USEPA (1996) SW-846 Method 3050B: acid digestion of sediments, sludges, and soils. In: Test methods for evaluating solid waste, physical/chemical methods. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. http://www.epa.gov/osw/hazrad/testmethods/sw846/pdfs/3050b.pdf
  21. USEPA (2006) Method 6010C: inductively coupled plasma-atomic emission spectrometry. In: Test methods for evaluating solid waste, physical/chemical methods. SW-846. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  22. Walsh ME, Ramsey CA, Jenkins TF (2002) The effect of particle size reduction on sub sampling variance for explosives residues in soil. Chemosphere 49:1265–1271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Walsh ME, Ramsey CA, Collins CM, Hewitt AD, Walsh MR, Bjella K, Lambert D, Perron N (2005) Collection methods and laboratory processing of samples from Donnelly Training Area Firing Points Alaska 2003. ERDC/CRREL TR-05-6. US Army Corps of Engineers, Engineer Research and Development Center, Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory, Hanover. http://www.crrel.usace.army.mil/techpub/CRREL_Reports/reports/TR05-6.pdf

Copyright information

© This is a U.S. Government work and not under copyright protection in the US; foreign copyright protection may apply  2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Engineer Research Development Center, Cold Regions Research and Engineering LaboratoryU.S. Army Corps of EngineersHanoverUSA
  2. 2.U.S. Army Corps of EngineersOmahaUSA
  3. 3.University of New HampshireDurhamUSA
  4. 4.ERDC-CRRELU.S. Army Corps of EngineersFort WainwrightUSA

Personalised recommendations