Advertisement

Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry

, Volume 407, Issue 21, pp 6417–6428 | Cite as

Analysis of hydraulic fracturing additives by LC/Q-TOF-MS

  • Imma Ferrer
  • E. Michael Thurman
Research Paper
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. High-Resolution Mass Spectrometry in Food and Environmental Analysis

Abstract

The chemical additives used in fracturing fluids can be used as tracers of water contamination caused by hydraulic fracturing operations. For this purpose, a complete chemical characterization is necessary using advanced analytical techniques. Liquid chromatography coupled with quadrupole time-of-flight mass spectrometry (LC/Q-TOF-MS) was used to identify chemical additives present in flowback and produced waters. Accurate mass measurements of main ions and fragments were used to characterize the major components of fracking fluids. Sodium adducts turned out to be the main molecular adduct ions detected for some additives due to oxygen-rich structures. Among the classes of chemical components analyzed by mass spectrometry include gels (guar gum), biocides (glutaraldehyde and alkyl dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride), and surfactants (cocamidopropyl dimethylamines, cocamidopropyl hydroxysultaines, and cocamidopropyl derivatives). The capabilities of accurate mass and MS-MS fragmentation are explored for the unequivocal identification of these compounds. A special emphasis is given to the mass spectrometry elucidation approaches used to identify a major class of hydraulic fracturing compounds, surfactants.

Keywords

Hydraulic fracturing Fracking Environmental High resolution Time-of-flight mass spectrometry Flowback waters Produced waters 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Dr. James Rosenblum and Dr. Yaal Lester for providing the flowback and produced water samples shown in Figs. 3 and 6, respectively. The samples were obtained through the AirWaterGas Sustainability Research Network, funded by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. CBET-1240584. We also thank Agilent Technologies for instrument support.

References

  1. 1.
    Vidic RD, Brantley SL, Vandenbossche JM, Yoxtheimer D, Abad JD (2013) Impact of shale gas development on regional water quality. Science 340 (6134): Article Number: 1235009Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Vengosh A, Jackson RB, Warner N, Darrah TH, Kondash A (2014) A critical review of the risks to water resources from unconventional shale gas development and hydraulic fracturing in the United States. Environ Sci Technol 48(15):8334–8348CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Brantley SL, Yoxtheimer D, Arjmand S, Grieve P, Vidic R, Pollak J, Llewellyn GT, Abad J, Simon C (2014) Water resource impacts during unconventional shale gas development: the Pennsylvania experience. Int J Coal Geol 126:140–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Osborn SG, Vengosh A, Warner NR, Jackson RB (2011) Methane contamination of drinking water accompanying gas-well drilling and hydraulic fracturing. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 108(20):8172–8176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Darrah TH, Vengosh A, Jackson RB, Warner NR, Poreda RJ (2014) Noble gases identify the mechanisms of fugitive gas contamination in drinking-water wells overlying the Marcellus and Barnett Shales. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 111(39):14076–14081CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Warner NR, Kresse TM, Hays PD, Down A, Karr JD, Jackson RB, Vengosh A (2013) Geochemical and isotopic variations in shallow groundwater in areas of the Fayetteville Shale development, north-central Arkansas. Appl Geochem 35:207–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Jackson RB, Vengosh A, Darrah TH, Warner NR, Down A, Poreda RJ, Osborn SG, Zhao KG, Karr JD (2013) Increased stray gas abundance in a subset of drinking water wells near Marcellus shale gas extraction. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 110(28):11250–11255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Warner NR, Christie CA, Jackson RB, Vengosh A (2013) Impacts of shale gas wastewater disposal on water quality in western Pennsylvania. Environ Sci Technol 47(20):11849–11857CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Abualfaraj N, Gurian PL, Olson MS (2014) Characterization of Marcellus shale flowback water. Environ Eng Sci 31(9):514–524CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Barbot E, Vidic NS, Gregory KB, Vidic RD (2013) Spatial and temporal correlation of water quality parameters of produced waters from devonian-age shale following hydraulic fracturing. Environ Sci Technol 47(6):2562–2569CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Jiang M, Hendrickson CT, VanBriesen JM (2014) Life cycle water consumption and wastewater generation impacts of a Marcellus shale gas well. Environ Sci Technol 48(3):1911–1920CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gassiat C, Gleeson T, Lefebvre R, McKenzie J (2013) Hydraulic fracturing in faulted sedimentary basins: numerical simulation of potential contamination of shallow aquifers over long time scales. Water Resour Res 49(12):8310–8327CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Maule AL, Makey CM, Benson EB, Burrows IJ, Scammell MK (2013) Disclosure of hydraulic fracturing fluid chemical additives: analysis of regulations. New Solutions: J Enviro Occup Health Policy: NS 23(1):167–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    FracFocus, FracFocus Chemical Disclosure Registry, Ground Water Pro-tection Council and Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission, 2013, http://fracfocus.org. Accessed Dec 2014. (2013)
  15. 15.
    Ferrer I, Thurman EM (2015) Chemical constituents and analytical approaches for hydraulic fracturing waters. Trends Environ Anal Chem 5:18–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Orem W, Tatu C, Varonka M, Lerch H, Bates A, Engle M, Crosby L, McIntosh J (2014) Organic substances in produced and formation water from unconventional natural gas extraction in coal and shale. Int J Coal Geol 126:20–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Orem WH, Tatu CA, Lerch HE, Rice CA, Bartos TT, Bates AL, Tewalt S, Corum MD (2007) Organic compounds in produced waters from coalbed natural gas wells in the Powder River Basin, Wyoming, USA. Appl Geochem 22(10):2240–2256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Strong LC, Gould T, Kasinkas L, Sadowsky MJ, Aksan A, Wackett LP (2013) Biodegradation in produced waters: chemistry, microbiology, and engineering. Abstr Pap Am Chem Soc 246Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lester Y, Ferrer I, Thurman EM, Sitterley KA, Korak JA, Aiken G, Linden KG (2015) Characterization of hydraulic fracturing flowback water in Colorado: implications for water treatment. Sci Total Environ 512-513C:637–644CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Maguire-Boyle SJ, Barron AR (2014) Organic compounds in produced waters from shale gas wells. Environ Sci-Proc Imp 16(10):2237–2248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Thacker BJC, Carlton DD, Hildenbrand ZL, Kadjo AF, Schug KA (2015) Chemical analysis of wastewater from unconventional drilling operations. Water 7:1568–1579CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Thurman EM, Ferrer I, Blotevogel J, Borch T (2014) Analysis of hydraulic fracturing flowback and produced waters using accurate mass: identification of ethoxylated surfactants. Anal Chem 86(19):9653–9661CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ferrer I, Zweigenbaum JA, Thurman EM (2013) Analytical methodologies for the detection of sucralose in water. Anal Chem 85(20):9581–9587CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Stringfellow WT, Domen JK, Camarillo MK, Sandelin WL, Borglin S (2014) Physical, chemical, and biological characteristics of compounds used in hydraulic fracturing. J Hazard Mater 275:37–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kawamura Y GUAR GUM: Chemical and technical assessment. http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/agns/pdf/jecfa/cta/69/Guar_gum.pdf
  26. 26.
    Kahrilas GA, Blotevogel J, Stewart PS, Borch T (2015) Biocides in hydraulic fracturing fluids: a critical review of their usage, mobility, degradation, and toxicity. Environ Sci Technol 49(1):16–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    McCurdy R (2011) High rate hydraulic fracturing additives in non-Marcellus unconventional shale. In: Proceedings of the technical workshops for the Hydraulic fracturing study: chemical & analytical methods, February 24–25, 2011, Arlington, VA, February; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2011Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Ferrer I, Furlong ET (2001) Identification of alkyl dimethylbenzylammonium surfactants in water samples by solid-phase extraction followed by ion trap LC/MS and LC/MS/MS. Environ Sci Technol 35(12):2583–2588CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Ferrer I, Furlong ET (2002) Accelerated solvent extraction followed by on-line solid-phase extraction coupled to ion trap LC/MS/MS for analysis of benzalkonium chlorides in sediment samples. Anal Chem 74(6):1275–1280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Whipple EB, Ruta M (1974) Structure of aqueous glutaraldehyde. J Org Chem 39(12):1666–1668CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Migneault I, Dartiguenave C, Bertrand MJ, Waldron KC (2004) Glutaraldehyde: behavior in aqueous solution, reaction with proteins, and application to enzyme crosslinking. BioTechniques 37(5):790–795Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Tashima T, Imai M, Kuroda Y, Yagi S, Nakagawa T (1991) Structure of a new oligomer of glutaraldehyde produced by aldol condensation reaction. J Org Chem 56(2):694–697CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    US House of Representatives, Committee on Energy and Commerce, 2011. Chemicals used in hydraulic fracturingGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Center for Environmental Mass SpectrometryUniversity of ColoradoBoulderUSA

Personalised recommendations