Canisters v. Sorbent Tubes: Vapor Intrusion Test Method Comparison



A carefully designed field vapor intrusion investigation consisted of three one-foot deep borings spaced one-foot apart at three locations within the perimeter of a former dry cleaner. One six-liter Summa canister (EPA Method TO-15) and two pump/packed tube assemblies (EPA Method TO-17) were used in each three-boring arrangement for a total of nine sampling locations. A ¼”-diameter length of Teflon® tubing was lowered into the hole until it was approximately one-inch from the bottom. The tubing had a screen frit (implanted prior to field work) in the end lowered down the hole to prevent the uptake of particle matter. The end of the tubing extending above ground had a stainless steel valve that had been swaged to it prior to sampling. Eight-hour tests were conducted at a gas flow rate of approximately 10 mL/min.

The results of the field comparisons compared exceptionally well (R-squared = 0.98 for PCE) on a relative concentration basis from location to location for PCE, TCE and 1,2-DCE (reported concentration range: 3.7-22,200 ug/m3). A comparison of the concentrations measured by each method revealed a linear relationship between molecular weight and the difference in concentration between the two methods. The TO-17 results were between 0.27 and 0.67 times lower than the TO-15 results on a consistent basis for PCE. The authors believe the major factors contributing to the differences are flow rates of sample collection, moisture effects and dilution procedures with the TO-15 method. Subsequent indoor air testing inside the structure allowed attenuation factor calculations for PCE that varied from 0.05 to 0.002 across the site.

Customer comments

No comments were found for Canisters v. Sorbent Tubes: Vapor Intrusion Test Method Comparison. Be the first to comment!