General Class Properties

When identifying an ECPT probe class for an environmental investigation several questions must be answered prior to beginning the selection process and include:

• subsurface zones (saturated or unsaturated) to be investigated,

• compounds required for analysis, and

• precision amount of analysis required.

The maximum allowable cost must also be identified.

With these analysis and cost questions in mind, Table 5.1 was constructed to identify general class properties for each of the six ECPT classes identified in the study. The table can be used as a tool to select a probe class for further investigation. Besides the questions related to the analysis and cost, the developmental availability of the probe class must first be consistent with the time of intended use and is therefore presented initially in the table. As stated in Chapter 4, all the probes are generally available either for purchase or contract for use except those in the Developing class.

The subsurface zone in which the probe is intended for use is shown next; all the probe classes may be used in the saturated zone and half may also be utilized in the unsaturated zone.

At a minimum, most ECPT probes may be used for the delineation of contaminate plumes or identification of areas wluch are contaminated versus those which are not. As discussed in Chapter 1, these types of analyses are considered qualitative. The probe classes were evaluated for the possibility of detection on this basis for five major compound classes shown in Table 5.1. Compound classes marked with an ¹¹X¹¹ may be qualitatively detected, and all the probe classes except the Hydrogeology class are able to detect at least one of the five compound classes to this minimum level of detection. The symbol ¹¹

*

¹¹ next to an "X" indicates compounds which are more easily analyzed by a probe class.

Table 5: 1 Analysis capabilities and properties of ECPT probe classes

Probe Class Availability Zone Compounds Analysis Purchase

Cost Petroleum PAH Solvents Acid/Base Metals Qualitative Identify Quantitative

Resistivity/ Com Sat

X X X X* X

^y N N L

Conductivity

RPT Com Sat

X X X X* X

^y N N L

Fluorescence Com/Cont Both

X* X - - -

^{y SEMI SEMI H}

Developing Dev Both

X X X

-

X

^y POSS POSS ?

Geohydrolo2Y Com Sat NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA ?

Surface Com/Cont Both(l)

X* X* X* X* X*

^{y y y L-H}

Analysis

Notes:

Com = commercially available Cont = contract hired for use

Dev = developmental, commercial release unknown Sat= saturated zone

Both= saturated and unsaturated zone

Y or X = majority of probes in class are applicable.

N or - = majority of probes in class are not applicable

SEMI = full qualitative identification not possible or semi-quantitative analysis only possible POSS =maybe possible once probe is available

? = no data available NA = not applicable

(1) Analysis performed by gas sampling in the unsaturated zone and water sampling in the saturated zone

Some probe classes may allow for higher levels of analyses, i.e. identification of specific contaminates when more than one compound is present in a contaminated matrix or semi-quantitative analysis, in addition to qualitative analysis. The abilities of the probe classes for these types of analyses are also shown in Table 5.1. The possibility of

identifying specific contaminants is listed µnder the heading "Identify". The letter "Y"

under one of the three analysis levels indicates that generally, the analysis level may be attained with the ECPT probe class. It should be noted that the symbol "SEMI" in the case of the Fluorescence class denotes that a full degree of analysis has not been fully realized to identify contaminants and for quantitative analyses. For example, the identification that different compounds are present in the matrix may be possible, but specific identification ofthe compounds may not be possible in the qualitative sense.

Similarly, specific quantitative contaminate levels may not be possible, but differing

"semi-qualitative" levels of contamination, e.g. high versus low, may be identified.

The general purchase cost of each probe class is the final catagory presented in Table 5.1. Only two levels are presented; either "L" denoting a lower capital cost catagory, and ¹¹H ¹¹ denoting a higher capital cost catagory. Very general classifications were deliberately chosen in this catagory because the cost was known for only 40 percent of the probes identified in the study.

Properties of a probe class include general advantages and disadvantages which are inherent in the probe class and these are.shown in Table 5.2 for each of the probe classes.

General advantages and limitations of ECPT probes were presented in Chapter 1.

Table 5.2: ECPT Probe Classes Advantages and Disadvantages Probe Class

I

Advantages

Resistivity/

Conductivity

•

Simple to use and interpret

•

Low capital cost

•

Continuous Measurements PRT

•

Monitoring or applicability of

bioremediation

Moderately simple to use

•

Fluorescence

•

Measurements possible in both saturated and unsaturated

Developing

zones

•

Possibility of qualitative identification and quantitative

Hydrogeology

•

Detection of hydrological properties important for contaminant transport Surface Analysis

•

High degr~e of accuracy,

qualitative identification and quantitative analysis possible

•

Knowledge of subsurface not required for interpretation

Disadvantages

• . Sensitive to soil type and other matrix properties

•

Limited use for identification of contaminates

•

Redox potential difficult to measure accurately

•

High capital cost

•

Complex technology

•

Possible matrix effects

•

May not be available

•

Possibly expensive

•

Possible complex technology

•

May not be possible to combine with conventional CPT probes

•

No environmental analysis capabilities

•

Not applicable ( or impractical) in low permeability soils

•

Not continuous

•

Real-time often sacrificed for increased accuracy

Chapter 6

Conclusions

Environmental cone penetrometer probes produce more cost effective and real-time analyses compared to the conventional method of sampling for environmental

investigations. There are some limitations of the technology which should be evaluated prior to use. Currently, there are six classes ofECPT probes:

.. Resistivity/Conductivity

• PRT

• Fluorescence

• Developing

• Hydrogeology, and

• Surface Analysis.

The probe classes differ in their measurement possibilities and corresponding

measurement techniques. Within each class their may be many different probe specific capabilities and measurement techniques for differing degrees of cost.

The author would like to emphasize again that the results of this study were evaluated based on published and unpublished data ( e.g. sales brochures). The information for each of the probes presented in this report is by no means comprehensive, and therefore, manufacturers or development sources should be contacted directly for more detailed, up-to-date information.

Chapter 7

References

7.1 PUBLISHED REFERENCES

Apitz, S.E, Borbridge, L.M., Lieberman, S.H., and Theriault, G.A., (1992a). "Remote in situ determination of fuel products in soils: field results and laboratory investigations", Analusis, 20, pp 461-474.

Apitz, S.E., Borbridge, L.M., Bracchi, K., and Lieberman, S.H., (1992b). "The fluorescent response of fuels in soils: insights into fuel-soil interaction" , International Symposium on Monitoring Toxic Chemicals and Biomarkers, T.Vo. Dinh, Editor, Proc.

SPIE 1716

Archie, G.E. (1942). "The electrical resistivity log as an aid in determining some

reservoir characteristics. ^{11 ,} Transactions of the American Institute of Mineral Metallurgy Engineering, Vol. 146, pp. 56-62

ARA (Applied Research Associates), (1994), Cone Penetration Equipment and Capabilities, p 54.

Baker, K.H. and Herson, D.S., (1994). Bioremediation, McGraw-Hill, pp. 173-201 Bear, (1979). Hydraulics of Ground Water, McGraw-Hill, New York

. .

Bowders, J.J., and Daniel, D.E., (1994). Workshop on Advancing Technology for Cone Penetration Testing For Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Site Characterization, Summary Report, Austin, Texas, USA.

Bratton, W., (1994). Presentation at The Workshop on Advancing Technology for Cone

· Penetration Testing For Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Site Characterization, published in Summary Report, Austin, Texas, USA

Buttner, W.B., Penrose, W.R., and Stetter, J.R., (1995). "Field-usable portable analyzer for chlorinated organic compounds", Published in the Proceedings ofEnvironmental Technology Development Through Industry Partnership, Morgantown, West Virginia, October 1995, pp. 445-454.

Campanella, R.G., Weemes I., (1990). "Development and use of an electrical resistivity cone for groundwater contamination studies", Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 27, pp. 557-567.

CPT'95: International Symposium on Cone Penetrometer Testing, Linkoping 1995, Vol.

1 and 2, Swedish Geotechnical Society: Report 3:95, Linkoping, Sweden

Davey, M., Borbridge, L.M, Lieberman, S.H., Wu, K.M, (1994), "The Effect ofHumic Material on Fluorescence", (unpublished)

Drever, J.I., (1988). The geochenistry of natural waters (Second Edition), Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, p 437.

EIC Laboratories, Inc., (1996). Excerpt from recent report on raman spectroscopy instrument development, received from John Haas, pp. 1-30.

Jackson, P.D., Taylor-Smith, D., and Stanford, P.N. (1978). "Resistivity-porosity­

particle shape relationships for marine sands", Geophysics, Vol. 46, No. 6, pp. 1250-1268.

Jacobs, P.A, Youdan, D.G., and Hubbard, G. (1995). "The laser induced fluorescence (LIF) cone for the in situ evaluation of hydrocarbon contamination\ 'Monitor '95 Conference/exhibition organized by Spring Innovations, Manchester, England.

Jacobs, P.A., Wright, M.J., and Boorse, S., (1996). "The role of in situ testing in the investigation and remediation of contaminated sites" Environmental Geotechnics 96' Conference, Paris, France

Knowlton, R., Strong, W., Onsurez, J. and Rogoff, E. (1995). "Advances in hydrologic measurement techniques - in situ cone penetrometer applications", International

Conference on Environmental Monitors and Hazardous Waste Site Remediation,

European Symposium on Optics for Environmental and Public Safety, Munich, Germany Kokan,, M.J. (1990). "Evaluation of resistivity cone penetrometer in studying

groundwater quality". B.A. Sc. thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada

Larsson, R. (1995). The CPT Test. Information 15E, Swedish Geotechnical Institute, Linko ping, Sweden. pp 77.

Lieberman, S.H., Apitz, S.E., Borbridge, L.M., and Theriault, G.A., (1992). "Subsurface screening of petroleum hydrocarbons in soils via laser induced fluorometry over optical fibers with a cone penetrometer system", International Conference on Monitoring Toxic Chemicals and Biomarkers, T. Vo Dinh, Editor, Proc. SPIE 1716.

Lieberman, S.H., Knowles, D.S., McGinnis, W.C., Davey, M., Stang, P.M., and McHugh, D., (1995a). "Intercomparison ofin situ measurements of petroleum hydrocarbons using a cone penetrometer deployed laser induced fluorescence (LIF) sensor with conventional laboratory-based measurements", Symposium Proceedings, Fourth International Symposium on Field Screening Methods for Hazardous Waste and Toxic Chemicals, Las Vegas, Nevada, USA

Lieberman, S.H, Theriault, G.A., and Knowles, D.S., (1995b). "Laser induced breakdown spectroscopy for rapid delineation of metals in soils", Symposium Proceedings, Fourth International Symposium on Field Screening Methods for Hazardous Waste and Toxic Chemicals, Las Vegas, Nevada, USA

Lieberman, S.H., (1996). Compilation of papers made for Workshop 7, 10th Annual Conference on Contaminated Soils, University of Massachusetts at Amherst, October, 1995.

Olie, J.J., Van Ree, C.C.D.F., Bremmer, C., (1992). "In situ measurement by

chemoprobe of groundwater from in situ sanitation of acid spill", Geotechnique, Vol. 42, No. 1, pp. 13-21

Olie, J.J. and Viergever, M.A., (1995a). "Present detection techniques for dredging and the treatment of sludge: state of the art", Proceedings of the 14th World Dredging Congress,

Amsterdam, November 1995; pp 443-458.

Olie, J.J. and Sellmeijer J.B., (1995b). "Floating layer detection with the hydrocarbon probe: results, calibration, and sampling strategy", Proceedings of the Fifth International FZK/TNO Conference on Contaminated Soil, Maastricht, The Netherlands, pp. 531-532.

Okoye, C.N., Cotton, T.R, and O'Meara, D., (1995) "Application ofresistivity cone penetrometer testing for qualitative delineation of creasote contamination in saturated soils", Proceedings from the Geoenvironment 2000 Specialty Conference, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA, Publication No. 46 from ASCE, pp 151-166.

ONeill, D.A., Baldi, G., and Della Torre, A., (1995), "The multifunctional Envirocone®

test system", International Conference on Advances in Site Investigation Practice, London, England, Vol. 2.

Robertson, P.K. and Campanella, R.G. (1988). "Guidelines for using the CPT, CPTU and Marchetti DMT for geotechnical design". U.S. Department of Transportation.

Report No. FHWA-PA-87-022+-84-24. Vol. 2.

Petrucci, R.N. (1985). General Chemistry - Principles and Modem Applications, Fourth Edition, Macmillan Publishing Company, New York, NY. p 874.

Piccoli, S., and Benoit, J., (1995) "Geo-environmental testing using the Envirocone®", Proceedings from the Geoenvironment 2000 Specialty Conference, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA, Publication No. 46 from ASCE, pp 93-104.

Saggese, S., and Greenwell, R., (1995). "Fiber optic/cone penetrometer system for subsurface heavy metals detection", Conference on Environmental Technology

Development Through Industry Partnership, Morgantown, West Virginia, October 1995, DOE pub. DOE/MC/32089-96/C0615.

Schwarzenbach, R.P., Gschwend, P.M., and Imboden, D.M. (1993). Environmental Organic Chemistry, John Wiley & Sons, Irie., New York, NY, pp. 8-40.

Shell Research, (1994}oral presentation, Sittingboume, UK.

Strutynsky, AL, Sandiford, RE., and Cavaliere, D., (1991). "Use of peizometric cone penetration testing with electrical conductivity measurements for the detection of hydrocarbon contamination in saturated granular soils. Current Practices in Groundwater and Vadose Zone Investigations, ASIM STP 1118.

Testa, S.M. and Winegardner, D.L., (1991). Restoration of Petroleum-Contaminated Aquifers, Lewis Publishers, Inc., Chelsea, Michigan, USA, p 53.

Topp G.C., Davis J.L., and Annan, AP., (1980). "Electromagnetic determination of soil water content: measurements in coaxial transmission lines", Water Resource Research, Vol. 16. pp. 574-582

Tonks, D.M., Hunt, S.D., and Bayne, J.M., (1993) "Use of the conductivity probe to evaluate groundwater contamination", Ground Engineering, November 1993, pp. 24-29 USEPA, (United States Environmental Protection Agency), (1995a). "Laser induced fluorometry/cone penetrometer technology demonstration plan", Consortium for Site Characterization Technology, Las Vegas, Nevada, USA

USEPA, (United States Environmental Protection Agency), (1995b ). "Rapid Optical Screen Tool (ROST™): Innovation Technology Evaluation Report", Office of Research and Development, Washington D.C. Doc. No. EPN540/R-95/519

USEPA, (United States Environmental Protection Agency), (1995c). "Site

Characterization Analysis Penetrometer System (SCAPS): Innovation Technology Evaluation Report", Office of Research and Development, Washington D.C. Doc. No.

EPN540/R-95/520

Van Ree, C.C.D.F. and Olie, J.J., (1993). "The development of in situ measurement techniques by means of CPT -equipment in the Netherlands", Third International

Symposium, Field Screening Methods for Hazardous Wastes and Toxic Chemicals, Las Vegas, Nevada, USA, pp. 296-303.

Visser, W., Olie, J.J., Bremmer, .C., and Heuvel, M.v.d., (1993). "The use of in situ measurement techniques for soil pollution problems", Proceedings of the Fourth International KFK/TNO Conference on Contaminated Soil, Berlin, Germany, pp. 631-639.

7.2 COMMERCIAL/DEVELOPMENT SOURCES AND COMMUNICATIONS

A.P.vd. Berg, (1996). Heerenveen, The Netherlands·

Applied Research Associates, (1996). South Royalton, Vermont, USA,

Note: Vertek is commercial sales branch of Applied Research Associates Argonne National Laboratory, (1996). Argonne, Illinois, USA

Babineau, J., Applied Research Associates:

(1996a, July 3): telephone conversation (1996b, April 25): telephone conversation (1996c, July 8): email

Butler, J., Geotech

(1996, April 17): Letter and

(1996, April 18): phone conversation Buttner, W.J., Transducer Research Inc.

(1996, March 21): Letter

Cespedes, E., U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station (1996, April 26): Fax

Delft Geotechnics, (1996). AB Delft, The Netherlands Duyfjes, A., A.P.vd. Berg

(1996, March 19): Fax

EIC Laboratories, Inc., (1996). Norwood, Massachusetts, USA FCI Environmental Inc., (1996). Las Vegas, Nevada, USA GeoMil Equipment B.V. (1996) Sassenheim, The Netherlands

Geoprobe (1996). Salina, Kansas, USA. European Distributor: Geoprobe Environmental

Technologies, Waterloo, Belgium

Geotech, (Geotech Environmental Equipment, Inc.), (1996). Denver, Colorado, USA Hogentogler (1996). Columbia, Maryland, USA

Lieberman, S.M., NRaD

(1996a, April 15): Phone conversation.

(1996b, July 10): Email.

Loral/Lockheed Martin (1996). Paoli, Pennsylvania,USA

NRaD (U.S. Navy, Naval Command, Control and Ocean Surveillance Center), (1996).

San Diego, California, USA Olie, J.J., Delft Geotechnics

(1996a, April, 22): Email letter (1996b, April, 18): Email letter O'Neill, D.A., (1996), IS:r,.,ms, Italy Pluimgraaff, D., GeoMil Equipment B.V.

(1996, June, 28): Fax

Robitaille, G. U.S. Army Environmental Center, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland, USA

(1996, April 29): Fax

Transducer Research, Inc. (1996). Aurora, Illinois, USA

Waterways Experiment Station, U.S. Army Corps. of Engineers, (1996). Vicksburg, Missisippi, USA

In document A review of Environmental Cone-Penetration Probes (Page 51-0)