decision making. Advantages of field analytical methods. FAMs range from adaptations of accepted laboratory methods with identical data quality objectives and.
x e n t years have marked a shift in the U S . public perception of and policy toward environmental contamination and hazardous waste production, treatI ment, and disposal. Legislation and changing public attitudes have altered the emphasis from expedient waste disposal to waste reduction, treatment, and remediation of contaminated sites. As a result, by the year 2020 more than 3000 national Superfund sites may be listed by EPA, with cleanup costs in excess of $150 billion (1-31. Moreover, the facility and landfill cleanups for the Department of Energy (DOE) and Department of Defense are estimated to exceed $ 2 trillion and $100 billion, respectively. DOE estimates that it will spend $ 1 5 4 5 billion for analytical services over the next 30 years. The current sample volume for hazardous constituent analyses exceeds 400,000 samples per year, and analytical costs at some of the larger DOE sites are in excess of $10 million annually ( 4 ) . Site characterization-one of the most important components of the cleanup process-is conducted before, during, and after remediation, with analytical costs accounting for u p to 80% of site delineation and 50% of remediation expenses (3). Current environmental sampling and analysis methods are time consuming, costly, and present potential exposure hazards to workers and the community. Measurement of environmental contaminants in the field can be preferable to laboratory analysis. The savings in time translate into cost savings by reducing the need for remobilization of field crews, and improved characterization resulting from “real-time,” interactive sampling decisions. In addition, manipulation during sample collection, transportation, and storage can affect the sample integrity and thus the analytical results. Therefore, where possible, in-situ measurements of environmental contaminants in soil, water, and waste are preferred if they meet the data quality and . objectives , are cost competitive. Field analvtical methods IFAMsl are designedto cheaply and rapidly produce data of sufficient quality to meet data quality objectives in nearreal time. We review here the state of the art and the application of gas chromatographylmass spectroscopy (GCIMS) FAMs. This important organic analytical technique is a prime example of the trend in several areas of chemical and physical
DEVELOPMENTS AND APPLICATIONS OF FIELD ~~
~
MASS SPECTROMETERS measurements of taking the measurement to the sample and providing information rapidly to facilitate decision making. Advantages of field analytical methods FAMs range from adaptations of accepted laboratory methods with identical data quality objectives and documentation requirements to various screening methods. The latter include methods in which compound classes, not specific compounds, are identified; in which data quality objectives are consistent with project requirements: and in which documentation requirements are abbreviated. The field
WILLIAM C, MCDONALD MITCHELL D. ERICKSON
336 A Environ. Sci. Technol., Vol. 28,No. 7, 1994
Argonne National Laboratory Argonne, IL 60439-4837
BRIAN M. ABRAHAM ALBERT ROBBAT, JR. Tufts University Medford, MA 02155
screening methods trade either cost savings or time savings for relaxed data quality objectives. The FAMs encompass transportable (van- or trailer-housed) procedures and instrumentation, portable methods and instrumentation, hand-held monitors, test kits, and dosimeters. Rapid screening methods can provide screening level results for at least 30 samples per day. Table 1 compares the EPA’s Offices of Emergency Response and Waste Program Enforcement levels with data use, limitations, and quality ( 5 ) . A critical point to note: The FAMs do not inherently have lower data quality than their laboratory counterparts and may, in some cases, as with volatile organic compounds (VOCs, see below), routinely produce better data. Cornel1 (6, 7) examined the error associated with field and laboratory methods and concluded that maximum overall uncertainties of 20&500% in field analytical data are acceptable in most site characterizations, where other uncertainties dwarf this error. He noted, for example, that the risk assessment values have an uncertainty of at least 100,000%.
001 3-936X/94/0927-336A$04.50/0 0 1994 American Chemical Society
Estimated cost savings for FAMs over traditional laboratory methods range as high as 70% (61.A detailed life-cycle cost comparison indicated that the total cost of VOC analyses in soil or water using fieldtransportable technology is about 18% of the cost associated with collecting and sending that sample to a commercial laboratory to obtain the identical information (8).At an annual rate of 3500 samples analyzed, the cost varied from $41 to $51 per sample for the transportable technologies, whereas the commercial laboratory cost was calculated at $254 per sample. Cost differences among the transportable instruments depend directly on the complexity and sophistication of the instrument a n d its data analysis capabilities. In addition, the rapid access to analytical results allows the sampling strategy to be modified onsite. This reduces the analysis time and the number of samples needed to determine contamination levels. Moreover, by minimizing sampling and providing real-time information, FAMs improve safety for remediation crews, reduce chain-ofcustody complications, and lessen the likelihood of sample degradation (9-11). Data acquired in the field may be used to direct the efforts of laboratory analysts, thus speeding their analysis (which can take weeks or months and lead to expensive delays for remediation
Site characterizatim Engineermg design Monitorma duma implemhatiofi Risk assessment
PRP determination
crews). The potential speed and flexibility offered by FAMs will be essential in cheaply and efficiently characterizing the thousands of haza r d o u s waste sites a r o u n d the United States. The use of FAMs is appropriate when the following four conditions are met: (1) a suitable FAM is available, (2) the detection limit of the FAM is lower than the regulatory cutoff or other minimum concentration of concern, (3) the uncertainty of the FAM-derived measurement accounts for less than 25% of the overall multiplicative uncertainty of the site cbaracterization process, and (4) rapid access to and use of information in making decisions is desired and integrated into project planning and management (7). The data gathered by field instrumentation generally have been compared with laboratory data under the assumption that laboratory values approximate true values. However, samples may degrade during transport as a result of evaporation, adsorption to container walls, and changes in the redox potential ofthe sample environment or in pH due to differing partial pressures of CO, ( 1 1 ) . Siegrist found that considerable bias may be introduced by the sampling and handling process, from -100% to +25% in some VOC measurements (12, 13). Spittler et al., using EPA SW 846, Method 5030, also reported a substantial
loss of volatiles with increasing sample holding time ( 1 4 ) . EPA is changing its stance on the application of field methods in the regulatory arena. If quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) is sufficient, FAMs may now be considered analytical methods instead of screening techniques. However, EPA remains cautious. In most cases, field data must still be verified by conventional laboratory analysis and flagged to indicate their source (10). Cornel1 found the precision of field analysis to closely resemble the precision of laboratory analysis and suggested that the "accuracy of field data may be corrected by calibrating the field data using a site-specific field versus laboratory calibration plot" (61. Whether this practice will be accepted at the regulatory level remains to be seen. Several problems have hindered the application of FAMs. Lack of field-usable technology has, until recently, been the most imposing obstacle. Considerable expertise is often required to operate complicated instrumentation in the field (IO). Adequate standard methods and QAlQC guidance have not been promulgated to ensure that data of known quality are generated. This lack of information about the data quality, especially in terms of legal defensibility, slows the acceptance of FAMs in planning site characterization activities. Finally, most
LBV
Lev
Site characterization Monitoring during Risk assessment PRP
determination
PRP determinati
Environ. Sci. Technol.. Vol. 28. No. 7. 1994 337 A
comparisons between field and laboratory analyses have been case studies: no comprehensive method validation study has compared field and laboratory analysis. GC and MS:Instrumentation and
Operation Fribush attributed the beginnings of the EPA Superfund field methods program to Thomas Spittler’s use of a portable GC for a waste site investigation in 1978 (10). Since then, GCs have been increasingly used to monitor VOCs, often the chief contaminants of a waste site. Mass spectrometry provides the specificity needed for many complex environmental samples. [Related technologies such as portable GCIion mobility spectrometry ( 15) are not covered in this article.) Efforts are currently under way to improve the speed of the chromatograph without sacrificing resolutioi (16-20),and new, high-temperatun columns extend the lifetime of the column and expand the “range and variety of compounds currently studied by GUMS” (21).In addition, the packed column has largely been replaced by capillary columns. These and other developments in GC are expected to be rapidly incorporated into the instrumentation and practice of field GUMS. Despite the power of GCIMS, GC retains the advantages of simplicity, lower weight, and much lower cost. Only recently, as mass spectrometers became more amenable to field analysis, has GClMS commonly been employed in the field. The mass analyzers most commonly used in field instruments are the linear quadrupole and the quadrupole ion trap. A quadrupole mass analyzer (22),also known as a quadrupole mass filter (QMF) or a linear quadrupole, consists of four parallel conducting hyperbolic or cylindrical rods (Figure 1). Because of its simplicity, durability, and ability to operate at relatively high pressures; the quadrupole has been the most commonly employed mass analyzer in field analysis. It suffers somewhat from a moderate- to lowresolution capability. The quadrupole ion trap is a three-dimensional quadrupole, consisting of a ring electrode and two end-cap electrodes (Figure 2). It can be thought of as a solid of revolution formed by rotating a linear quadrupole around an axis passing perpendicularly through the center of a pair of opposing (equipotential) hyperbolic rods. Recent advances in
ion trap technology have produced an instrument that is compact, durable, 10-100 times more sensitive than currently available linear quadrupoles (231,moderately selective, and capable of ion storage and tandem MS-all advantages for field applications. Scanning routines to improve the sensitivity of the ion trap MS also continue to be developed (24). On the down side, the ion trap has difficulties with air and wa-
338 A Envimn. Sci. Technol.. Vol. 28, No. 7, 1994
ter ion/molecule reactions which complicate the spectra (25). The GUMS systems gather and record sequentially acquired mass spectra, the mass analyzer typically scanning the mass-to-charge range (mlz) of the instrument once every second for the length of the chromatographic run. This information can be presented in three ways (Figure 3): as the individual mass spectrum of each band eluted from the
I ion curre iromr mass speb.., .or a 1
cally equivalent data as compared to standardized EPA methods” (28,
am, selected ion current profile, SIGC/MS analysis
29).
n
column: as a total ion current chromatogram that resembles the response of a conventional GC detector: and as an ion current profile also known as extracted ion current, arecord of the abundance of a single mlz as a function of chromatographic retention time. Commercially available field GCMS Unlike laboratory-based GUMS systems, relatively few portable (as opposed to transportable) GC/MS are commercially available. The portable GC/MS must be hardened to withstand a wide range of environmental conditions and be powered by batteries or a small generator. In contrast, only minor modifications of a commercial laboratory GCIMS are needed to make it transportable for use in a field laboratory with a controlled environment and available power. These modifications may include mountings to ensure safe transport and minor configurational changes to accommodate space constraints. Bruker markets the Mobile Environmental Mass Spectrometer (MEM) (Bruker Instruments, Inc., Billerica, MA) and in 1993 introduced an update, the EM-640. Table 2 presents selected specifications for the Bruker MEM and the Bruker EM-640 along with the Viking SpectraTrak 620 (see below). Bruker’s MEM features several sampling accessories that allow a wide range of monitoring, including a GC accessory for separating complex samples. The instrument contains a heated silicone membrane at the head of the sampling probe that
is selectively permeable to organic vapors. The heated head thermally desorbs analytes directly from the substrate or from solvent-substrate solutions i n t o a flexible 3.5-m f u s e d - s i l i c a capillary c o l u m n housed in a temperature-programmable umbilical. A second silicone membrane protects the vacuum of the mass analyzer and concentrates the sample. The MEM is normally mounted in a vehicle and is taken directly to the test site. The basic instrument cost, including GC accessory and data system, was approximately $225,000 in 1993. Research at Tufts University has established methods using t h e Bruker system for the field characterization of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) (261,polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons [PAHs) (271, and VOCs. [These methods have been submitted to the EPA for possible inclusion in the manual, Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste (SW-846).]We have successfully used the short-column sampling probe as a fast GC, obtaining quantitative results (percent relative standard deviation [% RSDI i30) in the low ppm range for VOCs, PCBs, and PAHs. Data quality and turnaround time are dependent on the method of sample preparation: PCB screening is completed in < 1 min per sample; semiquantitative results are generally obtained in 2-7 min per sample: quantitative purge-and-trap VOC analyses take about 10 min per sample; and quantitative results are available in 10-15 min per soil sample for PCBs and 20-30 min per soil sample for PAHs, chlorinated pesticides, and phenols, with “statisti-
Rapid screening and quantitative field methods have been developed and implemented for EPA-listed VOCs. Through the EPA’s Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation Program, the instrument was field demonstrated and validated (30).In this study, the sample was introduced by employing a specially designed thermal desorption (TD)oven. The EPA collected pond water samples from various locations at the creosote-contaminated Hocomonco Pond Superfund site in Westborough, MA. On the basis of spike recoveries, measurement precision was better for the laboratory (EPA Method 8 2 6 0 ) than for the 5-min screening TDGC/MS analysis ( 4 0 % RSD as compared to 20-35% RSDI. On the other hand, the measurement accuracy even i n the “screening” mode was better for the field TDGClMS than for the laboratory-based analysis. As part of an expedited site characterization, CC1, and CHC1, subsurface contamination resulting from fumigation of grain stored in Nebraska were measured on-site by TDGC/MS (31). The effects of holding times on recovery parralled the findings of other investigators discussed above. Losses from water samples on shipment to a laboratory were observable but not significant; however, losses from soil were significant. The TDGC/MS detected CHC1, or CC1, in 10 of 12 soil samples, whereas the laboratory reported “not detected” for all 12 samples. In a controlled study of a field soil sample, losses were observed within even a few minutes, with continuing loss of analyte over several hours. The inescapable conclusions from these studies are that laboratory-based analyses for VOCs in soil using standard EPA methods are probably erroneously low and that a significant number of false negatives are being reported. Modification of current protocols to use field GC or field GUMS analysis is one, but not the only, way to accurately assess VOCs. In addition to the improved data quality and more rapid availability of data, field analyses cost less than laboratory analyses in the expedited site characterization (32). T h e charge for 47 laboratory analyses with a rapid data turnaround of three days was $32,900 or $700 per sample, as compared to $50,000 for 126 field-analyzed samples or $397
Environ. Sci. Technol., Vol. 28. No. 7, 1994 339 A
TABLE 2
Key features of the Bruker MEM and EM-640 and the Viking Spectra Trak 620
accessory available
Hewlett-Packard 5971A mass-selective quadrupole detector Electron impacVCl 2,000 a m u h t -640 amu t amu 1 2 kW, 50/60Hz, 110 V
DC battery power possible
on request 30 min 1 ng
methyl stearate
10 pg methyl
stearate
35 x 53 x 83cm 60 kg IBM PC 386/1)08 Modified Hewlett Packard
Chemstation software
per sample. These direct cost savings exclude indirect savings realized by cost reduction of other field operations, minimization of return visits to a site, and improvements in the on-site decision-making process; all of these can be considerable and often overshadow the direct analytical chemistry costs of the site characterization process. On Bruker's EM-640, fast GC techniques using a 3-m capillary column in a quick-connect modular GC permit complete analyses in 3-5 min, yielding 50-100 analyses per shift (32).Using the fast GC techniques, an 16-component mixture ranging from acetone through l,I,Z,Z-tetrachloroethanewas chromatographed within 3 min. The use of ion current profiles or more sophisticated deconvolution algorithms could easily compensate for the lack of complete chromatographic resolution in the total ion chromatogram. The flexible, modular GC can operate with standard syringe injec-
tion, thermal desorption, or gas samplinglthermal desorption (33). Water analyses are performed by the rapid (4-min) spray-and-trap technique, which extracts some gases, VOCs, and the lighter semivolatile organic (SVOCs) compounds such as anthracene from water by generating an aerosol of the aqueous solution (34). The high-surface-area liquid facilitates partitioning of the organics between the aqueous and gaseous phases. The organics are then concentrated from the gas stream onto a Tenax sorbent trap for subsequent thermal desorption. Detection limits for VOCs in the range of 10-90 nglL range have been reported (34, 35). VOCs in air can be monitored with an automatic air sampler that adsorbs the VOCs onto a trap that is, in turn, thermally desorbed into the GCIMS system. The Viking SpectraTrak 620 (Viking Instruments Corporation, Reston, VA) was developed specifically for environmental applications by modifying Hewlett-Packard's mass-
340 A Envimn. Sci. Technol.. Vol. 28, No. 7, 1994
selective detector (MSD). The SpectraTrak 620 is transported by a hand cart. The mass analyzer is the quadrupole used in the Hewlett Packard 5971A MSD. Like the Bruker MEM, the SpectraTrak provides membrane sample introduction to the mass analyzer and can operate in three different modes: direct air sampling to the MS across the semipermeable membrane: air concentration, headspace gas, or purged samples with a sorbent trap and subsequent thermal desorption to a GC column or the direct-sampling membrane; and splitlsplitless injection and cryofocusing GCIMS. The Viking uses an oven-based, temperature-programmable GC that can accommodate fused-silica capillary columns of various dimensions. Cryofocusing for VOCs is achieved by cooling an uncoated portion of the GC column with a Peltier thermoelectric cooling device to subambient conditions [e.&, -50 O C ) . The data system operates through a graphic user interface and offers
standard peripherals and the National Institute of Standards and Technology library searching capabilities. The features are summarized in Table 2. The base price of the instrument was $145,000 in 1993.
In a system demonstration ( 3 6 ) , the SpectraTrak was transported in the back of a pickup truck for the analysis of groundwater wells for VOCs. Powered by a generator, the instrument was ready within 2 0 min. Head space samples from vials were injected with a gas-tight syringe and concentrated on a Tenax GC trap for 1 min. Several wells could be sampled from a central location by transporting the samples through tubing from the wells to the GUMS system; the type and temperature of the transfer line were not specified. In another test ( 3 7 ) , the system provided continuous monitoring of headspace gas from a groundwater well. Gas was drawn past the membrane separator by the system’s vacuum pump, bypassing the GC system. Trichloroethylene (TCE), chloroform, and dichloroethylene were detected but not quantitated. Rapid screening of VOCs in indoor air has also been reported ( 3 8 ) . No information is available comparing the data obtained with the Viking instrument with data obtained with other techniques or from EPAapproved methods. A case history in which 1000 soil samples, analyzed within three weeks with a peak operation of 60 samples per day, illustrates the potential for cost and time savings with field GUMS ( 3 9 ) .In this example, the average cost was $30 per sample, including the personnel and operating costs. Off-site contract analysis costs were estimated at $350-500 per sample. The remedial investigation/feasibility study schedule was accelerated by six months with the use of field GC/ MS. The authors ( 3 9 )also compared the cost of field GC/MS with fixed laboratory GUMS. Field GUMS becomes more attractive as the sample volume increases, with the advantage shifting at about 25 samples per week, depending on the assumptions regarding cost elements on both sides of the comparison. EPA’s thermal chromatography/ MS system The field analytical screening project of the EPA Region I1 assembled a thermal chromatography (TC)/MS system for use in a van
(38). The system consisted of a Ruska Instrument Corp. (Houston,TX) ThermEx thermal extractor (desorption device) and a GC coupled to a Finnigan INCOS 50 quadrupole MS. The system was placed on two shock-mounted carts to permit operation inside a van with generator power or in a fixed-base laboratory. The Ruska thermal extractor uses liquid CO, cooling to trap and temperature-programmed heating to desorb compounds onto the GC column. The TC/MS was used in an emergency response action to analyze dust samples from homes for diphenylamine, benzothiazole, and mercaptobenzothiazole. The instrument was running within one hour of arrival and ran continuously for four days without incident. Limitations noted were residue contamination in the thermal extractor trap, operator fatigue, and the need for cleaning of the M S quadrupole.
Research efforts Meuzelaar et al. of the University of Utah have been developing a “wearable” GC/MS that can be hand-carried (less than 30 kg), designed for emergency response (40, 4 1 ) . The instrument consists of a fully automated, repetitive airsampling inlet, a short isothermal GC column, a modified HewlettPackard MSD, a hybrid bulk getter/ ion getter vacuum system, and a portable computer. The instrument consumes about 80 W of power, and has an operable life of 2-3 h per set of batteries. An instrument of this size has potential applications in remote operation, space exploration, medicine, and numerous other fields. A transportable GC/MS based on quadrupole ion trap technology is being developed at Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL). Hemberger et al. ( 4 2 ) have developed a microprocessor to control the sampling system, software designed to integrate the sampling and ion trap functions, and a custom purge-andtrap GC sample introduction system for a modified Finnigan MAT ion trap detector. The system could be built from commercially available parts and interfaced with computer control technologies developed at LANL for about $75,000 (1992 cost estimate). It is capable of complete VOC analyses within 20 min, detecting 1 0 ppt TCE in water (in the laboratory), and purging VOCs from soil. In a separate LANL effort, Leibman’s group has extensively modi-
fied commercial components, creating a custom purge-and-trap/ temperature-programmable GC for the instrument ( 4 3 , 44). Detection limits of low parts per trillion were observed in the laboratory, but the team seeks detection limits of IO0 pptr to 100 ppb in the field. Eighty compounds, outlined in Method 8260 and SW 846, are analyzed by the system in approximately 10 min (44). In a direct comparison of systems in the field with standard laboratory-based GUMS analyses, colocated samples exhibited values 25-75% lower in the laboratory. These results “may reflect the loss of volatile components during sample transport” ( 4 3 ) . Investigators at Oak Ridge National Laboratory are developing direct-sampling ion trap mass spectrometry (DSITMS) technology. Wise et al. ( 4 5 ) have extensively modified a Finnigan ion trap to produce an instrument with lower power d e m a n d s that employs chemical ionization and electron impact and can screen and quantitatively analyze VOCs. No GC is provided; the mass spectral discrimination is judged sufficient for many applications. The response is linear over at least four orders of magnitude, with instrumental detection limits of -0.5 ppb for most analytes. Using specially developed sample introduction systems, VOCs in water and soil slurries are purged directly into the DSITMS with total analysis times of 3 min and quantitation limits of 1-5 ppb for water and 10-30 ppb for soil samples, depending on the analyte. Air can be continuously monitored with detection limits of about 1 ppb for most VOCs. Alternatively, VOCs may be desorbed from sorbent cartridges into the DSITMS. The SVOCs may be thermally desorbed from soil with mass detection limits of 50100 pg. Concentration detection limits are dependent on the sample size desorbed.
Conclusions Field GUMS can address environmental characterization and monitoring needs. Commercial instruments are available, some methods are in place and validated, and results have been demonstrated to be equivalent to or better than those for laboratory analyses. Upcoming improvements and maturation of the technology will improve quality, and user friendliness, provide broader applications, and reduce the currently high capital costs.
Environ. Sci. Technol., Vol. 28,No. 7, 1994 341 A
The most common criticism of all of the field G U M S and MS systems currently in use is that field analyses require experienced mass spectrometrists to effectively employ this complex i n s t r u m e n t a t i o n u n d e r t h e u n i q u e challenges of field conditions. Improvements in hardware, software, and component integration have muted these complaints a n d will undoubtedly continue to make the instruments more user friendly. The identification, e v a l u a t i o n , and implementation of FAMs such as field GClMS will be of paramount importance in facing the rising demand for sample analysis, not only for federal agencies but also for the private sector faced with cleaning u p its own sites. "Better, faster, safer, cheaper" are the watchwords for new characterization technologies. The G U M S FAMs provide one excellent example of the new chemical analysis, sensor, and geophysical characterization tools just now becoming available to the environmental assessment community. T h e use of G U M S a n d o t h e r FAMs fits into the evolving overall approach to expediting site characterization through rapid, on-site decision making ( 3 1 ) .The expedited site characterization approach features a flexible work plan that can be adjusted as information becomes available: integration of the regulations into the planning and decision process: rapid on-site acquisition, i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , and d e l i v e r y of chemical, radiological, physical, geophysical, and hydrologic measurements: high-level staff i n the field empowered to interpret data and act on the results: minimization of intrusive characterization techniques and superfluous grid-point sampling: and accurate site characterizations that contain sufficient information to make remediation
F
M'illiam C. McDonald / i J is o medico1 .studr,iit 01 the. .\k,vo Medico1 School in Rochester.,M,V. He received B.S. degrees in cheniisfn, and biology from the University of Minnesota-Morris. His work on this project was done at Argonne National Laboratory under the supervision of Mitchell Erickson. Mitchell Erickson (r) is associate director of Argonne National Laboratory's Research and Development Program Coordinofion Office in the Chemical Techno1og.v Division. He provides technical and administrative management ofR6D projects in support of DOE'S environmentol restorotion and waste management program. Erickson holds an A.B. degree from Grinnell College (Grinnell, IAl and a Ph.D. in analytical chemistry from the University of lon.o-lowa City.
(21
(3)
(4)
(5)
decisions within a regulatory framework. Especially with FAMs such as field G U M S , chemists can be effectively integrated i n t o project teams and contribute to the solution of real environmental problems.
Acknowledgments This work was supported by the U.S. Department of Energy, Assistant Secretary for Environmental Remediation and Waste Management. Office of Technology Development, under contract W-31109-Eng.-38
(6)
(7)
(8)
References (1)
Hazardous Waste Remedialion: The Task at Hand University of Tennessee, Waste Management Research and
,
(9)
342 A Environ. Sci. Technol.. Vol. 28, No. 7, 1994
Education Institute: Knoxville. TN. 1991. Hazardous Waste: DOD Estimates for Cienning Up Contaminated Sites Improved but Still Constrained; U.S. Government Accounting Office: Washington, DC. 1992: GAO/NSIAD92-37. Hazardous Materials Control Research Institute; Focus Press, February 1992; p. 11. Annlylicnl Services Program FiveYear Plan: Laboratory Management Division. Office of Environmental Restoration and Waste Management. US. Department of Energy: Washing ton, DC. January 29. 1992. Data Quality Objectives for Remedial Response Activities: Development Process: Office of Emergency Response and Office of Waste programs Enforcement. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Washington, DC, March 1987: EPA/540/G-87/003. Cornell. F. W. Proceedings of the National Research and Development Conference on the Control of Hazardous Materials; Environmental Liability Management: Princeton, NI. 1992. Cornell, F. W. Proceedings ofthe National Symposium on Measuring and Interpreting VOCs in Soil: State of the Art and Research Needs; Environmental Liability Management: Princeton, NJ. 1993. Henricks. A. D.: Grant. D. E. The Cost Effectiveness of Field Screening for VOCs: Emerging Technology Symposium: Los Alamos National Laboratory: Los Alamos. NM. 1993. Ganapathi. G.: Adler. D. G.: Carkhuff. M. Proceedings of the Internafional Symposium on Field Screening Melh-
Brian M. Abraham [ I / is the director of operations for Siteworks, Inc. (Resfon, VA/. He received his Ph.D. in chemistry from Tufts University. His research involved the development of field G U M S instrumentation and methods and was demonstrated through EPA's Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation Program. His postdoctoral work and research interests include the development and implementation of new field technologies for expediting hazardous woste site cleanup. Albert Robbat, Jr., (r) is an associate professor of chemistry and the director of the Center for Field Analytical Studies and Technology at Tufts University (Medford. MA). He received his Ph.D. from the Pennsylvania State University. His research interests include the development offield instrumentation, including GC and direct measuring MS. MIP/ MS, a n d XRF as well as structureretention and activity relotionships. He has worked with the public and private sectors to overcome barriers associated with the implementation, data quality, and cosf/benefif of field-based chemical analyses.
ods for Hazardous Wastes and Toxic Chemicals: Air & Waste Management Association: Pittsburgh, PA. 1988: paper 463. (10) Fribush. H. M. Environ. Test. Anal. 1992. May/June,35. (11) Chudyk, W. Environ. Sci. Technol. 1989.23. 503. (12) Siegrist, R. L.: Jennsen. P. D. Environ. Sci. Technol. 1990. 24, 1387. (13) Siegrist, R. L. Volatile Organic Compounds in Contaminated Soils: The Nature and Validity of the Measurement Process; Oak Ridge National Laboratory: Oak Ridge, TN. 1991; DE9 1011368.
Spittler, T. M.; Cuzzupe. M. 1.; Griffith, J. T. Proceedings of the Inlernational Symposium on Field Screening Methods for Hazardous Wastes and Toxic Chemicals; Air Waste Management Association: Pittsburgh. PA, 1988; paper 155. (15) Snyder, P. A. et al. Anal. Chem. 1993,
(14)
65, 299. (16)Levine, S. P. et al. Proceedings of the
International Symposium on Field Screening Methods for Hazardous Wastes and Toxic Chemicals; Air & Waste Management Association: Pittsburgh. PA, 1991;paper 265. (17) Hyver, K. J.; Phillips. R. J. 1. Chromafogr. 1987.399.643.
(18) Mouradian, R. F.; Levine, S.P.; Sacks, R. D. J. Chromatogr. Sci. 1990,28, 643.
(19) Mouradian, R. F. et al. J. Air Waste Manage. Assoc. 1991,4 1 , 1067. (20) Peters, A . e t al. A n a l y s t 1991, 2 2 6,1313. (21) Bowen, D. V.; Pullen, F. S. Rapid C o m m u n . Mass Spectrom. 1989, 3, 67. (22) Campana, J. E. Int. J. Mass Spectrom. Ion Phys. 1980,33,101. (23) Cooks, R. G.; Kaiser, R. E. Jr., A c e . Chem. Res. 1990,23,213. (24) Creaser, C. S.; Mitchell, D. S.; O’Neill, K. E. Int. J. Mass Spectrom. Ion Phys. 1991,106, 21. (25) Brunnee, C. Int. J. Mass Spectrom. Ion Phys. 1987,76, 125. (26) Robbat, Jr., A,; Liu, T-Y.; Abraham, B. Anal. Chem. 1992,64, 358. (27) Robbat, Jr., A.; Liu, T-Y.; Abraham, B. M. Anal. Chem. 1992,64,1477. (28) Robbat, Jr., A.; Liu, C-G., Liu, T-Y. J. Chromatogr. 1992,625, 277. (29) Abraham B.M., Liu, T-Y, Robbat, A. Jr, H a z a r d . W a s t e H a z a r d . Mater. 1993,10(4), 461. (30) “Demonstration of the Bruker Mobile Environmental Monitor, Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation Program”; EMSL Las Vegas. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Las Vegas, NV, June 1991; EPA/600/x-91079. (31) Burton, J. C. et al. Proceedings of Superfund XIV; Hazardous Properties Control Research Institute: Washington, DC, 1993.
(32) Franzen, J.; Weiss, G.; Brekerfeld, H. Proceedings of t h e Third International S y m p o s i u m : Field Screening Methods for Hazardous Wastes and Toxic Chemicals, Las Vegas, NV; Air & Waste Management Association: Pittsburgh, PA, 1993. (33) Weiss, G. et al. Proceedings of the Third International Symposium: Field Screening Methods for Hazardous Wastes and Toxic Chemicals, Las Vegas, NV; Air &Waste Management Association; Pittsburgh, PA, 1993. (34) Matz, G.; Kesners, P. A n a l . C h e m . 1993,65,2366-71. (35) Baykut, G. et al. Proceedings of the Third International Symposium: Field Screening Methods for Hazardous Wastes and Toxic Chemicals, Las Vegas, NV; Air & Waste Management Association: Pittsburgh, PA, 1993. (36) Eckenrode, B.A.; Owens, B. Environ. Lab FebruaryiMarch 1992, 42. (37) Eckenrode, B.; Drew, R. C. Proceedings of the Third International Symposium: Field Screening Methods for Hazardous Wastes and Toxic Chemicals, Las Vegas, NV; Air & Waste Management Association: Pittsburgh, PA, 1993. (38) Kuehn, T. J.; Bell, D. A. Proceedings of t h e Third International S y m p o sium: Field Screening Methods For Hazardous Wastes and Toxic Chemicals, Las Vegas, NV; Air & Waste Management Association: Pittsburgh, PA, 1993.
(39) Greenlaw, P. D. et al. Hazard. Mater. Control 1990,3, 34-41.
(40) Meuzelaar, H.L.C. Proceedings of the T h i r d In t e r n a t i on a1 S y m p o s i u m : Field Screening Methods for Hazardous Wastes and Toxic Chemicals, Las Vegas, NV; Air & Waste Management Association: Pittsburgh, PA, 1993. (41) Trainor, T. M.; Laukien, F. H. First lnternational Symposium: Field Screening Methods for Hazardous Wastes and Toxic Chemicals; Las Vegas, NV; Air & Waste Management Association: Pittsburgh, PA, 1988. (41) Trainor, T. M.; Laukien, F. H. First International Symposium: Field Screening Methods for Hazardous Wastes and Toxic Chemicals, Las Vegas, NV; Air & Waste Management Association: Pittsburgh, PA, 1988; paper 299. (42) Hemberger, P. H. et al. Int. J . Mass Spectrom. Ion Processes 1991, 106, 299. (43) Leibman, C. P.; Dogruel, D.; Vanderveer, E. P. Proceedings of the Second International S y m p o s i u m : Field Screening M e t h o d s f o r Hazardous Wastes and Toxic Chemicals, Las Vegas, NV; Air & Waste Management Association: Pittsburgh, PA, 1991; paper 367. (44) Leibman, C. P.; Roberts, J.; Monagle, M. Proceedings of the Third International, S y m p o s i u m : Field Screening Methods for Hazardous Wastes and Toxic Chemicals, Las Vegas, NV; Air & Waste Management Association: Pittsburgh, PA, 1993. (45) Wise, M. B. et al. Spectroscopy 1993, 8, 14-22.
Don’t miss a single issue, Subscribe Today! Call Toll Free (U.S. only): 1-800-333-9511 Outside the U.S.: 614-447-3776 FAX: 614-447-3671
University of Texas, Austin Published by the American Chemical Society
Quality information that gives you the leading edge Covering the broad, interdisciplinary field of chemical engineering and industrial chemistry, Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research delivers peer-reviewed, monthly reports with a focus on the fundamental and theoretical aspects of chemical engineering, process design and development, and product R&D.
A typical issue contains original studies in the areas of kinetics and catalysis, materials and interfaces, process engineering and design, separations, and other topics, with an emphasis on new areas of science and technology.
Or Write: American Chemical Society Member and Subscriber Services P.O. Box 3337 Columbus, OH 43210 Volume 33 (1994) Printed ACS Members One Year Two Years Nonmembers
US. $ 65 $117 $613
Canada & Mexico Europe‘ $ 84 $155 $632
$112 $211 $660
All Other Countries’
$124 $235 $672
‘Air Service Included
Member subscription rates are for personal use only. Subscriptions are based on a calendar year. Foreign payment must be made in U S . currency by international money order, UNESCO coupons, or U S . bank draft, or order through ycur subscription agency. For nonmember rates in Japan, contact Maruzen Co., Ltd. This publication is available on microfilm, microfiche, and the full text is available online on STN International.
Environ. Sci. Technol., Vol. 28,No. 7, 1994 343 A
