A Comparison of Field Techniques for Confirming Dense Nonaqueous Phase Liquids
Authors: Griffin Terry W. , Watson Kenneth W. 
Published: February 2007

AbstractDense nonaqueous phase liquids (DNAPLs) are immiscible fluids with a specific gravity greater than, water. When present, DNAPLs present a serious and long‐term source of continued ground water and soil contamination (Pankow and Cherry 1996). Accurate characterization and delineation of DNAPL in the subsurface is critical for evaluating restoration potential and for remedy design at a site. However, obtaining accurate and definitive direct evidence of DNAPL is difficult.A field study was recently performed comparing several approaches to DNAPL characterization at a site where anecdotal and limited direct evidence of DNAPL exists. The techniques evaluated included a three‐dimensional high‐resolution seismic survey, field screening of soil cores with a flame ionization detector (FID)/organic vapor analyzer (OVA), hydrophobic (Sudan IV) dye‐impregnated reactive FLUTe® (Flexible Liner Underground Technologies) liner material in combination with Rotasonic drill cores, centrifuged soil with Sudan IV dye, ultraviolet light (UV) fluorescence, a Geoprobe® Membrane Interface Probe (MIP®), and phase equilibrium partitioning evaluations based on laboratory analysis of soil samples.Sonic drilling provided reliable continuous cores from which minor soil structures could be evaluated and screened with an OVA, The screening provided reliable preliminary data for identifying likely DNAPL zones and for selecting samples for further analyses. The FLUTe liner material provided the primary direct evidence of the presence of DNAPL and reliable information on the thickness and nature of its occurrence (i.e., pooled or ganglia). The MIP system provided good information regarding the subsurface lithology and rapid identification and delineation of probable DNAPL areas. The three‐dimensional seismic survey was of minimal benefit to this study, and the centrifuging of samples with Sudan IV dye and the use of UV fluorescence provided no benefit.Results of phase equilibrium partitioning concentration calculations for soil samples (to infer the presence of DNAPL) were in good agreement with the site screening data. Additionally, screening data compared well with previous ground water data and supported using 1% of the pure phase solubility limit of Freon 113 (2 mg/L) as an initial means to define the DNAPL study area.Based on the results of this study, the preferred approach for identifying and delineating DNAPL in the subsurface is to initially evaluate ground water data and define an area where dissolved concentrations of the target analyte(s) approach 1% of the pure phase solubility limit. Within this study area, the MIP device is used to more specifically identify areas and lithologic zones where DNAPL may have accumulated. Core samples (either Rotasonic or Geoprobe) are then collected from zones where MIP readings are indicative of the presence of DNAPL. Soil samples from the free‐product portions of the core(s) are then submitted to a laboratory for positive analyte identification. Soil analyses are then combined with site‐specific geotechnical information (i.e., fraction organic carbon, soil bulk density, and porosity) and equilibrium partitioning algorithms used to estimate concentrations of organic contaminants in soil samples that would be indicative of free product. Used in combination, the soil analysis and the MIP records appear to provide accurate DNAPL identification and delineation.