Please wait a minute...
Frontiers of Environmental Science & Engineering

ISSN 2095-2201

ISSN 2095-221X(Online)

CN 10-1013/X

Postal Subscription Code 80-973

2018 Impact Factor: 3.883

Front. Environ. Sci. Eng.    2015, Vol. 9 Issue (4) : 596-604    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11783-014-0709-2
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Mercury source zone identification using soil vapor sampling and analysis
David WATSON(), Carrie MILLER, Brian LESTER, Kenneth LOWE, George SOUTHWORTH, Mary Anna BOGLE, Liyuan LIANG, Eric PIERCE
Environmental Sciences Division, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, PO Box 2008, MS 6038 Oak Ridge, TN 37831, USA
 Download: PDF(1393 KB)   HTML
 Export: BibTeX | EndNote | Reference Manager | ProCite | RefWorks
Abstract

Development and demonstration of reliable measurement techniques that can detect and help quantify the nature and extent of elemental mercury (Hg(0)) in the subsurface are needed to reduce uncertainties in the decision-making process and increase the effectiveness of remedial actions. We conducted field tests at the Y-12 National Security Complex in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, USA, to determine if sampling and analysis of Hg(0) vapors in the shallow subsurface (<0.3 m depth) can be used to as an indicator of the location and extent of Hg(0) releases in the subsurface. We constructed a rigid polyvinyl chloride push probe assembly, which was driven into the ground. Soil gas samples were collected through a sealed inner tube of the assembly and were analyzed immediately in the field with a Lumex and/or Jerome Hg(0) analyzer. Time-series sampling showed that Hg vapor concentrations were fairly stable over time, suggesting that the vapor phase Hg(0) was not being depleted and that sampling results were not sensitive to the soil gas purge volume. Hg(0) vapor data collected at over 200 push probe locations at 3 different release sites correlated very well to areas of known Hg(0) contamination. Vertical profiling of Hg(0) vapor concentrations conducted at two locations provided information on the vertical distribution of Hg(0) contamination in the subsurface. We conclude from our studies that soil gas sampling and analysis can be conducted rapidly and inexpensively at large scales to help identify areas contaminated with Hg(0).

Keywords push probe      spill      characterization      mapping      gas     
Corresponding Author(s): David WATSON   
Online First Date: 07 May 2014    Issue Date: 25 June 2015
 Cite this article:   
David WATSON,Carrie MILLER,Brian LESTER, et al. Mercury source zone identification using soil vapor sampling and analysis[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2015, 9(4): 596-604.
 URL:  
https://academic.hep.com.cn/fese/EN/10.1007/s11783-014-0709-2
https://academic.hep.com.cn/fese/EN/Y2015/V9/I4/596
Fig.1  (a) Hg(0) observed in side wall of utility trench excavated at the Building 9201-2 site; (b) sediment core collected from the former Building 81-10 Hg retort facility with beads of Hg(0).
Fig.2  Soil gas sampling probe and Hg(0) analysis equipment. (a) soil gas probe assembly, (b) collection of a soil gas sample with syringe, (c) field analyis with Lumex.
Fig.3  Comparison of the concentration of Hg(0) in soil vapor samples determined using the Lumex and Jerome Hg(0) analyzers. Samples were collected from ~30?cm deep soil gas probes at the Y-12 NSC, Building 9201-2 site. The brackets on each concentration bar show the standard deviation of the replicate sampling for each method.
Fig.4  Time series sampling using the Jerome meter and built-in purge pump shows that steady-state concentrations of Hg are reached within 12 to 24?s and remain constant for 3?min. The pumping rate was 0.75?L?min−3 with 12?s sampling intervals.
Fig.5  Results of Hg(0) soil vapor mapping in the vicinity of the Building 9201-2 site. The highest concentrations are associated with a known Hg(0) spill located west of the building. Hg(0) beads were also observed in a utility trench that was dug through the area and in soil cores [20]. The highest concentration of Hg(0) vapor detected at this site was 630?µg?m−3.
Fig.6  Results of Hg(0) soil vapor mapping in the vicinity of the former 9733 Building site, which is currently a concrete pad and parking lot. The highest concentrations are associated with a known Hg(0) spill associated with the loading dock. Beads of Hg(0) were observed during excavation and construction activites. The highest concentration of Hg(0) vapor detected at this site was 230?µg?m−3.
Fig.7  Results of Hg(0) soil vapor mapping in the vicinity of the former 81-10 Hg retort facility, which is currently a concrete pad. The highest concentrations were detected in the vicinity of coreholes drilled at the edge of the concrete pad that were highly contaminated with Hg(0) beads (see Fig. 1). The highest concentration of Hg(0) vapor detected at this site was 2,970?µg?m−3.
Fig.8  Vertical profile of soil gas Hg(0) (dashed line) and HgT (solid line) concentrations in the soil from boreholes C1 (a) and C3 (b) near Building 9201-2. Circles indicate samples that contained detectable Hg(0) in soil samples analyzed in the laboratory using headspace sampling techniques. Adapted from Miller et al. [20].
1 Blackstone Institute produced in collaboration with Green Cross Switerzland. The World’s Worst Pollution Problems: Assessing Health Risks at Hazardous Waste Sites, 2012.
2 S C Brooks, G R Southworth. History of mercury use and environmental contamination at the Oak Ridge Y-12 Plant. Environmental Pollution, 2011, 159(1): 219–228
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2010.09.009 pmid: 20889247
3 M J Peterson, B B Looney, G R Southworth, C Eddy-Dilek, D Watson, R Ketelle, M A Bogle. Conceptual model of primary mercury source, transport pathways, and flux at the Y-12 complex and upper East Fork Poplar Creek, Oak Ridge, Tennessee. ORNL, U. S. Atomic Energy Commission, 2011, TM-2011(75)
4 United Nations Environment Programme. Global mercury assessment, chemicals report. UNEP Chemicals, Geneva Switzerland, 2002
5 ChemRisk. Mercury releases from Lithium enrichment at the Oak Ridge Y-12 Plant−A reconstruction of historical releases and off-site doses and health risks. Task 2 Report of the Oak Ridge Dose Reconstruction, Vol. 2. Tennessee Department of Health, 1999
6 US Department of Energy. Major risk factors, Integrated Facility Disposition Project (IFDP), Oak Ridge, Tenn. External Technical Review (ETR) Report, 2008
7 G Thompson, D Marrin. A dynamic approach. Ground Water Monitoring Review, 1987, 7(3): 88–93
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6592.1987.tb01079.x
8 T Ballestrero, B Herzog, G Thompson. Monitoring and sampling the vadose zone. In: D M Nielsen, ed, Practical Handbook of Ground-Water Monitoring. Chelsea, Michigan: Lewis Publishers, Inc. 2006, 207–247
9 US Environmental Protection Agency. Guidance document for soil-gas surveying, prepared under EPA EMSL-LV Contract No. 68–03–3245 by C. L. Mayer, Lockheed Engineering and Sciences Company, Las Vegas, N.V. (in press)
10 US Environmental Protection Agency. Final project report for the development of an active soil gas sampling method. EPA/600/R-07/076. Office of Research and Development, National Exposure Research Laboratory, Las Vegas, N.V., 2007
11 D W Johnson, J A Benesch, M S Gustin, D S Schorran, S E Lindberg, J S Coleman. Experimental evidence against diffusion control of Hg evasion from soils. Science of the Total Environment, 2003, 304(1–3): 175–184
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-9697(02)00567-3 pmid: 12663182
12 C W Moore, M S Castro. Investigation of factors affecting gaseous mercury concentrations in soils. Science of the Total Environment, 2012, 419: 136–143
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2011.12.068 pmid: 22281042
13 C W Moore, M S Castro, S B Brooks. A simple and accurate method to measure total gaseous mercury concentrations in unsaturated soils. Water, Air, and Soil Pollution, 2011, 218(1–4): 3–9
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11270-010-0691-7
14 J M Sigler, X. LeeGaseous mercury in background forest soil in the northeastern United States. Journal of Geophysical Research-Biogeosciences, 2006, 111
15 D Wallschlager, H H Kock, W H Schroeder, S E Lindberg, R Ebinghaus, R D Wilken. Estimating gaseous mercury emissions from contaminated floodplain soils to the atmosphere with simple field measurement techniques. Water, Air, and Soil Pollution, 2002, 135(1/4): 39–54
https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1014711831589
16 A A Kriger, R R Turner. Field analysis of mercury in water, sediment and soil using static headspace analysis. Water, Air, and Soil Pollution, 1995, 80(1–4): 1295–1304
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01189793
17 H W Carlton, V Price, J R Cook. Mercury in shallow Savannah River Plant soil. DPST-86–314. Westinghouse Savannah River Co., Aiken, SC. 1988.
18 G Wang, L Chenglong, J Wang, W Liu, P Zhang. The use of soil mercury and radon gas surveys to assist the detection of concealed faults in Fuzhou City, China. Environmental Geology, 2006, 51(1): 83–90
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00254-006-0306-1
19 E Kromera, G Friedricha, P Wallnera. Mercury and mercury compounds in surface air, soil gas, soils and rocks. Journal of Geochemical Exploration, 1981, 15(1–3): 51–62
https://doi.org/10.1016/0375-6742(81)90055-8
20 C L Miller, D B Watson, B P Lester, K A Lowe, E M Pierce, L Liang. Characterization of soils from an industrial complex contaminated with elemental mercury. Environmental Research, 2013, 125: 20–29
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2013.03.013 pmid: 23809204
21 E R Rothschild, R R Turner, S H Stow, M A Bogle, L K Hyder, O M Sealand, H J Wyrick. Investigation of subsurface mercury at the Oak Ridge Y-12 Plant. ORNL/TM-9092. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tenn., 1984
22 R R Turner, G E Kamp, M A Bogle, J Switek, R McElhaney. Sources and discharges of mercury in drainage waters at the Oak Ridge Y-12 Plant. Y/TS-90. Oak Ridge Y-12 Plant, Oak Ridge, Tenn. 1985
23 Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education. Characterization report for the 81–10 area in the Upper East Fork Poplar Creek Area at the Oak Ridge Y-12 National Security Complex, Oak Ridge, Tenn. DOE/OR/01–2485&D1, Oak Ridge, Tenn., 2010
24 L L C Arizona Instrument. Jerome® 431-X Mercury Vapor Analyzer, Operations Manual. 3375 N Delaware Street, Chandler, Ariz, 85225, 2009
[1] Yuchen Gao, Jianguo Jiang, Yuan Meng, Tongyao Ju, Siyu Han. Influence of H2S and NH3 on biogas dry reforming using Ni catalyst: a study on single and synergetic effect[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2023, 17(3): 32-.
[2] Chung Song Ho, Jianfei Peng, UnHyok Yun, Qijun Zhang, Hongjun Mao. Impacts of methanol fuel on vehicular emissions: A review[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2022, 16(9): 121-.
[3] Jie Wu, Jian Lu, Jun Wu. Effect of gastric fluid on adsorption and desorption of endocrine disrupting chemicals on microplastics[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2022, 16(8): 104-.
[4] Kehui Liu, Xiaojin Guan, Chunming Li, Keyi Zhao, Xiaohua Yang, Rongxin Fu, Yi Li, Fangming Yu. Global perspectives and future research directions for the phytoremediation of heavy metal-contaminated soil: A knowledge mapping analysis from 2001 to 2020[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2022, 16(6): 73-.
[5] Xiaoqiang Gong, Jinbiao Li, Scott X. Chang, Qian Wu, Zhengfeng An, Chengpeng Huang, Xiangyang Sun, Suyan Li, Hui Wang. Cattle manure biochar and earthworm interactively affected CO2 and N2O emissions in agricultural and forest soils: Observation of a distinct difference[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2022, 16(3): 39-.
[6] Sung-Geun Woo, Holly L. Sewell, Craig S. Criddle. Phylogenetic diversity of NO reductases, new tools for nor monitoring, and insights into N2O production in natural and engineered environments[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2022, 16(10): 127-.
[7] Wen Zhang, Qi Wang, Hao Chen. Challenges in characterization of nanoplastics in the environment[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2022, 16(1): 11-.
[8] K. Dhineka, M. Sambandam, S. K. Sivadas, T. Kaviarasan, Umakanta Pradhan, Mehmuna Begum, Pravakar Mishra, M. V. Ramana Murthy. Characterization and seasonal distribution of microplastics in the nearshore sediments of the south-east coast of India, Bay of Bengal[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2022, 16(1): 10-.
[9] Noshan Bhattarai, Shuxiao Wang, Yuepeng Pan, Qingcheng Xu, Yanlin Zhang, Yunhua Chang, Yunting Fang. δ15N-stable isotope analysis of NHx: An overview on analytical measurements, source sampling and its source apportionment[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2021, 15(6): 126-.
[10] Haoran Feng, Min Liu, Wei Zeng, Ying Chen. Optimization of the O3/H2O2 process with response surface methodology for pretreatment of mother liquor of gas field wastewater[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2021, 15(4): 78-.
[11] Chenchen Li, Lijie Yan, Yiming Li, Dan Zhang, Mutai Bao, Limei Dong. TiO2@palygorskite composite for the efficient remediation of oil spills via a dispersion-photodegradation synergy[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2021, 15(4): 72-.
[12] Jianwei Liu, Peng Yue, Nana Zang, Chen Lu, Xinyue Chen. Removal of odors and VOCs in municipal solid waste comprehensive treatment plants using a novel three-stage integrated biofilter: Performance and bioaerosol emissions[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2021, 15(3): 48-.
[13] Yang Li, Yixin Zhang, Guangshen Xia, Juhong Zhan, Gang Yu, Yujue Wang. Evaluation of the technoeconomic feasibility of electrochemical hydrogen peroxide production for decentralized water treatment[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2021, 15(1): 1-.
[14] Rencheng Zhu, Jingnan Hu, Liqiang He, Lei Zu, Xiaofeng Bao, Yitu Lai, Sheng Su. Effects of ambient temperature on regulated gaseous and particulate emissions from gasoline-, E10- and M15-fueled vehicles[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2021, 15(1): 14-.
[15] Linlin Cai, Xiangyang Sun, Dan Hao, Suyan Li, Xiaoqiang Gong, Hao Ding, Kefei Yu. Sugarcane bagasse amendment improves the quality of green waste vermicompost and the growth of Eisenia fetida[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2020, 14(4): 61-.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed