Difference between revisions of "User:Jhurley/sandbox"

From Enviro Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(→‎The VI Diagnosis Toolkit Components)
(→‎Sediment Porewater Dialysis Passive Samplers for Inorganics (Peepers))
 
(86 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
−
==Assessing Vapor Intrusion (VI) Impacts in Neighborhoods with Groundwater Contaminated by Chlorinated Volatile Organic Chemicals (CVOCs)==  
+
==Sediment Porewater Dialysis Passive Samplers for Inorganics (Peepers)==  
−
The VI Diagnosis Toolkit<ref name="JohnsonEtAl2020">Johnson, P.C., Guo, Y., Dahlen, P., 2020.  The VI Diagnosis Toolkit for Assessing Vapor Intrusion Pathways and Mitigating Impacts in Neighborhoods Overlying Dissolved Chlorinated Solvent Plumes. ESTCP Project ER-201501, Final Report. [https://serdp-estcp.mil/projects/details/a0d8bafd-c158-4742-b9fe-5f03d002af71 Project Website]&nbsp;&nbsp; [[Media: ER-201501.pdf | Final Report.pdf]]</ref> is a set of tools that can be used individually or in combination to assess vapor intrusion (VI) impacts at one or more buildings overlying regional-scale dissolved chlorinated solvent-impacted groundwater plumes. The strategic use of these tools can lead to confident and efficient neighborhood-scale VI pathway assessments.
+
Sediment porewater dialysis passive samplers, also known as “peepers,” are sampling devices that allow the measurement of dissolved inorganic ions in the porewater of a saturated sediment. Peepers function by allowing freely-dissolved ions in sediment porewater to diffuse across a micro-porous membrane towards water contained in an isolated compartment that has been inserted into sediment. Once retrieved after a deployment period, the resulting sample obtained can provide concentrations of freely-dissolved inorganic constituents in sediment, which provides measurements that can be used for understanding contaminant fate and risk. Peepers can also be used in the same manner in surface water, although this article is focused on the use of peepers in sediment.  
  
 
<div style="float:right;margin:0 0 2em 2em;">__TOC__</div>
 
<div style="float:right;margin:0 0 2em 2em;">__TOC__</div>
Line 6: Line 6:
 
'''Related Article(s):'''
 
'''Related Article(s):'''
  
−
*[[Vapor Intrusion (VI)]]
+
*[[Contaminated Sediments - Introduction]]
−
*[[Vapor Intrusion – Sewers and Utility Tunnels as Preferential Pathways]]
+
*[[Contaminated Sediment Risk Assessment]]
 +
*[[In Situ Treatment of Contaminated Sediments with Activated Carbon]]
 +
*[[Passive Sampling of Munitions Constituents]]
 +
*[[Sediment Capping]]
 +
*[[Mercury in Sediments]]
 +
*[[Passive Sampling of Sediments]]
 +
 
  
 
'''Contributor(s):'''  
 
'''Contributor(s):'''  
  
−
*Paul C. Johnson, Ph.D.
+
*Florent Risacher, M.Sc.
−
*Paul Dahlen, Ph.D.
+
*Jason Conder, Ph.D.
−
*Yuanming Guo, Ph.D.
 
  
 
'''Key Resource(s):'''
 
'''Key Resource(s):'''
  
−
*The VI Diagnosis Toolkit for Assessing Vapor Intrusion Pathways and Impacts in Neighborhoods Overlying Dissolved Chlorinated Solvent Plumes, ESTCP Project ER-201501, Final Report<ref name="JohnsonEtAl2020"/>
+
*A review of peeper passive sampling approaches to measure the availability of inorganics in sediment porewater<ref>Risacher, F.F., Schneider, H., Drygiannaki, I., Conder, J., Pautler, B.G., and Jackson, A.W., 2023.  A Review of Peeper Passive Sampling Approaches to Measure the Availability of Inorganics in Sediment Porewater.  Environmental Pollution, 328, Article 121581. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2023.121581 doi: 10.1016/j.envpol.2023.121581]&nbsp;&nbsp;[[Media: RisacherEtAl2023a.pdf | Open Access Manuscript]]</ref>
  
−
*CPM Test Guidelines: Use of Controlled Pressure Method Testing for Vapor Intrusion Pathway Assessment, ESTCP Project ER-201501, Technical Report<ref name="JohnsonEtAl2021">Johnson, P.C., Guo, Y., Dahlen, P., 2021. CPM Test Guidelines: Use of Controlled Pressure Method Testing for Vapor Intrusion Pathway Assessment.  ESTCP ER-201501, Technical Report. [https://serdp-estcp.mil/projects/details/a0d8bafd-c158-4742-b9fe-5f03d002af71 Project Website]&nbsp;&nbsp; [[Media: ER-201501_Technical_Report.pdf | Technical_Report.pdf]]</ref>    
+
*Best Practices User’s Guide: Standardizing Sediment Porewater Passive Samplers for Inorganic Constituents of Concern<ref name="RisacherEtAl2023">Risacher, F.F., Nichols, E., Schneider, H., Lawrence, M., Conder, J., Sweett, A., Pautler, B.G., Jackson, W.A., Rosen, G., 2023b. Best Practices User’s Guide: Standardizing Sediment Porewater Passive Samplers for Inorganic Constituents of Concern, ESTCP ER20-5261. [https://serdp-estcp.mil/projects/details/db871313-fbc0-4432-b536-40c64af3627f Project Website]&nbsp;&nbsp;[[Media: ER20-5261BPUG.pdf | Report.pdf]]</ref>
  
−
*VI Diagnosis Toolkit User Guide, ESTCP Project ER-201501<ref name="JohnsonEtAl2022">Johnson, P.C., Guo, Y., and Dahlen, P., 2022. VI Diagnosis Toolkit User Guide, ESTCP ER-201501, User Guide.  [https://serdp-estcp.mil/projects/details/a0d8bafd-c158-4742-b9fe-5f03d002af71 Project Website]&nbsp;&nbsp; [[Media: ER-201501_User_Guide.pdf | User_Guide.pdf]]</ref>
+
*[https://serdp-estcp.mil/projects/details/db871313-fbc0-4432-b536-40c64af3627f/er20-5261-project-overview Standardizing Sediment Porewater Passive Samplers for Inorganic Constituents of Concern, ESTCP Project ER20-5261]
  
 
==Introduction==
 
==Introduction==
−
Most federal, state, and local regulatory guidance for assessing and mitigating the [[Vapor Intrusion (VI) | vapor intrusion]] pathway reflects USEPA’s ''Technical Guide for Assessing and Mitigating the Vapor Intrusion Pathway from Subsurface Vapor Sources to Indoor Air''<ref name="USEPA2015">USEPA, 2015. OSWER Technical Guide for Assessing and Mitigating the Vapor Intrusion Pathway from Subsurface Vapor Sources to Indoor Air. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, OSWER Publication No. 9200.2-154, 267 pages. [https://www.epa.gov/vaporintrusion/technical-guide-assessing-and-mitigating-vapor-intrusion-pathway-subsurface-vapor USEPA Website]&nbsp;&nbsp; [[Media: USEPA2015.pdf | Report.pdf]]</ref>. The paradigm outlined by that guidance includes: 1) a preliminary and mostly qualitative analysis that looks for site conditions that suggest vapor intrusion might occur (e.g., the presence of vapor-forming chemicals in close proximity to buildings); 2) a multi-step and more detailed quantitative screening analysis that involves site-specific data collection and their comparison to screening levels to identify buildings of potential VI concern; and 3) selection and design of mitigation systems or continued monitoring, as needed. With respect to (2), regulatory guidance typically recommends consideration of “multiple lines of evidence” in decision-making<ref name="USEPA2015"/><ref>NJDEP, 2021. Vapor Intrusion Technical Guidance, Version 5.0. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Trenton, NJ. [https://dep.nj.gov/srp/guidance/vapor-intrusion/vig/ Website]&nbsp;&nbsp; [[Media: NJDEP2021.pdf | Guidance Document.pdf]]</ref>, with typical lines-of-evidence being groundwater, soil gas, sub-slab soil gas, and/or indoor air concentrations. Of those, soil gas measurements and/or measured short-term indoor air concentrations can be weighted heavily, and therefore decision making might not be completed without them. Effective evaluation of VI risk from sub-slab and/or soil gas measurements would require an unknown building-specific attenuation factor, but there is also uncertainty as to whether or not indoor air data is representative of maximum and/or long-term average indoor concentrations. Indoor air data can be confounded by indoor contaminant sources because the number of samples is typically small, indoor concentrations can vary with time, and because a number of household products can emit the chemicals being measured. When conducting VI pathway assessments in neighborhoods where it is impractical to assess all buildings, the EPA recommends following a “worst first” investigational approach.  
+
Biologically available inorganic constituents associated with sediment toxicity can be quantified by measuring the freely-dissolved fraction of contaminants in the porewater<ref>Conder, J.M., Fuchsman, P.C., Grover, M.M., Magar, V.S., Henning, M.H., 2015. Critical review of mercury SQVs for the protection of benthic invertebrates. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 34(1), pp. 6-21. [https://doi.org/10.1002/etc.2769 doi: 10.1002/etc.2769]&nbsp;&nbsp; [[Media: ConderEtAl2015.pdf | Open Access Article]]</ref><ref name="ClevelandEtAl2017">Cleveland, D., Brumbaugh, W.G., MacDonald, D.D., 2017. A comparison of four porewater sampling methods for metal mixtures and dissolved organic carbon and the implications for sediment toxicity evaluations. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 36(11), pp. 2906-2915. [https://doi.org/10.1002/etc.3884 doi: 10.1002/etc.3884]</ref>. Classical sediment porewater analysis usually consists of collecting large volumes of bulk sediments which are then mechanically squeezed or centrifuged to produce a supernatant, or suction of porewater from intact sediment, followed by filtration and collection<ref name="GruzalskiEtAl2016">Gruzalski, J.G., Markwiese, J.T., Carriker, N.E., Rogers, W.J., Vitale, R.J., Thal, D.I., 2016. Pore Water Collection, Analysis and Evolution: The Need for Standardization. In: Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, Vol. 237, pp. 37–51. Springer. [https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-23573-8_2 doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-23573-8_2]</ref>. The extraction and measurement processes present challenges due to the heterogeneity of sediments, physical disturbance, high reactivity of some complexes, and interaction between the solid and dissolved phases, which can impact the measured concentration of dissolved inorganics<ref>Peijnenburg, W.J.G.M., Teasdale, P.R., Reible, D., Mondon, J., Bennett, W.W., Campbell, P.G.C., 2014. Passive Sampling Methods for Contaminated Sediments: State of the Science for Metals. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management, 10(2), pp. 179–196. [https://doi.org/10.1002/ieam.1502 doi: 10.1002/ieam.1502]&nbsp;&nbsp; [[Media: PeijnenburgEtAl2014.pdf | Open Access Article]]</ref>. For example, sampling disturbance can affect redox conditions<ref name="TeasdaleEtAl1995">Teasdale, P.R., Batley, G.E., Apte, S.C., Webster, I.T., 1995. Pore water sampling with sediment peepers. Trends in Analytical Chemistry, 14(6), pp. 250–256. [https://doi.org/10.1016/0165-9936(95)91617-2 doi: 10.1016/0165-9936(95)91617-2]</ref><ref>Schroeder, H., Duester, L., Fabricius, A.L., Ecker, D., Breitung, V., Ternes, T.A., 2020. Sediment water (interface) mobility of metal(loid)s and nutrients under undisturbed conditions and during resuspension. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 394, Article 122543. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2020.122543 doi: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2020.122543]&nbsp;&nbsp; [[Media: SchroederEtAl2020.pdf | Open Access Article]]</ref>, which can lead to under or over representation of inorganic chemical concentrations relative to the true dissolved phase concentration in the sediment porewater<ref>Wise, D.E., 2009. Sampling techniques for sediment pore water in evaluation of reactive capping efficacy. Master of Science Thesis. University of New Hampshire Scholars’ Repository. 178 pages. [https://scholars.unh.edu/thesis/502 Website]&nbsp;&nbsp; [[Media: Wise2009.pdf | Report.pdf]]</ref><ref name="GruzalskiEtAl2016"/>.  
−
 
 
−
The limitations of this approach, as practiced, are the following:
 
−
*Decisions are rarely made without indoor air data and generally, seasonal sampling is required, delaying decision-making.
 
−
*The collection of a robust indoor air data set that adequately characterizes long-term indoor air concentrations could take years given the typical frequency of data collection and the most common methods of sample collection (e.g., 24-hour samples).  Therefore, indoor air sampling might continue indefinitely at some sites.
 
−
*The “worst first” buildings might not be identified correctly by the logic outlined in USEPA’s 2015 guidance and the most impacted buildings might not even be located over a groundwater plume.  Recent studies have shown [[Vapor Intrusion – Sewers and Utility Tunnels as Preferential Pathways |VI impacts in homes as a result of sewer and other subsurface piping connections]], which are not explicitly considered nor easily characterized through conventional VI pathway assessment<ref> Beckley, L, McHugh, T., 2020. A Conceptual Model for Vapor Intrusion from Groundwater Through Sewer Lines. Science of the Total Environment, 698, Article 134283. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.134283 doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.134283]&nbsp;&nbsp; [[Media: BeckleyMcHugh2020.pdf | Open Access Article]]</ref><ref name="GuoEtAl2015">Guo, Y., Holton, C., Luo, H., Dahlen, P., Gorder, K., Dettenmaier, E., Johnson, P.C., 2015. Identification of Alternative Vapor Intrusion Pathways Using Controlled Pressure Testing, Soil Gas Monitoring, and Screening Model Calculations. Environmental Science and Technology, 49(22), pp. 13472–13482. [https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.5b03564 doi: 10.1021/acs.est.5b03564]</ref><ref name="McHughEtAl2017">McHugh, T., Beckley, L., Sullivan, T., Lutes, C., Truesdale, R., Uppencamp, R., Cosky, B., Zimmerman, J., Schumacher, B., 2017. Evidence of a Sewer Vapor Transport Pathway at the USEPA Vapor Intrusion Research Duplex. Science of the Total Environment, pp. 598, 772-779. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.04.135 doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.04.135]&nbsp;&nbsp; [[Media: McHughEtAl2017.pdf | Open Access Manuscipt]]</ref><ref name="McHughBeckley2018">McHugh, T., Beckley, L., 2018. Sewers and Utility Tunnels as Preferential Pathways for Volatile Organic Compound Migration into Buildings: Risk Factors and Investigation Protocol. ESTCP ER-201505, Final Report. [https://serdp-estcp.mil/projects/details/f12abf80-5273-4220-b09a-e239d0188421 Project Website]&nbsp;&nbsp; [[Media: ER-201505.pdf | Final Report.pdf]]</ref><ref name="RiisEtAl2010">Riis, C., Hansen, M.H., Nielsen, H.H., Christensen, A.G., Terkelsen, M., 2010. Vapor Intrusion through Sewer Systems: Migration Pathways of Chlorinated Solvents from Groundwater to Indoor Air. Seventh International Conference on Remediation of Chlorinated and Recalcitrant Compounds, May, Monterey, CA. Battelle Memorial Institute. ISBN 978-0-9819730-2-9. [https://www.battelle.org/conferences/battelle-conference-proceedings Website]&nbsp;&nbsp; [[Media: RiisEtAl2010.pdf | Report.pdf]]</ref>.
 
−
*The presumptive remedy for VI mitigation (sub-slab depressurization) may not be effective for all VI scenarios (e.g., those involving vapor migration to indoor spaces via sewer connections).
 
−
 
−
The '''VI Diagnosis Toolkit''' components were developed considering these limitations as well as more recent knowledge gained through research, development, and validation projects funded by SERDP and ESTCP.
 
−
 
 
−
==The VI Diagnosis Toolkit Components==
 
−
The primary components of the VI Diagnosis Toolkit and their uses include:
 
−
*'''External VI source strength screening''' to identify buildings most likely to be impacted by VI at levels warranting building-specific testing. 
 
−
*'''Indoor air source screening''' to locate and remove indoor air sources that might confound building specific VI pathway assessment.
 
−
*'''Controlled pressurization method (CPM)''' testing to quickly (in a few days or less) measure the worst-case indoor air impact likely to be caused by VI under natural conditions in specific buildings. CPM tests can also be used to identify the presence of indoor air sources and diagnose active VI pathways.
 
−
*'''Passive indoor sampling''' for determining long-term average indoor air concentrations under natural VI conditions and/or for verifying mitigation system effectiveness in buildings that warrant VI mitigation.
 
−
*'''Comprehensive VI conceptual model development and refinement''' to ensure that appropriate monitoring, investigation, and mitigation strategies are being selected.
 
−
 
 
−
Expanded discussions for each of these are given below.
 
−
 
 
−
'''External VI source strength screening''' identifies those buildings that warrant more intrusive building-specific assessments, using data collected exterior to the buildings. The use of groundwater and/or soil gas concentration data for building screening has been part of VI pathway assessments for some time and their use is discussed in many regulatory guidance documents. Typically, the measured concentrations are compared to relevant screening levels derived via modeling or empirical analyses from indoor air concentrations of concern. 
 
−
 
 
−
More recently it has been discovered that VI impacts can occur via sewer and other subsurface piping connections in areas where vapor migration through the soil would not be expected to be significant, and this could also occur in buildings that do not sit over contaminated groundwater<ref name="RiisEtAl2010"/><ref name="GuoEtAl2015"/><ref name="McHughEtAl2017"/><ref name="McHughBeckley2018"/>.  
 
−
 
 
−
Therefore, in addition to groundwater and soil gas sampling, external data collection that includes and extends beyond the area of concern should include manhole vapor sampling (e.g., sanitary sewer, storm sewer, land-drain). Video surveys from sanitary sewers, storm sewers, and/or land-drains can also be used to identify areas of groundwater leakage into utility corridors and lateral connections to buildings that are conduits for vapor transport. During these investigations, it is important to recognize that utility corridors can transmit both impacted water and vapors beyond groundwater plume boundaries, so extending investigations into areas adjacent to groundwater plume boundaries is necessary.
 
−
 
 
−
Using projected indoor air concentrations from modeling and empirical data analyses, and distance screening approaches, external source screening can identify areas and buildings that can be ruled out, or conversely, those that warrant building-specific testing.  
 
−
 
 
−
Demonstration of neighborhood-scale external VI source screening using groundwater, depth, sewer, land drain, and video data is documented in the ER-201501 final report<ref name="JohnsonEtAl2020"/>.  
 
−
 
 
−
'''Indoor air source screening''' seeks to locate and remove indoor air sources<ref>Doucette, W.J., Hall, A.J., Gorder, K.A., 2010. Emissions of 1,2-Dichloroethane from Holiday Decorations as a Source of Indoor Air Contamination. Ground Water Monitoring and Remediation, 30(1), pp. 67-73. [https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6592.2009.01267.x doi: 10.1111/j.1745-6592.2009.01267.x] </ref> that might confound building specific VI pathway assessment. Visual inspections and written surveys might or might not identify significant indoor air sources, so these should be complemented with use of portable analytical instruments<ref>McHugh, T., Kuder, T., Fiorenza, S., Gorder, K., Dettenmaier, E., Philp, P., 2011. Application of CSIA to Distinguish Between Vapor Intrusion and Indoor Sources of VOCs. Environmental Science and Technology, 45(14), pp. 5952-5958. [https://doi.org/10.1021/es200988d doi: 10.1021/es200988d]</ref><ref name="BeckleyEtAl2014">Beckley, L., Gorder, K., Dettenmaier, E., Rivera-Duarte, I., McHugh, T., 2014. On-Site Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry (GC/MS) Analysis to Streamline Vapor Intrusion Investigations. Environmental Forensics, 15(3), pp. 234–243. [https://doi.org/10.1080/15275922.2014.930941  doi: 10.1080/15275922.2014.930941]</ref>.
 
−
 
 
−
The advantage of portable analytical tools is that they allow practitioners to expeditiously test indoor air concentrations under natural conditions in each room of the building. Concentrations in any room in excess of relevant screening levels trigger more sampling in that room to identify if an indoor source is present in that room. Removal of a suspected source and subsequent room testing can identify if that object or product was the source of the previously measured concentrations.
 
−
 
 
−
'''Building-specific controlled pressurization method (CPM) testing''' directly measures the worst case indoor air impact, but it can also be used to determine contributing VI pathways and to identify indoor air sources<ref>McHugh, T.E., Beckley, L., Bailey, D., Gorder, K., Dettenmaier, E., Rivera-Duarte, I., Brock, S., MacGregor, I.C., 2012. Evaluation of Vapor Intrusion Using Controlled Building Pressure. Environmental Science and Technology, 46(9), pp. 4792–4799. [https://doi.org/10.1021/es204483g  doi: 10.1021/es204483g]</ref><ref name="BeckleyEtAl2014"/><ref name="GuoEtAl2015"/><ref name="HoltonEtAl2015">Holton, C., Guo, Y., Luo, H., Dahlen, P., Gorder, K., Dettenmaier, E., Johnson, P.C., 2015. Long-Term Evaluation of the Controlled Pressure Method for Assessment of the Vapor Intrusion Pathway. Environmental Science and Technology, 49(4), pp. 2091–2098.  [https://doi.org/10.1021/es5052342  doi: 10.1021/es5052342]</ref><ref name="JohnsonEtAl2020"/><ref name="GuoEtAl2020a">Guo, Y., Dahlen, P., Johnson, P.C., 2020a. Development and Validation of a Controlled Pressure Method Test Protocol for Vapor Intrusion Pathway Assessment.  Environmental Science and Technology, 54(12), pp. 7117-7125. [https://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.0c00811 doi: 10.1021/acs.est.0c00811]</ref>. In CPM testing, blowers/fans installed in a doorway(s) or window(s) are set-up to exhaust indoor air to outdoor, which causes the building to be under pressurized relative to the atmosphere. This induces air movement from the subsurface into the test building via openings in the foundation and/or subsurface piping networks with or without direct connections to indoor air. This is similar to what happens intermittently under natural conditions when wind, indoor-outdoor temperature differences, and/or use of appliances that exhaust air from the structure (e.g. dryer exhaust) create an under-pressurized building condition.  
 
  
−
The blowers/fans can also be used to blow outdoor air into the building, thereby creating a building over-pressurization condition. A positive pressure difference CPM test suppresses VI pathways; therefore, chemicals detected in indoor air above outdoor air concentrations during this condition are attributed to indoor contaminant sources which facilitates the identification of any such indoor air sources.
+
To address the complications with mechanical porewater sampling, passive sampling approaches for inorganics have been developed to provide a method that has a low impact on the surrounding geochemistry of sediments and sediment porewater, thus enabling more precise measurements of inorganics<ref name="ClevelandEtAl2017"/>. Sediment porewater dialysis passive samplers, also known as “peepers,” were developed more than 45 years ago<ref name="Hesslein1976">Hesslein, R.H., 1976. An in situ sampler for close interval pore water studies. Limnology and Oceanography, 21(6), pp. 912-914. [https://doi.org/10.4319/lo.1976.21.6.0912 doi: 10.4319/lo.1976.21.6.0912]&nbsp;&nbsp; [[Media: Hesslein1976.pdf | Open Access Article]]</ref> and refinements to the method such as the use of reverse tracers have been made, improving the acceptance of the technology as decision making tool.
  
−
Data collected during CPM testing, when combined with screening level VI modeling, can be used to identify which VI chemical migration pathways are significant contributors to indoor air impacts<ref name="GuoEtAl2015"/>.  
+
==Peeper Designs==
 +
[[File:RisacherFig1.png|thumb|300px|Figure 1. Conceptual illustration of peeper construction showing (top, left to right) the peeper cap (optional), peeper membrane and peeper chamber, and (bottom) an assembled peeper containing peeper water]]
 +
[[File:RisacherFig2.png | thumb |400px| Figure 2. Example of Hesslein<ref name="Hesslein1976"/> general peeper design (42 peeper chambers), from [https://www.usgs.gov/media/images/peeper-samplers USGS]]]
 +
[[File:RisacherFig3.png | thumb |400px| Figure 3. Peeper deployment structure to allow the measurement of metal availability in different sediment layers using five single-chamber peepers (Photo: Geosyntec Consultants)]]
 +
Peepers (Figure 1) are inert containers with a small volume (typically 1-100 mL) of purified water (“peeper water”) capped with a semi-permeable membrane. Peepers can be manufactured in a wide variety of formats (Figure 2, Figure 3) and deployed in in various ways.  
  
 +
Two designs are commonly used for peepers. Frequently, the designs are close adaptations of the original multi-chamber Hesslein design<ref name="Hesslein1976"/> (Figure 2), which consists of an acrylic sampler body with multiple sample chambers machined into it. Peeper water inside the chambers is separated from the outside environment by a semi-permeable membrane, which is held in place by a top plate fixed to the sampler body using bolts or screws. An alternative design consists of single-chamber peepers constructed using a single sample vial with a membrane secured over the mouth of the vial, as shown in Figure 3, and applied in Teasdale ''et al.''<ref name="TeasdaleEtAl1995"/>, Serbst ''et al.''<ref>Serbst, J.R., Burgess, R.M., Kuhn, A., Edwards, P.A., Cantwell, M.G., Pelletier, M.C.,  Berry, W.J., 2003. Precision of dialysis (peeper) sampling of cadmium in marine sediment interstitial water. Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, 45(3), pp. 297–305. [https://doi.org/10.1007/s00244-003-0114-5 doi: 10.1007/s00244-003-0114-5]</ref>, Thomas and Arthur<ref name="ThomasArthur2010">Thomas, B., Arthur, M.A., 2010. Correcting porewater concentration measurements from peepers: Application of a reverse tracer. Limnology and Oceanography: Methods, 8(8), pp. 403–413. [https://doi.org/10.4319/lom.2010.8.403 doi: 10.4319/lom.2010.8.403]&nbsp;&nbsp; [[Media: ThomasArthur2010.pdf | Open Access Article]]</ref>, Passeport ''et al.''<ref>Passeport, E., Landis, R., Lacrampe-Couloume, G., Lutz, E.J., Erin Mack, E., West, K., Morgan, S., Lollar, B.S., 2016. Sediment Monitored Natural Recovery Evidenced by Compound Specific Isotope Analysis and High-Resolution Pore Water Sampling. Environmental Science and Technology, 50(22), pp. 12197–12204. [https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.6b02961 doi: 10.1021/acs.est.6b02961]</ref>, and Risacher ''et al.''<ref name="RisacherEtAl2023"/>. The vial is filled with deionized water, and the membrane is held in place using the vial cap or an o-ring. Individual vials are either directly inserted into sediment or are incorporated into a support structure to allow multiple single-chamber peepers to be deployed at once over a given depth profile (Figure 3).
  
 +
==Peepers Preparation, Deployment and Retrieval==
 +
[[File:RisacherFig4.png | thumb |300px| Figure 4: Conceptual illustration of peeper passive sampling in a sediment matrix, showing peeper immediately after deployment (top) and after equilibration between the porewater and peeper chamber water (bottom)]]
 +
Peepers are often prepared in laboratories but are also commercially available in a variety of designs from several suppliers. Peepers are prepared by first cleaning all materials to remove even trace levels of metals before assembly. The water contained inside the peeper is sometimes deoxygenated, and in some cases the peeper is maintained in a deoxygenated atmosphere until deployment<ref>Carignan, R., St‐Pierre, S., Gachter, R., 1994. Use of diffusion samplers in oligotrophic lake sediments: Effects of free oxygen in sampler material. Limnology and Oceanography, 39(2), pp. 468-474. [https://doi.org/10.4319/lo.1994.39.2.0468 doi: 10.4319/lo.1994.39.2.0468]&nbsp;&nbsp; [[Media: CarignanEtAl1994.pdf | Open Access Article]]</ref>. However, recent studies<ref name="RisacherEtAl2023"/> have shown that deoxygenation prior to deployment does not significantly impact sampling results due to oxygen rapidly diffusing out of the peeper during deployment. Once assembled, peepers are usually shipped in a protective bag inside a hard-case cooler for protection.
  
 +
Peepers are deployed by insertion into sediment for a period of a few days to a few weeks. Insertion into the sediment can be achieved by wading to the location when the water depth is shallow, by using push poles for deeper deployments<ref name="RisacherEtAl2023"/>, or by professional divers for the deepest sites.  If divers are used, an appropriate boat or ship will be required to accommodate the diver and their equipment. Whichever method is used, peepers should be attached to an anchor or a small buoy to facilitate retrieval at the end of the deployment period.
  
 +
During deployment, passive sampling is achieved via diffusion of inorganics through the peeper’s semi-permeable membrane, as the enclosed volume of peeper water equilibrates with the surrounding sediment porewater (Figure 4). It is assumed that the peeper insertion does not greatly alter geochemical conditions that affect freely-dissolved inorganics. Additionally, it is assumed that the peeper water equilibrates with freely-dissolved inorganics in sediment in such a way that the concentration of inorganics in the peeper water would be equal to that of the concentration of inorganics in the sediment porewater.
  
−
[[File:ChangFig2.png | thumb | 400px| Figure 1. Example of instrumentation used for OPTICS monitoring.]]
+
After retrieval, the peepers are brought to the surface and usually preserved until they can be processed. This can be achieved by storing the peepers inside a sealable, airtight bag with either inert gas or oxygen absorbing packets<ref name="RisacherEtAl2023"/>. The peeper water can then be processed by quickly pipetting it into an appropriate sample bottle which usually contains a preservative (e.g., nitric acid for metals). This step is generally conducted in the field. Samples are stored on ice to maintain a temperature of less than 4°C and shipped to an analytical laboratory. The samples are then analyzed for inorganics by standard methods (i.e., USEPA SW-846). The results obtained from the analytical laboratory are then used directly or assessed using the equations below if a reverse tracer is used because deployment time is insufficient for all analytes to reach equilibrium.
−
[[File:ChangFig1.png | thumb | 400px| Figure 2. Schematic diagram illustrating the OPTICS methodology. High resolution in-situ data are integrated with traditional discrete sample analytical data using partial least-square regression to derive high resolution chemical contaminant concentration data series.]]
 
−
Nationwide, the liability due to contaminated sediments is estimated in the trillions of dollars. Stakeholders are assessing and developing remedial strategies for contaminated sediment sites in major harbors and waterways throughout the U.S. The mobility of contaminants in surface water is a primary transport and risk mechanism<ref>Thibodeaux, L.J., 1996. Environmental Chemodynamics: Movement of Chemicals in Air, Water, and Soil, 2nd Edition, Volume 110 of Environmental Science and Technology: A Wiley-Interscience Series of Texts and Monographs. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 624 pages. ISBN: 0-471-61295-2</ref><ref>United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 2005. Contaminated Sediment Remediation Guidance for Hazardous Waste Sites. Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation Report, EPA-540-R-05-012. [[Media: 2005-USEPA-Contaminated_Sediment_Remediation_Guidance.pdf | Report.pdf]]</ref><ref>Lick, W., 2008. Sediment and Contaminant Transport in Surface Waters. CRC Press. 416 pages. [https://doi.org/10.1201/9781420059885 doi:  10.1201/9781420059885]</ref>; therefore, long-term monitoring of both particulate- and dissolved-phase contaminant concentration prior to, during, and following remedial action is necessary to document remedy effectiveness. Source control and total maximum daily load (TMDL) actions generally require costly manual monitoring of dissolved and particulate contaminant concentrations in surface water. The magnitude of cost for these actions is a strong motivation to implement efficient methods for long-term source control and remedial monitoring.  
 
  
−
Traditional surface water monitoring requires mobilization of field teams to manually collect discrete water samples, send samples to laboratories, and await laboratory analysis so that a site evaluation can be conducted. These traditional methods are well known to have inherent cost and safety concerns and are of limited use (due to safety concerns and standby requirements for resources) in capturing the effects of episodic events (e.g., storms) that are important to consider in site risk assessment and remedy selection. Automated water samplers are commercially available but still require significant field support and costly laboratory analysis. Further, automated samplers may not be suitable for analytes with short hold-times and temperature requirements.  
+
==Equilibrium Determination (Tracers)==
 +
The equilibration period of peepers can last several weeks and depends on deployment conditions, analyte of interest, and peeper design. In many cases, it is advantageous to use pre-equilibrium methods that can use measurements in peepers deployed for shorter periods to predict concentrations at equilibrium<ref name="USEPA2017">USEPA, 2017. Laboratory, Field, and Analytical Procedures for Using Passive Sampling in the Evaluation of Contaminated Sediments: User’s Manual. EPA/600/R-16/357.&nbsp;&nbsp; [[Media: EPA_600_R-16_357.pdf | Report.pdf]]</ref>.  
  
−
Optically-based characterization of surface water contaminants is a cost-effective alternative to traditional discrete water sampling methods. Unlike discrete water sampling, which typically results in sparse data at low resolution, and therefore, is of limited use in determining mass loading, OPTICS (OPTically-based In-situ Characterization System) provides continuous data and allows for a complete understanding of water quality and contaminant transport in response to natural processes and human impacts<ref name="ChangEtAl2019"/><ref name="ChangEtAl2018"/><ref name="ChangEtAl2024"/><ref>Bergamaschi, B.A., Fleck, J.A., Downing, B.D., Boss, E., Pellerin, B., Ganju, N.K., Schoellhamer, D.H., Byington, A.A., Heim, W.A., Stephenson, M., Fujii, R., 2011. Methyl mercury dynamics in a tidal wetland quantified using in situ optical measurements. Limnology and Oceanography, 56(4), pp. 1355-1371. [https://doi.org/10.4319/lo.2011.56.4.1355 doi: 10.4319/lo.2011.56.4.1355]&nbsp;&nbsp; [[Media: BergamaschiEtAl2011.pdf | Open Access Article]]</ref><ref>Bergamaschi, B.A., Fleck, J.A., Downing, B.D., Boss, E., Pellerin, B.A., Ganju, N.K., Schoellhamer, D.H., Byington, A.A., Heim, W.A., Stephenson, M., Fujii, R., 2012. Mercury Dynamics in a San Francisco Estuary Tidal Wetland: Assessing Dynamics Using In Situ Measurements. Estuaries and Coasts, 35, pp. 1036-1048. [https://doi.org/10.1007/s12237-012-9501-3 doi: 10.1007/s12237-012-9501-3]&nbsp;&nbsp; [[Media: BergamaschiEtAl2012a.pdf | Open Access Article]]</ref><ref>Bergamaschi, B.A., Krabbenhoft, D.P., Aiken, G.R., Patino, E., Rumbold, D.G., Orem, W.H., 2012. Tidally driven export of dissolved organic carbon, total mercury, and methylmercury from a mangrove-dominated estuary. Environmental Science and Technology, 46(3), pp. 1371-1378. [https://doi.org/10.1021/es2029137 doi: 10.1021/es2029137]&nbsp;&nbsp; [[Media: BergamaschiEtAl2012b.pdf | Open Access Article]]</ref>. The OPTICS tool integrates commercial off-the-shelf ''in situ'' aquatic sensors (Figure 1), periodic discrete surface water sample collection, and a multi-parameter statistical prediction model<ref name="deJong1993">de Jong, S., 1993. SIMPLS: an alternative approach to partial least squares regression. Chemometrics and Intelligent Laboratory Systems, 18(3), pp. 251-263. [https://doi.org/10.1016/0169-7439(93)85002-X doi: 10.1016/0169-7439(93)85002-X]</ref><ref name="RosipalKramer2006">Rosipal, R. and Krämer, N., 2006. Overview and Recent Advances in Partial Least Squares, In: Subspace, Latent Structure, and Feature Selection: Statistical and Optimization Perspectives Workshop, Revised Selected Papers (Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Volume 3940), Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Germany. pp. 34-51. [https://doi.org/10.1007/11752790_2 doi: 10.1007/11752790_2]</ref> to provide high temporal and/or spatial resolution characterization of surface water chemicals of potential concern (COPCs) (Figure 2).
+
Although the equilibrium concentration of an analyte in sediment can be evaluated by examining analyte results for peepers deployed for several different amounts of time (i.e., a time series), this is impractical for typical field investigations because it would require several mobilizations to the site to retrieve samplers. Alternately, reverse tracers (referred to as a performance reference compound when used with organic compound passive sampling) can be used to evaluate the percentage of equilibrium reached by a passive sampler.
  
−
==Technology Overview==
+
Thomas and Arthur<ref name="ThomasArthur2010"/> studied the use of a reverse tracer to estimate percent equilibrium in lab experiments and a field application. They concluded that bromide can be used to estimate concentrations in porewater using measurements obtained before equilibrium is reached. Further studies were also conducted by Risacher ''et al.''<ref name="RisacherEtAl2023"/> showed that lithium can also be used as a tracer for brackish and saline environments. Both studies included a mathematical model for estimating concentrations of ions in external media (''C<small><sub>0</sub></small>'') based on measured concentrations in the peeper chamber (''C<small><sub>p,t</sub></small>''), the elimination rate of the target analyte (''K'') and the deployment time (''t''):
−
The principle behind OPTICS is based on the relationship between optical properties of natural waters and the particles and dissolved material contained within them<ref>Boss, E. and Pegau, W.S., 2001. Relationship of light scattering at an angle in the backward direction to the backscattering coefficient. Applied Optics, 40(30), pp. 5503-5507. [https://doi.org/10.1364/AO.40.005503 doi: 10.1364/AO.40.005503]</ref><ref>Boss, E., Twardowski, M.S., Herring, S., 2001. Shape of the particulate beam spectrum and its inversion to obtain the shape of the particle size distribution. Applied Optics, 40(27), pp. 4884-4893. [https://doi.org/10.1364/AO.40.004885 doi:10/1364/AO.40.004885]</ref><ref>Babin, M., Morel, A., Fournier-Sicre, V., Fell, F., Stramski, D., 2003. Light scattering properties of marine particles in coastal and open ocean waters as related to the particle mass concentration. Limnology and Oceanography, 48(2), pp. 843-859. [https://doi.org/10.4319/lo.2003.48.2.0843 doi: 10.4319/lo.2003.48.2.0843]&nbsp;&nbsp; [[Media: BabinEtAl2003.pdf | Open Access Article]]</ref><ref>Coble, P., Hu, C., Gould, R., Chang, G., Wood, M., 2004. Colored dissolved organic matter in the coastal ocean: An optical tool for coastal zone environmental assessment and management. Oceanography, 17(2), pp. 50-59. [https://doi.org/10.5670/oceanog.2004.47 doi: 10.5670/oceanog.2004.47]&nbsp;&nbsp; [[Media: CobleEtAl2004.pdf | Open Access Article]]</ref><ref>Sullivan, J.M., Twardowski, M.S., Donaghay, P.L., Freeman, S.A., 2005. Use of optical scattering to discriminate particle types in coastal waters. Applied Optics, 44(9), pp. 1667–1680. [https://doi.org/10.1364/AO.44.001667 doi: 10.1364/AO.44.001667]</ref><ref>Twardowski, M.S., Boss, E., Macdonald, J.B., Pegau, W.S., Barnard, A.H., Zaneveld, J.R.V., 2001. A model for estimating bulk refractive index from the optical backscattering ratio and the implications for understanding particle composition in case I and case II waters. Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans, 106(C7), pp. 14,129-14,142. [https://doi.org/10.1029/2000JC000404 doi: 10/1029/2000JC000404]&nbsp;&nbsp; [[Media: TwardowskiEtAl2001.pdf | Open Access Article]]</ref><ref>Chang, G.C., Barnard, A.H., McLean, S., Egli, P.J., Moore, C., Zaneveld, J.R.V., Dickey, T.D., Hanson, A., 2006. In situ optical variability and relationships in the Santa Barbara Channel: implications for remote sensing. Applied Optics, 45(15), pp. 3593–3604. [https://doi.org/10.1364/AO.45.003593 doi: 10.1364/AO.45.003593]</ref><ref>Slade, W.H. and Boss, E., 2015. Spectral attenuation and backscattering as indicators of average particle size. Applied Optics, 54(24), pp. 7264-7277. [https://doi.org/10.1364/AO.54.007264 doi: 10/1364/AO.54.007264]&nbsp;&nbsp; [[Media: SladeBoss2015.pdf | Open Access Article]]</ref>. Surface water COPCs such as heavy metals and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) are hydrophobic in nature and tend to sorb to materials in the water column, which have unique optical signatures that can be measured at high-resolution using ''in situ'', commercially available aquatic sensors<ref>Agrawal, Y.C. and Pottsmith, H.C., 2000. Instruments for particle size and settling velocity observations in sediment transport. Marine Geology, 168(1-4), pp. 89-114. [https://doi.org/10.1016/S0025-3227(00)00044-X doi: 10.1016/S0025-3227(00)00044-X]</ref><ref>Boss, E., Pegau, W.S., Gardner, W.D., Zaneveld, J.R.V., Barnard, A.H., Twardowski, M.S., Chang, G.C., Dickey, T.D., 2001. Spectral particulate attenuation and particle size distribution in the bottom boundary layer of a continental shelf. Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans, 106(C5), pp. 9509-9516. [https://doi.org/10.1029/2000JC900077  doi: 10.1029/2000JC900077]&nbsp;&nbsp; [[Media: BossEtAl2001.pdf | Open Access Article]]</ref><ref>Boss, E., Pegau, W.S., Lee, M., Twardowski, M., Shybanov, E., Korotaev, G. Baratange, F., 2004. Particulate backscattering ratio at LEO 15 and its use to study particle composition and distribution. Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans, 109(C1), Article C01014. [https://doi.org/10.1029/2002JC001514 doi: 10.1029/2002JC001514]&nbsp;&nbsp; [[Media: BossEtAl2004.pdf | Open Access Article]]</ref><ref>Briggs, N.T., Slade, W.H., Boss, E., Perry, M.J., 2013. Method for estimating mean particle size from high-frequency fluctuations in beam attenuation or scattering measurement. Applied Optics, 52(27), pp. 6710-6725. [https://doi.org/10.1364/AO.52.006710 doi: 10.1364/AO.52.006710]&nbsp;&nbsp; [[Media: BriggsEtAl2013.pdf | Open Access Article]]</ref>. Therefore, high-resolution concentrations of COPCs can be accurately and robustly derived from ''in situ'' measurements using statistical methods.
+
</br>
 +
{|
 +
| || '''Equation&nbsp;1:'''
 +
|&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;[[File: Equation1r.png]]
 +
|-
 +
| Where: || ||
 +
|-
 +
| || ''C<small><sub>0</sub></small>''|| is the freely dissolved concentration of the analyte in the sediment (mg/L or &mu;g/L), sometimes referred to as ''C<small><sub>free</sub></small>  
 +
|-
 +
| || ''C<small><sub>p,t</sub></small>'' || is the measured concentration of the analyte in the peeper at time of retrieval (mg/L or &mu;g/L)
 +
|-
 +
| || ''K'' || is the elimination rate of the target analyte
 +
|-
 +
| || ''t'' || is the deployment time (days)
 +
|}
  
−
The OPTICS method is analogous to the commonly used empirical derivation of total suspended solids concentration (TSS) from optical turbidity using linear regression<ref>Rasmussen, P.P., Gray, J.R., Glysson, G.D., Ziegler, A.C., 2009. Guidelines and procedures for computing time-series suspended-sediment concentrations and loads from in-stream turbidity-sensor and streamflow data. In: Techniques and Methods, Book 3: Applications of Hydraulics, Section C: Sediment and Erosion Techniques, Ch. 4. 52 pages. U.S. Geological Survey.&nbsp;&nbsp; [[Media: RasmussenEtAl2009.pdf | Open Access Article]]</ref>. However, rather than deriving one response variable (TSS) from one predictor variable (turbidity), OPTICS involves derivation of one response variable (e.g., PCB concentration) from a suite of predictor variables (e.g., turbidity, temperature, salinity, and fluorescence of chlorophyll-a) using multi-parameter statistical regression. OPTICS is based on statistical correlation – similar to the turbidity-to-TSS regression technique. The method does not rely on interpolation or extrapolation. 
+
The elimination rate of the target analyte (''K'') is calculated using Equation 2:
 +
</br>
 +
{|
 +
| || '''Equation&nbsp;2:'''
 +
|&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;[[File: Equation2r.png]]
 +
|-
 +
| Where: || ||
 +
|-
 +
| || ''K''|| is the elimination rate of the target analyte
 +
|-
 +
| || ''K<small><sub>tracer</sub></small>'' || is the elimination rate of the tracer
 +
|-
 +
| || ''D'' || is the free water diffusivity of the analyte (cm<sup>2</sup>/s)
 +
|-
 +
| || ''D<small><sub>tracer</sub></small>'' || is the free water diffusivity of the tracer (cm<sup>2</sup>/s)
 +
|}
  
−
The OPTICS technique utilizes partial least-squares (PLS) regression to determine a combination of physical, optical, and water quality properties that best predicts chemical contaminant concentrations with high variance. PLS regression is a statistically based method combining multiple linear regression and principal component analysis (PCA), where multiple linear regression finds a combination of predictors that best fit a response and PCA finds combinations of predictors with large variance<ref name="deJong1993"/><ref name="RosipalKramer2006"/>. Therefore, PLS identifies combinations of multi-collinear predictors (''in situ'', high-resolution physical, optical, and water quality measurements) that have large covariance with the response values (discrete surface water chemical contaminant concentration data from samples that are collected periodically, coincident with ''in situ'' measurements). PLS combines information about the variances of both the predictors and the responses, while also considering the correlations among them. PLS therefore provides a model with reliable predictive power.
+
The elimination rate of the tracer (''K<small><sub>tracer</sub></small>'') is calculated using Equation 3:
 +
</br>
 +
{|
 +
| || '''Equation&nbsp;3:'''
 +
|&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;[[File: Equation3r2.png]]
 +
|-
 +
| Where: || ||
 +
|-
 +
| || ''K<small><sub>tracer</sub></small>'' || is the elimination rate of the tracer
 +
|-
 +
| || ''C<small><sub>tracer,i</sub></small>''|| is the measured initial concentration of the tracer in the peeper prior to deployment (mg/L or &mu;g/L)
 +
|-
 +
| || ''C<small><sub>tracer,t</sub></small>'' || is the measured final concentration of the tracer in the peeper at time of retrieval (mg/L or &mu;g/L)
 +
|-
 +
| || ''t'' || is the deployment time (days)
 +
|}
  
−
OPTICS ''in situ'' measurement parameters include, but are not limited to current velocity, conductivity, temperature, depth, turbidity, dissolved oxygen, and fluorescence of chlorophyll-a and dissolved organic matter. Instrumentation for these measurements is commercially available, robust, deployable in a wide variety of configurations (e.g., moored, vessel-mounted, etc.), powered by batteries, and records data internally and/or transmits data in real-time. The physical, optical, and water quality instrumentation is compact and self-contained. The modularity and automated nature of the OPTICS measurement system enables robust, long-term, autonomous data collection for near-continuous monitoring.  
+
Using this set of equations allows the calculation of the porewater concentration of the analyte prior to its equilibrium with the peeper water. A template for these calculations can be found in the appendix of Risacher ''et al.''<ref name="RisacherEtAl2023"/>.
  
−
[[File:ChangFig3.png | thumb | 400px| Figure 3. OPTICS to characterize COPC variability in the context of site processes at BCSA. (A) Tidal oscillations (Elev.<sub>MSL</sub>) and precipitation (Precip.). (B) – (D) OPTICS-derived particulate mercury (PHg) and methylmercury (PMeHg) and total PCBs (TPCBs). Open circles represent discrete water sample data.]] OPTICS measurements are provided at a significantly reduced cost relative to traditional monitoring techniques used within the environmental industry. Cost performance analysis shows that monitoring costs are reduced by more than 85% while significantly increasing the temporal and spatial resolution of sampling. The reduced cost of monitoring makes this technology suitable for a number of environmental applications including, but not limited to site baseline characterization, source control evaluation, dredge or stormflow plume characterization, and remedy performance monitoring. OPTICS has been successfully demonstrated for characterizing a wide variety of COPCs: mercury, methylmercury, copper, lead, PCBs, dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) and its related compounds (collectively, DDX), and 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD or dioxin) in a number of different environmental systems ranging from inland lakes and rivers to the coastal ocean. To date, OPTICS has been limited to surface water applications. Additional applications (e.g., groundwater) would require further research and development.
+
==Using Peeper Data at a Sediment Site==
 +
Peeper data can be used to enable site specific decision making in a variety of ways. Some of the most common uses for peepers and peeper data are discussed below.
  
−
==Applications==
+
'''Nature and Extent:''' Multiple peepers deployed in sediment can help delineate areas of increased metal availability. Peepers are especially helpful for sites that are comprised of coarse, relatively inert materials that may not be conducive to traditional bulk sediment sampling. Because much of the inorganics present in these types of sediments may be associated with the porewater phase rather than the solid phase, peepers can provide a more representative measurement of C<small><sub>0</sub></small>. Additionally, at sites where tidal pumping or groundwater flux may be influencing the nature and extent of inorganics, peepers can provide a distinct advantage to bulk sediment sampling or other point-in-time measurements, as peepers can provide an average measurement that integrates the variability in the hydrodynamic and chemical conditions over time.
−
[[File:ChangFig4.png | thumb | 400px| Figure 4. OPTICS reveals baseflow daily cycling and confirms storm-induced particle-bound COPC resuspension and mobilization through bank interaction. (A) Flow rate (Q) and precipitation (Precip). (B) – (C) OPTICS-derived particulate mercury (PHg) and methylmercury (PMeHg). Open circles represent discrete water sample data.]]
 
−
[[File:ChangFig5.png | thumb | 400px| Figure 5. Three-dimensional volume plot of high spatial resolution OPTICS-derived PCBs in exceedance of baseline showing that PCBs were discharged from the outfall (yellow arrow), remained in suspension, and dispersed elsewhere before settling.]]
 
−
An OPTICS study was conducted at Berry’s Creek Study Area (BCSA), New Jersey in 2014 and 2015 to understand COPC sources and transport mechanisms for development of an effective remediation plan. OPTICS successfully extended periodic discrete surface water samples to continuous, high-resolution measurements of PCBs, mercury, and methylmercury to elucidate COPC sources and transport throughout the BCSA tidal estuary system. OPTICS provided data at resolution sufficient to investigate COC variability in the context of physical processes. The results (Figure 3) facilitated focused and effective site remediation and management decisions that could not be determined based on periodic discrete samples alone, despite over seven years of monitoring at different locations throughout the system over a range of different seasons, tidal phases, and environmental conditions. The BCSA OPTICS methodology and its results have undergone official peer review overseen by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), and those results have been published in peer-reviewed literature<ref name="ChangEtAl2019"/>.  
 
  
−
OPTICS was applied at the South River, Virginia in 2016 to quantify sources of legacy mercury in the system that are contributing to recontamination and continued elevated mercury concentrations in fish tissue. OPTICS provided information necessary to identify mechanisms for COPC redistribution and to quantify the relative contribution of each mechanism to total mass transport of mercury and methylmercury in the system. Continuous, high-resolution COPC data afforded by OPTICS helped resolve baseflow daily cycling that had never before been observed at the South River (Figure 4) and provided data at temporal resolution necessary to verify storm-induced particle-bound COC resuspension and mobilization through bank interaction. The results informed source control and remedy design and monitoring efforts. Methodology and results from the South River have been published in peer-reviewed literature<ref name="ChangEtAl2018"/>.  
+
'''Sources and Fate:''' A considerable advantage to using peepers is that C<small><sub>0</sub></small> results are expressed as concentration in units of mass per volume (e.g., mg/L), providing a common unit of measurement to compare across multiple media. For example, synchronous measurements of C<small><sub>0</sub></small> using peepers deployed in both surface water and sediment can elucidate the potential flux of inorganics from sediment to surface water. Paired measurements of both C<small><sub>0</sub></small> and bulk metals in sediment can also allow site specific sediment-porewater partition coefficients to be calculated. These values can be useful in understanding and predicting contaminant fate, especially in situations where the potential dissolution of metals from sediment are critical to predict, such as when sediment is dredged.
  
−
The U.S. Department of Defense’s Environmental Security Technology Certification Program (ESTCP) supported an OPTICS demonstration study at the Pearl Harbor Sediment Site, Hawaii, to determine whether stormwater from Oscar 1 Pier outfall is a contributing source of PCBs to Decision Unit (DU) N-2 (ESTCP Project ER21-5021). High spatial resolution results afforded by ship-based, mobile OPTICS monitoring suggested that PCBs were discharged from the outfall, remained in suspension, and dispersed elsewhere before settling (Figure 5). More details regarding this study were presented by Chang et al. in 2024<ref name="ChangEtAl2024"/>.
+
'''Direct Toxicity to Aquatic Life:''' Peepers are frequently used to understand the potential direct toxicity to aquatic life, such as benthic invertebrates and fish. A C<small><sub>0</sub></small> measurement obtained from a peeper deployed in sediment (''in situ'') or surface water (''ex situ''), can be compared to toxicological benchmarks for aquatic life to understand the potential toxicity to aquatic life and to set remediation goals<ref name="USEPA2017"/>. C<small><sub>0</sub></small> measurements can also be incorporated in more sophisticated approaches, such as the Biotic Ligand Model<ref>Santore, C.R., Toll, E.J., DeForest, K.D., Croteau, K., Baldwin, A., Bergquist, B., McPeek, K., Tobiason, K., and Judd, L.N., 2022. Refining our understanding of metal bioavailability in sediments using information from porewater: Application of a multi-metal BLM as an extension of the Equilibrium Partitioning Sediment Benchmarks. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management, 18(5), pp. 1335–1347. [https://doi.org/10.1002/ieam.4572 doi: 10.1002/ieam.4572]</ref> to understand the potential for toxicity or the need to conduct toxicological testing or ecological evaluations.
  
−
==Summary==
+
'''Bioaccumulation of Inorganics by Aquatic Life:''' Peepers can also be used to understand site specific relationship between C<small><sub>0</sub></small> and concentrations of inorganics in aquatic life. For example, measuring C<small><sub>0</sub></small> in sediment from which organisms are collected and analyzed can enable the estimation of a site-specific uptake factor. This C<small><sub>0</sub></small>-to-organism uptake factor (or model) can then be applied for a variety of uses, including predicting the concentration of inorganics in other organisms, or estimating a sediment C<small><sub>0</sub></small> value that would be safe for consumption by wildlife or humans. Because several decades of research have found that the correlation between C<small><sub>0</sub></small> measurements and bioavailability is usually better than the correlation between measurements of chemicals in bulk sediment and bioavailability, C<small><sub>0</sub></small>-to-organism uptake factors are likely to be more accurate than uptake factors based on bulk sediment testing.
−
OPTICS provides:
 
−
*High resolution surface water chemical contaminant characterization
 
−
*Cost-effective monitoring and assessment
 
−
*Versatile and modular monitoring with capability for real-time telemetry
 
−
*Data necessary for development and validation of conceptual site models
 
−
*A key line of evidence for designing and evaluating remedies.
 
  
−
Because OPTICS monitoring involves deployment of autonomous sampling instrumentation, a substantially greater volume of data can be collected using this technique compared to traditional sampling, and at a far lower cost. A large volume of data supports evaluation of chemical contaminant concentrations over a range of spatial and temporal scales, and the system can be customized for a variety of environmental applications. OPTICS helps quantify contaminant mass flux and the relative contribution of local transport and source areas to net contaminant transport. OPTICS delivers a strong line of evidence for evaluating contaminant sources, fate, and transport, and for supporting the design of a remedy tailored to address site-specific, risk-driving conditions. The improved understanding of site processes aids in the development of mitigation measures that minimize site risks.  
+
'''Evaluating Sediment Remediation Efficacy:''' Passive sampling has been used widely to evaluate the efficacy of remedial actions such as active amendments, thin layer placements, and capping to reduce the availability of contaminants at sediment sites. A particularly powerful approach is to compare baseline (pre-remedy) C<small><sub>0</sub></small> in sediment to C<small><sub>0</sub></small> in sediment after the sediment remedy has been applied. Peepers can be used in this context for inorganics, allowing the sediment remedy’s success to be evaluated and monitored in laboratory benchtop remedy evaluations, pilot scale remedy evaluations, and full-scale remediation monitoring.
  
 
==References==
 
==References==
Line 110: Line 126:
  
 
==See Also==
 
==See Also==
 +
*[https://vimeo.com/809180171/c276c1873a Peeper Deployment Video]
 +
*[https://vimeo.com/811073634/303edf2693 Peeper Retrieval Video]
 +
*[https://vimeo.com/811328715/aea3073540 Peeper Processing Video]
 +
*[https://sepub-prod-0001-124733793621-us-gov-west-1.s3.us-gov-west-1.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/2024-09/ER20-5261%20Fact%20Sheet.pdf?VersionId=malAixSQQM3mWCRiaVaxY8wLdI0jE1PX Fact Sheet]

Latest revision as of 21:47, 14 October 2024

Sediment Porewater Dialysis Passive Samplers for Inorganics (Peepers)

Sediment porewater dialysis passive samplers, also known as “peepers,” are sampling devices that allow the measurement of dissolved inorganic ions in the porewater of a saturated sediment. Peepers function by allowing freely-dissolved ions in sediment porewater to diffuse across a micro-porous membrane towards water contained in an isolated compartment that has been inserted into sediment. Once retrieved after a deployment period, the resulting sample obtained can provide concentrations of freely-dissolved inorganic constituents in sediment, which provides measurements that can be used for understanding contaminant fate and risk. Peepers can also be used in the same manner in surface water, although this article is focused on the use of peepers in sediment.

Related Article(s):


Contributor(s):

  • Florent Risacher, M.Sc.
  • Jason Conder, Ph.D.

Key Resource(s):

  • A review of peeper passive sampling approaches to measure the availability of inorganics in sediment porewater[1]
  • Best Practices User’s Guide: Standardizing Sediment Porewater Passive Samplers for Inorganic Constituents of Concern[2]

Introduction

Biologically available inorganic constituents associated with sediment toxicity can be quantified by measuring the freely-dissolved fraction of contaminants in the porewater[3][4]. Classical sediment porewater analysis usually consists of collecting large volumes of bulk sediments which are then mechanically squeezed or centrifuged to produce a supernatant, or suction of porewater from intact sediment, followed by filtration and collection[5]. The extraction and measurement processes present challenges due to the heterogeneity of sediments, physical disturbance, high reactivity of some complexes, and interaction between the solid and dissolved phases, which can impact the measured concentration of dissolved inorganics[6]. For example, sampling disturbance can affect redox conditions[7][8], which can lead to under or over representation of inorganic chemical concentrations relative to the true dissolved phase concentration in the sediment porewater[9][5].

To address the complications with mechanical porewater sampling, passive sampling approaches for inorganics have been developed to provide a method that has a low impact on the surrounding geochemistry of sediments and sediment porewater, thus enabling more precise measurements of inorganics[4]. Sediment porewater dialysis passive samplers, also known as “peepers,” were developed more than 45 years ago[10] and refinements to the method such as the use of reverse tracers have been made, improving the acceptance of the technology as decision making tool.

Peeper Designs

Figure 1. Conceptual illustration of peeper construction showing (top, left to right) the peeper cap (optional), peeper membrane and peeper chamber, and (bottom) an assembled peeper containing peeper water
Figure 2. Example of Hesslein[10] general peeper design (42 peeper chambers), from USGS
Figure 3. Peeper deployment structure to allow the measurement of metal availability in different sediment layers using five single-chamber peepers (Photo: Geosyntec Consultants)

Peepers (Figure 1) are inert containers with a small volume (typically 1-100 mL) of purified water (“peeper water”) capped with a semi-permeable membrane. Peepers can be manufactured in a wide variety of formats (Figure 2, Figure 3) and deployed in in various ways.

Two designs are commonly used for peepers. Frequently, the designs are close adaptations of the original multi-chamber Hesslein design[10] (Figure 2), which consists of an acrylic sampler body with multiple sample chambers machined into it. Peeper water inside the chambers is separated from the outside environment by a semi-permeable membrane, which is held in place by a top plate fixed to the sampler body using bolts or screws. An alternative design consists of single-chamber peepers constructed using a single sample vial with a membrane secured over the mouth of the vial, as shown in Figure 3, and applied in Teasdale et al.[7], Serbst et al.[11], Thomas and Arthur[12], Passeport et al.[13], and Risacher et al.[2]. The vial is filled with deionized water, and the membrane is held in place using the vial cap or an o-ring. Individual vials are either directly inserted into sediment or are incorporated into a support structure to allow multiple single-chamber peepers to be deployed at once over a given depth profile (Figure 3).

Peepers Preparation, Deployment and Retrieval

Figure 4: Conceptual illustration of peeper passive sampling in a sediment matrix, showing peeper immediately after deployment (top) and after equilibration between the porewater and peeper chamber water (bottom)

Peepers are often prepared in laboratories but are also commercially available in a variety of designs from several suppliers. Peepers are prepared by first cleaning all materials to remove even trace levels of metals before assembly. The water contained inside the peeper is sometimes deoxygenated, and in some cases the peeper is maintained in a deoxygenated atmosphere until deployment[14]. However, recent studies[2] have shown that deoxygenation prior to deployment does not significantly impact sampling results due to oxygen rapidly diffusing out of the peeper during deployment. Once assembled, peepers are usually shipped in a protective bag inside a hard-case cooler for protection.

Peepers are deployed by insertion into sediment for a period of a few days to a few weeks. Insertion into the sediment can be achieved by wading to the location when the water depth is shallow, by using push poles for deeper deployments[2], or by professional divers for the deepest sites. If divers are used, an appropriate boat or ship will be required to accommodate the diver and their equipment. Whichever method is used, peepers should be attached to an anchor or a small buoy to facilitate retrieval at the end of the deployment period.

During deployment, passive sampling is achieved via diffusion of inorganics through the peeper’s semi-permeable membrane, as the enclosed volume of peeper water equilibrates with the surrounding sediment porewater (Figure 4). It is assumed that the peeper insertion does not greatly alter geochemical conditions that affect freely-dissolved inorganics. Additionally, it is assumed that the peeper water equilibrates with freely-dissolved inorganics in sediment in such a way that the concentration of inorganics in the peeper water would be equal to that of the concentration of inorganics in the sediment porewater.

After retrieval, the peepers are brought to the surface and usually preserved until they can be processed. This can be achieved by storing the peepers inside a sealable, airtight bag with either inert gas or oxygen absorbing packets[2]. The peeper water can then be processed by quickly pipetting it into an appropriate sample bottle which usually contains a preservative (e.g., nitric acid for metals). This step is generally conducted in the field. Samples are stored on ice to maintain a temperature of less than 4°C and shipped to an analytical laboratory. The samples are then analyzed for inorganics by standard methods (i.e., USEPA SW-846). The results obtained from the analytical laboratory are then used directly or assessed using the equations below if a reverse tracer is used because deployment time is insufficient for all analytes to reach equilibrium.

Equilibrium Determination (Tracers)

The equilibration period of peepers can last several weeks and depends on deployment conditions, analyte of interest, and peeper design. In many cases, it is advantageous to use pre-equilibrium methods that can use measurements in peepers deployed for shorter periods to predict concentrations at equilibrium[15].

Although the equilibrium concentration of an analyte in sediment can be evaluated by examining analyte results for peepers deployed for several different amounts of time (i.e., a time series), this is impractical for typical field investigations because it would require several mobilizations to the site to retrieve samplers. Alternately, reverse tracers (referred to as a performance reference compound when used with organic compound passive sampling) can be used to evaluate the percentage of equilibrium reached by a passive sampler.

Thomas and Arthur[12] studied the use of a reverse tracer to estimate percent equilibrium in lab experiments and a field application. They concluded that bromide can be used to estimate concentrations in porewater using measurements obtained before equilibrium is reached. Further studies were also conducted by Risacher et al.[2] showed that lithium can also be used as a tracer for brackish and saline environments. Both studies included a mathematical model for estimating concentrations of ions in external media (C0) based on measured concentrations in the peeper chamber (Cp,t), the elimination rate of the target analyte (K) and the deployment time (t):

Equation 1:      Equation1r.png
Where:
C0 is the freely dissolved concentration of the analyte in the sediment (mg/L or μg/L), sometimes referred to as Cfree
Cp,t is the measured concentration of the analyte in the peeper at time of retrieval (mg/L or μg/L)
K is the elimination rate of the target analyte
t is the deployment time (days)

The elimination rate of the target analyte (K) is calculated using Equation 2:

Equation 2:      Equation2r.png
Where:
K is the elimination rate of the target analyte
Ktracer is the elimination rate of the tracer
D is the free water diffusivity of the analyte (cm2/s)
Dtracer is the free water diffusivity of the tracer (cm2/s)

The elimination rate of the tracer (Ktracer) is calculated using Equation 3:

Equation 3:          Equation3r2.png
Where:
Ktracer is the elimination rate of the tracer
Ctracer,i is the measured initial concentration of the tracer in the peeper prior to deployment (mg/L or μg/L)
Ctracer,t is the measured final concentration of the tracer in the peeper at time of retrieval (mg/L or μg/L)
t is the deployment time (days)

Using this set of equations allows the calculation of the porewater concentration of the analyte prior to its equilibrium with the peeper water. A template for these calculations can be found in the appendix of Risacher et al.[2].

Using Peeper Data at a Sediment Site

Peeper data can be used to enable site specific decision making in a variety of ways. Some of the most common uses for peepers and peeper data are discussed below.

Nature and Extent: Multiple peepers deployed in sediment can help delineate areas of increased metal availability. Peepers are especially helpful for sites that are comprised of coarse, relatively inert materials that may not be conducive to traditional bulk sediment sampling. Because much of the inorganics present in these types of sediments may be associated with the porewater phase rather than the solid phase, peepers can provide a more representative measurement of C0. Additionally, at sites where tidal pumping or groundwater flux may be influencing the nature and extent of inorganics, peepers can provide a distinct advantage to bulk sediment sampling or other point-in-time measurements, as peepers can provide an average measurement that integrates the variability in the hydrodynamic and chemical conditions over time.

Sources and Fate: A considerable advantage to using peepers is that C0 results are expressed as concentration in units of mass per volume (e.g., mg/L), providing a common unit of measurement to compare across multiple media. For example, synchronous measurements of C0 using peepers deployed in both surface water and sediment can elucidate the potential flux of inorganics from sediment to surface water. Paired measurements of both C0 and bulk metals in sediment can also allow site specific sediment-porewater partition coefficients to be calculated. These values can be useful in understanding and predicting contaminant fate, especially in situations where the potential dissolution of metals from sediment are critical to predict, such as when sediment is dredged.

Direct Toxicity to Aquatic Life: Peepers are frequently used to understand the potential direct toxicity to aquatic life, such as benthic invertebrates and fish. A C0 measurement obtained from a peeper deployed in sediment (in situ) or surface water (ex situ), can be compared to toxicological benchmarks for aquatic life to understand the potential toxicity to aquatic life and to set remediation goals[15]. C0 measurements can also be incorporated in more sophisticated approaches, such as the Biotic Ligand Model[16] to understand the potential for toxicity or the need to conduct toxicological testing or ecological evaluations.

Bioaccumulation of Inorganics by Aquatic Life: Peepers can also be used to understand site specific relationship between C0 and concentrations of inorganics in aquatic life. For example, measuring C0 in sediment from which organisms are collected and analyzed can enable the estimation of a site-specific uptake factor. This C0-to-organism uptake factor (or model) can then be applied for a variety of uses, including predicting the concentration of inorganics in other organisms, or estimating a sediment C0 value that would be safe for consumption by wildlife or humans. Because several decades of research have found that the correlation between C0 measurements and bioavailability is usually better than the correlation between measurements of chemicals in bulk sediment and bioavailability, C0-to-organism uptake factors are likely to be more accurate than uptake factors based on bulk sediment testing.

Evaluating Sediment Remediation Efficacy: Passive sampling has been used widely to evaluate the efficacy of remedial actions such as active amendments, thin layer placements, and capping to reduce the availability of contaminants at sediment sites. A particularly powerful approach is to compare baseline (pre-remedy) C0 in sediment to C0 in sediment after the sediment remedy has been applied. Peepers can be used in this context for inorganics, allowing the sediment remedy’s success to be evaluated and monitored in laboratory benchtop remedy evaluations, pilot scale remedy evaluations, and full-scale remediation monitoring.

References

  1. ^ Risacher, F.F., Schneider, H., Drygiannaki, I., Conder, J., Pautler, B.G., and Jackson, A.W., 2023. A Review of Peeper Passive Sampling Approaches to Measure the Availability of Inorganics in Sediment Porewater. Environmental Pollution, 328, Article 121581. doi: 10.1016/j.envpol.2023.121581   Open Access Manuscript
  2. ^ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 Risacher, F.F., Nichols, E., Schneider, H., Lawrence, M., Conder, J., Sweett, A., Pautler, B.G., Jackson, W.A., Rosen, G., 2023b. Best Practices User’s Guide: Standardizing Sediment Porewater Passive Samplers for Inorganic Constituents of Concern, ESTCP ER20-5261. Project Website   Report.pdf
  3. ^ Conder, J.M., Fuchsman, P.C., Grover, M.M., Magar, V.S., Henning, M.H., 2015. Critical review of mercury SQVs for the protection of benthic invertebrates. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 34(1), pp. 6-21. doi: 10.1002/etc.2769   Open Access Article
  4. ^ 4.0 4.1 Cleveland, D., Brumbaugh, W.G., MacDonald, D.D., 2017. A comparison of four porewater sampling methods for metal mixtures and dissolved organic carbon and the implications for sediment toxicity evaluations. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 36(11), pp. 2906-2915. doi: 10.1002/etc.3884
  5. ^ 5.0 5.1 Gruzalski, J.G., Markwiese, J.T., Carriker, N.E., Rogers, W.J., Vitale, R.J., Thal, D.I., 2016. Pore Water Collection, Analysis and Evolution: The Need for Standardization. In: Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, Vol. 237, pp. 37–51. Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-23573-8_2
  6. ^ Peijnenburg, W.J.G.M., Teasdale, P.R., Reible, D., Mondon, J., Bennett, W.W., Campbell, P.G.C., 2014. Passive Sampling Methods for Contaminated Sediments: State of the Science for Metals. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management, 10(2), pp. 179–196. doi: 10.1002/ieam.1502   Open Access Article
  7. ^ 7.0 7.1 Teasdale, P.R., Batley, G.E., Apte, S.C., Webster, I.T., 1995. Pore water sampling with sediment peepers. Trends in Analytical Chemistry, 14(6), pp. 250–256. doi: 10.1016/0165-9936(95)91617-2
  8. ^ Schroeder, H., Duester, L., Fabricius, A.L., Ecker, D., Breitung, V., Ternes, T.A., 2020. Sediment water (interface) mobility of metal(loid)s and nutrients under undisturbed conditions and during resuspension. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 394, Article 122543. doi: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2020.122543   Open Access Article
  9. ^ Wise, D.E., 2009. Sampling techniques for sediment pore water in evaluation of reactive capping efficacy. Master of Science Thesis. University of New Hampshire Scholars’ Repository. 178 pages. Website   Report.pdf
  10. ^ 10.0 10.1 10.2 Hesslein, R.H., 1976. An in situ sampler for close interval pore water studies. Limnology and Oceanography, 21(6), pp. 912-914. doi: 10.4319/lo.1976.21.6.0912   Open Access Article
  11. ^ Serbst, J.R., Burgess, R.M., Kuhn, A., Edwards, P.A., Cantwell, M.G., Pelletier, M.C., Berry, W.J., 2003. Precision of dialysis (peeper) sampling of cadmium in marine sediment interstitial water. Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, 45(3), pp. 297–305. doi: 10.1007/s00244-003-0114-5
  12. ^ 12.0 12.1 Thomas, B., Arthur, M.A., 2010. Correcting porewater concentration measurements from peepers: Application of a reverse tracer. Limnology and Oceanography: Methods, 8(8), pp. 403–413. doi: 10.4319/lom.2010.8.403   Open Access Article
  13. ^ Passeport, E., Landis, R., Lacrampe-Couloume, G., Lutz, E.J., Erin Mack, E., West, K., Morgan, S., Lollar, B.S., 2016. Sediment Monitored Natural Recovery Evidenced by Compound Specific Isotope Analysis and High-Resolution Pore Water Sampling. Environmental Science and Technology, 50(22), pp. 12197–12204. doi: 10.1021/acs.est.6b02961
  14. ^ Carignan, R., St‐Pierre, S., Gachter, R., 1994. Use of diffusion samplers in oligotrophic lake sediments: Effects of free oxygen in sampler material. Limnology and Oceanography, 39(2), pp. 468-474. doi: 10.4319/lo.1994.39.2.0468   Open Access Article
  15. ^ 15.0 15.1 USEPA, 2017. Laboratory, Field, and Analytical Procedures for Using Passive Sampling in the Evaluation of Contaminated Sediments: User’s Manual. EPA/600/R-16/357.   Report.pdf
  16. ^ Santore, C.R., Toll, E.J., DeForest, K.D., Croteau, K., Baldwin, A., Bergquist, B., McPeek, K., Tobiason, K., and Judd, L.N., 2022. Refining our understanding of metal bioavailability in sediments using information from porewater: Application of a multi-metal BLM as an extension of the Equilibrium Partitioning Sediment Benchmarks. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management, 18(5), pp. 1335–1347. doi: 10.1002/ieam.4572

See Also

Retrieved from "https://www.enviro.wiki/index.php?title=User:Jhurley/sandbox&oldid=16899"