Table 8. Results from sampling location 8, Volunteer AAP site.
a. Analytical results.
TNT on-site
Laboratory analysis (g/g)
analysis
(g/g)
Sample
TNB
TNT
2,4-DNT
Total
Discrete samples
1a
4,760
24.6
3,180
30.5
3,240
1b
3,160
53.1
3,250
21.7
3,320
2a
24,300
53.7
30,300
46.4
30,400
2b
37,300
53.1
28,200
36.4
28,300
3a
22,100
33.7
21,000
94.0
21,100
3b
24,300
48.8
21,400
123.0
21,600
4a
1,340
11.9
844
13.1
869
4b
2,320
12.5
801
17.7
831
5a
578
5.9
534
--
540
5b
582
6.1
506
2.9
515
6a
6,100
22.8
6,170
12.3
6,210
6b
7,460
18.1
5,210
11.4
5,240
7a
1,980
8.8
1,340
--
1,350
7b
2,650
10.5
1,230
18.7
1,260
mean
9,920
8,900
Composites
C1
9,690
26.6
9,970
30.8
10,000
C2
11,300
25.7
8,930
31.7
8,990
C3
12,700
31.4
9,880
38.7
9,950
C4
9,100
28.6
10,000
31.4
10,100
C5
15,000
26.2
9,440
--
9,470
C6
10,200
27.6
9,500
19.4
9,550
C7
11,000
26.9
9,260
26.0
9,310
mean
11,300
9,620
std. dev.
2,020
409
1.038 and an r of 0.999, indicating a very strong
(Table 8b), because of the unusually large vari-
relationship for the data (Table 8b). Similarly, a
ance for the field results. The means and stan-
slope of 1.070 and an r of 0.998 were found for the
dard deviations of the seven composites were
11,3002020 and 9620 409 g/g for the field and
best fit linear relationship with zero intercept. A
paired t-test for the untransformed data showed
lab data, respectively, compared with the means
of the discrete samples of 9940 g/g from the field
a statistically significant t value of 4.71. A signifi-
results and 8900 g/g from the lab results. Thus,
cant t value of 2.60 was also found for the paired
t-test with the log-transformed data. For all seven
results from the composite analysis provide an
samples, the field result was somewhat higher
acceptably accurate estimate of the average con-
than the lab result and this consistent pattern
centrations on site.
caused the paired t-test to show a significant dif-
ference. Despite this small bias, the lab and field
Sampling location 9
data for the discrete samples at location 8 both
The field and laboratory analyses for sampling
did quite well in portraying the levels of contami-
location 9 are presented in Table 9a. Acetone ex-
nation for individual samples.
tracts from these soils were light yellow, implying
Results from replicate analyses of the compos-
that, if analytes were present, they were in low
ites failed to show that field results were signifi-
concentration. When undiluted extracts were re-
cantly larger than lab results at the 95% level
acted with EnSys reagent, pink to reddish solu-
28
Previous Page
