to produce samples with stable white phospho-
Next we tried spiking matrices that were po-
rus concentrations, we decided to spike wet soils
tentially less reactive then the soil used in previ-
with white phosphorus dissolved in an organic
ous samples. These matrices were wet sand and
solvent. Solutions of white phosphorus in solvents
glass microbeads. After almost two weeks of stor-
such as toluene and isooctane are stable for years.
age in 22-mL vials (no headspace), no significant
We chose mineral oil , a solvent that has high solu-
loss was noted for the spiked glass microbeads
bility for white phosphorus (12 g/L) (Stich 1953)
(Table 2f). While concentrations in the spiked sand
and has low volatility (for safety during flame-
were less than day 0, loss was smaller than that
sealing of ampoules ). We spiked 19 g of wet soil
observed for the AEC soil.
with 0.18 g of white phosphorus dissolved in
Finally, we spiked wet glass microbeads stored
mineral oil (25 L of a 7.2-mg/L solution), and
in 120-mL jars, the same jars used for sample ex-
stored the soils in ampoules with and without ni-
traction. After 14 days of storage at room tempera-
trogen purging. Again WP concentrations declined
ture, recovery was slightly less than that observed
with time (Table 2d and 2e).
for samples stored in vials without headspace (92%
To isolate what component of the matrix was
vs. 97%) (Table 2g). White phosphorus concentra-
responsible for the observed losses of white phos-
tions were stable thereafter (up to 76 days) except
phorus, we spiked triplicate samples of dry soil,
for one replicate on day 28.
water, and empty vials with 0.18 g of white phos-
phorus dissolved in mineral oil (25 L of a 7.2-
Stability of field-contaminated sediments
mg/L solution). After two weeks, white phospho-
Previously, we examined the stability of field-
rus was not detectable in the dry soil samples. The
contaminated samples (Table 3). Although sample
mean mass ( std. dev.) remaining in the water
heterogeneity between subsamples made com-
and "empty vial" samples were 0.14 0.05 and
parisons difficult, no loss of white phosphorus af-
0.18 0.01 g. Based on these results, something
ter 9 to 10 months of storage was apparent in
in the soil matrix is responsible for most of the
samples representing a wide range of concentra-
observed losses.
tions. The most important factor to maintain
Because white phosphorus can be lost in a va-
sample integrity was to seal the samples tightly to
riety of chemical reactions (i.e., oxidation by oxy-
prevent desiccation.
gen, halogens, sulfur, acids [e.g., nitric] and most
The difference in analyte stability between field-
metals, hydrolysis to phosphine) (Mellor 1928,
contaminated and laboratory-spiked has been
VanWazer 1958), the fate of the WP added to the
observed previously for other analytes such as
AEC soil is not known. Unlike the solid piece of
TNT (Grant et al. 1995). Similar long-term persis-
white phosphorus used to spike the high concen-
tence of pesticides may occur when the com-
tration samples, where only the surface of the piece
pounds are "sequestered in inaccessible microsites
was available for reaction, the small amount of
within the soil matrix," which reduces bioavail-
dissolved WP added to the samples was totally
ability (Alexander 1995), and are recovered ana-
consumed.
lytically only under vigorous extraction conditions.
Table 3. White phosphorus concentrations found in separate subsamples taken after an extended
time interval (Walsh and Taylor 1993).
First analysis
Second analysis
concentration
Days between
concentration
Number of
Median
(g/g)
(g/g)
(g/g)
analyses
repeat analyses
0.0036
274
0.0055
to
0.260
8
0.0078
0.011
265
0.011
to
0.550
8
0.014
0.062
267
0.0076
to
0.032
8
0.011
0.150
271
0.070
to
0.520
8
0.097
0.420
313
0.210
to
120
10
0.340
6