The design of this instrument is well suited for
a superfund site remediation in New Jersey. In
in-situ manual operations and could also be
Proceedings of the 2nd International Symposium
adapted for robotic implementation. Two likely
Field Screening for Hazardous Waste and Toxic
adaptations are increasing the distance between
Chemicals, 1214 February, Las Vegas, Nevada.
the scanner and analyzer console by acquiring a
ICAIR, Life Systems, Inc., p. 671672.
Puls, R., D.A. Clark, C. Carlson, and J. Vardy (1994)
longer connecting cable and changing the soft-
Characterization of chromium-contaminated
ware to allow for rapid quantification of both the
soils using field-portable X-ray fluorescence.
K and L lines for both of Pb and Hg in soil matri-
Ground Water Monitoring and Remediation, Sum-
ces, as currently performed for the analysis of Pb
mer, p. 111115.
in paint.
Sensitivity of XRF analysis increases with
Schneider, J.F., J.D. Taylor, D.A. Bass, S.D. Zell-
length of analysis up to a period of several min-
mer, and M. Rieck (1995) Evaluation of a field-
utes. Unique to this system (Co-57 source) is that
portable X-ray fluorescence spectrometer for the
not only does the ability to detect lower concen-
determination of lead contamination in soil.
trations at the immediate surface increase with
American Environmental Laboratory, 6(10): 3536.
analysis time, but the ability to detect aggregates
Spittler, T.M., and W.A. Fender (1979) A study of
within the first 1.5 cm also increases. If site plan
soil contamination and plant lead uptake in Bos-
objectives call for detection of percent levels on
ton urban gardens. Communications in Soil Science
the surface, then a 10-s analysis period is suffi-
and Plant Analysis, 10(9): 11951210.
US EPA (1986) Test Methods for Evaluating Solid
cient. However, if the first 1.5 cm is of concern,
Waste. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
then measurement periods of 1.5 minutes or
vol. 1B, SW-846.
longer are necessary. The use of portable XRF
systems that cannot be equipped with a Co-57
source for screening sites for primary explosives
mary explosives in soil, final report. Global Envi-
is not recommended.
ronmental Solutions, Inc., Roy F. Weston, Inc.,
U.S. Army Environmental Center Report No.
SFIM-AEC-TS-CR-94057.
LITERATURE CITED
Yinon, J., and S. Zitrin (1981) The Analysis of Explo-
Garby, J.C. (1991) Comparison of mobile labora-
sives. New York: Pergamon Press, Inc., Maxwell
tory XRF and CLP split sample lead results from
House.
9
Previous Page
