Table 4. Comparison between GC-TID field and GC-ECD laboratory (method 8095) results for explosives in solvent extracts of soil and sediment samples collected at the Umatilla Chemical Depot

Table 4. Comparison between GC-TID field and GC-ECD laboratory (Method

8095) results for explosives in solvent extracts of soil and sediment samples

collected at the Umatilla Chemical Depot.

Analyte concentration (mg/kg)

TNB

TNT

RDX

TID

ECD

TID

ECD

TID

ECD

1.

ND

480

430

ND

2.

ND

2900

3700

ND

3.

ND

0.25

0.11

ND

1.1

4.

ND

5.8

4.6

ND

0.4

5.

ND

980

780

ND

6.

ND

520

440

ND

7.

ND

0.20

0.30

ND

8.

ND

15

14

ND

9.

2.2

3.2

18

19

ND

10.

18

16

220

210

ND

11.

ND

1000

840

ND

12.

ND

31

25

13.

22

14

40

33

ND

14.

ND

620

550

400

380

15.

0.2

ND

0.25

0.40

12

9.4

16.

ND

1100

870

ND

17.

3.2

4.3

0.10

0.16

6.0

5.4

18.

4.2

5.1

0.20

0.23

5.6

5.1

19.

50

36

1100

920

440

320

20.

49

26

1100

1000

440

430

21.

ND

15,000 14,000

5900

6000

22.

ND

20,000 16,000

8000

6700

Median and range of the % differences for analysis pairs (ECD reference value) with analyte

concentrations.

TNB

TNT

RDX

Median

12.5

11.6

11.1

Range

31.2 to 88.5

37.5 to 127

1.67 to 37.5

Environmental Technology Verification

The ETV samples included 20 soil samples spiked

Program (ETV)

with TNT and RDX to assess accuracy (% recovery). A

summary of results for both the GC-TID and a refer-

The on-site GC-TID and off-site reference labora-

ence laboratory analysis is presented in Table 5. Based

tory results for 2,4-DNT, TNT, and RDX are given in

on the mean values, both the reference laboratory and

Appendix A. A cursory review of the values reported in

GC-TID were unbiased. However, when comparing the

Appendix A turned up two aberrant values reported by

individual values to the acceptance criteria established

the off-site reference laboratory (Blank 2-Replicate 2

by the developer (Environmental Resource Associates,

and Iowa 1-Replicate 2). These values were most likely

Arvada, Colorado), the reference laboratory reported

due to operator error (ORNL 2000). Both the reference

more outliers than the GC-TID (Table 6). For example,

laboratory and the on-site GC-TID analyses were 100%

the reference laboratory reported two values for both

complete, since values were reported for every sample.

In the following discussion, we compare the analytical

RDX and TNT that were higher than the expected

results from the on-site GC-TID analyses with those

concentration by 35% or more (Appendix A, Spike/PE,

from the reference laboratory using Method 8330. Once

Sample 5-Replicate 2 and Sample 6-Replicate 3). All

publicly available, an independent evaluation of the GC-

four of these reference laboratory values and two other

TID performance in the form of a verification report

high values failed to meet the acceptance criteria that

can be found on the ETV web site.

were set for these standard reference materials. In con-

10