This is on a topic that I don't have experience in, unfortunately.
On a site with an environmental cleanup of VOC/SVOC contaminated soil & sediment going on, I've got an engineering consultant that is testing a stabilization reagent on soil & sediment. The consultant has Synthetic Precipitation Leaching Process (SPLP) results on sediment that are beneath cleanup goals, which is good. Because the consultant thinks these sediment results are representative of soil results too, they want to forgo SPLP testing of the soil in a similar manner because they say it's unnecessary. The easy answer is to just deny their request, but I would like to have a better understanding.
It seems their assumptions include 1) that sediment's finer grains allow for more contact surface area than soil, so using sediment as an indicator is conservative 2) the concentration of contaminants in the sediment sample is just as high or higher than in the nearby soil, so the use of sediment is representative, if not conservative 3) the sediment has all the same contaminants as the soil 4) other factors that influence SPLP are similar between both the soil and sediment
The problem is number 4) above, which I wrote as a sort of catch-all, because I don't really know all the factors that influence SPLP.
I found one May 2008 document from Florida "Guidance for Determining Leachability by Analysis of SPLP Results" that explicitly states its guidance is to be applied to soil, but not sediment. Telling...but it doesn't say why.
The best reference I've found is from 2003, "An Assessment of Laboratory Leaching Tests", which suggests influencing factors for leaching are
[ul]
[li]particle size, shape, and surface area[/li]
[li]permeability of the matrix[/li]
[li]heterogeneity of the soil or fill material[/li]
[li]complexation with inorganic or organic compounds[/li]
[li]presence of NAPL[/li]
[li]some other things that should be consistent between soil & sediment, like temperature during leaching, physical properties of the leaching fluid, biological factors such as biodegredation that can change redox and pH conditions of inorganic contaminants (which we don't have), etc.[/li]
[/ul]
That same reference suggests that one should try to match lab and field conditions on things like liquid-to-solid ratio.
Any thoughts?
On a site with an environmental cleanup of VOC/SVOC contaminated soil & sediment going on, I've got an engineering consultant that is testing a stabilization reagent on soil & sediment. The consultant has Synthetic Precipitation Leaching Process (SPLP) results on sediment that are beneath cleanup goals, which is good. Because the consultant thinks these sediment results are representative of soil results too, they want to forgo SPLP testing of the soil in a similar manner because they say it's unnecessary. The easy answer is to just deny their request, but I would like to have a better understanding.
It seems their assumptions include 1) that sediment's finer grains allow for more contact surface area than soil, so using sediment as an indicator is conservative 2) the concentration of contaminants in the sediment sample is just as high or higher than in the nearby soil, so the use of sediment is representative, if not conservative 3) the sediment has all the same contaminants as the soil 4) other factors that influence SPLP are similar between both the soil and sediment
The problem is number 4) above, which I wrote as a sort of catch-all, because I don't really know all the factors that influence SPLP.
I found one May 2008 document from Florida "Guidance for Determining Leachability by Analysis of SPLP Results" that explicitly states its guidance is to be applied to soil, but not sediment. Telling...but it doesn't say why.
The best reference I've found is from 2003, "An Assessment of Laboratory Leaching Tests", which suggests influencing factors for leaching are
[ul]
[li]particle size, shape, and surface area[/li]
[li]permeability of the matrix[/li]
[li]heterogeneity of the soil or fill material[/li]
[li]complexation with inorganic or organic compounds[/li]
[li]presence of NAPL[/li]
[li]some other things that should be consistent between soil & sediment, like temperature during leaching, physical properties of the leaching fluid, biological factors such as biodegredation that can change redox and pH conditions of inorganic contaminants (which we don't have), etc.[/li]
[/ul]
That same reference suggests that one should try to match lab and field conditions on things like liquid-to-solid ratio.
Any thoughts?