HAL Id: ineris-01863158
https://hal-ineris.archives-ouvertes.fr/ineris-01863158
Submitted on 28 Aug 2018
HAL
is a multi-disciplinary open access archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- entific research documents, whether they are pub- lished or not. The documents may come from teaching and research institutions in France or abroad, or from public or private research centers.
L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire
HAL, estdestinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires publics ou privés.
Comparison of tools and protocols for groundwater sampling
Fabrice Quiot, Nicolas Diard, Mathieu Hubner
To cite this version:
Fabrice Quiot, Nicolas Diard, Mathieu Hubner. Comparison of tools and protocols for groundwater
sampling. 14. International Conference on Sustainable Use and Management of Soil, Sediment and
Water Resources (AquaConSoil 2017), Jun 2017, Lyon, France. �ineris-01863158�
COMPARISON OF TOOLS AND PROTOCOLS FOR GROUNDWATER SAMPLING Fabrice QUIOT ; Nicolas DIARD ; Mathieu HUBNER
Fabrice.quiot@ineris.fr - INERIS - Domaine du Petit Arbois, BP 33, 13 545 Aix-en-Provence Cedex 04 N-DIARD@erg-sa.fr - ERG ENVIRONNEMENT - 59 avenue André Roussin, 13016 Marseille
MathieuHubner@eurofins.com - EUROFINS Analyses pour l’Environnement France - 5 rue d’Otterswiller, 67701 Saverne
Keywords: groundwater, sampling, pollution, water quality, tools, protocols
Prevention or management of pollution of groundwater is based on sampling. Sampling leads to determine the water quality and in case of failure, to understand origin and evolution. Data must be reliable, the representativeness of a groundwater sample is essential. But obtain a sample which is
“representative” of the water quality in the surrounding geological formation is partly related to the tools and protocols used. Remarkable progress has been done in site characterization, monitoring and field instrumentation over the past 25 years but some issues remain and profession lack of demonstration to clarify certain choices on tools and protocols both best suited to the situation encountered and also to the sampling purpose : use passive or active sampling technique ? use multi- level sampling ? loss of Volatile Organic Compounds ? influence of vertical flows in wells ? influence of purge ? influence of filtration, decantation (site or laboratory) ?... A comparison of existing technology, whether or not conventionally employed by operators, is currently underway by INERIS with academic and private partners - period 2014 to 2017.
What is the best choice on tool and protocol relevant to the situation and the sampling goal ?
This work aims to give illustrations, trends and recommendations on the influence of a change on concentrations results based on the data obtained on actual polluted sites and on an experimental tank (INERIS, Aix-en-Provence, Fr).
Metric scale: experimental tank (INERIS, Aix-en-Provence)
This comparison process will lead to the acquisition of a large amount of data. Interpretation of the results will allow to answer some questions mentioned above.
Results for BTEX groundwater sampling with different tools
At this stage, for example, the acquired data concerning a surface sampling on three sites and tank show that for BTEX (benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylenes), different sampling tools provide concentrations comparable considering analytical uncertainty (with Low-flow purging, packers coupling with bladder pump, bailer, discrete interval sampler…).
Example – Polluted site (historical) 0
500 1000 1500 2000 2500
Benzène Toluène Ethylbenzène m,p-Xylène o-Xylène
Concentration (µg/L)
PDB Bailer
Gigant pump Peristaltic pump
Packers- bladder pump Discrete interval sampler
PP36 pump-LF Hydrasleeve
Polluted site (historical) -alluvial
context -PzA
Example – Polluted site (recent)
This trend indicate in this case (dissolved BTEX plume sampling) a small influence of volatilisation in management of groundwater pollution.
Results for groundwater sampling with different protocols
On the other hand, different results illustrate concentrations variations with or without purge and the importance of knowing the preparation carried out by the laboratory.
Example – Purge influence 0
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Benzène Toluène Ethylbenzène m,p-Xylène o-Xylène
Concentration (µg/L)
PDB Bailer
Gigant pump Peristaltic pump Discrete interval sampler PP36 pump-LF
Polluted site (accident 2009) -alluvial context -PzA
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Cl concentration (mg/L)
no purge and sampling (PP36) purge and sampling (PP36) purge and sampling + 24h (PP36)
PzA PzB
Landfill -fissural context - PzA and PzB
Example – Filtration and decantation influence (PAH)
Example – Filtration and decantation influence (Pb)
Work continues to assess reproducibility of these preliminary results. In some case trends are observed but not always, statistical methods will help us to complete interpretation:
• A lot of campaigns need to be done (objective: 4 on real sites, more in tank…)
• In most cases samples represent a flow-weighted average of the well screen zone…
1 10 100 1000 10000
PAH concentration > Quantification Limit (µg/L) Without filtration/decantation
Without filtration/with decantation With field filtration/without decantation With laboratory filtration/without decantation
Polluted site (historical) -alluvial
context -PzA
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
1 2
Pb concentration (µg/L)
Without
filtration/decantation Without filtration/with decantation
With field filtration/without decantation With laboratory filtration/without decantation Mining site -alluvial
context-PzA and PzB
PzA PzB
