A downhole passive sampling system to avoid bias and error from groundwater sample handling.

A new downhole groundwater sampler reduces bias and error due to sample handling and exposure while introducing minimal disturbance to natural flow conditions in the formation and well. This "In Situ Sealed", "ISS", or "Snap" sampling device includes removable/lab-ready sample bottles, a sampler device to hold double end-opening sample bottles in an open position, and a line for lowering the sampler system and triggering closure of the bottles downhole. Before deployment, each bottle is set open at both ends to allow flow-through during installation and equilibration downhole. Bottles are triggered to close downhole without well purging; the method is therefore "passive" or "nonpurge". The sample is retrieved in a sealed condition and remains unexposed until analysis. Data from six field studies comparing ISS sampling with traditional methods indicate ISS samples typically yield higher volatile organic compound (VOC) concentrations; in one case, significant chemical-specific differentials between sampling methods were discernible. For arsenic, filtered and unfiltered purge results were negatively and positively biased, respectively, compared to ISS results. Inorganic constituents showed parity with traditional methods. Overall, the ISS is versatile, avoids low VOC recovery bias, and enhances reproducibility while avoiding sampling complexity and purge water disposal.

[1]  M. Bierkens,et al.  Application and evaluation of a new passive sampler for measuring average solute concentrations in a catchment scale water quality monitoring study. , 2010, Environmental science & technology.

[2]  D. Watson,et al.  Passive sampling and analyses of common dissolved fixed gases in groundwater. , 2008, Environmental science & technology.

[3]  A. Chu,et al.  Integrated sampling and analytical approach for common groundwater dissolved gases. , 2007, Environmental science & technology.

[4]  P. Sanders,et al.  Use of Sequential Filtration for Determining Transportable Lead in Ground Water , 2005 .

[5]  Sanford L. Britt Testing the In‐Well Horizontal Laminar Flow Assumption with a Sand‐Tank Well Model , 2005 .

[6]  D. Vroblesky,et al.  Equilibration times, compound selectivity, and stability of diffusion samplers for collection of ground-water VOC concentrations , 2001 .

[7]  Robert W. Puls,et al.  Low-flow (minimal drawdown) groundwater sampling procedures , 1996 .

[8]  Thomas A. Ranney,et al.  Sampling Trace-Level Organics with Polymeric Tubings. , 1996 .

[9]  James H. Ficken,et al.  Effects of Sample Isolation and Handling on the Recovery of Purgeable Organic Compounds , 1994 .

[10]  R. Puls,et al.  Passive sampling of groundwater monitoring wells without purging: multilevel well chemistry and tracer disappearance , 1993 .

[11]  R. Gillham,et al.  Field Evaluation of Well Purging Procedures , 1987 .

[12]  M. Barcelona,et al.  Well construction and purging effects on ground-water samples , 1986 .

[13]  John A. Cherry,et al.  A Syringe and Cartridge Method for Down‐Hole Sampling for Trace Organics in Ground Water , 1984 .

[14]  R. Gillham SYRINGE DEVICES FOR GROUND‐WATER SAMPLING , 1982 .

[15]  W. A. Pettyjohn,et al.  Sampling Ground Water for Organic Contaminants , 1981 .

[16]  R. C. Frost,et al.  A light-weight and cheap depth sampler , 1977 .

[17]  D. Vroblesky User's guide for polyethylene-based passive diffusion bag samplers to obtain volatile organic compound concentrations in wells. Part 2, Field tests , 2001 .

[18]  P. E. Church Evaluation of diffusion sampling method for determining concentrations of volatile organic compounds in ground water, Hanscom Air Force Base, Bedford, Massachusetts , 2000 .

[19]  Brian C. Peters,et al.  Diffusion sampler testing at Naval Air Station North Island, San Diego County, California, November 1999 to January 2000 , 2000 .

[20]  R. Puls,et al.  Colloidal-facilitated transport of inorganic contaminants in ground water: part 1, sampling considerations , 1996 .