 |
 |
Ok, so say I've got a site where I suspect PAH free product. If I were to use the Atkins numbers my SSV would be 13mg/kg (based on the saturation limit), but if I were to use LQM my GAC would be 1600mg/kg Bit of a difference? Why have LQM not quoted a saturation value when Atkins have? Paul - I'm kinda looking for an answer from LQM here? Adam 2009/9/30 Colin Shackleford <[log in to unmask]> > Atkins note that consideration can be given to using the combined > assessment criterion given by CLEA (2400mg/kg apparently) if no free product > is observed. > > > > Regards, > > > > Colin > > * * > > * * > > > > > > > > *From:* Contaminated Land Management Discussion List [mailto: > [log in to unmask]] *On Behalf Of *Adam James > *Sent:* 30 September 2009 16:45 > *To:* [log in to unmask] > *Subject:* LQM versus Atkins > > > > Has anyone spent anytime comparing the LQM numbers with the Atkins numbers > for PAHs?. > > I've noticed that for 6% SOM on a sandy loam, residential use, that Atkins > quote the saturation limit say for Pyrene to be 13.2mg/kg, but LQM have > published a GAC of 1600 mg/kg with no mention of nearing saturation? > > Surely both have used CLEA v1.04 and and the EA SR7 organic data spreasheet > so at least both should be quoting the same saturation limit, regardless of > the tox data used? > > Any ideas? Have LQM forgotten to include the saturation limits for the > PAHs? > > Adam >