 |
 |
Chris This rather begs the question, how toxic are the C5-C36 or C10-C40 aliphatic HCs? Also how many of the C5-C10 aliphatics actually make it into the sample that is analysed? Surely the main difference between these two bandings is the BTEX compounds? Regards Peter Fleming 07958 205920 Skype: petermfleming -----Original Message----- From: Contaminated Land Management Discussion List <[log in to unmask]> On Behalf Of Chris Dainton Sent: Tuesday, 17 July 2018 19:01 To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: TPH definition Hello Mark - TPH appears 38 times in WM3 V1.1 2018 (Chrome browser text search). - TPH as a C6 to C40 range is defined on page 29. - PHC doesn't make an appearance. Clearly NRW/SEPA/NiEA/EA didn't get the memo about 2017 BS EN ISO 11504. Testing - a lot of labs report speciated TPH fractions in the range >C5-C36, which further adds to the mix. It may be that under Steps 1.2 to 1.5 of App D Waste Sampling, one may be able to justify/document using reduced banding (e.g. C10-C40) based on what is known about the nature of the petroleum hydrocarbons potentially in the waste. Chris Dainton ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the CONTAMINATED-LAND-STRATEGIES list, click the following link: https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=CONTAMINATED-LAND-STRATEGIES&A=1 ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the CONTAMINATED-LAND-STRATEGIES list, click the following link: https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=CONTAMINATED-LAND-STRATEGIES&A=1