Peter

You are right, WM3 is very prescriptive. If I understand this correctly the waste code depends on whether either of the statements below are true

•  The value for coal tar is less than 0.1% (1000mg/kg or 1000ppm) of the solid material.
• The concentration of coal tar is known and the concentration  of Benzo(a)pyrene is less than 0.005% of the concentration of the coal tar.

In both cases the concentration of “coal tar” needs to be known. I only know of one method that can do this …or am I missing something here?

 

 

 

 

I also agree with your comments, but with Waste Classification it is difficult to have multiple results presented to the disposal facility, because the thresholds are absolute.  Unlike in  risk assessment there is no room for variability.

 

Yours

 

Peter

 

 

It is worth also noting TPH whether petrol, diesel, oil or tar are highly complex mixtures of multiple isomers with very similar physical characteristics such as boiling point. 

 

Separating them on a column is therefore very difficult and inaccuracies are caused by the following

·       co-elution i.e. where more than one compound elutes off a column at the same time

·       column length which can vary from 25m to 120m plus.  A longer column general provides greater separation

·       A temperature ramp is required where the column is heated in the GC oven from temperatures of 60 degrees centigrade to temperatures of up to 300 degrees for heavier compounds such as waxes or multi ring PAHs.  The higher the temperature the more column bleed.  This is where the stationary phase from the column leaks.  This causes baseline noise and or the hump sometimes seen.  These also cause uncertainty of result.

·       Samples with heavier more waxy compounds can elute with broader fatter peaks.  Measurement of these will always be less certain in terms of accuracy.

·       On a site where biodegradation is occurring this will not occur at uniform rate also producing variation even where samples may have been retrieved from narrowly spaced sampling

·       Ditto in groundwater

·       Degraded samples where there may be complex hydrocarbons with alcohol, phenolic or carboxylic acids breakdowns may elute within the hydrocarbon peak profile but cause peak spreading and interference

·       The elution of so many compounds very narrowly spaced on a trace with co-elution effects will automatically introduce variation and inaccuracy

 

It is therefore important to note that TPH-CWG or any other method with such a complex mixture will not be as accurate as when speciated analysis for BTEX, PAHs, phenolics etc are carried out on oil and tar based hydrocarbons.

 

Speciated analysis is not just accurate because of the extraction a GC-MS can be tuned to just pick up certain compounds as each compound has a unique splitting pattern when analysed using a mass spectrometer.  This is one of the reasons it is so much more powerful a tool that GC-FID analysis.

 

In my opinion TPH by whatever method should never be used as a the sole method risk assessment on a hydrocarbon impacted site either for HH, CW or waste assessment.

 

Failure to carry out speciated testing for other compounds is likely to lead to  flawed assessment decisions.

 

In the event of uncertainty it is a good idea to talk to one of the technical managers at a decent lab who can give guidance as to the various hydrocarbon analysis methods of which CWG is only one and also the benefits of speciated analysis.  A good lab will also be able to advice on the best way to remove matrix effects such as interference from humic materials or other sample matrix effects that may cause a problem.

 

Also worth noting as well that variability in results will be found between analysis of PAHs via the SVOC suite or the USEPA 16 or other more tuned and targeted methods. 

 

 

 

 

Peter

Try sending a sample to a lab with well-rotted natural organics ( autumn road washings is always a good one) and see what you get!

 

 

 

Hello

Coming to this discussion rather late. TPH testing in my experience is one of the most variable tests in the results you get, because of the test prep and extraction methods used by the lab. Whilst the data may not be in the public domain, if you are using a reputable lab they should be a member of the Contest Proficiency Scheme and if you ask them they should make the Contest reports available to you. If the lab is unwilling to release the Contest data, you might want to find another lab.

A while ago I sent a split sample of the same material to 3 different MCERTs (yes I know MCERTS refers to the test and not the lab) labs and got the following range of results: 1,863mg/kg to 4,800mg/kg, the difference was almost entirely down to the sample prep method, grading used and extraction solvent used. No one lab was right or wrong, they were just using different, but equally acceptable methods. It is why I always tend to use the same lab and make friends with the lab manager.

It is also worth remembering that MCERTS allows for error bars on results of 10% on precision and 20% on bias.

Yours

Peter Hewitt

-----Original Message-----
From: Contaminated Land Management Discussion List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Peter Fleming
Sent: 18 July 2018 14:15
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: OFFICIAL: RE: TPH definition

Ruth
Such data exists but, unfortunately, belongs to individual companies so is not in the public domain.

Regards
Peter Fleming
07958 205920
Skype: petermfleming

-----Original Message-----
From: Contaminated Land Management Discussion List <[log in to unmask]> On Behalf Of Willcox, Ruth
Sent: Tuesday, 17 July 2018 16:57
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: OFFICIAL: RE: TPH definition

Are there any other test methods that could support any discussion of uncertainty in any lab results due to the presence (confirmed) of naturally occurring hydrocarbons?

Kind regards

Ruth

Ruth Willcox
Planning Officer
Strategic Planning and Infrastructure
Windsor House
Tavistock Road
Plymouth
Devon
PL6 5UF

T +441752304154
E [log in to unmask]
www.plymouth.gov.uk



-----Original Message-----
From: Contaminated Land Management Discussion List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Mark Hamill
Sent: 17 July 2018 16:48
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: TPH definition

Good Afternoon All,

The recent ISO standard Chris Eccles refers to was published in 2017 (BS EN ISO 11504), as opposed to the ATSDR and TPH CWG terminology which is grounded in their research published almost two decades ago now.

For those who have access to a copy of the recent ISO standard, the distinction between petroleum hydrocarbons (PHC) and total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) is discussed in there. The standard concludes that TPH generally refers to the measurable amount of PHCs within a matrix and therefore the definition inherently changes with the analytical method, it also recognises that there are numerous inconsistencies in the definition of TPH and attempts to clarify / avoid this with the more precise term of PHC.

As contaminated land assessments typically delve into more detail than a simple measurement of the TPH, the issue of how precise you are with the terminology used is mostly irrelevant as the sentiment is likely to be clearly understood regardless. Though if you're discussing results of TPH CWG testing (or similar), you aren't discussing TPH, rather PHC fractions.

I can be important however, as ISO 16703 (2011) defines the determination of TPH as C10 to C40 by gas chromatography, whereas WM3 defines TPH as C6 to C40 in its classification of hazardous waste.

In this conversation thread the definition of the term TPH (as opposed to the use of PHC) could be quite important, as there's been discussions on both TPH lab analysis picking up naturally occurring hydrocarbons, and on the definition of hazardous waste soils containing TPH.


Regards,

Mark Hamill, BSc, MSc, MIEnvSc
Senior Engineer
01244 288 200

INFRASTRUCTURE AND ENERGY
Geotechnical House, 18-19 Drome Road, Deeside Park, Deeside, Flintshire, CH5 2NY.

www.socotec.co.uk





-----Original Message-----
From: Contaminated Land Management Discussion List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Chris Dainton
Sent: 17 July 2018 15:46
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: TPH definition

Hello Chris

Best have a word then ! :

https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxfaqs/tf.asp?id=423&tid=75

TPHCWG Vols 1-5 make use of the term TPH throughout their methodology.


Personally, I've zero problem with people using the term TPH.

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

This e-mail and its attachments are intended for the above named only and may be confidential. If they have come to you in error you must take no action based on them, nor must you copy or show them to anyone. Please email the sender immediately and highlight the error. Although this email and any attachments are believed to be free from any virus or other defects which might affect any system into which they are opened or received, we advise that, in keeping with good computing practice, the recipient should ensure that they are actually virus-free. No responsibility is accepted by SOCOTEC UK Limited for any loss or damage arising in any way from their receipt, opening or use. Please note that this e-mail has been created in the knowledge that Internet e-mail is not a 100% secure communications medium. We advise that you understand and observe this lack of security when e-mailing us. SOCOTEC UK Limited, registered in England and Wales under company number 02880501. SOCOTEC Asbestos Limited registered in England and Wales under company number 04951688. SOCOTEC UK Limited and SOCOTEC Asbestos Limited are part of the SOCOTEC Group and their registered office is at SOCOTEC House, Bretby Business Park, Ashby Road, Burton Upon Trent, DE15 0YZ.


########################################################################

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

********************************************************************************************************************************************
IMPORTANT: This e-mail (including any attachments to it) is strictly confidential and intended solely for the person or organisation to whom it is addressed. It may contain privileged, confidential or sensitive information. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not copy or distribute it to any other person or take any action in reliance. If you have received it in error, please notify your system manager and the sender as soon as possible and then delete it from your system.


########################################################################

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

Disclaimer

This message and any attachments is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and contains information that may be confidential and/or privileged and may be protected legally from disclosure. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately by replying to the message to indicate the error and delete the message (and destroy any copies) without further disclosure or use. Messages sent to/from Laing O'Rourke may be monitored and Laing O'Rourke accepts no liability for personal content of the sender which is unrelated to Laing O'Rourke's business. References to "Laing O'Rourke" include Laing O'Rourke Corporation Ltd and its affiliates - visit www.laingorourke.com for more information.

 

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

 

This email and any attached files are confidential and copyright protected. If you are not the addressee, any dissemination of this communication is strictly prohibited. Unless otherwise expressly agreed in writing, nothing stated in this communication shall be legally binding. The ultimate parent company of the Atkins Group is SNC-Lavalin Group Inc. Registered in Québec, Canada No. 059041-0. Registered Office 455 boul. René-Lévesque Ouest, Montréal, Québec, Canada, H2Z 1Z3. A list of Atkins Group companies registered in the United Kingdom and locations around the world can be found at http://www.atkinsglobal.com/site-services/group-company-registration-details

Consider the environment. Please don't print this e-mail unless you really need to.

 

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

 

Disclaimer

This message and any attachments is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and contains information that may be confidential and/or privileged and may be protected legally from disclosure. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately by replying to the message to indicate the error and delete the message (and destroy any copies) without further disclosure or use. Messages sent to/from Laing O'Rourke may be monitored and Laing O'Rourke accepts no liability for personal content of the sender which is unrelated to Laing O'Rourke's business. References to "Laing O'Rourke" include Laing O'Rourke Corporation Ltd and its affiliates - visit www.laingorourke.com for more information.

 

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