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.