Title: Comparison of soil sampling and analytical methods for asbestos at the Sumas Mountain Asbestos Site—Working towards a toolbox for better assessment 
Resource Type: document --> case study 
Country: USA 
Language(s): English
Year: 2018 
Author 1/Producer: Julie Wroble 
Other Authors/Producers: Timothy Frederick, Alicia Frame, Daniel Vallero  
Author / Producer Type: University research group / research institute 
Report/Document number/description: PLOS-One 
Publisher Country: USA 
Publisher web link (root): https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0180210
Report / download web link (=direct link): http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal. ...  
EUGRIS Keyword(s): Contaminated land-->Contaminants-->Others
Contaminated land-->Site investigation-->Sampling and analysis
Contaminated land-->Site investigation-->Sampling strategy
Short description: Abstract Established soil sampling methods for asbestos are inadequate to support risk assessment and risk-based decision making at Superfund sites due to difficulties in detecting asbestos at low concentrations and difficulty in extrapolating soil concentrations to air concentrations. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)’s Office of Land and Emergency Management (OLEM) currently recommends the rigorous process of Activity Based Sampling (ABS) to characterize site exposures. The purpose of this study was to compare three soil analytical methods and two soil sampling methods to determine whether one method, or combination of methods, would yield more reliable soil asbestos data than other methods. Samples were collected using both traditional discrete (“grab”) samples and incremental sampling methodology (ISM). Analyses were conducted using polarized light microscopy (PLM), transmission electron microscopy (TEM) methods or a combination of these two methods. Data show that the fluidized bed asbestos segregator (FBAS) followed by TEM analysis could detect asbestos at locations that were not detected using other analytical methods; however, this method exhibited high relative standard deviations, indicating the results may be more variable than other soil asbestos methods. The comparison of samples collected using ISM versus discrete techniques for asbestos resulted in no clear conclusions regarding preferred sampling method. However, analytical results for metals clearly showed that measured concentrations in ISM samples were less variable than discrete samples. 
Submitted By: Professor Paul Bardos WhoDoesWhat?      Last update: 08/06/2018

This site uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site you agree to these cookies being set.
To find out more see our Privacy Policy.