The concentration of contaminants in groundwater samples can be decreased by degradation in the time course between field sampling and quantification in the laboratory, especially in samples from sites where degradation activity is enhanced by remediation measures. The sampling sites covered a variety of priority organic pollutants such as volatile aromatic and chlorinated compounds, phenols and petroleum hydrocarbons and different remediation strategies such as anaerobic and aerobic microbial in situ degradation, in situ chemical oxidation, and on-site purification with biological treatment. The stability of the contaminants' concentration was investigated over a time range of several hours without cooling in the autosampler of the analytical equipment (short term) and over several days of storage until analysis (long term). A number of stabilisation techniques suggested in international standards ISO 5667-3:2013 and ASTM D6517:2000 were compared both with regard to short term and long term stabilisation of the contaminants and their practicability for field sampling campaigns. Long term storage turned out to be problematic for most compound groups even under cooling. Short term stability was problematic also for volatiles such as benzenic aromates, naphthalene and volatile organic halogenated compounds to be analysed by headspace gas chromatography. Acidification (pH <2) was sufficient to prevent degradation of benzenic aromates, naphthalene, phenols and petrol hydrocarbons for up to seven days. The use of acids was not applicable to stabilise volatiles in waters rich in carbonates and sulphides due to stripping of the volatiles with the liberated gases. The addition of sodium azide was successfully used for stabilisation of volatile organic halogenated compounds.

No abstract

A number of currently recommended sampling techniques for the determination of hydrogen in contaminated groundwater were compared regarding the practical proficiency in field campaigns. Key characteristics of appropriate sampling procedures are reproducibility of results, robustness against varying field conditions such as hydrostatic pressure, aquifer flow, and biological activity. Laboratory set-ups were used to investigate the most promising techniques. Bubble stripping with gas sampling bulbs yielded reproducible recovery of hydrogen and methane which could be verified for groundwater sampled in two field campaigns. The methane content of the groundwater was confirmed by analysis of directly pumped samples thus supporting the trueness of the stripping results. Laboratory set-ups and field campaigns revealed that bubble stripping of hydrogen may be restricted to the type of used pump. Concentrations of dissolved hydrogen after bubble stripping with an electrically driven submersible pump were about one order of magnitude higher than those obtained from diffusion sampling. The gas chromatographic determination for hydrogen and methane requires manual injection of gas samples and detection by a pulsed discharge detector (PDD) and allows limits of quantification of 3 nM dissolved hydrogen and 1 µg L⁻¹ dissolved methane in groundwater. The combined standard uncertainty of the bubble stripping and GC/PDD quantification of hydrogen in field samples was 7% at 7.8 nM and 18% for 78 nM.