This paper reviews both field and laboratory studies that tested or compared the ability of various types of sampling devices to deliver representative ground water samples. Several types of grab samplers, positive displacement devices, and suction‐lift devices were evaluated, Gas‐lift and inertial‐lift pumps were also evaluated. This study found that most of these devices can. under certain circumstances, alter the chemistry of ground water samples, das‐lift pumps, older types of submersible centrifugal pumps, and suction‐lift devices are not recommended when sampling for sensitive constituents such as volatile organics and inorganics, or inorganics that are subject to oxidation/precipitation reactions. In general, of the devices reviewed in this paper, bladder pumps gave the best recovery of sensitive constituents. However, better performance could be achieved for several devices if improved operational guidelines were developed by additional testing, especially at lower flow rates. Clearly, further research is warranted. Future studies should focus on pumping rate, flow control mechanisms, and dedication or decontamination of sampling devices.

Twenty polymeric tubings were filled with a test solution containing eight organic solutes. The test solutions were monitored for losses, indicating that sorption had occurred, and for signs that leaching of organic constituents had occurred. The tubings tested included seven flexible products and eight fluoropolymers. Among the rigid tubings tested, three fluoropolymers (fluorinated ethylene propylene [FEP], FEP‐lined polyethylene, polyvinylidene fluoride) were the least sorptive tubings. However, even these tubings readily sorbed some of the analytes. Among the flexible tubings tested, a fluoroelastomer tubing and a tubing made of a copolymer of vinylidene fluoride and hexafluoropropylene were the least sorptive. Several of the tubings tested leached constituents into the test solution. The polyurethane, polyamide, flexible polyvinyl chloride (PVC), polyester‐lined PVC, and silicone‐modified thermoplastic elastomer tubings were found to leach the most constituents. We were unable to detect any constituents leaching from the polyethylene tubings, the rigid fluoropolymer tubings, and one of the plasticized polypropylene tubings.

Laboratory studies and a field demonstration were conducted to determine the ability of the Snap Sampler to recover representative concentrations of several types of inorganic analytes from ground water. Analytes included non-metals, transition metals, alkaline earth metals, alkali metals, and a metalloid. In the laboratory studies, concentrations of analytes in Snap Sampler samples were com-parable with concentrations of the analytes in samples collected from a standpipe (i.e., control samples). For the field demonstration, there were sampling events at the former Pease Air Force Base. Samples taken using a Snap Sampler were compared with samples collected using conventional low-flow purging and sampling and a regenerated cellulose passive diffusion sampler. Based upon statistical analyses, analyte concentrations were found to be equivalent to those in the low-flow samples with one exception -unfiltered iron, where concentrations were significantly higher in the Snap Sampler samples. Differences were most pronounced in samples collected from the two stainless steel wells and from wells with higher turbidity levels. Elevated turbidities may have resulted from installing additional sampling equipment (including the baffle, pump, samplers, and bottom weight) in the well before sampling. We will examine this issue further at our next test site.