Overview of On-Site Analytical Methods for Explosives in Soil.

Abstract

On-site methods for explosives in soil are tection limits, extraction, cost, and ease of use. A disreviewed. Current methods emphasize the detection of cussion of the unique sampling design considerations is TNT and RDX. Methods that have undergone signifi-also provided as well as an overview of the most comcant validation fall into two categories: colorimetric-monly employed laboratory method for analyzing explobased methods and enzyme immunoassay methods. sives in soil. A short summary of ongoing development Discussions include considerations of specificity, de-activities is provided. How to get copies of CRREL technical publications: Department of Defense personnel and contractors may order reports through the Defense Technical Information Center: D'IC-BR SUITE 0944

Portable SERS Instrument for Explosives Monitoring

“…Quality assurance and control were consistent with the procedures outlined in Method 8330 for laboratory HPLC analysis and recommended for colorimetric field screening (Crockett et al, 1998;Strategic Diagnostics, Inc.). In both the field and laboratory, the SERS response calibration was checked three times daily with an intermediate concentration standard (150 μg/L prepared daily from a refrigerated stock solution) containing all relevant analytes.…”

“…For the non-parametric Wilcoxon Signed Rank test, pairs of two non-detects were dropped from the sample, again reducing N accordingly. Pairs containing one non-detect were ranked according to the differe b Crockett et al (1998), assert that when the concentrations of explosives cover a large range of values, regression methods for assessing precision and accuracy become appropriate. This is because as the variability in the sample concentration increases, the capability for the paired tests described above to detect differences in precision or bias decreases.…”

“…Method 8330 is generally suitable for the analysis of water samples collected from groundwater wells. However, as pointed out by Jenkins and his colleagues most samples test blank, wasting time and monetary resources on the laboratory procedure (Walsh et al, 1993;Jenkins et al, 1994;and Crockett et al, 1998). Those samples that do test positive can be characterized by analyzing for just a few explosives, most notably TNT, 2,4-DNT and RDX, obviating the need for a complete Method 8330 analysis.…”

“…Colorimetric and immunoassay field methods have been developed as faster, cheaper, more portable alternatives to the lab method (Jenkins et al, 1994;Crockett et al, 1998;Keuchel et al, 1992;Keuchel and Niessner, 1994;Teaney et al, 1995;and Craig et al, 1996). However, these techniques have limitations-most notably their inability to detect more than a single analyte or class of analytes per test-such that the development and implementation of new approaches is warranted.…”

Conceptual Model for the Transport of Energetic Residues from Surface Soil to Groundwater by Range Activities

“…For example, TNB is subject to biotransformation to 3,5-DNA, which has been recommended as an additional target analyte at ranges (Crockett et al 1998a). The compound 3,5-DNA has been added to the explosive analyte suite used at Camp Edwards, but has been infrequently detected (AMEC 2004(AMEC , 2003a(AMEC , 2001aOgden 1999aOgden , 1998a.…”